Skip to main content

Full text of "The Acts of the Apostles"

See other formats 


*'Hii  >\H'4 


is 


LIBRARY 
1N0X  COLLEGI 

TQRONT 


READER  2  AR       I  vJQUESTED 

NOT  TO   MARK  THE  TEXT 

IN   ANY  WAY 

O  R 

TURN   C  DV71  !    *  VGE-CORNERS 
WRITE  ON    CLANK    END-SHEETS 


PROMPT  RETURN  APPRECIATED 


EGE 


07 


THE   BEGINNINGS   OF   CHRISTIANITY 


MACMILLAN  AND  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  .  CALCUTTA  •  MADRAS 
MELBOURNE 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

NEW   YORK  •  BOSTON  •  CHICAGO 
DALLAS  •  SAN  FRANCISCO 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.   OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


THE     BEGINNINGS 
OF    CHRISTIANITY 

PART  I 
THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 

EDITED    BY 

F.  J.  FOAKES  JACKSON,  D.D. 

AND 

KIRSOPP    LAKE,  D.D. 


VOL.  I 

PROLEGOMENA  I 

THE  JEWISH,  GENTILE 
AND  CHRISTIAN  BACKGROUNDS 


I 

LIBRARY 

KNOX    COLLEGE 

TORONTO 


MACMILLAN  AND   CO.,  LIMITED 
ST.  MARTIN'S  STREET,  LONDON 

1920 


EGE 


COPYRIGHT 


TO 

GEORGE    FOOT    MOORE 


PREFACE 

The  great  literary  achievement  of  the  last  fifty  years  of  New 
Testament  scholarship  was  the  discovery  and  the  general  solution 
of  the  synoptic  problem.  It  is  the  task  of  this  generation  to 
translate  these  results  into  the  language  of  the  historian ;  to 
show  how  literary  complexities  and  contradictions  reveal  the 
growth  of  thought  and  the  rise  of  institutions.  Though  much 
remains  to  be  done,  the  general  outline  can  already  be  seen.  It 
is  becoming  increasingly  certain  that  Christianity  in  the  first 
century  achieved  a  synthesis  between  the  Greco- Oriental  and 
the  Jewish  religions  in  the  Koman  Empire.  The  preaching  of 
repentance,  and  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  begun  by  Jesus  passed 
into  the  sacramental  cult  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  But  the 
details  are  complex  and  obscure.  What  were  the  exact  elements 
in  this  synthesis  ?     How  was  it  effected  1 

The  necessary  preliminary  to  the  investigation  of  these 
questions  is  the  study  of  Acts,  which  therefore  takes  its  natural 
place  as  the  opening  contribution  to  the  Beginnings  of  Christi- 
anity. Whatever  be  the  historian's  judgment  as  to  its  value  as 
a  record,  without  it  he  would  be  compelled  to  wander  without  a 
guide  in  the  trackless  forest  of  conjecture  as  to  the  way  in  which 
the  Church  organised  itself,  and  began  its  work.  The  investigator 
into  Christian  origins  is  fascinated  by  the  problem  presented  in 
the  early  chapters,  where  it  is  the  sole  authority,  and  is  forced 
to  consider  the  actual  character  of  the  Christian  faith  at  its 
outset.  To  understand  this  it  is  necessary  to  go  far  afield  in 
order  to  gather  material,  which,  though  at  first  sight  irrelevant, 
bears  directly  on  the  problem. 


viii  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

The  first  volume  of  Prolegomena  in  this  work  must,  therefore, 
be  occupied  with  the  historical  aspect  of  the  question.  The 
background  of  Acts  i.-xv.  is  Jewish,  that  of  the  last  chapters 
mainly  Gentile.  The  Christian  background  is  common  to  both, 
but  its  characteristics  are  rapidly  changing.  The  first  volume, 
therefore,  deals  with  these  three  points — contemporary  Jewish 
history  and  religion,  the  organisation  and  general  mental  attitude 
of  the  world  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  evolution  of  the  early 
Christian  preaching  and  ideas.  In  the  second  volume  the 
literary  phenomena  of  the  book  are  the  subject  of  investigation. 
A  third  volume  will  deal  with  the  exegesis  of  the  Text. 

Although  various  scholars  have  contributed  to  these  volumes, 
the  Editors  are  responsible  for  the  whole,  as,  in  order  to  give  the 
work  coherence,  they  have  not  scrupled  to  rearrange,  abbreviate, 
or  expand  the  chapters  submitted  to  them  ;  and  they  are  fully 
sensible  of  the  patience  displayed  by  their  fellow-workers  in 
accepting  their  suggestions.  For  the  present  volume  the  Editors 
acknowledge  with  gratitude  the  help  which  they  have  received 
from  Canon  Box  and  from  Professor  Wensink,  as  well  as  from 
the  scholars  whose  definite  contributions  are  printed.  They  are 
also  greatly  indebted  to  Miss  Edith  Coe  for  much  help  in  the 
correction  of  proof.  They  have  endeavoured  to  indicate  their 
appreciation  of  the  unfailing  kindness  and  great  learning  of 
Professor  George  Foot  Moore  by  dedicating  to  him  this  volume. 
Among  many  privileges  which  they  have  received  in  the  United 
States  they  value  his  help  as  second  only  to  his  friendship. 


PAGE 


CONTENTS 

I.    THE   JEWISH   WORLD 

I.  The  Background  op  Jewish  History.     The  Editors  .  1 

II.  The  Spirit  of  Judaism.     C.  G.  Montefiore      .  .         35 

III.  Varieties  of  Thought  and  Practice  in  Judaism.     The 

Editors        ......         82 

IV.  The  Dispersion.     The  Editors.  .  .  .       137 

II.   THE   GENTILE   WORLD 

I.  The  Roman  Provincial  System.     H.  T.  F.  Duckworth       171 
II.  Life  in  the  Roman  Empire  at  the  Beginning  of  the 

Christian  Era.     Clifford  H.  Moore         .  .       218 

III.   PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIANITY 

Introduction.     The  Editors      .  .  .  .265 

I.  The   Public   Teaching   of  Jesus   and   his   Choice   of 

the  Twelve.     The  Editors  .  .  .267 

II.  The  Disciples  in  Jerusalem  and  the  Rise  of  Gentile 

Christianity.     The  Editors  .  .  .300 

III.  The   Development    of    Thought    on    the    Spirit,   the 

Church,  and  Baptism.     The  Editors         .  .321 

IV.  Christology.     The  Editors        .  .  .  .346 

ix 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


INDEX 


PAGE 


Appendix  A — The  Zealots     .             .              .  .  .421 

„        B — Nazarene  and  Nazareth          .  .  .       426 

„         C — The  Slavonic  Josephus            .  .  .433 

, ,        D — Differences  in  Legal  Interpretations  between 

Pharisees  and  Sadducees        .  .  .436 

„         E — The  Am  Ha- Ares  (the  People  of  the  Land) 

and  the  HabeTrm  (Associates)  .  .       439 


447 


I 

THE  JEWISH  WORLD 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 
By  The  Editoes 

The  historical  background  of  the  first  scenes  in  Acts  is  Jerusalem, 
at  the  height  of  its  fame  and  world-wide  importance,  with  its 
Temple,  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  world,  almost  completed. 

Jerusalem  may  perhaps  be  compared  to  our  English  Durham,  jEauSALEM. 
as  owing  its  importance  to  the  strength  of  its  strategical  position  (?>  ^op^ia- 
as  well  as  to  its  sanctity.  Just  as  in  our  northern  city  the  castle 
and  the  cathedral  were  almost  equally  difficult  to  attack,  so  in 
Jerusalem  the  Temple  was  as  formidable  a  fortress  as  the  great 
towers  in  its  vicinity.  The  Holy  City  was  never  a  mart  of 
nations,  or  a  centre  of  human  industry.  Its  Temple  alone  drew 
men  from  every  part  of  the  known  world,1  and,  though  intensely 
Jewish,  its  population  may  be  described  as  cosmopolitan.2  In- 
accessible as  it  was  to  the  traveller,  it  attracted  devout  pilgrims 
from  the  most  distant  countries.  The  normal  population 
cannot  possibly  have  ever  exceeded  50,000,  but  at  the  great 
feasts  more  than  a  million  were  frequently  gathered  around  the 
Temple ;  3  and  it  must  be  remembered  that t  the  city  stood  in  no 

1  Cf.  Acts  ii.  5  ff.  2  Cf.  Acts  vi.  9. 

3  Josephus  would  justify  far  higher  figures.  In  B.J.  vi.  9.  3  he  says  that 
there  were  256,500  victims  at  the  Passover,  and  that  there  might  not  be  less 
than  ten  men  to  each  victim.  The  Midrash  on  Lamentations  (Echa  Rabba,  1. 
2)  gives  a  similar  but  much  higher  calculation.  It  relates  that  Agrippa  wished 
to  know  the  number  of  the  pilgrims,  and  ordered  the  priests  to  reserve  one 
kidney  from  each  victim.  They  found  at  the  end  that  they  had  600,000  pairs 
of  kidneys,  and  the  story  adds  that  at  no  Paschal  meal  did  less  than  ten  sit 
down,  but  that  at  many  there  sat  down  twenty,  or  forty,  or  fifty.  But  this 
is  only  one  of  several  very  imaginative  stories,  and  has  no  historical  value. 
VOL.  II  B 


ration  of 


2  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

fertile  district  but  amid  barren  and  inhospitable  mountains. 
To  feed  the  visitors  to  the  Temple  must  have  been  no  easy  task, 
as  provisions  had  to  be  brought  from  a  great  distance. 

(6)  Configu-  In  its  modern  aspect  and  configuration,  the  ground  occupied 
by  the  Holy  City  may  be  described  as  an  uneven  plateau  having 
a  general  inclination  from  west  to  east  and  running  southward 
into  a  kind  of  promontory  between  converging  valleys.  The 
western  valley,  called  Wady-er-Rababi  by  the  native  inhabitants, 
is  supposed  to  be  the  Valley  of  Hinnom ;  *  the  eastern  one  is 
the  Valley  of  the  Kedron,2  in  modern  native  parlance,  Wady- 
Sitti-Mariam,  the  "  Valley  of  our  Lady  Mary."  3  Across  the 
Kedron  Valley  is  Olivet,  the  Mount  of  Olives,  "  the  mount  that 
is  before  Jerusalem."  4  The  Valley  of  Hinnom,  curving  south- 
ward and  eastward  to  meet  the  Valley  of  the  Kedron,  is  shut 
in  on  the  south  by  a  hill  which  since  the  fifteenth  century  has 
been  distinguished  in  Christian  descriptions  of  Jerusalem  as  the 
"  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel."  5  From  the  junction  of  these  two  valleys 
the  Wady-en-Nar  ("  Valley  of  Fire  ")  6  runs  in  a  south-easterly 
direction  down  to  the  monastery  of  the  Mar-Saba  and  the  plain 
at  the  head  of  the  Dead  Sea. 

(c)  The  hiiis  Originally,  the  site,  which  is  now  a  plateau,  consisted  of  a 
group  of  hills  standing  between  the  Valley  of  Hinnom  and  the 
Valley  of  the  Kedron.  These  hills  were  separated  from  each  other 
by  valleys  or  ravines  which  in  the  course  of  thirty  centuries, 
and  in  consequence  of  the  repeated  destruction  and  devastation 

1  Joshua  xv.  8 ;  Jer.  vii.  31  ;  Watson,  Jerusalem,  p.  6 ;  G.  A.  Smith, 
Jerusalem,  vol.  i.  p.  175  f. 

2  2  Sam.  xv.  23  ;  John  xviii.  1.  Modern  tradition  calls  the  Kedron  Valley 
the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  thus  explaining  Joel  iii.  2  and  12.  But  this 
tradition  is  not  earlier  than  the  fourth  century  a.d.  See  the  article  on  the 
"  Valley  of  Jehosaphat "  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica. 

3  Cf.  G.  A.  Smith,  op.  cit.  i.  pp.  32,  38,  44,  etc.  The  modern  name  is  derived 
from  the  subterranean  chapel  identified  by  local  tradition  as  the  burial-place 
of  the  Virgin  Mary.     See  Watson,  op.  cit.  pp.  143,  185,  324. 

4  1  Kings  xi.  7 ;  Luke  xxi.  37 ;  Acts  i.  12. 

5  See  Williams,  Holy  City,  vol.  i.,  Supplement,  p.  56.  The  "  evil  counsel  " 
is  that  of  Judas,  whose  bargain  with  Caiaphas  was  said  to  have  been  struck 
in  the  high  priest's  residence  on  that  hill. 

6  Probably  so  called  because  of  its  oppressive  heat. 


and  valleys. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  3 

of  the  city,  have  become  choked  with  debris,  though  not  to  the 
point  of  being  no  longer  traceable.  On  the  eastern  hill  stood 
the  Temple,  represented  since  the  close  of  the  seventh  century 
by  the  "  Kubbet-es-Sakhra,"  i.e.  "  Dome  of  the  Rock  "  (gener- 
ally, but  erroneously,  spoken  of  as  the  "Mosque  of  Omar").1 
The  lower  half  of  the  eastern  hill  was  the  original  Sion,  though 
Christian  tradition,  since  the  fourth  century,  has  assigned  the 
name  to  the  western,  or  south-western,  hill,  which  is  about  100 
feet  higher,2  and  in  Josephus's  day  was  the  site  of  the  "  Upper 
City"  or  "Upper  Market."3  Between  the  eastern  and  the 
western  hill  the  course  of  a  valley,  now  filled  with  debris  varying 
from  20  to  90  feet  in  depth,  may  be  traced  from  the  Damascus 
Gate  in  the  north-eastern  wall  of  the  city  to  its  junction  with  the 
Valley  of  Hinnom  under  the  "  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel."  This  depres- 
sion, called  El- Wad  by  the  townsfolk,  is  the  "  Valley  of  the  Cheese- 
makers  "  (tS)v  Tvpoiroiwv)  mentioned  by  Josephus,  often  called, 
by  transliterating  the  Greek,  the  "  Tyropoeon."  4  Another  ravine 
to  be  discerned  among  the  hills  forming  the  plateau  of  Jerusalem 
parted  the  western  hill  (the  site  of  the  "  Upper  Market "  of 
Josephus's  day)  from  a  hill  lying  to  the  north,  on  which  now 
stand  the  Kasr-Jalud  (Goliath's  Castle)  and  the  buildings  of  the 
Franciscan  convent.5 

The  walls  of  the  present  city  now  form  an  irregular  quadri-  (d)  The 
lateral  with  a  circuit  of  about  2J  miles.     They  were  rebuilt,  as 
inscriptions  at  various  points  testify,  in  a.h.  948  =  a.d.  1541-42  at 

1  The  "  Dome  of  the  Rock  "  was  built  in  a.h.  72  =  a.d.  691.  See  Watson, 
Jerusalem,  p.  153 ;  Besant  and  Palmer,  History  of  Jerusalem,  pp.  94-96.  It 
supplied  the  model  for  representations  of  the  Temple  in  numerous  pictures. 

2  The  western  hill  rises  to  an  elevation  of  2550  feet  above  sea-level ;  the 
Sakhra  lies  at  a  height  of  2440  feet. 

3  Josephus,  B.J.  v.  4.  1.  The  use  of  the  name  Sion  to  denote  the  western 
hill  may  be  traced  from  the  "  Itinerarium  Burdigalense  "  (a.d.  333)  onwards. 
See  Williams,  op.  cit.  ii.  pp.  508  ff. ;  P.  Geyer,  Itinera  Hierosolymitana,  p.  22,  etc. 

*  The  "  Mill-Valley  "  and  the  "  Street  of  the  Moors  "  (Haret-al-Magharibe) 
in  the  modern  city  mark  more  or  less  clearly  the  line  of  the  "  Valley  of  the 
Cheesemakers. ' ' 

5  This  second  ravine  or  valley  is  marked  by  the  "  Suk,"  which  runs  down 
from  near  the  Jaffa  Gate. 


walls. 


description. 


4  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

the  order  of  Sultan  Suleiman,  "  the  Magnificent."  *    This  circuit 
leaves  out,  not  only  at  least  half  of  the  western  hill,  but  also  the 
southern  declivity  of  the  eastern  hill,  i.e.  the  ground  identified 
as  "  Ophel  "  and  the  site  of  the  "  City  of  David,"  2  both  of  which 
areas  were  included  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  in  the  days 
of  Herod.3    The  line  of  the  existing  walls,  however,  appears  to 
have  been  that  of   the  walls  of   Hadrian's  Aelia  Capitolina,4 
and  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  fortifications  assailed  and  stormed 
by  the  Crusaders  in  a.d.  1099. 
josephus's        Josephus  gives  a  careful  description  of  the  city  in  his  day 
before  he  proceeds  to  the  account  of  its  capture  and  destruction 
by  Titus.    It  was  built  on  two  hills  divided  by  a  valley.     The 
higher  of  these  is  on  the  western  side  and  was  called  by  David 
the  Citadel,  but  in  the  days  of  Josephus  the  Upper  Market 
(rj  av(o  ay  op  d).     The  other  hill  was  known  as  the  Acra,  and  was 
crescent-shaped  (a^UvpTos).     According  to  Josephus,  there 
was  originally5  a   third   hill   parted  by   a   ravine  which   the 
Hasmoneans  filled  up,  desiring  to  join  the  city  to  the  Temple ; 
they  changed  the  level  of  the  ground,  and  used  the  soil  to  fill 
up  the  intervening  ravine.     The  Upper  City  was  separated  from 
the  Lower  by  the  Valley  of  the  Cheesemongers  (rj  rcov  rvpoTrotSyv 
(f)dpay^).     The  hills  were  surrounded  by  deep  and  precipitous 
valleys,  so  that  Jerusalem,  except  from  the  north,  was  practically 
impregnable.     The  chief  fortifications,  the  great  towers,  Hippi- 
cus,  Phasael,  and  Mariamne,  and  a  threefold  wall,  defended  the 
city  on  the  north  where  it  was  most  exposed  to  attack.     South 
of  these  towers  was  the  magnificent  palace  of  the  Herods,  with 

1  Williams,  Holy  City,  vol.  L,  Supplement,  pp.  39-40. 

2  G.  A.  Smith,  Jerusalem,  vol.  i.  pp.  152-169. 

3  G.  A.  Smith,  op.  cit.  i.  pp.  184-187 ;    Josephus,  B.J.  v.  4. 

4  G.  A.  Smith,  op.  cit.  L  pp.  185-186,  shows  that  in  the  fifth  century  the 
circuit  of  the  walls  was  so  enlarged  by  the  Empress  Eudocia  as  to  include  the 
Pool  of  Siloam,  but  this  enlargement  was  not  followed  in  the  rebuilding  of 
Jerusalem  after  its  devastation  by  the  Persians  in  a.d.  614. 

5  The  details  are  obscure :  for  the  position  of  the  Acra,  and  its  relation  to 
the  other  hill,  see  Josephus,  B.J.  v.  4.  1,  and  the  discussions  by  G.  A.  Smith, 
op.  cit.  i.  pp.  154,  159  ff.,  and  W.  R.  Arnold,  Ephod  and  Ark,  Harvard  Theo- 
logical Studies,  iii.  p.  49. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  5 

spacious  and  well-watered  gardens.1  The  outermost  of  the  walls, 
the  foundations  of  which  were  laid  by  Agrippa  I.,  included  the 
New  City  or  suburb  of  Bezetha  (Befefla),  and  was  only  completed 
just  before  the  siege  began. 

The  Temple  had  been  rebuilt  by  Herod  the  Great,  who  The 

_  m  rP'R'M"PT  "H 

spared  no  expense  to  make  it  one  of  the  most  famous  erections  (a)  Posi_ 
in  the  world.  Its  situation,  though  on  lower  ground  than  the  tion- 
western  city,  made  it  naturally  a  commanding  object,  and, 
overlooking  as  it  did  the  Valley  of  the  Kedron,  its  position  was 
one  of  great  strength.  From  Josephus  it  is  evident  that  the 
ground  on  which  it  stood  had  been  made  by  art  rather  than 
nature ;  for,  whereas  the  temple  of  Solomon  stood  on  a  small 
plateau,  incapable  of  containing  more  than  the  sanctuary, 
Herod's  temple,  thanks  to  his  labours  and  those  of  his  prede- 
cessors, the  Hasmoneans,  was  in  an  immense  open  court,  adorned 
with  stately  colonnades.2  Built  of  white  marble,  glittering 
with  plates  of  gold,  its  appearance  from  a  distance  is  compared 
to  that  of  the  crest  of  a  snow-capped  mountain.3 

According  to  Josephus,  the  most  wonderful  feature  of  the  (&)Founda- 
Temple  was  not  the  beauty  which  met  the  eye,  but  the  labour  J^ and 
with  which  the  foundations  had  been  laid.  The  site  chosen  by 
Solomon  was  scarcely  adequate  for  a  Temple  and  altar.  He, 
however,  raised  a  mound  (%co/jLa),  on  the  east  side  of  which  he 
built  a  porch  or  cloister  (arod).  He  also  encompassed  the  hill 
with  a  wall  and  raised  the  ground  on  indestructible  foundations. 
The  artificial  plateau  thus  begun  was  being  continually  increased 
in  size,  and  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  by  Herod  the  walls 
of  the  great  court  of  the  Sanctuary  were  four  furlongs  in  circum- 
ference.4 The  Temple  stood  in  a  court  500  cubits  square,  but  it 
was  not  in  the  middle  of  it ;  it  was  farthest  from  the  south  wall, 
next  from  the  east,  then  from  the  north,  and  nearest  to  the  west. 

The  outer  court,  or  "  Mountain  of  the  House,"  as  it  is  called  (c)  The 
in  the  Mishna,  was  famous  for  its  magnificent  cloisters,  the  most  of°tuh*  *" 

House 
1  B.J.  v.  1-4.  2  Antig.  xv.  11.  3. 

s  B.J.  v.  5.  6.  *  Antig.  xv.  11.  3 


Sanctuary. 


6  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

celebrated  of  which,  known  as  "  Royal,"  extended  from  the 
valley  on  the  east  to  the  Tyropoean  on  the  west.    It  consisted  of 
four  rows  of  pillars,  between  which  were  three  walks  each  a  fur- 
long in  length.     In  this  colonnade  there  were  162  columns  with 
Corinthian  capitals,  and  from  the  battlements  of  the  cloisters 
one  could  not  look  down  in  the  Valley  of  the  Kedron  without 
feeling  giddy,  as  it  was  impossible  to  see  to  the  bottom  of  the 
precipice.     Josephus  says  that  there  were  four  gates  leading  to 
the  city  on  the  western  side ;  one  led  to  the  king's  palace — 
two  led  to  the  northern  suburb  ;  the  fourth  led  to  the  "  other 
city,"  down  a  great  number  of  steps,  and  then  up  to  the  city, 
which  lay  over  against  the  Temple,  in  the  manner  of  a  theatre.1 
(d)  The       Within  this  outer  court  was  the  Temple  (lepov),  itself  a  series  of 
courts  leading  to  the  Sanctuary  or  Holy  Place  (vaos).    The 
Gentile,  who  might  wander  at  liberty  among  the  porticoes  of  the 
outer  court,  was  confronted  with  rows  of  pillars  on  which  were 
inscribed  warnings  in  Greek  and  Latin  that  he  might  go  no 
farther.2    A  Jew  desiring  to  enter  the  Temple  did  so  by  ascending 
fourteen  steps ;    he  then  walked  ten  cubits  on  the  level,  and 
went  up  five  more  steps  leading  to  each  gate.     Usually  he  entered 
by  the  eastern  gate  of  Corinthian  bronze  to  the  Court  of  the 
Women,  a  space  135  cubits  square,  with  colonnades  like  those 
of  the  outer  court  and  large  chambers  at  each  of  the  four  corners. 
In  front  of  him  were  fifteen  steps  leading  to  another  gate,  larger 
than  the  others  and  highly  ornamented  with  gold  and  silver.3    He 
was  now  within  the  Court  of  the  Men  of  Israel.     Beyond  was 
the  Altar  of  Burnt-offering.     Another  flight  of  steps  led  to  the 
porch  with  the  famous  golden  vine  over  the  gateway,  and  to 
the  House  (vao<;)  itself,  modelled  on  the  plan  of  the  Tabernacle. 
First  came  a  vestibule  or  ante-chamber,  separated  from  the  main 
hall  by  doors  fifty  cubits  high  and  sixteen  broad  ;  the  hall  itself 

1  Antiq.  xv.  11.  5. 

2  For  the  text  of  this  warning  see  Appendix  A  on  the  Zealots. 

3  For  the  identification  of  these  gates  with  the  Nicanor  Gate,  the  Shushan 
Gate,  or  the  Beautiful  Gate,  see  the  note  on  Acts  iii.  2,  and  cf.  E.  Schurer,  Die  dvpa 
oder  irtX-q  wpala,  Apg.  3,  2  u.  10,  Z.N.W.  vii.  (1906)  pp.  51  ff. 


in 

Terusalem. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  7 

was  divided  into  two  by  the  great  veil  (KaTairhacr^a)  of  Baby- 
lonian texture,  blue,  scarlet,  and  purple.  The  part  nearer  to 
the  entrance  was  the  Holy  Place,  containing  the  golden  candle- 
stick, the  table  of  the  shewbread,  and  the  altar  of  incense ;  on 
the  other  side  of  the  veil  was  the  mysterious  Holy  of  Holies. 
"  In  this,"  says  Josephus,  "  there  was  nothing  at  all." 

Life  in  Jerusalem  must  have  been  abnormal.  Unable  to  Life 
support  its  population,  it  must  have  depended  greatly  upon 
the  numerous  visitors  to  the  Temple  and  the  benefactions  of  the 
devout.  A  powerful  and  wealthy  aristocracy  of  priests  con- 
trolled the  vast  revenues  of  the  Sanctuary ;  a  pious  proletariat 
lived  as  best  it  could  without  regular  occupations,  listening  to 
the  disputes  of  the  Rabbis  and  ready  at  any  moment  to  rise  in 
a  passion  of  fanatical  obsession.  The  story  of  the  Crucifixion 
as  told  in  the  Gospels  may  be  used  as  a  mirror  to  show  the  char- 
acter of  the  populace,  the  priests,  and  the  Roman  rulers  in  the 
period  antecedent  to  the  destruction  of  the  city  in  a.d.  70.  Re- 
lated without  regard  to  the  detailed  criticism  of  the  Gospels, 
the  story  would  be  somewhat  as  follows. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  great  Galilaean  prophet,  visits  the  jP£°™°* 
city.  His  fame  has  preceded  him,  and  the  populace  gives  him  trative  of 
an  enthusiastic  reception.  The  people  stream  forth  from  the 
city  gate  singing  the  Paschal  hymn,  "  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  They  salute  him,  if  not  as  the 
Messiah,1  at  least  as  the  herald  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  The 
next  day  he  enters  the  Temple  and  drives  the  traders  from  its 
courts,  thereby  declaring  war  on  the  priests  by  attacking  their 

1  According  to  Mark  xi.  9,  the  words  of  the  multitude  were  uvavva,  evXoyrifiipos 
6  ipxb/J-evos  ip  ovofian  Kvpiov,  evXoyrj/xipr)  ij  epxop-ipr]  fiaaikela  rod  irarphs  rjfxQp  Aaveid, 
(baappa  ip  rots  v\f/iaroLs.  There  is  no  necessary  implication  that  they  regarded 
Jesus  as  the  Messianic  king  ;  he  may  have  been  welcomed  solely  as  the  herald 
of  the  approaching  (epxofiipy)  kingdom  of  David.  But  in  Matt.  xxi.  9  the 
words  are  changed  to  uhtclppcl  -ry  vl$  Aaveld,  evXoyrjfJpos  6  ipx^fJ-epos  4p  opSfian 
Kvpiov,  Cxrappa.  ip  roh  v^larois.  This  seems  Messianic,  but  in  the  next  verse, 
when  the  same  speakers  were  asked  who  Jesus  was,  the  reply  given  is  out6s  i<mv 
6  irpo^rrji  'Irjaovs  6  aird  Nafaptd  tt)s  TaXiXalas.  The  Messianic  interpretation 
is  finally  made  quite  plain  in  Luke  xix.  38,  €v\oyr)/j.ipos  6  paaiXete  4p  6p6/xari 
Kvpiov  '  ip  ovpapip  dpifjprj  Kal  56£a  ip  vxf/l&Tois. 


8  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

most  valuable  monopoly  of  providing  sacrificial  victims  for  the 
Temple.1    His  preaching,   his  parables,   and  his   decisions   on 
points  of  the  Law  further  exasperate  the  ruling  class.     This 
Paschal  season  was  to  all  appearance  an  anxious  time.     Pilate 
had  come  to  Jerusalem,  and  Herod  Antipas,  according-  to  Luke, 
was  there  with  an  armed  force  (avv  roU  arparev^acnv  avrov  2),  so 
that  evidently  the  Roman  and  Galilaean  authorities  feared  a 
serious  disturbance.     The  sedition  of  Barabbas  and  the  tumultu- 
ous reception  of  Jesus  increased  their  apprehensions,  and  it  was 
impossible  to  trust  the  temper  of  the  people,  so  Barabbas  was 
seized  and  arrangements  were  made  to  arrest  Jesus  as  quickly 
as  possible  and  execute  him,  contrary  to  Jewish  law,  before  the 
celebration  of  the  festival.3    Caiaphas,  the  High  Priest,  was  per- 
suaded, according  to  John  xi.  50,  that  the  new  prophet,  whether 
guilty  or  innocent,  must  die  ;  and  procured  his  condemnation  by 
the  Sanhedrim    Pilate,  however,  was  not  convinced  of  the  guilt 
of  Jesus,  and  tried  in  every  way  to  save  the  prisoner.    According 
to  Luke,  he  even  referred  him  to  Herod,  who  seems  to  have  been 
equally  unwilling  to  satisfy  the  thirst  of  the  priesthood  for  blood. 
In  the  meantime  the  priests  had  won  over  the  mob,  and  a  violent 
clamour  for  the  death  of  Jesus  ensued.    Pilate  felt  that  at  any 
cost  the  people  must  be  quieted  before  the  feast  day,  consented 
to  condemn  Jesus,  and  hurried  him  to  his  death. 

This  brief  recital  of  the  bare  facts  sheds  a  flood  of  light  on 
the  state  of  the  times— the  priesthood,  suspicious  of  the  first 
symptom  of  a  popular  rising ;  the  populace,  burning  with  re- 
ligious fanaticism,  and  ready  to  seize  any  excuse  for  a  disturbance, 
and  Pilate  and  Herod,  though  not  without  a  sense  of  justice, 
determined  to  preserve  the  peace,  even,  if  need  be,  at  the  expense 
of  an  innocent  life.  The  explanation  of  the  incident  of  the 
Crucifixion  and  the  conditions  which  it  reveals  lies  in  an  histori- 
cal survey  of  the  period. 

1  See  J.  Derenbourg,  Histoire  de  la  Palestine,  pp.  466  ff. 

2  Luke  xxiii.  11.  See  A.  W.  VerraU,  "  Christ  before  Herod,"  in  the  Journal 
of  Theological  Studies,  April  1909  (vol.  x.  pp.  321  ff.). 

8  Matt.  xxvi.  5  ,•  Mark  and  Luke  are  less  precise. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  9 

The  Jewish  state,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  New  Testament,  Rise  of  the 
began  with  the  heroic  rising  of  the  Jews  under  the  sons  of  the  kings  of 
priest  Mattathias  against  Antiochus  Epiphanes.     This  led  to  the  Judah- 
extinction  of  the  ancient  high  priestly  stock,  the  independence 
of  Judaea,  and  the  establishment  of  the  Hasmonean  dynasty 
in  Jerusalem.    Under  these  energetic  and  warlike  princes,  who 
also  assumed  the  high  priesthood,  the  Jews  threw  off  the  yoke 
of  the  degenerate  Seleucids,  and  succeeded  in  subduing  their 
neighbours  and  extending  their  frontiers.     After  the  death  of 
the  prudent  Queen  Alexandra  in  69  B.C.,  the  dissensions  of  her  The 
sons  compelled  the  Romans,  who  since  the  overthrow  of  Mithra-    omans- 
dates  had  become  all-powerful  in  the  East,1  to  interfere  in  Jewish 
affairs,  which,  to  do  them  justice,  they  did  most  unwillingly. 
Pompey  took   Jerusalem   in  63  B.C.  and  entered  the  Holy  of 
Holies ;     but   he   scrupulously   refrained   from   plundering  the 
Temple.2    Under  his  legates  the  Jewish  state  was  deprived  of 
the   Greek  towns  which  it  had  seized,  but  was  allowed  con- 
siderable  self-government.     The  Roman  policy  to   the   Jews 
was  almost  uniformly  considerate.     Crassus,   the  triumvir,   it 
is  true,  with  characteristic  rapacity,  plundered  the  Temple  just 
before  his  disastrous  defeat  at  Carrae ;    but  Caesar  treated  the 
Jews  with  unexampled  generosity,  granting  them  exceptional 
privileges,3  and  respecting  their  peculiar  customs,  such  as  the 
Sabbatical  year,  gathering  for  common  festivals,  and  the  pay- 
ment of  tithes  to  the  High  Priest. 

The  favour  with  which  the  Jews  were  treated  was  mainly  The  idu- 
due  to  the  sagacious  policy  of  their  Idumaean  rulers,  Antipater  ^^ 
and  his  sons,  of  whom  Herod  the  Great  was  by  far  the  most 
eminent.  Hateful  as  the  family  was  to  the  Jews,  it  procured  them 
the  blessings  of  peace  and  a  wider  domination  than  the  nation 
had  enjoyed  since  the  legendary  splendours  of  the  reign  of 
Solomon.  For  five  generations  the  family  pursued  a  consistent 
policy  of  fidelity  to  the  Roman  power,  not  to  individuals  but  to 

1  Antiq.  xiv.  2.  3.  2  Antiq.  xiv.  4.  4 ;  B.J.  i.  7.  6. 

8  Antiq.  xiv.  10.  2-8. 


10  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

the  Republic.    Thus  Pompey,  Caesar,  Antony,  and  Octavian, 
whichever  general  was  supreme  in  the  East,  found  in  the  Herods 
able  and  efficient  supporters.     It  was  the  same  when  Augustus 
assumed  the  principate,  and  down  to  the  disastrous  termination 
of  the  Jewish  war  in  a.d.  70.     In  days  of  adversity,  as  well  as 
in  prosperity,  the  Herods  were  on  the  side  of  Rome.     How 
certainly  they  could  be  relied  on  is  shown  by  the  fact  that, 
after  the  battle  of  Actium,  Herod  the  Great,  who  had  been  the 
most  loyal  supporter  of  Antony,  boldly  avowed  his  friendship 
for  the  fallen  triumvir  and  offered  to  serve  Octavian  as  faith- 
fully as  he  had  his  rival.     He  was  instantly  welcomed  as  a 
trustworthy  ally.1    To  demonstrate  how  thoroughly  the  Romans 
accepted  the  services  of  the  family,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that 
from  about  63  B.C.,  the  days  of  Antipater  and  Pompey,  to  the 
death  of  Agrippa  II.  in  a.d.  100  there  was  hardly  a  year  in 
which  a  Herod  was  not  ruling  in  the  East,  or  in  high  favour  in 
Rome. 
Roman  If  anything  could  have  prevented  the  catastrophe  which 

towards  overtook  the  Jewish  nation,  it  was  the  general  policy  of  Rome 
the  Jews,  towards  them.  The  Roman  instinct  for  statesmanship  recognised 
in  the  Jews  a  peculiar  people,  who  needed  exceptional  treatment. 
Caesar,  as  has  been  said,  granted  the  nation  unusual  privileges 
by  safeguarding  their  customs  and  giving  facilities  throughout 
the  Empire  for  the  observance  of  the  Law.  The  appointment 
as  king  of  the  Jews  of  Herod  the  Great,  who,  though  an  Idumaean 
by  birth,  was  a  Jew  by  religion,  showed  that  the  Romans  were 
anxious  to  grant  the  nation  as  much  self-government  as  was 
compatible  with  the  peace  of  the  East.2  Even  after  the  death  of 
Herod  his  descendants  were  allowed,  whenever  possible,  to  rule 
over  his  dominions,  which  were  divided  between  three  of  his 
sons,  two  of  whom  held  their  tetrarchies  uninterruptedly  for  many 

1  Antiq.  xv.  6.  5 ;  B.J.  i.  20.  1-2. 

2  Antiq.  xiv.  14.  4.  Despite  the  historian's  emphasis  on  the  importance 
of  Herod  in  the  East,  he  was  only  a  king  of  secondary  rank,  and  was  not 
allowed,  as  the  superior  monarchs,  to  coin  silver,  but  only  copper.  Cf.  E. 
Schiirer,  O.J.V.  ed.  4,  vol.  i.  p.  403. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  11 

years.  The  third,  Archelaus,  failed  as  Ethnarch  in  Judaea  ; 
and  when,  in  a.d.  6,  the  Romans,  at  the  request  of  the  Jews, 
took  over  his  dominions,  they  did  so  reluctantly.1  Even  then 
they  handed  it  back  to  Herod's  grandson,  Agrippa,  in  a.d.  41. 
So  anxious  was  Tiberius  to  have  men  in  Judaea  who  knew  the 
people  and  understood  their  customs,  that  he  appointed  only 
two  procurators,  Valerius  Gratus  and  Pontius  Pilate,  during 
his  long  principate,  and  left  the  Herods,  Antipas  and  Philip, 
undisturbed  in  their  tetrarchies.2 

Despite  the  great  ability  of  Herod  the  Great  and  the  prudence  Unpopu- 
of  Antipas  in  retaining  the  favour  of  Tiberius,  none  of  the  family,  HerTdkn 
with  one  notable  exception,  succeeded  in  conciliating  their  famiIy- 
Jewish  subjects.  Even  Herod's  government,  which  gave  the 
nation  a  position  such  as  it  never  had  enjoyed  before,  failed  to 
obliterate  the  memory  that  he  was  an  Idumaean  by  birth  who 
had  supplanted  the  Hasmoneans  of  beloved  memory.  His 
splendid  munificence  in  building  Sebaste  (Samaria)  and  making 
the  great  harbour  of  Caesarea  only  aggravated  his  unpopularity 
with  the  Jews.  Not  even  the  prodigal  generosity  with  which 
he  rebuilt  their  temple,  making  it  one  of  the  wonders  of  the 
world,  could  secure  their  favour.  To  the  Romans  Herod  was  a 
capable  ruler,  public-spirited  in  his  liberality,  a  patron  of  arts 
and  literature,  whose  strong  hand  kept  his  dominions  at  peace. 
To  the  Jews  he  was  little  better  than  an  Arab  freebooter,  with 
secular  ambitions  and  purely  worldly  aims,  whose  record  was  one 
of  savage  murders  prompted  by  insane  jealousy  and  suspicion. 
In  order  to  estimate  him  justly  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  record  of  the  Hasmoneans  from  the  days  of  Judas 
the  Maccabee  had  been  marked  by  the  same  stories  of  rebellion 
and  reprisal,  of  domestic  discords  terminating  in  bloodshed,  as 
the  reign  of  Herod  ;  and,  when  Judaea  was  taken  over  by  the 
Romans  at  the  earnest  request  of  its  inhabitants,  the  procurators 

1  Antiq.  xvii.  11.  2-4. 

2  For  Tiberius's  partiality  for  Antipas  see  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  2.  3.     For 
the  same  emperor's  policy  in  regard  to  provincial  governors,  Antiq.  xviii.  6.  5. 


12  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

found  that  their  task  was  no  less  difficult  than  that  of  the  Herods 
or  the  much  lamented  priest-kings  of  the  house  of  Hasmon. 
The  factions  and  parties  of  Jerusalem  disturbed  their  peace 
precisely  as  they  had  that  of  Herod,  Alexander  Jannaeus,  or 
even  the  famous  Jewish  champion,  John  Hyrcanus. 
Prosperity  Yet,  since  the  day  that  Sosius  sacked  the  city  and  placed 

sliem.11"  Herod  on  the  throne  in  37  B.C.,1  Jerusalem  had  grown  steadily 
in  wealth  and  prosperity,  and  the  Temple  had  become  a  centre, 
not  merely  of  national,  but  of  world-wide  interest.  Despite 
the  smouldering  discontent  of  its  population  under  the  pax 
Romana,  the  Holy  City  increased  in  extent  and  population; 
its  palaces,  its  fortresses,  and,  above  all,  its  Temple  moved  the 
astonishment  of  mankind.  Never  in  its  long  history  had  Jeru- 
salem experienced  such  unbroken  peace  and  progress  as  in  the 
century  which  preceded  the  outbreak  of  the  Jewish  war :  the 
riots  and  petty  rebellions  were  but  symptoms  of  troubles  to 
come. 
Administra-  After  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great,  Judaea  had  been  given 
Judaea.       by  Augustus  to  Archelaus,  whose  misgovernment  led  to  his 

!  removal  in  a.d.  6.     Quirinius,  who  then  ruled  over  Syria,  pro- 
ceeded to  enrol  the  inhabitants  as  provincials,  and  the  district 
was  separately  administered  by  an  official  of  equestrian  rank 
subject  to  the  control  of  the  Syrian  governor.2    The  first  ap- 
pointed after  the  return  of  Quirinius  to  Syria  was  Coponius. 
Despite  the  unpopularity  of  the  census,  there  seems  to  have 
been  very  little  disturbance  at  Judaea's  passing  under  Roman 
sway.      According    to    Josephus,    Joazar,    son    of    Boethius, 
the    High    Priest,    persuaded    the    people    to    submit  to  the 
inevitable;    and    Judas    of    Galilee,    called    by    the    historian 
"  the  Gaulonite  of  Gamala,"  failed  in  exciting  a  revolt,  but 
succeeded   in   propagating  the  dangerous  doctrines  afterwards 
adopted  by  the  Zealots  in  a.d.  66.3    The  successors  of  Coponius 
are  mere  names  to  us— Marcus  Ambivius,  Annius  Rufus,  and 

1  Josephus,  B.J.  i.  18.  3.  2  Cf.  Luke  ii.  1  f. 

3  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  1  and  6 ;  see  also  Appendix  A. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  13 

Valerius  Gratus.  The  fifth  was  Pontius  Pilate.  The  seat  of 
the  government  was  Caesarea  Stratonis  ;  Jerusalem  was  left  with 
a  few  soldiers  to  keep  the  peace,  and  was  governed  by  the  High 
Priest,  who  presided  over  the  national  council  or  Sanhedrin,  so 
that  the  Romans  inflicted  their  presence  on  it  as  little  as 
possible. 

The  long  administration  of  Pilate  passed  without  any  serious  p0ntius 
disturbance,  though  Josephus  relates  that  on  two  occasions  ^llpreo 
he  came  in  conflict  with  the  provincials.  On  a  visit  to  Jerusalem  curator, 
he  ordered  the  soldiers  to  introduce  standards  bearing  the  image 
of  Caesar  into  the  city.  This  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a 
deadly  insult  to  the  Law,  and,  when  Pilate  threatened  the 
people  with  death  unless  they  withdrew  their  opposition,  they 
with  one  accord  bared  the  neck  to  the  soldiers  who  surrounded 
them.  Pilate,  who  must  have  acted  under  orders  in  departing 
from  the  ordinary  custom  of  respecting  Jewish  prejudices,  pre- 
ferred rather  to  take  the  risk  of  offending  Tiberius  by  with- 
drawing the  images  than  to  order  a  massacre,  and  consented  to 
remove  the  standards.1  He  found  that,  even  when  he  meditated 
a  great  benefit  to  the  city  by  constructing  an  aqueduct  twenty- 
five  or  even  fifty  miles  in  length  to  bring  water  to  the  city,  he 
could  only  do  so  at  the  price  of  a  bloody  riot.  Not  unreasonably 
he  demanded  that  the  money  should  be  supplied  by  the  treasury 
of  the  Temple,  but  a  cry  of  sacrilege  was  raised,  and  Pilate  was 
insulted  by  the  populace.  The  soldiers  were  ordered  to  disperse 
the  people,  and  did  so  with  unnecessary  violence.  Whether 
the  aqueduct  was  made  or  not  is  not  stated.2 

Pilate's  fall  was  due  to  an  outburst  of  credulous  fanaticism 
in  Samaria.  An  impostor  offered  to  reveal  the  sacred  vessels  of 
Moses  hidden  in  Mount  Gerizim.  An  armed  multitude  followed 
him  to  a  village  called  Tirabatha,  where  they  were  surprised  by 
Pilate's  soldiers,  and  many  were  slain.  The  Samaritans  com- 
plained to  Vitellius,  governor  of  Syria,  who  sent  Marcellus  to 
take  over  the  government,  and  ordered  Pilate  to  report  himself 

1  B.J.  ii.  9.  2 ;  Antiq.  xviii.  3.  1.  2  Antiq.  xviii.  3.  2 ;  B.J.  ii.  9.  4. 


14  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

at  Kome.1    Before  lie  arrived  Tiberius  was  dead,  and  a  new 

regime  had  commenced. 

Conces-  The  accession  of  Gaius,  better  known  as  Caligula,  opened  with 

byVitdut.  good  auguries  for  the  Jews.     Vitellius  came  to  Jerusalem  in 

a.d.  37,  and  conciliated  the  people  by  an  act  which  was  highly 

appreciated.     Since  the  days  of  Herod  the  sacred  robes  in  which 

the  High  Priest  officiated  had  been  kept  in  the  castle  of  Antonia, 

adjoining  the  Temple,  and  only  handed  over  seven  days  previous 

to  the  great  festivals.     This  meant  that  no  one  might  officiate 

as  the  supreme  pontiff  without  the  leave  of  the  Government,  as 

the  vestments  were  indispensable  to  the  validity  of  the  ceremony.2 

Thus  the  appointment  of  the  High  Priest  was  virtually  in  the 

hands  of  the  secular  powers.     Vitellius  surrendered  to  the  Jews 

the  custody  of  the  holy  garments,  though  he  deposed  Joseph 

Caiaphas,  the  acting  High  Priest,  and  appointed  Jonathan,  the 

son  of  Ananus,  in  his  place. 

Herod  A  new  and  interesting  figure  now  appears  on  the  stage  in 

Agnppa.      ^e  person  0f  Herod  Agrippa.     This  prince,  unlike  the  other 

Herodian  rulers,  had  a  hold  on  the  affection  of  the  Jewish  nation 

by  being  an  undoubted  representative  of  the  old  line  of  priestly 

I  kings,  since  he  was  grandson  of  Mariamne,  the  wife  of  Herod, 

land  the  last  survivor  of  that  ill-fated  line.     In  consideration 

of  this  the  Jews  were  prepared  to  forget  that  he  was  a  Herod, 

and  to  see  in  him  a  representative  of  the  valiant  and  pious 

Maccabees.     To   his   advantages   of   birth   he   added   those   of 

.education,  popularity,  and  the  reputation  of  being  devoted  to 

I  his  ancestral  religion.     Agrippa   was  the   son   of  Aristobulus, 

who  was  put  to  death  in  7  B.C.,  and  his  sister  was  the  Herodias 

of  the  Gospel  story.     He  married  his  cousin  Cypros,  who  was 

likewise   of   Hasmonean    stock,    being   the    grand-daughter    of 

Mariamne  through  her  mother  Salampsio.3   Agrippa  was  educated 

at  Kome,  and  enjoyed  the  constant  friendship  of  Antonia,  the 

1  Antiq.  xviii.  4.  1.  2  Antiq.  xviii.  4.  3. 

3  The  complicated  pedigree  of  the  daughters  of  Herod  the  Great  and  the 
intermarriages  of  their  children  are  given  in  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  5.  4. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  15 

widow  of  Tiberius's  brother  Drusus,  who  was  attached  to  the 
memory  of  Agrippa's  mother  Berenice.     He  was  the  companion 
of  the  younger  Drusus,  the  son  of  Tiberius ;   but,  after  his  son's 
untimely  death  in  a.d.  23,  the  Emperor  could  not  bear  to  see 
Agrippa,  so  he  was  forced  to  leave  Rome,  deeply  in  debt,  and 
to  betake  himself  to  the  East.    In  his  desperation  he  meditated 
suicide  ;   but  his  faithful  wife,  Cypros,  besought  her  sister-in-law 
Herodias,  the  wife  of  Antipas,  to  befriend  him,  and  he  was  given 
a  magistracy  at  Tiberias  and  a  pension.     But  Agrippa  soon 
ran  deeper  than  ever  into  debt,  quarrelled  with  Antipas,  and 
was  obliged  to  take  refuge  with  Flaccus,  the  governor  of  Syria, 
on  whom  his  brother  Aristobulus  was  also  dependent.     The 
malice  of  Aristobulus  revealed  that  Agrippa  had  taken  a  bribe 
from  the  Damascenes  in  order  to  influence  Flaccus  in  a  judicial 
decision,  with  the  result  that  Syria  became  no  place  for  the 
unlucky  prince.     He  wandered  from  city  to  city,   borrowing 
wherever  he  could,  and  paying  nobody.     At  last  he  reached 
Alexandria,  where  he  applied  for  assistance  to  Alexander,  the 
Jewish  Alabarch,  who  at  first  refused  to  help  him,  but,  moved 
by  the  entreaties  of  Cypros,  promised  to  lend  200,000  drachmas 
on  her  security.1     The   cautious  Alabarch,  however,  knowing 
that  Agrippa  was  not  to  be  trusted  with  a  large  sum,  stipulated 
that  he  would  only  pay  him  by  instalments.     In  this  way  he 
reached  Rome  to  find  that  Tiberius  knew  that  he  owed  the 
treasury  300,000  drachmas,  and  refused  to  see  him  till  it  was 
paid.     Agrippa  thereupon  besought  Antonia,  wife  of  the  elder 
Drusus,  out  of  friendship  to  his  mother  Berenice,  to  lend  him  the 
money.     He  repaid  her  by  borrowing  another  million,  and  on 
the  residue  he  was  able  to  live  in  splendour  in  the  society  of 
Gaius,  the  future  Emperor.    Even  then  he  managed  again  to 
offend  Tiberius,  and  was  in  prison  at  the  time  of  that  Emperor's 
death.2 

Such  was  the  somewhat  discreditable  early  career  of  a  prince 
destined  for  a  brief  period  to  reign  over  nearly  all  the  extensive 

1  Josephus,  Anliq.  xviii.  6.  1-5.  2  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  6.  10. 


16 


THE  JEWISH  WORLD 


Herod 
Antipas. 


Marriage 

with 

Herodias. 


dominions  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  to  die  universally  lamented 
by  the  Jewish  nation. 

His  kinsman  Antipas  had,  by  one  of  Herod  the  Great's  wills, 
been  designated  heir  to  his  entire  principality.  At  the  death 
of  his  father  he  had  hoped  to  obtain  it  from  Augustus,  but  was 
obliged  to  content  himself  with  the  tetrarchy  of  Galilee  and 
Peraea.  It  is  probable  that  he  never  quite  lost  sight  of  the  object 
of  his  ambition.  True,  however,  to  the  policy  of  his  family,  he 
remained  quietly  in  his  province,  and  occupied  himself  in  building 
cities  like  Sepphoris,  Bethsaida  Julias,  and  above  all  Tiberias, 
which  he  so  named  in  compliment  to  Tiberius.  It  was  probably 
in  furtherance  of  his  scheme  to  possess  the  whole  of  the  Herodian 
inheritance  that  he  was  willing  to  abandon  his  wife,  the  daughter 
of  Aretas,  and  persuaded  Herodias  to  leave  her  husband,  who 
was  also  his  brother,  and  marry  him.  Herodias's  daughter  by 
her  first  marriage,  Salome,  was  married  to  Philip,  the  Tetrarch, 
and  thus  both  brothers,  Antipas  and  Philip,  had  wives  of  Has- 
monean  birth. 

According  to  Antiq.  xviii.  5.  1,  Antipas,  when  on  his  way  to 
Rome,  lodged  with  his  brother  Herod,  and  fell  in  love  with  his 
wife.1    She  agreed  to  leave  her  husband  and  to  marry  him  if 

1  As  told  by  Dr.  A.  C.  Headlam  in  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  and  by- 
other  English  authorities,  the  story  makes  the  first  husband  of  Herodias  live 
in  Rome,  and  related  that  Herod  Antipas  met  her  there.  There  is,  however, 
no  support  for  this  theory  except  in  Whiston's  translation.  Josephus  says, 
in  Antiq.  xviii.  5.  1,  that  Antipas  had  married  the  daughter  of  Aretas,  aT€\\6/xevos 
5e  i-rrl  'Fw/xvs  /cartryercu  ev  "Hpudov  adeXcpov  6vtos  k.t.\.  This  is  translated  by  Whis- 
ton,  "  When  he  was  once  at  Rome  he  lodged  with  Herod,"  but  the  meaning 
really  is,  "  On  a  mission  to  Rome  he  lodged  with  Herod."  The  context  makes 
it  plain  that  Rome  was  the  place  to  which  his  mission  was  ultimately  directed, 
not  the  place  in  which  he  lodged  with  Herod ;  for  Josephus  adds  that  the  arrange- 
ment which  Herod  then  made  with  Herodias  was  for  her  to  come  and  live  with 
him  (/xeToudaaadai  irap  avrdv)  when  he  was  back  from  Rome  (Sirore  airb  'Pwfirjs 
irapayhoiTo).  The  narrative  confirms  this  by  going  on  to  say  that  he  sailed 
to  Rome  with  this  agreement  (nal  6  /xev  els  ttjv  'Fdofiwv  g-jrXet  ravra  vvvde'/j.evos), 
and  by  finishing  with  the  mention  of  his  return  after  completing  his  mission  in 
Rome  (^7ret  de  iiravex^P^  ^Lairpa^d/xevos  4v  rrj  'Pco/i?7  ecp'  direp  ^rraXro),  using  the 
same  verb  (are'Weu')  to  describe  the  mission  as  is  found  at  the  beginning  of  the 
story.  The  meaning  is  quite  plain,  and  the  "  tradition  "  that  the  first  husband  of 
Herodias  lived  in  Rome  ought  to  be  abandoned.  Josephus  really  gives  no  clue 
as  to  where  he  really  lived,  but  obviously  it  was  somewhere  in  the  East.   The 


JEWISH  HISTORY  17 

on  his  return  he  would  divorce  the  daughter  of  Aretas.  Antipas, 
having  agreed  to  this,  sailed  to  Rome.  On  his  return  to  Pales- 
tine, his  wife  got  wind  of  what  he  was  about  to  do.  She  requested 
Antipas  to  send  her  to  Machaerus,  a  fortress  on  the  borders  of 
the  realms  of  Antipas  and  Aretas.  From  thence  she  had  planned 
her  escape  to  her  father  by  aid  of  his  "  generals,"  who  passed  her 
from  one  to  another  till  she  reached  her  home.  On  learning 
what  Antipas  was  doing,  Aretas  made  his  conduct  an  excuse  to 
prepare  for  war.  Neither  king  fought  in  person,  but  let  their 
"  generals "  conduct  the  military  operations.  This,  perhaps, 
implies  that  neither  of  them  deemed  it  prudent  to  wage  war 
directly  for  fear  of  the  displeasure  of  Tiberius,  and  therefore 
incited  the  sheikhs  subject  to  them  to  engage  in  desultory  ex- 
peditions, which  may  have  lasted  some  years.  Aretas,  however, 
managed  that  Antipas  should  be  ultimately  defeated,  and  deeply 
offended  Tiberius  by  his  success,  who,  at  the  request  of  Antipas, 
ordered  Vitellius  to  bring  in  Aretas  dead  or  alive. 

The  defeat  of  the  army  of  Antipas  may  quite  possibly  have 
taken  place  as  late  as  a.d.  36,  but  Antipas  had  evidently  been 
married  to  Herodias  for  many  years.  The  exact  date  of  his 
marriage  is  uncertain,  but  it  cannot  be  far  removed  from  a.d.  23.1 

mistake  of  Whiston  and  his  followers  is  probably  a  human  tendency  to  translate 
sentences  separately  instead  of  in  their  context,  combined  with  the  feeling  that 
the  genitive  with  t7rt  after  areWofxevos  is  not  correct  Greek  for  "  on  a  mission 
to  Rome."  Possibly  the  feeling  is  justifiable,  but  the  idiom  is  exactly  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  Josephus,  who  writes,  a  few  lines  further  on, 
Trt/JLireiv  clvttjv  iiri  Maxcupovj/ros,  with  the  meaning,  "  send  her  to  Machaerus." 
Josephus  never  wrote  perfect  Greek,  and  in  the  later  books  of  the  Antiquities 
there  is  a  marked  deterioration  of  style ;  either  he  or  his  corrector  seems  to 
have  suffered  from  fatigue. 

1  The  date  seems  to  be  fixed  by  the  following  considerations.  It  cannot 
be  much  later  than  a.d.  23,  because  Agrippa  I.  left  Rome  soon  after  the  death 
of  Drusus,  the  son  of  Tiberius,  in  that  year,  as  Tiberius  could  not  endure  the 
sight  of  his  dead  son's  friends.  Agrippa  then  went  to  Palestine,  destitute  and 
meditating  suicide,  but  was  helped  by  Herodias  to  the  office  of  the  ayopavofiia 
in  Tiberias.  Her  influence  is  only  intelligible  if  she  was  already  the  wife  of 
Antipas.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  have  been  much  earlier  than  a.d.  23, 
as  that  would  imply  an  improbable  length  for  the  war  between  Herod  and 
Aretas.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  combination  of  the  marriage  of  Herodias 
with  the  death  of  Drusus  destroys  the  value  of  the  arguments  of  K.  Lake  in 
VOL.  I  0 


18  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

Death  of  That  Antipas  put  John  the  Baptist 1  to  death  is  affirmed  by 

the  Baptist.  Jogeplms  ag  well  as  by  the  Gospels.  But  they  differ  both  as  to 
the  place  and  the  reason  of  his  execution.  According  to  Josephus, 
Antipas  regarded  John  as  a  dangerous  political  influence,  stirring 
up  unrest  among  the  people  :  according  to  the  Gospels,  Antipas 
was  himself  favourable  to  John,  but  put  him  to  death  to  please 
Herodias,  against  whose  marriage  with  Antipas  John  had  pro- 
tested. According  to  Josephus,  John  was  imprisoned  in  Mach- 
aerus ;  but  Mark  speaks  of  the  presence  of  the  chief  men  of 
Galilee  at  a  feast  on  Herod's  birthday,  and  this  celebration  is 
not  likely  to  have  been  held  in  a  distant  frontier  fortress.2  That 
the  Baptist,  as  Josephus  asserts,  was  sent  to  Machaerus  is  ex- 
tremely doubtful.  If  he  condemned  the  union  with  Herodias, 
he  would  have  been  a  partisan  of  Aretas,  and  to  select  a  place 
on  the  frontier  where  he  might  easily  be  rescued  would  have 
been  the  height  of  imprudence.  It  is  much  more  likely  that 
he  was  imprisoned  and  put  to  death,  as  Mark  implies,  in  Galilee. 
Policy  of  It  is  possible  that  the  marriages  of  Antipas  with  Herodias 

maSi!  and  of  Philip  with  her  daughter  had  the  distinctly  political 
aim  of  legitimising  this  branch  of  the  Herod  family  by  an  Has- 
monean  alliance,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  procurator 
Pilate  may  have  recognised  this,  and  feared  that  Antipas,  being 


the  Expositor,  1912,  in  favour  of  a  late  date  for  the  marriage  of  Herodias,  in 
the  belief  that  it  must  have  been  shortly  before  the  defeat  of  Antipas  by  Aretas, 
and  therefore  not  long  before  the  death  of  Tiberius. 

1  See  further,  pp.  101  ff. 

2  A  further  difficulty  has  been  raised  by  the  older  editions  of  Josephus, 
which  in  Antiq.  xviii.  5.  1  referred  to  Machaerus  in  connection  with  the  daughter 
of  Aretas  as  Maxaipovvra  r6re  irarpl  avrrjs  viroreXrj,  making  it  thus  the  property 
of  Aretas,  not  of  Herod.  This  would  make  the  confusion  worse,  for  Herod 
could  not  even  have  been  supposed  by  Josephus  to  send  John  to  a  prison  which 
belonged  to  a  king  with  whom  he  was  at  war.  But  the  MSS.  and  Niese  read 
7}  8e  irpoairecFTahKei  yap  4k  irXeiovos  els  rbv  Maxcupovvra  rep  re  irarpl  avrrjs  viroreXel, 
K.r.X.,  which  seems  to  mean  "  for  she  had  sent  ahead  to  Machaerus  (the  last 
town  of  Herod's  jurisdiction)  and  to  the  district  subject  to  her  father,  etc." 
It  need  not  be  said  that  the  change  from  eis  Maxcupowra  to  the  dative  rep  .  .  . 
viroreXel  is  harsh,  but  Josephus  was  quite  capable  of  it,  and  the  context  in 
Antiq.  xviii.  shows  quite  clearly  that  Machaerus  was  Herod's  frontier  fortress, 
not  that  of  Aretas. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  19 

married  to  an  Hasmonean,  hoped  to  induce  Tiberius  to  add 
Judaea  to  his  dominions,  for  Luke  relates  that  Antipas  and 
Pilate  were  enemies.1 

Policy  rather  than  passion  may  have  first  drawn  Herodias 
and  Antipas  together,  and  it  can  cause  no  surprise  that  a  woman 
of  her  character  resolved  to  put  to  death  the  Baptist  if  he  sug- 
gested the  illegality  of  her  marriage  and  the  advisability  of  her 
husband  making  an  advantageous  peace  by  taking  back  his 
wife.  But,  though  Antipas  and  Herodias  may  have  come 
together  first  from  ambition  and  policy,  they  seem  to  have  been 
united  also  by  real  affection.  The  words  of  Herodias  when 
Caligula  offered  to  exempt  her  from  her  husband's  sentence  of 
banishment  are  noteworthy :  "It  is  not  just  that  I,  who  have 
been  made  a  partner  in  his  prosperity,  should  forsake  him  in  his 
misfortunes."  2  These  are  the  words  of  a  woman  who  not 
merely  has  lived  some  years  with  her  husband,  but  has  also  been 
glad  to  have  it  so,  for  better  or  worse.  Herodias  was  as  loyal 
to  Antipas  as  Cypros  was  to  Agrippa. 

At  the  death  of  Tiberius,  a.d.  37,  two  of  the  three  divisions  Palestine  at 
of  Palestine  were  without  a  ruler.    Philip  had  died  in  a.d.  34,  *f  TiberL. 
and  Pontius  Pilate  had  been  recalled  from  Judaea  in  a.d.  36-37, 
while  Antipas  had  failed  ignominiously  in  his  war  with  Aretas. 
Everything,  therefore,  was  contributing  to  the  advancement  of 
Herod  Agrippa  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  kingdom. 

This  was  the  turning-point  in  Agrippa's  career.     As  soon  Herod 
as  decency  permitted,  Caligula,  who  had  succeeded  his  great-  Agrippa 
uncle,  set  Agrippa  free,  and  gave  him  the  tetrarchy  of  his  uncle  king.  & 
Philip,  to  which  he  added  the  so-called  district  of  Lysanias.3 
Agrippa,  now  a  king,  remained  some  time  in  Rome,  and  then 
obtained  permission  to  return  to  his  native  country.    A  pro- 
curator of  Judaea  was  appointed,  named  Marullus. 

On  Agrippa's  arrival  in  Palestine  as  a  king,  Herodias  thought  Herod 
it  intolerable  that  her  husband  should  not  enjoy  an  equally  ^j^d 

1  Luke  xxiii.  12.  2  Antiq.  xviii.  8.  2. 

3  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  6.  11,  but  see  also  xix.  5.  1  and  Luke  iii.  1. 


20  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

honourable  title,  and  persuaded  him  to  request  Caligula  to  give 
him  also  the  same  dignity.  Agrippa  sent  his  freedman  Fortuna- 
tus  to  accuse  Antipas  of  having  plotted  with  Sejanus  in  the  days 
of  Tiberius,  and  also  of  intriguing  with  the  Parthians,  and  having 
in  his  arsenals  armour  for  70,000  men.1  This  proved  the  ruin  of 
Antipas,  whose  tetrarchy  and  treasury  were  alike  confiscated  ; 
and  he  and  Herodias,  who  refused  to  desert  her  husband  in  his 
affliction,  were  banished  to  Lyons  in  Gaul.  Their  dominions  were 
added  to  the  kingdom  of  Agrippa,  who  thus  was  master  of  all 
Palestine,  except  Judaea  and  Samaria. 
The  statue  There  followed  a  crisis  in  the  life  of  Agrippa,  from  which 
of  Caligula.  jie  emerge(}  safely  with  his  credit  among  his  countrymen  vastly 
enhanced.  Caligula,  by  his  endeavour  to  set  up  his  own  statue 
in  the  Temple,  almost  precipitated  the  outbreak  of  a  Jewish 
war,  which  was  prevented  only  by  the  courageous  prudence  of 
Petronius,  the  governor  of  Syria,  the  intercession  of  Agrippa, 
and  the  timely  murder  of  the  Emperor. 

There  are  two  accounts  of  this  affair,  a  contemporary  version 
by  Philo,  who  took  an  active  part  in  it,  and  a  later  one  by  Jose- 
phus,  who  was  a  child  at  the  time.  There  is  a  remarkable 
silence  on  the  part  of  other  authorities.  Tacitus,  it  is  true, 
alludes  to  it,  but  Suetonius  and  Dio  Cassius  say  nothing  on 
the  subject,  nor  is  any  allusion  made  to  it  either  in  the  New 
Testament  or  in  the  Rabbinical  writings.  Even  as  related,  a 
certain  obscurity  hangs  over  the  story  which  cannot  easily  be 
dissipated.2 

Philo  says  that  at  the  death  of  Tiberius  the  hostility  of  the 
Greeks  to  the  Jews  began  to  be  manifested.  For  centuries 
Alexandria  had  been  the  centre  of  an  immense  Jewish  community. 
The  city  was  divided  into  five  districts,  two  being  exclusively 

1  Antiq.  xviii.  7.  2  ;  B.J.  ii.  10.  6. 

2  The  authorities  are  Philo,  Adversus  Flaccum  and  Legatio  ad  Gaium ;  for 
a  discussion  of  the  relation  of  these  books  to  each  other,  and  the  probability  that 
they  are  the  remnants  of  an  account  of  the  persecution  of  the  Jews,  written 
originally  in  five  books,  see  E.  Schiirer,  G.J.V.  ed.  4,  vol.  iii.  pp.  677-683. 
Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  8.  1-9 ;   B.J.  ii.  10.  1-5 ;   Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  9. 


Tumults  at 
Alexandria 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  21 

Jewish.1  The  wealth  of  the  Jews  was  evidently  considerable,  and 
they  were  already  successful  in  the  world  of  finance.  During  the 
latter  years  of  Tiberius  they  had  enjoyed  great  prosperity 
under  the  beneficent  rule  of  the  Roman  governor,  A.  Avilius 
Flaccus.2  But  the  character  of  Flaccus  underwent  a  complete 
change  after  the  death  of  Macro,  the  virtuous  adviser  of  Caligula. 
It  was  suggested  to  him  by  false  friends  that  the  best  way  to 
placate  the  Emperor  would  be  to  persecute  the  Jews  ;  3  and  on 
the  arrival  of  Agrippa  at  Alexandria  in  August  a.d.  38,  invested 
with  royal  dignity,  Flaccus,  though  he  dissembled  his  enmity 
and  received  the  king  courteously,  secretly  incited  the  mob  of 
Alexandria  to  insult  him.4 

Accordingly,  the  Alexandrians  took  a  miserable  idiot  named 
Karabas,  dressed  him  up  as  a  king,  and  treated  him  with  the 
honours  of  mock  royalty,  hailing  him  by  the  Syrian  title  "  Marin  " 
or  Lord.  This  was  the  signal  for  a  regular  persecution  of  the 
Jews,  who  were  driven  into  a  single  quarter  of  the  city,  their 
houses  were  plundered  of  all  valuables,  and  many  were  killed 
with  all  the  refinements  of  cruelty  known  to  the  Alexandrian 
mob.  Among  other  insults  it  was  determined  to  put  the  image 
of  Caesar  into  the  synagogues.  The  mob  dragged  out  an  old 
carriage  (quadriga),  and,  placing  an  image  of  Caesar  on  it,  brought 
it  into  the  largest  synagogue  in  the  city.  Flaccus  is  said  to  have 
encouraged  these  outrages,  and  to  have  scourged  cruelly  thirty- 
eight  members  of  the  Jewish  Senate  (^epovaia).  It  seems 
strange  that  the  governor  could  have  hoped  to  ingratiate  himself 
with  Caligula  by  conniving  at  the  gross  insults  offered  to  his 
friend  Agrippa,  and  by  subjecting  peaceful  Jews  to  intolerable 
outrages.  Anyhow  it  profited  him  nothing,  for  Flaccus  was 
deprived,  and  perished  miserably  in  the  island  of  Andros.5 

There  seems  to  have  been  something  to  say  on  the  side  of 
the  Alexandrians,  and  the  Jews  were  probably  not  so  entirely 

1  Philo,  Adv.  Flaccum,  viii.     A  few  Jews,  but  only  a  few,  lived  scattered  in 
the  other  districts. 

2  Philo  gives  the  highest  praise  to  Tiberius's  ability  and  prudence. 

3  Adv.  Flaccum,  iv.  *  Adv.  Flaccum,  v.-vi.  *  Adv.  Flaccum,  xxi. 


22 


THE  JEWISH  WORLD 


Protest 
against  the 
statue. 


Herod 

Agrippa 
intercedes. 


peaceable  as  Philo  desires  us  to  understand.  At  any  rate,  the 
Jews  apparently  were  deprived  of  their  synagogues  in  Alex- 
andria. Both  parties  sent  embassies  to  Caligula,  and  the  Alex- 
andrians, despite  the  efforts  of  the  Jews,  won  over  the  Emperor's 
favourite  Helicon  and  obtained  a  favourable  verdict.1 

Caligula  seems  to  have  been  impressed  with  the  idea  that 
the  setting  up  of  his  image  in  the  synagogues  was  a  proof  of 
loyalty,  and  the  Jewish  objection  to  receiving  it  a  token  of  dis- 
affection. To  this  Josephus  attributes  the  order  to  erect  a 
statue  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  but,  according  to  Philo,  this 
was  provoked  by  the  conduct  of  the  heathen  at  Jamnia.  This 
city  was  the  property  of  the  Emperor,  and  when,  in  derision  of 
the  Jews,  the  Greek  inhabitants  set  up  an  altar  which  was  im- 
mediately demolished,  his  procurator,  Herennius  Capito,  gave 
orders  to  set  up  the  imperial  image  in  the  Temple.  Thereupon 
Caligula  instructed  Petronius,  the  governor  of  Syria,  in  somewhat 
vague  terms,  to  arrange  for  its  being  brought  to  Jerusalem, 
taking  due  precautions  against  an  insurrection  on  the  part  of 
the  Jews.  The  whole  nation,  on  hearing  of  what  was  proposed, 
united  in  a  solemn  but  peaceful  protest,  which  so  moved  Petronius 
that  he  delayed  the  execution  of  the  imperial  command. 

This  happened  apparently  in  the  winter  of  a.d.  39-40.  In 
the  September  following,  Agrippa  arrived  in  Italy.  He  was  in 
the  highest  favour  with  the  Emperor,  having  in  the  previous 
year  received  the  dominions  of  his  uncle  Antipas.  The  news 
was  brought  to  him  that  Caligula  had  ordered  the  erection  of 
his  statue  in  the  Temple,  and  filled  him  with  the  utmost  dismay. 
According  to  Philo,  Caligula  himself  communicated  his  design 

1  From  a  perusal  of  the  Legatio  ad  Gaium  it  might  appear  that  there  was 
only  a  single  mission.  Josephus,  however  (Antiq.  xviii.  8.  1),  says  that  the 
Alexandrians  first  sent  three  ambassadors  to  Rome,  of  whom  the  great  enemy  of 
the  Jews,  Apion,  was  one,  whilst  Philo  headed  the  Jewish  delegates.  It  was 
in  consequence  of  the  ill-success  of  the  Jews  that  Caligula  ordered  the  statue 
to  be  erected.  This  must  have  been  in  the  winter  of  a.d.  38.  Agrippa  was  not 
in  Rome  till  the  following  autumn.  The  interesting  description  of  the  reception 
of  the  Jews  in  the  gardens  of  Maecenas  and  Lamia  (Legatio,  xliv.-xlvi.)  refers 
to  a  second  and  later  mission  of  Philo  and  four  others  in  a.d.  40.  See  Schiirer, 
G.J.V.  ed.  4,  vol.  i.  pp.  500Jff. 


Agrippa 
receives 
Judaea. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  23 

to  Agrippa,  who  fainted  with  horror  and  was  borne  unconscious  to 
his  own  house,  where  he  remained  in  a  state  of  stupor  for  three 
days.  On  recovering,  he  still  imagined  himself  in  the  terrible 
presence  of  Caesar.  He  summoned  up  courage  to  write  a  long  and 
argumentative  letter  to  the  Emperor,  who  was  greatly  divided  be- 
tween his  affection  for  Agrippa  and  his  displeasure  at  having  his 
claim  to  receive  honour  from  his  Jewish  subjects  disputed.1  Jose- 
phus  tells  the  story  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  the  king's  conduct  in 
the  matter  into  more  heroic  light.  Agrippa  invited  Caligula  to  a 
splendid  banquet,  and  boldly  preferred  his  request,  after  obtaining 
a  promise  that  the  Emperor  would  "grant  whatever  he  asked.  The 
order  was  recalled  ;  but  Petronius  was  commanded  to  commit 
suicide.2  Fortunately  the  Emperor's  letter  arrived  after  the  news 
of  his  murder  on  January  24,  a.d.  41,  had  reached  Syria.3 

Agrippa,  who  was  still  in  Rome  when  Caligula  was  murdered,  Herod 
immediately  threw  the  whole  weight  of  his  influence  on  the 
side  of  Claudius,4  with  the  result  that  Judaea  and  Samaria  were 
given  to  him,  and  he  recovered  the  entire  kingdom  of  his  grand- 
father, Herod  the  Great,  except  Ituraea,  which  was  given  toj 
Sohemius.5    For  a  brief  period  of  three  years  the  Jews,  with* 
a  king  of  their  own  whom  they  welcomed  with  enthusiasm,  had 
possession  of  their  own  land.     On  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,w 
when  Agrippa  modestly  confessed  his  Idumaean  descent,  the! 
people  with  one  voice  exclaimed,  "  Thou  art  our  brother."  6       ' 

1  Philo,  Legatio,  xxxvi.  ff.  2  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  8.  7-9. 

3  F.  Huidekoper,  Judaism  at  Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  215,  throws  doubt  on  the  whole 
story  as  a  fiction,  designed  to  blacken  the  character  of  Caligula,  by  the  Roman 
aristocracy  and  those  Jews  who,  like  Agrippa,  were  intriguing  on  behalf  of 
Claudius.  The  interest  to  the  student  of  Acts  is  that  here  an  opportunity  is 
given  of  comparing  Josephus  with  a  writer  like  Philo  whom  he  may  have  used. 

4  B.J.  ii.  9.  1. 

6  At  the  accession  of  Caligula,  Agrippa  was  given  the  tetrarchies  of  Philip 
and  Lysanias  (Antiq.  xviii.  6.  9).  When  Antipas  lost  his  dominions,  they  were 
given  by  Caligula  to  Agrippa  (Antiq.  xviii.  7.  2).  At  the  accession  of  Claudius 
he  received  "  all  the  country  over  which  Herod,  his  grandfather,  had  reigned  " 
(Antiq.  xix.  5.  1). 

•  Sotah,  vii.  8.  Josephus,  Antiq.  xix.  7.  4,  relates  how  a  Jew  named  Simon 
tried  to  get  Agrippa  excluded  from  the  Temple  as  no  true  Jew,  but  was  over- 
come by  the^king's*  affability. 


24  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

Death  of  At  the  same  moment  came  the  great  crisis  in  the  history  of 

l"0fd   the  Christian  Church.    Evidently,  though  Acts  gives  no  hint 

Peter-         as  to  the  cause,  the  believers  had  lost  their  early  favour  with 

the  people  of  Jerusalem ;    and  Herod,  bent  on  securing  the 

(support  of  his  subjects,  beheaded  James,  the  brother  of  John, 
and  arrested  Peter  with  the  intention  of  "  bringing  him  before 
the  people,"  which  may  mean  a  formal  trial  before  the  Sanhedrim1 
With  no  Roman  judge  to  satisfy,  and  Jerusalem  under  a  popular 
and  orthodox  king,  the  apostles'  condemnation  and  death  were 
assured.  This  completely  broke  up  the  apostolic  community, 
at  any  rate  for  a  time.  Peter  escaped  from  prison,  reported  him- 
self at  the  house  of  Mary,  and  betook  himself  elsewhere.2 

Agrippa  may  perhaps  be  described  as  felix  opportunitate 
mortis,  for  the  experiment  of  a  Jewish  kingdom  in  Palestine  was 
doomed  to  failure.  The  more  beloved  a  king  was  by  the  Jews, 
and  the  more  sincere  his  religion,  the  more  certain  was  he  to  be 
detested  by  his  other  subjects.  Realising  this,  Agrippa  resolved 
to  make  Jerusalem  his  capital,  and  to  render  the  city,  if  possible, 
impregnable.  The  growing  prosperity  of  the  Jews  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  the  population  had  overrun  the  ancient  walls,  and 
that  a  large  suburb  was  growing  up  on  the  northern  side.     This 

1  Herod  proposed  to  enclose  with  a  strong  wall  which  would  render 
the  city  unassailable  on  its  weakest  quarter.3    That  he  had  judged 
rightly  is  seen  by  the  fact  that  it  was  from  the  north  that  Titus 
made  his  first  attack  on  Jerusalem. 
Death  of  According  to  Josephus,  the  death  of  Agrippa  took  place  in 

Agrippa.  the  spring  of  a.d.  44.  He  was  celebrating  games  in  honour  of 
Caesar,  on  the  second  day  of  which  he  put  on  a  silver  robe,  which 
shone  in  the  sun's  rays.  "  Thereupon  the  people  cried  out 
(though  not  for  his  good)  that  he  was  a  god."  The  king  did  not 
rebuke  them  for  this  impious  flattery,  but,  looking  up,  he  saw  an 
owl  on  a  rope,  and  was  at  once  stricken  with  pain.     Even  in 

1  Acts  xii.  4,  avayayelv  avrbv  r$  Xa#.  Cf.  Acts  xvii.  5,  avroi-s  irpoayayelv  els 
top  dijfMov.  2  Acts  xii.  17,  eiropetidr)  els  trepov  rbirov. 

3  Antiq.  xix.  7.  2  ;  B.J.  ii.  11.  6.  The  Romans  refused  to  sanction  Herod's 
scheme. 


Ii 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  25 

his  agony  lie  wept  when  he  saw  the  people  crowding  round  his 
palace  and  praying  for  his  recovery.  Four  days  later  he  died, 
in  the  fifty-fourth  year  of  his  age.  Acts  is  in  substantial  agree- 
ment with  this,  save  that  it  is  implied  that  the  occasion  was  a 
reconciliation  between  Agrippa  and  the  Phoenicians  of  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  and  that  his  death  was  a  punishment  for  his  impiety.1 

The  mention  of  a  quarrel  with  the  Tyrians  suggests  that  the 
king  was  unpopular  with  his  heathen  subjects,  on  which  point 
Josephus,  who  describes  his  reign  in  the  style  of  a  panegyric,  is 
discreetly  silent  till  he  comes  to  his  death,  when  he  admits  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Caesarea  and  Sebaste  exhibited  indecent  joy, 
insulting  his  daughters'  statues  in  the  grossest  manner.2    He 
does  not,  however,  scruple  to  relate  that,  despite  the  loyalty  of  i 
his  Judaism,  Agrippa  gave  gladiatorial  shows  as  bloody  as  theyj 
were  magnificent,  and  that  at  one  of  these  1400  perished  fighting  j 
"  that  both  the  malefactors  might  receive  their  punishment  and 
that  this  operation  in  war  might  be  a  recreation  in  peace."  3 
With  him  the  last  hope  of  a  Jewish  monarchy  was  at  an  end. 
"  The  sceptre  had  departed  from  Judah." 

The  last  part  of  Acts,  from  the  twelfth  chapter  to  the  end, 
does  not  deal  greatly  with  contemporary  Jewish  history,  and 
it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  do  more  than  to  carry  the  narrative 
in  outline  down  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Jewish  war. 

On  the  death  of  Agrippa  the  Roman  Government  decided  Appoint- 
not  to  entrust  his  dominions  to  his  son,  Agrippa  II.,  who  was  High  Priest 
only  seventeen  years  old,  or  to  his  uncle,  Herod,  King  of  Chalcis.  Sveg^  ds 
This  seems  a  fairly  conclusive  proof  either  that  Claudius  and  his 
advisers  distrusted  the  Herods'  ambition,  or,  as  appears  more 
probable,  that  Agrippa,  however  popular  he  may  have  been  with 
the  Jews,  had  proved  incapable  of  satisfying  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Greek  cities.4    At  any  rate,  Rome  reverted  to  the  policy 
of  sending  governors  to  Judaea. 

1  Antiq.  xix.  8.  2 ;  Acts  xii.  20-23. 

2  Antiq.  xix.  9.  1."  3  Antiq.  xix.  7.  5. 

4  Josephus  says  (Antiq.  xix.  9.  2)  that  Claudius  wished  to  appoint  Agrippa 
II.,  but  his  advisers  said  he  was  too  young. 


26  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

the  pro-  The  succession  of  procurators  from  a.d.  44  to  a.d.  66  was  rapid, 

^1^66.  and  none  of  them  seemed  to  have  enjoyed  the  tranquil  times 

of  Valerius  Gratus  or  even  of  Pontius  Pilate.     The  whole  country, 

I  including  Galilee,  was  becoming  daily  more  disorganised  and 
a  prey  to  robber  chieftains.     Cuspius  Fadus,  who  was  appointed 
on  the  death  of  Agrippa,  was  evidently  a  man  of  energy.    Under 
him  the  rebellion  of  Theudas  was  promptly  put  down.1    He 
found  that  the  Jews  of  Peraea  had  attacked  and  maltreated  the 
Philadelphians,   and  punished  them  severely.     He  killed  two 
robber  chiefs,  Hannibal  (Avvipas)  and  Ptolemy  (©oXo/iato?), 
and  banished  two  others,  Amaram  and  Eleazar.2    This  effectively 
cleared  Judaea  of  robbers  for  a  time  ;  and  Fadus,  determining,  to 
be  master  of  the  situation,  demanded  that  the  priestly  vestments 
should  be  delivered  up  to  him.     So  serious  was  the  opposition, 
that  Cassias  Longinus,  the  praef  ect  of  Syria,  thought  it  necessary 
to  come  to  Jerusalem  himself  with  a  strong  force.     However, 
Claudius,  at  the  request  of  the  younger  Agrippa,  acceded  to  the 
petition  of  Herod  of  Chalcis  to  have  the  custody  of  the  vestments 
and  the  appointment  to  the  High  Priesthood  delivered  to  him. 
.  At  his  death  in  a.d.  49  it  was  given  to  Agrippa  II.3     When, 
\  therefore,  Paul  appeared  before  Agrippa  II.,  it  was  as  though 
he  defended  himself  before  the  secular  head  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
(2)  Tiberius        Under  Tiberius  Alexander,  the  successor  of  Fadus,  the  dis- 
Aiexander.    orders  seem  to  have  continued,  as  that  procurator  crucified  the 
two  sons  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  James  and  Simon.     Alexander 
was  by  birth  a  Jew,  and  afterwards  stood  high  in  favour  with 
Vespasian  and  Titus  ;    but  he  must  have  been  hateful  to  the 
people,  for,  though  the  son  of  the  famous  alabarch  of  Alexandria, 
he  deliberately  apostatised  from  his  ancestral  religion. 

1  Acts  v.  36  f.  and  Antiq.  xx.  5.  The  first  two  sections  of  Antiq.  xx.  5  con- 
tain a  hasty  summary  of  events  of  the  procuratorships  of  Fadus  and  Alexander  : 
(1)  The  rebellion  of  Theudas,  (2)  the  famine  and  generosity  of  Helena,  (3)  the 
crucifixion  of  the  sons  of  Judas,  (4)  the  death  of  Herod  of  Chalcis,  (5)  a  change 
of  High  Priests.  From  the  mention  of  Judas  of  Galilee  after  Theudas  it  has 
been  inferred  that  the  speech  of  Gamaliel  was  composed  after  a  hasty  perusal 
of  the  chapter. 

2  Antiq.  xxi.  1.  3  Antiq.  xx.  1.  3.     See  also  xx.  5.  2  and  8.  8., 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  27 

In  the  eighth  year  of  Claudius,  a.d.  48,  Cumanus  succeeded  (3)  Cuma- 
Tiberius  Alexander  in  Judaea.  The  bitterness  between  the  Jews 
and  Romans  was  constantly  increasing.  At  the  Passover  a 
soldier  caused  a  riot  by  an  unseemly  gesture,  and,  if  we  are  to 
believe  Josephus,  twenty  thousand  people  were  slain.  Another 
soldier,  when  some  villages  were  being  plundered  by  way  of 
reprisal  for  an  act  of  robbery,  tore  in  pieces  a  copy  of  the  Law. 
Fearing  that  this  would  cause  a  sedition,  Cumanus  ordered  the 
soldier  to  be  beheaded.1  A  serious  outbreak  followed  between 
the  Galilaeans  and  the  Samaritans,  which  demanded  the  inter- 
vention of  Ummidius  Quadratus,  who  presided  over  Syria,  and 
ended  in  an  appeal  to  Rome,  which  was  decided  in  favour  of  the 
Jews,  thanks  to  help  given  by  Agrippa.  Cumanus  was  banished, 
and  his  tribune  (^iXlap^o^),  Celer,  publicly  executed  in  Jeru- 
salem.2 The  country,  says  Josephus,  was  now  full  of  robber 
strongholds,  and  life  and  property  were  increasingly  unsafe.3 

In  a.d.  52,  the  twelfth  year  of  Claudius,  Felix,  who  has  been  (*)  Felix, 
immortalised  by  Tacitus  in  the  stinging  epigram  that  he  exer- 
cised the  power  of  a  monarch  with  the  heart  of  a  slave,  came  to 
Judaea.4  As  brother  of  the  powerful  freedman  Pallas,  he  had 
influence  in  Rome,  and  he  sought  to  gain  the  favour  of  the  Jews 
by  marrying  Drusilla,  sister  of  Agrippa  II.  She  was  already 
the  wife  of  Aziz,  King  of  Emesa,  who  had  consented  to  embrace 
Judaism  ;  but  Felix,  with  the  assistance  of  a  magician  of  Cyprus 
named  Atomus,  persuaded  her  to  divorce  her  husband  and  to 
marry  him,  heathen  as  he  was.5 

The  long  procuratorship  of  Felix  was  a  time  of  increasing  Revolts 
disorders ;  and  though  he  appears  to  have  acted  promptly  in  Felix> 
dealing  with  the  brigands,  his  severity  only  produced  a  greater 
evil  in  the  rise  of  the  Sicarii  or  Assassins.     Josephus  accuses 

1  B.J.  ii.  12.  1  ;  Antiq.  xx.  5.  3.  4.  2  B.J.  ii.  12.  3 ;  Antiq.  xx.  6. 

3  Antiq.  xx.  6.  1.  4  Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  9. 

6  Felix,  says  Suetonius  (Claudius,  28),  became  the  husband  of  three  queens. 
Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  9,  says  that  he  married  Drusilla,  the  grand -daughter  of  Antony 
and  Cleopatra.  According  to  Josephus,  Antiq.  xx.  7.  2,  Atomus  the  magician 
was  a  Cypriot. 


28  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

him  of  having  introduced  them  into  Jerusalem  in  order  to  murder 
the  High  Priest  Jonathan,  at  whose  request  Felix  had  been 
made  procurator;  but  they  soon  appeared  as  bitter  enemies 
of  the  Romans,  going  to  the  feasts  with  short  sickle-shaped 
knives  concealed  under  their  garments,  and  murdering  those 
Jews  whose  devotion  to  the  Law  they  considered  doubtful.  An 
Egyptian  persuaded  a  crowd  of  fanatics  to  accompany  him  to 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  promising  that  the  walls  of  Jerusalem 
would  fall  down  and  admit  them  to  the  city  ;  and  Felix  sent  his 
troops  to  disperse  them,  killing  four  hundred  and  taking  two 
hundred  captive  ;  but  the  Egyptian  managed  to  escape  and 
disappear  from  view  (aQavfc  iyevero).  Claudius  Lysias,  it  will 
be  remembered,  thought  that  he  had  succeeded  in  capturing 
him  when  he   rescued   Paul  from   the   mob   in   the  Temple.1 

IOn  this  occasion  the  description  of  the  riot,  the  fury  of  the 
populace,  the  formation  of  an  association  of  more  than  forty 
men  who  vowed  that  they  would  neither  eat  nor  drink  till  they 
had  killed  Paul,  is  in  complete  accordance  with  the  survey  of 
the  period  in  Josephus. 
jews  un-  At  Caesarea,  the  capital  of  the  province,  the  tension  between 

CaesUirera!n  the  Jews  and  the  other  inhabitants  was  constantly  increasing.2 
As  usual,  the  wealth  of  the  Jewish  population  was  a  cause  of 
envy.  It  appears  that  the  Jews  provoked  the  quarrel ;  at  any 
rate,  riots  ensued,  and  eventually  the  Jews,  after  the  recall  of 
Felix  to  Rome,  sent  to  accuse  him.  This  may  account  for  the 
statement  in  Acts  xxiv.  27  that  "  desiring  to  do  the  Jews  a 
pleasure  he  left  Paul  bound."  By  the  influence  of  Pallas,  Felix 
was  acquitted,  and  the  Jews  lost  their  case  against  the  Gentiles 
of  Caesarea.  The  growing  unpopularity  of  the  Jews  among  the 
neighbouring  population  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the 
outbreak  of  the  subsequent  war.3 
(5)  Festus.  Apparently  Porcius  Festus,  the  procurator  who  sent  Paul  to 
Rome,  did  his  best  to  pacify  the  country ;    but  the  Sicarii  in- 

1  Antiq.  xx.  8.  6  and  Acts  xxi.  38.  2  B.J.  ii.  13.  7  ;  Antiq.  xx.  8.  7. 

3  Antiq.  xx.  8.  10.     In  B.J.  ii.  14.  1  Josephus  gives  Festus  a  high  character. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  29 

creased  in  numbers  and  audacity  ;  whole  villages  were  destroyed 
by  their  marauding  bands.  Another  impostor  who  led  a  multi- 
tude into  the  wilderness  was  attacked  and  killed  by  Festus.1 
Festus  died  in  office,  and  his  successor  Albums  inherited  his  (6)  Aibinus. 
troubles.  At  the  outset  he  was  met  by  a  scandalous  usurpation 
of  authority  by  the  High  Priest  Ananus.  It  appears  from 
Josephus's  account  that  on  his  appointment  Ananus  assembled 
the  Sanhedrin  and  procured  the  condemnation  of  James,  the 
brother  of  Jesus  the  so-called  Christ  (rod  Xeyo/juevov  Xpoo-rov), 
with  some  others,  who  were  stoned.  Aibinus  was  indignant 
that  Ananus  had  dared  to  assemble  the  Sanhedrin  without  his 
consent ;  and  Agrippa  immediately  appointed  Jesus,  the  son  of 
Damnaeus,  in  place  of  Ananus.2  It  is  interesting  to  remark 
that  Agrippa,  the  great-grandson  of  Herod,  true  to  the  tradition 
of  his  house,  never  lost  the  favour  of  the  Romans  under  Claudius, 
Nero,  Vespasian,  and  his  sons,  Titus  and  Domitian.  Under' 
Aibinus  the  Temple  was  finished.  Only  one  more  procurator 
was  appointed,  Gessius  Florus,  the  last  and  worst.  Within  (7)  Fiorus. 
five  years  of  its  completion  the  magnificent  House  of  the  Lord 
was  a  charred  and  blackened  ruin. 

The  Christian  Church  in  Jerusalem  was  naturally  seldom  in  The  Priest- 
contact  with  the  officials  of  the  Empire ;    but  even  its  silent  Jerusalem. 
growth  was  bound  to  attract  the  notice  of  the  hierarchy  who 
practically  governed  the  city.    The  priesthood  of  the  Temple  had 
long  formed  the  aristocracy  of  the  nation,  and  for  centuries,  at  any 
rate  since  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  the  High  Priest  had  been 
the  acknowledged  head  of  Israel.      Obscurity  hangs  over  the 
rise   of   the   hereditary   priesthood   in  ancient   Israel  or  even 
in  Jerusalem  before  the  Captivity ;  but  it  is  certain  that  in 
the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  probably  much  earlier, 
the  priestly  pedigrees  were  carefully  kept,  and  no  one  outside 
the  family  of  Aaron  was  allowed  to  officiate  in  the  Temple.3 
The  High  Priest  occupied  a  unique  position.    According  to  the 

1  Antiq.  xx.  8.  10.  2  Antiq.  xx.  9.  1. 

8  Ezra  ii.  61-63  ;  Neh.  vii.  63-65. 


30  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

priestly  code,  the  office  could  be  held  by  the  head  of  the  tribe 
alone  as  the  official  representative  of  Aaron,  and  the  tenure  expired 
only  with  his  life.  At  what  date  this  hereditary  pontificate  was 
instituted  is  doubtful ;  but  it  existed  from  the  Return  down  to 
the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  At  that  time  the  wealth  and 
prestige  attached  to  the  office  caused  several  claimants  to  arise, 
and  the  last  legitimate  High  Priest  took  refuge  in  Egypt  and 
founded  the  temple  of  Leontopolis.1  The  Seleucid  kings  claimed 
the  right  of  appointment;  and  the  military  chieftains  of  the 
priestly,  but  not  High  Priestly,  family  of  Hasmon  assumed  the 
pontificate  in  the  person  of  Jonathan,  with  the  consent  of  the 
reigning  sovereign,  Alexander  Balas.2  Simon,  John  Hyrcanus, 
Aristobulus  I.,  Alexander  Jannaeus,  Hyrcanus  II.,  Aristobulus 
II.,  and  Antigonus  held  it  in  succession,  and  Herod,  when  he 
became  king,  appointed  his  young  brother-in-law,  Aristobulus 
III.,  to  the  dignity.  After  his  early  death,  Herod  selected 
several  priests,  whom  he  deposed  at  will.  Thus  it  came  to  pass 
that  in  the  first  century  the  High  Priesthood  was  rarely  held  by 
any  individual  for  long,  and  was  transferred  from  family  to 
family.  As,  however,  has  been  the  case  in  other  priesthoods, 
the  members  of  these  families  intermarried,  and  formed  an 
inner  circle  of  High  Priestly  houses  among  themselves.  The 
immense  wealth  of  the  Temple  was  in  their  hands,  and  they 
controlled  monopolies  in  connection  with  the  sacrifices.  Forming 
a  close  corporation,  these  chief  priests  (ap^iepel^),  as  they  were 
called,  were  the  real  rulers  in  Jerusalem ;  and  even  Josephus,  who 
belonged  to  their  order,  testifies  to  their  rapacity  and  arbitrary 
acts.3  They  are  dealt  severely  with  by  the  indignant  Talmudist 
of  a  later  period.4  The  New  Testament  only  mentions  three  of 
these  High  Priests  by  name  :   Annas,5  Caiaphas,6  and  Ananias  ;  7 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.  xiii.  3.  1-3.     This  was  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  VII. 
(Philometor),  182-146  b.c. 

2  Josephus,  Antiq.  xiii.  22  and  1  Mace.  x.  20. 

3  Antiq.  xx.  9.  4.  *  See  below,  p.  33. 

5  Luke  iii.  2  ;   John  xviii.  13  ;   Acts  iv.  6. 

6  Matt.  xxvi.  57  ;  Luke  iii.  2 ;  John  xviii.  13  ;  Acts  iv.  6. 

7  Acts  xxiii.  2. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  31 

but,  during  the  period  covered  by  Acts,  no  less  than  eleven,  if 
not  twelve,  reigned  in  Jerusalem. 

According  to  Josephus,  Annas  or  Ananus,  the  son  of  Seth,  High 
was  made  High  Priest  by  Quirinius  after  the  deposition  of  ^.d. 
Archelaus  in  a.d.  6.1  When  Valerius  Gratus  was  made  pro-  6  to  66' 
curator  at  the  accession  of  Tiberius  in  a.d.  14  he  deposed  Annas 
and  appointed  no  less  than  four  others  to  the  office  during  his 
eleven  years'  tenure  of  the  procuratorship.  The  last  of  these 
was  Joseph  Caiaphas.2  It  is  a  remarkable  testimony  to  the 
general  tranquillity  of  Judaea  during  Pilate's  administration,  as 
well  as  to  the  prudence  of  Caiaphas,  that  for  more  than  eleven 
years  no  change  was  made.  On  Pilate's  recall,  Vitellius,  the 
governor  of  Syria,  deposed  Caiaphas  and  put  in  his  place  Jona- 
than, the  son  of  Ananus ;  and  on  a  second  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
on  his  way  to  attack  Aretas,  Vitellius  again  changed  the  High 
Priest  by  appointing  Jonathan's  brother  Theophilus.3  A  year 
or  so  later,  Agrippa  I.,  who  had  received  the  tetrarchy  of 
Philip  with  the  title  of  king,  and  had  been  given  the  custody  of 
the  High  Priestly  garments,  came  to  Jerusalem  on  his  way  to 
his  new  dominions.  He  deposed  Theophilus  in  favour  of  Simon 
Cantheras,  a  son  of  Boetius,  of  the  same  family  as  the  Alex- 
andrian Simon,4  whom  Herod  made  High  Priest  when  he  married 
Mariamne,  his  daughter.  A  little  later,  finding  Simon  Cantheras 
unsatisfactory,  Agrippa  removed  him,  and  tried  to  induce 
Jonathan  to  resume  the  office.  But  Jonathan  refused,  and 
suggested  his  brother  Matthias,5  whom  Agrippa  accepted.  When 
Agrippa  became  king  of  the  Jews  on  the  accession  of  Claudius, 
he  again  visited  Jerusalem  and  made  a  new  High  Priest,  Elioneus, 
the  son  of  Cantheras.6  Agrippa  died  shortly  afterwards,  and  when 
Fadus  had  in  vain  attempted  to  secure  the  right  of  appointment, 
Agrippa's  brother,  Herod  of  Chalcis,  nominated  Joseph,  the 
son  of  Camei.7    Before  his  death,  the  King  of  Chalcis  once  more 

1  Antiq.  xviii.  2.  1.  2  Antiq.  xviii.  2.  3.  3  Antiq.  xviii.  4.  4.  5.  3. 

4  Antiq.  xix.  6.  2.  5  Antiq.  xix.  7.  4.  6  Antiq.  xix.  8.  1. 

7  Antiq.  xx.  1.  3,  'Iw<r?^ry  ry  KapeL.     The  translation  given  above  seems 
the  most  probable,  though  it  of  course  is  not  certain. 


32 


THE  JEWISH  WORLD 


Constant 
change  of 
priests. 


The 

families  of 
the  High 
Priests. 


exercised  the  power  of  removing  the  High  Priest,  giving  the  place 
to  Ananias,  the  son  of  Nebedaeus.1  During  the  administration  of 
Felix,  Agrippa  II.  bestowed  the  office  on  Jonathan,  who  was 
murdered  by  the  Sicarii  at  the  instigation,  if  we  are  to  trust 
Josephus,  of  the  procurator.2  His  successor  was  Ishmael  ben 
Phabi.  Ishmael  was  sent  to  Home  and  detained  there  by 
Poppaea,  so  Joseph,  surnamed  Cabi,  was  nominated  in  his  place.3 
On  the  appointment  of  Albinus,  Agrippa  again  changed  tfhe  High 
Priesthood  by  appointing  Ananus,  but  afterwards  deprived  him 
for  executing  James  the  Just.4  From  this  time  to  the  outbreak 
of  the  Jewish  war  in  a.d.  66,  Agrippa  II.  appointed  no  less  than 
three  High  Priests  :  Jesus,  the  son  of  Damnaeus,  another  Jesus, 
the  son  of  Gamaliel,  and  Matthias,  the  son  of  Theophilus. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  in  this  kaleidoscopic  change  of 
High  Priests  the  procurators  were  less  prone  to  make  alterations 
than  the  Herods,  and  that  the  concession  which  the  Romans 
made  in  giving  the  custody  of  the  vestments  into  the  hands  of 
Jewish  sovereigns  did  not  do  anything  to  secure  the  permanency 
of  the  High  Priest's  office  as  prescribed  in  the  Law.  The  priests 
seem  to  have  retired  without  complaint  to  make  room  for  their 
successors.  It  is  possible  that  in  the  later  days  of  Jerusalem  the 
office  was  more  a  position  of  profit  than  of  influence,  and  that 
the  changes  may  have  been  the  result  of  pecuniary  agreements. 

Josephus  and  the  Talmud  are  in  complete  accord  regarding  the 
bad  character  of  the  sacerdotal  rulers  during  the  last  days  of 
Jerusalem.  Their  oppression  of  the  poor,  their  extortion,  the 
poverty  into  which  they  suffered  the  poorer  members  of  their  own 
order  to  fall,  their  gluttonous  habits,  the  luxury  and  even  in- 
decency of  their  dress,  are  all  subjects  of  severe  condemnation. 
The  ancient  law  that  the  head  of  the  religion  should  be  an  heredi- 
tary High  Priest,  holding  his  office  for  life  by  right  divine,  had 
become  entirely  impracticable.  The  office  was  given  for  brief 
periods  by  the  Roman  procuratory,  and  it  is  possible  that  a  cer- 


1  Antiq.  xx.  5.  2. 
3  Antiq.  xx.  8.  11. 


2  Antiq.  xx.  8.  5. 
4  Antiq.  xx.  9.  1. 


i  JEWISH  HISTORY  33 

tain  amount  of  bribery  was  practised  to  secure  the  office.  But 
the  patrons  were,  as  a  rule,  careful  to  select  as  incumbents  only 
members  of  certain  wealthy  families ;  and  any  one  who  had  occu- 
pied the  position  was  known  as  a  High  Priest,  hence  the  plural 
apxiepels  in  the  New  Testament  and  Josephus,  the  equivalent 
being  found  in  the  Talmud.1  The  High  Priests  formed  a  close  cor- 
poration, and  their  wealth  and  power  made  them  very  unpopular. 
In  a  very  severe  Rabbinic  denunciation  of  the  high-priestly 
families  of  Jerusalem  four  are  mentioned :  those  of  Boethus, 
Hanin  (Annas,  or  Ananos),  Cantherus,  and  Ishmael  ben  Phabi.2 

The  High  Priest  was  assisted  by  a  Council,  known  as  the  The 
Sanhedrin,  which,  according  to  Josephus,3  could  not  be  assembled 
as  a  judicial  court,  without  the  consent  of  the  procurator.  The 
references  in  the  New  Testament  imply  that  the  High  Priest  had 
an  inner  council,  consisting  of  Chief  Priests  and  Rabbis,  which 
debated  matters  before  they  were  referred  to  the  court  of  the 
Sanhedrin.  The  procedure  of  this  court  is  described  in  the 
treatise  of  the  Mishna  called  Sanhedrin.  But  this,  being  not 
earlier  than  the  third  century,  represents  an  ideal  state  of  things, 
and  to  regard  it  as  having  been  in  force  in  the  first  century,  before 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  is  precarious.  The  jurisdiction  of  the 
court,  according  to  the  Mishna,  only  extended  to  Israelites,  and 
care  was  taken  to  secure  the  accused  a  fair  trial,  and  not  to 
punish  him  with  unnecessary  cruelty.  The  number  of  judges 
varied  with  the  gravity  of  the  case.  Where  it  was  a  matter  of 
life  and  death  (judgment  of  souls),  twenty-three  were  required. 
A  tribe,  a  false  prophet,  and  the  High  Priest  could  only  be  tried 

1  In  Josephus  the  plural  is  found,  B.J.  iv.  3.  7.  Ananus  is  called  yepairaros 
tuv  apxieptwv,  and  mention  is  made  of  the  families  from  which  the  High  Priests 
were  chosen. 

2  Pesahim,  57a  :  "  Woe  is  me  because  of  the  house  of  Boethos,  woe  because 
of  their  clubs ;  woe  is  me  because  of  the  house  of  Hanin,  woe  because  of  their 
whispering  (secret  machinations,  or  calumnies) ;  woe  is  me  because  of  the  house 
of  Kathros  (Kantheras),  woe  because  of  their  pens ;  woe  is  me  because  of  the 
house  of  Ishmael  ben  Phabi,  woe  because  of  their  fists.  They  are  high-priests 
and  their  sons  are  treasurers  and  their  sons-in-law  are  superintendents  (of  the 
Temple),  and  their  servants  beat  the  people  with  sticks." 

8  Antiq.  xx.  9.  1. 
VOL.  I  D 


34  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

by  the  full  Sanhedrin  of  seventy-one.  Every  city  with  a  popula- 
tion of  a  hundred  and  twenty,  or,  according  to  others,  two  hundred 
and  thirty,  might  have  its  tribunal  of  twenty  -  three.  The 
number  seventy-one  represented  Moses  and  the  seventy  elders.1 
The  High  Priest  might  be  a  member  of  the  court,  but  was  subject 
to  its  jurisdiction  ("  the  High  Priest  may  judge,  and  is  judged  ").2 
There  is  nothing  said  of  his  acting  as  president.  The  king 
could  neither  be  summoned  before  it  nor  sit  as  a  judge  ;  but  he 
had  to  obtain  leave  of  the  Sanhedrin  before  he  declared  war. 
In  cases  of  money,  card-players,  usurers,  those  who  traded  in 
the  Sabbatical  year  or  betted  on  the  flight  of  doves  were  forbidden 
to  be  judges  or  witnesses.3  The  testimony  of  near  relatives  was 
excluded.  Witnesses  were  carefully  tested  by  *  intimidation.' 
After  a  decision,  thirty  days  were  given  the  defendant  that  he 
might  produce  additional  evidence. 
Laws  as  to         jn  the  Sanhedrin  the  judges  were  arranged  in  a  semicircle, 

evidence. 

"  like  half  a  round  threshing-floor,"  that  all  the  judges  might  see 
one  another's  faces.4  Three  rows  of  disciples  sat  before  them, 
to  learn  the  procedure  like  the  young  Koman  nobles  in  the 
Senate  House.  In  a  case  of  blood,  the  witnesses  were  severally 
examined.  Hearsay  evidence  was  rejected,  collusion  between 
witnesses  was  provided  against.  Each  witness  was  warned  of 
the  terrible  sin  of  bringing  about  the  death  of  an  innocent  man. 
The  witnesses  were  examined  separately.  Care  was  taken  to 
elicit  the  strict  facts.  Day,  month,  year  were  all  inquired  into. 
Every  judge  who  extended  his  examination  was  praiseworthy. 
If  witnesses  contradicted  one  another  their  testimony  was 
invalid.  When  a  sentence  of  acquittal  was  pronounced  it  might 
be  given  at  once,  but  a  night  had  to  elapse  before  a  verdict  of  guilty 
was  given.  In  counting  votes,  the  criminal  was  given  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt.  Condemnation  might  not  be  pronounced  on  the  day 
the  trial  concluded.  All  night  the  judges  were  to  discuss  the 
matter,  and  to  fast  and  abstain  from  drink  before  they  voted.5 

1  Numb.  xi.  16  ;   Mishna.  Sanhedrin,  i.  5.  2  Sanhedrin,  ii.  2. 

3  Sanhedrin,  iii.  3.  *  Sanhedrin,  iv.  3.  5  Sanhedrin,  vi.  5  and  vii.  1. 


II 

THE  SPIKIT  OF  JUDAISM 
By  C.  G.  Montefiore 

The  Jewish  background  of  the  Acts  appears  to  be  very  different  Synoptic 
from  that  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.     In  the  latter  there  is  placed  amtTacts. 
in  strong  and  brilliant  relief  a  great  personality,  who  sees  and  {.o)dAtUl' 
condemns  the  defects  of  the  religious  teachers  of  his  time.     His  Jewish 

religion. 

life  is  placed  in  contrast  with  their  life,  and  his  teaching  with 
their  teaching.  Upon  the  alleged  contrast  between  him  and  them, 
a  dark  background  can  be  built  up.  Their  inadequacies  supply 
material  for  the  evangelist. 

Very  different  is  the  atmosphere  or  the  situation  in  Acts. 
The  main  question  in  dispute  is  the  office  and  function  of  the 
dead  Teacher — his  recent  resurrection,  his  present  position  in 
'heaven,'  his  future  work  and  administration  upon  the  earth. 
The  Jewish  religion  is  hardly  criticised  at  all.  The  religious 
ideas  of  the  two  contending  parties,  as  distinguished  from  the 
one  burning  question,  might  almost  be  supposed  to  be  the  same. 
Thus,  for  instance,  the  alleged  over-emphasis  on  the  ceremonial, 
as  opposed  to  the  moral,  enactments  of  the  Law  is  hardly  men- 
tioned. To  the  Law  as  a  burden,  difficult  or  hopeless  for  the 
Jew  to  fulfil,  except  in  one  famous  verse,  there  is  hardly  an 
allusion.1 

On  the  other  hand,  the  mise-en-scene,  which  iu  the  Gospels  (b)  Types 

of  Judaism. 
1  Acts  xv.  10.     Acta  xiii.  28,  29  hardly  militate  against  the  accuracy  of  this 
statement. 

35 


36  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

is  so  largely  limited  to  the  native  Jew  of  Palestine,  is  greatly 
widened  in  the  Acts.    In  the  enlargement  resides  the  crux  of 
the  situation,  a  burning  question  over  and  above  the  question 
of  the  supposed  Messiah.    In  the  Acts  we  are  introduced  at  once 
to  Palestinian  Jews,  to  Hellenist  Jews  and  to  Jews  of  yet  other 
types.  We  are  also  introduced  to  proselytes,  i.e.  full  and  practising 
members  of  the  Jewish  faith,  though  not  Jews  by  birth.    Lastly, 
we  meet  with  heathen  interested  in  Judaism  as  a  monotheistic 
faith.    It  is  in  the   attitude  of  the  new  branch  of  the   old 
religion  to  this  last  group  and  to  the  Gentile  world  as  a  whole 
that  the  breach  between  the  parent  and  the  child  is  made  definite. 
A  certain  chapter  of  Judaism,  which  was  less  important  to  the 
average  Jew,  is  more  so  to  the  student  of  Acts.     The  average 
Jew  of  even  a.d.  50  or  80  was  not  continually  worrying  about 
the  future  of  the  Gentile  world,  or  about  the  duties  of  proselytis- 
ing.    Many  other  elements  of  his  religion  were  to  him  of  much 
greater  consequence.     But,  as  a  part  of  the  Jewish  background 
of  Acts,  the  relation  of  Judaism  to  the  Gentiles  beyond  its  pale 
becomes  of  peculiar  significance.    It  thus  comes  to  pass — and 
this  is  not  the   only  instance— that  the  "Jewish  interests" 
of  a  reader  of  Acts  are  special  to  that  particular  book.     Care 
must,  however,  be  taken  to  distinguish  between  the  Jewish 
background  of  Acts  and  the  Jewish  religion  in  the  years  in  which 
its  story  is  set. 
Judaism  of        Supposing  one  were  to  compare  the  Judaism  of  the  year 
350  b.c.       350  B  c   witll  tkat  0f  A  D   5o?  what  would  be  the  fundamental 

AND  A.D.  5U 

compared,  difference  ?  Not,  I  take  it,  in  the  conception  of  God  or  righteous- 
ness, not  even  perhaps  of  the  Law  itself.  Here  there  would  be 
developments  or  modifications ;  but  the  fundamental  and  far- 
reaching  difference  would  be  that  in  350  B.C.  the  average 
Jew  believed  that,  so  far  as  any  bliss  or  happiness  was  con- 
cerned (whether  lower  or  higher),  death  was  the  end ;  whereas 
in  a.d.  50  he  believed  that,  for  the  righteous  at  any  rate,  the 
higher  happiness  would  actually  not  be  experienced  till  beyond 
the  grave.     The  importance  of  the  conception  of  a  future  life 


(a)  Future 
life. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  37 

and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  Judaism  can  hardly 
be  over-estimated.  Gunkel  observes  rightly  that  these  ideas 
materially  changed  the  entire  religion  ;  they  are  so  epoch-making 
that  they  divide  the  whole  religious  history  of  Israel  into  two 
sections  :   before  them  and  after  them.1 

A  second  important  difference  between  350  B.C.  and  a.d.  50,  (&)  Burden 
I  think,  longo  intervallo,  should  be  this.    In  350  B.C.  there  was,  Testament. 
outside  the  Law,  scarcely  any  acknowledged  corpus  of  Sacred 
Scripture  ;  in  a.d.  50  there  was.    Judaism  in  a.d.  50  had  begun 
to  suffer  from  the  burden  of  an  inspired  and  perfect  book,  of  the 
authority  of  which  its  teachers  were  beginning  to  feel  the  over- 
whelming weight.     When  I  read  any  early  Rabbinic  document, *tc% 
such  as  the  Mechilta,  I  feel  as  if  one  advantage  of  Christianity  J 
over  Judaism  was  that  it  made  a  fresh  start.    It  is  true  it  created  1 
an  extra  sacred  canon  of  its  own,  while  retaining  the  older ;  but 
this  new  canon  was  more  homogeneous,  and  was  all  written  within 
a  short  compass  of  time.     The  Old  Testament  goes  back  so  far 
in  time,  it  is  so  varied,  so  bulky !    No  doubt  for  students  of 
religious   history  this   adds   to   its    interest   and    importance. 
But   one  sees  the  burden  of  it  in  Judaism.     "  Ye  search  the 
Scriptures."  2    Well  might  Jesus  say  this  !    They  were  searched 
and  known  all  too  thoroughly  !    For  the  Old  Testament  contains  g 
not  only  supreme  and  imperishable  verities,  but  also  much  that  j 
was,  in  very  sooth,  already  obsolete  even  long  before  a.d.  50.  { 
In  other  words,  it  was  inconsistent  with  itself.     These  contra- 
dictions were  not  unperceived  by  Jewish  teachers,  who  could 
not  explain  them  as  we  happily  can  do  to-day.     For  were  they 
not  all  perfect  and  inspired  ?     Were  they  not  all  the  words  of 

1  Kautsch,  Die  Apokryphen  und  Pseudepigraphen  des  Alten  Testaments,  vol.  ii. 
p.  370.  Gunkel  limits  his  statement  to  the  idea  of  resurrection,  but  it  would  be 
safer  to  include  all  the  various  conceptions  of  the  future  life.  His  words, 
written  about  1899,  are  :  "  Die  Herkunft  und  Entstehung  dieses  Glaubens  an 
die  Auferstehung  aus  den  Toten  ist  noch  immer  eine  ungeloste  Frage.  Deutlich 
aber  ist  uns  die  ungeheure  Bedeutung,  die  dieser  Glaube  in  der  Geschichte  der 
Religion  hat :  er  hat  die  ganze  Religion  des  Judentums  umgestaltet ;  dieser  /» 
Qiaube  macht  so  sehr  Epoche,  dass  darnach  die  ganze  Religionsgeschichte  /  / 
Israels  in  zwei  Teile  zerfallt :   vorher  und  nachher."                                                     / 

2  John  v.  39. 


38 


THE  JEWISH  WORLD 


(c)  Con- 
ceptions of 
God. 


the  living  God  ?  The  hatreds  of  the  hour  may  be  forgotten 
when  the  hour  has  passed.  "  The  Lord  is  good  to  all :  the  Lord 
is  forgiving " ;  and  should  not  man  imitate  his  Creator  ? 
But  the  same  Lord  "  hated  Esau,"  and  laughs  at  the  destruction 
of  His  enemies.  May  not  the  child  mimic  the  Father  ?  It  is 
wonderful  that  the  developed  Judaism  of,  say,  a.d.  400  came  out 
of  this  trial  as  well  as  it  did  ;  that  it  frequently  explained  away 
the  bad  by  the  good,  and  invented  fresh  conceptions  in  order  to 
remove  lower  or  obsolete  ideas.1 

Long  before  a.d.  50  the  goal  of  monotheism  had  been  attained. 
As  to  the  nature  of  this  One  God,  there  would  not  seem  to  have 
been  much  difference  of  opinion  between  Jew  and  Christian  in  a.d. 
50  or  90,  nor  can  we  say  that  the  difference  was  great  between  pre- 
vailing Jewish  ideas  in  350  B.C.  and  a.d.  50.  God  was  conceived  as 
very  'personal,'  and  also  as  very  distinct  from  the  world  which  He 
had  made.  Isaiah's  implication  that  God  is  '  spirit '  and  not '  flesh ' 
was  generally  accepted.  By  a.d.  50  the  anthropomorphisms  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  already  being  explained  as  figurative.  The 
average  man,  to  whom  the  words  were  familiar,  "  Ye  saw  no 
manner  of  similitude  ;  ye  only  heard  a  voice,"  2  had  probably 
got  beyond  the  idea  that  the  form  of  God  was  like  the 
form  of  man.  The  teachers  of  the  first  century  had  most 
certainly  got  beyond  it.  The  omnipresence  of  God,  as  taught  in 
Solomon's  prayer  or  the  139th  Psalm,  was  familiar  to  them,  and 
there  was  even  a  tendency  to  refine  the  doctrine.  It  is  inaccurate 
to  suppose  that  God  was  regarded  solely  as  '  transcendent '  : ' 
He  is  '  in '  the  world  as  well  as  '  outside.'  By  a.d.  50  there  had 
been  already  created  the  conception  of  the  Shechinah,  which, 
especially  as  regards  the  divine  relation  to  man,  made  God  as 
near  to  every  worshipper  as  any  modern  man  could  desire.  To 
the  first  century  is  attributed  the  explanation  why  God  revealed 
Himself  in  the  lonely  thorn  bush.    It  was  to  teach  that  no  spot 

1  It  should  be  carefully  observed  that  the  "hatred"  is  limited  to  the 
enemies  of  the  Community.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  "  imprecatory  "  Psalms 
never  received  a  personal  or  private  interpretation. 

2  Deut.  iv.  12,  15. 


! 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  39 

upon  the  earth  is  empty  of  the  Shechinah.1    Yet  it  was  finely  J 
perceived  that  God  is  in  one  sense  only '  near  '  when  His  creatures  * 
are  present,  and  ready  to  apprehend  His  nearness.    It  is  they 
who,  for  practical  purposes,  turn  His  transcendence  into  imman- 
ence.   Hence  the  doctrine  that  virtue,  Israel,  the  Sanctuary,, 
and  the  Law,  all  bring  down  God  or  the  Shechinah  from  heaven  | 
to  earth,  while  sin  and  idolatry  remove  Him.    Yet  the  divine p 
nearness  realised  by  the  Israelite  through  the  Law  did  not  inter- 
fere with  the  theoretic  apprehension  that  God  was  not,  like  a 
human  person,  limited  by  any  particular  place.    A  later  (third 
century)  Rabbi  declared  that  while  the  Mosaic  Sanctuary  was 
filled  by  the  radiance  of  the  Shechinah,  the  Shechinah  was  not 
limited  by  the  Sanctuary.     The  sea  rises  and  fills  a  cave  of  the 
shore  with  its  water,  but  the  sea  itself  is  no  smaller  than  before.2 

From  the  Psalms  onward,  and  throughout  the  Rabbinic  period,  (d)  God 

-^     n  land  man. 

there  exists  a  distinct  idea  of  the  relationship  of  God  to  man  as|^ 
such.    Man  is  God's  special  creation,  for  all  men,  not  only  Israel,  \ 
were  created  in  the  image  of  God.     The  most  fundamental  verse 
in  the  Scripture,  said  R.  Simon  ben  Azzai  (second  century),  is, :; 
"  These  are  the  generations  of  Adam,"  for  in  this  verse,  with 
its  reiteration  of  the  creation  of  man  in  the  divine  image,  are  I 
inculcated  the  unity  and  greatness  of  the  entire  human  race.3 
God's  goodness  and  mercy  to  mankind  as  such  are  often  men- 
tioned by  the  Rabbis.     "  Beloved  is  man,"  said  Akiba,  "  for 
that  he  was  created  in  the  image."  4    "  When  man  is  worthy, 
they  say  to  him,  Thou  wast  created  before  the  angels  of  the 
Service ;   when  he  is  not,  they  say  to  him,  Flies  and  gnats 
and  worms  were   created  before  thee."  5     The   Rabbis   were 
not  slow  to  grasp  the  various  homiletic  applications  which  could 
be  made  of  the  Biblical  statement  that  all  men  were  descended 

1  Pesihia  Cahana,  ed.  Buber  2b ;   Wunsche,  p.  3. 

2  Schechter,  Aspects  of  Rabbinic  Theology,  pp.  29-33,  48  and  passim  ;  Pesikta 
C,  ed.  Buber  2b ;  Wunsche,  p.  3. 

3  Siphra  89b  on  Lev.  xix.  18 ;  Genesis  R.  xxiv.  ad  fin. ;  Wunsche,  p.  112  ; 
Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  vol.  i.  (ed.  2),  p.  417,  n.  4,  p.  422,  n.  1. 

4  Aboih,  iii.  21,  ed.  Taylor.  6  Genesis  R.  viii.  1  ;  Wunsche,  p   30. 


40  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

from  a  single  ancestor.     It  was  done,  they  said,  for  the  sake  of 

peace  among  men,  that  one  should  not  say  to  another,  "  My 

father  was  greater  than  thine."     Or  again,  "  It  was  done  for 

the  sake  of  peace,  that  the  families  of  men  should  not  fight  with 

each  other.     If  they  do  so  even  now  with  one  ancestor,  how 

much  more  would  they  have  done  so  with  two  !  "  *■    But  yet 

this  general  relationship  of  God  to  man  is  not  what  is  commonly 

before  their  eyes.     It  tended  to  be  submerged  in  both  directions  : 

it  was  neglected  in  favour  of  God's  special  relation  to  Israel :  it 

was  depressed  by  idolaters  and  enemies.     Yet  the  Rabbinic 

Jew  was  still  occasionally  able  to  turn  away  his  mind  from  the 

difference  between  Israel  and  the  other  races  of  the  world,  and 

such  sentences  as,  "  God  is  near  to  all  His  creatures  :   if  they 

invoke  Him,  He  puts  His  ear  to  their  mouth,"  are  not  uncommon.2 

One  gets  in  the  Midrash  odd  mixtures  of  thought  showing  evidence 

of  a  certain  inward  struggle.     The  words  of  Psalm  cxlv.,  "  The 

*Lord  is  good  to  all,"  which  were  constantly  upon  the  lips  of  the 

j  Rabbis,  gave  them  cause  for  reflection.    Two  things  were  sure  : 

God  is  good  to  all,  and  yet  almost  all  non-Israelites  are  idolaters 

and  therefore  sinners,  oppressors,  actual  and  potential,  of  Israel, 

and  therefore  enemies  of  God.     "  Hast  thou  ever  seen,"  said  R. 

Joshua,  the  son  of  R.  Nehemiah,  the  Priest  (fourth  century),  "the 

rain  fall  on  the  field  of  X  who  is  righteous,  and  not  on  the  field  of 

Y  who  is  wicked,  or  the  sun  shine  upon  Israel  who  are  righteous, 

and  not  upon  the  nations  who  are  wicked  ?     God  makes  the  sun 

shine  both  upon  Israel  and  the  nations,  for  He  is  good  to  all."  3 

Very  odd  is  the  view  of  R.  Hiyya  bar  Abba  (second  century)  that 

the  blessing  of  rain  is  even  greater  than  that  of  the  resurrection 

because  the  second  applies  only  to  men,  and  of  them  only  to  Israel, 

whereas  the  first  extends  to  the  beasts  and  the  idolaters  as  well.4 

1  Sanhedrin,  37a,  38a. 

2  Schechter,  p.  31  ;  Schwab,  Jerusalem  Talmud,  vol.  i.  p.  152. 

3  Pesikta  R.,  ed.  Friedmann,  p.  195,  a.  ad  fin.  Cf.  the  fine  passage  in  the 
Mechilta  on  Exodus  xviii.  12.  Wiinsche,  p.  185,  on  the  Shechinah  feeding  and 
satisfying  all  men,  and  even  sinners  and  idolaters. 

Bereshith  R   xiii. ,  Wiinsche,  p.  58. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  41 

The  fact  that  Yahweh  was  both  the  one  and  only  God  of  the 
whole  world,  and  at  the  same  time,  in  a  very  special  and  peculiar 
sense,  the  God  of  Israel,  brought  with  it  many  consequences  and 
many  inconsistencies.  These  consequences  and  inconsistencies 
were,  perhaps,  even  more  acute  and  prominent  in  50  and  90  a.d. 
than  in  350  B.C.  In  the  first  century  Jewish  thought  felt  alter- 
nately inclined  to  draw  in  and  to  reject.  On  the  one  hand,  there ^ 
was  a  desire  and  a  hope  that  all  men  should  recognise  and  worship 
the  God  of  Israel,  and  this  not  only,  or  even  not  so  much,  for  their 
own  sakes  as  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  glory  of  Israel.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  was  the  desire  that  Israel  should  be  freed  from 
all  domination  and  distress,  and  that  vengeance  and  condign 
punishment  should  befall  the  idolater  and  the  oppressor.  The  l 
idea  of  God  had  not  been  brought  to  a  complete  harmony. 

One  has   to   remember  that  the  Jew  was  brought  up  in  (e)  God 
the  belief   that   idolatry  was  not    only   error,   but   the   most  Gentiies: 
deadly  sin.     Thus  he  acquired  the  genuine  conviction  that  all  (1>ldolatry- 
Gentiles,  being   idolaters,  were    sinners.      Again,  the  average 
Jew,  who  knew  little  or  nothing  of  the  best  side  of  Hellenism, 
noticed  the  unattractive  side  of  the  Gentile  world,  its  oppres- 
sion   and    injustice,    its    licentiousness    and    profligacy.      The 
pious  Jew  between  350  B.C.  and  a.d.  90  was  becoming  stricter 
and  severer  as  regards  sexual  relations.     To  him  the  heathen 
seemed  steeped  in  sensuality,  oppressors  of  the  elect  Children 
of  God,  incapable  of  keeping  the  simplest  rules  of  morality. 
As  such  they  would  be  at  the  last  swept  off  the  face  of  the  earth 
by  divine  retribution.     We  can  see  the  various  causes  which 
gave  birth  to  the  exaggeration  of  Paul  in  Rom.  i.  18-32. 

The  actual  position  of  the  Gentile  world  gave  Jewish  teachers 
much  food  for  thought.  Their  general  views  reveal  occasional 
qualms  of  conscience.  For  the  divine  love  for  Israel,  and  the 
divine  hatred  of  the  idolater  and  the  oppressor,  have  to  be 
made  consistent,  tant  bien  que  mal,  with  the  divine  righteousness 
and  compassion.  Thus  we  find  the  view  constantly  repeated) 
that?  Israel's    lesser    sins    are    carefully    and    fully    punished  I 


lytei 


42  THE  JEWISH  WOELD  i 

iin  this  world  in  order  that  it  may  receive  the  full  beatitude 
of  the  world  to  come,  while  the  minor  and  occasional 
virtues   of  the  heathen  are  fully  and  carefully   recompensed 

*  here  in  order  that  they  may  suffer  more  hereafter.  It  is 
true  that  here  and  there  a  Eabbi  taught  a  nobler  doctrine. 
There  is  a  famous  Eabbinical  sentence,  belonging  to  the 
second  century,  beloved  by  apologists,  which  declares  that 
the  righteous  of  all  nations  shall  have  a  share  in  the  world  to 
come.1  This  in  later  Judaism  became  the  generally  accepted 
principle,  but,  in  the  earlier  period,  the  prevailing  view  was  :  This 
world  is  the  nations'  :  here  they  have  the  good  things.  In  the 
world  to  come  the  situation  will  be  reversed.     To  them  will  be 

I  the  suffering  and  the  pain :  to  us  the  gladness  and  the  joy.2 
(2)  Prose-  Concurrently,  however,  with  this  conception  of  the  Gentiles, 

which,  on  the  theoretic  side,  consigned  them  to  perdition,  and, 
on  the  practical  side,  fenced  Israel  off  from  social  contact  with 
them  by  dietary  and  other  laws,  went  the  wish  among  many 
wider  spirits  to  attract  them.  Noble  are  the  words  of  Hillel : 
"  Love  the  creatures,  and  bring  them  nigh  to  the  Torah."  The 
story  of  Jewish  proselytism  in  the  first  centuries,  before  and  after 
Christ,  is  an  intensely  interesting  one,  but  cannot  be  told  here. 
Moreover  the  chapter  in  Schiirer  dealing  with  the  subject,  and  Dr. 
Hirsch's  article  'Proselytism'  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopaedia,  are 
accessible  to  all  students.  The  one  is  a  complement  to  the  other. 
The  visions  of  the  second  Isaiah  were  never  entirely  forgotten.  E. 
Eleazar  (third  century)  declared  that  the  reason  why  Israel  was 
scattered  among  the  nations  was  that  proselytes  might  be  added 
to  it.3  E.  Eliezer  ben  Hyrkanos  (first  century),  who  was 
not  very  favourable  to  them,  yet  declared,  "  God  says,  I  draw 

1  Tosefta,  Sanhedrin,  xiii.  2.  The  saying  is  from  the  mouth  of  R.  Joshua 
ben  ^ananya,  a  pupil  of  R.  Joh.anan  ben  Zaccai.  Cf.  Bacher,  Agada  der 
Tannaiten,  vol.  i.  (ed.  2),  p.  134,  n.  2. 

2  Cf.  Baba  Mesia,  33b ;  Midrash  Tillim,  iv.  8 ;  Wiinsche,  i.  p.  48,  xcix. 
1.  ii.  p.  96.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  wicked  referred  to  in  Bereshith  R. 
xxxiii.  (init.),  Wiinsche,  p.  142,  are  primarily  not  wicked  Israelites,  but  the  wicked 
'  nations.' 

3  Pesahim,  87b. 


ii  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  43 

near,  I  do  not  repel,  so  do  thou,  if  a  man  comes  to  thee,  and 
wishes  to  be  received,  and  if  he  comes  with  pure  intent,  bring 
him  near,  and  do  not  repel  him/'  *  Abraham  was  always 
regarded  as  the  type  of  the  proselyte  and  as  the  great  maker  of 
proselytes.  In  this  capacity,  together  with  Sarah  his  wife,  he 
meets  us  in  the  Rabbinical  literature  again  and  again.  "  The^ 
souls  that  they  had  gotten  in  Haran 2  are  the  proselytes 
whom  Abraham  made,  for  whoever  makes  a  proselyte  of 
an  idolater,  as  it  were,  creates  him  anew."  3  Abraham  was ' 
not  circumcised  till  he  was  ninety-nine,  so  as  not  to  shut  the 
door  upon  proselytes.4  Many  are  the  passages,  some  quaint, 
yet  beautiful,  which  praise  the  proselytes,  and  which  ordain  that 
nothing  is  to  be  done  to  slight  them  or  to  cause  them  shame. 
One  of  the  best  (of  uncertain  date)  runs  as  follows.  It  must  be 
premised  that  the  late  Hebrew  word  for  proselyte  is  Ger,  which 
in  Biblical  Hebrew  means  the  '  foreign  settler  '  (A.V.  '  stranger  '). 
Thus  all  the  Pentateuchal  injunctions  about  "loving  the  stranger"  i 
are  applied  by  the  Rabbis  (from  the  first  century)  to  the  prose- 
lytes. Quoting  Ps.  cxlvi.  8,  "  The  Lord  loves  the  righteous," 
the  Midrash  observes  : 

"  A  man  may  wish  to  become  a  priest  or  a  Levite,  but  he  can-,K^v^ 
not,  because  his  father  was  not  one  ;  but  if  he  wishes  to  become, 
righteous  he  can  do  so,  even  if  he  be  a  heathen,  for  righteousness 
is  not  a  matter  of  descent.  Thus  it  is  written  of  Ps.  xxxv.  19,  20, 
'  House  of  Aaron  and  House  of  Levi,'  but  of  them  that  fear  God 
it  says, '  Ye  who  fear  the  Lord,  bless  ye  the  Lord,'  and  it  does 
not  say,  *  House  of  those  that  fear  the  Lord.'  For  the  fear  of 
the  Lord  is  not  a  matter  of  inheritance,  but  of  themselves  men 
may  come  and  love  God,  and  God  loves  them  in  return.  There- 
fore it  says  :  '  The  Lord  loves  the  righteous.' "  5 

We  know  that  in  the  first  century  a.d.  the  number  of  full 
proselytes  must  have  been  considerable.     This  fact  shows  the 

1  Mechilta  on  Exodus  xviii.  6 ;   Wiinsche,  p.  183. 

*  Gen.  xii.  5.  3  Genesis  R.  xxxix.  14 ;   Wiinsche,  p.  180. 

4  MechiUa  on  Exodus  xxii.  20 ;   Wiinsche,  p.  305. 

6  Midrash  Tillim  on  Psalm  cxlvi.  7  ;   Wiinsche,  p.  245. 


J 


I 


44  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

willingness,  and  even  the  desire,  of  many  Jewish  teachers  to 
receive  proselytes,  and  also  the  attraction  of  Jewish  monotheism. 
For  the  full  proselyte  had,  as  it  were,  to  become  a  member  of  the 
.  Jewish  nation  as  well  as  of  the  Jewish  faith.    He  had  to  follow 
.all  the  ceremonial  laws— including  the  Sabbath,  the  festivals 
and  the  irksome  injunctions  about  food;  and,  above  all,  he 
had  to  submit  to  the  painful  rite  of  circumcision,  for  few  and 
far  between,  if  any,  were  the  Jewish  teachers  who  were  willing 
to  accept  a  proselyte  on  the  basis  of  baptism  alone,  and  with- 
out the  covenant  in  the  flesh.1    It  is  therefore  not  surprising 
that  besides  the  fuU  proselytes  there  existed  in  the  first  cen- 
tury a  number  of  semi^prpselytes,  of  people,  that  is,  who  had 
renounced  idolatry,  forsworn  idolatrous  practices,  who  frequented 
the  Synagogue  upon  Sabbaths  and  festivals,  and  hovered  on  the 
.  threshold  of  Judaism.     These  are  the  persons  who  are  supposed 
by  the  Rabbis  to  observe  the  so-called  seven  Noachide  laws  which 
in  their  usual  enumeration,  besides  (1)  the  prohibition  to  worship 
idols  or  (2)  blaspheme  the  name  of  God,  forbade  (3)  murder, 
/  (4)  adultery,  incest,  and  sodomy,  (5)  theft,  ordained  (6)  the  practice 
;  of  justice  (by  the  establishment  of  law  courts),  and  included  one 
semi-ritualistic  and  semi-humanitarian  injunction,  namely  (7), 
the  prohibition  to  eat  flesh  cut  from  a  living  animal.    Those  who 
*  observed  these  laws  might  find  a  place  in  "the  world  to  come," 
but  they  were  sometimes  looked  down  upon  as  '  outsiders,'  with- 
out the  full  courage  of  their  convictions.     It  is  still  less  surprising 
K:h  -  that  both  the  half  and  the  full  proselytes  were  attracted  in  large 
numbers  by  the  preaching  of  Paul  and  his  followers.     For  here 
at  last  was  a  monotheistic  religion,  based  upon  a  common  faith, 
independent  of  birth,  which  demanded  the  practice  of  no  national 
customs  and  outlandish  rites.     Here  there  was  room  for  all; 
here  there  was  equality,  "  neither  Greek  nor  Jew,  circumcision 
nor    uncircumcision,    barbarian,    Scythian,    bond    nor    free." 
Perhaps    most    surprising    of   all  is  the  fact  that  in  spite  of 

1  Yebamoth,  46a.     Ci  Dr.  Emil  Hirsch's  article  on  Proselytes  in  Jewish 
Encyclopaedia. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  45 

Christianity,  and  in  spite  of  the  difficulties  which  Roman  law,, 
and  afterwards  Church  law,  put  in  the  way  of  conversion  to  | 
Judaism,  a  number  of  proselytes  continued  to  dribble  in,  and 
that  men  and  women  were  found  willing  to  share  with  the  Jew  | 
his  persecution  and  degradation. 

We  can  observe,  in  some  of  the  passages  concerning  proselytes  (3)  why 
in  the  Rabbinical  literature,  symptoms  of  the  desire  of  Jewish  waes  g^n 
teachers   to  justify  the  general  attitude  of   Judaism  towards  t0  Israel 
the  Gentile  world.     It  is  asked,  Why  was  not  the  Law  given 
by  God  to  the  whole  human  race,  instead  of  to  one  people 
only,  if  its  results  are  so  beneficial  ?     In  the  Old  Testament 
period,   the  fact  that  the  Law  was  entrusted   to  Israel  only 
is    merely    mentioned    as    honourable    to    the    nation ; 1    but 
early  in  the   Rabbinic   era  a  feeling   arose   that   the    divine 
partiality  needed  explanation.  .  A  legend  appears  under  different . 
forms   that  the    Law   was   offered   to   every  nation  in  turn, 
but  that  all  refused  to  receive  it.      Or,  again,  it  is  said  that 
the  nations  did  not   even  observe   the  Noachide  Command-' 
ments,  so  that  it  would  have  been  useless  and  absurd  to  offer 
them  a  far  more  elaborate  code.     One  strange  passage  in  the 
Mechilta  tells  how  God  revealed  Himself  to  the  sons  of  Esau,  and 
asked  them,  "  Will  you  receive  the  Law  ?     They  said,  What  is 
written  in  it  ?     He  said  to  them,  Thou  shalt  not  murder.     They 
said,  That  is  the  inheritance  which  our  father  left  to  us,  as  it  is 
said,  By  the  sword  shalt  thou  live."    So  the  sons  of  Ammon  are' 
told  that  the  Law  contains  the  command,  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery,  the  sons  of   Ishmael  that  it  contains  the  command,! 
Thou  shalt  not  steal,  and  they  each,  on  similar  grounds,  refuse ; 
to  receive  it.2 

Again,  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  Law  was  given  in  the  desert,  (4)  Traces 
given  openly,  and  in  a  place  that  belonged  to  nobody  in  particular,  uberaiity. 
because  if  it  had  been  given  in  Palestine,  the  Israelites  could  have 
said  to  the  nations,  "  It  is  our  property,  and  you  have  no  share 

1  Ps.  cxlvii.  20. 
2  Mechilta  on  Exodus  xx.  2 ;  Wunsche,  p.  208. 


46  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

in  it."  But  now  "  it  is  common  property  ;  whoever  will  accept 
it,  let  him  come  and  accept  it."  x  A  very  striking  legend  is 
put  into  the  mouth  of  R.  Hanina  bar  Papa  (third  century). 
"  At  the  last  judgment  God  will  summon  all  the  converts  before 
Him,  and  will  judge  the  nations  in  their  presence.  He  will  say 
to  them,  Why  have  you  rejected  Me,  and  why  do  you  serve  idols 
in  whom  is  no  reality  ?  They  will  say,  Lord  of  the  world,  if 
we  had  come  to  Thy  gates,  Thou  wouldst  not  have  received  us. 
Then  God  will  say  to  them,  Let  the  proselytes  come  and  testify 
against  you."  2  These  legends  are  doubtless  later  than  our 
period,  but  they  are  only  the  culmination  of  tendencies  which 
had  started  at  least  as  early  as  the  first  century. 

On  the  whole,  however,  we  find  that  national  and  religious 
j  prejudices  prevented  the  free  development  of  the  conception  of 
\  a  completely  impartial  God.  Israel  is  oppressed  by  the  heathen ; 
and  reacts  humanly  towards  the  oppressor.  He  cannot  pay  him 
back  in  deed ;  he  can  only  pay  him  back  in  words  and  theory. 
God  also  partakes  of  the  infirmities  of  His  people ;  and,  in  the 
days  to  come,  He  will  repay  to  the  nations  what  His  people 
have  suffered  at  their  hands. 

But  it  must  also  be  observed  that  with  this  inadequate  and 
defective  universalism  there  went  a  certain  striking  and  peculiar 
broad-mindedness.  It  showed  a  fine  insight  into  essentials  to 
rise  to  the  view  that  "  mere  Theism,"  the  acknowledgment  and 
worship  of  God,  together  with  the  following  of  the  simplest  and 
broadest  rules  of  morality,  constituted  an  adequate  passport  for 
the  future  life  and  for  salvation.  If  we  compare  such  a 
view  with  the  idea  that  salvation  largely  depends  upon  the 
belief  in  a  number  of  theological  subtleties,  we  cannot  but  be 
struck  with  the  difference.  The  advantage  of  modernity  rests 
here  with  the  Rabbis.  The  simplicity  and  broadness  of  their 
views  is  reflected  in  the  familiar  adage  of  R.  Johanan  (third 
century),  "  He  who  refrains  from  idolatry  is  a  Jew."  3 

3  Mechilta  on  Exodus  xix.  2 ;   Wiinsche,  p.  193. 
2  Pesikio  Rabbathi,  p.  161a.  3  Me/jilla,  13a. 


ii  THE  SPIEIT  OF  JUDAISM  47 

We  may  also  perceive  in  the  most  violent  utterances  against 
the  nations  a  deep  and  genuine  detestation  of  idolatry,  a  real  and 
vivid  conviction  that  monotheism  and  morality  are  as  insepar- 
able as  are  idolatry  and  the  grosser  sins.  From  this  point  of 
view,  the  hatred  of  the  heathen  was  not  merely  a  hatred  of  the 
oppressors,  but  a  hatred  of  their  vices,  whether  exaggerated  or 
real. 

On  the  whole,  the  conception  of  God's  relation  to  the  Israelite  (/)  God's 
in  a.d.  40  or  90  was  very  much  the  same  as  in  the  Psalter.  God  ittZi 
is  just  and  righteous  ;  He  punishes  as  well  as  rewards  ;  but  His 
justice  is  surpassed  by  His  compassion.  If,  in  repentance,  man 
will  advance  towards  Him  an  inch,  God  in  loving  "forgiveness 
will  run  to  meet  him  an  ell.  (This  last  simile  is  familiarly 
Kabbinic.) 

It  is  often  supposed  that,  in  the  days  of  the  second  Temple,  (l)  Direct 
God  became  more  and  more  transcendent,  and  that  He  only  dealt  ^th^God6 
with  man  through  the  agency  of  angels.     The  development  of 
'angelology'  is  regarded  as  a  symptom  of  extreme  theoretic 
transcendence  and  of  practical  religious  '  distance.'     As  regards  htv> 
the  Apocalyptic  writers,  there  may  be  something  in  this  idea ;  as 
regards  the  Rabbis,  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest,  it  is  a  delusion. 
Doubtless  angels  were  believed  in— any  number  of  them— but 
they  are  very  rarely  spoken  of  as  mediators  between  God  and 
man.     For  once  that  the  Rabbis  of  the  first  century  mention  an  \ 
angel,  a  hundred  times  they  mention  God.     It  is  God  who  does  | 
the  hearkening  and  the  caring  and  the  helping.     The  angels  play  * 
a  secondary  part  and,  indeed,  show  less  affection  and  concern 
for  man  than  the  Holy  One  who  is  their  Lord  and  man's  Lord, 
their  creator  and  his.     God  and  Israel  are  united  together  by 
means  of  the  Law,  and  the  Law  is  the  direct  gift  of  God.     Dr. 
Charles  has  said,  "In  New  Testament  times  the  ministry  of  angels 
has  become  the  universal  means  of  approaching   or   hearing 
from  God."     A  reversion  to  an  older  view  by  the  Rabbis  is 
said  to  be  due  to  hostility  to  Christianity.1      These  are  very 
1  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  13 


48  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

tct>  *  doubtful  statements.  Apocalyptic  writers  may  obtain  their 
revelations  by  means  of  angels.  The  ordinary  Rabbinic  Jew 
I  approached  God  directly,  and  felt  His  answer  in  the  heart. 
So  far  as  there  was  any  mediation  at  all,  the  mediator  was  not 
an  angel,  but  the  Law.  Above  all,  God  never  needed  an  angel 
to  tell  Him  what  man  was  saying.  The  passages  from  the  Mid- 
rash  which  Dr.  Charles  quotes  as  a  '  reversion '  might  have  been 
written  in  the  first  century  as  well  as  in  the  fourth  or  fifth : 
"  The  woman  in  childbirth,  the  sea-farer,  those  who  journey 
through  the  wilderness,  the  prisoners  in  the  gaol,  those  who  are 
in  the  east  or  the  west,  the  north  or  the  south — God  hears 
them  all  at  once."  Such  a  passage  would  have  been  as  much  a 
commonplace  to  Hillel  as  to  Shammai,  to  Johanan  ben  Zaccai 
as  to  Akiba.1 
(2)  Mercv  ^ust  as  tne  Psalmists,  so  too  the  early  and  later  Rabbis 
and  justice   Speak  constantly  about  the  righteousness  and  justice  of  God,  and 

combined, 

of  His  mercy  and  lovingkindness.  Like  the  Psalmists  they  held 
that  His  mercy  outstripped  or  exceeded  His  justice,  but  never- 
theless they  did  not  allow  their  belief  in  God's  mercy  and  in  His 
love  of  Israel  to  carry  them  to  unethical  extremes.  Reflexion 
increased  in  the  first  century,  and  in  the  third  quarter  of  it  came 
the  catastrophe  of  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Destruction  of 
the  Temple.  But  neither  these  awful  events  nor  the  horrors  of 
the  Hadrianic  War  were  able  to  destroy  the  conviction  of  God's 
goodness  and  compassion.  Even  the  Psalmists  are  naively 
conscious  of  an  antagonism  between  divine  justice  and  mercy. 
In  the  Rabbinic  development  this  consciousness  becomes  more 
acute,  yet  a  harmony  is  sought  by  making  God  reason  about 
them  Himself,  or  by  making  the  two  attributes  fundamental 
aspects  of  the  divine  nature.  Both  divine  justice  and  divine 
mercy  are  necessary  for  the  due  maintenance  of  humanity. 
A  very  curious  passage  in  the  Midrash  of  uncertain  date  explains 
the  Rabbinic  view.  "  Like  a  King  who  had  some  empty  goblets 
and  said,  If  I  pour  in  hot  water  they  will  burst,  if  I  pour  in 

1  Exodus  B.  xxviii.  4 ;   Wunsche,  p.  208, 


n  THE  SPIEIT  OF  JUDAISM  49 

cold  water  they  will  shrink.  What  did  the  King  do  ?  He  mixed 
the  cold  water  with  the  hot,  and  poured  it  in,  and  the  goblets 
remained  unhurt.  So  God  said,  If  I  create  the  world  with  the  v 
attribute  (literally,  measure)  of  mercy,  its  sins  will  become  great; 
if  I  create  it  with  the  attribute  of  justice,  how  can  it  endure  ? 
I  will  create  it  with  both ;  oh  that  it  may  endure  !  "  1  God 
is  declared  to  have  two  thrones,  the  throne  of  justice  and  the 
throne  of  mercy,  and  this  idea  appears  to  be  at  least  as  old  as 
Akiba. 

Two  reasons  prevented  the  complete  moralisation  of  the 
divine  character.     The  first  was  the  hatred  of  the  idolater  and  oft-* 
Israel's  oppressors :  the  second  was  the  overwhelming  authority 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  occasionally  encouraged  a  lower  * 
conception    of    God    as   wrathful   and  vindictive  to  rise  into 
consciousness.     So    far    as    Israel    generally,    the    '  Noachide ' 
Gentiles,  and  all  repentant  sinners  were  concerned,  the  tend- 
ency was   to   ignore   these   lower   conceptions    or    to    explain 
them  away,   but  in    the  case    of   unrepentant   idolaters    and 
oppressors,   or   even   unrepentant   Israelite  sinners   and  apos- 
tates, they  were  still  utilised  and  accepted.      It  is  curious  to 
observe  how  the  higher  views  struggle  with   the   lower;    yet 
the  general  tendency  of  the  three  hundred  years  between  50  b.c.j 
and  a.d.  250  is  unquestionably  in  the  direction  of  conceiving  God  - 
as  more  merciful,  fatherly,  and  gracious,  even  despite  the  awful 
occurrences  of  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Hadrianic  revolt.      ' 

How  far  did  these  events  otherwise  affect  the  conceptions 
of  God's  relation  to  man  and  of  man's  relation  to  God  ?  It  has 
already  been  implied  that,  so  far  as  God's  relation  to  man  is  con- 
cerned, the  ruin  of  the  nation  had  no  permanently  bad  result. 
The  ideas  of  God's  compassion,  equity,  and  love  prevailed  and 
developed.  Yet  doubtless,  in  the  early  days  of  the  agony,  there 
were  those  who,  as  in  the  Psalms,  cried  out,  "  How  long  ?  Has 
God  no  pity  ?  Does  He  exact  the  uttermost  farthing  of  punish- 
ment ?  "     In  4  Esdras  we  see  this  tendency  in  both  directions.' 

1  Genesis  R.  xii.  ad  fin. ;  Wiinsehe,  p.  57. 
VOL.  I 


50 


THE  JEWISH  WOBLD 


(g)  The 
relation 
of  Israel 
to  God. 


(1)  God's 
awfulness 


God  is  conceived  as  unpitying ;  all  Gentiles  and  most  Jews  go 
to  perdition  ;  few  indeed  are  those  who  enter  the  life  of  beatitude 
in  the  world  to  come.  And  the  reason  is  that  goodness  for  the 
ordinary  man  is  virtually  impossible.  The  "  malignant  heart," 
the  "  leaven  in  the  dough,"  the  Yeser  ha-Ra,  is  too  strong.  But 
for  the  relation  of  God  to  man,  4  Esdras  (a.d.  90)  is  not  repre- 
:  sentafcive  even  of  its  own  age,  and  still  less  of  the  Judaism  of,  say, 
a.d.  200.  Like  Paul,  it  ignores  the  whole  doctrine  of  repentance 
and  the  Day  of  Atonement :  it  makes  God  just  and  pitiless, 
instead  of  just  and  merciful.  It  teaches  that,  even  as  regards 
the  Israelites,  the  number  of  admissions  to  the  happy  world  to 
come  will  be  very  small,  whereas  the  Kabbinic  tendency  was  to 
open  the  gates  of  heaven  wide,  and  to  exclude  from  its  beati- 
tudes, and  from  the  joys  of  the  resurrection  life,  only  the  gravest, 
unrepentant,  or  falsely  repentant  sinners. 

We  pass  to  the  relation  of  man,  or  rather  of  the  Israelite,  to 
God.  Here  brevity  becomes  exceedingly  difficult.  It  is  often 
supposed  that  between  100  B.C.  and  a.d.  100  the  Law  tended  to 
make  the  Israelites'  attitude  towards  God  one  of  fear ;  whilst 
His  partiality  towards  His  own  people  fostered  an  unjustifiable 
sense  of  self -righteousness.  There  is,  however,  good  reason  to 
believe  that  the  general  result  of  the  prevailing  teaching  was  a 
tolerably  successful  '  mean  '  between  these  '  extreme  '  defects. 

It  is  true  that  God  never  lost  His  awfulness,  and  that  man 
was  counselled  to  fear  as  well  as  to  love  Him.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  lay  any  stress  on  the  fact  that  in  the  opening  Amidah  prayer 
— certainly  older  than  Acts — God  is  called  "  great,  mighty,  and 
awful  "  ;  for  in  the  very  same  breath  He  is  called  "  the  bestower 
of  loving-kindnesses."  In  a  scarcely  less  ancient  prayer  His  great 
love  and  abundant  pity  are  invoked  at  the  beginning.  He  is 
I  called  "  Our  Father,  pitiful  Father,  who  has  chosen  His  people 
Israel  in  love."  1 

The  "  logic  of  events  "  tended  to  prevent  the  divine  love 
for  Israel  being  used  as  an  excuse  for  moral  carelessness.     For  if 

1  Authorised  Prayer  Book,  ed.  Singer,  p.  39. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  51 

the  horrors  inflicted  by  Titus  and  Hadrian    did   not    imply 
an  impotent  or  unjust  God,  did  they  not  imply  a  very  sinful 
Israel  and  an  exceedingly  exacting  God,  whose  judgment  in 
the  life  to  come  might  easily  be  worse  than  death  ?     "  Fear 
him,"   said  Jesus,    "who  is  able  to  destroy   both   soul   and 
body  in  hell.     Fear  him  who,  after  he  has  killed,  has  power  to 
cast  into  hell ;   yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  him."     Similarly,  we 
have  the  often-quoted  death-bed  scene  of  R.  Johanan  ben  Zaccai. 
When  his  disciples  visit  him,  he  weeps.     When  they  ask  the 
reason,  he  replies  :    "  If  they  were  about  to  bring  me  before  a 
king  of  flesh  and  blood,  who  is  here  to-day  and  in  his  grave 
to-morrow,  whose  wrath,  if  he  be  angry  with  me,  is  no  eternal 
wrath,  whose  bonds  are  no  eternal  bonds,  whose  death,  if  he 
kill  me,  is  no  eternal  death,  whom  I  might  soften  with  words  and 
bribe  with  money,  nevertheless  I  might  weep :  but  now  that  they 
bring  me  before  a  King,  who  is  the  King  of  Kings,  who  is  eternal, 
whose  wrath,  etc.,  should  I  not  weep  ?     Moreover,  two  ways  are 
before  me,  one  leads  to  Paradise,  and  one  to  Hell,  and  I  do  not  know 
along  which  way  they  will  make  me  go— should  I  not  weep  ?  "  1 
A    similar    gloom    seems    to   have    disturbed   the    soul   of 
R.   Gamaliel,   who,   whenever   he   read    the    verse,   "He  that 
doeth  these  things   shall  never  be  moved,"  was  also  stirred 
to  tears.     Another  version  of  the  same  story  represents  him 
as   weeping   for   a   similar  reason  whenever   he   read   Ezekiel 
xviii.  6,  7.     R.  Akiba,  however,  comforted  him  by  ingenious 
exegetical  devices,  the  point  of  which  was  to  show  that  a  man 
might  expect  to  be  accepted  by  God  if  he  fulfilled,  not  all  the 
conditions  of  the  passages  in  question,  but  any  one  of  them. 
The  view  which  underlay  Akiba's  exegesis  was  more  frequent, 
prevailing,  and  characteristic  than  the  view  that  was  expressed 
in  Gamaliel's  tears.     The  Commandments  were  given— such  is 
the  regular  doctrine— for  life  and  not  for  death.     The  burden  is 
adjusted  by  God's  grace  to  the  capacity  of  the  bearer.2   Though 

1  Berachoth,  28b. 
2  Sanhedrin,  81a ;   Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  vol.  i.  p.  88  (ed.  2). 


52  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

the  Temple  was  destroyed,  the  love  of  God  for  Israel  remains. 
The  Day  of  Atonement— the  sign  and  vehicle  of  God's  pity- 
remains  also.  "  Happy  are  ye,"  said  Akiba,  "  before  whom  do 
•?  ye  purify  yourselves  %  Who  purifies  you  %  Your  Father  who  is 
in  heaven,  as  it  is  said.  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
I  you  shall  be  pure."  x  So  too  R.  Johanan  ben  Zaccai  comforted 
R.  Joshua  as  they  gazed  together  on  the  ruins  of  the  Temple. 
"  Woe  to  us,  said  Joshua,  for  the  place,  whereat  the  sins  of  Israel 
were  atoned,  lies  waste."  Johanan  replied  :  "Be  comforted, 
we  have  still  a  means  of  atonement  which  is  equal  to  the  Temple, 
and  that  is  the  practice  of  deeds  of  love,  for  it  is  said,  I  require 
love  and  not  sacrifice."  2  It  was  teaching  such  as  this  which 
enabled  Judaism  to  recover  from,  and,  in  some  ways,  to  be 
religiously  all  the  better  for,  the  catastrophe  of  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple. 
(2)  God's  It  was  not  denied  that  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  was  caused  by 

Israel's  sin.     But,  at  the  same  time,  there  was  no  doubt  of  God's 
love  as  well  as  of  God's  justice.     It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  future 
life  and  of  the  world  to  come  which  solved  the  puzzle.     The 
average  Israelite  was  not  afraid  to  die  on  account  of  what  might 
happen  to  him  hereafter.     On  the  contrary,  the  sore  troubles 
and  the  ruin,  the  martyrdoms  and  the  persecutions,  were  in- 
tended thoroughly  to  punish  and  purify  the  Israelites  in  this 
world,  so  that  they  might  the  more  assuredly  enjoy  the  beatitude 
of  the  next.     In  this  sense  sufferings  could  be  regarded  as  an 
evidence  not  only  of  God's  justice,  but  also  of  His  love.     The 
Rabbinic  doctrine — already  well  fledged  in  the  first  century — 
is  precisely  what  the  ordinary  reader  is  familiar  with  in  the 
|  Wisdom  of  Solomon.     "  If  in  the  sight  of  men  they  are  punished, 
their  hope  is  full  of  immortality.     Having  borne  a  little  chasten- 
ing, they  shall  receive  great  good."      For  what  is  any  torture 
in  time  compared  to  full  beatitude  in  Eternity  ? 
rabbinic  But  further,  where  the  Rabbinic  religion  achieved  special  success 

Religion. 

1   Toma,  85b.     (Mishna,  viii.  ad  fin.) 
2  Aboih  R.  Nathan,  iv.  p.  11a,  ed.  Schechter;  Pollak,  p.  33  (fin.). 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  53 

was  that  it  not  only  used  to  the  full  the  hope  of  the  future,  but 
did  not  despair  of  this  life  even  amid  its  gloom  and  its  sorrows. 
Earthly  life  was  not  a  mere  hard  and  mournful  preparation  for 
another.  It  had  its  own  peculiar  joys.  That  this  excellent 
result  was  achieved  was  due  to  the  Law. 

The    relation    of    man    to    God   was    kept    permanently  (a)  Re- 
hopeful  by  the   progressive  stress   laid   upon  the  doctrine  of  pentance- 
repentance.1     There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  doctrine 
was   well   known   to   Rabbinic   teachers  as  early  as  the  first 
century,  even  though  the  finest  and  tenderest  passages  about 
it    may    belong    to  a    later    date.     It    is   therefore   the  more 
notable    that    it    is   found   neither   in    4   Esdras    nor   in   the 
Pauline  literature.     The  general   Rabbinic  view   was  that  no* 
sinner,    however    great,    except    perhaps     the     apostate,    the 
heretic,  or  the  informer,  would,  if  he  repented,  be  shut  out  from 
the  divine  forgiveness.     The  God  who  received  Manasseh's  re- 
pentance would  receive  almost  anybody's  !     Possibly  the  heretic 
could  not  be  forgiven  because  he  was  incapable  of 'repentance. 
No  time  is  too  early  or  too  late  for  repentance.     It  is  God's-Kr-^i 
chosen  method  of  dealing  with  the  sinner.     If  you  ask  Wisdom 
what  is  the  punishment  of  sinners,  Wisdom  replies,  "  Evil  shall  I 
pursue  them."     If  you  ask  Prophecy,  Prophecy  replies,  "The] 
soul  that  sins  shall  die."     If  you  ask  the  Law,  the  Law  replies,  j 
"Let  the  sinner  bring  a  sacrifice,  and  find  atonement."     But;| 
if  you  ask  God,  God  replies,  "Let  the  sinner  repent."     Let  a'h 
man  stand  and  blaspheme  God  in  the  street,  and  God  will  yet' 
say  to  him,  "  Repent  before  Me,  and  I  will  receive  you."  2 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  doctrine  of  sin  is  not  very  fully  (6)  Origin 
worked  out.     How  far  is  sin  always  man's  fault  ?     How  far  is  If 
it  the  fault  of  his  parents  and  ancestors  ?     How  far  is  it  God's 
fault  ?     Theoretic  speculations  about  sin  are  almost  absent ;  but  * 
throughout  the  Old  Testament  period  there  is  generally  a  very! 
healthy  and  vigorous  sense  of  human  responsibility.     Man  need ' 

1  Cf.  C.  Montefiore  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  vol.  xvi.,  January  1904, 
pp.  209-257.  2  Peseta  c.  xxv.  158b ;  Wiinsche,  p.  227. 


and  nature 
sin. 


54  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

not  have  sinned,  had  he  not  chosen  to  do  so.  Sin  therefore  is 
man's  fault.  Only  rarely  do  we  hear  voices  which  say  that 
man  not  only  suffers  for  his  parents'  sins,  but  that  he  is  so  frail 
that  he  is  almost  bound  to  fall  into  sin  himself.  Only  at  the  end 
/.  *  of  the  Old  Testament  period  do  speculations  become  rife.  We  get 
the  doctrine  of  man's  hereditary  tendency  to  sin,  of  "  the  evil 
heart "  or  inclination  so  strong  within  him  that  he  cannot  free 
himself  from  its  malignancy.  The  question  is,  Why  did  God 
give  him  his  body  with  its  passions,  and  with  this  inclination 
towards  evil  ? 

Here  it  is  only  possible  to  touch  upon  these  matters  in 
barest  outline.  The  general  line  of  development  was  in  accord- 
ance with  conceptions  which  have  already  come  before  us.  God 
is  just :  man  is  sinful,  but  yet  he  can  master  his  sinful  inclinations. 
God  is  not  only  just,  but  loving  and  merciful :  and  if,  for  reasons 
into  which  the  Rabbis  scarcely  ventured  to  inquire,  God  has 
created  man  frail,  He  has  also  given  him  (or  at  least  Israel)  the 
means  of  overcoming  his  frailty.  If  God  punishes  sin,  He  also 
helps  to  vanquish  it.  And  if  He  punishes  sin,  He  also  rewards 
goodness. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  much  use  is  made  of  the  fact  that 
the  deliberate  sin  of  Adam  transmitted  moral  frailty  to  his 
descendants.  The  results  of  the  "  evil  inclination,"  rather  than 
theories  as  to  its  origin,  are  mainly  insisted  upon.  And  this 
seems  as  true  for  the  first  century — the  age  of  Acts — as  for  any 
subsequent  period  (cp.  II.  Baruch,  liv.  19). 

Nor  was  "  the  evil  tendency  "  often  associated  with  the  body. 
It  is  true  that  the  soul  as  it  enters  the  body  is  generally  conceived 
as  pure.  "  The  soul  which  thou  gavest  me  was  pure,"  says 
a  daily  prayer  at  least  as  old  as  Acts.1  But  of  any  Platonic 
attack  upon  the  body  there  is  little  to  be  found.  The  "  evil 
inclination  "  dominates  the  man  as  a  whole,  and  in  a  well-known 
apologue  both  soul  and  body  are  held  responsible  for  the  sins 
which  they  have  helped  each  other  to  commit.     This  world  is 

1  Authorised  Jewish  Prayer  Book,  ed.  Singer,  p.  5. 


K 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  55 

not  evil  because  it  is  material :  as  God's  creation  it  is  essentially 
good.  Nor  is  the  body  evil  because  it  is  material.  It  is  only 
the  seat  of  sin  because  it  is  the  framework,  or  covering,  of  the 
personality,  the  '  heart,'  the  individual.1 

An  immense  portion  of  the  area  covered  by  the  relation  of  God  (c)  Reward 
and  man  must,  in  the  Rabbinic  religion,  no  less  than  in  the  entire  ment. 
Old  Testament,  be  assigned  to  the  doctrine  of  reward  and  punish- 
ment. This  doctrine  colours  the  whole  of  Old  Testament  religion 
in  the  attitude  of  man  towards  his  God ;  and  what  we  have  to  ask 
is,  How  far  were  Old  Testament  ideas  being  modified  in  the  first 
century  after  Christ  %  Perhaps  nowhere  more  than  here  did  the 
doctrine  of  the  future  life  and  of  the  world  to  come  cause  change 
— not  always  of  statement,  but  of  stress — by  bringing  a  particular 
point  to  the  front. 

God  is  not  only  the  Father,  He  is  also  the  Ruler  and  the 
Judge  of  man.  According  to  the  human  analogy  of  all  these 
offices,  God  must  inevitably  punish  and  reward.  Moreover, 
according  to  the  Jewish  mind,  requital  was  deeply  ingrained  in 
the  whole  scheme  of  things.  Exceptions  there  might  be,  but 
these  were  more  apparent  than  real.  The  most  solemn  and 
the  most  true  adage  in  the  world  was  "measure  for  measure." 
"  All  measures  shall  pass  away,  but  measure  for  measure  shall 
never  pass  away."  The  Rabbinic  uses  of  the  word  Middah — 
Measure,  Attribute,  Quality — form  a  chapter  in  themselves. 

There  is  a  fine  series  of  paradoxes  in  the  Midrash,  according 
to  which  the  words  of  Genesis  i.  25,  31,  "it  was  good  "  and  "  it 
was  very  good,"  are  applied  to  various  pairs  the  reverse  way 
from  what  one  might  expect.  Thus  the  Good  Inclination  is 
good,  the  Evil  Inclination  is  very  good.  Paradise  is  good, 
Gehenna  is  very  good.  The  angel  of  life  is  good ;  the 
angel  of  death  is  very  good.  R.  Huna  (third  century)  said, 
"  The  good  measure  (i.e.  the  measure  of  reward)  is  good ;  the 

1  Berachoth,  10a  ;  Sabbath,  152b  ;  Niddah,  30b  (fin.) ;  Sanhedrin,  91a  {fin.), 
91b  (init.) ;  Leviticus  R.  xxxiv.  3  ;  Wunsche,  p.  235.  Cf.  Porter's  essay  on 
the  Yeser  ha-Ra\  pp.  98-107. 


56  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

measure  of  chastisements  (or  sufferings)  is  very  good.  For 
through  sufferings  the  '  creatures  '  attain  to  the  life  of  the  world 
to  come."  1 

God  punishes  and  rewards.  The  ideas  of  retribution  and  re- 
quital still  hold  good  :  they  are  intensely  believed  in.  Calamity  is 
still,  to  a  large  extent,  explained  as  the  consequence  of  sin.  When 
Israel  does  the  will  of  God,  the  nations  cannot  harm  him  :  when 
he  does  not  fulfil  God's  will,  they  chastise  him.  And  so  on. 
Moreover,  the  doctrine  of  measure  for  measure  is  painfully  and 
mechanically  elaborated,  and  we  find  (as  early  as  the  first  century) 
much  miserable  argument  about  such  and  such  calamities  visiting 
mankind  because  of  such  and  such  iniquities.  Nonsense  of  this 
kind  still  degrades  some  pages  of  the  orthodox  Jewish  prayer 
book.2  Again,  as  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  we  are  told 
that  God  makes  the  punishment  fit  the  crime.  In  the  limb  with 
which  men  sin  they  are  punished.  And  so  on,  and  so  on.  It  is 
kinder  to  draw  a  veil  over  the  details,  and  to  allow  them  to  rest 
in  a  dusty  obscurity,  from  which  only  a  student  of  the  weaknesses 
and  follies  of  mankind  need,  now  and  again,  drag  them  forth  to 
the  pillory  in  the  hard,  clear  light  of  knowledge  and  of  truth. 

But  these  exaggerations  and  even  perversions  of  Old  Testa- 
ment doctrine  are  only  one  part  of  the  development.     There  are 
other  parts  more  pleasant.     Calamity  and  suffering  may  be 
punishment,  but  they  may  also  be  purification. 
(i)  Puri-  The  calamities  of  Israel  are  mainly  sent  to  purify  the  people, 

suffering  y  m  order  that  they  may  be  prepared  for  the  "  world  to  come  "  ; 
whilst  the  sins  of  the  Gentiles  are  so  great  that  they  cannot  be 
adequately  punished  here.  If  they  prosper  in  this  world,  it  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  part  of  God's  dispensation  that  Israel  should 
atone  for  its  shortcomings  here,  and  the  Gentile  world  for  its 
crimes  hereafter.  Thus  the  famous  verse  in  Proverbs,  "  Whom 
the  Lord  loves  He  chastens,"  is  emphasised.    "  The  chastenings  of 

1  Bereshith  B.  ix.  fin.  ;   Wunsche,  pp.  38,  39. 

2  Authorised  Prayer  Book,  ed.  Singer,  p.  121.  Cf.  Aboih,  v.  11-14,  ed. 
Taylor. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  57 

love  "  is  a  familiar  phrase  in  the  Rabbinical  writings.    "  Beloved  ■ 
are  sufferings,"  says  Akiba,  and  the  statement  is  repeated  again 
and  again.    And  Akiba  added,  "Be  not  like  the  heathen,  for  they.  * 
when  good  comes  to  them,  honour  their  gods,  and  when  punish- 
ment comes,  they  curse  them,  but  you,  when  God  sends  you 
good,  give  thanks,  and  when  He  sends  you  sufferings,  give  thanks - 
likewise."     Man  should  rejoice  in  his  sufferings  even  more  than 
in  his  prosperity,  for  suffering  wins  him  the  forgiveness  of  his 
sins.     Three  good  things  have  come  to  Israel  through  suffering*! 
only :    the  Law,  the  land  of  promise,  and  the  world  to  come. 
He  who  rejoices  in  his  sufferings  brings  salvation  to  the  world. 
What  a  change  from  the  days  of  Job's  friends  or  even  of  Job. 
One  Rabbi  said,  "  He  who  passes  forty  days  without  suffering? 


»  1 


firrft  . 


has  already  received  his  future  '  world  '  upon  the  earth. 

