by Alfred Edersheim
| P | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | A1 | A2 |
PREFACE
THE object of this volume is kindred to that of my
previous book on The Temple, its Ministry and Services as they were at the Time
of Jesus Christ. In both I have wished to transport the reader into the land of
Palestine at the time of our Lord and of His apostles, and to show him, so far
as lay within the scope of each book, as it were, the scene on which, and the
persons among whom the events recorded in New Testament history had taken
place. For I believe, that in measure as we realize its surroundings -- so to
speak, see and hear for ourselves what passed at the time, enter into its
ideas, become familiar with its habits, modes of thinking, its teaching and
worship -- shall we not only understand many of the expressions and allusions
in the New Testament, but also gain fresh evidence of the truth of its history
alike from its faithfulness to the picture of society, such as we know it to
have been, and from the contrast of its teaching and aims to those of the
contemporaries of our Lord.
For, a careful study of the period leaves this conviction on the mind: that --
with reverence be it said -- Jesus Christ was strictly of His time, and that
the New Testament is, in its narratives, language, and allusions, strictly true
to the period and circumstances in which its events are laid. But in another,
and far more important, aspect there is no similarity between Christ and His
period. "Never man" -- of that, or any subsequent period -- "spake like this
man; "never man lived or died as He. Assuredly, if He was the Son of David, He
also is the Son of God, the Savior of the world.
In my book on The Temple, its Ministry and Services, I endeavored to carry the
reader with me into the Sanctuary, and to make him witness all connected with
its institutions, its priesthood, and its solemnities. In this book I have
sought to take him into ordinary civil society, and to make him mingle with the
men and women of that period, see them in their homes and families, learn their
habits and manners, and follow them in their ordinary life -- all, as
illustrative of New Testament history; at the same time endeavoring to present
in a popular form the scenes witnessed.
Another, and perhaps the most important part in its bearing on Christianity,
yet remains to be done: to trace the progress of religious thought -- as
regards the canon of Scripture, the Messiah, the law, sin, and salvation -- to
describe the character of theological literature, and to show the state of
doctrinal belief at the time of our Lord. It is here especially that we should
see alike the kinship in form and the almost contrast in substance between what
Judaism was at the time of Christ, and the teaching and the kingdom of our
Blessed Lord. But this lay quite outside the scope of the present volume, and
belongs to a larger work for which this and my previous book may, in a sense,
be regarded as forestudies. Accordingly, where civil society touched, as on so
many points it does, on the theological and the doctrinal, it was only possible
to "sketch" it, leaving the outlines to be filled up. To give a complete
representation of the times of our Lord, in all their bearings -- to show not
only who they were among whom Jesus Christ moved, but what they knew, thought,
and believed -- and this as the frame, so to speak, in which to set as a
picture the life of our Blessed Lord Himself, such must now be the work, to
which, with all prayerful reverence and with most earnest study, I shall
henceforth see myself.
It seemed needful to state this, in order to explain both the plan of this book
and the manner of its treatment. I will only add, that it embodies the results
of many years' study, in which I have availed myself of every help within my
reach. It might seem affectation, were I to enumerate the names of all the
authorities consulted or books read in the course of these studies. Those
mentioned in the foot-notes constitute but a very small proportion of them.
Throughout, my constant object has been to illustrate the New Testament history
and teaching. Even the "Scripture Index" at the close will show in how many
instances this has been attempted. Most earnestly then do I hope, that these
pages may be found to cast some additional light on the New Testament, and that
they will convey fresh evidence -- to my mind of the strongest kind -- and in a
new direction, of the truth "of those things which are most surely believed
among us." And now it only remains at the close of these investigations once
more to express my own full and joyous belief in that grand truth to which all
leads up -- that "CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS TO EVERY ONE
THAT BELIEVETH."
ALFRED EDERSHEIM.
THE VICARAGE, LODERS, BRIDPORT:
November, 1876.
| P | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | A1 | A2 |
Chapter 1
PALESTINE EIGHTEEN CENTURIES AGO
EIGHTEEN and a half centuries ago, and the land which
now lies desolate - its bare, gray hills looking into ill-tilled or neglected
valleys, its timber cut down, its olive- and vine-clad terraces crumbled into
dust, its villages stricken with poverty and squalor, its thoroughfares
insecure and deserted, its native population well-nigh gone, and with them its
industry, wealth, and strength - presented a scene of beauty, richness, and
busy life almost unsurpassed in the then known world. The Rabbis never weary of
its praises, whether their theme be the physical or the moral pre-eminence of
Palestine. It happened, so writes one of the oldest Hebrew commentaries, that
Rabbi Jonathan was sitting under a fig-tree, surrounded by his students. Of a
sudden he noticed how the ripe fruit overhead, bursting for richness, dropped
its luscious juice on the ground, while at a little distance the distended
udder of a she-goat was no longer able to hold the milk. "Behold," exclaimed
the Rabbi, as the two streams mingled, "the literal fulfillment of the promise:
`a land flowing with milk and honey.'" "The land of Israel is not lacking in
any product whatever," argued Rabbi Meir, "as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:9): `Thou shalt not lack anything in
it.'" Nor were such statements unwarranted; for Palestine combined every
variety of climate, from the snows of Hermon and the cool of Lebanon to the
genial warmth of the Lake of Galilee and the tropical heat of the Jordan
valley. Accordingly not only the fruit trees, the grain, and garden produce
known in our colder latitudes were found in the land, along with those of
sunnier climes, but also the rare spices and perfumes of the hottest zones.
Similarly, it is said, every kind of fish teemed in its waters, while birds of
most gorgeous plumage filled the air with their song Within such small compass
the country must have been unequaled for charm and variety. On the eastern side
of Jordan stretched wide plains, upland valleys, park-like forests, and almost
boundless corn and pasture lands; on the western side were terraced hills,
covered with olives and vines, delicious glens, in which sweet springs
murmured, and fairy-like beauty and busy life, as around the Lake of Galilee.
In the distance stretched the wide sea, dotted with spreading sails; here was
luxurious richness, as in the ancient possessions of Issachar, Manasseh, and
Ephraim; and there, beyond these plains and valleys, the highland scenery of
Judah, shelving down through the pasture tracts of the Negev, or South country,
into the great and terrible wilderness. And over all, so long as God's blessing
lasted, were peace and plenty. Far as the eye could reach, browsed "the cattle
on a thousand hills;" the pastures were "clothed with flocks, the valleys also
covered over with corn;" and the land, "greatly enriched with the river of
God," seemed to "shout for joy," and "also to sing." Such a possession, heaven-
given at the first and heaven-guarded throughout, might well kindle the deepest
enthusiasm.
"We find," writes one of the most learned Rabbinical commentators, supporting
each assertion by a reference to Scripture, "that thirteen things are in the
sole ownership of the Holy One, blessed be His Name! and these are they: the
silver, the gold, the priesthood, Israel, the first-born, the altar, the
first-fruits, the anointing oil, the tabernacle of meeting, the kingship of the
house of David, the sacrifices, the land of Israel, and the eldership." In
truth, fair as the land was, its conjunction with higher spiritual blessings
gave it its real and highest value. "Only in Palestine does the Shechinah
manifest itself," taught the Rabbis. Outside its sacred boundaries no such
revelation was possible. It was there that rapt prophets had seen their
visions, and psalmists caught strains of heavenly hymns. Palestine was the land
that had Jerusalem for its capital, and on its highest hill that temple of
snowy marble and glittering gold for a sanctuary, around which clustered such
precious memories, hallowed thoughts, and glorious, wide-reaching hopes. There
is no religion so strictly local as that of Israel. Heathenism was indeed the
worship of national deities, and Judaism that of Jehovah, the God of heaven and
earth. But the national deities of the heathen might be transported, and their
rites adapted to foreign manners. On the other hand, while Christianity was
from the first universal in its character and design, the religious
institutions and the worship of the Pentateuch, and even the prospects opened
by the prophets were, so far as they concerned Israel, strictly of Palestine
and for Palestine. They are wholly incompatible with the permanent loss of the
land. An extra-Palestinian Judaism, without priesthood, altar, temple,
sacrifices, tithes, first-fruits, Sabbatical and Jubilee years, must first set
aside the Pentateuch, unless, as in Christianity, all these be regarded as
blossoms designed to ripen into fruit, as types pointing to, and fulfilled in
higher realities. Outside the land even the people are no longer Israel: in
view of the Gentiles they are Jews; in their own view, "the dispersed abroad."
All this the Rabbis could not fail to perceive. Accordingly when, immediately
after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, they set themselves to reconstruct
their broken commonwealth, it was on a new basis indeed, but still within
Palestine. Palestine was the Mount Sinai of Rabbinism. Here rose the spring of
the Halachah, or traditional law, whence it flowed in ever-widening streams;
here, for the first centuries, the learning, the influence, and the rule of
Judaism centered; and there they would fain have perpetuated it. The first
attempts at rivalry by the Babylonian schools of Jewish learning were keenly
resented and sharply put down. Only the force of circumstances drove the Rabbis
afterwards voluntarily to seek safety and freedom in the ancient seats of their
captivity, where, politically unmolested, they could give the final development
to their system. It was this desire to preserve the nation and its learning in
Palestine which inspired such sentiments as we are about to quote. "The very
air of Palestine makes one wise," said the Rabbis. The Scriptural account of
the borderland of Paradise, watered by the river Havilah, of which it is said
that "the gold of that land is good," was applied to their earthly Eden, and
paraphrased to mean, "there is no learning like that of Palestine." It was a
saying, that "to live in Palestine was equal to the observance of all the
commandments." "He that hath his permanent abode in Palestine," so taught the
Talmud, "is sure of the life to come." "Three things," we read in another
authority, "are Israel's through suffering: Palestine, traditional lore, and
the world to come." Nor did this feeling abate with the desolation of their
country. In the third and fourth centuries of our era they still taught, "He
that dwelleth in Palestine is without sin."
