Skip to main content

Full text of "A dictionary of the Bible; dealing with its language, literature, and contents, including the Biblical theology"

See other formats


220.3 H 

Hastings. James 

A dictionary of the 



Vol . 5 

3 3333 205'43 1873 



USE ONLY a::d r.iAY r\;oT be taken 



FU'terence use only 



Dictionary of the Bible 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 

fr A' 

Dictionary of the Bible 











Edinburgh ; T. & T. CLARK 


^i Stapleton Branch, ^ 
^ 83 Canal Street. 




TfK ,^ig,hl! of Translation and of ReproducticK 
« ,' , are reserved 




H I 



This Extra Volume of the Dictio\at:y of the P-iiiX^ contains thirty-pevpn Articles, 
six Indexes, and four Maps. A word will be sutiieieut uii each of these parts of its 

I. The Articles 

Tliose who have kept in touch with the study of the lUble in recent years will 
understand why it has been found necessary to prepare an Extra Volume. Dis- 
coveries have been made which have an important bearing on the interpretation of 
both the Old Testament and the New. It is enough to name the three articles 
wliicli stand first in the alphabetical list given below — Agrapha, Apocryphal Gospels, 
and Code of HAMMUitAm. A Dictionary of the Bible cannot ignore such discoveries. 
But they do not form part of the Contents of the Bible ; nor do they deal directly 
with its Language or its Literature ; so that they are not likely to be looked for in 
the alphabetical order of words in the Dictionary. The best way seemed to be to 
gather them into an Extra Volume. 

Other articles will be found in this volume, for reasons which will he readily 
understood and appreciated. Some of them, like the article on the Sermon on the 
Mount, with which the volume opens, might have taken their place in the alpha- 
betical order of the Dictionary. But they have not usually been so included, and 
it was felt that the Extra Vohmie would give more prominence to their special 
character and importance. 

II. The Indexes 

The Indexes have been prepared with great care. They are full, and yet it 
will be found that every item in them has been carefully selected and described. 

The Index of Texts contains all the passages of Scripture upon wliich there is 
any note of consecjuence in the Dictionary ; and, again, the most important notes ate 


disiinguished by tlieir authoi-s' names. Further, it sometimes happens that a text 
is quoted in support or ilhistratiou of some argument : when such a quotation throws 
significant light upon the text itself, it is included in the Index. 

The Index of Subjects contains the titles of all the articles in the Dictionary, 
including the Extra Volume. It also refers to a great many other topics which 
are dealt with in the course of the work. When the subject of an article comes up 
for treatment in other places, and a reference is made to these places, then the first 
reference in the Index is always to the article itself. Thus — Ithamae, ii. 519^^; i. 6''; 
ii. 123* ; iv. 89'' — the second volume is mentioned before the first because in it falls 
the article under its own title ; there is also some account of Ithamar in the article 
on Abiathar in vol. i. p. 6"', as well as in the other places noted. When the article 
is of some Jengtli the name of the author is given. His name is not repeated under 
the same heading, so that references without a name attached are to be ascribed to 
the first author mentioned. 

The cross-references in the Index of Subjects are always to other parts of the 
Index itself. Words which occur only in tlie Apocrypha are marked ' Ap.' or 
' Apoc. ' : as Dabria (A p.). 

III. The Maps 

The maps are intended to illustrate the articles on EoADS A^fD Travel. These 
articles will be of great service to the student of either Testament, and the maps will 
add to the value of the articles. But they have been prepared so as to be complete 
maps of the countries they cover, the Eoads which are marked on them being 
additional to the information which such maps usually contain. They have been 
prepared under the direct supervision of Professor Buhl (for the Old Testament) and 
Professor Eamsay (for the New), who have spared no pains to make them accurate 
and up to date. 

And now the work on this Dictionary of the Bible is at an end. The Editor 
has been assisted by the same friends as before and with the same readiness, and he 
heartily thanks them all. He is also grateful for the way in which the four voliuues 
already published have been received. 


D.MtTr.ET, Professor .T. VkI!N( 
Beub, Principal Li.kwellvn' 
BENXliTT, Professor W. H. 
Blom FIELD, Hear-Admiral R. 
BuUL, I'rofessor Frants 

Di;l-mM(ixi), Principal J. 
pAliNEl.L, Dr. L. I J. 
GAltviE, Professor A. E. . 
IlARiiis, Dr. J. Kendel . 
Jastisow, Professor Monius 

Johns, Rov. C. II. \V. . 
Kautzscii, Professor Emil 
Kesyon, Dr. F. G. . 
Koxu;, Professor Ed. 

LlPTON, Dr. J. II. . 
McCuUDY, Professor J. F. 
Mexeies, Professor Allan 
Mt'iMiAY, Dr. J. O. F. 
ItAJlsAV, I'rofessor W. M. 

ItEDPATlI, Dr. H. A. 
Popes, Profes.sor J. Hai:i)Y 


SciItJKEn, Professor E. . 
Scott, Professor H. M. . 
Stanton, Professor V. II. 
Stenxino, John F. 
Ta.skeh, Professor J. G. . 
Thackekay, H. St. John 
Tuknee, Cuthbert H. . 

Votaw, Professor Clype V.' 
Wiedemann, Professor A. 


Continental Versions. 


Ships and Boats. 

New Testament Times. 

Roads and Travel in tlie Old Testament. 


Development of I)o('trinein the Apocryplial Period 

Worship of Apollo. 


Sibylline Oracles. 

Races of the OKI Testament. 

Religion of Balijlonia and Assyria. 

Code of yammnrabi. 

Religion of Israel. 


Samaritan Pentatench. 

Style of Scrijiture. 

Symbols and Symbolical .Actions. 

English Versions. 


Gospel according to the Hebrews. 

Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 

Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates. 

Religion of Greece and Asia Minor. 

Roads and Travel in the New Testament 








Apocryiilial Gospels. 


Greek Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline- 

Sermon on the Mount. 
Religion of Egypt. 



Title of Article. 

Author's Name. 




Apockyphal Gospels . 

Code of IJammukaw . 
concouuances . 

Continental Version's 

Development of Doctrine in the 
Apocryphal Teuiod 


Diatessaron . 

438 I DiDAClIE. 

Greek Patristic Commentaries on 
THE Pauline Epistles 

Hebrews (Gospel according to the) 

45 New Testament Times 

J. Hardy Ropes, Ph.D., Professor of New 
Testament Criticism and E.vegesis in Harvard 

Rev. J. G. Tasker, Professor of Biblical Litera- 
ture and Exegesis in Handswortli College, 

Rev. C. H. W. .Johns, M.A., Lecturer in Assyri- 
ology , and Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge. 

Rev. Henry A. Redpatii, M.A., D.Litt., Rector 
of St. Dunstan's in the East, London, and 
GrinKeld Lecturer on the Septuagiut in the 
University of 0.\ford. 

Rev. Llewellyn J. M. Bedb, M.A., Principal 
of St. David's College, Lampeter ; formerly 
Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose Colk-ge, Oxford. 

Rev. W. Faiuweatiier, M.A., Kirkcaldy. 

E. SchOrer, Ph.D., Professor of Theology in 
the University of Gottingen. 

John F. Stennino, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer 
in Hebrew and Theology, Wailham College, 

James Vernon, M.A., D.D., Pro- 
fessor of Church History in Jlanslield College, 

Cutiidert Hamilton Turner, M.A., Fellow of 
Magdalen College, Oxford. 

Rev. Allan Menzies, D.D., Professor of Church 
History in the University of St. Andrews. 

Henry St. John Thackeray, M.A., Examiner 
in the Board of Education ; formerly Divinity 
Lecturer in Selwyn College, Cambridge. 

Fkants Buhl, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Lan- 
guage-i in the University of Copenhagen. 



Title of Article. 

Author's Name. 



W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., Pro- 
fessor of Humanity in tlie ITniversity of Aber- 
deen ; Honorary Fellow of Exeter and Lincoln 
Colleges, Oxford. 



Frederic G. Kenyon, M.A., D.Litt., Ph.D., of 
the Department of Manuscripts in the British 
Museum ; late Fellow of Magdalen College, 



Rev. James Drummond, M.A., LL.D., Litt.D., 
Principal of Manchester College, Oxford. 


Races of the Old Testament . 

Morris Jastrow, junr., Ph.D., Professor of 
Semitic Languages in the University of Penn- 
sylvania, Philadelphia. 


Religion of Babylonia and Assyria 

Professor Jastrov*^. (See preceding article). 


Religion of Egypt .... 

Karl Alfred Wiedemann, Ph.D., Professor of 
Egyptology in the University of Bonn. 


Religion of Greece and Asia Minor 

Professor W. M. Eamsay. (See art. NUMBERS, 


Religion of Israel .... 

E. Kautzsch, Ph.D., Professor of Theology in 
the University of Halle. 



Rev. Alfred Ernest Garvie, M.A., D.D., 
Professor of the Philosophy of Theism in 
Hackney and New Colleges, London. 


Roads and Travel (in OT) 

Professor BuHL. (See art. New Testament 


Roads and Travel (in NT) 

Professor W. M. Rajisay. (See art. Numbers, 



Samaritan Pentateuch 

Ed. Konig, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old 
Testament Exegesis in the University of 



J. Frederic McCurdy, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor 
of Oriental Languages in the University of 


Sermon on the Mount 

Clyde AVeber Votaw, M.A., Ph.D., Assistant 
Professor of New Testament Literature in the 
Univeisity of Cliicago. 


Ships axd Boats 

Rear -Admiral R. M. Blomfield, C.JL(;., 
Controller - General of Ports and Light- 


Sibylline Oracles .... 

J. Rendel Harpjs, M.A., Litt.D., Principal and 
Lecturer, Settlement for Social and Religious 
Study, Woodbrooke ; late Fellow and Librarian 
of Clare College, Cambridge. 


Style of Scripture .... 

Professor Ed. Konig. (See art. Samaritan 


Symbols and Sy.meolical Actions . 

Professor Ed. Konig. (Author of preceding 



S. Schechter, M.A., Litt.D., President of the 
Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary of 
America, New York. 


Textual Criticism (of NT) 

Rev. J. 0. F. Murray, M.A., D.D., late 
Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge ; 
Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canter- 
bury, j 




Title of Article. 

Autlior's Name. 







VkhSIONS (En'UI.ISI!) .... 


Woiisiiip OF Aroi.i.o .... 

Rev. Vincent Henry Stanton, M..\., D.D., 
I'fllow of Triiiilv Colleije, and Ely Professor of 
Divinity in the Cniversity of Cambridge. 

Rev. Hugh M. Scott, D.D., Professor of Ecclesi- 
astical History in the Chicago Theological 

J. H. Lupton, D.D., formerly SuniKu-.ter of St. 
Paul's School, London. 

Rev. \Vm. Henry Bennett, M.A., Litt.D., D.D., 
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in Hack- 
ney and New Colleges, London ; sometime 
Eellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 

Lewis Richaud Fapnell, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow 
and Senior Tutor, Exeter College, Oxford. 



L Road System of Palestine 
II. The Ancient East 

III. Chief Routes of the Roman Empike 

IV. Asia Minor ai;out a.u. 50 

. Frontispiece 

full owing p. 368 

,, 384 

„ 400 


L Authors and their Articles . 
II. Subjects ..... 
III. Scripture Text.s and other References 

W. HkI1RF.\V and (iKEKK TEUMB 
V. iLHsriiATlUSb . . , , 

VI. .MAPa ..... 



I. General 

Alex. = Alexandrian. 

Apoc. = Apocalypse, 

Apocr. = Apocrypha. 

Aq. =Aquila. 

Arab. = Arabic. 

Aram. = Aramaic. 

Assyr. — Assyrian. 

Bab. = Babylonian. 

c. = circa, ar»ut. 

Can. =Canaanite. 

cf. = compare. 

ct. = contrast. 

D ^ Deuteronomist. 

E = Elohist. 

edd. = editions or editors. 

Egyp. = Egyptian. 

Eng. = English. 

Eth. =Etliiopic. 

f. =and foUow'ing verse or page : as Ac 10^'- 

i\. =and following verses or page:; : as Mt ll^s*. 

Qr. = Greek. 

H = Law of Holiness. 

Heb. = Hebrew, 

Hei. = Hellenistic. 

Hex. = Hexateuch. 

Tsr. = Israelite. 


J "= Jehovah. 

Jems. = Jerusftlera. 

Jos. =Josephus. 

LXX = Septuagint. 

MSS = Manuscripts. 

MT = Massoretic Text 

n. =note. 

NT= New Testament. 

Onk. = Onkelos. 

0T = Old Testament. 

P= Priestly Narrative. 

Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian. 

Pent. = Pentateuch. 

Pers. = Persian. 

Phi]. = Philistine. 

Phoen. = Phccnician. 

Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book. 

R = Redactor. 

Rom. = Roman. 

Sam. = Samaritan. 

Sem. =Semitic. 

Sept. = Septnagint. 

Sin. =Sinaitic. 

Sjnim. = S3'mmachns. 

S^T. = Syriac. 

Talm.= Talmud. 

Targ. =Targum. 


TR = Textus Receptus. 

tr. = translate or translation, 

VSS = Versions. 

Vulg. = Vulgate. 

WH = Westcott and Hort's text. 

II. Looks of the Bible 

Old Testament. 

Gn = Genesis. Ca = Canticles. 

Ex = Exodus. Is = Isaiah. 

Lv = Leviticus. Jer = Jeremiah. 

Nu = Numbers. La = Lamentations. 

I)t = Deuteronomy. Ezk = Ezekiel. 

Jos = Joshua. Dn = Baniel. 

Jg = Judges. Hos = Hosea. 

Ru = Rnth. Jl = Joel. 

1 S, 2 S = 1 and 2 Samuel. Am = Amos. 

1 K, 2 K = l and 2 Kings. Ob = Obadiah. 

1 Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and 2 J on = Jonah. 

Chronicles. Mic = Mieah. 

Ezr = Ezra. Nali = Nahum. 

Neh = Nehemiah. Hab = Habakkuk. 

Est = Est her. Zeph = Zei^ihaniah. 

Job. Hag = Haggai. 

Ps = Psalms. Zec = Zechariah. 

Pr = Proverbs. Mai = Jlalachi. 
Ec = Ecclesiast es. 


1 Es, 2 Es = 1 and 2 To = Tobit. 

E.-idras. Jth=Judith. 

Ad. Est = Additions to Sus = Susanna. 

Wis = Wisdom. 
Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- 

Bar = Barucb. 
Three = Song of the 

Three Children. 


Bbl = Bel 

Pr. Man = Pra3'er of 

1 Map, 2 Mac = l and 2 


New Testament. 

Mt = Matthew. 

Mk = Mark. 

Lk = Luke. 

Jn = John. 

Ac = Acts. 

Ro = Romans. 

1 Co, 2 Co = 1 and 

Gal = Galatians. 
Eph = Ephesians. 
Pli = Philippians. 
Col = Colossians. 

1 Th, 2 Th = 1 and 2 

1 Ti, 2 Ti = 1 and 2 

Tit = Titus. 
I'liilem = Philemon. 
He = Hebrews. 
Ja = James. 

1 P, 2P=1 and 2 Peter. 
1 Jn,. 2 Jn, 3 Ju = l, 2, 

and 3 John. 
Rev = Revelation. 


III. EsGLisu Yersioss 

W'j'c. =Wyclirs Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382, 

I'lirvej-'s l{pvisinn r. 13SS). 
Tioii. = Tinaal.'s NT l.VJii :iiid 1534, Pent. 1530. 
Cov. =Coverclalf's Uil.lf ir.So. 
Matt, or Koji. = Mjittlie\v'a (i.e. prob. Rogers') 

Hible 1537. 
Cran. or Great = Cranmer's 'Great' Bible 1539. 
Tav. = Taverncr's Bible 1539. 
Gcu.=Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560. 

Bish. = Bishops' Bible l.'SCS. 

Tom.=Tomson's NT 1576. 

Rhem. = Khemisli NT 1582. 

Dou.=Douay OT 1009. 

AV = Authorized V'ersion 1611. 

AVm = Authorized V'ersion inarfriri. 

RV = Uevised Version NT I8SI, OT 18Si 

RVm = Revised Version mar^'iii. 

EV=Auth. and Ilev. Versions. 

IV. Fon TQE Literature 

.(4777'= Ancient Hebrew Tr.idition. 

^,/i'L = American Journal of Sem. Lang, and 

.^ J'y'Ar^.Vnicrican Journal of Theology. 
A T= Altes Testament, 
iy/. = H;inipton Lecture. 
/.'.!/ = Kritisli .Museum. 
7J/'/'= Researches in Palestine. 
t'7(r' = ('or|>iis rii^(ii|itiiinum Gr.Tcarum. 
C77/ = Ciii|pus lii>ri i|iliiiiium Latiiiarum. 
C7.S = t'iirpu~ In^criiitiiiiuiiii Scmiticarum. 
COr= Cuiieiforni liiseriplionsaud the OT. 
DIi= Dietiiinarv of the Bible. 
£77/7= Early History of the Hebrews. 
6-'y(7' = Geof;ra|ihie des alten Pabistin.a. 
GGA =(;cittiM','isehe (Jelehrte .\nzei-c-n. 
6'(/A'=Naeliriehten der Uoiii;:!. (iesellschaft der 

Wisscnsehaflen zu (!.jUiiif;en. 
CJ'l'=Geschielite .b's .Iii.lischeii Volkes. 
tfl'/sGesehichte des V.dUes Israel. 
77(.'.17= Hi^;her Criticism and the -Monuments. 
7/7i = Historia Ecclesiastica. 
776777, = Historical Geog. of Iluly Land. 
777= History of Israel. 
77./P = History of the .Jewish People. 
JII'M - Ilisiory, Prophecy, and the Monuments. 
IlI'X IK'lircw Proper Names. 
7./(r = Israelitische und .liidische Gcschichte. 
.77J 7. = . Journal of Biblical Literature. 
J'7i7'A = Jabrbiicher fur diutsche Theologie. 
JQR = Jewish Quarterly Beview. 
J7i'.-15= Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 
J'7i7, = .Ie\visli Religious Life after the Exile. 
J^7/ii7 = .Iournal of Theological Studies. 
7r^/'=l)ie Krilinsclntften uml Alte Test. 
K<it'— Keilinxlirifteii u. ( k'schirhtsforschung. 
7a7i= Keilinschriltliche Bibliothek. 
/X7J; = LiterarisehesCentralblatt. 
LOr=Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test. 

NHU'B= NeuhebrSisches WBrterbuch. 

NTZG = Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschicht*. 

CA'sOtium Norvicense. 

OP = Origin of the I'salter. 

C»r./C'=The Old Test, in the Jewish Church. 

P7} = Polychrome Bible. 

P£7^= Palestine Exploration Fund. 

PEFSt = Quarterly«mcnt of the same. 

PS II A = Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Aichieology 

i'7v7i = fUr protest. Theologie 

und Kirehe. 
Qril = Queens Printers' Bible. 
7i7) = Revue Biblique. 
7i.'/?./= Revue des fitiKles Juivcs. 
7i'P= Records of the Past. 
/i.S'i^Religion of the Semites. 
>S7fO 7 = Sacred Books of Old Test. 
,S7i'=Studien und Ivritiken. 
i'/' = Sinai and Palestine. 

.S' I ^'7" = Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine. 
ThL or T/i LZ ='Vheo\. Literaturzjitung. 
r/iT=Theol. Tijdschrif*. 
7'.'>' = Texts and Studies. 

TSUA = Transactions of Soc. of Blbl. Arcliajology. 
y7'' = Te-\te tind Untersucliungen. 
ir.-l/= Western Asiatic Inscriptions. 
ir/^A".17= Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des 

ZA = Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologic. 
^AlV or /^.•17'ir=Zeitschrift fiir die Alttest. 

ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen- 

l.indischen Gesellschaft. 
^7)PK= Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paliistina- 

.^A'.'>'7'=Zeitschrift fiir Keils<-hriftforschung. 
i^7v)('= Zeitschrift fiir Icirchhclio Wissenscliaft. 
iriV7'IF=Zeitschrift fiir <lie Neutest. \Vissen 


A small superior uiuiiber desigiuites the piuticular edition of the work referred to : as KA'l', LOT". 





i. DriK'in .-in.l Tninsmissi.Mi. 

1. llitituricitv of the Discourse. ^ ■ •, 

2. Oircamsuiiices of its Delivery. , ,, , 

3. Transmission and Translation.- '' 

4. Relative Authenticity of the two Accoui^s.' '•• * 
ft. i'resent State of the Text. j ?< ,t\ 

ii. lnten>retation. ,, ^ 

1. Popular, (Inoniic, and Figurative Style. 

2. Effect of the Translation into Greek. 

3. Thfinc of the Discourse and its Develv>pinent. 
«. The Chief IVohlenis of Interpretation. 

a. The lleiititudes. 

0. The World Mission. •, 

c. Relation to the OUI Testament. 

d. Inner Righteousness. • 

e. Unselfishness and Forgiveness. , 

f. Universal I.ove. ' , ' ". 
a. Religious Worship. ' i^* ■' 
h. The Lord's I'rayer. . ' . 

t. Devotion to the Kingtiom. ■ r 

t. The Treatment of Others, 
i. The Duty of Righteousness. 

5. The Relation of the Sermon on the Mount to the 

Teaching of Jesus as a whole. 

The message of Jesus to men contained in the 
Sermon on tlie .Mount can Ite essentially under- 
stood, and is valid and useful, ai)art from tlie 
historical, literary, and exegetical q\iestions con- 
cerning it which are now receiving so much atten- 
tion, and which tend to overshadow the real 
signilicance and power of His teaching. There 
are problems still unsolved regarding the origin 
and transmission of the discourse, prolilems also 
regarding the interpretation and application of 
some of its utterances ; but the truth, the preach- 
ing, and the living of the Gospel have not to wait 
upon the results of such investigations. The words 
of .lesus in this Sermon present an ideal of human 
life, foundi'd upon rcligi<ms truth and ethical prin- 
ciples, wlilch has liccn and is intuiti\cly iccnj;- 
nized as the highest stamlaril of life yet lo'ini'ivcil. 
or even as the iiltiiuate standard to which mankind 
can and must attain. They need not so nuuli to 
be explained by men as to be appreciated, accepted, 
and lived by them. A sutlicient understanding of 
the Sermon was not meant to 1m: the possession of 
the few only. In this teaching .lesus aimed at 
being nniversally intelligible ; and He was so, for 
thningh the ("hiistian centuries the kind of life 
which He here describes has lieen the guiding star 
of civilizaticm. If niiscon< eptions as to the origin 
and interpretation of the discourse have at times 

arisen-, otit.of imperfect historical knowledge and 
limited- cthiear and spiritual insi-'ht, these will 
gradually disafi^ieur betore a better knowledge ami 
a clearer (iswii. 

■ i. OuitilX AWIi TllAysMlssioy.— The historical 
and literary e.iticism qf the Gospels, which has 
attracted the laljpurs of .many eminent scholars in 
the past three generations, is by no means finished. 
Yet some important eo'iclusions have been reached 
regarding the origiii'and preservation of the NT 
records of .Jesus' -lire, To this field of investiga- 
tion belong the introductorj' questions concerning 
the Sermon on tlie Mount. Was there, in fact, 
such a discourse..'. . If so, what were the circum- 
iitances of its d<dl lerv ^ How were the accounts of 
the discVnirse htrci'tc'd'hy the of transmis- 
S'oi. and trinsl.ttion ? And what is the condition 
cf the text of the discourse as we now have it '! 
'. HiS.TORlCITV OF THE DiSCOL'RSK. — It is the 

prevailing opinion among NT scholars that in Mt 
5-7 we have an account of a discourse actually 
delivered by Je.sus, the theme and substance of 
which are here preserved.* It is entirely con- 
sistent witli this view, and is by the majority held 
in conjunction with it, that the account as it 
stands in the First (iospel is not coextensive with 
the discourse originally given by .Jesus. Probably 
not all of the .Sermon is containeil in Matthew s 
report, but only excerpts or a digest ; for there is 
no reason to tliink that means were at hand for 
re[)orting the discourse verbatiiti and entire ; .lesus 
seems not to have cared that His discourses should 
be .so preserved ; He was accustomed to teach the 
people fit Icnijth when a multitude was with Him,t 
while the matter given in Matthew could easily he 
spoken in twenty min\ites ; and one would think it 
faulty |iedagogical method to present a scries of 
striking saying>, full of meaning and dilhcult for 
the liearers oil hand to grasp, without connecting 
with each germinal saying a more explicit and 
concrete teaching to illu.strate and apply it. 

Conversely also, the Mattlucan report of the 
Sermon prouahly contains some matter which did 
not form a part of the original discourse. Certain 
sections of Mt 5-7 are less evidently connected 

* So Origen, Augustine, Chrysoatom, Luther^ Tholuck, Meyer, 
Keim, AcTielis, Edersheiin, Gotlet, Hruce, Broodus, Kul>el, 
Nosgen, Fcine, Stcinmeyer, Wendt. Sanil.ay, Pluinuier, H. Wata, 
H. Weiss. (Jrawert, Burkitt, Dartlet, lUcoD, aud many others. 




than tbe others with the specific theme of the 
Sermon and its development, e.g. 5-'- -""■ ^'- '■'- 6'"" 
•jii. 7-u. ejf.^ ■ With regard to these and otlier pas- 
sages the possibility of their belonging to the 
actual Sermon cannot be denied, but the pro- 
bability is felt by most scholars to be against some 
or all of them. This view is strongly conlirmed 
by the fact that we tind parallels to these sections 
elsewhere in the Gospels, in other settings which 
in some cases commend themselves as origmal. It 
is ditlicult to conceive that Luke, or any one else, 
would break up a discourse of Jesus whicli had been 
handed down so fully as in Mt 5-7 and scatter the 
fragments as in the Third Gospel.* And, finally, 
it has become recognized that the First Gospel 
arranges its teaching material into topical groups ;t 
all of the four Gospels exhibit the results of this 
process, but the First Gospel more than the others. 
There have been, and are to-day, a number of 
eminent scholars who regard the Sermon as a 
compilation throughout, holding that no such 
discourse was really delivered by Jesus, and that 

* See Heinrici, Bergpredigt, i. 49 f. It is obviousl.v true that 
Jesus taupht the same truths and principles on various occasions 
to different individuals, and in doinj^ so may have at times 
repeated some of His sayings in quite the same, or nearly the 
same, words. Such repetition may sometimes serve to explain 
the several forms in which similar sayings have been handed 
down. Bub it cannot be used as a universal resolvent of the 
mass of variations. This stock argument of the apologetic 
harmoi'ista proceeds upon the assumption that .les'js' words 
must have oeen transmitted in every case vieclsely as He 
uttered them. But the assumption i-i ur.ivitranied, and the 
phenomena of variation abundaiitl\ :hi-: ■!. i i. iv e'y aisprove it. 
Nearly ill NT scholars now agrc. II m .'k (Liiti-.ences which 
appear in parallel passages of our 'in-pi - ,w ]u': chiefl.v to the 
vicissitudes of transmission and ^ran.-.aLi'U. The Gospel teach- 
ing did not consist of a set ,of formula.', to be learned and 
repeated verbatim. 

\ See Godet, Collection of the Four Gospels, and the Gospel of 
Matthew, p. 131 fl. ; Wendf, L,:', v .l<m, i. 52, 84, 106, 185; 
Wernle, SV"o^- -^''''^''•1'!^ ''' ^''- ^^ ' ■ •■■^■^fiT,Apost. Zeitalter'^, 
pp. 369-3»3 [Eng. tr. ii. : ; - J .' i li' r. EinMtung i. d. XT, 
p. 195: Heinrici, Berjpnh:i. i .1;. Weiss, Meyer-Komin. 
ii.d. Mattevgm.inloc; II. 11 jlU'i.ii.i, Ha iid-Comm. ii.d. Symip- 
tiker, in loc. The discourses of Jit C-T. 10. 13. IS. 23. 24. 25 are 
compilations in the sense that to tiie hisiorical nucleus of each 
discourse there has been joined some n.atter upon the same or 
a kindred subject which originally belo;ij-ed to other histor-rad 
connexions. Thus Mt 10 contains' as ^ tucletis seme instructio.i 
which Jesus gave the Twelve when He.serL them out on th^ir 
trial. mission (lO^-''^) ; but to this section the-rf^ has been added 
material from another occasion (101M2, esp. "23), when Jesus 
in the latter part of His ministry was preparing His disciples for 
-the work they must do after His departure. The first Chris- 
tians found it practically convenient to have the mission teach- 
ing grouped together. ' Mt 13 contains a collection of Jesus' 
parables upon the nature and development of the kingdom of 
God. The collection is not found in the corresponding passages 
Mk 4 and Lk & It is quite unlikelv that Jesus would make up 
a discourse of these seven parables (Mt 13I-9. ^-t-s"- 3if. si.44. 45i. 
47 50). If the disciples did not understand the first parable until 
it was explained to them privately (Mk 4i»), it would be of 
little use to add six others no more intelligible. But the 
chapter itself, hy the two breaks at v.w and w. 34-36, shows that 
it is a compilation ; vv.3. ■'i3, which seem to -make all that inter- 
venes a connected discourse, is the editorial device for giving 
unity and vividness to the teaching. It is probable that the 
parable of the Sower was given on some occasion (vv.i-3) in Jesus' 
Galilnean ministry, accompanied by explicit teaching along the 
same line. On other occasions the other parables were given : 
then, their original setting having been lost, all seven were 
topically grouped by the early Christians for practical instruc- 
tion. Mt IS contains a collection of teachings froip various 
occasions, grouped about the nucleus of an original discourse 
(of. Mk 9;«-50) concerning the relations and duties of the Twelve 
and the community life of the first disciples. Mt 2i is a collec- 
tion of sayings from different parts of the ministry (cf. Mk 
12:«-l0, Lie n»7-52 i3Mr. 2045-47), in which Jesus condemned cer- 
tain acts and characteristics of the Pharisees. The nucleus is 
apparently in \'V.1-12; seven woes (the complete number) are 
here grouped together as were the seven parables of ch. 13. 
Mt 24 exhibits the same topical arrangement of material (cf. Lk 
123:1-46 1722-37 21). And in Mt 21. 22 and 25 appear similar com- 
pilations of related teachin'j-. It is probable that the author of 
the present Gospel of Matthew found this material grouped in 
this way, although he may have carried the process farther, 
and have unified these groups by editorial retouching. If, then, 
the First Gospel has several discourses, consisting in each case 
of the nucleus of some original sermon augmented by kindred 
material from other occasions, it becomes quite probable that 
the discourse in Mt 5-7 is of a similar construction. The added 
matter is just as valuable and trustworthy as the nucleus 
matter, being equally the authentic utterances of Jesus. 

the alleged occasion of it was a well-meant fiction 
of tradition or of the Evan<;elists.* According to 
this hypothesis, the material grouped under the 
title of a mountain discourse to His disciples came 
from various occasions in the ministry which were 
no longer remembered. The compilation was made 
for the practical use of the early Christians, to 
furnish them with a manual of Christian conduct.t 
But this is to press the theory of compilation to 
an extreme. It is not an impossible view, and 
would not entail serious consequences, since it 
does not deny the authenticity of tbe sayings ; 
but it must be counted less probable. The examina- 
tion of the great teaching masses in Matthew 
seems to show that the briefer sayings were gener- 
ally grouped with the historical remains of son)e 
great discourses, who.=ie approximate position in 
the ministry and whose circumstances were not 
wholly forgotten. The main portion of the Sermon, 
contained in Mt 5^-6"*, is (with the exception of 
certain verses) so closely woven as theme and 
exposition that it cannot well be denied historical 
unity and occasion. Jesus must logically have 
given such teaching as the Sermon presents, in 
the earlier Galiltean ministry to which the Gospels 
assign this teaching ; and we know that He was 
accustomed to speak long and connectedly to His 
hearers. It is therefore probable enough that at 
least this much of a digest of one of Jesus' most 
i.niportant and impressive discourses should have 
beer, preserved. 

2. Circumstances of its Delivery. — The 
occasior. on which the Sermon was given appears 
to be clearly indicated by Lk 6"'^", which makes 
it follow closely upon the appointment of the 
twelve apostles.J The Gospel of Matthew .agrees 
with that of Luke in locating the Sermon on the 
Mount in tlie tirst half of Jesus' ministry in Galilee, 
altliuugh Matthew places it somewhat nearer to 
the 'iH-j^ia'iing of that period.§ There is good 

♦ So Calv-n, Baur, Neander, Bleek, Pott, Semler, Strauss, 
Kui.-'dl, \vieseler, H. Holtzmann, Weizsiicker, Julicher, Heinrici, 
IlDike.i, Hawkins, Schmiedel. 

* Weizracker, Apost. Zeitalter'i (1892), p. 380f. [Eng. tr. IL 
461.;. 'The discourse, as Matthew has adopted it, was in fact a 
kind of code, but such as originated in and was designed for the 
Church. . . . The nucleus consists of a few long main sections, 
J21-43 61-18. 19-34. . . . The Commandments in these three sections 
together form a sort of primer, which was, however, first 
composed by the combination of these didactic pieces, whose 
origmal independence is at once apparent from the parallel 
sections of Luke's Gospel. . . . The evangelist put on an intro- 
duction, 53-12.13-16, and an appendix, T'-29, to fit the whole to 
the historical situation which he gave it.* H. Holtzmann, Hand- 
Cmrim. w. d. Synoptiker, p. 99 : ' Probably the discourse was 
constructed by the evangelist himself out of written and oral 
sources, with the primary purpose of furnishing an order of life 
for the new Church. ' Heinrici, Bergpredigt, i. 39 : ' The Sermon 
on the Mount of Matthew seems to be a free composition of a 
speech of Jesus from certain genuine sayings of His, which 
were in part already grouped together, in part in circulation 
as single savings.' Similarly Julicher, Einleitung i. d. ST'i 
(1901), p. 232 ; Hawkins, Hora: Sgnoptiece (1899), pp. 131-135 ; 
Schmiedel, Enevc. Bibl. vol. ii. col. 1886. 

; The corresponding passage in .Mark is SIS-W, but the Sermon 
is not found at that point nor elsewhere in the Second Gospel 
There is no indication at Mk S'S that a discourse followed 

5 Too much has often been made of the difference between 
Matthew and Luke regarding the position to which the Sermon 
is assigned by each. Matthew pLaces after the Sermon, in chs. 
8. 9. 121-'^', some matter which Luke places before the Sermon 
in 431-611 ; but this section contains only incidents, miracles, 
and brief teachings, which, even if they are all in their proper 
places in Luke (and Mark, which corresponds), would not require 
more than a few weeks of time. Matthew does not record the 
appointment of the Twelve, but first mentions them as apostles 
in ch. 10 in connexion with their mission. Nor does Matthew 
represent the Sermon as Jesus' first teaching, since he distinctly 
relates before the discourse (42:if-) that ' Jesus went about in all 
Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel 
of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner 
of sickness among the people. And the report of him went 
forth into all Syria' {i.c. throughout Jewish territory). The 
earlier work and teaching are compressed rather tban ignored, 
and the words are given more prominence than the deeds. ^ A 
compilation of representative teaching hy Jesus in chs. 5-7 is 
followed bv a compilation of representative deeds of Jesus 
in chs. 8. 9.' 



leuson to think that they are sutliciently correct. 
The cunti'iits of the discourse, as clearly as its 
jwsitioii ill the (Jospels, mark it as a part of His 
(ialila-an teachitij;, — not, iniiei'il, the lirst instruc- 
tion Jesus gave, l>ut of the kind fitted for recep- 
tive hearers who had ^'aincd some aciiuaintance 
with lliui, and had liy skilful prcparatiou on His 
part l)ei:oine ready for a },'''iici;il jircsontation of 
His reli^'io-ethical ideas. To Unit .Icsus ^'iving one 
of His most signiticant discourses iu connexion 
with the appointment of the twelve apostles is 
altogether what one might expect. That aiipoint- 
nient was a great event in His ministry. It marked 
the stage when His |»>|iular sueces-s required Him 
to choose and train some men to assist Him in His 
work (Mk ',i'*} ; and it lielioved Him also, since 
the storm of opposition was gathering on the 
horiyxin (-Mk 2'-3'', cf. Mt iS-'^'-'-'), to prepare 
men to carry forward His work after He should 
lay down His life at Jerusalem. 

The Sermon is not, however, addres.sed exclu- 
sively or specilically to the newly ajipointcd 
apostles. It contains no trace of esoteric teadi- 
ing. There is no portion of the discouisi' whidi 
does not pertain equally to all of Jesus' followers, 
present and future. The internal evidence of the 
Sermon, therefore, sustains the correctness of the 
Kvangelists' statements (Mt T'-®- -i', Lk 7') that 
Jesus spoke directly and inclusively to the people 
who thronged Him at this time.* The niultitudo 
was a ilixcipli: mnllitude in the sense that many 
wire profi'sse<l followers of Jesus, many wej:e.c,oii- 
tiiiipl.iling ilisc i|i|r>liip, and all were fa,vovuraDly 
dispusid towards Him, listening with intere.=t to 
His teaching. The Sermon contains nc iliroct 
jmlemie against opponents, l)ut an appeal to all to 
adopt and to attain a higher type of righteousness 
than that which was conventionally taught them 
by the scribes. ' ' 

The exact time, i.e. the year, month, r.nd day, 
at which the Sermon was given cannilt be' deter- 
mined. There is no agreement among ^chbla"-!? as 
to either the duration or the calendar dutes of 
Jesus' public ministry.t But on any chronclVjgiicii:! 
hypotlu^sis the discourse stands alxiut hiiU-wiiiy 
between the beginning of Jesus' public work" {iW 
His crucifixion. ' 

The Sermon was sixiken in Galilee, the scene of 
the main ministry of Jesus (cf. Mt 4^''-', Lk 6"). 
If there is an indication in Mt8', Lk 7' that the 
place of the event was near Capernaum, the iirecise 
locality would not even then lie defined, since the 
site of Capernaum itself is in dispute. The moun- 
tain referred to in Mt ,'>' 8', Lk li'- is not named 
and cannot be identified. t We may, how- 

• That tlif discourse was addressed to the multitude is the 
view of Ac'heli**, Bleek, Bruce, Oodet, Meyer, Nosjfen, and 
others. Tliiit it was addrisseil to i-In«e diwiplcs, hut overheani 
hvihi- miiliiii 1,1 whom it dill n,,t dir.-.-tly pertain, is held 

!'■. Ti, . , ' I; \\.,-. (.;,,'.. 1' iij.l il.r^ Hiirton and Bacon 

■ lit I ; ,. ■ ; ,ii I p]Hise a sharper line 

bLiMt-ii l.-uli iMi , 1.,.'. , -ml _,n.,nil followers of Jesus 
than Jt-iius Hiuisi-lf indiciiles in the Sermon, or than can other- 
wise be made out at this staye of the public ministry. The use 
of the second personal fonn by Luke cannot be adduced as 
evidence that Jesns was >]>inkinx only to a close circle of dis- 
ciples; itwasetpmlh lii'Ii I'.l. t..ilarKe company. Matthew's 
account also has lli' , I ■. - ml fomi after .Vi-10. Yet both 

Kvant'clistii have- M,, ,,-. m, M 7», Lk 610 7') to the effect 
Ibai .l,«M« :irl,lr.>.. J 11,.. I. a hin;; to the multitudes at this 
tin;' I'll I' i^ 'I'll clear th.'.t these statementsaremere literary 
('■ ' '- 't historical value. The discourse contains 

1" ' I 'u' to indicate that Jeaus Avas speaking only to a 

■111 .:i. ii'-ii '.ir ic of His followers. 

\ .See artt. Cuuos(ii«ov or NT, vol. I, and .iKsi's Christ, 
vol. ii. ; also art. 'Chronoloay of NT' in EHcydopfedia liiblica, 
vol. i. : and Literature cited in connexion. 

t Four views are now currciil ci,n'-iTiiinL' ttiis 'mountain': 
(1) Latin tradition identili' -- ii \i 'ii An,,' //,/", i, ; the theory 
is accepted by Stanley i,-/ i I I'v Plummer 

and tL Weiss. This f^tiii " . 1, ,i ml il the 13th 

cent, and is quite unkno^sn iv Lin-: J..L^:irn i li.ii, li. so that it 
cannot have been more tluu a plausible ivi\sis. The location 

ever, that the .scene of the Sermon wiw in the 
region to tlie west of the lake, not far distant 
from the tldckly-poiiulated shore. 

3. TuAN.s.Mt.s.siu.v AiVU TltANSLATION.— 'W'e seem 
to have in Mt "1-7, Lk e'-*-" two accounts of the 
Sermon ; they difler somewhat in setting, verluil 
expression, and content, but are nevertheleati 
essentially one discourse.* Hoth Gospels a.ssigii 
the Sermon to the earlier (ialila>an ministry. The 
circuni.stances of the discourse are similar- the 
mountain, the representative multitude, the heal- 
ings, the address to disciples. The theme of the 
discourse is the same in each — the true righteous- 
ness. The development of the theme is similar — 
a characterization of this righteousness, with 
specific teaching as to how it is to affect thought 
and conduct, and an exhortation to men to live in 
this way. Each account begins Avith the Iteati- 
tuiles, and doses with the injunction to do God's 
will as revealed in Jesus' teaching, enforced by the 
parable of the Two House-builders. And, finally, 
ncarlv the whole of Luke's discourse is contained 
in .Miittliew's. 

mill fiiitiiris of Karn fFatfln correspond sufflcientlv well with 
the histury ; but there are a number of other hills' along llie 
western shore of the lake which are also suitable (Robinson, 
IlJtl* iiL 487). (2) Some specific mountain is referred to, and 
was known to the early Christians as the scene of the discourse, 
but its identity bccjmie lost from the Gosjiel tradition. So 
Tholuck, .Meyer, Keil, Kubel, Achclis, Andrews. (3) The phrase 
7-i o^< disit'cates not a particular hill or mountain peak, but 
the raiil^e cf tabte'and rising to the west of the Sea of Galileo ; 
and the jgt^'o.* the event is not more speciflcaliy designated. 
The Jews uset' i,iir-e ie;idinif terms to distin^ish the surface 
featliroscf tiielr tirrilorv—' mountain," plain,' and 'valley' : of 
these desi(j:Tiatioi,^ 'the flrtt is understood to have referred to 
the tableland, w\ietjler bro'iten into isolated peaks or not (of. 
On 19"- 1»- ™ 31'-''-i. =5 3C»' », Mt 142i 15», Mk (!», Lk O*, Jn &'). 
Therefore to cm' would in an..' particular instance refer to the 
hi{,'h land— whether ^tileland. or peak— in the vicinity of the 
event. Tliis view also leaves 'Me site of the Sermon undeter- 
mined. So Bleek, lto^i.*aj6n, , Kbrard, Thomson, Ederslieim, 
Broadus, Bruce, Nds^^en, .Stewart, B, Weiss, Bacon. (4) Ttiose 
who regard the Ser.mip its a mosaic only, resting upon no 
particular (H';''."n-';i', biii iiiaflo up of material gathere<l from 

maii\ fiiiiiii \i, '!- I s in iQotnot* above), perforce look 

ujion ' the 111' ' ' ,, I I' ii-t of theartillcialscenery which the 

coniiiiler III 1 1, " '' i'j','ed about it to give verisimilitude 

to the wh'il' II ' ir views one may adopt the second 

or ini, ' '.' se two it is dilHcult to choose. 

i1|he acciiiiii M, I -k 01'-- IT, which descrilx; the setting 

,j)f the Seriii", ■ ,' :, mention of the mountain, but are 

Tiot in agreuiii. nL.A iiiu iiuiii^' it. Matthew locates the entire 
iSc.ene upon tl^: mountain ; Jesus and His disciples ascend it, 
ap'parentiy by His deliberate choice, to speak and to hear the 
Sermon ; when it is finished they descend. Acconlinfr to the 
Third Gospel, Jesus goes up the mountain to spend the night in 
solitary prayer (cf. Lk 9*, Jn IP- 15) ; when it is day He calls His 
disciples to Him, and appoints the Twelve ; afterwards He 
comes down from the mountain to the multitude which had 
gathered on a level place below, where He heals many, and 
later delivers the discourse. The well-meant hannonistic efforts 
expendetl upon these passages do not seem convincing. But 
the discre]mncy is neither sufficient to remove the datum of a 
mountain in conncvion with the discourse, nor, in face of strong 
evidence for iIh ir iilintitr, to force the conclusion that the 
reports of .M.inin.v 'uhI l.nke represent two separate and 
distinct disci. 'li^i. miiIi ililli rent settings. 

•This is the .UiM„.,l iiii.iiiiMi.ini .irinion of scholars: Tatian 
(DlaliMaroii), Origen, Jeriiiin . ' hi ■ ' m, Kuthymius, Theo- 
phvlact, Luther, Calvin, Mull. : - M . ' . Ilengcl, Neander, 

Schleiermacher, Stier, Ewalil. u , Kn.n, Keil, KosOin, 

Kobinson, Kllicott, Schne.',ui,;ir, llil^.nfeld, Eiler^heini, 
Owlet, Tboluck,, Achelis, Andrews, Beyschlag, 
Bro.iiliis. Karrar. Fcinc. .Sclianz, Sandav, Steinmeyer, SiefTcrt, 
de VVctte, WeniU, H. Weiss, B. Weiss, B'ruce, Burton, Heinri.i, 
H. Holtzmann. Ibbekeii, Julicher, Kubel, Nosgen, Weriile. 
Bacon, and many others. The theory of two sepamte discourses 
was advocated for ajwlogetic purposes by Augustine, and, 
following him, by St. Gregory and certain minor Bom. Cath. 
wridbrs, as, recently, Azibert (Htvue UMique, 1S»4> A few 
modern Protestant writers also have taken this view, as 
OreswcU, Lange, Plumptre, and, most recently, Plummer 
(Comm, on Luke [1896], p. 177). 

The arrangement of the material in Tatian's Diatesnaron (see 
Hill, Barliejst lA/e o/ ChritI, being the Diatessann of Talian 
I1S04I. pp. 7:!-»4), which combines the .Matthew and Liiko 
accounts, is thus; Mt 5i» Lk 0':"' 17 |Mk 3U- '^1 Mt .Vit^Lk O'."" 
Mt .■■>*'» Lk 0-'^ .Mt .I'"'- '2 Lk 621 ■-■74 .Mt 514 10 (Mk V''^ '£i| Mt 
6>7-a» (I.k 12581.) Mt5'-l^42 Lk 0:»l' 31 Mt 5*i-4«. Lk O.Tji,;8 >it 
M7.M Mt 0>8 (Lk lin'-2») .Mt OSl-l" [Lk l'2;ttM«l Mt 0>92l ||,k 
1135 36) Mt «•» •-•7 (Lk 12-»| .Mt O'aMl (Lk l-2'-Si'l Mt e^^M Mt 7' = 
Lk <y"i' Lk «■« (Mk 4'i<i'.23] Lk B»M-> Mt 7d [\x 11M:>] Mt 71»i«« 
Lk 6« Mt 7"- " Lie 045 Mt "'S-*' Lk 0»- 4* Mt "■a-gi. 













The relation of the contents of tlie two accounts 
can be shown in a table : — 
Mto' =Lk6-'» 

54. 6 ^ gJl 

511.12 ^ g--.a 

539. 40. 42 _ g2y. 30 

544-48 = g27. 28. 

gl-34 has no parallel in Lk 

Matthew's a(x:ount has 107 verses, Luke's account 
29. Of Luke's 29 verses, 23i find a parallel in the 
Mattha;an account, where they are arranged as 26 
verses. There is no parallel in Mt 5-7 for Lk 
(j24-26.38a. 39. 40. 45_« Of Mattlicw's remaining 81 verses, 
34 find a parallel in Luke outside of ch. 6 (in chs. 
11-14. 16) t as follows :+— 
Mt 5" 

= Lkl434.3o 

Mt622-== = 

Lk lpJ-36 

= 11=3(818) 

6-^ = 



52.5-33 ^ 

] .322-31 

1258. » 

77-11 = 



713,14 = 




= 1233.34 


This leaves 47 verses of the Matth.-ran discourse 
which have no parallel in the Third Gosp-l : Mt 

S-l. 7-10. 14. 16. 17. 19-24. 27-31.33-33. 41.43 gI-8. 14-18. 34 76. 15. 18-20.22 

That is, fonr-ninths of the Sermon in Matthew is 
peculiar to that Gospel. § 

These phenomena of the comparative 'contents, 
of the two accounts of the Sei-mo'n , present a 
complex and diHicult problem, a, id craip-i.'one to 
investijrate the history of tlii- ili-...i.i, ~, fvoyi ,tlie 
time of its utterance until it .mii^ i,~ nicseut two- 
fold form in our First and 'fluid (.uj^pels. 

Another important feature of these two reports 
of the Sermon, and one wliich mupt he investigated 
in conjunction with the prehJefii.of content, is the 
remarkable variation in '.vordi'iig — in the literary 
expression of the same ■ iUsa^ . Sometimes this 
variation is slight, as in : k^,\ , ' 

* But there are parallels for tv-o.or feljrea of these passages 
elsewhere in JIatthew, thus : Lk (ili^iit if,i4i.j u^ 6-'5=Mt 1235 • 
and with Lk6«» compare Mt 102i(Ja Ijfe'iWPA).. , 

t These chapters belong to the soniivi'tiit' cleaKy maiked 
midille third of Luke's Gospel (102 ■-183*),'T>hi<;h ccnsists ma,iiilv 
of discourse material. It is commonly kpdwTi ri the 'PeneaS 
section,' because its position in this book it tSstween the dniA 
departure of Jesus from Galilee (Lk 951-102C) infi His puhlio 
entrance into Jerusalem (Lk 1835_i946). During this' period 
Jesus perhaps spent some days or weeki in Peraea (Mt 191 = 
Mk 101, Lk 1331, jn 1040), and some of the material in Lk 10-18 
may belong to that period, as 121-12. 35-59 131-9. 22 30. 31 35 1720.17 
lSi-8. But the main contents of these chapters (Lk 111-36 1213 34 
1310.21 14. 15. 18. 171-10 189-34) quite surely belong to the Galilsean 
ministry, because (1) this is indicated by various allusions in the 
chapters themselves, e.(i. 112832 (of. Mt 123!)-'2). 1310. 17. I8-21 (cf 
Mt 1331. 82), 1425-35 ; (2) the subject of most of this teaching is 
more suitable to that period ; (3) it is altogether unlikely that 
Jesus would have left so large and so important a portion of His 
general teaching till the last weeks of His ministry. Luke had for 
these chapters (10-18) a special source, probably a document of 
some extent, which contained most valuable teaching ; but the 
settings of the teaching had been largely lost, and he therefore 
put these passages, with other unattached material from the 
Lac/ia and other sources, into this middle, mixed section of his 
book,— in fact, what else could he do ? The material was too 
important to omit, and he was too conscientious a historical 
author to create scenes for the several pieces. 

J In the case of three of these passages there are parallels in 
Mark also: Mt ."Jl'sMk 950=Lk 14S4.35,.Mt 515^Mk 4'21 = Lk 1133 
(and 816), ut 532= Mk 10" =Lk 1618. There is but one sentence 
which is put hy both Matthew and Luke into the Sennon that 
has a parallel in Mark, namely, Mt72b = Mk 4*'i>=Lk C3* ; and 
this saying is of the gnomic t.ype, so that it may have been 
repeated on various occasions by Jesus. Consequently one is 
inclined to say that the portion of the Sermon common to 
Matthew and Luke is not found in Mark. And of the matter in 
Matthew's Sermon which is found in Luke outside of the Sermon, 
or not found in Luke at all, Mark has parallels perhaps for five 
verses,— the three just indicated, and the two named in the 
following footnote,— so that the Seconrl Gospel scarcely knows of 
this teaching material which the First and Third Gospels make 
so prominent. 

§ Except, perhaps, Mt 529.30=Mk 9« «, Mt 6i'.i5 = Mlc 1125. 
" -"- worth observing that three passages of the Matthi 

Lk 6^\ 

1^ yap [ieTp(fj /x£TpEiT€ avTi- 
/xiTpr}0 qir€Tai ii^lv. 

Lk 6"- ^\ 

■" Ti 5e ^XfTreiy to Kapcpos rb 
€v T{f} 6<pda\fj.(^ ToO ddeXipou 
(Tov, TTiv 6e 5ok6i' tt]v iu n^ 
i'SiCfj dtpOaXfii^ ou Karat/0€i^ ; 
■*- TTuJs Sufacrai. Ae7eii' ti^ 

d5e\(pU <TOU 'Ad€\cp4, &','>€$ 

€Kfid\u t6 Kdp<pos TO ef Tifi 
6<pda\fjLLp (Toi', atT^s ttiv iv 
Tif} 6<p6a\fXip aov doKdv ou 
^Xitricv ; viroKpiTd, ^K^aXe 
irp^Tov TTIV 6ok6v €K tou 
6<p0a\fxov aouy Kal tLtc 
Sta/SW^eiS Tb Kdp<pos to 
iv Tip 6<p0a\fj.ip Tov d5e\0oC 
ffov eK^aXfltf. 

Similarly compare Mt 6-'* = Lk 16^3 and Mt V'^ = 
Lk 1 F- ^". In tliese four passages there is almost 
complete verbal agreement— not quite, however — 
which must be explained. And the four sayings 
are widely scattered in Luke as compared with 

But such close verbal agreement is exceptional. 
In all the other parallel passages the variation in 
literary form is great, as in :-^ 

Kal iv (^ fJi^Tptp /J.€TpeiT€ 

Mt 7^-^ 
^t'l de ^X^irets to Kaptpoi to 
iv T(p 6<pOaXfj.u TOV dSeX^oO 
(701', T7}v 5^ iv Tip fftp 6(l>0aX- 
fiip doKdv ou KaTavofls ; "* rj 
TTuJy ip€i^ T(p d5eX0y aov 
"A0ey iKfidXaj t6 Kaptpos iK 
TOU 6(p6aX/jLOv aov, Kai ISou 
7} SoKos ivTip 6(pdaXfx(p aov ; 

^ uTTOKpLTa, e'^jSaXe irpC^Tov Ik 
TOU 6<p6aXixov aou tt\v ookov, 
Ka'i t6t€ dta^Xiypet^ eK^SaXeTv 
TO h'dpipos iK TOU 6<p0aXfxou 
TOU dSeX^oO aov. 

I The Greek text here used is that of Westoott and Hort. 

'39 'J5^ ^l ^ Xiycj vfllV fjLT) 

avTiaf^i'i^t Tip TTovTjptp' dXX' 
HaTt't • l/€ pawii^ci ets Tr]v 
de^iciv aiay^va [aou], aTpi- 

%1/OV illlTLJ Kal T7]V &XXtJV 

^^ Kal'Ttp OiXoifriaoL Kpidqvai. 
Kal T^]( wji^tAi aov Xaj:i€Lv, 
d^ei (i6-i (^ Kal t6 ifidriov. 

¥[avYdtodv 6aa idv OiXrjTf 
'ivbt Tr6i{jaiv ufxiv ol dudpcoTrot, 
fiOV{i}i Kal Vfj.€h TToifLTe av- 
This' ouTdJs yap iaTiv 6 
v6fios Kal ol irpO(pT)Tai. 


Tip TVTTTOVTi <7€ iwl rijV (TtCt- 

yjua irdpex^ Kal ttjv fiXXrjy, 
Kai dirb tou aipovTos aov ^i 

l/ldTLOV Kal t6v J(^LTCjVa /IT} 


Lk 6^1. 
Kal Kadujs diXcTc iva iroi- 

CffLV UfXLV ol dvOpUTTOlj TTOl- 
€IT€ aUToU 6/iOiWS. 

Mt T*-^--*^. 

-■* nds O^IV 6VtI$ dK0l'€i pLOV 

Tous XSyous [toutov^] Kai 
iroiet auTous, o/MOnadqafTai 
dvdpl <Ppovi/j.(p, oaTi s ipKo- 
66/j.ijaev avTov ttjv oLKlav 
itrl T7JV Trirpav. -^ Kai KaT- 
i^T] 7} ^poxv Kal ijXOav ol 
TTOTafMol Kai 'iirvevaav ol 
dv^fiOL Kai TTpoaiireaav Ty 

Oi/Ctg €K€LV7}, Kai OUK ^ir€a€v, 

T€0€fj.€\iU}To yap iirl ttjv 
TriTpav. -^ Kai Trds 6 aKOvuv 
fxov Toi'S X07011S toc'toi's Kai 
fiTj TTOiCit/ aiVoi'S ofj-OiicOr}- 
aerat dvSpl pLOjpcp, (JaTis 

IpKoSopLTjafV aVTOU T7)V oiKiav 

fVt Tijv dfxfxov. '■^ Kai KaT- 

i^Tj 7} ^pox^J Kai ^jXdav ol 

TTOTa/xol Kal iirffvaav oi avvtireaev, Kal e\iv€To t6 

dveixoL Kal TrpoaeKo^pav Ty priyfxa ttjs oUias iKeivjjs 

olKiq. iKeivTf, koX ^ir€acv, Kal p.iya, 

ifv i] TTTufats aCTTjs fj.£yd\7j. 

Similarly compare Mt 5"- *^ = Lk 6^, Mt 7^- 2» = Lk 
6^^ Mt 7^^- ^^ = Lk 6^^- ■•■• ; and also Mt S^^^Lk U^, 
Mt 5^8 = Lk W\ Mt 52*- 26 = Lk 12'^- s», Mt 6^^-2' = 
Lk \2^- -^, Mt 6'^-^ = Lk I2=^-^-»». 

In some passages the wording of Matthew is so 

Lk 6^'-« 

^'nds 6 ipxofJ.€vos 7r/)js fie 
Kal aKouojv /j.ou t^v Xuyiav 
Kai -KoiQiv avTov%, UTrodei^uj 
Ufuv tIvl iaTlv op.0L0^' '^ Up. 
oi6y iaTLV dvOpwiTip otKodo 
fxovvTL o'lKiav, 6s ^aKaxpei 
Kai i^ddvv€v Kai iOijKi 
pi^XiOV eVi TTj:/ TriTpav ' ttXtj 
p.uppi]S 5e yevofjLivrjs irpoa 
iprj^ev 6 TTOTafxbs rj oiKiq 

iKCLVT), Kai OVK lOX^'^^i' CO- 

Xcvaai auTT^v did to KaX ~ 
oiKoSo/jLTJadai avT7}v. '*■' 6 5^ 
aKoraa^ Kal fXT) rroiTjaa 
6/xol6s iaTiv dvOpii-mp o'.ko 
dofjLTjaavTi. oLKtav iirl Ti}i 
yijv xwpis dep-eXlov, y ir.xa 
iprj^ev 6 TTora/xos, Kal €uOu' 



difVerent from that of Luke that a dinerenoe even 
of thu thought results, or seeuis to result : — 

Mt 5^' *• «. 
' MaArapioi ol ittdxoI rtf 

* fxaKOLpiot ol TTd'Ooii'Te^, on 
aC'Tol irapaK\r}di]<jovTa.i. 

^ fjLahdptOl ol TTUfWVTfS Kai 

8i\pu}yr€S TTiv biKa.iO<yvvr}v^ 
bri aiTol xopTaffOi'jaovr at. 

E(Tf<rfle Ol'*' vfxeh H\ftoi 
W7 6 iraTT}p i'piCiV 6 ot'odcioy 

MtG«-^>. Lk 11--1 

® ndrep i)fMu>v 6 ^f toU - i^ldrtp, 


aytaa6i}Ttt> rd 6vo^d iroi', d7taiT^^rw t6 6vofx& troW 

'" eXdaru) ij fSaaiXeia ffof, €\6dTij i} ^otrtXeta ffoV 
'f€vr}dr}Tiit rd O^Xij/id <T0i>, 

ws ^f ovpavi^ Kai dwi yrjs' 

*' Til' dproy ijfiujv rbv <Vt- ^rhv Aprov rifxCjv rhv ivi- 
ov<nov ovffiov 

Lk (V-«- 2». 

™ yiaKdpioi ol TTTUJXoiy Sti 

i'fxer^pa cVrtf i) fiaffiXela 

roC' titoC'. 

-"' fxaKdpioi ol K\alovT€S vOu, 

6rt y€Xd(T€T€. 

-'" ^a^'aptoi ol vetv^vTeivvifj 

Lk G^^ 

VheffOe olKTip/j.ovfs Ka$ij)S 

6 fraTTip VfAuJV olKTLpfliVV 

56s TJpUV <T-q/X€pOV' 

^'Kai iS0es i]/itv to. 60ei\^- 
fiara tj^wp^ 
Cjs Aat 7)fjL€Ts d<f>'^Ka,ueu 
Tols 6<p€iX4Tais tj/jlCv' 
**A;ai /XT) €i<T€v4yKr)s ij/xds cts 


dXXa pOcrai. ijfj.ds dirb tov 


Similarly compare Mt 

Sidov T^ixlu t6 Had' 7)fx4pa.v' 
* Kdi d<p€S i}fxTv TCLS dfiaprias 

Kai yap ai'roi d<piofi€v 
iravTL 6<p€lXovTi ijfxlv' 
Kai /XT] elaev^yKTis i]fj.ds els 

Lk 16'« {= Mk 10" 

Mt 19») and Mt 7" = Lk 11'^ The eorrespondinj,' 
fontext or setting of each pair of these parallel 
j>ayings, or as regards tlie Lord's Prayer the 
nature of the case {see helow, ii. 4 h (2)), indicates 
lliat however variant the words have become in 
transmission, tlicy started from the same ntter- 
aiHis of Jesus. Tiii' ])arallel records run the 
(!ntir(! gamut of variation from close verbal simi- 
larity to wide verbal divergence, and in a few 
cases even to dilFerence of idea itself. 

Now the explanaticm of these striking phenomena 
of content, form, and substan(;e in the Sermon of 
Matthew and Luke is to be found in the history 
of the transmission of this material during the 
years c. 29-85 A.D. This section of history is one 
part of the great 'Synoptic problem.'* Wliile 
many elements of this proldem are still in dispute, 
certain fundamental facts pertaining to it now 
seem well established. 

(i) Jesus habitually taught 
thorough and deliberate dine 
have reached a settled cone 

Aramaic, not in Greek, t The 

^ion of this question seems to 
Bion. ; We were all easier to 

* In the extensive and hi,;hly important literature upon this 
subject is to be sfMi-j-hf 'III ]iri ^t-nlutton and treatment of the 
niatterH outlinc'l m h • ' ;ti,' jmragraphs. See tlie art. 
<;oHi*Fi,8, vol. ii,, :iii I [ I . t , ;i 1 liLTe cltcd ; also art. 'Gospels' 
by .Sanday in Sum h - /'/. n I \>v K. A. Abbott and Srhmiedel 
ill Encyctnptfdui Jiil.m.i. .1 : ; n!-" Al'i ttiIf-, '<>n}':r-f Frafje 
(Ismt); Wendt. AfA,v ./.,-- i I (, '-- 1; \\ i/. -''/,. mm- 

fvangelittmilH^G); H. II.:' : . ■ ■■ . • / , Im.H): 

\Veizsi\('kQr,(riiten'iu'ftt(„,..< ■- .< . . ,. ,n„ . , .. •,. -.,„/,, /,;, ,is(i», 
:^nd ed. 1901); Wri^dit. CV,„y»,^-^.M, „/ //,. /.„*, <,..,v Z" vl^OO); 
Hawkinii, fluroi Synopticie (ldl>»), Burkitt, T ao Ltctutett vn the 
fioifpeis (lOCd). 

t It is not unlikely that Jesus knew some Greek, for many 
Greek-speakinjc Gentiles lived in Galilee, and that languape 
must have been used not a little in such a hive of commenie as 
t'apemaum was. Jtwus" work, however, was exclusrrebramonR' 
the Jews, and there is no conclusive evidence that He knew or 
siK>ke Greek at all; even His trial before Pilate cannot prove 
liiis, as Pilate must have been accustomed to use an interpreter 
in trcatinj; with the Sanhedrin. See O. Holtzmann, Leiien 
./»•*-/ (10()1), p. 22. 

: That Jej^us taught in Greek has been ably argued ny Uobertfl 
(Gr^ek thr Larujuage oj Chn'x' and liia ApontUa, ISSii) and by 

believe that these very Greek wonbi of our Gospels camo 
directly from Jesus' lips; yet historical investiKaliun shows 
that they are but a translation from the original uiteranced. 
Wliile tlie theories of Uesch. Marsliall, Daluian, UliiSH, K. A. 
Abbott, and others us to a primitive Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel 
are uncertain, it is clear that the Memorabilia of Jesus were 
originally and for some years in the Aramaic language. The 
Aramaji- vocabulary, syntax, and inlluence can everywhere be 
seen through the Greek of the Gospels, tike the earlier text in 
a palimpsest manuscript. 
(2) Jesus' more imjtortant teachings were marked and i 

bered from the tinn 
suppose that He 
but their substar 
therefore, (hiring 
gathering nw\ y 
memory aii>l r ■ !■ 


. M..k 

not too much to 
teachings— not their form, 
■iples. From day to day, 
listry, His followers were 
rm.-."*, holding them in 
• n 'li.r nearly or quite 

followers l l . ,i :n ■ ■! l hi . -■'-: in_ 

them, prc;u li^a iii^ui, .ui-i ij.aia 
into the (JbrisLiau brotberlu 

A i,cf. Ac 

orni of Christi 

iiiilv. And 

as notliin^r more 


inoro ciMKTallv 

rc\ori'<l and 

II llif.Sfiiiion,.! 


rsaiU-r .l.Mis li. 

il j.'inii His 


I'.f lllcilltll. 

lid lli.^ .Il^ripl. 

s until Ion- 

-Icin .,t Ihc 

.Master's, studied 
them to all who 
*-). The storj of 
Jesus' life, His deeds and His wonis, was the guide of every 
individual Christian, of every Christian community, and of the 
entire (Christian movement. What He had taught was the 
staple matter of all Christian instruction and worship, and 
was everywhere regarded i " 
of all that Jesus had taught there wa 
vital, and practical— indeed nothing i 
\xski\ — than the teaching contaii 

(;i) It is al.«o certain that, fot 
teaching, it was circulated and 
Jesus Himself wrote nothing, 
after. Both these facts were <i 
time. The teaching of the K;il>l>i~- iti .ii- .- i.n \. .^ . n: n ;\ urul 
— only their sacred books, tlu- Mill t, r-;.LiiirTii. uM-iii In ,\;;!iLn; 
therefore the pupils of the Uabbi^ liuunt ami inemun/Aa Llicir 
teaching. Out. of this custom arose a special qualilicaliun for, 
and efficiency in, oral instruction and oral transmission among 
the Jews. To men of this nation and couritrj' Jesus' sayings 
were given, and by them preserved. It cannot, of course, be 
supposed that Jesus insisted upon forms of wordu ; He was 
neither a literalist nor a verbalist. Therefore His disciples did 
not place undue emphasis upon the ipsisxima verba of His 
teaching. But so perfectly worded were the most significant 
of His shorter sayings— many of which can be seen in this 
discourse— that they would persist in their original form, 
the remainder of the teaching an exact verbal I 
was unlikely, and the evidem-e shows that it 'li-l TK't >.-. lrij<yH-n. 

(4) After fifteen or twenty yean* (c. 45-..0 \ ■ ^ > i- ' itutv 
began to reach out into the great Roman wt. til : i > i-^nf 

the Apostle Paul and many others ; audit 1"' ii\ to 

trail -'n'r tlv- < :.-]..■! -inrv'into Greek, since Mr: i.,.H-l'..i. ..; *nian 
Ji \\ !! I ■' 1, ■ ' f-l not know Aramaic— the language in 

will I, 1. I <> rii, and had thus far been handed 

di.u M II 1 1 III !.ii mn took place 50-SO a.d. is prove<i bv 

our j-ir^^iii iiniu i.-.,-.i.t.lh and the early disappearance of all 
Aramaic Gospel documents. Now there is every reason to 
think that this translation of the Memorabilia of Jesus was a 
prfKesH rather thnn an act. The data do not iiermit us to think 
of one fnnnn), :ui!lv'rit:i'ivc • rtn^!;i( ion. Comprising the whole 
(Jospcl Rtor\ iiiii 'It '■ iriio the use of all the Greek- 

speaking liu I: , ( 1, !■■ were numerous persons in 

various pla- > .ui i ii i ii i ■ iii inns who translated portions^ 
the same a^ u^ll a.-^ ,biU-i.-iii, p-.i U,ms— of the storv fn-m the 
Aramaic into Greek. These individual ami tr.un:' ir ir\ rriris- 
lations were characterized by various de^K' ~ ■ i I ■ i i!niss, 

differing vocabulary and syntax, loss of ..ii_ n..! ■ -l ng, 

obscuration of shades of meaning, interpretative nn-dilii ulions 


and expansions. 

varying success in 

reproducing the original 

ideas, and some 

adaptation of the sa 

yings (by way of selection. 

arraiigcmfnt. ai 

d altered e\pressif> 

!> tn the practical needs 

of thcChui-rhr'^ 

for whnii, th- r.--i"- 

t:\-'' 'r:irv-lrt*i"n-- hn|ipcncd 


all of them be traced iu our two Gospel reijords of 
the Sermon on the Mount. 

(5) It is now generally unrlfrstood* that, after fifteen or twenty 
years of rir'-nl Lt-ir- -i-tI t r m iiiifiii'^' the utterances of Jesus by 
wordofni'i' ■■ ' pi M ' i I'llia were gnwlually put into 
writing. \\ ' <''■■■ :i I : ///'.' iii. 39. 16) the miportant 

testimony oi i i] .i-^, .\iii n i M-iirded by most scholars as 

trUStWOrtb.V. liiul the A|M.^Ut- .MaltlieW COmpOSed (ff-!/.(Tfl£5«T«, 

fi^. trvvfypoL-^tTo, cf. Lk U ettot-ra ^ecfftlea) a, collection of the sayings 
(\cyia.) of Jesus, in the Hebrew (i.e. the Aramaic"?) language. 
If Papias' statement, and the common interjiretfttion of it as 
a written account, are correct, then we have a distinct witness 
that there was a written record of Jesus* teat^hing, which we 
may a.ssign to c. SO a.d. That it was in .AramaicC?) shows an 
adoption of writing, even by the Palestinian Christians, as a 

T. K. Abbott (Essays chiefiy tm the Original Texts ojf the OT 
and N't\ ISfll. ch. 5). The contrary, that Jesus taught in 
Aramaic, has lieen shown hu Neubauer, .''tudia liiblica, \. SO- 
74 (1S85); A. Meyer, Jcstt il'utterxprurhe(\^iiHS); Zahn, Einleit- 
nnrj i. d. NT, *i. 1-51 (1BS)7) ; Dalman, Wortc Jcsu, i. 1-72 
(189S) : sec also art. Lasoi'aop. ok tiik Nkw Tkstamfst, vol. iii. 

• Although there still remain a few earnest advocates of an 
exclusivelv oral tradition. 



means of collectinff, circulating, and preserving the Memo- 
rabilia of Jesus. But whether i'apias' statement is correct or 
incorrect, it is practically certai.i that when the Gentiles received 
the story of Jesus they committed it to writing, for they were 
not accustomed to the oral transmission of extended material. 
This change of oral to written records was informal, unauthor- 
ized, and gradual, like the translation already described. But 
it is probable that soon after 50 A. D. there were many written 
portions of the Gospel Memorabilia in existence and use. These 
documents tiien grew in number and extent until after twenty 
to fifty years our canonical Gospels absorbed them and became 
recognized as the final records of Jesus' ministry (cf. Lk 11-*). 
There are also indications that the oral tradition continued 
along with the written tradition through the whole period until 
our Gospels were composed (and indeed afterwards also), and 
furnished a larger or smaller amount of the material which 
went into them. 

The liistory here sketched of the transmission of 
the entire Gospel story is at the same time the 
liistory of the transmission of the Sermon on the 
Mount, which was one of the most valuable sections 
of the Memorabilia of Jesus. The whole process 
has left its marks upon our two accounts of the 
Sermon, for to it are to be attributed in the main 
the dilterence of setting, content, arrangement, 
variety of literary expression, and divergence of 
thouglit. But the fundamental agreement of the 

part, by ditt'erent persons and in several localities : 
then these complete or fragmentary translations 
had each its own history for about 30 years, during 
which they experienced the vicissitudes of trans- 
mission. When the First and Third Evangelists 
came to prepare their Gospels in c. 80-85 A.D. there 
were in circulation and use these various Greek 
forms of the Mattluean Logia. The two authors 
adopted different forms, according to the usage of 
the locality in which each wrote, or, less likely, 
according to their judgment of which form was 
best historically. 

(2) In addition to this basal Logian source of 
both our accounts of the Sermon, there were prob- 
ably other lines of transmission of the discourse 
in both oral and written tradition. Many disciples 
had heard the Sermon when Jesus gave it, and lor 
jears afterwards had told of it. There miist thus 
liave grown up variant reports — one used in one 
church or circle of churches, and another in 
another. These further reports also are likely to 
have been handed down, and some of them may 
well have come under the notice of the two 
Evangelists in composing their Gospels.* How 




Diasram to illusfralc fhe Transmission o' the Sermon on ttie Mount. 

two accounts, which shows them to be reports of 
the same historical discourse, has not been seriously 
obscured in transmission. 

When one attempts to trace more in detail the 
particular history of the Sermon on the Mount 
during the years c. 29-85 A.D., one conies upon 
many perplexing problems about which at present 
there is no agreement. Opinions ventured in this 
sphere can only be tentative and modest. 

(1) It .seems probable that the Matthpean Login 
was used in a Greek form, indeed in differing Greek 
forms, by both the First and the Third Evangelists.* 
If the same Greek form of the Logia was used by 
both, the one or the other (or perhaps both) has 
introduced a remarkable series of changes in con- 
tent, arrangement, and wording which it would 
be difficult to explain. A much more probable 
supposition is that the Mattlu-ean L^ogia was 
variously translated into Greek,\ in whole or in 

* See Wendt. Lehre Jesu, i. 52, 53 ; Jiilicher, Einleilung t. d. 
XT', p. 219 ; Wernle, Sympt. Frage. pp. 79. 80 ; Hawkins, Hora; 
'Ji/noplicce (1899), p)i. 88-92 ; J. Weiss, Preditit Jem ivm Reiche 
(?(»((ps2(1900), pp. 179-182. That the same Greek form of the 
Lofjin was usfd bv both the First and Third Evangelists is 
maintained by O. Holtzmann, Leben Jptni (1901), pp. 22-24. 

t Kee Peine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Thcologie, 1885, p. Iff. 

much influence such outside sources had upon their 
reports it would he difficult to determine — perhaps 
it was considerable. 

(3) We need to allow for a fair amount of editorial 
selection, arrangement, adaptation, and revision 
on the part of our two authors. Luke (1'"*) has 
given us important information concerning his 
material, purpose, and method ; and the I'"irst 
Evangelist probably wrote under similar condi- 
tions. As they gathered their sources, they foun<l 
themselves in possession of three classes of sayings 
from Jesus — (n) brief sayings still joined to specific 
events of His ministry, and which they could in 
part arrange in their right order ; (b) the remains 

* The First Gospel of our NT Canon is neither the Matthaean 
Logia itself, which was in Aramaic (Eusebius, HE iii. 39. lU), 
nor is it an immediate translation of that Logia, since it does 
not contain the ine\'itable indications of a translated work. The 
Greek Gospel of Matthew is rather a combination of the Logia 
in some mediate Greek form with the Gospel of Mark, plus the 
addition of various portions and characteristics which did not 
belong to either of the original books. However, because it 
substantially incorporated the Logia, it continued to bear the 
Apostle's name. The author of the enlarged Greek edition of 
the original Matthew work is unknown. On this matter see 
the works on NT Introduction by B. Weiss, H. Holtzmann, 
Jiilicher. Zahn, Salmon, and others ; also Commentaries on the 
Gospel of Matthew. 



of certain of Jesus' greatest discourses, contniiiinj; 
the tliciiie and some of the essential matter helunK- 
in;,' thereto ; these also could generally he assigned 
to their projier places in the history ; (') small 
sections of teaching or single sayings, the original 
connexion of which was no longer known ; these 
would be inserted here an<l there in the narrative 
without particular attachment, or w<iuld be asso- 
ciated with the nuclei of the great discourses 
wherever the subject of the one was similar to 
that of the other. Such com|)ilati<in would pro- 
duce the phenomena of extranetms material w liich 
we find in both accounts of the Sermon, as well as 
in other discourse sections of both Gospels. When 
the material of his (Jospel had been arranged 
Siitisfactorily by the author, it remained for him 
to adjust the several parts to each other, to smooth 
over the joints by his literary skill, and in various 
ways to give the book a unity and linisli such as 
an author would desire for his work. 

(4) In view of the fact that the Gospels were 
written for the practical use of the Christians in 
their life and worship, the Evangelists felt at 
liberty to make such a selection and presentation 
of tlic (Jospcl facts and teachings a,s would be most 
acccptalilc and \iscfnl to the circles of (■liristiaii> 
for whom their books were prepared. Each Gospel 
therefore ha.s a marked individuality. -Matthew, 
in accordance with his puri>ose, dwells at length 
ui>on the relation of Jesus and His mess.age to the 
Hebrew Scriptures and the current Judaism. Hut 
Luke, or his source, with a Gentile iiuldic in mind, 
passes over this material in the mam ami jirosents 
the (iospel in its universal aspects as a spiritual 
and altruistic rcligicm for all min. These charac- 
teristics of the Eirst and TliinI Gospels appear 
strikingly in their respective accounts of the Sermon 
on the Mount. 

The a( companying diagram aims at giving some 
suggestion of the general C(mrse of transmission 
of the Sermon, .iiiil of the kind of sources which 
each Evangelist may have had before him in pre- 
jiaring his report of the discourse. 

4. Hklativk Authenticity of the two Ac- 
counts. — Proceeding now upon the view which 
has been elaborated, that the two discourses con- 
tained in Mt 5-7 and Lk e-'""^" are variant rejiorts 
of one historical Sermon on the Mount, it becomes 
an important consideration which of the two 
reproduces the Sermon with the greater complete- 
ness and accuracy. The quoition is as to their 
relative excellence, for the phenomena of the 
accimnts and the vicis.situdes of transmission show 
that neither the Eirst nor the Third Gospel has 
)K)-fi'tlij reprixluced the content and wording of 
the original discourse. 

In content, Matthew lia.s much more Luke 
of that material which is commonly recognized as 
having been an essential portion of the Sermon, 
namely, Mt o'"-' 6'"'- '"""' ; comjiare with this Lk 
6-'"'"-"- -^"". Luke or his source omitted most of 
this section, apparently on the ground that it was 
inapplicable to the Gentiles, for whom the account 
was prepared.* This omission was perhaps justi- 
fiable for the practical of a Gospel, 
although innumerable Gentiles ever since Luke's 
day have preferred the Sermon of the Eirst Gospel, 
as we now do ; but however that may be, from a 
historical point of view such an extensive omission 
could leave only a seriously incomplete account of 
the discourse. The further section of the Mattha-an 
discourse (6'"**) may or may not have been a part of 
the historical Sermon ; opinion is quite evenly 
divided upon this point, and there seems no eon- 

* So B. Weiss, MeyerKcmm. ii. d. itattectfm. p. 163 ; Wendt, 
Lshre Jem, i. 58; I'lmiiiiier, Cowui. on Liike. ji. ls;l ; Wt-rnlc, 
Sipiopt. Fraqe, p. Ul' ; Ua<:on, StniuiH on Uu ilouiil (1902), l>p. 
30-30 ; and most other ucholory. 

elusive evidence either way. The fact that Luke 
places this material in lii-'^', where it has a topical 
connexion with what precedes it (12'"-'), suggests 
another occjision, although that occasion is not 
chronologically located by Luke. On the other 
hand, if the theme of the Sermon is found in the 
Beatitudes rather than in the verses Mt 5"-^, this 
passage, which inculcates devotion to the Kingdom 
and trust in God, is germane, and marks the dis- 
course as more than an anti-1'liarisaic manifesto. 
Eor the present, at least, one may prefer to regard 
this section as belonging to the Sermon. In this 
case Luke's account of the Sermon, which conttiins 
nothing of this portion, is again strikingly inconi- 
|>lete. * The linal section of the .Mattlncan discourse 
(7'-") has been preserved with .some fulness by 
Luke (C^'-''-'), varying less than the two iireccding 
se<:tions from the Mattluean account. It will 
ajipear farther on, that in Ijoth the Matthsean and 
Liikan reports there are some brief extraneous 
jiassayes which cannot have been in the original 
Sermon, such as Mt 5^-^-^'--- «'-"> 7«-ii-2a-^, Lk 
(j3-ai. aa.. -Jii.m. « jj„t ;„ ^]^l^ i^j^,! ^f variation the 
two reports have both expanded the historical 
discourse. Considering the relative contents of 
the Sermon in Matthew and Luke, there can be 
no doubt ((;vcn w.iiving the question of Mt 6'""") 
that the Eirst tiosijcl presents a much more com- 
plete account of the Sermon than that jiresenteil 
by the Third Gospel, t 

* It seems impossible to suppose that I.uke could have ha<l 
before him the ijermun in the fonn in whicli it now appeant m 
the First Gospel. This is also the opinii.ii ..( \\\-niU- (Sun.. i,r. 
/Vojc, p. JiO), bartlet (art. Mattiikw 111 ^ ! Hi i, o ri 1- n, . nn, 

(Lfben Jam, 1901, p. 21), and (.1 H.n,,, ,l 

llcinrici says the two reports of M;iiihi I I i, 

structions of a discourse restomi iini. p. 1 ii^ i \l..tnj. w 
and Luke rather than in dcpriKl II < i.| , n ' i . t ..r upon 

the same written source.' Tin I. ir_ , I ri i. a ikcdtheir 

material, but that alone cai i ' ]■■■' i< i h n m > mi of the 

two accounts. Would Luke li:i\ ■ .li li.ini. \ ir-ktn up a col- 
lection of teachings so usefully j,'n.up(-d as m the .Matthaian 
accounts, and have scattered them so unreasonably through 
seven chapters of his own work? On the other hand, the First 
Evangelist might, so far as the Sennon is concenie<i, have ha«l 
Lukes account before him. His own report was surelv better 
titan Luke's, and so would not be altered into conformity with 
the latter. The general phenomena of the two Gospels, how- 
ever, are a^fainst this particular interrelation, and the pre- 
vailing opinion assigns Matthew's Gospel to a somewhat earlier 
date than Luke's. 

t It is a somewhat difficult matter Ui explain the absence of the 
Sermon from the (Jospels of Mark and .John. The only parallels 
in .Mark to any of the Sermon material are Mk 421. w iW « M 
lull ii-iS; in .John, 1318 (iD-'O). And these sayings are only 
posg'thie patuUels, i.e. they need not have come into the Gospel 
of Mark from accounts o( the Sermon. The opini.jri of Ewalil, 
II. Holtzinann, Keim, and Wittiilun, Unit Mark,i;;\ . n 

tainedtheScniion,bwt thai It lms(li-a)i|..ariil ir II, ' Ii u, il 

work, cannot l>e accepted. Fiirn (./"/'W'. (. !'>■■'■ /' 
ISS.i, p. •)), isiight in holding that .Mark dill .m' h-. ih, -,. ;, , h 
which, containing variant accounts of the discourse, wire usi-d 
by Matthew and Luke independently. It seems quite certain, 
however, that Mark could not have been ignorant of the Sermon. 
If that ilis ■iiuisc iliil nut ajipear in his sotirces, oral and written, 
it iiii:- il ..■ 1m . II 1 . iii-i' lie voluntarily liniitc'd those sources. 
Till- >■ I II II V , -■ ; ill I- too highly valuetl and too widely 

usi'l III I \i I,, iiiliave escaped any careful compiler 

of III. I. I'll M i.iliiha. This would be esp. true of Mark, 

who. It ininmr.Ti i.piniiin is correct, had an ultimate Petrine 
base for much of his material. Is it imaginable that IVter tlid 
not -jive the Sennon a prominent place in his teaching'/ Surely 
MaiK must have known the Sermon. Why, then, diil he omit 
it from his Gospel '( A plausible explanatioii, which may be the 
true one, is this : — 

\Vhen Mark wrote his Gospel. a)x>ut 05-70 A.D., the .Matthuan 
Loijia (in various Greek forms) was in general use ; this lAtgia 
piisHe<l over the narrative material of the story of Jesus, and 
consisted mainly of a collection of Jesus' discon'rses and shorter 
sayings ; it incliidwi the Sermon, although in wliat precise form 
it is very dilHcult to determine - luobably not that in which 
it appears in either of our canonical Gosf>els. Now .Mark's 
tJospel, in striking contrast, reports mnmly the acts and 
events of Jesus' public ministry, giving much less attention 
to the teaching (the longest sections of disi-ourse material 
are in 2'"'^! 34a,io 41.32 ys-is jfr'ii (jW3s iii.suni 1024^1. ss.4S 
1121-20 li 13). Perhaps Mark wished to put into more com- 
plete and pennanent transmission that other side of the 
Gospel story whii'h was ncglecte<l in the Login. If so, it was 
unnecessary for him to repeat the Sennon and certain other 
discourse elements of that work, since he wrote to complete the 



In wording, a like verdict, of superior ext-ellence 
falls to the Gospel of Matthew. Since both 
Gospels contain the discourse in Greek, therefore 
in translation we cannot tind in either of them 
the ipsissimn. verba of Jesus (except for the few 
Aramaic words transliterated, as in Mt 5--). But 
when we ask which Gospel has more accurately 
transmuted into Greek the ideas that Jesus ex- 
pressed in Aramaic, which has more faithfully 
interpreted His meaning in this teaching, there 
are many indications that Matthew gives the 
better record. A complete study of the parallels 
in the two accounts of the Sermon show.^ that in 
almost every instance there is a greater authen- 
ticity in the Matthjean account ; of this a few 
illustration* will suthce. (1) The lirst Beatitude is 
variously worded (Mt 5' /larapcoi oi TrTuix°''- ^V Tri/ev- 
/MTi ; Lk 6-' liaKdpwi oi irTwx"')- It is perhaps true 
that the Lukan form corre.sponds more nearly to 
the Aramaic utterance of Jesus, which may not 
have had a term corresponding to Slatthew's rcf 
vi'fufw.Ti ; the important consideration, however, 
is as to the idea rather than the form. In tlie 
Lukan Beatitude, material poverty is intended, as 
is shown conclusive!}- by the converse woe in 6-^ 
ot'at vfjuy ToU irXoiifflois (woe could not be pronounced 
upon those who were spiritually rich). But in the 
Mattluean Beatitude the ambiguous term nruxoi — 
corresponding to the OT D'i:y (Ps 69", Is 61') and 
D-JV?K (Ps lOg'o, Is 14™), and standing in the LXX 
for those Hebrew words (see art. Poor in vol. iv.), 
with a primary moral and spiritual import— is made 
explicit for the moral and spiritual signification by 
the addition of the phrase ti^ ryevfjuiTi, to protect the 
Beatitude from the material interpretation which 
had made its impress upon Luke's source. Thus 
Matthew has preserved Jesus' original meaning of 
tlie first Beatitude (perhaps at the expense of its 
form) ; of course it is the meaning rather than the 
form that is of value. (-2) In Mt 5"-'* = Lk 6'=*' 
tliere are many indications of the secondary char- 
acter of Luke's material : Mt S'" does not appear; 
the idea of lending (LkG"''-^^) is a disturbing im- 
portation ; instead of reXUvai Luke has afj.apTo>\al ; 
.Mt5"'™is given in a non-Jewish form — (aeirde viol 
'Tif/itTTov instead of 5irujs yivTjffde viol tov irarpos vfiuitf 
TOU iv ovpanU ; Mt 5'''''' does not appear, nor the 
term oi ((hiKoi of Mt 5" ; and the reminiscence of 
Dt 18''' in Mt 5''" e<Tej$e . . . riXeLOi is replaced by 
a non-Jewish and much weaker ylveaSe oUTlppLovcs. 
That is to say, Luke's account lacks the Palestinian 
setting, the local colour, the Jewish phrases, and 
the or allusions, besides introducing an extraneous 
practical element. (3) A similar practical addition 
or expansion of Mt 7^'' may be seen in Lk 6*' ; 
a true teachin;;, but foreign to the context. 
Similarly Lk 6«. (4) In the Mt 7'- and Lk 6-"i 
forms of the ' Golden Rule ' (quoted above), the 

current record of Christ's life, not to produce a new Gospel 
which should antiquate find supersede the Logia. This appears 
also in the fact that the present Greek .Matthew combines prob- 
ably the Matthffian Loffia with the Gospel of Mark (plus some 
additional matter) into a quite extensive account of the life 
of Christ. What makes this theory somewhat unsatisfactory 
is the fact that no small amount of Jesus' sayings actually con- 
tained in Mark's Gospel was in all probability present in the 
Logia, e.g. Mk 4i-2» 83+38 91.39-50 12; but perhaps an explana- 
tion for this can be found. At any rate, the problem of Slark's 
omission of the Seniion cannot yet be considered solvecL 

As for the absence of the Sermon from the Gospel of John, the 
entire character of that hook offers a probable reason for its 
omibdion. The author has distinctly chosen not to reproduce 
Synoptic material, but to make a Gospel with different contents, 
and setting forth Gospel truth in a different way. That he passes 
over the Sermon is, therefore, not at all due to his ignorance of 
the discourse, but to his motive, according to which he passes 
over all the Synoptic discourses (Mt 5-7. 10. 13. 18. 21-25, Lk 6. 
10-21), and most of the narrative matter as well. Nor did he, 
in passing by all this, wish his readers to regard that part of the 
Gospel stor.v as unhistorical or unessential. He chose to treat 
a particular phase of Christ's life and personality— what he 
probably considered the highest phase. This Gos*pel was de- 
signed to illumiae, not to supersede, the others. 

Matth;ean wording approves itself as being a better 
reproduction of what we may understand Jesus 
to have said ; the Matthaean phrase oiro^ yap 4itlv 
6 vb^wi Kal ol Trpo(p7JTaL is absent from the Lukan 
account on the constant principle of expunging 
Jewish elements. (5) The same principle explains 
the significant difference of wording in Mt /■' 
{ov xds 6 Xiytijf fioi Ki'-pte Kvpie eiffeXeuaerat els tt]i- 
fiaaiXflav Tujy ovpavCjv, aXX 6 Troidv t6 diXrj/xa tou 
Trarpbs p.ov tov iv roU ovpavoh) = Lk 6"*^ (W Si p.€ KaXctrf 
Ki'/pie Kvpie, Kal ov irOidTe A Xiyui ;). (6) It is obvious 
in a comparison of the Matth.Tan and Lukan 
accounts (quoted above) of the closing parable of 
the Sermon that the Palestinian colour and the 
vivid picturesqueness of the story as given in the 
Kirst Gospel do not appear in the commonplace, 
secondary expressions of the Third. (7) To these 
six illustrations from the parallel reports of the 
Sermon must be added the twofold account of the 
Lord's Prayer (Mt 6»-'° = Lk IP-"), which is discussed 
below (under ii. 4 A), and most strikingly shows the 
relative merits of the Matthivan and Lukan reports 
of .Jesus' teaching. It is not to be denied that the 
MatthiTean form may be somewhat exiiaiuletl from 
the original Aramaic ; but this has to do with form 
rather than with substance, and the expansion is 
in the interest of the true interpretation of the 
Prayer. Here, also, we note (see the two accounts 
quoted above) the .absence from Luke of the Jewish 
phrases which speak of God as in heaven, and of 
His ' will ' as supreme. The comprehensive and 
deeply ethical and spiritual term oi^eiXij^ara of 
Matthew is replaced in Luke by the conventional 
term afiapTlas. And the petition for deliverance 
from evil, a characteristically Jewish conception, 
is expunged. 

It cannot be doubted that the strong Jewish 
element and Palestinian colour of Matthew's dis- 
course actually perv.aded Jesus' te.acliiug as origin- 
ally given. Jesus was a Jew, and spoke to Jews 
only ; His language and His ideas were therefore 
Jewish and adapted to Jews. There is no room 
for a theory that this feature was a subsequent 
artificial transfusion of Judaism into the teaching 
of Jesus. But it is easy to see how just this 
feature was eliminated from His teaching in the 
course of the Gentile mission. The Gentiles neither 
understood nor liked the Jews, with their peculiar 
notions and exclusive ways. In order, therefore, 
to make the Gospel acceptable to them, the Chris- 
tian missionaries thought it necessary to univer- 
salize the language of Jesus. This has clearly 
been done in the case of Luke's account of the 
Sermon, possiblj' by himself,* but more likely by a 
long process of elimination, through which the 
material had passed on the Gentile field whence 
Luke drew his sources for the Third Gospel. It is 
possible thiit portions of the original Sermon which 
were too strongly Jewish to remain in that position 
found their way into Luke's Gospel apart from 
that discourse, and with the Jewish colouring 
removed. Perhaps this is the expLanation of the 
variant position of Mt6"*-^ = Lk 12^-"^', since the 
same kind of elimination of the Jewish element is 
apparent here, e.g. to. -weTeiva tov ovpavov is repl.aced 
by Tot'S KjpaKas ; 6 iraTrjp vp^Civ b ovpdvios is replaced 
by 6 ffeis, note the peculiar addition in Lk 12-" ; to. 
idvTj is replaced by iravTa to. idvij tou KoapLou (a clear 

* Bacon, Sermon on the ^fount (1902), p. 109 f., says : ' It was 
indeed, from the standpoint of the historian of Jesus' life and 
teaching, a disastrous, almost incredible mutilation to leave out, 
as our Third Evangelist has done, all the negative side of the 
teaching, and give nothing but the commandment of minister- 
ing love toward all. We can scari;ely undei-stand that the five 
great interpretative antitheses of thenewlawof conduct toward 
men versus the old [Mt 521-W], and the three corresponding 
antitheses on duty toward God [Mt 6'-i»], could have been 
dropped in one form of even'the oral tradition ' ; but the Third 
Evangelist has done this in order to ' concentrate the teachinjf 
upon the simple affirmation of the law of love.' 



alteration to remove the liispnru^injj reference to 
tlie dcntiles' love for niaten.'il weiiltli and power); 
a;;ain, tlie absence of i ovpdnos in I.k 12^ ; ami the 
absence of tiji- Sixaiocvi'rii' atroD (a technical Jewish 
term) from Lk Ivf". There would seem, therefore, 
to lie no room for (incstion that, historically con- 
si<lered, the Sermon as ;;ivcn by Matthew is of 
much ^.reater autlicnticily than the Sermon of 
Luke, since it has better preserved the actual 
contents of the historical discourse, its theme and 
development, its Jewish elements, its Palestinian 
colour, and the true interiiretation of its sayings ; 
and, in addition to these merits, the Matthivan 
account has a CJreek style of lii|,'licr literary skill 
and linish. In this preference for the Matthu-an 
report of the Seruion nearly all scholars are now 

Hut this relative superiority of tire account in 
the First tkispel does not mean its nbsolnte authen- 
ticity. This account is still but a series of excerpts 
from the historical Sermon, marred by the inci- 
dents of Ion-; transmission, showin}; the inevitable 
ell'ccts of the process of tram-laticin, and containing 
certain passages which originally belonged to other 
occasions (see below). Even in some cases we are 
uncertain whether the ideas themselves of Jesus 
are not misrepresented by the wording of Mt 5-7. 
Two instances about winch there has been ranch 
dispute may be mentioned. In Mt S'"- '" the 
peculiar tone of Jewish literalness has led many 
scholars to postulate a Judaistic-Christian colour- 
ing of Jesus words in these verses, since they seem 
quite foreign to His anti-literal utterances and 
spirit. Evciy explanation of tlwiii as coming in just 
this sense from .Ksii^ is br>i>i willi dillicnlties, and 
fails to salisly i-.jiiiplctily i see under ii. -Ic). Again, 
in Mt 5^- we lind a most signilicanl addition to the 
teaching of Jesus concerning divorce. This saying 
probably belongs to the occasion with which it is 
a.s.sociated in Mt lO'"'-, where it is repeated. In 
both the Mattha'an instances we have the exceptive 
phrase irapfKrit \uiov TropvfLat (/irj fVi Topvelif), which 
IS not found in the other Synoptic parallels, Mk 
10", Lk 16". A serious tjuestion is involved con- 
cerning the permissibility of divorce. The phrase 
is rejected as a later interpolation by many of the 
best modern scholars (see under ii. 4 rl). 

But if we cannot think of the Sermon in Matthew 
as presenting an absolutely authentic account of 
that historical discourse, we may yet feel much 
certainty that it contains many essential teachings 
from that iliscourse with substantial trustworthi- 
ness. In the Evangelists' reports of the Sermon 
we have not coniidete historical accuracy, but 
practical adequacy. 

5. I'ltESENT Tkxt of TE!E Di.scourse. — The text 
of the Sermon as it tinally took form in the First 
and Third (Jospels has come down to us through 
the centuries with less variation than might have 
l)een expected ; it is in excellent condition. The 
numl)er of variations is not many hundred, and few 
of them are of special importance. The Textus 
Keceptus of the IGlh cent, (and therefore the AV 
of Itjll A.D.), compared with the text given us by 
the great uncials of the 4th-6th cents., shows here 
as elsewhere numerous elements of assimilation, 
emendation, revision, and variation ; but these 
h.ive been excludcil in the critical texts of the 
modern editors, Wcsteott and Hort, Tischendorf, 
the English Ueviscrs, and others. The most con- 
spicuous changes arc the dropping out of words 
and which have been imp(nted into the 

• The constJint preference shown b^' H. IlolCzniann, Wendt, 
and a few others for the Lukan account of the Sermon aa 
a^fainnt that of Matthew ij), in view of these considerations, a 
mistake. It is not a true historical criticism to eliminate from 
the records of Jesus' teaf^hing as much as |)ossible of the char- 
a^'teri^tic Jewish element, or to give the plai:e of honour to the 
briefer and more fnifpnentary of two parallel accounts. 

text of one Gospel to assimilate its readings to the 
text of the other, and the literary ' improvements ' 
which the scribes have introduced. The variation? 
which are of importance for interpretation will be 
treated in their respective i)laces below. 

ii. lXTEni'nh:TAriijS.—X\\ study of the origin 
.•md transmission of the Sermon on the Mount is 
but a prejiaration for its interpretation, just as all 
stuily of its interpretation is but a preparation for 
its practice, liotli lines of preparation are essential 
if till' tiailiing is to be understood historically and 
comprehensively, and is to be applied truly and 
thoroughly. Surely the untrained English reader 
can hnd through the Sermon the spiritual assurance 
and strength which he needs, and an ideal of life 
which can determine his conduct in the limited 
sphere in which he thinks and acts ; the gospel is 
for all, and essentially intelligible to all, rather 
than the exclusive possession of the educated few 
(as is the case with intellectual systems of theology, 
|iliilo.sophy, ethics, and the like). But when the 
Sermon is used — as it can and should be used — to 
illumine the great problems of religion, of morals, 
and of society, every resource of spiritual capacity, 
mental ability, and the acquisition of learning 
should be brought to bear upon this supreme 
teaching of Christ, in order that it may exert its 
due and jiroper intluence upon the world. 

1. Poi'ui,.AK, Gnomic, and Figurative .Style. 
— Interpretation must take full account of the 
literary style in which Jesus chose to expres.s 
Himself. That style, as seen in the Sermon on 
the Mount and throughout the Synoptic tJospels, 
was distinctly popular and Oriental. Too often 
Jesus' teaching has been handled as though it 
were a systematic, scientific treatise on theology 
and ethics, whose expressions were littingly to be 
subjected to laboratory test, each element to be 
exactly determined by linely-graduated measuring- 
rod or delicate weighing-scales. No greater mis- 
take could be made, and the results so obtained 
must be hopelessly incorrect and perverse. Micro- 
scopic analysis is a radically wrong process to be 
applied to Jesu.s' teachings. For He chose to 
de;il with the masses, and His ideas were expressed 
in language which they could hear and consider. 
If at times He disputed with the learned men of 
His nation, and in doing so in part adojited their 
dialectical method (see the .lohannine discourses), 
still this was not His main interest or His chief 
lield of work. The common people were open- 
minded and receptive : to them, therefore. He 
addressed His teaching. It was to the GaliUcans 
that He gave Himself and His message, while in 
Jerusalem and elsewhere He had to defend both 
against the hostile leaders. 

As He taught the multitudes, in their syna- 
gogues, upon the highways, along the seashore, 
ami on tlie hillsides of (i.-ililee. He put His re- 
ligious truths and ethical inimiples into concrete 
popular sayings, contrasting His ideal of life in 
many simple ways with the conventional notions 
and practices, and illustrating His teaching 
from the ordinary avocations, experiences, and 
environment of His hearers.* Entirely free from 
schola-sticism and intellectualism. He did not tell 
the how and why of things, nor present scientilic 
dclinitions, nor deal in abstractions; but with 
Divine wisdom and skill He taught those things 

• One readin-; should be gi^■en to the Sennon in Mt 5-7 with 
no other intent than to note Jesus' remarkably fine and 
abundant allusions to things around Him- religious practices, 
ethical conceptions, commerce, industries, agriculture, ^uimals, 
plants, home life, house furnishings, civic institutions, social 
customs, the conduct of men, human needs, fortune, and 
misfortune. His obser\'ation and appreciation of cver>thing 
was unequalle<l, and the relative valuation which He placed 
upon things was the true norm of all sul»equent judgment. 
No poet — not even Shakespeare — has seen so clearly, felt s-j 
truly, or pictiu*e<l 80 perfectly the hearts and lives of men. 




which it is essential for all men to know. The 
religious facts and trutlis which He presented form 
the foundation of Christian theology, and His 
instruction concerning human conduct must lie at 
tlie root of any true system of etliics ; but He did 
not teach these subjects in the manner of the 
ancient or modern schools. He put His ideas in 
such a way as to make His knowledge universal. 
He spoke with a simplicity, insight, and fervour 
which would appeal to all serious listeners. 

It was a part of Jesus' method to use all kinds 
oi figuratiiK language. That was natural to Him 
as an Oriental, and by no other means could He 
have reached the Orientals who formed His audi- 
ences. Similes, metaphors, all kinds of illustra- 
tions, parables, hyperbolical expressions, were 
constantly upon His lips.* We have constantly to 
be on our guard against interpreting literally 
what He has spoken figuratively, t The Sermon 
presents the true righteousness, the ideal human 
life, popularly and j)ractically portrayed and en- 
joined. To treat this teaching as scientific ethics 
is to produce confusion. But to draw frojii it the 
essential principles of ethics is to find light and 
peace for mankind. 

Many of Jesus' utterances, especially in this 
discourse, are of the gnomic type in poetic form — 
a style so efl'ective in the Wisdom literature of the 
OT and Apocrypha. The wise men of Hebrew 
history, particularly after tlie LJabylonian exile, 
put into this attractive literary dress their crystalli- 
zation of experience, their philosophy of life, their 
instruction for conduct and practical atl'airs. This 
was a favourite style of teaching with the Jews — 
a fact that was at once the cause and the motive 
for Jesus' adoption of it. As a literary mode of 
expression, Jesus used the gnome, as He used 
the parable, with consummate art.J Even the 
translation of these sayings into a radically dif- 
ferent language has not destroyed their literary 
finish, rhythm, and symmetry, e.ff. the Beatitudes, 
the Lords Prayer, and many other passages in 
Mt 5-7. The simplicity, lucidity, and energy of 
Jesus' utterances mask the art with which they 
were fashioned. Not that we are to conceive of 
Jesus as labouring over His literary productions 
t<j bring them to perfection, but that ideal thought 
intuitively found ideal expression. Jesus' supreme 
interest was assuredly not in mere letters, but in 
the truth He taught. Yet this included the vital 
lodgment of the truth in the minds and hearts of 
men, and to tliis end the language in which He 
clothed His teaching was of great importance. 
The uniqueness of Jesus manifests itself in the 
ability to present His teaching acceptably and 
effectively, as well as in His perfect insight into 
the truth itself. 

* Metaphorically, Jesus calls the disciples the salt of the earth 
and the light o( the world (Mt 513- U). Symbolically, He com- 
mands the plucking out of the right eye (529). Figuratively, 
He speaks of the mot€ and beam (7^^), of the pearls before 
swine (?*>), of the narrow way (713- !■»), of the false prophets (71^), 
of the tree and its fruits (75'^-'-*X He gives the parable of the 
Two House-builders (72^27)^ And most dilficult of all to interpret 
correctly, we have His hj-perbolical utterances, in which He 
says more than He means, setting forth a principle rather than 
a rule of conduct, and leaving its application to the judgment 
of men. Such are the four famous ' non-resistance ' injunctions 
(539-42), and the sayings concerning the secrecy of benevolence 
(63), praver in the closet only (66), anxiety for the necessaries of 
life (62o- »«), answers to prayer (7'f), and the ' Golden Rule ' (712). 

t See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 74-112 ; Tholuck, Bcrgrede^, p. 
lC9ff. [ p. 165 f.]. 

I See Heinrici, Berqpredigt, i. l!>-26 ; Kent, Wise Men of 
Ancient 1 si-ael ^ (1S99), pp. 176-201; Briggs, 'The Wisdom of 
Jesus the Messiah ' in Expomtory Times, 1897, viii. 393-8, 462-5, 
492-6, i-x. 69-75. Dr. briggs says: 'Jesus put His wisdom in 
this poetic form for the reason that Wisdom had been given in 
the artistic form of gnomic poetry for centuries, and was so used 
in His time. If He was to use such Wisdom, He must use its 
forms. Jesus uses its stereotyped forms, and uses them with 
such extraordinary freshness, fertility, and vigour that His 
Wisdom transcends all others in its artistic expression' (viii. 

But not only was Jesus the true successor of the 
OT sage. The Hebrew prophets also gave their 
messages in remarkably line literary form, as in 
the Psalms, Isaiah, and Amos. And the prophetic 
utterances of Jesus, too, were clothed in language 
full of beauty, fire, and force. Indeed, Jesus was 
more a projihet than a sage. * He taught not so mucli 
as a philosopher of this life ; rather, as a seer who 
has a vision of a higher life which is to be produced 
in men. Jesus' earnestness and tempered zeal in 
His teaching were more persuasive and searching 
than the fervour of any preceding prophet of truth 
and righteousness. In tlie Sermon on the Jlouiit 
He showed men the ideal life, but that was not all 
— He strenuously urged them to attain it. They 
must forthwith do the will of God which He had 
ni.ade plain to them (Mt 7'-'"-"). Active love, self- 
denial, and service He fixed as absolute require- 
ments for those who would be members of the 
kingdom of God. In these utterances the voice of 
the true prophet is heard proclaiming God's will 
and demanding that 'justice roll down as waters, 
and righteousness as an everflowing stream' (Am 
5-^). Jesus was both wise man and prophet, but 
greater than either and greater than both ; and 
never greater than in the Sermon on the Mount, 
where He immeasurably surpassed every lawgiver, 
seer, and sage. It is with this supreme apprecia- 
tion of Jesus and His tciichiiig that one should 
enter upon the specific interpretation of His words 
in Mt 5-7 and the Lukan parallels. 

2. Effect of the Translation into Greek. — 
In view of the fact that we have Jesus' words only 
in a translation (the original of which has probably 
p.assed out of existence), it will be always a wise 
proceeding to attempt to reproduce the Aramaic 
form of the words of Jesus wliich have come down 
to us only in Greek. By this process, even though in it can be only partial, an atmosplnre 
for interpretation is obtained, and shades of mean- 
ing are disclosed which would otherwise escape 
us. Unless we get back into the Semitic world to 
which Jesus belonged and in which He worked, 
we can never completely understand Him or His 
teaching. It is therefore a proper and useful 
undertjiking upon which a number of excellent 
scholars are now engaged, t to restore by conjec- 
ture the original Aramaic of Jesus' words. Some 
of the results already reached are of importance, 
and still greater things may be expected of it in 
the future. It is likely that to some extent the 
variant vocabulary in the Greek of parallel Gospel 
passages can be explained as the result of trans- 
lation, a single Aramaic term being represented in 
the several translations by two or more synonym- 
ous Greek words. 

A thorough study of the Septuagint in close 
comparison with the Hebrew text, showing how 
translators actually put Hebrew into Greek, gives 
a valuable insight into method, and furnishes 
criteria for judging of the Aramaic original behind 
the Greek of our Gospels. Various degrees of 
literal and free rendering of the Aramaic can be 
seen in our two accounts of the Sermon on the 
Mount. Sometimes the translators have been 
unable to find exact Greek equi\alents for the 
Aramaic words : sometimes they have imperfectly 
comprehended, and therefore have failed exactly 
to reproduce, the Semitic ideas ; sometimes they 

* See this view defended by J. Weiss, Predigt Jem voin 
Reiche Gottes- (1900), pp. 53-57, against Wellhausen, Israel- 
itische u. Jiidische Gcschichte^ {1697), ch. 24. 

t See Resch, Lofiia Jesu (1898), who endeavours to recon- 
struct in Hebrew the Matthaean Logia, which he regards as the 
primary source for the material of the Synoptic Gospels ; sug- 
gestive' for this study is his reconstruction of the Sermon on 
the Mount, pp. 19-29. Further, Marshall, artt in Expositor 
(1891-2); Dalman, »'orteJem(. i. (1898); E A. Abbott, Clue: A 
Guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture (1900); Nestle, SK 




have placed a current interpretation upon Jesus' 
saying's; suinetinies tliey )iave cxpandcii t lie sayings 
as tliey put tliem into (Jreek to remove; uinlii^'uity, 
or to improve the literary form. 'Ihise ami ollii-r 
inevitable phenomena of translation appear in this 
discourse of the First and Tliird tiospels, and must 
be adequately dealt witli in an exposition of its 

a. Thkmk of the Discoun.sK .\nd its Devei.op- 
MKNT. — It is the unanimous opinion of all students 
of the Sermon on the Mount (whether they regard 
its contents as original or compiled), that the 
discourse as it appears in Mt 5-7 and l^k ti"-*" lias 
a real unity, i)resentiug a delinite theme and 
developing it logically and etlectively. If an 
actual discourse of Jesus constitutes the nucleus 
of these accounts, the unity of the Sernuin is 
original with Jesus, notwithstanding the presence 
of certain extraneous material in the Gospel 
reports. I5ut, even on the supposition that there 
was no historical Sermon, still the unity of this 
discourse in Matthew and Luke remains, and is to 
be attributed to the sources used by the Evangelists, 
or to the Evangelists themselves. We have seen 
good reason, however, for holding that the Sermon, 
as it comes down to us, rests upon a real event 
and contains excerpts from a great discourse of 
Jesus, whose theme and development are here pre- 
served. What the theme is must be carefully 
considered. There are diMering shades of opinion 
and various statements on this point. The crucial 
question seems to be: Is the theme of the dis- to be found in the Heatitudes (Mt 5^"'- = 
Lk ()-"•-") or in the verses about the fullilment of 
the Law(Mt5''--')? 

If the theme lies in Mt 5"™, as is maintained 
by some,* several conclusions must follow. (1) The 
licatitudes, given both in Matthew and in Luke as 
the beginning of the discourse, are extraneous 
matter brought in from some other connexion, or 
are merely introductory, containing no essential 
element of the discourse. (2) The account in Luke 
omits the very verses of the discourse which con- 
tain the theme, since Mt 5''-" has no parallel in 
Lk e-""*" ; yet Luke's discourse has a tlienie, and 
an excellent one, in the promulgation of a perfect 
life of patience, trust, love, service, and oliedience. 
(3) To find the theme in Mt 5''"-" is to make the 
discourse an apiilogetical one, in which Jesus was 
defen<ling Himself iigMinst the charge of destroying 
the or What follows, however, in 5-'"^" is 
not at all in accordance with this conception, for 
Jesus' teaching in these verses abrogates the OT 
Law in some points, and in other points supersedes 
it by a higher ideal of thought and conduct ; in 
other words. He is here showing how little rather 
than how much He has in conmion with that legal 
system — He criticises rather than defends it. (4) 
Or, the theme in Mt 5""-'" may call for a polemical 
<lisc<i\irsc iij condemnation of the perverse Pharisaic 
interpretation of the OT Law. But the occasion of 
this discourse did not suggest or make appropriate 
a polemic against Pharisaic conceptions any more 
than a defence of Himself against Pharisaic 
charges. If we can tr\isl Luke to have given us 
the stibstantially correct si'tting of the Sermon, it 
was an address to the (lalihran multitude who 
followed .lesus, eager to hear His words, Avell dis- 
posed towards Ilim, and many of them already 
His professed disciples. Jesus had just formally 
chosen twelve men to assist Him in His work, 
which was now a.s.suming the character aiul ])ro- 
portions of a new religious movement. At this 
juncture a discourse of a ncqativi: (|uality, apolo- 
getical or polemical, would liave been unsuitable 
and unwise. The occasion called for a positive, 
comprehensive setting forth of what this new 
* H. Holtzmann, Ibbcken, B. Weiss, Wcntit. 

religious movement aimed to accomplish, for what 
it practically stood. (5) Finally, to take the 
theme from Mt o""-'" makes it impossible to lind 
any place in the for the greater part of 
the nuiterial contained in Mt 5-7, since the great 
sections 5^'" G'"-^ 7' ■'' have no logical relation to u 
defence against the charge of destroying the t)T 
Law, or a polemic against the Pharisaic interpreta- 
tion of it. 

These considerations point strongly towards 
another theme for the Sermon. Where should 
one look for that theme but in the Hrst section, 
in the Heatitudes themselves? They present the 
ideal life in character and conduct, the true 
righteousness over against current shallow and 
perverse conceptions of righteousness. This, then, 
IS the tnie theme of the Sermon on the Mount, 
because: (1) It stands, where the theme should, 
at the head of the ('2) It is the theme 
which both Matthew and Luke Kx for the dis- 
course, and the only theme which is common to 
both accounts of the Sermon.* (3) This theme 
includes the section alK)ut the Law, Mt 5''"^, with 
the Jewish allusions contained in its logical de- 
velopment in 5-'*' 6'"'", as one of several elements 
in the discourse, which therefore Luke or his source 
can omit without radically changing the thought 
of the Sermon. In this feature of the section the 
ideal life of Jesus' conception is painted against 
the background of the Pharisaic conception ; and 
not with an apologetical or polemical purpose, but 
as an ell'ective mode of positive instruction. When 
the Cospel story was shorn of this local colouring 
to make it suitable for the Gentiles, the essential, 
universal elements of the teaching were extracted 
and used ; compare Lk 6-''*" with Mt 5-'"". (4) This 
thenie is appropriate to tlie occasion described by 
Luke. There is abundant probability that Jesus, 
at some middle point in the Galihcan nunistry, 
after careful preparation of the people, and to a 
general company of His followers, would under- 
take to set forth somewhat specifically and com- 
prehensively the kind of men and women for whom 
the kingdom of God called ; what it meant in actual 
life to become a member of that kingdom ; the 
kind of righteousness which God required as con- 
trasted with the current scribal teaching. This 
woulil be a delinite theme for a great discourse. 
It would logically involve a characterization of 
ideal character and conduct; a comparison of this 
ideal with the ideal commonly held aniong them ; 
some illu.strations of how this ideal character and 
conduct would manifest themselves in one's atti- 
tude towards (iotl, self, and f(dlow-men ; and, lastly, 
earnest injunctions to the actual attainment of 
this ideal. This is what we have in the Sermon 
on the Mount. And there is in the public ministry 
of Jesus no occasion so suitable for just such a dis- 
course as that of the .appointment of the apostles, 
with which event Luke associates the Sermon. 

Certain scholars hold that this general theme 
of the ideal life, or the true righteousness, unities 
the whole contents of Mt 5-7 so that every verse 
finds a place in its development. On this view the 
Sermon contains no extraneous material, is in no 
degree a comijilation, but, on the contrary, came 
from Jesus exactly in its present contents and 
arrangement.t It does not need to be .said that 
we should all like to think of the Sermon in this 
way, if it were possible. 15ut in the judgment of 

• Luke's fomi of the Beatitudes does not Btiow this ns clearly 
OS Matthew's, but the subsequent material of Luke's discourse 
leaves no doubt that the original ini}K)rt of them was the same 
as of those of the First tJospcl. On other grounds also it 
appears that the Lukan interpretation of the Beatitudes (placed 
upon them probably not by the Kvanpelist but by his source) is 
seriously misconceived. 

t So Stier, Morison, Keil, Kiibel, Steinmeyer, H. Weiss, 
Broadus, Grawert. 




the great majority of NT scholars * two facts are 
decisive against this hjpothesis. (1) Particular 
verses in the two accounts have no logical con- 
nexion with the theme of the discourse and its 
development, e.g. Mt S"^- ^'- ^i- »- G'-i* 7«-"- -• » Lk 
6J4-26. 38a. 39. 40. « ^ doBS Hot mcct the point to 
reply that, since the Gospel reports contain only 
excerpts from the Sermon, abrupt transitions are 
to lie expected. That is true, as we may see at 
Mt 5l■-•l6■48 6l''•'^ Lk6-8-='-^^ But in these cases 
it is possible to discover a thought relation in the 
contiguous sections, although the sections are not 
smoothly joined to one another. In tlie former class 
of passages, however, it is difficult to see any logical 
relation to the theme and discourse as a whole. 
If now it be said that thought connexion need not 
exist throughout the contents, this is to attribute 
to Jesus a mosaic of sayings instead of a discourse, 
which seems very unlikely. (2) The second fact to 
be mentioned is still more certain. Most of the 
material in Matthew which appears to be extrane- 
ous to the discourse has parallels in Luke's Gospel 
outside of his Sermon (see table of parallel passages 
above). Now, if Matthew has right places for 
these verses, Luke has wrong ones. But can it 
be considered probable that the Sermon sliould 
have been preserved so complete as Matthew's 
account in one line of transmission, and should 
have become so disintegrated as Luke's account 
in another ? Would not Luke, who had ' traced 
the course of all things accurately from the first ' 
( Lk V), have discoveretl and obtained for his book 
this far superior account of the Sermon? Again, 
the original historical setting of some of these ex- 
traneous passages in Mt 5-7 is fixed by Luke as 
not in the Sermon but elsewhere. The Lord's 
Prayer is shown by Lk 11' ■■ to have been given 
by Jesus on another occasion in response to a 
specific request from His disciples. The true place 
of the divorce teacliing (Mt 5'"' '-) is established by 
Matthew's own Gospel, in Mt lO^" = Mk lO'-'^ 
where it is germane to the occasion, while in the 
Sermon it interrupts the movement of the dis- 
co\irse.t Similarly, the parable of the blind guid- 
ing the blind, Lk 6^", belongs more likely to the 
position assigned it in Mt 15'*. 

There are, then, some passages in Mt 5-7 and Lk 
gco-jsi ■^vhich did not historically form a part of the 
Sermon on the Mount, but which by a process of 
compilation (either in transmission or as the work 
of the Evangelists) have become associated with 
it. But one cannot be sure just how much ex- 
traneous matter is present in these reports, and the 
question is more difficult in Matthew than in Luke. 
There is much ditlerence of opinion as to the 
amount of compilation, even among those who 
are best qualified to judge. It may be best to in- 
dicate three grades of the material : that which 
probably belonged to the original discourse, that 
about which there is uncertainty (accompanied by 
an interrogation-point in the table), and that wliich 
must be considered foreign addition (marked by 
enclosing brackets). The table that follows is in- 
tended to show the general opinion of scholars 
rather than any individual opinion. 



? S'-''- *> 

[5=' -=2] 

5^3-18 _L]^ g27-30. 32-:M> 

* Calvin, Baur, Strauss, Neander, Tholuck, Wieseler, Kuinol, 
Bleek, Keim, Weizsacker, Godet. Meyer, Bruce, H. Holtzmann, 
Ndsgen, Achelis, Wendt, R Weiss, Ibbeken, VVemle, Jiilicher, 
Ileinrici, Sanday, Bartlet, Bacon, and many others. 

t The parallel passage in Luke is at lifl'^, but this verse and 
the preceding one are both unattached in this position, which 
indicates that they are dislocated ; Itji'' belongs to the original 
fcjermon, but this determines nothing for 16^**, which stands in 
no logical relation to it. 

Mt 6'-8 


?7'- =Lk?0=' 



V 713-15 

V 716-20- •»643. 



^Lk 637. 38b. 41. 42 

721 _ (J46 



[722. 23J 

{ 53. 4. 6. 11. 12 

= Lk 6 







In a problem so important as this of the theme 
and content of the Sermon on the Mount, atkniion 
must be given to the oi^inions of many sdiohirs. 
A brief conspectus of these opinions follows, 
arranged in two groups : those who hold that the 
discourse of Mt 5-7 is a perfect and original w hole, 
and those who regard as extraneous a smaller or 
larger portion of these chapters. 

Morison thinks Mt 5-7 a complete unit, given by JesuB to * the 
constantly increasing multitude of such as took Him to he the 
long promised Messiah, and who wished to be instructed by Him 
as to what they should do in connection with the inauguration 
and establishment of His kingdom' (Comm. on Matthew, new 
ed. 1884, p. 57). — Broadus maintains that the discourse was given 
exactly as in the First Gospel, and that in it Jesus 'sets forth 
the characteristics of those who are to be subjects of this reign 
[of heaven] and share the privileges connected with it, and urges 
upon them various duties. In particular He clearly exhibits the 
relation of His teachings to the moral law, in order to correct 
any notion that He proposed to set the law aside, or to relax its 
rigour, when, on the contrary. He came to inculcate not merely 
an external, but a deeply spiritual morality ' (Comm. on Matthew, 
1886, pp. 83, 84).— Steinmeyer assumes that the Sermon as it 
appears in Matthew 'came from Jesus in this order and in these 
words . . . Righteousness is the glittering thiead which clearly 
runs through the whole discourse from the beginning to the 
end ; this is the idea which constitutes its unity" {Die Rede des 
Herm auf dem Berge, 1885, pp. 10, 20). He makes a threefold 
division of the contents : the longing for righteousness, ch. 5 ; 
the striving for righteousness, ch. 6 ; the attainment of righteous- 
ness, ch. 7.*— Hugo Weiss also defends the integrity of Matthew's 
discourse, and considers it as ' a necessary strand in the de- 
velopment of the Messianic movement. . . . [It contains] a 
characterization of the Messianic kingdom and of the duties 
of its members against a background of Jewish and Gentile 
conceptions of the world, teaching and practice' {hii' Bcrgpre- 
digt Chfisii, 1892, pp. 2, 3).~N6sgen theoretically admits the 
possibility o! the presence of some extraneous verses in Mt 5-7, 
but he does not as a matter of fact discover any. He thinks 
that in the discourse Jesus, as the fulfiller of the Law and the 
Prophets, aims to set forth the moral conditions of obtaining 
membership in the Messianic kingdom which is at hand (Das 
livangelivm iiach Matthcms'^, 1897, p. 54).— Plummer holds that 
Luke's Sermon is a different one from Matthew's, though Luke 
has dropped out of his account the long section Mt 5i7-6i8 as 
inapplicable to his readers. And as to the theme, 'the main 
point in Matthew is the contrast between the legal righteousness 
and the true righteousness ; t in Luke the main point is that 
true righteousness is love" (Comm. on Luke, 180fj, p. 183).— 
Grawert is the latest defender of the complete unity of Mt 5-7 
{Die Bergpredigt nach Matthdus, 1900). The proof of this in- 
tegrity is developed on a new line : the Beatitudes as given by 
Matthew constitute the key to the whole discourse, each Beati- 
tude corresponding to a particular section of these chapters and 
forming Its epitome. He thinks that for this reason the Beati- 
tudes must have stood originally at the close of the Sermon 
instead of at the beginning, so that Mt 513-^6 was the proper 
prologue to the Sermon (pp. 5-8). The eight Beatitudes as they 
now stand In Matthew are in inverse order as compared with 
the material of the discourse, thus: 510 = 511-16, 59 = 5i7'-'6, 58= 
527-37, 57 = 533.48, 56^61-34^ 5& = 71-2, 5-* = 73-5(6), 53=7"11 (p. 66). 
The purpose of the Sermon was 'the consolidation of the 
disciple-group. By this we mean the inner and outer separation 
of the disciples from their former Jewish past, and the establish- 
ment of their new position on the basis of their relation to the 
Lord, and in their actual outer connexion with Him as His 
followers and future messengers of the Kingdom of Heaven ' 
(p. 18). But the discourse has a double character, for it also 
' indicates the point at which Jesus steps forth from His former 
reserve with respect to the ever-increasing hostility of the 
Pharisees and scribes, and engages in open war against them ' 
(p. 18). It was this that made the picking out and the union of 
the disciples a necessity. The occasion of the Sermon, as of the 
appointment of the Twelve with which it was immeiiiately con- 
nected, was the daily increasing labours of the Pharisees against 

* Steinmeyer's anah sis Is entirely formal— it does not char- 
acterize the inaterial. The whole treatment is shallow , uncritical, 
and disappointing. 

t From Plummer's view of Luke's discourse it seems fair to 
conclude that he would hold Matthew's discourse to be practi- 
cally original as it stands. If so, this statement of the theme of 
Mt 5-7 is unsatisfactorv, since the Jewish contrast appears only 
in 517-iS Q,\s. 16-18 71-5, less than one-half of the whole Sermon. 
But this conception of the Sermon is also shown to be inadequate 
by the fact that it lacks the breadth, po'nt, and positiveness 
which the circumstances of the Sermon on the Mount required. 




Jesut) and their persecution of His followers, which callefl out a 
uublic nuuiifetito from .lesua and a positive resistance (p. Si). 
He makes live divisiojH of the Sennon : 5»7-37 63»48 (li W qi»-m 
7* 1' ; the introduction is S'^J'J, and the conclusion T'*-*-'-", while 
the Beatitudes ;»^ ^^ form a r^Miimi' of the whole teaching." 