There  are  also  other  qualifications  to  the  view  that  suffering  (2)  vica- 
is  sent  from  God  as  a  punishment  for  sin.     The  righteous  may  g^rinc* 
suffer  vicariously.     Death  is  a  form  of  suffering,  and  the  death* 
of  the  righteous  exercises  an  atoning  force.     This  idea  occurs 
frequently.     "  As  the  Day  of  Atonement  atones,  so  does  the. 
death  of  the  righteous  atone."     In  one  passage  it  is  said  that   ' 
there  are  Israelites  who  unite  knowledge  of  the  Law  with  good 
works  ;    some  have  the  former,  but  lack  the  latter  ;    some  the 
latter  without  the  former ;    some  lack  both.     God  says  :    Are 
these  to  be  lost  ?     No.     All  the  classes  are  to  form  a  single  bundle, 
and  the  one  are  to  atone  for  the  other.     Why  has  God  created 
the  sinner  and  the  righteous  ?     That  the  one  should  atone  for  ;; 
the  other.     Why  did  He  create  heaven  and  hell  ?     That  the  one 
should  deliver  the  other.2      The  idea   of  solidarity  was   well 
understood.  A  national  calamity  of  necessity  befalls  the  righteous 
as  well  as  the  wicked,  and  in  national  sorrows  every  one  must 
bear  his  share.     "  The  Rabbis  teach  that  when  Israel  is  in  distress,  1  >^ 
and  an  Israelite  separates  himself  from  the  community,  the  two  I 

1  Cf.  Sanhedrin,  101a ;    Mechilta  on  Exodus  xx.  23  ;    Wiinsche,  pp.  227, . 
228 ;    Taanith,  8a ;    Arachin,  16b ;    Schechter,  Studies  in  Judaism  (Series  I.),  |j  * 
p.  275,  and  the  passages  there  quoted.  * 

2  Cf.  Pesikta  C.  174b,  185a,  191a,  191b ;  Wiinsche,  pp.  254,  269,  282,  283. 


58  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

■  angels  of  the  Service  who  accompany  man  come  and  lay  their 
hands  upon  his  head,  and  say,  This  man,  who  has  separated 
himself  from  the  community,  shall  not  see  its  consolation." 
s  "  When  the  community  is  in  distress,  a  man  must  not  say,  I  will 
go  home  and  eat  and  drink,  peace  be  unto  thee,  0  my  soul ;  but 
a  man  must  share  with  the  community  in  its  distress,  like  Moses, 
*  and  then  he  is  worthy  to  see  its  consolation."  1 

It  is  part  of  the  realism  of  Kabbinic  Judaism  that,  in  spite 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  future  world  and  all  its  glories,  death  is 
almost  always  conceived  as  a  form  of  chastisement.  That  is 
why,  like  suffering,  it  atones,  whether  for  the  sins  of  him  who 
dies,  or  for  the  sins  of  others.  But  a  verse  in  Isaiah  (lvii.  1)  was 
happily  in  existence  to  hinder  the  odious  idea  that  early  death 
was  a  punishment  for  sin  from  becoming  too  dominant.  It  may 
be  that  God  knows  that  a  man  would,  if  he  lived,  fall  into  sin, 
and  so  God  removes  him  from  earth  while  he  yet  perseveres  in 
his  righteousness.2 
(3)  Death  The  doctrine  of  the  world  to  come  was  sufficient  to  prevent 

and  future  ^.^  ^  qq(j  ^Qm   sugermg   shipwreck,  however  puzzling  the 

events  of  earth.  It  also  prevented  the  too  unquestioning  adop- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  measure  for  measure.  Men  were  able  to 
say,  "  We  cannot  understand  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked,  still 
less  the  sufferings  of  the  righteous,  but  we  trust  in  God."  Signifi- 
cant is  the  story  about  Akiba.  Moses  is  told  by  God  of  Akiba's 
wondrous  knowledge,  and  how  he  will  teach  heaps  and  heaps  of 
injunctions  (Halachoth).  Moses  asks  to  see  him,  and  is  vouch- 
safed a  vision  of  Akiba  and  his  students.  After  some  further 
conversation,  Moses  says  to  God,  "  Thou  hast  shown  me  his 
(knowledge  of  the)  Law  ;  show  me  now  his  reward."  Then  the 
vision  changes,  and  Moses  sees  '  them '  weighing  Akiba's  flesh 
in  the  butcher's  shop.  Then  Moses  says  :  "  For  such  knowledge 
of  the  Law  is  this  the  reward  ?  "  "  Silence,"  replies  God,  "  so  I 
have  determined."  3 

1  Taanith,  11a.  2  Ecclesiastes  R.  vii.  15  (init.) ;   Wiinsohe,  p.  103. 

8  Menahoth,  29b. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  59 

Reward,  like  punishment,  is  still  generally  regarded  as  the 
result  of  righteousness.  But  the  more  righteous  a  man  is,  the 
more  fitting  it  is  that  his  reward  should  be  reserved  for 
the  hereafter.  The  wicked  are  rewarded  in  this  world  for 
the  '  lightest '  commands  which  they  fulfil ;  they  are  punished 
in  the  next  world  even  for  the  '  lightest '  sins  which  they 
commit.  The  righteous  are  punished  in  this  world  for  the 
lightest  sins  which  they  commit ;  they  are  rewarded  in  the  next 
world  for  the  lightest  commands  which  they  fulfil.  This  view 
was  maintained  by  Akiba,  and  is  general.1  A  curious  if  not 
very  pleasing  remark  is  attributed  to  the  son  of  R.  Sadok 
(first  century).  His  father  was  cured  of  some  malady  by 
Vespasian's  doctors,  and  the  son  said,  "  Father,  give  them  their 
reward  in  this  world,  that  they  may  not  share  thine  in  the 
world  to  come."  2 

Nevertheless,  the  doctrine  of  reward  underwent  many  con- 
current modifications,  but  it  is  almost  impossible  to  consider 
these  without  bringing  in  the  Law  as  the  all-pervading  influ- 
ence extending  to  every  conception  of  religion. 

The  strength  of  the  legal  system  was  due  to  two  influences,  The  Law. 
closely  connected  with  each  other.     The  first  was  the  love  of  (?)  ?0J  in 

J  <  the  Law. 

God,  the  Giver  of  the  Law ;  the  second  was  the  joy  in  the  Com- 
mandments. To  some  extent  the  very  particularism  of  the 
Rabbinic  religion,  which  makes  it  less  attractive  to  us  moderns, 
added  strength  to  its  legalism.  The  Law  was  the  sign  of  God's 
love  for  Israel ;  He  had  not  given  them  a  burden,  but  a  glory. 
Every  command,  as  one  fulfilled  it,  was  a  reminder  of  that 
gracious  love,  that  affectionate,  and  yet  ethical,  nearness. 
And  here  is  another  odd  point.  When  a  man  gave  alms 
to  the  poor,  he  fulfilled  a  law  of  the  first  magnitude  ;  so,  too, 
when  he  visited  the  sick,  comforted  the  mourner,  rejoiced 
with  the  bridegroom  and  the  bride.  Charity  and  benevolence 
are  the  marks  of  the  Israelite  :   he  who  has  not  compassion  and 

1  Leviticus  R.  xxvii.  1  ;   Wiinsche,  p.  183. 
a  Lamentations  R.  i.  5 ;    Wiinsche,  p.  68. 


60  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

shame  is  no  child  of  Abraham.  Nevertheless,  even  a  heathen 
might  on  occasion  be  charitable.  When,  however,  a  man  affixed 
a  Mezuzah  to  his  new  house,  he  was  doing  something  which  no 
Gentile  ever  did  or  could  possibly  do.  This  partook  of  the 
'■  I:  |  nature  of  a  delightful  secret  between  him  and  his  heavenly 
Father.  Take  the  analogy  of  a  family  on  earth,  where  father 
\  and  mother  are  intensely  beloved.  In  such  a  family  there 
may  be  a  number  of  little  customs  and  rules — how  to  sneeze, 
where  to  put  the  salt-cellar  on  the  table,  how  to  arrange 
the  father's  dressing-room  or  the  mother's  work-box — which  are 
only  known  to  the  parents  and  the  children.  With  what  delight 
do  the  children  observe  these  regulations  !  With  what  happy 
memories  they  are  associated !  How  each  vies  with  the  other 
to  do  them  well !  How  many  a  laugh  goes  with  the  doing  of 
them !  Never  do  they  become  stale,  never  wearisome,  never 
absurd.  It  was  something  of  this  sort  that  cropped  up  among 
the  Jews  as  regards  their  relations  to  the  Law  and  to  God. 
Obviously  not  all  could  have  felt  so.  Not  all  persons  love  God 
to-day  :  not  all  persons  loved  Him  then.  To  those  who  did  not 
love  Him  the  rules  might  be  a  burden  or  a  nuisance,  inexplicable 
ordinances  of  an  omnipotent  Deity,  whose  odd  and  freakish  com- 
mands  must  be  sadly  obeyed  lest  worse  should  befall.  But  to 
lovers  every  order  of  the  Beloved  is  dear  :  in  gladness  and  delight 
are  His  injunctions  fulfilled.  No  more  characteristic  Rabbinic 
phrase  than  that  of  the  "  joy  of  the  Commandments  "  :  Simhah 
shel  Misvah.  The  attitude  or  preparation  for  prayer  must  not 
be  one  of  laziness  or  sorrow  or  lightness  or  jesting,  but  that  of 
"  gladness  in  the  Commandment." 1  To  rejoice,  and  cause 
others  to  rejoice,  is  the  ne  plus  ultra  of  religious  obedience.  First, 
j  purification  :  then  joy  ;  for  the  second  was  supposed  to  indicate 
■  a  higher  stage  of  religious  development  than  the  first.  "  Pros- 
perity is  the  blessing  of  the  Old  Testament."  It  would  not  be 
true  to  say  that  prosperity  is  the  blessing  of  the  Rabbinic  religion. 
But  the  touch  of  happiness  remains,  and  Paul's  insistent '  rejoice  ' 

1  Berachoth,  31a,  et  saep. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  61 

is  the  most  Rabbinic  thing  about  him.  The  joy  is  no  longer  now 
in  mere  outward  material  objects,  though  the  worth  of  these  is 
not  denied.  The  joy  is  in  the  Law,  and  even  in  the  performance 
of  the  most  trifling  Misvoih. 

Already  in  the  Old  Testament  there  is  a  double  relation  (6)  Fear 
of  man  to  God  :  fear  and  love.  The  same  double  relation  was  m 
maintained  all  through  the  Rabbinic  period,  and  not  only 
maintained,  but  developed.  Fear  is  not  cast  out  because 
of  love,  but  both  love  and  fear  become  more  conscious  and 
distinct.  It  is  noticeable  in  Sirach  how  the  love  and  fear  of 
God  are  used  almost  interchangeably.  The  writer  seems 
hardly  conscious  that  there  could  be  any  opposition  between 
them.  In  the  Rabbinic  period,  the  implications  of  the  two, 
or  the  possible  contrariety,  are  realised  perfectly  well.  Love 
is  consciously  and  deliberately  declared  to  be  higher  than 
fear,  but  fear  is  not  to  be  altogether  abolished.  One  passes 
from  fear  to  love,  but  even  when  love  is  attained,  one  should  not 
wholly  reject  fear.  That  God  punishes  sin  must  never  be  entirely  . 
forgotten.  We  have  already  compared  the  view  of  Jesus  as 
given  in  Matthew  x.  28  and  Luke  xii.  4.  So  R.  Mattai  the 
Arbelite  (second  century)  said,  "  Grow  not  thoughtless  of  retribu- 
tion." And  this  is  interpreted  to  mean :  A  man  should  fear 
every  day.  He  is  to  say,  Woe  is  me,  perhaps  punishment  may 
reach  me  to-day  or  to-morrow.  When  he  is  prosperous,  he  is 
not  to  say,  Because  I  have  deserved  it,  God  has  given  me  food 
and  drink  in  this  world  and  the  '  stock '  awaits  me  in  the  here- 
after ;  but  he  is  to  say,  Woe  is  me,  perhaps  only  one  single  i 
*  merit '  has  been  found  in  me.  He  has  given  me  food  and  drink 
here  that  He  may  deprive  me  of  the  world  to  come.1  One 
would  make  a  mistake  if  one  were  to  interpret  such  a  passage  as 
indicating  a  persistent  attitude  of  anxious  and  trembling  scrupu- 
losity, of  never-ending  and  persistent  apprehension.  A  passage 
such  as  this  must  be  taken  with  a  due  recollection  of  oriental 
picturesqueness  and  exaggeration.     Nevertheless,  it  shows  that 

1  Aboth  R.  Nathan,  ix.  (fin.)  21b ;   Pollak,  p.  52  (but  incorrectly  rendered). 


62  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

fear  was  still  maintained.  K.  Jehudah  b.  Tema  (second  century) 
said,  "  Love  and  fear  God  !  Tremble  and  rejoice  in  the  fulfilment 
of  the  Commandments."  An  early  Talmudic  passage  quotes 
the  two  Biblical  commands,  "Love  God  and  fear  God,"  and 
■  continues  thus  :  "  Execute  the  divine  injunctions  in  love  and  in 
fear.  If  thou  shouldst  be  inclined  to  hate  (any  law),  know  that 
thou  art  a  lover,  and  no  lover  hates  :  if  thou  shouldst  be  inclined 
to  despise  (any  law),  know  that  thou  fear  est,  and  no  fearer 
can  despise."  *  The  difference  between  those  who  serve  from 
fear  and  those  who  serve  from  love  is  often  discussed  in  the 
Talmud.  Did  Job,  for  instance,  serve  God  from  fear  or  from 
love  ?  R.  Meir  (second  century)  tried  to  combine  the  two,  and 
said  that  both  Job  and  Abraham's  fear  of  God  was  "  out  of  love." 

>  (Well  known  is  the  passage  which  enumerates  the  seven  classes  of 
Pharisees,  the  last  and  highest  of  which  is  the  Pharisee  from  Love. 
In  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  it  is  immediately  followed  by  the  famous 
description  of  the  death  of  Akiba,  which  bears  repetition :  "  Akiba 
was  being  punished  before  Turnus  Rufus,  and  the  hour  drew 
nigh  for  saying  the  Shema.  He  began  to  say  it,  and  he  laughed. 
Then  Rufus  said,  Old  man,  thou  art  a  sorcerer,  or  thou  despisest 
thy  sufferings.  Akiba  said,  Calm  thyself.  I  am  no  sorcerer, 
nor  do  I  despise  my  sufferings  (for  this  too  would  have  been  a 
sin),  but  all  my  life  when  I  read  this  verse,  '  And  thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  might,'  I  was  grieved,  for  I  said  to  myself,  when  will  all 
three  be  within  my  power  ?  I  have  loved  Him  with  all  my  heart 
and  with  all  my  might,  but  to  love  Him  with  all  my  soul  ( =  life) 
was  not  assured  to  me.  But  now  that  '  with  all  my  soul ' 
has  come,  and  the  hour  of  saying  the  Shema  has  arrived, 
and  my  resolution  remains  firm,  should  I  not  laugh  ?  He  had 
not  finished  speaking  when  his  soul  fled  away."      The  reader 

ifl  will  not  fail  to  notice  that  the  most  exalted  idealism  is  inextricably 
i  involved  with  the  most  careful  legalism.     That  is  Rabbinism 

1  Aboth  B.  Nathan,  xli.  67a,  ed.  Schechter ;   Pollak,  p.  141  ;   Jer.  Berachoth, 
ix. ;    Schwab,  i.  p.  169. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  63 

all  over.  But  Akiba  was  not  the  only  martyr,  and  all  who 
suffered  then  were  but  the  forerunners  of  an  immense  cloud  of 
sufferers  who  have  never  ceased  to  suffer  from  then  till  now : 
"  They  that  love  me  and  keep  my  Commandments."  These  are 
the  Israelites,  said  R.  Nathan,  who  lived  in  Palestine,  and  gave 
their  lives  for  the  Commands.  '  *  Why  goest  thou  forth  to  be  killed 
by  the  sword  ?  Because  I  circumcised  my  son.  Why  goest  thou 
forth  to  be  burnt  ?  Because  I  read  in  the  Torah.  Why  goest 
thou  forth  to  be  crucified  ?     Because  I  ate  unleavened  bread."  x 

In  the  middle,  as  it  were,  between  religion  and  morality,  and  (c)  Sancti- 
casting  its  influence  upon  both,  is  the  conception  of  the  Sanctifica-  the  N^me*. 
tion  and  Profanation  of  the  Name.     This  conception  deepened, 
though  it  depended  on,  the  Biblical  teachings  upon  the  subject 
in  Ezekiel  and  elsewhere,  and  is,  in  this  fuller  and  finer  develop- 
ment, at  least  as  old  as  Akiba.     The  highest  form  of  Sanctifica- 
tion  is  martyrdom.     For  the  Talmudists  the  classic  period  of  the' 
Sanctification  was  the  Hadrianic  persecution.     Thus,   for  in- 
stance, playing  upon  Psalm  xvi.  3,  the  Midrash  observes  :  "  David 
said,  Thou  didst  increase  sufferings  for  the  generation  of  the 
persecution,  when  they  died  for  the  sanctification  of  Thy  Name. 
R.  Idi  said,  Sufferings  are  divided  into  three  portions.     One|Nc 
portion  the  fathers  and  all  the  generations  together  have  assumed ;  \ 
one  portion  the  generation  of  the  persecution  ;   one  portion  the  j 
King  Messiah  (aliter :    the  generation  of  the  Messiah).     What ' 
did  they  do  in  the  generation  of  the  persecution  ?     They  took 
iron  balls  and  made  them  white-hot,  and  put  them  under  their 
armpits,  and  took  away  their  lives  from  them,  and  they  brought 
sharp  reeds,  and  put  them  under  their  nails,  and  so  they  died  for 
the  Sanctification  of  Thy  Name."     Elsewhere  the  same  Midrash 
remarks  :    "  How  many  persecutions  have  been  decreed  against 
Israel,  but  they  have  given  their  fives  for  the  Sanctification  of 
the  Name."  2    Rather  touching  is  the  saying  of  R.  Hiyya  bar 

1  Sotah,  31a  ;    Jer.  Berachoth,  ix.  ;    Schwab,  i.  pp.  169,  170 ;    Mechilta  on 
Exodus  xx.  5 ;   Wiinsche,  p.  213. 

2  Midrash  Tillim  on  Psalm  xvi.  3  ;    Wiinsche,  vol.  i    p.   124 ;    Midrash 
Tillim  on  Psalm  xviii.  7 ;   Wiinsche,  vol.  i.  p.  149. 


64  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

Abba  (second  century)  :  "  If  you  are  asked  to  give  your  life  for 
the  Sanctification  of  the  Name,  say,  I  am  ready  to  give  it ;  only 
may  I  be  beheaded  at  once,  and  not  be  tortured  as  in  the  days 
of  the  persecution."  1 

Certain  it  was  that  those  who  gave  or  give  their  lives  for 

the  Sanctification  of  the  Name  would  obtain  the  blessedness  of 

, '  the  world  to  come.'     The  "  Sons  of  the  living  God  loved  Him 

;  even  unto  death."      That  is  said  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 

words  '  sick  of  love  '  in  the  Song  of  Solomon.      "  They  were  sick, 

:■  not  through  pain  of  head  or  body,  but  through  love  of  the 

'Holy  One— yea,  sick  of  love  even  unto  death,  for  the  Son  so 

loves  his  Father  that  he  gives  up  his  life  for  the  honour  of  his 

Father.     Even    as   Shadrach,    Meshach,  and   Abednego   gave 

their  lives,  not  on  the  condition  of  release,  but  to  be  burnt, 

for  it  is  said,  stronger  than  death  is  love."  2 

As  the  Sanctification  of  the  Name  was  the  highest  duty,  so 
I  the  Profanation  of  the  Name  was  the  deadliest  sin,  for  which, 
according  to  the  developed  Rabbinic  view,  there  was  no  atone- 
ment but  death.  Even  repentance,  and  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
and  sufferings,  were  insufiicient.3  The  Sanctification  of  the 
Name  is  a  peculiarly  Jewish  duty,  which  is  not  obligatory  upon  the 
Gentile  Theist,  or  the  follower  of  the  seven  Noachide  Commands.4 
But,  over  and  above  martyrdom,  the  duty  of  sanctification 
and  the  sin  of  profanation  exercised  a  peculiar  effect  upon 
Jewish  life.  God's  honour  is,  as  it  were,  put  into  Israelite 
keeping.  Here  we  find  an  odd  moral  result  for  good  of  Jewish 
particularism.  Though  God  is  the  one  and  only  God,  yet  He 
is  in  a  special  sense  the  God  of  Israel,  and  so  any  sin  of  any 
Israelite,  which  becomes  known  to  a  non-Israelite,  constitutes  a 
profanation  of  the  Name.  It  reflects  upon  God's  honour.  The 
special  servants  and  sons  of  God  must  not  sin,  for  their  sin,  if 
known,  reflects  upon  the  credit  of  their  God,  who  bade  them  be 

1  Pesikta  C.  x.  87a;  Wiinsche,  p.  112. 

2  Midrash  Tillim,  ix.  ad  fin.  ;    Wiinsche,  vol.  i.  p.  93. 

3  Yoma.  86a.  4  Sanhedrin,  74b. 


ii  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  65 

holy  even  as  He  is  holy,  and  through  their  holiness  to  show  forth 
His.    Thus — to  return  for  a  moment  to  religious  persecution — it  is 
permitted,  in  order  to  save  one's  life,  to  transgress  all  laws, 
except  the  laws  against  idolatry,  unchastity,  and  murder  ;  but  if 
one  is  asked  openly  to  violate  the  lightest  law  as  a  sign  of  apos- 
tasy, one  must  unhesitatingly  die.     If  of  two  possible  methods 
of  action,  one  involves  an  ordinary  sin,  and  one  a  profanation 
of  the  Name,  one  must  undoubtedly  choose  the  former.     It  is 
better,  it  was  said,  that  a  letter  should  be  torn  out  of  the 
Law  than  that  God's  Name  should  be  openly  profaned.1    It 
was  even  asserted  that  it  was  better  to  commit  a  sin  in  secret 
than  to  profane  the  Name  openly,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
was  also  declared  that  this  secret  sin  was  itself  a  profanation 
of  the  Name.2    Thus  the  Sanctification  of  the  Name  became 
an   important   string    in   the    Jew's    moral    bow,   and    especi- 
ally in  his  dealings  with  the  non-Jew.     This  point  comes  out 
very  naively  in  Talmudic  discussions.     The  '  natural  man '  in 
the  Jew  was  inclined  to  take  advantage  of  the  non-Jew,  to 
defraud  him,  in  other  words,  when  opportunity  offered.     For 
the  non-Jew  was  the  oppressor  of  the  Jew.     But  the  Jew  was 
restrained  from  doing  so  by  the  law  of  the  Sanctification.     Thus  . 
the  rule  stands  codified  :  to  steal  from  the  non- Jew  is  a  '  heavier  '  i 
sin  than  to  steal  from  the  Jew  because  of  the  Profanation  of! 
the   Name.3    Famous    is    the    old    story  of    R.    Simeon    ben 
Shetah  (first  century),  who  restored  the  jewel  which  was  found 
upon  the  donkey  that  he  had  bought  from  certain  Arabs.     Char- 
acteristic is  the  remark  made  on  his  action  :   "  Simeon  preferred 
to  know  that  those  Arabs  said  (when  the  jewel  was  restored), 
Blessed  be  the  God  of  the  Jews,  than  all  the  reward  of  this  world. 
The  cry  of  the  Arabs  was  a  great  Sanctification  of  the  Name." 
In  the  passage  of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  where  the  story  is  told, 

1  Sanhedrin,  74a  ;    Yebamoth,  79a. 

a  Kiddushin,  40a. 

8  Tosefta,  Baba  Kama,  x.  15.  A  certain  legal  deceit  must  not  be  allowed, 
said  Akiba,  towards  the  non-Jew  because  of  the  Sanctification  of  the  Name  : 
Baba  Kamma,  113a. 

VOL.  I  F 


66 


THE  JEWISH  WORLD 


K^ 


(d)  Ethics 
1)  Right- 
eousness. 


other  tales  follow  of  the  same  kind.1  Dr.  Kohler  is  doubt- 
less right  when  he  says  that  "  to  this  day  the  warning  against 
profanation  of  the  Name  tends  to  keep  the  commonest  Jew  from 
committing  any  act  that  might  disgrace  the  Jewish  Com- 
munity." 2 

A  few  words  may  be  in  place  regarding  the  effect  of  the  Law 
upon  the  conceptions  of  virtue  and  vice,  righteousness  and  sin, 
and  the  methods  of  the  divine  retribution.  What  are  supposed 
to  be  the  dangerous  effects  of  legalism  in  these  respects  must  be 
well  known  to  every  reader.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  there 
existed  a  certain  tendency  to  look  at  righteousness  and  sin  as  if 
a  man's  character  could  be  measured  in  the  same  manner  as  his 
weight.  But  the  truth  seems  to  be  that  though  such  a  tendency 
existed,  it  was  checked  by  other  tendencies,  more  human,  more 
healthy,  more  '  prophetic'  There  is,  however,  no  room  here 
to  deal  with  this  very  complicated  subject  more  thoroughly. 

The  terms  '  merit '  (Zechuth)  and  "  good  works  "  (mdasim 
tobim)  are  perhaps  familiar  to  the  reader.    How  far,  it  may  be 
asked,  did  these  terms,  which  are  quite  as  early  as  Acts,  generate 
the  idea  that  certain  deeds  were  accomplished  for  the  sake  of 
piling  up  a  store  of  merit  (and  hence  of  acquiring  reward)  ?     For 
instance:    Was   a   man  inclined   to   give   alms— a   prominent 
example  of  good  works — to  make  for  himself  a  treasure  or  store 
,  of  merit  ?     Already  in  Sirach  we  have  the  doctrine  that  alms- 
giving delivers  from  death  and  atones  for  sin,  and  this  view  was 
general  in  the  Rabbinic  period.     The  word  SedaJcak,  which  in 
I  the  Bible  means  righteousness,  acquired  in  Rabbinic  Hebrew 
|  the  subsidiary  sense  of  alms-giving,  and  hence  a  famous  verse 
i  in  Proverbs  (xi.  4)  was  interpreted  as  a  witness  and  proof  of  the 
potency  of  eleemosynary  gifts.   The  doctrine  of  Matt.  vi.  20  about 
treasures  in  heaven  is  essentially  and  even  verbally  Rabbinic. 
Famous  is  the  tale  of  King  Monobazus,  the  proselyte  (first  cen- 
tury), who  dissipated  all  his  treasures  and  those  of  his  ancestors  in 

1  Jerusalem  Talmud,  Baba  Mesia,  ii.  5 ;    Schwab,  vol.  x.  p.  93. 
2  Jewish  Encyclopaedia,  vol.  vii.  p.  485,  col.  2. 


ii  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  67 

alms.  His  family  remonstrate,  and  contrast  his  conduct  with 
that  of  his  prudent  forefather.  He  replies  :  "My  ancestors 
collected  for  below,  I  have  collected  for  above  ;  they  collected  in 
a  place  where  the  hand  rules,  I  have  collected  in  a  place  where  it 
does  not ;  they  collected  what  bears  no  fruit,  I  have  collected  what 
bears  fruit ;  they  collected  money,  I  have  collected  treasures  of 
souls  (Prov.  xi.  30) ;  they  collected  for  others,  I  have  collected 
for  myself ;  they  collected  for  this  world,  I  have  collected  for 
the  world  to  come."     So  Akiba  asked  by  Turnus  Rufus,  "  Why,, 


* 


if  your  God  loves  the  poor,  does  he  not  sustain  them  ?  "  replied, 
"  So  that  we  may  be  saved  through  them  from  the  judgment  j 
of  hell."    Almsgiving  and  charity  (deeds  of  loving  -  kindness) 
are  the  great  intercessors  between  Israel  and  their  Father  in 
heaven.1 

As  early  as  the  first  century,  the  division  of  the  commands  (2)  Heavy 
into  light  and  heavy  had  been  effected.  From  the  second  century  command! 
comes  the  adage  :  "  Be  as  attentive  to  a  light  precept  as  to  a 
heavy  one,  for  thou  knowest  not  the  reward  of  precepts."  2 
But  in  truth  the  motive  for  obedience  was  higher  than  this  adage 
would  make  it  out.  It  was  not  merely  urged,  Run  to  do  a  light 
command,  for  it  will  induce  you  the  more  readily  to  fulfil  a 
heavy  one.  The  light  commands  were  looked  on  as  the 
adornment  and  beauty  of  the  Law.  The  verse  in  Canticles  is 
quoted :  "  Thy  belly  is  like  a  heap  of  wheat  set  about  with 
lilies,"  and  these  lilies  are  said  to  be  the  light,  tender  commands, 
the  fulfilment  of  which  brings  Israel  to  the  life  of  the  world 
to  come.3 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  light  are  the  ritual  commands, 
and  the  heavy  the  moral  commands.  Such  a  division  would  be 
false.  Some  commands,  such  as  circumcision,  Sabbath,  fasting 
on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  eating  unleavened  bread  in  the  week 
of  Passover,  though  '  ritual,'  are,  in  Rabbinic  eyes,  extremely 
heavy.    The  emphasis  laid  upon  circumcision  is  remarkable. 

1  Baba  Bathra,  11a,  10a;    Sabbath,  32a.  2  A  both,  ii.  1. 

8  Aboth  B.  Nathan,  ii.  5a ;  Pollak,  p.  21. 


• 


68  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

Nevertheless,  although  many  ritual  commands  are  heavy,  few 
moral  commands  would  be  light. 
(3)  Em-  It  is  probable  that,  with  the  rise  of  Christianity,  the  emphasis 

motivc.0n  on  the  formal  side  of  the  Law  was  increased.  This  cut  more 
ways  than  one.  More  and  more  insistence  was  placed  upon 
purity  of  motive  :  the  Law  for  its  own  sake.  The  doctrine  of 
lishmah  (for  its  own  sake)  is  one  of  the  distinctive  glories  of 
Rabbinic  Judaism.  "  To  him  who  studies  the  law  for  its  own 
I  sake,  it  is  a  tree  of  life ;  to  him  who  does  not,  it  is  a  mixture 
of  death.  And  be  it  noted  that  to  fulfil  a  command  '  for  its 
own  sake '  becomes  equivalent  to  fulfilling  it  '  from  love.' 
Even  "a  sin  lishmah  is  better  than  a  command  which  is  not 
lishmah"  meaning  that  it  is  better  to  fall  into  an  unintentional 
transgression  with  a  good  motive  than  to  fulfil  a  command 
with  a  bad  one.1  It  was  even  held  dangerous  or  wrong  to  say 
of  a  command  like  Deut.  xxii.  6,  7,  "  How  great  is  God's 
mercy."  The  laws  are  not  mere  expressions  of  God's  mercy  : 
they  are  His  arbitrary  decrees.2  A  curious  parallelism  with  the 
views  of  Kant  may  be  observed  in  certain  Rabbinic  phrases 
and  tendencies  concerning  the  Law.  Thus  R.  Hanina  bar 
Hama  (third  century)  said,  "  Better  is  he  who  does  some- 
thing because  it  is  ordered  than  he  who  does  it  though 
he  was  not  ordered  to  do  it."  3  The  old  saying  of  Antigonus 
of  Socho,  "  Be  not  as  slaves  that  serve  their  Lord  with 
a  view  to  reward,"  did  not  fall  on  deaf  ears.  It  is  con- 
stantly quoted  in  Rabbinical  literature,  as,  for  instance,  by 
R.  Eleazar  (third  century),  when,  using  Psalm  cxii.  1,  "  blessed 

1  Taanith,  7a,  Nazir,  23b. 

2  This  view,  moreover,  prevented  superstition.  There  was  no  magic  in 
the  ritual  ordinances.  Highly  significant  is  R.  Johanan  ben  Zaccai's  remark 
about  the  water  of  Numbers  xix.  9.  "  The  dead  body  does  not  (in  itself) 
cause  uncleanness  ;  water  does  not  (in  itself)  make  clean  :  it  is  just  a  divine 
ordinance  that  may  not  be  transgressed."  So  Rab  (third  century)  said, 
"  The  commands  were  merely  given  to  purify  man.  What  does  it  matter 
to  God  how  an  animal  is  killed  ?  "  Numbers  R.  xix. ;  Wunsche,  p.  4*56  ;  Bere- 
shiih  R.  xliv.  init.  ;   Wunsche,  p.  201. 

3  Megilla,  25a,  Berachoth,  33b ;  Jer.  Ber.  v.  3 ;  Schwab,  vol.  i.  p.  103  ; 
Kiddushin,  31a. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  69 

is  he  who  greatly  delights  in  God's  commandments,"  he  observes, 
"  only  in  the  commandments,  not  in  the  reward  of  the  com- 
mandments/' 1 

Thus  this  very  legalism  laid  much  stress  on  motive. 
Rabbi  Eleazar  said  that  if  he  who  unintentionally  commits  a 
good  action  is  rewarded,  how  much  more  he  who  commits 
it  intentionally.  That  God  demands  the  heart  is  a  familiar 
Rabbinic  aphorism.  A  combination  of  the  doctrine  of  inten- 
tion with  the  doctrine  of  God's  mercy  results  in  the  customary 
teaching  that  the  good  intention,  even  frustrated,  is  reckoned 
as  if  it  had  issued  in  deed  ;  whereas  the  bad  intention,  which 
fails  to  be  consummated  in  action,  is  forgiven.  The  distinc- 
tion between  intention  and  deed  is  sometimes  oddly  manifested. 
We  are  told  of  Aldba  that  on  reading  a  certain  passage  in  the 
Law,  he  would  weep  and  say,  If  he  who  meant  to  eat  pig,  and  ate 
sheep,  required  atonement  and  forgiveness,  how  much  more  does 
he  need  it  who  meant  to  eat  pig  and  ate  it !  Or,  again,  if  he  who 
meant  to  eat  permitted  fat,  and  ate  forbidden  fat,  needed  atone- 
ment and  forgiveness,  how  much  more  he  who  meant  to  eat  for- 
bidden fat  and  ate  it !  2  The  Rabbis,  who  were  inclined  to 
judge  themselves  severely  (as  indeed  a  Rabbinic  law  ordained), 
did  not  by  any  means  always  avail  themselves  of  the  teaching 
that  the  frustrated  evil  intention  is  overlooked  by  God,  so  far 
as  their  own  repentance  and  consciousness  of  sin  were  concerned. 

Such  teaching  as  this — and  it  became  a  regular  commonplace  (4)  Grace 
—must  have  provided  a  good  corrective  to  the  dangers  of  Zechuih] al 
and  to  the  doctrine  of  '  treasures.'  It  was  moreover  often  re- 
peated that  man  has  no  claim  upon  God  because  of  his  virtues. 
The  precipitate  of  early  Rabbinic  doctrine  is  contained  in  the 
liturgy.  Daily  the  orthodox  Jew  is  supposed  to  recite  the  follow- 
ing prayer,  which  may  be  as  old  as  the  first  century.  "  Sovereign 
of  all  worlds  !     Not  because  of  our  righteous  acts  do  we  lay  our 

1  Abodah  Zarah,  19a. 

2  Sifre,  120a ;    Kiddushin,  39b,  40a ;    Sanhedrin,  106b ;    Kiddushin,  81b ; 
Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  p.  326,  n.  2. 


70  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

supplications  before  Thee,  but  because  of  Thine  abundant  mercies. 
What  are  we  ?  What  is  our  life  ?  What  is  our  piety  ?  What 
our  righteousness  ?  .  .  .  What  shall  we  say  before  Thee,  0  Lord 
our  God  and  God  of  our  fathers  ?  Are  not  the  wise  as  if  without 
knowledge,  and  the  understanding  as  if  without  discernment  ?  " 
Not  improperly  does  Dr.  Abrahams  say :  "In  this  passage  we 
have  the  true  Rabbinic  spirit  on  the  subject  of  grace  and  works. 
The  Rabbis  held  that  reward  and  punishment  were  meted  out 
in  some  sort  of  accordance  with  a  man's  righteousness  and  sin. 
But  nothing  that  man,  with  his  finite  opportunities,  can  do  con- 
stitutes a  claim  on  the  favour  of  the  Almighty  and  the  Infinite. 
In  the  final  resort  all  that  man  receives  from  the  divine 
hand  is  an  act  of  grace."  x  Moses,  says  the  Midrash,  used 
for  his  prayers  the  expression  '  supplication.'  R.  Johanan  said, 
"Hence  thou  canst  learn  that  the  creature  has  nothing  over 
against  his  Creator,  for  Moses,  the  greatest  of  the  Prophets, 
could  only  come  to  God  with  supplications."  2  And  the  Midrash 
goes  on  to  say  :  "  God  said  to  Moses,  Upon  him  who  puts  some- 
thing in  My  hand,  I  will  have  mercy  with  the  attribute  of  mercy, 
to  him  who  puts  nothing  in  My  hand,  I  will  be  gracious  with  a 
free  gift." 3  Not  even  Abraham,  Isaac  or  Jacob  could  go 
unpunished  if  God  dealt  with  them  as  in  a  Court  of  Law.  All 
need  the  loving-kindness  of  God,  even  Abraham.4  Comment- 
ing on  Ps.  cxli.  1,  "  I  cry  unto  Thee :  make  haste  unto  me," 
the  Midrash  observes :  "  What  does  '  Make  haste  unto  me ' 
mean  ?  I  hastened  to  fulfil  Thy  commands  ;  so  hasten  Thou  to 
me.  What  is  the  matter  like  ?  It  is  like  a  man  who  had  to 
defend  himself  before  a  judge.  He  saw  that  all  others  had 
advocates  to  plead  for  them.  He  said  to  the  judge,  The  others 
have  advocates  ;  I  have  no  advocate.  Be  thou  my  advocate 
as  well  as  my  judge.     So  David  said,  Some  trust  to  their  good 

1  Authorised  Prayer  Book,  p.  7.     Annotated  edition  by  Dr.  I.  Abrahams, 
p.  xxi. 

2  Deuteronomy  R.  ii.  1 ;  Wiinsche,  p.  18.  3  Ibid.  p.  19. 

4  Genesis  R.  lx.  2  ;    Wiinsche,  p.  281  ad  fin.     Cp.  Genesis  R.  on  xxxix.  6 ; 
Wiinsche,  p.  175. 


n  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  71 

and  upright  works,  and  some  trust  to  the  works  of  their  fathers  : 
but  I  trust  to  Thee.  Even  though  I  have  no  good  works,  yet 
since  I  call  on  Thee,  answer  me."  x 

On  the  whole,  there  was  doubtless  a  certain  tendency  to  Tendency 

7  to  mtel- 

believe  that  the  greater  the  works,  the  greater  the  reward,  jiectuaiiBm 
according  to  the  teaching—"  All  is  according  to  the  greatness  of 
the  work."  And  yet,  how  often  other  conceptions,  such  as 
repentance  and  'intention,'  cross  the  retribution  dogma  and 
drive  it  aside !  Famous  is  the  tale  of  R.  Eliezer  b.  Durdaiya 
(second  century)  who  was  so  addicted  to  the  sin  of  unchastity 
that  it  was  said  of  him  that  there  was  no  harlot  in  the  world 
whom  he  had  not  visited.  It  was  recorded  of  him  that,  on  the 
occasion  of  his  last  sin,  the  harlot  herself  said  to  him  that  his 
repentance  would  never  be  received. 

"  Then  he  went  forth,  and  sat  between  the  hills,  and  said, '  Ye 
mountains  and  hills,  seek  mercy  for  me.'  But  they  said,  '  Before 
we  seek  mercy  for  you,  we  must  seek  it  for  ourselves,  for  it  is 
said,  The  mountains  shall  depart  and  the  hills  be  removed.'  Then 
he  said, '  Heaven  and  earth,  ask  mercy  for  me.'  But  they  said, 
1  Before  we  ask  mercy  for  you,  we  must  ask  it  for  ourselves,  as 
it  is  said,  The  heavens  shall  vanish  like  smoke,  and  the  earth 
shall  wax  old  as  a  garment.'  Then  he  said,  '  Sun  and  moon, 
ask  mercy  for  me.'  But  they  said,  '  Before  we  ask  for  you,  we 
must  ask  for  ourselves,  as  it  is  said,  The  moon  shall  be  confounded, 
and  the  sun  ashamed.'  Then  he  said,  '  Planets  and  stars,  ask 
mercy  for  me.'  But  they  said,  '  Before  we  ask  for  you,  we  must 
ask  for  ourselves,  as  it  is  said,  All  the  hosts  of  heaven  shall  be 
dissolved,  and  the  heaven  shall  be  rolled  up  as  a  scroll.'  Then 
he  said,  '  The  matter  depends  wholly  upon  me.'  He  sank  his 
head  between  his  knees,  and  cried  and  wept  so  long  till  his  soul 
went  forth  from  him.  Then  a  heavenly  voice  was  heard  to 
say,  'R.  Eliezer  b.  Durdaiya  has  been  appointed  to  the  life 
of  the  world  to  come.'  But  R.  Jehudah  I.,  the  Patriarch 
(Rabbi)   (second   century)  wept   and   said,    '  There   are   those 

1  Midrash  Tillim  on  Psalm  cxli.  1  ;   Wiinsche,  vol.  ii.  p.  234  fin. 


72  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

who  acquire  the  world  to  come  in  years  upon  years ;  there 
are  those  who  acquire  it  in  an  hour.' 1  And  he  added,  '  Not 
only  do  they  receive  the  penitent,  but  they  even  call  them 
Rabbi ! '  "  This  phrase,  "  There  are  those  who  (hardly)  acquire 
the  world  to  come  in  years  upon  years  ;  there  are  those  who 
acquire  it  in  an  hour,"  is  often  repeated.  What  an  odd  com- 
mentary it  is  upon  the  doctrine  of  measure  for  measure  ! 
The  Very  complicated  (especially  in  the  first  century)  is  the  ques- 

Ares.  ba"  ti°n  now  *ar  tne  ^aw  stimulated  a  false  intellectualism ;  for  it 
raises  the  whole  question  of  the  Ame  ha-Ares,  into  which  it  is 
impossible  to  enter  here.2  Were  there  (in  the  first  century)  large 
masses  of  Jews  ignorant  of  the  Law  and  hated  by  the  Rabbis  ? 
The  Gospel  evidence  for  the  existence  of  such  people  we  know, 
and  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  evidence  in  the  Rabbinical  litera- 
ture which  seems  to  substantiate,  and  tally  with,  the  evidence  of 
the  Gospels.  This  Rabbinic  evidence  concerns  the  Ame  ha- 
Ares,  who  are  usually  supposed  to  correspond  with  the  neglected 
j  and  despised  multitudes  of  the  Synoptics,  and  with  the  accursed 
people  who  know  not  the  Law  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  Some,  how- 
ever, think  that  the  statements  in  the  Gospels  are  exaggerated  : 
it  has  even  been  suggested  that  the  Ame  ha- Ares  of  the  Talmud 
were  not  poor  neglected  outcasts  at  all.  The  subject  is  intensely 
important.  Nevertheless,  it  must  be  wholly  omitted  here,  because 
it  does  not  admit  of  a  fair  presentation  without  a  very  extended 
statement  and  discussion  of  all  the  available  facts.  Moreover, 
these  facts  are  extremely  complicated.  The  passages  relating 
to  the  Ame  ha-Ares  admit  of  many  conflicting  interpretations, 
and  they  are  not  entirely  consistent  with  each  other  or  with  any 
particular  explanation  of  them  or  hypothesis.  But  whoever 
the  Ame  ha-Ares  were,  they  seem  to  have  gradually  died  out, 
as  the  rule  of  Law  penetrated  more  and  more  deeply  through 
every  class  of  society.  The  'neglected  outcasts'  do  not 
appear  to  have  continued  long  after  Hadrian.  Was  the  terrible 
revolt  a  purification  as  of  fire  ?    Did  it  produce  an  immense 

1  Abodah  Zarah,  17a.  2  See  pp.  125  S. 


ii  THE  SPIKIT  OF  JUDAISM  73 

increase  of  devotion  to  the  Law  ?  Did  it  make  all  surviving 
Jews  more  closely  knit  to  each  other  ?  Did  it  cause  the  lax  or 
the  '  outcast '  to  seek  a  religious  home  elsewhere  ?  It  is  impos- 
sible to  enter  into  these  fascinating  possibilities.1 

Yet  even  apart  from  the  Ame  ha- Ares,  one  may  legitimately  Study  and 
ask  how  far,  especially  in  the  first  and  second  centuries,  was  the 
intellectual  element  in  the  religion  entirely  beneficial.  We  have 
seen  how  the  study  of  the  Law  was  regarded  as  the  highest  and 
most  inclusive  of  all  those  duties  and  virtues  whereof  the  fruit  is 
enjoyed  in  this  world  and  the  '  stock  '  in  the  world  to  come.  A 
famous  passage  in  the  Talmud,  of  which  the  conclusion  is  often 
repeated,  recounts  how  K.  Tarphon  (first  century)  and  the  Elders 
were  assembled  in  an  upper  chamber  of  a  house  in  Lydda  when 
the  question  was  raised  whether  study  or  '  doing '  was  greater. 
R.  Tarphon  said  '  doing '  was  greater.  R.  Akiba  said  that  study 
was  greater.  Then  all  agreed  that  study  was  greater  because 
it  led  to  '  doing.'  2  This  does  not  seem  wholly  unreasonable. 
Nor  can  one  discount  or  deny  the  nobility  (or  the  significance)  of 
the  opening  supplication  of  the  Amidah,  which  is  at  least  as  old 
as  Acts.  "  Thou  favourest  men  with  knowledge,  and  teachest 
mortals  understanding.  0  favour  us  with  knowledge,  under- 
standing and  discernment  from  Thee.  Blessed  art  Thou,  0  Lord, 
gracious  giver  of  knowledge."  We  cannot  object  to  the  view 
that  he  only  is  poor  who  is  poor  in  knowledge,  or  to  the  adage, 
"  Do  you  possess  knowledge,  what  do  you  lack  ?  Do  you  lack 
knowledge,  what  do  you  possess  ?  "  3  But  what  are  we  to 
say  to  the  phrases  of  R.  Eleazar  who  observed:  "  If  a  man 
has  no  knowledge,  it  is  forbidden  to  have  mercy  upon  him,"  or 
"  If  a  man  shares  his  bread  with  him  who  has  no  knowledge, 

1  In  addition  to  the  usual  sources  of  information,  including  Dr.  Biichler's  ■ 
wonderfully  learned  work,  Der  galilaische  'Am-ha  'Aretz  des  zweiten  Jahrhunderts. 
it  is  only  fair  and  pleasant  to  mention  the  three  careful  and  useful  papers  by  a 
young  scholar,  A.  H.  Silver,  in  the  Hebrew  Union  College  Monthly  for  December 
1914,  and  January  and  February  1915.  Silver's  conclusions  seem  to  me  the 
fairest,  most  probable,  and  most  historical  that  I  have  so  far  met  with. 

2  Kiddushin,  40b ;   Jer.  Pesahim,  iii.  7  ;    Schwab,  v.  p.  45. 
8  Nedarim,  48a. 


74  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

sufferings  will  come  upon  him  "  ?  *  And  then  we  have  the  well- 
known  saying  of  Hillel :  "No  boor  is  a  sinfearer,  nor  is  the  Am 
ha- Ares  pious."  2  It  would  be  easy  to  make  too  much  of 
these  sayings,  the  like  of  which  do  not  appear  to  be  very  frequent. 
In  HilleFs  saying  the  word  '  pious '  (Hasid)  has  possibly  a 
technical  sense,  meaning  '  rigidly  saintly.'  Or,  the  boor  is  the 
man  of  dull  and  coarse  sensibilities ;  scarcely,  the  simple  God- 
loving  fool.  And  we  must  remember  that  this  same  Hillel  is  the 
man  who  was  always  ready  to  pay  attention  to  anybody,  and 
whose  favourite  adage  was,  "  Love  the  creatures,  and  bring 
them  in  to  the  Law.  Be  a  disciple  of  Aaron ;  love  peace  and 
pursue  it." 

The  Rabbis,  moreover,  were  no  close  corporation.  They 
sprang  from  the  people,  were  often  lowly  born,  and  often  poor. 
Many  practised  a  handicraft,  for  it  was  forbidden  to  "  make 
a  livelihood  out  of  the  Law."  Some  were  well-to-do  ;  a  few 
were  rich.  But  the  rich  counted  no  higher  than  the  poor. 
It  was  an  aristocracy  of  knowledge,  and  this  aristocracy 
prevented  for  centuries  any  aristocracy  of  wealth.  The  honour 
paid  to  learning  and  knowledge  of  the  Law  gradually  grew 
more  and  more  universal.  If  any  family  had  a  Scholar  or 
a  Rabbi  among  its  members,  great  was  its  glory.  What  priva- 
tions the  student  and  the  student's  family  would  be  willing  to 
suffer  for  the  sake  of  learning  and  of  study !  And  it  was  a 
genuine  honour,  a  genuine  love.  The  Rabbi  was  no  priest.  He 
had  no  dispensing  power.  He  manipulated  no  sacrament.  He 
had  no  keys  of  heaven.  Not  through  him,  but  solely  by  your 
own  efforts,  and  by  the  mercy  of  God,  could  you  get  there.  There- 
fore the  respect  paid  to  learning  was  sincere  and  for  its  own  sake. 
We  have  already  noticed  the  constant  warning  against  pride. 

Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  the  Rabbis  had  no  thought  of 
ordinary  people,  their  needs,  their  sorrows,   or  their  virtues. 

1  Sanhedrin,  92a. 

2  Aboth,  ii.  6.  Cp.  Menahot,  43b  fin.  R.  Meir's  blessing  that  God  has  not 
made  him  a  boor. 


ii  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  75 

That  is  not  so.  Note  their  saying  :  "  If  you  have  no  time  for  a 
long  prayer,  use  a  short  one."  R.  Gamaliel  (end  of  first  century) 
said  that  the  Amidah — the  eighteen  Benedictions — should  be  said 
every  day.  R.  Joshua  (end  of  first  century)  said,  the  substance  of 
them.  R.  Akiba  said,  If  a  man's  prayer  is  fluent  in  his  mouth, 
let  him  say  the  whole  Amidah ;  if  not,  let  him  say  the  substance. 
Thus  the  Mishnah.  The  Gemara  gives  an  example  of  a  prayer 
which  may  be  called  '  the  substance ' :  it  would  take  only  two 
minutes  to  say.1  The  Rabbis  realised  that  there  was  a  time 
for  long  prayers  and  a  time  for  short.  There  is  a  nice  story  of 
R.  Eliezer  ben  Hyrkanus  (first  century).  A  student  was  offering 
prayer  in  the  Synagogue,  and  was  dragging  out  his  prayer  at 
greater  length  than  usual.  His  fellow  students  said  to  Eliezer, 
Master,  how  he  elongates  !  Eliezer  replied,  Does  he  elongate 
more  than  Moses  who  prayed  for  forty  days  and  nights  ?  On 
another  occasion  a  student  was  surprisingly  short,  and  his  fellows 
said,  How  he  shortens  !  Eliezer  replied,  Does  he  shorten  more 
than  Moses,  who  prayed,  "  0  God,  heal  her "  ?  2  Eliezer's 
own  example  of  a  short  prayer,  such  as  one  might  pray  on  a 
voyage  in  a  place  of  danger,  is  very  delicate.  "  Thy  will  be  done 
in  heaven  above,  and  give  calm  of  spirit  to  those  who  fear  Thee 
below,  and  what  is  good  in  Thine  eyes,  do.  Blessed  art  Thou, 
0  Lord,  who  hearest  prayer."  3  The  following  prayer  must 
clearly  have  been  meant  for  the  people  at  large  :  "  The  wants 
of  Thy  people  Israel  are  many,  their  knowledge  is  small :  may  it  be 
Thy  will,  0  Lord  our  God,  to  give  to  every  one  his  sustenance,  and 
to  everybody  what  he  needs.  Blessed  art  Thou,  0  Lord,  who 
hearest  prayer."  4  "I  have  told  thee,"  God  is  made  to  say, : 
"  to  pray  in  the  Synagogue,  but  if  thou  canst  not,  pray  in  thy 
field,  and  if  thou  canst  not,  pray  in  thy  house,  and  if  thou  canst 
not,  pray  in  thy  bed,  and  if  thou  canst  not,  think  in  thy  heart 
and   be   still." 5     This   does  not   look  like   the   utterance   of 

1  Berachoth,  28b,  29a.  2  Berachoth,  34a. 

3  Berachoth,  29b.  4  Berachoth,  ibid. 

5  Pesikta  G.  xxv.  158a ;  Wiinsche,  p.  226. 


76  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

haughty  separatists.  Nor  does  the  story  of  the  woman  who 
brought  a  handful  of  meal  to  the  altar  as  her  sacrifice.  The 
priest  sneered  at  it.  But  in  a  dream  it  was  said  to  him :  "Account 
not  her  gift  as  small :  account  it  rather  as  if  she  had  offered  her- 
self." *  All  men,  said  R.  Eleazar  (third  century),  are  equal 
before  God,  women  and  slaves,  rich  and  poor.  He  did  not  say, 
learned  and  ignorant,  but  I  feel  pretty  sure  that  we  may  assume 
that  he  meant  it.2 

There  are  many  more  things  which  should  be  said  about  the 
effect  of  the  Law  upon,  and  its  relation  to,  the  entire  religion  of 
the  Jews  in  the  early  Rabbinic  period.  Many  sections  of  the 
subject  have  not  been  touched  upon  at  all.  Thus  the  extent, 
with  its  effects,  of  the  ritual  laws  should  be  discussed  :  the  food 
observances,  sexual  observances,  Sabbath  observances,  the  agri- 
cultural dues,  the  laws  of  clean  and  unclean,  are  all  exceedingly 
important.  Divorce,  polygamy,  and  the  position  and  estimate 
of  women,  would  all  require  careful  and  separate  treatment. 
Ethical  We  have  already  noticed  the  immense  stress  laid  by  the 

me™in     Teachers  upon  almsgiving  and  '  deeds  of  love.'    And  here  three 
Rabbinism.  p0mts  are  to  be  observed.     The  first  is  the  increasing  delicacy 
(a)  Chanty.  ^  sentjment.     Perhaps  the  sin  which  the  Rabbis  most  repro- 
bate is  putting  one's  neighbour  to  the  blush,  making  him  feel 
ashamed  in  public.    And  therefore  they  lay  the  utmost  stress 
upon  considerateness  and  delicacy  in  almsgiving.    Much  could 
!be  written  as  to  this,  and  many  charming  quotations  could 
v,  t  be  made.     Secondly,  the  clear  distinction  had   been  achieved 
[  between  almsgiving  and  the  higher  love.     Thirdly,  while  the 
Teachers  exalt  benevolence,  and  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that 
poor  and  rich  were  created  for  each  other,  the  former  helping 
to  create  the  '  merit '  for  the  latter,  they  are  yet  very  keen  (like 
Sirach)  on  independence,  and  have  many  sensible  remarks  to 
1  make  about  begging.     Akiba  said  that  it  was  better  to  go  with- 
out the  distinction  of  the  Sabbath  meal  (in  ordinary  circum- 

1  Leviticus  R.  iii.  5  ;  Wiinsche,  p.  22. 

2  Exodus  R.  xxi.  ;  Wiinsche,  p.  166. 


ii  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  77 

stances  a  joyful  duty)  than  to  ask  the  help  of  another.     To 
lend  may  be  better  than  to  give,  and  so  on.1 

On  two  points,  often  discussed,  Rabbinic  ethics  would,  I  (6)  For- 
believe,  come  out  of  a  close  investigation  with  credit  and  honour.  glveness' 
The  first  concerns  forgiveness.  "  The  day  of  Atonement  atones  w 
for  sins  between  a  man  and  his  God  ;  it  does  not  atone  for 
sins  between  a  man  and  his  neighbour  till  he  has  become  recon- 
ciled with  his  neighbour."  This  passage  from  the  Mishnah  is 
of  high  importance,  for  it  represents  the  considered  doctrine  of 
the  Synagogue.  It  is  repeated  in  the  Siphra,  and  a  teaching  of 
R.  Eleazar  b.  Azariah  (first  century)  is  added  :  "  Words  between  i  * 
thee  and  God  will  be  forgiven  thee  ;  words  between  thee  and  thy 
neighbour  will  not  be  forgiven  thee  till  thou  hast  softened  thy 
neighbour."  2  It  is,  perhaps,  true  that  the  Rabbis  thought 
more  of  the  doer  than  of  the  recipient  of  the  wrong.  They  were, 
perhaps,  more  keen  to  teach  that  the  doer  of  a  wrong  should  beg 
pardon  and  seek  reconciliation  than  that  the  recipient  should 
forgive.  A  characteristic  story  is  that  of  R.  Simon  b.  Eleazar 
(second  century).  He  once  saw  a  very  ugly  man,  and  called 
out,  "  How  ugly  you  are."  To  which  the  man  replied,  "  Go 
to  the  Master  who  made  me  and  reprove  Him."  Then  the 
Rabbi  leapt  from  his  ass,  and  begged  for  forgiveness.  But 
the  man  would  not  let  him  off  so  easily.  "He  followed  the 
Rabbi  all  the  way  to  the  city  of  his  residence,  and  on  arrival 
there  asked  the  people  who  their  Rabbi  was.  They  replied,  Him 
you  follow.  The  ugly  man  said,  If  he  is  a  Rabbi,  may  there 
be  few  like  him  in  Israel !  And  he  told  them  the  story.  They 
said,  Nevertheless,  forgive  him.  He  replied,  I  will  forgive  him 
on  condition  that  he  never  acts  like  that  again.  And  the  Rabbi 
preached  that  day  in  the  College,  Let  a  man  be  always  as  bending 

1  Cp.  Pesahim,  112a;  Sabbath,  118a;  Aboth  B.  Nathan,  iii.  8a;  Pollak, 
p.  27  ;   Mishnah  Peah,  viii.  8,  9. 

2  Yoma,  85b ;  Siphra,  83a  and  b.  Cp.  Dr.  Charles,  Religious  Development 
between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  pp.  151,  152.  His  translation  of  Yoma, 
86b,  is  erroneous,  and  the  contrast  between  it  and  Matthew  xviii.  21,  22,  falls 
to  the  ground.  Cp.  my  article  on  Jewish  Apocalypses  and  Rabbinic  Judaism 
in  The  Quest,  October  1915,  p.  165. 


b 


78  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

as  a  reed  and  not  stiff  like  a  cedar."  x  R.  Jehuda  b.  Tema 
(second  century)  was  wont  to  say,  "  If  you  have  done  your  neigh- 
bour a  small  injury,  in  your  eyes  let  it  seem  great ;  has  he  done 
you  a  great  injury,  in  your  eyes  let  it  seem  small.  And  forgive 
those  who  humiliate  you."  2  Often  repeated,  and  not  unjustly 
,  famous,  is  the  adage,  "  Of  those  who  are  humiliated,  and  do  not 
humiliate,  who  bear  insults  and  do  not  reply,  who  fulfil  (the 
Commands)  from  love,  and  rejoice  in  their  sufferings,  the  Scripture 
says,  *  They  who  love  Him  are  as  the  sun  when  he  goeth  forth 
in  his  might.'  "  3 

A  virtue  often  urged  is,  "  Not  to  insist  upon  one's  rights," 
which  seems  to  turn  into  the  equivalent  of  forbearance,  of 
yielding,  of  forgiveness.  Thus  was  it  said  by  Raba,  "  He 
who  passes  over  his  rights,  his  sins  are  passed  over."  It  is 
recorded  that  R.  Akiba's  prayers  were  heard  while  R.  Eliezer's 
prayers  were  not  heard— not  because  Akiba  was  greater  {i.e. 
more  learned)  than  Eliezer,  but  because  he  was  more  for- 
bearing.4 

The  Rabbinical  advance  in  ethical  distinction  and  delicacy 
is  also  illustrated  by  the  example  given  to  explain  the  distinc- 
tion between  revenge  and  bearing  a  grudge,  both  of  which  are 
forbidden  in  the  same  Pentateuchal  verse  (Lev.  xix.  18).  If  A 
asks  B  to  lend  him  a  sickle  and  B  refuses,  and  B  next  day  asks 
A  to  lend  him  an  axe,  and  A  refuses,  saying,  I  will  not  lend 
you  anything,  because  you  would  not  lend  me — that  is  revenge. 
But  if  A  asks  B  to  lend  him  a  sickle  and  B  refuses,  and  B  next 
day  asks  A  to  lend  him  an  axe,  and  A  does  so,  saying,  There  it  is, 
I  am  not  like  you,  who  would  not  lend  to  me — that  is  bearing  a 
grudge.5 
(c)  Love.  An  impression  is  current  that  the  word  love,  and  the  actions 

or  the  feelings  which  the  word  denotes,  were  unknown  in  Rabbinic 
Judaism.  But  the  more  one  reads  of  Rabbinic  literature,  the  more, 

1  Aboth  B.  Nathan,  xli.  66a ;  Pollak,  p.  139. 

2  Aboth  B.  Nathan,  xli.  67a ;  Pollak,  p.  141. 

3  Sabbath,  88b.     Cp.  Baba  Kamma,  92a,  93a. 

4  Yoma,  23a,  87b ;  Taanith,  25b.  5  Yoma,  23a. 


ii  THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  79 

I  think,  one  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  not  much  to 
be  said  for  the  old  familiar  contrast  of  Righteousness  for  Judaism 
and  Love  for  Christianity.  Modern  Jews  in  polemical  literature 
have  often  taken  the  foolish  line  of  trying  to  turn  the  tables 
upon  their  critics  by  saying,  "  We  accept  the  contrast,  and  glory 
in  it.  Righteousness  is  higher  than  love  !  "  The  historian  will 
let  these  verbal  contests  and  sophistries  lie.  He  will  perceive 
that  there  was  in  Rabbinic  literature  from  the  first  century 
onwards  a  passionate  love  for  God,  a  passionate  love  for  His  Law, 
and  a  very  real  love  of  neighbour.  These  various  loves  were 
shown  by  practical  service,  by  delicate  charity,  and,  so  far  as 
God  was  concerned,  by  obedience  culminating  in  martyrdom. 
Life  under  the  Law,  so  far  as  loving  deeds  and  gentle  bene- 
volence are  concerned,  leaves  little  to  be  desired. 

It  is  another  question  whether  there  existed  a  feeling  of  love 
to  all  men,  including  the  sinner  and  the  enemy.     That  Hillel's 
form  of  the  golden  rule  is  negative  I  do  not  think  so  important 
as  Christian  writers,  in  their  very  natural  desire  to  magnify 
the  uniqueness  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  always  make  out.     That 
sameHillel  said,  "  Love  mankind,  and  bring  them  in  to  the  Law," 
which  is  positive  enough  in  all  conscience.     Nevertheless,  suum 
cuique.    And  I  should  be  far  from  attempting  to  deny  the 
original  elements  in  the  Gospel  teaching.     The  summons  not  K .• 
to  wait  till  they  meet  you  in  your  sheltered  and  orderly  path, 
but  to  go  forth  and  seek  out  and  redeem  the  sinner  and  the    |l 
fallen,  the  passion  to  heal  and  bring  back  to  God  the  wretched  * 
and  the  outcast — all  this  I  do  not  find  in  Rabbinism;  that  form: 
of  love  seems  lacking. 

These  remarks  are  but  suggestions,  to  wards  a  picture  of  the  Conclusion. 
tendencies  of  Jewish  religious  thought  at  the  close  of  the  first 
century.  They  reveal  a  fine  Theistic  religion,  peculiar  and 
special  in  its  frequent  strength  and  in  its  occasional  weakness. 
It  was,  at  any  rate,  a  religion  in  which  God  was  a  most  present 
reality.  Let  all  thy  deeds,  said  Hillel,  be  in  the  name  of  heaven. 
In  other  words,  let  them  all  be  done  for  the  glory  of  God.    It  was 


80  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

God's  glory,  I  fancy,  and  the  delicate  sense  of  charity  which  His 
religion  was  generating,  that  prompted  Hillel  to  provide  a  horse 
and  a  slave  for  a  poor  man  of  noble  family,  and  that  made  him, 
on  an  occasion  when  there  was  no  slave  to  run  in  front  of  the 
horse,  run  some  distance  himself,  so  that  the  poor  man  might 
maintain  his  honour.1 

"  Deeds  of  loving-kindness  "  :  not  always  the  sort  of  deeds 
which  we  should  do  to-day,  but  fair  and  delicate  deeds,  never- 
theless. 

"  A  legal  religion."  Yes,  but  a  religion  which  culminated 
in  the  view  that  for  God's  sake  and  His  Law's  sake,  for 
the  pure  love  of  God  and  for  the  pure  love  of  His  Law,  must 
all  commands  be  fulfilled,  that  the  intention  is  even  greater 
than  the  deed,  and  that  thoughts  of  sin  are  even  more  serious 
than  the  sin  itself.2  "The  day  is  short,"  said  the  stern 
and  rigid  R.  Tarphon,  who  had  seen  the  Temple  worship  in 
its  glory,  "  and  the  task  is  great,  and  the  reward  is  much." 
Do  you  say,  "  Ah,  always  that  odious  mention  of  reward  "  ? 
And  what  sort  of  man  was  this  R.  Tarphon  ?  One  Sabbath 
day  his  mother's  sandals  split  and  broke,  and  as  she  could 
not  mend  them,  she  had  to  walk  across  the  courtyard  bare- 
foot. So  Tarphon  kept  stretching  his  hands  under  her  feet, 
so  that  she  might  walk  over  them  all  the  way.3  Another 
day,  at  the  close  of  the  fig  harvest,  he  was  walking  in 
a  garden,  and  he  ate  some  figs  that  had  been  left  behind. 
The  custodians  of  the  garden  came  up,  caught  him,  and 
beat  him  unmercifully.  Then  Tarphon  called  out,  and  said 
who  he  was,  whereupon  they  stopped  and  let  him  go.  Yet  all 
his  days  did  he  grieve,  for  he  said,  "  Woe  is  me,  for  I  have  used 
the  crown  of  the  Law  for  my  own  profit."  For  the  teaching 
ran  :  A  man  must  not  say,  I  will  study,  so  as  to  be  called  a  wise 
man,  or  an  elder,  or  to  have  a  seat  in  the  College,  but  he  must 

1  Be§a,  16a  ;   Kethuboth,  67b ;  Jer.  Peak,  viii.  8 ;   Schwab,  vol.  ii.  p.  114. 

2  Yoma,  29a  init. 

3  The  story  is  most  intelligently  told  in  Jer.  Kiddushin,  i.  8 ;    Jer.  Peak, 
i.  1 ;   Schwab,  ii.  p.  9 ;   Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  p.  344,  n.  1. 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  JUDAISM  81 

study  from  love,  the  honour  will  come  of  itself.1  Finally,  let 
us  recall  what  R.  Eleazar  b.  Sadok  (first  century),  who,  an  older 
man  than  Tarphon,  also  saw  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  was  wont  to 
say,  "  Do  the  words  of  the  Law  for  the  doing's  sake,  and  speak  of 
them  for  their  own  sake.  Make  them  not  .a  crown  with  which 
to  exalt  thyself,  or  a  spud  with  which  to  weed."  2 
A  strange  legalism ! 

1  Jer.  Shebi'ith,  iv.  3  ;  Schwab,  ii.  p.  358  ;  Nedarim,  62b.  Cp  the  story 
in  Baba  Bathra,  8a,  of  R.  Jehudah  I.,  the  Patriarch  (Rabbi),  and  R.  Jonathan 
(second  century),  an  odd  mixture  of  intolerance  and  delicacy. 

2  Nedarim,  62b ;    Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  p.  48,  n.  2  and  3. 

For  Bibliography  see  end  of  volume. 


VOL.  I 


Ancient 


III 

VARIETIES  OF  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM 

By  The  Editors 

When  Christianity  made  its  appearance  Judaism  was  one  of 
the  most  active  and  vigorous  religious  forces  in  the  world. 
Religious  activity  is,  however,  mainly  revealed  in  diversity,  and 
it  is  almost  impossible  for  a  living  church  to  be  a  united  one. 
When  men  feel  intensely  the  need  of  communion  with  God,  they 
differ  most  as  to  the  means  of  attaining  it.  Vital  religion  is,  after 
all,  a  great  experiment,  and  each  man  resolves  to  try  his  own 
methods. 

The  Old  Testament  tells  us  less  than  we  should  desire  about 

wi°n°f  tlie  religion  of  Israel  down  to  tne  Captivity.  We  infer  that, 
upon  the  whole,  it  was  traditional,  national,  tribal,  and  domestic. 
But  it  was  honourably  distinguished  by  the  constant  protest 
which  was  raised  against  the  popular  conception  of  Israel's 
relation  to  God.  The  prophets  insisted  that  God's  favour  was 
not  due  to  partiality,  but  had  a  moral  end  ;  God  had  loved  and 
chosen  Israel,  not  from  caprice,  but  to  work  out  a  purpose  of 
his  own.  Even  if  he  had  instituted  the  sacrificial  worship,  which 
some  denied,  its  object  was  purely  secondary.  He  desired 
obedience  rather  than  sacrifice,  and  preferred  national  righteous- 
ness to  the  due  performance  of  religious  rites.  Amos  in  Israel 
and  Isaiah  in  Judah,  though  living  in  the  midst  of  a  people 
scrupulous  as  to  ceremonial  observance,  denounced  the  whole 
apparatus  of  the  religion  around  them.  Others,  like  the  "  schools 
of  the  prophets  "  and  the  Rechabites,  formed  separate  religious 

82 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  83 

communities.  In  appearance,  dress,  and  gesture  the  prophet 
was  not  as  other  men,  and  he  was  almost  always  opposed  to  the 
existing  order. 

The  Captivity  converted  the  Jewish  nation  into  a  church,  Effect 
composed  of  men  united  by  ties  of  blood,  but  dispersed  and  captfvity. 
living  under  the  most  diverse  conditions.  They  found  union 
in  the  Law,  which  was  probably  promulgated  in  the  fifth 
century  B.C.  But  the  Law  could  only  be  kept  completely  in 
Palestine;  and  from  this  arose  a  distinction  between  Jews  living  in 
the  Holy  Land  and  those  whose  circumstances  compelled  them 
to  have  their  homes  elsewhere.  These  last — commonly  known  as 
the  "  Diaspora  "  or  the  "  Dispersion  " — could  only  partially  obey 
the  Law,  and  some  were  further  divided  from  the  native  Jews  by 
language.  Henceforward,  there  were  two  great  divisions  in 
Judaism,  alluded  to  in  Acts  vi.  1  as  'Hebrews'  and  'Hellenists/1 

The  Law  contemplated  an  isolated  nation — a  peculiar  people,  the  Law. 
whose  '  holiness,'  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  word,  cut  them  (a)  The 
off  from  the  rest  of  humanity.  But  circumstances  proved  too 
strong  for  the  legal  ideal.  The  Jews  discerned  that  the  heathen 
were  not  senseless  idolaters,  but  rather  that  they  had  much  to 
teach  the  elect  nation.  They  found  points  of  contact,  first  with 
Persia,  then  with  Greece.  Some  fought  against  these  outside 
influences,  some  yielded,  some  tried  to  adapt  them,  and  division 
was  the  inevitable  consequence.  The  dualism  of  Persia,  the 
idealism  of  Plato,  and  the  asceticism  of  Pythagoras  inevitably 
modified  the  religion  of  the  Law. 

Even  those  who  lived  in  Jerusalem,  privileged  to  enjoy  the  (&)  Jem- 
worship  of  the  Temple,  and  able  to  observe  the  Law  as  no  other  8a  em' 
Jews  could,  experienced  a  desire  for  separation.  They  found  that 
if  in  theory  their  condition  was  ideal,  it  was  not  so  in  practice ; 
and  the  sins  of  the  Holy  City  led  them  to  wish  for  some  place 
where  they  could  obey  God  in  pious  seclusion.  Unity  was  soon 
found  to  be  impossible,  even  in  the  precincts  of  the  Sanctuary. 

1  Cf.  also  Acts  xi.  20,  where  the  reading  of  the  MSS.  varies  between  "EM^as 
and  'EXX^i/icrrds. 


84  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

Sources.  Great  obscurity  hangs  over  the  subject  of  the  sects ;  con- 

temporary authorities  are  very  meagre,  and  often  leave  us  in 
considerable  uncertainty  whether  what  are  called  sects  were  such 
in  our  sense  of  the  word.  In  the  New  Testament,  for  example, 
we  read  of  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Herodians,  perhaps  Zelots, 
Galilaeans,  Sicarii,  Samaritans,  and  disciples  of  John ;  but  we 
have  no  knowledge  whether  any  of  these  were  formal  associa- 
tions, for  the  question  of  the  Jewish  societies  (Haberim)  is  very 
difficult. 
(a)  Epi-  The  first  Christian  writer  to  give  a  catalogue  of  Jewish  sects 

phanius.  ig  Epiphanius  (fl.  a.d.  380).  He  enumerates  in  his  Panarion 
(1.  1)  seven  sects :  Sadducees,  Scribes,  Pharisees,  Hemero- 
baptists,  Nasaraei,  Ossenes,  and  Herodians.  The  Samaritans 
he  regards  as  on  the  border-line  between  Judaism  and  Heathen- 
ism ;  they  are  divided  into  four  sects  :  Essenes,  Sebouaei,  Gor- 
theni,  and  Dositheans.  Whenever  it  is  possible  to  control  Epi- 
phanius  by  reference  to  earlier  writers  or  known  facts,  his  com- 
plete untrustworthiness  is  apparent.  What  he  says  about  Scribes, 
Pharisees,  Sadducees,  Herodians,  and  Essenes  is  negligible  and 
absurd.  As  to  the  other  sects,  he  must  be  treated  with  suspicion. 
The  statements  which  he  makes  are  as  follows  : 

(1)  The  Hemerobaptists— -These  agreed  with  the  Pharisees 
and  Scribes  rather  than  the  Sadducees,  but  insisted  on  daily 
washings  throughout  the  year.  "  For  this  sect  maintained  that 
life  was  impossible  for  man,  unless  he  were  daily  baptized  in 
water,  being  washed  and  purified  (ayvi£6/uuevo<;)  from  all  guilt." 

(2)  The  Nasaraei  (Nacrapaloi,)  —  This  sect  existed  in  Gilead 
and  Bashan,  east  of  Jordan.  Though  they  accepted  Circum- 
cision, Sabbath,  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  venerated  the  Patriarchs, 
they  rejected  sacrifice,  animal  food,  and  the  Pentateuch  as  alien 
to  the  revelation  given  to  Moses. 

This  statement  of  Epiphanius  has  been  used  by  W.  B.  Smith  1 
and  others  to  explain  the  statement  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts 
that  Jesus  was  from  Nazareth.    It  is  certainly  true  that  Epi- 

1  W.  B.  Smith,  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus.     See  Appendix  B,  p.  432. 


in  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  85 

phanius  clearly  distinguishes  these  Nasaraei  from  the  Nazarenes 
(Na^copaloi)  or  Jewish  Christians  ;  and  there  is  no  proof  outside 
the  Gospels  that  any  city  of  Nazareth  existed  in  the  time  of  Jesus. 
Moreover,  Epiphanius  admits  that  all  the  other  sects  had  dis- 
appeared by  his  time,  except  the  Nasaraei  and  the  orthodox 
Jews.  There  may  have  been  such  a  sect ;  but  Epiphanius  is 
quite  capable  of  inventing  one  by  confusing  its  adherents  with 
Jews  who  had  taken  a  Nazarite  vow. 

(3)  The  Ossenes. — These  came  from  Nabataea,  Ituraea,  and 
Moab,  the  eastern  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  but  in  the  second  century 
all  had  been  absorbed  in  the  Gnostic  heresy  of  Elxai.  They 
are  described  as  agreeing  with  the  Nasaraei  in  rejecting  the 
Pentateuch.  Epiphanius  clearly  distinguishes  the  Ossenes  from 
the  Essenes,  but  it  is  obvious  that  these  are  really  identical.1 

The  Rabbinical  writings  are  none  of  them  earlier  than  about  (&)Rabbini- 
a.d.  200,  though  based  in  part  on  tradition  reaching  back  to  the  cal  vvriting8. 
Apostolic  Age. 

The  oldest  part  of  the  Rabbinical  literature  is  the  reduction 
to  writing  of  the  oral  law  as  it  was  developed  in  the  schools  in  the 
first  and  second  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  In  some  schools 
the  oral  law  was  taught  in  connexion  with  the  weekly  lesson  in 
the  Pentateuch,  in  others  it  was  gone  through  according  to  an 
ordered  list  of  subjects  on  a  system  attributed  to  Akiba.  The 
former  method  is  represented  by  the  Mekilta,  Sifra,  and  Sifre 
(on  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers-Deuteronomy,  respectively) ; 
the  latter,  which  eventually  prevailed,  produced  the  Mishna  off 
Jadah  the  Patriarch  (about  a.d.  200),  the  Tosephta,  and  numer-  \ 
ous  other  works  of  the  same  kind  which  are  known  only  through  i 
quotations  in  the  Talmuds,  where  they  are  designated  as  Baraitas,  \ 
or  traditions  extraneous  to  the  official  Mishna.  The  codification 
of  Judah  came  to  be  recognised  as  the  authoritative  Mishna,  and 
may  be  called  the  canon  of  the  traditional  law. 

1  For  the  relation  of  Epiphanius  to  Pseudo-Tertullian  and  Philastrius  and 
their  common  indebtedness  to  a  lost  treatise  of  Hippolytus,  see  R.  A.  Lipsius, 
Zur  Quellenkritik  des  Epiphanius,  Vienna,  1865. 


86  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

Henceforth  the  work  of  the  schools  was  the  discussion  of  the 
meaning,  reason,  and  application  of  the  Mishna,  the  reconciliation 
of  apparently  conflicting  rules,  and  similar  questions.  These 
discussions  form  the  bulk  of  the  two  Talmuds,  one  proceeding 
from  the  Palestinian  schools,  the  other  from  the  Babylonian ; 
but  they  contain  much  other  matter  more  or  less  loosely  connected 
with  the  subject  in  hand — interpretation  of  Scripture  or  homi- 
letical  improvements  upon  it,  Biblical  legends,  anecdotes,  folk- 
p  |  lore  and  fable,  popular  superstitions.  The  legal  matter  is  called 
I  Halaka  (rule  to  go  by),  the  rest  is  Hagada  (vaguely, '  teaching  '). 

*  I  The  doctors  of  the  Law  in  the  schools  of  the  Mishna  in  the  first 
J  and  second  centuries  are  called  Tannaim  (Traditionists) ;    their 

*  j  successors  down  to  the  completion  of  the  Talmuds  are  the 
JAmoraim  (Lecturers).     The  compilation  and  redaction  of  the 

Palestinian  Talmud,  erroneously  called  the  Jerusalem  Talmud, 
was  ended  in  the  fifth  century,  that  of  the  Babylonian  half  or 
three-quarters  of  a  century  later. 

Besides  the  Talmuds,  which  embody  the  labours  of  the 
schools,  there  is  a  large  body  of  Midrashim,  representing  the 
teaching  in  the  synagogues,  either  in  the  form  of  homilies  on  the 
pericopes  for  special  Sabbaths,  or  on  the  whole  cycle  of  lessons, 
or  of  continuous  homiletical  commentaries  on  books  of  the 
Bible.  In  age,  these  compilations  range  from  perhaps  the  fourth 
or  fifth  century  to  the  Middle  Ages,  but  the  material  they  contain 
in  part  goes  back  as  far  as  the  second  century. 

The  character  of  these  sources  explains  why  the  student 
who  expects  to  find  in  them  historical  information  is  doomed 
to  disappointment.  Even  of  a  crisis  such  as  the  revolt  under 
Hadrian  there  is  nowhere  even  the  briefest  account;  nothing 
but  allusions  and  anecdotes,  chiefly  about  rabbis. 

In  the  attempt  to  extract  information  about  the  Jewish  sects 
from  the  Rabbinical  writings,  the  first  difficulty  is  one  of  identi- 
fication. It  is,  for  example,  natural  to  look  for  something  about 
the  Essenes  ;  but  what  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  name  is  disguised 
in  this  Greek  word  no  one  has  been  able  to  say  even  with  proba- 


in  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  87 

bility,  nor  is  the  sect  recognisable  in  any  description.  Another 
difficulty  is  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  zeal  of  Christian  censors 
to  expurgate  the  Talmud  of  all  real  or  supposed  references  to 
Christianity  led  the  editors  to  substitute  '  Sadducees,'  or  some 
other  sect  that  had  no  friends,  for  the  suspected  word  *  Minim ' 
or  *  heretics ' ;  this  confusion  is,  however,  not  beyond  the 
reach  of  remedy  by  recourse  to  manuscript  evidence  and  early 
editions.  Incidentally  it  may  be  said  that  *  Gemara  '  in  modern 
printed  editions  is  a  substitute  for  the  word  '  Talmud,'  in 
deference  to  the  prejudice  of  the  censors  against  the  very  name 
of  the  book  ;   the  meaning,  *  instruction,'  is  the  same. 

More  satisfactory  as  contemporary  evidence  are  the  two  (c)  Phiio 
Jewish  writers  who  employ  the  Greek  language,  Philo  and  Jose-  ahu3Jose' 
phus.  But  unfortunately  the  statements  of  Philo  are  confined 
to  a  single  treatise,  the  Be  vita  contemplative^,  while  Josephus 
gives  but  short  accounts  of  the  sects  in  the  second  book  of  the 
Jewish  War  and  in  the  eighteenth  of  the  Antiquities,  which 
constantly  referred  to  hereafter. 

In  dealing  with  the  sects  the  following  arrangement  will  be 
adopted  :  I.  The  Asidaeans,  the  earliest  sect  or  party  among 
the  Jews  of  which  we  have  historical  mention.  II.  The  ascetic 
sects,  which  retired  to  practise  a  stricter  life.  III.  Those  which 
existed  as  parties  in  official  Judaism.  IV.  The  Samaritans, 
the  great  formal  separation  from  Judaism.  V.  The  ignorant, 
or  "  people  of  the  Land  "  (p^rr  ^DS).  VI.  The  writers  of  the 
Apocalyptic  literature. 

I.  The  Asidaeans 

In  1  Maccabees  the  rising  of  Mattathias  and  his  sons  was  the 
supported  by  an  assembly  (avvaycoyrj)  of  Asidaeans.     We  are  E 
not  told  who  these  were,  though  evidently  they  were  strict  and 
willing  observers  of  the  Law  (etcovo-La^ofievo^  rov  vo/xov).     But 
they  had  no  sympathy  with  the  political  side  of  the  Maccabean 
struggle ;    for  directly  the  Syrians  allowed  Alcimus,  a  man  of 


Sect. 


of  Asi- 
daeans. 


88  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

undoubted  Aaronic  descent,  to  go  to  Jerusalem  as  High  Priest, 
the  Asidaeans  withdrew  from  all  participation  in  the  struggle, 
abandoning  Judas  the  Maccabee  to  his  fate,  whereupon  sixty 
were  slain  by  the  Syrian  general,  Bacchides.1  From  this  we  may 
infer  that  their  acknowledged  zeal  for  the  Law  did  not  make 
them  desire  even  the  independence  of  their  country,  provided 
the  practice  of  their  religion  was  assured  to  them.  This  would 
tend  to  confirm  the  view  that  the  Asidaeans  were  a  sect  occupied 
solely  in  religion  and  indifferent  to  worldly  affairs.  Their  name 
has  a  close  resemblance  to  the  Hebrew  word  hasid  (TDH),  common 
in  the  Psalms,  and  translated  indifferently  *  saint '  and  '  holy 
one.'  It  has  been  supposed  that  Ps.  lxxix.  2  actually  mentioned 
the  Asidaeans,  when  it  speaks  of  the  "  dead  bodies  of  thy  holy 
ones  "  (TTDn).  After  the  Maccabean  war  we  hear  no  more  of 
these  Asidaeans  ;  but -it  may  be  that  they  reappear  afterward, 
either  as  Pharisees  or  Essenes,  or  even  in  both  sects. 

The  point  of  difficulty  is  this  :  We  meet  with  the  Asidaeans 
j  during  the  Maccabean  struggle,  but  there  is  no  mention  of  Phari- 
sees or  Essenes,  and  when,  after  that  period,  Pharisees  and 
|  Essenes  come  into  our  notice  there  is  no  mention  of  Asidaeans. 
There  are,  therefore,  three  attractive  hypotheses  as  to  the  course 
of   events  after  the  Maccabean  struggle.      (1)  The  Asidaeans 
split  into  two,  Pharisees  and  Essenes,  the  old  name  being  kept 
by  neither.     (2)  The  Pharisees  are  the  direct  descendants  of 
j  the  Asidaeans,  while  the  Essenes  have  a  separate  origin.     (3)  The 
\  Essenes  represent  the  Asidaeans,  and  the  Pharisees  are  a  new 
j  development.    But  no  decisive  evidence  can  be  alleged  in  favour  of 
)  any  of  these  hypotheses,  each  of  which  is  possible  enough  in  itself. 
In  support  of  the  first  may  be  alleged  general  probability, 
in  so  far  that  the  Pharisees  and  Essenes  first  appear  after  the 
last  mention  of  the  Asidaeans. 

1  See  1  Mace.  ii.  42  (x  and  B  read  lovdeuwv  and  A  Acndetov)  and  vii.  13  (irpurov 
01  'AaidaXoi).  In  2  Mace.  xvi.  6  these  Asidaeans  are  wrongly  confounded  with 
the  followers  of  Judas.  From  the  treatise  Nedarim  (Vows),  10a,  it  had  been 
inferred  that  the  earlier  n^von  were  legalistic  ascetics.  (See  Encyclopaedia 
Biblica,  'Asidaeans,'  by  Robertson  Smith  and  Cheyne.) 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PKACTICE  IN  JUDAISM       .    89 

In  support  of  the  second  it  has  been  urged  that  the  Greek 
Psalms  of  Solomon,  which  is  almost  certainly  a  Pharisaic  work,1 
refers  to  the  writer's  adherents  as  octioi,  which  probably  repre- 
sents hasidim  in  the  lost  Hebrew  original.  But  he  also  calls 
them  BUaiot,  tttco^oI,  and  aicaKoi>  and  shows  no  consciousness 
that  oaios,  or  the  word  it  translates,  is  the  name  of  a  party. 

In  favour  of  the  identification  of  the  Essenes  with  the  Asid- 
aeans  is  the  fact  that  Philo  2  refers  to  them  as  'Eaaalot  rj  oaiot. 
It  is  also  urged  that  their  attitude  shows  that,  like  the  Asidaeans, 
their  interests  were  religious  rather  than  political.  But  Philo 
is  merely  translating  'Ecrcratot,  which  he  probably  identified  with 
o<tlo<$  ;  3  he  does  not  mention  the  Asidaeans,  and  it  is  in  any  case 
true  that  'AaiBa'toi  and  'EaaatoL  cannot  transliterate  the  same 
word,  while  that  both  could  be  fairly  translated  by  oaiot, 
is  neither  strange  nor  important.  It  is  an  abuse  of  criticism, 
especially  in  the  Psalter,  always  to  see  Asidaeans  when  D^TDH 
are  mentioned. 

II.  The  Ascetic  Sects 

The  Essenes  were  ascetics,  living  in  communities,  practising  (a)  The 
a  strict  discipline,  and  endeavouring  to  live  an  ideal  life.  Even  EsSENES- 
in  the  Old  Testament  we  meet  with  similar  tendencies  in  the 
"  schools  of  the  prophets,"  in  the  "  sons  of  Rechab,"  and  in  men 
like  Elijah  the  Tishbite.  Our  information  concerning  Essenism 
rests  mainly  on  the  testimony  of  Philo,  Josephus,  and  Pliny  the 
Elder,  for  the  accounts  in  Hippolytus  and  Epiphanius  seem  to  be 
secondary  to  these.4 

1  See  p.  111.  2  Quod  omnis  probus  liber,  12. 

3  Cf.  the  quotation  in  Eusebius,  Praep.  Evang.  viii.  11.  1. 

4  The  description  of  the  Essenes  given  by  Hippolytus,  Refutatio,  ix.  13  ff., 
seems  to  be  taken  from  Josephus.  There  is,  however,  sufficient  difference  to 
raise  the  question  whether  Josephus  and  Hippolytus  are  using  a  common  source. 
The  chief  point  is  in  Befut.  ix.  21,  when  Hippolytus  says  :  "  The  adherents  of 
another  party  (among  the  Essenes),  if  they  happen  to  hear  any  one  maintaining 
a  discussion  concerning  God  and  his  laws — supposing  such  to  be  an  uncircum- 
cised  person — they  will  closely  watch  him,  and  when  they  meet  a  person  of 
this  description  in  any  place  alone,  they  will  threaten  to  slay  him  if  he  refuse 


90  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

Philo  begins  his  book,  De  vita  contemplativa,  with  the  state- 

:  ment  that  he  has  already  written  on  the  Essenes  ('Eao-aiayv  irepi 

'  hicCke,)(deis;),  and  the  notices  of  them  in  his  Quod  omnis  probus  liber 

and  in  the  Apology  for  the  Jews  quoted  by  Eusebius  are  so  brief 

that  we  must  assume  that  a  treatise  about  them  has  been  lost. 

i  He  regards  the  sect  as  '  active '  rather  than  '  contemplative.' 

'This  explains  the  mention  by  Josephus  *  of  an  Essene  acting  as 

a  Jewish  general  in  the  war  with  Home,  and  agrees  with  the 

I  view  which  identifies  the  sect  with  the  Asidaeans  who  fought 

I  under  Judas  the  Maccabee  as  long  as  his  aims  were  purely  re- 

*  ligious.    Essenism  was  an  order,  to  which  members  were  admitted 

by  passing  through  various  degrees  after  probationary  tests. 

Oaths  of  secrecy  were  imposed  with  a  vow  not  to  reveal  the 

names  of  the  angels.     Lustrations  and  purificatory  rites  were 

practised.     Women   were   not   admitted,    and   continence   was 

insisted  upon.     The  home  of  the  sect  was  the  western  shore  of 

the  Dead  Sea,  but  Essenes  seem  to  have  been  dispersed  in  several 

cities,  and  were  distinguished  by  their  white  garments  and  their 

strict  observance  of  the  laws  of  legal  purity.2    It  was  their 

practice  to  worship  facing  Jerusalem,  and  it  has  been  supposed 

that  they  even  adored  the  rising  sun. 

to  undergo  the  rite  of  circumcision.  Now  if  the  latter  does  not  wish  to  comply, 
they  do  not  spare,  but  even  kill  him.  It  is  from  this  occurrence  that  they  have 
received  their  appellation,  being  called  Zelotae  and  by  others  Sicarii.  And  the 
adherents  of  another  party  call  no  one  Lord  except  the  Denty,  even  though  one 
should  put  them  to  torture  or  even  kill  them." 

It  is  possible  that  this  passage  was  in  a  source  used  both  by  Hippolytus 
and  Josephus,  but  the  facts  seem  sufficiently  explained  by  a  confusion  made 
by  Hippolytus  between  the  description  given  by  Josephus  of  the  Essenes  and 
of  the  '  philosophy '  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  together  with  the  fact  that  Masada, 
the  fortress  of  the  Sicarii,  was  in  the  country  of  the  Essenes  (see  also  p.  422). 

Epiphanius  is  completely  confused  on  the  subject  of  the  Essenes,  out  of 
whom  he  has  made  a  Samaritan  sect  of  Essenes  and  a  Jewish  sect  of  Ossenes 
(Panarion,  i.  10  and  19).  *  B.J.  iii.  2.  1. 

2  The  article  on  Essenes  in  Hamburger's  Real-Encyclopddie  tries  to  identify 
the  orders  among  the  Essenes,  but  these  are  obtained  only  by  assuming  that 
various  classes  of  Jews  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  by  names  referring  to  special 
practices,  such  as  Toble  Shaharith,  or  morning  bathers  (Hemerobaptists),  really 
belonged  to  the  Essenes,  for  which  there  is  no  evidence. 

It  is,  however,  important  to  note  that  Josephus  states  that  the  Essenes 


pi  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  91 

This  view  has  been  based  on  the  words  of  Josephus,  B.J.  ii.  Sun 

n    w  /  \\/i«  »/-»«>*/  vv>  «        \      worship. 

8.  5  :  irpos  ye  fir)v  to  veiov  evaepecs  lolw  irpiv  yap  avacr^etv  rov 
rfkiov  ovBev  (pOeyyovrac  tcov  ftefirjXcov  irarpiovs  Be  rivas  et?  avrov 
eu%a?  coairep  LKerevovre^  avarelXai.  As  it  stands,  this  must  mean 
that  they  prayed  to  the  sun  to  rise  ;  but  the  worship  of  the  sun 
is  so  foreign  to  later  Jewish  custom  that  the  suspicion  is  aroused 
whether  Josephus  does  not  mean  that  they  prayed  to  God,  and 
only  seemed  (coairep)  to  supplicate  the  sun.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  has  been  pointed  out  that  in  B.J.  ii.  8.  9  the  Essenes  are  said 
to  bury  excrement  a>?  jjutj  t<x?  avyas  vftpl^oiev  tov  ©eoO.1 

It  is  in  any  case  remarkable  that  they  faced  the  East.  This  \ 
is  the  general  Semitic  custom,  followed  by  Syriac  Christians ; 2  j 
but  the  Jews  always  face  towards  Jerusalem  and  Moslems  towards 
Mecca.  It  is  also  possible  that  some  attention  ought  to  be  paid 
to  the  statement  of  Epiphanius 3  that  the  '  Ossenes '  were 
mostly  converted  by  Elxai  in  the  time  of  Trajan,  and  that  the 
remnants  of  them,  still  existing  to  the  east  of  Jordan,  were  known 
as  to  yevos  2e/^atW,  which  suggests  the  Hebrew  word  for 
sun  (mom). 

The  whole  question  turns  largely  on  whether  Essenism  is 
to  be  regarded  as  a  movement  entirely  internal  to  Judaism  or 
as  largely  due  to  external  heathen  influences.    The  apparently  ' 
Greek  character  of  Essenism,  both  in  thought  and  practice,  and 
especially  their  similarity  to  the  Neo-Pythagoreans,  has  often 
been  observed.4    But  it  is  more  probable  that  it  is  due  to  the  j 
wave  of  asceticism  and  of  a  tendency  to  abandon  society  in  1 
favour  of  a  more  secluded  and  simpler  life,  which  was  sweeping  j 
over  the  whole  ancient  world,  rather  than  to  the  direct  influence 

were  divided  on  the  question  of  marriage.  One  party  rejected  all  marriage 
and  the  procreation  of  children  :  the  other  advocated  procreation  and  admitted 
marriage  for  that  purpose  (see  Josephus,  B.J.  ii.  9.  13). 

1  See  J.  B.  Lightfoot's  essay  on  the  Essenes  in  his  commentary  on  Colos- 
sians  and  T.  K.  Cheyne's  Origin  of  the  Psalter,  p.  448. 

2  Cf.  Cureton,  Ancient  Syriac  Documents,  pp.  24  and  60  in  the  Syriac  text ; 
Assemani,  Acta  Martyr.  Orient,  ii.  p.  125. 

3  Panar.  i.  1.  2. 

4  See  especially  E.  Zeller,  Die  Philosophic  der  Oriechen,  hi.  2,  pp.  277  ff. 


92  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

of  any  single  cult,  or  of  Hellenism  in  the  strict  sense.     The 

influences  at  work  were  intellectual  and  ethical  rather  than 

national. 

Essenes  The  Essenes  sent  offerings  to  the  Temple,  but  whether  they 

sacrifices,     offered  sacrifice  there  is  not  certain  ;  perhaps  their  ritual  forbade 

their  doing  so  with  other  Jews.     Philo *  says  'Eaaaioi  .   .   . 

1 7rap(ovv/jLOL    octlottjtos    eirei^r)    kclv    tois    fiaXiara    depanrevTol 

Seov  yeyovaaLv, ov  £&>a  KaraOvovres  aXk*  lepoir pern-els  ra?  eavrcoji 

p  Siavoia?  KaracrKevd^eiv  agiovvres.     But  the  text  of  the  MSS.  of 

Josephus 2  is  eh    Be    to    lepov   avaOrj^ara  areWovres    Ovaias 

\  eiriTeXovort    Biacf>op6rr]Ti    ayveiwv    a?    vojzi^oiev,    fcal    81'    avro 

elpyofjbevoc    rod    koivov    Te/JbeviafiaTOs    a<£'    avrwv    ra?    6vaia<; 

I    e7TCTe\ovcriv. 

Philo  has  usually  been  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  Essenes 
took  no  part  in  the  sacrifices  of  the  Temple,  and  it  is  held  that 
Josephus  contradicts  him.  The  editors  have  therefore  introduced 
a  negative  into  the  text  of  the  latter  on  the  authority  of  the 
'  Epitome '  and  the  old  Latin  version,  reading  ovk  iirireXovo-tVy 
and  emend  «(/>'  avrcov  to  ec/>'  avrcov,  "  in  their  own  houses  "  on 
the  authority  of  the  Epitome.  The  last  emendation  is  possible, 
but  the  insertion  of  ovk  cannot  be  justified ;  the  Latin  version 
is  too  free  to  be  authoritative.  Professor  G.  F.  Moore  has 
suggested  that  the  translation  should  be :  "  They  furnish 
votive  offerings  for  the  Temple  and  perform  sacrifices  with  what 
they  regard  as  superlative  purifications,  and  on  this  account, 
shut  off  from  the  common  courts,  they  perform  their  sacrifices 
apart.''  ®vaia  may  mean  minhah  (cereal  offering),  and  Josephus 
says  nothing  about  animals — the  only  point  to  which  Philo  refers. 
Moreover,  though  the  meaning  of  koivov  re/nev^o-fiaro?  is  obscure, 
Josephus,  if  unemended,  seems  to  say  that  the  Essenes  sent  their 
avaOrjfiara  to  the  Temple,  and  themselves  consecrated  them  in 
their  own  way. 

In  any  case  the  rejection  of  animal  sacrifice  cannot  be  regarded 
;   as  a  complete  breach  with  Judaism.     Judaism  ever  since  the 

1  Quod  omnis  probus  liber,  12.  2  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  5. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  93 

exile  and  the  rise  of  the  Diaspora  had  been  developing  towards ! 
the  Synagogue  and  away  from  the  Temple.  A  similar  instance1 
of  the  rejection  of  animal  sacrifice  may  perhaps  be  seen  in  the 
Sibyl,1  where  it  is  said  that  the  great  God  has  no  temple  of 
stone  nor  altars  defiled  by  the  blood  of  animals.  The  reference 
is  of  course  primarily  to  heathen  sacrifice,  but  its  tendency  is 
unmistakable. 

The  Essenes  were  distinguished  by  their  refusal  to  use  oil ; 2 
for  their  common  meals,  often  taken  in  silence  ;  for  their  esoteric 
doctrines ;  and  for  the  fact  that  no  stranger  could  obtain  admission 
to  their  lodges. 

Philo  does  not  allude  to  any  peculiarity  of  doctrine  among  Aiiegorism. 
the  Essenes,  but  in  the  Quod  omnis  probus  liber  3  he  says  :  "Of 
philosophy  they  have  left  the  logical  branch  to  word-catchers 
as  being  unnecessary  to  the  attainment  of  virtue,  and  the  physical 
branch  to  star-gazers,  as  too  high  for  human  nature,  except  so 
much  of  it  as  is  made  a  study  concerning  God  and  the  creation 
of  the  universe,  but  the  ethical  branch  they  study  very  elabor- 
ately, under  the  training  of  their  ancestral  laws,  the  meaning  of 
which  it  is  impossible  for  the  human  soul  to  discover  without 
divine  inspiration."  And  a  little  later  on  he  says  that  in  the 
reading  of  "  their  sacred  books,  another  of  the  most  experienced 
comes  forward  and  expounds  all  that  is  not  easily  intelligible  : 
for  most  subjects  are  treated  among  them  by  symbols  with  a 
zealous  imitation  of  antiquity."  It  is  clear  that  Philo  commends 
the  Essenes  for  their  use  of  allegorical  interpretation.  It  is, 
however,  not  certain  whether  the  "  sacred  books  "  in  this  passage 
refer  merely  to  the  Jewish  scriptures  or  to  books  peculiar  to  the 
Essenes.  At  present  no  Jewish  Apocryphal  books  can  be  certainly 
recognised  as  Essene  in  origin.  Nevertheless,  it  is  probable 
that  the  Essenes  had  books  of  their  own ;  for  Josephus  4  says 
that  the  initiates  into  Essenism  swore  "  to  communicate  their 

1  Oracula  Sibyllina,  iv.  8  ff.  24  ff. 

3  Josephus,  B.J.  ii.  8.  3  ;  cf.  F.  C.  Conybeare,  article  '  Essenes  '  in  Hastings' 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

8  Mangey,  ii.  p.  457.  *  B.J.  ii.  8.  7. 


94  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

doctrines  to  no  one  in  any  other  way  than  as  he  had  received 
them  himself,  and  that  he  will  abstain  from  brigandage,  and 
will  equally  preserve  the  books  belonging  to  their  sect  and  the 
names  of  their  angels." 
Doctrines.  Josephus,1   however,   gives   more   information   as   to   their 

peculiar  doctrines.  "  The  opinion  is  prevalent  among  them 
that  bodies  are  corruptible,  and  that  the  matter  they  are  made 
of  is  not  permanent,  but  that  souls  are  immortal  and  continue 
for  ever,  and  that  they  come  out  of  the  most  thin  air  and  are 
united  to  bodies  as  to  prisons,  into  which  they  are  drawn  by  a 
certain  natural  enticement ;  and  when  they  are  set  free  from 
the  bonds  of  the  flesh  they  then  rejoice  and  mount  upwards  as 
if  released  from  a  long  bondage.  They  think  also,  like  some  of 
the  Greeks  (reading  tmti  for  nralai),  that  good  souls  have  their 
habitations  beyond  the  Ocean  in  a  region  that  is  neither  oppressed 
with  storms  of  rain  or  snow,  nor  with  intense  heat,  but  refreshed 
by  the  gentle  breathing  of  the  west  wind  which  perpetually  blows 
from  the  Ocean  ;  while  they  allot  to  bad  souls  a  murky  and  cold 
den,  full  of  never-ceasing  punishments."  Moreover,  he  com- 
pares 2  the  Essenes  with  the  Pythagoreans.  In  his  Life  3  he  says 
that  he  made  trial  of  the  three  sects,  and  afterwards  passed  some 
time  as  the  disciple  of  a  severe  ascetic  named  Bannus,  whose 
life  was  not  unlike  the  Baptist's.  But  there  is  no  reason  for 
assuming,  as  is  usually  done,  that  Bannus  was  an  Essene.  On 
the  contrary,  Josephus  says  that,  having  passed  through  the 
sects,  he  resorted  to  the  company  of  Bannus,  who  obviously 
belonged  to  none  of  them, 
piiny  the  The  Essene  community,  with  its  strange  usages  and  beliefs, 

Elder*  attracted  the  attention  of  the  heathen  world,  as  is  shown  by  the 
notice  given  by  Pliny  the  Elder.  "  Ab  occidente  litore  Esseni 
fugiunt  usque  qua  nocent,  gens  sola  in  toto  orbe  praeter  ceteras 
mira,  sine  ulla  femina  omni  venere  abdicata  sine  pecunia 
socia  palmarum.  In  diem  ex  aequo  convenarum  turba  re- 
nascitur,  large  frequentantibus  quos  vita  fessos  ad  mores  eorum 

1  B.J.  ii.  8.  10.  2  Antiq.  xv.  10.  4.  3  Vita,  2. 


in  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  95 

fortuna  fluctibus  agit.  Ita  per  saeculorum  milia — incredibile 
dictu — gens  aeterna  est  in  qua  nemo  nascitur.  Tarn  fecunda 
illis  aliorum  vitae  paenitentia  est ! 


» 1 


The  Jews  of  the  dispersion  in  Egypt  anticipated  by  centuries  i(&)  The 
Christian  monasticism  in  that  country.    The  similarity  to  theL^TAE. 
accounts  given  by  Palladius  in  his  Lausiac  History  is  so  striking! 
that  many  scholars  were  disposed  to  believe  that  the  account  of 
the  Therapeutae  given  by  Philo  was  a  Christian  romance.     But* 
it  has  now  been  shown  that  the  De  vita  contemplativa  is  probably! 
a  genuine  part  of  the  Philonic  literature.2    The  book,  our  only 
source  of  information,  begins  with  an  allusion  to  the  Essenes,  Devita 
whose  life  is  contrasted  with  theirs  as  '  practical '  rather  than  Zhv™P~ 
*  theoretic*    The  Therapeutae,  male  and  female,  are  devoted  to  | 
a  life  of  contemplation,  and,  as  their  name  implies,  are  physicians! 
of  the  soul,  not  of  the  body.   They  begin  their  devotional  life  by  an 
absolute  renunciation  of  property,  and  desert  the  towns  for  a  life 
of  contemplation  in  the  wilderness.     Apparently  these  ascetics  * 
existed  in  many  parts  of  the  world  and  were  not  confined  to  Jews. 
But  their  chief  home  was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Lake  Mareotis,  n 
near  Alexandria,  where  they  settled  on  the  low  hills  on  account 
of  the  excellence  of  the  climate.     They  are  compared  to  the 
followers  of  Anaxagoras  and  Democritus.    Like  the  later  monks  ^ 
of  the  Mareotis,  the  Therapeutae  lived  in  separate  houses  or  cells, 
each  with  its  oratory.    They  met  together  only  on  the  Sabbath 
and  on  the  fiftieth  day,  in  preparation  for  which  the  seventh 
Sabbath  was  a  special  festival  {Travvv^). 

The  common  sanctuary  used  for  these  meetings  was  divided 
by  a  wall  separating  the  men  from  the  women.  The  Law  was 
read  and  explained  by  the  oldest  or  most  learned  man  present. 

1  Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.  v.  17. 

2  See  F.  C.  Conybeare,  Philo  about  the  Contemplative  Life  (Oxford,  1895),  II 
and  an  English  translation  by  the  same  writer  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review  I 
for  1895,  pp.  755-769 ;    P.  Wendland,  "  Die  Therapeuten  und  die  Philonische  P 
Schrift  vom  beschaulichen  Leben,"  in  the  Jahrb.  fur  class.  Philologie,  22  Supple- 
mentband,  1896 ;  and,  on  the  other  side,  E.  Schiirer,  Oeschichte  d.  jild.  Volkes, 
ed.  iv.  vol.  iii.  pp.  687  ff.,  where  a  full  bibliography  is  given. 


96  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  t 

The  fiftieth  day  was  peculiarly  sacred  owing  to  the  great  import- 
ance attached  to  this  number,  which,  coming  after  the  completion 
of  the  seventh  seven,  is  most  holy  and  "  ever  virgin."     Its 
celebration  differed  from  that  of  the  Sabbath  by  the  holding  of 
a  common  meal.     For  this  purpose  a  table  was  brought  in  by 
,  the  young  men,  who  acted  as  servants.     The  meal  consisted  of 
j  bread  and  salt,  but  the  bread  was  leavened  and  the  salt  mixed 
*  with  hyssop,  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem. 
After  this  the  company  sang  and  danced  through  the  night, 
first  in  two  choirs,  afterwards  mingling  together  in  a  "  spiritual 
bacchanal,"  drinking  in  the  free  love  of  God.     At  sunrise  they 
raised  their  hands  to  heaven,  and  the  feast  ended.1 

The  custom  of  religious  dances  has  many  analogies  in  heathen 
J  religions,  but  the  most  striking  Christian  parallel  to  this  account 
i  is  in  the  Leucian  Acts  of  John,  which  represent  Christ  and  the 
I  disciples  as  taking  part  in  a  religious  dance  on  the  Mount  of 
«  Olives  on  the  day  of  the  Crucifixion.2 

Unlike  the  Essenes,  the  Therapeutae  admitted  women  to 

*  j  their  society,  though  they  extolled  the  virtue  of  a  virgin  life  in 

I  most  extravagant  terms.     Their  main  occupation  was  the  study 

^tof  Law,  which  was  interpreted  allegorically,  the  composition  of 

|  hymns,  and  the  reading  of  the  prophets  and  other  writings.  There 

iis  no  allusion  in  the  De  vita  contemplativa  to  sacrifices  in  the 
Temple  or  to  the  observance  of  the  Law  ;  Philo's  object  is,  how- 
ever, to  emphasise,  not  the  Judaism  of  the  Therapeutae,  but 
the  charm  of  a  life  of  ascetic  contemplation  and  renunciation  of 
the  world.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  reason  why  we  hear 
!  no  more  of  the  Therapeutae  after  the  days  of  Philo  is  that  during 
the  troubles  which  befell  the  Jews  in  Egypt  in  the  days  of  Caligula, 
the  community  disappeared. 

1  Philo  does  not  connect  this  sanctity  with  the  Jewish  observance  of  the 
year  of  Jubilee  and  the  seven  Sabbath  years,  but  with  the  mathematical  fact 
that  fifty  is  ayabraros  kclI  0i/<n/cc6raTos  apidfiQp  £k  ttjs  tov  tpdoywvlov  rpiyibvov 
5uvdfxeo)s  Sirfp  earlv  apxh  rrjs  tG>v  o\wv  yevtvem  ko.1  avardaeus  (Mangey,  ii.  p. 
481).     See  also  Conybeare's  note  ad  loc.  p.  102  of  his  edition. 

2  See  Acta  Apostolorum  Apocrypha,  by  R.  A.  Lipsius  and  M.  Bonnet,  and 
"  Apocrypha  anecdota  II.,"  by  M.  R.  James  in  Texts  and  Studies,  vol.  v. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PKACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  97 

A  document  was  discovered  a  few  years  ago  in  the  Cairo  (c)  The 
Genizah  by  the  late  Solomon  Schechter,  and  published  by  him  Sis™ 
in  1910,  in  which  there  is  an  obscure  account  of  a  migration  of  Damasoxjs- 
Jews  from  Jerusalem  to  the  land  of  Damascus.1    Owing  to  their 
being  discontented  with  the  religious  condition  of  the  Holy  City, 
they  established  themselves  in  a  community  where  they  could 
practise  an  ideal  life,   uninterrupted  by  worldly  cares.     The 
document  gives  us  the  facts  in  the  following  words  :    "In  the 
period  of  wrath,  390  years  after  God  had  given  them  into  the 
hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  he  visited  them,  and  he  made  to  spring 
forth  from  Israel  and  Aaron  a  root  of  his  planting  to  inherit  his 
land,.    And  they  knew  that  they  were  guilty  men  and  had,  like 
the  blind,  been  groping  after  the  way  twenty  years,  and  he 
raised  them  up   a  Teacher  of  righteousness." 2    Accordingly, 

1  S.  Schechter,  Documents  of  Jewish  Sectaries,  vol.  i.  ;  Fragments  of  a 
Zadokite  Work  (Cambridge,  1910).  There  is  now  a  fairly  large  literature  on\ 
the  subject,  but  the  most  important  contributions  are  :  Levi,  "  Un  ecrit  Saddu-  ! 
ceen  ant6rieur  a  la  ruine  du  Temple  "  in  the  Revue  des  Etudes  juives,  1911,  vol.  1 
61,  pp.  161  ff. ;  R.  H.  Charles,  "  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite  Work  "  in  Apocrypha  I 
and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  2,  pp.  785  ff. ;  Ginsberg,  "  Eine  f 
unbekannte  judische  Sekte  "  in  the  Monatsschrift  f.  Oeschichte  und  Wissen-  \ 
schaft  d.  Judentums,  1911;  G.  Margoliouth,  "The  Sadducean  Christians  of  \ 
Damascus  "  in  the  Expositor,  1911,  pp.  499  ff.,  and  1912,  pp.  213  ff.  ;  G.  F.  | 
Moore,  "  The  Covenanters  of  Damascus  "  in  the  Harvard  Theological  Review,  * 
1911,  pp.  330  ff. 

a  If  the  390  years  of  the  manuscript  is  right  (cf.  Ezek.  iv.  5)  and  the  sect 
shared  the  common  Jewish  error  about  the  duration  of  Persian  rule,  its  origin 
would  fall  somewhere  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.C.  But  if  Schechter's 
conjecture,  substituting  the  apocalyptic  number  490,  be  admitted,  it  would  be 
brought  down  to  Seleucid  times.  G.  Margoliouth,  accepting  the  text,  390, 
prefers  to  operate  with  the  chronological  scheme  of  the  Abodah  Zarah,  8b-9a  and 
the  Seder  Olam,  c.  30,  which  allows  to  the  Persians  only  52  years  (34  after  the 
rebuilding  of  the  Temple),  or  with  a  still  shorter  computation,  which  (as  he 
interprets  it)  squeezes  the  Asmoneans,  Herods,  and  Romans  into  180  years, 
and  is  thus  able  to  bring  his  "  Sadducean  Christians  of  Damascus  "  down  to 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  This  last  abridgment  is,  however,  a 
mere  misunderstanding  of  the  Talmudic  text ;  and  the  abbreviation  of  the 
Persian  period  in  Abodah  Zarah  and  the  Seder  Olam  is  the  result  of  a  calculation 
which,  starting  with  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  in  a.d.  70,  and  assuming 
that  this  came  to  pass  490  years  after  the  destruction  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
gave  to  Herod  and  his  successors,  the  Asmoneans,  and  the  Greeks,  the  years 
attributed  to  them  by  Rabbinic  chronology  (103  + 103  + 180=386),  and  counting 
out  at  the  other  end  the  seventy  years  of  exile,  had  only  34  left  for  the  Persians 
(386  +  70=  456  :  490  -  456=  34).  It  is  superfluous  to  point  out  the  consequence 
VOL.  I  w 


98  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

they  made  a  "  New  Covenant "  which  God  mediated  by  a  Law- 
giver, or  Teacher  of  Righteousness,  also  called  "the  Star." 
They  believed  that  they  were  the  fulfilment  of  the  words  of 
Ezekiel  concerning  the  true  priesthood  of  the  House  of  Zadok. 
For  this  reason  the  document  was  called  Zadokite  by  Schechter  ; x 
but  it  is  more  satisfactory  to  call  the  sect  "  the  Covenanters  of 
Damascus,"  in  accordance  with  its  description  in  the  document, 
"  those  who  had  entered  the  Covenant." 

The  natural  obscurity  of  the  story  is  heightened  by  the 
corruptness  of   the  text.      It  appears    that    at   the   date   at 
t  which  the  document  was  written  the  Covenanters  were  still 
I  observing  the  laws  of  the  New  Covenant,  believing  that  the 
}  last    days   were   at  hand,   and   expecting  the    coming   of   the 
!  Messiah.     But  there  is  doubt  as  to  the  relation  of  the  various 
characters :     "  the   Teacher   of   Righteousness,"   the   "  unique 
Law-giver,"  "  the  Star,"  and  "  the  Anointed  One." 
The  The   Teacher   of   Righteousness    is   mentioned  in  chap,   i., 

and  immediately  afterwards  there  is  a  description  of  *  back- 
sliding.' This  is  perhaps  alluded  to  again  in  chapter  ix.2  "  So 
are  all  the  men  who  entered  into  the  covenant  in  the  land  of 
Damascus,  but  they  turned  and  committed  treason,  etc."  Im- 
mediately after  this  the  text  says  :  "  They  shall  not  be  reckoned 
in  the  assembly  of  the  people  .  .  .  from  the  day  when  there 
was  gathered  in  the  Only  Teacher,  until  there  arise  the  Anointed 
One  from  Aaron  and  Israel."     This  seems  to  differentiate  the 

of  these  palpable  and  well-known  facts  for  Mr.  Margoliouth's  ingenious  hypo- 
thesis. Dr.  R.  H.  Charles,  on  the  other  hand,  naively  works  out  the  sum  with 
the  aid  of  a  modern  hand-book  of  dates,  and  comes  to  the  year  196  (G.  F.  M.). 

It  is,  however,  possible  that  the  whole  statement  should  be  regarded  as  a 
literary  reminiscence  of  the  Massoretic  text  in  Ezek.  iv.  5 ;  or,  if  Schechter's 
suggestion  be  accepted  that  the  original  text  was  "  490  years,"  it  might  be 
merely  another  instance  of  the  Apocalyptic  cycle  of  seventy  weeks  of  years. 
In  this  case  arguments  as  to  the  date  implied  by  the  text  have  little  or  no  value. 

1  Schechter  also  finds  traces  of  them  under  this  name  in  Kirkisani,  a  Karaite 
writer  of  the  tenth  century.  But  Kirkisani  probably  knew  Schechter's  docu- 
ment, and  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  text  implies  more  than  that  the 
Covenanters  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Ezek.  xliv.  15 ;  it  does  not  necessarily 
mean  that  they  were  called  Sons  of  Zadok. 

8  Text  B,  p.  820,  in  Charles. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PKACTICE  IN  JUDAISM  99 

Anointed  One  from  the  Only  Teacher.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that 
the  Anointed  One  is  not  from  Judah.1  The  Teacher  of  Righteous- 
ness is  apparently  the  same  as  the  Only  Teacher.  In  chap.  ix. 
Text  A  (p.  816)  this  Teacher  is  called  "  the  Star,"-  which  is 
explained  in  connexion  with  Amos  ix.  11. 

In  these  passages  the  Teacher  of  Righteousness  is  regarded 
as  dead,  but  in  chap.  viii.  (p.  813)  he  is  spoken  of  as  future. 
"  And  the  nobles  of  the  people  are  those  who  came  to  dig  the  well 
by  the  precepts  in  which  the  Law-giver  ordained  that  they  should 
walk  throughout  the  full  period  of  the  wickedness.  And  save 
them  they  shall  get  nothing  until  there  arise  the  Teacher  of 
Righteousness  in  the  end  of  the  days."  The  question  is  whether 
the  text  is  here  corrupt,  or  the  Damascenes  expected  a  return  of 
the  Teacher  of  Righteousness.  If  the  latter  be  the  case,  they 
must  have  had  some  such  doctrine  as  the  usual  one  of  the 
return  of  Elijah,  for  the  distinction  between  the  Teacher  and  the 
Anointed  One  is  too  clear  to  be  set  aside. 

The  apparent  object  of  the  Covenanters  was  to  reproduce  Life  in  the 
in  their  community  the  life  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  They  rTproduced. 
called  their  dwelling  a  camp,  in  imitation  of  the  language  of  the 
Pentateuch  ;  2  and  they  professed  themselves  to  be  "  those  who 
had  entered  a  new  covenant  in  the  land  of  Damascus,"  that  is, 
observers  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  which  the  rest  of  the  people  had 
despised.  They  had  oaths  on  admission  and  a  ritual  of  reception 
of  new  members,  which  could'only  be  performed  by  the  Overseer 
of  the  Sect.3  This  overseer  "  sat  in  Moses'  Seat  "  ;  and  under 
him  the  people  were  classed  as  Priests,  Levites,  Israelites,  and 
Proselytes.  In  strict  imitation  of  the  policy  of  the  wilderness, 
the  people  were  divided  into  tens,  hundreds,  and  thousands.  A 
priest  presided  over  every  group,  even  if  only  of  ten  persons. 

1  Cf.  Jubilees  xxxi.  12  ft,  and  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs, 
Judah  xxv.,  in  both  of  which  there  are  traces  of  a  Levitical  Messiah. 

2  runo  camp.     But  that  they  did  not  literally  dwell  in  tents  is  shown 
by  other  passages. 

8  The  word  used   is  -tssd,    inspector.      The  suggestion  that  the  name  and 
office  correspond  to  the  Christian  ^ttiVkottos  is  not  to  be  taken  seriously. 


100  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

Troubles  The  priestly  character  of  the  document,  which  has  affinities 


of  the 
Cove- 


with  the  book  of  Jubilees  and  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve 
nanters.  I  Patriarchs,  is  seen  in  the  expectation  that  Messiah  is  to  come 
•  from  Levi  and  not  from  Judah.  Great  troubles  were  to  herald 
his  appearance,  and  the  Covenanters  had  already  experienced 
the  trials  of  persecution  and  division.  Even  in  the  days  of  the 
Founder  an  apostasy  may  have  taken  place,  and  he  himself 
had  suffered  from  a  "  Man  of  Scoffing."  But  this  is  not  quite 
certain.  The  "  Man  of  Scoffing  "  mentioned  in  1.  10  (p.  801)  is 
clearly  an  opponent  of  the  Covenanters  :  it  is  not  so  certain  that 
he  was  an  apostate  from  them.  But  that  there  was  apostasy 
soon  after  the  foundation  of  the  sect  seems  to  be  shown  by 
9.  36  if.  (p.  821) :  "With  a  judgment  like  unto  that  of  their 
neighbours  who  turned  away  with  the  scornful  men,  they  shall 
be  judged.  Eor  they  spake  error  against  the  statutes  of  righteous- 
ness, and  rejected  the  covenant  and  the  pledge  of  faith,  which 
they  had  affirmed  in  the  land  of  Damascus,  and  this  is  the  New 
Covenant."  The  probable  meaning  is  that  some  Covenanters 
were  persuaded  by  the  "  scornful  men  "  and  returned  to  them, 
interpreta-  The  sect  interpreted  the  Law  very  strictly,  and  have  in  this 
Law.°  6  respect  some  affinities  with  the  Sadducees.  There  are  also  many 
resemblances  in  the  document  to  the  book  of  Jubilees,  especially 
as  regards  the  calendar,1  and  it  has  been  maintained  that  both 
Jubilees  and  the  document  before  us  are  Sadducean  ;  but  all 
that  has  been  proved  is  that  they  both  are  anti-Kabbinic  in  their 
chronology  and  other  points.  In  other  details  they  do  not 
agree  with  what  we  know  of  the  Sadducees.2  One  of  their 
characteristics  was  their  rigid  insistence  on  monogamy. 

1  In  5.  1  ff.  it  is  said  :  "  With  them  that  held  fast  by  the  commandments 
of  God,  who  were  left  of  theni,  God  confirmed  the  covenant  of  Israel  for  ever, 
revealing  to  them  the  hidden  things  wherein  all  Israel  had  erred,  his  holy  Sab- 
baths, and  his  glorious  festivals."  This  seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  Jubilees 
1.  14  and  similar  passages.  Jubilees  is  also  referred  to  by  name  in  20.  1  as  the 
accurate  source  of  chronology,  and  the  angelology,  especially  the  mention  of 
Mastema,  is  the  same  as  in  Jubilees. 

2  See  R.  Leszynski, "  Observations  sur  les '  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite  Work,'  " 
in  the  Revue  des  Etudes  juives,  lxii.  190  ff.  (with  a  reply  by  Levi  immediately 
following),  and  his  Die  Sadduzaer,  Berlin,  1912. 


f 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         101 

The  most  varied  opinions  have  been  held  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  sect.  It  has  been  suggested  that  they  represent  the  pre- 
Christian  heresy  of  the  Dositheans,  or  even  that  they  were  Chris- 
tians.1 The  probability  is  that  they  represent  some  hitherto 
unknown  movement  in  Judaism. 

A  separation  from  social  life  similar  to  the  foregoing  is  seen  (d)  John 
in  the  movement  inaugurated  by  John  the  Baptist,  who  came  b*„ist 
"  preaching  in  the  wilderness  of  Judaea."     Our  information  is  AND  HIS 

,  Disciples. 

confined  to  scanty  hints  in  the  Gospels,  and  a  short  passage  in 
the  eighteenth  book  of  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus,  for  though 
there  is  a  longer  statement  in  the  Slavonic  version  of  the  Jewish 
wars,  it  has  no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the  work  of  Josephus,  and 
possesses  no  historic  value.2 

In  the  Antiquities  3  Josephus  says :    "  Now  some  of  the  Jews  Account  by 
thought  that  Herod's  army  had  been  destroyed  by  God  as  a    osep  us' 

1  The  theory  that  the  Covenanters  were  Dositheans  is  maintained  by 
Schechter  (p.  xxi).  The  Dositheans  are  an  obscure  body,  as  to  whom  there 
are  at  least  two  traditions,  which  are  so  contradictory  that  it  appears  probable 
that  there  were  two  separate  sects  bearing  the  name. 

(1)  The  earlier  of  these  sects  was  a  reforming  party  among  the  Samaritans, 
possibly  Egyptian  in  origin,  advocating  greater  strictness  of  interpretation  of 
the  Law,  and  denying  a  resurrection.  The  authorities  for  this  sect  are  Josephus, 
Ant.  xiii.  3.  4,  where  he  speaks  of  Theodosius  and  Sabbaeus  as  representing  the 
Samaritans  (Theodosius  and  Dositheus  may  clearly  be  regarded  as  interchange- 
able Greek  forms  of  the  same  name),  and  the  lost  work  of  Hippolytus  represented 
by  Philastrius,  Be  Haeres.  4,  and  Photius,  Bibliotheca,  cxxi.  The  later  Samari- 
tan chronicles  have  traces  of  this  sect  until  the  tenth  century.  (2)  The  other 
sect  of  Dositheans  appears  as  a  syncretistic  form  of  Gnosticism  akin  to  that 
of  Simon  Magus,  who  is  closely  connected  with  Dositheus,  sometimes  as  pupil, 
sometimes  as  master,  and,  in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  as  a  fellow-disciple 
of  John  the  Baptist.  A  full  discussion  is  given  by  J.  A.  Montgomery,  The 
Samaritans,  1907,  p.  252  ff.  The  Jewish  and  Samaritan  authorities  are  given 
at  length  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopaedia,  art.  "  Dositheus,"  and  the  Christian 
traditions  in  the  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography.  The  most  important 
modern  treatises  are  by  S.  Krauss  and  A.  Buchler  in  the  Revue  des  Etudes  juives, 
vol.  xlii.  pp.  27  ff.  and  220  ff.,  and  vol.  xliii.  pp.  50  ff. 

The  identification  of  the  Covenanters  with  Christians  was  made  by  G. 
Margoliouth,  "  The  Sadducean  Christians  of  Damascus,"  in  the  Expositor,  1911, 
pp.  499  ff.,  and  1912,  pp.  213  ff. 

8  See  Appendix  C  for  a  translation  of  this  passage. 

8  Aniiq.  xviii.  5.  2. 


102  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

just  punishment  for  his  treatment  of  John  called  the  Baptist. 
For  Herod  killed  him,  a  good  man  and  one  who  commanded  the 
Jews,  training  themselves  {iiraaKovai)  in  virtue  and  practising 
righteousness  to  one  another  and  piety  towards  God,  to  come 
together  for  baptism.  For  thus  it  appeared  to  him  that  the 
5  baptism  of  those  was  acceptable  who  used  it  not  to  escape  from 
\  any  sins,  but  for  bodily  purity,  on  condition  that  the  soul  also 
I  had  been  previously  cleansed  thoroughly  by  righteousness. 
And  when  the  rest  collected,  for  they  were  greatly  delighted  with 
listening  to  his  words,  Herod  feared  his  great  persuasiveness 
with  men,  lest  it  should  tend  to  some  rising,  for  they  seemed 
ready  to  do  everything  under  his  advice.  He  therefore  con- 
sidered it  much  better,  before  a  revolt  should  start  from  him, 
to  put  John  to  death  in  anticipation,  rather  than  be  involved  in 
difficulties  through  the  actual  revolution,  and  then  regret  it." 

It  is  not  quite  certain  from  this  passage  to  what  class 
of  hearers  John  originally  extended  his  baptism.  According 
to  Whiston,1  it  means  that  John  was  addressing  penitents 
who  were  only  beginning  to  turn  to  the  pursuit  of  virtue,2 
and  his  translation,  here  as  elsewhere,  seems  to  have 
had  a  preponderating  influence  in  the  interpretation  of 
Josephus.  But,  in  view  of  the  general  context,  it  would  rather 
\l  seem  that  Josephus  means  that  John  preached  originally  to 
those  who  were  already  making  especial  practice  of  virtue — 
*  ascetics  '  in  the  original  sense  of  the  word — and  that  so  long 
as  his  preaching  was  confined  to  this  class,  Herod  regarded  it 
with  indifference,  but  that  when  the  rest  of  the  public  3  (rcbv 

1  "  He  commanded  the  Jews  to  exercise  virtue  both  as  to  justice  toward 
one  another  and  piety  towards  God  and  so  to  come  to  baptism." 

2  This  explanation  seems  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  Epitome,  which  has 
emended  the  datives  into  accusatives.  This  cannot  be  the  true  text,  but  there 
is  perhaps  a  possibility  that  the  text  found  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  11.  5,  is 
right,  which  emends  xpu/J-tvois  into  xp^^ovs  but  leaves  iiraaKovai  unchanged. 

8  The  antithesis  between  John's  original  hearers  and  these  '  others '  is 
obscured  by  the  reading  of  A,  which  has  Xaw  for  &\\uv,  and  by  the  Latin  render- 
ing perplurima  multitudo :  it  is  entirely  destroyed  by  the  ingenious  but  mis- 
placed emendation  of  Niese,  who  suggests  avdpuiruv  (Auup)  for  dXXup.     E. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         103 

aWcov)  came  to  hear  him,  the  movement  obtained  a  new  import- 
ance in  the  eyes  of  the  ruler  because  of  its  possible  political 
consequences.    The  statement  implies  that  the  virtuous  rather* 
than  the  sinful  were  invited  to  baptism,  which  was  only  open! 
to  those  who  had  already  purified  their  souls  by  righteousness. 

The  evidence  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  in  the  light  of  modern 
criticism  must  be  divided  into  three  groups. 

(a)  That  of  Mark^  found  in  Mark  i.  1  ff.,  and  reproduced  in  The 
the  parallel  passages  of  Matt.  iii.  1  if.  and  Luke  iii.  2  ff.  Gospels.0 

(6)  That  of  three  passages,  which  may  be  attributed  to  Q 
in  the  sense  that  they  are  found  both  in  Matthew  and  Luke, 
though  there  is,  apart  from  this,  nothing  to  show  that  they 
really  all  come  from  the  same  source.  These  are  Matt.  iii.  7-10  = 
Luke  iii.  7-9 ;  Matt.  xi.  2  ff.  =  Luke  vii.  18  fE.  ;  and  Matt.  xi. 
18ff.  =  Lukevii.  33  ff. 

(c)  That  of  a  passage  found  only  in  Luke  iii.  10-14,  where  it 
is  combined  with  the  other  passages  from  Mark  and  Q.  The 
reason  for  thinking  that  this  passage  does  not  come  from  Q  is 
that  it  is  not  found  in  Matthew,  and  seems  to  give  a  picture  of 
John's  teaching  different  from  that  in  Mark  and  Q. 

But  neither  Jewish  nor  Christian  tradition  gives  us  further 
help.  Christian  writers  are  greatly  interested  in  the  Baptism  of 
Jesus,  but  little  in  the  person  of  the  Forerunner.  The  only  thing 
to  be  done  is  to  compare  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament 
and  Josephus. 

According  to  Mark  and  Q,  the  mission  of  John  was  funda-  N.T. 
mentally  eschatological ;    his  baptism  had  for  its  object  the  Joseph™ 
forgiveness  (afcac?)  of  sins,  to  prepare  its  recipients  for  the  comPared- 
coming  of   the  Kingdom.    His  preaching  was  repentance,  in 
preparation  for  the  coming  of    one  mightier  than  John,  who 
would  baptize  in  "  Holy  Spirit "  instead  of  in  water.     The 
difference  between  Mark  and  Q  is    merely  that    Q   gives  an 
example  of  the  preaching  of  John  ;    it  entirely  confirms  the 

Schwartz,  in  the  Berlin  edition  of  Eusebius,  suggests  that  Josephus  wrote 
Ta\i\al<av,  which  is  more  attractive,  but  no  change  seems  necessary. 


104  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

character  attributed  to  it  by  Mark,  and  implies  the  imminent 
coming  of  a  catastrophic  change.  It  is  not,  however,  clear 
whether  the  original  tradition  represented  this  preaching  as 
delivered  to  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  as  Matthew  states,  or  to 
the  *  Multitudes  '  (o^Xo*),  according  to  Luke.  Luke  is  thought  to 
have  a  tendency  to  refer  incidents  to  the  o^oi,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  invective  of  John  is  held  to  be  more  appropriate  if  he 
were  speaking  to  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  Both  arguments  have 
some  weight,  but  neither  is  convincing. 
Lucan  The  passage  peculiar 1  to  Luke  represents  a  different  kind 

of  preaching.  The  '  Multitudes  '  are  exhorted  to  share  their 
clothing  and  food  with  their  poorer  neighbours,  fublicani  to 
show  moderation  and  honesty,  and  men  in  military  service 
to  forbear  from  acts  of  violence  and  fraud,  and  from  discontent 
with  their  pay.  It  is  possible  that  Luke  is  here  using  an  extract 
from  some  special  source  to  which  he  had  access  ;  it  is,  however, 
equally  possible  that  it  is  a  piece  of  expansion  due  to  himself, 
and  based  merely  on  his  own  impression  of  the  advice  which 
John  probably  gave.  The  skill  with  which  Luke  unites  his 
sources  is  remarkable,  but  when  his  narrative  is  compared  with 
Mark  and  Matthew  its  composite  character  is  quite  obvious. 

Whatever  the  origin  of  the  passage  peculiar  to  Luke  may 

have  been,  it  illustrates  his  tendency  either  to  minimise  the 

|  eschatological  elements  in  Mark,  or  to  counteract  them.    It  is 

not  so  much  in  disagreement  with  the  other  passages  in  the 

Gospels  as  on  a  different  plane,  and  it  is  in  sharp  contrast  to  the 

renunciatory  ethics  of  Jesus,  as  illustrated  by  "  Follow  thou 

me  !  "  and  "  Sell  all  that  thou  hast."    It  is,  however,  worthy  of 

note  that  this  version  of  John's  words  had  a  practical  effect  in 

making  the  Church  a  support  for  organised  society,  thereby 

neutralising  the  literal  teaching  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Divergency        It  is  obvious  that  these  accounts  in  the  Gospels  and  Josephus, 

GospeTand  though  they  agree  that  John  the  Baptist  was  killed  by  Herod 

Josephus.     Antipas,2  have  points  of  serious  divergence,  and  it  is  very  desir- 

1  Luke  iii.  10-14.  2  See  p.  18. 


THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         105 

able  to  see  clearly  exactly  where  this  divergence  comes.  The  % 
true  text  of  Josephus  represents  him  as  preaching  first  to  a  body  1 
of  '  ascetics  '  and  afterwards  to  many  others.  There  is  nothing  ■ 
in  this  to  conflict  with  the  Gospels,  though  it  is  so  sufficiently 
different  from  them  that  no  attempts  ought  to  be  made  to  regard 
the  whole  description  as  a  Christian  interpolation.  The  account  y 
in  the  Gospels  of  the  general  rush  to  hear  John  and  be  baptized  ] 
by  him  obviously  refers  to  the  second  stage  of  John's  preaching,  I 
not  to  the  first,  and  confirms  rather  than  contradicts  Josephus. 

The  real   differences   are  in   two   points.     First,   Josephus  fx 
entirely  omits  the  eschatological  element  in  John's  preaching. 
Secondly,  he  represents  John  as  advocating  bodily  purification  i  <* 
in  baptism  as  the  crowning  point  of  righteousness,  not  as  a  sign  \ 
of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.     The  first  point  is  merely 
negative,  but  the  second  is  positive  and  very  striking. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  the  emphasis  which  Josephus  lays 
on  the  fact  that  John's  baptism  was  not  connected  with  the 
remission  of  sins  goes  to  prove  that  he  was  consciously  con- 
tradicting the  Gospel  tradition,  and  therefore  acquainted  with 
it.  This  may  be  so  :  clearly  he  is  contradicting  something. 
But  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  something  is  the  Gospel  tradition. 
It  is  at  least  as  probable  that  his  real  meaning  is  to  distinguish 
John's  baptism  from  the  ceremonial  washings  of  the  Jews,  which 
could  be  interpreted  as  neutralising  the  effect  of  unintentional 
sins  against  the  Law.  His  meaning  would  seem  to  be  that  he  \ 
regarded  the  baptism  of  John  as  resembling  that  of  the  Essenes, 
in  that  it  was  not  the  antidote  for  sin  or  offences  against  the 
Law,  but  was  an  act  of  ao-/cr)cri<;. 

Whether  the  representation  of  John's  baptism  in  Josephus  Marcan 
is  in  itself  more  probable  than  the  Marcan  tradition  is  perhaps  J^1^ 
difficult  to  say,  but  it  may  fairly  be  argued  that  the  Marcan 
tradition  would  never  have  been  invented  by  Christians,  and  is 
therefore  probably  correct.  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  by  John  is  an  integral  part  of  the  earliest  Christian 
narrative.    It  represents  John  baptizing  for  the  remission  of 


106  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

sins,  and  the  people  being  baptized  and  confessing  their  sins,  and 

finally  Jesus  himself  coming  to  be  baptized.     In  view  of  the 

Christian   teaching  on  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  is  it  probable 

that  any  Christian  would  have  invented  a  story  which  could  so 

easily  be  interpreted  as  an  acted  confession  of  sin  by  Jesus,  or 

would  have  attributed  remission  of  sins  to  a  baptism  which 

Jesus  underwent,  if  the  truth  were  that  the  baptism  of  John 

had  really  had  the  character  described  by  Josephus  ?     How 

improbable  this  is  may  be  seen  by  the  redactorial  addition  in 

Matthew  to  the  Marcan  story  of  the  Baptism  of  Jesus,  which 

makes  John  protest,  "  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  by  thee,  and 

comest  thou  tome?"  and  Jesus'  reply,  "  Suffer  it  now,  for  thus 

it  becomes  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."     The  intention  of  the 

editor  of  Matthew  clearly  was  to  prevent  an  undesirable  interpre- 

^    tation  of  the  Marcan  narrative,  and  for  this  purpose  he  introduced 

\  a  view  of  John's  baptism — to  "  fulfil  all  righteousness  " — which 

.  is  more  in  fine  with  the  account  in  Josephus,  and  shows  that 

if  that  account  had  been  generally  current,  Christians  would 

have  had  no  tendency  to  invent  the  Marcan  tradition. 

Had  Luke  In  a  somewhat  similar  way  it  might  be  thought  that  the 

Joi  hus      account  in  Josephus  of  John's  preaching  resembles  the  passage 

a  common .  peculiar  to  Luke  so  much  as  to  suggest  their  use  of  a  common 

tradition  ?  j   r  ... 

\  tradition,  for  both  agree  in  emphasising  the  moral  nature  of 
I  John's  preaching.  It  would,  however,  be  a  mistake  to  exaggerate 
this  resemblance,  for  the  real  difference  between  Josephus  and 
the  Gospels  as  a  whole  is  that  Josephus  clearly  represents  him 
as  preaching  to  those  who  had  especially  devoted  their  lives  to 
virtue,  and  offering  baptism  as  the  crowning  point  of  righteous- 
ness, whereas  the  Gospels,  including  Luke,  represent  the  baptism 
of  John  as  one  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.  This  is 
in  clear  contradiction  to  Josephus,  and  shows  that  Luke  cannot 
be  quoted  as  supporting  him  unless  the  passage  peculiar  to 
Luke  be  not  only  taken  by  itself  out  of  its  present  context,  but 
also  be  violently  implanted  into  a  new  context  derived  from 
Josephus. 


in  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         107 

With  regard  to  the  eschatological  nature  of  John's  preaching, 
the  reason  for  preferring  the  tradition  of  Mark  and  Q  to  that 
of  Josephus  and  Luke  is  simple.  It  is  quite  certain  that  Herod 
imprisoned  John,  and  that  he  was  identified  by  some,  if  not  with 
the  Messiah,  at  least  with  Elijah.  These  facts  in  combination 
are  intelligible  if  the  tradition  of  Mark  and  Q  be  followed  :  no 
government  views  with  a  friendly  eye  those  who  foretell  its  end, 
even  by  the  act  of  God.  But  if  Josephus  and  Luke  iii.  10-14 
be  followed,  the  situation  is  inexplicable.  No  ruler  has  ever  yet 
persecuted  a  teacher  for  telling  men  to  be  content  with  their 
wages,  and  no  multitude  ever  regarded  such  a  one  as  the 
Messiah  or  his  forerunner. 

How  far  John  the  Baptist  founded  a  separate  sect  in  Judaism  The 
which  survived  his  death  is  difficult  to  say.     In  the  earlier  0f  John, 
strata  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  there  are  two  references  to  the 
disciples  of  John.    In  one  they  are  pictured  as  more  ascetic 
than  the  followers  of  Jesus,  joining  in  fasts  with  the  Pharisees  ; x 
in  the  other  they  are  the  intermediaries  by  whom  John  inquired  1 
whether  Jesus  were  the  Coming  One.2    Besides  these  explicit 
references  certain  general  probabilities  present  themselves,  and 
are  supported  by  a  few  scattered  and  vague  references  in  the 
Gospels  and  Acts. 

It  is  a  priori  probable  that  the  disciples  of  John  did  not 
all  adopt  the  same  attitude  to  Jesus,  and  that  on  the  other  hand 
the  Christian  view  of  John  changed  as  time  went  on. 

It  is  clear  from  the  Marcan  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  John  and 
by  John,  and  by  the  question  sent  from  his  prison,  that  John  ' 
iad  not  originally  recognised  the  "  Coming  One "  in  Jesus. 
Fhe  voice  from  Heaven  and  the  vision  of  the  descending  Spirit 
ire  the  experience  of  Jesus,  not  of  John  ;  and  the  question  of 
Tohn  in  prison  is  said  to  have  been  called  forth  by  the  fact  that 
Tesus  was  accomplishing  the  works  of  the  Messiah  (ra  epya  rod 
ipiaTov).  The  absence  of  these,  not  their  presence,  might 
ave  made  John  doubt,  if  he  had  already  held  Jesus  for  the 

1  Mark  ii.  18  ff. ;  cf.  Matt.  xi.  18  ff.  2  Matt.  xi.  2-Luke  vii.  18  ff. 


108  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

Messiah ;    rising  hope,  not  waning  faith,  is  suggested  by  his 

question.1 

The  This  is  the  foundation  for  any  just  estimate  of  the  probable 

of8JohT    !  attitude  of  the  disciples  of  John  to  Jesus  ;  they  were  uncertain, 

and  Jesus. ,  for  Jq^  himself  na<i  given  them  no  clear  guidance.    Some  were 

I  no  doubt  impressed  by  the  teaching  and  acts  of  Jesus ;    they 

■  became  his  followers.     Others  may  have  gone  to  the  other 

extreme  and  opposed  Jesus.     But  probably  there  were  more 

"who,  while  accepting  the  preaching  of  Jesus,  never  thought  of 

j  identifying  him  with  the  "  Stronger  One  "  of  whom  John  had 

\  spoken.     This  class  would  in  the  end  be  indistinguishable  from 

\  those  followers  of  Jesus  who  had  been  with  him  in  Galilee,  but 

jhad  never  surmised  the  Messianic  secret,  or  gone  up  to  Jerusalem.2 

But  we  know  nothing  certain  of  any  of  these  disciples  of  John  ; 

it  is  doubtful  if  any  reliance  can  be  placed  on  a  confused  tradition 

that  some  of  them  were  merged  in  the  sect  of  the  Mandaeans,3  and 

in  general  it  seems  certain  that  John's  disciples  soon  disappeared. 

The  It  is  more  important  to  notice  the  gradual  change  in  the 

attitude^  j  Christian  attitude  to  John  the  Baptist  which  can  be  traced  by 

to  John. 


K 


a  critical  study  of  the  Gospels.  As  soon  as  Jesus  was  recognised 
as  the  Messiah,  John  the  Baptist  was  regarded  as  Elijah  the 
"  Forerunner."  This  is  clearly  very  early :  it  is  found  in  Q, 
where  it  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus,4  but  whether  Jesus  really 
can  be  thought  to  have  said  so,  depends  on  the  general  estimate 
of  Q  and  the  fact  that  in  the  immediate  context  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  a  synonym  for  the  Christian  Church.  Did  Jesus  use 
the  phrase  in  this  meaning  ?     It  seems  improbable. 

1  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  original  narrative  and  the 
Matthaean  version.  Matthew  no  doubt  interprets  the  question  as  due  to 
waning  faith,  just  as  he  makes  John  recognise  Jesus  in  the  Jordan.  Similarly, 
too,  Luke  has  embellished  the  narrative  by  making  Jesus  perform  a  special 
series  of  miracles  in  order  to  reassure  John.  The  story  is  clearly  older  than 
its  present  setting,  and  the  editorial  changes  in  it  are  clearly  visible. 

2  It  is  not  unlikely  that  Apollos,  and  the  Ephesians  who  knew  nothing 
of  the  Spirit  and  had  been  baptized  only  with  John's  baptism,  belonged  to  one 
or  the  other  of  these  two  cognate  classes. 

3  W.  Brandt,  Die  manddische  Religion,  Leipzig,  1889,  and  Manddische 
Schriften,  Gottingen,  1893.  4  Matt.  xi.  14. 


ra  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         109 

There  is  also  a  clear  tendency  not  merely  to  regard  John  asji., 
the  Forerunner,  but  to  represent  him  as  having  consciously  been  | 
so.    This  is  very  plain  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  where  Jesus  is 
pointed  out  by  John  to  his  disciples  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  to 
follow  whom  they  left  the  Baptist.     But  it  is  scarcely  less  plain 
in  Matthew,  who  inserts  into  the  account  of  the  Baptism  an! 
immediate  recognition  of  Jesus  by  John,  inconsistent  with  the' 
implication  of  the  Marcan  narrative  into  which  it  is  inserted. 
Similarly  the  editor  of  Luke  makes  the  family  of  John  closely  I 
related  to  that  of  Jesus  ;   and  Jesus  is  recognised  by  Elizabeth  j 
and  her  unborn  child  when  the  mother  of  the  Lord  paid  her  a 
visit. 

This  evidence,  scanty  though  it  is,  clearly  suggests  that 
there  was  a  tendency  in  early  Christian  literature  to  rewrite  the 
story  of  John  the  Baptist,  so  as  to  bring  him  into  conscious 
subordination  to  Jesus.  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  may 
reflect  a  controversy  between  the  disciples  of  Jesus  and  the 
disciples  of  John,  and  that  at  the  time  when  the  gospels  were 
written  there  were  still  some  disciples  of  John  who  did  not 
recognise  in  Jesus  the  Stronger  One  of  whom  their  master  had 
spoken. 

A  most  instructive  parallel  in  the  history  of  religion  is  pro-  The  story 
vided  by  the  story  of  the  Bab  in  modern  Islam.1  The  Bab,  ?Bf£> 
whose  name  was  Mirza  Ali  Muhammad,  was  a  Persian  reformer 
who  was  put  to  death  in  1850.  Fortunately  Count  Gobineau, 
the  French  Minister  in  Persia,  was  interested  in  him,  and  wrote 
an  admirable  account  in  his  Les  Religions  et  les  philosophies  dans 
VAsie  Centrale.  He  also  brought  back  and  deposited  in  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationals  in  Paris  a  MS.  copy  of  the  life  of  the 
Bab  by  Haji  Mirza  Jani,  his  friend  and  contemporary.  The  Bab 
appointed  Mirza  Yahya,  under  the  title  of  Subh-i-Ezel,  as  his 
successor,  but  foretold  "  One  who  should  come."    When  Beha, 

1  See  E.  G.  Browne,  The  Episode  of  the  Bdb,  Cambridge,  1891,  especially 
the  introduction  to  the  second  volume,  and  The  New  History  of  the  Bdb,  Cam- 
bridge, 1893. 


110  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

the  brother  of  Subh-i-Ezel,  claimed  to  fulfil  this  prophecy,  the 
text  of  Gobineau's  MS.  was  re-edited,  in  a  manner  which  reminds 
the  student  of  the  New  Testament  of  the  relation  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  to  Mark,  and  finally  an  entirely  new  story  was  written, 
showing  about  as  much  trace  of  the  original  narrative  as  the 
Fourth  Gospel  does  of  the  Synoptic  account.  There  are  thou- 
sands of  Behais  now,  many  of  them  in  America,  and  it  is  safe  to 
say  that  few  of  them  know  the  story  of  the  origin  of  their  cult, 
or  would  believe  it  if  they  were  told. 

The  Bab,  both  in  the  literary  and  religious  history  of  the 
sect  of  Behaism,  plays  the  same  part  as  John  the  Baptist  in 
Christianity.  He  also  foretold  the  coming  of  a  Mightier  One, 
and  the  next  generation  of  his  followers  identified  this  "  One 
who  should  come  "  with  his  disciple  Beha.  A  few  years  later 
the  sect  was  known  as  Behaism  ;  the  story  was  rewritten  as  the 
history  of  Behaism,  and  ethics  replaced  eschatology.  A  small 
party  refused  Beha,  and  remained  Babis,  but  they  gradually 
lost  vitality,  and — most  remarkable  of  all — are  not  mentioned 
in  the  literature  of  Behaism. 

III.  Divisions  in  Orthodox  Judaism 

(a)  The  We  first  meet  with  the  Pharisees  in  Josephus  in  the  days 

UnderSHas-  °*  Joml  Hyrcanus,  the  son  of  Simon,  the  last  survivor  of 
moneans.  fae  fiVe  Maccabean  brothers.  John,  whose  high  priesthood 
lasted  from  135  to  105  B.C.,  was  an  able  and  warlike  prince, 
and  continued  the  tradition  of  his  family  as  a  strong  up- 
holder of  the  ancestral  religion.  Under  him  the  Temple  on 
Mount  Gerizim  was  destroyed ;  the  Idumaeans  were  conquered, 
and  accepted,  not  apparently  with  much  reluctance,  the  rite  of 
circumcision.1  Josephus  is  warm  in  his  praise  of  John,  and 
hints  that  the  priestly  gift  of  prophecy  was  not  denied  to  him.2 
Such  a  ruler  found  his  friends  among  the  Pharisees  until  the 
severer  members  of  the  sect  began  to  suspect  that  his  ambitions 

1  Antiq.  xiii.  9.  1.  a  Antiq.  xiii.  10.  7. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         111 

were  temporal  rather  than  those  of  a  spiritual  head  of  the  nation. 
Accordingly,  the  Pharisee  Eleazar  suggested  that  John  should 
lay  aside  his  priestly  as  distinguished  from  his  temporal  office, 
because  his  mother,  as  Eleazar  falsely  alleged,  had  been  a  captive 
in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,1  and  there  was  consequently 
some  doubt  as  to  his  real  descent.  Hence  the  breach  between 
the  Maccabean  house  and  the  sect.2  The  feud  which  ensued  was 
kept  up  till  78  B.C.,  when  Alexander  Jannaeus  on  his  death-bed 
told  his  wife,  Alexandra,  to  make  terms  with  the  Pharisees,  whose 
popularity  rendered  them  formidable.3  Alexandra  followed  his 
advice,  and  enjoyed  a  prosperous  reign  of  nine  years.  Three 
years  after  her  death  in  66  B.C.,  Pompey  took  Jerusalem  and 
profaned  the  Temple.  It  is  to  this  catastrophe  that  we  owe 
the  collection  of  Pharisaic  psalms,  attributed  to  Solomon.4  From 
these  it  appears  that  the  ideal  of  the  sect  was  a  kingdom  of  the 
House  of  David.  To  the  Pharisees  the  priestly  dynasty  of  the 
Hasmoneans  was  a  mere  usurpation,  and  this  anti-clericalism,  to/ 

1  The  Talmud  (Kiddushin,  66a)  relates  a  dispute  between  "  King  Jannai 
and  the  Pharisees."  As  Hyrcanus  is  called  "  high  priest  "  and  never  "  king  " 
it  is  possible  that  Alexander  Jannaeus  is  meant.  It  may  well  be,  however 
that  it  really  refers  to  John  Hyrcanus,  and  that  the  Talmud  has  changed  the  name 
of  the  Jewish  ruler,  because  Hyrcanus  is  regarded  in  it  as  a  model  high  priest 
there  being  nothing  told  to  his  discredit  save  that  at  the  age  of  eighty  (i)  he 
joined  the  Sadducees.     See  Derenbourg,  Histoire  de  la  Palestine,  pp.  95-97 

'  £*'*  xUi-  10:  5-  *  Antiq.  xiii.  15.  5. 

The  Psalms  of  Solomon  were  almost  certainly  written  in  Hebrew,  but  are . 
now  extanl ;  only  in  eight  Greek  MSS.  and  in  a  Syriac  version  (extant  in  two 
complete  MSS.  and  a  fragment)  in  combination  with  the  quite  different  docu- 
ment caUed  the  Odes  of  Solomon.    Some  of  the  individual  Psalms  may  be  earlier  • 
but  there  is  a  general  consensus  of  opinion  that  there  are  many  allusions  to  ! 
Pompey,  and  probably  to  his  death  (Ps.  Sal.  ii.  30  f.),  so  that  the  date  of  the 
collection  must  be  somewhat  later  than  48  b.c.     The  Psalms  are  full  of  the! 
antithesis  between  "the  righteous"  and  "the  sinners,"  and  modern  com- 
mentators are  unanimous  in  identifying  "  the  righteous  "  with  the  Pharisees 
The  best  general  account  is  given  by  G.  B.  Gray  in  Charles's  Apocrypha  and  l 
Pseudepwapha  of  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  ii.  pp.  625  ff.     The  Greek  text  is  most  ? 
accessible  in  H.  B.  Swete's  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  and  in  Ryle  and  James's 
Jf.^W  Ps^ms  °f  the  P^risees,  1891,  which  also  gives  a  discussion 
of  the  facts  and  a  full  account  of  all  the  literature  up  to  that  date.     Later 
literature  is  given  by  Gray  {op.  cit.)  and  more  fully  by  J.  Viteau  Lea  Psaumes 

t^T'Jr;™1'  PP'  24°  *     Th6re  i8  al-  Suable  maie'rfa lit f™ 
Gebhardt,  VaXfiol  SoXo/^ros,  1895. 


Herod 


112  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

use  a  modern  word,  distinguishes  them  from  the  Sadducees. 
Their  ideal  state,  like  Ezekiel's  and  Dante's,1  was  not  a  priestly 
government,  but  the  rule  of  a  godly  non-sacerdotal  prince, 
prepared  to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  Law.  Their  acceptance 
of  tradition  as  explaining  the  Law,  as  is  indicated  below,  had 
for  its  object  to  render  workable  in  practice  what,  taken  literally, 
had  proved  obsolete  and  impossible.  Pharisaism  was,  in  truth, 
more  liberal  and  idealistic  than  Sadduceeism,  and  the  Rabbis 
who  divided  the  sect  into  seven  classes,  only  two  of  which, 
those  who  fear  and  those  who  love  God,  are  commended.2 
Under  Herod  the  Great,  a  man  more  capable  than  any  of  the  Has- 

moneans,  attempted  to  make  the  Jews  a  nourishing  nation.  With 
great  skill  he  faced  the  impossible  task  of  conciliating  the  Romans 
while  remaining  on  good  terms  with  his  neighbours,  and  not 
offending  the  Jewish  Scribes.  Sameas  (Shemaia)  the  Pharisee, 
and  his  master  Pollio  (Abtalion),  had  been  highly  favoured  by 
Herod  for  having  opened  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  to  his  army  in 
37  B.C.3  But  the  conspiracy  in  favour  of  Herod's  brother, 
Pheroras,  in  which  the  Eunuch  Bagoas  was  implicated,  was 
prompted  by  the  Pharisaic  hopes,4  and  the  revolt  of  Judas  of 

i  Cf.  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.,  especially  xlv.  22-25,  xlviii.  21-22.  Professor  Toy 
says  of  the  prince  {nasi)  in  his  article  on  Ezekiel,  Ency.  Bibl.  col.  1471  :  "  The 
prince  is  a  servant  of  the  temple,  subordinate  in  this  sphere  to  the  priests  ; 
it  is  a  genuine  separation  of  Church  and  State."  See  also  The  Parting  of  the 
Roads  (Arnold,  1912),  Art.  1,  by  F.  J.  Foakes  Jackson.  Dante,  in  his  De 
Monarchia,  exalts  the  Emperor  above  the  Pope  in  aU  secular  matters  ;  and,  in 
the  Divina  Commedia,  papal  usurpation  of  authority  is  consistently  de- 
nounced. In  the  Paradiso  we  see  what  high  hopes  the  poet  indulged  that 
the  Emperor,  Henry  VII.  of  Luxembourg,  would  restore  the  balance  by  bis 
coming  to  Italy. 

a  See  the  article  on  Pharisees  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopaedia.  The  seven 
classes,  of  which  five  consist  of  eccentric  fools  or  hypocrites,  are  found  in  an 
ancient  baraita.  The  references  given  are  to  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  Berachoth 
(Blessings),  ix.  146;  Sotah,  22b,  and  to  Schechter's  edition  of  the  Aboth  of 
B.  Nathan,  pp.  55,  62. 

8  Josephus,  Antiq.  xv.  1.  1.  Shemaiah  and  Abtalion  form  the  fourth  ot 
the  five  couples— Hillel  and  Shammai  being  the  last— who  are  said  to  have 
presided  over  the  Sanhedrin.  Aboth  (fathers),  i.  4-12.  See  C.  Taylor,  Sayings 
of  the  Jewish  Fathers,  pp.  28  and  32  ;  Montet,  Origines  des  partis  sadduceen  et 
phariseen  (Paris,  1883). 

*  Antiq.  xvii.  2.  4. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         113 

Galilee  in  a.d.  6  was  supported  by  Sadduk,  a  Pharisee.  Upon 
the  whole,  however,  the  Pharisees  were  more  anxious  to  observe 
the  Law  than  to  interfere  in  politics. 

Josephus  states  that  the  Pharisees  difiered  from  the  Saddu-  Doctrine, 
cees  on  the  question  of  Free  Will  and  Determinism.     He  repre- 
sents the  Essenes  as  absolute  fatalists  and  the  Sadducees  as) 
insisting  on  free  will ;  but  declares  that  the  Pharisees  took  a  \ 
middle  path,  saying  that,  though  God  has  foreseen  everything,  I 
man  is  allowed  to  make  his  choice  between  good  and  evil.    As  a  u 
Pharisee  himself  he  finds  consolation  in  the  thought  that  Jeru-  I 
salem  and  the  Temple  fell  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  * 
since   inanimate   objects    can   no    more   escape   their   destiny 
(elfMap/nevrj)  than  men.1     According  to  him  the  Pharisees  be-* 
lieved  that  the  souls  of  good  men  return  to  life  in  other  bodies,- 
and  that  those  of  the  bad  are  eternally  punished.     In  B.J.  ii.  8.' 
14  he  says  that  they  think  that  "  every  soul  is  incorruptible, 
but  that  only  the  souls  of  the  good  pass  over  (fierafiaLveiv) 
to  other  bodies,  and  those  of  the  wicked  are  chastised  with; 
eternal  punishment."     In  the  parallel  passage  in  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  3 
we  read  that  the  souls  of  the  evil  are  to  be  "  detained  in  an  I 
everlasting  prison,"  but  the  souls  of  the  good  "  will  have  easy 
access  to  living  again  (paarodrrjv  tov  avafiiovv  2)." 

It  is,  of  course,  not  impossible  that  Josephus,  or  the  Pharisees, 
meant  that  this  "living  again"  and  passing  over  to  another^ 
body  would  be  the  result  of  the  Resurrection.  If  so,  however,  it 
is  not  a  "  resurrection  of  the  body,"  but  the  vivification  of  a 
new  body  with  an  old  soul ;  and  the  resemblance  to  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  1  Corinthians  is  obvious  and  significant.  The  exist- 
ence of  this  exposition  of  doctrine  in  Josephus  has  been  somewhat 
overlooked,  but  it  is  clearly  of  the  utmost  importance  for  thei 
understanding,  not  only  of  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion, but  also  of  the  popular  belief  in  the  return  of  Elijah  or  of  | 

1  Josephus,  B.J.  ii.  8.  14,  and  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  3. 

2  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  this  word  is  used  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  in  the  Apology  of  Aristides,  xv.  (/*er&  5t  rp&  rjfxtpas  dveplw). 

VOL.  I  ! 


114  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

I  others  of  the  prophets,  and  may  have  had  its  influence  on  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  the  indwelling  Christ.     There  appears  to  be 
no  other  equally  full  statement  of  Pharisaic  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  a  future  life. 
Law  and  But  the  distinguishing  feature  of  Pharisaism  was  its  reverence 

for  tradition  as  supplementing  the  Law.     The  Sadducees  are 
said  by  Josephus  to  have  maintained  that  the  Law,  and  nothing 
but  the  Law,  was  binding,  but  the  Pharisees  considered  that  the 
obligations  prescribed  in  the  Law  had  been  modified  by  tradition. 
{ This  tradition,  according  to  the  Eabbis,  Moses  had  delivered  to 
J  Joshua,  Joshua  to  the  Elders,  the  Elders  to  the  Prophets,  the 
'  Prophets  to  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue.     "  They  said  three 
things :  Be  deliberate  in  judgment ;  and  raise  up  many  disciples ; 
and  make  a  fence  to  the  Law."     The  last  is  interpreted  by  C. 
Taylor,1  "Impose  additional  restrictions  so  as  to  keep  at  a 
safe  distance  from  forbidden  ground,"  thus  sanctioning  additions 
to  explain  and  amplify  the  Law,  not,  however,  to  make  it  bur- 
densome, but  to  facilitate  its  fulfilment. 

(&)  The  Various  interpretations   of   the  name  Sadducee  have  been 

Or^nCofES'  given,  but   the    most    probable    derives    it    from    Zadok    the 
t  priest,   who,   under    Solomon,   supplanted  Abiathar.     Ezekiel, 
when  he  reconstructed   the  ideal   Temple  at  Jerusalem,  pre- 
scribed that  no  one  should  be  allowed  to  exercise  the  priestly 
office  in  it  but  those  who  were  sons  of  Zadok  (Ezek.  xliv.  15). 
I  If  such  be  the  case,  it  might  be  expected  that  the  party  of  the 
j  priesthood  would  adopt  a  name  derived  from  their  ancestor 
who  acted  as  priest  in  the  earliest  days  of  the  Temple,  and  the 
|  evidence  both  of  Josephus  and  of  the  New  Testament  is  strongly 
!  in  favour  of  the  Sadducees  being  in  general  the  priestly  party 
as  opposed  to  the  popular  sect  of  the  Pharisees.    It  would, 
however,  be  a  mistake  to  regard  this  distinction  as  universally 
and  exclusively  true,  and  to  lay  too  much  stress  on  the  Sadducees 
being  the  priestly  party.     The  passages  commonly  quoted  in 

1  Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers,  p.  25. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         115 

support  of  this  are  Acts  v.  17  and  Antiq.  xx.  9.  1 ;  but  the  fact.  j. 
that  Josephus  specially  informs  us  that  Ananus  II.,  the  High 
Priest  who  condemned  James  the  Just  and  quarrelled  with 
Albinus,  was  a  Sadducee,  shows  that  it  was  not  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  holder  of  the  office  should  attach  himself  to  that  party, J 
and  in  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  4  he  expressly  says  that  the  Sadducees 
were  unwilling  to  accept  public  offices. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Rabbinical  writers  we  find  a  legend  Legendary 
that  two  sects  originated  from  the  disciples  of  Antigonus  of  Socho  0Tlgin' 
(third  century  B.C.),  in  consequence  of  his  famous  saying  :   "  Be 
not  as  slaves  which  minister  to  the  Lord  with  a  view  to  receive 
recompense  ;  but  be  as  slaves  that  minister  to  the  Lord  without  a 
view  to  receive  recompense."     Thereupon  two  of  his  disciples, 
Zadok  and  Boethus,  understood  that  their  master  meant  to 
deny  a  future  life,  and  in  the  spirit  of  "  Let  us  eat  and  drink, 
for  to-morrow  we  die,"  decided  to  live  in  luxury,  and  from  them 
arose    the    sects    of    the    Sadducees   and    Boethusians.1      The 
unhistorical  character  of  this  story  is  shown  by  the  representa- 
tion of    the    Sadducees    elsewhere    as    extremely    rigorous    in 
judgment ;    and  when,  in  the  time  of  the  widow  of  Jannaeus, 
Alexandra  Salome  (76-67  B.C.),  their  code  was  abolished  by  the 
Sanhedrin,  under  Solomon  ben  Shetah  the  Pharisee,  the  day 
was  kept  as  a  festival.     From  the  earlier  Rabbinic  writers  the, 
Sadducees  appear  to  have  had  many  regulations  different  from? 
those  of  the  Pharisees ;   but  their  disputes  turn  mainly  on  legal  I  „ 
points,  the  Sadducees  being  on  the  whole  supporters  of  theL 
priesthood  and  of  a  more  literally  conservative  interpretation  of  |i> 
the  Law  than  their  rivals.2 

The  New  Testament  and  Josephus  are  in  general   accord  Doctrine. 
in  regard  to  Sadducean  doctrine  and  opinions.     The  sect  first 

1  The  evidence  for  this  is  very  late.  It  is  found  in  the  Aboth  of  B.  Nathan 
(eleventh  century),  which  quotes  a  Midrash  to  this  effect.  See  Jewish  Encyclo- 
paedia, "  Boethusians." 

2  See  p.  87  for  the  reason  why  the  Rabbinic  statements  in  the  Talmud  as 
to  the  Sadducees  are  peculiarly  open  to  doubt ;  and  for  instances  of  the  differ- 
ences in  teaching  between  Sadducees  and  Pharisees  see  Appendix  D. 


116  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

appears  under  John  Hyrcanus  (135-105  B.C.),  who  espoused  their 
cause  when  the  Pharisees  had  given  offence  by  recommending 
that  a  light  sentence  should  be  passed  on  Eleazar ;  but  after 
this  we  hear  nothing  of  them  till  the  days  of  the  New  Testament. 
Josephus  says  of  the  Sadducees  :  (1)  They  rejected  the  *  Tradi- 
tion/ and  only  held  to  be  obligatory  what  they  found  in 
the  written  word.1  (2)  They  were  rich,  and  not  as  popular 
as  the  Pharisees.2  (3)  Their  followers  were  only  those  of  the 
highest  rank.3  (4)  They  denied  that  man  is  under  the  constrain- 
ing influence  of  '  fate '  (el/jbappevr)),  the  doctrine  of  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  and  rewards  and  punishment  after  death.4 
(5)  They  held  their  opinions  rather  as  private  individuals  than 
as  magistrates  ;  for,  when  in  office,  they  had  to  defer  to  the 
Pharisees  in  order  to  conciliate  the  public.5 

In  the  Gospels  the  Sadducees  are  only  once  mentioned  by  Mark, 
in  connexion  with  the  question  about  the  seven  brethren  in  the 
Resurrection  ;  6  in  Matthew  they  come  with  the  Pharisees  to 
John's  baptism,7  and  they  are  substituted  for  Mark's  Herodians 
in  the  injunction  to  beware  of  the  leaven.8  In  Luke  they  are 
only  mentioned  in  the  question  about  a  resurrection,  taken 
from  Mark,9  and  are  unnoticed  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  All  there- 
fore to  be  inferred  from  the  Gospels  is  that  the  Sadducees  denied 
the  Resurrection  and  were  one  of  the  two  leading  sects.  In 
Acts  they  appear  three  times  :  in  iv.  1,  in  connexion  with  the 
High  Priest  and  the  aTpaniyos  of  the  Temple,  as  arresting  the 
Apostles  ;  in  v.  17,  with  the  chief  priests  under  similar  circum- 
stances. In  the  account  of  the  debate  in  the  Sanhedrin,  some 
wished  to  put  the  Apostles  to  death  (if  the  reading  be  correct) ; 
but  the  Pharisee  Gamaliel  advised  moderation.  Finally,  in 
xxiii.  6,  we  find  Paul  before  the  Sanhedrin,  composed  of  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees,  appealing  to  the  one  against  the  other ;  and  we 
are  told  that  the  Sadducees  denied  a  resurrection,  angels,  and 

1  Antiq.  xiii.  10.  6;  xviii.  1.  4.          a  Antiq.  xiii.  10.  6.  Cf.  also  xviii.  1.  4. 

8  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  4.                   «  B.J.  ii.  8.  14.  6  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  4. 
•  Mark  xii.  18.                          '  Matt.  iii.  7.  8  Matt.  xvi.  1  ff. 

9  Luke  xx.  27. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         117 

spirits.  Thus,  both  in  Acts  and  Josephus,  their  distinguishing 
tenet  is  the  denial  of  a  resurrection.  The  rejection  of  angels 
and  spirits  is  not  mentioned  by  Josephus,  but,  as  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  Sadducees  appear  to  have  had  sympathies  with 
the  ruling  class,  and  to  have  been  harsher  in  judgment  and 
more  impatient  of  innovation  than  the  Pharisees,  to  whom  both 
Josephus  and  Acts  ascribe  a  disposition  to  mercy. 

Closely  connected  with  the  Sadducees,  as  we  have  seen,  Boe- 
are  the  family—for  they  can  hardly  be  termed  the  sect— of  thusians- 
the  Boethusians.  They  probably  really  are  derived  from 
Boethus,  the  father  of  Simon,  an  Alexandrian  whom  Herod 
made  High  Priest  in  order  to  marry  his  daughter  Mariamne, 
not  to  be  confused  with  Herod's  Hasmonean  wife  of  the  same 
name.  This  was  in  26  or  25  B.C.,  and  from  that  time  down  to 
the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  the  family  frequently  enjoyed  the  High 
Priesthood.  The  Rabbinical  writings  have  allusions  to  the 
Boethusians  as  a  sect  of  the  Sadducees  ;  but  their  questions- 
mainly  turn  on  points  of  ritual.1 

It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  class  all  the  ruling  priests  as 
Sadducees  or  Boethusians ;  but  it  is  natural  that  they  should 
be  attracted  by  ideas  favoured  by  a  select  few,  mostly  rich  men, 
rather  than  by  those  of  a  popular  party  like  the  Pharisees. 

The  chief   Jewish    teachers    contemporary  with    the    New  (C)  Jewish 
Testament  known  to  us  by  name  are  Hillel,  Shammai,  Gamaliel  ™A°™™ 
the  Elder,  and  Johanan  ben  Zakkai.  Christian 

Hillel  was  a  Babylonian,  and  a  contemporary  of  Herod  the^Hiiiei. 
Great.    He  found  his  way  to  Jerusalem,  and,  despite  extreme-' 
poverty,  became  a  student  of  the  Law.     The  whole  aim  of  his 
interpretation  was  the  bettering  (Tihhun)  of  Israel.     In  character 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.  xv.  9.  3.  Simon  the  son  of  Boethus  was  an  Alexandrian. 
For  the  succession  of  the  Boethusian  pontiffs  see  Derenbourg,  op.  cit.  p.  156. 
Derenbourg  on  p.  137  gives  an  account  of  a  controversy  in  which  the  Boethusians 
maintained  their  view  that  Pentecost  could  only  be  kept  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week. 


118  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

he  is  represented  as  gentle  and  kindly  :  the  story  is  told  of  him 
that  to  a  would-be  proselyte,  who  would  only  listen  while  he 
could  stand  on  one  leg,  he  explained  the  Law  in  the  well-known 
saying,  "  What  is  hateful  to  thyself  do  not  to  another."  x  Like 
Paul  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  he  seems  to  have  accepted  an 
Alexandrian,  whose  right  to  be  reckoned  as  a  Jew  was  disputed, 
on  the  marriage  document  (Ketubbah)  of  his  mother.  Though  he 
was  held  in  the  highest  honour,  no  miracles  are  credited  to  Hillel.2 

Shammai.  Shammai,  the  rival  and  contemporary  of  Hillel,  is  nearly 

always  mentioned  together  with  him ;  and  in  the  Talmud  the 
characteristic  of  his  teaching  is  its  unbending  severity,  though 
he  is  represented  as  not  lacking  in  amiable  qualities.3  Both 
these  teachers  are  better  known  as  the  founders  of  two  schools, 
the  Beth-Hillel  and  the  Beth-Shammai.4  These  are  not,  as  is 
frequently  assumed,  to  be  classed  as  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, 
though  the  tendencies  they  exhibit  are  not  unlike  those  of  the 
great  sects. 

School  of  The  principles  of   Hillel   were  continued  by   his  family ; 5 

but  the  great  representative  of  the  more  liberal  side  of  Judaism  is 
Johanan  ben  Zakkai,  whose  school  at  Jabneh,  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  laid  the  foundation  of  Rabbinic  practice  and 
theology.      He  represents  the  pacific  school  of  the  Pharisees. 