Centuries of wandering and of changes have not torn the passionate love of this
land from the heart of the people. Even superstition becomes here pathetic. If
the Talmud had already expressed the principle, "Whoever is buried in the land
of Israel, is as if he were buried under the altar," one of the most ancient
Hebrew commentaries goes much farther. From the injunction of Jacob and Joseph,
and the desire of the fathers to be buried within the sacred soil, it is argued
that those who lay there were to be the first "to walk before the Lord in the
land of the living" (Psalms 116:9), the first to rise from the dead and to
enjoy the days of the Messiah. Not to deprive of their reward the pious, who
had not the privilege of residing in Palestine, it was added, that God would
make subterranean roads and passages into the Holy Land, and that, when their
dust reached it, the Spirit of the Lord would raise them to new life, as it is
written (Ezekiel 37:12-14): "O My people, I will open your
graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the
land of Israel...and shall put My Spirit in you, and ye shall live; and I shall
place you in your own land." Almost every prayer and hymn breathes the same
love of Palestine. Indeed, it were impossible, by any extracts, to convey the
pathos of some of those elegies in which the Synagogue still bewails the loss
of Zion, or expresses the pent-up longing for its restoration Desolate, they
cling to its ruins, and believe, hope, and pray - oh, how ardently! in almost
every prayer - for the time that shall come, when the land, like Sarah of old,
will, at the bidding of the Lord, have youth, beauty, and fruitfulness
restored, and in Messiah the King "a horn of salvation shall be raised up" to
the house of David.
Yet it is most true, as noticed by a recent writer, that no place could have
been more completely swept of relics than is Palestine. Where the most solemn
transactions have taken place; where, if we only knew it, every footstep might
be consecrated, and rocks, and caves, and mountain-tops be devoted to the
holiest remembrances - we are almost in absolute ignorance of exact localities.
In Jerusalem itself even the features of the soil, the valleys, depressions,
and hills have changed, or at least lie buried deep under the accumulated ruins
of centuries. It almost seems as if the Lord meant to do with the land what
Hezekiah had done with that relic of Moses - the brazen serpent - when he
stamped it to pieces, lest its sacred memories should convert it into an
occasion for idolatry. The lie of land and water, of mountain and valley, are
the same; Hebron, Bethlehem, the Mount of Olives, Nazareth, the Lake of
Gennesaret, the land of Galilee, are still there, but all changed in form and
appearance, and with no definite spot to which one could with absolute
certainty attach the most sacred events. Events, then, not places; spiritual
realities, not their outward surroundings, have been given to mankind by the
land of Palestine.
"So long as Israel inhabited Palestine," says the Babylonian Talmud, "the
country was wide; but now it has become narrow." There is only too much
historical truth underlying this somewhat curiously-worded statement. Each
successive change left the boundaries of the Holy Land narrowed. Never as yet
has it actually reached the extent indicated in the original promise to Abraham
(Genesis 15:18), and afterwards confirmed to the
children of Israel (Exodus 23:31). The nearest approach to it was during
the reign of King David, when the power of Judah extended as far as the river
Euphrates (II Samuel 8:3-14). At present the country to which the
name Palestine attaches is smaller than at any previous period. As of old, it
still stretches north and south "from Dan to Beersheba;" in the east and west
from Salcah (the modern Sulkhad) to "the great sea," the Mediterranean. Its
superficial area is about 12,000 square miles, its length from 140 to 180, its
breadth in the south about 75, and in the north from 100 to 120 miles. To put
it more pictorially, the modern Palestine is about twice as large as Wales; it
is smaller than Holland, and about equal in size to Belgium. Moreover, from the
highest mountain-peaks a glimpse of almost the whole country may be obtained.
So small was the land which the Lord chose as the scene of the most marvelous
events that ever happened on earth, and whence He appointed light and life to
flow forth into all the world!
When our blessed Savior trod the soil of Palestine, the country had already
undergone many changes. The ancient division of tribes had given way; the two
kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed no longer; and the varied foreign
domination, and the brief period of absolute national independence, had alike
ceased. Yet, with the characteristic tenacity of the East for the past, the
names of the ancient tribes still attached to some of the districts formerly
occupied by them (comp. Matthew 4:13, 15). A comparatively small number of the
exiles had returned to Palestine with Ezra and Nehemiah, and the Jewish
inhabitants of the country consisted either of those who had originally been
left in the land, or of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The controversy about
the ten tribes, which engages so much attention in our days, raged even at the
time of our Lord. "Will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles?" asked the
Jews, when unable to fathom the meaning of Christ's prediction of His
departure, using that mysterious vagueness of language in which we generally
clothe things which we pretend to, but really do not know. "The ten tribes are
beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be
estimated by numbers," writes Josephus, with his usual grandiloquent self-
complacency. But where - he informs us as little as any of his other
contemporaries. We read in the earliest Jewish authority, the Mishnah (Sanh.
10.3): "The ten tribes shall never return again, as it is written (Deuteronomy 29:28), `And He cast them into another
land, as this day.' As `this day' goeth and does not return again, so they also
go and do not return. This is the view of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Elieser says, `As
the day becomes dark and has light again, so the ten tribes, to whom darkness
has come; but light shall also be restored to them.'"
At the time of Christ's birth Palestine was governed by Herod the Great; that
is, it was nominally an independent kingdom, but under the suzerainty of Rome.
On the death of Herod - that is, very close upon the opening of the gospel
story - a fresh, though only temporary, division of his dominions took place.
The events connected with it fully illustrate the parable of our Lord, recorded
in Luke 19:12-15, 27. If they do not form its historical
groundwork, they were at least so fresh in the memory of Christ's hearers, that
their minds must have involuntarily reverted to them. Herod died, as he had
lived, cruel and treacherous. A few days before his end, he had once more
altered his will, and nominated Archelaus his successor in the kingdom; Herod
Antipas (the Herod of the gospels), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea; and Philip,
tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Panias - districts to which,
in the sequel, we may have further to refer. As soon after the death of Herod
as circumstances would permit, and when he had quelled a rising in Jerusalem,
Archelaus hastened to Rome to obtain the emperor's confirmation of his father's
will. He was immediately followed by his brother Herod Antipas, who in a
previous testament of Herod had been left what Archelaus now claimed. Nor were
the two alone in Rome. They found there already a number of members of Herod's
family, each clamorous for something, but all agreed that they would rather
have none of their own kindred as king, and that the country should be put
under Roman sway; if otherwise, they anyhow preferred Herod Antipas to
Archelaus. Each of the brothers had, of course, his own party, intriguing,
maneuvering, and trying to influence the emperor. Augustus inclined from the
first to Archelaus. The formal decision, however, was for a time postponed by a
fresh insurrection in Judea, which was quelled only with difficulty. Meanwhile,
a Jewish deputation appeared in Rome, entreating that none of the Herodians
might ever be appointed king, on the ground of their infamous deeds, which they
related, and that they (the Jews) might be allowed to live according to their
own laws, under the suzerainty of Rome. Augustus ultimately decided to carry
out the will of Herod the Great, but gave Archelaus the title of ethnarch
instead of king, promising him the higher grade if he proved deserving of it (Matthew 2:22). On his return to Judea, Archelaus
(according to the story in the parable) took bloody vengeance on "his citizens
that hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man
to reign over us." The reign of Archelaus did not last long. Fresh and stronger
complaints came from Judea. Archelaus was deposed, and Judea joined to the
Roman province of Syria, but with a procurator of its own. The revenues of
Archelaus, so long as he reigned, amounted to very considerably over £240,000 a
year; those of his brothers respectively to a third and sixth of that sum. But
this was as nothing compared to the income of Herod the Great, which stood at
the enormous sum of about £680,000; and that afterwards of Agrippa II., which
is computed as high as half a million. In thinking of these figures, it is
necessary to bear in mind the general cheapness of living in Palestine at the
time, which may be gathered from the smallness of the coins in circulation, and
from the lowness of the labor market. The smallest coin, a (Jewish) perutah,
amounted to only the sixteenth of a penny. Again, readers of the New Testament
will remember that a laborer was wont to receive for a day's work in field or
vineyard a denarius (Matthew 20:2), or about 8d., while the Good Samaritan
paid for the charge of the sick person whom he left in the inn only two denars,
or about 4d. (Luke 10:35).
But we are anticipating. Our main object was to explain the division of
Palestine in the time of our Lord. Politically speaking, it consisted of Judaea
and Samaria, under Roman procurators; Galilee and Peraea (on the other side
Jordan), subject to Herod Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist - "that
fox" full of cunning and cruelty, to whom the Lord, when sent by Pilate, would
give no answer; and Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, under the rule of the
tetrarch Philip. It would require too many details to describe accurately those
latter provinces. Suffice, that they lay quite to the north-east, and that one
of their principal cities was Caesarea Philippi (called after the Roman
emperor, and after Philip himself), where Peter made that noble confession,
which constituted the rock on which the Church was to be built (Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29). It was the wife of this Philip, the best of
all Herod's sons, whom her brother-in-law, Herod Antipas, induced to leave her
husband, and for whose sake he beheaded John (Matthew 14:3, etc.; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). It is well to know that this adulterous and
incestuous union brought Herod immediate trouble and misery, and that it
ultimately cost him his kingdom, and sent him into life-long banishment.
Such was the political division of Palestine. Commonly it was arranged into
Galilee, Samaria, Judaea, and Peraea. It is scarcely necessary to say that the
Jews did not regard Samaria as belonging to the Holy Land, but as a strip of
foreign country - as the Talmud designates it (Chag. 25 a.), "a Cuthite strip,"
or "tongue," intervening between Galilee and Judaea. From the gospels we know
that the Samaritans were not only ranked with Gentiles and strangers (Matthew 10:5; John 4:9, 20), but that the very term Samaritan was one
of reproach (John 8:48). "There be two manner of nations," says the
son of Sirach (Ecclus. 1:25, 26), "which my heart abhorreth, and the third is
no nation; they that sit upon the mountain of Samaria, and they that dwell
among the Philistines, and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem." And
Josephus has a story to account for the exclusion of the Samaritans from the
Temple, to the effect that in the night of the Passover, when it was the custom
to open the Temple gates at midnight, a Samaritan had come and strewn bones in
the porches and throughout the Temple to defile the Holy House. Most unlikely
as this appears, at least in its details, it shows the feeling of the people.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that the Samaritans fully retaliated by
bitter hatred and contempt. For, at every period of sore national trial, the
Jews had no more determined or relentless enemies than those who claimed to be
the only true representatives of Israel's worship and hopes.
| P | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | A1 | A2 |
Chapter 2
JEWS AND GENTILES IN "THE LAND."