The compilation view, which sees in the discourses of 
Matthew and Luke a larger or smaller quantity of extraneous 
sayintTH, is held by the jjreat majority of sctiolars. who can be 
represented here by quotations from but a few. Some uienibers 
of this cloiJS have" the same lttr>;e iilea o( the theme of the 
Senuon on the Mount as the seven just named. Godet (Coilfc- 
lion o/ the Four (JottpeU, ami Ihe UoMjtel of MatthfW, iSilM), p. 
1:J5) says that ' the report of this discourse in Matthew is a work 
of a cnnipnsite onler, in which have been combined many 
heten>;;cut>«Mis elements ; but this does not deny that there was 
really a i^n-nt discourse of Jesus.' The passages which he 
thinU<cl ..ritfinallv to other connexions are Mt 57-i'-i- 25. 
I 7(.;, 7 1-1. -Ji.-a (pp. 132-134). The purpose of the 

36. -JU-J 

Scrnion wan 'the installat 
earth by the pn>chini:iti'>M 
able to the holy nature -f 
true members of His |.,.>p 
eousne(*>t im-ulcatrd Im ih- 
of th 

of the true prnple ri (lod on the 

the law, is I 
law has bee 
preterm' (p. 


t>f the 

I »/f 

ISIW) holds lliat u pnmili\f ^.';/i<(« ii..,,uNi ..I l 
essentially sliurteiied bv Luke but larj,'<l> i xp.iin! 
• If we remove the atlditions of our Eviin^i h-i , \ 
of an original discourse which may u<ll i'< »u 
Sermon of Jesus, by reason of itji unity u( llmu; 
protoffue 6112 and "epilogue 7'*27^ ita highly im 
(fiTM^ with the exposition in twice three antitln 
BcrilMiI interprctatian of the law .'.2ir •-Tf. Mf Kt ;i7 

01 ^ 

, lln 

: pi-actice of riKhteouwiiess form the 
leading' point of view and historical motive' (p. 164).^TIn'Iii( k 
(Die Benjrede ChrisH\ 1872 (Knp. tr. from ed.-*. ISdon thinks 
that there is some indication nf cnrnjiilntinn. n^ i^iTtwi]!-^ Mt 
5'J&.Sfi.a9.30o7-lS7l-ll(p. 22), but In -iMt.- |m pp. II .iin^T\ 
any specific possa^fes ; he dcffinl^ i h-' M.ii i li * ;iii |.i'-ii i, .n , .t i hr 
Lo'rd's l»rayer li'-i^ and of tb.' imp^ai .mi u^'' ", .Ir^u-' 
purjwsc in the Scnnon was '(.• r\iiil>ii Himstlf . 
of the law, and to innni i;ii< 
kinpdom.t . . . Toi-xlulu Mn 
Codas the truest fuHilnimi n 
tion of the snportiriiil rili;;n 
(•nii«"se implii-d* (]'|i. 11, l.'i*. T 
throv «huut II .Mri<il\ iirn^rr,.-. 
disappears in Ml ti''' T'' by tin 
{Kxfiositor's (inu-k Tfntam^nt 
theory : the material in Ml &-7 

111. Ma^na Charta of His n. u 
WW tidiiomv of the kinu'l'iiM ^^f 

ilir ul.i; in'thisthecoiKbiiiMu- 
I 111 IMiarisaic Judaism was of 
le Sermon must have contained 
ive train of thought, but this 
fault of the Evangelist.— Bruce 

vol. i. 1897) presents a novel 
-ary assemblage of vari- 

period of instruction. 

teach iri'^ jfiven during 
supiMJsetl that the Beatitudes were given on one day, tear-hir 
concerning pr:i\ er on another day, warning nL-^riiiif ,,\,f..:i^. 
ness on a third day, and so forth. 'As thLH, . i, . m . i ■ , ,,l. 
the various partscohere an<l sympathize wnihl'i i .J , ■ i (.> 

Jiresent the appearance of a unity' (pp. 04. U-i \' ii' ii- i /'"■ 
ienjpredujt, l»7.i) holds that 'the sprcrh i.f Mi .. , is i.. Im- 
regardc<l as a work of compilati"ii, in which Un.- Kt'iiuine 
Senuon of Jesus was combintd with scrtions from other dis- 
courses into a new unitv ' (p. 4'.il). Tlie jiortioii Mt .'>■' <J''' iw the 
at'tual nucleus of the .Sermon, and 71^-'' was the lu-tual close ; 
but the entire i>ortion (iiy-7i- ronsista of extraneous matter 
brought in here from other connexions (p. 400). In this trreat 
'set lH.'fore His disciples the norm and the 
of tlie righteousness of the Kuigdoui of Heaven' (p. 
321).— Wondt {Die Lihre Jem, vol. i. lii8H) regards the speech 
OH in part a compilation, the foreign passages being Mt 5i3 in, 
aj.27.a)b.30 o"-i5-I9^J 7fr'l>920. 2i.23._Feine(^aArfc./. Protext. 

• Grawert's theory is composed of two parts which are not 
interdependent. (1) His analysis of the discourse, parcelling 
out a number of verses to each Beatitude as its epitome, is 
artificial and reaches absurdity when it is forcen to make 
'Blessed are they that mouni' (n*) the epitome of the saying 
about the mote and the beam (7^-^). Certainly the Beatitudes 
contain the essential ideas of the Sermon, which are developed, 
niiuie concrete, and illustrated by the teaching which follows. 
But no su.'h absolute connexion between the Beatitudes and the 
contents of the discourse can he shown as shall guarantee that 
everu veme of Mt 6-7 was a iiart of the original Sennon. Not 
only this, but he has entirely ignored the phenomena of Luke's 
parallel account and the distribution of much of Matthew's 
discounie through chs. 10 14. 10 of the Third Gospel. (2) The 
Conception wbirh Crawert has of the theme, occasion, and ]>ur- 
pose of the .Sermon might as readily be held in conjunction 
with a mil<l eonipilation theory, and unquestionably contains a 
great deal of tnitli. The main objection to it is that it presses 
to an e\(r< ine the idea of the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus and 
His follnwirs at Mi* stafje of the ministry, and postulates a 
much shaqier sejtaration iietwcen the Christian and the Jewish 
adherents than was then at all jtrohable. 

t A similar view concerning the theme of the Sermon is held 
by Baur, Neander, Delitzsch, Ebrard, Ewald, Me\'er, Kostlin, 
Uid Hil^enfeld. 

Theuiof}ie, 188.^1, pp. 1-85) holds firmly to a historical diseounte, 
and reganls the Matthew account as the more authentic, hue 
separaU'8 aH extraneous matter Mt 6l»I«- 18f .0«- a^3J cT ift- itf^w 
70-11. urm.jai. (p. S4). The theme of the Sennon is the true 
righteousness as against the current Pharisaic conceiition and 
practice of righteousness(p. 35).— Itacon {Serifutn on the Mount, 
11K>2) argues stoutl.\' for an actual discourse of Jesus, and defunds 
the account of the First (»o«|h.'1 as the more complete. The por- 
tions which did not originally belong to the Senuon arc Mt 

f,5. 7-10. lJ-16. is. 23-96. 'Jyf. ({7-16. lU-34 70-11. 13-17. ll» 23, He ealls the 

Sermon ' the discourse on the Higher Kightaousness' (p. x), and 
thinks it 'worthy to be calle<l the new I'orab of the Kingdom 
of God' (p. 35). 

H. Holtzmann (Iland-Comm. u. d. Sj/noptiker^, 1802) thinks 
the speech is a work of compilation in totu by the Evangelist, 
whose aim was to furnish an order of life for the new Church 
(p. U9). The theme of the entire discourse is in his opinion 
to he found in Mt .517 20 (p. i();j). -Wcizsacker (-4J:>o^(^ ZeUaUef^, 
iwon also reganls the Sermon as a collection by the Evangelist 
of ] r :i.r^ I 1 1] 'I'l rr. the instruction of the primitive Church 

1 - I M r I i/>iV Bergpredigt, vol. i. HHXJ) similarly 

li 1 I ' I rse as a free composition from scattered 

ill. I , iii_- ( ii'. Ill, 39). As to the theme of the Sermon, 

ilie wli.ile uppe.tir. u-s the Magna Charta of true discipleship 
to Jesus' ^u. 13). — Ibbeken {Die Iterfjitrediat Jem", 1890) 
offers a striking view which calls for careful consideration. 
Acconling to him, the First Gospel was designed throughout to 
show a close parallelism between the events of Israel s history 
and tlie eAents of Jesus' life, as may be seen in the Evangelist's 
atnient of the Infancy Narrative (chs. 1. 2), the Baptit 

«-h. ;i). 


id the Temptation (ch. 4). The 

> the 



rig of I Ih 

■■■\,-^ f.. 


SU9 a multi- 

of all the 

1 betw 

of the l.^w 
7'^ with Ex 
li>3 24i*- 1^). The contents and arrangement of the Sermon^ also 
correspond, Ibheken thinks, with the Sinai law-giving. ~ 
are four chief sections of the Matth:ran arrount : .'■>3-w en 
ing ethical perfection {th' 1^ niitM-l. - ---rrr p .ifIui-: In the Ten 

('oiiiiiian.lmrnts). (0 i-* • r, .,, ,_ ,.. , .,>;ri-the 

hi-best uo.mI. 7' '■■'eon . i:, M ,. il. ■_ i -, ■ i, ■ : nf the 

Kingdom of Heaven; 1ii.i, ; ,, ^^ ,u, .,.,,.... , nt;uning 

earnest warnin-s and ;4Ho.-rMi i-.n^ loU.ul.lul oUed,L-neL- to this 
to decide whether this paral- 
new law-giving was drawn by 
angolist ; ' however many may 
h:i( tyip speech was first put 
I I'i /,'j^ia by the author of 
that Jesus Himself 

,(pi'. I 11). lie dr 

be llie grounds for 1 
Imlt. llierout of the M 
the First Gospel, the 
i,';ive the discourse in 
seems to me to he ui 
Sermon to deternuTie 
in this form, at tins ii: 
first gat 1 1 



understanding of the 

ler Jesus Himself actually gave it 

I ]ilace, or whether the material of 

her by Matthew out of scattered 

single sayings and arranged in this way' (pp. 5, 0).* 

But grantin*^, as seems necessary, that the 
Serniou on tlie Mount, as it comes down to us 
in twofold form, is in some depjree a compilation, 
tliough with tlie nucleus of a historical discourse, 
it is yet possible to recognize that the material as 
it stands in Matthew and Luke has a kind of 
unity, by the consonance of all .Icsus' religious- 
etliical teaching, and by the intelljoent grouping 
of the additional matter within the fnuncwork of 
the actual address. And considering llial in those 
sections of the discourse which art^ ori;;iii;tI wc have 
mere excerpts from the whole, only ;i siuull i)art of 
all that .(esus s;iid in tli;it *'iiocliiiiaking discourse, 
we can still feel coiilidnit that in tlii-se verses the 
theme of the Sermon is before us, and many of the 
essential ideas — a sutticient number to show the 
main development of the theme by Jesus. If an 
* Logically, however, Ihbcken is drivm tn a l.rtirf in the 
entire compilation of tlie .Mattb;e;ui di- in . , n ! 1 ■ ■ m- t.. 

knowledge this on p. 5. It i^^ imi"— ■ ■ h Ijmu 

■■"' ence for the niltrpi. i iH n i n,. >. mmii 
tn is from Jesus or irom i he l■,^ iumeiitil. 
■ a true one, often noted (see II. Hollz- 
Gmlet, op. cit. p. 131), that the First 
iiranging parallels between the events of 
le events of Jesus' life. In this interest 
l.ahly represented a large school of primi- 
tive .irvM-h t iir;-i Lii-^. It is quitc likely that he and they 
found .li.p -i-Niii iii.e in comparing the law-giving by Moses 
with that by t lirisi. There is clearly an important truth in the 
parallelism ; Jesus tmnie to create a second great ep<Mh os Mosca 

that it makes no ditf. 
whetli. ! tiM I x.ll. : 
But hi- . ! ' ' . 

an<t . 

had created a first, and He gave to men a Gospel whieh su|>er- 
se<led the legal sy.«tem (see Bacon, St^noti on the Mount, pp. 

s for indi- 

hardly t<t 

be aitni J ■ I, ;., and it is even doubtful whether the 

Evanu' 1^ til.i i uem to be implied in his narrative. The 

circunisianees ;unl iltM-ription of the giving of the Sermon are 
fairly simple uud have verisimilitude. 

, Srnno7i 1 
artificial and dramatic dev 
.vhicb Ibbeken supposes. 




analysis of the Sermon on the Mount is, propeily 
speakin};, excluded by the facts just mentioned, 
we can at least construct an outline of the dis- 
course as given to us by the Evangelists.* 



Theme ; The Ideal Life : t Its Characteristics, Mission, and 
Outworkings, and the Duty of attaining it. 

A. The Ideal Life described, Mt 5116, Lk 6'-"-26. 

(a) its characteristics, Mt 51-12, Lk 6^0- -ti. 
((;) its mission, Mt 513-16. 

B. Its Relation to the Earlier Hebrew Ideal, Mt 5i"-20. 

C. The Outworkings of the Ideal Life. Mt 5^1-712, Lk n=7--l2. 

(a) in deeds and motives. Mt .=i2i -is. Lk e-"^-*). 32-36. 

{b) in real religious worship, Mt Bi-is, 

(c) in trust and self-devotion, Mt 619-M. 

(rf) in treatment of others, Mt Ti 12. Lk 031 :i7 «. 

D. The Dut.v of living the Ideal Life, Mt Tii'-T, Lk «« «. 

4. The Chief Problems of Interphet.vtion. 
— It is an interesting evidence of tlie relativity of 
language, and of the large subjective element in 
all interpretation, that Jesus' words in the .Sermon 
have been variously understood in the Christian 
centuries. Men have found in them what they 
were prepared to find, by reason of their political 
ideas, their social environment, their philo.sophical 
theories, their theological beliefs, their moral 
character, and their spiritual aspirations. Nor 
can we hope to escape similar contemporary influ- 
ences when we attempt an interpretation. But in 
three important respects the expositor of to-day 
is in a more favourable position than his pre- 
decessors for getting at the true interpretation 
of Jesus' teaching: (1) the prolonged, able, and 
thorough historical investigation of the four 
Gospels during the 19th cent, has given us a 
new knowledge and wisdom in determining the 
origin and the first meaning of Jesus' words ; 
(2) the pre.sent high development of the science 
of ethics — both individual and social ethics — has 
enabled us as never before to understand and to 
appreciate Jesus' teaching in the Sermon ; (3) the 
modern change of emphasis from a Christianity of 
right belief to a Christianity of right character 
and right social service has brought us nearer to 
Christ, and has made us both able and willing to 
le.arn from Him. 

Space here permits only a brief, general treat- 
ment of the interpretation of the material con- 
tained in Mt 5-7, Lk 6*'""'. 

a. T/ie Beatitudes.— Ut5'-^- = 'Lke^-^(-'-^K In 
a discourse whose one purpose was to describe and 
to enjoin the true righteousness, it was altogether 
appropriate that the Divine ideal for men should 
be characterized at the outset. Jesus presented 
this ideal in a most significant way ; not in a re- 
eiiartment of the Ten Commandments of — 
which His people for centuries had regarded as 
embodying the will of God for man ; nor in a new 
table of commandments to take the place of the 
old : but in a series of sayings which pronounce 
the highest blessings upon those who aspire to the 
best kind of life. ' Blessed are the poor in sjjirit, 

* The entire material of Mt 5-7 and Lk e^fi-is is included in 
this outline, since the passages regarded by the present writer 
as extraneous would not, if removed, essentially alter what is 
here given. That Mt .525- 26 31. 32 6'-15 76-11- 22. 23, Lk 621-26. 3a.. 3a. 
40. 40 can be best explained as belonging originally to other con- 
nexions seems quite clear; but Mt 513 16. 2a. 30 6i»-34 71220, Lk 
(J31. 4:{. 44 are here left uncertain. 

t Or, The True Righteousness. The former phrase is given 
the preference here because * righteousness ' (hxnietr^yr:) is a 
technical terra of theology, and is seldom used outside of 
the vocabulary of religion. In Jesus' day also it was a technical 
Jewish term. While it occurs five times in Matthew's account 
of the Sermon (56' !»■ 20 61. 33), it is wholly absent from Luke's 
account. Nor does it appear in Luke's Gospel except at 1"5, 
nor in John except at It^- 10 ; and in Mark not at all. This 
indicates that the term was largely displaced among Gentile 
Christians by the non- technical terms 'love' (ay^^y,) and 
' mercy ' (e/ia*). St. Paul's constant use of the term l^ixct40<r'j*r) 
continued its theological designation. 

the mourners, the meek, those who hunger and 
thirst after righteousness, the merciful, the pure 
in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted 
for righteousness' sake.' 

This buatitude ty\>e of utterance was not new 
upon Jesus' lips, for it appears abundantly in the 
or.* But Jesus made the Beatitude His own (as 
He made the Parable His own), and constantly 
used it as a mode of expression which carried the 
idea of love rather than of exaction, the idea of 
persuasion rather than of force, the idea of God'a 
blessing and assistance to His children whom He 
tenderly leads and exalts, t When in the otli cent. 
B.C. the legal element in the Hebrew Scriptures 
had become the chief interest of the nation, there 
followed logically the dominance of the legal idea 
of God, according to which He was an austere 
lawgiver and judge, demanding under severe 
penalties an exact obedience to His statutes, re- 
garding men as slaves to be driven to their tasks 
or to be punished if they failed. The higher con- 
ception of God which is expressed in the Psalms 
and the Prophetical Writings was for centuries 
sadly obscured by this supremacy of legalism. It 
fell to Jesus, as one part of His mission, to restore 
the former better idea of God as a loving Father 
who cares for, comforts, guides, and blesses His 

When, therefore, Jesus sets at the beginning of 
the Sermon these Beatitudes, He does so with the 
profound intention of revealing at once the spirit 
and the substance of the Gospel. Man is not made 
subservient to an external law forced upon him 
from without, but is made responsive to a creative 
light and power within. The criterion by which 
God judges him is not primarily a standard of 
external performance, but a standard of internal 
purpose and aspiration, of which external per- 
formance is in due time a necessary outworking. 
This fact is seen in the Beatitudes, whose descrip- 
tion of the ideal of human life pertains to the 
fund.amental nature of a person and concerns all 
men equally. Jesus furnishes here a universal 
ideal and .a universal criterion. Not only did He 
describe the ideal in words ; He also illustrated 
it in His own life.§ According to Jesus' teaching 

♦ See particularlv Ps 411 651 845-7 8915 1191. 2 128I. 2, Pr 832- 34, 
Is 3018 32'-'0 502, Dn 1-212 ; also 1 S 2C25, 1 K 815, Ps 286 6819 7218. la 
11826, Jer 177. The idea ' Blessed ' is expressed in the Hebrew 
OT (see also Sir 141- 2. 20 258. 9 261 2819 48" 50'^) by two different 
words, ^iyi< and '^5T3. The former is a noun in construct case 
from the root T^N meaning 'to go straight, to advance, to 
prosper.' '*?;.;'X is in OT usage nearly confined to the Psalms, 
where it appears nineteen times (elsewhere seven times). It is 
always rendered in the LXX by putxapio;, which in classical 
meaning was quite akin to this Hebrew word (see Heinrici, Berg- 
prediijt, i. 27). Tin^, Qal pass. ptcp. of TJlil meaning ' to bless' 
occurs fifteen times in the Psalms, and frequently (twenty-two 
times) elsewhere. It is always rendered in the LXX by EiXoyrTof 
or £iAc^ti=*o,-, never b.v f^utxapiot. In the Psalms without ex- 
ception, and predominantly elsewhere, it is used with reference 
to God .OS the object of the blessing, ' Blessed be the Lord God 
of Israel.' The NT uses both fjutx^piot and svXoyrToj (-jtiEvof), and 
after the prevailing practice of the LXX, for f^utxafiie; is used of 
men and rlXcyy.roi (-/xivo;) of God as recipient. 'I^j-N denotes 
a status of true well-being, due to right thoughts and right con- 
duct, the harmony of a man with his God. Tin; when referring 
to men as recipients denotes some special blessing bestowed by 
God and coming upon one from without. It is a fair inference 
from these data Jesus used 'nyx rather than 'rin3, and the 
Greek translators of His words did well to follow the LXX in 
rendering this by fjutx^pie;. The point is of some importance 
for determining "the exact meaning of Jesus when He uses thi 
term in His Beatitudes. In the ' Blessings and Cursings ' of Dt 
27. 28 the terms are 7^7. and "niN, rendered in the LXX by 
sv\6yvifj.ivo; and iiixaTo;. The Greek word for * Woe ' in the 
Woe passages of the Gospels is oi«/. 

t ' Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth 
them that fear him,' Ps 10313. See also Dt 85 326, Is I'i 6316, 
Mai 16 -210. 

; Of. especiallv Wendt, Lehre Jem, ii. 139-160 (Eng. tr. i. 
184-209) ; G. B. Stevens, Bibl. Theol. 0/ the XT, pp. 6.V76. 

5 Gore, Semwn on the MomU, pp. 15, 16 : ' The character 
which we here find described (in the Beatitudes] is beyond all 


SERMOX OX tup: mouxt 


and fxample, a iimn's suecesw or failure is to be 
iiul;^'fil nut Ijy the iiniount of money he can 
accumulate, or by the amount of sot-ial dis- 
tiiution he can <omma!ul, or l»y tlie extent of 
hi?, intelleetmil or oMicial achievements ; but 
ratluT by the essential t-liaracter which he 
fasliions witliin liimsdf, ami by the scr\ icu which 
hu renders to liia fellow-men. In the Heatitudes 
Jesus calls men away from the superlirial tests 
and standards which so commonly prevail, to a 
eriteriou whicli concerns the real nature of man, 
is equally just to all, and stands in relation not 
ahme to the few years of a man's present exist- 
ence, but to the whole of his eternal career. In no 
respect was the Judaism of Jesus' day more per- 
verse, and perhaps in no respect has error been 
more perpetuated, than in the maintenance of 
superhcial tests of rij^hteousness and of success 
{(■!. Lk 18''-'\ the parable of the Pluirisee and the 
Publican). Tlie Gospel of Christ was, in the 1st 
cent. A.U., the rebuke and the correction of this 
tonditiou ; and tliat Gospel needs, as much now as 
tlten, to be established in the world. In no words 
of Jesus has His essential teachin;j; concerninj? the 
ideal of humanity been so simply and clearly 
epitomized as in the Heatitudes of Mt 5^"'-. Tlie 
man, woman, or child who sincerely, persistently 
aspires and strives to attain to the character and 
to j)erform the service described in the IJeatitudes, 
will not fail of Christianity either in knowledge or 

Whether all the Beatitudes which now appear in Mt 5^^' 
ori^'inalty stood at the beginning of the Sennon cannot be 
attinniHl'with certainty. The fact that the parallel section in 
Lk li-'^VM present-a but four Beatitudes, sug>;est8 that the four 
additional Beatitudes in Matthew ahe meek, merciful, pure in 
heart, peacemakers) may not have belonged historically to this 
connexion, but possibly were a part of the composite material 
which raine later to be assoi:iated with the historical nucleus 
of the Sermon. t Even on this theory these four Beatitudes 
would be authentic utterances of .Tt-sus. 
occasions He used the beatitude form f . 
is by no means impossible that th< < : , I 
are a compilation. Yet there ar^ .'■ i i ■ 
opinion, that they constitute an "m. r. i 
of four of the eight Beatitudes from ihr I 
explained as a part of the drastic treatment which Luke' 
material had received in course of transmission. The material- 
istic imix)rt which has been forced upon the four Beatitudes in 
Lk li'-^^'^ gives evidence of such treatment. Since the other 
four Beatitudes of Mt 5^ 7-9 will by no means admit of a 
materialistic interpretation, it is not improbable that for this 
reas4jn thev dropped out of the narrative in that line of trans- 
mission. (2) The Third Gospel has not in any connexion 
recorded these four Matthiean Beatitudes ; neither does the 
Second fJospel have them. So that as the First Cospel has 
them onlv in this connexion, no other setting is suggested for 
them, (a) Their truth is quite too searching and sublime to 
allow us to regard them as a later creation. They must have 
come from Jesus. And He must have given them in some 
significant connexion, such as the Sermon. (4) These four 
Beatitudes are necessary to the connexion in which they stand 
in Mt 53-*^, since without them the ideal of life which the 
Beatitudes seem designed to characterize would be essentially 
incomplete and ineffective. If, as has I)cen argued above, the 
Beatitudes of Matthew present the theme of the Sennon, and 
in a way epitomize all tliat the following discourse contains, 

*.uestion nothing else than our Lord's own character put into 
wonJs, the human character of our l4ord corresponding always 
in flawless perfection with the teaching which He gave. Here 
i two reasons why our Lord's teaching is capable of universal 

nee on many 
n, the theory 
~ »t Matthew 
tlie contrary 
the absence 

li«il. p. 47 [Eng. 
ith doubts OS to 

and individual application : (1) bei 
detailed commandments, but is the des<il| i 
which, in its principles, can be apprehtiiil' ■' 
all circumstances; (2) because it is not "i. 
words, but a description set side by side with 

• Harnack, Das Wcsen des C/iriiftentuinx. 
tr. p. 74], says; 'Should we be threatened 
what He [Jesus] meant, we must steep ourselves agam and 
again in the Beatitudes of the Sennon on the Mount. They 
contain His ethics and His religion, united at the root, and 
freed Irom all external and particularistic elements.' 

t So Resch. Wendt. H. Holtzmann. Adeney (Exponitor, 5th 
»er. vol. ii.), O. Holtzmann (Lehen Jcmi, ItXU. i». 180f.), and 
Bacon (^Sennon on the MouiU, p. 139). J. Weiss (/'trcfiV/? Jesxi'^, 
pp. 127, 187) excludes the three Beatitudes of Mt ."»" 9. Klopper, 
Zrit»chr.f. iciwt. The4A. \m\, thinks that the eight Beatitudes 
were originally scattered through the Sennon, but were col- 
lected and placed at the beginning by the First Evangelist ; 
ftD improbable supposition. 

one cannot well 8up)K>se tliat the four Beatitudes found 
only in the Matthwan account wen* ab«ent from the original 

As to the number of Beatitudes in Mt &^*2 there is difference 
of opinion. It is customary to count them as either seven or eight, 
and prevailinj^ly the latter.' Of the first seven, in w.^s*. there 
is little question : the disagreement relates to the enumeration 
of vv.iui'^, whether they .should be counted into the groupat all ; 
or if countetl. whether thev contain more than one additional 
Beatitude. The occurrence of the word ' Blessed ' («««.>)*«) is 
not generally rejjartled as detennining the number of the 
Beatitudes, "for it appears nine times (vv.^1'); instoad, the 
enuuK-ratiou is by subject-matter— since all treat of 
persc'-utiun fur rigbu-nusness' sake, they are counted as one 
Beatitude. t Then is the teai_'hing concerning persecution for 
righteousness' sake to be classed with the preceding seven ideas 
as fundamental to ideal manho<xl. so that these verses present 
an eighth Beatitude? Such classification seems prefenible, and 
it is strongly supported by the iwX that Luke also gives this 
teaching concerning persecution in his a<:count as the closing 
Beatitude. Exact corresi>ondence of idea and form among the 
eight Beatitudes is not to be required. 

The order in which the eight Beatitudes of Mt b'^^- stand in 
relation to one another does not appear to be a closely wrought 
one, such that any other arrangement would have been illogical. 
They do not seem to present an ascending, climactic order.; 
Nos. 1 and 4 pertain to the longing for (itxl and righteousness. 
Nos. 2 and '6 pertain to patient endurance and spiritual growth 
under affliction and persecution, Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 pertain to the 
outworkings in character and service of the internal righteous- 
ness. The desire for righteousness, of course, precedes the 
achievement of righteousness, so that Nos. 1 and 4 should pre- 
cede Nos. 5, 0, 7 ; but logically the place of Nos. 2 and 3 seems 
to be after No. 4. This transposition is made in Luke's account, 
where the two Beatitudes of desire (tf20. 2U) precede the other 
two (6-1'' "•■^). H this order of the Beatitudes has the 
semblance of originality, it may be that Matthew's Beatitudes 
were rearranged m transmission. It scarcely see " — 

• The number of Beatitudes is counted aa seven by Ewald, 
Hilgenfeld, Knstlin, Lange, Mei^er, Nosgen, Steinmeyer, B. 
Weiss. The arguments for this view are that Mt 5l'>-l''i does not 
really co-ordinate with vv.^" to make an eii^hth Beatitude, 
that Matthew has an intentional parallel to his Beatitudes in 
the se^ en Woes of ch. 23. and that probability is in favour of 
the sacred and frequent number seven being used iii^tcud oi 

eight. Bacon (Sermon on the Mount, p. 1^7 m- -■\-n 

Beatitudes by regarding Mt 5^ as a margi nal - : . 1 1 : > i . d 

fromP8 37li. The Beatitudes are counted u> ■- i i ■ l;-, 

Bleck. Fcine. liuhn, Heinrici, Ibbeken (althou-h li. )...;.K tli:.t 
tli.\ . .[m-|m.[n1 . losely to the Ten Commaii<lni(-[it>), Kcil, 
Krifi I. . 1 link, if. Weiss, Weizsacker, and many others. 
1). h \ I iiterituchunnen, p. 76) enumerated them as 

ten. I. I 1 '1 their parallelism with the Ten Command- 
ments ; but tills view has found little acceptance. 

t Since v.i" and vv."- 1- have a common theme and are actual 
duplicates, it may be that the one or the other iiassage is not 
original in this connexion. The Beatitudes had originally a 
short form, and were probably of about equal length. Given 
one of these passages at this i>oint, the other might easily have 
become topically associated with it. That this has happened is 
further suggested by the fact that while is piven in the 
third personal form, like the other Beatitudes m Matthew, 
vv.n.12 arc given in the second personal form, like the Beati- 
tudes of Luke. Achelis and B. Weiss, however, regard all three 
verses as original, saying tluit ;it v.n ,k-sus turns to speak 

directly to His ihv ,,,:. - w i.. :h,. i. <r.^ (),.■ !■■ r iheory, 

would be th. rM, 1 1 . ._ I I . tir. Hilgen- 
feld, Weizs.irk, I. , I \\.- .; " I H. Holtz- 
mann tliirik^ ,ill i!iP .:.[-■- !■■!' ^n '.. ti [,h. M..II. But the 

niuw it III ■ i_lii li.;ititu(b-H is nut affLT_ted by tlie question of 
dui h ' M I I l1 in these verses. 

: M - ■ niiitors endeavour to show a special meaning 
aii'l ijiiii; HI . in the Mattha:an arrangement of the several 
Bcatitud.-.s. Th.iluck, Itergrede^, p. 66 f. (Eng. tr. p. VA f.) : ' These 
eight Beatitudes are arranged in an ethical order. Tlie first 
four are of a negative character. They express the state of 
spiritual desire which belongs to the indispensable conditions of 
participation in the Kingdom of God. The next three following 
are positive : they set forth what attributes of character are 
required in the members of that Kingdom. The eighth shows 
how the world will treat the members of the Kingdom.' How- 
ever, ' the progression among the qualities pronounced blessed 
is not to be regarded as of sm^h a nature that each stage ex- 
cludes the rest; or that, in advancing to another, the former 
are left behind.' Achelis, Bernpreduji, iip. 73-^75, classifies the 
first four Beatitudes as i>ertaining to the desire for salvation, 
the second four as pertaining to the possession of it ; he further 
sub<l:issifies them also. H. Weiss, Berppredigt, pp. 9, 23, re- 
gards the first four as passive, the second four as active. Feine, 
Jahrb. /. Protest. Throl. 18So, thinks the eight Beatitudes 
make four neatly-fitting pairs. Ibbeken, lii'rirprt'dvjt-, p. 19, 
savs that the effort to find a close logical order in the Beati- 
tudes as they stand has been unsuccessful. Heinrici. Urr/;- 
prrdiift, i. 28, thinks that if they had been arranged logically, 
according to their inner relation, the order would have been 
Nos. 1, 4, 0, 3. 5, 7, 2, 8. It is scarcely necessary to say that the 
idea that in their present arrangement the Beatitudes indicate 
the several consecutive stages of normal Christian growth is a 
purely fanciful one. 




however, to suppose that Jesus insisted upon a particular suc- 
cession of them.* 

Of much more importance is the tjuestion whether Matthew 
or Luke presents the more authentic form of the Beatitudes. 
The difference between them is of two kinds : (1) Luke gives 
the Beatitudes in the second person, in the form of direct 
address ; while Matthew has them in the third person, in the 
form of a general statement (see a similar phenomenon in Mt 3^7 
= Lk 322), An examination of Jesus' other Beatitudes recorded 
elsewhere in the Gospels indicates that He used both forms, and 
apparently without preference for either. The OT Beatitudes 
are in the third personal form. But since Matthew agrees with 
Luke in giving the remainder of the discourse (from 5' ^ onwards) 
in the second person, some scholars hold that the Beatitudes 
themselves were originally of this form.t On the other hand, a 
change to the second person in the Lukan account might arise 
from the materialistic interpretation which has been cast over 
the Beatitudes and Woes in this Gospel. The change would 
make the Beatitudes personal and specific to his hearers, 
instead of general and universal as in Matthew. (2) The word- 
ing of the same Beatitudes is in some respects strikingly dif- 
ferent in the two accounts. Concerning the first Beatitude (as 
suggested above, i. 4), it seems probable that Matthew's form of 
it, while conveying more explicitly Jesus' meaning, has been 
expanded in transmission by the addition of rai T*£>,tweT(, the 
original Aramaic form of the utterance being shorter, as in 
Luke4 The fourth Beatitude (Luke's second) presents a some- 
what similar case ; when Matthew says, ' Blessed are they that 
hunger and thirst after righteousness,' it is possible or even 

£robable that Jesus' words were shorter (as suggested by the 
ukan form) by the implication rather than the expression of 
the idea contained in t>.v Sixnc.ioa-vvr.v, perhaps also of that con- 
tained in the ii-^'Zvrt;. These words, too, may have been added 
to prevent a materialistic misinterpretation. Since the idea of 
hungering spiritually was common in the OT, Jesus may have 
used the o* ^uivvri^ alone with that meaning, the additions 
being made later to remove all ambiguity. In the second 
Beatitude (Luke's third) the vi*BetZvTi; of Matthew and the 
x\tK.iovTi; of Luke are probably two varying Greek words em- 
ployed to translate one Aramaic word ; the former is the better 
m this context, since it carries a deeper, finer meaning. The 
double occurrence of vZv in Lk fi^i jg an obvious importation. 
In regard to the eighth Beatitude (Luke's fourth), concerning 
patient endurance and spiritual growth under persecution, one 
notices that Luke has no parallel to the first of the two dupli- 
cate forms in which Mt 5i0 gives it; instead, Lk 622-23=Mt 
511.12. A comparison of these passages shows general thought 
agreement, but much difference in wording ; nor can there be 
any doubt that the Lukan form of the Beatitude is secondary 
(consider especially G22b. 23b). 

The Gospel of Luke contains, in addition to its four Beati- 
tudes and in immediate sequence upon them, four correspond- 
ing Woes. With these Woes an increasing difficulty has been 
felt ; many scholars have come to regard them either as so 
modified in transmission that they no longer represent Jesus' 
spirit, or as a free traditional expansion of the four Beatitudes, 
and therefore unauthentic. Four chief objections are made to 
them : (1) These Woes find no parallel in the Matthaian account, 
nor elsewhere in anv of the Gospels. Jesus used the Woe type 
of expression (cf. Mt 1121 i87 2313-36, Lk IQHIS 11^7-52) against 
those who had long and deliberately refused Him and His 
message ; but these four Woes of Lk 6^'^ are found only in 
this passage. If Jesus gave them at this time, they have failed 
to be preserved in the longer and better of the two reports of 
the discourse which have come down to us. (2) These Woes 
have a crass material import. Each of the four Woes gives the 
converse of each of the four Beatitudes, in the same order, and 
fixes upon them a materialistic sense. * Blessed are ye poor 1 ' 
conversely, * Woe unto you that are rich ! ' ; therefore only 
economic' poverty and wealth are meant, since spiritual riches 
cannot be deprecated. 'Blessed are ye that hunger now f 
converselv, ' Woe unto you, ye that are full now ! ' ; therefore 
the 'hungry' are those in physical need of food, for the 

* The reversal of the order o! the second and third Beati- 
tudes of Matthew which is found in Codex D, 33, Syr cur and a 
few other earlv text witnesses, was adopted into the text by 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles ; Achelis approves it. 
and H. Holtzmann thinks it may be the true reading. It is 
rejected, however, by Tholuck, Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and 
B. Weiss. The transposition may have been due to the close OT 
association of the two ideas of 'poor' and 'meek' (the LXX 
renders the Hebrew W'V]i by both ^ttuxo' Ps 69^3 and frfctu? 
Ps 37'!) ; or it mav have been merely fortuitous. 

t Similarly Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 56 ; Bacon, Sermon wi the 
Mount, p. 126. 

♦So Klnpper. Zeitschr, /. wiss. Theol 1894; Kabisch, SK, 
1896; 3. WeiSi^, Predigt Jes\i~, p. 182 f.; Schmiedel, Enc'fd. 
Bill. vol. ii. col. 1855 ; Heinrici, Ber'jpredigt, i. 29, who says : 
* An effort to exclude all misinterpretation is seen in the phrases 
of closer definition, rai TvivfMtrt (v.-*), tv.v iiHatiorCvKv (v.t»), rvj 
xotpl'nt (v.8), and Vvezev I yjx,ioa-ivv.? (v. lO). These additions mar the 
parallelism. They cannot be explained except as expansions of 
the original made in the process of translating Jesus' words into 
Greek.' Similarly Bacon, op. cU. p. 127 f. The preservation of 
the precise meanin':f of the Beatitudes was of the first import- 
ance, and to Greek-speaking Christians they would not have 
been quite clear in their original brevity, for they would not 
have understood the terms 'poor' and 'hungry' to have a 
meaning primarily spirituaL The addition of these phrases 
removed all ambiguity. 

spiritually ' full ' are not doomed to eternal spiritual privation. 
Also the" third and fourth Woes are harsh in their terms, 
shallow and external in their conceptions. The exaltation of 
material poverty and distress which thus appears in Luke's 
Beatitudes and Woes can be seen also in other parts of his 
Gospel (see the account of the rich young man, Lk IS''*-^*' ; the 
parable of the Rich Fool, Lk 1216 -Jl. 3^ ; the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus, Lk W^-^^, cf. l^^).* The Evangelist probably is not 
responsible for these views ; rather they had already impressed 
themselves upon the material which constituted the sources for 
his Gospel. They represent a strong sentiment in the first 
century, which grew out of a false contempt for the earthly life 
and an exaggeration of Jesus' teaching about riches. (3) These 
Woes are out of character with Jesus. He never condemned 
wealth as such ; what He condemned was that a man should 
permit wealth to be his supreme purpose and his master. On 
this subject Jesus taught much, and with profound insight into 
the true relation of men with things ; from Him we must learn 
the real aim of living and the proper use of the material world 
about us.t It is ditticult, if not impossible, to bring the tone 
and import of these Woes into accord with Jesus' spirit, con- 
ceptions, and method. (4) These Woes are inappropriate to the 
Sermon. This discourse was given to a large company of people 
who had been attracted to Jesus by His words and His works : 
many of them were His professed ifoUowers, all of them were 
well disposed towards Him. The occasion was not suitable for 
violent language and condemnatory pronouncements. Jesus 
used the Woe type of utterance for His final judgments against 
those who rejected their Messiah ; but here He is in the midst 
of His Galilajan ministry, the people hear Him gladly, and the 
enmity of His opponents has not yet reached its final stage. In 
view of these four considerations, the full authenticity of the 
four Woes in Lk 6^-'^ must be counted an open historical 
question. If they are not authentic as they stand, they may 
represent in a modified form actual Woes spoken by Jesus in 
another connexion during the closing months of His work. Or, 
if they cannot be attributed to Jesus at all, they will be ex- 
plained as free expansion in transmission, due to a desire to 
intensifv the teaching against earthly goods. The verses may 
then have been constructed on the pattern of the ' Blessings 
and Cursings' of the' Old Covenant (Dt 27. 28). or still more 
likely on the pattern of the great Prophetic utterance (Is 5). 
Such an expansion should not be charged to Luke himself, but 
to the line of tradition from which he drew his material. I 

The blessedness which Jesus in His Beatitudes 
afliriiis of men who attain to the character and per- 
fi)rm the service therein described, belongs both to 
the present and to the future. In one aspect it is 
eschatological : the endless future of such men is 
assured as one of perfect happiness, glory, and com- 
munion with God. Since Jewish hopes and ex- 
pectations were largely eschatological, Jesus met 
them on this ground. But the blessedness which 
Jesus promised belonged also, and primarily, to the 
present life ; in His teaching Jesus constantly kept 
the present life clearly and strongly to the front. 
Jesus' Beatitudes, just as the Beatitudes of the 

* For this view see Campbell, Critical Studies in St. Luke's 
Gosjyel (1891), ch. 2 ; Rogge, Der irdische Besitz im NT (1897), 
pp. 9-68; Peabody, Jesus Cki^st and the Social Question (1901), 
pp. 19O-201 ; Schmiedel in Encj/cl. Bill. vol. ii. col. 1341 ; Cone, 
Rich a^yX Poor in the NT (1902), pp. 118-142 ; and J. Weiss, 
Predigt Jesu worn lieiche Gottes'^ (1900), p. 182 f., who says: 
' There can no longer be any doubt that Luke [in his Beatitudes] 
aims to draw a sharp contrast between the different external 
social conditions ; his Beatitudes contain nothing of an ethical 
or religious element.' 

t Mathews, Social Teaching o/ Jesus, ch. 6 ; Peabody, op. cit. 
ch. 4 ; Rogge, op. cit. pp. 1-68. 

t The authenticity of the Woes in Lk 6^-26 is defended by 
Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 168 f. ; Bacon, Serinon on the Mount, 
p. 126; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 187; and by Plummer, 
Comm. on Luke, p. 181 f., who says : 'There is no evidence that 
these were not part of the original discourse. Assuming that 
Matthew and Luke report the same discourse, Matthew may 
have omitted them. But thev may have been spoken on some 
other occasion.' On the other hand, many reject them. 
Tholuck, Bergrede^, p. 54 (Eng. tr. p. 62): 'Unquestionably, 
these Woes must be regarded as an expansion of the thought 
by the recorder of the narrative.' H. Holtzmann, Synopiiker, 
p. 102 : ' The Woes of Luke were constructed for the purpose of 
strengthening and explaining [the Beatitudes] according to the 
model of Dt 2715-26, Is 58-23, and not without a remembrance of 
Jer 5-», Mic 21'.' Similarly B. Weiss, Feine {Jahrb.f. Protest. 
Theol. 1885, p. 15 f.), Wernle (Synaptische Frage, p. 62), Schleier- 
macher, Strauss. F. H. Woods, Expos. Times, 1893, p. 256, says : 
The first Christians ' aimed at giving the general sense rather 
than the exact words. We can easily understand, e.g., an early 
preacher so repeating the Beatitudes as to give them in what 
may be called a negative as well as a positive form ; especially 
when by so doing he would be making a more exact parallel 
between the blessings and cursings of the old law and the bless- 
ings and cursings of the new law. Such a modification of 
Christ's language might arise in course of time quite uncon- 
Bciouslv, when we remember how often so striking a portion of 
our Lord's teaching must have been repeated to catechumens." 




I'snlms, linve to do lirst of all with present wcll- 
beiiif;. The term /uand/jios niipeiirs in this eon- 
nexion, as always,* to refer to that coiiilition of 
true well-heiii^ wliieli results from eommittiiif; 
one's self wholly to (Jod. with the purpose of liviri<; 
aci-orilin^' to l(U will ; it eoiiiiotes also the etleet 
produced by this status, nauiely, the peace and joy 
arising from the consciousness of God's approval 
and blcssin-;, and the feelinj; that one's present 
and future well-bcin<; is assured. The coiiceiition 
of blessedness in Mt 5'''- is not essentially ditlerent 
from that which the OT at its best had already 
presi'uti'il. but Jesus perfected and exalted the idea 
of blr-;^.(lnr-^, settiii-; it before men with a new 
atiin 1 n I ri. vs and power. That .Jesus' Ueatitudes 
re rrhi) I lie lii^'hest ideals and promises of the 
I'salms and of the Prophets has been frequently 
and truly noted ; both the conceptions and the 
phrases staml in the closest relation to the OT. 
In the Iteatitudes, as everywhere in His teaching, 
.Jesus was building upon the foundation of the 
Hebrew reli^'i<m, fullilliug it, i.e. perfecting it and 
establishing it. 

The Beatitudes consist each of two phrases : the 
one expresses the condition, the other the result ; 
the one states the character or service to be attained, 
the other the blessedness of attaining it. In neither 
portion of the sayings are the phrases used by 
Jesus new ones; on the contrary, they are taken 
U]i by Him from the OT and current .Jewish ter- 
minology, and turned to good account in His own 
teaching, receiving from Him a larger, higher im- 
port. Thus the phrases the ' poor,' the ' mourners,' 
the 'meek,' the ' hungering and thirsting,' the 
' merciful,' the ' pure in heart,' the ' peacemakers,' 
the ' persecuted,' are st.aple conceptions and terms 
of the OT and of the Judaism of .Jesus' day. And 
the same thing is true of those .and phrases 
which constitute the second members of the lieati- 
tudes, the ' Kingdom of Heaven,' the 'comfort of 
the afHicted,' the 'entering into possession of the 
earth,' the ' satisfaction of longing for rtghtcous- 
nes-s and truth,' the 'seeing God,' and the ' becom- 
ing sons of (Jod.'t Jesus' use of OT and current 
religious terminology served to form an essential 
connexion between His hearers and Himself; but 
He dill not use it .as a mere matter of cxiiedience, 
a iK'il,aj,'(i;.'i(:il devi(<^ to giiin the attention and con- 
fidcmc of His lic.-ircrs; rather He used it because He 
found an essential unity between His own .and 
those of the Hebrew prophets. These phrases in 
their highest meaning wern rooted in fundamental 
spiritual needs, realities, and aspir.ations such as 
Jesus came to satisfy, to procl.aim, and to fulfil. 

The Ueatitudes present each a special idea, but 
they are not exclusive. An organic unity 
binds tlient all together, and they inti>;rlace witli 
one another. Like .so many facets of a diamond, 
they present the i<leal life in eight ditrerent aspects, 
they indicate the several cIi.'hwk tn i-l n s ubich make 
up the whole. The sped lie- iiir.iniiiL' ..I .arli of the 
Beatitudes must be raieliilly diln iniinil. in order 
that we Miiiy ,i]i|iii'liiTi(l correctly tiie ideal of Jesus 
for men whiili Ihry embody. 

( I) ' l',li"~,.,| .111- 1 lie- poor in spirit : for theirs is the 
kingdom o( heaven. * 'the poor'(7rruxo' 
= 0").;; and d'ji"??) was a current one among the Jews, 

* See the disriiRsion of the term in the footnote* on p. 14\ 

♦ Tholucli, litfjrnh' ». p. .Ifl (En;;, tr. p. «») : ' There can \k no 
dotiht— and this should he carefully noltd— that all the ideas 
which meet us here in the Sennon'on the Mount, of the 
Kingdom of Ood, the riffhu-ousness of that Kingdom, the poor in 
spirit, the pure in heart, secinjr God, et^., were no new ideas, 
but well-known ones, of which Christ only revealed the deepest 
meaning.' The passages of the OT in which these ideas are 
found will be indicated below. 

1 Mt n-^ UMiMPtot cl lenixo'i rZ TttifjLetTi, iVi avtmi. i^ri^ ii ^ttei- 

ll.'ce Tai* t^ptttin ; I.k (I^ fMuu pi«i ti tto/x*. . ot, iutrifiK irr.* r, 

^««-;ii.« T.5 llu:. The Cos]'el of Matthew usually, though not 

always, employs the phraae r. fiari^a t£» tiftttu*. while all the 


arising in the OT period and liearing a somewliat 
technical iiieaniug (see art. I'oort in vol. iv.). It 
designated that class, generally in huniblo circum- 
stances, who lived the higher life, fixing their 
thought upon (Jod an<l seeking His spiritual bless- 
ings, instead of living in a worldly way, to accumu- 
late property and to attain .social distinction and 
[Kilitical power ; they were in the world, but not of 
It ; they were the faithful and righteous ones whom 
liod could approve and bless.* It seems probable, 
since Jesus in the JJcatitudes has tjikeii up iiiiiiiy 
current Jewish phrases to put upon llicni His 
own interpretation, that He here used the phrase 
' the poor ' in the sense of, and with regaril to, the 
current conception of it. In that case the words 
' in spirit,' which in Matthew are assoc^ijited. wjth 
the phrase, but not in Luke, may be an expansion 
of the original utterance made in the Greek for I he 
jiurpose of protecting Jesus' words from a material 
misinterpretation. t The nf TrtevixaTL would, then, 
although a later addition, preserve the original 
meaning of Jesus ; as it stands, it limits oi nruixol 
(not fiaKapioi) as a phrase of closer definition, J like 
' the pure in heart ' of Mt 5' and the ' lowly in 
heart' of Mt ll-'» ; cf. also Mk 8'=, 1 Co 7^. It 
fixes the sjihere in which the jioverty is jircdicated. 
Jesus means, not that .spiritual poverty is in itself 
a good thing, but that the man who has a deep 
.sense of his spiritual deficiency and dejiendence 
upon God will turn to Him, and will then receive 
the spiritual blessings which he needs. There- 
fore the phrase ' the poor in spirit ' designates an 
internal rather than an external condition, a moral 
and spiritual rather than an economic statu.s.§ 

other Gospels and the other books of the NT use ri fianXvx t»u 
lUoV. liid Jesus use both phrases in their Aramaic equivalents'? 
If so, did the two phrases mean different things? Or was only 
one of the used by .lesus, the other beiiij^ of a different 
origin? If so, which was Jesus' phrase? These questions have 
been variously answered. The majority of scholars, however, 
are of the opinion that the two phrases are identical in meaning, 
that Jesus was accustomed to use both of them, and that His 
more frequent tenn was 'the Kingdom of God.' (See esp. 
(). Holtzmann, LeOen Jesu, pp. 124-1-20). The other phrase, 
'the Kingdom of Heaven,' is to be explained as arisinff out of 
the fallacious reverence for the name of God whicn char- 
acterized the Jewish people and led them to use circum- 
locutions instead of speaking the name itself. Jesus, ho', 
did not share this superstitious regard for the name of God ; on 
the contrary, he spoke of God .-uri-lnntlx The First Gospel 

adopted the phrase, 'the Kiii/il • ( ih i- . n,' which probably 

was in general use among Jew 1 ' ' r; i ,. in order to be mure 
accejttable to the Jewish ie;i I i- : i a., [a it was intended. 
On the other hand, in the .s. nanI ..n4 Ihird Gospels, and 
elsewhere, the phrase ' the Kingdom of God " occurs, since this 
universal use of terms was more acceptable to the great liody 
of Gentile Christians for whom and among whom most of our 
NT books were written. 

• So Ps 01- 18 Iff!- » 12 125 4017 69!S 722. 4. 11 13 828-4 861 108=^ 
Its', Is Oil (cf. Lk 41S) 602. See Achelis, Beraprrduit, p, 7 f. ; 
Kahisch, SK, 189C ; Klopper, Xrilsehr. /. icuw. Theol. 1894 ; 
Wellbausen, Israetitische u. Judigcke t^vschichte'^, 1897, ch. 15 ; 
Kahlts, ';i und ijj; in den Pmlinen, 1892 ; J. Weiss, Predigt 
Jcau vom Reiche Gottcs\ 1000, pp. 183-185; Driver, art. I'ooa 
in vol. iv., who argues for Rahlfs' distinction lietween *}jI (poor, 
needy) and l};; (humble towards (Sod). 

t It is obvious that when Jesus* words came into the hands 
of the Gentiles, who were not familiar with the history, litera- 
ture, ideas, and religious tenninology of the Jews, there would 
be great danger of His words being misunderstood. The first 
Beatitude, for instance, was likely to be misinterpreted, because 
the term 'poor' was used by the Gentiles only in a material 
sense, not with an ethico-religious content. It wtis therefore 
necessary tn add Lhi^ words 'in spirit,' in order that Jesus' 
meaning might not be misunderstood. Modern Knglish u^age 
of the term ' poor ' is also economic instead of religious, and 
therefore we also ncetl the words *in spirit' to guarfl against 

I So II. Holtzmann, Ibbeken, Kahisch, Klomwr, Thohick, B. 
Wei-ss. The TviCfjutrt does not refer to the Holy Spirit, as main- 
tained by Achelis {Bergpredift, p. h); so that'the phrase 'the 
j>oor in spirit' does not mean 'th,-^ jioor through the Holy 
Spirit,' nor ' the poor by the Holy '.3pirit,' nor ' the poor in 
the possession of the Holy .Spirit ' Ilather, the ir*ibju«rj refers 
to the spiritual nature of the man himself. 

$ So the best of the ancient commentators, Origen, Chrysos- 
tom, Augustine, Theophylact, and nearly all modern .scholars. 
"Tholuck, Benirfde^, )>. 63 f. (Eng. tr. p. 70 f.): 'a consciousness 
of poverty in the blessings of salvation. . . . The idea of 




This is in acoordance with the tone of the whole 
group (rf Beatitudes, for they present an ideal of 
character and service in its essential elements ; 
while external conditions, the possession or lack of 
])roperty, are not essential. Tlie Beatitudes and 
Woes, as given by Luke, speak only of material 
want and misery ; * but that is a perversion of 
phj'sical poverty is here carried over into the sphere of poverty 
of spirit, . . . those poor are pronounced blessed who are sensible 
of their spiritual poverty." Kabisch, SK, 1896, says that the rii 
T^eJfMtri is added ' in order to remove the poverty into the realm 
of the religious sense.' Klopper, Zeitsehr, f. w'iss. TheoL 1894, 
holds that there is no reference in the Beatitude of Matthew to 
the poor in social position ; rather they are the poor in spiritual 
things, those who in opposition to the wise and understanding 
(.Mt 112-') are characterized as 'babes' or 'little children ' (Mt 
13^); dissatisfled with tlie traditional wisdom of the scribes, 
they long for direct Divine instruction. J. Weiss, Fredigt 
Jesu mm Reiche Gottes^, 1900, pp. 130-132: 'They are called 
"poor" . . . not because they have no money, but because, as the 
pijn Dy, they have no religious, and therefore no social, stand- 
ing. They do not belong to the righteous, pious class, but are 
shunned by them like the lepers. . . . They could not and 
would not conform to the conventional standard of piety. But 
what was to hinder them from pouring out their heart before 
their God in their inner chamber? They live as children of 
God in a time simplicity, naive and unassuming, without great 
joy over their condition ; because it has been so deeply im- 
pressed upon them that, they never can attain the true righteous- 
ness according to the Pharisaic ideal. . . . They do not realize 
that they already have, what is precious in God's sight, t6 ^pa.'j 
««; inx'" <r.£D^« (1 I> 3'). They do not see that God, in his 
mysterious wisdom, has chosen to pass by the wise and the 
learned in order to reveal salvation to just such w*>ifli as they 
(cf. Lk 1021, Mt 181 •>)."— It js true that a materialistic interpre- 
tation of the first Beatitude prevailed in the early and middle 
Christian centuries, whereby voluntary poverty was pro- 
nounced blessed ; and this view is still taken bv Roman Catholic 
commentators, as Hugo Weiss, Bergpredigt, p. 10. The Lukan 
form of the Beatitudes arose out of and ^ve a foundation for 
this false attitude towards material thmgs. But the whole 
notion of asceticism is wrong : Jesus neither taught nor prac- 
tised it ; He did not regard material poverty and physical 
misery as in themselves meritorious. It cannot be said" that 
the poorer men are, the better they are ; not even when the 
poverty is voluntary. Jesus did not require the abandonment 
of wealth, except in specific cases where it formed an insuper- 
aVle obstacle to spiritual well-being ; what He did require was 
the supremacy of the spiritual Ufe and the right use of material 

*So O. Holtzmn.nn, Lehen Jesu, 1901, p. 186 1. Similarly 
Plummer, Comm. on Liike, p. 170 : ' In the four [Beatitudes] 
that Luke gives, the more spiritual words which occur in 
Miitthew are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more 
external conditions. Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are 
declared to be blessed (as being opjwrtunities for the exercise 
of internal virtues) ; and this doctrine is emphasized bv the 
corresponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and ful- 
ness of bread (as being sources of temptation).' Here the 
materialistic tone of the Lukan Beatitudes is recognized, but 
the writer has avoided the problem of adjusting the two 
accounts of the Beatitudes to each other by regarding them 
as two distinct utterances on different occasions ; this is to 
ignore the facts and data of the Synoptic problem. Wendt, 
Lehre Jesu^ ii. 167 f., thinks that the economic poor are meant : 
' Because this salvation of eternal life offers an incomparably 
rich return for all troubles of the earthly life, Jesus can at the 
beginning of His discourse concerning the true righteousness 
pronounce blessed the poor, the hungry, the mourning, the 
persecuted, because of their future participation in the heavenly 
blessedness of the Kingdom of God. His meaning here is no't 
that in earthly poverty and unhappiness as such lies the ground 
for their longing for the future salvation of the Kingdom of 
God ; still less in the following Woes against the rich, the satis- 
fied, the laughing, and the praised, does He present earthly 
happiness as m itself the ground for the future loss of salvation. 
He intends only to affirm with the greatest emphasis that all 
future .salvation is the single true and full salvation, in compari- 
son with which the earthly unhappiness is insignificant and 
earthly happiness is not really such. Consequently he declares 
that those very persons who from the world's point of a iew are 
counted miserable are the truly happy ones because of the part 
which awaits them in that future salvation.' Wendt holds that 
the Lukan form of the Beatitudes, together with the Woes, is 
authentic as against the Matthew report, and can therefore give 
this interviretation ; but it the Beatitudes of Matthew are the 
more authentic report, then Jesus' teaching at this point must 
be understood as presented by them — and they give a very 
different set of ideas. -Kabrs^b", SK, ISDti, interprets: 'Blessed 
are those who have freed their minds from the earthly wealth : 
for theirs is inst«ad the heavenly wealth. . . . The absence of 
earthly goods and happiness is placed in the foreground, here 
[in Matthew] as in Luke ; but not as there that accidental 
poverty must be l)le.<i.-iMl, onlv that voluntary, quiet and meek 
poverty will be blis,(.l I i ^ud the Lukan form (of the 

first Beatitude] as 1 1 1 . 1 1 . . . , i i ' , but at the same time hold 
that the First Eviin-c i i h- i. : I, ,1 phrase has come nearer to 
the actual meaning' "i i ^i- m the Tliird Evangelist, who 

Jesus' teaching as recorded in Matthew. It is 
intelligible how tlie more spiritual teaching might 
have been coarsened in transmission, under the 
influence of strongly held false theories concerning 
a man's relation to the material world, to the form 
which Luke derived from his sources ; but how 
could the reverse have happened ? Who could 
subsequently have perfected Jesus' teaching by 
creating the lofty spiritual conceptions contained 
in Mt a"- ? * 

Jesus wished to establish, as the first principle 
of the better life, that true well-being is not 
reckoned in earthly goods, or obtained by them ; 
on the contrary, ideal manhood and womanhood 
come through complete self-committal to God, 
drawing from Him our spiritual sustenance, mak- 
ing His will our will, and finding in His supreme 
purpose the only object of our lives. Of such men, 
and of such alone, can it be said that the Kingdom 
of God is theirs. He would turn men away from 
the customary material standard of well-being to 
the pursuit of the highest good, where one's ex- 
ternal conditions become a matter of comparative 
indifference. Those are blessed who, instead of 
being self-seeking and self-sufficient, strive ear- 
nestly for that communion and co-operation with 
God which will enable them to realize the highest 
type of character and to perform the highest kind 
of service. The conditions of possessing the King- 
dom are not external but internal, not material 
but spiritual. Poor and rich niaj' alike possess it. 
The poor have it, not as a reward or a recompense 
for their poverty, but because tliey set their hearts 
on things which are above ; and the rich have the 
Kingdom for the same reason, inasmuch as th.ey use 
their material possessions for the spread of right- 
eousness, truth, joy, and peace. 

The second clauses of the Beatitudes respectively 
express the results of realizing the character or 
performing the service described in the first clauses. 
They are promised blessings which correspond to 
current longings, and are worded in the tixed 
phrases by which those longings had of old found 
expression. These blessings, although varied in 
form, are kindred in meaning ; tliey promise not 
so much a number of dillirint tilings, as they con- 
vey the idea in various w:iys that the entire good 
of which God is the creator and provider will come 
to those who sincerely seek it in the way He 
appoints.t 'The Kingdom of God' was a phrase 
which had long been used to express all conceiv- 
able good, to sum up the longings of the devout 
souls of Israel. Jesus therefore tells them how 
they may obtain all their desire. And the pos- 
session of the Kingdom is not a thing of the far dis- 
tant future, but of the immediate present : 'theirs 
is the Kingdom of Heaven.' The Kingdom of God, 
while it has its consummation in the future, was an 
existing reality when Jesus spoke ; and its blessings 
were available at once for those who would comply 
with the conditions of receiving them. J 

(2) ' Blessed are they that mourn : for they shall 
be comforted.' § Here, also, Jesus has taken up 
an OT phrase, which may be seen in Is 61'"^ ('to 
with Ebionitic tendency has interpreted the words of the Lord 
which lent themselves to this apparent condemnation of all 
material possessions, as well as other words concerning the 
Kingdom, in a similar wav.' 

* Yet O- Holtzmann, Lebcn Jesu (1901), p. 186 f., holds that 
just this change was made. 

f So Kabisch, SK, 1896 ; Ibbeken, Bergpredigt^ p. 19. Tholuck, 
Bergrede 5, p. 67 (Eng. tr. p. (;4), says : ' If we consider the sub- 
stance of the several promises, we shall find that they are all 
essentially identical, and that the difference is merely rhetorical ; 
formally, they correspond to the thing desired or possessed, but 
each of them really comprises all spiritual blessings.' 

J Upon the meaning and. use of the term 'Kingdom of God* 
in Jesus' teaching, see esp. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 293-32S. 

§ Mt b* IJLxy.i.pioi ci sliOcZyn:, or. auToi :rxpx!:ky,Kire>rx, ; Lk B^l' 

fj.axapi6i e'l x\x'io\Ti; vuv, 'cri yskcir£Ts. The Lukan form is second- 
arv. and its harsh, superficial tone is unsatisfactory. Compare 
with it Ja 49. 




toinfort all that mourn,' c-^ji;) and I's liG'-". The 
tfini 'inuurninj;' {ircrSovi'Tff) is so general a one 
that it is dillii-ult to determine precisely its seope. 
Tlie early commentators inclined to regard it as 
the sorrow of penitence for sin (cf. 2 Co 1^ 7'°), 
while others think of it as the sorrow which comes 
from atHictions, adversities, and persecutions.* 
'I'here seems no suHiirient reason why the term 
should not be undcrstooil here in the inclusive 
sense, to designate all those experiences of life- 
internal or external, physical, mental, or spiritual, 
^«hitli bring sadness and sorrow to men. The 
world is full of mourning ; no one escapes the 
anguish of pain, disappointment, bereavement, and 
conllict with sin. And men have always longed 
for a l>etter day, when this mom iiing shall be no 
i.iore. It was one element of the Messianic hope 
that with the advent of that glorious Divine King- 
dom eOiMplete comfort and consolation for the 
World's sorrows would be given to (Jod's faithful 
one-i, Islil-; cf. Lk 2-' 4". tiesus gave the assur- 
ance that this hope would ]>e realized. The Apoca- 
Ivjiti^l has repeated with thrilling joy tlie : 
' And he shall wipe away every tear from their 
eyes ; and death shall be no more ; neither shall 
tliere be mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more : 
the lirst things are pa.ssed away' (Kev 21*). 

Although the promise of comfort is in the 
Beatitude expressed in the future tense, its bestow- 
inent is not to be reg.arded as exclusively eschato- 
logical. As the Kingdom was present among men 
at the time when Jesus sjioke these words, so the 
comfort of the Kingdom was already a present 
reality and available t« all. Not that all mourning 
was then to cease, — that stage l>elongs to the 
future consummation of the Kingdom, — but that 
•lesMs brought a true consolation for all sorrow, 
in the knowledge that God is a loving Father who 
does all things well, and that all men, like the Son 
Himself, are perfected through sutl'ering (He 5' 
12^'""). Rest and peace came to the world in and 
through Christ (Mt 11^-^, Jn 14'- -■' 16^^) 

(3) 'Blessed are the meek : for they shall inherit 
tlie earth.' t The iilea is tUat of I's 37" ' the meek 
shall inherit the earth,' J and the LXX renders d"i:k 
by irpaeh. Meekness is an OT ideal, and is closely 
related U< that of the ' poor,' which Jesus had 
already taken up in the first Beatitude. This same 
Hebrew word is rendered in the English ViSS now 
by the <me word, now by the other ; also CivaN, com- 
numly translated ' poor,' is sometimes translated 
'meeK' (cf. Is Gl' in RV text and margin, and see 
Lk 4"). In Is (iO- the term 'jj; is associated with 
nn-nrj and IJi""?!" Tn, where the three i<leas' seem 
closely akin : ' To th.s man will I look, to him that 
is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth 
at my word.' Cf. Ps 20"'^ I'r W-'. The OT 
conception of meekness seems therefore to concern 
a man's attitude towards (iotl rather than towards 
other men. The opposite of this meekness is 
pride and arrogance towards (Jod, and such men 
lie will bring to mmglit, I's 7iV"' 94'--'. It is 
juimarily His attitude towards (iod which Jesus 
li.Ts in mind when He says, 'Take my yoke upon 
ycu, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in 

• Fnr thi- fi.rni.r view, Clcni. .\lex., Chrv.snstoni. .Ic-ronie, and 
r-.-.-i.!l. \. Ii. ';, , f..i-|l,. l^.llrr vi.«, Aii-u-lin.' l.u I li,T, Calvin, 
ai. I....1I l^'.;,.!, 1; l\. :-, l-iM. Ill ,1 il ,, i.iiiKWsil.le to 

I.K : . ■■• t ' ' I ■ II. . .III. I i.\-., 1- ihi,.i.|.-il or both. 

Ti> ",/•■ '■ ', 1. ■;:;(K„_- ir |. ,:.),-:.>-■ Hi- mourning 

8|>olvi'ii ot IS the s()rrow or lu-nitvnrf imiiie'lialvlv flowing from 
a fell poverty of 8nirit. . . . This grief is not, how- 
ever, to be regametl OH confined to the |)eriod of nonver«ion, 
but oii^'lit to Im; viewed as a eontintious condition of the soul.* 

t Mt (fi Lttuutfiu ei vptiCt, «rj atCrti x>.r,p4itfAi,r»t/rt* rv,» yr,t. 
Luke has no parallel. 

t Biiron, Sermon on the Motinl, pp. 110, 127. holds that this 
Beatitude wtia not given by Jesus, but 'is a mere scribal gloss, 
a marginal addition from Fs :l7n, which has crept in after v.^ in 
some manuscripts, after v.* in others.' This is a poesible, but 
not a likely, hypothesis. 

heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls' (Mt 
II-'"). And the ' meek ' who in tin; third Heatiluile 
are pronounced blessed are who live in trust- 
ful submission to tiod, seeking to know and to ilo 
His will ; humility rather than self-assumption 
and priilc chiiracterizes them. Compare also the 
parable of the I'litirisce and the I'ublican, Lk IS"'*, 
riiey becoiite a jiart of the great world, ami are 
fellow-laliourcrs with Cod in His great puri>, 
instead of being ends in themselves and isolated 
elements in the Uivine system. They do not 
thereby lose their identity and their importance; 
instea<l, by complete self-eommittal to God, they 
find the perfect realization of themselves, and 
achieve a personality of greatest intluence in the 

A necessary otitworking of this meekness to- 
wards (Jod is a quality of gentleness, forgiveness, 
and self-abnegation in a man's relations to his 
fellow-men. This is the conception which St. Paul 
seems to have had of the meekness of .Jesus, 2 Co 
10' (cf. also Eph 4-, .la 3'', 1 F 3*) ; and it is the 
meaning which the earlier interpreters found in 
this Beatitude, since they paid more heed to the 
classical (ireek u.sage of wpaeis thun to the Hebrew 
conception of 'li,'. The Greeks had scarcely an idea 
of that humility of man towards God whicli fornu'd 
so true and striking an element in the religion of 

When Jesus promised that the meek 'shall in- 
herit the earth,' Hi- iuloplcil the popular phrase of 
the Hebrew covenant ( (Hirc ptiim, which was then 
in use among tlti^ more deeply religious as a sj-ni- 
bolii- 1 \|iir~-ii'ti to denote all those good things 
wliii li will- ic. rcime with the Messi.anic kingdom.* 
The m:ilciiul :iiid ephemeral elements of this hope 
Jesus passed by ; but the spiritual content of it, 
the inspiring expectation that (Jod would triumph 
over the world in the persons of His faithful and 
obedient servants among men, llr n^illiriiiiij. Nor 
did .Icsus conceive that this su)ii I 111:11 \ ni ihr meek 
on the earth would be solely I'^rli.itul. liiciI and 
catastrophic; quite the reverse, for the growth of 
the Kingdom was to be gradual (Mk 4^-^-), and the 
dominance of the world by meekness and liumility 
is progressively realized. Men of such ch.aracter 
become increasingly iiiHuential and sueces-sful ; the 
Divine ideal is milking its way among men. Every 
passing year marks real advance towards the sup- 
remacy of the people of God.t 

(4) ' Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after 
righteousness: for they shall be lilled.'J Tire 

• The phrase piiiri-nK ir-i; arose in a literal sense, with refer- 
ence to the inheritance of the Promised Land of Canaan by ttie 
Israelites ; cf. On 15', l)t 4^8, Jos 149. After the Israelites" had 
come into ]iosHe.ssion of Canaan, the conception was enlarged, 
and the phmse beciune figuratively use<i to designate an antici- 
pated material, moral and spiritual supremacy of the people pf 
God on the earth, as in Ps 37, esi). vv.y- n, already quoted, and 
in Ps 259-'^ 'The meek will he puiae in judgment, and the meek 
will he teach his way. . , . iTis soul shall dweil at ea.-ie, and 
his seed shall inherit the land.' See also Is CO-'. I>n 7'^ ; and 
in the NT the idea can be seen in Mt 'iS*", Mk 12', llo *>■>, 
Ual 31s, Kev 59 '». 

t Tholuck, lierijrede, p. 78 (En^. tr. p. 83) : ' In this promise 
humility and meekness are by htm pronouncal to be the truly 
world-conquering principle, with reference to their tiltiiiiiit*- 
victory in the history of the future.' B. Weiss thinks this i<l< .1 
lies very remote from the passage, and describes the iiit-.k as 
'those quiet sufferers who, tnisting in God, bear, without l.itlcr- 
ne.s8 or a feeling of revenge, the abuse of those who attlirt and 
persecute them. The {lainful consciousness of their own short- 
comings makes them huinble when they are treated unjustly by 
others.' Certainly this teaching is germane to Jesus (Mt-VO), 
but it comes under the eighth Beatitude rather than under the 

J Mt S*^ fiiotxiptii ct Tli*3H(Ti; xtti it^-^trtt r^v iixtiitritf,*, in 
itiiTo'i ^tfiretrlf*.ft*rett, Lk IT-I* fjiatxxptoi ei t1j*m.ti>' >ii, or, x*f^'^' 
b'.eirbt. It may l»e that the original saying was shortiT than 
that which appears in Matthew's Greek form, the r»,» i,K. or 
even x<cj it^. t,,> iix. being |>ossibly an expansion ; but it seems 
sutficiently clear that in any cose the ftlatthew account pre- 
serves the true idea, and that the material tone of Luke's 
Beatitude (contpare liis corresponding \Voe, t^') is a later per- 
venf'ton of Jesus' utterant^. 


sp:rmox on the mount 

sp:rmon on the mount 

terms 'hunger' and 'thirst,' representing the 
fundamental physical necessities, had been of old 
used symbolically to denote intense spiritual long- 
ing, cf. Is 49>" 55'- = 65", Am 8", Ps 34"- '" 42' (and 
in'the NT see Jn 6^^ 7^', Kev 22'- 2) ; xopi-dfo/ioi also 
was used figuratively of spiritual supply, Ps 17" 
IdlK Of the meaning of this Beatitude there can 
be no do\ibt. The righteousness which men are to 
seek is that righteousness which the entire Sermon 
is designed to elucidate and to enjoin. Those 
who earnestly desire it are pronounced blessed, 
because it is theirs ; every one who sincerely wills 
to have righteousness obtains it (Rev 22'"). Kight- 
eousness was the technical Jewish term to connote 
that quality and quantity of character and con- 
duct which God requires of men, and which it is 
the one aim of life to attain. It was Jesus' mission 
to correct and to perfect men's conception of 
righteousness, and to inspire them to its actual 
realization. In this Beatitude He speaks of the 
bles.sedness of those who long for righteousness, 
while in the other Beatitudes and throughout the 
discourse He shows them what true righteousness 
is, and how it is to be obtained. Since righteous- 
ness consists in right character and service, it 
cannot be externally bestowed,* but must be 
achieved, by each individual, with the help of God 
through Christ. And its achievement is a process 
of gTowth into the likeness of our Divine Example. 
It is the glory of the Gospel that to every desirous 
soul is promised the attainment of God's ideal for 
him and membership in the eternal Kingdom of 
the sons of God. 

(5) ' Blessed are the merciful : for they shall 
obtain mercy.' t It is probably by intention that 
this Beatitude stands immediately after the one 
concerning righteousness, for in both OT and NT 
the two ideas of righteousness and mercy are cor- 
relative : J Mic 6* ' He hath showed thee, O man, 
what ia good ; and what doth the Lord require of 
thee, but to <lo justly, and to love mercy, and to 
walk humbly with thy God?' (cf. also Ps 18-''-'', Is 
58'") ; Mt 23^ ' Woe unto j-ou, scribes and Phari- 
sees, hypocrites ! for ye tithe mint and anise and 
cummin, and have left undone the w'eightier 
matters of the law, judgment [i.e. justice §], and 
mercy, and faith.' There is no righteousness 
w ithout mercy, whether of God or man. One of 
the most frequent OT ideas is that God is merciful 
towards men, and one of its most frequent injunc- 
tions is that men must be' likewise merciful towards 
one another. Jesus re-established both teachings, 

* Neither in this passaije nor elsewhere does Jesiis use the 
term • righteousness ' in the forensic sense to which St. Paul 
gave currency. That God does, in His love and mercy, pardon 
and receive every man who in and through Christ sets him- 
self seriously towards the Divine ideal, is abundantly taught 
by Jesus ; but He does not use this terra to denote that idea. 
So nearly all commentators. Achelis, Bergpredigt^ p. 22 ; 'The 
words inflicate that high degree of longing which rests upon 
the certainty that the object of the longing is essential to life, 
that without it Ufe would become death, liighteousness is the 
object of such desire ; what is meant bv it is that moral con- 
dition which is in accordance with God's will.' B. Weiss defines 
the righteousness here referred to as that ' righteousness which 
corresponds to the norm of the Divine will, the highest good 
of every true Israelite, upon the possession of whi'-h depends 
the certainty of God's good pleasure and the participation in 
all the promises. The Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus 
offers men this good in an abundance which will satisfy all long- 
ings, bring full contentment, and fill them with righteousness. 
For in the Kingdom of God, and only there,— though there with 
the greatest of certainty,— will the ideal of righteousness be 
actually realized.' 

t Mt &7 uaxocpioi ei iXiKf^yES, 'art xvroi e?.»rMtreifTttt. Luke has 
no parallel. 

J So closely connected are the two ideas that the Heb. '11?"^^', 
which more commonly should be and is represented in the 
LXX bv ^iyMiotrCvYj, is at times translated bv sAetiiAsj-iiv/, ; of. Dt 
f,25 24", Ps245 335 1036, Is 12?. In the Sermon passage Mt 61 
'tXiy,fj^trCv-..v appears as a variant reading of hixxiotrOvy.v ; the 
former, however, is not strongly attested (EL against NBD), and 
is accei>ted bv few scholars. 

§ So H. Iloltzmann, B. Weiss, Wendt ; cf. Ps 335. 

and gave them great prominence in His instruc- 
tion. Mercy is twofold : subjective and objective. 
Subjectively, mercy requires that a man shall be 
loving and forgiving towards all ; not revengeful 
nor cherishing ill-will ; not thinking evil of others 
(Mt IS'^'-s^, 1 Co 13^-', Eph 4^=). Objectively, mercy 
requires that a man shall show deep, inexhaustible 
sympathy with all his fellows, manifesting itself 
in unremitting, helpful service, and in a loving 
consiilerateness towards all (Mt 5"-'^ O'""" 12' 
25^'-"', Lk 10^-" 16'»-^', Ro 12»--i', Gal S'--^, Col 
3'--'^ 1 Jn 3'*-'*). It is strikin" that in the Beati- 
tudes no specific mention is made of love, although 
love (towards God aiul man) is proclaimed by Jesus 
as the sura of all duty (Mt '22^-*^, cf. Uo 13»-'", 
Gal 5"). And farther on in the Sermon, at 
Mt 5^'"*', the duty of love is explicitly taught. 
But the fact is, that although the term 'love' does 
not appear in the Beatitudes, yet the idea of love 
underlies every one of them. Roughly grouped, 
the first four concern love to God, the last four 
love to men. All that the eight Beatitudes contain 
is but an application of the principle of love to the 
most important aspects of life, formulating more 
specifically what love requires in the essential ex- 
perience and relations of human existence. 

The mercy of God precedes the mercy of men, 
and is its prototype. Inasmuch as God is merciful 
towards men. He rightlj' requires that men shall 
be merciful towards one another. In the parable 
of the Unmerciful Servant this is most impressively 
taught, Mt 18-'-''. And as the last verse of the 
passage sets forth, unless men show mercy in their 
relations to each other, God cannot ultimately 
deal mercifully with them ; cf. also Mt 6'-"'^, Mk 
11-^, Eph 4-'-, Ja 2'-'. This is not retaliation on 
God's part. If it seems severe, it is yet a necessary 
provision to the end that love may triumph in His 
world. If love is to transform all and to reign 
supreme, then what is unloving must disappear. 

(6) ' Blessed are the pure in heart : for they shall 
see God.' * The ))hrase ' pure in heart ' occurs in Ps 
73' (naS n?, LXX toU ev6iixi. rfi Kapdif) and in Ps 
24^ \jj.h 13,' LXX Kadapbi tj KapSif) ; cf. also Ps 51'". 
In the NT the phrase is only twice used (1 Ti P, 
2 Ti 2--), although the thought is all-pervasive. 
The term Kapdla, corresponding to tlie Hebrew 3^ 
and in the NT deriving its signilicatiun there- 
from, denotes the essential personality, tlie inner 
central self, where all feeling, thought, and action 
originate.t In its dative form here it indicates 
the spliere in which the purity is predicated, like 
Tif jrvevfinTi in the h'st Beatitude. By ' purity of 
heart' is meant that profound sincerity and up- 
rightness of thought .and feeling which produces an 
honest, clean, holy life in all its elements and 
relations. It does not need to be said that this 
condition of things can exist only where the indi- 
vidual is committed, body and soul, to the love 
and obedience of God, and regards all men as his 
brethren and himself as a sacred trust. Jesus has 
in mind the superficial standards of goodness 
which prevailed in His day. The rich young man 
had kept all the commandments from his youth, 
and yet his heart was set upon his material 
possessions (Mk 10"'='); the Pharisees outwardly 
appeared righteous imto men, but within they 
were full of and iniquity (Mt 23-^-''). 
Against such shallow, false conceptions of right 
living, Jesus most emphatically sets the duty of 
real righteousness, of purifying the fountain of a 
man's life in order that what flows from it may 
indeed be pure. 

That the ' pure in heart' 'shall see God' is an 



* Mt 5^ fjtctxapiei 01 xocQ 
Luke has no parallel. 

t See WeiKit. Le/irc Jem. \\. 116-121; Cremer, Bihl.-Thcol 
Worlcrbuch"' {\'&d1\ in loc; art. Heart in vol. ii. 




essential result of their clmnu-ter, not a mere un- 
related reward for tlieir ^;ii<MlnesK. Nor is tliis 
seeing; of (iod a solely esclmtolo^'ical event ; for, 
wliile the jjerfeot vision of llin> belongs to tlie 
future, there is a present vision whieh inereases 
day by day with the j;roH tli of the pure in heart. 
Seeing God is, of eourse, not a physieal process, hut 
a spiritual one ; it is to enter into full eoininunion 
with llini, to be spiritually in His ininiediate pres- 
ence and to be at rest there, to share directly His 
favour, joy, and blessings. The phrase to ' see 
(iod' arose in ancient Hebrew u.sage out of the 
fact that men counted it a supreme privilege to 
come into the presence of an earthly king (I K 10", 
Kst 1") ;* how much more would it mean to come 
into the presence of the King of kings ! The hope 
of such a vision of (iod grew with the development 
of the Hebrew religious conceptions, and became 
the ra|>turous aspiration of the O'V saints (Ps II' 
'the u]iriglit shall behold his face'; 17" 'As for 
mc, 1 .shall behold thy face in righteousness ; I 
shall be satislied, when I awake, with thy like- 
ness '). In the XT also the aspiration, now become 
a certainty, reappears (1 Jn 3- 'we shall see him 
even as he is ' ; He I'2'^ Kev 22^) ; the veil of the 
tcmiilc has been rent in twain (Mt "27"), for in 
and thi'ciugli Christ men have immediate access to 
God. This standing in the very presence of God, 
this direct communion with Him and direct re- 
sponsibility to Him, is more than a theological 
tlieory — it is an actual and essential fact of the 
utmost practical signiticance. (iod i.s not an 
absentee ruler, who can be dealt with only 
through intermediaries ; on the contrary, those 
who love Him live in His presence, rest in His 
care, receive His blessings, and participate in His 

(7) ' Blessed are the peacemakers : for they shall 
be called sons of God.'t The term eipr/mroidi 
occurs in the LXX form of Pr 10'", and the thought 
is present also in Pr 12™. But ' peace ' was not so 
common an ()T idea as those dealt with in the 
previous Beatitudes. Some have maintained that 
the meaning of clpriv. in this passage is exclusively 
passive, i.e. ' peaceable.' But the mass of inter- 
preters find a larger meaning, w liich includes this 
while containing also an active element — to make 
peace.J Certainly .Jesus' idea here is comprehen- 
sive ; He has in mind to commend and to inculcate 
the spread of peace— all kinds of peace -among 
men (cf. He 12'*, Ja 3"*). In this He is the great 
leader and example, Mt 11-", Jn 14-'' (the paradox, 
Mt 10'^), Eph 2'»'», Col l™ 3" ; for God is the (iod 
of Peace, I!o 15", 2 Co 13", Ph 4'-'', 1 Th 5^, 
He 13-'", who sent peace to the earth in Christ, 
Lk 2"- '■*. Peace between tiod and men was pro- 
claimed by Jesus, and peace between men and 
their fellow-men was enjoined. Peace therefore is 
the Christian ideal. Individual composure and 
social harmony are to be brought about by the 
concentration of all interests and forces oil the 
achievement of the individual and social ideal as 
taught liy Christ, and bj' the realization, within 
one's self and among all, of those Divine principles 
of concord and co-operation through which alone 
true peace can be obtained. 

The peacemakers 'shall be called sons of God' 
because in this essential characteristic they are 
like Him, the God of Peace. The fact that the 
article docs not accompany the viol signilies tluit 

•On the 'vision of Ood' as held by I'hilo, see Schurcr, 
Geichichte d. JiidiKken Volkes'-' (1SB8), vol. iii. p. .let. 

t Mt 51* fjMxdfiitt M iifnittntiti, «Tj [«w«j] wjj vteij xX^Mrmai. 
Luke has no parallel. 

: Kur the pasjjivc sense only, Grotiiis, Socinus, Wetstein, and 
reci'iUIv Ihbeken, Benjpredifit', p. 43. For an active niealiinic 
also, I,uthcr, Meyer, Tholuck, lilcek, Achclis, H. Hollzniann, 
' nd the RV. Others incorrectly re^rri the 'peace 

the designation is to be understood qualitatively. 
This idea of sonship as consisting in moral resem- 
blance is of Hebrew origin, ami is found in l>otli 
Testaments ; cf. esp. Mt fi", Kev 21'. The expres- 
sion ' called ' sons of (iod is also a Hebraism, found 
frei|uently in the Book of I.saiah ; its special func- 
tion here .seems to be to emphasize the fact of 
sonship (cf. Mt 5'", I Jn 3') as something not only 
true, but recognized to be true. 

(8) ' Blessed are the}- that have been persecuted 
for righteousness' sake : for theirs is the kingdom 
of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall re- 
proach you, and persecute you, and say all manner 
of evil against y<]u fiiUcly, fur my sake. liejoice 
and be exceeding t;lail, for great is your reward in 
heaven : for so jjcrrtucutid they the prophets which 
were before you.'* Although the essence and 
purpose of the go.s])el was peace, nevertheless 
those who enjoyed and endeavoured to s]iiead this 
peace in the world would incur reproach and abuse 
from their fcllow-meii. The OT does not supply 
pa.ssages similar in form to this Beatitude, but the 
llebrews hail no lack of experience in persecution 
for righteuusiiess' sake, and the conception is de- 
veloped with marvellous insight and feeling in 
Is 40-66. In the NT it is an ever-i)resent idea 
— the sufi'erings of the OT saints are recalled 
(He ll-'^"'"'), Jesus lives and dies a martyr to this 

f>rinciple. He predicted persecution for His fol- 
oweis (Mt 5'""'-, Jn 16-'), and this persecution 
actually befell them (Jn 9--, Ac 5-" S'-^ 1 P 3" 
414-iu) 'p|,g primitive Christians bravely endured 
and faithfully preached when they were despised, 
ostracized, punished, and maliciously slandered.! 

* Mt glO-l'-' fjtM»if>iot el atii^yfAivet tulKtii itxectoeiitxt, '»ri «vtvi> 
ifTir n /SvfflAl cc Tuv ti/poLnSiir, (jtaxxptoi ItTl CTotv intiiiiTotrKi ifLKt ICKI 
iiciiiatgiii ;exi ttfzairiv triv imrpetr x»tf C/n-utt •^ttjic/^tet l>lxf» (,w«t/. 
Xtt'fiTi Ket'i u.yct?.>.iitffUi, art o fjufftl'o; ufjtM* rj9\v: ly Toi( eipa*it;' 
oi-Toi; yotp th.cui'K* Tcu; ITpezi'ret; Toi/f fip» -juu*. Lk 0-- '^'' 
/xetzapioi trrl 67otv fjuff>,ffMffiv t/ui; oi ctvUpurei, iutl iratv ct^p.cotrit 
t/iMti xxi inih.ffo/Tiii xxi ix^ei/Mrtt ft o*ofj^3t ifj.^1 u! veixpo* llfXM 
Tou mot/ Toij etvUpuiTtv, y^eipr,Tt if ixt'^yt rii r,uifei puu ffxtpr.'.rKTt' 
liiu yotp i fAifft}e! vpLW¥ rrekut in Ttu olpxvu' xetrx Ta xItk yxp 
'^^e.aU1 Ton vpoii,Txii u fretripi; etvToir. With re;,'ard to these two 
reports of what must be ref^arded as a single utterance, two 
thui;,'s are to be said : (1) the corresponding; Lukan Beatitude 
6-- -3 ia parallel not to Mt Si", but to Mt .I" '-. It is .suggested 
above that 51" and 5ii- 12 niay be duplicates, the one or the other 
passage appearing here through the process of compilation. 
Since one feature of the Beatitudes was their brief, striking 
form (like the Ten Commandments of the OT). the original 
eighth Beatitude must have contained few words, and fiio is 
closely parallel in form to the precedmg seven Beatitudes ; both 
of which things favour its originality. In Luke also the last 
Beatitude is very long compared with the others. Perhaps, 
therefore, Mt fjU". 12 and Lk ()--• 2^ are vary jng words from one 
historical saying, introduced here bya transmitting or editorial 
hand bcoa\ise of their close similarity in thought to that of the 
eighth Beatitude. Or another view would be that Mt .'iU. 1-j jg 
an expansion of the idea contained in Mt .Sio by Jesus Himself 
(or possibly by some subsequent Christian trailu-r \vhen the 
persecutions actually came upon itu ('In; i^n :; f..r the 
essential thought of the three verst-v i- ' ■ ;i. u-eneral 

conception of persecution in V. 10 beiit;; .N [ ii I n . " i"- into 

the specific ideo« of verbal abuse, hoslilt- li k, ml ; ,^i- reports. 
(2) The Lukan form of this Beatitude is m several resixKils 
secondary in character, i.e. it shows greater departure ttian 
Matthew's from the probable original form of the utterance. 
These modifications arose out of a freer handling in transmis- 
sion, a partial conformity to the new Gentile field in which the 
material circulated, and a greater yielding to the influence of 
the actual events of persecution in the Apostolic age. The 
term /Mri.soifft* is used in a characteristic Lukan way, rf. Lk 
H2» 1813 '2117. The £«;3«>j.»i» to »..ux do.;, i.- t.,,.,>, as 
the io^upiai*, refer to tlie exconununicatioii nf tin rtiristians as 
heretics from the synagogues and otln-r .lr« i.vh n i.tifliips — 
things whi.h mlua'llv happened, but which {\w .Mattluian pas- 
sji.;c .1 - - M. I : ifir^dlv predict. The i>i.«i. lu^i ol Matthew is 

m I : i: I 1 ilie'i.i«« T.C i/;«5 Toi iviipi^o,/ of Luke. Lk 

li-i. Ui-\ . I . , . ijis modified. And Lk C-^, last clause, shows 

vari'ii> -. i.j;'l,.i V . l.'inents, due to the denationalizing of the 
material. 'I'hcse iihenomena are constant throughout Luke's 
Gospel OS comiiared with Matthew's. 

t The 4i^8«/ii.«i of Mt 611 is attested by kBCE and the 
majority of witnesses ; it is omitted by D and certain other 
witnesses of the ' Western ' text. The word is therefore com- 
monly accepted here. But if the new claims for the ' Western ' 
type of text have l'oo<1 foundation, it is not impossible that this 
'i/tt/iofjLfyoi is, in the terminology of Westcott-IIort, a 'Western 
uon-inler^tolation.' Jesus, of course, implied the thought which 



And ill this conduct they were richly blessed — 
not by the jjersecutions, but through them ; for 
Jesus, of course, did not mean that persecutions are 
essential to the develoi)ment of the ideal life, but 
only that, where outward circumstances are such as 
to iiuhue thciii, they are blessed who steadfastly 
and joyfully glorify the Gospel. The kveKfv biKaio- 
ffivTis of jMt 5'" and the 'ivcKcv e/xoO of the following 
verse are sj-nonymous. The persecutions which 
would afflict Jesus' disciples were to be met in 
carrying forward the work which He had begun ; 
if they lived as He lived, and taught as He taught, 
they would experience the same treatment as 
He had received (Jn 7' 15'8- " 17"). Had He not 
been a true successor of the OT jjrophets in sutt'er- 
ing for righteousness' sake (Mt 5'- 23-'"'^'') ? With 
the advancing centuries the kind of persecution 
directed against Christianity has changed, and 
the amount has lessened ; but Christian people 
can never expect to be free from misinterpretation, 
ridicule, and abuse until all men become devoted 
to the righteousness and truth for which Chris- 
tianity stands. And this Beatitude promises the 
highest blessings to those who in trust, patience, 
and forgiveness uphold the Gospel, and allow the 
persecution to fuKil its own true mission in their 
lives and in the Church (He 125"). 

These promised highest blessings are denoted 
here by the term ' the Kingdom of Heaven,' so 
that in the eighth Beatitu<l._- .Icsns has ri'tiniuMl to 
the promisewhich acconiiiauicd the lirst IJc.ititude. 
This conception of the Ivingdom of Heaven is the 
inclusive one, since it comprises all conceivable 
good and brings absolute well-being. The phrase 
' great is your reward in heaven,' which appears 
in Mt 5'- = Lk 6-'-', is practically one in meaning 
witli that of Mt 5'" ' for theirs is the Kingdom of 
Heaven.' * The term ' reward ' (/uiu^js) was taken 
over into the Gospel from the commercial, quid 
^i'o i/j(o terminology of legal Judaism ; its legalistic 
designation had therefore to disappear, and now it 
was a term to express those gracious spiritual 
blessings which are at hand and in store for the 
true children of God. In this Beatitude, then, is 
promised ' the Kingdom of Heaven ' and ' great 
reward,' but not the Kingdom of Heaven plus 
some additional reward, since the Kingdom itself 
contains all the good which men can receive. 

b. The World Mission.— Ut 5"-'" (cf. Lk \\^ 
J434. 35) .j. 'pije connexion of these verses with 
those which precede is close. Men of such char- 
acter and conduct as Mt 5'"' has described will 
assuredly meet with opposition and calumny, Mt 
giij-ij . ^J^t, they must not on this account go into 
hiding — rather must they stand forth, endure per- 
secution, and uphold the Gospel standard in the 
world, Mt S'^"'". Salt is a preservative element, 
light is a life-giving one ; J both were current 

it contains, but it was quite superfluous to express it, and its 
expression disturbs the proper emphasis in the saying:. The 
word is much more likely to have been a^ded later (as a 
practically useful expansion) than to have been excluded. 

* On the NT term ' reward ' see B. Weiss, Bibl. Theologie des 
NT» (1895), 5 32; Tholuck, Bergrede^, pp. 99-101 [Eng. tr. 
p. 101 f.] ; Achelia, Beiypredifft, pp. 52-55. 

t This section is regarded as not belonging to the original 
Sermon by Feine, H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, Wendt, Bartlet, 
Bacon ; it is defended by Achelis, Meyer, Tholuck, and most 
commentators. If the theme of the discourse is compreliensive, 
OS maintained above, these verses supply a logical and useful 
portion of the whole treatment given it. 

t The exact function of salt which Jesus had here in mind is 
somewhat uncertain : was it its quality to save from decay, as 
in 2 K 219- 20 (so Meyer, B. Weiss), or its quality as a pleasing 
condiment, as in Job (J*>, Col 4'' (so Bleek, H. Holtzmann), or its 
ritual function as developed in the ancient sacrificial system, 
cf. Mk 949- s» (so Achelis, Keil, Tholuck, Bcrf/redc 5, pp. 102 106 
[Eng. tr. pp. 105-109])? The second of these views is perhaps 
too shallow for this passage, and the third too complex, too 
erudite ; it seems a simpler and stronger utterance when the 
salt is conceived in its fundamental property of a preservative. 
The other metaphor, light, is one of the most common religious 
expressions, cf. esp. Is 126 49« 60i- a, Jn l*- 5. s 81'^ 12^- «, Eph 5». 

tigurative terms for spiritual realities. Men who 
appreciate the Divine ideal of life which Jesus has 
presented in the Beatitudes, and who strive to 
attain it, are God's chosen instruments for the 
realization of His purpose in the world. They are 
to live and to work among men, where their char- 
acter and their deeds may exert their full, true 
influence. The Christian is not permitted either 
to withdraw himself from the world, or to live an 
isolated, unprofes.sed religious life in the world. 
He must not only himself be good and do good ; 
he must also help others into tlie appreciation and 
the attainment of the same ideal. Salvation is 
not merely individual ; it is social as well. Until 
Christians do the most and the best they can with 
themselves and for all others, they are not faithful 
to the mission which Jesus has laid upon all of His 
followers, and the consummation of God's Kingdom 
is in so far delayed. 

c. Belatinn to the Old Testament.— Mt 5"-=^" (cf. 
Lk 16"). The logical relation of these verses to 
what precedes is clear : Jesus has set forth the 
new Gospel norm of life (5^"'-), and has enjoined 
His followers to live this life openly before the 
world (5""'") ; now He proceeds to show the 
relation of this new Gospel norm to the Hebrew 
norm of life which in tlie OT had come down 
through the centuries and now held the field 
among His countrymen. Since Jesus' ideal dif- 
fered so much from the current scribal standard 
(as any one could see), the question easily arose 
— not only among His opponents, the religious 
leaders of the day, but also among those who 
' heard him gladly ' — whether this revelation of 
God's will by Jesus was a wholly new revelation 
superseding that made by Moses and the Prophets. 
Jesus gave the answer to this question when He 
said, ' Think not that I came to destroy the law 
or the prophets : I came not to destroy, but to 

Ph 213, 1 Th 55. The phrase of v.16 to (fS; i/jHi, means either 
' the light which is intrusted to you,' viz. the Gospel (so H. 
Holtzmann, B. Weiss), or '■ the light which you are,' as in v.n. 

* Mt 5'** fJ.^, yiofJAOXTl CT* T;At/oi' XMtoLKitaeLi Tff* vofjuv V, Toii 
Tpotpi.Tcts ■ oIk YiXHev xa-TccXZirttt iXAa vkrp^ireti. The customary 

phrase, 6 vof^; xal ei Tpefr^rtti, is a phrase which arises from the 
Jewish designation of the OT literature, the vo^ioj designating 
the first five books, the tpo^tou the remainder ; while the whole 
phrase denotes the OT in its entirety and its unity. It is 
noticeable that in Mt 5^^ we have the disjunctive particle ri 
instead of the usual ««/ in this phrase. The variation is prob- 
ably intentional, introduced in order to suggest that the Law 
and the Prophets were distinct portions of the OT, and that a 
different attitude might be assumed by the same person towards 
the two di\ isions — He might abrogate either one without the 
other, but He wishes to abrogate neither (so Tholuck, Meyer, 
Ibbeken, Bruce, Wendt, B. Weiss). 

While Jesus mentions 'the Prophets' in 517, He does not 
again refer to them throughout the whole following section, 
5is-is, All that He goes on to say pertains to the Law ; He 
does not present any similar illustrations of how the teaching of 
the Prophets is to be perfected. This silence concerning the 
Prophets is explained in different ways. Achelis {Ber<jpredi(jt, 
p. 79) thinks that if what He said was true of the Law, that He 
came not to destroy but to fulfil, a fortioH it was true of the 
Prophets. The more common explanation is that He passed by 
the Prophets in the remainder of His teaching at this point 
because He was much more in accord with them, and because 
the contemporaneous religious teachers paid so little attention 
to the Prophets that He did not come seriously into conflict 
with them concerning the prophetic teaching. Recently Pro- 
fessor Briggs {Expos. Times, viii. 398) has argued that Ml 517 as 
given by Jesusstood, 'Think not that I came to destroy the 
law : I came not to destroy but to fulfil,' for ' the Evangelist 
added "the Prophets" in order to make the statement refer to 
the whole OT. This addition destroys the measure of the line, 
and has nothing in the context of this discourse or in the ex- 
perience of Jesus to justify it. He was constantly charged with 
violating the Law, but nowhere with destroying the Prophets.* 
Bacon takes a similar view {Scrmmi on the Mount, pp. 87, 176). 
This hypothesis is worthy of consideration. The words »i rot/? 
vpotxTcti might easily have been introduced subsequently to round 
out the original utterance of Jesus, for of course He did come 
to fulfil both Law and Prophets ; even though on this historical 
occasion He had spoken only of the Law, His attitude towards 
which was liable to be misunderstood and needed careful ex- 
planation. The material contained in the First Gospel has 
perhaps been retouched at several points to show Jesus as the 
tulfiller of the entire OT, and especially of the Prophets ; the 




Jesus' constant warfare Juriiig His ministry was 
not so iiiucli against the UT staiulard of life in 
itself as ajjaiiist the interpretation of the OT 
stanihird which was helil anil taught in His day. 
For hundreds of years the priests and scribes had 
been busily engaged with the legal literature of 
their religion. Tliesc labours had resulted in an 
elaboration and externalization of the Law ; so 
that when Je.sus came the current Jewish teaching 
was in some respects extremely perverse: (1) it 
largely ignored the Prophetic portion of the OT, 
which was the very soul of the Hebrew history 
and Uible ; {2) it exalted legalism until Judaisiii 
had become a .system of precepts for the perform- 
ance of an innumerable series nf great and small 
duties which few could know and none could fully 
obey ; (3) it so externalized the Law that religion 
came to consist chieHy in the observance of minute 
ceremoiual performances, while the internal, spon- 
taneous, and genuitiely .spiritual elements of the 
Law were neglected or ignored. Against this 
scribal abuse of the OT, Jesus had on many 
occasions to assert himself, and He did so witli 
vehemence. He would not keep their fasts (Mk 
2") ; He would not observe the Sabbath according 
to their code (Mt 1-2'-", Mk 2-='-3'', Jii 5'«"*) ; He 
denounced, with a true prophetic in.sight and 
indignation, their whole legislation regarding the 
ceremonially clean and unclean (Mt 15'"'-"', Mk 7'"^, 
cf. Is 1'""", MicC") ; He continually associated with 
the sinful and the despi.sed who did not keep the 
Law, in order to do them good (Mk 2"- ''). Such 
an attitude on Jesus' part towards the teachin" of 
the scribes and Pharisees was involved in llis 
introduction of a higher standard. In this atti- 
tude He was not, in fact, opposing the OT ; rather. 
He was defending it against the false interpreta- 
tion which had become current. Nevertheless, 
and quite naturally, the Jewish leaders identilied 
their conception of the OT with the OT itself— 
how could they lie mistaken about it? Therefore 
Jesus was a traitor to the religion, the history, 
and the literature of the race ; He richly merited 
a traitor's death. It seemed to them logical and 
conclusive, because in their bigotry they regarded 
their own ideas and interpretaticms as heaven- 
j)enetrating and infallible. To be sure, Jesus' 
tea<'hing went much deeper than the mere removal 
of the rubbish which had accumulated about the 
OT during the preceding centuries ; His work did 
not consist solely in re-establi.shing the OT as it 
came from the hands of its makers. But had the 
Jews been true to the OT in the breadth and 
height of its teaching, they Avould have welcomed 
Jesus instead of rejecting Him ; they would have 
been prej>ared to appreciate and to receive the 
fuller revelation of Uod's will which He brought 
into the world. 

That His Gospel was a fuller revelation, Je.sus 
maile abundantly plain. He did not re-enact the 
Ten Commandments, but only reestablished the 
principles which underlay them (Mt 22^'"''"). He 
abrogated such provisions and implications of the 
Law a.s were adapted only to the earlier stages of 
civilization, thus : mere external eonformitv to 
statutes regarding moral conduct, Mt o'-'-^-^'-S" ; 
divorce, S^'-*' ; the use of oaths, n""''-" ; the practice 
of retaliation, S-*"*" ; the pride of race, which made 
men despise other nations, S"'"*. In these matters, 
which He dealt with as specimen cases, Jesus re- 
vealed an attitude, a method, and certain principles 
which He intended to be applied to the OT through- 
phrase ' the law and the prophets ' is a favourite one in 
JIatth.w, compare VIS with Lk tV" ; 2a« with Mk \i<'. I.k lll^ 
Hilt to this argument it may be replied that the (Jo.-'pels of 
Mark ami Luke, bein{^ written for use anionic' the (itntiles, 
inrorjiorated tradition from whieh many of tiie distiiu-tly 
Jewish elements and phrases actually employed by Jesus had 
been removed in the interest of a universal Gospel. 

out.* He did not repudiate the past. He did not 
even break with the best which the piust had pro- 
duced ; He only developeil and perfi^cUd the hit;!! 
ideal of life which had found embodiment in the 
Hebrew Itible. He diil not set the seal of absolute 
duty and truth upon all that the lawgivers and 
lirophets had taught, bin He took up anil realtirmcd 
the essential ethical pi iiiriplcs and religious ideas 
which the Hebrew lawgivers had endeavoured to 
formulate and the Hebrew pro]>hets had en- 
deavoured to instil into the lives of men. That 
Jesus regarded His own revelation of the will of 
God as immeasurably superior to that containeil 
in the OT is most strikingly expressed when He 
says, ' Verily I say unto you. Among them that are 
lioni of women there hath not arisen a greater 
than John the Baptist ; yet he that is but little 
in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he ' 
(.Mt 11", cf. also Mt 13'"). To the same ellect is 
Mk 2-'- — ' No man sewetli a piece of undres.sed 
cloth on an old garment ; else that which should 
lill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and 
a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new 
wine into old wineskins ; else the wine will burst 
the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins.' 
Full of a similar meaning, also, is Jesus' paralxilic 
statement in Mt 13'- 'Every scribe who hath been 
made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like 
unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth 
forth out of his treasure things new and old.'t 

When, therefore. .lesus siiys, ' I came not to de- 
.stroy, but to fullil ( Mt o"). He iilaccsin our hands 
the key to llis relation to the OT,J aod bids us see 
the continuity of God's purpose among men, the 
eternity of right and truth, and the absolute cer- 
tainty that tlie Divine ideal is to develop and 
triumph in the world. In these words is coni[irised 
.all that .k^-ll^ was, and did, and taught; th.y de- 
scriln' llis mission. And Hefell Himself eom|i((eiit 
to perform this mighty work, this inanifeslulinM of 
God to men, because He knew Himself to be ilin>en 
by God and i|ualilied by Him for the coiueyann' of 
this revelation. Since He was superior to all ]ire- 
vious revealers of Guil, He was capable of passing 
judgment upon their teachings ; He was appointed 
to jironounee what elements in those teachings were 
of permanent and what of transient value. And 
it wjis also His mission to unify, to perfect, and to 
estfiblish the whole sum of religious and ethical 
ideas among men. For this service He had the 

* .Tcsiis at taukeil existinp ideas, practices, and institutions only 
to til. 'Ill' i' Iiitely necessary for the establishment of His 
f.'iivjM M (111- evils and wrongs of society lie did not 

airiiM|.i I IF. , many of the current misconceptions He left 
for ^uu. I 1. lit I- I hers to remove. His purpose wa» to trans- 
form iiKuikimi. not t« produce a social or political revolutitm, 
and He saw most truly that this transformation was a process 
for which abundant tii'ue must be allowed (.Mt 13-'^, Mk jai '-a). 
His work was not destructive but constructive, not negative but 
positive, as all true work for the world is. Progress involves 
the putting aside of old bottles for new, the correction of false 
ideas and practices, the clearing away of spurious accretions, 
the defeat of those who counsel stagnation ; but no one who 
follows Jesus' example in advancing the Kingdom will labour 
exclusively, or even primarily, to overthrow the false ; rather 
will he lovingly and trustfulfv devote himself to the establish- 
ment of what is true. There is a radical difTerence between a 
critical and a helpful attitude in one's work for the world. 

f On the interpretation of Mt 13^2 see particularly Wendt, 
Leiire Jani, ii. 349. 

J St. Paul's conception of the relation between the Law and 
the Cospel is the saute as that of Jesus, as may be seen in the 
Epistles to the Komans and (ialalians. In llo 3:11 St. Paul claims 
not to annul but to establish the Law ; not in form and letter, 
but in BubstAuce and spirit. This is to acknowledge the great 
law of progress, or development, in the imiverse. An acorn 
fuldls its mission not by remaining an acorn, but by growing 
into an oak. A child fulfils its mission not by remaining a 
child, but by becoming a man. So the OT Law was fulfilled and 
established "not by continuing in literal force when men were 
readv for something better, but by becoming in due lime 
throiigh Christ a perfectol revelation (cf. t!al i*''), aiiapled 
to the higher needs and iKissibilities of mankind. On the atti 
lu<ie of Jesus and St. Paul towards the Idiw, see csp. art. Law 
i.v THE NT in vol. iii. 




Divine ideal within Himself, and needed no ex- 
ternal criterion. 

So that there seems no room for a difference of 
opinion as to wliat Jesus meant by saying that He 
came to ' fuUil ' the Law and tlie Prophets. He 
could not liave meant that He would secure tlie 
literal accomplishment of everything hoped for 
and promised in the OT, as thou^'h the OT simply 
presented a programme whicii it was His mission 
to carry out. Nor could He have meant that He 
would secure the complete, literal observance and 
performance of all that is commanded in the Law 
and tlie Prophets. He neither did nor attempted 
to do the one thing or the other. H His Jewish 
hearers might at tirst understand Him to promise 
that in * fulHlling' the Law and the Prophets He 
would reaffirm their authority, and render and 
secure absolute obedience thereto, He yet ex- 
plicitly and emphatically provided against such a 
misconstruction of His words by what He immedi- 
ately adds in vv.'***^. Jesus could only have meant 
that He came to * fulfil ' the Law and the Prophets 
by first perfecting them and then accomplishing 

In accordance with this view of Jesus' thought in Mt 51"^ must 
be interpreted Hia words in Mt Si^- 1^. The former, v.i«, seems 
to say : I atfirm most emphaticall}' that to the end of time t the 
OT Law, and every portion of that Law, shall remain and shall 
be actually and completely realized. The latter, v.i^, seems to 
say : The minute observance and inculcation of this OT Law, in 
every statute and in every detail, is literally and strictly re- 
q ired of everj- member of the Kinjfdom of Heaven. J Now 

* This is now the g-eiierally accepted interpretation. Tholuck, 
Bargrede^, pp. 124, 1-^t.i I Eng. tr. pp. 125, 127] : ' So Christ has come 
to perfect, to fill up with religious knowledge and lite, all that 
in the OT revelation existed only in outline. . . . That the ful- 
filling was merely an extenial supplementing or improvement of 
the Law cannot be admitted ' (see Tholuck's entire discussion of 
Mt 5l^ pp. 113-131 [Eng. tr. pp. 115-131]). Bruce, Expositor's 
Greek Testament, i. 104 : ' He brinjrs in a law of the spirit which 
cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom which realizes the pro- 
phetic ideals while setting aside the crude details of their 
conception of the Messianic time.' B. Weiss, Meiier-Kormn. 
ii. d. J/oMeyffni. p.l02 : 'He comes not at all to undo or to abro- 
g;ate ; his mission is a positive one, to provide a new [revelation 
of the will of God], in which he will bring to perfection all God's 
revelations and plans of salvation.' Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. 
TheoL 1885: 'Thus he says that no essential difference exists 
between the OT revelation and his message of the Kingdom, 
but that there ia a close continuity between them ; true religion, 
presented as an ideal in the OX, is now realized, and the Gospel 
is tli'e fulfilment of the OT prophecy.' Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 
333 f. : 'He would say that he recognizes in the Law and the 
Prophets a true revelation of the will of God, and consequently 
he does not feel called upon to annul its value for others. But 
at the same time he would affirm that he could not leave just as 
it stood the presentation given by the Law and the Prophets of 
this earlier revelation of God's will, and that he would not ex- 
plain and confirm that revelation in the detailed manner of the 
scribal teaching ; but that instead he would perfect that revela- 
tion, so that the OT presentation of the will of God would find 
its ideal expression ' (see Wendt's entire discussion, pp. 3;i3-351). 
Similarly also Luther, Meyer, Hilgenfeld, Achelis, Bacon, and 
man.> others. H. Holtzmann, Coimn. ii. d. Synoptlker, p. 101, 
saysi concernins Mt 51"^ : ' It is open to question whether during 
the public life of Jesus so radical an interpretation of His 
mission could have been formulated, either in the positive sense 
(cf. Ro 10*) or in the negative sense.' 

t The phrase "ia; av rrapixByi o'Jpetvoc xa.\ vi yvt does not define 
a terminus ad quem, but means 'for ever,' in the sense that He 
has no pronouncement to make as to a time when the Law shall 
be no longer valid. So Luther, Calvin, Meyer, Tholuck, Ibbeken, 
Bruce, B. Weiss ; a contrary opinion by Achelis, Bergpredigt, 
p. 84, and Lechler, SK 1854. The foi-mer view is supported 

also by the parallel saying in Lk 16'7 s-lxciratTspov Si £imv rov 

olpocx'ov xxi Ty.* yij* ir«/)S/.fl£iv ■») toZ vauMu fj..etv xspettav frta-in' (on 

this passage and its relation to Mt 5^ see esp. Feine, Jahrb. 
/. Protest, TheoL 1&S5, pp. 31-35). B.Weiss, Meyer-Komm.ii.d. 
Matteofjm. p. 104, says that in the phrase ' till heaven and earth 
pass away ' Jesus ' does not indicate a point after which the Law 
shall no longer be in existence, but [this] is only a popular ex- 
pression (cf. Job 141'^) for the permanent authority of the Law. 
Since Jesus is speaking of what shall take place in the present 
world-era, he states that the Law can never pass away. But of a 
continuation of the Law beyond the last world -catastrophe, as 
referred to in Mt 24^5, nothing is here said." The second phrase 
ear; dck ir«iiT« yiynTtti is parallel to the Vai.- iv t«/>sX5*j o oi^a.\a; xai 
ii -y-iy and in meaning can only be synonymous with it. 

J Concerning the interpretation of the phrase o; iiv euv kCtryj 
fAietv raiit ii>T»\<u¥ Tat'Toiv tmv iKixz-o-Tcuv, B. Weiss, Mei/cr-Komm. 
ii, d. Mattevgm. p. 105, says : 'The phrase "o-ie of the least of 
these commandments " refers not to the Pharisaic distinction 

neither of these statements could have been made by Jesus ; 
they are diametrically opposed to both His teaching and His 
practice. The OT Law, as a system and as a code, He distinctly 
set aside, to supersede it with a Gospel dispensation. It was 
the spirit, not the letter, of the Law which Jesus approved and 
continued ; the high conceptions of God and man and the noble 
principles of moral obligation which are taught in the OT, Jesus 
reaffirmed as true and perpetuated for ever. Do these veraes 
then contain some inconsistent elements, or can their apparent 
inconsistencies be explaitied away? The commentators have 
commonly been satisfied with thinking that these difficult state- 
ments in vv.ia. ly could in some manner be harmonized with 
Jesus' other teaching and His general attitude towards the OT. 
Some have attempted to show how the Law in every branch and 
in all its minutioe was fulfilled in Christ;* others have main- 
tained that Jesus had reference to the Law only on its ethical 
side and in general, the ceremonial and predictive elements 
in the Law being passed over ; t and still others, having regard 
to Jesus' frequent use of hyperbolical language, have held that 
these verses contain h^'perbolical statemenis, the hyperbole 
being used not to deceive, but to impress the truth he wished 
to convey. t But an increasing number of scholars have come 

between small and great commands; since Jesus has in v.iS 
denied that there was any such distinction in fact, the refer- 
ence can only be to such commands as seem less important to 
superficial observation. But these also stand in real organic 
union with the ideal contents of the whole.' On the contrary, 
Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 91 : ' It is Jesus himself who here makes 
the distinction between great and small commandments, and in 
so far he recognized the Pharisaic (later rabbinic) distinction 
which was the object of their ai-dent efforts in spite of their 
tendency to regard unessential things as essential.' The diffi- 
culty of regardmg the words of this verse as coming from Jesus 
in just their present form is great. He did make a distinction 
in values and obligations, cf. Mt 232a * Woe unto you, ye scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye tithe mint and anise and 
cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the 
law, judgment, and mercy, and faith : but these ye ought to 
have done, and not to have left the other undone' ; see also 
Mt 22^7-^0. 

* See particularly Tholuck, Bergrede 5, pp. 142-14G [Eng. tr. pp. 
141-144], who holds that ' more than the moral law is included 
here, as the expression larx. tv vi fj.iu. xipetla. shows; while v.i9 
indicates that the fulfilment here spoken of extends to all the 
ivToKxi. To limit the meaning of the verse to the ethical law ia 
accordingly inadmissible. . . . The Redeemer can have spoken 
of the necessity of a fulfilment of the ritual law only in its 
pedagogical and typical symbolical character.' This fulfilment 
was accomplished' 'in His own sacrificial death, in which the 
shadowy outline of the OT sacrifices was filled up, and their idea 
realized (He lUi)-' Similarly, 'the idea of the theocracy is 
realized in the Church ; of the priesthood, in the Chrittian 
people; the passover, in the Lord's Supper; circumcision, in 
baptism ; the command to avoid the dead and the ceremonially 
unclean, in avoiding the morally dead and unclean,' etc. 

t Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 781. : 'The reference here is not to 
the Law in respect of its typical prophetic element {e.g. the law 
of sacrifice), nor to the Prophets in respect of their predictions 
concerning the Messianic future ; but to the Law and the Pro- 
phets in so far as they, corresponding to the new demands and 
promises of Jesus in the first section of the Sermon, embrace 
the codified demands and promises current in Israel.' Ibbeken, 
Bergpredigt'^, pp. 64, 56 : * That he is thinking here (v. IB) espcci- 
allv of the Ten Commandments, which in the Hebrew original 
had a very much shorter form than in the modern translations, 
is evident when he says that not a jot or tittle shall pass away ; 
of these short commands at least, not the smallest part could 
be taken away. . . . The whole difficulty which is felt in this 
verse (v.i^) arises from taking the expression " the law and the 
prophets " too literally, as though Jesus had intended to say that 
not the slightest detail of the Mosaic law, including the ritual 
law, should pass away. If he meant this, then his later life 
and especially his attitude toward the Sabbath law were entirely 
inconsistent with his words. But the phrase " the law and the 
prophets" is to be understood here in a much narrower sense, 
as signifying only the existing legal order of the common moral 
life, an intei-pretation which is placed beyond doubt by the re- 
petition of this phrase in Mt 712. For if he can say, " All things 
therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto yon, . 
even so do ye also unto them : for this is the law and the pro- I 
phets," then it cannot be denied that in 5is he refers only to 
those commands of the law by means of which the legal order of 
the common society of men is maintained.' Burton and Mathews, 
Constructive Studies in the Li/e oj Christ, p. Kll f. : 'It is evi- 
dently the moral teachings of both Law and Prophets that 
Jesus is speaking of, not the predictions. . . . Jesus declares hia 
devotion to the Law, and its permanence in the new Kingdom. 
This Jesus could do, although he disregarded or disapproved 
certain statutes of the Law (for example, respecting fasting, 
Mk 219 -0 ; clean and unclean meats, Mk in-i^ ; and divorce, 
Mt 197-9). because he identified the Law with its great principle 
of love (Mt 7>2 2:^37 40). This was to him the Law and the Pro- 
phets, and individual statutes were of value and of permanent 
authority only in so far as they embodied and expressed this 
central principle. This was just the opposite position from that 
which the Pharisees took. They gave all heed to the statutes 
as authoritative in themselves, and lost sight of the principles. 
Hence the conflict between them and Jesus.' 

X The figurative language should therefore be interpreted 
qualitotively, not quantitatively. So apparently, though not 



to question the precise authenticity of the utterances as they 
bland rtportiKl in Mt 5>»i».* The' wording ot them presenla 
llie rabhinical cuuception of the Law as eternally and literally 
vahd;t the formula) usi-il are those of the rabbinical phnise- 
oloity. The suteuients themselves are too likelj to lie mis- 
understood and Ui nuslead the hearers. The hyperbole is too 
much in the direction of the literalism which He was strenu- 
ouhIv opposint;. 

It' is not necessary to aupi>ose, nor is it at all proluible, that 
I^It 51S.1U was a free'coniposition of a subsetiMent period. The 
two verses seem to have a real nuclen- nf «<.inftliin>r said by 
Jesus on this oocosion. Uut a cerluiii i. v i~li i hri-ti:in colour- 
ing they may have received in traiiMiii--i.ii ,l. -u- may well 
iiave used some strong expressions in ilii^ i "itm \i<>n, for the 
' purpose of attlruiiiij; the Divine charat tti and Lhc csaential cor- 
rectness of the <->T revelation, and of imprcscsiiig the duty of 
members of the Kinitilum which He was eslablishini; to reco|,'nize 
and preserve the trulli thus intrusted to them. And these 
words of Jesus, already more conservative than He was accus- 
tome<i to use in His general teaching, may, through the pro- 
cesses of transmission and translation, nave taken on a still more 
conservative tone than He had given them. When it is re- 
membered that for 15 or 20 years after Jesus' death the primitive 
disciples had no other conception of the OT than that it was 
lilernllv and completely in force, Jesus' teaching being only 
supplementary thereto, it is notdittlcult to see how these words 
which dealt with that matter assumed a form and interpretation 
in accordance with the disciples' conceptions of the relation of 
the New to the old Disjiensation. In such a transformation of 
Jesus' words and meaning there would be no intention to mis- 
represent Uim, but rather a conscious purpose to make more 
dellnite what they at that time conceived Him to have meant 
by these utterances. What these verses now say is inconsistent 
with Jesus' other teaching and with His practice regarding the 
t)T Law ; but it is consistent with the primitive .\postolic teach- 
ing and practice of the Law, which maintained the former 
Jewish position, ignoring for a time that constant and signifi- 
cant portion of Jesus' teaching and conduct which was against 
the literal authority and the permanent observance of the OT. 

In the following verse, Mt S-"", we are a;jain on 
linn ground. Jesus assures His hearers that the 
current conception and attainment of ri;;hti', 
as taught ami practised by the scribes and I'hari- 
sees, was entirely insniiicient — not enough to admit 
one to the Kingdom of Heaven. J Instead, therefore, 
of abrogating or diminisliing religious require- 
ments, as they charged against Him, He was, in 
fact, demanding of men a great deal more than 
they ilemanded. with all their boasted devotion 
to the Law. What the character of the Pharisees' 
righteousness was can be seen in Mt •J3''", Lk 

clearly, B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. ii. d. Matfevgm. p. 104 : the jot 
and tittle 'signify in the concrete-plastic form of Jesus' ex- 

(iresaion every part of the Law, howeversmall. . . . That Jesus 
las in mind here only the moral law, not the ceremonial law, is 
an untenable view. He includes the whole Law, and contem- 
plates an antitvpical fullilment of the ceremonial element in it.' 
With Weiss agree Tholuck, Achelis, Keine, H. Holtzmann, and 
other*, that a distinction of moral and ceremonial portions in 
the Law, which could be separately and miijrht be differently 
viewed, is an entirely modern one, unrecognized by Jesus anii 
His contemporaries. 

• So Baur, .Strauss, Keim, Wittichen, Kostlin, Weizsiicker, 
Hilgenfeld, Keine, H. Holtzmann, Schmiedel. Holtzmann, 
t'oinm. u. d. Simopliker, p. 106, regarris the three verses, vv.i''-i9, 
as an answer of the Evangelist to the Pauline anti -legal ism. 
Feine, Jahrb. /. Protest. Tlxeot. 1S85, pp. 'je-SS, argues at len]jth 
that vv.!"*- 19 cannot be authentic, but must be Jewish-Christian 
additions- Bacon, Sennvn on the Motmt, pp. 133-138, rejects 
v. IS, but thinks that v. a* can be explained here as it stands. 

t The Jews of Jesus' day conceived the Law to be the Divinely 
revealed will of Jehovah, mode known to .Moses for the per- 
manent guidance of the people ; it could not therefore change 
or pass away. So Tholuck, H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss (against 
Meyer, who on the basis of Jer 3P* thought that the Jews 
looked for a new law). See also Bar 41, To 1^ ; Philo, Vita, 
Mogis, ii. 650 ; Josephua, contra Apionem, ii. 3S. Bereshith It. 
10. 1 reads : * Everything boa its end, the heaven and earth have 
their end ; only one thing is excepted which has no end, and 
that is the Law.' Shnmith It. B: 'Not a letter shall be 
abolished from the Law for ever.' Midra^U Koheteth, 71, 4 : 

• IThe Law) shall remain in perpetuity for ever and ever.' 

I It is difficult to understand how the words of Mt 2'i-- 3 can 
be authentic just aa they stand. How could Jesus command 
the |K-ople to render complete obedience to the teachings of the 
•cribes and Pharisees (' All things whatsoever they bid you, 
these do and observe')? Their teaching was certainly better 
than their practice, but both were essentially defective and 
(lerverse. Jesus characterized the scribes and Pharisees as 

• blind,' Mt l.'i'a !i31'- 1» ; His whole mission was concerned with 
the establishmentof an anti-Pharisaic ideal of belief and con- 
duct. So that we seem to have in Mt 23'- '■>. as in Mt 5i»- 19, a 
certain false colouring of Jesus' languagt , the modification of 

His words in transmission to 
Jewish-Christiao conception. 



- conservative 

11"" 16" "•>»:" 18'"; their painful shallowness 
and perversity, in conipari.son with what they 
would have been had they lived faithful to the 
UT teaching, need not here be described. In 
vv.i'"'" Je.sus has explaineil the relation of His 
(iospel norm to that of the l-aw and the I'rophct.s. 
In V.-" He has contrasted His ideal standard of life 
with that of the I'harisees. And now in the verses 
which follow, vv.-i". He illustrates how both the 
t)T and tlie Pharisaic norms fall short of that 
Divine ideal for men which He has come to estab- 
lish in the world. As generally enumerated, these 
illustrations are six in number, concerning: (1) 
anger, vv. ■-■"'■* ; (2) social purity, vv.'^'*' ; (3) divorce, 
vv ji.aj. (4) oalhs, vv.*'"" ; (5) retaliation, vv*'-'-' ; 
(6) love for all, vv.'"". They illuminate the lield 
of .social relations between men by sliowing what 
principles are to determine their feelings and their 
conduct towards one another. These principles we 
may for convenience designate as the principle of 
inner righteousness, the principle of unsellishness 
and forgiveness, and the principle of universal 
love ; altliough tlie Hrst comprises really the .second 
and third also. 

d. hiner Jiig/itemi.sne.i.t.—Mt S-^-'^ {d. Lk V2'^; '-•■' 
IG"). The essential dill'erence between the OT 
system and the Gospel is that between an external 
code forced upon one from without and an internal 
life which lirst develops character and then mani- 
fests itself in conduct. The OT Law told what a 
man must do and must not do, mainly the latter ; 
although it contemplated right motives, it did not 
generally formulate them or ellect them. A man 
might ' keep all the cominandments from his 
youth up,' and j'et lack some essential element 
of righteousness (Mk 10""--). If it is true that 
for tile childhood of the race an external system 
of coiiduci is .■ilime suitable and possible, if a child 
must be dealt with on the basis of precepts until 
knowledge, judgment, and conscience qualify him 
for a basis of principles, the reason for the radical 
diti'erence between the OT and the NT becomes 
clear : they belong to ditl'erent stages of human 
development. And St. Paul is right in saj'ing that 
' when the fulness of time came, God sent forth 
his Son ' (Gal 4'). The OT was really and pro- 
perly superseded by tlie Gospel, which enjoined 
life by principle, internal as well as external 
righteousness, true character as well as good con- 
duct, right thinking and right feeling as the 
source of all that one is and does. 

