(Book II. ch. xi.)

Only those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and sometimes bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their Baptism. Our present remarks will be confined to the Baptism of Proselytes.

1. Generally, as regards proselytes (gerim) we have to distinguish between the ger hashaar (proselyte of the gate) and ger toshaḇ (‘sojourner,’ settled among Israel), and again the ger haṣṣedeq (proselyte of righteousness) and ger haberiṯ (proselyte of the covenant). The former are referred to by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 7. 2), and frequently in the New Testament, in the Authorised Version under the designation of those who ‘fear God,’ Act_13:16; Act_13:26; are ‘religious,’ Act_13:43; ‘devout,’ Act_13:50; Act_17:4; Act_13:17; ‘worship God,’ Act_16:14; Act_18:7. Whether the expression ‘devout’ and ‘feared God’ in Act_10:2; Act_10:7 refers to proselytes of the gate is doubtful. As the ‘proselytes of the gate’ only professed their faith in the God of Israel, and merely bound themselves to the observance of the so-called seven Noachic commandments (on which in another place), the question of ‘baptism’ need not be discussed in connection with them, since they did not even undergo circumcision.

2. It was otherwise with ‘the proselytes of righteousness,’ who became ‘children of the covenant,’ ‘perfect Israelites,’ Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (milah), Baptism (teḇilah), and a Sacrifice (qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) – the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). After the destruction of the Temple promise had to be made of such a sacrifice when the services of the Sanctuary were restored. On this and the ordinances about circumcision it is not necessary to enter further. That baptism was absolutely necessary to make it a proselyte is so frequently stated as not to be disputed (See Maimonides, u.s.; the tractate Massekheth Gerim in Kirchheim’s Septem Libri Talm. Parvi,  pp. 38-44 [which, however, adds little to our knowledge]; Targum on Exo_12:44; Ber. 47b; Kerith. 9a; Jer. Yebam. p. 8d; Yebam. 45b, 46a and b, 48b, 76a; Ab. Sar. 57a, 59a, and other passages). There was, indeed, a difference between Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, the former maintaining that baptism alone without circumcision, the latter that circumcision alone without baptism, sufficed to make a proselyte, but the sages decided in favour of the necessity of both rites (Yebam. 46a and b). The baptism was to be performed in the presence of three witnesses, ordinarily Sanhedrists (Yebam. 47b), but in case of necessity others might act. The person to be baptized, having cut his hair and nails, undressed completely, made fresh profession of his faith before what were designated ‘the fathers of the baptism’ (our Godfathers, Kethub. 11a; Erub. 15a), and then immersed completely, so that every part of the body was touched by the water. The rite would, of course, be accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides, Hilkh. Milah iii. 4; Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiv. 6). Baptism was not to be administered at night, nor on a Sabbath or feast-day (Yebam. 46b). Women were attended by those of their own sex, the Rabbis standing at the door outside. Yet unborn children of proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they were born ‘in holiness’ (Yebam. 78a). In regard to the little children of proselytes opinions differed. A person under age was indeed received, but not regarded as properly an Israelite till he had attained majority. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged. In general, the statements of a proselyte about his baptism required attestation by witnesses. But the children of a Jewess or of a proselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.

It was indeed a great thing when, in the words of Maimonides, a stranger sought shelter under the wings of the shekhinah, and the change of condition which he underwent was regarded as complete. The waters of baptism were to him in very truth, though in a far different from the Christian sense, the ‘bath of regeneration’ (Tit_3:5). As he stepped out of these waters he was considered as ‘born anew’ – in the language of the Rabbis, as if he were ‘a little child just born’ (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b), as ‘a child of one day’ (Mass. Ger. c. ii.). But this new birth was not ‘a birth from above’ in the sense of moral or spiritual renovation, but only as implying a new relationship to God, to Israel, and to his own past, present, and future. It was expressly enjoined that all the difficulties of his new citizenship should first be set before him, and if, after that, he took upon himself the yoke of the law, he should be told how all those sorrows and persecutions were intended to convey a greater blessing, and all those commandments to redound to greater merit. More especially was he to regard himself as a new man in reference to his past. Country, home, habits, friends, and relations were all changed. The past, with all that had belonged to it, was past, and he was a new man – the old, with its defilements, was buried in the waters of baptism. This was carried out with such pitiless logic as not only to determine such questions as those of inheritance, but that it was declared that, except for the sake of not bringing proselytism into contempt, a proselyte might have wedded his own mother or sister (comp. Yeb. 22a; Sanh. 58b). It is a curious circumstance that marriage with a female proselyte was apparently very popular (Horay. 13a, line 5 from bottom; see also Shem. R. 27), and the Talmud names at least three celebrated doctors who were the offspring of such unions (comp. Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palest., p. 223, note 2). The praises of proselytes and proselytism are also sung in Vayy. R. 1.