COMING down from Syria, it would have been difficult
to fix the exact spot where, in the view of the Rabbis, "the land" itself
began. The boundary lines, though mentioned in four different documents, are
not marked in anything like geographical order, but as ritual questions
connected with them came up for theological discussion. For, to the Rabbis the
precise limits of Palestine were chiefly interesting so far as they affected
the religious obligations or privileges of a district. And in this respect the
fact that a city was in heathen possession exercised a decisive influence. Thus
the environs of Ascalon, the wall of Caesarea, and that of Acco, were reckoned
within the boundaries of Palestine, though the cities themselves were not.
Indeed, viewing the question from this point, Palestine was to the Rabbis
simply "the land,"all other countries being summed up under the designation of
"outside the land." In the Talmud, even the expression "Holy Land," so common
among later Jews and Christians, does not once occur.
It needed not that addition, which might have suggested a comparison with other
countries; for to the Rabbinist Palestine was not only holy, but the only holy
ground, to the utter exclusion of all other countries, although they marked
within its boundaries an ascending scale of ten degrees of sanctity, rising
from the bare soil of Palestine to the most holy place in the Temple (Chel. 1.
6-9). But "outside the land" everything was darkness and death. The very dust
of a heathen country was unclean, and it defiled by contact. It was regarded
like a grave, or like the putrescence of death. If a spot of heathen dust had
touched an offering, it must at once be burnt. More than that, if by mischance
any heathen dust had been brought into Palestine, it did not and could not
mingle with that of "the land," but remained to the end what it had been -
unclean, defiled, and defiling everything to which it adhered. This will cast
light upon the meaning conveyed by the symbolical directions of our Lord to His
disciples (Matthew 10:14), when He sent them forth to mark out the
boundary lines of the true Israel - "the kingdom of heaven," that was at hand:
"Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of
that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." In other words, they were
not only to leave such a city or household, but it was to be considered and
treated as if it were heathen, just as in the similar case mentioned in Matthew 18:17. All contact with such must be avoided,
all trace of it shaken off, and that, even though, like some of the cities in
Palestine that were considered heathen, they were surrounded on every side by
what was reckoned as belonging to Israel.
The Mishnah marks, in reference to certain ordinances, "three lands" which
might equally be designated as Palestine, but to which different ritual
regulations applied. The first comprised, "all which they who came up from
Babylon took possession of in the land of Israel and unto Chezib" (about three
hours north of Acre); the second, "all that they who came up from Egypt took
possession of from Chezib and unto the river (Euphrates) eastward, and unto
Amanah" (supposed to be a mountain near Antioch, in Syria); while the third,
seemingly indicating certain ideal outlines, was probably intended to mark what
"the land" would have been, according to the original promise of God, although
it was never possessed to that extent by Israel. For our present purpose, of
course, only the first of these definitions must be applied to "the land." We
read in Menachoth 7. 1: "Every offering, whether of the congregation or of an
individual (public or private), may come from `the land,' or from `outside the
land, be of the new product (of the year) or of old product, except the omer
(the wave-sheaf at the Passover) and the two loaves (at Pentecost), which may
only be brought from new product (that of the current year), and from that
(which grows) within `the land.'" To these two, the Mishnah adds in another
passage (Chel. i. 6) also the Biccurim, or first-fruits in their fresh state,
although inaccurately, since the latter were likewise brought from what is
called by the Rabbis Syria, which seems to have been regarded as, in a sense,
intermediate between "the land" and "outside the land."
The term Soria, or Syria, does not include that country alone, but all the
lands which, according to the Rabbis, David had subdued, such as Mesopotamia,
Syria, Zobah, Achlab, etc. It would be too lengthy to explain in detail the
various ordinances in regard to which Soria was assimilated to, and those by
which it was distinguished from, Palestine proper. The preponderance of duty
and privilege was certainly in favor of Syria, so much so, that if one could
have stepped from its soil straight to that of Palestine, or joined fields in
the two countries, without the interposition of any Gentile strip, the land and
the dust of Syria would have been considered clean, like that of Palestine
itself (Ohol. 18. 7). There was thus around "the land" a sort of inner band,
consisting of those countries supposed to have been annexed by King David, and
termed Soria. But besides this, there was also what may be called an outer
band, towards the Gentile world, consisting of Egypt, Babylon, Ammon and Moab,
the countries in which Israel had a special interest, and which were
distinguished from the rest, "outside the land," by this, that they were liable
to tithes and the Therumoth, or first- fruits in a prepared state. Of course
neither of these contributions was actually brought into Palestine, but either
employed by them for their sacred purposes, or else redeemed.
Maimonides arranges all countries into three classes, "so far as concerns the
precepts connected with the soil" - "the land, Soria, and outside the land;"
and he divides the land of Israel into territory possessed before and after the
Exile, while he also distinguishes between Egypt, Babylon, Moab and Ammon, and
other lands. In popular estimate other distinctions were likewise made. Thus
Rabbi Jose of Galilee would have it, that Biccurim were not to be brought from
the other side of Jordan, "because it was not a land flowing with milk and
honey."
But as the Rabbinical law in this respect differed from the view expressed by
Rabbi Jose, his must have been an afterthought, probably intended to account
for the face that they beyond Jordan did not bring their first-fruits to the
Temple. Another distinction claimed for the country west of the Jordan
curiously reminds us of the fears expressed by the two and a half tribes on
their return to their homes, after the first conquest of Palestine under Joshua
(Joshua 22:24, 25), since it declared the land east of
Jordan less sacred, on account of the absence of the Temple, of which it had
not been worthy. Lastly, Judaea proper claimed pre-eminence over Galilee, as
being the center of Rabbinism. Perhaps it may be well here to state that,
notwithstanding strict uniformity on all principal points, Galilee and Judea
had each its own peculiar legal customs and rights, which differed in many
particulars one from the other.
What has hitherto been explained from Rabbinical writings gains fresh interest
when we bring it to bear on the study of the New Testament. For, we can now
understand how those Zealots from Jerusalem, who would have bent the neck of
the Church under the yoke of the law of Moses, sought out in preference the
flourishing communities in Syria for the basis of their operations (Acts 15:1). There was a special significance in this,
as Syria formed a kind of outer Palestine, holding an intermediate position
between it and heathen lands. Again, it results from our inquiries, that, what
the Rabbis considered as the land of Israel proper, may be regarded as
commencing immediately south of Antioch. Thus the city where the first Gentile
Church was formed (Acts 11:20, 21); where the disciples were first called
Christians (Acts 11:26); where Paul so long exercised his ministry,
and whence he started on his missionary journeys, was, significantly enough,
just outside the land of Israel. Immediately beyond it lay the country over
which the Rabbis claimed entire sway. Traveling southwards, the first district
which one would reach would be what is known from the gospels as "the coasts or
tracts of Tyre and Sidon.( < A particularly more district describes Mark
St.?)(>Mark 7:24) as "the borders of Tyre and Sidon." These stretched,
according to Josephus (Jewish Wars, 3. 3, 1), at the time of our Lord, from the
Mediterranean towards Jordan. It was to these extreme boundary tracts of "the
land," that Jesus had withdrawn from the Pharisees, when they were offended at
His opposition to their "blind" traditionalism; and there He healed by the word
of His power the daughter of the "woman of Canaan," the intensity of whose
faith drew from His lips words of precious commendation (Matthew 15:28; Mark 7:29). It was chiefly a heathen district where the
Savior spoke the word of healing, and where the woman would not let the Messiah
of Israel go without an answer. She herself was a Gentile. Indeed, not only
that district, but all around, and farther on, the territory of Philip, was
almost entirely heathen. More than that, strange as it may sound, all around
the districts inhabited by the Jews the country was, so to speak, fringed by
foreign nationalities and by heathen worship, rites, and customs.
Properly to understand the history of the time and the circumstances indicated
in the New Testament, a correct view of the state of parties in this respect is
necessary. And here we must guard against a not unnatural mistake. If any one
had expected to find within the boundaries of "the land" itself one
nationality, one language, the same interests, or even one religion publicly
professed, he would have been bitterly disappointed. It was not merely for the
presence of the Romans and their followers, and of a more or less influential
number of foreign settlers, but the Holy Land itself was a country of mixed and
hostile races, of divided interests, where close by the side of the narrowest
and most punctilious Pharisaism heathen temples rose, and heathen rites and
customs openly prevailed. In a general way all this will be readily understood.
For, those who returned from Babylon were comparatively few in number, and
confessedly did not occupy the land in its former extent. During the troubled
period which followed, there was a constant influx of heathen, and unceasing
attempts were made to introduce and perpetuate foreign elements. Even the
language of Israel had undergone a change. In the course of time the ancient
Hebrew had wholly given place to the Aramaean dialect, except in public worship
and in the learned academies of theological doctors. Such words and names in
the gospels as Raka, Abba, Golgotha, Gabbatha, Akel-Dama, Bartholomaios,
Barabbas, Bar-Jesus, and the various verbal quotations, are all Aramaean. It
was probably in that language that Paul addressed the infuriated multitude,
when standing on the top of the steps leading from the Temple into the fortress
Antonia (Acts 21:40; 22.). But along with the Hebraic Aramaean -
for so we would designate the language - the Greek had for some time been
making its way among the people. The Mishnah itself contains a very large
number of Greek and Latin words with Hebraic terminations, showing how deeply
Gentile life and customs around had affected even those who hated them most,
and, by inference, how thoroughly they must have penetrated Jewish society in
general. But besides, it had been long the policy of their rulers
systematically to promote all that was Grecian in thought and feeling. It
needed the obstinate determinateness, if not the bigotry, of Pharisaism to
prevent their success, and this may perhaps partly explain the extreme of their
antagonism against all that was Gentile. A brief notice of the religious state
of the outlying districts of the country may place this in a clearer light.