Consequently, .Jesus in His teaching, recorded 
in these vv. -'■"*, does not need to distinguish be- 
tween the OT and the scribal interpretation or 
elaboration of it, because His teaching supersedes 
both * and furnishes the one true and sutlicient 
guide to life. The scribes and I'harisees, to be 
sure, misunderstood the Law and neglected the 
Prophets, whereby their religious ideas and prac- 
tices fell far short of the OT standard. Sometimes 
Jesus tried to make His contemporaries realize 
this; cf. Mt 15»-«, Jn a''". But Jesus did not re- 
enact the Hebrew Bible, even though it was bettt r 
than Pharisaism. It was His mission to perfect the 
Law and the Prophets. He therefore let the OT 
stand as a monument of previous Divine revelation 
and earlier human development, giving in its stead 

• This is the only po.ssib1o view, notwithstanding Tholuck's 
elaborate argument, linyrede^, pp. 15(}-lti4 lEng. tr. pp. l.'>4- 
159], to prove that Jesus did not offer ;inv 'correction of the 
Mosaic Law,' ii-i III- i>M-l>i ..nly tl.'.i ''l,.- r.-lilinu.sncss of His 
disciples must .; > !• ■ ! ' '/,- Vr l.<i"\ l/itt the trtjat 

retigwn of it- ' ' li, , Ihat the right- 

eousness of III- il, - i|>, i- III , 1 I ,. . .1 1 1,. I ,.,li[i-ousnes3 of the 
scribes and l'hi.ri,-,L», Jt,.i„ h»-, .li.,iini l.., .^»1 in Mt 6»> ; but 
that their righteousness need nut exceed that commanded 
by the Mosaic Law, is a statement which Jesus is not reported 
to ha\e made. Nor could He have consistentiv so taught, 
since He came to fulfil the OT, not by re-ciia ling it but by 
perfecting it — which is Tholuck's own view when he ia inter- 
preting Mt 5". 




a fuller and better revelation adapted to a higlier 
stage of the world's progress. Now and then 
Jesus had occasion to attest the absolute truth 
and permanent value of niucli which the OT con- 
tained ; but these things He regarded as true and 
valuable, not because He found them in the OT, 
but because He knew of Himself that they were 
so. He set up an ideal of religious belief and 
contluct which was not put together out of tlie 
OT (however many resemblances there may have 
been), or dependent upon the OT for its truth and 
authority, but was His own creation, resting on 
the separate foundation of His own immediate 
perception of Divine truth and human duty. Jesus 
was not a mere restorer of a former revelation, 
but a new authority in the tield of religion and 
ethics, the liearer of a new revelation ot God to 
men. This is the explanation of His words, ' B>it 
I say unto you' (vv. --•='• ^-•^•^"- ''■'). And this is 
what the people recognized when they testitied 
that ' he taught tliem as one having authority, 
and not as the scribes' (Mt 7-'"). 

Jesus' ideal of human brotherhood is first illus- 
trated by an exposition of the principle which lay 
behind the Sixth Commandment, 'Thou shalt not 
kill.' In this Commandment the act of murder 
was explicitly forbidden, and the Jews conscienti- 
ously abstained from murder ; they kept the letter 
of the i)recept. But there existed also the spirit 
of the Commandment, the principle on which it 
was founded, that brethren should not hate one 
another ; for it was out of hatred that muriler 
came. Since the Commandment did not explicitly 
forbid hatred, men had allowed themselves to 
cherish anger, hatred, and contempt against others 
without regarding themselves as disobedient to 
the Law. Jesus set over against this notion the 
emphatic teaching that all feelings of anger and 
hate are in themselves sinful, whether or not tliey 
take effect in acts of violence ; they fall under the 
condemnation and punishment of God, since His 
Kingdom cannot fully come until all men love one 
anotlier.* And for that reason He adds in vv.-^- -' 
that no act of worsliip, however sacred (such as 
* With cl ^<C„u; (v.21) compare LX.X of Ex 20", Dt 51'. 
zMCtrxTi (v. 24) refers to the reading and exposition of the OT in 
the synagogues, tcis ifxaiu; (v. 21) is a dative of indirect 
object, as nearly all scholars (against Ewald, Keira) now hold = 
' to the ancients,' i.e. to those who first received the Mosaic 
Law (so Bleek, Tholuck, Achelis), or to both those who first 
received it and also subsequent genei-ations (so B. Weiss). 
jB^.irfi (v.21) refers to the official trial and condemnation of the 
murderer by the appropriate Jewish court ; the punishment 
was death. Ex 2112, Lv 24", Dt 17»-12. ipyiiiiutr; (v.22) docs 
not include or deny ' righteous indignation,' which has its 
proper place, of. Mt 3', Mk 3^, Eph 42". £.'»ij, which is read in 
v.22 by Text. Eecept., is not found in KB, and is rejected by 
modern editors and commentators as a superfluous and weaken- 
ing expansion. uhAipat (v.22) means any and every person, as 
in .S24 7^. 4- 5 1815. 21, "The threefold characterization of hatred 
and punishment in v.22 seems to be cumulative : anger unex- 
pressed, anger expressing itself in contemptuous epithet (paKiie = 
KiJ'"l), and anger expressing itself in a term which implies at 
once lack of sense, character, and piety (jjcupi — 721 1 S 2525, 
Ps 141, or nTD Nu 20'-4, Dt 2118-21) ; while the «/>.Vq refers to 
the local Jewish cour'rf (Dt 1018, Mt 11)1'), the o-i,»tS,.> to the 
supreme Sasiiedrin in Jerusalem, and the r-;.!- yiEwav roZ nupk to 
the Divine judgment and its consequences. It is important to 
consider, however, that Jesus has used this triple, cumulative 
form of expression, not for the purpose of distinguishing grades 
of guilt in hatred, or of indicating how nicely punishment is 
meted out in accordance with desert, but to make as emphatic 
as possible His teaching that all hatred is sinful and destructive, 
for which reason it can have no place among the members of 
God's Kingdom. So that the detailed interpretation of Mt 522 
is more a matter of historical interest than of practical im- 
portance. Bacon, Sfniwn on the Mmmt, pp. 88 f., 139, 177, 
adopts the reconstruction of v.22f. w'hich was advocated by 
Peters (Journal of Bib. Lit. 1892), according to which he would 
read the passage : ' Ye have heard that it was said to the 
ancients. Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever killeth shall be 
ameui^ble to judgment. But I say unto you. Whosoever is angry 
with his brother shall be amenable to judgment. [Moreover, 
it was said,] Whosoever shall call his brother scoundrel shall be 
amenable to the court. (But I say unto you,) Whosoever calleth 
biin simpleton shall be amenable to the hell of tire.' 

they understood the offerings in the temple to 
be*), was acceptable to God when the formal 
worshipper cherished ill-will against any fellow- 
man. The real brotherhood is a paramount re- 
ligious obligation. 

It is doubtful whetlier vv.-''- ^ are original in 
this connexion. t Neither does the setting of the 
parallel passage in Lk 12^'- '" seem to be the his- 
torical one. The saying is figurative, and may be 
interpreted in either of two ways: (1) it may 
teach that a man must put away all hatred of 
others, and be brotherly towards them, in order 
that he may be qualitied to receive God's forgive- 
ness, so Mt 5' 6'^- 1=^ I8-'-*>, Lk 7*="* ; or (2) it may 
teacli that such banishment of ill-will is a matter 
of common prudence, in order that a man may get 
on well in his social relations (this in addition to 
the truth already stated in vv.2'-2-' that the putting 
away of hatred was also a Divine command to 
men).t Either interpretation contains truth, and 
has a general bearing upon the subject here under 
discussion in the Sermon. 

The second illustration which Jesus uses, vv."- ^, 
for inculcating true righteousness in human re- 
lations is the Seventh Commandment (Ex 20", 
Dt 51*). This statute forbade the violation of the 
marriage union. It was supplemented by the 
Tenth Commandment (Ex 20", Dt 5'-i), which 
forbade a man to desire another's wife. The two 
commands together went far towards preserving 
the peace and purity of the home. Jesus, however, 
set His oM'n teaching in sharp contrast with even 
this high teaching ot tlie Seventh Commandment, 
forbidding a man to look with lustful eyes upon a 
woman. His demand exceeds that of the OT in 
two respects : ( 1 ) it insists not only upon absteni^ion 
from the act, but upon the repression of all wring 
thought and desire (in this going much deeper 
than even the Tenth Commandment) ; (2) it for- 
bids impure tiioughts and desires on the part of 
any one. For while ywaiKa and fiioixf'"'"' (v."'') 
might be taken in a limited sense as referring only 
to those who are manied, it is inconceivable that 
Jesus could have given a different standard for the 
unmarried ; and it is altogether probable tliat. in 
setting out the principle and ideal of social purity, 
He had in mind the whole society in which this 
principle and ideal must be realized. A narrow 
interpretation, which would limit His teaching 
exclusively to what would be wrong for a married 
man to do or think, would be contrary to Jesus' 
method and intention. Social purity is an equal 
obligation of men and women, of married and un- 
married. And Jesus clearly had in mind to estab- 
lish by this teaching the absolute necessity for the 
Kingdom of pure social thought and conduct on 
the part of every member. § 

* Jesus in speaking to Jews appealed, no doubt often (of. Mt 
65. 17 71--I 10-11 1817), to their reverence for the temple with its 
sacrificial system, and to their many religious ideas and cus- 
toms. In doing so He did not signify that He shared all these 
ideas and practices with them. Jesus is not reported by the 
Gospels as ever offering a sacrifice or otherwise taking part in 
the customary temple worship (cf. Mt 12«- 7) ; He went to the 
temple, but only to teach. Had the contrary oeen the cii.«e, 
the First Gospel could hardly have failed to tell of it, bfsause 
this Gospel is interested to show how close Jesus brought Him- 
self to the Jews of His day. 

t They are regarded as compiled material by Neander. Witti- 
chen, Feine, Godet, H. Holtzmann, Wendt, B. Weiss, Bacon ; 
while all these scholars except Godet and Wendt regard vv.'2S- 24 
as also extraneous to the Sermon. 

; For the former view, Jerome, Calvin, Luther, Bengcl, and 
others ; for the latter view, Chrysostom, Tholuck, Achehs, H. 
Holtzmann, B. Weiss, and others. 

§ Jesus is not here attempting to define the relative sinful- 
ness of lust^nd the performance of lust ; it would be a perverse 
and false inference that the former is as bad as the latter, for 
the lustful look does not produce the fearful consequences 
which follow the lustful act. What Jesus means is, that the 
entertaining of impure thought and desire is in itself a heinous 
sin, quite as bad as men commonly supposed adultery itself 
to be. 




Tlie Id^jikiil rel.itidii of vv.™- ** to tlu- two jire- 
Cfiliii^' viTsu.H is not close, wliicli liiis led some 
Kcliolui's to rcgiinl tliem us extiimemis matter in 
this ilisfouise. Tlieie are pandlel saying's in Mt 
18»-», MkU-"-", but ill Ijotli these |,|a",es also the 
passage seems to be only paitially relevant. The 
words are lijjurative and hy|ierlielieul. Jesus 
means to say with great emphasis that no etl'ort 
and no saerihce * are to be considered too great for 
a man in his struggle to master his lower nature 
and to secure the supremacv of his higher, better 
self. Until a man brings his liody into subjection to 
his spirit, he fails both imlividually and socially of 
^vhat (;od reciuires <if him (cf. 1 Co 6'^-'"', Gal o'"'-*). 

The teaching concerning divorce, contained in 
yy 3i.3j_ appears also in connexion \vith a speeihc 
historical occasion in Mt lSF" = Mk 10''-, \vhile 
the Lukan parallel 16'" is entirely unconnected. 
Not a few modern scholars have come to regard 
the later Mattluean setting as the original one, 
explaining,")^'' ''-as an importation into the Sermon 
for the [lurpose of bringing Jesus' teaching about 
divorce into immediate connexion with His general 
ethical discourse, and also to place side by side 
what lie taught concerning the closely related 
subjects of adultery and divorce.f This .seems the 
more probable view, but the teaching is the same 
whetlier given in the Sermon on the Mount or 
under some other circumstances. Divorce was a 
subject of discussion in Jesus' day. The two rab- 
binical schools headed by Shammai and Hillel, in- 
terpreting Dt ■J4'' -',:J promulgated dill'erent opinions 
concerning the proper grounds of divorce : the 
former school was more strict, allowing divorce 
only in case of adultery and other serious moral 
ollences ; the latter school allowed divorce on almost 
any pretext which the husband might indicate. 
Hemarriage after divorce was considered proper by 
both schools. § It was therefore a matter of lively 
interest what attitude towards divorce would be 
a.ssunied by the new Teacher, who was independent 
of both Hillel and Shammai, and had had no rab- 
binical training. The Pharisees undertook to dis- 
cover .lesus' position by their (juestion : ' Is it 
lawful for a man to put away his wife?' (so Mk 
10-, while Mt li)^ adds 'for every cause '). Jesus 
in reply (Mk 10^-^) lirst directs their attention (if 
Mark'sinder i.s to be followed iiiste.-id of .Matthews) 
to the OT teaching on the subject contained in Dt 
24'- -', where divorce and remarriage are allowed 
for good cause, the divorce being testilied by a 
formal ilocument. But then He goes on to show 
(Mk lO''") that this perniis.4on of divorce was only 
a concession to a low moral stage of the people, 
that the Divine ideal of marriage as revealed in 
Gn 2-^'" was an inseparable union of man and 
wife, botli spiritually and physically.|| This ideal 

• The words are not to be understood literally, ns thoupli 
Jesus enjoine<i the mutilation ot the bodj . Lust would not be 
removed by tlie destruction of the |»hyf*ical eve or hand. Nor 
do the eye and hand stand for sjtecilic kinds of evil desire. 
These concrete fljrurative utterances, as so frequently in Jesus' 
teaching, have only a general iiurjiose to fix and impress one 
idea of moral duly. 

f So Bleck, Olshausen, Kustlin, Oodet, Feine, Ibbeken, H. 
Holtzniann. That the woi'ds belong to the Sennon is held by 
Meyer, Achelis, H. Weiss, Wendt, Bacon, and many others. 

; In Dl '24' •- we read : ' When a man taketh a wife, and 
marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes, 
because he hath foimd some unseemly thing in her, that he 
shall write her a bill o( divorcement, and give it in her hand, 
and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out 
of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.' 

§ On the Jewish marriage laws and practice see Josephus, 
Ant. IV. viii. 23 ; i'ita, jS 70. Also cf. WUnsche, Erlciutmiiuj 
dtr Emn'jelien, pp. 5'3-67 ; Edersheim, L\fe mid Timet of J emus 
the Memiah, i. 352-354, ii. 33'2-334 ; Thohick, Beryrede", pp. 'i''?- 
234 IKng. tr. pp. 217-221] ; and art. MjOikiaok in vol. Hi. 

I: Tholuck, J}enjre<le\ p. 239 [Eng. tr. p. 2'2.')), thus sUtes the 
biblical idea of marriage ; ' Marriage is a Divine institution, 
having for its aim to bring man and woman to an indissoluble 
unity ot body and spirit, that they may thus mutually com- 
plement each other, and lay the foundation of a family.' 

eoiicei)tion of marriage Jesus no'.v solemnly re- 
allirms and proiiiulgates as His own teaching. 

.\ccordiiig to Mk lO'"'- (cf. Mt I'J"'-) Jesns 
subsei[uently spoke further on the subject in 
private to His iliscijiles, forbidding remarriage 
after divorce. This wouhl he a corollary of His 
previous statement, for seiiaration might not [iie- 
vent ultimate realization of tlie marriage ideal be- 
tween the husband and the wife, while remarriage 
would elfeetually prevent such a realization. Much 
uncertainty, however, exists as to just what Jcstis 
said about remarriage.* The |)arallel [lassages to 
Mk 10'"'-, which appear in MtS^-' I'J", Lk 1G'», are 
in serious disagreement, and there is also dilliculty 
in determining the best textual reading in some 
places. These variations indicate an agitation of 
the subject of divorce among the primitive Chris- 
tians, and an attempt to formulate Jesus' ideal of 
marriage into pratttical rules of conduct for .si>ecilic 
cases. The words of Jesus on remarriage, so vari- 
ously reported, reflect the dill'erent views on the 
subject which were current among the Christians 
while our (jospels were in process of formation. 

The fact seems to be, that Jesus in His teaching 
concerning marriage is dealing with the principle 
and the ideal of marriage, rather than enacting 
legal statutes in regard to it. The whole treat- 
ment of His words as marriage Icglslntion, which 
began with His disciples and has continued to the 
present day, is a mistake, and has led to confusion, 
Hardship, contradieticpii, and strife. Jesus here, 
as always, was setting forth the will of God for 
men in revealing the jiurpose and the Divine con- 
ception of the institution of marriage. He there- 
fore establishes the ideal of marriage as a perfect, 
permanent union in body and spirit, and enjoins 

* In Mt 5^2 190 there is a striking addition to the words of 
Jesus as recorded in Mk 10", Lk 16i» ; cf. also 1 Co 710- n. This 
exceptive jthraso TiA^ixToi yiyrv to/;,£,'«s or ^n tri rop*La is taken 
to mean that in Ih. ■ r , .f ::,liiltrry .Ifsws explicitly permitted 
the divorce an. I i.n n I ih. nnim-ent party. But this 

MattlKcan aililii ii nit ii|io..ti lor four reasons : (l)the 

-Mattha'an a<-..M, ,v,iii ivi,,,!, ,-,:,i.32 \s probably to be 

associated, is liiMimllv svciiiiikirv and divergent from that of 
Mk 10' 1'^ ; (2) this exceptive phrase is significantly absent from 
the a<:counts in Mark, Luke, and Paul ; (3) the e.\ception is of 
a statutory nature, while Jesus is e.stabli8hing the principle and 
the ideal of marriage ; (4) in accordance with Jesus' general 
teaching, adultery is not in itself a. sufficient ground for divorce. 
Consequentl.v, the opinion is becoming strongly supporte<l that 
these words of the Matthew passages are a mollifying interjire- 
tation put upon Jesus' teaching by a generation or group of 
Christians who took His words as a new marriage legislation, 
and regarded the statute as intolerably severe (so Bleek, 
dc Wette, .Schneckenburger, Bruce, Heinrici, II. Weiss, II. 
Holtzniann, Wendt, Si;hmiedel, Bacon). In this case Mark 
and Luke unite in preserving Jesus' actual words, which laid 
down a principle and not a statute, leaving the application of 
this principle, as of othcra, ^> bo worked out ai'ivirdin^' to the 

possiliilitics ot the cinniii-i I in mi _ ■, - n l:i-i ,n. .■ I'.f .Mai 

2»'«). Siinilarlv Bac.ii I - ". W ■ , . ;:: 177 f) 

Other scholars hold tli,.i : i. M ,1 1 . iv is an 

interpolation, but only -1 .'- - p ' hj, .h.i vw- iiit.i.h im- 
plied as true in the na'luro .n ilic caji-. that the ad (.t aclulterv 
actually destroys the marriage union and is the divorce, instead 
of being merely a proper ground of divorce (so Merer, 'Tholuck, 
E. IIan|.l, Ii. Weiss). lint a<lultery cannot be in itself a 
proper -e.nn.l fur (li\.,r.-. .m (;..-|„l principles. In a case of 
adultirv. .Ill .1.. niiklit 1.. ri.r,^s.,i\ if the olTending party 

persisli-il ni Mn-.iil In. I, iwllully regardles-s ot all moral 

sense an. I .int\. Siii'i.os'', ti..u.\(r, that after the wrong had 
been done, the guilty party became truly repentant, and re- 
solved u|ion a right life iienceforth 'i* The Gospel requires mercy 
ratiicr than justice, love rather than revenge ; forgiveness, 
patience, and loiig-suftering. The prophet II. .sea. in his trying 
marriage relation, had "ii- ..i.r. li iti. t'liin. ).ii.i.i|.:. mio'lved 

in such cases, and had _ m . I . li .1 ■. .. .:ii, 1 . n.^'h and 

forgivingly with a waws III n n 1.. .- 1. n ,n ■ . ..-I ^ .)wn 
methiKl with His waNuii I . hi.ii. I, I , ,.. .1, , .1 1 ■ .lesus 
most ini|.i I -ii ■ ii r.ii^li. Mil- . _ ■ .it :. ni --, an.l f,>rgi\eness 

adult. 1 1 I ( 1 1 I 1. ; ti. 1.1 , . .. N. I'll, r do I condemn 

thee;-.;" ■ n n 1.1.11 ' Ml I. 1. 1. iiii,^ ...111,. I to the early 
Church i|nit.. t<... lenient, so that this in. i.l, iil with its teachin'g 
failed to find a place in the Uospels until the 2nd lent.. and 
then not a suitable one. Jesus' treatnient of this woman has 
been lost sight of in the interpretation of His words coiu-erning 
divorce. Tlie hard spirit of vengeance has ruled men's thuughtd 
rather than the forgiving spirit of love. 




all the married to strive for the attainment of 
this ideal. He did not enter into the casuistry 
of the matter, but tixed the principle. How 
far in actual ecclesiastic or civic legislation, at 
any given period or place, the ideal can he 
practically formulated and demanded. He left 
for the decision of those upon whom the ad- 
ministration of such matters devolved. Maniage 
and divorce regulations, upon which the welfare 
of society so largely depends, must embody the 
Divine ideal to the fullest extent made possible 
by the stage of spiritual, moral, and social pro- 
gress concerned. And Christian people must never 
fail to apply to them.selves this Divine marriage 
ideal ; however low the current conception of mar- 
riage may be, or whatever laxity the civic laws 
may permit, the disciples of Christ can never con- 
duct themselves according to any standard but 
that set by Him. Not that they umst regard His 
teaching as statutory and divorce as never per- 
missible ; but that the act of divorce would be a 
confession of complete failure to attain His ideal, 
so that the highest degree of effort, patience, 
endurance, and self-sacrihce should be used in 
order to accomplish the permanence and the per- 
fection of a marriage union when undertaken. In 
addition. Christian people must uphold Jesus' mar- 
riage ideal in the world, striving by every means 
to secure its increasing recognition and realization 
in society at large. For only in these ways can 
the Kingdom of God fully come. 

The next subject dealt with in the Sermon is the 
use of Oaths (Mt 5^^""). The oath or vow was a 
frequent type of expression in all antiquity, and 
its use has diminished little with the passing of 
centuries. In its origin the oath was a solemn 
religious act, in which God — or some object sacred 
to Him or through Him — was invoked as a witness 
of the truth of an utterance or the sincerity of a 
promise, and as an avenger of falsehood and of 
non-fulfilment of the promise. The use of the 
oath and vow is recognized and approved in the 
OT (cf. Ex 22", Dt 6" 10=», Ps 63", Is 45=^, Jer 4-, 
and He G'^""*), and the commands concerning them 
look towards the preservation of their religious 
character and solemn function. This was the 
intent of the Third Commandment, ' Thou shalt 
not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ' 
(Ex 20', Dt 5"), in which all misuse of the oath is 
forbidden, as where an oath is taken thoughtlessly 
or maliciously, or to cover falsehood.* In the 
same tenor are Lv 19'- ' Ye shall not swear by my 
name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy 
God,' and Nu 30* ' When a man voweth a vow unto 
the Lord, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with 
a bond, he shall not break his word ; he shall do 
according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.' t 
The form of Jesus' expression in Mt 5^^ takes up 
the substance, though not the exact form, of these 
OT teachings. The Jews of Jesus' day made most 
extravagant use of the oath, both in frequency and 
in variety ; some oaths were regarded as binding 
and some as not binding, the difference of form 
being purely technical.^ 

Christ denounced this casuistry as perverse in 
the extreme (Mt 23"''^^). And in this passage of 
tile Sermon He has the intention of sweeping away 
tlie whole system of oaths as resting upon a false 
theory, namely, that a man might use two qualities 
of statement : one with the oath, which pledged 
him to truth or fulfilment ; and one without the 
oath, which required neither truth nor fulfilment. 
As against this double-dealing and authorization 

* On the interpretation of the Third Commandment, see Coffin, 
Journal of Bib. Lit. 1900, pp. 166-188 ; art. Decalooue in vol. i. 

t See, further, Lv 5*, Nu 30116, Dt 2321«, Jg 1129-S9, jer 711, 
Ezk 1718, Zee 5:1- i S", Mai 3=. 

J See Wiinsche, Erlduterung der Evant^elitm, pp. 57-60, 2S8- 
292 ; Edersheim, Life and Tiinea 0/ Jesus the Messiah, ii. 17-21. 

of falsehood, Jesus demands that a man shall speak 
only the truth, and implies that an oath is not only 
unnecessary, but harmful. This interpretation of 
Mt 5^"^' is that of the early Fathers and of the 
majority of modern commentators.* We find the 
same teaching, with close similarity of words, in 
Ja 5'^ 'But above all things, my brethren, swear 
not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor 
by any other oath : but let your yea be yea, and 
your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.' 
That Jesus submitted to the high priest's oath at 
His trial (Mt 26''^''"), as a matter of the moment's 
necessity, is in no way against this interpret ation.t 
Jesus forbids oaths not as statutory legislation, so 
that the taking of an oath is sinful ; but in prin- 
ciple, on the ground that a man is accountable to 
God for every utterance (Mt 12^^'"). He sets forth 
the ideal of truthfulness which is to be striven for 
and ultimately accomplished. A Christian can 
have no need of an oath. If in the present stage 
of civilization oaths are still necessary for civic 
purposes, then Christians must seek to establish a 
higher standard of honesty in speech, according to 
which a man's simple word will be the best possible 
guarantee of the truth and performance of what 
he saj's. 

e. Unseljishnrss and Forgiveness. — Mt5''"'^ = Lk 
gM. 30 The OT Law did, in fact, provide that punish- 
ment should be in degree and kind, ' an eye for an 
eye, and a tooth for a tooth ' ; thus we read in 
Ex 21^^"^ ' Thou shalt give life for life, eye for 
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 
burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for 
stripe'; as also Lv 24i'--'i, Dt W^'^K* This lex 
talionis was understood to apply to all relations of 
men. And not only that, for God Himself was 
believed to be retributive in His punishment, so 
that when men could not themselves execute the 
just penalty God could be appealed to for visiting 
retribution upon one's enemies ; cf. Dt 23^'" 25""''', 
Ps 35'-» 411''- " 58«-" 68'- - 69-2-='* Ygio. 21. 60-66 looo-i^, 
Jer 171* 18^, La 3^^"^. This primitive conception 
and type of justice was probably required, at least 
in principle, by the conditions of the earliest 
civilization to which it ministered. When the 
modes of punishment subsequently changed, and 
penalties were executed no longer in kind but in 
some suitable equivalent, it still remained true 
that the punishment was meant to be retributive 
and equal to the crime. It is only in modern 
times that there has come in a new conception of 
punishment, according to which society is to be 
protected, not by avenging the wrong in kind or 
degree, but by reforming the evil-doer. This 
higher type of justice, based upon the principle of 
forbearance and helpfulness, also found recognition 
in Israel. The deeply spiritual saw that God's action 
was in love, mercy, and forgiveness, and they 
plead for a like principle of treatment among men ; 
so Lv 19" ' Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear 
any grudge against the children of thy people ' ; 
Dt 32^° 'vengeance is mine, and recompense,' i.e. 
God's ; Pr 20-- ' Say not, I will recompense evil : 
wait on the Lord, and he shall save thee ' ; cf. 

* So Justin, Irenffius, Clement Alex., Origen, Jerome, Augus- 
tine ; of our own day, Mejer, Achelis, liruce, B. Weiss, H. Weiss, 
and others ; see esp. Wendt, Lehre Jem, iL 210-213 [Eng. tr. i. 
269-273). For the view that Jesus did not forbid all oaths, 
but only their misuse, thereby simply re-establishing the OT 
teaching, raav be cited Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Stier, Ewald, 
Keini, Tholuck. H. Holtzmann holds that Mt 533 37 is intended 
to forbid all oaths, but attributes this tone to the Essenic 
tendencies of the First Evangelist rather than to Jesus, whose 
purpose was only to rebuke the profusion and casuistry of the 
Pharisaic practice. 

t St. Paul's use of the oath, 2 Co 123 nSl, Eo 19. Gal 1™, 
1 Th 25, and elsewhere, is simply a continuation of the UT and 
Jewish custom in its best use ; the primitive Christians in this, 
as in many other respects, failed to rise at once to the apprecia- 
tion and attainment of Jesus' ideal. 

J SmiUarly the Hammurabi Code (c. 2250 B.C.), Nos. 196, 200. 




alv^o 2 K 6-'-*^, La S^**. But tlie love of retalia- 
tion, the zeal for executinj^ vengeance, and the 
{)assiun for seeing strict justice done witliout delay, 
leld the field in both OT and NT times. And 
consequently, when .Jesus came, He found little of 
the tnie spirit and service of hnttherhood. 

Against tliis false .ind hateful temper of men 
Jesus set His principle of unsullisliniss and for- 
giveness, following out tlie higher ooncu()tion pre- 
sented in the OT, and reipiiring that by this 
]>rinciple all men shall determine all their conduct 
towards one another. In order to make His 
meaning more explicit and clear, Jesus used four 
concrete* illustrations(Mt5''""''"), in them suggesting 
what kind of conduct would result from living by 
this principle. The illustrations, of course, are 
figurative, and are to be interpreted not literally 
but in tlieir main idea.* A man is not to be 
thinking constantly of his own rights^ as though 
tlie chief aim of his life was to avenge injustices 
anti slights towards himself (v.^-") ; he must be 
Milling to endure wrongs, to sacriiice his feelings 
and his possessions, in order to aviiid trouble with 
others (v.**") ; he must be ready to labour freely 
an<l unsL'Ilislily for the good of others, witliout 
exjiecting recompense (v.*'); he is not to be of a 
grasping, penurious disposition— ratlier he is to 
assist others in every reasonable way (v."*-).t 

In this principle of forgiving love and unselfish 
servics lies the essence of Jesus' ethical teaching ;t 
it has been well called ' the secret of Jesus.' § On 
* In Jn 1822.2a it can be seen that Jesus did not have in mind 
literal non-rcsistancf, since Ke did not Himself practise it. 
That certain individuals (most recently Tolstoi) and sects 
(Anahaptists, Mennonites, (Quakers) have taken these sayinj^'S 
littrally, as statutes to be obeyed, is not to the credit either o( 
their knowledge of the teachinpof Jesus or of their own coninion- 
sense. Such literalism is the perversion of Jesus' method and 
intent, and is one of the worst enemies of the Gospel, for it 
holds up the teaching of Jesus to the ridicule of all sane, 

t In v.3» the T^ T9.V? cannot be the Evil One (as thought by 
Chrvsostom and Theophylact), for Jesus would have hiin for 
ever resisted ; it might be regarded as a neuter noun, referring 
to evil in i^eneml (so Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Ewald, Auhelis, 
Kiibel); but i>robabIy the evil man is meant who offers the 
indignities and demands described ; cf. vow.ptU in \'.^ and Lk 
(i:ij.45 (.so 11. Hnltzmann. Nosgen. U. Weiss). The 3c=<«i' ina.yo*<L 
of Mt >y^^ is altered in Lk G^ to simply t*,!- vttLyina, since the first 
blow wouUI naturally be given by' the right hand upon the left 
cheek. In v.^^ ptpithr,**' means to bring a legal action a'rainst 
one (cf. 1 Co 6^), in order to secure property of some kind from 
him. The x""** (njh^) was the common Oriental under-garment 
worn next the body, while the IfjLo.'ntv (jhr^);?^ nj^) was the more 
costly and elegant tunic or over-garment (cf. art. Drtiyis) ; that 
is, if a man altenipta to get from you by law a little property, 
give him much in order to avoid quarrel and litigation with 
him. In the Luke parallel (G-O the i<lea of a lawsuit is replaced 
by that of a personal asi«iult, in which cose the outer garment 
would first be taken, after which the inner garment was to be 
offered. In v.^i the kyy^pCiru (cf. B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. 
u. rf. MatO'erjm. in loc.) refers to ottlcial impressment for tem- 
porary service, a common practice in that (lay (Mt 27^2) ; Jesus 
uses it OS a figure to teach that men nnist assist others by 
geiienmslv tri\i.ri and willing •Service. Luke does not have this 
Mr---', piiliii i.. .1.1 it A - li.iMe to be misunderstood as 
li' ■ ! I . ! ' ■ I I _ : . ;. _ 1 .| ,: .lions instead of figuratively to 
ti ; 111 I 'I I I l.'i a fourth illustration which, 

b. .:: - li II, AMI, I , ., !> f.i'iid tn the pnr.-ding, and out 

of (U-feren.-r t.) till! nitinhrr :;. Ii,~ ).■ ■ u i. _.!,). d by some 
schoI:»rs (Kwald, H. Uoltzmann, K '-\ ii.ri) os a re- 

maining fragment of a se]>arate si. ; I I -nurse, treat- 

ing of the interpretation of the i:i_Mli i, indinent ; they 
would therefore insert between v.*' imd v.^- something like 
this, drawn from Kx 201^, Dt TiX' 24)2. 13 ti«a->«Ti. crt ipptilr.- 

ttircZtri, etc. This explanation of v.*2 has not, however, found 
general acceptance, being specifically rejected by Tholuck, 
Meyer, Feine, B. Weiss, and others ;'Luke hog the saving in 
the same connexion as Matthew, and It Joins well enough, 
logically, to VV.3W1. The verse does not refer, at least directly, 
to the lendin;? of money without requiring the payment of 
interest (so Feine, on the basis of Ex 2225-2:, Lv 25^7, Dt 157 
2320, against Tholuck. B. Weiss). 

t See csp. Harnack, Das Wcsen dea Chr/'stentuma, 1901, pp. 
45-47 [Eng. tr. pp. 70-741. 

§ Matt. ArnoW. Literature and Dogma, p. 181 f. See also 
Mt 26*9 M, Mk 831-37, Lk 0"M and cf. Is 506 53> «. St. Paul 
also teaches with great emphasis the same forgiving and self- 
sacrificing principle of life (Ro 12" 2i, iCoC'8 lThSl5; cf. also 
1 P 3!"). 

this principle Go«I acts towards men, and on this 
principle men must act towards one another, 
.lesus not only taught this standard of life, but 
He realized it in His ministry and in His death, 
thereby becoming the perfect example of human 
love and service. These are the qualities which 
make true brotherhood. One cannot for a moment 
suppose that .Jesus, in .setting forth this principle 
as tlie suprenie guide in men's dealings with one 
another, had the intention of overthrowing the 
civiu laws >\liich society requires for its preserva- 
tion and welfare ; any such interpretation would 
reduce His sayings to absurdity. What He pur- 
posed was to make men recognize the wretchedness 
of a standard of conduct which rests upon the 
ideas of revenge and retaliation, of for ever insist- 
ing upon one's rights and one's dignity, of working 
only for one's self and never for others, of getting 
as much and giving as little as possible. Civic 
laws and private practice must accept this teaching 
of Je.sus and embody it, not necessarily in the same 
way, but to the same end.* 

•Similarly Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, pp. 109-114: 'The 
Sermon is not legislative, as our First E\'angeh»t seems to regard 
it, but prophetic. It does not enact, but interprets. It does 
not lay down rules, hut opens tip principles. . . . Matthew, as 
we have seen, is quite absorbed in the relation of the new Torah 
to the old. So much so that he fails to appreciate that his 
material is not really a series of new enactments, but in reality, 
just as Luke perceives, a simple application to the situation of 
that one pruiciple which Jesus elsewhere enunciates more 
briefly ; and not then as enacting something new, hut as ex- 
plaining the old (Mt 22a5^]/ Mt .V-^MS gives * illustrations of 
the one principle which Jesus saw in " all the Law and the 
Prophets," and saw a.s well in all nature and history, that the 
divine calling is to ministering love and service— that and that 
alone.* Thayer, Journal of HibL Lit. 1900, p. 149: 'Jesus is 
not intent on giving precepts, but would lay emphasis on prin- 
ciples. The distinction between the two is most important. A 
precept is a direction respecting a given action; it is definite, 
precise, specific, fitting and belonging to particular cases. A 
principle, on the other hand, is comprehensive and fundamental ; 
it prescribes, not particular actions, but a course of comluct. 
. . . A precept bids him do, a principle trains him to be; and 
so begets that inwanliK ■ ^ .111-1 > ■■iiiiiniii;, 'vli" li.i;. '-sintljilto 
character.' B. Wri- V' . /■. . „ , . . W " -m. in li-r. : 

'Jesus explains tliH m, ,,1 , ii, -. , i ) , , tullillidin 
the Kingdom of (;."!. -I n rpl- Mh :■ -r r., ,, .n-. -■ ;: i-i „-'-tUil love 
which renounces all siuinlmg on cue s ri^'lils and desire for 
retaliation. Jesus illustrates the general principle by concrete 
examples, which are not to be understood as literal commands to 
he obeyed, but as setting forth a general standard according to 
the nlain idea contained in them.' Tholuck, Iier(/rede\ p. 291 
[Eng. tr. pp. 269, 270 1 : 'The commands in*-*'^ are to be 
regarded as only concrete illustrations of the state of mind and 
heart required. ... It is only the spirit of revenge that our Lortl 
condemns, and therefore it is not inconsistent with His coiuman<l 
to seek the protection of the law.' Burton and Mathews, 
CotiHttuctice Studifg in the Life ofChrint, p. 105 : 'Some have; 
undertaken to apply such sayings as *' Resist not him that is 
evil. " and "Give to him thatasketh of thee," literally as fixed 
rules. But this is utterly to misinterpret Jesus. This whole 
dist-ourse is a criticism of the Pharisees for making mo^aIit.^■ 
consist in a literal keeping of the rules of the OT. It is inl- 
possible to suppose that It simply imposes a new set of rules. 
Others, feeling that a literal obedience to these rules is impos- 
sible, if not also hamiful, give up all attempt to obey the 
Itacliitigs of lliis discourse. Both are wrong. [Jesus teaches 
lut> ill. /■li/i: '/'-. which we ought always to strive to follow. 
Till ii_.i p, ■ I i> are uitended to correct the selfishness antl 
n;in am, ' '--us saw about Him, and to point out some of 

till A ' - ;■ \ 1 :!i the principle nuy be appUeu. They, too, are 
to b<- (ib'WtL. aUays in spirit, and in letter when such an 
obedience Is consistent with the principle. If a man would 
follow Jesus, he luu&t not resist an enemy in a spirit of re- 
venge ; nor should he refuse to give to a beggar from a selfish 
motive. If he resist or withhold, he must do so because love, 
regard for tlie highest well-being of society in general, requires 
iL' Plumnier, Comm, on Ltike, p. 185: 'The four precepts 
here givtn ((J»-30) are startling. It is impossible for either 
governmcnUs or individuals to keep them. A State which 
endeavoured to shajw its policy in exact accordance with them 
would soon cease to exist ; and if individuals acted in strict 
olKfiienoe to them, society would he reduced to anarchy. 
Violence, robbery, and shameless exaction would be supreme. 
The inference is that t/ir;/ are not precrptm, bxU il(u*trat\onx 
of principtett. They are in the form of rules; but as they 
cannot be kept as rules, we are compelled to look beyond the 
letter to the spirit which they embody. If Christ had given 
preceutA which could be kept literally, we might easily have 
rested content with obsening the letter, and have never pene- 
trated to the spirit. What is the spirit/ Among other things, 
this : that resistance of evil and refuul to^iart with our prop erlv 
must never be a personal matter; so far as we are ooncemea, 




/. Universal Love. — Mt 5''^-'"' = Lk 6^'- =»• s-'-m. 
M'lien Jesus begins this sixth paragraph illustra- 
tive of His statements in Mt 5"-" with the words 
' Ye liave heard that it was said, Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour and liate thine enemy/ He is not 
quoting precisely any OT or extra-biblical utter- 
ance on record (of. Sir 18"). The clause ' Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour ' is found in Lv 19"* ' Thou shalt 
not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against 
the children of thy people, but tlmu shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself.' But the further clause, 
'and hate thine enemy,' while not appearing in 
that form, is really implied in the words 'the 
children of thy people,' which fixes a national 
limitation upon the teaching in the Leviticus 
l)assage. There was on the part of tlie Hebrews 
a profound contempt and disregard of other nation- 
alities (cf. Dt •2S'-'' 25"->», the Book of Jonah, esp. 
3'"'-4"). So that the phrase ' hate tliine enemj- ' 
justly characterized the prevailing OT conception 
of social duty (in spite of occasional efforts towards 
a larger idea, Ex 23'- °), the ' enemy ' signifying 
any foreigner who did not enter into Hebrew prac- 
tices, and the 'hatred' signifying their superior 
disdain for other peoples. The same hatred towards 
all Gentiles was felt by the stricter Jews of Jesus' 
day ; and the Pharisaic pride and exclusiveness 
went so far as to include in the sphere of their 
hatred the lower cla.sses among the Jews them- 
selves who did not satisfactorily ol>serve the Law 
(Jn 7™ 'This multitude which' knoweth not the 
law are accursed '). 

When Jesus sets over against this national bigo- 

we must be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still 
niore. It is right to withstand and even to punish those who 
injure us ; but in order to correct them and to protect society, 
not because of any personal animus. It is right also to witii- 
hold our possessions from those who without good reason aslc 
for them ; but in order to check idleness and effrontery, not 
because we are too fond of our possessions to part with them. 
So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to he ready to offer 
the other cheek, and to give without desire of recovery what- 
ever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but 
those which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, 
it is because compliance would be a violation of love, not because 
it would involve lessor suffering.' Gore, Sermon on the Mount, 
p. 103 f. : ' We may truly say that the Sermon gives us a social 
law tor Christians. That is true in this sense : the Sermon 
gives us principles of action which every Christian nmst apply 
and reapply in his social conduct. But just because it embodies 
motives and principles and does not give legal enactments, it must 
appeal in the first instance to the individual, to his heart and 
conscience ; and it is only as the character thus formed must 
set Itself to remodel social life on a fresh basis, that the Sermon 
can become a social law for Christians. You cannot take any 
one of its prescriptions and apply it as a social law at once 
You cannot take the maxim, " If a man smite thee on the one 
cheek, turn to him the other also," or, " If a man take away thy 
coat, let him have thy cloak also," and make it obligatory oil 
Christians as a rule of external conduct, without upsettin- 
the whole basis of society, and without ignoring a contrary 
maxim which our Lord gives us in another connexion. But 
each of the maxims can be taken to the heart and conscience of 
the individual, to become a principle of each man's own char- 
acter and conduct, and then to reappear, retranslated into 
social action, according to the wisdom of the time, or the 
wisdom of the man, or the wisdom of the Church." 

It is difficult to understand how Dr. Sandav (art. jESrs 
Christ, vol. ii. p. 621) can say: 'The ethical ideal of Christi- 
anity IS the ideal of a Church. It does not follow that it is 
also the ideal of the State. If we are to say the truth, we must ' 
admit that parts of it would become impracticable if they were 
transferred from the individual standing alone to governments 
or individuals representing society.' A similar view was advo- 
cated by the Bishop of Peterborough in the Fortnightly Review 
Jan. 1890. This misconception of Jesus' teaching seems to 
arise out of a confusion of principles with precepts. Social 
ethics and individual ethics cannot rest upon different prin- 
riptes : but the principles of ethics will call for different out- 
workings in concrete cases of their application— and this will be 
as true for individuals as for society. The people acting collec- 
tively through their governing officials (the State) are required 
tn act according to precisely the same ethical standard as when 
thiy are acting individually; namely, they are hound to obey 
the principles of forgiving kindness to all (Mt 5-''^), of nora"l 
purity (o^'f), of protection of marriage (53if-), of honesty in 
speech (sss-w). of an absence of the revengeful spirit (.i-w) of 
long-suffering (S"), of helpfulness (5«), of generosity (■'.-'■-) and 
of an all-embracing love (s« J8). Uau any one think that the 
State is not bound bo to act ? 

try and caste spirit His own teaching, Mt 5" ' Love 
your enemies, and pray for them that persecute 
you,' the term ' enemies ' is to be understood in the 
most comprehensive and general sense of all who 
do not feel and act lovingly towards one. It no 
longer means ' foreigners,' for Jesus has removed 
all n.ational barriers, making all men brethren (cf. 
Ac 17-"). To the primitive Christians the out- 
standing class of ' enemies ' were those referred to by 
Jesus as their persecutors for the cause of t'hris-t, 
as also in Mt 5"*"'-'. Jesus wishes to est.-ililish 
the principle of a universal love which would 
unite all men in a complete human brotherhood.* 
Every man is to love every other man, and to serve 
him so far as it lies in his power, with reason- 
able regard to all his duties. Barriers, castes, 
classes, distinctions of all kinds are removed, .so 
that love and service are to be all-inclusive. When 
the scribe propounded to Jesus the question, ' Who 
is my neighbour?' He replied with the parable of 
the Good Samaritan (Lk 10-^"^'), in which He set 
forth clearly and impressively that the ' neighbour ' 
whom one is to love ' as himself ' is any one and 
every one. And this love which Jesus enjoins is 
not to be of the self-seeking kind which is common 
in the world. There ma}' be no real love. He says, 
in the exchanges of attention and courtesy which 
men are accustomed to make with one another, 
for it may proceed on a commercial, (jiiid pro quo 
basis. The Gospel demands a different kind of 
relation between men which is not self-seeking, 
does not ask how much will be given in return, is 
bestowed freely without thought of recompense. 
And here appears the close logical relation between 
these verses and vv.^'"^-, for vv."'^"''* carry forward 
to complete expression tlie thought which underlies 
the previous words. t 

This kind of Jove, all-embracing, unremitting, 
realizing itself in both feeling and conduct, has its 
origin and perfect manifestation in God, J ^vho 
cares for all men, however they treat Him. He 
sets the example of universal love and service, 
which Jesus reveals in His words and deeds. And 
men by following this example in their relations to 
one another become the 'sons' of God (Mt 5"), 
because in essential respects they feel and act like 
Him. The sonship thus spoken of is a moral son- 
ship, which is attained by choosing to be and do 
what is right, rather than a genetic sonship, which 
is inherent because God has made men in His own 
* For the Biblical teaching concerning love, see esp. art. Love 
in vol. iii. 

f Lk 627-28,32Jt) has a different order of the contents from 
that of Mt 5«-ls ; it the Matthsan material were arranged in the 
same order, the verses would stand : («)■ 44(39-42 712). 46. 47. 45. 4S ; 
and Lk 6^4. :i5a jg an addition or expansion for which Matthew 
has no parallel. It is not easy to determine which order is the 
more likely to have been original. The striking differences in 
the wording of the passages, however, indicate beyond a doubt 
that Luke's account is secondary, with much verbal modifica- 
tion ; thus in vv.27. 28 expansions appear ; in v. 32 j^ot^jj is found 
instead of f^urVm as in Mt 5*>, a manifest dropping of a Jewish 
for a Gentile or universal term (though Luke has /jjijOa,- at 6->^) ; 
in the same and following verses, and for the same reason, Luke 
twice has kfAu.pia,\oi, once instead of 0* TE^iwr-ai, once instead of 
6i IhfAoi ; in v.3;f Luke has oLyecOoToiiiTs instead of Matthew's 
Ko-Tix/rvtrOt, a Jewish custom; in v. 35 Luke has uioi "i-i'iinov 
instead of Matthew'sclearlymore original ulai tov T«r^e? vfj,iiv tov 
ev oieme'ii ; in the same verse Luke reduces the fine Jewish 
woi-ds about God's making the sun rise and the rain fall to a 
commonplace Gentile phrase, xf^.'rrc^ Itrrtv s-ri T«k etx'^P"^rm/! xtt'i 
To^r^peiiS ; in v. 36 Luke changes the imperatival future fonu 
Uiirei, common in the LXX through the influence of the Hebrew, 
and occasionally found in the NT (e.g. Mt 643 gs 2237-39)^ to a 
better Greek form, the imperative ytvitrSt ; he has also the less 
Jewish and less lofty a\xr>pfj.cvi; instead of Matthew's significant 
riKuoi; and a^ain he has only Tarv,^ ijfjL'lav instead of Matthew's 
rcocrip i/^vv o ciptkne;. These numerous and important varia- 
tions in the two accounts of these verses leave no room for 
doubt that Matthew's fonn is much nearer to the historical 
words spoken by Jesus, and that the Third Gospel contains 
material which had undergone wide verbal divergence, partly 
perhaps in Luke's own hands, but mainly in the earlier Gentile 

t So in the Johannine writings frequently, Jn 316, 1 Jn 4s. 10. 19 
cf. also Ro 55-s. 




iiiia;,'e (On 1").' .Fesiis therefore c-oiuiimiuls men 
to lie perfect in love iis (Joil is perfeit in love.t 
M'llinj; before tlieiii im iilwohite iileiil of social 
fiuo.lness ; not tliiit the i(h'ul is at once attainiihle, 
lint that towards its reali/.ation every man — and 
all Mien to<;ether— must strive, and in Uml's provi- 
dence this striving; will ultimately achieve success. 
g. Iteligioiis Wurship.^'SH, e'*- '«"'" (no parallel 
in Lkl.J The connexion of these vei-ses with the 
historical Sermon cannot well \>e doubted ; they 
follow in lo;,'ical consecution upon the material 
contained in Mt S^*", illustrating the true ri-jlit- 
eou-iiess still further and on another side. The 
ideal life which wa.schar.acterized in vv.''-, enjoined 
in vv,'^-'", ami illustrated with re;;ard to character 
and service in vv.'-'", is further illustrated in these 
verses with rejjard to religious worship. .Vlms- 
^;ivin^, prayer, and fasting were, in the estimation 
j,>i the Jews, three of tl)e chief elements of rcli^'ion, 
and received a disproportionate attention; while 
the tiiree perfornmnces, really so ililVerent in im- 
portance, were re^ardeil as about equally necessary 
and useful. S In v.', which forms an introduction 

• On this aonship ate Wcndt, Lehre Jem, ii. 145 t. In using 
tlic tenn 'Father' tor cxpressini; most oomplttcly Ills con- 
CL'ptiuii o( God, Jesus thinks of the /amity as utost churactcr- 
istio of the relation lictwecn God and men. In the (uniily the 
sons may l)c either true or false to th»jr relation to their father ; 
if they love, honour, and obey hin» they realize their sonship— 
they are sons indeed ; if they disrespect him, disgrace him, and 
disregard his will they are not sons in the moral sense, for they 
repudiate their sonship. But the actual genetic sonship is 
none the less a tact, even if the sons will not acknowledge and 
exalt it. So in the relation of men to God ; they do not in 
reality become His sons any more than He becomfg their Father ; 
tl-i* mutual essential relation exists from the first, for all men 
are Hi.= sons, ond He is the Father of all. But the NT use of 
the term * son ' is generally a moral one. and those only are 
designated 'sons' who honour and realize their sonship. This 
dot s not deny the genetic, spiritual sonship, however, which the 
NT also teaches. 

t Tin- words of Jeaus, 'ye shall be perfect,' can have only the 
iiniHTiitive force, as in Lk t06(so Meyer, H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, 
II. Weiss, Wendt, Blxsa, and nearly all) ; ct. Burton, Moods and 
TenteK in XT Greek, § 07. The whole v.« is made up from OT 
language ; «.ff. Lv 19'-* (LXX) reads, iiyiai trifdi, on ccyto< ii',u« 
WixipM i Biii ifci, ; cf. also I.v IH', 1 P I's ; and Dt 1813 (LXX) 
reads, t!*ii«.- i«7i i.a.T.«> i^a.e^ roi Oiiu »«/. But the thought of 
C.xese simitar OT j'ii^- >-■ -, i i In ir rontextB show, is of Icvitical 
puritv and natioiwl i i ' ui.l it is therefore superficial 

as coinpared with ( ti . I . | r . r, [,- which Jesus puts into the 
wonls. InMt5*''\\' ''''-' '»" verse of the short section 
VV.4MS concerning universal Iom> (so Achelis, Bruce, Ilcinrici, 
H. Holtzmann, Tholuck, B. Weiss), not a general summary con- 
clusion of the whole section vv.'-' ** (so Burton, Iblieken, II. 
Weiss). "The TiXiior refeni only to jierfection in love, not to the 
whole series of attributes which constitute the perfection of 
God in the theological sense, or to the comprehensive idea of 
human perfection. This love which Jesus establishes as the 
liriniiplf of the ideal life, to be felt and acted upon by every 
iicin t.ivviiriN t vi-ry other man, cannot be understood as condon- 
iii'.; Ill'- -.ills 'ir imperfections in the character and service of 
i.ilhi rs. lull insists u]X)n viewing men not as they are but as they 
muv be and shuuld be, and upon rendering them every assist- 
ance of sympathy, counsel, and hell) towards the attainment of 
the Divine ideal. It is thus that God has dealt with men, and 
we are to do likewise for one another. 

J Th.- .^ mill of till- .Sermon in Luke does not contain this 

Br. I - -I 5,i.,l.,l.l\ t. I tli. same reason that no ]>arallel aiifiears 
(,,, M' ■1,1,; uisc these passages are so Baturare<l 

w : I - I ;i |i,ii i I ,. I. jejis, and customs as to be difficult 
111 M. 1 lii.i.hi- 1 1 i.riilile readci-s(so Feinc, Wcndt). Here 
also, a, tliiiv. It is more likely that Luke's sources did not 
niiitaiii these sections than that Luke himself excised them. 

$ The L'i\ in" of alms was held to he a primary duty and a 
m.-aiis ,,t salvation, as seen alreadv in the .\|>«iviilia. To l'" 
l-.siii uul-', ,sir4i '-T'^cf. alsoPslll.IsM-" i' . I n. l , i !i. r. are 
also manv striking Rabbinic sayings c-om.i:! i i i of 

alnisL-ivirig (see art. Al.MsoiviNo in vol. i- , i- ■ ■''<• 

rA.-/...;i>, pp. 28.^-288; Wiinsche, A"'/-".r i ■ , / . n ,. /i./i, 
on Mt V.i-i). The Greek won! in use for the alms is i>ir.i«i..r 
(the iimtive employed by iiietonoiny for the thing), as liere in 
V.-, representing, pcrhaiw, •ij'is ; since this Heb. word meant 
primarily ' righteousness,' it came alwnt that S,«tia«-;:»r might 
also have this siiecial meaning, hut that is not the sense in 
which tix. is used here in v.i (the textual variant at this point, 
iiiru^a-ix;, is improbable on both external and internal evidence). 
Prnver was olteri'd bv the Jews thrice daily, at I) .». v., at 12 noon, 
and' at 3 p.m. (cf. AcSi), and on three days in the weekthepeoiile 
went to the synagogue for prayer. Liturgical forms of prayer 
were in use (cL Lk 11', and Mishna, tractate yji'raMot/i). and 
tiievwere recited at the piojier time wherever one mighl lie. 
Fasting was prescribed by the OT 'or the Day of Atoiieuiciit 

t<i the 1,'roup, .Jesus (jives the key to the interpreta- 
tion of the whole : * lledoes not pronounce against 
the acts themselves, but a;;ailist the spirit and 
purpose which loo often animateil the doin;; of 
them. Itelijjioiis worship, such a8almsj;ivin;;(wliieli 
the .lews ri;;htly considered an act of worship), 
prayer and fast in;;, must never be |M'rfoimi'«l 
ostentatiously, with the intent of .securinjja reputa- 
tion for piety. It was mainly the proml. liyi>o- 
critieal I'liari.sees who were (guilty of such motives 
in their worship ; but the multitude of common 

Iieople to wlioni ,lesus wius now speaking; hail lieen 
)roii<;ht up to believe implicitly in the teachini; 
and practice of the Pharisees, anil were thereforo 
in -{reatdaii^jerof being corrupted by the I'harisaiu 
example of ostentation, worldliness, and deceit. 

Jesus will therefore warn them against theito 
specilic errors of their religious leaders, and in 
contriust exhibit the character of true religious 
worship. The three act-s of almsgiving (vv.'-'*), 
jirayer (vv.*-"), and fa.sting (vv. '"•'") are treated in 
a parallel way, the same thing being said of each 
in almost the sauie language. When they give 
money in the sj'nagognes, or upon other occasions, 
for charitable objects, it is to lie contributed solely 
for the benefit of others, with no pur|Mise of obtain- 
ing a reputation of generosity for themselves (cf. 
Ac o'""). Against almsgiving in itself He does 
not speak, but only of the motive behind it. The 
giving of money to others is, in fact, an act 
of worship to Goil, and a neces.sary element of all 
true righteousness. Hut such giving must Ijc 
quietly done, without providing or even wishing 
that others may know of the fact or the amount, 
in order that one may receive credit therefor.f ^o 
also when men pray, as pray they must, their 
praj-ers are to be a genuine communing with tJotI, 
instead of being designed to win the praise of men 
for a superior piety.J To counterfeit true spiritual 
communion with (loil i.s an intolerable profanation 
of religion. Jesus, of course, has no thought of 
forbidding prayer in public, but He will have only 
sincere jirayers made, whether in public or private. 
And if they fast, as they were accu.stoined to do 
regularly and often, they are to observe the fast 
as a simple humiliation before (iod, not forced 
upon others for the purpose of gaining credit for 
exceptional devontness.g On another occlusion 

(Lv loai-w), ond was practise<l on other occasions also (Ex 34*, 
I S "6, 2S 12'", Jer atP, Dn Ki^). The prophets sometimes aymVc 
against it (Is 5S^8, Jer H'-, Zee 7^^), hut it was a prevailing 
usage throughout the Hebrew history, cf. Jtli fi". To I'i". In the 
NT also the Pharisee is represented as lioasting in his pni.\er, 
'I fast twice in the week '(Lk IS'-), and the frequent fasts arc 
mentioned in Mt 9'* (cf. art. F.vstino in vol. i.). It is noliieable 
that Jesus has not joined with these three outstanding arts of 
Jewish worshiii tlie ohserxance of the Sabbath, which stowl in 
somewhat the same prominence; but elsewhere He dealt with 
that subjcet also (Mk •>:-'■'*), and on a similar principle. 

• Ji««,o<n;>r is to be uiKlerstooil herein acomprehensive sense ; 
it is a repetition of the J.». of v.'JO, now to be illustrated in 
acts of religious worship, and embraces alike almsgiving, prayer, 
and lasling. 

I In v.-' »«Xir;»w is a flgurativc term signifying oatentatlnn. 
Ctsx/iit*; refers to the Pharisees; they were hy(>ocrite» because 
thev wore a mask of piety over their selfish lives ; cf. also >lt 
236-';, rvtK'/vymU, piuMi: indicate that almsgiving was a (liirt of 
the regular synagogue sen ices, but that alms were also given 
upon the streets U> those in need. The i.*.,. kiy, k». |uit» a 
special emphasin uiKin the fact that this almsgiving, when done 
out of vanity, hod no real merit ; cf. Lk IP*. In v.-i the phrase, 
•let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,' U 
quite siirelv a current Semitic proverb to express sisre^y. 

J In V 5'liriWli is an imperatival future, as in .Mt 5*; the 
iiarallel verb in v.'- is an ini|Hralival suhjulictive, anil in v.« an 
imperative, the meaning Wing quite the siuue in eaih. Tlic 
yj.^.- ri, iA«r.,i. were the four corner, of street inlers<i:tions, 
which were chosen as the most consjiicuous place for the 
ostentatious firayers. i^riri; indi.-ates thot prayers were 
ciistomarilv ofterisl in a standing jKwtnrc. Tlie taiuai, or. 
more frequently in the NT. itipi;. was the upisr niom al an 
oriental house used for guests or for relin-nient to pray; mss 
,\e 1 ri ijin. X) 2U». With the language of v." eom|>are 2 K 4»', 
Is 21;'-'''. 

5 In v.ifir«fO«^«. and ifa.iC^"* ▼« T^«rf« refer to neglect 
of the cuBtumary care for the head, tlie unwoahwl too* wd 




Jesus removed all obligation from His followers to 
observe the Pharisaic system of fasts, or to practise 
fasting except as it was the personal and spon- 
taneous expression of inner feeling (cf. Mk 2'"--). 
Here He teaches that when one fasts it must be 
a genuinely religious performance, free from all 
ostentation and selfish motives. 

It is true, Jesus says, that those who turn these 
a( ts of religious worship to selfish account do 
secure their object ; ' they have their reward ' in 
the false reputation for generosity and piety which 
for a time they can win. But they cannot win 
(iod's approval, or secure any spiritual blessings. 
These things, which alone are worth while, belong 
only to those whose worship is sincere, who give 
and pray and fast with pure unselfish motives, for 
the good they can do their fellow-men and for 
their own spiritual growth. And the principle 
which Jesus here sets forth for these three acts of 
religious worship is to apply to every kind of 
religious observance. Sacred things are never to 
be turned to worldly account ; everything we do 
in the name of religion, and for the sake of 
religion, must be untarnished by self-seeking ends 
and unholy purposes.* 

h. The Level's Pmyer.—Mt 6'-" = Lk ll'"". No 
words of Jesus which have come down to us are of 
greater significance or usefulness to mankind than 
this Prayer, which' He taught His disciples, in- 
dicating as it does the true foundation, the true 
spirit, and the true substance of all prayer, prayer 
being our communion with God. A consideration 
of the Lord's Prayer will involve the following 
points: (1) the historical occasion on which the 
Prayer was given ; (2) the original form of the 
Prayer as tanghtby Jesns ; (3) tlie genetic relations 
of this Prayer to the OT, to Jewish prayers, and to 
the life of Christ ; (4) the analj'sis and interpreta- 
tion of its contents ; (5) the right use of the Prayer. 

(1) There is no portion of the Sermon as given 
Ijy Matthew (chs. 5-7) which is so obviously an 
addition to the historical discourse as the section 
6''" containing the Lord's Praj'er. That these 
verses are extraneous matter, introduced here by 
the process of compilation, is now maintained by 
many scholars.t This fact appears in several 
ways: (a) Lk 11' explicitly states that Jesus gave 
the Prayer to His disciples in response to an ex- 
pressed wish on their part for a form of prayer, 
such as John the Baptist had given his disci |)les 
(the Jews were accustomed to many liturgical 
prayers). This statement, while it might be a 
mere literary setting of the Third Gospel, is prob- 
ably a historical datum ; and if historical, it 
points to another occasion than the Sermon for the 
])resentation of the Prayer, (ft) The precise time 
when the Prayer was given is not fixed by Luke, 
but it is assigned in a general way to the Pera?an 
period, after the close of the Galila?an ministry. 
This is perhaps too late a position, since it was the 

dishevelled hair being an Oriental sign of grief and abasement, 
cf. 2 S 1220, Is 6i:l, Dn lO:', 1 Mac 3^' ; that this is what is meant 
is seen in v.i"f-, where Jesus bids them give no external sign of 
their fasting. 

* No one would seriouslj' attempt to put these commands of 
Jesus into practice as precepts to be literall.v obeyed, so that all 
charity should be unorganized, and all prayers be absolutely 
private. Here, again, as in ch. 5, Jesus is dealing with prin- 
ciples only, and His illustrations are to be considered as 
illuminating the principles rather than as fixing statutes for 
literal observance. 

t So Calvin, Strauss, Neander, Schleiermacher, Bleek, de 
Wette, Olshausen, Ewald, Ebrard, Meyer, Hanne, Godet, Karap- 
hausen. Page, Feine, Sieffert, Bruce, Chase, Kiibel, Weizslicker, 
Wendt, H. Holtzmann, Bartlet, Heinrici, B. Weiss, Baljon, 
Nestle, Bacon. The Matthffian position of the Prayer is regarded 
as historical by Tholuck, Keil, Morison, Broadus, Achelis. Stein- 
meyer, H. Weiss, Nosgen, Plummer, Grawert. it being the 
opinion of most of them that the Lukan position is also his- 
torical, and therefore that the Prayer was given on two separate 
occasions by Jesus. Tholuck is undecided whether to prefer 
Matthew's position for the Prayer, or to hold that it was repeated. 

example of John the Baptist's disciples which led 
Jesus disciples to ask Him for a prayer ; but this 
influence of John's upon .lesus' disciples is more 
likely to have been exercised before John's death, 
which came during Jesus' work in Galilee (Mk 
6""-"). If, then, the Loi'd's Prayer given earlier 
than the Sermon, it would not have been given again 
as new teaching in that discourse ; and if later, tfien 
it can stand in the Sermon only as a result of suli- 
sequent comiiilation. What seems to have happened 
is, that the original occasion of the giving of the 
Prayer was remembered (Lk 11'), but the ex.act 
time at which it was given was forgotten ; con- 
sequently each Evangelist, or his source, intro- 
duced the Prayer into his narrative where it was 
deemed suitable, (c) The Praj-er, where it stands 
in the Sermon, clearly intcrruiits the moveni-nt of 
the discourse, and destroys tlie unity of the section 
into which it has been inserted. This is true nut 
only of the Prayer, vv.""'", but also of the two 
verses preceding, vv.''- *, and of the two verses 
following, vv.'''- ". The whole passage, vv.'"'^, does 
not pertain directly to the subject which Jesus is 
presenting in vv.'"^- '*'"*, namely, the sin of ostenta- 
tion and hypocrisy in acts of religious worship ; 
and it mars the symmetry of Jesus' three illustra- 
tions about almsgiving, vv.-"^ ; prayer, vv."-*; and 
fasting, vv. '""'*. Nevertheless, it is quite intel- 
ligible how these verses ''"• were brought into tliis 
connexion by tlie compiling process. The Sorimiii 
was one of Jesus' most important discourses, and 
during the Apostolic age it was everywhere in use 
as a practical digest of His teaching. As the 
Sermon already contained some instruction about 
prayer, and the teaching on the same subject in 
yy 7-13 yfn^ scparatcd from its historical position, it 
came easily into association with vv.*'", where — 
although it was an extraneous element — it added 
to the completeness of the prayer instruction. 

(2) It is in the highest degree improbable that 
the Lord's Prayer was given on two separate 
occasions — once in the Sermon in the form which 
Matthew reports, and again under other circum- 
stances and in a different form as reported by 
Luke.* This would have been unnecessary ; but 
still more, each of the two Gospels supposes that it 
reports the one and only giving of the Prayer. 
On the theory of repetition, why did Jesus present 
the Prayer in two forms so very different from 
each other? Having once given it in the fuller, 
smoother form of Mt 6""", why should He sub- 
sequently repeat it in the shorter, cruder form of 
Lk 11'-'*? The reason for the postulation of two 
deliveries of the Lord's Prayer is the unwilling- 
ness of certain scholars to admit that Jesus' w ord.i 
could be so variantly transmitted (see the two 
Greek forms of the Prayer quoted in paialli'l 
columns on p. 5). Certainly it is not to be thought 
that Luke, with the Mattha'an form of the I'rayer 
before him, deliberately cut it down and changed 
it to the form contained in his Gospel ; or that 
Matthew, with the Lukan form of the Prayei 
before him, deliberately enlarged and altered it into 
the form which the First Gospel presents. But 
the two forms may well be the respective results 
of two independent lines and processes of trans- 
mission. The Prayer as given by Jesus in Aramaic 
was briefly worded, as we may assume from the 
nature of the language and the Jewish custom, as 
well as from the original Hebrew ' Ten Words ' 
and the Beatitudes. It is therefore not unlikely 
that the form of the Prayer given by Matthew is 
somewhat longer than the historical Aramaic form, 
for the purpose of producing a more jierfect Greek 

* Yet this is maintained by Achelis, Bfrg-predi(]t, p. 297 ; 
Chase, Lord's Prai/er in the. Early Church (1891), p.' 11, and b>' 
some others. Against this view, see Page, Expositor, 3rd ser. 
vol. vii. p. 43311. 



translation. But in the main the clill'ereneeswhii'h 
a|i|ii'ar in the accounts of .Matthew and Luke are 
due to the intlucnve.s of indei)endent translation 
from the Aramaic, and of handin;,' down in prac- 
tical Church use throu;,'h lifty years of time. 
Neither account can be sujiiiosed to furnish a 
literal equivalent of thel'rajer |ire<.-iscly lui wordeil 
by for His discijilcs.* l'<)nsci|Uently it 
becomes a matter of importance to iliscover wliicli 
of the two (iospel ri-piirts cimlnins the more exact 
rcpriKJuction of the historical I'rayer. The Church, 
with strikiuf; unanimity, from the 1st cent, to the 
present, has testilicd to the greater fidelity, dij"- 
nity, and usablencss of the recension in Mt ^y'^" ; 
and this choice, as respects both quantity and 
quality, has been conlinncd by the great majority 
of scholars, t 

In order to consider in detail the dillerences 
which exist between the two accounts of the 
Lonl's I'rayer, it is necessary to make the com- 
li.irisiiu on the basis of the modern critical texts 
of the NT, such a-s Tischendorf's ci;.'hth edition 
and W'estcott and Hort's text (witli wliich tlic KV 
closely a^'rces). t)ne notices lirst I lie exclusion of 
the doxologj- to the I'rayer coiitiune<l in the TH 
at Mt ti" (and familiar to us tlirou;_'h the AV) : Sn 
ffoC' caTLv Tj liaaiXda Kai ri 5vfa/xi7 Kai t; 5u^a f is rocs 
aiuli-as. aixrif. This endinj; of the I'rajer is not 
given in Luke, and the external evidence against 
its genuineness in Matthew is conclusive ; so that 
its authenticity is no longer supiKjsed.J It grew 
up gr.idually in the 2nd cent, as a product of the 
Jewish caistom of doxologies and responses, con- 
tinued in the public services of the Christian 
Church : see esp. 1 Ch 29""". The earliest men- 
tion of the liturgical use of the Prayer is in tlie 
Tenchini] of the Twelve Apostles, viii. 3, where tlie 
repetition of it three times daily is enjoined ; and 
there is abundant Patristic evidence that thi.s 
liturgical rapidly increased. Readily, there- 
fore, this doxology, wliich came to be u.sed always 
at the close of the Prayer, found its way into the 
later exemplars of the NT text : and the f.act that 
it apjiears in conjunction with Mt ()""" instead of 
Lk 11-"' shows that it was the Matthjean form of 
the Prayer which the early Church adopted for its 
liturgy. The doxology is found in many of the 
seconilary uncials, but is absent from XliP, the 
earlier versions, and the Patristic witnesses of the 
2nd and 3rd cents, generally. Again, in numerous 
secondary and late witnesses of the text tlie frag- 
mentary Lukan account of the Prayer is filled out 
and moililicd by the introduction of some or all of 
the cliiMfiits [leculiar to the Mattlmiin account ; 
but those are manifest assimihttiniis, uml therefore 
have no textual standing in the Thinl (iii>]icl. 

Taking Mt li'-'"" ami Lk U-"* thus according to 
the best (ii'cek text, it appears that, after the ad- 
dress which is common to txitli, the Lukan account 

* It has been eufflciently ai^iicd above, under i. 3, that the 
entire phenomena of the itrinutive transmission of the (josjMil 
material require -us to recoj^iizc extensive vcrtKil variation and 
occasional tnoug:ht moilillcation, such as appear in these parallel 
reports, thron;;hout the narratives of the four Evan^felists. 
There is a striking; similarity between the Matthnian and Lukan 
acf:ount^ of the Beatitudes and their two accounts of the Ixirtl's 
Prayer, and judpnents arrivetl at concerning: the features and 
merits of the one jmir will t»e found to holil in ;;eneral for the 
other pair also ; the chief differences l>ctween the two fonns of 
the Beatitudes and the two forms of the Lord's I'rayer are due 
to similar causes operating' on both. 

t So Tholuck, Meyer, Feine, Bruce, II. Weiss, Plunimcr, B. 
Weiss, and many others ; those also who think that Jesus ^Jave 
the Prayer in two fonns hold, almost without exception, that 
the foriii in Matthew is to be preterrwl. The nuxlem scholars 
who re;,'anl the Lukan re|iort as the more authentic (Bleck, 
Kaniphausen, II. Iloltzmann, Wcndt, Bocon), seem to follow 
too rijrid and exclusive a theory of literary criticism. 

I See Westcott and Ilort, Sew Texlament In (,•.«*, vol. ii. 
Appendix; Scrivener, Inlrml. to Ihf Crilicijmt of the Seir 
Ti-ittamfnt *, vol. ii. pp. .T2a-3'J5 ; Chase, Lord't Prayer in the 
Eaiiij Vhiuch, pp. lus-lTO. 

has live petitions, while the Matth.i'an account hoK 
six (or seven). The live parallel Jletition^ are : 
(1) Hallowed be Thy name, (2) Thy Kingdom come, 
(3) tJive us our ilaily bread, (4) Forgive us our debts 
(sins), and (5) lirint; us not into temptation. To 
these Mattliew adds, between (2) and (3), ' Thy 
will lie done, as in heaven, so on earth,' which is 
clearly a new petition, ami after (5) he adds, ' but 
deliver us from evil,' which may be a separate 
petition, but is more likely a fuller, reverse wonl- 
ing of the 'bring ns not into tcmptati<m.' * Are 
these two lulditional clauses in Matthew authentic 
portions of the Lord's Prayer? The only denial 
of their authenticity has come from the few modem 
scholars who hold to the relative originality of 
the Lukan account here and elsewhere as against 
the longer .\Ialth:can account, which they think 
wasexpandcil and supidcnunted in transmission. f 
Itut -Mattlicws thinl petition, 'Thy will Ik; done, 
as in heaven, so on earth,' brings into the Prayer 
one of .lesus' essential idcius and constant phrases 
(cf. .Mt 7-' 12^ 2li^'-'- ■'-, Jn 4" 0») ; it is necessary to 
the literary structure of the Prayer, since it forms 
the third member of the hrst triplet of i>etiti(ms ; 
and while in a general way the same thought is 
expressed in tlie clause ' Tliy kingdom come,' the 
Prayer needs this more definite statement of how 
the kingdom must be realized, what men must do 
to make the Kingdom come. It is not ditllcult to 
see why this iietition was excluded from the Lukan 
form of the I'raj'er : the source from which Luke 
drew his account had passed through a Gentile 
line of transmission, in the course of which a larte 
part of the characteristically Jewish element in 
the Gospel story was eliminated, as a detriment to 
the spread of the Gospel among the Gentiles. Ita 
omission is therefore parallel to the omis.sion of 
Mt o''"", and much other material, from the Third 
(lospel.J With regard to Matthews other .iddi- 
tion to the Lord's i'rayer, the enlargement of the 
sixth petition by conjoining the ' but de- 
liver us from evil,' there is less argument for its 
•authenticity ; but its absence from Luke is readily 
explained in the manner just described, it is a 
characteristic Jewish conception entirely suitable 
to .lesus' thought and expression, and it tits in 
with the literary structure of the second triplet of 
pet it inns, since without it the sixth pclition would 
not ciirrispiiiid in structure witii tlic nthcr two. 

The iihenomenaof the parallelism in the wording 
of the several clauses which JIatthew and Luke 
have in common are striking. The thought and 
the language of the two accounts agree precisely in 
the lirst, .scconil, and sixth jietitious (except that in 
tlie sixth Luke does not li.ive the jihrasc dWd jivaat 
r)fmi dirb toO iroi'rjpovj.% The third petition Luke 

* .\u(tustine(E«eAirid. 110) regarrled this as a separate 
petition, making seven in all, and this became the standanl 
konian Catholic interpretation : it was adopted also by Luther, 
and is continued by Luthenin commentators. Anion;: modem 
scholars there are many who accept this— some on traditional 
grounds (Kulwl, Nosjjen, H. Weiss), others on critical grounds 
(Itleek, Hilitenfcld, Ibbeken, Chase, v. d. Goltz). That the peti- 
tions are but six in number was hclfl by clripen anrl Cnrv- 
sostom, was odujitetl by Calvin, and has had the sup|virt in 
recent years of 'Tholuek (ap|)arentlv). BeiiKcl, olshausi-n, Keim, 
Kuinol. Meyer. Achelis, Peine, Hatch, Plunimer, B. Weiss, 
Bruce, Hort, Nestle, and others. 

t .So Bleek. Kamphausen, II. Iloltzmann, Wendt, Bacon. 

: Feine, Jahrli. /. frutent. Then!,'i. thinks that Luke 
omitted the thinl petition because he considereil that its idea 
was already contained in the first and st-cniitl ]K-titi<>ns, so that 
it was simply redundant. This is .also th-- view of Kamphausen, 
Dat tSrIxt ,l'f> llerrn. p. 07. II. Hciltziiuinn. H, nut -Cum m. u. d. 
Synoptikrr, in toe., reffanis Luke's fl\e )ietitioiis us oritrinol, 
de8il,^ll■ll to be counted on the fliiKcrs of one band. O. Iloltz- 
mann, Lfljrn Jemt (ItKll), p. 203. also maintains that the short 
form of Luke is ori;;inai. 

It The presence of this phrase in the text of Lk 11* in ACD 
and some other witnesses is to be explainc«l as the result of a 
process of ti'xt assimilation with the Matthx>an reading ; it does 
not ap]K-ar in kBL, the more im|H)rtant versions, or the earlier 
Patristic writings. Similar cases are the in-sertion in Lk 113 of 




does not liave. In the remaining two petitions, 
the fonith and fifth, we find approximately the 
same ideas and words, but witli some variation : 
thus tlie 56s V'" arnxfpoy of Mt 6" is paralleled 
in Lk IP by ii&ov rnuy TO Ka8' rifx^pav, the latter 
being an attempt to generalize and simplify the 
former ; the to. 60eiX^Mara of Mt 6'-' is i>aralleled 
in Lk II'' by ras a/xapTias, the latter being the 
substitution of an easj', well-known word for 
one full of significance but less common — tihat 
this substitution took place can be inferred from 
the T^J 6it>ei\ovTi in the adjoined clause ; and in 
the same petition the ws Ka.1 of Mt 6'- is paralleled 
in Lk U'' by xai -yap, which also is an obvious 
attempt to remove the possibility of a false quid 
pro quo interpretation. Very interesting also is 
the difference in the two accounts of the address 
of the Prayer ; Lk IP gives only one word, ndre/j, 
while Mt 6" gives ndrep rijxwv 6 iv tois ovpavoii. 
It is, of course, possible that the Lukan report 
is correct, but it certainly seems too familiar 
and abrupt for this solemn, lofty prayer ; wliile 
Matthew's two attributives seem logical and im- 
portant. The T)niiv indicates tliat the Prayer is 
a universal one for all who will pray to God. 
The o iv Tois ovpavoh is an OT conception (cf. 
Ps 2» 115^) which Jesus used (see passages below), 
because it was a customary Jewish expression 
full of religious meaning.* Its nsual, though not 
entire, absence from Luke is best explained as 
due to the process already described by wliich 
the characteristic Jewish element was largely 
eliminated from the sources of the Third Gospel. 
In all these parallel passages, therefore, where 
Matthew and Luke give different readings for 
the clauses of the Prayer, the report of Matthew 
commends itself as possessed of a greater authen- 
ticity.! This confirms by historical tests the strong 
preference of the Church for the longer form of 
the Prayer as given in the First Gospel, a pre- 
ference which rested primarily on spiritual and 
pr.actical tests. 

(3) When Jesus would condense His teaching 
into seven concise phrases (the address is an essen- 
tial part of the Prayer), containing in Aramaic not 
fifty words, it became necessary for Him to enibodj' 
His chief ideas aiymt God and men in compre- 
hensive phrases whose significance was already 
well understood by His followers. To introduce 
new phrases and new conceptions would have 
been to confuse those whom He wished to in- 
struct. Consequently, the language and the ideas 
of the Lord's Prayer are closely related to the OT, 
where essential truth about God, and about the 
duty of men towards Him and towards one another, 
had in inaiu' rcs]iects been reached. Jesus' general 
teaching to His disciples previous to the giving of 
this Player l^ad maile known to them He 
would lia\ c thciii understand by these OT concep- 
tions and plnascs. 

Natur.illy, we find in Jewish prayers of a time 
contcmiioraneous witli Jesus some phrases wliich 
arc similar to those in tlie Lord's Prayer. Such 
parallels have been pointed out for tlie address 
and first two petitions ; for the remaining four 
clauses there are no real parallels, although there 
are expressions with a certain similarity.? Some 

Matthew's yivrtHroi TO 8i>.r,fjM trou ati £v oi/fiotvu xtxi Iti y7,; (sO 

nACD against BL, versions, and quotations), and v.uii/v o iv rci; 
cupuvo'if (so ACD against NBL, versions, and quotations). Modern 
text-critical authorities are agreed that these passages are 
interpolations in the Lukan text. 

* Compare the later Jewish prayer-fomiula, D*33'5C' ?3*5N ; 
see Achi'lis, n,T,i,,mlint. p. 229; Lightfoot, Hor. Heh. pi 20!). ' 

ts,. ■!';(_. /,,. ,'.,,, :.r.l st-r. vol. vii. pp. 433-440; PI 

t»'ii'li I .. I, Mt.r works of Mbller, Augusti, Wet- 

steiu, l.i-liU ■'. livl - iMitl'.:cn; also, Achelis. lieniinrdiiit. 
p. 23Sf. ; B. Weiss, Miycr-Koiiim. li. d. ilatteivm. p. 13S ; 

of these Jewish prayer-formulas are subsequent 
in origin to the 1st cent. A.D., and may well have 
been '^influenced by the Christian Prayer. But 
there is no reason why Jewish prayers of Jesus' 
own time should not have contained some of the 
essential religious ideas which Jesus reaftirms, 
and in language which the OT had already made 
sacred. Such parallelisms furnish no proper basis 
for an attack upon the originality and authority 
of Jesus. His work was not to make a clean 
sweep of all existing religious conceptions and 
phraseology, as though the world had never had 
any vision of God, or truth, or goodness, or right ; 
on the contrary, He came to sliow that the OT 
revelation was, in its best thought and teaching, 
a true. Divine revelation, which He would exalt 
and perfect (Mt 5", cf. He I'-'-). Jesus was not 
'original 'in the sense that He created a wholly 
new fabric of reliuiniis, or introduced a 
wholly new set (u i.liui^u^ terms; that kind 
of originality was ni.i.l.- iiii|i<issible by the fact 
that God was already in His world. Jesus' 
originality — and the term is not misapplied — 
consisted in His Divine ability to separate the 
true from the false, the permanent from the 
transient, the perfect from the imperfect ; and 
then to carry forward the whole circle of ideas 
and practices to their ideal expression. The work 
of an artist is not to manufacture his paints, but 
to produce with them a perfect picture. Jesus' 
mission was to clarify and to perfect religious truth, 
to show the unity and perspective of its many 
elements, and to transform humanity by revealing 
the nature, the beauty, and the necessity of the 
ideal life. 

One observes also with interest how the Lord's 
Prayer embodies the experiences of Jesus in His 
own personal and official life. His teaching grows 
out of and expresses His own religious perceptions 
and realizations, so that there is a vital unity, an 
instructive correspondence, between this Prayer 
and His experience.* He finds God to be His 
Father and their F'ather, the common Father of 
all, to whom prayer is to be addressed. He lives 
and works that God maj' be revered, that His 
Kingdom may come, and that His will may be 
perfectly done by men. He has experienced the 
truth that God cares for the pliysical needs of men, 
and it is their privilege to trust Him for these 
things. He knows and teaches that men are 
sinful, needing God's forgiveness ; they also must 
show a forgiving spirit towards one another. He 
has Himself passed through severe temptations, 
jnaying for deliverance from them (cf. Mk H""- "", 
Mt 4'-").t In giving this ideal Prayer to His dis- 
ciples, Jesus does not necessarily imply that His 
experience is in no respect different from theirs, 
c.q. that there is no uniqueness in His relation to 
God, or in His character and career as regards sin. 
But He does mean that He has shared humanity 
with them, has lived through its experiences, has 
found the way to attain the human ideal, and will 
declare to them in His words and in Himself the 
secret of the true life. 

(4) An analysis of the Lord's Prayer, accepting 
the Mattha-an form as practically authentic, dis- 
closes a well-considered literary structure : there 
are seven clauses in all, the first containing the 
address, followed by two groups of petitions, three 
in each. Kegard, therefore, is had to the sacred 

Plummer, art. Lord's PR.»YEa in vol. iii. ; Nestle, art. ' Lord's 
Praver ' in Enci/cl. Bibl. iii. 2S21 ; Tavlor, Sayings of the Jewish 
Faikers- (1900), pp. 1'24-130 ; Dalman, Worte Jem, i. 299-300; 
V. d. Goltz, Das Ge-bet in der attesten Christenheit (1901), pp. 

•See V. d. Goltz, op. cit. pp. 1-53: Burton, 'The Personal 
Religion of Jesus ' in Biblical WorU, vol. xiv. (1S99), pp. 394-4113. 

t Chase, Lord's Prayer in the Early Church (19111), p. 104 f., 
notes, hut exaggerates, the relation of the Lord's Prayer to the 
personal experiences of Jesus. 




miiiilicrs 3 nn<l 7, foi' the (mrpose of iiiuultliii}; pur- 
fectly the literary form uf the I'raver.* The lirst 
■.'r(>\i"|i (if jii'titions |pertaiiis to (JoJ — 'Thy iiuine,' 
' Thy kiM;;iloMi,' ' Thy will.' They express the most 
liriiluiinil iuul eoiiiiirehensive nsiiimtion of men, 
tliiU li'iil may lie all in all. Only when this is the 
Miprtiiie ell■^ire, can one otler the three petitions of 
the Ml oml ^jniiiii, which iicrtain to the needs of the 
imliviilual life -' our ilaily hreuil,' 'our ilelits,' 'de- 
liverance from temptation.' The several clauses 
wciulil have heen, in the orijiinal Arnnuiie, shorter 
and more nearly uniform in lenjith than appears 
in a tJreek translation. One cannot be certain 
whether the 'as in heaven, .so on earth,' which fol- 
lows the third petition, pertains to that alone, or 
eiiually to all the three petitions of the yroup.t 

The address of the I'rayer (Ildrfp iitJ.Civ o iv roXt 
oi'pavoU\ introduces the term ' Father,' which was 
.lesus' prevailing; ami characteristic designation 
for (!od. It si;;nilied (!ods supremacy, authority, 
and power, but at the same time His love, patience, 
and care for men. The OT also has the term, but 
in the national sense, denoting God's relation to 
His covenant peo|de ; later there grew up the 
indiviilual consciousness, and God eanie to be 
thou^'hl of as a personal Father to the worshipper.J 
.lesus was accustomed to use this title for tJod in 
various ways : § often without any limiting attribu- 
tive except the article, often with a limiting' 
'my' or 'your': but it is only in this ]>assa;,'e, 
ftit 6'-', that Jesus is reported to have used the 
attributive 'our.' One mi;.'ht therefore infer that 
this 'our' is an unauthentic liturgical addition; 
but this inference is neither necessary nor satis- 
factory. 'Our Father' is a signilicant address, 
imlicatinj:; at once the ground and the motive of 
prayer to Him, as well as the brotherhood of men 
uniicr a common Father ; the 'our' contributes an 
imjiortant element, therefore, to the address, and 
tlie occasion of its use is great enough to call for a 
special expression. It may be that the ' Our 
Fatlier' was oftener upon Jesus' lips tlian our 
(io-pcl records now show ; the widening gulf which 
the (lisci]ilcs lixcd between their ascended Lord 
and tliiin^rlvcs might tend to the disuse of iilmuses 
which indicated that 'it behoved him in all things 

• It is not to be said that the artistic literary stnicture of the 
Prayer is unworthy of Jesu*^. and imist therefore be attributed 
to the EvangcHst. On the r.-n\r.\rv . .Ir«ns designedly presented 
uiuch of His teachinff in ni. ■ I i- I 1 1 ■ ) iti (st-e above, li. !>. His 
niarvelluus literary jioKir . ■ t .1 for art's sake, but 
to make art serve the In.,-: «., i . ;ii,' of men; for ideal 
thought cannot fulfil iu "in.ii- ii,i:.--n.ri until it is ideally 
ex]>rtsseil. i 'n the logical relation of the petitions, see I'lumnier, 


♦ Tholuck. n,rijredf'>. p. [ tr. p. 328], not*8 that there 
are three elements which make up the address clause of the 
Prayer, and three elements which make up the doxology that 
came to be uswl at its close. 

: For the national sense cf. Dt 13' 8' 32", Ps 68' SflM 10313, 
Is 1= 98 g;)1u n4», Jer M- '», Hos 11', Mai 16 2ii> ; for the individual 
sense. Wis 21« 14^, Sir 231- •>, To IS-", 3 Mac 63 ». 

S In the Gospel of Matthew the term 'Father' is frequent, 
and is generally accompanied by either ' my ' or ' your ' ( ' thy ') 
in abovit equal proportion. The tenn occurs rarely in the 
Gospel of Mark. In the Gospel of Luke, also, there arc relatively 
f'w instances of it. Hut the Fourth Gospel has it abundantlj' 
in the discourse sections, often with 'my,' but in the main only 
with the article, ' the Father.' A comparison of the occurrence 
of the term in parallel Svnoi>tic passages raises the question as 
to how nmch confidence is to be placed upon the precise attri- 
butive reported in connexion with the title, or uimn the occur- 
rence of the title itself: thus in the group Mt 2ifffl = Mk 14»> = 
Lk 2i« we find 'O my Father,' 'Abba, Father' (the Aramaic 
word with its translation), and • Father,' rc8i>ectively ; in Mt a*^ 
= Lk 0»-\ .Mt in-i8=Lk I'A Mt 1033 = Lk 12'-i, the First Gospel 
has 'Father,' while the Third Gos|>el has 'Most High' and 
■Go.!'; in Mt I'^WcMk 3:«-Lk 8-i the Firet Gosnel has 'my 
Father which is in heaven.' while the Second and Third Gospels 
have simjilv 'Go<i'; in Mt 2()'i^=Mk lOW the .Second Gospel 
strikinglv Lacks the words 'of my Father.' It seems probable 
that Jcsiis eonstnntlv used the title ' Father,' as the First and 
Fourth tJosiwIs record ; but that it bad been largely suppressed 
or altered in the sources of the Second and ThinI Gospels, 
again for the reason that it waa a characteristically Jewish 

to be made like unto his brethren' (Ho "J"). The 
second attrilnitive to the lldr<p in the clause of 
address, • who art in heaven,' is a truly OT and 
.lewisli phrase, which .lesus <|uite surely adopted 
and employed." It expresses the transcemlent 
position and character of tlod. In the pre-.scienlilie 
age it wivs natural to a.ssign Ginl to a paiticular 
locality ; the distant sky aliove the heads of men 
was logically chosen. 15ut this loial conception 
gradually retired before a growing sense of Coil's 
spiritual nature and omnipresence. With Jesus 
the was a useful one (and we still lind it so) 
to denote the separatcness of God from men, His 
supermundane attributes. His absolute (Kiwer and 
authority. His inKiiite character and i|ualities. 
.Since the phrase meant these imiiortant things to 
the Jewish people of His day, ami it wa.s desirable 
that they should be in the mind of him who would 
pray to God, Jesus might well attach words 
to His title of address in His model I'rayer.t 

The petition (d^iacrtf^ru t6 tvofio. (roc) J ex- 
presses the devout of the worship|ier in view 
of what, according to the address of the I'rayer, he 
conceives God to be, namely, that (iod may l>e 
fully recognized, honoured, and revered by all. 
The English word ' hallow ' is no longer in common 
use ; it meant to ' treat as holy,' to revere. Thus 
it was a pro|ier transl.ation of ayM^tm (Lat. 
snnrlificarc), which, together with Jojdj'di', was 
employed in the LXX to render the He) rew forms 
c'-pn and Bi^iT.S l.'alvin, Kamphausen, and some 
others have understood that ' the name ' in this 
petition was to be taken in the sense of the Third 
Commandment, which forbade the misuse of, and 
disrespect to, the title of God (so also >lt u^^-'). 
This interpretation is true as far as it goes, but it 
is too restricted for so comprehensive a prayer as 
this, liather, ' the name ' is to be understood here 
in the Oriental, as a periphrasis for the 
Person Himself, as though it were said, ' May God 
receive due reverence.' To the Hebrew ' the name' 
stood for what the individual was who l)ore the 
name. Gotl's name designated Him as He had 
made Himself known to raen.ll Tiierefore the 
petition prays that God may be perfectly acknow- 
ledged by all men, so that all that He is and does 
may receive due honour, and that men may 
commit themselves to Him as their Father (cf. 
Ko 14", Eph S"'"). 

The second petition (AOdru ^ /SocriXcio aov)'!, ex- 

• This is shown by the frequent occurrence of the phrase in 
the First Gospel, e.g. Mt 5'»-" « ul 14 .aiaj 711 21 lo-i 33 1-..W 
1;')13 101' 1810. ij. ID. 55 239 ; cf. also Mk 1133. ai, Lk ll" ; its almost 
total absence from the Second and Third Gospels is another 
feature of the universalization of this material. For Jewish 
usage sec 'Abdlh v. 30; .W((i ix. 15; )'<)«i<i viii. U; and 
Ualman, Woife Jem. i. 150-150, 299-300. Wendt, Lchre Jem, 
i. 02 f., can hardly be right in holding that this phrase is an 
addition in the Matthew passages, not to l>e attributed to Jesus, 
t Whether the Prayer was originally given in Anmmic or 
Hebrew has been discussed, but without a certain conclusion. 
Chase is sure it was in Aramaic ; see, further, Taylor, Sayiii'J' "/ 
theJeifUk ^'o(Aer» '•! (1SU7), p. 170 f. 

t Compare the parallel clause in the Jewish synngogal prayer 
Kaildigh: '.Magmneetur et Banctillcetur nomen eiiis nmpiinu 
in mimdo'(Maimonidea' translation); see Achehs, Ucrjprriltjt. 
p. *23Sf. 

5 See Ex 208, Lv 21* 223=, Nu 20". Dt S-2M, l8 290, Ezk 3033 ; 
and in the NT, 1 P 3i5- „ . 

Il Sec P» 511 9'", PrlSlo. So the peculiar phrase (still in 
religious use) 'for his name's sake,' P» 233 2.111 313 toic, cf. 
Achelis, Uniipredigl . pp. 240-213. 

•; Compare here, also, the KifdtlM parallel : ' Ilegnan' facial 
regnum suum.' Mansion, iii his Lukan tonn of the lA>nl'il 
I'raver, read as the second petition, not what we have here, 
but" itt x^~» " kyitt TMi^cuc. or another fonn of the Kaine, i>.fir«# 
T. iym T,iDii« r.1/ Tf! littit. The same thought in a more 
expanded form was known, as a feature of Luke's le\t, to 
Gregorv of Nvssa and Maxinuis the Confessor; thus: lidiri. 
T. ii,." T.fcui ».!, i}' i.uii ««. ».t.;.i»<.T« «ixi.- (et. We.l.-olt 
and Hort. Xew 7',.fnin<)i( in Gmk, vol. ii. Appv.: Xc.-lle, in 
Ennicl. mill. iii. '.ISIS), This iKtition for the Holy Spirit cannot 
be authentic in Ibis connexion, for it has small ntl. »tali..n. is 
not suitable to the com. \t. and is obviousl.v a .Irasli.- substi- 
tution to bring into the I'raver a »l>eciflc rc'iuellfor the lloly 




presses the wonderful Messianic Hope of the 
Hebrews ; it was in substance the prayer which 
for centuries Israel had addressed to Gou.* Jesus 
bade them continue this prayer for the coming 
of the Kingdom of God, but taught them the true 
conception of what that Kingdom was, and how it 
was to be accomplished. Tlic Kingdom of God 
was Jesus' constant and all - inilu>ivi' term to 
denote the individual and social good which would 
come to men when they would trust tliemselves 
to God's guidance and conform themselves to His 
ideal (Mt 6^ = Lk 12^')- In Jesus' conception the 
coming of the Kingdom was a process, a develop- 
ment through successive stages with a linal con- 
summation (Mk 4-""^-). He established the King- 
dom among men (Lk 17*''-'), His followers were 
to carry it forward (Mt SS'"- '■"), and in due time 
He would bring about its complete realization 
(Mt '24. 25).t Our prayer, therefore, must be that 
Goil in His wisdom, jiower, and love may hasten 
tlie growth among men of righteousness, mercy, 
and ]>eace ; that the princijjles of the Gospel may 
l)revail in individuals and in society as a whole, 
tliat humanity may become transformed into the 
likeness of Him wlio revealed to them the Divine 
ideal of God for His children. 

The third petition {ycfriffriTiji t6 $i\rtixa aov, <is iv 
ovpai'(^ Kal c-rri 77;!) was needed in the Prayer to 
guard the second petition against misinterpretation. 
It had become a prevalent misconception that the 
coming of God's Kingdom depended after all upon 
Himself, and that when He should choose to do 
so He could by His omnipotence bring that King- 
dom into complete existence ; so men had impor- 
tuned God to become loving and forgiving towards 
them, and to grant to tliem tlie blessings which 
out of dissatisfaction or neglect He was with- 
holding from them. Jesus makes that idea im- 
pos>ilile when He gives this third petition, teaching 
that Gods will must be absolutely done by all. J 
To do God's will, to accomplish His ^^•ork, was the 
one purpose of Jesus' own life (Mt ^S-'"- ■*-, Jn 4*" 
gas J.J-' IT"*), and He enjoined it upon all as the one 
com|ireheusive human obligation (Mt 7'-', Jn 7"). 
Men must therefore co-operate with God in the 
realization of the Kingdom by making themselves, 
with God's help, what they should be, and by 
bringing in the true brotherhood of universal love 
anil service. 

The fourth petition § pertains to the physical 
Spirit which Jesus had included only bj' implication. The 
prominence ;^iven to the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic aj^'e has 
left its impress upon the Lukan account of Jesus' words ; cf. 
Mt 7il = Lk 111-1, Mt n2^=Lk 1021, also Mt 1020 = Lk 1212. 

* See art. Messiah in vol. iii. ; Eiictjcl. BihL, art. 'Messiah*; 
also Goodspeed, Israel's Messianic Hope (19J0). 

t See art. Kingdom of God in vol. ii. ; also Wendt, Lehre Jesn, 
ii. 233-325. The verbal form IxduTu does not favour the idea that 
the coming of the Kinjfdom is continuous ; which part of the 
verb was used in the original Aramaic can only be matter of con- 
jecture—one would suppose a jussive imperfect, and this would 
ha\ e presented no difficulty. At any rate, this petition must be 
interpreted in the light of Jesus' entire teaching concerning the 
Kiii^ilnm. The Greek aorist here m.ay be due to the idea held 
by all Christians in the Apostolic age, that the return of Christ 
w.-Ls imminent, and that with His return He would bring the 
catastrophic consummation ; this passage would then be one of 
a number in the Gospels which received an eschatological 
colouring in transmission, on account of the failure of the 
disciples to take completely Jesus' view of the nature and coming 
of the Kingdom. 

J Tb J conception that God's will is already perfectly done in 
heaven, by the angelic host, is at the same time an assurance 
and a model for the full n:ili/. ..I Ili^ \\ill •m earth among 
men. The angels are fnqih uih m uiMtn.l l.-.tii in the OT 
(Ps 9111 10320) and in thi- Nl' iMi 1-'" Jl - Ji' ■, -Mk sss 12'i5 
13=" «.Lkl2S 111510 1822, , In 1 i. II. 1' "li;--- - i; (m the Jewish 
an..' .'.... - . .iit.-\N-tfELinvol. i. ; Em-i/ct- i'iW.,art. 'Angel'; 
:. I 1 ', !!i Lirr and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vo\. ii. 
A| '.< I I:. /../(i<.^t'Slt,ii. pp._121-]26. _ 

'! <.roi r,u.-^v TOv WloiiiTiOV So? r.^iv ffri/ASpcv ; Lk 11'.* 

- .-.. iT(0>iO« hiSe-j if^v TO K«(r i,fj,-potv. It is strik- 

iii - larigeword iTio-Jirtov, which is found nowhere in 

. . ■ I I Mire outside of this passage (so Origen, (ft* Ovat. 

^: 1, -'I il t ■■ ;.i:ir in both of these widely divergent accounts 
o( tiR I'raier. The f.act can be explained oiilv Ijv the 

needs of men, upon which the spiritual life is 
dependent during this earthly stage of existence.* 
Tlie conditions under which we live are created by 
God, He has full knowledge of them (Mt 6"- '-'>-■'-), 
and He stands ready to supply what is necessary 
to human well-being (Mt 5^ Ij'^ 7"). This provi- 
dential bestowal conies, of course, not as a pure 
gratuity, but as a return for the honest, energetic 
labour of men. The 'bread' which is asked for 
in this Prayer is meant in the wider sense as 
referring to all necessary food ; and by implication 
it certainly includes all those things which are 
essential to physical welfare. The petition con- 
templ.ates only a simple, frugal life, enjoining 
trustfulness and contentment therein. In other 
words, the idea of the Prayer is that men are to 
ask God conlidently for what they need ; but only 
for what they really need, and only as they need 
it. Tbe disciples of Jesus are to live trustfully 
in the present and for the present, without anxious 
concern as to the future (Mt G'^). About tliis 
general interpretation of the fourth petition there 
can be no question. A difficulty exists, however, 
as to the precise force of c-jnovuLOf ; since it is a 
hajirixlcffomcnon, we cannot determine its usage 
from otiier contexts ; the Greek word most like it 
is irepioiiirios, which appears first in the L.XX. 
Recent scholars are largely in agreement that the 
word is derived somewhat irregularly from eiri-i- 
(IvaL in a fern. ptcp. form, signifying ' being unto,' 
' pertaining to ' ; so that the prayer would be, 
'Give us to-day the bread which pertains (to this 
day),' i.e. just so much as is needed for to-day to 
meet one's physical requirements (cf. Ja 2''''"').t 

hypothesis that these two Greek forms of the Prayer must have 
had a literary relation to one another in some stage of their 

* Tavlor, >.r , , . . ( (;V ,', . . /, /'..'AfrsS. p. 125, thinks that 
this petit i.. II . . .' I : ... the giving of the manna, 
ExlO->; ct. r, - ■ \\ ^ !■ -\ 

tSoAcheli- /. ...■./'('. pp -'. . -71; H. Holtzmaim, //fl*i!^ 
Comin. ii. d. .';./;. ../rfiicr, p. lli; ; Kamphausen, Das Gehd i/.s 
llerrn. p. 1)7 ff.; Leo Meyer in Kuhn's Zritsehr. /. rcril'u-h. 
Sprach/oischung, vii. 401ff. (though he afterwards withdrew 
this opinion, in h\ichrichten d. kgl. Gesetlseha/t der ll'/w. *i- 
schaften zii GOttimien, 18S6, p. 245 ff.); Tholuck, &)■</>•«(.■■"', |ip. 
375-385 |Eng. tr. 341-353] ; B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. ii. d. .'.lalt- 
evnn. p. 135 f.; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. ■239f.; Taylor, i.;/. .-if. 
pp. 125-127, 178-186, 190f. ; as also Ewald, Nosgen, Bassvtt, 
and many others. A list of the older literature upon th... 
subject may be seen in Tholuck, loc. cit. Other interpreta- 
tions of the passage are; (1) that the derivation of iTjo.^.j. i^ 
from tTi'-l-the noun e-V/ot, which in philosophical usage si.^iiitit.i 
'subsistence,' 'existence'; therefore the petition would rva.i. 
'Give us to-day our bread for subsistence,' i.e. that l.r.a.i 
which serves to "maintain our physical existence. So c'rviLi^.r, 
Dibl.-T/ieol. Wurterbuch'', in loc.; also Origen, Chr.\s....t.mi. 
Theophylact, Maldonatus, Bleek, Keil, Kuinbl, Kiibel. This coii- 
ception^ however, seems forced, and too technically philosophi- 
cal ; nor is there any certain parallel instance of such a usage 
of oio-;*. It differs from the view adopted above in stating the 
end of the giving instead of the measure, for what purpose the 
bread is asked rather than the quantity of bread asked for. 
(2) That the derivation of iTJoi»-.o» is from itri+UKti, and that 
with it is understood in sense a ^it.'^x (.f. Ac 10" i-r.iCir'. 2 '.n, 
Pr27iLXX); it then means ■ i!i. . _ 1 n .' an.l II,. |. piI...! 
says, ' Give us to-day our br. I : i ... -. I -' •' . 

Fresh Uevlsion of Eiu/lish \ I ... n I - . I.I 

in Winer's Grammatik d. A/ . .' . -. '" ' "'." ( > 'i' I'P- 
136-138; also Grotius, Wetstwn, Ueiiu'H. Kntzsche, Winer, 
Gore, Bruce, Meyer, Marshall, O. Holtzmann, and KVm. The 
ditflcultv with this temporal interpretation of hminn is that 
it contradicts the very idea of the petition as intended by Jesus ; 
instead of having men pray for to-morrow's food, He would have 
them pray for to-day and trust for to-morrow. _ No other mean- 
ing can he derived from the passage Mt G25-**, ending with 
the words, ' Be not therefore anxious for the morrow ; for the 
morrow will be anxious for itself. Sutflcient unto the day is 
the evil thereof.' This temporal interpretation also throws an 
incongruous meaning into the Lukan form of the prayer, 'Give 
us every day the bread for tbe next d.i> '; that would be a 
mechanical kind of Providen. . . i 1 ' . ".- ' bread ' for which 

this petition asks is to be iiii!. i . I lall.v, at least m its 

primary reference. This was i i . : .lerpretation among 

the Fathers of the early c'lit i-' i.'i ' nes; it arose easily 
from the figurative use of ' bread in Jn i.."-.'-\ and was suitable 
to the allegorical mode of the time. Augustine hcl.l the 
'bretid' to refer to three thin','S, in an ascending s-ale .if 
significance: (a) phvsicallv, .actual food; (« intellecl iially, 
the word of Christ ; (c) spiritually, the Lor."s Supper. Fur the 




As ripioi'iriof meiins ' l>ey<»'id what is necessiiry,' so 
ijrioi'ffioi- iueaii8 ■ exjKtly "liat is necessary.' Tliis 
is the eoiieeptioii ot supply which we tinil in Pr 30" 
' Keed nie with thi- fouil that is needful for me.' 
There are siiiiilar Turyiiiuie and Talmudic expres- 
sions. The wording of the petition as j,'ivcn by 
Matthew is a .spceilie for a sinj,'le occasion, 
understanding; that the Prayer will be repeated as 
f rciMiently as net'd arises, presumably each daj' ; * 
while Luke's wordinj; presents a general request 
fur a constant supply : it would seem clear that 
the .Maltlucan form is of greater authenticity. 

Tlie (ifth petition t concerns the jjreseiit religious 
status of the man in relation to God. The wor- 
sliipiier is to measure himself against the Divine 
iileal of the liighest, fullest self-develo|iment, and 
of complete love and service to God and one's 
fellow-men. lie is to ob.serve how far he has failed 
to meet the obligations placed ui>on him by (iod, 
and why he has failed to meet them. ANhen a 
man has made this inventory of his physical, 
moral, and spiritual status, with a sincere repent- 
ance for all liis transgressions and shortcomings, 
ami with a supreme jjuriKjse to achieve the Divine 
ideal for men, he is ready to ask God's forgiveness 
in the words of this petition. Holding that God's 

spiritual meaiiinj; alpo stootl Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyrii of 
JeruKiIem, Attiaua^iuv, .Ainljrose, and Jerome ; and in modern 
times Iielitzwii, olahausen, Stier, SfClellan. (4) That the 
4Tj«!,ff.ay h;w a temporal siirniflcation reterrinj^ merely to the <iay 
of ttie |tr.i\<T. So the K\', 'Give U8 this day our daily hread,' 
an(t this is the wording' in connnon use in Christendom to-day, 
made so hy the popular translations ot the Bihle. It is re- 
duiel.iiit in expression, and it* only merit is simplicity; for 
it laiks the profound meaning which inheres in the 'nituncv as 
interj'reted m the text above. Lately this view has been attain 
defended by Nestle (ZSTH', 1900, pp. 250-252 ; Encycl. UM. 
iii. 2^19f.) on the basis of the readin;^ K)*vK ( = continual), 
which is found in Syr cur at Mt 8" and Lit lia,\nd in Syr sin 
al Lk 11^, the Mattha^an section I)eing wantinj^ ; also in the 
Syriac AcU o_f Thotnas (etj. Wright, p. 313). Tliis ySK is said 
to be the regular Syriac word for the translation of the Heb. 
T^n ; and Nestle has learned that a .Jewish translation of the 
First Gospel into Hebrew, made in the lOth cent., rendered 
the 'tTitCrmt by T?p. He 8up]>ose8, therefore, that the Greek 
iriti^toi' in the Lrf>rtl'8 Prayer represents an original I'prri cn*^, 
an<I sa\ s that the translation ' our dailv breaxi ' is the best 
English translation of the Greek text. Tiie dilllculty with this 
interpretjilion is twofold : (a) it gives a purely tautological 
rendering, which is unlikely to have l>een original ; (ti) it 
altogether fails to account for the presence in the Greek text 
of tills strange word iTi«b<rj<», which seems to have been created 
to express an intricate thought forwhich no current Greek word 
was suitable; but if the thought was so simple as 'continual' 
or 'daily,' there were several common expressions at hand to 
use (f.y. the t. ««(f w.ff ot Lk 113 194^), and the L.\.\ had 
alreadv employed such (cf. Kx SU 165, fJu 41», Ps 0"*), Dn 1', 
1 Mac (i=' 81''); while the early Syriac reading may well be 
nothing more than a simplification of a difficult expression 
whose exact meaning had not been clearly conveye<l by the 
iTio^riov, and which in the circle of the translator was no longer 
understoixl. Chase, LonVn I'miier in the Haiti/ C/nireh (I8HI), 
pp. 44-.'i3, holds that the original form of the petition was, ' Give 
us our (or, the) bread of the d.ay,' and suggests that the newly 
coine<l word incCffift was later interpolated to meet liturgical 
exigencies in connexion with the use of the Ixird's Praver in 
the evening. With this reading the Prayer could he used in 
the morning, and woidd ask bread for that same day ; or it 
could t>e use<l at night, and would ask bread for the morrow ; 
however, the rifxipt* so replaced did not in fact disappear, but 
remained in the text as a contusing redundancy.'s view- 
is accepted by v. d. Goltz, Oas Ufl/et in tier alteiteii ChriHenheit 
(iimi). p. 4»f. 

• H. Weiss, op. HI. p. 130, holds that the ri/tipt, in the 
Blatthew form of the petition is a suljsequent addition, Iwaring 
witness to the fact that the Praver was assigned to daily use 
In the early Christian liturgy. Tiiat the Prayer was used daily, 
or ofterier, in the earlier part of the 2nd cent., is established by 
the Teaching o/the Tn-ettv .4;<'>st/f«(viii. 3), and other witnesses ; 
but it does not follow that the rrui;** of Mt 611 \^ merely a 
product of that practice. There Is no inherent reason why 
Jesus should not Himself have given the corresponding Aramaic 
word in this connexion. The Prayer was given to the disciples 
for regular use, because they wished some set form of prayer to 
recite in the common manner of the Jews (ct. Lk III). 
The 'day' was a natural and convenient period of time (cf. 
Ml tPJ) for the repetition of the Prayer." Why should not Jesus 
have arranged the wording on that ixisis? 

t .Mt «12 »»; iji; rl^, „ .;;i.>.nAt.i« r.iti., ii «>; ;,ui7t ij,>- 
«U!> TBI,- icu>-iT»i( _ruv». Lk 11*» x«; i;if r.fMt ritt iifA^firmt 

will is the only law of life, and that His Kingdom 
is the onlj- end of life, the worshipjjer needs God's 
forgiveness for his spiritual comfort and inspira- 
tion, in order that he may start anew eiuli day 
towards the achievement ot the ideal. It is in this 
fundamental and coni|irehensive sense that the 
term dipeiX-fifiara is liguratively employed in this 
I>etition, including everything that we should be 
and do towards God, our fellow-men, and ourselves. * 
The second clause contains an explicit condition of 
this Praj'er, that men must feel and e.xercise the 
same spirit of forgiveness towards one another which 
they wish (Iod to show towards themselves. Jesus 
places these words in the petition, in order that 
men may be face to face with this condition when- 
ever they J)ray to God for their own forgiveness. 
This principle of love as the basis of all human 
and Divine relations is a constant teaching of 
.Jesus, and furnishes the key to the Sermon on the 
.Mount, cf. esp. Mt 5'- '■'■'•"■'"' ; it is also most im- 
pressively set forth in the teaching and [larable of 
Mt 18-'". In the Lord's Prayer as recorded by 
Matthew this idea is f\irther strengthened by the 
two added verses, 6'*-", with which Mk 11'-* may 
Ije compared. t It is not to be understood that the 
lis Kai which introduces Matthew's second clause 
signities a tjuid pro <jiiu kind of forgiveness on 
God's part, as though God forgave men only in a 
measure proportionate to their own forgi\ciuss. 
The words might have this force (as in Mt JM", 
Key 18"), but it is not the only meaning for tlicin 
(cf. Mt 18^). Such a eommercial idea is inconsist- 
ent with the method of God as abundantly shown 
in Jesus' teaching. God is in amount more loving 
and forgiving than men can be, but He requires 
that men also shall be loving and forgiving.^ 

The sixth petition,! which closes the Lord's 
Prayer, provides for the moral and spiritual wel- 
fare of the individual in the future. As the lifth 
petition sought forgiveness for jiast failures to do 
God's will, .so the sixth petition seeks His protec- 
tion from future failures. The worshipper, con- 
scious of his own weakness, puts his dependence 
upon God. He praj's for deliverance from those 
situations in life where he will be liable to yield 

* In classical Greek, «;(,/».,w«t« was used generally of financial 
debts, and it was probably to avoid this ambiguity that Lk 11* 
reads a.fMpT,a.t instead (originally Luke's a4x;ount nuist have 
had i^it>ifjuLT» like Matthew's, as is seen by the (i;i.Ad*Tt in the 
second clause ; so Chase, L"rd's Prayer in the A'aWi/ Church 
(IHM), p. 55, and Page, ii'j-;<..«i(«r, 3rd ser. vol. vii. p. 437). But 
«9iAti/Aa (and its kiii'lred t.irnis) is a frequent NT word for 
moral and spiritual obligation (Lk li'o, Jn IS", Ko 151 '-'J, 
Gal 63), although used also in the money sense (.Mt 1»'*. Lk 74' 
105, ph 18)_ Luke's etuaprieir lacks the Aramaic colour, the 
strength and the comprehensiveness of the i^tif.r.fjMra. In the 
KV the wort! 'detits' gives a deeper meaning when righlly 
understood than the word ' sins,' since the latter term lenils 
in jMipular usage to signify only positive, flagrant wickedness. 
And still less satisfactory is the word 'trespasses,' given cur- 
rency in this petition by the Episcopal Prayer-Book (apparently 
from Tindale [? by reading 'trespasses' from vM^- into v.''-]); 
for it is not a proper translation of either i^uXriutrtt or ifiMfi^.ttf, 
and is the most limited in its scope of the three English words. 

t Mt &^*- '5 has apparently found its way into the Sennon 
through its previous connexion with tiie Lord's Prayer. 
Whether it hail its jilace hisloricolly in that connexion is 
uncertain. Mk ir.s> has a different setting for the pa.ssage. but 
one due to topical asstjciation rather than to original ix>8ition. 
There is nothmg unlikely in the hypothesis that Jesus, after 
giving the Prayer, spoke in explanation of it, and that this 
fragment was a part thereof. In thi<se two verbis, as in Mk 
11'.^, vafiatiTT^uMTx is used instead of «;i,Ar./McT« or itfj^ffr.tti. 

t Luke's variant, xtci y^/t, is distinctly intended to reniove the 
possible inisinterpretation that God forgives a man Just to the 
extent that the man forgives others. But the Matlha'an wording 
gives evidence of being a closer translation from the Aranmic. 
Another instance of Lukan nio<lincalion is his ft.;.«^> in this 
clause instead of Matthew's <cc>-»t,M», to give the |>elition a 

feneral character insteafl of the s|>eciflc import of the original 
'rayer. It was noted that in the fourth petition changes were 
mode for the same purfMisc, Luke havin|{ i,i*v instead of ii,-, 
and re jutd' K^ui/xc* instead of rr,ui^«*. 

5 Mt 0'3 jMcj fjLi; lifftttyxKt i.uMt Ct vijparuif. atX^m ftr^i T,,u«r 
«T» T»v T«»»;^w. Lk 11**' Kxi u,t, t'ffUtyxrt fiucr til TU^«ru«*. 

The first clause is the same in i>oth accounts, While the secontj 
clause does not appear in Luke (see above). 



to wrong or false influences. But inasmuch as men 
must undergo trials, and in them work out their 
own character and service, Jesus gives to tliis 
petition a second clause, which provides against 
necessary trials by asking for strength to come 
through them safely. We may then paraphrase the 
sixth petition of the Prayer in this \v:iy : ' Siiare us 
as much as possible from all trials in which tliere is 
danger that we sliall fail to do Thy m ill ; but, so far 
as we must meet trials, give us the strength neces- 
sary to withstand the teinptations to evil which 
are involved in them^' * It thus becomes clear 
that the second clause of the petition, ' but deliver 
us from evil,' is not a separate, seventh petition, 
but an essential element in the sixth, pertaining 
to those trials from which God cannot and should 
not deliver us. In them we pray Him to preserve 
us from falling. The 'evil' whicli is meant is, of 
course, moral and spiritual transgression or failure 
of doing God's will ; and the context therefore 
makes it improbable that the toj Tro'j-qpod should 
have been intended to refer concretely to the devil 
in person.t The term Treipa.(!ix!>$ is used with a 
wide range in the NT, having both a neutral 
meaning ( = trial) and a bad meaning ( = malicious 
temptation).? Only in the former, neutral sense 
can God be spoken of as 'tempting' men, i.e. 
bringing them into situations which test their 
character and thus promote their growth. Such 
trials involve a possible lapse into evil, and must 

* Jesus' Gethsemane experience illuminates the words of this 
petition (cf. Mt 2G^6-46^ esp. v,^!*). The Saviour is here face to face 
with the bitterest trial of His life ; the attitude of the Jewisli 
nation towards Him has come to be that of fixed and final 
rejection ; the chosen people are ready to repudi.ato their 
Messiah with a violent death, and so to fail of fulfilling their 
Divine mission to the world (of. Mt 233'- 38). Jesus in the 
garden feels that He cannot endure this ; He is in agony that 
God should seem to allow it, and prays that He may be spared 
this trial — that there may be some other outcome of the situa- 
tion ; nevertheless, He has no other desire than that God's 
will should be done. The prayer of Jesus was answered not by 
a removal of the trial, but hy a Divine reassurance, and an 
impartation of strength for its endurance (cf. Lk 22-iy''-, which 
gives an essentially correct idea, even if textually uncertain). 
One may also compare St. Paul's experience when he three 
times prayed for the removal of his ' thorn in the flesh ' ; God's 
reply to hiin was, ' Mv grace is sufficient for thee ; for power is 
made perfect in weakness' (2 Co 128- » ; cf. also 1 Co lOi'-i). 

t The objection to taking the roZ Tovr^aZ as a masculine (with 
TertulUan, Cj-prian, Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, 
Erasmus, Bengel, Meyer, Olshausen, Ebrard, Fritzsche, Hanne, 
Gore, H. Holtzmann, Lightfoot, Thayer, Plummer, Chase, v. d. 
Goltz, Nestle, and the RV)does not lie in the fact that the i>hrase 
could not be so used, for there are a number of clear N'T cases 
where o !rov*if« refers concretely to the devil (cf. Jit 13^9- ^, 
Eph 616, IJn 2i3f. 312 518); nor in the meaning of the col- 
location pUrdaci «To roou whidi is used of both persons (Uo 
158I) and things (2 Ti 4I8) ; hor in an avoidance by Jesus of the 
current Jewish conception and terminology reg.arding the per- 
sonal devil (cf Mt 410 1227 13=8f., Lk 1018, Jn S^, for, so far as we 
can discover. He did not give any new te.aching on this point (cf. 
Wendt, Lehre Jcsu, ii. 121-120). The objection lies r.athcr in the 
thought of the petition itself, which cannot be, ' Bring us not 
into trial, but deliver us from the devil,' since this destroys all 
connexion between the two clauses, though the acXXa. demands 
a connexion ; nor, ' Bring us not into the temptation of thedevil, 
but deliver us from the devil," which is improbable tautology. 
So that some ancient and many modern scholars interpret the 
loS !ro»-<foS as a neuter (Augustine, Luther, Stier, Ewald, Keil, 
Nosgen, Tholuck, Alford, Burgon, Cook, M'Clellan, Achelis, 
Ibbeken, B. Weiss, Tajlor, and others). This neuter use of 
re rrovrpov to denote all moral and spiritual evil may be seen in 
Mt 58', Lk 6«, Jn 1715, Ro 129, 2 Th 38, 1 Jn 519 (the RV is 
probably wrong in translating most of these as masculines) ; cf. 
also2Ti4i8. On <T«,rfi!-i, set CromQr.Bibt.-Thcol.Wurterlnich'', 
in loc; Achelis, Bernpredijt, pp. 280-280; letters in the 
Guardian by Lightfoot (Sept. 7, 14, 21) and Cook (May 21, Nov. 
26) (Lightfoot's letters appear in Fresh Revixion 0/ the Enqluh 
JV.r.3, 1891, Appx. IL); Chase, Lord's Prayer in Ihc Earlii 
Church (1891), pp. 85-167; H,atch, Essai/s in Biblical Greek 
(1889), pp. 77-82. Taylor, Sai/inqs uf the Jewish Fathers 2 (1897), 
pp. 37, 64, 128-1.30, 147-150, 191 f., takes the t»S t.h,,»S as refer- 
ring to the yiri nx;, man's evil nature (Gn 821 ' the imagination 
of man's heart is evil from his youth,' cf. Ja 1)3-15) ; see also 
Porter, 'TheYeper Ha-ra',' in i'dle Biblical and Semitic Studies 
(1901), pp. 93-166. 

; On the NT usage of ^upmruii, gee Cremer, Bibl.-Thenl. 
Wiiiierbuch'', in loc. ; Tholuck, Berrircde^, pp. 394-401 (Eng. tr. 
p|i. 357-362); Achelis, Berijirrcdigt.'pp. 2SO-2S4 ; Mayor, Cumm. 
on Jamfs, 1892, pp. 175-183. 

cause anxiety and apprehension ; so that mei may 
well fear them and pray for deliverance from them. 
Jesus said to His disciples, ' Watch and pray, that 
ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed ia 
willing, but the flesh is weak ' (Mk U^, cf. Ja 1™ ■). 
But, since God brings these trials for the indivi- 
dual's good, He will never allow the tried person 
to fall into evil if lie will commit himself wholly 
to God's guidance and care through the experience 
(cf. 1 Co lU", He 2'" 4'5f-, Ja l^-"- '-<■ , 1 l> !«■■). 

(5) The Lord's Prayer is thus seen to be an 
epitome of Jesus' teaching ; it contains the essen- 
tial ideas of God and human duty, expressed in 
the briefest, simplest, and most impressive words. 
The vital truths of the Gospel are presented in 
such a way that any and every man can grasp 
them, and can see them in their right perspective 
and relations.* Since the Prayer was intended for 
universal use, its meaning must be readily in- 
telligible to all ; it must be not inti'icate, but 
simple of interpretation. And the Lord's Prayer 
is adapted to every kind of Christian use. It is de- 
signed for repetition as it stands, both in private 
and in ]iublic devotions. It is also a pattern 
praj'cr, after which all prayer to God should be 
modelled. Here we learn what things are to be 
prayed for, how God's glory, Kingdom, and will 
take precedence of the individual's affairs, and 
in what sjiirit all inayer is to be made. The 
religious practice of Jesus' day too often re- 
garded the virtue of a prayer as consisting in its 
recital, and measured its value by its length or 
repetition (cf. Ac 19-^). Tlie Gospel of Matthew 
(O'"') has preserved in connexion with the Lord's 
Prayer some words of Jesus which were directed 
against this abuse. Since God knows what things 
■are necessary for men, He does not need to be 
informed of them ; and since He is a loving 
Father who cares for His children, He does not 
have to be importuned to give His blessings. 
These facts do not make prayer useless ; on the 
contrary, real prayer is possible only on the basis 
of them. God never wished the empty repetition 
of prayer formulce, which is a waste of time and 
strength ; and it was an entire misconception of 
Him that He had to be coaxed into goodwill 
towards men, or solicited to supply their needs. 
Pr.ayer, in Jesus' conception, is the loving, obedient 
and trustful communion of men with their Heavenly 
Father. It brings men comfort, joy, and peace ; it 
reassures and strengthens them in all their labours 
and experiences; it brings them to know only Ciod's 
will in their lives, and to seek onlj' its full realiza- 
tion. As we learn to know God in the words and 
face of Christ, we pray more instead of less ; 
prayer becomes a privilege instead of a duty. 
Indeed, to the true Christian, jjrayer is the atmo- 
sphere in which he lives. Instead of occasional 
periods or moments of prayer, the wliole life Ije- 
coines a prayer, so that we walk and talk with 
God. Into this perfect communion with God the 
Lord's Prayer leads us, voicing all our aspirations' 
and petitions, when we come to api>reciate its full 
significance, t 

* Similarly Harnack, Das TTcscn des Christentiims, 1901, p. 42 
[Eng. tr. p.K)] : "There is nothing in the Gospels that lells us 
more certainly what the Gospel is, and what sort of disposition 
and temper it produces, than the Lord's Prayer. With thi& 
Prayer we ought also to confront all those who disparage the 
Go>pel as an ascetic or ecstatic or sociological pronouncement. 
It shows the Gospel to be the Fatherhood of God applied to the 
whole of life ; to be an inner union with God's will and God's 
Kingdom, and a joyous certainty of the possession of eternal 
blessings and protection from evil.' 

t Further, on the Lord's Prayer, see Kamphausen, Das Gchet 
des Uerrn (1806); Chase, The Lord's Prai/cr in the Early 
CAmi-cA(1S91) ; Tholuck, Bcrgrede^, pp. 346-408 |Eng. tr. pp. 315- 
369] ; Achelis, Bergpredujt, pp. 225-3115 ; J. Hanne, Jahrh. /. 
deutsche Theot. 1866 ; Haflner, i»(wi Gebet des Uerrn (1880) ; 
G. Hoffmann, De Oratione Domini (ISSi); Rieger, Dax Gel/et 
des Uerrn (1901) ; Wendt, Lehre Jem, ii. 238-245 ; Plu 


SKU.MdN (IN TllK Miii;nt 


i. Dcvution to the Kingdom. — Mt O'"'" (ef. Lk 
yr^.M lyu-x i(jia io.--3i) Nearly all of tlio»e 
M-liolars who re^'iinl the Sermon in the First 
(lospfl iLs a c'oiiiiu)>ite produftion in whole or in 
]iart, look upon this section as extraneous to tlie 
orijjinal discourse, hein;; brou;,'ht in here from some 
other historical connexion. " Two arguments 
a^-ainst its present position are ollered : (a) the 
.suhject-nuitter of the section is thouj,'ht hj' many 
to be remote from the theme of Mt 5"-l5'" ; and (A) 
this material is found scattered in the Cospel of 
1-uke, none of it appearing in his parallel discourse 
(y.<).iiij 'f„ dm lirxt arj;unient it may he replied 
(see atwve, ii. 'A) that the theme of the Sermon iloes 
not lie in Mt o'^'-'", but is more ;:eneral, pcrtaininj; 
to the true nature and duty of ri^;hteousness. So 
that Mt d"-G'", while containing' the lon^'cst section 
of the reported discourse, is by no means to be re- 
fiarded as the only ori^;inal matter in Matthew's 
account. There is an abrupt transition, to be sure, 
between Mt 0'" and 6'" ; but this abruptness may 
be due to the fact that we have only exnacts or a 
<U;.'est of the historical Si'rmon. Moreover, the 
teaching' contained in Mt ti'"'^ would seeiii to be 
j;erniane — indeed essential--to a settiu;.; forth of 
the true righteousness ; the ideal life must be free 
from material aims, divided eltiirts, and clistractin^' 
••mxietics. The secoml ar^'ument presi'uts a ;,'nMter 
dilhculty, for Luke's ananj.'enieiit of this matciial 
in other connexions be explained, (ouccrii- 
iii^; this it m.ay l>e said that the Lukati Sermon had 
received severe treatment in transndssion, as already 
fiei|';ently noted ; perhaps the exclusion of I his sec- 
tion w.a.s a jiart of that process. Also, that the 
position assi^'ned to this material in the Third 
Cosjitd is surely not historical ; it appears in the 
.so-called ' I'enean section,' but such teaching as 
this belonficd in all probability to the Galihean 
ministry. Further, the hukan settings of these 
verses .show^ either no contextual relations, or only 
liter.iry ones ; they are not associated with specific, 
distinct events. Therefore, while the question 
must be counted an open one whether Mt 0''-'"** 
belonged to the historical Sermon, good reasons 
are at hand for treating the section as original in 
this connexion. 