1  Cf.  Matt.  vii.  12 ;  Did.  i.  2 ;  Aristides,  15  ;  Apost.  Const,  i.  1 ;  Tobit, 
iv.  15  ;  and  Philo  quoted  by  Eusebius,  Praep.  Evan.  viii.  7  ;  and  see  G.  Resch, 
Texte  und  Unters.  xxviii.  3,  p.  134,  and  the  notes  on  Matt.  vii.  12  in  A.  Resch's 
Aussercanon.  Paralleltexte,  and  in  the  commentary  on  Acts  xv.  20,  29. 

a  Aucun  personnage  de  l'antiquite  rabbinique  n'est  plus  connu  que  Hillel.  Sa 
pauvrete  et  son  abnegation,  tant  qu'il  f  ut  jeune ;  sa  patience  et  sa  mansuetude, 
lorsqu'il  enseigna  dans  son  ecole  ;  la  science  et  la  sagacite  qu'il  deploya  dans 
la  discussion,  sont  devenues  populaires,  et  il  sera  difficile  de  demeler  ce  qu'il 
y  a  de  vrai  dans  les  anecdotes  que  le  Thalmud  a  conservees,  et  ce  que  la 
poesie  legendaire  de  la  nation  y  a  ajoute  (Derenbourg,  op.  cit.  p.  181). 

8  See  Derenbourg,  op.  cit.  p.  189. 

*  Derenbourg,  op.  cit.  pp.  176  ff . ;  Jewish  Ency.,  arts.  "Hillel"  and 
"  Shammai,"  and  also  "  Bet  Hillel  "  and  "  Bet  Shammai."  Three  hundred  and 
sixteen  controversies  between  these  'schools'  are  preserved  in  the  Talmud, 
and  in  only  fifty-five  instances  were  the  Shammaites  on  the  side  of 
leniency. 

6  The  succession  appears  to  have  been  Hillel,  Simon  I.,  Gamaliel  I., 
Simon  II.,  Gamaliel  II. 


Hillel. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         119 

When  the  strife  of  parties  became  unendurable  be  escaped  from 
Jerusalem  in  a  coffin.  He  settled  at  Jabneb  (Jamnia),  where  he 
founded  his  famous  school.  Like  Josephus,  he  escaped  from 
his  distracted  countrymen  to  the  Romans,  but  the  Jews  held 
him  in  the  highest  honour,  though  Josephus  does  not  so  much 
as  mention  his  name.1  Gamaliel  (or  Gamliel)  I.,  well  known  to 
readers  of  Acts,  is  perhaps  in  reality  the  most  shadowy  figure 
of  all.2  Josephus  (Vita,  38)  implies  that  he  was  a  Pharisee  by 
his  statement  that  his  son  Simon  belonged  to  the  sect,  but  the 
Rabbinical  traditions  concerning  him  often  confuse  him  with  his 
grandson  Gamaliel  II.  He  is  credited  with  having  been  the  first 
of  the  seven  teachers  who  received  the  title  of  Rabban,  and 
according  to  Jewish  tradition  he  succeeded  his  grandfather 
Hillel  and  his  father  Simon  as  nasi  and  first  president  of  the 
Sanhedrin.  We  possess  three  letters  from  him,  two  to  Galilee 
and  one  to  the  Diaspora ;  the  tradition  that  he  ordered  the 
removal  of  the  Targum  of  Job  from  Jerusalem  is  our  oldest 
evidence  for  a  Targum.  He  is  not  called  a  Pharisee  except  in 
Acts  v.  34  fL,  and  the  only  early  statement  that  he  ever  taught 
is  that  of  Acts  xxii.  3  ;  but  there  is  a  saying  of  his  preserved  in 
the  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  comparing  his  pupils  to  fish. 

The  Herodians  are  twice  mentioned  in  Mark  iii.  6  and  xii.  (d)  The 

,,,.,,  ..     *  «*  •  •  m      .1       Herodians. 

13  (cf.  the  parallel  m  Matt.  xxn.  16)  as  conspiring  with  the 
Pharisees  against  Jesus.  The  only  reason  for  considering  them 
as  a  religious  sect  is  the  absurd  statement  of  Epiphanius 
that  they  interpreted  the  words  of  Gen.  xlix.  10  ("  The  sceptre 
shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  etc."),  of  Herod— presumably 
Herod  the  Great ;  but  probability  and  the  form  of  the  word  in 
Latin  suggest  that  they  were  the  partisans  of  Herod.  The 
Herod   of    the    Gospels    being   Antipas,    Tetrarch   of    Galilee, 

1  There  is  an  interesting  article  on  Johanan  ben  Zakkai  in  the  Jewish 
Encyclopedia.  See  also  Burkitt's  account  in  his  Jewish  and  Christian  Apoca- 
lypses, p.  8,  also  E.  Levine  in  The  Parting  of  the  Roads,  p.  299.  Derenbourg, 
op.  cit.,  devotes  a  chapter  to  Johanan  (chap.  xix.). 

1  See  Jewish  Encyclopaedia,  art.  "  Gamaliel." 


120  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

*  Herodian  '  would  then  naturally  mean  one  of  his  court  or  of  his 
party.     It  is  noticeable  that  in  Mark  these  '  Herodians  '  appear 
once  in  Galilee  and  once  in  Jerusalem  on  an  occasion  when, 
according  to  Luke,  Herod  was  in  that  city. 
Herods  as  Although  there  is  no  other  evidence  as  to  the  existence  of  a 

benefactors.  , 

party,  much  less  a  sect,  of  Herodians,  some  Jews  may  have 
fixed  their  hopes  on  the  Herodian  family  as  saviours  of  the 
nation.  Herod  the  Great  certainly  did  all  in  his  power  to  con- 
ciliate his  Jewish  subjects,  especially  the  Pharisaic  party.  His 
rebuilding  of  the  Temple  was  a  truly  splendid  bid  for  popularity  ; 
and  though  it  failed  in  its  object,  it  must  have  impressed  many 
with  a  sense  of  Herod's  value  to  the  Jewish  State.  Of  Herod's 
sons  and  successors,  Archelaus  proved  a  complete  failure ;  but 
Philip,  as  tetrarch  of  Ituraea  (4  B.C.  to  a.d.  34),  was  regarded  as 
a  model  ruler,  and  Antipas  governed  Galilee  and  Peraea  with  the 
marked  approval  of  Tiberius.  It  is  possible  that  Antipas's  mar- 
riage was  prompted  by  a  politic  desire  to  secure  Jewish  support 
by  an  alliance  with  a  Hasmonean  princess.1  The  Baptist's 
disapproval  of  this  may  well  have  been,  as  Mark  says,  the  cause 
of  his  execution  ;  and  Herod's  attitude  to  Jesus  may  be  accounted 
for  in  the  same  manner.  Herod  Agrippa  at  a  later  date  was 
accepted  by  the  Jews  as  the  best  of  kings,  being,  like  his  sister 
Herodias,  a  Hasmonean  on  the  mother's  side. 


IV.  The  Fokmal  Separation  prom  Judaism 


TANS 


Samari-  Both  Acts  and  the  Third  Gospel  show  an  interest  in  the 

Samaritans.  In  the  Old  Testament  their  origin  is  traced  to  the 
Cuthean  settlers  whom  Esarhaddon  (682-669  B.C.)  placed  in 
the  cities  of  Samaria.  They  are  described  in  the  decidedly 
malicious  account  given  in  2  Kings  xvii.  as  instructed  by  a  priest 
of  Bethel  in  the  worship  of  Jahveh  but  combining  it  with  idolatrous 
practices.    But  in  the  Book  of  Ezra  they  profess  to  serve  Jahveh 

1  See  Chs.  I.  and  III. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         121 

as  the  Jews  did ; 1  and  Zerubbabel,  in  repulsing  them,  says 
nothing  of  their  idolatry,  of  which  no  proof  exists.  Two  genera- 
tions later  we  find  their  leader  Sanballat  hindering  Nehemiah's 
work,  but  at  the  same  time  in  alliance  with  the  High  Priest 
Eliashib,  to  whom  he  was  related  by  marriage.  Josephus, 
by  confusion  of  dates,  makes  Sanballat  a  contemporary  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  a  century  later  than  Nehemiah.2  In 
Ecclesiasticus  they  appear  as  a  schismatical  sect,  "  The  foolish* 
people  who  dwell  in  Shechem."  " 

The  bitterest  hostility  existed  between  Jews  and  Samaritans,  Samaritans 
but  this  did  not  prevent  their  frequent  agreement  in  matters  of  J^w 
belief.     It  is  significant  that  in  many  points  the  Samaritans,  who . 
owed  their  temple  to  a  priestly  revolt  against  the  layman  Nehe- 1 
miah,  are   said  to  have  had  an  affinity  with  the   SadduceesJ 
Though  Josephus  says  that  Shechem  had  become  a  place  of 
refuge   for   Jews  who  had  broken  the  Law,  the   Samaritans #., 
obtained  a  qualified  recognition  at  Jerusalem,  and  were  admitted  \ 
to  the  precincts  of  the  Temple.     Their  Halaka  was  in  many 
respects  stricter  than  that  of  the  Rabbis,  especially  as  regards 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  one  of  the  Rabbis,  Simon 
ben  Gamaliel  (a.d.  165),  commended  them  as  being  more  scrupu- 
lous than  the  Jews.     They  were  to  be  restored  to  Judaism, 
according  to  the  Masseket  Kutim,  when  they  renounced  Gerizim 
and  confessed  Jerusalem  and  the  Resurrection  of   the  dead.3  I 
The  Samaritan  canon  is  restricted  to  the  Law,  and  in  no  sense  u 
extends  to   the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa.4    On  the  whole, . 

1  Ezra  iv.  2.  They  claim  that  they  seek  the  same  god  as  the  Jews,  and 
say  that  they  have  done  sacrifice  to  him  since  the  days  of  Esarhaddon,  king  of 
Assyria,  "  which  brought  us  up  hither." 

2  This  question  is  discussed  below,  pp.  140  ff. 

8  In  J.  A.  Montgomery's  The  Samaritans  (Philadelphia,  1907),  chapter  xi.,  « 
there  is  a  summarj'  of  all  the  legislation  regarding  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  I 
Samaritans  in  the  treatise  Masseket  Kutim  (Cutheans,  i.e.  Samaritans). 

4  The  refusal  to  accept  aught  but  the  Law  was  not,  perhaps,  from  a  Jewish 
standpoint  in  any  way  heretical.  See  C.  Taylor,  Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers 
(1877),  p.  119  (Excursus  I.).  R.  Johanan  said:  "  The  prophets  and  the  Hagio- 
grapha will  cease,  but  the  five  books  of  the  Torah  will  not  cease."  See  also 
another  saying  in  op.  cit,  Excursus  on  The  Sadducees,  p.  128. 


122  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  ! 

Samaritanism,  like  the  sects  in  the  Russian  Church,  was  always 
more  conservative  than  the  parent  church  of  Jerusalem. 

It  is  not  possible  to  obtain  complete  certainty  as  to  the  belief 

of  the  Samaritans  in  the  first  century,  for  our  evidence  is  all 

derived  from  Samaritan  documents  which  are  considerably  later 

than  the  facts  described ;  from  Christian  writers,  who  are  in  the 

|  main  no  earlier  and  far  less  trustworthy ;  and  from  the  rather 

I*  extensive  correspondence  between  the  Samaritans  and  scholars 

in  Europe  in  the  seventeenth  century.1 

Samaritan  The  points  of  importance  are  :    (1)  The  complete  restriction 

pecuhan-  f  a.~u.     a     '    j.  it-» 

ties  of         ot  tne  Scriptures  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  a  corresponding  exalta- 

doctrine.        tion  of  Mogeg        (g)   ^  ^.^  ^  q^^   ^  ^   ^  ^ 

Mount  of  God,  and  that  Gerizim  was  the  appointed  place  for  the 

Temple  and  the  ritual  of  the  Pentateuch.     (3)  A  belief  that  in 

yfl  *  the  last  days  there  would  arise  a  prophet,  either  like  Moses  or 

actually  a  reincarnation  of  Moses,  who  was  called  the  Taheb 

[(inn),  meaning  either  "the  Restorer"  or  possibly  "he  who 

returns."     He  would  restore  the  days  of  grace,  which  had  ended 

with  the  backsliding  of  EH,  and  after  living  one  hundred  and  ten 

years  would  die.     There  would  follow  the  day  of  judgment  and 

resurrection,  when  the  righteous  would  go  to  the  Garden  of 

Eden,  and  the  wicked  would  be  burned.    It  is,  however,  possible 

that  some  of  this  belief  is  a  later  accretion,  as,  according  to  Origen,2 

the  Samaritans  denied  not  only  a  Resurrection,  but  even  all 

j future  life.     On  the  other  hand,  Justin  Martyr3  declares  that 

I'  the  Samaritans  believed  in  a  future  Messiah,  which  may  refer  to 

[the  belief  in  the  Taheb,  though  as  Justin  also  states  that  they 

derived  their  belief  from  the  Prophets,  confidence  in  his  statement 

is  shaken.4 

Samaritans         Two  attitudes  towards  the  Samaritans  can  be  traced  in  the 

Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts. 

1  See  J.  A.  Montgomery,  The  Samaritans,  p.  3. 

2  In  Matt.  xxii.  23,  ed.  Delarue,  p.  811,  and  Horn.  xxv.  p.  365 

3  1  Apol.  53. 

*  According  to  Epiphanius,  the  Samaritans,  like  the  Jews,  were  divided 
into  sects  (see  p.  84). 


Ill 


THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         123 


(a)  In  the  instructions  to  the  Twelve  in  Matt.  x.  5,  Samaria 
is  coupled  with  the  Gentile  world  and  is  excluded  from  the 
mission-field  of  the  Twelve.  "  Go  not  into  a  way  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  enter  not  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans."  x  This  appears 
to  represent  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  editors  of  the  First  Gospel 
as  to  the  attitude  of  Jesus  and  of  the  first  disciples  towards  the 
Samaritans.  Whether  the  same  editor  is  responsible  for  Matt, 
xxviii.  19  ("  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  make  disciples  of  all 
the  heathen  ")  must  remain  doubtful.  Whoever  inserted  this 
passage  clearly  regarded  it  as  cancelling  Matt.  x.  5,  but  the  latter 
verse  is  probably  evidence  that  some  circles  of  Christians  claimed 
the  authority  of  Jesus  for  not  preaching  either  to  Gentiles  or 
Samaritans. 

Was  this  also  the  attitude  of  Mark  ?     There  is  no  decisive'; 
evidence,  for  in  the  Marcan  narrative  Samaria  and  the  Samaritans  j 
are  not  mentioned.    All  that  can  be  said  is  that,  according  to^ 
Mark,  Jesus  preached  only  in  Galilee  and  to  Jews  in  the  district 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  for  the  Gentile  woman  of  Syrophenicia  in 
Mark  vii.  26  is  clearly  intended  as  the  "  exception  which  proves 
the  rule  "  in  the  true  sense  of  that  phrase. 

(b)  In  the  Third  Gospel  and  in  Acts  the  opposite  view  is 
clearly  maintained,  that  Jesus  and  His  disciples  ranked  the 
Samaritans  with  the  Jews  rather  than  with  the  Gentiles.  This 
may  perhaps  be  seen  in  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  (Luke 
x.  25  ff.)  and  in  the  story  of  the  grateful  Samaritan  leper  (Luke 
xvii.  11  ff.),  but  is  clearest  in  Luke  ix.  52,  which  represents  the 
Samaritans  as  rejecting  Jesus  when  he  tried  to  approach  them, 
and  in  Acts  i.  8,  when  Samaria  is  coupled  with  Judaea.  It 
is  also  implied  by  the  general  narrative  which  represents 
the  Apostles  as  willing  to  preach  and  baptize  in  Samaria,  but 

1  It  is  sometimes  held  that  these  injunctions  were  only  intended  to  apply 
to  a  special  journey  of  the  Twelve.  It  is  of  course  possible  that  this  was  the 
meaning  of  Matthew  as  it  stands  now,  but  the  editor  has  actually  omitted  from 
the  Marcan  narrative,  which  he  has  combined  with  these  instructions,  all  those 
details  which  might  imply  that  a  special  journey  was  intended.  Cf.  Mark  iii. 
13  ff.,  vi.  6  ff.  with  Matt.  x.  1  ff.,  and  note  especially  the  absence  in  Matthew 
of  any  parallel  to  Mark  vi.  12  or  to  vi.  30. 


124  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  , 

requiring  a  special  revelation  before  they  would  approach  the 
Gentile  Cornelius.  Moreover,  in  the  account  of  Philip's  work 
in  the  "  city  of  Samaria/'  Simon  is  represented  as  an  enemy, 
not  because  he  was  a  Samaritan,  but  because  he  was  a  fidyos, 
who  was  declared  to  be  the  Great  Power  of  God.  * 
fiXsfhus  In  tte  Fourtl1  G°sPel  tnere  is  nothing  but  the  story  of  the 
'woman  at  the  Well  of  Samaria  and  the  use  of  Samaritan  by  the 
Jews  as  a  term  of  abuse  in  John  viii.  48 ; 1  but  it  is  clear  that 
the  Johannine  tradition,  like  the  Lucan,  desired  to  represent 
Jesus  as  accepting  Samaritans. 

Josephus  declares  that  the  Samaritans  were  friendly  with 
the  Jews  when  they  were  in  prosperity,  but  hostile  when  things 
went  badly  in  Judaea ;  a  statement  which  is  hardly  borne  out 
by  facts.  Under  Pilate  a  fanatic  assembled  an  armed  crowd, 
promising  to  show  them  the  sacred  vessels  hidden  by  Moses  on 
Gerizim,  and  Pilate's  severity  in  quelling  the  disturbance  led  to 
his  recall.2  This  would  be  in  a.d.  36  ;  and  in  about  the  year  52, 
under  Cumanus,  there  was  a  serious  quarrel  between  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans  owing  to  a  massacre  of  Galilean  pilgrims 
and  consequent  reprisals.  On  the  outbreak  of  the  war  the 
Samaritans  suffered  with  the  Jews;  Sebaste  (Samaria)  was 
burned  3  in  a.d.  66  ;  and  the  following  year  witnessed  a  Samari- 
tan revolt  against  Rome,  suppressed  by  Vespasian's  officer 
Cerealis.  After  a.d.  70  the  Samaritans  suffered  for  their  religion 
together  with  the  Jews.4  On  the  whole  we  may  perhaps  infer 
that  the  Samaritans  differed  less  from  the  Jews  than  is  supposed, 
and  that  the  undoubted  mutual  hostility  has  been  exaggerated. 

1  The  story  of  the  Woman  of  Samaria  supplies  the  following  details  :  (1) 
That  the  disciples  went  into  the  city  of  Sychar  to  buy  food— presumably,  there- 
fore, Samaritan  food  was  regarded  as  clean ;  (2)  the  contradictory  statement 
that  the  Jews  have  no  dealings  with  the  Samaritans, — though  this  is  possibly 
an  addition  to  the  text ;  (3)  the  remark  of  the  woman  claiming  that  she  was 
a  descendant  of  Jacob,  and  that  her  fathers  "  worshipped  on  this  mountain  " 
(Gerizim) ;  (4)  that  the  difference  between  Jews  and  Samaritan  turned  on  the 
proper  place  of  the  Sanctuary ;  (5)  the  recognition  by  the  woman  that  Messiah 
will  come  ;  (6)  that  many  of  the  Samaritans  believed  on  Jesus— in  contradiction 
to  Luke  ix.  52.  a  Antiq.  xviii.  4.  1-2. 

3  B.J.  ii.  18.  1.  *  B.J.  iii.  7.  32. 


in  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         125 

Both  from  Acts  and  Josephus  it  appears  that  they  were  equally 
susceptible  to  revolutionary  influences. 


V.  The  Ignorant  or  "  People  of  the  Land  " — 

THE  f AME  HA-'ARES 

The  relation  of  the  stricter  Jews  towards  the  so-called  "people  The 
of  the  land  "  (Ame  ha- Ares)  is  a  question  of  some  difficulty,  theL^nd* 
needing  careful  discussion.1  It  has  been  held  by  many,  including 
the  writer  of  the  Third  Gospel,  that  the  Pharisees  represented 
the  rich  and  the  peopje  the  poor,  and  that  the  mission  of  Jesus 
was  intended  for  the  humble  and  ignorant.  But  this  scarcely 
represents  the  feeling  of  the  time.  Judaism  was,  it  is  true, 
sacerdotal  and  aristocratic  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
Temple ;  but  elsewhere  it  ignored  distinctions  of  rank  among 
Israelites.  The  Temple  worship  existed  because  of  the  Law, 
which  every  good  Jew  made  the  supreme  object  of  life  to 
observe,  even  though  he  could  only  on  rare  occasions  offer  sacri- 
fice. But  to  observe  the  Law  a  profound  knowledge  of  its  re- 
quirements was  needed,  demanding  long  and  arduous  study. 
Consequently  learning  and  religion  went  hand  in  hand,  and  a 
truly  pious  Jew  had  to  be  expert  in  all  the  subtleties  of  the  Law. 
An  aristocracy  of  learning  open  to  all  grew  up,  independent  off 
birth  or  official  rank,  in  which  a  proselyte,  like  Aquila,  or  one' 
who  confesses  that  he  had  been  an  'Am  ha-aresi  like  Akiba,  might 
take  a  leading  place,  whilst  the  High  Priest  himself  might  be 
rigidly  excluded  by  his  ignorance. 

Thus  the  'Am  ha- ares  was  separated  by  a  formidable  barrier  Judaism  a 
from  the  learned  Jews,  which,  however,  he  could  surmount  by  region. 
obtaining  proficiency  in  the  Law.    With  all  its  faults  the  legalism 
of  Judaism  has  had  its  advantage  in  making  knowledge  a  neces- 
sary part  of  religion  ;  and  the  high  intelligence  displayed  by  the 
Jewish  race  is  in  a  great  measure  due  to  the  fact  that  the  discipline 

1  The  details  are  discussed  at  greater  length  in  Appendix  E,  by  Prof.  G.  F. 
Moore.    See  above,  Ch.  II. 


126  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

of  learning  the  Law  has  been  continued  for  many  generations. 
To  be  a  devout  Jew  a  man  has  had  to  become  somewhat  of  a 
trained  lawyer;  and  dreary  as  the  Talmud  seems  to  the  un- 
initiated, it  has  proved  (like  the  Mathematical  Tripos  and  Greats) 
of  great  value  to  those  who  subsequently  apply  themselves  to 
other  pursuits.  Devout  Jews  formed  themselves  into  haberim 
(societies)  in  order  to  maintain  the  distinction  between  themselves 
and  the  fAme  ha- ares,  whose  ignorance  of  the  Law  rendered  them 
liable  to  contract  ceremonial  impurity. 


VI.  The  Apocalyptic  Thought  and  Literature 

Rabbis  and  The  Jewish  Rabbis  were  interested  in  conduct,  and  their 
main  object  was  to  explain  a  law  designed  to  produce  a  per- 
fect man,  living  in  all  respects  in  accordance  with  the  will  of 
God.  They  cared  little  for  history,  except  in  so  far  as  it 
interpreted  their  code.  Nevertheless  among  the  Jews,  as  in 
every  other  nation,  there  were  some  to  whom  history  appealed ; 
less,  however,  as  a  statement  of  events  than  as  an  explanation 
of  their  causes  and  mutual  relation.  The  modern  man,  who 
is  in  this  respect  the  descendant  of  the  Greeks,  endeavours 
to  produce  a  philosophy  of  history  agreeing  with  his  own  theory 
of  the  universe :  and  to  do  so  he  investigates  facts  in  accord- 
ance with  laws  of  evidence  derived  ultimately  from  the  logic  of 
Aristotle.  The  Jewish  writer  knew  nothing  of  Aristotelian  logic : 
his  view  of  the  universe  was  not  only  different  from  ours  but 
wholly  contradictory  to  it;  and  he  cared  little  for  accurate 
statement. 

Old  The  earliest  philosophy  of  history  which  can  be  traced  in 

phUosophy  Jtne  literature  of  Israel  is  expressed  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 

of  history.  |  j^  was  ^ne  simple  theory  that  when  Israel  was  faithful  to  the 
■  Lord  it  prospered,  and  when  it  was  unfaithful  it  suffered  adver- 
[  sity.  The  theory  was  worked  out  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  and 
5  Kings,  and  in  a  cruder  and  more  mechanical  manner  by  the 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM.       127 

Chronicler.  It  can  be  traced  still  further  in  the  writings  oi 
Josephus,  and  in  a  Christianised  form  in  the  Church  History  of 
Eusebius.  It  was  held  firmly  by  the  prophets,  but  many  of  the 
predictions  which  they  made  on  the  strength  of  it  remained 
unfulfilled.  Therefore  there  arose  a  school  of  writers  who  took 
up  and  reinterpreted  the  more  picturesque  of  the  unfulfilled 
predictions  of  the  prophets,  especially  such  passages  as  Isaiah 
xxiv.  to  xxvii.,  the  last  chapters  of  Ezekiel,  and  parts  of 
Zechariah.  To  these  they  added  new  and  gorgeous  imagery  of 
their  own,  much  of  which  is  probably  drawn  from  ancient  Baby- 
lonian and  Persian  sources. 

In  this  way,  just  as  the  study  of  the  Law  produced  the  Mishna,|interests  of 
the  study  of  the  history  of  unfulfilled  prophecy  produced  the]^?* 
Apocalyptic    Pseudepigrapha.    While    the    legalist    concerned' 
himself  with  the  Law,  to  solve  the  problem,  "  What  shall  I  do 
that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life  ?  "  and  found  guidance  in  the 
written  and  unwritten  Law  of  Moses,  the  writers  of  this  literature 
were  interested  in  history  and  prophecy,  in  the  past,  present, 
and  future  of  Israel.     They  sought  inspiration  from  the  ancient 
records  of  the  human  race  and  of  the  fathers  of  Israel  preserved 
in   Genesis,  and  from  the  ecstatic  utterances  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets.     But  it  is  misleading  to  draw  a  hard-and-fast  line  be-  I  * 
tween  the  two  schools  of  thought.     The  legalist  could  sometimes  ' 
share  in  the  enthusiasm  of  the  visionary,  who,  in  turn,  might  be, 
for  all  his  dreams  and  revelations,  zealous  for  the  Law.     Just 
as  a  priest   or   a   Rabbi   might   belong    to    any   one   of  the 
sects  of  the  Jews,  so  there  was  no  reason  why  the  philosophy 
of    history   should    have   been    in    the   hands    of    one    sect 
rather  than  another.    It  is  no  doubt  true  that  in  the  main 
the  members  of  the  same  sect  held  similar  opinions  and  interests, 
but  though  the  fullest  allowance  be  made  for  this,  adherents 
of  various  sects  might  occupy  themselves  with  the  philosophy 
of  history,  and  even  adopt  the  same  methods.     It  is  there- 
fore not  surprising   that  traces  of  all  the  sects  have  been 
found  in  the   Apocalypses.     But    after    all    the    main   thing 


128  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

is  to  set  forth  the  literary  method  of  the  writers  of  this 
literature  and  their  theory  of  history. 
Chief  Apo-  The  chief  Jewish  Apocalypses  are  the  following  : x  the  Book 
caypses.  ^  ^  Daniel,  the  Ethiopic  Enoch,  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  the 
Slavonic  Enoch,  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  (4  Ezra),  the  Syriac 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  the  Greek  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  the 
"  Book  of  Baruch,"  the  Apocalypse  of  Abraham,  the  Greek  Life 
of  Adam,  and  the  Latin  Life  of  Adam  and  Eve. 

>  With  them  may  be  reckoned  also  the  Psalms  of  Solomon, 
the  Book  of  Jubilees,  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs, 

1  and   the  Sibylline  Oracles,  all  of   which  represent  a  mixture 
^,  of    apocalyptic    hopes    with    other   interests.     The    Book    of 

[  Jubilees,  for  instance,  is  in  the  main  a  legal  book,  while  the 
*  |  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  is  very  largely  a  moral 

I  treatise.  There  is  nothing  surprising  in  this,  for  it  is  in  itself 
entirely  natural  that  those  who  are  interested  in  the  philosophy 
of  history  should  endeavour  to  set  it  out  in  relation  to  other 

i  subjects ;  and  this  especial  philosophy  had  always  as  its  practical 

J  object  the  heartening  and  comfort  of  the  righteous  in  affliction 

§  by  explaining  the  will  and  purposes  of  God.  It  is  in  this 
respect  that  the  Apocalyptists  approach  most  nearly  to  the 
Prophets.  The  difference  between  them  is  that  the  prophets 
in  general  represent  God's  purposes  as  at  least  in  part  conditional 
on  men's  conduct.  Though  the  Prophets  foretell  the  future, 
they  acknowledge  that  the  actual  events  depend  on  what 
men  do.  Thus  the  doctrine  of  a  free  will  is  in  the  main 
characteristic  of  their  teaching;  and  the  prophets,  like  the 
legalists,    were    above    all    anxious    to    direct    the    will    of 

J  man  aright.  But  the  Apocalyptists  are  determinists  :  they 
regard   history   as   the   working   out    of    a    predestined   plan, 

5  of  which  they  explain  either  the  whole  or  some  part. 
Nothing  can  change  it.  It  is  true  that  even  the  Apocalyptists 
never   fully  extended  this   determinism   to  individuals, — it  is 

1  The  most  convenient  translation  is  R.  H.  Charles's  The  Apocrypha  and 
Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament. 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM        129 

one  of  history,  not  of  individual  character  and  destiny.1  In- 
dividuals may  achieve  salvation  or  damnation  by  their  conduct, 
but  the  individual  is  rarely  the  centre  of  Apocalyptic  interest. 
The  point  which  the  writers  emphasised  was  that  the  plan  as 
a  whole  is  fixed,  arranged  in  periods  of  chronology,  and  cannot 
be  changed,  and  that  it  is  so  ordered  that,  properly  understood, 
it  ought  to  be  of  infinite  comfort  to  the  oppressed  righteous, 
heartening  him  patiently  to  endure  to  the  end. 

The  Apocalyptic  period  in  Judaism  between  the  publication  Period  of 
of  Daniel  and  the  appearance  of  the  Syriac  Baruch  and  4  Ezra  Apocalyptic 
embraces  some  three  centuries  (165  b.c.-a.d.  120).  Daniel  is  uterature- 
the  earliest,  and  is  followed  by  the  groundwork  of  the  present 
Book  of  Enoch,  chapters  i.-xxxvi.  and  lxxii.-cviii.,  which  is  assigned 
to  about  100  B.C.  This  book  is  really  a  collection  of  a  large 
Enochian  literature.  The  Apocalypses  of  Baruch  and  Ezra 
are  perhaps  the  latest,  and  are  almost  contemporary  with  the 
chief  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  None  of  these  books 
have  survived  in  their  original  Jewish  form  in  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic,  with  the  exception  of  the  canonical  Book  of  Daniel. 
Most  have  been  enshrined  in  translations,  many  of  which  have 
only  recently  been  recovered.  They  are,  moreover,  only  a  few 
remnants  of  a  much  greater  literature  which  consisted  of  many 
books.  All  are  late  in  date,  but  all  ascribed  to  early  writers. 
This  discrepancy  between  the  facts  and  the  titles  gave  rise 
to  various  artifices  of  explanation,  of  which  that  in  4  Ezra  2  is 
the  most  complete. 

According  to  this,  in  Ezra's  time  the  Bible  was  lost,  and 
Ezra  by  inspiration  restored  it  with  the  assistance  of  an  angel. 
The  incident  is  thus  related  in  chap.  xiv.  44  fL  : 


1  As  Akiba  is  reported  to  have  said :  "  All  is  foreseen  by  God,  and  the  power 
of  Choice  is  given  to  man  "  (Aboth,  3.  19).  Cf.,  too,  Hanina's  saying  :  "  All  is 
in  the  power  of  Heaven,  except  the  fear  of  God,"  which  means  that  God  can 
do  everything  except  make  a  man  religious  (Berachoth,  336).  The  contrast 
between  this  and  Paul,  and  still  more  Calvin,  is  remarkable. 

2  4  Ezra  is  the  technical  term  for  chaps,  iv.-xiv.  of  2  Esdras  in  the  Apocrypha, 
also  known  as  the  "  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras." 

VOL.  I  K 


130  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

Legendary         So  in  forty  days  were  written  ninety-four  books.    And  it  came 

recovery        ^  ^^  ^^  ^  ^^  ^^  ^^  fajfij]^  q^  ^  m()gt  jjjg^  Spake 

Scriptures,  unto  me  saying :  The  twenty-four  books  that  thou  hast  written, 
and  publish,  that  the  unworthy  may  read  therein  ;  but  the  seventy  last 

Apocryphal,  thou  shalt  keep,  to  deliver  them  to  the  wise  among  thy  people.     For 

in  them  is  the  spring  of  understanding,  the  fountain  of  wisdom,  and 

the  stream  of  knowledge. 

That  is  to  say,  twenty-four  books  are  the  canonical  scriptures 
of  the  Jews,  open  to  all  men.  The  seventy  others  are  not  for 
profane  eyes  ;  only  the  wise  may  read  them,  for  they  alone  can 
appreciate  their  meaning.  The  point  of  the  story  is  to  explain 
why  these  books  which  claimed  such  antiquity  had  not  previously 
been  known.  It  is  exactly  the  same  motive  which  makes  the 
writer  of  Daniel  state  that  he  had  been  bidden  to  seal  up  the 
vision.  The  books  were  represented  as  having  been  the  posses- 
sion of  a  select  circle,  and  dealt  with  mysteries  which  were  not 
for  the  profane.  There  is  little  reason  for  thinking  that  this  was 
really  true.  Few  books  are  ever  circulated  privately,  except 
when  a  larger  public  is  not  to  be  obtained. 
Definition  The  word  Apocalyptic  as  applied  to  these  secret  books  needs 

lyptic.  a  definition.  It  is  the  disclosure  of  that  which  is  beyond  human 
knowledge.1  The  seer  is  dealing  not  so  much  with  human 
events  as  with  divine,  and  this  is  characteristic  of  Apocalyptic 
works.  The  writers  tell  partly  the  history  of  the  past,  partly 
the  history  of  the  future,  and  partly  they  explain  the  mysteries 
of  the  natural  and  spiritual  world,  but  they  do  so,  not  in  order  to 
relate  facts  or  even  to  influence  conduct,  but  to  explain  prin- 
ciples and  causes,  and— quite  especially— chronology.  These 
causes  and  principles  are  indeed  very  different  from  those  with 
which  the  modern  student  of  the  philosophy  of  history  operates, 
but  the  intention  was  similar. 

The  difference  between  apocalyptic  and  prophetic  writing 
is  easier  to  appreciate  than  to  define.  In  general  it  may  be 
said  that  prophecy  is  usually  national  and  moral,  while  the 

1  Cf.  Torrey  in  Jewish  Ency.,  "  Apocalyptic  Literature." 


m  THOUGHT  AND  PKACTICE  IN  JUDAISM        131 

Apocalyptists  pay  more  attention  to  systems  of  chronology, 
in  the  «  How '  and  '  When  '  of  history.  The  centre  of  their 
interest  was  not,  as  ours  is,  the  accurate  presentment  of  the 
facts  of  history,  but  rather  the  elaborate  schematising  of  events 
and  dates,  spending  much  ingenuity  in  arranging  history  into  a 
fixed  and  symmetrical  system  of  chronology  which  governed 
rather  than  expressed  its  course.  They  were  the  direct  ancestors 
of  Julius  Africanus  and  the  author  of  the  Be  Pascha  Computus. 
They  are  concerned  with  the  relation  between  events  in  heaven  and 
the  kingdoms  and  empires  of  the  world,  and  therefore  they  spoke 
of  angels,  demons,  and  the  supramundane  representatives  of 
men  and  nations  who  operated  partly  in  accordance  with  the 
will  of  God,  partly  in  opposition  to  it,  and  so  produced  that 
strange  mixture  of  motives  and  curious  combination  of  creation 
and  destruction  which  makes  up  the  history  of  the  world. 

None  of  the  earlier  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  apocalyptic,  The  Book 
and  even  among  the  later  ones  none  has  so  exclusively  that  ^  a^ocL 
character  as  to  be  called  an  Apocalypse,  except  the  Book  of  l™ae- 
Daniel.  In  this  there  are  a  series  of  visions,  in  which  the  relation 
between  events  in  heaven  and  the  kingdoms  and  empires  of  the 
world  is  explained.  The  seer  beholds  Israel  in  the  centre  of 
every  scene  which  is  presented  to  the  eyes  of  his  imagination, 
but  not  as  isolated  from  the  world.  The  allusions  which  he  makes 
to  events  are  represented  to  be  prophetic,  nevertheless  they  are 
unmistakable  references  to  what  happened  centuries  after  the 
days  of  the  supposed  '  Daniel.'  The  seventh  chapter  illustrates 
this.  Three  fierce  beasts  appear  and  after  them  a  fourth, "  dreadful 
and  terrible,"  who  destroys  them,  and  in  this  beast  the  horn 
arises  with  "  eyes  like  the  eyes  of  a  man,  and  a  mouth  speaking 
great  things."  Then  heaven  is  opened  and  "  the  Ancient  of 
Days  "  is  seen  ;  "  thousand  thousands  ministered  to  him,  and 
ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood  before  him."  The 
invisible  court  of  heaven  and  its  countless  hosts  of  divine  beings 
are  disclosed.  In  the  midst  of  this  tremendous  scene  "the 
judgment  is  set,  and  the  books  are  opened."     Then  another 


132  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

mysterious  figure  appears.  "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and, 
behold,  'one  like  a  Son  of  Man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,' 
and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  Days,  and  they  brought  him  near 
before  him.  And  there  was  given  to  him  dominion,  and  glory, 
and  a  kingdom  ...  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion, 
which  shall  not  pass  away."  x 

Here  most  of  the  typical  conditions  of  an  Apocalypse  are 
fulfilled.  It  is  pseudonymous,  inasmuch  as  the  assumed  writer 
is  a  sage  of  bygone  days.  It  is  interested  in  Israel,  but  not 
exclusively;  the  kingdom  of  him  who  comes  on  the  clouds 
embraces  "  all  people,  nations,  and  languages "  ;  the  beasts 
are  not  merely  symbols;  they  are  actually  existing  supra- 
mundane  powers,  whose  actions  are  reflected  in  the  history  of 
the  nations.  There  is  a  heavenly  vision  of  the  consummation 
of  the  age.  Moreover,  the  prophecy  is  a  sealed  book.  Pro- 
fessedly it  is  not  intended  to  circulate  among  those  of  Daniel's 
generation :  "  the  words  are  closed  up  and  sealed  until  the  time 

of  the  end."  2 

No  other  prophecy  in  the  Old  Testament,  despite  the  attend- 
ant visions,  can  be  called  Apocalyptic  in  this  sense.     The  con- 
cluding chapters  of  Ezekiel  have  a  superficial  resemblance  to 
an  Apocalypse  ;  but  the  essential  conditions  are  hardly  fulfilled. 
The  prophet  sees  no  heavenly  temple,  but  an  idealised  restoration 
of  the  House  in  which  he  had  ministered ;   and  in  the  national 
triumph  only  Israel  shares,  and  forms  a  perfect  community  in 
its  own  land.     Even  the  earlier  visions  of  Divine  majesty,  the 
living  creatures,  the  wheel  within  wheels,  are  personal  rather 
than  world-wide.    Nor  is  there  any  idea  that  the  revelation  is 
primarily  meant  for  posterity. 
Apocalypses       One  feature,  often  present  in  Apocalypses  but  lacking  in 
and  the    JDaniei  wh0  jn  this  respect  is  more  like  the  prophets  of  the  older 

antediluviaij  J-"*""-**  *- 

order,  is  the  interest  in  the  history  of  the  first  age  of  the  world, 
the  fall  of  angels,  and  the  revelations  made  to  antediluvian 
patriarchs.     The  story  of  the  early  ages  of  the  world  is  regarded 

i  Dan.  vii.  1-14.  2  Dan.  xii.  9. 


world. 


in  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM        133 

as  fraught  with  a  deep  meaning  revealed  to  the  saints  of  old, 
who  reserved  its  disclosure  till  the  fulness  of  the  times.  Whether 
those  who  first  read  them  seriously  believed  in  the  words  of  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  1  that  "  Enoch,  seventh  from  Adam,"  actually 
prophesied  is  immaterial ;  but  in  one  thing  Jews  and  Christians  i 
agreed — they  allowed  the  entire  literature  to  sink  into  obscurity,  j 

The  most  marked  characteristic  so  far  as  literary  method  is  Extant 
concerned  is  the  consistent  use  of  previous  material.    Every  ^coI^aZ 
Apocalypse  which  we  possess  seems  to  be  made  up  of  fragments  tions- 
of  earlier  works  belonging  to  the  same  type.    Frequently  it  is 
possible  to  distinguish  these  sources,  but  critics  have  possibly 
gone  rather  further  than  the  evidence  warrants  them  in  assigning 
dates  and  making  statements  about  the  opinions  of  the  authors 
of  the  various  sources,  for  it  is  certain  that  the  writers  who  pro- 
duced the  present  documents  did  not  look  on  themselves  merely 
as  editors.     They  were  writing  books  by  the  method  of  com- 
pilation, but  they  troubled  themselves  little  in  the   accurate 
representation  of  their  sources.    What  they  desired  was  to  set  out 
their  own  opinions,  and  they  were  willing  to  treat  their  sources  in 
any  way  which  rendered  them  better  adapted  for  this  purpose. 

In  the  accomplishment  of  this  task  they  produced  an  almost  The  End 
infinite  variety  of  combination,  often  involving  illogical  and  self-  Beginning, 
contradictory  statements.    For  though  many  of  the  visions  of 
the  Apocalyptists  are  worked  out  with  fantastic  minuteness, 
they  cared  really  more  for  the  principles  than  they  did  for  the 
details  of  history.     The  End  was  to  be  as  the  Beginning ;  and  j 
their  interest  in  "  the  Beginning "  was  entirely  due  to  this.  > 
The  End  was  their  real  preoccupation,  and  the  most  marked 
characteristic  of  their  belief  was  the  certainty  that  the  End 
was  close  at  hand.    Much  of  the  interest  of  the  subject  for  the 
student  of  Christian  origins  is  the  picture  which  is  presented  of 
the  time  immediately  preceding  and  following  after  the  End ; 
for  the  End  was  after  all  not  final, — it  was  only  the  End  of  this 
world,  and  after  it  would  arise  the  World  to  Come. 

1  Jude  14. 


134  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

Woes  The  general  picture,  of  which  the  details  vary  in  each  book, 

deiivlrance!  is  that  a  period  of  great  and  unprecedented  suffering — the  Woes — 
will  pass  into  one  of  prosperity  and  happiness  for  the  chosen 
people.  This  will  be  succeeded  by  a  last  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  powers  of  evil,  who  will  be  finally  and  completely  defeated. 
Then  will  come  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  great  judgment, 
and  the  End,  after  which  will  begin  the  New  Age  or  the  World 
to  Come.  Such  are  the  general  outlines  of  the  Apocalyptic 
picture ;  but  there  is  considerable  variation.  The  days  of 
prosperity  which  succeed  the  Woes  are  sometimes  pictured  as 
the  reign  of  that  anointed  prince  or  Messiah  whose  coming  was 
foretold  by  the  prophets.  Sometimes  the  Messiah  does  not 
appear  at  all,  and  the  custom  of  nevertheless  referring  in  such 
cases  to  this  period  as  Messianic,  though  general,  is  to  be  de- 
precated. Similarly  the  judgment  is  sometimes  carried  out  by 
God,  sometimes  by  his  representative.  Sometimes  the  final 
effort  of  evil  seems  to  be  omitted.  In  general,  however,  the 
characteristic  features  remain,  and  it  is  perhaps  well  to  remember 
that  every  Apocalypse  is  not  necessarily  a  complete  picture  of 
everything  which  its  writer  might  have  accepted. 
Persian  It  may  be  legitimate  to  inquire  whether  this  Apocalyptic 

picture  is  a  genuine  outcome  of  Judaism  at  all.  In  its  main 
characteristics  Persian  influence  is  very  marked.  The  religion 
of  Zoroaster  is  based  on  the  great  strife  in  heaven  and  on  earth 
between  the  powers  of  good  and  evil,  ending  in  a  spectacular 
triumph  of  righteousness.  Ormuzd  and  his  angels  strive  with 
Arihman  and  his  angels,  just  as  Michael  does  with  Satan.  In 
the  end  a  Saviour  comes,  in  the  person  of  Shaosyant,  and  executes 
judgment,  bringing  about  a  new  order.  This  is  the  essence  of 
Apocalyptic  revelation,  heaven  and  hell  crowded  by  angelic  and 
demonic  hosts,  a  Saviour  interfering  in  the  cause  of  right,  the 
final  judgment,  the  End,  and  the  World  to  Come.1  In  reality  it 
is  in  contrast  with  the  Jewish  conception  of  Messiah,  an  anointed 
king  vindicating  (for  in  that  sense  the  word  "  to  judge  "  is  em- 

1  See  below,  pp.  269-277. 


influence. 


in  THOUGHT  AND  PRACTICE  IN  JUDAISM         135 

ployed)  and  establishing  a  kingdom  in  which  the  Law  is  supreme. 
Nevertheless,  the  Persian  eschatology  as  a  whole  was  taken  over 
by  Jewish  thought,  and  the  question  naturally  arose  of  its 
relationship  to  the  prophetic  doctrine  of  an  anointed  king  of  the 
house  of  David.  It  would  have  been  possible  to  identify  the 
new  world  with  the  kingdom  of  the  anointed  prince  of  the  house 
of  David,  and  in  the  end  that  identification  was  possibly  made 
in  some  Jewish  circles,  but,  in  the  main,  Jewish  thought  followed 
a  different  line  of  development.  The  days  of  the  anointed  king, 
when  they  were  not  omitted  altogether,  were  kept  as  the  closing 
period  of  this  age,  which  the  Resurrection  was  to  follow  rather 
than  precede.  His  reign  was  to  precede  the  End,  and  he, 
like  all  other  men,  would  die,  even  though  an  extremely  long 
life  was  granted  him.  After  his  death  and  that  of  the  rest 
of  mankind  would  come  the  resurrection  and  the  judgment, 
which  would  settle  whether  men  should  or  should  not  pass 
on  into  a  life  of  happiness  in  the  new  world.  This  is  the 
theory  presented  in  4  Ezra  and  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch. 
It  is  noticeably  similar  to  that  of  Paul  in  1  Corinthians  xv. 
and  to  the  vision  of  the  End  and  of  the  New  Creation  in 
Revelation  xix.-xxii.  It  was  probably  held  at  least  by  some  ? 
Rabbis,  but  in  Judaism  interest  in  eschatology  gradually  atrophied  j^ 
under  the  intenser  study  of  the  Law,  and  Christianity  in  the  end 
accepted  a  simpler  form,  which  identified  the  World  to  Come  with 
the  Days  of  the  Messiah,  and  translated  it  from  Earth  to  Heaven. ' 

The  reason  for  the  very  sudden  decline  of  Apocalyptic  litera-  causes  of 
ture — for  Ezra  is  not  only  the  finest  but  almost  the  last  of  the  decline* 
series — can  be  explained  in  the  main  by  two  considerations.     The  |U 
type  of  thought  which  it  represents  could  not  survive  the  dis- , 
illusionment  caused  by  the  failure  of  Bar  Cochba  and  the  final  J 
downfall  of  the  Jewish  state.    In  the  second  place,  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  considerable  growth  of  what  we  should  now  call  I 
theosophy  among  the  Jews,  and  the  Rabbis  set  their  faces  sternly J| 
against  it.    At  one  time  at  least  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  andi] 
of  Ezekiel  were  forbidden  to  all  under  the  age  of  thirty.    The 


136  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

Rabbis  were  successful  in  their  campaign,  and  the  Apocalyptic 
literature  probably  went  down  together  with  the  theosophy  for 
which  it  provided  so  much  tempting  material.  It  revived  again 
in  the  Middle  Ages  in  the  form  of  the  Hekeloth,  much  of  which 
is  preserved  in  the  Cabbala.  In  this  fragments  of  the  Apocalyptic 
literature  can  still  be  traced,  though  not  in  such  a  form  as  to  be 
directly  identical  with  the  recensions  which  still  survive. 

Conclusion.  The  Fall  of  Jerusalem,  a.d.  70,  marked  the  downfall  of  the 
priestly  party  and  the  disappearance  of  the  Sadducees.  Johanan 
ben  Zakkai  and  the  founders  of  the  New  Judaism  were  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  Pharisees,  on  whose  teaching  the  Rabbinical 
principles  were  mainly  based;  and  Sadducee  and  Boethusian 
became  terms  of  reproach. 

The  common  view  that  the  Pharisees  were  a  sect  occupied 
in  trivial  matters  of  ritual,  and  making  the  Law  intolerable 
by  their  traditions,  is  as  erroneous  as  that  the  Sadducees  were 
worldly  men  promoting  scepticism  in  faith  and  laxity  in  conduct. 
|  In  many  instances  the  Sadducees  demanded  more  from  their 
followers  than  their  rivals  ;  and  the  Pharisaic  traditions  made 
/  the  Law  easier  to  obey.  The  allegation  that  the  Sadducees  not 
only  denied  the  Resurrection,  but  also  rejected  all  the  prophets, 
is  probably  based  on  the  legend  which  connected  this  dis- 
credited party  with  the  Samaritans. 

The  fundamental  difference  between  the  Pharisees  and  the 
other  sects  seems  to  have  been  that,  whereas  Essenes,  Sadducees, 
and  the  Covenanters  of  Damascus  always  looked  to  the  past,  they 
took  count  of  the  present  and  the  future.  In  their  hands,  not  in 
those  of  the  Sadducees  or  Samaritans  with  their  unchangeable 
law,  or  of  the  Covenanters  with  their  ideal  of  an  Israel  in  the 
desert,  or  of  the  Apocalyptists  with  their  fantastic  history,  or  of 
the  *Ame  ha- Ares  with  their  uninstructed  piety,  lay  the  future  of 
Judaism. 


Based upmM]pinM^3icycbpa>dia,M7.  $y permission cfl&smFunk&WhgnaUs. 


Sta***1 


Con    usion 


'Mill  JEWISH  WuULl) 


136 

Rabbis  were  successful  in  therFt 
literature  probably  went  down  toge* 


or 


r  ^^^I^ApG^alj^tic 
eV4Jtn\he  the^ophjflrf 
which  it  provided  so  much  tempting  material.    It  revived 
in  the  Middle  Ages  in  the  form  of  the  Hekeloth,  jsrach  0 
is  preserved  in  the  Cabbala.    In  this  fragments  ofraie  Apocalyjptic 
rature  can  still  be  traced,  though  not  in  stfeh  a  form  as  to  be 
jctly  identical  with  the  recensions  whicjrstill  survive. 


ie  Fall  of  Jerusalem,  a.d.  70,  marled  the  downfall  of  the 

and  the  disappearance  o|flche  Sad< 

ZakKa7%ad^ of  theJs ew  Jattaism  were  in  sym- 

7  with  the  Pn^r1fee?»r-^^/se  t^chins;  the  Rabbinical 

dples  were  mainly  basect?iaJ|y^.adducee  ^n(l  Boethusian 


Le  Wrms  of  reproach. 

itifJUwm  thtfC  the  Pha' 


r badaucee  ai 
aisdaioasnifiG 


ie  comi 


were  a  sect  occupied 

Bf  ritual,  and  makm^hfL  Law  intolerable 

:heir  tradition tQ?TTl\jjfyQneous  as  that  the  E^dducees  were 

^ ^^WttffT^f T  "  sc^P^cTttfTSiAfc.ffiS.d  laxity 

tny  instanofea/ the  Sfl9fitejs  demanded /nor< 

3&*&!?an  tre^r  rivals  ;  anA  thu  RuujsaK 

iaw  eai^r  fcr^bey.     The  aUegatiojjJhjfc  f 

Resij 

dited  party 


lithe  Sarriafttans. 
:he  fundamental  difference  between 
others^cts  ©ems  to  fcave  been  tiyg/wher 
and  the  tbvenanters  oi"Bam^|ciap  4^y||W?ii 
"  >kfco"Ddt  of  ^  j^sjnjrand  tiie Jutura,    In 


■^< 


>se  of  t 
or(o| 
desert,  ol 
the  'Ame 
Judaism. 


e  Sadducees  or  $amaritan^rith  tkeh/J 
thX  (Toverranters  ^ith  their  ideal  of  sji 
Apocalyptisfe  with  their  fanjastj 
|  with  their  ^instructed  V&ty,)&>i 


the  fi 


r,  or  of 
:ure  of 


.■J&M^3N*>*roft.WB^fc.V  IMOnWJrO^xS-  ^WtJ&»^<?R'S^v|^«C^fcL5TOQ^3 


IV 

THE   DISPERSION 

By  The  Editors 

The  name  in  the  Bible  for  the  scattered  Jewish  communities  the 
was  "The  Captivity,''  the  late  Greek  equivalent  being  Siaairopd,1  INTHB  0.t. 
Dispersion ;  but  the  word  "  sojourner "  always  applied  with 
peculiar  force  to  the  nation  of  Israel.  The  patriarchs  were 
wanderers,  and  even  in  their  most  prosperous  days  their 
descendants  occupied  only  portions  of  Palestine  by  a  precarious 
tenure.  The  kingdom,  from  the  accession  of  Saul  to  the 
fall  of  Samaria  in  722  B.C.,  can  scarcely  have  lasted  much 
more  than  three  hundred  and  fifty  years.  Even  during  that 
period  the  Israelite  nation  never  possessed  a  great  part 
of  the  country  claimed  as  its  inheritance,  and  Galilee  was 
called  "the  circuit"  (GaM)  of  the  Gentiles.2  After  722  B.C., 
those  who  claimed  to  be  genuine  sons  of  Jacob  occupied  only 
the  highlands  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  a  few  villages  around 

1  See  note  by  J.  H.  Ropes  in  the  International  Critical  Commentary  on  the 
Epistle  of  James,  p.  120  ff.  The  word  dcaa-iropd  is  comparatively  rare  in  the 
LXX.  and  is  never  used  to  translate  r&u,  though  in  later  Hebrew,  as  the  title 
Nn'n:  t?jo  of  the  Prince  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon  testifies,  it  was  the  equivalent 
of  dtaairopd.  As  Dr.  Ropes  remarks,  "It  is  not  a  regular  representative  of 
any  Hebrew  word."  In  the  LXX.  it  has  generally  the  sense  of  violent  dis- 
persion, as  of  a  discomfited  army. 

2  Isaiah  ix.  1.  See  also  1  Kings  ix.  11.  Galilee  means  the  "circuit,"  and 
is  always  used  with  the  article.  In  2  Kings  xv.  29,  Galilee  is  described  as 
"  all  the  land  of  Naphtali."  In  the  story  of  the  birth  of  Jacob's  sons  Naphtali 
is  said,  bike  Gad,  Asher,  and  Dan,  to  be  the  son  not  of  a  wife,  but  of  a  concubine, 
i.e.  of  mixed,  not  of  pure  race.     Gen.  xxx.  8. 

137 


138  THE  JEWISH  WOELD  i 

Jerusalem.  From  a  very  early  time  the  outskirts  of  the  Israelite 
territory  had  been  subject  to  frequent  raids,  and  the  appearance 

(a)  Assyria,  of  the  Assyrian  armies  was  marked,  not  by  one,  but  by 
many  captivities.  Thus  in  the  days  of  Pekah  Tiglath-pileser 
carried  away  a  large  number  of  captives  from  northern 
Palestine,  Galilee,  and  Gilead.1  When  Sargon  took  Samaria 
the  inhabitants  of  the  district  were  transplanted,  some  as 
far  as  Media.2  His  son  Sennacherib  boasts  that  he  took 
captive  no  less  than  two  hundred  thousand  Judeans.3  So 
far  as  we  are  able  to  judge  these  exiles  did  not  retain 
their  customs  nor  their  religion,  but  amalgamated  with  the 
surrounding  nations.  Still  there  is  no  reason  why  the  later 
captives  from  Judah  should  not  have  found  the  ground  of  a 
religious  settlement  prepared  for  them  by  their  countrymen.4 
In  the  sixth  century  B.C.  the  deportations  were  carried  on,  in 

(6)  Babylon,  perhaps  a  more  systematic  fashion,  by  the  Babylonian  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. At  any  rate,  the  ties  with  the  old  country  were  not 
completely  broken,  and  the  Jewish  settlements  retained  their 
distinctive  features.5  From  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, however,  it  is  plain  that  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  even 
when  it  lay  in  ruins,  attracted  pilgrims  and  was  regarded  as  a 
peculiarly  sacred  spot.6  The  policy  of  the  great  king  was  not 
to  make  his  deportations  on  a  large  scale,  but  to  select  the  best 
and  richest  for  removal,  leaving  the  common  people  behind  to 
cultivate  the  land.7  From  the  days  of  the  Babylonian  captivity 
the  strength  of  Judaism  was  in  the  East  rather  than  in  Judaea. 

(c)  Egypt.         But  if  the  Jews  were  being  deported  eastward  there  was-  a 

1  2  Kings  xv.  29.  2  2  Kings  xvii.  6. 

3  Taylor  Cylinder,  see  King,  First  Steps  in  Assyrian,  p.  61 ;  and  Ball,  Light 
from  the  East,  p.  187. 

4  Josephus,  Antiq.  xi.  5.  2,  at  5£  5^/ca  (pu\al  irepav  dalv  Ev<f>p&Tov  Zios  devpo, 
fivpiades  aVetpot  /cat  api8/.<.$  yvwcrdrjvai  fxr]  5vvd/xevai.  Cf.  also  Tobit  i.  14,  where 
it  is  implied  that  the  sons  of  tribes  in  captivity  remained  true  to  their  religion. 
Cf.  E.  Schiirer,  G.J.  V.  vol.  iii.  p.  8. 

6  2  Kings  xxiv.  14  ;  Jer.  Iii.  24-25.  For  the  maintenance  of  a  connection 
between  the  exiles  and  the  Jews  see  Jer.  xxiv.,  Ez.  viii.  16,  and  passim, 
Zech.  vi. 

«  Jer.  xli.  5.  7  Jer.  xxxix.  10,  Iii.  16  ;  2  Kings  xxv.  11. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  139 

voluntary  migration  southward.  Since  the  days  of  Isaiah,  at 
any  rate,  Egypt  had  had  an  attraction  for  Israelites.  When 
Jerusalem  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Babylonians  the  Jewish 
exiles  formed  a  colony  at  Tahpanes  (Daphne).1  Under  the 
Persian  rule  in  Egypt  they  evidently  enjoyed  the  protection  of 
the  conquerors,  and  established  themselves  as  far  south  as  the 
first  cataract  at  Yeb  (Elephantine).  A  flood  of  light  has  been 
shed  on  this  Jewish  settlement  by  the  discovery  of  the  Mond- 
Cecil  papyri,  a  series  of  family  deeds,  one  dated  possibly  as  early 
as  494  B.C.2  The  community  had  for  years  enjoyed  the  right  of 
having  its  own  temple  with  its  altar  and  sacrifices,  and  was  under 
protection  of  the  Persian  viceroy.  It  was  evidently  composed 
of  prosperous  traders  ;  and  though  it  incurred  the  enmity  of  the 
Egyptian  priesthood,  it  was  on  friendly  terms  with  the  people. 
These  Egyptian  Jews  maintained  a  connection  with  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  and  the  High  Priest. 

The  Old  Testament  supplies  evidence  that  the  Jews  were  (d)  Persia, 
numerous  and  influential  in  the  Persian  Empire,  whose  founder, 
Cyrus,  was  regarded  as  their  special  protector,  and  his  son, 
Cambyses,  sanctioned  their  worship  in  Egypt  when  he  sup- 
pressed the  native  religion.3  Nehemiah  received  his  appoint- 
ment as  Governor  of  Judaea  at  Susa  (Shushan)  in  Persia,4  and 
the  scene  of  the  Book  of  Esther  is  laid  in  the  same  place.5 
Thus  by  the  commencement  of  the  fourth  century  before 
Christ  there  were  Jewish  communities  in  Upper  Egypt,  Meso- 
potamia, Persia,  and  Media. 

With  the  appearance  of  Alexander  the  Great  in  Syria,  Judaism  Alexander 
entered  upon  a  new  phase.    Hitherto  it  had  belonged  to  the 

1  Jer.  xliii.  7.  The  prophet  addresses  the  Jews  at  Migdol,  Tahpanes,  Noph, 
and  in  the  country  of  Pathros,  Jer.  xliv.  1. 

2  A.  van  Hoonacker,  Une  Communaute  judeo-arameenne,  etc.  (Schweich 
Lectures,  1914).  The  papyri  are  family  deeds  purchased  by  Mr.  Robert  Mond 
and  Lady  William  Cecil  in  1904,  and  published  at  Mr.  Mond's  expense  by 
A.  H.  Sayce  and  A.  E.  Cowley,  entitled  Aramaic  Papyri  discovered  at  Assuan, 
1906.  In  1907  Prof.  Sachau  edited  Drei  aramdische  Papyrusurkunden 
aus  Elephantine.     Berlin. 

3  Sachau,  op.  cit.  i.  13-14.  4  Neh.  i.  1.  6  Esther  i.  5. 


140  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

East,  now  it  was  to  assimilate  itself  to  the  West  also.  When 
Hebrew  ceased  to  be  in  common  use,  the  Jews  adopted  Aramaic, 
a  kindred  language  originally  spoken  by  the  tribes  to  the  east  of 
Palestine,  the  dialects  of  which  were  current  in  the  fifth  century 
B.C.  from  the  Nile  to  the  Tigris  ;  but  henceforward  Greek  was  to 
be  also  a  vehicle  of  Jewish  thought.  For  the  visit  of  Alexander 
to  Jerusalem  Josephus  is  our  sole  authority,1  and  his  narrative 
is  not  easy  to  reconcile  either  with  that  in  the  canonical  book  of 
Nehemiah,  nor  with  the  Mond  papyri ;  since  the  events  of  the 
fifth  and  fourth  centuries  B.C.  are  inextricably  confused. 
Narrative  According  to  Josephus,  after  the  capture  of  Tyre,  Alexander 

of  Josephus.  wag  vjgj^  by  ganballat,  a  Cuthaean,  who  had  been  sent  by 
Darius  Codomannus  as  governor  of  Samaria.  Manasseh,  the 
brother  of  Jaddua,  the  High  Priest,  contrary  to  the  law  had 
espoused  Nicaso,  Sanballat's  daughter ;  and  Sanballat  had 
promised  him  a  more  valuable  priesthood  than  that  of  the  Temple, 
together  with  the  government  of  the  fertile  territory  of  Samaria. 
Taking  advantage  of  a  sedition  in  Jerusalem  and  the  fact  that 
Jaddua  had  provoked  Alexander  by  his  obstinate  loyalty  to 
Darius,  to  whom  he  had  sworn  allegiance,  Sanballat  obtained 
permission  to  erect  a  Temple  on  Mount  Gerizim  and  to  instal 
Manasseh  and  his  followers,  who  had  deserted  Jaddua.  Alexander 
in  the  meantime  marched  to  Jerusalem  to  punish  the  High 
Priest.2  But  when  the  army  reached  Sapha  (Mizpah,  now 
Nebi-Samwil)  the  High  Priest  came  forth  at  the  head  of  the 
people  in  his  sacred  garments.  To  the  surprise  of  all,  Alexander 
fell  down  before  Jaddua  in  adoration,  and  when  Parmenio,  his 
general,  asked  the  reason,  he  declared  that  he  did  not  adore  the 
priest  but  the  God  of  the  Jews ;  for  he  had  had  a  vision  of  a 
man  like  Jaddua  when  he  was  in  Macedonia  who  promised  that 
God  would  conduct  his  army  and  give  him  dominion  over  the 
Persians.3    Accordingly  he  granted  all  the  requests  preferred 

1  Joseph.  Antiq.  xi.  8.  1-7.  2  Antiq.  xi.  8.  5. 

3  Antiq.  xi.  8.  5,  koX  irpbs  ifxavrbv  SLaaKeTTO/nhcp  /xol  ttws  av  Kparrjcraifu  rrjs 
'Atn'cts,  irapeKekevero  fX7]  /uiXkeiv  a\\a  dapcrovvra  Siafialveiv  '  avrbs'yap  T)yf}<re<rdal 
fioL  rrjs  arpancts  /ecu  tt)v  HepaQv  Trapaddxreiv  bpxfiv. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  141 

to  him  by  the  High  Priest,  allowed  the  Jews  the  free  exercise 
of  their  religion  in  Judaea  and  also  in  Babylon  and  Media, 
exempted  them  from  taxation  every  seventh  year,  and  offered 
to  those  who  would  enlist  in  his  army  the  right  to  adhere  to 
their  ancestral  customs.  Alexander,  says  Josephus,  was  the 
more  ready  to  favour  the  Jews  because  he  had  been  shown  the 
Book  of  Daniel  and  understood  that  his  conquest  of  Persia  had 
been  foretold.  The  Samaritans  laid  claim  to  the  same  privi- 
leges, declaring  that  they  too  were  Israelites,  and  tracing  their 
pedigree  to  Joseph.  They  admitted  that  they  were  not  Jews  : 
and  Alexander  neither  granted  nor  refused  their  request.1  He 
commanded  Sanballat's  troops  to  follow  him  to  Egypt,  and 
granted  them  lands  in  the  Thebaid.  The  Temple  on  Gerizim 
remained,  and  became  the  resort  not  only  of  the  Samaritans,  but 
of  all  discontented  Jews.2  In  331  B.C.  Alexander  went  down  to 
Egypt,  and  in  the  winter  laid  the  foundation  of  Alexandria,  in 
which  he  settled  a  number  of  Jews. 

There  is,  as  has  been  indicated,  a  startling  anachronism  Discrepancy 
between  Josephus  and  the  canonical  book  of  Nehemiah,  the  w 
scene  of  which  is  Jerusalem  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes, 
445  B.C.  According  to  this,  Sanballat  was  the  principal  adversary 
of  Nehemiah.  He  was  a  Horonite,  whose  daughter  was  married 
to  a  grandson  of  the  High  Priest  Eliashib.3  Similarly  in  the 
Mond  papyri  the  Jews  in  Egypt  complain  to  the  sons  of  Sanballat 
of  the  destruction  of  their  Temple  at  Yeb  in  the  fourteenth  year 
of  Darius  Nothus,  411  B.C.,  thus  confirming  the  statement  in 
Nehemiah  that  Sanballat  lived  a  century  before  Alexander  the 
Great.  Nevertheless,  Josephus  is  probably  right  when  he  hints 
that  Alexander  was  desirous  of  conciliating  both  the  Jews  and 
the  Samaritans,  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  he  admits  that  the 
latter  were  reinforced  by  Jewish  schismatics .  It  has  been  pointed 
out  that  the  constant  intercourse  between  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem 
and  their  brethren  in  the  East  must  have  made  them  invaluable 
as  guides  to  an  army,  like  that  of  Alexander,  destitute  of  maps 

1  Antiq.  xi.  8.  6.  2  Antiq.  xi.  8.  7.  3  Neh.  xiii.  28. 


142  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

and  topographical  knowledge  :  x  and  they  also  possessed  many- 
qualities  useful  to  settlers  in  a  new  commercial  capital  like 
Alexandria.    The  Hellenisation  of  Judaism  may  therefore  well 
be  traced  to  the  days  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
the  The  early  dispersion  was  undoubtedly  eastward,  and  in  the 

raTHESI°N  enumeration  of  those  who  were  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of 
East.  Pentecost  the  first  mentioned  in  Acts  are  Parthians,  Medes, 

Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,2  all  inhabitants  of 
lands  then  outside  the  limits  of  the  Koman  Empire.  Of  this 
dispersion  we  learn  nothing  further  from  Acts  ;  but  its  importance 
to  a  student  of  Christian  origins  is  not  inconsiderable,  as  it  was 
through  the  Jewish  settlements  that  Christianity  spread  eastward 
as  well  as  westward.  The  diffusion  of  Christianity  eastward  is, 
however,  a  subject  on  which  we  have  no  precise  information. 
Acts,  our  sole  contemporary  authority,  is  silent,  and  tells  of  no 
missionary  work  outside  Palestine,  save  that  undertaken  by  Paul 
and  Barnabas.  Nevertheless,  the  early  and  widespread  Christian 
legend  that  the  Twelve,  some  years  after  the  Ascension,  divided 
the  known  world  among  themselves  into  spheres  of  missionary 
labours  shows  the  belief  that  from  the  first  Christians  travelled 
far  and  wide  preaching  the  Gospel ;  and  for  such  labours  an 
extensive  Jewish  dispersion  was  a  valuable  if  not  indispensable 
assistance.  But  though  this  legend  may  be  as  old  as  the  second 
!  century,3  the  scenes  of  the  labours  of  the  Apostles  are  as  unknown 
\  to  Eusebius  as  they  are  to  us.  For  their  journeys  eastward  he 
\  has  nothing  on  which  to  rely,  except  the  Abgar  legend,  which 
i  makes  Thomas  send  Thaddeus  4  (Addai)  to  Edessa  in  fulfilment 
of  the  promise  of  the  Saviour.  In  enumerating  the  parts  of 
the  world  in  which  the  apostles  preached  Christ,  he  has  to 

1  Cf.  Mahaffy,  The  Empire  of  the  Ptolemies,  p.  85 :  "  Hence  to  an  invader  of 
Asia  who  had  no  maps,  no  full  information  as  to  the  routes  and  resources  for 
feeding  an  army,  no  organised  system  of  interpreters,  these  Jews  were  the 
natural  intelligence  department." 

2  Acts  ii.  9. 

3  Lipsius  in  Diet.  Christian  Biography,  art.  "  Apocryphal  Acts." 
*  H.E.  ii.  1. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  143 

rely  solely  on  the  New  Testament  and  a  statement  in  Origen's  | 
Commentary  on  Genesis  which  alludes  to  Thomas  having  preached  I 
in  Parthia.  j 

The  Parthian  Empire,  which  rose  during  the  decay  of  the  (a)  in  the 
Seleucids,  was  one  of  the  most  warlike,  if  the  least  civilised  of  2^ 
the  great  monarchies  of  the  Ancient  East.    But  if  the  remains 
of  its  buildings  and  sculpture  are  rude  and  barbarous  compared 
to  what  the  Assyrians,  Babylonians,  Persians,  and  Greeks  have 
left  in  this  part  of  the  world,  the  Parthians  had  military  ability 
enough  to  hold  the  Romans  at  bay  in  the  days  of  the  later  republic 
and  earlier  Empire ;  and  except  under  Marcus  Aurelius,  when 
Avidius  Cassius  invaded  the  country,  no  expedition  against  them 
proved  in  the  end  successful.     Extending  from  the  Euphrates 
almost  to  the  frontiers  of  Hindostan,  the  Parthian  dominions 
divided  the  civilised  world  known  to  classical  antiquity  with  the 
Roman.     Even  Palestine  was  not  safe  from  the  Parthian  armies, 
and  Josephus  has  repeatedly  indicated  their  importance  in  Jewish 
politics.     The  crushing  defeat  of  Crassus  in  54  B.C.  is  only  alluded 
to  m  passing ; 1  but  a  few  years  later  the  country  was  overrun 
by  the  Parthians,  who  took  Jerusalem  and  placed  Antigonus, 
the  son  of  Hyrcanus's  brother  Aristobulus,   on   the  throne.* 
Josephus  in  the  later  books  of  the  Antiquities  shows  further 
interest  in  the  affairs  of    Parthia.    He  mentions    that   about 
36  B.c.the  command  of  Tiberius  Vitellius,  the  imperial  governor 
of  Syria,  made  a  treaty  with  Artabanus  III.,  King  of  Parthia, 
who  had  been  deposed  but  had  recovered  his  kingdom.     On  this 
occasion  Herod  Antipas  played  a  prominent  part.    Vitellius  and 
Artabanus  met  in  the  middle  of  a  bridge  made  across  the  Euph- 
rates and  were  entertained  magnificently  by  Antipas.  Among  the 
presents  of  the  Parthians  to  the  Romans  was  a  Jewish  giant 
named  Eleazar  who  was  seven  cubits  high.    Antipas  on  this 
occasion  incurred  the  enmity  of  Vitellius  by  sending  the  news 
of  the  completion  of  the  treaty  to  Tiberius  more  speedily," 

1  Antiq.  xiv.  7.  3.  2  Antiq  xiv   n 

3  Antiq.  xviii.  4.  4-5. 


!: 


144  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

showing  that  the  tetrarch  was  deeply  involved  in  Parthian 
pohtics,  and  was  in  closer  touch  with  the  Emperor  than  even  the 
governor  of  an  imperial  province  like  Syria. 
Asinaeus  ^  ^g^t  is  shed  on  the  number,  the  power,  and  the  turbulence 

Z Lus.  ,  of  the  Jews  in  Parthia  by  the  story  of  the  two  brothers  Asinaeus 
and  Anilaeus,  related  by  Josephus.1    They  were  natives  of  the 
city  of  Nahardea  near  Nisibis  and  were  apprenticed  to  a  cloth 
weaver.    As,  however,  he  presumed  to  chastise  them,  they  left 
his  house,  taking  with  them  weapons,  and  established  themselves 
in  a  place  between  two  rivers  which,  in  addition  to  its  strength, 
was  well  suited  for  cattle.    There  they  built  a  fortress  and 
exacted  tribute  from  the  neighbourhood,  and  soon  became  so 
sufficiently  formidable  as  even  to  excite  the  apprehension  of 
King  Artabanus.    An  army  was  equipped  by  the  governor  of 
Babylonia  ;  and  it  was  decided  to  attack  their  stronghold  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  when  they,  as  Jews,  might  be  expected  to  be 
inactive.    But  Asinaeus,  disregarding  the  scruples  of  some  of 
his  followers,  boldly  led  forth  his  troops  and  gained  a  complete 
victory  over  the  royal  army.    Artabanus,  seeing  that  it  was 
necessary  to  conciliate  the  two  brothers,  sent  for  them  under  safe- 
conduct,  which  he  refused  to  violate,  though  urged  to  do  so  by 
his  generals.     On  his  return  from  the  royal  presence  Asinaeus 
became  more  powerful  than  ever,  and  for  fifteen  years  he  and 
Anilaeus  were  the  most  honoured  satraps  in  Mesopotamia. 

At  the  end  of  this  period  Anilaeus  married  a  Parthian  lady, 
whose  husband  he  had  previously  killed  in  battle.  Like 
Rachel,  also  a  native  of  Mesopotamia,2  she  took  away  with  her 
her  ancestral  images,  and,  to  the  great  scandal  of  the  Jewish 
community,  persisted  in  worshipping  them.  Asinaeus  was  at 
last  induced  to  remonstrate,  whereupon  the  lady,  fearing  his 
influence  with  her  husband,  poisoned  him,  and  Anilaeus  reigned 

1  Antiq.  xviii.  9.  1-9. 

2  Gen.  xxxi.  30-35.     Rawlinson,  Sixth  Great  Monarchy,  p.  400,  has  some 

[interesting  remarks  on  the  use  of  teraphim  or  household  images  by  the  Parthians, 
who  were  nominally  Zoroastrians,  and  therefore,  like  the  Jews,  averse  to  image 
worship. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  145 

alone.  Even  then  his  good  fortune  did  not  desert  him.  Sup- 
ported by  his  countrymen  he  was  able  to  defeat  Mithradates, 
the  son-in-law  of  King  Artabanus ;  and  a  war  ensued  between 
the  Jews  and  Babylonians.  In  the  end  Anilaeus  was  betrayed 
and  killed  whilst  overcome  by  drink.  After  his  death  the  Jews 
took  refuge  in  Seleucia  in  Mesopotamia,  which  was  inhabited 
by  a  mixed  population  of  Greeks  and  Syrians.  Joining  the 
latter  in  sedition,  the  Jews  were  betrayed  by  their  allies  :  fifty 
thousand  were  slain,  and  many  fled  to  the  adjacent  royal 
city  of  Ctesiphon.  This  happened  about  a.d.  41  when  the 
unanimity  which  Greeks,  Syrians,  and  Babylonians  showed 
in  their  animosity  forced  the  Jews  to  entrench  themselves 
in  Nahardea  and  Nisibis.1  This  narrative  reveals  some- 
thing of  the  character  of  the  Jewish  inhabitants  in  the 
Parthian  Empire,  their  aptitude  for  war,  their  tendency 
to  brigandage,  their  devotion  to  their  ancestral  customs, 
and  their  unpopularity  with  the  people  among  whom  they 
lived. 

That  the  Jews  extended  their  influence  by  making  proselytes  (&)  Helena 
is  shown  in  the  case  of  Izates,  King  of  Adiabene,  and  his  mother,  ^AdiTbene. 
Helena.2  The  conversion  of  this  powerful  and  successful  monarch 
was  begun  by  a  Jewish  merchant  named  Ananias,  who,  however, 
refused  to  advise  that  Izates  should  incur  the  risk  of  offending 
his  subjects  by  being  circumcised.  A  more  earnest  Jew,  however, 
named  Eleazar,  persuaded  the  king  to  submit  to  the  rite.  Despite 
the  hostility  of  his  brothers,  some  of  whom  he  sent  as  hostages 
to  Claudius  to  Rome  and  others  to  Parthia,  he  maintained 
himself  on  the  throne  of  what  in  modern  parlance  would  be 
called  a  "  buffer  "  kingdom  between  the  rival  empires.  After 
encountering  many  perils  and  having  been  the  means  of  restoring 
Artabanus  to  his  throne,  Izates  died,  and  his  body  and  that  of 
his  mother,  Helena,  were  sent  by  Monobazus,  his  successor,  for 
interment  at  Jerusalem. 

1  Antiq.  xviii.  9.  9.  3  Antiq.  xx.  2.  1-5,  3.  1-4,  4.  1-3. 

VOL.  I  L 


146  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

(c)  Jews  in  So  important  was  the  dispersion  among  the  Parthians  in 
M^andlthe  eyes  of  Josephus  that  his  first  literary  effort  was  a  history 
Elam-       I  of  the  Jewish  war,  written  especially  for  the  Jews  of  the  East.1 

Of  Jews  in  Parthia  proper,  or  the  district  supposed  to  have 
been  the  home  of  the  Parthians,  we  have  a  record  preserved  in 
the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius,  George  Syncellus,  and  Orosius,  that 
Artaxerxes  Ochus  about  350  B.C.  transported  some  rebellious 
Jews  from  Egypt  to  Hyrcania  by  the  Caspian  Sea,  where  there 
were  still  Jews  in  the  fifth  century  a.d.2  In  Media  there  was  a 
Jewish  community  at  a  place  called  Gazaca,  so  ignorant  that 
they  had  never  heard  of  the  Halaha  (rules  for  observing  the  law) ; 
and  when  Akiba  told  them  the  stories  of  the  Flood  and  of  Job, 
they  were  quite  new  to  them.3  In  Elam  or  Persia  there  had,  as 
*  f  has  been  shown,  long  been  Jews  in  Susa  or  Shushan,  but  there'  is 
I  no  evidence  of  their  presence  elsewhere.     There  remains  in  the 

(d)  Meso-     catalogue  of  Acts  ii.  only  Mesopotamia,  which  was  undoubtedly 
potamia.      ^  ^  ^  greatest  jewish  centres  in  the  world.4    Two  cities, 

|  Pumbeditha  and   Nahardea,    were    afterward   famous    in   the 
I  Talmud  as  academies  of  rabbinical  learning.     The  only  other 

(e)  Arabia.   Eastern  country  mentioned  in  Acts  is  Arabia,5  which  according 

to  Josephus  was  immediately  adjacent  to  Palestine.6  From 
Galatians  i.  17,  where  Paul  says  he  went  to  Arabia  and  returned 
(v7re(TTpey(ra)  to  Damascus,  it  might  be  inferred  that  Damascus 

1  Proem,  ad  B.J.     The  Prince  of  the  Captivity  who  was  the  head  of  the 
Jews  in  Mesopotamia,  and  claimed  to  represent  the  family  of  David,  is  said 
to  have  been  recognised  by  the  Parthians.     See  Jewish  Encyclopaedia,  art. 
e    "  Exiliarch." 
V^       2  Juster,  Les  Juifs  dans  V Empire  romain,  vol.  i.  p.  203 ;  Orosius  3.  7.  6. 

3  Juster,  op.  cit.  vol.  i.  p.  203,  note  2.     Neubauer,  Olographic  du  Talmud, 
pp.  375,  392. 

*  Juster,  op.  cit.  vol.  i.  p.  201,  gives  a  list  of  towns  east  of  the  Euphrates 
|  in  which  there  is  evidence  for  the  presence  of  Jews.     The  testimony  is,  hbw- 
!  ever,  in  many  cases  so  late  that  our  knowledge  of  the  actual  condition  of  the 
Dispersion  in  the  first  century  a.d.  besides  what  we  find  in  Josephus  and  Acts 
'  is  very  scanty.     He  enumerates  twenty -six  towns  or  countries.     Of  these 
eleven  are  first  mentioned  by  Christian  writers  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  twelve  occur  in  the  Talmud  as  cited  by  Neubauer,  the  earliest 
part  of  which,  the  Mishna,  was  not  written  before  the  second  or  third  centuries 
a.d.    For  Jews  in  Edessa  in  the  first  century  see  Burkitt,  Early  Eastern  Chris- 
tianity, p.  16.  5  Acts  ii.  11.  6  Antiq.  xviii.  5.  1. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  147 

was  outside  its  borders.1    In  the  peninsula  of  Arabia  there  were  »  x 
undoubtedly    Jewish   settlements ;    but  only  four  towns    areV 
mentioned  as  such,  and   the  evidence  for  some   of  these  is  J 
actually  as  late  as  the  Mohammedan  Era.2 

In  Palestine  the  Jews  were  more  truly  a  Dispersion  than  Dispersion 
inhabitants  of  their  own  land.  In  the  days  of  the  Maccabees,  pALKStine. 
for  example,  Galilee  had  so  few  Jews  that  they  could  be  rounded 
up  and  settled  around  Jerusalem  by  Judas.3  Bashan  and  Gilead, 
afterward  the  Decapolis  and  Perea,  were  covered  with  cities 
with  Greek  or  Macedonian  names,  as  was  also  the  coast.4  The 
great  herd  of  swine  on  the  shores  of  the  lake  of  Galilee  may  be 
cited  as  evidence  of  a  large  Hellenic  or  non- Jewish  population.5 
At  Caesarea  the  Jewish  inhabitants  provoked  the  Greek  majority 
by  their  claims  to  control  the  city,  and  the  Jewish  war  began 
by  an  insult  to  their  synagogue.  Sebaste  was  practically  a 
heathen  city,  and  joined  with  Caesarea  in  celebrating  the  death 
of  Agrippa  with  indecent  manifestations  of,  delight.6  Tiberias 
in  Galilee  was  largely  Gentile,  as  it  was  considered  by  Jews  to 
be  unclean,  being  built  over  an  ancient  burying-place.7  When 
Jesus  sent  his  disciples  to  visit  the  cities  and  villages  of  Galilee 
he  warned  them,  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into 
a  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not.  This  is  a  conclusive 
proof  that  in  the  time  of  Christ  it  was  necessary  for  an 
Israelite  travelling  in  Palestine  to  discriminate  between  one 
of  his  own  towns  and  those  of  strangers.8 

Syria,  according  to  both  Josephus  9  and  Philo,10  was  a  great  in  Syria. 
centre  of  the  Dispersion.    It  may  be  meant  by  "  Judaea  "  in 
Acts  ii.,  for  which  it  is  substituted  by  Jerome,  whereas  Tertullian 

1  For  the  meaning  of  "Arabia"  from  Herodotus  onwards  see  Conybeare  r_v 
and  Howson,  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  vol.  i.  p.  117.     Justin,  Trypho,  78,  I 
says  Damascus  did  belong  to  Arabia,  but  had  been  assigned  in  his  day  to 
Syrophoenicia. 

2  Juster,  op.  cit.  vol.  i.  p.  203,  note  4.  3  1  Mace.  v.  23. 

4  Cf.  such  names  as  Dium,  Pella,  Anthedon,  etc.  etc. 

5  Mark  v.  1  ff.  ;   Matt.  viii.  28  ff.  ;   Luke  viii.  26. 

6  Antiq.  xix.  9.  1.  ;   B.J.  ii.  14.  4.  7  Matt.  x.  5;  cf.  Judg.  xix.  12. 
8  Antiq.  xviii.  2.  3.  9  B.J.  vii.  3.  3. 

10  Legat.  §  32  (Mangey,  ii.  582). 


148  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

has  Armenia.1  Syria  included  the  Roman  province  and  Palestine, 
Commagene,  Emesa,  Abilene,  and  the  kingdom  of  Chalcis. 
Forty-one  cities  have  been  enumerated  in  this  district  as  having 
Jewish  inhabitants,  more  than  half  being  in  Palestine.  These 
extend  from  Samosata  in  the  north  to  Raphia  in  the  south. 
The  towns  outside  the  Holy  Land,  of  which  it  can  be  said 
that  there  are  traces  of  Jewish  settlements  anterior  to 
a.d.  100,  are  Antioch,  Seleucia,  Apamaea,  Arados,  the  kingdom 
of  Chalcis,  the  tetrarchy  of  Abilene  ruled  over  by  the  Herods, 
and  Damascus.2 

(a)  Antiooh.  Antioch,  which  played  so  important  a  part  in  the  early  history 
and  development  of  Christianity,  evidently  contained  many 
Jews,  who  must  have  constantly  been  there  at  any  rate  since 
Palestine  passed  under  the  Syrian  monarchy  in  198  B.C.  Josephus 
says  that  Seleucus  Nicator  gave  the  Jews  the  privilege  of  citizen- 
ship, and  all  their  rights  were  restored  after  the  death  of  their 
enemy,  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  When  Titus  visited  the  city  in 
a.d.  70  the  Jews  were  both  numerous  and  unpopular.3  Four  of 
the  names  of  the  five  given  in  Acts  xiii.  1  as  inaugurating 
the  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  Barnabas,  Simeon,  Manahem,  the 
foster-brother  of  Herod  the  tetrarch,  and  Saul,  are  markedly 
Jewish.  The  frequent  warnings  of  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
early  in  the  second  century,  against  Judaising,  indicate  that  he 
may  have  presided  over  a  Christian  community  surrounded  by 
Jews,4  and  John  Chrysostom  three  centuries  later  preached 
frequently  at  Antioch  against  them.5 

1  Is  it  possible  that  Judaea  in  Acts  ii.  means  that  Syria  is  the  land  of  Israel 
in  its  fullest  extent  from  the  river  of  Egypt  to  Hamath  ?  In  this  case  it  would 
come  next  to  Mesopotamia  working  eastward.  In  Luke  iv.  44,  els  tAs  o-waYovy&s 
t?js  'lovdaias  must  mean  the  synagogues  of  northern  Palestine,  i.e.  Galilee, 
the  Decapolis,  and  places  visited  by  our  Lord,  and  not  the  territory  of  Judaea 
proper.     See  Neubauer,  Geographic  du  Talmud,  p.  5. 

2  Juster,  op.  cit.  vol.  i.  p.  194. 

3  Joseph.  Antiq.  xii.  3.  1 ;  B.J.  vii.  3.  3,  vii.  5.  2. 

4  Ignatius,  Magnesians,  c.  10. 

6  See  Juster,  Les  Juifs  dans  V Empire  romain,  vol.  i.  pp.  62,  195.  He  points 
out  that  H.  Winckler  ("  Die  Golah  in  Daphne,"  AUorientalische  Forschungen, 
2te  Reihe  3.  408-424,  1901)  and  also  A.  Marx  try  to  prove  that  the  settlement 
of  Jews  at  Antioch  was  very  early. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  149 

Damascus  was  also  important  as  a  Jewish  centre,  though  the  (6)  Damas- 
evidence  for  the  presence  of  a  Dispersion  rests  chiefly  on  the  cus* 
New  Testament  and  Josephus.1  According  to  the  latter  the- 
Jews  must  have  been  very  numerous,  as  10,000,  or  even  18,000,; 
were  massacred  in  the  Jewish  war.2  It  is  generally  assumed  by* 
commentators  that  Damascus  was  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Aretas,  but  this  may  be  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  Paul's 
words  in  2  Cor.  xi.  32.  Damascus  was  one  of  the  cities  of  thei^ 
Decapolis ;  at  least  according  to  Pliny  the  Elder,  who  died  in 
a.d.  79.  These  cities  were  a  confederation  of  Greek  towns 
bound  together  by  common  sympathy  and  interest.  Probably 
it  was  formed  when  Pompey  liberated  the  Hellenic  cities  from 
the  Jewish  domination  into  which  they  had  been  brought  by; 
Alexander  Jannaeus.  Despite  its  large  Jewish  colony,  Damascus,  ^ 
was  essentially  Greek  in  the  days  of  the  Acts,  and  the  coins  when 
the  city  was  autonomous  all  bear  the  names  of  Greek  deities,  ^ 
especially  Zeus.3  Under  Augustus  and  Tiberius  there  were 
imperial  coins  of  the  city,  but  there  is  a  gap  after  them  till  the 
time  of  Nero.  It  has  been  consequently  inferred  from  2  Cor.  xi.  32 
that,  during  the  principates  of  Caligula  and  Claudius,  the  govern- 
ment of  Damascus  passed  into  the  hands  of  Aretas.  But, 
in  view  of  the  undoubted  fact  that  Damascus  was  essentially 
an  Hellenic  city  and  therefore  since  Pompey's  time  most  un- 
likely to  be  placed  under  a  Semitic  ruler,  it  is  possible  that 
o  iOvapxT)?*  'Apera  rod  ftaaiXeas  etypovpec  rrjv  iroXtv  rcov 
Aafiaa/cqvwv  means  that  Aretas's  officer  was  watching  outside 
and  not  inside  the  walls  to  prevent  Paul  from  escaping.5 

The  provinces  of  Asia  Minor  enumerated  in  Acts  ii.  are  asm 

Minor. 

1  For  the  Covenanters  of  Damascus  see  pp.  97  ff . 

2  B.J.  ii.  20.  2 ;   vii.  8.  7. 

3  Schurer,  O.J.  V.  ii.  pp.  47  and  150  ff. 

4  For  the  meaning  of  the  word  ethnarch  see  Lake,  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
p.  322. 

6  See  the  note  in  McGiffert's  Apostolic  Age,  p.  164.  He  does  not  offer  this 
suggestion,  though  he  gives  the  gist  of  the  difficulty  as  to  the  position  of 
Aretas,  for  whose  authority  in  Damascus  there  is  no  evidence  besides 
2  Corinthians  save  the  negative  one  of  the  coins. 


150  THE  JEWISH  WOULD  i 

]  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Asia,  and  Bithynia.  In  Acts  vi.  we  find  a 
synagogue  of  Cilician  Jews  ;  and  1  Peter  is  addressed  to  Galatia 
and  Bithynia  in  addition  to  the  provinces  above  mentioned. 
Phrygia,  which  occurs  in  Acts  ii.,  was  not  a  province,  but  a 
district,  part  in  Asia  and  part  in  Galatia.  Of  these  seven 
provinces,  into  which,  with  dependent  kingdoms,  the  peninsula 
was  divided,  no  towns  of  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  or  Bithynia  are 
named  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in  all  the  other  cities  which 
are  mentioned  Jewish  communities  are  assumed  to  exist.  Nothing 
is  said  of  Paul's  work  in  Perga  of  Pamphylia,  where  he  landed, 
but  at  Pisidian  Antioch  he  and  Barnabas  found  a  synagogue,1 
where  Paul  made  his  address.  It  is  the  same  with  Iconium  in 
the  south  of  the  Roman  province  of  Galatia.2  Ephesus  in  Asia 
was  evidently  an  important  Jewish  centre.  The  Jews  of  Asia 
at  Jerusalem  accused  Paul  of  bringing  Greeks  within  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  Temple.3  But  there  is  no  necessity  to  labour  to 
prove  the  wide  diffusion  of  the  Jewish  community  in  this  part 
of  the  Roman  Empire.4 
Macedonia,  But  for  Acts,  scarcely  anything  would  be  known  as  to  the  Jews 
Cyprus.'  ,  °f  Macedonia  and  Greece ;  for  excepting  a  statement  in  Philo  5 
there  is  no  other  early  evidence  of  their  presence  in  the  Balkan 
peninsula.  Yet  from  Acts  we  learn  that  not  only  were  there 
Jewish  colonies  in  all  the  towns  mentioned  as  visited  by  Paul, 

Ibut  that  at  great  mercantile  centres  like  Thessalonica  and  Corinth 
Jewish  mobs  were  formidable  disturbers  of  the  peace.6  Even 
!at  Athens,  the  centre  of  Hellenic  culture,  a  city  frequented  by 
scholars,  Paul  could  find  a  synagogue  wherein  to  dispute  with 
the  Jews.7    Cyprus,  the  ancient  Kittim  or  Chittim,  was  known 

1  Acts  xiii.  14.  2  Acts  xiv.  1.  3  Acts  xxi.  27  f. 

(*  Juster,  Les  Juifs,  vol.  i.  188-194,  gives  no  less  than  seventy-one  names  of 
cities  in  Asia  Minor  in  which  the  presence  of  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  has  been 
traced. 

5  Legatio  36.     Agrippa  in  his  letter  to  Caligula  enumerates  the  Jewish 

I  colonies.  In  Europe  the  Jews  were  in  Thessaly,  Boeotia,  Macedonia,  Aetolia, 
Athens,  Argos,  Corinth,  and  in  the  most  fertile  part  of  the  Peloponnesus.  They 
were  also  in  the  islands  of  Euboea,  Cyprus,  and  Crete. 

6  Acts  xvii.  5  f.,  xviii.  12  f.  7  Acts  xvii.  17. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  151 

to  the  ancient  Hebrews  as  an  isle  in  the  Great  Sea,  and  at  Salamis, 
on  its  eastern  extremity,  there  was  evidently  a  Jewish  population, 
as  the  word  synagogue  occurs  not  in  the  singular  but  in  the  I 
plural.1  Paphos,  on  the  western  side,  was  the  seat  of  the  govern- 
ment, where  Paul  and  his  companions  met  Sergius  Paulus  and 
his  soothsayer  the  Jew  Elymas.     The  revolt  of  the  Jews  of 


Cyprus  was  one  of  the  most  formidable  of  their  uprisings  in 
the  days  of  Trajan  and  Hadrian.2 

Cyrene  was  largely  inhabited  by  Jews,  said  to  have  been  Cyrene. 
settled  by  Ptolemy  Lagus.3  From  the  days  of  Sulla  they  showed 
themselves  exceedingly  turbulent,  and  Lucullus,  when  he  visited 
the  country,  had  to  allay  their  disorders.4  Strabo,  when  he 
testifies  to  the  widespread  dispersion  of  the  nation,  says  that  I 
in  the  city  of  Cyrene  the  Jews  formed  the  fourth  division  of  the  I 
population  which  consisted  of  citizens,  husbandmen,  strangers? 
(fierotKoc),  and  Jews.5  Jewish  settlements  are  frequently , 
alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament,  yet  no  missionary  is  said  to 
have  visited  the  country,  though  the  first  preachers  to  the  [ 
Gentiles  at  Antioch  were  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene.6 

In  Egypt  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  Jewish  settlements  Egypt. 
in  papyri,  inscriptions,  etc.,  and  Philo,  in  his  book  against  Flaccus, 
estimates  that  his  countrymen  numbered  a  million  dwelling  from 
the  descent  to  Libya  to  the  border  of  Ethiopia.7 

The  Jewish  community  in  Alexandria  was  one  of  the  most  Alexandria, 
numerous,  wealthy,  and  privileged  in  the  world.    Founded  by 
Alexander  the  Great  as  the  mart  to  connect  the  East  with  the 

1  Acts  xiii.  5. 

2  Juster,  op.  cit.  p.  189;  Dio  Cassius  lxviii.  32. 

3  Joseph.  Contra  Apion.  ii.  4. 

4  Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  7.  2  (quotes  Strabo),  Plutarch  Lucullus. 

5  Joseph,  i.  c.  Strabo  the  geographer  (a.d.  12)  is  an  authority  for  the  dis- 
persion. "  It  is  not  easy,"  he  says,  "  to  find  a  place  on  earth  which  is  not 
occupied  by  Jews." 

6  Matt,  xxvii.  32 ;  Mk.  xv.  21 ;  Luke  xxiii.  26  (Simon  of  Cyrene) ;  Acts  ii. 
10 ;  Acts  vi.  9 ;  Acts  xi.  20 ;  Acts  xiii.  1. 

7  In  Flaccum,  6,  ovk  awodiovcn  fxvpi&5u)i>  eKarbu  oi  ttjv  'A\ei;&i>8peiav  ical  ttjv 

X&PCLV    'lovdoUOI.    KdTOlKOVVT€S    OLirb    TOV    Tpbs     Al^VfjV    KCLTOLpadfAOd    fJ^XP1    T&v     opiu)v 

AidioirLas. 


152  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

West,  it  passed  at  his  death  into  the  hands  of  his  general,  Ptolemy 
Lagus,  whose  house  proved  almost  invariably  friendly  to  the 
Jews.  Renouncing  all  ambitious  schemes  of  world  domination, 
the  Ptolemies  devoted  their  energies  to  the  administration  of 
the  country  which  had  fallen  to  their  lot.1  Under  them  Egypt 
was  governed  as  far  as  possible  in  accordance  with  its  ancient 
customs,  and  enjoyed  a  period  of  remarkable  prosperity.  The 
dynasty  aimed,  not  without  success,  at  making  Alexandria  not 
only  a  prosperous  mercantile  community  but  the  intellectual  and 
|  even  the  religious  capital  of  the  Hellenic  world.  In  the  Museum 
i  we  have  a  prototype  of  the  modern  collegiate  foundation,  with 
•its  chapel,  library  halls,  and  extensive  courts, — even  with  its 
1  clerical  president.  The  naturalist  could  study  the  animals  of 
Africa  in  the  Zoological  Gardens.  The  great  Temple  of  Serapis 
I  was  dedicated  to  a  God  neither  local  nor  national,  but  common 
to  humanity,  and  the  imposing  ritual  of  the  Isis  worship  spread 
from  Alexandria  throughout  the  world.  In  this  cosmopolitan 
home  of  the  culture  of  Hellenism  the  Jew  found  himself  not  a 
despised  sojourner  but  an  honoured  citizen.  His  status  was 
almost  that  of  the  Macedonian  colonist,  and  he  furnished 
the  armies  of  the  Ptolemies  with  useful  troops.2  His  special 
quarter  was  on  the  shore  east  of  the  island  of  Pharos,  which  was 
perhaps  the  more  agreeable  because  it  was  "  harbourless,"  that 
is,  remote  from  the  noise  and  bustle  of  the  trading  district.3  But 
in  most  parts  of  the  city  Jews  were  to  be  found,  and  their 
synagogues  were  in  different  places.  The  most  magnificent 
diwplustin  is  described  in  a  boraitha  in  the  Talmud.4  It  could 
contain  twice  the  number  of  men  who  came  out  of  Egypt  at  the 
Exodus.    There  were  seventy-one  golden  seats,  also  seats  of 


1  J.  P.  Mahaffy,  Empire  of  the  Ptolemies,  p.  78.     The  great  historic  claim 

ito  honour  of  the  first  Ptolemy  "  was  that  he  saw  the  need  of  abstaining  from 
the  imperial  tradition  of  Alexander  the  Great  and  trying  to  be  a  benefactor 
(evepytrrjs)  to  his  subjects."     Cf.  Biggs,  Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria. 
a  Joseph.  Contra  Apionem,  ii.  4. 

3  Joseph.  Contra  Apionem,  ii.  4;  called  the  Delta,  B.J.  ii.  18.  8. 
.-.        4  Talmud,  Sukkah  v. 


IV 


THE  DISPERSION 


153 


silver.  Each  trade  sat  apart — when  a  stranger  came  he  sat  with 
his  trade  and  found  employment.  The  voice  of  the  reader  could 
not  be  heard  in  so  vast  an  assembly,  so  when  the  time  came  to 
say  the  "  Amen  "  the  attendants  had  to  signal  to  the  congregation 
by  waving  flags.  Nowhere  did  the  religion  of  the  Jews  excite 
more  interest,  if  we  may  accept  the  story  of  the  translation  off 
the  Law  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  under  royal  patron- J 
age.1  Nowhere  were  the  Jews  safer  from  persecution  than  at 
Alexandria  under  the  Ptolemies.  Nowhere,  perhaps  in  conse- 
quence, did  Jews  assimilate  more  readily  the  culture  and 
philosophy  of  the  Greeks.  The  legend  says  that  its  church  was 
founded  by  Mark,  but  there  are  only  two  mentions  of  Alexandrian 
Judaism  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  real  interest  of  Judaism  in  Alexandria,  however,  centres 


iasticus. 


Alex- 
andrian 

neither  m  its  history  nor  its  extent,  but  in  the  type  of  literature  literature 
it  produced.     Here  is  found  the  earliest  attempt  to  use  the 
Greek  language  to  express  Hebrew  thought.    As  the  Alexandrian 
grammarians  were  the  interpreters  of  the  classics  of  Greece  to 
the  world,  so  the  Alexandrian  Jews  expounded  their  own  litera- 
ture.    The  translation  known  as  the  Septuagint  was  one  of  the  <a)  The 
momentous    events  in  history.    In  the  second    century  B.O..(6)  Eccleg 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  says  he  came  into  Egypt  and  made  a 
translation  of  a  book  of  wisdom,  written  in  Palestine  by  his 
grandfather,   known    to    us   as    Ecclesiasticus.     The   so-called,  (c)  The 
Wisdom    of    Solomon   is  supposed   to    have  been   written  in  Solomon. 
Alexandria,  and  gives  us  a  picture  of  the  Jewish  community 
in  that  city.    The  wicked  are  portrayed  as  ridiculing  the  ascetic 
life  of  the  righteous,  and  preferring  the  pleasure  of  the  moment 
to  the  burden  of  the  Law.    They  utterly  deny  the  future  life. 
"  The  body,"  say  they,  "  shall  be  turned  into  ashes,  and  our 
spirit  shall  vanish  as  soft  air."  2    Their  philosophy  does  not 
allow  them  to  tolerate  the  righteous,  whose  very  presence  is 

1  Described  in  the  Letter  of  Aristeas,  supposed  to  be  a  courtier  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus  (287-247  B.C.),  to  his  brother  Philocrates.  It  is  undoubtedly  of 
later  date. 

2  Wisdom  ii.  3. 


154  THE  JEWISH  WOELD  i 

a  reproach  to  them :  and  they  persecute  them  bitterly,  even 
to  the  death.  The  author  finds  consolation  in  the  thought  that 
■the  righteous  do  not  die  ;  "though  they  are  punished  in  the  sight 
of  men,"  they  have  a  hope  "  full  of  immortality."  x  The  joy  of 
the  righteous  is  in  the  spirit  of  wisdom  which,  "  entering  into 
holy  souls,  makes  them  friends  of  God  and  prophets."  2 
(d)  Pbiio.  This   religious    tone,   with   tendencies  towards    asceticism, 

fc|  J  philosophy,  and  mysticism,  seems  to  distinguish  the  Alexandrian 

*from  the  Palestinian  Jew ;  but  it  is  seen  in  its  fulness  in  one 
extraordinary  man,  who  but  for  Josephus  and  the  Christian 
fathers  might  have  passed  into  oblivion.  Except  for  one  incident 
in  his  life  when  he  acted  as  the  champion  of  his  countrymen 
in  Alexandria  during  the  persecution  in  the  days  of  Caligula, 
we  have  no  information  concerning  Philo,  the  most  remarkable 
of  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  in  the  first  century,  who  combined 
philosophy  with  the  strict  and  loyal  observance  of  the  Law  of 
Moses.  To  the  student  of  early  Christianity,  Philo  is  of  supreme 
interest  as  a  Jewish  teacher  who  strove  to  construct  a  bridge  to 

*  unite  Hellenic  culture  to  the  religion  of  his  ancestors.    Though 

I  in  no  sense  Christian,  Philo  is  the  parent  of  much  Christian 
terminology  and  even  theology  ;  and  his  writings  indicate  how 
the  attempt  was  made  to  appropriate  the  wisdom  of  Greece 
and  adapt  it  to  the  monotheism  and  ethics  of  Judaism. 
So  far  he  is  like  Paul ;  but  as  a  Jew  his  whole  attitude 
is  orthodox,  and  unexceptional.  Though  his  Bible  is  the 
Septuagint  and  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  seems  to  have  been 
imperfect,  he  was  acquainted  with  the  methods  of  interpreta- 
tion common  in  the  Rabbinic  teachers,  and  accepted  to  the 
full  the  consequences  of  a  belief  in  the  verbal  interpretation 
of  the  Law.  He  regards  Moses  as  the  inspired  teacher  of  all 
philosophy  and  the  Pentateuch  as  the  sum  of  wisdom.  As  to 
the  obligation  to  keep  the  Law  in  its  integrity,  he  has  no  doubt. 
.  Thus  far  Philo  is  an  uncompromising  Jew.  On  the  other  hand, 
i  he  does  not  regard  the  Law  as  given  to  a  single  nation,  but  as 

1  Wisdom  iii.  1.  2  Wisdom  vii.  27. 


•C* 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  155 

containing  a  revelation  to  the  world.    The  God  revealed  in  it  is  \ 
conceived  philosophically  as  transcendent,  but  mediated  to  thel* 
world  by  the  Logos,  or  active  divine  intelligence,  the  creative! 
word  and  revealer  of  God,  and  also  by  the  \6yot,,  or  partial  P 
manifestations  of  Divine  reason. 

Philo's  theological  ideas  do  not  completely  make  a  coherent 
system,  and  all  his  philosophy  is  influenced  by  ethical  considera- 
tions. Here  he  is  thoroughly  in  accord  with  his  Christian  suc- 
cessors,— for  he  was  already  an  old  man  in  a.d.  40, — who  were 
enthusiastic  in  promoting  the  morality  of  the  inspired  Old 
Testament.  The  great  difference  between  him  and  them  was 
that  Philo  sought  to  make  men  recognise  that  the  Law  contained 
all  true  wisdom  and  was  therefore  applicable  to  the  whole  world  ; 
whilst  the  Christian  teachers  gradually  reached  the  position 
that  Israel  received  the  universal  religion,  not  through  the  Law, 
but  through  the  Messiah  foretold  by  the  prophets,  whom  they 
recognised  in  Jesus.  Later  generations,  however,  recognised 
an  affinity  between  the  Logos  of  Philo  and  the  Logos  incar- 
nate in  Jesus,  and  welcomed  this  intensely  Jewish  Alexan- 
drian as  a  forerunner,  if  not  actual  adherent,  of  the  Christian 
faith.1 

Judging  by  the  philosophy  of  Philo,  Alexandria  would  not 
be  the  place  where  the  Christian  message  as  originally  presented 
would  be  acceptable.  Messianism,  however  conceived,  would 
not  appeal  to  those  who  delighted  in  allegorical  interpretation 
and  philosophic  treatment  of  scripture  ;  and  possibly  it  was  not] 

1  Philo's  importance  as  an  intermediary  between  Hellenistic  Judaism,  and 
consequently  Christianity,  and  the  philosophy  of  his  age  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated.     Influenced    perhaps    by   Posidonius    he  brought  forward   those* 
principles  of  Pythagoreanism,  Platonism,  and  Stoicism  which  the  fathers  of  jt1 
the  Church  afterwards  assimilated.     There  are  bibliographies  of  the  Philonic 
literature  in  Schiirer  and  Brehier,  I  dees  de  Philon  d' Alexandrie.      The   best 
editions  of  the  text  are  Mangey's,  London,   1742,   Holtsem,  1893-1901,  and! 
Cohn  and  Wendland  (in  course  of  publication),  though  separate  treatises  have 
been  edited  by  F.  C.  Conybeare  (On  the  Contemplative  Life)  and  by  Cumont  I 
(De  aeternitate  mundi).     Drummond,  Philo   Judaeus,  and  C.  Bigg,  Christian, 
Platonists  of  Alexandria,  are  the  best  English  authorities  for  reference.     Philo  l*" 
has  been  translated  in  the  Bohn  series,  1854-55. 


156  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

!  till  Christian  piety  began  to  see  in  Jesus  the  divine,  pre-existent 
J  Logos  that  the  new  religion  found  a  home  there. 
Jews  in  A  chapter  in    1    Maccabees   relates  the  embassy  sent  by 

Eome.    ^|jU(jas  to  Rome.    in  161  B.C.,  the  last  year  of  his  life,  Judas 
bassies  of  §  heard  of  the  fame  of  the  Romans,  that  they  had  subdued 
SLcabees.   G*l&tia  and  possessed  the  rich  mines  of  Spain  ('Ifiepia).1    The 
connotation  of  Gaul  with  Spain  may  possibly  imply  that  Judas's 
informants,  or  rather  those  of  the  author  of  1  Maccabees,  were 
Jews  who  had  come  from  the  maritime  cities  of  Provence  and 
Spain,  which  had  long  been  trade  centres  for  Greeks  and  Cartha- 
ginians.   Judas  naturally  knew  of  the  victories  of  Rome  nearer 
}  home  over  Philip,  Perseus,  and  Antiochus.2    He  had  also  received 
a  garbled  account  of  the  Roman  constitution.    No  Roman  wore 
|  a  crown  or  royal  purple.    Their  rulers  were  three  hundred  and 
twenty  and  met  in  a  senate-house  every  day.    Each  year  they 
I  committed  their  government  to  one  man  to  whom  all  were 
obedient,  and  thus  there  was  neither  strife  nor  emulation  in 
Rome.    The  crudity  of  this  account,  especially  the  mention  of 
only  one  instead  of  two  consuls,  shows  that  the  description  may 
have  been  almost  contemporary ;    for  it  represents  what  an 
Eastern  people  might  be  expected  to  report  of  a  Western  nation 
of  which  nothing  was  known  save  by  hearsay.3    The  embassy 
was  favourably  received  and  a  treaty  made,4  which  was  twice 
renewed  by  the  successors  of  Judas  :  5  but  nothing  came  of  the 
Roman  alliance  except  that  it  may  have  encouraged  certain  Jews 
to  establish  themselves  in  the  city. 
(6)  Expui-         In  139  B.C.,  in  the  consulship  of  Popillius  Laetus  and  Marcus 
Jews?         Calpurnius,  the  praetor  peregrinus  forced  the  Jews  to  go  back 
to  their  home  for  corrupting  public  morals  by  their  worship  of 

1  1  Mace.  viii.  1  ff. 

2  1  Mace.  viii.  5.  6.     Philip  had  been  defeated  at  Cynocephalae  (197  B.C.), 
Antiochus  at  Magnesia  (191  B.C.),  and  Perseus  at  Pydna  (168  B.C.). 

3  1  Mace.  viii.  14-16. 

4  1  Mace.  viii.  22-32 ;  Josephus,  Antiq.  xii.  10.  6. 
6  1  Mace.  xii.  1-4.     This  is  followed  by  a  longer  account  of  a  treaty  between 

the  Jews  and  the  Lacedaemonians,  with  whom  they  claimed  kinship  :  xiv.  24  ff., 
xv.  16  ff. ;  Joseph.  Antiq.  xiii.  5.  8,  xiii.  7.  2,  xiii.  9.  2. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  157 

Jupiter  Sabazius.    Such  is  a  statement  found  in  Valerius  Maxi-| 
mus,  but  the  meaning  is  uncertain.1    Perhaps  the  Jews  tried  tol 
proselytise  in  favour  of  their  God,  Jahweh  Sabaoth  (Kvpiost* 
<ra/3aco0),  in  whom  the  Romans  saw  the  oriental  Zeus  Sabazius.  » 

After  this  nothing  more  is  heard  of  the  Jews  in  Rome  till  the  (c)  Pompey 
triumph  of  Pompey,  when  in  62  B.C.  he  brought  many  of  themrifcnm^SJy 
captives.    A  large  number  of  these  were  set  free  and  obtained! in  Rome- 
the  citizenship,  settling  in  the  district  beyond  the  Tiber.2    They 
enjoyed  the  right  of  practising  their  national  religion  undisturbed,  1* 
having  their  own  synagogues,  and  collecting  and  remitting  the] 
Temple  tax  regularly  to  Jerusalem.    The  Jewish  community 
formed  a  distinct  feature  in  the  life  of  the  City.    They  are  alluded  t* 
to  by  contemporary  social  observers  like  Horace  3  and  Juvenal.4 1 
When  Cicero  delivered  his  oration  on  behalf  of  Flaccus  in  59  B.c.i^ 
he  declared  that  he  had  to  beware  of  the  Jews,  many  of  whom  were 
doubtless  in  the  audience,5  and  the  lamentations  of  the  Romany 
Jews  at  the  tomb  of  Caesar,  their  generous  protector,  was  a  notable 
feature   of   the   public  distress.6     Under  Augustus  they  were 
treated  with  marked  favour,  and  of  the  nine  synagogues,  of  H 
which  traces  are  preserved  in  inscriptions,  one  is  that  of  the' 
Augustesians  and  another  of  the  Agrippesians — Jews  of  the!'* 
household  of  Augustus  and  of  his  friend  and  minister  Agrippa.7 

In  the  days  of  Tiberius  another  banishment  of  the  Jews  from  dd)  Jews 
Rome  is  recorded.    A  lady  named  Fulvia  was  swindled  by  a )  $"s 
Jew  who  collected  offerings  to  the  Temple,  and  appropriated  the 

1  Cf.  E.  Schiirer,  G.J.V.  vol.  iii.  p.  58.     The  words  are  "Idem  (the  praetor* 
Hispalus)  Judaeos,  qui  sabazi  Jovis  cultu  Romanos  inficere  mores  conati  erant,  If  Tfk 
repetere  domos  suas  coegit."  * 

2  Phil.   Legal,   p.  23,  rr\v    irtpav  rod  Tif&peios    iroTa/xov  /j.eyd\r)v   rrjs    'Fufxrjs  U  ^ 
dTroTofjiTjp,  sc.  the  Janiculum. 

3  Horace,  Sat.  i,  4,  141-3. 

4  Juvenal,  Sat.  iii.  12-16.  5  Pro  Flacco,  28. 

6  Suetonius,  Caesar,  84. 

7  The  other  seven  are  the  Volumnesians  (BoXov/xurjalwv),  Campesians 
(Campus  Martius),  Siburesians  (Subura),  a  synagogue  of  Alfiptuv  (Hebrews), 
a  synagogue  "  of  the  Olive,"  a  synagogue  BepvaKk-qaiuv  or  BepvatcXdipwit  (i.e. 
vernaculorum),  and  a  synagogue  KaX/cap^o-W  or  lime-kiln  workers.  See 
Schiirer,  Q.J.  V.  vol.  iii.  pp.  83  ff. 


158  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

money.  On  the  complaint  of  her  husband  Saturninus,  Tiberius 
ordered  the  Jews  to  be  expelled  from  the  city,  and  four  thousand 
were  sent  to  penal  servitude  or  to  make  war  on  the  robbers  in 
Sardinia.  Josephus  remarks  that  some  refused  to  serve  in  the 
army  on  conscientious  grounds.1  This  was  in  a.d.  19,  and  it  is 
said  that  the  Emperor  was  influenced  in  his  action  by  Sejanus.2 
The  Jews  were  allowed  to  return  in  a.d.  31, 3  and  Claudius  at  the 
beginning  of  his  principate  published  an  edict  in  favour  of  the 
Jews,4  but  later  occurred  the  famous  expulsion  for  tumults 
instigated  by  "  Chrestus."  5  Such  sporadic  action  on  the  part 
of  the  Government  was  powerless  to  keep  them  out  of  the  city  : 
they  soon  flocked  back  and  exercised  a  good  deal  of  secret 
influence.  They  seem,  from  the  inscriptions,  to  have  had  their 
own  senates  (yepovaicu),  each  with  a  president  (yepovaidpxrjs) : 
their  rulers  (apxovre?)  are  also  mentioned.6  They  enjoyed  the 
patronage  of  great  ladies  like  the  Empress  Poppaea,  to  whom 
Josephus  owed  an  introduction  through  Aliturus,  the  Jewish 
actor.7    The  Herods  mingled  freely  with  the  Roman  aristocracy.8 

-*J  Their  religion  was  recognised,  and  of  all  inhabitants  of  the  empire 

I  the  Jews  alone  were  exempted  from  adoring  the  Emperor.     The 

influence  of  the  early  Jewish  Christian  community  at  Rome 

.  \  was   evidently  considerable,  and   disseminated  by  those  who 
travelled  far  afield  like  Aquila  and  Priscilla.9 

Of  the  Dispersion  west  of  Rome  we  learn  nothing  from  the 

^  I  New  Testament,  but  it  was  already  in  existence,  as  Paul's  desire 

I  to  go  to  Spain  seems  to  indicate.10    In  fact  the  words  of  the  Sibyl, 

-}<£.     x  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  3.  5;  Tacitus,  Ann.  ii.  85;  Suet.  Tiberius,  36. 

2  Euseb.  Chronic,  ed.  Schoene,  ii.  150,  and  see  Schurer,   G.J.V.  vol.  iii. 
p.  61. 
,A       3  Philo,  Legat.  24.  4    Josephus,  Antiq.  xix.  5.  2. 

5  Acts   xviii.    2;    Suetonius,   Claudius,  25.     See  also  Dio  Cassius,  lx.  6, 
„kj  according  to  whom  Claudius  merely  forbade  Jewish  assemblies.     Tacitus  and 
*    r  Josephus  say  nothing  about  the  expulsion. 
I        6  Schurer,  op.  cit.  vol.  iii.  pp.  84  ff . 

7  Vita,  3.  8  Supra,  pp.  14  ff. 

r       9  Aquila  and  Priscilla  are  at  Corinth,  Acts  xviii.  2 ;  Ephesus,  Acts  xviii.  26, 
-fc|  and  Rome  (or  Ephesus  ?),  Rom.  xvi.  3. 
10  Romans  xv.  28. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  159 

which  may  be  as  early  as  140  B.C.,  may  be  applied  to  the  Dis-i  * 
persed  of  Israel :  / 

iraaa  Be  yata  aiOev  ir\ripr)$  /cal  iraaa  dakaaaa.1 

The  bonds  of  union  which  kept  together  as  a  single  body  a  nation  Unity  op 
so  widely  scattered,  numbering,  it  has  been  computed,  as  many  jEWS. 
as  from  six  to  seven  million  souls,  were  stronger  than  those  which 
the  Jews  have  possessed  since  the  destruction  of  that  great 
centralising  influence,  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem.  How  united 
in  feeling  were  the  Jews  is  shown  in  Acts  in  the  unanimity 
with  which  they  acted  everywhere,  except  at  Rome,2  in  opposition 
to  Paul.  Jews  in  every  part  of  the  world  were  reminded  of 
their  common  nationality  by  the  systematised  order  in  their 
communities. 

The  Temple  tax,  based  on  a  law  in  Exodus  xxi.  2-6  :  (a)  The 
"  When  thou  takest  the  sum  of  the  children  of  Israel  after  their  BhekeL 
number,  then  shall  they  give  every  man  a  ransom  of  his  soul 
unto  the  Lord,  when  thou  numberest  them ;  that  there  be  no 
plague  among  them  when  thou  numberest  them.  This  they 
shall  give,  every  one  that  passeth  among  them  that  are  numbered 
half  a  shekel  after  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary  (a  shekel  is  twenty 
gerahs),  an  half -shekel  shall  be  the  offering  of  the  Lord.  Every 
one  that  passeth  among  them  that  are  numbered,  from  twenty 
years  old  and  above,  shall  give  an  offering  unto  the  Lord.  The 
rich  shall  not  give  more  and  the  poor  shall  not  give  less,  when 
they  give  an  offering  unto  the  Lord  to  make  an  atonement  for 
your  souls.  And  thou  shalt  take  the  atonement  money  of  the 
children  of  Israel ;  and  shalt  appoint  it  for  the  service  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation."  As  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah 
the  Jews  at  Jerusalem  resolved  to  pay  the  third  part  of  a  shekel 
every  year  for  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  it  has  been  supposed 
that  the  law  of  the  payment  of  the  half-shekel  is  one  of  the  latest 
parts  of  the  Priests'  Code.  But  the  law  does  not  appear  to 
suggest  that  the  payment  was  annual,  but  was  only  demanded 

1  Orac.  Sybil,  iii.  271.  8  Acts  xxviii.  21-22, 


160  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

when  a  numbering  of  the  people  took  place.1    The  tax  was  levied 

on  every  Jew  of  the  age  of  twenty,  and  it  was  regarded  as  a 

privilege,  as  it  was  an  open  question  whether  a  woman  or  a  minor 

could  offer  it.     The  money  was  collected  and  stored  in  certain 

places  for  remittance  to  Jerusalem.2    It  was  known  in  the  first 

century  as  the  hihpa^a,  because,  as  it  had  to  be  paid  in  Tyrian 

money,  "ms  *)DD,  the  half-shekel,  was  equal  to  two  drachmas  of 

that  coinage.    It  is  so  called  in  Josephus  and  in  Matthew  xvii.  24, 

where  the  stater  is  found  in  the  fish's  mouth  to  pay  the  tax  for 

Jesus  and  Peter  at  the  request  of  ol  to  BiBpa^/xa  XajufidvovTes.3 

;  After  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  the  money 

I  was  exacted  as  the  fiscus  Judaicus  by  the  Roman  Government. 

(6)  Syna-  The  synagogue  worship,  it  may  be  said  without  exaggera- 

worahip.      tion,  proved  to  be  the  salvation  of  Judaism.    The  religion 

contemplated  by  the  Law  could  only  have  been  practised  in 

Palestine,  within  easy  distance  of  the  Temple.    As  it  was,  the 

Jewish  communities  were  kept  together  in  every  city  and  a 

worship  was    provided   which    could  be  practised    anywhere, 

without  sanctuary  sacrifice  or  priesthood. 

Temple  at  The  first  direct  notice  of  a  Jewish  community  away  from 

me'  Palestine  is  that  of  the  colony  of  Yeb  (Elephantine),  which  in 

<the  sixth  century  B.C.  had  a  temple  and  altar  of  its  own.4    In 

the  seventy-fourth  Psalm  the  heathen  are  said  to  have  destroyed 

all  the  "  houses  of  God  "    hx  ^WIO  in  the  land.    These  have 

1  been  explained  as  synagogues  and  the  Psalm  assigned  to  the 

1  Neh.  x.  32  ;  cf.  Numb.  i.  1  ;  Schurer,  p.  24,  note  104;  Q.J.  V.  ii.  p.  314, 
note  49.  According  to  some  authorities,  2  Chr.  xxiv.  4-10  seems  to  contem- 
plate an  annual  tax.     See  also  4  Mace.  iii.  20. 

2  Cf.  especially  Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  9.  1.  One  of  the  charges  against 
Flaccus  is  that  he  would  not  allow  the  money  to  be  sent  out  of  his  province 
of  Asia  to  Jerusalem.     Cicero,  Pro  Flacco,  23. 

3  Schurer,  loc.  cit.  note  52;  Matt.  xvii.  24;  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  9.  1, 
calls  this  tax  didpaxf^ov,  in  B.J.  vii.  6.  6  8\jo  dpax/J-ds,  in  Antiq.  iii.  8.  2  <t[k\ov 
rb  rj/Mi<rv.  The  LXX.  translates  in  Exodus  xxx.  13,  tjhaktv  tov  didp&x/J-ov, 
reckoning  by  the  Alexandrian  double  drachma.  For  a  fuller  discussion  see 
Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "  Money,"  by  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy. 

4  The  Temple  at  Yeb  was  spared  by  Cambyses  (528-521  B.C.)  when  he 
destroyed  the  idolatrous  temples  of  Egypt.     Mond  Papyri,  vide  supra. 


1 


iv  THE  DISPEKSION  161 

Maccabean  period,  so  that  the  worship  is  thought  to  be  traceable  i 
to  that  age.    But  the  inference  is  precarious,  and  all  that  can  be! 
said  with  confidence  is  that  in  the  days  of  the  New  Testament, ,  ^ 
Philo,  and  Josephus,  synagogues  were  to  be  found  throughout 
Palestine  and  Egypt  and  in  every  part  of  the  Empire.1    Nay,  so 
popular  was  this  form  of  worship  that,  under  the  very  shadow}** 
of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  the  Jews  of  different  nations  had] 
their  synagogues.2    It  is  remarkable  that  "  Luke  "  gives  the  only 
description  of  synagogue  worship  in  the  New  Testament,  as  he 
does  also  of  the  Temple  services  ;    and  except  for  three  brief 
notices  from  Philo,  the  third  Gospel  and  Acts  are  our  oldest  I* 
authorities  for  the  worship,  the  Mishna  from  which  our  main!" 
information  is  derived  being  some  century  or  more  later.    Jesus, 
according  to  Luke  iv.  16-21,  entered  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  stood  up  to  read.     He  was  given  the  scroll 
of  Isaiah,  and  having  read  it  he  rolled  it  up  and  handed  it  to  the 
attendant  (vTnjperr))  and  sat  down.     He  then  expounded  the 
passage  he  had  read.    When  in  Acts  xiii.  15,  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  in  the  synagogue  in  Pisidian  Antioch  the  "  rulers  "  sent  to 
them  after  the  reading  of  the  Law  and  the  prophets  to  ask  if 
they  had  aught  to  say.     Thereupon  Paul  stood  up  and  addressed 
the  people.     In  Luke  xiii.   14,   the  ruler   (ap^tavvaywyo^)   is 
evidently  responsible  for  order  being  maintained  ;  for  he  rebukes 
the  woman  for  coming  to  the  synagogue  to  be  healed.     Philo 
truly  says  that  the  distinctive  feature  of  the  synagogue  worship  j 
was  the  reading  of  the  Law ;  3  to  which  were  added  selections 

1  Schurer  remarks,  G.J.V.  vol.  ii.  p.  517  f.,  on  the  rarity  of  the  use  of  the% 
word  synagogue,  so  common  in  the  N.T.,  in  Philo  and  Josephus.     Philo,  Quod  [ 
omnis  probus  liber,  c.  12,  says  of  the  Essenes,  they  come  to  Holy  places  which  _ 
are  called  synagogues.     But  ordinarily  he  uses  -n-poaevxv  (cf.  Acts  xvi.  13  and  I 
Josephus,  Vita  54) :   nor  is  it  certain  that  he  uses  the  word  synagogue  in  our 
sense.     Josephus  has  synagogue  thrice:   Antiq.  xix.  6.  3;    B.J.  ii.  14.  4.  5.,  !"* 
vii.  3.  3. 

2  Acts  vi.  9.    * 

3  Philo's  descriptions  of  the  synagogue  are  :  ( 1 )  from  the  lost  Hypothetic^, , 
quoted  in    Eusebius,   Praep.  Evan.  viii.  7;    (2)  De  Septenario,  6   (Mang.    ii.  jf 
282);  (3)  Quod  omnis  probus  liber,  12  (Mang.  ii.  458);  (4)  De  Somniis,  ii.  18  j  * 
(Mang.  i.  675).     The  passages  are  given  in  Schurer,  G.J.  V.  ii.  pp.  527  f. 

VOL.  I  M 


162  THE  JEWISH  WOKLD  i 

from  the  prophets.    But  in  the  days  of  the  New  Testament  at 
any  rate  instruction  was  a  leading  characteristic  of  the  synagogues, 
and  naturally  disputation  was  combined  therewith.    Jesus  is 
[said  to  have  taught,  Paul  to  have  disputed  in  them.1     The 
synagogue,  moreover,  seems  to  have  been  the  centre  of  every 
Jewish  community,  each  with  a  jurisdiction  of  its  own.    Indeed 
«* !  as  early  as  the  fourth  Gospel  the  synagogue  became  a  synonym 
for  Judaism,  and  the  term  for  excommunication  was  airoavvd- 
*  70)709  yeveadac.2    Two  portions  of  the  ancient  liturgy  of  the 
t  first  century  are  still  in  use.    The  Shema,  "  Hear  0  Israel  the 
j  Lord  thy  God  is  one  Lord,"  consisting  of  Deut.  vi.  4-9,  xi.  13-21, 
Numb.  xv.  37-41,  and  the  Shemoneh  Ezreh  or  "  eighteen  bene- 
\  dictions  "  with  an  added  prayer  against  apostates, 
(c)  study  The  study  of  the  Law  was  the  supreme  duty  of  every  Jew, 

aW*  and  the  result  was  an  educational  system  which  bound  together 
the  dispersed  nation.  Though  some  of  the  Law  could  only  be 
observed  in  Palestine,  such  as  attendance  on  the  Temple  services 
and  the  payment  of  the  tithe  of  the  produce  of  the  Land,  yet 
the  Jews  in  heathen  countries  adhered  to  the  Law  as  strictly  as 
possible.  Philo's  liberalism,  as  shown  by  his  Platonising  ten- 
fc  dencies,  has  no  place  for  Jews  who  showed  laxity  in  regard  to 
their  legal  obligations.3  The  children  learned  the  Scriptures, 
like  Timothy,  the  son  of  a  Gentile  father  and  Jewish  mother, 
from  infancy,4  and  before  the  legal  age  they  were  encouraged  to 
practise  such  laws  as  fasting  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  and 
observing  Tabernacles.  A  late  tradition  in  the  Baba  Bathra  in 
the  Babylonian  Talmud  says  that  Jesus  the  son  of  Gamaliel 
(possibly  High  Priest  a.d.  63-65)  ordered  that  there  should  be 
teachers  of  boys  in  every  province  and  every  town.5  The 
rigidity  with  which  separation  from  the  Gentiles  was  practised 
is  seen  throughout  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  Acts.  The  Hellenistic 
Jews  were  in  fact  active  and  zealous  for  the  Law  throughout  the 

1  Mark  i.  21 ;  Acts  xviii.  4.  2  John  ix.  22. 

3  Philo,  De  migratione  Abrahami  (i.  950).  4  Acts  xvi.  1 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  15. 

&  Baba  Bathra  21a,  quoted  fully  in  Schiirer,  G.J.  V.  ii.  p,  494. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  163 

Empire :  and  its  observance  kept  them  separate  from  other  men, 
and  united  to  one  another. 

The  obligation  to  visit  Jerusalem  was  felt  by  every  Jew,  as  the  (<*)  Visits  to 
crowds  which  assembled  on  the  occasion  of  the  festivals  testified.  Jerusalem' 
Naturally  a  Jew  living  in  a  country  remote  from  the  Holy  City 
could  rarely  visit  the  Temple ;  but  Jerusalem  was  the  heart  of 
the  whole  system  of  the  Dispersion.    Thither  the  Jews  crowded, 
and  returned  strengthened  in  their  devotion  and  with  a  stronger 
sense  of  national  unity.    The  Paschal  season,  according  to  the||C* 
Talmud,  was  heralded  by  the  repair  of  the  bridges  throughout! 
Palestine  and  the  whitening  of  the  Sepulchres,  the  latter  with? 
the  object  of  preventing  the  pilgrims  unwittingly  incurring  defile-  j 
ment.1    After  the  Jewish  war  the  Roman  Government,  realising** 
how  great  was  the  danger  of  Jerusalem  becoming  a  centre  of  I 
disaffection,  prohibited  the  Jews  from  approaching  the  city,  and 
the  erection  of  the  purely  Gentile  city  of  Aelia  Capitolina  by* 
Hadrian  was  a  proof  of  the  seriousness  of  their  apprehension. 

The  common  immunities  and  privileges  of  the  nation  are  (e)  im- 
a  standing  proof  of  the  wisdom  and  toleration  of  the  Roman  ™udnities 
Government,  which  under  no  provocation  allowed  the  Jews  to  Pr™ieges. 
be  persecuted  for  their  religion.    In  this  they  followed  the 
general  policy  of  the  Seleucids  and  Ptolemies,  and  their  toleration 
extended  to  all  nationalities  in  the  Empire,  which  were  allowed 
to  maintain  their  peculiar  customs  and  worship,  and  even  to 
form  communities  of  their  own.    The  Jews,  however,  had  such 
distinctive  peculiarities  that  separate  legislation  was  necessary 
to  secure  them.     The  Temple  tax,  which  had  been  held  back** 
by  Flaccus  in  Asia,  under  Augustus  was  allowed  to  be  freely  paid.2  \ 
Titus,  in  addressing  the  Jews,  expressed  his  opinion  that  this** 
concession  was  the  greatest  made  by  the  Romans  to  their  nation. ' 
"  It  can,  therefore,"  he  continued,  "  be  nothing  but  the  kindness 
of  the  Romans  which  hath  excited  you  against  us ;  who  in  the 

1  Box,  Religion  and  Worship  of  the  Synagogue,  p.  356,  alluding  to  the  Mishna, 
Shekalim  1. 


Philo,  Legatio  23. 


164  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

*J  first  place  have  given  you  this  land  to  possess  :  and  in  the  next 
«*  j  place  have  set  over  you  kings  of  your  own  nation ;   and  in  the 
*i  third  place  have  preserved  the  Laws  of  your  forefathers  to  you, 
1  and  have  withal  permitted  you  to  live  either  by  yourselves  or 
|  among  others  ;  and  what  is  our  chief  favour  of  all  we  have  given 
*f  you  leave  to  gather  up  the  tribute  which  is  paid  to  God,  with 
*  such  other  gifts  as  are  dedicated  there  ;  nor  have  we  called  those 
'  |  who  carried  these  donations  to  account,  nor  prohibited  them  till 
*/  at  length  you  became  richer  than  we  ourselves,  even  when  you 
were  our  enemies  :  and  you  made  preparation  for  war  against  us 
with  our  money."  x    These  words,  put  into  the  mouth  of  Titus 
by  Josephus,  give  a  just  description  of  the  indulgent  attitude  of 
the  Romans  towards  the  Jewish  people.    In  addition  to  this  the 
.  » observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  carefully  safeguarded,  and  the 
J  Jews  were  frequently  exempted  from  military  service.     Josephus 
has  carefully  preserved  the  decrees  in  their  favour ;    and  has 
I  recorded  the  indulgence  shown  to  their  prejudices  by  Julius 
|  Caesar  and  continued  by  Augustus.2    In  civil  cases,  according 
to  Josephus,  they  enjoyed  a  separate  jurisdiction.     In  Alexandria 
and  Cyrene  they  formed  a  distinct  community  of  their  own,  and 
in  Rome  each  separate  synagogue  seems  to  have  exercised  its 
own  jurisdiction.     But  the  widespread  belief  that  the  Jewish 
authorities  had  power  to  arrest  transgressors  of  the  Law  and  to 
beat  or  imprison  recalcitrant  Jews  throughout  the  empire  is  not 
supported  by  any  further  testimony  than  that  of  Acts. 
Proselytes.         Proselytism  was  carried  on  during  the  first  century  with 
energy,  and  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  it  is  declared 
that  the  Pharisees  would  "  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
I  proselyte."  3    To  Roman  society  Judaism  was  interesting,  and 
not  altogether  unattractive.     There  was  an  air  of  mystery  about 

1  Josephus,  B.J.  vi.  6.  2  (Whiston's  translation),  to  5t  jxkyivTov  dao-fioXoyew 
fs ■  re  v/jup  iirl  Tip  0e£  /cat  avad-qfiara  <rv\\£yei.v  iTreTptxf/a/xeu,  Kai  toi)s  ravra  <p£povTa$ 
]  otir   ivovderrjo-afiev  otire  tKU/XiHraixev  'iva  rjfiiv  yevr)<rde  TrXovcnwrepoi  ical  irapao-Kevavf}- 
ffde  T0h  THAtTtpOLS  xPVfJ-ao~L  Ka-d'  T}V-&V- 

8  The  edicts  are  quoted  in  Antiq.  xiv.  10  and  Antiq.  xvi.  6.     For  the  policy 
*  *U   of  Augustus,  see  Philo,  Legatio  40. 
8  Matt,  xxiii.  15. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  165 

it ;    the  Jew  was  credited  with  supernatural  powers,  and  the 
purity  of  his  domestic  life  commended  itself  to  those  disgusted  I 
with  the  relaxed  morality  of  their  age.    It  was  in  appeal  to  this 
feeling  that  Josephus,  when  he  wrote  his  Life  in  the  closing  days 
of  his  career,  thoroughly  understanding  those  whom  he  was 
addressing,    emphasised   his   unblemished   priestly   lineage,   his  \ 
father's  piety,  his  own  precocity  in  understanding  the  Law  of  / 
God,  and  his  asceticism  in  accustoming  himself  to  the  three  sects, 
and  to  the  rigid  discipline  of  the  hermit  Bannus.1    At  the  critical 
moment  of  his  life  he  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  himself  a 
messenger  sent  by  God  to  announce  to  Vespasian  that  he  would 
possess  the  empire  of  the  world,  and  evidently  impressed  the  | 
general  and  his  son  Titus  with  the  idea  that  he  was  an  inspired  > 
prophet.2    The  very  facts  that  the  Jew  worshipped  a  God  whose 
name  was  unknown,  and  that  he  obeyed  a  law  which  to  the 
world  seemed  unnatural  and  repugnant,  contributed  to  surround 
him  with  an  atmosphere  of  mystery  so  that  men  and  especially 
women  were  irresistibly  attracted  towards  so  strange  a  religion, 
but  it  seems  probable  that  many  stopped  short  of  complete 
adhesion  to  it.     The  synagogues,  according  to  Acts,  were  largely.  * 
attended  by  non-Jews,3  who  seem  to  have  been  called  "  God-j 
fearers,"4  and  there  were  persons  who,  even  though,  like  Timothy, 
they  were  the  children  of  a  Jewish  mother,  and  had  received  a; 
careful  instruction  in  the  Scriptures,  yet  had  never  undergone  | 
the  indispensable  rite  of  circumcision.     Submission  to  this  pain- 
ful and  even  dangerous  ordinance  had  the  effect  of  making  many 
men  hesitate  to  become  Jews,  and  the  majority  of  those  who 
formally  joined   Israel   were   evidently  women.     Undoubtedly 
most  Gentiles  who  admired  the  tenets  of  Judaism  were  satisfied 
with  remaining  as  friendly  outsiders,  nor  did  the  Jews  object 
to  this  arrangement.     Strictly,  of  course,  these  Gentiles  had  not* 
position  in  the  community  of  Israel.    Until  they  had  been1 

1  Vita,  c.  1.  2  B.J.  iii.  8.  9. 

8  Acts  xiii.  44  ff. 

4  This  subject  will  be  discussed  in  the  Commentary.. 


166  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

circumcised,  and  had  taken  upon  them  the  obligation  to  accept 
the  whole  Law,  they  could  not  look  to  share  in  the  glories  of 
the  Messianic  age,  though  they  were,  according  to  some  Rabbis, 
not  without  hope  for  the  world  to  come.  But  in  such  matters 
there  were  teachers  more  charitable  than  logical ;  and  the 
language  of  eschatology  is,  as  a  rule,  conveniently  vague. 
izates  of  A  striking  example  of  a  believer  in  Judaism  who  hesitated 

to  become  a  full  Jew  is  seen  by  Josephus's  account  of  the  royal 
convert  Izates  of  Adiabene,  which  has  already  been  mentioned.1 
Izates,  before  he  became  king,  was  converted  through  the  women 
of  his  household  by  a  Jewish  merchant  named  Ananias.     His 
mother,  Helena,  at   the  same  time  embraced   Judaism   inde- 
pendently.    Under  her  influence  Izates  became  so  zealous  for 
Judaism  that  he  decided  to  be  circumcised,  but  was  dissuaded 
!  by  both  Helena  and  Ananias,  who  dreaded  the  effect  on  his 
'i  subjects.    Ananias  was  succeeded  by  a  more  uncompromising 
teacher,  named  Eleazar,  who  assured  Izates  that  by  not  being 
I  circumcised  he  was  guilty  of  great  impiety.     Thereupon  Izates 
*  obeyed,  and  became  a  Jew  in  every  respect.     This  illustrates  in 
all  probability  the  attitude  of  many  a  sympathiser  with  Jewish 
M'l  teaching,  as  well  as  two  types  of  propagandism.     In  Ananias  is 
seen  the  Jew  who  is  satisfied  that  a  Gentile  should  accept  his 
belief  and  no  more,  in  Eleazar  the  man  who  will  admit  of  no 
compromise.2    It  is  noticeable  that  the  Sibylline  Oracles  urge 
\  the  Gentiles  to  worship  the  true  God  and  expect  the  judgment, 
}  but  demand  nothing  more  except  that  they  should  take  a  bath 
'  of  purification.3 

It  may  indeed  be  said  that  the  story  of  the  conversion  of 
Izates  is  not  very  conclusive,  for  the  advice  of  his  first  spiritual 
guide  was  dictated  by  motives  of  prudence  or  by  fear.     Even 

1  Antiq.  xx.  2.  4. 

2  Exactly  the  same  thing  is  recognisable  in  the  spread  of  Jewish  Christianity. 
Like  Ananias,  Paul  and  his  school  desired  acceptance  of  their  doctrine  as  of 
primary  importance  :  like  Eleazar,  James  and  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  demanded 
that  the  genuineness  of  belief  should  be  tested  by  a  man's  willingness  to  be 
circumcised.  s  Orac.  Sibyll.  iv.  165. 


iv  THE  DISPERSION  167 

more  instructive,  therefore,  though  less  historical,  is  the  story  of . 
Antoninus  and  Rabbi  (Judah  na-hasi),  in  which  the  Patriarch  | 
assures  the  Emperor  that  he  will  be  admitted,  without  circum- 
cision,  to  a  place  at  the  banquet   in   the   world  to  come  ati 
which  the  Leviathan  will  be  served  up.     The  Emperor,  how- 
ever,   did   not   feel   so   sure   about  it,   inasmuch    as    without 
circumcision  he  could  not  be  allowed  to  eat  the  Paschal  lamb 
in  this  world,   and  accordingly  had  himself  circumcised.     As 
a  reward  for  this  supererogatory  virtue,  in  the  procession  of 
righteous  proselytes  in  the  world  to  come  Antoninus  will  head 
the  whole  line.1 

The  interest  in  the  subject  of  Jewish  proselytism  is  twofold.  Zeal  in 
As  affecting  the  purity  of  the  race,  much  depends  on  the  extent  proselytes. 
to  which  it  went  on  under  the  Roman  rule  from  the  days  of 
Pompey  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The  extraordinary  increase 
of  Jews  in  the  Empire  may  have  been  due  to  the  widespread 
propagation  of  their  religion,  rather  than  to  any  unusual 
fecundity.  Though  most  adults  remained  permanently  in  the 
fringe  of  the  Synagogue,  content  with  the  certainty  of  the  joys 
of  the  World  to  Come,  without  seeking  to  secure  also  the  Days 
of  the  Messiah  at  the  expense  of  circumcision,  their  children 
probably  went  further,  became  proselytes  in  the  fullest  sense, 
and  were  merged  with  Jews  by  blood.  To  this  Juvenal  bears 
witness  in  the  famous  passage  in  which  he  described  the  progress 
of  a  family  toward  Judaism.  The  father  keeps  the  Sabbath  and 
eschews  pork,  worshipping  the  clouds  and  the  God  of  the  sky. 
The  sons  become  circumcised,  despise  the  laws  of  Rome,  and 
learn  and  tremble  at  those  of  Moses  ;  they  join  those  who  are 
so  separated  from  ordinary  humanity  that  they  will  tell  the 
way  or  show  where  water  can  be  found  only  to  those  of  their 
own  religion.2  To  the  student  of  Christian  origins,  moreover,  it 
is  interesting  to  enquire  how  far  the  first  missionaries  took  over 
the  more  liberal  Jewish  methods.     They  seem  to  have  copied 

1  Jewish  Encycl.    Art.  "  Antoninus  in  the  Talmud,"  by  Dr.  L.  Ginzberg. 
2  Juvenal,  Sat.  xiv.  96-106. 


168  THE  JEWISH  WORLD  i 

them  in  insisting  that  the  worship  of  one  God  was  the  true 
natural  religion  of  mankind,  and  that  what  was  commendable  in 
heathen  systems  and  philosophies  was  due  to  divine  revelation. 
Many  a  half-proselyte  was  doubtless  attracted  by  their  preaching, 
and  having  begun  in  the  synagogue  ended  in  the  church, 
importance  Such  was  the  Dispersion,  a  world-wide  organisation  of  a 
sfnto**  nati°n  and  a  religion,  permeating  an  immense  empire  and  ex- 
christian-  tending  far  beyond  its  frontiers.  The  Jews  outside  Palestine 
were  a  people  practically  ignored  by  Greek  and  Roman  antiquity, 
scarcely  heeded  in  their  classical  literature.  If  noticed  at  all 
they  were  scoffed  at  as  beggars  or  credulous  impostors,  but 
nevertheless  they  had  filled  the  world,  and  their  settlements 
formed  a  series  of  posts  along  the  great  highways  of  trade  and 
empire  from  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  Atlantic.  The  extent  of 
the  Dispersion  was  probably  far  greater  than  the  evidence  of 
inscriptions  shows ;  for  poor  men,  as  most  of  the  Jews  undoubtedly 
were,  leave  few  if  any  permanent  memorials,  and  between  the 
Jews  of  the  first  fifty  years  of  our  era  and  those  who  appear  in 
Church  history  or  Rabbinical  literature  lies  as  a  gulf  the 
Jewish  war,  and  the  extermination  of  a  great  part  of  the  nation. 
But  the  fact  of  the  Dispersion  is  undoubted,  and  is  one  of  the 
chief  clues  to  the  early  history  of  the  Christian  Church.  Not 
only  its  organisation,  but  the  spirit  which  animated  it,  and  the 
ideals  which  it  taught  were  part  of  the  heritage  which  the  Church 
shared  with  the  Synagogue.  Though  possessed  with  instincts  of 
self-preservation  and  adaptability  almost  unique  in  humanity,  the 
Jew  is  essentially  an  idealist,  cherishing  dreams  of  happiness  and 
peace  in  a  future  age  of  righteousness.  A  pilgrim  and  stranger 
upon  earth,  he  always  desires  a  better  country,  which,  like  Moses, 
he  sees  at  a  distance  though  he  cannot  enter  it.  This  vision 
in  years  of  adversity  comforted  the  children  of  Israel  in 
strange  lands,  and  in  the  days  of  persecution  proved  to  be  the 
inspiration  of  the  sons  of  the  Church. 


II 

THE  GENTILE  WORLD 


169 


I 

THE  KOMAN  PKOVINCIAL  SYSTEM 
By  H.  T.  F.  Duckworth 

I.  Its  Origin  down  to  63  b.c. 

In  the  first  century  a.d.  the  Koman  Empire  still  contained  a  con-  Diversities 
siderable  variety  of  governments.     There  were  many  autonomous  mentl6" 
cities,  each  with  its  own  territory,  its  own  laws  and  magistrates,  ^^L 
and  its  own  currency.     There  were  dependent  kingdoms  and  Empire, 
principalities.     A  confederacy  of  cities  existed  in  Lycia  down 
to  a.d.  43,  when  it  was  dissolved  by  Claudius  "  ob  exitiabiles 
discordias."  *    There  were  tribal  cantons,  which  the  Emperors 
endeavoured  to  reorganise  as  municipalities,  similar  to  those  of 
Italy.     But  while  the  imperium  exercised  in  a  spirit  of  monarchy 
clearly  tended  towards  uniformity,  as  may  be  seen  especially  in 
the  municipal  laws  of  Julius  and  Augustus,  progress  of  this 
tendency  was  far  from  being  hasty  or  indiscriminate.     The 
"  settlement  of  the  Principate,"  as  the  constitutional  Acts  of 
27  and  23  B.C.  are  collectively  called,  certainly  was  the  beginning 
of  a  distinctly  marked  epoch  in  the  history  of  Kome's  depend- 
encies.    But  the  transition  was  not  accompanied  by  disturbing 
alterations  or  drastic  and  hurried  reconstruction. 

The  Romans  had  no  preconceived  theory  of  the  government  of 
subject  countries.  They  preferred  to  make  use  of  such  machinery 
of  government  as  they  found  already  in  existence.  Thus  they 
were  willing  to  utilise  clan-chieftains  and  clan-councils  as  organs 

1  Suetonius,  Claudius,  25. 
171 


172  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

of  their  suzerainty,  making  them  responsible  for  the  collection 
of  stipendia 1  and  the  maintenance  of  order,  much  as  the  Planta- 
genets  and  Henry  VII.  attempted  to  govern  Ireland  by  making 
the  native  chieftains  their  liege-men. 

Government,  however,  through  the  intermediate  agency  of 
clan-chieftains,  was  found — especially  in  Spain — to  be  unsatis- 
factory, the  chieftains  so  often  proving  unreliable ;  and  the 
Romans  as  a  rule  set  about  establishing  (among  the  native 
population)  city  -  communities  of  men  drawn  mostly  from 
Rome  or  Italy.  The  Roman  Commonwealth  was  essentially  a 
city-state,  and  its  external  relations  down  to  the  end  of  the 
third  century  B.C.  had  been  generally  entered  into  with  similar 
political  units.  Wherever,  therefore,  the  Romans  found  such 
organisations  already  existing,  they  used  them  to  support  their 
imperium ;  and,  even  where  there  were  none,  they  endeavoured 
to  create  them  as  educational  centres  for  training  half-civilised 
communities  in  Roman  habits  and  manners. 
Wegt  Owing  to  this  wise  policy  the  peoples  of  the  West  became 

Romanised:  Romanised,  and  ultimately  more  Roman  than  Rome  herself. 
continues  But  for  the  same  reason  the  peoples  of  the  East  became  Hellenised. 
Rome  saved  a  great  portion  of  the  work  done  by  Alexander, 
and  even  rounded  it  off  in  certain  regions,  for  instance  in  Cappa- 
docia.  It  stands  to  the  credit  of  Roman  imperial  policy  that 
Bithynia  produced  Dio  Chrysostom,  Arrian,  and  Dio  Cassius ; 
that  Athens,  Tarsus,  and  Alexandria  continued  to  be  habita- 
tions of  Greek  learning  and  letters  ;  that  Cilicia  produced  Paul, 
and  Cappadocia  Basil  and  the  two  Gregories.  The  countries 
between  the  Euphrates  and  the  Mediterranean  were  saved 
from  the  Parthians  by  having  been  annexed  to  the  Roman 

1  As  to  stipendia  there  were  two  theories.  According  to  one,  they  were  a 
war-indemnity.  But  this  theory  did  not  fit  the  case  of  subject  countries  which 
had  become  provinces  by  bequest  of  native  rulers,  as  Asia  did  in  133  B.C.  and 
Cyrenaica  about  forty  years  later.  In  such  cases,  therefore,  stipendia  were 
defined  as  rent  paid  to  the  Roman  People  for  soil  of  which  it  had  become  the 
owner.  See  Greenidge,  Roman  Public  Life,  pp.  319  -  320 ;  Tenney  Frank, 
Roman  Imperialism,  pp.  94  and  245. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  173 

Empire ;  and  though  Hellenism  was  destined  to  be  submerged 
by  waves  of  Saracen  and  Turkish  invasion,  it  received  from 
the  Roman  Emperors  a  political  organisation  which  enabled 
it  for  many  centuries  to  resist  the  Moslems,  and  became  the 
groundwork  of  an  ecclesiastical  system  which  sheltered  Greek 
nationality  in  the  worst  days  of  Turkish  despotism. 

First  on  the  chronological  list  of  Roman  provinces1  comes  Earliest 
Sicily,  whence  the  Romans  expelled  the  power  of  Carthage  in  p^^ce8. 
the  first  Punic  War,  264-241  B.C.  Next  comes  Sardinia,  seized 
in  237  B.C.  when  Carthage  was  engaged  in  a  struggle  for  life  with 
a  host  of  insurgent  mercenaries.  In  227  B.C.  two  additional 
praetors,  one  for  the  government  of  Roman  Sicily,  the  other  for 
that  of  Sardinia  with  the  adjacent  Corsica,  were  elected.  Thirty 
years  later,  two  more  praetors  were  instituted  for  the  government 
of  the  territory  acquired  in  Spain,  which  was  divided  into  a 
Nearer  and  a  Further  province  (Hispania  Citerior,  Hispania 
Ulterior).  After  the  overthrow  of  the  House  of  Antigonus  at 
Pydna  in  168  B.C.,  Macedonia  was  divided  into  four  confederacies, 
mutually  isolated  as  far  as  possible  (according  to  the  time- 
honoured  maxim  divide  et  impera),  but  not  actually  superintended 
by  a  Roman  governor  until  the  advisability  of  placing  one  on 
the  spot,  with  an  army,  had  been  proved  by  an  insurrection 
which  broke  out  in  148  B.C.  Macedonia  became  a  province  in 
146  B.C.,  and  in  the  same  year  Carthage  was  destroyed  and  the 
series  of  Roman  governors  of  the  Provincia  Africa  began.  The 
greater  part  of  the  dominions  of  Attalus,  King  of  Pergamum,  who 
bequeathed  them  to  the  Roman  People  at  his  death  in  133  B.C., 

1  Provincia  signifies  primarily  a  branch  of  affairs  administered  by  a  magis- 
trate elected  by  the  Roman  People  as  an  agent  of  its  sovereignty 
(imperium).  For  instance,  the  duties  and  functions  of  the  Praetor  Urbanus 
constituted  a  provincia ;  so  did  those  of  the  Praetor  Peregrinus.  The 
conduct  of  a  campaign,  or  a  series  of  campaigns,  was  a  provincia  (cf.  Livy, 
xxxii.  27  and  28 ;  xxxiii.  43  and  44 ;  Suetonius,  Caesar,  19),  as  was 
also  the  supervision  of  affairs  in  a  conquered  country ;  and  thus  we 
arrive  at  the  use  of  provincia  to  denote  a  certain  area  of  territory,  whose 
inhabitants  were  styled  "  allies  of  the  Roman  People,"  but  treated  as 
subjects,  inasmuch  as  they  were  made  to  pay  stipendia  either  in  money  or 
in  kind. 


174  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

was  organised  as  a  Roman  province  in  129  B.C.  The  Balearic 
pirates  compelled  the  Romans  in  123  B.C.  to  place  their  islands 
under  the  governor  of  Nearer  Spain ;  and  about  the  same  time 
measures  were  taken  for  the  formation  of  a  Roman  province 
between  the  Alps  and  the  Pyrenees.  This  province  was  known 
as  the  Narbonese  (Provincia  Narbonensis)  from  the  name 
of  its  chief  city  and  headquarters  of  government,  the  Roman 
colony  Narbo  Martius,  founded  in  118  B.C.  It  was  also 
spoken  of  as  Gallia  Transalpina,  in  contradistinction  from 
Gallia  Cisalpina,  the  region  between  the  Alps  and  the  Apen- 
nines. The  depredations  practised  by  the  Cilician  pirates 
caused  in  102  B.C.  the  institution  of  the  Cilician  province  by 
the  appointment  of  a  Roman  praetor  to  set  up  his  headquarters 
at  some  place  on  the  Cilician  coast  and  conduct  such  operations 
as  he  should  find  practicable  by  land  or  sea,  or  both,  against 
the  pirate  strongholds.  With  the  exception,  however,  of  a 
vigorous  invasion  of  the  inland  region  by  P.  Servilius  Isauricus, 
about  76  B.C.,  nothing  of  note  was  effected  against  the  Cilician 
pirates  until  67  B.C.,  when  Pompey  was  armed  with  extra- 
ordinary powers  for  their  suppression. 
Sicily  .made  When  the  Romans  replaced  the  Carthaginians  in  Sicily, 
tnbutary.  ^ey  proc}aime(}  the  inhabitants  of  the  island  their  allies,  but 
made  them  tributary  ^  thus  inaugurating  a  new  policy  in 
dealing  with  allied  communities,  since  hitherto  they  had  been 
content  with,  at  most,  controlling  external  relations  and 
requiring  military  aid.  It  cannot  be  said  that  any  economic 
motive  of  empire  shows  itself  in  the  history  of  Roman 
annexations  between  241  and  133  B.C.,  although  the  tribute 
of  Macedonia  was  utilised  in  167  B.C.  to  relieve  all  land 
owned  by  Romans  in  Italy  from  taxation,  a  privilege  which  in 
course  of  time  became  attached  to  the  soil  of  the  whole  peninsula.1 
But  this  seems  to  have  been  the  most  that  was  achieved  in  the 
century  after  241  B.C.  by  way  of  lightening  Roman  financial 

1  This  exemption  was  abolished  by  Diocletian  and  Maximian.     Arnold, 
Roman  Provincial  Administration,  pp.  188-189  (ed.  1906). 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  175 

burdens  at  the  expense  of  subject-allies.  The  Spains  were  but 
lightly  taxed ;  for  Carthage  (or  rather  Hamilcar)  had  pursued 
a  lenient  policy  towards  the  Celto-Iberian  population,  which 
Rome  continued.  Even  Sicily  did  not  contribute  greatly  to  the 
treasury  of  the  Roman  Commonwealth.  As  early  as  149  B.C.  a 
special  commission  (quaestio  extraordinaria)  was  instituted  for 
dealing  with  charges  of  extortion  (res  repetundae)  brought  against 
Roman  provincial  governors  ;  for  the  Senate  did  not  deliberately 
wage  wars  of  conquest  to  find  opportunities  of  speedy  enrich- 
ment for  individual  members  of  its  order. 

Moreover,  the  policy  of  Rome  never  was  one  of  "  expansion,"  Rome 
except  under  constraint.  To  give  permanence  to  the  victories  unwmLgiy. 
over  Carthage,  obtained  at  the  cost  of  enormous  expenditures 
of  blood  and  money,  it  was  necessary  that  Rome  should  take  the 
position  previously  held  by  her  rival  in  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and 
Spain.  The  early  victories  in  the  East,  won  at  Cynoscephalae 
in  Thessaly  (197  B.C.)  and  Magnesia  by  the  Maeander  (190  B.C.), 
and  the  invasion  of  Galatia  by  Gnaeus  Manlius  Vulso  (189  B.C.),1 
were  not  followed  by  any  annexations  either  in  the  Balkan 
Peninsula  or  in  Asia  Minor.  The  Macedonian  province  was 
not  constituted  until  experience  had  proved  the  advisability  of 
stationing  a  Roman  army  to  protect  the  city-republics  of  Greece 
and  Macedonia  against  the  southward  movements  of  the  barbar- 
ous nations — such,  for  example,  as  the  Celtic  Scordisci  of  the 
region  between  the  Morava  and  the  Drave — whom  the  House  of 
Antigonus  had  held  at  bay  for  a  hundred  years.  In  overthrowing 
that  dynasty  the  Romans  had  made  themselves  liable  for  its 
responsibilities.  The  territories  of  Corinth  and  Thebes  became 
Roman  state-domains,  but  the  taxes  imposed  upon  Macedonia 

1  Professor  Tenney  Frank,  in  his  recent  work  on  Roman  Imperialism,  re- 
presents "  Sentimental  Philhellenism  "  as  the  motive  of  the  Senate  in  resolving 
to  make  war  upon  Philip  V.  of  Macedonia.  When  the  Romans  had  "  arranged 
themselves  "  with  Philip,  they  were  assailed  by  his  ally  Antiochus  of  Asia.  The 
object  of  Vulso's  expedition  into  Galatia  was  to  "  put  the  fear  "  into  the  Celts. 
Vulso  may  be  said  to  have  been  quite  successful.  All  Asia  Minor  rejoiced  over 
the  humiliation  of  the  Celts,  whose  aggressiveness  had  made  them  odious  to 
their  neighbours. 


176  THE  GENTILE  WOULD  n 

were  only  one  half  of  those  which  had  been  paid  to  the  kings.1 

When  Carthage  was  destroyed,  lest  she  should  once  more  become 

a  menace  to  the  very  existence  of  Rome,  a  considerable  proportion 

of  her  territory  was  made  over  to  neighbouring  Punic  cities. 

Policy  The  province  of  Asia,  as  we  have  seen,  fell  to  Rome  by  bequest. 

Gracchi       Left  to  itself,  the  Senate  would  probably  have  refused  to  take 

in  forcing     up  tke  heritage  of  Attalus  ;  but  Tiberius  Gracchus,  realising  how 

Senate  to  *  ° 

accept  Asia,  usef ul  the  revenue  to  be  drawn  from  the  Pergamene  realm  would 
be  in  financing  his  policy  of  agrarian  reconstruction,  forced  the 
Senate's  hand.  Here,  certainly,  the  economic  motive  appears ; 
but  Gaius  Gracchus's  institution  of  the  system  of  levying  tithe 
in  Asia,  by  the  agency  of  Roman  tax-farmers  entering  into  con- 
tracts with  the  censors  in  Rome— not,  as  in  Sicily,  by  that  of 
local  authorities  making  arrangements  with  the  governor  at  the 
provincial  capital — was  as  much  political  as  financial  in  its  aim  ; 
as  was  also  his  lex  frumentaria,  the  beginning  of  the  pauperisation 
of  the  plebs  Romana.  He  sought  to  make  of  the  equites,  the 
financial  aristocracy,  a  perpetual  opposition  to  the  Senate,  and 
to  enforce  the  precedent  set  by  himself  and  his  brother  for  putting 
the  determination  of  great  questions  of  policy  into  the  hands  of 
the  people,  instead  of  leaving  it  to  the  Senate.  Sulla  for  a  time 
substituted  in  Asia  the  payment  of  fixed  stipendia  instead  of 
tithe,  but  the  old  system — censoria  locatio  decumarum  provinciae 
Asiae — was  restored  in  the  consulship  of  Pompey  and  Crassus 
eight  years  after  Sulla's  death. 
Mithradatic  Cyrene  was  bequeathed  to  the  Romans  by  Ptolemy  Apion  in 
War-  96  B.C.,  but  it  was  not  until  75  B.C.  that  they  entered  definitively 

upon  that  inheritance.  Nicomedes  Eupator  of  Bithynia,2  dying 
in  75  B.C.,  followed  the  example  of  Attalus  of  Pergamum  and 
Ptolemy  of  Cyrene ;  and  the  attempt  of  Mithradates  of  Pontus  to 

1  Greenidge,  Roman  Public  Life,  p.  319. 

2  It  was  under  the  regime  of  the  Hellenising  Asiatic  rulers  of  Bithynia  that 
the  cities  of  Nicomedia  (Ismid),  Nicaea  (Isnik),  and  Prusias  (Broussa)  were 
founded.  Nicaea  and  Broussa  are  notable  names  in  Byzantine  and  Turkish 
annals,  and  the  former  stands  out  prominently  in  the  history  of  Christianity. 
Nicomedia  was  the  residence  of  Diocletian  and  the  starting-point  of  the  last 
persecution  of  the  churches  by  the  Roman  State. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  177 

prevent  the  execution  of  Nicomedes'  will  was  the  immediate  cause 
of  the  great  Asiatic  war  in  which  the  destinies,  not  only  of  Asia 
Minor,  but  also  of  Syria,  were  decided  for  centuries  to  come.  It 
then  became  clear — if  indeed  the  previous  conflict  between 
Mithradates  and  Rome  (88-84  B.C.)  had  not  already  brought 
the  truth  to  light — that  in  order  to  hold  those  regions  of  Asia 
Minor  which  had  been  bequeathed  to  her  by  their  kings,  Rome 
must  acquire  the  rest  of  the  great  peninsula  either  by  arms 
or  by  treaties  supported  by  force.  Furthermore,  the  confusion 
and  helplessness  of  Syria  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  matter 
of  indifference,  if  only  because  it  constituted  a  danger  to  the 
position  of  Rome  in  the  lands  between  Ararat  and  the  Aegean. 

The  year  63  B.C.  is  of  importance  as  the  beginning  of  a  new  Pompey's 
epoch  in  the  history  of  the  countries  lying  between  the  Caucasus  ^eoto* 
and  the  Mediterranean,  more  particularly  of  Syria  and  Palestine.  THB  East- 
It  was  in  63  B.C.  that  Rome's  great  enemy,  Mithradates  of  Pontus, 
ended  his  days,  that  Jerusalem,  for  the  first  time,  was  taken  by 
a  Roman  army,  and  that  the  seven  centuries  of  Roman  domination 
over  Syria  and  Judaea  began  ;  *  and  from  then  until  his  departure 
from  the  East  to  Rome  at  the  beginning  of  61  B.C.  Pompey  was 
busy  with  the  organisation  of  Asia  Minor  and  Syria.2 

At  the  time  when  the  final  conflict  with  Mithradates  of  Pontus 
began,  Rome  had  two  provinces  on  the  Asiatic  continent,  Asia 
and  Cilicia,  the  latter  consisting  only  of  a  strip  of  territory,  or 
perhaps  a  series  of  detached  strips,  on  the  Cilician  coast.  To 
these  Pompey  added  Bithynia,  including  the  western  part  of 
the  kingdom  of  Pontus. 

In  Asia  he  maintained  the  division  into  conventus  for  the  Asia, 
purposes  of  judicial  and  financial  administration,  made  by  Sulla 

1  Augustus  was  born  September  23, 63  B.C.,  possibly  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
on  which  Pompey  entered  the  Temple. 

2  On  Pompey's  organisation  of  Asia  Minor  and  Syria,  see  Mommsen,  History 
of  Rome,  bk.  iv.  ch.  v. ;  Schurer,  O.J.  V.  vol.  i.  pp.  291  ff .,  and  vol.  ii.  pp.  101  ff. 
(§§  12  and  23) ;  Ramsay,  Historical  Commentary  on  Galatians,  pp.  95-106;  Tenney 
Frank,  Roman  Imperialism,  ch.  xvi. 

VOL.  I  N 


178 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD 


Cilicia. 


Crete  and 
Cyprus. 


Settlement 
of  Syria. 


in  84  B.C. ;  but  the  condition  of  the  province  was  not  prosperous, 
though  Lucullus,  in  69  B.C.,  had  made  a  heroic  attempt  to  relieve 
the  distress  caused  by  Sulla's  imposition  of  a  fine  of  twenty 
thousand  talents  and  the  extortions  practised  by  the  Roman 
negotiatores,  to  whom  the  Asian  city-governments  had  recourse 
in  order  to  meet  this  demand. 

In  Cilicia  the  suppression  of  the  pirates  by  the  capture  of  their 
fleets  and  strongholds  in  67  B.C.  was  followed  by  .an  effective 
extension  of  the  province  northwards  from  the  maritime  region. 
In  the  treatment  of  the  captive  pirates,  Pompey  displayed  a  wise 
humanity  by  giving  them  new  homes  in  cities  of  Eastern  Cilicia 
(Cilicia  Campestris),  which  in  the  disturbances  of  the  half-century 
preceding  had  been  declining  in  population  and  wealth.1  Cilicia, 
in  the  political  sense  of  the  term,  now  extended,  not  only  along 
the  sea-coast  from  the  Indus  2  (the  boundary  of  Caria  and  Lycia) 
to  Issus  and  Alexandria  ad  Amanum,  the  modern  Alexandretta, 
but  also  to  a  considerable  depth  inland,  so  as  to  include  Pisidian 
Antioch,  Philomelium,  Iconium,  Derbe,  Laranda,  and  Anazarbus. 

The  island  of  Crete,  invaded  and  occupied  in  67  B.C.  because 
its  harbours  were  at  the  disposal  of  the  Cilician  pirates,  was 
added  to  the  number  of  Rome's  provinces.  Cyprus,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  allowed  to  remain  under  the  sovereignty  of  one  of  the 
Ptolemies.3 

A  wide  sweep  of  territory,4  extending  from  the  Euphrates  to 
the  north-eastern  boundary  of  Egypt  and  the  base  of  the  Sinai 
Peninsula,  was  made  into  the  province  of  Syria.     Pompey,  on 

1  Captive  Cilicians  were  settled  at  Mallus,  Adana,  Epiphania,  Soli  (which 
was  new-named  Pompeiopolis)  and  other  Cilician  towns.  Pompey  no  doubt 
counted  upon  the  new  townsmen  to  exert  their  fighting  quality  to  good  purpose 
in  defending  their  possessions  against  the  hill-tribes  which  had  not  yet  been 
reduced  to  submission. 

2  For  the  name  see  Livy  xxxviii.  c.  14. 

3  Ptolemy  Alexander  II.,  who  was  murdered  by  his  palace-guards  after  a 
reign  of  nineteen  days  in  81  B.C.,  had  bequeathed  his  kingdom,  which  included 
Cyprus,  to  the  Roman  Republic.  The  Senate,  however,  was  not  eager  to  make 
Cyprus  a  province,  and  Ptolemy  of  Cyprus  retained  his  position  by  paying 
tribute  to  all  the  influential  members  of  that  exalted  order. 

*  Tacitus,  Ann.  iv.  5,  ingens  terrarum  sinus. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  179 

his  departure  from  this  region  at  the  end  of  63  or  the  beginning 
of  62  B.C.,  left  Scaurus,  one  of  his  quaestors,  in  command  pro 
praetore,  with  two  legions.     But  the  government  both  in  Cilicia 
and  in  Syria  was  to  a  considerable  extent  carried  on  by  the 
agency  of  vassal-princes  and  autonomous  cities,  whose  several 
territories  lay  within  the  sphere  of  the  governor's  imperium. 
Thus,  in  Cilicia  we  find,  for  example,  the  priest-princes  of  the 
temple  of  Zeus  at  Olba,  and  the  "  dynasts  "  who  reigned  over 
various  clans  in  the  valleys  of  Mount  Amanus,  on  the  eastern 
border  of  the  province.     In  Syria,  Pompey  had  found  the  heritage 
of  Seleucus  in  the  hands  of  a  number  of  usurpers,  such  as  the 
Jew  Silas,  who  held  Lysias,1  Cinyras  the  tyrant  of  Byblus,  and 
Dionysius  the  tyrant  of  Tripolis.     Ptolemaeus,  son  of  Mennaeus, 
was  lord  of  Chalcis  and  Heliopolis,  and  a  number  of  other  places 
extending  from  the  sea-coast  to  the  Hauran.     The  Hasmonaeans 
of  Judaea  had  destroyed  or  subjugated  a  number  of  autonomous 
Creek   or  Graeco-Syrian  cities.     The  King   of   Nabataea   had 
extended  his  power  northwards  through  the  country  east  of 
Jordan  as  far  as  Damascus.     Pompey  deposed  and  put  to  death 
a  number  of  these  usurpers,  who  were  indeed  no  better    than 
robber-captains  ;    but  rulers  who  could  show  fairly  respectable 
title-deeds,  or  were  willing  and  able  to  compound  adequately  for 
their  offences,  were  spared.     Thus  Sampsiceramus,  the  priest- 
king  of  Emesa,   was  left  in  possession.     Ptolemaeus,   son  of 
Mennaeus,  saved  himself  by  disbursing  a  thousand  talents,  which 
Pompey  turned  over  to  his  army-pay  department.     The  temporal 
power  of  the  Jewish  High  Priest  was  restricted  to  the  bounds 
from  which  it  had  broken  in  the  time  of  Hyrcanus  and  Alexander 
Jannaeus,  the  Hellenic  cities  which  the  Jewish  priest-princes 
had  made  tributary  being  restored  to  their  former  independence, 
though  not  exempted  from  tribute  to  Rome.     The  cities  thus 
restored  took  the  Roman  annexation  of  Syria  as  the  era  of  their 
local  chronologies,  or  at  least  looked  back  to  it  as  a  happy  event. 
The  list  is  a  notable  one.     Along  the  coast  were  Dora  (Dor  of  the 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.  xiv.  32. 