If anything could have further enhanced the value of such proselytism, it would nave been its supposed antiquity. Tradition traced it up to Abraham and Sarah, and the expression (Gen_12:5) ‘the souls that they had gotten’ was explained as referring to their proselytes, since ‘every one that makes a proselyte is as if he made (created) him’ (Ber. R. 39, comp. also the Targums Pseudo-Jon. and Jerus. and Midr. on Cant. i. 3). The Talmud, differing in this from the Targumim, finds in Exo_2:5 a reference to the baptism of Pharaoh’s daughter (Sotah 12b, line 3; Megill. 13a, line 11). In Shem. R. 27 Jethro is proved to have been a convert, from the circumstance that his original name had been Jether (Ex iv. 18), an additional letter (Jethro), as in the case of Abraham, having been added to his name when be became a proselyte (comp. also Zebhach. 116a and Targum Ps.-Jon. on Exo_18:6; Exo_18:27, Num_24:21. To pass over other instances, we are pointed to Ruth (Targum on Rth_1:10; Rth_1:15), and to Nebuzaradan – who is also described as a proselyte (Sanh. 96b, line 19 from the bottom). But it is said that in the days of David and Solomon proselytes were not admitted by the Sanhedrin because their motives were suspected (Yeb. 76a), or that at least they were closely watched.

But although the baptism of proselytes seems thus far beyond doubt, Christian theologians have discussed the question, whether the rite was practised at the time of Christ, or only introduced after the destruction of the Temple and its Services, to take the place of the Sacrifice previously offered. The controversy, which owed its origin chiefly to dogmatic prejudices on the part of Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptists has since been continued on historical or quasi-historical grounds. The silence of Josephus and Philo can scarcely be quoted in favour of the later origin of the rite. On the other hand, it may be urged that, as Baptism did not take the place of sacrifices in any other instance, it would be difficult to account for the origin of such a rite in connection with the admission of proselytes.

Again, if a Jew who had become Levitically defiled, required immersion, it is difficult to suppose that a heathen would have been admitted to all the services of the Sanctuary without a similar purification. But we have also positive testimony (which the objections of Winer, Keil, and Leyrer, in my opinion do not invalidate), that the baptism of proselytes existed in the time of Hillel and Shammai. For, whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake after baptism of the Passover, the school of Hillel forbade it. This controversy must be regarded as proving that at that time (previous to Christ) the baptism of proselytes was customary (Pes. viii. 8, Eduy. v. 2).

(Book III. ch. 1.)

Without here entering on a discussion of the doctrine of Angels and devils as presented in Holy Scripture, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha, it will be admitted that considerable progression may be marked as we advance from even the latest Canonical to Apocryphal, and again from these to the Pseudepigraphic Writings. The same remark applies even more strongly to a comparison of the latter with Rabbinic literature. There we have comparatively little of the Biblical in its purity. But, added to it, we now find much that is the outcome of Eastern or of prurient imagination, of national conceit, of ignorant superstition, and of foreign, especially Persian, elements. In this latter respect it is true – not, indeed, as regards the doctrine of good and evil Angels, but much of its Rabbinic elaboration – that ‘the names of the Angels (and of the months) were brought from Babylon’ (Jer. Rosh. haSh. 56d; Ber. R. 48), and with the ‘names,’ not a few of the notions regarding them. At the same time, it would be unjust to deny that much of the symbolism which it is evidently intended to convey is singularly beautiful.

I. Angelology.

1. Creation, Number, Duration, and Location of the Angels. We are now considering not the Angel-Princes but that vast unnumbered ‘Host’ generally designated as ‘the ministering Angels’ (מלאכי השרת). Opinions differ (Ber. R. 3) whether they were created on the second day as being ‘spirits,’ ‘winds’(Psa_104:4), or on the fifth day (Isa_6:2) in accordance with the works of Creation on those days. Viewed in reference to God’s Service and Praise, they are ‘a flaming fire:’ in regard to their office, winged messengers (Pirqé de R. El. 4). But not only so: every day ministering Angels are created, whose apparent destiny is only to raise the praises of God, after which they pass away into the fiery stream (nahar denur) whence they originally issued (Chag. 14a; Ber. R. 78). More than this – a new Angel is created to execute every behest of God, and then passeth away (Chag. u.s.). This continual new creation of Angels, which is partly a beautiful allegory, partly savours of the doctrine of ‘emanation,’ is Biblically supported ‘by an appeal to Lam_3:23. Thus it may be said that daily a kaṯ, or company, of Angels is created for the daily service of God, and that every word which proceedeth from His mouth becomes an ‘Angel’ [Messenger – mark here the ideal unity of Word and Deed], (Chag. 14a).