In the far north-east of the land, occupying at least in part the ancient
possession of Manasseh, were the provinces belonging to the tetrarch Philip (Luke 3:1). Many spots there (Mark 8:22; Luke 9:10; Matthew 16:13) are dear to the Christian memory. After
the Exile these districts had been peopled by wild, predatory nomads, like the
Bedawin of our days. These lived chiefly in immense caves, where they stored
their provisions, and in case of attack defended themselves and their flocks.
Herod the Great and his successors had indeed subdued, and settled among them,
a large number of Jewish and Idumaean colonists - the former brought from
Babylon, under the leadership of one Zamaris, and attracted, like the modern
German colonists in parts of Russia, by immunity from taxation. But the vast
majority of the people were still Syrians and Grecians, rude, barbarous, and
heathens. Indeed, there the worship of the old Syrian gods had scarcely given
way to the more refined rites of Greece. It was in this neighborhood that Peter
made that noble confession of faith, on which, as on a rock, the Church is
built. But Caesarea Philippi was originally Paneas, the city devoted to Pan;
nor does its change of name indicate a more Jewish direction on the part of its
inhabitants. Indeed, Herod the Great had built there a temple to Augustus. But
further particulars are scarcely necessary, for recent researches have
everywhere brought to light relics of the worship of the Phoenician Astarte, of
the ancient Syrian god of the sun, and even of the Egyptian Ammon, side by side
with that of the well- known Grecian deities. The same may be said of the
refined Damascus, the territory of which formed here the extreme boundary of
Palestine. Passing from the eastern to the western bounds of Palestine, we find
that in Tyre and Ptolemais Phrygian, Egyptian, Phoenician, and Greek rites
contended for the mastery. In the center of Palestine, notwithstanding the
pretense of the Samaritans to be the only true representatives of the religion
of Moses, the very name of their capital, Sebaste, for Samaria, showed how
thoroughly Grecianised was that province. Herod had built in Samaria also a
magnificent temple to Augustus; and there can be no doubt that, as the Greek
language, so Grecian rites and idolatry prevailed. Another outlying district,
the Decapolis (Matthew 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31), was almostentirely Grecian in
constitution, language, and worship. It was, in fact, afederation of ten
heathen cities within the territory of Israel, possessing agovernment of their
own. Little is known of its character; indeed, the citiesthemselves are not
always equally enumerated by different writers. Wename those of most importance
to readers of the New Testament.Scythopolis, the ancient Beth-shean (Joshua 17:11, 16; Judges 1:27; I Samuel 31:10, 12, etc.), was the only one of those
cities situated west of the Jordan. It lay about four hours south of Tiberias.
Gadara, the capital of Peraea, is known to us from Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26. Lastly, we mention as specially interesting,
Pella, the place to which the Christians of Jerusalem fled in obedience to the
warning of our Lord (Matthew 24:15-20), to escape the doom of the city, when
finally beleaguered by the Romans. The situation of Pella has not been
satisfactorily ascertained, but probably it lay at no great distance from the
ancient Jabesh Gilead.
But to return. From what has been said, it will appear that there remained only
Galilee and Judaea proper, in which strictly Jewish views and manners must be
sought for. Each of these will be described in detail. For the present it will
suffice to remark, that north-eastern or Upper Galilee was in great part
inhabited by Gentiles - Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabs, and Greeks, whence the
name "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matthew 4:15). It is strange in how many even of those
cities, with which we are familiar from the New Testament, the heathen element
prevailed. Tiberias, which gave its name to the lake, was at the time of Christ
of quite recent origin, having been built by the tetrarch Herod Antipas (the
Herod of the gospel history), and named in honor of the Emperor Tiberius.
Although endowed by its founder with many privileges, such as houses and lands
for its inhabitants, and freedom from taxation - the latter being continued by
Vespasian after the Jewish war - Herod had to colonize it by main force, so far
as its few Jewish inhabitants were concerned. For, the site on which the city
stood had of old covered a place of burial, and the whole ground was therefore
levitically unclean (Jos. Ant. 18. 2,3). However celebrated, therefore,
afterwards as the great and final seat of the Jewish Sanhedrim, it was
originally chiefly un-Jewish. Gaza had its local deity; Ascalon worshipped
Astarte; Joppa was the locality where, at the time when Peter had his vision
there, they still showed on the rocks of the shore the marks of the chains, by
which Andromeda was said to have been held, when Perseus came to set her free.
Caesarea was an essentially heathen city, though inhabited by many Jews; and
one of its most conspicuous ornaments was another temple to Augustus, built on
a hill opposite the entrance to the harbor, so as to be visible far out at sea.
But what could be expected, when in Jerusalem itself Herod had reared a
magnificent theater and amphitheater, to which gladiators were brought from all
parts of the world, and where games were held, thoroughly anti-Jewish and
heathen in their spirit and tendency? (Jos. Ant. 15. 8, 1). The favorites and
counselors by whom that monarch surrounded himself were heathens; wherever he
or his successors could, they reared heathen temples, and on all occasions they
promoted the spread of Grecian views. Yet withal they professed to be Jews;
they would not shock Jewish prejudices; indeed, as the building of the Temple,
the frequent advocacy at Rome of the cause of Jews when oppressed, and many
other facts show, the Herodians would fain have kept on good terms with the
national party, or rather used it as their tool. And so Grecianism spread.
Already Greek was spoken and understood by all the educated classes in the
country; it was necessary for intercourse with the Roman authorities, with the
many civil and military officials, and with strangers; the "superscription" on
the coins was in Greek, even though, to humor the Jews, none of the earlier
Herods had his own image impressed on them. Significantly enough, it was Herod
Agrippa I., the murderer of St. James, and the would-be murderer of St. Peter,
who introduced the un-Jewish practice of images on coins. Thus everywhere the
foreign element was advancing. A change or else a struggle was inevitable in
the near future.
And what of Judaism itself at that period? It was miserably divided, even
though no outward separation had taken place. The Pharisees and Sadducees held
opposite principles, and hated each other, the Essenes looked down upon them
both. Within Pharisaism the schools of Hillel and Shammai contradicted each
other on almost every matter. But both united in their unbounded contempt of
what they designated as "the country- people" - those who had no traditional
learning, and hence were either unable or unwilling to share the discussions,
and to bear the burdens of legal ordinances, which constituted the chief matter
of traditionalism. There was only one feeling common to all - high and low,
rich and poor, learned and unlettered: it was that of intense hatred of the
foreigner. The rude Galileans were as "national" as the most punctilious
Pharisees; indeed, in the war against Rome they furnished the most and the
bravest soldiers. Everywhere the foreigner was in sight; his were the taxes
levied, the soldiery, the courts of ultimate appeal, the government. In
Jerusalem they hung over the Temple as a guard in the fortress of Antonia, and
even kept in their custody the high-priest's garments so that, before
officiating in the Temple, he had actually always to apply for them to the
procurator or his representative! They were only just more tolerable as being
downright heathens than the Herodians, who mingled Judaism with heathenism,
and, having sprung from foreign slaves, had arrogated to themselves the kingdom
of the Maccabees.
Readers of the New Testament know what separation Pharisaical Jews made between
themselves and heathens. It will be readily understood, that every contact with
heathenism and all aid to its rites should have been forbidden, and that in
social intercourse any levitical defilement, arising from the use of what was
"common or unclean," was avoided. But Pharisaism went a great deal further than
this. Three days before a heathen festival all transactions with Gentiles were
forbidden, so as to afford them neither direct nor indirect help towards their
rites; and this prohibition extended even to private festivities, such as a
birthday, the day of return from a journey, etc. On heathen festive occasions a
pious Jew should avoid, if possible, passing through a heathen city, certainly
all dealings in shops that were festively decorated. It was unlawful for Jewish
workmen to assist in anything that might be subservient either to heathen
worship or heathen rule, including in the latter the erection of court-houses
and similar buildings. It need not be explained to what lengths or into what
details Pharisaical punctiliousness carried all these ordinances. From the New
Testament we know, that to enter the house of a heathen defiled till the
evening (John 18:28), and that all familiar intercourse with
Gentiles was forbidden (Acts 10:28). So terrible was the intolerance, that a
Jewess was actually forbidden to give help to her heathen neighbor, when about
to become a mother (Avod. S. 2. 1 )! It was not a new question to St. Paul,
when the Corinthians inquired about the lawfulness of meat sold in the shambles
or served up at a feast (I Corinthians 10:25, 27, 28). Evidently he had the
Rabbinical law on the subject before his mind, while, on the one hand, he
avoided the Pharisaical bondage of the letter, and, on the other, guarded
against either injuring one's own conscience, or offending that of an
on-looker. For, according to Rabbi Akiba, "Meat which is about to be brought in
heathen worship is lawful, but that which comes out from it is forbidden,
because it is like the sacrifices of the dead" (Avod. S. 2. 3). But the
separation went much beyond what ordinary minds might be prepared for. Milk
drawn from a cow by heathen hands, bread and oil prepared by them, might indeed
be sold to strangers, but not used by Israelites. No pious Jew would of course
have sat down at the table of a Gentile (Acts 11:3, Galatians 2:12). If a heathen were invited to a Jewish
house, he might not be left alone in the room, else every article of food or
drink on the table was henceforth to be regarded as unclean. If cooking
utensils were bought of them, they had to be purified by fire or by water;
knives to be ground anew, spits to be made red-hot before use, etc. It was not
lawful to let either house or field, nor to sell cattle, to a heathen; any
article, however distantly connected with heathenism, was to be destroyed.
