The local

tion. They abstained from the eating of meat, and as a rule, from marriage. Their meals they regarded as a sort of religious exercise. To the Sabbath they accorded an even stricter observance than the Pharisees, their rules not allowing that so much as a call of nature be attended to on that day. The practice of ceremonial purification, also, was carried to a painful extreme. No food could be eaten that was not prepared by a member of the order. They showed a special reverence for the sun, which amounted, in fact, to little less than idolatry. Their pursuits were peaceful, and they opposed alike war and slavery. Their few wants were supplied from a common treasury and all luxury and pleasure were carefully eschewed. In short, this body represents within itself a strange mixture of exaggerated Pharisaic tradi tions, combined with some unmistakable elements of pure heathenism. Its origin must be sought in the extraordinary associations and influences to which the Jewish people were at this time exposed. The Therapeutæ have been regarded by some as simply a branch of the Essenes, whose principles led them to the adoption of a contemplative rather than an active life. But there seems to be, at present, a growing conviction that the work attributed to Philo, in which this sect is described, is a forgery, and that the sect itself had an existence only in the brain of some person who meant to give a picture of ideal asceticism.1 Naturally, the government of the purely Greek cities of Palestine, as of the neighboring Political countries of which we have spoken, was modeled after that to which the inhabiconstitution. tants had been accustomed in their native land. It consisted of a council, often governing made up of several hundred persons, to which all matters of public interest were, bodies.2 by general consent, referred. In the distinctively Jewish regions of Palestine, on the other hand, that is to say, in Judæa and in parts of Galilee, regulations derived from the Mosaic code remained, to a considerable extent, in force down to the late New Testament times. As far as these had been dependent on the constitution and relations of the various tribes and families they ceased, as a matter of course, to be in operation as soon as the tribal relations and genealogies of families fell into confusion. Every place of any considerable size was provided with a local court, consisting of not less than seven persons, who took cognizance of all civil and ecclesiastical questions requiring judicial decision. At first, these local courts were composed exclusively of Levites; later, however, they were made up of a class of Scribes, who might be specially fitted by knowledge and experience for the responsible post. Trials and hearings took place in the synagogue, and were held ordinarily on market days, in order the better to accommodate those living at a distance. Punishment, also, on conviction, was not infrequently administered on the spot. "Beware of men," said our Saviour to the twelve, "for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues." The Mosaic law permitted, in no case of chastisement, more than forty blows to be given. And the rabbis, in order to be on the safe side, had them limited to thirty-nine. Paul, it will be remembered, relates that five times he had received, of the Jews, forty stripes save one. Such cases alone as involved points about which the judges of the local courts were not clear what decision ought to be given, were referred to Jerusalem. In the larger places the number of judges seems to have been greater, the Mishna stating that a city which had at least one hundred and twenty men, was entitled to a Sanhedrim of twenty-three persons. In Jerusalem, in fact, there were several such smaller courts, which, however, were naturally limited and overshadowed in their activity by the so-called Great Sanhedrim. The origin of the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one members in Jerusalem is uncertain. Among the later suppositions is that of Kuenen, encouraged by Schürer, that it Sanhedrin. first arose in the time of the earlier Ptolemies, who sought in this way to win for themselves the support of the Jewish nobility; and that of Keim, that it dates from about the year B. C. 107, when Philhellenism began, in a noticeable manner, to force its way into Judæa. The name is of Greek derivation, and its first appearance as the title of a Jewish court is after the beginning of the Roman dominion. There is little doubt, however, that this is but another designation for the Senate (yepovola), of which we read occasionally in the works that sprang up during the Maccabæan period, or shortly subsequent to it.10 In the New Testament this body is often mentioned, and it continued to exist until the destruc1 So Graetz, iii. 463-66; Jost, i. 214, n. 2; Kuenen, iii. 218; Nicolas, Revue de Theol. 3ième série, vi. 25–42.