The vast number of that Angelic Host, and the consequent safety of Israel as against its enemies, was described in the most hyperbolic language. There were 12 mazzaloṯ (signs of the Zodiac), each having 30 chiefs of armies, each chief with 30 legions, each legion with 30 leaders, each leader with 30 captains, each captain with 30 under him, and each of these with 365,000 stars – and all were created for the sake of Israel! (Ber. 32b). Similarly, when Nebuchadnezzar proposed to ascend into heaven, and to exalt his throne above the stars, and be like the Most High, the Bath Qol replied to this grandson of Nimrod that man’s age was 70, or at most 80 years, while the way from earth to the firmament occupied 500 years, the thickness of the firmament was 500 years, from one firmament to the other occupied other 500 years, the feet of the living creatures were equal to all that had preceded, and the joints of their feet to as many as had preceded them, and so on increasingly through all their members up to their horns, after which came the Throne of Glory, the feet of which again equalled all that had preceded and soon (Chag. 13a). In connection with this were read in Chag. 12b that there are seven heavens: the Vilon, in which there is the sun; reqia, in which the sun shines, and the moon, stars, and planets are fixed; sheḥaqim, in which are the millstones to make the manna for the pious; zeḇul, in which the Upper Jerusalem, and the Temple and the Altar are, and in which Michael, the chief Angel-Prince, offers sacrifices; maon, in which the Angels of the Ministry are, who sing by night and are silent by day for the sake of the honour of Israel (who now have their services); maḥon, in which are the treasuries of snow, hail, the chambers of noxious dews, and of the receptacles of water, the chamber of the wind, and the cave of mist and their doors are of fire; lastly, Araboṯ, wherein Justice, Judgment, and Righteousness are, the treasures of Life, of Peace, and of Blessing, the souls of the righteous, and the spirits and souls of those who are to be born in the future, and the dew by which the dead are to be raised. There also are the Ophanim, and the Seraphim, and the living creatures, and the ministering Angels, and the Throne of Glory, and over them is enthroned the Great King. [For a description of this Throne and of the Appearance of its King, see Pirqé de R. Eliez. 4.] On the, other hand, sometimes every power and phenomenon in Nature is hypostatised into an Angel – such as hail, rain, wind, sea, etc.; similarly, every occurrence, such as life, death, nourishment, poverty, nay, as it is expressed: ‘there is not a stalk of grass upon earth but it has its Angel in heaven’ (Ber. R. 10). This seems to approximate the views of Alexandrian Mysticism. So also, perhaps, the idea that certain Biblical heroes became after death Angels. But as this may be regarded as implying their service as messengers of God, we leave it for the present.

2. The Angel-Princes, their location, names, and offices. Any limitation, as to duration or otherwise, of the Ministering Angels does not apply either to the Op̱anim (or wheel-angels), the serap̱im, the ḥayoṯ (or living creatures), nor to the Angel-Princes (Ber. R. 78). In Chag. 13a, b the name ḥashmal is given to the ‘living creatures.’ The word is explained as composed of two others which silence and speech – it being beautifully explained, that they keep silence when the Word proceeds out of the mouth of God, and speak when He has ceased. It would be difficult exactly to state the number of the Angel-Princes. The 70 nations, of which the world is composed, had each their Angel-Prince (Targ. Je on Gen_11:7, Gen_11:8; comp. Ber. R. 56; Shem. R. 21; Vayyi. R. 29; Ruth R. ed. Warsh. p. 36b), who plead their cause with God. Hence these Angels are really hostile to Israel, and may be regarded as not quite good Angels, and are cast down when the nationality which they represent is destroyed. It may have been as a reflection on Christian teaching that Israel was described as not requiring any representative with God, like the Gentiles. For, as will soon appear, this was not the general view entertained. Besides these Gentile Angel-Princes there were other chiefs, whose office will be explained in the sequel. Of these 5 are specially mentioned, of whom four surround the Throne of God: Michael, Gabriel, Rephael, and Uriel. But the greatest of all is Metatron, who is under the Throne, and before it. These Angels are privileged to be within the pargod, or cloudy veil, while the others only hear the Divine commands or counsels outside this curtain (Chag. 16a, Pirqé d. R. El. iv.). It is a slight variation when the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deu_34:6 enumerates the following as the 6 principal Angels: Michael, Gabriel, Metatron, Yophiel, Uriel, and Yophyophyah. The Book of Enoch (ch. xx.) speaks also of 6 principal Angels, while Pirqé d. R. Eliez. iv. mentions seven. In that very curious passage (Berakhoth 51a) we read of three directions given by Suriel, Prince of the Face, to preserve the Rabbis from the Techaspith (company of Evil Angels), or, according to others, from Istalganith (another company of Evil Angels). In Chag. 13b we read of an Angel called Sandalpon, who stands upon the earth, while his head reaches 500 years’ way beyond the living creatures. He is supposed to stand behind the Merkabah (the throne-chariot), and make crowns for the Creator, which rise of their own accord. We also read of Sagsagel, who taught Moses the sacred Name of God, and was present at his death. But, confining ourselves to the five principal Angel-chiefs, we have,