180  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

Old  Testament),  Stratonis  Tunis,  Apollonia,  Joppa,  Jamnia, 
Azotus,  Anthedon,  Gaza  with  its  port -town  Maiouma,  and 
Raphia.  Inland  were  Samaria,  Scythopolis,  Hippos,  Gadara, 
Abila  (east  of  Gadara),  Canatha  (in  the  Hauran  or  Bashan), 
Pella,  Dium,  Gerasa.  At  the  time  of  Pompey' s  arrival  in  Pales- 
tine, the  cities  of  Philadelphia,  Ptolemais  (St.  Jean  d'Aere),  and 
Ascalon  were  independent.  Their  freedom  was  confirmed  by 
Pompey,  though  they  were  probably  still  under  an  obligation 
to  supply  the  governor  of  Syria  with  military  aid  if  required.1 
Roman  rule  Under  an  agreement  made  between  Lucullus  and  a  Parthian 
EiThMt^6  embassy  in  69  B-c-'  tne  Euphrates  had  been  recognised  as  the 
boundary  between  the  Roman  and  the  Parthian  Empires.  But 
Pompey,  in  64  B.C.,  had  sent  more  than  one  army  across  Northern 
Mesopotamia,  from  Armenia  into  Syria,  and  finally  annexed 
Northern  Mesopotamia  to  the  dominions  of  Tigranes,  King  of 
Armenia,  who  had  become  Amicus  Populi  Romani.  To  the 
number  of  "  friends  of  the  Roman  People  "  were  also  added  the 
Arab  princes  who  had  established  themselves  at  Edessa  in 
Osrhoene,  the  region  lying  immediately  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Euphrates  from  the  crossing  opposite  Samosata  down  to  the 
city  of  Nicephorium,  near  the  confluence  of  the  Euphrates  and 
the  Bilechas  (Belik),2  and  at  Palmyra. 

1  On  the  subject  of  the  Hellenistic  cities  of  Palestine  and  their  relation  to 
the  Roman  province  of  Syria,  see  Schiirer,  O.J.  V.  vol.  ii.  pp.  95-222  (§  23) ; 
also  Holm,  Hist,  of  Greece,  vol.  iv.  pp.  594-595  (E.T.).  From  Josephus,  Antiq. 
xiv.  4.  4,  5.  3,  and  B.J.  i.  7.  7,  8.  4,  it  appears  that  the  actual  reorganisation 
was  carried  out  by  Aulus  Gabinius,  proconsul  of  Syria  57-54  B.C.  The  local 
chronologies  appear  on  the  coins  minted  by  the  several  cities.  * kpxovres, 
BovKrj  and  A^uos  are  the  constituent  factors  in  every  case,  so  far  as  is  known  ; 
the  pov\r)  or  city-council  being  a  relatively  large  body.  The  polities  were 
timocratic  or  moderately  democratic.  "  Syria,  of  all  countries,"  says  Holm, 
"  is  a  proof  that  the  modern  definition  of  a  province  as  an  administrative  area 
does  not  quite  hit  the  mark.  Syria  was  a  province,  and  yet  consisted  only  of 
cities  and  districts  which  governed  themselves.  All  that  Rome  did  in  Syria 
was  to  exercise  supervision  and  raise  taxes  "  (loc.  cit.). 

2  Osrhoene  or  Orrhoene  means  "  the  country  of  Osrhoe  or  Orrhoe,"  i.e.  the 
country  lying  round  about  the  city  of  Urha,  which  after  Alexander's  conquest 
of  the  Persian  Empire  received  a  Macedonian  colony  and  was  new-named 
Edessa,  after  the  burial-place  of  the  Macedonian  kings.  Another  Macedonian 
settlement  was  planted  at  Carrhae.     Callinicum,  the  second  name  of  Nice- 


i  THE  KOMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  181 

From  the  point  of  view  of  physical  geography,  the  region  Northern 
known  in  ancient  times  as  Commagene  is  the  northernmost  part  syria- 
of  Syria.  The  governor  of  Syria  exercised  a  general  supervision, 
but  the  actual  administration  was  left  to  a  prince  of  the  House  of 
Seleucus,  who  had  been  set  up  as  king  by  Lucullus  in  69  B.C., 
and  confirmed  in  possession  of  his  throne  by  Pompey  five  years 
later.  Samosata,  the  chief  city  of  Commagene,  commanded  one 
of  the  crossings  of  the  Euphrates.  Pompey  authorised  the  king 
of  Commagene,  as  a  friend  and  ally  of  the  Roman  People,  to 
take  possession  of  territory  on  the  left  or  Mesopotamian  bank 
of  the  river,  in  order  that  he  might  hold,  not  only  the  crossing, 
but  also  the  approach  to  it.  To  the  north  of  Osrhoene,  and  on 
the  same  side  of  the  river,  the  region  of  Sophene  was  annexed 
to  the  kingdom  of  Cappadocia,  which  received  an  extension 
eastward  and  southward  ;  by  the  annexation  of  Cilician  terri- 
tory, lying  between  Castabala  and  Derbe,  to  the  south,1  and 
of  the  region  of  Melitene  (Malatiyeh)  to  the  east.  In  this 
manner  two  important  crossings  of  the  Euphrates  came  to 
be  held  by  kings  allied  to  the  Roman  Commonwealth,  and  far 
more  dependent  upon  its  favour  than  were  the  kings  of 
Armenia  and  Osrhoene.2  A  third  crossing  (Zeugma),  the  most 
important  of  all,  as  it  lay  nearest  to  Antioch  and  the  valley  of 
the  Orontes,  was  directly  under  Roman  supervision.3 

Between  Cappadocia  and  the  Roman  provinces  of  Cilicia,  Gajatiai 
Asia,  and  Bithynia-Pontus  lay  the  Galatian  principalities.     These 
had  at  one  time  been  twelve  in  number,  each  of  the  three 


phorium,  recalls  the  memory  of  Seleucus  Callinicus,  who  reigned  246-226  B.C., 
but  Holm  makes  Alexander  himself  the  founder  of  this  city.  See  Holm,  op. 
cit.  vol.  iii.  pp.  381  and  393,  and  vol.  iv.  p.  113.  The  Arab  princes  of  Edessa 
intruded  themselves  in  the  midst  of  the  confusion  of  the  epoch  164-83  B.C., 
when  the  Seleucid  kingdom  broke  up. 

1  Strabo,  Geographia,  xii.  1.  4. 

2  Mommsen,  Hist,  of  Borne,  bk.  v.  ch.  iv. 

3  Ultimately  it  was  discovered  that  the  soundest  plan  was  to  put  Roman 
forces  in  occupation  of  all  the  crossings  of  the  Euphrates.  This  was  clearly 
recognised  by  Vespasian,  who  took  action  accordingly.  See  Stuart  Jones,  The 
Roman  Empire,  p.  119. 


182  THE  GENTILE  WOULD  n 

"  nations "  of  the  Tolistoboii,  Trocmi,  and  Tectosages  being 
divided  into  four.1  The  vicissitudes  of  the  contests  between 
Mithradates  and  Rome  had  left  only  three  of  the  original  twelve. 
The  most  important  of  these  three  was  the  principality  of  Deio- 
tarus,  chief  of  the  Tolistoboii,  the  "  nation  "  which  occupied  the 
region  including,  geographically  but  not  politically,  the  city  of 
Pessinus  with  its  famous  temple  of  the  Mother  of  the  Gods,  whose 
symbol  had  been  taken  to  Rome  in  204  B.C. 
Kingdom  In  southern  Paphlagonia,  a  small  kingdom,  standing  to  the 

Roman  province  of  Bithynia  in  much  the  same  relation  as  that 
of  Emesa  stood  to  Syria,  was  assigned  to  Attalus,  who  claimed 
descent  from  Pylaemenes,  a  Paphlagonian  king,  who  appears  in 
the  cycle  of  Trojan  legend  as  an  ally  of  Priam.  Naturally,  the 
"  Troiugenae  "  of  Italy  were  not  unwilling  to  confer  an  inexpen- 
sive favour  upon  a  "  kinsman." 
Diversities  Asia,  west  of  Armenia  and  the  Euphrates,  as  Pompey  left  it 
mentsIrT  m  62  B.C.,  has  been  compared  with  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of 
Asm  Minor.  -|-ne  Middle  Ages.  In  both  cases  there  is  a  wonderful  melange  of 
polities — vassal-princedoms,  great  and  small,  some  possessing, 
in  name  at  least,  the  dignity  of  kingdoms,  free  cities,  and  tribal 
cantons.  The  priestly  princedoms  of  Judaea,  Emesa,  Venasa, 
Comana  of  Cappadocia,  Comana  of  Pontus,  Olba,  Pessinus,  and 
Ancyra  may  be  compared  with  the  prince-bishoprics  of  mediaeval 
Germany.  A  comparison  may  also  be  not  unfitly  made  between 
Roman  Asia  and  Britain's  Indian  Empire.  The  vassal-prince- 
doms and  the  free  cities  of  Roman  Asia  were  "  protected  states." 
The  King  of  Cappadocia  might  be  compared  with  the  Nizam  of 
Hyderabad.  The  resemblance  between  the  position  of  the  King 
of  Armenia  and  the  Amir  of  Afghanistan  is  striking.  Again,  the 
Empire  of  the  Roman  People  in  Asia  and  the  Empire  of  the 
British  Crown  in  India  resemble  each  other  in  their  tolerance  of 

1  A  council  of  300  principal  men  of  the  Galatians,  joined  with  the  tetrarchs 
and  other  rulers,  held  session  at  a  place  called  the  Drynemetum  (Oak-grove  ?). 
It  was  a  sort  of  Areopagus,  taking  especial  cognizance  of  cases  of  murder.  This 
council  had  ceased  to  assemble  by  the  time  that  Galatia  became  a  united 
vassal-kingdom.     See  Strabo,  xii.  5.  1-2,  and  p.  200  below. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  183 

a  great  and  interesting  variety  of  religious  beliefs  and  practices. 
The  temple  of  Hanuman  in  Benares,  with  its  sacred  monkeys, 
may  be  compared  with  the  temple  of  Atargatis  at  Hierapolis  in 
northern  Syria,  with  its  sacred  fish.1  Along  with  the  variety  of 
religions  in  Roman  Asia  there  subsisted,  as  in  modern  India, 
a  considerable  variety  of  languages,  though  native  Asiatic 
dialects  (especially  in  Asia  Minor)  were  making  way  for  Greek 
to  an  extent  to  which  the  native  dialects  of  India  have  not 
yet  made  way  for  English,  which,  however,  has  a  position  not 
very  different  from  that  which  Latin  held  in  Asia. 

The  reason  why  Pompey  left  so  many  kingdoms  and  princi-  Policy  of 
palities  still  standing  in  Asia  Minor  and  Syria,  instead  of  dividing  est^Sing 
the  whole  region  between  the  Aegean  and  the  Euphrates,  the  £J^? 
Euxine  and  Arabia  Petraea,  into  provinces  supervised  and  palities. 
governed  by  proconsuls  and  propraetors,  was  that  following  the 
traditional  policy  of  the  Republic,  he  sought  to  make  as  few  changes 
as  possible,  consistently  with  serving  Roman  interests,  and  to 
avoid  the  expenditures  which  would  have  been  necessitated  by 
a  large  increase  in  the  number  of  provincial  governors  and  of  the 
Roman  armies  of  occupation.  Though  he  opened  copious  sources 
of  revenue  for  the  treasury,  he  desired  to  restrict  the  expenditure 
of  the  Republic.  Again,  kings  or  dynasts  or  high  priests  with  a 
life-tenure  were  found  to  be  better  adapted  for  turbulent  tribes 
than  proconsuls  or  propraetors,  who  held  their  positions  only 
for  a  year  or  two.  It  was  indeed  a  very  serious  defect  in  the 
Roman  provincial  system  that  the  ordinarily  brief  tenure  of 
provincial  governorships  left  their  occupants  no  sufficient  time — 
even  if  they  had  the  desire,  which  was  not  always  the  case — to 
make  themselves  properly  acquainted  with  the  countries  and 
populations  over  whom  they  presided.  But  even  if  all  pro- 
consuls and  propraetors  had  been  indisposed  to  regard  the 
provinces  as  latifundia,  of  which  they  were  the  successive  villici, 
the  great  difference  between  the  Romans  and  some  of  the  tribes 

1  The  inclusion  of  Egypt  in  this  comparison  would  make  the  resemblance 
between  the  Roman  and  the  British  Empire  still  more  impressive. 


184 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD 


Pompey's 
treatment 
of  Greek 
cities. 


(a)  In 
Syria. 


and  nations  of  Asia  made  it  wise  to  leave  these  primitive  folk 
under  rulers  whose  methods  of  government  were  familiar  and 
comprehensible  to  them.  With  the  progress  in  enlightenment 
which  set  in  after  Augustus  had  given  to  the  Roman  world  "  laws 
whereby  it  might  dwell  in  peace  under  a  prince,"  x  the  occupation 
of  vassal-kings,  dynasts,  or  tetrarchs  was  more  and  more  assumed 
by  city-governments,  which  grew  in  number.  As  the  need  of 
vassal-princedoms  ceased,  they  were  gradually  abolished,  and 
by  the  end  of  Vespasian's  reign  (a.d.  69-79)  there  was  hardly  one 
of  them  left. 

It  is  impossible  to  tell  with  any  degree  of  assurance  whether 
Pompey  believed  that  what  the  Romans  had  to  do  in  Asia  was 
to  complete  the  work  begun  by  Alexander  and  carried  on  by  the 
House  of  Seleucus,  so  far  as  it  lay  within  their  power.  But  it 
is  quite  certain  that  in  preserving  or  restoring  the  autonomy  of 
existent  cities,  and  in  founding  new  ones,  Pompey  continued  the 
policy  of  Alexander  and  the  Seleucidae.2 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  his  liberation  of  Graeco- 
Syrian  cities  which  in  the  course  of  some  seventy  or  eighty  years 
before  his  arrival  in  Syria  had  been  subjugated  or  even  razed 
to  the  ground  by  the  Jews,  or  had  fallen  under  the  usurped  power 
of  robber-captains  such  as  Cinyras  of  Byblus.  When,  therefore, 
Pompey  returned  from  Palestine  and  Syria  to  Rome,  he  left  a 
region  largely  occupied  by  autonomous,  though  tributary,  city- 
states,  whose  elected  magistrates  and  officials  took  a  vast  amount 

1  Tacitus,  Annals,  iii.  28,  deditque  iura,  quis  pace  ac  principe  uteremur. 

2  "  The  most  striking  feature  in  the  internal  policy  of  Seleucus  and  his 
successors  is  the  attempted  transfer  into  Asia  of  Greek  urban  life  "  (Scott  Fer- 
guson, Greek  Imperialism,  p.  196).  This  transfer  had  been  begun  by  Alexander. 
The  kings  of  the  House  of  Seleucus  were  more  truly  successors  of  Alexander 
than  any  other  dynasty  which  arose  upon  the  break-up  of  his  vast  empire. 
Holm  observes  that  the  title  of  d8e\<pol  drj/mot  assumed  by  the  cities  of  the 
Seleucian  Tetrapolis — Antioch,  Seleucia  Pieria,  Apamea,  Laodicea  (modern 
Latakia) — in  the  epoch  150-130  B.C.  and  stamped  upon  their  coins  is  a  mark  of 
"  genuine  Greek  civilisation  in  the  middle  of  the  East,  an  interesting  contrast 
to  the  inscription  ade\<f>Qv  Qe&v  on  the  Egyptian  coins,  which  occurs  just  at 
that  time  "  (Hist,  of  Greece,  vol.  iv.  p.  446,  E.T.).  On  the  subject  of  cities  of 
Alexander  and  the  Seleucidae,  consult  Holm,  op.  cit.  vol.  iii.  ch.  xxvii.,  vol.  iv, 
chaps,  v.  and  xiii. 


i  THE  KOMAN  PKOVINCIAL  SYSTEM  185 

of  details  of  judicial  and  fiscal  administration  off  the  hands  of 
the  Koman  governor  and  his  staff.  Similarly  in  Asia  Minor,  (&)  in  Asia 
besides  repopulating  with  captives  from  Western  or  Highland 
Cilicia  a  number  of  cities  in  Eastern  or  Plain  Cilicia  which  had 
fallen  into  decay,  he  founded  a  score  of  new  cities,  most  if  not  all 
of  which  were  formed  by  concentrating  the  population  of  a  number 
of  villages.  Although  he  often  reversed  arrangements  made  by 
Lucullus,  he  followed  the  same  line  of  policy  in  the  treatment  of 
cities.  Cyzicus,  Sinope,  and  Amisus  were  put  in  enjoyment  of 
enlarged  territories,  taken  from  old  royal  domains  or  perhaps 
from  those  of  temples  ;  Heraclea  Pontica  recovered  her  territory 
and  harbours ;  and  thirty-nine  cities  in  all  were  added  to  the 
number  of  those  which  had  been  in  existence  before  the  Mithra- 
datic  Wars. 

The  Romans,  as  has  been  said,  never  interfered  with  Oriental 
those  religions  of  their  allies  and  dependents  which  neither  reiglQ1 
sanctioned  practices  nor  stimulated  policies  detrimental  to  the 
well-being  of  the  Commonwealth.  Even  then  they  intervened 
to  correct  and  restrain,  not  to  extirpate.  The  orgiastic  perform- 
ances of  the  "  Great  Mother  of  the  Gods  "  were  actually  intro- 
duced from  Phrygia  into  Rome  by  authority  of  the  Senate  in  204 
B.C.,  and  the  goddess  had  her  temple  placed  within  the  pomerium.1 
Wild  and  repulsive  as  these  ceremonies  were,  and  though  for  a 
considerable  period  no  Roman  was  allowed  to  become  a  priest  or 
minister  of  the  goddess,  yet  a  festival  in  her  honour  was  added 
to  the  Roman  calendar.2  Of  exactly  the  same  nature  were  the 
ceremonies  of  the  goddess  of  Comana  in  Cappadocia,  called  Ma 
by  the  natives,  but  identified  by  the  Romans  with  Bellona,  a 
goddess  of  war  and  slaughter.  She  was  brought  to  Rome 
about  90  B.C.  by  soldiers  who  had  served  under  Sulla  in  Cilicia. 

So  long,  then,  as  the  Asiatic  priest-princes  paid  tribute  and  priestly 
stirred  up  no  rebellions,  there  was  no  cause  for  deposing  them  or  S^ 
proscribing  their  religions.     At  the  same  time,  Pompey  did  not 
hesitate  to  abridge  the  extent  of  the  temple  domains  if  accessions 

1  Livy  xxix.  14,  xxxvi.  36.  2  Ovid,-  Fasti,  iv.  179  f. 


186  THE  GENTILE  WOULD  n 

of  territory  were  required  for  the  foundation  of  a  new  city  or  the 
resuscitation  of  an  old  one.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  respected 
the  territory  of  the  Sun-god  El-Gabal,  who  reigned  in  the  person 
of  his  high  priest  over  Emesa  and  its  neighbourhood,  of  Apollo 
at  Daphne  on  the  Orontes,  and  of  Atargatis  at  Hierapolis. 
The  Jews.  Although  the  Jews  were  allowed,  in  accordance  with  this 

policy,  to  retain  their  own  lands,  their  priestly  rulers  being  merely 
deprived  of  cities  annexed  by  them  in  war,  it  appears  that  the 
tribute  exacted  from  Judaea  was  one-third  of  the  seed,  or  about 
one-thirtieth  of  the  crop,  and  the  Mosaic  tithe  had  still  to  be 
paid  to  the  Temple.1 
City  It  is  uncertain  whether  Pompey  found  any  occasion  to  make 

SenT"  changes  in  the  existing  forms  of  city-government.  The  thing 
to  be  desired,  and  even  insisted  upon,  from  the  Koman  point  of 
view,  was  that  important  public  offices  should  be  accessible  only 
to  men  who  stood  to  lose  most  heavily  by  wars  or  revolutions, 
and  whose  position  in  their  community  was  analogous  to  that 
Pompey  of  the  nobiles  in  Koman  society.  In  the  case  of  those  cities  which 
Jews.  were  resuscitated  after  destruction  by  the  Jews,  or  by  the  tyranny 

of  robber-chiefs  (such  as,  for  example,  Dionysius  in  the  Syrian 
Tripolis),  Pompey  had  no  difficulty  in  setting  up  such  constitu- 
tions as  best  suited  the  interests  of  Rome.  The  extent  to  which 
the  constitutions  of  other  cities  required  modification  probably 
depended  upon  the  ratio  in  which  the  numbers  of  the  artisans 
and  mechanics  stood,  in  the  several  instances,  to  the  total  of  the 
citizen-body.  In  most,  if  not  in  all,  of  the  Syrian  cities,  and  in 
a  considerable  number  of  the  cities  of  Asia  and  Cilicia,  there 
were  settlements  of  Jews,  who  enjoyed  equal  rights  of  citizen- 
ship with  their  Gentile  neighbours.  Pompey  left  these  in 
possession  of  their  citizen-rights,  which  had  originally  been 
conferred  by  the  Seleucidae,2  but  a  large  number  of  Jewish 
prisoners  of  war  was  brought  to  Rome  by  Pompey  and  his  officers 
and  legionaries.  These,  of  course,  were  slaves,  yet  before  long 
many  of  them  were  manumitted.     As  libertini,  however,  they 

1  Tenney  Frank,  Roman  Imperialism,  p.  320.  2  Jos.  Ant  xii.  3.  1. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  187 

were  under  obligation  to  serve  the  interests  of  their  patroni,  and 
it  need  not  be  doubted  that  these  Jewish  freedmen  supported 
their  patrons  in  the  factions  of  the  last  years  of  the  Republic. 
Besides  these  Jewish  prisoners  of  war,  there  were  many  from 
other  nations  of  the  East.  By  manumission  they  passed  into 
the  great  body  of  freedmen  of  Oriental  origin  who  formed  so  large 
a  part  of  that  Plebs  Romana  which  was  contemptuously  sniffed 
at  as  faex  Romuli  by  Cicero,1  and  despairingly  denounced,  in  a 
phrase  nearly  identical,  by  Juvenal's  friend  Umbricius.2  The 
swelling  of  the  ranks  of  the  urban  electorate  might  perhaps 
have  been  checked  if  censors  had  been  regularly  chosen  at  that 
time.  But  from  69  to  27  B.C.  there  were  no  censors.  Moreover, 
consuls  and  praetors  and  all  the  nobiles  of  Rome  were  equally 
interested  in  having  at  their  several  service  persons  who  could 
be  counted  upon  to  make  themselves  useful,  especially  at  elections. 

On  his  return  to  Rome  from  the  East  in  January,  61  B.C.,  Return  of 
Pompey  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  ratification  the  arrangements  to  Rome# 
he  had  made  in  Asia  Minor  and  Syria  and  his  promises  of  rewards 
for  his  soldiery  ;  but  at  the  instance  of  Lucullus  and  others,  who 
were  jealous  of  his  fame,  or  despised  him  for  having  disbanded  his 
army  before  he  approached  the  capital,  his  request  was  refused. 
In  his  irritation  against  the  Senate,  Pompey  lent  a  willing  ear 
to  the  proposals  of  Gaius  Caesar,  who  returned  in  the  summer  of 
60  B.C.  from  the  government  of  Further  Spain  and  victories  over 
the  Lusitanians.  Caesar  wished  to  be  elected  consul  for  the 
following  year.  He  undertook  that,  if  Pompey  would  give  him 
his  support  and  influence,  the  ratification  of  the  Eastern  settle- 
ment and  provision  for  Pompey's  veterans  would  not  be  delayed. 

1  Cicero,  ad  Alt.  ii.  1.  8.    Cf.  ad  Att.  i.  16.  11,  ilia  contionalis  hirudo  aerarii 
misera  ac  ieiuna  plebecula. 

2  Juvenal  iii.  60, 

Non  possum  ferre,  Quirites, 
Graecam  urbera  ;  quamvis  quota  portio  faecis  Acliaei  ? 
lam  pridem  Syrus  in  Tiberim  defluxit  Orontes 
Et  linguam  et  mores  et  cum  tibicine  chordas 
Obliquas  nee  non  gentilia  tympana  secum 
Vexit  et  ad  circum  iussas  prostare  puellas. 


188  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

By  reconciling  Pompey  and  Crassus,  who  had  been  estranged 
since  their  consulate  in  70  B.C.,  Caesar  completed  his  preparations 
for  his  political  campaign.  An  agreement  was  privately  made 
between  the  three  that  "  nothing  should  be  done  in  the  Common- 
wealth that  any  one  of  them  misliked."  l  This  formed  the  "  First " 
Triumvirate,  so  called  to  distinguish  it  from  the  "Second" 
Triumvirate  of  Antony,  Lepidus,  and  Octavian  in  43  B.C.  Caesar 
was  elected  consul,  and  though  his  colleague,  Marcus  Bibulus, 
opposed  him  from  the  very  start,  he  bore  down  the  opposition 
with  unprecedented  violence. 
Cicero's  In  the  year  of  Caesar's  first  consulship,  i.e.  59  B.C.—"  the 

oration  .  x 

pro  Fiacco.   consulship  of  Julius  and  Caesar  " — Lucius  Valerius  Flaccus,  who 

had  been  appointed  propraetor  of  Asia  three  years  before,  was 

prosecuted  in  Rome  on  a  charge  of  maladministration.     He  was 

defended  by  Cicero,  the  greater  part  of  whose  speech  on  this 

occasion  is  still  extant,  and  throws  light  on  the  relations  of  Greeks 

and  Jews  to  Rome.     Complaints  were  lodged  against  Flaccus  by 

Greeks,  by  Jews,  and  even  by  Romans  resident  in  the  province. 

On  the  other  hand,  witnesses  to  his  virtues  were  brought  from 

Achaea,  Boeotia,  Thessaly,  Athens,  Lacedaemon,  and  Massilia. 

Between  these  Greeks  "  ex  vera  atque  integra  Graecia  "  and  the 

Asiatic  Greeks  Cicero  drew  a  very  effective  contrast,  sharpening 

his  point  by  citing  Greek  proverbs  upon  the  contemptible  qualities 

of  the  Phrygian,  the  Mysian,  the  Carian,  and  the  Lydian.     But 

the  true  Roman  feeling  towards  Greeks  in  general,  whether  of 

Greece  or  of  the  Hellenic  Diaspora,  breaks  out  in  an  earlier 

i  passage  in  the  oration,  in  which  he  roundly  declares  that  "  testi- 

j  moniorum  religionem  et  fidem  numquam  ista  natio  coluit ;  totius- 

£que  huiusce  rei  quae  sit  vis,   quae  auctoritas,   quod  pondus, 

^ignorant."     In  reply  to  complaints  which  came  in  the  form  of 

resolutions  (yjrrjf la par a)  passed  by  the  popular  assemblies  of 

,  Greek  cities,  Cicero  recalls  how  Greece  of  old  was  brought  to  ruin 

]  libertate  immoderata  et  licentia  concionum,  and  censures  the  Greek 

1  Suetonius,  Caesar,   c.   19,   ne  quid  ageretur  in  republica,  quod  displi- 
cuisset  ulli  e  tribus. 


i  THE  KOMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  189 

city-states  of  the  time  for  continuing  the  practice  of  deciding 
the  most  important  questions  in  assemblies  intoxicated  by 
oratory.  The  passage  suggests  that  in  Asia  the  city-governments 
were  democratic  in  practice.  Passing  on  to  the  Jewish  witnesses 
for  the  prosecution,  Cicero  lowered  his  voice  lest,  as  he  pretended, 
Jews  in  the  audience  should  hear  him,  and  begin  an  Smeute 
in  order  to  break  up  the  defence.  In  exposing  the  frivolity  of 
the  Asiatic  Greeks  he  had  already  remarked  that  persons  from 
the  province  of  Asia  frequently  disturbed  political  gatherings 
in  Rome.  The  Jews'  complaint  against  Flaccus  was  that  he  had 
prohibited  them  by  edict  from  sending  money  to  the  Temple  in 
Jerusalem.  Large  sums  collected  for  transmission  to  Jerusalem 
had  been  confiscated  at  Apamea,  Laodicea,  and  Adramyttium. 
But  Cicero  argued  that  Flaccus  had  acted  in  the  interest  of  the 
province,  just  as  Pompey  had  shown  himself  considerate  towards 
Judaea  when  he  left  the  treasury  untouched  after  the  capture 
of  the  Temple.  The  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  Cicero  saysl* 
bluntly,  were  suspiciosa  ac  maledica  civitas.  As  for  the  Jews'  f 
religion,  it  was  a  barbara  superstitio,  utterly  alien  to  the|> 
splendour  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  dignity  of  the  Roman  name,  | 
and  the  tradition  received  by  the  Romans  from  their  forefathers — 
"  all  the  more  alien,  now  that  this  nation  has  shown  the  sentiments 
it  entertains  against  our  Empire,  by  taking  up  arms  against  it, 
and  has  proved  how  dear  it  is  to  the  immortal  Gods,  by  its  sub- 
jugation, its  dispersion,  its  enslavement." 

Some  five  years  later,  in  66  B.C.,  Aulus  Gabinius,  proconsul  Gabinius. 
of  Syria,  after  suppressing  a  Jewish  rebellion  stirred  up  by  the 
Hasmonaean  princes  Aristobulus  and  Alexander,  divided  Judaea 
into  five  separate  and  independent  districts,  each  under  a  timo- 
cratic  or  aristocratic  government.  The  several  headquarters  of 
these  governments  were  fixed  at  Jerusalem,  Jericho,  Amathus 
(in  Peraea),  Gazara,1  and  Sepphoris  (Galilee).  A  similar  plan 
had  been  followed,  more  than  a  hundred  years  before,  by  L. 

1  I.e.  Gezer  on  the  confines  of  the  hill-country  and  the  Plain  of  Sharon. 
The  reading  Tad&pois  in  Josephus,  Ant.  xiv.  5.  4,  is  erroneous. 


190  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

Aemilius  Paullus  in  organising  Macedonia  after  the  overthrow  of 
the  native  kingdom.     But  whereas  Aemilius  Paullus  had  lightened 
the  fiscal  burdens  of  Macedonia,  Gabinius  made  those  of  Judaea 
heavier. 
Crassus  Twelve  years  later,  in  54  B.C.,  Marcus  Licinius  Crassus  arrived 

in  Syria  and  did  without  hesitation  what  Pompey  had  refrained 
from  doing.  He  plundered  the  Temple-treasury  at  Jerusalem, 
and  stripping  the  sanctuary  itself  of  its  golden  ornaments,  carried 
off  some  ten  thousand  talents,  to  which  he  added  the  spoils  of 
Atargatis,  the  goddess  of  Hierapolis-Bambyce,  and  other  Syrian 
temples. 
The  From  56  B.C.  to  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war  in  49,  Cilicia 

ofCiiicia.  should  be  regarded  as  a  specially  important  province,  almost 
as  important  as  Syria  and  decidedly  more  so  than  Asia,  for  while 
Cilicia  was  governed  by  proconsuls,  Asia  was  governed  by  pro- 
praetors.1 It  does  not  appear  that  any  legions  were  now  stationed 
in  Asia,  but  there  were  two  in  Cilicia.  The  importance  of  the 
province  was  further  increased  by  the  transfer  from  Asia  to 
Cilicia  of  the  conventus  or  "  circuits,"  which  were  judicial  and 
fiscal  divisions  of  territory,  of  Cibyra,  Apamea,  and  Synnada. 
The  island  of  Cyprus  was  annexed  to  it  soon  after  the  death  of 
Ptolemy  (58  B.C.).  It  was  thus  to  the  proconsul  of  Cilicia,  rather 
than  to  the  propraetor  of  Asia,  that  the  Cappadocian  king  now 
looked  for  protection  against  foreign  or  domestic  enemies.  The 
sea-front  of  the  province  extended  from  the  boundary  of  Caria 
on  the  river  Indus  to  the  Promontory  of  Rhossus  beyond  Alex- 
andria (Alexandretta)  on  the  Gulf  of  Issus,  and  it  was  part  of 
the  governor's  business  to  see  to  the  welfare  of  the  Lycian  Con- 
federacy. Within  the  province  were  included,  besides  the  Lycian 
Confederacy,  the  autonomous  cities  of  Attalia,  Cibyra,  Laodicea 

1  On  the  subject  of  the  Cilician  Province  in  56-50  B.C.  see  Ramsay,  Cities 
and  Bishoprics  of  Phrygia,  vol.  i.  pp.  10-11,  341,  and  Historical  Commentary  on 
Galatians,  p.  105  f.  The  letters  of  Cicero  which  belong  to  the  years  51  and  50, 
in  which  he  was  proconsul  of  Cilicia,  are  collected  in  vol.  iii.  of  Tyrrell  and 
Purser's  edition  of  Cicero's  correspondence.  See  also  Nos.  32,  36-40,  and  42  in 
Watson's  Select  Letters  cf  Cicero  and  the  introduction  to  Part  II.  of  the  work. 


i  THE  KOMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  191 

on  the  Lycus,  and  its  neighbours  Hierapolis  and  Colossae  ;  Apa- 
mea  (the  ancient  Celaenae,  also  known  as  Apamea  Cibotus), 
Apollonia,  and  Antioch  in  Pisidian  Phrygia,  Philomelium, 
Laodicea  in  Lycaonia,  Iconium,  Lystra,  Derbe,  Laranda,  Tarsus, 
Mopsuestia,  Mallus,  Alexandria  on  the  Gulf  of  Issus,  Soli  (new- 
named  Pompeiopolis),  Seleucia  on  the  Calycadnus,  Selinus,  Side, 
and  Aspendus.1  At  Olba  the  High  Priest  of  Zeus,  who  claimed 
descent  from  Teucer,  brother  of  Ajax  and  son  of  Telamon,  was 
ruler  over  the  surrounding  territory.2 

In  the  Taurus  mountains  (especially  in  Pisidia  and  Isauria)  Cicero  pro- 
were  tribes  of  marauding  hillmen  under  their  several  chieftains.  cfflc?a.° 
Other  tribes  of  marauders  had  their  strongholds  in  the  Amanus 
range  on  the  borders  of  Cilicia  and  Syria.  Cicero,  who  was  sent 
as  proconsul  to  Syria  in  51  B.C.  under  the  provisions  of  the  law 
de  iure  magistratuum,  carried  by  Pompey  in  the  year  preceding, 
had  to  undertake  an  expedition  against  the  fortress  of  Pindenissus, 
which  he  reduced  on  December  17,  after  a  siege  of  forty-seven 
days.  For  this  success  he  was  to  his  immense  gratification  hailed 
as  "  Imperator  "  by  his  legionaries. 

When  Caesar  crossed  the  Rubicon  and  marched  upon  Rome,  Defeat 
Pompey  withdrew  to  Epirus,  and  summoned  to  his  aid  the  powers  *f  p0mpey. 
of  the  East,  where  his  name  was  still  one  to  conjure  with.  On 
August  9,  48  B.C.,  in  the  battle  of  Pharsalus  in  Thessaly,  the  days 
of  his  supremacy  were  finally  numbered.  Flying  from  that 
stricken  field  to  the  sea-coast,  he  took  ship  for  Egypt.  As  he 
was  being  rowed  in  a  boat  from  his  ship  to  the  beach  near  the 
promontory  called  Mons  Casius,  some  miles  east  of  Pelusium,  he 
was  murdered.  His  dead  body,  from  which  the  head  had  been 
hacked  off,  was  thrown  into  the  sea,  from  which,  however,  it 
was  subsequently  rescued  for  cremation.  To  this  pitiable  and 
terrible  end  came  the  man  who  had  extended  the  Imperium 
Populi  Romani  to  the  Euphrates  and  Ararat : 

1  See  the  map  of  Asia  Minor  in  56-50  B.C.  contained  in  Ramsay's  Historical 
Commentary  on  Galatians. 
1  Strabo  xiv.  15.  10. 


192 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD 


Perman- 
ence of 
Pompey's 
work. 


iacet  ingens  litore  truncus 
Avulsumque  humeris  caput,  et  sine  nomine  corpus.1 

Nevertheless,  the  work  that  Pompey  had  done  in  Asia  Minor 
and  Syria  continued  to  stand.  He  had  restored  or  preserved 
a  number  of  autonomous  cities,  Hellenic  or  Hellenised,  and  even 
added  new  foundations.  It  is  true  that  his  work  in  the  East, 
so  far  as  the  preservation  or  enlargement  of  urban  life  was  con- 
cerned, was  a  work  which  had  been  begun,  more  than  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  before,  by  Alexander,  and  carried  on  by  Seleucus 
and  his  successors.  But  Pompey  found  much  on  the  point  of 
falling  into  ruins,  and  to  him  is  due  the  praise  of  a  preserver, 
restorer,  and  promoter  of  the  civilising  enterprises  of  the  Mace- 
donian kings.  As  we  follow  Paul  on  his  journeys  from  province 
to  province  and  from  Greek  city  to  Greek  city ;  as  we  observe 
the  growth  of  ecclesiastical  organisation  upon  the  basis  of  the 
cities,  beginning  in  the  Eastern  provinces,  and  note  the  develop- 
ment of  Christian  theology  by  Greek  learning  sheltered  by  Roman 
law  in  Greek  cities ;  we  see  the  Church  using  instruments  provided 
by  Alexander  and  the  Seleucidae,  and  preserved  by  Pompey  and 
the  Romans.  The  testimony  of  Velleius  Paterculus  deserves  a 
place  among  the  records  of  the  Church  as  well  as  of  the  Empire — 
"  Syria  Pontusque  Gnaei  Pompeii  virtutis  monumenta  sunt." 


The  Civil 
War  and 
Recon- 
struction, 
48-12  b.c. 


I 


When  the  victory  of  Caesar  Octavianus  over  Antony  and 
Cleopatra  brought  an  end  to  civil  war  and  reunited  East  and  West, 
the  victor  was  hailed  by  his  fellow-citizens  as  the  Preserver 
and  Restorer  of  the  Republic,  and  by  the  subject-allies  as  a 
Divine  Deliverer,  a  god  dwelling  among  them  in  visible  presence. 
Such  phrases  as  pacato  orbe  terrarum,  restituta  republica, 
or  republica  conservata,  found  in  inscriptions  dating  from 
the  years  immediately  following  the  end  of  the  civil  wars,  are 
true  signs  of  the  times.2  No  less  remarkable  was  the  permission 
given  by  Caesar  Octavianus  to  the  provincials  of  Asia  and  Bithynia 


1  Virgil,  Aen.  ii.  557,  558. 

2  C.I.L.  i.  vi.  1527  and  873.     Cf.  Velleius  Paterculus  ii.  89. 
of  Ianus  was  closed  (on  January  11)  in  29  B.C. 


The  temple 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  193 

to  build  and  dedicate  temples  to  him  and  the  goddess  Romaj 
at  Pergamum  and  Nicomedia,  the  headquarters  of  the  respective  I 
provincial  governments.1 

Finding  in  28  B.C.  that  his  continuance  at  the  head  of  the  Settlement 
State  was  desired,  and  being  at  the  same  time  resolved  that  the 
"  restoration  of  the  Republic  "  should  not  become  a  meaningless 
phrase,  Octavian  entered  into  negotiations  with  the  Senate 
immediately  upon  taking  office  on  January  1,  27  B.C.,  as  consul 
for  the  seventh  time.  An  agreement  was  reached,  the  terms  of 
which  were  as  follows  :  He  was  to  be  elected  consul,  as  heretofore 
since  32  B.C.,  year  by  year.  He  was  to  be  commander-in-chief 
of  the  legions,  auxiliary  forces,  and  fleets  of  the  Commonwealth. 
He  was  to  control  foreign  relations ;  declaring  war,  making  peace, 
negotiating  treaties,  setting  up  and  putting  down  vassal-princes. 
He  was  to  have  charge  over  certain  countries,  to  which  he  could 
send  his  deputies  as  governors.2  His  person  was  to  be  as 
sacred  as  those  of  the  tribuni  plebis,  with  whom  he  had  been 
associated,  though  as  a  superior  rather  than  as  an  equal,  by 
investiture  with  tribunicia  potestas  in  36  B.C.  The  military 
and  civilian  powers  assigned  to  him  by  this  arrangement  were 
to  be  retained  for  ten  years,  reckoned  from  the  kalends  of 
January  27  B.C.     The  provinces  not  specially  assigned  to  his 

1  Dio  Cassius  li.  20.     This  took  place   in  29  B.C.,  the  year  of  Octavian'a  ^ 
fifth  consulate.     Notice  that  Octavian  "gave  orders  "  (icprjKev)  to  the  Romans  . 
resident  in  Asia  and  Bithynia  to  dedicate  temples  to  Roma  and  Divus  Iulius  | 
(i.e.  the  deceased  dictator)  at  Ephesus  and  Nicaea  respectively,  while  he  "  per-  1 
mitted  "  (iTrirpexf/eu)  the  provincials  to  dedicate  temples  to  himself  and  Roma  l 
at  Pergamum  and  Nicomedia.     Dio  observes  in  passing  that  Octavian  called 
the  provincials  "  Greeks  "  ("EXX^^ds  <r0as  itnKaXiaas).     Octavian  became  the 
divine  yyefidju  of  the  Greek  cities  of  Europe  and  Asia.     In  the  epoch  of  the 
gradual  expansion  of  Imperium  Populi  Romani  eastward  Greek  cities  had  made 
the  Genius  or  "  Fortune  "  of  Rome,  or  individual  Roman  commanders — even 
Verres  ! — their  divine  or  semi-divine  yyefiSves.     The  Smyrnaeans  built  a  temple 
to  Rome  as  early  as  195  B.C.     The  example  set  by  the  provincials  of  Asia  and  *^ 
Bithynia  was  followed  by  those  of  Galatia  when   their    country    became    a  [ 
Roman  province,  i.e.  25  B.C.     See  Mommsen,  Res  Gestae  Divi  Augusti. 

2  These,  at  the  time  when  this  agreement  was  made,  were  (1)  Lusitania ; 
(2)  Hispania  Citerior  or  Tarraconensis ;  (3)  Gallia  Transalpina,  from  the 
Pyrenees  and  the  Mediterranean  coast  to  the  Rhine ;  (4)  Syria,  with  Cilicia ; 
(5)  Cyprus ;  (6)  Egypt. 

VOL.  I  O 


of  23  b.c. 


194  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

supervision  were  restored  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Senate  and 
People.1    A  lex  de  imperio  C.  lulii  C.  F.  Gaesaris,  embodying  this 
agreement  made  between  Octavian  and  the  Senate,  was  carried 
on  January  13,  27  B.C.    Three  days  later  the  Senate  conferred 
upon  Octavian  the  title  of  Augustus.    At  the  same  time  it  was 
ordered  that  a  corona  civica  of  oak-leaves  should  be  set  up  over 
the  door  of  Octavian's  house  and  the  door-posts  wreathed  with 
garlands  of  laurel.2    This  was  to  be  done  in  recognition  that  his 
victories  and  policy  had  restored  and  preserved  the  Republic. 
Settlement         In  23  B.C.  a  new  settlement  was  made.    Augustus,  at  the  end 
I  of  June  in  that  year,  abdicated  the  consulship  (which  he  was 
then  holding  for  the  eleventh  time),  and  it  was  agreed  between 
I  him  and  the  Senate  that  for  the  government  of  the  provinces 
[  committed  to  his  charge  he  should  henceforth  exercise  proconsular 
authority,  without  the  necessity  of  resigning  it  in  order  to  enter 
I  the  pomerium,  within  which  arms  must  make  way  for  the  toga. 
,  His  tenure  of  tribunicia  potestas  was  formally  renewed,  and  this 
:  became  the  basis  of  Imperial  chronology.     As  consul  he  had  en- 
,  joyed  precedence  (maius  imperium)  over  all  provincial  governors, 
\  proconsuls  as  well  as  propraetors  ;  it  was  now  laid  down  that  his 
;  proconsular  authority  was  to  be  superior  to  that  of  all  other 
t  governors.3    At  the  end  of  18  B.C.  his  tenure  of  imperium  was 
i  renewed  for  five  years,  then  for  another  five,  after  which  it  was 
continued  by  decennial  renewals.4 
Pontifex    f       In  12  B.C.,  on  the  death  of  Lepidus,  Augustus  caused  himself 
to  be  elected  Pontifex  Maximus  by  the  votes  of  the  Roman  People.5 

1  Dio  Cassius  liii.  1-12  and  xiii.  1.  Dio  drew  upon  Tacitus,  Annals,  i.  11-13, 
for  material  wherewith  to  embroider  his  account  of  the  proceedings  in  the 
Senate  at  the  beginning  of  Octavian's  seventh  consulship. 

2  Compare  the  Aureus  of  27  B.C.  described  in  Rushforth,  Latin  Historical 
Inscriptions,  pt.  i.  No.  2. 

3  Dio  Cassius  liii.  32.  5.  4  Dio  Cassius  liii.  16.  2. 
5  Monumentum  Ancyranum,  c.  10,    Pontifex  Maximus  ne  fierem  in  vivi 

conlegae  locum,  populo  id  sacerdotium  deferente  mihi,  quod  pater  meus  habuit, 
recusavi.  Cepi  id  sacerdotium  aliquod  post  annos  eo  mortuo  qui  civilis  motus 
occasione  occupaverat.  (Augustus  refers  to  Lepidus,  who  "  snatched "  an 
election  to  the  office  in  the  confusion  following  upon  the  death  of  Caesar  the 
dictator.) 


Maximus. 


i  THE  KOMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  195 

From  henceforth  the  presidency  of  the  Pontifical  College  was  per- 
petually associated  with  the  Principate— as  the  position  of  the 
Chief  of  the  State  came  to  be  called— until  late  in  the  fourth 
century. 

After  the  first  settlement  of  27  B.C.  there  were  changes  in  the  Provinces 
distribution  of  provinces  between  the  Princeps  and  the  Senate    ?Iided 

rrn  -,.      .  *    between 

Ine  important  distinction  between  the  two  groups  was  that  Augustus 
armies  were  stationed  in  the  Imperial,  but  not  in  the  Senatorial,  Senate.6 
with  the  exception  of  Africa.     The  "  provinces  of  Caesar  "  fell 
into  two  classes  :   (a)  those  to  which  legati  pro  praetore  who  had 
been  members  of  the  Senate  were  sent,  subdivided  into  provinces 
to  which  consulares,  and  provinces  to  which  praetorii  were  ap- 
pointed ;    and  (b)  those  given  to  praefecti  or  procuratores  of 
Equestrian  rank.1    Augustus  reorganised  the  Equestrian  Order, 
giving  its  members  new  opportunities  of  serving  the  State  by 
creating  a  number  of  new  offices — prefectures  and  procurator- 
ships— some  of  which  in  course  of  time  became  far  more  important 
than  the  old  Republican  magistracies.     Chief  among  these  new 
offices  were  the  prefectures  of  Egypt,  of  the  City,  of  the  Watch, 
of  the  Corn-supply,  and  of  the  Praetorium.2    The  Prefect  of 
Egypt  was  a  viceroy— the  Roman  Emperors  were  kings  of  Egypt — 
and  no  senator  was  ever  appointed  to  this  position  or  even  per- 
mitted to  enter  the  country.     This  precaution  was  taken  in 
order  to  eliminate  as  far  as  possible  the  risk  of  an  ambitious 
senator  making  Egypt  a  base  of  operations  against  the  Princeps 
or  the  Principate.3    It  was  from  this  very  base,  however,  that 
Vespasian  operated  for  the  overthrow  of  Vitellius. 

All  governors  of  Senatorial  provinces  were  called  proconsuls, 
whether  they  had  held  the  consulship  or  not.4  Augustus  re- 
enacted  the  Lex  Pompeia  of  52  B.C.,  which  fixed  an  interval  of 

1  Legati  pro  praetore  :  irpeapevrcis  avrov  dPTiarpar'nyovs  re  dvofidfrirdcu,  k&v 
iK  twv  VTrarevKdruv  Cxn,  5teVa£e,  Dio  liii.  13.  5;  Praefecti:  ?TraPXoi ;  Pro- 
curatores: iiriTpoiroi. 

2  Praefecturae  (a)  Aegypti,  (b)  Urbis,  (c)  Vigilum,  (d)  Annonae,  (e)  Praetorii. 

3  Tacitus,  Ann.  ii.  59;   Hist.  i.  11  ;   Dio  li.  17,  lii.  42. 

4  'AvdtwaTou  Dio  lii.  13.  3-4. 


196  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

five  years  between  an  urban  magistracy  (viz.  praetorship  or 
consulship)  and  a  provincial  government,  but  made  it  apply  to 
these  provinces  only.  Proconsuls  held  their  governments  only 
for  a  year.  Legati  pro  praetore  and  procurators  (governing 
minor  provinces)  held  office  during  the  Emperor's  pleasure. 
Tiberius  was  especially  given  to  prolonging  the  tenure  of  governors 
in  his  provinces.  Thus  Poppaeus  Sabinus  was  governor  of 
Moesia  for  some  twenty-four  years  in  all.  Valerius  Gratus  was 
procurator  of  Judaea  for  eleven  years  ;  Pontius  Pilate  for  ten.1 
Procura.  Provincial  governors  all  received  fixed  salaries,  and  provincial 

torB-  land  taxes  were  no  longer  collected  by  competing  firms  of  publi- 

cum, but  by  agents  and  officials  of  municipalities.     These  were 
supervised,   in   "Caesar's   Provinces,"    by   procurators,    whose 
power  often  rivalled  that  of  the  legati  pro  praetore,  as  may  be 
seen  in  the  record  of  Catus  Decianus  in  Britain.2    Publicani, 
however,  still  were  employed  to  collect  certain  kinds  of  revenue.3 
On  the  whole,  the  condition  of  the  provinces  was  vastly  improved  4 
—the  spread  of  Caesar-worship  is  one  of  the  indications  of  this— 
and  of  the  two  main  groups  those  assigned  to  the  Emperor's 
more  direct  and  especial  supervision  and  control  were  the  better 
governed.    In  a.d.  15  the  provincials  of  Achaea  and  Macedonia 
onera  deprecantes  petitioned  for  transference  from  the  Senatorial 
or  Popular  to  the  Caesarian  class  of  provinces,  and  the  change 
was  maintained  until  a.d.  44  ^-nearly  thirty  years.     In  order 
to  deal  effectively  with  brigandage  in  Sardinia,  it  was  found 
necessary  to   make  the   island  a  Caesarian  province  under  a 
procurator— from  a.d.  6  to  66—  and  all  provinces  added  to  the 

i  Arnold,  Roman  Provincial  Administration,  p.  121  ;  Tacitus,  Annals,  i. 
80.  2 ;    Dio  liii.  13 ;   Furneaux,  Annals  of  Tacitus,  vol.  i.,  Introd.  p.  117  f. 

2  Arnold,  op.  cit.  pp.  124-125. 

a  Tac  Ann  iv  6  The  "  publicans  "  mentioned  m  the  Gospels  must  have 
been  collectors'employed  by  Herod  Antipas.  They  were  therefore  not  Romans 
at  all  and  had  no  connection  (directly,  at  any  rate)  with  the  Roman  authorities. 

*  Tac  Ann.  i.  2,  neque  provinciae  ilium  rerum  statum  (the  Prmcipate) 
abnuebant,  suspecto  Senatus  Populique  imperio  ob  certamina  potentium  et 
avaritiam  magistratuum.  . 

»  Tacitus,  Annals,  i.  76 ;    Sueton.   Claudius,  25 ;    Dio  Cassius  lx.  24. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  197 

Empire  after  27  B.C.  were  placed  in  the  Caesarian  class  and 
put  under  the  government  either  of  legati  or  procuratores. 

The  best  general  description  of  the  elaborate  system  of^str* 
provincial  government  which  was  thus  built  up  by  Augustus, 
and  continued  for  so  long  a  time,  is  that  of  Strabo,  who  ends 
his  Geographic/,  with  an  account  of  the  divisions  of  the  Empire 
as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Augustus.  The  reference  in  it  to  Ptolemy, 
King  of  Mauretania,  shows  that  it  must  have  been  written  not 
earlier  than  a.d.  23,  when  Ptolemy  succeeded  his  father  Juba. 
But  Strabo  quite  rightly  regards  the  settlement  of  Augustus 
as  fundamental,  and  his  account  might  equally  well  be  taken, 
with  the  exception  of  small  details,  as  a  description  of  the  Empire 
at  any  time  during  the  first  century ;  for,  however  much  the 
city  of  Rome  suffered  in  the  time  of  Caligula  or  Nero,  the  Provinces 
were  well  governed,  and  a  general  continuity  of  policy  was  main- 
tained from  Augustus  to  Marcus  Aurelius.  The  addition  of 
other  provinces  such  as  Galatia  or  Cappadocia  affected  the 
details  but  not  the  principle  of  government  or  the  character  of 
the  organisation. 

The  Monumentum  Ancyranum  is  of  course  extremely  import- 
ant, but  it  was  not  intended  to  serve  the  same  purpose  as  Strabo 
had  in  mind,  and  is  less  useful  to  the  investigator  of  the  general 
constitution  of  the  Provinces.  It  is  therefore  appropriate  to 
finish  this  section  by  quoting  in  full  Strabo's  account : 

"  The  Romans,"  he  says,  "  possess  the  best  and  most  famous 
portion  of  the  inhabited  earth  ;  their  empire  surpassing  all  others 
whereof  we  have  record.  Beginning  with  a  single  city,  Rome,  they 
established  their  power  over  all  Italy  for  military  and  political 
purposes.  And  after  Italy  they  annexed  the  neighbouring 
countries  by  exercising  the  same  valour.  Of  the  three  continents, 
they  hold  almost  all  Europe,  saving  only  the  region  beyond 
the  Ister  (Danube)  and  the  districts  by  the  shore  of  the  Ocean 
between  the  Rhine  and  the  Tanais  (Don) ;  the  whole  of  that 
coast  of  Libya  which  lies  nearest  to  us  is  also  theirs,  the  rest 
of  that  continent  being  desert  or  inhabited  by  rude  nomads  ;  and 
in  like  manner  the  sea-coast  of  Asia  on  our  side  is  all  subject 
to  them,  if  we  leave  out  of  the  account  the  straitened  and  savage 


198  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

tracts  where  Achaei,  Zygi,  and  Heniochi  subsist  by  piracy  or  pas- 
turage. Of  inland  and  upland  Asia  part  is  Roman,  part  is  held  by 
the  Parthians  and  the  barbarians  beyond  Parthia,  Indians,  Bactrians, 
and  Scythians  to  the  north  and  east,  also  Arabs  and  Ethiopians, 
and  the  Romans  are  constantly  annexing  portions  of  these  territories. 
The  whole  region  subject  to  the  Romans  consists  of  two  parts  ;  one 
is  governed  by  kings,  the  other,  called  '  the  Provinces,'  is  adminis- 
tered by  governors  and  tax-gatherers,  whom  the  Romans  send 
thither.  There  are  also  free  cities,  some  of  which  were  free  when 
they  first  entered  into  friendship  with  Rome  ;  to  others  the  Romans 
themselves  have  given  freedom  by  way  of  showing  their  esteem. 
Certain  princes,  tribal  chieftains  {4>vXapXot),  and  priests  are  also  sub- 
ject to  them.     Now  these  people  live  under  their  respective  ancestral 

laws. 

k<  The  division  of  the  provinces  has  varied  from  time  to  time. 
At  present  it  stands  as  it  was  ordered  by  Caesar  Augustus.  When 
the  Republic  (?)  irarpis)  entrusted  him  with  the  supreme  command 
(t^v  Trpoa-raa-lav  -njs  rjyefxovias),  and  he  was  appointed  master  of  peace 
and  war  for  life,  he  divided  the  whole  territory  into  two,  assigning 
one  part  to  himself,  and  the  other  to  the  People.  His  share  was 
all  that  needed  a  military  garrison,  namely,  the  barbarous  country 
bordering  on  peoples  not  yet  brought  under  authority,  or  rugged 
and  sterile  land,  the  inhabitants  of  which,  owing  to  their  general 
poverty  and  abundance  of  strongholds,  are  unbridled  and  insubordi- 
nate. To  the  People  he  gave  the  rest  because  it  was  peaceful  and 
could  be  governed  without  an  armed  force. 

"He  subdivided  each  part  into  provinces,  called  respectively 
Imperial  (Kato-apos)  and  Popular  (rod  %*ov).  To  Imperial  Provinces 
Caesar  himself  sends  governors  and  commissioners,  from  time  to 
time  changing  their  frontiers  and  polities  as  occasion  demands.  To 
the  Popular  Provinces  the  People  send  praetors  or  consuls.  These 
provinces  also  are  subject  to  changes  of  boundary,  whenever  expedi- 
ency requires.  Among  the  governments  Caesar  established  a  dis- 
tinction by  making  two  of  them  consular,  namely,  Libya,  the  terri- 
tory subject  to  the  Romans,  but  not  including  the  part  formerly 
ruled  over  by  Juba,  and  now  by  his  son  Ptolemy  ;  and  Asia,  the  region 
lying  within  the  Halys  and  Mount  Taurus,  but  not  including  the 
Galatians  and  the  nations  subject  to  Amyntas,  nor  yet  Bithynia 
and  the  Propontis.  Ten  provinces  he  put  under  praetors.  In  Europe 
and  the  adjacent  islands,  Further  Spain,  as  it  is  called,  which  lies 
round  the  river  Baetis  (Guadalquivir)  and  the  Atax ;  in  the  Celtic 
country  the  Narbonese  region  ;  Sardinia  with  Corsica  is  the  third  ; 
Sicily  the  fourth  ;  the  fifth  and  sixth  are  Illyria,  adjoining  Epirus, 
and  Macedonia  ;  the  seventh  is  Achaea,  extending  as  far  as  Thessaly, 
Aetolia,  Acarnania,  and  certain  Epirote  tribes  assigned  to  Macedonia  ; 


i  THE  KOMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  199 

the  eighth,  Crete  with  Cyrene  ;  the  ninth,  Cyprus  ;  the  tenth,  Bithy- 
nia,  with  the  Propontis  and  certain  parts  of  Pontus.  The  remaining 
provinces  are  Caesar's.  To  some  he  sends  men  of  consular  rank  to 
administer  ;  to  others  those  who  have  been  praetors  ;  to  others  men 
of  the  equestrian  order.  The  kings,  princes,  and  decarchies  are, 
and  always  have  been,  included  in  his  department." 

In  the  countries  lying  to  the  east  of  the  Adriatic  the  Romans  The  pro- 
found,  as  in  Italy,  a  number  of  political  associations,  each  with  CONCilia 
its  religious  observances.  The  policy  of  the  Romans  was  opposed  jjj^™ 
to  the  existence  of  separate  political  unions  in  countries  dependent  Empire. 
on  them.  On  the  other  hand,  they  seldom  interfered  with  the 
religions  of  their  subjects  or  allies  if  these  religions  neither 
disturbed  the  peace  nor  encouraged  barbarities.  Even  so, 
they  only  interfered  to  protect  the  maiestas  of  the  Roman 
People,  since  it  was  part  of  their  political  tradition  to  win 
the  good -will  of  other  nations  by  respecting  their  gods. 
When,  therefore,  the  Romans  dissolved  a  league  or  con- 
federation, they  preferred  that  league  -  festivals  should  be 
only  temporarily  abolished,  and  the  federal  sanctuaries  be 
closed  only  until  the  political  situation  was  assured.  Thus 
the  formation  of  the  Roman  province  of  Macedonia  in  146  B.C. 
was  accompanied  by  the  dissolution  of  all  existing  confederations 
in  Greece,  but  later  on  "  the  Romans,"  as  Pausanias  puts  it, 
"  took  pity  on  Greece  and  restored  to  the  several  nations  their 
ancient  councils."  x  The  "  councils,"  however,  were  restored 
only  so  far  as  they  were  purely  religious,  for  although  the  cities 
of  Greece  were  left  with  a  full  measure  of  internal  autonomy, 
all  their  relations,  both  within  and  outside  Greece,  were  controlled 
by  Rome. 

In  Asia  Minor  these  self-governing  religious  communities  in  Religious 
Roman  times  were  numerous.     The  constituent  states  of  the  mun"ities 
Ionic  Dodecapolis,   originally  a  political  union,   maintained  a  j^osria 
common  cultus  and  temple  of  Poseidon  upon  the  promontory  of 
Mycale  near  Miletus.     Immediately  to  the  south  of  them  lay 

1  Pausanias,  vii.  16.  9-10. 


200  THE  GENTILE  WOULD  « 

the  Dorian  Pentapolis,   maintaining  the  worship  and  temple 
of  Apollo  upon  the  Triopian  headland.1    A  number  of  Carian 
village-communities  maintained  the  house  and  worship  of  Zeus 
Chrysaoreus  (Zeus  of  the  Golden  Sword)  in  a  place  near  which 
arose  in  the  Macedonian  epoch  the  city  of  Stratonicea.2    The 
Celtic  tribes  settled  in  Phrygia  had  federal  magistrates  and 
military  commanders  and  a  federal  council  of  300  members, 
which  met  periodically  at  a  place  called  Drynemetum.3     There, 
we  may  be  certain,  stood  a  temple,  within  the  precinct  of  which 
the  council  held  its  sessions.     In  Lycia  twenty-three  cities  entered 
into  confederation  after  the  abolition  of  the  Ehodian  hegemony 
by  the  Komans  in  167  B.C.     Coins  of  the  confederation  bear 
the  image  of  Apollo  Lycius,   indicating   that   the  worship    of 
Apollo   at    Patara   was    federal.4      The    Panionic    League,  the 
Dorian    Pentapolis,  the    Galatian    and    Lycian    confederations 
all     survived     the     establishment     of     Koman   supremacy    in 
Asia   Minor   in    133   B.C.     But   while   the   first   two   had    for 
centuries  been  confined  to  religious    functions,  the    Galatians 
and    Lycians    continued    to    exercise    political    power.      The 
Galatian    assembly    at    Drynemetum    became    extinct    as    a 
political  body  under  Deiotarus,  Tetrarch  of  the  Tolistoboii,  who 
about  47  B.C.  made  himself  monarch  over  all  the  Galatian  tribes.s 
The  Lycians  continued  as  a  confederation  in  free  alliance  with 
Home  until  the  reign  of  Claudius,  who  annulled  their  liberties 
because  of  their  destructive  quarrels.6    There  was  also  in  the 
Koman  province  of  Asia  a  league  of  cities  lying  between  the 

i  See  Herodotus,  i.  142-148 ;  Strabo,  Geogr.  xiv.  1.  1-3  and  20.  Smyrna 
was  not  reckoned  as  a  member  of  the  Ionian  Dodecapolis  by  Herodotus.  After 
its  restoration  by  Lysimachus  in  290  b.c.  it  was  added  as  a  thirteenth  to  the 
league  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Ephesians. 

2  Strabo,  xiv.  2.  25. 

3  Strabo,  Oeogr.  xii.  5.  1.  Drynemetum  (Apwifierov),  may  possibly  be  a 
Gallo-Greek  hybrid  name  meaning  "  oak-grove."     See  p.  182,  n.  1,  above. 

*  Strabo,  Oeogr.  xiv.  3.  3.  Cf.  Head,  Historia  Numismatum,  "Coins  of 
Lycia." 

6  Ramsay,  Historical  Commentary  on  Galatians,  pp.  96-101. 

6  Suetonius,  Claudius,  c.  25.  "  Exitiabiles  discordiae  "  had  brought  the 
Achaean  League  to  ruin  in  146  B.C. 


THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM 


201 


Hellespont  and  the  Gulf  of  Adramyttium,  known  as  the  Ilian 
Confederation  (to  kolvov  t&v  'DueW).  Among  its  gods  it  placed 
Alexander  the  Great,  by  whom  it  had  been  founded. 

These  associations  of  cities  probably  were  the  models  on 
which  the  Commune  Asiae  was  formed,  though  they  were  not  con- 
stituents of  it.1  Dio  Cassius  says  that  (in  29  B.C.)  Augustus  gave 
permission  to  build  and  dedicate  at  Pergamum,  the  provincial 
capital,  a  temple  in  honour  of  himself  and  Roma.2  A  similar 
authority  was  given  at  the  same  time  to  the  provincials  of 
Bithynia,  who  desired  to  set  up  a  temple  in  honour  of  the  Em- 
peror and  Roma  at  Nicomedia.3  Four  years  later  the  kingdom 
of  Galatia  became  a  Roman  province,  a  legatus  Augusti  pro 
praetore  taking  the  place  of  the  native  king.4  The  headquarters 
of  the  new  province  were  established  in  the  ancient  Phrygian 
city  of  Ancyra,  and  there  the  kolvov  of  the  Galatians,  consisting 
of  deputies  from  the  Celtic  tribes  and  the  cities  of  Northern 
Phrygia,  erected  a  temple  dedicated  ©eoS  XefiacrTa)  /ecu  ®ea  'Pew/1,77. 
At  what  date  this  dedication  took  place  is  a  matter  of  uncertainty. 
The  temple  at  Pergamum  was  not  dedicated  until  ten  years  after 
permission  for  its  erection  had  been  given.5  It  is  certain,  how- 
ever, that  the  Sebasteum  or  Augusteum  at  Ancyra  must  have 
been  completed  by  the  end  of  Augustus's  reign,  for  Tiberius  caused 
a  copy  of  his  predecessor's  Index  Rerum  Gestarum  to  be  inscribed 
upon  its  walls,6  and  the  inscription  must  have  been  cut  in  the 
first  year  of  the  new  principate — August  a.d.  14  to  August  a.d.  15.7 


Emperor 
worship  in 
Asia. 


?  * 


1  Guiraud,  Assemblies  provinciates  dans  V Empire  romain,  p.  63. 

2  Dio  Cassius  li.  20.     Above,  p.  193,  n.  1. 

3  Dio  Cassius,  loc.  cit.      A  Koivbv  twv  BidvvQv  is  presupposed. 

4  Dio  Cassius  liii.  26.  3. 

6  Guiraud,  Assemblies  provinciales  dans  V Empire  romain,  pp.  25,  30. 
•  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  25-26 ;   Tac.  Ann.  i.  78. 

7  See  Th.  Mommsen,  Res  Gestae  Divi  Augusti,  or  Shuckburgh's  edition  of 
Suetonius's  Life  of  Augustus,  Appendix  A.  In  addition  to  the  Latin  original, 
a  Greek  version  was  also  engraved  upon  the  walls  of  the  Augusteum  at  Ancyra, 
in  usum  provincialium.  This  bilingual  record  (generally  known  as  Monumentum 
Ancyranum)  occupied  a  considerable  space  on  the  outer  side  of  the  walls  of  the 
Na6s  or  Cella.  An  inscription  found  on  the  doorway  begins  with  the  words 
r<\A<vro>N  to  lepoN  iep<\c<\M6NON  Gecoi  CeB&CTCoi  k<m  Oecoi   Pcomhi,  and 


Formation 


202  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  « 

The  cities  in  the  south-eastern  and  north-eastern  districts 
appear  to  have  formed  separate  Koiva}  but  the  legend  of  Thecla 
contains  an  indication  that  Antioch  of  Pisidia  belonged  to  the 
koivov  r&v  TaXarcbv,  which  built  the  temple  and  maintained  the 
worship  of  Rome  and  the  Emperor  at  Ancyra.2 

In  the  formation  of  Kovvd  and  concilia  for  the  worship  of  the 
ofconci7ia- 1  Imperial  divinities  the  general  plan  was  that  there  should  be 
I  one  such  organisation  for  each  province.     This  rule,  however, 
Ijwas    subject    to    exceptions.       For  example,  in  Gaul3    there 
Swas   one   concilium    for  three   provinces.     In   some   instances 
,  one  province  had  more  than  one  concilium  or  kolvov  belonging 
I  to   the  Imperial  system.      Down   to   the   end   of   the   second 
century  there  were  two  in  Achaea :  that  of  the  Achaeans,  and 
J  that  of  the  "  Free  Laconians,"  who  had  obtained  authority  to 
J  form  a  kolvov  of  their  own,  which  the  Empire  hesitated  for  a 
'  long  time  to  withdraw.     The  same  privilege  was  accorded  to  a 
-  !  group  of  Greek  cities  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Euxine,  known 
as  the  Hexapolis  of  Tomi,  which  was  not  merged  in  the  commune 
\  Moesiae  Inferioris.    The  cities  of  Lycia  continued  to  form  a 
'  koivov  by  themselves  after  their  annexation  to  the  province  of 

*  I  Pamphylia  in  a.d.  43.     There  was  a  kolvov  of  Cilicia  separate 
Ifrom  that  of  Syria.     The  cities  of  Eastern  Pontus  continued  as 

"  j  a  separate  koivov  after  the  annexation  of  that  region  to  Galatia. 

I  calls  the  temple  TO  cgBacthon.     The  commune  of  Galatia  is  commemorated 

?]  under  the  title  Koivbv  VaXarCv  on  the  coins  of  Ancyra.  .„,,_, 

*       *  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  46,  60.     M.  Guiraud  thinks  it  possible  that  the  wvbv 

TaXarcD,  was  formed  upon  the  old  league  of  Galatae  or  Gallograeci  which  used 

to  assemble  at  Drynemetum.     Probable  enough,  if  that  wvbv  consisted  only 

of  the  Tolistoboii,  Trocmi,  and  Tectosages.     But  that  is  uncertain      Reid, 

*\  Municipalities  of  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  379,  thinks  the  Galatian  kw6v    was 

L°  26 Ramsay,  The  Church  in   the   Roman   Empire,    pp.    390-396 ;     Cities   of 

L  3  The  altar  of  the  Three  Gauls  was  inaugurated  on  August  1,  a  day  already 

*  I  observed  by  the  Gallic  «  nations  "  in  honour  of  the  sun-god  Lug  (whose  name 
is  the  basis  of  Lugdunum).  See  Guiraud,  p.  45  ;  Suetonius  Claudms,  c.  2 ; 
Merivale,  History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire,  vol.  iv  pp .238-239  (ch.  xxxvi  ) 
The  territorial  boundaries  of  the  Three  Gauls  (probably  delimited  in  16  b.c  ) 
did  not  correspond  with  the  ethnic  divisions  of  Aquitam,  Celtae,  and  Belgae. 
There  were  large  "  Celtic  "  districts  in  (political)  Aquitania. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  203 

Thessaly  had  its  kolvov  distinct  from  that  of  Macedonia.     Thus  1 1*. 
in  a  number  of  provinces  there  was  more  than  one  provincial  s 
kolvov  organised  for  mutual  aid  under  the  patronage  and  for  the 
worship  of  the  Imperial  divinities,  the  Emperor  and  Roma.1 

Dio  Cassius  observes  that  the  example  set  by  Asia  andi  concilia 
Bithynia  in  the  fifth  consulate  of  Octavian  (29  b.c.)  was  followed!  pnroav"nces 
in  every  province  of  the  Empire.     By  the  end  of  Augustus's! 
principate  most  of  the  provinces  of  the  Empire  must  have  had 
concilia  and  all  the  appurtenances  of  the  Imperial  religion.    There 
is  clear  proof  of  the  existence  of  such  organisations  in  the  Tarra-j 
conensis,  the  Three  Gauls,  Thessaly,  Achaea,  Asia,  Bithynia,! 
Galatia,  and  Syria  in  a.d.  14.2    It  is  also  most  probable  that 
Baetica  and  the  Narbonensis  had  their  concilia  established  by 
that  date,  though  there  appears  to  be  no  mention  of  either  in  any 
inscription  or  any  passage  in  the  historians  referring  to  the 
principate  of  Augustus.3    A  kolvov  of  Cyprus  comes  to  light  in  i  * 
the  time  of  Claudius.     It  may  be  regarded  as  the  continuation 
of  a  Cyprian  kolvov  existing  in  the  epoch  of  the  Ptolemies  (295-58  \  * 
b.c),  with  the  Emperor  and  Roma  substituted  for  the  Macedonian 
monarchs  as  objects  of  worship.4  Prosecutions  instituted  at  Rome  « 
in  the  principate  of  Nero  by  "  Lycii,"  "  Cilices,"  "  Cretenses," 
"  Cyrenenses,"  and  "  Mauri "  are  held  to  be  evidence  of  the 
existence  and  activity  of  concilia  or  ctvvoBol  and  kolvol  of  Lycia, 
Cilicia,  Crete,  Cyrene,  and  Mauretania  under  that  Emperor.5  With 
the  exception  of  the  Mauretanian  concilium,  all  might  have  been 
in  existence  under  Augustus.     The  Lycian  kolvov  was  indeed 

1  See  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  51-60,  especially  60.  The  Free  Laconians  were 
Laconians  exempted  by  Augustus  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Spartan 
authorities.     See  Pausanias,  III.  xxi.  6. 

3  Tacitus,  Annals,  i.  78 ;  Suetonius,  Claudius,  2  ;  Dio  Cassius  liv.  32  and 
li.  20 ;  Mommsen,  Res  Gestae  Divi  Augusti,  p.  x ;  Roman  Provinces,  i.  pp.  94 
and  264  (E.T.)  ;    Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  56-59. 

3  Hardy,  Provincial  Concilia,  in  vol.  i.  of  Studies  in  Roman  History,  pp.  250- 
251. 

4  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  59  and  42  ;  Sakellarios,  Kypriaka,  vol.  i.,  inscriptions 
of  pre-Roman  date  mentioning  rb  xoivbv  tCjv  KvirpLoju. 

6  Tacitus,  Annals,  xiii.  30  and  33,  xiv.  18  and  28 ;  Guiraud,  pp.  58-59 ; 
Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  279. 


204 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD 


*i 


* 


Function 
of  concilia. 


Previous 
worship  of 
rulers. 


the  Lycian  confederation  founded  in  167  B.C.,  but  deprived  by 
Claudius  of  its  functions  as  a  political  ava-rrjfia.1  A  concilium 
Britanniae  may  have  been  in  process  of  formation  in  a.d.  62, 
when  the  Iceni  rose  in  rebellion  against  Roman  sovereignty.2 
The  prosecution  of  a  governor  of  Sardinia  in  a.d.  58  ob  provinciam 
avare  habitant  was  probably  instituted  by  a  concilium  Sardiniae.3 
For  the  service  of  the  altar  of  the  Emperor  and  Roma  erected  by 
Drusus  in  10  B.C.  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine,  near  a  town  of 
the  Ubii,  a  German  tribe  which  had  been  permitted  to  settle  on 
that  side  of  the  river,  a  concilium  Germaniae  must  be  supposed.4 

The  principal  function  of  these  provincial  concilia  was  the 
due  performance  and  maintenance  of  the  worship  of  Rome  and 
the  reigning  Emperor.  By  a  natural  process,  the  worship  of  the 
Divi  Augusti,  i.e.  the  deceased  Emperors,  was  added.  Octavian, 
however,  appears  to  have  desired  that  only  provincials  (i.e.  socii 
et  amid,  peregrini)  should  worship  Rome  and  the  living  Emperor, 
while  Roman  citizens  should  worship  only  the  deceased  chiefs  of 
the  Roman  Commonwealth.  At  the  time  when  he  permitted  the 
erection  of  temples  in  honour  of  Rome  and  himself  at  Pergamum 
and  Nicomedia  by  the  "  Greeks  "  of  Asia  and  Bithynia,  he  ordered 
the  erection  of  temples  in  honour  of  Divus  Julius  at  Ephesus  and 
Mcaea  by  the  Roman  citizens  resident  in  those  provinces.5 

This  was  no  new  thing  in  the  East.  The  Seleucidae  of  Syria 
appear  to  have  sought  reinforcement  for  their  claims  to  suzerainty 
over  the  Greek  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and  Mesopotamia— 
not  a  few  of  which  they  founded  or  enlarged— by  assuming  a 
divine  character  and  title.  With  the  native  Asiatics  they  had 
no  trouble,  and  the  way  of  the  Ptolemies  in  Egypt,  so  far  as  the 

1  Strabo,  Geogr.  xiv.  3.  3 ;  Head,  "  Coins  of  Lycia  "  in  Hist.  Numism. ; 
Sueton.  Claudius,  25. 

2  Tacitus,  Annals,  xii.  32,  xiv.  31 ;  Mommsen,  Roman  Provinces,  i.  pp.  191- 
192  (E.T.) ;  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  250. 

3  Tacitus,  Annals,  xiii.  30. 

*  Mommsen,  Roman  Provinces,  i.  p.  35  (E.T.).  In  a.d.  51  the  oppidum 
Ubiorum  was  incorporated  in  the  veteran  settlement  called  Colonia  Agrippina, 
the  modern  Cologne.  In  the  same  year  a  similar  settlement  was  formed  at 
Camulodunum,  the  modern  Colchester.     See  Tacitus,  Ann.  xii.  27  and  32. 

5  Dio  Cassius  li.  20.    See  p.  193,  n.  1,  above. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  205 

native  population  was  concerned,  was  equally  smooth  and  easy. 
When  the  power  of  Rome  began  to  overshadow  the  Greek  East, 
Greek  city-states  which  felt  the  need  of  a  protector,  or  discerned 
the  signs  of  the  times,  found  a  new  god.     The  Smyrnaeans  inf 
195  B.C.  dedicated  a  temple  to  Roma.1    Alabanda  followed  their' 
example  in  170  B.C.,  Athens  three  years  later.2    The  cultus  per-  j  i 
formed  in  these  temples  was  probably  in  honour  of  the  "  Fortune  "   * 
(tvxv)  °f  Rome,  and  we  may  suppose  that  the  statues  of  the 
goddess  were  modelled  upon  the  celebrated  ti^t?  of  Antioch, 
which  was  copied  upon  the  coins  of  Tarsus  and  Iconium.3    This 
"  Fortune  "  of  Rome  was  what  the  Romans  themselves  called  • 
"  Genius,"  i.e.  "  the  natural  god  of  each  individual  thing  or  place 
or  man."  4    It  was  a  great  power  manifested  in  the  victories  ( 
of  the  Roman  People.     But  Greek  admiration  of  the  prowess 
of  Roman  armies  could  express  itself  in  a  more  directly  personal 
manner.    Divine  honours  were  rendered  to  the  proconsul  Titus 
Quinctius  Flamininus  when  he  broke  the  power  of  Macedon  in 
battle  and  proclaimed  the  liberation  of  Greece  at  the  Isthmian 
Games  in  196  B.C.5     Later  still,  statues,  quadrigae,  and  even 
temples  were  set  up  by  the  Asians  in  honour  of  Roman  governors, 
and  Cicero  preens  himself  so  much  on  refusing  such  marks  of  i 
honour  that  one  cannot  doubt  that  they  had  become  a  provincial 
tradition  in  Cilicia.      Mark  Antony  presented  himself  to  the 
Greeks  on  both  sides  of  the  Aegean  in  42  B.C.  as  an  "  avatar  " 
of  Dionysus.6 

In  the  course  of  the  last  century  of  the  old  Roman  Republic,  Divine 
the  influences  of  the  East  steadily  became  stronger,  especially  paid  tT 

Caesar. 

1  Tacitus,  Annals,  iv.  56. 

2  Livy  xliii.  6  ;  Reid,  Municipalities  of  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  423  ;  Hardy, 
Studies  in  Roman  History,  i.  p.  244. 

8  Ramsay,  Cities  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  187,  238,  368,  369. 

*  Servius  on  Virgil,  Georg.  i.  302;  cf.  Horace,  Epp.  ii.  2.  187-189.  Note 
the  Greek  rendering  of  the  formula  used  by  the  proconsul  of  Asia  in  examining 
Polycarp,  6fio<rov  rljv  Kaia-apos  Tixnv  '•  Eusebius,  H.E.  iv.  15.    Mart.  Polyc.  ix.,  x. 

6  Plutarch,  Flamininus,  c.  16. 

•  Cicero,  ad  Atticum,  v.  21.  7  ;  ad  Quintum  fratrem,  i.  1.  9  ;  Sueton.  Augustus, 
52,  and  Shuckburgh's  note.  Plutarch,  Antonius,  24 ;  Ferrero,  Grandeur  et  de- 
cadence de  Rome,  vol.  iv.  p.  51. 


■A 


206  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

among   those    classes    to  whom  Cicero  refers   as    "  misera    et 

ieiuna   plebecula."     Caesar's  victories   may  justly  be  said  to 

have  exalted  him  to  heaven,  and  this  apotheosis  was  no  private 

affair,  but  the  act  of  the  Senate  and  People.1    His  statue,  even 

while  he  was  yet  alive,  was  set  up  in  the  temple  of  Quirinus  with 

that  of  the  god.     To  Cicero  and  all  such  as  were  like-minded  with 

J  him,  Caesar  "  avvvaos  Quirino  "  was  highly  displeasing,  but  the 

I  People  loved  to  have  it  so.  The  public  worship  of  Caesar,  however, 

r  was  instituted  for  Romans  only,  and  Caesar  was  not  proclaimed 

4  "  Divus  "  by  a  formal  vote  of  the  Senate  until  after  his  death. 

'  Throughout  the  history  of   "  Caesar- worship  "   only  deceased 

*4  \  Emperors  are  "Divi,"  and  only  such  as  had  "  heaven  decreed  to 

,  them  "  by  the  Senate,  which  by  withholding  the  formal  relatio 

inter  deos  of  a  departed  Emperor  could  declare  his  acts  to  be  null, 

]  and  so  relieve  his  successor  from  obligation  to  maintain  or  execute 

them.     Augustus  secured  for  Caesar  a  place  among  the  gods 

of  Rome  along  with  Jupiter  and  Quirinus,  and  gave  orders  to 

the  Romans  resident  in  Asia  and  Bithynia  for  the  erection  of 

temples  to  "  the  Divine  Julius  "  at  Ephesus  and  Nicaea,  but 

would  not  accept  divine  honours  from  the  provincials  for  himself 

i  save  as  the  associate  or  assessor  of  the  goddess  Roma,  and  refused 

them  altogether  in  Rome  and  Italy.2    This  refusal  was  dictated 

by  his  determination  to  preserve  not  only  Rome,  but  Italy  (which 

since  90  B.C.  was  all  Roman)  in  the  Imperial  position  in  which 

he  found  them.    If  he  was  to  be  worshipped  as  a  god  by  Romans, 

he  would  be  deified  in  the  Roman  way,  after  death  and  by  decree 

of  the  Senate.     The  great  household  of  the  Republic,  of  which 

he  was  not  only  Princeps  but  Pater,3  should  worship  him  after 

the  manner  in  which  every  familia  worshipped  its  Di  Manes. 

Rome  and  Italy,  however,  appear  to  have  thought  Augustus's 

refusal  of  divine  honours  "  in  his  own  country  and  in  his  own 

house  "  a  law  to  be  honoured  in  the  breach  rather  than  in  the 

1  See  Smith's  Diet.  Antiq.  s.v.  "Apotheosis." 

2  Dio  51.  20 ;    Suetonius,  Augustus,  52. 

3  Horace,  Carm.  i.  2.  50,  hie  ames  dici  Pater  atque  Princeps.     So  Augustus 
was  formally  entitled  Pater  Patriae  in  2  b.c.  ;   Mon.  Ancy.  c.  35. 


i  THE  KOMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  207 

observance.  In  the  municipalities  private  or  municipal  devotion 
raised  sacella  in  his  honour  whilst  he  yet  lived,1  and  in  Rome  itself 
his  Genius  was  associated  with  the  Lares  Compitales  or  gods  of 
the  "  parishes."  2  It  might  be  said  that  he  himself  had  given 
encouragement  to  these  forms  of  apotheosis  by  accepting  the 
title  of  Augustus  (January  16,  27  B.C.).3  But,  with  the  exception 
of  Tiberius,  no  other  Emperor  received  divine  honours  in  his 
lifetime  in  Rome  or  Italy,4  and  in  some  instances  the  Senate 
withheld  the  formal  relatio  inter  deos.5 

It  is  not  certain  whether  the  cultus  of  deceased  Emperors  Worship  of 
was  joined  to  that  of  the  reigning  Emperors  in  the  practice  of  all  Emptors. 
the  provincial  concilia.  There  is  evidence  to  show  that  it  was  so  in 
the  Spanish  provinces  and  in  Sardinia.6  A  priest  of  the  Templum 
Divi  Augusti  is  mentioned  in  an  inscription  found  at  Narbonne, 
and  a  "  chief  priest  of  the  Augustus  and  his  divine  ancestors  " 
(apXiepev?  rod  XeftaaTov  icai  tcov  Oelcov  rrpoyovcov  avrov) 
in  an  inscription  found  on  the  site  of  Sparta.7  But  the  worship 
of  the  departed  princes  maintained  at  Narbonne  and  Sparta  was 
probably  a  municipal  cultus,  separate  from  and  independent  of 
the  cultus  maintained  by  the  concilia  of  the  Narbonensis  and 
Achaea.  Among  Egyptians,  Syrians,  Anatolians,  Greeks,  and 
the  nations  of  the  Empire  generally,  the  worship  of  departed 

1  Hardy,  op.  cit.  pp.  241  and  244,  n.  50. 

2  Augustus  divided  Rome  into  14  regions  and  265  vici.  The  lares  or  guardian 
spirits  of  each  vicus  had  their  chapel  (aedicula)  at  a  compitum  (street-crossing). 
See  Shuckburgh  on  Sueton.  Aug.  30. 

3  Dio  Cassius  liii.  16,  ktiyovcrros  us  /cat  irXeiov  tl  fi  /caret  avdp&irovs  &v  ene/cX-fidr). 
iravra  yap  ra  ivTi/xoTara  Kai  tcl  iepdrrara  atiyovara  TrpoaayopeveTCU.  Ovid,  Fasti, 
i.  609  f.  : 

Sancla  vocant  augusta  patres ;  augusta  vocantur 

Templa  sacerdotum  rite  dicata  manu. 
Huius  et  augurium  dependet  origine  verbi, 

Et  quodcumque  sua  Iuppiter  auget  ope. 

4  Rushforth,  Latin  Historical  Inscriptions,  p.  56. 

5  See  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  28-29.  This  withholding  of  relatio  inter  deos  ■ 
was  known  as  damnatio  memoriae,  and  carried  with  it  the  annulment  of  the  1 
dead  man's  public  acts. 

6  See  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  245,  n.  51. 

7  Hardy,  op,  cit,,  Iqq,  cit,  ;   Guiraud,  p.  32,  n.  4. 


208  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

princes  and  mighty  men  was  still  practised.1  But  the  proper 
objects  of  the  worship  offered  by  the  provincial  concilia  were 
Rome  and  the  reigning  Emperor,  for  it  was  in  honour  of  Rome 
and  the  living  Imperator  Caesar  that  the  provincial  caerimoniae 
of  Asia  and  Bithynia,  which  set  the  example  to  the  rest  of  the 
subject-countries,  were  originally  and  expressly  instituted.  The 
cultus  of  deceased  Emperors  might  be  joined  with  the  provincial 
cultus  of  the  living  Emperor.  But  it  was  not  an  essential  part 
of  the  provincial  cultus.  Again,  a  cultus  of  the  first  Augustus 
might  be  instituted  in  this  or  that  city  while  he  yet  lived  and 
continued  after  his  death.  But  that  would  be  an  affair  quite 
distinct  from  any  cultus  of  his  successors,  whether  in  their  life- 
time or  after  their  death.  At  the  same  time,  a  community 
which  had  once  organised  the  cultus  of  a  living  Emperor  might 
find  itself  visited  with  severity  if  it  neglected  him  after  his  death.2 
In  the  caerimoniae  of  the  provincial  concilia,  the  offering  of  sacri- 
fice to  Rome  and  the  reigning  Emperor,  M.  Guiraud  finds  "  not 
religion,  but  rather  homage  done  to  the  Roman  State  and  its 
Head."  3  They  were  forms  borrowed  or  conveyed  from  religion 
for  the  purpose  of  expressing  loyalty. 
Constitu-  The  provincial  concilia  consisted  in  each  case  of  deputies 

CmUiet*  (legati,  o-vvehpoi,  /cocvofiovXoi,)  from  the  civitates  of  the  province. 
These  deputies  were  chosen,  in  the  Western  provinces,  by  the 
decuriones,  city-councillors,  of  municipia  and  coloniae,  or  by  the 
councils  of  civitates,  which  were  cantonal  rather  than  municipal 

1  For  example,  the  tomb  of  Antiochus  of  Commagene,  who  died  in  34  B.C., 
was  also  a  temple,  at  which  offerings  were  to  be  made  to  his  ghost.  See  Momm- 
sen,  Boman  Provinces,  ii.  p.  125  (E.T.),  and  compare  Holm,  Hist,  of  Greece,  iv. 
p.  573.  Sparta  worshipped  Agamemnon,  Menelaus  and  Helen,  and  Lycurgus ; 
Pausanias  iii.  19.  9,  16.  5,  15.  3.  Alexandria  venerated  her  founder  and  his 
successors  of  the  House  of  Lagus  (see  Strabo  xvii.  1.  8  and  Dio  Cassius  li.  16). 
Strabo  mentions  a  Caesar  eum  (i.e.  a  templum  Divi  Iulii)  as  one  of  the  chief 
buildings  of  Alexandria  (xvii.  1.  9).  Athens  maintained  the  worship  of  Theseus  ; 
Pausanias  i.  17.  2. 

2  Tacitus,  Annals,  iv.  26,  obiecta  publice  Cyzicenis  incuria  caerimoniarum 
Divi  Augusti,  additis  violentiae  criminibus  adversus  cives  Romanos,  et  amisere 
libertatem.  Cf.  Dio  lvii.  24.  "  Publice  "  may  mean  that  the  charge  was  brought 
against  Cyzicus  by  the  commune  Asiae. 

3  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  32-33. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  209 

communities.  In  the  Eastern  provinces  they  were  chosen  either 
by  the  city-councillors  (fiovXevTal)  or  by  the  citizen-assemblies 
(ifc/cXrjo-icu).1  There  is  evidence  showing  that  a  civitas  or 
7roXt?  might  send  more  than  one  deputy,2  and  it  is  possible  that 
some  endeavour  was  made  to  have  the  constituent  communities 
represented  in  proportion  to  population. 

The  priest  of  the  provincial  altar  or  temple  of  Rome  and  the  Office  of 
Emperor  was  president  in  the  assembly  of  the  legati  or  avveSpoi  flamen' 
of  the  cities  in  each  province.     On  monuments  of  the  Imperial » 
religion  set  up  in  the  Western  provinces  this  functionary  is  men-  j 
tioned  under  the  title  of  sacerdos  or  flamen.3    On  those  which 
were  set  up  in  the  Eastern  provinces  he  is  generally  described  as 
apxiepevs.     He  was  elected  by  the  legati  or  avvehpou,  who  con- 
stituted the  provincial  council.    From  a  passage  in  one  of  the 
orations  of  Aristides,  a  sophist  of  the  Antonine  epoch,  it  appears 
that  in  Asia  the  avveSpiov  drew  up  a  list  of  "  papabili,"  from 
which  the  final  choice  was  made  by  the  proconsul.4     There  is 
nothing  to  show  or  suggest  that  any  such  procedure  existed 
elsewhere   among   the   provinces.     Elections   were   apt   to    be 
tumultuous    affairs,    at    any    rate    where    they    were    decided 
by  a  popular  vote,  for  the  office  of  flamen  provinciae  was  one 
of  great  honour.     The  holder  for  the  time  being  was  the  chief 
personage  among  the  provincials,5  and  those  who  had  held  it — 

1  The  city-councils  (sometimes  called  senates)  in  Roman  municipalities 
were  considerably  smaller  than  those  of  the  Greek  7r6\eis,  in  proportion,  at  any 
rate,  to  the  number  of  townsfolk,  and  their  magistrates  less  numerous  than  the 
Greek  &pxovres. 

2  Aristides  speaks  of  Smyrna  sending  synedri  to  the  noivbv  of  Asia.  The 
Thorigny  inscription  bears  record  that  the  civitas  Viducassium  elected  and  sent 
to  the  concilium  III.  Galliarum  one  T.  Sennius  Solemnis  as  deputy  inter  ceteros. 
See  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  253.  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  64-65.  There  is  no  evidence, 
however,  to  show  that  the  same  practice  was  observed  in  all  the  provinces. 

3  See  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  257. 

4  A  similar  procedure  was  instituted  under  the  Ottoman  regime  for  the 
election  of  patriarchs  in  the  Greek  Church. 

5  Preference  was  given  to  men  who  had  held  the  chief  offices  in  their  severa 
municipalities.  The  statement  that  a  flamen  or  sacerdos  had  held  such  offices 
occurs  frequently  on  inscriptions  (omnibus  honoribus  in  patria  sua  functo). 
IIpwTos  rip  eirapxdas  has  been  found  as  a  title  or  description  of  a  provincial 
high  priest  in  Asia  and  in  the  Narbonensis.     See  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  258. 

VOL.  I  P 


210  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

flaminales  viri,  as  they  were  called  in  the  West — formed  the 
highest  stratum  of  provincial  society.  The  prestige  and  im- 
portance of  the  office  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  Asia,  if  not 
elsewhere,  the  provincial  high  priest  was  an  eponymous  official, 
by  reference  to  whom  events  were  dated.1 

If  to  be  high  priest  to  Roma  and  the  Emperor  was  an  honour- 
able office,  it  was  no  less  an  onerous  one,  especially  in  the  Eastern 
provinces.  The  high  priest  of  the  Imperial  gods  was  called  upon 
to  find  the  expenses  of  the  ludi  (alcoves)  which  were  celebrated 
at  the  time  of  the  assembly  of  the  legati  (crvveBpoi)  under  his 
presidency.  The  variety  and  magnificence  of  these  exhibitions 
would  naturally  be  much  greater  in  such  provinces  as  Syria, 
Asia,  Africa,  and  the  Three  Gauls  than  in  Macedonia,  Achaea, 
Crete,  or  Pannonia.  There  were  chariot-races — more  to  the 
public  taste  in  the  East  than  gladiator-combats,  —  wrestling 
matches,  foot-races,  and  contests  of  musicians  and  orators.2  The 
provision  of  spectacula  in  Rome  was  notoriously  an  expensive 
affair.  In  the  provinces  it  was  probably  not  much  less  a  drain 
upon  individual  fortunes,  and  the  requirement  of  wealth  for 
the  high  priesthood  of  the  province  in  course  of  time  tended  to 
make  the  office  hereditary. 
High  The  high  priest  might  be  chosen  from  the  burgess-roll  of 

A8?a.tS°f  anv  w»to  from  which  deputies  were  sent  to  the  concilium. 
Thus  the  succession  of  "  high  priests  of  Asia,"  so  far  as  it  has 
been  recovered,  includes  the  names,  not  only  of  citizens  of 
Pergamum,  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  and  other  cities  where  the  con- 
cilium assembled,  but  also  of  men  from  cities  where  the  temples 
and    worship    of    the    Imperial   gods   were    purely  municipal. 

1  See  two  inscriptions  quoted  by  Hardy,  op.  cit.  pp.  257-258:  (a)  Uo&v 
rots  iirl  tt)s  'A<r/as  "EWrjaiv  iv  koiv<$,  KXavdLov  Aoiirirov  apxicptios  ttjs  'Aalas  : 
(b)  tto&v  reus  iirl  rijs  'Aalas  "E\\r)<nJ>,  Tt£.  KXavdLov  "Hp68ov  dpxupim  0eas 
'  ?d)/j,7]s  Kal  deov  Kalaapos.  Note  that  the  members  of  the  kolv6v  or  avvtbpiov  are 
called  "E\\t)v€s  and  that  they  are  said  to  be  "  over  "  the  province. 

2  Polycarp  was  burnt  in  the  stadium  at  Smyrna  (Mart.  Polyc.  in  Eusebius, 
E.E.  iv.  15).  Thecla  was  condemned  to  be  torn  in  pieces  by  a  lioness  in  the 
stadium  at  Pisidian  Antioch.  Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  pp. 
400-401      These  martyrdoms  were  enacted  at  provincial  ludi. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  211 

The  "  high  priests  of  Asia,"  whose  names  have  been  preserved, 
came  from  thirty  different  cities  of  the  province.1  In  the  Eastern 
provinces  the  pomp  and  circumstance  of  the  high  priesthood  of 
Roma  and  the  Emperor  appear  to  have  been  much  greater  than 
in  the  West,  and  the  high  priests  bore  grandiloquent  titles.  Thus 
the  high  priest  of  the  Galatians  assumed  the  title  of  "  Galatarch  " 
(Galatarcha,  Takardpxv^)-  Analogous  titles  were  borne  by  the 
several  high  priests  of  Bithynia,  Asia,  Pamphylia,  Lycia,  Cilicia, 
Syria,  Phoenicia,  Pontus,  and  Achaea.2 

The  concilia  met  annually,  but  not  at  the  same  date  in  every  Meetings 
province.  For  the  Three  Gauls,  the  date  of  the  annual  assembly  °f  conciUa' 
was  August  1,  a  day  which  had  been  observed  from  time  im- 
memorial by  the  Gallic  tribes  and  clans  in  honour  of  the  sun-god. 
The  assembly  of  the  concilium  Asiae  was  held  at  the  end  of  winter 
or  the  beginning  of  spring.  The  annual  period  is  inferred  from 
a  variety  of  data,  the  most  important  of  which,  perhaps,  are  the 
records  of  prosecutions  instituted  by  various  provinces  against 
governors  who  had  abused  their  powers.3  Sixteen  such  pro- 
secutions are  known  to  have  been  instituted  in  the  course  of  the 
century  following  the  death  of  Augustus,  i.e.  a.d.  14-114.  Such 
proceedings  could  only  have  been  undertaken  by  an  association 
meeting  in  congress  at  least  once  in  every  year,  and  the  prosecu- 
tors who  appeared  in  Rome  were  in  each  case  legati  of  the  province 
concerned,  i.e.  deputies  of  civitates  of  that  province  and  members 
of  its  concilium.  Provincial  legati  also  used  to  appear  in  Rome 
for  the  purpose  of  testifying  to  a  governor's  admirable  qualities 

1  The  larger  ir6\eis  and  civitates,  however,  would  stand  at  an  advantage  over 
the  smaller  in  this  respect,  inasmuch  as  their  men  of  wealth  would  be  more 
numerous.     See  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  260. 

2  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  261 ;   Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  97-99.     The  identity  of  the 
provincial  "ruler"  (Asiarch,  Galatarch,  Pontarch,  etc.)  with  the  provincial  I* 
high  priest  is  shown  by  (1)  the  Martyrium  Polycarpi,  which  calls  Philip  of  Tralles  l 

"  high  priest  "  (sc.  of  Asia)  in  one  place  and  "  Asiarch  "  in  another ;  (2)  Modes-  f 
tinus  in  the  Digest,  xxvii.  1.  6  :  tdi>ovs  lepapxla,  olov  'Aeiapxla,  Bidvvapxla, 
KairiraSoKapxla,  trapix^  oXetrovpyqaLav  &irb  ewiTpoTruv  (exemption  from  under- 
taking guardianship) ;  (3)  a  reference  in  a  law  of  Constantino,  a.d.  336,  to 
persons  quos  in  civitatibus  sacerdotii  id  est  Phoenicarchiae  vel  Syriarchiae  orna- 
menta  condecorant.  3  Hardy,  Studies  in  Roman  History,  i.  pp.  254-255.    ' 


212  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

of  heart  and  head.     Now  in  the  Provinciae  Populi  the  governors 
usually  held  their  positions  for  a  year  only.     The  legation  brought 
a  copy  of  a  conciliar  decree  declaring  the  noble  acts  of  the  gover- 
nor, and  ordering  that  the  memory  thereof  should  be  preserved 
by  means  of  an  enduring  monument,  such  as  a  slab  of  white 
marble,  engraved  with  the  text  of  the  decree  and  set  up  in  the 
provincial   Augusteum.1    Whether  forwarded   to   Rome   by   a 
legation  or  not,  such  decrees  in  honour  of  officials  whose  sojourn 
in  the  province  did  not  last  longer  than  a  year  could  not  very  well 
be  carried  by  a  council  meeting  at  longer  intervals. 
Temples  of         In  the  greater  number  of  cases  the  provincial  temple  of 
August^    Roma  and  Augustus  stood  in  the  city  which  was  the  provincial 
capital,  but  there  were  some  in  which  it  was  built  elsewhere. 
Wherever  that  sanctuary  stood,  there  was  the   meeting-place 
of  the  concilium  or  crvveSptov.     Thus,  for  example,  the  koivov  of 
Cilicia  assembled  at  Tarsus,  the  koivov  of  the  Galatians  at  Ancyra, 
the  concilium  Africae  at  Carthage,  that  of  the  Tarraconensis  at 
Tarraco.     The  concilium  III.  Galliarum  did  not,  strictly  speak- 
ing, assemble  at  Lugdunum,  but  in  a  sacred  precinct  at  the  very 
confluence  of  the  Saone  and  Rhone  and  between  the  two  streams. 
The  koivov  of  Achaea  assembled,  not  at  Corinth,  but  at  Argos. 
In  Asia  the  koivov  or  avviSpiov  T^Kaia^  was  convened  at  first  in 
the  precinct  of  the  Temple  of  the  Emperor  and  Roma  at  Perga- 
mum.     But  in  course  of  time  other  cities  of  the  province  also 
obtained  authority  to  erect  Augustea,  and  after  the  principate  of 
Augustus  that  city  ceased  to  be  the  only  one  within  whose  coasts 
the  concilium  Asiae  could  assemble  and  the  provincial  aycoves  be 
held.     In  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century  there  were  five  or 
six  cities,  in  addition  to  Pergamum,  in  which  the  concilium  from 
time  to  time  assembled.     This  multiplication  of  assembly-places 
in  Asia  was  allowed  by  the  Emperors  in  order  to  appease  the 
rivalries  of  the  Asian  municipalities.2 

1  Hardy,  op.  cit.  pp.  275-276. 

2  See  Hardy,  op.  cit.  p.  256 ;  Ramsay,  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches,  pp. 
289-290.  The  provincial  ay&pes  were  held  at  Smyrna  in  a.d.  155 ;  see  the 
Martyrium  Polycarpi.     It  is  not  certain  that  the  provincial  assembly  met  in 


THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  213 

The  title  of  'Aaidpxv^  Asiarcha,  is  especially  interesting,  as  The 
it  occurs  in  Acts  xix.  31.  A  passage  in  Strabo  indicates  that  it  Asiarchate- 
was  known  in  Asia  in  the  time  of  Pompey,  and  that  it  then 
denoted  one  who  was  a  provincial  notable  or  magnate.  The  city 
of  Tralles,  so  the  geographer  informs  us,  was  remarkable  for  the 
number  of  wealthy  men  who  dwelt  there,  some  of  whom  were  at 
all  times  to  be  found  among  the  magnates  of  the  province  (ol 
irpwrevovres  Kara  rrjv  iirap^iav).  These  were  known  as  Asiarchs. 
Conspicuous  among  them  in  former  times  had  been  one  Pytho- 
dorus,  a  native  of  Nysa,  a  town  not  very  far  distant  from  Tralles. 
Pythodorus  had  migrated  to  Tralles  in  order  to  identify  himself 
with  an  illustrious  community,  and  had  become  famous  through 
his  friendship  with  Pompey.  His  daughter  Pythodoris  was  Queen 
of  Pontus  in  Strabo's  day.1 

Under  the  Principate,  the  chief  priest  of  the  temple  inaugur- 
ated at  Pergamum  in  19  B.C.  was  at  first  the  only  dpxtepevs  7% 
\Wa?,  but  the  passage  just  cited  from  Strabo  shows  that  he  was 
not  the  only  'A<ridpxqs,  though  doubtless  he  was  6  'Aaidpxvs, 
Asiarch  par  excellence.  It  is  not  likely  that  any  one  would  have 
been  recognised  as  an  Asiarch,  unless  in  addition  to  being  wealthy 
he  had  held  all  or  most  of  the  offices  of  importance  in  his  native 
city,  and  these  were  the  qualifications  required  of  one  who  was 
to  hold  the  office  of  "  high  priest  of  Asia."  These  high  priests, 
then,  would  be  "  Asiarchs  "  before  they  were  appointed,  and ' 
naturally  continued  to  be  known  as  "  Asiarchs  "  after  they  had, 
retired  from  their  sacerdotal  office.     It  is  possible  that  in  course' 


the  leading  cities  according  to  a  rota,  for  there  is  numismatic  evidence  to  show 
that  it  met  at  Pergamum  both  in  a.d.  97  and  in  the  year  following.  Apparently 
there  was  some  order  of  precedence  among  the  cities.  At  any  rate,  Magnesia 
(ad  Sipylum)  did  not  claim  to  be  higher  than  seventh.  On  the  other  hand, 
Pergamum's  claim  to  stand  first  was  vigorously  disputed  by  Ephesus  and 
Smyrna.  The  Ephesians,  indeed,  claimed  to  be  fiduot  irpCoToi  'A<rlas.  See  the 
descriptions  of  coins  of  Pergamum,  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  etc.,  in  Head's  Historia 
Numismatum.  In  the  course  of  the  first  century  the  places  where  the  concilium 
Asiae  might  be  held  came  to  include  Ephesus,  Sardis,  Smyrna,  Laodicea, 
Philadelphia,  and  Cyzicus.  Compare  the  seven  cities  of  Apoc.  i.-iii. 
1  See  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  105-106 ;    Strabo,  Oeogr.  xiv.  1.  42. 


214  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

of  time  the  title  "  Asiarch  "  became  so  closely  associated  with 
that  of  "  high  priest  "—in  any  case  the  Asiarchate  of  the  high 
priest  would  quite  outshine  that  of  other  principal  notables  or 
grandees— that  only  those  who  had  "  passed  the  chair  "  of  the 
high  priesthood  were  allowed  to  style  themselves  "  Asiarchs."  x 
But  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  usage  had  become  established 
so  early  as  the  principate  of  Nero,  who  was  Emperor  when  the 
silversmiths'  riot  disturbed  the  peace  of  Ephesus. 

In  consequence  of  the  rivalry  of  the  leading  cities  of  Asia, 
the  Emperor  authorised  not  only  the  erection  of   temples  of 
Roma  et  Augustus,  but  also  the  assembly  of  the  concilium  Asiae,  at 
other   cities   besides   Pergamum.     The   priests   of    these   other 
temples  were  appointed  by  the  concilium,  and  it  was  not  necessary 
that  they  should  be  natives  of  the  cities  to  which  they  were 
appointed,  like  the  "  high  priest  of  Asia,"  only  for  a  year.     They 
were  also  styled  "  high  priests  "  (apx^pe^)  and  even  "  Asiarchs." 
Moreover,  inscriptions  mention  a  "high  priest  of  the  temples 
which  are  in  Smyrna,"  a  "  high  priest  of  the  temples  which  are 
in  Ephesus,"  and  a  "  high  priest  of  the  temples  which  are  in 
Pergamum."     The  mention  of  temples  in  the  plural  must  be 
understood  to  refer  either  to  the  first,  second,  and  third  neo- 
koreia  2  or  "  caretakership  "  claimed  by  those  cities,  or  to  temples 
such  as  the  one  Smyrna  erected  and  dedicated  in  honour  of 
Tiberius,  Livia,  and  the  Senate,  in  addition  to  that  of  Roma 
and  Augustus,  in  the  latter  years  of  Tiberius's  principate.3    The 
relation  of  the  "  high  priest  of  the  temples  which  are  in  Per- 
gamum "  to  the  "  high  priest  of  Asia  "  is  obscure.     The  high 
priesthood  of  Asia  may  have  become  detached  from  exclusive 
connection  with  the  temple  and  altar  at  Pergamum,  being  ex- 
panded into  a  general  supervision  of  temples,  altars,  priests, 
rites,  and  all  the  apparatus  of  the  Imperial  cult  in  the  province— 
in  short,  an  Asian  pontificatus  maximus  or  summus  episcopatus. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  monuments  in   Asia   were   dated  with 
1  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  p.  106. 
2  See  Conybeare  and  Howson,  St.  Paul,  ii.  84,  91. 
8  See  Tacitus,  Annals,  iv.  15,  55,  56 ;    Hardy,  op.  cit.  pp.  262-263. 


i  THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  215 

reference  to  "  high  priests,"  never  with  reference  to  "Asiarchs." 
This  can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition — which  on 
other  grounds  is  well  warranted — that  the  high  priesthood  was 
held  only  for  a  year,  while  the  acriapxta  was  a  permanent  status, 
not  an  office. 

The    prosecution    of    provincial    governors    who    practised  The  con. 
extortion  or  otherwise  oppressed  the  subject  population  became  ^^j 
an  important  function  of  the  communia.  Litigation  was  expensive,  g°vem- 

_      ,  °  *  '   ment. 

and  the  communal  area  (treasury)  of  the  province  contained 
larger  resources  to  draw  upon  than  would  have  been  available 
for  most  of  the  individuals  and  many  of  the  communities  which 
from  time  to  time  were  the  victims  of  abuse  of  authority  on  the 
part  of  proconsuls,  legates,  or  procurators.  By  the  time  of 
Nero's  principate,  the  provincials  were  even  becoming  formidable 
to  their  governors.  Honorific  decrees  passed  in  favour  of  the 
"  lords  of  the  world  "  by  provincial  councils  became  desirable. 
They  might  be  aids  to  promotion,  and  governors  so  generally 
canvassed  and  intrigued  for  them  that  the  practice  had  to  be 
checked  as  detrimental  to  the  prestige  of  the  Roman  name.1 

The  Emperors  made  use  of  the  concilia  in  the  government 
of  the  provinces.  Imperial  rescripts  dealing  with  various 
matters  of  public  concern,  such  as  infanticide,  cattle-stealing, 
or  the  granting  of  freedom  from  taxation  to  certain  professions 
or  occupations,  are  known  to  have  been  addressed  to  these  bodies.2 
Nevertheless,  the  concilia  did  not  obtain  legal  recognition  as 
administrative  authorities.  The  "  encyclical  "  sent  out  by  the 
Senate  in  a.d.  238,  calling  the  Empire  to  arms  in  support  of  the 
Gordians  against  Maximin,  contains  an  exhaustive  list  of  the 
organs  of  government,  but  the  concilia  are  not  mentioned  among 
them.3 

1  Hardy,  op.  cit.  pp.  271-282  ;  Tacitus,  Annals,  iv.  15,  xiii.  33,  xv.  20-22. 

2  Hardy,  op.  cit.  pp.  271-272. 

8  Iulius  Capitolinus,  Maximinus,  15  :  S.P.Q.R.  per  Gordianos  principes  a 
tristissimis  bellis  liberari  coeptus,  proconsulibus  praesidibus  legatis  ducibus 
tribunis  magistratibus  ac  singulis  civitatibus  et  municipiis  et  oppidis  et  vicis 
et  castellis  salutem,  quam  nunc  primum  recipere  coepit,  dicit. 


216 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD 


n 


Status  of 
concilia. 


In- 
scriptions. 


Tlie  real  status  of  the  provincial  concilia  appears  to  have  been 
the  same  as  that  of  the  collegia  and  sodalitates,  which  were  licensed 
and  regulated  by  the  State,  but  were  not,  strictly  speaking, 
"  public  bodies."  At  any  rate  they  were  not  recognised  organs 
or  agents  of  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  Roman  Commonwealth. 
The  term  koivvv,  used  in  the  Eastern  provinces  to  denote  a  pro- 
vincial council,  was  also  in  common  use  as  a  name  for  private 
associations,  e.g.  to  kqivov  tcov  AafnraSio-Twv  tcov  iv  Hdr^ia),  and 
the  Latin  word  concilium  might  be  employed  to  denote  a  private 
as  well  as  a  public  corporation.  Like  the  multitude  of  small 
rcoLvd,  OiaaoL,  collegia,  sodalitates,  the  provincial  concilia  con- 
sisted of  official  and  unofficial  members,  maintained  their  several 
funds,  worshipped  Roma  and  the  Emperor,  and  celebrated 
festivals.  The  difference  lay  in  the  scale  of  the  functions  exer- 
cised, and  further,  in  the  fact  that  the  provincial  concilia  might 
enter  into  direct  relations  with  the  Senate  or  the  Emperor.1 

Inscriptions  and  coins  supply  data  for  the  history  of  the 
concilia  down  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Gallienus,  a.d.  268.  For 
the  next  fifty  years  or  so  there  is  no  mention  made  of  them.2  They 
were  not  destroyed  by  the  triumph  of  Christianity  over  paganism, 
but  the  character  of  their  periodical  festivals  was  changed  in 
that  they  ceased  to  be  religious  observances,  the  cultus  of  Roma 
and  the  Emperor  having  come  to  an  end.  Gladiator-combats, 
however,  and  chariot-races,  wrestling-matches,  ludi  scenici,  and 
venationes  were  still  kept  up,  as  long,  at  any  rate,  as  money  was 
available  to  provide  such  spectacles.  The  Church  did  not  demand 
their  abolition,  though  it  condemned  their  being  celebrated  on 
Sundays  and  other  great  days  in  the  ecclesiastical  calendar.3 


importance  Such  was  the  general  organisation  of  the  Roman  world 
tohiT^  into  wnicn  Christianity  began  to  penetrate  so  soon  as  it 
torians.       ceased  to  be  exclusively  Jewish.     To  the  student  of  Christian 

i  See  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  113-119;  Hardy,  p.  266.  The  Ac^Traoicrrcu' 
mentioned  in  the  quotation  were  probably  an  association  maintaining  religious 
observances,  in  which  a  torch-race  (Xafxiradrj^opla)  was  the  distinctive  feature. 

2  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  219,  221.  3  Guiraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  245-246. 


THE  ROMAN  PROVINCIAL  SYSTEM  217 

origins  it  is  important  to  understand  generally  the  growth  of  the 
provinces,  the  outline  of  their  administration,  and  the  nature  of 
the  concilia,  which,  without  being  identical  with  the  provincial 
government,  were  closely  connected  with  it,  and  especially  were 
responsible  for  the  regulation  of  the  cult  of  the  Emperor  and  of 
Roma.  The  persecution  or  toleration  of  Christians  depended  on 
the  attitude  of  concilia  and  governors  alike,  and  before  persecu- 
tion could  be  severe  it  required  active  hostility  from  both. 

The  system  thus  established  by  Augustus  remained  without 
radical  change  until  the  time  of  Diocletian.  The  most  important 
movements  of  that  period  (a.d.  14-284)  may  be  summarised  as 
follows.  The  number  of  provincial  governments  was  increased, 
partly  by  the  substitution  of  legates  or  procurators  for  client- 
princes,  partly  by  new  conquests,  partly  by  division  of  old 
provinces.  There  was  also  an  increase  in  the  number  of  com- 
munities organised  on  the  Roman  municipal  pattern.  Free 
cities  adopted  Roman  municipal  institutions ;  coloniae  civium 
Romanorum  were  formed  out  of  legionary  camps  or  settlements 
of  veterans.  The  distinction  between  Romans  and  provincials 
was  abolished  by  Caracalla's  celebrated  edict  of  a.d.  212,  which 
made  Romans  of  practically  the  whole  of  the  free  population  of 
the  Empire.  Caracalla's  object,  however,  was  merely  fiscal; 
he  was  bent  upon  increasing  the  number  of  those  who  paid  the 
succession-duty  known  as  vicensima  haereditatium.  Over  against 
the  increase  in  the  number  of  Roman  or  Romanised  municipalities 
must  be  set  the  increase  of  their  dependence  upon  the  Imperial 
Government.1  The  position  of  Italy  gradually  changed  until  it 
became  identical  with  that  of  the  provinces.  This  change 
indeed  was  foreshadowed  in  23  B.C.  by  the  introduction  of 
proconsular  imperium  within  the  pomerium.2  Septimius  Severus 
stationed  a  legion  at  Albanum.  Diocletian  repealed  the  exemption 
from  land-tax  which  Romans  in  Italy  had  enjoyed  since  167  B.C.3 

1  Dill,  Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  p.  222.        2  Dio.  53.  32.  5. 
8  Arnold,  Roman  Provincial  Administration,  pp.  169-170,  189-190. 


Mace- 
donians. 


II 

LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  AT  THE  BEGINNING 
OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ERA 

By  Clifford  H.  Moore 

Unity  The  civilised  world  in  the  first  century  was  politically  and  in- 
anoient  tellectually  a  unit ;  but  this  unity  was  the  result  of  a  long  and 
by^the  °8  n  important  development.  In  the  fourth  century  B.C.  the  countries 
about  the  Mediterranean  had  no  common  language,  habit  of 
thought,  or  form  of  government.  Although  the  Greeks  had 
established  themselves  on  the  western  coast  of  Asia  Minor  at 
an  early  date,  and,  since  the  eighth  century,  had  sent  colonies 
to  South  Italy,  Sicily,  Southern  Gaul,  Northern  Africa,  and  even 
to  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea,  they  had  not  yet  succeeded  in 
making  their  language  a  common  medium  of  communication 
among  the  peoples  included  in  the  Mediterranean  basin ;  nor 
had  they  impressed  their  intellectual  habits  on  them.  The 
whole  area  was  split  up  into  a  number  of  states  without  common 
aims  or  interests.  Yet  the  fourth  century  saw  in  Greece  a  power 
which  was  to  begin  the  process  of  unification.  Philip  of  Macedon 
(359-336  B.C.)  seems  to  have  been  the  first  Western  ruler  to 
conceive  adequately  the  notion  of  a  great  empire ;  and  ten 
years  before  Philip's  death  the  aged  Isocrates,  with  an  imperial 
vision  which  none  of  his  fellow-countrymen  ever  displayed, 
urged  Philip  to  make  himself  leader  and  champion  of  Greece 
against  the  Great  King,  that  he  might  destroy  the  Persian  power, 
or  at  least  annex  all  Asia  Minor,  in  which  the  surplus  population 

218 


„  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  219 

of  Greece  might  find  an  outlet.  When  in  336  B.C.  the  assassin's 
dagger  cut  short  Philip's  triumphant  progress,  he  was  succeeded 
by  his  son  Alexander,  whose  accomplishments  were  destined  to 
be  greater  than  his  father's  dreams.  Before  the  Greeks  could 
mature  their  plans  to  rid  themselves  of  the  Macedonian  domination, 
Alexander  had  reconciled  or  overawed  the  several  states  and 
been  elected  supreme  general  of  Hellas  against  Persia.  A  cam- 
paign in  Thrace  and  a  revolt  in  Greece  proper  detained  him  until 
the  spring  of  334  B.C.,  when  he  crossed  into  Asia  Minor.  It  is 
needless  to  follow  the  details  of  his  conquests  :  how  in  the  next 
ten  years  he  conquered  all  the  lands,  including  Egypt,  bordering 
on  the  eastern  Mediterranean,  and  carried  his  victorious  arms 
through  modern  Persia  and  Turkestan,  across  the  Himalayas 
by  the  Khyber  Pass  into  the  Punjab,  from  whence  he  descended 
the  Indus  river,  and  returned  overland  through  Baluchistan 
and  Persia  to  Babylon,  where  he  died  in  323  B.C.  Thus  Alex- 
ander showed  the  possibility  of  a  great  political  empire,  in  which 
the  distinction  between  Greek  and  barbarian  was  to  be  broken 
down  ;  the  Greek  was  not  to  dominate  the  Oriental  or  the 
Oriental  the  Greek,  but  each  was  to  have  his  place  in  a  cosmo- 
politan state.  Indeed  Alexander  had  begun  to  effect  a  fusion  of 
West  and  East.  His  death  cut  short  its  full  realisation,  but 
nevertheless  the  Greek  colonies  which  he  had  planted  opened  up 
new  worlds  for  trade,  and  spread  the  Greek  tongue  so  widely 
that,  although  most  of  his  colonists  ultimately  were  absorbed 
by  the  surrounding  peoples,  the  language  survived  and  became 
a  lingua  franca  over  at  least  the  western  half  of  the  territories 
subdued  by  him.  Although  his  political  empire  was  divided 
immediately  after  his  death  into  separate  kingdoms,  the  Diadochi 
still  fostered  Hellenism  :  their  capitals  were  centres  of  Greek 
culture,  and  they  prided  themselves  on  their  Hellenic  inheritance. 

During  the  last  three  centuries  before  our  era,  the  centre  of  Alexandria 
the  Greek  intellectual  world  was  Alexandria  in  Egypt.     Here  iecetuai 
East  and  West  met.     The  Greeks  had  long  been  in  Egypt,  and  ??n*re.of 

©  &j  r   J  Hellenism : 

the  older  groups  of  Jews  now  received  large  accessions.     The  the  Jewish 

element. 


220  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

Hellenising  of  the  Jews  advanced  rapidly,  and  before  the  close 
of  the  third  century  B.C.  a  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  had 
been  made  into  Greek  for  the  use  of  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora, 
who  had  forgotten  their  ancient  tongue  ;  in  Palestine  itself  the 
Greek  language,  and  even  Greek  customs,  won  their  way,  at  least 
by  the  second  century  B.C.  The  revolt  under  the  Maccabees  had 
important  religious  results,  but  it  did  little  to  stay  the  spread  of 
Greek  civilisation.  If  so  conservative  a  people  as  the  Jews  could 
not  resist  the  advance  of  Hellenism,  we  can  well  understand  its 
conquests  over  less  tenacious  peoples.  With  the  Greek  language 
went  Greek  ideas  and  habits  of  thought,  and  during  the  three 
centuries  preceding  our  era  an  intellectual  unity  was  gradually 
established  throughout  the  lands  bordering  on  the  eastern  half 
of  the  Mediterranean  as  far  as  the  Euphrates.  In  many  places 
still  farther  east  the  Greek  language  was  at  least  understood 
and  Greek  ideas  were  not  unfamiliar. 
Rise  of  After  300  B.C.  a  new  power  rose  in  the  West,  which  rapidly 

a  world*  extended  its  conquests  to  the  whole  Mediterranean  area.  By 
power.  270  B.C.  Rome  had  subdued  all  the  Italian  peninsula  south  of  the 
Arno  and  the  Rubicon.  At  the  end  of  the  third  century  she  had 
twice  defeated  Carthage,  and  had  taken  as  provinces  Sicily, 
Corsica,  Sardinia,  and  much  of  Spain.  She  next  turned  to 
Greece  and  the  East.  When  the  Emperor  Augustus  died  in 
a.d.  14,  Rome  was  virtually  mistress  of  all  the  lands  bordering 
on  the  Mediterranean,  which  had  literally  become  a  Roman  lake. 
The  western  and  northern  boundaries  of  the  Empire  were  the 
Atlantic  Ocean,  the  Rhine,  the  Danube,  and  the  Black  Sea  ; 
on  the  east  lay  the  Parthian  Empire,  separated  from  that  of 
Rome  by  Armenia,  the  Euphrates,  and  the  deserts  of  Arabia  ; 
and  on  the  south  in  Africa  the  Sahara  formed  a  natural  frontier. 
Within  these  limits  many  peoples  and  nations  had  been  welded 
into  a  single  empire  by  the  political  genius  of  the  Romans,  whose 
work  was  so  well  done  that,  from  the  time  of  Augustus,  Italy 
and  the  provinces  remained,  with  trifling  exceptions,  well  governed 
and  contented  for  more  than  two  centuries,  in  spite  of  the  con- 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  221 

dition  of  the  capital  under  such  emperors  as  Caligula,  Nero, 
Domitian,  and  Commodus. 

Just  as  the  Greek  language  and  civilisation  had  spread  over  Latin 
the  eastern  half  of  the  Mediterranean  area,  so  in  the  West  the  ^Sfby 
consequence  of  political  conquest  was  the  establishment  of  the  Romans- 
Latin  tongue  ;  but  in  the  East  it  made  no  great  headway  against 
Greek.     The   result   was   that,    although   local   languages   and 
dialects  long  persisted  among  the  lower  classes  and  in  the  remoter 
districts,  Latin  and  Greek  were  the  two  languages  of  the  Roman 
Empire ;  moreover,  cultivated  Romans  wrote  and  spoke  Greek 
with  facility,  so  that  from  one  end  of  the  Empire  to  the  other 
Greek  was  a  common  medium  for  polite  and  learned  society. 
Thus  the  Empire  was  unified  in  speech  as  well  as  in  government. 

But  this  was  not  all.  Rome  from  an  early  period  was  in-  influence 
fluenced  by  Greek  thought  and  institutions,  first  through  the  0n  Roman?. 
Greek  colonies  in  South  Italy  and  in  Sicily,  later  from  Greece 
herself.  The  Romans  generally  recognised  that  their  civilisation 
was  inferior  to  that  of  the  Greeks,  and  were  ready  to  learn. 
From  the  Greeks  they  received  their  alphabet,  their  weights 
and  measures,  and  certain  political  institutions  ;  but  Greek 
influence  was  even  greater  in  the  fields  of  art,  literature, 
religion,  and  philosophy. 

Tradition  says  that  Greeks  were  found  in  Latium  before  the 
founding  of  Rome,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  Greek  traders 
penetrated  central  Italy  at  least  as  early  as  the  seventh  century 
B.C.    With  them  they  brought  their  gods,  who  were  freely  re-t 
ceived,  and  sometimes  so  completely  adopted  that  they  passed  for  J 
Italian  divinities  :  thus  Hercules  was  established  at  Tibur  ;  and  ,  * 
the  Dioscuri,  Castor  and  Pollux,  at  Tusculum,  whence  they  came  j* 
to  Rome.    In  Etruria  the  Greek  Zeus,  Hera,  and  Athena  were  \A 
identified  with  an  Etruscan  triad,  which  was  established  in  Rome  j 
on  the  Capitoline  Hill  by  the  Etruscan  Tarquins,  under  the  1 
Italian  names  of  Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Minerva.     In  the  course  of 
the  next  three  and  a  half  centuries  the  Romans'  contact  with 
the  Greeks  led  them  to  recognise  more  of  their  gods,  some  of  the 


222 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD 


Roman 

literature 

derived 

from 

Greece. 


T. 


most  important  being  brought  in  at  the  direction  of  the  Sibylline 
books — that  collection  of  oracles  which  tradition  said  had  been 
purchased  by  one  of  the  later  Tarquins.  These  divinities 
were  Apollo,  Hermes  (Mercury),  the  triad  Demeter,  Dionysus, 
and  Kore  (Ceres,  Liber,  and  Libera),  Poseidon  (Neptune), 
Asclepios  (Aesculapius),  Pluto  and  Persephone  (Dispater  and 
Proserpina),  and  Aphrodite  (Flora),  and  doubtless  many  others. 
In  fact,  by  the  second  Punic  War  (219-202  B.C.)  most  of  the  chief 
gods  of  Greece  were  domiciled  at  Rome,  generally  under  Roman 
or  Italian  names,  their  very  images  being  modelled  on  those  by 
famous  Greek  artists.  Subsequent  conquests  brought  vast 
numbers  of  works  of  art  to  the  West,  which  not  only  helped 
to  educate  the  artistic  sense  of  the  Romans,  but  also  aided  in 
establishing  the  Greek  concepts  of  the  gods  in  the  Roman  mind. 
The  result  was  that  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  third  century  B.C. 
the  old  Roman-Italian  religion,  which  was  practical  and  exact,  well 

i  suited  to  a  small  and  unimaginative  community,  was  so  overlaid 
by  Greek  ideas  and  blended  with  them  that  much  of  its  original 
character  and  content  was  obscured  for  the  Romans  themselves. 
Nor  was  Greek  influence  confined  to  religion ;  eventually  it 
covered  every  field  of  the  intellectual  life  of  Rome.  At  the  fall 
of  Tarentum  in  272  b.c.  a  young  Greek  captive  was  brought  to 
Rome  and  employed  by  his  master  to  teach  his  children.    When 

!  set  free  he  continued  his  profession  under  the  name  of  Livius 
Andronicus.  Since,  however,  there  was  no  Latin  literature 
available  for  purposes  of  instruction,  he  translated  the  Odyssey 
into  rude  native  verse,  the  Saturnian  measure,  and  thus  became 
the  founder  of  Latin  epic  poetry.  In  240  B.C.  he  introduced 
dramatic  poetry  to  Rome  by  putting  on  the  stage  a  tragedy  and 
a  comedy  adapted  from  the  Greek.  A  generation  later  Naevius 
wrote  an  epic  on  the  Punic  War,  and  before  another  had  passed 
Ennius  had  adopted  the  Greek  hexameter  for  his  Annates,  a 
poetic  history  of  Rome.     From  that  time  to  the  close  of  antiquity 

;  every  epic  poet  drew  his  form,  his  imagery,  and  many  of  his 
incidents  from  the  Greek  epics. 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  223 

The  drama,  which  tradition  said  was  started  by  Andronicus, 
was  cultivated  by  many.  Although  only  plays  by  Plautus  and 
Terence  have  been  preserved  to  us  in  their  entirety,  we  know 
that  numerous  tragedies  and  comedies  produced  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  B.C.  had  served  to  familiarise  the 
Romans  with  Greek  ideas  of  dramatic  art  and  with  the  social 
aspects  of  Greek  life. 

The  glorious  outcome  of  the  Second  Punic  War  prompted 
the  Romans  to  begin  the  writing  of  history ;  but  inasmuch  as 
the  only  prose  which  had  been  developed  for  historical  purposes 
was  Greek,  Roman  history  was  for  about  half  a  century 
composed  exclusively  in  that  language.  Cato  the  Censor  then  set 
the  fashion  of  using  Latin,  but  the  form  of  history  still  continued 
to  be  modelled  on  the  Greek.  Soon  after  the  middle  of  the 
same  century  oratory  began  to  be  moulded  after  Greek  exemplars. 
In  fact,  in  every  major  form  of  literature,  the  influence  of  the 
Greek  on  Roman  literature  is  apparent.  Moreover,  Greek  myths 
and  legends  were  adapted  to  Roman  conditions ;  genealogies  were 
invented  and  incidents  narrated  in  Greek  fashion,  so  that  Latin 
literature  became  Greek  not  only  in  form  but  also  in  content. 

The  captured  Greeks  took  their  captors  captive  by  becoming  Greek 
their  schoolmasters.    During  the  third  and  second  centuries  ^the06 
before  our  era,  the  older  education  was  supplemented  bv  a  study  R°ma^ 

xx  J  J    educational 

of  Greek  language  and  literature,  taught  since  the  time  of  the  system. 
Second  Punic  War  in  well-to-do  families  by  private  teachers. 
Before  the  middle  of  the  second  century  schools  were  established 
in  which  a  considerable  number  of  pupils  were  taught  together, 
and  at  its  close  Greek  rhetoricians  had  begun  to  give  formal 
instruction.  The  study  of  literature,  and  especially  of  rhetoric, 
served  to  make  Greek  habits  of  thought  and  forms  of  expression 
universal  in  the  West  as  well  as  in  the  East. 

Greek  philosophy  made  itself  felt  in  Rome  soon  after  the  influence 
close  of  the  Second  Punic  War,  when  Epicureanism,  Stoicism,  pfhnoTophy 
the  teachings  of  the  later  Academy,  and  later  Aristotelianism  in  Rome* 
all  found  their  adherents. 


224  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

(a)  stoicism  The  most  important  philosophical  teacher  of  the  second 
(Panaetms)..  century  was  Panaetius  of  Rhodes,  who  may  properly  be  con- 
'  sidered  the  founder  of  Roman  Stoicism.  His  chief  disciples 
among  the  Roman  aristocracy  were  Laelius  and  the  younger 
Scipio,  who  formed  the  centre  of  the  Scipionic  Circle,  which  in 
its  day  did  much  to  extend  Hellenising  influences.  Panaetius 
modified  the  severe  and  uncompromising  doctrines  of  antiquity 
and  accommodated  the  teaching  of  Stoicism  to  that  of  other 
schools,  being  especially  influenced  by  the  Academics  and  the 
Peripatetics.  Although  he  could  not  wholly  abandon  the  Stoic 
paradox  that  the  sapiens  can  never  err,  he  contented  himself 
with  preparing  his  disciples  for  the  ordinary  demands  of  life 
without  insisting  solely  on  the  ideal  of  the  "  wise  man,"  He 
laid  much  emphasis  on  the  gradual  advance  in  virtue  as 
contrasted  with  the  older  doctrine  of  the  sudden  acquisition  of 
perfection.  Indeed,  he  held  that  steady  progress  through  the 
honourable  practice  of  daily  duties  was  all  that  could  be 
reasonably  required  of  his  disciples.  He  even  allowed  the 
pursuit  of  external  advantages  so  long  as  they  did  not  interfere 
with  that  of  virtue. 

Panaetius,  in  fact,  had  been  greatly  influenced  by  Aristotle's 
doctrine  that  virtue  is  a  mean  between  two  vices,  that  is,  between 
two  extremes.  Of  course  such  doctrine  was  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  older  Stoics  ;  and  for  their  ideal  of  Wisdom  Panaetius 
substituted  Soberness  or  Balance.  He  did  not  hold  with 
Aristotle  that  the  highest  life  was  one  of  contemplation.  On 
the  contrary,  he  encouraged  the  practice  of  the  active  social 
virtues  of  his  age.  In  this  he  prepared  the  way  for  the  sadder 
days  of  the  Empire,  which  demanded  the  tonic  of  a  practical 
philosophy. 

^       The  common-sense  attitude  of  Panaetius  largely  explains 

jhis  influence  in  establishing  his  modified  Stoicism  as  the  chief 

Roman  philosophy  from  his  time  to  that  of  Marcus  Aurelius ; 

^  i  for,  although  the  Stoics  continued  to  teach  the  encyclopaedia 

J  of  philosophy— physics,  logic,  metaphysics,  etc.— the  interest 


LIFE  IN  THE  KOMAN  EMPIRE  225 


:i 


of  the  Romans  was  centred  in  ethics,  which  became  for  them  the 
art  of  living  in  such  a  way  as  constantly  to  advance  in  virtue 
The  aim  of  the  devout  under  the  early  Empire  cannot  be  better 
stated  than  in  Seneca's  words  : 

I  am  not  yet  wise,  nor  shall  I  ever  be.  Do  not  ask  me  to  be!^ 
equal  to  the  best,  but  rather  to  be  better  than  the  base.  This  is) 
enough  for  me — to  take  away  daily  something  from  my  faults  and/ 
daily  to  rebuke  my  errors.  I  have  not  attained  complete  moral? 
health,  nor  shall  I  ever  attain  it.1 

Epictetus's  definition  of  philosophy  is  also  illuminating  : 

What  is  philosophy  ?     Is  it  not  a  preparation  against  things 
which  may  happen  to  a  man  ?  2 

Although  Marcus  Aurelius  was  the  last  great  Stoic,  Stoicism  did 
not  die  with  him.  It  ceased  to  be  prominent  as  a  separate  school, 
only  because  its  principles  had  been  largely  absorbed  by  others, 
including  Christianity. 

In  the  last  century  and  a  half  of  the  Republic,  a  time  of  (6)  EPi- 
political  struggle  and  disaster,  of  growing  scepticism  toward  the  ^d am8m 
traditional  forms  of  religion,  of  rapidly  increasing  wealth  and  Mysticism- 
complexity    of     life,    many    Romans    found    refuge    in    the 
quietistic    teachings    of    the    Epicureans.      Some    turned    to 
scepticism  or  to  mysticism,  though  other  philosophies  had  also 
their  adherents.     The  significant  point  is  that  all  intellectual) 
Romans  had  adopted  some  form  of  Greek  philosophic  thought 
as  well  as  Greek  habits  of  expression. 

Yet  the  eastern  half  of  the  Mediterranean  still  remained  the  Phiiosophi 
home   of   learning.     Alexandria   maintained  the   pre-eminence  fnci^°l8 
which  had  been  hers  from  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  EmPire. 
her  only  rival,  Pergamum  in  western  Asia  Minor,  being  now 
eclipsed.     Athens  enjoyed  the  reflected  glory  of  her  great  past, 
which  still  drew  many  to  her.      For  instruction   in    oratory 
the   Roman  went  to   the  schools  of   Smyrna  and  of  Rhodes. 
Cicero,  for  example,  spent  two  years  in  the  advanced  study 

1  De  vita  beata,  17.  a  Diss  iii.  10.  6. 

VOL.  I  Q 


Octavian's 


peace. 


226  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

of  rhetoric  in  Athens,  Asia  Minor,  and  Rhodes  ;  Julius  Caesar 
likewise  studied  at  Rhodes.  The  political  centre  of  the  world, 
however,  was  Rome,  which  had  already  attracted  to  itself 
many  of  the  intellectual  elite  from  all  parts  of  the  Empire. 
The  Roman  world,  therefore,  was  a  unit  politically  and  intellectu- 
ally. Although  Latin  prevailed  in  the  western  half  and  Greek 
in  the  east,  this  difference  of  language  was  insignificant  for 
reasons  already  given.  The  habits  of  thought  and  the  modes 
of  expression  from  one  end  of  the  Mediterranean  area  to  the 
other  were  identical.  The  significance  of  this  can  hardly  be 
over-estimated. 

The  battle  of  Actium,  31  B.C.,  marks  a  new  era  in  the  history 
victory  at    0£  ^s  Graeco-Roman  world.     From  that  year  we  may  with 

Aotium  . 

brought  good  reason  date  the  establishment  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The 
results  of  the  political  change  were  of  the  utmost  importance 
for  the  matters  now  under  consideration.  The  decay  of  the 
Roman  Republic  had  gone  on  rapidly  during  its  last  century.  By 
the  time  of  Tiberius  Gracchus  (133  B.C.)  the  citizens  of  Rome 
had  begun  to  show  themselves  less  capable  of  self-government 
than  they  had  been  in  the  earlier  centuries  of  external  stress. 
The  state  fell  into  the  hands  of  politicians — some,  like  the 
Gracchi,  actuated  by  good  motives  ;  others,  selfish,  eager  only 
for  power.  In  fact,  the  political  history  of  Rome  during  the 
last  century  of  the  Republic  is  written  in  the  lives  of  a  few  men. 
Tiberius  and  Gaius  Gracchus,  Saturninus,  Marius,  Cinna  and 
Sulla  ;  Pompey,  Caesar,  and  Crassus  ;  Octavian,  Antony,  and 
Lepidus — these  were  the  men  who  for  good  or  ill  led  the  state 
or  strove  for  its  control  by  means  often  illegal  and  subversive 
of  orderly  government.  Moreover,  this  last  century  was  a 
period  in  which  Rome  was  frequently  harassed  and  more  often 
threatened  by  civil  wars  ;  and  from  January,  49  B.C.,  when  Caesar 
crossed  the  Rubicon,  to  September,  31  B.C.,  when  Octavian 
secured  the  mastery  of  the  maritime  world  against  Antony 
and  Cleopatra,  Italy  and  many  other  lands  suffered  almost 
continuously  from  civil  strife.     With  the  victory  at    Actium 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  227 

peace  was  restored,  and  although  it  proved  to  be  the  downfall 
of  Republican  institutions,1  it  was  hailed  with  enthusiasm  and 
gratitude.  This  Pax  Romana  was  destined  to  last,  with  only 
brief  interruptions,  for  almost  exactly  two  hundred  years. 

With  peace  came  a  revival  of  trade,  a  sense  of  security,  and 
a  return  of  prosperity,  to  which  Virgil  and  Horace  bear  eloquent 
witness.  Horace,  in  the  fifth  and  fifteenth  odes  of  his  Fourth 
Book,  celebrates  Augustus  as  the  restorer  of  peace  to  a  distressed 
world,  with  a  warmth  of  expression  which  he  uses  toward  him 
only  in  one  other  place.  Virgil's  Georgics  express  the  hope  of 
the  Romans  immediately  after  the  battle  of  Actium,  and  many 
passages  in  his  Aeneid  give  utterance  to  the  gratitude  felt  when 
the  first  ten  years  of  Augustus's  rule  had  passed.  In  January, 
27  B.C.,  when  the  Emperor  was  given  his  title  Augustus,  there 
was  no  man  who  could  not  remember  the  time  when  civil  war  or 
sedition  was  not  threatening  the  state.  When  Augustus  died 
forty-one  years  later,  the  fear  of  civil  strife  had  been  banished 
from  men's  minds,  and  the  Empire  so  firmly  established  that  the 
power  passed  without  opposition  into  the  hands  of  Tiberius. 

The  disorders  of  the  last  century  of  the  Republic  had  naturally  Provincial 
contributed  to  insecurity  of  life  and  property.  Even  though  ™  °ngani8a" 
such  extreme  cases  as  that  of  Verres  in  Sicily  may  not  have  been 
common,  few  provincial  governors  could  resist  the  temptation 
to  squeeze  large  sums  from  the  provincials  during  their  brief 
terms  of  office.  Augustus  reorganised  the  Empire,  taking  under 
his  control  all  the  provinces  in  which  an  armed  force  was  needed, 
leaving  for  the  Senate  only  the  more  peaceful  countries.  The 
governors  of  imperial  provinces  were  selected  by  him  ;  they  were 
provided  with  a  generous  salary,  kept  in  many  cases  for  years 
in  the  same  province,  and  were  forced  to  render  an  exact  account 
of  their  stewardship  to  their  imperial  master.  Gradually  the 
management  of  the  senatorial  provinces  was  so  far  improved 
that  the  lot  of  the  provincials  from  Augustus's  day  onwards  was 
distinctly  better  than  it  had  been  under  the  Republic.     The 

1  Cf.  Tac.  Ann.  iii.  28.  3. 


228 


THE  GENTILE  WOELD 


Improve- 
ment of 
communi- 
cations. 


wealth  of  many  of  these  provinces  increased ;  those  which  had 
been  comparatively  unproductive  prospered,  and  indeed  the 
entire  Empire  witnessed  a  revival  of  trade  and  of  prosperity 
somewhat  comparable  to  the  European  revival  after  the  Napole- 
onic wars  or  to  that  rapid  development  in  the  United  States 
which  followed  the  Civil  War. 

No  small  factor  in  the  development  of  commerce  and  in  the 
unification  of  the  early  Empire  was  the  security  and  speed  with 
which  one  might  travel.  The  great  Roman  roads,  which  still 
excite  our  admiration,  were,  in  the  first  instance,  built  for  military 
purposes,  but  they  became  great  highways  for  all.  Starting 
from  the  golden  milestone  in  the  Forum  at  Rome,  one  could 
travel  to  the  borders  of  the  Empire  with  a  rapidity  and  safety 
which  has  since  been  unknown  even  in  Western  Europe  until 
within  a  hundred  years.  If  a  Roman  wished  to  go  rapidly  to  the 
East,  he  left  by  the  ancient  Appian  Way,  passed  through  Capua 
and  Beneventum  to  Brundisium,  then  crossed  the  Adriatic  either 
to  Dyrrhachium  or  Apollonia ;  thence  he  proceeded  over  the 
mountains  to  Thessalonica  and  Byzantium.  A  traveller  to 
Spain  found  three  great  roads  leading  to  the  Po  Valley  ;  thence 
he  crossed  the  Alps  by  the  Mont  Genevre  and  descended  into  the 
valley  of  the  Rhone ;  continuing  on,  he  •  came  to  the  modern 
Nimes  and  Narbonne,  whence  he  entered  Spain,  either  by  the 
road  which  led  along  the  Mediterranean  coast  or  over  one  of  the 
mountain  passes.  Within  the  Spanish  peninsula  were  many 
roads  which  led  him  to  all  the  important  cities,  terminating  at 
Gades,  the  modern  Cadiz.  Other  great  roads  led  up  the  Rhone 
valley  into  the  valley  of  the  Moselle,  to  the  Rhine,  or  branched 
off  to  Northern  and  Western  Gaul.  From  Verona  the  traveller 
might  pass  into  the  modern  districts  of  the  Tyrol,  Southern 
Germany,  and  Western  Austria.  Many  of  these  roads  of  course 
followed  ancient  trade  routes.  In  the  old  and  long-civilised 
East,  the  Persians  and  the  Greeks  had  marked  out  and  main- 
tained the  main  roads  long  before  the  Romans  became  masters. 
Through  the  central  part  of  Asia  Minor  an  ancient  trade  route 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  KOMAN  EMPIRE  229 

ran  from  Ephesus  east  to  the  Euphrates ;  another  led  along  the 
northern  part  of  Asia  Minor  ;  and  a  third,  branching  off  and  pass- 
ing through  Cilicia,  came  to  Antioch,  and  thence  continued  to 
the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris. 

The  rate  of  travel  was  from  thirty  to  fifty  miles  a  day,  although 
on  occasion  much  higher  speeds  could  be  maintained.     Julius  l  >^ 
Caesar  covered  one  hundred  miles  a  day  in  a  hired  carriage,  and  ! 
once  the  Emperor  Tiberius  travelled  two  hundred  miles  in  twenty-  { 
four  hours.    Private  correspondence  was  despatched  chiefly  by 
hired  messengers,  who  might  cover  twenty-five  miles  a  day  on 
foot.    For  official  business  Augustus  established  an  imperial**, 
post  modelled  on  that  earlier  maintained  by  the  Persians.     The 
average  rate  of  transmission  seems  to  have  been  about  five  miles  * 
an  hour. 

The  routes  by  sea  had  been  determined  by  the  Phoenicians  Sea  routes, 
and  Greeks  centuries  before  the  Romans  began  a  transmarine 
commerce.  From  Ostia  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber  and  from 
Puteoli  on  the  bay  of  Naples,  ships  reached  Alexandria,  occasion- 
ally in  seven  or  eight  days  ;  but  under  unfavourable  conditions 
a  merchantman  might  take  as  much  as  fifty.  The  average  run 
of  a  sailing-ship  was  reckoned  at  four  to  six  knots  an  hour.  With 
a  fair  wind  and  good  weather  one  could  sail  from  Ostia  to  Africa 
in  two  days,  to  Tarraco  in  Spain  in  four,  and  to  Gades  beyond 
the  Pillars  of  Hercules  in  seven.  The  adventurous  merchant 
or  traveller  could  embark  for  India  from  Myos  Hormos  or  from 
Berenice  on  the  Arabian  Gulf,  sailing  with  the  western  winds  in 
midsummer  and  returning  with  the  favouring  blasts  of  mid- winter. 
In  the  reign  of  Augustus,  one  hundred  and  twenty  ships  from! 
Myos  Hormos  were  despatched  annually  on  these  long  voyages.  I 

The  Roman  of  Cicero's  day  seems  not  to  have  cared  to  traveli  SuPPres- 
for  pleasure.     The  decay  of  the  Roman  navy  during  the  second!  Bi°^of 
century  b.c.  and  the  disturbed  conditions  of  the  state  gave 
pirates  and  freebooters  of  every  sort  large  opportunities.    So 
bold  had  the  pirates  become  after  80  B.C.,  that,  no  longer  content 
with  plundering  the  rich  coast  cities  of  Asia  and  the  Aegean  Sea, 


230  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

they  finally  carried  their  depredations  into  the  harbours  of  Italy 
itself,  burnt  a  Roman  fleet  at  Ostia,  and  captured  two  praetors 
with  their  suites.    In  67  B.C.  a  revolutionary  measure  gave 
Pompey  supreme  command  over  the  whole  Mediterranean,  and 
power  co-ordinate  with  that  of  the  provincial  governors  for  fifty 
miles  inland.     In  ninety  days  he  had  crushed  the  pirates,  and  was 
ready  for  greater  military  triumphs.     After  this,  organised  piracy 
on  any  considerable  scale  was  to  be  encountered  only  in  such 
remote  places  as  the  Black  Sea  and  on  the  way  from  Egypt  to 
India.    In  the  years  immediately  following  the  battle  of  Actium 
an  effort  was  made  to  secure  safety  on  sea  and  on  land  ;  for  the 
victor  well  knew  that  the  success  and  popularity  of  his  rule 
depended  in  no  small  degree  on  the  prosperity  of  the  great  mass 
of  the  people.     Vigorous  measures  were  taken  to  check  brigandage 
and  to  drive  out  piracy ;  though  neither  was  ever  completely 
eradicated,  still  it  may  be  said  without  exaggeration  that  during 
the  first  two  centuries  of  our  era  one  could  travel  in  Mediterranean 
lands  over  a  wider  area  and  with  greater  security  than  it  has 
ever  been  possible  to  do  since. 
Facilities  Under  the  Emperor  Augustus,  then,  life  was  fairly  secure  for 

of  travel      ^e  traveller,  whether  he  wished  to  use  the  high  roads  which 

established.  .  n  ,   , 

penetrated  to  the  very  ends  of  the  empire,  or  would  travel  by 
ship  along  the  ancient  lanes  of  commerce  in  the  Mediterranean. 
A  In  praising  Augustus  as  the  one  who  had  restored  peace,  Horace 
says,  "  pacatum  volitant  per  mare  navitae  "  *  ;  and  Suetonius 
records  that  when  Augustus,  on  one  of  the  last  days  of  his  life, 
happened  to  be  sailing  past  the  bay  of  Puteoli,  the  passengers 
and  crew  of  an  Alexandrian  ship,  which  had  just  arrived,  put  on 
white,  crowned  themselves  with  garlands,  and,  bearing  incense, 
poured  out  their  good  wishes  and  praises  to  the  Emperor,  saying 
that  it  was  through  him  they  lived,  through  him  they  sailed  the 
seas,  and  through  him  that  they  enjoyed  their  liberty  and  for- 
tunes.2 The  praise  was  not  undeserved.  Later  emperors  de- 
veloped and  perfected  the  system  of  roads  ;  and  on  the  whole  the 

1  Horace,  C.  iv.  5.  19.  2  Suetonius,  Aug.  98. 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  231 

peace  and  security  which  Augustus  established  continued  with 
few  interruptions  for  two  hundred  years.     From  one  end  of  the 
Empire  to  the  other,  merchants  and  traders,  tourists,  philosophers, 
rhetoricians,   and   missionaries   moved  freely.     The   Christians 
knew  well  the  service  which  the  Empire  had  rendered  their  faith,  \ 
as  the  words  of  Irenaeus  show :   "  The  Romans  have  given  the } 
world  peace,  and  we  travel  without  fear  along  the  roads  andl 
across  the  sea  wherever  we  will."  1 

Another  important  factor  was  the  universal  protection  of  |Law  firmly 
the  law.  Although  Rome  respected  local  systems  and  usages,  |e8tablished- 
she  made  her  legal  principles  predominate,  and  if  the  provincial 
governors  were  honest,  secured  a  large  measure  of  common  justice 
to  all.  Under  the  Empire  there  was  an  improvement  over  the 
condition  of  affairs  which  prevailed  in  the  Republic.  The  Em- 
peror became  the  court  of  last  resort,  to  whom  the  Roman 
citizen,  like  Paul,  in  danger  of  life  might  appeal ;  and  the  watch- 
fulness of  the  imperial  administration  aimed  to  protect  the  non- 
citizen  as  well. 

Security  under  the  law,  ease  and  safety  of  communication,  The 
with  the  consequent  free  movement  from  on*  part  of  the  empire  j^Pme 
to  another,  made  the  world  cosmopolitan.     Professional  rhetori-  cosmo- 
cians  and  philosophers  spread  their  doctrines  by  teaching  in  cities, 
and  traders  carried  ideas  as  well  as  wares.     Moreover,  the  slaves, 
the  number  of  whom  was  enormous,  were  drawn  from  almost 
every  land,  and  many  were  educated  men  ;   soldiers,  too,  were 
now  enrolled  from  every  province.     Under  the  advancing  power 
of  the  Roman  Republic,  separate  nations  had  ceased  to  exist, 
so  that  all  were  either  citizens  or  subjects  of  Rome  ;  the  growing 
autocracy  of  the  Empire  was  destined  to  diminish  the  distinctions 
between  citizens,  provincials,  and  slaves,  and  to  lead  toward  a 
cosmopolitan  equality  among  all  men. 

We  may  therefore  summarise  by  saying  that  in  the  time  of 
Jesus  the  Mediterranean  area  had  become  a  Graeco-Roman 
world,  in  which  the  civilisations  of  two  great  peoples — the  one 

1  Adv.  Haer.  iv.  30.  3. 


232  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

intellectual,  the  other  political — had  been  fused  and  united. 
The  national  civilisations,  even  when  as  stubborn  as  those  of 
Egypt  and  of  Palestine,  had  been  profoundly  modified,  so  as  to 
become  coherent  members  of  the  unified  whole.  Moreover,  the 
world  was  one  of  peace  and  security,  cosmopolitan  in  thought 
and  social  contact. 

ideals  of  The  next  subject  for  inquiry  is  the  ideals  of  this  world,  whose 

woridn  conditions  we  have  been  thus  far  examining.  With  the  destruc- 
tion of  local  autonomy  among  the  Greeks  by  Alexander  and  his 
successors,  the  cultivated  citizen  largely  lost  his  opportunities 
for  free  political  activity.  He  turned,  therefore,  to  the  cultiva- 
tion and  study  of  literature,  to  science,  mathematics,  and  philo- 
sophy. New  intellectual  ideas  thus  became  established.  If 
Alexandria  was  the  greatest  home  of  learning  and  culture  in  the 
three  centuries  which  preceded  the  birth  of  Jesus,  it  had,  however, 
many  rivals.  The  ideal  of  the  cultivated  literary  man,  with 
other  elements  of  Greek  civilisation,  was  adopted  by  the 
Roman,  without  impairing  his  political  activity.  In  Cicero 
and  Caesar  we  find  men  uniting  great  political  ability  with 
the  highest  literary  power,  and  displaying  a  cultivation  of 
the  intellect  unrivalled  among  the  Greeks  and  Orientals  of 
their  day.  To  scientific  studies,  as  well  as  to  the  practice  of 
painting  and  sculpture,  the  Roman  was  singularly  indifferent ; 
but  literature  in  every  form,  whether  spoken  or  written,  became 
almost  the  passion  of  his  life.  In  philosophy  he  had  not  yet 
made  any  important  contributions  ;  but  he  had  absorbed  the 
teachings  of  all  the  leading  schools.     How  completely  Cicero  had 


* 


apprehended  Greek  philosophic  doctrines,  especially  in  matters 
of  conduct,  is  shown  by  his  philosophic  essays,  in  which  he 
rendered  inestimable  service  to  his  own  time  and  to  all  the 
centuries  since  by  his  interpretation  of  Greek  thought. 

This  culture  of  the  Ciceronian  Age,  in  which  many  of  the 
finest  elements  of  both  Greek  and  Roman  civilisation  were  com- 
bined, became  the  ideal  of  the  age  of  Augustus  and  of  later 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  233 

centuries.  The  Augustan  literature,  with  Vergil,  Horace,  and 
Livy  as  its  leading  names,  is  the  enduring  expression  of  this 
ideal  established  by  the  previous  generation.  The  numbing 
weight  of  imperial  restriction  was  as  yet  slightly  felt,  and  men 
of  letters  expressed  themselves  without  fear. 

In  order  to  understand  the  religious  and  philosophic  con-  Decay 
ditions  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  account  religion  0f 
must  be  taken  of  the  decay  of  the  old  Roman  state  religion,  theSta,e- 
which  consisted  primarily  in  the  performance  with  scrupulous 
care  and  exactness  of  the  prescribed  ritual  by  which  the  divine 
powers  were  to  be  brought  to  do  the  things  which  the  suppliant 
desired.  This  religion  was  largely  mechanical,  intended  to 
secure  material  blessings,  nor  was  the  Graeco-Roman  religion, 
which  resulted  from  the  influence  of  Greece  on  Rome,  better, 
although  it  probably  brought  certain  aesthetic  satisfactions. 
There  was  little  in  either  to  ennoble  daily  life,  except  that  they 
taught  lessons  of  duty  and  fidelity  toward  the  gods  and  the 
community.  But  a  mechanical  religion  cannot  permanently 
satisfy  a  people.  When  men  are  aroused  to  reflection,  when  they 
begin  to  ask  the  deeper  questions  as  to  the  nature  of  gods  and  of 
men,  when  they  inquire  as  to  the  life  beyond,  the  doom  of  a 
mechanical  religion,  or  of  any  other  which  cannot  undertake 
to  answer  these  questions,  is  pronounced.  Among  the  Greeks, 
faith  in  the  traditional  religion  had  begun  markedly  to  decay 
as  early  as  the  fifth  century  B.C.  ;  with  the  Romans  the  date 
was  three  centuries  later. 

Yet  it  is  well  at  this  point  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  the  old 
religions  of  Greece  and  Rome,  especially  the  religion  of  house, 
community,  and  field,  were  cultivated  by  the  mass  of  the  people 
until  long  after  Christianity  had  proved  its  power.  The  extant 
dedications  to  the  gods  and  the  law-codes  prove  this  fact ;  and  if 
*t  had  not  been  so,  the  Christian  Apologists  would  have  been 
slaying  men  of  straw,  while  such  comparatively  late  works  as 
Orosius's  History  and  Augustine's  City  of  God,  both  of  which  are 
elaborate  attacks  on  popular  paganism  as  well  as  defences  of 

V 


I* 


234  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

Christianity,  would  have  been  foolish.  Philosophy  touched  the 
common  man  chiefly  in  matters  of  conduct,  without  arousing 
in  him  theological  questionings.  It  is  true  that  the  syncretistic 
!  tendency  of  the  Empire  affected  all  classes  to  a  certain  extent, 
;  so  that,  in  the  minds  of  the  masses,  Jupiter  or  Zeus  acquired 
■ a  supreme  and  comprehensive  meaning ;  but,  as  we  shall  see, 
neither  philosophic  nor  oriental  syncretism  seriously  interfered 
with  polytheism.  Undoubtedly  syncretism  did  in  some  degree 
pave  the  way  for  monotheism,  yet  the  ordinary  man  continued 
to  find  it  easy  and  natural  to  think  of  the  gods  as  separate  entities, 
to  whom  individually  he  must  give  his  worship  and  from  whom 
he  could  expect  the  proper  benefit.  With  the  intellectual  classes 
it  was  far  different,  for  their  faith  in  the  popular  religion  had 
been  shaken  as  early  as  the  second  century  B.C.  If  special  atten- 
tion is  devoted  to  philosophy  in  the  following  pages,  it  is  because 
this  was  the  most  vital  religious  force  in  the  Mediterranean 
world  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  and  provided 
intellectual  training  for  the  class  which  was  to  furnish  the 
leaders  for  Christianity  as  soon  as  the  Apostolic  Age  was 
passed. 
Philosophy  The  greatest  enemy  of  the  traditional  religions  of  Greece  and 
of  p^SIr  !  R°me  was  indeed  philosophy,  for  by  endeavouring  to  reduce  in 
religion,  -number  the  principles  which  control  the  universe,  it  is  diametric- 
ally opposed  to  polytheism.  Moreover,  as  soon  as  it  approaches 
Ithe  question  of  conduct,  it  examines  the  traditional  principles 
of  right  and  wrong,  and  if  it  finds  these  unsatisfactory,  it  devises 
rules  of  its  own  which  may  be  at  variance  with  those  which  have 
hitherto  prevailed.  When  Greek  philosophy  came  to  Rome  it 
had  already  had  a  long  history,  and  all  the  great  schools,  except 
the  mystic  philosophies  of  the  Empire,  had  been  developed.  They 
had  swift  effect  in  Rome  during  the  second  and  first  centuries 
before  our  era.  The  Romans  began  to  doubt,  and  many,  like 
the  poet  Ennius  (f  169  B.C.),  a  man  of  strong  religious  bent  and 
moral  convictions,  sought  refuge  in  Epicurean  scepticism.  We 
may  quote  the  words  which  Telamon  speaks  in  one  of  Ennius's 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  235 

tragedies,  as  fairly  representing  the  poet's  own  attitude  in  matters 
theological : 

I  have  always  said,  and  I  shall  always  say,  that  the  gods  of 
heaven  exist,  but  I  believe  that  they  have  no  care  for  what  the  race 
of  man  does.  For  if  they  had  such  care,  it  would  be  well  with  the 
good  and  ill  with  the  wicked,  which  is  not  the  case  now.1 

This  is  the  ancient  difficulty  of  justifying  the  ways  of  God  to 
man.  Ennius  and  many  of  his  time  adopted  the  easy  solution 
by  denial. 

Ennius  also  translated  and  made  known  to  the  Romans  the  Euhemem*. 
Sacred  History  of  Euhemerus,  a  romantic  tale  written  in  the  third   *** 
century  B.C.,  in  which  the  author  told  of  an  imaginary  voyage  \ 
which  he  had  made  from  Arabia  to  the  island  Panchaia  in  the 
Indian  Ocean ;   there  he  found  inscribed  on  a  column  the  true 
history  of  the  supposed  gods,  Uranus,  Cronos,  and  Zeus,  and 
learned  that  they  and  the  other  gods  and  heroes  had  been  origin-  j 
ally  historical  persons,  who  were  raised  to  their  high  position 
because  of  the  services  they  had  rendered  mankind.2    This  Sacred 
History  is  an  interesting  example  of  a  second  way  of  escape  from 
religious  perplexity — that  of  rationalism  ;    and  the  fact  that 
Ennius  thought  it  worth  while  to  introduce  this  work  to  the 
Romans  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  before  our  era  is 
significant,  as  suggesting  how  far  doubts  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
official  and  traditional  religion  had  already  gone. 

In  those  parts  of  the  eastern  Mediterranean  area  where  Leading 
Greek  thought  prevailed,  traditional  religion  had  long  since  lost  ^hod^  " 
its  hold  on  intellectual  men  ;  in  Rome  and  the  Latin  west  the 
official  religion  went  the  same  way  rapidly  during  the  last  two 
centuries  before  our  era.  Men  gave  their  allegiance  to  the  several 
philosophies  which  the  Greek  genius  had  evolved,  each  one  of 
which  was  in  some  degree  of  religious  significance.  The  three 
most  important  schools  were  the  Epicurean,  the  Stoic,  and  the 

1  Frg.  Seen.  316  ff.  Vahlen2. 
*  Frg.  Euhem.  pp.  223-229,  Vahlen2. 


236  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

Academy  ;  in  addition  a  sceptical  tendency  appeared  in  certain 
schools,  and  philosophic  mysticism  began. 
Epiourean-         In  the  passage  quoted  above  from  a  tragedy  by  Ennius,  we 
/  must  note  that  the  Epicurean  did  not  deny  the  existence  of  the 
I  gods,  but  only  rejected  certain  current  notions  about  them. 
,  Indeed  it  is  true,  contrary  to  popular  belief  even  now,  that  the 
I  Epicureans,  so  far  from  being  atheistic,  were  unwilling  to  give 
i  up  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  the  gods.     In  truth,  with  their 
epistemological  ideas,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  they  could  have  done 
so ;   for  they  observed  that  men  everywhere  believed  in  divine 
beings,  and  that  this  belief  rested  ona"  primary  notion  "  of  the 
mind  (^0X77^^9),  which,  in  their  view,  was  itself  warrant  of  its 
validity.     This  was  clear  because  this  primary  notion  must  arise 
from  physical  perception  of  the  pictures  of  the  gods,  as  of  all 
other  things  known  to  us,  which  atoms  produce.    In  fact  we 
must  bear  in  mind  throughout  our  discussion  of  the  philosophic 
conditions  of  this  age,  that  all  schools,  except  those  which  re- 
j  mained  true  to  the  teachings  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  were  material- 
'l  istic,  making  no  greater  distinction  between  body  and  mind, 
1  matter  and  spirit,  than  they  did  between  solid  and  vapour. 
Epicurus,  in  his  explanation  of  the  universe,  had  reverted  to  the 
atomistic  views  of  Democritus  (fl.  c.  420-360  B.C.),  and  held  that 
all  phenomena  result  mechanically  from  a  rain  of  atoms.    Conse- 
quently this  school  was  logically  opposed  to  all  explanations  of 
the  world  which  regarded  mind  or  reason  as  the  causative  force. 
1       Again  the  Epicurean  held  that  gods  were  needed  to  embody 
*t  his  ideal  of  happiness,  for  while  as  a  philosopher  he  realised  that 
man  cannot  attain  to  complete  happiness,  he  could  not  escape 
the  desire  to  believe  that  such  perfection  existed  somewhere  in 
the  universe.     Such  an  argument  was  not  logical,  but  was  based 
rather  on  a  natural  and  religious  longing  ;  but  it  was  not  the  less 
I  cogent  for  that  reason.     The  Epicurean  gods,  therefore,  were 
I  created  absolutely  in  man's  image,  for  to  the  followers  of  Epi- 
I  curus,  the  human  frame  was  the  most  beautiful  of  all  forms  of 
animal  life,  and  man  was  the  only  reasoning  creature ;   conse- 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  237 

quently  their  gods  were  perfect  beings  in  human  form,  free  from 
everything  which  was  not  fitting  for  their  divine  estate.    Im- 
mortality and  perfect  happiness  they  must  possess  ;  their  bodies  j 
are  similar  to  those  of  men,  but  made  up  of  the  finest  atoms,  ! 
and  so  more  ethereal ;  and  they  dwell  in  the  space  between  the  * 
worlds  where  the  sky  is  always  fair,  in  most  profound  tran- 
quillity, far  removed  from  the  affairs  of  men.    If  the  gods  cared 
for  humankind  or  concerned  themselves  with  this  world,  they 
could  not  be  perfectly  happy,  since  sorrow  and  pain  are  incom- 
patible with  complete  bliss.     These  divine  beings  have  no  need 
of  us  ;    they  desire  no  propitiation  or  service  from  the  good, 
and  they  are  not  moved  by  anger  toward  the  wicked.     Their 
number  is  infinite,  for  they  cannot  be  fewer  than  mortals.1 

In  this  way  the  Epicurean  squared  his  views  with  popular 
polytheism,  however  much  his  religion  differed  in  other  respects 
from  that  of  the  multitude.  Moreover,  he  could  gladly  join  in 
the  ordinary  religious  exercises,  for  he  regarded  worship  as  one 
means  by  which  man  could  express  his  admiration  for  the  divine 
perfection  and  majesty ;  it  gave  an  outlet  for  his  aspirations, 
although  it  could  not  be  prompted  by  any  notion  that  the  gods 
needed  his  service,  or  had  the  least  desire  that  he  should  fear 
them.  This  motive  of  fear  the  Epicurean  regarded  as  thei^ 
main  error  in  popular  religion,  and,  as  a  missionary  to  a  terrified  j 
world,  he  devoted  himself  to  ridding  men's  minds  of  this  obsession. ' 

In  the  Epicurean  scheme  no  form  of  future  life  had  any  place.  I  * 
The  soul  was  regarded  as  material,  like  the  body  ;  only  the  atoms* 
of  which  it  is  composed  are  the  lightest  and  finest,  and  therefore 
the  most  easily  moved.  Both  soul  and  body  are  received  from 
parents,  and  the  one  grows  with  the  other,  so  that  when  the 
connection  between  them  is  broken  for  any  cause,  both  perish. 
In  this  doctrine  the  Epicurean  found  comfort,  for  if  there  could 
be  no  joy  after  death,  there  likewise  could  be  no  pain  or  evil 
for  us ;   and  so  he  taught  that  men  must  regard  the  centuries j 

1  Lucret.  v.  52  f. ;  Cic.  De  mat.  deor.  i.  passim ;  for  a  full  collection  of  data 
see  H.  Usener,  Epicurea,  pp.  232-262. 


238  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

wliicli  should  come  after  life  of  as  little  concern  to  them  as  the 
ones  before  they  existed.  Living  in  an  age  when  the  majority 
of  the  religious  were  haunted  by  fears  of  the  next  world— the 
punishments  of  which  were  often  pictured  with  as  much  gusto 
as  any  Christian  ever  displayed— the  followers  of  Epicurus  felt 
themselves  called  to  banish  these  fears,  and  so  to  relieve  the 
distress  of  spirit  caused  by  them. 
Lucretius.  The  missionary  zeal  of  the  sect  found  splendid  expression  in 

the  impassioned  poetry  of  Lucretius,  the  contemporary  of  Cicero.1 
To  free  men  from  the  vain  fear  of  the  gods  and  from  the  imagined 
terrors  of  a  life  after  death  was  his  high  purpose.  To  accomplish 
this  end  he  devoted  his  six  books  to  an  explanation  of  the  universe 
and  its  phenomena,  of  the  nature  of  man,  and  of  the  impossibility 
of  immortality.  He  was  only  repeating  the  teachings  of  his 
predecessors,  but  his  poetic  genius— unmatched  in  many  ways 
among  the  Romans— gave  his  doctrines  an  enduring  expression, 
and  his  passionate  nature  lent  a  fire  to  his  lines,  which  show  how 
deeply  the  Epicurean  could  be  moved  by  his  beliefs. 

In  practical  life  this  school,  like  others,  taught  that  happiness 
was  the  goal  of  human  effort  and  desire.  But  the  Epicurean 
system  was  very  far  from  being  a  thorough-going  hedonism. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Epicureans  held  that  since  many  pleasures, 
particularly  those  of  the  body,  produce  painful  effects,  they  are 
to  be  avoided,  as  some  pains  are  to  be  welcomed,  because  they 
result  in  good  and  contribute  to  happiness.  This  happiness, 
they  said,  was  to  be  found  in  a  life  guided  by  intelligence,  which 
taught  the  philosopher  that  his  actual  needs  were  few  and  could 
be  easily  obtained.  Under  the  direction  of  intelligence,  the  sage, 
confident  of  the  superiority  of  the  satisfactions  of  the  mind  over 
those  of  the  body,  could  rise  above  the  life  of  the  senses,  so  that 
neither  present  pleasure  nor  present  pain,  nor  the  hope  or  fear  of 
either,  could  affect  him.  In  this  condition  of  perfect  repose 
(arapa^ta)  toward  his  transitory  environment,  the  philosopher 

1  With  Lucretius's  doctrines  we  may  compare  the  arguments  in  Cicero, 
Tusc.  i.  82-119. 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  239 

could  attain    to    virtue    and   to    its    inseparable    companion, 
happiness. 

Such  teaching  tended  to  produce  in  the  individual  a  life  evenly 
balanced,  well  regulated,  and  useful  to  society.     In  the  political 
and  social  disasters  of  the  last  three  centuries  B.C.  it  undoubtedly 
helped  to  give  thoughtful  men  a  resigned  spirit,  if  not  a  satisfied 
existence.    For  the  religious  doubts,  which  the  failure  of  the 
traditional  religions  brought,  it  endeavoured  to  substitute  a 
positive  doctrine  of  negation,  if  we  may  so  describe  a  teaching, 
which  did  not  so  much  deny  the  existence  of  the  gods,  as  affirm 
that  they  could  have  no  concern  with  mankind,  and  that  there- 
fore mankind  need  have  no  concern  with  them.     Epicureanism 
further  endeavoured  to  free  men  from  their  most  distressing 
fears  by  showing  the  haunting  terror  of  future  punishment  to  be 
unfounded.     So  far  as  the  Epicureans  held  valiantly  to  the 
perfection  of  their  supramundane  gods,  we  may  recognise  their 
religious  spirit ;   yet  from  many  points  of  view  their  concept  of 
divinity  was  inferior  to  that  of  their  predecessors,  notably  to\* 
that  of  Plato,  who  made  goodness,  once  for  all,  an  inseparable 
attribute   of   God— not   goodness  as  an  abstract  notion,   but 
as    a    quality    which    God    constantly   expresses    toward    his 
creation.     Therefore,  in  spite  of  the  genuine  religious  elements 
of  Epicureanism,  the  school  exerted  its  best  influence  as  a  social 
philosophy,  by  steadying  and  directing  many  in  the  educated 
circles  of  the  Roman  world.     It  enjoyed  its  widest  popularity!  * 
perhaps  in  the  period  between  100  B.C.  and  a.d.   50,  though! 
certainly  by  the  latter  date  its  vogue  was  greatly  diminished  ;* 
and  although  a  public  chair  of  Epicureanism  in  the  schools  at 
Athens  was  established  in  the  second  century  of  our  era,  the 
doctrines  no  longer  appealed  to  any  considerable  number  of  men. 