Thi' [ias>age has a real unity of thought, to the 
elleet that there is but one aim in life. This aim 
is the complete realization of the Kingdom of (lod, 
in which everj- man attains that char.icter and 
performs that ser\'ice which tJod requires. The 
idea thus finds its general statement in Mt 6=^ 
' Seek ye first his kingdom, and his ; 
and all these things shall be .added unto you.'t 

art. Lord's Prayer in vol. iii. ; Nestle, art ' lK)rd'8 Prayer' in 
Kncvdoptrdia JliUica, vol. iii. ; v. d. UolU, Daii lirbet in der 
iillif'r,, r/i, iVf, )i/„i( (19U1), pp. 35-53 ; Maurice, Sermont un the 
/.. ■ /■ , , , fl <ro) ; Doarilnian, Sludiet in the Studel Pra.'/er 
(1-: ■. . , Hall, The Lurd'n I'myer'i (ISS9). Also, the 

IM, , , rit ol the Prayer hy Tertullian (</c Orafiolie), 

I II r It, I ' I, , . lie Dominira). ami OriKcn (-TK. Eix'.i)- 

■ s.. I-. iiM . i...,l.jt, H. lloltzmaiin, B. Weiss, W.iidt. Ilfinrici, 
Ila.-.ui,un.i..lhiT8. lt8Matth;eaiuio9itioni»ile(.'M.I,.ll.yTli..h.ok, 
.Miyer, K,il. Morison, Broadus, Steinincyer, II. «.i'~. N">Ben, 
tirawort. .Vrhelis reL'ards the section as eri;:iiial lure, with 
eption ol vv.'^-'-i*'; anil other lurtilion theories are 


tA. i,> 

X, T.lir. T..T. ^i.rrl' iu... Lk 1231 ,>..,, J^titi t.,, 
/3<«ir.ii.«. itir,:, «»; ™;t. o-f.»Til/..«i«. iu;.. There ia much 
textual variation as respects the wording of the Matthican verse. 
It is dilllcult to determine the i«recise original form of this 
Bayin:; of Jesus. Bruce thinks it was siniply "Seek ye his 
kinijiloni,' all else in the present Greek forms beini; eximnsioii 
for purposes of interpretation ; hut it seems probahle that the 
second clause was also given, as hrincinf the sayinu more 
cl.wulv into relation with its content. The t)..,. which mtro- 
du. in' the Lukan form is an idiosyncrasy of the Thml liosi)el 
l-l. l,k IS" 35 ct al.). Matthew's t«.t», in the second clause, is 
lik. h lo have been an exiiansion. The Tfi-rjr of .Matthew may 
bclnii.' to the ori^'inal s;iviris. On this 8up|X)8ition it cannot he 
tindirstood to mean that there are two thinpi to he souirht for, 
one K'tore the other ; it is to he interjireted. not numerically, 
but qjaljtotively— there is just one thing to live for, the kinit- 

As Jesus had liecn te.aching in Mt 5-''"*" how the 
Divine ideal for men was to be worked out in the 
sphere of individual and social ethics, and in Mt 
t}'"" in the sphere of religious worship, so in Ml 
(;ii)-34 jjg „y(^ forth how this ideal demands an ex- 
elusive devotion to spiritual things — iu>t that 
material things are to be ignored, but they are 
to Ije used only that they m.ay contribute to the 
highest well-being of humanity. This teaching is 
developed in thre ■ jiaragraphs of the section vv.'"--' 
yy K--.'4 yy 35-w • prcseiitiiig t h Tcc distliict phases of 
the subject of duty as regards earthly things : the 
one comprehensive aim of life must be s]iiritual, 
there must be no division of interests, ami there 
must be no anxiety about the incidental things. 

According to the teaching of vv.'"-',t a man is 
not to devote himself to an accumulation of wealth 
for its own sake, or for selfish use. His time ia 
not to be occupied with transient labours, .social 
trivialities, vain displays, and empty talk. 'To 
lay up treasure in heaven ' is to be and to do those 
things which are ideasing to Uod, to live nobly, 
purely, and helpfully, .lesus condemned in the 
strongest language the kind of life which seeks, 
first of all, for the gratification of greed anil selfish 
ambition. When a certain man asked .Icsus to 
.assist him in securing some property, he rebuked 
liim. and said to His hearers, 'Take heed, and keep 
yourselves from all covetousness ; for a mans life 
con-isteth not in the abundance of the things 
which he possesseth.' And He g.ave the significant 
paralile of the Uich Fool, who must leave all his 
wealth at his death, adding, 'So is he that layeth 
up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God ' 
(l.k l-2'^-'). To make material things the chief 
end of life is to reverse the true relation of body 
and spirit. Immortal spirit is the iiermanent, ulti- 
mate thing for whiih our lives are to be lived. The or the accumulation of wealth is not for- 
bidden by Jesus (see aliove, ii. 4a), but He insists 
thiit wealth is a means, never an end; and that 
wealth must lie conscientiously used for the highest 
good, or it becouies a curse to its owner (cf. Mk 
10"--, Lk la'-").: The right Christian attitude is 
not a despising of riches, but a true valuation and 
emidoymeiit of tlicm for human well-being. The 
a.scetie life, the frivolous life, the indolent life, are 

dom ; and the necessaries of physical existence should be 
trusted to God's i)rovidence. The Tpwr*. has then disapiieareil 
from the Lukan fonn. i>erliaps liecause of its ambiguity and 
consequent danger of Ix-ing misunderstood. Whether the 
historical saying had 'the kingdom,' or ■ his kingdom.' or 'the 
kingtlom of God,' all of which arc attested, can only be matter 
of conjecture, and is unimportant. Lastly, Luke does not have 
the tV,» hiKetit9-{,>r,t which IS given in this saying by Matthew 
(whose etCvov probahlv liniita also the ,3«(rMi.«» as in RV)._ Per- 
haps it was dropped from the Lukan sources because it was 
a technical Jewish term ; it has been noted above that iiwii*- docs not appear in Luke's Sermon, and in his Gospel only 
at 1"^. Or, its presence in Mt 033 may be <lue to an expansion 
of the original saving, making a closer verbal connexion of the 
verse with the Sermon in Matthew (cf. 5"- >"■■-' 0'). This would 
he a nroljable explanation of its presence on the theory that Sit 
fli"" has been iiuiiorted into the Sermon in the course of trans- 
mission. But the T,,» lixmixritv may also be original in this 
saying. If so, the 'righteousness' referred to is that actual 
perfect character and conduct on the part of men with which 
this whole discourse is concerned (so -nioliick, Achelis, 11. Weiss) ; 
not a righteousness which Go<l imi>arts lo the tieliever (Meyer, 
Ibbekeil), nor the righf Kiusness ol laith awiirdhig to the Pauline 
forensic sense. It is thus the righteousness which Go<l nupiires, 
tliat complete conformity to His will which brings in the con- 
sunimate<l Kingdom of God. 

* Feine thinks that 
from another connexi< - , -- - 
and U. Weiss of \.~<. These are iKWsible views, but there is 
not much to snbsuntiate them. Matthew's setting for these 
verses is as goo*l as Luke's, or e\ en belter. 

t Lk 12 -I has the same lhou_-ht. hut the wonllng is chamc- 
leristieallv dilterent-thc 'Sell that ye have and give alms' is a 
feature of the Thinl Gosiicl's exaltation ol iwvertv. as in the 
Beatitudes and NVoe8((r»'*)). It is striking that the twoaixnints 
are in almost exact agreement on the vuu'iitial nlteraiiee, 
■Where vour treasure is, there will your heart be also.' So 
Paul in C-u\ fi. 

J See Wcndt. Lchre Jem, iL 103-lOS. 



all alike wrong ; no less wrong than the life of 
worldly pride and ambition. Poverty is not right- 
eousness, nor is it even meritorious; men must be 
provident and self-supporting. The accumulation 
of material goods, when not carried on by dis- 
honesty, oppression, or disregard of others' needs 
and rights, may minister to tlie highest welfare of 
one's fellow-men. 

Still more specifically does Jesus say, in vv.^-',* 
that the Kingdom must be an exclusive aim. Using 
the physical eye, which illuminates the body, as a 
figure (cf. Ps 1191s, jik 819, Lk 24^'), He says that 
the spiritual disceriimeut must be kept clear in 
order that one may not go astray from the path of 
highest diitj'. A divided aim, which endeavours 
to combine spiritual and material interests, is 
impossible ; one cannot strive for spiritual goods 
part of the time, and for earthly goods the other 
part. Special moments of lofty aspiration, of un- 
selfishness, of generosity, come to almost every 
one ; but in Jesus' thought these things will be- 
come habitual and sujireme in the true Christian. 
Everything must be made subordinate and con- 
tributory to the attainment of righteousness and 
the realization of the Kingdom. 

But what of our material needs — food, clothing, 
and shelter, means and opportunities for mental 
and spiritual growth '! Must not life be largely a 
struggle for these earthly, transient things? To 
this fundamental problem of human existence 
Jesus gives an explicit answer in vv.^'^.f It is 
that God knows these needs of men, and wills to 
provide for them (v.^-') : men should depend upon 
and trust Him for those things necessary to life. 
If the Heavenly Father cares for the birds and 
the flower.'*, He will certainlj' care for His higher 
human creatures. Men, therefore, must not be 
anxious about these things ; they must live trust- 
ingly for to-day, leaving to-morrow to God (v.^^). 
And so in the Lord's Prayer He taught them to 
pray, ' Give us this day the bread suited to our 
need.' Here again Jesus is setting forth a prin- 
ciple of life, not laying down a precept to be 
literally applied. No one could suppose Him to 
advocate a purelj' hand-to-mouth existence, like 
that of the animals ; the higher well-being of the 
individual or the race could not be accomplished 
by such a manner of living. Common-sense sup- 
plies the interpretation that Jesus contemplates 
labour, prudence, and forethought for necessary 

• The Lukan parallels 11^ 36 1613 again have the same thought 
as the Matthaean passage, h^t^^ith much variation ; except that 
in the verse atwut the 'two masters' there is a remarkable 
verbal agreement. The word 'mammon' is a transliteration 
from the Aramaic K^in*. and signifies here the riches which 
have become an idol to be worshipped and served. 

t Lk 1222-31 furnishes a parallel for Mt 6-»-:i3, but not for v.M, 
which is found only here in the Gospels ; tliere are good reasons 
for thinking that this verse belonged originally to the connexion 
in which it here appears. The phenomena of the parallel 
passages are as usual : striking likeness in certain clauses, but 
many important additions, omissions, and variations. Luke's 
account has obviously undergone adaptation for Gentile use, as 
seen in his ' ravens ' where Matthew has ' the birds of the heaven,' 
'God' and 'Father' where Matthew has 'heavenly Father,' 
' nations of the world ' where Matthew has ' nations ' ; and instead 
of Matthew's ' Be not anxious saying, What shall we eat ? ' Luke's 
account reads, ' Seek not what .\ e shall eat . . . neither be ye 
of doutittul mind.' The word -<ii».<e« in Mt 62T is capable of two 
different interpretations, and commentators are divided be- 
tween them. The RV translates, 'Which of you by being 
anxious [i.e. by giving the matter intense, an.xious thought] can 
add one cubit to his stature?' Since this is the clear meaning 
of the word where it is found elsewhere in this Gospel, Lk 2^ 
19=*, it has been so understood here by the Vulgate, Chrj'sostom, 
Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Kritzsche, and others. But 
the cubit was 18 inches or more, which makes this interpreta- 
tion seem highly improbable, as a very small amount in pro- 
portion to the whole is intended in this context. The word 
may mean ' age ' (RVra) ; and it was not uncommon to think of 
life in terms of linear measure (cf. Ps 395 * Behold, thou hast 
made my days as handbreadths ' ; also Jn 921- Z", He IIH). So 
that this is the meaning understood bv Bleek, Tholuck, Meyer, 
Achelis, Feine, H. Weiss, Ibbeken, Thayer, B. Weiss, and most 
modern scholars. 

material things ; in general God provides, not the 
things themselves without ertort on men's part, 
but the way by which with ettort men can secure 
what they need. And it is no life of ease and 
luxury to which God calls us, but a working, 
frugal life. What Jesus wishes is that in it we 
should be free from the distraction and anxiety 
which come to those who will not put tlieni- 
selves wholly into God's hands and Him 
for everything. Each day as it comes is to be 
dealt with in the present, leaving the future with 
God : if we do our best to-day, God will take care 
of to-morrow (cf. Ko 8-"). Why should it not be 
sj? God has a great purpose in the world, which 
men are to help Him to accomplish ; assuredly, He 
will care for and assist those who accept their task 
and sincerely strive to perform it. 

j. The Treatment of Otheis.-Mt. 7i-'- = Lk 6»'- 
3'-'- (cf. Lk 11"-"). The main idea of this passage' 
lies in vv.'-^- '^ (vv.*-'" belonged originally to 
other connexions), and pertains to the right atti- 
tude and conduct towards our fellow-men. The 
verses, therefore, form a fourth section in Jesus' 
exposition of the true righteousness, co-ordinate 
with sections 5-'-*« 6'-'» 6''-'-". Their teaching is 
twofold : men are not to be of a censorious disposi- 
tion towards one another (w.^'^), and they are to 
show the same respect, kindness, and helpfulness 
to others which they themselves would like to 
receive (v.'-^). The two teachings contained in 
vv."- '■" are also of interest and importance, but 
they interrupt the sequence of tlnm^:ht in the 
Sermon. It is the view of many schohuN that the 
' Golden Rule' in v.'^ follows logically upon vv.' ■', 
and not only finishes this se(ttion, but in a way 
forms a closing utterance for the body of the dis- 
course from 5'-' onward, V''" being in the nature of 
a hortatory conclusion.* 

Mt 7'-* finds its parallel in Lk 6^"*% the two 
accounts showing the usual amount of similarity 
and variation. t While the Lukan context gives a 
somewhat ditterent aspect to the teaching, the 
substance is the same. Jesus is here setting forth 
an essential principle of all true righteousness, on 
the recognition and practice of which depend.s^ the 
realization of the individual and social hleal. This 
princi]jle requires that men shall not be critical, 
fault-finding, and flaw-picking in thought or con- 
duct towards one another. The only right attitude 
is a full, penitent recognition of one's own weak- 

* So Neander, Meyer, Kuinol, Feine, H. Weiss, H. Holtzmanu, 
B. Weiss, and other's. Tholuck and Achelis regard v. ''2 as ex- 
traneous material in the Sennon, holding that it was probably 
the closing epitome of some other discourse ; sunilarly Godet. 
But in Luke also the verse is given in the Sermon, which— 
together with the fact that logically it is entirely suitable 
thereto — makes a strong presumptive case that this was its 
historical connexion. The position in the Sermon which the 
verse has received in Luke (6^1, as though it stood at Mt 5-1'^ 
instead of 71-) is preferred by Bleek, Wendt, and Bacou, but 
such a displacement in the Matthaean account is not likely. 

t In Mt 71' "^^Lk 6^ we find a similar difference to that in 
Mt 612 = Lk ll-i, the Lukan form avoiding the meas\ire for 
measure idea which can be read into the Matthaean words ; 
although both accounts strikingly agree in reporting the state- 
ment, ' With what measure ve mete, it shall be measured unto 
vou' (Mt 72i> = Lk 6381), cf. also Mk 4'-"), a mode of treatment 
which can be predicated of God only in a qualitative sense, not 
quantitatively'. Lk S" is in an expanded form, containing three 
clauses in synonymous parallelism, for the purpose of emphasis : 
Mt 71 2» produces the emphasis, but in a somewhat different 
way. But Lk 63*' is surely an extraneous element in the Lukan 
account, an authentic and valuable teaching of Jesus regarding 
generosity coming from some other occasion than the Sermon. 
The figurative illustration of the particle in the eye, Mt 735 = 
Lk e-Uf-, is given in almost complete verbal agreement by the 
two reports (see them quoted above, under i. 3). Foreign also 
to the Sermon is Lk 6-'9- *. The first verse has its parallel in 
Mt Lii-i, which is probably its true context, referring to the 
Pharisees ; the second verie has a partial parallel in Mt 1021 
(cf. Jn IS'"), and seems logically related there, but the saying 
may also have Vieen spoken at some other time more in the 
Lukan form. With this teaching of Jesus about judgment may 
be compared Hillel's saying, 'Judge not thy neighbour until 
thou comest into his place.' 




iiesses, liiiiitntions, failures, iiiid traiisj^reMsions, 
sui'li u.-s will keup a imin Imiiilile, iiiaku liiiii syiii- 
imtlietic for others, reudy U> overlook tlieir faults, 
ami to see their virtues. The duty of the Christian 
is to measure himself against the standard which 
Christ has set, and to iud^je himself severely with 
re>]pett to his shortcomings, instead of making his 
own religious ideivs and practii'es the criterion tiy 
which he judges and condemns others. A man 
is a ' hviio<rite' (v.') when, professing a desire to 
increase gixMlness in the world, he assumes a ton- 
.soriiius attitude t<iwards the faults of others rather 
than lUhlcrlakes the im|jrovem<'nt of himself lirst. 
In the liuckgroiind of this teaching stands the 
jiroud, self-righteous I'harisee, with his odious 
conii'jnpt for all who were less punctilious than 
himsdl (ef. Mt iS'- ^'- -■"•, Lk IS"-", Jn V'-"). 
.lous does not mean, of course, that the character 
an<l ciiniUut of men sh<iuld never he mailer of 
critiei-m hy their fellows ; this would he to remove 
one of the most important aids to uprightness in 
pra( tical experience. In the atlairs of life it often 
becomes necessary for us to judge others, both 
lirivately and publicly. .Jesus recognizes this fact 
H hen He says also in this same discourse, ' liy 
their fruits ye shall know them ' (7'«, ef. Mt IS""). 
lint the teaching, 'Judge not ye be not judged,' 
pertains to that unloving, critical attitude of mind 
anil heart which i)icks out and magnilies the faults, 
failures, and inconsistencies of others. This is not 
the spirit of human brotherhood,- and the man who 
has it cannot himself anticipate a loving, forgiving 
treatment of himself by (iod.* It is not that (iod 
deals with men on a ijiiiU pro quo basis — that is 
not to be understood here any more than in the 
lit'th petition ot the Lord's I'rayer (see above), 
liut the man who does not come to love his 
fellow-Mien, and to treat them accordingly, can 
have no place in a heavenly Kingdom w here love 
IS su]ireme, and where ultimately it will be per- 
fectly realized. 

.\It 7" presents a saying which is found only in 
this (iospil, and which stands in the Sermon only 
a~ a nsull of the coiMpiling proeess.t It enjoins 
pTudLMic and goud juilj;Micnt in the dis.seniination 
ol the tiospel. Truth is sacred, and it must be 
carefully dealt with. There are wrong times as 
well as right times for trying to a.ssist others re- 
ligiously. The Gospel is to be oHered only to 
the receptive, under suitable circumstances, it 
will receive rebull'and indignity at unappreeiative 
hands. The dogs and the swine, in the East the 
iiin-t .lopiscd of animals (cf. Mt lo-'«, Lk 15""-, 
I'll :{ . J r J -■), are used here to typify those men, 
whether (icntiles or .lews, who are devoted 
wholly to material things, and are indifl'erent to 
the higher spiritual re.ilm for which God created 
them. The parallelism in this verse is for no 
other purpose than to make the teaching im- 
pressive, a literary method of which the Sermon 
contains numerous instances. 

• It was thotij^ht by AuifU8tine, Fritzsche, Kuinol, and de 
Wctte, that the rclurn Jud^iient of which this passau't- speaks 
in renriered by men, i.e. other men will jud^je you and meaiture 
)«ck I.' \ ou exactly as you jud^'c and nieajjure. This, however, 
cun hardly be the meaning : it rather refers to the Judgment of 
G.mI upon men, both in the future Day of Judgment and in 
His present treatment of them; so the mudern conimentAtors 



I So Xeander, Bleek, TholuckP), Kuinol, Godet, Achelis. Feine, 
Wendt, B. Weiss, Ilacon, and others. It i» the view of Kostlin, 
Keine, llil|;enfeld, and H. Holtzmann, that this verse as it now 
appears is Judaized, to make it a polemic afcainst the heathen 
(cf. above on Mt 5i»''-) ; reference is mode to the Teacftittg of the 
ftvftve Aposttet, ix. 5, which reads, * But let no one eat or drink 
of your Kucharist except those who have l)een baptized into the 
name of the Lord. This was what the l-ord referred to when He 
said "Give not that which is noly unto the doj^.'" Iblteken 


explain this teachini;, which has i 


I required to 
client general sense and 

In .Mt 7'""-Lk 11»-" we have another section 
extraneous to the historical discourse, whose 
jirescnce here seems fortuitous, since it stantls 
in no topical a-ssociation with its context.* The 
tea<liing herein contained is that God is ready and 
willing to give all His blessings to men, since He 
is a loving Father who provides— better than any 
human jiarentt — for His children. Men, there- 
fore, are to feel free to pray to Him for all things. 
The thought is similar to that set forth in .\lt 
ga-iM . i,n^ tliere the attention was lixed upon the 
])liysical necessities, while here the thouglit is of 
all kinds of blessings, spiritual not less than 
material. The injunction to (iray is thriee re- 
peated, 'ask — seek — knock,' witliout dillerenee of 
meaning in the several clauses, in order to produce 
great emphasis. Jesus promises absolutely that 
our prayers shall be answered by God ; the obvious 
and iieces.saiy conditions can Ih; easily supplied 
from His other teaching. Tims, all prayer must 
Ih; made with the intent and in the sjiirit of the 
Lord's I'rayer (Mt G"'^), for the .sole of 
the Kingdom (Mt G"), and with full submission to 
God's will (Mt 'Jti^- ■*■-). Our petitions must permit 
(Jod to answer them in the way whieli He knows 
to be best, and our trust ill His wisiloni, power, 
and love must be complete. 

Mt 7'-=Lk 6"', as already noted, closes this 
section of the Sermon, and in some sense con- 
stitutes the capstone of the whole discourse. The 
ovy which introtluces the veise (misUikenly dropped 
from J<''L) seems to mark this general relation. 
Matthew gives the saying in a fuller, more rounded 
form than Luke,:^ u-"J adds the, ' for this 
is the law and the prophets.' § The idea contained 

•So .\i-h.lis. IVine. C.-let, B. Wcisji, Wendt. Bacon, and 
others. 1-uiil- .It .[i-):i>i lieen made hy Chrysostom, Auifus* 
tine, Lutti.i , ^ i iii I n .lurk to find a logical relation of these 
verses lolh. . u precede them. Feine, Weizsacker, 

II. Holtzm.nii, .n i I: \\ .ivs think that Luke has the orisiiial 
setting for the p:irai;niph, which may he true; but it is also 
liossible that in both Uospcls this material is detached. In 
Luke, at any rate, it has received a topical association. A com- 
parison of the two accounts shows practical identity of the 
first two verses in each : the second two verses in each account 
vary, but have the same thought; and Luke adds a third 

each account (.Mt 7"=Lk ll'^) is quite the same, with two 
significant exceptions : (a) instead of Matthew's uyxbat Luke 
has TtCuM ayte*^ which Tholuck, Achelis, and even St«innieyer 
regard as a gloss, due to the prominence which the Holy Spirit, 
as the personification of all good things, attaine<l in primitive 
Christian thought ; (b) instead of Matthew's « varrji i,uM> i i* 
T«ir fjfieitttft Luke has * ■ i if «vp«»«v, a peculiar exi>re^ion 
of which various explanations are given ; see Feine, Jahrh. f. 
frolest. Theol. 1SS5, p. 74; Achelis, Bergprfdigt, p. XM; H. 
Holtzmann, llaml-L'omm. ti. d. Syiwpliker, p. l:i5. The Liikan 
reading as it stands cannot be original. Some text-witncs-ses 
delete the second o, but this is only a makeshift. Perhaiis 
the i; «vp«E»«t/ caine in under the inHuence of the truvus s;.!*., 
to indicate the place from which the Spirit was given : and 
then, subsequently, the i; tCsaftu waa iniiwrfectly turned to 
account in connexion with the « rxr^p. 

t The iihnwe, ' if ye then, being evil ' (t«m;p«.), contrasts men, 
in their imperfect, selfish, and sinful lives, with t;io<l, who is 
perfect in love and holiness. The argument is a miiuire ad 
inajus: if limited love ^irovides some good things, bow much 
more will absolute love provide? 

; Mt T''.' T^.T< »• ars ii> l/iXnri »« wtiSm iluTi ti ktif^^ii, 
•ir*,; «ai iuii; t^iIti itif',1. tiit,: yup i«-ri. • •cfX4! aa. a 
tftii.m. Lk (V» xmi XMUi,! 0aiTi ;•« Tt,ir,> vui ■; ittOiTi, 
<rui.Ti <ii:7<7c iut.i,:. It would Ije ilitflciilt to explain these two 
divergent forms as coining from a common tjreek original ; 
lierhajts they represent two lines of traii>.mission, arising from 
two dilTerent translations into Greek of the some hriel .\raniaic 
utterance. It is noticeable that in this verse, as in tiie Beati- 
tudes, the Lord's Prayer, and other i«»rtion» of the tlis.:ourse, 
Matthew gives the sayings of Jesus in a fuller, finer lit^jrary 
form, which in every instance has cjiumeiidwl itself t.> the 
Christian Church as the b«ttcr expression of Jesus' thought 
and spirit. 

I Luke's source did not contain this clause, |Mirha|Mi for the 
usual rea-son that it was too Je\*'ish. The ca»f is the suliie in 
Lk llJ»-l=Mt -.'i^-W^Mk 12«J'. where .Matthews clause, "On 
these two commandments hangeth the whole law ami the pro- 
phets,' is entirelv absent from Luke's a<x-ount, and in .Mark's 
oi-coiint is differently wonUsl. 'There is none other cinimand. 
ment greater than these.' It is nut unlikely, therefore, that in 
this iwsBage, OS in many others, the more Jewish Firat Uo«pel 




in tills teaching is closely related to that of ' loving 
one's neighbour as one's self; this idea was al- 
ready formulated in the OT (Lv 1!)"*), and was 
pronounced by Jesus to be one of the two great 
commandments comprehending all human duty 
(Mt 22^-*). St. Paul also followed his Master in 
the same teaching (Gal 5"). Our verse has come 
to be known as tlie ' Golden Rule,' which marks 
the high place that it holds in the Gospel teaching. 
Wliat it presents, liowever, is not a precept for 
literal application everywhere, but a principle for 
the determination of social conduct. It inculcates 
a spirit which men are to cultivate towards one 
another.* Jesus wishes by means of it to correct 
the mood of selfishness and contempt which ob- 
structs the realization of a true human brother- 
hood. Men are prone to use their fellow-men as 
tools for their own comfort, advancement, or plea- 
sure. Kant gave perfect expression to the higher 
idea when he wrote, ' So act as to treat humanity, 
whether in your own person or in that of another, 
in every case as an end, never as a means only.' 
It is still the rule rather than the e.xception that 
those men who, by reason of their wealth, so. iai 
rank, or public otiice, are in a position to command 
others, abuse them by ignoring their personality, 
disregarding their rights, appropriating the fruits of 
their labour, withholding from them opportunities 
for attaining higher manhood, and in other ways 
treating them like machines or slaves. This con- 
dition of present society is essentially un-Christian, 
and is to be counteracted and transformed by the 
Gospel. For this achievement the ' Golden Kule ' 
can be exceedingly useful, when applied as a 
principle, with the aid of a well-trained judgment 
and a consecrated common-sense. Let each man 
respect the individuality and observe the rights of 
every other man, let him honour and treat every 
other man as he in their places would wish to be 
honoured and treated, let him give such sympathy 
and assistance to others as he would himself like 
to receive. In this manner the ' Golden Rule ' 
will be fulfilled.t 

has better preserved the original saying of Jesus. Of course it 
cannot be denied as a possibility that the clause in Mt7i- stands 
there as the product of an apolofjetic Judaistic retoucliing (jts 
in Mt 5i8t.), or by misplacement, or through litur^'ical usage. 
As for the meaning of Jesus' words in this connexion, the 
Golden Rule * is the law and the prophets' in the sense that it 
states the principle on which the Law and the Prophets tried to 
build up a real human brotherhood (cf. Ro 139'-, Gal 6"). This 
is true, even though the Law and the Prophets did not fully 
accomplish their purpose, or even perfectly grasp the ideal 
towards which they were working. Jesus would emphasize tlie 
fact of the continuity of revelation, showing how the Divine 
ideal had preceded Himself in the world, and that the UX 
history and teaching were inspired by the same God and with 
essentially the same truth as constituted His own revelation. 
It is thus with deliberate intention that He closes the bodv of 
His discourse with this statement, which connects significaiitly 
with the words used to introduce the main argument, 'Think 
not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets ; I came not 
to destroy, but to fulfil ' (.Mt 5"). 

* See esp. O. Holtzmann, Leben ./ejfw (1901), p. 189. 

t Sayings similar to this of Mt 712 are found in pre-Christian 
and post-Christian Jewish writings, and also among Greek, 
Roman, and Oriental peoples, showing that this principle of life 
was not first formulated, or exclusively formulated, by Jesus. 
This does not impugn Jesus' originality or authority, but indi- 
cates that truth and the desire tor goodness are innate in man 
(cf. Ac 17'-i2^i). Jesus, however, so changed the wording of this 
principle as to give it a new force and sphere, for He stated it— 
not negatively, as it everywhere else appeai-s— but positively, 
insisting upon that loving service to others which is peculiar to 
the Gospel. Legalism says, ' Thou shalt not ' do this and that — 
a system of repression ; the Gospel of Life says, ' Thou shalt ' do 
countless good and helpful things— a system of development. 
The difference is like that between the false and the true child- 
nurture : the false method says constantly, ' Don't do this, don't 
do that ' : the true method fills the child s mind with lovely and 
useful things to do, so that the child will grow in goodnes's and 
service. Jewish forms of the Golden Kule may be seen in 
To 415 'That which thou batest, do to no one''; also in the 
saying attributed to Hillel, ' What thou batest thyself, that do 
not thou to another : this is the whole of the law, "all the rest is 
only comment upon it' (Bab. Skab. f. 31. 1). The non-Jewish 
forms are numerous; Isocrates wrote, "A rr'^trxa^Tsr ii*' iT-.fonf 
•.>.?i»-»i, TaSra Ti>7s ix/oi.- /i>, ireMTt ; the Stoic maxim was, I 

/c. The Duty of Righteousness. — Mt ?"■='= Lk G"-" 
(cf. Lk 13-^- -'). The discourse which has set forth 
the Divine ideal of life, closes with strong exhorta- 
tion for its attainment. Jesus solemnly enjoins 
the duty of rigliteousness. It is a strenuous under- 
taking, in which men must follow only trustworthy 
guides. And this righteousness does not consist in 
mere profession, but in actually being and doing 
what God wills. 

It must remain a matter of doubt whether the 
two verses, Mt 7'"- ", belonged originally to the 
Sermon. The thought presented by them has no 
topical connexion with 7'"'^ but, on the view that 
7'^ -' is a concluding hortatory section, such a 
relation could not be required ; while this thought 
is entirely suitable to a poi'tion of the discourse 
setting forth the duty of righteousness. The only 
serious argument against the Mattluean position of 
the verses is that Luke seems to have them in 
another and an original setting, 13'-^- -^ ; perhaps it 
can be maintained in reply that these passages are 
not parallel, but belong to difierent occasions, and 
are rightly placed in each of the Gospels.* That 
the gospel demands are lofty, severe, and exclu- 
sive, so that to become a member of the Kingdom 
requires complete self-comiiiitinent and an un- 
ceasing struggle to attain the ideal, is what Jesus 
teaches in these verses. The ' small gate ' and the 
' narrow way ' forcibly express this idea. The 
figure is perhaps drawn from the Oriental city, to 
which the Kingdom of God is sometimes likened 
(cf. He 11'" Vl-f, Rev 21-). The 'gate' signifies 
one's entrance into the Kingdom as present, and 
the 'way' signifies his earnest life thereafter.f 
Jesus' statement that ' few will find their way into 
the kingdom' is perhaps best explained out of the 
circumstances of His ministry, instead of being 
taken eschatologically as in Luke. It would then 
refer to the small number of real followers whom 
Jesus had secured as a result of His work — a fact 
which must have impressed the discijiles, and for 
which they may well have sought an explanation 
from Him. His reply was thus along the line of His 
teaching about the growth of the Kingdom (Alt 13), 
that time was required to achieve numbers and 
maturity.! The parallel .saying in Lk 13'-^, which 
is made by its context (vv.-^'*") to refer to the 
number of persons ultimately to be saved, states — 
not that the whole number will be small, which 

' Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris ' ; and in Confucius we 
read, ' Do not to others what you would not wish done to \our- 
self (Legge, Chinese Classics, i. IMlf.). Other parallels'have 
been collected by Wiinsche and Wetstein. See literature cited 
in Taylor, Saiiirvjs of the Jewixh Fathers^ (1S97), p. 142 f. 

* This is the view of Neander, Tholuck, Achelis, and all who 
defend the unity of Matthew's discourse ; while Mt 7'^ !■* is 
regarded as material extraneous to the Sermon by Feine, Godet, 
B. Weiss, and others. A comparison of the Matttiatan and Lukan 
passages shows that Matthew as usual has the longer and more 
literary form, while Luke gives much the same idea in briefer 
form and dilfereut words. In the former the figures are the 
'gate 'and the ' way,' in the latter it is the 'door.' The final 
clause of each passage is strikingly varied : Slatthew reads, xati 

cKiyot flarU oj £J/3i<r;MvT£j avTVyV, while Luke reads, or/ to'aXoi, \iyat 

i,"'", ir.Tv.ffovtriv ti(ri\0{iv xai o'jx lirx'^e}j(nv . According to Luke, 
the statement was made by Jesus in reply to a specific request 
from someone, 'Lord, are they few that be saved?' and after 
the close of the Galilsean ministry when Jesus was journeving to 
Jerusalem. Then what follows in the Lukan account (is'^J-™) 
makes this question refer to the Final Judgment. But in 
Matthew the saying does not appear to be eschatological ; nor 
does the statement that 'there are few who find the narrow 
way ' appear suitable to the Sermon, since at this time Jesus' 
ministry was meeting with large success— much more suitable 
would it have been after the disappointed withdrawal of the 
Galilsean multitude, when in sorrowful isolation and rejection 
Jesus was going up to Jerusalem for the cross. Luke's i>osition 
of the saying may therefore be better than that of the First 
Gospel, while the original form and intent of the saying may 
have been better preserved by Matthew. 

t oTi is read at the beginning of v. 14 by nearly all modern 
editors and commentators, on the authority of NB and other 
important witnesses, t/, which is preferred by Laohmann, 
Tregelles, Meyer, and Achelis, has strong secondary attestation. 

X Similarl,\ Tholuck, Achelis, and others. 




could not be true on any ])ossil)le view of Jesus' 
teaching or of the world — but that ' many will fail.' 
If the sayin;; is authentic in this form (it may have 
become modified when an eschatolojjital meaning; 
was read into it), Jesus is more likely to have 
intended it as a practical admonition tlian as an 
omniscient disclosure of the outcome of tiie Final 
Judfjment. It is worthy of note that we lind in 
Mt 7'^ the sijjnihcant term j'wt) to denote the full, 
blessed cxisU-iin- which comes to him who does 
God's will. This word, so common in the tiospcl 
of John ( I' ;$'='• "■ o-'- •-''• -•' G-'- *'■ "■ »' 10'" et a/. ) occurs 
but rarely in this sense in the Synoptic Gospels 
(cf. Mt I'J"^). 

The next paragraph in the Sermon, as it apjiears 
in Mt 7"'-"=Lk {)"■'•', quite surely belongs as a 
whole to the historical discourse.* Since it is the 
duty of all men to attain righteousness, it becomes 
a matter of the utmost importance that men shall 
choose true teachers wlio will teach them what 
true righteousness is, and how it is to be attained. 
The false teachers t against whom He warns them 
are all those morally blind and unworthy indi- 
viduals who assume to guide men into the Kingdom 
of God. Outstanding rciiresentatives of this class 
were those .scribes ;uul I'harisces of Jesus' day whom 
He described in the severe Language of Mt 23; 
doubtless He had them in mind — blind guides (Mt 
15") and hypocrites, unlit for the task which they 
performed of teaching the people religion. t If 
this was tlie explicit and primary reference of 
Jesus' saying in v."*, there is no reason why it 
should not implicitly refer to other incompetent 
and bad teachers such as appeared in the early 
years of Christianity. Any one who assumes to 
leach religion and morals without himself living 
the u|)riglit life comes within that class 
which Jesus here gives warning. And whether 
they are bad or good, false or true teachers, can be 
known by their ' fruits,' i.e. by their character and 
their service. If they manifest the 'fruit of the 
Siiirit' as St. Paul describes it in Gal O--'-", they 
will be trustworthy teachers and guides. § 

That Jesus has in mind the practical manifesta- 
tion of righteousness in thought and conduct is 
proved by the verse which immediately follows 
this paragraph, Mt 7"', in wliich He says tliat only persons shall enter tlie Kingdom of Heaven 
who {l<j (iod's will. Jesus neither hero nor else- 
where put the emphasis upon creed apart from 
character, which the Church has done from the 
2nd cent, until our own. His aim was to make 
individual men and a human brotherhood, not 

• For V.15 there is no parallel in Luke, but there is no reason 
to question its authenticity, and it is not forcipn to this con- 
nexion. For v.l!> also there is no parallel in Luke ; it may be a 
verbal reproduction of Mt S*", perhaps imported into this con- 
text in transmission because ol the siniilarily of the figure and 
the theme, cf. Jit 161^, .In 15'A « (so Feinc, Wendt, and others). 
At'ain. v.'.w is a repetition of v."», perhaps therefore a subse- 
<iutnt expansion, resumptive of the mam thouifht after the 
int*ri>olation of v.iy. And, finally, Lk G^^ is clearly extraneous 
to the Sermon, havinff perhaps its historical settin)^ at Mt 12^'- 
(so Feine ajfainst Wendt). The original portion of this imra- 
trrapb may thus have been Mt 7'lsli* = Lk (!«'. The two rciwrU 
have the same idea in the same flj^rure, but are peculiarly variant 
ill manner of expression ; it is not likely that they started from 
a common Greek translation. 

tThe term 'prophet' in both OT and NT denotes primarily 
the teacher of religious truth and duty, and has no other imjiort 
in this pa-ssa^^e. 

J So Tholuck, Achelis, Feinc, Ibbckcn, B. Weiss. Tlie figure 
of wc'.ves and sheep was a common one among a (Mistoml people 
(cf. Is ll* 65'^, Mt 1016, Jn lo''-, Ac 2(f^). but only here in the 
liible is found the idea of the wolf in sheep's clothing, us in 
^Esop's Faiilex. 

5 "There was never any justification for the Itoman Catholic 
view, adopted by Calvin and sometimes promulgated even by 
Luther, that the xaoTo. in these verses signilled primarily, 
indcetl exclusively, sound doctrines. It is. of cour-e, true that 
those who teach false doctrines cannot he saie guides, but the 
liible rightly interiireteil is the criterion of sound ilwtriiies. not 
the pronouncements of any ecclesiastical organization iwst, 
presf nt, or future. 

a system of theology. Love, mercy, and peace, 
purity, trust, and hi'lpfulness, were the te«ts of 
L'oodiiess which Jesus establishcti (Mt 5^-7''-'i.V''"). 
Inasiiiuch as He came for the express |)ur])o>f of 
making God's will known, and in llis word.i, 
deeds, and character did make liod's « ill manifest 
to men, Ho can only mean that men must do and be 
what He has thu.s" taught them. Luke's form of 
the snyinglj*" is therefore ei|uivalent to Matthew's, 
although so dill'crciitly woriled.* As was seen in 
considering the third petition of the Lord's I'raycr, 
'Thy will be done' (Mt ti'"), the will of (iod is'llie 
one thing to be accomjdished : for this Jesus lived 
(Jn G**!, and for this He would have us live (Mt 
jow oi^-si). His statement that only such shall 
'enter the Kingdom of Heaven ' seems to be an 
intentional echo and return to the words of Mt 5-'^. 

The following two verses, Mt '-• ^, stand here 
ill all probability as aresult of compilation. Luke 
gives them in another connexion, which appears 
original (13'-^""-) ; and since they refer to the 
Juilgiiicnt, they belong, with Jesus' other e.schato- 
logical teaching, to the closing months of His 
ministry. t»ne needs only to consider carefully 
the time, circumstances, audience, and of 
the Sermon to see that these verses present an 
idea, and sound a note, which do not belong to 
this occasion and discourse.t Nevertheless, they 
contain authentic teaching of Jesus, and teaching 
of profound meaning. The thought is analogous to 
that of Mt 7-' in alHrming that nothing .shall admit 
to the Kingdom but the actual attainment of right- 
eousness (cf. Lk lU'-'"). The profession of Chris- 
tianity, the preaching of Christianity, even the 
production of .Mime good results for the Christian 
cause, shall not in themselves alone secure salva- 
tion, for the criterion of judgment in the great 
Judgment Day shall be a genuine realization of 
God s will in and through one's self. And Luke 
adds (13'-*"^"), what is germane to this connexion, 
that ' there are last which shall be tirst, and there 
are first which shall be ' (cf. Mt 8"'- IJP) ; i.e. 
some who, like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, had 
had a great reputation for piety, and had been 
looked upon as models of righteousness, shall be 
shown to have been sellish, vain, and hypocritiial, 
unworthy to enter the Kingdom of God ; w hile 
other obscure and once despised persons shall lind 
a welcome there (cf. Lk 18"'^).^ 

And, linally, the duty of righteousness is most 

• Mt r-l Ou !Tit i ^iyttr f2M KJ^il xlptt iV(Alvnr«j i.'t -n'.r 

T«it eCfattil. Lk C«l Ti >i fi.1 au^irri Kifil xifil, xtti ti Ttiun 

t So Feine, Godet, Ibbeken, Weizsiicker, Wendt, and others. 
The parallel savings, Mt "-' =Lk isa"-, give the same idea, 
with wide divergence of expression. It may be true, as Ibl)iken 
thinks, that the three acts named in Mt 7- .souml iiiiprc.liablc 
on Jesus' lips (ccrlainh- they arc foreign to the .Sermon), and 
they may therefore rellect the experiences of the Aiwstolic age. 
But Lk I'S^ ' We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou 
didst teach in our streets,* is also not without ditHculty. Ucause 
so insipid and un-Jewish. The t>ctt«r. explanation is that the 
Matthoian verses arc authentic, but belong to the close of the 
ministry ; while Lk ]'J^ has lieen universuliti-<l. In the second 
verse of each passage, Mt 7^ = Lk la-"?, there is identity of 
thought, with some variation of language. The phrase, ' liejiart 
from me, ye that work iniquity,' is a quotation frtini I's (V (cf. 
Mt l;Pl'- 25") ; its two Greek tonus here, i-rtx^f'^i "' i<^^ <i 

tLhtx.a( (Lk.). present an interesting minut« problem of tmnsla- 
lion and tninsinission. 

I Jit "-l"'-" has a value also for detennining the Christnlo-ical 
conceptions of the SvnopticGosiH'ls, See lurlicularlv .S. hlulter 
in Grei/mmlihr Slmlu-n (1S'.W), pp. ttJ-lll.'.. This i>a.-.Hagc i» ..iily 
one of a number where Jesus upiH-ars as claiming the liivine 
prerogative of Judge at the Filiiil Judgment (.Ml ■i'Pl « lit-'Jf. 
ll'^'J", Mk 83». Lk 'JDIS ; cf. Jn i'-"' 12", Ac IT-", Ko 21«, 2 Co 510X 
a function appropriate to the Jlessiah. It would re<piire a 
radical treatment of the Goh|k'I narratives to explain tlii> idea 
of Jesus as Judge as an exaggerated A|>oslolic oppreciation of 
Him. The uniipieiiess of Christ in mission, iktsoii, teaching, 
and career — in other wonls, llis Iiivinity — cannot well Ik- di-tiie<l 
by a serious historical iiiter)'n>tation of the GitsgHN ; ami » hen 
tins uniqueness is recognized, it is not diHicult to oilu it .It feus' 
oltlce OM Judge. 




impressively set forth at the close of the whole 
discourse by the parable of the Two House-builders 
(Mt7^^--'=Lk e-"--"').* That this piece belongs to 
the Sermon, and forms its remarkable conclusion 
(as the ovv in v.''^^ suggests), can Vje considered 
certain. The parable follows logically upon v.-', 
enlarging and enforcing the teacliing therein. It 
is a saying of tremendous strength. The life which 
Jesus has depicted in the Sermon as tlie ideal 
life is wonderfully beautiful, inspiring, and attrac- 
tive to every sincere soul. But men were likely 
to recognize and to reverence this ideal without 
achieving it, since is the earnest and arduous 
labour of a lifetime. Hence Jesus meets them with 
tlie solemn affirmation that the duty of actually 
doing what He te.aches is imperative ; that it shall 
be of no avail for them to have listened to His 
words, if they do not str.aightway go and \\\e the life 
which as God's will He has described to them. 

5. The Relation of the Sermon on the 
Mount to Jesus' Teaching as a whole.— The 
teaching contained in the Sennon on the Mount 
was given in the middle portion of .Jesus' Gali- 
l£ean ministry, when enthusiastic multitudes were 
hearing Him and manj' followers attended Him. 
It was in this period that He gave the general 
teacliing about the Kingdom of God — what it 
consisted in, what it brought to men, what it 
retjuired of men, what relation He Himself sus- 
tained to it, and wliat its future was to be. The 
Sermon is an epitome of this general teaching, 
condensing tlie wliole into a brief statement and 
exposition of the ideal of life, given for the prac- 
tical purpose of a simple guide to right thought 
and conduct. It showed the multitude what He as 
a teacher of religion liad to present as truth and 
dut}-, with which thej' could readily contrast tlieir 
own and the current ideals. 

Jesus contined His teaching entirelj- to the religio- 
ethicul field ; and in this field He dealt with essen- 
tial truths, facts, and principles rather than with the 
speculative mysteries of the universe or witli the 
casuistry of ethics. Consequently, He taught again 
and again the same things, to ditlerent persons, 
under ditt'erent circumstances, and in diilerent ways 
and lights. A close organic relation unites all 
Jesus' teachings, each involving the other, and all 
together illuminating the path of human existence. 
The Gospel was so brief and simple that it had not 
to be committed to writing like the philosophy and 
the ethics of the schools. Common men could 
comprehend and communicate Jesus" teaching. 
His was a universal message which all could 
grasp ; it presented an ideal to which all could 
aspire and attain. 

As has been abundantly seen, the Sermon on the 
Mount sets forth Jesus' conception of what men 
should be and do as members of the Kingdom 
which He came to establish in the world (not as a 
new movement entirelj-, but as giving higher eon- 
tent and greater impulse to a movement which 
God had inaugurated with the very creation of 
the human race). The true righteousness is de- 
termined by God ; as He is the .source of all life, 
so it is He who determines what that life shall be. 
Ethical obligations rest therefore upon religious 
truths. The ideal of a man's life is to be derived 
from God, and for its realization he is responsible 
to God. The aim of man's life is to achieve that 
personal character and service which fulfil the 
true manhood, after the pattern of Christ, and to 
advance as far as possible the real brotherhood of 

* See the text of both passages quoted above under i. 3. The 
Lukan form of the parable is conspicuously secondary in char- 
acter ; the Jewish phraseology is largely" removed, and the 
description is generalized so as to be adapted to any localitv. 
Mattliew, on the other hand, gives a faithful, picture of -.the 
conditions of house-building in the wadis of Galilee. Again, 
also, the literary superiority belongs to the First Gospel. 

all men as sons of the one common Heavenly 
Fatlier. The Kingdom of God in its Uivine aspect 
is the purpose, love, and power of God which de- 
termine and accomplish this ideal condition ; in 
its human collective aspect it is the company of 
those who have earnestly set about the realization, 
in themselves and among men, of this Divine ideal. 
So that Jesus can sum up all duty, individual and 
social, in the one injunction to ' Seek supremely 
the kingdom of God, and the righteousness which 
he wills ' (Mt 6^, Lk 12^1 ; cf. Mt 22«-*'). And 
this righteousness is primarily an internal char- 
acteristic ; it is apprehended irithiii the man. The 
religio-ethical ideal which (ioil iiiijilants in every 
human lieart must be heeded by each man, and 
his life must become conformed to it. Created by 
God in His own image, men must attain to God- 
likeness ; and this attainment is, first of all, the 
recognition of and obedience to the ideal of life 
which God furnishes in the soul, moved and guided 
by the teaching and example of Jesus. Those 
persons will achieve perfect self-realization who 
enter into complete communion with God, hearing 
His voice, and doing His will as revealed within 
themselves and in and through Christ. 

The absolute assurance of Jesus that He can 
reveal the will of God to men, and that this is His 
mission in the world, is a guarantee of the trust- 
worthiness of His teaching. If the Sermon on the 
Mount contains few explicit statements concerning 
the person of Christ such as abound in the Fourth 
Gospel, it is none the less true that the implica- 
tions of the discourse are equally high. The 
Divine personality, knowledge, and authority of 
Jesus are the foundation on which the discourse 
rests. The passages, Mt 5"- " 7=i-si, only state 
what all the teacliing involves, that He who speaks 
these words is ' the Son of God ' in the highest 
sense, sustaining to Him a unique relation, and 
rendering to men a unique service. The value of 
the Sermon cannot therefore be overestimated, 
and the historical study or critical treatment of 
this material should never dominate or obscure 
the fact that this teaching is a Divine revelation 
of the w ill of God for men which is forthwith to be 
accomplished upon the earth. 

Literature. — For the quotations from, and allusions to, the 
Sermon on the Mount in the extra-canonical Christian literature 
of the first three centuries, see esp. Kesch, AwisercanouisJie 
Paralleltexte z. d. Emngelien, Teil 1 (1S93), pp. 62-H4 ; Teil 2 
(1895), pp. 62-106. For ideas and expressions akin to those of 
the Sermon on the Mount in Rabbinic literature, see W'eber, 
Jiidischc T/teo/oj7i(?2(i897) ; Wiinsche, Neue Beilrdge z. Etidrt- 
tentjig d. Evangelien axis Talinitd u. Midrasch (1878) ; Dalman, 
Die Worte Jem, Bd. 1 (1898) (Eng. tr. 1902). 

From the Patristic period the only specific separate treatment 
of the Sermon on the Mount is by Augustine, de Sertrwiie 
Domini in Monte (Op., ed. Bened. vol. iii.) [Eng. tr. in ' Nicene 
and Post-Nicene Fathers,' pp. 63] ; it is an important work of 
interpretation, containing much that is of permanent value. 
Elsewhere in his writings Augustine dealt further with the 
Sermon, presenting in some respects different views. Trench 
collected all this material and prepared a digest of it, which he 
published under the title, Exposition of the Sermon on the 
Mount, drawn from the Writiivfs of St. Augustine (3rd ed. 
rev. 1869). Useful also are the interpretations of Origen, 
Comjn. on Matthew {Op., ed. Lommatzsch, vols. iii. iv.) ; 
Jerome, Comm. on Matthew (Op., ed. Vallarsi, vol. vii.); 
Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew {Op., ed. Montfaucon, vol. 
vii.); Hilarius Pictaviensis, Comm. oil Matthew {Op., ed. 
Oberthiir, vol. vii.); the work of the .\uctor Opens Impcr/ecti; 
and the very brief matter in the Comm. on the Four Gospels 
by Theophyiact and Euthymius Zigabenus. 

From the Reformation period the important interpretation 
by Luther is first to be named, Comm. on Matthew {Works, ed. 
\\'alch, vol. vii.) ; and after him, Calvin in his Harmony of 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke {Works, ed. 1S35-183S, vols. i. ii.). 
The three Roman Catholic works of most value are the Comm. 
on the Four Gospels by Maldonatus, Jansenius, and Cornelius a 
Lapide. The extensive but unimportant post - Reformation 
literature can be seen in full in Tholuck, Die Bergrede Christie, 
pp. 30-40 [Eng. tr. pp. 41-49J. 

The Modern period has provided many works upon the 
Sermon ■ on the Mount, some of them of great value. The 
standard work upon the subject for the past seventy years has 
been that of Tholuck, Die Bergrede Christi (1st ed". iti3J ; 5th 




ed. Ootha, 1872, pp. 484 (Etif. tr. from 4th Otrni. «l., Bliii- 
biiivh, IStill. pp. 44al), and lhi» still niimiiis the most valuubk' 
volume uii the ±>ennun, althoiij^h a iKirtiun o( the eoiitentti in 
row uiuiqiiated. Next in extent un<l inn»ortancu ii* the equally 
elalxirate work of Aehelis, JHe DeiyijrfilKjt (Bielefeld, IS".'), pp. 
iO-i). Other works of seientitlc character, hut smaller diiuell- 
bIoiis, are : Keine, ■ Hie TexW dcr Berifpredigt hel Matthaus u. 
bei Lukas,' in Jahrbuchtr fur J'rulfitai>lihc/ie Tlirulmiie, iJiSS, 
pp. 1-So ; Steinmeyer, Die lUde difjt Itetrn a^f ilein Berge 
(Kerlin, 1885, pp. 150) ; Ihheken, Die llei-.ipinliijt Jrmu ('ind 
ed., Einbeck, ISOO, pp. 21ti); Hu({o Weiss (Kom. Cath.), Dir 
llrnjimdigt ChrUli (Freiburg, ISUi, pp. Ill); (irawert. Die 
ISritjprediqt nach MaMaua (.Marburg, ItKN), pp. 77); lleinrici, 
Die Beiypredigl, tiuetlenkriliDch uiilemrlit (I.«ipzig, 1000, 
PI'. 81), and a second part dealing with the inter)»reution is 
promised ; Bacon, Srnnoii on the iluuiU (New York, 1002, pp. 
2W).— Homiletic treatuientj* of the Sermon are numerous in 
German, French, and Knglish. An anonMn^nis work. Die 
Uerijimdiiil (Giitersloh, 18S1, pp. 48); Grullii-h, Die ISergpredigt 
des llerrn Jem f/irwd' (.Meis.sun, laSG, pp. 148); Harni»ch, Die 
llergprediift den llerrn (Ureslau, lOol, pp. 3,i) ; Kaiser, Die Uertj- 
j'i-ct/ii/f <feit/i*?rm(Leipzig, llt')l). pi>. 621 ; .Monneron, Le Seriiwii 
mr la Montague (Lausanne, 1*S«, i>p. 412); J. H. Bousset, Le 
Sermon mir la iluntatme (Paris. lOiXI. pp. 150 [Eng. tr.. Sew 
York, 1000, pp. 144)). "The beet English work is by C. Gore, The 
Sermon on the ilount (London, l>;»i, pp. 21s); it contains 
much, however, that is onlv of 1." ,1 ■ I-:.-ii,al interest; 
furlhir. W. B. Carpenter, The Ortu' < ' ' ' • ■ '■■-<( (London, 
IMi:., pp. 3(K)). of special importani u - i.. ! ;,^ .it B. Weiss, 
M'lit'r-Koininetitar iitier dan Motll"'" •■ ' 'in /• '"n,> (tiottingen, 
1S'.I>), anil of II. lloltzmann, //aii.(-' .n„„i. „•„,■ iil^-r die Si/nop- 
tiker (;{nl ed., Krtilmrg, IOhm) ; ..tii.r commentaries upon 
Matlliew (Me\er. Morison, Kcil. llrciliis, Kubel, Bruce, f( al.), 
l,uke(liodet, I'lumnar), and .NLuiliew and Luke(Bengel, 
Bliek. OUIijuisfTi, Ewald, Fritzschc, Kuinol, Nusgen, et. al.) 
are of var> ini; usefulness. 

Liti'ratiire upon sj>ecial portions and aspects of the Sermon 
hius I.eirj cited in the fiKJtnotes. C. W. VOTAW. 


i. Distribution of the .Tcwish Population 

in the Holy Land, 
ii. Languages, 
iii. Political Constitution. 
iv. Social Conditions, 
v. Parties. 

vi. Education and Culture, 
vii. Art and Literature, 
viii. The Jews of the Diaspora. 

The .'\dvent of Christ f.alls within tlie petiulti- 
m.ate period of that era of Israeliti.~li history whiili 
lje;;ini< with tlie Ueturn of the .Jews from IJahylon 
(B.C. 538) anil ends with the Fall of .leriisaleni 
(A.D. 70). From both an external and an internal 
point of view, this era marks a far-ieachiiij; trans- 
formation of the conditions of .Jewish life. At 
the outset, Judiea, which was not quite the same 
in extent as the ancient kingdom of .Jiidali, forms 
a small province of the Persian, and afterwards 
of the Greek Empire. The population, at 
scanty and poor, •^adually increases, and, under 
the orderly arranjjements of the Law, attains to 
a certain measure of pios|ierity. l!nl internal 
l>arty-strife consumes Us strcn;;th, .Hud, tinder 
Antiocluis F.piphancs. reaches such a hci^-ht that 
this Scliucid monarch, in the pride of his (Jreek 
culture, hut with political shortsi^ditedness, forms 
the resolution of entirely rooting' out the proper 
.lewish rcll^;ion. Thi.s period of extreme dan'.'er 
is unexpectedly followetl by a brilliant revival of 
llie .lewish State, which recalls the llourishin<,' 
period of pre-exilic histoiy. and which struck the 
jpcoiile themselves in this lij;ht. The nation shakes 
Itself free from the forei;;n yoke, and the Has- 
luoM.-can princes not only become hit:h priests, but 
linally assume the title of 'kin;;.' This glory, 
however, is of short duration, and the Jewish 
iMviple are rudely awakened from their dream. 
The internal dissensions that followed the death 
of Mueen Alexandra, hasten the intervention of 
the Komacs, and lead to the con(|Uest of .Jerusalem 
by Tomjicy (B.C. 03). The Komans do not, how- 
ever, destroy the Jewish State, but allow it to 
continue under a variety of changin;.' forms, until 
at last the perpetual discontent of tlie Jews lends 
to the outbreak of the desperate war for fruetloni, 

which issued in the destruction of the State and 
the Temple. 

From the spiritual point of view, this period 
marks the development of Jinlnlsiii in opposition 
to the national life aiul the rell;;ion of tlie pre- 
exilie period. The deeper foundation of this is 
found in the remarkable recastin;^ which tho 
Jewish siiiiit underwent during the Kxile. No- 
where else in the history of mankind is there an 
instance of a people being transformed in wj 
wonderful and radical a fashion as the Jews in the 
course of their captivity in Itabylon. They left 
Babylon a body whose true life lay not in the 
actual .state of things, but in future exiieclatiuns 
and in ti worhl of cultus-notioiis created out of 
recollections of the past. To the actual world they 
sought to accommoilate themselves uiKin certain 
abstract principles, ami, when this attempt failed, 
they withdrew entirely into that spiriliial wutld 
which was constructed wholly according to those 
dogmatic priii<iples. They found their sup|)i>rl in 
the Messianic cvpectatitm, for the .sake of which 
they submitted to the burdensome prescriptions 
of the Law, which were intended to shielil tlieiii 
from the heathen impurity of the world, and 
thereby render them worthy to hail the advent of 
the Me.ssianic glory. Yet it is not to be over- 
looked, in this connexion, that the noblest spirits 
in the Jewish community, especially during the 
earlier periods of the ^lost-exilic era, tilled those 
outwartl forms with a rich inward content. There 
still survived in them the pure proohetic spirit, 
and the ideas created by men like ./eremiali and 
IJeutero-Isaiali ; nay, the writings which emanated 
from this period, such as the Psalms and the IJook 
of Job, ttmcli us almost more nearly than the 
writings of those prophets, because the ideas con- 
tained in them have found simpler expression and 
are less clo.sely bound up with the historical form. 
15ut the conditions under which the Jews lived 
seldom jiermilled a lengthened enjoyment of this 
contemplative life. Not only were tliey disturbed 
in their rest by contact with the heathen world, 
but even amongst themselves there were men of a 
dillerent disjiosition, whose rectdlections turned 
rather to their pre-exilic forefathers, and who, 
with a stronger sense of actualities, plunged vigor- 
ously into the relations of life, and sought to 
helj) themselves. I'etween them and the 'iiuict 
in the land' there grew up an ever ■ increasing 
opposition, which may be regarded as the moving 
factor in the ))ostc\ilic history. Through these 
conflicts with o|i|Misition without and within, not 
only was the stricter .ludaisin disturbed, but it 
was driven also to the discussion of the great 
religious proldcms and to new developments. The 
fruits of these spiritual struggles may be seen 
in the entirely new conception of the state of man 
after death and in the transformation of the 
Me.ssianic hope, which in the .Apocalyiitic litera- 
ture seeks to free itself from national limit.itions 
and takes a start in the direction of universal- 
ism. It may be safely eoncliuled that, in this move- 
ment, contact with foreign forms of thought was 
not without importance — primarily contact with 
Parsism, secondarily with the (ireek world. 

IN THE HoLY' L.VND. — Leaving out of account 
meanwhile those Israelites who were .scattered in 
various lands, the Jewish population wius at lirst 
conlined to Judicn proper, from which the Israel- 
ites derived their now univer.sally current anpella- 
tion ((;r. 'locSoioi, Germ. 'Juden,' Kng. '.lews'). 
The land taken of by the returning 
exiles was considerably smaller in the .southern 
direction than in pre-exilic times. Whereas for- 
nierlj' IJeersheba was regarded a.s the southern 
limit, the [lart of Judaai that lay to tliu south hud 




been taken possession of during the Exile by the 
Edoniites, and the post-exilic commiinity ^^•as at 
tirst far too weak to drive back the intruders.* 
The boundary between tliis New-Edom and Juda;a 
was formed in the 2nd cent. B.C. by the town of 
Beth-zur, and this was, in all probability, approxi- 
mately the division between the respective terri- 
tories at an earlier period. According to 
Neh 6-, the original N.W. boundary appears to 
have been the Plain of Ouo {bik 'ath 'Uno, probably 
the modern A'e/)'-'(()K(). But at a later period the 
Samaritans, who lived at constant feud with the 
Jews, must have got possession of three places 
inhabited by Jews, namely Lydda, Ramatliaim, 
and Aphserema (1 Mac 11^). In the Maccaba'an 
period, however, Judaea underwent considerable 
expansion. The three places just named were 
taken from the Samaritans and restored to tlie 
Jews as early as the time of Jonathan. After- 
wards the boundary was extended still farther to 
the north, for, according to Joseplius (BJ ill. iii. 5 ; 
A nt. XIV. iii. 4), the N. boundary of Judaea ran by 
Borkaos (prob. the modern Berkit) in the liill- 
country and Korea; (now KurCiwa) in the Jordan 
Valley. The country in the south inhabited liy the 
Ediiriiites, which now bore the name Idtimrea, was 
coMr|iiered by John Hyrcanus. As it was originally 
Israclitish land, the inhabitants were com|ielled 
to adopt the Law and submit to circumcision. 
Accordingly, from that time onwards (in confor- 
mity with the prescription of Dt 23"), tliey were 
regarded as Jews, although they continue to be 
called Idunnvans. Tliat they .also regarded them- 
selves as genuine Jews is evident, for instance, 
from the words attributed to them by Joseplius 
{BJ IV. iv. 4, Tuiv Trarpiuiv l€pC>v . . . rijy KOivrjS 
irarpiSos), hut of course their foreign origin could 
not 111' wholly fiir;.:utten.t On the other hand, in 
the I itii- nil I 111- Mrditcrranean coast, which had 
only n.iii^ildiy iiuiiiids of subjection to the Jews, 
tile |"iiiulaliuii was preponderatingly heathen, al- 
though considerable Jewish minorities existed in 
them. Only in Joppa {Jaffa) were the Jews in 
the majority, this city having continued after the 
de.ath of Herod to be united with Juda>a. During 
the war for freedom it played, accordingly, a 
prominent part, and had to be twice captured by 
the Romans (Jos. Ant. vix. xi. 4 ; BJ II. xviii. lu, 
III. ix. 2). 

To the north of Judoea lay Samaria, wiiich 
stretched as far as the Plain of Jezreel. The 
population of this district sprang partly from the 
ancient Israelites, but had received a strong inter- 
mixture through the heathen peoples who were 
settled here by the Assyrian conquerors (cf. 2 K 
l?-^*')- In course of time these heathen elements 
were absorbed by the Israelitish remnants, but the 
ill-will shown by the Samaritans towards the re- 
turning Jews kept the latter from ever forgetting 
the itii|iure origin of their northern neighbours. 
Matters came to an open breach when the Samari- 
tans built a temple of their own upon Mt. Gerizim, 
and tlius renounced all connexion with the coni- 
iiiuiiity at Jerusalem. It is true that they, 
ciiu:illy with the Jews, acknowledged the Law, 
hut llie breach remained irreparable, and the 
Samaritans continued excluded from the further 
development of Judaism. The contempt of the 
Jews which found vent in the nickname ' Cuth- 
feans' (Jos. Ant. IX. xiv. 3, XI. iv. 4, and in the 
Talmud), and which finds very sharp expression 
on the part even of the otherwise mild Ben Sira 

* On Neh n25ff. cf. now, above all, E. Mever, Entstehuruj dcs 
^udcHfiims, 106f., 114ff. 

t Josejihus says of Herod that, as an Idunirean, he was 
onl) halt a Jew (.4?i(. xiv. xii. 2). On the other hand, when 
A^'ri|i|ia 1. once felt hurt by the epithet ' foreiij'ner' in Dt IV'S, 
the |>fo|>le, whom he had {gained over by his friendly offices, 
cried out, ' Thou art our brother ' (Meg. Sold vii. 8). 

(Sir 50-^'- 'Two nations my soul abhorreth, and 
the third is no people : the inhabitants of Seir and 
Philistia, and the foolish nation tluit diri-llctli in 
Sichem'), was repaid by the Samaritans with bitter 
hate. This manifested itself at times in the 
form of attacks upon the pilgrims journeying to 
Jerusalem, who, in consequence, frequently pre- 
ferred to take the long roundabout way by the 
east of the Jordan (Lk 9^*^ Mk 10'; Jos. Ant. XX. 
vi. 1). The destruction of the C4erizim temphi 
by John Hyrcanus made no change in these re 
lations, but rather embittered the feelings of the 
Samaritans still more. 

As to Galilee, we learn from 1 Mac 5 that in 
the course of the post - exilic period Jews had 
settled in it, but that during the first half of the 
2nd cent. B.C. these were still so few that tliej- could 
not hold their own against the heathen pojiula- 
tion, and were consequently brought by Simon 
to Jerusalem. It was not until the time of 
Aristobulus I., as Schiirer (GJV i. 275 f.) was 
the lirst to prove, that this portion of the land 
and its inhabitants, regarding whose nationality 
we have unfortunately no more precise informa- 
tion, were compelled on the same ground as the 
Idumseans to adopt the Law (Jos. Ant. xill. xi. 3). 
It is extremely probable, however, that there were 
further settlements of Jews of purer birth in 
fertile districts, so that they became more com- 
pletely Judaized. It is characteristic in this re- 
spect that Judith (8'") speaks of 'our fathers,' i.e. 
the ancient Israelites. At the time of Christ the 
land of Galilee was essentially Jewish, and had its 
Pharisees and scribes (Lk 7"'', Mt 8"), as well as 
its synagogues (Mt 12", Lk 4"* 7^*). The designa- 
tion ' half-Jews ' is never applied to the Galila»ans 
as it is to the Idumteans.* It may be added 
that the Judaizing of Galilee embraced only the 
southern portion of it, for Kedesh, lying to the 
west of Lake yftleh, marked th.e boundary be- 
tween the land inhabited by Jews and the territory 
of the Tyrians.t 

A similar condition of things prevailed also in 
the country to the east of the Jordan. Here, too, 
there had been numerous settlements of Jews, 
who, however, were so h.ard pressed by the 
heathen that .Judas Maccaba'us brought them to 
Jerusalem (1 Mac 5^^). But at a later period the 
middle portion of the trans- Jordanic tract was 
conquered by Alexander Jannajus, and the 
imposed upon its inhabitants for the same reason 
as in the case of the Iduma;ans (cf. Jos. Ant. xilI. 
XV. 4). As the boundaries of Permn (["n'n -i^-;\. tlie 
district inhabited by the Jews, Joscplui^ ijivr^: 
Pella on the north, Philadelphia on tin- ■ ii-l, .uhI 
Macha^rus on the south. Consider.-ililc li.irt-, 
however, of the trans-Jordanic country belonged 
to the Hellenistic cities, which were specially 
numerous here, and in which the Jews constituted 
only a minority. Also in the northern portion 
(Batana;a, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Traclionitis) 
the population was half-heathen half-Jewish (Jos. 
BJ III. iii. 5f.). But the Jewish element was 
strengtiiened by the Babylonian Jews whom Herod 
transplanted here in ortler to combat the plague 
of robbers (Jos. Ant. XVII. ii. 13). 

The task which, since the time of Ezra, had 
been assigned to strict Jews — the task of maintain- 
ing a complete isolation from the heathen world — 
was thus an extremely difficult one ; for not only 
were they surrounded on all sides by the heathen, 
but Hellenistic cities intruded as cnelavcs in the 
midst of the Jewish country itself. Moreover, 

• Quite remarkable is the severe judgment on Galilee attri- 
buted to Johanan b. Zaccai (Jerus. Shabhath 15d) : 'Galilee, 
Galilee, thou hatest the Law, therefore thou shalt yet find em- 
plovment among robbers.' 

t Cf. Buhl, GAP 72. 



till' raiii<l developnii'iit of omiiiu'rci' liiuii},'lit tlie 
.lew> iiitii rlosi3 cimtact «itli l<)ici;.'iiiT«, while, 
liiially, till' foreign rule imtiiriilly iiitniiluced iiiiiiiy 
noii-Jewibh elements intuthu laiiil. 'I'lie iittractive 
intlueiice which Greek culture exercised over the 
Jews is shown hy the history of events iniinediiitely 
preceding' the Macciiliieiin era; ami even the Has- 
nioniians who orij;inally came forward to o|)|Jose 
the elhniciziii^ of the .lews, were afterwards 
increasingly attracted liy Hellenism, so that Aristo- 
bulus I. actually received the surname of 'I'lX^.Wijy 
('friend of the Greeks'). Herod the (ircat, too, 
in spite of his essentially liarbarian nature, sou^'ht 
to po-^c as a |i.itron of (Jreek culture, surrounded 
himself with Gni'k orators and writers, had his 
sons educated at Home, and m.Tde his appearance 
as a pure Greek in the Hellenistic cities that were 
suliject to him. Nay, even in .Icru-.ilem, to the 
scandal of the .Jews, he caused theatres, circuses, 
anil other Greek buildings to be erected. The 
same course wa.s pursued by his successors. 
Tilterias, for instance, was a city with a perfectly 
pronounced Greek stamp, which may account for 
the fact that .Jesus never visited it. The main- 
taining of Jewish uniiiueness unimpaired was, we 
reiicat. a very ditlicult task ; much more ditlicult in 
Palestine than for the Jews of the Diaspora, who 
found themselves in unequivocal opposition to their 

ii. L.\\i;i'.\GES. — The languase of the Jews 
who returned to Palestine from IJabylon was Old 
Ucbn:ir, IJut even during the Persian domination 
Arriiniiic, which was then the language of com- 
merce and diplomacy, began to fone its waj- 
among the Jews as with the neighlHinring peoples. 
The earliest traces of this are found in the extracts 
in the Book of Ezr.i drawn from an Aramaic 
historical writing. The Hook of Daniel, composed 
in tlie 2nd cent, n.c, is written partly in Aramaic. 
At the time of Christ the ordinary speech of the 
people had come to be Aiamaic, as is evident not 
only from the New Testament, but from various 
cultus terms used by Joseiihus, and from state- 
ments contained in the older .Jewish literature. 
The necessary consequence of this change was the 
custom of having the passages of Scripture which 
were read in the synagogue followed by an 
Aramaic translation — a custom which the Mishna 
presupposes as an ancient inheritance. The 
Aramaic spoken by the .lews was a dialect of the 
Western Aramaic, the pronunciation of which, 
moreover, ditl'ered somewhat in dillerent parts of 
the country, varying again amongst tlie Samaritans 
as coiMparcil with the Jews.* 

The t)ld lUtircw language yielded, however, 
only gradually to the Aramaic idiom, and, before 
it ili-iippcuiil, it developed a linal species, the 
socallid A'l i« HehriAC. Kven after men had 
begun to write in Aramaic, Hebrew writings were 
still composed ; e.g. the l!ook of Chronicles (c. 300 
B.C.), the Book of Sinicli (not long after 21X1), 
various Ps,alins belonging to the Maccabamn 
period, and the Book of Kcclesiastea. The Has- 
nionnan rulers, who above all laboured for a 
national reawakening, favoured the ancient speech, 
as the Ilcbrew legends on their coins show; and 
the Kirst Book of Maccabees was unquestionably 
written in Hebrew. But the last remark applies 
aUo to the Psalms of Solomon, which emanated 
from the middle of the last century B.C., and to 
the Apocalypses of Baruch and Kzra, composed 
after the I'all of Jerusalem. Later still, Hebrew; 
continued to be for long the language of teachers 
of the Law, so that the Mishna (2nd cent. A.U.) is 
composed in New Hebrew. It was only after the 
date last named that Hebrew ceased to be a living 

* Ct. Mt 20" : Dalmnn, '.•rnwiiiindit det 'ud.fat. ATamaiich, 
13ff., Die Worte Jemt, i. 04. 

language, and subsequently played the same njlt 
as Latin did in the Middle Ages. See, further, 
Driver, LOfMatY. 

Along with the iilioms just di.scusscd, we have 
to take into account, for NT times, also the Greek 
language. The factors we noticed as favouring 
the introduction of Greek culture paved the way 
also for the language of tireece. The clearest 
evidence of this is allbrded by the very numerous 
(J reek words adopted into the languages of the 
Jews. A few ot these are found even in the 
Book of Daniel, notably such as are names of 
musical instruments (Driver, I.e. 501). In all 
l)robability p"i!:ii of Ca S" must Ije considered 
Greek {, = <poix'iov), and perhaps we should a.ssign 
to the same category some other terms in the 
Song of Songs (I.e. 449"n. ). In the Book of Ecclesi- 
astes, again, we have Ileb. renderings of Gr. 
forms of expression, such as 3'a n-ri'=€i* xpir. 
Tfiy, rjgn n-n = v<p' ■hXiv, etc. In the iiost-Biblical 
literature we encounter a large number of 
Greek loan-words, especially in the domain of 
political administration, or of commerce, or of 
public institutions.* It is characteristic, further, 
that, whereas on .some of the later coins of the 
HasmoiKeans we lind Hebrew legends side by side 
witli the (;reek, the coins of the Herod family 
bear only tireek inscriiitions. It may be held as 
certain that every Jew who made any claim to 
higher culture, and therefore in particular every 
one who was brought into contact with the court, 
understooil and spoke Greek. Tradere also must 
be assumed to have had a certain acquaintance 
with this tongue. And those Jews who lived in 
the immediate vicinity of districts where Greek 
was si)oken would doubtless acquire the habit from 
their youth of using the Greek as well as the 
Aramaic language. But how far it was customary 
elsewhere to learn Greek, and how far the know- 
ledge of this language had penetrated among the 
general bodj' of the people, cannot be determined 
with certainty. According to Sola ix. 14, during 
tlie war with Quietus [so reail of 'with 
Titus'] in U5-117, it was forbidden that any one 
should teach his son Greek. From this we may 
infer that until then this had been a usual practice 
even within strict circles. It was also an imiiort- 
ant circunislaricc that Jerusalem, upon the ui ration 
of the great festivals, was the rallying iioiiit not 
only of the Palestinian Jews, but of those whose 
homes were in all other lands. Only a very small 
proportion of the latter can have been acquainted 
witli Hebrew or Ar.amaie. And at times .some of 
these, instead of returning to their homes, would 
settle in Jerusalem. It may also be supposed 
that the choice of the Alex.indrian Jew, Boetlius, 
to be high priest would draw a number of Alex- 
andrians to .lerusalem (cf. Jos. Ant. XV. ix. 3). 
Special synagogues were built at Jerusalem for the 
use of those foreigners who did not understand 
the language of the countrj' (--^^c 6"; Tos. Mniilln 
iii. 6). Proselytes also would come from other 
lands to .settle in Jerusalem. In this way some 
know ledge of (Jreek may l>e presumed to have been 
dillused in .)ud;ea as well. In Jn 12-'"''- we hear 
of Greeks ("EWtj^js, i.e. either Jews of the Dia- 
spora [?] or proselytes) who asked Philip to intro- 
duce them to Jesus— a circumstance which implies 
that this di.scijile at least understood Greek. That 
the same was the with Jesus Himself cannot be 

• As examples may be cited : K2~EK iT«^x*f. ■ ^3 (d*iAis, 

I'll.lJD nMfu<, tiySi) <c^,f, SlSinB T,:»r4«Xr, kS'B? ««TrA»t, 
•D'D T.ur., MCBSkCP xtLtm. AlTTfli, ['plJD T«.i#«Lif, '3*?3 3«a«>irit, 

[VI^D'1 Iruicitt. Less nunieroua are the Latin loan-»nnl». the 
majority of which, moreover, came in through the (ireek : <•.<;. 
•:C'P"^ droii/inni, .l]''?'B'pO"l ditciplinn. Ct. S KraiiM, 
Griechinchc niul Lnltiniichr Lthnvcirter im Talmtut, Uidtattlt 
uiut Tanjum, 1-i (ISOS-OO). 




proved with complete certainty from His conversa- 
tions witli Pilate, for tlie services of an interpreter 
may liave been utilized, although this is not ex- 
pressly mentioned in the narrative. We may 
compare the occasion when Josephus {BJ v. ix. 2) 
represents Titus as delivering an address to the 
people of Jerusalem, although we learn afterwards 
(V"l. ii. 5) that on such occasions he availed him- 
self of the help of Josephus as interpreter. From 
the last cited passage it is evident, at all events, 
that the mass of the people in the Jewish capital 
did not understand Greek.* 

iii. Political Constitution.— The Greek rule, 
under which the Jews were brought by Alexander 
the Great, did not in general press very heavily 
upon subject peoples, who were left in the enjoy- 
ment of no small measure of self-government. 
The foreign domination confined itself mainly to 
the taxation of the provinces. So liigh, however, 
were these taxes at times, and such was the 
rapacity of some of those entrusted with the col- 
lecting of them, that there was scope here for op- 
pression enough. In the Ptolemaic period Josephus 
(Ant. XII. iv. 3) tells us tliat the imposts were 
farmed out to the highest bidder, who could then 
claim military aid in recovering them. In the 
Seleucid period, on tlie other hand, the taxes were 
collected by officers of the king(l Mac 1-"). The 
internal administration, however, was in the hands 
of the native authorities, which meant for the Jews 
that henceforward, as before, they were governed 
by the high priest and the council associated with 
him {y(pov(Tla, Jos. Ant. XII. iii. 3).t This council 
was originally an assembly of the heads of families 
(Neh 5") ; but, after the high priest obtained the 
right of presiding over it, it came to be composed 
increasingly of members of the temple aristocracy 
(see art. Sanhedrin in vol. iv.). The succession 
of legitimate high priests (the ' anointed ' of Dn 
9^') was violently interrupted under Antiochus 
Epiphanes. But after the Hasmona>ans by tlieir 
valour and address had raised the Jewish people 
to the rank of a Power that had to be reckoned 
with politically, the Syrian king nominated Jona- 
than high priest, and thus ruler of the nation of 
the Jews. The grateful people afterwards handed 
over this dignity to the last of the Maccabee 
brothers as a hereditary prerogative : he was to 
take charge of the sanctuaiy, appoint the officials, 
etc., and in liis name all instruments were to be 
executed (1 Mac 14^'^). Through the conquests 
which tlie Hasmona'ans succeeded in making, the 
sphere of authoritj' of the high priests (or, as they 
soon came to call themselves, kings) and of the 
Sanhedrin was mateiially enlarged. An im- 
portant epoch for the internal administration was 
the reign of queen Alexandra, under whom the 
Pharisees sjicceeded in gaining a footing in the 
Sanhedrin and an influence upon the legislation. 

The independence of the country was brought 
to a sudden end by the conquests of Pompey. The 
Jews were henceforward under the Koman domi- 
nation. The extent of the land was materially 
diminished by Pompey's withdrawing the numer- 
ous Hellenistic cities from Jewish rule. On the 
other hand, he left to Hyrcanus, as high priest, a 
certain measure of political authority, so that the 
conditions were practically the same as those that 

• Cf. Schiirer, GJV^ ii. ISff., 68 ft.; Zahn, Einleit. ins A'T, i. 
1-61 ; Delitzsch, Saat auf Hajfimng, 1874, p. 185 ff.; Kautzsch, 
Gramm. des bibl. Aram. 4 ff . ; NeuKiuer, Studia Biblica, 0.\- 
ford, 1885, p. 39 ff.; Dalman, Gramm: des jiid.-pal. Aram. 
344 fl., Die Worte Jesu, i. 1 ff. , 63 ff. ; Bfichler, Z)w Priester uiid 
dtr Kultus, 1895, p. 61 ff. ; A. Meyer, Jesxt iluttersprache, 1896 ; 
T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the Original Texts of the Old 
and Xcw Testament, 1891, p. 129 ff. 

t Biichler (Die Tabiaden und Oniaden, 1899) and H. Wincklor 
(Oi-iriit. Ltzg. iii. 87 ff.) maintain that the pre-Macrabieaii hijjh 
priests had no political power ; but their arguments are artificial 
and not con\incin''. 

existed immediately before the war for freedom. 
But in the year 57 B.C. Gabinius deprived Hyrcanus 
of all political rule by dividing the whole country 
into five districts, wliose principal cities stood in 
direct subordination to the Komans (Jos. Ant. 
XIV. V. 4 ; B.T I. viii. 5). Ca;sar, however, in 47 
restored to Hyrcaniis his former power and gave 
him the title of ' etiinarch.' But the real ruler 
was not the weak Hyrcanus, but the crafty Idu- 
ma>an Antipater, who was made Procurator of 
Judita, and who succeeded in having his sons 
Phasael and Herod appointed stratcfjoi of Jeru- 
salem and Galilee. After the death of Antipater 
(B.C. 43), Antony named the two brotliers 
' tetrarchs,' a step whereby Hyrcanus was once 
more deprived of all secular power and l>ecame 
merely an ecclesiastical prince. The attack made 
by the Hasmonivan Antigonus, with the aid of the 
Parthians, cost HjTcanus and Phasael their offices, 
but Herod escajied to Rome, where he was nomi- 
nated king of the Jews. It was not until the year 
37 that he succeeded in conquering his kingdom, 
but from that date onwards he reigned undis- 
turbed till his death. His position was that of a 
rex sociiis. Such a king was entrusted with rule 
only personally : after his death it was left open 
to the Emperor to decide as to the future lot of 
the particular country. For tliis reason Herod 
required the permission of the Emperor to put his 
own son to death. Nor could a rex sociiis wage 
war on Ids own initiative or conclude treaties, ami, 
if the Romans were engaged in war, he had to 
furnish auxiliary troops. His right to coin money 
was restricted, and included only coins of small 
value. Otherwise he was an independent ruler, 
levied the various imposts of the country, was the 
supreme judge within his own land, and could 
execute capital sentences. Alongside of Herod 
there was still the Sanhedrin, but its authority 
was now, of course, very limited. The high priest 
was its president, but the setting up of an inde- 
pendent kingly authority had practically stripped 
this office of all significance. The higii priests 
were appointed and deposed by Herod in the most 
arbitrary fashion — a course of procedure quite con- 
trary to the Law, which intended this office to be 
held for life and to be hereditary. 

After the death of Herod, his kingdom was 
divided into three portions. Philip received, with 
the rank of tetrarch, the northern trans-Jordanic 
territory, over which he ruled till his death, in 
A.D. 37. Herod Antipas, likewise as tetrarch, 
had Galilee and Perrea assigned to him, but was 
deposed in 37. Archelaus had been destined to 
rule as tetrarch over Judaea and Samaria, but as 
early as tlie year 6 the Emperor deprived him of 
his land, which he united more closely with the 
Roman Empire. It was, however, subject only 
indirectly to the Imperial legate in Syria, having 
a governor of its own, a Roman Procurator (tir/- 
rpoTToj, riyefiuv) chosen from the knightly i>o<ly, 
who attended to the administration except when 
any very special necessity called for the action of 
the legate. The Procurator resided at Ca'sarea 
on the seacoast ; but on the occasion of the great 
festivals, when the mood of the people was always 
most turbulent, he came to Jerusalem, where lie 
took up his residence in the former palace of 
Herod on the west side of the city. The largest 
Roman garrison was stationed at Ca^sarea ; hut 
smaller bodies of troops were quartered in various 
towns throughout the land — amongst others in 
Jerusalem, where they had their barracks in the 
temple citadel of Antonia. The troops consisted 
entirely of non-Jews, the Jewish population being, 
it would appear, exempt from military service * 
The taxes were now assigned to the Imperal 
• Of. Schiirer. GJVii. 460. 




fi.s-nis, unci wore levied liy the I'roiuriitor, tlie 
lii;.'lKv<t liniiiK'ial otKciiil, who in this wurk availed 
liiiiiself of the aid of the various iommiini.t. The 
diitie-^, on the other haml, were fanned out at a 
fixed sum to private officials {pii/tlitiini).' lloth 
these ' puhlicaus' and their suliordinates were 
often of Jewish extraction (of. c.ij. Lk ISJ'"') ; on 
aooount of the inordinate ),'reed and dishonesty 
that frequently characterized them, they wore 
jiroatly liatetl and des|iised (' i)ulilioans and 
sinners,' Mt 9""- ft itt.]. Tlie taxation was 
prohalily oonnooted with the division of the 
oountrj' into eleven toparchies, each with its 
capital. The Honian ta.xation of Jnda-a after the 
deposition of Archclaus led also in the year 7 to 
the visit of the legate Quirinius, for the pur])(ise 
of havin;; the inhabitants assessed. t rinally, the 
Procurator was the lii(;hest judicial authority in 
the land, and had to attend to all ini|iortant l.iw- 
suits ; in particular, no capital sentence could he 
executed without beinj; confirmed by him. In 
such cases he had sometimes associated with liim 
a council made up of Honians (ai'n^o{i\ioii, Ac li")'-). 
In otiicr respects the country enjoyed the ri^'lit of 
sell-;;ovcrnment, which was exercised, as formerly, 
by tlie lii^'h priest and the Sanliedrin. Josephus 
(Ant. XX. 1(1) puts the matter very well when he 
says that the Jews, after they had had a monar- 
cliical, had now a^'ain an aristocratic constitution. 
But one essential and characteristic cban^'o was 
tl;:!t the hi;;h priest was now appointed by the 
Itomau Procurator. This condition of thing's 
underwent no interruption except when A^rippa 
I., under the title of kinj;, jiatliered the whole 
land for a short time (41-44) under his sway. 
During; this period the same arran^'ements were 
followed as under Herod the Great; tlie hi^'h jiriest, 
for instance, being appointed by the king. After 
Agripp.Vs death, not only Juda-a, bnt the whole 
country of the Jews (with the exception of the 
districts to the east of the Jordan ami in the 
north, which were a-ssigned to Agrippa ll.), came 
directly under the Uonian sway. The constitution 
was now quite the same as in .Indaa prior to 
Agripjia I., except that the Konians handed over 
the right of nominating the high priest liist to 
llerod of Chalcis (44-48) and then to Agrippa II. 
The regular order of things came to an end with 
the outbreak of the final war for freedom. The 
land was divided into various districts, each uiuler 
a ruler invested with dictatorial authority, lint 
this organiz.ition gave way before the advance of 
the Komans. The last high priest, I'hannias, was 
chosen by lot by the Zealots. He was a man of 
humble extraction, who had lived all his life in 
the country, so that he understooil nothing of the 
office (Jos. li.T IV. iii. 8). After the l''all of Jeru- 
salem, the relative independence of the Jews was 
gone for ever. The high priests disap|ieared .along 
with the temple, and the Sanliedrin along with 
them. Henceforward the cohesion of the Jews 
was dependent .s(dely upon spiritual factors 
which lent such invincible strength to the Jews of 
the Diaspora and had been the real life-principle 
even of the Palestinian Jews — the Law and the 
Mes.sianic hope. 

From the foregoing sketch it will be evident that 
the whole of the properly Jewish administration 
throughout the period in question was concentrated 
in the high priest and the Sanhetlrin (7tpoi><rJo, later 
avviSpioii, hence l"n.-i:o). The sway exercised by 
these authorities umlerwent change, however, in 
the course of time. It reached its culminating 
jMiint under the Hasmon:cans, when the high 
priest had become the ruler of an independent 

• C(. Schiircr. (iJV ii. 181 f. 

f Jos. Ant. xviii. i. L On Lk 21^ c(., above all, Sc-hiircr, 
I.C. i. scsff. 

EXTRA vol.. — 4 

St-ate. It was weakest under lIero<l, who left 
little room for other autliurities beside him (of. 
Jos. .-III/. XIV. ix. 4). Those periods during which 
the Jews were under foreign rulers marked the 
normal stage of the power of these institutions. 
Originally, the jurisdiction of the high priest and 
the Sanliedrin extended only to .ludaa. It was 
otherwise when the Hasinona'ans enlarged the 
boundaries of the country, ami it continued to 
be so during the following periods. llut ujion 
the partition of the land after the death of Herod, 
Judx'a became once more the sphere of juriMlic- 
tion, the Samaritans being, of course, subject only 
to the Romans and not to the Jews, while in the 
other jiarts of the country the tetrarchs were tlie 
judicial heads (cf. Jos. Ant. XVIII. iv. Ij, and the 
expression i-rrl ■fiye/j.ifo.t Kai f3a<Ti\(U in Mt 10"). 

As to the functions of the Snnhi/rin, there are a 
number of allusions which enable us to form a 
pretty clear conception. In conjunction with the 
iiigli i)riest it was the representative of the nation 
to foreign nations and princes (1 .Mac 11'^ Vi' 13^). 
It decided on measures for the fortification and 
defence of the land (1 .Mac 12"; Jos. liJ IV. iv. 3 ; 
cf. .)th 4"). It granted dispensation in the matter 
of the sacred dues (Jth ll"), and made arrange- 
ments for the organizjition of the personnel of the 
temple (Jos. Ant. XX. ix. 6). But, above all, it 
was the supreme court of justice, all important lieing brought before it, and tlie decision 
lying with it when the inferior courts were not 
agreed (cf. Mt 5-, Ac 4" 5-' 0'= 2i^, and the 
story of the Passion). In the earlier jieriod no 
sentence of death <wild be carried out without 
the a))proval of the Sanliedrin (Jos. Ant. XI v. v. 
3); but Herod, in order to make the Sanliedrin 
more |ilialile to his will, caused a number of its 
members to be put to death (ih. xiv. v. 4); and 
when at a later period he aiipealed to this court, 
his action would appear to nave been more pro 
fiirnia (ih. XV. vi. 2). Under the direct rule of the 
Itomans, the Sanliedrin lost, as was noted above, 
the right of condemning to death (Jn 18^' ; cf. Jos. 
Ant. XX. ix. 1, and Jems. Smi/iri/rin i. 1). As 
long as the Jewish Slate suh-i-fd, the head of 
the Sanliedrin was the lii;:li jii.^t. This is clear 
from the concurrent tcstiiiiuijics of the NT and 
Jo.seplius. The statements of the Talmud on this 
subject are based upon later theories, and i-annot 
be brought either in whole or in part into har- 
mony with the reality. Thus the high jiriest 
had, at all times, a certain juridical and also 
political authority in addition to the functions 
lie exercised in connexion with the cultus. Even 
in later times the meniljers of the Sanliedrin were 
chosen by jireferenoe from the leiuling priestly 
families, a special fondness being shown for those 
who had held the olfice of high priest. But, as 
has already been said, the Pharisees succeeded, 
under queen .Vlexandra, in making their way into 
the Sanliedrin, and in maintaining their position 
there, a minority though they weio, in the times 
that followed. 

iv. Sc)ci.\L Conditions. —The principal occupa- 
tion of the Jews in the time of Christ, as in the 
earlier periotls, was nfirir.ultiirc, with which cattle- 
breeding was generally combined. The Letter of 
-Vristeas (l(l7 ft'.) proi>erly empha.sizcs the fact that 
in Palestine the right relation was established 
between town and i-oiintry. the lan<l lieing fertile, 
yet in need of ililigent <ulture, and tlius requiring 
a dense population settled upon it, so that the 
great cities did not flourish here, as el.HewIierc, at 
the expense of the country |Kp)iuhit:on. 'The 
land,' .says the author, 'is thiikly planted with 
olives, covered with fields of giiiin and legumincuiH 
|ilants, rich in wine and honey ; the otiier fruits 
and the dates cannot l>e numbered, while cuttle of 



all kinds are there in abundance, as well as rich 
pasture land for them.' Especially fruitful was 
Galilee, where Jesus spent most of His life, and 
'from wliich He borrowed the numerous country 
scenes that we encounter in His parables. A 
great many people found employment on the larger 
estates, there being numerous servants, maids, and 
officials of all kinds attaclied to the service of a 
single house (ef. Lk 12-'2 W).* Fishinr/ was a 
leading occupation in Galilee, being prosecuted in 
the teeming waters of the Lake of Gennesareth. 
We find allusions to this both in the Gospel 
narratives and in the words of Jesus (Mt IS'""'-, 
Lk 5'" ; cf. also the reference in Mt 7"'- to bread 
and Jish, corresponding to bread and Jlesh else- 
where). After the Jews, under the Hasmonoeans, 
gained access to the sea, they began to prosecute 
fishing in it as well. A variety of preparations 
were made from the fish that were caught, and 
these again played their part as articles of com- 
merce.t See, further, art. Fishing in vol. ii. 
Hunting is said in the Talmud to have been 
prosecuted by some for a livelihood ; the abund- 
ance of game in Palestine is shown by the history 
of Herod, who was an enthusiastic sportsman. J 

An important source of income in post-exilic 
times was that derived from the work of the dif- 
ferent ai-tistnu. Of the industry of some (builders, 
engravers, smiths, potters) we have a graphic 
picture in Sir 38 ; that of others is illustrated by 
the Talniudic writing3.§ Ben Sira recognizes tlieir 
importance (without them is no city built, and if 
they sojourn in a strange land, they need not 
hunger), but he considers them e.xcluded from all 
liigher spheres of activity, such, for instance, as 
the public service (v.^^'-). The later scribes held a 
sounder opinion on this subject, many of them, 
indeed, supporting tliemselves by manual labour. II 
Commerce took !i great stride in the Greek 
period. Particularly after the Jews came into 
possession of Joppa and other seaport towns, tliey 
began to imitate zealously the example of tlieir 
bretliren of the Diaspora, and to take their share 
in tlie trade of the world. Palestine was favour- 
ably situated in this respect. Ancient caravan 
roads led through Galilee and Samaria to the 
coast, where the wares were shipped ; Arab cara- 
vans brought the treasures of S. Arabia to the 
southern part of the land, from which they could 
in like manner be exported to the West. See, 
further, art. Ro.\us AND Travel (in OT), below, 
p. 3()9f. The products of the fertile land, such 
as oil, grain, wine, flax, formed articles of export, 
which were exclianged for the products of Egypt 
and the Mediterranean lands. The Jews began to 
undertake long journeys by sea in order to enter 
into commercial relations with foreigners (Ps lOT^"", 
Pr 7'*'-, Sir 43-*). In Palestine there were both 
merchant princes and petty traders (Sir 26^). The 
connexion between home-born and foreign Jews 
led also to a commencement being made in Pales- 
tine with those financial transactions for which the 
Jews of the Diaspora had developed such a turn, 
having found in Babylon an excellent training 
school.lF Since such a condition of things was quite 
unknown to the traditional Law, and its enact- 
* Cf., further, Vogelstein, Die Landwirtscfia/t in Palustina, 
t Herzfeld, Haniidsgesch. 105 f. 
t Jb. 103. Cf. also art. HuxTlso in vol. ii. 
§ Delitzsch, Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jcgii., 1875 : Rieger, 
Versuch einer Teehnolo^ie und Tcnainologie der Uandwerht: in 
der Mischiia, 1S94. 

N The characteristic saying of Simon b. Zoma, that when he 
looked on the crowd of iiumanity he felt impelled to thank God 
becaii-*e He had formed them all to serve Him ((.<-. to execute 
all His purposes), has reference not to the favoured body of 
the Wise, but to the division of labour amongst men (Jerus. 
Bcrakho'h 13a). 

K It is very significant that To 1^3 represents Achiacharus as 
' purveyor ' ioi.yopa.irT.,-') of a foreign king. 

ments were felt to be hampering, Hillel devised 
the so-called ' jn-osboU-vaXe. whereby the legal 
prescription as to the cancelling of all debts e» ery 
seven years was practically annulled (see, on this 
and on the Deuteronomic regulations as to the 
remission or suspension of debts, Driver, Deitt. 
178 ff.). The method of taking security was regu- 
lated very precisely, as the Talniudic writings 
show (cf. the Lexicons, s.v. nmns). There were 
forms in which the names had merely to be 
inserted. According to Josephus (BJ II. xvii. 6), 
the bonds signed by debtors were kept in the 
public archives. As to the estimation in which 
mercantile occupations were held, Ben Sira speaks 
as disparagingly as he does of artisans. But 
at a later period things were otherwise, and 
both priests and teachers of the Law engaged in 
trade. For instance, Josephus (Ant. XX. ix. 2) 
tells us that the high priest Ananias was a great 
man of business; cf. Tos. Tin'imuth, where we 
read of the shop of a priest. We may also recall 
in this connexion the parables which Jesus borrows 
from commercial life (e.g. Mt 13*"-) The Essenes 
alone abjured on principle all contact with trade. 
See, further, art. Teade in vol. iv. The increas- 
ing intercourse for trade purposes led, moreover, 
to'^other branches of industry. Thus inn.^ sprang 
up along the much frequented roads, where the 
hosts had their charges for attending to travellers 
(cf. Lk 10^'-). The ' publicans ' alM>, to whom the 
taxes were farmed out by the Itomans or the 
native princes, were indebted to the growing com- 
mercial intercourse for their livelihood and lor the 
wealth which they so often acquired. 

How far the civil officials— the military do not 
come into consideration for reasons indicated above 
— received payment cannot be made out with cer- 
tainty. In many cases their office maybe assumed to 
have been an honorary one. This would be the case, 
for instance, with the elders of the comnmnity, 
the judges, the members of the Sanhedrin, etc. 
But, upon the generally accepted principle that the 
labourer is worthy of his hire,* it may probably 
be inferred that, if not the rulers of the synagogue 
.and the collectors of alms (npia -kij), yet at least 
the synagogue attendants (nD::n ':Tn) had a salary. 
The same would probably hold good of the ntmier- 
ous officials attached to the court, who would be 
paid by the king. When we pass to the case of 
the priests and temple officials, we have precise 
information to go upon. The incomes of these 
were very consideraljle, and they increased with 
the increasing population and the growing wealth. 
The Lcvites were entitled to a tenth of the whole 
iiroduce of the land, and had then to hand over a 
tenth of this to the priests (Nu 18'-^'-)- Otlier 
dues besides, of all kinds and in some instances 
very considerable in amount, fell to the juicsts. 
In peaceful times all this was exactly regulatcil ; 
for what Josephus (Ant. XX. viii. 8) relates ol the 
high priests, that they sent their servants to the 
threshing-floors to seize the portion of the grain 
due to the priests, belongs to the latest period in 
the history of the Jewish State, when all legal 
relations were dissolved. Admittance to the 
priestliood or to the Levitical body was open to 
none but those who belonged to tlie tribe of Levi, 
and the members of the pri\ ileged caste w atchcd 
over their prerogative with the utmost vigilance. 
Not only the priests in Palestine, but even the 
members of priestly families who lived in foreign 
lands, drew up exact genealogies whose correctness 
was examined at Jerusalem (Jos. Vita,\; c.Apion. 
i. 7). In the matter of the revenues, however, 
account had to be taken merely of the priests who 

* lit 1010, 1 Co O'lf-. A man engaged to accompany one on a 
journev received, according to To .lis, not only traielling ex. 
penses'but wages, and a present after the journey was enacd. 




lived ill the Holy Laiul, who were diviileil into 
twenty-four chisses, of whieli e;uh hail to olliiiiite 
for a single weeli, but as a rule only twice a year, 
t^iiite a number of priests lived constantly in 
Jerusalem, but there were also some who had their 
home in other towns of Juda'a, or even in Calilee. 
Ad'ording to the calculations, somewhat doubtful, 
indeed, of l!u< lilcr (Die Pricstcr unil dcr Ktiltits 
iiit lilzttn Jiihiichntc des Jertts. Teitipcls, 48 H'.), 
the total number of priests in the last days of 
.lewisli historj" amounted to about 2U,000, of whom 
some oUtUt lived in Jerusalem. 

Of payment of tcinhcrs there is no mention. 
According' to Shubb'tth i. 3, it was the syna;,'<ij;ue 
attendants that f;ave elementary instruction to 
children on the Sabbath. These would receive 
at most a .salary for attendinj; to their duties in 
general. In any case, the teachers of tlie Law 
and the scribes diil not live by their work of teach- 
ing ; on the contrary, if they were without means, 
they pursued some handicraft, or even engaged in 
trade, in order to gain a livelihood. — That physi- 
cians received a fee when their services were over 
is iilain from such passages as Sir 38-, and Midrash 
'Hkhd on La 1*. 

The class of free citizens included also the day- 
labourers, who owned no lanil, and had no (i.\ed 
eniplojinent, but hired out their labour daily (cf. 
the picturesque descrijitiun in the parable of Mt 
2U"f). When, not long before the outbreak of the 
war for freedom, the temple was at last linished, 
Joseiihus (Ant. XX. i.\. 7) tells us that more than 
18,UU0 lalumrers were thrown out of work, tliat it 
was resolved to utilize the treasure of the temide 
in order to procure eiiiploynient for them, and that 
they received their wages even if they had w rouglit 
onlv a single hour. See also art. Waues, below, 
p. 3o8. 

tiiiite different was the standing of the slaves 
proper, who enjoyed no personal freedom. Even 
Jews might fall into this condition, if, for instance, 
they (■(.uld not pay their debts (cf. Mt 18^), or had 
been guilty of tin tt. The Law, however, contained 
a series of enactiiients (see full discus.-^ioii of these 
in Driver, JJciit. ISlll. ) by which the slavery of 
a Jew had a time limit imposed upon it. IJy 
means of the couibining method of exegesis, this 
period was shortened still more, namely when the 
year of Jubilee liapi)ened to fall within the six 
years' period of service.* But, as the year of 
Jubilee was not really observed, this enactment 
could have no practical consenuenee. Vn the 
other hand, the later teachers or the Law laid it 
down that a Jewish girl was to .serve as a slave 
only till she reached the age of puljerty.t It may 
further be assiiiiieil that, as the prosperity of the 
peojde increased, such cases would always be more 
rare, and that poor Jews would be sjived from 
this fate by the ready benevolence of the i)eo[ile, 
coupled with the organized methods for the relief 
of the poor (the lliiid tenth every three years, and 
the collecting of alms in the .synagogues). The 
majority of slaves were, accordingly, without 
doubt, foreigners acquired by purchase. J See, 
further, art. Sekvaxt in vol. iv. 

When we compare the condition of the Jews 
immediately after the Exile with that which jire- 
vailed in the time of Christ, a very important 
dillcrence, as was above remarked, present--* itself. 
Instead of the small, iiovcrty-slricken population 
of Nehemiah's daj-, we see a numerous peojile, 
which with energy and industry can turn to good 
account the many sources of wealth that abound 

• Jos. An>. IV. viii. 28 ; cl. SaalschUU, Motaitchea Ji.cht, 713. 

t Saalwhutz. I.e. 817. 

J Wlih tliesL- foreign slaves they hod generally, acconlinjr to 
the Taliiuul. a ^reat (leal of trouMe : of. Zailuk Kahn, LfKclar. 
one srloii la lUlilr et (t Talmud, ISli", p. 1T3 f. For an earlier 
period, cf. Sir -JX"": 

ill their land. In spite of their longing for Me^i- 
anic times, in sjiile of the unreality of their worM 
of ideas, they ilisplayed in real life much adroit- 
ness and a remarkable turn for business, so that 
their position had come to be one of great iiiuterial 
well-being. The clearest evidence of their extra- 
ordinary energy is allorded by the circumstance 
that, although they were very heavily burdened 
with taxes, they were not reducc<l t« poverty, but 
on the contrary continued to increitse in wealth. 
The dues they bad to pay were partly sacre<l and 
partly secular. The former were bii-sed upon the 
enactments of the Priests' Code (esp. Lv •J' o'"-" 
[Heb. »•"] T*"-", Nu 18»=»), with which certain 
prescriptions from Ueuteronomj- (14-"^ 18'")* were 
combined. The principal due w as the Levitcs' tenth 
of all the produce of the soil, in the paying of 
which the most painful exactness was shown by 
strict Jews (cf. Mt'23^). liut before the tithing 
of the proiluce of the soil there was a twofold due 
deducted: the first - fruits of the 'seven kinds' 
(see Scliiirer, GJV^ ii. 240), viz. barley, wheat, 
grapes, tigs, pomegranates, olives, and honey ; and 
the ti'niiiHl, which was not exactly nieiusured, but 
wius understood to be the liftieth part (.see Scliiirer, 
l.r. '249 f.) of all the fruit of Hehl and tree. From 
the products which were then tithed there was 
taken (in aildition to the tenth part paid to the 
(priestly trilic) a sceond tenth, t which, however, 
was cUstiiic<l, along with the tenth of cattle 
(Lv 27^-'), for sacrilicial feasts. l!ut every three 
years a third tenth (the -JV li-'V^, the ' iKiiir-tithe,' 
according to the Uabb. interpretation of Dt 14'-=''- ; 
but see Driver, I.e. 170 n.) was deducted for the 
benelit of the poor. Further, the firstlings of all 
animals that might be ollered in saerilice were 
claimed as a due, w liile a sum of money had to be 
paid for lirstborn children and the lirstlings of 
unclean animals (Nu 18'°"); not to speak of a 
lirstlings' cake (the hulld) of coarse tlour (Nu 
15-"'-, cf. Ko U'"), ami a part of the wool at the 
lirst shearing (I)t IS''). Lastly, there were various 
Occasional ollerings that requireil to be brought. 
The annual lempie poll-tax (Ex 30'*'-, Mt 17^), on 
the other hand, was not high (half a shekel for 
every adult male), and could not be felt except by 
the very poorest. See more fully, on the subject 
of this paragraph, Schurer, GJV^n. 243-2U2 {11 J P 
II. i. 230-2.-.4]. 

In addition to these very consiilerable diie.s.J 
theie were the secular taxes. After the Jews 
were freed from the Greek domination, which, 
from a financial point of view, was very burden- 
some, requiring a third part of grain and half the 
produce of fruit trees to be paid, the taxes pa.sseU 
to the Ilasnionieans.§ When Herod afterwards 
became king, he obtained command of all the 
secular taxes of the country. According to Jos- 
eplius (.1)1/. XV. ix. 1), these consisted mainly in 
the rendering of a certain proportion of the jiro- 
diice of the land, besides which the king levied a 
market toll on all that .sold in Jerusulein (i6. 
XVII. viii. 4). Herod's whole revenue, according 
to Atit. XVH. xi. 4 (with wliicli, indeed, hJ II. 
vi. 3 does not agree), amounted to more than 
l!00 talents ( = £309,000) a year. The Jews com- 
plained bitterly of the amount of the taxes laid 

• On the irreconcilable conflict lietwecn tlitae code« in certain 
iparliculars, sec liriver, Deut. li Uf., ilsd. 

t Followintc the Itabh. interureWtion of Pt 14'^S'', which 
held the titne here |trescriU-a to he diHlinct from, and in 
addition lo, the tithe of Nu Is-' '* ; but ne'e I>riior, I.e. 1001.; 
.Schurer, I.e. 24U ; and art. TiTilr in vol. iv. p. 7ai. 

1 In the Sabttatical veant all ilues haMiMt upon the produiw of 
the Hoil would of courw: be dinpentted with (cf. Jos. Ant. xvil. 
xi. «). 

} Kegardini; their Bvslem of taxint; we know nothinif except 
the lew details contained in Josiplius (.Inf. xvn. x. 0; cf. 
Schurer, lUV'X. 34.'.). The jHciple fell Hie l.-i\ation of llemd 
to be heavy in comiiariH^n with what had gone U-forv (Joa. ib. 


jStew testament times 


upon them, and alleged that it was only by bribing 
the king himself and his tax-collectors that it was 
possible to save oneself from injustice (Ant. XVII. 
xi. 2, cf. viii. 4). But of course we are not to lend 
too much credit to these complaints, especially as 
we learn that, after the great famine, Herod 
voluntarily granted the people remission of a third 
of the taxes (Ant. XV. x. 4). Herod's successors 
no doubt organized the matter of taxation upon 
the same lines as himself. Herod Antipas, who 
derived from his territories an annual revenue of 
200 talents, had customs officials stationed on the 
frontiers (Mt 9"), to levy duties on imports and 
possibly also on exports. Agrippa, too, who for 
a short time had the whole land under his sway, 
would probably utilize the system of his prede- 
cessor. But during his reign not only was the 
market toll at Jerusalem abolished (see below), 
but the king, who was anxious to gain the affec- 
tions of the Jews, remitted also the duty upon the 
houses of the capital {Ant. XIX. vi. 3). During 
the period that intervened between the deposition 
of Archelaiis and the accession of Agripjja I., 
Judtea, * and, after Agrippa's death, the whole 
country, was taxed by the Romans, and the 
revenues passed into the Imperial fscus (cf. Mt 
22='). The taxes proper were levied by the Pro- 
curator, the commercial imposts were farmed out 
to private (iltii'ials. The taxes consisted partly of 
a pr()i«irtiiin of the produce of the soil, which was 
paid cither in kind or in money, but they included 
also a poll-tax, Mhirli was levied even on women 
and slaves. t Vitellius remitted to the Jews the 
market toll that had to be paid at Jerusalem (ylni. 
XVIII. iv. 3) ; but in spite of this the taxes were 
very high, and were felt by the people to be ex- 
tremely oppressive (Tac. Ann. ii. 42). 

Taking all these dues together, we see that the 
material resources of this little nation were drawn 
njion to an extraordinary degree, and that none 
but a very energetic and temperately living people 
could have borne such burdens, and upon the 
whole even prospered under them. From the 
social point of view, the Jews must be reckoned 
among the more fortunate nations. As Jong as 
the foreign yoke was not too heavy and their 
religi(nis susceptibilities were not ofiended, there 
prevailed amongst them a considerable degree of 
contentment and a healthy enjoyment of life (Sir 
14"- '■■), which at times might rise to hearty re- 
joicing, as we see, for instance, in the Song of 
Songs and the noisy celebration of the Feast of 
Tabernacles. No doubt there were social extremes, 
the one of wealth and luxury, the other of grinding 
poverty (cf. the parable of Dives and Lazarus), 
but the majority belonn-ed to neither of these 
classes, and in peaceful times led a temperate and 
generally contented life. 

V. Parties. — If the Jewish people was thus free 
from sharp social contrasts, there were opposing 
elements of another kind amongst them, which 
consumed their strength in the most dangerous 
fashion, and whose conHicts are the moving factors 
of the whole post-exilic history, until at last they 
brought about the destruction of the nation. The 
essential principle of this opposition is of a religious 
character, social and political principles play only 
a sul)ordinate role in it. 

What in preexilic times had been the wealthy nobility, beeame after the Exile the temple 
aristocracy : a privileged class to which a number 
of quite diverse circumstances gave a marked 
superiority. We have seen how, in consequence 
of the growing prosperity of the nation, the priests 

* The Samaritans, who also came under the Roman sway, 
were relieved, accorriinj; to Aut. xvii. xi. 4, of a third of the 
taxes, be<"ause thev had taken no part in the revolt. 

t Cf., further, Schiirer, GJV^ i. 511. 

necessarily came into the possession of great wealth. 
At the same time the condition of things involved 
the passing of the relics of independence whicli 
were left to the Jews, into the hands of the high 
priest and his priestly coadjutors. In this way 
they were brought to interest themselves in actual 
politics, and thus were gradually forced into 
opposition to the strict party, whose ideal was 
complete political passivity and a confident ex- 
pectation of Divine intervention. There were thus 
developed opposite religious principles, which by 
constant friction were always brought into sharper 
contrast. The ' pious ' could not avoid looking 
upon their opponents with the same eyes as those 
with which the prophets had regarded the secular 
nobility of their day. The rich aristocracy were 
thought of as the ungodly, who believed not in 
God's help but in jiolitieal devices often of a 
desperate nature ; they were the unrighteous, who 
used their wealth and their influence witli foreign 
nations to inflict all kinds of damage upon theii 
opponents, the strict party. At the same time it 
would be a serious misunderstanding to reduce 
this opposition to a mechanical system, and to 
suppose, for instance, that all the priests belonged 
to the broader party. That there were even high 
priests who sympathized with the stricter tendency 
is sufficiently proved by the instance of Simon the 
Just, whose memory is still glorified in the later 
Pharisaic literature ; and among the ordinary 
priests there were many who belonged to the 
'pious.' Jewish history shows .also that, among 
the priests who politically occupied the standpoint 
of the secular school, there Avere earnest men who 
were prepared to lose their life rather than neglect 
the duties assigned to them in connexion with the 
cultus (Jos. Ant. XIV. iv. 3). It would be equally 
wrong tio suppose that the strict party represented 
an opposition to the temple cultus because this was 
in the hands of the temple aristocracy. That it 
was not so may be shown from the way in which 
Ben Sira, who himself belonged to the stricter 
school, exhorts his readers to honour the priests 
and to pay them their appointed dues (Sir T-""*-). 
The correct view is simply that in the ranks of the 
temple aristocracy there was a party prepared to 
sacrifice the sacred uniqueness of Israel for the 
.sake of worldly advantages, and that this disposi- 
tion was so strongly developed that its representa- 
tives could not but appear to the strict school in 
the light of apostates. 

The name under which in later times the ad- 
herents of the secular party meet us is Srnlducecs, 
properly members of the Jerusalem priesthood 
(from Zaduh, I K 1*, Ezk 40^'^). In opposition to 
them the Pharisees stand for the most uncompro- 
mising representatives of the stricter tendency. 
The name means properly ' those who separnte 
themselves,' who keep at a distance from the 
ordinary unclean life and from all unclean jfcr- 
sons (in contrast to the am ha-arez, the common 
people, who were indifferent in matters of Levitical 
imrity, etc.). 

It was the elevation of the Maccabees that was 
responsible for the above-described opposition be- 
coming a chronic malady. The Maccabees were 
originally allies of the stricter school, but, .'.fter 
they attained to the supreme power, they slipped 
over to the views of the temple aristocracy and 
thus came into conflict with the Pharisees. Above 
all, it was repugnant to the strict party that the 
Hasmon.eans should confuse and corrupt the 
Messianic hopes. It is evident from the so-called 
First Book of Maccabees that the adherents of 
the Hasmona'an princes believed that these hopes 
had found a fulfilment in the persons of the latter. 
After they had conquered the whole land and 
assumed the royal title, it did indeed look as if 




the old Diiviilic kinj^dom liad buen raised up once 
more. Tlie eondeiun^oii of tlii.s deseerat>on of 
t'.ie. Davidie tliioiie mid tlie siicied lio|)e» meets us 
ill the Psalms of Solomon (IT'"') ami in a i)assa;;e 
in the Uook of Kiioch ulis. '.MH. ); of. also Assuiii]). 
Mos. O'"'. The overthrow of tlie Maeoahiean house 
cleared the air. The Sadducees were comiiletcly 
subjected uiuler Heioil, and had lost all inlbnnie. 
Umler the Koiiian domination, the hi;;h i>rie>-t, and 
with him the Sadducees, re^'ained {greater jHilitical 
iiniiortiime (see above, p. 48), but they no lonf,'er 
playid the jirincipal part. When the war for free- 
dom broke out, they sought at first to stille the 
movement, and then, when tliey failed in this, to 
{;iiide it. liut the waves now ran so liijjli that 
they quickly Bweiit away this time-worn and en- 
feebled party. See, further, art. Saudccees in 
vol. iv. 

The development of P/tarisaism was very materi- 
ally shaped by the Maccaba-aii period. Ojiposition 
to the Hasnioiucaiis brought out its onesided 
tendencies to the full, especially when, under 
Alexander .Iaiin:eus, tilings went so far as a civil 
war, in w liicli the Pharisees were at lirst victori- 
ous, but afterwards beaten and cruelly punished. 
But it wa-" a momentous circumstance that im- 
mediately thereafter, under queen .Vle.xandra, they 
gained jjolitical power. They forced their way into 
the Sanhcdrin, carried a number of their laws, .and 
thus tasted tlie sweets of rule. Thereby their 
less estimable qualities were developed, and there 
arose among them those Pharisees with whom we 
make acquaintance in the Go.spels. With them 
the external flourished at the expense of the in- 
ternal ; beneath their numerous religious exerci-ses, 
such as fasting, ablutions, prayer, almsgiving, 
there was often concealed an impure, ambitious, 
haughty disposition, whose end and aim was to 
lord it over the crowd. Their renuncuation of all 
interest in foreign politics was abundantly com- 
pensated by the inttuouce they exercised over the 
iicople — an inlluence to which even the Sadducees 
iiad to bend (Jos. Anl. XVIII. i. 4). It may be 
added that it is not only the New Testiiment that 
desiribes the Pharisees in this way. The Assump- 
tion of Moses contains a passage (T'"-) of precisely 
similar inijiort, which also refers without doubt to 
the Pharisees.* Of course there were exceptions 
among them, as we learn even from the New 
Testament; and the P.salins of Solomon, which 
emanated from Pharisaic circles, still contain 
much of the pure and noble piety which we 
encounter in the canonical Psalms. See, further, 
art. Ph.miiseks in vol. iii. 

While the sharp opposition between the .Saddu- 
cees and the Pharisees receded somewhat after the 
overthrow of the Hasinoniians, there grew up 
within I'harisaism itsill op]io>ing influences, which 
were destined to be still more dangerous to the life 
of (he [iiMiple. Although the Pharisees otherwise 
were idi-milicil with the quiet and jiassive waiting 
for the time of the .Mes>iah, the enrolment of the 
Jewish people by (juirinius (see above, p. 49") gave 
birth to a new jiarty, which in other respects 
agreed with the Pharisees, but regarded the 
struggle for freedom and the casting-oH' of the 
Konian yoke as a .sacred duty. The founders of 
this party of Zealots ("K:p) were a man of Galilee, 
named Judas, and a Pharisee, Sadiluk (cf. .los. 
A)tt. XVIII. i. 4). From the ranks of these jiatriots 
there came, during the last decades before the war 
for freedom, the utterly ruthless Hirarii, who, 
armed with a short dagger {sica), mingled with the 
crowd, especially on the {jreat feast days, and 
selected their victims alike from among foreigners 

and from their fellow-countrymen (.los. Ant. XX. 
viii. 10; li.f II. xvii. ti, etc.; Ac 21*'). .\gainst 
wild oUshoots like these the more sobcr-mindetl 
of the Pharisees came forward, and were thus at 
times leil to go hand in hand w itli the Sadducees. 

The theological i)oints of dillcrence between the 
Saililucees ami the I'harisees, uiMin which Josephu.s 
lays so much stress, are merely particular illustra- 
tions of the alHjvc-deserilMMl deeper contrasts. The 
spiritual development which had taken place in 
the stricter circles since the time of .Vntiochiu 
Epiphanes, and the new conceptions which had 
been thus reached, were not shared by the Saddu- 
cees, who held con.servativelv to ancient tradition. 
Hence they rejected and ridiculol the doctrine of 
a resurrection — a circumstance from which wo 
may infer that tliey did not accept the Itook of 
Daniel.* In general, the present |) more 
signilicance for them than the hope of Israel, 
which was the life-prineiide of the stricter party. 
.Similar was the state of tilings with their rejection 
of the belief in si>irits and angels. In the circles 
of the 'pious' there had also been a very pro- 
nounced development of the notions regarding 
these, which had its roots, indeed, in the earlier 
or writings, but yet was so peculiarly inlluenced, 
[lartly by foreign conceptions, that strict conser- 
vatives were bound to reject it, especially if, like 
the Sadducees, they had positivist tendencies. 
When the S.adducees, again, laid stress upon the 
freedom of the will, this was connected with their 
political leanings as above described : in their 
polemic they would have in view not only the 
l>assivity of the ' pious,' but also the growing 
disposition to transfer the real sphere of history 
to the angel-world, and to convert history into a 
contlict between good and evil spirits, of which 
human history was only a reflexion. As to legal 
enactments, the Sadducees held strictly to the 
I,aw, and rejected the oral Torah of the I'hari.sees. 
It is, no doubt, also in this connexion that the 
controverted jioints mentioned in the Jewish litera- 
ture come in, but these give no clear picture of the 
root-principle of the opposition. 

The third, ' philosopliieal,' party, mentioned by 
Josephus generally along with the Pharisees and 
the Sadducees, namely the Usscncs, belonijed to an 
entirely dilierent world. This was a small a.scetic 
sect, ]iermeated with mysticism, and holding some 
extremely strange notions, the origin of which is 
.still an unsolved problem. Prom a social point of 
view, the community of goo<is was the most char- 
acteristic feature of their organization. They 
eniployeil themselves in agriculture ami various 
handicrafts, but would have abs<dutely nothing 
to do with commerce. At the majority of 
them renounced marriage. They acknowledged 
the temple, and sent votive gifts to it, but re- 
jected entirely animal sacrifice. They held the 
Law in very high esteem. They believed in the 
immortality of the soul, but did not te.acli the re- 
surrection of the body, liecause they regarded 
connexion with the body as a species of bondage 
for the soul. The doctrine of angels played a 
great part in their system. Among their many 
peculiar customs, those which express a veneration 
lor the sun are the most notable, because they 
show most clearly that we cannot completely 
account for this sect from Judaism it.self. What 
is genuinely Jewish in their opinions and customs 
comes nearest to Pharisaism, but the dillcrences 
are too great for Esseiiism to lie set down as a 
degenerate ollshoot from it. This small, peaceful 
body never probably had very much weight. See, 
further, art. EssK.VK.s in vol. i. 