The Great

2 Cf. Hartmann, pp. 166-225; Schürer, pp. 395-423; Keil, Archæol., pp 685-743; Schenkel's Bib. Lex., ad voq. 8 Cf. Jos., Antiq., iv. 8, § 14.

tion of Jerusalem, A. D. 70. It was composed, as we have said, of seventy-one members, of whom one third formed a quorum sufficient for the transaction of business. An interesting feature of the assemblies was the regular attendance as listeners of a considerable number of young men, Jewish students, who thus familiarized themselves with the details of its rules and methods. Its meetings, unlike those of the smaller bodies of which we have just spoken, were, or might be held daily, with the exception of the Sabbath and usual holidays. It was made up of priests, elders, and scribes, and the high priest presided at the sittings. Among the priests were included any who had served as high priest, as well as, in general, members of such leading families as had furnished the incumbents of this office. The elders were generally distinguished laymen, but might, also, include priests. The scribes were depended on for the interpretation of all abstruse points of law. Both Pharisees and Sadducees had seats in the body, although, in the later times, the former seem to have been in the majority or, at least, to have wielded the greater influence. Before the Great Sanhedrin were brought such questions for decision as the settlement of disputed texts of Scripture, the appointment of the time for the various festivals, all weightier points relating to marriage and inheritance, the proper theocratic form of contracts, and the like. As distinguished from the lower courts it was the administrative and judicial body for all matters that were distinctively theological, although, as the Jewish Commonwealth was constituted, the distinction between civil and theological questions was not very marked. Our Lord was cited before the Sanhedrin for assuming to be the Messiah; Peter and John, on the ground of teaching false doctrine; Stephen, for blasphemy; and Paul, for transgressing the rules of the temple. And, as we notice in the earlier history of Paul, the decisions of the Sanhedrin, at Jerusalem, were binding on the Jews outside of Palestine. The ordinary place of meeting was in one of the buildings connected with the temple. It has been generally supposed that a change to another locality was made a short time before the beginning of the Christian era; but Schürer 2 has shown that this was not the case. Irregular, and especially night sessions, at which time the gate of the temple-mountain was closed and under watch, might have been held elsewhere, as in the case of our Saviour's trial, which was held in the palace of the high priest. It has, indeed, been denied by recent writers (Jost, Graetz, Hilgenfeld, Leyrer), that a regularly organized Sanhedrim existed at the time of our Lord's trial, but the affirmative has been successfully defended, among others by such scholars as Schenkel, Wieseler, Keim, Hausrath, and Schürer.

It has been already indicated, in general, in speaking of the functions of the Great Assembly, what the duties of the scribe, in the original conception of the office, were. Rabbinism. But with the growth of the so-called oral law, and of the Pharisaic principle that the entire life of the individual Jew in its smallest particular must be included within an unbroken network of precepts and prohibitions, the profession of scribe took on quite another character. From being a simple copyist of the original Scriptures, as the title scribe would naturally suggest, he rose to the dignity of teacher, law-giver, and judge, and, with the exception of the high priest, no one enjoyed a greater influence among the people. The original aim of the Pharisees, to bring every individual Jew under the rule of the Mosaic institutions, was obviously a good one. The means, however, which they adopted to bring it about cannot but be regarded as childishly inadequate and unwise. Cognizance was taken of every act, even to the brushing of the teeth and the washing of the hands; every act was looked upon as lawful or unlawful, as a merit or as a sin. The fourth commandment, for instance, as we have already said, was enlarged in the schools of the rabbis to embrace thirty-nine different prohibitions. But this was not all. Each one of these separate prohibitions was itself subdivided, and defined, and atomized to an extent that is almost incredible. The thirty-second one, for example, was directed against writing. It was further defined as follows: "He who writes two letters [of the alphabet] whether they are of one kind or of different kinds, with the same, or with different sorts of ink, in one language, or in different languages, is guilty. He who forgets himself and writes two letters is guilty, whether he write with ink or with coloring matter, with red chalk, with gum, with vitriol, or with whatsoever makes a mark that remains. Further, he who writes on two walls which run together, or on two pages of an account-book so that one can read it continuously, is guilty. He is

1 Acts ix. 2.

8 Matt. xxvi. 3, 57.

6 Beitrage zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, p. 215.

1 Zeitgeschichte, i. 69 f.

2 See Stud. u. Krit., 1878, iv. 608, ff.

4 Das Characterbild Jesu, p. 307.

6 i. 184, 201; iii. 326, f.