a. Metatron, who appears most closely to correspond to the Angel of the Face, or the Logos. He is the representative of God. In the Talmud (Sanh. 38b) a Christian is introduced as clumsily starting a controversy on this point, that, according to the Jewish contention, Exo_24:1 should have read, ‘Come up to Me.’ On this R. Idith explained that the expression referred to the Metatron (Exo_33:21), but denied the inference that Metatron was either to be adored, or had power to forgive sins, or that he was to be regarded as a Mediator. In continuation of this controversy we are told (Chag. 15 a, b) that, when an apostate Rabbi had seen Metatron sitting in heaven, and would have inferred from it that there were two supreme powers, Metatron received from another Angel 60 fiery stripes so as to prove his inferiority! In Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Gen_5:24 he is called the Great Scribe, and also the Prince of this world. He is also designated as ‘the Youth,’ and in the Kabbalah as ‘the Little God,’ who had 7 names like the Almighty, and shared His Majesty. He is also called the ‘Prince of the Face,’ and described as the Angel who sits in the innermost chamber (Chag. 5b), while the other Angels hear their commands outside the Veil (Chag. 16a). He is represented as showing the unseen to Moses (Siphré, p. 141a), and as instructing infants who have died without receiving knowledge (Abhod. Zar. 3b). In the introduction to the Midrash on Lamentations there is a revolting story in which Metatron is represented as proposing to shed tears in order that God might not have to weep over the destruction of Jerusalem, to which, however, the Almighty is made to refuse His assent. We hesitate to quote further from the passage. In Siphré on Dt (ed. Friedm. p. 141a) Metatron is said to have shown Moses the whole of Palestine. He is also said to have gone before Israel in the wilderness.

b. Michael (‘who is like God?’), or the Great Prince (Chag. 12b). He stands at the right hand of the throne of God. According to Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Exo_24:1, he is the Prince of Wisdom. According to the Targum on Psa_137:7, Psa_137:8, the Prince of Jerusalem, the representative of Israel. According to Sebach. 62a he offers upon the heavenly Altar; according to some, the souls of the pious; according to others, lambs of fire. But, although Michael is the Prince of Israel, he is not to be invoked by them (Jer. Ber. ix. 13a). In Yoma 77a we have an instance of his ineffectual advocacy for Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem. The origin of his name as connected with the Song of Moses at the Red Sea is explained in Bemidb. R. 2. Many instances of his activity are related. Thus, he delivered Abraham from the fiery oven of Nimrod, and afterwards, also, the Three Children out of the fiery furnace. He was the principal or middle Angel of the three who came to announce to Abraham the birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his right, and Rephael at his left. Michael also saved Lot. Michael and Gabriel wrote down that the primogeniture belonged to Jacob, and God confirmed it. Michael and Gabriel acted as ‘friends of the bridegroom’ in the nuptials of Adam. Yet they could not bear to look upon the glory of Moses. Michael is also supposed to have been the Angel in the bush (according to others, Gabriel). At the death of Moses, Michael prepared his bier, Gabriel spread a cloth over the head of Moses, and Sagsagel over his feet. In the world to come Michael would pronounce the blessing over the fruits of Eden, then hand them to Gabriel, who would give them to the patriarchs, and so on to David. The superiority of Michael over Gabriel is asserted in Ber. 4b, where, by an ingenious combination with Dan_10:13, it is shown that Isa_6:6 applies to him (both having the word אחד, one). It is added that Michael flies in one flight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and the Angel of Death in eight flights (no doubt to give time for repentance).