• C(. Mt HP'. On tlie iiupntion to what ostent the Sartilu 

ren rccojniz'vl the Torah alnii' .^1 Holy .Siri|itiiro, a* xiieral ol 

the Churcli Kathc 

Tl. see .S.hurcr, aji » ii. 411 B. 




vi. Education and Culture. — Regarding the 
education of Jewish children we have only scanty 
information. According to the Bab. Talmud 
(Bdba bathra, IXa), Joshua b. Gamaliel (probably 
the high priest who held office A.D. G3-65) ap- 
pointed teachers for boys in every province and 
every city, and children were brought to these 
when they were six or seven years of age. Ac- 
cording to Shabbath i. 3, the synagogue attendant 
(hazzdn) was required on Sabbath to teach children 
to read. Josephus (c. Apion. i. 12) and Philo (ed. 
Mangey, ii. 577) speak as if it was customary for 
the Jews, even as children, to learn the Law. 
But this can refer only to the circle of the scribes 
and the educated classes, and not to the m.ass of the 
people. For if children learned in the boys' school 
to read the Law, and if this accomplish nient was 
general, it would have been superfluous to have 
the Hebrew text translated into Aramaic at the 
synagogue service (see above, p. 47"). The latter 
custom was manifestly due to the circumstance 
that the common people no longer understood 
Hebrew. When, therefore, Jesus, the carpenter's 
son (Mt 13^), was able to read and expound the 
Bible text (Lk 4'™), this would naturally strike 
the people as something unusual and excite their 
wonder. But it is impossible to decide with cer- 
tainty how large the circles were that possessed 
rolls of the Law (1 Mac !'■"''■). As little are we 
informed as to the number that were able to write, 
although it is evident that the growth of com- 
merce and the increasing pursuit of a business life 
must have contributed largely to the spread of 
this accomplishment (Lk 16^). There is no mention 
of any regular instruction of girls, a branch of 
education which was not enjoincil in the Law.* 

The higher education consisted in the stricter 
circles of a deeper study of the Law, especially the 
special enactments that had ' been trans- 
mitted. The student selected some eminent legal 
expert as his teac'.ier. Thus, for instance, the two 
famous exegetes Judas and Matthias were verj' 
popular teachers of youth at the time of Herod 
the Great (Jos. Ayit. xvn. vi. 2) ; the disciples of 
Hillel and Shammai formed two well - delined 
schools of interpreters of the Law. St. Vaul 
studied at Jerusalem under Gamaliel (Ac 22'), etc. 
After his course of instruction was complete, the 
discijile was reckoned among the Wise (D'pan), 
as opposed to the unleai-ned (nV-in, i.e. the Gr. 
/5iuT7)s).t Yet the detailed statements contained 
in the Talmudic writings as to the instruction in 
these higher schools (an cri "ns), and as to the 
oi'ganization of teachers and pupils, are not to be 
transferred simplkitcr to the time of Christ, for 
without doubt the conditions subsequent to the 
destruction of the State must have influenced the 
develojiment of things.^ 

But there were other circles in which the higher 
education had a somewhat ditterent character, in- 
clining more towards the worldly culture of the 
time, as was the case in great measure with the 
Hellenistic Jews. As a matter of course, it was 
the nobility and th3 courtiers that favoured this 
culture. A good example of such an education 
presents itself in the per.son of Josephus, a scion 
of the leading temple aristocracy, related on his 
mother's side to the Hasmona'an royal family. 
According to his own account ( Vita, 2 f.), he com- 
menced even as a child to read the Law, and 
speedily made such progress that, when a boy of 
fourteen, he used to be consulted by the leading 

* Later Jews deduced from the word * sons ' in Dt Ills that 
the Law did not require the instruction of dau''hters (Bacher, 
Du Aijada da- Tannailen, ii. 372). 

t On the other hand, the phrase inxrr cy ' people of the 
land' is used in opposition to Pharisees, who were not all 

; Cf, Weber, Jiid. Thcologie^ 1S97, p 12.iff. 

jniests on points of interpretation of the Law. A t 
the age of sixteen he began to st\idy carefully the 
tenets and maxims of the three sects — the Saddu- 
cees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes ; nay, he even 
lived for three years with a rigid ascetic in the 
desert, in order to put also this conception of life 
to the proof. When nineteen years old he decided 
to cast in his lot with the Pharisaic party, but he 
sttidied, further, the Greek language antl litera- 
ture. He had such a command of Greek that in 
his twenty-sixth year he was able to travel to 
Rome, where he obtained access to the Empress, 
who treated him with great consideration. He tells 
us, however, regarding his attainments in Greek, 
that, while he had made a thorough study of the 
language, his Jewish usages had hampered him in 
acquiring an exact pronunciation of it. ' It is not 
our way to accord any great appreciation to those 
who have learned many languages . . . for this is 
an accomplishment of which slaves are as capable 
as freemen. But those alone are regarded as wise 
who thoroughly understaml the laws, and can 
expound the Holy Scriptures' (Ant. XX. xii. 2). 
That Josephus had difficulty, further, in the use 
of Greek in writing, is evident from the circum- 
stance that, in pieparing his history of the .lewish 
war, he availed himself of the help of colleagues 
who were proficient in Greek (c Apion. i. 9). But 
he not only devoted himself to the study of the 
language, but, as his writings sliow, had read a 
very considerable number of Greek authors, besides 
being acquainted in some measure with Greek 
philosophy. Here, then, we see how, in the case 
of a Palestinian Jew of good family, a strictly 
Jewish education might be combined with a Hel- 
lenizing tendency.* 

As to the ordinary stage of culture among the 
Jews, this was in general conditioned by their 
acknowledged dependence upon the Holy Scrip- 
tures. Here lay hidden all the treasures of wisdom 
for those who knew how to dig them up. While the 
Hellenistic Jews were under the intluence of Greek 
philosopliy, and made frequent attempts to dis- 
cover in the Scriptures the iileas of foreign wisdom, 
the native exegesis was based essentially upon the 
text itself, whose many secrets it was sought to 
penetrate by an acuteness which displayed itself 
in the form of ingenious combinations of passages 
of Scripture. Nothing had any value whose jires- 
ence could not be demonstrated in the Law and 
in the Scriptures. And yet the world of ideas in 
which these men moved was not so completely 
uninfluenced by foreign culture as they themselves 
may have imagined. Several centuries of contact 
with Parsism had not passed without leaving clear 
traces.t As little were the Palestinian Jews able 
to shut themselves ofl' from the influence of the 
Greek spirit, by whose effects they were every- 
where surrounded, and whose traces may be 
largely observed in the Palestinian Midrash.J 
Yet all this worked quietly and unconsciously, 
and did not lead to any essential transformation 
of the Palestinian culture. 

As far as a knowledge of lii.story was concerned, 
there was naturally a disposition to abide by the 
information contained in the Biljle ; whereas tiiere 
were only broken reminiscences of the events of 
the post-Biblical period. In this respect, indeed, 

* On the other hand, when Rabbi Ishmael was asked whether 
it was allowable to learn Greek wisdom alons with the Law, he 
replied (in allusion to the words ' \'\ day and by night,' Jos is, 
Ps I'-etc): 'Only if thou canst fiiil ,i i m:. ah. h is neither day 
nornight '(Bacher, Die -4(7ad(7 ./ : /- i. 262). 

t Cf. E. Stave, Ueler den K,„ ' .' -ismus avf da$ 

Jtidentum, 1S9S ; also the art. Zim: \- 1 : vv -- liy J. H. Moulton 
in vol. iv. The Babylonian influence cunttii'lL-d" for, especially 
by Gunkel, is still somewhat problematical, and its extent is in 
any case not vet demonstrated. 

t Cf. Freu'denthal, Hellenuitiche Studietl, 18/5, p. 66 ff. ; 
Sk -fried, Philo vun Alexandrieu, 2S3ff. 




a niiin like .loseplius forms iin exception, l>iit lit- 
is likewise an exceiitiuii anion;; his I'alcstiniiin 
fellow-countrymen, and his ;;reat work on the 
liistory of Israel was Intended not for Jews but 
for the rest of the world.* 

Of an aeipiaintaiue with natural science we can 
scanily s|i(jik. The Itook of Enouh, it is true, 
ociMiiies iiM'lf in detail with eosmolo;,'ieal and 
astruiioiiLlcal seerets, and shows, amidst a multi- 
tude of fantastic notions, a knowle<l;,'e of the 
twelve si;,'ns of the zodiac, the re;;ular jihases of 
the moon, the solar and lunar years, perhaps the 
8-year cycle of the Greeks, the four intercalary 
days, and it contains also some t,'eo;.'raphical allu- 
sions (chs. 7-tl'. ). ]!ut this must he vieweil a." 
peculiar to a few writers, and not as the stamlard 
of the iirevailin;; culture. At all events, in a 
letter of It. Gamaliel II. t the intercalating of 3U 
days into the current year is justified on the 
f,'round that the lamhs are still small, and the 
crops not yet ripe. On the :Wth ilay of e.ach 
month the Sanhedrin met, and, if it was then 
announced to it that the moon - crescent was 
visihie, the day was marked as holy, so that the 
preceding nionlh had only '29 days counted to it. 
If the ilay was cloudy, the new moon was not 
reckoned to commence till the following day. t 
Geographical knowledge was enlarged hy the 
journeys of Jewish merchants, but yet was in 
general superficial and vague.g 

Medicine was upon a primitive basis. The mild 
and .sensible lien Sira exhorts his readers not to 
despise the {diy.sicians help, since the Lord has 
created medicines out of the earth, which the 
apothecary knows how to mix and the physician 
how to apply (Sir 38'"-). The healing powers of 
the various hot springs of I'alestine had been dis- 
covered, and they were largely taken advantage of 
(Jos. Vita, IG; Ant. XVII. vi. .5). But the con- 
cejition of diseases was still essentially a purely 
religious, or, in most instances, a superstitious one, 
so that in the treatment of them all kinds of 
magical methods took a prominent place. In 
general, the belief in magic played no mean role 
amongst the .lews, although it wa.s forbidden in 
the Law. This was a sjihere in which the Law- 
was powerless to control the notions of men.|| See 
art. M.vcic in vol. iii. 

It was only in the sphere of relitjion that the 
standard of poinilar education was high, and it 
was rcgardiil as extreiiiclv iiiiporlant to see that 
this should be so. While the ciillus wa.sessentially 
tlie coiiceni of the priests, there hiul been for long 
established all over the land synagogues, where 
religious instruction was attended to and the 
peo|>le acquired an acquaintance with the Iioly 
Scri|)tures (Ac 15-'). The synagogue building (n-a 
nr;;n, (Tt'ca7w7T7 0rirpoff€i'XT7) contained a press where 
the sacreil writings were kept, and an elevated 
place wliere the reader stooil. The service was 
introduced by repeating the passages Dt Ki*"- "• "-', 
Nu 15^'" ; then came a prayer spoken by a meni- 
licr of the congregation, to the .accompaniment of 
the 'Amen' .and other responses by the people. 
This was followed by the lesson from the Law, 
which was read by several members, preferably 
priests or Levitcs, and translated into Aramaic, 
verse by verse, by an interpreter (i?siins). Next 

• Flow inconsiderable were the historical recollections in the 
Rnhbinioal literature in sliown in Dcrenbourf's Etmi mr I'/iur- 
toire, etc. de la I'alcidine, 1S07. 

t To be found in Unliiian's AraimiiKlie Dialcklprolien, 1S98, 
p. 3. 

t It was not until about 200 yeare after the ilcstriction of 
.Icnisalem that llie .lews Ix-gnn to fix the new inoon on oslro. 
nomical (rrounds. See Kiehni, HUB ii. 101)1, anil ct. art. New 
Moon in vol. iii. p. K'l^, and Timk in vol. iv. y. TtH*. 

} Cf. Neubnuer,.CVo7ra/)/ci<f <(« Talmud. 2!>llfl. 

(To 11"; Jos. Aiit. viu. ii. 5: L. HIau, Oat alljuduche 
Zauirrict»en, ISDS; SchUrcr, OJV' iii. SJIB. 

came the reading of a section from the Pro|iliet.s, 
wliiili WiLs translated in the same way |Lk 4", 
.•\c 13'»). To this reading there was attached a 
.sermon, during the delivery of which tie sjieaker 
was accU8toiiie<l to sit, wherea.s the reatlers stood 
(Lk 4-'""'). The service closed with the benediction 
(Nu 6-"-), which was pronounced by a jiriest. The 
jirincipal service was that of Sabbatli forenoon, 
l)ut there were less elaborate services also on 
Sabljath afternoon and on some week days. Lastly, 
Divine service was celebrated on all feast days. 
In this way those of the jieople who felt that 
they formed a coinmunitv hiul abundant oppor- 
tunity given thein of making acquaintance «ith 
the Scriptures and of receiving instruction and edi- 
tication. It is worthy of note how in this matter 
there is a retrocession of any privileged class, the 
service being of quite a deniocratical character. 
Even if a preference was given to priests in the 
reading of the Scriptures, this function could be 
discharged by others as well, while the delivery 
of the address was ojien to any member of the 
congregation, or any qualKied vLsitor who happened 
to Ik; present (see art. Svnacdgue, vol. iv. p. 041''). 

The aliove account of things applies, jiroperly 
speaking, only to the men. Uut it we would have 
<a complete picture of the stage of culture among 
the Jews, we must face the question of how it 
stood with the women. There is a want of his- 
torical data here, but certain characteristic features 
come out. For instance, we learn from Josephus 
{Ant. XVII. ii. 4) the I'liarisees exercised great 
inlluence over women, a circumstance which proves 
that tlie latter felt an interest in party (|uestions 
ami themselves took sides. Thus even iiueen 
Alexandra allowed herself, contrary to all the 
traditions of the Hasmona-ans, to be guided by 
the I'liarisees. The (Jospels show us liow deep 
was the religious interest on the i)art of women, 
and how receptive they were to the teaching of 
Jesus. On the other hand, evidence of the sleiiiler 
culture of women is all'orded by the circunist.ance 
that it was they especially that devoted theni- 
.selves to magical arts, so that even Avoinen of 
noble birth were at times accused of sorcery.* 

vii. Art and Litkratuke.— With the Jews the 
lirst place among the fine arts is held by music, 
because this had entered into the service of 
religion. The temple musicians formed a guild, 
in which the tcclini<|ue and the understanding of 
the numerous technicivl expressions were heredi- 
tary, not being communicated to outsiders — a cir- 
cunislance which explains why these ex|>ressions, 
when they occur in tlie I'salms, especially in their 
titles, wore unintelligible to the lireek tran.slators 
of the LXX.t The members of this guilil, who 
were not at lirst (lizr 10^'-, Neb "'■'•') reckoned 
among the Levites, had been by the time of the 
Chronicler (1 Ch G*""") included in this class of 
temple ollicials, and shortly before the destruc- 
tion of the State they obtained, by the aid of 
Agrippa ll., the right of wearing the same linen 
garments as the priests— an innovation which, ac- 
cording to Josephus {.Int. X.\. ix. 0), conlribiited 
to bring about the punishiiient of the iicople. 'I'iie 
pieces tiiat were sung were the Psalnni of the Old 
Testament. The whole of these were not, indee<l, 
adapted to this purpose (e.g. \'s 119), but in the 
case of a Large proportion ol them there is ancient 
testimony to their liturgical use. The I'.salius 
were sung by the ollicial singers, the people struck 
in only with certain responses. The singing was 
accompanied by harps, zithers, llutes, and cymbal.s, 
although, untortunately, we are not informed 
as- to the exact form of procedure either with 
the singing or the instrumental accompaniment 




The trumpets blown by the priests would not 
belong to the orchestra proper, but would serve 
simply to mark fixed points in the service. How 
early the liturgical system was developed may 
be inferred partly from the statements of the 
Chronicler and partly from tlie very graphic 
description in Sir 50. But the Psalms were sung 
also outside tlie temple, especially at the Paschal 
meal in private houses (Mt 26""). Alongside of 
this sacred music there was also a secular species, 
which was used especially to accompanj' the popu- 
lar dance (Mt 11"). The Israelites, in fact, had 
always been a music-loving people, witli whom this 
exercise was resorted to on all occasions either of 
rejoicing or of mourning. The height to which 
popular poetrj' had risen among them is evident 
aliove all from the Song of Songs, which points 
back to the songs sung at wedding celebrations. 

On the other hand, the j}lastlc aits were com- 
pletely forbidden to the Jews, in so far at least 
as they had to do with the representation of any 
living creature. When Pilate on one occasion, 
fiMgftting tlie consideration for .Jewish scruples 
usually .sliiiwn by the Procurators, caused stand- 
ards emblazoned with pictures of the Emperor 
to be brought to Jerusalem, the popular feel- 
ing was so violently excited that after a wliile 
he ordered the offensive emblems to be removed 
(Jos. Ant. XVIII. iii. 1). The golden eagle which 
Herod had placed over one of the gates of the 
temple was an abomin.ation to strict Jews, and 
a number of fanatics, upon the occasion of a 
false report of the king's death, tore it down — 
an act for which they were themselves punished 
with death {ib. xvii. vi. 2). Tliose of high 
rank, indeed, set themselves above the strict 
custom in such matters. The Hasmon.-ean queen 
Alexandra caused portraits of her children, Aris- 
tobulus and Mariamne, to be painted and sent to 
Antony {ih. XV. ii. 6). Agrippa I. had statues 
made of his daughters {Ant. XIX. xix. 1). In the 
non-Jewish cities both Herod and his successors 
played the part in general of decided patrons of 
Greek art. In Ca'sarea on the coast, and in other 
towns, they caused temples and theatres to be 
erected. I^ay, Jerusalem itself did not escape, for 
Herod had a theatre and a hippodrome constructed 
in it, to the great offence of the strict Jews. The 
same course was pursued by Herod Antipas at 
Tiberias, which assumed quite the stamp of a 
Greek city (see above, p. 47"). The Jews thus 
made acquaintance with Greek architecture mainly 
as an element in heathen civilization, and on this 
account the splendid pile of temple buildings at 
Jerusalem was not an unmixed source of joy to the 
strict party. That there were some Jews, how- 
ever, who availed themselves of this art is shown 
by the sci)ulchi al immuinents in the Kidron valley, 
one of whicli. according to the inscription, belonged 
to a pric-~ll\ family. 

The .Irw i-h /// r'ifiire that has come down to us 
from this piridd, with the single exception of the 
historical works of Josephus,* is composed in the 
interest of religion. Shortly before the Maccaba^an 
era, the Book of Siiacli, a collection of rules of 
conduct and Hokhma teachings, was written. 
From the Maccabee period itself we have the Book 
of Daniel, some of the canonical Psalms, and 
probably also the Book of Ecclesiastes, the beast- 
vision in the Book of Enoch (clis. 83-90), the First 
Book of Maccabees (c. 100 n.c), the strongly anti- 
Hasmonajan passage Enoch 91-103, while the 
Psalms of Solomon belong to the time of the 
overthrow of the Hasmona>ans. The rest of the 
Book of Enoch is also possibly all pre-Christian. 
Tl e Assumption of Moses appears to have been 

* The liistorical work of Joseplius' conteinporarv, Justus of 
Tiberias, is lost. «■ . . 

composed shortly after the death of Herod the 
Great. On the other hand, neither of the two 
extremely important Apocalypses of Baruch and 
Ezra was composed till after the destruction of the 
Jewish State — that of Ezra under Domitian 
(A.D. 81-96), that of Baruch ajjparently somewhat 
earlier. There are, further, tiie legends of Tobit 
and Judith, the Book of Jubilees (a miilrashic 
recension of Genesis), and the Martyrdom of 
Isaiah, which cannot be dated with certainty, but 
all belong to the period under consideration. 

As regards the estimation in which this litera- 
ture was held at the time, some writings, namely 
Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and the ' Maccabiiean ' Psalms, 
were received into the Canon of the Pharisees, 
which afterwards became the only authoritative 
one. The Book of Sirach was not, indeed, canon- 
ized, but enjoyed high esteem, and is not infre- 
quently cited by the Talmudic teachers, so that 
even the original Hebrew text of this work sur- 
vived, and has recently been recovered in large 
part. See art. SiRACH in vol. iv. The Psalms of 
Solomon emanated, beyond doubt, from the heart 
of the Pharisaic circle, and so frequently remind 
us of the canonical Psalms that it is a matter of 
surprise that their original text has completely 
disappeared. The rest of this literature, on the 
other hand, was afterwards disavowed by Pales- 
tinian Judaism, and hence we m.ake acquaintance 
with it onlj' in translations which circulated in 
Hellenistic circles. It is difficult on this account 
to say how these writings, above all the apoca- 
lyptic portions of them, were regarded at the 
time by the proper representatives of Judaisju. 
The Apocalj'pse of Ezra itself claims to be a work 
of mystery to be read only by the initiated.* And 
the same is true, no doubt, in part of the other 
Apocalypses, with their many secrets.f On the 
other hand, they not only obtained currency 
among the Hellenistic Jews, but their world of 
thought comes in contact on the one side with the 
New Testament, and on the other, in spite of 
essential difi'erences, with the late Jewish litera- 
ture, in such an unmistakable fashion as to show 
that they must have been widely read. Even if it 
should be held that these coincidences are due, not 
to direct use of these writings, but to a conmion 
world of thought, with whicli the people were and on which the literature in question 
also shows its dependence, our view of the then 
existing Judaism would have to be modified all the 
same ; for then we should have to employ for its 
reconstruction not only the characteristic features 
of the official Torali study, in conjunction with the 
survival of the jjure and inward spirit of the OT 
in some circles, but also the mystical sphere of 
ideas, with its descriptions of the world beyond 
and its numerous attempts to burst the barrier 
created by the national limitations of Judaism. 
Here we have a difficult task, but one that is of 
extreme importance for the correct apjireciation of 
Christianity, and for the accomplishment of which 
the necessary preparations have only been com- 
menced. J 

viii. The Jew.s of the Diaspora. — As long as 
the existence of the post-exilic Jewish State in 
Palestine continued, the Jewish communities of 
the Diaspora were thrown into the shade by it. 
Nevertheless, developments and transformations 
took place amongst these, which were of the 
greatest significance both for Judaism itself and 

* 2 Es 12S7f- ' Write all this in a book, and put it in a secret 
place, and teach the wise of thy people, of whom thou art sure 
that they are able to comprehend and keep these secrets.' 

t The Assumption of Moses appears to have originated in 
Zealot circles. 

X Cf . , among others, Dalman, Worte Jem, 1S9S (Eng. tr. 1902] ; 
Wellhausen, SIcizzcn itnd VorarbeHpn, vi. 2-25"fl. ; Baldensper-er, 
Das Jlfdentum aU Voftitufe d?s Chri&tenlitnu, 1900. 




for Cliiistinnity. At the time of Christ there were 
Jewisli (•DiiuiuiiiitieM in every considerable town of 
the world. Oriffinally, the Jews had lieen foreibly 
transiiorted to forei^'n lands : by the Assyrians 
unil liiibylonians to the Eu|)lirates districts, by 
Artaxerxes Uehus to Hyrcaniii. etc. ; or they hail 
taken their Hi','!!! abroad from fear of their 
enemies : so, for instance, those Jews who lied to 
K;.'V|'t after the nuirder of tietlaliah (2 IC ij-"', Jer 
41'''l. Hut afterwards they mi^'rateil, in ever- 
increasing nnmbers, to various countries and 
setlliil there, partly, it may l>e, because they 
verc ilissatislied with the conditions at home, 
[inrtly because ^'reat material advantajies were 
olfered them in forei;,'n parts. The chief centres 
were the Euphrates districts, Syria, and Egypt ;* 
but tlierewere also numy Jews settled in the other 
Mediterranean lands, and it may be presumed that 
in NT times there was a large Jewish connnunitj- 
in Home. Of all the cities inhabited by Jews the 
most important was Alexandria, for here they 
were not only so numerous that two of the live 
districts of the city were called ' the Jewish,' but 
they came into contact here especially with the 
Hellenistic world of thought, and allowed them- 
selves to be strongly inlluenced by it. 

An essential factor in the life of the Jews of the 
Diasiiora was the free exercise of their religion, 
whicli was allowed them in the time of the Dia- 
dnihi and under the IJomau domination. Things 
went best with them in places where they lived 
as an independent body with State rccugnitiou, 
whereas, in those lands or cities where they simply 
enjoyed ciiual rights of citizenship with others, 
they n-ailily came into collision and contlict with 
the hc.ithcn population. Amougst their privileges 
must lio 1 ?ckoned also the po.ssession of a juris- 
dictiop. ua(\ a coinage of their own. Tlie latter in 
[.■•.ftii ular was of importance, for thus alone were 
tlu-y in a position to ])ay the jioll-tax to Jeru- 
fcalciii. On other i)oints the constitution and 
organization of Jewish communities ditlered in 
ditlercnt countries. 

The religious instruction of the Jews of the 
Piasjiora was bas'.nl, like that at home, upon the 
regular .service of the synagogue, there being one 
or more synagogiies wherever Jews were settled. 
In Hellenistic circles the Septuu^int played the 
same part as the Hebrew text in the mother j 
country, being without doubt u.sed in the reading 
of the Scriiitures, as acquaintance with Hebrew 
must have ueen rare on the part of Jews living 
abroad. See, further, art. DlASPOUA in the pres- 
ent volume, p. 91 ft'. 

The Jewish- Hellenistic literature, owing not 
only to its Iteing written in the (Jreek languaj^e, 
but to its beini' more or less interpenetrated with 
the (ireek spirit, and its use of the Greek literary 
forms, has a ditlerent stamp from the Palestinian. 
Leaving out of account the Alexandrian expan- 
sions of some books of the OT, we may cla-ssify 
this lit<;rature under the three heads of History, 
I'oetry, and I'hilosophy. 

A number of writers treated the ancient Jewish 
hiitun/ in a modernizing fashion, in order thereby 
to claim for it the interest of the foreign world of 
readers. In addition to some fragments, of which 
those of r.upolemus, owing to their jieculiar syn- 
creti^m. are the mcisl notable, wc have to mention 
here e-pccially tlie Aiiliquitir.^ of .losephus, a work 
which for the reasons mentioned above must be 
aligned to the Hellenistic rather than to the 
I'alotinian literature. Other authors nnule the 
immediate past the subject of their narratives. 
Tlius the so-called Second Book of Maccabees is 
an e.vtract from the extensive work of Jiuson of 

* Philo esthnntcs the number of Jews in E|{.vpt at about a 
luiUion 'ed. Man^ey, it 523). 

Cyrene on the Maccaba-an ri.sing. The most valu- 
able of these writings is Josephus' account (/J./) of 
the great revidt of the Jews against the itoniaiis, 
to wliiili are attached certain |>ortions of his auto, 
biography. An ill-natured attack upon the Jews 
led .losephus, further, to compose an apologetic 
work (c. Apiun.), having for its aim to exhibit the 
high antiquity of Judaism. To the cliuss of literary 
ftugeries belongs the so-called Letter of .\rislcas, 
in which a Jewish author makes a heathen relato 
the story of the origin of the Septuagint. The 
.same is the case with a ' tendency ' recension of a 
work on the Jews by Hecat;eus, the revi.ser of 
which put forth his com|>osition under the name 
of the (ireek historian. 

As regards the eiliplovment of pnrliij, we have, 
lirst of all, the remarkalile attempts to transfer the 
forms of the epos and the dranni to the realm 
of Jewish history. There are, for instance, frag- 
ments of an epic presentation of the liistory of 
Jerusalem by a I'lulo, and a drama by an Ezekiel, 
whose subject is the Exodus. To the same cate- 
gory l)elong also the verses put by .Jewish poets 
into the mouth of the ancient oracle-giving Sibyls, 
and which mark the apocalyptic tendency that 
was so prominent in Palestinian, but less .so in 
Hellenistic, circles. See below, p. 00 if'. 

Most important of all are the writings which 
are more or less inlluenced by (!reek j)l>ilusujihij. 
The only independent Jewish thinker is I'hilo, 
who jilays no unimportant role in the history of 
l)hilosopliy. The others a.ssume an eclectic atti- 
tude towards tlie various Greek schools, and aim 
only at bringing their ideas into harmony with 
those of Judaism, several of them seeking at the 
same time to justify their dependetice on Greek 
thinkers by maintaining that the latter ori;j;inally 
borrowed from the .Mosaic Law. The principal 
expedient to which tliese authors resort in order 
to harmonize the heterogeneous elements, is the 
allegorical interpretation of the Law and the 
Jewish history." To this category belong the 
writings of Aristobulus (2nd cent. li.C. ), of which 
only fragments are extant ; the Stoicizing w ork on 
the authority of reason (the .so-called I'ourth IJook 
of Maccabees) ; and the writings of I'hilo. A 
transition to this .species of literature is exliibited 
by the Book of the Wisdom of Solonion, which, 
in spite of Gr. inlluence, still reminds us strongly 
of the Pal. J/u/chmu literature. C'f., further, artt. 
WisDO.M in vol. iv., and Pnil-o, below, p. 19711". 

LlTKRATCKK (in addition to works on the histor>' of Israel or 
of the Jews). — Schneckcnburger. Vorlejuiutjen ult^rr neutf»t, 
Xeitgenchictite, 1802; Hausrath, yeutegt. ZeitijeHchichU-, 187a- 
77 (3rd e<i 1879 (l)d. i.)l ; Wellhausen, DU I'harimer and Sari- 
dtwuer, 1874 ; Kaphall, Post-bihlical HiHtory o/ the Jeu!», 185(i ; 
Stapfer, Sm Palcstitie au tcmpg de Jtigus-Chrint, 18S5, Leg id^i-n 
rdiijieutes en I'alctline d lepruiiie de Jimu- Christ '', 1878; 
Baumgarten, ' Ucr national-judische Ilintergnind der ncutest. 
Oesehichte' (in JDTh. 1804-83): Wicseler, • Bcitrage zur mu- 
test. Zeit)re!*chichtc * (in 5A', 1875); Lanjfen, Das Judfiithum 
111 PatiuUna zur Zcit VhrMi, 18(K1 ; Edenihciin, Thr Lile a.iif 
Timet of Jemt the ilemiah, i vols., 18»3 ; S<hurvr. <;J V ■', 3 
vols, anil Inilex vol., 18n8-190-i (Eng. tr. iUJP) from 2nd eti.) ; 
tloltzmami, Xeutent. Zeilijetchichte, 1805. For ft fuller Biblio- 
i;rai>hj the reader may consult the work of Schilrcr. 

Kii.vNT.s Buhl. 
TALMUD.— The r«/Hi H(/(T!:^n), meaning a ' teach - 
ing,' an 'inference,' or a 'doctrine,' is a term 
commonly applied to a collection of works emboily- 
ing the tiral Law — .^; Sl'sy rrfp, lit. 'the Torali iiy 
mouth' — haniled down to the Jews by way of 
Tradition, in contradistinction to the Written Law 
— 30t*»' ■■'T"' 1''- 't'"^ Torah in writing.' The 
origin of this Tradition is unknown : the common 
view of the niedia'val authorities, claiming the same 
Mosaic authorship and high antiiiuity for it a-s for 
the Scriptures, is uncritical. But, as it is closely 
connected with the history and devcloiiiiient of the 



hermeneutics of the Scriptures, its commencement 
may safely be dated back to the exilic period in 
■wliich was first established the institution of the 
Synagogue, wliose main function consisted in 
teaching and interpreting the word of God. The 
Hebrew term for ' interpretation ' is Midrasli (a-nji, 
of. 2 Ch 13") ; and this term, like the Ilab. term 
Kabbala (n^pp, matter received by way of Tra- 
dition), which includes the Prophets and the Hagio- 
grapha, may likewise, perhaps, be applied to 
certain portions of the canonical writings, e.g. 
Chronicles. The prominent feature of the MidrCish, 
however, as an instrument for enlarging upon and 
expanding- the word of the Scriptures, is best dis- 
cernilile in the ancient Kab. jjroductions, which, 
in spite of some hyperbolical expressions, provoked 
by heat of controversy, never seriously aspired to 
the dignity of Scripture. As a consequence, they 
for the most part properly kept apart text. and 
interpretation, and thus clearly showed the process 
of expansion. The results gained by this method 
varied in their character with the .iature of the 
Scri]iture passages, according as they were legal 
and ritual, or spiritual and honiiletical. The former 
classes are comprised under the name Hi'ilCiklid 
(naSn), signifying guidance, a rule of practice, a 
legal decision ; and the term extends also to tlie 
usages, customs {Mbihdqim C';n}'?), ordinances 
(Tiki'inoth rijpp), and decrees (Giziruth r.iTt;), for 
which there is little or no authority in the Scrip- 
tures. The latter (si)iritual and honiiletical) aic 
classified under the term llagfjCida {n-i:n, Aram. 
nnjx),* meaning a tale, a narrative, an explana- 
tion, a homily ; and the term includes also the 
gnomic lore of the Kabbis, as well as stories and 
legends bearing upon the lives of post-biblical 
Jewish saints. Such topics as astronomy and 
astrology, medicine and magic, theosophy ami 
mysticism, and similar subjects, falling mostly 
under the heading of folk-lore, pass as a rule also 
under the name of Hiujifildn. 

The schools active in this work of the interjireta- 
tion and expansion of the Scriptures extend over 
many centuries, and are known under various 
designations, each designation marking in suc- 
cession a diflerent period. 

i. The SCiphcrlm (D"!;ia), 'Scribes,' commencing 
with Ezra and going down to the Maccabo?an 
period (450-100). Scarcely anything is known of 
their literary activity ; the term ' Words of the 
tii'ijihcriin ' (c-iO- "??l) is used indifferently by 
the Rabbis of HCdCikhCth dating from various 
ages, and implying in most cases not the author- 
ship of, but the authority for, certain given state- 
ments. Less vague are the Kab. references to 
the ' Men of the Great Assembly ' (nSi:ri nn? •!?;n) 
and ' their Remnant ' (n 'did 'n "}''t), thought by 
some scholars to be identical with the SCphiriiii, 
or at least to have formed the executive of the 
latter.t To these are attributed not only certain 
sayings, suggestive, among other things, of their 
teaching activity (as 'Raise many disciples,' M. 

* See Bachcr in JQR iv. 40Gft. 

t See Weiss, Dor Dor WDovshmc. i. p. 84; Kuenen in his 
essay, ' Uber die Manner der groBsen S^'nagoge' (occnpying 
pi>. 1'2.^-160 of tlie Gfsammelte Af/haruHluiigen zur BlblUchen 
Wit^si-'ti^chaft von A. Kuenen, Freil)ur5 and Leipzig, 1894), con- 
tests the existence of sucii an assembly (of. also art. Svnagogce 
[TiiK Great] in vol. iv., and the Literature cited at the end of 
that .article) ; whilst D. Hoffmann (Magazin fiir diV Wissen- 
.wimft des Jvdenttiins, x. 45 ff.) and S. Krauss (JQR x. 347 ff.) 
try to refute his argument. On the whole, the present writer 
is inclined to admit that there is an element of truth in this 
tradition regarding the Great Assembly. The Judaism which 
emerges suddenly after this nebulous period is essentiall.v a 
product of the Synagogue. It is hard to see how it could ever 
have thriven imder the care of the historical priests or the 
cosmopolitan Sopher of the moderns ; and such a Synagogue 
would most naturally have developed under the auspices of an 
authority which acted in conformity with the s}tirit of the 
ordinances, decrees, and teachings attributed by the Rabbis to 
the men of the Great Assembly. 


'Ahuth i. 1), but also many ordinances and decrees, 
the most important of which are those bearing 
upon the arrangement and the completion of the 
Canon of the OT, the reading of the Law on 
certain days of the week, the Hxing of the daily 
prayers (probably in six benedictions now embodied 
in the so-called Eighteen Benedictions, ^iv'i ^i^?)< 
and the introduction of the saying of grace after 
meals. The custom of pouring libations of water 
at the Feast of Tabernacles, and going in procession 
round the altar with branches of willow trees, de- 
clared by some Rabbis to have been introduced 
by the prophets, as well as the so-called ' Laws 
unto Moses from Mount Sinai' (amounting to the 
numl)er of forty-three, more than a third of which 
refer to the preparation of the phylacteries), may 
also have dated from those sopheric times, remote- 
ness of assigned date pointing, as a rule, to the 
pre-Maccaba-an period.* 

ii. The ZugCth (ni;?i ; Gr. fi'yoi'), 'Pairs,' a name 
given to the leading teachers that Hourished between 
tlie Maccabsean and the Herodian period (c. 150-30). 
Five such ' X'airs ' are recorded in the Ilab. litera- 
ture, extending over 5 generations, and succeeding 
each other in the following order: 1. Jose b. 
Joezer of Zereda and Jose b. Jolianan of Jerusalem ; 
2. Joshua b. Perahya and Kittai of Arbela ; 3. 
Jehud.a b. Tabbai and Shim' on b. Shetah ; 4. 
Shema'ya and 'Abtiilyon ; 5. Hillel and Shnmmai.t 
According to tradition each ' Pair ' represents the 
heads of the Sanhedrin of their age, the one whose 
name occurs first in the list serving in the capacity 
of Nd.ft («'?•;), ' Prince or President ' of the Sanhe- 
drin, the other in that of 'Ab Beth Din (;■! n-j 3X), 
' Father of the House of Judgment,' or ' Vice- 
President.' This tradition is contested by many 
modern scholars as incompatible with the state- 
ments of Josephus and of the New Testament, 
according to which the high priest for the time 
being was ex officio the president of the Sanhedrin. 
But, whatever their particular function and title 
wero, the existence of the 'Pairs 'as the heads of 
a religious corporation to which the large bulk of 
the nation belonged, and which thus formed an 
important factoi' in the development of the Oral 
Law, cannot well be doubted. J To them are 
attributed not only various Haggadic .sayings 
(M. 'Abuthi. 4-15), but also Halakhic statements 
as well as certain ordinances and decrees. It 
was under the hrst 'Pair' (also called 'Eshkuldth 
niViDfN [? identical with the Gr. itxoXt)], a title .hac 
disappears with them) that, according to the 
testimony of the Rabbis, the first difference of 
opinion regarding the performance of certain 
religious practices occurred between the sages. 
The, attributed to Jose b. Joezer, the 
first namcil of thi~ ■ I'.iir,' as well as the ordinances 
and decrees a-iril>i'il to him and to his colKague 
of the first ' Pair,' were apparently composed in his 
age, the language of the Hdldkhoth (Aramaic [M. 

* See Weiss, ih. p. G&. The high priest Simon the Just 
(probably Simon I., c. 300 B.C.) is supposed to have belonged to 
this Reiiinant, but the saying recorded in his name is reatl.v 
sopheric in its character : ' On three things the world is stayed : 
on the Torah,_and on the Worship, and on the bestowal of Kind- 
nesses' (M. 'Abdth i. 2). Of his successor (2nd in the fopheric 
line), whose name Antigonos of Sokho shows already a marked 
Hellenistic influence, only the following .saying is known ; ' Be 
not as slaves that minister to the lord with a view to receive 
reward, but be as slaves that minister to the master without a 
view to receive reward* (M. 'Aboth i. 3). This saying, which 
has a certain Stoic savour about it, is supposed to have given 
rise to two heretical sects. 

t See C. Taylor, Sayinrjs of the Jeivieh Fathers^, p. 14, note 9, 
for the chroiiologv. 

: For Literature on this point, see Schiirer, GJV3 ii. p. 18811. 

Of special importaiic m. 1\ , I.e. pp. 49-81; Hoffmann, 

Die Pnisidentitr iiti - ' ' ;. v. liVS, pp. 94-99 ; and 

Jelski, Die innere V. 'rrosaen Syiicdrion, etc. 

Wellhausen's Di'e P/k// ' ^.. M(„«ier must be taken with 

great caution, as his cominaiid of tUe Rabbinic sources is im- 




'Eduyi/otk viii. 4]) Mini tlic sul>jett of tlit? onliiuiiices 
nnd ilfciei-s (Luvitical |miit_v) liuiii^' botli si^'m of 
aiitiiiiiity. .Sliiiiioii li. Slu'tiili of the tliiril ' I'liir' is 
creilitfii witli liiivin^' iiitiiMluced several important 
reforms in viuious nli^'iuus deiiartmcnts, wliilsl 
Sliema'ya unit 'Alitalyon were called the '(ireat 
t)nes of the Generation ' and the ' tJreat Inter- 
jireters' (c'SnJ n'J*";^). The most important ' I'air,' 
IioHever, are Hillel (the Klder) and Shamnmi (the 
Elder), in whose names more HilUlLlu'dli are re- 
corded than of any other 'I'air'; they were also 
the fonnders of two 'jreat schools (li:th Shnmmni, 
Jlil/i llilld, •K5S' n'z, V?n n'S, ' the Honso ur School 
of Shammai ' and 'the House of Hillel') which con- 
tinued the work of their masters for some {jenera- 
tions. Hillel, a native of iJahylon and (according 
to tradition) a descendant of the house of David, 
was particularly famous for his meeliuess and 
humljic-niindedness. Among other things he is 
reporteil to have said, ' IJe of the disciples of Aaron, 
loving peace and pursuing peace, loving thy feliow- 
creatures, and drawing them near to the Torali ' (M. 
'Almth i. 1-J) : whilst he also taught to a heathen, 
seeking admission into Judaism, ' What is hateful 
to thyself do not to thy fellow-man ; this is the 
\vli(de Torali, the rest is only comnientary' (Sliab- 
h'llh ;W/>). Shammai's saying was, 'Make thy 
Torali a fixed thing, say little and do much, and 
receive every man with a cheerful countenance' 
(M. 'Abotk i. I,')) ; hut he was not particularly 
famous for his gentle temper. The most marked 
feature about these two leaders is their activity 
as interpreters of the J^aw and their application 
of the results of this interpretation to practice. 
Thus Shammai presses the words a?-]-! I'i (' until it 
lie suhdued,' IJt 20-'") to mean that the act of sub- 
duing a hostile place must not be interrupted even 
on account of any religious consideration, and thus 
he permits the continuing of a battle even on 
Sabbath {SImbbalk VMi). Hillel, by subjecting the 
term n.,[^iDy (' in its season,' Nu 9-) to the interpre- 
tatory ' rule of analog}-,' inferred from it the 
Ilil/nl-.'ia that the duty of .saciilicing the Paschal 
laiiili overrules all consideration of Sabbath, when 
the I4lh of Nisan falls on the Ttli day of the week 
[J'c.f,Uiiiii (iO'i)." Indeed it was Hillel who tirst 
framed the Kulcs of Interpretation, seven in 
number (IntriMluction to the T'inith KohiJiiim), 
and whicli ilevelopeil later into thirteen and more. 

iii. The Tintii'iiiii (c'xjj?), 'Teachers,' the name 
given to the authoi ities living during the tirst two 
centuries of the Christian era (c. 10-'20li), c(nn- 
mencing with the schools of Shammai anil Hillel 
and terminating with It. Jeliuda the Patriarch, a 
great-grandson of Hillel. The period of the Tan- 
viiiii, most of whom bear the title li'ibhi CsT ' my 
Master,' but losing later its pronominal signih- 
catiori) or (more rarely) linbbnn (\-p. 'Miister'), 
may conveniently be divided into four successive 
generations, the principal men of which are — 

First r/t;)/ ;■<(/(■ yn (1(1-80).— The '.schools of Sham- 
mai and Hillel,' comprising many teachers whose 
nameii have not come down to us. The undevlying 
princi[ple dividing these schools on many import- 
ant points is not known ; but on the whole the 
school of Shammai may perhaps be characteuzed 
as staunch conservatives in their adherence to 
Tradition, who allowed little room for the play of 
interpretation, and were a.s a rule very rigorous 
ill their decisions ; whilst the school of Hillel, 
already described by the old Kabbis as ' ])lcasing 
and mcrU,' were more inclined to compromi.-e in 
their teaching, greatly given to the developing of 
the Mii/ni.s/i, and in general less severe in tiieir 
UaldhUiv dicta. The most important of those 

• For tlic historical and theological signiflcanccot this method 
of interpretation, see Chwolson, Dax MUi- I'ttumiiuJit Cliruti 
UHd der Tag seinai 'fodeniSt. Petemhuri,', Isft!), p. 2uir. 

known by name are Uabban (lamalicl the Klder, 
anil Itabban.Iohanan b. Zakkai, liotli of the scIiim>1 
of Hilld. Gamaliel, u son (.some say a grandson) 
of Hillel, is known for various reforms iiitroiluceil 
by him, as well as for the part he took in the trial 
of the .\postle Paul (AeS^**) ; whilst Jolianan was 
eiiually famous as one of the leaders of the peace 
party m the war against the Konians ((iC-70), and 
as tlie founder of the Academy of .lamiiia, which 
became the centre of Jew isli lite and thought after 
the ileslructioii of the temple. 

:^,u-on(l Gcncniliim (iHl- 1 30). —Uabban Gamaliel 
II., President of the Academy of ,)amnia after the 
death of 11. Jolianan [having been rather auto- 
cratic in the treatment of his colleagues he was 
removeti from his oIKce for a time, but soon after 
restored to it]; 1£. 'Kliezer b. Jakob i., wiio wa.s 
considered agreat authority in traditions regarding 
the structure and the arrangement of the service in 
the temi)le ; K. 'ICIiezer b. Hyrkaiios, a brother in- 
law of K. Gamaliel, and the head of a school in 
Lydda [tliungh a disciple of U. .lohanan b. Zakkai, 
of the school of Hillel, he cllel■i^l,cd Sliamm.iitie 
principles, which fact iirought him into colli-ion 
with the majority of his colleagues, and subse- 
quently led to his excommunication]: K. Jehoshua 
b. yananya, a disciple of R. Jolianan b. 
Zakkai, but unlike his colleague, li. 'Eliezer, with 
whom he had nianj" controversies, of a humble and 
submis.sive disposition ; 11. 'Eliezer b. 'A^arya, who 
derived his pedigree from Ezra the Scribe, and who 
olitained the ollice of President of the Academy of 
Jamnia when It. Gamaliel was deposed. To the 
younger teachers of this generation belong K. 
rarjilion, of the school of Shammai (?), who had 
attended the service in the temple ; It. Jose of 
Galilee, who had controversies with It. Tarplion 
and other Tfiiiiiiiiin; 11. Ishni.iel b. 'Elisiia, best 
known for his thirteen Kules of Interpretation 
(see above). Together with other members of the 
Sanliedrin he emigrated from Jamnia to L'slia, 
where he founded a school called after his name, 
to which various M iil ritxhi in are attributed. \\, 
'Akiba b. Jo.seph, a disciple of several older 
teachers of this generation, was master of mo-t of 
the distinguished Kabbis of the next generation, 
and not less famous for his skill in systenializiiig 
the content of tradition than for his ingenious 
methods of interjiretation, which enabled idm to 
lind a basis for all the enactments of the Ural Law 
in the Scri])tures. This fact, together with the 
circumstance of his jiatriotic zeal and his martyr 
death in the Hadrianic persecutions (c. 130), made 
him the most famous of the Taiinnim. To this 
generation belong also the older disciples of K. 
Akiba — Sliim'on b. 'Azai and Shiin'on h. Zonia — 
best known for their moralizing sayings and 
mystical tendencies (in the direction of a Jewish 
gnosis) which they shared with their master, but 
from which, .mlike the latter, they did not escape 
without injury. 'The one gazed (into the cham- 
bers of heaven) and died, and the other g:ized 
and was not in his mind.' Their coiitein|«Mary 
'Elislia b. 'Abuyali, called 'Aber (the tither 
One), was less iiajipy than these, for he 'gazed' 
and 'cut the branches,' that is, became an 

Thirtl Generation (l.-JO-IfiO).— The disciples of 
R. Ishmael, of whom only t\\» are known by their 
names (It. Joslila and It. Jonathan), whilst the 
others are usually quoted lus 'the Taniia of the 
school' of R. Islimael. The younger disciples 
of R. 'Akiba are R. Meir, who continued the 
systematizing laiionrs of his master, and is thus 
su]ipose<l to have laid the foundation of a Mislina; 
R. .lehuda b. 'Ilai, who is called 'the lirst of the 
S(ie«keis': R. Shinron li. Yohai, of whom It. 
•Akilia said, 'Re salislied that 1 and thy .Maker 



know thy powers' ; R. Nehemiah, to whom, as to 
tlie two lastmeiitioned Rabbis, various Tannaitic 
compilations are at tvibutetl ; R.'Eleazarb. Shamua, 
round whom the {greatest number of disciples 
gathered, and R. Jose b. ^alaphta, to whom the 
hook Si-dcr ' Olam{n';^S Tip), containing aclironology 
of events and personages in the Bible, is attri- 
buted. Abba Sliaul, compiler of a Mishna, and 
the I'atriarch R. Shim'on II. b. Gamaliel II., are 
also included in the third generation. 

Fourth Generation (160-2-2U).— R. Nathan Hab- 
babhli, who emigrated from Babylon to Palestine, 
and there held under the last-mentioned Patri- 
arch an office in the Sanhedrin the nature of 
which is not quite known ; Symmachos, the dis- 
ciple of R. Meir, and a great authority in matters 
of civil law ; and v.-irious other Taniiaiiii, sons 
and disciples of the authorities of the preceding 
generation. The most important among them is 
the Patriarch R. Jehuda Hannasi, also called 
Eabb^'iiii hahlMdCsk (c'iiBC 'J'?"!), 'Our Master, the 
Saint,' but more frequently Italbi, 'the Master,' 
without adding his name. He was the son of the 
I'atriarch It. Shimon II., and the disciple of R. 
Shimon b. Yobai, and of R. 'Eleazar b. Shamua ; 
he presided over the Sanhedrin, which during this 
generation was, as it would seem, a migratory 
body, shifting from place to place, from Uslia 
to Beth-shearim, and thence to Seppboris and 
■Tiberias. This R. Jehuda is said to have main- 
tained friendly relations with the Roman authori- 
ties of Palestine at that period. This fact, as 
well as the circumstances of his noble birth, 
great wealth, official position, saintly character, 
and his master}- of the contents of the Oral Law, 
gave him an authority over his contemporaries 
never enjoyed by anj- other Tannrt, and gathered 
round him a band of distinguished disciples and 
colleagues which rendered possible his work as 
compiler and codilier of the Mishna.* 

The literary productions of all these generations 
of Tannaim, as well as of their predecessors the 
' Pairs ' and the Supherim, both in HalCtklul and in 
Har/gadd, are, as far as they have been preserved, 
embodied in the following collections. 

The Mishua njy'pt (from •■njv), meaning a 'teach- 
ing,' a ' repetition,' is a designation most ap- 
propriate for a work generally looked upon as the 
main depositor}' of the contents of the Oral Law, 
which (in contradistinction to N"!PT, reading matter, 
or the Scriptures) could be acquired only by 
means of constant repetititn. Tld^ work, com- 

Siled (apart from some later additions) by R. 
ehuda the Patriarch, is divided into 6 Orders 
(D"B' = n'i7i? ^iv), each of wliich contains several 
MassikhtCth{rim^^s, sing. n;p5 (Aram. Nn^c;), derived 
from ^ej, meaning ' to weave' ; cf. the l,:itiii f< .rfiis), 
or 'texts' (but more commonly callnl ' '), 
whilst each tractate is divided into I'iiOl.iiii (cp^S, 
sing. Piz), 'joints' or 'sections,' each of which, in 
its turn, consists of so many Hdhlkhuth (in the 
sense of paragraphs). The number of the tractates 
is 63 (or, in another enumeration, 60), bearing the 
following titles, which are suggestive more or 
less of their varied contents, though extraneous 

* Some authorities number five generations of Tannaim. For 
the purpose of brevity, we have accepted the plan of those who 
have condensed them into four. For the same reason, we have 
confined ourselves to the most important Tannaim, omitting 
many who deser\"e mention. Compare H. Strack's excellent 
monograph Einleitunfi in den Thalmttd'\ p. 76 ff., and his 
bibliograpliy appended to each Taniia. The references there 
given include those to Bacher's works, which are the most im- 
portant contributions to the subject in any language other than 

t St. const, n^'fp. The Patristic StvT'-pMtrti (see references in 
Schiirer, I.e. i. p. 88, n. 1) speaks for nfi'D (second to the 
Torah), St. const. nJv'?. Both explanations are represented in 
Eab. literature. Ct. Arukh Comph'luin, s.v. ri2£'S. 


matter that is in no way indicated by the title is 
everj'where introduced : — 

L ZSRriM, D'yi) 'Seeds.' 

1. B^rakhdth, ni3"J3 'Benedictions,' treating of laws and 
regulations relating to the liturgj-. 9 chapters. 

2. Pea, ."ixg 'Corner,' treating of the laws relating to the 
corner of the'fleld and the forgotten sheaves, etc., to be left for 
the iwor (Lv 199, Dt 2419- 21). 8 chapters. 

3. Dammai, •e'l (also 'x:'!) the ' Doubtful,' respecting corn 
and other productions of the earth, of which it is doubtful 
whether the prescribed tithes had been paid. 7 chapters. 

4. KiVaylm, D'N/? ' Mixtures,' i.e. mixtures of seeds, animals, 
and materials for cloth, prohibited by the Scriptures (Lv 1919, 
Dt 229-11). 9 chapters. 

5. ShllnUh, nyyi the 'Sabbatical year' (Ex 23", Lv 25ia'-, 
Dt ISliT). 10 chapters. 

6. TeramaA, nicna 'Heave-Offerings,' for the priest (Nul88f- 
and Dt 18'). 5 chapters. 

7. Ma'aseroth, m%"J.r} 'Tithes' (Nu IS^if). 6 chaptei-s. 

8. 31a' User Slienl, •is' IC'Sip 'Second Tithe' (Dt 1422ff). 5 

9. Balld. n-n the ' Dough,' a portion thereof to be given to 
the priest (Nu'isisiT). 4 chapters. 

10. 'Orld, nSiJ ' Uncircumcised,' fruits of the tree during the 
first three years (Lv W-i«). 3 chapters. 

11. BIkkitrim, D'1-33 'First Fruits,' brought to the temple 
(Dt 2618-, Ex 2319). 3 chapters. 

II. MffgD, ij/\a ' Season.' 

1. Shabbath, njS' ' Sabbath," laws relating to it, mainly pro- 
hibitions of work (Ex 201" etc. ). 24 chapters. 

2. 'Eriibin, j'^'I'M 'Amalgamations' or ideal combinations 
of locaUties with the purpose of extending the Sabbath boundary, 
as well as laws as to the Sabbath day's journey. 10 chapters, 

3. P^mhlm, D"n^9 'Passovers,' laws relating to them (Ex 
I'lff-, Lv 23-', Nu »!«■). 10 chapters. 

4. Shekalhn, D"':i3S' ' Shekels,' collected for the temple (Ex 
30l2ff., Keh 10^'*), and the various objects for which they were 
spent ; including lists of the higher officials of the temple. 8 

6. I'di/in, !<:v "The Day' (also Y6m Hakkippurlm, d'v 
C'"t'2in ' The day of Atonement '), treating of the service in the 
tempie on that day, and of the laws relating to fasting (Lv 
!&«■). 8 chapters. 

6. Sukka, njD 'Booth' or 'Tabernacle,' respecting the laws 
on dwelling in'booths for seven days, and other observances 
during this feast (Lv 233''<r-, Nu 2912»'). 8 chapters. 

7. Btiii, ny'3 'Egg' (so called after the first words with 
which the tractate begins, but also termed Vdin T6b, 310 QV 
' Feast '), enumerating the different kinds of work permitted or 
prohibited on festivals (Ex 121"). 6 chapters. 

& Itosh Bashshana, njB'n iriiT ' New Year,' dealing with ques- 
tions relating to the calendar, but chiefly with the laws to be 
observed on the first of the 7th month (Tishri), the civil New 
Year of the Jews (sec Lv 231M, Nu 29i«'-). 4 chapters. 

9. Ta'anith, n'jyn ' Fast,' respecting the laws observed and 
the order of the litiirgy on such days. 4 chapters. 

10. Megilld, n^jp ' Roll ' of Esther, relating to the laws to be 
obsen'ed on the feast of Purim. 4 chapters. 

11. Mo'ld K&ton, [Pi; iy.lO 'Minor Feast' (also called i'p7?, 
the first word of the tractate), i.e. the laws relating to the days 
intervening between the first and last days of the feast of Pass- 
over and that of Tabeniacles. 4 chapters. 

12. HagUid, nj-JO 'Feast-Offering,' treating of the duty of 
pilf riniase to Jerusalem and the sort of sacrifices to be brought 
on such occasions (see Ex 23n and Dt 1016), as well as of laws 
regal-ding the degrees of defilement (against which the pilgrims 
are cautioned). 3 chapters. 

III. NasiiIm, C'J'J ' Women.' 

1. Yibamdth, nic?; 'Levirate Marriages' (Dt -255«'), and the 
forbidden degrees in marriage (Lv 1 8, etc.). 10 chapters. 

2. Kethuboth, ni2in3 ' Marriage Deeds and Marriage Settle- 
ments • (see Ex 2-2iii). '13 chapters. 

3. Xcddrim, n-i-tl 'Vows,' and their annulment (Nu 3tfin-), 
11 chapters, 

4. iVttztr, TI J ' Nazirite ' (Nu 62fr-). 9 chapters. 

6. Sota, noiD ' The Suspected Woman ' (Nu 6i2ir). 9 chapter* 
e. Giltin, i'E3 ' Letters of Divorce' (Dt 24i'>'). 9 chapters. 

7. Kiddushm, j'f'np ' Betrothals.' 4 chapters. 

IV. NEZiRts, i"p'!3 'Damages.' 
1-3. Bdbd Kammd, .x^p K?; 'First Gate'; Bdbff Ih'd'a, 




HIOP K?7 •Second Gate'; BuM Dallini, K^iipj tc?; ' Lniit 
Gate.' These fonued in aiicicnt times unly one tnu:tate, bearing; 
the some title as the whole order, fp'lj rzzo 'Tractate ot 
Uania^es,' dividwl into three sections, each section consisting of 
10 chupters. These three treat ot 1,1) duniu^-es ami injuries 
caused by man and beasts (or wiiich he is responsible (see Ex 
2ilsir. ^-'^itt); (2) ot laws concerning lost propeity, IruMs, the 

}>rohibition of usury and similar matters, duties towarvts hirwl 
abourers, etc. (see Ex ii""- 233- -i, Lv lu" 2.M*-^, l>t 2;iJ" •» 
and 24") ; (.i) laws relating to the ditterent ways ot taking pos- 
session of various kinds ot pro]>erty, the riKlit of pre-emption, 
definition ot certain tenns used in contracts and oral trans- 
actions, order of inheritance (see Nu 'Si^'^), etc 

4. 6. fanhedrlii, n";0}P (lU chapters), and MakHlh, ris? 
' Stripes ■ (a chapters), also fonnini; in ancient times one trac- 
tate. The fonner treats ot the constitution of the various 
courts of Justice and their modes of procedure, the examination 
of witnesses, and the four kinds of capiul punishment (or 
^rave crimes, as well as of the punishment consistin}; in bein^r 
excluded (rom eternal li(e. etc. etc The latter deals with 
offences (or which the inHiction o( 39 stri|K8 is prescribed (l>t 
".IW), with (alsc witnesses (Dt 19'«"'). and the laws relating to 
the cities of refuse (.Nu a-.wif-, Ut 19"). 

0. Shebhu'dth, myiDf 'Oaths,' taken in private or administered 
by the court (Lv 5'- *)i " choptets. 

7. 'EduyiiMi, ni-ny ' Evidences, 'containing a colle<'tion of lows 
and decisions gathered from the statements made by distinguished 
authorities. 8 chapters. 

B. 'Ab6da Zara, .t;! nnisy 'Idolatry," regarding the treat- 
ment of idols and their worslnppers (Dt 420»r-). 5 chapters. 

n. 'AbMi, rr\2ti 'Fathers' (of Jewish tradition), containing 
mostly ethical sayings and maxims of the Tatiimim. 5 

10. fldrdt/Zir/i, n'v-jn 'Decisions' (wrong ones) given by the 
authorities, treoting of the sacrifices to be brought if the public 
acted in accordance with such erroneous teachings (Lv i^"-), 3 

V. KoDASnlv, D'F'JB 'Sacred' things. 

1. Zfbafilm, en?! 'Sacrifices' (also called C'V^i} ns'ny and 
n^JpliJ). treating of the laws relating to the various modes of 
offerings, the sprinkling of the blood, the burning of the fat 
pieces or of whole animals, etc. (Lv V^-). 12 chapters. 

2. HlfnahAlli, nmjp ' Meat-Offerings,' including also the laws 
regarding libations (Lv 2"''- etc., Nu IS^iK). 12 chapters. 

3. nuUln, prTJ (also p^in nj'n^p) ' Things Secular,' regarding 
the mode of killing animals and birds (or ordinary use, .is well 
as the various diseases disqualifying them from being eaten, and 
many other dietary laws. 12 diopters. 

4. BfkhArMh, niT33 ' Firstborn,' of men and animals (Ex 
l;t2. wi, etc.), including also the lows regarding the tithes of 
animals (Lv2:«-3'-i"'). 9 chapters. 

5. '.^rfljtAin, I'?"J]^ 'Valuations,' of persons and things de<li- 
cated to the temple (Lv 272".), olso including some laws relating 
to the year of Jubilee (Lv 25""'). chapters. 

6. TcKiiira, .TiiDa 'Change,* the laws bearing on cases of 
substituting a secular onimol (or one already dedicated to the 
altar (Lv 276 Si). ^ chapters. 

7. K/rltlMh, nin""!? ' Excisions,' treating o( sins subject to the 
punishment o( 'the soul being cut off' (Gn 17'4, Ex 1215 etc, 
etc.X a chapters. 

8. Mf'Ud. .■l'?';P 'Trespass,' treating o( sacrilege committed 
bv secularizing things belonging to the temple or to the altar 
(Lv 6'«f ). 8 chapters. 

9. Timid, T3C 'Continual' sacrifice, describing the temple 
service in connexion with this daily socrillce (Ex 29**«'-, Nu 
28^"). 7 chapters. 

10. Middilh, nil!? ■ .Measurements,' o( the temple, describing 
lt« courts, halls, chambers, and gates, etc. etc. 5 chapters. 

11. Ifinnlm, D";p ' Nests,' o( birrls, or pairs of doves brought 
u sacrifice by the poor (Lv 11*'- liT^ 3 chapters. 

VI. Tom.IrOth, n'n.79 ' Purifications.' 

1. Kflim, C'*"? 'Vessels,' furniture, garments, and all kinds of 
utensils subject to Lcvitical impurity (Lv 11"^ 30 chapters. 

2. 'OhtMth, n'lVni* * Tents ' and habitations as conductors of 
Levitical impurity (Nu 1914"). 18 chapters. 

a XijiTlm. D"y:} 'Leprosy,' in all its various degrees (Lv 13- 
14). 14 chapters. 

4. Pilrtl, nnp ' Red Hei(er.' the use made o( its ashes (or the 
purpose o( purification (Nu 192"). 12 chapters. 

,>.. TohurAlh, Ttrat) ' Purifications,' usol euphemistically (or 
niKPlo 'defilements' o[ all sorts and their various degrees. 10 

ti. Mikicd'MIt, n'K'fJP ' Wells ' and cisterns to lie uscil as means 
0( ritual purifltation (Lv 15" 12 et.'. etc.). 10 chapters. 

7. Xidda, n-i the 'Menstmous,' the Levitical Impuriti attach, 
ing to women under certain physical condltiuus (Lv 151*'"). 10 

8. .VntAsAlrlii, [•^•p^J ' Preiiarem,' resi>ecting the conditions 
under which certain articles became (by coming in contact 
with liquids) preiiared for eventual defilement (J-v ll^f-"). 

0. Zdblin, WZ] * Persons afflicted with running issuea/ tiie in- 
purity arising thereof (l*v IS'-i"). 5 chapters. 

10. T/l/ut yam, D^' Sljp ' Immersed during the day,' i.f. the 
condition ot a |ierson who had taken the ritual bath pres'-rilMMl 
but has still to wait tor sunset to be considered as quite pure 
(see Lv 22« ■ ). 4 chapters. 

11. >'«(/fli/Im, D'n; 'Bonds,' respecting the ritual impurity 
attaching to them (according to the Oral l-aw), and the mode of 
cleansing them by pouring water over them. 4 chapters. 

12.'fTi7l«, i'Vp'V 'Stjilks,' how (or they ore considered a part 
o( the fruit so as to convey impurity when touched by anything 
unclean. 3 chupters. 

Tlie idiuni in wliicli the Mislina iji coiiipilpil U 
tlie New Hebrew, interspersied with ofciuiional 
Greek ami Latin wonts ; its diction is Ihient and 
easv wlien not disliijured, as all works coming to 
ns from aiitiijuitv are, l>y interpolations and textual 
corruptioiifi. The date of its eompihition may l>e 
tixed alnint A.D. ±iU. This was tmdertaken and 
accomplislied by K. .Jehuda the I'atiiarih, not 
with the purpose of providiiif; the nation with a 
legal code, but with the intention of furiii.-hinjj; 
them with a sort of thesaurus, incorporatinj,' such 
portions of the traditional lore as lie considered 
most important. Hence the ground for his includ- 
ing in tlie work the opinions of the minority {e.g. 
of tlie school of Shammai), which only in a few 
e.xceptional cases were accepteil as a norm for 
practice. A preliminary acijuaintance with the 
contents of the Scriptures bcarin"; upon the topic 
ex|>ounded by tradition is always assumed ; .so 
tliat.c.'/., the tractate .S»/./,rt commences : ' A booth 
(the interior of which is) higher than 20 cubits 
is disi|ualilied,' thus premising the duty of living 
in booths for seven days according to Lv 2'.i'-. In 
many cases even a knowledge of tlic institutions 
established by the Oral Law is presupposed. Ilciice 
such a statement as that willi which the Mi-lina 
commences: 'When do they begin to read the 
li/iima' in the evening (i.e. the 3 paragraphs in 
the Scriptures, Dt ti'" 11 "■'-', and Nu Ij"-", tlie 
first paragraph of which begins with the word 
ShCma' ypf)? From the time the priests (in the 
case of defilement) come back (from their ritual 
baths) to eat their heave-oMering' {i.e. after sun- 
set, see Lv •22'''). The duty or the custom of daily 
reading the Shiiiia' is thus assumed as s<iiiiething 
generally known though not mentioned in the 

The works after which R. Jehuda modelled his 
comiiilation and the .sources u|ion which he drew 
were probably the older -Mislina collections, the 
lirst com|iosition of which was, as there is good 
rea.son to believe, 1 egiin by the lirst siiccc.s.sors of 
Shammai and Hillel, then compiled liy K. '.Aliilja, 
and continued by his disciple 1{. .Meir, who en- 
riched it by lulditioiis of tlie later Tdiiiiniiii. This 
.Mislina became the groundwork of that of K. 
Jehuda, apart from various other collections of a 
similar kind {e.ij. the .Mislina of .Ablia Sliaiil), 
which were eipially known to the compiler and 
utilized by him." The strata of these older coiii- 
iKisitions are still in many places discernible, cither 
liy their style and |ihruscology or by the nature of 
their contents. An iiislance of the former is the 
passage illustrating the piuhibltion ngninst trans- 
porting things on Sabbath from a space belonging 
to a private individual to that conslilutiiig a part 

• For this ' higher criticism ' of the Misbno. see Dr. I..wy, 
' t'lH-r einige Friigniente aus der M. des Ablia Saul ' in ZitrUtr 
HrriM uUr dir lluchtchuU fur dir IC. d. ,/. in ft-r/iii, 137«, 
and Dr. D. Iloflmaun, Die enU Mite/ina (Uerliii, lt>ti:i). 




of the jmlilic property. This connnences n-jc'n niK'x: 
(M. Shubhdth i. 1), instead of 'e'n nixsm, tlirough 
which the Scripture expression kt % (Ex 16'") is 
still visible, and thus points to a time when the 
Hcdilkhd was still in its early stage, forniinp; a 
sort of paraphrase of Scripture, not a set of abstract 
laws. As an instance of the latter, it is sulhcient 
to refer liere to the liistorical description of the 
procession in which the sacrifice of the lirst-fruits 
was brought to the temple (Ex. '29"), concerning 
which we read in M. Bikkarim iii. 4 : ' The pipe 
was playing before them (the pilgrims) until they 
arrived at the temple mountain, when even Agrippa 
tlie king would take the basket (containing the 
first-fruits) on his shoulders, stepping forward till 
he reached the courts ; then the Levites spoke in 
song (chanted), "I will extol thee, O Lord, for 
thou hast lifted me up'" (Ps 30"). The mention of 
Agrippa (probably Agrippa I., c. 40) points to a 
contemporary document, since a Itabbi of a later 
period would, for the sake of emphasis, have named 
some biblical potentate (e.g. Solomon), not a mere 
Herodian prince.* This is only a specimen of 
many other portions of the Mishna, which contain 
lengthy descriptions of the'saerilicial service on 
certain occasions, or give accounts of the archi- 
tecture of the temple, its administration (including 
lists of the names of the higher otiioials), .and its 
economy; whilst others furnish us with records of 
actual transactions of the Sanhc<Irin, the prcjccilure 
of the courts, and the various methods of execution. 
All these bear the stamp of their own age, and 
testify to the early date of their com])osition. 

The question whether R. Jehuda, besides com- 
piling, actually wrote down the Mishna, is still 
a controverted point amongst modern scholars, 
as it was nearly a thousand years ago between 
the Fianeo-German and the Spanish authorities. 
The balance of evidence is still about equal on 
each side. Three things, however, seem to be 
certain. First, there existed a law or custom, 
dating from ancient tbnes, jnohibiting the writing 
down of the contents of Tradition, though the 
Scripture support for this custom (Bab. Ta,Im. 
TeiHurCi 146 and parallel passages) was not ad- 
vanced till a comparatively late period (end of the 
2nd cent.). Amjile evidence of this fact is afiorded 
by the traditional term, ' Torah by mouth,' as well 
as the various mnemotcchnical aids to be found 
in the Mishna (c.q. Mi(iiUa i. 4^11, pn ;-.■<) and the 
homage p.aid to those who iincnti'il them (>ce .lerus. 
Shi'kdliiii 4S<-, regarding the giouping of Hrilakhuth 
in numbers, and Abuth d' It. Siitluni IS, respecting 
R. 'Akiba'a arranging of the Torah in links). 
Second, the prohibition did not extend to books of 
a Hrir/tjridic character (xn-isNi 'i;t), of which we 
know that they both circulated among, and were 
rea<l by, the Rabbis. Under HaggadCi was included 
also tlie gnomic literature — as, for instance, the 
Wisdom of Ben Sira, which both the Tnnnaim and 
tXxe'Aiiioraiiii, as well as the authorities of a later 
period, the Gconim (e.g. R. Saadyal, knew in the 
Hebrew original, and were constantly quoting, and 
of which fragments covering nearly two-thirds of 
the book have now been found after a disappear- 
ance of nearly 700 years. Third, the ] inhibition 
was often disregarded, even in cases iif Ilolrikhd, 
as in the case of the Mcgillath Tni'mith (n'^n n^-jp), 
containing a list of certain days in the on 
which no fast could be declared, or the Megillath 
Sraiimcinin ("i';s i?'J9), 'the Roll of Spices,' treat- 
ing of the preparation of the incense (Ex 30^'"^-) in 
the tabernacle and the temple (Jerus. Shekalim 
49a). _ 

Owing to the great authority of R. Jehiida the 

* See HotTmann, I.e. p. 15 ; l)Ut ct. also A. Biichler, Die 
Pri'f.iler imd rfii- Ciiilas in denlelzlai Jahrzelmlen lies Jem- 
tulemiselmi Tcmpels (Wien, 1885), p. lU. 

Patriarch, his compilation became the Miihna Kar 
eioxv", a sort of canonical collection of the teach- 
ings of the Tannaim, forming the text- book of the 
students of the Oral Law, round which centred 
all the comments, discussions, and the additional 
matter produced by the succeeding generations. 
The other collections, likewise confined to the 
teachings of the 2'annaim, but composed in schools 
not presided over by the Patriarch, pass under the 
name either of .ijis-nri .ij^p Mishna HahUCno, (more 
frequently the Aram. KC'IP Bdraithd), ' the ex- 
ternal Mishna,' or TGsephta (xijrcin), 'addition' (to 
the Mishna). No trealJise lepresenting the ' external 
Mishna ' has come down to us, but many hundreds 
of quotations from such external Misbnas are 
scattered over the two Talmuds, mostly introduced 
by such phrases as IJSI iJP ('our Masters taught'), 
or K;;ri ('it is taught'), or («n and ':p ('he taught'). 
But we ])ossess a work, bearing the name Tvsephtd, 
corresponding with the arrangement of the ^lislina, 
and dealing with the same subjects. It shows 
marks of diti'erent ages ; and, whilst it embodies 
portions coming from collections preceding our 
Mishna, it presupposes the knowledge of the latter, 
whilst in some places it even atiords comment* 
and explanations taken from the Gcmiirn and 
recast in the New Hebrew style of the Mishna. 
It is thus safe to assume that the date of its Hnal 
redaction falls in the later age of the 'Ainnniim, 
though its com}iosition may liave been initiated 
by R. piya and R. Hoshaya the disciples of R. 
Jehuda, to whom tradition attributes such a work 
unilertaken in imitation of the TCscphtd of R. 
Neliemia, who is credited with having collected 
'additions' to the Mislina of R. 'Akiba. To this 
class of works also belong the so-called Minor 
Tiact.ates bearing the following titles :— -4 iy^/i </' 
li. Nathan ([ni '-n nux), a _sort of TCscphtd and 
Midrash to tlie tractate 'AOCth, existing in two 
recen.sions ; * Massckheth Supherim (o-ino nrgc),! 
'Scribes,' dealing with the laws relating to the 
writing of the Scriptures. The text is in a bai 
condition, the interpolations and additions (on the 
Jewish liturgy, etc.) almost obliterating the original 
plan of the work, and it should be studied in con- 
nexion with the tractates Scpher Turd, Mczum 
(laws relating to the writing of certain verses 
from the Scriptures and to fixing them on the door- 
posts, see Dt G"), and Tc/tki//,» (I'liyhuteries), 
edited by Kirchheim ; Massck/icth Hi'iinlhi th ;.^;^3 
nines' 'Joys'),t a euphemistic title for laws ami cus- 
toms connected with mourning— of which we have 
also a shorter recension ed. by C. i^I. Horwitz 
under the title 'm-.:5i nin-;' nrc.7 (' Tractate Joys, the 
Minor') ; Massckheth Kalld (n^3 n=sD ' Bride ''), laws 
of chastity to be observed in conjugal life ; Mase- 
khcth JJcrckh 'Ercz (]~<^ '-n nrpc), 'Manners' and 
behaviour of the diHerent classes of society on 
various occasions. Tlie tractate exists in two 
recohsions, a longer (nj"!) and a shorter one (kqii). 
The latter, dealing almost exclusively with the 
rules of life prescribed for the ' disciples of the 
wise,' is of a very spiritual nature. Lastly, we 
have to note here the other tractates ed. by 
Kirc'hheim, including, besides those mentioned 
above, the tractates dealing with the la\\s re- 
lating to Zizith (n'X'x), 'Fringes' (Nu 15-*); 'Abddim 
(c-ijii), 'Slaves'; Ki'ithim (D'?13), 'Samaritans'; 
and Girim (o-ij), ' Proselytes.' 

The works recorded thus far, though containing 
occasional hermeneutical elements, convey, owing 
to their scantiness and the long intervals at wjiicli 
they occur, but a faint idea of the interpretatoiy 

* See S. Schechtcr's introduction to his edition of Abolh d' R. 
Nathan, Vienna, 1878. 

tSee Dr. Joel Muller's introduction to hia edition of the 
Maaeciiet Sfj/enm. 

; See N. Briill, ' Die Talniudischen Tractate iilier Trauer um 
Vor^tovhenG' (^Jahrbiichey del- J U(i. Li».pp. l-oO- 


wurk of the Tannaiin. I'or tliis we must turn to 
the earlier Midras/t, wliieli 1ms come down to us 
ill the followinj,' works; — the Milclulta (hi?'?';?), 
'Meiisure' on a portion of Kx<xlus; the Si/i/iri; 
(•Tc), 'the liooks on portions of Niinihers anil 
the whole of IJeuterononiy, both Miilntshim 
eniiinating from the seliool of IshniacI ; and the 
Siji/ird (nice) or Turath Kululiiim (D-jni nTn), ' The 
jjook' or ' The Law of the Priests' on Leviticus, 
a proiluct of the seliool of It. 'Akihn. Besides 
these fairly coinplete works we also possess fraj;- 
iiieiits of a Mi/:/ii/lu of U. Shim'on b. Voliai on 
Kxoilus, and of a small Si/i/iiti (Kyi «"!?;) on Num- 
bers, both originating' in the seliool of It. 'Akiba ; 
and of II Ml' /Jut til on Deuteioiiumy, eomin;; from 
the school of K. Miiiiael.* The e\,i:, m -tnii 
of till-, formiii- the basis ,.l ih.- Mi-/,.is/i, 
^'lew with the rise of the new schncU, tin- -rvr.u 
heriiieneiitical rules of Ilillel having- l.eeiul.-v .loi.ed 
by K. Ishiiiael into thirteen, and expanded (par- 
tienlaily as re;,'aids their application in the depart- 
nieiit ot lliiiiiiihla) by li. Kliezer, the son of It. .lose 
of Calilee, into thirly-two or thirty-three rules; 
Avhilst rules of interpretatitm of other distin- 
^'iiished llabbis are also mentioned. The practical 
olijcct of the Mil/rush was the deduction of new 
Jlrili'i/./iiith from the Scriptures, or the lindin^' of 
a 'support' (KorTr.'si for the old ones. It is very 
ililliiiilt to detciMiine in which eases the Miilriish 
prcc cdcd the and in which the Hdtahliil 
inccrdeil the Miili-iisli, but it may be safely 
assumed that in niost cases where the interpre- 
tation of the Itabbis is l'oicc<l and far-fetched the 
llilliit.lii'i was lirst handed down liy trailition as an 
ancient usa^e or custom, and the liiblical 'support' 
was invoked only to give it the \veij;lit of .Scriplnre 
authority. Here are one or two instances, which, 
};iveu in the languajje of the Itabbis, may eoiivej' 
some idea of the vivid style of the Miilniah^ 

' K. Isliniael, K. 'Eliezer b. 'Azarya, and K. 
Akilia were walking; on the highroad, and Levi 
liass.-ular ami It. Ishmael the son of 11. 'Eliezer 
li. 'A?arya were walkin;; beliind them. And 
then the following f(iiestioii was )ait before them, 
" Whence is it to be inferred that danger of 
life 'removes' the Sabbath';" ... It. Jose of 
(Jalilee answered, "It is written, BuT (-N) my 
Siilili'itltK yc s/uill keep (E.\ 31"); the (limitinj; 
particle) ?,<< teaches, there are Sabbaths which thou 
keepest, others which thou 'removest' (the latter in 
eases of danger of life)." U. .".hiin'on b. Manasva 
says, " lielndd Scripture says, And i/e sliiill L-ep ilie 
S'ili/,-it/is, for it i.i hi,/;/ until vou [i/j. v."), the 
Sabbath i.s given to you (with stress on the word 
cr^) to desecrate in case of need, but thou art 
nut given to the Sabbath'" {Mi/:/iilta, ad /iie.). 
Other Kabhis this J/iUi'i/Jul on the logical 
principle of «y6J'<i«/i (Tin; Sp, one of the hermen- 
eutical rule.s of Ilillel), but none disputes the 
J/i'ilil/c/td in itself.which had evidently the authority 
of a-es. Another instance is the interpretation of 
Ex '-'1-' (ef. Lv •J4-'") : ' Ei/e for eye, that is, money 
(ainonnting to the value of the eye). Thou sayest 
money, perhaps it means the real eye (i.e. that his 
eye sliould be blinded in retaliation for the organ 
which he has dcstruycih. K. Eliezer sai<l, "It is 
written, .1 nit /v lint /. i//. t/i n /tc s/m/t restore, 
(nut /le t/i(il /.dl, l/i II iifin s/tiilt be put to dcnt/i 
(Lv 2i-'). The Scripture has thus put together 
damages cau.sed to a man and those cau.sed to a 
licast. As the latter may be atoned for by pay- 
ing (the damages), so can also the former (except 
in cases of murder) be punished with money " 

• See on these Mi<lra>l,u„ : I. II. Wei**' Inlrmluetion to his 
eiliticn of tlie.sV(,,r ,\,.MrM l-c;j|; M. Kriediiiann's Inlnxluc- 
tinii lo I, i.s e,iili..ri ..1 11m W /, , ».( (Vielllra. 1S71I) ; Dr. U-W.v, 
Kin Wiirl uhcr ,!„■ ■ M / . •' ' - A'. .S/mwr ^liresl.-iu. ISsK) ; 
anil Hr. I). lIoffni.iMii. /"- ^inUituivj in dw lialucliUclicn 
Midmschiin (L*rliu, IbSU-Si). 



{.'iip/iril ad loc. ; Me/./idtd ad tor. ; ]Si-,Ijk 
lyiinind, 83/;). This argument, called cbi (an- 
alogy of matter), is in direct oiiposition to the 
literal .sense of the Scriptures, which implies the 
jus tidiunin in uniuistakable terms; but it was only 
meant to lend some biblical sanctiim to a Ui'itn/Jid 
that had been a controverted point between the 
Sadducees and the I'harisees for centuries before. 
It is diU'erent, when we read, for instance, with 
regard to the law, And t/ie Iniid s/itdt /: rp 
S(tl,l>i>t/t to t/ie Lord (Lv 25-'): 'One might think 
that it is also forbidden to ilig iiils, canals, 
and caves (this being a disturbance of the land) 
in the sabbatical year, therefore we have an 
inference to saj-, T/iou .i/tidt m it/ier .low t/iy field 
nor jirtine t/iy vineyard (ih. v.'), proving that it 
is <inly work connected with vineyard and lield 
that is forbidden.' In instances like this, where 
the interpretation has nothing forced or .strange 
about it, it would not be risky to a.ssuino t!:at tl:C 
Ililld/.hd was the outcome of the .Midra.s/i. But 
it is not such mere practical (| nest ions that have 
produced the vast Miilrns/i literature. A great 
portion of it is simple commentary, though some- 
times reproduced in that vivid dialogue style 
which makes it ap|iear Midnis/i-\i\i.K. K.'/. And 
i/c sluil/ tii/ce H hunr/i of /uissup and s/udl dip it in 
't/ic hloud I/tat is i;; (Ex I'/--), on which the .Vi/./iiltd 
(ad /oc.) has the following comment: 'The Scrip- 
tures tell us that he carves out a hole on the side 
of the threshold over which he kills (the passover 
lamb) ; for IP means simply the threshold, as it is 
said. In t/ieir scttinrj of t/icir t/irrx/io/ds l»j my 
t/ires/iold CprnK c?? Ezk 43", cf. LXX and Vulg.; 
This is the opinion of It. Ishmael. K. 'Akiba .says 
\r means nothing else but a vessel, as it is said, 
l/ii- tioirt.i (c'Sf), t/ic .inuffers, t/ic bmins' (I K 7**, ef. 
Aram, versions and commentaries). Another ex- 
ample may be taken from the expression ni):i from 
t/ie /lo/y tliini/.s of t/te e/iildren of Israel (Lv '2'J-) on 
which the Siplir'n c(iiiiiuciils : ' .iTij (a noun, derived 
from ni;'i m. mis imi hia^ else but separation. And 
so he says irlurh ,s luiml.lli liiiii.ielffrom me i\r:\^(V,ik 
14'), and he says again, T/iey separated bruku-nds 
(!iij Is 1*).' Such instances of mere cp? (simple 
meaning) could be cited by hundreds, and it is not 
impossible that many more were omitted by the 
scribes, who considered such renderings of words 
and delinitions of terms as universallj' known 
through tin- medium of the various versions, anu 
hence not siilliciciitly important to be copied." In 
the //iii/iiui/i'- portioiis ot the .Midni.t/i the elements 
of simple cMgesis are less luomineiit— a fact wliicli 
is easily explained bj' their subjective charactei. 
Sometimes the interpreter or preacher is .so deeply 
convinced of the truth of the le.sson he has to 
teach that he feels no compunction in interweav- 
ing it with biblical texts, and putting it into 
the mouth of a biblical hero. Thus we read in 
the Siji/ii-H with reference to Lv 9" T/iis is t/it 
t/uiiij irliii/i t/ie Lord eommnnds ye s/iull do: 
' Moses said unto Israel, iJo remove the cril desire 
(V!'7 ly.) from your hearts, lie all in awe and of 
one counsel to worship before the Oninipreseiit. 
As he is the .Sole One in the world, so shall your 
service be single-hearted, as it is said, Cirrumrise 
the foreskin of i/uur /icart, for t/ic Lord your Uod 
is t/ie God of gods and t/ic Lord of lords (Dt I0'«- "), 
and t/icn the glory of t/ie Lord s/mll appear vnio 
you (Lv 1)").' The thought expressed in this inter- 
pretation is that the manifestation of the Divine 
glory is the reward for the fulliliiient of a com- 
mandment, and is sure to occur whenevei Israel 
accomplishes the laws of the Torah in true devo- 
tion and single-heartedness of spirit. Occasion- 

• See Friodmonn'H Intrnduction (.) tin- ili-Hiilla, p. Kxvl. 
anil l>r. I.. Ilolimihuti' lirocburc, Dif eiii/aclu liiltcttujtte det 
rannaim (UrcaUu, 1603). 



ally tlie preacher in his enthusiasm leaves the 
text altogetlier and rushes oil' into a sort of hymn, 
as, for instance (Ex 15'), / will praise God, on 
which the I\IikhiUd (ad loc.) : — ' I will give praise 
to God that he is mighty . . . that he is wealthy 
. . . that he is wise . . . that he is merciful 
. . . that he is a judge . . . tliat he is faithful.' 
Each attribute is followed by a proof from Scrip- 
ture, and the whole is a paraphrase of 1 Ch 29"- '^. 
The constant citing of parallel passages by way of 
illustration is a main feature of the Midrash, 
Siphre on Nu 15^" 'And ye shall not seek after yoiir 
own heart and your own eyes orry : By this latter 
is meant adultery, as it is said. And Sainsun said to 
his father. Get her for me, for she is pleasing to my 
eyes' ('j'!;3 Jg 14^). Again, Dt 6' ' And thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all 
thy soul,' where the Siphre adds by way of com- 
ment : ' Even if he should take away thy soul. 
And so he (the Psalmist, 44-'°), Yea, for thy sake 
are we killed all the day lonij.' The great 
exegetical principle was, ' The words of the Torah 
are poor (or deficient) in one place but rich in 
another, as it is said, She is like the merchant's 
ship; she hringeth her food from afar' (Pr SI"; 
Jerus. Talm. Ilosh Hashshdnd 58rf). 

iv. The 'Amoraim D'xnios 'Speakers,' 'Inter- 
preters ' ; a designation commonly applied to the 
authorities who flourished 2'20-500, and whose main 
activity consisted in expounding the Mishna. The 
seats of learning were no longer conHned to Pales- 
tine, great schools having arisen, as in the time 
of tlie Tannaim, in various places in Babylonia, 
destined even to overshadow the former. The 
Babylonian teachers (who received ordination) bear 
as a rule the title liab (m) in contradistinction 
to their Palestinian brethren who were called 
Rabbi ('21). The most im[iortant among the 
'Amoraim are the following : — 

First Generation (220-280).— («) Palestine: R. 
Jannai, of whom we have a saj'ing in the Mishna ; 
R. 5iya and R. Hosliaya Rabija, the supposed com- 

Eilers of the T/jscphld (see above) ; R. Joshua b. 
evi, the subject of many legends, to whom various 
mystical treatises (descriptions (if paradise ami hell, 
etc.) are attributed; R. .lobaiian (b. Nappaha) of 
Sepphoris and Tiberias, disciple of R. ,)udali and 
the most prominent teacher in I'alestine during 
the 3rd cent., and his brother-in-law R. Shim'on 
b. Lakish. [b) Babylon: Abba Arikha ('Long 
Abba'), commonly cited by his title Rab. He 
'went up' (from Babylon) to Palestine together 
with his uncle R. Hiya (mentioned above) to 
study under R. Jehuda, and on his return founded 
at Sura the scliool over which he presided ; Samuel 
nxj-nr (the astronomer), a relative of Rab, and, 
like him, a disciple of R. Judah (though he did not 
receive ordination from him). He became head of 
the school in Nehardea. 

Second Generation (280-300).— (n) Palestine : R. 
Eleazar b. Pedath, R. Simlai, R. Assi (also Issi and 
R. Amnii) (also Immi), and R. 'Abuha. The first 
four emigrated to Palestine from Babylon ; wliilst 
R. 'Abuha, who was a native of Palotiiie. tau;:lit 
in C;esarea, where he often had controversies \\ iih 
Christian teachers. The famous Hariqadist R. 
Shainuel b. N.ahmani also belongs to this genera- 
tion, (b) Babylon : R. Huna (Sura), R. Jehuda 
(b. Jeheskel), founder of the school of Pumbeditha ; 
R. Hisda, R. Shesheth, founder of a school in Shillii. 
All these were disciples of Rab and Shamuel, or of 
one of them. 

Third Generation (320-370).— This period marks 
the decay of the schools in Palestine, a consequence 
of the religious persecutions inaugurated under the 
reign of Constantine. (a) Palestine : Jeremia, R. 
Jona, and R. Jose, (b) Babylon: Rabbah (n;n) b. 
Nahmani (Pumbeditha), famous for his dialectical 


skill and called ' the mountain-mover' ; his colleague 
R. Joseph, a great authority on Targum, whose « ide 
acquaintance with all branches of tlie Law brought 
him the title of ' Sinai ' ; their pupils 'Abayi and 
Raba (N?-;), both famous for the ingenious methods 
exemplified in their controversies scattered all over 
the Bab. Talmud ; R. Papa, founder of a school in 

Fourth Generation (375-427). — (a) Palestine : R. 
Shamuel (b. Jose b. R. Bun) ; (b) Babylon : R. Ashi 
(Sura) ; R. Kabana II. (Pumbeditha), and Amemar 
(Nehardea). The former is credited with having 
begun the compilation of the Bab. Talmud. 

Fifth Gcmition (427-500).— /;-(/»//..,( ; Mar bar 
R. Ashi: Kubliina (contraction of Rab Abina( Sura)), 
and R. 'i'osphaa (Pumbeditha). The two latter were 
greatly instrumental in accomplishing the work 
commenced by R. Ashi, finishing the compilation 
of the Bab. Talmud, and reducing it to writing. 

The literary productions of these two schools 
are largely embodied in the two Talmuds bearing 
the title of their native countries : (A ) Palestinian 
Talmud called the Talmud of Jerusalem, "C^w'i; 'n, 
which is also more correctly called (since there were 
no schools in Jerusalem after the destruction of the 
temple) nmym 'n Vx-jt" px 'n and K'i'yp 'J?l ni.?j ' the 
Talmud of (the children of) the Land of Israel,' ' the 
Talmud (or the Gcmara) of (the ]ieople of) the West.' 
(B) The Babylonian Talmud 'V^s n, which (though 
only occurring once) was also known under the 
title of n-iiD 'viK 'n ' the Talmud of the people of the 
East.'* 'rlie main oliject of theTalmuds is the inter- 
pretation of the Misima, tracing its sources, giving 
its reasons, explaining obscure passages, as well 
as real or seeming contradictions, by the aid of 
p.arallel passages in the ' external Mishnas,' and 
illustrating its matter and expanding its contents 
(especially in the branches of civil law) by giving 
such cases as life and altered circumstances were 
constantly furnishing. It is perhaps in this latter 
quality that the text of the Talmud propiM- as 
distinguished from the Mishna is called Ginulnl 
K"i:3, meaning, according to some avitlioiitics, 
'Supplement' or Complement to the .Misima. t 
Tlie Talnnuls differ in \ariuus minor respect s. Thus, 
the non-Hel>rew portions of the .Terus. Tahiniil are 
comi«.s,.,l ill the West Aram, dialect, whilst those 
of the liab. Talmud .are written in an East Aram, 
idiom, closely related to the Syr. and still more 
akin to the Maiidaic language. The style of the 
Jerus. Talmud is more concise, its discussions less 
diffuse, than those of the Bab. Talmud. The 
former is altogether free from the casuistic and 
lengthy discourses on imaginary cases which form a 
special feature of the productions of the Eastern 
Rabbis. It should, however, be remarked that, so 
far as dialect and diction are concerned, the Bab. 
Talmud is not always uniform, there being various 
tractates, such as Ncddrim, Nuzir, Tcmurd Mc'lld, 
and Kerithoth, which betray certain grammatical 
forms and peculiarities of style, reminding us in 
some places of the diction of the T.almud of 
Jcnisalein. Apart from the main object as de- 
scribed, the text of the Mishna serves sometimes 
(particularly in the Bab. Talmud) as a mere peg 
on which to fasten matter having hardly any 
connexion with the contents of the latter. E.g. 

• See JQR ix. 120. 

t Neither the Jerus. nor the Bah. Talm. extends over all the 
60 (or G3) tractates of the Mishna. The Jerus. Talm. hiisGeindnt 
to the first four orders of the Mishna and to three chapters in 
the tractate NiddCi in the sixth order ; but in the second order 
there is missing the Gurnard to the last four chapters of the trac- 
tate ShabOalh, to the third chapter of_the tractate Makkoth, and 
in the fourth order to the tractates 'Ab6th anA'Eduyyoth. The 
Bab. Talm. has Gemdrd as follows ; in the first order to tractate 
Berakhoth only; in the second orderj^ tractate Sbckn/itn is 
omitted ; in the fourth order, tractates 'Abdth a,\id' Eduj/n<il/i are 
omitted ; in the fifth order, tractates MidMth and Kinnini are 
omitt«d ; in the sixth order, Gemdrd to tractate Siddd alune. 


tlie lilies ill Mislnwi tiactatc (Uttiii, ' tlmt lla- laws 
re;;ui<liii^' till- <TiMi/>io< (a iiariif iimk-r « liicli i-i-rtain 
Itwlurs (It till- /Aiildt \y.\ni\- w.-ii- known) ili.l not 
apiily to tin' lanilipf .lii(l«'a,'urefollowu<l iiitlie Hah. 
ThImukI liy a Icjiimlaiy account of the wars pre- 
icdinj; the de-linclion of the second temple, and 
various incidents connected with it, extemlin^ over 
more than o folio jia^'es (■"ij^(-.W(i). A^'ain in the 
tractate liilhd litithiCi, the accidental remark in 
the Mishiia, that a volume (or roll) eontainiii^ the 
Scriptures inherited by two or more brothers must 
not be divided amon^ them by cuttiiij; it up into 
its constituent books even when the parties ajjree 
to this, provokes in the Gcinaru (of the l!ab. Tal- 
mud) a discussion relating to the arrangement of 
the Canon of the OT, its rise, and the dates at 
which the various books includeil in it were com- 
posed, accompanied by a Ion;; iliscourse on the 
particular nature of the Hook of .lob, the eliarjictcr 
and date of its hero, together with a few remarks 
on other biblical jiersonages, which covers nearly 
8 folio pages (13i!i-17a). This process of inserting 
matter but slightly connected with the text is at 
times carried further by adding to the inserted 
matter other topics having a similar slight con- 
nexion with it. As an instance of this process 
we may regard the following. -Mishna licnlhlu'.th, 
ell. ix. 1, runs, ' He who sees a jilace in which 



miracles were performed for the sake of Israel 
says. Praised be he who wrought miracles for 
our fatlieis in this place.' l!y way of illustration 
the Ucindra (llab. Talm. ih. 54") cites an 'external 
Mishna' in which it is taught that ' He who sees 
the crossings of the Red Sea {i.e. the place at 
which the Jews crossed the Red Sea, Ex 14-'-), or 
the crossings of the .Jordan (.los .I'-"') ... is l)ound 
to give thanks and praise to the Oinnipre-sent' 
(Mt'ih'.ni). The last words suggest a i)uotation of 
it. .leliuda in the name of Kab, adding to the 
number of those who are under the obligation to 
give thanks, also the four cases enumerated in 
I's 107 (people returning from a sea voyage, 
coming back from a journey through the desert, 
recovering from a serious illness, or released from 
prison, 54';). This slatement is followed by several 
other sayings (,'il/<, Xvi) which have no other con- 
nexion w"ith tlie preceding matter than identity of 
authorship, all being citeil in the name of llab. 
One of these citations is to the etlect that for 
three things man should in particular juay to 
Hod (who alone can grant tlieiii) : 'a good king, 
a good year, and a good tlirnin ' (55i) ; bnt the 
last word again suggests a new train of thought 
on the subject of dreams, their interpretation and 
fullilnient, which forms the theme of the next 
6 folio pages (5.V(-.57'j). Owing to sudden 
and violent changes from subject to subject, the 
style of the Talniud becomes very uni-ertain and 
rather rambling;* hut, on the other hand, it is 
this very eircunistance that keeps the ' sea of the 
Talmud ' in constant motion, relieving it from the 
monotony and tedious repetition so peculiar to the 
ni.iiority of theoliigi<-al works dating from those 
early .ages. Iiideid, ow iiig to this facility for drag- 
ging in whalcver interested the compilers or the 
scribes, the Talmud aliimsl loses the character of a 
work of divinity, and assumes more the character 
of an encychipadia, reproducing the knowledge of 
the Kabliis during the lirst live centuries on all 
possible subjects, whether secular or religious. 
This is, as alre.'uly indicated, parti<iilarly the 
with the Bab. Talmud, the Hiujijwta ot which is 
very discursive and rich in all sorts of folk-lore. 
It "must, liowever, be borne in mind that the 
authorities in whose names the strangest stories 

' It is this discursiveness which makes a iirnper translotion of 
the Talmud almost impossible : see M. Kriedmann's brochure, 
1ia>nn nniK "jy lit, Vienna, 1895 (Hcb.) 

are .sometimes communicated are often Itabhis 
from rale^liiie. whose sayings and statements 
were as much sliidicil and discussed in the East 
as they were in the West. 

v. The Siihorai 'kiu; 'Explainers' or ' .Medi- 
tntors' (upon the wonls of their predecessors), 
whose activity is supposed to have extendeil over 
the whole of tlie (ith century. The most important 
among them are Kabbah .lose (l'iim)iedithai and K. 
'Ahai (of He I.!athini), who llourisheil about the 
beginning of the (itii cent., and probably shared 
largely in the compilation work of the last of the 
'Aiiwi'iiin ; ami K. Ci/a (Suta) ami K. Simona 
(I'umheditha), who belonged to the middle of the 
same century. The activity of the .Suljurni, about lives we know little, consisted mainly in com- 
menting upon the Talmud by means of explanatory 
speeches, and contributing to it some additional 
controversies marked by peculiarity of style ami 
by absence of the names of those engaged in the 
dialogue, as well as liy insertion of liiial decisions 
upon the diliering opinions of their predei'es.s(ms. * 
The school of the Suliuiui is peculiar to Habylon, 
there being no corresponding clii-s of teachers in 
Palestine. Nor is there .any leliahle tradition, re- 
garding the compilatiim of the .Jems. Talmud, by 
whom it was accomplished, and when it was under- 
taken. Maimonides' statement, that U. .lolianan 
composed the Jerus. Talmud, can, since this work 
contains quantities of matter dating from a much 
later period, mean only that by the aid of the 
schools he founded, this Rabbi was largely instru- 
mental in giving rise to a work emliodying the 
teachings of the later Western authorities. Hut in 
conseinicnce of religious persecutions and political 
disturbances the decay of the schools set in too 
early to permit even such comparative complete- 
ness and linish as are to be found in the Hab 
Talmud, which is itself far from perfection in this 
res]icct. Indeed the abruptness of the discussions 
of the I'al. Talmud, the freiiuent absence of formuhe 
introducing iiuotations or marking the beginning of 
the treatment of a fresh subject or the conclusion 
of an old one, as well as the mengieness of its 
matter w here the analog^' of the Hab. Talmud would 
suggest the greatest fulness, and the fact that it 
has no GCiiiuid at all on the 5tli order (sacrifices), 
which is so strongly represented in the Bab. Tal- 
mud, r— all these circumstances convey the impres- 
sion that the Jerus. Talmud was never submitted 
to a real conscious comjalation with the object of 
presenting posterity with a completed work. What 
was reduced to writing <loes not give us a work 
carried out after a ]ireconcerted plan, but rathe; 
represents a series of jottings answering to the 
needs of the various individual writer.s, and largely 
intended to strengthen the memory. And thus 
lackin" the authority enjoyed by the Mishna and 
the Hab. Talmud, which were the proilucts of the 
great centres of learning, the .lerns. Talmud was, 
for a long time at least, not elevated to the rank 
of a national work, and it is therefore easy to 
understand how such portions of it as not 
much bearing upon actual practice were permitted 
to disai)pear. Altogether, the people of I'alestine 
were, as an old Rabbi said, ' sick with oppres.«ion,' 

• On all these points see N. Briill's essay, ' Die EntNtehunirs* 
isescliiehtc des liab. T. als Schiiltwerlies' ; and Weiss, as atiovc, 
vol. iii. p. 2l»»fl., and vol. \\. p. 1 It. 

t The ipiestion whether the Jenis. Talmud ever hod (iimiira 
to the llnh ortler is lieHl disnissed in the tUhatut: ... by < uLts 
H. S^'horr, who on excellent i^rounds umirituins that sii.-h a 
(iriniirn must Unlit mu»l be ^.tated that bitberto. 
not even in the Cairo collwlions, whi'h liiive restored to us 
so many lost works, has a sintrle line lurnnl up to eonflrm 
Schorr's hypothesis. Alxiul the iio-uliarities o( the fourth 
onler. see I. Ia-wv, tnUrjtrftatioit tie* 1. Aine/iniltcn licf paUijtt. 
Talmutl-Traklali Snnkiii (Brislau, ISI.',). p. 20 ; but compare 
also the referen.-es to the other authorities there given. This 
essay is the best piece of work >el Uooc ou the redaction of 
the Jerus. Talmud. 




and liad no time to spare for the niceties of the 
HCih'iIclid, ' and did not listen to the words of 
Talnuid (in the narrower sense of discussing 
the legal portions of it) and the Mishna.' The 
deeper was their devotion to the Hof/r/ddd, wliich 
gave them 'words of blessing and consolation.' 
This will account for the copiousness of the 
Hafjijadic literature, Avhicli reached its highest 
development during the period of the ' Amorrtim. 
This literature is embodied in the I\[ii/ni.i/iiiii to 
various books of the OT as well as in cimI:!!!! inde- 
pendent Hagijadic treatises, the conti'iit.^ i<i \\ hicl), 
though possibly compiled at a later age, are made 
up of the homilies and moralizing exhortations 
given in the names of tlie same Palestinian Itabbis 
who figure as authorities in the two Talmuds. 
They, however, form a literature by themselves, 
never liaving served as sources or factors of the 
Talmud, though they are sometimes useful as 
parallel passages to the Hagqadic i)ortions of the 
latter. They thus do not fall within the scope of 
this article. It is, however, only fair to warn the 
theologian tlmu',;)! Im' iii.w ili-]"'n-i', i-'i., with 
theP(W/V-' irulli-clion ,,i hi.inilii- Hiiiiiilv l.a-r.l on 
the Hapl,ir,n,II,) „\ the Mi.lni-li S/nr If,, ,/,.-,/,, r!m 
(allegoric ipterpretations of the Song of Songs) in 
his study of the Talmud, lie cannot do so safely in 
his study of the Kabbi, whose performance of his 
prophetic office is seen to best advantage in such 
moralizing works as those of which the Haggadic 
pieces just mentioned are a fair specimen. 

Literature (omittinj? mostl.v such books as have alread.v been 
referred to in the notes). — Editio.ns : There are very few critical 
editionsof theancient Rabbinical literature, thou.ijh newreprints 
arr r..ri-;riiiMv ,i]i]iearin{^. The following, however, deserve 
spi i! Vishna, Naples, 1492, ed. pr. ; Mishna . . . 

L'l: , ' I ,'it ... J. Surenhusius, Amstelod., 1698; The 
M,'-', !i<i . ■ ■, > , , ,,,,11 auniquA MS,hyV^.'ii.ljO\ve, Cambridije, 
ls^.> , Mt.^hiit'ii,,ih . Uebraischer Textmit Pilnktation, Dctitscher 
ifbemetzicitg, von A. Samter, Berlin, 1887 (not yet finished). 
Most editions have, as a rule, the commentaries of 'Obadya di 
Bertinoro and of Yom Tob Lipnian Hi-lltT(2i:; C"* mroin), or the 
commentary of Maimonides (not ;i- ii. inmiV ;ts the two 
former). As useful editions for st.i't n' li. i; m I. itcs edited 
by Strack mav be recommended. 7 ' . i:i I I,v Zucker- 

mandel (after" M.SS), Pasewalk, ISS 1, ./ / ,■). Venire, 

1523, ed. pr., Krotoschiu, ISOG, and;i l- n '■; Tlii< 
last edition has several commentaries. Of sin- I. *i . , : in r-- 
have appeared, amon^ others, i>^ra/.-A<i(A, Pr-*.'. I/' uti 
thecommentarv.l/i(i(/«« .2'io)i,byZ. Frank. 1. i i i i ni.>t /;./;.( 
A'flinmft with aconnneiit,arybvI. Lr«> /;,. ; , ,„»,/, \'oniee, 
l.i20, with the commentaries 'of It ^ 
(Jtosscsof the Franco Rabbis. I 
The last and best edition of theTalii. I . 
in Wilna, 1880-8(>, 25 vols. The Fn / . . . 
in TaUnud i>a^.v^on('cuj>i, by Raph. I; 
16 vols. , and extending over a large j . . 
most important work for thecriticaNri;.l\ 
to be consulted is the work D-'.l m:Tcn rv 
berg, 1860, restoring the words and passages omitted or corrupted 
by the censors. Of single tractates we have onlv to notice here 
the Tract. Makkoth, ed. Friedmann, Wien, 1888.'* 

Introductory and Bibliographical : N. Kroehmal '313: ,Tiia 
[Dirt, Lemberg, 1861 (Heb.); L. Zunz, Die Gottesdiemtlichcn 
Vartrdge der Juden'^, Frankfurt-a.-M. 1892; M. Steinschneider, 
Jewish Literature, 55 1-7, London, 1857; Z. Frankel, -DlT 
naBTD.l, Hodefjetica in Mischnani . . . Lipsiffi, 1859 (Heb.) ; by 
the same, •S^'PIT.T (03D, In'r.idnctin in Tnhnnd Hiernsolo- 
mifan,,,:,. Brrslirr. T^T" (TT-M : c :r-..t7, r,'. ,■■,;,', >, ,l,-r Jnden, 
^■"'" '"I I '.: •■! ■ !• '■ ' ■ /■ '!.,.,„;re et la 

.'•. .and the 
1 Additions), 

li .appeared 

.n-isting of 
''almud, is a 
liiHid. Also 
iliilp, Koni] 

•srhiefit,- der .Jiidi.vlirn Tradilk 

* A good bibliographical account of the various reprints of 
the Bab. Talmud is to be found in Rabbinoivicz's ^V ICKD 
imSnn nOBin, Miinchen, 1877, whilst a short list of the various 
MSS in the different libraries is given by Strack in bis Ei},M- 
tmiq, p. 70fF. It should, liov.iver. l.p n'.,t,.,l th:it th.. ln«l 50 

to anv .ill-, II . , : ■ , I, . I i , M,. 

ElkanN. .\.L, -''•'.i .■ . . 1 .. I., . •. . .■„ ,!i ;, ;, ., : /, ; ,|,.j, 
not known i- l;,.l.,!i.. -a, .i ii,, i ' rnl.i .1 -i' . .."c.'' i.'.ns 

both in the p,.ss(.ssion „f the t iiixersitj- Lihrary and in tliat of 
Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson (now in Westminster College), 

Einleitung in den Thaltmid, Leipzig, 1894 ; M. Mielziner, Intro~ 
dticlion to the Talmud, Cincinnati, 1894 ; Schiirer, GJ V-, i. § 3 E, 
Leipzig,* 189U (Germ.). For popular accounts see E. ]>eutsch. 
The Talnmd, Philadelphia, 18»ii ; A. Darmesteter, The Talmud, 
Philadelphia, 1897. 

DicTio.VARlES ASD GRAMMARS ; Nathan b. Yehiel (of the 11th 
cent.), inyn HED, 1480, ed. pr. This work was last edited or 
rather incorporated in the Arukh Completitm . . . auetore 
A'athane filio Jechielid . . . corrigit explevit ci-itice Alex. 
Kohut, 8 vols., *Wien, 1878-92; Job. Buxtorf, Lexicon Vital- 
daicum Talmv^i,^un et 7fa6?^inicwm. Basel, 1640; Jacob Le\T, 
Neuhebrdiscl„'s in,,l ,-]iald,iis,-f„-g H;:.-l,-rhm-h iiWr die Tal- 
mudimnnd .i;,(, ,,..',,,„. i,, i|. i^ 1-7.1. M .i, l>;-t„,ii- 

aryo/theT,,. ,' ■;,.,, * .,*,„., I...11. 

don and Ne\\ ^ 1 " 1 l^i. '■ .,,/,,,, n- 

ische Lehnii',',!,, '■■' I ■' ■' I/,... ,(.,/, . ../,.. I, ,..,,,<,, . . . 

Berlin, 1898; W. I!a. Ii. ■ /' *■,'... 7. ,, 

Sehri/tttualegung : A'" n . ' 

spyache dcr Tanna,'< , I ,' I ~ ' ■ H i. ^ ! ' 

Siegfried, Z.c/iri(£C/i '/.'■ \, ',h. ',.■,,■.■',,,, Sn,-,Tr>i< KiiUiiil,.- 

and Leipzig, 1884; A. Geigei*, L,:hr- und Lcsii,uch der Sp,-a,-l,e 
der Mishnah, Breslau, 1845 (Germ.); I. H. *Weiss, pah BEca 
iiatr.'D.l, Wien, 1865 (Heb.) ; G. Dalman, Grammatik des Jiidisch- 
Paldstinischcn Aramdisch, Leipzig, 1894 (Germ.); S. D. Liiz- 
zatto, Elemcnti grammaticali del . . . dialetto Talmudico 
Bahilonese, Padua. 1865 (Ital.), of which a Germ. tr. was 
prepared by )I. S. Kru'jer, an.l was publisher! in Urcslau, 1873 ; 
Levias, (Jrai/i...". "''/.• /.*'■• /"'..' .' m. .r.i. iti. j;..... 

The attenii-i i..>.il m.i..'..ii 'I.. 1 .;iiiu.l .h . hkiuv and 

various. A |.,: . • •■ , ii ■ 1 •..:..*. 1.. ■ I 11, 1 >i*. Erich 

Bischoff'sA'>*'f. ■'■ .,,.*. ' ' .■ / ' . ■ 1' .,'..,(/'/./• 

Zeitenuvd ZHn,tcn,Vi-3.i\^iUn^ , ".1 mm i 1 '.■ 1.1...11I 

writer can, however, recomni. 11. 1 '1. i-i -'miu i. . >ii 

the Mishna see above. OnMi,,, ■ w. '. ' - ' 

by J. Muller, Leipzig, 1878 ; />' / " ' 1. v 1. ' - . 

Konigsberg, 1885. Jerus. Tain. \ \\.ii.-l.. I', ... .... 

iache Talmud in seinen //"...■ ' /.' '...''. . 

Deutsche M6ertra<7en, Zurich. 1-- . i .'. I > '1. .1 / ■ ' .- 
of the treatise Chagigahj hy \- w ^ i. m, ; /*...-.»'. /...'.r 
ilezia mit deutscher /''...' . , hv .\- Sanjtcr, Uerlin, 

1876; Der Bab. T,i', • ,, Hagadischen Bestand- 

theilen wortgetreu iih, , * * 1. \. .i-lie, 1838. The student 
would do well to consiili .,U\ i\ . \\ h. n reading a Haggadic text, 
the follow*iiig standanl works b-. W*. Bacher : Die Agada der 
Babiflimischen Amorder, Strassburg, 1879; Die Agada der 
Tannaiten, Strassburg, 1884 ; Die Agada der Pahistini^chen 
Amoriter, Strassburg, 1892. S. SCHECHTER. 

SIBYLLINE ORACLES.— Thecollection of Jewish 
and Cluistian poems which pass under the name 
of the Sibyl covers in its time of production a 
period of many centuries, reaching back into at 
least the 2nd cent. B.C., and coming down (when 
its latest developments are included) far into the 
Middle A,ges. When we take further into account 
tliat, even in its first Jewish and Christian forms, 
Sibyllism was merely an attempt to transjilant a 
feature of literature that was inilnrii's old, and 
already effete in the pagan world, it will be seen 
that it constitutes a very impurt.ant clement in 
historical theology, and one which has had every 
influence upon tlie mind of man that could be 
secured for it by the exercise of authority (operat- 
ing tlirnuuli tlic Stiitr .-I- ill llciiii.-in life, or through 
great 11a uhn :i- in 1 he . .'i,.. ,,t ilir ( 'liri>tian C'linrcii). 
supported a^ tb.'it aiitli<iiity ".-is by the n.atural 
love of the secret and mysterious which charac- 
terizes the major part of men in all periods of 
human histoiy. 

The original Sibyl is very nearly the equivalent 
of ' prophetess ' in the Gr. and Rom. world ; the 
derivation of her name from an assumed com- 
bination of 2ios (for Bejs) and (SotX^ (in a form 
BvWa.) goes back to Varro (cf. Lact. Div. Inst. 
i. 6) ; and. altliough it may be (and probably is) 
invalid pliibilouicnily. it is sufficient evidence of 
tlie chararli-i .*i--i._iiicd to the persons known as 
Sibyls, who li.*id llir knowledge (as it was supposed) 
of the Divine will in the fatalistic sense, and were 
in the habit of recording the fiats of that Divine 
will in various oracular and prophetic ways. 
Accordingly, they could be consulted, either in 
some special antnim or grotto, or through an 
inspection of such prophecies as they had com- 
mitted to writing. Now. acconling to the ancients, 
there were a number of suc-Ii Sibyls, known some- 
times by actual names, niid sniiirtiiiic-s by the 
places where thej' prophesied, as the C'haldiean, 




Erytlinean, Delphic, etc. Hut for priicliriil pur- 
j)oses the one tliiit exeiciwil the c(iiiiiii:in<liri^' iii- 
tlneiicc over the Christian Church to which wo 
hiivi' iilhichMl alK)Ve is the Cuniican .Sil>}l. It is 
ucicswiry to hear in niinit that this coniniancIin<; 
iullueiicc is merely a case of survival from the 
lionian State relij;ion. Ami the question for the 
student of tlieSih. Oracles as we have them extant, 
is as to the extent of the survival. It can he 
tested under the heads of (I) the language, (2) the 
form, (3) the matter of the ancient and the more 
modern oracles. 

The Horn, tradition atlirmed that these oracles 
hail (iri;,'iM.illy been otl'ereil liy a certain Sibyl to 
a certain Itonian king (say Tar<iuinius Su|icrlius), 
but at an excessive price ; the price being refused, 
she departed and destroyed a certain part of lier 
books, and returned to oiler the remainder at the 
original price ; and, after this process liad lieen 
repeated a certain number of times, tlie king was 
svitlicientlj' interested to buy the remaimU.'r, which 
thus liecame in the Itoman government a State 
deposit of information concerning the future, 
placed under the control of the augur.s or viri 
qiiiiiiln-Kinviralcs, and to be consulted in time of 

TiuMe is no need to spend time in criticising 
the details of such a storj', which is merely an 
attempt to find a venerable origin for a Itoman 
practice ; for it is certain that the Roman govern- 
ment had such books of Sib. oracles, which they 
from time to time augmented or retrenclic<l by 
various editorial processes. Wliat is important to 
remember is -(i. ) that these oracles were for the most 
Iiart, ](rli;ips wliolly, in Creek; (ii.) that they 
were in lii'x.nueter verse, proliably with the literary 
devices of ulpliabetie and acrostic writing; (iii. ) 
they were concerned inter iili'i with the fortunes 
of the world at large and of tlie empire, the ages 
of the universe, ami the cnllnps.' ,-nid rejuvenescence 
thereof. The lirst of tlu'-r poinls, ami, in part, tlie 
second, may best he ilbi^l r.-it^il Ipy references to an 
actiuil oracle wliicb ha- comic iIow u to us, preserved 
by I'blegon, dc MiriibU. e. Ill, apparently from a 
Roman winter, Se.xtus Carminius, and dated in the 
year A. v.c. 629 ( = B.C. 124). It relates to the birth 
of a lierniaphrodite, which the oraele alludes to in 
the words — 

Aral Tol irore i^td 7ei'ar*fo 

N^jTrtaxat ^' ^o. OrjXin-fpac <paivov<Ti yuvaiKts. 

Obviously, the oracle was made to suit the ]>ort<!nt, 
and it was composed in hexameters. At this time, 
then, we know the method of formation of the 
oracles, and that the collection was subject to 
accretion or modilication. They were written, as 
all later oracles and liooks of oracles, in the religions 
metre and language of Homer. Moreover, on ex- 
amination it will be found that the oraele is acrostic, 
and apparently liascil upon an earlier acrostic which 
has lieen used, wliicli was it.self metrical. The 
l)ooks were tlicnfore treated as sortcs by the 
augurs, but handled with freedom in .secret so as 
to adjust the prophecies to the needs of the time. 
That they contained some scheme of the ages of 
the world and of the aroKaTdaTaait TavTwv, is clear 
from Virgil's 

' I'ltima Cunia'i venit iam carniinis retas ; 
Magnus ab integro sajelorum nascitur ordo.' 
(Erlug. iv. 4), 

and a number of similar considerations. 

All of these features are aliundantly illustrated 
in the .Jewish and Christian Sili. iHMiks. It wa-s 
necessary that they should be if the world was to 
swallow" the literary deception that was being 
practised upon it. 

It must not be supposed that such a gigantic and 
long-contiiiueil fraud could have been carric-d on 

without meeting with criticism frruu a [ pie as 

acute and iiolished as the Crciks. Wliile it is 
certain that almost all the I'albersof tin' Church 
were linn believers in the inspiration of the Sibyls 
(for we need not doubt the honesty of .Instill aiid 
Clement, of Tertullian, of l«utaiitius, ami a host of 
others, though it is eijually clear that the deceived 
must liave lieen near of kin to the deceivers), it 
was not possible that such keen wits n» Lucian 
and Celsus should come under the spell. They 
saw at once that the Christians were making 
oracles to suit their own jiropaganda, and were 
i|uickto proclaim the fact; and Lucian, in particular, 
himself turned Sibyllist in order to tidl in mock 
heroics the fortunes of I'cregrinus and of Alexander 
of .\bonoteiclios. This extant criticism and ridi- 
cule must have been widely extended. We can 
trace from the successive Sibyllists themselves 
tlie objections which they had to meet. One, of 
necessity, was the dependence of the Sibyl upon 
Homer, for Sibyllism is closely related to Centoisin, 
and borrows lines and expressions freely from 
Homer. It was necessary, therefore, for the 
a.ssumed Sibyl to explain that the Inirrowing was 
really on the side of that thief Homer. Accord- 
ingly, the Sibyl herself attacks the supposed later 
poet in the following lines — 

nai Ti^ \^€i'5oypa(poi wp^crSvs ^poT&s (aaerai aiJriy 

• . , ^w^txtv yap i/xuiif fUrpujv re Kpa-Hitrei. 

{Orac. i>il). iii. 419 IT.); 

anil t!iis judgment is endorsed by Tatian, who in 
his tract Aijuinst the Grcr.hs, § 41, maintains the 
superior date of the Sibyl to Homer. A closer 
ex.amination, however, of the oracles reveals that 
Homer is not the only writer pilfered ; there is a 
constant coincidence with fragments of Orphic 
hymns, which would certainly be much more uro- 
nounceil if we were not limited in our comparison 
to the few fnigments that have been conserved of 
this branch of literature. Now, it is worth noticing 
that Clement of Alexandria (the best read of all 
the early I'athers in the matter of Creek literature) 
expressly declares that the Sibyl is earlier than 
Orpltciis; while, to quote another .author of nearly 
the same date, Tertullian will have it that the 
Sibyl is older than all other literature (cf. Tert. ((t/r. 
Xalionoi, ii. 12). It is clear from testimonies 
that there had Iteen from the lirst a critical ilispiite 
over the aiitiiiuity of the supposed Sibylline verses ; 
at .all events, the anti-Homeric strain in the Sibyl 
which we have quoteil above occurs in verses which 
Alexandre assigns to the time of Antoninus I'ius, 
and the writers who endorse thy seiitiinent belong 
very nearlj' to the same period. Ami before this 
time there must have been an active Sibylline 
proiiagaiida carried on by the early Christians, 
most of whom were deceived and some of them 

Something of a similar kind to this contest 
between Homer and the Sibyl and Orpheus and the 
Sibyl for jiriority, ajqiears to have taken place at 
a later dat-- in regard to Virgil. We have already 
jiointed out that the acquaintance of \'irgil with 
Sibylline oracles may lie a.s.siimed. It does not 
follow that tliese oracles have anything to do with 
the extant collection ; rather they seem to .Ik- the 
Roman collect ion, which Virgil must have known 
bj- report, and pirli.-ips by actual study of published 
or unpubiishcd portions. Now it has been shown 
by Dechciit (r./,ir ili's erst,; zin-ltr tout ./fte lliirh 
<l,r tiili. \i'cixxiirjiinf)rn, 1,S73) that the eleventh 
JMiok of the Onielc.s has coiiicidciices of langUH-'e 
with Virgil. The Sibyl deacribcs, for cxiuiipk'. 




the flijjlit of vEneas from Troy in 11. 144 fi'., which 
begin — 

&p^€L 5' Ak yeveijs re Kat aifiaros ^AatrapaKOLO 
Trat"? K\vTb^ ijpwojVy Kpartpb^ re Kai d\Ktfj.os avrip, 

which may be comjjared with 

' Romulus, Assaiaci quern sanguinis Ilia mater 
Educet' (Virg. ^n. vi. 779). 

After describing the person and fortunes of 
j-Eneas, the writer proceeds to explain that her 
verses will be stolen by a later poet, much in the 
same language as we noted in Bk. iii. for Homer — 

Kai ris Trpi(j^v^ dyrjp aoipif laaerai avns dotdis 

Toi(yi.v i^olai \i70iS ix^rpot.% ew^efffft Kparriaas' 
aurbs yap, npuina-Tos ifids ^i/JXoi/s avairXuaet 
Kai Kpvfei /leTa. raOra. 

But here we must, in view of the coincidences in 
language between the Sibyl and the JEncid, under- 
stand Virgil and not Homer as the supposed tliieif. 
Obviously, the Sibyllist, who is so anxious to be 
prior to Virgil, must have written a good while 
after Virgil, as is also shown by the reference to 
Virgil as hiding the oracles. Alexandre refers 
this part of the oracles to the year A.D. 267 : and 
it is interesting to observe that, not long after 
that date, the emperor Constantine in his oration 
to the Nicene leathers invokes the authority of the 
Sibyl, and suggests the dependence of Virgil upon 
her writings, quoting Virgil for convenience in a 
Greek rendering. It is reasonable, therefore, to 
suppose that tlie question of relative priority 
between Virgil and the Sibyl belongs to this 
period of time. 

It is to be noted, however, that the earliest of all 
the books of oracles does not seem to have encoun- 
tered any such hostile reception. Parts of what is 
now edited as the third book, 11. 97-294, 491-fin., are 
assigned by Alexandre to the year 166 B.C. It is 
not decided whether the production of these verses 
was due to some active inquiry which w-as being 
made at the time after extant oracles, whicli 
search might easily have led to the fabrication of 
them by some learned Alexandrian Jew, or wliether 
it is only one more example, to be added to many 
belonging to this time, of tiie transference of the 
text of the LXX into Gr. verse. Whatever may 
be the reason, it is certain that the ver.sitied story 
of the destruction of the tower of Babel, with the 
poetic expansion that it was accomplished by the 
agency of mighty winds, was accepted as a fresh 
historical autliority by contemporaries (Abydenus, 
Polyhistor, and, following them, Josephus), and as 
coiitirming the accuracy of the biblical record from 
which it is derived, by Clement of Alexandria and 
Eusebius. So that it does not appear that tlie 
earliest Jewish portions of the Sibylline books 
provoked the same hostility as which are 
later and definitely Christian. They appear to 
have met with an unquestioning acceptance. 

It will be convenient to set down here the dates which have 
been assigned to the extant boolcs. Our first scheme is that of 
Alexandre, whose Excursus ml Sibyllinos Lllms is the store- 
house 01 material for all who wish to have a thorough knowledge 
of the subject. According to him — 
Bk. iii. II. 97-294 and 480-fln. is a Jewish work, written in 

Egypt in the year 166 or 16.') B.C. 
Bk. iv., the oldest of the Christian Sibyllines, was written in 

Asia in the 1st cent. a.d. under Titus or 
The Pa-oijjmium to the cnllci-don (a fragment preserved by 

Thcophilus of Ai--i..rlil ml Tik. viii. II. t;i7-42i). .are probably 

by the same 1 : 1 ' ..I, and written in the beginning 

of the 2nd r.:!: i,i-.l i , i .: ii .,r Hadrian. 
Bk. viii. 11. 1-217, \\i ;i. n I. ,1 t iiiistianof a millenarian type, in 

Egypt in thf ici^ji ..1 Aiuoinnus Pius. 
Bk. iii. 11. 20.1-4SS and tik. v. are Judajo-Christian, and were 

written in Egypt in the reign of Antoninus Pius. 
Bks. vi. and \ii. are Cliristian (V heretical), and written in the 

reign of Alexander Severus, about a. n. 234. 

viii. II. 430-fin., by Christian hands in the middle of the 
3rd cent. 

;. i. ii. and iii. 11. 1-96, by Christian hands, in Asia in the 
middle of the 3rd cent. 
Bks. xi. xii. xiii. xiv., Judaeo-Christian, written in Egypt about 


■267 J 

With this scheme of Alexandre may be compared that pro- 
pounded by Ewald. According to Kwald (AOhandUni>j iibtr 
Entatehutvj Inhalt und Wertfi der Sib. Bdcher^ Gottingen, 
18!)8) we have— 

Bk. iii. 11. 97-828, about B.o. 124. 
Bk. iv., about a.d. SO. 
Bk. v. 11. 62-530, about A.D. SO. 
Eks. V. 11. 1-51, vi. vii., in a.d. 138. 
Bk. viii. 11. 1-360, about a.d. 211. 

ink. viii. 11. 361-.i00, Ewald declares to be non-Sibylline.) 
l!ks. i. ii. iii. 11. l-9li, about a.d. 300. 

Bks. \i. xii. xiii. xiv., much later ; Ewald imagines references to 
the emperor (.idenatus and to the rise of Islam ! 

Further discussions of dates of the whole or parts of the 
different books mav be found in Friedlieb, Orac. SiOi/U, (Leipzig, 
1S.52), or Bleek (T/ieot. Zeitschrift, Berlin, 1819), or Dechent (see 
al»ove). Tlie different judgments arrived at by these writers 
would probably be rectified by a closer study of the whole body 
of Sibylline literature. So far, the best guide is Alexandre, 
whose Excursus is a monument of patiently accumulated facts. 