8 Page 408.

guilty who writes on his body. If one write in a dark fluid, in the juice of fruit, in the dust of the road, in scattered sand; or, in general, in anything where the writing does not remain, he is not guilty. If one write with the hand turned about, with the foot, with the mouth, with the elbow; if further, one adds a letter to what is already written, or draw a line over such writing; if one intending to make a makes simply two ; or when one writes one letter on the earth and another on the walls of the house, or on the leaves of a book, so that they cannot be read together, he is not guilty. When he twice forgets and writes two letters, one in the morning and the other in the evening, according to rabbi Gamaliel, he is guilty; the learned [however] declare him not guilty."1

Rabbinism
(continued).

This is no exaggerated specimen, but one of thousands, of what it was that occupied the thoughts and absorbed the activities of the scribes of the later times. It suffices to show the spirit that animated them, and so, too, the great ruling party of the Pharisees. Indeed, it was the Pharisees who were the originators and directors of the movement, and the scribes, while forming a distinct profession, a learned body by themselves and not belonging exclusively to the party of the Pharisees, were yet their willing agents. It is a significant circumstance that in the New Testament times the relations of the two had become so intimate that their names are sometimes used interchangeably. What the natural results of such a state of things would be it is easy to conceive. First, upon the scribes themselves. In the schools they were the originators and teachers of this vast, complex, painfully, and at the same time, ludicrously minute system of external rules and checks, by means of which it was expected that the Jews would attain their destiny as the chosen people of God. In the synagogues they were the acknowledged expounders of the same, and at every opportunity, by admonition and appeal, brought it home to the hearts and consciences of their fellow Israelites. And finally, in the courts, they were virtually the judges to decide upon all cases of transgression, and to determine the character and extent of the punishment to be inflicted on the offender. The scribe, in short, had made himself indispensable at every point and turn of life. It would not be surprising, if with some exceptions, such a commanding influence should work with most damaging effect upon him. And we find this to be the case. Though nominally giving their services and supporting themselves by other means, it could be said of them, in their greed of gain and hypocrisy, as a class, that they devoured widows' houses and for a pretense made long prayers. They arrogated to themselves the most honorary titles; demanded from their pupils a submission and reverence greater than that which was accorded to parents; loved to be saluted in public places; dressed in a most ostentatious manner; demanded for themselves the first places in the synagogues and at private feasts, and thereby, in all, brought down upon themselves the greater condemnation. And the effect upon the people was no less disastrous. The whole matter of religion became simply a matter of externalities. The really fundamental and important precepts of the Mosaic law were almost hopelessly covered up and lost sight of under this enormous mass of mere rabbinical rubbish. The worthless and absurd chiefly occupied the attention. Twelve tracts of the Mishna treat solely of the subject of what things are to be regarded as clean and what unclean, and in what the process of purification consists. The sole question, in the end, came to be, not what is right, but what is forbidden. Moral freedom and spontaneity gave place to a weary, mechanical following of a prescribed course. For the really earnest soul life could not have been otherwise than a pitiable round of uninteresting and burdensome duties; for the rest a keen effort by hook or by crook to evade the same. And we see how well deserved were the denunciations, which One, to whom, also, the name of rabbi was given, but who taught not as the scribes, so often uttered against this terrible perversion of the teachings of Moses and the prophets.

estine.

It is well known that for more than a century before the Christian era the Hebrew had ceased to be a living language. The changes which took place in it after the Language used in Pal- Exile were, however, very gradual. The prophets who wrote at its close, show in their works no special traces of an Aramaic influence. The old theory that the Israelites forgot their mother tongue in Babylon is now generally abandoned. The sources from which it was most affected were rather the lands that bordered on Palestine, with which its people had continual intercourse. The Aramaic became the language of com2 Matt. xii. 12; Mark iii. 6.

1 See the Tract of the Mishna on the Sabbath, cited by Schürer, p. 484.

8 Matt. xxiii. 6, 7; Mark xii. 20, 38, 39; Luke xi. 43; xx. 47.

♦ See, for some ludicrous examples of the latter sort, Schürer, p. 507.