Thus, if a weaving-shuttle had been made of wood grown in a grove devoted to
idols, every web of cloth made by it was to be destroyed; nay, if such pieces
had been mixed with others, to the manufacture of which no possible objection
could have been taken, these all became unclean, and had to be destroyed.
These are only general statements to show the prevalent feeling. It were easy
to prove how it pervaded every relationship of life. The heathens, though often
tolerant, of course retorted. Circumcision, the Sabbath-rest, the worship of an
invisible God, and Jewish abstinence from pork, formed a never-ending theme of
merriment to the heathen. Conquerors are not often chary in disguising their
contempt for the conquered, especially when the latter presume to look down
upon, and to hate them. In view of all this, what an almost incredible truth
must it have seemed, when the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed it among Israel as
the object of His coming and kingdom, not to make of the Gentiles Jews, but of
both alike children of one Heavenly Father; not to rivet upon the heathen the
yoke of the law, but to deliver from it Jew and Gentile, or rather to fulfill
its demands for all! The most unexpected and unprepared-for revelation, from
the Jewish point of view, was that of the breaking down of the middle wall of
partition between Jew and Gentile, the taking away of the enmity of the law,
and the nailing it to His cross. There was nothing analogous to it; not a hint
of it to be found, either in the teaching or the spirit of the times. Quite the
opposite. Assuredly, the most unlike thing to Christ were His times; and the
greatest wonder of all - "the mystery hidden from ages and generations" - the
foundation of one universal Church.
| P | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | A1 | A2 |
Chapter 3
IN GALILEE AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD.
"IF any one wishes to be rich, let him go north; if
he wants to be wise, let him come south." Such was the saying, by which
Rabbinical pride distinguished between the material wealth of Galilee and the
supremacy in traditional lore claimed for the academies of Judaea proper. Alas,
it was not long before Judaea lost even this doubtful distinction, and its
colleges wandered northwards, ending at last by the Lake of Gennesaret, and in
that very city of Tiberias which at one time had been reputed unclean!
Assuredly, the history of nations chronicles their judgment; and it is
strangely significant, that the authoritative collection of Jewish traditional
law, known as the Mishnah, and the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, which is its
Palestinian commentary, should finally have issued from what was originally a
heathen city, built upon the site of old forsaken graves.
But so long as Jerusalem and Judaea were the center of Jewish learning, no
terms of contempt were too strong to express the supercilious hauteur, with
which a regular Rabbinist regarded his northern co-religionists. The slighting
speech of Nathanael (John 1:46), "Can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth?" reads quite like a common saying of the period; and the rebuke of
the Pharisees to Nicodemus (John 7:52), "Search, and look: for out of Galilee
ariseth no prophet," was pointed by the mocking question, "Art thou also of
Galilee?" It was not merely self-conscious superiority, such as the
"townspeople," as the inhabitants of Jerusalem used to be called throughout
Palestine, were said to have commonly displayed towards their "country cousins"
and every one else, but offensive contempt, outspoken sometimes with almost
incredible rudeness, want of delicacy and charity, but always with much pious
self-assertion. The "God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men" (Luke 18:11) seems like the natural breath of Rabbinism
in the company of the unlettered, and of all who were deemed intellectual or
religious inferiors; and the parabolic history of the Pharisee and the publican
in the gospel is not told for the special condemnation of that one prayer, but
as characteristic of the whole spirit of Pharisaism, even in its approaches to
God. "This people who knoweth not the law (that is, the traditional law) are
cursed," was the curt summary of the Rabbinical estimate of popular opinion. To
so terrible a length did it go that the Pharisees would fain have excluded
them, not only from common intercourse, but from witness-bearing, and that they
even applied to marriages with them such a passage as Deuteronomy 27:21.
But if these be regarded as extremes, two instances, chosen almost at random -
one from religious, the other from ordinary life - will serve to illustrate
their reality. A more complete parallel to the Pharisee's prayer could scarcely
be imagined than the following. We read in the Talmud (Jer. Ber. 4. 2)that a
celebrated Rabbi was wont every day, on leaving the academy, to pray in these
terms: "I thank Thee, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that Thou hast cast
my lot among those who frequent the schools and synagogues, and not among those
who attend the theater and the circus. For, both I and they work and watch - I
to inherit eternal life, they for their destruction." The other illustration,
also taken from a Rabbinical work, is, if possible, even more offensive. It
appears that Rabbi Jannai, while traveling by the way, formed acquaintance with
a man, whom he thought his equal. Presently his new friend invited him to
dinner, and liberally set before him meat and drink. But the suspicions of the
Rabbi had been excited. He began to try his host successively by questions upon
the text of Scripture, upon the Mishnah, allegorical interpretations, and
lastly on Talmudical lore. Alas! on neither of these points could he satisfy
the Rabbi. Dinner was over; and Rabbi Jannai, who by that time no doubt had
displayed all the hauteur and contempt of a regular Rabbinist towards the
unlettered, called upon his host, as customary, to take the cup of
thanksgiving, and return thanks. But the latter was sufficiently humiliated to
reply, with a mixture of Eastern deference and Jewish modesty, "Let Jannai
himself give thanks in his own house." "At any rate," observed the Rabbi, "you
can join with me;" and when the latter had agreed to this, Jannai said, "A dog
has eaten of the bread of Jannai!"
Impartial history, however, must record a different judgment of the men of
Galilee from that pronounced by the Rabbis, and that even wherein they were
despised by those leaders in Israel. Some of their peculiarities, indeed, were
due to territorial circumstances. The province of Galilee - of which the name
might be rendered "circuit," being derived from a verb meaning "to move in a
circle" - covered the ancient possessions of four tribes: Issachar, Zebulon,
Naphtali, and Asher. The name occurs already in the Old Testament (compare Joshua 20:7; I Kings 9:11; II Kings 15:29; I Chronicles 6:76; and especially Isaiah 9:1). In the time of Christ it stretched
northwards to the possessions of Tyre on the one side, and to Syria on the
other; on the south it was bounded by Samaria - Mount Carmel on the western,
and the district of Scythopolis (in the Decapolis) on the eastern side, being
here landmarks; while the Jordan and the Lake of Gennesaret formed the general
eastern boundary-line. Thus regarded, it would include names to which such
reminiscences attach as "the mountains of Gilboa," where "Israel and Saul fell
down slain;" little Hermon, Tabor, Carmel, and that great battle-field of
Palestine, the plain of Jezreel. Alike the Talmud and Josephus divide it into
Upper and Lower Galilee, between which the Rabbis insert the district of
Tiberias, as Middle Galilee. We are reminded of the history of Zaccheus (Luke 19:4) by the mark which the Rabbis give to
distinguish between Upper and Lower Galilee - the former beginning "where
sycamores cease to grow." The sycamore, which is a species of fig, must, of
course, not be confounded with our sycamore, and was a very delicate evergreen,
easily destroyed by cold (Psalms 78:47), and growing only in the Jordan valley,
or in Lower Galilee up to the sea-coast. The mention of that tree may also help
us to fix the locality where Luke 17:6 was spoken by the Savior. The Rabbis mention
Kefar Hananyah, probably the modern Kefr Anan, to the north- west of Safed, as
the first place in Upper Galilee. Safed was truly "a city set on an hill;" and
as such may have been in view of the Lord, when He spoke the Sermon on the
Mount (Matthew 5:14). In the Talmud it is mentioned by the
name of Zephath, and spoken of as one of the signal- stations, whence the
proclamation of the new moon, made by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and with it
the beginning of every month, was telegraphed by fire-signals from hill to hill
throughout the land, and far away east of the Jordan, to those of the
dispersion.
The mountainous part in the north of Upper Galilee presented magnificent
scenery, with bracing air. Here the scene of the Song of Solomon is partly laid
(Cant. 7. 5). But its caves and fastnesses, as well as the marshy ground,
covered with reeds, along Lake Merom, gave shelter to robbers, outlaws, and
rebel chiefs. Some of the most dangerous characters came from the Galilean
highlands. A little farther down, and the scenery changed. South of Lake Merom,
where the so-called Jacob's bridge crosses the Jordan, we come upon the great
caravan road, which connected Damascus in the east with the great mart of
Ptolemais, on the shore of the Mediterranean. What a busy life did this road
constantly present in the days of our Lord, and how many trades and occupations
did it call into existence! All day long they passed - files of camels, mules,
and asses, laden with the riches of the East, destined for the far West, or
bringing the luxuries of the West to the far East. Travelers of every
description - Jews, Greeks, Romans, dwellers in the East - were seen here. The
constant intercourse with foreigners, and the settlement of so many strangers
along one of the great highways of the world, must have rendered the
narrow-minded bigotry of Judaea well-nigh impossible in Galilee.
We are now in Galilee proper, and a more fertile or beautiful region could
scarcely be conceived. It was truly the land where Asher dipped his foot in oil
(Deuteronomy 33:24). The Rabbis speak of the oil as
flowing like a river, and they say that it was easier in Galilee to rear a
forest of olive- trees than one child in Judaea! The wine, although not so
plentiful as the oil, was generous and rich. Corn grew in abundance, especially
in the neighborhood of Capernaum; flax also was cultivated. The price of living
was much lower than in Judaea, where one measure was said to cost as much as
five in Galilee. Fruit also grew to perfection; and it was probably a piece of
jealousy on the part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that they would not allow
it to be sold at the feasts in the city, lest people should forsooth say, "We
have only come up in order to taste fruit from Galilee." Josephus speaks of the
country in perfectly rapturous terms. He counts no fewer than 240 towns and
villages, and speaks of the smallest as containing not less than 15,000
inhabitants! This, of course, must be gross exaggeration, as it would make the
country more than twice as thickly populated as the densest districts in
England or Belgium. Some one has compared Galilee to the manufacturing
districts of this country. This comparison, of course, applies only to the fact
of its busy life, although various industries were also carried on there -
large potteries of different kinds, and dyeworks. From the heights of Galilee
the eye would rest on harbors, filled with merchant ships, and on the sea,
dotted with white sails. There, by the shore, and also inland, smoked furnaces,
where glass was made; along the great road moved the caravans; in field,
vineyard, and orchard all was activity. The great road quite traversed Galilee,
entering it where the Jordan is crossed by the so-called bridge of Jacob, then
touching Capernaum, going down to Nazareth, and passing on to the sea-coast.