c. Gabriel (‘the Hero of God’) represents rather judgment, while Michael represents mercy. Thus he destroyed Sodom (Bab. Mez. 86b, and other places). He restored to Tamar the pledges of Judah, which Sammael had taken away (Sot. 10b). He struck the servants of the Egyptian princess, who would have kept their mistress from taking Moses out of the water (Sot. 12b); also Moses, that he might cry and so awaken pity. According to some, it was he who delivered the Three Children; but all are agreed that he killed the men that were standing outside the furnace. He also smote the array of Sennacherib. The passage in Eze_10:2, Eze_10:7 was applied to Gabriel, who had received from the Cherub two coals, which, however, he retained for six years, in the hope that Israel might repent. He is supposed to be referred to in Eze_9:4 as affixing the mark on the forehead which is a ת, drawn, in the case of the wicked, in blood (Shabb. 55a). We are also told that he had instructed Moses about making the Candlestick, on which occasion he had put on an apron, like a goldsmith; and that he had disputed with Michael about the meaning of a word. To his activity the bringing of fruits to maturity is ascribed – perhaps because he was regarded as made of fire, while Michael was made of snow (Deb. R. 5). These Angels are supposed to stand beside each other, without the fire of the one injuring the snow of the other. The curious legend is connected with him (Shabb. 56b, Sanh. 21b), that, when Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, Gabriel descended into the sea, and fixed a reed in it, around which a mudbank gathered, on which a forest sprang up. On this site imperial Rome was built. The meaning of the legend – or perhaps rather allegory – seems (as explained in other parts of this book) that, when Israel began to decline from God, the punishment through its enemies was prepared, which culminated in the dominion of Rome. In the future age Gabriel would hunt and slay Leviathan. This also may be a parabolic representation of the destruction of Israel’s enemies.

d. Of Uriel (‘God is my light’) and Rephael (‘God heals’) it need only be said, that the one stands at the left side of the Throne of glory, the other behind it.

3. The Ministering Angels and their Ministry. The ministry of the Angels may be divided into two parts, that of praising God, and that of executing His behests. In regard to the former, there are 694,000 myriads who daily praise the Name of God. From sunrise to sundown they say: Holy, holy, holy, and from sundown to sunrise: Blessed be the Glory of God from its place. In connection with this we may mention the beautiful allegory (Shem. R. 21) that the Angel of prayer weaves crowns for God out of the prayers of Israel. As to the execution of the Divine commands by the Angels, it is suggested (Aboth d. R. Nathan 8) that their general designation as ministering Angels might have led to jealousy among them. Accordingly, their names were always a composition of that of God with the special commission entrusted to them (Shem. R 29), so that the name of each Angel depended on his message, and might vary with it (Ber. R. 78). This is beautifully explained in Yalkut (vol. 2 Par. 797), where we are told that each Angel has a tablet on his heart, in which the Name of God and that of the Angel is combined. This change of names explained the answer of the Angel to Manoah (Bemidb. R. 10). It is impossible to enumerate all the instances of Angelic activity recorded in Talmudic writings. Angels had performed the music at the first sacrifice of Adam; they had announced the consequences of his punishment; they had cut off the hands and feet of the serpent; they had appeared to Abraham in the form of a baker, a sailor, and an Arab. 120,000 of them had danced before Jacob when he left Laban; 4,000 myriads of them were ready to fight for him against Esau; 22,000 of them descended on and stood beside Israel when, in their terror at the Voice of God, they fled for twelve miles. Angels were directed to close the gates of heaven when the prayer of Moses with the All-powerful, Ineffable Name in it, which he had learnt from Sagsagel, would have prevented his death. Finally, as they were pledged to help Israel, so would they also punish every apostate Israelite. Especially would they execute that most terrible punishment of throwing souls to each other from one world to another. By the side of these debasing superstitions we come upon beautiful allegories, such as that a good and an evil Angel always accompanied man, but specially on the eve of the Sabbath when he returned from the Synagogue, and that for every precept he observed God sent him a protecting Angel. This idea is realistically developed in Pirké d. R. El. 15, where the various modes and times in which the good Angels keep man from destruction are set forth.

It is quite in accordance with what we know of the system of Rabbinism, that the heavenly host should be represented as forming a sort of consultative Sanhedrin. Since God never did anything without first taking counsel with the family above (Sanh. 38b), it had been so when He resolved to create man. Afterwards the Angels had interceded for Adam, and, when God pointed to his disobedience, they had urged that thus death would also come upon Moses and Aaron, who were sinless, since one fate must come to the just and the unjust. Similarly, they had interceded for Isaac, when Abraham was about to offer him, and finally dropped three tears on the sacrificial knife by which its edge became blunted. And so through the rest of Israel’s history, where on all critical occasions Jewish legend introduces the Angels on the scene.