1

mon life for a considerable period before it was used in writing. The books of Ecclesiasticus, Judith, and 1 Maccabees were undoubtedly composed in Hebrew. Especially, at the time of the Seleucidæ, when the Jews were brought under the rule of a people speaking Aramaic, this language must have made the greatest progress in Palestine toward becoming the vernacular. It is matter of doubt how far, in connection with the Syro-Chaldaic or Aramaic, the Greek tongue became a medium of communication among the people generally. There were, certainly, many influences at work during the last two centuries before Christ to effect for it an entrance into Palestine. It was the court language of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ. As we have already seen, Judæa was fairly surrounded with enterprising Greek cities. The Greek and not Latin must have been employed by the Jews in their intercourse with their Roman conquerors. According to the Talmud there were four hundred and eighty synagogues in Jerusalem alone, where Jews from abroad assembled at the great feasts to the number of hundreds of thousands for worship, and where, naturally, the Greek tongue was used. It is said of Paul, on one occasion, that he received permission to speak to the people in Jerusalem, and when they perceived that he would address them in Aramaic they gave the more marked attention. From which it may be inferred that they had expected he would speak to them in Greek, and further, that they would have understood the same. It has been suggested, moreover, that the LXX. must have found some readers in Palestine outside of the Hellenistic synagogues or the circle of the learned scribes. The translation of the Scriptures into Aramaic the Targums did not appear until after the beginning of our era. And it may be supposed that not a few even of those who did not belong strictly to the learned classes would desire to possess the Bible in Greek, which, to say the least, they could understand far better than the original Hebrew. It is also a weighty fact that the writers of the New Testament employ the LXX. as though it were their own, and as though it were in common use in Palestine.

The Jews of

sion.4

Since in Part II. of this Introduction the subject of the literature of this period, including the question of the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons, is to be fully treated, it may be now omitted. But the objects of the present review would seem to de- the Dispermand, at this point, some further notice of the Jews of the Dispersion, especially of the spiritual atmosphere that was breathed by those of Alexandria and the philosophy of religion, which, accordingly, was there developed. By far the larger part of the Jewish people were at this time outside of Palestine. It is well known that but comparatively few of those who, at different periods since the ninth century before Christ, and especially at the time of the Babylonian captivity, were removed from the country, ever returned again. Ten of the original twelve tribes became, as such, wholly lost to view. Under the reign of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ, as before noticed, the work of depopulation went on. Antiochus III. introduced into Asia Minor at one time, under favorable conditions, no less than ten thousand Jewish families,—they were taken, however, in this case from the regions of Mesopotamia and Babylon, — that they might serve as a support for his throne. In a letter of Agrippa to Caligula, preserved by Philo, the following graphic description of Judaism outside of Palestine is given: "Jerusalem is the capital not alone of Judæa, but, by means of colonies, of most other lands also. These colonies have been sent out, at fitting opportunities, into the neighboring countries of Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, Cole-Syria, and the further removed Pamphylia, Cilicia, the greater part of Asia as far as Bithynia and the most remote corners of Pontus. In the same manner, also, into Europe: Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedon, Ætolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, and the most and the finest parts of the Peloponnesus. And not only is the mainland full of Israelitish communities, but also the most important islands: Euboea, Cyprus, Crete. And I say nothing of the countries beyond the Euphrates, for all of them, with unimportant exceptions, Babylon and the satrapies that include the fertile districts lying around it, have Jewish inhabitants." 5 From other sources we know that this statement of Agrippa is not exaggerated. So numerous were the Jews in the East that they were able, at the beginning of our era, to found at Nahardea an independent kingdom, which though afterwards subdued by the Babylonians, continued to be occupied chiefly by them. ·

1 Bee Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, and on the general subject of this section: the Introds. of Bleek and Keil, Nöldeke in Schenkel's Bib. Lex., art. "Hebräische Sprache;" Böhl, pp. 71-110; and Holtzmann, idem, pp. 53, 54. 2 Cf. Acts vi. 9. 8 Acts xxii. 2.

4 See, in addition to the Histories of Graetz, Herzfeld, and Jost, Schürer, pp. 619-647; Holtzmann, idem, pp. 82-91, and Frankel, Monatsschrift, 1853, Hefte 11 and 12, and 1854, pp. 401-418, 439-450.