This was one advantage that Nazareth had - that it lay on the route of the
world's traffic and intercourse. Another peculiarity is strangely unknown to
Christian writers. It appears from ancient Rabbinical writings that Nazareth
was one of the stations of the priests. All the priests were divided into
twenty-four courses, one of which was always on ministry in the Temple. Now,
the priests of the course which was to be on duty always gathered in certain
towns, whence they went up in company to the Temple; those who were unable to
go spending the week in fasting and prayer for their brethren. Nazareth was one
of these priestly centers; so that there, with symbolic significance, alike
those passed who carried on the traffic of the world, and those who ministered
in the Temple.
We have spoken of Nazareth; and a few brief notices of other places in Galilee,
mentioned in the New Testament, may be of interest. Along the lake lay, north,
Capernaum, a large city; and near it, Chorazin, so celebrated for its grain,
that, if it had been closer to Jerusalem, it would have been used for the
Temple; also Bethsaida, the name, "house of fishes," indicating its trade.
Capernaum was the station where Matthew sat at the receipt of custom (Matthew 9:9). South of Capernaum was Magdala, the city
of dyers, the home of Mary Magdalene (Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 8:2; John 20:1). The Talmud mentions its shops and its
woolworks, speaks of its great wealth, but also of the corruption of its
inhabitants. Tiberias, which had been built shortly before Christ, is only
incidentally mentioned in the New Testament (John 6:1; 21:1). At the time it was a splendid but chiefly
heathen city, whose magnificent buildings contrasted with the more humble
dwellings common in the country. Quite at the southern end of the lake was
Tarichaea, the great fishing place, whence preserved fish was exported in casks
(Strabo, 16. 2). It was there that, in the great Roman war, a kind of naval
battle was fought, which ended in terrible slaughter, no quarter being given by
the Romans, so that the lake was dyed red with the blood of the victims, and
the shore rendered pestilential by their bodies. Cana in Galilee was the
birthplace of Nathanael (John 21:2), where Christ performed His first miracle (John 2:1-11); significant also in connection with the
second miracle there witnessed, when the new wine of the kingdom was first
tasted by Gentile lips (John 4:46, 47). Cana lay about three hours to the
north-north-east of Nazareth. Lastly, Nain was one of the southernmost places
in Galilee, not far from the ancient Endor.
It can scarcely surprise us, however interesting it may prove, that such Jewish
recollections of the early Christians as the Rabbis have preserved, should
linger chiefly around Galilee. Thus we have, in quite the apostolic age,
mention of miraculous cures made, in the name of Jesus, by one Jacob of Chefar
Sechanja (in Galilee), one of the Rabbis violently opposing on one occasion an
attempt of the kind, the patient meanwhile dying during the dispute; repeated
records of discussions with learned Christians, and other indications of
contact with Hebrew believers. Some have gone farther, and found traces of the
general spread of such views in the fact that a Galilean teacher is introduced
in Babylon as propounding the science of the Merkabah, or the mystical
doctrines connected with Ezekiel's vision of the Divine chariot, which
certainly contained elements closely approximating the Christian doctrines of
the Logos, the Trinity, etc. Trinitarian views have also been suspected in the
significance attached to the number "three" by a Galilean teacher of the third
century, in this wise: "Blessed be God, who has given the three laws (the
Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) to a people composed of three
classes (Priests, Levites, and laity), through him who was the youngest of
three (Miriam, Aaron, and Moses), on the third day (of their separation - Exodus 19:16), and in the third month." There is yet
another saying of a Galilean Rabbi, referring to the resurrection, which,
although far from clear, may bear a Christian application. Finally, the Midrash
applies the expression, "The sinner shall be taken by her" (Ecclesiastes 7:26), either to the above-named Christian
Rabbi Jacob, or to Christians generally, or even to Capernaum, with evident
reference to the spread of Christianity there. We cannot here pursue this very
interesting subject farther than to say, that we find indications of Jewish
Christians having endeavored to introduce their views while leading the public
devotions of the Synagogue, and even of contact with the immoral heretical sect
of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15).
Indeed, what we know of the Galileans would quite prepare us for expecting,
that the gospel should have received at least a ready hearing among many of
them. It was not only, that Galilee was the great scene of our Lord's working
and teaching, and the home of His first disciples and apostles; nor yet that
the frequent intercourse with strangers must have tended to remove narrow
prejudices, while the contempt of the Rabbinists would loosen attachment to the
strictest Pharisaism; but, as the character of the people is described to us,
by Josephus, and even by the Rabbis, they seem to have been a warm-hearted,
impulsive, generous race - intensely national in the best sense, active, not
given to idle speculations or wire-drawn logico-theological distinctions, but
conscientious and earnest. The Rabbis detail certain theological differences
between Galilee and Judaea. Without here mentioning them, we have no hesitation
in saying, that they show more earnest practical piety and strictness of life,
and less adherence to those Pharisaical distinctions which so often made void
the law. The Talmud, on the other hand, charges the Galileans with neglecting
traditionalism; learning from one teacher, then from another (perhaps because
they had only wandering Rabbis, not fixed academies); and with being
accordingly unable to rise to the heights of Rabbinical distinctions and
explanations. That their hot blood made them rather quarrelsome, and that they
lived in a chronic state of rebellion against Rome, we gather not only from
Josephus, but even from the New Testament (Luke 13:2; Acts 5:37). Their mal-pronunciation of Hebrew, or
rather their inability properly to pronounce the gutturals, formed a constant
subject of witticism and reproach, so current that even the servants in the
High Priest's palace could turn round upon Peter, and say, "Surely thou also
art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee" (Matthew 26:73) a remark this, by the way, which
illustrates the fact that the language commonly used at the time of Christ in
Palestine was Aramaean, not Greek. Josephus describes the Galileans as
hard-working, manly, and brave; and even the Talmud admits (Jer. Cheth. 4. 14)
that they cared more for honor than for money.
But the district in Galilee to which the mind ever reverts, is that around the
shores of its lake. Its beauty, its marvelous vegetation, its almost tropical
products, its wealth and populousness, have been often described. The Rabbis
derive the name of Gennesaret either from a harp - because the fruits of its
shores were as sweet as is the sound of a harp - or else explain it to mean
"the gardens of the princes," from the beautiful villas and gardens around.
But we think chiefly not of those fertile fields and orchards, nor of the deep
blue of the lake, enclosed between hills, nor of the busy towns, nor of the
white sails spread on its waters - but of Him, Whose feet trod its shores; Who
taught, and worked, and prayed there for us sinners; Who walked its waters and
calmed its storms, and Who even after His resurrection held there sweet
converse with His disciples; nay, Whose last words on earth, spoken from
thence, come to us with peculiar significance and application, as in these days
we look on the disturbing elements in the world around: "What is that to thee?
Follow thou Me" (John 21:22).
| P | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | A1 | A2 |
Chapter 4
TRAVELING IN PALESTINE
ROADS, INNS, HOSPITALITY
CUSTOM-HOUSE OFFICERS, TAXATION, PUBLICANS.
IT was the very busiest road in Palestine, on which
the publican Levi Matthew sat at the receipt of "custom," when our Lord called
him to the fellowship of the Gospel, and he then made that great feast to which
he invited his fellow-publicans, that they also might see and hear Him in Whom
he had found life and peace (Luke 5:29). For, it was the only truly international
road of all those which passed through Palestine; indeed, it formed one of the
great highways of the world's commerce. At the time of which we write, it may
be said, in general, that six main arteries of commerce and intercourse
traversed the country, the chief objective points being Caesarea, the military,
and Jerusalem, the religious capital. First, there was the southern road, which
led from Jerusalem, by Bethlehem, to Hebron, and thence westwards to Gaza, and
eastwards into Arabia, whence also a direct road went northwards to Damascus.
It is by this road we imagine St. Paul to have traveled, when retiring into the
solitudes of Arabia, immediately after his conversion (Galatians 1:17, 18). The road to Hebron must have been
much frequented by priestly and other pilgrims to the city, and by it the
father of the Baptist and the parents of Jesus would pass. Secondly, there was
the old highway along the sea-shore from Egypt up to Tyre, whence a straight,
but not so much frequented, road struck, by Caesarea Philippi, to Damascus. But
the sea-shore road itself, which successively touched Gaza, Ascalon, Jamnia,
Lydda, Diospolis, and finally Caesarea and Ptolemais, was probably the most
important military highway in the land, connecting the capital with the seat of
the Roman procurator at Caesarea, and keeping the sea-board and its harbors
free for communication. This road branched off for Jerusalem at Lydda, where it
bifurcated, leading either by Beth-horon or by Emmaus, which was the longer
way. It was probably by this road that the Roman escort hurried off St. Paul (Acts 23:31), the mounted soldiers leaving him at
Antipatris, about twenty Roman miles from Lydda, and altogether from Jerusalem
about fifty-two Roman miles (the Roman mile being 1,618 yards, the English mile
1,760). Thus the distance to Caesarea, still left to be traversed next morning
by the cavalry would be about twenty-six Roman miles, or, the whole way,
seventy-eight Roman miles from Jerusalem. This rate of traveling, though rapid,
cannot be regarded as excessive, since an ordinary day's journey is computed in
the Talmud (Pes. 93 b) as high as forty Roman miles. A third road led from
Jerusalem, by Beth-horon and Lydda, to Joppa, whence it continued close by the
sea-shore to Caesarea. This was the road which Peter and his companions would
take when summoned to go, and preach the gospel to Cornelius (Acts 10:23, 24). It was at Lydda, thirty-two Roman
miles from Jerusalem, that Aeneas was miraculously healed, and "nigh" to it -
within a few miles - was Joppa, where the raising of Tabitha, Dorcas, "the
gazelle" (Acts 9:32-43), took place. Of the fourth great highway,
which led from Galilee to Jerusalem, straight through Samaria, branching at
Sichem eastwards to Damascus, and westwards to Caesarea, it is needless to say
much, since, although much shorter, it was, if possible, eschewed by Jewish
travelers; though, both in going to (Luke 9:53; 17:11), and returning from Jerusalem (John 4:4, 43), the Lord Jesus passed that way. The road
from Jerusalem straight northwards also branched off at Gophna, whence it led
across to Diospolis, and so on to Caesarea. But ordinarily, Jewish travelers
would, rather than pass through Samaria, face the danger of robbers which
awaited them (Luke 10:30) along the fifth great highway (comp. Luke 19:1, 28; Matthew 20:17, 29), that led from Jerusalem, by
Bethany, to Jericho. Here the Jordan was forded, and the road led to Gilead,
and thence either southwards, or else north to Peraea, whence the traveler
could make his way into Galilee. It will be observed that all these roads,
whether commercial or military, were, so to speak, Judaean, and radiated from
or to Jerusalem. But the sixth and great road, which passed through Galilee,
was not at all primarily Jewish, but connected the East with the West -
Damascus with Rome. From Damascus it led across the Jordan to Capernaum,
Tiberias, and Nain (where it fell in with a direct road from Samaria), to
Nazareth, and thence to Ptolemais. Thus, from its position, Nazareth was on the
world's great highway. What was spoken there might equally re-echo throughout
Palestine, and be carried to the remotest lands of the East and of the West.