To  explain  the  decay  of  Epicureanism  would  be  a  difficult  stoicism. 
task.    Many  causes  which  can  no  longer  be  traced  undoubtedly 
contributed  to  the  result,  but  it  seems  fairly  certain  that  a  more 
positive  and  tonic  doctrine  was  required  by  thinking  men,  especi- 
ally by  the  Romans,  than  the  quietistic  teachings  of  Epicurus 


240  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

could  supply.  Such  was  found  in  Stoicism,  whose  founder, 
Zeno,  began  to  teach  at  Athens  only  a  few  years  after  Epicurus 
had  established  his  school  (406  B.C.).  The  two  philosophies  were 
introduced  into  Rome  almost  simultaneously,  and  for  three 
centuries  they  had  a  parallel  existence,  although  Epicureanism 
declined  long  before  Stoicism  ceased  to  enjoy  a  vigorous  life. 
I  Zeller  wisely  says,  "  Stoicism  is  not  only  a  system  of  philo- 
|  sophy,  but  also  a  system  of  religion."  This  character  arises  from 
the  Stoic  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  man  and  God,  which  was 
propounded  rather  as  the  philosophy  of  the  sect  than  as  an 
attack  on  the  traditional  religion.  The  Epicurean  was  fired  with 
a  missionary  zeal  which  the  Stoic  hardly  displayed  before  the 
days  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Yet  Stoicism,  with  Platonism,  be- 
came for  the  most  cultivated  men,  and  finally  for  the  masses,  a 
philosophy  far  better  qualified  to  satisfy  religious  longings,  as  a 
support  of  a  moral  life,  than  Epicureanism.  It  thus  made  large 
permanent  contributions  to  religious  thought  and  to  ethical 
doctrine. 

What,  then,  was  the  Stoic  view  as  to  the  relation  of  man  and 

God  ?     To  answer  this,  we  must  consider  briefly  the  metaphysics 

of  this  school.    The  Stoics  explained  the  universe  by  a  thorough- 

|  going  materialism,  borrowed   from   Heraclitus,  who  flourished 

\  about  500  B.C.,  according  to  which  there  is  no  principle  but 

matter  in  the  whole  universe.   Yet  with  this  monistic  materialism, 


* 


l. 


the  Stoics  combined  the  Aristotelian  idea  which  recognised  in 
all  matter  an  active  and  a  passive  principle,  the  active  forming 
and  directing,  the  passive  being  formed  and  directed,  so  that  by 

i  the  operation  of  the  active  principle  on  the  passive  all  phenomena 
of  the  universe  come  into  being.  To  this  active  principle  the 
Stoics  gave  all  the  characteristics  which  their  predecessors  had 

-  given  to  reason  (\6yos)  or  to  mind  (vovs).  Indeed  to  them 
^4|Xo7o?  was  the  cosmic  creative  force,  although  they   stoutly 

^maintained  that  it  was  wholly  material.1    This  creative  force 

1  The  Stoic  Logos  must  not  be  confused  with  the  Logos  of  Philo.    The  Logos 
for  the  Stoic  is  the  primary  principle,  or  rather  the  active  side  of  the  primary 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  KOMAN  EMPIRE  241 

they  identified  now  with  fire,  now  with  vapour,  and  now  with 
both,  in  accordance  with  the  imperfect  science  of  their  day. 
They  thought  that  by  fire  as  the  operative  principle,  the  creative 
reason  is  present  and  expresses  itself  in  every  part  of  the  universe, 
for  everything  which  is  owes  its  very  being  and  existence  to  this 
reason  which  permeates  and  directs  it.  This  cosmic  force  ist> 
then  God,  the  world-reason,  which  begets  all  things,  and  in  which  J 
literally  all  things  live  and  move  and  have  their  being.  Now 
since  man  is  a  part  of  the  cosmos,  the  world-reason  naturally 
expresses  itself  in  him,  in  fact,  it  is  his  reason,  the  directing  portion 
of  his  soul,  so  that  in  Epictetus's  striking  phrase,  we  are  "  frag- 
ments of  God."  Here,  then,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  immanence; 
of  God,  the  opposite  of  that  transcendentalism  which  the  Aristo- 
telians and  later  Platonists  taught.  By  maintaining  that  God 
is  immanent  in  all  things,  the  Stoics  brought  together  again  the 
worlds  of  matter  and  of  reason  which  Plato  had  put  asunder  ; J 
and  in  the  henotic  character  of  their  teaching  they  established  a 
doctrine  which  later  fitted  in  with  the  general  course  of  pagan 
thought  under  the  Empire,  when  philosophy  and  religion  were 
at  one  in  recognising  in  the  world  a  single  divine  principle.  Nor 
were  the  Stoics  necessarily  at  variance  with  the  monotheistic 
views  of  Judaism  and  Christianity.  They  thought  and  spoke  of 
God  as  a  personality. 

But  if  man  is  a  fragment  of  God,  important  religious  and  stoic 
ethical  consequences  follow,  of  which  the  Stoics  made  full  use. 
Their  views  of  the  nature  of  God  made  the  identification  of  God 
and  Nature  inevitable.    When,  therefore,  the  question  was  asked 

principle,  by  whose  activity  all  things  come  into  being.  The  Logos  of  Philo  is 
intermediary  between  his  transcendent  God  and  Matter ;  through  the  Logos 
God  creates  the  world  and  reveals  Himself  and  His  grace  to  men.  The  Logos 
is  a  creation,  not  eternal,  as  is  God,  nor  yet  mortal,  as  men  are.  It  comprehends 
within  itself  the  ideas  (in  the  Platonic  sense),  and  manifests  itself  through 
8vp&/j.€is,  \6yoi,  divine  powers,  angels,  or  daemones,  to  work  God's  will.  Thus 
Philo's  Logos  occupies  in  part  the  place  of  Plato's  Absolute ;  but  by  his  frank 
adoption  of  a  transcendent  God,  Philo  was  forced  to  use  the  Platonic  Absolute 
in  the  second  place  in  order  to  establish  a  connection  between  God  and  the 
world,  for  no  system  which  genuinely  regards  God  as  transcendent  can  allow 
any  direct  trafficking  between  deity  and  matter. 

VOL.  I  R 


* 


242  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

as  to  the  highest  aim  and  duty  of  man,  the  obvious  answer 
was  "  To  live  in  accord  with  Nature,"  that  is  to  say,  man 
must  bring  himself  into  accord  with  that  sovereign  Nature 
which  is  God,  and  make  his  reason  and  his  will  harmonise 
with  the  universal  reason  and  will,  to  which,  indeed,  they 
are  a  part.  Thus  the  Stoic  derived  his  ethics  from  his  meta- 
physics. 

More  than  any  other  school,  the  Stoic  demanded  of  his 
followers  that  they  should  exercise  the  will  to  enable  them  to 
live  under  the  guidance  of  reason  in  complete  accord  with  Nature. 
By  such  means  man  could  liberate  himself  from  the  world  and 

*Uts  influences,  and  by  restraining  all  passion,  could  attain  complete 
I  freedom  {airdOeia).     But  the  mastery,  whether  partial  or  com- 
plete, the  Stoic  saw  was  to  be  secured  only  by  the  will's  activity  ; 

I  therefore  he  held  that  man  must  regard  as  wholly  indifferent 
all  things  that  are  not  under  the  control  of  that  faculty.  On  this 
point  Epictetus  discourses  most  interestingly.1  He  points  out 
that  the  materials  we  employ  in  life  are  indifferent  to  us,  neither 
good  nor  bad ;  they  are  like  the  dice  with  which  we  play  our 
game.  But,  like  the  gamester,  we  must  try  to  manage  life 
dexterously ;    whatever  happens  we   must  say :     "  Externals 

]  are  not  within  my  power  ;  choice  is.    Where,  then,  shall  I  seek 

j  good  and  evil  ?  Why,  within,  in  what  is  my  own."  And  then, 
he  continues,  pointing  out  that  we  must  count  nothing  good  or 
evil,  profitable  or  hurtful,  or  of  any  concern  to  us,  that  is  con- 
trolled by  others.  In  tranquillity  and  calm  we  must  accept  what 
life  brings,  concerned  only  with  what  actually  depends  on  the 
will  of  each  one  of  us.  We  must  act  in  life  as  we  do  in  a  voyage  : 
the  individual  can  choose  the  pilot,  the  sailors,  and  the  hour  of 
his  departure  ;  after  that  he  must  meet  quietly  all  that  comes, 
for  he  has  done  his  part ;  and  if  a  storm  arise,  he  must  face  with 
indifference  disaster  or  safety,  for  these  matters  are  quite  beyond 

•  the  power  of  his  control.  So,  he  maintains,  sickness  and  health, 
1  abundance  and  need,  high  position,  or  the  loss  of  station  are 

1  Diss.  i.  1 :  ii.  5.  13,  and  often. 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  243 

things  which  my  will  cannot  control.  Therefore  to  me  as  a  phil-i 
osopher  they  are  indifferent;  I  must  have  no  anxiety  about 
them  ;  they  really  are  not  my  affair.  But  my  thoughts  and  my ' 
acts  are  matters  that  I  can  control,  and  in  them  I  must  find  all 
my  concern.  The  external  circumstances,  the  acts  of  others  do 
not  touch  me,  but  my  own  acts,  my  own  relations,  my  own  inner 
life  are  things  to  which  I  must  give  all  of  my  attention.  Thus 
the  Stoic  reasoned,  holding  that  virtue  was  quite  sufficient  for 
happiness,  in  that  it  made  man  master  of  this  world.  Thus  we 
see  that  to  the  doctrine  of  virtue,  which  the  Cynics  had  magnified, 
the  Stoics  had  added  the  vitalising  principle  of  the  operation  of 
man's  will,  and  thereby  had  made  the  pursuit  of  wisdom,  which 
to  them  was  identical  with  virtue,  a  powerful  means  of  moral  and 
spiritual  edification. 

Like  Socrates  and  the  Cynics,  whose  heirs  they  were,  the.  The  ideal  - 
Stoics  identified  virtue  with  knowledge,  and  regarded  the  ideal ; of  theSage" 
philosopher  as  one  who  by  attaining  to  true  and  complete  know-  \  * 
ledge,  had  reached  perfect  virtue.  Therefore  the  ideal  of  "  the 
sage  "  became  the  very  centre  of  the  Stoic  doctrine.  The  earlier 
Stojcs,  with  a  Calvinistic  logic  which  disregarded  experience,  had 
fixed  an  absolute  gulf  between  the  perfect  wise  man  and  the 
unwise  ;  and,  like  the  Cynics,  they  had  declared  that  virtue,  once 
attained,  could  not  be  lost.  But  this  doctrinaire  view  was  modified 
by  the  practical  good  sense  of  a  later  age,  which  taught  that  there 
were  degrees  in  virtue,  and  that  the  most  that  the  ordinary  man 
could  do  was  daily  to  progress  toward  his  moral  goal.  As 
Seneca  says,  "  I  am  not  yet  wise,  nor  shall  I  ever  be.  Do  not 
ask  me  to  be  equal  to  the  best,  but  rather  to  be  better  than  the 
base.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  take  away  daily  something  from 
my  faults  and  daily  to  reject  my  errors."  *  The  tonic  value  of 
such  words  is  self-evident:  the  sudden  perfection  which  the 
uncompromising  doctrine  of  an  earlier  day  had  taught  could  not 
widely  appeal  to  ordinary  men,  for  they  knew  that  such  perfection 
was  beyond  their  powers  ;  but  each  might  feel  that  daily  progress 

1  De  vita  beata,  17. 


244  THE  GENTILE  WOULD  n 

in  virtue  he  could  make,  even  if  at  the  end  he  should  fail  to  reach 
his  ideal  goal. 
Self-ex-  The  means  also  of  securing  this  daily  progress  were  set  forth 

by  the  Stoic  teachers.     Seneca  advised  his  young  friend  Lucilius 
*  to  select  some  person  of  noble  character,  like  a  Cato,  a  Scipio,  or 
|  a  Laelius,  and  to  imagine  that  he  was  always  present,  watching 
{  and  judging  the  novice's  every  act ;  then,  when  he  had  advanced 
to  the  point  where  his  self-respect  was  sufficient  to  keep  him  from 
wrong-doing,  he  could  dismiss  his  ideal  guardian.1     Such  sug- 
gestions as  this  imply  constant  self-examination,  and  indeed 
this  was  urged  by  both  Stoics  and  other  moralists  as  well.     Seneca 
says  that  he  found  the  practice  helpful.2    Epictetus  quoted  from 
the  "  Golden  Words  "  of  Pythagoras,  and  reminded  his  hearers 
that  the  verses  were  not  for  recitation,  but  for  use  :   "  Never  let 
f  ?  sleep  come  to  thy  languid  eyes  e'er  thou  hast  considered  each  act 
of  the  day.     '  Where  have  I  slipped  ?  '     '  What  done,  what  failed 
.  to  do  ?  '     Begin  thus  and  go  through  all ;  and  then  chide  thyself 
i  for  thy  shameful  acts,  rejoice  over  thy  good."  3    Such  a  searching 
of  one's  daily  acts  Epictetus  regarded  as  an  essential  exercise  to 
prepare  and  train  a  man  to  meet  the  vicissitudes  of  life.     In^he 
v  discourse  in  which  he   quotes  these   Pythagorean  verses,   he 
'  continues  with  the  question  :   "  What  is  philosophy  ?     Is  it  not 
)  a  preparation  against  things  which  may  happen  to  a  man  ?  " 
He  argues  that  a  man  who  throws  away  the  patience  which 
1  philosophy  teaches  him  is  like  an  athlete  who,  because  of  the 
|  blows  he  receives,  wishes  to  withdraw  from  the  "  pancratium  " — 
still  worse  than  he,  for  the  athlete  may  avoid  his  contest  and 
escape  the  blows  ;  but  no  man  can  escape  the  bufferings  of  life. 
f  Therefore,  the  preacher  says  that  to  give  up  philosophy  is  to 
abandon  the  one  resource  against  misfortune,  the  only  source 
of  happiness  and  courage. 

1  Epist.  22.  8-10;  25.  5.  6.  The  use  of  exempla  in  moral  instruction  was 
apparently  common.  See  Horace,  Sat.  i.  4.  105  ff.  for  the  concrete  training 
which  his  simple,  hard-headed  father  gave  him;  and  on  the  habit  of  self-examina- 
tion see  ibid.  133  ff. 

2  De  ira,  iii.  36.  1-4.  8  Diss.  iii.  10.  2. 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  245 

The  pagan  missionary,  no  less  than  the  Christian  apostle  to  Life  as 
the  Gentiles,  regarded  life  as  a  battle  to  be  fought  and  a  race  to  ^ic^ 
be  run.     Epictetus  often  compared  human  life  to  a  warfare ; 
he  said  that  men  were  assigned  their  several  places  and  duties 
in  this  world  just  as  in  an  army  one  man  is  obliged  to  stand 
watch,  another  to  spy,  and  a  third  to  fight,  each  doing  his  part 
in  the  place  in  which  the  great  general,  God,  has  set  him — a 
figure  which  Socrates  had  used  five  centuries  earlier  in  his  defence 
before  his  judges.    In  accord  with  this  view  of  life  as  a  battle  or* 
an  athletic  contest,  the  philosophers  laid  much  weight  on  training.  | 
Seneca  and  Epictetus  both  exhorted  their  pupils  to  exercise 
themselves  in  the  means  whereby  they  could  meet  misfortune  or 
be  ready  to  perform  any  duty  which  the  changes  of  life  might 
bring  them.     The  latter  had  a  discourse  "  On  Exercise,"  which 
was  apparently  a  favourite  theme  for  all  Stoic  preachers.1    The  i 
purpose  of  this  exercise  was  to  train  the  individual  in  right  ab- 
stentions and  the  proper  use  of  his  desires,  so  that  he  would  be 
always  obedient  to  reason  and  do  nothing  out  of  season  or  place ; 
in  short,  to  make  him  an  adept  in  living  so  that  he  could  manage 
his  usual  life  with  adroit  unrighteousness  and  meet  the  sudden         ? 
changes  of  fortune  undismayed.     The  obligation  to  do  this  was 
laid  on  him  as  an  individual.     In  another  discourse  Epictetus 
pointed  out  that  the  misfortunes  of  life  were  tests  sent  by  God 
to  prove  the  individual's  fidelity  in  training : 

God  says  to  you,  "  Give  me  proof  if  you  have  duly  practised 
athletics,  if  you  have  eaten  what  you  should,  if  you  have  exercised, 
if  you  have  obeyed  the  trainer."  And  then  will  you  show  yourself 
weak  when  the  time  for  action  comes  ?  Now  is  the  time  for  a  fever. 
Bear  it  well.    Now  the  time  for  thirst.    Endure  thy  thirst  well.2 

Thus  through  self-training  the  devoted  Stoic  was  to  fit  himself 
to  play  his  part  wherever  circumstances  might  place  him ;  by 
such  means  he  could  develop  his  life  and  character  and  steadily 
approach  his  ultimate  goal,  a  state  in  which  he  would  be  in- 
dependent, happy,  and  serene,  for  his  mind  would  be  like  God's. 

1  Diss.  iii.  12.  a  Diss.  iii.  10.  8. 


tf 


246  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

Self-examination,  self  -  training,  daily  advance  in  virtue, 
ultimate  calm  and  peace — these  were  the  moral  habits  and  the 
attainable  goals  which  the  later  Stoics  tried  to  teach  their  age. 
Moreover,  the  Stoic  doctrine  of  the  community  between  the 
divine  and  the  human  reason  gave  a  dignity  to  man  ;  cut  off  from 
activity  in  the  political  world,  he  realised  that  he  was  dwelling 
in  a  world  in  which  God  and  men  were  the  citizens,  that  he  shared 
in  that  divine  polity,  free  in  the  freedom  which  his  relationship 
to  God  gave  him.  Between  man  and  God  for  the  Stoic  there 
was  no  gulf  fixed  ;  on  the  contrary,  as  Seneca  wrote  his  younger 
friend : 

God  is  near  you,  with  you,  within  you.  This  I  say,  Lucilius  : 
a  holy  spirit  sits  within  us,  watcher  of  our  good  and  evil  deeds,  and 
guardian  over  us.  Even  as  we  treat  him,  he  treats  us.  No  man  is 
good  without  God.  Can  any  one  rise  superior  to  fortune  save  with 
God's  help  1 1 

Conscience.        The  inner  conscience  was  to  be  the  judge  of  men's  actions.     A 

noble  conception  of  the  worship  of  the  gods  and  of  man's  duty 

toward  them  arose  :   not  by  the  lighting  of  lamps,  the  giving  of 

^l  fgifts,  the  slaying  of  bullocks,  or  visitation  to  the  temples  were 

the  gods  to  be  worshipped,  but  by  a  recognition  of  their  true 

nature  and  goodness,  by  rendering  to  them  again  their  perfect 

>  justice,  and  by  ascribing  to  them  constant  praise.2    In  the  con- 

*  templation  of  God  alone  and  in  loving  obedience  to  his  commands, 

lay  the  means  of  freeing  the  mind  from  sorrow,  fear,  desire,  envy, 

,  avarice,  and  every  base  thought,  and  of  securing  that  peace  which 

no  Caesar  but  only  God  could  give.3 

Citizen-  The  Stoic  doctrine  of  the  participation  of  all  men  in  the 

shlP-    &  I  divine  reason  led  inevitably  to  a  doctrine  of  cosmopolitanism 

which  supplied  the  philosophic  warrant  for  the  conditions  which 

I  Roman  conquests  had  brought  about.     The  Stoic  from  the  first 

had  regarded  membership  in  this  or  that  state  as  of  slight  moment 

1  Epist.  41.  2. 

2  Seneca,  Epist.  95.  47-50;  115.  5;    Epict.  Diss.  i.  16. 

a  Epict.  Diss.  ii.  16.  45-47 ;  iii.  13.  9  ff. 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  247 

compared  to  citizenship  in  the  cosmos  ;  Seneca  distinguished  two 
states,  the  one  that  into  which  a  man  is  born ;   the  other,  the 
great  and  true  commonwealth  where  dwell  both  gods  and  men, 
in  which  one  looks  not  to  this  corner  or  to  that,  but  measures  its 
borders  by  the  courses  of  the  sun.1    In  like  language  Musonius  i% 
taught  that  the  "  wise  man,"  that  is,  the  philosopher,  believes 
himself  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  city  of  God,  which  consists  of  gods 
and  men.2    So  the  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius  reflected:    "To^ 
me  as  Antonius  my  city  is  Rome,  but  as  a  man  it  is  the  universe."  3  S 
Moreover,  because  there  is  a  fragment  of  the  divine  present  in 
each  man,  distinctions  of  rank  were  of  no  account  to  the  Stoic, 
but  the  slave  and  the  Emperor  were  alike  measured  by  their  \ 
devotion  to  philosophic  truth.     Seneca  thus  states  his  position, ' 
"  All  of  us  have  the  same  origin,  the  same  source ;    no  man  is 
nobler  than  another  save  he  who  has  a  more  upright  character 
and  one  better  fitted  to  honourable  pursuits."  4    This  doctrine 
of  the  equality  of  man  is  one  of  the  great  legacies  of  Stoicism  to 
all  succeeding  centuries. 

We  must  therefore  recognise  that  the  contributions  which  |f 
the  Stoics  made  to  the  ethical  and  religious  life  at  the  time  oft 
Jesus  were  already  large,  and  that  they  continued  to  be  an  im- 
portant force  during  the  first  two  centuries  and  more  of  Christian 
history.5    They  showed  that  there  is  a  moral  order  in  nature  J 
to  which  man  as  a  part  of  nature  must  conform  ;  by  emphasizing 
the  community  of  reason  between  man  and  God,  they  gave  a*1 
religious  sanction  to  duty  toward  God  and  man  which  had  hitherto  [ 
been  lacking  ;  they  laid  much  weight  on  the  individual's  obliga-  •  * 
tions,  and  by  the  conclusions  which  they  logically  drew  as  to  the  ' 

1  De  otio,  iv.  1  ;  cf.  Epist.  lxviii.  2. 

2  Stob.  Flor.  xl.  9.  *  vi.  44,  and  often. 

4  De  Ben.  hi.  28.  On  the  common  possession  of  the  divine  reason  (\6yos) ; 
cf.  Justin,  ii.  Apol.  13. 

8  Indeed  Stoic  ethics  passed  into  Christianity,  not  only  through  popular 
channels,  but  especially  through  such  work  as  that  of  Ambrose,  who,  in  his 
De  officiis  ministrorum,  set  forth  a  doctrine  of  Christian  ethics,  which  was 
largely  indebted  to  Cicero's  De  officiis ;  Cicero,  in  his  turn,  had  based  the  first 
two  books  of  his  treatise  on  the  work  of  Panaetius,  Kepi  tov  KadyKovros.  See 
above,  p.  224  f. 


x 


248  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

^.  brotlierliood  of  man,  disregarding  distinctions  of  birth,  position, 
;  or  race,  and  looking  to  character  alone,  they  gave  a  great  impulse 
'  to  the  improvement  of  morals,  to  the  spread  of  justice  and  kindli- 
ness in  private  relations,  and  to  a  genuine  love  for  humanity. 
The  stimulus  which  a  belief  in  personal  immortality  might  have 
given  them  was  replaced  by  a  sense  of  divine  kinship  and  a  chal- 
lenge to  the  will  to  choose  the  nobler  course  under  the  guidance 
of  reason, 
stoio  On  the  theological  side  the  Stoics  established  the  doctrine  of 

the  immanence  of  God  in  opposition  to  the  transcendental  views 
of  the  Platonists  and  Aristotelians.  Since  they  believed  that 
*  |  the  whole  cosmos  was  animated  by  the  universal  reason,  they 
naturally  regarded  every  part  of  it  as  alive  :  the  heavenly  bodies 
were  held  to  be  gods,  and  the  names  of  the  greater  gods  of  tradi- 
tion were  assigned  to  them.  They  believed  further  that  the 
spirits  of  the  best  and  wisest  men  survived  the  body  as 
| "  daemones "  or  lesser  divinities ;  but  with  their  cyclical 
view  of  the  world,  according  to  which  in  due  season  all  would 
sink  into  fire,  so  that  a  new  cosmic  round  might  begin  again, 
they  could  promise  only  a  limited  existence  after  death. 

Believing  thus  in  a  multitude  of  divinities,  the  Stoic  was  able 
in  a  way  to  square  himself  with  traditional  religion.  To  explain 
the  «current  myths  he  resorted  to  physical  allegorisation,  a  device 
introduced  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.  But  such  an  explanation 
of  the  ancient  tales  about  the  gods  tended  to  destroy  all  belief 
in  the  gods  themselves.  In  fact,  Stoicism  aided  largely  in 
destruction  of  traditional  religion  among  the  intellectual 
classes  without  succeeding  in  establishing  monotheism  in 
place  of  polytheism. 
The  In  a  consideration  of  the  society  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world 

in  the  first  century,  the  Cynics  must  have  a  place.  The  extreme 
views  which  these  moralists  held,  their  scorn  for  society  with  all 
its  laws  and  conventions,  their  desire  to  return  to  Nature  and  to 
be  independent  of  all  external  goods,  their  boorish  and  rude 
actions  doubtless  offended  their  more  cultivated  contemporaries. 


' 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  KOMAN  EMPIRE  249 

But  their  insistence  on  virtue  as  the  all-sufficient  end  and  the 
strictness  of  life  which  some  maintained  gave  point  to  their 
preaching,  and  made  them  a  factor  in  the  moral  life  of  the 
day. 

Plato  and  his  greatest  pupil,  Aristotle,  were,  intellectually  influences 

f        i  i     •  ii  •       •£     of  Katon- 

and  spiritually,  so  far  above  their  successors  that  the  most  signm-  ism. 
cant  elements  in  their  philosophies  were  neglected  for  centuries. 
The  Academy,  on  the  side  of  metaphysics,  not  unnaturally  gave 
excessive  weight  to  Pythagorean  ideas  about  number,  and 
endeavoured  in  various  ways  to  mediate  between  the  supra- 
sensible  and  the  sensible.  Between  Plato's  "Supreme  Idea," 
the  Good,  and  the  world  known  to  our  senses,  a  multitude  of 
intermediate  powers  were  thought  to  exist,  corresponding  to 
the  Ideas  of  the  founder.  In  due  time  these  notions  were 
developed  to  include  an  elaborate  demonology  on  the  one  hand, 
such  as  we  find  in  Plutarch,  and,  on  the  other,  the  gradations 
from  a  transcendent  God  through  the  Logos  down  to  the  world 
of  sensible  phenomena,  such  as  we  find  in  Philo  and  finally  in 
the  Neo-platonists. 

Such  systems  as  these  might  be  described  as  pluralistic 
monotheisms.  Judaism  in  its  strictest  thought  was  a  genuine 
monotheism,  but  the  Jews  made  abundant  provision  for 
"  daemones  "  and  angels,  minions  of  wickedness  and  servants  of 
righteousness  ;  yet  they  did  not  develop  a  pluralistic  theology, 
except  under  the  influence  of  Platonism.  Christianity  early 
became  a  Trinitarian  compromise.  The  proof  of  the  influence 
of  Greek  thought  on  Christian  theology  is  readily  found  in  the 
Prologue  to  the  Gospel  of  John  and  in  the  work  of  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Origen,  and  Augustine. 

In  due  season  this  transcendental  theology,  derived  from 
Greek  philosophy,  was  combined  with  a  system  of  ethics  which, 
originally  at  least,  had  been  associated  with  the  immanent  theo- 
logy of  Stoicism.  The  difficulties  attending  such  a  combination 
were  few,  for  Stoicism  had  become  a  moral  system  which  had 
acted  and  reacted  upon  the  Academy  and  the  Peripatetics.    So 


250  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

far  as  practical  morals  were  concerned,  all  schools  had  much 
in  common ;  nor  did  primitive  Christianity  itself  put  forth  a 
moral  system  based  on  an  elaborate  theology  or  metaphysic. 
The  result  was  that  there  was  little  or  no  conflict  between  Chris- 
tian ethics  and  those  of  the  Stoics,  so  that  when  Christianity 
found  it  desirable  to  state  its  ethics  in  systematic  form,  it  proved 
•most  convenient  for  it  to  adapt  that  system  which  had  already 
by  experience  proved  itself  best  and  had  commended  itself  to 
the  good  sense  of  manldnd.  Of  course  this  adaptation  was 
made  more  or  less  unconsciously  by  most  Christians,  although 
Ambrose  in  the  fourth  century  was  well  aware  what  he  was 
doing.  The  permanence  of  the  Stoic  ethics — for  they  are  still 
the  basis  of  Christian  morality— has  proved  the  wisdom  of  those 
who  adopted  them. 

The  influence  of  Platonism  can  also  be  recognised  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  Primitive  Chris- 
tianity related  the  hope  of  immortality  to  the  person,  death, 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  But  as  Christianity  expanded,  it 
added  philosophic  arguments.  In  the  difficulties  which  the 
Gentile  Church  felt  in  accepting  a  belief  in  the  physical  re- 
I  surrection,  Platonic  spiritualism  came  to  its  aid,  as  it  did  when 
time  disappointed  the  hope  of  the  early  return  of  Christ  to  reign 
on  earth.  Later,  Augustine,  in  his  tract  De  immortalitate  animae, 
took  over  many  of  the  arguments  by  which  Plato  had  supported 
his  belief  in  immortality,  and  which  had  been  repeated  by  the 
later  Academy,  as  well  as  by  the  Neo-platonists.1 

Thus  we  see  that  the  Academy  had  a  profound  influence  not 
only  on  later  philosophic  thought,  but  also  on  Christianity. 
The  Peripatetic  School,  true  to  the  great  interest  of  its  founder 
in  science,  became  immersed  in  specialised  studies,  and  made 
some  of  the  chief  contributions  to  Alexandrian  learning.  Although 
this  school  never  lost  its  ethical  interest,  it  was  not  so  significant 
at  the  opening  of  our  era  that  it  need  detain  us  here. 
Scepticism.         The  sceptical  tendencies,  the  doubts  as  to  the  possibility  of 

1  Cf.  Cic.  Tusc.  i.  25-76 ;   Plotinus,  Enn.  iv.  7. 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  251 

attaining  absolute  knowledge,  which  were  started  by  the  Sophist 
of  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  had  been  developed  during  the  fourth 
and  third  centuries  into  something  like  a  philosophic  system. 
Although  introduced  into  the  Academy  in  the  latter  century, 
in  Cicero's  day  scepticism  was  no  longer  the  property  of  any  one 
school ;  it  was  rather  an  attitude  of  mind  found  in  members  of 
different  schools,  who,  doubting  the  ability  of  man  to  secure 
absolute  knowledge,  fell  back  on  probability ;  but  this  attitude 
of  mind  naturally  produced  an  agnosticism  among  the  educated 
which  had  much  influence  on  their  religious  thought. 

Like  Epicureanism  and  Stoicism  the  New  Academy   was  Practical 
chiefly  concerned  with  the  art  of  living,  with  practical  ethics  0f  phiio- 
rather  than  with  speculation.      Indeed  with  Plato  and  Aris-  sop  y* 
totle   the    great   period    of    Greek    speculative    and    creative 
thought  had  closed.     Thereafter  philosophy  was  dogmatic  and 
practical.    Moreover,  as  we  have  seen,  it  accommodated  itself  to 
the  facts  of  experience  and  fitted  itself  to  be  in  truth  the  guide 
of  life.    However  much  the  Epicurean,  the  Stoic,  the  Cynic,  andi^-^ 
the  sectary  of  the  New  Academy  might  differ  in  theory,  they  all  j 
agreed  in  counting  happiness  the  chief  end  of  man,  and  in  iden-  j 
tifying  happiness  and  virtue.     All  aimed  to  make  the  individual 
superior  to  the  vicissitudes  of  life  and  to  equip  him  to  perform 
with  skill  the  duties  of  his  position,  whatever  that  might  be. 

Furthermore,  philosophy  had  ceased  to  dwell  in  the  closet, 
but  had  come  into  the  market-place.  The  philosophic  preacher 
and  the  spiritual  director  were  not  uncommon  in  Augustus's 
time,  and  the  sermons  preached  to-day  still  show  the  influence 
of  the  ancient  Stoic  and  Cynic  diatribe.  The  art  of  living  which 
philosophy  taught  was  no  longer  to  be  learned  primarily  from 
books,  but  from  the  preacher  and  from  the  conscience,  the  inner 
guide.  The  last  great  Stoic,  Marcus  Aurelius,  bade  his  books 
farewell,  since  they  were  not  for  him,  and  exhorted  himself  to 
set  all  his  mind  on  his  guiding  reason.1  The  unlettered  as  well 
as  the  learned  could  apprehend  the  art  of  life. 

1  Medit.  ii.  2. 


252  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

Philosophy        Yet  men  were  not  satisfied  with  the  practice  of  virtue,  under 
supply  the    the  guidance  of  reason  and  the  control  of  the  will.    Noble  as  the 
reiT!  n       ^ea*  was'  an(*  **  was  not  infrequently  Put  mto  practice,  there 
was  still  something  lacking.    A  religious  unrest  was  widespread 
which  the  current  philosophies  did  not  fully  meet.     The  loss  of 
creative  power  which  had  accompanied  the  decay  of  national 
life  and  civilisation  in  the  eastern  half  of  the  Mediterranean  area 
during  the  last  three  centuries  before  our  era,  had  taken  away 
the  keen  satisfaction  of  life  which  earlier  centuries  had  known. 
Men  had  become  conscious  of  their  own  weakness  and  helpless- 
ness ;    they  longed  for  an  assurance  of  protection  here  and  of 
salvation  hereafter,  which  they  could  not  find  in  the  traditional 
religions  or  in  their  own  minds  ;   consequently  they  turned  for 
help  outside  themselves,  and  sought  their  assurance  in  revelation 
or  in  mystic  union  with  God.     Even  the  Stoic  in  the  end  felt  the 
I  necessity  of  grace,  as  is  proved  by  Seneca's  words  already  quoted  : 
\ "  No  man  is  good  without  God.     Can  any  one  rise  superior  to 
j  fortune  save  with  God's  help  ?  "  * 
Mystioism.         Two   means   for   satisfying   this   religious   longing   already 
existed  in  the  first  century  B.C.  :   one  was  to  be  found  in  the 
mystic  philosophies  which  were  just  beginning,  the  second  in 
the  many  forms  of  pagan  mysteries,  some  of  which  had  long 
been  established,  while  others  were  now  entering  the  Graeco- 
Roman  world. 

There  was  a  strain  of  mysticism  in  Plato  himself.  This  side 
of  his  philosophy  was  magnified  by  certain  of  his  followers,  and 
we  have  already  spoken  of  the  emphasis  laid  on  Pythagorean 

(elements  by  some  of  the  later  Academicians.  In  the  last  century 
before  our  era  there  was  a  revival  of  Pythagorean  mysticism, 
combined  with  Platonism,  which  we  call  Neo-pythagoreanism. 
+ 1  The  first  representative  of  this  movement  known  to  us  was 
Nigidius  Figulus,  a  contemporary  of  Cicero  ;  its  most  famous 
figure  was  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  who  lived  under  Nero.  The 
work  of  reconciling  Jewish  theology  with  Greek  philosophy  began 

1  Epist.  4:1.  2. 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  253 

at  Alexandria  as  early  as  the  second  century  B.C.  The  first  to 
combine  the  two  into  a  philosophic  system,  the  full  importance 
of  which  can  be  shown  only  in  connection  with  a  study  of  Neo- 
platonism  and  of  early  Christian  theology,  was  Philo  (born  c. 
25  B.C.). 

Both  Neo-pythagoreans  and  Philo  emphasised  the  idea  first  n£$ 
given  significance   by  the   Orphics  and  Pythagoreans  in  the 
sixth  century  B.C.,  on  which  Plato  laid  much  stress,  of  the  conflict 
of  the  flesh  and  the  spirit  in  man.     Both  naturally  inculcated  a^ 
contempt  for  the  things  of  sense,  and  favoured  an  asceticism,  j 
which  indeed  was  approved  in  greater  or  less  degree  by  the? 
followers   of   every   school.      But   it   is   more   significant  that 
both  schools  believed  that  man,  when  in  a  state  of  ecstasy, 
might  receive  direct  revelation  from  God.    Thus  man's  assur- 
ance was  dependent  on  divine  help ;   salvation  was  an  act  of 
grace.    We  are  insufficiently  informed  with  regard   to   Neo- 
pythagoreanism,  but  Philo  plainly  taught  that  the  gulf  between 
man  and  God  could  be  passed  by  the  devout /soul,  when  in  j 
ecstasy   it   left   this  world   and   all   the   intermediate   realms  \ 
behind,  and  mounted  directly  to  union  with  God.     Such  supreme 
blessing  he  believed  was  accorded  to  only  the  most  holy  of  men.1 

This  is  philosophy  fired  with  religious  emotion  ;  it  is  a  system  |. 
in  which  reason  gives  way  before  a  passionate  desire  for  union 
with  God.    At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  it  brought  to 
the  few  a  warrant  similar  to  that  which  many  had  long  received 
through  the  Greek  mysteries. 

As  early  as  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  the  Orphic  sect  among  Orphism. 
the  Greeks  had  emphasised  the  duality  of  man,  regarding  himjji* 
as  a  divine  soul  imprisoned  in  a  sinful  body ;  and  it  also  held 
that  the  divine   soul  in  ecstasy  could  be  united   with   God, r 
that  is,  with  Dionysus,  and  thereby  could  obtain  a  foretaste  of  j 
immortality.     Brotherhoods  were  formed,  bound  by  a  prescribed 
method  of  life,  the  end  of  which  was  to  hasten  the  process  of 

1  Opif.  mundi,  69  f. ;  Alleg.  leg.  iii.  29  ff. 


254  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

!  purification  through  a  round  of  deaths  and  rebirths— for  the 
Orphics  taught  palingenesis— and  to  secure  the  soul's  permanent 
union  with  God. 
Eieusis.  Older  than  the  Orphics  were  the  Mysteries  of  Demeter  at 

Eieusis,  where  a  festival,  originally  agricultural,  had  been  early 
i  transformed  into  one  of  profounder  meaning,  by  partaking  in 
<  which  the  initiates  gained  assurance  of  future  happiness.    Here, 
»  as  in  the  mysteries  of  Dionysus,  Adonis,  Attis,  and  Osiris,  the 
j  story  of  a  god  who  dies  and  lives  again  was  made  the  warrant  of 
man's  hope.     Of  the  detailed  beliefs  of  the  Eleusinian  initiates 
we  know  little ;    whether  they  thought  that  they  came  into 
mystic  union  with  the  divine  we  cannot  say ;    but  there  is  no 
^question  as  to  their  firm  conviction  that  through  initiation  they 
had  secured  a  happy  life  hereafter.1    Branches  of  the  Eleusinian 
^mysteries  were  established  in  many  parts  of  the  Greek  world ; 
*  their  popularity  was  great ;  many  of  the  most  prominent  Romans 
were  initiated  under  the  later  republic  and  during  the  empire ; 
K,and  the  rites  continued  to  be  celebrated  at  Eieusis  until  the 
end  of  the  fourth  Christian  century,  when  Alaric  and  his  Goths 
l  destroyed  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  Demeter. 
Samo-  There  were  other  mysteries  in  Greece,  although  none  so 

thrace.     influentiai  as  those  at  Eieusis.     The  island  of  Samothrace  was 
I  the  parent  centre  of  the  mysteries  of  two  male  divinities,  the 
I  Kabeiroi ;  as  early  as  the  sixth  century  b.c.  a  branch  was  estab- 
lished near  Thebes  in  Boeotia ;    another  was  at  Thessalonica. 
^  Throughout  the  period  in  which  these  mysteries  are  known  to  us, 
Demeter  and  her  daughter,  Persephone,  were  associated  with 
■  the  Kabeiroi ;  and  in  ritual  and  effect  these  mysteries  seem  not 
I  to  have  differed  essentially  from  those  at  Eieusis.     There  were 
^,  also  mysteries  of  Dionysus,  who  was  associated  with  Demeter 
j  at  Eieusis  and  with  the  Kabeiroi  at  Samothrace.      At  a  later 
period  we  hear  of  the  mysteries  of  Hecate,  whose  centre  was  the 
island  of  Aegina. 

1  Horn.  Hymn  to  Demeter,  480  f. ;  Pindar,  Frg.  137  ;  Soph.  Frg.  753  ;  Aris- 
toph.  Frogs,  454  ff. 


ii  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  255 

The  Greeks  brought  Bacchic  mysteries  to  Italy,  where  they  Bacchic 
gradually  spread,  so  that  early  in  the  second  century  B.C.  large! 
numbers,  including  some  of  the  upper  classes  in  Rome,  had  been 
initiated.  In  186  B.C.,  excesses,  to  which  the  nocturnal  celebra- 
tions, found  in  all  mysteries,  readily  lent  themselves,  caused  the 
Roman  Senate  to  adopt  strict  measures  of  control.  The  authorities 
believed  that  they  had  unearthed  an  association  devoted  to  crime 
and  conspiracy,  and  proceeded  with  great  severity  against  the 
initiates,  who  were  reported  to  number  seven  thousand.  Those 
who  had  been  initiated  only,  but  had  not  been  guilty  of  crime, 
were  imprisoned ;  a  larger  number  were  put  to  death  ;  and  it ,  ^ 
was  ordered  that  all  the  shrines  (Bacchanalia)  in  Italy  should  be 
destroyed,  except  such  as  contained  ancient  altars  or  statues. 
Moreover  the  organisation  of  Bacchic  societies  was  broken  up. 
All  these  measures,  however,  were  prompted  by  moral  and 
political  considerations.  Religious  scruples  were  such  that  it 
was  voted  that  if  any  one  felt  that  he  must  perform  the  rite,  he 
should  consult  the  praetor  urbanus,  who  was  to  present  the  matter 
to  the  Senate.  If  the  Senate,  when  at  least  one  hundred  members 
were  present,  allowed  the  request,  then  the  petitioner  might 
perform  the  rite,  but  not  more  than  five  persons  could  attend  the 
sacrifice.  Although,  in  later  times,  we  heard  nothing  of  Bac- 
chanalia, the  mystic  service  of  Dionysus  continued  under  other 
names.1 

In  all  these  mysteries,  through  rites  of  initiation  and  fixed 
celebrations,  the  devotees  received  the  assurance  of  security  here 
and  happiness  hereafter.  Although  originally  the  mysteries 
may  have  been  magical  rather  than  ethical  in  intent,  as  early  as 
the  last  part  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.  they  had  acquired  a  moral 
significance,  as  the  song  of  the  initiates  in  Aristophanes'  Frogs 
shows  :  "  For  we  alone  have  a  sun  and  a  holy  light,  we  who  are 
initiated  and  who  live  toward  friends  and  strangers  in  dutiful 
and  pious  fashion."  2    Our  data  are  not  sufficient  to  enable  us 

1  See  Livy  xxxix.  8-19;  cf.  xxxix.  41  and  xl.  19 ;  C.I.L.  i.  196. 
a  Frogs,  454  ff. 


256  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

to  draw  certain  conclusions  ;  but  it  is  highly  probable  that  ulti- 
mately all  mysteries  fostered  morality. 
Vergil  and         The  sixth  book  of  Vergil's  Aeneid  is  closely  related  to  some 
life.  U  "^  f  of  the  fundamental  ideas  of  the  Greek  mysteries,  and  is  the  most 
important  religious  document  of  its  time,  for  it  sets  forth  most 
fully  the  popular  and  philosophic  ideas  concerning  the  other 
world,  which  were  held  by  both  Greeks  and  Romans.    In  form 
it  is  a  "  Descent  to  Hades,"  standing  midway  in  the  long  series 
of  apocalypses,  beginning  with  the  eleventh  book  of  the  Odyssey 
and  ending  with  Dante's  Divine  Comedy.    The  journey  which 
.  Aeneas  makes  through  the  other  world  under  the  guidance  of 
'  j  the  Cumaean  Sibyl  is  essentially  a  mystic  initiation,  through 
'  which  Aeneas  receives  enlightenment  and  strength  to  enable 
him  to  go  on  to  the  perfect  accomplishment  of  the  task  which 
the  divine  purpose  has  imposed  on  him.1    The  experience  is  a 
revelation  of  the  meaning  of  life  and  death.     It  is  sufficient 
here  merely  to  mention  the  stages  of  the  journey  before  Tartarus 
and  Elysium  are  reached.     On  the  hither  side  of  Acheron  Aeneas 
and  his  guide  meet  the  souls  of  those  whose  bodies  have  not  found 
burial,  and  who  therefore  must  wait  a  hundred  years,  the  maxi- 
mum of  a  human  life,  before  they  can  cross  the  river.     Once 
across  the  stream,  the  two  earthly  visitors  encounter  shades  of 
many  kinds,  who  must  tarry  there  until  the  span  of  life  allowed 
them  has  been  completed — infants  and  those  who  met  their  end 
by  violence.     Then  the  Sibyl  and  Aeneas  come  to  the  walls  of 
Tartarus,  which  the  hero  may  not  enter.    Next  they  pass  to 
Elysium.    Near  by,  in  a  green  field,  they  find  Anchises'  shade 
looking  at  the  souls  which  are  waiting  to  be  born  into  the  upper 
world.     The  revered  shade  discloses  to  his  son  the  doctrine  of 
!  metempsychosis,  according  to  which  the  soul  must  suffer  through 
1  a  series  of  lives  and  deaths,  which  are  at  once  times  of  penance 
S  and  of  purification,  that  at  last,  free  from  sin,  it  may  attain  final 
'  bliss.2    Three  things  are  especially  noteworthy  :  first,  the  testi- 

1(k»  x  Cf.  Warde  Fowler,  The  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman  People,  pp.  419  ff . 

a  For  a  full  understanding  of  this  book,  Norden's  edition  is  indispensable. 
**  llTeubner,  Leipzig,  1903. 


11  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  257 

mony  to  a  widespread  interest  in  a  future  life ;  secondly,  the 
common  belief  in  the  possibility  of  a  revelation  through  mystic 
initiation ;  and,  finally,  the  proof  that  life  here  and  in  the  other 
world  was  thought  to  rest  on  a  moral  basis,  both  being  occasions 
for  penance  and  purification  and  opportunities  for  moral  growth, 
which  were  the  means  by  which  final  happiness  was  to  be  secured. 

These  ideas,  current  among  both  Greeks  and  Romans  at  the  oriental 
beginning  of  our  era,  had  had  a  long  development  in  Greek  mysterieB- 
thought,  as  has  been  shown  ;  they  were  emphasised  also  by  the 
mysteries  of  certain  oriental  religions,  which,  long  established 
in  the  eastern  part  of  the  Roman  Empire,  were  destined  to 
play  an  important  part  in  the  western  half  during  the  first  four 
Christian  centuries.     The  most  important  were  the  mysteries 
of  Isis,  of  Mithras,  and  of  Cybele,  the  Great  Mother  of  the  Gods. 
This  last  goddess  was  introduced  into  Rome  from  Asia  Minor, 
by  the  Senate  in  204  B.C.,  to  end  the  long  dangers  of  the  Second!* 
Punic  War,  but  her  cult  was  carried  on  by  Phrygian  priests  until 
after  the  close  of  the  Republic.     In  the  time  of  the  Emperor, 
Claudius,  however,  her  worship  seems  to  have  experienced  a  great 
expansion ;  new  festival  days  were  added  to  the  calendar,  and* 
her  mysteries  began  their  wide  appeal.     The  religion  of  Isis  and 
her  associate  gods,  as  well  as  the  mysteries  connected  therewith,  J* 
were  brought  to  Italy  by  Greeks  and  by  Egyptian  traders  and! 
slaves  in  the  second  century  B.C.,  but  the'  mysteries  began  to1 
have  a  vogue  in  the  west  only  under  the  early  Empire.     The, 
religion  of  Mithras  likewise  became  influential  in  the  west  toward^ 
the  close  of  the  first  Christian  century.     These  cults  had  large 
Mowings  in  Italy  and  in  most  of  the  European  provinces  of  the 
Roman  Empire  until  about  250-275  a.d.,  when  they  gave  way 
before  the  advance  of  Christianity ;  yet  in  Rome  a  pagan  national 
revival  kept  them  alive  until  the  very  end  of  the  fourth  century. 
But  if  these  oriental  mysteries  were  not  powerful  in  the 
western  Mediterranean  area  until  Christianity  had  acquired  a 
foothold  in  Italy,  they  had  long  been  established  in  Egypt  and 
the  Asiatic  provinces.     In  fact,  Isis  and  Osiris  had  reigned  in 
vol.  I 


258  THE  GENTILE  WOULD  n 

Egypt  for  two  thousand  years,  and  the  reorganisation  of  their 
religion  by  Ptolemy  Soter  (306-285  B.C.),  whereby  Greek  elements 
were  grafted  on  the  Egyptian  stock,  had  not  broken  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  sacred  history.  Traders  and  slaves  carried  this 
religion  to  every  shore  of  the  Mediterranean.  Cybele  and  Attis 
were  domiciled  in  Asia  Minor  before  history  began.  Mithraism 
had  originated  in  Persia  at  a  remote  period,  but  was  wide- 
spread in  Asia  Minor  during  the  last  three  centuries  before  the 
Christian  era. 
stages  of  A  brief  account  of  these  oriental  mysteries  must  suffice.     In 

initiation.  ^  ^ere  were  cloge(}  communities  of  devotees,  who  had  been 
admitted  to  the  sacred  organisation  through  rites  intended  to 
test  courage  and  to  impress  the  imagination.  Thus  the  devout, 
through  emotional  experiences  and  revelations,  gained  assurance 
of  divine  aid  here  and  hereafter.  Initiation  was  a  rebirth  into  a 
new  life.  For  the  devotees  there  were  degrees  which  marked 
their  advance  in  religious  proficiency.  The  Isiac  initiate  entered 
first  on  the  degree  which  bore  the  name  of  the  goddess  herself  ; 
he  might  then  be  called  through  a  vision  to  the  grade  of  Osiris- 
Serapis ;  and  if  the  goddess  summoned  him  to  the  highest  degree, 
he  became  a  member  of  the  priestly  class,  in  which  his  shaven 
head  and  linen  dress  testified  his  consecration.  In  the  mysteries 
of  Mithras  there  were  seven  grades,  each  with  its  symbol  and 
magic  name ;  apparently  full  membership  in  the  Mithraic 
brotherhood  was  reached  after  passing  through  the  first  three 
degrees. 
Differences  So  far,  the  oriental  mysteries  were  essentially  parallel  to  the 
GrllkTnd  Greek,  in  which  also  there  were  two  grades  for  the  initiates  ; 
oriental       ^ey  differed,  however,  in  certain  essential  points.     In  the  first 

mysteries.  J  . 

place  they  were  exotic,  foreign  to  the  Graeco-Koman  world  which 
they  penetrated,  and  had  all  the  appeal  which  a  foreign  origin 
seems  to  give  a  religion,  especially  in  a  time  of  distress  or  of 
religious  poverty.  These  oriental  religions,  moreover,  unlike 
those  of  Greece  or  Home,  were  proselytising  ;  in  their  ser- 
vice priests  recruited  converts  from  every  source  ;  and  each 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  259 

religion  had  among  its  sectaries  considerable  bodies  of  men 
who  followed  a  holy  life,  known  as  sacrati  or  consecranei,  "  the 
consecrated,"  and  who  addressed  one  another  as  "  brothers," 
fratres.  Again  the  gods  from  the  East  were  more  adaptable 
than  the  gods  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and  took  the  new  character- 
istics and  functions  required  by  a  changed  environment  without 
losing  their  individualities ;  and  their  systems  were  easily  modified 
to  meet  the  needs  and  demands  of  successive  generations.  Thus 
they  were  able  to  adopt  the  current  secular  morality  and  eventu- 
ally to  become  strong  moral  forces.  Finally,  all  these  faiths  had 
a  strong  pantheistic  or,  rather,  henotic  tendency.  The  supreme 
divinity  was  regarded  as  the  all-embracing  divine  power,  which 
expressed  itself  in  countless  ways  and  under  numberless  forms. 
The  best  expression  of  such  claims  is  found  in  Apuleius's  Meta- 
morphoses, in  the  words  with  which  Isis  addresses  Lucius  in  a 
vision  : 

Lo,  I  am  here,  Lucius,  moved  by  thy  prayers,  I,  the  parent  of  the 
universe,  mistress  of  the  elements,  the  primal  offspring  of  the  ages, 
greatest  of  divinities,  queen  of  the  dead,  first  among  the  celestials, 
the  single  form  of  gods  and  goddesses  ;  I,  who  by  my  nod  rule  the 
bright  heights  of  heaven,  the  healthful  breezes  of  the  sea,  the  gloomy 
silent  shades  below.  To  my  divinity,  one  in  itself,  the  entire  world 
does  reverence  under  many  forms,  with  varied  rites  and  manifold 
names.  Hence  it  is  that  the  primal  Phrygians  call  me  at  Pessinus 
the  Mother  of  the  Gods,  hence  the  Athenians,  who  are  sprung  from 
the  ground  on  which  they  dwell,  name  me  Cecropian  Minerva,  the 
wave-beat  Cyprians,  Paphian  Venus,  the  archer  Cretans,  Dictynnan 
Diana,  the  Sicilians  with  their  triple  speech,  Stygian  Proserpina, 
the  people  of  Eleusis,  ancient  Ceres,  others  Juno,  others  Bellona, 
some  Hecate,  again  Rhamnusia  ;  but  the  Aethiopians,  on  whom 
shine  the  growing  rays  of  the  sun  at  his  birth,  the  Arians,  and  the 
Egyptians,  mighty  in  their  ancient  learning,  worship  me  with  the 
proper  rites  and  call  me  by  my  true  name,  Queen  Isis.1 

Such    claims    as   this   obviously   led   to    no    conflict   with 

1  Apuleius,  Met.  xi.  5.     Cf.  the  remarkable  invocation  of  Isis  published  in 
Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  xi.  1380. 


260  THE  GENTILE  WOULD  n 

polytheism,  yet  they   helped    to  spread   the   belief   that  the 
divine  was  one. 

The  conclusions  to  which  the  discussion  has  led  may  now 

Summary. 

be  briefly  stated. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  first  century  the  Mediterranean 
world  was  unified  by  habits  of  thought  and  expression,  and 
almost  by  language.     Although  Greek  prevailed  in  the  east  and 
Latin  in  the  west,  the  use  of  the  former  tongue  by  all  educated 
men,  and  by  many  even  of  the  humbler  classes,  made  intercourse 
free  wherever  Eoman,   Syrian,   Jew,  and  Greek  might  meet. 
Peace  rendered  travel  secure,  and  thus  contributed  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  cosmopolitan  society  in  every  large  city. 
^v        Philosophy  of  every  school  had  become  primarily  religious 
\  and  moral.    Although  the  several  sects  adapted  themselves  in 
I  various  ways  to  popular  polytheism,  nevertheless  most  philosophic 
\  thought  tended  to  regard  the  divine  as  one.     The  Platonic  and 
v  Aristotelian  schools  supported  a  transcendental  theology,  while 
)  the  Stoics  held  to  the  immanence  of  God  ;  but  it  is  clear  that  a 
\  compromise  between  these  two  theological  extremes,  or  perhaps 
\  it  would  be  more  exact  to  say  a  combination  of  them,  was  already 
being  made,  whereby  the  immanent  principle  was  made  second 
I  to  the  transcendental.     This  can  be  seen  in  the  philosophy  of 
Philo  ;    his  chief  logos,  while  directly  descended  from  Plato's 
Absolute,  apparently  owed  much  also  to  the  immanent  logos 
of  the  Stoics.     Thus  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  theology  of 
orthodox  Christianity.1 

The  several  ethical  systems  which  the  philosophic  schools  had 
developed  agreed  in  fixing  moral  responsibility  on  the  individual, 
and  in  their  tenets  agreed  very  largely  with  early  Christian  teach- 
ing. The  training  of  the  will  to  enforce  the  dictates  of  reason 
in  the  ordering  of  the  individual  life  ;  the  doctrine  of  gradual 
and  daily  advance  in  virtue  toward  moral  perfection,  which  is 

1  The  immanent  character  of  the  logos  is  expressly  stated  in  the  Prologue  to 
the  Gospel  of  John.  Cf.  Coloss.  i.  15-17.  On  the  other  hand,  Acts  xvii.  28 
puts  the  immanence  of  God  in  Stoic  terms. 


< 


n  LIFE  IN  THE  ROMAN  EMPIRE  261 

realised  only  in  God ;   the  belief  that  virtue  is  the  sole  and  the 
certain  source  of  happiness  in  this  or  any  other  world,  were  all 
consonant  with  Christianity.     It  is  true  that  no  philosophic 
system  of  ethics  ever  rose  to  the  altruistic  teachings  of  Jesus  or  |l 
taught  that  love  was  to  extend  to  one's  enemies.     But  the  ethics 
taught  by  the  Stoic  and  the  other  schools,  with  their  emphasis 
on  the  individual  life,  formed  a  sound  basis  on  which  Christianity 
could  build,  and  provided  it  with  a  body  of  doctrine  which  it 
could  advantageously  adopt.     Moreover,  the  current  philosophic 
systems  taught  their  followers  to  have  slight  regard  for  the^ 
accidents  of  this  life,  to  hold  in  small  esteem  wealth,  place,! 
and  power,  and  even  to  be  indifferent  to  sickness  and  death,  inj 
comparison  with  virtue;  and  by  establishing  the  doctrine' of} 
individual  responsibility  they  did  valuable  service  to  the  coming1 
religion.     The  Stoic  cosmopolitanism  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
natural  equality  of  man,  secured  to  each  by  his  possession  of  a 
fragment  of  the  divine  Reason,  were  in  harmony  with  a  uni- 
versal  religion,  which  made  no  distinction  between  emperor  or 
slave,  citizen  or  stranger.    Philosophy  could  become  the  servant 
of  practical  Christianity,  because  it  had  long  ceased  to  be  the 
property  of  the  few,  and  was  now  concerned  primarily  with 
practice.     The  preacher  and  adept  had  become  the  recognised 
exponents  of  life. 

The  Greek  mysteries  had  spread  the  belief  that,  through  the 
emotional  experiences  of  initiation  and  of  ritual,  a  revelation  of 
God  and  a  union  with  the  Divine  was  secured  which  brought  the 
assurance  of  a  happy  immortality.  The  belief  in  metempsychosis, 
which  Christianity  could  not  accept,  carried  with  it  the  principle 
of  an  absolute  moral  relation  between  life  here  and  hereafter,  as 
we  can  learn  from  Plato  and  from  Vergil,  not  to  speak  of  other 
sources.  These  beliefs  were  emphasised  and  reinforced  by  mystic 
philosophies    and  religions  during  the  first  four  centuries  of 


our  era. 


Taken  together,  these  systems  make  up  that  Hellenistic  life 
which  for  so  long  a  time  contended  with  the  rival  system  of 


262  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  " 

Judaism.  Neither  ever  conquered  the  other ;  but  their  fates  were 
different.  Judaism  survives  in  two  forms  :  changed,  and  in 
some  ways  purified,  but  still  essentially  the  same,  in  the  Syna- 
gogue •  and  radically  altered,  yet  vigorously  alive,  in  the  litera- 
ture, ethics,  and  hopes  of  Christianity.  Hellenism,  unlike  its 
rival,  has  now  no  separate  existence,  but  it,  too,  lives  on;  for  it 
was  the  genius  of  Christianity  to  weld  together  into  a  new  organic 
unity  elements  drawn  primarily  from  Stoic  ethics,  from  the  later 
Platonic  metaphysics,  from  Oriental  mysticism,  and  from  Roman 
administration,  as  well  as  from  the  faith  and  hope  of  Israel. 


Ill 

PEIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 

By  The  Editoes 


263 


INTRODUCTION 

The  claim  of  Christianity  to  be  a  "  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Christianity 

.  a  synthesis. 

Saints  "  cannot  bear  the  scrutiny  of  the  historian  of  religions. 
To  him  it  appears  not  a  single  religion  but  a  complex  of  many, 
justified  in  claiming  the  name  of  Christianity  by  reason  of  the 
thread  of  historic  continuity  which  runs  through  and  connects 
its  component  parts.  That  "  quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod 
ab  omnibus  "  can  supply  the  answer  to  "  What  is  Christianity  ?  " 
is  a  vain  conceit :  its  strict  application  would  leave  us  without 
church,  without  worship,  and  without  creed.  For,  like  all 
religions  when  studied  critically,  Christianity  is  a  process,  not 
a  result. 

The  task  of  this  part  of  this  volume  is  to  discuss  the  initial 
stages  of  this  process.  The  preceding  parts  have  described  the 
main  features  of  two  civilisations.  Neither  was  simple,  either 
in  history  or  origin.  Jewish  civilisation  may  in  many  ways  be 
regarded  as  a  representative  of  Semitic  civilisation,  but  it  had 
varied  from  the  main  stock  by  adopting  a  strict  monotheism  and 
a  severe  code  of  ethics.  Roman  civilisation  was  originally  a 
combination  of  Latin,  Etruscan,  and  Greek  elements ;  but  in 
the  days  of  the  Empire  Oriental  thought  and  practice  were  being 
rapidly  assimilated.  The  only  Oriental  cult  permanently  un- 
willing to  be  absorbed  was  official  Judaism.1 

1  Rome  probably  first  realised  this  refusal  in  the  time  of  Caligula.  The 
attempt  to  introduce  the  emperor's  statue  into  the  Temple  is  usually  seen  by 
modern  historians  through  Jewish  glasses  as  a  mere  brutality.  More  probably 
it  was  part  of  a  well-considered  plan  to  make  use  of  the  <rw£dpia  of  Asiatic 
cults  for  the  propagation  of  an  imperial  cultus,  which,  while  recognising  existing 
religions,  should  combine  them  in  a  higher  unity.  The  only  crwtdpiov  which 
refused  was  that  of  the  Jews.     See  p.  199  ff. 


266  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

The  next  step  was  extraordinary,  but  not  incredible  to  the 
historian  who  has  learned  to  recognise  that  sudden  variation  is 
a  necessary  element  in  evolution.  A  new  movement  arose  in 
Judaism,  claiming  the  authority  of  divine  revelation.  When  cast 
out  of  the  Jewish  communion  by  the  authorities  of  the  Temple 
and  the  Synagogue  it  abandoned  institutions,  like  circumcision, 
intolerable  to  the  Roman  world,  and  turning  to  the  Gentiles, 
offered  them  a  share  in  the  hope  of  Israel.  The  people  of  the 
Levant  accepted  this  offer  far  more  readily  than  that  of  the 
Synagogue,  but  they  interpreted  it  in  accordance  with  their  own 
thoughts  rather  than  with  its  origin,  thus  starting  a  synthesis 
between  Judaism  and  the  Graeco-Oriental  thought  of  the  Empire. 

In  order  to  elucidate  this  synthesis,  the  first  chapter  of  this 
part  discusses  the  main  features  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  as  it 
appears  in  the  light  of  synoptic  criticism,  and  of  the  position  of 
the  Twelve  during  his  ministry.  The  second  chapter  deals  with 
the  story  of  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem  and  the  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity through  the  Roman  Empire.  The  discussion  of  sub- 
ordinate points  is  left  to  the  commentary  ;  but  the  main  problems 
presented  by  Acts  are  indicated  in  outline  in  order  to  make  easier 
their  recognition  and  detailed  consideration  in  connection  with 
the  text.  The  third  and  fourth  chapters  take  up  the  intellect- 
ual development  of  this  period,  and  endeavour  to  trace  the 
change  from  predominantly  Jewish  to  predominantly  Greek 
modes  of  thought. 


J 


THE  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  AND  HIS 
CHOICE  OF  THE  TWELVE 

The  chief  difficulty  in  determining  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  or  his  purpose  of 

i  •  j  Gospel  of 

purpose  in  choosing  the  Twelve,  is  that  the  only  primary  docu-  jMark. 
ments  which  we  possess  were  not  written  in  order  to  give  this 
information,  but  to  confirm  the  opinions  of  Gentile  Christians. 
By  far  our  best  source  as  to  the  history  of  Jesus  is  the  Gospel 
according  to  Mark,  but  it  is  strange  how  little  we  know  of  its 
origin.  Papias  and  Irenaeus  are  our  only  early  informants,  but, 
except  for  a  vague  tradition  that  the  Gospel  is  connected  with 
Peter,  they  tell  us  nothing.1  We  are  entirely  dependent  on, 
internal  evidence  for  our  answers  to  the  questions  whether  Mark 
is  based  on  Aramaic  documents  or  only  on  Aramaic  oral  tradition,  \ 
and  whether  it  was  written  in  Jerusalem  or  Rome  or  elsewhere. 
It  is,  however,  clear  that  it  was  composed  partly  to  show  that, 
the  deeds  of  Jesus  during  his  ministry  prove  that  he  was  the  J 
Messiah,  though  he  never  made  the  claim,  and  partly  to  indicate  ! 
why  he  abandoned  the  Synagogue,  organised  the  Twelve,  and  I 
began  a  more  extensive  mission.  In  common  with  the  other 
evangelists,  Mark  desires  to  explain  the  reason  for  the  breach 
between  the  Church  and  the  Synagogue,  tracing  it  back  to  the 

1  The  most  probable  view  seems  to  be  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  in  some 
way  connected  with  a  tradition  which  ultimately  goes  back  to  Peter,  but  it 
does  not  seem  probable  that  the  text  of  the  Gospel  is  so  directly  connected 
with  him  as  tradition  suggests.     It  is  difficult  to  think  that  any  one  who  hadj 
actual  intercourse  with  Peter  could  have  been  so  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of!]' 
Son  of  Man  as  the  editor  who  produced  our  Gospel  must  have  been. 

267 


and  Luke. 


268  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

beginning,  and  showing  that  it  was  due,  not  to  any  schismatic 
conduct  on  the  part  of  Jesus  and  his  followers,  but  to  the 
rejection  by  the  Jews  of  the  Messiah  whom  they  ought  to  have 
recognised  in  him,  as  his  disciples  had  done,  on  the  ground,  not 
of  his  own  assertion,  but  of  the  sufficient  testimony  of  miracles, 
of  demons,  and  of  the  divine  voice  from  Heaven. 

All  this  is  invaluable  to  the  historian,  but  its  limitations  must 
be  recognised.  It  provides  us  with  an  early  and  authoritative 
statement  of  the  evidence  by  which  the  first  Greek-speaking 
Christians  justified  their  own  position  ;  it  is  not  the  history  of 
Jesus  told  for  its  own  sake.  Mark  is  far  more  a  primary  authority 
for  the  thought  of  the  Apostolic  Age  than  for  the  life  of  Jesus. 
We  have,  indeed,  no  better  authority  :  but  it  must  be  taken  for 
what  it  is. 
Relation  For  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  Mark  can  be  supplemented  by 

Matthew,   3  Matthew  and  Luke.     It  is  now  generally  recognised  that  the 
I  framework  of  narrative  which  they  contain  is  almost  entirely 
'derived  from  Mark.     Thus  far,  therefore,  they  are  secondary 
sources,  and  ought  rather  to  be  regarded  as  the  earliest  comment- 
ary  on  Mark.     In  adapting  Mark  they  have  sometimes  blurred 
I  and  confused  his  statements,  though  the  changes  introduced 
fare  often  very  important,  as  reflecting  the  mind  of  Christians. 
s  They  have,  however,  added  fragments  of  another  tradition  which 
gives  the  teaching  rather  than  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  is  co-ordinate 
-  in  value  with  Mark.     It  is  the  custom  to  refer  to  it  as  Q,  but  it 
must  be  remembered  that  Q  is  not  an  extant  document,  but 
represents  the  judgment  of  critics  as  to  certain  parts  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.     It  is  impossible  to  reconstruct  it  mechanically,  and 
it  is  a  mistake  to  attribute  a  so-called  objective  value  to  what 
is  after  all  the  result  of  subjective  criticism.     It  is  equally  un- 
satisfactory to  treat  with  veneration  the  coincidence  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.     We  do  not  know,  and  probably  we  never  shall  know, 
whether  they  used  one  document  or  several  in  common,  nor  do 
we  know  with  certainty  whether  Matthew  had  seen  Luke  or  Luke 
had  seen  Matthew.     Late  as  well  as  early  sources  may  have  been 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  269 

used  in  common  by  them,  and  therefore  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  much  subjective  criticism  is  necessary  in  dealing  with 
Matthew  and  Luke. 

One  object  of  Mark  is  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  The  good 
The  gospel  is  in  fact  the  story  of  how  the  disciples  discovered  M^k."* 
who  Jesus  actually  was,  and  the  author's  interest  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  disciples  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts,  whose  preaching 
was  'Jesus  is  the  Messiah.'     It  is  therefore  all  the  more  im-5 
portant  that  it  is  so  definitely  stated  that  Jesus  did  not  announce  ( 
the  Messianic  secret  to  the  people,  nor  allow  his  disciples  to  do  so 
until  after  the  Kesurrection,  but  dwelt  on  two  themes  :    the  j 
speedy  approach  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  the  necessity  of  j 
repentance.     This  was  the  '  good  news '  which  men  were  called  \ 
on  to  believe.    In  Q  the  presentation  is  more  elaborate  but  sub- ) 
stantially  the  same.     The  teaching  of  Jesus  is  the  proclamation  } 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  need  of  repentance. 

The  questions  important  for  the  present  purpose  are  therefore  Meaning  of 
the  meaning  which  the  phrases  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  and  "  Ke-  dona  tf"8* 
pent  "  are  likely  to  have  had  for  Jesus  or  his  hearers,  the  authority  God*' 
which  he  claimed,  and  the  relation  of  his  teaching  on  these  subjects 
to  the  different  forms  of  thought  then  existing  among  the  Jews. 

The  meaning  of  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  or  "Kingdom  of  Heaven  "  The  King. 
in  the  light  of  contemporary  Jewish  thought  is  a  complex  problem,  g°™  ™j    t 
which  can  only  be  rendered  even  relatively  clear  by  a  somewhat  of  God- 
long  historical  exposition. 

Nothing  loomed  larger  in  the  thoughts  of  the  Jews  in  the 
first  century  than  the  idea  of  the  Sovereignty  of  God,  or,  to  adopt 
-the  customary  metonymy,  the  Kingdom  of  '  Heaven,'  which 
is  fundamental  both  with  the  Rabbis  and  in  the  Apocalyptic  |*  * 
literature,  though  the  exact  phrase  itself  is  found  neither  ini 
the  Old  Testament  nor  in  the  Apocalypses.1    This  is  somewhat 


H» 


1  The  only  reference  in  Charles's  index  (Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of 
the  Old  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  856)  is  3  Bar.  xi.  2  (Michael — who  holds  the 
keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven),  a  very  late  and  possibly  Christian  passage. 


270  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

remarkable  in  view  of  the  frequency  with  which  reference  is 

made  in  modern  books  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  as  though 

the  words,  made  familiar  to  us  in  the  Gospels,  were  themselves 

i  common  in  Jewish  literature.    In  point  of  fact  it  seems  that 

I  the  Gospels  give  us  the  earliest  example  of  their  use. 

its  ori  in  The  origin  of  the  conception,  as  distinct  from  the  name, 

and  nature.  \[s  to  be  found  in  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  which 

fl  foretell  the  rule  of  Jehovah  over  the  whole  earth,  in  the  light 

of  which  other  prophecies  are  interpreted  which  speak  of  his 

rule  without  specifying  its  extent. 

The  general  view  is  theocratic,  and  not — in  the  proper  sense 
I  of  the  word— Messianic ;   for  there  is  no  such  expectation  of  a 
Davidic  king  as  is  found  in  Isaiah  xi.  ("  In  that  day  there  shall  be 
a  root  of  Jesse,"  etc.)  and  cognate  passages.    The  hope  expressed 
is  for  the  universality  of  the  religion,  rather  than  the  domina- 
tion of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel.    The  universal  recognition  of  the 
Sovereignty  of  God  is  still  in  the  future,  but  it  is  also  present 
now.    That  God  reigns  over  all,  but  in  a  special  sense  over  those 
who  recognise  his-  rule,  is  one  of  the  favourite  themes  of  the 
Psalms.1    This  point  was  taken  also  by  the  later  Jews,  and  is 
often  emphasised  by  the  Rabbis.     God's  pre-eminence  does  not 
depend  on  the  attitude  of  his  own  creatures,  but  it  cannot  be 
(  considered  perfect  till  it  is  recognised  by  men.    Thus,  down  to 
Abraham,  it  might  be  said,  God  reigns  in  Heaven  only.    By  his 
faith,  Abraham  made  him  king  on  the  earth  too,  for  in  him 
I  God  had  one  subject ;    so  also  did  Jacob  at  Bethel  when  he 
-declared  that  Jahweh  should  be  his  God.     But  the  reign  of  God 
'  was  thus  far  confined  to  individuals,  until  at  Sinai  the  Israelites 
said,  "  All  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken,  will  we  do  and  obey," 
and  became  a  nation  in  which  God  reigned.    The  reign  of  God 
?  is  thus,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  Apocalyptic  books,  and  the 
Rabbinical  literature,  a  present  reality,  so  far  as  he  is  owned  and 
1  obeyed  by  individuals  and  by  the  people  as  a  whole.     The  Jews 
not  only  hoped  and  prayed  for  this  reign,  but  they  lived  under 

1  Cf.  especially  such  Psalms  as  xciv.,  ciii.,  and  cxlv. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  271 

it,  for  its  nature  is  not  political  but  religious.  They  held  that  y 
at  the  present  time  the  Sovereignty  of  God  is  recognised  only  j 
by  Israel,  imperfectly  by  it,  and  in  different  degrees  by  different 
individuals  ;  but  that  in  the  future  there  will  be  a  '  good  time  ' 
in  which  the  universal  and  complete  Sovereignty  of  God  will  be 
acknowledged  by  all  mankind  and  his  revealed  will  obeyed 
perfectly.1 

This  realisation  of  the  Sovereignty  of  God  over  all  the  world  Sovereignty 
was  not  expected  to  be  the  result  of  missionary  enterprise,  but  ^Gf°1in 
of  the  self-determined  act  of  God.    Sometimes  it  is  spoken  of 
as  being  manifested,  because,  like  all  other  good  things,  it  has 
in  reality  always  existed.     The  Sovereignty  of  God  cannot  be 
directly  identified  with  any  form  of  human  government,  like 
the  reign  of  a  '  Messianic '  King,  or  with  one  period  of  time ; 
but  the  very  limited  recognition  of  the  Sovereignty  of  God  among 
men  at  present  compelled  attention  to  the  expectation  that  its 
universality  could  only  be   realised  in  the  future.     Thus  the     ^ 
Good  Time  which  was  coming  might  easily  be  regarded  as  the  :' 
Kingdom  of  Heaven — the  condition  of  life  being  identified  with  j 
the  period  of  its  realisation — and  for  those  to  whom  the  restora- 
tion of  the  monarchy  was  the  chief  feature  of  the  Good  Time,2 
the  Days  of  the  Messiah  and  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  may  have 
come  to  be  interchangeable  expressions.    Similarly  those  who 
thought  that  this  world,  or  this  age,  is  coming  to  an  end,  to  be 
followed  by  one  in  which  God  is  to  be  supreme,  may  have 
identified  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  with  the  Age  to  Come. 

Thus  in  the  first  century  the  attention  of  pious  Jews  was, 
riveted  on  the  Sovereignty  of  God  or  a  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
and  on  the  coming  of  a  Good  Time  when  God  would  be  realised 
and  recognised.  But  in  this  complex  of  ideas  the  Sovereignty1 
of  God  was  the  essential.  Probably  there  were  many  degrees 
and  variations  of  interest  in  the  other  points.    There  were 

1  Cf.  Is.  xlv.  23  ;  Rev.  xix.  6. 

2  There  is  no  special  technical  term  for  this  period.  German  writers  refer 
to  it  as  the  Heilzeit,  and  modern  English  writers  frequently  darken  counsel 
by  calling  it  the  Messianic  Age. 


272  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

i  doubtless  Jews  who  looked  forward  more  to  the  Sovereignty 

!  of  God  and  the  world  to  come  than  to  the  Good  Time,  and 

t  others  to  whom  the  restoration  of  national  prosperity  was  of 

*  more  interest  than  the  End  of  the  World  and  the  New  Age. 

Hope  of  a  There  was  also,  to  judge  from  the  scanty  evidence  which  we 

£°isrady     Possess>  a  further  division.     The  hope  of  the  coming  of  the  Good 

Time  included  a  belief  that  in  it  the  monarchy — whether  regal 

or  sacerdotal — would  be  restored ;  and  with  the  expectation  of 

the  Age  to  Come  was  bound  up  a  Resurrection  of  the  Dead  by 

which  the  righteous  of  past  generations  would  be  admitted  to 

the  new  world. 

The  history  of  Israel   sufficiently  explains  this  variety  of 

I  ideas.     At  all  times  the  nation  had  looked  forward  to  the  Good 

I  Time  of  the  future.     In  this  indeed  they  were  merely  human ; 

I  a  belief  that  the  future  will  be  better  than  the  present  is  universal. 

The  inherent  difference  between  modern  and  ancient  thought 

in  regard  to  the  future  is  that,  while  we  consider  that  the  Good 

Time  to  Come  depends  on  human  effort,  the  piety  of  antiquity 

looked  to  its  accomplishment  by  divine  grace.     The  Rabbis 

differed  among  themselves  as  to  whether  Messiah  1  would  come 

when  the  world  was  at  its  worst,  or  whether  the  righteousness 

of  Israel  would  bring  it  about.     If  the  nation,  it  was  sometimes 

,  said,  could  keep  but  one  Sabbath  aright  Messiah  would  come. 

I  But  all  were  agreed  that  the  Good  Time  would  be  brought  about 
by  a  spontaneous  act  of  divine  grace.     As  to  how  it  would  come 
there  was  naturally  uncertainty.     When  the  vanished  monarchy 
i  of  David  became  the  symbol  of  the  ancient  glory  of  Israel,  the 
Monarchy-  \  Good  Time  was  conceived  as  under  a  prince  of  his  house.    In  the 
Le^tief^or  Maccabean  period  the  fact  that  the  ruling  house  belonged  to 
Davidi*-  -  I  ^q  tribe  of  Levi  was  reflected  in  the  expectation  of  the  coming 
\  of  a  King  of  this  tribe  to  reign  in  the  Good  Time,  in  Jubilees  and 
the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  and  in  the  '  Zadokite  ' 

1  The  idea  of  the  Davidic  King  of  the  Good  Time  is,  of  course,  quite  ancient 
A  |  (cf.  Is.  xi.,  etc.),  but  the  name  "  the  Messiah  "  to  describe  him  is  not  found  before 
5*    M  the  Psalms  of  Solomon. 


; 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  273 

document  of  the  Covenanters  of  Damascus.  In  other  books, 
the  date  of  which  is  not  always  clear,  the  picture  of  the  Good 
Time  is  vivid  and  distinct,  but  there  is  no  mention  of  any  monarch 
at  all  whether  Davidic  or  Levitic. 

The  purest  example  of  the  combination  of  the  religious  hope  Davidic 
of  the  Sovereignty  of  God  with  the  hope  of  the  restoration  of  pses8s^h  in 
the  monarchical  rule  of  a  son  of  David  is  the  seventeenth  Psalm  |||  ^ 
of  Solomon,  which  is  so  important  that  it  is  desirable  to  quote 
in  full  the  apposite  verses.1 

Behold,  0  Lord,  and  raise  up  unto  them  their  king,  the  son  of 
David,  in  the  time  which  thou,  0  God,  knowest,  that  he  may  reign 
over  Israel  thy  servant ;  *  and  gird  him  with  strength  that  he  may 
break  in  pieces  them  that  rule  unjustly.  Purge  Jerusalem  from  the 
heathen  that  trample  her  down  to  destroy  her,  with  wisdom  and 
with  righteousness.  He  shall  thrust  out  the  sinners  from  the  in- 
heritance, utterly  destroy  the  proud  spirit  of  the  sinners,  and  as 
potter's  vessels  with  a  rod  of  iron  shall  he  break  in  pieces  all  their 
substance.  He  shall  destroy  the  ungodly  nations  with  the  word 
of  his  mouth,  so  that  at  his  rebuke  the  nations  may  flee  before  him, 
and  he  shall  convict  the  sinners  in  the  thoughts  of  their  hearts. 
And  he  shall  gather  together  a  holy  people,  whom  he  shall  lead  in 
righteousness  ;  and  shall  judge  the  tribes  of  the  people  that  hath 
been  sanctified  by  the  Lord  his  God.  And  he  shall  not  suffer  iniquity 
to  lodge  in  their  midst ;  and  none  that  knoweth  wickedness  shall 
dwell  With  them.  For  he  shall  take  knowledge  of  them,  that  they 
be  all  the  sons  of  their  God,  and  shall  divide  them  upon  the  earth 
according  to  their  tribes.  And  the  sojourner  and  the  stranger  shall 
dwell  with  them  no  more.  He  shall  judge  the  nations  and  the 
peoples  with  the  wisdom  of  his  righteousness.     Selah. 

And  he  shall  possess  the  nations  of  the  heathen  to  serve  him 
beneath  his  yoke ;  and  he  shall  glorify  the  Lord  in  a  place  to  be 
seen  of  the  whole  earth ;  and  he  shall  purge  Jerusalem  and  make 
it  holy,  even  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  old.  So  that  the  nations  may 
come  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  see  his  glory,  bringing  as  gifts 
her  sons  that  had  fainted,  and  may  see  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
wherewith  God  hath  glorified  her.  And  a  righteous  king  and  taught 
of  God  is  he  that  reigneth  over  them  ;  and  there  shall  be  no  iniquity 
in  his  days  in  their  midst,  for  all  shall  be  holy  and  their  king  is  the 

1  This  translation  is  that  of  Ryle  and  James.  In  a  few  places  it  is  possible 
that  the  text  should  be  corrected  in  the  light  of  0.  von  Gebhardt's  researches  ; 
but  none  are  important  for  the  present  purpose. 

VOL.  I  T 


% 


274  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

Lord  Messiah.1  For  he  shall  not  put  his  trust  in  horse  and  rider 
and  bow,  nor  shall  he  multiply  unto  himself  gold  and  silver  for  war, 
nor  by  ships  shall  he  gather  confidence  for  the  day  of  battle.  The 
Lord  himself  is  his  King,  and  the  hope  of  him  that  is  strong  in 
the  hope  of  God.  And  he  shall  have  mercy  upon  all  the  nations 
that  come  before  him  in  fear.  For  he  shall  smite  the  earth  with 
the  word  of  his  mouth  even  for  evermore.  He  shall  bless  the  people 
of  the  Lord  with  wisdom  and  gladness.  He  himself  also  is  pure 
from  sin,  so  that  he  may  rule  a  mighty  people,  and  rebuke  princes 
and  overthrow  sinners  by  the  might  of  his  word.  And  he  shall  not 
faint  all  his  days,  because  he  leaneth  upon  his  God  ;  for  God  shall 
cause  him  to  be  mighty  through  the  spirit  of  holiness,  and  wise 
through  the  counsel  of  understanding,  with  might  and  righteousness. 
And  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  is  with  him  in  might,  and  his  hope  in 
the  Lord  shall  not  faint.  And  who  can  stand  up  against  him  ? 
he  is  mighty  in  his  works  and  strong  in  the  fear  of  God.  Tending 
the  flock  of  the  Lord  with  faith  and  righteousness  ;  and  he  shall 
suffer  none  among  them  to  faint  in  their  pasture.  In  holiness  shall 
he  lead  them  all,  and  there  shall  no  pride  be  among  them  that  any 
should  be  oppressed.  This  is  the  majesty  of  the  king  of  Israel, 
which  God  hath  appointed  to  raise  him  up  over  the  house  of  Israel, 
to  instruct  him.  His  words  shall  be  purified  above  fine  gold,  yea, 
above  the  choicest  gold.  In  the  congregations  will  he  judge  among 
the  peoples,  the  tribes  of  them  that  have  been  sanctified.  His  words 
shall  be  as  the  words  of  the  holy  ones  in  the  midst  of  the  peoples 
that  have  been  sanctified.  Blessed  are  they  that  shall  be  born  in 
those  days,  to  behold  the  blessing  of  Israel  which  God  shall  bring 
to  pass  in  the  gathering  together  of  the  tribes.  May  God  hasten 
his  mercy  toward  Israel  !  may  he  deliver  us  from  the  abomination 
of  unhallowed  adversaries  !  The  Lord,  he  is  our  king  from  hence- 
forth and  even  for  evermore. 

Good  Time  In  sharp  contrast  to  this  picture  of  the  Good  Time  under  a 
monarch  in  monarch  is  the  section  (chapters  i.-xxxvi.)  in  the  first  part  of 
Enoch.        Enoch,  which  was  written  at  a  different  time  and  in  a  different 

spirit  from  the  Similitudes.     In  this  is  a  glowing  description  of 

the  Good  Time,  but  no  reference  to  a  king. 

i1  The  Greek  text  is  Xpiarbs  Kvptos,  which  may  mean  '  Lord  Messiah  '  or 
'an  anointed  Lord.'  Probably  the  original  was  'the  Lord's  anointed.'  An 
interesting  parallel  is  Lam.  iv.  20,  when  the  Hebrew  means  "...  the  anointed 
of  Jahweh  has  been  taken  in  their  pits,  of  whom  we  said,  In  his  shadow  we  shall 
live  among  the  nations."  The  LXX.  translates  this  Xpiarbs  Kvpios  cweX-qn^dr) 
iv  tcuj  8ia<pdopa?s  avr&v,  and  the  Vulgate  is  "  Christus  dominus  captus  est  in 
peccatis  nostris."  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  anointed  of  the  Lord  in  the 
original  is  Jehoiachim. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  275 

And  then  shall  all  the  righteous  escape,  and  shall  live  till  they 
beget  thousands  of  children,  and  all  the  days  of  their  youth  and; 
their  old  age  shall  they  complete  in  peace.  And  then  shall  the 
whole  earth  be  tilled  in  righteousness,  and  shall  be  planted  with 
trees  and  be  full  of  blessing.  And  all  desirable  trees  shall  be  planted . 
on  it,  and  they  shall  plant  vines  on  it :  and  the  vine  which  they  plant 
thereon  shall  yield  wine  in  abundance,  and  as  for  all  the  seed  which 
is  sown  thereon  each  measure  (of  it)  shall  bear  a  thousand,  and  each 
measure  of  olives  shall  yield  ten  presses  of  oil.  And  cleanse  thou > 
the  earth  from  all  oppression,  and  from  all  unrighteousness,  and 
from  all  sin,  and  from  all  godlessness  ;  and  all  the  uncleanness  that 
is  wrought  upon  the  earth  destroy  from  of£  the  earth.  And  all  the, 
children  of  men  shall  become  righteous  and  all  nations  shall  offer 
adoration  and  shall  praise  me,  and  all  shall  worship  me.  And  the 
earth  shall  be  cleansed  from  all  defilement,  and  from  all  sin,  and 
from  all  punishment,  and  from  all  torment,  and  I  will  never  again 
send  (them)  upon  it  from  generation  to  generation  and  forever. 
And  in  these  days  I  will  open  the  store  chambers  of  blessing  which 
are  in  heaven,  so  as  to  send  them  down  '  upon  the  earth  '  over 
the  work  and  labour  of  the  children  of  men.  And  truth  and  peace 
shall  be  associated  together  throughout  all  the  days  of  the  world 
and  throughout  all  the  generations  of  men.1 

Both  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  and  Enoch  i.-xxxvi.  represent ,  #^  > 
the  Jewish  idea  of  the  Good  Time  of  the  future  unmixed  with 
the  originally  Persian  belief  in  a  Kesurrection  and  the  world  to 
come,  which  so  profoundly  affected  at  least  some  Jewish  circles, 
and  are  not  concerned  with  the  duration  of  the  Good  Time,  or  * 
with  the  length  of  life  allotted  to  the  King  or  High  Priest.  There 
are  expressions  in  some  documents  which,  if  taken  literally, 
might  imply  that  the  Good  Time  was  expected  to  be  everlasting, 
but  there  is  hardly  so  much  as  a  suggestion  that  the  original 
Jewish  thought  contemplated  the  possibility  that  either  the 
King  or  his  subjects  would  enjoy  immortality. 

The  Persian  form  of  thought,  on  the  contrary,  looked  forward  Destruction 
to  the  destruction  of  the  present  world  by  fire,  after  which  would  L  orl<£ 
come  a  new  world  purified  from  evil,  and  the  righteous  dead  «  r  , 
would  rise  to  an  enduring  state  of  bliss.     The  influence  of  this 
doctrine  can  be  seen  in  the  later  Jewish  literature.     The  end  of 
the  age  figures  prominently  in  4  Ezra,  which  is  largely  occupied  j 

1  The  translation  is  taken  from  Charles's  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament. 


276  PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

by  a  discussion  of  the  condition  of  the  Age  to  Come  and  of  those 
who  will  be  allowed  to  enter  into  it.  Moreover,  the  same  book 
in  chapter  vii.  gives  a  short  but  invaluable  statement  of  the 
relations  which  would  subsist  between  the  Good  Time,  the  Days 
of  the  Messiah,  the  Judgment,  Resurrection,  and  Age  to  Come. 
'  Unlike  many  Apocalypses  it  calls  for  little  or  no  commentary. 

For  behold  the  days  come,  and  it  shall  be  when  the  signs  which 
I  have  foretold  unto  thee  shall  come  to  pass.  Then  shall  the  city 
that  now  is  invisible  appear,  and  the  land  which  is  now  concealed 
be  seen.  And  whosoever  is  delivered  from  the  predicted  evils,  the 
same  shall  see  my  wonders.     For  my  Son  the  Messiah  shall  be 

|  revealed,  together  with  those  who  are  with  him,  and  shall  rejoice 
the  survivors  four  hundred  years.     And  it  shall  be,   after  these 

'  years,  that  my  Son  the  Messiah  shall  die,  and  all  in  whom  there  is 
human  breath.  Then  shall  the  world  be  turned  into  the  primeval 
silence  seven  days,  like  as  at  the  first  beginnings  ;   so  that  no  man 

|  is  left.  And  it  shall  be  after  seven  days  that  the  Age  which  is  not 
yet  awake  shall  be  roused,  and  that  which  is  corruptible  shall  perish. 
And  the  earth  shall  restore  those  that  sleep  in  her,  and  the  dust 
those  that  are  at  rest  therein,  and  the  chambers  shall  restore  those 
that  were  committed  unto  them.  And  the  Most  High  shall  be 
revealed  upon  the  throne  of  judgment ;  and  then  cometh  the  End, 
and  compassion  shall  pass  away,  and  pity  be  far  off,  and  long  suffer- 

v  ing  withdrawn  ;  but  judgment  alone  shall  remain,  truth  shall  stand, 
and  faithfulness  triumph,  and  recompense  shall  follow,   and  the 

,  reward  be  made  manifest ;  deeds  of  righteousness  shall  awake, 
and  deeds  of  iniquity  shall  not  sleep.     And  then  shall  the  pit  of 

-  torment  appear,  and  over  against  it  the  place  of  refreshment ;  the 
furnace  of  Gehenna  shall  be  made  manifest,  and  over  against  it  the 
Paradise  of  delight.  And  then  shall  the  Most  High  say  to  the 
nations  that  have  been  raised  from  the  dead  :  Look  now  and  con- 
sider whom  ye  have  denied,  whom  ye  have  not  served,  whose  com- 
mandments ye  have  despised.  Look  now,  before  you  :  here  delight 
and  refreshment,  there  fire  and  torments  !  Thus  shall  he  speak 
unto  them  in  the  Day  of  Judgment ;  for  thus  shall  the  Day  of 
Judgment  be  :  A  day  whereon  is  neither  sun,  nor  moon,  nor  stars  ; 
neither  clouds,  nor  thunder,  nor  lightning  ;  neither  wind,  nor  rain- 
storm, nor  cloud-rack  ;  neither  darkness,  nor  evening,  nor  morning  ; 
neither  summer,  nor  autumn,  nor  winter ;  neither  heat,  nor  frost, 
nor  cold  ;  neither  hail,  nor  rain,  nor  dew  ;  neither  moon,  nor  night, 
nor  dawn  ;  neither  shining,  nor  brightness,  nor  light,  save  only  the 
splendour  of  the  brightness  of  the  Most  High,  whereby  all  shall 
be  destined  to  see  what  has  been  determined  for  them.    And  its 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  277 

duration  shall  be  as  it  were  a  week  of  years.     Such  is  my  Judgment 
and  its  prescribed  order  ;   to  thee  only  have  I  showed  these  things.1 

The  method  which  has  been  followed  is  plain  :    the  Good  ^ 
Time  is  not  identified  with  the  Age  to  Come,  but  is  limited  to  j 
the  present  age,  which  is  finite.     The  people  of  Israel  enjoy  four 
hundred  years  under  the  reign  of  King  Messiah,  who  is  called  j 
'  his  son  '  by  God,  probably  in  allusion  to  Psalm  ii. 

Thus  a  combination  was  effected  between  the  Jewish  and 
Persian  systems.     But  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  any 
officially  fixed  doctrine  on  these  subjects  ;   no  other  apocalypse  • 
gives  so  clear  a  picture  as  4  Ezra,  though  Baruch  is  similar.  I 
It  is  also  remarkable  that  the  eschatological  scheme  in  1  Cor- 
inthians xv.  and  in  Revelation  xix.  f.  are  much  closer  to  thatp 
of  4  Ezra  than  to  later  Christian  thought.     Both  in  Paul  and 
in  Revelation  the  reign  of  Christ  is  limited  in  time,  and  in  Reve- 1 
lation  there  is  a  general  Resurrection  after  his  reign  followed  r 
by  a  '  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  '  corresponding  to  the  '  Age 
to  Come  '  of  4  Ezra.2 

Among  the  Rabbis  somewhat  the  same  system  probably  Rabbinic 
obtained,  though  there  is  little  direct  evidence.  The  compilers  *  oug 
of  the  Talmud  were  not  much  interested  in  eschatology.3  When 
the  Rabbis  were  speaking  carefully  they  distinguished  the  Age 
to  Come  from  the  Days  of  the  Messiah,  which  belonged  to  this 
Age,  but  when  they  were  speaking  loosely  they  used  the  phrase 
'  Age  to  Come  '  in  the  untechnical  sense  of  the  future  generally, 
and  then  spoke  of  the  Messiah  as  belonging  to  the  Age  to  Come. 

This  digression  has  been  necessary  to  show  the  possible 

1  This  translation  is  taken  from  Charles's  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  which  4  Ezra  is  edited  by  G.  H.  Box. 

2  The  main  difference  between  4  Ezra  and  1  Corinthians  and  Revelation 
is  that  the  Christian  documents  insert  a  special  resurrection  before  the  reign 
of  Christ.  Later  Christians,  being  in  the  main  Greeks  to  whom  the  Apocalyptic 
tradition  was  foreign,  telescoped  the  two  resurrections  together. 

3  By  far  the  most  valuable  and  intelligible  collection  of  the  fragmentary , 
evidence  is  that  of  J.  Klausner,  Die  messianische  Vorstellungen  des  jiidischen  Hi  * 
Volke8  im  Zeitalter  der  Tannaiten. 


278 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


&  *i 


1  Kingdom 
of  God'  in 
the  Gospels. 


*      i\ 


(1)  King- 
dom of  God 
in  the      j£j 
future. 


implications  to  a  Jewish  mind  of  the  phrase  '  The  Kingdom  of 
God.'  The  result  is  to  show  that  the  strict  meaning  is  the 
Sovereignty  or  Reign  of  God ;  it  does  not  definitely  mean  the 
Good  Time,  or  the  Days  of  the  Messiah,  or  the  Age  to  Come, 
but  inasmuch  as  to  the  mind  of  a  pious  Jew  the  history  of  the 
future  was  to  be  the  realisation  and  recognition  of  the  Sovereignty 
of  God,  and  at  the  same  time  would  include  both  the  Good  Time 
and  the  Age  to  Come,  it  was  easy  for  those  whose  minds  dwelt 
on  the  means  rather  than  on  the  end  to  make  the  Kingdom  of 
God  practically  identical  with  the  Good  Time  of  the  Days  of 
the  Messiah.  Possibly  others  may  have  made  it  equivalent  to 
the  Age  to  Come,  but  of  this  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence 
from  Jewish  sources. 

Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  exact  phrase  the  Kingdom  of 
God  or  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  not  found  earlier  than  the  Gospels, 
though  the  idea  represented  by  it  in  the  Rabbinic  literature  is 
drawn  from  the  Prophets,  renders  it  impossible  to  say  with 
certainty  what  the  phrase  must  have  meant  in  the  Gospels,  and 
to  use  this  meaning  for  their  interpretation.  The  only  reason- 
able method  is  to  interpret  each  passage  in  which  it  is  found 
in  accordance  with  its  context. 

The  frequency  of  the  phrase  Kingdom  of  God  or  of  Heaven 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  the  proof  of  its  importance  in  the 
earliest  period  of  Christianity.  But  if  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs  be  interpreted  naturally  in  the  light  of  their  own  context, 
three  meanings  can  be  discerned.  In  one  group  of  passages  the 
Kingdom  is  regarded  as  future  :  it  is  close  at  hand,  and  men 
must  prepare  for  it.  In  a  second  group  it  is  present :  its 
nature  is  explained.  In  a  third  group  it  is  a  synonym  for  the 
Christian  Church.  The  first  two  must  be  discussed  here ;  the 
third  later. 

In  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark  the  majority  of  passages 
refer  to  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  future.  The  opening  announce- 
ment in  i.  15,  "  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,"  cannot  be 
interpreted  except  as  a  reference  to  something  which  is  not  yet 


PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  279 

present.    The  same  may  be  said  of  ix.  1,  "  There  are  some  of 
those  standing  here  who  shall  not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  | 
the  Kingdom  of  God  come  in  power." 

Similarly  in  passages  which  can  almost  certainly  be  attributed 
to  Q  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  regarded  as  something  which  does 
not  yet  exist.    This  may  be  seen  in  Matthew  viii.  11  (  =  Luke 
xiii.  29),  "  Many  shall  come  from  the  East  and  from  the  West  j  * 
and  lie  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  in  the  Kingdom  J 
of  Heaven."    So  also  in  Matthew  xxii.  2  ff.  (  =  Luke  xiv.  16  ft\), 
the  parable  of  the  king  who  gave  a  marriage  feast  for  his  son,^ 
the  point  of  comparison  is  to  something  which  is  still  future,  j 
The  refusal  of  the  guests  is  still  going  on— the  Jews  are  turning  j 
a  deaf  ear  to  all  appeals— but  the  room  is  not  yet  full.1    The 
general  impression  is  identical  with  that  of  the  message  of  Mark 
i.  15,  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand  "— 
but  it  is  not  yet  come. 

The  implication  of  these  passages  in  Mark  and  Q  is  unmistak- 
able, and  it  is  not  surprising  that  those  who  have  begun  to 
consider  the  problem  of  the  meaning  of  "  Kingdom  of  Heaven  "  L  % 
from  this  end  have  insisted  that  such  passages  supply  a  fixed  J  J 
standard  to  which  all  others  must  be  made  to  conform.  Never- 
theless in  other  passages  the  implication  is  equally  plain  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God  is  a  present  reality.  It  is  the  Sovereignty 
of  God  the  recognition  of  which  is  true  religion. 

It  is,  for  instance,  hard  to  interpret  in  any  other  way  the  (2^» 
"  secret  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  "  in  Mark  iv.  11,  and  still  harder  C 
to  explain  the  parable  of  the  grain  of  mustard  seed  in  Mark  iv.l 
30.    Similarly  in  Mark  x.  14  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  which 
can  be  entered  by  the  child-like,  and  belongs  to  them,  is  surely  | 
a  present  reality,  not  something  which  is  still  future.    Nor  can  \ 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  from  which  the  scribe  in  Mark  xii.  34  was 
not  far,  be  regarded  as  future  :  it  was  there  already  and  he  was 

i  It  is  clear  that  Matt.  xxii.  2  is  in  the  main  identical  with  Luke  xiv.  16  ff., 
but  the  difference  in  redaction  is  considerable,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  some 
of  the  peculiarly  Matthaean  details  are  quite  late  and  reflect  the  attitude  which 
began  to  identify  the  Kingdom  and  the  Church. 


280  PKIMITIVE  CHKISTIANITY  m 

near  it ;  the  reason  for  his  being  outside  was  in  himself,  not  in 
the  futurity  of  the  Kingdom. 

rfGttuSH       °nCe  m°re  the  Pnenomena  of  Mark  are  repeated  in  Q.    The 

Q.  I  Kingdom  of  God  belongs  already  to  the  poor.1    The  advice, 

"  Seek  first  the  Kingdom  of  God/'  2  would  lose  its  significance 

|  if  the  Kingdom  were  not  a  present  reality  which  could  be  found. 

Nor,  to  go  outside  passages  found  both  in  Matthew  and  Luke, 

could  the  Kingdom  of  God  be  aptly  compared  to  treasure  hid 

in  a  field  or  to  a  pearl  of  great  price  if  it  were  still  in  the  future. 

*j|j  But  if  ^  De  regarded  as  equivalent  to  the  true  religion  which 

I  recognises  God  as  King,  these  passages  are  all  quite  intelligible. 

The  reia-  All  attempts,  and  they  have  been  many  and  ingenious   to 

tion  of  -    .        ,  •/  o  j 

these  mean-  explain  these  two  meanings  of  Kingdom  of  God  by  eliminating 

ingsjoeach  Qne   of   them   j^   ^^       EspedaUy   m&J  ^   ^   ^   Qf   ^ 

attempt  to  explain  the  references  to  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  future 

by  the  theory  that  they  are  the  later  interpolations  of  Jewish 

Christians,  for  it  is  just  this  use  of  Kingdom  of  God  which  is 

the  least  characteristic  of  Jewish  thought.    The  D^Dt&n  mD^D 

|  of  the  Rabbis  means  essentially  the  Sovereignty  of  God,  and 

|  the  passages  in  Mark  and  Q  which  use  ffaaikela  rod  Oeov  in  this 

;  sense  are  far  more  correct  from  a  strictly  Jewish  point  of  view 

'^than  those  which  regard  it  as  future.    If  only  one  of  the  two 

*  j  be  Christian— as  distinct  from  Jewish— it  is  the  use  of  the  phrase 

I  Kingdom  of  God  in  a  future  sense. 

But  it  is  unnecessary  to  choose  between  them.     The  sketch 
given  above  of  the  history  of  those  forms  of  Jewish  thought 
which  may  reasonably  be  regarded  as  cognate  shows  how  easily 
the  central  notion  of  the  present  Sovereignty  of  God  might  be 
J  merged  in  the  hope  of  a  time  when  it  would  be  universally  recog- 
?  nised,  so  that  the  phrase  might  eventuaUy  come  to  mean  the 
"  Good  Time  "  which  was  in  store  for  Israel,  or  even  the  "  Coming 
"  Age  "  when  evil  would  cease  to  exist. 

Clearly  in  the  passages  in  which  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
regarded  as  future,  the  idea  of  the  Sovereignty  of  God  is  merged 

1  Matt.  v.  3 ;  Luke  vi.  20.  a  Matt,  vi  33 ;  Luke  xii.  31. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  281 

in  the  form  of  its  manifestation.  But  does  the  writer  in  Mark 
or  in  Q,  or  did  Jesus  himself  mean  the  Good  Time,  at  the  end  of 
this  Age,  and  if  so  did  they  picture  it  as  the  reign  of  a  Davidic  >jin 
King  ?  Or  did  they  all,  or  any  of  them,  mean  the  Age  to  Come  ? 
These  questions  have  been  singularly  neglected  by  Christian 
scholars,  chiefly  because  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  the  Gentile 
Church— and  it  is  this,  not  Jerusalem,  which  is  the  mother  of 
us  all — forgot  the  difference  between  the  two,  and  identified  the 
Age  to  Come  with  the  reign  of  Christ. 

In  Mark  the  identification  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  with  the  .^King- 
Age  to  Come  is  very  plain  in  the  story  of  the  man  who  asked  |and  the  Ag0 
what  he  should  do  to  '  inherit  eternal  life.' 1    The  answer  of  t0  Come' 
Jesus  was  that  he  should  observe  the  commandments,  sell  all 
that  he  had  and  give  to  the  poor.     This  grieved  the  man,  for  he 
was  rich,  and  Jesus  then  said,  "  How  hardly  will  those  who  have 
riches  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God."     There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  here  Eternal  Life  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  mean  the  same, 
and  this  raises  the  presumption  that  reference  is  made  to  thej 
Age  to  Come,  for  it  was  then — not  in  the  Days  of  the  Messiah — j 
that  the  Jews  looked  for  eternal  life.    Moreover,  the  continuation 
of  the  narrative  with  the  implied  question  of  Peter,  "  Lo  !   wej* 
have  left  all  and  followed  thee,"  leads  up  to  an  utterance  of 
Jesus  in  which  "  this  Time  "  and  the  "  Age  to  Come  "  are  con-  j 
trasted,  and  those  who  have  left  everything  for  his  sake  are; 
promised  rewards  in  kind  in  this  "  Time  "  and  eternal  life  in  the  * 
Age  to  Come. 

Similarly  in  Mark  ix.  43  ff.  "  Life  "  and  the  "  Kingdom  of  ,  ^ 
God "  seem  to  be  used  interchangeably,  and  are  contrasted 
with  Fire  and  Gehenna.    This  seems  to  point  to  the  Life  of  the 
Age  to  Come,  and  to  be  concerned  with  the   final  Judgment 
rather  than  with  the  Days  of  the  Messiah. 

A  similar  view  suggests  itself  in  Q,  Matthew  vii.  21 : 

Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;    but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father 

1  Mark  x.  17  ff. 


282  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  ra 

which  is  in  heaven.  Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord, 
have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name  ?  and  in  thy  name  have  cast 
out  devils  ?  and  in  thy  name  done  many  wonderful  works  ?  And 
then  will  I  profess  unto  them,  I  never  knew  you  :  depart  from  me, 
ye  that  work  iniquity. 

Especially  is  this  clear  when  Luke  xiii.  22  fT.  is  compared  : 

Then  one  said  unto  him,  Lord,  are  there  few  that  be  saved  ? 
And  he  said  unto  them,  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate  :  for 
many,  I  say  unto  you,  will  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able. 
When  once  the  master  of  the  house  is  risen  up,  and  hath  shut  to 
the  door  and  ye  begin  to  stand  without,  and  to  knock  at  the  door, 
saying,  Lord,  Lord,  open  unto  us  ;  and  he  shall  answer  and  say 
unto  you,  I  know  you  not  whence  ye  are.  Then  shall  ye  begin  to 
say,  We  have  eaten  and  drunk  in  thy  presence,  and  thou  hast  taught 
in  our  streets.  But  he  shall  say,  I  tell  you,  I  know  not  whence  ye 
are  ;  depart  from  me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity.  There  shall  be 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  and 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
you  yourselves  thrust  out.  And  they  shall  come  from  the  east, 
and  from  the  west,  and  from  the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and 
shall  sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

But  neither  in  Mark  nor  in  Q  are  there  any  passages  which 
identify  the  Kingdom  of  God  with  the  Days  of  the  Messiah. 

If  discussion  be  limited  strictly  to  passages  in  which  the 

?  Kingdom  of  God  is  mentioned,  far  the  most  probable  result  is 

i  that  in  the  Gospels  it  sometimes  means  the  Sovereignty  of 

I  God,  regarded  as  a  present  reality,  and  sometimes  means  the 

*Age  to  Come,  in  which  the  Sovereignty  of  God  will  be  un- 

Jesusand    hampered  by  evil.     The   preaching  of  Jesus  was  directed  to 

the  Age  to  1 .  . 

Come.  m  *  |  impress  men  with  the  importance  of  recognising  the  present  Sove- 
reignty of  God  in  order  that  they  might  live  in  the  Age  to  Come. 
The  real  difficulty,  if  there  be  any,  in  accepting  this  con- 
clusion, is  not  in  any  passages  in  Mark  and  Q  dealing  with 
the  Kingdom  or  with  the  Son  of  Man,  but  with  the  "Davidic 
Messiah." 

San  annd°f        If  Jesus  tll0Ught  of  himself  as  '  Son  of  Man/  no  obstacle  is 
the  presented  to  the  conclusion  reached  above.     Though  the  subject 

is  obscure,  the  Son  of  Man,  in  the  Jewish  Apocalypses  which 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  283 

refer  to  him,  is  concerned  with  the  judgment  which  comes 
between  the  two  Ages.  This  fits  in  admirably  with  such  passages 
as  Mark  ix.  43  £f.,  and  still  better  with  Luke  xiii.  23  ff.,  when  the 
background  of  the  day  of  judgment  is  clearly  indicated.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  anointed  Scion  of  the  House  of  David,  under 
whose  guidance  Israel  will  again  enjoy  prosperity,  does  not  so 
well  suit  a  reference  to  the  Age  to  Come.  This  is  not  because 
the  Days  of  the  Messiah  could  not  be  described  as  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  but  because  the  connotation  of  Kingdom  of  God  in  Mark 
and  Q — especially  the  references  to  eternal  life— fits  the  Age  to 
Come  better  than  the  Days  of  the  Messiah. 

The  old  question,  therefore,  again  presents  itself,  whether  Did  Jesus 
Jesus  identified  himself  with  the  Davidic  Messiah,  or  with  the  Messiah 
Son  of  Man  who  would  judge  the  world  and  usher  in  the  Age  ship? 
to  Come  ? 

Jesus  seems   to  have   referred    openly   to  the  coming   of 
the  Son  of  Man,  though  the  extent  to  which  he  did  so  is  an  Ik 
obscure  problem,  but  he  clearly  did  not  openly  identify  himself  j** 
with  this  Son  of  Man.    The  disciples  undoubtedly  made  this   ^ 
identification,  and  possibly  Jesus  may  have  done  so  himself  in  w 
private,  but  no  passage  in  which  his  use  of  the  title  Son  of  Man 
is  beyond  critical  doubt  would  be  interpreted  as  claiming  the  j 
name  for  himself  unless  the  secret  of  his  Messiahship  were  already  | 
known.    The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  identification  of  Jesus  .^ 
with  the  Davidic  Messiah.     This  was  the  belief  of  the  disciples  : 
it  may  have  been,  but  probably  was  not,  the  belief  of  Jesus  : 
it  was  not  part  of  his  '  gospel,'  though  it  was  the  centre  of  I 
theirs. 

The  practical  meaning  of  '  Repent '  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Repent- 
was  probably  the  same  in  his  mind  and  that  of  his  Jewish  'the  Age  to 
contemporaries—a  change  of  conduct.    Of  course  this  does  not  Come- 
mean  that  change  of  conduct  is  antithetical  to  change  of  heart ;  jj| 
but  the  latter  is  assumed  rather  than  emphasised.     The  standard  I 
required  by  Jesus,  as  by  the  Scribes,  was  the  Law,  strengthened 


284  PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

|  and  simplified  by  the  principles  which  it  reveals  rather  than 
I  complicated  by  traditional  interpretation.  The  command  not 
to  kill  reveals  the  principle  which  forbids  anger.  "  It  was  said 
by  them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill ;  and  whosoever  shall 
kill  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment :  but  I  say  unto  you,  That 
whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  shall  be  in  danger  of  the 
judgment :  and  whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother,  Raca,  shall 
be  in  danger  of  the  council :  but  whosoever  shall  say,  Thou  fool, 
shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire."  x  The  command  against  adultery 
reveals  the  principle  which  forbids  lust.  "  Ye  have  heard  that 
it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  : 
But  I  say  unto  you  that  whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  to 
lust  after  her  hath  committed  adultery  with  her  already  in  his 
heart."  2  This  is  in  no  sense  the  abandonment  of  the  Law,  and 
explains  what  Jesus  meant  when  he  warned  his  disciples  that 
their  righteousness  must  exceed  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
t       The  central  thought  is  a  standard  of  conduct  in  harmony 

1 J  with  the  '  Age  to  Come  '  rather  than  with  the  present.  Every- 
thing, whether  possessions  or  thoughts,  incompatible  with  the 

!l  life  of  the  'Age  to  Come '  must  be  abandoned.  "  If  thy  hand 
offend  thee,  cut  it  off  :  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life 
maimed,  than  having  two  hands  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that 
never  shall  be  quenched.  And  if  thy  foot  offend  thee,  cut  it 
off  :  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  halt  into  life,  than  having  two 
feet  to  be  cast  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be  quenched. 
And  if  thine  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it  out  :  it  is  better  for  thee 
to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  with  one  eye,  than  having 
two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire,  where  their  worm  dieth  not, 

'  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched."  3 

The  clearest  statement  of  Jesus  is  his  answer  to  the  question 

1  Matt.  v.  21-22.  This  seemed  so  hard  to  later  Christians  that  they  added 
to  the  text — "  Whoever  is  angry  without  a  cause"  thus  taking  all  point  out  of 
the  command.  Whoever  justified  uncalled-for  anger  ?  We  may  know  little 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  it  was  certainly  free  from  platitude3. 

2  Matt.  v.  27-28. 

3  Mark  ix.  43-48  ;  cf.  Matt.  v.  29  ff. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  285 

of  what  is  requisite  to   inherit  '  eternal  life ' : x  observe  the  Life 
commandments,  sell  all  your  possessions  for  the  poor,  and  follow  by  few. 
me.    The  meaning  is  plain  beyond  the  possibility  of  confusion, 
and  its  perfect  clearness,  not  any  obscurity  in  it,  was  the  reason 
why  the  rich  man  stayed  behind  and  did  not  follow  Jesus  up 
to  Jerusalem.    Appalled  by  the  simple  severity  of  the  teaching, 
the  disciples  asked,  "  Who  then  can  be  saved  ?  "  and  Jesus, 
admitting  the  apparent  impossibility  of  salvation,  appealed  to 
the  infinite  power  of  God.    It  would  seem  that  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  was  in  this  respect  far  more  in  agreement  with  4  Ezra 
than  with  the  belief  of  many  Christians  to-day.    Jesus,  like 
Ezra,  thought  that  very  few  enter  into  life ;    for  the  gate  of 
life  is  narrow,  and  though  many  strive  to  enter,  few  will  be  able 
to  do  so.2    "  For  broad  is  the  gate,  and  wide  is  the  way  that  i 
leadeth  to  destruction,  and  many  are  they  who  enter  through 
it ;    for  strait  is  the  way  that  leadeth  unto  Life,  and  few  are 
they  that  find  it. ' '    In  merciful  hope  for  their  fellow-men,  modern 
Christians  have  been  inclined  to  transpose  the  characteristics  J 
of  these  two  ways.     But  the  evidence  of  the  Gospels  is  quite 
clear  ;  Jesus  looked  for  few  to  follow  him  or  to  attain  Life,  either  J 
in  this  world  or  in  the  World  to  Come. 

What,  then,  was  the  authority  which  Jesus  claimed  for  his  Jesus 
teaching  ?     It  was  not  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  for  whether  he  Spirit  of 
did  or  did  not  think  that  this  was  the  function  to  which  he  was  God- 
called,  he  did  not  so  teach  in  public.3     The  authority  which  he  i 
actually  claimed  was  that  of  the  spirit  of  God.     This  statement  |i 
is  not  so  simple  as  it  seems.     It  divides  into  two  factors  :  thei* 
experience  itself  and  the  opinion  expressed  as  to  its  origin. 

The  experience  continued  among  his  disciples  and  formed  Experience 

of  the 

the  vital  as  distinct  from  the  intellectual  bridge  between  Judaism  spirit. 
and    Graeco-Oriental    thought.     Nor   was    it    unique :    it    can 
be  traced  throughout  human  history.    Expressed   in  modern 

1  Mark  x.  17.  2  Luke  xiii.  24. 

8  See  W.  Wrede,  Daa  Messiasgeheimnis,  and  Bousset's  Kyrios  Christos,  pp.  tt  ^ 
79-82. 


286  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  ni 

language,  it  is  a  man's  consciousness  that  his  action  and  speech 
are  being  governed  by  a  compelling  force,  separate  from  the 
ordinary  process  of  volition.  Those  who  have  this  experience 
seem  to  themselves  to  be  as  it  were  the  spectators  of  their  own 
deeds,  or  to  be  listening  to  their  own  utterances.  Under  its  in- 
fluence individuals,  groups  of  men,  or  even  nations  are  carried 
away  by  inexplicable  waves  of  passion  or  enthusiasm  which, 
once  aroused,  cannot  be  resisted  till  their  force  is  spent.  This 
consciousness  has  been  felt  in  varying  degree  in  every  generation, 
and  the  progress  of  humanity  can  never  be  explained  unless  it 
be  taken  into  account.  Sometimes  in  the  inevitable  reaction 
after  the  psychic  stress  of  such  experiences,  men  have  resented, 
doubted,  or  denied  the  validity  of  their  own  consciousness  ; 
sometimes  they  have  regarded  it  as  possessing  a  value  exceeding 
all  else  in  life.  Usually  those  who  have  it  attract  the  hostility 
of  their  contemporaries,  scarcely  tempered  by  the  allegiance  of 
a  few  followers,  and  their  names  are  forgotten  in  a  few  years, 
but  sometimes  the  verdict  of  contemporary  hatred  is  reversed  by 
posterity,  which  endeavours  to  compensate  by  legendary  honours 
for  the  contempt  and  contumely  of  life. 

It  is  as  clear  to-day  as  when  the  Gospels  were  written  that 

(Jesus  belonged  in  a  pre-eminent  degree  to  those  who  have  this 
experience.  But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  can  explain  it 
in  the  same  way  as  did  the  ancient  world.  In  the  preceding 
paragraph  the  experience  itself  has  been  described  in  periphrasis 
without  expressing  any  judgment  as  to  its  cause.  The  ancient 
!  world  defined  it  as  inspiration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  or  by  the  Spirit 

iof  God,  and  in  so  doing  implied  a  definite  theory  of  psychological 
phenomena — that  of  possession  by  good  or  bad  spirits.     By  this 
means  not  merely  prophecy,  but  sickness,  madness,  and  crime 
were  explained. 
The  Spirit  In  ancient  Israel  the  spirit  of  Jehovah  was  looked  on  as  the 

israeL^V }  explanation  of  all  that  was  unusual  or  awful.     Probably  in  the 
^  j  earliest  days  good  and  evil  spirits  alike  were  supposed  to  come 
tfrom  Jehovah.     But  long  before  the  Christian  era  a  far  more 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  287 

complicated  system  of  thought  had  gained  universal  supremacy. 
The  Jews  had  completely  accepted  the  Persian  view  of  a  spirit 
world,  though  they  had  elaborated  some  of  the  details  in  special 
ways.     They  held  that  among  the  living  beings  in  the  universe 
are  an  infinite  number  of  spirits,  some  the  beneficent  agents  of 
God,  some  the  malignant  emissaries  of  Satan.     Moreover,  the 
latter  were  reinforced  by  the  ghosts  of  the  giants  who  had  perished 
in  the  Noachian  flood,1  for  the  giants  had  been  half -angelic,  half- 
human,  and  their  evil  ghosts  wandered  about  the  world  taking 
possession  of  men  and  inflicting  on  them  disease  and  other  evils. 
But  men  were  not  left  without  help  in  an  unequal  combat  with 
these  malignant  spirits.     Just  as  they  could  be  possessed  byi» 
unclean  spirits,  so  also  could  they  be  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit  J 
of  God,  and  in  the  end  good  would  triumph  over  evil.    It  would  * 
be  natural  to  expect  that  just  as  the  evil  spirits  were  regarded 
as  personal  and  as  many,  so  there  would  be  many  holy  spirits, 
but  in  point  of  fact  there  is  little  trace  of  this  development. 
The  Holy  Spirit  which  inspires  prophets  is  almost  always  one. 
There  were,  indeed,  many  angels  who  did  the  will  of  God,  and 
sometimes  the  spirit  which  comes  from  God  is  so  far  personified 
as  to  be  almost  or  quite  identified  with  an  angel ; 2   but  this  is  j| 
not  the  general  rule,  and  more  often  the  Holy  Spirit  is  an  emana- i 
tion  from  God,  single  and  impersonal. 

In  the  synoptic  tradition  this  hypothesis  of  the  spirit  of  God,  The  Spirit 
which  possesses  men  for  good  and  works  his  will  through  them,  isl  synoptkts. 
used  to  explain  the  experience  and  the  deeds  of  Jesus.    He|>^ 
waged  incessant  warfare  against  evil  spirits,  who  recognised  inj 
him  a  power  superior  to  their  own.    Whether  greater  or  less 
credence  be  given  to  the  details  of  the  historian,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  but  that  at  the  baptism  Jesus  was  conscious  of  becoming 
possessed  by  some  power  external  to  himself,  which  he  identified 
with  the  spirit  of  God.     It  was  by  this  that  he  wrought  his 

1  Cf.  especially  Enoch  vi.-xvi. 

2  Perhaps  the  clearest  example  of  this  is  in  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  where 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  Jesus  are  the  two  great  angels  in  the  seventh  heaven  ;  but 
of  course  this  document  is  Christian  rather  than  Jewish. 


288 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


wonderful  cures  and  triumphed  over  the  demons  of  disease  and 
madness.  Whether  he  thought  that  in  consequence  of,  or  in 
addition  to,  this  inspiration  he  was  the  Son  of  Man,  or  the  Son 
of  David,  or  had  a  right  to  any  other  special  title  or  function  is 
open  to  doubt.  But  it  is  certain  that  he  claimed  to  act  and  to 
speak  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  When  his  adversaries 
endeavoured  to  explain  his  acts  as  due  to  possession  by  a  demon, 
he  stigmatised  them  as  blaspheming  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is 
noticeable,  however,  that  in  this  indirect  way  even  those  who 
rejected  Jesus  recognised  in  him  the  phenomena  of  inspiration. 
Their  judgment  of  fact  was  the  same  as  his  own — he  was  possessed 
by  a  spirit ;  the  difference  lay  in  their  judgment  of  value — it 
was  an  evil,  not  a  holy  spirit.  Similarly,  too,  though  his  family 
rejected  his  claims,  they  recognised  that  his  experience  was 
abnormal,  for  when  they  said  e^eart) — he  is  beside  himself — 
they  were  passing  in  a  more  general  form  the  same  verdict  as  the 
Pharisees,  for  madness  was  always  explained  as  obsession, 
though  presumably  it  required  the  learning  of  scribes  from  Jeru- 
salem to  see  that  this  case  of  possession,  which  cured  others,  was 
so  serious  as  to  be  diagnosed  as  the  work  of  Beelzebub  himself. 
If,  therefore,  we  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  impression  which 
the  preaching  of  Jesus  probably  made  on  one  of  his  hearers  in 
Galilee  outside  the  intimate  circle  of  the  Twelve,  it  would  be  : 
"  He  tells  us  that  the  New  Age  is  close  at  hand  in  which  God's 
Sovereignty  will  be  supreme.  He  warns  us  to  repent  that  we 
may  have  life  in  the  Coming  Age,  and  explains  the  nature  of 
God's  Sovereignty.  He  is  a  prophet,  and  unlike  the  scribes  he 
does  not  appeal  to  tradition,  but  he  does  not  talk  about  himself." 


In  what  way  did  the  teaching  of  Jesus  differ  from  that  of 
his  contemporaries  ?     Not — and  the  nature  of  much  modern 


Jesus  and 
his  Jewish 
contem- 
poraries,    j  writing  renders  it  desirable  to  emphasise  the  negative — not  by 


teaching  anything  about  God  essentially  new  to  Jewish  ears. 
The  God  of  Jesus  is  the  God  of  the  Jews,  about  whom  he  says 
nothing  which  cannot  be  paralleled  in  Jewish  literature.     Nor 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  289 

was  it  in  his  doctrine  as  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  that  Jesus, 
differed  markedly  from  other  Jewish  teachers.  Many  Rabbis, 
then  and  afterwards,  were  inspired  by  the  vision  of  the  Age  to 
Come,  and  awed  by  the  difficulty  of  attaining  it. 

The  differences  which  are  important  concern  three  subjects 
of  vital  and  controversial  interest — resistance  to  the  oppressors 
of  Israel,  the  fate  of  the  People  of  the  Land,  and  the  right  observ- 
ance of  the  Law.  On  the  first  point  he  conflicted  with  the  tend- 
ency to  rebellion  which  ultimately  crystallised  into  the  patriot 
parties  of  the  Jewish  war  in  a.d.  66  ;  on  the  second  and  third  he 
conflicted  with  the  Scribes. 

From  the  days  of  the  census,  when  Judas  of  Galilee  started  d)  Non- 
an  abortive  rebellion,  there  had  always  been  those  among  the  totppres- 
Jews  who  refused  to  recognise  the  supremacy  of  Rome,  and  sors' 
contemplated  with  approval  plans  of  armed  resistance.    It  is 
the  fashion  to  call  them  the  Zealots,  but,  strictly  speaking,  there  ^ 
were  no  Zealots  before  66,  and  Josephus  merely  calls  them  "  the  j 
Fourth  Philosophy."1    This  patriotic  party  is  not  mentioned 
by  name  in  the  Gospels,  but  much  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  be- 
comes intelligible   only  when  placed  against  the  background 
which  it  supplies.     "  But  I  say  to  you  which  hear,  Love  your  • 
enemies,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  bless  them  that  curse 
you,  pray  for  them  that  despitefully  use  you.    To  him  that 
smiteth  thee  on  the  one  cheek  offer  also  the  other  and  from 
him  that  taketh  away  thy  cloak,  withhold  not  thy  coat  also. 
Give  to  every  man  that  asketh  of  thee,  and  of  him  that  taketh 
away  thy  goods  ask  them  not  again.    And  as  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise.    And  if  ye  love 
them  which  love  you,  what  thank  have  ye  ?     For  sinners  also 
love  those  that  love  them.    And  if  ye  do  good  to  them  that  do 
good  to  you,  what  thank  have  ye  ?     For  sinners  also  do  the 
same.  .  .  .  But  love  ye  your  enemies.  ..."     The  mind  of  the 
editor  of  the  gospel  as  he  copied  these  sentences  out  of  his  source 
was  doubtless  fixed  on  the  sufferings  and  persecutions  endured 

1  See  Appendix  A. 
VOL.  I  U 


290  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

by  Christians  ;   but  to  the*  mind  of  the  Galilean  who  first  heard 
.[{them  they  must  have  seemed  to  be  the  direct  opposite  of  the 
i  patriotic  teaching  of  the  school  of  thought  started  by  Judas  of 
Galilee,  and  to  be  deliberately  intended  as  an  alternative  to  it. 

It  is  true  that  we  do  not  hear  anything  directly  of  the  opposi- 
tion of  Jesus  to  this  party.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  if 
I  the  hypothesis  here  presented  be  true,  it  would  account  for  the 
failure  of  Jesus  to  convince  any  large  part  of  the  Galilean  popula- 
tion. It  accounts  for  his  leaving  even  the  less  populous  parts 
of  the  country,  and  for  the  secrecy  which  appears  to  have  attended 
his  journey  when  he  went  through  Galilee  on  his  way  to  Jeru- 
salem ;  for  Galilee  was  essentially  patriotic,  far  more  so  than 
j  Judaea,  which  in  the  time  of  Jesus  was  still  under  the  influence  of 
the  Scribes  and  priests,  whose  resistance  to  Rome  was  essentially 
passive.  Why  then  is  there  not  more  mention  of  this  side  of 
the  background  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  ?  The  answer  appears 
to  be  that  just  as  in  the  Talmud  the  sayings  of  Rabbis  are  given 
without  historic  context,  so  also  in  Q  the  sayings  of  Jesus  were 
usually  related  without  incidents  which  had  called  them  out. 
Moreover,  by  the  time  the  Gospels  were  written,  and  in  the 
districts  in  which  they  were  composed,  the  patriotic  party  of 
Galilee  was  no  longer  existing.  Whatever  may  be  the  date  or 
place  of  the  composition  of  the  Greek  Gospels — not  of  the  Aramaic 
sources — they  belong  to  a  generation  for  whom  controversy  with 
the  Scribes  was  still  a  living  issue.  Therefore  the  speeches  of 
Jesus  against  the  Scribes  are  recorded,  and  anything  which  can 
be  said  to  their  detriment  is  emphasised.  But,  except  for  the 
final  scene  in  Jerusalem,  the  priests  and  the  Sadducees  are 
scarcely  mentioned,  because  they  played  no  part  in  the  life  of 
the  Christian  generation  which  produced  the  Gospels.  For 
exactly  the  same  reason  there  is  no  description  of  a  controversy 
with  the  "  patriots,"  and  we  should  know  nothing  about  it  were 
!  it  not  that  some  of  the  things  which  Jesus  said  in  this  connection 
were  cherished  by  Christians  in  a  new  context  provided  by  their 
-own  sufferings  and  persecutions. 


PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  291 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked  whether  such  teaching  is* 
really  consistent  with  the  violent  cleansing  of  the  Temple.    Thef 
true  answer  is  probably  not  to  be  found  in  any  ingenious  har- 
monisation,  but  rather  in  accentuating  the  fact  that  the  "  non-n 
resistent "  teaching  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  deals  with  the/ 
line  of  conduct  to  be  observed  towards  foreign  oppressors  and'' 
violence  from  without.     The  sacerdotal  money-changers   and 
sellers  of  doves  in  the  Temple  were  not  the  "  oppressors  of  Israel." 
Israel  was  called  on  to  suffer  under  Roman  rule,  and  the  righteous 
to  endure  violence  at  the  hands  of  the  wicked,  for  that  was  the 
will  of  God,  who  in  his  own  good  time  would  shorten  the  evil 
days.     But  the  manipulation  of  the  sacrificial  system  as  a  means 
of  plundering  the  pious  was  a  sin  of  Israel  itself,  against  which 
protest  and  force  were  justified.    "What  the  heathen  and  the  , 
wicked  do  is  their  concern  and  God's,  but  the  sins  of  Israel  are  S 
Israel's  own  ;   against  them  the  righteous  in  Israel  may  execute  j 
judgment. 

The  attitude  of  Jesus  towards  the  People  of  the  land  was  more  (2)  Atti- 
sharply  opposed  to  that  of  the  Scribes  in  practice  than  in  prin-  wal^the 
ciple.     He  offered  the  opportunity  of  entering  into  the  Kingdom  fhee°^n°df 
of  God  to  publicans  and  sinners.     The  fact  is  undisputed,  but 
without  qualification  is  liable  to  misconstruction.    It  did  not 
mean  a  lower,  but  a  higher  requirement  of  morality  than  the 
Scribes  asked  for.     He  called  upon  publicans  and  sinners  to 
repent,  and  the  standard  of  life  which  he  required  was  not  less 
"  righteous  "  than  that  of  the  Pharisees,  but  it  could  be  obtained 
rather  by  attention  to  principles  than  by  careful  study  of  detail. 

No  Rabbi  would  have  said  that  sinners  and  Publicans 
were  excluded  from  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  if  they  repented  ; 
but^epentance  in  the  eyes  of  the  Rabbis  seems  in  practice  Jo  r 
have  included  an  extreme  and  meticulous  attention  to  the 
details  of  the  Law,  such  as  rendered  repentance  impossible  to 
orJ&?MJ^!?ad^edj^ated  men.  There  is  much  for  scholars  to 
admire  in  the  Rabbinical  teaching  of  the  Law.  At  its  best  it 
is  the  recognition  that  Knowledge  is  one  of  the  roads  which  leads 


292  PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

to  Life  ;  but  at  its  worst  it  is,  as  Jesus  said,  the  "  tithing  of 
mint  and  anise  and  cummin  "  :  the  prostitution  of  life  to  learning. 

(3)  Jesus  The  attitude  of  Jesus  to  the  Law  has  been  sufficiently  described 

l"w.  above  ;  he  accepted  it  as  the  basis  of  righteousness.    According 

to  himself,  he  demanded  a  higher  standard  than  the  Scribes  ; 
according  to  the  Scribes  he  was  destroying  the  Law.  The  differ- 
ence was  one  of  interpretation,  and  can  best  be  understood  by 
his  treatment  of  the  Law  on  the  Sabbath  and  on  Divorce. 

(a)  The  The  difficulty  of  a  strict  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  the 

cause  of  many  discussions  among  the  Rabbis,  and  the  Pharisees 
had  introduced  many  rules  intended  to  make  it  easier.1  But, 
as  always  happens  with  attempts  to  remedy  oppressive  legisla- 
tion by  amendment  rather  than  abolition,  these  Pharisaic  efforts 
resulted  only  in  making  the  yoke  of  the  Sabbath  heavier.  Jesus 
went  to  the  heart  of  the  matter  by  appealing  from  the  letter  of 
the  Law  to  its  purpose,  and  denned  this  as  the  advantage  of  man  : 
"  The  Sabbath  was  for  man's  sake  "  (iyevero  8ia  rbv  dvOpconrov). 
It  is  remarkable  how  little  notice  has  been  given  to  the  difficulty 
of  reconciling  this  statement  with  that  of  Genesis  and  Exodus,2 
which  make  the  Sabbath  a  commemoration  of  the  Rest  of  God 
rather  than  an  institution  for  the  benefit  of  man.  Nor  would  a 
'  lawyer  readily  admit  the  right  of  an  individual  to  interpret 
legislation  by  its  original  object  rather  than  by  the  letter  of  its 
meaning.  Nevertheless,  however  difficult  of  application  it  may 
be,  the  verdict  of  Jesus  remains  unshaken  in  principle,  not 
merely  on  the  Sabbath,  but  on  all  other  laws.  Their  moral 
claim  to  allegiance  is  ultimately  based  on  their  advantage  to 
men  ;  and  the  supreme  duty  of  legislators  is  to  test  the  code 
entrusted  to  them  by  this  standard. 

(6)  Divorce.  Jesus'  treatment  of  marriage  and  divorce  illustrates  the 
same  principle,  though  its  application  in  his  hands  led  to  different 
results.  According  to  Mark3  he  excluded  divorce  altogether 
on  the  ground  that  a  man  and  his  wife  were  created  as  "  one 

1  See  above,  p.  115.        2  It  is,  however,  in  accord  with  Deut.  v.  12. 
3  Mark  x.  1-12. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  293 

flesh,"  and  that  the  Mosaic  permission  to  divorce  was  due  to  sin  J  * 
and  not  to  the  original  plan  of  man's  creation.    The  same  absolute  i  n 
prohibition  of  divorce  is  found  also  in  Q.1    In  the  MatthaeanJ 
version,  however,  both  of  Q  and  of  the  Marcan  narrative,  anN*^ 
exception  "  save  for  the  cause  of  fornication  "  is  introduced ; 
it  cannot  well  be  original,  and  is  probably  due  to  the  practical 
difficulties  encountered  by  the  early  Church.     The  best  illustra- 
tion of  these  is  the  famous  treatment  of  divorce  in  the  Shepherd  \\*  * 
of  Hermas.2 

It  may  seem  at  first  sight  strange  that  Jesus  relaxed  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath,  and  not  that  of  divorce ;  but  in  each  case 
he  was  appealing  to  their  original  meaning  and  relation  to  human 
life.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  perfected  humanity  is  as  little 
likely  to  need  divorce  to  mitigate  unsatisfactory  marriages  as 
it  is  to  identify  rest  with  inaction. 

These  are  the  clearest  examples  of  Jesus'  treatment  of  the  Re-inter- 
Law.     It  was  not  an  antinomian  abrogation,  such  as  the  Jewish  0^1^  Lai 
Christians  attributed  to  Paul,  nor  was  it  a  rigid  adhesion  to  its 
letter,  such  as  the  Sadducees  advocated.    It  was  similar  to  its  « 
treatment  by  the  Pharisees  in  so  far  as  it  was  "  re-interpretation"  ;  I 
but  it  was  of  a  wholly  different  type.     The  Pharisaic   "re-  * 
interpretation,"  which  is  a  phenomenon  common  in  all  ages, 
endeavoured,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  to  modify  the  Law, 
while  appearing  to  affirm  it.     Their  treatment  was  based  on 
two  facts — they  could  not  fulfil  the  letter  of  the  Law,  but  they 
desired  to  seem  to  do  so.      It  therefore  introduced  a  chain 
of  subtle  modifications  and  explanations,  each  small  in  itself, 
which  taken  together  sometimes  reverses  the  meaning  of  the 
Law  ex  animo  scriptoris.     The  treatment  of  Jesus,3  on  the  other 

1  Matt.  v.  32  =  Luke  xvi.  18.  s>C* 

2  See  Hermas,  Mand.  iv.  and  cf.  the  Expositor,  Nov.  1910  and  Jan.  1911.  ?yg< 

3  The  attitude  of  Jesus  to  this  method  of  re -interpretation  is  seen  in  his 
denunciation  of  it  in  Mark  vii.  1  ff.,  dealing  with  the  ceremonial  Law.     His 
own  interpretation  was  that  the  purpose  of  the  Law  was  to  avoid  defilement, 
which  is  the  result,  not  of  food,  but  of  evil  thought  and  bad  conduct.     The  | 
comment  of  the  Evangelist,  if  the  text  of  nB  be  correct,  is,  "  This  he  said,  l\  I 
making  clean  all  food."     It  is  interesting  that  Luke  omits  this  section.     Is  it  *« 


294  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

*  J  J  hand,  was  based  on  the  mind  of  the  divine  author  of  the  Law. 
When  the  letter  of  the  Law  interfered  with  instead  of  furthering 
the  purpose  for  which  it  was  written,  it  was  the  purpose  not  the 
letter  which  took  precedence  ;  and  inasmuch  as  this  purpose  was 
the  benefit  of  mankind,  a  principle  incontestable  correct,  though 
undoubtedly  difficult,  was  laid  down.  In  general  no  one  doubts 
but  that  the  final  test  of  formularies  appealing  to  the  intellect 
is  whether  they  are  true,  and  of  those  relating  to  conduct  whether 
they  are  righteous  ;  but  in  detail  the  obscurity  which  surrounds 
truth  and  righteousness  frightens  men  into  substituting  some 
easier  way  for  that  of  Jesus.  But  here,  too,  the  saying  is  true 
that  "  Narrow  is  the  way  that  leads  to  Life." 

Marcan  According  to  Mark,  Jesus,  unlike  John  the  Baptist,1  began 

account  of  ^  ^ig  jj^jg^y  not  m  ^e  ^eseI^  but  in  the  towns  of  Galilee.     John 

*  I  went  into  the  wilderness,  and  the  people  came  to  him  :    Jesus 
i  came  out  of  the  wilderness  and  went  to  the  people.2    On  his 

way  along  the  shore  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  he  called  Peter  and 

because  its  retention  renders  the  vision  to  Peter  in  Acts  x.  9  if.  somewhat  of  an 
anticlimax,  and  is  far  more  radical  than  the  Apostolic  decrees,  if  these  were 

*  intended  as  a  food  law  ?     It  is,  however,  noticeable  that  Matthew,  who  repro- 
"  I  duces  the  main  part  of  the  section,  omits  Kadaplfav  iravra  t&  /Spectra.     It  is 

therefore  possible  that  these  words  are  a  "  secondary  feature  "  in  our  Mark, 
gttlgand  reflect  the  opinion  of  a  Gentile  Christian  who  has  lived  through  the 
^udaistic  controversy.     Or  did  Peter  relate  this  story,  with  this  comment, 
**  }  as  justifying  his  attitude  to  Gentile  converts  ? 

1  John  the  Baptist  (see  p.  101)  seems  to  belong  to  the  "centrifugal"  type 
A  of  Judaism,  together  with  the  therapeutae  and  the  Covenanters  of  Damascus  ; 

^  *  * j  he  made  the  desert  his  abode  and  avoided  the  synagogues.     Cf.  p.  83. 

If,  however,  Mark  ii.  18,  which  describes  the  disciples  of  John  and  the 
Pharisees  as  fasting,  refers  to  the  towns  0  villages  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  as 
the  reference  to  the  custom-house  in  the  context  suggests,  and  if  it  be  a  part 
of  the  genuine  tradition,  the  disciples  of  John  had  already  given  up  the  habits 
of  their  leader  by  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  were  settled  in  the 
towns,  and  followed  the  Pharisaic  tradition.  From  the  literary  point  of  view 
the  passage  is  clearly  part  of  Mark,  but  there  is  room  for  doubt  whether  it 
may  not  be  part  of  early  Christian  controversy  which  was  transferred  to  the 
story  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  though  from  the  nature  of  the  case  such  doubts  can 
never  be  substantiated,  and  ought  not  to  be  given  undue  prominence. 

2  From  the  Jewish  point  of  view  the  procedure  of  John  was  the  more  cal- 
culated to  suggest  Messianic  claims. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  295 

Andrew1  and  the  sons  of  Zebedee2  to  follow  him.  They  then 
went  to  Capernaum,  where  was  Peter's  house,3  and  Jesus  made 
this  town  the  centre  of  his  work  but  moved  from  time  to  time 
throughout  the  district,  preaching  in  the  synagogues,4  announ- 
cing that  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  calling  on  men  to 
repent,  healing  the  sick,  and  forgiving  sin. 

The  claim  to  forgive  sin  and  his  teaching  as  to  the  Sabbath 
caused  a  rupture  between  Jesus  and  the  Synagogue,5  and  he 
began  a  longer  ministry  throughout  the  northern  part  of 
Palestine.6  Finally  he  returned  south  and  went  to  Jerusalem. 
It  can  scarcely  be  accidental  that  immediately  after  the  account 
of  the  rupture  with  the  Synagogue  at  Capernaum  there  follows 
the  appointment  of  the  Twelve. 

What  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  was  is  only  indicated  briefly  'The 

Twelve 

and  vaguely  in  Mark  iii.  14  :  "He'  made  '  twelve,  to  be  with 
him,  and  for  him  to  send  them  to  proclaim  and  to  have  authority 
to  cast  out  demons."  The  translation  of  /cnpvaaeiv  by  '  preach  ' 
in  the  English  version  is  unfortunate  :  the  word  means  to  pro- 
claim or  herald,  and  the  early  Christian  message,  unlike  preaching 
in  the  modern  sense,  was  essentially  a  proclamation,  whether 
it  referred  to  the  coming  of  Jesus,  to  the  duty  of  repentance,  or 
i  Mark  i.  16  ff.  a  Mark  i.  19  ff. 

3  John  i.  44  (cf.  John  i.  43)  says  that  Andrew  and  Peter  belonged  to  Beth- 
saida,  and  that  they  were  called  by  Jesus  at  Bethany  in  Peraea,  before  he 
went  into  Galilee ;  but  this  is  irreconcilable  with  Mark's  explicit  statement 
which  there  is  no  reason  to  reject.  On  the  topography  of  Capernaum,  besides 
the  usual  books,  see  especially  the  article  by  Dr.  Sanday  in  the  J.T.S.,  October 
1903. 

4  Cf.  Mark  i.  38  ff.,  ii.  1,  ii.  13,  iii.  1. 

5  Mark  iii.  6  ;  cf.  F.  C.  Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission, 

p.  80  ff. 

6  It  will  probably  always  remain  impossible  to  reconstruct  the  route  followed 
by  Jesus.  J.  Wellhausen  in  his  Einleitung  in  die  drei  erste  Evangelien  has  pro- . 
duced  plausible  but  not  completely  convincing  arguments  for  the  existence  of  | 
"  doublets  "  in  Mark.  On  the  other  hand,  F.  C.  Burkitt  in  his  Transmission 
of  the  Gospel  has  shown,  with  about  the  same  degree  of  plausibility,  that  Mark 
can  be  interpreted  as  the  record  of  a  continuous  journey  beginning  in  Capernaum 
and  ending  in  Jerusalem.  A  third  possibility,  which  is  perhaps  supported— 
if  support  it  be— by  the  opinion  of  Papias,  is  that  Mark  did  not  intend  to 
give  a  continuous  narrative,  but  strung  together  such  typical  and  striking 
incidents  as  he  knew,  with  no  special  regard  for  chronology. 


296  PEIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

to  the  future  coming  of  the  Kingdom  and  the  Judgment  of 
God.1 

A  somewhat  fuller  account  is  given  in  Mark  vi.  7  fL,  which, 
as  it  stands,  records  a  special  mission  of  the  Twelve,  but  may 
conceivably  be  a  doublet 2  of  the  story  of  their  appointment. 

And  he  called  the  Twelve  and  began  to  send  them  out  two  by 
two,  and  he  gave  them  authority  over  the  unclean  spirits,  and  he 
enjoined  on  them  to  take  nothing  for  the  road,  except  only  a  stick, 
— no  bread,  no  bag,  no  money  in  the  belt,  but  shod  with  sandals. 
And  do  not  wear  two  garments.  And  he  said  to  them,  "  Wherever 
you  go  into  a  house,  stay  there  until  you  leave  the  place.  And 
whatever  place  receive  you  not  and  they  do  not  listen  to  you,  leave 
it  and  shake  off  the  dust  from  under  your  feet  as  a  testimony  to 
them."  And  they  went  forth  and  proclaimed  that  men  should 
repent ;  and  they  cast  out  many  demons,  and  anointed  with  oil 
many  sick,  and  cured  them. 

The  King-  At  this  point  it  might  be  possible  to  supplement  the  Marcan 

dom  of  God  J      fll  .      .  x 

account  of  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  by  the  narratives  in  Matthew 
and  Luke,  but  some  of  these  expand  the  Marcan  account  without 
making  any  real  addition,  and  others  seem  more  probably— 
though  the  point  is  uncertain— to  reflect  missionary  instructions 
given  by  some  branch  of  the  early  Church  rather  than  by  Jesus, 
so  that  they  can  be  more  appropriately  discussed  later. 

The  most  remarkable  feature  of  the  Marcan  evidence  is  that 
it  gives  no  support  to  the  view  that  Jesus  intended  to  found  a 
Church  separate  from  that  of  the  Jews.  The  Kingdom  of  God 
of  which  he  spoke  was  either  the  Good  Time  to  which  the  Jews 
looked  forward,  or  the  Sovereignty  of  God,  or  the  Coming  Age 
(the  Nin  ofrw).     It  was  not  an  organisation  for  the  stimulation 

1  From  a  comparison  with  vi.  12,  the  emphasis  in  this  case  would  seem 
to  be  on  repentance,  though  it  is  probable  that  the  full  content  of  the  K^pvy/xa  is 
intended  to  be  that  of  Jesus  himself  as  related  in  Mark  i.  15 :  "  The  time  (in 
the  sense  of  'the  Age')  is  fulfilled,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand  ; 
repent  ye  and  believe  the  good  news." 

2  The  main  point  in  favour  of  this  view  is  that  in  Mark  vi.,  as  in  Mark  hi., 
the  general  situation  is  that  of  rejection  of  the  Synagogue  followed  by  a  mission 
elsewhere  and  the  selection  of  the  Twelve.  It  is  noticeable  that  Luke  omits 
this  incident,  or  rather  adopts  another  version  of  it  which  he  puts  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 


dom  of  God 
not  the 
Church. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  297 

and  control  of  worship.     Nor  can  the  exhortation  to  repent, 
be  regarded  as  identical  with  a  call  to  join  a  new  society ;   it 
was  rather  the  reiteration  of  the  old  prophetic  appeal  to  the 
Chosen  People  to  turn  to  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found.     Not 
merely  were  the  Twelve  not  sent  during  this  period  to  proclaim 
Jesus  as  Messiah  ;    they  were  forbidden  to  make  public  the 
secret  which  was  afterwards  to  be  the  gospel  of  the  Christian 
Church.     They  were  preachers  of  repentance  and  the  Kingdom  i  ^ 
of  God,  not  of  a  Messiah  or  of  a  new  society  based  on  the  Messianic  I 
claims  of  Jesus.     Therefore  they  cannot  yet  have  been  regarded, 
or  have  regarded  themselves,  as  the  pillars  of  a  new  organisation. 

Their  real  thoughts  may  perhaps  be  expressed  in  a  significant  Original 
passage  found  both  in  Matthew  xix.  28  and  in  Luke  xxii.  30  :  1S£Bth* 
"  Ye  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel."     The  fact  that  this  passage  belongs  to  the  oldest  partj.r* 
of  the  non-Marcan  tradition  gives  great  importance  to  its  testi-  J 
mony,  and  at  least  shows  that  the  earliest  Christian  tradition! 
ascribed  an  eschatological  significance  to  the  functions  of  the| 
Twelve.     But  whether  the  words  are  really  those  of  Jesus  him-! 
self  may  be  doubted.     In  Mark  x.  28  the  answer  to  the  implied* 
question  of  Peter,  "  Lo  !    we  have  left  all  and  followed  thee," 
seems  scarcely  consistent  with  such  a  promise,  and  the  manner 
in  which  this  answer  is  treated  by  Matthew  is  very  significant. 
In  Mark  the  answer  of  Jesus  is,  "  There  is  no  one  who  has  left 
home,  or  brothers,  or  sisters,  or  mother,  or  father,  or  children, 
or  lands,  for  my  sake  and  for  the  '  good  news  '  who  shall  not 
receive  a  hundredfold  now  in  this  time,— houses,  and  brothers, 
and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children,  and  lands,  with  persecu- 
tions,1 and  in  the  age  to  come  life  everlasting.     But  many  first 
shall  be  last,  and  the  last  first."     This  passage  is  quite  in  accord 
with  the  Jewish  expectation  of  the  '  Days  of  the  Messiah  '  at  the 

1  Many  edifying  remarks  have  been  made  on  this  "  with  persecutions  "  ; 
but  it  is  hard  to  see  any  satisfactory  meaning  in  it,  and  it  may  be  merely  a 
very  early  reflection  of  Christian  experience  ;  unless  indeed  it  is  misplaced 
and  should  follow  *  lands  '  in  the  description  of  the  sacrifice  made  by  the 
Christian  believer  rather  than  in  the  promise  of  reward. 


298  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

end  of  '  this  Age,'  and  the  future  '  Age  to  Come ' ; x  indeed,  it 

.  can  scarcely  be  explained  except  by  reference  to  them.    Is  it 

consistent  with  the  definite  promise  that  the  Twelve  should 

judge  Israel  ?     Matthew  apparently  did  not  think  that  it  was, 

^J  for  though  he  brings  the  two  passages  together,2  he  distinguishes 

;  between  the  promise  to  the  Twelve  of  the  thrones  of  judgment, 

;  which  he  makes  the  direct  answer  to  Peter  and  takes  from  Q, 

i  and  the  general  promise  of  reward  to  those  who  had  given  up 

•family  or  property,  which  he  takes  from  Mark.     The  typical 

Jewish  distinction   between  the  reward  in  kind  in  this  Age, 

which  included  the  Days  of  the  Messiah,  and  eternal  life  in  the 

Age  to  Come,  is  imperfectly  observed,  and  the  reward  in  kind  as 

well  as  the  promise  of  eternal  life  is  placed  in  the  '  Regeneration  ' 

(7ra\i,yyev€aLa),    an    obscure    phrase    which    probably    is    the 

equivalent  of  the  '  Age  to  Come,'  though  the  point  is  not  entirely 

certain. 

Moreover,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  promise  of  thrones  at 

f  the  Judgment  is  quite  consistent  with  the  refusal  to  foretell  the 

future  position  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  which  is  in  complete 

accord  with  the  Marcan  answer  to  Peter.     Indeed,  the  apparent 

meaning  of  the  Marcan  narrative  is  that  on  the  journey  to 

Jerusalem,  first  Peter,  and  afterwards  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  asked 

what  would  be  their  reward ;    in  each  case  Jesus  refused  to 

answer  in  the  spirit  of  his  questioners  or  exactly  to  foretell  the 

future  in  detail. 

The  It  is  therefore  open  to  doubt  whether  the  promise  of  the 

thHtwefrc  thrones  at  the  Judgment  really  was  made  by  Jesus.    Neverthe- 

thrones  *      iess  ifcs  presence  in  Q  shows  that  it  belongs  to  a  very  early  form 

at  the  r  ,     ,  . 

Judgment,  of  Christian  tradition.  This  is  corroborated  in  a  curious  manner 
by  the  narrative  in  Acts  of  the  behaviour  of  the  community  of 
believers  with  regard  to  the  breach  in  the  number  of  the  Twelve 
caused  by  the  deaths  of  Judas  and  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee. 
In  the  place  of  Judas  the  disciples  selected  one  of  their  number 

1  Cf.   Klausner,   Die  messianische  Vorstellungen  des  jildischen  Volkes  im 
Zeitalter  der  Tannaiten.  a  Matt.  xix.  27  ff. 


i  PUBLIC  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  299 

(and  scriptural  proof  is  alleged  by  the  writer  to  justify  their  *  % 
action),  because  Judas  had  forfeited  his  place ;    he  could  no  { 
longer  sit  on  his  throne  at  the  Judgment  of  God.     But  in  theh 
case  of  James  no  attempt  was  made  to  fill  the  vacancy,  because!  x 
in  the  strictest  sense  there  was  no  real  vacancy  to  fill ;   he  was 
dead,  but  nevertheless  he  would  judge  the  tribe  allotted  to  him. 
Whether  this  is  the  line  of  thought  underlying  the  narrative  in 
Acts  cannot  be  fully  demonstrated,  but  it  is  at  least  consistent 
with  the  facts,  and  explains,  as  nothing  else  seems  to  do,  why 
a  successor  was  appointed  to  Judas,  but  not  to  James.    Had^ 
the  Twelve  been  regarded  as  the  '  governing  body '  of  the  Church, 
it  would  have  been  natural  to  fill  up  vacancies  in  it.     But  this 
was  never  done  except  in  the  case  of  Judas  ;  as  a  matter  of  fact 
the  whole  point  of  the  early  Christian  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
succession  is  that  the  "  successors  "  were  not,  and  never  could  be, 
members  of  the  '  College  of  the  Twelve.' 

Thus  the  general  conclusion  from  the  witness  of  Mark  and 
of  the  earliest  non-Marcan  tradition  is  that  the  Twelve  were 
appointed  by  Jesus  to  represent  him  in  delivering  to  the  people 
his  message  of  the  approach  of  the  Kingdom  and  of  the  need 
of  repentance.  In  the  mind  of  the  Christian  community,  if  not 
in  that  of  Jesus,  it  was  held  that  they  would  be  assessors  with 
him  in  the  judgment  over  the  tribes  of  Israel.  There  is  no  sugges- 
tion that  they  were  to  be  the  heads  of  a  Church  distinct  from 
that  of  the  Jews,  or  that  they  should  announce  anything  con- 
cerning Jesus — for  instance,  that  he  was  the  Messiah — or  baptize 
in  his  name. 


II 

THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  AND  THE  RISE 
OF  GENTILE  CHRISTIANITY 

By  The  Editors 

Gospels  There  are  two  collections  of  documents  important  for  the 
history  and  thought  of  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem  and  the  rise  of 
Gentile  Christianity.  One  is  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts  ; 
,  the  other  is  the  Pauline  epistles.  The  latter  is  probably  the 
earlier  ;  the  former  the  more  primitive.  Both  belong  to  Gentile 
Christianity,  but  both  have  points  of  contact  with  the  Jewish 
Church.  The  Gospels  and  Acts  were  probably  edited  by,  and 
certainly  intended  for,  Gentile  Christians  :  but  they  are  based 
on  the  Aramaic  traditions  of  Jewish  Christianity.  Moreover, 
they  were  written  by  men  who  were  trying  to  reproduce  the 
history  of  the  past  in  order  to  justify  their  own  opinions.  They 
are  therefore  more  primitive  than  the  date  at  which  they  were 
written — whatever  that  may  be.  Their  value  is  twofold,  partly 
as  the  oldest  extant  record  of  events,  partly  as  representing 
the  opinion  of  their  editors.  This  is  sometimes  described  as 
"  tendenzios  "  ;  but  it  has  often  been  forgotten,  especially  by 
English  writers,  that  the  "  tendenz  "  is  itself  a  factor  in  history. 

Pauline  The  Pauline  epistles,  on  the  other  hand,  look  forward  and  not 
back  :  whether  they  were  all  written  by  Paul  or  not,  they  certainly 
are  animated  by  the  wish  to  mould  the  future  by  an  appeal  to 
religion  and  its  doctrinal  explanation  rather  than  to  history. 
The  historical  data  in  the  epistles,  except  for  Paul's  own  life,  are 
very  few,  though  their  importance  is  great.     The  impossibility 

300 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JEKUSALEM  301 

in  some  cases  and  the  difficulty  in  others  of  reconciling  them  to 
Acts  is  analogous  to  the  divergences  between  Luke  and  Mark, 
and  cautions  us  against  trusting  too  implicitly  to  the  narrative 
of  Acts. 

Thus  the  main  authority  for  the  history  of  the  disciples  in  Acts 
Jerusalem  is  the  first  part  of  Acts,  which  seems,  however,  to  authority 
present  not  so  much  a  single  picture  as  a  series  of  glimpses.    It  f?r  p^raf" 
can  be  supplemented  by  the  point  of  view  of  Mark,  which  may,  tianity. 
with  some  reserves,  be  taken  to  represent  the  belief  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  and  by  certain  passages  in  the  Synoptic  narrative, 
which  literary  criticism  would  be  inclined  to  exclude  from  the 
oldest  stratum  of  tradition  regarding  Jesus,  and  to  regard  as 
representing  the  point  of  view  of  Christians  in  Jerusalem,  such  as 
are  described  in  Acts. 

For  the  rise  of  Gentile  Christianity  Acts  vi.  to  xxviii.  is  our  Gentile 
only  source  of  information  in  narrative  form  ;    it  can  only  be  Canity. 
supplemented  by  the  Pauline  epistles,  which  show  that  it  is  in- 
complete and  sometimes  incorrect,  but,  generally  speaking,  con- 
firm its  claim  to  be  an  historical  document  of  the  first  order. 

The  picture  of  the  early  Church  presented  by  the  opening  Difficulties 
chapters  of  Acts  is  that  of  a  society  of  Galilean  followers  of  Jesus  sLtetiorT 
who  had  lived  together  in  Jerusalem  from  the  dav  of  the  cruci-  of  earlie8t 

m  J  Chris- 

fixion  and  held  peculiar  views  of  their  own.     The  Twelve,  and  tianity. 
especially  Peter,  were  the  leaders  of  this  society. 

The  historical  difficulty  of  this  presentation  is  largely  con- 
cealed from  the  general  reader  of  the  New  Testament,  because 
either  he  unconsciously  harmonises  the  Gospels  and  Acts  together, 
until  he  becomes  almost  incapable  of  recognising  any  differences, 
or  he  reads  Luke  and  Acts  together  and  ignores  Mark.  Never- 
theless Mark  and  Acts,  not  Luke  and  Acts,  are  our  primary  \ 
sources,  and  the  historian  ought  undoubtedly  to  regard  Luke  i 
as  in  the  main  a  secondary  source,  and  to  take  this  fact  into  | 
account  in  considering  Acts.  If  this  be  done  it  becomes  clear 
that  the  account  in  Acts  is  defective,  because,  by  a  kind  of 
historical  homoioteleuton,   it   leaves   out   a   complete   episode 


302  PEIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

beginning  and  ending  in  Jerusalem.      Of  this  episode  there  is  no 

extant  account,  but  Mark  enables  us  to  supply  its  outlines. 

Original  According  to  Mark  the  disciples  left  Jesus  at  the  moment  of 

tradition.     yg  arreg^  or  g00n  after,  and  fled.    It  is  not  related  whither  they 

I  went  or  the  exact  moment  of  their  departure  from  Jerusalem, 

i  but  it  is  definitely  implied 1  that  they  were  in  Galilee  when  they 

first  saw  the  risen  Jesus.    Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  they  clearly 

did  not  stay  in  Galilee — for  the  centre  of  the  early  Church  was 

in  Jerusalem,  not  Galilee — the  general  sequence  of  events  must 

^j  have  been  (1)  the  flight  of  the  disciples  ;  (2)  the  vision — especially 

Peter's — of  the  risen  Jesus  in  Galilee ;  (3)  the  return  to  Jerusalem ; 

'  (4)  the  formation  of  a  society  in  Jerusalem. 

The  Lukan         Luke  and  Acts  taken  together  give  a  different  account  of 

e*  (  events,  and  represent  the  disciples  as  staying  in  Jerusalem  after 

'  the  crucifixion  ;  but  this  is  because  the  editor  altered  the  Marcan 

tradition,  not  because  he  whole-heartedly  followed  a  different 

|  one.    In  the  Gospel,  though  he  also  uses  other  sources,  he  follows 

Mark  so  far  as  Mark  exists.      But  he  omits  Mark  xiv.  28  ("  But 

£»!  after  I  am  risen  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee  ")  and  changes 

I  the  words  of  the  young  man  at  the  tomb  from,  "  Go  tell  his 

!  disciples  and  Peter  that  he  goes  before  you  into  Galilee,  there  ye 

I  shall  see  him  as  he  told  you,"  into  "  Remember  how  he  spoke  to 

you  while  he  was  yet  in  Galilee."    The  writer  clearly  knows 

M  the  Galilean  tradition,  but  changes  and  partly  suppresses  it. 

Had  'Luke'        The  suggestion  is  of  course  obvious  that '  Luke  '  was  in  posses- 

tradftiorf?    s*on  °^  an°ther  tradition,  which  may  conveniently  be  called  the 

'  Jerusalem  tradition  '  as  distinct  from  the  '  Galilean  tradition  ' 

represented  by  Mark.    This  is  not  merely  possible,  but  to  a 

certain  degree  is  obviously  true.    No  one  supposes  that  the 

1  Since  the  end  of  Mark  is  lost  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  is  stated,  but  in  this 
case  the  implication  is  so  clear  as  to  amount  to  a  statement.  Mark  xiv.  28 : 
"  After  I  am  risen  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee,"  and  Mark  xvi.  7,  "  Tell 
his  disciples  and  Peter  that  he  goes  before  you  into  Galilee  ;  there  ye  shall  see 
him  as  he  said  to  you,"  are  possibly  open  to  more  than  one  interpretation  as 
to  whether  the  disciples  went  to  Galilee  before  or  after  the  crucifixion  :  but 
undoubtedly  they  imply  the  risen  Jesus  was  seen  first  by  the  disciples  in 
Galilee, 


n  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JEEUSALEM  303 

third  Gospel  and  Acts  are  the  products  of  the  writer's  imagina- 
tion.   But  the  question  is,  granted  the  existence  of  the  two 
traditions  at  the  time  when  '  Luke '  wrote,  between  60  and 
100   a.d.,  which  is  the  more  likely  to  be  true  ?     They  can-- 
not  both  be  true,  for  the  disciples  cannot  have  been  both  inj 
Galilee  and  at  Jerusalem  when  Peter  first  saw  the  risen  Lord  ;* 
either  they  were  in  Galilee  as  the  Marcan  tradition  says,  or  in 
Jerusalem,  as  Luke  says. 

On  this  point  there  is  a  growing  consensus  of  opinion.     '  In-*  Galilean 
trinsic  probability '  is  not  opposed  to  the  Galilean  tradition  :j 
'  traditional  probability '  is  strongly  in  favour  of  it.    If  the  j 
disciples  did  not  go  to  Galilee  and  there  see  the  risen  Jesus,  >  n 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  early  Church — which  certainly  was : 
settled  at  Jerusalem — should  have  invented  the  story ;    on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  every  reason  why  it  should  soon  forget  or 
ignore  the  short  Galilean  episode,  and  transfer  to  its  own  locality 
the  experiences  of  the  first  witnesses  to  the  risen  Jesus.     There 
is  therefore  the  strongest  probability  that  Luke  has  omitted  or[i 
transformed  the  story  of  the  disciples  in  Galilee  and  their  return  I' 
to  Jerusalem.     But  this  is  clear  only  because  we  possess  Mark  ; 
otherwise  Luke  would  have  succeeded  completely  in  covering 
his  changes  and  adaptations.1 

Owing,  therefore,  to  the  loss  of  the  true  end  of  Mark  and  to 
the  suppression  of  the  Galilean  tradition  by  the  writer  of  Acts, 
it  is  impossible  to  say  exactly  what  happened  to  those  of  the 
disciples,  whose  leader  was  Peter,  between  the  crucifixion  and 
their  establishment  as  a  community  in  Jerusalem.  Mark  proves  * 
that  they  went  to  Galilee,  and  then  became  convinced  that  Jesus  I 
was  alive  and  glorified.2    In  the  light  of  this  Acts  shows,  though 

1  This  is  the  measure  of  the  caution  with  which  statements  in  the  early  part 
of  Acts  must  be  received,  and  the  justification  of  a  free  criticism. 

2  The  story  of  the  women  who  visited  the  tomb  of  Jesus  "  on  the  third 
day  "  and  could  not  find  the  body  is  no  doubt  a  genuine  fragment  of  Jerusalem 
tradition  :  but  though  it  may — the  point  is  not  clear — have  been  the  basis  of 
the  faith  of  Mary  Magdalene  in  the  resurrection,  it  was  not  that  of  Peter's. 
Peter  believed  because  he  had  found  a  living  Jesus,  not  because  he  could  not 
find  a  dead  one. 


304  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

it  does  not  state,  that  they  afterwards  returned  to  Jerusalem 
and  formed  themselves  into  a  society,  of  which  Peter  was  the 
centre.     It  does  not  tell  us  why  they  went  to  Jerusalem  instead 
of  remaining  in  Galilee.     We  may  guess  that  their  reason  was 
eschatological — the  belief  that  the  Day  of  the  Lord  was  at  hand, 
and  that  the  reign  of  his  Anointed  would  be  established  in  Jeru- 
salem :  but  there  is  no  evidence.1 
The  church        The  Jews  would  probably  have  regarded   this  society  as 
a^Synaf  .  &  new  sect,2  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Pharisees  (aipeai<;  accord- 
gogue.'      i  -ng  £0  Acts,  or  <f)iXo(To<pi,a  according  to  Josephus) ;  its  members 
.  called  themselves  '  brethren  '  (a8e\<j)OL)y  *  disciples  '  (fxadrirai), 
I '  believers  '  (-marevovTes!),  or  *  the  way  '  (rj  686s).     '  Disciples  ' 
and  *  believers  '  explain  themselves.     '  Brethren  '  is  strikingly 
*  J  similar  to  the  rabbinical  use  of  *  Haber  '  (associate).    It  is  prob- 
'  able  that  the  Christians  3  were  also  recognised  as  a  synagogue  or 
;  Keneseth,4  for  according  to  the  Mishna  ten  Jews  could  at  any 
I  time  form  one,  and  there  was  nothing  schismatic  in  such  action. 
The  names  of  some  of  these  synagogues  in  Jerusalem  are  recorded 
in  Acts  vi.  9 — the  Synagogue  of  the  Libertini  and  Cyrenaeans 
and  Alexandrians — though  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  text  means 
that  there  was  one  or  three  synagogues.    From  the  fact  that  the 
Jewish  name  for  the  Christians  was  Nazarenes,  it  is  probable  that 
they  were  known  to  the  outside  world  as  the  Synagogue  of  the 
Nazarenes,  but  there  is  no  documentary  evidence  that  this  was 
so.     The  members  of  this  synagogue  would  have  their  own 
opinions,  and  possibly  customs,  but  they  would  in  no  sense  be 
outside  the  nation  or  church  of  Israel — the  '  Keneseth  Israel ' — 
and  would  have  the  same  right  to  frequent  the  Temple  as  other 

1  Yet  it  is  noticeable  that  the  eschatology  of  Joel,  which  plays  so  large  a 
part  in  the  story  of  the  day  of  Pentecost,  has  its  centre  in  Jerusalem. 

2  Cf.  Acts  xxiv.  15. 

3  The  use  of  '  Christians '  and  '  Church '  in  the  following  paragraphs  is 
an  anachronism  excused  by  its  convenience. 

4  The  Greek  for  Keneseth  is  either  rrpocrevxv  or  o-vvaywyr)  (cf.  Acts  xvi.  13, 
and  Josephus  passim).  Is  the  true  translation  of  Acts  i.  14  (cf.  ii.  42  and  vi.  4), 
"  they  were  diligent  in  attendance  at  their  synagogue  ?  "  There  is  inscriptional 
evidence  for  the  combination  of  irpoaevxv  and  irpovKaprepeiv  in  this  sense; 
see  C.I.G.  ii.  add.  n.,  2114  6. 


t 


n  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  305 

Israelites.    The  narrative  in  Acts  affords  ample  confirmation 
that  this  was  the  case  :   the  disciples  are  arrested  for  behaving*** 
illegally  or  riotously  in  the  Temple,  but  it  is  never  suggested! 
that  they  were  trespassing.    Even  during  Paul's  last  visit  to 
Jerusalem  his  own  right  to  visit  the  Temple  and  pay  his  vows 
there  is  not  questioned  ;   he  is  only  accused  of  introducing  into^ 
it  unqualified  persons. 

In  this  community  Peter  seems  to  have  been  the  leading  Peter,  and 
spirit.    At  the  same  time  his  authority  is  not  represented  asP 
personal,  but  as  derived  from  the  community  of  which  he  is  the 
spokesman,  as  is  seen  in  the  first  chapter  of  Acts,  when  Matthias 
and  Joseph  Barsabbas  are  selected  by  the  whole  body  of  believers, 
who,  praying  for  guidance,  cast  lots  to  decide  between  the  two. 
The  less  historical  this  scene  may  be  the  more  important  it  is  ^ 
as  representing  an  early  tradition  as  to  the  government  of  the  > 
Church.     The  reaction  of  later  theories  can  be  seen  in  the  textual 
changes  introduced  by  the  '  Western  '  authorities  which  representee 
Peter,  and  not  the  community,  as  nominating  Joseph  Barsabbas  \(( 
and  Matthias  and  as  offering  prayer ;   the  change  is  simple, 
— elirev  and  earrjo-ev  for  elirov  and  earrjaav, — but  it    is  too 
consistently  carried  out  to  be  regarded  as  accidental. 

According  to  the  early  chapters  of  Acts,  Peter  and  the  other 
members  of  the  Twelve  were  permanently  settled  in  Jerusalem, 
and  there  is  no  suggestion  that  they  engaged  in  missionary 
propaganda  throughout  the  country.  In  Jerusalem  itself  the 
numbers  of  the  believers  grew  rapidly.  According  to  Acts  i.  15, 
the  original  number  was  120  ;  after  Pentecost  3000  new  members 
are  added ;  in  Acts  iv.  4  5000  are  added ;  and  in  Acts  vi.  7  it 
is  said  that  the  number  of  the  disciples  increased,  and  that  a 
great  '  crowd '  of  priests  obeyed  the  faith. 