6 Cf. Schürer, p. 620.

Even the Romans in the year B. c. 40, represented by the legate P. Petronius, regarded it as a dangerous experiment to excite the hostility of this powerful people settled along the banks of the Euphrates. At Adiabene, the present Kurdistan, they enjoyed so great influence that the royal family itself adopted the Jewish religion. At Antioch they formed a respectable portion of the population, and had, as at Alexandria, their own ethnarch or alabarch. According to Josephus there were, on a single occasion, during the wars with the Romans, ten thousand Jews put to death at Damascus; and the same writer affirms that eight thousand of this nation, living in Rome, gave their support to a deputation which had been sent to Augustus by their brethren of Palestine. We have already seen how early the Jewish emigration to Egypt began, and what immense proportions it afterwards assumed. Their council of seventy elders enjoyed an influence only second to that of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. Their magnificent synagogue was the resort of such multitudes that no single voice could reach them, and a flag was therefore used to give the appropriate signal when, after a prayer or benediction, the responsive "Amen" was expected from the people.

The Jews of the Disper

ued).

The Jews of the Dispersion, wherever they might be found, and under whatever unfavorable circumstance, with but rare individual exceptions, remained true to their national faith and customs. Other nationalities, and many of them, were simply sion (contin- swallowed up in the great Grecian and Roman empires, leaving scarcely a trace behind. The Jews, on the other hand, in whatever lands, east or west, north or south, they had colonized, remained as distinct in their peculiarities, offered as bold a contrast in social usages and religious belief, with their neighbors around them, as did the people of Judæa with those of Egypt and of Babylon. With their monotheistic creed, supported by an unconquerable national pride, a past signalized by glorious, divine interpositions, and a future full of the brightest promise, it is not so much a matter of wonder. Moreover, the Mosaic law, which they carried with them in written form into the uttermost parts of the earth, under the manipulations of the wily scribes, had already become a hedge so impenetrable that no deviation from it, short of absolute apostasy, was easily possible. So, too, innumerable synagogues and proseuchæ, which sprang up according to need on every hand, being as well attractive centres of social and religious life as civil courts where Israelitish justice was dispensed, were no less a potent means to unite in indissoluble bonds the scattered people to one another, to their traditional usages and their native land. At the same time, the great central attraction, the beloved temple at Jerusalem, was not for a moment forgotten. The regularly recurring national festivals were always heralded with astronomical exactness from this point. Hundreds of thousands, from every part of the world, made each year their pilgrimage to its sacred precincts. The high priest at Jerusalem still remained, for all, the Sovereign representative of Jewish national dignity and religion. The Sanhedrin there was the last court of appeal from supposed unjust decisions in the synagogues whether on the Nile, the Euphrates, or the Tiber. Contributions of fabulous sums flowed in one continuous stream from the faithful children of the covenant into the temple treasury. Regular places of collection, as at Nisibis, Nahardea, for vast regions of country were appointed, and at certain fixed seasons delegations, often consisting, for safety's sake, of thousands of persons, and headed by members of the noblest families, conveyed these free-will offerings to the sacred city. And so Jerusalem was, in fact, as Agrippa had declared, the capital of a mighty commonwealth whose bounds were more extensive than those of the realm of Alexander. And amidst crumbling empires, then and now, this people furnishes a most instructive example of the importance of recognizing moral, as well as political and social forces in the life of states. We have shown that the Jews were but comparatively little affected in their dispersion by the heathen life with which they were surrounded. Heathenism, however, felt Proselytes.3 in no slight degree the influence of Judaism. The term proselyte (wpoσhλUTOS) was applied to such strangers as embraced the Jewish faith. At and before the beginning of the Christian era they might have been reckoned by hundreds of thousands, if not millions. The frequent allusions to them by classical writers of the period is a significant fact, even though such allusions generally take the form of ridicule or contempt. At Rome, an imperial concubine was numbered among them, and, at Damascus, nearly all the better class of 2 Wars of the Jews, ii. 20, § 2, and 6, § 1; cf. Antiq., xvii. 11, § 1.

1 Cf. Schürer, 621.

8 See arts. by Leyrer in Herzog's Real-Encyk.; Steiner in Schenkel's Bib. Lex.; Plumptre in Smith's Bib. Diet.; Winer, Bib. Realwörterbuch, ad voc.; and Hausrath, Zeitgeschichte, ii. 101-126.

4 Cf. Horace, Sat., i. 4. 142, 143; Juvenal, Sat., vi. 543-547; Tacitus, Hist., v. 9; Seneca cited by Augustine, De Civi tate Dei, vi. 11; Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 17.