4. Limitations of the power of the Angels. According to Jewish ideas, the faculties, the powers, and even the knowledge of Angels were limited. They are, indeed, pure spiritual beings (Vayyikra R. 24), without sensuous requirements (Yoma 75b), without hatred, envy, or jealousy (Chag. 14), and without sin (Pirqé d. R. El. 46). They know much, notably the future (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and have part in the Divine Light. They live on the beams of the Divine Glory (Bem. R. 21), are not subject to our limitations as to movement, see but are not seen (Ab. d. R. Nath. u.s.), can turn their face to any side (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and only appear to share in our ways, such as in eating (Ber. R. 48). Still, in many respects they are inferior to Israel, and had been employed in ministry (Ber. R. 75). They were unable to give names to the animals, which Adam did (Pirqé d. R. El. 13). Jacob had wrestled with the Angel and prevailed over him when the Angel wept (Chull. 92a). Thus it was rather their nature than their powers or dignity which distinguished them from man. No Angel could do two messages at the same time (Ber. R. 50). In general they are merely instruments blindly to do a certain work, not even beholding the Throne of Glory (Bemidb. R. 14), but needed mutual assistance (Vayyikra R. 31). They are also liable to punishments (Chag. 16a). Thus, they were banished from their station for 138 years, because they had told Lot that God would destroy Sodom, while the Angel-Princes of the Gentiles were kept in chains till the days of Jeremiah. As regards their limited knowledge, with the exception of Gabriel, they do not understand Chaldee or Syriac (Sot. 33a). The realistic application of their supposed ignorance on this score need not here be repeated (see Shabb. 12b). As the Angels are inferior to the righteous, it follows that they are so to Israel. God had informed the Angels that the creation of man was superior to theirs, and it had excited their envy. Adam attained a place much nearer to God than they, and God loved Israel more than the Angels. And God had left all the ministering Angels in order to come to Moses, and when He communicated with him it was directly, and the Angels standing between them did not hear what passed. In connection with this ministry of the Angels on behalf of Biblical heroes a curious legend may here find its place. From a combination of Exo_18:4 with Exo_2:15 the strange inference was made that Moses had actually been seized by Pharaoh. Two different accounts of how he escaped from his power are given. According to the one, the sword with which he was to be executed rebounded from the neck of Moses, and was broken, to which Son_7:5 was supposed to refer, it being added that the rebound killed the would-be executioner. According to another account, an Angel took the place of Moses, and thus enabled him to fly, his flight being facilitated by the circumstance that all the attendants of the king were miraculously rendered either dumb, deaf, or blind, so that they could not execute the behests of their master. Of this miraculous interposition Moses is supposed to have been reminded in Exo_4:11, for his encouragement in undertaking his mission to Pharaoh. In the exaggeration of Jewish boastfulness in the Law, it was said that the Angels had wished to receive the Law, but that they had not been granted this privilege (Job_28:21). And sixty myriads of Angels had crowned with two crowns every Israelite who at Mount Sinai had taken upon himself the Law (Shabb. 88a). In view of all this we need scarcely mention the Rabbinic prohibition to address to the Angels prayers, even although they bore them to heaven (Jer. Ber. ix. 1), or to make pictorial representations of them (Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Exo_20:23; Mechilta on the passage, ed Weiss, p. 80a).

5. The Angels are not absolutely good. Strange as it may seem, this is really the view expressed by the Rabbis. Thus it is said that, when God consulted the Angels, they opposed the creation of man, and that, for this reason, God had concealed from them that man would sin. But more than this – the Angels had actually conspired for the fall of man (the whole of this is also related In Pirqé d. R. El. 13). Nor had their jealousy and envy been confined to that occasion. They had accused Abraham, that, when he gave a great feast at the weaning of Isaac, he did not even offer to God a bullock or a goat. Similarly, they had laid charges against Ishmael, in the hope that he might be left to perish of thirst. They had expostulated with Jacob, because he went to sleep at Bethel. But especially had they, from envy, opposed Moses’ ascension into heaven; they had objected to his being allowed to write down the Law, falsely urging that Moses would claim the glory of it for himself, and they are represented, in a strangely blasphemous manner, as having been with difficulty appeased by God. In Shabb. 88b we have an account of how Moses pacified the Angels, by showing that the Law was not suitable for them, since they were not subject to sinful desires, upon which they became the friends of Moses, and each taught him some secret, among others the Angel of death how to arrest the pestilence. Again, it is said, that the Angels were wont to bring charges against Israel, and that, when Manasseh wished to repent, the Angels shut the entrance to heaven, so that his prayer might not penetrate into the presence of God.

Equally profane, though in another direction, is the notion that Angels might be employed for magical purposes. This had happened at the siege of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, when, after the death of that mighty hero Abika, the son of Gaphteri, Chananeel, the uncle of Jeremiah, had conjured up ministering Angels who affrighted the Chaldees into flight. On this God had changed their names, when Chananeel, unable any longer to command their services, had summoned up the Prince of the World by using the Ineffable Name, and lifted Jerusalem into the air, but God had trodden it down again, to all which Lam_2:1 referred (Yalk. vol. 2 p. 166c and d, Par. 1001). The same story is repeated in another place (p. 167, last line of col. c, and col. d), with the addition that the leading inhabitants of Jerusalem had proposed to defend the city by conjuring up the Angels of Water and Fire, and surrounding their city with walls of water, of fire, or of iron; but their hopes were disappointed when God assigned to the Angels names different from those which they had previously so that when called upon they were unable to do what was expected of them.