During  this  short  period  of  Christian  history,  the  followers  Features 
of  Jesus  were  gathered  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  division  into  Jewish  christian 
and  Gentile  Christians  did  not  exist.    What  were  the  most  life' 
important  features  of  their  life  ?     Three  points  stand  out  clearly  :  • 
(1)  They  believed  themselves  to  be  specially  inspired  by  the  l  A 

vol.  i  x 


306  PKIM1TIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

-  I  Spirit  of  God  and  entrusted  with  a  divine  message,  as  had  been 
j  the  prophets  of  old  and  Jesus  himself.    {2)  The  context  of  this 

J  message  was  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  this,  rather  than 
the  announcement  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  need  of 
repentance  became  central  in  their  preaching.     (3)  They  en- 
deavoured to  organise  their  life  on  communistic  principles.     Their 
jk   ■  belief  in  their  inspiration  and  their  teaching  as  to  Jesus  will 
I  be  discussed  subsequently  ;  their  communism  must  be  dealt 
with  here. 
Commun-  The  special  organisation  of  the  life  of  the  Church  is  twice 

ganisation.  summarised  in  Acts— in  ii.  43-46  and  iv.  32-35.    There  are 
small  differences  in  expression,  but  the  general  meaning  is  the 
same.    The  Christians  shared  all  things  ;  those  who  had  property 
realised  it,  and  pooled  the  proceeds  in  a  common  fund,  which 
was  distributed  to  individual  members  as  need  arose.    It  is 
^  impossible  not  to  recognise  in  this  action  consistent  and  literal 
obedience  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus.    The  disciples  had  followed 
,  Jesus  to  the  end  of  his  journey  in  Jerusalem  ;  they  were  waiting 
^»  |  for  his  manifestation  in  glory,  and  sold  all  that  they  had  and 
I  gave  to  the  poor.    But  in  terms  of  political  economy  the  Church 
was  realising  the  capital  of  its  members  and  living  on  the  division 
of  the  proceeds.    It  is  not  surprising  that  under  these  circum- 
stances for  the  moment  none  were  in  need  among  them,  and 
that  they  shared  their  food  in  gladness  of  heart,  for  nothing  so 
immediately  relieves  necessity  or  creates  gladness  of  heart  as 
?  living  on  capital,  which  would  be  indeed  an  ideal  system  of 
)  economy  if  society  were  coming  to  an  end,  or  capital  were  not. 
*  It  is  probable  that  the  Church  thought  that  society  would  soon 
(  end,  but  it  proved  to  be  wrong,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
(same  book  which  in  its  early  chapters  relates  the  remarkable 
/lack  of  poverty  among  the  Christians,  has  in  the  end  to  describe 
the  generous  help  sent  by  the  Gentile  Churches  to  the  poor 
brethren, 
its  The  first  sign  of  the  breakdown  of  the  communistic  experiment 

breakdown.    .  .  f     _        _.  i       <      •  -i  >    •        i 

is  the  narrative  of  the  discontent  among  the    widows    in  the 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  307 

community,  when  those  who  had  originally  belonged  to  the 
Diaspora  (if  that  be  the  meaning  of  'EXkrjviaT&v)  complained 
that  they  were  treated  badly  in  comparison  with  those  of 
Palestinian  origin.  The  exact  wording  of  the  short  statement 
in  Acts  is  noticeable.  "  And  in  these  days,  while  the  number 
of  disciples  was  increasing,  there  arose  grumbling  of  the  Hellenists 
against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows  were  being  overlooked 
in  the  daily  administration." 1  The  suggestion  between  the 
lines  is  that  the  increase  of  numbers  in  the  Church  was  not  accom- 
panied by  a  corresponding  increase  in  the  capital  at  their  disposal, 
and  few  will  doubt  its  probability. 

The  result  of  this  disturbance  in  the  peace  of  the  Church  The  Seven, 
seems  to  have  been  a  change  in  its  organisation.2    The  Twelve 
gave  up  the  control  of  the  administration  of  funds  and  food, 
and  induced  the  community  to  appoint  seven  others  to  supervise 
this  work,  while  they  gave  themselves  to  rfj  nrpoaevxv  and  the « 
ministration  of  the  word — a  sentence  in  which  rj  irpoaewxfi  may  1  ; 
mean  prayer  (in  which  case  the  article  is  somewhat  strange,  | 
though  explicable)  or  refer  to  the  Keneseth — in  other  words  to  ^ 
the  Church.     But  the  change  of  organisation  did  not  solve  the 
problem.     The  Seven  became  a  target  for  persecution,  their 
leader  was  killed,  and  the  rest  were  dispersed.     The  narrative 
ceases  to  be  concerned  with  communism,  of  which  we  hear  no 
more,  and  we  pass  insensibly  into  the  relation  of  the  events 
which  led  to  the  division  of  the  community  into  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christianity. 

At  first  sight  the  narrative  runs  smoothly  enough,  but  the  Preachers 
more  it  is  considered  the  stranger  does  it  become  that  the  Seven,  Admini-  &* 
who  were  ostensibly  appointed  in  order  to  release  the  Twelve  strators- 
from  administrative  work  and  enable  them  to  preach,  never, 
appear  except  as  themselves  preaching,  and  that,  too,  not  in  • 
subordination  to  the  Twelve  but  in  such  a  manner  as  to  call  out 
active  hostility  to  the  Church  and  lead  to  its  dissipation  through- 
out and  beyond  Palestine.    Why  was  such  a  policy  pursued  that 
1  Acts  vi.  1.  2  Acts  vi.  2  ff. 


+1 


308  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

those  who  are  described  as  the  administrators  of  funds  were 
compelled  to  flee  from  Jerusalem,  where  their  work  required 
them,  while  the  apostles  were  able  to  remain  ?     The  most  prob- 
able suggestion  is  that  just  as  the  writer  of  Acts  shortened  the 
account  of  the  beginnings  of  the  community  in  Jerusalem,  so  he 
has  omitted  most  of  the  details  of  the  final  break  between  the 
i '  Seven  '  and  the  Jewish  leaders.     He  says,  indeed,  that  Stephen 
disputed  with  other  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  '  Libertini,'  Cyren- 
aeans,  Cilicians,  and  Asians,  and  that  in  consequence  of  his  debate 
he  was  accused  of  blasphemy  against  Moses  and  against  God. 
.  But  he  gives  no  account  of  what  Stephen  really  said,  and  the 
defence  which  he  puts  into  Stephen's  mouth  is  merely  a  long 
>  explanation  that  the  Jews  have  always  been  a  rebellious  and 
backsliding  nation.     It  stops  before  it  reaches  any  really  contro- 
.  jversial  matter,  and  is  evidently  included,  if  not  written,  by  the 
I  editor  because  it  explains  so  well  that  the  Jews  were  once  more 
^resisting  the  Spirit  of  God.     The  narrative  does  not  adequately 
explain  the  events,  and  the  probability  is  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Hellenistic  Christians  was  different  from,  and,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Jews,  worse  than  that  of  the  Twelve. 
The  Seven         If  we  may  judge  by  our  scanty  knowledge  of  "  Liberal  " 
HeTienistif  tendencies  in  the  Diaspora,  the  Seven  probably  represented  the 
Judaism,      same  kind  of  Hellenising  Judaism  as  is  represented  by  some  parts 
of  the  Oracula  Sibyllina,  and,  in  an  extreme  form,  combated  by 
Philo  in  the  De  migratione  Abrahami.    This  Judaism  probably 
carried  on  propaganda  among  the  Gentiles,  but  did  not  insist 
%  on  a  literal  observance  of  the  Law.     If  the  Seven  belonged  even 
partially  to  this  kind  of  "  Liberal "  Judaism,  the  situation  is 
comparatively  easy  to  understand.     So  long  as,   before  their 
conversion,  they  had  been  merely  "  Liberals,"  or  the  Twelve 
had  been  merely  believers  in  Jesus,  each  had  been  unpopular, 
but  generally  free  from  active  persecution  ;   but  when  Stephen, 
and  later  on  Peter  and  Paul  combined  these  causes  of  offence, 
the  wrath  of  the  orthodox  knew  no  bounds. 

It  is  also  extremely  probable  that  the  teaching  of  the  Seven 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  309 

spread  rapidly  among  the  Hellenistic  Jews  of  Syria.  One 
reference  in  Acts  itself  renders  this  suggestion  almost  a  certainty. 
In  the  account  of  the  conversion  of  Paul  the  reason  given  for  his 
journey  to  Damascus  is  his  intention  of  persecuting  Christians 
there.  How  did  they  come  to  be  there  ?  Who  were  they  ?  Acts! 
itself  gives  no  account  of  the  expansion  of  the  Church  fromj 
Jerusalem  to  Damascus.  Were  they  Christians  who  had  left] 
Jerusalem  ?  Or  was  there  a  mission  to  Damascus  ?  It  is  likely' 
that  the  Christians  of  Damascus  were  Greek  speaking,  even  if 
they  were  not  Greeks,  and  the  supposition  commends  itself  that 
Christianity  was  already  spreading  in  circles  outside  Jerusalem, 
naturally  taking  a  somewhat  different  form  as  it  travelled,  and 
that  Stephen  and  Philip  were  part  of  this  new  development 
rather  than  merely  administrators  of  charity  in  Jerusalem. 

This  impression  is  increased  by  further  consideration   of  Peterand 
the  story.    After  the  death  of  Stephen  the  Seven  immediately  |  Hellenists, 
proceed  to  preach  ;   it  is  Peter  and  the  Twelve  who  remain  in|  & 
Jerusalem.     But  this  division  of  labour  seems  not  to  have  lasted^ 
long,  for  shortly  afterwards  Peter  and  John  were  sent  to  Samaria, 
perhaps  with  some  misgivings,  and  stayed  to  encourage  and 
complete  the  work  of  Philip.1    Still,  later,  Peter  was  entirely 
converted  in  Caesarea  to  the  recognition  of  Gentile  converts, 
and  returned  to  Jerusalem  as  their  advocate.     It  is  surely  not* 
accidental  that  almost  immediately  afterwards  Herod  Agrippaf 
imprisoned  him  in  order  to  please  the  Jews,  and  when  he  escaped 
he  left  Jerusalem,  while  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  became 
the  leader  of  the  Church,  and  was  apparently  immune  from 
interference  by  the  Jews.    Does  not  this  mean  that  Peter  accepted 
the  more  advanced  point  of  view  of  the  Seven,  and  became  the 
leader  of  a  mission  more  in  accord  with  Hellenistic  ideas  ? 

1  It  seems  to  be  part  of  the  scheme  of  Acts  to  represent  the  Hellenists  ast 
preaching  first,  the  Twelve  as  following  them  up,  and  finally,  as  converted  to  |p  "* 
Hellenistic  methods  by  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  and  the  logic  of  facts.     Philip '   . 
goes  to  Samaria  and  Caesarea  :    Peter  follows  and  is  convinced.     Unnamed » 
disciples  go  to  Antioch  :  Barnabas  follows,  and  does  as  Peter  had  done  :  he  |* 
came  to  criticise  but  remained  to  continue  the  work. 


310 


PKIMITIVE  CHEISTIANITY 


in 


Antioch. 


^ 


Jewish 
Christi- 
anity in 
Pauline 
Epistles. 


Contro- 
versy 
almost 
ignored  in 
Acts. 


According  to  Acts  the  most  important  success  achieved  by 
the  scattered  members  of  the  party  of  the  Seven  was  in  Antioch, 
which  became  the  centre  of  a  Church  obviously  separate  from 
orthodox  Judaism,  and  for  the  first  time  was  called  "  Christian." 
There  followed  a  period  of  controversy  with  the  party  of  Jeru- 
salem. According  to  Acts,  this  lasted  only  a  short  time,  and 
ended  by  James  and  the  Twelve  recognising  the  Antiochene 
position.  But  the  evidence  of  the  Epistles  shows  that  the 
struggle  between  the  two  parties  was  more  severe  and  lasted  longer 
than  Acts  suggests. 

The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans,  and,  to  a  less 
extent,  Philippians,  prove  the  existence  of  Christians  who  in- 
sisted on  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  Law,  and  of  circumcision. 
In  Galatians,  which  is  by  far  the  most  important  evidence,  it 
appears  that,  even  after  James,  Peter,  and  John  had  accepted 
Paul's  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  emissaries  from  James  had  inter- 
fered at  Antioch,  and  Peter  had  hesitated  for  a  moment  which 
side  to  take.  If  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  met  after  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  was  written  it  is  possible  that  James  changed 
his  attitude,  but  if  Galatians  ii.  really  refers  to  the  Council  it 
is  clear  that  almost  immediately  after  it  Peter  in  Antioch  and 
James  in  Jerusalem  were  acting  against  the  Pauline  teaching. 
In  any  case,  the  Epistles  are  evidence  that  the  Judaising  pro- 
paganda continued,  and  it  will  always  be  a  moot  point  whether 
James  was  so  conciliatory  to  Gentile  Christianity  as  Acts  describes 
him  to  have  been. 

Taken  by  itself,  Acts  would  never  suggest  the  existence  of  a 
controversy  so  long  and  so  acute  as  is  revealed  by  the  Epistles. 
According  to  it  the  Gentile  Church  of  Antioch  achieved  an 
initial  triumph  over  the  Judaistic  Christians  of  Jerusalem, 
but  there  remained  "  many  myriads  "  of  believers  in  Jerusalem 
who  were  all  "  zealous  for  the  Law."  x  Their  grievance  against 
Paul  was  not  that  he  was  preaching  to  Gentiles,  but  that 
he  was  preaching  against  any  observance  of  the  Law,  even 

1  Acts  xxi.  20. 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  311 

by  Jews.  James  and  Paul  are  represented  as  agreeing  that 
this  would  be  wrong,  and  as  recognising  the  binding  character 
of  the  Law  on  themselves  and  on  other  Jewish  Christians. 

Can  this  be  a  true  picture  of  the  Paul  who  wrote  to  the  * 
Galatians  that  there  is  now  no  difference  between  Greek  and 
Jew  ?  Can  "  no  difference  "  mean  that  the  one  must  and  the 
other  must  not  follow  the  Law  ?  Can  the  Paul  who  said,  "  The 
Law  has  been  our  tutor  up  to  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified 
by  faith,  but  now  that  that  faith  has  come,  we  are  no  longer 
under  a  tutor,"  be  the  same  as  the  Paul  who,  according  to  Acts, 
tries  to  prove  to  the  Jewish  Christians  in  Jerusalem  that  he  I 
fully  accepts  the  obligation  of  the  Law  ? 

Moreover,  is  it  likely  that  Jewish  Christians,  even  if  they 
accepted  Jesus  as  the  Anointed  Prince  of  the  House  of  David 
who  would  reign  in  the  Good  Time  at  the  end  of  this  Age, 
would  have  conceded  the  privileges  of  the  Chosen  People  to 
Gentiles  who  had  acknowledged  Jesus,  but  accepted  nothing  of 
Judaism  ? 

Acts  does  not   place  the  narrative  above  suspicion  of  in-  Narratives 

1  •  'J.X.    *n  Acts 

accuracy.  In  ^the  first  part  of  the  book  the  comparison  with  and  the 
Mark  shows  that  the  Galilean  tradition  was  omitted  or  changed,  EPlst,cs- 
and  in  the  second  part  the  comparison  with  1  Corinthians  and 
Galatians  shows  that  whole  episodes  of  great  importance  were 
neglected.  Part  of  its  purpose  was  to  picture  the  unanimity 
of  the  early  Church  ;  and  the  writer  seems  to  have  selected  some 
incidents,  omitted  others,  and  changed  others  in  order  to  serve 
this  purpose.  The  Epistles  are  here  the  better  evidence,  and 
the  Judaistic  controversy  must  have  been  longer  and  sharper 
than  Acts  suggests.  On  one  important  point,  however— the 
position  of  Peter— Acts  is  fully  confirmed.  According  to  the 
narrative   of   Galatians,  Paul  first  went  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Position  of 

Peter 

Peter  :  the  implication  is  clear  that  Peter  was  the  chief  person 
in  the  Christian  community  there.  He  also  saw  James  the 
brother  of  the  Lord,  but  no  other  apostle.  On  his  second 
visit  he  saw  "  James  and  Cephas  and  John,  who  seemed  to  be 


312  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

pillars  " — and  the  order  of  the  names  is  significant.     Still  later 
in  the  same  passage  he  refers  to  a  third  meeting  with  Peter, 
but  this  time  at  Antioch  ;    in  1  Corinthians  there  is  a  refer- 
ence to  the  party  of  Peter  of  which  the  most  natural  meaning 
is  that  Peter  had  been  in  Corinth,  and  finally  in  1  Corinthians 
ix.  5  reference  is  made  to  the  custom  followed  by  Peter,  but 
not  by  Paul,  of  taking  his  wife  with  him  on  his  journeys.     The 
special  importance  of  the  passage  in  Galatians  is  that  it  shows 
I  that  the  Christian  movement  was  by  this  time  divided  into 
j  two   schools  of  propaganda.     One  insisted  on   its  loyalty  to 
"   Judaism,  and  demanded  that  converts  should  be  treated  as 
j  proselytes  :   its  centre  was  Jerusalem,  and  its  leader  was  James. 
^To  the  other  belonged  Paul  and  his  friends:    its  centre  was 
j  probably  in  Antioch,  and  to  it  in  the  end — even  if  with  some 
I  hesitation  and  backsliding — Peter  himself  belonged.     This  again 
is  exactly  what  Acts  distinctly  states,  and  it  is  one  of  the  mis- 
( takes  of  the  Tubingen  School  that  it  did  not  recognise  that 
w**    /  Peter,  not  only  in  Acts  but  also  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  is  on  the 
( Hellenistic,  not  the  Hebrew  side. 
Attitude  There  is,  however,  serious  doubt  whether  the  description  of 

of  James  .   .  r 

towards       the  position  of  James  in  Acts  is  equally  correct.    Was  he  com- 
pletely friendly  to  Paul  when  he  last  visited  Jerusalem  ?     These 
are  questions  of  the  greatest  difficulty,  which  must  elsewhere 
be  discussed  in  detail.    Here  it  is  not  necessary  to  do  more  than 
urge  that  even  though  *  Luke '  has  no  interest  in  relating  the 
disputes  of  the  early  Church  except  to  show  that  they  were  un- 
important or  unenduring,  it  is  clear  even  from  Acts  that  the 
Church  was  divided  into  two  camps.    The  headquarters  of  the 
I  rigorist  party  was  Jerusalem,  and  though  he  may  not  have  been 
■  fanatical,  everything  points  to  James  as  having  been  its  leader. 
He  remained  unhurt  in  the  persecution  of  Agrippa  I. ;   he  was 
apparently  in  good  standing  with  the  Jews  and  the  Temple 
I  authorities  on  the  occasion  of  Paul's  last  visit  to  Jerusalem ; 
*  *  and  so,  according  to  Josephus  and  Hegesippus,  he  remained  until 
the  outbreak  of  fanaticism  in  the  last  days  of  the  city.    Though 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  313 

Luke  so  tells  the  story  as  to  emphasise  his  friendliness  to  Paul, 
the  Jews  obviously  distinguished  plainly  between  James  and 
Paul,  and  extended  a  toleration  to  the  one  which  they  refused 
to  the  other. 

In  his  further  description  of  the  growth  of  Gentile  Chris-  End  of 

Acts  con- 

tianity,  the  limitations  of  the  scheme  followed  by  the  writer  of  fined  to 

Acts  become  more  serious  than  his  inaccuracies.     Up  to  this    au* 

point  he  has,  at  least  so  far  as  we  can  see,  endeavoured  to 

cover  the  whole  field.     He  deals  with  Peter,  Stephen,  and  Philip 

in  succession,  and  describes  the  rise  of  Christianity  in  Jerusalem, 

Samaria,  Caesarea,  and  Antioch.     His  narrative  is  not  really 

complete  and  not  always  accurate,  but  it  is  not  limited  to  the 

fortunes  of  one  man.      After  this,  however,  he  concentrates  his 

attention  almost  exclusively  on  Paul.     His  information  seems 

to  be  excellent,  and  the  historical  value  of  what  he  recounts 

increases ;  but  his  range  becomes  more  limited,  and  this  must 

be  deliberate.     From  incidental  remarks  in  the  Epistles,  and  I  y> 

from  Christian  tradition  generally,  Paul  must  have  been  only  one  I 

I? 
of  many  preachers  to  the  Gentiles.     The  writer  of  Acts  cannot 

have  been  ignorant   of   this,  nevertheless  he   confines  himself 

entirely   to  the   story  of  Paul.      The   other   great   characters  i 

sometimes   appear  for   a  moment,  but  only  when  they  cross 

Paul's  path.    Of  the  fortunes  of  the  Jewish  Christians  we  are  told 

nothing,  and  nothing  of  the  disputes  among  Gentile  Christians.  I 

Even  with  regard  to  Paul,  his  adventures,  not  his  characteristic 

thought,  or  his  controversies,  interest  the  writer.     The  other f^ 

missionaries  were  Agamemnons  who  never  found  a  Homer.     Sot 

far  as  the  sequence  of  events  is  concerned  we  can  accept  or 

reject  the  narrative  ;  we  cannot  supplement  it,  for  there  is  no 

other.      The  later  history  of  Peter  and  the  details   of  Paul's 

mission  must  be  discussed  in  the  commentary  :    they  belong  to 

the  fabric  of  Acts,  and  cannot  be  regarded  as  prolegomena. 

It  would  probably  be  consistent  also  to  say  nothing  more  Jewish 

about  the  Christianity  which  remained  Jewish  :    but  the  early 

evidence  on  this  subject  has  a  real  bearing  on  the  view  maintained 


314  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

above  of  the  divergence  of  Gentile  Christianity  from  the  original 
Jewish  stock,  and  it  therefore  seems  justifiable  to  collect  in  out- 
line the  chief  early  evidence  which  relates  to  it. 
Jewish  Little  is  known  of  the  history  of  the  Jewish  Christians  who 

ns  ians.  j  ^  n^  f ollow  the  lead  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  accept  Gentile 
1 1  Christianity  as  a  separation  from  the  Jewish  synagogue.      The 
only  sources  of  information  are  references  in  the  Gospels,  and 
[ \  a  series  of  Jewish  statements  in  the  Tosephta   and  certain 
*Baraitas.    Possibly  some  allusions  in  Justin  Martyr  and  in 
Ignatius,     and    perhaps    the    statements    of    Jerome     about 
Palestinian  Christians  ought  to  be  added  to  this,  but  their 
evidence  is  too  late  to  have  any  except  corroborative  value. 
The  The  evidence  in  the  Gospels  is  especially  the  famous  passage 

Gospels-       Matt.  x.  5-23  : 

These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth,  and  commanded  them,  saying, 
Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the 
Samaritans  enter  ye  not :  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel.  And  as  ye  go,  preach,  saying,  The  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand.  Heal  the  sick,  cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the  dead, 
cast  out  devils  :  freely  ye  have  received,  freely  give.  Provide 
neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  brass  in  your  purses,  nor  scrip  for  your 
journey,  neither  two  coats,  neither  shoes,  nor  yet  staves  :  for  the 
workman  is  worthy  of  his  meat.  And  into  whatsoever  city  or  town 
ye  shall  enter,  enquire  who  in  it  is  worthy  ;  and  there  abide  till  ye 
go  thence.  And  when  ye  come  into  an  house,  salute  it.  And  if 
the  house  be  worthy,  let  your  peace  come  upon  it :  but  if  it  be  not 
worthy,  let  your  peace  return  to  you.  And  whosoever  shall  not 
receive  you,  nor  hear  your  words,  when  ye  depart  out  of  that  house 
or  city,  shake  off  the  dust  of  your  feet.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  It 
shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  in  the 
day  of  judgment,  than  for  that  city.  Behold,  I  send  you  forth  as 
sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves  :  be  ye  therefore  wise  as  serpents,  and 
harmless  as  doves.  But  beware  of  men  :  for  they  will  deliver  you 
up  to  the  councils,  and  they  will  scourge  you  in  their  synagogues  ; 
and  ye  shall  be  brought  before  governors  and  kings  for  my  sake, 
for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the  Gentiles.  But  when  they 
deliver  you  up,  take  no  thought  how  or  what  ye  shall  speak  :  for 
it  shall  be  given  you  in  that  same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak.  For 
it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  which  speaketh 
in  you.    And  the  brother  shall  deliver  up  the  brother  to  death, 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  315 

and  the  father  the  child  :  and  the  children  shall  rise  up  against 
their  parents,  and  cause  them  to  be  put  to  death.  And  ye  shall  be 
hated  of  all  men  for  my  name's  sake  :  but  he  that  endureth  to  the  . 
end  shall  be  saved.  But  when  they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee 
ye  into  another  :  for  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Ye  shall  not  have  gone 
over  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come. 

The  first  part  of  this  passage,  and  many  details  in  the  later 
verses  have  no  parallels  elsewhere,  but  the  part  beginning  with 
verse  17  "  Beware  of  men  "  is  one  of  the  comparatively  few 
sections  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  which  seems  to  have  a  double 
source,   and  to   be   attributable  both   to  Mark   and  Q.    Thet* 

Marcan  version  is  Mark  xiii.  9-13  and  the  Q  version  can  be  traced, 

!  ft 

though  not  accurately  reconstructed,  by  a  comparison  of  Matt.j 

x.  17-23;  Matt.  xxiv.  9-14;  Luke  xxi.  12-19,  and  Luke  xii.  7-12.J 
For  the  present  purpose  the  interesting  point  is  the  comparison 
of  the  directly  opposite  verses,  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  . 
not  finish  the  cities  of  Israel  before  the  Son  of  man  come  "  and   I 
"  The  gospel  must  first  be  preached  to  all  the  Gentiles,"  especially 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  first  of  these  two  is  the  conclusion 
of  the  whole  section  which  begins  "  Go  not  into  a  road  of  the  ! 
Gentiles,  and  enter  not  into  a  city  of  Samaritans,  but  go  rather  . 
to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel." 

It  is  probably  impossible  to.  reconstruct  the  details  of  the 
literary  history  of  the  passage,  but  there  is  much  to  be  said  for  •  jfj^ 
the  suggestion  that  the  common  nucleus  is  a  saying  of  Jesus  to 
the  effect  that  his  followers  should  not  prepare  a  careful  defence, 
but  endure  persecution,  and  speak  as  the  spirit  directed  them. 
This  was  combined  by  Jewish  Christians  with  a  series  of  furtheri  ^ 
directions,  and  with  a  promise  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  cornel 
before  they  had  '  finished  the  cities  of  Israel.'    It  was  similarly 
combined  by  Gentile  Christians  with  a  warning  that  before  thef 
end  the  gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  the  Gentiles. 

So  much  is  tolerably  clear  and  probable  ;  and  it  is  an  interest-  Tendency 
ing  sidelight  on  the  late  date  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  its  Matthew. 
present  form  that  it  contains  both  the  Jewish  Christian,  andli 
the  Gentile  Christian  combination.    The  editor  apparently  did ' 


316  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

I  not  see  the  incongruity,  and  possibly  thought  that  the  injunction 
not  to  go  to  Gentiles  or  Samaritans  referred  only  to  a  special 
journey,  not  seeing  that  the  context  makes  it  clear  that  it  is 
intended  to  serve  as  a  standing  rule  until  the  Parousia. 

Another  passage  in  Matthew  which  seems  to  belong  to  the 
Jewish  circle  is  the  section  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  dealing 
with  the  Law. 

Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  Law  or  the  Prophets  : 
I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  confirm.  For  verily  I  say  to  you, 
until  Heaven  and  Earth  pass  away  no  jot  or  tittle  shall  pass  from 
the  Law,  until  all  things  come  to  pass.  Whosoever  therefore  shall 
relax  one  of  the  least  of  these  precepts,  and  teach  men  so,  shall  be 
called  least  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  But  whoever  shall  do  and 
j  teach  them,  shall  be  called  great  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  For  I 
j  say  to  you  that  unless  your  righteousness  exceed  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

Luke  as  The  passage  is  exactly  what  we  might  expect  from  the  Jewish 

compared       _,     ... 

with  Christians  m  Jerusalem,  who  were  all  '  zealous  for  the  Law.' 

It  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  teaching  of  Paul. 

The  comparison  with  Luke  xvi.   16  is  instructive.      Luke 

says :    "  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  until  John.     From 

that  time  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  preached,  and  every  one 

does  violence  against  it.     But  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth 

to  pass  than  for  one  tittle  of  the  Law  to  fall."    The  passage  has 

always  presented  difficulty  to  exegetes,  and  it  seems  scarcely 

.self -consistent,  but  it  is  quite  intelligible  as  the  Gentile  Christian 

*  if  |  rendering  of  a  tradition  which  in  Jewish  Christian  circles  affirmed 

*|the  everlasting  validity  of  the  Law,  and  is  characteristic  of  the 

position  which,  in  some  of  many  varying  forms,  sought  to  find 

a  way  to  affirm  the  inspiration  of  the  Law,  and  yet  justify 

disobedience  to  many  of  its  precepts. 

Gentile  Certain  secondary  conclusions  and  problems  emerge  from 

in  Mark!68    tne  consideration  of  these  passages.    It  is  noteworthy  that  Mark, 

I*  1  which  in  many  ways  is  so  clearly  the  most  primitive  gospel, 

j  and  so  little  interested  in  the  controversy  between  Jewish  and 

.  Gentile  Christians,  has  nevertheless  the  remarkable  verse,  "  The 


Matthew. 


IC& 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  317 

gospel  must  be  first  preached  to  all  the  Gentiles."    Is  this  a  I 
sign  that  Mark,  as  we  have  it,  belongs  definitely  to  the  Gentile 
Christian  Church,  though  not  to  the  Pauline  branch  of  it  ?    In 
other  words,  have  we  a  point  of  confirmation  for  the  tradition 
connecting  the  gospel  with  Peter  ? 

A  most  important  question  is  how  far  these  passages,  whether  Jesus— the 
Jewish  or  Gentile,  go  back  to  Jesus  himself.     In  general  it  is  ST  and 
probable  that  Jesus  really  spoke  of  the  Law  with  veneration,! Gentiles- 
and  may  well  have  insisted  on  a  righteousness  exceeding  thatJ  *Cfc  * 
of  the  Scribes,1   but  more  than  this  cannot  be  shown,  and* 
the  only  clue  is  the  conduct  of  his  nearest  disciples.     This  test!* 
is  scarcely  favourable  to  the  authenticity  of  the  extreme  sayings  P  * 
on  either  side.      If  Jesus  had  really  said,  "  The  gospel  must 
first  be  preached  to  all  the  Gentiles,"  or  "Go  ye  into  all  the1 
world  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  Gentiles,"  would  Peter 
and  James  have  needed  so  much  persuasion  that  a  mission! 
to  the  Gentiles  was  not  improper  ?     But  on  the  other  hand, 
if  Jesus  had  really  said,  "  Go  not  into  a  way  of  the  Gentiles 
and  enter  not  into  a  city  of  Samaritans,"  would  Peter  have  gone 
to  Samaria  and  Joppa,  even  if  Philip  had  done  so  ?    The  remark-* 
able  feature  of  the  Judaistic  controversy  in  the  Epistles  and  even  f 
in  the  attenuated  version  of  it  given  in  Acts,  is  that  there  is  no  * 
trace  of  any  appeal  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  either  side.    If 
he  had  really  spoken  as  the  gospels  represent,  would  no  one 
have  made  use  of  his  words  ? 

It  seems  not  unlikely  that  there  is  here  a  curious  confirma- 
tion of  the  fact  that  Jesus  in  the  earliest  tradition  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  does  not  appear  as  intending  to  found  a  new 
society.  He  was  announcing  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Kingdom, 
and  calling  on  men  to  repent.  The  disciples  were  at  that  time 
looking  for  the  day  of  his  triumph,  not  seeking  recruits  for 
a  Church.  Under  these  circumstances  missionary  instructions 
for  the  seeking  of  converts  to  Christianity,  as  distinct  from 
proselytes  to  Judaism,  cannot  have  been  given  by  Jesus.      But 

1  See  pp.  283  ff .  and  292  ff. 


Scriptures. 


318  PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

circumstances  changed  :   the  Christians  were  forced  to  recognise 

that  they  were  a  new  society.    It  was  only  natural  for  them  to 

re-interpret  and  add  to  the  original  words  of  Jesus,  in  accordance 

with  their  new  necessities  and  controversies.    In  the  main  the 

gospels  represent  Gentile  Christianity.     That  is  true  even  of 

,  the  present  form  of  Matthew,  but  though  the  final  redactor  of 

Matthew  was  no  doubt  a  Gentile  Christian,  he  incorporated 

certain  passages  which  came  originally  from  the  other  camp. 

*  Possibly  the  controversy  was  dead  when  he  wrote  ;  possibly  he 

Jf  did  not  see  all  the  implications  of  the  documents  which  he  used. 

^  Luke  was  more  intelligent  in  his  appreciation  and  free  in  his 

"  editing. 

Jewish  The  evidence  of  Jewish  sources  is  small  but  important,  and 

evidence      has  been  somewhat  overlooked.     The  only  clear  statement  of  it  is 

christian     to  ^e  founa  m  Q,  F.  Moore's  The  Definition  of  the  Jewish  Canon 

and  the  Repudiation  of  the  Christian  Scriptures.  *    The  material 

is  not  found  in  the  Mishna,  except  in  accidental  references,  but 

in  the  Tosephta  and  occasional  Baraitas,  and  is  part  of  the  debris 

of  the  controversy  among  the  Jews  of  the  first  century  as  to  the 

*  writings  '  which  were  to  be  regarded  as  scripture. 

It  was  and  is  the  practice  in  the  Synagogue  to  read  a  first 
Canon'  lesson  on  the  Sabbath  from  the  Law,  and  a  second  lesson  from 
the  Prophets,  under  which  name  the  historical  books  outside 
the  Pentateuch  are  included.  There  was  no  controversy  as  to 
the  contents  of  the  Law  or  the  Prophets,  but  there  was  also 
the  third  class  of  the '  Writings  '  to  which  authority  was  attached, 
though  its  limits  were  doubtful.  These  books  were  not  all  used 
in  the  Synagogue,  and  the  question  was  which  might  be  placed 
in  its  library.  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  and  Daniel  were  beyond 
question,  but  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Songs,  and  Esther  were 
doubtful,  and  even  more  dubious  was  the  position  of  Ecclesiasticus. 
It  is  extremely  interesting  for  the  historian  of  early  Christi- 

1  In  a  volume  entitled  Essays  in  Modern  Theology  and  Related  Subjects, 
gathered  and  published  as  a  Testimonial  to  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  on  the 
Completion  of  his  Seventieth  Year,  New  York,  1911. 


The  Jewish 


The «  Writ- 
ings.' 


ii  THE  DISCIPLES  IN  JERUSALEM  319 

anity  to  note  that  in  the  early  stages  of  the  controversy  as  to  thej  n*^* 
"Writings,"  "the  gospels  and  the  books  of  the  heretics  "  weref'*- 
expressly  excluded,  and  by  implication  must  previously  havel* 
been  sometimes  admitted.     This  is  clearly  stated  in  Tosephta* 
Jadaim  ii.  13,  and  Tosephta  Sabbath  xiii.  (xiv.)  5,  in  deciding? 
which  books  may  be  rescued  from  fire  on  the  Sabbath  ;    the  \ 
gospels  are  excluded,  though  they  contain  the  name  of  God. 

The  chronological  order  of  the  references  is  given  thus  by 
Professor  Moore  : 

The  earliest  mention  of  the  ordinance  against  the  books  of  the, 
heretics  is  in  Mishna  Jadaim  iv.  6,  in  a  tilt  between  the  Sadducees! 
and  Johanan  ben  Zakkai,  which  may  have  occurred  before  the  war; 
of  66-70,  and  cannot  be  more  than  a  decade  or  two  later.    Johanan's 
successor  at  the  head  of  the  college  and  council  at  Jamnia,  Rabbi  1 
Gamaliel  II.,  caused  the  petition  for  the  downfall  of  the  heretics  to  j 
be  inserted  in  the  prescribed  form  of  prayer  ;  he  and  his  sister  Imma ' 
Shalom,  the  wife  of  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanus,  figure  in  the  story  of  the 
Christian  judge  who  quotes  the  gospel ;   in  the  same  time  falls  the,- 
intercourse  of  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanus  with  Jacob  of  Kefar  Sekania, 
"  a  disciple   of  Jesus  the  Nazarene."     In  the  second  and  third 
decades  of  the  second  century  the  situation  becomes  more  strained  ; » *, 
all  the  great  leaders  of  Judaism — Ishmael,1  Akiba,  Tarphon,  Jose 
the  Galilean — inveigh  against  the  heretics  and  their  scriptures  with  j 
a  violence  which  shows  how  serious  the  evil  was.2    Tarphon  would  * 
flee  to  a  heathen  temple  sooner  than  to  a  meeting-house  of  those) 
worse-than-heathen  whose  denial  of  God  is  without  the  excuse  of  \ 
ignorance  ;  the  usually  mild-mannered  Ishmael  finds  pious  utterance  * 
for  his  antipathy,  like  many  another  godly  man,  in  an  imprecatory 
Psalm  :  "  Do  not  I  hate  them,  0  Lord,  that  hate  thee  ?  .  .  .  I  hate 
them  with  perfect  hatred."    Akiba,  who  was  never  a  man  of  measured  . 
words,  consigns  to  eternal  perdition  the  Jew  who  reads  their  books.  $  <* 
The  rigorous  interdict  on  all  association  with  the  Christians  3  breathes  * 
the  same  truculent  spirit ;    it  bears  every  mark  of  having  been 
framed  in  the  same  age  and  by  the  same  hands,  as  does  also  the 
anathema  which  condemns  the  heretics,  before  all  the  rest,  to  eternal 
torment  in  hell. 


1  See  also  Ishmael's  interpretation  of  the  dreams  of  the  heretic,  Berakoth,  56  b. 

2  Just  as  in  the  writings  of  the  Church  Fathers  the  increasing  vehemence  of 
their  objurgations  of  heresy  corresponds  to  the  alarming  progress  gnosticism 
was  making. 

3  Tos.  Hullin,  ii.  20  ff. 


320  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

In  the  second  half  of  the  century  the  polemic  against  Christianity 
abruptly  ceases.  From  Akiba's  most  distinguished  pupil  and 
spiritual  heir,  Rabbi  Meir,  nothing  more  serious  is  reported  than 
his  witticism  on  the  name  of  the  gospel — evayyeXiov  lawon  gilion  ; 
from  Nehemiah,  only  that  among  the  signs  of  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  he  includes  the  conversion  of  the  whole  empire  to  Chris- 
tianity.1 Of  the  other  great  teachers  of  the  generation  no  anti- 
Christian  utterances  are  preserved.  What  is  much  more  significant, 
at  the  close  of  the  century  the  Mishna  of  the  Patriarch  Judah 
embodies  none  of  the  defensive  ordinancesa  gainst  heresy  which  we 
find  in  the  Tosephta  and  the  Talmudic  Baraithas.2  The  decision 
that  the  Gospels  and  the  books  of  the  heretics  are  not  holy  scripture 
is  not  repeated  in  the  Mishna  ;  it  deals  only  with  the  Jewish  anti- 
legomena,  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Songs,  the  long-standing 
differences  about  which  were  passed  on  by  a  council  about  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century — a  decision  which  did  not,  however, 
prevent  the  differences  lasting  through  the  century.3  The  only 
mention  of  heretical  writings  is  preserved  as  a  mere  matter  of  history 
in  the  account  of  the  Johanan  ben  Zakkai's  defence  of  the  Pharisaic 
ordinances  against  the  criticisms  of  the  Sadducees. 

The  extreme  importance  of  this  evidence  is  twofold.  First, 
v  f?  it  can  scarcely  refer  to  Greek  books.  It  is  therefore  the  earliest 
and  most  direct  evidence  which  we  possess  for  the  existence  of 
\  Aramaic  (or,  conceivably,  Hebrew)  gospels.  Have  we  here 
traces  of  the  existence  of  the  "  many  attempts  "  of  which  Luke 
speaks,  or  of  the  "  Jewish  Christian "  passages  in  Matthew 
referred  to  above  (p.  314  ff.),  or  of  the  Aramaic  original  of  Mark, 
or  of  Q,  or  of  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  referred  to 
by  Jerome  ?  Obviously  no  one  can  answer  these  questions,  but 
all  of  them  suggest  interesting  possibilities.  Secondly,  this 
is  not  merely  the  best  external  evidence  for  Aramaic  Christian 
documents  ;  it  is  probably  the  earliest  evidence  for  '  gospels  '  in 
any  form.  Where  is  there  earlier  evidence  for  the  existence  of 
gospels  in  Greek  ?  He  would  be  a  bold  man  who  ventured  to 
date  the  Didache  earlier  than  Johanan  ben  Zakkai. 

1  Sanhedrin,  97  a,  and  parallels. 

2  If  M.  Hullin,  ii.  9,  be  regarded  as  an  exception,  it  is  an  exception  that 
proves  the  rule  ;  cf.  Tosephta,  Hullin,  ii.  19-20. 

3  M.  Jadaim,  35. 


Ill 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  ON  THE  SPIRIT, 
THE  CHURCH,  AND  BAPTISM 

The  Gospels  and  Acts,  as  we  now  have  them,  are  Greek 
documents,  and  were  probably  written  by  Greek  Christians. 
But  they  are  in  varying  degrees  based  on  Aramaic  tradition  and 
probably  Aramaic  documents.  We  have  therefore  fragments 
of  Jewish  thought  modified  by  the  life,  death,  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus,  translated  into  Greek  words  and  partially  into  Greek 
thoughts.  Furthermore,  the  documents  which  reveal  the  fact 
but  conceal  the  details  of  this  confusion,  were  written  by  men 
permeated  with  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  fulfilment  of  all 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  caring  little  for  the 
history  of  thought  or  the  nice  use  of  language.  Whether  the 
Jews  had  thought  that  the  Messiah  would  be  a  different  person 
from  the  suffering  Servant  did  not  interest  the  early  Christian. 
He  was  convinced  that  Jesus  was  both  :  if  he  sometimes  con- 
fused titles  or  forgot  meanings  it  is  not  wonderful. 

The  right  distinction  between  words,  and  the  correct  use  of 
language,  is  the  product  of  technical  education,  not  of  religion, 
and  the  Christian  writers  show  no  signs  of  having  had  this 
education.  It  is  a  mistake  made  frequently  by  those  who  have 
obtained  distinction  in  the  interpretation  of  classical  literature 
rather  than  of  human  life,  to  treat  early  Christian  documents 
as  if  their  authors  had  been  equally  fortunate.  It  is  peculiarly 
necessary  to  remember  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  present 
the  intellectual  accuracy  of   a   theological  autopsy,  but  the 

VOL.  I  321  y 


322  PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

confused  language  of  men  whose  religion  was  too  much  for 
their  powers  of  expression. 

Thus  the  study  of  the  beginnings  of  Christian  thought  is 
naturally  of  recent  growth,  and  its  results,  though  extremely 
important  and  generally  trustworthy,  cannot  ever  be  expected 
to  reach  the  certainty  in  detail  achieved  by  investigators  of  the 
later  periods.  It  is  again  and  again  not  a  question  of  "  getting 
to  first-hand  documents,"  but  of  getting  behind  second-hand 
ones  and  considering  the  probable  nature  of  their  sources.  This 
is  sometimes  impossible,  and  the  outcome  often  is  a  choice 
between  opinions.  Individual  scholars  have  their  own  preference, 
but  will  usually  admit  that  other  alternatives  are  legitimate. 
The  gift  of         The  starting-point  for  investigation  is  the  experience  called 

the  Spirit.  |   «  the  gift  of  the  Holy  gpirit  „  .     f()r  thig  ig  the  mogt  important 


#< 


constant  factor  throughout  the  first  Christian  generation. 


The  meaning  attached  in  Jewish  thought  to  the  Holy  Spirit 

has  been  already  discussed.     Jesus  himself  openly  claimed  to  be 

inspired,  and  the  disciples  were  sure  that  he  was  right ;  but  that 

during  bis  ministry  they  made  no  claim  to  possess  the  Spirit 

themselves    is    definitely    explained    in    Acts,   and    is    clearly 

implied  in  Mark,  in  Q,  and  in  Matthew.     But  immediately  after 

the  Kesurrection  (or  perhaps  after  the  return  of  the  disciples  to 

Jerusalem)  they  were  given  the  Spirit,  and  began  to  speak  with 

tongues,  and  to  prophesy  under  its  influence.     Nor  was  this 

^  I  mere  opinion.    The  statement  that  the  Spirit  was  given  is  no 

j  doubt  the  expression  of  a  theory,  but  behind  it  is  a  genuine 

I  experience.     Something  changed  the  disciples,  and  they  believed 

^  I  that  this  something  was  the  Spirit  of  God.     It  is  not  neces- 

j  sary  to  accept  the  belief,1  but  it  is  impossible  to  deny  the 

I  change. 

There  appear  to  be  two  traditions  as  to  the  circumstances. 
According  to  Acts  2  the  Spirit  was  given  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 

j        l  Modern  psychology  may  explain  the  facts  better  than  ancient  faith  :   but 
1  it  has  to  accept  them  as  data. 

2  It  is,  however,  possible  that  two  traditions  rather  than  one  are  preserved 
in  Acts.     There  is  considerable  weight  in  Harnack's  view  that  Acts  ii.  is  an 


hi  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  323 

fifty  days  after  the  Resurrection  :  according  to  the  Fourth  Gospel * 
it  was  on  the  day  of  the  Resurrection.     It  is  possible  that  neither 
tradition  is  the  earliest  form,  and  it  is  therefore  all  the  more 
important  to  emphasise  the  point  which  they  have  in  common  : 
the  Spirit  comes  from  the  risen  Jesus.     The  only  difference — and 
it  is  characteristic — is  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  makes  Jesus  givef^ 
the  Spirit  directly,  when  he  breathed  on  them  and  said,  "  Re- 
ceive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit,"  so  that  it  appears  to  be  his  Spirit  which 
is  given,  while  Acts  represents  him  as  pouring  out  from  Heaven  * 
the  Spirit  of  God.     The  latter  is  probably  more  Jewish  and  more  I 
primitive. 

According  to  Acts  ii.  the  outward  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  Speaking 
on  this  first  occasion  was  glossolalia,  which  the  editor  interprets  tongues  in 
as  speaking  foreign  languages,  but  most  students  will  agree  with  Acfcs  "• 
Harnack  that  the  account  of  the  events  of  the  Day  of  Pentecost 
have  clearer  marks  of  legendary  influence  than  any  other  chapter 
in  Acts.  The  description  of  glossolalia  is  quite  unlike  that  given 
by  Paul  in  1  Corinthians  xiv.  1-25,  which  describes  phenomena 
well  known,  both  to  the  historian  and  to  the  psychologist,  as 
common  to  all  "  revivals  "  and  to  all  ecstatic  forms  of  religion. 
Moreover,  the  story  itself  bears  witness  to  an  earlier  tradition 
more  in  agreement  with  the  contemporary  description  of  Paul. 
"  These  men  are  full  of  new  wine  "  would  exactly  describe  the 
glossolalia  which  prevailed  in  Corinth  ;  but  it  is  inexplicable  on 
the  lips  of  foreigners  who  found  to  their  surprise  that  the  wonder- 
ful works  of  God  were  being  described  in  their  own  language.  It 
is  impossible  to  rewrite  the  earlier  form  of  the  narrative,  but  the 
suspicion  is  hard  to  repress  that  the  existing  one  was  written  by 
an  editor  who  did  not  know  from  his  own  experience  what 

inferior  doublet  of  Acts  iii.  and  iv.  If  he  be  right  the  tradition  preserved  in 
Acts  ii.  and  iv.,  which  he  calls  the  Jerusalem  A  source,  represents  the  first  gift 
of  the  Spirit  as  following  on  Peter's  miracle  of  treating  the  lame  man  in  the 
namo  of  Jesus.  This  led  to  the  arrest  of  Peter,  and  when  he  was  called  on  for 
his  defence  he  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Later  on,  when  he  returned  to 
the  other  disciples,  "  the  place  in  which  they  were  gathered  together  was  shaken, 
and  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  spake  the  word  of  God  with 
boldness."  .   r-t        »  1  John  xx.  22. 


324  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

"  speaking  with  tongues  "  was,  and  thought  that  it  meant  a 
miraculous  gift  of  speaking  foreign  languages. 
Peter's  More  important1  than  this  problem  is  the  speech  of   Peter 

Pentecost.  I  in  which  he  explains  to  the  people  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  an 
^4  eschatological  phenomenon  fulfilling  the  famous  prophecy  of  Joel. 
■  In  this  way  Peter  proves  that  the  "  last  days  "  2  are  at  hand,  and 
,  then  goes  on  to  assert  that  this  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  the 
H  work  of  the  glorified  Jesus,  which  shows  him  to  be  "  Lord  and 
I  Christ."     This  is  the  earliest  example  of  the  argument  that  the 
,  |  presence  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Church  proves  the  truth  of  its 
•j  opinion.     But  no  description  is  given  of  the  results  of  the  gift 
except  that  it  confers  the  power  of  prophecy.    Was  it  also  re- 
garded as  a  cleansing  from  sin  preparatory  to  the  judgment  ? 
Such  an  interpretation  fits  very  well  with  that  form  of  Jewish 
thought  which  looked  for  the  coming  of  some  great  judgment 
to  cleanse  the  earth  by  destroying  sinners.3    It  was  indeed  this 
belief  which  actuated  John  the  Baptist  when  he  said  :   "  The  axe 
)  is  now  laid  to  the  root  of  the  trees  :  every  branch  therefore  that 
j  beareth  not  good  fruit  is  cut  off  and  cast  into  fire  "  ;  and,  to  avoid 
this  fate,  urged  his  hearers  to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  water, 
foretelling  the  days  when  one  "  mightier  than  himself  "  would 
cleanse  them  with  the  Spirit.     Probably,  therefore,  this  view  is 
latent  in  the  first  chapters  of  Acts,  but  it  is  not  emphasised.     The 
important  thing  is  rather  that  the  Spirit  is  regarded  as  the  source 
of  the  miraculous  words  and  deeds  of  the  disciples.     The  Church 

1  Especially  because  it  ignores  the  redactor's  view  of  "  foreign  languages, 
and  implies  only  the  Pauline  type  of  glossolalia."  It  is  therefore  probable  that 
the  speech  belongs  to  the  source,  even  though  the  redactor  has  probably  altered 
it  in  some  details. 

2  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  exact  phrase  "  the  last  days  "  is  not  in  the  text 
of  Joel  ii.  28,  but  is  introduced  into  the  quotation  in  Acts. 

3  In  the  early  chapters  of  Enoch  this  cleansing  is  entrusted  to  Michael 
(Enoch  x.  13  ff.),  and  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  to  the  Davidic  Messiah  (Ps.  Sol. 
xvii.  41,  cf.  xviii.  8  ff.).  A  similar  destruction  of  the  wicked  seems  to  be  fore- 
shadowed in  4  Ezra  and  in  Baruch,  though  in  Baruch  and  perhaps  in  Ezra  it 
is  the  work  of  God  himself  (4  Ezra  vi.  26  f. ;  Baruch  xiii.  4  ff.  and  lxxxv.  15). 
There  is  a  collection  of  passages  and  an  admirable  discussion  in  H.  Windisch, 
Taufe  und  Siinde,  pp.  34  ff. 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  325 

is  the  home  of  the  Spirit ;  when  Ananias  and  Sapphira  deceive 
the  Church  they  lie  to  the  Spirit ;  Barnabas  and  Paul  are  ap- 
pointed missionaries  by  the  Spirit ;  when  Paul  strikes  Elymas 
blind,  he  is  filled  with  the  Spirit ;  the  elders  of  Ephesus  are  said 
to  have  been  made  eirlaKoiroi  by  the  Spirit. 

It  is  sometimes  said  x  that  Acts  differs  from  the  Epistles  by  The  Spirit 
representing  the  working  of  the  Spirit  as  occasional  and  sporadic,  ™  d  jnathe 
but  this  seems  an  exaggeration.     It  would  be  more  accurate  to  EPlstles- 
say  that  in  Acts  the  Spirit  is  regarded  as  working  with  varying 
power.     Gbssolalia,  and  prophecy  such  as  that  of  Agabus,  are 
not  constant  but  intermittent  phenomena.    Nevertheless  it  is 
certain  that  to  the  redactor  of  Acts  Christians  were  men  who 
had  been  given  the  Spirit ;   the  Church  was  the  supernaturally 
endowed  society  of  those  who  had  received  the  gift ;    only 
through  it  could  this  normally  be  obtained ;  and  the  case  of 
Cornelius  was  so  exceptional  as  to  warrant  his  immediate  recep- 
tion in  the  Church.     It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  writer  was 
quite  clear  whether  the  means  of  imparting  the  Spirit  was  by 
baptism  or  the  laying  on  of  hands, — but  it  was  at  any  rate  a 
privilege,  belonging  to,  and  given  by  the  Church. 

It  is  not  in  this,  but  in  the  view  taken  of  the  results  of  possess- 
ing the  Spirit  that  there  is  a  real  difference  between  the  Epistles 
and  Acts.    In  Jewish  thought  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  made  a  man  i 
a  prophet  or  a  worker  of  miracles  ;  but  the  later  Catholic  doctrine 
of  the  Spirit  was  that  by  its  operation  men  obtained  a  new  nature, ? 
which  ensured  them  eternal  life,  or,  as  it  was  sometimes  stated,  i 
made  them  divine.2    This  doctrine  is  not  Jewish  in  origin  :   it 
belongs  to  that  curious  mixture  of  philosophy  and  magic  which 
dominated  the  last  centuries  of  heathen  life. 

It  is  doubtful  how  far  this  mixture  was  already  extant  in  Spirit  in 
the  first  century :    probably  it  existed,  though  this  has  been  H^TienicT 
asserted  rather  than  demonstrated  by  Keitzenstein  3  and  others  ;  thou8ht- 

1  See  particularly  H.  Gunkel's  Die  Wirkungen  des  heiligen  Geistes. 
2  Especially  in  Irenaeus  and  later  in  Athanasius,  cf.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  iii.  20.  1. 
3  See  Die  hellenistische  Mysterienreligionen. 


326  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

but  in  any  case  it  began  subsequently  to  grow  very  rapidly, 
and  it  is  for  the  present  purpose  comparatively  unimportant 
whether  Christianity  was  one  of  the  earliest  or  latest  of  the  sacra- 
i  mental  religions.1  The  main  note  of  these  cults  is  the  offer  to 
men  to  become  immortal  or  divine,  and  this  is  characteristically 
expressed  as  *  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.'  Probably  the  average  man 
looked  on  this  offer  as  representing  some  kind  of  obsession  by  the 
Lord  of  the  cult ;  but  in  more  philosophic  circles  it  was  connected 
rather  with  Stoic  doctrines  of  the  nature  of  reality,  and  the 
identification  of  the  soul,  whether  of  man  or  of  the  world,  with 
"  Spirit,"  the  finest  and  most  ethereal  form  of  matter. 

The  details  of  this  question,  whether  in  heathenism  or  in 

Christianity,  are  obscure ;    fortunately  only  one  point  is  really 

^  I  necessary  for  the  present  purpose.     In  the  mystery  religions  the 

j  Spirit  effects  an  essential  change  in  the  worshipper  :  he  becomes 

'  a  new  being.     But  in  Jewish  thought  this  is  not  the  case ;   the 

*• j  Spirit  of  the  Lord  descends  on  men,  and  they  prophesy  or  do 

.wonderful  things.     Nevertheless  they  remain  themselves,  and 

.  their  salvation,2  their  life  or  death,  does  not  depend  on  the  gift 

J^l  of  the  Spirit. 

change  to  This  is  the  real  dividing  line  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 

JohanSne1    forms  of  thought,  and  it  marks  very  clearly  the  difference  be- 

thought'  *  tween  the  Synoptic  Gospels  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Fourth 

n  Gospel  and  Pauline  Epistles  on  the  other.    In  the  Epistles  the 

*?&  j  Spirit  is  the  base  of  all  Christian  life  :    by  it  Christians  have 

\  become  sons  of  God  :   they  are  a  new  creation.    In  the  Fourth 

1  Gospel  only  those  who  are  born  of  the  Spirit  can  enter  into 

j  the  Kingdom  of  God.    Nothing  of  this  appears  in  the  Synoptic 

1  The  question  cannot  be  settled  by  pointing  out  that  the  worship  of  Isis 
or  Mithras  is  older  than  Christianity.  The  question  is  whether  these  Oriental 
religions  were  always  sacramental,  or  became  so  when  they  passed  into  the 
Hellenic  world.  Or,  the  problem  may  be  put  in  another  form :  Were  there 
earlier  non-sacramental  Oriental  religions  behind  these  "  mysteries,"  just  as  the 
religion  of  Israel  is  behind  Christianity  ? 

2  Salvation  in  Jewish  thought  depends  on  conduct.  In  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity it  depends  on  sacramental  regeneration  ;  it  can,  after  this,  be  lost  by 
evil  conduct,  but  cannot  previously  be  earned  by  good  conduct. 


Ill 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  327 


Gospels.  Not  even  in  Luke  is  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  clearly  J 
represented  as  the  necessary  possession  of  Christians.  The} 
same  is  perhaps  true  of  the  sources  represented  by  the  early j 
chapters  of  Acts  ;  salvation  is  offered  to  the  repentant,  and  thej 
gift  of  the  Spirit  is  the  result  rather  than  the  cause  of  salvation. 
But  the  second  part  of  Acts  is  in  this  respect  Pauline.  Paul  in 
Ephesus  x  regards  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  as  the  necessary 
equipment  of  Christians,  and  holds  that  it  is  conveyed  by  a 
correct  baptism.  Probably  the  redactor  of  Acts  also  held  this 
view,  though  it  is  not  clear  whether  he  thought  that  the  Spirit 
was  given  by  baptism,  or  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  an 
apostle  after  baptism. 

Acts  thus  gives  glimpses  of  various  stages  :  the  redactor  and 
his  sources  do  not  always  represent  the  same  point  of  view. 
There  is  a  development  or  change  from  Jewish  to  Greek;   but. 
behind  it  is  the  common  experience— conversion,  inspiration,  jil* 
regeneration,  or  whatever  other  name  be  given.     The  explanation 
changed  ;  similar  words  were  used,  but  with  an  altered  meaning  ; 
the  experience  itself  was  the  connecting-link.     Later  on,  in  a 
more  developed  Christianity,  the  situation  was  reversed ;    the 
experience  ceased,  and  the  thought,  or  rather  the  language,  was 
the  point  of  union  with  the  past.     But  in  the  period  of  the  New 
Testament  this  was  not  so  ;  and  the  unity  of  experience  enabled]^ 
the  Church  to  survive  greater  changes  of  thought  than  it  has!" 
ever  passed  through  since. 

The  effect  of  the  experience  known  as  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  ^y^  ^ 
was  felt  both  in  the  description  which  the  Christians  gave  of  the  Church, 
themselves  and  in  those  which  they  gave  of  Jesus. 

The  followers  of  Jesus  had  not  originally  looked  on  themselves 
as  separate  from  the  Jewish  Church  ;  but  when  the  opposition 
of  the  synagogue  grew,  the  Hellenistic  Christians  abandoned 
Jewish  practice,  and  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  became  the  hall- 
mark of  a  Christian.  They  called  themselves  the  eK/cX^aLa; 
1  Acts  xix.  1  ff. 


328  PEIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 

(  probably  this  was  at  first  merely  the  translation  of  keneseth,  but 

|  the  fact  that  it  had  been  used  in  the  LXX.  to  translate  qahal- 

|  the  Congregation  of  Israel— furthered  the  conviction  that  the 

^     |  Christian  Church,  not  the  Jewish,  was  the  Congregation  of  Israel, 

the  true  people  of  God— the  \aos  as  contrasted  with  rh  Wvr). 

Nevertheless  this  conviction  that  the  Church  was  the  People 
of  God  was  accompanied,  strangely,  yet  intelligibly  enough,  by 
the  opposite  sense  that  it  was  new,  and  owed  its  existence  to 
Jesus,  who— according  to  the  most  probable  meaning  of  a  corrupt 
passage— had  "gained  it  (irepieiro^aaro)  by  his  own  blood."! 
But  there  were  two  theories  as  to  the  time  when  it  was  founded, 
rn  Acts.  That  of  Acts  is  clearly  that  the  Church  began  with  the  gift  of 

the  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  and  it  is  to  the  editor  always  the 
society  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  and  in  turn  bestowing  it.  To  him 
it  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Joel  as  to  Israel  in  the  last  days,  and 
it  was  the  Spirit  which  gradually  led  on  to  the  evangelisation  of 
the  Gentiles. 
inMatthe*,|  Matthew  has  a  different  theory  ;  for  him  the  foundation  of  the 
Church  was  promised  by  Jesus,  during  his  ministry,  and  the 
commission  to  the  eleven  to  convert  all  the  Gentiles  was  part  of 
the  great  vision  of  the  risen  Lord  in  Galilee. 

Few  can  doubt  that  Acts  is  nearer  to  history  than  Matthew, 

k  for  his  account  of  the  confession  of  Peter  at  Caesarea  Pbilippi 

J.  N  is    clearly    a    later    recension    of   the    Markan    narrative,   and 

|  his    version    of   the    commission    to   preach    to    the    Gentiles 

is    negatived   by   the    history   of   the    Judaistic    controversy  2 

.According  to  Mark,  Peter  at  Caesarea  Philippi  acknowledged 

*  J  Jesus  as  "  the  Christ."     Jesus'  reply  was  a  rebuke  (eVer^e), 

*  forbidding  the  disciples  "  to  say  so  to  any  one  concerning  him."  3 

But  Matthew  completely  rewrites  the  passage.    Instead  of  a 

1  Acts  xx.  28. 

2  According  to  Acts  it  never  entered  into  the  mind  of  the  Twelve  to  leave 
Jerusalem  and  evangelise  the  Gentiles  until  circumstances  forced  them  to  do 
so  :  to  accept  Matthew  xxviii.  19  is  to  discredit  the  obedience  of  the  Twelve 
beyond  all  reasonable  limits. 

3  Mark  viii.  27  ff.=Matt.  xvi.  13  ff. 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  329 

rebuke  Peter  receives  a  blessing  and  the  promise  that  on  hini| 
the  "  Church  "  shall  be  founded,  and  that  he  shall  receive  super-  j 
natural  authority  in  connection  with  it.1     "  And  Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  him,  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona  ;  for  flesh 
and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven.    And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  ;  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it.     And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;   and  whatsoever  thou  shalfc  bind  on 
earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."     It  is  difficult  to  regard 
these  words  as  the  genuine  saying  of  Jesus  ;    but  they  reflect 
two  important  phases  of  early  Christian  thought  and  language 
— the  supremacy  of  Peter,  and  the  explanation  of  the  Kingdom!" 
as  the  Church. 

The  supremacy  of  Peter  is  not  borne  out  by  the  narrative  Matthew 
of  Acts  or  by  the  Pauline  Epistles.     In  both  of  them  Peter  is  supremacy 
represented  as  prominent  but  not  supreme.     Indeed,   except  of  Peter- 
in  the  opening  chapters  of  Acts,  James  is  more  important  in  ! 
Jerusalem  than  Peter  ;   but  the  leadership  neither  of  James  nor  j 
of  Peter  is  based  on  supernatural  authority  or  on  a  special  com- 
mission from  Jesus  :    it  is  that  which  naturally  belongs  to  the 
head  of  a  synagogue  or  indeed  of  any  other  society.    It  is  clear- 
that  the  Matthaean  tradition  cannot  be  that  of  Jerusalem. 

Two  places  are  suggested  by  historical  probability — Rome 
and  Antioch.     At  first  sight  Rome  seems  natural ;    but  this  is 
due  to  the  impression  made  by  later  controversy.     There  is  no      ^v 
trace  in  the   second  century  that  Rome  claimed  supremacy;^ 
because  of  its  connection  with  Peter,  nor  is  there  evidence  of  the  j 
special  use  of  Matthew  in  Rome. 

1  In  the  interests  of  Protestant  ecclesiology  it  has  often  been  attempted  to 
explain  this  perfectly  clear  passage  in  some  other  way  ;  but  the  words  are  simple 
and  lucid.     Their  meaning  is  as  plain  as  their  unhistorical  character  is  obvious 
in  the  light  of    synoptic  criticism.     It  is  interesting  to  note  how  Matthew's, 
editorial  methods  betray  themselves :   in  the  original  Marcan  narrative  iirerl- f  % 
\M)<je  is  an  intelligible  word,  but  in  Matthew  it  is  merely  a  literary  survival  quite  I 
discordant  with  its  new  context. 


330  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

Tlie  claim  of  Antioch  is  less  obvious  but  more  probable. 
The  epistles  of  Ignatius  suggest  that  Matthew  was  the  Antiochene 
gospel ;  the  tradition  that  Peter  was  the  first  Bishop  of  Antioch 
is  as  old  and  as  probable  as  that  which  makes  him  the  first  Bishop 
of  Rome.     Both  reflect  his  historical  connection  with  these  cities, 
though  expressed  in  the  language  of  later  ecclesiastical  organisa- 
tion.    The  hypothesis  may  therefore  be  ventured  that  "  Tu  es 
Petros "    represented    originally    not    Roman    but    Antiochene 
thought,  and  reflects  the  struggle  between  Jerusalem  and  Antioch 
for  supremacy.     Jerusalem  had  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord 
who  presided  over  the  flock  on  Mount  Zion.     But  Antioch  claimed 
that  Peter,  not  James,  had  been  appointed  by  Jesus  ;   on  him, 
not  on  James,  was  the  Church  founded  ;  and  he,  not  James,  had 
the  keys  of  the  Kingdom,  to  admit  or  exclude  whom  he  would. 
This  is  of  course  a  hypothesis  which  cannot  be  demonstrated, 
but  it  seems  more  probable  than  the  suggestion  that  the  passage 
had  originally  anything  to  do  with  the  claims  of  Rome.1 
The  church        The  identification  of  the  Church2   with   the   Kingdom   of 
Heaven  is  unmistakable  in  Matt.  xvi.  19,  because  the  keys  of 
the  Kingdom  are  represented  as  effective  both  in  heaven  and  on 
earth.     The  same  usage  can  also  be  found  elsewhere  in  Matthew, 
especially  in  the  parables,  some  of  which  are  unintelligible,  unless 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  means  the  Christian  Church.     This  is, 
for  instance,  clearly  true  of  the  parable  of  the  drag-net,3  which 
reflects  the  problem  of  the  existence  of  evil  in  the  Church,  and 
equally  plainly  in  the  reference  to  the  scribes  who  become  disciples 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.4    Different  minds  will  have  different 
interpretations  of  Matthew,  but  few  will  doubt  that  some  of  the 
"  parables  of  the  Kingdom  "  can  only  refer  to  the  Church,  and 

1  For  the  study  of  Acts  part  of  the  importance  of  this  tentative  identification 
of  the  Matthaean  tradition  with  Antioch  lies  in  the  presumption  created  against 
the  otherwise  probable  Antiochene  provenance  of  the  editor  of  Acts. 

2  The  only  other  reference  to  the  Church  as  the  iKKXrjaia  is  Matt,  xviii.  17. 
This  passage  may  be  either  late  or  early.  It  is  not  found  in  the  other  gospels, 
but  the  advice  to  lay  a  quarrel  before  the  community  has  in  itself  no  sign  of 
date.     The  same  advice  might  have  been  given  by  any  Rabbi. 

3  Matt.  xiii.  47  ft.  4  Matt.  xiii.  52. 


and  the 
Kingdom 
of  God. 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  331 

some  will  go  so  far  as  to  suspect  that  the  Greek  editor  of  Matthew 
habitually  interpreted  the  phrase  in  this  way. 

That  this  interpretation  is  Matthaean,  not  primitive,  can  Kingdom 
scarcely  be  doubted  ;  there  is,  however,  one  passage  in  Q  where  in  q 
it  is  legitimate  to  suspect  its  influence.1    In  the  answer  of  Jesus 
to  the  disciples  of  John,  Jesus  says,  "  Verily  I  say  to  you,  among 
them  born  of  women  there  hath  arisen  none  greater  than  John 
the  Baptist,  but  he  who  is  least 2  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is 
greater  than  he."    In  no  Jewish  sense  of  the  word  could  John^ 
be  regarded  as  outside  the  Kingdom,  which  is  meaningless  here 
except  in  the  sense  of  the  Christian  Church.     It  is  strange  to  find 
this  passage,  like  the  more  famous  one  in  Matt.  xi.  about  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  in  all  reconstructions  of  Q.     But  these 
reconstructions  are  in  the  main  merely  mechanical  compilations 
of  material  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  may  have  used 
in  common  late  as  well  as  early  sources.     It  is  noticeable  that  in  * 
both  cases  the  verbal  agreement  is  very  close,  so  that  the  source  | ' 
used  was  Greek.     Paradoxical  though  it  seems,  the  parts  of  Q      -  f 
which  have  the  best  claim  to  authority  are  those  where  the  agree-  \ 
ment  between  Matthew  and  Luke  is  not  verbal,  for  in  these  there 
is  probably  Aramaic  tradition  behind  the  Greek. 

It  is  therefore  tolerably  certain  that  some  Christians,  possibly, 
in  Antioch,  thought  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  the  Church.  1 
Possibly  the  redactor  of  Matthew  interpreted  in  this  manner  all  j 
references  to  the  Kingdom  in  his  sources,  and  believed  that  when  I 
Jesus  said  "  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand  "  he  meant  the  I 
Christian  Church;    but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Lukan 
writings  represent  this  view.     The  writer  of  Acts  was  as  high  a 
churchman  as  Matthew,  but  in  a  different  sense,  and  Matthew 
a,nd    Acts    represent    parallel    independent    developments    of 
thought. 

A  little  later  great  and  sometimes   controversial  interest  Theory  of 

the  Church 
1  Matt.  xi.  7  ft. ;  Luke  vii.  24  ff.  in  Acts' 

As  in  modern  Greek  the  comparative  funporepos  has  here  a  superlative 
force. 


332  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

attached  to  the  rites  of  the  Church,  and  to  the  ministers  of  its 
organised  life.     There  is,  however,  no  trace  of  this  stage  in  Acts.1 
The  ministry  is  mentioned  in  several  places,  and  the  termino- 
logy of  eiriaKOTTOL,  irpeafivTepou,  and  Scd/covoi  is  found.    But  there 
is  nothing  to  show  whether  these  officers  were  held  to  have  had 
more  than  administrative  functions,  and  eirlcnco'iroi  and  irpeo- 
fivrepoi  seem  to  be  synonymous.     The  Church  is  the  community 
y\oi  Christians,  but  its  authority  comes  from  the  Spirit  of  which 
''it  is  the  instrument.     The  Eucharist  is  possibly  mentioned  in 
Acts  as  the  '  breaking  of  bread,'  but  this  is  not  quite  certain,  and 
nothing  is  said  of  its  meaning  or  of  its  part  in  Christian  life. 
In  general,  therefore,  it  may  be  said  that  in  Acts  the  Church 
.lis  assumed  to  be  the  society  of  those  who  through  the  Lord 
'  I  Jesus  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit.     This  is  in  all  essentials 
the  Catholic  position.     But  its  causes,  not  its  consequences,  are 
emphasised  in  Acts,  which  therefore  throws  no  important  light 
on  the  ministry  of  the  Church  or  on  the  Eucharist,  but  much  on 
the  beginnings  of  Baptism  and  of  Christology — or,  in  other  words, 
on  the  mystery  of   initiation  into  the  number  of  its  inspired 
members,  and  on  the  doctrine  concerning  the  founder  of  the 
Church. 

Baptism.  In  Christian  literature  the  words  baptism  and  baptize  are 

used  almost  exclusively  for  the  rite  of  Christian  initiation,  which 

appears  in  sub-apostolic  literature  as  the  universally  recognised 

'  Mystery '  or   *  Sacrament '  whereby  the  initiated  died  with 

Christ  and  were  born  again  to  a  new,  eternal  life. 

History  of  The  history  of  the  word  itself  is  stranger  than  is  generally 

jSairrtfL   |  recognised  :  neither  the  verb  nor  the  substantive  was  commonly 

I  used  in  Greek  either  among  Jews  or  Gentiles  in  connection  with 

I  religion  or  religious  washing,  and  their  sudden  appearance  in 

>,  |  Christian  vocabulary  is  one  of  the  strangest  "  spring- variations  " 


in  linguistic  evolution. 


1  That  i3  to  say  excluding  Baptism,  which  was  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the 
Church,  not  one  practised  by  initiated  members  among  themselves. 


ni  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  333 

The  meaning  of  fiairTi^w  is  to  '  dip '  or  '  sink/  and  it  is 
used  both  literally  and  metaphorically.    For  instance,  Polybius 
in  Hist.  i.  51.  6,  describing  the  sea  battle  between  Publius  andj 
Adherbal,  explains  the  successful  tactics  of  the  Carthaginians  by  ] 
which  iroXka  a/cacfr&v  iftdirTiZov,  and  in  xvi.  6.  2  he  speaks  of  a 
pentereme  of  Attalus  which  was  T€Tpcop,evr)v  koX  ^airr^ofiivTjv^ 
Plato  uses  the  word  metaphorically  of  indulgence  in  wine  in 
Symposium  IV.  when  Aristophanes  says  to  Pausanias,  "  tovto  \ 
fxevTot  ev  Xeyeis,  w  Waver  avia,  to  iravrl  rpoirw  irapaaKevd^eaQai  \ 
pao-Tcovrjv   riva    ttj?   7rocreft>?-    teal    yap   avros    elfit    twv    %0e<? 
$e$aiTTio-p,kvwv"    Josephus  also  used  the  word  in  exactly  the 
same  way  in  Antiq.  x.  9. 4  of  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  x  by  Ishmael 
— deaadfievos  £'   avrov  ovrm  e^ovra  /cal  ftefiairrLvnevov  eh 
avaio-07)o-lav    teal    virvov    viro    7-779   fjueO^    6    'Io-^a^Xo?    . 
a7roa(f)dTT6L  top  YahaXiav   kt\. 

In  the  Euthydemus  Plato  uses  it  of  mental  confusion,  yvovs  i 
&cnTTi%6p,evov  to  pueipaKiov  "  when  the  youth  felt  that  he  was  I 
getting  out  of  his  depth."    Similarly  Plutarch  uses  it  of  debt— 
exactly  anticipating  the  use  of  "  dipped  "  in  modern  slang— 
and  summarises  Galba's  objection  to  Otho  as  d/coXaaTov  el8m  j 
Kai  7ro\vT€\rj  /cal  TrevTaicicryCkLtov  fivpcdScov  6(j>\rjpiaai  fteftair-  \ 
Tco-fievov.     It  is   also  used  in  Plutarch  in  the  same  way  in 
which  /3a7rT0)  is  used  of  "  dipping  "  wine  out  of  a  bowl.     There  * 
is  apparently  no  instance  of  its  use  as  a  technical  term  for 
religious  washing. 

In  the  Septuagint  the  verb  ftaTrrlfa  is  used  four  times.    In 
Isaiah  xxiArj  dvopula  p,e  fiairTi^ei  does  not  translate  the  Hebrew, 
but  seems  to  mean  "  wickedness  overwhelms  me,"  and  the  word' 
is  used  in  the  same  metaphorical  manner  as  in  Plato  and  Polybius. 
In  2  Kings  v.  14  it  is  used  of  Naaman,  who  dipped— i^aiTTiaaTo |« 
—seven  times  in  Jordan.    The  other  two  passages  are  both  in ] 
late  books,  and  in  each  case  the  meaning  is  washing  to  remove 
ritual  uncleanness— for  which  ^utttco  is  more  usual  in  the  earlier 
books.    In  Judith  xii.  7  it  is  used  of  Judith's  daily  or  nightly  f  * 

1  Cf.  Jer.  xli.  2. 


334  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

visit  to  the  stream  to  wash  before  prayer — teal   e^eiropevero 

Kara  vvkto,  eh  ttjv  <j>dpayya  l$aiTv\ovd,  /ecu  eftcnrTL^eTO  ev  rfj 

irapefifioXr)  eirl  7%  77-777779  rod  vSaros,  and  in  Ecclus.  xxxi.  35 

ji }  it  refers  to  the  removal  of  the  ceremonial  defilement  incurred 

)by   touching   a  corpse — ^airrv^o^evo^  diro   veicpov    ical   irdXiv 

*  cnrTOfievos  avrov  rl  axpeXrjaev  tco  XovrpS  avTOv  ; 

It  is  therefore  probable  that,  though  the  word  was  not  common, 
,  J  it  was  coming  into  use  in  Greek-speaking  Jewish  circles  to  mean 
i  \  ceremonial  or  religious  washing,  for  which  Xoveadcu  (or  occasion- 
ally fiairreiv)  is  regularly  used  in   the  LXX.     This  probably 
explains  why  John  the  Forerunner  is  called  0   ftcnrrlcrTr)*;  in 
Josephus   as   well   as  in  Christian  tradition ;  otherwise  it   is 
strange   that    so   comparatively  rare   a  word  should  be  used 
independently  by  both. 
Jewish  and         The  practice  and  theory  of  baptism,  as  distinct  from  the  word 
plraUeis  to  use(*  to  describe  it,  has  abundant  but  partial  parallels  in  Jewish 
Baptism.      an(j  Q.entile  sources.    But  the  two  do  not  cover  the  same  aspects, 
and  in  the  essentials  of  thought  Christian  baptism,  though  the 
J  direct  descendant  of  Jewish  practice,  is  far  more  Greek,  or  Greco- 
I  Oriental,  than  Jewish.     The  Jews  had  always  practised  washing 
as  a  means  of  removing  ritual  impurity,  and,  at  least  among  the 
Essenes,  it  was  regarded  as  a  commendable  form  of  asceticism. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  John  the  Baptist  intended  his 
baptism  as  a  remedy  for  sin,  or  as  a  form  of  asceticism,  for  the 
synoptists  and  Josephus  differ  ;  but  in  any  case  he  gave  a  new 
impetus  to  the  practice,  which  in  some  way  affected  Jewish 
thought  and,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  custom  of  Christians. 

But  neither  Jewish  practice  nor  John's  baptism  explains  the 
later  theory  of  the  Christian  sacrament.  This,  in  all  essential 
respects,  is  wholly  un-Jewish,  and  has  many  Gentile  parallels. 
It  is  impossible,  indeed,  to  find  anything  exactly  the  same  as  the 
Christian  rite,  partly,  perhaps,  because  our  knowledge  of  the 
details  of  initiatory  rites  in  Greco-Oriental  cults  is  very  limited  ; 
and  we  cannot  prove  that  in  any  of  them  the  formula  "  in  the 
name  of  "  was  used.     But  in  all  the  Greco-Oriental  cults  there 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  335 

was,  or  may  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  been,  an  exact 
similarity  to  the  central  concept  of  baptism — the  mystical  death 
and  rebirth  to  eternal  life  through  the  Passion  and  Resurrection 
of  the  Lord.1 

There  is  little  doubt  as  to  the  sacramental  nature  of  baptism 
by  the  middle  of  the  first  century  in  the  circles  represented  by 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  it  is  indisputable  in  the  second 
century.  The  problem  is  whether  it  can  in  this  form  be  traced 
back  to  Jesus,  and  if  not  what  light  is  thrown  upon  its  history  by 
the  analysis  of  the  synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts. 

According  to  Catholic  teaching,  baptism  was  instituted  by 
Jesus.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  necessary  this  was  for  the  belief 
in  sacramental  regeneration.  Mysteries,  or  sacraments,  were 
always  the  institution  of  the  Lord  of  the  cult ;  by  them,  and  by 
them  only,  were  its  supernatural  benefits  obtained  by  the  faithful. 
Nevertheless,  if  evidence  counts  for  anything,  few  points  in  the 
problem  of  the  Gospels  are  so  clear  as  the  improbability  of  this 
teaching. 

The  reason  for  this  assertion  is  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  Matt. 
Christian  baptism  in  Mark,  Q,  or  the  third  gospel,  and  the  sus-jx 
picious  nature  of  the  account  of  its  institution  in  Matthew  xxviii.  I ? 
19 :  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  * 
Gentiles  (ra  edvij),  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit."    It  is  not  even  certain  whether  this 
verse  ought  to  be  regarded  as  part  of  the  genuine  text  of  Matthew. 
No  other  text,  indeed,  is  found  in  any  extant  manuscripts,  in  any 
language,  but  it  is  arguable  that  Justin  Martyr,2  though  he  used 
the  trine  formula,  did  not  find  it  in  his  text  of  the  Gospels ; 

1  The  formula  renatus  in  aeternum  in  inscriptions  refers  to  the  Taurobolium, 
but  too  much  stress  must  not  be  put  on  this,  for  the  evidence  is  unfortunately 
late.  The  inscription  usually  quoted  is  C.I.L.  vi.  510 :  Matei  deum  et  Attidi 
Sextilius  Aegesilaus  Aedesius  .  .  .  pater  patrum  Dei  Solis  invicti  Mithrae  .  . 
taurobolio  criobolioque  in  aeternum  renatus.  .  .  .  This  can  be  dated  in  a.d.  376. 
There  are  also  at  least  three  inscriptions  (C.I.L.  vi.  502  of  a.d.  383 ;  504  of 
a.d.  376  ;  and  512  of  a.d.  390)  which  refer  to  the  repetition  of  the  taurobolium, 
and  show  that  twenty  years  was  sometimes  regarded  as  the  period  of  its  efficacy. 

2  Justin,  Apol.  61: 


336  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

Hermas  seems  to  be  unacquainted  with  it ;  the  evidence  of  the 
Didache  is  ambiguous ;  *  and  Eusebius  habitually,  though  not 
invariably,  quotes  it  in  another  form,  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world 
and  make  disciples  of  all  the  Gentiles  in  my  name."  No  one 
acquainted  with  the  facts  of  textual  history  and  patristic  evidence 
can  doubt  that  the  tendency  would  have  been  to  replace  the 
Eusebian  text  by  the  ecclesiastical  formula  of  baptism,  so  that 
"  transcriptional  evidence  "  is  certainly  on  the  side  of  the  text 
omitting  baptism.  The  only  doubt  which  must  inevitably 
remain  is  whether  "transcriptional  probability"  can  outweigh 
the  "  intrinsic  probability  "  supplied  by  the  consensus  of  all 
existing  manuscripts.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  this 
point  at  length,2  because  even  if  the  ordinary  text  of  Matthew 
xxviii.  19  be  sound  it  cannot  represent  historical  fact.  If  Jesus' 
last  words  had  been  to  order  his  followers  to  make  disciples  of  all 
the  Gentiles,  would  there  conceivably  have  been  so  much  trouble 
before  the  Apostles  came  to  recognise  the  propriety  of  doing  so  ? 
Would  they  have  settled  the  point  by  an  appeal  to  the  story  of 
Cornelius  rather  than  to  their  experience  on  the  mountain  of 
Galilee  ?  Would  they  have  needed  to  hear  the  arguments  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas  before  they  paid  attention  to  the  commission 
of  Jesus  ?  Would  the  work  of  converting  the  Gentiles,  which 
Jesus  had  given  to  Peter  and  the  Twelve,  have  been  entrusted 
to  Paul,  who  had  not  been  present  on  the  Mountain,  while  Peter 
confined  himself  to  preaching  to  the  Jews,  as  Paul  tells  the 

1  In  the  actual  description  of  baptism  in  the  Didache  the  trine  formula  is 
used;  in  the  instructions  for  the  Eucharist  the  condition  for  admission  is 
baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  It  is  obvious  that  in  the  case  of  an  eleventh- 
century  manuscript  the  trine  formula  was  almost  certain  to  be  inserted  in  the 
description  of  baptism,  while  the  less  usual  formula  had  a  chance  of  escaping 
notice  when  it  was  only  used  incidentally. 

2  The  two  most  important  contributions  to  the  study  of  this  question  are 
by  F.  C.  Conybeare,  "  The  Eusebian  Form  of  the  Text  Matt,  xxviii.  19,"  in 
the  Z.N.W.,  1901,  and  Edouard  Riggenbach,  "  Der  trinitarische  Taufbefehl 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,"  in  the  Beitrdge  zur  Forderung  christlichen  Theologie,  No.  1, 1903. 
The  main  points  of  the  first  can  also  be  found  in  F.  C.  Conybeare,  "  Early 
Doctrinal  Modifications  of  the  Text  of  the  Gospels,"  in  the  Hibbert  Journal, 
Oct.  1902,  and  of  the  second  in  F.  H.  Chase,  "  The  Lord's  Command  to  Baptize," 
in  the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  July  1905. 


* 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  337 

Galatians  ?  Would  they  have  baptized,  as  Acts  says  that  they 
did,  and  Paul  seems  to  confirm  the  statement,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus — which  is  open  to  the  gravest  ecclesiastical  suspicion, 
if  not  wholly  invalid1 — if  the  Lord  himself  had  commanded 
them  to  use  the  formula  of  the  Church  ?  On  every  point  the » 
evidence  of  Acts  is  convincing  proof  that  the  tradition  embodied! 
in  Matthew  xxviii.  19  is  late  and  unhistorical. 

Neither  in  the  third  gospel  nor  in  Acts  is  there  any  reference  Baptism 
to  the  Matthaean  tradition,  nor  any  mention  of  the  institution  belTrt of 
of  Christian  baptism.    In  the  gospel  the  final  commission  of  °^^ 
Jesus  to  the  disciples  is  to  wait  in  Jerusalem  until  they  were  \ 
endued  with  power  from  on  high  ;  and  in  the  opening  verses  of  \  J1  * 
Acts,  where  the  same  tradition  seems  to  be  repeated,  it  is  ex- 
plained that  this  means  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  by  John** 
the  Baptist  of  baptism  in  Holy  Spirit  instead  of  in  water.    Never-  ) 
fcheless,  a  little  later  in  the  narrative  we  find  several  references .. 
to  baptism  in  water  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  as  part  ofi 
recognised  Christian  practice.    Thus  we  are  faced  by  the  problem 
of  a  Christian  rite,  not  directly  ascribed  to  Jesus,  but  assumed 
to  be  a  universal  practice.     That  it  was  so  is  confirmed  by  the 
Epistles,  but  the  facts  of  importance  are  all  contained  in  Acts. 
The  question  therefore  is  whether  historical  criticism  applied 
to  Acts  can  throw  any  light  on  the  origin  and  development  of 
Christian  baptism.    Does  it  appear  to  be  so  primitive  as  the 
editor  of  Acts  suggests  ?     Or  are  some  of  the  references  his 
redactorial  work  ? 

Three  different  points  of  view  can  be  discerned  in  Acts  :   (1)  Baptism  in 
Baptism  in  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to  Christians  instead  of  the 
baptism  of  John  in  water.     (2)  Baptism  in  water  conferred  the  j  *^6  * 
gift  of  the  Spirit,  but  only  if  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  1 

1  In  the  Catholic  Church  only  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit  is  both  valid  and  regular.  But  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  though  irregular,  is  not  certainly  invalid  ;  if  the  intention  of  the  bap- 
tizer  was  orthodox  the  ceremony  is  valid ;  but  if  he  intended  by  this  formula 
to  deny  the  other  persons  of  the  Trinity,  it  is  invalid.  The  Church  of  England, 
according  to  the  Catechism,  seems  to  regard  the  trine  formula  as  the  only  one 
which  is  valid. 

VOL.  T  7 


338  PKIMITIVE  CHKISTIANITY  in 

Jesus.     (3)  Baptism  in  water,  even  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 

Jesus, did  not  confer  the  Spirit,  which  was  given  only  by  the  laying 

on  of  hands  by  the  apostles.     The  examination  of  these  three 

points  offers  the  most  probable  method  of  solving  the  problem. 

In  the  second  part  of  Acts  in  the  account  of  Paul's  visit  to 

Ephesus,1  there  is  a  clear  statement  that  baptism  properly  ad- 

|  ministered,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  confers 

\the  Holy  Spirit.    According  to  this  narrative  Paul  found  in 

Ephesus  Christians  who  had  not  received  the  Spirit ;    he  was 

surprised  at  this  and  suggested  that  it  was  because  of  some  defect 

in  their  baptism.    Enquiry  showed  that  they  had  only  received 

the  baptism  of  John.    Paul  then  explained  what  was  necessary  ; 

they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  received 

._.     the  Spirit  when  Paul  laid  his  hands  on  them.     It  is  clear  that  in 

H7p  .1 

|  this  passage  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  Paul  is  merely  regarded 

as  part  of  the  ceremony  of  baptism,2  and  the  meaning  of  the 

whole  passage  is  clear :    persons  properly  baptized  receive  the 

Holy  Spirit,  and  proper  baptism  is  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 

Lord  Jesus.    The  contrast  with  John's  baptism  is  not  between 

.  baptism  in  water  and  baptism  in  the  Spirit,  but  between  two 

;  baptisms  in  water  of  which  one  conveyed  and  the  other  did  not 

\  convey  the  Spirit,  because  of  the  use  or  the  neglect  of  the  formula 

■ "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

The  same  view  of  baptism  is  apparently  found  in  Acts  ix. 
17  f.  Ananias  says  to  Paul,  "  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord  has  sent 
me,  even  Jesus  .  .  .  that  thou  mayest  receive  thy  sight,  and 
be  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,"  whereupon  "  there  fell  from  his 
eyes  as  it  were  scales,  and  he  received  his  sight,  and  he  arose  and 
was  baptized."  The  fulfilment  of  the  ottgx;  avafiXetyr)?  is  obvious, 
and  the  implication  that  baptism  was  the  fulfilment  of  the 
niKria6fj<i  irvev^iaTo^  ayiov  is  equally  clear. 

Sharply  opposed  to  this  view  of  baptism  is  that  presented 

1  Acts  xix.  1-7. 

2  It  is  of  course  possible  that  it  is  due  to  a  redactor ;  if  so  his  point  of  view 
was  not  quite  the  same  as  that  of  the  redactor  of  the  second  chapter. 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  339 

in  Acts  i.  4-ii.  4.    According  to  this  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  the  l , 
Christian  baptism  foretold  by  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  Spirit  j  \ 
in  the  one  takes  the  place  of  the  water  in  the  other.     "John 
baptized  in  water  "  says  Jesus  to  the  apostles,  "  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  in  Holy  Spirit,  after  not  many  days."    The  gift  of  the  I 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  is  obviously  intended  to  be  the  1 
fulfilment  of  this  promise. 

Agreeing  with  neither  extreme  is  a  view  presented  in  Actsi       ("$*) 
viii.  8-19.     According  to  this  Philip  baptized  the  Samaritans  in  jj.  ^ 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  this  did  not  confer  the  gift  of  I  * 
the  Spirit,  which  was  given  only  when  Peter  and  John  came  down 
to  Samaria  and  "  laid  hands  "  on  the  converts. 

Few  things  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  editor  of  Acts 
is  likely  to  have  put  his  own  point  of  view  with  regard  to  baptism 
into  his  sources,  and  the  only  way  in  which  the  sources  and  the 
editor  can  be  distinguished  is  the  comparison  of  the  texts  referring 
to  baptism  with  their  context.  Editors  can  interpolate  or  omit 
in  the  interest  of  their  own  opinions,  but  it  is  very  difficult  for 
them  to  prevent  the  context  from  betraying  their  procedure. 
Critics  have  sometimes  exaggerated  this  truth,  and  cut  documents 
into  small  pieces  by  the  application  of  a  logic  which  would  destroy 
the  unity  of  a  monolith,  but  in  spite  of  this  abuse  the  appeal 
from  the  text  to  the  context  remains  the  most  valuable  tool  at 
the  disposal  of  an  historical  critic. 

The  application  of  this  method  to  Acts  shows  that  the  editor  View  of 
was  not  in  sympathy  with  the  point  of  view  of  Acts  i.  4.  He  | Acts.1  ° 
held  that  baptism  had  been  a  Christian  practice  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  he  edited  at  least  one  of  his  sources  in  the  interests  of 
this  opinion.  According  to  Acts  ii.  14  ff.  Peter  made  a  speech 
immediately  after  Pentecost  to  the  crowd  who  had  been  impressed 
by  the  gift  of  tongues.  At  the  end  of  his  speech  he  said  to  the 
crowd,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  obvious  meaning  is — just  as  in  Acts  xix. 
1-7 — that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  conditional  on  baptism  ;   but 


'I 


340  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

this  sudden  introduction  of  baptism  seems  quite  inconsistent  with 
what  was  stated  :  the  disciples  had  received  the  Spirit  without 
having  been  baptized  for  that  purpose,  and  the  words  of  Jesus 
*j  in  Acts  i.  i  imply  a  baptism  in  Spirit  as  a  substitute  for  baptism 
Sin  water,  not  as  a  consequence  of  it.1    The  redactor,  however, 
like  all  his   contemporaries   in   the  Gentile   Church,  regarded 
>  {  baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus  as  necessary  for  admission  to  the 
j  Christian  society  and  its  benefits,  of  which  the  gift  of  the  Spirit 
A  was  one  of  the  chief  ;  it  is  therefore  not  strange  if  he  introduced 
n  the  references  to  baptism  in  Acts  ii.  38  and  41.     That  these  are 
redactorial  and  do  not  belong  to  the  source  is  perhaps  confirmed 
by  the  use  of  Jesus  Christ  as  a  double  proper  name.     It  is  there- 
fore probable  that  the  "  Jerusalem  Source  B,"  to  which  this 
speech  belongs,  said  as  little  about  baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
as  did  the  parallel  speech  from  "  Jerusalem  Source  A  "  in  Acts 
iii.,  which  the  redactor  omitted  to  change. 
Baptism  of         Another  passage  in  which  the  mention  of  baptism  may  be 
omeius.  j  legitimately  suspected  as  a  redactional  interpolation  is  in  the 
''  \  story  of  Cornelius.     There  are  two  versions  of  this  story,  one  in 
the  direct  narrative  in  Acts  x.,  the  other  in  Peter's  account  of  it 
in  Acts  xi.     According  to  the  former  the  Spirit  descended  on 
Cornelius ;  and  the  Jewish  Christians  who  were  present  with 
Peter,  though  surprised  that  the  "  gift  of  the  Spirit  had  been 
poured  out  on  the  Gentiles  also,"  raised  no  objection  to  the 
baptism  of  Cornelius  by  Peter.     The  story  is  not  wholly  logical, 
for  why  should  Cornelius  have  been  baptized  when  he  had  already 
received  the  Spirit  ?     Still,  men  are  not  always  logical,  and 
Peter  may  have  been   actuated  by  motives  of  ecclesiastical 
i  propriety.      But  the  parallel  narrative,  Peter's   report  of  the 

1  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  according  to  Euthymius  Zigabenus  the 
Bogomils  had  been  struck  by  this  contrast :  rb  pkv  irap'  ijfuv  (HairTicua  tov 
'Iio&vvov  \4yov<xt.v,  ws  cV  fJSaros  iiTLTeXovfievov,  to  8e  Tap'  airrois  tov  Xpiarov 
8ia  TrvetifxaTos,  ws  Sonet  avrois  TeXovfievov.  8ib  ko.1  tov  irpoo~epxbfiei>oj>  avrois 
&papairrt£ov<rit  irpGsTa  /xev  acpoplfrovTes  ai)r<£  icaipbv  els  i^ofioXbyrjaip  /cat  ayvelav  /cat 
ativTovov  irpoaevxvv  '  e^Ta  TV  Kecpaky  ai/rov  to  /caret  'lwavvyv  eiayytXiov  iwiTtd^vTes, 
/cai  rb  irap'  ai/rots  #710?  wvedfxa  iwiKaXovfxcvoi  /cat  rd  U&Tep  rjfiQv  eirq\8ovTes  .  .  . 
(Euthym.  Zig.  Panopl  xxvii.  16). 


I* 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  341 

incident  to  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  suggests  a  different  possi- 
bility. When  Peter  returned  to  Jerusalem  the  Jewish  Christians 
remonstrated  with  him  for  his  eating  with  uncircumcised  men. 
One  would  have  supposed  that  it  was  even  worse  to  admit  such 
into  the  Church,  and,  indeed,  that  this  was  part  of  the  Jewish 
contention  is  made  clear  by  Acts  xv.  and  by  Galatians,  but 
nothing  is  said  about  it  in  this  narrative.  Moreover,  when  Peter 
defends  himself  he  does  so  by  relating  that  the  Gentiles  had  been 
given  the  Spirit,  comparing  it  to  the  inauguration  of  the  Jewish 
Christian  community  by  the  same  gift  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost, 
and — most  remarkable  of  all — by  referring  to  the  words  of 
Jesus  in  Acts  i.  5  :  "  John  baptized  in  water,  but  you  shall  be 
baptized  in  Holy  Spirit."  What  would  have  been  the  point  of  { 
this  quotation  if  the  true  end  of  the  story  had  been,  "  So  T  baptized 
Cornelius  in  water  "  ? 

Thus  there  is  considerable  reason  for  thinking  that  in  the ;  christian 
"  Peter  "  narratives  of  Pentecost  and  of  Cornelius  the  sources  !^^» 
used  in  Acts  had  nothing  about  baptism  in  water.     But  it  was  fossMy 

&  r  Hue  to  the 

found  in  the  sources  used  in  the  second  part  of  Acts,  and  the  (Semi. 
redactor,  regarding  it  as  a  primitive  custom  connected  with  the  f  t*  & 
gift  of  the  Spirit,  adapted  the  earlier  narratives  to  agree  with 
the  later  ones.     This  confirms  the  impression  derived  from  Mark 
that  Christian  baptism  does  not  go  back  to  the  time  of  Jesus 
or  of  his  immediate  disciples  ;   but  it  throws  no  exact  light  on  j 
the  date  of  its  introduction.     Possibly  the  key  to  the  problem 
can  be  found  in  the  narrative  of  Philip  and  the  Ethiopian  eunuch 
and  of  the  first  preaching  in  Samaria.     Baptism  in  these  narra- 
tives is  not  connected  with  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  the  second 
of  the  two  is  clearly  distinguished  from  it.     The  Spirit  is  given 
only  by  the  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands.     There  is  no  trace 
whatever  that  baptism  is  here  due  to  the  redactor,  and  the  j  * 
suggestion  made  by  the  narrative   is  that  the  Seven  rather  \  * 
than  the  Twelve  were  the  first  to   practise  baptism  in  the  j  * 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

This  would  correspond  admirably  with  the  probability  that  \i 


342  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  ra 

the  Seven  represent  Hellenistic  Jews  who  had  been  influenced 
M  by  the  Diaspora.  Though  there  is  no  probability  that  baptism 
without  circumcision  was  ever  adopted  by  Palestinian  Jews  as 
sufficient  for  the  initiation  of  proselytes,1  there  is  some  evidence 
that  baptism,  or  washing  with  a  religious  significance,  was  empha- 
sised in  the  Diaspora.  It  may  have  been  sometimes  regarded 
as  sufficient  to  admit  a  Gentile  as  a  proselyte,  or  at  least,  if 
followed  by  a  virtuous  life,  to  secure  his  salvation  in  the  Age  to 
come,2  though  there  was,  of  course,  no  suggestion  that  such 
"  baptism  "  conferred  immortality  or  gave  the  Holy  Spirit. 

If,  therefore,  Jews  from  the  Hellenistic  Diaspora,  such  as  the 
Seven  probably  were,  attempted  to  preach  to  a  heathen  popula- 
tion like  that  of  Samaria,3  they  would  very  probably  have  bap- 
tized their  converts,  and  might  have  used  the  formula  "  in  the 
:i  name  of  Jesus  the  Christ,"  or  "in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus," 
\  to  indicate  that  their  converts  were  not  merely  proselytes  to 
Judaism,  but  to  that  special  sect  which  recognised  the  claims  of 
Jesus. 

It  is  possible  that  they  may  have  ascribed  no  significance  to 
this  baptism  beyond  that  given  to  proselytes  ;  or  they  may — 
following  the  example  of  John — have  regarded  it  as  removing 
sin.  The  question  of  sin,  as  distinct  from  ritual  or  legal  offences, 
and  akin  to  disease,  was  greatly  in  the  mind  of  that  generation, 
and  its  cure  was  naturally  associated  with  magic.  There  were 
few  more  popular  methods  of  magic  than  the  use  of  potent  names, 
and  from  the  beginning  the  name  of  Jesus  was  used  as  a  magical 
formula  to  work  cures.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  story  of  the 
man  at  the  Beautiful  Gate  of  the  Temple,  and  it  is  difficult  to 
find  any  other  meaning  in  the  statement  in  Acts  viii.  12  that 

1  See  above,  pp.  164  ff. 

8  This  seems  to  be  the  position  of  Oracula  Sibyllina,  iv.  162-192.     The 

heathen  in  this  passage  are  called  on  to  repent  and  be  baptized  (iv  Trorafiois 

*^2»|  1  1  XoiaoLdde  S\ov  54/xap  devdotciv),  and   are  assured   of   resurrection   and  life  in 

.  the  Age  to  come  after  the  judgment  of  God  and  the  destruction  of  the  present 

world. 

8  The  "  Samaritans  "  were  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  population.     The 
majority  of  the  dwellers  in  Sebaste  and  the  neighbourhood  were  heathen. 


in  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THOUGHT  343 

Philip  preached  "  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ."  Jewish  traditions  are  full  of  stories 
which  centre  in  the  use  of  magical  formulae,  and  in  some  of  these 
the  name  of  Jesus  is  actually  mentioned  as  efficacious  but  for- 
bidden.1 Thus  the  formula  '  in  the  name  of  Jesus '  may  be 
connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  be  quite  as  well  Jewish 
as  Gentile  ;  the  characteristically  Gentile  feature  in  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  baptism  is  the  assurance  of  sacramental  regeneration. 
There  is  no  sign  that  this  was  promised  by  Philip,  and  it  is  clear 
that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  conferring  the  gift  of  the  Spirit. 

Nevertheless,  once  this  practice  had  been  established  by  those  t  ^ 
who  were  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  it  was  sure  to  be  continued  | 
by  other  evangelists,  and  suggested  to  the  Greek  world  the  | 
obvious  parallel  to  *  Mysteries  '  with    which  it   was   familiar. 
The  gift  of  the  Spirit,  the  sacramental  repetition  of  the  death  off. 
Christ,  the  new  birth  to  eternal  life  are  Greek  interpretations  \v 
inevitable  under  the  circumstances. 

The  relation  of  this  history  to  the  baptism  of  John  is  obscure.  Baptism 
Probably  there  was  no  direct  connection  between  the  baptism  ,of  John' 
of  John  and  Christian  baptism,  which  came  in  naturally  as  soon! I 
as  Gentiles  began  to  be  converted.     But  it  is  also  probable  that  s 
many  of  the  disciples  of  John  were  themselves  converted  to  ft 
Christianity,  and  that  they  brought  with  them  their  own  bap- 
tismal custom.     The  disciples  whom  Paul  found  at  Ephesus,  and  » ^ 
probably  also  Apollos — though  this  seems  less  certain — must] 
have  belonged  to  this  class.     But  the  narrative  of  Acts  shows 
clearly  that  this  '  Johannine '  body  of  Christians 2  were  soon 
absorbed  by  the  main  stream  of  Gentile  Christianity. 

It  is  thus  tolerably  probable  that  the  history  of  baptism 
brings  us  to  the  edge  of  that  world  of  Catholic  thought 
and  practice  which  was  destined  to  be  the  surviving  form  of 

1  See  G.  F.  Moore,  "  The  Definition  of  the  Jewish  Canon,  etc.,"  in  Essays  in 
Modern  Theology  ...  a  Testimonial  to  C.  A.  Briggs,  New  York,  1911. 

2  It  is  a  curious  coincidence — it  can  be  nothing  more — that  they  appear . 
in  Ephesus,  which  seems  to  be  obsessed  by  the  name  of  John — John  the  Baptist,  \\ 
John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  the  Presbyter. 


344  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

Christianity.  But  it  does  not  do  more  :  there  is  no  elaboration 
in  Acts  of  sacramental  doctrine.  In  the  history  of  ideas  Acts  is 
less  advanced  than  the  Pauline  epistles.  Is  that  because  the 
writer  belonged  to  a  more  primitive  stage,  or  because  he  was 
really  trying  to  reproduce  earlier  facts  %  If  he  belonged  to  the 
generation  which  succeeded  Paul,  or  even  was  contemporary 
with  him,  the  strange  thing  is  not  that  he  has  changed  his  sources, 
but  that  he  has  changed  them  so  little. 


IV 

CHRISTOLOGY 

With  the  establishment  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  a  Beginnings 
new  element  in  the  history  of  Christian  thought  began.    Hence-  toiogy. 
forward,  though  the  message  of  Jesus  remained,  and  the  disciples  j« 
endeavoured  to  follow  the  way  of  life  which  he  had  pointed  out,  h*  *^ 
they  added  to  this  their  own  message  concerning  him.     Thus 
the  period  of  Christology  began.    The  vivid  recollection  of  thej^ 
vision  of  the  risen  Master  always  stood  as  the  guarantee  of  their  i 
faith.    As  time  went  on,  and  events  which  probably  none  had 
foreseen  drove  them  out  into  the  Gentile  world,  the  form  in  which 
their  faith  in  Jesus  was  expressed  began  to  change ;    Greek  *  * 
phraseology  took  the  place  of  Jewish,  and  brought  with  it  its  J 
own  different  connotation.     Moreover,  as  Christians  began  to 
feel  themselves  separated  from  the  Synagogue,  and  their  ranks 
were  recruited  from  those  who  had  never  belonged  to  it,  they 
began  inevitably  to  connect  their  Christology  with  their  own 
corporate  life.     The  community  of  believers  became  the  Christian 
Church.    It  is  true  that  they  claimed  for  themselves  the  heritage  j 
of  the  promises  made  by  God  to  his  chosen  people,  but  even  K 
more  strongly  did  they  feel  that  they  were  a  new  society,  of  f|  * 
which  the  head  was  the  living  Lord,  Jesus  Christ.     To  him  * 
and  to  that  society  they  belonged,  not  merely,  or  even  chiefly, 
by  their  own  choice,  but  by  his  grace,  for  in  his  name  they  had 
been  baptized,  through  him  they  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  by  him  they  were  saved. 

The  contribution  to  thought  of  this  period  is  therefore  the 

345 


346  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

laying  down  of  the  broad  outlines  of  Christology  ;  but  without 
further  explanation  this  word  is  somewhat  misleading.  Etymo- 
logically  it  ought  to  mean  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah.  But  it 
cannot  be  thus  denned ;  for  all  practical  purposes  Christology 
now  means  primarily  the  doctrine  held  concerning  Jesus,  and 
its  study  divides  itself  somewhat  sharply  into  two  parts. 

There  is  in  the  first  place  the  development  of  doctrine  by 
Christian  writers  from  the  second  to  the  fifth  century.  This  is 
a  complicated  and  difficult  subject,  but  it  deals  exclusively  with 
Christian  writings,  and  there  is  no  lack  of  material.  It  assumes 
a  certain  foundation  of  doctrine— the  identification  of  Jesus 
with  the  Logos,  and  the  fulfilment  by  him  of  all  the  predictions 
of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  second  place,  there  is  the  inquiry 
into  the  history  of  these  foundations.  It  is  only  with  this  subject 
that  we  are  now  concerned.  The  difficulty  is  that  we  have 
hardly  any  really  contemporary  evidence.  The  facts  cannot 
be  seen  at  all  without  a  considerable  amount  of  analytic  criticism 
of  sources  ;  for  almost  all  the  documents  exist  at  present  only 
in  the  form  of  redactions  made  at  later  periods,  and  under  the 
influence  of  later  forms  of  thought. 

The  investigation  has  found  its  foci  in  the  technical  terms 
used  in  the  earliest  documents,  which  describe  Jesus  as  Messiah, 
Son  of  Man,  Son  of  God,  the  Servant,  the  Prophet  like  unto 
Moses,  and  the  Lord.  These  phrases  are  so  well  known  that 
it  is  sometimes  forgotten  that  they  are  technical,  that  each  of 
them  represents  some  factor  in  the  evolution  of  early  Christian 
thought,  and  that  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  problems  can 
only  be  obtained  by  taking  each  term  separately  and  considering 
its  history.  The  following  paragraphs  will  therefore  deal  with 
each  of  them  in  turn. 

xTr"f  of         The  verbal  adjective  ^o-to?  1  is  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament 
the  usual  translation  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  verbal  mtDD, 

1  The  paragraphs  dealing  with  this  subject  (pp.^46  to  &62)  are  contributed 
by  Prof.  G.  F.  Moore.  \ 


IV 


CHRISTOLOGY  347 


as  an  appellative,  literally,  a  person  smeared  with  oil  or  an 
unguent,  '  anointed,'  or  as  an  adjective  in  the  same  sense. 

In  classical  Greek  the  adjective  xp^ros  is  rare  and  poetical,  •  <* 
and  is  used  only  of  a  remedy  which  is  smeared  or  rubbed  on  the  J 
body  of  the  patient  {akifr/n,  (jxipfiafcov  %/j^toz/).     It  is  doubt-    ^ 
ful  whether  such  an  expression  as  6  x/ato-To?  would  have  conveyed  U 
any  meaning  at  all  to  a  Greek,  the  less  because  the  custom  of  J  „ 
anointing  kings  or  priests  was  unknown.    To  his  ear  it  would 
suggest  only  6  xpV^^.    It  was  inevitable  therefore  that  this 
unintelligible  epithet  should  coalesce  with  the  proper  name, 
'Irjaovs  6  xpc<TTO<;  becoming  'Irjarov^  XpLaros  or  X/>ktto?  'I^oO?. 

To  Jews,  familiar  with  their  Bible,  miDD  and  xpto-To?  were 
transparent  words,  whether  in  their  literal  or  figurative  senses, 
signifying  anointed,  consecrated,  designated  by  divine  appoint- 
ment to  an  office  or  mission,  invested  with  a  certain  rank  and 
dignity,  and  were  not  confined  by  meaning  or  usage  to  any 
one  person  or  office.  The  habit  of  representing  these  terms  by 
"  the  Messiah,"  used  as  a  proper  name  or  appropriated  title,  is 
one  of  the  chief  causes  of  confusion  and  error  in  modern  dis- 
quisitions on  the  "  messianic  "  ideas  and  expectations  of  the 
Jews;  for  "Messiah"  is  to  us  a  meaningless  transliteration 
with  mixed  Jewish  and  Christian  connotations. 

In  the  Old  Testament  anointing  appears  as  a  ceremony  of  Anointing 

-        -  «         of  ivings  id 

king-making.  Most  often  it  is  the  people  who  make  the  king  the  0id 
and  anoint  him.  Thus  David  was  anointed  first  by  the  men  of  Te8' 
Judah,  later  by  the  elders  of  Israel ;  1  Joash  and  Jehoahaz  2  are 
also  mentioned  as  having  been  anointed  to  be  kings.  Hosea 
speaks  of  the  Israelites'  anointing  kings  and  princes.3  Jotham's 
fable  of  the  trees  who  went  about  to  anoint  a  king  over  them  4 
implies  the  same  custom.  Saul  and  David  were  designated  as 
kings  by  anointing  at  the  hands  of  Samuel,5  but  actually  made 

i  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  v.  3.  a  2  Kings  xi.  12,  xxiii.  30. 

8  Hosea  vii.  3,  viii.  10.  So  LXX.  in  viii.  10  (cf.  viii.  4),  reading  n*DD  for 
n^dd.  The  same  emendation  (iwd')  is  necessary  in  vii.  3,  as  is  generally 
recognised. 

«  Judges  ix.  8,  15.  5  1  Sam.  ix.  16,  x.  1,  xvi.  12. 


348  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


kings  later  by  the  act  of  the  people.1  To  forestall  Adonijah's 
plans  Solomon  was  anointed  by  the  priest  Zadok  under  David's 
orders,  and  thereupon  acclaimed  king.2  Jehu  was  anointed  to 
be  king  of  Israel  by  an  emissary  of  Elisha,  who  instigated  him 
to  murder  his  master  and  seize  the  kingdom.3 

Probably  the  pouring  of  oil  on  the  head  of  the  king  was 
|  originally  an  act  of  religious  veneration  ;  4  in  historical  times  it 
♦  *  was  regarded  from  the  religious  point  of  view  as  a  consecration, 
1  or,  without  reflection  on  its  significance,  as  a  part  of  the  ceremonial 
of  king-making.     The  religious  association  is  permanently  im- 
pressed on  the  language.     The  king  is  "  the  anointed  of  Jehovah," 
or  more  exactly  "  the  Jehovah-anointed  "  ;    and  when  used  of 
the  king  the  word  mashih  is  always  defined  thus  or  by  a  pronoun 
referring  to  God  ("  my,  thy,  his,  anointed  one  ").     This  relation 
to  Jehovah  makes  the  person  of  the  king  inviolable,5  as  he  is 
lC*t  under  the  protection  of  God.     But  in  pre-Christian  writings 
I  "  the  anointed,"  or  "  the  anointed  king  "  is  not  found. 

In  the  historical  books  the  phrase  "  the  anointed  of  Jehovah  " 

or  its  equivalent  is  used  only  of  Saul  and  David,  except  in  the 

prophetic  passage  where  it  refers  to  Solomon  and  his  successors 

jC~f*  ton  the  throne  of  Judah.6    In  the  prophets  the  term  is  used 

neither  of  actual  kings  nor  of  the  good  king  whom  they  foretell 

for  the  better  time  to  come,  and  there  is  no  allusion  in  them  to 

*the  rite  of  anointing.7    In  the  single  place  where  the  word  is 

*~fe  i  found8  it  is  of  Cyrus  :   "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  to  his  anointed, 

^     Cyrus  "  (LXX.  tS  xpiarw  fiov  Kvpqy).9 

1  1  Sam.  xi.  15  ;  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  v.  3.  *  1  Kings  i.  39  ;   cf.  34. 

3  2  Kings  ix.  1-15 ;   see  also  x.  5. 

4  Cf.  Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxi.  13. 

5  1  Sam.  xxiv.  7,  11  ;   xxvi.  9,  11,  16,  23;   cf.  Ps.  cv.  15. 

s  1  Sam.  ii.  35;  cf.  1  Kings  ii.  26  f.,  35.  The  poems,  1  Sam.  ii.  1-10  (Song 
of  Hannah)  and  2  Sam.  xxii.  (Ps.  xviii.),  pieces  of  comparatively  late  psalm 
composition,  will  be  considered  below  with  the  Psalms,  as  will  also  Hab.  iii. 

7  On  Zech.  iv.  14  and  Dan.  ix.  25  f.  see  below,  p.  350  ff. 

8  Isa.  xlv.  1. 

9  Cf.  Is.  xliv.  28,  "  My  intimate  "  (pronounce  re  I,  as  also  in  Zech.  xiii.  7. 
It  is  the  title  of  a  minister  who  stands  close  to  the  king.)  If  in  xlv.  1  the  name 
of  Cyras  is  a  gloss,  it  is  an  old  one. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  349 

In  Exodus  xxix.  in  the  ritual  for  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  Anointing 
his  successors  as  high  priests,  after  the  ceremony  of  robing,  it  priest.   *8 
is  directed  that  the  anointing  oil  be  poured  upon  his  head  ; 1  and 
in  Exodus  xxx.  22  fT.  a  formula  is  given  for  a  chrism  compounded 
of  balsams,  fragrant  gums,  and  oil,  which  is  to  be  reserved  ex- 
clusively for  liturgical  use.     The  high  priest  is  consequently 
called  TTtDDn  jIlDrT,  "the  anointed  priest,"  in  distinction  from 
the  body  of  the  priesthood.2    There  is  no  mention  of  such  &t 
rite  in  pre-exilic  times,3  and  inasmuch  as  the  History  of  the  I 
Sacred  Institutions  to  which  Exodus  xxix.  belongs  is  a  work  of  the 
Persian  period,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  author  appropriated* 
the  ancient  royal  consecration  for  the  high  priest,  the  head  of  theif  A 
nation  in  a  kingless  time,4  as  pieces  of  royal  apparel  are  appro-F 
priated  for  his  vestments.     It  cannot  be  without  significance    fr  f 
that  in  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  he  does  not  appear 
in  this  magnificence,  but  is  attired  in  ordinary  priestly  garb.5 

Whether  in  practice  the  high  priests  of  the  later  Persian  and  No  trace  of 
Greek  times  were  actually  anointed  is  uncertain.     That  it  was  not  oUater"8 
the  custom  in  the  Herodian  temple  is  certain  ;   the  form  of  in-  Hish 

L  Priests. 

stallation  was  robing  with  the  four  pieces  of  vestment  which 
were  peculiar  to  the  high  priest,  besides  the  four  which  he  wore 
in  common  with  all  ministering  priests  ;  and  according  to  the 
rabbis  the  chrism  was  secreted  by  Josiah,  which  is  equivalent 
to  saying  that  so  far  as  they  knew  no  high  priest  had  been  anointed 
since  the  restoration.6  But  though  the  rite  had  fallen  into 
desuetude,  the  word  rrtDD,  in  the  figurative  meaning  "  con-  Though 
secrated,"  or  merely  "  great,"  continued  in  use.  One  of  the  anointed 
letters  translated  at  the  beginning  of  2  Maccabees  is  addressed  ^1  tiTie. 

1  See  also  Lev.  viii.  12. 

2  Lev.  iv.  3,  5,  16 ;  vi.  15.     Both  chapters  are  late  novels  to  the  law. 

3  1  Chron.  xxix.  22  probably  means  to  say  that  Zadok  was  anointed ;  but 
the  author's  source,  1  Kings  ii.  35  (cf.  v.  27),  contains  nothing  of  the  kind. 

4  So  also  the  coronation  of  Zerubbabel  has  been  transformed  into  a  corona- 
tion of  Joshua  the  high  priest  in  Zech.  vi.  11,  in  crying  conflict  with  vs.  12. 

6  Lev.  xvi.  4 ;   cf .  24. 

6  The  chrism  was  one  of  the  things  Elijah  was  to  bring  with  him  when  he 
came  ;   with  it  he  would  anoint  the  Messiah. 


350  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

to  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  Aristobulus  (the  philosopher),  teacher 
of  king  Ptolemy,  ovtl  cltto  rov  ra>v  yjnaroav  Upecov  yevovs, 
i.e.  of  the  high-priestly  family.  In  the  Mishnah,  codified  from 
existing  materials  toward  the  end  of  the  second  century  A.D., 
"  anointed  priest  "  (mttJB  ]m)  is  the  designation  of  a  high  priest, 
whether  actually  in  office,  or  one  who  had  been  removed  from 

'  office,  as  often  happened  under  Herod  and  the  procurators. 

I  Frequently  "  the  anointed  "  (fT'lDDn)  is  used  in  the  same  meaning, 
"  priest  "  being  understood  from  the  context ;  and  except  in  the 

[  single  phrase  "  the  days  of  the  Messiah  "  (in  contrast  to  the 
present)  "  the  anointed  "  is  always  the  high  priest.1 

Two  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  one  in  Zechariah  and  the 

other  in  Daniel,  demand  fuller  consideration. 

y.t  In  Zech.  iv.  14,  "  The  two  sons  of  (fresh  olive)  oil,.2  who 

I    stand  close  by  the  Lord  of  the   whole  earth,"  is  commonly 

interpreted,  "  the  two  anointed  ones,"  namely,  Zerubbabel  and 

H*£.  Joshua.     The  ancient  versions  (LXX.,  Aquila,  Theodotion,  Targ., 

J  Pesh.)  take  the  words  as  a  figure  for  splendour  or  greatness  ;  but 

rabbis  of  the  second  century  refer  them  to  Joshua  and  Zerubbabel, 

*  representatives  of  priesthood  and  royalty,  descendants  of  Aaron 

1  and  David,  the  anointed  founders  of  the  two  lines  of  high  priests 
and  kings.  The  natural  function  of  the  two  olive  trees  on  either 
side  of  the  lamp-stand  (vss.  3  and  11)  is  to  supply  oil  to  the 
reservoir  from  which  the  lamps  are  fed  by  pipes,  and  the  natural 
interpretation  would  be  that  they  symbolise  the  two,  prince  and 
priest,  who  jointly  maintained  the  cultus  in  the  restored  temple  ; 
whereas  to  describe  them  as  "  anointed  with  oil "  is  both  irrele- 
vant and  inapposite.     It  cannot  therefore  be  inferred  from  the 

I  verse  that  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  were  actually  anointed,  or 
that  the  anointing  of  the  high  priest  was  pre-exilic  custom. 
In  Dan.  ix.  25  f.  the  word  rrt&D,  "  an  anointed  one,"  occurs 

1  There  is,  of  course,  little  reason  in  legal  works  like  the  Mishnah  for  mention 
of  the  ruler  in  the  future  restoration  of  the  monarchy,  and  when  he  is  referred 
to  it  is  usually  simply  as  "  the  prince  "  ;  e.g.  "  private  citizen,  prince  (ntj), 
high  priest  (rrts'D),"  as  in  Lev.  iv. 

2  -ins  on  •>}&. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  351 

in  a  context  which  has  led  many  interpreters  to  take  it  as  a 
specific  title  that  has  become  a  virtual  proper  name,  "  Messiah," 
corresponding  to  the  later  Jewish  and  Christian  use  of  the  word.1 
Thus  the  English  version  (1611)  renders  : 2  "  Know  therefore 
and  understand,  that  from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment 
to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem  unto  the  Messiah  the  Prince 
shall  be  seven  weeks,  and  threescore  and  two  weeks  :  the  street 
shall  be  built  again,  and  the  wall,  even  in  troublous  times.  And 
after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off,  but  not 
for  himself :  and  the  people  of  the  prince  that  shall  come  shall 
destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  ;  and  the  end  thereof  shall  be 
with  a  flood,  and  unto  the  end  of  the  war  desolations  are  deter- 
mined." 

A  more  exact  rendering  is  given  in  the  new  translation  issued 
by  the  Jewish  Publication  Society  of  America  (1917) : 

"  Know  therefore  and  discern,  that  from  the  going  forth  of 
the  word  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem  unto  one  anointed,  a 
prince,  shall  be  seven  weeks  ;  and  for  threescore  and  two  weeks, 
it  shall  be  built  again,  with  broad  place  and  moat,  but  in  troublous 
times.  And  after  the  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  an  anointed 
one  be  cut  off,  and  be  no  more  ;  3  and  the  people  of  a  prince  that 
shall  come  shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  ;  but  his  end 
shall  be  with  a  flood  ;  and  unto  the  end  of  the  war  desolations 
are  determined." 

The  author  fixes  two  points  in  his  chronological  scheme  of 
seventy  sevens  (weeks)  of  years  (7  +  62  +  1),  the  first  by  the 
appearance  of  "an  anointed  one,"  the  second  by  the  cutting  off 
of  "  an  anointed  one."  It  must  be  presumed  that  the  same 
office  is  meant,  though,  as  the  interval  of  more  than  four  centuries 
shows,  not  the  same  person  ;  and  in  the  light  of  the  whole  history 
of  the  word  the  further  presumption  is  that  "  an  anointed  one  " 

1  "  Messiah  "  as  a  proper  name  seems  not  to  be  certainly  attested  in  Jewish 
sources  before  the  Baylonian  Talmud. 

2  The  revision  of  1885  and  the  so-called  American  Standard  edition  deal 
timidly  with  the  errors  of  this  translation. 

3  The  text  of  this  clause  is  probably  incomplete. 


352  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

is  here  equivalent  to  "  a  high  priest."  The  prevailing  opinion  is 
I  that  the  reference  in  verse  26  is  to  the  murder  of  the  high  priest 
Onias.1  The  "  anointed  "  in  verse  25,  with  whom  the  period 
begins,  would  then  be  the  high  priest  of  the  restoration,  Joshua 
son  of  Jehozadak,  who  figures  in  Haggai  and  Zechariah  ;  and  the 
"  word  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem  "  would  most  naturally 
be  understood  of  the  edict  of  Cyrus.2  The  actual  dates  do  not 
#  \  correspond  with  this  scheme  at  any  point ;  3  but  the  Jews,  who, 
it  is  sometimes  forgotten,  did  not  have  the  canon  of  Ptolemy  to 
operate  with,  were  always  far  out  of  the  way  in  the  chronology 
of  the  Persian  period.  For  the  author  of  Daniel  the  four  hundred 
and  ninety  years  were  given  in  Scripture,4  while  the  events  of 
his  own  time  proved  to  him  that  the  end  of  this  period  was  at 
hand.  The  text  of  Dan.  ix.  25  f.  is  not  free  from  difficulties  ;  but 
they  do  not  affect  the  general  understanding  of  the  passage.  All 
that  is  important  for  our  present  purpose  is  that  whatever 
persons  may  be  meant  by  the  words  "  an  anointed  one  "  in  verses 
25  and  26,  it  is  probably  in  both  a  high  priest ;  certainly  not  a 
Jewish  king. 

Since  ritual  anointing  signified  consecration,  with  the  connota- 
tion of  dignity  and  honour,  the  word  could  be  used  of  persons 
regarded  as  consecrated  by  God  and  thus  standing  in  a  peculiar 
relation  to  him,  without  thought  of  its  literal  meaning.  Thus 
Cyrus  ("his  anointed,"  Is.  xlv.  1)  is  chosen  and  consecrated  by 
God  to  the  mission  of  delivering  Israel.  In  Ps.  cv.  14  f.  it  is  said 
of  the  patriarchs  :  "He  suffered  no  man  to  do  them  wrong,  yea, 
for  their  sake  he  reproved  kings  :  *  Touch  not  mine  anointed 
ones,  and  do  my  prophets  no  harm.' '  They  were  by  their 
relation  to  God  sacrosanct,  inviolable.  In  other  Psalms  the 
Jewish  people,  as  a  nation  chosen  and  consecrated  by  God,  is 
his  "  anointed."     So  Psalm  xxviii.  8,  in  synonymous  parallelism  : 

1  2  Mace.  iv.  33-38 ;   cf.  vss.  7-10. 

2  Ezra  i.  2  ft. 

3  They  correspond  no  better  with  any  other  scheme  that  has  been  proposed. 

4  Dan.  ix.  2  ;  Jer.  xxv.  11  f.  ;  xxix.  10  ;  cf.  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21  ;  Lev.  xxvi. 
34  f. 


iv  CHEISTOLOGY  353 

"  Jehovah  is  strength  to  his  people,1  a  stronghold  of  deliverance 
to  his  anointed  (sc.  nation)."  2  In  Is.  lv.  3-5,  the  mission  and 
authority  once  bestowed  by  God's  favour  on  David  are  by  a 
permanent  covenant  conferred  upon  the  Jewish  people.  Reminis- 
cences of  the  promises  to  David,  especially  of  2  Sam.  vii.,  are 
naturally  found  in  the  Psalms  ; 8  in  none  of  these  Psalms  is  the 
word  associated  with  the  prophetic  figure  of  the  ideal  king,  or 
with  the  prophecies  of  the  scion  of  the  Davidic  stock  in  whom 
the  dynasty  is  restored. 

Psalm  ii.  is  of  a  different  character.  The  nations  are  planning  The 
rebellion  against  Jehovah  and  his  anointed,  his  king,  whom  he  in  P°^m  ii# 
has  established  on  Zion,  his  holy  mountain.  By  divine  decree, 
the  title  "  Son  of  Jehovah  "  is  conferred  upon  him  from  that  day 
forth,  and  the  nations  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  are  made  subject 
to  his  dominion  ;  he  shall  shatter  them  with  an  iron  sceptre  and 
dash  them  in  pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel ;  they  are  warned  to 
prevent  destruction  by  instant  and  humble  submission.  The 
Psalm  seems  to  reflect  an  actual  historical  situation  ;  older 
interpreters  referred  it  to  David,  many  recent  critics  connect  it, 
like  Psalm  ex.,  with  one  of  the  Asmonaeans.  Others  think  that  the 
poet  sang  of  the  future  king  of  the  restored  monarchy,  the  Messiah 
in  the  late  Jewish  sense  :  whatever  the  author  may  have  meant, 
it  is  certain  that  the  Psalm  was  interpreted  in  this  way  by  Jews 
as  well  as  Christians.4 

In  Jewish  writings  of  the  two  centuries  preceding  the  Christian^  <  Messiah » 
era  the  word  "  anointed  "  (m»D)  occurs  rarely,5  and  when  it^^e. 

1  So  LXX.,  Pesh.  The  Hebrew  text,  by  accidental  loss  of  a  single  letter, 
"  to  them." 

2  See  also  Ps.  lxxxiv.  10,  lxxxix.  39,  52  ;   Hab.  iii.  13  ;   1  Sam.  ii.  10. 

3  As  in  Ps.  lxxxix.  20-38  (note  vers.  20  "  With  my  holy  oil  have  I  anointed 
him  ") ;  exxxii.  11  f.,  17  (cf.  1  Sam.  ii.  10)  ;  Ps.  xviii.  50,  2  Sam.  xxii.  51. 

*  See  Ps.  Sol.  xvii.  24  ;  Rev.  ii.  27  ;  xii.  5  ;  xix.  15  ;  4  Ezra  vii.  28  f. ;  xiii. 
25  ff.  ;  Acts  iv.  25  ;  xiii.  33  ;  Heb.  i.  5  ;  v.  5.  Berahoth  lb  ;  Aboddh  Zarah 
36  (the  outbreak  of  Gog  and  Magog  at  the  end  of  the  "  days  of  the  Messiah  ") ; 
Succah  52a.  Some  modern  scholars  think  that  in  the  mind  of  the  author  of 
Ps.  ii.  the  Jewish  people  was  the  Lord's  anointed. 

6  It  is  not  found  in  Sirach— except  xlvi.  19  (22)  of  Saul— or  in  any  of  the  Books 
of  the  Maccabees  or  elsewhere  in  the  Apocrypha  ;  in  any  part  of  the  Book  of 
VOL  I.  2  A 


354  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

is  used  it  is  not  confined  to  the  scion  of  the  Davidic  dynasty  with 
whom  Christians  habitually  associate  it,  nor  does  the  hope  of  the 
restoration  of  the  monarchy  always  attach  itself  to  the  ancient 
sCjfc  royal  house.     By  far  the  most  important  passage  is  in  the  Psalms 
(l)  in       I  of  Solomon,1  composed  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  first  century 
Sofomon!    I  B.C.,  Ps.  xvii.  21-46,  a  composite  portrait  of  the  son  of  David, 
]  the  king  of  the  golden  age,  whose  features  are  drawn  from  the 
I  whole  range  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  and  poetry  ;  particularly 
vss.  35  f.,  describing  the  righteous  king,  instructed  of  God,  who 
shall  rule  over  Israel  in  days  when  there  shall  be  no  unrighteous- 
ness among  them,  because  they  shall  all  be  holy,  koI  fiaaikevs 
*  J  avTtov  Xpiarbs  Kupo? — in  the  Hebrew  original  of  the  Psalm 
[  doubtless  miT  TTttJD  "  the  Lord's  anointed  "  (xpurrbs  Kvplov). 
"Parables"        In  the  "  Parables  "  of  Enoch  (Enoch  37-71),  a  work  of  about 
of  Enoch.     ^e  game  age  ag  ^e  psaims  0f  Solomon,  the  kings  and  potentates 
A  of  the  earth  fall  never  to  rise  again,  "  because  they  denied  the 
I  Lord  of  Spirits  and  his  anointed."  2     The  "  anointed  one  "  of 
this  verse  is  the  same  as  "  that  son  of  man  "  in  an  earlier  part 
1  of  the  chapter  (xlviii.  2),  who  was  chosen  and  concealed  in  the 
\  presence  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits  before  the  world  was  created 
I  (vs.  6).     The  "  son  of  man  "  (human  being),  who  in  Daniel's 
vision  (vii.  13  f.,  27)  is  a  symbol  of  the  dominion  of  the  holy 
people  of  the  Most  High  (the  Jews)  in  contrast  to  the  four  heathen 
empires    represented    by    monstrous    and    destructive    beasts, 
becomes  in  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch  the  Righteous  One,  the 
Chosen  One  (Is.  xlii.  1),  the  Anointed  (consecrated)  One,  who 
since  before  the  creation  has  been  with  God  in  heaven.    Numerous 
+  j  and  various  Old  Testament  prophecies  are  drawn  upon  in  the 
/  description  of  this  Elect  One — for  example,  Is.  xi.  2-5,  for  his 
*  wisdom  and  power  ;  but,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  relation 

Enoch  except  the  Similitudes  (on  which  see  below,  p.  370  f.),  in  the  Book  of 
Jubilees,  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (excluding  Christian  inter- 
polations), in  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  the  Jewish  Sibylline  Oracles,  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  ;  nor  anywhere  in  Philo  or  Josephus  (except  Antiq.  xviii. 
3.  3,  of  Jesus,  generally  regarded  as  an  interpolation). 

1  See  p.  111.  2  Enoch  xlviii.  10;  cf.  Ps.  ii.  2.     See  also  Enoch  lii.  4- 


IV 


CHRISTOLOGY  355 


to  the  judgment  scene  in  Dan.  vii.  13  f.,  22  ff.,  it  is  with?* 
judgment — the  destruction  of  the  heathen  and  the  apostates,  \ 
the  vindication  of  the  righteous — that  he  has  chiefly  to  do.  | 
In  those  days  heaven  and  earth  will  be  transformed : 1  the  ] 
Lord  of  Spirits  will  abide  over  them,  and  the  righteous  and  j 
elect  will  eat  with  the  Son  of  Man,  and  lie  down  and  rise  up  for  | 
evermore  ;  they  will  be  clad  in  glorious  raiment,  the  garment 
of  life  from  the  Lord  of  Spirits,  which  never  waxes  old.2  The  j 
earth  and  the  nether  world  give  back  the  dead  to  share  in  the 
glory  and  blessedness  of  that  time.3 

This  representation  of  the  person  and  work  of  the  "  Chosen  The 
One,"  as  he  is  most  often  called,  moves  in  a  circle  of  ideas  widely jone.' 
remote  from  those  of  Ps.  Sol.  xvii.     Nor  is  it  merely  an  assump- 1 £  "^ 
tion  into  the  supernatural  sphere  of  the  Lord's  anointed  as  he 
appears  in  that  Psalm  ;   it  has  an  entirely  different  origin  and 
purport.     The  "  Son  of  Man  "  is  not  the  Messiah  "  pre-existent  $  **T  "f> 
in  heaven,"  as  it  is  the  fashion  to  say — if  that  had  been  the 
author's  meaning  the  visions  would  have  read  very  differently. 
All  that  can  rightly  be  said  is  that  the  author  of  Enoch  xlviii.  10,  \ 
in  a  connexion  which  recalled  Ps.  ii.  2,  applied  the  words  "  his 
anointed  one  "  in  that  verse  to  the  supramundane   figure — 
Daniel's  "  son  of  man  "  as  an  individual — whom  he  commonly  L 
calls  God's  "  chosen  one."  4    It  is  a  methodical  error  which 
entails  interminable  confusion,  to  take  this  casual  allusion  as  a  /* 
key  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Visions  and  distil  from  it  the  \  * 
"  Messianic  doctrine  "  of  the  author.5 

In  the  texts  published  by  Schechter  under  the  title  Fragments  Messiah 
of  a  Zadokite  Work  (1910),  the  word  n^n,  or  the  passive  participle  5L£C 
mtDD,  occurs  repeatedly.     In  the  first  instance  (page  2,  line  12)  writings. 
it  is  used  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  (cf.  Ps.  cv.  14  f.).  \ 

1  Enoch  xlv.  36 ;   cf.  Isa.  lxv.  17  ff. 

2  Enoch  lxii.  14-16  ;    cf.  Ii.  3  Enoch  li.  1  f. 
4  The  connection  in  lii.  4  is  less  clear,  but  no  less  casual. 

6  Interpreters  of  the  apocalypses,  not  being  familiar  with  the  methods  and 
mental  habits  of  Jewish  students  of  the  Bible,  do  not  recognise  the  midrashic 
character  of  such  association  of  texts. 


356  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

In  the  other  places  "  the  anointed  one  of  Aaron  and  Israel," 

H  or  "  from  Aaron  and  Israel,"  is  a  teacher  of  righteousness  who 

I  is  expected  in  the  latter  days.     The  teaching  of  Israel  belongs 

to  the  priest ;  "  the  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge  and  they 

should  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth,  for  he  is  the  messenger  of  the 

Lord  of  Hosts." 1    The  assumption  of  this  function  by  the 

scribes  was,  in  the  view  of  the  sect,  a  usurpation.     The  whole 

*  |  attitude  of  this  schismatic  body  to  Judah  excludes  the  expecta- 

1  tion  of  an  "  anointed  "  of  Judaean  (Davidic)  lineage. 

In  the  sayings  that  have  been  preserved  to  us  from  the  Jewish 

I  masters  who  taught  in  the  times  of  Herod  and  the  procurators 

j  there  is  no  word  of  an  expected  Messiah,  under  that  name  or  any 

*  other ;    but  the  Gospels  give  sufficient  evidence  of  the  belief, 

ICf*  j  common  among  all  classes,  that  a  divinely  appointed  head  of  the 

people  should  one  day  appear,  with  whom  better  days  would 

j  come  ;  that  this  deliverer  should  be  a  descendant  of  the  ancient 

\  royal  house  of  Judah,  the  son  of  David,  in  whom  the  monarchy 

was  to  be  restored  ;  and  that  "  the  anointed  "  (king),  in  Hebrew 

mashih,  Messiah,  was  a  popular  name  for  this  figure. 

The  more  concrete  traits  with  which  homiletical  midrash  or 
popular  imagination  clothed  this  vague  expectation  were  varied 
and  inconstant,  drawn  miscellaneously  from  prophecy  and  poetry, 
from  the  visions  of  apocalyptic  seers,  from  the  circumstances  of 
the  times.  One  of  the  commonest  was  that  the  Messiah  would 
first  appear  somewhere  in  the  wilderness  and  lead  his  followers 
into  the  Holy  Lai  d  (cf.  Is.  xl),  and  more  than  once  multitudes 
followed  into  the  desert  prophets  who  promised  to  conduct 
them  to  the  place.  The  parallel  between  Moses,  the  first  deliverer 
(Wtt),  and  the  great  Deliverer  was  fruitful  of  suggestions.  But 
it  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasised  that  there  was  no  generally 
^  |j  accepted  opinion,  no  organised  and  consistent  teaching,  above 
"  all  no  orderly  Messianic  doctrine  possessing  the  faintest  shadow 
of  authority.  The  thing  itself  was  of  faith,  all  the  rest  was  free 
field  for  imagination. 

1  Mai.  ii.  7 ;   cf.  Ezra  vii.  10. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  357 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  also  that  in  a  large  part  of  the  Desire  for 
prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament  foretelling  and  describing  ajK^gdom. 
golden  age  to  come,  the  political  element  which  is  characteristic!  **""& 
of  what  may  properly  be  called  Messianic  prophecy  is  wholly** 
absent.     Not  the  restoration  of  the  Kingdom  of  Judah  under  the. 
reign  of  a  descendant  of  David,  but  the  universal  reign  of  the  God  ? 
of  Israel,  whose  unity  and  sovereignty  are  acknowledged  by  all  f  * 
mankind,  and  whose  righteous  will  is  law  for  all,  was  the  end  of 
God's  ways  in  history  for  the  prophets  of  oecumenic  vision.     In   ^. 
Jewish  thought  and  hope  at  the  beginning  of  our  era  this  universal 
reign  of  God  with  all  that  it  implied — the  universality  of  the  true 
religion,  world-wide  peace  in  righteousness — filled  a  large  place. 
This  is  the  "Kingdom  of  Heaven,"1  of  which  we  read  in  the  Gospels. 
"  Thy  kingdom  come,  thy  will  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is   in 
heaven,"  is  not  a  prayer  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  ;  and  in  * 
the  Jewish  liturgy  prayers  for  the  appearance  of  the  scion  or 
son  of  David  are  quite  distinct  from  those  for  the  "  Kingdom 
— the  reign  of  God. 

Doubtless  in  the  common  apprehension  the  national  political 
hope  was  associated  with  this  larger  outlook  ;  but  in  the  minds  of 
the  teachers  of  the  people  in  the  generation  before  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  it  seems  to  have  been  incidental  to  it,  and  assuredly 
did  not  so  fill  their  thoughts  as  to  exclude  the  greater  future. 

The  restoration  of  the  monarchy,  after  the  extinction  of  the  Rise  of  ex- 

.     ,        pectation  of 

Kingdom  of  Judah  in  586,  is  foretold  under  the  figure  of  the  a  Davidic 
springing  up  of  a  "  sprout  (iton)  from  the  stump  of  Jesse,  a  sucker  j^of 
(-1^)  from  his  roots."  2   A  similar  prophecy  is  found  in  Jeremiah  :  3 
"  I  will  raise  up  unto  David  a  righteous  scion  (rrDS),  and  he  shall 
reign  as  king  and  prosper."     At  the  moment  when  the  crisis  in 
the  Persian  Empire  held  out  a  short-lived  hope  that  such  pre- 
dictions were  about  to  be  fulfilled,  Zechariah  saw  in  Zerubbabel 
this  scion.4    The  event  belied  his  expectation,  and  nothing  more  j 
is  heard  of  Zerubbabel  or  the  looked-for  kingdom.      But  the 

1  "  Heaven  "  is  a  common  Jewish  metonymy  for  God. 
2  Is.  xi.  1.  3  Jer.  xxiii.  5 ;  xxxiii.  15.  4  Zech.  iii.  8 ;   vi.  12. 


king. 


*^ 


358  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

"  scion  of  David  "  became  a  standing  designation  for  the  Davidic 

king  who  was  still  hoped  for  in  the  future,  or,  in  slightly  different 

expression,  the  "  horn  "  which  the  Lord  should  make  to  shoot 

up  (rTDSn)  for  David."  1 
The  priest-         When  the  Asmonaeans  achieved  the  liberation  of  the  Jews 

from  Seleucid  rule,  and  extended  their  dominion  by  conquest 
I  over  the  countries  which  according  to  the  old  histories  had  been 

subject  to  David  and  Solomon,  ruling  as  kings  even  before 

iAristobulus  assumed  the  title,  many  Jews  saw  in  these  events 

lithe  fulfilment  of  the  prophecies  of  the  good  time  coming,  a  time 

|lof  prosperity  at  home  and  power  and  glory  abroad  for  the  people 

|  of  God  under  native  sovereigns.     Psalm  ex.  is  an  expression  of 

this  feeling.     In  it  the  ruler  is  a  priest-king  like  Melchizedek 
|  (Gen.  xiv.),  such  as  the  Asmonaeans  alone  were.     They  them- 
1  selves  recognised  the  type  by  adopting  in  their  official  title  the 
j  style  "priest  of  the  Most  High  God,"  which  only  Melchizedek 
I  bears  in  the  Old  Testament.     Generations  afterwards,  Josephus 
eulogises  John  Hyrcanus  as  one  who  was  esteemed  by  God 
worthy  of  the  three  greatest  gifts,  the  rulership  of  the  nation, 
the  dignity  of  the  high  priesthood,  and  prophecy.2    High  priest- 
hood, royalty,  and  prophecy  are  the  three  pre-eminences  of  the 
posterity  of  Levi  in  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs ;  3 
the  new  priest  whom  the  Lord  will  raise  up  4  reigns  as  a  king,  and 
Is.  xi.  2  is  appropriated  to  him.    He  is  an"  anointed  high  priest."  5 
The  "  anointed  of  Aaron  and  Israel "  of  the  seceding  sect  of 
Damascus  6  is  perhaps  a  rival  conception  to  the  anointed  of  Levi 
and  Judah  in  the  Testaments,  rather  than  a  parallel  to  it ;   but 
in  this  sect  also  the  hope  of  the  future  attaches  to  a  priest,  not 
to  a  descendant  of  David. 
Asmonaean        ^ne  conflicts  between  the  Pharisees  and  the  priest-princes 

right  to 


reign 
doubted. 


Afi   x  See  Orac.  Sibyll.  vi.  16  ;   Ps.  exxxii.  17. 

■  2  Antiq.  xiii.  10.  7  ;   cf.  Tos.  Sotah,  xiii.  5  ;   Sotah  33cr. 
3  Levi  viii.  11  ff.  4  Levi  xviii. 

5  Reub.  vi.  8.  Note  also  especially  ^XPL  reAetwcrews  xP^>vuv  apxieptvs 
XpuTTou  (where  Charles  emends  a  perfectly  sound  text),  and  11  f  /SactXei's  cu'c6z>ios 
(Ps.  ex.).  6  Above,  pp.  97  ff. 


IV 


CHRISTOLOGY  359 


under  John  Hyrcanus  and  Alexander  Jannaeus  made  the  rule 
of  the  Asmonaeans  obnoxious  to  a  large  part  of  the  nation  ;   in 
the  strife  of  Alexander's  sons  the  dynasty  courted  its  doom.     The 
second  of  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  sees  in  the  taking  of  Jerusalem 
by  Pompey  and  the  profanation  of  the  temple  the  just  judgment 
of  God  upon  the  wickedness  of  its  inhabitants  in  the  days  of  the 
later  Asmonaeans.1    Psalm  xvii.  in  the  same  collection  is  even 
more  explicit :    the  Asmonaeans  were  usurpers  who  in  their 
arrogance  assumed  the  crown,  and  insolently  devastated  the 
throne  of  David.     The  Davidic  king,  the  anointed  of  the  Lord, 
to  whose  portrait  so  many  prophecies  contribute  (ib.  vss.  23  fL), 
is  not  only  in  character  the  opposite  of  the  Asmonaeans  ;  he  will 
be  a  legitimate  king  according  to  God's  oath  to  David,  in  contrast 
to  their  usurped  monarchy.     Antagonism  to  the  Asmonaean 
claim  to  rule  as  "  anointed  priests  "  after  the  pattern  of  Melchize- j 
dek  doubtless  led  the  Pharisaic  scribes  to  insist  all  the  morej 
strongly  that  the  king  who  in  God's  set  time  shall  come  to  reign  j 
over  Israel  must  be  of  David's  line.     The  old  Palestinian  form  of 
the  Eighteen  Benedictions  contains  a  prayer  (the  eleventh)  for 
the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  :   "  Restore  our  judges  as  at 
first  and  our  counsellors  as  at  the  beginning  .  .  .  and  reign  over 
us,  Thou  alone  "  ;  and  another  (the  fourteenth),  for  the  Kingdom 
of  David  :    "  Have  compassion,  0  Lord  our  God  ...  on  Jeru- 
salem thy  city,  and  on  Zion  thy  glorious   abode,  and   on   the 
kingdom   of   David   thy   holy   anointed."2      In   the   abridged, 
prayer,  Habinenu,   as   well   as   in    the    Babylonian    recension; 
of    the  Eighteen,  the  prayer  is  for    the    "scion    of    David" 
(nos),  tlie  prophetic  word  for  which  "  Messiah  "  is  the  later 
equivalent. 

Before  the  war  of  66-72  a.d.,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  The  Law 

.  .  more  pro 

although  the  restoration  of  the  nation  under  a  Davidic  prince  as  minent 
foretold  in  the  Scriptures  was  firmly  believed  in,  it  does  not  seem  MeTsilh! 

1  Cf.  Assumption  of  Moses,  vi.  1. 

2  This  petition  supposes  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  and  was 
most  probably  introduced  in  the  redaction  of  the  prayers  which  was  made  by 
Gamaliel  II. 


360 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


Effect  of 
the  fall  of 
Jerusalem. 


to  have  much  engaged  the  thoughts  of  the  rabbis.  To  the 
prophets,  whose  announcement  that  it  was  at  hand,  made  a  com- 
motion from  time  to  time  among  the  multitude,  they  turned  a  deaf 
ear.  They  opposed  all  attempts  to  expedite  the  deliverance 
by  insurrection.  It  would  come  in  God's  time  and  way.  Mean- 
while their  task  was  to  prepare  the  people  for  it  by  expounding 
and  inculcating  the  will  of  God  for  righteousness  as  he  had 
revealed  it  in  the  Law. 

The  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  destruction  of  the  temple  in 
a.d.  70  completely  changed  this  attitude.  Messianic  prophecy 
assumed  an  instant  and  engrossing  importance,  and  inevitably 
its  political  aspect  was  dominant  in  men's  minds — not  the 
universality  of  the  true  religion,  the  reign  of  God;  not  the 
prophetic  and  priestly  mission  of  Israel ;  not  the  wise  and  just 
rule  of  the  peaceful  prince  ;  but  the  liberation  of  the  Jews  from 
a  foreign  yoke,  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  and  of  worship  in  its 
temple  ;  nay  more,  the  utter  and  final  ruin  of  the  oppressive 
empire  of  Rome,  the  last  of  the  four  embodiments  of  the  kingdom 
of  this  world  in  its  enmity  to  God  and  his  people. 

I  In  the  Jewish  apocalypses  from  the  generation  after  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem  the  deliverance  is  accomplished  in  supernatural 
fashion.1  The  Syriac  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  is  of  interest 
because  of  the  witness  it  gives  to  the  currency  of  notions  with 
which  we  are  otherwise  acquainted  only  through  works  of  con- 
siderably later  date,  such  as  the  feast  on  the  flesh  of  Behemoth 
I  and  Leviathan  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah  (xxix.  3  fL),2  and  the 
fabulous  grape  vines,  every  berry  of  which  is  to  yield  whole 
barrels  of  wine  (vs.  5); 3  or  the  climactic  tribulations  that  precede 
the  manifestation  of  the  Messiah  (xxvii.-xxix.).4  The  Messiah 
will  condemn  and  put  to  death  the  last  ruler  of  the  fourth  empire 
(Rome),  and  rule  the  people  of  God  till  this  doomed  world  comes 

1  The  Revelation  of  John  is  a  work  of  the  same  age,  kind,  and  motive 

2  4  Esdras  vi.  49  ff.  ;   cf.  Baba  Bathra  746.     In  Enoch  lx.  7  f.  (a  fragment 
of  a  Noah  Apocalypse)  the  creatures  appear,  but  in  another  rdle. 

3  Kethuboih  1116;    Papias  in  Iren.  v.  33. 

4  Sank.  97a  ;   Sotah  496.     Cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  ;    Mark  xiii. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  361 

to  an  end  (xl.  1-3) ;  into  his  hands  the  remnants  of  the  heathen 
nations  will  be  delivered.1 

In  4  Esdras  the  influence  of  the  apocalyptic .  tradition  is  J"* 
stronger  ;  as  is  seen  especially  in  the  vision  of  the  man  rising  out  j 
of  the  sea,  xiii.  1  if.,  with  its  interpretation,  vss.  25  H  In  the 
vision  of  the  many-winged  eagle,2  i.e.  the  Roman  empire,3  the 
lion  from  the  forest,  who  in  the  name  of  the  Most  High  pronounces  j 
judgment  on  the  eagle,  is  the  Messiah.4  In  vii.  28  f.  the  Syriac 
version  has  probably  preserved  the  original  reading,  "  My  son, 
the  Messiah  "  (combining  vss.  7  and  2  of  Ps.  ii.) ;  and  here  we 
have  the  earliest  express  limit  fixed  for  the  duration  of  his  rule 
(400  years),  thus  connecting,  in  a  way  familiar  in  rabbinical 
writings,5  the  golden  age  of  the  Jewish  nation  depicted  in  the 
prophets  with  the  eschatological  dogmas  of  the  general  resurrec- 
tion and  the  last  judgment  which  the  Pharisees  made  a  touch- 
stone of  orthodoxy. 

With  the  rabbis,  as  among  the  masses,  the  political  end —  Messianio 
independence  and  restoration — prevailed.  The  Jewish  in-  Akiba. 
surrections  under  Trajan  took  a  Messianic  character  in  more  than 
one  province.  Some  Targums,  with  their  emphasis  on  the  militant 
features  of  prophecy  and  pictures  of  a  triumphant  warrior  Messiah, 
reflect  the  situation  of  the  moment.  Akiba,  the  greatest  figure 
of  his  time,  journeyed  far  and  wide  to  stir  up  the  Jews  throughout 
the  world  to  rise  in  revolt  and  to  provide  the  means  for  the  coming 
struggle.  So  completely  did  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  become 
identical  in  his  mind  with  that  of  a  liberator,  that  he  acclaimed 
as  Messiah—"  the  Star  out  of  Jacob  "  who  should  subject  Edom 
(Rome)6— the  leader  of  the  Jews  in  the  war  mider  Hadrian, 
Simon  bar  Koziba  (Bar  Cocheba),  though  he  was  not  of  Davidic 
lineage,  nor,  in  rabbinical  estimate,  a  signally  religious  man. 

The  disillusion  of  the  outcome  is  reflected  in  the  utterances  of  Messianic 
the  teachers  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century.  Their  Couraged." 
faith  in  God's  purpose  was  unshaken  ;  it  had  been  their  mistake. 

1  Barren  lxx.  9;  lxxii.  2-6.  2  4  Ezra  xi.,  xii.  3  4  Ezra  xi.  38  ff. 

*  4  Ezra  xii.  32.  6  See  Sank.  99a.  6  Num.  xxiv.  17  f. 


362  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

.     » And  in  the  very  straits  to  which  they  were  brought  by  the 

»j   Emperor's  edicts  against  the  teaching  and  practice  of  their 

i  religion,  in  the  danger  that  the  unwritten  law  should  sink  into 

1  oblivion  through  the  execution  of  the  teachers  and  the  lack  of 

*  If  students,  they  saw  new  signs,  added  to  all  the  traditional  ones, 

*  that  God's  moment  to  intervene  was  near.     But,  warned  by 

I  the  great  failure,  they  resigned  themselves  to  wait  for  him,  and 
forbade  calculations  of  the  time  of  the  end.1  This,  however, 
lies  beyond  the  horizon  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  mention  of  it  is 
in  place  here  only  because  in  most  that  has  been  written  on  the 
j  Messianic  expectations  of  the  Jews  in  New  Testament  times  the 
i  epochs  marked  by  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  by  the  war 
i  under  Hadrian  are  ignored,  and  sayings  of  all  these  periods,  and 
\  sometimes  even  from  the  Babylonian  schools,  are  put  side  by  side 
|  without  discrimination.  The  wholly  false  notion,  still  widely 
\  current  in  popular  literature,  that  the  Jewish  expectation  in  the 
|  time  of  Christ  was  of  a  leader  in  wars  of  liberation  and  conquest, 
|  is  chiefly  derived  from  the  Targums,  and  has  survived  from  a 
1  time  when  the  latter  were  thought  by  scholars  to  date  from  the 
'"  century  before  our  era. 

The  point  in  the  previous  discussion  most  important  for  the 
investigation  of  early  Christianity  is  that   '  Messiah  '  is  essen- 
tially an  adjective  meaning  consecrated  or  appointed  by  God, 
!*^  *{  and  was  not  the  prerogative  title  of  any  single  person  until  later 
than  the  time  of  Christ.     It  was  applied  in  various  forms  of 
^  I  literature  to  the  expected  scion  of  the  house  of  David,  to  the 
~*    .j supernatural  Son  of  Man,  and  to  the  High  Priest;    but  its  use 
I   does  not  show  that  these  figures  were  habitually  identified  with 
yfi  f(|  each  other  in  Jewish  thought.     It  therefore  follows  that  though 
"  the  title  was  undoubtedly  applied  by  his  disciples  to  Jesus,  their 

1  To  this  period  belongs  also  the  distribution  of  the  twofold  r61e  of  the 
Messiah  of  the  prophecy  between  two  Messiahs,  a  warrior-Messiah,  descended 
from  Joseph,  who  should  conquer  Edom  (Rome),  but  at  last  fall  in  battle 
(Obad.  vs.  17  f. ;  cf.  Jer.  xlix.  20;  combined  with  Zech.  xii.  10-12),  and  the 
Davidic  Messiah,  the  peaceful  ruler  who  should  follow  him. 


CHRISTOLOGY  363 

meaning  must  be  sought  from  the  context  in  which  the  word  j  ^ 

is  used  rather  than  from  its  established  significance.  In  I 
itself,  it  might  merely  mean  that  Jesus  was  divinely  con- 1 
secrated,  without  specifying  the  exact  function  to  which  he  was  j 
appointed. 

The  study  of  the  Synoptic  gospels  fails  to  establish  with 
certainty  the  exact  meaning  originally  attached  to  the  title  by 
the  disciples.  They  identified  Jesus  with  the  anointed  Son  of  |  * 
Man  from  heaven,  and  with  the  anointed  scion  of  David.  |^ 
Did  they  always  identify  him  with  both,  or  first  with 
one  and  then  with  ,the  other  ?  And  when  they  called  him 
"  anointed  "  did  they  mean  one  rather  than  the  other,  or  both 
indifferently  ? 

In  the  Synoptic  gospels  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  the  X/>«n-6s 
usage  of  X/ho-to9  is  its  comparative  rarity.     In  no  passage  which  synoptic 
can  with  probability  be  ascribed  to  Q  is  Jesus  called  X/mo-to?.  gospels 
In  Mark,  apart  from  the  title,  "  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  j 
Jesus  Christ,"  it  is  used  of  Jesus  in  the  "  confession  of  Peter  " 
in  viii.  29,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ "  ;  in  ix.  41,  "  Whosoever  shall 
give  you  a  cup  of  water  to  drink  because  ye  are  Christ's,"  etc.  ; 
the  question  of  the  high  priest,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  i 
of  the  Blessed  ? "  in  xiv.  61 ;  and  in  the  mocking  by  the  high 
priests  and  the  Scribes  in  xv.  32,  "  Let  the  Christ,  the  King  of  { 
Israel,  come  down  now  from  the  cross."     It  is  also  found  in  two 
passages  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  but  not  with  reference  (or  at 
least  direct  reference)  to  himself,— in  the  question  "  How  do  the  j 
scribes  say  that  the  Christ  is  a  son  of  David  ?  "  in  Mark  xii.  35,  j 
and  in  the  warning  against  those  who  say  "  See  here  is  the 
Christ,"  in  Mark  xiii.  21. 

Few  though  these  passages  may  be,  they  leave  no  doubt  but  Meaning 
that  Mark  regards  Xpiaro?  as  a  title  of  Jesus.     The  question . 
is  what  he  means  by  it.     What  especially  did  Peter  mean  atl 
Caesarea  Philippi  when  he  said  "  Thou  art  the  Christ  ?  "    Did  jt 
he  mean  the  Scion  of  David  who  was  to  restore  the  fortunes  of 
Israel,  or  did  he  mean  the  Son  of  Man  who  was  appointed  to 


364  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

judge  the  living  and  the  dead  ?     Or  can  we  otherwise  define 
his  meaning  ? 1 
Suffering  The  difficulty  of  answering  these  questions  is  increased  by  the 

of  bon  l  i  • 

of  Man        natural  tendency  to  interpret  Mark  by  Matthew,  but  though 
certainty  on  all  points  is  unattainable,  some  conclusions  become 
probable.     Jesus  replies  to  Peter  by  telling  the  disciples  not  to 
say  this  of  him  to  any  one,  and  goes  on  to  say  that  the  Son  of 
Man 2  must  suffer  and  die,  obviously  surprising  and  alarming 
Peter.     The  important  point  in  this  narrative  is  the  correction 
of   Peter's   concept— so   obviously   implied— of   a   triumphant 
Anointed  one,'  by  the  warning  of  the  approaching  Passion. 
*|! Jt  is  temPting to  use  tne  Phrase  '  Son  of  Man  '  as  a  proof  that  the 
f  Anointed  one  is  the  Son  of  Man,  rather  than  the  Scion  of  David. 
.  But  this  is  hazardous,  for  it  is  probable  that  '  Son  of  Man  ' 
*{j  here  is  due  to  the  editor,  to  whom  it  meant  Jesus,  and  replaces  an 
original  '  I.'     So  far,  therefore,  as  this  passage  goes  it  merely 
proves  that  the  editor  realised  that  the  '  anointed  one  '  of  whom 
Peter  spoke  was  not  expected  to  suffer— that  he  would  do  so 
,  was  the  revelation  of  Jesus.3    It  throws  no  clear  light  on  whether 
the  Christ  of  Peter's  confession  was,  in  Mark's  opinion,  the 
Scion  of  David. 
is  Christ  There  is,  however,  another  passage  which  illuminates  this 

David  in      question,  and  in  the  complete  absence  of  any  positive  evidence, 
seems  to  turn  the  scale  against  the  theory  that  Mark  thought 
that  the  '  Christ '  meant  '  the  Scion  of  David.'     In  Mark  xii.  35 
J  it  is  reported  that  Jesus  said,  "  How  do  the  scribes  say  that 
[the  Christ  is  a  son  of  David  ?  "     Surely  this  implies  that  the 
I  Scr#>es  were  wrong  ;  in  which  case  it  must  follow  that  the  writer 

1  See  below  for  the  reasons  why  these  two  figures,  united  in  Christian 
thought,  should  be  regarded  as  originally  separate. 

2  On  p.  368  the  question  is  discussed  whether  'Son  of  Man'  in  this 
passage  goes  back  to  Jesus,  and  it  is  argued  that  probably  it  does  not. 

3  This  remains  true  whether  we  think  that  Jesus  was  on  this  occasion  as 
explicit  as  the  text  represents  or  not.  The  belief  that  the  Messiah  must  suffer 
was  Christian,  not  Jewish,  and  to  establish  the  belief  of  the  disciples— not 
necessarily  of  Jesus— it  is  immaterial  whether  they  learnt  the  necessity  of  the 
Passion  from  the  words  or  from  the  fate  of  Jesus 


Mark  xii. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  365 

certainly  held  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  but  not  the  Son  of 
David.     The  passage  is  entirely  intelligible  in  view  of  such 
documents  as  the  Book  of  Jubilees  which  expect  a  "  Messiah  " 
from  the  house  of  Levi,  and  seems  to  be  directed  against  the  j  ^ 
Pharisaic  revival  of  the  expectation  of  a  Davidic  Messiah.     It 
is  impossible  to  explain  it  as  part  of  a  tradition  which  regarded 
Jesus  as  the  *  Scion  of  David.'     On  the  other  hand,  in  Mark  x. . 
47  f.  Bartimaeus  greets  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  David,  and  in  xi.  10  [ 
the  crowd  at  the  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem  qualify  the  future 
kingdom  announced  by  Jesus  as  "  the  Kingdom  of  our  father  I 
David." 

Whether  consciously  or  unconsciously,  Mark  reveals  the  fact .  ^^ 
that  though  Jesus  meant  the  "  Life  of  the  Age  to  come  "  by  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  the  crowd  meant  the  restored  prosperity  of 
Israel,  and  while  he  was  looking  for  the  judgment  of  mankind  f 
by  the  Son  of  Man  appointed  by  God,  they  were  expecting  a  king  j 
of  the  house  of  David. 

The  latter  strata  of  the  Gospels  and  the  earlier  chapters  of  Jesus 

i  claimed 

Acts  show  that  the  identification  of  Jesus  with  the  Scion  of 
David  had  become  a  prominent  part  of  Christian  belief ;  to 
prove  the  Davidic  claim  of  Jesus  is  one  of  the  chief  objects  of 
the  genealogies  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  But  the  figure  of  the 
Scion  of  David  had  coalesced  with  that  of  the  Son  of  Man  rather  )  \ 
than  taken  its  place,  and  the  term  '  Christ '  covered  both.  ? 
Moreover,  this  merging  of  the  two  figures  with  each  other  was 
the  result  of  their  identification  with  Jesus,  not  the  cause  of  it. 
The  Anointed  Son  of  Man  is  the  anointed  son  of  David  not 
because  the  two  figures  were  originally  identical,  or  because 
1  anointed '  was  a  Jewish  title  which  could  only  belong  to  one 
person,  but  because  Christians  found  both  the  Son  of  Man  and 
the  Son  of  David  in  Jesus,  and  therefore  were  forced  to  say  that 
the  Son  of  Man  is  the  Son  of  David  and  to  attribute  to  either 
figure  everything  prophesied  or  believed  of  the  other. 

It  is  scarcely  doubtful  but  that  in  this  combination,  if  the 
foregoing  treatment  of  Mark  be  correct,  the  idea  of  the  Son  of 


as  a  son 
of  David. 

trfc. 


366 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


Belief  in 
the  resur- 
rection 


tification 
of  Son  of 
Man  and 
of  David. 


J  David  was  added  to  that  of  the  Son  of  Man,  rather  than  the  Son 
!  of  Man  to  that  of  the  Son  of  David.     This  result  is  corroborated 
by  the  criticism  of  the  other  Gospels  and  Acts.     The  Davidic 
j  theory  is  central  in  the  genealogies,  but  there  is  little  or  nothing 
j  in  its  favour  elsewhere.1    Similarly  in  the  speeches  it  is  prominent 
in  Acts  ii.  and  xiii.,  but  is  not  clearly  found  in  those  in  Acts  iii. 
and  vii.  or  x.  ;  on  the  contrary,  in  iii.  and  x.  the  general  char- 
acteristics ascribed  to  Jesus  are  those  of  the  Son  of  Man,  though 
this  word  is  not  used.2 

Though  scarcely  within  the  strict  limits  of  this  discussion 
it  is  not  entirely  out  of  place  to  note  how  the  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
heips  iden-  tjon  helped  to  link  together  the  figure  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  the 
Scion  of  David.  Taken  by  themselves  these  two  could  not 
describe  the  same  person.  The  Son  of  Man  came  from  heaven,, 
where  he  had  existed  from  the  creation.  The  Scion  of  David  was 
born,  a  man  among  men.  But  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  at 
least  partly  cleared  away  this  difficulty.  After  it,  Jesus  was  in 
heaven  and  could  come,  as  the  Son  of  Man  was  expected  to  do, 
on  the  clouds. 

It  therefore  seems  probable  that  Jesus  did  not  claim  to  be 
or  consider  himself  to  be  the  "  Davidic  Messiah."  He  seems  by 
his  question,  "  How  say  the  scribes  that  the  Messiah  is  David's 
son  ?  "  to  throw  doubt  on  the  whole  "  Davidic  "  expectation. 
If  he  accepted  Peter's  "  confession  "  that  he  was  the  Messiah, 
he  did  so  either  in  the  sense  of  Son  of  Man,  or  in  the  sense  of  one 
| "  consecrated "  to  suffering  rather  than  as  a  Davidic  king. 
But  the  mind  of  the  people,  like  that  of  Bartimaeus,  was  filled 

1  The  conversation  between  the  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus  and  the 

^  |  risen  Jesus  seems  to  be  directed  toward  the  Davidic  theory  :   "  *  We  had  hoped 

I  that  it  was  he  who  should  redeem  Israel'  ...  '0  fools  and  blind,'  etc." 

*  Luke  xxiv.  21-25. 

•  2  Cf.  especially  iii.  20  f.  :  "  Until  the  times  of  refreshing  come  from  the 
i  face  of  the  Lord,  and  he  send  Jesus  the  Messiah  foreordained  for  you,  whom 
|  heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of  the  restoration  of  all  things."  This  is 
|  the  Son  of  Man,  not  the  Scion  of  David.     So  also  x.  42  :  "  This  is  he  who  has 

.  been  appointed  by  God  as  judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead."  There  could  not 
|  be  a  better  description  of  the  function  of  the  '  Son  of  Man,'  but  it  is  quite 
1  inapplicable  to  the  Jewish  expectation  of  the  Son  of  David. 


*H 


iv  CHKISTOLOGY  367 

with  the  hope  of  the  Davidic  dynasty,  and  the  Christians  who, 
first  of  all  regarded  Jesus  as  the  anointed  Son  of  Man,  the  judge' 
of  the  world,  came 1  soon  to  accept  the  popular  expectation  and  to 
regard  Jesus  as  the  anointed  Scion  of  David  as  well  as  the  Son, 
of  Man.  The  word  '  the  anointed '  becomes  a  general  title 
covering  both  these  concepts.  It  was  soon  also  connected  with 
the  figure  of  the  Suffering  Servant,  the  attributes  of  which 
coalesced  with  those  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  of  the  Son  of  David, 
and  shared  with  them  the  title  '  Christ.' 

Before  long,  indeed,  the  word  Xpcaro^  ceased  to  have  any  special  Xpto-r6s 
meaning  in  Greek  circles.     It  became,  generally  speaking,  only  ^"^Tor 
another  name  for  Jesus,  and  if  there  was  sometimes  a  recollection  JftSUS- 
that  it  was  not  a  name  but  a  title,  it  was  merely  a  general  descrip- 
tion covering  any  functions  which  were  ascribed  to  Jesus.     This 
was  the  easier  because,  as  has  been  shown,  there  were  no  special 
functions  exclusively  connected  with  the  word  in  Jewish  thought. 

To  this  stage  must  have  belonged  the  editor  of  Acts  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  sources  which  he  used  :  to  him  Christ  is  a  second 
name  for  Jesus.2  It  is  only  either  when,  as  it  were,  he  stops  to 
think,  or  when  he  is  reproducing  his  sources,  that  he  uses  the 
word  as  a  title.  This  is  not  strange  ;  but  it  is  very  remarkable 
that  the  Pauline  epistles  show  the  same  development.  In  them, 
too, 4<  Christ '  is  almost  always  a  proper  name.  It  is  hard  to 
interpret  Paul's  use  except  as  a  deliberate  concession  to  Greek 

1  It  is  possible  that  this  process  was  hastened  by  the  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity of  Jews  who  had  maintained  the  claims  of  the  Davidic  dynasty  against 
the  Hasmoneans  or  the  Herods.  The  monuments  of  this  tendency  are  to  be 
found  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  as  compared  with  Jubilees  or  the  Testaments 
of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  :  those  who  had  defended  it  may  have  taken  it  over 
with  them  into  Christianity. 

2  In  Acts  ii.  38,  iii.  6,  iv.  10,  ix.  34,  x.  48,  xi.  17,  xv.  26,  xvi.  18  (xx.  21), 
xxiv.  24,  xxviii.  31,  Xpt-o-rds  is  used  as  a  proper  name ;  they  are  all  passages 
referring  to  some  formula  of  faith,  usually  in  connection  with  baptism  or  exor- 
cism. On  the  other  hand,  in  ii.  36,  iii.  18,  iii.  20,  ix.  22,  xvii.  3,  xviii.  5,  xviii.  28, 
xxvi.  23,  Xpurrds  is  used  as  a  title,  and  to  this  list  ii.  31,  v.  42,  and  viii.  5  ought 
probably  to  be  added,  though  they  may  be  otherwise  interpreted ;  it  is  far 
more  probable  that  these  represent  the  use  of  the  sources  used  by  the  editor 
and  that  the  Christian  formulae  of  faith  have  been  accommodated  to  the 
practice  of  his  own  time. 


368  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

weakness  :  lie  was  too  much  in  earnest  to  stop  to  teach  the 
meaning  of  a  strange  word  ;  he  accepted  Xpiaros  as  a  name  and 
used  Kvpios  to  give  the  meaning  of  the  Jewish  idea. 

Thus  it  becomes  necessary  to  trace  the  meaning  and  connota- 
tions of  these  other  titles — Son  of  Man  and  Servant— in  order  to 
see  how  much  they  represent  in  the  earliest  thought  of  the 
disciples,  and  how  they  were  treated  by  Gentiles  who  had  no 
previous  knowledge  of  their  meaning. 

Son  of  Man.        r^ne  p^ase  6  vlbs  rod  dv6p(07Tov,  the  Son  of  Man,  is  as  devoid 

of  intelligible  meaning  in  Greek  as  it  is  in  English.     It  clearly 

is  a  literal  translation  of  the  Aramaic  Bar-nash  or  Bar-nasha. 

This  phrase  means  in  Aramaic  '  man  '  just  as  d*tn  jl  does  in 

Hebrew.    In  Rabbinical  Aramaic  it  is  used  to  introduce  an 

unnamed  person  at  the  beginning  of  a  narrative  as  *  a  certain 

man.'    If  it  were  desired  to  refer  to  this  person  later  in  the  story 

fit  would  be  necessary  in  Aramaic  to  prefix  a  demonstrative 

|  pronoun  when  Greek  would  simply  use  the  definite  article. 