Editions of iiik rrinvLLiNE Oracles. — The first published por- 
tion of thesil.. ^ I; - ' I- I'll' famous acrostic, 'Ixa-tu! Xpia-ra!, t^isij 
w'cff, SiwTv,^, \^ I , 11 ml. -d by Aldus. The first ed. was due 

to Xystus 1^ - , u~ Biriien) at Basel in 154.S. It con- 

tained the 111- '■!..• iiMiks. The second (Lat.) ed. was issued 
from the saane jinnting-house (John Oporinus) in the following 
year. The third (Gr.-Lat.) appeared at Basel in l.'i.'in. The 
fourth ed. (that of Opsopceus = Koch) appeared at Pans in 1599, 
three years after the death of the editor. In 1SI7 the collection 
was expanded by Cat>l'ii il M n-- '!i-<n;-ery of the Books xi.-xiv., 
which were printei : 1 ii - - ii-forum vet, nova adlectlo, 

vol. iii. pt. 3. Of ill : III,, i 1 the ones in common use 
are those of Friedlu 1. il,ii|i,ij. I -..J). Ale.'iandre (Paris. isr,ii), 
and Rzach. Of these, the last, published at I'r 1^1,. n 1-1. is 
by far the best for the text ; it contains no e\' 11 ' - i 

brief critical preface, and a most valuable a]']" i i : '1- 

the dependence of the Sibyllines on Homer, HrMi-l. tn' 'Miiliio 
hymns, etc. With the text of Rzach and tlie exi msus .if 
Alexandre, the student can find out almost all that is kii.jw n of 
the Sibyllines, It is necessai\v to add a final caution with regard 
to the quotation of the books. There is a fluctuation in their 
numbering on the part of the editors, due to the imperfection 
of the series. The last four books, for example, are numbered 
ix. ,x. xi. and xii. by Friedlieb. 

[Since the writing of the fore.going article, 
Geti'cken's tract, entitled Kom/inxitioti inul Etifxtch- 
iingszcit dcr Onuula Si/ji///inii, has appeared, to 
which the student is referred for the latest view of 
the subject.] J. llENUEL HARRIS. 


Pext.-\TEUCH. — The Sanmrititiis :ae a mixed race, 
sprung from the remnants of tlie ten tribes whicli 
lost their imlepeiidence in B.C. 722, and from the 
foreiun coliniists who were settled by the Assyrian 
kings in Central I'alestine. Hence the question 
arises whether the Pentateuch was already known 
to the subjects of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes. 
It might be supposed that this question must be 
answered in the negative, for the single reason 
that the .Jahweh cultus introduced by Jeroboam I. 
(I K 12-*) deviated to so large an extent from the 
Law. This argument, however, is not absolutely 
decisive, for even the kingdom of Judah, c.7. under 
Ahaz (2 K 16-') and Manasseh (21-'''-), w-itnes^.ed 
frequent and serious departures from the legitimate 
religion. But there is at least one valid ground 
for the conclusion that the Pentateuch was first 
accepted by the Samaritans after the Exile. Why 
was their request to be allowed to take part in the 
building of the second temple (Ezr 4"-) refused 
by the heads of the Jerusalem communitj' (v.^)? 
Very probably because the Jews were aware that 
the Samaritans did not as yet possess the Law- 
book. It is hard to suppose that, otherwise, they 
would have been met with this refusal. Eurther, 
one who, like the present writer, regards the 
modern criticism of the Pentateuch as essentially 
correct, has a second decisive rea.son for adojiting 
the above view. Or does the very existence of the 
Samaritan Pentateuch present an obstacle to the 




conrlusion at wliidi imist ie))re.seiitiitivesof moilcrn 
lViiiiitfii(liiiI(iitiii.--i]i li:ive arrivfil, iiamelj', that 
tliL' sourcis of till- I'liiiuti-iicli were unituJ liy Ezra 
into tliu imu ntieiiiii which we .see in our IViita- 
teuch? At the present day there is seareely any 
longer a sin;,'le writer wlio woiiUl claim that the 
Samaritan Pentateuch supplies any ar^runient 
against the critical position. No such claim i.s 
made, lor instance, by C. F. Kcil in his Einli:itun(i 
in (/. AT. 1873, § 204, or l.y Ed. IJupi.recht in Dcs 
JMsils Losunii, II. i. (isihi) p. I'JOt., or by the 
Itoman Catholic Er. Kanlcn in his EinUitanij in 
die J/eiliijc &/iii/t, lSH-2, § 194. 

How long after Ezra's tin\e it was when the 
Samaritans accepted the I'entateuch is uncertain. 
They niay have already done so at the time that 
Ncliemiali, upon the occasion of his .second visit to 
Jerusalem (li.c. 433), ex|)elled the son of Joiada, 
the hi^'h priest, who had married a dau','hter of the 
.Samaritan prince Sanballat (Neh l:V^). For there 
was hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans 
even at a much later j)eriod, altlionjih the latter 
had adopted the Law. But the view that apjiears 
to be most probable i.s that the above-mentioned 
son of the higli priest induced the Samaritans Iwtli 
to accejit the I'entateueh and to build a temple of 
their own ui^on Mt. Gerizim. It is well known 
that Joscjihus (.1)1/. XI. viii. 2) relates how Man- 
a.s.seli, son of the hi;,'h jmest 'laoSoCs, and son-in-law 
of the Samaritan prince I'ai/a/SaWdTijs, fled to the 
Samaritans in the time of the Persian kinj; Darius 
Codomannus. Hut here, in all proljuliilily, we have 
simply a chronolojiical error, for l;iter w riters were 
weak in their knowledfie of the clironolo;,'j- of the 
post-e.\ilic period. For instance, in To 1"-' tlie 
years 7lU-(iSl are compressed into vdiTriKotiTa. or 
Te<xaapdKovTa 7)M^/'a' (Fritzsche, Litiri a/mrri/phi, pp. 
110, 113), and in Sn/rr olaiii rubba 30 it is .^aid that 
the rule of the Persians after the liuildinj; of the 
second temple lasted only 34 years (see, further, 
art. by the jirescnt writer in E.ijius. Times, x. 
[ISOil] p. i'JT). Nor are there wanting; in tlie post- 
liiblical tradition indications pointing to the fact 
that it was near the time of Ezra that the Samari- 
tans accepted the Pentateuch. For instance, in 
Uab. Talni. {Saiih'-c/. 21A) we read: 'The Torah 
wiLs originally revealed in the Hebrew character 
and in the holy [i.e. Hebrew) lan^'uay;e, the second 
time in tlii' .Vssj-rian character and in the Aramaic 
lan;;uaj;e, and Israel chose the Assyrian character 
and the holy language, whereas it 5,'ave over the 
Helirew character and the Aramaic lanj;uage to 
the I'oiurrat.'* This second revelation of the Law 
which is here presupjKised, has in view the activity 
w liich, according to other pa-ssaj-es of the tradition, 
Ezra displayed with reference to the Pentateuch. 
For instance, in l!ab. Talm. (Sukk'i 20'() it is said : 
'The Torah was for;:;ottcn by the Israelites until 
Ezra came from liabylon and restored it' (other 
passjijics are translated in Koni;,''s Eintcit. in d. 
A 7', p. '241 f.). Nor is there anythinj; inexplicable 
in the circumstance that the Samaritans, aliout the 
year Il.C. 433, accepted no part of the OT but the 
Pentateuch, for even the .lews exalted the Torah 
above the other parts of the OT. The Mishna 
enacts in McqiUn iii. 1 : ' If one sells l>ooks (i.e. 
parts of the I »T other than the Pentateuch), he 
may take a Torah in e.xchanj,'e ; but if one sells a 
Torah he may not take other liooks in exchanj;e' 
(many further testinmnies to this later apprecia- 
tion of the Torah above the rest of the UT will 
be found in Kijnig's Einlcit. p. 455 f.). 

Later notices of the actual existence of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch are found in the Talmud (cf. Zach. Frankel, Utbtr drn 

' Th^- view of L. Blau, ex|)re8se<l in his pro-„'mmme ' Zur 
Einleilunt' in die heil. Schrift,' 18i>4, |i. 1*. thut the term 
.'^.vTot. here does not refer to the Samaritans, will not hold \\a 

Kinltutt Jt patiUliiMchfii Eltyrtr a<t/ dif alrrawlr. Ilri 
fulu, p. -SiS). in "rineii (whow Hrntula rea.l» .,n the mar-In of 

.Nu 131 i ,^, .;,, i, ..; ,i, iM^mfLri, li^.^i ujriUi.'^l.), 

ond in JiruuK{l'nl:»iuMijalratui: '.Sunuriuni l'enluteu.'huni 
totidcm Uteris scriptitant, IlK-uris taritum et api.ihu. ili».rep- 
antes). Hut alK.ut the year A.n. lian) not ewn a scholar like 
Sealit'er(/fe niu'iiiltllinnf r.-mji..riiiii, lllj. 7) was aivarv whether 
there were copies of the Samaritan I'entateueh In existe-n.-e in 
the East. At last, in the > ear lillU I>iedr.j delta \alle purihased 
a ('omplete manu»<ripl of this I'eutateuih Irom the Samurilons 
at DamiLseu.s. Between the Jears R'.'O and KtHl Issher e.)ll.-.ted 
ill the East six copies of It. Since tlien many eoilnea of this 
«-.>rk have been c.illauil ; cf. de Kossi, InnVw lrct,.„„t \r, 
17SJ-SS, vol. i. p. L'1.V r. ; RoMn, ZOMi;, Isin, p. 1.S-B.; Ahr. 
Ilarkavy, Katntof/ drr Saiiutrilaii. fr,ilalruel,cuili,fii in SI. 
I'etertlmiy, 1874. The Sjunarikin I'enUil.ileh was first /viiUnl, 
under the superintendence of Joh. .Morions, In the Tans I'oly. 
L'lott (lIHf.). A second Impression appeared in the London 
I'olyiflott (1057). It was published, lrans.:rilje<l in the sipiare 
character, hv Blayney at Oxlonl in ITUiJ. lis ju'euliarities are 
also set forth in a se|>arate eolunm of Kennicott's IV/im '/Vw. 
heb. ciiin variii IceliunihiiK (Oxonii, 177(1-1*1), and in II. Peter- 
niann's extremely interesting work. IVrsnWi eiiur hfOriiiiuJxen 
Foniwntffire tiach der Atmitprac/ir dtr hntliqen Samaritaner 
18(S, pp. JlU-aiU. In the latter will he louml also a trans<.rip- 
tion of the whole of the Hook of Genesis, as Amrani, the then 
hi^h priest of the Samaritan eomnmnity at N&hlus, dictated it 
to Petennnnn (pp. lOl-ils). 


Hebrew and the Jewish Hebrew Penta- 
teuch.— («) The character o/' the MSS, and the 
mcthiid of diridinfj the text. — The Samaritan manu- 
scripts, like the m.ajority of the Jewish ones, 
are of ]iarcliment or paper ; the S.ani.aritans like- 
wise jueferred the roll form for use in Divine 
worship. The Samaritan MS.S want the vowel 
signs and the accents, which are employed in the 
Jewish Pentateuch. In lieu of these they exhibit 
the following signs : a point separates each worcl 
from the next ; two point-s, similar to the colon in 
modern languages, mark olV smaller and larger 
])aragrapli> (Kohn, Zur Sprnc/ic, Litt., u. Diiginatik 
d. Sniit'trit'iivr, p. 1 f.). The whole Pentateuch is 
divided by the .Samaritans into sections which they 
call )-ip \l;nzin). Of these they reckon in the 
Pentateuch UlJti (Hupfeld, ZDMi;, 1807, p. 20), while 
the Jews are accustomed to count in the Torah 
379 close and 2U0 open jtaras/mui (ef. Kiinig, Einleit. 
p. 463). 

(A) Liiii/uistic ditrerences. The vowel letters are 
much more frequently employed in the Samaritan 
than in the MT. Even sheu-d is many times indi- 
cated by 1 or ' : for instance, nvjiK, a form which 
the MT lirst exhibits in 2 Ch 8", Ls written by the 
Samaritan in Dt '28"", or msr-i is read for -yc} in 
Dt 3'^ The orthography which the MT favours, 
csi)ecially in the earlier parts of the OT, agrees 
still oftener with that found on the Jewish coins. 
Hut the Samaritan Pentateuch thus reflects the 
latest stage of develoiiment reached by Hebrew 
orthography within the OT, and in a great many 
instances goes even lieyond this. In the matter of 
pronouns, the unusual forms are regularly changeil 
into the usual ones. For instance, K'.n, which in 
the Pentateuch (Un 2'- etc.) stands for the later 
K'n 19,5 times, and which is altered in the MT only 
in the margin, is replaced by km in the Samaritan 
in the text. The form ':nj, which is permitted in 
the MT, is changed in tlie .Samaritan into un.-K 
((in 42", Ex It}"-, Nu 32"-). As to the conjugation 
of verbs, the lightened form of the imperfect, the 
so-called jussive, is almost always ch.angeil into the 
ordinary form : 3y:i (Gn 32') is replaced by ais^'i 
(read by the high priest Amram as ni/eshijc) ; kt 
(41^') by riKT (i,,:rei) ; k-;k; (31'" 41--) by .ikiki (itvVf'iL 
— In the declension of nomwi, the endings in -6 and 
-(", which, in spite of J. Uarth [XDMG, IS'Jlt, p. .VJS), 
are to be considered relics of the old ciu>.e-endingH, 
are almost uniformly dropped : ^n-ij appears a-s n'n 
in On 1-' (i!3 of Xu 2.'<" '24"- '» is left unaltered); 
•naij as n^iij [qcniiwut) in (in 31*; and •"i.t^'k a-s .i^-k 
in Ex 15''. In the construction of nouns, iiianv of 
the marks are obliterated which point to a no'min 
generis being of cominoii gender: e.g. i;') 'young 



maiden ' (On 24»- "•=»■<«• "34'-", Dt 22"-=» [except 
V. ''']). which tlie Massoretes alteretl only in the 
margin, is changed into rnyj [nCira) in the text of 
the Samaritan (cf. Gesenius, de Pcnt'it-nrhi Smii- 
aritani origine, etc. p. 28 tf.). The M.lii.uv .M-.ur- 
rence of p which the present writer (l.ehr^nl,. ii. 
293) lias been able to discover before tlie article in 
the Pentateuch is lU'C? of Gn 6-", and this dis- 
appears in the Eiyri :d (min a'oph) of the Samaritan. 
^In the lexieal sphere, the followinft ditl'erences 
are worthy of note : iV ' beget ' is replaced by the 
form that became usual in later times, T'Jin, in 
Gn 10' and 22-^. The verb nj:, which is used in 
Ex 21^- 29. »i- 32. 36 of the 'pushing' of an ox, is re- 
placed by the more familiar verb nan 'strike.' — 
Differences of a syntaitieal or stylistic kind are 
the following : the sentence -h.;. .ij!? n,\-D p'j.T (MT 
of Gn 17" ' shall a child be born to one who is a 
hundred years old?' LXX el njj eKaTOfTaeTui yeviri- 
uerai wAs;) is in perfect agreement with the 
Hebrew linguistic usage as this appears in (in 4'* 
etc. But the Samaritan has mi.sseil this cimstruc- 
tion, and suljstituted the easier alhrii m-i'i/ sli ii'i 
tiled {I'h-K), ' sh.all I at the age of a hmnlnd \iius 
beget a child?' In the MT of Gn 7" the tuniiula 
in^'xi i;"N appears alongside of the synonymous |iair 
of words nnpi^ nai (v."). This variety of expression 
di-sappears in the Samaritan, which uses the latter 
formula in both verses. The asyndetic j'K (Gn 1"), 
Sx {3"^), D'^Bjn (B-"), D-nn (v."), are changed into sjii 
etc., and greater clearness is thus obtained. — 
Under the same heading may be ranged certain 
phenomena of dietion, due to the Aramaic dialect, 
which afterwards became naturalized among the 
.Samaritans. For instance, we lind aiir. for anx 
(Gn H'), P'naj for DT133 (7"), n-y for ncn 'wine' 
(i)t 32'^). The gutturals are thus very frequently 
interchanged, because to the Samaritan copyist, 
accustomed to the Aramaic dialect, thej- had lost 
their distinctive phonetic values. To the same 
cause are due such forms as that of the jironoun 
'm (Gn 12"- " 24«- ") and rnx (SI"), or of 'npns (for 
rpns Gn 18'^), the inlinitive mDixS (for '36 9"^), 
etc. (cf. Gcs,.|iins, l.r. p. 53 tf.). 

(c) Matiriiil (lillcrcnces : (a.) many passages are 
altered or ^uiiplmicuted from parallel pas.sages. 
For instance, .tl'J'x n'? of Gn IS-""'- is replaced in the 
Samaritan by n'nfN n'? lit ashit, after vv.-'-""-. The 
servant of Moses is called in the MT sometimes 
l-i'i.i (Nu 13*- "*, Dt 32"), and sometimes y(i)s-in> (Ex 
I'jiif. 131. 243 etc.), but the Samaritan writes the 
latter form even in the three passages in which 
the change of Hoshea into Jchoshna is recorded, 
so that we read in Nu 13'* 'and Moses called 
Jehoshua, the son of Nun, Jehoshua' ! Again, in 
Gn ll"-2« the formula is regularly added, 'and all 
the years of . . . were . . . years, and he died,' 
which is derived from the parallel genealogy (5''"). 
In 17'^' 'on the eighth day' is read in harmony 
with t ho parallel passage. After 30^'' we lind a long 
addition, whicli is borrowed from 3V^. Specially 
striking is the following series of passages : Ex & 
(cf. 14'-') 7'» (cf. vv.'"-'") r-^(ci. vv. =«•-«) 8'» (cf. vv.18-1") 
95. 11) 102 113 (cf. 4221.) 1825 (pf_ Y>t l»-i8) 20" (cf. Dt 

272.6-7) 2021 (pf. l^t, 520.28 1818-32 52-1.) 3921^ N„ 414 JQIO 

1216 1333 2013 21"'- -» 2723 3120^ Dt 2' 5'« 10'. The 
remarkable circumstance about all these passages 
is that in every instance where it is recorded that 
Moses said or did something, this is ahvaj's pre- 
ceded by a statement in so many words that it 
was a Divine eomiiiand that he should act so, and, 
wherever a Divine command is recorded, this is re- 
peated in the same terms when we are told that 
Moses fullilled it. This is a carrying to the ex- 
treme of that pleonastic form of expression which 
may be ol served also in certain portions of the 
.lewish-Helirew rciitateuch (cf. Konig, Sfi/i.sfi/:, 
etc. pp. WJ, 172, 17ti). That the above passages 

in the Samaritan Pentateuch are of secondary 
origin is sufticiently evident from the circumstance 
that its text there has not the support of a single 
ancient witness. — ((3) There are differences due to 
a religious or other like interest. The statement 
in Gn 2-'' '11 'y'3»'!i d'i'3 D'rihx hT\, ' and God declared 
all his work iinished (see Konig, Syntax, § 95ft) 
on the seventh day' was not understood, and so 
the seventh was changed into the sixth day (Sam. 
bcyutii cs/ishishshi). The number 430 years, 
during which the Hebrews sojourned in Egypt, 
according to the MT of Ex 12^", appeared to be 
too Large, and hence the expression jyiD :;nx3 ' in 
the land of Canaan ' was inserted before the words 
' in the land of Egypt.' (By the way, the MT of 
Ex 1'2-"' is shown by Ezk 4='- to have been the text 
in existence at the time of the prophet, for the 
3904-40 years of Ezk 4"- are nothing else than a 
rellexion of the 430 years of the Egyptian bondage 
of Israel). Again, the plural predicate with which 
D-nSx ' God ' is coupled in Gn •20'3 3p3 35' and Ex 
22-, is changed into a singular, in order to avoid 
the .-iiipcarance of polytheism (Kohn, de Samari- 
fiiiiol', iifiifciieho, p. 22). — Another group is formed 
Ky the following passages. — The statement in Ex 
24" iin'i ' and they beheld (sc. God),' is replaced by 
itnx-i 'and tliey cleaved to (God),' the idea being 
that the Deity must have been strictly invisible. 
The conception of God was thus transcendentalized. 
In obedience to the same motive, so-called inter- 
mediary beings are introduced between God and 
man, dmSn ('God') being replaced by dtiSn dkSd 
('an angel of God') in Nu 22^ 23*, and mn< by 
ni.T DxVDin vv.=- ■". Conversely, -x'^Dn ( ' the angel ') 
is once, Gn 48'^ changed into 3^Dn ('the king'), in 
order to avoid attributing to the angel what God 
Himself had accomplislied, namely, the deliverance 
of Jacob. The Samaritans showed themselves in 
other instances as well very jealous for the char- 
acter of God. From this motive they changed 
the words 'take all the heads of the people and 
hang them up' (Nu 23"-) into 'command that 
they slay the men who attached themselves to 
Baal-peor,' the command as it runs in the MT 
appearing to involve an injustice on the part of 
God. To the same category belongs the substitu- 
tion of 'hero (nu'3) of war' for 'man (k'-x) of war,' 
as a designation of God in Ex 153. — yet another 
group of differences have for their aim the securing 
of the lesthetic purity of the Law. The Samaritans, 
for instance, have not only taken into the text 
those marginal readings which the Jewish Mas- 
soretes adopted for .-Bsthetic reasons (Dt 283"), i^t 
have replaced the term vcdd 'his secrets' (25") by 
ns'3 ' his flesh.' — Finally, it was upon national 
grounds that the name 'rn-y ('Ebal) was exchanged 
for D-n: (Gerizim) in Dt 27*. It has been shown, 
notably by Verschuir (in No. iii. of his Dissjrta- 
tioncs phUologiem-excgetirce, 1773), that the con- 
text demands the building of the altar nowhere 
but upon Mt. 'Ebal. God is presented especially 
as witness to the oath and as avenger of anv 
breach of it (29'-- "• '"), and accordingly wo look 
both for the building of the altar as a symliol of 
the Divine presence, and for the offering of sacri- 
tice by the people, upon that mountain from which 
the curse was proclaimed (27'^). After the Sam- 
aritans, moved probably by 27'^ where Gerizim is 
named as the mount of blessing, had built their 
temple upon this mountain to the south of Shechem, 
they would be led naturally enough to introduce 
the name Gerizim in v.*. The Jews, on the other 
hand, had no interest to substitute tlie name Ebal 
for the name Gerizim, for the point that concerned 
them was not whether Gerizim or 'Ebal was to 
have the preference, but whether the hegemony 
belonged to Gerizim or to Zion (Jn 4-'"). 
In view of all these differences between the 




Jewish- Hebrew and the SiinKiiiUiiilIehrew I'eu- 
tateiieh, there can lie no iloulit that what the 
Samaritans iMissess is a litter form of the I'en- 
tateiich. Whetlier we hK)k at thy groups dealing' 
with linguistic tlill'erenies or at those connected 
with the suliject-niatter, the indications point to 
a Idtr, ])eriod. A siillicient evidence of this is 
supjilied by the Jewish mnrijinul roadin-^s which 
are taken by the Samaritans into the text itself, 
but the same conclusion follows equally from the 
theolojjical peculiarities of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch which have been mentioned above. Kor 
the same transiendcntalizinj; of tiie conception of 
t;o<l is met with also in the later writings of the 
Jews: e.ff. the statement 'and tiod was grieved' 
((in 6") is replaced in the Targum of Onkelos by 
' and He commanded by His kts'S ( irord) to destroy 
their energies according to His will.' 
iii. Uki.ation ok thk Samakiiwn Pentateuch 


15otli these forms of the Pentateuch agree in man^- 
details of form. For instance, both, dillering in this 
from the MT, have an ' and ' before ' tree ' in (in 1" 
(MT j-y, Sam. we:, LXX sai iuXof). The ease is the 
same in 3"' (ifKn-'-K trel a'i.ihi/in, *ai rri yvyaixi), 
G* (c'Sun irniutejiliilem, o! ii ylyayTa), and G"- '". 
Again, liotli have in common some considerable 
deviations from the MT. In Gn 2- the LXX, 
like the Samaritan, has replaced 'on the seventh 
day' by 'on the sixth day' (ri) r)^l^pf rj Ikt-ti). 
Instead of the strange order 'earth and heaven' 
which the MT exhibits in Gn 2^'', the other two 
forms of the Pentateuch have the more usual 
succession of the two words (shanuni wnarcz, riy 
ovpavbv Kal rrtv 7j>). Both supplement the words 
of Cain in 4' by ' let us go into the field' (nclitk-i 
a.shxhndi, bU\0u>n(y (it ri wtSioy). lioth interimlate 
into the MT of Ex 12^"" the words 'in the land of 
Canaan,' but, wliile the .Sanmritan has this addition 
b'/orc, the LXX it nftcr, the words 'in the 
land of Egypt.' Finally, the Samaritan and the 
LXX agree in some of the exjiansions of the MT 
which are derived from jiarallcl pa.ssages. Kor 
instance, in Gn 1'^ there is the addition 'to give 
light upon the earth' {In'i'r id aarcz, fi's <pav<riv 
erl Tijs 7^s), and in 11" 'and the tower' (wit 
ttinmetjdid, Kai riiv irvpyov) is added. 

Ui) Dillerences iK-'tween the Samaritan and the 
LXX. As regards the use of ' and,' the LXX 
agrees with the MT in Gn 6" {czn pns, Skaiot 
rAeios, against Sam. zndch utnmcm). The LXX 
]irefers asyndesis in rbv ^Tift, rbv Xifi, rbv 'Id^ffl, as 
against the syndesis of the MT (' Sliem, IJani, and 
Japheth ') and the polysynde.sis of the 
{it Slum tcit Am wit y'e/i)iet). In 2-^ the cinn of the 
MT and the 6 'ASd/i of the LXX agree, but the 
Samaritan has the anarthrous nix {riditm), whereas 
in 3-'" the article is wanting alike in the Samaritan 
{ndftm)nn>\ the LXX ('ASdfi). In 3' the -MT and 
the LXX have the simjde expression ' the tree,' 
but the Samaritan reads 'this tree' (a'iz tizzc). 
The LXX has ilitl'crent numbers from the Samaritan 
in the gciualogi.- of Gn o^"- and 11""'-. Finally, 
in the sijherccif religion, the Samaritan I'entateuch 
has retained the Divine name Jahweh in its text, 
only that the .Samaritans read for it S/iciiui (Vetur- 
niaiin, l.r. n. 162), which means 'the name' Kar' 
^iox^'- This use of the exjiression ' the name ' has 
the foundation already laid for it in Lv 24", and 
makes its appearance for the lirst time in the 
Mishna in the words ' Let him oiler a short prayer, 
saying, Help, () name (o;n), thy i)cople the remnant 
of Israel" (Wm/./i.;^A iv. 4). "The Creek Jew has 
already re|daceil in his text the most holy Name 
an- (Ja/iire/i) \iy the expression ' the Louu ' (o Kt'piot) 
which the Hebrew .lews jilaced in the maiyin. 
But, on the other liand, the (Jreek Jew has retained 
the term ' God ' in Xu 22-'' and '23' (6 Peis), whereas 

the Samaritan has iiitro<luced the expression ' angel 
of God,' thus raising the Deity above any inter- 
course with man. 


Samauitan Pentateuch. — Four principal sug- 
gestions have been made to account for these 

(n) May not the Icnturca in which the Sanutritan and Iho 
Ortik IViitaUiic h iilth- wilh one anothtr, iiiiil ilifftr (ram Ihc 
Jc«i»li ll.lir.« I'.n! ,!.■,. 1,. 1« tnu-.-al.le .lirifUv to ct-llain 
vi.-»^ ,ir,cl ..111.- I . . I - ,. .1-111? This Ik n..t i.nly iK««iblu, l.ut 
im-M 11 l".-;l:>. li '. '.I- I l>\ the <.'ir<'uni>.l.ini'i- that Iheri'lation 
otlli.- s, .11 I ih. i;i..k to tin- J.'wi.,li ft-ntalc-uch ia a 
mixtnic ot a^-rcinuiit ;in.l .lifliri-nct. Ut tia look at two 
examples. The later 8crilM.'8 liilil that CIR in On -i"" is not the 
uo)iu;ii aitpfUaUvum, ' inan,' Init the proiver name * Adam.' This 
common opinion, however, found expreiufion in various wayii. 
The Hehrcw-Jcwish MoHsoretes pronouneetl, in 2'-™ .•**'■ 2i 'U- 
adam, i,e. without the article, Ijecause this was iKMsible in 
these three ixwsages without alteration of the fcj-t, which in the 
other two pass-i^es (2*-S 'J^) would have had to tie altered t<i j.'et 
riif of the article. The (Ireek Jew likewise retains the article in 
2^ (« Wiiiu} and drops it only in a-"", liut the Kiamariton in 
tioth these passages has introiluced the anarthrous word C*1N 
(adain) into the text. A^in, the view that the 430 years of 
Ex I'M^ includdl Israel's sojourn in Canaan «ii'/ E|r.\l>t, finds 
expression in (ft ferent ways in the Samaritan and in the i.X.\. 

(//) Is it more likely that the rea<linj^ wherein the Samaritan 
and the L.\.\ o^-ree in diffcrini" from the MT were found in 
older Hebrew codices ?(Ahr. Cieijrer, Cmefiri/l ii.i^ttiergetzun^cn, 
p. !K) f. ; de Wettt-Schrader, i'l'iiArif. p. OS ; Vutke, KiiUeii. p. 
lua). There are traces, of course, of Jewish-Hebrew MSS whose 
text deviates in some (wints from the SIT. For instance, the 
tract Siphfrhn (vi. 4) relates that ' Tliree Ujoks were found in 
the forecourt (.nty^) : in one was found written Kin eleven 
times, and in two K'.T eleven times, and the two were declared 
to' be rijfht, and the one was left out of account.' That is to 
say , a manuscript was discovered in the forecourt of the temple 
in' which the personal pronoun of the Srd pcrs. sing, was ex- 
pressed by Kin not only in the well-known 195 passages, but also 
in the other eleven passa^-s of the Pentateuch, where that pro- 
noun occurs. Yet this is but a weak support for the view that 
at one time a Jewish-Hebrew MS of the Pentateuch contained 
the peculiarities wherein the Samaritan and the L,\X difter trom 
the MT. Or may it be supposed that a Jewish-Hebrew MS of 
this kind took its rise amon-^t the Hellenistic Jews in E^'pt? 
(Kielim, Kinteit. ii. 446). At all events, the accounts we iiave 
of the orifin of the LX.\ know nothing ot Egyptian .MSS of the 
Heb. Pentateuch which formed the basis ot the Greek trans- 

(I'J Or are we to hold that the Samaritan Pentateuch was 
subsequentlv corrected fmm the Greek Y (Ed. lliihl. Die alltctt. 
Citate iin S"t\ p. 171). This view cannot lie set down as 
aljsolutely impossible, but it raises new and dittlcult questions. 
Was thecc once a (ireek Pentateuch, which was simply copie<l 
by the Samaritans? There is no evidence for this, nor is it 
likely, on the other hand, if the present text of the LXX was 
used by the Samaritans (or correcting their Pentateuch, why 
did they adopt onl,v a portion of the iwculiaricies of the LXX ? 

(</) The same dlltlculties arise if we assume that it \ 
Samaritan-Hebrew codex (Eichhorn, Eiiileil. ii. 041 f.) or a 
Saniaritan-tireek C(Klex(Kohn, .SamarUanijtrfu' Studirn, p. 38 IT.) 
that was translated at Alexandria. For, in the first place, tradi- 
tion knows nothing of this. Secondly, it is not in the least likely 
that as early .as the 3nl cent, li.c, when the so-called Septuagint 
version of the Pentateuch originated, so many .Samaritans had 
adopted the Greek language that a Greek translation of the 
Pentateuch would have W-eii executed for their use. It is true 
there are 43 Greek passages which are niarke<l by Origcn as t# 
^twepijTjKJ* (Fiekl, (}ri<jrtiig JJcxctptontiii ijwx supefniint, p. 
IxxxiilT.). It is also certain that these passages are relics of a 
c-omplete Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Kohii. ' I>as 
Samareitikon" in MmtaUtchriJt /. (Jetich, tu Wiit$nueh. d. 
JuiieHlhmnt, 1S!)4, pp. 1-7, 4I)-U7), which was prepare<l (or the 
use of SainariUiis li\ ing in Greek-speakinir countries. For we 
are told that .Symmiu-hus put forwanl his (freek translation 
in op^iosition to a t;reek translation which was current among 
the Samaritans (Epiphanius, de I'oiulerilmul Mriitiirii, u. Kl). 
But there is not the slightest probability that this Or«ek 
translation was older than the LXX. 

When all these considerations are taken int/) 
account, the lirst of the views enumerated above 
remains the most |irobable, namely, that the greater 
part of the dillerences which show ihcniselves be- 
tween the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch, 
grew up through the inllnence <if later currents of 
thought, just as is the with the majority of 
the dillerences lietween the .MT and the LXX. 

\Ve see the inlluciue of later hermeneutics and 
theology continuing to work In another form which 
the PentJiteuch a-sumed among Ihc Samaritans, 
and which must not be confused with the Samaritan 



Pentateuch hitlierto spoken of. Wlien the W. 
Aramaic dialect had inundated also Central Pales- 
tine, the Saniaritau-Hebrew Pentateucli was trans- 
lated into this new country dialect of the Samari- 
tans. Thus originated the Samaritan Pentateuch- 
Targum, which, according to the tradition of the 
Samaritans, dates from the 1st cent. B.C., and is 
attributed to a priest, Nathanael, but which is 
more correctly derived, with Kautzsch (PEE- xiii. 
p. 350), from the 2nd cent. A.D. This translation 
was first printed .in the Paris (1645) and London 
(1657) Poljglotts, and the text given there was 
transcribed in the square character by Briill (Das 
SiimarHanische Tarijum, 1873-75). After fresh 
conipari-son with many JMSS, it was published by 
H. Petermann under the very misleading title 
Pcntatcuchus Samavitamis (1872-91). The Oxford 
Fragments of a Samaritan Targum, published by 
Nutt in 1874, have also been used by Petermann in 
restoring the text of Leviticus and Numbers, as 
well as the St. Petersburg Fragments published by 
Kohn in 1870, which are made use of in the 5th 
part, which embraces Deuteronomy. ' But there 
are more variants than appear in Petermann- 
VoUers,' says P. Kahle in his Tcxthritischi; unci 
Ic.viralische Bcmerkungen zum Samaritan. Pcnta- 
teui-htargimi (1898), pp. 8, 11, etc. On the char- 
acter of this Targum the reader may now compare, 
above all, the thorongligoing article of Kohn in 
ZDMG, 1893, pp. 626-97. Kahle (I.e. p. 8) remarks 
that in the T.ivgnm ' the Hebrew-Samaritan text 
is rendcrr.l sla\i-lily, word for word.' Yet the 
tran.scenihiiMli/iiiL; uf the Divine and the glorifi- 
cation of .Mo^i'^ show themselves in a still higher 
degree here than in the Sam. Pentateuch itself. 

After the Mohammedan conquest of Palestine 
(A.D. 637), when Arabic was becoming more and 
more the medium of intercourse employed by the 
Samaritans, Abu Said in the 11th cent, translated 
the Pentateuch into Arabic. (The books of Genesis, 
Exodus, and Leviticus in this translation have 
been edited by A. Kuenen, 1851-54). The so-called 
Barberini Triglott, a MS which was deposited in 
the Barberini Library at Rome, exhibits in three 
columns the Samaritan-Hebrewtext, the Samaritan- 
Aramaic, and the Samaritan-Arabic versions. 

Ed. Konig. 

and Defnitivn. — It is essential to the proper 
treatment of a sul)ject to determine first of all 
its scope. In the i)road sense of the term, the 
races of the OT include all the peoples that are 
mentioned within that promiscuous compilation 
representing a large number of distinctive works 
and embracing the remains of a literature which 
covers a period of almost one thousand years of 
intellectual activity. The character of this litera- 
ture, as thus defined, makes it natural that the 
geographical horizon of the OT writers should be 
practically coextensive with thethen existingethno- 
logical knowledge. By actual contact the Hebrews 
are brought into relationship with the entire 
group of nations settled .around the Mediterranean, 
as well as with many inland groups to the north, 
east, south, and south-west of the land which 
became the home of the Hebrews par excellence. 
The early traditions and the legendary accounts of 
periods and personages lying beyond the confines of 
trustworthy knowledge, increase this number by 
many races of which little more than the names 
have been preserved. To give an exhaustive 
account, therefore, of the races of the OT would 
involve writing a treatise on ancient ethnology. 

On the other hand, as ordinarily understood, 
the races of the OT include primarily those 
peoples only which stand in close contiguity to 
the central group in the scene of OT history 
— the Hebrews themselves; and here, again, a 

further twofold division suggests itself, viz. be- 
tween those which belong to the more immediate 
ethnic group of which the Hebrews form a part, 
and those which lie outside of these limits. Con- 
fining ourselves in the main to a discussion of the 
theme in the narrower sense, it will meet our pur- 
poses best to treat it under these two aspects. 

i. The Hebkews and Semite.s. — The group 
historically known as the Hebrews, and forming 
the confederation of tribes to which the name 
Bene Israel is given in the OT, forms part of a 
larger group known as the Se.MITES. By virtue of 
this relationship, and in consequence of the geo- 
graphical distribution of the other branches of 
the Semites, it is to the Semitic family that the 
races most prominently mentioned in the OT 
belong. The term Semite is used both in an 
ethnological and in a linguistic sense. As origin- 
ally employed by J. G. Eichhorn * at the close 
of the 18th century, it embraced the peoples 
grouped in Gn 10 as the 'sons of Shem.' Since, 
however, it has been ascertained that the peoples 
thus grouped do not belong to one race or even to 
allied races, the ethnological application of the 
term has been modified to designate a race dis- 
tinguished by the following features : dolicho-' 
cephalic skulls ; curly and abundant hair ; slightly 
wavy or straight strong beard, the colour pre- 
dominantly black ; prominent nose, straight or 
aquiline ; oval f.ace.t 

It must, however, be borne in mind that the 
pure type is comparatively rare. At an exceed- 
ingly remote period the mixture of Semites with 
Samites and Aryans began, so that except in the 
less accessible regions of central Arabia it is 
doubtful whether pure Semites exist at all. So 
pronounced has this mixture been that some 
investigators regard the Semites as the jiroduct 
of two races — a blonde and a dark race ; but the 
introduction of such a division is confusing. The 
mixture has not been with one race but with 
many races, and hence it is but natural that a 
variety of types should have been produced. The 
preponderating type, however, being dark, it is 
legitimate to conclude that the latter represents 
the original stock, and that the ' blonde ' Semites 
furnish the proof precisely of that admixture 
which we know from other sources actually took 

Where the original home of the Semites lay is 
a matter of dispute, and will probably never be 
settled to the satisfaction of all scholars. The 
drift of scholarly opinion, after vacillating between 
southern Babylonia, the eastern confines of Africa, 
southern Arabia, and the interior of the Arabian 
peninsula, is now in favour of the latter region. t 
It is, at all events, in central Arabia that the 
purest Semitic type is still found, and, so far as 
known, it was invariably from the interior of 
Arabia that the Semitic hordes poured forth to 
the north-east and north-west and so\ith to estab- | 
lish cultured States or to assimilate the culture ' 
which they already found existing. I 

It is in this way that we may account for the 
greatest of Semitic States— of Babylonia 
and Assyria in the Euphrates Valley and along 
the banks of the Tigris. The course of culture in 
Mesopotamia is from south to north, and this fact 
is in itself an important indication that the 
Semites who took possession of Babylonia came 

* Hist.-Kritische Binleit. in das ^ 7" (Leipzig, 1780>, p. 45. 

t See, e.g., Brinton, Races and Peoples (New York, 1890), p. 

J For recent discussions of the various theories, see Noldoke, 
Die semitischenSprachen (Leipziy:, 1887). and his article ' Sen itic 
Langui^es' in Eiicijc. Brit.^\ also Brinton and Jastrow, The 
Cradle of the Semites (Philadelphia, 1891), where further refer- 
ences will be -found ; and more recently G. A. Barton, A Sketch 
of Semitic Origins (New York, 1902), ch. i. 



from a district lyiii;; to the south of Haliylunia. 
Tlic Italiyluiiiiins ami Assyrians thus form ii 
distinct hraiicli of the Semites, thoujjh at the 
same time furnishin;: an ilhistiation of the ad- 
mixture with other raees upon wliicli we have 
dwelt. Tlie Eiijihrates Valley appears to have 
been from time immemorial a yntheiin^-plaee of 
various nations, and, in passing', it nniy he noted 
that the Itihlieal legend of theeonfusionof tonffues 
(tin 11), wliiih sij;Tiifiiantly takes jilace in Bahy- 
lonia, ap[ie;us to he hased upon a dim reeolleetion 
of this eireiimstuMte. So far as present indiea- 
tions;;o, the Semites upon eominj; to the lCui)hrates 
Valley already found a culture in existence which, 
however, they so thorouj;hly assimilated, and on 
Avliicli at the same time they imiuessed the stamp 
of their peculiar personality to such nn extent, as 
to make it »uli>taTitially a Semitic product. In- 
deed, the presence of this earlier culture was 
prolialily the attraition which led to the Semitic 
invasion fr<im the intirior of Arahia, just as at a 
later date the SiMuitic civilization of the Euphrates 
attracted other Semitic hordes towards making a 
northern movement from this same region. It is 
among these hordes, pouring out of the steppes of 
Araliia, and proceeding in the direction of the 
Euphrates Valley, that we are to seek for the 
ancestors of the Hebrews. 

The sociological process which began thoiisands 
of years ago is still going on at the present time, 
where nomadic groups, attracted by the opjiortuni- 
tiesof siioil, continue to skirt the regions ot culture 
in the Last, with the result that a certain propor- 
tion of them are permanently gained for the cause 
of civilization, and settle in cultnre centres.* The 
liililical tradition which goes back to settlements 
on the Euphrates^Ur and yarran (Gn ll-'*-^i) — 
finds an explanation in such a movement. Eorni- 
ing part of a nomadic invasion, the Hebrews were 
among those who, allured by the attractions of 
liabylonian culture, made settlements of a more 
perMi;uicnt character along the Euphrates, lirst at 
Ur anil later farllier north at Harran. That, how- 
ever, these settlements did not involve casting 
aside nomadic habits altogether, is shown by the 
JJiblical tradition which records a movement of 
Hebrews from Ur to Harran and thence by the 
northern route into Palestine. The pi<>sence of an 
Eliezcr clan of Damascus in close athlialion with 
Abraham ((in 1.5-) and his band, points to a tem- 
porary settlement at Damascus on the route to 
the west. Once on the west of the Jordan, the 
Hebrews continue their semi-nomadic habits for 
several centuries, and it is not until the 11th cent, 
that this stage in their career is delinitely closed. 

These movements of the Hebrews, as rcionlod 
in a blurred, and j'et for that reason not altogether 
unhistoriciil tradition, suggest, as already pointed 
out, the manner in which southern Mesopotamia 
became a thoroughly Semitic State, the invading 
Semites absorbing the old culture (whatever that 
was, and whatsoever its origin m.iy have been), 
and giving a new direction to the further intel- 
lectual, social, and religious development of the 
Euphrates Valley. This parallel also indicates — 
what is more important for our puriHjses — a com- 
mon origin for the Semites who obtained possession 
of IJabylonia and who, after moving up and 
down the western outskirts of Babylonia, entered 
Palestine. The testimony of language bears out 
this supposition, for the relationship l>etween 
Hebrew and Babylonian is, such as to warrant our 
coMchiding in favour of the descent of the two 
jicoples from one common branch to which the 
name ' Aramaian ' may be given. 

It is both interesting and signilicant to find that 

• See Lady Anno Blutu. The Dedouin TriUa of the EiiphraUt 
(London, ls79), especially clis. xxiii. and xxiv. 

tradition preserves the appropriateiieHs of this 
ilesigniitioii. On a solemn occasion, when the 
Hebrew, appearing before Juhweh, is to recall liig 

fiast, a formula is introduced in which lie refers to 
lis ancestor as ' a stray (njit) Aranuean ' (Dt "JO'). 

1. The AnAM.UAN branch of the Semites thus 
a.s.siiiiies large dimensions. Besides the Babylonians 
and .^s.syriansand Hebrews, it includes the SemitcA 
who settled ill Syria as well as the groups of 
Moabites and Ammcmitcs settled on the east side 
of the .Jordan, while the Phu-nicians settled on the 
Mediterranean coast constitute another Araiiia-an 
division or otl'shoot. Of the relationslii|i exislin;; 
between Hebrews and liabylonians we have already 
spoken. I(7ic;t the early contact in the Euphrates 
district began, of which Biblical tradition preserves 
a faint recollection, it is impossible to say; nor 
must it be sujiposed that the Hebrews at the time 
of their forward movement from interior Arabia 
were sharply dill'erontiated from the promiscuous 
groups of Semites who participated in the move- 

By virtue of the relationship existing between 
Hebrew and the various Aramaic dialects, particu- 
larly between Hebrew and Aramaic in its oldest 
form,* we are justilied in thus placing the group 
.subsequently distingnislied as a conglomeration of 
clans, from which the Hebrews trace their descent, 
in the same category with that large and .some- 
what indelinite branch of Semites which we have 
already designated a.s Aramiean. While the 
relationship between Hebrews and Babyhmian- 
.\ssyrians was never entirelj' broken oil', iKjIitical 
or commercial associations being maintained with 
but short interruptions between Mesopotamia and 
Palestine from the time of the ]>eriiiaiicnt settle- 
ment of the Hebrews to the west of the Jordan, 
down to the destruction of the two Hebrew king- 
doms in the 8th and Gth cents, respectively, this 
relationship was not so close as that which was 
maintained between the Hebrews on the one liaml, 
and the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Ishmael- 
ites (or Arabs), Pluenicians, and other sulxlivisions 
of the "teat Aranuean branch, on the other. 
Among the races occurring in the OT, it is these 
w hicli occupy the most prominent place in Hebrew 
history. It seems desirable, therefore, to dwell 
u])on them in greater detail. 

The tradition recorded in Gn lO™" which 
ascribes the origin of the Mo.\iilTE.s and Ammo.v- 
ITES to an act of incest committed by Lot with 
his two daughters, simplj' rellects the hostility 
between these two nations and the Hebrews. To 
throw disciedit upon an opponent's ancestry is a 
favourite method in Arabic poetry of expressing 
one s contcmiit and inveterate hatred. More sig- 
nilicant, as pointing to the close bond between 
tliese three groups, is the circumstance that 
Abraham and Lot are represented as uncle and 
nephew. Interpreted historically, this relation- 
ship points to a clan or grouji of clans exercising 
supremacy over another group or sending forth 
this group as an ollshoot. Tlie character of the 
AbrahaniLot cycle of stories iKiints to the latter 
contingency. 'I'he separation of Lot from .\braham 
(Gn 13) is (Iciisive in this respect. It is the form 
in which tradition records the recollection that one 
group is an otl'shoot of a larger one. The quarrel 
betwoeii Abraham's ' men ' and the followers of Lot 
is the common occurrence among nomads. They 
separate into little groups, and, as these groups 
grow, rivalry ensues, leading to further separation. 
We are therefore justilied in concluding that 
Moabites and .\nimoiiites were at one time not 
dillerentiated from the Hebrews, or rather that all 
three belonged to a single group, whatever the 

' e.ri. the inncrintions of Tdma (c. Cth cent. Bic ) uid llis 
iiucripttons of Zinjerli (sth cent. ILC). 


name of that group may have been. That there 
were other dans or tribes arising from tliat general 
gronp is i]uit.c certain, and, as this l)otly of Arani.'can 
trilpi's iiioM'il ii(ii(h\v:ir(lsfr(iin tlie Eupln-ates Valley 
iiiiil sclll.'il til till' cast and west of the Jordan, 
they were jiiiMcd on the road by others. It is not 
necessary fur all the members of the group to have 
come into I'alcstine .at one time. On the c<jntrary, 
it is more likely that, owing to circumstances 
beyond our knowledge, it was a series of waves of 
cniiur.ilion led Aramiean groiips away from 
I lie laiplirates and by a devious northern route 
towards lands farther to the west. The Hebrews, 
Moabites, and Ammonites were carried along by 
these waves ; and, whatever the order in which they 
came, the motives leading them to the west were 
the same in all. Language again comes to our aid 
in confirming this theory of the intimate bond 
uniting Hebrews to Moabites and Ammonites, 
'i'lic Miiabite Stone (see vol. iii. p. 404 ff.), fonnd in 
istis .-it Dillon, the capital of Mo.ab, and recording 
the deeds of Meslia, king of Moab (,•. 850 B.C.), 
liroves that llelncw and Moaliitisli dilicr from one 
another as niurh as and no more than the dialect 
of inirthern (jermany dillers from the speech of 
southern Germany, while the projier names of 
Amnionitish rulers and gods in the UT, in default 
of Ammonite records which have not yet been 
found, indicate that Hebrew and Amnionitish 
stood in the same close relationship to one another. 
That the political relations continued to be hostile 
from the first differentiation of the three groups, 
is the natinal outcome of conditions which still 
characterize the districts once occupied by the 
Moabites and Ammonites. 

The case is somewhat different with the Edom- 
ITES. The fact that they do not enter upon the 
scene until after the Hebrews had crossed tlic 
Jordan is significant. The process of differentia- 
tion had progressed sufficiently to single out of the 
Araiiia'an branch the Hebrews as a distinct sub- 
division. If tradition is to be trusted, the con- 
tinuation of this same process which led to the 
separation of the Abraham and Lot clans, further 
divided the llclirews into two subdivisicms, one 
represented by Isaac — Jacob — Israel, the other by 
Ishmael — Esau — Edom. The double line of tradi- 
tion, however, complicates the situation consider- 
ably. Ishmael ,aiid Isaac as ' sons' of Abraham are 
paralleled by Esau and .laeob as ' sons' of Isaac. To 
conclude that the .M.raliaiiiitic uroiip liist scp.arated 
into two sulidivisions, Isaac and Muiiacl, and that 
siibsei|ueiitly another dillcrcntiation took jilace 
Tictwcen Esau anii .laeob as branches of the Isaac 
group, seems teni]itiiig ; but this siiii|ile solution 
of the iirol.leni encounters some ob-tacles. The 
IsilMAKi.iTKS, according to liililical tradition, are 
ideiitilied with the large bodv of tribes in central 
northern Arabia, and the Aiiibs themselves have 
accepted this tradition : Imt tlie uneiiiial |iroportion 
between the two, the Hebrews representing a well- 
defined group of coiiiii.aratiiely siii.-ill extent, while 
the Lshmaelites assume Ihc ilinicii^ions of a blanch 
of the Semites as extm^ni' ami .is undelineil .as 
the ' Aranneans,' raises the' suspicion that the 
Biblical tradition in this instance is not of pojiular 
origin, or at all events not wholly ], but due 
to a ' learned ' theory which attempted to account 
for the close r:ieial and the no less close linguistic 
affinities bet ween Hebrews and Arabs. The theory 
is naturally interpreted in the ()T with due allow'- 
ance for national pride, so that, while Ishmael is 
conceded to be the older son of (Gn 16"), 
Isaac is the favourite one (22-). While, again, 
the tradition is forced to make the concession to 
hi^to^i<■al fact in i.rcdicting for Ishmael a large 
progeny (Gn 1()"'-17'-'"), and otherwise admitting 
Elohini's partiality for Ishmael (c.ij. l"'"),— witness 

the act of circumcision which admits him into the 
covenant with Elohim (17°''"-"), and Ishmael's 
miraculous deliverance (21'^-^"), — the general aim 
of the tradition is to play off' Isaac against Ishmael. 
This is conscion^ly done, and in a manner quite 
ditl'erent from the naive way in which in other 
instances popular tradition is given a literary 
form. If 111 addition it be borne in mind that, in 
the actual history of the Hebrews, lshmaelites 
]il.ay no part, it seems plausible to conclude that 
the Ishmaelitic current in the OT tradition is not 
of iiojiular origin. The lshmaelites do not dwell 
in I'alestine or in the iminediately adjacent dis- 
tricts, .and po|nilar tradition takes no interest in 
groups of peoples with which it has nothing to do. 
At iii.iM, Mm. ads being driven away from the 
domain s,.| .•i> lor Is.iac iiiav recall a sett lenient 
in ralestiiie prior I., the advent of llie Hebrews; 

but even tlii^ element ..I liisloiieal lit in the 

tradition is donl.l lul, and it ^cem- i e |il.iiisil.le 

to assume tlial I lie sep.iial ion of l~aiieaii.l isliiiiacl 
is a 'doulilei ■ Miggestcd either hy l.ol's seiiaration 
from Abraham or .lacobs sep.iration from Esau, 
the story itsdt being introduced to account for the 
ethnic relationship between Hebrews and Arabs. 
As such it has its v.alue and, in a certain sense of 
the word, its justification. 

2. The AltAlis reiiresent the second great branch 
into wliilh the Semites may be divided, and as 
further subdivisions of this branch we may dis- 
tinguish (1) the Arabs of and northern 
Arabia ; (2) the Arabs of southern Arabia ; (3) the 
ofVshoot of the latter in Africa — notably in Abys- 
sinia ; (4) the offshoots in modern times of the 
Arabs of northern and central Arabia in («) Egypt 
and the N, Al'rican coast, (//) I'alcstine and Syria, 
((■) India and the .Malay Archipelago. 

So far as the UT is concerned, we are interested 
only in the first two subdivisions. The culture of 
the Arab branch of the Semites begins in the 
south — in southern Arabia and in Abyssinia. 
Which of these is the original and which the off- 
shoot is a question which a number of years ago 
could h.ave been answered without hesitaticm in 
favour of the former, but which now is an open 
one. During the past two decades, inscriptions 
have been found in Yemen and in Abyssinia re- 
pealing the existence of several important king- 
doms in southern Arabia, and indicating both here 
and on the opposite African coast a noteworthy 
degree of culture, the age of which is at least 
fifteen hundred years before our era, and which 
may turn out to be considerably older. 

If the theory which ]>laces the home of the 
Semites in central Arabia be accepted, the ])ro- 
babilities are that, corresjionding to a northern 
movement, there was a tendency for certain 
groujis of Semites to spread towards the south ; 
and if the culture in the south was actually 
established by them in this way, it would also be 
natural to suppose that this culture was carried 
by eiiiimants from Yemen to Abyssinia. How- 
ever that iii.ay be, the langnag-e of southern Arabia, 
known ,is Himyaritic, — subdivided into a number 
of dialects, — and that of Abyssinia, known as 
Ethiopic, ]irove a connexion between the 
groups inhabiting this district. It is interesting 
to note that southern Arabia and Abyssinia are 
mentioned in the famous description of the rivers 
of I'aradise (tin 2""") ; for, whatever the origin of 
the name Iliici/ah is, there is little doubt that 
some district of Arabia is meant,* while the land 
of Cusk is, to the writer of (Jn 2, Ethiopia. 

The historical relations between Hebrews and 
the Arabs of southern Arabia appear to have been 
entirely of a coniniercial character, and these 

* Glaser, Ski^ze der Geschichtc und Geographic Afabiens 
(Berlin, isao), ii. 323-326. 



eecm to liavo been coiiliiu'il to tlie short periiKl 
of political jjlory wliicli tnulition iissociiites with 
the reltcn of Solomon. This eoiiiiiici'i'inl iiili'i- 
course between soiuliHrn Arabia luul I'alestine 
};ave rise to the ' Midrashie ' tale of the (lueen of 
Shcba's visit to Solomon (I Iv Hi''"), to which the 
Arabs have aililetl as supplement Solomon's visit 
to Yemen.* The Arabs have also retained the 
recollection of the twofold division of the branch, 
and, in the ^'enealoj,'ical lists jirejiarcd with such 
inlinite care by tlic ^cnealo^'ists, one braiuli the 
northern — is traced back to Adnan, and the other 
— the southern — to Kalitan. 

The Klliiiipians were well known to the Hebrews, 
and the piophets are fond of introducing' allusions 
to them into their orations {c.<i. Is 18', Jer 40", 
Ezk '-''J'" 3tH etc., Nali 3", Zcpli ;{'"), although Cash 
does not always stand for Kthiopia. 

Coming back to the tradition in Gcncsi.s which 
divides the Hebrews after Isaac into two divisions 
— Jacolj-Isracl and Esau-Kdom — there can scarcely 
l>e any doubt that we have here again a ease of a 
popular tiadition and pcrfecily reliable, in so far 
as it points to a comnmn origin for the Hebrews 
and the Kdnniitos. While the Moabites and the 
AmniDiiiIrs icinaincd east of the .Jordan and the 
llelin-WN iiicivi'il til the west, the Edoniites eventu- 
allj' cst.ibii>lKd tliemselves to the south and .south- 
east of the Hebrews; though, retaining their 
nomadic habits of life and nomadic lierceness of 
nmnner, they freouently made incursions into 
the territory of their neighbours. The form of 
the Biblical tradition would also indicate that 
the Edomitcs formed part of the ' Aranucan ' 
emigration that entered the lands to tlie cast 
of the Jordan in a scries of migratory waves, 
ccmiing l>y the northern route from the Euphrates 
district. Jacob and Esau are represented as 
twin sons of the Isaac and Rebekah clans. The 
marriage between Lsaac and Kebekah, inter- 
jireted historically, means that a branch of 
the Alirahamitie group formed an alliance with 
another group which, in continuation of the 
western movement that brought Abraham and 
Lot to the west, jirompted other -VramaMii groups 
to follow the example. Udickah coining from 
' Aram-naharaim ' to join the Hebrew group is a 
proof for the theory above maintained, that the 
stream of 'AranLfan' emigration to the west 
continued steadily for an indelinite period, and 
perhaps never ceaseil entirely. Alliances between 
small groups are common among the nomads to 
this day ; but the result is generally that after a 
time a separation again takes ]ilace, not neces- 
sarily between the same groups, but in the next 
generation or two, by which time the growth of 
the united group has been such as to engender 
rivalries among the members. 

In the case of Jacob ,and there is another 
reason for the separation, and one of no small 
historical moment. It was natural that some at 
least of the Aram.'can hordes, attracted to the 
Euphrates district by the culture existing there, 
should have been inlluenccd by the exam|>le of 
this culture to take a forward step in civilization. 
We may safely set dow-n liabylonian culture as an 
imiHirtiint factor in bringing about the division 
of the Semitic nomads into two classes — those of 
the licrccr grade retaining their nomadic habits 
uncliaii.;iil, .Icpendent upon hunting and plunder 
for tlieir sustenance ; and the higher grade, softer 
in nuinner, w.indering about, followed by their 
Hocks, and contiMuing nomadic habits chiclly for 
the sake of the latter and because of the necessity 
of seeking proper pastnr.-ige at the various sea.sons 
of the year. Those groujis of the Aranuean branch 

* Weil, BtbliMhc Lcjeiulen der Mimdinuniier (Frankfort, 
1846), pp. 246-273. 

which became dirt'erentiatod as Hebrews. Moabites, 
and -Vmmonites, attain tlie higher grade at the 
time of their entraiue into western lands or shortly 
thereafter, while the Edomitcs represent a sub- 
division which either relapses into the lierccr state 
— a not uncommon experience— or was, for some 
reason or other, preventeil from taking the step 
forwards which eventually leads to the agricultural 
stage, and with this the coni|ilete laying aside of 
nomadic habits. .lacob, described as 'a tent 
dweller' ((In ■J.V), represents the nonnul on the 
road to culture, and is contrasterl with Esau the 
hunter — the Itedawi proper* {ih.). A hint of 
impending change in social comlitions is already 
furnished by the tradition a.ssociated with Abra- 
ham and Isaac t)f digging wells (On 'M"^) for the 
needs of the extensive herds of sheep and cattle 
which they acijuired (v."). This being the case, 
it is not easy to account for the close association of 
the two grouiis, Jacob and Esau, representing such 
dillerent levels of cultui-e, and why there should 
be, in the ciuse of one of the .subdivisions of the 
Hebrew group, a reversion to th<! ruder nomadic 
type. Such, liowever, is evidently the, and 
tlie Edomitcs, tracing back their descent to the 
Esau clan, represent a branch of the Hebrews that 
remained in a lower stage of culture, while the 
other steadily advanced till the agricultural stage 
was reached. The bond between the Israelites 
and the Edoniites apjiears to have been much closer 
than that between the Hebrews and any other sub- 
divisions. The rivalry, too, ajipears to have been 
keener. There is not merely hatred between 
.lacob and Esau, but the former adroitly dispos- 
sesses the latter, drives him away from his in- 
heritance back almost to the desert, where he 
takes up much the same sort of life as that Icil by 
the Semites before c(uiiing into touch with <'ulture 
at all. Still, the recollection tliatlsr.ael and Edoiii 
are brothers is preserved in the popular mind in 
(juite a dillerent manner fnuii that in which Ish- 
niael and Isaac are so sjioken of. A late psalmist 
(I's 1.S7') still denounces the treachery of KcUim at 
the time of the downfall of the Southern kingdom 
as |iarticularly repichcn>ible, because, as a brother, 
he sliould have come to tlu' rescue instead of help- 
ing to the downfall of .Iiidali. It lies, of course, 
outside the province of this article to consider the 
details of the relationship between Israel and 
Edom. For our purpose it is sullieic'iil to specify 
in this general way the relaticiiislii|i i xistinj lie- 
Iwcen the Hebrews and the varicius\ i-iciis 
of the AraiUican and Arabic braiLclies ul .Si-miic-s. 

Two other branches of the .Viable group which 
appear iirominently among the races of the t(T are 
the Anialekitcs and the Midianiles. The tradition 
recorded in V<n 30'- traces the back 
to Esau. Like the Edcunites, they represent the 
(iercer type of the IJedawin. Their first encounter 
with the Hebrews takes place during the periml 
w hen the latter themselves arc still in the nomadic 
stage. The rivalry between the two must have 
been bitter indeed, since the hatred of the Hebrews 
towards the .Vmalckites not only survives to a late 
period, but is inculcated in the I'entateucli as a 
religious duty (Dt 2,->"-"'). AVhile originally the 
name of an Arab trilio settled around l,<iidc>li, 
the term seems to have come to Ih- applied to 
roaming bands of marauders in general. It is in 
this way probably that we are to acciuint for the 
presence of Amale^ites not only at Ucphidim 
(Ex l"*'"), but a-s far north as Mt. Ephraim 
(.Ig 12", cf. r->"). Ilidee<l the H.direws are imdcste.l 
by Anialekitcs as late as liic days of Saul (I S 
lo'""), and it was left for David to drive them 

• The Amliic wonl lirJirij i.iirnit\i'» Itio 'oric outjiiili'.' anil ia 
tluTcloro (he e(|Uivalenl of tlie Hebrew jihroiie 'luau of the 
Held '(Un 26"). 



finally back to their desert haunts (1 S 30'"-°). 
The l^enites and ^Cenizzites settled around JJebron 
are set down as branches of the Amalekites who 
joined the federation of the Ben6 Israel, and this 
defection must have intensified the hatred of the 
Amalekites for Israel, and led to atrocities and 
barbarous treatment of captives on the part of the 
Amalekites. the recollection of whicli survived 
among the Hebrews to a late day. 

The application of the name Amalch to Bedawin 
in general finds a parallel in the still more indefinite 
manner in which the terra Miillnn is used by some 
OT writers. That the Midianitks also belong to 
the Arabic group of Semites is sufficiently shown 
by their settlement around Mt. Sinai, where we 
first find them (Ex 2'^-'') described as shepherds. 
They were evidently regarded as already, in the 
days of Moses, belonging to the milder class of 
Bedawin — the nomad on the road to culture ; and 
yet subsequently, in tlie period of the Judges, the 
ilidianites are in alliance with the Amalekites 
(Jg 6^). In genuine Bedawin fashion they pounce 
down upon the Hebrews, who had now Ijeccme agri- 
culturists, and rob them of their fiocks and belong- 
ings. At this time they are scarcely to be distin- 
guished from the Amalekites ; and the two groups 
become synonymous with the marauding bands 
of Bedawin, belonging in reality to a vast number 
of ditt'erent tribes who constantly threaten the 
e.xistence of the cultured States of Palestine. 

3. There is still one branch of the Semites to be 
con.sideredwhichreceives jirominent mention among 
the races of the OT — the I'ihexician.';. If we 
were to be guided by the testimony of language 
alone, the settlers along the northern Mediter- 
ranean coast certainly belong to the same branch 
as Hebrews, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites ; 
but t he totally ditt'erent social conditions prevailing 
in I'liu'nicia, and the unique role played by the 
Phirnicians in history as merchants and seamen, 
suggest that another factor is at work here. The 
theory has been advanced and met with consider- 
able favour, that the Phcenicians were not the 
original settlers of the coastland of Syria, but 
came there from their homes, which were originally 
on the southern coast of Asia Minor, or, as some 
are inclined to believe, at the mouth of the Persian 
Gulf. There is, however, not sufficient material 
to settle so delicate a problem. There is no indi- 
cation that the pop\ilation along the Syrian coast 
represents a mixture of Semites with other races, 
and our knowledge of Phcenician antiquities is too 
meagre — and what there is does not reach far 
enough back — to enable us to specify the historical 
relationship existing between the Phoenicians and 
other subdivisions of the Aramaean branch. As 
long as no evidence to the contrary is forthcoming, 
we must continue to place the Phuiuicians in the 
same category with Hebrews, Moabites, etc. ; and, 
assuming that they formed ]iart of the general 
movement of ' Arama-an ' groups from Arabia, they 
became dift'erentiated after settling along the coast- 
land, where they may already have found a seafar- 
ing population, whom they gradually dispossessed, 
just as the Hebrews upon entering Palestine found 
the country settled by a population whom they 
in turn drove out. 

The relationship between Hebrews and Phoe- 
nicians was, again, chiefly commercial, just as 
between Hebrews and Yemenites. Commercial 
intercourse led to political alliances ; and at one 
time, in consequence of such an alliance, — in the 
days of Ahab, — there was danger of the Phcenician 
cult becoming a serious rival to the national 
Jahweli worship. 

The Phcenicians lead us to consider another 
grou]), which entered into far closer relations Mith 
the Hebrews than almost any other, and which, 

among the races of the OT, occupies a peculiarly 
prominent and significant place — the Canaanites. 
The OT usage of ' Canaan ' is not consistent, being 
sometimes employed to include all of Palestine 
proper, Phcenicia, and even lands to the east of the 
Jordan, and at times restricted to Palestine. It 
is therefore not to determine the precise ex- 
tent of Canaanitish settlements. From the fact 
that ' Canaanite ' comes to be synonymous with 
the merchant of Phcenicia (Is 238, Ezk 17^ Pr 31'^), 
we may certainly conclude that the Phamicians 
were regarded as Canaanites, and the further 
use of the term as a designation of the pre- 
Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine is an indication 
of a close relationshijj between some sections at 
least of those peoples whom the Hebrews dis- 
possessed and the Phoenicians. But at this point 
certainty ends. The Canaanite is frequently in- 
troduceci in the OT in connexion with a number of 
other groups — the Amorites, pittites, Perizzites, 
yivvites, and Jebusites (e.g. Ex 34"), to which 
elsewhere the Girgashites are added (e.^r. Gn 
J520. 21 ») j(; jg quite clear from the way in which 
these peoples are grouped, — sometimes five being 
mentioned, sometimes seven, at times only two — 
Canaanite and Perizzite (c.f). Gn 13' 34'"), — that 
they were no longer sharply ditVerentiated in the 
minds of the writers. Taken together, they con- 
stitute the inhabitants of Palestine whom the 
Hebrews encountered when they attempted to 
conquer the country ; but the survival of the term 
' Canaan ' as the name for the district, and ' Canaan- 
ite ' as a general designation for the earlier inhabit- 
ants, ]iiiints to Canaanites as forming the most 
powerful, and ]ir<ilialily also the most prominent, 
part (if file jiopulation. It may well be that some 
of those mentioned in the above conglomeration 
— notably the Perizzites and Girgashites — Avere 
merely subdivisions of the Canaanites that for a 
time acquired an independent position, but after- 
wards were again absorbed into the general body 
of Canaanites. At all events, it is plausible to 
assume that the interior of Palestine was occupied 
for an indefinite period, prior to the advent of the 
Hebrews, by groups of Semites more or less closely 
related to one another of which the Canaanites 
became the most prominent. 

These Canaanites belonging to the same branches 
as the Semitic settlers in Phoenicia, the question of 
their origin is involved in the problem as to the 
origin of the Phrenicians. Adopting again the 
general theory above advanced, we may assume a 
movement similar to that which brought the 
Hebrews to Palestine to have taken place at a 
much earlier date. What Hebrew tradition 
assigns to the days of Abraham appears, then, 
to have been only a repetition of much earlier 
events. The Phoenicians and the Palestinian 
Canaanites would thus represent a subdivision 
of the Aram.-ean branch that moved along the 
Euphrates, and finally passed over by the northern 
route towards western lands, some settling along 
the coast and others pushing into the interior. 

In the course of time these groups took a step 
forwards in culture, and became agriculturists. 
Their villages developed into towns, while those 
groups living on the were lured to seafaring 

It was the Canaanites — to use the general name 
— whom the Hebrews, upon entering Palestine, 
found in possession, and the wars with them con- 
tinued for many generations, until finally the 
Hebrews obtained the upper hand. This contact 
with the Canaanites forms a most important 
factor in Hebrew history. By that power of 
attraction which the higher culture possesses for 
those of an inferior grade, the Hebrews were 
* ' Rephaim ' in tfus verse is an explanatory gloss. 



fjrompti'il to iiiiike the attempt to secure for tlicm- 
seh ex till' towns ami lultivatetl lands to the west 
of the .Ionian. The success of their etlorts is 
followed liy the iierinanent aliundonnient of no- 
madic habits, anil instead of sheep raisers they 
hecoir.c and leniain for sulise(|uent centuries tillers 
of the soil. l'"roni a relijjious point of view, the 
ciintuct with the t'anaanites was also frau}.'lit, with 
important consequences. The national deity, 
Jahweh, originally associated with the sojourn of 
the people in the wilderness, — the nomadic periiMl 
of tlieir existence, — becomes the protecting deity 
of the lielils. and the people do not hesitate to call 
.lahweli by the name which the Canaanites applied 
to tlieir iield deities — Uaal. For a time the 
amalj,'amation of the Jahweh and the (^aniumitish 
Itaal cult seemed imminent, when a ' national ' 
reaction takes place, and, under the lead of jealous 
Jahweh-worshiiipers, the attempt is M\aile to drive 
the liaal priests with the Uaal rites out of the 
country, just a.s the worshippers of Uaal had been 
forced out of tlieir pos.sessions. Kor all that, 
.Jahweh alisorbs some of the traits of Ihuil, and it 
is not until several centuries later — when .Jahweh 
Himself was on the point of becoming a deity 
sin;,dcd out frinii all othcis liy the ethical character 
attrilivitcd to Him that the last traces of the old 
Canaanitisli cults also disappear. 

How far back the arrival of the Canaanites in 
Palestine is to lie dated is a f|uestion which cannot 
be answered with any dej;ree of certainty. It is 
safe to assume an interval of several centuries 
between this (^veiit and the movement of Hebrew 
trilies from the Kuphrates Valley towar<ls western 
lands. The earliest occurrence of the name is in 
the Tel el-.\niarna tablets, ilatin;,' from r. 14IK) n.C, 
in which we lind the name Caniian under the form 
Kiiiri/n, but limited in its application to the .sea- 
coast, and more properly tlie northern seaeo.ast, 
i.e. I'ha'nicia. Hut, at whatever date we fix the 
entrance of the Canaanites, even they do not 
appear to have been the first Semitic j,'roup that 
settled in Palestine. Of the trroups mentioned so 
freijuently with the Canaanites m the ()T — the 
Perizzites, yitlites, IJivvites, Amorites, Girjiash- 
itcs, and .lebusites— we know unfortunately verj' 
little, with the exception of the I.Iittites and the 
Amorites. The I'erizzites and the (Jir^iashites, it 
has been pointed (mt, may have been sulidivisions of 
Canajinites, and yet from the way in which, in two 
places ((!n IS' 84^'), Caniuinites and I'erizzites are 
put side by side as comprising all Palestine, one 
might he tempted to conclude that the Perizzites 
rejiresented an independent group, which was at 
one time coeipial in importance with the Canaan- 
ites*. It seems even more certain that the.Jebusites 
and yivvites had no direct connexion with the 
Canaanites. Taking this in connexion with the 
circumstance that in the Tel el-.\marna tablets 
the term Canaan does not include Palestine proper, 
it is more than probable that .some of the groups 
mentioned with the Canaanites represent still 
other settlers. In a notable pass.age (Gn 15'") 
three additional groujis— Kenites, l^enizzites, and 
l^Ladmonites—are spoken of as o<'cupyin<i the terri- 
tory later claimed by the Hebrews. That these 
groups are Semitic is'sulliciently indicated by their 
names, the last mentioned of -which, the ' Kaster- 
ners,' still contains a trace of the district whence 
they came. 

At the period of the Hebrew con(|uest of Pales- 
tine w^e no longer hear of these groups. They 
appear ere this to have been driven to the soutli by 
the all-powerful Canaanites, and sub.sciiuently to 
the west by the Hebrews. It is quite natural that 
the traditiims regarding these earlier movements 
should be dimmed. There was no reason why the 
Hebrews or the Hebrew writers should have been 

sutliciently interestetl to preserve any distinct re- 
collei-tuiii. Their relations were primarily with 
the Canaanites. The importance of the latter in 
the eyes of the Hebrews is revealed in the earlier 
form of the story of the dislrilmtioii of mankind 
as furnished in (-in 9'^"-'', which makes Caniuin, 
Sliem, and .Japheth the progenitors of the human 
race; and, on the other hand, the hatred of these 
rivals of the Hebrews crops out in this same 
chapter which connects Canaan with yam — the 
' accursed ' son of Noah (v.-^). 

ii. KACK.S OK iwum'FUL, OiiiniN. — A peculiar 
TKisition is occupied by the Amorites and the 
I.Iittites. The .\M«liITk.s are found throughout 
northern Palestine as early at least as the 12tli 
century II. C, when weencountcr the naiiie.-l;;iH(VK 
(or Aitinrra) in cuneiform inscriptions. .So pro- 
minent do they liecome that they furnish to the 
Itabylonian and Assyrian chronicfers the name for 
the entire district of^ northern and southern Pales- 
tine, and there are indications that the Helirews, 
too, at one time gave to the term Amorite an 
extensive ajiplicatioii. In the so-called Elohistie 
document, ' hijid of the Amorite' is tised in this 
way.* These Amorites must accordingly have 
turned to the south, and, indeed, when the He- 
brews entered Palestine, they found their way 
blocked by a large powerful kingdom on the e.ast 
of the .Jordan (see .\MORlTKS in vol. i.). The re- 
markable statement of Ezekiel (IG^-*'), that the 
'mother' of .Jerusalem was a I,Iittite, and the 
' father ' an Amorite, points also to the early 
presence of Amorites on the west of Jordan. To 
assume, however, that 'Canaanites' and 'Amor- 
ites' are synonymous terms representing one and 
the same population, is not justified. In the Tel 
el-Amarna tablets the ' Amurru ' land is frequently 
mentioned and always designates the interior of 
Palestine, though more particularly the northern 
section ; but the name may lie carried back still 
farther. In liabylonian legal documents of the 
pericxl, r. '2,S00 B.C., a town Amurru occurs, situ.ited 
in liabylimi.a. If we are to conclude from this that 
the Amorites also came from the Kuphrates A'alley, 
we should have still another inslaiicc of the move- 
ment which brought such various groups of Semites 
to the west. A more important conclusion that 
appears to be warranted, is that the Amorites 
would thus turn <mt to be settlers in Palestine 
earlier than the Canajinites, and that the latter 
repivsent the group which linally obtains the 
ascendency and retains it until the appearance of 
the Hebrews. That with the conquest of the land 
by the Canaanites, the .Vmoiites do not disappear, 
any more than the I.livvitcs, .Jebu.sites, and other 
groups, is quite natural, seeing that when the He- 
brews coiiquircd tlieCan.ianitcs the old inhabitants 
were dispossessed, but, by the express testimony of 
()T writers, not driven out (lix •.':!-■'• '■", Jg I-'- -''■■«'). 

The question has lieen raised, notably by Sayce 
H!nn:i „f th>- Old Testfimcnf, i>. llii), whether the 
.Auunites and other -{roups of the pre-Israelitish 
inhabitants were Semites. Much stress has Jieen 
laid upon the representation of .Vinoriteson Egyp- 
tian monuments where tliej' are depicted with 
yellow skin, blue eyes, red eyebrows and heard, 
and light but also black hair (W. M. I'linders 
Petrie, Jim-Uil TijiicJi from Eijijiit, l.onrlon, lss7). 
The Egj-ptian arlist.s, however, were not always 
consist4.'nt in their drawings, and more particu- 
larly in their colourings, as Sayce himself is 
forced to admit [l.r. ll.'J, 114). Too much im- 
portance, therefore, must not be attached to the 
colouring of the racial types on the Egyptian 
iiionuments. Anxiety to produce a pleasing or 
startling effect was a factor which interfered 

• 8i-c Stcinlhal, Zeitt. j. VMurpiyclMlo-jie , li, 20", Uld Ed. 
Meyer, ^xr in. Mi. 


seriously with etlinographieal accuracy. But, apart 
from tlie colouring, there are no such decided dis- 
tinctions between Amorites and Judajans on Egyp- 
tian monuments as to warrant the supposition tliat 
the two belonged to ditterent races or even to 
ditterent branches of the Semites ; and to account 
for this, as Sayce would have us do, by assuming 
that up to comparatively so late a period as the dajs 
of Kehoboamthe population of southern Judaea was 
still largelj' Amoritic (I.e. p. 112), is simply building 
a furtiier argument upon a mere supposition. The 
term Amorite, moreover, has a Semitic sound and 
ajjpearance, and until better evidence to the con- 
trary is forthcoming we may group them with the 
same race as the later settlers of Palestine. The 
Amorites were a warlike people, living in walled 
towns. The recollection of their prowess survived 
to a late date, and they became to subsequent 
generations the giants of olden days. It has 
become customary in consequence to identify the 
Amorites with the Axakim, Kephaim, Emim', and 
Zamzummim, or to regard these as so many sub- 
divisions of the Amorites. It is true that the 
liephaim and Analcim are occasionally spoken of 
in the OT as though they were identical with 
Amorites, but this is due to the fact that ' lle- 
phaim ' and ' Anakim ' (cf. c.if. Dt 2"- -" 3"- '^) 
are used as generic terms for a powerful race, and 
no longer as specific designations of any particular 
group. This, however, does not imply that there 
were no groups known as Rephaim and Anakim 
respectively, but that they belong to such a remote 
past as to become mere names to later generations ; 
and since strength and gigantic stature are invari- 
ably ascribed by a later generation to remote 
ancestors, — in part, no doubt, jnstiliably ascribed, 
— we may only conclude from the way in which 
these terms are used that no definite traditions 
about these groups have survived. As for Emim 
and Zamzummim (possibly identical with the Zuzim 
of Gn 14-^), they are merely the names of the ancient 
population of iloab and Ammon respectively (Dt 
2" and -'"). While it is no longer possible to specify 
tlie extent of the territory of the Kcphaim and 
Anakim, so much appears tolerably certain tliat 
these groups, with the Emim and Zamzummim, 
constitute the oldest inhabitants of Palestine and 
the district to the east of the Jordan known to us 
— preceding the Amorites but afterwards com- 
mingled through the faintness of tradit'on with 
Amorites, just as Amorites in time are noo shar]ily 
distinguished from Canaanites, and just as the 
groups IJivvites, Perizzites, etc., come to be viewed 
in some strata of tradition as subdivisions of 

If we are to seek for a non-Semitic race in Pales- 
tine at all, we must go back beyond the Amorites 
to the nebulous Rephaim, Anakim, Emim, and 
Zamzummim. There are some reasons for actually 
sujipusing the pre-Amoritic settlers to have been of 
a iliflerent race, which was gradually subdued by 
the Amorites both to the east and west of Jordan 
but tlie thesis is one which in the present state of our 
knowledge cannot be proved with certainty, though 
tlie f.act of tlie existence of an e.arly non-Semitic 
poiiulation in certain portions of Palestine has now 
been established by ethnological evidence (see Alex. 
JMacalister in PEFSt, Oct. 1902, pp. 353-35G). 

With even greater assurance than in the case of 
the Amorites, has it been maintained that the 
];JiTTlTES belong to a non-Semitic race. The 
problem in this instance is even more comjilicated, 
in consequence of the vague and indelinitc usage of 
the term. We lind a group of yittites in the south 
around yebron carried back liy tradition to the 
days of Abraham (On 23''- "■ "' etc. ). These yit tites 
are also in alliance with Edomites, and in the d.ivs 
of David we encounter pittites in liis army (2 S 11, 

cf. 1 S 26°). The Egyptian and Assyrian monu- 
ments, however, reveal the existence of pittite 
settlements in thfe north along the Orontes as early 
as the loth cent. B.C., and these gave the mighty 
Assyrian rulers a great deal of trouble before they 
were finally subdued towards the end of the Sth 
century. The term appears to include a variety of 
groups which extend iiortliNvard and westward of 
the Amorites to the sunt hern and western crests of 
Asia Minor as veil as far into the interior. These 
northern pittites do not seem to have anything 
more in common with those of the south than the 
name. How this is to be accounted for is an un- 
solved problem. While the northern Ilittites have 
left numerous monuments containing si-ulptures 
and inscriptions, those in the .south do not a|ipear 
to have even reached the stage of culture wiiich 
produces art and literature. From the Egyptian 
monuments we catch glimpses of the pittite 
Iihysiognomy, and, to judge from, the Hitt- 
ites were not a Semitic race ; and yet too much 
stress must not be laid upon these representations. 
Certainlj-, we have no sound reason for supposing 
those of tlie south to belong to any other race than 
the Semites. The rather close relations between 
them and the Hebrews and the Edomites would 
point to ethnic affinity ; and if there is any con- 
nexion between the IJittitesof the south and those 
of the north, we may at most assume that the 
latter became mixed with the non-Semitic popula- 
tion without losing Semitic traits altogether. 

iii. Non-Semitic and Mixed Race.s. — I. But, 
while a doubt thus remains as to the ethnic 
character of the pittites, there is no question as 
to the non-Semitic character of a group with 
which the Hebrews from a certain period came 
into close though alwa3's hostile contact — the 
Philistines. There is no reason to question the 
tradition which makes them come from Caphtok 
(Am 9', Dt 2-^, Jer 47'') ; and, while the problems 
connected with the identification of Caphtor have 
not been entirely solved, still all the indications 
point towards Crete, and scholars are now pretty 
generally agreed in regarding the Philistines as 
pirates lielonging to some branch of the Aryan 
stock, who, attracted perhaps, as were tlie Hebrews, 
by the fertile lands of Palestine, forced their way 
into the Canaaniti^li settlements, and succeeded in 
obtaining the supremacy in the entire 'Sliephe- 
lali,' where they established a number of petty 
kingdoms. Almost immediately after they entered 
Palestine, hostilities between Hebrews and Philis- 
tines began, and, long after the Canaanites were 
subdued, the Hebrews still had to contend against 
th"i armies of the Philistines. In the days of 
David their opposition was broken, and, though 
after the death of Solomon they regained their 
independence, it was but a shadow of the old 
power that remained. The interference of Assyria 
in Palestinian atl'airs dispelled even this shadow. 

We have thus passed in rapid review the large 
variety of groups in Palestine and .adjacent dis- 
tricts with which the Hebrews came into political 
or commercial contact, and who occupy a more or 
less prominent place among the races of the OT. 

2. Passing beyond the narrower bounds, and j-et 
not leaving Semitic settlements altogether, we have 
first to deal with the Egyptians. Like Baby- 
lonia, Egypt, by virtue of its nourishing culture, 
proved an attractive magnet which drew the no- 
mads of the Sinai peninsula and adj.aeent districts 
to frequent sallies against the outlying Egyptian 
cities, and, as in the case of the Arama>an advances 
along the banks of the Euphrates, the higher cul- 
ture prompted grouiis now and then to a forward 
step which led to the abandonment of the 
life commensurate witli the Bedawin stage of cul- 
ture. Egypt, accessible both from the north and 



the south, on several occasions fell a prey to in- 
vikIits who niuiia^teil to olitain lontrol of the 
liolitical I'lirtunesol the country. The nionunients 
ut ItiMii llitssan ile|iict most graphically an invasion 
of ImiM^'niMs, who are none other than the Semites, 
entiiin;; K;,'ypt, anil, as we learn from various 
so\ucis, ;,'railually becoming powerful factions in 
(cilaiii of the E;;yptian districts. The Hyksos 
(iyii.i^ty is an illustration of the power which 
forii;jMcrs manaj;eil to obtain in Kjiypt ; and who- 
ever may lie inlciidi'd hy the Pharaoh under whom 
Josvph, aciurdin;; to I'.iblical tradition, rose to 
eminence, his presence marks the success of one 
of th'! Semitic invasions of Ejiypt. The ^'roups 
that primarily came to Kgypt naturallj' l)elon;.;ed 
to the Araliic branch of the Semites, but these 
were not infrequently joined by those coming; from 
southern and central Palestine, who formed part 
of the Aranwcan movement from the Euphrates 
Valley towards the west. The lii;,'her class of 
nomads, who were prompted to clianj;e their location 
with a view to seeuriu}; pasturage for their (locks, 
wouM lind themselves specially attracted to E^'vpt 
in those periods, not infrequent in Palestine, 
when the insulliciency of rain during the wintry 
.season is sure to be foIlowe<l by a ilrouglit .and 
scarcity of fof>d. It was such an occurrence that 
led some of the tribes which afterwards formed the 
confederation of the Israelites to pass down to 
E^iyi't, and their numbers, as appears from the 
form of the narrative in E.xodu.s, were from time 
to time reinforced by others. In that sense we are 
to interpret the story which tells of Simeon .-inil 
llenjamin bein^ kept in E;;ypt as host.ijxes before 
the others joined them there, which means simply 
that certain tril)es reached Egypt earlier than 
others. The narrative in (lenesis |4G*-'-'') makes all 
the 'twelve' tribes proceed to Egypt, but we can 
hardly expect a relialile tr.nlitioii on such a ques- 
tion of detail. So .accustonnil are the w ritcrs of a 
later .age to regard the federation of the twelve 
tribes as a unit, that they project this union into 
the remote past, thougli witlio\it historical warrant 
fordoing so. The < )T writers, viewing history from 
the point of view of later theorists, cannot conceive 
of less than twelve tribes at any time, ami suppose 
that necessarily these tribes clung to one another. 
AVe are [permitted to .assume that certain Hebrew 
groui)s left their Palestinian settlements to seek 
better pastures in Egyiit, but to go further and 
bring all twelve tribes into the district of the Nile 
is nnhistorical, for the suUicient reason that the 
feileration did not exist at this tin\e except in the 
mind of the UT narrator, wbo is so fond of gene- 
alogies, and attaches such imiiortance to them that 
he IS inclined to ]ilace, in a remote |iast, f.aets and 
factors which really belong to a much later age. 
It is not surprising, in view of the location of 
Egypt, thus open to invasion from two sides, that 
its population was of a mixed ehar.acter. If one 
may judge from the langu.age of Egypt, the sub- 
stratum of which has now been ascertained to l>e 
Semitic,* the basis of the piqmlation is likewise 
Semitic : tut lioth langnngc and pccqih; are largely 
mixed with ' I,Iamitic elements, more partii ulaily 
Liliyan. This element in the course of time ajqpcars 
to obtain the ma-tcry, despite the frec|Uent Semitic 
immigrations into Egypt, and to such an extent 
indeed that l>oth llie people and the language 
retain but few Semitic traits. 

3. Of the liAIlVLOXIAXs we have already had 
occasion to speak. In tlie E\ipbrates Valley, like- 
wise, aniixtureof racc> appears to have taken place 
at a remote period ; but here the situation is just the 
reverse of what we have founil in Egyj)t, inasmuch 
as it is the Semitic element which obtains the 

' Stf Enrmn's article in ZDMG xlvi. pp. nS-lS!), and lloiuiuel 
in the Di'itnhje zur Antiifrioh^fir, ii. a4"i-;t.'>s. 

suprem.acy to such an extent ai to give to the Baby- 
lonian culture, from the earliest iwriod revealed 
to us by historical inscriptions, a jmrely .Semitic 
character. Hut the Egyptians ami Itabylonians 
(and subseriuently the .\ssyrians) agree in this 
re.s|»cet, that their relations to the Hebrews con- 
tinue, with but few interruptions, throughout the 
period of the p<ditical existence of the latter. Before 
the counter movement of Hebrew tribes and other 
Semitic groups* from Egypt back to the Arabian 
peninsula takes place, Egyptian rulers enter into 
close relationship with I'ulestine, Pheenieiu, and 
Syria. The Tel cl-Anmrn.a tablets, so fre<|uently 
mentioned in the course of this article, are the 
evidence of this uninterrupted intercourse in the 
loth cent, before our era. The establishment of 
a Hebrew c<mfedcraey in Palestine exjioses the 
Hebrews to constant danger of being absorljed 
either by the rulers of the Nile or by the ambitious 
lords of the Euphrates Valley and the Tigris. The 
i)oliti(al history of the two Hebrew kingdoms is 
largely taken up with the endeavour to steer clear 
of this danger — an endeavour that ends in failure. 

iv. Tin: TkntiiChaptku OF Gi:N'Ksis.—Tlie races 
hitherto discussed are the ones which play a part 
in the historical events unfolded in the OT narra- 
tiies, but they are far from exhausting the races 
whose existence is recorded in the pages of the 
OT. The geographical horizon of the UT is re- 
markable for its wide extent, and indeed there 
are but few races — the Chinese and Japanese 

- which are left out of account in the famous 
t'lif/i c/i^i/itur iif Geni-.tis, which forms our iirincigial 
source tor a survey of the races of the OT in the 
wider sense, as including all those knavii to the 
Hebrews, or, more correctly speaking, to Hebrew 
writers, whether these races iiad anything to do 
with Hebrew history or not. The chapter itself in 
its present form istlieresult of considerable editing, 
involving more particularly the dovetailing of two 
documents, one of which is commonly a.s.signed 
by modern scholars to the Jahwistic history, the 
other to the Priestly Code. The composition of 
the former of these documents is jilaced in the 
9th cent., the latter shortly after the end of the 
exilic period ; but how much earlier the traditions 
are, and the knowleilge upon which the chapter is 
based, it is quite impossible to saj'. Apart from 
some additions in the list of the descendants of 
Sliem, the chapter may be viewed as representing 
the geographical knowledge of a grouj) of Hebrew 
writers in the Stii and 7th cent. U.C. The absence 
of any direct reference to Persia is .an imliiation 
that even the post-exilic compiler took as Ids point 
of view conditions existing jirevious to his own 
day. In forming an estinmte of the chapter, it 
should, however, be borne in mind that the tradi- 
tions eml(o<lied therein are of .a .schohustic and not a 
popidar character, and that, w Idle there sub- 
stantial reasons for assuming that the writers had 
before them geographical lists written in cuneiform 
or Egyptian characters from which they transcril>ed 
their data, the groujping of the races and nations of 
the world is distinctly the work of Hebrew schofd- 
nien who are guided by learned and not by iiopular 
tr.aditiim. Tins is manifest alreadj- in L;n 9, the 
closing verses of which beginning with v." should 
be studied in connexion w itii eh. 10. 

The three firoii/is into which the human race 
is divided do not represent a iwpular [Hpint of 
view. A people's geographical horizon — its tmtl 
le wionrfo— is limited by its political and srcial 
interests. The three sons of Noah in the po|iular 
form of the tradition are not the br»a<l suUIn isions 
of mankind, but three suUlivisions within the 
groups in which the Hebrews were more particn- 



larly interested : («) Sliem, by which tlie Hebrews 
themselves are meant; (6) Canaan, the ])redecessors 
and hated rivals of the Hebrews in Palestine ; (t) 
Japheth, originally designating probably the people 
of Phoenicia,* with perhaps the adjacent island of 
Cyprus. These are the three sons of Noah in the 
original form of the famous blessing and curse 
(Gn 9^"^). In the scholastic recasting of the 
popular tradition, the three sons of Noah become 
the progenitors of the human race. Shem is taken 
as an extensive term to include a group of peoples 
who were regarded as ethnically close to the 
Hebrews, Japheth is similarly extended to em- 
brace a large group of races to the north of the 
Hebrews, while Canaan is replaced by ^AM, who 
is viewed as the progenitor of the group of races to 
the south of Israel as well as of others who were 
particularly hostUe to the Hebrews. Interpreted in 
this way, it is manifest that we must not seek for a 
purely scientific division of the races known to the 
OT writers, but one in which science is linked to 
national prejudices and preferences. With these 
preliminary remarks we may pass to an analysis 
of this remarkable document, so far as scliolarsliip 
has succeeded in interpreting it. The suggestion 
has already been thrown out that the grouping of 
peoples in the chapter in question is gcoqraphical 
rather than ethnic or linguistic, though it may at 
once be added that the geographical principle is 
not consistently carried out. The clearest section 
is that referring to the sons of Japheth (vv.-"*), the 
core of which belongs to the post-exilic writers. 

1. The Japhcth'des represent groups and races 
lying to the north of Palestine. Of the 'sons' of 
Ja|pheth, namely, Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan,, Meshecli, and Tiras, the majority have 
been idcutihed. GoMER is the equivalent of the 
Gimirrai frequently referred to in the inscriptions 
of Assyrian kings, and represents a promiscuous 
group of peoples who, forced across the Black Sea 
by Scythian hordes pressing upon them, settled 
in Cappadocia. In the early part of the 7th cent. 
we find these Gimirrai in conflict with Assyria 
and Lydia, and shortly after the middle of that 
century tliey are driven still farther to the east. 
Madai is Media, Javan represents the lonians, 
while TunAL and JlESHECH are found in juxta- 
position in the Assyrian inscriptions under the 
forms Tabal and Muski ; and the location of these 
groups may with certainty be fixed in central 
A^i.■l Minor. There remain only Magog and Tiras. 
(iiitside of the occurrence of Magoo liere (and in 
1 < li 1^, which is eopieil from Gn 10-) the name is 
found twice in Ezekiel (38- and 39*). In the former 
of these passages it is a gloss to Gog, indicat- 
ing the identity of Gog ami Magog in the miiid 
of the annotator ; while in the second passage the 
LXX has 'Gog,' which the Hebrew text also 
exhibits in Ezk SS'^"'-'* .and 39i. In view of 
this, it seems reasonable to suppose that Magog 
is a slip for Gog, the M being superinduced perhaps 
by the M of the following Madai. The error, once 
introduced, was carried over into Ezekiel, once as 
a variant, and in the second case as an actual read- 
ing instead of Gog. From the passages in Ezekiel 
the views connected with Gog may be clearly de- 
duced. The name is a collective one, for a whole 
series of peoples coming from the north, and 
threatening at one time, during the 7th cent., to 
engulf the Semitic «orId much as the Goths and 
Vandals threatened the Roman empire. The 
danoer was averted, but so great was the terror 
inspired by the northern hordes that Gog survived 
to a late period as the symbol of wickedness and 
evil power — a pre - Christian Antichrist. The 
identification of TiliAS is not certain. The view 
I the tents of Shem ' (927) points 

of Ed. Meyer {Gcsch. d. Alterthums, i. p. 260), 
which associates Tiras with the Turusha, a sea- 
faring nation mentioned in the Egyptian inscrip- 
tions of the 13th cent., and whom the Greeks 
reckon to the Pelasgians, has been generally 
accepted; but recently W. Max Miiller (Orient. 
Lit.-ZeHunfj, loth Aug. 1900, col. 290) prefers to 
regard Tiras as a doublet — a variant of Tarshish 
mentioned in v.^, and to identify both with Turs, 
i.e. the land of the Tyrsenians or Italy. 

As subdivisions of Gomer, there are mentioned 
Aslikenaz, Kiphatli, and Togarmah. The passage 
in Jer 51-', wliere Ashkknaz is placed in juxta- 
position with Minni and Ararat, is conclusive for 
placing the Ashkenazites in western Armenia, 
while the occurrence of a personage Ascanios as a 
leader of the Phrygians and Mysians in the Hind (ii. 
8(i2 and xiii. 79) has, together with some otiier evi- 
dence (see AsHKENAZ in vol. i.), led some scholars 
to fix upon the Phrygians as the group more particu- 
larly denoted. For the location of KiPHATH tliere 
are no certain data, while Togarmah appears to 
be some part of Armenia, whence horses and mules 
were exported to the markets of Tyre (Ezk 38"). 

As of Gomer, so of Ionia, a number of sub- 
divisions are noted — Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and 
Dodanim. It has become customary to identify 
Elishah with Hellas; but since \V. Max Midler 
has shown satisfactorily that Alashia, occurring in 
the Tel el-Amarna tablets, is the ancient name for 
Cyprus, it seems natural to connect Elishah with 
this term (Or. Lit.-Zcit., loth Aug. 1900, col. 2SS). 
Tarshish has commonly been identified witli the 
Phoenician colony Tartessus in southern Spain ; 
Kittim with Cyprus, in view of the town Citium ; 
and DoDAXiM, for which the LXX as well as the 
parallel passage (1 Ch 1') has ' Kodanim,' with 
Rhodes. Tliere are, however, serious objections 
against all these identihcations. One can luudly 
suppose that a writer would jump in this wild 
fashion from Hellas to Spain, then back to Cyprus, 
and then on to Rhodes. The very frequent refer- 
ences to Tarsliish — no fewer than twenty-five times 
in theOT — make it certain thatan intelligent reader 
knew where to look for it. But while there was one 
Tarshish, whose location was well known, which 
probably l.ay in Spain, it does not follow that 
' Tarshish ' in all passages refers to this place. There 
is signilicancc in the juxtaposition with Pul (prob- 
ably an error for Put, or Punt) and Lydia in Is 66'". 
This suggests another Tarshish adjacent to Asia 
Minor; and, while in many if not most of the 
passages the location in Spain suits the context, in 
Gn 10 and in some other instances we do not appear 
to be justified in going so far to the west. Whether 
Kittim is really the city of Citium in Cyprus has 
been questioned by both Winckler and Miiller (see 
Or. Lit.-Zcit., loth Aug. 1900, ib.). If Dodanim is 
really a corrupt reading for Rodanim, the identifica- 
tion with Rho<les may be admitted, but we cannot 
be certain that the LXX reading and the one in 
1 Chron. do not represent an intentional change 
with a view of suggesting this identification. All 
therefore that can be said with regard to Elishah, 
Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim is that we must 
probably seek for them among the larger islands 
of the Mediterranean and .-Egean Sea — preferably 
among those adjacent to the southern and western 
coasts of Asia ilinor. On this assumption we can 
understand the reference in v." to the 'islands of 
the nations,' which appears to be a convenient 
manner of designating the minor islands of this 
region. The groupings of these four names is 
based on a tradition which regards the people 
meant as oft'shoots of Ionia on the Asia Minor 
coast. It does not, of course, follow that ' the sons 
of Jap'.ieth ' represent necessarily subdivisions of 
the Aryan race. As already pointed out, the 



writer of t!n 10 lias tmt va^;iie notioiiH regariliii}; 
ra<'ial alHiiities of iiatiunN, wlierens lii» geo^'raplii- 
cnl views are quite eleiir and detinite. Still it 
to lia]i|H,'ns tliat Asia Minor, from the western 
coast far into the interior, was at an early date 
the seat of Aryan settlements, and in the Ttli cent, 
the Kie-iter mirtion of the iKipiilation belonged 
in all i>robability to the Aryan f,'rou|) of races. 

'2. The 'soils of Il'uii,' as the second division, 
embrace the races of the south, so fur as known 
to the Hebrews, ("I'sil beiiij; Kthiopia, MiyuAIM 
the eijuivalent of Kf:vpt, while the evidence which 
identihes I'UT with Libya— so already Joscphus — 
is still the most satisfactory availaole. At the 
iianie time, it would appear from the passa;.'e in 
Is 06'" (above referreil to) as well as from other 
evidence (see Wincklcr, Altor. Forschuiicicii, i. p. 
613, note), that there was another country, I'ut, 
situated near Lydia, and desi},'natinj; probably 
some island or ),'roup of islands in the .K;^ean 
Sea. In most of the;,'cs in the proplictical 
books in which I'ut is mentioned, it is this re^'icm 
and not the I'ut of Gn 10" which is meant. The 
introduction of C.\N'A.\N at this point and the 
groupini; with the 'yamites' is not to be taken 
as an indication that in the min<l of the writer 
the Can.ianites came from the south. The mention 
is due to the hostility which existed between the 
Hebrews and Canoanites, and whicli prompted the 
writer, in obedience to popular prejudices, to place 
the Canoanites witli the 'accursed' race. The same 
opirit is resiMUisible for the insertion (vv. *"'-'), which 
places the lifilii/loiu'ins and AsjyrUnis — whose ulti- 
mate control of I'alestine was already imminent at 
the time when the section was written— also with 
the .sons of the 'accursed' son of Noah, thou;:li 
it is po.ssible that the confusion of Cush = Ethiopia 
with the Cossteaus (a people to the north-east of 
Babylonia), may have been a factor also in bring- 
ing about this result. As ofl'shoots of Cash, there 
are mentioned Scb.i, Havilah, Sabtah, Kaamah, 
Sabteca, and as iill^hoots of Hoamah a^'ain, Sheba 
and Dcilan. Of these siv.n districts, yavilah and 
Shcba and Dcilau can be fixed with sullicient 
delinitcncss to form starting-points for the general 
determination of the rest. ^AVlLAH is certainly 
some district in Arabia— proliably on the western 
coast, — Sheba is a portion of southern Arabia, 
while DeDAN, to judge from the juxtaposition 
with Tema in central .-Vrabia (Jer '2o^, Ezk 25"), 
must be sought in the interior of Arabia, extend- 
ing considerably towanls the north. The remain- 
ing names api)car likewise to have been designations 
for other portions of the Arabian peninsula, more 
I'lut icnlarly the western and south- western sect ions. 
I'nlcss we assume that the tradition is utterly 
without foundation, we must perforce conclude 
that Cushites settled in large ntimbers on the 
western coast of Arabia from the southern ex- 
tremity to a point considerably north. Similarly, 
in the sutxlivisions of Kjiypt (vv.'"- '*) the certainly 
that the Lehabim are Libyans, and that I'ATllliOS 
is Upper Kgypt, justilies the conclusion that the 
NaI'HTUHIM and Ca.sluhim are to be sought in 
northern Africa, even though the precise iden- 
tification is still doubtful. The introduction of 
the Philistines in v." is, without much question, 
a gloss which has been inserted into the text at 
the wrong place. It would come ai)propriately 
after the mention of the CArinnitlM, — t'.c. probably 
Cretans (see above),— and the gloss itself, whicli 
connects the Philistines with Caphtor, rests upon 
the traditions embodied in such pa.ssages as Dt "2^, 
Jer 47*, Am 9'. There, again, the bitter hostility 
between the Hebrews and the Philistines appears 
to have lieen tlie factor which prom[)tcd the 
association of the Cretans and Philistines with the 
descendants of yamites. 


As oMshoots of the CanaanitcH a large number of 
groups are mentioned, most of which ar«i known to 
us from the actual relations existing at one time 
or the other liclween them and the Hebrews. 
Such are the Jebusitcs, .Vinorites, Ciirgashites, and 
yittitcs, while the situation of Zidon, Simyra, 
yamatli, and Arvad is perfectly 'definite. Tlie 
other groups, AliKITES and SI.NITE.S, therefore 
lielong to this .siime region between the Pliu-nician 
coast and eastern Syria. How uninqxirtJint, in 
the mind of the writer, ethnological allinity is 
may be judged from the introduction of the 
yri'TITES in the form of a gloss in v." and as 
an otl'shoot of Canaan. Whatever and wherever 
the yittites were, they certainly were not closely 
allied to Canaanite.s. The name itself designates, 
a-s already intimated, a promiscuous gioup of 
peoples whose settlements at one time covered a 
good portion of the interior of .\sia .Minor, whose 
culture and general character have little in common 
with Canaanites. The imiiortance of the yittite 
settlements in Syria adjacent to the territory 
covered by Canaanitish grouiw has led to the 
mention of yetli, by the side of Zidon, as an 
ollshoot of Can.ojin. It thus appears that the 
second gioup — the yamites — represents a greater 
mixture of totally distinct races than we encoun- 
tered in the ease of the Japhcthites. yamites, 
Semites, Aryans, and Turanians are thrown to- 
gether without any scrujiles. 

3. The rem.ainder of the chapter, vv.'"'*', is taken 
up with the favoureil group — the S/iemitcs. It is 
evident from a superlicial survey of the list that it 
cannot originally have belongeil to the preceding 
enrolment of nations. One and the same writer 
would not have placed Assyria with Cushites (v."), 
and a few verses later on made Assyria an ollshoot 
of Shem (v.^). Nor is it conceivable that in one 
part of a document the Lydians should have lieen 
placed with Kgypt (v.") and in another with Aram 
(v.--). Again (vv.^- '■'"), we encounter Sheba and 
yavilah among the sons of Shem, whereas in v.' 
they are grouped with Cushites. Quite peculiar 
to this third section of the diapter is also the long 
genealogical chain — .\ripaclisliad, Slielah, Ebir, 
Peleg, and Jolitan, — whereas, in the case of the 
Japliethites and yamites, at most a ilouble chain 
is furnished. The longer chain, in the of the 
Shemites, suggests a relationship between this 
section of the tenth chapter and such a chain as is 
found in the eleventh chapter. Here as a matter 
of fact we have the ' doublet ' of our section, for 
vv. '""■-■" present a genealogical table of .Shemites 
introduced as a preface to the narrative of Alua- 
haiii. Comparing these two lists, it will lie found 
that the Shemites in the narrower sense consist of 
two branches which meet in the .series Ar]iaelisli(ul, 
Shelah, Eber. AVith the latter theilivision liegins, 
the Abraliamitic group tracing descent to Pei.ko, 
one of the sons of Elier, while the other branch 
starts witli another son, Joktan. In Gn lO^'* 
the sulnlivisions of Joktan are given, and the 
section thus complements the genealogical chain 
of the Pelcgites in the Uth chapter. There is no 
diiliculty in determinin" the region where the 
writer places these two branches of Shemites, or, 
more strictlj' speaking, Ebcrites. The descendants 
of Peleg are represented by the Arnnucan .settle- 
ments alon" the Euiiliratcs with the gradual 
extension of these groups into the ilistrict to both 
sides of the Jordan, while the Joktanites rejiresent 
those who pa.ssed on to the south and west of 
Arabia. The situation of SheKa and yavilah lias 
already been referrc<l to. yAZAKMAVKTH is iden- 
tical with yadramaut along the .southern coast ; 
and Hadokam, L'zal, ttliAl.. and the rest must 
likewise be sought in the region of Yemen, dnly 
in the case of the mysterious UrilIR in it pott»ible 


that the writer intends to have us take a leap over 
to the African coast (see Peters, Das Land Uphir, 
1902, who has made out a strong case for locating 
Opliir in the district near the Zambesi river in 
soutliern Africa). Roughly speaking, tlie twofold 
division of the Sliemites corresponds to tlie cus- 
tomary division of Arabia into Yemen and Sliam 
(or Syria), the ' riglit ' and the ' left ' land, or, as it 
was mistranslated by Latin writers, Arabia Felix 
and Arabia InfcUx. Gn 10-', wliere Sliera is 
referred to as the ' fatlier ' of all ' the sons of 
Eber,' reveals the real sentiment underlying the 
genealogical lists of vv. =■'--"■' and lli"--". The two 
branches— tlie Pelegites and Jolctanites— comprise 
tliose groups which, in his opinion, are genuine 
Sliemites, the only Shemites worth speaking of 
according to his view, though perhai)S not the only 
ones he knew of. The inclusion of south Arabian 
tribes is ratlier signilicant, and strengthens the 
thesis maintained at the beginning of this article, 
which makes central Arabia tlie st.arting-point for 
Semitic emigration in two directions. However 
this may be, it would appear that a later writer, 
not satisfied with this narrow scope given to tlie 
Shemites, saw lit to add as separate subdivisions 
Elam, Assyria, Lud, and Aram, embracing what 
he considered the Mcsopotamian bmnch of the 
Shemites, Elam being to the east of Mesopotamia, 
Assyria the general term for Mesopotamia itself, 
Aram tlie designation for the district to the west 
of Assyria, while LuD (following upon Arpachshad) 
is one of the puzzles in the chajjter. The identihca- 
tion with Lydia is out of the question. That it 
inay be some te.xtual error— we-Lud being super- 
induced by the Arpac/ishad yalad of v.--"— is not 
impossible. If, however, the reading be accepted 
as correct, the most natural suggestion would be 
to place Lud to the north or north-east of Mesopo- 
tamia. The attempts to identify ARPACH.SIIAD 
have hitherto failed. Even Cheyne's proposal 
{ZA'I'll' .wii. (1S97) 190) to separate the term into 
two words, -pxCA rap = Arapcha) and ico (Kashcd =, which is the plausible of the many 
suggestions otlercd, does not commend itself; 
and it would appear, indeed, that Arpachshad is no 
more a district than Sheba, Eber, or Peleg, but 
in reality only the name preserved by tradition of 
sonie ancient group to which the Eberites traced 
their descent. If this be so, the name is out of 
place in v.--, and has either been introduced by the 
writer, whose chief aim it was to add Elam, Assyria, 
and Aram as a Alesoputamian branch of Shemites 
to the .sonth Arabian and Syriac - Palestinian 
branches, or has in reality been brought in by an 
error, iiS i-c-^zis-, (v.-) being a 'doublet' of nB-D:nKi 
1'' (v.==). At all events, it appears to be clear 
that Elam, Assyria, and Aram represent a third 
Sheniitic branch added by some writer to the 
original twofold division. Of the subdivisions of 
Aram— Uz, tJul, Gether, and Mash— U?, though 
not definitely marked oil', is the region of flauran, 
extending, however, considerably to the south • 
M.vsii (for which 1 Ch 1" has Meshech) may be with the Mons Masius between Armenia 
aihl M.-c.]iui:uiii,-i, while IJUL and Gether are 
ahu-.ih. r ..l.xiire, and it would be idle to hazard 
any conjectures at present. 

The addition of Aram narrows still further the 
scope of the Pelegites, who are thus practically 
confined to the groups of Hebrews in Palestine 
and their neighbours directly to the east of the 
Jordan. The omission of Babylonia in this addi- 
tion of a Mesopotaniian branch is an index to the 
age of the writer who added it. Not, indeed, that 
we are to conclude that he belongs to the period 
when the supremacy of Assyria over the south was so 
undisputed as to justify the application of ' Assyria ' 
to the northern and southern jSIesopotamian dis- 

tricts, for, as a matter of fact, the distinction 
between Dabylonia and Assyria was at all times 
maintained. The omission is intentional, and simi- 
larly the inclusion of Elam among the descendants 
of Noah's favourite son is also dwelt upon with 
intent. There can be little doubt that Elam 
is merely another designation for Persia in the 
mind of the writer. The reign of Cyrus, with 
whom brighter times for the Jud.^^an exiles set in, 
M as a sufhcient reason for glorifying Persia at the 
expense of Babylonia. The writer was willing to 
permit the hated Babylon to be founded by a 
descendant of ^lani, but Persia belongs to the 
favoured race ; and Assyria, which for more tlian a 
century had been merely a name without substance, 
could also be magnanimously included, since con- 
sistency demanded that the country adjacent to 
Persia should belong to the same group. The 
writer, however, takes his revenge upon Babylonia, 
ignoring the name entirely and substituting that of 
her own hated rival Assyria. We are tlicrcfore 
brought down to the end of the Exile for the 
addlt'wn of the Mesopotaniian branch of the sons 
of Shem. Once more we observe that ethnic 
aHinity is an unimportant factor in the grouping — 
geographical i>ro\iiiuty i-oiints first, and natural 
preferences an. 1 ili-hki'^ scr, mil. Still, in the case 
of the'soii^of Shrill .1, ill ihiit of theJaphethites, 
it so happens that all thu.-.c ciiunierated go together 
ethnically. With the exception of the KhiiKit.a, 
who are Aryans, the memliersof all three braiiclies 
of Shemites are also to be grouped as subdivisions 
of a single race, only tliat it must be borne in mind 
that not all the subdivisions are enumerated ; and 
that some which unquestionably belong here, e.g. 
the Canaanites with their numerous branches, are 
to be found in the ^laniitic division, while some of 
those in the Japhetliite group, not yet dehnitely 
identified, may likewise turn out to be members of 
the Shemitic race. See also following article. 

In this survey, necessarily defective, of the 
important tenth chapter of Genesis, the chief aim 
has been to present the view taken of the races of 
the ancient world by a Hebrew writer, or, more 
exactly, by Hebrew writers. Two features stand 
out prominently in this view — firstly, the breadth 
of the writers' horizon ; secondly, their inditierence 
to the ethnic relationships among the peojjles 
grouped together. The main factors in determining 
this group are, again, two— ( 1) geographical aHinity, 
and (2) natural dislikes. It is the combination of 
these two factors that leads to many of the incon- 
sistencies in the grouping that we have noted. 
The writers are not merely interested in those races 
with which the Hebrews have come in contact, but 
extend their view to those which stand outside of 
this limit, and yet they do not pass farther than 
Elam and Armenia in the east ; the western limits 
are the islands of the Mediterranean .-.djacent to 
the soutliern and western coasts of Asia Minor ; 
they take in all of northern Africa, and embrace 
Arabia from the extreme south up to the moun- 
tains of Syria. The aim of the writers being to 
include all mankind, the limitations of the chapter 
fairly represent the bounds of historical know- 
ledge at the time of composition. The races of the 
OT in the larger sense, and as revealed by this 
chapter, cover the civilized States grouped around 
the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Persian 
Gulf, together with the less cultured races and 
tribes of this district. While the tenth chapter of 
Genesis occupies a unique place in the OT by virtue 
of the large number of races and peoples enumer- 
ated, yet the prophets furnish the proof that the 
knowledge evidenced by this chapter was not 
exceptional. A trait of the great propliets is their 
fondness for including jn their view many other 
nations besides the people whom they addressed. 




Tlie Book of Amos opens (clis. I. 2) with a series of 
deiiuiuiations of a viiriet y of ilistiiots : Dainasciis, 
Gaza, Tyre, Kdom, Aiiiiiioii, Moab being introduced 
as a means of hei^'liteniny the dramatic elleet when 
Judah and Israel are reaehe<l. Isaiah (elis. 13-23), 
Jeremiah (46-51), and E/.ekicl (21-32 and 3S. 311) 
similarly have a series of ' oracles ' directed a^'aiust 
nations near to and remote from the Hebrews, and 
in addition to this they incidentally introdnce many 
others by way of illustration to their arguments. 
So, e.g., Ezk 38 is a miniature reiiroiluction of 
(jn 10. The prophet enumerates in tlie course 
of his oration tJo^, Meshech, Tubal (v.-), I'ersia, 
Kthiopia (Cusli), Put (v.*), Gonier, Tojjarmah (v."), 
Sheba, Dcdan, Tarsiiish (v."). Elsewhere (ch. 27) 
we encounter Tyre (v.»), Ziilon, Arvad (v."), Persia, 
Lml, and I'ut (v.'"), j'avan. Tubal, Mesliceh, 
Tu;;armah, Dedan, Aram (vv. '""'), Arabia, Sheba, 
Kaamah, Eden, Assyria (vv.--^). Tliro\i";li these 
references, the ex|)lanati<)n of the races mentioned 
in tin 10 is cousidcrally advaneeil, though new 
problems are also presented by the mention of 
nations not otherwise known. So in the two 
chapters of Kzekiel under consideration we en- 
counter for the lirst time Persia, Ar.ibia, and also 
Eden.* The omission of Persia in the Genesis list 
(thou;.;h referred to probably in the s>ip]ileniental 
mention of Elam) lins already been commented 
U]ion. In the case of Al!.\Dl.\, it is the name 
rather than the race that is new : while Edkn — 
correspondin;,', perliajis, to liitAtlini in cuneiform 
literature and occurring witli H.Mt.\N and Canneii 
{)irobab]y an error for Calneh) — is covered in 
Genesis by Assyria and Babylonia. 

More important, however, than the variation in 
nomenclature and the additions, to be gathered 
from the prophetical orations, to the ethnological 
phases of the OT, is the circumstance tliat the 
|)ro])liets in question sliouUl have an acquaintance 
with so many races. The propliets would not have 
referred to these many nations liad they not been 
certain of being understood liy tlic jicojile to whom 
they address themselves. From this ])oint of view, 
the prophetical books reveal the existence of an 
international intercourse in ancient times on a 
mucli larger scale than is ordinarily supjiosed. 
The tenth chapter of Genesis is an illustration of 
this general acquaintance with the races of a con- 
siderable section of the ancient world ; and while 
the list rests in part on a theoretical basis, and is 
prepared for a scliolastic purpose, yet it cannot be 
doubted, in view of the evidence furnished by the 
prophetical books, that a majority of the peoples 
there mentioned are races with which, cither 
politically or commercially, the Hebrews came into 
direct contact. 

In this way the treatment of the races of the 
OT resolves itself, after all, into a consideration 
mainly of those associated with the Hebrews. 
AYIiile, therefore, tlie distinction made at the be- 
ginning of this article may be maintained [(n) the 
subdivisions of the Semitic nice and of the pre- 
Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine, (b) the non- 
Semitic and mi.xed races with whom the contact was 
less constant and in many cases less close where it 
did exist], the races introduced from the purely 
theoretical point of view form a comparatively small 
minority. To be sure, the underlying nrinciple of 
the chief source for the larger view of t)T ethnologj' 
which divides the whole of mankind into three 
divisions is deprived by nimlem ethnological in- 
vestigation of Its scientilic value. The races enu- 
merated under each one of these divisions do not, 
as we have seen, necessarily form a homogeneous 

• Gehal, Damascus, and Helbon also occur in ch. 27, but aa 
names merely of cities, and nec<l not tlicrcfore bo taken into 
coiiKiileraUon. So Zidon (2T») is covered by Canaan and bj Tj re 
111 Un lU. 

group. Till! distribution being controlled largely 
by the geographical factor, it was not to lie ex- 
pected this ^llould Ije the case, (|uite apart 
from the fact that an ancient writer could hardly 
be expected to have the ethnological attainments 
required for such a method of uroupiiig. As a 
conspectus, however, of races known to the 
Hebrews, largely through contact ami in part 
throu^di learned tradition, the tenth chapter of 
(ienesis not only retains its intrinsic value, but 
serves as an indispensable aid in su|>plenieiiting the 
ethnological material, furnished incidentally by the 
narrative wbii li follows the remarkable history of 
the Hebrews, from the early time of the departure 
of the lirst group from the Euphrates Valley 
through the nomadic period, with its frequent 
changes of residence, on to the conquest of Pales- 
tine and the growth of the federation of Hebrew 
tribes into a nation in tlie full of the word, 
witli a distinct political organization, down to the 
political decline and fall of this people, which sur- 
vi\cd in a strange way even the loss of national 

LiTEiiATinE. — Sayce, Tlie Race» nf the Old TnlamrnI, 
London, ISill, also 'White Itocc of Ancient Palestine ' ^A'jywW/or, 
.July, IS^): Noldeke, DU semitvicJien Sprachen. Leipzii;, HiS7, 
see also bis art. 'SetniticLanjjuapes'in ^iwryc. firif.O; C'hwolson, 
IHi: scmitigchen VOtkfr, Uerlin, 1S72 ; Ucnan, //w(. 'jt'fi^niU et 
f}l»tititu com)>ari da lanmies if'.mit.^, Paris, 1S78 ; ilommel, Die 
sfinitincheii I'tilkcr und !iprachen, Leipzig', 18S^ ; W. M. Flindcrfl 
Pctrie, Uaeial Type^fnnn Ejjfpt (London, 1SS7); (J. A. llurtoii, 
A Sketch nf Semitic Oriyiru (New York, lOOi) ; Brinton and 
Jastrow, The Ciadlc of the Sf im(M (Phil. 18UI): A. Kimbel. Die 
Viilkertujrl der Geneiie (Oiessen, 1S50) ; de Goeje, 'Hut tiendo 
Hootdstuck van Genesis i'VhT iv. (1870) 2410.); Jlerx, art. 
' Voelkertafel ' in Schenkcl'a BiMiexicon (bibliojjraphical refer- 
ences) ; Glasor, Skizze der Genchiehte und Geo<jravhir Arnliiene 
(Berlin, ISOO), chs. x.xiv.-xxxi. ; E. Schrader, heilimehriften 
und Oenchichtttforgchuntr (Giessen, 1S7S), COT (2 vols. Lonilon, 
18S6-S8). Kiiri, pt. i. 'Geseh. u. Geosr.' by H. Winckler (Berlin, 
1902); Fried. Dolitzsch, ll'o Lay dal Paradica) (Leipzig. 1881); 
Commentaries on Gn 10 by Dillmann, Delitzsch, Holzin^er, Struck, 
Ball, Gunkel; and the "introductory chapters to the Higiory 
of the IJel/reire by Evvald, Gutbc, Stade, PiejienbrinK, etc. ; 
compare also the identifications in Kabbini<y»l literature of the 
nations menlione*! in Gn 10 as put to;;ether by Neiiliaucr, La 
fl^ojraphie du Talimtd, Paris, 18G3, pp. 421-424; Epstein, 'Le8 
Chamitesde la Table Ethnogl-aphique selnn lo iweudii-J«»nathan' 
(liKJ xxiv, 82-OS); S. Krauts, 'Die liiWische Volkertafel in 
Talmud, Midrosch, aiHlTargHm '(3lonaUachr!/t/. d. »iiixeqj)chn/t 
dee Judrnlhumit, xxxix. Itwo articles)), ' Zur Zah] der biblischen 
Volkcrscbatlen ' (ZATW xx. 11900), pp. 38-43); see also the 
separate articles on the different races mentioned in this article. 

MouRis .Iasti:o\v, .In. 
SEMITES.— The term Semite. (Slu-mi/r), forming 
the adjective Scmilic {Shcmilir), is derived from 
tlie patriarch Shcm, who in the Bk. of (ienesis is 
nanicHl as the ancestor of most of the pemilcs known 
to ethnologists and now popularly designateil as 
'Semites.' The account of Slieni .and his descend- 
ants in Gn 10 is partly genealogical and jiartly 
geographical, and does not exactly correspond to 
a scientilic cl.issilieation. Hence we take the 
family tree of (ienesis as the starting-point of our 
inquiry rather than as an exhaustive siimiiiary. 
None the less, any description or di.scussion of the 
Semites as a whole must have cliielly a bililical 
interest, and that for two main reastms. In the 
lirst place, the actors in and makers of Bible his- 
tory were Semites, who did their deeds and said 
their say within the Semitic realm. Further, the 
trutli of (jod, as it is revealed in the Bible, was 
not merely conveyed to the world through an out- 
ward Semitic channel ; it was mouldol in Semitic 
minds, coloured by the genius of Semitic speech, 
and put to the jiroof for the education of the world 
in Semitic hearts and lives. It is |ierli!ips enough 
in this connexion to remind the reader that .Moses, 
David, Elij.'ili. -\nios, Hosea, Isaiah, .leremiah, St. 
.Iiilin, St. Paul, and the Son of .Man Himself, were 
Semites. The religious and moral signilicance of 
the race thus indicated may be further illiistraled 
by citing the fact that Tig'lathpileser, Nebuchad- 
rezzar, and Hannibal are the only Semites of the 




pre-Christian time wliose names stand for world- 
luoving achievements outside the realm of religion 
and morals. 

The principal list of the descendants of Shem 
appearsinGn 10^'"'°. This whole table proceeds from 
one source, J, except that, according to the critics, 
v.^, which gives a list of the sous of Shem, belongs 
to P. These immediate descendants are Elani, 
Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. Of these 
names the third and fourth are unfortunately 
obscure, and it would be unprolitable to discuss 
here the various explanations that h.ave been 
otl'ered. Lud is generally supposed to stand for 
Lydia ; but the reason for sucli an enormous 
interval of separation from tlie other Semitic 
peoples is far to seek. Possibly this brief word 
(-rh from n*?) very early underwent some change, 
and does not represent the original. It is almost 
certain that this is the case with Arpachshad, since 
the latter half of the word is the stem of Kasdim 
(but see p. 82"), the Heb. Avord for Chahhuans, 
wlio lived in Lower BaV)yIonia. The \i hole word, 
thus assumed to be modified in MT, would natur- 
ally stand for a portion of the territory to the 
N.W. of the Persian Gulf.* The first in the list, 
Elam, though historically non-Semitic, must have 
had many Semitic inmiigrants. Asshur is the 
well-known people and country of Assyria. The 
last named of the sons of Shem is Aram, that 
is, the Aramaeans. The sons of Aram are next 
enumerated (v.^). Thereafter the interest is con- 
centrated upon the progeny of Arp,achshad. His 
grandson is Eber, who is not only the ancestor of 
the Hebrews, as is fully detailed by P in ch. 11, 
but also of the Arabs (lO'-"''^''). \Ve may now 
attempt a present-day view of the descendants of 
Shem, referring to any of the lists of Genesis as 
occasion demands, and thus working back from 
the known facts of modern research instead of 
attempting to work dowuAvard from the indistinct 
hints of tradition. 

i. Classification of the Semites. — The surest 
token of racial affinity is ordinarily the possession 
of a common language or of closely related idioms. 
It is not an infallilile test ; for it m.ay happen that 
through inherent weakness or stress of fortune a 
tribe or a nation may be absorbed by another, ,and 
lose its own form of speech. On the other hand, 
it very rarely happens that a race predominant in 
numbers or political influence loses its language and 
adopts that of an inferior or degenerating race. 
Hence, while even the exclusive use, by a large 
community, of a given language or dialect does not 
necessarily indicate that tlie race is unmixed, it 
may be reasonably held that the predominating 
racial element in that community originally spoke 
the current language. Again, as regards the de- 
grees of relationship between kindred peoples, it 
should be remembered that the most valid kind 
of linguistic evidence is that attbrded by the com- 
mon possession of grammatical or structural ele- 
ments, and of terms for the most fundamental ideas 
and the most indispensable or rudimentary arts and 
appliances of life. These simjile and elementary 
working principles are in their appli- 
cation, and will need to be taken into account in 
all that is said, either as to the original Semitic 
race and its language, or as to any of the deriva- 
tive races and their languages or dialects. 