6. The Names of the Angels. Besides those already enumerated, we may here mention, the sar haOlam, or ‘Prince of the World’ (Yeb. 16b); the Prince of the Sea, whose name is supposed to have been rahab, and whom God destroyed because he had refused to receive the waters which had covered the world, and the smell of whose dead body would kill every one if it were not covered by water. dumah is the Angel of the realm of the dead (Ber. 18b). When the soul of the righteous leaves the body, the ministering Angels announce it before God, Who deputes them to meet it. Three hosts of Angels then proceed on this errand, each quoting successively one clause of Isa_57:2. On the other hand, when the wicked leave the body, they are met by three hosts of destroying Angels, one of which repeats Isa_48:22, another Isa_50:11, and the third Eze_32:19 (Keth. 104a). Then the souls of all the dead, good or bad, are handed over to Dumah. yorqemi is the Prince of hail. He had proposed to cool the fiery furnace into which the Three Children were cast, but Gabriel had objected that this might seem a deliverance by natural means, and being himself the Prince of the fire, had proposed, instead of this, to make the furnace cold within and hot without, in order both to deliver the Three Children and to destroy those who watched outside (Pes. 118a and b). ridya, or radya is the Angel of rain. One of the Rabbis professed to describe him from actual vision as like a calf whose lips were open, standing between the Upper and the Lower Deep, and saying to the Upper Deep, Let your waters run down, and to the Lower, Let your waters spring up. The representation of this Angel as a calf may be due to the connection between rain and ploughing, and in connection with this it may be noticed that Ridya means both a plough and ploughing (Taan. 25b). Of other Angels we will only name the ruaḥ pisqoniṯ, or Spirit of decision, who is supposed to have made most daring objection to what God had said, Eze_16:3, in which he is defended by the Rabbis since his activity had been on behalf of Israel (Sanh. 44b); naqid, the Angel of Food; naḇel, the Angel of Poverty; the two Angels of Healing; the Angel of Dreams, lailah: and even the Angels of Lust.

It is, of course, not asserted that all these grossly materialistic superstitions and profane views were entertained in Palestine, or at the time of our Lord, still less that they are shared by educated Jews in the West. But they certainly date from Talmudic times; they embody the only teaching of Rabbinic writings about the Angels which we possess, and hence, whencesoever introduced, or however developed, their roots must be traced back to far earlier times than those when they were propounded in Rabbinic Academies. All the more that modern Judaism would indignantly repudiate them, do they bear testimony against Rabbinic teaching. And one thing at least must be evident, for the sake of which we have undertaken the task of recording at such length views and statements repugnant to all reverent feeling. The contention of certain modern writers that the teaching about Angels in the New Testament is derived from, and represents Jewish notions, must be perceived to be absolutely groundless and contrary to fact. In truth the teaching of the New Testament on the subject of Angels represents, as compared with that of the Rabbis, not only a return to the purity of Old Testament teaching, but, we might almost say, a new revelation.

II. Satanology and Fall of the Angels.

The difference between the Satanology of the Rabbis and of the New Testament is, if possible, even more marked than that in their Angelology. In general we note that, with the exception of the word Satan, none of the names given to the great enemy in the New Testament occurs in Rabbinic writings. More important still, the latter contain no mention of a Kingdom of Satan. In other words, the power of evil is not contained with that of good, nor Satan with God. The devil is presented rather as the enemy of man, than of God and of good. This marks a fundamental difference. The New Testament sets before us two opposing kingdoms, or principles, which exercise absolute sway over man. Christ is ‘the Stronger one’ who overcometh ‘the strong man armed,’ and taketh from him not only his spoils, but his armour (Luk_11:21, Luk_11:22). It is a moral contest in which Satan is vanquished, and the liberation of his subjects is the consequence of his own subdual. This implies the deliverance of man from the power of the enemy, not only externally but internally, and the substitution of a new principle of spiritual life for the old one. It introduces a moral element, both as the ground and as the result of the contest. From this point of view the difference between the New Testament and Rabbinism cannot be too much emphasised, and it is no exaggeration to say that this alone – the question here being one of principle not of details – would mark the doctrine of Christ as fundamentally divergent from, and incomparably superior to that of Rabbinism. ‘Whence hath this Man this wisdom?’ Assuredly, it may be answered, not from His contemporaries.