This  use  of  the  word  is  found  in  Daniel  vii.  9-14. 

Son  of  Man  I  beheld  till  the  thrones  were  cast  down,  and  the  Ancient  of  days 
in  Daniel,  did  sit,  whose  garment  was  white  as  snow,  and  the  hair  of  his  head 
like  the  pure  wool :  his  throne  was  like  the  fiery  flame,  and  his  wheels 
as  burning  fire.  A  fiery  stream  issued  and  came  forth  from  before 
him  :  thousand  thousands  ministered  unto  him,  and  ten  thousand 
times  ten  thousand  stood  before  him  :  the  judgment  was  set,  and  the 
books  were  opened.  I  beheld  then  because  of  the  voice  of  the  great 
words  which  the  horn  spake  :  I  beheld  even  till  the  beast  was  slain, 
and  his  body  destroyed,  and  given  to  the  burning  flame.  As  con- 
cerning the  rest  of  the  beasts,  they  had  their  dominion  taken  away  : 
yet  their  lives  were  prolonged  for  a  season  and  time.  I  saw  in  the 
night  visions,  and  behold,  one  like  a  son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him 
near  before  him.  And  there  was  given  him  dominion  and  glory, 
and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages,  should  serve 
him  :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shall  not  pass 
away,  and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed. 

The  meaning  is  that  at  the  end  of  the  judgment,  which  is 
held  by  the  '  Ancient  of  Days  '—that  is  by  God,  represented  as 


iv  CHKISTOLOGY  369 

an  aged  man — the  beasts  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  vision  lose 
either  their  power  or  their  life,  and  universal  dominion  is  given 
to  another  supernatural  figure  in  human  form — a  *  Son  of  Man.' 
The  further  explanation  of  the  vision  in  Daniel  vii.  23  ff.  shows 
what  is  meant. 

Thus  he  said,  The  fourth  beast  shall  be  the  fourth  kingdom  upon 
earth,  which  shall  be  diverse  from  all  kingdoms,  and  shall  devour 
the  whole  earth,  and  shall  tread  it  down  and  break  it  in  pieces. 
And  the  ten  horns  out  of  this  kingdom  are  ten  kings  that  shall  arise  : 
and  another  shall  rise  after  them  ;  and  he  shall  be  diverse  from  the 
first,  and  he  shall  subdue  three  kings.  And  he  shall  speak  great 
words  against  the  most  High,  and  shall  wear  out  the  saints  of  the 
most  High,  and  think  to  change  times  and  laws  :  and  they  shall  be 
given  unto  his  hand  until  a  time  and  times  and  the  dividing  of  time. 
But  the  judgment  shall  sit,  and  they  shall  take  away  his  dominion, 
to  consume  and  to  destroy  it  unto  the  end.  And  the  kingdom  and 
dominion,  and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven, 
shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  most  High,  whose 
kingdom  is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  dominions  shall  serve 
and  obey  him. 

That  is  to  say,  the  beast  is  some  Gentile  Kingdom,  the  horn 
is  possibly  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  the  man  in  the  first  passage 
quoted  is  the  people  of  Israel. 

The  difficult  question  here  is  not  the  actual  meaning,  which 
is  obvious,  but  whether  the  beasts  and  the  man  are  merely 
figures  of  speech  or  represent  realities  in  the  mind  of  the  writer. 
When  the  ancients  spoke  of  a  beast  in  Heaven  or  in  the  abyss 
as  representing  Babylon  or  Rome,  did  they  mean  this  as  a  meta- 
phor ?  Or,  believing  that  events  on  earth  corresponded  to 
events  in  Heaven,  did  they  think  that  there  were  supra-mundane 
creatures  whose  activities  and  conflicts  in  Heaven  affected  the 
nations  corresponding  to  them  on  earth  ?  In  support  of  the 
latter  view  is  the  effect  on  the  destiny  of  Israel  of  the  struggle  in 
Heaven  between  its  angel  Michael  and  the  "  Angel  of  Persia.''  * 

In  no  case,  however,  can  this  vision  have  any  connexion 
with  the  expectation  in  the  early  prophets  of  an  ideal  king  of  the 

1  Daniel  x.  13  ff. 
VOL.  I  2  B 


' 


370  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

!^  j  House  of  David.  The  '  man  '  is  not  the  king  of  Israel ;  he  is 
Israel  itself,  and  the  only  question  is  whether  Israel  on  earth 
is  not  supposed  to  have  a  heavenly  representative  in  human  form 
whose  exaltation  in  heaven  corresponds  to  the  exaltation  of 

^Israel  on  earth. 
Similitudes  Between  this  passage  in  Daniel  and  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch  1 
there  is  certainly  some  connexion,  though  not  very  close  either 
in  thought  or  language.  In  the  present  form  the  Similitudes 
have  been  compounded  with  an  apocalypse  of  Noah,  so  that 
sometimes  Noah  and  sometimes  Enoch  is  speaking,  and  there 
is  in  several  places  more  than  a  suspicion  that  the  text,  in  any 
case  that  of  a  translation,  has  suffered  severely,  both  by  omission 
and  by  interpolation.  The  tenor  of  the  book  is  a  description 
of  the  judgment  on  the  wicked  and  the  glories  promised  to  the 
righteous  at  the  end  of  the  Age.  The  phrase  the  '  Age  to  Come  ' 
^  I  does  not  play  so  important  a  part  as  it  does  in  4  Ezra,  but  it  is 
definitely  mentioned  in  Enoch  lxxi.,  and  it  is  clearly  intended 

\  in  the  general  description  at  the  beginning,2  "  I  will  transform 

\  the  heaven  and  make  it  an  eternal  blessing  and  light,  and  I  will 

*  transform  the  earth  and  make  it  a  blessing." 

Part  of  the  vision  of  this  coming  Age  is  concerned  with  an 
K"Tf*  j 

I  Elect  One,  who  will  preside  at  the  judgment  which  must  come 

1  first,  and  will  be  the  centre  of  the  society  of  the  righteous  who 
will  inherit  the  transformed  earth.     In  his  vision  Enoch  is  shown 

I  this  Elect  One  in  heaven  with  the  "  Lord  of  Spirits,"  in  the  form 
of  a  man — a  "  son  of  man  "  in  Semitic  phraseology — and  hence- 

;  forward  throughout  the  Similitudes  the  Elect  One  is  frequently 

|  referred  to  as  '  that  Son  of  Man.'  3  As  the  text  stands  now  two 
views  are  taken  of  the  Elect  One.     According  to  one,4  he  was 

1  Enoch  xxxvii.  to  lxxi.  2  Enoch  xlv.  4. 

3  Dr.  Charles  in  an  appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  his  The  Book  of  Enoch, 
pp.  306  ff.,  dissents  from  this  view.  He  thinks  that  in  Enoch,  as  in  the  New 
Testament,  '  Son  of  man '  is  a  title,  not  a  description.  His  opinion  has  of 
course  great  value,  for  no  one  living  has  spent  more  time  or  skill  on  the  study 
of  Enoch,  but  in  this  case  the  facts  as  presented  in  his  own  translation  seem  to 
be  decisively  against  him. 

4  Enoch  xlviii.  6 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  371 

"  chosen  and  hidden  before  him  (God)  before  the  creation  of  the  | 
world   and  for   evermore.'*    According   to   the   other,   Enoch f 
himself  is  "  that  son  of  man.''  x 

These  two  views  are  of  course  irreconcilable.  It  is  thought 
by  some  2  that  the  second  is  merely  due  to  textual  accident ; 
but  if  so  the  accident  must  have  been  on  a  large  scale,  and  in  any 
case  it  is  quite  impossible  to  reconcile  every  statement  in  Enoch. 

The  main  point,  however,  for  the  student  of  Christianity  is  . 
fairly  plain.    The  Elect  One  is  a  man,  who  is  now  in  heaven,  1 
and  will  come  to  the  earth  at  the  end  of  this  world,  to  judge  and  j 
condemn  the  wicked  and  to  reign  over  the  righteous  in  the  world  • 
to  come.    His  description  is  probably  borrowed  from  Daniel ;  *  ^ 
and  there  is  no  visible  connexion  between  him  and  the  king  of 
the  Davidic  family  foretold  by  the  earlier  prophets.    That  in  « 
two  passages  3  he  is  called  '  the  anointed '  does  not  alter  the  }  ^ 
obvious  fact  that  a  man  pre-existent  in  heaven  from  the  creation  j 
cannot  be  a  descendant  of  David.4 

In  4  Ezra  xiii.  1  there  is  a  famous  passage  which  may  be  4  Ezra. 
connected  with  the  Son  of  Man,  of  Daniel,  and  Enoch. 

And  it  came  to  pass  after  seven  days  that  I  dreamed  a  dream  by 
night :  and  I  beheld  and  lo  !  there  arose  a  violent  wind  from  the 
sea,  and  stirred  all  its  waves.  And  I  beheld,  and  lo  !  the  wind 
caused  to  come  up  out  of  the  heart  of  the  seas  as  it  were  the  form  of 


1  Enoch  lxxi.  14.  "  Thou  art  that  son  of  man  who  is  born  into  righteous- 
ness ...  he  proclaims  unto  thee  peace  in  the  name  of  the  world  to  come,  for 
from  hence  has  proceeded  peace  since  the  creation  of  the  world." 

2  Notably  Dr.  R.  H.  Charles,  who  emends  the  text  accordingly. 

3  Enoch  xlviii.  10,  and  lii.  4.  Both  these  passages  are  obscure.  It  is  in 
fact  open  to  question  whether  the  '  Anointed '  of  xlviii.  10  really  refers  to  the 
Elect  One.  The  passage  is  a  loose  quotation  from  Ps.  ii.  2,  and  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  how  the  '  kings  of  the  earth '  can  be  said  to  have  denied  the  Elect  One. 
Is  it  not  possible  that  '  the  anointed '  is  merely  part  of  the  quotation,  with  no 
essential  bearing  on  the  context  in  Enoch  ?  In  lii.  4  there  seems  to  be  a  doublet 
in  the  narrative,  and  Charles  and  Beer  suggest  plausible  theories  of  different 
'  sources.'     See  R.  H.  Charles,  The  Book  of  Enoch,  ed.  2,  1912,  pp.  64  and  101. 

4  See  further,  p.  373.     Of  course  in  Christian  theology  the  difficulty  was  j 
surmounted  by  the  doctrine  of  miraculous  birth,  by  which  the  pre-existent  jll-A 
Lord  was  bora  into  the  family  of  David.     But  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such 
expectation  in  Enoch  or  anywhere  else  in  Jewish  literature. 


372  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

a  man.    And  I  beheld,  and  lo  !    this  Man  flew  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven.    And  wherever  he  turned  his  countenance  to  look  every- 
thing seen  by  him  trembled  ;  and  whithersoever  the  voice  went  out 
of  his  mouth,  all  that  heard  his  voice  melted  away,  as  the  wax  melts 
when  it  feels  the  fire.     And  after  this  I  beheld,  and  lo  !   there  was 
gathered  together  from  the  four  winds  of  heaven  an  innumerable 
multitude  of  men  to  make  war  against  the  Man  that  came  up  out  of 
the  sea.     And  I  beheld,  and  lo  !    he  cut  out  for  himself  a  great 
mountain  and  flew  up  upon  it.     But  I  sought  to  see  the  region  or 
place  from  whence  the  mountain  had  been  cut  out ;  and  I  could  not. 
And  after  this  I  beheld,  and  lo  !    all  who  were  gathered  together 
against  him  to  wage  war  with  him  were  seized  with  great  fear  ;   yet 
they  dared  to  fight.     And  lo  !  when  he  saw  the  assault  of  the  multi- 
tude as  they  came  he  neither  lifted  his  hand,  nor  held  spear  nor  any 
warlike  weapon  ;  but  I  saw  only  how  he  sent  out  of  his  mouth  as  it 
were  a  fiery  stream,  and  out  of  his  lips  a  flaming  breath,  and  out  of 
his  tongue  he  shot  forth  a  storm  of  sparks.     And  these  were  all 
mingled  together— the  fiery  stream,  the  flaming  breath,  and  the 
storm,  and  fell  upon  the  assault  of  the  multitude  which  was  prepared 
to  fight,  and  burned  them  all  up,  so  that  suddenly  nothing  more  was 
to  be  seen  of  the  innumerable  m  altitude  save  only  dust  of  ashes  and 
smell  of  smoke.     When  I  saw  this  I  was  amazed.     Afterwards  I 
beheld  the  same  Man  come  down  from  the  mountain,  and  call  unto 
him  another  multitude  which  was  peaceable.     Then  drew  nigh  unto 
him  the  faces  of  many  men,  some  of  whom  were  glad,  some  sorrowful ; 
while  some  were  in  bonds,  some  brought  others  who  should  be 
offered. 

The  commentators  on  4  Ezra  have  naturally  been  more  con- 
cerned with  the  attempt  to  discover  its  '  sources  '  than  the  mind 
of  its  editor.     But  for  the  student  of  Christianity  the  mind  of  the 
editor,  who  was  probably  almost  exactly  contemporary  with  the 
apostles,  is  more  important  than  doubtful  though  interesting 
Quellenkritik  ;  fortunately  it  is  not  impossible  to  discover.     The 
>  editor  makes  the  Almighty  describe  the  Man  of  this  vision  as 
I  his  Son,  whom  he  clearly  identifies  with  the  Anointed  One,  who 
■  figures  as  a  Lion  in  chapter  xii.,  and  whose  reign  is  described 
in  chapter  vii.     In  this  last  place  it  is  stated  definitely  that 
"  my  son,  the  Anointed  one,  will  die  "  at  the  end  of  this  Age. 

It  is  therefore  plain  that  the  writer  of  4  Ezra  was  thinking 
of  the  judgment  of  destruction  on  the  heathen  and  the  prosperity 


i 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  373 

of  Israel  in  the  period  known  to  the  Rabbis  as  "  the  days  of  j 
the  Messiah,"  not  of  the  final  judgment  which,  as  he  says  else-  iff  & 
where,  will  usher  in  the  Age  to  come.    This  is  the  great  differ-  \j 

ence  between  "  the  Man  "  of  4  Ezra  and  "  that  Son  of  Man  "  m  * 
who  is  the  Elect  One  of  Enoch.    The  Elect  One  of  Enoch  ushers 
in  the  End  and  the  Age  to  come :    "  the  Man,"  who  is  the 
Anointed  One,  the  "  Son,"  of  4  Ezra  ushers  in  the  limited  "  days 
of  the  Messiah." 

The  question  arises  whether  the  '  Son  of  Man  '  can  have  been  Son  of  Man 
identified  by  the  writers  with  the  Davidic  Messiah.     To  see  Davidic 


the  matter  in  its  proper  proportions  it  is  essential  to  remember 
that  the  important  point  is  not  the  use  of  the  title  rrtDD  or  of 
N&n  11,  but  the  identification  of  functions  and  personality.    rrtDD 
means  anointed,  i.e.  consecrated,  and  W2  ii  means  *  a  man.9 
It  certainly  never  would  have  struck  a  Jew  as  reasonable  to  say 
that  these  words  could  only  apply  to  one  person.     The  difficult ifffe 
question  is  not  whether  the  Son  of  Man  was  called  "  Anointed,"  • 
but  whether  the  Jews  identified  him  with  the  anointed  Davidic] 
King  of  the  earlier  prophets.    The  later  Rabbis  seem  to  have     ^ 
used  the  phrase  *  Cloud-man/  referring  to  Daniel  vii.  13,  as  a! 
title  of  the  Davidic  Messiah,  and  the  Christians  found  both  in 
Jesus.     But  was  it  always  so  ?     A  protest  may  be  raised  against  * 
the  tendency  of  some  writers  to  obscure  the  fact  that  this  is  the  j  \ 
true  problem.    For  they  constantly  use  the  word  Messiah  to' 
describe  the  '  Man  '  in  the  apocalyptic  books,  and  imply  (though 
probably  they  do  not  always  mean  to  do  so)  that  the  combination 
of  the  eschatological  figure  with  the  Davidic  Messiah  was  made; 
before  the  Christian  period. 

The  facts  are  obscure,  and  no  single  line  of  thought  seems 
to  have  been  universally  followed.  In  some  circles  Persian 
eschatology  probably  replaced  the  prophetic  anticipation  of  the 
restoration  of  a  Davidic  Kingdom,  in  others  elaborate  combina- 
tions and  conflations  were  made.  At  any  rate  in  the  Similitudes 
of  Enoch  the  Son  of  Man  is  clearly  connected  with  the  great  day 
of  judgment  at  the  end  of  the  Age,  and  with  the  resurrection 


Gospels 


374  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

which  opens  the  Door  of  Life  to  those  who  are  worthy  of  the 
Age  to  come.  He  is  anointed  of  God  for  this  purpose,  but  this 
purpose  is  wholly  different  from  that  for  which  the  Anointed 
prince  of  the  house  of  David  was  appointed,  and  there  is  no 
sufficient  reason  to  suppose  that  the  writer  of  the  Similitudes 
was  incapable  of  thinking  that  God  had  consecrated  different 
persons  for  different  purposes.  That  at  a  later  period  Christians 
who  regarded  '  Anointed  '  as  the  unique  title  of  Jesus  identified 
*  Son  of  Man  '  and  *  Son  of  David  '  is  natural. 
The  use  In  the  gospels  '  Son  of  Man  '  is  always  found  in  the  mouth  of 

ManTnthe  j  Jesus  :   it  is  never  used  in  narrative  concerning  him.    In  Acts  x 
it  is  only  used  once  in  a  passage  which  refers  to  the  exalted  Jesus, 
but  is  an  obvious  reference  to  his  words  before  the  Sanhedrim.2 
In  the  epistles  it  is  never  found.     The  opinion  of  the  writers  of  the 
|  gospels  is  thus  clear  that  Jesus  used  the  phrase ;   that  he  used 
it  of  himself  ;  and  that  for  unexplained  reasons  it  was  not  used 
by  his  disciples  in  speaking  of  him.     The  important  questions 
are  whether  Jesus  really  used  it ;  if  he  did  so,  what  meaning  was 
attached  to  it  by  him  ;  and  what  by  the  writers  of  the  gospels. 
Use  by     ,        The  first  of  these  questions  can  be  answered  simply.     Few 
esus*  fcf  |S  things  are  so  probable  as  the  use  of  Son  of  Man  by  Jesus.     It  is 
found  in  his  mouth  in  all  the  earlier  strata  of  the  gospels,  as  well  as 
in  the  later  ones.     This  does  not  prove  that  he  applied  the  phrase 
f  j  to  himself  or  on  all  the  occasions  on  which  it  is  attributed  to  him 
in  the  gospels  ;   but  it  certainly  shows  that  he  used  it  either  of 
himself  or  of  some  one  else.    Moreover—to  assume  the  result 
i  of  later  inquiry — the  fact  that  the  generation  of  Greek  Christians 
who  produced  our  present  gospels  did  not  fully  know  the  meaning 
or  connotation  of  the  phrase  proves  that  they  cannot  have  in- 
vented its  use  by  Jesus. 

The  two  other  questions  can  scarcely  be  separated,  and  can 
only  be  approached  by  a  general  analysis  of  the  use  of  the  phrase 
in  the  earlier  strata  of  the  gospels,  and  by  a  comparison  of  it 
with  Jewish  usage. 

1  Acts  vii.  56.  2  Luke  xxii.  69. 


IV 


CHRISTOLOGY 


375 


The  material  for  this  analysis  is  best  supplied  by  the  following 
tabular  statements.  In  them  the  first  division  gives  the  refer- 
ences to  the  use  of  '  Son  of  Man '  in  Mark  together  with  the 
parallel  passages  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  a  short  description 
of  the  kind  of  use  made  of  the  phrase,  stating  whether  it  merely 
means  '  man,'  or  refers  to  the  Passion  or  the  Parousia.  Two 
passages  are  included  in  this  list  where  Son  of  Man  is  not  Marcan, 
but  is  introduced  by  Matthew  into  the  Marcan  text.  The  second 
division  gives  similar  references  to  passages  found  both  in  Matthew 
and  Luke,  and  generally  attributed  to  Q.  The  third  and  fourth 
to  passages  found  only  in  Matthew  or  Luke  respectively. 


I. 

Marcan  Passages 

Mk. 

Mt. 

Lk. 

=  man 

ii.  10 

= 

ix.  6 

= 

v.  24 

=  man 

ii.  28 

= 

xii.  8 

= 

vi.  5 

Matthaean  change 

(viii.  27) 

= 

xvi.  13 

= 

(ix.  18) 

Passion 

viii.  31 

= 

(xvi.  21) 

= 

ix.  22 

Parousia 

viii.  38 

= 

xvi.  27 

= 

ix.  26 

Matthaean  change 

(ix.  1) 

= 

xvi.  28 

= 

(ix.  27) 

Passion 

ix.  9 

= 

xvii.  9 

Passion 

ix.  12 

= 

xvii.  12 

.. 

Passion 

ix.  31 

= 

xvii.  22 

= 

ix.  44 

Passion 

x.  33 

= 

xx.  18 

= 

xviii.  31 

(Lk.  puts  '  I ')  Passion 

x.  45 

= 

xx.  28 

= 

(xxii.  27) 

Parousia 

xiii.  26 

= 

xxiv.  30 

= 

xxi.  27 

"  The  Son  "  Parousia 

xiii.  32 

= 

(xxiv.  36) 

Passion 

xiv.  21 

= 

xx vi.  24 

= 

xxii.  22 

Passion 

xiv.  41 

= 

xx vi.  45 

Parousia 

xiv.  62 

= 

xxvi.  64 

= 

xxii.  69 

II.  Passages  in 

Q 

Mt. 

Lk 

—'I' 

viii 

.  20 

=     ix. 

58 

—'I' 

xi. 

19 

=     vii. 

34 

— man 

xii. 

32 

=     xii. 

10 

The  Sign  of  Jonah- 

—I         xii 

40 

=     xi. 

30 

Parousia           xix 

.  28 

=     (xxii.  30) 

Parousia           xxiv.  27     =     xvi 

l.  24 

Parousia           xxiv.  37     =     xvii.  26 

Parousia           xxiv.  44     =     xii. 

40 

376  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 

III.  Peculiar  to  Matthew 

Parousia  x.  23 

=  '  I '  xiii.  37 

Parousia  xiii.  41 

(Not  in  WH)  —« I '  xviii.  11 

Parousia  Xxiv.  30 

Parousia  Xxv.  31 

Passion  xxvi.  2 

IV.  Peculiar  to  Luke 


(Not  in  WH)  =  '  I ' 

ix.  56 

Passion  or  Parousia 

xvii.  22 

(Possibly  Q)  Parousia 

xvii.  30 

Parousia 

xviii.  8 

-•I' 

xix.  10 

Parousia 

xxi.  36 

=  'I' 

xxii.  48 

Passion 

xxiv.  7 

SdQ.  ;  The  m°St  valuable  nint  t0  be  derived  from  these  statistics  as 
{to  the  probable  significance  of  the  title  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
(is  supplied  by  comparing  the  passages  in  the  first  two  divisions, 
from  Mark  and  Q ;  for,  where  these  agree,  if  anywhere,  trust- 
worthy information  is  given.  From  this  comparison  it  appears 
*lj>at  once  that  in  both  there  is  a  series  of  passages  in  which  '  Son 
3  of  Man  '  is  used  in  connexion  with  the  Parousia.  He  is  to  come 
unexpectedly  on  the  clouds  of  heaven,  seated  at  the  right  hand  of 
power. 

ofMan11    i         In  Maik'  but  n0t  in  Q'  tnere  are  e(lually  noticeable  passages 
andth^jl  in  which  the  name  of  Son  of  Man  is  connected  not  with  the 

Passion,      i  parougiaj  but  ^^  the  paggion> 

The  Son  of  Besides  these  passages,  in  which  '  Son  of  Man  '  is  connected 
either  with  the  Parousia  or  the  Passion,  there  are  three,  two  in 
S  Mark  and  one  in  Q,  in  which  the  original  meaning  of  Son  of  Man 
*  ^  seems  to  have  been  *  a  man,'  representing  the  Aramaic  Bar-nasha. 
^And  there  are  also  others,  both  in  Mark,  Q,  and  places  probably 
due  to  the  redactors,  in  which  the  words  as  they  stand  are  simply 
h  periphrasis  for  the  first  person,  though  it  is  possible  sometimes 
to  see  that  the  original  meaning  was  different. 


CHRISTOLOGY  377 

Comparing  the  synoptic  usage  with  the  Jewish,  the  first  and  Comparison 
third  of  the  phenomena  in  the  gospels  become  intelligible,  but  andSyn- 
the  second  remains  obscure.    The  passages  referring  to  the  °] 
Parousia  have  a  striking  resemblance  to  Jewish  usage  as  found  | 
in  the  Apocalypses.    There  is  a  close  resemblance  in  language, 
to  Daniel,  but  the  thought  is  even  closer  to  the  Similitudes  of  j^ 
Enoch.    The  likeness  to  4  Ezra  is  much  more  remote,  for  in  the 
gospels,  as  in  Daniel  and  Enoch,  the  '  Son  of  Man  '  comes  from  \M 
heaven,  while  in  4  Ezra  he  rises  from  the  sea.    This  has  some 
bearing  on  the  question  whether  the  kingdom  whose  coming 
was  announced  by  Jesus  was  the  Age  to  come  or  the  Days  of  the 
Messiah.    None  of  the  passages  in  which  Son  of  Man  is  found 
is  decisively  in  favour  of  either  view,  but  the  apocalyptic  section 
of  Mark  xiii.  seems  to  point  to  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man 
at  the  "  End  "—that  is  the  end  of  this  Age— to  bring  in  the  Age 
to  come.    It  is  therefore  all  the*more  important  that  the  Son 
of  Man  in  the  references  to  the  Parousia  in  the  gospels  resembles 
the  figure  in  Enoch  rather  than  in  4  Ezra  :    for  in  Enoch  he 
certainly  belongs  to  the  judgment  before  the  Age  to  come, 
while  in  4  Ezra  he  seems  rather  to  usher  in  the  Days  of  the 
Messiah. 

This  close  connexion  of  the  Son  of  Man  with  the  Parousia  is  The  Son 
the  most  clearly  primitive  point  in  the  Gospel  tradition.     It  is  and  the 
found  in  both  the  earliest  strata  in  the  tradition— Mark  and  Q—  Parousia- 
and  it  is  immediately  explicable  by  reference  to  contemporary 
Jewish  thought. 

It  is  quite  clear  from  the  general  context  that  the  writer  in 
these  passages  understands  Jesus  to  refer  to  himself,  but  the 
sentence  is  generally  so  turned  that  this  would  not  necessarily 
have  been  clear  to  the  original  hearer  of  Jesus.  In  Mark  xiv.  62 
Jesus  admits  that  he  is  the  Messiah,  speaking  in  the  first  person, 
and  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  third  person  :  but 
whether  he  identifies  the  Son  of  Man  with  himself  is  not  clear.  J 
In  xiii.  26  there  is  nothing,  except  the  tradition  of  exegesis,  to  • 
show  that  Jesus  meant  himself  when  he  said  that  the  last  sign  of  * 


378  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

the  end  would  be  the  appearance  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  clouds. 
In  viii.  38  Jesus  says,  "  Whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me  and 
my  words  in  this  generation,  of  him  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be 
ashamed  when  he  comes  in  the  glory  of  his  Father."    Here,  as  in 
xiv.  62,  the  natural  interpretation  would  surely  be  that  the 
speaker,  who  is  using  the  first  person,  cannot  be  the  same  as  the 
Son  of  Man  of  whom  he  speaks  in  the  third. 
Son  of  Man        This  is  important,  because  in  the  oldest  stratum  of  the  gospels 
=MeJiiah.   &  is  <&eaT  ^nat  Jesus  made  the  repentance  of  his  hearers  the 
object  of  his  mission.     Whatever  may  be  the  exact  relation 
*' ti  *  between  the  Enochian  Son  of  Man  and  the  Messiah,  it  is  impossible 
to  reconcile  the  '  Messianic  secret '  with  an  open  assertion  of 
identity  with  the  Son  of  Man  of  the  Apocalypses.     But,  if  the 
references  to  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  were   am- 
biguous on  this  point,  much  difficulty  is  removed,  though  neces- 
sarily at  the  expense  of  an  added  doubt  as  to  his  real  meaning. 
But  this  doubt  does  not  apply  to  the  writers  of  the  gospels.     It 
is  clear  that  they  regarded  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  Man  who  would 
come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  these  references  to  his  Parousia 
are  wholly  intelligible  in  the  light  of  Jewish  thought. 
Son  of  Man        Equally  clear  is  the  evidence  that  in  some  passages  '  Son  of 
(a)  the      j  Man  '  in  the  Greek  Gospels  is  due  to  the  literal  translation  of  an 
Sabbath.    |  Aramaic  tradition  in  which  Bar-nasha  had  been  used,  but— 
J  originally  at  least— with  no  reference  to  Apocalyptic  usage.     It 
had  meant  '  man  '  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  either  in  Greek 
translation    or  possibly  in   some    earlier  Aramaic    stage,   was 
taken  to  mean  Jesus  himself.     The  clearest  instance  of  this  is 
Mark  ii.  28  when  the  disciples  had  offended  the  Pharisees  by 
plucking  corn  on  the  Sabbath.     The  defence  offered  by  Jesus 
is  that  David  had  broken  the  Law  when  hunger  had  made  it 
necessary,  and  he  went  on  to  say,  "  The  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,  so  that  the  son  of  man  is 
Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath."     This  argument  does  not  state  that 
the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  because  he,  as  the  Son  of  Man,  is 
Lord  over  the  Sabbath,  but  on  the  contrary  concludes  that  man 


CHRISTOLOGY  379 

has  power  over  the  Sabbath  because  it  had  been  instituted  for 
his  benefit.     The  question  at  issue  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
position  of  Jesus,  but  with  the  inherent  rights  of  the  disciples 
as  men.     The  saying  of  Jesus  means  "  man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath, 
which  was  created  for  his  sake,"  and  the  phrase  "  Son  of  Man  " 
in  it  clearly  means  "Man"  and  is  due  to  a  mistaken  literal 
rendering  of  bar-nasha.     It  is  of  course  quite  probable  that 
the  writer  of  the  Greek  Mark  understood  the  phrase  to  refer 
to  Jesus,  but  if  so  the  coare  betrays  his  mistake :  it  is  noteworthy 
that  Matthew  felt  the  inappro^riateness  (from  his  point  of  view) 
of  the  &vt6  and  corrected  it  to  yap,  thus  treating  as  the  premiss 
of  the  argument  what  was  originally  (and  is  so  even  in  Mark)  a 
conclusion  from  it. 

A  similar  instance  is  probably  to  be  seen  in  Mark  ii.  10,-  WJorgi 
the  story  of  the  paralytic  who  was  lowered  down  through 
the  roof.    Jesus  said,  "  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,"  and  thus 
outraged  the  feeling  of  the  Pharisees  who  said  that  no  one  can 
forgive  sins  except  God.    The  answer  of  Jesus  was  to  cure  the 
paralytic  in  order  to  show  that  "  the  Son  of  Man  has  power 
on    earth    to    forgive   sins."      Christian    opinion    has    usually 
inclined   to   agree  with   the   Pharisees  as  to  the  forgiveness 
of   sin,  but  there   is   no   trace  in  the  story  that  Jesus  was 
claiming  to  have  power  denied  to  other  men,  though  no  doubt 
the  evangelists  interpreted  his  saying  in  that  way,  and  therefore 
perpetuated  it.    The  objection  of  the  Pharisees  was  that  Jesus, 
being  human,  was  blasphemously  arrogating  to  himself  divine 
power  by  a  claim,  unsupported  by  proof,  to  forgive  sin  ;    his 
answer  was  to  cure  the  paralytic  and  allege  that  this  was  a  proof 
not  that  he  was  divine,  but  that  the  claim  to  forgive  sin  was 
within  human  competence.    Thus  in  its  Greek  form  the  narrative 
seems  to  be  based  on  a  misunderstanding  of  Bar-nasha.    It  is 
curious  that  Matthew  seems  in  this  case  to  preserve  a  trace  of 
the  original  meaning  of  the  story  in  his  concluding  comment 
that  the  multitude  glorified  God  "  who  had  given  such  power 
to  men." 


380  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 

(c)  in  q.  That  this  influence  of  mistranslation  was  not  peculiar  to 

Mark,  but  also  affected  Q,  can  be  shown  by  comparison  of  Mark 
iii.  28  f.  with  Matt.  xii.  31  f.  and  Luke  xii.  10.    Mark  reads, 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  you  all  their  sins  shall  be  forgiven  unto  the 
sons  of  men,  ...  but  whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  hath  never  forgiveness."    Matthew  repeats  this 
statement,  merely  reading  <  men  '  for  '  sons  of  men  '  and  slightly 
modifying  the  construction,  but  adds  to  it  a  second  statement 
"  and  whosoever  shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man  it 
shall  be  forgiven  him,  but  whosoever  shall  speak  against  the 
Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world 
nor  in  the  world  to  come."    Luke  also  preserves  this  additional 
verse,  but  repeats  it  instead  of,  not  in  addition  to,  the  Marcan 
.  version.     It  is  tolerably  plain  that  it  comes  from  Q,  and  that 
X    i  Matthew  and  Luke,  recognising  its  identity  with  the  Marcan 
I  story,  followed  their  usual  editorial  method  :   Matthew  by  com- 
I  bining  the  two  versions,  and  Luke  by  selecting  one  of  them. 
The  tradition  has  obviously  been  confused  by  doubt  as  to  how 
yx  J  to  render  an  Aramaic  Bar-nasha.     Mark  correctly  took  it  as 
meaning  man  in  general ;    Q  regarded  it  as  the  personal  '  Son 
of  Man/  and  produced  a  rendering  which  no   one  has   ever 
|  yet  been  able  reasonably  to  explain,  not  unnaturally,  for  it  is 
a  mistranslation,  and  mistranslations  are  commonly  obscure. 

These  passages  point  to  the  introduction  of  6  vlb<;  rovdp0pco7rov 

into  Greek  documents  by  the  literal  unidiomatic  translation  of 

Bar-nasha.    A    preference    for    idiomatic    rendering    perhaps 

Kh  \  explains  the  absence  of  the  phrase  in  the  Pauline  epistles.    All 

|the  essentials  of  the  eschatological  doctrine  connoted  by  the 

J  apocalyptic  Son  of  Man  are  found  in  Paul,  but  not  the  phrase 

itself.     Is  not  this  because  he  was  too  good  a  Grecian  to  translate 

yfc  J  Bar-nasha  by  so  impossible  a  phrase  as  6  vlb<;  tov  avOpdnrov,  and 

j  rendered  it  idiomatically  by  6  avOpwiro^  ?    When  for  instance  he 

|  speaks  in  1  Cor.  xv.  47  of  the  second  "  man  "  as  the  Lord  from 

*  Heaven,  is  he  not  thinking  of  the  Bar-nasha  of  Enoch  ? 

These  problems  can  be  explained  by  the  linguistic  peculiarities 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  381 

of  Aramaic,  just  as  the  references  to  the  Son  of  Man  in  connexion 
with  the  Parousia  can  be  explained  by  Apocalyptic  imagery. 
But  the  passages  connecting  the  Son  of  Man  with  the  Passion* 
cannot  be  accounted  for  in  either  way,  and  they  are  the  most!  ' 
serious  difficulty  in  the  whole  problem. 

The  question  is  whether  the  predictions  in  these  passages  are  («0  Suffer- 
the  ipsissima  verba  of  Jesus,  or  the  later  interpretation  ol  his  death  of 
words.     They  are  all  in  Mark,  except  one  passage  in  Matthew  ^nSon  of 
and  one  in  Luke,  both  of  which  are  clearly  editorial  and  imitate 
the  style  of  Mark.1    All  are  based  on  the  same  model — the  words 
ascribed  to  Jesus  immediately  after  the  '  Confession  of  Peter  '  at 
Caesarea  Philippi.     "  And  he  began  to  teach  them,  saying,  the 
Son  of  Man  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  by  the 
elders  and  the  high  priests  and  the  scribes  and  be  put  to  death, 
and  rise  again  after  three  days." 

The  prediction  is  explicit  and  precise  :  it  could  not  possibly 
be  misunderstood  by  any  one.  But  the  student  of  tradition — 
especially  religious  tradition — is  aware  that  predictions  are  often 
given  explicit  precision  by  an  ex  post  facto  knowledge  of  the 
event.  Whether  this  was  so  in  the  tradition  of  Jesus'  prediction 
of  his  death  and  resurrection  can  best  be  tested  by  the  conduct 
of  his  disciples.  Did  they  behave  at  the  time  of  his  death  and 
resurrection  as  though  he  had  exactly  foretold  each  event  ? 
Certainly  they  did  not.  Moreover,  the  context  of  the  pre- 
dictions often  implies  that  the  disciples  did  not  immediately 
grasp  the  meaning  of  the  words.2  No  one  acquainted  with  the 
general  growth  of  tradition  can  doubt  that  this  means  that 
sayings,  obscure  at  the  time,  have  been  made  clear  in  the  light 
of  the  subsequent  events.     The  records  as  we  have  them  give 

1  Matt.  xxvi.  2  and  Luke  xxiv.  7.  Reference  may  also  be  made  to  the 
strange  phrase  peculiar  to  Luke  in  Luke  xvii.  22.  "  Ye  shall  desire  to  see  one 
of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  Man."  As  it  stands  it  probably  means  to  "  see  again 
the  time  when  Jesus  was  on  earth,"  but  the  context — the  description  of  the 
signs  leading  up  to  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man — suggests  that  in  the  source 
it  was  not  "  one  of  the  days  "  but  "  the  day  of  the  Son  of  Man." 

2  See  Mark  ix.  10  and  ix.  32. 


382  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

not  the  ipsissima  verba  of  Jesus,  but  the  meaning  put  upon  them 
by  the  disciples  or  by  the  evangelists.     The  recognition  of  this 
fact  suggests  that  though  Jesus  did  speak  to  his  disciples  of  his 
coming  rejection  by  the  Jewish  leaders,  and  of  his  ultimate 
triumph,  he  did  not  define  the  details  of  either  with  the  accuracy 
of  the  present  documents. 
Application        The  general  principle  that  these  sayings  have  been  edited  in 
Sonof Man.  ^ne  light  of  subsequent  events  is  often  accepted,  but  difference 
is  always  likely  to  exist  as  to  its  detailed  application  to  the 
phrase  Son  of  Man. 
(a)  Did  One  possibility  is  that  the  delineation  of  the  Son  of  Man  in 

understand  the  mind  of  Jesus  was  really  different  from  that  in  Enoch  or  in 
th^En   h  ^  ^zra-    According  to  this  view,  he  taught  that  the  Son  of  Man 
or  4  Ezra  ?  would  appear  first  as  an  ordinary  man,  not  on  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  and  would  be  rejected  with  contumely,  but  afterwards  be 
glorified  and  revealed  in  power  by  the  act  of  God.    The  drawback 
to  this  view  is  that  it  gives  to  the  Son  of  Man  characteristics  not 
merely  absent  from,  but  wholly  foreign  to  the  picture  of  him  in 
Enoch,  and  in  Ezra,  and  also  to  the  descriptions  of  the  Parousia 
in  the  gospels.     This  was  inevitable  for  Christians  after  the  event, 
when  Son  of  Man  had  come  to  mean  Jesus,  and  therefore  every- 
thing which  had  happened  to  Jesus  had  necessarily  happened 
to  the  Son  of  Man.     It  seems  less  likely  to  be  traceable  to  Jesus 
himself. 
(b)  Was  the        The  alternative  is  to  suggest  that  the  phrase,  Son  of  Man, 
added6 sub-   is  part  of  the  detail  added  by  Christians  to  the  Marcan  predictions. 
sequentiy  ?   gu£  ^jg  presents  two  possibilities  :  it  may  be  part  of  the  Aramaic 
tradition,  or  it  may  be  due  to  Greek  Christians,  who  introduced 
Son  of  Man  into  these  passages  without  any  clear  perception  of 
its  connotation.     But  it  is  not  necessary  to  decide  between 
.^    (  these  last  possibilities.     Obviously,  as  soon  as  the  faith  in  the 
Resurrection  spread,  it  was  inevitable  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Son  of  Man  would  be  modified  by  its  light.     The  only  way  in 
which  the  disciples  could  maintain  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  Man 
Iwas  to  maintain  also  that  he  was  destined  to  suffer,  die,  and 


CHRISTOLOGY  383 

rise  again  to  heaven,  whence  he  would  come  again  on  the  clouds. . 
But  until  all  sense  of  the  original  meaning  of  the  phrase  was 
lost  it  would  be  natural  for  the  disciples  to  keep  Son  of  Man 
as  the  title  of  the  glorified  Jesus.     Therefore,  so  far  as  this 
probability  goes,  it  gives  some  support  to  the  view  that  the : 
connexion  of  Son  of  Man  with  the  predictions  of  suffering  belongs 
to  Greek  Christians,  who  had  failed  to  appreciate  the  full  meaning 
of  the  phrase.1    It  became  to  them  merely  the  obscure  and 
mysterious  title  which  Jesus  had  traditionally  used  of  himself,  \ 
and  though  it  was  not  used  in  speaking  of  him,  was  put  into  his 
own  mouth  on  many  inappropriate  occasions. 

There  remains  the  question  whether  this  amplification  of  the  The  Suffer- 

...  .    a  ,     ,       ing  Servant 

connotation  of  Son  of  Man  is  due  to  the  literary  influence  o±  tne  and  the 
figure  of  the  Suffering  Servant,  or  to  the  actual  facts  of  the  Son  of 
Passion.     The  argument  in  favour  of  the  former  theory  is  that 
it  is  consistent  with  Christian  tradition,  and  that  there  seems 
no  other  literary  source  to  account  for  the  facts.     The  strongest 
argument  against  it  is  that  there  is  no  clear  reference  to  the 
Suffering  Servant  in  the  early  strata  of  the  Gospels,  though 
the  writers  were  not  prone  to  conceal  their  opinion  when  they 
saw  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy.     It  is  of  course  immaterial  for 
this  question  whether  the  amplification  of  the  idea  conveyed 
by  the  name  Son  of  Man  so  as  to  include  suffering  was  made 
by  Jesus,  foreseeing  his  own  sufferings,  or  by  his  disciples  after- 
wards.    The  point  is  that  it  was  the  knowledge  of  the  Passion, 
whether  prophetic  or  historic,  not  the  interpretation  of  Isaiah  liii., 
which  produced  the  gospel  narrative. 

The  most  probable  theory  seems  to  be  that  Jesus  spoke 

1  How  completely  this  is  true  of  the  next  generation  can  be  seen  in  the 
writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  Apologists,  and  writers  of  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  '  Son  of  Man  '  is  hardly  ever  used  :  it  becomes,  however,  in 
Irenaeus  complementary  to  '  Son  of  God  '  and  refers  to  the  Incarnation.  This 
is  not  because  the  idea  of  judgment  originally  connected  with  the  phrase  has 
been  lost :  it  is  still  emphasised  (cf.  the  opening  verses  of  2  Clement),  but 
the  phrase  itself  had  lost  its  original  meaning,  and  was  in  process  of  acquir- 
ing a  new  one  in  the  light  of  new  doctrines  which  it  was  afterwards  used  to 
corroborate. 


384  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

of  his  future  sufferings  in  general  terms,  and  that  his  disciples 
developed  his  sayings  in  accordance  with  the  event.  The 
editors  of  the  Gospels,  or  possibly  the  writers  of  their  sources,  used 
Son  of  Man  indiscriminately  as  a  periphrasis  for  the  first  person 
in  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  connected  it  with  his  predictions  of 
suffering.  Probably  they  had  at  first  no  passage  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  mind.  That  the  Messiah  or  the  Son  of  Man  should 
suffer  according  to  the  Scriptures  is  not  a  Jewish  doctrine,  and 
the  fact  that  Jesus  did  suffer  preceded  the  discovery  of  suitable 
prophecies. 

The  suffer-         Throughout  the  last  centuries  of  its  national  existence  the 

ing  Servant. 

misfortunes  of  Israel  were  reflected  in  its  literature  by  many 
vivid  descriptions  of  the  sufferings  of  the  righteous.    In  earlier 
days  prosperity  had  been  considered  the  reward  of  piety  ;  it  now 
began  to  be  seen  that  though  suffering  is  connected  with  sin  the 
punishment  does  not  always  fall  on  the  immediate  sinner  in 
proportion  to  his  guilt.     On  the  contrary,  in  this  world,  it  is 
often  the  righteous  who  suffer,  and  the  sinners  who  prosper.     The 
problem  which  arose  from  this  fact  was  dealt  with  in  several 
ways  by  the  Jews,  and  the  progress  in  thought  which  they 
showed  in  their  writings  does  not  always  correspond  to  the 
chronological  order  of  the  books.     The  two  lines  of  importance 
for  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  are  that  which  connects 
suffering  with  the  hope  of  resurrection  and  that  which  connects 
it  with  the  service  of  God.     Of  these  the  first  has  much  import- 
ance for  Christian  thought  generally,  but  does  not  seem  to  bear 
directly  on  the  growth  of  Christology ;  the  second  is  intimately 
connected  with  it,  especially  in  Luke  and  Acts, 
in  the  o.t.         In  the  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  which  develop  this  relation 
of  suffering  with  service  considerable  importance  attaches  to 
the  word  "  Servant  of  the  Lord  "  (ttyu?  tevplov).     This  phrase 
did  not  originally  connote  suffering  :   it  is  applied  to  Abraham, 
Moses,  Job  (in  the  days  of  his  prosperity),  David,  and  others, 
and  collectively  to  the  people  as  a  whole,  or  sometimes  to  the 


iv  CHKISTOLOGY  385 

"  pious  remnant."    But  the  course  of  history  seems  to  have 

impressed  Israel  with  the  close  connexion  which  existed  between 

the  service  of  the  Lord  and  suffering,  and  the  consciousness  of 

this  connexion  reached  its  highest  literary  expression  in  the 

Psalter  and  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah.    It  is  possible  that  the 

Wisdom  of  Solomon  ought  to  be  added  to  these.    Especially  in 

the  second  chapter  where  the  persecution  of  the  righteous  man 

by  the  wicked  is  described,  he  is  called  the  ttcu?  /cvplov,  and 

there  seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  Suffering  Servant  of  Isaiah, 

but  in  the  immediate  context 1  he  is  described  as  v to?  Oeov,  and 

it  is  therefore  possible  that  here  7rat?  means  '  son '  rather  than 

'  servant.' 

In  none  of  these,  however,  do  the  writers  appear  to  have  Not 

had  in  mind  any  prophetic  description  of  a  great  Sufferer,  and 

certainly  had  no  idea  of  relating  their  descriptions  of  suffering 

to  the  Davidic  Messiah  or  to  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  Apocalypses. 

The  Psalms  appear  to  be  intended  as  descriptions  of  the  suffering  % 

of  David,  regarded  as  the  type  of  the  righteous  sufferer  in  all  I 

ages,  whom  God  would  in  the  end  rescue.     Whether  the  writers 

really  had  David  continually  in  mind  or  not  is  immaterial :   it* 

was  certainly  the  general  view  of  the  first  century  a.d.    In  the  • 

"  Servant  "  passages  of  Isaiah  the  meaning  of  the  writer  is  open 

to  dispute.    He  may  have  had  in  mind  the  sufferings  of  some 

historic  personage ;    many  names  have  been  suggested  ;    for 

most  an  equally  good  or  bad  case  can  be  made  out.     But  if  so, 

he  was  describing  the  past,  not  predicting  the  future.    He 

cannot  have  been  thinking  of  the  Messiah,  and  probably  had 

never  heard  of  the '  Son  of  Man  '  as  he  appears  in  Daniel  or  Enoch. 

Jewish  interpretation,  which  for  the  exposition  of  the  Newf 

Testament  is  far  more  important  than  the  real  meaning  of  the  [ft  "* 

Old  Testament,  seems  always  to  have  looked  on  the  '  Suffering 

Servant '  as  the  personification  of  the  righteous  in  Israel,  who  are  I*     , 

oppressed  in  this  world  and  suffer  for  the  sins  of  their  nation, j|" 

but  will  in  the  end  be  redeemed  by  the  God  in  whom  they 

1  See  p.  388. 
VOL.  I  2  0 


386  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

trusted,  and  be  rewarded  in  the  world  to  come.  Similarly  in  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  x  the  righteous  man  who  calls  himself  the 
irah  of  the  Lord  and  claims  God  as  his  father,  and  in  the  end 
is  reckoned  among  the  sons  of  God,  is  obviously  the  personifica- 
tion of  the  whole  number  of  righteous  who  suffer  in  this  life. 

The  Christian  interpretation  of  these  passages  was  quite 
different.    Everything  was  referred  to  Jesus,  and  the  descriptions 
of  the  suffering  of  the  righteous,  especially  in  the  Psalms  and  in 
Isaiah,  were  interpreted  as  prophecies  of  his  Passion,  since  he 
was  considered  to  be  the  '  Suffering  Servant '  in  2  Isaiah,  as  well 
as  the  Messiah,  or  Davidic  King,  and  the  Son  of  Man  of  the 
Apocalyptic  hope.    The  attributes  of  each  of  these  three  figures 
became  interchangeable,  and  all  found  their  complete  fulfilment 
in  Jesus. 
The  identi-        The  problem  which  faces  the  investigator  of  the  New  Testa- 
jesus°with    nient  is  to  trace  the  process  by  which  this  identification  of  the 
*h(L.  Sufferer  with  Jesus  was  first  made.    Can  we  distinguish  any 

special  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  as  having  first  influenced 
Christian  thought  ?     Do  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  differ 
from  each  other  in  this  respect  ? 
Mark.  In  Mark  and  in  Q  there  are  no  clear  signs  of  any  identification 

of  Jesus  with  the  sufferer  of  Isaiah  liii.2    It  has,  however,  been 
%\  argued  that  the  use  of  the  word  (irapaSiSco/jLt)  in  Mark  xiv.  18,  21, 
j  etc.,  is  connected  with  the  constant  use  of  the  same  word  in 

Isaiah  liii.    If  there  were  other  clear  references  to  Isaiah  liii. 

i  > 

1  this  would  be  plausible,  but  in  their  absence  it  is  not  convincing  ; 
the  word  is  not  rare,  there  is  no  trace  of  a  quotation,  and  it  is 
hard  to  see  what  other  word  the  writer  could  naturally  have  used. 
It  seems  far  more  likely  that  irapaSiScofii  was  used  as  the  most 
natural  word,  though  probably  it  afterwards  did  much  to 
strengthen  the  Christian  interpretation  of  Isaiah  when  the  coin- 
cidence in  language  was  noted.     It  has  also  been  thought  that 

1  Wisd.  ii.  12  ff. 

2  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  the  quotation  of  Is.  liii.  12  in  Mk.  xv.  28 
is  not  part  of  the  true  text,  but  is  an  interpolation  from  Lk.  xxii.  37. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  387 

there  may  be  an  allusion  to  Isaiah  liii.  12  in  Mark  x.  45  ("  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many  ") ;  but  the  words  are  not  the  same, 
and  it  seems  no  more  justifiable  to  find  an  allusion  to  Isaiah  than 
an  interpolation  from  Paul.  The  idea  that  a  leader  is  willing  to 
die  for  his  followers  is  neither  new  nor  strange  :  the  remarkable  * 
thing  in  Mark  is  the  use  of  Xvrpov  and  this  is  not  found  in  Isaiah,  j 

The  one  clear  reference  in  Mark  to  the  Old  Testament  litera- 
ture of  suffering  is  the  cry  of  Jesus  on  the  Cross  from  the  Aramaic 
of  Psalm  xxii.,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  deserted  me." 
There  has  been  much  discussion  of  this  passage.     Of  course,  if 
the  view  *  is  accepted  that  it  is  not  historical,  but  that  Jesus  died 
with  a  loud  cry  which  the  evangelist  interpreted  as  the  Psalmist's 
words,  it  would  prove  that  Mark  interpreted  the  Psalm  as  a 
prophecy  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  Messiah,  and  that  he  "  wrote  up  " 
the  story  of  the  Passion  from  this  point  of  view.    Yet  few 
things  seem  more  improbable  than  that  any  early  Christian 
should  have  invented  a  final  cry  of  despair  by  Jesus.    Invention 
would  have  produced  a  cry  of  resignation  or  of  triumph  as  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.    But  if  this  cry  be  historical  it  cannot  be  taken 
as  evidence  as  to  the  Christology  of  Mark,  for  there  is  nothing 
else  in  his  narrative  which  connects  Jesus  with  Psalm  xxii. 
According  to  Mark  the  Jews  at  the  Cross  mocked  Jesus  as  a  false 
Messiah.     "He   saved   others,   himself  he  cannot  save.    The 
Messiah  !    The  King  of  Israel !    Let  him  now  come  down  from 
the  cross,  that  we  may  see  and  believe."    There  is  nothing  here 
reminiscent  of  Psalm  xxii.    But  to  any  one  who  reflected  on  the 
words  from  the  Cross  the  change  to  the  narrative  in  Matthew 
would  be  very  easy.     "  He  saved  others ;    himself  he  cannot 
save.     He  is  the  King  of  Israel,  let  him  come  down  now  from 
the  Cross,  and  let  us  believe  on  him.    He  trusted  in  God ;   let 
him  deliver  him  now,  if  he  will  hear  him,  for  he  said,  *  I  am  God's 
son.' '      The   quotation   here   is   obvious,    and    Matthew  has 
rewritten  the  narrative  of  Mark  not  only  in  the  light  of  Psalm 
xxii.,  but  also  in  that  of  Wisdom  ii.  12  ff.     "  Let  us  lay  wait 

1  Suggested  among  others  by  W.  Brandt,  Evangdische  Oeschichte. 


'* 


388  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

for  the  righteous  .  .  .  he  calleth  himself  a  child  of  the  Lord  (iraU 

Kvptou)  ...  he  blesseth  the  end  of  the  righteous,  and  boasteth 

that  God  is  his  father.    Let  us  see  if  his  words  be  true,  and  test 

them  by  his  end.    For  if  the  righteous  be  a  son  of  God  he  will 

help  him,  and  deliver  him  out  of  the  hand  of  his  adversaries."  x 

In  the  passages  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  which  are 

usually  ascribed  to  Q  there  is  one  passage  which  is  frequently  used 

to  connect  Jesus  with  the  figure  of  the  '  Suffering  Servant.' 

This  is  the  answer  given  by  Jesus  to  the  disciples  of  John  in 

Matthew  xi.  5  and  Luke  vii.  22.    John  had  heard  in  the  prison 

of  events  which  seemed  to  him  to  be  the  signs  of  the  Messiah — 

ra  epya  rov  Xpiarov — and  sent  to  inquire  further.    The  answer 

of  Jesus  was,  "  Go  and  tell  John  what  things  ye  see  and  hear  : 

the  blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the  lame  walk,  lepers  are 

cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  and  the  dead  are  raised,  and  the 

poor  hear  good  news."    In  Matthew  this  passage  is  placed  so 

that  the  list  of  miracles  is  a  summary  of  those  recorded  in  the 

preceding  sections.2    Most  of  these  have  been  taken  from  Mark, 

and  therefore  the  arrangement  cannot  throw  any  light  on  the 

original  meaning  of  Q.     Luke,  it  should  be  noted,  has  arranged 

the  material  differently,  and  to  give  point  to  the  words  of  Jesus 

introduces  a  summary  reference  to  a  special  series  of  miracles 

expressly  performed  for  the  sake  of  John's  disciples. 

A  parallelism  has  often  been  noted  between  this  passage  and 

Isaiah  lxi.  1,  in  which  the  preaching  good  news  to  the  poor  and 

the  giving  of  sight  to  the  blind3  are  among  the  blessings  promised 

1  'JL  '  S*°  restored  Israel.    But  though  this  passage  comes  in  Isaiah  it 

has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Suffering  Servant.    Moreover,  the 
5^A>  ii^v**  I  °  ...  .  .  i 

$  V*t*  W  *  other  signs  are  not  mentioned  in  Isaiah,  and  it  may  be  said  with 

1  Notice  also  the  change  in  Lk.  xxiii.  47  to  "  Truly  this  man  was  righteous  " 
y*.     |V^V*  *        from  "  Truly  this  man  was  a  son  of  God." 

2  Matt.  viii.  1-4 ;  ix.  1-7,  9-13,  18-25,  27-31,  32. 

^b  %  ^  *K  8  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  giving  of  sight  to  the  blind  is  only  found  in  the 

jr  LXX.  of  Is.  lxi.,  not  in  the  Hebrew.     This  has  some  bearing  on  the  origin  of 

•^  the  story.     It  is  as  improbable  that  Jesus  quoted  the  LXX.  as  it  is  certain  that 

Luke  was  accustomed  to  do  so. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  389 

confidence  that  the  redactor  of  Matthew  did  not  notice  any 
quotation  here  :  had  he  done  so  he  would  almost  certainly  have 
made  it  plainer  in  accordance  with  his  marked  predilection  for 
finding  fulfilment  of  prophecies  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Even  if 
this  be  not  so,  and  there  was  really  an  allusion  in  Q  to  Isaiah  lxi.  1, 
it  is,  after  all,  connected  entirely  with  these  miracles  of  healing 
and  not  with  the  Passion,  for  there  is  nothing  about  suffering  in 
Isaiah  lxi. 

In  Matthew  viii.  17  there  is  a  direct  quotation  of  Isaiah  liii.  4,  Matthew. 
but  the  context  shows  that  the  editor  did  not  regard  this  chapter 
as  prophetic  of  the  suffering  of  Jesus.  It  is  clearly  a  merely 
verbal  reminiscence  of  Isaiah,  taken,  as  was  commonly  done  by 
Jewish  scribes,  entirely  apart  from  its  context,  so  that  "  Himself  l 
took  our  infirmities  and  bare  our  diseases  "  became  a  prophecy 
of  the  healing  miracles  of  Jesus,  not  of  his  Passion. 

Similarly  in  Matthew  xii.  17,  which  belongs  to  the  editor  of  the 
gospel,  not  to  Mark  or  Q,  there  is  an  undoubted  identification 
of  Jesus  with  the  Servant,  by  a  direct  quotation  from  Isaiah  xlii. 
But  (oddly  enough)  this  passage  does  not  refer  to  suffering,  but 
to  the  injunction  of  Jesus  not  to  make  his  miracles  known  to 
the  multitude.  There  is  also  the  remarkable  passage  in  Matthew1 
xxvii.  42,  quoted  above,  in  which  the  Marcan  account  of  the 
conduct  of  the  Jews  watching  the  Crucifixion  is  so  rewritten  as 
to  contain  clear  references  to  Psalm  xxii.  and  to  Wisdom  ii.  The 
difference  between  the  Marcan  text  and  this  Matthaean  re- 
daction admirably  illustrates  the  difference  between  the  original 
tradition  and  one  affected  by  the  Christian  interpretation  of 
Psalm  xxii. 

The  evidence  is  too  slight  and  negative  to  allow  of  certainty  t 
in  drawing  conclusions,  but,  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  suggests  that  the 
earliest  reference  to  the  "  suffering  "  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  to  Psalm  xxii.,  in  the  cry  of  Jesus  on  the  Cross.  This, 
led  Matthew,  but  not  Mark  or  Q,  to  see  a  fulfilment  of  Psalm  xxii. 
elsewhere,  and  to  combine  other  details  of  the  Passion  with  it 
and  with  the  description  in  Wisdom  of  the  sufferings  of  the 


390  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

righteous.  There  is  a  striking  lack  of  any  evidence  that  Isaiah 
liii.  was  as  yet  (or  in  the  circles  represented  by  Matthew)  used 
as  a  prophecy  of  Jesus.  The  picture  of  the  herald  of  good  tidings 
in  Isaiah  lxi.  is  used,  but  not  in  connexion  with  the  Passion. 
There  is  no  more  trace  of  a  Christian  interpretation  of  the 
'  Servant '  in  Isaiah  regarded  as  a  sufferer,  than  there  is  in  Mark 
or  Q. 
(d)  Luke  The  situation  is  markedly  different  in  Luke  and  Acts.    At 

an  cts.  ?  j  fae  opening  of  the  Gospel  narrative,  whereas  Mark  summarises 
/**|the  preaching  of  Jesus  as  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand. 
Repent ! "  Luke *  represents  Jesus  as  beginning  his  public 
ministry  by  reading  Isaiah  lxi.  1  ff.  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth, 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  hath  anointed 
me  to  announce  good  tidings  to  the  poor  ;  he  hath  sent  me  to  heal 
the  broken-hearted,  to  preach  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and 
recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are 
bruised."  "  To  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,"  and 
saying,  "  To-day  hath  this  scripture  been  fulfilled  in  your  ears." 
f  k«W  j  This  identifies  Jesus  with  the  Servant,  but  it  does  not  refer  to 
^*  %*A  f  the  Passion,  and  is  not  taken  from  a  "  suffering  "  chapter  in 
tt  n*fw4t*  Isaiah.  In  this  respect  it  does  not  go  beyond  Matthew.  In 
Luke  xxii.  37,  however,  the  quotation  from  Isaiah  liii.  12,  "  and  he 
was  reckoned  with  the  transgressors,"  explicitly  regards  the 
suffering  of  the  Servant  as  a  prophecy  fulfilled  by  the  Passion  of 
Jesus.  This  marks  the  difference  between  Luke  and  the  other 
Gospels.  The  evidence  of  Acts  is  similar  :  even  in  x.  36,  tov 
\6yov  bv  aireareiXev  (Psalm  cvii.  20)  is  defined  as  evayyeXt^ofievos 
elprjvrjv  (probably  a  reminiscence  of  Isaiah  lii.  7)  and  the  \6yov 
is  finally  explained  as  the  pr\\xa  or  story  of  Jesus,  "  how  God 
anointed  (e^piaev)  him  with  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  reference 
to  Isaiah  lxi.  1  is  clear,  especially  in  the  light  of  Luke  iv.  18, 
which  describes  the  baptism.  The  identification  of  the  Servant 
with  Jesus  is  obvious ;  even  here,  however,  if  it  stood  alone  it 
would  be  possible  to  urge  that  it  is  not  the  suffering  of  the  Servant 

1  Luke  iv.  18  ff. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  391 

which  is  the  point  of  the  fulfilment.  But  in  Acts  viii.  32  the 
direct  quotation  of  Isaiah  liii.  7  ("  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the 
slaughter,"  etc.)  is  expressly  taken  as  prophetic  of  Jesus. 

In  Acts  iii.  13  the  phraseology  "  the  God  of  our  Fathers 
glorified  his  servant  Jesus  "  seems  reminiscent  of  Isaiah  lii.  13. 
The  text  of  this  passage  is  IBov  a-vvrja-ei  6  irah  jjlov,  koX 
vtycodrjaercu  koL  So^ao-drjcreTat  acfroBpa,  and  thus  contains  the 
two  prominent  words  of  Acts  iii.  13 — iralha  and  iSo^aae.  But 
i&ogaae  was  a  natural  word  to  use  in  the  context,  and  is  insuffi- 
cient to  show  whether  in  calling  Jesus  the  7tgu?  of  God  the  writer 
was  thinking  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  or  of  other  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  where  the  phrase  is  applied  to  the  great  men 
of  Israel,  or  was  merely  using  a  well-known  designation  of  those 
who  served  God  faithfully.  The  only  reason  for  the  usual  view 
is  that  all  the  references  in  Acts  iii.  and  iv.  to  Jesus  as  the  irals 
of  God  are  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  clear  quotation  of 
Isaiah  liii.  7  f.  in  Acts  viii.  32.  This  is  sufficient  evidence  to 
establish  the  opinion  of  the  editor  of  Acts,  but  it  proves  nothing  : 
for  the  original  meaning  of  the  source  of  Acts  iii.  and  iv.,  unless 
it  be  regarded  as  certain  that  these  chapters  come  from  the  same 
source  as  Acts  viii.  There  is,  however,  reasonable  doubt  on  this 
point,  and  it  is  slightly  more  probable  that  Acts  iii.  and  iv. 
represent  a  Jerusalem  tradition,  while  Acts  viii.  is  connected 
with  Caesarea  and  the  Hellenistic  circle  to  which  Philip  belonged. 
If  this  view  be  adopted  it  is  tempting  to  suggest  that  the  inter- 
pretation  of  Isaiah  liii.  as  a  prophecy  of  Jesus  was  first  introduced 
by  Hellenistic  Christians,  for  there  is  no  positive  evidence  of  its  | 
existence  in  sources  which  certainly  represent  the  thought  of  the 
first  disciples  in  Jerusalem,  but  it  was  clearly  part  of  the  teaching 
of  Philip. 

The  Pauline  epistles  and  Acts  present  an  interesting  contrast  The 
on  this  subject.    In  Acts  the  Passion  of  Jesus  is  identified  with  Epistiee8 
the  suffering  of  the  Servant,  but  nowhere  is  described  as  giving  and  Acts' 
salvation  to  men.    In  the  speeches  of  Peter  and  Stephen  the 
death  of  Jesus  is  regarded  as  the  wicked  act  of  the  Jews,  parallel 


7* 


392  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

to  their  fathers'  persecution  of  the  prophets.1  If  men  desire 
salvation  let  them  repent,  and  be  baptized.2  On  the  other  hand, 
in  the  epistles  the  death  of  Christ  brings  salvation,  but  nowhere 
is  Jesus  identified  with  the  Suffering  Servant.  The  contrast  is 
very  strange,  and  cannot  be  explained  away  by  saying  that  it  is 
based  on  silence.  The  argumentum  e  silentio  has  its  weakness, 
but  it  is  not  so  indefensible  as  the  opposite  defect  of  reading  into 
one  document  what  is  only  to  be  found  in  another. 

The  Son  of         In  the  Old  Testament,  Elohim,  the  word  translated  Go'' 

(is  a  plural  and  may  signify  either  the  God  of  Israel,  heathen  g' 
angels,  or  even  great  men.     The  plural  may  possibly  indicr 
earlier  polytheistic  creed,  and  be  a  survival  of  the  old  r 
Thus,  as  '  sons  '  or  c  son  of  man  '  is  the  equivalent  an 

beings,  so  the  *  Sons  of  Elohim ' 4  contrasted  in  G  /i.  4 

with  the  '  daughters  of  men '  may  be  gods  ;    th  i  later 

apocalyptic  Judaism  the  explanation  is  that  t-  i*e  fallen 

angels.5 

Sonehip  But  the  orthodox  faith  of  the  prophets  v  monotheism. 

to  Jehovah.  Israel  worshipped  Jehovah,  a  god  who  r  L  severely  alone, 

enthroned  in  majesty.     He  had  chop  nation  for  himself 

and  demanded  their  exclusive  wor  Thou  shalt  have  no 

other  gods  before  my  face."     T7  could  have  had  no  off- 

spring to  dispute  the  honour  „o  his  name  ;    nevertheless 

the  words  father  and  son  a-  go  express  Jehovah's  attitude 

to  Israel.  Thus  in  Exodu  I  Aovah  says,  "  Israel  is  my  first- 
born son,'  6  and  in  Hosea,  '  I  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt.'  7  The 
same  metaphor  is  used  in  2  Samuel  vii.  when  David  desired  to 


*«t 


1  Acts  ii.  22  f. ;  iii.  17  ;  and  vii.  51  f. 

2  Acts  ii.  38,  but  not  iii.  19. 

8  In  Genesis  Abraham  is  made  to  use  a  plural  with  Elohim,  "  the  gods  caused 
me  to  wander,"  and  the  massorites  add  a  cautionary  note  that  Elohim=God. 

4  «  Sons  of  God »  occurs  in  Gen.  vi.  2,  Job.  i.  6,  where  they  and  Satan 
among  them  present  themselves  before  Jehovah,  Job  xxxviii.  7,  '  the  sons  of 
God  shout  for  joy,'  the  clause  being  parallel  to  the  rejoicing  of  the  '  morning 
stars.'  6  Enoch  ^ 

8  Exodus  iv.  22.  »  Hosea  xi.  1. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  393 

build  the  Temple  but  is  forbidden  to  do  so,  because  it  is  reserved 
for  bis  son.  Nathan,  speaking  in  Jehovah's  name,  says  of 
Solomon,  '  I  will  be  to  him  a  father  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  son.' 
Here  a  father  means  one  who  will  exercise  parental  authority  and 
will  chastise  Solomon  if  he  deserves  it.  "  If  he  commit  iniquity 
I  will  chasten  him  with  the  rod  of  men,  and  with  the  stripes 
of  the  children  of  men  :  but  my  mercy  (tdH  the  affection  of  a 
father  for  a  son)  shall  not  depart  away  from  him  as  I  took  it 
from  Saul." 

Whatever  may  be  the  date  of  the  prophecy  of  Nathan,  its  h.  Sam. 
interpretation  in  Psalm  lxxxix.  is  undoubtedly  later.  In  the  P"'  J^xix 
interval  between  the  Prophecy  and  the  Psalm  the  idea  of  David 
had  been  transformed.  The  fall  of  the  royal  house  of  Judah  had 
caused  it  to  be  regarded  as  the  representative  of  the  whole  nation, 
whose  glories  had  departed  with  its  kingdom.  The  captive  king 
Jehoiachin  who  had  been  taken  to  Babylon  in  early  youth  was 
regarded  with  romantic  tenderness,  and  his  deliverance  from 
prison  by  Evil-Merodach  was  hailed  as  the  restoration  of  hope 
for  the  whole  nation. 

A  new  estimate  of  David  was  the  result  of  the  calamities  . 
of  his  house,  and  he  was  pictured  as  the  special  favourite  of  bt 
Jehovah,  '  a  man  after  his  own  heart.'  In  Chronicles  nothing  1 
is  permitted  to  appear  to  his  discredit,  and  in  the  89th  Psalm 
the  words  spoken  of  Solomon  are  applied  to  him,  and  he  acknow- 1* 
ledges  God  as  his  father.  David  thus  becomes  the  typical 
righteous  man  and  so  a  son  of  God.1 

In  this  way  the  idea  of  Sonship  underwent  a  twofold  develop- 
ment. The  connexion  of  the  phrase  with  David  and  his  house 
made  it  appropriate  as  the  title  of  the  anointed  king  in  the  2nd 
Psalm.  "  The  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves,  and  the  rulers  take 
counsel  together,  against  Jehovah,  and  against  his  anointed.  .  .  . 
I  will  declare  the  decree :  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my 
Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.  Ask  of  me,  and  I  shall  give 
thee  the  heathen  for  an  inheritance,"  etc.     This  line  of  thought, 

1  Ps.  lxxxix.  26,  '  He  shall  cry  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  father.' 


394 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


mft 


The 

righteous 
as  a 
sufferer. 


through  its  presentation  in  the  Psalms,  continued  to  be  central  in 
the  Jewish  hope  of  a  Davidic  Messiah,  who  would  overthrow  the 
heathen  ;  the  classical  example  of  its  use  in  the  literature  almost 
contemporary  with  Christianity  is  the  17th  Psalm  of  Solomon, 
and  it  probably  explains  the  fondness  of  4  Ezra  for  making  God 
refer  to  the  Messiah  as  his  Son.1 

But  in  other  circles  a  more  ethical  and  less  military  develop- 
ment took  place.  Attention  was  centred  not  on  David  or  his 
family,  but  on  the  quality  of  righteousness — and  frequently 
suffering  righteousness — which  the  David  of  the  Psalms  repre- 
sents. The  finest  presentation  of  this  development  is  in  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  where,  not  the  king,  but  the  righteous  man 
in  adversity  is  pictured  as  the  '  Son  of  God.'  2  The  same  idea 
can  also  be  found  in  Jubilees  i.  19-25.  "  And  they  (repentant 
Israel)  shall  be  called  children  of  the  living  God  ;  and  all  angels 
and  spirits  shall  know  that  they  are  my  children,  and  that  I  am 
their  father.3    Moreover  in  Hellenistic  circles  the  fact  that  uto? 


<£ 


1  "  Behold,  0  Lord,  and  raise  up  unto  them  their  king,  the  son  of  David,  at 
the  time  when  thou  seest,  O  God,  that  he  may  reign  over  Israel  thy  servant. 
And  gird  him  with  strength  that  he  may  shatter  unrighteous  rulers.  ... 

"...  He  shall  thrust  out  sinners  from  the  inheritance.  He  shall  destroy 
the  pride  of  the  sinner  as  a  potter's  vessel,  with  a  rod  of  iron  he  shall  break  in 
pieces  all  their  substance  "  (Ps.  Sol.  xvii.  22-24). 

In  4  Ezra  the  influence  of  Ps.  ii.  7  is  seen  in  the  Messianic  reign  of  400 
years  in  chapter  vii.  '  My  Son  the  Messiah  '  (Latin,  films  mens  Jesus,  an  ob- 
viously Christian  correction)  shall  be  revealed  '  at  the  beginning  '  (verse  28), 
and  at  the  end  '  My  Son  the  Messiah '  will  die  (verse  30).  At  a  late  date  the 
Jews  tried  to  combat  the  Christian  explanation  of  Ps.  ii.  7.  "  From  this 
verse  we  find  a  retort  against  the  Minim  (Christians),  who  say  that  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He,  has  a  Son  ;  and  thou  canst  remonstrate  that  the  words  are  not 
4  a  son  art  thou  to  me,'  but  thou  art  my  son,  like  a  servant  to  whom  his  Lord 
vouchsafes  encouragement,  saying  to  him,  '  I  love  thee  as  my  son.'  " 

2  Cf.  also  Ecclus.  iv.  10,  yivov  bpcpavois  ws  irar^p,  Kal  dvrl  avdpbs  t-q  /jLyrpl  airCov, 
teal  &rj7  cl>s  utos  vipivTov,  Kol  dya-wqaet  ae  fxaXXov  ^  f^VTVP  ff0V>  or  according  to  the 
Hebrew,  "  Then  God  will  call  thee  '  Son  '  and  will  be  gracious  to  thee,  and 
deliver  thee  from  the  Pit."  It  is  also  noticeable  that  even  the  Psalms  of 
Solomon  have  this  use  of  Son  of  God.  Cf.  Ps.  Sol.  xvii.  30,  yv&aerai  yap  avrofo 
6tl  iravres  viol  Beov  avrQv  elal  (which  seems  to  reflect  Deut.  xiv.  1) ;  Ps.  Sol. 
xviii.  4,  Kal  7]  ay&7n)  crov  4ttI  a-wkpiia  'AfUpa&fi,  vloi/s  'Ict/nx^X,  7]  -rraidela  <rov  4<f>'  rjfxas  u>s 
vlbv  irpwrbTOKov  fiovoyevi),  and  Ps.  Sol.  xiii.  8, 6'rt  vovder^aei  dtKcuov  ws  vibv  ayair^aecos 
Kal  7]  Tatdeia  avrov  cos  irpworbKOV. 

8  See  B.  W.  Bacon,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  pp.  24  ff. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  395 

and  7rat9  are  used  synonymously  in  Wisdom,  though  elsewhere 
irah  translates  11$  and  means  *  servant/  paved  the  way  for  I  x 
the  Christian  use  of  the  Old  Testament  passages  referring  to  the 
servant  of  the  Lord,  especially  in  Isaiah,  and  Christians  who 
used  the  Septuagint  were  enabled  to  see  indications  of  the  Divine 
sonship  of  Jesus  in  all  passages  containing  the  word  irah. 

Thus  *  Son  of  God '  could  be  taken  by  a  Jew  of  the  first  Meaning 
century  with  a  wide  range  of  meaning  depending  entirely  on  hisjcod.011 
view  of  the  context.     (1)  In  contrast  with  a  '  son  of  man'  it |l*^^ 
might  be  used  for  a  god,  but  as  Jehovah  was  the  only  God,  the  > 
sons  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament  were  necessarily  regarded 
as  Angels.     (2)  Since  Jehovah  was  a  Father  to  Israel  the  true . 
representative  of  Israel  was  in  a  special  sense  his  son.     (3)  This 
representative  was  sometimes  identified  with  the  King,  and*t 
hence  especially  with  the  expected  Messiah.     (4)  Sometimes  he  j 
was  identified  with  the  '  righteous,'  i.e.  the  true  Israel,  and 
found  consolation  for  their  sufferings  in  the  consciousness  of  their  | 
relation  to  God. 

In  the  earliest  strata  of  the  gospels  the  title  "  Son  of  God  "|Son  in  Q. 
is  rare.     In  Q  the  exact  phrase  is  only  found  in  the  account  of* 
the  Temptation,  but  there  is  one  isolated  passage  containing  the  I  * 
word  Father  applied  to  God,  and  Son  apparently  applied  tot** 
Jesus.     It  is  found  with  small  variation  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 

"  At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank  thee,  0  ; 
Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these ! 
things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto 
babes.  Even  so,  Father  :  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight. 
All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father  :  and  no  man 
knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father  ;  neither  knoweth  any  man 
the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will 
reveal  him.',  1 

As  this  stands  it  clearly  employs  language  which  resembles 
the  Johannine  and  later  Christian  usage^nd  is  quite  different 

1  A.  von  Harnack  has  made  a  heroic  attempt  to  rewrite  the  text,  but  the 
evidence  is  small  and  the  result  unsatisfactory.     See  his  Beitrdge,  ii.  p.  189  ff. 


396  PKIMITIVE  CHKISTIANITY  m 

from  anything  else  in  Mark  or  Q.  It  is  very  improbable  that  it  is 
an  accurate  representation  of  the  mind  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  earliest 
Christian  thought,  for  nowhere  else  in  the  earliest  strata  does 
Jesus  appear  as  revealing  God  to  those  who  are  ignorant  of  him, 
nor  was  that  the  message  of  the  disciples  to  the  Jews.  It  does, 
however,  exactly  reflect  the  attitude  of  the  earliest  Greek  Chris- 
tianity, such  as  is  found  in  Paul's  speech  at  Athens.  It  is, 
therefore,  not  impossible  that  these  rhythmical  verses,  which 
,  sound  so  liturgical,  represent  an  early  Greek  Christian  utterance 
■  which  had  found  its  way  into  the  Greek  Q  used  by  Matthew  and 


Luke,  or  possibly  was  inserted  independently  by  both.     The 
;  exact  similarity  of  language  in  the  two  gospels  shows  that  the 
source  used  here  was  Greek  and  not  Aramaic. 
The  *  Son '         The  only  other  passage  in  Mark  or  Q  which  at  all  resembles 
xUL1^     | tllis  is  ^ark  x"i-  32  :   "  But  concerning  that  hour  knoweth  none, 
neither  the  angels  in  heaven  nor  the  Son,  save  the  Father." 
I  The  textual  variations  in  this  passage  are  late,  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  this  is  the  oldest  form.     But  the  Greek  is  curious, 
for  the  parenthesis  with  its  double  ov&i  is  harsh,  and  the  el  prj 
seems  to  require  a  position  closer  to  ovSefc.     All  attempts  to 
reconstruct  the  passage  are  quite  hopeless.     All  that   can  be 
said  is  that  as  it  stands  it  implies  the  theory  of  the  unique  son- 
ship  of  Jesus  in  a  manner  without  parallel  in  Mark.     Possibly, 
*2    |  however,  "  the  Son  "  here  represents  an  original  "  Son  of  Man  " 
,.     Jin  the  sense  in  which  the  phrase  is  used  in  Enoch.     Possibly,  too, 
*  el  fir)  6  0eo?  may  have  been  originally  a  gloss  by  some  scribe 
JM«  |  who  was  unwilling  to  leave  anything  to  the  imagination. 

Neither  of  these  passages  can  be  taken  as  representing  the 
earliest  tradition.  They  serve  rather  as  a  warning  to  remember 
that  the  Gospels,  as  we  have  them,  are  Greek.  It  would  be  a 
literary  miracle  if  they  contained  no  traces  of  Greek  Christian 
thought.  To  criticise  them  in  the  light  of  this  fact  is  "  sub- 
jective," but  to  regard  a  refusal  to  do  so  as  "  objective  "  is  the 
verbal  decoration  of  a  process  which  is  in  reality  merely  mechani- 
cal.   Subjective  methods  in  such  cases  may  give  wrong  results  ; 


IV 


CHRISTOLOGY  397 


mechanical  ones  will  certainly  do  so.  The  compilers  of  the 
Gospels  were  assuredly  subjective,  and  criticism,  which  is,  after 
all,  merely  the  attempt  to  reverse  the  process  of  compilation,  must 
follow  the  same  method. 

Putting  aside  these  passages  as  either  not  primitive  or  as  Son  occurs 
hopelessly  obscure,  the  title  Son  of  God  is  found  in  Mark  six^VariT 
times,  twice  in  the  mouth  of  demoniacs,1  twice  as  spoken  by  the) 
Voice  from  Heaven,2  once  in  the  question  of  the  high  priest  in 
the  Sanhedrin,3  and  once  in  the  exclamation  of  the  centurion  at 
the  cross.4  Of  these,  the  question  of  the  high  priest  and  the 
exclamation  of  the  centurion  present  little  difficulty.  The  high 
priest  was  seeking  an  accusation  which  would  be  serious  in 
Roman  ears  :  by  "  the  Messiah,  the  son  of  God,"  5  or  possibly 
"  the  anointed  son  of  God,"  he  must  have  meant  the  Davidic 
Prince  who  would  destroy  the  power  of  the  Gentiles  and 
restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel.  The  centurion  either  meant 
nothing  more  than  "  righteous,"  as  Luke  probably  thought,  or 
he  was  using  the  phrase  with  some  heathen  connotation  which  is 
quite  unimportant  for  the  present  purpose. 

Thus,  like  "  Son  of  Man,"  "  Son  of  God  "  is  not  used  by  the  Meaning  of 
disciples  in  speaking  of  Jesus,  but,  unlike  it,  is  not  represented  ^ Bap* 
as  used  by  Jesus  himself  :  it  is  found  only  in  supernatural  utter-  *58m  and 
ances  by  God  and  by  demons.     It  is  scarcely  possible  to  discover,  ation. 
or  worth  asking,  what  the  demoniacs  meant,  and  Mark  must 
have  interpreted  them  in  the  same  way  as  the  Voice  from  Heaven. 
The  matter,  therefore,  resolves  itself  into  the  exposition  of  the 
Voices  from  Heaven  at  the  Baptism  and  at  the  Transfiguration, 
"  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased." 

The  words  are  almost  the  same,  and  it  is  not  strange  that 
some  investigators  have  thought  that  the  narratives  are  a 

1  Mark  iii.  11 ;   v.  7= Matt.  viii.  29= Luke  viii.  28. 

2  Mark  i.   ll=Matt.  iii.  17= Luke  iii.   22;    Mark  ix.   7= Matt.   xvii.   5= 
Luke  ix.  35. 

8  Mark  xiv.  61= Matt.  xxvi.  63= Luke  xxii.  66  f. 

*  Mark  xv.  39= Matt,  xxvii.  54= Luke  xxiii.  47. 

5  "  The  Blessed  "  is,  of  course,  merely  metonomy  for  God. 


398  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

"  doublet  "  in  tradition  of  the  same  incident.    But  the  editor 
of  the  Gospel  certainly  distinguished  them,  and  the  slight  differ- 
ence in  the  words  of  the  Voice  on  the  two  occasions  is  significant. 
At  the  Baptism  the  Voice  says,  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in 
thee  I  am  well  pleased  (€v86KVaa)."    At  the  Transfiguration  it 
says,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  hear  him."     The  obvious  differ- 
ence is  that  the  first  voice  is  a  revelation  to  Jesus,  the  second  to 
the  disciples  ;   but  a  further  point  is  concealed  by  the  English. 
irft  I  EvBofcrjaa  is  the  equivalent  of  some  phrase  containing  the  Hebrew 
2  -im,  which  is  constantly  rendered  in  the  Targums 1  by  jnriN,  and 
in  biblical  Greek  evboida  and  its  derivatives  mean  not  so  much 
the  moral  approbation  of  God  on  what  is  past,  as  his  self-deter- 
mined choice  and  favour  for  the  future.     The  Baptism  is  the 
Marcan  account  of  the  revelation  to  Jesus  of  God's  choice. 

There  are,  then,  two  separate  questions  in  connexion  with 
the  meaning  of  this  Voice  from  Heaven.  How  did  Mark  interpret 
it  ?    How  did  Jesus  himself  think  of  it  ? 

The  meaning  in  Mark  is  not  wholly  clear,  but  in  one  respect 

at  least  it  differs  from  Matthew  and  Luke.     No  one  reading 

;  Mark  by  itself,  without  knowledge  of  the  other  gospels,  would 

!  doubt  that  he  means  that  Jesus  was  chosen  as  Son  of  God  at 

[the  Baptism,2  and  that  the  Voice  at  the  Transfiguration  was  the 

^announcement  to  the  disciples.     To  him  the  Divine  Sonship  of 

Jesus  begins  at  the  Baptism  just  as  to  Luke  it  begins  at  the  Birth. 

m  ..But  this  does  not  decide  definitely  whether  Mark  saw  in  this 

I  voice  a  quotation  from.Psalm  ii.,  and  whether  he  regarded  '  Son  ' 

J  as  meaning  the  Davidic  Messiah.     The  question  here  may  be 

subordinate  to  the  general  problem  of  the  Davidic  Messiahship, 

but  the  words  of  the  Voice  are  not  a  clear  quotation  from  the 

1  See  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  p.  227  (Eng.  tr.,  p.  277). 

^^  *  It  is  true  that  the  Church  anathematized  those  who  said  that  the  Divine 

•*<*W  Sonship  of  Jesus  was  Kar'  eteortau.     If  the  Fourth  Gospel  be  followed    the 

~      J  church  was  right,  but  Kar'  edSoriav  exactly  describes  what  Mark  says    'The 

Marcan  point  of  view  struggled  on  for  some  generations  ;   and  its  story  has  not 

}  yet  been  properly  written.     In  spite  of  certain  textual  vagaries  there  is  immense 

learning  and  much  truth  in  H.  Usener's  Weihnachtfest. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  399 

Psalm.1  The  Psalm  omits  *  beloved/  and  does  not  say  *  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased,'  but  this  '  day  have  I  begotten  thee.' 
It  is  only  '  the  Son '  which  supports  the  quotation.  This  fact 
was  early  noticed  by  the  scribes  of  Luke,  and  the  text  used  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria,2  and  found  also  in  D  and  some  Old  Latin 
authorities,  was  corrected  to  agree  with  the  Psalm.  Similar 
corrections  have  as  a  rule  found  their  way  into  the  later  text 
of  the  Antiochene  revisers,  but  this  was  rejected  by  them,  doubt- 
less because  it  seemed  Adoptionist.3 

The  probability  is  that  Mark  saw  no  reference  to  the  Old* 
Testament,  and  merely  recorded  the  Voice  from  Heaven  as  anjr  * 

historic  fact.     It  is  possible  that  there  was  a  tendency  to  interpret '"'^,A 

i  «*  fas 
the  Voice  in  connexion  with  Isaiah  xlii.  1  fL,  for  the  curious  text  | 

of  this  verse  in  Matthew  xii.  18  agrees  neither  with  the  LXX. 
nor  with  the  Hebrew,  but  has  affinities  with  the  Targum,  and  I 
in  its  use  of  evBo/crjcra  seems  to  re-echo  the  Voice  from  HeavenJL^ 
The  fact  that  this  quotation  is  in  Matthew  connected  with  the 
Messianic  secret  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  that  it  was  used 
differently  elsewhere,  and  that  the  Voice  was  interpreted  as  the 
recognition  by  God  of  his  Servant.  But,  possible  though  this 
may  seem,  it  is  incapable  of  demonstration,  and  it  is  more  likely 
that  Mark  connected  the  Voice  from  Heaven  with  no  special 
passage  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  support  of  this  view  is  the 
reference  in  Acts  xiii.  33  to  the  2nd  Psalm,  and  its  accurate 
quotation  as  a  prophecy  of  the  Resurrection :  "  God  hath 
fulfilled  the  same  ...  by  raising  up  Jesus  :  as  it  is  written 
in  the  second  psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee."  Early  Christians  were  capable  of  seeing  several  fulfil- 
ments of  one  prophecy  without  troubling  much  about  the  logic 
of  this  proceeding,  but  it  is  improbable  that  the  source  used  in 
Acts  would  have  been  written  in  these  words  if  the  connexion 

1  It  is  noticeable  that  Westcott  and  Hort  do  not  print  it  as  one.  >^ 

2  Justin  Martyr  has  the  same  reading,  but  whether  he  was  using  Luke  is 
doubtful. 

3  This  explanation  of  the  textual  difficulty  seems  more  probable  than 
Harnack's  view  that  the  Bezan  text  of  Luke  is  that  of  Q. 


400 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


of  the  Psalm  with  the  Baptism  had  been  universally  recognised. 
Of  course  Acts  xiii.  is  not  identical  with  Mark,  but  the  source 
underlying  it  seems  to  be  very  early  and  to  have  more  affinity 
with  Mark  than  with  the  later  editor  of  Luke  or  Acts. 

,       It  is,  therefore,  possible  that  Mark  did  not  see  any  quotation 

1 1  in  the  Voice  from  Heaven  ;  did  Jesus  do  so  ?  The  question 
cannot  be  answered  definitely,  for  we  can  never  with  certainty 
reach  behind  the  gospels  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  himself,  nor  can 
we  be  sure  that  they  always  interpreted  him  correctly.  The 
problem  is  a  complicated  one,  and  can  best  be  stated  in  the 
form  of  questions.  Did  Jesus  believe  that  he  was  the  Davidic 
M  |j  Messiah  ?  If  he  did  not,  what  can  have  been  the  interpretation 
which  he  put  on  the  Voice  from  Heaven  ? 

The  difficulty  of  the  first  question  has  been  discussed  on  pages 
364  f .    The  second  brings  back  the  question  of  quotation.    Clearly 

«  it  is  very  doubtful  that  the  Voice  from  Heaven  was  inaccurately 
quoting  the  2nd  Psalm :  but  if  it  was  not  doing  so  it  might 
have  been  interpreted  by  Jesus  on  the  same  lines  as  the  references 

i  to  the  Son  of  God  in  Wisdom,  and  evSofcrjaa,  or  the  corresponding 

]  Aramaic,  on  the  same  lines  as  in  Matthew's  version  of  Isaiah  xlii. 

'  In  that  case  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  would  not  be  that 
of  the  Messiah,  but  of  the  '  righteous  man,'  whom  God  chose 

I  as  his  Son.     The  problem  cannot  be  solved  ;    nevertheless  it 


exists. 


Son  of  God 

^LukeW|  Matthew  and  Luke  is  clearer 


The  interpretation   of  '  Son   of   God '  by  the  redactors  of 

Without  doubt  they  took  it  to 
I  express  a  unique  relation  between  God  and  Jesus,  who  was 
^||supernaturally  conceived,  born  as  the  Davidic  Messiah,  and 
||recognised  by  the  Voice  from  Heaven  at  the  Baptism.  This  is 
especially  clear  in  the  case  of  Luke,  for  he  is  careful  to  explain 
at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel  why  Jesus  is  called  Son  of  God. 
"  «  Fear  not,  Mary,'  "  says  the  angel  at  the  Annunciation,  "  *  for 
thou  didst  find  favour  with  God,  and  lo  !  thou  shalt  conceive, 
and  bear  a  son,  and  call  his  name  Jesus.  He  shall  be  great, 
and  shall  be  called  son  of  the  Most  High,  and  the  Lord  God  shall 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  401 

give  him  the  throne  of  David  his  Father,  and  he  shall  reign  over 
the  house  of  Jacob  forever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be 
no  end.'  And  Mary  said  to  the  angel,  '  How  shall  this  be,  since 
I  know  no  husband  ?  '  And  the  angel  answered  and  said  to  her, 
'  A  holy  spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  power  of  the  Highest 
shall  overshadow  thee,  wherefore  also  the  holy  offspring  shall 
be  called  Son  of  God.'  "  Nevertheless,  elsewhere  Luke  does 
not  specially  emphasise  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus. 

It  is  possible,  and  even  probable,  that  Matthew  meant  the 
same  as  Luke,  but  it  may  be  that  he  regarded  the  supernatural  [| 
conception  of  Jesus  as  the  preparation  of  some  one  fitted  to  j 
become  the  Son  of  God  kclt    evBo/clav  at  the  Baptism.     This 
would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  emphasis  laid  by  Matthew! 
on  the  Davidic  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  with  his  interpretationl 
of  Son  of  God  in  this  sense.     His  interest  in  this  is  shown  very 
plainly  in  the  confession  of  Peter  in  chapter  xvi.  16  by  adding  tot 
the  Marcan  "  Thou  art  the  Messiah,"  the  explanatory  "  the  Son! 
of  the  living  God."     In  general,  however,  Matthew  prefers  to 
draw  attention  to  the  special  relation  between  Jesus  and  God  by 
making  Jesus  speak  of  God  as  his  Father,  rather  than  by  referring 
to  him  as  God's  Son. 

This  raises  a  point  which  has  been  so  much  discussed  in  The 
modern  books  that  the  facts  have  become  obscure.     Two  mutu-  ^Go^and 
ally  exclusive  positions  have  been  advanced,  often  simultaneously.  Sonship  of 
One  is  that  the  Synoptics,  and  especially  their  source  Q,  show 
that  the  main  message  of  Jesus  was  the  general  Fatherhood  of 
God ;    the  other  is  that  they  were  intended  to  point  out  the 
peculiar  Sonship  of  Jesus.     The  first  is  entirely  erroneous,  the 
second  partially  so. 

There  are  few  points  on  which  there  has  been  so  much  con- 
fusion  in  modern  times  as  on  this  subject  of  the  Fatherhood  of  ||-*fc. 
God.     Yet  the  facts  are  clear  and  indisputable.     The  Fatherhood 
of  God  is  a  characteristically  Jewish  doctrine,  found  in  equal!* 
abundance  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  Rabbinic  literature.!  * 
It  is  only  by  a  natural  and  intelligible  inconsistency  Jewish 

VOL.  I  2  T> 


»»q 


402  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  in 

writers  spoke  of  any  particular  individual  or  any  special  class 
as  God's  son  or  children. 

This  Fatherhood  of  God  is  not  represented  in  Mark  or  in  Q 
as  characteristic  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  or  of  the  Apostles, 
though  no  doubt  it  was  part  of  their  concept  of  God.    Until 
.  jj  controversy  with  polytheism  began,  there  is  no  sign  that  Chris- 
tianity ever  claimed  to  be  a  new  message  as  to  the  nature  of  God. 
,|The  God  of  Jesus  and  of  his  disciples  is  identical  with  the  God 
of  the  Jews  :   his  message  was  not  the  announcement  that  God 
is  a  Father  or  King — that  was  assumed  as  part  of  the  common 
belief  of  Israel — it  was  rather  instruction  as  to  the  kind  of  conduct 
required  from  the  children  and  subjects  of  God,  and  the  future 
in  store  for  the  obedient  and  disobedient. 
Sonship  of         Neither  is  it  true  that  the  special  "  Sonship  "  of  Jesus  is 
emphwLd.  emphasised  in  the  earliest  strata  of  the  Gospels.     In  Mark  and 
in  Q  there  is  very  little  about  it ;  it  played  no  part  in  the  public 
teaching  of  Jesus,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  favourite 
figure  for  expressing  the  disciples'  belief  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah.     In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  it  is  only  Matthew  who  in 
any  way  emphasised   this   idea,  which  he  does  by  frequently 
introducing  the  phrase  '  My  Father  '  into  the  sayings  of  Jesus.1 
\  This  characteristic  is  found   throughout  the  gospel  and  may 
therefore  be  certainly  regarded  as  due  to  the  Greek  editor  who 
made  the  final  recension  rather  than  to  his  Jewish  sources.    By 
it  the  editor  clearly  implied  a  special  relationship  of  Jesus  to 
God ;   but  his  exact  meaning  is  more  doubtful.    He  may  have 

1  The  grouping  of  the  passages  which  contain  Father  is  significant,  and 
can  be  made  plain  at  once  by  tabular  representation  : 

Mark.  Q.  Matthew.  Luke.  John. 

Father  ...      3  11  45  17  118 

This  distribution  is,  when  analysed,  seen  to  be  made  up  thus  : 

Mark.  Q.  Matthew.  Luke.  John. 

My  Father 2  18  (16)  4  (2)  24 

The  Father    ...      1  2  2  (1)  6  (3)  77 

Your  (thy)  Father  ...  4  18  (14)  3  (2)  1 

Father  (vocative)  .         .      1  3  6  (3)  3  (0)  5 

These  figures  speak  for  themselves,  and  a  consideration  of  the  possibility 

that  some  even  of  those  in  Mark  and  Q  are  not  the  genuine  words  of  Jesus 

strengthens  the  supposition  which  they  make. 


iv  CHR1ST0L0GY  403 

meant  by  this  phraseology  to  imply  Jesus'  consciousness  that *  ^.^ 
he  was  the  Davidic  Messiah,  or  that  he  was  the  son  kclt  evhoiclav,  { 
or  that  he  had  been  miraculously  born  as  God's  son,  or,  possibly,  C 
though  not  probably  that  he  stood  in  a  special,  metaphysical/ 
relation  to  God. 

In  the  Pauline  epistles  and  Fourth  gospel  a  further  stage  is 
reached  in  the  meaning  and  use  of  the  phrase.     It  is  more  fre-i 
quent,  more  central,  and  increasingly  metaphysical,  but  to  treat ^ 
this  development  is  outside  the  scope  of  this  discussion.     The 
main  point  is  that  the  phraseology  of  *  Father '  and  '  Son '  is  I 
used  to  describe  a  metaphysical,  not  a  physical  relationship,' 
such  as  Luke  had  in  mind,  or  a  moral  one,  depending  on  God's \ 
choice,  such  as  Mark  implies.     This  is  probably  true  of  all  the" 
epistles,  but  is  much  more  emphasised  in  the  later  than  in  the| 
earlier  ones.     There  are  also  less  frequent,  but  unmistakable 
signs  of  the  belief  that  Christians  obtain  divine  sonship  by  a 
supernatural  and  metaphysical  change.     This  is  most  clearly 
expressed  by  Paul  in  the  saying  that  "  As  many  as  are  led  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God,"  which  links  up  this 
doctrine  to  the  Spirit  and  to  the  glorified  Christ  who  has  become 
a  "  quickening  spirit."     It  is  also  described  in  Paul  as  a  resurrec- 
tion, and  in  John  as  a  new  birth,  and  in  each  case  is  clearly 
connected  with  Baptism. 

There  remains  one  other  application  to  Jesus  of  the  language  Jesus  as 
of  the  Old  Testament — that  which  describes  him  as  a  prophet.  prop  e 
That  he  was  regarded  by  himself  and  by  his  disciples  as  inspired 
with  the  spirit  of  God  is  certain,  and  justifies  his  description 
as  a  prophet ;   but  two  interesting  variations  of  this  belief  can 
be  traced  in  the  earliest  literature. 

According  to  Mark  viii.  28,  there  was  in  some  Galilean  circles 
a  tendency  to  regard  Jesus  as  the  reincarnation  of  one  of  the 
prophets,  and  popular  opinion  had  wavered  between  Elijah  and 
John  the  Baptist.  Mark  clearly  rejected  this  opinion,  which 
plays  no  part  in  subsequent  Christian  thought.    It  is,  however, 


404 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


The 

'prophet' 
in  Deut. 
xviii. 


♦Tft 


quite  in  accord  with  the  belief  in  the  reincarnation  of  the  righteous, 
in  which,  according  to  Josephus,  the  Pharisees  believed.1 

The  exact  reverse  is  true  of  another  line  of  thought  found  in 
Acts :  it  has  no  Jewish  antecedents,  though  found  among  the 
Samaritans,  but  it  became  part  of  the  fabric  of  later  Christian 
thought.  This  is  the  identification  of  Jesus  with  the  "  Prophet 
like  unto  Moses  "  referred  to  in  Deut.  xviii.  14,  and  the  presence 
of  this  interpretation  in  the  general  Christian  tradition  of  exegesis 
after  the  third  century  2  has  created  the  impression  that  it  was 
a  generally  recognised  Jewish  doctrine  that  a  great  prophet 
"  like  unto  Moses  "  would  arise  in  the  last  days.  It  has  been 
held  that  in  Jewish  thought  this  figure  was  recognised  as  the 
"  Prophetic  Messiah."  This  point  of  view  is  common  in  modern 
commentaries,  and  in  books  on  the  Jewish  doctrines  of  the 
Messiah,  but  in  point  of  fact  its  origin  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the 
Talmud  or  in  Apocalypses,  but  in  A.  F.  Gfrorer's  Das  Jahrhundert 
des  Heils  published  in  1838.  In  this  learned  and  very  instructive 
book  a  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  ordinary  prophetic 
figure  (gemein  prophetisches  Vorbild)  of  the  Messiah,  the  Danielic 
figure,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Mystic-Mosaic  figure. 

Gfrorer  traced  back  the  Mosaic  Messiah  to  two  sources. 
First,  the  general  tendency,  common  to  Jewish  and  Christian 
writers,  to  think  that  the  "  end  shall  be  as  the  beginning,"  so 
that  the  story  of  the  forefathers  of  Israel  contains  a  description 
of  all  the  features  of  the  Messianic  period.  This  is  true,  and  to 
a  certain  extent  it  is  possible  that  Moses  may  have  been  regarded 
as  a  type  of  the  Messiah.  But  this  is  merely  a  part  of  the  general 
system  of  Jewish  exegesis,  in  which  any  passage  may  be  quoted 
for  any  purpose,  entirely  apart  from  its  context  or  original 
meaning.  There  is  no  proof  that  Jews  in  the  first  century  looked 
on  the  Messiah  as  a  return  of  Moses,  or  as  "a  second  Moses  "  in 
any  true  sense  of  the  phrase.    In  the  second  place,  Gfrorer  urged 


i  See  p.  113. 

2  It  is  implied  in  John  and  found  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Paed.  1.  7)  and 
in  Tertullian  (contra  Marcionem  22).     See  also  p.  406. 


IV 


CHRISTOLOGY  405 


that  the  passage,  Deuteronomy  xviii.  15,  19,  must  have  been 
interpreted  of  the  Messiah,  in  order  to  account  for  the  Christian 
tradition. 

These  theories  were  accepted  as  facts,  and  have  been  treated 
as  indisputable  by  writers  of  whom  it  may  probably  be  said 
without  injustice  that  few  have  actually  read  Gfrorer  ;  had  they 
done  so  their  knowledge  would  have  been  greater  and  their 
certainty  less,  since  Gfrorer  deduced  the  Mosaic  Messiah  from 
Acts,  whereas  they  assumed  such  a  figure  in  order  to  explain  it. 
There  is,  in  fact,  no  evidence  at  all  in  favour  of  the  view  that. 
Jewish  writers  of  the  first  century  or  even  much  later  ever  inter- (!|  ,- 
preted  Deuteronomy  xviii.  13  ff.  of  the  Messiah,  or  of  the  coming  |* 
of  a  specially  great  prophet  like  Moses.     It  meant  to  them  the 
divine  institution  of  prophets  as  an  order  in  Israel,  and  the 
passage  read  in  its  context  shows  that  they  were  right. 

"  Thou  shalt  be  perfect  with  the  Lord  thy  God.  For  these 
nations,  which  thou  shalt  possess,  hearken  unto  them  that 
practise  augury,  and  unto  diviners  ;  but  as  for  thee,  the  Lord  thy 
God  hath  not  suffered  thee  so  to  do.  The  Lord  thy  God  will 
raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy 
brethren,  like  unto  me ;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken.  .  .  .  And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  that  whosoever  will  not  hearken  unto  my 
words  which  he  shall  speak  in  my  name,  I  will  require  it  of  him. 
But  the  prophet  which  shall  speak  a  word  presumptuously  in  my 
name,  which  I  have  not  commanded  him  to  speak,  or  that  shall 
speak  in  the  name  of  other  gods,  that  prophet  shall  die." 

The  meaning  is  clear 
will  have  prophets  like  Moses 
shows  conclusively  that  a  succession  of  prophets,  not  merely  onei 
great  prophet,  is  intended. 

The  only  possible  source  of  confusion  is  provided  by  another  Moses  a 
passage  (Deut.  xxxiv.  10)  which,  after  relating  the  death  of  Moses,    Prophet- 
says :    "  And  there  hath  not  arisen  a  prophet  since  in  Israel 
like  unto  Moses  whom  the  Lord  knew  face  to  face."    But  the 
meaning  here  is  that  no  prophet  equal  to  Moses  has  arisen  :   it 


other  nations  use  sorcery,  but  Israel  g 
oses  to  guide  them.     The  last  verse  P^ 


406  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  ra 

might  have  been  interpreted  in  combination  with  the  previous 
passage  as  hinting  at  a  great  prophet,  and  he  again  might  have 
been  identified  with  the  Messiah,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Jewish  writers  ever  made  these  combinations. 

The  only  early  evidence  for  the  so-called  Mosaic  Messiah, 

;  apart  from  Christian  sources  is  Samaritan.     They  had  a  peculiar 

doctrine  of  a  "  Restorer  "  (Taheb),  based  on  exactly  this  com- 

j  bination  of  Deuteronomy  xviii.  13  ££.  with  Deuteronomy  xxxiv. 

1 10,   previously  discussed,   and  strengthened  by  their  reading 

"  no  prophet  shall  arise,"  instead  of  "  has  arisen,"  in  the  latter 

passage.     For  not  having  canonical  prophets,  but  desiring  to 

equal  the  Jewish  expectation  of  the  Messiah,  the  Samaritans 

were  driven  to  this  view.     It  is  true  that  their  literature  which 

witnesses  to  this  belief,  is  not  earlier  than  the  fourth  century, 

and  much  depends  on  the  accuracy  of  the  information  given  by 

Samaritans  to  Europeans,  beginning  with  Scaliger  in  the  six- 

I  teenth  century ;    but  the  probability  is  that,  on  this  point  at 

^'l  least,  Samaritan  sources  really  represent  a  primitive  belief.1 

Tradition  After  the  third  century  the  tradition  that  the  reference  to  the 

waas  the"8    prophet  persisted  among  Christian  exegetes  "  like  unto  Moses  " 

MkPhett     *n  Deuteronomy  was  prophetic  of  Jesus.     This  tradition  can 

Moses.'        be  traced  back  as  far  as  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Tertullian, 

and  was  perpetuated  by  Origen  and  Eusebius,  but  whether  it 

existed  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  is  doubtful.    Justin 

Martyr  and  Irenaeus  do  not  quote  Deuteronomy  xviii.    13, 

and  the  Apologists,  even  in  the  Dialogue  of  Justin  with  Trypho 

and  the  Apostolic  Fathers  seem  ignorant  of  its  application.     The 

>jonly  evidence  in  favour  of  its  existence  in  the  second  century  or 

|  earlier  is  the  reference  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  *  the  prophet '  2 

where  the  definite  article  cannot  easily  be  interpreted  except  in 

connection  with  some  such  belief  in  the  coming  of  a  prophet 

who  would  be  distinguished  from  all  his  predecessors.     That 

this  view  was  connected  with  the  interpretation  of  Deuteronomy 

xviii.  13  if.  cannot  be  proved,  but  it  seems  extremely  probable. 

1  See  J.  H.  Montgomery,  The  Samaritans.  2  John  i.  21  ff. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  407 

The  result  is  obvious.     The  writer  of  Acts  puts  into  Peter's . 
mouth,  as  though  it  were  likely  to  appeal  to  Jews,  an  argument  If  ^ 
which  suggests  a  Samaritan  belief.    It  would  surely  have  been  * 
out  of  place  in  Jerusalem  ;  nor,  except  for  the  possible  reference 
in  John,  does  it  appear  in  Christian  literature  until  the  third  H* 
century.     This  difficulty  is  increased  if  we  accept  the  theory* 
that  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  are  based  on  an  Aramaic  source, 
possibly  emanating  from  Jerusalem.     It  seems  unlikely  that 
such  an  argument  would  have  been  used  in  it,  and  it  is  legitimate 
to  inquire  whether  there  are  any  indications  that  the  original 
source  used  by  the  editor  of  Acts  embodied  an  argument  so 
suspiciously  Samaritan. 

A  convincing  case  cannot  be  presented,  but  it  is  worthy  of  Two  lines 
note  that  two  lines  of  thought  alternate  in  the  speech  after  iii.  17,  ^  Actegiii. 
for  vv.  18, 22  f.,  26  refer  to  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  and  19-21,  24  ff. 
refer  to  the  Parousia  of  the  Messiah.  The  latter  is  complete 
without  the  other,  as  may  be  seen  by  reading  the  speech  in  that 
form.  "  Repent,  therefore,  and  turn  again,  that  your  sins  may 
be  blotted  out,  that  there  may  come  seasons  of  refreshing  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  that  he  may  send  you  Jesus,  the 
Messiah  who  has  been  appointed  for  you,  whom  the  heavens  must 
receive  until  the  time  of  the  restoration  of  all  things  whereof  God 
spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets,  which  have  been  since 
the  beginning  of  the  world.  Yea,  and  all  prophets  from  Samuel, 
and  them  that  followed  after,  as  many  as  have  spoken,  also  told 
of  these  days.  Ye  are  the  sons  of  the  prophets  and  of  the  covenant 
which  God  made  with  your  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham, 
'  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.'  " 

The  "  sending  "  of  the  Messiah  Jesus  is  here  clearly  regarded 
as  future,  and  the  promises  made  by  God  through  the  Prophets 
and  to  be  inherited  by  the  Jews  if  they  repent  are  regarded 
as  future  and  eschatological.  But  the  passage  w.  18,  22  ff.  is 
different.  It  refers  to  the  promise  of  sending  "  a  prophet," 
and  leads  up  to  the  conclusion,  "  God  having  raised  up  his 
Servant,  sent  him  to  bless  you  in  turning  away  every  one  of  you 


408  PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY  m 

from  your  iniquities."  Here  the  sending  of  the  Servant,  and 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  the  prophets  is  already  past, 
and  is  not  eschatological. 

No  doubt  this  type  of  criticism  is  dangerous,  and  admittedly 
it  cannot  be  regarded  as  giving  certain  results.  But  Luke  is 
surely  using  a  source,  and  his  treatment  of  Mark  proves  him  to 
be  capable  of  interpolating  and  changing  the  meaning  of  his 
sources.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  suggestion  is  not  that 
the  text  of  Acts  was  interpolated,  or  that  chapter  iii.  was  ever 
essentially  different  from  its  present  form.  The  writer  was  here 
trying  to  show  that  the  prophets  had  foretold  the  life,  death, 
and  glory  of  Jesus.  But  the  question  is  whether  he  did  not 
elaborate  this  argument  on  the  basis  of  his  source,  and  it  is  argued 
that  though  he  was  too  good  a  writer  to  leave  many  plainly 
visible  seams,  it  is  possible  to  detect  some  elements  which  are  not 

J  likely  to  have  been  used  in  Jerusalem,  or  to  have  been  embodied 
in  an  early  Aramaic  source,  but  may  have  been  contributed  later 
on  by  some  side  branch   of  tradition  affected  by  Samaritan 

Ithought. 

The  Lord.  The  titles  applied  to  Jesus  which  have  hitherto  been  con- 

sidered have  been  Jewish  terms,  which  either,  like  Son  of  Man, 
lost  all  meaning  when  translated  into  Greek,  or,  like  Son  of  God, 
acquired  a  new  significance.  The  history  of  "  Lord  "  x  is  essenti- 
ally Greek,  but  it  resembles  "  Son  of  God,"  in  that  behind  it  there 
.is  an  Aramaic  word,  and  that  it  soon  was  interpreted  in  accord- 
^jjlance  with  its  Greek  connotation  rather  than  with  the  meaning 

I  which  it  had  had  in    Ara/mmV 


r$ 


*»j 


which  it  had  had  in  Aramaic 
Maran.  p  \{      There  is  nothing  in  the  Gospels  which  proves  that  "  Lord  " 

I1  The  literature  of  this  title  is  all  quite  recent.     The  first  really  full  in- 
vestigation of  its  history  is  W.  Bousset's  epoch-making  Kyrios  Christos,  Gottin- 
gen,  1913.     Important  contributions  on  parts  of  its  history  are  Heitmiiller, 
"  Zum  Problem  Paulus  und  Jesus,"  Z.N.W.  xiii.  (1912),  pp.  320-337  (esp.  p.' 
*  J  333) ;  Deissmann,  Licht  vom  Oaten,  2nd  ed.  pp.  295  ff. ;  J.  Weiss,  "  Christus  "  in 
^iReligionsgeschichtUche  Volksblicher,  i.  18,  pp.  24  ff.  ;  Bohlig,  "Zum  Begriff  rfptos 
I  bei  Paulus,"  Z.N.W.  xiv.  (1913),  pp.  23  ff.,  and  the  same  writer's   Geistes 
*  |  Kultur  von  Tarsos. 


IV 


CHKISTOLOGY  409 


was  used  of  Jesus  by  his  disciples  during  his  ministry.     The^ 
word  is  characteristic  of  the  later  strata  of  the  Synoptic  tradition, 
and  there  is  no  convincing  evidence  that  it  translates  an  Aramaic  ^  ^^ 
phrase,  and  was  not  introduced  by  the  Greek  editors.    There  is, 
however,  evidence  supplied  in  1   Cor.  xvi.  22  which  demon- 
strates that,  whatever  be  the  fact  in   the   Gospel   tradition, 
it  was  actually  used  by  Aramaic-speaking  Christians.    When 
Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians  "  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord 
let  him  be  accursed.    Maranatha,"   he  is  obviously   quoting 
Aramaic,  and,  whatever  the  meaning  of  Maranatha  may  be,  it  \  x 
certainly  contains  the  Aramaic  word  Maran,  "  Our  Lord." 

This  word  seems  to  have  been  constantly  used  in  the  vocative  i  x 
as  an  appellation  of  respect,  corresponding  closely  to  Kvpce  in 
Greek,  or  to  "  My  Lord  "  or  "  Sir  "  in  English.    It  could  not, l 
however,  be  used  absolutely,  but  only  with  a  personal  suffix  or 
a  descriptive  genitive.     This  usage  is  reflected  in  the  Syriac^*r& 
version  of  the  Gospels  which  habitually  translated  Kvpuos  by  * 
Maran  (our  Lord),  thus  distinguishing  the  word  from  Lord  in  the  h 
sense  of  God,  for  which  a  special  form  Marya  seems  to  have  been 
invented  by  the  translators  of  the  Peshitta  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  was  adopted  later  by  the  Christians  who  made  the  Syriac  j 
version  of  the  New  Testament.     Maran  therefore  may  quite  as 
well  translate  or  be  translated  by  6  /cvpio?  as  by  6  /cvpios  rjfiwv.1 

Mar,  however,  was  not  customarily  used  in  any  form  by  the  Mar 
later  Jewish  writers  to  represent  any  of  the  names  of  God,  which!  ^ 
they  preferred  to  render  by  some  variant  of  the  root  n.     It  is,| 
however,  occasionally  found  in  Targums.     It  was  generally  a 
title  of  high  respect,  and  among  Babylonian  Jews  it  ultimately 
became  a  title  of  honour  for  distinguished  Rabbis ;  but  this  custom 
cannot  be  traced  back  to  the  first  century,  and  seems  never  to  have 
obtained  in  Palestine.     As  an  appellative,  and  with  a  pronominal    ^ 
suffix  or  a  genitive,  it  might  have  been  used  as  a  suitable  form  of  1 
address  equivalent  to  Rabbi,  but  more  deferential.    A  curious  l 
story  in  Philo  also  shows  that  it  was  recognised  by  foreigners  as 

1  See  F.  C.  Burkitt,  Evangelion  de-Mepharreshe,  ii.  pp.  97  ff. 


410 


PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


<* 


Kupios. 


*    I 


the  correct  Syriac  form  of  address  to  a  ruler.  In  his  In  Flaccum 
cap.  5-6,  he  tells  how  Agrippa's  failure  to  land  incognito  at 
Alexandria  led  to  a  mob  insulting  him  at  the  instigation,  or  with 
the  connivance,  of  Flaccus.  Among  other  things  a  miserable 
lunatic  called  Karabas  was  dressed  up  in  imitation  of  royal 
vestures  and  greeted  in  mocking  as  Marin— eW  ck  TrepiearcoTo*;  iv 
KV/c\a)  TrXrjOovs  z%r)xei  @°V  TO  aroiro^  "  Mdpiv  "  airoKakovvTwv, 
ovrcos  Be  (f>aai  rov  tcvpiov  ovofid^ecrOat  irapa  %vpois,  r/Seiaav 
yap  ' 'AypLTTTrav  koI  ykvei  %vpov  /cal  %vpla<;  fjueydXwv  diroTopJqv 
eyovTO,  97?   ifiaaiXevcrev. 

This  curious  story  seems  to  show  that  Maran  or  Mari  might 
take  with  it  somewhat  different  associations  from  those  of  Rabbi, 
and  would  imply  a  relation  similar  to  that  between  a  master  and 
his  slaves,  or  between  a  king  and  his  subjects.  The  evidence  of 
heathen  Syriac  goes  somewhat  further  :  coins  and  inscriptions 
show  that  Mar  as  well  as  Baal  was  used  as  a  title  of  honour  for 
gods.1  It  might  have  been  expected  that  the  word  would  be 
used  of  the  Messiah,  but  there  is  apparently  no  evidence  that 
this  was  so. 

The  word  tcvpios  in  Greek,  which  is  the  natural  equivalent  of 
Mar  has  a  wider  range  of  meaning,  and  as  soon  as  Mari  or  Maran 
was  translated  into  Greek  by  Kvpios,  the  associations  and  implica- 
I  tions  of  this  word  among  Hellenistic  Jews  and  Gentiles  became 
more  important  than  those  of  the  original  Aramaic  word. 

For  the  use  of  the  word  among  Hellenistic  Jews  almost  our 
*  I  only  source  of  evidence  is  Philo,  who  must  be  treated  with  some 
I  reserve  as  sui  generis,  and  not  necessarily  observing  the  usual  use 
of  words.  He  is  of  course  largely  influenced  by  the  Septuagint, 
which  translates  the  tetragrammaton  by  /cvpios,  thus  making  the 
Greek  word  a  divine  title  and  almost  a  proper  name.  Philo  is, 
however,  anxious  to  distinguish  the  meaning  of  icvpios  from 
^60?,  and  holds  that  icvpio<$  refers  to  the  royal  aspect  of  God, 

1  See  H.  Bohlig,  "Zum  Begriff  Kyrios  bei  Paulus,"  Z.N.W.  xiv.  pp.  28  ff., 
where  he  quotes  Fr.  Bathgen,  Beitrage  zur  semitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  and 
Hill,  Catalogue  of  the  Greek  Coins  of  Cilicia,  pp.  165-176. 


CHRISTOLOGY  411 

0609  to  his  beneficence,  yapl(TTlKW  V*v  ™v  ^vv^ec0<;  "  0€O<?>" 
j3a(Tt\ifcr)<;  Be  "  icvpios  "  ovofia.1 

In  the  Gentile  world  the  word  has  a  complicated  and  im- 
portant history.    In  itself  it  might  mean  merely  "  Lord  "  or  in 
the  vocative  "  Sir,"  and  be  as  devoid  of  theological  content  as 
these  English  words ;  but  though  it  never  lost  this  general  meaning 
particularly  when  followed  by  a  genitive,  it  came  later  to  be  used        q 
absolutely  with  a  religious  significance,  especially  in  the  cult  of|)» 
the  Caesars,  and  in  the  Oriental  religions.2    According  to  Bousset* 
it  is  especially  used  as  the  title  of  a  God  who  is,  as  it  were,  usurp- j  j  ^ 
ing  the  place  of  another  in  a  locality  to  which  he  was  originally! 
foreign.     So,  for  example,  kvPlo<;  Aiovvao?  in  the  country  east « * 
of  Jordan  replaces  the  local  Arab  God  Dusares.     This  is  especially  I 
true  of  Asia,  Egypt,  and  Syria.     A  second  point  of  even  greater , 
importance  is  that  ripws  seems  to  be  used  as  the  distinctively  ||  * 
honourable  title  of  the  diyjn^enj^of_acult  only  by  its  members.    ^ 
Thus  to  the  Egyptians  Isis,  Osiris,  and  Serapis  are  especially  j 
Kvpuoi ;    to  the  Syrians,  Atargatis  ;    to  the  Simonians  Simon  ' 
and  Helena  ;    to  the  Valentinians,  Sophia  ; 3  and  to  the  circle  \ 
represented   by   the   Hermetic   literature,   Hermes   was   Lord. 

i  De  Somniis,  i.  26  (Mangey  i.  p.  645),  the  whole  of  which  chapter  is  devoted 
to  this  point.  Cf .,  too,  Leg.  Allegor.  i.  30,  and  J.  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus  pp. 
83  ff.  Philo  also  distinguishes  between  ku/hos  and  Secnrinjs  in  Quis  rerum  dimn. 
heres  ?  (Mangey  i.  p.  476)  ictpios  fih  yap  ivapa  rb  xvpos,  6  Sh  frp*6v  Aw, 
dpnrcu  kclt'  ivavribr^ra  dj8ej8a£ov  Kal  aripov,  de<rw6rr)S  5t  irapa  rbv  dea/tSv,  &<p'  o* 
5<?os  otfuu.  &<rre  rbv  8e<nr6r7]v  k6Plop  etuac,  Kal  tri  yoW,  <j>o^pbv  Ktpiov  oi>  fxbvov  rb 
Kvpos  Kal  rb  kp&tos  arr&PTUV  avWlxhov,  aXKa  Kal  5<?os  <cal  06/3ov  Imvbv  ifnroiijffat. 

*  See  Deissmann,  Licht  v.  Osten,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  258  ff . ;  Bousset,  Kyrios  Chnstos, 
p  111  and  the  material  collected  in  Roscher's  Mythologische  Lexicon,  s.v. 
<*  Kyrios."  H.  Bdhlig  in  the  article  "  Zum  Begriff  Kyrios  bei  Paulus,"  Z.N.W. 
xiv.  p.  32  coUects  the  evidence  for  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  Dion  Chryso- 
stomus.  He  tries  to  distinguish  between  Setnrbrns  and  kvPlos,  but  the  point  does 
not  seem  to  amount  to  more  than  the  fact  that  Seair6rVs  rather  than  rtpios  is 
the  antithesis  to  dovXos,  while  rtpios  is  more  that  of  a  Lord  as  opposed  to 
subjects  or  vassals.  The  most  interesting  passage,  chiefly  as  an  illustration 
of  2  Cor.  iii.  17  f.,  is  in  the  De  Oenio  :  tovto  8t  h  abr$  voxels  elvai  ry  avdpAircp,  rb 
Kparovv  iKdarov,  6  balfxova  KoKeU  1)  ifaBev  to  &p%ov  re  Kal  Ktpiov  rod  avdpAirov; 
Zfadev  ?7W7C 

»  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  i.  1.  3  (i.  1.  1  in  Harvey)  says  dca  rovro  rbv  ffvrqpa 
Xtyovair,  oidt  yap  Kipiov  dvopdfrv  airbv  etXovw.  See  the  discussion  in  Dolger  s 
utl%9Utn  Romiscke  Quartalschrift,  Supplem.  xvii.  p.  409  f. 


412 


PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


rl 


Forms  in 
which 
Jesus  is 
addressed. 


There  might  be  a  complete  recognition  of  the  claims  of  other 
beings  to  rank  as  divine,  but  they  were  Kvpioi  only  to  those  who 
belonged  to  their  cult,  just  as  a  slave  would  not  doubt  the  social 
rank  of  all  members  of  the  slave-owning  classes,  but  would 
regard  as  his  icvpios  only  one  particular  member  of  them. 

The  use  of  Kvpios  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts  clearly  shows  that 
it  is  not  part  of  the  primitive  tradition.  Even  the  vocative 
Kvpce  is  rare  in  the  oldest  strata,  and  the  usual  title  for  Jesus  is 
"Rabbi,"  directly  transliterated  or  represented  by  the  Greek 
SiSdcr/cake.     The  facts  can  best  be  shown  by  a  few  tables. 

In  the  following  first  two  tables  the  references  are  given  to 
passages  in  Mark  where  Jesus  is  called  BiSdcr/caXos,  pafifiel  or 
/cvpios ;    in  the  second  similar  statistics  are  given  from  Q. 


In  Mark 
(1)  (SiSao-KaAe,  or  case  of 
Mark    iv.  38  =  Matt.  viii.  25 

v.  35  =  no  parallel  in  Matt, 
ix.  17  =  in  Matt.  xvii.  15 
ix.  38  =  no  parallel  in  Matt, 
x.  17  =  Matt.  xix.  16 
x.  20  =  om.  in  Matt, 
x.  35  =  om.  in  Matt, 
xii.  14  =  Matt.  xxii.  16 
xii.  19  =  Matt.  xxii.  24 
xii.  32  =  no  parallel  in  Matt, 
xiii.  1   =om.  in  Matt, 
xiv.  14  =  Matt.  xxvi.  18 


8i8d<TKa\os. 

=  Luke  viii.  24. 

=  Luke  viii.  49. 

=  Luke  ix.  38. 

=  Luke  ix.  49. 

=  Luke  xviii.  18. 

=  om.  in  Luke. 

=  no  parallel  in  Luke. 

=  Luke  xx.  21. 

=  Luke  xx.  28. 

=  no  parallel  in  Luke. 

=  om.  in  Luke. 

=  Luke  xxii.  11. 


Cf.  also  Mark  ii.  16— Matt.  ix.  11  where  Matt,  has  ka-OUt  6 
SiSda-KaXos  vfxuv  and  possibly  also  Mark  xii.  29  =  Matt.  xxii.  36 
=  Luke  x.  25  where  both  Matt,  and  Luke  insert  StSaV/<aAe,  but  it 
is  not  clear  whether  they  are  following  Mark  or  another  version  of 
the  same  incident. 

(2)  fiappeL 
Mark    ix.  5  =  Kvpu.    Matt.  xvii.  4  =  «rKrTaTa.  Luke  ix.  33 
spoken  by  a  disciple. 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  413 

Mark  x.  51=  no  parallel  in  Matt.  =  Kvpie  Luke  xviii.  41 

spoken  by  a  stranger.  The  text  is  papf3ovvei 
in  B  and  K ;  Kvpie  pa/3/3ei  in  Dabifi; 
pafipd  in  k  syr  pesh  (rabbuli  syr  S).  The 
reading  pa/3/3ow€i,  is  clearly  right,  but 
according  to  Dalman  is  merely  a  variant  of 
pa/3/3ec  found  in  the  Targums  (cf.  Worte 
Jesu  s.v.)  cf.  also  John  xx.  16. 
xi.  21  =  om.  in  Matt.,  no  parallel  in  Luke,  spoken  by 
a  disciple, 
xiv.  45  =  Matt.  xxvi.  49,  no  parallel  in  Luke,  spoken  by 
Judas  Iscariot. 

(3)   Kvpie. 

Mark    vii.  28  =  Matt.  xv.  27  no  parallel  in  Luke. 
This  is  put  in  the  mouth  of  a  Greek,  the  Syrophoenician  woman. 
Mark    xi.    3  =  Matt.  xxi.  3  =  Luke  xix.  31 

It  appears  clearly  from  these  tables  that  SiSdaicaXos  ( =  rabbi)  f 
was  the  ordinary  title  applied  to  Jesus,  according  to  the  Marcan 
tradition,  both  by  his  disciples  and  by  the  public  at  large.  The  S 
almost  complete  absence  of  tcvpios  is  the  more  striking,  as  it  was 
the  ordinary  polite  form  of  address  in  Greek,  and  might  naturally 
have  been  expected  to  figure  more  largely  in  Greek  documents 
even  if  the  Aramaic  Man,  which  exactly  corresponds  to  it,  had 
not  been  used. 

In  Passages  Common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  (Q). 

(1)   SiSdcTKaXos. 

Matt.  viii.  19  om.  in  Luke  ix.  57. 
Matt.  xii.  38  om.  in  Luke. 
x.  24  =  Luke  vi.  40. 

(2)  fia/SPel. 

Not  found  in  any  passage  common  to  Matt,  and  Luke. 

(3)  KVpiOS. 

Matt.  vii.  21  =  Luke  vi.  46. 

vii.  22  paraphrased  otherwise  in  Luke  xiii.  26. 


414  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


in 


A? 


Luke  vii.  19  =  om.  in  Matt.  xi.  3. 

Matt.  viii.    6  =  Luke  vii.  2  otherwise  paraphrased. 

viii.    8  =  Luke  vii.  6. 

viii.  21  =  om.  in  Luke  viii.  59,  but  the  text  is  doubtful. 

If  the  passages  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  be  regarded 

as  representing  a  common  original,  Q  (whether  this  was  one 

document  or  more  is  here  immaterial),  it  would  seem  as  though 

icvpios  is  somewhat  better  represented  in  Q  than  in  Mark.     But 

•  this  appearance  is  probably  illusory,  as  both  Matthew  and  Luke 

'  J  have  a  clear  preference  for  Kvpio<s.    In  Matthew  Kvpio^  is  found 

C%^*  |  m  seven  passages  peculiar  to  his  gospel; 1  in  Luke  Kvpm  is  found 

^  3&*l||  in  twenty-five  passages  2  peculiar  to  him,  many  of  them  obviously 

redactorial  additions  to  narratives  derived  from  Mark  or  Q.     In 

addition  to  these  it  must  be  noted  that  in  four  passages  in  the 

^f|!MarCan  tradition  Luke  inserts  Kvpie  when  it  is  not  found  in 

'Mark;3    and  in  one  passage4  a   tcvpio?  is  inserted  which  is 

%»||  absent  in  the  parallel  passage  (Q  ?)  in  Matthew.     Against  this 

may  be  set  Luke  ix.  59,  where  the  probably  best  text  omits 

Kvpie  against  Matthew,  but  the  textual  point  is  not  quite  clear. 

f  In  general  therefore  it  is  clear  that  the  use  of  tcvpios  even  in 

)  the  vocative  is  characteristic  of  the  redactors  of  Matthew  and 

i  Luke,  not  of  their  sources,  and  that  it  is  much  more  markedly 

*>  characteristic  of  Luke  than  of  Matthew. 

AiSdffKd\os        This  result  is  corroborated  by  the  facts  regarding  8i8d<T/ca\os 

and/xiflSef.  and  p^^  m  t^e  redactorial  parts  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

In  Matthew  BiBdatcaXos  is  only  used  once  (Matt.  xvii.  24), 

in  a  passage  which  has  no  parallel  either  in  Mark  or  Luke  ;  while 

in  Luke,  though  BtSda/caXe  is  used  in  five  passages  5  which  have 

{  no  parallels  either  in  Mark  or  Matthew,5  it  must  be  noted  that 

1  Matt.  ix.  28,  xiv.  28,  xiv.  30,  xv.  22,  xv.  25,  xvii.  15,  xviii.  21. 

2  Luke  ii.  11,  ii.  26,  v.  8*,  vii.  13,  ix.  54,  ix.  61*,  x.  1,  x.  17*,  x.  39,  x.  40*, 
x.  41,  xi.  1*,  xi.  39,  xii.  41*,  xii.  42,  xiii.  23*,  xvii.  5,  xvii.  6,  xvii.  37*,  xviii  6* 
xxii.  33*,  xxii.  38*,  xxii.  49*,  xxii.  61,  xxiv.  34.  In  the  passages  marked  with 
an  asterisk  the  vocative  is  used. 

3  Luke  v.  12*,  vii.  6*,  xviii.  41*,  xxii.  61. 

4  Luke  vii.  19.  6  Luke  vii#  40>  ^  ^  xii   13>  xix   39^  xx   39 


K 


- 


iv  CHRISTOLOGY  415 

in  none  of  these  is  a  disciple  speaking,  and  this  draws  attention  to 
the  fact  that  out  of  the  ten  Marcan  passages  in  which  SiSdcr/eako*;  J*> 
might  have  been  expected  to  recur  in  Luke,  it  does  so  only  in  six, 
of  which  five  are  passages  in  which  strangers  are  speaking  to 
Jesus,  while  in  the  other  Jesus  himself  is  giving  instructions  to 
the  disciples  as  to  a  message  to  a  stranger  :   in  the  four  passages        ^^^ 
in  which  in  Mark  the  disciples  use  BiSac/cako?  in  addressing! 
Jesus  Luke  omits  the  word  in  two  instances,  and  in  the  other! 
two  changes  it  to  eirLa-rdra. 

There  is  in  these  facts  as  clear  an  indication  of  a  dislike  for  < 
the  title  hthdaicaXos  as  the  converse  facts  show  a  predilection  for  j « 
icvpios.     Equally  striking  is  the  fact  that  pafilBeL,  which  is  used 
three  (four) 1  times  in  Mark,  is  not  found  at  all  in  Luke,  but  in  f  ** 
the  two  passages  in  which  the  Marcan  narrative  is  represented}  "* 
is  replaced  once  by  eViaraTa.  and  once  by  Kvpie. 

That  SiBdafcaXos  not  tcvpio?  is  the  primitive  appellation  of  Jesus  first 
Jesus  is  thus  certain.  The  remaining  point,  which  cannot  be  belcher' 
cleared  up,  is  why  Luke,  who  used  tcvpios  so  freely  in  redactorial 
passages,  or  in  those  from  his  special  tradition,  did  not  replace 
SiBdo-fcaXe  in  the  mouth  of  the  disciples  by  Kvpie  but  by  eiridTdTa. 
This  word,  always  in  the  vocative,  is  used  by  Luke  six  times. 
Two  replace  l&dcncdke  in  Marcan  passages,  one  replaces  pafifiei 
in  a  Marcan  passage,  one  is  inserted  in  a  paraphrase  of  a  Marcan 
passage  which  had  originally  no  vocative,  and  two  are  in  passages 
peculiar  to  Luke.  With  one  exception  (Luke  xvii.  13)  all  are 
placed  in  the  mouth  of  the  disciples.  The  obvious  explanation 
would  be  the  assumption  of  a  "  eirLardra  redaction  "  which 
affected  the  tradition  before  the  final  editor,  whose  personal 
preference  was  for  icvpios.  But  in  the  absence  of  supporting 
evidence  this  theory  is  precarious,  and  its  further  discussion 
is  unnecessary.  Possibly  the  editor  thought  that  eirLardTr)^ 
was  a  more  suitable  title  than  hihdaicaXos,  which  had  more  the 
connotation  of  schoolmaster  than  of  religious  leader. 

The  most  probable  conclusion  is  therefore  that  Jesus  was 

1  In  Mark  x.  51  in  the  form  pappovvel. 


not  '  Lord. 


416 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


K& 


|  known  among  his  personal  followers  not  as  Maran,  "  Lord,"  but 

m  J  as  Rabbi,  "  Teacher,"  and  this  custom  prevailed  in  Galilee  and 

J  in  Jerusalem,  and  is  reflected  in  Mark  and  Q.    But  in  other 

1  Aramaic-speaking  circles  outside  Jerusalem,  possibly  in  Antioch 
or  the  neighbourhood,  he  came  to  be  known  as  Maran,  or,  in  the 
case  of  the  use  of  the  title  by  a  single  person,  Man.  This  word 
was  then  translated  by  /cvpios,  and  so  passed  into  Greek  circles. 
In  course  of  time  the  connotation  of  Kvpio?  in  Greek  religion 
A\\  became  a  dominant  factor  in  thought,  and  Jesus  was  regarded 
as  a  Divine  tcvpio?,  the  Lord  of  a  circle  of  initiates  who 
worshipped  him.  Moreover,  the  influence  of  the  Septuagint, 
which  used  /cvpios  to  render  the  tetragrammaton,  no  doubt 
assisted  this  development:  many  passages  in  which  the  Old 
Testament  speaks  of  Jehovah  came  to  be  treated  as  references 
to  Jesus,  and  the  divine  attributes  of  the  Lord  Jehovah  passed 
over  to  the  Lord  Jesus. 

No  one  is  likely  to  doubt  that  the  main  features  of  this  use 

of  "  Lord  "  had  been  reached  in  the  Pauline  churches ;    that 

it  is  central  in  Catholic  belief.     The  only  question  which  can 

B|  legitimately  be  raised  is  whether  this  is  also  true  of  the  editors 

|  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  or  Acts.     These  call  Jesus  /cvpios  :   but 

i  is  this  merely  a  translated  Maran,  or  does  it  mean  the  Divine 

Lord  of  a  cult  %     On  the  whole,  it  seems  quite  clear  that  the 

*'l  Lucan  editor  belonged  to  the  Greek  side  of  the  development.    The 

.  Lord  is  the  object  of  faith,  and  Christians  are  obviously  regarded 

*>!|J  as  being  in  a  special  relation  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  whom  alone 

can  salvation  be  found.1     It  is,  however,  somewhat  remarkable 

that  the  antithesis  xvpios — 8ov\o$,  which  is  so  common  in  the 

Epistles,  is  not  found  in  the  Acts,  except  in  iv.  29,  where  tcvpio? 

clearly  refers  to  God  and  not  to  Jesus,  in  the  prayer  which  begins 

by  invoking  God  as  BecnroTa.     This  may  be  regarded  as  showing 

that  the  linguistic  feeling  of  Luke  for  the  exact  implication  of 

the  word  is  somewhat  nearer  to  that  in  Dion  Chrysostom  and 

Philo  than  is  that  of  the  Pauline  epistles.     The  point,  however, 

1  Acts  iv.  12,  x.  43,  xi.  17,  xiii.  38  f.,  xvi.  31,  etc. 


tv  CKRISTOLOGY  417 

is  quite  secondary ;    what  is  of  primary  importance  for  the  w  ^ 
understanding  of  Acts  is  that  the  title  icvpio<;  marks  the  last! 
stage  in  the  synthesis  between  the  Jewish  elements  in  Christianity  I 
and  the  fundamental  idea  of  Greco- Oriental  religions.     To  this' 
stage  the  study  of  Acts  and  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  brings  us, 
but  no  further.     The  synthesis  with  Greek  metaphysics  found 
in  the  later  books  of  early  Christianity  is  not  reached. 

These  sections  on  Primitive  Christianity  are  designed  to  Conclusion, 
assist  the  attempt  rightly  to  understand  the  development  of 
thought  and  practice  which  produced  the  Christian  Church  of 
the  middle  of  the  first  century.  They  are  intended  not  as  a 
finished  picture  of  every  element  in  it,  but  of  those  which 
certainly  formed  part  of  the  stream  of  thought  to  which  the 
writer  of  Acts  belonged.  That  there  were  other  elements  in 
other  streams  is  proved  by  the  survival  of  the  Pauline  epistles  ; 
but  these  have  often  been  discussed,  and,  though  they  will 
need  to  be  discussed  again,  their  full  treatment  is  not  called  for 
in  these  Prolegomena. 

It  has  seemed  to  the  writers  of  these  sections  especially »  » 
desirable  to  treat  the  subject  in  this  way  because  so  much  work 
on  the  Gospels  has  been  seriously  injured  by  the  effort,  both  by  \ 
conservative  and  radical  writers,  to  explain  everything  by  the 
influence  of  Paul,  and  him,  in  turn,  largely  by  the  use  made  of  his 
epistles  by  later  generations.     Paul  was  a  great  leader ;   but  he  " 
was  not  the  whole  of  Gentile  Christianity,  nor  did  he  found 
every  Gentile  Church.     It  is  worth  the  serious  attention  of  the  ' 
students  of  the  New  Testament  to  ask  what  account  of  the  begin- 
nings of  Christianity  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts  offer  if 
they  are  analysed  in  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  literary  x 
criticism  and  of  the  distinction  of  sources  achieved  by  the  great 
scholars  of  the  nineteenth  century.      When  that  question  is 
answered  the  work  of  comparison  can  be  undertaken  properly. 
To  help  forward  this  investigation  has  been  the  object  of  the 
writers.     They  are  well  aware  that  much  of  what  they  have 

vol.  i  2  EJ 


418 


PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


I  written  is  controversial  and  doubtful;  but  they  have  been 
|  more  anxious  to  state  problems  than  to  advocate  theories,  and 
1  have  given  unqualified  statement  to  their  own  opinions  chiefly 

in  order  to  make  easier  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  questions 

involved. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A 

THE   ZEALOTS 
By  the  Editors 

It  is  somewhat  of  a  shock  to  discover  from  Josephus  that,  if  his  *  ^ 
evidence  be  correct,  the  use  of  the  name  Zealot  to  describe  a  Jewish  ] 
sect  or  party  cannot  be  earlier  than  a.d.  66.     For  this  reason  it  ! 
seems  opportune  to  bring  together  the  facts  dealing  with  the  Zealots 
and  contemporary  movements. 

The  usual  assumptions  *  with  regard  to  the  Zealots  are  that  they  ^Fourth 
were  followers  of  Judas  the  Gaulonite  of  Gamala,  also  called  Judas  phllosophy 
of  Galilee,  who  founded  in  a.d.  6  what  Josephus  calls  the  "  Fourth 
Philosophy  "  of  the  Jews.     This  philosophy  insisted  on  the  repudia-  ) 
tion  of  any  king  but  God,  and  in  some  modern  books  it  is  repre- 
sented as  having  strong  Messianic  hopes.2    It  is  also  maintained 
that  the  Zealots  are  the  same  as  the  Sicarii,  or  at  least  that  the 
Sicarii  are  a  branch  of  the  Zealots,  and  it  is  often  held  that  there 
was  an  almost  unbroken  succession  of  leaders  of  the  Zealots,  from 
Hezekiah,  who  preceded  Judas  and  according  to  Schurer  was  his 
father,  down  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

Hardly  any  of  these  assumptions  is  well  founded.  With  regard  j  Josephus' s 
to  Judas,  Josephus3  states  that  he  tried  to  rebel  at  the  time  of  theistatement- 
census  of  Quirinius  with  the  support  of  a  Pharisee  named  Zadok,4|x 

1  Typical,  for  instance,  is  the  statement  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  on 
Zealot :  "  It  is  applied  distinctively  to  a  sect  whose  tenets  are  virtually  identical 
with  those  of  the  Assassins,  of  whom  they  are  indeed  the  forerunners."  It 
can  only  be  said  of  such  statements  that  they  reflect  a  misunderstanding  of 
Schurer,  not  Josephus. 

2  It  is  sometimes  held  that  the  Assumption  of  Moses  belongs  to  this  school, 
but  the  evidence  is  slight.  Moreover,  the  figure  of  Taxo  is  by  no  means  clearly 
Messianic,  even  if  Burkitt's  ingenious  suggestion,  that  Taxo(k)  is  gematria  for 
Eleazar,  be  rejected. 

3  Antiq.  xviii.  1.  6. 

4  According  to  Jewish  tradition  this  Zadok  belonged  to  the  school  of 
Shammai  (Toseph.  Eduy.  ii.  2,  Yebamoth  156).  See  Jewish  Encyclopaedia. 
art.  "  Beth  Hillel." 

421 


422 


THE  ZEALOTS 


APP.  A 


j  after  Joazar  the  son  of  Boethus,  the  High  Priest,  had  induced  the 

J  people  to  submit  to  the  enrolment.     He  goes  on  to  say  that  Judas 

founded  the  "  Fourth  Philosophy,"  which  agreed  in  all  respects 

with  that  of  the  Pharisees,  except  that  it  allowed  only  God  to  be 

acknowledged  as  king,  and  advocated  deeds  rather  than  words. 

This  statement  in  itself  is  entirely  probable.     The  taxation  of 

Quirinius  was  a  twofold  insult  to  Jewish  prejudice  :  first,  because 

of  the  repugnance  which  was  felt  to  the  idea  of  numbering  the  people  ; 

and  secondly,  because  of  the  belief  that  the  taxes  payable  by  the 

Jews  in  the  Holy  Land  were  God's  peculiar  property.     It  is  therefore 

quite  likely  that  the  idea  was  started  by  him  and  that  it  continued 

to  persist  down  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.     It  is  even  probable 

that  much  in  the  New  Testament  can  best  be  understood  as  pro- 

&  A  paganda  against  this  theory.     But  this  does  not  prove  that  the 

j  "  Fourth  Philosophy  "  was  identical  either  with  the  Zealots  or  with 

I  the  Sicarii,  and  it  certainly  does  not  show  that  the  movement  of 

*  Judas  was  Messianic.     No  doubt  the  Fourth  Philosophy  supplied 

the  intellectual  attitude  from  which  the  Zealots  and  Sicarii  logically 

started,  but  there  is  no  possibility  of  clearness  in  historical  writing, 

if  the  name  of  a  political  party  be  given  to  its  logical  antecedents. 

The  clearest  way  of  establishing  the  facts  is  to  notice  what 

Josephus  really  does  say  about  the  Zealots  and  Sicarii. 

^f       He  states  in  the  Wars  that  the  Sicarii  arose  x  in  the  time  of  Felix. 


The 

Jase"hS  Y^y  were  so  calle(i  because  they  mingled  in  the  crowd  on  festivals 
|  with  a  knife  (sica)  concealed  in  their  clothes  and  assassinated  their 
{opponents.  They  killed  first  Jonathan  the  High  Priest  and  after- 
jwards  so  many  more  that  a  reign  of  terror  ensued.  In  the  same 
passage  Josephus  mentions  two  other  movements,  but  clearly 
separates  them  from  that  of  the  Sicarii.  The  first  was  that  of  a 
band  who  claimed  divine  inspiration  and  led  men  out  into  the 
wilderness,  "  pretending  God  would  there  show  them  signs  of 
liberty."  Felix  thought  that  this  might  be  the  beginning  of  a  revolt, 
sent  out  cavalry  against  them,  and  cut  them  to  pieces.  Another 
rising  was  similarly  dealt  with  by  Felix,  when  an  Egyptian  false 
prophet  collected  30,000  men,  whom  he  led  round  from  the  wilder- 
ness to  the  Mount  of  Olives.  It  is  very  remarkable,  especially  in 
view  of  the  well-known  problem  presented  by  the  incident  of  Theudas, 
that  in  Acts  these  three  risings  in  the  time  of  Felix  are  combined 
into  a  single  incident.2  Josephus,  however,  clearly  distinguishes 
them,  though  he  mentions  them  together. 

The  later  history  of  the  Sicarii  is  that  they  formed  an  organised 
band  which  had  its  headquarters  in  the  fortress  of  Masada  near  the 
1  B.J.  ii.  13.  3. 

Ovk  &pa  au  el  6  AlyvirTios  6  Trpb  tojjtwv  tCov  7}p.epG)v  dvaarardicras  kclI  itjayay&v 
els  tt)v  tyrjuov  roiis  rerpaKtcrxi-Xlovs  &v8pas  rCbv  cmcapiuv  ;  Acts  xxi.  38. 


aip.  A  THE  ZEALOTS  423 

Dead  Sea,  under  the  leadership  of  Eleazar,  a  kinsman  of  Judas. 
This  held  out  until  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  was  finally  taken 
by  Flavius  Silva,  after  the  garrison  had  killed  first  their  wives  and 
children,  and  afterwards  themselves.  Only  two  women  and  five 
children  survived.  Those  Sicarii  who  had  not  been  in  Masada  escaped 
to  Egypt.  Some  went  to  Alexandria  and  tried  to  renew  their  opposi- 
tion to  Kome,  but  they  were  finally  handed  over  by  the  Jews  to 
the  Komans.  Others  went  to  Cyrene  ;  and  one  of  them  named 
Jonathan  led  out  a  number  of  the  poorer  class  into  the  desert, 
promising  them  signs  and  wonders,  but  the  richer  Jews  informed 
Catullus  the  governor,  who  dispersed  Jonathan's  followers.  He 
revenged  himself  by  laying  information  against  the  richer  Jews, 
and  he  and  Catullus  joined  in  a  campaign  of  blackmail,  in  which 
Josephus  was  involved.  When,  however,  the  matter  came  to  the 
emperor,  the  plot  was  discovered,  Catullus  was  disgraced,  and 
Jonathan  burned.1 

The  Sicarii  left  an  interesting  trace  of  their  memory  in  the 
Mishna2  in  the  law  of  Sicaricon,  which  was  concerned  with  the 
settlement  of  the  difficulty  caused  by  property  sold  by  the  Sicarii  and 
afterwards  claimed  by  the  original  owner.  It  was  clearly  extended 
by  analogy  to  other  instances  of  a  similar  nature,  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  it  originally  refers  to  the  time  of  Vespasian  or  of  Hadrian. 

The  first  use  of  the  word  "  Zealot  "  in  Josephus  as  the  name  of  |Zeaiots  in 
a  party  in  Jerusalem  is  in  Bellum  Judaicum  iv.  3.  9.     After  this  he  I  ^f p  u 
uses  it  frequently,  and  always  in  the  same  sense.     It  is  the  name  I 
arrogated  to  themselves  by  the  followers  of  the  famous  John  of* 
Gischala,  who  had  escaped  with  some  of  his  followers  when  his  home  J|  * 
the  last  place  in  Galilee  to  be  taken,  was  captured  by  Titus.     Johm 
came  to  Jerusalem  with  his  followers,  and  started  a  popular  move- 
ment against  the  high-priestly  families.      He  succeeded  in  pro- 
curing the   election  of  the   obscure  Phinehas3  (Qivvlas)  as  High 
Priest.     It  is  quite  clear  from  Josephus  that  the  name  "  Zealot"* 
(for  he  uses  it  as  a  technical  designation)  applies  to  John's  following  |{*  H 
and  to  no  other — a  party  equally  opposed  to  the  Sicarii,  to  the 
priests,  and  to  the  faction  of  Simon  ben  Giora.    This  Simon  had  once 
belonged  to  the  Sicarii,  but  had  left  them  because  they  would  not 
undertake  operations  at  a  distance  from  Masada;    ultimately  he 
became  captain  of  a  large  body  of  men,  and  was  welcomed  into 
Jerusalem  by  the  priestly  party  headed  by  Matthias  in  order  to 
combat  the  Zealots. 

It  should  be  added  that  there  is  no  reason  for  connecting  the  Zealot 

movement 
1  B.J.  vii.  8.  1-11.  4.  2  Oittin  v.  7.  not 

3  Prof.  Moore  suggests  that  the  association  of  this  name  with  "zeal"  in  Messianic. 

Numbers  xxv.  13  ("he  was  zealous  for  his  God")  may  be  the  origin  of  the  h  ^ 

name  of  the  party  of  the  Zealots. 


424 


THE  ZEALOTS 


Hezekiah 

the 

brigand. 


APP.  A 

Zealots  or  even  the  Sicarii  with  any  Messianic  movement.  The 
first  Jew  who  is  known  to  have  proclaimed  himself  the  Messiah  is 
Bar  Cocheba  (a.d.  132).  The  belief  that  a  leader  was  the  Messiah 
must  be  distinguished  from  the  view  that  he  was  an  inspired  person 
of  supernatural  power.  Claims  of  the  latter  kind  were  far  more 
frequent.  Familiar  instances  are  the  Egyptian  in  the  time  of  Felix,1 
the  Cyrenaean  movement  of  Jonathan,2  or  the  still  earlier  movement 
in  Samaria  suppressed  by  Pilate ; 3  but  all  these  instances  represent 
'  false  prophets,"  not  "  false  Christs." 

It  is  also  desirable  to  protest  that  there  is  no  justification  at  all 

for  connecting  either  the  Zealots  or  even  the  "  Fourth  Philosophy  " 

of  Judas  with  the  brigand  Hezekiah.     This  Hezekiah  is  mentioned 

in  B.J.  i.  10.  5.     He  is  called  an  dpxtX.r)<rrrjs  and  his  capture  was 

one  of  Herod  the  Great's  first  exploits.     His  son,  Judas,  is  mentioned 

in  B.J.  ii.  4.1,   as  starting  an  insurrection  after  the  death  of  Herod. 

But  Josephus  clearly  distinguishes  him  from  Judas  the  Gaulonite, 

for  he  says  that  Judas  ben  Hezekiah  aimed  at  monarchy,  while  he 

is  explicit  in  emphasising  that  the  other  Judas  refused  to  recognise 

any  king  but  God.     The  founder  of  the  Fourth  Philosophy,  however 

jregrettable  the  results  of  his  teachings,  may  have  been  a  fanatic, 

<lbut  was  certainly  neither  a  brigand  nor  an  aspirant  to  a  throne! 

.  Schiirer's  statement  that  Judas  ben  Hezekiah  is  "  sicherlich  "  the 

x     same  as  Judas  of  Galilee  seems,  therefore,  quite  indefensible,  except 

J  in    so    far    as    the    use    of    "  sicherlich "    in    theological    writing 

indicates   the   combination   of  insufficient  evidence   with   strongly 

held  opinion. 

lanaeans  ,  finally,  a  word  must  be  said  about  a  remarkable  statement  in 
the  Jewisa  Encyclopaedia,  in  which  the  writer  on  the  word  "  Zealot  " 
assumes  that  Zealot,  or  rather  Cananaean,  was  the  regular  name 
of  an  order  among  the  Jews  who  used  physical  force.  The  writer 
states  that  Clermont-Ganneau  in  1871  discovered  an  inscription  in 
the  Temple,  authorising  the  Cananaeans  to  kill  any  foreigners  in 
the  sacred  parts  of  the  building.  All  these  statements  seem  to  be 
misleading.  The  word  "Cananaean"  in  the  Talmud  is  applied 
generally  to  those  who  manifest  religious  zeal,  and  there  is  no  more 
evidence  in  the  Talmud  of  their  existence  as  an  order  or  sect  than 
there  is  in  Josephus.  Moreover,  the  inscription  apparently  referred 
to  is  m  Greek  and  does  not  mention  the  Cananaeans  at  all. 

Why  is  it  that  these  facts  have  been  so  far  overlooked  that  the 

name  of  Zealot  has  been  so  generally  given  to  the  Fourth  Philosophy  ? 

I  Partly  because  the  word  translated  Zealot  is  not  an  uncommon  one 

and   represents   patriotic   virtue.     It   is   used,   for   instance,   in   2 

jMaccabees  iv.  2  and  in  Josephus  4  of  the  patriots  in  the  days' of  the 

1  B.J.  ii.  13.  5.  2  BJ  vii  n   L 

3  Antiq.  xviii.  4   1  4  Antig^  xii#  6>  2 


The 


IT* 


"  Zealot " 
an  honour- 
able 
adjective. 


app.  a  THE  ZEALOTS  425 

Maccabees.  It  is  therefore  easy  to  treat  the  word  in  the  same  way 
as,  for  instance,  Chasid  has  been  treated,  and  to  find  a  reference  to 
the  party  of  the  Zealots  every  time  that  a  man  is  praised  for  being 
zealous.  But  there  is  no  real  suggestion  that  in  any  of  these  passages 
the  word  is  more  than  an  honourable  adjective.  More  important,'*  w 
probably,  has  been  the  influence  of  the  name  of  Simon  the  Zealot.  iSimon 
In  Luke  vi.  15  and  Acts  i.  13  the  name  2t/Aa>va  rbv  Kakovfi€vovfiea'[otGB 
^qXuirrjv  is  given  to  one  of  the  Twelve,  who  appears  to  be  identical 
with  2t/Ao>v  6  Kavavouos  in  Matt.  x.  4  and  Mark  iii.  18.1  It  is  gener- 
ally supposed  that  Kavavalos  is  the  transliteration  and  {V/Awttjs  the 
translation  of  the  Aramaic  rTMp;  an(i  that  it  means  Zealot  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  Josephus  uses  the  word.  But  it  is  obvious 
that  Simon  can  scarcely  have  been  called  a  Zealot,  in  the  sense  of 
belonging  to  the  party  of  John  of  Gischala,  and  therefore  the  theory 
has  arisen  that  there  was  a  party  called  Cananaeans  in  Aramaic 
and  Zealots  in  Greek  before  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem,  identical 
with  the  Fourth  Philosophy  described  by  Josephus. 

Nevertheless,  that  cpjsop  was  actually  used  to  describe  a  definite  •  ^ 
party  in  Judaism  is  merely  a  guess,  though  a  probable  one,  based  j 
on  a  retranslation  of  (r/Awrrjs  in  Josephus,  combined  with  an  im-  { 
perfect  appreciation  of  his  usage.     The  usage  is  not  actually  found 
before  the  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan — a  post-Talmudic  work. 

Recognising  the  facts  as  they  are,  the  name  of  Simon  the  Zealot 
offers  an  interesting  problem,  which  can  be  solved  in  more  than  one 
way.     It  is  possible  that  we  have  all  been  wrong  in  translating  the 
Greek  of  Luke,  or  explaining  the  transliterated  Aramaic  of  Matthew, 
as  "  Simon  the  Zealot,"  and  that  it  should  be  "  Simon  the  Zealous 
or  in  other  words  that  there  is  no  reference  at  all  to  any  political  | 
party  but  merely  to  the  personal  character  of  Simon.    The  probability 
of  this  suggestion  is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  in  the  New  Testament  J 
(e.g.  Acts  xxii.  3),  in  the  Greek  Apocrypha  (e.g.  2  Mace.  iv.  2),  anti 
in  Josephus  in  passages  earlier  than  the  rise  of  John  of  Gischala  | 
(e.g.  Antiq.  xii.  6)  £r;AwT>js  is  always  "  zealous."     It  is  the  equivalent 
of  the  Hebrew  ^p  a  title  of  God  and  of  men  who  are  "  jealous  "  |l*  * 
for  God's  honour,  such  as  Elijah. 

Another  possibility  is  that  the  Evangelists  made  a  mistake  and 
really  thought  that  the  word  which  they  found  in  their  source 
referred  to  the  political  party  of  which  they  had  heard,  or  possibly 
had  read  about  in  the  pages  of  Josephus. 

1  In  the  later  MSS,  both  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  name  is  changed  to  'Lifiuv 
6  Kapavirrjs,  and  this  is  reproduced  by  the  "  Simon  the  Canaanite  "  of  the  A.V. 


if'* 


wr 


APPENDIX  B 

NAZARENE   AND   NAZARETH 

By  George  F.  Moore 

Nafwpatos. | The  form  of  the  adjective  translated  Nazarene  throughout  the  Book 

Nafa/M7j/6£J0f   ^Cts    jg    Na^woouos.1       Christians    are    fj    rdv    Nafw/xuW    ai.pe<ris 

*(xxiv.  5).     In  John  also  Nafw/xuos  is  the  only  form,  and  it  seems  to 

*|  be  preferred  by  the  authors  of  our  Greek  Gospels  of  Matthew  2  and 

\  Luke; 3  but  in  the  best-attested  text  Mark  has  consistently  Nafa/o^vos, 

*s~| which  appears  also  in  Luke  xxiv.  19  (from  a  separate  source).     In 

***the  Q  of  recent  critics  the  adjective  does  not  occur  at  all,  nor  is  it 

found  in  the  Epistles  or  the  Kevelation,  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  or 

the  Apologists.4 

As  applied  In  Jewish  sources  the  corresponding  name  for  Jesus  is  v-jr^n  IB?*1 

andhis8  *|  (Jeshu  ha-nosri)  ;  5  a  certain  Jacob  of  Kefar  Sekanya  in  Galilee,  who 

followers    \  in  the  early  second  century  had  a  reputation  for  working  cures  in 

by  Jews,     ^the  name  of  Jesus,  is  "one  of  the  disciples  of  Jeshu  ha-nosri  "  ; 

*|and  Christians  are  called  nosrim,  for  example,  in  the  execration 

introduced  into  the  Eighteen  Prayers  by  Gamaliel  II.  (about  100  a.d.).6 

The  word  passed  into  Syriac  as  a  common  name  for  Christians 

(nasraye)  and  thence  into  Arabic,  nasara  (sing,  nasrdnl,  a  Christian). 

Na£w/3aios  would  seem  therefore  to  be  an  attempt  to  represent  the 

Hebrew  adjective  nosri  or  its  Aramaic  equivalent  in  Greek  letters 

and  grammatical  pattern. 

1  Acts  ii.  22,  vi.  14  [ix.  5],  xxii.  8,  xxvi.  9  ;  'Irjaovs  Xpiarbs  6  Nafapaios, 
iii.  6,  iv.  10. 

2  Matt.  ii.  23,  xxvi.  71. 

3  Luke  xviii.  37  ;   cf.  Mark  x.  47. 

4  This  gives  no  occasion  for  surprise  if  the  common  explanation  of  the  word 
Nafwpcuos  is  accepted ;  to  Gentile  Christians  the  name  of  the  village  from 
which  Jesus  came  had  no  significance ;  for  them  the  distinctive  name  was 
Jesus  Christ. 

5  In  the  common  editions  of  the  Talmud  all  passages  referring  to  Jesus 
have  been  omitted  or  mutilated  by  the  censorship  or  through  fear  of  it. 

6  So  in  the  oldest  Palestinian  form  of  the  Shemone  Esre. 

426 


A  PP.  B 


NAZARENE  AND  NAZARETH 


427 


There  is,  however,  a  difficulty  in  this  identification,  which  was 
long  ago  remarked  by  Jerome,  Junius,  Spanheim,  Drusius,  Grotius, 
and  others  :  the  peculiar  Semitic  sibilant  s  fe)  is  regularly  repre- 
sented in  Greek  by  sigma,  not  by  zeta,  which  with  corresponding 
regularity  stands  for  Hebrew  z  (7),  as,  for  example,  in  i/afipaios 
(nazlr).  In  the  most  recent  discussion  of  the  question,  Burkitt  * 
records  but  ten  cases  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament  where  £  seems  to 
stand  for  ^.  The  list  might  be  lengthened  by  taking  account  of  a 
greater  variety  of  manuscripts  than  figure  in  Swete,  and  conse- 
quently in  the  Concordance  of  Hatch  and  Redpath,  and  some  striking 
instances  could  be  added  from  Josephus,  e.g.  'Afe/opijfli/s  in  Gen.  x. 
27,  Zocfxovias  in  Gen.  xlvi.  16  ;  and  conversely  2a/c^aios  (-07)  in 
Josephus,  Vita  239  ;  but  at  the  most  they  are  rare  exceptions  to 
a  general  rule,  and  are  doubtless  in  part  only  graphic  accidents. 
Burkitt  thinks  that  this  proves  that  Nafwpatos  cannot  be  connected 
with  nosri  (-nm).  But  tnen  tne  difficulty  is  only  turned  end  for 
end ;  for  in  the  Old  Syriac  version  as  well  as  in  the  Peshitto  Nafapafos 
is  uniformly  rendered  ndsrdyd,  and  Na(ape#  is  ndsrat,  and  there 
would  seem  to  be  as  much  reason  why  Greek  zeta  should  not  be 
represented  by  Syriac  sade  as  why  sade  should  not  be  represented 
by  zeta. 

The  explanation  is  so  simple  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  it 
should  escape  the  search  of  the  learned.  The  first  Syrian  Christians 
did  not  make  their  acquaintance  with  Jesus  the  Nazarene  and  his 
religion  from  Greek  books,  the  proper  names  in  which  they  trans- 
literated according  to  rule  or  custom,  but  from  the  lips  of  mission- 
aries of  Aramaic  speech,  and  they  spoke  and  spelled  nasraya,  ndsrat, 
because  they  heard  them  so.  The  Syriac  form  of  the  word  thus 
confirms  the  correctness  of  the  Jewish  tradition  in  which  Christians 
are  called  nosrim. 

For  the  anomalous  zeta  in  Nafw/ocuos,  no  more  recondite 
explanation  need  be  sought  than  the  false  analogy  of  Nafi/wuos, 
Na£a/>cuos — an  association  which  no  one  familiar  with  the  tricks 
that  false  analogy  habitually  plays  with  foreign  proper  names  will 
think  it  necessary  to  ascribe  to  reflection.  It  would  take  a  great 
deal  more  than  this  anomaly  of  spelling  to  make  it  credible  that  the 
aipeo-is  rdv  Na£<o/)cuW  of  Acts  xxiv.  5  are  not  the  same  as  the 
heretics  (minim)  whom  the  Jews  call  nosrim. 

In  Acts,  as  well  as  in  the  Gospels,2  'lrja-ovs  6  Nafoywuos8  is 
equivalent  to  'I^o-ovs  6  drrb  Nafa/oc0  ;  4  the  adjective  serving  to  dis- 
tinguish the  Jesus  whom  his  disciples  declared  to  be  the  Messiah 
from  other  bearers  of  that  common  name  by  designating  the  place 

1  Syriac  Forms  of  New  Testament  Proper  Names,  1913.   j(^ 

2  Cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  71  with  xxi.  11,  ii.  23. 

3  E.g.  Acts  ii.  22.  4  Acts  x.  38. 


Varieties  of 
translitera- 
tion. 


|ux 


Nafapaios 
a  place- 
adjective. 


428        NAZARENE  AND  NAZARETH 

from  which  he  came,  in  a  manner  very  common  among  the  Jews.1 
To  this  it  has  been  objected,  sometimes  even  by  Hebraists,  that 
Na£w/)cuos,  Nafaprjvos,  or  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  words  thus 
rendered  in  Greek,  cannot  be  derived  from  Na£apeO ;  which  should 
it  is  said,  give  something  like  Nofa/ocraios  or  Nafapcr^vos,  as  in 
Josephus  AapapiTTrjvol  from  /\a/3dptTTa  (Heb.  dobrat;  Euseb. 
Aafidpa).  The  fact  is,  however,  that  when  Hebrew  patrials  in  i 
are  made  from  nouns  of  feminine  form,  the  feminine  ending  t  is 
sometimes  preserved,  as  in  morashti  from  moreshet,  mdhatl  from 
mdJca  ;  sometimes  the  i  is  affixed  directly  to  the  stem  of  the  noun,2 
as  in  timni  from  timnat  (timnata),  libnl  from  libna,  sori  from  sor  a, 
yehudi  from  yehuda.  A  similar  inconsistency  exists  in  all  branches 
of  Aramaic.  A  single  Galilean  example  may  suffice  :  'IwraTrara, 
well  known  from  Josephus,  is  in  the  Talmud  yodpat ;  a  certain 
rabbi  from  that  city  is  R.  Menahem  yodpa'a  (yotpaya),  which  would 
be  represented  in  Greek  by  'IcooVcuos,  'Iw&raibs,  the  feminine  t 
not  appearing.  In  this  respect  the  case  is  completely  analogous  to 
Nafwpaibs  from  Na£a/>€0,  so  that  the  formal  possibility  of  the 
latter  derivation  is  not  to  be  denied. 

^  The  Syriac  versions,  as  has  been  said,  have  for  the  name  Nazareth 
nasrat  (the  first  vowel  sounding  like  English  o  in  "  on  ").     The 
Hebrew  (nosri)  exhibits  the  same  vowel,3  and  is  formally  unimpeach- 
able as  a  patrial  from  a  name  nosrat,  like  dobrat,  yodpat,  boskat,  etc.), 
while  ?$a£apr)v6s  is  a  sufficiently  close  reproduction  of  nosri  ;    com- 
pare Josephus's  Aa/3dptTTa  with  the  Hebrew  dobrat. 
Nafapalos          Nafwpatos  presents  a  different  problem.     So  far  as  the  endings 
se°ntedP[nyf|,are  concerne(i>  Nafa/njvos,  Nafwpaios  are  related  to  each  other  as 
Talmud.  ^"|  E0-0-77VOS,  'Eo-o-ouos,  and  other  alternatives  of  the  kind,  for  which  it 
j  would  be  unnecessary  to  seek  an  explanation  outside  the  Greek. 
But  the   vowels  of    Nafw/xuos,  or  in  '  Western  '  texts    Xafo/xxios, 
point  to  an  Aramaic  nesorai,  with  the  Aramaic  ending  -ai  (deter- 
mined, -aiya,  -a' a),  and  with  the  vowel  0  shifted  to  the  second 
syllable  (nosri,  nesorai).     No  such  word  is  found  in  the  Talmudic 
literature  ;    but  references  to  Jesus  and  his  disciples  occur,  in  fact, 
only  in  Hebrew  contexts.4    The  metathesis  of  vowels,  especially 

1  For  instance,  Eleazar  ha-mddai  (from  Mudeeb),  Simeon  ha-temam  (from 
Teima),  Nathan  ha-arbeli  (from  Arbela,  in  Galilee),  Simeon  ha-shikmoni  (from 
Sycaminon),  and  many  more. 

2  This  is  the  universal  rule  in  Arabic,  and  was  probably  the  older  way  in 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic. 

3  The  o  is  not  long,  as  writers  whose  theories  of  Hebrew  orthography  are 
derived  from  Old  Testament  grammars  in  the  Kimchian  tradition  frequently 
assume.     Compare  nnu  (nokri)  '  foreigner,'  jrnu  {gubra),  '  man,'  etc. 

4  It  may  be  observed  that  in  the  voluminous  Talmudic  literature  no  form 
corresponding  to  $apiaaios  is  found  ;   only  Heb.  ens.  D^ns, 


as  to 
Nazareth. 


app.  b       NAZARENE  AND  NAZARETH        429 

of  o  and  u,  is,  however,  very  common.  Thus  NnaDin  and  wwon, 
**mm  and  Nmm,  Nnf?mo  and  nn^nc,  nmii>  (cstr.)  and 

Nnrms.  An  Aramaic  ^-^23  might  therefore  correspond  to  a 
Hebrew  v^.  An  analogous  form  is  the  name  of  Rabbi  Nehorai 
(wim),1  which  is  interpreted  'enlightened,'  from  NTirT3  =  Syr. 
*nrm, '  light.' 

The  conclusion  to  which  this  long  discussion  brings  us  is  that  silence  of 
there  is  no  philological  obstacle  to  deriving  Nafw/oaibs,  Nafa^wfe,  Joseph™ 
from  the  name  of  a  town,  Nazareth.  But  such  a  town  is  known  tan^Talmud 
only  from  the  Gospels  and  Acts  ;  the  name  is  not  found  in  the  Old 
Testament,  in  the  writings  of  Josephus,  or  in  the  Talmuds  and 
Midrashim,  and  from  this  voluminous  silence  it  has  been  argued 
that  there  was  no  such  place.  This  reasoning  assumes  that  a  com- 
bined list  of  the  names  in  these  sources  gives  a  complete  enumera- 
tion of  the  towns  of  Galilee,  great  and  small,  and  the  falsity  of  the 
assumption  concealed  in  this  extraordinary  abuse  of  the  argumentum 
e  silentio  will  be  immediately  apparent  to  any  one  who  examines  the 
sources.  As  for  the  Old  Testament,  many  of  the  chief  cities  ofl* 
Galilee  in  the  first  and  second  centuries  of  our  era  are  not  named  inl 
it,  as  was  remarked  by  the  rabbis.  Josephus  mentions  almost! 
exclusively  places  which  played  a  part  in  the  insurrection  of  a.d.  66, 
and  in  the  military  operations  of  the  first  year  of  the  war ;  the 
Talmuds  and  Midrashim  name  chiefly  places  which  were  the 'seats 
of  rabbinical  schools  after  the  war  under  Hadrian,  or  the  homes  of 
rabbis.  It  is  not  necessary  to  take  literally  the  exaggerations  of 
Josephus  and  the  Talmuds  2  about  the  enormous  number  of  populous 
cities  and  towns  in  Galilee  to  be  convinced  that  the  few  score  they 
name  are  not  all  there  were.  When  it  is  added  that  the  Nazareth 
of  the  Gospels  was  apparently  a  small  town  of  no  conspicuous  note, 
the  fact  that  the  name  does  not  occur  in  either  Josephus  or  the 
Talmud  loses  all  significance. 