It need scarcely be said, that the roads which we have thus traced are only
those along the principal lines of comxnuni-cation. But a large number of
secondary roads also traversed the country in all directions. Indeed, from
earliest times much attention seems to have been given to facility of
intercourse throughout the land. Even in the days of Moses we read of "the
king's highway" (Numbers 20:17, 19; 21:22). In Hebrew we have, besides the two general
terms (derech and orach), three expressions which respectively indicate a
trodden or beaten-down path (nathiv, from nathay, to tread down), a made or
cast-up road (messillah, from salal, to cast up), and "the king's highway" -
the latter, evidently for national purposes, and kept up at the public expense.
In the time of the kings (for example, I Kings 12:18), and even earlier, there were regular
carriage roads, although we can scarcely credit the statement of Josephus
(Antiq. 8:7, 4) that Solomon had caused the principal roads to be paved with
black stone - probably basalt. Toll was apparently levied in the time of Ezra (Ezra 4:13, 20); but the clergy were exempt from this as
from all other taxation (7:24). The roads to the cities of refuge required to be
always kept in good order (Deuteronomy 19:3). According to the Talmud they were to
be forty-eight feet wide, and provided with bridges, and with sign-posts where
roads diverged.
Passing to later times, the Romans, as might have been expected, paid great
attention to the modes of communication through the country. The military roads
were paved, and provided with milestones. But the country roads were chiefly
bridle-paths. The Talmud distinguishes between public and private roads. The
former must be twenty-four, the latter six feet wide. It is added that, for the
king's highway, and for the road taken by funerals, there is no measure (Baba
B. 6. 7). Roads were annually repaired in spring, preparatory for going up to
the great feasts. To prevent the possibility of danger, no subterranean
structure, however protected, was allowed under a public road. Overhanging
branches of trees had to be cut down, so as to allow a man on a camel to pass.
A similar rule applied to balconies and projections; nor were these permitted
to darken a street. Any one allowing things to accumulate on the road, or
dropping them from a cart, had to make good what damage might be incurred by
travelers. Indeed, in towns and their neighborhood the police regulations were
even more strict; and such ordinances occur as for the removal within thirty
days of rotten trees or dangerous walls; not to pour out water on the road; not
to throw out anything on the street, nor to leave about building materials, or
broken glass, or thorns, along with other regulations for the public safety and
health.
Along such roads passed the travelers; few at first, and mostly pilgrims, but
gradually growing in number, as commerce and social or political intercourse
increased. Journeys were performed on foot, upon asses, or in carriages (Acts 8:28), of which three kinds are mentioned - the
round carriage, perhaps like our gig; the elongated, like a bed, and the cart,
chiefly for the transport of goods. It will be understood that in those days
traveling was neither comfortable nor easy. Generally, people journeyed in
company, of which the festive bands going to Jerusalem are a well-known
instance. If otherwise, one would prepare for a journey almost as for a change
of residence, and provide tent, victuals, and all that was needful by the way.
It was otherwise with the traveling hawker, who was welcomed as a friend in
every district through which he passed, who carried the news of the day,
exchanged the products of one for those of another district, and produced the
latest articles of commerce or of luxury. Letters were only conveyed by special
messengers, or through travelers.
In such circumstances, the command, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers,"
had a special meaning. Israel was always distinguished for hospitality; and not
only the Bible, but the Rabbis, enjoin this in the strongest terms. In
Jerusalem no man was to account a house as only his own; and it was said, that
during the pilgrim-feasts none ever wanted ready reception. The tractate Aboth
(1. 5), mentions these as two out of the three sayings of Jose, the son of
Jochanan, of Jerusalem: "Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor be the
children of thy house." Readers of the New Testament will be specially
interested to know, that, according to the Talmud (Pes. 53), Bethphage and
Bethany, to which in this respect such loving memories cling, were specially
celebrated for their hospitality towards the festive pilgrims. In Jerusalem it
seems to have been the custom to hang a curtain in front of the door, to
indicate that there was still room for guests. Some went so far as to suggest,
there should be four doors to every house, to bid welcome to travelers from all
directions. The host would go to meet an expected guest, and again accompany
him part of the way (Acts 21:5). The Rabbis declared that hospitality
involved as great, and greater merit than early morning attendance in an
academy of learning. They could scarcely have gone farther, considering the
value they attached to study. Of course, here also the Rabbinical order had the
preference; and hospitably to entertain a sage, and to send him away with
presents, was declared as meritorious as to have offered the daily sacrifices
(Ber. 10, b).
But let there be no misunderstanding. So far as the duty of hospitality is
concerned, or the loving care for poor and sick, it were impossible to take a
higher tone than that of Rabbinism. Thus it was declared, that "the
entertainment of travelers was as great a matter as the reception of the
Shechinah." This gives a fresh meaning to the admonition of the Epistle
addressed specially to the Hebrews (13:2): "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for
thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Bearing on this subject, one of
the oldest Rabbinical commentaries has a very beautiful gloss on Psalms 109:31: "He shall stand at the right hand of the
poor." "Whenever," we read, "a poor man stands at thy door, the Holy One,
blessed be His Name, stands at his right hand. If thou givest him alms, know
that thou shalt receive a reward from Him who standeth at his right hand." In
another commentary God Himself and His angels are said to visit the sick. The
Talmud itself counts hospitality among the things of which the reward is
received alike in this life and in that which is to come (Shab. 127 a), while
in another passage (Sot. 14 a) we are bidden imitate God in these four
respects: He clothed the naked (Genesis 3:21); He visited the sick (Genesis 18:1); He comforted the mourners (Genesis 25:11); and He buried the dead (Deueteronomy
34:6).
In treating of hospitality, the Rabbis display, as in so many relations of
life, the utmost tenderness and delicacy, mixed with a delightful amount of
shrewd knowledge of the world and quaint humor. As a rule, they enter here also
into full details. Thus the very manner in which a host is to bear himself
towards his guests is prescribed. He is to look pleased when entertaining his
guests, to wait upon them himself, to promise little and to give much, etc. At
the same time it was also caustically added: "Consider all men as if they were
robbers, but treat them as if each were Rabbi Gamaliel himself!" On the other
hand, rules of politeness and gratitude are equally laid down for the guests.
"Do not throw a stone," it was said, "into the spring at which you have drunk"
(Baba K. 92); or this, "A proper guest acknowledges all, and saith, `At what
trouble my host has been, and all for my sake!' - while an evil visitor
remarks: `Bah! what trouble has he taken?' Then, after enumerating how little
he has had in the house, he concludes; `And, after all, it was not done for me,
but only for his wife and children!'" (Ber. 58 a). Indeed, some of the sayings
in this connection are remarkably parallel to the directions which our Lord
gave to His disciples on going forth upon their mission (Luke 10:5-11, and parallels). Thus, one was to inquire
for the welfare of the family; not to go from house to house; to eat of such
things as were set before one; and, finally, to part with a blessing.
All this, of course, applied to entertainment in private families. On
unfrequented roads, where villages were at great intervals, or even outside
towns (Luke 2:7), there were regular khans, or places of
lodgment for strangers. Like the modern khans, these places were open, and
generally built in a square, the large court in the middle being intended for
the beasts of burden or carriages, while rooms opened upon galleries all
around. Of course these rooms were not furnished, nor was any payment expected
from the wayfarer. At the same time, some one was generally attached to the
khan - mostly a foreigner - who would for payment provide anything that might
be needful, of which we have an instance in the parabolic history of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:35). Such hostelries are mentioned so early as
in the history of Moses (Genesis 42:27; 43:21). Jeremiah calls them "a place for strangers" (Jeremiah 41:17), wrongly rendered "habitation" in our
Authorized Version. In the Talmud their designations are either Greek or Latin,
in Aramaic form - one of them being the same as that used in Luke 10:34 - proving that such places were chiefly
provided by and for strangers.
In later times we also read of the oshpisa - evidently from hospitium, and
showing its Roman origin - as a house of public entertainment, where such food
as locusts, pickled, or fried in flour or in honey, and Median or Babylonian
beer, Egyptian drink, and home-made cider or wine, were sold; such proverbs
circulating among the boon companions as "To eat without drinking is like
devouring one's own blood" (Shab. 41 a), and where wild noise and games of
chance were indulged in by those who wasted their substance by riotous living.