On the evidence of language and of historical 

* Some such people seems necessary here, since Arpachshad is 
indicated as tlie ancestor of Aramieans and Arabs alike, and the 
rejrion in question is their natural dividing-point. Moreover, it 
was peopled also by Semites from the earliest known period. 
Confirmation of this view is afforded by the fact that, accordinf^ 
to v.25^ Peleg, 'in whose days the earth was divided,' was a 
descendant of Arpachshad, while the reference to the dividinff 
of the earth points to Babylonia as the place of his residence, 
according to 112-^, which is also the production of J. 

distribution combined, these peoples are made to 
fall into two great divisions, the Northei-n and 
the Southern Semites. Koughly speaking, the 
Southern branch of the family had its permanent 
and proper home in the peninsula of Arabia ; while 
the Northern division was included in the region 
bounded on the N. by the modern Kurdistan, on 
the W. by the MediteiTanean, and on the E. by 
modern Persia. We have, however, except from 
linguistic induction, no indication of a time when 
either the Northern or the Southern division 
formed by itself a homogeneous whole, much less 
of the presumptive earlier stage when all Semitus 
together were comprised in a single community. 
On the contrary, our earliest archaeological evidence 
reveals to us these regions as occupied bj' several 
families or groups more or less nearly related. 
Thus, while Arabia has long been known as the 
home of a single people, though of many tribes, 
speaking a common language, the earlier record is 
of peoples speaking and writing distinct though 
closely related languages. Similarly, the Northern 
division, as far back as we can see through the 
mists of antiquity, is found to be made up of dis- 
tinct families. A tentative comprehensive group- 
ing may be made as follows :— 

r Norther 

• Sabajans. 


r Babylonians and Ass^riaiw. 


The above classification would describe the distri- 
bution of the Semites as a race during that period 
of ancient history when they were the ruling power 
of the world, roughly speaking from B.C. 2000 to 
B.C. 500. It should be added that the hypotlitils 
of a Southern branch is surer than that of a distinct 
Northern group, and that some scholars (as Honinjcl 
and Zimmern) prefer to assume an East-Semitic 
division — As.syro-ljabylonian, and a West-Semitic 
— Aramnean, Canaanite, Ar.abo-Abyssinian. It is, 
indeed, so difficult to unify the Assyrian, the 
Aramaic, and the Canaanitic languages, if we 
were to use linguistic data alone, it would, for 
working purposes, be allowable to assume these 
four separate units : Assyro-Babylonian, Aramoean, 
Canaanite, and Arabo- Abyssinian. 

(A) Southern Semites.— (a) Northern Arabi- 
ans. — The term 'Arab,' which at present connotes 
the only survivors on any large scale of the Semitic 
races, was originally of very restricted signiticance. 
Ancient usage confines it to a comparatively 
small district in the north of the peninsula E. of 
Palestine, extending sometimes over the centre of 
the Syro- Arabian desert. In this sense the word is 
used in the Assyr. inscriptions, in OT (e.g. 2 Ch 
17" 21'« 22' 26', Is 13-" 2^'^ Jer 3= 25-*, Neh 2'", 
Ezk 27°'), as well as in the lately discovered 
Mintean inscriptions. It was not till shortly before 
the Christian era that it was enlarged so far as 
to include the whole of the peninsula.* Besides 
the 'Arabs,' there were several other important 
ancient communities in N. Arabia. Most of these 
are embraced under the names of the descendants 
of Keturah (' the incense-bearer'), and of Ishmael, 
in Gn 25 and 1 Ch 1-"^-^. We may cite as of his- 
torical fame Midian, the northern Sheba (cf. Job 
1"*), Dedan, Asshur (Gn 25''- '"), Nebaioth, ^Cedar, 
Dumah, Massa (cf. Pr 30' 31'), Tenia, and Jetur. 
The general distinction between ^Ceturah and 
Ishmael is that the latter stretched farther to the 

* This extension came about largely through the fact that the 
original ' Arabs ' were the most important tribe living in the 
neighbourhood of the Greek and Roman possessions in Syria and 
Mesopotamia. The classical writers use the name not only in 
the narrower but also in the wider sense, e.g. Herod, iii. 107. 




enst iiiul south. According to Gn 2,V, the touts of 
IshiMiicl were pitched as fnr east as l.liivihih on tlie 
so\itli-west liorder of Habylonia (dn '2"). In tliu 
west, liowever, their several routes intersected and 
their pasture -grounds were contiguous. Duniah 
(Is 21'^) anil Massu, Ishniaelites, hiy in the path 
of the ^Lcturites, Mi()tiin, De<lan, and Asshur. 
l!ut these by no means exhaust tlu; category of N. 
Aral)ians. We must fairly include those of the 
' Kdoniites' who are historically and locally Arabs. 
Thus not only Teman but Anuilek is reckoned to 
Edom in Gn 30""". I'"urtherniore, towards the 
east side of the desert is the great tribe or country 
of Mash, which with U?, the home of Job in the 
west, is allotted to the Arama?ans in Gn ItJ^, 
though, according to Gn 36^, the latter is given to 
the yorite Edumites. The explanation of tlie 
anomaly conies from the important fact that the 
Araniicans, who, as a rule, did not wander in 
ancient times far from the valley of the Kujihrates, 
stretched out in certain regions favouralile to 
pa.sturage. to mix ami mingle with the more purely 
nomadic trilic- of tlie ilcscrt. 

(i) .s'((/y'(«ji.v. — \Vc call the ancient inhabitants 
of S.W. Arabia i^abuans, because this people 
created the most powerful and extensive kingdom 
of all that region. Many other tribes, however, 
sometimes their subjects, also llourished. Among 
these were the Katabanians, directly north of 
Aden, and the Himyarites to the east. The latter 
were so important that .scholars formerly called the 
ancient S.\V. Arabians generally by their name. 
Kecent researches, liowever, which have disclosed 
elaborate architectural remains, and brought to 
Europe hundreds of inscriptions, the work of 
Sabu'ana, more than conlirm the ancient fame of 
Kheba, and vindicate its claim, not only to a wide 
commerce an<l a productive soil, but to an in- 
fluential empire as well.* A branch of the same 
peojile formed a less known nation, whose recently 
found iiiscrii)tions have suddenly brought it into 
great prominence — the .Mina'aiis. Tlie pro|ier home 
of this people was the west coast of Arabia between 
Yemen and Mecca. That they were not identical 
with the Salia'ans projier is abundantly proved. 
Their language is, in fact, a distinct dialect of the 
S. Arabian or ' Sabu'an.' Their inscriptions are 
found over a very wide range of the west country, 
from the heart of Yemen itself to the very borders 
of Palestine. Their abundance, as well as the con- 
tents of some of them, show that both regions alike 
were then subject to them. That was, however, 
before the rise of the Paba'an power, and there- 
fore long before the ('hristian era. They arc 
possibly alluded to in 1 Cli 4-", 2 Ch 20', whore the 
word employed (c";-) reminds us of the original 
name M'l'in. See, further, art. Sheua in vol. iv. 

(r) Al'i/xsinians. — This term is more appropriate 
than the current ' Ethiopians,' since that is the 
proper designation of the people of the Nile Valley 
above the Eirst Cataract, in other words the bibli- 
cal Cushitcs. That is to say, the Ethiopians are 
an Africin race, while the Abyssinians are funda- 
mentally fsoniitic. At a very early date, far earlier 
than is generally supposed, a migration from S.W. 
Arabia, of a people closely akin to the Sab;cans 
and Mina-ans, was made over the narrow sea to 
the cooler and healthier region of the Abyss, 
highlands. Here tliey developed a coniinunity 
which long remained" uninlluonced by African 
elements, and cherished close relations with the 
Arabian mother -land. Its principal seat >yas 
Aksum, the centre of a powerful monarchy, which 

• Us ancient capital WM Ma'rih, though Sana, three (lays' 
journev to the west, was a city of jtreater renown, and is the 
present capital of Yemen. Tims the Sah,-u:in kingdom lonf 
comprised the whole o( Tiliama, the S.W. cooatland of Arabia. 
It also exUnUed itacll far both to the cast and north. 

at length, in the 4tli cent. A.D., conquered, and 
for a time held, Yemen and W. Arabia.* Tlie 
Abyssinians have long since ceascil to lie a pure 
Semitic race or to s|>eak a pure Semitic idiom; 
though ' Etiiiopic,' as their language is called, is 
still their sacred tongue; and the Semitic type is 
still unmistakable in a large section of the jtopula- 

Tlie attempt thus made to bring the Southern 
Soniitis under distinct groupings is only approxim- 
ately successful. IJcsidis the tribes already enuiner- 
ateci, many others are fcmnd, particularly in the 
S.K. and E. of Arabia, which, though Semites, have 
at least no permanent historical association with 
any of the groups. Very intorestinj^, however, iH 
the tabulation in Gn lO-'"'^, wliicli brings the most 
prominent of those remaining communities under 
one category. Thus, among the sons of Joktan 
son of Elior, we lind, along with IJazarinavcth, 
the niodoni, or the coastland east of 
Yemen, also Slicb.i aiul, to our surprise, OPllIR 
and l.l.\vii,AH. Unfortunately, the remaining nine 
tribes or localities cannot as yet be alisolutely ideii- 
tilled. Hut inasmuch as Opiiir is almost certainly 
to be found on the E. coast of Arabia, and yavilah 
S.W. of Baliylonia (but see above, p. 81"), the pre- 
sumption is that they reiiresent families interme- 
diate between these remotely separated districts. 
In brief, the summation seems to point to a close 
connexion between the N.E., E., S., and S.W. 
inhabitants of ancient Arabia. Furthermore, the 
brotherhood of Joktan and Ebcr, the father of 
I'elog and grandson of Arpachshad, points to a 
tradition of kinship between the ancient IJaby- 
lonians and the remotest S. Arabian.s. These are 
matters deserving serious attention. 

(]1) Tin: NourilERS Sumites.—OI far more 
importance' to the Bible student than the Arabians 
ami .Miy-siniaus is the Northern branch of the 
Soiiiitic laiiiily. Fortunately, it is also not very 
dillicult to indicate the several divisions of the 
Northern Semites, and their local distribution. 
Taking them up in the order of their primary 
settlements from east to west, we have lirst to 
do with llioso dwelling by the lower waters of the 
Eui.hialos and Tigris. 

(</( I'.nliijlunitiii-s and Asstjrwns. — In that region 
which Gn 2 describes as the cradle of the human 
race, lived a people whose history, traced not 
simply in their language, but in their archi- 
tectural remains, and even in their literary monu- 
ments, goes back to a period far beyond any other 
known to men. We call this people summarily 
ISaljijliiniint, from the name of the great hi.storical 
capital, lint ISabylon or Habol did not come into 
lirominc'uce till about li.C. 2250. We have to regard 
the whole surrounding country as having been, 
for centuries and even millenniums before thot 
era, divided up among a number of cityStates, 
having a longer or shorter history of narrower or 
wider dominion. These communities we have also 
to consider essentially Semitic. The hypothesis 
of a so-callod ' Sumerian ' civilization and 'Sunier- 
ian ' language, preceding the rise of the Semites, 
is in its current form the result of hasty and 
.superlicial theorizing, and the present writer is 
convinced that it will have to lie essentially modi- 
tied. As neighbours to the Semites, and more or 
less mingling with them from time to time, were 
a foreign pooi)le, probably more than one people, 
who contributed some important olomcnts to their 
mythology and civic life, with corresponding terms 
to their language. Who they were and whence 

• That thcv vvcre seiiuratcd from the Mina-ans and Salwans 
at a very remote perifnl is proved hy the fact that llieir Ian- 
u'ua-e, thoni;h more akin to the Sal.n'aii than is the Aral.ic, 
is vet cpiitc dialinct from the lormer. whose written c liatactcm 
it borrowed, while it is also mcich less closely related u> the 
^abaian than is the Minxan dialect. 




they came cannot as yet be said. Possibly they 
were of a race akin to tlie Elaraites across the 
Tigris, or to the Kassites of the higlilands to 
the nortli of Elam. Tlie name ' Sunierian ' as 
applied to them is, in any case, a misnomer ; and 
the supposed Sumerian language is possibly only 
the Semitic Babj-lonian, or 'Assyrian,' written 
according to a system developed alongside of the 
popular sjllabic from the original ideographic, and 
preserving the essential features of the latter. 
There are, it is true, many phenomena of this 
peculiar idiom which such an hypothesis does not 
explain. On the other hand, no one lias yet suc- 
ceeded in constructing a reasonable or consistent 
grammar of the supjiosed language, though good 
material is abundant. Until this is done, the 
Semitic has a right of possession, precarious though 
it may be. ]\Iany invasions of Babylonian terri- 
tory were made by non-Semitic peoples from the 
most ancient times, especially ElaTuites and Kass- 
ites, but the language, the religion, both State and 
popular, and the civilization as a whole, remained al- 
ways essentially iSenntic down to the time of Cyrus 
anil the I'ersi.-uis. Distinctive of the Babj'lonians, 
although adopted by other people, was their mode 
of writing in wedge-like characters, which, how- 
ever, is far from reiiresenting the original idco- 
gra|)hs. Distinctive of them especially were their 
culture, their inventive genius, their intellectual 
enterprise and love of knowledge. They were 
thus not only prominent among the Semites, but 
were also the most influential of all the peoples 
of antiquity, except the Hebrews, Greeks, and 
Romans. Indeed, when we consider their early 
development among the races of men, and the 
indirect influence of their genuine ideas, we may 
regard them fairly enough as the primary intel- 
lectual movers of the world. 

The Assyrians were of the same race as the 
Babylonians, and in all jirobability an ott'shoot 
from them. The name is derived from the city of 
Asslmr, which was founded at an unknown early 
date on the west of the Tigris just above its 
confluence with the Lower Zab, which formed 
the normal southern boundary of the kingdom 
of Assyria. The Assyrians used the Bab. lan- 
guage in its purity. Indeed we usually call this 
language 'Assyrian,' because it was principally 
from the monuments of Assyria, and not from 
those of Babylonia, that our knowledge of it was 
first obtained, towards the middle of the 19th 
century. Unlike Babj-lonia, which contained 
many large cities, Assjria pioper had but few, 
the principal being Jvineveh and the surrounding 
fortresses. The Assyrians had virtually the same 
institutions as the Babylonians, with many of 
the same deities, and the same modes of worship. 
They were inferior to them in intellectual enter- 
prise and culture, but superior in the military art, 
and in capacity for organization. They would 
appear, moreover, to have sufiered less from the 
irruptions of outsiders, and therefore to have pre- 
served, on the whole, a more purely Senutic racial 
type. It should be remarked, however, that the 
biblical lists make out the Assyrians and a portion 
of the Babylonians to have been of Cushitecle.scent 
((in 111'*"'-), i)erhaps in vieAv of the mixture of races 
that had gone on in Bab3-lonia (but cf. also p. 81"). 
According to the same account (v."), Assyria 
was settled from Babylonia. See, further, artt. 
ASSYEIA and BABYLONIA in vol. i. 

(ft) The Aramaeans. — The second gi'eat division 
of the Northern Semites, the biblical 'Aram,' had 
as its proper home a much larger range of country 
than anj' of the others. Within historical times 
the Arauucans had their settlements at various 
points on both sides of the Lower Tigris, to the 
west of the Lower Euphrates, in ilesopotamia, and 

in Syria south as far as Palestine. Indeed it is 
impossible to say with certainty what was their 
original centre. They seem to have been equally 
at home herding cattle for the markets of Babylon, 
driving caravans along the Euphrates, or holding 
bazaars in the crowded cities of ^arran and Dam- 
ascus. A partial explanation of their ubiquity 
and versatility is found in their genius for trade 
and commerce. Thsy were par excellence the 
travellers and negotiators of the ancient East. 
What the Phcenicians achieved by sea, they with 
almost equal enterprise and persistence attained 
on the land. To them was largely due the 
commercial and intellectual interchange between 
Babylonia and Assyria on the one hand, and the 
western States, particularly Phoenicia, on the other. 
They hud their tr.ading posts even in Asia Minor, 
through which the Greek cities appear to have 
obtained much of their knowledge of letters and 
the liberal arts. 

It is possible to make certain restrictions of 
the general fact of the wide extension of the 
Arama'ans. Until the 12th cent. B.C. they are not 
found in large settlements west of the Euphrates, 
though doubtless many isolated expeditions had 
from time to time crossed the River. They ap- 
peared in great numbers, with huge herds of 
cattle, upon the grazing grounds within reach of 
the Bab. cities. The}' also formed numerous settle- 
ments on the upper middle course of the Euphrates, 
especially on the left bank, and between that river 
and the Chabor. Here was Mesopotamia proper, 
the Aram-naharaim (or ' Aram of the two Rivers ') 
of OT. Here also was IJarran, a city of enormous 
antiquity, held in historical times iirincipally by 
Arama'ans. After the fall of the Hittite dominion 
in Syria, Aram, immigration hither went on 
apace, and Carchemish, Arpad, Aleiipo, IJamath, 
Zobah, and, last and greatest of all, Damascus, 
were colonized and enriched by them. In the 
time of David (c. 1000 B.C.) they are found firmly 
planted in Syria (2 S 8). From the 10th to the 
Sth cent. B.C. decisive importance attached to the 
rftle of the ' Aramaeans of Damascus' (the ' Sj'rians ' 
of EV). But their west\vard career did not end 
with the political decay of Damascus. By the 3rd 
cent. B.C. Palestine, which politically had become 
in succession Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian, 
Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Greek, spoke popu- 
larly an Aram, idiom. After the rise of Christi- 
anity and the complete destruction of the Jewish 
State, the Jewish church jicrpetuated one dialect 
of Aramaic and the Christian Semites another. 
The Euphrates was the general dividing-line be- 
tween ^\^ and E. Aramaic, just as it had for many 
centuries parted the two main divisions into which 
the Aram, race had fallen. The vitality of Aram- 
aism is attested by the fact that, while the popular 
dialects of Syria and Mesopotamia soon yielded to 
Arabic after the establishment of Islam in the 7th 
cent. A.D., Syriac, the jjrincipal E. Aramaic dialect, 
flourished as a literary language till the 1.3th cent., 
long after all traces of Aram, political influence 
had completely disappeared. See, further, art. 
AiiAM in vol. i. 

((■) Onnaanites. — For want of a better term, we 
give this name to the pre-Hebrew inhabitants of 
Palestine and Phccnicia, with their descendants. 
We class them as Semitic by reason of their 
language, their civil institutions, and their 
religion, all of which reveal the purest type of 
Semitism. It is true that the Phoenicians of the 
coastland difl'ered surprisingly from the inhabit- 
ants of the interior in their pursuits and mental 
habits. But common to both are ' the language of 
Canaan' (Is 19'*), and analogous forms of 
worship. As to their place of departure from the 
common camping-ground of the Semites we are 



a<;ain left to the widest sort uf inference.* Of 
interest is tlie question (is to the ilireetion from 
which the Canaanites came into their liisturieal 
abitling-phico. The answer is : from the north or 
east; for if they had eome from tlie south they 
would liave spoken Arabic, or some dialect of Soutli 
Semitic nearly akin to Arabic. That they were 
not the primitive inhabitants of Palestine is 
clear from the Bible statements as well as other 
evidence. We may for convenience call the earlier 
residents 'Aniorites,' a people whose antii|uity 
may be inferred from the name ' Land of the 
Aniorites,' given to the country in the remotest 
times by tlie Uabylonians. The Aniorites were 
possibly not Semitic. The most si^'uilieant fact 
about them is that there is no indication that 
they ever occupied the lower coastland, tliouj;li 
they had settlements on both sides of the Jordan. 
They survived as a community longest in the east, 
where they were linally absorbed by Moabites, 
Ammonites, and the invading Hebrews. 

The most striking feature of the civic and .social 
life of tlio Canaanites was their residence in small 
city-States, iiuliiicndent of each other, an<l only eon- 
federated, if at ali, under stress of common danger. 
This tendency to mutual re|]ulsion was exliibited 
even among the Pbcen. cities, which, however, 
partlj' on account of their foreign colonizing ex- 
perience, became more disposed towards voluntary 
federation. The pursuits of the two branches of 
the Canaanites were not more dissimilar than their 
fortunes. While those of the interior remained 
isolated, exclusive, and comiiaratively uncultured, 
those of the coastland became the most cosmo- 
politan, and, in a material sense, the most directly 
serviceable to mankind of all their race. While 
the one did not survi\e for more than a generation 
or two the Heb. occupation of Canaan, the other, 
in the political world yet not of it, utilizing ami 
subsidizing the great world-powers in the form of 
trihute-giving, following their own way to opulence 
and commercial supremacy, survived not only the 
Heb. monarchy, but the As.syr., the liab., the 
Pers., and even the Macedonian empire, succumb- 
ing at last to the Itonian alone. 

It may be added that the various tribes men- 
tioned in the Ilexateuch as iiili.ibiting Palestine are 
in all probability merely b>ial subilivisions of the 
Canaanites, and not co-ordinate inile|ieiident races. 
An exception is made of the J.lnriTKS by those 
who hold them to have been immigrants from Syria, 
where they preceded the Aranuvans. It is a 
matter of surprise that in (Jn 10 the Canaanites, 
as well as the people of Middle Babylonia, are 
associated with the i>eo])le of Tpper ami Lower 
Egypt (Cush and Mi?raim). The explanation, 
probably, is that the Egj'ptians are partly of 
Semitic origin, and that there existed in Palestine, 
as well as in Babylonia, from very remote times, 
a population supposed to be akin to the Egyptians, 
with whom the later inhabitants mingled. The 
PniMSTlNi:s were probably a non-Semitic [leojile, 
possibly from the island of Crete, whose .settle- 
ment in Palestine was made not earlier than the 
14th or 13th cent. B.C. 

{(I) The Hcbrctrs. — By this name we have to 
understand, not Israel alone, but all the Hebraic 
peoples, including as well the Edomites projier, 
the Miiabites anil .\minonites, whom the traditions 
of Israel with good reason claim as kindred. Their 
larger alliliations are not e.asy to make out. At 
least Israel and Moab spoke ' Hebrew.' But this 
was the language of Canaan ; and they may have 

• .As to t!u-ir j'lnr- 'I nf settlement *'n the west eoastlaiul it is 
notcvvnriti\ tl I- II, I'll Ml, ni.aiitinic cities extend to the nortti 
of I.el>;ui It .■ ■!■ I :iiiaanites of tlic interior are not Ic 
to ,1 .■iil..iiii. III.. ..11 exccntsoilth of that niounUiin ra 
The fM'I'"''i'i'itln,3 ui inwling by sea jterhaps account for titis 
local Uivergence. 

aci|uiied it by immigration, just as the Eilomites 
learned Arabic. Our best guide is the biblical 
record, according to which Abraham, their common 
ancestor, of the lineof Aipachsliad,EI>er, and Peleg, 
eanie from Ur of the Chaldces, in the west of the 
Lower Euphrates. This imiiliea Bab. kinslii|i. 
But as belonging to a faiiiuy of shepherds he 
wa-s likely to have Aram, as.sociatioiis, since 
Arama'ans abounded in all the neiglibouring 
pasture-grounds. It is in accordance with this 
Iiypothesis that we linil him sojourning in I.larran, 
the great .Vram. settlement in .Mesojiotainia. His 
kimlied there were alwa,vs reckoned as Arama'ans ; 
and the immediate ancestor of the Israelites, 
though born and reared in Canaan, is called a 
'stray Arama'an' (Dt '2V'). But none of the 
Semites show such a racial admixture as do the 
children of Israel. Primarily of Bab. allinity, 
their association with the Babylonians is attested 
by the commun traditions of these two most highly 
endowed branches of the Semitic race. The resi- 
dence in Egypt did not add any new elements to 
the already aei|uired Arama-an. Nor does it seem 
probable lliat all of the Hebrews of Canaan joined 
in the migration to Egypt with the family of 
Jacob. But both before and after the permanent 
settlement in Canaan Large accessions were made 
of Arab, derivation (ICenites and othersl, while 
we have also to take account of the absorjition of 
much of the Can. population after the coiiiiuest. 
It was therefore not till shortly before the found- 
ing of the monarchy that the people of Israel 
assumed that lixif j- of racial type popularly known 
as ' Hebrew.' What kept the community together 
through endless vicis.situdes of fortune, what still 
gives Israel even now a bond of sjiiritual unity, 
is not purity of race, but steadfastness of faith in 
J", the old-time God of Israel. At the same time 
it is manifest that, so far .as descent is concerned, 
the Hebrews must be taken only seconilarily as 
one of the divisions of the Northern Semites. 

ii. Hl.sTouv oi- THE Semites.— It appears, there- 
fore, that Ave have to reckon with four primary 
branches of the Semitic stock : Arabians (and 
Saba'ans) in the south ; Babylonians, Arama'ans, 
Canjianites in the north. From the Southern 
branch the Abyssinians are a secondary olTshoot ; 
from the Northern, the Hebrews. When we seek 
for the or.ginal home of this oldest of civilized 
races we are pointed to a region in N. Arabia, 
probably not fiir from the Lower Euphrates. The 
Semitic civilization is cs.sentially of nomadic 
origin. N. Arabia is the geographical centre of 
the race. It is much more likel.y to have peopled 
the surrounding highlands than to have been 
peopled from them. The Arabic language is ujion 
the Avliole nearest the primitive Setii. s|ieeeli, 
as it is by far the oldest and purest of all living 
tongues, and its speakers in Arabia belong to the 
oldest and purest of r.aces. Again, the Egyp. 
language has an important Scm. admixture ; and 
it liiust have been from Arabia that this element 
was derived. We assume that the Northern 
Semites — Babylonians, Arama-ans, Canaanites — 
lived long together apart from the Arabs, who 
tended always to the centre of the desert.* 

The Older of divergence seems tO' have been as 
follows :— The ancestors of all the Semites re- 
mained in their desert home for an indelinitely 
long period before the decisive separation took 
place. Very early, however, apparently even before 
the .Sein. language was fully developed, a section 
of the tribes leavened the N. African population 

' Tlie first of all the Scniilea to fonn fixed scttleininti ncru 
the I!al)jloliianB. Since the ' Hebrew ' lant'im^-e shows on the 
whole closer phonetic relations with Ihe • .\s.«.\ rinn ' than doM 
the .\nniiaic, it follows that the speakers of the former, or tlie 
Canaanites, must have lived longer tojri thcr with the ►iK-akers 
' of the latter, or the Uabyloniaiu, than did the AnniuanB. 




with a strong and persistent Sem. element. It is 
not yet certain whether the transit was made 
across the Istlimus or over the lower entrance of 
the Ked Sea. Recent discoveries of remains of 
primitive Egyptians in Upper Egj-pt seem to point 
to the latter route. Possibly there was a very 
early movement of Semites along E. and S. Arabia, 
from which came the African migration. This 
must liave preceded the Sabican development. 
Next, the tribes representing the Northern Semites 
moved northwards, not yet attaining to fixed 
settlements, or at least not to life in cities. From 
these the Aramieans branched off as northern 
nomads. The ancestors of the Babylonians and 
Canaanites still held together for a time, wliile yet 
civic life and government were unknown. Next 
came the settlement of the Babylonians between 
the Lower Euphrates and Tigris, where they 
found an inferior alien population, which the}' 
subdued or absorbed. The Canaanites, parting 
from them, moved westward across the wilderness 
till they reached the liighlands of Palestine and 
the sea. The Phcen. tradition tliat the fatliers of 
the family came from the shores of the Persian 
Gulf, may perhaps be an authentic reminiscence of 
tliis memorable movement. It was not till many 
ages later that t!ie Hebraic clans made a similar 
and still more fateful migration to the Land of Pro- 
mise. A long residence of all the Arabian tribes 
upon the oases of the central desert preceded the 
departure of the S. Arabians and their gradual 
occupation of the coast of the Red Sea and the 
Ocean. Still another interval elapsed before a 
migration took place over the sea to Abyssinia. 

Some faint conception of tlie antiquity of the 
Sem. race may be gained from a consideration 
of its oldest literary monuments. We now have 
access to specimens of the language of the Baby- 
lonians as it was written between 5000 and 4000 B.C. 
It there presents an aspect dittering not at all from 
that which it exhibits over three millenniums 
later. Tliat is to say, it is a language showing 
signs of advanced plionetic degeneration, separated 
by a decisive stage of phonological and structural 
change from the Heb. , still more from the Aram., 
and more again by an enormous interval from 
the South Sem. dialects. How many thousands 
of years we Jjave thus to add to what we may call 
the historical period, as above indicated, cannot 
be said. Backward be5'ond that period we have 
still to take into account the ages that intervened 
between the Sem. migration into Africa and the 
separation of the South and tlie Nortli. 

For biblical study the history of the Southern 
Semites is of comparatively little significance. The 
interests of the OT centi-e in Palestine ; and it 
was not till long after the Christian era that the 
life and thought of our race were affected by any 
decisive movement from the south. The Arabs 
played no part in the world's history till the time 
of Islam. But it would be a mistake to exclude, 
on that accoimt, Arabia entirely from our histori- 
cal survey. In tlie first place, S. Arabia was in 
the earliest known times a region of much greater 
importance than it was during the later period 
of Israel's historj-. It would appear that wide 
stretches of grazing land were occupied by great 
tribal confederations, some of which at certain 
periods at least assumed the dignity of kingdoms. 
in very remote times also the mineral productions 
of gold and precious stones were more abundant 
and valuable than they are now. The Bab. in- 
scriptions bear testimony that in the fourth mil- 
lennium B.C. the liveliest intercourse was main- 
tained, and that by overland routes, between 
Babylonia and E. and W. Arabia, — and it would 
even appear that Arabs at one time obtained control 
of Babylonia. On the other hand, Gn 14 mentions 

what was apparently no exceptional instance of an 
expedition from Babylonia in the 23rd cent. B.C. 
to the peninsula of Sinai. In the next place, we 
learn from the recently discovered Minajan in- 
scriptions that this people had established a 
flourishing trade and even a kingdom of their own 
on the west coast of Arabia before the rise of the 
kindred kingdom of Sheba, that is to say, before 
the time of Solomon, and that with the aid of 
writing they had attained to a fairly high degree 
of civilization. Lastly, it must be remembered 
that many Hebrews resided for a whole genera- 
tion in Arabia, that thence its po))ul,ation was 
perpetually recruited, and that the biblical liter- 
ature makes great account of the wisdom, piety, 
and patriarchal simplicity of various tribes of the 
Arabian borderland. 

Outwardly considered, the Bible story of the 
career of Israel is an episode in the history of the 
Northern Semitic communities. That history be- 
gins with the first Sem. settlements in B.-ibylonia. 
Here agriculture was first practised with large and 
rich results. Thereupon followed trade by river, 
sea, and land in days when Zidon and Tyre were 
still untenanted rocks, and tlie fertilizing waters 
of the Nile still flowed to the sea through an un- 
cultivated waste. Cities one after another were 
built, cities famous in tradition and history, 
each the centre of a little kingdom, each with its 
own patron deity, its own temple and priesthood, 
and its own priest-king, such as were Akkad, and 
Sippar, and Nippur, and Erech. In these days — 
perhaps as early as 6000 years B.C. — Ur of the 
Chaldees and the no less renowned Eridu were 
unknown, ancient as they are ; for the waters of 
the Persian Gulf then rolled over their future sites. 

The next stage was that in which individual 
cities began to extend their dominion widely and 
to form little empires of their own. One city 
after another thus arose to power, until there 
came to be a few independent kingdoms instead 
of many. These, however, could not all survive 
in the rivalries and ambitions of that time and 
country, and so there came to he two domin- 
ant centres, the one in Northern and the other 
in Southern Babylonia. About B.C. 4000 we 
find Akkad in the north aiming at dominion, not 
only over Southern Babylonia, but over the most 
productive regions of Arabia and Syria, as far 
as the Mediterranean. This, however, we have 
reason to believe, was not the first great ' empire. ' 
It is only the first that is fairly well known as 
yet. The centre of authority was also sometimes 
in the south, where, among the monarchies of 
B.C. 3000 and onwards, Ur of the Chaldees occupies 
a prominent place. The term of this alternating 
dominion lasted very long. In the 23rd cent. B.C. 
the rule was broken by an invasion of the Elam- 
ites, of whose subsequent domination Gn 14 gives 
a partial record. Not long thereafter the city 
of Babylon came to the front, and was made the 
capital of a united Babylonia, a position which 
was never abdicated till the close of the Sem. 
regime. But foreign rule was not at an end. After 
a lengthy period of native control, Kassites from 
the eastern highlands broke in upon Babylonia 
and held sovereign sway from the ISth to the 
13th century. This Is the period of the political 
decadence of Babylonia, due not merely to the 
domination of a foreign dynasty, but to the rivalry 
of a kindred nationality. For the result of the 
gradual rise of Assj'ria was that Babylonia played 
no world-moving role till its revival under the 
ChakUean dynasty at the close of the 7th cen- 
tury B.C. 

The early history of Ass3Tia is obscure. Begin- 
ning very earlj' with the growth of the city of 
Asshur, it gradually extended northward, mainly 




on the east of the Tigris, till it touoheil on the 
mountains of Kurdistan. The kingiloni [uoper 
was never vei"j' larj^e, but the race had a genius tor 
war, and more capacity fur government than any 
of the other ancient Semites. Its steadily cherished 
[impose was to secure the dominion in \\'. Asia 
already claimed by IJahylonia, and to enlarge it till 
it should embrace the world. It took many centu- 
ries to reach the summit of power; but the idea 
was at length in a measure realized. By far the 
most important incident in this process of Assyr. 
extension Wius the prolonged and bitter strife with 
Babylonia, ending in the total subjugation of that 
venerable empire. 

Bible students are concerned primarily with the 
people of Kevelation, and secondarily with the 
actors in the events that prepared the way fen- 
that people and determined their jirovidential 
destiny. From these points of view we are able 
to look at the history of the N. Semites as one 
great connected series of events co - operating 
towards the making and the discipline of Israel. 
In this 'increasing purpose' each one of the great 
divisions of the N. Semites played an important 
part. The home of Israel was to be in the West-land, 
more particularly in Palestine. This region from 
the remotest known times was of sjiecial interest 
to the inhabitants of the East. Thither came from 
the East the Can. immigrants. Thither followed 
them in course of time the slower-moving Ara- 
niieans. Thither came the Hebrews themselves, 
also from the farther East, as to a land of promise. 
Thither, before and after the earliest and latest of 
these jiermanent emigrants, came the all-dominat- 
ing Babylonians, for conquest and still more for 
exi)lorati(m and for self -enrichment. Normallj-, 
until the IGth cent. B.C., the whole of the West- 
land was under the sway of Babylonia. And 
when its political control was relinquished, its 
intellectual inlluence remained, so that near the 
close of the 15th cent, the Bab. language ami its 
cuneiform writing were the international means 
of Communication between the remotest regions. 
Even letters from Mesopotamia, Syria, Pha'nicia, 
and Palestine, not to speak of Assyria and Baby- 
lonia itself, were written therein to the court 
of Egj-pt, 3iX) miles up the Nile. This state of 
things at length passed away, because Babylonia 
and Assyria spent their force upon one another, 
and thus both alike lost their hold upon the 

It was in this period, which we may fairly call 
exceptional in the history of ancient W. Asia, 
that the opportunity for independent action came 
to the peoples of the western coastland. It was 
then also that the Egyptians, who in their whole 
history never successfully intcrpose<l in Asia, 
except when the Babylonians or Assyrians were 
enfeebled or quiescent, essayed to conquer Pales- 
tine and Syria. It was in this period, too, that the 
yittites arose to power in Northern and Central 
Syria, and contemled long and bitterly for supre- 
macy with the invaders from over the Isthmus. 
Within the same limits of time, Israel, emerging 
from the obscurity anil shame of Egypt, began to 
plav its role in Palestine. Then was enacted the 
earlier half of its unique history, including its 
concjuest and absorption of one branch of the 
Can;uinite race, and its 'brotherly covenant' 
(Am l") with the other, and culminating in its 

eeatest external power and splendour under 
avid and Solomon. Then also were formed the 
settlements in Syria of the Aramaeans, which be- 
came so fateful for Israel in its • hundred years' 
war,' in its cruel sudering, and its moral and 
s[iiritual chastening after its own internal dis- 
But the Bab. idea of Western dominion, inherited 

by As-syria, was at length realized. Assyria was 
the first of Sem. nations to learn how to govern as 
well as to subdue the territory of its rivals. After 
intermittent attempts at conquests, pro'Tcss west- 
ward was surely made and maintained from the 
9th cent, onwards till the middle of the Till. The 
Arannvans were crushed ; and Israel, repressed for 
a time, arose again to prosi)erity under Jeroboam 
11. and Uzziali. But its 'daj*' also came at la-st. 
N. Israel was obliterated and added to the realm of 
Assyria, while Judah was made an As.syr. vassal. 
Till near the close of the Ttli cent. B.C. Assyria 
renmined the umlisputed mistress of W. Asia, not 
simply controlling the other Sem. communities, 
but making most of them an administrative 
portion of her own empire. Thus it came to pass 
that the individuality of the various communi- 
ties was gradually destroyed, that one was dis- 
tinguished from the other less by racial con- 
nexion than by traditional usages and spoken 
language. Ethnical terms were generalized, so 
that \\'estern seafaring men and merchants came 
to be known as ' Phcjcnicians' or ' Canaanites,' 
inland traders and travellers as ' Aranueans,' and 
at a later date also learned men and a-strologers 
as ' Chalihvans.' The general revolution of which 
this j)hraseology is a symptom was immensely 
accelerated by the irruptions of northern barbari- 
ans. Kimmenans, and Se\thians, which took place 
during the later years of the Assyr. dominion. 
The same inllux of foreigners hastened the fall of 
Assyria, which was in any case inevitable, on 
account of the impossibility of holding together 
for ever a multitude of petty communities by cen- 
tralized force alone. 

But wlien Nineveh fell, in B.C. 607, its ruin was 
utilized by new exponents of the ancient Bab. spirit, 
till' ( 'liuhhraiis from the shores of the Persian (julf. 
Comliimil witli them, and foremost in the attack 
upon Nineveh, were the Aryan Modes — a people 
new to dominion, but the precursors of a move- 
ment which was to put an end to the role of the 
N. Semites. In the partition which followed the 
conquest, the Chaldicans retained the proper Sem. 
domain, w bile the Medes claimed the highlands to 
the east and north. The regime of the Chald;eans 
was stern and strenuous, though not so cruel as 
that of the As.syrians. Egypt, which had been sub- 
dued and then given up by the later Assyr. empire, 
made a futile attempt, during the brief inter- 
regnum, to occupy Syria and Palestine. It waa 
thrust out by Nebuchadrezzar the Chaldwan. 
Egypt itself was in due time visited and dis- 
ciplined within its own domain. The kingdom 
ol Judah, removed from Eg^-p. control, was put 
under bund to the Chaldieans. Kepeated revolts 
brought about at the destruction of Jerus. 
and the kingdom, and the exile of the people. 

But internal decline ellected a decay of the 
Chaldican empire almost as swift as that of the 
Assyrian. A round seventy years limited its dura- 
tion. Its destruction also was accelerated by an 
Arj'an power. Cyrus the Persian, beginning his 
career as the head of a little province of Media, 
had become lord of the vast Median dominion, the 
conqueror of Lydia, and the ruler of a territory 
stretching from the Indus to the .-Egean Sea. 
Babylon fell to him in the summer of 539, and 
with its transfer into Aryan hands the iwlitical 
sway of the N. Semites was for ever ended. 

The rule of Cynis was tolerant and humane. 
Under it the principle of delegated |>ower, un- 
known to the Semitic rulers, was put in force. 
Under the comparatively genial sway of the 
Persians, many of the old Sem. communities, Bab., 
Aram., Can. (Plucn.), and Ileb., continued to 
exist, ami some of them to llourish. The Aram, 
people, in. small communities, survived in greatest 




mimbers, and taught their language to most of tlie 
old N. Semitic realm. But Jerusaleiu and Tyre 
were long tlie most outstanding representatives of 
the Sem. genius. Surviving longest as centres of 
influence, they recalled to the world the ancient 
power of the Seni. mind and spirit. The one 
handed over to Europe the method as well as tlie 
example of a world-wide commerce. The other, 
in the more potent and more enduring realm of 
religion, continued to verify and to publish the 
essential truth about God and man and duty. 

It was, above all, in this region of thought and 
feeling that tlie Semites did their work for 
humanity. In their front we place the community 
of Isi-ael, with all its feebleness and insignilicance. 
It was under the vassalage to Assyria and Baby- 
lonia that the prophets and poets of Israel uttered 
those words which form the most precious legacy 
of all ancient time. And it was after the national 
life had been finally extinguished that the ancient 
Church abjured false gods for ever, and first realized 
the idea of local and individual worship apart from 
the central sanctuary. Thus was prepared the 
way for that filial eiioch, when He who was not 
only a Semite and a Hebrew but the Son of Man, 
did away with ritual, priesthood, and caste, and 
erected His temple in the heart of humanity. 
Thus a greater service was done for the world by 
the most potent of the forces of Seniitism under 

Political disability and decline, than any which had 
een wrought by the mightiest of Semitic enijiires 
in the days of their power and pride. 

iii. Characteristics of the Semites. — It has 
been stated above that the Sem. civilization is 
essentially of nomadic origin. We may go further, 
and assert that the cliaracter of the people was 
vitally afiected by their early haliitual mode of 
life. Probably no race in the world's history has 
had such a prolonged experience of tribalism as a 
preparation for its wider active career among the 
nations. The general sketch already given of 
the early history of the Semites may give some 
indication of tlie conditions of their life in those 
distant ages. The inland Arabs of the present 
day present the nearest surviving analogy, changed 
though the type has been from the ancient proto- 
type. A better representation, though still far 
from adequate, is afforded by the picture which 
the Arabian historians and poets have drawn of 
the manners and pursuits of their countrymen in 
the centuries before Islam : the migrations of their 
tribes, their alliances, their feuds, their forays 
and raids, their revenges, their stormy passions, 
their loves and hates, their swift growth and de- 
cline, their superstitions, their monotonous activity, 
their impulsive energy. But the correct estimate, 
as nearly as it may be reached, can be gained onlj' 
liy tlio use of the imagination, trained in the in- 
ductions of prehistoric archa-ology. By a process 
of reduction and elimination we may arrive at an 
approximate view of primitive Semitic society. 

We must not imagine the Semites shortly 
before their separation as one large community 
swayed by a common leader, obeying common 
laws, and inspired by common memories. We 
liave r.ather to think of a multitude of small com- 
muiuties, some of them scarcely more than parasitic 
unorganized hordes, speaking various closely re- 
lated dialects, constantly intermingling with and 
modifying one another, and ranging over a vast 
extent of wilderness land. Hunting still engrossed 
the attention of many of the tribesmen, though 
immense herdsof cattle were the property of others. 
They had learned something of the practical uses 
of metals, especially of copper and iron, besides 
gold, silver, and several precious stones. Tiie 
various tools and weapons essential to the business 
of hunters and shepherds are also repr,csented by 

words common to the several derivative languages. 
They were close observers of animals, wild and 
domesticated, and of various species of plants. 
They would even appear to have employed some 
rude form of writing, though none whicli was 
later developed into a general system. Their 
common vocabulary is naturally delicient in legal 
terms ; for their only law was usage and prescrip- 
tion, and their only court that of the family or 
tribal cliiefs. On the other hand, the religious 
habit and consciousness had found copious ex- 

The reciprocal antagonism of a multitude of 
tribes, so long maintained in spite of frequent 
alliances and absorptions, and guarded by the 
tribal badges of social and religious usage, had its 
most marked result in the permanent political 
character of the later Sem. communities. Mutual 
repulsion, even between the States most closely 
allied by blood or common interest, was univei'sal, 
and was scarcely ever overcome, even after pro- 
longed forcible amalgamation. City - kingdoms 
became the rule in all lixed settlements — an insti- 
tution which was essentially tribal chiefdom made 
permanent and hereditary. This type of govern- 
ment was scarcel}' moditied, even in the most 
highly organized States ; there intervened no real 
substantial authority between the king and any of 
his subjects. Even Israel, which exceptionally 
began its settled career as a tribal confederation, 
reverted inevitably to the normal Sem. type of 
government. After the establishment of the king- 
dom, Israel was reduced to ' Ephraini,' and Samaria 
became the synonym of either, while Jerusalem 
ere long became the virtual surrogate of Judali. 

Of absolutely immeasurable importance to the 
world were the intellectual and moral character 
and temper of t he ancient Semites. Long-continued 
intense activity, within a wide yet monotonous 
and secluded territory, was the habit of this unique 
jieople. Such a habit of necessity produces men 
eager, impulsive, and intense, but narrow and un- 
imaginative. Such were the prehistoric Semites, 
and such the Semites of history. Eeligious, for 
the most part, rather than moral ; patient, resolute, 
enduring, brave, serious ; faithful to friends, im- 
placable towards foes, — they have borne the stamp 
of tribalism all through their history. With little 
breadth of imagination, or range of invention, or 
intellectual or moral sympathy, they have given to 
literature scarcely anytliing dramatic or epic. But 
their .ardour and passion, tlieir religious and 
patriotic fervour, have inspired a lyrical jioetry 
unequalled or unsurpassed. Intensely subjective, 
the}' have little spontaneous interest in exiieri- 
mental science and the pictorial arts. Incapable of 
wide speculation, they have had no genuine philo- 
sophy of their own ; but, wliollj' practical in their 
views and modes of life, thej' have attained to the 
highest eminence in gnomic wisdom. Their f.iculty 
of surviving in strange conditions and surround- 
ings, and of arousing themselves from chronic in- 
activity to almost superhuman daring and enter- 
prise, seems to be the manifestation of a resei've 
power potentially acquired through ages of un- 
daunted persistence under hard conditions. Not 
looking far around them, they have at times seen 
all the farther beyoiid and above them. And when 
it has been given them to see straight and clear, 
they have beheld 'unspeakable things, which it is 
not possible for a man to utter.' But they are apt 
to see only one thing at a time, and so in their 
judgments of men and things they are exclusive, 
partial, and extreme. When they perceive the 
principal part of a thing, it is conceived of and 
described as standing for the whole. In their 
mental pictures there is but little combining of 
elements, or shading or persjiective. In their 




vocalmliiry tliere ftre few qualifying or restrictive 
terms. In their view of the universe they refer 
everything to direct supernatural agency. Hence 
they leave little scope to the individual liunuin 
will, and a circumscribed choice of action to them- 
selves. They know of hut two typos of govern- 
ment, the one a devehipment of the other: the 
patriarchal and the a1i>uhite mimarihical. They 
follow hut few occupations, and their work is 
divided among hereditary guilils. For the like 
fundamental reason, they are quite limited in their 
view of human merits ami allotments ; men are to 
them eitlierahsohitdy good or aksolutoly kul ; and 
their destiny is to he either bcatilic or hopelessly 
wretched. \Vith such mental and moral qualities, 
thej' have been, according to the liglit wliich they 
have seen and the course to wiiich tliey have been 
driven, the most bcnelicent or tlie most noxious of 
our species. There are twoeonsuinniate forms and 
modes of Seni. faith and practice — Jud;iisni and 
Mohammedanism. The one, witli all its inevitable 
limitations, was incomijarably the greatest gift of 
God to the world in ancient times. The other, in 
sjjite of the truth wliieli it has ajipropriated, is one 
of the greatest evils of tlio world s later days, one 
of the most perverse and malignant, one of the 
most perplexing and dis'.ieartening. 

Literature.— On possible relations between the Semites and 
othiT races, see llenfey, Verhult. rf. utji/pt. Sjtrache z. semit. 
Spradutamm (ISii) : I'Yicdr. Uelitzsch, 1 miogmn.-Semil. Ili/r- 
itlvericandtsdiafl (VilS); McCunly, A ruo-Scmilic Speech (\>^\)\ 
Bruffsch, Hienyjl.-deitwt, Wtii-Urb. (IStlT), Introduction, on the 
question of the original scat of the Semites and their classi- 
fication, essays have been written by von Kremer, Guidi, and 
Hommel in favour of the theory of a mif^tion from the N.K. ; 
by iSprentrer, Schrader, and de Goeje approvinjf of the view tliat 
Arabia was the starting-place. See the summation in favour 
of the latter hypothesis in Wright. Cowpar. Oramm. of Sem. 
Laivjtiageg (IStlU), p. SIT. ; and comp. Nbldeke, art. * Semitic 
Languages,' in ilncyc. BritM Hommel's Idlest classillcation, as 
based on lan^age, may be found in wt//J*(li:07). ' The genius 
and character of the Semites are discussed in Hommel, Die 
eemil. Vn'hTu,,,! V;,rfr^/,™ (18S3), p. ai IT., where the views of 
Kenan. K\\ t'l t h-,., !- ,ri. Grau, and Sprcnger are also cited and .III 1 . I of the Semites, see VI. R. Smith, 
JtS ; l;;iu'li— 11, .>■,.// zur gem. lietifjions'jctichicJttc \ and 
Itacthyt-ii. Jti ilin:H z. m »». Itclltjioiujeschiihte. For the history 
of the Semites, see ila.v Dunckcr, Hint, of AntimtUj/ (tr. from 
the German [1879|. vols, i.-iii.) ; Meyer, Gesch. (fcg Alterthmm 
(ltSS4), vol. i. ; Maspero, UUt. anc. ties peuptes de I'Orient ; 
Lenormant. lligt. anc. de I'Orient ; G. Itawlinson, The Five 
Great Mviiarchicn of the Ancient Eastern World ; Sayce, The 
A ncient Empire* cf the East ; McCurdy, JIPM. See also arlt. 
Assvitl.\ and B.\uvlunia in vol. i. and in the Enej/c. BihL, and the 
Literature tliere referred to ; and add on the Sumcrian question, 
Weissltieli, Da: miner. Frage (ISOS). 




L E.vtent of the Diaspora: In (1) the Euphrates districts; 
(2) S.vria; (3) Arabia; (4) Asia Minor; (5) E"vpt; ((!) 
Cvrennica ; (7) North Africa ; (S) Macedonia and Greece ; 
(0) Rome ; (lu) the rest of Italy, and Spain, Gaul, Ger- 

ii. Organization of the communities ; certain features com- 
mon to them everj-where ; difTerenr:es as to (1) the 
Tunne of the community, (2) the ojlicittig. Constitution 
of the Jewish communities akin to that of the Greek 
Hi. Toleration and recognition by the State anthorities. 
Three forms of political existence : (1) as a colony of 
foreignei-s (xaToix.ct) ; (2) as private societies or 
' unions ' ; (3) as more or less independent coqwra- 
tions alongside the comnumal bodies. Toleration of 
the Jewish cultus a main essential. Right of adminis- 
tering their own funds, and jurisdiction over their own 
mjmbers. The question of military service. The cult 
of the Emperor ; advantage of the Jews in this matter 
over the Christians. Varying attitude of diflcrent 
Emperors towaitls the Jews. 
tr. Rights of citizenship, and social standing. Citizenship^ed by the .lews csptcially in recently founded 
cities like Alexandria and Antiouh, or in those whose 
constitution had been reorganize<l like the cities of 
Western Asia Minor. In such instances the Jews 
formed a ?«*>■« by themselves. Many Jews enjoyed 
even Hi/man citizenship. Social standing of the Jews. 
The ollices of alaharch and ' head physician.' 

V. Religious and intellectual life. Iiangcr of syncretism 
and philosophic indifference. The Synagogue a safe- 
(fuard. The Greek language used in the Synagogue 

sen'icefl. The t«mple at l^conCopolis. Payment of 
dues to the temple at Jenuialeni. Pilgrimages to tho 
festivals, tireek intluenees. Ptedagogic part phiy«<d 
by the Dias|K)ra in relation to Christianity. 
Amongst the causes that contributed to the rapid 
spread of Christianily during the Apostolic and 
l)ost-Apijstolic periods, one of the most important 
was the ciicumstaiiie that Judaism was already 
dispersed as a powerful force throughout the whole 
extent of the llonian Empire, nay even beyond it. 
Everywhere the iireachers of the gospel found 
Jewisli communities, which f\irnisheil tlieni with 
the starting-point for their proclannition of tlio 
advent of the Messiah. And, even if their success 
Avas not very marked within the ])alo of the com- 
munities themselves, it must Ije a-ssumed to have 
been all tlie greater in the circles of ' Goilfearing' 
Gentiles, who in many places had attacheil them- 
.selves as an appendage to the community of .lews. 
Through these circles being won over by the 
Jewish propaganda to a worship that was inono- 
theistic and determined by ethical interests, the 
soil was loosened for the seed of the gospel to be 
scattered on it. 

The enormous extent of the Jewish Diaspora in 
comparison witli the petty mother country presents 
an enigma to historical inquiiy which it is unable to 
solve with certainty. In any case, various factors 
must have co-ojieratod to bring about the result in 
question. In the time of the Assyrians and the 
C'haldivans forcible deportations to the Euphrates 
districts took place, and a process of the same kind 
was repeated «ven in the Persian period, under 
Artaxerxes Oclius. At the beginning of the (ireck 
period the rulers sought, in the interests of the 
consolidation of their dominions, to etlect the 
greatest possible intermixture of populations, and 
with a view to this tlicy incited and favoured 
general migrations, by guaranteeing certain privi- 
leges and by other means. Pressure from above 
and tliu jiro^iiect of gain, in particular the inti'iests 
of trade, coniliined to produce an ebbing and Mow- 
ing of the jieoples scattered over the wide domiiiiona 
of the Diadoclii. It is to this period that we ought 

Sresumably to assign a large proportion of those 
ewish migrations, whoso occurrence we can only 
infer from their results in the Roman period. But 
all this is hardly sulHcient to account full}- for the 
fact before us. Is it po.s,sible tliivt the small com- 
munity, which under Ezra and N'eheniiah organ- 
ized itself around Jerusalem, and which even al>out 
the year n.C. 200 liad not spread beyond the terri- 
tory of Juda?a (in the narrower sense), should have 
jtroduced merely by natural increase the many 
thousands, nay millions, who at the latest in the 
1st cent. A.D. are found scattered over the whole 
world? This is highly improbable. We arc thus 
compelled to suppose that it was not only to 
migration and natural reproduction, but also to 
numerous conversions during the Greek period, 
that Judaism owed its wide dillusion over the 
whole world, and the great number of adherents 
whose existence we can prove in general with 
complete certainty, although we cannot give the 
actual ligures. 

In the present article we shall describe (1) the 
extent of the dispersion of the Jews ; (2) the 
organization of the communities ; (.'}) the measure 
in which they enjoyed toleration and recognition 
by the State ; (4) the share of the .lews in citizen- 
ship ; (3) their religious and intellectual life in 

i. EXTEN'T OF THE DIASPORA.— We liave general 
testimony to the wide dispersion of the Jewish 
people, commencing with the middle of the 2nd 
cent. B.C. In the Third IJook of the SihijUine 
Ornc/cs, composed jirobably alxiut It.C. HO, it is 
said that 'every land and every sea is filled with 




them' (Orac. Sihyll. iii. 271, iratra Sk taia (ridev 
TXrip-q; Kal iraaa 6d\a<Ta-a). In the time of Sulla we 
are told by Strabo that the Jewish people had 
already ' come into every city ; and one cannot 
readily find any place in the world wliiih has not 
received this tribe and been taken possession of by 
it' {ap. Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2). According to 
Josephus, there is ' no people in the world with- 
ont a fragment of us {BJ il. xvi. 4 [Niese, 
§ 398] : 01' yap ^(Itlv ewi t^$ oUovfx^p-rjs 5^/xos 6 fii] /Jiotpaf 
iifj.(Tipav Ix"")- The fullest details are found in 
the survey given by Philo in the letter of Agrippa 
to Caligula (Lcqatio ad Gaium, § 36 [ed. Mtangey, 
ii. .'587]) : ' Jerusalem is the metropolis not only of 
Juda-a, but of most countries. This is owing to 
the colonies which on suitable occasions she has 
sent to the neighbouring lauds of Egypt, Phre- 
nicia, Syria, Cocle-Syria ; to the remoter Pam- 
lihylia, Cilicia, most parts of Asia,- as far as 
Ijithynia; and to the farthest corners of Pontus, 
as well as to Europe, Thessaly, Boeotia, Mace- 
donia, Aetolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, to the 
most and the fairest parts of the Peloponnesus. 
And not only is the mainland covered with Jewish 
settlements, but also the principal islands: Euboca, 
Cyprus, Crete. Heave unnamed the lands beyond 
the Euphrates, for, with the exception of a small 
portion, all this district, including Babylon and the 
satrapies that embrace the fertile territory lying 
around, has Jewish inhabitants.' We are not able 
to test the correctness of this testimony in every 
detail. But the more our knowledge is enlargeil 
by new discoveries, the more do we find the accu- 
racy of the above description established. Coming 
now to particulars, the following are the most im- 
ix>rtant testimonies : — 

1. THJi Evi-H RATES DISTRICTS.— The earliest 
Diaspora of the Jews is that found in these regions 
(Assyria, Media, Babylonia). Large masses were 
deported by the Assyrians from the kingdom of 
the Ten Tribes, and by the ChaUheans from the 
kingdom of Judah. The Assyrians settled those 
whom they had carried away 'in Halah and in 
Habur by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of 
the Medes' (2 K 17'* 18"), i.e. in the northern part 
of the region watered by the Euphrates, to the 
west of Nineveh (see the articles on the various 
localities just named). The Chalda"ans brought 
their captives to the region of Babylon. It is 
trvie that large companies of the Judahites and 
Benjamites who had been carried to Babylon, 
afterwards returned to their native land and 
founded a new community there. But there was 
no such thing as a complete return of the Baby- 
lonian exiles. Still less was this the case with 
the members of the Ten Tribes deported by the 
Assyrians. Practically, the whole of these re- 
mained in foreign parts. This is not only implied 
in the biblical narrative, which knows nothing of 
a return on their part, but is expressly testilied to 
by later writers (Jos. Ant. XI. v. 2 : ai 5t' S^Ka (pvXal 
Tripav eiaiv Evcppdrov cwy SeVpo, fj.vpi6.5e7 iJiTretpoi Kal 
apidfu^ yvw(jd7}vai fj.7) Svvdfiet'at ; cf. 4 Ezr IS^^"*' ; 
Origen, Epkt. ad Afrkanum, § 14 ; Commodian, 
Carmen Apologet. 936-939). As late as the time 
of R. 'Akiba, the Rabbis continued to dispute 
whether the Ten Tribes would ever return or not 
(Mishna, Sanhedrin, x. 3 Jin.; tradition vacillates 
regarding the authorities who supported the dif- 
ferent views [see Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 
i. 143f.]). 

A fresh deportation was carried out by Arta- 
xerxes Ochus, w ho about the year B.C. 350 trans- 
ported Jewish prisoners to Hi/>vania{F-,aseh.Chro77 ., 
ed. Schoene, ii. 112, ad .ann. Abr. 1657 ; Orosius, 
iii. 7), probably because thej' had taken part in 
the revolt of the Pliicnicians against the Persian 

All these Israelites who lived in the Euphrates 
districts maintained communication with the 
mother country, and, as the centuries ran their 
course, took tlieir share in its religious develop- 
ment. Instead of being absorbed by the sur- 
rounding heathenism (as one would naturally 
have expected), they rather advanced in the direc- 
tion of proper, strict, legal Judaism. And to 
such an extent did their numbers increase that in 
the Roman period they were counted by millions; 
and thus, even from a political point of view, 
constituted a power with which the Romans 
had to reckon, seeing that their settlements lay 
on the border of [down to the time of Trajan 
chieHy outside] the s])here of Roman authority. 
P. Petronius, the legate of Syria, considered it 
dangerous in the year A.D. 40 to provoke them to 
a hostile disposition towards Rome (Philo, Lcijntio 
ad Gaiiim, § 31 [ed. .Mangey, ii. 578]). Trajan in 
his advance against the Parthians was exposed to 
a real danger by the revolt of the Mesopotamian 
Jews which threatened his rear. It is not prob- 
able that these millions (fivptddfi Sirfipoi) of Jewish 
inhabitants were simply descendants of the former 
exiles. We must rather think of a successful 
propaganda among the surrounding heathen. This 
]iropaganda, too, must have been directed from 
Juila^a, for the population of which we are speak- 
ing was Jewish in the sense of Pharisaism, as is 
evident from the forms of activity displayed by its 
religious life (pilgrimages to the feasts, sending of 
dues to the temple, etc.; see, on this, below). The 
main stock, however, was cert.ainly composed of 
the ancient exiles, for in the Kouian period we 
find the Jewish population most thickly settled 
in the very spots to which the Assyrians and 
the Chalda'ans once transported their prisoners. 
Josephus nanies, as their two principal cities, 
Nehardea (XfepSo, JsdapSa) and Nisibis [Ant. XVIII. 
ix. 1 and 9 Jin.). The former of these was in 
Babylonia ; the latter on the Mygdonius, a tribu- 
tary of the Chaboras (Habor), in the centre of the 
localities named in 2 K 17'' IS". Around Neh.ardea 
were thus grouped the descendants of the tribes of 
Judah and Benjamin ; around Nisibis, the de- 
scendants of the 'fen Tribes. 

It may be further mentioned that, in the time 
of Tiberius, two brothers, Asinoeus and Aniheus, 
founded in the neighbourhood of Nehardea a robber 
State, which, owing to the weakness of the Par- 
thian monarchy, maintained its existence for 
several decades (Joe. Ant. xvill. ix.). — In the 
time of Claudius the royal house of Adialiene 
(Izates, his mother Helena, and bis brother Mono- 
bazus) adopted the Jewisli faith, and jiroved its 
attachment by keeping up intimate relations with 
Jerusalem, by establishing various foundations 
there, and by taking part with the Jews in their 
great war with the Roniiins under Nero and Ves- 
pasian (Jos. Ant. XX. ii.-iv. ; BJ II. xix. 2, IV. ix. 
II, V. ii. 2, iii. 3, iv. 2, vi. 1, VI. vi. 3, 4). 

2. Syria. — This is characterized by Josephus 
as the country which, on account of its proxiuuty 
to Palestine, had the largest percentage of Jewish 
inhabitants, these being specially numerous in the 
capital, Antioch {BJ VIII. iii. 3 : to yap 'lovdaiaif 
yivos TToXu fikv Kara Tracra*' Trjv olKovfjAuriv irapefrirapTat 
Tots e7rtxw/>:ois, irXetTTov S^ r-^ Ivpiif Kara tt]v yuT- 
viaaiv dvap-ep-LypL^Pov llaipcTtus ciri ttjs 'Avrioxeias 
fiv TTciMi 5ia t6 rrii ffuXtMS p-iyedoi). At Antioi h the 
Jews enjoyed the rights of citizenship, they hud a 
splendid synagogue, and carried on a zealous and 
successful propaganda among the heathen popul.a- 
tion (Jos. /.(■.). It is true that by all this they 
drew upon themselves the hatred of the pagan 
inhabitants. Regarding the state of things in 
most of the other towns of Syria we know nothing 
very definite. But Philo states that there are 




'great iiuiii'iors of Jews in every eity of Asia and 
Syria ' (Leijatio nil Gniiim, § 33 (etl. Man^ey, ii. 
582]: 'loi'Jaioi Ka0' f\d<rT7);' iruXii/ cicri iranTr\ri$eif 'Aalat 
Tf Kal Si'piat). Kor Diininsvus exact figures are 
given by Josejilnis, who, liowever, contradicts 
liimsclf on this iioint. In one i)assage he states 
that, at the outhrualv of the great war in the 
year A. D. (Ui, there wore 10,500 [so Niese's text of 
JIJ II. XX. 'J ; acconling to anotlier reading, 10,000] 
Jews ni:i.«sacred at Damascus. In another passage 
(liJ vn. viii. 7 [Niese, S 308]) he gives, instead of 
this number, ' 18,0(X), with women and children.' 
According to the first cited pas.sage {ISJ II. xx. 2), 
the women of Damascus were almost all devoted 
to the Jewish religion (rdj ynvaiKaj ctTdiras irX7)» 
i\lyuji> im-ityiUva^ TJ 'lovSaiK^ 6priaK(lif). 

3. South AJiAliIA. — At what dat« Judaism 
reached this quarter is unknown, but it was 
strongly ditlused there from the 4th cent. A. I), 
at the latest. When, under Constantius, attempts 
were made to extend Christianity in that quarter, 
these had to contend with Jewish opposition 
(Philostorgius, iii. iv.). At the beginning of the 
6th cent. a.Iewish king reigned there. Owing to 
his persecution of tlieChii^tiaiis, lie was dethrcmed 
by tlie Christian kin;; i.f Al.\>~ini!i (si^e Fell. ' Die 
C'liristenverfolgung in ."^mlarabii'M.' etc., in ZDM(! 
xxxv. [ISSl] 1-74. Against Halcvy, who argued 
that the king in question was not a Jew Init an 
Arian, see Duchesne in liEJ xx. [1880] 220-224). 

4. ASIA Mjxon. — Here we have numerous testi- 
monies, and are able to demonstrate the presence 
of Jews in almost every quarter. They were most 
thickly settled in Phrygia and hydia, and we 
know further how they came there. Antiochus 
the Great transiilanted two thousand Jewish 
families from Alesopotamia and liahylonia to 
Lydia and Phrygia, because he considered them 
more loyal subjects than the Lydians and Phry- 
gians, who were inclined to revolt (Jos. Ant. xil. 
iii. 4). While tlie~e H.iliy Ionian Jews peopled the 
inland i)n>viiiee.s of Asia Minor, others were 
attracteil by trade interests to the towns on the 
coast. An indirect evidence of the early appear- 
ance of the Jews in Asia Minor may be discovered 
also in 1 Mac 15""-*. According to tliis passage, 
the Romans in the year B.C. 139 simultaneously 
despatched to a number of kings a letter in 
identical terms, charging them to refrain from 
showing any hostility towards the Jews. From 
this it may be inferred that Jews were alrendj- to 
be found in all the places there named. Of States 
and cities in Asia Minor the following are men- 
tioned: the kin^^iloms of Pergamum and Cappa- 
docia ; the district of Caria, with the cities of 
Myndos, Halicarnassus, and Cnidos ; Pamphylia, 
with the city of Side ; Lycia, with the city of 
Phaselis ; and, finally, Sampsame, i.e. the Samsun 
of later Arab geographers, or Ainisus in Pontus, 
to the east of Sinope. These various districts and 
cities were in the year B.C. 139 politically inde- 
pendent, and are therefore named separately beside 
the great kingdoms of Pergamum and Cappadocia. 

As showing the great numbers and the pros- 
perity of the Jews of Asia Minor about the middle 
of the 1st cent. B.C., we have, on the one hand, 
the numerous acts in their favour during the 
closing years (B.C. .50-40) of the Roman Republic 
(collected by Josephus in Ant. XIV. x.); and, on 
the other hand, the rennirkable passage in Cicero, 
pro Flncco, 28, in which he gives precise details as 
to the circumstances under which quantities of 
Jewish money, intended to be sent from Asia 
Minor to Jernsalem, were confiscated by the 
governor Flaccus (B.C. G2-G1). The whole passage 
reads thus : ' Quum aurum Juda-orum nonnne 
quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus provin(^iis 
Hierosolyma exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit 

edicto ne ex -Vsia exportari liceret. . . . Ul.i erco 
crimen est? (juonium quidem furtum nusquuiii 
reprehendis, edietum probas, judicatum fateris, 
quiesitum et prohitmn palani non negas, actum 
esse per viros primarios res ipsa declarat : Apamcie 
manifesto deprehensnm, ante pedes pneloris in 
foro expensuni esse auri pondo centum paullo 
minus perSex. Ca'sium, equitem Ronianuni, castis- 
simuni liominem atque integerrinnim ; I.tuidirae 
viginti pondo paullo amplius per liunc L. Pedu- 
ca'um, judicem nostrum ; Adiamyltii per Cn. 
Domitium, legatum ; Pcrijami non multuni.' If 
we add to general testimonies other .•■pecial 
ones, particularly of tiie inscriptions, wo 
obtain for the Jews in Asia .Minor the following 
data (commencing with the N.W.) :^ 

A. Adiiiiiiijttiiiin and Pergamum: the above 
testimony of Cicero. 

b. I'liiiL'ia: an in.scription (7i^,/ xii. [lS8t!] 23(5- 
2i2 = Butltlht dc vorrcs^K l,dl,:n. x. [1880] 327-33.5) : 
ToTioi' iT-^dToji/os roD E^ir^ouxoi jbv oIkov Kal Tin 
TTfpi^oXov Tov vwaiOpov KaraaKeudtracra. ^k tw[i' i5]iutv 
i\api<raTo t[oi! 'Io]eoaioi5. 'H iriTavtcryT) ('[reifiTjJre^ twi> 

lovdaluu TdTiou ^[TpdT](ovos Tou 'Evir^Suvoi xpvoi^ <jtc- 
fpdyip Kal TTpoiSpiq.. 

c. M>i(/ncsi" on Mt. Siinlus : a Jewish tomb- 
iiiseripticm (liEJ X. [1885] 70). 

d. Smyrna: an inscription from the time of 
Hadrian, with a list of who had made jires- 
ents to the city, among them oi irari 'loi/Jaio. [I'lG 
314S). The Jews played a prominent part in con- 
nexion with the death of Polycarp {Ma,ti/r. Pnhjr. 
12-13, 17-18; Vita P(ihjrnr)ii aintorc Piuniu, ed. 
Duchesne, 1881 ; cf. also Reinacli, liEJ xi. 235- 
238). There is, further, this inscrii)tion from the 
3rd cent. A.D. {REJ vii. [1883] 161-100) : 'Poi-0er^o 
loviala apxt<rvvdyitr/oi KaTeffKevaffev rb fvffbpLov roii 

djr«\(eW/)ois Kal Bpifiamv iiTioevbi 6.\ov i^ovaiav Ixofrof 
Od^at Tivd^ (I 5^ Tts ToXpLrjijfi, Swff€l Tl^ UpurrdTi^j 
TapLiii^ Srjfdpia 'a<p Kal ri^ iOvei twv 'lovSaiitiv 5T]vdpia 
'a. Taimis rrjs iiriypaiprii rb a.vTlypa<poti diroKeiroi fi's t4 

e. Sardis : three official documents quoted by 
Josephus— 1. A despatch of L. Antonius to the 
authorities of Sardis (B.C. 50, 49), ])ermitting the 
.lews to refer their disputes for decision to their 
own tribunals, even when they are Roman citizens 
(Ant. XIV. X. 17). 2. A popular resolution of the 
city of Sardis, guaranteeing to the Jews the un- 
disturbed exercise of their religion [Ant. xiv. x. 
24). 3. A despatch of C. Norbanus Flaccus, from 
the time of Augustus, to the authorities of Sardis, 
reminding them afresh of the religious freedom of 
the Jews (Ant. XVI. vi. 6). 

f. Hi/jinepa, to the south of Sardis: an inscrip- 
tion of c. 200 A.D., containing only the two words 
'lovSatuf ixaTipwv (ItEJ x. 74 f. ). 

g. EphexHs: the granting of the city franchi,so 
to the Jews, probably as early as the reorganizing 
of the city constitution by Antiochus II. Tlieos 
(B.C. 261-246). Numerous ollicial documents are 
quoted by Josephus, particularly those dating from 
the years B.C. 49-42, according to which the .lews 
living in Ephesus were exeni|ited from military 
service even when they pos.sessed the Roman 
citizenship (.Ini. XIV. x. 11-13, 10, 19, 25. During 
the years named the Roman citizens in .\sia Minor 
were called out for military .servi<e). Lniler 
Augustus the authorities of Kphesus were re- 
peatedly reminded that the .Jews were not to \>o 
interfereil with in sending the .sacred nioiiey to 
Jerusalem (Pliilo, Lciitiliu ad Gaiitm, §40: Jo.s. 
Ant. XVI. vi. 4, 7). Their synagogue is mentioned 
in Ac 18''''-^ 19*. In a late tomb-inscription we 
meet with a .lewish d/)x'<"'(><'5 (Ancient Urcek IH' 
■irri/>tions in the Brili.ili .Ifn.wnm, iii. 2, No. 677). 
The ' head physicians ' were appointed by the city, 
and enjoyed immunity from all burdens. 




h. Trailer: incidental mention in a despatch from 
the Laodiceans (Jos. Aitt. xiv. x. 20). 

i. Caria : see, in general, 1 Mac 15^, and cf. also 
the above remarks. 

j. Mi/etw!: a despatch of the proconsul to the 
citv authorities, bearing on the religious freedom 
of the Jews {Ant. XIV. x. 21). 

k. Jasiis, to the south of Miletus : an inscrip- 
tion from the middle of the 2nd cent. B.C., accord- 
ing to "which one SiKrp-a.^ 'Idffoj'o^ 'lepoyoXy/u'rijs garve 
a money contribution in support of the festival of 
the Dionysin (Le Bas et Waddington, Insci: iii. No. 
^B4=IiEJ X. 7fi). It is not impossible that Jason, 
the fatlier of this jSiketas, is to l>e identified with 
the high priest of this name who lived in the 
MaccaliEan period. Support of heathen festivals 
by Jews was not unknown at that time even in 

1. Myndos : a torab-inscription from the begin- 
ing of the Byzantine period [REJ xlii. 1— t). 

m. Halicar-nassus : a popular resolution regard- 
ing the religious freedom of the Jews (Jos. Ant. 
XIV. X. 23). 

n. Phri/gia: see Barasav, Cities and Bishoprics 
qfPhri/g'ii, vol. i. pt. ii (iS97) pp. 667-67G. 

O. Laodicca : see Cicero, pro t'lacco, 2S ; also a 
despatch of the authorities to the proconsul C. 
Rabirius, in which they disclaim any intention of 
interfering A\-ith the religious freedom of the Jews 
(Ant. XIV. X. 20). 

p. Hierapolis : three Jewish inscriptions pub- 
lished in t/f(/irfr«'"A des dciitschin archiiul. Instituts, 
ivth Ergiinzungsheft { = Altcrthii>ner von Siera- 
poli^, herausg. von Humann, Cichorius, Judeich, 
Winter), 1S9S. We give extracts, showing the most 
important points — 1. Xo. 69 a tomb-inscription, 
closing with t'.ie threat of a penalty : el Be firi, dxo- 
T€uret T(f \aui tov (.yif ) 'Ioif5a<[w]i' Trf)o<jT^i]tiov 6p[o^'^Tt 
Sip'dpia xeiXia. 2. No. 212 a tomb-inscription end- 
ing thus: et 5e trt ^repos ictjSevaet, Sunjei ttj KaToncia 
tCiv iv 'lepasroXet KcroLKOvvritiv 'lovoaiur xpoffrei/iou 
{STivdpui) (.) KOI Tu iK^Tfrr^ffavrt. {5-j}va.pul) (Stffxi^ia). 
dyriypaipop dxere^T; ev r(fi o-px^u rQp 'lovdcudtv. 3. No. 
342 (= Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phryrjia, 
i. 545) tomb-inscription of a certain Publius .-Elius 
Glykon, who bequeathed to the managing body of 
the guild of purple-dyers (7-3 cefiyoTdTTj rpoeSpia tQiv 
vop<pipaj3d(pai>) a capital fund, the interest of which 
was to be applied yearly, ev xj eopr^ tuk dfi'^wv, to 
the decorating of his tomb. He bequeathed like- 
wise to the directorate of another guild (t:^ a-iveopiip 
Tuv K<upoSari<rr(Zi') a sum to be applied to the same 
purpose, ee rg iopry veynjKc{(7T?,s]. The whole of 
the members of these guilds must, accordingly, 
have been, if not exactly Jews, at least well dis- 
posed to Judaism (cf. Kamsay, Expositor of Feb. 
1902, pp. 98-100). 

q. Apaniea: Cicero, pro Flacco, 28 (see above) ; 
also a tomb-inscription {ap. Kamsay, Cities and 
Bishoprics of Phrygia, L 538) ending thus : ei Se t« 
ewiTTjbei'ffi., tov vbp.ov oTSiv rQy KloiSeui'. The ' law 
of the Jews ' cannot here be the Mosaic law, but a 
legal ordinance, recognized by the State, imposing 
a penaltj" on any harm done to Jewish tombs. The 
strength of Jewish influence at Apamea can be 
gauged from the circumstance that at the be- 
ginning of the 3rd cent. A.D. coins were struck 
by the city authorities ( 1) having upon them figures 
of Xoah and his ^vife descending from the ark, and 
bearing the legend XfiE (fullest description of these 
coins in Madden, JS'iimismatic Chronicle, 1866, pp. 
173-219, pi. vi.: cf. also the Catalogue of the 
Collection Waddington in the Becuc jS'iimisma- 
tiqtie, 1SS8, p. 397 f., Nos. 5723, 5730, 5731). 
Apamea thus claimed to be the spot where Noah's 
ark was stranded. This claim, which is knowTi 
also from other sources, is connected in some way 
with the name of the city, 'Aird^ieta Ki^brr^s, for 

KiSar^t is the biblical term for tlie ark of Noah. 
It may have been j\ist this appellation of the city 
that letl to the localizing ot the Noah-legend. 
That this localizing b to be traced to Jewish in- 
fluence, has been shown especially by Babelon ('La 
tradition phrjgienne du deluge' in Ecvuc de 
I'histoire dcs religions, xxiii. [1891] 174-183). Not 
only the Noah- but also the Enoch-legend reached 
Phrygia by means of the Jews ; for tiie Phrygian 
'AvyaKos or XdwdKos, who lived over 300 years, and 
after whose death the great Flood came, is certainly 
no other than the biblical Enoch (he is called 
'AvvaKos by Stephanus Bj-zant. s.v. 'Ikopiov ; but 
ydmaKos by Zenobius, Proverb, vi. 10, and Suidas, 
Lex. s.v. ydvvaKo^). 

r. Ahmonia: an inscription in honour of a num- 
ber of synagogue officials who had restored ' the 
synagogue buUt by Julia Severa' (tov KuTaoKev- 
aaBevTa oIkov vto 'loi'Xt'as Zeou^pas . . . eireffKevaffav, 
see Eams,ay, Ecvue des etud:s a/iciennes, iii. [1£01] 
272 [an earlier copy in Cities and Bishoprics of 
Phrygia, i. 649 f.]). It closes thus: olotivcs xai i) 
(xwafiiyi) erei/iijo-ci' C-k\i^ iinxpi'i'if Bid re ttji' irdperov 
avrCjv \^^f^tt3(nv ko.1 tt}v vpos tt)v ffwa.yityyrjv evvoidv re /cat 
a-rovdr;v. This inscription shows us to what influ- 
ence Judaism had attained in the highest circles of 
society ; for the Julia Severa who is named as the 
builder of the synagogue is known to ns from 
coins and inscriptions (Kamsay, Cities and Bishop- 
rics of Phrygia, i. 637, 647) as a noble lady of 
Akmonia in the time of Nero (Prosupographia 
imperii Eomani, iii. 224f.,s.r. 'Servenius'; also 
coins in the Collection Waddington, Bci-tii Niimis- 
matique, 1898, p. 3S4, Nos. 5488, 5490, 5494). Since 
she was at the same time high priestess of the cult 
of the Emperor, she cannot indeed have been a 

s. Antioeh of Pisidia: a Jewish synagogue men- 
tioned in Ac IS'"". 

t. Lycia and the city of Phasdis: see 1 Mac 15^, 
with the above remarks on that passage. 

n. Korykos in Lycia : a tomb-inscription of late 
date (REJ x. 76). 

V. Tlos in Lycia : a tomb-inscription fiom some- 
where about the end of the 1st cent. A.D. (Eranos 
Vindoboncnsis, 1S93, pp. 99-102). According to it, 
the i]p'2ov (sepulchral monument) was erected bj' a 
certain Ptolema;us for himself and his son Ptole- 
ma?US (nrep dpxovrelas T€\ovpL€vas Tap Tjixeiv '\ov5aioLS, 
Ciare airro elvai Tcdvruv tQv 'lovSaiuv Kai p.Tjl)€vu. e^oif 
elfai eT€pov Tedrjvai ev clCtQ. 4dv £e Tis evpedei-rj riyd TidJjv 
6<pei\i(j(i TXwf wv ti5 o»;/ii! [the conclasion is wanting]. 

w. Pamphylia and the city of Side: see 1 Mac 
15^ and the general testimony of Philo (see above, 
p. 92^), also Ac 2". 

X. Cilicia: see likewise Philo, /.c. Since, accord- 
ing to Ac 6°, Cilician Jews lived in Jenisalem in 
somewhat large numbers, the Diaspora in Cilicia 
must have been very considerable. Tarsus, the 
capital of Cilicia, was, as is well known, tlie birth- 
place of the Apostle Paul (Ac 9" 21=' 22^). One 
louoas uio! Iwtt; Tizpffeis is mentioned on a tomb- 
inscription of Jope (Euting, Sitzungsh:richte der 
Berliner Ahademie, IS80, p. 086). In the 4th cent. 
A.D. the Jewish patriarch caused the dues to be 
collected ' in every city of Cilicia' from the resident 
Jews (Epiphanius, Hcer. xxx. 11 : airb cicdirn); 
iroXew; Tf,s KiXiKcta? to. iriSeKara Kai rds d-xapxds 
Tapd Twy ev ry eirapxia 'louSaiuv eiaeirpaTTev). 

y. Korykos in Cilicia : a Jewish sarcophagus 
with inscription {Denlcschriftsn der Wiener Akad- 
emie, Phil. -Hist. Classe, Bd. xliv. [1896] p. 68). 

z. Iconium in Lycaonia : a Jew ish synagogue 
mentioned in Ac 14' ; on inscriptions there, cf. art. 
Gal.\ti.a. in vol. ii. p. 88''. 

aa. Galatia : testimonies here very scanty, for 
there are none in Jos. Ant. XVI. vi. 2 (the closing 
remark that the edict of Augustus in favour of the 




Jews was to be set up at Anryra is based ui)on a 
faise reading' : tlie MSS have apyvpi)). A tuiiib- 
inscrijitioii from Galatia will l>e found iu Iiiill,:lin 
de corresp. helKn. vii. 24 {=JiEJ x. 77). The in- 
scription CIG 412U was found in tlie neiglibour- 
liood of Dorj-l.-vuni, not therefore in tlalatia. Cf., 
in treneral, art. G.\L.\TIA in vol. ii. p. So". 

bb. Capp/idoria : 1 Mac 15- (despatih from the 
Bomans to kin-; Ariaratjies) is sutliiient to justify 
the assumption that Jews were settled there. Cl. 
also Ac 2" ; Mishna, Kcthubuth, .\iii. 1 1 ; Neubauer, 
Udifi. du Talmud, pp. 317-31'J; tomb-inscriptions 
of t'appadocian Jews at Jope, in PEFSt. 181)3, 
y. 29U, and liN.K), pp. 118, 122. In the Jerusalem 
Talmud we meet with three Jewish scholars from 
Cajipadocia (K. Judan, 1£. Jannai, IJ. Samuel) ; see, Gricr/i. and Int. I.ehnuortcr im Titlmud, 
ii. [1899] 558 ; Hacher, Die Agada dcr palant. 
Amorittr, iii. [1899] 1U6, 749. 

cc. Jlilhi/nia and Pontiis: the -reneral testimonj- 
of I'hilo {Legatio ad Oaiiiin, § 3G, &xp' BitfuWaj Kal 
Tun Tou llovTov pLvx'^'") ; ii Bitliynian tomb-inscription 
of late date (ItEJ xxvi. 167-171). On Sampsanie 
(1 Mac 15-°)=: Aniisus in I'ontus, see above, p. 93". 
From Pontus came both the Aquila.s, the com- 
panion of St. Paul (Ac 18-), and the author of aGr. 
translation of the Old Testament. Cf. also Ac 2". 
dd. Pantihajxrutu in the Crimea : two inscrip- 
tions of great interest (Latyscliev, Jn.scriptiones 
antiqxia: orcE scptctitrionalU Poiiti Eiuini, ii., Xos. 
52, 53 [better texts here than in CIG 2114''\ 2114'']), 
one of which is dated from the year A.D. 81. Both 
contain deeds relating to the manumission of 
slaves of Jewish owners. At the close it is noted 
that the Jewish community ' took part in superin- 
tending' this legal instrument, i.e. shared the re- 
sponsibilitjfor itscorrcct execution (imi'eirn-poireowT)! 
bi Kai Tijs iTvvayLr^Ti^ tUv ^lovoaiuiv). Thus even in 
that remote region there was in the 1st cent. A.D. 
an organized Jewish eomnmnity. 

5. Egypt. — If even in Syria and Asia Minor the 
Jewish population was a numerous one, this was 
pre-eminently the case in Egjpt. Here, moreover, 
the Jews came to play an important part in the 
historj'of civilization ; for, thanks to tlieir favour- 
able social position, they were able to adopt in 
large measure the Greek culture, and thus became 
the principal representatives of the Jewish-Greek 
form of thought. The emigration of larger masses 
of Jews to Egypt must undoubtedly be held to 
have tirst taken place in the Greek period. But 
sporadic migrations or even forcible transjdanting-. 
happened earlier than this. Soon after the de.-truc- 
tion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar (li.c. 586), a 
large company of Jews, from fear of the Chalda-ans, 
and in spite of the jirotests of the prophet Jere- 
miah, took their de|iarture to Egyjit (.Jer 42. 43 ; 
for the motive see Jer 41). Thev settled in various 
parts, at Migdol, Tahpanlies, Koph, and Pathros 
(Jer 44'). But we do not know whether their de- 
scendants maintained their existence here as .lews. 
— Pscudo-Aristeas speaks of two transplantings of 
Jewisli settlers to Egypt prior to the time of 
Ptolemy Lagi : one in the time of the Persians, 
and one much earlier, under Psammetichus, who 
in his expedition to Ethiopia is said to have had 
even Jewish soldiers in his ^Tmy (Aristca: Epist., 
ed. \\ endland, § 13 : ^Sj; iiiv Kai rpJTepov uavuiv 
eiff€\7j\v6uTui' avv rtp Xl^/wj jcat rpb Toin-uv iripwv avu- 
liaxiHv (iaTre(rra\iiit'ai' Tpds tAk Tuiy .MOiirwy fia(rMa 
/jidxdrOai avv ^a/i^ip-ixv. The king last named is 
probably Psammetichus II. [D.C. 594-589], who 
undertook a campaign against Ethiopia. That 
amongst others there were Semitic mercenaries in 
his armj-, we know from the in.scriptions of .\bu- 
Sinibel [on which cf. the Literature cited in Paulv- 
Wissowa's HE. art. ' Abu-Simbel ']. The .lewi;ii 
migration to Egypt in the time of the Persians is 

not regardi-d by pseudo-Aristea.s as a voluntary 
one ; cf. § 35, ed. U endland). See idso ' Additional 
Note' at end of this article. 

Whether as early as the time of Alexander the 
t!rc:it any considerable numl>ers of Jews migrutetl 
to Egjpt, we know not. But we may trust the 
statement of Josephus, that, at the foundmg of 
Alexandria by the monarch just named, JewUb 
.settlers were from the lirst incor|iorated among 
the citizens (liJ U. xviii. 7, c. Apion. ii. 4). Con- 
lirmation of tliLs is supplied by the decree of the 
emperor Claudius (ap. Jos. Ant. xix. v. 2), accord- 
ing to which the Jews in Alexandria were settled 
tliere from the very lirst (toii rpuroit tv$J »acpo«) 
along with the Alexandrians. Lairger masses 
appear to have lirst come to Egypt under Ploleniy 
Lagi. According to pseudo-Hecat;eus, we are to 
think in this instance of voluntary migrations 
(Jo.s. c. Apion. I 22 [Niese, § 194] : oSk 0X1701 &' k<U 
M€Td rdv .We^dvopov tfayarov ei$ AiyiTToy Koi 'PoiPtK-np 
^fTfCTTjcrai- Sitt. Tqy iv ^^vpif ariiaiv, cf. § 186). 
According to pseudo-Aristeas, on the other hand, 
Ptolemy Lagi transplanteil Jewish prisoners in 
large numbers to Egypt. The details of his narra- 
tive belong, indeed, to the realm of romance. 
Ptolemy, we are told, carried captive to Egvpt 
10U,0<W Jews. Of these he armed 30,000 able- 
bodied men, whom he eniploj-ed to do garrison 
duty in the fortresses of the country (§ 13 : a(p' Cir 
wuei Tpeis /ivpidSas kaffoirXiVoi ivSpCjv (kXiktiIp eis riK 
Xupo" KaTi^Kiaev iv tois <f>povpiott). The old men, the 
children, and the women, he is .said to have handed 
over as slaves to his soldiers, on demand, as coinpen- 
.sation for their services {Aristea: Epist., ed. Wend- 
land, §§ 12-14, cf. 35-36). Afterwards Ptolemy 
Phil.adelphus is stated to have procured the freedom 
of all these Jewish slaves by paying to the owners 
twenty drachma; per slave (§^ 15-27, 37). Since 
Josephus, in relating the same narrative (c. Apion. 
ii. 4 [Niese, §§ 44-47], Ant. xil. i.), simply repro- 
duces the account of pseudo-Aristeas [in the tirst 
cited passage tliis is self-a])parent, and in the other 
at least probable], the laiter is our only witness. 
But, in spite of the romantic character of the 
narrative in question, this much at le;ist is credible, 
that Ptolemj- Lagi brought Jewish prisoners to 
Egypt and set them to garrison duty in the 
fortresses. I'"or the fact that Ptolemy Lagi took 
Jerusalem by storm is unimpeachably vouched for 
by Agatharchidcs (Jos. c. Apion. i. 22 [Niese, 
^g 209^211], Ant. XII. i. ; cf. Appian, Hyi: 50). 
And the employment of Jews for garrison work in 
strongholds is contirmed by the circumstance that 
at a still later period we hear of a 'Jews' camp' 
{'lovoaiuv arpaT^eSoy, castra Judmorum) in vaiious 
places (see further, on this, below). 

At Alexandria, in the time of the Diadochi, a 
special quarter, seimiated from the rest of the 
city, was assigned to the Jews, ' in order that they 
might be able to live a purer life by mixing less 
with foreigners ' (Jos. BJ 11. xviii. 7 ; trom c Apion. 
ii. 4 it might appear as if this auarter had already 
been assigned to the Jews by Alexander the Great, 
but, according to the manifestly more exact account 
in BJ II. xviii. 7, this was lirst done by the 
Diadochi ; cf. also Strabo ap. Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2). 
This Jewish quarter stretched along the harbour- 
less strand in the iiciglil-ourhootl of the royal palace 
(c. Apion. ii. 4 [Niese, § 33] : Tpis aXliuvoy SaXacaar, 
§ 36 Tpit To<! |SoiriXti(Ms), to the east, therefore, of 
the promontory of Lochias on the north-east of 
the city. The separation came alterw.-iids, imleetl, 
not to be strictly maintained, for Philo tells us 
that not a few Jews had their dwelling-places 
scattered aliout in the other quarters of the city. 
But even in Philo's time two of the live citi"- 
divisions were called 'the Jewish,' because they 
were predominantly inhabited by Jews (Pkilo, 




ire Flncrum., % 8 [ed. Mangey, ii. 525]). We learn 
from this that thi Jeics constituted soinethin(j like 
two-fifths of the population of Alcxnndria. Accord- 
in'' to Joseiihus, the fourtli city-division was in- 
haljited by Jews {BJ II. xviii. 8 : t6 KoKovixtvov 
AAra, the city-divisions being named after the 
first five letters of the alphabet). 

The total number of Jews in Effi/pt is reckoned 
bji Philo in hi'! own time at about a million (in 
Flaccum, § 6 [ed. Mangey, ii. 523]). He remarks 
in this connexion that they had tlieir dwellings 
'as far as the borders of Etliiopia' (m^xP' ■^"'' "/"'w 
AWiowlas). This general statement is confirmed by 
many special testimonies, of which the following 
are the most important : — 

a. Lower Eqtjpt. To the east of the Delta, in 
the nome of Heliopolis (and near to Leoiitopolis, 
which must not, however, be confounded with the 
better known Leontopolis situated much farther 
to the north), lay the .Icwish temple (formerly a 
temple of Bubastis), which owed its origin to the 
Jewish high priest Onias in tlie time of Ptolemy 
Philometor (Jos. Ant. xm. iii. 2: e> Xe&vTijv irliKa 
ToO 'YWlottoKItov ; see more fully, regarding this 
temple, below, p. 107''). The region was known as 
•i) 'Ovlov xwpa (Ant. XIV. viii. 1, BJ I. ix. 4). With 
this we should probablj' connect the ' vicus Judte- 
orum ' mentioned in the Itinerarium Antonini 
(ed. Parthey et Pinder, p. 75). But the ' castra 
.luda-orum' mentioned in the Notili'i Iliifnifntum 
Ori'iitis (ed. Hocking, i. 69) is presumably dillerent, 
although also situated in the same neighbourhood. 
At the spot where, according to the statement of 
distances given in tlie Itincr. ^iifore., the 'vicus 
Jud:iorum' sl>ould be sought, there is still a 'fell 
cl-Jehudiijeh, in proximity to which a temple of 
Bubastis had once stood. Another Tell el- 
Jchut/iijeh, which, according to Naville, has ' quite 
the ajipearance of a fortress,' lies farther soutli (see 
Naville, Seventh Memoir of the E</i//iL E.cplor. 
Fiinil, London, 1890). We should probably identify 
tlie tirst named Tell el-Jchudi'/eh [not, as Naville, 
the more .southern one] with tlie building of Onias, 
and the other with the ' castra Juda'orum.' While 
these places lay to the east of the Delta, Josephus 
in his account of C;esar mentions an 'lovdaiuy 
aTpaTiireSov, which, from the context of the narra- 
tive, must have lain to the west of it (Ant. xiv. 
viii. 2, BJ I. ix. 4). It cannot therefore be the 
same as the ' castra Juda^orum ' mentioned in the 
Notitia Diijnitntum. The existence of various 
'Jews' camps' is readily intelligible in the light of 
the statements nuoted above from ])seudo-Aristeas. 
Likewise in the Delta, in its southern portion, lies 
Athribis, where, according to an inscription of the 
Ptolemaic period found there, a certain Ptolemieus, 
son of Epikydes, chief of the police, acting in con- 
junction with the resident Jews, built a sjnagogue 
to the most liigh God (llToXe/xawi 'EwlkvIov 6 
einffTdTTjs Tujv (pvXaKiTuiv Kai oi iv 'Adpi^ei 'lui^daioi t7)v 
■wpoaevxTTiv 6ei^ v^ia-rifi, liEJwh. 235-238 = Biilletin 
de corrcsp. hellen. xiii. 178-182). 

b. Middle Er/ijpt. The more recent papyrtis 
•finds' have fnruislied information regarding the 
early settlement of .lews in Mitldle Egypt. Accord- 
ing to a document of the 3rd cent. B.C. discovered 
in the nome of Arsinoe (the modern Fayum), there 
had to be paid for the possession of slaves in the 
village of Psenyris a duty fis ra airoSoxia tt)^ Kio/iris 
irapa twv Ioi'5a(wc Kai Tuv 'SlWijvuji/ (The Flinders 
Pcfrie Papyri, ed. by M.ahafly, pt. i. 1891, p. 43). In 
another, belonging to the same region and dating 
from 238-237 n.c, we meet with a [Trapeir'^iSriixoi 
OS KixL (TvpitrTi. IwvaBai [/iaXeirai] (op. cil. pt. ii. 1893, 
p. 23). Towards the end of the 2nd cent. B.C. a 
irpoaevx'] '\ovSaluv is mentioned at Arsinoe ( Tebtunis 
Papi/ri, ed. by Grenfell, Hunt, and Smyly, pt. i. 
1902, No. 86). At Oxyrhynchus, south of Arsinoe, 

documents h.ave been found of the Roman Imperial 
period, in which a 'Jews' lane' (ati<f)o5os loi'daLKrj) 
is mentioned (The Oxyrhynrhns Papyri, ed. by 
Grenfell and Hunt, pt. i. 1898, No. 100; pt. ii. 
1899, No. 335). 

c. Upper Egypt. Here there were Jews settled 
as early as the time of Jeremiah, for the Pathros 
of Jer 44' is Upper Egypt. A great many tax- 
receipts from the 2nd cent. B.C., w-ritten upon clay 
tablets (ostraca), have been found in the neigh- 
bourhood of Thebes. Among the names of the 
tax-collectors who grant such discharges there are 
many which are undoubtedly Jewish : cy. lacrtj-rro! 
Ajfcfoioi', lajfTT^TTtos, —a/x^aTaLOS A^ltjXov, T^a^fiaffaLOS 
ZoWoi'utos, ^i/xaji/ la^apov, ^t/j-wv A^njXov (see the 
collection in Wilcken, GricLhischc Ostra/ca, vol. i. 
1899, p. 523 f. ). A papyrus emanating from the 
same time and place contains a fragment of a 
letter, from which we learn that a Jew, named 
Aai/oouXos, had failed of his engagement to make 
delivery of a horse (Grenfell, An Alexandrian 
Erotic Fraymcnf, 1896, p. 75). On tax-receipts of 
the time of Trajan we repeatetUy encounter the 
name of one Avtuvio^ JlaXx""" who had charge 
of the harbour dues (? ; 6pfxo<pv\aKla) at Syene, on 
the southern border of Up]ier Egypt (Wilcken, 
Griechische Ostra/ca, ii. Nos. 302-304, cf. i. p. 273). 
As general evidence of the diffusion of the Jews 
' as far as the borders of Ethioi)ia,' we have tlie 
above cited testimony of Philo. The great extent 
of their numbers in the Thebaid is best shown 
by the circninstance that in the time of Trajan 
they rose in arms here, as in the lest of Egypt, 
against the non-Jewish inhabitants (Euseb. Chron., v 
ed. Schoene, ii. 164f. ).* i 

6. CVRENAICA. — Here too the Jewish Diaspora ^ 
was piesent in force. Even Ptolemy Lagi is said i 
to have sent Jewish colonists thither (Jo.s. c. Aini/n. 
ii. 4 [Niese, § 44]). The Roman despatch of l' Mac 
I.')-'-' lacsupposes the presence of Jewish inhabitants 
in t'yrene. According to Strabo, the population 
of the latter city in the time of Sulla fell into fonr 
classes : citizens, farmers, mctoikoi, Jews (Strabo 
ap. Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2 : T^rrapis S' fi<rav iv tt; irjXei 
ru}i/ Kvp^^vciiwp, ij re twc TroXLTwf Kai t] tuv ytwpywv, 
rpirtj 5' T) ru'v fj.€TotKO}v , TeTdprrj 5' 7} twv lovdaiijjv). At 
that time the Jews already played a prominent 
in the <lisHirliances which Lucullns, on the occasion 
of his incidental presence, had to allay (Strabo, l.r. ). 
A Jewish TroXlrevfia in the citj' of Berenike in 
Cyrenaica is brought to our knowledge by a 
length}' inscription (C/G 5361 ; see more fully, below 

§ ii. ). Augustus and Agrippa took measures in 
favour of the Jews of Cyrene (Jos. A nt. xvi. \i. 1,5). 
We have a number of testimonies in the NT to the 
presence of Jews in Cyienaica : Jit 27"', ilk ]5-\ 
Lk 23-" (Simon the Cyrenian) ; Ac 2'" (Cyrenians 
present at Jerusalem .at the Feast of Pentecost) ; 
6" (a synagogue of the Cyrenians at Jerusalem); 
11-" (Cyrenians come from Jerusalem to Antioch) ; 
13' (Lucius of Cyrene a prominent member of the 
church at Antioch). In the time of Vespasian 
the Jewish siearii also found adherents among 
their co-religionists in Cyrene (Jos. BJ Vlll. xi. ; 
Vita, 76). The great rising of the Jews in 
Cyrenaica in the time of Trajan was marked by 
terrible violence (Die Cass. Ixviii. 32; Euseb. HE 
iv. 2). 

7. North Africa. — Here we can demonstrate 
the presence of Jews, during the Roman period, 

• The diffusion of Semites throughout Ef;.vpt in the earlier 
Ptolemaic period is witnessed to also by a papjTus probably of 
the year d.c. 24Q-239, in whi<!h a major-dmno makes a return of 
the personiu'l of his house for taxation purposes. He enumer- 
ates amongst others the yiapyoi uitr9^ 'S.a.^apo; Vxyitro^Sxx?, Ux^ 

KpxTspo; %Tu?.xi; Marav^ccx^ (Wilcken, Griechiitche Ostraka, i. 
436, and ,ilso the correction on p. 823). But the Semites here 
named may be Phcenicians or Philistines equally well with Jews. 
For inscriptions in Egypt, see CIS i. Nos. 97-113 ; 
Rtpertoiir d'l'pigyaphie semitique, i. I'JOl, Nos. 1-4. 




from the border of C3-renaiea to tlie extreme west 
(if., especially, Moiiceaux, ' Les colotiieH- jiiives 
clans TAfriijue Roiuaiiie' in liEJ xliv. [laW] 1-28). 
^\'e do not know when or how they came there, 
lint, as the nei{j;hbo\irin^ Cyrenaiea was lar;.'ely 
.settled by Jews as early as the I'toleinaie iieiicHl, 
the colonization of Africa will also have bejinn 
then, at least that of iiruconsiilar Africa, and later 
that of NiiMiidia and .Mauretaiiia. 

a. I'liirunsiihir A/rini. At t'arthn<;e there has 
been discovered an extensive .lewish cemetery, 
containiiif; more than l(Xl vaults, each with from 
1') to 17 liiruli. Its Jewish character is shown by 
the freijuent portrayal of the .seven - branched 
candlestick (see Dclattre, Gnmait on In itn-m/nilc 
Jiiifc </c Ciiilliiitjr, Lyon, 1895; for Latin inscrip- 
ti(ms from this cemetery, see CIL viii. Suppl. Nos. 
14il!)7-141l4). The work luli: Jiiilaus, attributed 
to Tertullian, presupposes the jjresence of Jews 
in C'artha;;e. At HammAm-Lif, not far from 
Carthage, the foundations of a synaj,'o;;ue of the 
lioman iieriod have been discovered, upon the 
mosaic floor of which there are Jewish in.scriiitions 
in the Latin lauftuage (Kenan, licnir nn/irnl., 
trois. Serie, i. [KSH8] 157-1()S, iii. (l.SS4| 27:i 27'), 
plates vii-xi ; Kaufnuinn, liEJ xiii. [IS.Sti] 4."> til ; 
Keinach, ib. 217-223; Cff. viii. Sup|il. No. 12457). 
At Oea in Tripolis the Christian bishop in the 
time of Augustine consulted the Jews there about 
a passage in Jerome's new translation of the Bible 
(Augnstine, Epiit. Ixxi. 3, 5). Un the Peutinger 
Table there is mention of a place in the same 
neighbourhootl, called ' Juda'orum Augnsti.' 
•^ b. yiiiiiiilia. The presence of Jews at Hippo is 
- 'evident from Augustine, Serm. cxcvi. 4. At Cirta 
■Sthere are Latin inscriptions (CIL viii. Nos. 7150, 
t'^7155, 7530 [cf. Add. p. 905], 7710). 

C. Mdurcttinia. At Sititis there are Latin in- 
scriptions {VI L viii. Nos. 8423, 8499). At Tipasa 
there was a Jewish synagogue, at Ca'sarea the 
house of a Jewish 'ruler of the synagogue' is 
mentioned (see the evidence from processes against 
martyrs in Monceaux, KE.I xliv. 8). Even in the 
extreme west of Mauretania, at Volubilis, a He- 
brew inscription, probably of the Roman period, 
has been fouiul (l!erger, lUilhtiii iniluul. ilu comiti 
</c.v triivtiKX histtiiiquis, |N!)2, jip. (j4-()0, pi. xiii). 

8. MacKWiXIA A.\I) G liKECi.:— Tht; most im- 
jmrtant testinumy is that of I'hilo, or of the letter 
of Agiippa to Caligula which he quotes (see above, 
p. 92"). Thes.saly, Uieotia, Macedonia, /Etolia, 
Attica, Argos, Corinth, and, finally, ra irXtiffra Koi 
ipiara n«XoirovvTi<7-o«, arc named by liira as countries 
where Jews dwell. If we compare this general 
statement with the meagre special testimonies that 
are available, we see liow full of Ifirunm our infor- 
mation is. Interesting dates are furnished by two 
manumission-deeds from Delphi. In the one a 
certain Atisidas gives their liberty to three Jewish 
female slaves (aw/iara yvvatKua rpia. aU dvo^iara 'Avtl- 
ydva rbyivoi 'Xovbalav Kal ras ^i-yar^pat aiTay QfoSupav 
»ai Aupodiaf) ; in the other the subject of manumis- 
Bi<m is described as <Tut^a avSpeiov (fi tvo^a 'locSotoy t6 
7f>05 '\ovSalov {S(i))iiiih(n<i (h r (fricchisc/ien DifilcLt- 
Iiiaihriffrn, herausg. voii Collitz, IJd. ii. Heft 3-5 
[1892-1890], Nos. 1722, 2li29). Since these docu- 
ments iHjlong to the hrst half of the 2nd cent, u.c, 
we have to do in all probability w itii prisoners of 
w ar of the Maccaba-an ])eriod who had lieen sold 
into .slavery in Greece. From 1 Mac lo-^ it is 
evident that at the same date there were Jews 
also in Sparta and Sicjon. In the time of St. 
I'aul there were Jewish synagogues at Philippi, 
The.s-salonica, Bcra-a, Athens, Corinth (Ac Iti-'- 
171. iu. 17 184.7) For Jewish-tJieek inscriptions at 
Athens, see CI Attic, iii. 2, Nos. 3545, :«46, ;ij47 ; 
at I'atrie, CIG 9Sr() ; in Laconia and Thessalonica, 
liEJ \. 77 f.; at Mantinea, l:EJ xxxiv. 148. 

aXTRA VOL. — 7 

In the great islands of Enbcea, Cyprus, and Cret« 
the Jews were very numeruiiM. All three are 
named by I'hilo in the letter of .Vgrimm (»e« 
aUive). For Cyprus, cf. also 1 Mac 1.")^, Ac 4" 
11* 13'" : ,\m.'A,>t. XIII. X. 4. In the time of 
Trajan the .lews in Cyprus massacred thousamls 
of the non-Jewish iMipulation and devastated the 
capital, Salainis. For this they were completely 
rooted out of the island (l)io Cass. Ixviii. 32; 
Kuseb. C/iroii., e<l. Schoene, ii. 104 f.). For Crete, 
cf. 1 Mac 15^ ((iortyna); Jos. Ant. .Will. xii. I, 
liJ n. vii. 1, Vita, 70. 

Of the other islands there is mention in I Mac 
15™ of Delos, Samos, Cos, and KIiimIcs. "The three 
last named were oil' the coast of ('aria. The settle- 
ment of Jews in them would thus lie connected 
with their settlement in Caria. At Cos, as early 
as the time of Mithridatcs, we hear of great sums 
of .lewish UKiney Ijeing carried otf by thai monarch 
(Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2: to, t^d 'loioaiui. OKTaKcxria 
ToKavTo.). KIkkIcs was in the lirst half of tiie 1st 
cent. li.C. the home of two prominent authors who 
wrote against the Jews, viz. I'osidonius and Ajiol- 
lonius ,\I(don (both c(jmb.ated by Josejihus in his 
work I'. A/iio)i.). In the time of Tiberius a gram- 
marian named Diogenes lived there, whose luiliit 
it was to hold disputations onlj' on the Sabhatli 
day (Sueton. Tihcr. 32). Delos, owing to its |)oliti- 
cal and commercial importance during the Greek 
perio<l, was a meeting-point for Oriental traders. 
Thai Jews with a Greek education were settled 
there alamt Ii.C. 100 at the latest, is shown 
by two Greek inscriptions emanating from the 
island of Kheneia (the burying-place of the in- 
habitants of Delos). The two inscriptions in 
question are of an imprecatory order, invoking 
Divine vengeance on the unknown murderers of 
two m.aidens. The prayers are uncpiestionalily 
Jewish ; the inscriptions are shown by the char- 
acter of the writing to be not later than the end 
of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st cent. Ii.c. 
(cf., <m these interesting inscriptions, Deissmann, 
/'/»Vo/w/».v, Ixi. [19112] 2.rJ 2051. Acts in favour of 
the Jews of Delos, l.ilonping to the time of Cn-sjir, 
are quoted by .loscphus in Ant. XIV. x. Sand 14. 
We iK-tve evidence, further, of the pre.sence of 
Jews at I'aios (Jos. Ant. XIV. x. 8), Melos {Ant. 
XVII. xii. 1 ; BJ II. vii. 1), and ^iigina {CIO 

9. Home. — When we pass to Italy, we find that 
Home in p.articular was the home of a Jewish com- 
munity which could be counted by thousands. 
According to Valerius Maximus (i. iii. 2), Jews 
were expelled from Home by the pr;etor Hispalus 
as early as the year li.c. 139, in con.seqiience of 
their attempts at proselytizing (the passage, which 
has not survived in the original, reads thus, as 
extr.actcd by Nepotianus: "Juda^os quoque, qui 
Komanis tradere sacra sua conati erant, idem 
Hispalus url)e exterminavit' ; or, a-s given by 
Fans : ' Idem Juda-os, qui Sabazi Jovis cultu 
Koinanos inlicere mores conati erant, re|)etere 
domos suas coegit ' [Sabazius is a I'hiygian 
divinity ; there is here manifestly a contusion 
with 'Lajiaui6= Heb. n-K2s ZeOuith]). Since, accord 
ing to 1 Mac 14-' 15">-", at that very time (u.c. 
140-139) a Jewish embassy was sent to Itoiiie by 
the higli priest Simon, it would appear lus if the 
propaganda referred to had Iwen the work of 
parties in the train of this embassy (not the work 
of the members themselves). 

The earliest witness to the existence of a Jewish 
colony in Italy (ic. probably in Home) is Cicero, 
pro i'laeco, 28, from whom we learn that already 
in the time of Flaccus (i.e. U.C. 02-01) Italy was 
one of the places from which Jewish money wa.s 
wont to be sent to Jerusalem. It was just then 
Jewish community at Home received a 




large reinforcement through tliose of tlieir country- 
men whom l*om|)ey brought there as prisoners of 
war (r..C. (il). The latter were sold as slaves, but 
were soon afterwards set at lilierty, as tliey proved 
an awkward possession to their masters (Philo, 
Legi.ttio ad Gitinm, § 23 [ed. Mangey, ii. 568]). 
There were many Jews in tlie audience wlien 
Cicero delivered his speech in defence of Flaccus, 
in the year B.C. 59 (Cicero, I.e.). On the death of 
( 'a>sar, their great protector, a multitude of Jens 
continued their lamentations for whole nights be- 
side liis funeral pyre (Sueton. Cwsnr, 84). " In the 
time of Augustus the Jews were already counted 
by thousands; we are told that a .lewis'h deputa- 
tion, which came to Rome after the death of Herod, 
was joined on its arrival by 8000 Jews (Jos. ^4 «(;. 
.xvil." xi. 1 ; BJ II. vi. 1). liy the time of Tiberius 
repressive measures had begun. A resolution of 
the Senate was passed in the year A. D. 19, whereby 
all tlie Jews in Rome capable of bearing arms were 
deported to Sardinia to perform military service 
there, while the rest were banished from the city 
(Jos. Ant. XVIII. iii. 5 ; Sueton. Tihei: 36 ; Tac. 
Annrd. ii. 85; the last named speaks of banish- 
ment from Italy). This measure was inspired 
mainly by Sejanus ; after the fall of the latter, in 
A.D. 31, Tiberius once more adopted a friendly 
jiolicy towards the Jews (Philo, Leijixtio ad Gaiiiiii, 
S 24 [ed. Mangey, ii. 569]). We may therefore 
sui>pose that he granted them permission to return 
to the city. In any case, they had once more 
gathered in Rome at the time of Claudius, for he, 
too, made an attempt to expel them from the city. 
Suetonius tells us that this step was taken owing to 
the violent tumults 'impulsore Chresto' [i.e. occa- 
sioned by the preaching of Clnist]. But the edict 
of banishment, issued priibalily in the year 49, was 
not enforci-d, lnit ic~tiiitiil >iiiiply to a prohibiting 
of any asMMiililiiiu cm tin- pini nt the Jews (a decree 
of expulsion is spok.-ii of in Ac Is- and by Sueton. 
Claud. 25 ; but, according to Dio Cass. Ix. 6, 
Claudius, owing to the difficulty of carrying it into 
effect, contented himself with withdrawing from 
the Jews the right of assembly [eKeXevae ii.t\ avva- 
Bpoti'caSai]. The year 49 is given as the date by 
Orosius [VII. vi. 15], who appeals, incorrectly 
indeed, to Josephus). Since the prohibition of 
assembling was ccpiivalent to a prohibition of 
worship, the existence of the Jews in Rome was 
seriously endangered. But they succeeded, we 
know not how, in surviving even this crisis as we'l 
as many later ones, for, as Dio Cassius (xxxvii. 17) 
sums up their history, ' though often oppressed, 
they always exhibited the most vigorous power of 
growth.' Educateil Roman society looked down 
on them with contempt. Tlie satirists, Horace, 
I'ersius, Martial, Juvenal, made them the butt of 
tlieir wit (cf. Hausrath. A'f»^;^Y. Znfgca-hkhte^, 
iii. 383-392). Yet they constituted a factor of no 
little importance in public life. Even at the Im- 
perial court they entered into manifold relations, 
whether as slaves or as officials of higher rank. 
The Jewish societies of the KvyovaT-qaioi and tlie 
' kypi-wTT-fiaioi (see, on these, below, § ii. ) were in all 
probability societies formed of placemen of Augus- 
tus and Agrippa. The empress Livia had a Jewish 
slave, Akme (Jos. Ant. XVII. v. 7 ; BJ I. xxxii. 6, 
xxxiii. 7). The emperor Claudius had friendly 
rel.'itions with Alexander [par. lci:t. Lysiniachus], 
the .leuisli alabarch of Alexandria, who had served 
his mother Antonia as minister of finance (Jos. 
Ant. XIX. V. 1). At the court of Nero we find a 
.Jewish actor, Alityrus (Jos. Vita, 3). Popprea 
herself is spoken of as 6eoiTil3-/is, and she was always 
ready to lend her aid in obtaining a favourable 
response from the emperor to petitions brought to 
him by Jews (Jo.s. Ant. XX. viii. 11 ; Tita, S). 
The dwellings of the Jews were situated at first 

and predominantly in the division of the city 
across the Tiber, which they occupied entirely in 
the time of Augustus (Philo, Lcijatio ad Gni'nm, 
§ 23 [ed. Mangey, ii. 568] ; Trjp Tripav rod ti^ipeui 
■jroTafj.ou fieyoKiqv t^s 'Pw^i;? a.TroTO^r]v, ^v ovk Tjyvjei 
KaT€xofj.epijv Kal oiKovfj.€t't)v irpbs 'louSaiuji'). But at a 
later period they spread into other divisions of tlie 
city as well. We find them in the Caniims Martins 
and in the very midst of the Roman business world, 
namel}', in the Subura (see below, § ii. ). Juvenal 
makes the jocular assertion that the sacred grove 
of Egeria before the Porta Capena was let to 
Jews and swarmed with Jewish beggars {Sat. iii. 
12-16). As to the internal organization of the 
communities and the stage of culture they had 
reached, we derive information from the numerous 
tomb-inscriiitions, composed for the most part in 
bad Greek but also in Latin, which have been 
found in the subterranean burying-places before 
the gates of Rome. These belong to somewhere 
between the 2nd and 4th cent. A.D. The Greek 
tomb-inscriptions known up to about fifty years 
ago are collected in CIG iv. Nos. 9901-9926.' They 
emanate probably for the most part from a cemetery 
before the Porta Portuensis which was discoveied 
in 1602, but whose site is now unknown. Rich 
materials were supplied by the cemetery discovered 
some forty years ago in the Vigna Randanini on 
the Via Appia (cf. Garrucci, ('////''■ /" d, -di niitirlil 
Ehrei .^coperto reccntcmente in ]'riii'i J,'-iiid,iiiiiti, 
Roma, 1862; also the same milhoa'r. Disscituzioiii 
nr-h'^olugiche di vario argomcnto, vol. ii. Roma, 
1865, pj). 150-192). Since then some other ceme- 
teries ha\e been discovered, but these do not con- 
tain many inscriptions. Five inscriptions from a 
cemetery in Porto are given, fium i niiiiiiunicatiuns 
of 'de Rossi, by Derenbourg in Mititmir.'i L'liii-r, 
1887, pp. 437-441. For some Latin ones, see (7L 
vi. Nos. 29756-29763. A complete collection of all 
the Jewish-Greek and Latin tomb-inscriptinus at 
Rome known down to 1896 is given by \ I'ui'Utciii- 
Rieger in Gcschichte dcr Juden in lumi. i. [Ism;] 
459-483. See also Berliner, Geschiclitc di r J ndrn 
in Rom, i. [1893]. 

10. TuE REST OP Italy, and Spain, Gaul, 
Germany. — The presence of Jews in these locali- 
ties is not for the most part demonstrable before 
the period of the later empire. Relative antiquity 
belongs to the Jewish community at Puteoli (Dik;e- 
archia), the principal port for the trade between 
Italy and the East. In addition to Pha-nieians and 
other Orientals we meet here with Jews as well, at 
the latest about the beginning of the Christian era 
(Jo.s. Ant. XVII. xii. 1 ; BJ II. vii. 1). But even in 
a petty town like Pompeii their presence is demon- 
strable at the date of the destruction of the place, 
A.D. 79. The names 'Sodoma' and 'Gomora' are 
scratched on the wall of a house ; and not only 
' Mari.a,' which might be the feminine of Marius, 
but ' Martha,' occurs. The following also are found 
on earthen vessels: ' mur[ia] cast[a],' and 'gar[um] 
cast[um] or cast[imoniale],' with which cf. Pliny, 
MN xxxi. 95 (Mau, Pompeji in Lebcn und Kunst, 
1900, p. 15 f.). 

In the period of the later empire the Jews were 
specially numerous in Southern Italy (see Neu- 
bauer, 'The Early Settlement of the Jews in 
Southern Italy ' in JQR iv. [1892] 606-625). In 
Apulia anil Calabria during the 4th cent, there 
were many places w lime the communal offices could 
not be propriiy lillcd, because the Jewish inhabit- 
ants .Iccli I to accept them (see the decree of the 

empiiiiis Aii:i(lius and Honorius [A.D. 398] in 
Cddix J /n ndnxiani'.s, XII. i. 158). At Venosa 
(Venusia in Ajmlia, the birthplace of Horace) a 
Jewish catacomb has been discovered, with numer- 
ous inscriptions in Greek. Latin, and Hebrew, be- 
longing to somewhere about the 6th cent. A.D. 




(Asi'oli, Isrriziutii inedite o mal note fjreche latino 
ebrtiif/ie di untiihi sepuleri g'nidiiici ilel Nri/iuli- 
t'liw, Torino, 1S80 ; CIL ix. Nos. 6 1 95-r):>4 1 ). 
During this later periixl \vc meet with .lews iils<i 
at Tiirentuni, Capua, and Na]>lcs, as well as in all 
tlie |irin(i|ial towns (Syracuse, Paleniio, Messina, 
A^'ri;.'iMituni) of Sieily. — They Jo not appear to have 
heeii ijuite so thiek'ly settleil in .S ort In: rn Ilfi/i/. 
Vet we iiiul them here too in Mio«t of the larger 
towns (IJavenna.Aquileia, IJologna, Brescia, Milan, 
Genoa I. 

For the other provinces of tlie AVest, Spiiin, 
Gniil, Gerinan)/. the testimonies likewise com- 
mence about tlie 4l\\ cent. A.U. As it does not 
fall within the scope of the present article to 
examine all these in detail, wc would refer the 
reader to Frieillander, Dar-ilclliiiitjen aiis di:r 
Sit(eiir)e-ic/ii(/ile Jiaiiix, iii. [1871] 511 f. ; the same 
uulhov's dc Jiidwonim Colwiih, Kiinigsherg, 1876; 
and, above all, Th. lleinach, art. 'Judjei' in 
Darcmberi; - Saglio's Dictiunnaire dcs Antiqultcn 
gri'-ipirs et rumaincs. 

ii. ( ii;i;.\NizATioN OF THE Communities.— 
K\cry where where Jews lived together in any 
nnmlier, they organized themselves into societies, 
with a view to maintaining their uniqueness, safe- 
guarding their interests, and practising their wor- 
ship. It is certain that this organization was not 
everywhere the same. DiH'erences in regard to 
the pos.session of political rights, differences in 
the degree of autnority they were allowed to 
exercise, differences in the stage of cullVITe in tlic 
various jilaces where Jews lived, brought with 
them cliffcrciucs also in the internal organization. 
Where tlii-y formed an imposing political power, 
tlie const it ut 11 111 was ditlereiit from what it was in 
instances where they formed only petty, modest, 
private societies. lievertheless, there are certain 
common features that run through almost the 
whole body of the immense Jewish Diasjiora. Wc 
can prove both these points from a variety of ex- 
amples, although in many instances we are unable 
to pursue the iletails. 

We know practically nothing about the con- 
stitution of the Jewish communities in t\ui Eiij)h- 
rntcs distrirt.t in pre-Talnuidic times. Our surve3- 
must thus conlinc itself to the communities within 
the sphere of the Itoinan sway. 

At Alcxdndiin the .lews, owing to their large 
numbers and their political inlluence, found tliem- 
sehes in a peculiarly favourable situation. Al- 
though they possessed the rights of citizens (see 
below, § iv.), they constituteil a State within a 
State. Not only had they their own residential 
quarters, as mentioned above, but they formed an 
almost independent eomniunity, with a kind of 
nioiiarcliical head. Their constitution is thus de- 
scribed by Slrabo {rip. Jos. Ai)t. XIV. vii. 2) : ' But 
there is also an ctliiianh at their head, who rules 
the ]ieii|ilc and di^piiises justice, and sees that 
oliligations are fullillcd and statutes observed, like 
the arclion of an independent State' (KaOioTHTai Si 
Kai 4dvdpxv^ aiVriif, 6s oioiKei re t6 ^Ofos nai Siatr^ 
Itp.'(rei5 Kal ircju/SoXalMV (iri/ifXciTai Kal TrpoiXTa.yfiiTui', 
ws &v vo\tTtlas &px^v ai'Tor(\o'js). The maintaining 
of this independence was materially facilitated 
during the Imperial period bv the circumstance 
that, fiom the last of the "Ptolemies down to 
Septimius Severus, Alexandria, unlike nearly all 
Hellenistic towns, had no city Senate (Spartian, 
Scvcru.i, 17 ; Dio Ca.ssius, li. 17). In the time of 
Augustus a certain modilication of the con<lition 
of things appears to have taken place. It is, 
indeed, noted in the decree of the emperor 
Claudius {np. Jos. A»t. XIX. v. 2) that even 
Augustus, after the death of the ethnarch who 
held oliice during the administration of Aquila 
[111 11 .\.i)., see Ejihemeris Epigraphica, vii. 448 

{ = CIL iii. Suppl. No. 12ii40)], 'did not prevent 
the appointment of cthiiarclis' (xai Kal)' iv »oi(x)» 
Afc-c.Xat ^v (f 'Wi^afSpd^, TfXfi'Hiffairros tou tCjv 
'lovoiiluo iOiiapxov, rbv i^tftarrir fii) KiKuXi'Kifai 
iVvapxas yi-yiKaeai.). Hut the whole object of 
Claudius in this decree is to insist that even 
under Augustus the political rights and the re- 
ligions freedom of the .lews in .Mexandria had not 
lieen diminished. This is not at all irreconcilaide 
with a certain modilication of the internal con- 
stitution. But we are expressly told by I'hilo that 
such a nioitilieatiou introduced by Augustus. 
His statement is to the effect that', when the 
Jewish gcnurch died, Magius Maxinius, who was 
on the |)oint of undertaking for the second time 
the office of administrator of Egyjit, received in- 
structions from Augustus that a ('/rnisi'i was to lie 
aj>ix)inted to manage the all'airs of the Jews (in 
tituriim, § 10 [ed. Mangey, ii. ■)27f.]: rijt i^ntripat 
76poi'crias, fjo 6 ffUTTjp Kal (vfpy^TTjs i'e/jaffT6s f'lrcufXTfiro- 
fxiv-qv tCjv '\ovhakKCiv fcXfro, /tcra rT)V toO 7<cdpxov 
reXecT?';!', hia Tujt* irpbs "Siayvov "Sia^ifiov iVToKuVj 
Ix^Wovra TToKiv itr' Aiyi'nTov Kai ttjs X^P^^ itnrpoTrtvfw 
[the traditional Md7>'oi' of the MSS is incorrect, 
the name was Maffitis Maxinius, see i.'IL ix. No. 
1125]). Accordingly, wo may probably snniiose 
that the dilltreuce between this later anJ the 
earlier organizatiim consisted in the substitution 
of a gerusin for the iiionarcliical authority of the 
ethnarch, or in the setting up of a gcntxin side by 
side with him. In favour of the latter supposition 
it can be urged that the decree of Cluiulius ap- 
|)ears to jiresuppose the continued existence of 
ethiiardis even after the interposition of Augustus. 
.\t the same time, it is also possible that Claudius 
only means to say in general that the Jews still 
continued to have their own superiors {fOfipxai). 
The yepovaia and the dpxovTis at its head are 
further mentioned by I'hilo several times in the 
same context (S 10 [ed. Mangey, ii. .528] : Tuy dxi 
Ti)S ytpovaias rptU &v5p€s ; ih, fierarefji^afji^i'if) irpWfpow 
Toi'S -q^eripovs dpxoyras ; ih. p. 528 f. toi>s dpxovras, 
TT)v yfpovaiaf ; ih. S 14 [p. 534] tu*** fjuv apxdvTwi'). 
.Iose|)lius mentions the Trpurtvoirm ttj! yfpovalas 
(li.J VII. X. 1). According to the principal pas.sage 
of riiilo (§ 10 [ed. Mangey, ii. 527 f.]), I'laccus 
caused thirty-eight memliers of the gmnti't to lie 
dragged into the theatre and scourged there. The 
whole number was, accordingly, greater than this; 
it may have boin seventy, after the model of the 
Sanhedrin , at Jerusalem. In any case the dpxo""} 
were not the whole body of the yeooraia, but only 
its committee of management. Tnis is not 
only from tlie statements of I'hilo, but from the 
standing usage of the (!reck word." — A widely 
diffused error is the identification of the Kgyptian 
alahiirih with the Jewish ct.'innrch. The lirst 
named oliice was a purely civil one, althougii, of 
course, it was repeatedly held by Jews of note (see 
below, § iv. ). 