Those  who  deny  Nazareth  an  existence  are  constrained  to  ex- 
plain its  existence  in  the  Gospels  as  an  invention  due  to  a  false 
etymology:  Nafapjvos,  Nafw/oatos,  being  mistakenly  supposed  to 
be  patrial  adjectives,  a  NafapeO  was  created  to  derive  them  from  ;  3 
then  stories  were  told  connecting  Jesus  with  his  imaginary  home  ; 
and  finally,  in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  when  Christians  were 
hunting  holy  places,  the  site  was  discovered,4  or,  more  exactly,  the 
name  was  fastened  on  an  obscure  village  in  Lower  Galilee,  which 
has  borne  it  ever  since  ;  the  modern  Arabic  name  is  al-Nasira. 

1  Cf.  also  Kefar  Neborai. 

2  E.g.,  Gittin  51a. 

3  The  t  must  have  been  maliciously  appended  to  perplex  amateur  etymo- 
logists in  later  times. 

4  Euseb.  Onomastica  Sacra,  ed.  Lagarde,  284.  37  ff. 


430 


NAZARENE  AND  NAZARETH 


Chorazin. 


a  member 
of  a 

religious 
party. 


Theory  that        A  curious  hypothesis  has  recently  been  put  forward  by  Burkitt. 

Nazareth  =  Impressed  by  the  fact  that  the  name  Nazareth  is  found  only  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  convinced  that  the  zeta  in  Na£ape0  must  stand 
for  a  Hebrew  zain,1  he  suggests  that  the  home  of  Jesus  was  really 
Chorazin  (Xopa&iv),  from  which  name  Na£ape#  "  may  have  arisen 
by  a  literary  error."  Three  of  the  consonants  of  Xopafciv  are 
found  in  TXafapW — in  inverse  order  to  be  sure!  Sporadic  scribal 
errors  of  comparable  enormity  can  doubtless  be  adduced,  but  it  would 
seem  that  an  auxiliary  hypothesis  is  required  to  explain  how  this 
particular  error  succeeded  in  imposing  itself  on  the  whole  tradition 
of  the  text.  What  I  wish  here  to  point  out,  however,  is  that  nothing 
— except  a  z — is  gained  by  this  substitution ;  for  Chorazin  is  en- 
veloped in  a  profounder  silence  than  Nazareth — it  is  not  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  Josephus,  or  the  Talmud,2  and  only  in  two  parallel 
passages  in  the  New  Testament.3 

Theory  that        Rightly  connecting  "  Nazarene  "  with  v£TO>  but  denying  that 

Nazarene =  either  can  be  derived  from  the  name  of  the  town  Nazareth — if  there 
was  any  such  town — some  recent  writers  (J.  M.  Robertson,  W.  B. 
Smith,  Arthur  Drews)  find  a  religious  origin  and  significance  for  the 
adjective.  The  verb  nasar  in  Hebrew  means  '  observe,  watch, 
watch  over '  ;  hence,  '  keep '  {e.g.  commandments),  '  guard, 
protect.'  Faustus  Socinus  suggested  long  ago  4  that  in  Matt.  ii.  23 
Jesus  was  called  Nazaraeus  not  only  because  his  home  was  in 
Nazareth,  but  because  he  was  the  Saviour,  '  Servator,'  5  from  nasar, 
'  servare.'  This  etymological  interpretation  of  Matt.  ii.  23  has 
been  renewed  by  numerous  scholars  from  the  seventeenth  century 
onwards.  The  writers  with  whom  we  are  now  concerned,  rejecting, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  connection  with  Nazareth,  take  vis^,  Nafw/oaios 
in  the  same  way.  Thus  W.  B.  Smith  :  "  Wir  diirfen  daher  mit  grosser 
Bestimmtheit  behaupten,  dass  6  'I-qo-ovs  6   Na£wpcuos  .  .  .  nichts 

1  Burkitt  derives  Nafw/jcuos  from  nazir. 

2  Neubauer  (Geographie  du  Talmud,  p.  220)  discovers  Chorazin  in  d^hd 
Menahoth  85a,  and  a  whole  generation  of  New  Testament  commentators  and 
writers  on  the  topography  of  Palestine  have  confided  in  his  identification. 
But  the  D^ro  of  Menahoth  was  in  Judaea,  not  far  from  Jerusalem,  as  the  con- 
text plainly  shows  and  the  parallel  in  the  Tosephta  Menahoth  says  in  express 
words.  The  name  itself  is  not  wholly  certain ;  Tos.  I.e.  reads  D"rni.  The 
Tosephta,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  remark,  is  second-century  evidence  that  the 
place  in  question — whatever  its  name  was — lay  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
Jerusalem.  Neubauer  it  may  be  added,  introduced  Nazareth  also  into  the 
Talmud  by  an  emendation  of  Jer.  Megillah  i.  1,  proposing  to  read  ,t»"im  dt6  ira 
(for  n»-\x  ,(?'n),  "  the  Nazarene  Bethlehem,"  i.e.  the  Bethlehem  near  Nazareth 
— a  conjecture  which  has  received  more  attention  than  it  merits. 

3  Matt.  xi.  21= Luke  x.  13. 

4  Lectiones  sacrae,  ad  loc.  {Opp.  i.  300). 
&  The  word  is  used  of  God  himself  in  Job  vii.  20  ;  Prov.  xxiv.  12. 


app.  b       NAZARENE  AND  NAZARETH        431 

anders  als  :  Jesus  der  Schiitzer,  der  Hiiter,  Jesus  der  Erretter, 
bedeutet."  Jesus  is,  however,  these  authors  assert,  not  the  name 
of  a  man,  but  of  a  divinity.1  It  is  a  significant  name :  $^  (Jeshu ) 
means,  '  Deliverer,  Saviour,'  so  that  the  transparent  proper  name 
of  the  god  and  the  epiclesis  under  which  he  was  worshipped  express 
the  same  character  and  function.  The  worship  of  this  divinity 
'  Jeshu e  ha-noseri,'  is  older  than  the  Christian  era.  Epiphanius 
(d.  403  a.d.)  describes  a  Jewish  sect,  the  Naa-apaioc,  who  were  before 
Christ  and  knew  nothing  of  him,  explicitly  distinguishing  them  from 
the  Jewish-Christian  Na^cuoi,  as  well  as  from  the  Na^cuot 
(Nazirites).  These  Nao-a/ocuoi  were  the  "  noserlm "  worshippers 
of  the  saviour-god,  Jeshu'  ha-noseri.  The  story  of  the  supernatural 
conception  in  the  Gospels,  and  of  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection, 
are  the  translation  into  legend  of  the  widespread  myth  of  the 
polyonymous  god— Adonis,  Attis,  Osiris— who  dies  a  violent  death 
and  comes  to  life  again,  through  the  rites  of  whose  cult  his  devotees 
attain  a  blessed  immortality. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  account  Epiphanius  Na<rapcuoi 
gives  of  the  Nao-a/ocuoi  suggests  nothing  of  all  this.      They  differed  in  EPi' 
from  the  rest  of  the  Jews,  he  says,  in  two  principal  points  :  first,  phaniu8' 
the  law  in  the  Pentateuch  is  not  the  law  which  Moses  received  by 
revelation  from  God,  but  is  wholly  a  later  fabrication  ;    second, 
to  offer  animal  sacrifice  or  to  eat  the  flesh  of  animals  was  dOefxcrov 
(nefas).2    Otherwise  they  were  just  like  the  rest  of  the  Jews  ;   they 
practised  circumcision  and   kept  the  Sabbath  and  festivals.     The 
only  other  thing  Epiphanius  notes  about  them  is  that  they  denied 
fate   (elfxapfievT])   and   astrology.      Not  only  does   Epiphanius   say 
nothing  of  a  Salvationist  sect,  or  mystery,  of  Nao-apaioi,  with  its 
private  god  "  Jeshu  ha-noseri,"  but  there  is  nowhere,  under  that 
name  or  any  other,  any  trace  of  a  Jewish  sect  of  the  kind. 

In  the  absence  of  historical  evidence  the  existence  of  such  a  Argument 

1  Here  again  the  argumentum  e  silentio  is  relied  on  to  prove  that  there  was  etymology. 
no  such  man  :   the  passage  about  Jesus  in  Josephus  is  cancelled  as  a  Christian 
interpolation,  which  in  substance  it  is  ;   ex  abundanti  cautela  the  references  in 
Suetonius  and  Tacitus  are  also  rejected  ;    there  is,  it  is  then  said  with  an  air 

of  conclusiveness,  no  mention  of  such  a  man  in  the  Greek  and  Roman  historians 
of  the  period.  Why  should  there  be  ?  Was  the  execution  of  an  obscure 
provincial  an  event  so  uncommon  that  the  news  of  it  would  be  sure  to  reach 
the  ears  of  Roman  historians,  or  important  enough  to  demand  record  in  the 
history  of  the  Empire  ? 

2  It  is  probable  that,  as  in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  with  which  Epiphanius's 
description  at  more  than  one  point  invites  comparison,  this  principle  is  the 
ground  of  their  rejection  of  the  Mosaio  law  with  its  system  of  bloody  sacrifices. 
They  did  not  question  the  Pentateuchal  history,  for  they  recognised  the  ante- 
diluvian patria-ifchs  together  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Levi,  Aaron,  Moses, 
a«nd  Joshua- 


432        NAZARENE  AND  NAZARETH       app.  b 

sect  is  supposed  to  be  demonstrable  by  etymology.  Let  us  examine 
these  etymologies  more  closely.  The  name  m8T,  it  is  said,  signifies 
'  Deliverer,  Saviour.'  In  fact,  inttT,  'I-qo-ovs,  a  very  common 
personal  name  among  the  Jews,  was,  as  every  Jew  knew,  nothing 
but  the  late  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  pronunciation  of  the  name  Joshua 
(mttTirp  ;  cf.  Hag.  i.  1  with  Ezra  ii.  2).  But  if  the  history  of  the 
name  be  ignored,  $*\w  could  only  be  an  abstract  from  the  intran- 
sitive stem,  meaning  '  help,  deliverance,  success,'  like  mnCT ; 
'  deliverer  '  is  in  Hebrew  2T8Tid,  the  nomen  agentis  of  the  causative 
(transitive)  stem. 

Nor  is  the  case  better  with  the  supposed  epiclesis,  *h^.  Assum- 
ing that  the  o  is  long  (ha-noseri),  and  that  the  relative  adjective  is 
equivalent  to  the  nomen  agentis,  noser — the  first  an  unwarranted 
assumption,  the  second  false — it  would  mean,  '  guardian,  pro- 
tector '  (Schutzer,  Hiiter),  not  '  deliverer,  liberator,  saviour ' 
(Erretter,  Befreier,  Heiland)  ;  this  seductive  procession  of  the 
synonyms  of  Christian  theology  is  a  huge  subreption.  I  have  said 
above  that  the  presumption  is  that  the  o  in  nosri  is  short,  as  in  nokri 
and  the  like  ;  but  if  an  adjective  in  i  could  be  formed  from  a  nomen 
agentis  (of  which  I  have  no  example),  ndseri  would  not  mean  the  same 
as  noser,  any  more  than  Redemptorist  is  the  same  as  Redemptor. 
Most  derivatives  of  this  type  are  patrials,  patronymics,  or  gentile 
adjectives  ;  but  various  other  relations  may  be  expressed,  for 
example,  a  member  of  a  sect  or  party,  as  Sadduki,  a  Sadducee  (from 
Sadduk,  a  man's  name).  An  individual  adherent  of  a  sect  of  nosrlm 
would  be  a  nosri,  whatever  the  origin  of  the  name  might  be.  But 
the  afformative  is  always  significant,  and  an  etymological  hypothesis 
which  is  constrained  to  ignore  it  condemns  itself. 

Whether  Epiphanius's  description  of  his  Jewish  Nasaraeans  is 
more  trustworthy  than  most  of  what  he  retails  about  Jewish  sects — 
the  Pharisees,  for  instance — and  whether  they  were  really  as  ancient 
as  he  says,  is  beside  the  present  point.  The  sect  which  Smith  and 
others  describe  with  such  particularity  is  a  modern  myth,  invented, 
like  so  many  other  myths,  by  false  etymology,  in  the  service  of  that 
"  religionsgeschichtliche  Methode  "  of  which  it  may  fairly  be  said — 
with  Shakespeare's  leave — "  If  this  be  method,  there's  madness  in 
it."  To  find  a  match  for  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  one  must  go  to 
Peres's  ingenious  demonstration  that  a  man  Napoleon  never  existed ;  -1 
he  was  Apollo,  as  the  very  name  proves  (N?j,,A7roAA(oi'),  and  his  whole 
story  a  solar  myth.  But  Peres  was  consciously  writing  a  satire  on 
the  etymological-mythological  method  by  which  Dupuis  had  proved 
that  there  never  was  a  man  Jesus  ;  he  was  a  sun-god,  the  twelve 
apostles  the  signs  of  the  zodiac,  the  Christian  myth  a  variant  of 
Mithras. 

1  M.  J.-B.  P6res,  Comme  quoi  Napoleon  rCa  jamais  existe;  ou  Grand  Erra- 
tum, source  d'un  nombre  infini  d' 'errata  a  noter  dans  Vhistoire  du  xixe  siecle.    1817. 


APPENDIX  C 

THE   SLAVONIC   JOSEPHUS 

By  the  Editors. 

The  Slavonic  version  of  Josephus,  which  is  not  yet  generally 
accessible,  contains  many  paragraphs  which  are  not  found  in  Greek. 
Their  origin  is  quite  uncertain,  and  can  scarcely  be  profitably  dis- 
cussed until  the  whole  evidence  is  available,  and  the  expert  opinion 
of  Slavonic  scholars  has  been  obtained  as  to  the  relation  of  these 
passages  to  the  rest  of  the  version.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  , 
deals  with  John  the  Baptist.  It  has  been  published  in  a  German 
translation  by  A.  Berendts  in  "  Die  Zeugnisse  vom  Christen  turn 
im  slavischen  De  Bello  Judaico  des  Josephus  "  in  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen  xxix.  4,  and  by  J.  Frey  in  Der  slavische  Josephusbericht. 
The  question  has  been  discussed  both  by  these  scholars  and  by  their 
reviewers  whether  this  paragraph  is  of  Jewish  or  Christian  origin. 
The  possibility  has  been  suggested  (but  has  found  little  favour) 
that  it  belongs  to  another  version,  presumably  Aramaic,  made  by 
Josephus  himself.  The  Theologische  Jahrsbericht  for  1907-10  gives 
a  short  account  of  the  literature  on  the  subject.  To  students  of 
the  text  of  Josephus  the  matter  is  interesting,  to  the  historian  it 
seems  to  be  curious  rather  than  important,  for  the  narrative  appears 
to  have  every  sign  of  inaccuracy.  Since,  however,  it  seems  not  to 
be  available  in  English,  a  translation  from  Berendts  is  appended. 

"  In  those  days,  however,  a  man  wandered  among  the  Jews 
clad  in  unusual  garments,  because  he  had  put  on  furs  about  his 
body,  on  all  parts  of  it  which  were  not  covered  by  his  hair.  More- 
over, judging  from  his  face,  he  looked  just  like  a  wild  man. 

"  This  man  came  to  the  Jews  and  summoned  them  to  freedom, 
saying,  *  God  has  sent  me,  that  I  may  show  you  the  way  to  the 
law,  by  which  you  may  free  yourselves  from  the  great  struggle  of 
sustaining  yourselves.  And  there  will  be  no  mortal  ruling  over 
you,  only  the  Highest,  who  has  sent  me.'  And  as  the  people  heard 
VOL.  I  433  2  F 


434  THE  SLAVONIC  JOSEPHUS  app.  a 

this,  they  were  happy  ;  and  all  Judea,  which  lies  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Jerusalem,  followed  him. 

"  And  he  did  no  other  thing  to  them  than  to  plunge  them  into 
the  flood-tide  of  the  Jordan  and  let  them  go,  pointing  out  to  them 
that  they  should  leave  off  evil  deeds,  and  promising  that  there 
would  be  given  them  a  king,  who  would  free  them  and  conquer  for 
them  all  peoples  not  yet  subject  to  them,  but  that  nobody  among 
those  of  whom  we  are  speaking  would  be  vanquished.  Some  reviled 
him,  but  others  were  won  over  to  belief. 

"  And  then  he  was  led  to  Archelaus  where  the  men  versed  in 
law  had  assembled  ;  they  asked  him  who  he  was  and  where  he  had 
been  up  to  this  time.  And  he  answered  this  question,  and  spoke 
thus,  '  Pure  am  I,  for  God's  spirit  has  entered  into  me,  and  I  nourish 
my  body  on  reeds  and  roots  and  wood-shavings.'  But  when  they 
threw  themselves  upon  him,  in  order  to  rack  him,  unless  he  revoked 
his  former  words  and  actions,  he  then  spoke  again,  '  It  befits  you 
to  leave  off  your  atrocious  works  and  to  join  yourselves  to  the  Lord, 
your  God.' 

"  And  in  a  rage  there  rose  up  Simon,  by  descent  an  Essene,  a 
scribe,  and  this  one  spoke  :  '  We  read  each  day  the  godly  books. 
But  you,  who  have  just  come  out  of  the  woods  like  a  wild  beast, 
how  do  you  dare,  indeed,  to  teach  us  and  seduce  the  people  with 
your  profligate  sermons  ! '  And  he  rushed  forward  in  order  to  harm 
him.  But  he,  rebuking  them,  spoke,  '  I  shall  not  reveal  to  you 
that  secret  dwelling  within  your  hearts,  for  you  have  not  wished  it. 
Thereby  an  unspeakable  misfortune  has  come  upon  you  and  by 
your  own  design.' 

"  And  after  he  had  thus  spoken,  he  went  forth  to  the  other 
side  of  the  Jordan,  and  since  no  one  dared  blame  him,  each  did 
exactly  what  he  had  done  formerly. 

"  When  Philip  was  in  possession  of  his  power,  he  saw  in  a  dream 
how  an  eagle  tore  out  both  his  eyes.  And  he  summoned  all  his 
wise  men.  But  as  each  explained  the  dream  differently,  that  man, 
of  whom  we  have  written  before,  telling  how  he  went  about  in  the 
furs  of  wild  beasts  and  how  he  purified  the  people  in  the  waters  of 
the  Jordan,  came  to  him  suddenly  unbidden.  And  he  spoke, 
'  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord  on  the  dream  which  you  have  had. 
The  eagle — that  is  your  corruptibility,  because  that  bird  is  violent 
and  rapacious.  And  that  sin  will  take  from  you  your  eyes,  which 
are  your  power  and  your  wife."  And  as  he  had  thus  spoken,  before 
evening  Philip  died  and  his  power  was  given  to  Agrippa. 

"  And  his  wife  took  to  husband  Herod,  his  brother.  On  her 
account,  however,  all  the  men  versed  in  law  abhorred  him,  but 
dared  not  accuse  him  to  his  face. 

"  Only  that  man,  however,  whom  people  called  a  wild  man, 


I 


app.  c  THE  SLAVONIC  JOSEPHUS  435 

came  to  him  with  wrath  and  spoke  :  '  Why  have  you  taken  your 
brother's  wife  ?  As  your  brother  died  a  remorseless  death,  so  will 
you  too  be  mowed  down  by  the  heavenly  sickle.  God's  heavenly 
decree  will  not  be  silenced,  but  will  cause  your  death  through  evil 
affliction  in  foreign  lands.  For  you  are  not  producing  children  for 
your  brother,  but  are  giving  rein  to  your  carnal  desires,  and  are 
carrying  on  adultery,  since  four  children  of  his  exist.' 

"  But  when  Herod  heard  this  he  grew  angry  and  ordered  that 
the  man  be  beaten  and  driven  forth.  But  he  accused  Herod  so 
incessantly,  wherever  he  found  him,  and  for  so  long  a  time,  that 
finally  he  offered  violence  to  him  and  ordered  him  to  be  killed. 

"  But  his  character  was  unusual  and  his  method  of  life  was  not 
mortal ;  as,  for  instance,  a  fleshless  spirit  would,  so  did  this  man 
also  persist.  His  lips  knew  no  bread,  not  once  at  the  Passover  did  he 
partake  of  unleavened  bread,  saying,  That  in  remembrance  of  God, 
who  had  freed  the  people  from  servitude,  this  sort  of  bread  was 
given  for  food,  as  a  consolation,  for  the  way  was  woeful.  But  he 
did  not  once  allow  himself  near  wine  and  intoxicating  drinks.  And 
he  shunned  every  animal  for  food,  and  he  punished  every  wrong, 
and  wood-shavings  answered  his  needs." 


APPENDIX  D 

DIFFERENCES    IN    LEGAL    INTERPRETATIONS    BETWEEN    PHARISEES 
AND   SADDUCEES 

By  the  Editors. 

It  is  interesting  to  collect  from  the  Eabbinical  writings  a  few  points 
of  difference  between  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  in  interpreting  the 
laws.     In  almost  every  case  we  are  impressed  by  the  mildness  of 
the  Pharisaic  halaka  or  rule  of  life. 
Law  of  The  Erub. — The  law  was  very  strictly  interpreted  in  regard  to 

Erubim.        Sabbath  observance,  and  was  felt  to  be  intolerable.     The  prohibi- 
tion against  carrying  anything  in  or  out  of  the  house  on  the  day 
of  rest  was  very  oppressive,  and,  to  render  it  easier  to  observe,  a 
^  f  system  of  erubim  was  devised  by  which  several  houses  could  be 
S  counted  as  a  single  mansion.     This  the  Pharisees  supported,  but 
|  their  rivals  condemned,  and  it  is  said  that  a  single  Sadducee  in  a 
{.  community,  enjoying  the  erub,  could  invalidate  the  privilege.1 
Sabbath.  The  Sabbath. — The  rigidity  with  which  the  Sabbath  obligations 

were  interpreted  was,  as  in  the  case  of  the  erub,  relaxed  by  the 
#C^  I  Pharisees ;     and   one    of   the    reasons    alleged   for   regarding   the 
|  Damascene  document  as  influenced  by  Sadduceeism  is  the  severe 
*  view  it  takes  of  Sabbath  observance.     The  covenanters  of  Damascus 
<*  [  even  refused  to  raise  an  animal  which  had  fallen  into  a  pit  on  the 
I  Sabbath  ;   nor  did  they  allow  a  ladder  or  cord  to  be  used  to  save  a 

1  The  treatise  Erubin  (Combination)  Mishna,  vi.  2,  cf.  f.  68a.     The  Mishna 
I  is,  "  If  a  man  dwell  in  the  same  court  with  a  Gentile  or  with  a  Jew  who  does 
^ !  not  acknowledge  the  law  of  Erub,  their  presence  prevents  his  carrying  anything 
'<  into  or  out  of  his  house  on  the  Sabbath." 

To  the  question  whether  a  Sadducee  was  in  this  respect  on  the  same  footing 
with  a  foreigner,  R.  Gamaliel  answered,  No,  and  related  :  "  It  happened  that 
a  Sadducee  dwelt  with  us  in  the  same  alley  in  Jerusalem,  and  my  father  said 
to  us,  '  Make  haste  and  bring  out  your  vessels  into  the  alley,  before  he  brings 
his  out  and  thus  prevents  your  doing  so.'  "  But  in  the  same  connection  a 
tradition  (Baraita)  is  quoted  :  "  An  Israelite  who  lives  in  the  same  court  with 
a  Gentile,  a  Sadducee,  or  a  Boethusian  is  prevented  by  them  (from  carrying 
in)." 

The  Erub  was  devised  to  mitigate  the  Law,  Exodus  xvi.  29 :  "  Let  no  man 
go  out  of  his  place  on  the  Sabbath  day." 

436 


^p.  d  DIFFERENCES  IN  LEGAL  INTERPRETATIONS  437 


man  in  a  like  position  on  the  holy  day.     Even  offerings,  except  the* 
morning  and  evening  in  the  temple,  were  forbidden,  as  they  caused 
a  breach  of  the  Sabbath.1 

The  Year  of  Release. — The  law  of  the  year  of  release  (Shemitta)  Year  of 
was  found  to  operate  with  peculiar  severity  in  the  case  of  borrowers.  I release* 
According  to  Deut.  xvi.  3  all  debts  were  to  be  remitted  to  the; 
Israelites  every  seventh  year  ;  and,  consequently  in  the  last  years 
of  a  Sabbatic  period  no  one  could  lend  with  any  confidence  that 
the  money  would  be  repaid,  and  therefore  none  could  borrow. 
To  remedy  this,  the  Pharisees,  traditionally  Hillel,2  invented  a  system  f  f 
by  which  the  borrower  could  agree  not  to  take  advantage  of  the 
Sabbatic  year.  This  was  known  as  prosbul  (irpoo-po\rj),  and  was 
designed  to  remedy  the  law  in  Deut.  xv.  1.2.  "  At  the  end  of 
every  seven  years  thou  shalt  make  a  release  (Shemitta).  And  this 
is  the  manner  of  the  release  :  every  creditor  shall  release  that  which 
he  has  lent  unto  his  neighbour  ;  he  shall  not  exact  it  of  his  neighbour 
and  his  brother  ;  because  the  Lord's  release  hath  been  proclaimed."  2 

Damage  done  by  an  Animal  or  a  Slave. — There  is  a  curious  passage  Damage. 
in  the  treatise  Yadaim  (Hands),  in  which  the  Sadducees  reproach! 
the  Pharisees  for  deciding  that  a  man  ought  to  pay  for  damage^ 
done  by  his  ox  or  his  ass,  but  not  by  his  servant.     The  Pharisees 
justified  their  decision  by  an  appeal  to  common  sense.     The  ox  or 
ass,  being  irrational  animals,  can  be  controlled,  but  not  so  a  servant 
or  handmaid,  for  whom  no  man  can  be  responsible  in  the  same 
sense  as  he  can  be  for  a  brute.3 


1  The  Damascene  law  of  the  Sabbath. is  far  more  strict  than  that  of  the 
Talmud.  See  Schechter's  edition,  and  his  notes  on  pp.  10  and  11  of  the  docu- 
ment. Note  especially  pp.  11,  14:  "No  man  shall  deliver  an  animal  on  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath.  And  if  it  falls  into  a  pit  or  ditch,  he  shall  not  raise  it 
on  the  day  of  the  Sabbath.  .  .  .  And  if  any  person  falls  into  a  gathering  of 
water  ...  he  shall  not  bring  him  up  by  a  ladder  or  cord  or  instrument.  No 
man  shall  bring  anything  on  the  altar  on  the  Sabbath  save  the  burnt  offering 
of  the  Sabbath,  for  so  it  is  written  '  Save  your  Sabbaths.'  " 

On  the  prohibition  against  raising  an  animal  out  of  a  pit  Schechter  remarks  :  j 
"  The  Rabbinic  law  is  less  strict."  See  Sabbath  1296,  and  Maimonides,  Hilcoth 
Sabbath,  chap.  25,  par.  25.  Jesus  appeals  to  a  lenient  interpretation  of  the 
Law  in  his  day  (Luke  xiv.  5).  The  next  clause  in  the  document  might  be  cited 
to  support  the  reading  vl6s  for  8uos  in  Luke,  or,  at  least,  to  show  that  it  has 
some  probability.  For  the  last  clause  cf.  Matt.  xii.  5,  "  The  priests  in  the 
temple  profane  the  Sabbath  and  are  blameless." 

2  Hillel  is  credited  with  the  institution  of  the  prosbul.  Derenbourg,  op.  cit. 
p.  189,  note  1,  quotes,  Mishna,  Gittin  iv.  3.  D^ij/n  ppn  ^bd  Vnrns  ppnn  Vm 
"  Hillel  instituted  the  prosbul  for  the  reformation  of  the  world." 

8  Yadaim  iv.  7.  This  Derenbourg  (op.  cit.  p.  134)  thinks  has  a  political 
reference.  Hyrcanus  II.  pleaded  this  in  excuse  for  his  tolerating  the  crimes 
of  his  servant  Herod,  who  might  avenge  himself  upon  his  master  if  he  remon- 
strated.    This  plea  was  not  accepted  by  the  Sadducees. 


•Ofe 


<<**** 


438  DIFFERENCES  IN  LEGAL  INTERPRETATIONS  app.  d 

False  The  Case  of  False  Witness. — According  to  Deut.  xix.  16  ff.  a  man 

witness.        guilty  of  false  witness  was  to  receive  the  punishment  which  his 

I  victim  would  have  suffered.  In  this  case  the  Pharisaic  decision 
took  account  of  the  intention  of  the  perjurer,  the  Sadducees  of  the 
j  effect  of  his  testimony.  If  an  innocent  man  was  pronounced  guilty 
l  owing  to  a  false  witness,  the  Pharisees  thought  the  perjurer  should 
J  suffer  the  same  fate  as  he  meant  the  defendant  to  incur.  The 
]  Sadducees  thought  that  sentence  of  death  should  be  inflicted  only 
if  capital  punishment  had  been  actually  undergone  by  the  man 
unjustly  condemned.  The  passage  in  the  Mishna  1  says  :  "  The 
false  witnesses  are  not  to  be  put  to  death  unless  the  death-sentence 
has  been  pronounced  upon  the  accused  by  the  court.  The  Sadducees, 
indeed,  said,  Not  unless  the  accused  has  been  executed,  for  it  is 
said,  Life  for  life  !  The  learned  replied,  Is  it  not  said  in  the  pre- 
ceding context,  You  shall  do  unto  him  as  he  designed  to  do  to  his 
brother  ?  This  implies  that  his  brother  was  still  alive.  But  then 
why  does  it  say,  Life  for  life  ?  It  might  otherwise  be  inferred  that 
the  false  witnesses  were  liable  from  the  time  when  their  testimony 
was  taken  ;  this  is  excluded  by  the  words,  Life  for  life.  So  they 
are  not  put  to  death  unless  sentence  has  been  pronounced  (that  is, 
before  the  falsity  and  malice  of  their  testimony  are  brought  to 

light)." 

Inheritance.  Female  Inheritance. — The  rights  of  females  to  inherit  in  the 
absence  of  male  heirs  was  conceded  by  Leviticus  xxvii.  ;  but  there 
was  an  ambiguity  in  the  case  of  a  man  leaving  no  sons  or  grandsons 
but  only  a  daughter  and  a  grand-daughter  descended  from  a  deceased 
son.  The  Pharisees  maintained  that  the  niece  inherited  before  the 
aunt ;  the  Sadducees  took  the  opposite  view.2 

The  above  examples,  trivial  as  they  may  seem  to  a  modern 

student,  are  of  importance  as  illustrating  the  difference  between 

g»~,     the  two  great  parties  in  Judaism.     They  show  that  the  interpreta- 

^jjtion,  so  general  in  commentaries,  that  the  Sadducees  represented 

*£ I  religious   indifference  whilst  Pharisaism  was  characterised  by  an 

\  anxious  legalism  is  erroneous  ;  and  that  the  theory  that  Sadduceeism 

lis  equivalent  to  liberalism  cannot  be  sustained.3 

1  Tract  Makkoih  (stripes)  1.  7. 

2  "  When  there  are  neither  sons  nor  son's  children  the  daughters  and  their 
dependants  become  the  rightful  heirs.  The  Sadducees  held  that  the  daughters 
shared  in  the  inheritance  when  there  was  only  the  daughter  of  a  son  living, 
but  Johanan  ben  Zakkai  and  other  Pharisees  decided  that  the  son  and  all  his 
descendants  whether  male  or  female  should  precede  the  daughter  in  the  right 
of  inheritance."  (Baba  Bathra  1156,  of  Tosephta,  Yadaim  ii.  9;  Megillath, 
Ta'anit  5.)     Cf.  Jewish  Encycl.,  art.  "  Inheritance." 

3  See  Geiger,  Die  Pharisaer  und  Sadducder,  Breslau,  1867,  p.  27. 


APPENDIX  E 

the  am  ha- ares  (the  people  of  the  land)  and  the  habefvlm 

(associates) 

By  George  F.  Moore 

Am    ha- abes   is    properly    a    collective,    meaning   "  the    common  iMeaning  of 
people."     In  rabbinical  literature  it  is  oftener  an  individual  of  this.W0"J- 
class,  "  a  man  of  the  common  people,"  and  the  plural,  ame  ha-ares,^ 
is  employed  somewhat  as  we  use  "  the  masses."  x  !• 

An  am  ha-ares  may  be  a  layman  in  contrast  to  a  priest,  as  where 
Phineas  refuses  to  go  to  Jephthah  to  absolve  him  of  his  vow  because 
it  is  beneath  the  dignity  of  a  High  Priest  to  go  to  an  am  ha-ares 
(Tanchuma,  Behukkoihai  7).  Much  more  frequently  the  term  is 
in  express  or  implied  contrast  to  talmlde  hakamim,  "  scholars  "  ; 
the  educated  class  sets  itself  over  against  the  masses  of  the  people. 
(See  e.g.  Nedarim  \ia,  20a.) 

?)     Inasmuch  as  Jewish  education  consisted  almost  exclusively  of 
the  study  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  religious  tradition — theological, 
ethical,  ceremonial,  juristic — the  "  common  man  "  is  one  who  is  j  * 
ignorant  of  the  duties  and  observances  of  his  religion  ;    if  not  of » 
the  rudiments,  at  least  of  the  refinements  on  which  so  much  time 
was  spent  in  the  schools. 

The  e^catedjconstituted _a Msock^ckss,  and  in  their  own  estimate  Contempt 
the  most  respectable  class  in  the  community.  They  looked  down]  ^°g 
on  the  masses  not  only  as  unlearned  but  as  ill-bred,  rude,  and  dirty.; 
An  educated  man  should  therefore  not  marry  a  woman  of  this  class,* 
nor  give  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  a  man  of  the  common  people.. 
If  he  cannot  get  the  daughter  of  a  scholar  for  a  wife — to  attain 
which  end  he  should  be  willing  to  sell  all  he  has— he  should  marry 
the  daughter  of  a  man  of  consideration  in  the  community  ;  if  he 
cannot  compass  this,  the  daughter  of  the  head  of  a  synagogue,  the 
daughter  of  a  collector  of  communal  charities,  or  even  the  daughter 

1  Similarly,  goi,  in  the  Old  Testament  a  foreign  nation,  is  in  the  later  litera-  | 
ture  an  individual  foreigner,  with  the  religious  connotation,  "heathen,"  and  It* 
the  plural  goiim,  means  "  Gentiles." 

439 


440        THE  AM  HA-ARES  AND  THE  HABERIM     app  e 

of  the  teacher  of  a  boys'  school ;   but  not  a  woman  of  the  common 
>^    people,  "  for  they  are  loathsome  (shekes)  and  their  women  are  un- 
clean vermin  (sheres)."    A  common  man  makes  a  brutal  husband  ; 
;  for  an  educated  man  to  marry  his  daughter  to  one  is  like  exposing 
her,  bound  and  helpless,  to  a  lion  ;   he  will  beat  her,  and  assert  his 
^^     J  conjugal  rights  over  her  without  decency.     (Pesahim  496 — where 
there  is  more  of  the  same  sort.) 
Tho  bor.  A  more  opprobrious  term  than  am  ha-ares  is  bor ;    a  bor  is  a 

*|  man  who  has  all  the  faults  of  the  am  ha-ares  in  the  superlative 
j  degree.     According  to  Bemidbar  Rabba  3,  1,  there  are   in   Israel 
three  classes  :    students  of  the  law  (bene  tor  ah),  common  people 
A^\{ame  ha-ares),  and  bbrlm.     An  often-quoted  saying  of  Hillel  is: 
"  No  bor  has  scruples  about  sinning,  and  no  am  ha-ares  is  pious."  x 
•  In  Tos.  Berakoth  7,  18  a  rabbi  thanks  God  that  he  did  not  create 
**  *'lhim  a  heathen,  a  woman,  or  a  bor.2 
Jewish  Scrupulous  Jews  formed  an  association  (haburah)  the  members 

£on°C1M^'  ?of  wnicn  were  pledged  to  keep  themselves  pure  from  ceremonial 
defilement  and  to  set  apart  with  meticulous  exactness  the  portion 
i  of  the  products  of  the  soil  which  were  by  the  Law  to  be  given  to 
j  the  Priests  (terumah  gedolah)  or  to  the  Levites  (tithes).     Those  who 
assumed  these  engagements  called  themselves  "associates"  (haberim), 
J  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  name  "  Pharisees  "  was  originally 
applied  to  them  as  men  who  separated  themselves  from  unclean- 
ness.     The  members  of  these  societies  were  drawn  largely  from  the 
J  educated  class,  and  since  haber  is  used  also  for  a  "fellow,"  as  we  might 
ij  say,  of  a  rabbinical  school,  or  a  colleague  of  its  head,  it  is  sometimes 
:'  doubtful  in  which  sense  the  word  is  to  be  taken  ;   the  ambiguity  is, 
however,  of  no  importance  for  our  present  purpose. 
Haberim  or         The  pledge  of  the  haber,  which  had  to  be  taken  in  the  presence 
Associates.    0£  ^iee  members  (Bekoroth  306),  restricted  in  various  ways  his  inter- 

X^  course  with  the  common  people  :  he  must  not  give  terumah  or  tithes 
(  to  an  am  ha-ares  (that  is,  to  a  Priest  or  Levite  of  this  class),  perform 
I  his  purifications  in  the  presence  of  an  am  ha-ares,  be  the  guest  of 
one,  or  entertain  one  in  his  house  (unless  he  left  his  outer  garment 
outside)  ;   he  must  not  sell  him  of  the  products  of  the  earth  either 
V'dry"  (grains,  and  the  like)  or  "moist"  (garden  vegetables  and 
1  fruits),  or  buy  from  him  anything  except  "  dry  "  (dry  things  not 
'  being  subject  to  uncleanness  by  contact),  etc.     There  are  numerous 
other  rules  about  buying  and  selling  between  a  haber  and  an  am 
ha-ares  which  it  is  superfluous  to  set  down  here.     (See  M .  Demai  2, 
2  f.  ;    Tos.  Demai  2-3  ;   Jer.  Demai,  in  he.  ;    Tos.  Abodah  Zarah  3, 

1  "  Pious  "  has  here  what  we  might  call  a  professional  sense,  the  expert 
religiousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  It  takes  education  to  make  a  saint. 
Cf.  Sabb.  63a  near  the  end. 

8  In  the  liturgy  the  bor  is  replaced  by  "  a  slave." 


app.  e      THE  AM  HA-ARES  AND  THE  HABERlM         441 

8  ff.  etc.)     A  haber  should  not  travel  in  company  with  an  am  ha-ares,  j 
visit  him,  study  the  law  in  his  presence  (Pesahim  496).     "  Do  not  $j 
be  frequently  in  the  company  of  an  am  ha-ares,  for  in  the  end  he\ 
will  give  you  something  to  eat  from  which  the  tithes  have  not  been  S 
separated  ;   do  not  be  much  in  the  company  of  a  priest  who  is  an  \    ^y* 
am  ha-ares,  for  in  the  end  he  will  give  you  terumah  to  eat  (Nedarim  \ 
20a).     Cf.  Sabb.  13a  :  A  Pharisee  should  not  eat  with  an  am  ha-ares, 
even  when  they  are  both  unclean  (zabim),  lest  he  become  intimate 
with  him  and  eat  food  not  tithed,  or  (since  most  of  the  class  pay 
tithes)  subsequently  eat  unclean  food  when  in  a  state  of  cleanness. 

The  reasons  for  these  restrictions  and  precautions  are  partly  The 
the  presumption  of  uncleanness  which  attaches  to  the  am  ha-ares  lam  ha-ares 
and  everything  that  belongs  to  him,  partly  the  presumption  that^™**™  y 
the  portion  of  the  Priests  and  Levites  has  not  been  properly  separated,  ^* 
or  the  laws  concerning  the  fruits  of  the  fallow  year  duly  observed. 
The  importance  of  the  religious  taxes  in  the  eyes  of  the  rabbis  is 
shown  by  the  saying  of  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel :    "  The  rules  about 
kodesh,   terumah,  and  ma'aseroth  (holy  things,  priests'   dues,   and 
tithes)  are  fundamentals  of  the  law  (guphe  tor  ah),  and  these  are 
delivered  to  the  am  ha-ares  "  (Sabb.  326).      The  garments  of  an 
am  ha-ares  defile  by  contact,  fruit  that  he  has  handled  is  sus- 
pected of  contracting  uncleanness  from  his  touch,  etc.     Since  the 
great  concourse  of  people  at  the  festival  seasons  made  it  impossible 
to  avoid  contact  with  the  multitudes,  an  exception  is  made  for 
these  occasions  ;   the  uncleanness  of  the  am  ha-ares  is  reckoned  as 
cleanness  during  the  feasts  (Besa  lib),  and  at  these  seasons  their 
testimony  about  the  payment  of  terumah  was  accepted  (Hagigah  26a). 

The  peasantry  were  believed — probably  with  sufficient  reason —  j 
to  be  both  ignorant  and  negligent  in  the  matter  of  their  religious 
dues  {terumah  and  tithes);    consequently  when  a  scrupulous  JewvL-?^ 
bought  food  from  them  in  the  market  he  could  never  be  sure — 
whatever  the  seller  averred — that  he  was  not  making  himself  anj 
accessory  to  this  fraud  on  God  and  his  ministry.     What  is  to  be 
done  in  such  a  case  is  the  subject  of  the  book  entitled  Demai  in  the 
first  part  of  the  Mishnah  and  the  Tosephta.     The  haber,  when  he  ^ 
did  not  know  that  he  was  dealing  with  one  who  had  pledged  himself 
to  be  faithful  and  trustworthy  in  these  matters  (that  is,  another 
haber),  made  sure  by  setting  apart  from  his  purchase  the  legal 
terumah  and  tithes  of  "  all  that  he  sold,  bought  and  ate  "  1  {Sotah* 
48a  ;  ordinance  of  John  Hyrcanus). 

The  am  ha-ares  was  not  necessarily  of  the  lowest  social  class  ; 
Priests,  and  even  the  High  Priest,  might  be  without  rabbinical  f  *t  ^u 
education  and  might  pay  little  attention  to  the  casuistry  of  the  ' 

1  Cf.  Luke  xviii.  12,  airoSeKaTeiw  irdpra  8<ra  KrQfiai,  which  might  almost  be 
rendered,  "  I  tithe  all  that  I  buy.*' 


>* 


Any  one 
might 
become  a 
haber  by- 
merit. 


442         THE  AM  HA-ARES  AND  THE  HABERIM       app.  b 

schools  or  even  to  the  letter  of  the  Law.1    Probably  not  many  of 
|  the  higher  priesthood,   at  least,   were  members  of  the  precisian 
1  societies.2    Such  Priests  were  am  ha-ares  in  the  eyes  of  the  scholars 
and  the  Pharisees,  and  were  treated  as  such. 

The  line  between  the  two  classes  was,  thus,  not  one  of  birth  or 
station  but,  we  might  say,  of  culture  and  piety,  and  there  was  no 
great  gulf  fixed  so  that  men  could  not  pass  over  from  one  side  to 
the  other.  A  student  might  abandon  his  studies,  and  sink  to  the 
level  of  the  am  ha-ares  ;  a  haber  might  engage  in  an  occupation— 
that  of  collector3  for  example— which  was  incompatible  with  his 
professions,  and  be  expelled  from  the  association,  or  (by  a  later 
relaxation  of  the  discipline)  be  suspended  as  long  as  he  held  the 
office.4 

On  the  other  hand,  a  man  of  the  common  people  could  become 

a  student,  and  advance  to  be  a  "  fellow,"  a  colleague,  the  head 

of  a  school,  and  in  time  attain  the  highest  rank  among  the  learned, 

as  the  example  of  Akiba  and  many  others  shows.     The  zeal  of  the 

rabbis  for  the  multiplication  of  scholars,  as  well  as  the  natural 

attractions  of  the  learned  career,  drew  many  of  the  lower  classes 

into  the  schools.     Again,  without  the  education  of  the  schools,  any 

^  «  man  could  become  an  associate  (haber)  by  assuming  the  obligations 

I  of  the  haburah  and  binding  himself  to  be  trustworthy  (ne'eman)  in 

J  the  matters  of  ceremonial  cleanness  and  the  separation  of  the  portion 

of  God  and  the  ministry,  thus  relieving  himself  of  the  suspicion 

attaching  to  his  class  and  the  social  disabilities  which  resulted  from 

it.     The  conditions  of  admission  were  the  same  for  a  student  (talmid 

hakam)  as  for  an  am  ha-ares.     A  difference  was  made,  however, 

^  |  between  an  am  ha-ares  who  was  seen  to  be  observant  of  the  pro- 

\  prieties  and  decencies  of  life  in  his  home  (who  was  seni'a)  and  one 

p  I  who  was  not ;   the  former  was  at  once  admitted  to  membership  and 

i  then  instructed  in  the  obligations  he  had  assumed  ;   the  latter  was 

given  a  course  of  instruction  before  he  was  allowed  to  take  the 

engagements.     We    read    also    of   stages    of   admission    (beginning 

x  The  accounts  we  have  of  the  appropriation  of  the  Levites'  tithes  by  the 
Priests,  who  collected  them  for  themselves  by  force,  if  necessary,  do  not  indicate 
a  strict  regard  for  the  Law. 

2  It  is  perhaps  a  reproof  of  the  Priests  of  the  time  for  their  indifference 
in  this  regard  that  it  is  asserted  that  Aaron  was  a  haber  and  his  sons  haberim 
(Sanhedrin  90). 

3  Gabbai,  a  collector  of  any  kind,  whether  of  taxes  for  the  Government  or 
of  the  charitable  gifts  of  the  community.  If  "  publican  "  had  been  specifically 
meant  the  specific  term,  mokes,  would  doubtless  have  been  used. 

4  Travel  or  residence  outside  the  land  also  suspended  the  relation  to  the 
haburah ;  it  was  not  possible  to  live  according  to  the  rule  in  a  foreign  country. 
If  the  haber  returned  to  Palestine,  he  resumed  his  place  in  the  haburah  without 
further  ceremony— he  did  not  have,  like  a  Brahman,  to  restore  broken  caste. 


app.  e      THE  AM  HA-ARES  AND  THE  HABERIM         443 

with  the  washing  of  hands)  and  of  probationary  periods  of  different 
length  before  a  man  was  recognized  as  in  all  respects  "  trustworthy." 
(See  Tos.  Demai  2  ;  Behoroth  306). 

The  feelings  of  the  two  classes  were  not  altogether  friendly.  Rivalry 
The  educated  had  not  only  the  pride  of  learning,  but  a  religious  J^^nand 
pride  in  their  learning ;   the  study  of  God's  word  in  Scripture  and  unieamed. 
tradition  was  not  only  the  sole  way  to  a  knowledge  of  religion,  but 
it  was  itself  the  most  meritorious  of  all  good  works.     They  looked 
down  on  the  common  people  with  the  arrogance  of  this  double 
superiority — "  the  masses  who  do  not  know  anything  about  religion 
('  do  not  know  the  Law  ')  are  accursed."     The  Pharisees,  whether 
learned  or  unlearned,  had  the  pride  of  the  minutiae  of  the  Law, 
about  which  most  men  were  negligent,  and  condemned  those  who 
were  less  scrupulous.     This  attitude  provoked  the  hostility  of  the 
people  ;  contempt  on  the  one  side  encountered  hatred  on  the  other. 
Of  the  feeling  of  the  rabbis  toward  the  common  people  some 
instances  have  been  quoted  above  ;   it  would  be  possible  to  adduce 
many  more.     Thus,  the  words  of  the  Law,  "  Cursed  is  the  man  who 
lies  with  any  beast,"  is  applied  to  the  marriage  of  the  scholar  with 
a  woman  of  the  people.     Rabbi  Eleazar  said,  "  It  is  lawful  to  stab 
an  am  ha-ares  on  a  Day  of  Atonement  that  falls   on  a  Sabbath 
(a  day  of  double  holiness)."     His  disciples  said,  "  You  mean  to  say, 
to  slaughter  him."     He  replied,  "  Slaughtering  requires  a  benedic- 
tion ;   stabbing  does  not."     Rabbi  (Judah  ha-Nasi)  taught  that  an 
am  ha-ares  should  by  rights  eat  no  meat,  for  the  Scripture  says, 
"  This  is  the  law  concerning  domestic  animals  and  birds,"  con- 
sequently only  one  who  studies  the  Law  may  lawfully  eat  the  flesh 
of    animals  or  birds  (Pesahim  496).     Even  the   piety  of   an  am 
ha-ares  is  disapproved  :   "  If  an  am  ha-ares  is  pious  (hasld),  do  not 
dwell  in  his  neighbourhood  "  (Sabb.  63a).1 

A  Baraitha  teaches  :  "Six  things  are  laid  down  by  the  rabbis  ^  ^ 
about  the  am  ha-ares  :    Entrust  no  testimony  to  him,  take  nof 
testimony  from  him,  trust  him  with  no  secret,  do  not  appoint  him 
guardian  of  an  orphan,  do  not  make  him  the  custodian  of  charitable 
funds,  do  not  accompany  him  on  a  journey;    many  add,  do  not  J 
inform  him  if  you  have  found  something  belonging  to  him."  2    Sitting   ^ 
in  the  synagogues  of  the  am  ha-ares  is  one  of  the  things  that  take 
men  out  of  the  world  (cause  their  death).3 

Various  definitions  of  am  ha-ares  are  given  :   he  is  a  man  who  ^tlon 

,    ,      ha-ares. 

1  He  will  be  self-taught  and  not  in  conformity  with  the  teachings  of  the 
rabbis  or  the  rules  of  the  haburah.  Rashi  explains  :  He  does  not  know  the 
minutiae  of  the  commandments,  and  therefore  his  piety  will  not  be  perfect ; 
if  you  live  in  his  neighbourhood  there  is  danger  that  you  will  be  influenced  by 
his  example.     Compare  the  hasid  soteh  (Sotah  20a). 

*  Pesahim  496.  3  Aboth  3-  10' 


444         THE  AM  HA-ARES  AND  THE  HABERIM       app.  . 

1  does  not  recite  the  shemd  with  his  prayers  morning  and  evening  ; 
w]or  one  who  does  not  put  on  the  tephillin  at  prayer  time  ;  or  one  who 
^ihas  no  tassels  (sisith)  on  his  garment;    or  one  who  has  sons  and 
i '  does  not  bring  them  up  to  the  study  of  the  Law.     He  is  a  man  who 
*f  does  not  eat  his  ordinary  food  (Iiullin)  in  a  state  of  ceremonial  clean- 
ness (after  proper  washing  ;  one  of  the  obligations  which  the  associ- 
-  ates  took  upon  themselves).1    The  definition  of  the  majority  of  the 
^    i*>  Hj  authorities  is,  one  who  does  not  separate  the  tithes.2 

The   learned   sometimes  extended   the  name  opprobriously  to 

those  whose  education  they  regarded  as  incomplete  :   if  a  man  has 

studied  the  Scripture  and  the  Mishnah,  but  has  not  frequented 

the  schools  of  the  rabbis  (for  the  exposition  and  discussion  of  these 

texts),  he  is,  according  to  Rabbi  Eleazar,  an  am  ha-ares  ;  R.  Samuel 

ben  Nahman  said  a  bor.     Others  call  him  still  harder  names— a 

Samaritan  (Jcuthi),  or  a  Magian  (the  Magian  murmurs,  and  knows 

not  what  he  utters  ;   such  a  student  repeats  what  he  has  by  heart 

but  knows  not  what  he  says).     Another  statement  of  the  matter  is  : 

,4  One  who  has  read  the  Scripture  and  studied  the  Mishnah,  but  not 

j  sat  at  the  feet  of  the  rabbis,  is  an  am  ha-ares  ;  if  he  has  read  the 

I  Scriptures  but  not  studied  the  Mishnah,  he  is  a  bor  ;  if  he  has  neither 

^jread  the  Scriptures  nor  studied  the  Mishnah,  of  such  a  one  the 

.Scripture  says,  "  I  will  sow  the  land  with  the  seed  of  man  and  the 

'seed  of  beast,"  i.e.  he  is  a  brute  beast. 

Unpopu-  On  the  other  side  it  is  said  that  the  common  people  hate  a  student 

if  more  than  the  heathen  hate  Israelites,  and  the  women  hate  them 

|  worse  than  the  men  do.     Most  bitter  of  all  is  the  hatred  of  an  am 

ha-ares,  who  knows  the  teaching  of  the  schools  but  has  given  up 

^    the  study  of  the  Law.     R.  Akiba  said  of  himself  :    "  When  I  was 

{  an  am  ha-ares,  I  used  to  say,  '  I  wish  I  had  one  of  those  scholars, 

{  and  I  would  bite  him  like  an  ass.'      His  disciples  said,  '  You  mean 

I  like  a  dog.'    He  replied,  '  An  ass's  bite  breaks  the  bone  ;   a  dog's 

4  does  not '  "  (Pesahim  496). 

Much  of  this  is  rabbinical  hyperbole  which  no  one  acquainted 
with  the  literature  will  take  too  seriously,3  but  beneath  the  ex- 
travagance of  expression  there  is  an  animus  on  both  sides  which 
doubtless  varied  greatly  in  intensity  with  times  and  persons. 

In  conclusion  it  is  perhaps  not  superfluous  to  add  that  the 

1  Cf.  Mark  vii.  2. 

a  Yet  it  is  repeatedly  said  that  most  of  the  common  people  set  apart  the 
tithes.  Further,  the  common  people  are  not  suspected  in  the  matter  of  the 
charity  tithe,  or  at  the  time  of  the  feasts. 

See  Sotah  22a;  Tos.  Abodah  Zarah  3.  10;  Sabb.  13a;  Makkoth  17a, 
Nedarim  846,  etc. 

3  An  example  of  strong  speech  :  a  student  who  walks  abreast  of  his  master 
instead  of  keeping  deferentially  some  steps  behind  him  is  a  bdr. 


laxity  of      , 

students. 'vU 


app.  e      THE  AM  HA-ARES  AND  THE  HABERlM         445 

notion  that  sometimes  crops  up  in  the  books,  that  the  ame  ha-ares 
were  the  humble  pious  in  the  land,  in  contrast  to  the  arrogant 
scholars  andjEiIi3ESg£teous  Pharisees,  a  class  corresponding  to 
the  lanawim  of  the  Psalms,  is  without  any  better  support  than 
the  imagination  of  the  authors  who  entertain  it.  That  among 
those  upon  whom  the  Rabbis  and  the  Pharisees  so  liberally  bestowed 
the  name  am  ha-ares  there  were  many  godly  men  and  women  is 
unquestionable,  but. that  the  genuine  religion  of  the  Jews  is  to.be 
looked  for  inj^is~elass  is  an  altogether  different  matter. 

That  Jesus  and  his  disciples  would  have  been  counted  by  the  . 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  among  the  arm  ha-ares  is  proved  by  the  \ 
fact  that  they  did  not  observe  the  rabbinical  rule  about  washing  * 
their  hands  before  eating,  for  the  first  step  in  the  reception  of  an         lJ 
am  ha-ares  to  the  fyaburah  was  the  observance  of  precisely  this 
custom  (he  was  first  admitted  to  hand-washing— Jcanaphai — then 
to  the  general  rules  of  ceremonial  cleanness — taharoth).     Cf.  also 
Mark  vii.  2  and  Matt.  xii.  25. 


INDEX  I 

NAMES  AND  SUBJECTS 


Aaron,  30,  74,  97,  349,  350.  431,  442 

Abednego,  64 

Abgar,  142 

Abiathar,  114 

Abila,  180 

Abilene,  148 

Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  115,  119 

Abraham,  43,  60,  70,  384,  392,  407, 

431 
Abraham,      Apocalypse      of.        (See 

Apocalypses) 
Abrahams,  I.,  70 
Academics,  224 

Academy,  223,  236,  249,  250,  251 
Acarnania,  198 

Achaea,  188,  196,  198,  203,  210,  211 
Acheron.  256 
Actium,  10,  226,  227,  230 
Adam,  Life  of.     (See  Apocalypses) 

Adam,  sin  of,  54 

Adam  and  Eve,  Life  of.     (See  Apo- 
calypses) 

Adana,  178 

Adherbal,  333 

Adonijah,  348 

Adonis,  254,  431 

Adramyttium,  189,  201 

Adriatic,  199,  228 

Aegean  Sea,  177,  229 

Aegina,  254 

Aelia  Capitolina,  4,  163 

Aemilius  Paulus,  190 

Aeneas,  256 

Aesculapius,  222 

Aetolia,  150,  198 

Africa,  195,  210,  218 

Agamemnon,  208 

Age,  this,  272,  298 

Age  to  Come,  272,  276.  277,  278,  280, 
283,  288,  289,  298,  365,  373,.  377 


Agrippa.     (See  Herod) 
Ajax,  191 

Akiba,  39,  48,  49,  51,  57,  58,  59,  62, 
63,  65,  67,  69,  73,  78,  85,   125, 
129,  146,  319,  320,  361,  442,  444 
Alaric,  254 
Albano,  217 
Albinus,  29,  115 
Alcimus,  87 

Alexander,  the  Alabarch,  15 
Alexander  Balas,  30 
Alexander  the  Great,  121,  139,  140, 
141,  142,  151,  172,  182,  184,  192, 
219,  232 
Alexander,  the  Hasmonaean,  189 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  12,  30,  111,  179, 

359 
Alexandra  Salome,  9,  111,  115 
Alexandretta,  178,  190,  191 
Alexandria,  15,  21,  141,  151,  152,  153, 
164,  172,  190,  208,  219,  225 

,  Synagogues  in,  22 

Alexandria  ad  Amanum,  178,  191 
Alexandrians,     Synagogue     of,     in 
Jerusalem,  304 

Allegorism,  93 

Almsgiving,  67 

Altar  of  burnt-offering,  6 

Amanus,  Mount,  179 

Amaram,  26 

Amathus,  189 

Ambrose,  247,  250 

Ami  ha-Are?,  12,  73,  74,  125,  126,  289, 
291,  439-445 

Amidah,  50,  73,  75 

Amir  of  Afghanistan,  182 

Ammon,  45 

Amoraim,  86 

Amos,  82 

Amyntas,  198 

447 


448 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Ananias  and  Sapphira,  325 
Ananias  of  Damascus,  338 
Ananias  the  High  Priest,  30 
Ananias  the  Merchant,  145,  166 
Ananias,  son  of  Nebedaeus,  32 
Ananus  I.     (See  Annas) 

II.,  29,  115 

Anaxagoras,  95 

Anazarbus,  178 

Anchises,  256 

Ancient  of  Days,  368 

Ancyra,  182,  201,  202,  212 

Andrew,  295 

Andronicus,  222,  223 

Andros,  21 

Angels,  47,  116,  117 

Anilaeus,  144,  145 

Annas  or  Ananus  I.,  the  High  Priest, 

son  of  Seth,  30,  31 
Annius  Rufus,  12 
Annunciation,  the,  400 
Anointed.     (See  Messiah) 
Anthedon,  147,  180 
Antigonus,  son  of  Aristobulus,  30,  143 

of  Macedonia,  173,  175 

of  Socho,  68,  115 

Antioch,  Pisidian,  161,  178,  191,  202 

Syrian,  151,  184,  205,  229,  309, 

310,  312,  313,  329,  330,  416 
Antiochus  (defeated  at  Magnesia),  156 

of  Commagene,  208 

Epiphanes,  9,  30,  111,  369 

Antipas,  11,  17,  18,  19,  20,  22,  119, 

120,  143 
Antipater,  10 
Antonia,  Castle  of,  14 
Antoninus,  167 

Antony,  10,  27,  188,  192,  205,  226 
Apamea,  184,  189,  190,  191 
Aphrodite,  222 
Apion,  22 

Apocalypses,  Thought  and  Literature 
of,  126-136,  270,  282 
Apoc.  of  Abraham,  128 

Baruch,   128,   135,    277,  324, 

360 
Assumption  of  Moses,  128,  354,  359, 

421 
Book  of  Daniel,  128,  130-132,  141, 
350,  370,  385 

Jubilees,  100,  128,  354,  365, 

367 
Enoch  (Ethiopian),  128,  129,  354, 

370,  373,  377,  382,  385 
(Slavonic),  128 


Apocalypses  (conid.) — 

4  Ezra,    128,    129,    153,    324,   370, 

372,  373,  377,  382,  394 
Life  of  Adam,  128 
Life  of  Adam  and  Eve,  128 
Psalms  of  Solomon,  89,  111,  128, 
273,  274,  324,  354,  355,  359,  367, 
394 
Sibylline  Oracles,  128,  308,  354 
Testament   of   Twelve   Patriarchs, 
99,  100,  128,  272,  354,  358,  367 
Apollo,  186,  222,  432 
Apollo  Lycius,  200 
Apollonia,  180,  191,  228 
Apollonius  of  Tyana,  252 
Apollos,  108,  343 
Apologists,  383 

,  Christian,  233 

Apology  for  the  Jews,  Philo's,  90 

of  Aristides,  113 

Apostasy,  65 

Apostolic  Age,  268 

Appian  Way,  228 

Apuleius,  259 

Aquila,  125,  158,  350 

Aquitani,  202 

Aquitania,  202 

Arabia,  146,  222,  235 

Arabia  Petraea,  183 

Arabs,  198 

Aramaic  language,  140 

Ararat,  177,  191 

Area,  215 

Archelaus,  11,  12,  31,  120,  434.    (See 

aUo  Herod) 
Areopagus,  182 
Aretas,  16,  17,  18,  19,  149 
Argos,  150,  212 
Aristeas,  letter  of,  153 
Aristides,  13,  118,  209 
Aristobulus  I.,  30,  358 

II.,  30,  143 

III.,  30 

,  brother  of  Agrippa  I.,  15 

,  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  14 

the  philosopher,  350 

Aristophanes,  333 

Aristotle,  126,  223,  224,  236,  241,  248, 

249 
Armenia,  148,  180,  182,  220 

,  King  of,  182 

Arno,  220 

Arnold,  E.  V.,174,  196   217 

,  W.  R.,  4 

Arrian,  172 


INDEX 


449 


Artabanus  III.,  143,  144 
Artaxerxes,  141 

Ochus,  146 

Ascalon,  180 

Ascension,  the,  142 

Asclepios,  222 

Asher,  137 

Asia,  high  priests  of,  210 

Asia  Minor,  149,  177,  183,  192,  218, 

228,  229,  258 
,  diversities    of    government   in, 

182 
,  religious  communities  in,   199- 

201 
,  Provincia,   186,   190,   197,  200, 

203,  206,  210-212,  411 
Asians,  308 
Asiarchs,  213,  214 
Asidaeans,  87-89,  90,  425 
Asinaeus,  144 
Asmonaeans,  5,  9,  11,  179,  353,  358, 

367 
Aspendus,  191 
Assemani,  91 
Assyria,  138,  143 
Atargatis,  183,  186,  190,  411 
Atax,  198 
Athanasius,  325 
Athena,  221 
Athens,  150,  172,  188,  205,  208,  225, 

226,  239,  240 
Atlantic,  168 
Atoms,  236 
Atomus,  27 
Atonement,  52 
Atonement,  Day  of,  50,  57,  64,  67, 

177,  349,  443 
Attalia,  190 
Attalus,  173,  176,  182 
Attis,  254,  258,  431 
Augusteum,  201,  212 
Augustine,  233,  249,  250 
Augustus,  10,  12,  16,  163,  164,  171, 

177,  184,  194,  195,  197,  198,  203, 

206,  207,  211,  212,  217,  220,  227, 

229-232,  251 
Augustus,  temple  of,  212,  214 
Aulus  Gabinius,  180,  189 
Avidius  Cassius,  143 
Aziz,  27 
Azotus,  180 
Azzai,  R.  Simon  ben,  39 

Baal,  410 
Bab,  109,  110 

VOL.1 


Babylon,  138,  141,  219,  369,  393 

Babylonian  School  of  Judaism,  362 

Babylonians,  ancient,  143 

Bacchanalia,  255 

Bacchides,  88 

Bacher,  W.,  42,  51,  69,  80,  81 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  394 

Bactrians,  198 

Baetica,  203 

Baetis,  198 

Bagoas,  112 

Balearic  pirates,  174 

Balkan  Peninsula,  175 

Ball,  C.  J.,  138 

Baluchistan,  219 

Bannus,  165 

Baptism,  299,  325,  332-344 

Barabbas,  8 

Baraitas,  85,  314 

Bar  Cochba,  135,  361,  424 

Barnabas,  142,  148,  150,  161,  309, 
325,  336 

Bar-nasha,  368,  376,  378,  379,  380 

Bartimaeus,  366 

Baruch,  Apocalypse  of.  (See  Apoca- 
lypses) 

Bashan,  147 

Basil,  172 

Bathgen,  P.,  410 

Beha,  109,  110 

Belgae,  202 

Bellona,  185,  259 

Benares,  183 

Benedictions,  Eighteen,  359 

Beneventum,  228 

Berachoth,  60 

Berendts,  A.,  433 

Berenice,  15,  229 

Bereshith,  R.,  40,  42 

Besant  and  Palmer,  3 

Bethel,  120 

Beth-Hillel,  118,  421 

Bethsaida  Julius,  16 

Beth-Shammai,  118 

Bezetha,  5 

Bigg,  C,  155 

Birth,  miraculous,  371 

Birth,  new.     (See  Regeneration) 

Bithynia,  176,  177,  181,  182,  198,  199, 
203,  204,  206,  211 

Black  Sea,  220 

Boeotia,  150,  188 

Boethius,  12 

Boethus,  115,  117,  422 

Boethusians,  115,  117,  136,  436 

2G 


450 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Bogomils,  340 

Bohlig,  H.,  408,  410,  411 

Bonnet,  R.  A.,  96 

Bor,  the,  440 

Bousset,  W.,  285,  408,  411 

Box,  G.  H.,  163,  277 

Brandt,  W.,  108,  387 

Brehier,  E.,  155 

Briggs,  C.  A.,  318 

Browne,  E.  G.,  109 

Brundisium,  228 

Biichler,  A.,  73,  101 

Burkitt,   F.    C,    119,   146,  295,   409, 

421,  427,  430 
Byblus,  179,  184 
Byzantium,  228 

Cabbala,  136 

Cadiz,  228 

Caesar  Augustus.     (See  Augustus) 

•  Julius.     (See  Julius  Caesar) 

Caesar,  cult  of,  196,  205-207,  216 

,  image  of,  in  Jewish  Temple,  22 

,  image  of,  in  Alexandrian  Syna- 
gogue, 21 
Caesarea,  11,  25,  28,  147,  309,  313 
Caesarea  Philippi,  328,  363,  381 
Caesarea  Stratonis,  13 
Caesareum,  208 
Caiaphas,  2,  8,  30 
Cairo  Genizah,  97 
Caius  Caesar.     (See  Caligula) 
Caligula,  96,  149,  150,  197,  265 
Callinicum,  180 
Cambyses,  160 
Campesians,  157 
Camulodunum,  204 
Cananaeans.     (See  Zealots) 
Canatha,  180 
Capernaum,  295 
Capitoline  Hill,  221 
Cappadocia,  172,  181,  197 
Captivity,  the,  83,  137 
Capua,  228 
Caracalla,  217 
Caria,  178 
Carrae,  9 

Carthage,  173,  175,  176,  212,  220 
Cassius,  226 
Castabala,  181 
Castor,  221 

Catechism,  English,  337 
Cato,  244 
Catullus,  423,  425 
Catus  Decianus,  196 


Celer,  27 

Celtae,  202 

Censors,  Christian,  87 

Census  of  Quirinius,  289,  421,  422 

Cephas,  311 

Cerealis,  124 

Ceres,  222,  259 

Chalcis,  148,  179 

Charles,  R.  H.,  47,  77,  97,  98,  111, 

269,  370,  371 
Chase,  P.  H.,  336 
Chasid.     (See  Asidaeans) 
Cheese-makers,  Valley  of  the,  3,  4 
Cheyne,  T.  K.,  91 
Chittim,  150 
Chorazin,  430 
Chosen  One  in  Enoch,  354,  355,  370, 

371,  373 
Chrestus,  158 
Chrism,  348 
Christ,  meaning  of  Greek  word,  346, 

347 

,  use  in  Synoptic  gospels,  363 

Christianity  a  synthesis,  265 
Christianity,  Gentile,  300,  314 
Christians,  Greek,  321 
Christology  (see  also  under  Jesus  and 

Messiah),  332,  345-418 
Chronicles,  Books  of,  393 
Chronology,  97,  295 
Chrysaoreus.     (See  Zeus) 
Church,  the,  267,  296,  324,  398 
and  the  Kingdom  of  God,  330- 

332 

Jewish,  314-320 

,  rites  of,  332 

,  special  organisation  of  life  of, 

306-309 

,  theory  of,  327-332,  345 

Church  of  England,  337 

Cibyra,  190 

Cicero,  157,  187-189,   191,  206,  225, 

229,  232,  238,  247 
,  De  Officiis  used  by  Ambrose, 

247 
Cilicia,  172,  178,  179,  185,  186,  193, 

202,  203,  211,  229 
Cilician  pirates,  178 
Cilicians,  308 
Cinna,  226 
Cinyras,  179,  184 
Circumcision,  67,  266 
Citadel,  4 

City  governments,  in  Pompey's  settle- 
ment, 186 


INDEX 


451 


Civilisation,  Jewish,  265 

,  Roman,  265 

-,  Semitic,  265 

Civil    War    and    Reconstruction    in 

Rome,  192-199 
Claudius,  23,  25,  27,  31,  145,  149,  158, 

171,  200,  203,  204,  257 
Claudius  Lysias,  28 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  249,  399,  404, 

406 
Clementine  Homilies,  431 
Cleopatra,  27,  192,  226 
Clermont-Ganneau,  C,  424 
Codex  Bezae,  399 
Cohn,  L.,  155 
Colchester,  204 
Cologne,  204 
Colonia  Agrippina,  204 
Colonies,  Greek,  218 
Colossae,  191 
Comana  of  Cappadocia,  182,  185 

of  Pontus,  182 

Commagene,  148,  181 

Commune  Asiae,  201 

Communism,  306 

Concilia,  provincial,  202-204,  215,216 

,  constitution  of,  208-215 

,  importance    of,    to    historians, 

216,  217 
Concilium  Asiae,  211 
Constantine,  211 
Conybeare,  F.  C,  93,  95,  155,  336 
Coponius,  12 

Corinth,  150,  158,  175,  212,  312,  323 
Cornelius,  340 

Corn  supply,  prefecture  of  the,  195 
Corsica,  173,  198,  220 
Cosmopolitanism,  261 
Covenanters  of  Damascus,  97,  98,  101, 

136,  273,  294,  355,  436 
Cowley,  A.  E.,  139 
Crassus,  9,  143,  176,  188 
Crete,  150,  178,  199,  203,  210 
Crime,  as  demonic  possession,  286 
Crusaders,  4 
Ctesiphon,  145 

Cults,  Graeco-oriental,  254-260,  334 
Cumanus,  27,  124 
Cumont,  F.,  155 
Cureton,  W.,  91 
Cuspius  Fadus,  26 
Cybele,  257,  258 
Cynics,  243,  248,  251 
Cynocephalae,  156,  175 
Cypros,  14,  15,  19 


Cyprus,  27,  150,  151,  178,  190,  193, 

198,  203 
Cyrenaeans,  304,  308 
Cyrene,  151,  176,  199,  203,  423 
Cyrus,  348,  352 
Cyzicus,  208,  213 

Dalman,  G.,  413 

Damascenes,  15,1 

Damascus,  146,  147,  149,  179,  309 

Damascus,    Covenanters    of.  (See 

Covenanters) 
Damnatio  memoriae,  207 
Dan,  137 
Daniel,  318,  371 

,  author  of,  352 

,  Book  of.    (See  Apocalypses) 

Dante,  112,  256 

Danube,  197,  220 

Daphne,  139,  186 

Darius  Nothus,  141 

David,  70,  347,  348,  350,  353,  358, 

363,  378,  384,  401 

,  city  of,  4 

,  expected  son,  or  scion  of,  273, 

311,  357,  358,  362-367,  373,  374 
Dead  Sea,  2,  85,  90,  423 
Death  and  future  life,  58 
Decapolis,  147 
Deiotarus,  200 
Deissmann,  G.  A.,  408,  411 
Demeter,  222 

,  mysteries  of,  254 

Democritus,  95 

Demonology,  249 

Be  Pascha  Computus,  130 

Derbe,  178,  181,  191 

Derenbourg,  J.,   Ill,   117,    118,    119, 

437 
Destiny,  113 
Determinism,  128 
Deuteronomy,  126 
Diadochi,  219 

Diaspora.     (See  Dispersion) 
Diatribe,  Stoic  and  Cynic,  251 
Didache,  320,  336 
Dill,  S.,  217 
Di  Manes,  206 
Dio  Cassius,  20,   151,  172,  193,    194, 

201 
Dio  Chrysostom,  172,  411,  416 
Diocletian,  174,  176,  217 
Dionysius,  179,  186 
Dionysos,  205,  222,  253,  254,  255 
Dioscuri,  221 


452 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Disciples,  flight  of  the,  302 

,  hope  of  the,  297 

,  vision  of,  302 

Dispater,  222 

Dispersion,  83,  93,  119,  137-168,  307, 

308,  342 
Dium,  147,  180 
Divi  Augusti,  204 
Doctrines,  94 
Ddlger,  411 
Dome  of  the  Rock,  3 
Don,  197 
Dor,  179 
Dora,  179 
Dositheans,  84,  101 
Drag-net,  parable  of  the,  330 
Drews,  A.,  430 
Drummond,  J.,  155,  411 
Drusilla,  27 
Drusius,  427 
Drusus,  brother  of  Tiberius,  15,  17 

,  son  of  Tiberius,  15 

Drynemetum,  182,  200 
Dupuis,  C.  H.,  432 
Durham,  1 
Dusares,  411 
Dyrrhachium,  228 

Ecclesiastes,  318,  320 

Ecclesiasticus,  121,  153,  318 

Edessa,  142,  146,  180,  181 

Edom,  362 

Egypt,  138,  139,  141,  146,  161,  178, 

183,  193,  195,  232,  411 
Egyptian,  the,  426 
Elamites,  142 
Elders,  114 

Eleazar  ben  Azariah,  77 
ben  Sadok,  81 

contemporary   of    John    Hyr- 

canus,  116 

of  the  Sicarii,  423 

of  the  third  century,  42,  68,  69, 

73,  76,  443,  444 

=  Taxo,  421 

teacher  of  Izates,  145,  166 

the  Bandit,  26 

— —  the  Pharisee,  111 
Elect  One.     (See  Chosen  One) 
Elements,  original,  79 
Elephantine,  139,  160 
Eleusis,  254,  259 
El-Gabal,  186 
Eli,  122 
Eliashib,  141 


Eliezer  ben  Durdaira,  71 

Eliezer  ben  Hyrkanos,  R.,  42,  75,  78, 

319 
Elijah  the  Tishbite,  89,  99,  107,  108, 

113,  349,  403,  425 
Elioneus,  31 
Elisha,  348 
Elizabeth,  109 
Elohim,  sons  of,  392 
Elxai,  85,  91 
Elymas,  151,  325 
Elysium,  256 
Emesa,  148,  182,  186 
Emmaus,  366 
Empire,     Roman.  (See     Roman 

Empire) 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  2,  421 

,  Jewish,  66,  112,  421,  424,  438 

Ennius,  222,  234,  235,  236 
Enoch,  133 

,  Book  of.     (See  Apocalypses) 

Ephesus,  108,  150,  158,  193,  204,  206, 

213,  214,  229,  327,  338,  343 
Epictetus,  225,  241,  242,  244,  245 
Epicureanism,  223,  225,  235-240,  251 
Epiphania,  178 
Epiphanius,  84,  85,  89,  91,  122,  431, 

432 
Epirus,  198 
Epistles,  Pauline,  300,  325,  337,  344, 

367,  391,  403-417 
Epitome  of  Josephus,  102 
Equestrian  Order,  195 
Erub,  436 
Esarhaddon,  120 
Esau,  45 
Eschatology,   110,   133-135,  271-277, 

281-283 
4  Esdras.     (See  Apocalypses) 
Essenes,  84,  88,  89-95,  96,  105,  113, 

136,  161,  334 
Esther,  Book  of,  139,  318 
Ethics,  66,  110,  225 
Ethiopians,  198 
Euboea,  150 
Eucharist,  332 
Eudocia,  Empress,  4 
Euhemerus,  235 
Eunuch,  Ethiopian,  341 
Euphrates,  172,  178,  180,  182,   191, 

220  229 
Eusebius,  89,  90,  103,  118,  127,  h 

336,  406 
Euxine  Sea,  183 
Evil  inclination.     (See  Yeset  ha  Ed) 


INDEX 


453 


Evil-Merodach,  393 

Exodus,  152 

Expositor,  18 

Ezekiel,  112,  114,  127,  132,  135 

Ezra,  29,  120 

,  Apocalypse  of  (4  Ezra).      (See 

Apocalypses) 

Faex  Romuli,  187 

False  witness,  438 

Fate,  116 

Fathers,  Apostolic,  383 

Faustus  Socinus,  430 

Felix,  27,  32,  422,  424 

Ferguson,  W.  S.,  184 

Festivals,  9 

Festus,  Porcius,  28,  29 

Flaccus,  15,  21,  163,  188,  189,  410 

Flamen,  209,  210 

Flamininus,  T.  Quinctius,  205 

Flavius  Silva,  423 

Flora,  222 

Fortunatus,  20 

Forum,  228 

Fowler,  W.  Warde,  256 

Frank,  Tenney,  172,  175,  177,  186 

Frey,  J.,  433 

Fulvia,  157 

Furneaux,  H.,  196 

Gabinius,  Aulus,  190 

Gad,  137 

Gadara,  180 

Gades,  228,  229 

Gaius,  14,  15,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23 

Gaius  Caesar.     (See  Caligula) 

Gaius  Gracchus.  (See  Gracchus,  Gaius) 

Galatarch,  211 

Galatia,  150,  175,  181,  182,  193,  197, 

201-23 
Galatians,  Epistle  to  the,  310,  341 

,  Koivbv  of,  212 

Galba,  333 

Galilaeans,  84 

Galilee,  119,  120,  137,  138,  290,  294, 

302,  303,  304,  328,  416,  429 

,  Sea  of,  294 

,  tetrarchy  of,  16,  26 

Gallia  Cisalpina,  174 

Transalpina,  174,  193 

Gallienus,  216 

Gamala,  421 

Gamaliel  I.,  117-19 

II.,  51,  75,  117,  119,  319,  359, 

426 


Games,  Isthmian,  205 
Garrhae,  180 
Gaul,  Northern,  228 

,  Southern,  218 

,  Western,  228 

Gauls,  the  Three,  203 

Gaza,  180 

Gazara,  189 

Gebhardt,  O.  von,  111,  273 

Geiger,  A.,  438 

Gemara,  75,  87 

Genealogies  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  365 

Genesis,  Book  of,  135 

Genevre,  Mont,  228 

Genius,  205 

George  Syncellus,  146 

Gerizim,  Mount,  13,  110,  121,  122,  124 

Gessius  Floras,  29 

Geyer,  P.,  3 

Gfrorer,  A.  F.,  404,  405 

Gilead,  138,  147 

Ginsberg,  C.  D.,  97 

Ginzberg,  L.,  167 

Glossolalia,  323,  325 

Gnaeus  Manlius  Vulso,  175 

Gobineau,  Count,  109,  110 

God  and  the  Gentiles,  41 

as  a  personality,  241 

,  awfulness  of,  50 

,  direct  intercourse  with,  47 

,  Fatherhood  of,  401,  402 

,  immanence  of,  241,  260 

in  Greek   philosophy,  239-241, 

247,  252,  253 

,  justice  of,  48-50,  56 

,  love  of,  for  Israel,  52 

,  man  as  a  fragment  of,  241 

,  mercy  of,  49,  50,  52,  53,  58 

,  name  of.     (See  Name  of  God) 

,  relation  to  Israel,  47,  50,  60 

,  reward  and  punishment  by,  50, 

51    55 

,  sovereignty  of,  188,  269-283,  296 

,  spirit  of.     (See  Spirit) 

God-fearers,  165 

Goliath's  Castle,  3 

Good  inclination,  55 

Good  works  (ma'asim  tobim),  66 

Gordian,  215 

Gortheni,  84 

Gospel,  Fourth,  162,  326,  398,  403 

Gospels,  in  synagogues,  319 

,   Synoptic,    122,  300,   321,   416 

(and  see  Reference  Index) 
Gracchus,  Gaius,  176,  226 


454 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Gracchus,  Tiberius,  176,  226 

Grace  and  merit,  69 

Gray,  G.  B.,  Ill 

Greek  colonies  in  South  Italy,  221 

language,  influence  of,  221 

myths,  223 

religion,  influence  of,  221,  222, 

233,  410,  411 
Greenidge,  A.  H.  J.,  172,  176 
Grotius,  427 
Guiraud,  J.,  201,  202,  203,  207,  208, 

209,  211,  213,  214,  216 
Gunkel,  H.,  37,  325 

Haber,  haberim,  126,  304,  439-445 

Habinenu,  359 

Hadrian,  51,  151,  163,  362 

Hadrianic  revolt,  48,  49 

Hagada,  86 

Haggai,  Book  of,  352 

Hagigah,  26,  441 

Hagiographa,  121,  318-320 

Haji  Mirza  Jani,  109 

Halaka,  86,  146 

Half-shekel,  159 

Halys,  198 

Hamilcar,  175 

Hanina  bar  Hama,  68 

Hanina  bar  Papa,  46 

Hannibal,  26 

Hanuman,  183 

Haran,  43 

Hardy,  E.  G.,  203,  204,  205,  207,  209, 

211,  212,  214,  215,  216 
Harnack,  A.  von,  322,  395,  399 
Hasidim.     (See  Asidaeans) 
Hasmon,  30 

Hasmoneans.     (See  Asmonaeans) 
Hastings,  J.,  16 
Hauran,  179 
Head,  B.,  204,  213 
Headlam,  A.  C,  16 
Heaven,  kingdom  of.     (See  Kingdom 

of  Heaven) 
Hebrew  (language),  140 
Hebrews,  synagogue  of,  in  Rome,  157 
Hebrew  Union  College  Monthly,  73 
Hecate,  254,  259 
Hedonism,  238 
Hegesippus,  312 
Heitmuller,  W.,  408 
Hekeloth,  136 
Helena,  145,  166,  411 
Helicon,  22 
Heliopolis,  179 


Hell,  51 

Hemero-baptists,  84 
Heniochi,  198 
Hera,  221 
Heraclitus,  240 
Hercules,  221 

,  pillars  of,  229 

Herennius  Capito,  22 

Hermas,  Shepherd  of,  293,  336 

Hermes,  222,  411 

Hermetic  literature,  411 

Herod,  Agrippa  I.,  5,  11,  14-17,  19-24, 

29,  31,  120,  309,  312,  410,  434 

,  Agrippa  II.,  25,  26,  27,  32 

,  Antipas,  8,  16,  102,  104,  107 

,  Archelaus,  11,  12,  31,  120,  434 

,  first  husband  of  Herodias,  16,  17 

,  King  of  Chalcis,  25,  26,  31 

,  Philip,  434 

,  the  family  of,  11,  367 

the  Great,  4,  5,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14, 

16,  23,  30,  107, 112,  117,  120,  350, 

356 
Herodians,  84,  116,  119-120 
Herodias,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  19,  120 
Herodotus,  147 
Hexapolis,  202 
Hezekiah,  421,  424 
Hierapolis,  183,  186,  191 
Hierapolis-Bambyce,  190 
High  Priest.     (See  Priest,  High) 
Hill  of  Evil  Counsel,  2 
Hillel,  42,  48,  74,  79,  112,  117,  118, 

437,  440 
Hinnom,  Valley  of,  2 
Hippicus,  4 
Hippolytus,  85,  89,  90 
Hippos,  180 
Hirsch,  Emil,  44 
Hispania  Citerior,  173,  193 
Hispania  Ulterior,  173 
Hiyya  bar  Abba,  R.,  40,  63 
Holm,  T.,  180,  181,  184,  208 
Holtsem,  155 
Holy  of  Holies,  7,  9 
Holy  Place,  7 
Hoonacker,  A.  van,  139 
Horace,  157,  227,  230,  233 
Hosea,  347  f. 
Huidekoper,  F.,  23 
Huna,  Rabbi,  55 
Hypothetica,  Philo's,  161 
Hyrcanus,  John,  12,  30,  110,  111,  116, 

179,  358,  359,  441 
Hyrcanus  II.,  30,  143,  179,  437 


INDEX 


455 


Iceni,  204 

Iconium,  150,  178,  191,  205 

Idolatry,  65 

Idumean  rulers,  9 

Idumeans,  110 

Ignatius,  148,  314 

,  Epistles  of,  330 

Illyria,  198 

Immortality  of  the  Soul,  116 

Indians,  198 

Indus,  178,  219 

In  Flaccum,  151 

Inheritance,  female,  438 

Initiation,  258 

Inscriptions,  216 

Inspiration,  285,  306 

Intellectualism  in  Judaism,  71 

Ionic  Dodecapolis,  199 

Irenaeus,  231,  325,  406 

Isaac,  70,  431 

Isaiah,  42,  82,  385,  386,  387 

Isauria,  191 

Ishmael,  R.,  319 

Ishmael  ben  Phabi,  32 

Isis,  257,  259,  326,  411 

Islam,  109 

Isocrates,  218 

Israel  (see  also  Jews),  286 

,  ancient  religion  of,  82 

,  Keneseth  of,  304 

Issus,  178 

Issus,  Gulf  of,  190 

Ister,  197 

Italy,  199,  206,  207,  217,  218,  226 

Itinera  Hierosolymitana,  3 

Itinerarium  Burdigalense,  3 

Ituraea,  23,  85,  120 

Izates,  145,  166 

Jabneh,  118,  119 
Jacob,  70,  401,  431 
Jacob  of  Kefar  Sekania,  319,  426 
Jaddua,  140 
Jaffa  Gate,  3 
Jahweh  Sabaoth,  157 
James,  brother  of  Jesus,  29,  115,  309, 
310,  311,  313,  330 

,  son  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  26 

,  son  of  Zebedee,  24,  298 

James,  M.  R.,  96 
Jamnia,  22,  119,  179,  319 
Janus,  192 
Jehoahaz,  347 
Jehoiachin,  393 
Jehosaphat,  Valley  of,  2 


304, 


295, 


Jehovah,  270,  353,  416 

,  son  of,  353 

,  spirit  of,  286 

Jehu,  348 

Jehudah,  Rabbi,  80,  81 

Jehudah  ben  Tema,  Rabbi,  62,  78 

Jehudah  I.,  Rabbi,  71 

Jephtha,  439 

Jeremiah,  Book  of,  357 

Jericho,  189 

Jerome,  147,  314,  320,  426 

Jerusalem  A  source  in  Acts,  323 

Jerusalem,    capture    by    Crassus,    9, 
190 

,   capture    by    Pompey,   9,    177, 

359 

,  capture  by  Sosius,  12 

,  capture  by  Vespasian,  7,  10,  33, 

48,  52,  117,'  136,  360,  422 

,  disciples  in,  108,  285,  300-320, 

330,  341,  345 

,  fortifications  of,  4,  28 

,  Hellenistic  synagogues  in. 

308 

,  Josephus'  description  of,  4 

,  journey  of  Jesus  to,  7,  290, 

298,  306 
,  localities  in,  and  in  neighbour- 
hood of,  1-7 

,  population  of,  1,  189 

,  priesthood  of,  29 

,  temple  at.     (See  Temple) 

,  tradition,  302 

,  visits  of  Jews  to,  163 

,  walls  of  the  present  city  of,  3 

Jesse,  357 

Jesus  Christ  and  divorce,  292 

and  John  the  Baptist,  106-109 

and  the  Law,  292-294 

and  the  Logos,  155 

and  the  Sabbath,  292 

and  the  Spirit,  287,  324,  339 

as  angel,  287 

as  a  prophet,  285-288,  403-408 

as  Son  of  God,  346,  395-403 

as  Son  of  Man,  267,  282,  283, 

288,  315,  354,  362,  363,  364,  365, 
366,  367,  368-384,  385,  386 

as  the  Lord,  346,  409-417 

as  the  Messiah,  269,  346,  362- 

368,  407 

as  the  Prophet  like  unto  Moses, 

346,  403-408 

as  the  Servant,  346,  384-392 

,  authority  claimed  by,  285,  288 


1 


456  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Jesus  Christ  (contd.) — 

,  baptism  of,  106,  107,  397,  398 

400,  401 

,  birth  of,  232 

,  entry  into  Jerusalem,  7 

,  forms  of  address  to,  412-416 

,  institution  of  baptism,  335-337 

in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth. 

161 

,  Marcan  account  of,  294-299 

,  name  of,  336-339,  343 

,  Passion  of,  7,  303,  321,  335,  375, 

376,  383,  390,  391 

,  Resurrection  of,  303,  321,  322 

335,  381,  382 

,  teaching  of,  261,  267-299 

,  tomb  of,  303 

,  Transfiguration  of,  397,  398 

Jesus,  son  of  Damnaeus,  29,  32 

,  son  of  Gamaliel,  32,  162 

,  son  of  Sirach,  153 

Jews,  Hellenistic,  342 

,  Palestinian,  342 

Joash,  347 
Joazar,  12,  422 
Job,  57,  62,  318,  384 
Johanan,  Rabbi,  46,  70,  121 

ben  Zaccai,  R.,  42,  48,  51,  52,  68, 

117,  118,  119,  136,  319,  320,  438 
John,  Acts  of.     (See  Leucian) 

,  prologue  to  the  Gospel  of,  249 

John  the  Baptist,  18,  101-110,  120 
294,  324,  331,  334,  338,  343, 
403 

,  baptism  of,  116,  338,  343 

,  disciples  of,  84,  107,  294 

John  Chrysostom,  148 

Hyrcanus.        (See       Hyrcanus, 

John) 

of  Gischala,  423,  425 

the  Presbyter,  343 

,  son  of  Zebedee,  311,  343 

Jonathan,  14 

,  High  Priest,  28,  422 

of  the  Sicarii,  423,  424 

,  Rabbi,  80,  81 

,  son  of  Ananus,  31 

Jones,  H.  Stuart,  181 
Joppa,  180,  317 
Jordan,  179,  434 
Jose  the  Galilean,  319 
Joseph  Barsabbas,  305 

Caiaphas,  14,  31 

,  son  of  Camei,  31 

,  surnamed  Cabi,  32 


Josephus,  1,  87,  89,  90,  101,  103,  104, 
105,  106,  107,  110,  113,  115,  117, 
119,  121,  124,  140,  141,  143,  158, 
161,  289,  312,  333,  354,  358,  404, 
421,  423,  428,  429,  430, 431.  (See 
also  Reference  Index) 

,  the  Slavonic,  433-435 

Joshua,  114,  431,  432 

ben  Hananya,  Rabbi,  42,  52 

,  son  of  Johozadak,  352 

,  son  of  Rabbi  Nehemiah,  40 

the  High  Priest,  349,  350 

Josiah,  349 

Jotham,  347 

Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  8 

Juba,  197,  198 

Jubilees,  Book  of.     (See  Apocalypses) 

Judaea,   12,  20,   124,   177,   182,   186 

189,  190,  290 
Judah,  100,  357 

ha-Nasi,  167,  443 

the  Patriarch,  85,  320 

Judas,  2,  156,  298,  299 

of   Galilee,    12,    112,   289,    290, 

421-424 

the  Gaulonite.     (See    Judas    of 

Galilee) 

the  Maccabee,  88,  90,  147 

Jude,  14,  133 
Judgment,  276,  298,  299 
Judith,  333 

Julius  Caesar,   9,   10,   164,   171,   188 
191,  226,  232 

Africanus,  130 

Junius,  427 
Juno,  221,  259 
Jupiter,  206,  221,  234 

Sabazius,  157 

Juster,  J.,  146,  147-151 

Justin  Martyr,  122,  314,  335,  399,  406 

Juvenal,  157,  167,  187 

Kabeiroe,  254 

Karabas,  21,  410 

Kasr-Jalud,  3 

Kedron,  Valley  of  the,  2,  5,  6 

Keneseth,  304,  307,  328 

Kennedy,  A.  R.  S.,  160 

Ketubbah,  118 

Kingdom  of  God.      (See  Kingdom  of 

Heaven) 
Kingdom   of   Heaven,  269-283,   295 

315,  326,  331,  343,  357 

as  Age  to  Come,  271,  281 

as  Davidic  Kingdom,  272,  273 


INDEX 


457 


Kingdom  of  Heaven  (contd.) — 

as  future,  271,  275,  278 

as  present  reality,  270,  279 

,  Church  as,  296,  329,  331 

Kings,  anointing  of,  347 

,  Books  of,  126 

Kittim,  150 
Klausner,  J.,  277,  298 
Kodesh,  441 
Kohler,  K.,  66 
Kore,  222 
Krauss,  S.,  101 
Kubbet-es-Sakhra,  3 

Lacedaemon,  188 

Lacedaemonians,  156 

Laelius,  224,  344 

Lamia,  22 

Laodicea,  184,  189,  190,  213 

in  Lycaonia,  191 

Laranda,  178,  191 

Lares  Compitales,  207 

Latifundia,  183 

Law,  Jewish,  53,  57,  59,  60,  83,  100, 
105,  112-114,  121,  125,  126,  153, 
155,  231,  283,  289,  291,  294,  310, 
311,  316,  360 

,  Roman,  231 

Laying  on  of  hands,  325 

Leontopolis,  30 

Lepidus,  188,  194,  226 

Leszynski,  R.,  100 

Leucian  Acts  of  John,  96 

Levi,  97,  100,  358,  365,  431 

Levine,  E.,  119 

Lex  frumentaria,  176 

Lex  Pompeia,  195 

Liber,  222 

Libera,  222 

Libertini,  186,  304,  308 

Libya,  198 

Life,  future,  36 

Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  91 

Lipsius,  R.  A.,  85,  96,  142 

Lishmah,  68 

Livia,  214 

Livius,  222 

Livy,  233 

Logos,  155,  240,  241,  260 

Lord,  the,  408-416 

,  Jesus  as.     (See  Jesus  Christ) 

,  the  Day  of,  304 

"  Lord  of  Spirits  "  in  Enoch,  354,  370 

Lucilius,  244,  246 

Lucius,  259 


Lucius  Valerius  Flaccus,  188 

Lucretius,  238 

Lucullus,  178,  180,  187 

Lugdunum,  212 

Luke,  104,  106,  107,  109,  120, 
268,  280,  301,  303,  312,  320, 
327,  375,  384,  390,  400,  401, 
416 

Lusitania,  198 

Lycia,  171,  178,  203,  211 

Lycian  Confederacy,  190 

Lycurgus,  208 

Lycus,  191 

Lyons,  20 

Lysanias,  19,  23 

Lysias,  179 

Lysimachus,  200 

Lystra,  191 

Ma'aseroth,  441 
Maccabees,  14 

,  Embassies  of  the,  156 

1  Maccabees,  156 

Macedonia,  150,  173,  174,  190,  196, 

198,  199,  203,  210 
McGiffert,  A.  C,  149 
Machaerus,  16,  18 
Madness,  286 
Maecenas,  22 
Magnesia,  156,  213 

,  by  the  Meander,  175 

Mahaffy,  J.  P.,  142,  152 

Maimonides,  437 

Maiouma,  180 

Mallus,  178,  191 

Manahem,  148 

Manasseh,  53,  140 

Mandaeans,  108 

Man  of  Scoffing,  100 

Mar,  410 

Maran,  408,  409,  410,  416 

Marcellus,  13,  19 

Marco,  21 

Marcus  Ambivius,  12 

Aurelius,    143,    197,    224,    225, 

247 

Bibulus,  188 

Calpurnius,  156 

Licinius  Crassus,  190 

Margoliouth,  G.,  97,  98,  101 
Mari,  413 
Mariamne,  4 

,  wife  of  Herod,  14,  31,  117 

Marin,  21 
Marius,  226 


458 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHKISTIANITY 


Mark,  103,  104,  120,  268,  301,  302,  403 

Mark  Antony.     (See  Antony) 

Mark,  Gospel  of,  267,  280,  282,  303, 
316,  320,  322,  335,  363,  375,  376, 
377,  380,  386,  396,  397,  400,  402, 
414,  416 

Mar-Saba,  2 

Martyrium  Polycarpi,  211,  212 

Marx,  A.,  148 

Mary,  Mother  of  Jesus,  400,  401 

Mary,  Valley  of  our  Lady,  2 

Marya,  409 

Masada,  90,  422,  423 

Masseket  Kutim,  121 

Massilia,  188 

Mattai,  R.,  61 

Mattathias,  9,  31,  87 

Matthew,  104,  109,  164,  268,  280,  318, 
320,  321,  329,  330,  375,  389,  400- 
402 

Matthias,  305,  423 

,  son  of  Theophilus,  32 

Mauretania,  203 

,  King  of,  197 

Maximian,  174 

Maximin,  215 

Medes,  142 

Media,  139,  141,  146 

Meir,  R.,  62,  74,  320 

Melchizedek,  358,  359 

Menahem,  Rabbi,  428 

Menelaus,  208 

Mennaeus,  179 

Mercury,  222 

Mercy  combined  with  justice,  48,  49 

Merit  (Zechuth),  66 

Merivale,  C.,  202 

Meschach,  64 

Mesopotamia,  139,  142,  144,  146,  180, 

204 
Messiah,  as  Son  of  Man,  360,  363,  368- 
384 

,  Davidic,  7,  270,  271,  273,  274, 

276,  357-360,  362,  373,  395,  401 
— ,  days  of,  135,  271,  278,  281-283, 
297,  298,  373,  377 

,  in  Enoch,  355,  370,  371,  373 

,  in  4  Ezra,  276,  361,  371,  373 

,  in  O.T.,  347-353 

,  in  Psalms  of  Solomon,  273,  274, 

355 

,  in  Rabbinic  writings,  353-356, 362 

,  in  "  Zadokite  "  document,  98- 

101,  355,  356 
,  Mosaic,  403-408 


Metempsychosis,  261 

Mezuzah,  60 

Michael,  134,  269,  324,  369 

Midddh,  55 

Midrashim,  86,  429 

Miletus,  199 

Mill  Valley,  3 

Mind,  240 

Minerva,  259 

Minim,  87,  427 

Mirza  Ali  Muhammad,  109 

Mirza  Yahya,  109 

Mishna,  5,  32,  33,  75,  85,  86,  127,  161, 
163,  304,  320,  350,  423,  444.  (See 
also  Reference  Index) 

Mithradates,  9,  145,  176,  177,  182 

Mithraism,  258 

Mithras,  257,  258,  326 

Moab,  85 

Modestinus,  211 

Mommsen,  T.,  177,  181,  193,  201, 
203,  207,  208 

Mond-Cecil,  139 

Mond  Papyri,  160 

Money,  160 

Monobazus,  66,  145 

Mons  Casius,  191 

Montefiore,  C.  G.,  35,  53,  77 

Montet,  E.,  112 

Montgomery,  J.  A.,  101,  121,  122,  406 

Monumentum  Ancyranum,  194,  197 

Moore,  G.  F.,  97,  98,  125,  318,  343,  346 

Mopsuestia,  191 

Moses,  13,  58,  70,  75,  114,  124,  154, 
167,  168,  308,  346,  356,  384,  404, 
406,  431 

,  Assumption  of.  (See  Apoca- 
lypses) 

Mother  of  the  Gods,  182,  185 

Mountain  of  the  House,  5 

Multitudes,  104 

Murder,  65 

Museum,  152 

Musonius,  247 

Mycale,  199 

Myos  Hormos,  229 

Mysticism,  225,  252 

,  Greek  and  Oriental,  253-261 

Naaman,  333 
Nabataea,  85,  179 
Naevius,  222 
Nahardea,  144,  146 
Name  of  God,  63-65 
Naphtali,  137 


INDEX 


459 


Naples,  Bay  of,  229 

Napoleon,  432 

Narbonensis,  Gallia,  203,  209 

Narbonne,  207,  228 

Nasaraei,  84,  85 

Nasi,  119 

Nathan,  Rabbi,  63 

the  Prophet,  393 

Nazarene,  304,  426-432 

Nazarenes,  85,  426-432 

Nazareth,  390,  426-432 

Nebuchadnezzar,  97 

Nehemiah,   29,    121,    140,    141,    159, 

320 
Neo-Platonists,  249 
Neo-pythagoreanism,  252 
Neo-Pythagoreans,  91 
Neptune,  222 
Nero,  197,  203,  214,  253 
Neubauer,  A.,  146,  148,  430 
Nicaea,  176,  193,  204,  206 
Nicaso,  140 
Nicephorium,  180 
Nicomedes  Eupator,  176,  177 
Nicomedia,  176,  193,  201,  204 
Nigidius  Figulus,  252 
Nile,  140 
Nimes,  228 
Nisi  bis,  145 
Noachian  flood,  287 
Noachide  laws,  44,  45 
Noah,  370 
Norden,  E.,  256 
Nosrim,  426 
Nysa,  213 

Obsession,  286 

Octavian.     (See  Augustus) 

Octavianus.     (See  Augustus) 

Odyssey,  222 

Olba,  179,  182,  191 

Olive,  Synagogue  of  the,  157 

Olives,  Mount  of,  2,  28,  96,  422 

Olivet.     (See  Olives,  Mount  of) 

Omar,  Mosque  of,  3 

Onias,  352 

Ophel,  4 

Oracula  Sibyllina.    (See  Apocalypses) 

Origen,  122^  143,  249,  406 

Ormuzd,  134 

Orontes,  186 

Orosius,  146,  233 

Orphism,  253 

Osiris,  254,  257,  411,  431 

Osiris-Serapis,  258 


Osrhoene,  180,  181 
Ossenes,  84,  85,  91 
Ostia,  229,  230 
Otho,  333 

Palestine,  161,  232,  409 

Palladius,  95 

Pallas,  27 

Palmyra,  180 

Pamphylia,  211 

Panaetius,  224,  247 

Panarion.     (See  Epiphanius) 

Panchaea,  235 

Pannonia,  210 

Pantheism,  259 

Paphlagonia,  182 

Paphos,  151 

Papias,  295 

Paradise,  51 

Parmenio,  140 

Parousia,  375,  376,  377,  381 

Parthia,  145,  198 

Parthian  Empire,  143,  220 

Parthians,  20,  142,  172 

Passover,  the,  8,  67,  163,  434 

Patriarchs,  Twelve,  Testament  of  the, 

99,  100,  128,  272,  354,  358,  367. 

(See  also  Reference  Index) 
Paul,  26,  28,  118,  142,  150,  154,  159, 

161,  162,  164,  166,  172,  231,  300, 

308,  311-314,  323,  324-327,  336- 

338,  343,  403,  409,  417 
Pausanias,  333 
Pax  Bomana,  227 
Peah,  80 
Pekah,  138 
Pella,  147,  180 
Peloponnesus,  150 
Pelusium,  191 
Pentapolis,  Dorian,  200 
Pentateuch,  85,  318 
Pentecost,  117,  341 

,  Day  of,  304,  305,  322,  323 

People  of  the  Land.     (See  Ame  ha- 

Ares) 
Peraea,  Tetrarchy  of,  16,  120,  147 
Peres,  M.  J.-B.,  432 
Perga  of  Pamphylia,  150 
Pergamum,  173,  176,  193,  201,  204, 

212,  213,  214,  225 
Peripatetics,  249,  250 
Persephone,  222,  254 
Perseus,  156 

Persia,  139,  146,  219,  250 
,  Angel  of,  369 


460 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Persian  Gulf,  168 

Persians,  143,  228 

Persius,  157 

Peshitto,  350,  427 

Pessinus,  182,  259 

Peter,  24,  150,  267,  281,  294,  297,  298, 
302,  303,  305,  308,  309,  310,  311, 
312,  313,  314,  317,  324,  328,  329, 
330,  336,  339,  341,  363,  391,  407 

1  Peter,  150 

Petronius,  20,  22,  23 

Phannias,  423 

Pharisees,  84,  88,  104,  107,  110-114, 
116,  118,  119,  292,  293,  304,  404, 
422,  436-438,  442,  443,  445 

,  Psalms  of.     (See      Psalms      of 

Solomon) 

Pharos,  152 

Pharsalus,  191 

Phasael,  4 

Philadelphia,  180,  213 

Philadelphians,  26 

Philastrius,  85 

Philip,  11,  19,  23,  120,  124,  156,  313, 
317,  339,  341,  343 

Herod.     (See  Herod  Philip) 

V.    of    Macedonia,     175,    218, 

219 

of  Macedon,  218,  219 

of  Tralles,  211 

Philippians,  Epistle  to  the,  310 

Philo,  87,  90,  96,  118,  154-156,  161, 
162.  260,  308,  354  (and  see  Refer- 
ence Index) 

Philocrates,  153 

Philomelium,  178,  191 

Philosophy,  225,  234,  251,  260 

-,  the   Fourth,  of  the  Jews,  289, 

421,  422,  424 

Phineas,  439 

Phoenicia,  25,  211,  229 

Phoenicians,  25,  229 

Phrygia,  191,  200,  201 

Pilate,  124,  424 

Pindruissus,  191 

Pirates,  174,  229 

Pisidia,  191 

Plato,  155,  236,  239,  240,  241,  248, 
249,  252,  260,  261,  333 

Plautus,  223 

Plebs  Romana,  176,  187 

Pliny  the  Elder,  89,  149 

Plutarch,  151,  249,  333 

Pluto,  222 

Pollio,  112 


Pollux,  221 

Polybius,  333 

Polytheism,  260,  402 

Pompeiopolis,  178,  191 

Pompey,   9,   10,   111,  157,   167,   174, 

176,  177-192,  226,  230,  359 
Pontifex  Maximus,  194 
Pontius  Pilate,  8,  11,  13,  18,  19,  26, 

196 
Pontus,  176,  199,  211,  213 
Popillius  Laetus,  156 
Poppaea,  32 
Poppaeus  Sabinus,  196 
Porcius  Festus.     (See     Festus,     Por- 

cius) 
Porter,  F.  C,  55 
Poseidon,  199,  222 
Posidonius,  155 
Praetor  peregrinus,  156,  173 
Praetor  Urbanus,  173,  255 
Praetorium,  prefecture  of,  195 
Prayer  book,  Jewish  Authorised,  50, 

54,  56,  70 
Priest,  High,  9,  29,  32,  116,  349,  362 

king,  358 

Priests'  Code,  159 

Primary  notion  in  Stoicism,  236 

Principate,  settlement  of  the,  171 

Priscilla,  158 

Proconsuls,  196 

Procurators,  11,  26,  196,  197,  350 

Prophecy,  53,  114,  121,  286,  305,  318, 

357,  360 
Prophet  like  unto  Moses,  Jesus  as. 

(See  Jesus  Christ) 
Prophets,  schools  of  the,  82,  89 
,  selections    in    the    Synagogue 

from  the,  161 
Propontis,  198,  199 
Proselytes,  36,  42,  43,  125,  164-168, 

317,  342 
Proserpina,  222,  259 
Proverbs,  318 
Provinces    of    the    Roman    Empire, 

173-217 

,  Augustan  system  of,  194-199 

,  Imperial  cult  in,  201,  205-207 

-,  origin  of,  171-177 

,  Pompey's  settlement  of,    177- 

192 
,   reconstruction   of,  in   27  B.C., 

193-194 

,  settlement  of,  in  23  B.C.,  194 

,  the  concilia  of,  199-217 

Prusias,  176 


INDEX 


461 


Psalms,  318,  445 

of  Solomon.    (See  Apocalypses) 

Ptolemaeus,  179 
Ptolemais,  180 
Ptolemies,  the,  163,  203 
Ptolemy,  26,  190,  197,  198 

,  Alexander  II.,  178 

,  Apion,  176 

,  Lagus,  151,  152 

of  Cyprus,  178 

,  Philadelphus,  153 

VII. ,  30 

Soter,  258 

,  the  canon  of,  352 

Publicans,  196,  291 
Pumbeditha,  146 
Punic  War,  First,  173 

Second,  222,  223 

Purification  by  suffering,  56 
Puteoli,  229,  230 
Pydua,  156,  173 
Pythagoras,  244 
Pythagoreanism,  155,  249 
Pythodoris,  213 
Pythodorus,  213 

Q,  103,  107,  268,  280,  281,  282,  290, 
293,  298,  315,  320,  322,  331,  335, 
363,  375,  376,  377,  380,  386,  389, 
395,  396,  399-401,  402,  412,  414, 
416,  426 

Qahal,  328 

Quirinius,  12,  31,  421,  422 

Quirinus,  206 

Rab,  68 

Raba,  78 

Rabban,  119 

Rabbi,  as  title,  410,  412-416 

(Judah  ha-Nasi),  80,  81,  167,  443 

Rabbinic  literature,  85-87 

thought  and  religion,  35-81 

Rabbis,  the  earliest,  117-119 

Rachel,  144 

Ramsay,  Sir  W.  M.,  177,   190,   191, 

200,  202,  205,  210,  212 
Raphia,  180 
Rashi,  443 
Rawlinson,  G.,  144 
Reason,  240 
Rechab,  sons  of,  89 
Rechabites,  82 

Regeneration,  258,  298,  326,  343,  403 
Reitzenstein,  R.,  325 
Relatio  inter  deos,  207 


Repentance,  50,  52,  283 

Republic,  Roman,  226,  227,  231 

Resch,  A.,  118 

Resch,  G.,  118 

Resurrection,  113,  116,  121,  122,  135, 

136,  272,  276,  366,  403 
Rhamnusia,  259 
Rhine,  193-197,  228,  229 
Rhodes,  225,  226 
Rhone,  228 
Rhossus,  190 
Riggenbach,  E.,  336 
Righteousness,  66,  79 

,  teacher  of,  97,  98 

Robertson,  J.  M.,  430 

Robes,  sacred,  14 

Roma,  worship  of,  193,  203,  205,  206, 

210,  212,  214,  216 
Roman  Empire,  171-266 

,  beyond  the  Euphrates,  180 

,  education  in,  223 

,  foreign  religions  in,  255, 257-260 

,  Greek  literature  in,  222 

,  Greek  philosophy  in,  223-226, 

240 

,  ideals  of,  232 

,  Jews  in,  147-159,  189 

,  life  in,  218-256 

,  prefectures  of,  195 

,  provinces  of.     (See  Provinces) 

Romans,  Epistle  to  the,  310 
Rome,  rise  of  as  a  world  power,  220 
Ropes,  J.  H.,  137 
Roscher,  W.  H.,  411 
Rubicon,  191,  220,  226 
Rushforth,  G.  M.,  194,  207 
Ryle  and  James,  111,  273 

Sabbaeus,  101 

Sabbath,  96,  164,  295,  378,  379,  436, 

443 
Sacrament,  332,  334,  335,  343,  344 
Sadducees,  84,  87,  100,  104,  112-118, 

136,  319,  432,  436-438 
Sadduk,  113,  432 
Sadok,  Rabbi,  59 
Salamis,  151 
Salampsio,  14 
Salome,  16 
Samaria,  11,   13,   20,   120,   123,    137, 

138,  309,  313,  317,  341 
Samaritan,  the  Good,  123 
Samaritans,  84,  120-125,  342,  404 
Sameas,  112 
Samosata,  180,  181 


462 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Samothrace,  254 

Samuel,  347 

Samuel  ben  Nahman,  Eabbi,  444 

Sanballat,  121,  140,  141 

Sanctuary,  Mosaic,  39 

Sanhedrin,    8,    13,   23,    32,   33,    115, 

374 
Sapha,  140 
Sapphira,  325 
Sarah,  43 
Sardinia,  158,  173,  175,  196,  198,  204 

207,  220 
Sardis,  213 
Sargon,  138 
Satan,  134,  287 
Saturninus,  158,  226 
Saul,  137,  347,  348 
Sayce,  A.  H.,  139 
Scaliger,  406 
Scaurus,  179 
Scepticism,  250 
Schechter,  S.,  39,  40,  57,  97,  98,  101, 

354 
Schoene,  A.,  158 
Schools     of      the     prophets.        (See 

Prophets) 
Schiirer,  E.,  6,   10,  20,  22,  95,   138 
149,  155,  157,  158,  160,  161,  162, 
177,  180,  421,  424 
Schwab,  M.,  40,  62 
Schwartz,  E.,  103 
Scipio,  244 
Scordisci,  175 
Scribes,  84,  288,  289,  290,  291,  292 

330,  445 
Scythians,  198 
Scythopolis,  180 
Sea  routes,  229 
Sebaste,  11,  25,  124,  147,  342 
Sebasteum,  201 
Sebouaei,  84 
Sedakah,  66 
Seder  Olam,  97 
Sejanus,  20,  158 
Seleucia  Pieria,  184 

in  Mesopotamia,  145 

on  the  Calycadenus,  191 

Seleucian  Tetrapolis,  184 
Seleucidae,  184,  186,  204 
Seleucids,  163 
Seleucus,  184,  192 

Callinicus,  181 

Nicator,  148,  179,  181 

Selinus,  191 
Senate,  Jewish,  21 


Senate,  Roman,  178,  255 

Seneca,  225,  243,  244,  247,  252 

Sennacherib,  138 

Sepphoris,  16,  189 

Septimus  Severus,  217 

Septuagint,  153,  328,  333,  334,  350, 

388,  399,  410,  416 
Sepulchres,  whitening  of  the,  163 
Serapis,  152,  411 
Sergius  Paulus,  151 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  291,  316 
Servant,   Jesus   as   the.     (See  Jesus 
Christ) 

the  suffering,  321,  367,  368,  383, 

384-392 
Servilius  Isauricus,  174 
Servius,  205 
Settlement  of  23  B.C.,  194 

of  27  B.C.,  193 

Seven,  the,  307,  308,  309,  341 

Shadrach,  64 

Shammai,  48,  112,  117,  118,  421 

Shashan  Gate,  6 

Shebi'ith,  80,  81 

Shechem,  121 

Shechinah,  38,  39,  40 

Shekalim,  163 

Shema,  62,  162 

Shemitta,  437 

Shemone  Esre,  162,  426 

Shows,  gladiatorial,  25 

Shuckburgh,  E.  S.,  205,  207 

Siburesians,  157 

Sibyl,  256 

Sibylline  Oracles.     (See  Apocalypses) 

Sicaricon,  423 

Sicarii,  27,  28,  32,  84,  90,  421-423 

Sicily,  173,  175,  198,  218,  220,  221 

Side,  191 

Sidon,  25,  123 

Sifra,  85 

Sifre,  85 

Silas,  179 

Siloam,  Pool  of,  4 

Silva,  Flavius,  423 

Silver,  A.  H.,  73 

Simeon  ben  Shetaeh,  65 

of  Antioch,  148 

Simon  the  Alexandrian,  31,  117 

the  Canaanite,  425 

Cantheras,  31 

ben  Eleazar,  Rabbi,  77 

the  Essene,  434 

ben  Gamaliel,  121,  441 

ben  Giora,  423 


INDEX 


463 


Simon,  Jew,  opponent  of  Agrippa,  23 

,  son  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  26 

bar  Koziba,  361 

the  Maccabee,  30 

Magus,  124,  411 

Sin,  origin  and  nature  of,  53 

Sinai,  178,  270 

Sion,  3 

Smith,  G.  A.,  2,  4 

Smith,  W.  B.,  84,  430 

Smyrna,  200,  210,  212,  214,  225,  226 

Smyrnaeans,  205 

Socrates,  243 

Sohemius,  23 

Solemnis,  T.  Sennius,  209 

Soli,  178 

Solomon,  9,  114,  348,  358,  393 

ben  Shetah,  115 

,  prayer  of,  38 

,  Psalms  of.     (See  Apocalypses) 

,  temple  of,  5 

Son   of    God,  Jesus   as.     (See  Jesus 
Christ) 

of  Man,  Jesus  as.     (See  Jesus 

Christ) 
Song  of  Songs,  318,  320 
Sons  of  Rechab.     (See  Rechab) 
Sophene,  181 

Sophia,  411 

Sosius,  12 

Spain,  172,  175,  220 

Spanheim,  427 

Sparta,  207,  208 

Spirit  of  God,  103,  107,  286-288,  306, 
322-327,  339,  343,  345 

in  Jewish  and  Hellenic  thought, 

325 

Spirits,  ancient  Jewish  belief  in,  286 

,  evil,  287 

,  Persian  view  of,  287 

,  Stoic  doctrine  of,  326 

Star,  the,  98 

Stephen,  308,  309,  313,  391 

Stoicism,  155,  223-225,  235,  239-248, 
251,  260 

Strabo,  151,  197,  208,  213 

Stratonicea,  200 

Stratonis  Turris,  180 

Subh-i-Ezel,  109,  110 

Succession,  Apostolic,  299 

Suetonius,  20,  27,  157,  230,  431 

Sulla,  151,  176,  177,  185,  226 

Sultan  Suleiman,  4 

Sun  worship,  91 

Susa,  139 


Swete,  H.  B.,  Ill 

Sychar,  124 

Synagogue,    44,   161,   266,  267,  295, 

318,  390 

,  the  Great,  114,  345 

worship,  160-162 

Synnada,  190 

Syria,  147,   177,   178,   179,   180,   181, 

183,  187,  190,  192,  193,  203,  204, 

210,  211,  309,  411 
Syrophoenicia,  123,  147 

Tabernacles,  Feast  of,  23 

Tacitus,  20,  26,  158,  431 

Taheb,  122,  406 

Tahpanes,  139 

Talmud,  the,  86,  152,  290,  404,  429 

,  Babylonian,  162,  351 

,  Jerusalem,  86,  424,  426,  430 

Tanais,  197 
Tannaim,  86 
Tarentum,  222 
Targum,  119,  362,  399,  409 
Tarphon,  Rabbi,  73,  80,  81,  319 
Tarquin,  221 
Tarraco,  212,  229 
Tarraconensis,  193,  203 
Tarsus,  172,  191,  205,  211 
Tartarus,  256 
Taurobolium,  335 
Taurus  Mts.,  191,  198 
Taxo,  421 

Taylor,  Charles,  112,  114,  121 
Taylor  Cylinder,  39,  138 
Tectosages,  182,  202 
Temple,  1,  2,  3,  5,  12,  22,  48,  52,  113, 
114,  120,  125,  138,  159,  161,  162, 
266,  305,  349,  393 

,  Cleansing  of  the,  291 

,  Court  of  the  Men  of  Israel  in,  6 

,  Court  of  the  women  in,  6 

,  Gate  Beautiful  of,  6 

,  Gate  Nicanor  of,  6 

,  Josephus'  description  of  the,  5 

on  Mount  Gerizim,  110,  141 

,  tax  for,  163 

Teraphim,  144 

Terence,  223 

Tertullian,  404,  406 

Pseudo-,  85 

Terumah,  441 

Teucer,  234 

Thaddeus,  142 

Thebaid,  141 

Thebes,  175,  254 


464 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Thecla,  202,  210 
Theodosius,  101 
Theodotion,  350 
Theophilus,  31 
Therapeutae,  95-96 
Theseus,  208 
Thessalonica,  150,  228 
Thessaly,  150-188,  198,  203 
Theudas,  26,  422 
Thomas,  142 
Tiber,  229 
Tiberias,  147 

Tiberius,  11,  13,  15,  16,  17,  19,  20, 
21,  120,  157,  158,  196,  201,  207, 
214,  227,  229 

,  Alexander,  26 

,      Gracchus.       (See     Gracchus, 

Tiberius) 
Tibur,  221 
Tiglath-pileser,  138 
Tigranes,  180 
Tigris,  140,  229 
Timothy,  118,  162,  165 
Tirabatha,  13 
Tithes,  9 

Titus,  24,  26,  51,  148,  163-165,  423 
Toble  Shaharith,  90 
Tolistoboii,  182,  201,  202 
Torah,  42,  63,  121 
Torrey,  C.  C,  130 
Tosephta,  42,  85,  314 
Toy,  C.  H.,  112 
Trajan,  91,  151 
Tralles,  213 

Tribunicia  potestas,  193 
Tripolis,  179,  186 
Triumvirate,  First,  188 

,  Second,  188 

Trocmi,  182,  202 
Troiugenae,  182 
Tubingen  School,  312 
Turkestan,  219 
Turnus  Rufus,  67 
Tusculum,  221 

Twelve,  the,  267,  295-299,  305,  307, 
308,  309,  310,  328,  344 

Patriarchs,    Testament    of    the 

(See  Apocalypses) 
Tyre,  25,  123 
Tyropoeon,  3,  6 
Tyrrell,  R.  G.,  190 

Ubii,  204 
Umbricius,  187 
Unchastity,  65 


Upper  Market,  3,  4 
Uranus,  235 
Urha,  180 
Usener,  H.,  237,  398 

Valentinians,  411 

Valerius  Gratus,  11,  13,  26,  31,  196 

Maximus,  157 

Venasa,  182 

Venus,  359 

Verona,  228 

Verrall,  A.  W.,  8 

Verres,  193,  227 

Vespasian,  26,  59,  165,  184,  195 

Vessels,  sacred,  124 

Vestments,  custody  of  High  Priests', 

32 
Villici,  183 
Virgil,  227,  233,  256,  261 

and  the  future  life,  256 

Viteau,  J.,  Ill 

Vitellius,  13,  14,  31,  143,  195 

Voice  from  Heaven,  397,   398,    399, 

400 
Volumnesians,  157 

Wady-en-Nar,  2 

er-Rababi,  2 

Sitte-Mariam,  2 

Watch,  prefecture  of  the,  195 

Watson,  G.,  2,  3,  190 

Weiss,  J.,  408 

Wellhausen,  J.,  160,  295 

Wendland,  P.,  95,  155 

Westcott  and  Hort,  399 

Whiston,  W.,  16,  102 

Williams,  G.,  2,  3 

Winckler,  H.,  148 

Windisch,  H.,  324 

Wisdom  of  Solomon,  56,  153,  354,  385, 

386,  394,  395,  400 
World  to  Come.     (See  Age  to  Come) 
Wrede,  W.,  285 

Year  of  Release,  the,  437 

,  sabbatical,  9 

Yeb,  139,  141,  160 
Yes er  ha  Ed,  50,  54,  55 

Zadok    the    priest,     114,    115,     348, 
349 

the  Pharisee,  421 

,  sons  of,  98 

Zadokite,  272 

Zealots,  12,  84,  90,  289,  421-425 


INDEX 


465 


Zebedee,  sons  of,  295,  298 
Zechariah,  127,  350,  352,  357 
Zechuth,  69 
Zeller,  E.,  91,  240 
Zerubbabel,  121,  349,  350,  357 
Zeus,  179,  200,  221,  234,  235,  240 


Zeus,  High  Priest  of,  191 
Zigabenus,  Euthymius,  340 
Zion,  122 
Zoroaster,  134 
Zoroastrians,  144 
Zygi,  198 


VOL.  I 


2h 


INDEX  II 

BIBLICAL  REFERENCES,  INCLUDING  THE  APOCRYPHA 
AND  PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 


Genesis  i.  25,  31 

vi.  2 

vi.  4 

xiv. 

xxviii.  18 

xxx.  8 

xxxi.  13  . 

xxxi.  30-35 

xlix.  10    . 
Exodus  iv.  22 

xvi.  29     . 

xviii.  6     . 

xix.  2 

xx.  2 

xx.  5 

xx.  23      . 

xxi.  2-6    . 

xxii.  20    . 

xxix. 

xxx.  13    . 

xxx.  22  ff. 
Leviticus  iv.    . 

iv.  3,  5,  16 

vi.  15 

viii.  12     . 

xvi.  4 

xvi.  24     . 

xix.  18     . 

xxvi.  34  f. 

xxvii. 
Numbers  i.  1  . 

xi.  16 

xv.  37-41 

xix.  9 

xxxiv.  17  f. 
Deuteronomy  iv.  12,  15 

v.  12 

vi.  4-9   . 


PAGE 

55 

392 

392 

358 

348 

137 

348 

144 

119 

392 

436 

43 

46 

45 

63 

57 

159 

43 

349 

160 

349 

350 

349 

349 

349 

349 

349 

78 

352 

438 

160 

33 

162 

68 

361 

38 

292 

162 


Deuteronomy  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

xi.  13-21  . 

.          . 

162 

xv.  1,  2    . 

437 

xvi.  3 

437 

xviii.  13  ff. 

.       405 

,  406 

xviii.  14  . 

. 

404 

xviii.  15,  19 

405 

xix.  16  ff. 

438 

xxii.  6,  7 

68 

xxxiv.  10 

.       405 

,  406 

Joshua  xv.  8  . 

2 

Judges  ix.  8,  15 

347 

xix.  12     . 

147 

1  Samuel  ii.  1-10 

348 

ii.  10 

353 

ii.  35 

348 

ix.  16       . 

. 

347 

x.  1 

347 

xi.  15 

348 

xvL  12     . 

347 

xxiv.  7,  11 

348 

xxvi.  9,  11,  16, 

23 

348 

2  Samuel  ii.  4 

347 

348 

v.  3 

347 

348 

vii. 

3 

53,  392 

393 

xv.  23      . 

2 

xxii. 

348 

xxii.  51     . 

353 

1  Kings  i.  34  . 

348 

i.  39 

348 

ii.  26  f.,  35 

348 

ii.  35 

349 

v.  27 

349 

ix.  11 

137 

xi.  7 

2 

2  Kings  v.  14 

333 

ix.  1-15    . 

348 

x.  5 

, 

348 

xi.  12 

347 

467 


468 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


2  Kings  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

Psalm  (contd.) 

— 

PAGE 

XV.    . 

.      138 

cxlvi.  20  . 

45 

xv.  29      . 

137,  138 

Proverbs  xi.  4 

.       66 

xvii. 

.      120 

xi.  30 

67 

xvii.  6 

.      138 

xxiv.  12 

.     430 

xxiii.  30  . 

.     347 

Ecclesiastes  R 

.  vii. 

15      .          .58 

xxiv.  14  . 

.      138 

Isaiah  ix.  1     . 

.       137,  357 

XXV.   11     . 

.      138 

xi.  . 

.       270,  272 

1  Chronicles  xxix.  22 

.     349 

xi.  2 

.     358 

2  Chronicles  xxiv.  4-10 

.      160 

xi.  2-5 

.     354 

xxx vi.  21 

.     352 

xiv.  1 

.     352 

Ezra  i.  2  ff.     . 

.     352 

xxi.  4 

.     333 

ii.  2 

'.     432 

xxiv.  -xxv 

ii. 

.      127 

ii.  61-63  . 

29 

xl.   . 

.     356 

iv.  2 

.      121 

xlii. 

.     400 

vii.  10      . 

.     356 

xlii.  1  ff. 

.       354,  399 

Nehemiah  i.  1. 

.      139 

xliv.  28 

.     348 

vii.  63-65 

.       29 

xlv.  1 

.     348 

x.  32 

.      160 

xlv.  17  ff. 

.     355 

xiii.  28     . 

.      141 

xlv.  23 

.     271 

Esther  i.  5      . 

.      139 

liii.  . 

.       383,  386 

Job  i.  6 

.     392 

liii.  7 

.       390,  391 

vii.  20      . 

.     430 

liii.  12 

386,  387,  390 

xxxviii.  7 

.     392 

lv.  3-5 

.     353 

Psalm  ii.           353,  361,  3 

93,  398,  399 

lxi. 

388,  389,  390 

ii.  2          .          .3 

54,  355,  371 

lxi.  1 

388,  389,  390 

ii.  7 

.     394 

Jeremiah  vii. 

31 

2 

xvi.  3 

63 

xxiii.  5 

.     357 

xvii. 

.     359 

xxiv. 

.      138 

xviii. 

.     348 

xxv.  11  f. 

.     352 

xviii.  51    . 

.     353 

xxix.  10 

.     352 

xxii. 

387,  389 

xxxiii.  15 

.     357 

xxviii.  8  . 

.     352 

xxxix.  10 

.      138 

xxxv.  19,  20     . 

.       43 

xli.  2 

.     333 

lxxix.  2    . 

88 

xli.  5 

.      138 

lxxxiv. 

.     393 

xlix.  20    . 

.     362 

lxxxiv.  10 

.     353 

Hi.  24-25  . 

.      138 

lxxxix.  20-38    . 

.     353 

liii.  16      . 

.      138 

lxxxix.  21 

.     353 

liii.  24-25. 

.      138 

lxxxix.  26 

.     393 

Lamentations  iv.  2C 

>          .          .274 

lxxxix.  39,  52  . 

.     353 

Ezekiel  iv.  5   . 

97,  98 

xciv. 

.     270 

viii. 

.      138 

ciii. 

.     270 

xvi. 

.      138 

cv.  14  f.    . 

.      352 

xviii.  6,  7 

51 

cv.  15 

.     348 

xliv.  15    . 

98,  114 

cvii.  20     . 

.     390 

Daniel  vii.  1-14 

.      132 

ex. 

.     358 

vii.  9-14  . 

.     368 

cxii.  1 

68 

vii.  13  f.  . 

.       355,  373 

exxxii.  11  f. 

.     353 

vii.  22  ff. 

.     355 

exxxii.  17 

.       353,  358 

vii.  23  ff. 

.     369 

exxxix.     . 

.       38 

ix.  2 

.     352 

cxli.  1 

70 

ix.  25  f.    . 

348,  350,  352 

cxlv. 

40,  270 

x.  13  ff.    . 

.     369 

cxlvi.  7     . 

43 

xii.  9 

;          .          .132 

cxlvi.  8    . 

.       43 

Hosea  vii.  3 

.     347 

INDEX 


469 


Hosea  (contd.) — 

viii.  4 

viii.  10     . 

xi.  1 
Joel  ii.  28 

iii.  2  and  12 
Obadiah,  17  f. 
Habakkuk  iii. 

iii.  13       . 
Haggai  i.  1 
Zechariah  iii.  8 

iv.  14       . 

vi.  . 

vi.  11 

vi.  12       . 

xii.  10-12 

xiii.  1 
Malachi  ii.  7   . 
4  Ezra   . 

vi.  26  f.    . 

vi.  49  ff.  . 

vii.  28  f.  . 

xi.,  xii.     . 

xi.  38  ff.  . 

xii. 

xii.  32      . 

xiii.  1  ff.  . 

xiii.  25  ff. 
Tobit  i.  14      . 

iv.  15 
Judith  xii.  7   . 
Wisdom  ii. 

ii.  3 

ii.  12  ff.    . 

iii.  1 

vii.  27      . 
Ecclesiasticus  iv.  10 

xxxi.  35  . 

xlvi.  19    . 
Baruch  xiii.  10 

xxvii.-xxix. 

xxix.  3  ff. 

xl.  1-3      . 

lxx.  9 

Ixxii.  2-6 

lxxx.  15  . 
1  Maccabees  ii.  42 

v.  23 

vii.  13      . 

viii.  2 

viii.  14-16 

viii.  22-32 

x.  20 

xii.  1-4     . 

xiv.  24  ff. 


349, 


PAGE 

347 
347 
392 
324 
2 
362 
348 
353 
432 
357 
348 
138 
349 
357 
362 
348 
356 
275,  277,  284 
.  324 
.  360 
.  353 
.  361 
.  361 
.  372 
.  361 
361,  371 
.  353 
.   138 
.   118 
.  333 
.  389 
.   153 
.  387 
.   154 
.   154 
.  394 
.  334 
.  353 
.  324 
.  360 
.  360 
.  361 
.  361 
.  361 
.  324 
.   88 
.   147 
88 
.   156 
.   156 
.   156 
.   30 
.   156 
.  156 


1  Maccabees  [contd.) — 

xv.  16  ff. 

2  Maccabees   . 

iv.  2 

iv.  3 

iv.  7-10    . 

iv.  33-38  . 

viii.  5,  6  . 
Enoch  i.-xxxvi. 

vi.  . 

vi.-xvi.     . 

ix.  7  f.      . 

x.  13  ff.    . 

xxxvii.-lxxi. 

xlv.  4 

xlv.  36     . 

xlviii.  6    . 

xlviii.  10 . 

Ii.  1  f.       . 

Iii.  4 

liii.  4 

lxii.  14-16 

lxviii.  2    . 

lxviii.  6    . 

lxxi. 

lxxi.  14    . 
Jubilees  i.  19-25 

xxxi.  12  ff. 
Orac.  Sybil,  iii.  271 

iv.  8  ff.,  24  ff. 

iv.  162-192 

vi.  16 
Psalms  of  Solomon  ii.  30 

xiii.  8 

xvii. 

xvii.  21-46         .        273, 

xvii.  22-24 

xvii.  24    . 

xvii.  30    . 

xvii.  41     . 

xviii.  4     . 

xviii.  8  ff. 
Testament  of  12  Patriarchs- 

Judah  xxv. 

Levi  viii.  11,  xviii. 

Reuben  vi.  8  . 
Matthew  ii.  23    .   426, 

iii.  1  ff.  . 

iii.  7 

iii.  7-10  . 

iii.  17   . 

v.  3 

v.  21-22  . 

v.  27-28  . 

v.  29  ff.  . 


PAGE 

.  156 

.  349 

.  424 

.  425 

.  352 

.  352 

.  156 

.  274 

.  392 

.  287 

.  360 

.  324 

354,  370 

.  370 

.  355 

.  370 

354,  371 
.  355 
.  354 

355,  371 
.  355 
.  354 
.  354 
.  370 
.  371 
.  394 

99 
.  159 
93,  166 
.  342 
.  358 
.  Ill 
.  394 
355,  394 
274,  354 
.  394 
.  353 
.  394 
.  324 
.  394 
.  324 

.  99 

.  358 

.  358 

427,  430 

.  103 

.  116 

.  103 

.  397 

.  280 

.  284 

.  284 

.  284 


470 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


bthew  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

Matthew  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

v.  32 

.      293 

xiii.  37     . 

.     376 

vi.  20 

66 

xiii.  41     . 

.     376 

vi.  33 

.     280 

xiii.  52     . 

.     330 

vii.  12       . 

.     118 

xiv.  28     . 

.     414 

vii.  21      . 

.       281,  413 

xiv.  30     . 

.     414 

vii.  22      . 

.     413 

xv.  22      . 

.     414 

viii.  1-4    . 

.     388 

xv.  25      . 

.     414 

viii.  6 

.     414 

xv.  27      . 

.     413 

viii.  8 

.     414 

xvi.  Iff.. 

.      116 

viii.  11     . 

.     279 

xvi.  13  ff. 

.       328,  375 

viii.  17     . 

.     389 

xvi.  16     . 

.     401 

viii.  19     . 

.     413 

xvi.  19     . 

.     330 

viii.  20     . 

.     375 

xvi.  21     . 

.     375 

viii.  21     . 

.     414 

xvi.  27     . 

.     375 

viii.  25     . 

.     412 

xvi.  28     . 

.     375 

viii.  27  ff. 

.     328 

xvii.  4 

.     412 

viii.  28  ff. 

.      147 

xvii.  5 

.     397 

viii.  29     . 

.     397 

xvii.  9 

.     375 

ix.  1-7      . 

.     388 

xvii.  12    . 

.     375 

ix.  6 

.     375 

xvii.  15    . 

412,  414 

ix.  9-13    . 

.     388 

xvii.  22    . 

.     375 

ix.  11 

.     412 

xvii.  24    . 

160,  414 

ix.  18-25  . 

.     388 

xviii.  11   . 

.     376 

ix.  27-31  . 

.     388 

xviii.  17   . 

.     330 

ix.  28 

.     414 

xviii.  21,  22 

77,  414 

ix.  32 

.     388 

xix.  16     . 

.     412 

ix.  43-48  . 

.     284 

xix.  27     . 

.     298 

x.     . 

.     331 

xix.  28     . 

297,  375 

X.   1  ff.       . 

.     123 

xx.  18      . 

.     375 

x.  4 

.     425 

xx.  28      . 

.     375 

x.  5 

123,  147 

xxi.  3 

.     413 

x.  5-23     . 

.     314 

xxi.  9 

7 

x.  17-23  . 

.     315 

xxi.  11     . 

.     427 

x.  23 

.      376 

xxii.  2  ff. 

.     279 

x.  24 

.     413 

xxii.  16    . 

.     412 

x.  28 

.        61 

xxii.  23    . 

.      122 

xi.  2  ff.    . 

103,  107 

xxii.  24    . 

.     412 

xi.  3 

.     414 

xxii.  36    . 

.     412 

xi.  5 

.     388 

xxiii.  15  . 

.      164 

xi.  7  ff.     . 

.     331 

xxiii.  19  . 

.     336 

xi.  18  ff.  . 

103,  107 

xxiv. 

.     360 

xi.  19 

.     375 

xxiv.  9-14 

.     315 

xi.  21        . 

.     430 

xxiv.  27  . 

.     375 

xii.  5 

.     437 

xxiv.  30  . 

375,  376 

xii.  8 

.      375 

xxiv.  36  . 

.     375 

xii.  17      . 

.     389 

xxiv.  37   . 

.     375 

xii.  18      . 

.     399 

xxiv.  44  . 

.     375 

xii.  25      . 

.     445 

xxv.  31    . 

.     376 

xii.  31  f.  . 

.     380 

xxvi.  2     . 

376,  381 

xii.  32      . 

.     375 

xxvi.  5     . 

8 

xii.  38      . 

.     413 

xxvi.  18  . 

.     412 

xii.  40      . 

.     375 

xxvi.  24  . 

.     375 

xiii.  7  ff.  . 

.     330 

xxvi.  45  . 

.     375 

xiii.  9-13 

.     315 

xxvi.  49  . 

.     413 

INDEX 


471 


Matthew  (contd.)- 

xxvi.  57  . 

xxvi.  63  . 

xxvi.  64  . 

xxvi.  71    . 

xxvii.  2    . 

xxvii.  42 

xxvii.  54 

xxviii.  19 
Mark  i.  1  ff. 

i.  11 

i.  15 

i.  16  ff. 

i.  19  ff. 

i.  22 

i.  38  ff. 

ii.  1 

ii.  10 

ii.  13 

ii.  16 

ii.  18  ff. 

ii.  28 

iii.   . 

iii.  1 

iii.  6 

iii.  11 

iii.  13  ff. 

iii.  18 

iii.  28  f. 

iv.  11 

iv.  30 

iv.  38 

v.  1  ff. 

v.  7 

v.  35 

vi.   . 

vi.  7  ff. 

vi.  12 

vi.  30 

vii.  1  ff. 

vii.  2 

vii.  28 

viii.  27 

viii.  28 

viii.  29 

viii.  31 

viii.  38 

ix.  1 

ix.  5 

ix.  7 

ix.  9 

ix.  10 

ix.  12 

ix.  17 

ix.  31 


PAGE 

.   30 
.  397 
.  375 
426,  427 
.   151 
.  389 
.  397 
123,  328,  335,  336 
.   103 
.  397 
278,  279,  296 


295 

295 

162 

295 

295 

375, 

379 

295 

. 

412 

107, 

294 

3753 

378 

296 

295 

119, 

295 

.  397 

.  123 

.  425 

.  380 

.  279 

.  279 

.  412 

.  147 

.  397 

.  412 

.  296 

.  296 

123,  296 

.  123 

.  293 

444,  445 

.  413 

.  375 

.  403 

.  363 

.  375 

375,  378 

279,  375 

.  412 

.  397 

.  375 

.  381 

.  375 

.  412 

.  375 


Mark  (contd.) — 

ix.  32 

ix.  38 

ix.  41 

ix.  43  ff 

x.  1-12 

x.  17  ff. 

x.  20 

x.  28 

x.  33 

x.  35 

x.  45 

x.  47  f. 

x.  51 

xi.  3 

xi.  9 

xi.  10 

xi.  21 

xii.  4 

xii.  13 

xii.  14 

xii.  19 

xii.  29 

xii.  32 

xii.  35 

xiii. 

xiii.  1 

xiii.  21 

xiii.  26 

xiii.  32 

xiv.  1 

xiv.  18,  21 

xiv.  21 

xiv.  28 

xiv.  41 

xiv.  45 

xiv.  61 

xiv.  62 

xv.  21 

xv.  28 

xv.  32 

xv.  39 

xvi.  7 
Luke  ii.  11 

ii.  26 

iii.  1 

iii.  2  ff. 

iii.  7-9 

iii.  10-14 

iii.  22 

iv.  15 

iv.  16-21 

iv.  18  ff. 

v.  8 

v.  12 


PAGE 

.  381 
.  412 
.  363 
281,  283 
.  292 
281,  285,  412 
.  412 
.  297 
.  375 
.  412 
375,  387 
365,  426 
413,  415 
.  413 
7 
.  365 
.  413 
.  116 
.  119 
.  412 
.  412 
.  412 
.  412 
363,  364 
.  360 
.  412 
.  363 
375,  377 
375,  396 
412 
386 
375 
302 
375 
413 
363,  397 
375,  377,  378 
151 
386 
363 
397 
302 
414 
414 
19 
103 
.  103 
103,  104 
.  397 
.  425 
.  161 
.  390 
.  414 
.  414 


30, 


472 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Luke  (contd.) 
v.  24 
vi.  5 
vi.  20 
vi.  40 
vi.  46 
vii.  2 
vii.  6 
vii.  13 
vii.  18  ff. 
vii.  19 
vii.  22 
vii.  24  ff 
vii.  33  ff 
vii.  34 
vii.  40 
viii.  24 
viii.  26 

viii.  28 

viii.  49 

viii.  59 

ix.  18 

ix.  22 

ix.  26 

ix.  27 

ix.  33 

ix.  35 

ix.  38 

ix.  44 

ix.  49 

ix.  52 

ix.  54 

ix.  56 

ix.  57 

ix.  58 

ix.  59 

ix.  61 

x.  1 

x.  13 

x.  17 

x.  25  ff. 

x.  39 

x.  40 

x.  41 

xi.  1 

xi.  30 

xi.  39 

xi.  45 

xii.  4 

xii.  7-12 

xii.  10 

xii.  13 

xii.  31 

xii.  40 

xii.  41 


PAGE 

Luke  (contd.)  - 

.     375 

xii.  42 

.     375 

xiii.  6 

.     280 

xiii.  14 

.     413 

xiii.  23     . 

.     413 

xiii.  23  ff. 

.     414 

xiii.  24     . 

.     414 

xiii.  26     . 

.     414 

xiii.  29     . 

103,  107 

xiv.  5 

.     414 

xiv.  16  ff. 

.     388 

xvi.  16     . 

.      331 

xvi.  18     . 

.      103 

xvii.  5 

.     375 

xvii.  6 

.     414 

xvii.  13    . 

.     412 

xvii.  22    . 

.      147 

xvii.  24    . 

.     397 

xvii.  26    . 

.     412 

xvii.  30    . 

.     414 

xvii.  37    . 

.     375 

xviii.  6     . 

.     375 

xviii.  12  . 

.     375 

xviii.  18  . 

.     375 

xviii.  31  . 

.     412 

xviii.  37  . 

.     397 

xviii.  41   . 

.     412 

xix.  10     . 

.     375 

xix.  31     . 

.     412 

xix.  38     . 

123,  124 

xix.  39     . 

.     414 

xx.  21      . 

.     376 

xx.  27      . 

.     413 

xx.  28      . 

.     375 

xx.  39      . 

.     414 

xxi.  12-19 

.     414 

xxi.  27     . 

.     414 

xxi.  36     . 

.     430 

xxi.  37     . 

.     414 

xxii.  11  ff. 

123,  412 

xxii.  22    . 

.     414 

xxii.  27    . 

.     414 

xxii.  30    . 

.     414 

xxii.  33    . 

.     414 

xxii.  37    . 

.     375 

xxii.  38    . 

.     414 

xxii.  48    . 

.     414 

xxii.  49    . 

.        61 

xxii.  61    . 

.     315 

xxii.  66    . 

375,  380 

xxii.  69    . 

.     414 

xxiii.  11   . 

.     280 

xxiii.  12  . 

.      375 

xxiii.  47  . 

.     414 

xxiv.  7     . 

414 

151 

161 

414 

282,  283 

285 

413 

279 

437 

279 

316 

. 

293 

414 

414 

, 

415 

376 

,  381 

, 

375 

375 

376 

414 

414 

441 

412 

375 

426 

413 

,  414 

376 

413 

7 

414 

412 

116 

412 

414 

315 

. 

375 

376 

2 

123, 

412 

. 

375 

375 

297, 

375 

, 

414 

386, 

390 

414 

376 

414 

414 

397 

374, 

375 

, 

8 

, 

19 

388, 

397 

376, 

381 

INDEX 


473 


Luke  (contd.) — 

AGE 

Acts  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

xxiv.  19  . 

.     426 

v.  17 

.       115,  116 

xxiv.  34  . 

.     414 

v.  34  ff.    . 

.      119 

xxviii.  8 

.     376 

v.  36  f.     . 

26 

xxix.  21-25 

.     366 

vi. -xxviii. 

.      301 

John  i.  21  ff.  . 

.     406 

vi.  . 

.      150 

i.  43 

.     295 

vi.  1 

83,  307 

i.  44 

.     295 

vi.  2  ff.     . 

.     307 

viii.  48     . 

.      124 

vi.  4 

.     304 

ix.  22 

.      162 

vi.  7 

.     305 

xi.  50 

8 

vi.  9 

1,  151,  161,  304 

xviii.  1 

2 

vi.  14 

.      426 

xviii.  13  . 

.        30 

vii. 

.      366 

xx.  16       . 

.     413 

vii.  51 

.      392 

xx.  22      . 

.      323 

vii.  56      . 

.      374 

Acts  i.  4-ii.  4  . 

.     339 

viii.  8-19 

.      339 

i.  4 

.       339,  340 

viii.  12     . 

.     342 

i.  5 

.     341 

viii.  32     . 

.      391 

i.  8 

.      123 

ix.  5 

.      426 

i.  12 

2 

ix.  17  f.    . 

.     338 

i.  13 

.     425 

ix.  22 

.      367 

i.  14 

.     304 

ix.  34 

.      367 

i.  15 

.     305 

x.    . 

.       340,  366 

ii.    .          .          1 

46,  147,  322,  366 

x.  9  ff.      . 

.     295 

ii.  5  ff.      . 

1 

x.  36 

.     390 

ii.  9 

.      142 

x.  38 

.     427 

ii.  10 

.      151 

x.  42 

.     366 

ii.  11 

.      146 

x.  43 

.      416 

ii.  14  ff.    . 

.     339 

x.  48 

.      367 

ii.  22 

392,  426,  427 

xi.   . 

.     340 

ii.  36 

.     367 

xi.  17 

.       367,  416 

ii.  38 

340,  367,  392 

xi.  20 

.      151 

ii.  41 

.     340 

xii.  4 

24 

ii.  42 

.      304 

xii.  17       . 

24 

ii.  43-46   . 

.     306 

xii.  20-23 

25 

iii.  . 

.       323,  340 

xiii. 

.       366,  400 

iii.  6 

.       367,  426 

xiii.  1 

.      151 

iii.  13 

.     391 

xiii.  5 

.      151 

iii.  17 

.       392,  407 

xiii.  14 

.      150 

iii.  18 

.       367,  407 

xiii.  15 

.      161 

iii.  19 

.     392 

xiii.  28,  29 

.        35 

iii.  19-21  . 

.      407 

xiii.  33     . 

.       353,  399 

iii.  20  f.    . 

.       366,  367 

xiii.  38  f. 

.     416 

iii.  22  ff.  . 

.     407 

xiii.  44  ff. 

.      165 

iii.  24  ff.  . 

.     407 

xiv. 

.      162 

iii.  26 

.     407 

xiv.  1 

.      150 

iv.   . 

.      323 

XV.  . 

.      341 

iv.  1 

.      116 

xv.  10      . 

.        35 

iv.  4 

.     305 

xv.  20,  29 

.      118 

iv.  6 

30 

xv.  26      . 

.     367 

iv.  10 

.       367,  426 

xvi.  13     . 

.      161 

iv.  12 

.     416 

xvi.  18     . 

.     367 

iv.  25 

.      353 

xvi.  31     . 

.     416 

iv.  29 

.      416 

xvii.  3 

.     367 

iv.  32-35  . 

.      306 

xvii.  5  f .  . 

24,  150 

474 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


s  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

I   Acts  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

xvii.  17    . 

.      150 

xxiv.  27  . 

28 

xvii.  28    . 

.     260 

xxvi.  9     . 

.     426 

xviii.  2     . 

.      158 

xxvi.  23  . 

.     367 

xviii.  4     . 

.      162 

xxviii.  21-22      . 

.      159 

xviii.  5     . 

.     367 

xxviii.  31 

.     367 

xviii.  12  f. 

.      150 

Romans  i.  18-32      .    ' 

41 

xviii.  26  . 

.      158 

xv.  28      . 

.      158 

xviii.  28  . 

.     367 

xvi.  3 

.      158 

xix.  1  ff.  . 

.     327 

1  Corinthians  xiv.  1-25 

.     323 

xix.  1-7    . 

338,  339 

xv.  . 

135,  277 

xix.  31      . 

.     213 

xv.  47 

.     380 

xix.  35     . 

.     214 

xvi.  22     . 

.     409 

xx.  8 

.     426 

2  Corinthians  iii.  17  ff. 

.      411 

xx.  21       . 

.     367 

xi.  32 

.      149 

xx.  28      . 

.     328 

Galatians  i.  17 

.      146 

xxi.  20     . 

.     310 

Colossians  i.  15-17   . 

.     260 

xxi.  27     . 

.      150 

2  Timothy  iii.  15     . 

.      162 

xxi.  37     . 

.     422 

Hebrews  i.  5  . 

.     353 

xxi.  38     . 

28 

v.  5 

.     353 

xxii.  3 

119,  425 

Revelation  i.-iii. 

.     213 

xxiii.  2     . 

.       30 

iii.  27 

.     353 

xxiii.  6     . 

.      116 

xii.  5 

.     353 

xxiv.  5     . 

.     427 

xix.  f . 

135,  277 

xxiv.  14  . 

.     304 

xix.  6 

.     271 

xxiv.  24  . 

.      367 

xix.  15     . 

.     353 

INDEX  III 


GREEK  AND   LATIN   WRITERS 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Apost.  Const,  i.  1    . 

118 

Epictetus,  Diss,  (contd.) — 

Apuleius,  Met.  xi.  5 

259 

iii.  10.  8  . 

245 

Aristoph.,  Frogs,  454  ff 

.   . 

254 

,  255 

iii.  10.  2  . 

244 

Cicero,  ad  Att.  ii.  1.  8 

187 

iii.  10.  6  . 

225 

ad  Atticum,  v.  21. 

7* 

205 

iii.  12 

245 

ad     Quintum     fratrem 

i. 

iii.  13.  9  ff. 

246 

1.  9       . 

205 

Eusebius,  Chron.  ii.  150  . 

158 

de  nat.  deor.  i. 

237 

Hist.  Eccl.  i.  11.  5     . 

102 

pro  Flacco 

188 

189 

ii.  1       . 

142 

23 

160 

iv.  15   . 

2C 

5,  210 

28 

157 

Onomastica  Sacra  (ed. 

La 

- 

Tusc.  i.  25-76   . 

250 

garde),  284.  37  ff.  . 

429 

i.  82-119 

238 

Praep.  Evang.  viii.  7 

11 

8,  161 

C.I.L.  i.  196 

255 

viii.  11.  1       . 

89 

2  Clement,  i.  1 

383 

Euthymius  Zigabenus,  Panopl 

i.  vi.  873 

192 

xxxiii.  16 

340 

i.  vi.  1527 

192 

Faustus  Socinus,  Opp.  i.  300 

430 

Didache,  i.  2  . 

118 

Herodotus,  i.  142-148 

200 

Dio  Cassius,  li 

.  16    . 

208 

Hippolytus,  Refutatio,  ix.  13  fi 

.       89 

li.  17 

195 

ix.  21 

89 

li.  20 

201, 

203, 

204 

206 

Homer,  Hymn  to  Demeter, 

48( 

)     254 

lii.  . 

195 

Horace,  Carm.  i.  2.  50 

206 

lii.  42 

195 

iv.  5.  19 

230 

liii.  13 

195 

196 

Epp.  ii.  2.  187-189     . 

205 

liii.  16 

194 

207 

Sat.  i.  4.  105  ff. 

244 

liii.  26 

201 

Irenaeus,  i.  4.  141-3 

157 

liii.  32 

194 

217 

Adv.  Haer.  i.  1.  3      . 

411 

liv.  32 

203 

iii.  20.  1 

325 

lvii.  24 

208 

iv.  30.  3 

231 

be.  24 

196 

v.  33 

360 

lx.  62 

158 

Josephus,  Antiq.  ix.  5.  2 

333 

Ennius,      Fragmenta 

Euhem. 

x.  9.  4      . 

333 

pp,  223-229  (Vahlen  * 

)    • 

235 

xi.  8.  1-7 

140 

Fragmenta    Seen. 

316 

ff. 

xi.  8.  5     . 

140 

(Vahlen 2)      . 

235 

xi.  8.  6     . 

141 

Epictetus,  Diss.  i.  1 

242 

xi.  8.  7     . 

141 

i.  16 

246 

xii.  3.  1    . 

186 

ii.  5.  13    . 

242 

xii.  6 

425 

ii.  16.  45- 

47       . 

246 

xii.  6.  2    . 

424 

475 


m  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Josephus,  Antiq.  (contd.) —           page 

xii.  10.  6           ...      156 

xiii.  3.  1-3 

30 

xiii.  3.  4  . 

.      101 

xiii.  5.  8  . 

.      156 

xiii.  7.  3  . 

.      156 

xiii.  9.  1  . 

.      110 

xiii.  9.  2  . 

.      156 

xiii.  10.  5 

.      Ill 

xiii.  10.  6 

.      116 

xiii.  10.  7 

.       110,  358 

xiii.  13     . 

.      116 

xiii.  22     . 

.       30 

xiii.  15.  5 

.      Ill 

xiv. 

.      164 

xiv.  2.  3  . 

9 

xiv.  4.  4  . 

9 

xiv.  4.  4,  5.  3 

.      180 

xiv.  5.  4  . 

.      189 

xiv.  7.  2  . 

.      151 

xiv.  7.  3  . 

.      143 

xiv.  10.  2-8 

9 

xiv.  13     . 

.      143 

xiv.  14.  4 

10,  180 

xiv.  32     . 

.      179 

XV.  1.  1    . 

.      112 

xv.  6.  5    . 

10 

xv.  9.  3    . 

.      117 

xv.  10.  4 

94 

xv.  11.  5 

6 

xvi. 

.      164 

xvii.  2.  4 

.      112 

xvii.  11.  2-4 

11 

xviii.  18  . 

.        23 

xviii.  1     . 

116,  160 

xviii.  1.  1  and  ( 

12 

xviii.  1.  3 

.      113 

xviii.  1.  4 

115,  116 

xviii.  1.  5 

.        92 

xviii.  1.  6 

.     421 

xviii.  2.  1 

.       31 

xviii.  2.  3 

11,  31,  147 

xviii.  3.  1 

13 

xviii.  3.  2 

13 

xviii.  3.  3 

.     354 

xviii.  3.  5 

.      158 

xviii.  4.  1 

14,  424 

xviii.  4.  1-2 

.      124 

xviii.  4.  3 

14 

xviii.  4.  4-5 

.      143 

xviii.  4.  4,  5.  3 

31 

xviii.  5.  1 

16,  18,  146 

xviii.  5.  2 

.      101 

xviii.  5.  4 

14 

xviii.  5.  5 

.      146 

Josephus,  Antiq. 
xviii.  6.  1-5 
xviii.  6.  5 
xviii.  6.  9 
xviii.  6.  10 
xviii.  6.  11 
xviii.  7.  2 
xviii.  8.  1 
xviii.  8.  1-9 
xviii.  8.  2 
xviii.  9.  1 
xviii.  9.  1-9 
xviii.  9.  9 
xix.  5.  1  . 
xix.  6.  2  . 
xix.  6.  3  . 
xix.  7.  2  . 
xix.  7.  4  . 
xix.  8.  1  . 
xix.  8.  2  . 
xix.  9.  1  . 
xix.  9.  2  . 
xx.  2.  1-5,  3. 
xx.  1.  3    . 
xx.  5 
xx.  5.  2    . 
xx.  5.  3.  4 
xx.  6 
xx.  6.  1    . 
xx.  7.  2    . 
xx.  8.  5    . 
xx   8.  6    . 
xx.  8.  7    . 
xx.  8.  8    . 
xx.  8.  10  . 
xx.  8.  11  . 
xx.  9.  1    . 
xx.  9.  4    . 
xx.  11.  4 
xxi.  1 

Contra  Apion. 
ii.  4      . 
Josephus,     Bellum 
proem,  ad 
i.  7.  6       . 
i.  7.  7,  8.  4 
i.  18.  3     . 
i.  20.  1-2 
ii.  8 

ii.  8.  3  . 
ii.  8.  5  . 
ii.  8.  7  . 
ii.  8.  9  . 
ii.  8.  10  . 
ii.  8.  14    . 


(contd.)- 


4,4 


23 


1-3 


32 


165 


151 

Judaicum, 


PAGE 

15 

11 

23 

15 

19 

20,  23 

22 

20 

19 

160 

144 

145 

19 

31 

161 

24 

25,  31 
31 
25 

25,  147 
25 
145 

26,  31 
26 

26,  32 
21 
27 
27 
27 
32 
28 
28 
26 
28 
32 

115 
30 

166 
26 

152 

152 


146 
9 

180 
12 
10 

113 
93 
91 
93 
91 
94 

116 


INDEX 


477 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Josephus,     Bellum      Judaicum 

Origen,  Horn.  xxv.  p.  365         .     122 

(contd.) — 

in  Matt.  xxii.  23,  p.  811 

122 

ii.  8.  24    .          .          .          .     113 

Orosius  3.  7.  6          .          . 

146 

ii.  9.  2 

13 

Ovid,  Fasti,  i.  609  . 

207 

ii.  9.  4 

13 

iv.  179  f. 

185 

ii.  9.  13 

91 

Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  xi.  1380 

259 

ii.  10.  1-5 

20 

Pausanias  i.  17.  2    . 

208 

ii.  10.  6 

20 

iii.  15.  3  . 

208 

ii.  11.  6 

24 

iii.  16.  5  . 

208 

ii.  12.  1    . 

27 

iii.  19.  9  . 

208 

ii.  12.  3 

27 

vii.  16.  9-10      . 

199 

ii.  13 

422 

Philo,  Adv.  Flaccum,  iv.  . 

21 

ii.  13.  5 

424 

v.-vi.     ...         21,  410 

ii.  13.  7 

28 

viii.       .          .          .           20,  21 

ii.  14.  1 

28 

Legatio  ad  Gaium,  20         .       23 

ii.  14.  4 

147 

23                                    157,  163 

ii.  14.  4.  t 

161 

24          ....     158 

ii.  18.  1 

124 

32          ....     147 

ii.  18.  8 

152 

36          ....      150 

ii.  20.  2 

149 

40          ....     164 

iii.  2.  1 

90 

Leg.  Allegor.  i.  30      .          .411 

iii.  7.  32 

124 

iii.  29  £f.                  .         .     253 

iii.  8.  9 

165 

de  Migratione  Abrahami    .      162 

iv.  3.  9 

423 

Quis  rerum  divin.      .          .411 

v.  1.  4 

5 

Quod  omnis   probus   liber, 

v.  4 

4 

12      .        89,  90,  92,  93,  161 

v.  4.  1 

3 

de  Septenario,  6         .          .161 

v.  5.  6 

5 

de  Somniis,  i.  26        .          .411 

vi.  4.  2 

164 

ii.  18     .         .         .         .     161 

vi.  9.  3 

1 

de          vita         contempla- 

vii.  3.  3 

14 

7,  161 

tiva       .          .       87,  90,  95.  96 

vii.  8.  1-10.  1 

423 

Pindar,  Frg.  137      .          .          .254 

vii.  11.  1 

424 

Plato,  Sympos.  iv.  .          .          .     333 

viii.  8.  7  . 

149 

Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.  v.  17     .          .       95 

Vita,  i. 

165 

Plotinus,  Enn.  iv.  7           .          .     250 

2 

94 

Plutarch,  Flamininus,  c.  16      .     205 

3 

158 

Polybius,  Hist.  i.  51.  6     .          .     333 

38 

119 

xvi.  6.  2  .          .          .          .333 

54 

161 

Seneca,  De  Benefic.  iii.  28         .     247 

Justin  i.  Apol 

66 

.     335 

Epist.  xxii.  8-10         .          .     244 

ii.  Apol.  13 

.     247 

xxv.  5.  6        .          .          .     244 

Trypho,  78 

.      147 

xli.  2     .          .          .       246,  252 

Livy,  xi.  19     . 

.     255 

lxviii.  2                                    247 

xxix.  14   . 

.      185 

xcv.  47-50     .          .          .     246 

xxxii.  27  and  28 

.      173 

cxv.  5  .          .          .          .246 

xxxiii.  43  and  44 

.      173 

de  Ira  iii.  36.  1-4       .       244,  344 

xxxvi.  36 

.      185 

iv.  1      .          .          .          .     247 

xxxviii.  c. 

.      178 

de  Vita  Beata,  17      .       225,  243 

xxxix.  8-19 

.     255 

Sophocles,  Fragm.  753      .          .     254 

xxxix.  41 

.     255 

Stobaeus,  Flor.  xl.  9          .          .     247 

xliii.  6 

.     205 

Strabo,  Geograph.    .          .          .      181 

Lucretius,  v.  52  f. 

.     237 

xii.  5.  1-2          .          .       182,  200 

Marcus  Aurelius,  Medit.  ii.  2 

.     251 

xiv.  1-13  and  20        .          .     200 

Monumentum 

Ancy 

ranur 

n,  35 

.     206 

xiv.  1.  42 

.     213 

478 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Strabo,  Geograph.  (contd.) — 

PAGE 

Tacitus,  Annales  (contd.)- 

—                PAGE 

xiv.  2.  25 

200 

iv.  5 

.     178 

xiv.  3.  3  . 

.      200,  204 

iv.  6 

.      196 

xiv.  15.  10 

191 

iv.  15 

.       214,  215 

xvii.  1.  8 

.     208 

iv.  26 

.     208 

Suetonius,  Augustus,  52 

.      205,  206 

iv.  55 

.     214 

98 

.     230 

iv.  56 

.      205,  214 

Caesar,  19 

173,  188 

xii.  27  and  32  . 

.     204 

Claudius,  2 

202,  203 

xiii.  30  and  33  . 

.     203 

2.  8       . 

.       27 

xiii.  33     . 

.     215 

25          .         158,  1 

71,  196,  200 

xiv.  18     . 

.     203 

Tiberius,  36 

.      158 

xiv.  20     . 

.     203 

Tacitus,  Annales,  i.  2 

.      196 

xiv.  31      . 

.     204 

i.  11-13     . 

194 

xv.  20-22. 

.     215 

i.  76 

196 

Histor.  i.  11 

.      195 

i.  78 

203 

v.  9       . 

20,  27 

i.  80.  2     . 

196 

Velleius  Paterculus,  ii.  89 

.     192 

ii.  59 

195 

Virgil,  Aen.  ii.  557,  558" 

.     192 

ii.  85 

158 

Georg.  i.  302     . 

.     205 

iii.  28.  3  . 

227 

INDEX  IV 

REFERENCES  TO  RABBINIC  WRITINGS 


MlSHNA 

PAGE 

PAGE 

Demai  ii.  2  f.            .          .          .     440 

Talmud,  Babylonian 

(contd.) — 

Erubin  vi.  2    . 

.     436 

Aboth  (contd.) — 

Gittin  iv.  3 

.     437 

iii.  10 

.     443 

v.  7 

.     423 

v.  11-14   . 

.       56 

Hullin  ii.  9      . 

.     320 

Aboth  of  R.  Nathan  ii.  5 

a         .       67 

Makkoth  i.  7  . 

.     438 

iii.  8a 

.       77 

Peah  viii.  8,  9 

.       77 

iv.  11a     . 

.       52 

Sanhedrin  i.  5 

.       34 

ix.  fin.  216 

.       61 

ii.  2 

.       34 

xli.  66a    . 

.       78 

iii.  3 

.       34 

xli.  67a    . 

62,  78 

iv.  3 

34 

ed.  Schechter,  pp.  55 

,  62    .     112 

vi.  5 

34 

Arachin  166     . 

.       57 

vii.  1 

.       34 

Baba  Bathra  11a,  10a 

67 

Yadaim  iii.  5  . 

320 

8a 

80,  81 

iv.  6 

319 

21a 

.      162 

iv.  7 

437 

746 

.     360 

Yoma  viii.  ad.  fin. 

52 

1156 

.     438 

Baba  Kamma  92a   . 

.       78 

Tosephta — 

93a 

78 

Abodah  Zarah  iii.  8  ff.      .          .     440 

113a 

65 

iii.  10 

444 

Baba  Mesia  336 

.       42 

Baba  Kamma  x.  15 

65 

Bekoroth  306 

440,  443 

Berakoth  vii.  18 

440 

Berakoth  76 

.     353 

Demai  ii. 

443 

10a 

.       55 

ii.-iii. 

440 

286 

51,  75 

Eduyoth  ii.  2 

421 

296 

.       75 

Hullin  ii.  19-20 

320 

336 

68 

ii.  20 

319 

34a 

75 

Sabbath  xiii.  (xiv.) 

5 

319 

566 

.     319 

Sotah  xiii.  5    . 

358 

Besa  116 

.     441 

Yadaim  ii.  9   . 

438 

16a 

80 

ii.  13 

319 

Gittin  57a 

.     429 

Kethuboth  676 

.       80 

Talmud,  Babylonian — 

1116 

.     360 

Abodah  Zarah  36     .                    .     353 

Kiddushin  31a 

.       68 

86-9a 

97 

396,  40a  . 

.       69 

17a 

.       72 

40a 

.       65 

19a 

69 

406 

.       73 

Aboth  i.  4-12  . 

112 

Makkoth   17a 

.     444 

ii.  1 

67 

Megillah  25a  . 

.       68 

ii.  6 

74 

Megillath  Taanith  5 

.     438 

479 


480 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


PAGE 


Talmud,  Babylonian 

(contd.) — 

Talmud,  Jerusalem  (contd. 
Berakoth  v.  3 

)— 

Menahoth  296           .          .          .58 

68 

436 

.       74 

ix.   •          .          .            62,  63.  :  12 

Nedarim  10a 

.       88 

Demai  ii.  2 

14a,  20a 

.     439 

Kiddushin  i.  8 

20a 

.       439,  441 

Megillah  i.  1    . 

48a 

73 

Peah  viii.  8     . 

626 

80,  81 

Pesaliim  iii.  7 

73 

846 

.     444 

Sukkah  v.  1    . 

152 

Pesahim  496 

4 

41,  443,  444 

876 

.       42 

Midrashim — 

112a 

.       77 

Mekilta,  on  Exod.  xviii.  12 

40 

Sabbath  13a 

441,  444 

xx.  2 

45 

32a 

.       67 

xx.  5 

63 

326 

.     441 

xx.  23       .          .          . 

57 

63a 

440,  443 

Sifre,  120a 

69 

886 

.       78 

Siphra  (ed.  Weiss)  83a  and  6 

77 

118a 

.       77 

896,  on  Lev.  xix.  18 

39 

1296 

.     437 

Pesikta  (ed.  Buber)  26      . 

39 

1526 

-     .       55 

87a           ... 

64 

Sanhedrin  37a 

,  38a 

.       40 

158a 

75 

74a 

.       65 

1586 

53 

746 

.       64 

1746 

57 

81a 

.       51 

185a 

57 

90    . 

.     442 

191a  and  6 

57 

91a 

.       55 

Pesikta    Rabbathi    (ed.    Fried 

92a 

.       74 

mann)  161a  . 

46 

97a 

320,  360 

195a 

40 

99a 

.     361 

Tanchuma  (ed.  Buber),  Behuk 

101a 

57 

kothai,  7 

439 

1066 

.       69 

Genesis  Rabba  ix.  (fin.)    . 

56 

Sotah  20a 

.     443 

xii.  (fin.)  . 

49 

22a 

.     444 

xxiv. 

39 

226 

.     112 

xxxix.  14 

43 

31a 

.       63 

xliv.  (init.) 

68 

33a 

.     358 

ix.  2 

70 

48a 

.     441 

on  Gen.  xxxix.  6 

70 

496 

.     360 

Exodus  R.  xxi. 

76 

Sukkah  52a 

.     353 

xxviii.  4 

48 

Taanith  7a 

68 

Leviticus  R.  iii.  5    . 

76 

8a    . 

57 

xix.  18     .          .          . 

39 

11a 

58 

xxvii.  2    . 

59 

256 

78 

xxxiv.  3             ... 

55 

Yebamoth  46a 

.       44 

Numbers  R.  iii.  1     . 

440 

79a 

65 

xix.           .... 

68 

Yoma  23a 

.       78 

Deuteronomy  R.  ii.  1 

70 

856 

52,  77 

Lamentations  R.  i.  2 

1 

86a 

.       64 

i.  5            .... 

59 

866 

.       77 

Midrash  Tillim  iv.  8 

42 

876 

78 

ix.    . 

64 

on  Psalm  xvi.    3 

63 

Talmud,  Jerusalem — 

on  Psalm  cxli.  1 

71 

Baba  Mesia  ii. 

5       . 

.       66 

on  Psalm  cxlvi.  7 

43 

Printed  by  R.  &  R.  Clark,  Limited,  Edinburgh. 


i  I 


LIBRARY 

INOX  COLLEGE 
TORONTO 


/ 


KNOX  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 


llffl 


i  f  H  %  *  * 

If  a  ' 

Iff  a 


*  ^t  %  %  it  ¥ 


•1*1 

Sjl! 
111111 


ill 


i    !  "     :. ■- 


■ 

,.., 

:    ■     .:    ':,   "..  '-J   : 


*'  *  •?.*•*-*  .»  :i  *  *  >  .5   *■  f  *  .1  ;*  J  «  i  f  r  5  ;?  -J  i 

»  *  *  :t  .t  *  2  >*■*>••  4  •>  -»  /?  f 

*  •    .■>«•■*-»-    -  -v   -    ;*   ,    ?   y    *  -,   *    ,,  *»»***  f 

r  "•    >     •   -r    *   -..     .    .     i  k    *    *  •*■■  i    :/    r   *•    t  T    r    *  /   $    >  -$ 

*  "    "    -•  "  Y  >  '  *   *  -■    >,*•*  *   *  T  *?  -  ?  ^  '    *  >   "  - 

t  •*  ■*  -  *  ■<  S «?  ;  ?  ,-  .r  ?  * *  ;  *  - .?  »  -.-.  ,  ••  ,  ^  af 

*  ■*   ♦   V  -  v.  „    v   4  *  *    ..  ,*   *  ^   ~;    ,   *   «  ,   *  .,    „   .<  «  f 


tff 


' 


«!' 


'\ 

T^m 

■  ■■■ 

r 

1 

■  ■ 
■ 

*■  *  ?-.  *  i.  .j.  -t 

r  ?:  I.  €  i  f  I, 

f'ft%*  ■*■■*■* 

t  c  1 1  i.t-.f. 

•  «• «:  r  :r: ».  r  f  •<  <■  ,.  ;  ;  ■  .; 


;•***■ 


**.