In such places the secret police, whom Herod employed, would ferret out the
opinions of the populace while over their cups. That police must have been
largely employed. According to Josephus (Ant. 15, 4) spies beset the people,
alike in town and country, watching their conversations in the unrestrained
confidence of friendly intercourse. Herod himself is said to have acted in that
capacity, and to have lurked about the streets at night- time in disguise to
overhear or entrap unwary citizens. Indeed, at one time the city seems almost
to have been under martial law, the citizens being forbidden "to meet together,
to walk or eat together," - presumably to hold public meetings, demonstrations,
or banquets. History sufficiently records what terrible vengeance followed the
slightest suspicion. The New Testament account of the murder of all the little
children at Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16), in hope of destroying among them the
royal scion of David, is thoroughly in character with all that we know of Herod
and his reign. There is at least indirect confirmation of this narrative in
Talmudical writings, as there is evidence that all the genealogical registers
in the Temple were destroyed by order of Herod. This is a most remarkable fact.
The Jews retaliated by an intensity of hatred which went so far as to elevate
the day of Herod's death (2 Shebet) into an annual feast-day, on which all
mourning was prohibited.
But whether passing through town or country, by quiet side-roads or along the
great highway, there was one sight and scene which must constantly have forced
itself upon the attention of the traveler, and, if he were of Jewish descent,
would ever awaken afresh his indignation and hatred. Whithersoever he went, he
encountered in city or country the well-known foreign tax gatherer, and was met
by his insolence, by his vexatious intrusion, and by his exactions. The fact
that he was the symbol of Israel's subjection to foreign domination, galling
though it was, had probably not so much to do with the bitter hatred of the
Rabbinists towards the class of tax-farmers (Moches) and tax-collectors
(Gabbai), both of whom were placed wholly outside the pale of Jewish society,
as that they were so utterly shameless and regardless in their unconscientious
dealings. For, ever since their return from Babylon, the Jews must, with a
brief interval, have been accustomed to foreign taxation. At the time of Ezra (Ezra 4:13, 20; 7:24) they paid to the Persian monarch "toll, tribute,
and custom" - middah, belo, and halach - or rather "ground-tax" (income and
property- tax? ), "custom" (levied on all that was for consumption, or
imported), and "toll," or road-money. Under the reign of the Ptolemies the
taxes seem to have been farmed to the highest bidder, the price varying from
eight to sixteen talents - that is, from about £3, 140 to about £6,280 - a very
small sum indeed, which enabled the Palestine tax-farmers to acquire immense
wealth, and that although they had continually to purchase arms and court
favor. During the Syrian rule the taxes seem to have consisted of tribute, duty
on salt, a third of the produce of all that was sown, and one- half of that
from fruit-trees, besides poll-tax, custom duty, and an uncertain kind of tax,
called "crown-money" (the aurum coronarium of the Romans), originally an annual
gift of a crown of gold, but afterwards compounded for in money. Under the
Herodians the royal revenue seems to have been derived from crown lands, from a
property and income-tax, from import and export duties, and from a duty on all
that was publicly sold and bought, to which must be added a tax upon houses in
Jerusalem.
Heavily as these exactions must have weighed upon a comparatively poor and
chiefly agricultural population, they refer only to civil taxation, not to
religious dues. But, even so, we have not exhausted the list of contributions
demanded of a Jew. For, every town and community levied its own taxes for the
maintenance of synagogue, elementary schools, public baths, the support of the
poor, the maintenance of public roads, city walls, and gates, and other general
requirements. It must, however, be admitted that the Jewish authorities
distributed this burden of civic taxation both easily and kindly, and that they
applied the revenues derived from it for the public welfare in a manner
scarcely yet attained in the most civilized countries. The Rabbinical
arrangements for public education, health, and charity were, in every respect,
far in advance of modern legislation, although here also they took care
themselves not to take the grievous burdens which they laid upon others, by
expressly exempting from civic taxes all those who devoted themselves to the
study of the law.
But the Roman taxation, which bore upon Israel with such crushing weight, was
quite of its own kind - systematic, cruel, relentless, and utterly regardless.
In general, the provinces of the Roman Empire, and what of Palestine belonged
to them, were subject to two great taxes - poll-tax (or rather income-tax) and
ground-tax. All property and income that fell not under the ground-tax was
subject to poll-tax; which amounted, for Syria and Cilicia, to one per cent.
The "poll-tax" was really twofold, consisting of income-tax and head-money, the
latter, of course, the same in all cases, and levied on all persons (bond or
free) up to the age of sixty-five - women being liable from the age of twelve
and men from that of fourteen. Landed property was subject to a tax of
one-tenth of all grain, and one-fifth of the wine and fruit grown, partly paid
in product and partly commuted into money.
Besides these, there was tax and duty on all imports and exports, levied on the
great public highways and in the seaports. Then there was bridge-money and
road-money, and duty on all that was bought and sold in the towns. These, which
may be called the regular taxes, were irrespective of any forced contributions,
and of the support which had to be furnished to the Roman procurator and his
household and court at Caesarea. To avoid all possible loss to the treasury,
the proconsul of Syria, Quirinus (Cyrenius), had taken a regular census to show
the number of the population and their means. This was a terrible crime in the
eyes of the Rabbis, who remembered that, if numbering the people had been
reckoned such great sin of old, the evil must be an hundredfold increased, if
done by heathens and for their own purposes. Another offense lay in the
thought, that tribute, hitherto only given to Jehovah, was now to be paid to a
heathen emperor. "Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar?" was a sore
question, which many an Israelite put to himself as he placed the emperor's
poll-tax beside the half-shekel of the sanctuary, and the tithe of his field,
vineyard, and orchard, claimed by the tax-gatherer, along with that which he
had hitherto only given unto the Lord. Even the purpose with which this inquiry
was brought before Christ - to entrap Him in a political denunciation - shows,
how much it was agitated among patriotic Jews; and it cost rivers of blood
before it was not answered, but silenced.
The Romans had a peculiar way of levying these taxes - not directly, but
indirectly - which kept the treasury quite safe, whatever harm it might inflict
on the taxpayer, while at the same time it threw upon him the whole cost of the
collection. Senators and magistrates were prohibited from engaging in business
or trade; but the highest order, the equestrian, was largely composed of great
capitalists. These Roman knights formed joint- stock companies, which bought at
public auction the revenues of a province at a fixed price, generally for five
years. The board had its chairman, or magister, and its offices at Rome. These
were the real Publicani, or publicans, who often underlet certain of the taxes.
The Publicani, or those who held from them, employed either slaves or some of
the lower classes in the country as tax-gatherers - the publicans of the New
Testament. Similarly, all other imposts were farmed and collected; some of them
being very onerous, and amounting to an ad valorem duty of two and a half, of
five, and in articles of luxury even of twelve and a half per cent. Harbor-dues
were higher than ordinary tolls, and smuggling or a false declaration was
punished by confiscation of the goods. Thus the publicans also levied import
and export dues, bridge-toll, road-money, town-dues, etc.; and, if the
peaceable inhabitant, the tiller of the soil, the tradesman, or manufacturer
was constantly exposed to their exactions, the traveler, the caravan, or the
peddler encountered their vexatious presence at every bridge, along the road,
and at the entrance to cities. Every bale had to be unloaded, and all its
contents tumbled about and searched; even letters were opened; and it must have
taken more than Eastern patience to bear their insolence and to submit to their
"unjust accusations" in arbitrarily fixing the return from land or income, or
the value of goods, etc. For there was no use appealing against them, although
the law allowed this, since the judges themselves were the direct beneficiaries
by the revenue; for they before whom accusations on this score would have to be
laid, belonged to the order of knights, who were the very persons implicated in
the farming of the revenue. Of course, the joint-stock company of Publicani at
Rome expected its handsome dividends; so did the tax-gatherers in the
provinces, and those to whom they on occasions sublet the imposts. All wanted
to make money of the poor people; and the cost of the collection had of course
to be added to the taxation. We can quite understand how Zaccheus, one of the
supervisors of these tax-gatherers in the district of Jericho, which, from its
growth and export of balsam, must have yielded a large revenue, should, in
remembering his past life, have at once said: "If I have taken anything from
any man by false accusation" - or, rather, "Whatever I have wrongfully exacted
of any man." For nothing was more common than for the publican to put a
fictitious value on property or income. Another favorite trick of theirs was to
advance the tax to those who were unable to pay, and then to charge usurious
interest on what had thereby become a private debt. How summarily and harshly
such debts were exacted, appears from the New Testament itself. In Matthew
18:28 we read of a creditor who, for the small debt of one hundred denars
(about £3 6s. 8d.), seizes the debtor by the throat in the open street, and
drags him to prison; the miserable man, in his fear of the consequences, in
vain falling down at his feet, and beseeching him to have patience, in not
exacting immediate full payment. What these consequences were, we learn from
the same parable, where the king threatens not only to sell off all that his
debtor has, but even himself, his wife, and children into slavery (ver. 25).
And what short shrift such an unhappy man had to expect from "the magistrate,"
appears from the summary procedure, ending in imprisonment till "the last mite"
had been paid, described in Luke 12:58.
However, therefore, in far-off Rome, Cicero might describe the Publicani as
"the flower of knighthood, the ornament of the state, and the strength of the
republic," or as "the most upright and respected men," the Rabbis in distant
Palestine might be excused for their intense dislike of "the publicans," even
although it went to the excess of declaring them incapable of bearing testimony
in a Jewish court of law, of forbidding to receive their charitable gifts, or
even to change money out of their treasury (Baba K. 10. 1), of ranking them not
only with harlots and heathens, but with highwaymen and murderers (Ned. 3. 4),
and of even declaring them excommunicate. Indeed, it was held lawful to make
false returns, to speak untruth, or almost to use any means to avoid paying
taxes (Ned. 27 b.; 28 a). And about the time of Christ the burden of such
exactions must have been felt all the heavier on account of a great financial
crisis in the Roman Empire (in the year 33 of our era), which involved so many
in bankruptcy, and could not have been without its indirect influence even upon
distant Palestine.