* In the atiove account no re^rd ia paid to a passa;;c in the 
Letter of Aristeoti, which, if its teniis were more precise, would 
supply us with information ref^rdiii^ the organization of the 
Alexandrian Jews alx>ut the year B.c. 200. The ^wissa^'e 
(AriKtete EpiM., ed. Wendland, { S10> reads ; rritti: ci itfttt^K^i 
T4»» ifi^^natr «i Vfitf?i/rtp4i xtt^i rw ari rtZ tf>.iT%ifjtMTa: m ti 

r.yoi^uuti T«u irAr.fisw uTtt (this, which is the text of our MSS, is 
reproduced exoitly in Euseh. I'rwp. Emng. viil. v. «; Jos. 
AnI. xu. ii. 13 [ed. Niese, 5 108] jtiies a free summary of the 
content* of the passai^e). Since there is no sufficient n'ason for 
deletiuf; the ti l>efore i.ytCuuat, there are four classes men- 
tioned : (1) the priests, (2) the eldcn of the interprelem, (S) Ihc 
elders of the T»)..Tnyu« of the Jews, (4) the iyi.uitii itZ T>..««t/r 
(cf. the explanation of Wcndland in t\>lK:hntt uir.loh. Wthlm. 
lOOO, p. lis). The la^t two classes answer to the >i«;r.« and 
the upx^^ft! as or..'anizc<l hy Auiruslus. It would thus apit-ar 
as if the on^nization in those earlv times had tM.en similar to 
what it o^'ain hecanie sulisequent to the time of Auu'iistus, 
whereas in the intcn-eninjr perio*l it had more of a nuinarchiral 
form. There is, indeed, nnthinir stranBc in a modification ol 
the constitution hsviiig taken plac.- more than once in the 
course of three ci'ntnries. Out the stntPment of ps«udo- 
Aribteas ia too vague U> build certain conclusions upon. 




When we take a survey of what we know otlier- 
■vv'ise about the constitution of the communities of 
the Diaspora, certain common features show them- 
selves amidst many local ditterences. 

1. One point in which a difference shows itself 
concerns the name for the commtinity. In so far as 
the latter forms an independent political corpora- 
tion, it is called iroXiTcuiio. This term, however, 
is found only in the case of Alexandria (Aristcin 
Epist. § .310), and of Berenike in Cyrenaica. In 
the latter instance the word occurs in a decree set 
up by the Jewish community in honour of the 
Roman governor, M. Tittius (CIG 5361 ; see fac- 
simile in Roschach's Catalogue of the Museum of 
Toulouse [where the inscription now is], Musce clc 
Touluusc, CutahiffKC iks Antiqiiifcs, 1865, No. 
225) : ISo^e roh 6.pxovai Kai rifi TroXiTevtMari twv iv 
Bfpfj'kB 'XovSaiuiv. The names of the dpx'"'"' ^^'''° 
stood at the head of the TroXireuMa are given at the 
beginning of the decree ; there are nine of them. 
(On the use of iroXireufia in a similar sense, see 
Perdrizet, ' Le TroXirev/j-a des Cauniens k Sidon ' in 
Scriic archiul., trois. Serie, xxxv. [1899] 42-48 ; 
and Wendland, Aristece Epist., Index, s.v.). 

In most towns the Jews formed at first a colony 
of foreigners side by side with the body of citizens. 
This is the condition implied in the expressions 
KaToiKia (inscription at Hierapolis : dditrei xrj KaroiKif 
Tuji' fc 'lepaTTiiXet KaTotKOiVrwc 'Iot'5atuji/ ; cf. Ramsay, 
Expositor, Feb. 1902, p._96f.), Xais (inscription at 
Hierapolis ; dTroTeio-ei rf Xay tuv 'lordaiiii'), tOvos 
(inscription at Smyrna : Siijet rm lOyei Twu'lovoaiuu).* 
These various designations all express the fact 
that the Jews belonged to a foreign nation, and in 
Greek towns wei'e counted non-citizens. 

The commonest designation, however, especially 
in later times, is <n(vo7<j7>j. In Greek usage this 
word occurs onlj' in the sense of ' assembly,' 
' festal gathering.' Thus, for instance, c. 200 B.C., 
in the so-called Testament of Epikteta (CIG 2448 
= In-scriptiones Grmcm insulariim maris .iEqwi, 
fasc. iii. No. 330), the society which is to attend 
to the hero-cult instituted by Epikteta is called 
Tb Koivjv, but the annual gathering of the society 
avvayi^a. (col. iv. line 23 f. rav &i aivayur/av , . . 
yiveirOai f^ fiijvi AfX^H'iu ev riji ixovadsf /cnS' Hkohttov 
(Tos afiepai rpeis). I$ut in Jewish usage crvmyuryri 
stands for the conimnnity as a corporation (in the 
LXX it mostly represents n-iy ; see art. Congre- 
gation in vol. i.). This term has the most general 
sense, and hence could be retained even when the 
Jews through Greek culture and participation in 
the rights of citizenshiji had become assimilated 
to the rest of the inhabitants. They then formed 
a ' society ' for the protection of their religious 
interests. We can adduce instances of the use of 
avpciyoiyri in this sense from inscriptions in Asia as 
well as at Rome. So, for instance, in Asia : at 
Phok^a {i} (n>vayu}yTj (T€i,u.7](Tev tCiv 'lovdacojif TaTiov 
ZTpcLToim), Akmonia in Phrygia (oi'S nvas rai i) 
(Tui'ayuiyr] Ireiixriaev), Pantikapteuni (avveTTiTfioTViovaT]^ 
bk Kai TTJs avvayiiTYV^ T-uJc 'Ioi'5atwi/). 

At Rome the Jews were not, as at Alexandria, 
organized as a single great eori)oration, such a 
thing being apparently not tolerated by the author- 
ities. They had, on the contrary, to content them- 
selves with the more modest position of a number 
of small private societies. Each society had its 
special name. The following names are preserved 
in the inscriptions : 1. (rvvayt^iyy) kiyovtrTijaiav (CIG 
9902, 9903 = l<"iorel!i, CntaU.rfo del Miiseo Nazioinde 
(li Napoli : Iscrizioni latiiie. Nos. 1956, 1960 ; 
CIL vi. No. 29757 : REJ xlii. 4). 2. <rvvayuyM 
'AypiVT-na-iui' (CIG 9U07). 3. ' Synagoga Bolumni ' 
(CIL vi. No. 29756). These three societies are 
named after prominent persons [Bolumnus is = 

* In the cnse of the inscriptions that have been already 
quoted in § i. we jjive here only the references. 

Volumnus], whether for the reason that the mem 
bers were in the service of these men (cf. Pk 4* 
oi f/c TTjs Kaiffapos oikios), or becatise the latter were 
the patrons of the societies. Since we meet with 
'AypiTnrri<noi as well as Airyoiwrijirioi side by side, 
the reference is doubtless to the first Augustus 
and his friend Agrippa. The name assumed by 
the societies would be retained even after the 
death of their patrons. Other societies take their 
name from the quarter of the city of Rome in 
which their members lived, namely, — 4. The 
KoMTiicioi, called after the Campus ^fartins (CIG 

9905 [more correctly in Garrucci, Dissertazioni, ii. 
188, No. 4] ; also Garrucci, I.e. ii. 161, No. 10 ; 
CIL vi. No. 29756 ' mater synagogarum Campi et 
Bolumni'). S. The li^ovp-qaioi, named from the 
Subura, one of the most frequented quarters in 
Ronie, a centre of trade and business life (CIG 
6447 = Fiorelli, Catalogo, No. 1954). The following 
additional synagogues are also known : — 6. A 
ffi'vri7U77) ki^piav, presumably that of the Hebrew- 
speaking Jews (CIG 9909 ; AlHanqcs Renier, 1887, 
p. 439 = Kaibel, Inscr. Gr. Sicil. et Itnl., No. 945). 
7. A aii«i7u77) 'EXaioj, named after the symbol of 
the olive tree (CIG 9904 ; de Rossi, BuUcttiiio di 
archeol. erist. v. p. 16). 8. At Porto a (ri'vayuyri 
Twv KapKap-ncritiii', which derived its name from the 
occupation of its members, who were calcaricnses, 
'lime-burners' (Melnngcs Rmiir.r, 440; and in CIG 

9906 we sliould in all probaljility read not Ka,u- 
Trrjaluy but KoXKO/jijaiui' [see Garrucci, Cindtcro, 
38 f.]). 

An isolated occurrence of another designation 
for the Jewish corporation of a city has yet to be 
mentioned, namely, the ' Univcrsitas Judmorum 
qui in Antiocherisium civitate constituti sunt.' 
This is found in an Imperial statute of the year 
A.D. 213 (Codex Justin. I. ix. 1). 

2. A pretty extensive uniformity appears to 
have prevailed in the matter of the organization 
and titles of the offieials of the community. Almost 
everywhere we have evidence that the managing 
committee bore the name apxovrts. 1. For Alex- 
andria we have to refer to the above-cited passages 
from Philo. 2. For Berenike in Cyrenaica see in 
like manner the above-mentioned inscrijition, 
according to which there were nine ipxevre^ at the 
head of the Jewish TroXirei'/in. 3. At Antioch a 
Jewish apx'^" is incidentally mentioned by Josephus 
(BJ \ll. iii. 3). 4. At Tlos in Lycia the ottice of 
Jewish archon (apxoxTila) is referred to in an in- 
scription (see above). 5. For North Africa we 
have the testimony of Tertullian, who names quite 
generally, amongst other Jewish oltices, that of 
6.pxav (fie Corona, 9 : ' Quis denique patriarehes, 
quis prophetes, quis levites aut sacerdos aut 
archon, quis vel postea apostolus aut evangelizator 
aut episcopus invenitur coronatus?'). It is there- 
fore extremely probable that the archon mentioned 
in a Latin inscription in Utica is a Jewish one 
(CIL viii. No. 1205, also Addenda, p. 931). 6. In 
Italy, too, the title appears to have been in general 
use. In a Homily for the birthday of St. John 
(printed among the works of Chrysostom in edi- 
tions prior to that of Montfaucon, e.g. ed. Paris, 
t. ii., 1GS7), which takes account of the conditions 
of Italy in the time of the later empire, it is made 
a matter of reproach to the Jews that, in opposi- 
tion to the law of God, they begin the year, not in 
spring but in the month of September : ' mensem 
Septembrem ipsum novum annum nuneupant, c/uo 
et mensc mri.qistratus .Hhi dcsignant, quos Archontas 
vacant.' When we turn to the Jewish inscriiitions 
of Italy we meet with the title at Capua (CIL x. 
No. 3905 'Alfius Juda arcon arcosynagogus'), at 
Porto near Rome (Kaibel, Inscr. Gr. Sicil. et Itnl., 
No. 949 KXai'aio! 'Iwffvjs fipx^i'), and with special 
frequency at Rome itself (CIG 9906, 6447, G337 ; 




riarnioci, Cimitero, 35, 51, 61, 67, also the same 
autlioi's Diisertaziimi, ii. 15S, No. 4, 164, Nos. 15, 
16, 17, 18 ; tie Uossi, liiillcttino, v. 16).— At Itoiiie 
each of the soeieties, it is rertain, had its own 
nrchons. They were eleeted, according' to the 
Huriiily just named, annually in the month of 
Si'iittinber. There niif;ht lie re-eleetion (Jit d.px'^', 
t7(r'',t!UU; Ganueci, Vimitrrd, 47); nay, it would 
aiipiiir as if an arclion mi^'ht he elected for life, for 
thi^ i> the prohahle nieaninj^ of the repeatedly 
riMiiiiin^' aid filov (CIL x. No. 1893 ' Ti. Claudius 
riiilipiius dia viu et {,'erusiarches ' ; CIG 9i)07 
ZwiTi^oj 5(a ^iov avvayuiyTj^ 'XypimnjirLtjv). Cf. , in 
j;eneral, Wesselin^', l>f Juildonim arrhontibus nil 
insiri/itiunon liircniioi.inii, 1738; Schiirer, Die 
liriiirinilifii-fassiiug <l(r Jiii/cn in Horn in der 
Knixrr.yit n„rh den Inschriflcn daiyestdlt, 1879. 

It is only for Italy that the [iresenee of the title 
Y<po\j<rLdpxvis or ycpovaiapxwv is demonstrable. 
The lirst ot tlii'si- I'oiiii^ i- l.iimd in the tomb- 
insiri|iticins at lioine (' 7'r' !l!Hi_' = l''iorelli, Cntaloqo, 
No. 1956; Garrucei, Cimitm,, 51, 62, 69, IJis- 
sertdzioni, ii. 183, No. 27) and in the nei^lihourliood 
of Naples {CIL x. No. 189.'j) ; the other occurs at 
Venosa {CIL ix. Nos. 6213, 6221). The title can 
have no other meaninfr than 'president of the 
ff'-nisin.' We thus learn from it, wliat without 
this evidence mi^'ht have been assumed, that the 
communities had not only ipxavres but also a 
yfpoivia. The fact that, in sjiite of this, the title 
Trp(c^iT(poi nowhere occurs in the numerous tomb- 
inscriptions at Kome, is instructive. The elders 
were not ollicials in the proper sense, thej* were 
the conlidential atlvisers ot the community. Hence 
jrpeu^iiTepof was not a title. It is not till a very 
late period that we hnd it so employed {e.ff. at 
%'enosa, and that even in the case of women, CIL 
ix. Nos. 6209, 6226, 623U, cf. also Codex Tlico- 
dosinnus, XVI. viii. 2, 13, 14). 

The office of apx^ruvdyuYOf (EV 'ruler of the 
syua-^'ojjue') was quite generally otablislied. We 
can prove its existence for all the leadinj; spheres 
of the Jewish I)iasi)ora. 1. E^-yiit (Hadrian's 
allc^;fd letter to Servianus np. X'opiscus, Vita 
S'ltiiniini, ^). 2. ,\sia Minor : -Antioch in I'isidia 
(.\c IS"'), Cilicia (Epiplian. llnr. xxx. 11), .Smyrna 
(in.scription in liKJ vii. 161 f.), Myndos in Caria 
{llEJ xlii. 1-4), Akmonia in Phrygia (.see aliove, 
p. 94", for in.scription ; in this instance an ipxiai'vi- 
varyos «id /Siou). 3. Greece : Corinth (Ac 18"- "), 
.Ej,'ina {CIC 9894). 4. Italy: Kome {CIG 99()6 ; 
(Jarrucci, (V»n7cro, 67), Cajnia (6'/i x. No. 3905), 
Venosa {CIL ix. Nos. 6201, 6'205, 6'232), Hrescia 
(Kaibcl, Inscr. Gr. Sicil. et ItaL, No. '23114). 5. 
Africa : HamniAni-Lif near Carthage (inscrijition 
on tlic mosaic pavement of the synagogue), Ciesarea 
in .Mauretania {Actd Maniamr, iv. 1 ; liEJ xliv. 
8). 6. The lioman empire in general {Codex 
Thiddosinnus, XVI. viii. 4, 13, 14). 

The duty of the apxi<'i'vayijrYO% \\a.a to take 
charge of the public worship. Since there was no 
official preacher in Jewish communities, any quali- 
iied member of the congregation being permitted 
to read the Scrijiture lessons or deli\er an address 
or had in prayer, it was necessary to have an 
official to direct and watch over the exercise of 
this freedom by the niember.s. This was the 
apxicvvdyi^o^ (Hel). nrjjn iTKT). He had to lix on 
the reader of the lessons ami the leader in prayer, 
and to invite competent pcr.-.ons to adilress the 
congregation (.\c 13'°). To him fell the ''eneral 
diily of seeing that nothing unscendy took place 
in the synagogue (I. k 13"), and he had iloubtless 
to take care also that the svnagoguc liuildings 
were kept in proper repair. He liclmigcd to the 
ninnbcr of i\\c IpxovTt^ <ji (he coiiimuiiity, but his 
office was a more special one than that of the 
HpXovTii in general ; hence the two olhces are 

named side by side as distinct ((,'/(»' 99(16 ; Garrucci, 
Cimitiro, 67 ; CIL x. No. 3905 ; Ac 14- [according 
to the text of I) : oi 5i apxiffiivd-yw-yoi Tutv 'lovSaiiijv 
Kal oi apxoyrcs T-fjj ffii'a^aryijv]). Since we meet 
with a yepoi'aidpxv' side l>v side with the d^x""'"''- 
7U705 in thelomb-inscriptionsof Home and Venosa, 
those two offices also are to be regarded as distinct. 
That is to say, the ipxicvvdyuyoi was not, as such, 
at the same time tlie head and president of the 
yepofffia. It is (juite jiossible, however, that out- 
.side Italy [it is only in this country that we hear 
of a yfpoi'aidpxv^] both offices were united in one 

Einally, we encounter pretty frequently in the 
inscriptions the titles pater synatiiym and vutter 
synngugiv : — irnT^p avvayuyTJi {C)G 9904, 9905, 
9908, 9909; Garrucci, Cimitero, 52, Disscrtazioni, 
ii. 161, No. 10; Melanges Jir.nier, 440); ' patei 
svnagogie' {CIL viii. No. 8499; Codex Tlieo- 
dosifinns, XVI. viii. 4) ; tottjp tcjx 'Efip^uiv {Melanges 
lienier, 439=Kail>el, Inscr. Gr. Sicil. el Hal., No. 
945); itaTii)p toD ar^naros {CIG 9897); iraTT]p \aov 
Sib. /3iou {RE.I xxxiv. 148) ; ' pater,' w ithout any 
addition ((Jarrucci, Dis.icrtaziuni, ii. 1(>4, No. 18; 
CIL ix. Nos. 6220, 6'221) ; 'mater synagoga^' (67i 
v. No. 4411, vi. No. 29756). The very circum- 
stance that the title is found in the feminine as 
well as the masculine form, makes it ])robahle 
that it does not stand for a comnmnal "ffire, 
strictly -so called. Nor are we to understand it of 
the patron of the community ; it was simply a 
title of honour given to aged members who had 
deserved well of the community (ef. the statement 
of ages in CIG 9904 ^riDi' har^,' (.vi<,) dha, and CIL 
vi. No. '29756 ' quas bixit an. Ixxxvi. meses vi.'). 

The employment of the terms ipxoi'res ami 
yfpovaia shows that the constitution of the Jews 
in the Uias[)ora nms im tin: coDnnnnal von- 
stitiition iif the Gi-ccl: eifi'-s. There are other 
traces besides this of the strong inlluence exercised 
by this model upon the external arrangements of 
the Jewish communitie.s. l,ike the Greek com- 
munes, the Jewish communities honoured deservin" 
men and women by the bestowal of a wreatli and 
of the proedrifi. Thus the community of Phokica 
honoured a woman who had taken upon herself 
the cost of building the .synagogue, XP""'? ('Te<pdv(p 
nai rpocSpif (see above, § i. ). The Jewish strateijos 
Chelkias was likewise honoured with a goklen 
wreath (Ankio fur Pajii/ni.i/urschimt;, i. [1900] 
48-56 ; nii.r xl. [19(M)] 50-54). The community of 
Berenike resolved regarding the Roman governor, 
who had shown liimself friendly to the Jews, 
<jT€(pavouv di'op.aaTL Katf' iKd'jTT}V aOvoSov. Kal yoi'fxrji'iay 
crTcipdi'ip ^Xdivip Kal \-riixvinKtp {CIG 5361). At Alex- 
andria lionorilic decrees and gifts of this kind, in- 
cluding also such as related to the emperors, were 
exhibited in the vestibules of the synagogues 
(Philo, ('n Flaceiim, § 7 [ed. Mangey, ii. 5'24]). 
Hence Philo complains that, when the syn.-igogues 
were wrecked by the Alexandrian mob, ' even the 
shields and golden wreaths and steles and in- 
scriptions in honour of the emperors' perished in 
the 'leneral destruction (Legatio ad Gainm, § 20 
[eii. NIangey, ii. 565] : Kal aitjiTrCj tAs avyKaOaipeQHaai 
Kal (Xvpiirprt<Tdtiaa% TuJv avroKparuptjjv Tip.a.$ dairibiitv Kal 
ffTetpapUf (irixpi'iTUf Kal (TT-ijXwt^ Kal 4iriypa<p^y). 

The inlluence of (Ireek processes of law shows 
itself in the Jewish legal in.strumenls alt'cting 
manumis.sion of slaves, found at Pantikapa'um 
(Latyschev, In.icriptioncs anliqnn: ora: .se/itentr. 
Ponti Enxini, Nos. .52, 53). — In A.sia Minor there 
was a widely recognized right to exact a money 
penalty for the unauthorized use of a grave. 
Hence in a multitude of tomb-inscriptions we lind 
a warning against >U( li an act, with a specilication 
of the line tliat would \tn incurred. Penal cautions 
of this kind, couched exactly in the terms usual in 




other quarters, may be read also on Jewish tombs 
at Smyrna, Hierapolis in Phrygia, Tlos in Lyeia, 
Korykos in Cilicia (see above, § i.). The tines are 
to be paid either to the Imperial Jlsciis or to the 
Jewisli community (rep (dnei. tCiv 'lovbaluv [at 
Smyrna], riji Xav tuiv 'lovialuiv, t^ Karoiicig. twv 
'lovbaibiv [at Hierapolis]), or to both. — To Greek 
influence should probably be attributed also the 
bestowal of titles and honorarj' offices upon women. 
In Greek communes and societies we encounter 
women with such titles as jrpiJrai'is, o-re0a»'7;0jpos, 
7ii/Xfa(rfapxos, dYoij'O^^rts, SfKCLTrpcoros ; so amongst 
the Jews we have apx'<'wdyuyot (at Smyrna {liEJ 
vii. 161 11".], and Myndos in C'aria [liEJ xlii. 1-4]), 
Trpeajivripa, and ' mater sj'nagoga; ' (see above). 

But, in spite of this extensive adoption of Greek 
forms, the influence of Greece upon the Jewish 
communities must not be exaggerated. Not only 
their religion, but even their civil law was retained 
by them as far as possible. Eveiywhere they 
laid the greatest stress upon justice being adminis- 
tered in the bosom of Jewish comnmnities Kara 
Toil! TTorpioi's xA/noi'S (Jos. Anf. XIV. x. 17). And this 
jurisdiction of their own was to a large extent 
conceded to them by the heathen authorities. 

iii. Toleration' and Hecognition by- the 
State Authorities. — The framework of political 
rights into which the Jewish communities had to 
lit themselves, varied in diflerent places and at 
ditt'erent times. We may distinguish some three 
forms under which the communities in tlie Diaspora 
attained to a political existence ; and all three 
Jiave more or less numerous analogues. 

1. The nearest analogy is that of the settlements 
of foreigners, especially Orientals, in the great 
trading cities of the Gra'co-Koman world. In all 
the great seaports of the Mediterranean, during 
the era of Hellenism we meet with Egyptian, 
Phoenician, Sj'rian traders, who not only carry on 
their business in passing, but are permanently 
settled there in greater or smaller numbers, and 
have formed themselves into close corporations for 
the defence of their common interests. They built 
their temples, maintained their religious service, 
and supported one another in their material inter- 
ests. Settlements of this kind are known to us from 
inscriptions, particularly at Athens (l''gj-iitians, 
KiTiei! from Cyprus, Sidonians), Delos (Tyriaiis, 
Berytenses, Egyptians), Puteoli (Tyriaus, IJcry- 
tenses). The members of the cor])oratiun li\ ed in 
the city as strangers (non-citizens), but their 
society enjoyed toleration and recognition froiy the 
State authorities. To this class belonged, without 
any doubt, the oldest settlements of the Jews in 
many jilaces. They formed a KaroiKia, i.e. a colony 
of foreigners, separate from the political commune. 

tl. Another analogy is presented by tlic prinite 
societies which e.xisted in enormous iiutiiIjcis and in a 
great variety of forms througlmut tlie whole of the 
Gra'co-Roman world. Religious or commercial in- 
terests, or both together, led in ancient as in later 
times to the forming of a great many ' unions' {Olatroi, 
Ipavoi, collegia}, which had their own administration 
of funds, and exercised a certain discipline over their 
memliers. In looking after their own attairs they 
occu|iied an independent position in relation to the 
]iolitical commune similar to that of the coldiiics of 
foreigners just described, but were distingui.-lied 
from tlieni by the circumstance that (at least as a 
rule and for the most part) they consisted of natives, 
whether citizens and freedmen, or non-citizens and 
slaves. To this class belong most of the Jewish 
communities in later times. For the more the Jews 
became assimilated to their surroundings, the more 
they passed from the position of foreigners to that 
of hon'.cborn, particularly in instances where they 
possc^-.^ed the rights of citizenship. With all this, 
however, they appear as a rule to ha\e retained a 

certain position of isolation, for the amount of 
jurisdiction which, with the consent of the city 
authorities, they exercised within their own circle 
was, so far as we know, for the most part greater 
than was conceded to other religious or trades 

3. A third analogue to the communities of the 
Jew'ish Diaspora is seen in the eorporations of 
Greeks and liomans in non-Greek or non-Romin 
countries. The Greeks, in view of the wide dittu- 
sion of Hellenism, had less occasion for forming 
such corporations. These were much comnmner 
where Romans were concerned. As the ruling 
nation, the Romans outside Italy everywhere laid 
claim to a unique position. They were s\ibject 
neither to taxation by the communes nor to the 
jurisdiction of the city authorities, but formed in- 
dependent bodies alongside of the communal socie- 
ties of the particular cities in which they lived. 
Examples of this kind are to be met with in great 
numbers throughout the whole extent of the Roman 
Empire (Mommsen, CIL iii. Suppl. p. 13tl6, on No. 
7240; Mitteis, Jieic/tsrccht itml Vulk^rerht i,i ,Un 
ostlichen ProcinzcH des roiinsrhcn Knisirr' ir/is, 
1891, pp. 143-1,58). It is with this entirely inde- 
pendent iH)>itic>ti which these associations held in 
or rather alongside the communes, that we may 
compare the position of the Jews in Alexandria 
and in the city of Cyrene as described by Strabo 
{np. Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2). For here they were not 
subject, as would appear, to the rule of the com- 
munal authorities, but constituted an independent 
corporation side by side with the rest of the body 
of citizens. Their independence thus went beyond 
what was enjoyed by the flrst two classes aljove 

A uniform presupposition in all these political 
regulations was State toleration of the Jeirish 
cultus. This was enjoyed by the communes almost 
everywhere and at most periods of time. In the 
empires of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids the 
religious freedom of the Jews was a matter of 
course. But the earl3' Ptolemies and Seleucids 
also conferred important political rights upon their 
Jewish Milijects (see below, § iv. ).t Antiochus the 
Great [irotected the cultus at Jerusalem by royal 
statutes (.l(.~. .Inf. XII. iii. 3, 4). [The genumen'ess 
of tli'-r i-, indeed, disputed (see Biichler, Die 
Tul„<i,l „ inni die Oniaden, 1899, pp. 143-171 ; 
Willrieli, Judaica, 1900, pp. 48 f., 58-60), but 
on what appear to the present writer insuHi- 
cient grounds. The genuineness is held, amongst 
others, by Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehunf) des Judcn- 
thums, 1896, pp. 66, 68]. The persecution of the 

* Jlommsen (HMar. Zeitschri.ft, Ixiv. [18901 421-426) has 
contended that it was only down to the fall of Jerusalem that 
the Jews were regarded as a people (ifCTis, £&»«), and that afier 
that event ' the place of the privileged nation waa taken b\ the 
privileged confession.' That is to say, in the earlier period 
political privileges had been accorded to all who were Jews by 
birth, and to theut alone, whereas in the later they belonged to 
all who professed the Jewish religion, and to them alone. But, 
in the opinion of the present writer, this is pushing an ob- 
servation which is correct in itself to far too sharp a point, 
when an actual juristic formula is thus arrived at. Even during 
the period of the late empire the Jews were still in many 
instances regarded as a ' people ' (the inscription of Smyrna Ti 
\H\u 7UV 'Ios/Ja.iw* dates at the earliest from the 3rd cent. .\.D., 
and even the inscriptions of Hierapolis must be placed sub- 
sequent toA.D. 70). .\nd it was just the later emperors who 
sought to prevent the ' confession ' from being extended 
beyond the circle of the Jewish nation ; that is to say, they 
granted privileges only to the people, and not to the con- 
fession, iiomnisen's view, however, will be found correct 
to this extent, that the Jews, as time went on, advanced 
more and more from the first of the above two classes to the 

t Cf. , on the friendly disposition of the early Ptolemies to 
the Jews, in general, Jos. c. Apion. ii. 4, 5.— A Ptolemy once 
actually granted the right of asylum to a Jewish proseiKhe 
(CIL iii. Suppl. No. boSii BKff-.X;v,- nroAi,iia7flf E^E^irr.- W.y 
rrfioaiux^.v itffv\ov. The monarch referred to is probably Ptolemy 
111., for had it been Euergetes ii. = Ptolemy vii., we should have 
expected his consort to be named along with himX 




Jews Ijy Antioohus Kpiiiliiiiics was (|uite (in ex- 
ce|itiuiial plieiioiueiioii. I'leeiiiineiit lis a friuiul 
of the Jews was I'toleiiiy VI. (l'liilomeU)r), wlii> 
even |ieriiiitteit a Jewish temple ti) he built in 
E;;jl>t (see heluw, S^-l. The hostile attitnile to 
the Jews assuineil l>y I'toleiiiy Vll. (I'hyseon) was 
due, not to their reli^jious but tiieir jiolitical 
|paitisanship (Jos. c. A/iiitii. ii. 5). 

The free of their rclif;ion was expres,sly 
allowed to the Jews also by the Konian lej;islatioii, 
which siifej;uar<led it from au}' attempts at siip- 
]>ression by the (Jreek eomniunes. It was cspeeially 
to t'iu.sjir and Au;;ustus that ihe.Iews were indebted 
for their formal reeo^niition in the Konian Empire. 
A w hole series of acts have been preserved for us 
liy Jo.seiihus (Aiit. XIV. x., XVI. vi.), partly resolu- 
tions of the Senate, partly edicts of Ca'sar and 
Au^'ustus, partly of"^ Koman otlicials or of 
comiiiiinal authoiitics of the .same date. These 
all have the same purpose, namely, to secure for 
tlic Jews the iric exercise of their reli^'ion and the 
iiiaintciiaiicc of their privilej;es (ef., on these acts, 
esjicciallv the iiivcsti^ratioii of .Mendelssohn in Aria 
S.,rl, /„(,:■< I'hil. /.u,.^.. id. Kitscliclius, V. [1S75] 87- 
•2SS ; also 'J/,.;,/. Lifa-atiirzri/iiiirf, 1876, cols. 3'.K)- 
3!Hi: Niese in Hermes, xi. [1870]" 466-488). While 
Ca'sar |)rohibited in general all collegia except 
those that had existed from remote antiquity, the 
Jewish communities were expressly excluded from 
this prohibition (.(os. Ant. XIV. x. 8: itai yap Tdios 
Kaiaap 6 Tjix^repoi aTparrjyds Kal i'lraTos (V T(f) 5m- 
TayuaTi kujXriji' fiiaaovs ffvvdyeffBat Kara iriXti' ^oi'ovs 
TouTous ouK JKuXvcrcv oi're xPVf"^"^^^ avvuff^p^pfiv oi're 
aOvSiiTTva wouip). We lind, for instance, a Koman 
official appealing; to this decree in warning the 
authorities of I'aros not to interfere with the .Jews 
in the practice of their religious observances (Jos. 
I.e.). It is likewise to the influence of Ca-sar that 
we should probably trace the four decrees quoted 
by Josephus, Ant. XIV. x. 20-24. The object, 
direct or indirect, of all of them i~ to ^'ii.iraiitee 
to the Jews of Asia Minor (l,nni|j,-,i, Mili-tus, 
Ilalicarna.ssus, Sardis) the unimi'i'lccl cxrr.ise of 
their religion. After C:esar's death, the two con- 
tending ]>artics vied with one another in maintain- 
ing the privileges of the Jews. On the one hand, 
Dolabella, the partisan of Antony, who made 
himself master of Asia Minor in the year n.c. 43, 
conlirnied to the Jews the exemption from militJiry 
service and the religious freedom granted them liy 
former governors (Ant. XI v. x. 11, 12). On the 
other hand, M. Junius Brutus, who in the spring 
of the year 42 was making warlike preparations in 
Asia Minor against Antony and Octavianus, per- 
suaded the Epiiesians to adopt a resolution that 
the .lews were not to lie interfered with in their 
ol)servance of the Sabbath and their other religi- 
ous iiractices (Ant. XIV. x. 2.")). 

All this the elleet of briiiLring about a legal 
standing, in virtue of which .1 tnhnsui n-ns a 'rclif/iu 
lirltn' lliniKiihuitt the whul ../ ih, l:.,„ian Em/'iire 
(Tertull. Ajiiilvg. 21, ' insigiii-~iiiia rcligio, certe 
iieita' [the expression, by the way, is not a technical 
one in Koman law, which speaks of ' collegia 
licita ']). That, amongst others, the Jews in the 
city of Uome enjoyed this legal standing, is speci- 
allv testilicd by Pliilo for the time of Augustus 
(L'rg.ifio (1(1 Gaium, ^ 2,3 [ed. M.angcy, ii. 568 f.]). 
It is true, however, that down to the 2nd cent. A.D. 
foreign sacra could be practised only outside the 

The State recognition of the Jewish communities 
ifl essentially connected with two important con- 
cessions : the rig/it of adniiniitcring tluir own 
fnnd.i, nnd jurisdiction orer their own menilicrs. 
The former of these had a special iniiKjrtanee, 
owing to the collecting and transmitting of the 
dues paid to the temple at Jerusalem. The 

governor I'lacciis, a contemporary of Cicero, liad 
interfered with this (Cic. ih Fldrriim, 2S ; see the 
text of the passage quoted alxive, S i-)- The com- 
munal authorities of .\sia likewise appear, even 
after the eilicts of C'a'siir's time and in spite of 
these, to have continued to act in a similar Vay. 
The decrees of the time of Augustus accordingly 
bear chiefly upon this point. As Augustus per- 
mitted the ex[iort of sums of nioiiey from Kunie 
itself (I'hilo, Lcgafio ad i;((i((in, § 23 (ed. Maiigey, 
ii. 56S f.]), it was impresseil ujion the comiiiunes of 
Asia Minor and Cyrene that in this matter they 
must put no obstacle in the way of the Jews (Jos. 
Ant. XVI. vi. 2-7 : I'liilo, Legdlio mi Gaium, §40 
(ed. Mangey, ii. 5<)2]). 

Of equal importance for the .Jewish communities 
was //('■ jios^csnion of a jnrindirtion of Ihvir own. 
Since the .Mosaic law has regard not only to the 
performance of the cultus hut also to the relations 
of civil life, placing the latter uinler the control of 
a Divine law, it was iiitidcrable to the Jewish con- 
science that .lews should l)e judged by any eoile of 
laws but their own. Wherever the .Jews came 
they brought their own system of law with them, 
ami executed justice, according to its standard, in 
the case of their fellow-members. It iii.iy be re- 
garded .as probable that the em|(loyment of their 
own cotie in ciril procc-i-ics was everywhere sanc- 
tioned by the State authorities, in so far, that is to 
say, as complaints of Jews against one another 
were concerned. Not only must this h.ave self- 
evidently Iwen the case at Alexandria, but it is 
witnessed to also for Asia Minor bj' a despatch 
of Lucius Antonius (governor of the Province of 
Asia, n.c. 5J-49) to the authorities of Sardis 
(.Jos. Ant. XIV. X. 17: 'iovSaioi ToXirai TtpiiTtpai 
vp(xre\6jvT(s fioi iw^Sfi^dv oi'toi)? ffwoSoy ^x*'" '*'<"' 
Kara roi^y iraTpiovs vofiovt air' dpxv^ *ial Thvov [olov, 
(V ip TO. Tf Trpa.yp.ara Ka\ ray irpis dXX^Xoi'S dvT(.\oyia% 
Kpivov(Xiv' toitIi re airT)(TafUvoi.s "iv i^iQ ttouIv aOrois, 
rijprj(rai sai ewirp^\pai Ixptva). The terms of this 
despatch show that even those Jews who posse.ssed 
the Koman citizenship (ttoXitoi rinirepoi), and as 
Koman citizens could have sought redress before 
the conriiit((s ririum Itomanornm, jireferred to 
bring their disputes liefore the Jewish tribunal 
((TiVoSos, conrentns) for decision. Even in the legis- 
lation of the later Imperial perio<l, this Jewish 
jurisdiction continued to be rccognizi-d in civil 
cases (Codec Thcodosianiis, II. i. 10 (IJccree of the 
emperors Arcadius and Honorius of the ii'ear 398] : 
' Sane si qui per conijiromissuni, ad similitudinem 
arbitroruin, a|iud Judieos vel patriarclias ex con- 
sensu partium in civili negotio pntaverint 
litigandum, sortiri eorum judicium jure publico non 
vetentur : eorum etiani sententias )irovinciaruni 
judices exse(|n.antur, tamquam ex sententia cogni- 
toris arbitri fuerint attributi '). 

A jurisdiction of their own in criminal cas:i, in 
the complete sense of the expression, wivs certainly 
not conceded to the Jews in most plac-s. On the 
other hand, not only do we meet with undoubted 
instances of the exercise cf a correctional police 
aiUhoritij (see Momnisen, Zcitschrift fiir (lie 
Nenfest. Wlssznschaft, ii. [1901] 88 f.), but this 
would even appear to have been [lermitted by the 
State authorities. It is from this point of_ view 
that we are to understand how Saul of Tarsus 
applied to the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem for full 
iM>wers to iiunish Jewish Christians living outside 
Palestine (Ac 9- 22" 26"). He himself was after- 
wards as a Christian scour^'ed live times by the 
Jews (2 Co U--"); in these instances we are cer- 
tainly to think, not of Palestinian but of foreign 
Jewish communitie.s. At Corinth the iiroeonsul 
Callio leaves it to the Jews to iiroceed against 
St. Paul according to their own judgment, for 
he himself will not act as judge when an oti'ence 




against the Jewish religion is concerned (Ac 

In addition to the freedom of initiative secured 
for the Jews in tlie instances we have just de- 
scribed, the Roman toleration paid a very large 
regftrd to their religious sensibilities. One chief 
ditticulty concerned the question of military ser- 
vice. Such service was quite impossible for a Jew 
in a non-Jewish army, for on the Sabbath day he 
might neither bear arms nor march more than 2000 
cubits. This question became a s])ecially practical 
one when, on the outbreak of the civil war between 
Ca'sar and Pompey in the year B.C. 49, tlie party 
of Pompey commenced the enrolment of troops on 
a large scale all over the East. In the Province of 
Asia alone the consul Lentulus raised two legions 
of Koman citizens (Ciesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 4). Amongst 
these were included the resident Jews who possessed 
the Roman citizenship. At their own request, 
however, Lentulus exempted them from military 
service, and gave his conscription agents every- 
where instructions to the same effect (Jos. Ant. 
XIV. X. 13, 14, 16, 18, 19). Six j'ears later (B.C. 
43) Dolabella, with express appeal to tlie earlier 
edicts, confirmed the privilege of da-TpaTcia to the 
same Jews {Ant. XIV. x. 11, 12). Further privi- 
leges enjoyed by the Jews were the following : — 1. 
By a statute of Augustus they were exempted 
from citation before a court on the Sabbath day 
{Ant. XVI. vi. 2, 4). 2. If a public payment of 
money or delivery of corn fell on a Sabbath, the 
Jews were to receive tlieir share on the following 
day (Philo, Legntio ad Gaiuin, § 23 [ed. Mangey, 
ii. 569]). 3. Instead of the oil furnished by the 
communes, the use of which was forbidden to the 
Jews, they received a money equivalent (Jos. Ant. 
XII. iii. 1). 

The whole political standing above described 
•was never in later times essentially and perma- 
nently altered. The measures taken by Tiberius 
against the Roman Jews affected only the city of 
Rome. The great question of the cult of the 
Emperor, which afterwards became the main occa- 
sion f)f the bloody persecutions of the Christians, 
led in the case of the Jews to a merely transitory 
and local persecution. Augustus and Tiberius 
were, indeed, gratified when the provincials volun- 
tarily offered them divine honours after the Greek 
fashion, but they did not demand that this sliould 
be dune. Caligula was the first to make such a 
demand universally. Since the Jews on account 
of their religion could not comply with it, a bloody 
persecution l>egan at Alexandria, due at first to 
the anti-Jewish mob, but afterwards carried on by 
the governor himself. But Claudius hastened to 
issue an edict of toleration by wliich all the rights 
and privileges of the Jews were restored (Jos. Ant. 
XIX. V. 2-3). No subsequent attempt was ever 
made to compel the Jews to take part in the cult 
of the Emperor. It came to be regarded as an 
aiicitnt jirivilege that they were exempt from this. 
Thiy li:ul thus the advantage over the Christians 
in tliat their privileges had been long establislied 
before the cult of the Emperor became the State 
religion, and was demanded of subjects as a test 
of loyalty. While the Christians had to atone by 
bloody martyrdom for their refusal to sacrifice to 
the Emperor, no such demand was ever made upon 
the Jews. 

It is true, indeed, that certain vacillations in 
their attitude to the Jews are found on the part 
of the Emperors. Claudius himself felt compelled 
to take measures against the Jews in the city of 
Rome. But tliese were local, and were not 
thoroughly carried out. The great war of Ves- 
pasian and the destruction of the temple at Jeru- 
salem led, in the case of the Jews of the Diaspora, 
to the result that the former temple tax of two 

drachmaj had now to be paid to the temple of 
Jupiter Capitolinus (Jos. BJ Vll. vi. 6 ; Dio 
Cassius, Ixvi. 7). This must certainly have been 
repugnant to the feelings of the Jews. But their 
religious freedom was not otherwise interfered 
with by Vespasian. Their political rights were 
even expressly protected by him, for instance in 
Alexandria and Antioch {Ant. XII. iii. 1, i>'./ vii. 
V. 2). Domitian exacted the two drachma- tax 
with the utmost rigour (Sueton. Doinit. 12), and 
inflicted severe penalties on any Romans who 
passed over to Judaism ( Dio Cass. Ixvii. 14). But 
the existing rights of the Jews were not annulled. 
Under Nerva a milder condition of things was 
inaugurated, in so far as he forbade any one tv^ 
be accused for ' living in the Jewish manner ' ( Dio 
Cass. Ixviii. 1). By this order the ' calumnia 
fisci Judaici,' i.e. accu.sations laid by informers in 
the interests of the Jewish fiscus, was abolished 
(cf. coins inscribed ' calumnia fisci Judaici sub- 

A violent shock to the existing condition of 
things was given by the great Jewisli revolts 
under Trajan and Hadrian. Tlie latter was due, 
not wholly but partially, to Hadrian's prohibition 
of circuiiwision (Spartian, Hadrian. 14). This 
prohibition, so far as we can learn, was quite a 
general one, issued on grounds of humanity, and 
not specially directed against the Jews. But the 
carrying out of such a decree would have been 
tantaiiiount to a destruction of real legal Judaism. 
Hadrian's immediate successor, Antoninus Pius, 
however, while he retained the prohibition in 
other instances, once more granted the Jews per- 
mission to circumcise their children {Digest, xlviii. 
8, 11 pr. ). Similarly, Septimius Severus forbade 
only the formal passing over to Judaism (Spartian, 
Sept. Sen. 17). Of Alexander Severus we are ex- 
pressly told that he ' Judieis privilegia reservavit' 
(Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 22). The policy of the Cliris- 
tian Emperors was not always the same, but in 
general was directed towards preventing the spread 
of Judaism, without annulling its existing rights. 

iv. Rights of Citizknship, and social .stand- 
ing. — It has already been remarked above that 
the Jews as a rule, at least in pre-Christian times, 
lived in Greek cities as foreign settlers, like the 
Egyptians, Pliocnicians, or Syrians. That is to 
say, they were not citizens, and had no share in 
the management of municipal affairs. But there 
were not a few towns where they possessed the 
citizenship. This was the case especially in such 
cities as had been newly founded, or whose con- 
stitution been reorganized during the Greek 
period. To the category of the recently fountled 
belong pre-eminently the two capitals of the em- 
pires of the Ptolemies and the Seleueids, namelj', 
Alexandria and Antioch. 

At Alexandnii the Jews, we are assured by 
Josephus, were placed by Alexander the (ireat on 
a footing of equality with the Macecliniians from 
the very first founding of the city ('■. .Ijiioti. ii. 4 : 
eis Ka.TOiKTjffi.v 5^ avroU €d(jK€v Toirov 'AX^^acopos nai 
t(n)s wapa rot's MaKeSoai Tifj.TJ^ eir^Ti'xov . . . xai fJ^xP^ 
vOv aiTuiv 7) <fiv\r] TTjv TrpofTrjyopiav elxev Ma/i-e5>es). 
In another passage Josephus asserts that Alex- 
ander, by way of rewarding them for tlieir services 
against the Egyptians, gave them equal rights 
with the Hellenes, and that the Diadochi further 
permitted them to call themselves Macedonians 
{BJ II. .\viii. 7 : 'AXi^avSpo! . . . ISuKev t6 /xeroueii' 
Kara ttiv Tr6\if ii iaoTiixtas [var. lect. iVou/ioipas, prob- 
ably a corruption of iVo/ioipfat] jrp6s to^'S "EWjjKas. 
Si4fji.€Lvev S' ai'Tols i] TifxT) Kai napa Tuiv 5ia66xwf, ol . . . 
Kal xpw^f"" eviTpe^faf MoKfSji'as). In the decree 
of the emperor Claudius, quoted by Joseplius(^?!;. 
XIX. v. 2), it is said that the Jews had been settled 
side by side with the Alexandrians from the first, 




ami tliat they hail obtained eqiml political ri);lita 
* from the kiu^^.s ' (tdrjs voXirfias xapa Tutv /iacnX^wi' 
Tfrti'xOTasl. These rights were expressly eoiihrmed 
to them by t'lesur. A brass pillar set up by the 
hitter in Alexandria prot'laiiiied that the Jews 
were Alexandrian citizens (.lii^. XIV. x. 1, c. Apiun. 
ii. 4). I'hih) likew ise notes that the Jews had the 
legal standing of ' \\eiavip(ts and not that of the 
kiyviTTioi [in Flacfitm, § 10 [ed. Mangey, ii. 528]). 
The annulment of their rights during tlio perse- 
cution under Klaccus was merely temporary, for 
(.'hiudius soon hastened to restore their ancient 
privileges {Aiit. XIX. v. 2). Even after the <jreat 
war of A.D. 70 the petition of the Alexandrians, 
that the Jews should be deprived of the citizen- 
shiii, was not granted (A)it. XII. iii. 1). 

A similar condition of things prevailed at 
Antim h. Here, too, from the founding of the city 
by Seliucus I. (Nikator), the .lews had received the 
same rights of citizenship as the Macedonians and 
HcMcnes (.1)1/. XII. iii. 1 : S^Xeckos 6 Xiicdru/) 4i/ ah 
f\r((T«t' iroKiffiv iv ttj 'Aji^ Kal ttJ Kdruj ^i-pt'^ Kal iv 
ai'Txi TTi /jLrjTf)OTri>\ci 'AvTiox^iff jroXtrftas avTous TJ^iuaev 
Kai ToU ivotKiad(~i<rtv iVoti^oit dw^ipijvev yiaKeSjaiv Kal 
"KWriffiVf iJS Ti}v Tro\iT€iaf raiTrjy (n Kal vvv Siafi^fftf ; 
and to a similar eli'ect c. Apion. ii. 4 [Niese, § 39]). 
In this city also their privileges were set forth on 
brass tablets {JiJ VII. v. 2 [Nicse, § 110]). In one 
passage Josephus himself as if these 
rights were lirst conferred upon tln-m by the suc- 
cessors of Antiochus Epijilianes {BJ VII. iii. 3). 
But probably he is thinking of a restoration of 
their privileges after the period of persecution 
under Kpiphanes. When in the time ot Vespasian 
the Antiochenes begged tliat the Jews might be 
expelleil from the city or deprived of their privi- 
leges, this petition was refused as in the ease of 
the similar application of the Alexandrians [BJ 
VII. V. 2 [Nicse, SS lOS-111], Ant. XII. iii. 1). 

.\ccoiiling to the alMjve-cited passage {Ant. XII. 
iii. 1), Seleucus I. (Nikator) granted tlio rights of 
citizenship to the Jews, and placed them on a 
footing of eciuality with the Macedonians and 
HcMciu's, not onl^- .it Antioch,- but in all the cities 
founded by him in Asia and Syria. The number 
of lhe>c cities was very considerable (.-Vppian, Si/r. 
57). liven if the statement of Josephus does not 
justify the conclusion that there were Jewish 
settlers in all of tliem, this must have been the 
case with no inconsiderable proportion. 

In all the above instances equality of rights on 
the part of the Jews was based ui)on the recent 
foundation of the cities during the ( Ireek period. 
In the older cities, if Jews came to .settle, they 
could not obtain the eitizenshiji. There was one 
contingency, however, which made this pos.sible, 
namely, if the jmlitical constitution of the city 
came to l)e organized afresh. Such recastings 
of their constitution took place frequently at tlie 
coiniiiirKenient of the Greek period in the cities 
of Western Asia Minor. Alexander the Great 
himself overthrew the oligarchical governments 
that prevailed there, and replaced them by demo- 
cratical constitutions (Arrian, I. xviii. 2). This 
was followed by a series of fluctuating forms in 
the troubled times of the Diailocbi. Tlie delinite 
restoration of autonomy and democracy in the 
cities of the Ionian coast was essentially the work 
of Antiochus li. (Theos), B.C. 261-240 (.los. Ant. 
XII. iii. 2 : T^v yap'lJii'ui' Kivq6ivTuv iit' airrovt [scil. 
Tovi 'lovSaiovs] Kal Sfou^i'uji' rou '.Kyplinrov, iva Trjs 
ToXiTEtar, f^v auTois c8wic€v 'Avtioxos 6 ZcXft'-^'oi' 
vluvdi 6 irapd rots "KWrjirtf Oio? \f-)ii^ei/os, ^i\>i'Oi 
/ifTAOuffix, K.T.X. This geiMIiil testimony of .lose- 
phus, according to which Antim-hus II. Iwstowed 
their iroXireia on the lonians, is eontirmed by a 
number of special inscriptional testimonies). It is 
probable that at this time of the political re- 

organization of the cities in Western Asia -Minor 
the Jews amoiigst others received the rights of 
citizenship. It is wrong, indeed, to refer the 
aiiToU in the above quotation to the Jews ; it 
really stands for the lonians. Ilut the context of 
the passage makes it probable that at the same 
time with the lonians the Jews ahso obtained the 
citizenship, and that in the time of Agrippa tliu 
non-Jewish iiduibitants demanded the sole pos- 
session of this for themselves (so also Uamsay, 
Expo.iitur, IVb. 11KP2, pp. 92-95). At all events, in 
the time of .loscphus the Jews in Eplicxus anil in 
the rest of limit pos,sessed the rights of citizens 
(c. Apion. ii. 4 [Niese, S 39] : oi (y 'V.<pi(iif xal k-ord tt)» 
4\\t;v ^liiiviav ToTt ai't}ty(v4iTi TroXirati OfiUVVfioOtTtv, 
TouTo Trapaaxbyrwv aiTois tu)v 5ia&6xijy). Iliciilentally 
we learn that they enjoyed the citizenship in 
Sardis also (Ant. xiv. x. 24), and even outside 
Asia Minor, at Cyrene (ih. xvi. vi. 1). 

Wherever the Jews had the rights of citizen- 
shij), they must in their totality have formeil a 
(^cXt) by themselves. For the citizens of Greek 
towns were divided into e/>iXai, which also practised 
their own special religious cults. On the latter 
jjround it is inconceivable that an individual Jew, 
if he desired to remain a Jew at all and to adhere 
to his religion, could hold the citizenship in a 
Greek town (attention lias been called to this 
point especially by Kamsay, Expositor, Jan. 1902, 
pp. 22-29). (hily where a considerable numljer of 
Jews formed a <^i'X7Jof their own, on the same foot- 
ing as the other ^iXai, could they be citizens. If 
then St. Paul was a citizen of Tarsus (Ae 21*'), we 
must conclude that the Jews in general who were 
settled there po--c-sr,l tin- citizenship. Kam.say 
[I.e. pp. 29-:i:fi Miui:.M^ that they uiay have ob- 
tained it on thr cK c M^ic.ii of the n-iuranging of the 
constitution of the lity hy .\iitioclius IV. about the 
year ll.C. 170. This appears, however, very im- 
probable in view of the hostility of Antiochus to 
the Jews. 

Even when the Jews formed a ipvX^ of their own, 
they found themselves, as citizens of a Greek town, 
in a self-cmitrudietorij position. Tliey had to take 
their part in municipal busines.s. IJut this in- 
cluded, amongst otlier things, the care of the 
native religious cults, a duty towards which the 
Jews were compelled to maintain a uniformly 
passive relation. And this passivity was a con- 
stant ground of complaint on the part of their 
heathen fellow-citizens. If they desired to be 
citizens, they must also liimour the gods of the 
city. Such was the demand made by the repre- 
sentatives of the Ionian cities when tiiey brought 
their complaint against the Jews before Agrippa 
(Ant. XII. iii. 2: dttoiVrutf, fi cvyytvui e/fftf aiVois 
*Ioi'5aiot, aifitirOai tov% acrwi* diov^). The .same view- 
was taken everywhere in the Greek cities. Hence 
it is quite intelligible that the Jews should have 
lieen iiio~t c\|...mm1 to tlie dislike, nay the haired 
and pir^i nil [Mil, of tlie heathen inhabitants just 
in those pluc-is while they pos.sessed the citizen- 
ship. So it was, for instance, at Alexandria (BJ 
II. xviii. 7, persecution umler Caligula), Antioch 
(/{./ VII. iii. 3-4, v. 2), the cities of tlie Ionian 
coast (Ant. XII. iii. 2) ; and the same wius the case 
at Cicsarea in Palestine, where they had obtained, 
through Herod the Great, the icroToXiTtia (Ant. XX. 
viii. 7, 9, BJ II. xiii. 7, xiv. 4-5, xviii. 1). Every- 
where it was only the superior authority of the 
liomaii iniinriiiin that protected them in the en- 
joyment OI the privileges that were recognized as 
lielonging to them. 

In addition to the local franchise, not a few of 
the .lews of the l)iiusi>ora pos,sc».sed also the lioman 
ritizin.shin. Xt Kome manv of them had the 
degree ot citizenship eiijoyeil by freedmcn (lilier- 
tini), for a large [iroportion of the community wai 




made up of the descendants of those prisoners of 
war who were brought to Korae by Ponipej' and 
sold as slaves, but afterwards manumitted (Philo, 
Leffiitio ad Gaium, § 23 [ed. Mangey, ii. 568 f.]). 
This citizenship was, indeed, not a complete but a 
limited one (Mominsen, Romisches Staatsrccht, 
iii. 1, 420-457). — In Asia many Jews would ap- 
pear to have been possessed of Roman citizenship : 
so, for instance, at Ephesus (Ant. xiv. x. 13, 16, 
19), Sardis {ih. 17), Delos (ib. 14), in general (ib. 
18). Hence it is not surprising to find St. Paul 
also in possession of it (Ac 16^'"- 22'-^-=^ 23^). We 
are not, indeed, aware how the Jews attained to 
this rank. 

The advantages which accompanied the posses- 
sion of Eonian citizenship were very consider- 
able. The possessor was exempt from degrading 
punishments such as scourging (Ac IG""*- 22-'^'''-) 
and crucifixion. He had also the right not only 
to appeal to the Emperor against a judgment that 
had been pronounced, but to 'call upon' the 
Emperor at the very commencement of the pro- 
cess and at every stage of it, i.e. to demand that 
the e.xamination sliouid be conducted at Rome, 
and judgment given by the Emperor himself (Ac 
25ioff. 21 oQii . cf. Mommsen in Zt.ichi: f. Neutest. 
Wissenschaft, ii. [1901] 90-66). Of one important 
right the Jews made no use. While they were 
entitled as Roman citizens to bring civil processes 
before the special tribunals consisting of Roman 
citizens, which were found everywhere in the pro- 
vinces, they preferred to have them decided by 
the courts belonging to their own communities 
(Ant. XIV. X. 17). 

The social standing of the Jews must have 
varied greatly in different places. They appear 
to have been most favourably situated in Egyjjt, 
especially at Alexandria. Owing to their pro- 
sperity and culture they here played an important 
role in public life, and under some of the Ptolemies 
they even rose to high offices in the State. Ptolemy 
VI. (Philometor) and his consort Cleopatra 'en- 
trusted their whole empire to Jews, and the com- 
manders of the whole army were the Jews Onias 
and Dositheus' (Jos. c. Apion. ii. 5). Another 
Cleopatra, the daughter of the royal pair above 
named, likewise appointed two Jews, Chelkias and 
Ananias, to the chief command of her army in the 
war against her son Ptolemj' Lathyrus (Ant. XIII. 
X. 4, xiii. 1-2).* In an inscription at Athribis there 
is mention of a Ptolemy, eiriaTdrris twv (pvXaKtrQv 
(chief of police), who, in conjunction with the 
Jewish community, built the synagogue of the 
place (see above, p. 96"). Although it does not 
necessarily follow from this that he was a Jew, 
the probability', in view of analogous cases, is in 
favour of such having been the case. The 'Avtwvw! 
MaXxaios who in the time of Trajan held the 
6piJ.o(pv\aKla at Syene (see above, p. 96''), may also 
have been a non-Jewish Semite, but ought in all 
prol):(l>ility to be regarded as a Jew. We may 
also remind the reader of the above (p. 96*") men- 
tioned Jewish tax-collectors in the Thebaid during 
the earlier Ptolemaic period. 

During the Roman period several Jews of noble 
birtli and wealth held the ofhce of alabarch. So, 
for instance, Alexander, the brother of the philo- 
sopher Philo (Jos. Ant. xvill. vi. 3, viii. 1, xix. v. 
1, XX. V. 2), and a certain Demetrius (XX. vii. 3). 
The view that the alabarch was the head of the 

* Chelkias and Ananias were the sons of the hij^h priest Onias 
IV., the founder of the temple of Leontopolis. — A Creek inscrip- 
tion, now in the Berlin Museum, contains a frajjment of a decree 
in honour of a certain Chelkias or, as is more probable, his son. 
All that has survived of the name is the genitive XiX«.'ot;. The 
subject honoured was irTpu.'myo?, and received as a mark of 
distinction a golden wreath (see WiUrich, ArchU /ur Papi/rus- 
fonschuiiji. i. (1900) 48-.=>C). It is possible, but not certain, that 
this Chelkias is identical with the one mentioned by Josephus. 

Jewish community is certainly wrong. He is in 
all probability identical with the apa^dpxv^, whos^ 
office was that of chief superintendent of customs 
on the Arabian frontier, i.e. on the east side of the 
Nile. (A ' veetigal Arabarchije per J^igyptum 
atque Augustaninieam constitutum ' is mentioned 
in the Codex Justin. IV. Ixi. 9 ; an inscription 
found at Koptos contains a tariff' fixing ' how 
much is to be raised by those who farm the 
dTroffTJXiov [?] at Koptos under the arab^crchi/' ; see 
the text of this inscription in Bulletin de corrcsp. 
hellenique, xx. [1896] 174-176 ; on the office of the 
alahrireh in general, see the Literature in Schiirer, 
GJV^ iii. 88 f., and add Wilcken, (irirlns.he 
Ostraka, i. [1899] 347-351). Perliiq.s if is thr ulhce 
of the alabarch that is in view when Joscphu^ says 
that the Romans ' continued (to the Jews of Alex- 
andria) the position of trust given them by the 
kings, namely, the watching of the river ' (c. Apion. 
ii. 5, fin.: ' maximam vero eis fidem olini a regibus 
datam conservaverunt, id est ffuminis custodiam 
totiusque custodite' [the last word is certainly 
corrupt]). The 'watching of the river' refers to 
watching it in the interests of levying customs. In 
any case the alabarch was not an official of the 
Jewish comnninity, but a man who held a prominent 
place in civil life.— Tiberius Alexander, a son of the 
alabarch Alexander, even reached the highest 
grades of a Roman military career, although at 
the expense of renouncing his ancestral relii^'iim. 

Outside Egj'pt the Jews do not appear to have 
anywhere gained so influential a footing. Yet in- 
stances are not wanting elsewhere of their rising 
to positions of prominence. In Jerusalem at the 
outbreak of the war of A.D. 66 there were Jews 
holding the rank of Roman knights (Jos. BJ II. 
xiv. 9). At Ephesus and Venosa we meet in tomb- 
inscriptions with Jewish ' head physicians ' (dpx'- 
arpoi ; see Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British 
Museum, iii. 2, No. 677 ; Ascoli, Iscrizioni inedite 
mat note, 1880, No. 10). These were appointed 
by the city, and are thus to be regarded as muni- 
cipal officials. In Italy the Jews from the time of 
Septimius Severus were admitted to the city offices 
(Digest. L. ii. 3 : ' Eis qui Judaicam superstitionem 
sequuntur, divi Severus et Antoninus honores 
adipisci permiserunt '). 

V. Religious and Intellfxtual Life. — In 
spite of all its contact with Greek surroundings, 
the Jewish people preserved its religious uniqtie- 
ness in a surprising fashion. The effects of the 
Maccaba'an rising manifestly extended also to the 
Diaspora. As in the mother country at the time 
of Antiochus Epiphanes there Avas in aristocratic 
circles an inclination towards Hellenism even in 
religious matters, so in the city of Jasus in Caria 
we hear aljout the same time of a XiK^ras 'laaovos 
'lepo<To\vfiiT7js who contributed money to supi)ort 
the festival of the Dionysia (see above, p. 94"). 
But tlie Maccaba'an rising removed the danger of 
a wholesale syiuretistic amalgamation of Judaism 
with Hellenistic heathenism. Instances of this 
last phenomenon do, indeed, occur. The Jewish 
Hellenist Artapanus considered that he was glori- 
fying Judaism by representing the patriarchs and 
Moses as not only the creators of all secular culture, 
but the founders of the Egyptian religious cults in 
the sense in which Artapainis himself undcrstoud 
tliese (see the fragments of his writings in Eiiseb. 
Prwp. Evang. ix. 18, 23, 27). In the temple of Pan 
at Apollonopolis Magna in Upiier Egypt two Jews 
recorded their thanks to ' the god ' for an act of 
deliverance (CIG 4838'^). In a professed letter of 
Hadrian it is even said in general that in Egypt 
all the Jewish apxiavviywyoi. are ' astrologers, haru- 
spices, and quacks' (Vopisc. ]'ifa Saturnini.c. 8, 
in the ' Seriptores Historiie .\ugusta'': 'Nemo 
illic archisynagogus Judteorum, nemo Samariles, 




mm liani>pcx, mm ulijites ). Side l»v «iile with 
tiyiicietistii' iiiixtuie we liml also [j||iliiv iii- 
(iiH'erence to the literal neiise of the Law. There 
were Jews with an ediieatioii in philDsuphy w hu, 
on the basis of the allef,'orieal interpretation of 
Seriptiire, regarded the higlier, philosophical, or 
ethical sense of the conuiiandnients as the only 
one of value, and ne^dected the ohservation of 
the literal sense (I'hilo, da Mii/nilioiic Alirtihnini, 
% 10 [ed. Man-^ey, i. 45UJ : eial yap TiKti oi roiVj ^titous 
cj/uoi'9 ai'iJ.^o\a vot)Twv Trpay/idTuv L'iro\af^j:iixvovTci to. 
p.(i/ d7ai' TiKpijittiaav, twv Si ^qidufiui u\iyujp7jaav). It 
may be also assumed in general that the observ- 
ance of the Law on the part of tireek Judaism did 
not attain to the rigour and preciseness of the 
Pharisaic party in Palestine, tlreek culture formed 
a heavy counter-w eight to the latter. Nevertheless, 
the Judaism of the l)iasi)ora asserted itself in the 
main along the .same lines as in Palestine. Syncre- 
tistic movements and philosophic indill'erenee never 
gained the upper hand. The leaders of the com- 
munities took care that even in the Diaspora the 
religious life was regulated by the standard of the 
Law of Moses. Any one who seriously broke oil' 
from the latter was expelled from the comnmnitj'. 
Even a ]ihilosoplier like Philu complains of the 
depreciation am! neglect of the literal sense men- 
tioned by him in "lie alwve quotation. With all 
his skill in the allegorical interi)retation, he yet 
maintained the binding character of the literal 
sense, nay he attempted to show that all commands, 
even those relating to ceremonial purity and to 
food, are based u|ion reason and nature. 

One principal agency in maintaining the ancestral 
faith was found in t/tc rcfjiilni- (/nf/n i-i,,,/.- in the 
si/ii'ifjiii/uc on tlie Snbbath. It is beyond ijuestion 
t^iat these were held in the l>ias]iora in every 
instance where a community had been organized. 
According to Philo, ' Un tiie .Sabbath day in all 
cities thousands of houses of instruction are opened, 
in which underslanding and self-restraint ami 
ability and justices ami all virtues are taught' ((fc 
Heptenanii, g6[ed. .M.uigiy, ii. -Isi]). The ajiostle 
Paul, in the course of hi^ jourMcys in Asia Minor 
and Greece, found Jcwi>h synagogues everywhere, 
e.q. at Antioch in Pisidia (Ac \'A'*), Iconiuni (14'), 
Pliilippi (Ul--^), Ephe.sus (1S'»* 1!)»), Thessaloniea 
(17'). Benea (17'"), Athens (17"), Corinth (18^-'). 
In the larger cities there were more than one 
synagogue ; at Alexandria there were a great 
man}' (Philo, Lcgatio ad Gaium, § 20 [ed. Maugey, 
ii. .5().^] : »oX\ai 5^ €t(ri Ka6' ^KOffTov Tfjirjfia r^y TrJXaos). 

The Iniuitifiijc used in the synagogue service was 
undoubtedly as a rule Greek. The Church Fathers 
expressly testify that the Greek Bible was used in 
the synagogues (Justin, Apol. i. .31, Di'd. c. Tnjph. 
72; Tertull. Apiil. 18; Pseudo-Justin, C'uhvrt. ad 
Grwc. 1.3). The Old Testament is familiar to St. 
Paul in the LXX translation only. It is not there- 
fore likely that the Hebrew and Greek texts were 
used both together. The prayers and the address 
were also, it may be regarded as certain, in lireek, 
for in every instance where this language prevailed 
the Jews adopted it as their .iiother tongue. This 
is shown aliove all by the tomb-inscriptions. The 
early period at which the language of the LXX 
began to exercise a commanding inlluenee on lit- 
urgical forms, and especially on the language of 
prayer, has l>een recently shown by the above 
(!>. !)"'') mentioned imprecatory inscriptions of the 
island of Klieneia near Delos. These should be 
dated, in the opinion of epigranhic experts, not 
later than about B.C. ICKJ. Tliey are couched 
quite in the style of the LXX (fViKaXoCjiai »oi 
d^iio rdv Otbv t6v O^pitTTov, rdv Kvpiov twv wv(vp.6iTiijv 
KoX vdfftj^ (TopKtis . . . Ki'pif 6 irdttra (tpoputp Kai oi 
dvy€\oL 0eov, i^ irctffa ^I'XT f** T-p ar)pipov iifxepai 

ToiTfii'orTai ^lO' UiTciat). Even the Palestinian 
Kaldiis could not avoid sanctioning the writing 
of the Scriptures in Greek and the uttering of 
prayers in the same language. The exceptioiiK 
not covered by this [lermi.ssion are very trilling 
(.Miijdtri, i. 8 ; Sutti, vii. 1, 2). Por the ordinary 
prayers (ShCinti , Slifmi'mdi' Exrth, and ble.>siiig at 
meals) the employment of any language is expressly 

No mirrijicifit ndlii.i was legal, after the Deutero- 
noniic reformation, outside Jerusalem. In spite of 
this, such a cultus was practised in Egypt for more 
than two centuries. The occasion of its establish- 
ment wa-i the deposition of the ancient high jiriestly 
family during the general uidicaval under Antiochus 
Eidphanes. The high priest's son, Unias, having 
no prosjiect of gaining his ancestral olHce at Jeru- 
siilem, came to Egyi>t in the time of .\ntiochus V. 
(Eupator) (li.C. 104-102). Here he received a cordial 
welcome from Ptolemy VI. (Philometor) and liii 
consort Cleoi>atra. The king placed at his disposal 
an ancient ruined temple at Leontopolis in the 
nome of Helioiudis, which had formerly been a 
sanctuarj' of the d7p/a KovjiaaTis.* This was con- 
verted by Onias into a Jewish sanctuary, modelled 
after the temple at Jerusalem, but snmller and 
plainer, and with a number of deviations in details. 
Since there were already priests on the spot in 
sutticient numbers, a formal Jewish tcmple-cultus 
was established, which continued uninterrupted 
from that date (c. It.C. IGU) until, after the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, the temple of Leontopolis 
w:as also closed by the liomans in tlie year A.D. 73 
(see, in general, Jos. Ant. xtl. ix. 7, xill. iii. 1-3, 
X. 4, XX. X. 3; BJ 1. i. 1, VII. X. 2-4 ; Oiac. Sdjyll. 
v. 42y-.')ll). It is true that this cultus was never 
regarded by the teachers of the Law in Palestine 
as justiliable, and that the sacrifices ofl'ered in the 
Egyptian temple had only a very limited degree 
of validity attributed to them (Mishna, Mi')i('du,t/i, 
xiii. 10). Nay, even the Egyptian Jews themsi Ives 
were not satistied with their own cultus, but kept 
up their connexion with Jerusalem. They per- 
formed the pilgrimages to that city like all other 
Jews (Philo, dc Fruvidcntui, quoted in Euseb. 
I'ncp. Ecang. viii. 14, 04, ed. Gaisford), and their 
priests, when they married, always had the gene- 
alogy of their wives verilied at Jerusalem (Jos. c. 
Apion. i. 7). 

Amongst the most important obligations which 
the Law imposed upon the Jews was that of paying 
tlie manifold diic.i to the pricst.<f and to the ti miilc 
at Jerusalem: lirstfruits, heave - ottering, titlie, 
lirstlings, dues in connexion with baking and 
killing, ott'erings on divers occasions, and linally 
the two drachmie tax. So far as a due levied on 
the products of the soil of the Holi/ Land was 
concerned (lirstfruits, heave - ottering, tithe), the 
Jews of the Diaspora were, as a matter of course, 
exempt. But there remained still enough of 
performances to which even a Jew living far 
Irom Jerusalem was bound, if he meant to l»e 
true to his religion. If the dues could not, 
owing to distance, be paid in kind, they had to 

• It« situation is most precisely dcllncd in Jos. Ant. Xlil. iii. 2 : 

Ti IK i\(C»TMV T«Al* TtU ' HX*»ToA.T«t. ll^» r-jUTITTA.**? . . . Tfitrm- 

yopv./«fm** ii Tn>' b.yp,ts lUi/^fFiitt. In other j]as8ii(;e« Jose< 
phiis savs tuerelv thut tlie temple was situute<t * in the iioiiie of 
Ileliopoll8'(^ii<;xil. ix.7, xili. x. 4, xj. x. J; UJ i.i. 1, vil. x. .1). 
We have to do, then, not with the lietter-kuown UK)nt..|»ili8, 
whieli formed a nome of its own. liut with another, which was 
inrludeit in the nome of Hcliopolis. The Iutt»T lay on tlie east 
side of the Delta. In this nei((htn>urhood there are ntill two 
mounds, each beariliK the name 7VH fWcAln/ij/i-A (we .Nu\ille, 
•The .Mound of the Jew and the Citv of Unias' in .^trrnth 
Mrmiiir i./ Ikf Kijinit. Jixjil^r. fiiiiil, is>ci). One ol the two 
will he identical with the foundation of Onias. Navill.- Hxes 
upon the one larthe»l south, on account of its being nearer 
to Hcliopolis. The more northern one, however, seems to the 
present writer the likelier sit*. I>eciiuse there are evideooi* of 
the llubuslis cult al it. See also above, p. VO. 




be converted into money. All these obligations 
were, so far as we know, punctiliously and zeal- 
ously discharged by the far scattered IJiaspora. 
The result of this was the accumulation of immense 
stores of wealtli at the central sanctuary. Joseplius 
(Ant. XIV. vii. 2) expressly accounts for these by 
Iioiiitinj,' to the great extent of the Di.ispora. 
I'liild ^ives a detailed account of the collecting 
and delivery of the money [de Monfifc/iiit, ii. 3 
[ed. jMangey, ii. 2-24]) : ' i'he temple derives its 
revenue not merely from a few pieces of land, but 
from other and much more copious sources, which 
can never be destroyed. For so long as tlie liuman 
race endures, the temple's sources of revenue will 
also continue, since their permanence is bound up 
with tliat of the wliole world. For it is prescribed 
that all Jews over twenty j-ears of age shall pay 
annual dues. . . . I5ut, as might be expectecl in 
tlie case of so numerous a people, the dues amount 
to an enormous sum. In almost every city there is 
a receiving ojficcfor the sacred funds, into which the 
dues are paid. And at Jixed times men of noble 
birth, are entrusted with the conveyance of the 
money to Jerusalem. Tlie noblest are chosen in 
every city, in order that the hope of every Jew may 
be transmitted unimpaired. For the hope of tlie 
pious is based upon the regular payment of the 
dues.' In the Euphrates districts the principal 
treasuries were in the cities of Nisibis and Is'ehar- 
dea. In these the money was iirst collected and 
thence transmitted to Jerusalem at a fixed time, 
many thousands taking charge of its conveyance, 
in oriler to protect tlie sacred treasure from the 
plundering attacks of the Parthians (Jos. Ant. 
XVIII. ix. 1). 

The transmission of such large sums to Jerusalem 
repeatedly gave rise to collisions with the Roman 
and municipal authorities. Flaccus, during his 
administration of the Province of Asia, prevented 
the money being sent, and municipal authorities 
V ere constantly inclined to do the same. But the 
Eonian legislation subsequent to the time of 
Ca?sar protected the religious liberty of the Jews 
in this as in other matters (see above, p. 103). 
After the destruction of the temple, the pajiiient 
of sacred dues necessarily underwent transforma- 
tion. The two drachniip tax was converted into a 
Eoman tax ; other dues which depended upon the 
continued existence of the temple could not, in 
the nature of things, be paid any longer. But 
even under these circumstances the Jewisli people, 
by voluntai-y self - taxation, continued to assert 
their unity. A new central authority, the Patri- 
archate, was created, to which at least a portion 
of the jirescribed sacred dues was paid every year. 
The ctillecting of these was now accomplished by 
deputies of the Patriarchate, the so-called apostolt. 

The principal means of maintaining an exchange 
of thought between the mother country and the 
Diaspora, and of furthering and mainta,ining a 
close fellowship Ijctweeii the two, was found in 
the frequent fc.stinil pilijrimciges made by Jews 
from all parts of the world to Jerusalem. ' Many 
thousands from many thousand cities journeyed to 
the temple at every festival, some by land and 
some by ''c.v, from east and west, from north and 
south ' (Pliilu, (/(■ Mvnarckia, ii. 1 [ed. Mangey, ii. 
223]). The number of Jews ordinarily present at 
Jerusalem at the feasts is reckoned by Joseplius 
at 2,700,000, a number which, indeed, also in- 
cludes the permanent population of Jerusalem 
(BJ VI. i.x. 3). 

While the Jews scattered all over the world 
thus held fast to the religion of their fathers, and 
that in the legal form it liad received through the 
Restoration under Ezra, they had become in other 
respects Greek.<<. Greek.culture asserted its suprem- 
acy in a decisive fashion here, as elsewhere. In 

Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Cyrenaica, nay even 
at Rome, Greek was the mother tongue of the 
Jews. All the relics of writing that have come 
down to us from the Dia.spora during the last 
centuries B.C. and the first centuries a.d. are in 
Greek. This is true especially of the tomb- 
inscriptions, whose evidence is of importance be- 
cause they are concerned not only with the rich 
and noble, but with the poor and humble (see 
above, § i., for the most important materials under 
this head). These tomb-inscriptions are at the 
same time a faithful mirror of the stage of cultuio 
that prevailed in the communities. The Greek of 
the tomb-inscriptions at Rome is barbarous, and 
shows, what might otherwise have been supposed 
that the Jews here remained for the most part at 
a low social level. In other places the inscriptions 
of various kinds that have survived reveal a higher 
degree of culture. 

It was in Egypt that the Jews most thoroughly 
assimilated the Greek culture. Here, as is shown 
by the case of Philo, they read the Greek poets 
and philosophers ; Homer, Sophocles, and Euri- 
pides ; Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno. All this could 
not, as a matter of course, be without far-reaching 
inlluence upon their whole intellectual life. Their 
conception of the world and of life, in spite of 
their adherence to legal Judaism, was powerfully 
intluenced in its contents by Greek culture. The 
literature produced by Hellenistic, especially Alex- 
andium, Judaism is, in consequence, of an ex- 
tremely varied char,acter. It serves, on the one 
hand, religious ends, the defence and propagation 
of Judaism (Apologetics and Propaganda) ; and, 
on the other hand, it follows Greek models in 
History, Poetry, and Pliilosophy. So far as 
poetical art is concerned, it was indeed somewhat 
meagrelj' represented. The extant fragments of 
Greek dramas and Greek epics treating of biblical 
subjects can scarcely be said to be marked bj- any 
high poetic strain (see the fragments of a drama 
treating of the storj' of the Exodus from Egypt 
by the tragedian Ezekiel ap. Euseb. Prcep. Eoang. 
ix. 28, 29 ; and the fragments of an epic on tlie 
history of Jerusalem by the elder Philo ap. Euseb. 
ib. ix. 20, 24, 37). In philosophy, however, the 
Jews made very notable achievements. Greek 
philosophy had indeed advanced far on the \\a.y 
towards monotheism. It had also, as represented 
by many of its teachers, an ethical cast. Hence 
the Jews discovered here many elements which 
were capable of assimilation by them. These 
they ado])ted with remarkable powers of adapta- 
tion ; .'inil in this way, by combining the religious 
world coiueption of the Old Testament with the 
philosupjiic world-conception of the Greeks, they 
created a new unique philosophy of religion which 
was as much Jewish as Greek. A clear picture of 
this is gi\en us by the Avritings of the Alexandrian 
Philo, which have come down to us in great 

The adoption of Greek culture enabled the Jews 
again for their part to exercise an influence on 
their heathen environments. From all that we 
know, they carried on a vigorous and successful 
propaganda. Those w liom they gained over were 
either formally received into the communities by 
circumcision, or they attached themselves to them 
in a loose form ' as God-fearing ' (aijSS/j.ei'oi, ipojioii- 
ncvoi rbv 0e6v), forming a kind of appendage to the 
communities (see art. Proselyte in vol. iv.). 
This Jewish propaganda served in great measure 
as a preliminary to Christianity. In general the 
Jewisli Diaspora, as was remarked at the beginning 
of the present article, paved the way along which 
the first preachers of the gospel went forth into 
the world, and in many ways laid the foundation 
of the rapid success of their preaching. 




[Additional Note to § i. (5).— The early sett le- 
nient of Jews ill Alexniiilriii is coiiliriueil ulso by 
an inscription, iliseovereJ in li)02 in llie nei;,'li- 
bourhood of Alcxanilria, which reads thus : TWp 
fiaai\tut llroXejuaioK Kal /iaffiXitrffTjt \i(fKviKi)% dJeX^^t 
Kai yvvatKb^ Kat tCiv t4kvu)v tt)v TTfKXJU'xrjv 6 lovSalot 
(see UK./ xlv. [19(1-2] p. IGl'). The inscription 
refers in all probability to I'toleniy ill. liuergetes 
(•J47--'-2-2 B.C.)]. 

LiTBRATCRR.— Ui^mond, Vertuch finer Getch. der Aiuhreit. 
dfH Jiulrntbums von Cyrus big auf den nanztichen Uiiiergaug 
diM Juilisclien Staalu, Leipzig, 1T89; Gieseltr, Lehrbuch der 
Kirehriigmehichle, Bd. i. Abtli. I (4 .\utl. 1844), p. 639.; Winer, 
Ji WIS', art. ' Exir (i. 357-300), and ' Zerstrcuung ' (ii. 727-73U), 
aUo the articles on particular cities, e.ff. 'Alexandria,' 'Aiiti- 
ochia,' 'Cyrenc,' ' Iloui,' etc.; J. G. Muller, art. 'Alexondrin- 
isclK- Judcn' in Herzog's yifc'l i. (18.14) 235-230; Reuss, art. 
' llelkninten,' i(/.l v. 701-70,i, "v. 738-741; Lutterbeck, Die 
Heuletl. Lehrbejrife, i. (1852) (»-120 ; Frankel, ' Uic Diaspora 
ziir Zoit dea zweiten Tenipels' in Moiuxttuchr. /iir Crfgch, und 
irr»«ii*iA. dea Judenlhiims, 1853, pp. 409-429, 449-403, also the 
name author's art. ' Die Juden unter den ersten roniischen 
KaiBcrn,' t6. 1S54, pp. 401-413, 439-460: Jost, Gesch. der 
Jitraeliten. ii. 239-344, Gegch, des Jtuieiithumn und xeiiu^r 
Seclen, i. 33611., 344-361, 307-379; Herzteld, Gcech. dea Volkea 
Jiirael, iii. 425-579, Ilandelsgeachiclile der Juden des Alter- 
thuma, 1879; Griitz, Getch. der Juden*. iW. (1SS81 '24-49 ; Chani- 
pagny. Home e.t la Jud^e au tempa de la cJiute de AVrcH, i. 
(Paris, 1SU5) 107-154 ; Ewald, Geach. dea VuUwa larael.iv. 306 ff., 
\. 1U8(T., vi. 3969.; Holtzniann in Wcber-Holtzmann's Gcsch. 
dea Vutkea Israel, Ii. 88-52, 253-273 ; Hausrath, Smteat. Zeit- 
geachiehte^, ii. 91-145, iii. 383-392; Neulmuer, to Giiigraphie 
du Talmud, 1308, pp. 2!'9-ll9; Friedliindcr, Daratellungen aus 
der Sifteiigesfh. lioms. iii. [Ih71) 504-517, also ' de Jud:eoruin 
Coloniis,'HeirimontiPr.,1870[Pro^r.); Deutsch, art. 'Dispersion* 
in Kitto's Cycloptedia oj Biblical Literature ; Westcott, art. 
* Disjiersion' in Smith's DI1-: Weizsacker, art. ' Zerstremuig ' 
in Schcnkol's Diiiellexicon, v. 712-710; Hindekqiier, Judai^mt at 
Jtoiue B.C. 76 to A.D. 140, New York, 1870(cf. rheol. Litcratur- 
zeiiunij, 1877, col. 163) ; Hamburger, RE /iir Dibel und Talmrid, 
Abth.ii. (1883), arts. 'Zehn Stamme," ' Zerstreuung,'al80 'Alex- 
andria,' 'Antiochia,' 'Rom,' etc., further, art. 'Ausbreitung 
dt's Judenthums' in Supplementbd. iii. (1892) 9-24 ; Mommsen, 
Jitjin. Geseh. v. (1885) 4811-199 ; Pressel, Die Zeratreuung dea Volkea 
Israel, 1889 ; Kenan, Histotre du peuple d' Israel, v. (1803) 221-247 ; 
M. KriedL-indcr, Daa Judenthum in der rorchristlichcn griech- 
iscficn tt'elt, 1897; Reinacii, art. 'Judasi' in Dareniberg-Saplio's 
Dictioniiaire des Antinuil.'a grec(/uea et rtnnaines: Schiirer, 
GJy ', iii. (1898)1-102 [7/./ y, II. ii. 219-327], where a number ot 
points are discussed in t'uller detail. E. SCHUREU. 




I. SiK-red Stones and other Inaniiuate objects: (1) stones, 
pillars, columns, etc. ; (2) thrones ; (3) weapons ; (4) 
woo<len i>osts. 
H. Sacred Trees. 

III. Sacred AniuLiIs : (1) animals as parts of the god ; (2) the 

hull ; (3) the goat ; (4) the sheep ; (5) the horse ; (6) 
the swine ; (7) the Iwe ; (8) the sacredness of domesti- 
cated animals; (9) <lomesticated animals as sacrifice; 
(10) the lion, the stag ; (U) the serpent ; (12) sacred- 
ness of wild animals. 

IV. Sacred Ploces : (1) mountains; (2^ sacred caves and 

mountain glens ; (3) sacred sprmgs and lakes ; (4) 
development of the sacred place into a religious centre 
or Hi' fi'H ; (5)s;icre<l plates in thcreligion of Greece. 
V. Rtl:ii!nji (if the nriirinal aniconic religion to iniage- 

-hip: (1) coexistence of the two kinds ofworship ; 
. ijti\eimi 
i («««.> 

■ images and representations of the Deity 


VI. The Divine in human form and character : (1) the Great 
Mother ; (2) the growth of mythology as the storv of 
the Great .Mother; (3) myths of the goddess and the 
god ; (4) the birth anil death of the Divine nature. 
VII. Hiluul ami Ceremonial : (.1) the origin of ritual ; (2) the 
.M>>Uriia; (3) n,iture of the Mysteries; (4) the char- 
acter oi the Phrygian and the Greek Mysteries; (5) the 
growth of ritual ; (6) purification ; (7) confession ; (8) 
ajiproaching the Deity ; (9) priests ; (10) hieroi. 
VIII. Influence on Society and Life: (1) marriage; (2) 
hiervdotdoi ; (3) women guards ; (4) self-nmtilation ; 
(5) burial ; (6) brotherhoods and guilds ; (7) govern- 
ment and wlministration ; (8) household proteges; 
(9) religious induences on social conditions, 
IX. History and Chronology : (I)develoi>nient of the Anatolian 
Religion in history ; (2) local diversity in Anatolian 
Religion; (3) chronology 
B. TiiR Hkllgnic Kklioion. 
I. Early Greek Religion. 
II. Greek Religion and tlreek Law. 

III. The Elements of Hellenic Religion. 

IV. The Growth of Hellenic Religion : (1) continuity of de- 

\ elopment ; (2) growth of mythology ; (3) polytheism 
and the Hellenic unity ; (4) formation of the Hellenic 
Pantheon ; ' (6) the Hellenic Religion an ideal ; (6) 

theory of the IlelUuie Pantheon ; (7) moralization of 
the Hellenic gods ; (8) the Daimoncs and the Divine in 
the pinsical world ; (M) restrictions on the nature of 
the gods ; (lo) .state go<l8 and gods within the State ; 
(U) extension of the worship of a god; (12) State 
recognition of the Pan-Hellenic Religion ; (i:t) the 
Hellenic Religion a part of the City-StaU-; (14) the 
Ilellenic conception of piety. 
V. The Hellenic clas«itlcation of deities as Olympian and 
('hthoninn : (1) Hellenism and the thought of death ; 

(2) the Olvmpian and the Chthonian go<ls. 

VI. The Religion of Apollo and the Delphic Oracle (L.R. F.). 
C. Latkr Dkvkloi'mknt ok Hklioio.s is tmk Grkek World. 
I. Religion in Literature and Philosophv. 
II. The attitude of St. Paul to Greek Philosophy. 

III. Degradation of the Hellenic Religion ; (1) foreign in- 

fluence ; (2)*8U8ceptibiIity to foreign religious influence ; 

(3) manner in which foreign religion entered Greece ; 

(4) itinerant priests ; (5) magic ; (6) the worship of 
living men as deities. 

IV. Religion of the Gneco-.^siatic cities. 

V. Decay and death of the Hellenic Religion. 
The reli-iion of the (ireek peoples and of the races 
which lay between Hellas and the strictly < Irienta! 
n.'itioiis, in coiiinuinication yvith both, iiiHuencin^ 
and inllueiiced by both, is a subject which can 
liaidlj' be omitted in a survey of the roli^:iiiiis 
which came into immediate relation to Christi- 
anity in the earliest sta^'e of its history ; and yet 
it is a subject which at the present time is hardly 
susceptible of adetjuate treatment within narrow 
space. The antiquities of the most notable Hellenic 
cults have been much investi^'ated, though not 
alwaj's in a very intelli^'ent fashion or with a iirojier 
conce|)tion of the reli^riuus bearing' of the details 
so carefully and laboriously collected. Hence the 
reli^'ious ideas and conce[ptioii> entertained by the 
various tribes of (ireece, often dillerin^; widely from 
one another, have hardly been sutlicienllj' observed 
and studied in their gradual evolution ; and, in 
fact, evidence is so scanty in re<.'ard to most of 
them, that it is doubtful if the attempt could be 

H the religion of the strictly Greek tribes is still 
very obscure, much more is this the case with what 
may be called the half-tJreek jieoples* of Asia 
Minor. This is a .subject still almost unstudied, 
or studied occasionally, in a haphazard waj', parti- 
ally, and as a sort of appendix to the religion 
of Greece proper. This way of entering on the 
study, under the bias and cohmring inlliience of 
tireek prepossession, is, we believe, injurious, and 
has caused much misapprehension. (Jne should 
rather l«gin the study of Greek religion from Asia 
Minor, both as being more primitive in many of its 
forms, and as having sent into Greece a scries of 
religious waves which strongly .affected that coun- 
ti'j'. At a later perioil the Greek intluence returned 
over Asi.a Minor, and overran it in a superticial 
way ; but this new period in religion was broadly 
ditlerent, and easily distinguishable from the older 
and truly Anatolian jicriod. It is neces-i.irv to 
begin afresh in that country, to collect and c|:i-^ify 
and value the religions fiict~, ami on this b:i^i> lo 
give an account of the religion of the peoiile^ : but 
that is a great work, which is far too large lor the 
narrow limits of an article. Probably the most 
useful way at present will be to state as simply 
and clearly as possible the views which the writer 
is dispo.sed to hold, avoiding disputation and argu- 
ment, and therefore making little reference to 
discrepant views, except where such reference is 
the shortest way of stating the subject clearly. 
This gives unavoidably an a])iicaraiiee of dog- 
matism, which the writer can only apologize for 
as the necessary result of the attempt to iii:\ke the 
.subject clear in small space : if the views of others 
were stated, either the article would become a 
confusing congeries of iiTeconeilalile theories, or it 
would grow too large in estimating and discussing 

" On the meaning which we attach to this term 'half Greek, 
sec the following paragraph. 




other views. It is also necessary to explain that 
t'^e writer's views are founded on a far from com- 
jilete survey of the facts, and are liable to correc- 
tion, doubtless, in many details, if the opportunity 
should ever be granted him of writing a coniplete 
account of Anatolian religion ; but the general 
prim ijiles aie the result of more than twenty 
year~ of interest and occasional study, and are not 
likely to be much changed by further thought.* 

The phrase 'half-Greek races' is not used in an 
ethnological sense in this article. It does not 
imply a mixture of Greek and non-Greek blood in 
any race. It is employed to indicate a gradual 
shading oft' of character, as one pioceeds from 
Greece proper towards the East. The view which 
we take is that even the tribes of Greece pioper 
were far from uniform in blood and stock. The 
Hellenic idea and civilization which those tribes 
evohed was far too many-sided to arise among a 
homogeneous nation ; there were combined in its 
composition a great variety of characteristics con- 
tributed by various tribes of very diverse character, 
nursed and matured amid the jieculiar circum- 
stances of the seas and lands that touch and mingle 
in south-eastern Europe and Asia Minor. The lands 
that border on the ^I^^gean Sea were pre-eminently 
the nursing home of Hellenism, and the further we 
go from it the more faint and evanescent become 
the traces of the Greek spirit. Hellenism is only 
jiartially a racial fact ; it denotes also a general 
ty)ie iif intellectual and jiolitical development, of 
indu>trial education and artistic achievement. 

The jioint of view from wliicli we start may be 
stated in outline as follows. (1) The religion of 
the .\natolian race or races, in its origin, was to 
a considerable extent an idealized presentation of 
the actual life of the time, exhibiting a Divine 
model and authorization for the existing customs 
and institutions in family and society and the 
State as a whole. 

('2) Their religion was the authority for the laws 
and rules on which rested their industiy and agri- 
culture and general well-being. Perhaps it origin- 
ally taught those rules to a sinqde people, in which 
case tile knowledge enibodieil in them probably 
belonged at one time to the ])ril■^ts alone. Cer- 
tainly, the sanction for the rulc~ w as n-ligious : the 
violation of them was puni-hiil l>y the Divine 
power through sickness, whctlicr disease of any 
part of the body or the general indefinite fact of 
fever, which was considered to be a consuming cf 
the body and strength by Divine tire. 

(3) The Divine power was the ruler of the people, 
acting through its visible representatives, namely, 
the kings or priests : there is every probability 
that the king was the priest: the priest-kings or 
].riest -dynasts are a most characteristic feature of 

This is obviously the religion of a comparatively 
civilized people, not of a barbarous race. And it 
must be distinctly understood from the outset that 
we are not investigating the origin of the religious 
forms which are described in the following pages : 
we are attempting to understand clearly and 
state precisely the religious ideas of a population, 
posse--iug an ordered system of government of a 
peculiar and well-marked character, surrounded 
by many etjuipments and devices and implements 
of an artificial and developed character, practising 
both agriculture and a very highly developed 

* In the Cities and Bishoprics ofPhrygia, i. and ii., the present 
writer was groping his way to the view.s now expressed in part A. 
A consideralile portion of part B was written in 1S79-81, and 
needed hardly any chanjre to adapt it to the writer's ]>resent 
views. In view of recent theories it should he added that the 
view here advocated, as to the way in which pre-Hellenio 
religion developed into Hellenic, remains practically unchanged 
since ISyl, but the name 'Pelasgian' was not used in that 
old sketch of the subject. 

system of treating domesticated animals and 
adapting them to the benefit of mankind. 

A question of extreme interest and importance 
is, how far any signs of progress and development 
can be observed in the religion which we are 
studying. It may be doubted whether there can 
be detected anything in the way of growth from 
within, of elevation of the religious idea and of 
the moral standard in the application of religion to 
life, such as is the most striking feature in the 
history of Hebrew religion. On the whole, the 
history is one of deterioration and degradation 
rather than one of elevation. Any improvement 
that does take place seems rather attrilmtable to, 
and fully explained by, the meeting of ditVcrent 
races with different religious ideas coni'spdnding 
to their differing social and family oiuainzatiou ; 
and is probably not caused by any mind working 
from within the religion, unfolding and vitalizing 
the germs of truth which it contained, and burning 
away the envelope and accretion of accidental 
idolatrous forms that clung to it. We use inten- 
ticmally these last words, for it will ajiiiear that 
the fundamental and essential idea in the -Vnatolian 
religion is not strictly idolatrous, and that the de- 
velopment in polytheism and image-worship wa8 
gradual, and was external and accidental rather 
than natural and necessary. 

A. PnimTivE Anatolian AND pre-Hellenic 
Religion. — In treating this subject, reference 
must often be made to jirimitivc Greek, or, as it 
maybe called, Pclas;_:ian worslii]! (anticipating part 
B, §§ I, II), which illustiatcs the .\iiatolian religion 
so remarkably as to demonstrate that some intimate 
relation once existed between them. We must here 
simply assume the relationship without inquiring 
into its nature. 

I. Sacked Stones and other inanimate 
Objects. — As a preliminary, we may ask what 
traces of the worship of inanimate things can be 
observed in Asia Minor or Greece, and what is the 
idea involved in this worship? ^lany examples 
are known of such things being regarded with 
deep religious veneration. 

(1) Stones, Pillars, Columns, etc. — A rude and 
shapeless stone, which had fallen from heaven 
(SioireTijs), doubtless a meteorite, existed originally 
at Pessinus, and was brought to Kome about B.C. 
204 ; it is a type of many other similar stones 
at Orchomenos, Thesjiia-. Syiinacln, Ad.ida, etc. 
Many of these stones had soair a|i|ir.)\iiiiatc regu- 
larity of shape, sometimes ]iirlia|is aiiiilcntal. in 
other cases distinctly due to human workmanship. 
Such were the conical or roughlj- pyramidal stones 
in the temples at Paphos (of Aphrodite), Perga 
(Artemis), Delphi (.Apollo), etc. : obelisks, columns, 
and stones of a distinctly tetragonal shape are 
indicated in many other cases : above all other gods 
in Greece such stones or pillars were connected 
with Hermes, and called Hcrmaia or Hermai* 

It admits of no doubt that many sacred stones 
had primarily a purpose in family life or social or 
political organization. Boundary stones or termini 
were erected by mutual agreement between dis- 
putants, and were consecrated by every religious 
sanction known at the time, by ceremonial, and 
by a curse on the violator or remover ; and the 
belief indubitably was that the ceremonies of erec- 
tion and consecration had caused Divine power 
and life to take ui> its abode in the stone : this 
Divine power demanded worship in recognition 
and propitiation, and was able and ready to punish 
neglect or violation. The terminus was valueless 

• fj.Mpm i!-n.iriiuMi to "E.pij:^~m (Polyajnus, Slrat. vi. 24) ; li 
'EooaTo* £; Mtfl-o-rv'O'? ««' MsyaXfiToXiTai; e.Viv tpot (Pausanias, 
viii. 34. H). These Hcrmaia were columns, or heaps of stones, 
or single stones. A useful collection of ancient authorities 
will be found in Mr. M. W. de Visser's treatise, dc Gra'coram 
diis non re/ereiitiOus humanam spcciem, Leyden, 1900. 




unless it was respfctcil and inviuliite : liiiiiiiiii iieeil 
was ur^'fUt that it slionlil be ies|iectu<l, hut mere 
liiiniaii pDwei- was iiinilile to make it so : actoril- 
in;;ly. lli<' I)iviiii> |io\\.t was iiivokeil to sii|i|>ly tlie 
(leli<;eii( V. and liv |iiiip r rites was hroii^'lit down 
anil caised to tlwell in the pillar or the stone. 
One ot the ceremonies proper to the eult of sueli 
sacreil stones was (lie ponrinj; of (pil on them ; and 
in jjeneral a similar cereniunial to that tleserihed 
in g II was praetised. Similarly, in a house any 
peiuliarly important iH^ariii^' niemlier, a central 
liillamr roof tree, was jilaced umler Divine protec- 
tion 1)V invoUinj; the Divine power to reside in it. 

In all cjises there is hut one method and one 
Iirin<-iple. The more nr;,'ent nnin's need is, and 
the more important for his life and wellheinj; any 
stone or erection is, the more iloes it become 
necessary to make the Divine power take up its 
aliode in the stone. In other words, the stone 
hecoines a Iklh-il, or 'House of God'; the pillar 
eml«)dies the !4od Hermes. 

The subject in its bearing on early Greek 
relijrion ha.< been admirably treated by >Ir. A. J. 
Evans in an elaborate paper on ' Mvcen;ean Tree 
and I'illar Cult' of Hell. Stiit/. 1<)I»1, pp. 
!l!t-L'03), which will henceforth Iw re;;arded as 
fundamental in this dep;irlnient, thou^^h it will 
doubtless receive dcvi'lupiiient and improvement 
and correction in details from lioth the author and 
others. The precedin;; remarks will show why 
the objection recently raised against Mr. Kvans' 
theory in ./'-»/■/;. (/y/.//. Shid. lilOl, pp. 208-275, 
cannot weijih with us: the id>jection is that many 
of his e.xamiiles of '.sacred jiillars' are obviously 
structural members, and need not therefore he 
considered to have any religions ])nrpose : we, 
however, hold that the structural importance pro- 
duced the .sacred character of the '[lillar.' The 
sacrcdness of nide puri)oseless stones was perhaps 
due to 'false analogy,' that fruitful agencj' in 
thought, and should be regarded as not primitive, 
hut cases of degradation. 

I'roli.-ibly no one could doubt that the rude 
meteoric stone was worshii>ped because it had 
fallen from heaven, and was obviously and un- 
mistakably a mark and sign and cxamjile of Divine 
activity and power. Similarly, it seems beyond 
doubt that the boundary stone, or the supimrting 
memlier of the family home and roof, is made 
into a dwelling-place of Divine power, in order 
thai human needs may be satisfied by Divine aid. 
The same principle of interjpretation must he 
applied in many other cases where the stone was 
neither in itself an object useful to man, nor 
marked by its natural character and origin as 
Divine. It was often urgently necessary to |iro- 
tect a locality for the common use of men, and 
this was done in a similar way by .setting up one 
or more sacred stones in it : but in such casus the 
sacred stone was an addition, anil not an integral 
part of the structure or equipment. 

In a town it was urgently required that the 
street, the common property and a necessary con- 
venience for all, shonlil be inviolate and [uoperly 
kept luid respected by the dwellers or passers-by. 
The common need was guaranteed liy the sacred 
Jli rmni or iiillars, which were made the residence 
of Divine power by charming it into them through 
the |(roper rites; and uiisdiMueanour in the street 
or encroachment on it was tints coustitittcd a dis- 
respect of the divinity, and imnisheil by him. 

In a more developed state of society, roails lead- 
ing from city to city were probably put under 
Divine luotection in a similar way ; and the .sacred 
stones were commonly made useful to human re- 
quirements by having distances engraved on them, 
thus beccuuing milestones.* IJut such stones 
" Curtius, Geach. des griech. WegeUtw. 

gener.'illy belonged to a more advanec<l stage of 
thought, when men refused to consider a stone the 
abode of Divine power. On the Konnm Imperial 
roads they were iledieated to the Emperor, ami 
thus placed under the guardianship of the Imperial 
god incarnate in hunum form on the earth. The 
god and the stone are in this stage Ke|>arate<l ill 
thought, but the stone remains sacred in a new 
way as the projierty of the gml. 

A meeting of three roads or streets, as an im- 
portant point, was placeil under the guardianship 
of the Divine power. When the anthroponioriihic 
tendency had Wome strong, the Divine guardian 
of the trijde cro.ssing was represented as the 
gixldess (under the name Hekate in tireeee) 
with three faces, looking to the three ways ( 
as in Italy the god protecting the arehway and 
the door was represented with two faces looking 
! in the two directions). But before the antliro|Ki- 
niorphic idea had gained full strength, there 
was doubtless some other way of syiul>oli/.ing 
the Divine guardianship of the meeting of the 
ways ; and the suggestion seems obvious that tlie 
symbol wa.s the trU/cclcs, three human legs and 
feet, diverging from a common centre, and typify- 
ing the \yalking of men along the three" ways 
which radiated from the meeting-place (com/^iVM/ji). 
Little is known with regard to this form of cultus, 
except in Itomc, where the feast of the Com/ntulin 
was an iMi|iortaiil part of the city-religion ; but 
few will doubt that, as streets ami roads became 
important, a cult us corresponding to the Vump'Ualia 
developed in primitive Anatolia. In the coinage 
of Anatolia the tiis/::/cs is almost entirely con- 
lined to the cities least atlected by Hellenic cul- 
ture, in Pi.sidia, Isauria, and early or inner Lycia. 
Moreover, the cjiithets TpiKapavo^y TtrpaKapavo^, ap- 
plied to Hekate Selene, are doubtless to be under- 
stood as a]>plyiiig to the goddess who guards the 
trii-iiiin. or the niinilrifiiiiii.' 

It may tlieretore be reasonably maintained that 
in many other jilaces, where we know only that 
in primitive thought a stone was regarded as .s,acred 
and made the object of worship in the Greek world, 
the fundamental character was the same. The 
stone was worshii>ped as home and symbol and 
proof of Divine power— a power able and ready to 
respond to human needs. See also below, (2), and 

As Greek thought developed in the direction of 
anthropomorphism and polytheism, there arose an 
opinion that the old sacred stone was either a 
representation and image of a god, the rudest be- 
ginning^ of a statue, or an altar dedicated to the god. 
Such views seem not to be original and genuine 
religious conceptions, hut merely iihilosoidiic in- 
terpretations by which more developed thought 
tried to bring primitive religious facts into con- 
formity with itself. Thus the pillars, mentioned 
above, in streets an<l open places, which were 
originally called tirjijifii or fiifi/icix, were regariled 
as altars or representations of a Deity, sometimes 
Helios, sometimes Dionysos, but most commonly 
Apollo; and A if i/i ■:!(.•,■ was then usually reganlell 
as an epithet of Apollo. The (.Ireeks themselves 
hesitated whether to call the pillars altars or 
statues of .Vpollo, a sure proof that neither de- 
scription was complete and true. The pillars or 
stones in oiien places and gymnasia, by roads, 
at boundaries, originally and commonly styleil 
Jicniiiii, i.e. embodiments of Hermes, came to Ijo 
regarded rather as statues of Hermes, and were 
developed accordingly in art, as we shall sec in 
the ensuing paragrapli. 

The institution of sacred stones wa.s modilied by 
another inllueiice. Art was engaged in the .-ei-viee 

• .Seu Ucrme; iv. p. at ; Uainsay, UUI. Cum. on Ualattam 




of the anthropomorpliic tendency in religion, and 
wrought out ideal expression in human form of 
the various gods : the types of gods and god- 
desses were elaborated, and distinguished from one 
another, in the ruder stage to a considerable extent 
by symbols and equipments, but in tlie more de- 
veloped and perfected stage by tlie varying artistic 
expression of the idealized conception of each deity 
as an individual character. Alongside of this 
rapid progress in the artistic presentation of dif- 
ferent types of Divine character as dlH'erent per- 
sonal gods in Imnian fortn, there was another line 
of develo]iiiu'iit, tbvoiigh which the sacred pillars 
(which still coiitinucci to be erected in numbers 
during tliis more developed period) were made to 
assume more resemblance to the human form. 
The top of the pillar was carved into a bust, and 
parts of the body were indicated on tlie sides : 
such figures were commonly called Hermai, and 
Greek art developed the type at a later time in 
various ways, making the busts portraits of real 
human persons. In all such cases art takes tlie 
view that the pillar is a rude statue of some deity 
or hero, and makes additions or modifications to 
Ijring out this character more clearly. 

The epithet of meteoric stones, SioirerTjs, was 
sometimes transferred to certain very archaic 
statues, about which the legend grew that they 
had fallen from heaven : such was the case with 
the rude figure of barely human form in which 
Artemis of Ephesus was represented (Ac 19"^). 
The nature of those rude ohi idols will be more 
fully considered in § III (1) and § V (1). 

(2) l^hrones. — The ancients mention many stones 
in Greece which were said to derive their sacred 
character from having been the seat of deities or 
heroes (who in these cases may usually be regarded 
as deities degenerated in popular legend). Such 
were the Agelastos Petra at Elensis (or at Athens) 
on which Demeter sat sorrowing for her lost Kora,* 
or, as another legend said, where Theseus sat before 
descending to Hades ; the chair of Man to at Thebes, 
the stone of Telanion at Salamis, etc. The bed of 
Actaeon at Plat;eaand varii>ns oflior stones may be 
classed with these. The Oiiiplialus at Delphi is 
often represented with Apollo sitting on it. 

In .\sia Minor there are examples of rocks cut to 
the roii^li fonii of a seat. The 'Throne of Pelops' 
in Sipylus beside Magnesia ( Pausanias, v. 13. 7) is 
prob.-vbly to be identified with the rock-cutting, 
forming a sort of broad seat, or jilatform with a 
back, on the highest point of an early rock citadel 
on the slope of Sipylus, about 4 or 5 miles east of 

Dr. Reichel has elaborated these facts into a 
theory of Throne-worship: viz., that the Divine 
nature, not yet represented in personal human 
form, was symbolized by the throne or seat, which 
was regarded as an indication of its presence. 

Some of Dr. Keichel's examples of Divine thrones 
rest on his own far-fetched and almost certainly 
erroneous explanations ; t in other cases the re- 
corded story about a Divine or heroic throne may 
be only a later popular explanation of an older 
religious fact, no longer understood. But whether 
that aspect of his theory is only pressed too far 
and applied to unsuitable cases, or whether it is 
wholly erroneous, there is, at any rate, another and 
a true side to his theory. He is right in his view 
that before the period of images and image- worship 
we must admit the existence of an imageless wor- 
ship in the -Egean lands and Asia Minor generally : 
a Divine power invisible to man was approached 

* A similar stone and legend probahly existed in Asia Minor ; 
and a Christian form was <fiven to it later ; see Joum. of Hell. 
Stud. 1882, p. 349. 

f See A. J. Evans in Joum. of llell. Stud. 1001, p. 189 ; Fritze 
in Uheiiu Museum, 1900, p. SSS. 

and adored ; it was felt in the phenomena of the 
world, in the growth and life and productivity oi 
nature ; its presence and power were symbolized 
and envisaged to its worshippers in various ways, 
but the symbols were not considered as images or 
likenesses of that Divine nature, but rather as ita 
home or residence, or as an ett'ect and exemplifica- 
tion of its power. The statement of Nicol. Dam. 
Synaf). fr. 19 (p. 148), and Stoba;us, Serm. xlii. 
p. 292, that the Phrygians did not swear or exact 
from another an oath (by any god), probably has 
some reference to this belief in a Divine nature 
without images. * On this topic see further, § V ( 1 ). 

Dr. Reichel has erred, as we believe, only in the 
direction in which he has developed a correct 
observation. It was not the seat or throne of the 
formless and invisible Divine nature that was in 
the beginning worshipped; for the very idea of a 
seat already involves the attribution of something 
like form and peisonality to the power which 
needs and uses a seat. The fundamental idea was 
that of the home and abode, or the origin of Divine 
jjower. Out of this springs all the symbolism and 
all the earlier iihenomena of Anatolian religious 
observances. The sacred stone or the sacred tree 
is the home of the Divine nature : the cave among 
the wild mountains, the simple shrine, are easy 
developments of the same idea.f 

(.S) Weapons. — Other inanimate objects besides 
stones were made the object of worship. The 
Alani, a rude barbarian tribe south-east of the 
Black Sea, are said to have worshipped a naked 
sword, which they fixed for the occasion in the 
ground. This mi"ht be disregarded as a savage 
custom which had come in from Central Asia, 
were it not that one of the reliefs — among the 
most important, to jtidge from its size — portrayed 
on the walls of the tKhjtinn before the eyes of the 
initiated at DughazKeui (Pteria probably), east of 
the Halys.J rejuesents a gigantic sword stuck in 
the ground, with only the hilt and a small part of 
the lilade protruding. The hilt in itself is evi- 
dently a symbol or representative of Divine power, 
composed of two pairs of animals, evidently lions, 
surmounteil by a human head wearing the tall 
pointetl hat characteristic of the supreme god. It 
is therefore not open to doubt that the custom of 
the Alani in the 4th cent, after Christ was the 
same as the ancient Anatolian custom. We see 
clearlj- that the sword was regarded not as a god 
in and for itself, but as a symbol of a vague per- 
vading Divine power. That power resides mainly 
in the hilt, not in the blade, and is moulded not 
altogether unlike the human form, and yet ditt'er- 
ing essentially from it, full of the terror and 
strength of savage nature embodied in the four 
lions, but human-headed. 

If some tribes worshipped the sword, others re- 
garded the battle-axe as sacred. The difference 
obviously arises from ditt'erence of warlike custom : 
the weapon to which the tribe trusted especially 
in battle was esteemed by it the home of the 
Divine strength by which they conquered and 
hoped to conquer. In Caria and in Crete the axe 
appears as a Divine symbol. We may confidently 
assume that it was made the object of a special 
cult, like the Sword-god among the Alani. Though 
tills is not exactly proved definitely by the evidence, 
yet the importance of the Carian name Labrys 
[hipcnnis, 'battle-axe') in Carian religion leaves 
little doubt on the point : Labranda was one of 
the chief centres of the worship of the Carian god, 
who was actually called Labraundos,% and one of 

* The Pontic oath by Men Pharnakes (Strabo, p. 557) is later 
(cf. p. 128) ; but see Eoseher, Selew, p. 122. 

t On the shrine see § V (3) ; on the sacred cave, § IV (2). 

1 See Perrot, Histoire del' Art dans VAntiquiti, iv. pp. 643, 
G47 ; Chantre. Voyage en Cappadoce, gives the latest account. 

$ Heller'-'ed as Zeus Labraundos. 




tlio Komctfs in Ciirian iiiytholD^ry was Lalirmulos.* 
lint, t'veu more uiiiiiixtJikaMy tlmn the sword, the 
nxe was a syiiiliol of a Divine ]iower felt as lyiiij; 
behind it and expressing' itself throu^'h it, ancl not 
as a riower or a terror in itself. The ^'u<l carrying' 
the battle-axe on his shonlder is one of the most 
familiar and widely dilliised symbols in east Lydian 
and west I'lirygian coina^'e. t 

We notice that the worship of the axe lielon^'s to 
the Carians, a peo])lo who iH-yond doubt ^crc an 
immij^rant race; and we shall see anion;,- them 
some examples of divery;ence from the Anatolian 
ty|ie of religion (see § VI ('2)1. The worship of the 
axe must l>e regarded as also a diver^'enee fioni 
tliiit typo; and, in acoordnnee witli the principle 
stated at ihe beginning of the article, this diver- 
gence is to be attributed to the character of the 
Carian race. In the same way the wcnshiii of the 
swonl, tliiiugli Irace.'ible in the religion of the 
central plateau in tlic earliest jieriod known to ns, 
is probalily a ilevelopmcnt out iif the original 
Anatulian tyjie due to pressure from the east and 
north-east. The east Anatolian type of cnUus is 
of a much more bellicose type than the central 
-■Vnatolian (see § IX (2)), and the reason indubit- 
ably lies in the rough and warlike character of 
the tribes on that side, such as the Kardouchoi, 
modern Kurds, etc. 

(4) ]\':>i,ih,i /ii'^/s: — A rude wooden j)Ost was 
PometiiiH'v wdi-l'ippcd in a way similar to the 
more comiiioTi NiuieU stone. 'fhe Divinity at 
Sanu)s was originally .symbolized by a wooden 
idank ; and in the more anthropiunoriihic develo]!- 
ment, when the Divinity had come to be thought 
of as the goddess Hera, tins plank was called the 
earliest statue of lier. Manj- other similar stumi)s 
of wood experienced the same development in an- 
tliropomorpliic tlicmght. 

1m origin some, and probably most, of those 
sacred sturujis or planks were holy trees, decayed 
an 1 dead ; J and they strictly fall under § II. Ijut 
in other cases the original was a wooden pillar or 
col'.imn, the support of a chamber or house, and 
fulls under the class describe.l above, §1(1); this 
was clearly the case witli the I)ionys(js Kailmos at 
Thebes, des« ribeil by I'ausauias, i.x, I'i. 4 (which de 
Visser, p. b8, has aptly illustrated from Diod. 
Sic. I. xxiii. 4). 

II. SacukI) Trees.— The worship of sacred trees 
is one of the most widely spread religious ^die- 
nomena in the early Greek world. The ani^ent 
Ilciriicrie hymn to the Aphrodite of the Troad 
(J(i4-27-) mentions tliat the life of the mountain 
nymi)hs, who shall nurse the goddess's son, is 
associated with the life of the sacred trees, which 
man may not cut down ; and that, when a tree 
withers and dies, the nymph dies with it. The 
oaks of Dodona were Divine, and the sound of the 
motion of their branches was the voice of the god 
declaring his will and revealing the future to men. 
The bay tree of Apollo, the olive of Athena, and 
many others, had doubtless the .same origin. In 
later time the popular legend often attached itself 
to such trees, that they had been planted by some 
hero or Divine figure (so with two oaks at llcraclea 
in Pontns), or in some other fashion they were in- 
vidved in his life-history (a frequent form l>eing 
that the god or hero or heroine had been sus- 
pended from the tree).§ 

The worship of the tree was conducted on i>re- 

* The Carian local names Larifuut and LCiryma (Iwth bishop- 
rics) may tw connected (throi ;,'h an intenncdiate fonn Lavryma) ; 
also Lolt-i-ine, a. title o( Cyl>ele at C.vzicus. 

t See list in Head's Calalogite oj Coiiu Br. Mus, : Lydia, p. 

t K\:niij.l('s inprcat number arc alluded toby MaxiniusTvrius, 
viii, 1 (.!.■ Vi-s.T, p. 8»). 

t TIm ..;,ks ^,t Ilcrnclea, Plin. HX, xvi. 80. On the whole 
suKj..! I'.n.ui.lur. Banmlciillm, is fundamental; but Mann- 
hardt and many other writers must be coni^ulted. 

cisely the same plan as that of the inuige in later 
times. It was clothed, crowneil, ailorned ; * pro- 
cessions were maile to it, sacrilices were burnt to 
it, and meat-ollerings laid before it. People prayed 
to it and kisseil it (Ov. Met. vii. 031). It was 
imiiions to go V>eneath it without the jiroper rites 
(Ov. FhsI. iv. 74!t). It was wrong to ihuss it 
without some token of res|)ect (.■\pul. Flur. I). 
The fall of a holy tree was a very biul omen ; and 
in Home on such an occ.ision an txniigurutio was 
pcrforuied, as there hail originally lieen an in- 
luiqiiiiiliij (Plin. UN XV. 20). 

l)edi(^ati()n of the hair has always lieen the 
greatest sign of devotion to any deity ; l>oyK dedi- 
cateil their hair on entering manhood, brides before 
marriage, nuinied women at the birth of a chilil ; 
and in Delos it was customary for boys and bridal 
couples to dedicate their hair under the olive tree 
that grew on the grave of Hyperoehe and I.aodicc. 

The sacred tree was the pledge of the pre-cn.e 
and favour of the god, and on it therefore ilepcndcd 
the jirospcrity of the family, tribe, or State which 
worshipped it. Such belief is seen in reference to 
the lig tree in the Itoman forum, t or the olive in 
the -Acropolis at .\tliens ; and when the latter put 
forth a new shoot after the buniing of the city by 
the Persians, the people knew that the safety of 
the city was assured. A piece of the sacred tree 
was a jiledge of security to the Argo and to the 
lleet of .Eneas {^En. ix. 92). The fate of Megara 
depended on an olive tree (Plin. HN xvi. 72). 

The tree, then, was on earth the embodiment or 
the home of Divine life ; and the life of nnin in 
some forms of belief was connected with a tree 
during his earthly existence and pas.«etl into it at 
his death. Like the gods, men are often said to 
be born from trees. Hesiod's third race of men 
were born from ash trees, and Meleager's life de- 
l>cnded on a piece of wood. Ares was born from 
Hera and a plant (see below, § VI (2)). Talos and 
Adonis were born from trees. Most instructive are 
the cases in which the tree is said to have grown 
out of the hero's grave. Such was the plane tree 
on the tomb of Amycus in Bithynia : Aniycus had 
opposed and fought with all strangers ; and if 
any part of his tree was taken on board a ship, 
there ensued constant quarrelling, until his inllu- 
ence was got rid of by throwing away the bough. 
Here the tree is evidently the cml>odimeut of the 
spirit of the dead person. There was generally 
a fountain beside the tree, as at Dodona and 

Moreover, transformation into a tree was equiva- 
lent to translation to the company of the gmls : and 
the tree became then a sacred i>ledge for jo-tcrity, 
the prototyjie of the later hero-chai)el. '1 lie plants 
and trees which grew on the grave were the life 
of the buried human being. Phemonoe, the first 
Pythia, foretold that from her deaii IkmIv would 
spring lierlis which would give to animals that at« 
tliem the power of showing the futiire by the state 
of their entrails. Thus she would live on with 
men. And, similarly, the plants on graves niaile 
a connexion l>etween the decea,sed and this world : 
an Athenian law (.\el. Var. Hist. 5. 17) punished 
with death any one who cut a holm-oak growing-in a 
sepulchral ground (hcroon). From this sprung the 
later custom of planting gardens in cemeteries. 
Many ]ia,ssages in literature allude to the sympathy 
between the dead man and the trees or plants on 
his grave. On that of Protcsilaus grew plane 
trees, whose twigs pointed towards Troy, and whose 
leaves fell sooner than those of any tree around. t 

The belief in ludy trees has lasted, proliably un- 
broken, in Anatolia through Christian times down 

• Theocr. xviii. 46. 

t I'linv, //,V XV. 20. 77. 

t See also I'auB. x. 5. 4 ; Pcrsius, I. 39; Proi>ertius, iv. 6. 1, T3. 




to the present day. In the Acta of St. Philetiprus* 
a grove of tall cypress trees at a place in Mysia 
called Poketo.s, on the road from Niea;a and the 
Rhyndacus to Cyzicus, is mentioned as the chief 
seat of local pagan rites in the 4th cent. ; the refer- 
ence probahly proves that the grove existed or was 
still remembered when the Acta, a late composition 
but embodying a real local tradition, took form. 
An inscription of Sandal (Satala in the Lydian 
Katakekaumene) mentions the punishment in- 
flictfd in tlie form of disease by tlie gods Sabazios 
and Anaitis Artemis on a man who had cut tlieir 
trees ; and the Mohammedans still believe that 
disease will attiiet any one who cuts the trees on 
a neighbouring hillock.t Sacred trees were hung 
with garlands, just as at the present day rags and 
scraps of garments are tied bj' Mohammedans to 
sacred trees in many parts of Asia Minor, though 
this practice is not in accordance with the spirit or 
the rules of their religion. 

The veneration of the sacred tree or grove 
evidently implies the idea that the tree is an 
embodiment of the Divine life and power, and 
that he who maltreats the tree injures the Divinity 
that lives in the tree. At the same time, the 
utilitarian element also entered here, for the be- 
lief protects and safeguards the interests of men, 
or their deep feelings of respect for the dead. The 
trees beside a village were useful to its popula- 
tion, or thej' were sentinels keeping watch over 
the grave of the dead. The worshippers of the 
Divine power ornament the tree in which that 
power is manifested with garlands, or with small 
representations of the power in some of its mani- 
festations : and out of the latter custom, through 
growing religious degeneration, springs the legend 
that some hero (connected with, sometimes a mere 
impersonation of, the Divinity) has been suspended 
from the tree, as Marsyas from the plane near 
Celaiiai in Phrygia, or Helena from the plane at 
Sparta (Pans. iii. 19. 10 ; Theoc. 18, 43). 

III. Sacred Animals. — That various animals 
had some religious awe attached to them in early 
(ireek and Anatolian religion is well known ; but 
the nature and real meaning of this awe are far 
from certain. No branch of our subject is more 
obscure than this ; and in none are so many wild 
and vague statements and such mixture of ideas 

The question of sacred animals is always liable 
to be mixed up with the question of Totemism. 
There are, indubitably, certain facts in the re- 
ligious ceremonial and symbolism of the Greek 
peoples which can be most easily and naturally 
explained as survivals of Totemism. But we can- 
not think that Totemism held any place in Greek 
or religion as it presents itself to our 
.study. Similarly, the black stone of the Kaaba in 
Mecca is an old fetish, the veneration of whioli has 
survived in Moliammedanism ; hut fetishism is not 
really an influence in, or part of, Mohammedanism. 
Many survivals of pagan rites and symbols .are 
apjiarent in the developed Hebrew worship, but 
tliey did not touch its essence or attect its develop- 
ment except to be successively eliminated from it. 
.Siiiiil.uly, the survivals of Totemistic forms in the 
(Jrick world do not atl'ect our study of its religion, 
though they are of extreme interest to the archa'O- 
logical investigator. The religious ideas of the 
tribes and races, whose contact and intercourse pro- 
duced the form of thought, religion, and civiliza- 
tion which we call Hellenism, were raised above 
tlie level of Totemism ; and even the earliest Greek 
thought did not understand those survivals in a 
Totemistic way, but put a new, and historically in- 
correct, interpretation on them in popular legend. 

♦ Acta Sanctontm, l»th May, p. 324. 

t M<i/irii« xal Bi/JA. Tij! Ev«yy. 2j^Aii.-, Smyrna, ISSO, p. 164. 

Also, the form of religious thought in which tlie 
sacred animal was regarded and worshipped as 
being actually a god incarnate is not characteristic 
of Anatolia. The nearest approach to that idea is 
in tlie Ephesian religion of Artemis (7), where the 
goddess was the queen bee ; but there is no proof 
that any actual bee was worshipped. The ex- 
planations of sacrificial rites as being cases in 
whidi celebr.ints kill and eat the sacred animal 
as the body of their god, are not admissible, 
except perhaps in some borrowed rites of external 

We may, with some contidence, lay down the 
general principle (which we shall find confirmed in 
several instances and contradicted in none), 
the sacred animals of Anatolian religion are re- 
garded in relation to a more generalized concei>- 
tion of the Divine power, which lies behind them 
and finds expression through them. Hence they 
are often represented in the rude symbolism of 
primitive Anatolian art as associated with, or 
employed in, the service of some deity or Divine 
figure, who is an embodiment of that higher Divine 

(1) Animals as parts of the god. — The most 
typical appearance of animals in this way is as 
bearers or supporters or companions or components 
of gods. A god or goddess is often shown in rude 
Anatolian cult-representations as standing on an 
animal or bird : that is the case with a god, i)re- 
sumably Sandon or Baal-Tarz (Hellenized as Zciis 
Tarsios), represented on coins of Tarsus, with 
.several deities on the religious sculptures in the 
adytum at Boghaz-Keui, and with various small 
works of art in bronze or on seals or in other forms. 
The Horseman-god described below, (5), perhaps 
belongs to this class.* 

In other cases the figure of a god has a rough 
resemblance to the human form, but is composed 
of one or more animal forms. su]iporting a human 
head, or in an Egyptianizing type the head is of a beast or liird, l>ut the liudy is human (as 
in some figures at lioghaz - Keui, or the Black 
Demeter with the head of a horse at Phigalia in 

To this class belong the representations of Cybele 
with her lions, or of Artemis with her stags. In 
those cases the earliest known types show the 
Deity with a form in which nothing is human 
except the head and perhaps the arms : the rest of 
the figure is a mere sliapeless non-human mass or 
stump. The animals stand on each side of this 
central figure. In one case Cybele's lions rest 
their forepaws on her shoulders.t Greek art took 
these ancient native types and developed them 
freely, making the figures of the goddesses entirely 
human, giving beauty and dignity to them, seating 
Cybele on a throne with her symbols (patera and 
t)iiiij)iuion) in her hands, representing Artemis 
after the type of the Greek hunting goddess, and 
introilueing some dramatic motive in their relation 
to tlie accompanying animals: the goddess plays 
with the animals or caresses one of them with her 
hand. Sometimes the lion reclines in Cybele's lap 
like a pet dog. See also § V (3). 

In such representations it is clear that the origi- 
nal religious conception did not regard the Deity 
as of human form. There is sufficient resemblance 
to suggest at first sight the human