Since Rabbinism viewed the ‘great enemy’ only as the envious and malicious opponent of man, the spiritual element was entirely eliminated. Instead of the personified principle of Evil, to which there is response in us, and of which all have some experience, we have only a clumsy and – to speak plainly – often a stupid hater. This holds equally true in regard to the threefold aspect under which Rabbinism presents the devil: as Satan (also called Sammael); as the yeṣer hara, or evil impulse personified; and as the Angel of Death – in other words, as the Accuser, Tempter and Punisher. Before explaining the Rabbinic views on each of these points, it is necessary to indicate them in regard to – 

1. The Fall of Satan and of his Angels. This took place, not antecedently, but subsequently to the creation of man. As related in Pirqé de R. Eliezer, ch. 13, the primary cause of it was jealousy and envy on the part of the Angels. Their opposition to man’s creation is also described in Ber. R. 8 Although there the fall of man is not traced to Satanic agency. But we have (as before stated) a somewhat blasphemous account of the discussions in the heavenly Sanhedrin, whether or not man should be created. While the dispute was still proceeding God actually created Man, and then addressed the ministering Angels: ‘Why dispute any longer? Man is already created.’ In the Pirqé de R. Eliezer, we are only told that the Angels had in vain attempted to oppose the creation of man. The circumstance that his superiority was evidenced by his ability to give names to all creatures, induced them to ‘lay a plot against Adam,’ so that by his fall they might obtain supremacy. Now of all Angel-Princes in heaven Sammael was the first – distinguished above the company of Angels subject to him, he came down upon earth, and selected as the only fit instrument for his designs the serpent, which at that time had not only speech, but hands and feet, and was in stature and appearance like the camel. In the language of the Pirqé de R. Eliezer, Sammael took complete possession of the serpent, even as demoniacs act under the absolute control of evil spirits. Then Sammael, in the serpent, first deceived the woman, and next imposed on her by touching the tree of life (although the tree cried out), saying, that he had actually ‘touched’ the tree, of which he pretended the touch had been forbidden on pain of death (Gen_3:3) – yet he had not died! Upon this Eve followed his example, and touched the tree when she immediately saw the Angel of Death coming against her. Afraid that she would die and God give another wife to Adam, she led her husband into the sin of disobedience. The story of the Fall is somewhat differently related in Ber. R. 18, 19. No mention is there made either of Sammael or of his agency, and the serpent is represented as beguiling Eve from a wish to marry her, and for that purpose to compass the death of Adam.

Critical ingenuity may attempt to find a symbolic meaning in many of the details of the Jewish legend of the Fall, although, to use moderate language, they seem equally profane and repulsive. But this will surely be admitted by all, that the Rabbinic account of the fall of the Angels, as connected with the fall of man, equally contrasts with the reverent reticence of the Old Testament narrative and the sublime teaching of the New Testament about sin and evil.

2. Satan, or Sammael, as the accuser of man. And clumsy, indeed, are his accusations. Thus the statement (Gen_22:1) that ‘God tempted Abraham’ is, in Jewish legend, transformed (Sanh. 89b) into a scene, where, in the great upper Sanhedrin (Ber. R. 56), Satan brings accusation against the Patriarch. All his previous piety had been merely interested; and now when, at the age of one hundred, God had given him a son, he had made a great feast and not offered aught to the Almighty. On this God is represented as answering, that Abraham was ready to sacrifice not only an animal but his own son; and this had been the occasion of the temptation of Abraham. That this legend is very ancient, indeed, preChristian (a circumstance of considerable importance to the student of this history) from its occurrence, though in more general form, in the Book of Jubilees, ch. xvii. In Ber. R. 55 and in Tanchuma (ed. Warsh. p. 29a and b), the legend is connected with a dispute between Isaac and Ishmael as to their respective merits, when the former declares himself ready to offer up even his life unto God. In Tanchuma (u.s.) we are told that this was one of the great merits of man, to which the Almighty had pointed when the Angels made objection to his creation.

3. Satan, or Sammael, as the seducer of man. The statement in Baba B. 16a which identifies Satan with the yeṣer hara, or evil impulse in man, must be regarded as a rationalistic attempt to gloss over the older teaching about Sammael, by representing him as a personification of the evil inclination within us. For, the Talmud not only distinguishes between a personal Satan without, and evil inclination within man, but expressly ascribes to God the creation of the yeṣer hara in man as he was before the Fall, the occurrence of two  י י in the word וייצר (‘and He formed,’ Gen_2:7) being supposed to indicate the existence of two impulses in us – the yeṣer toḇ and the yeṣer hara (Ber. 61a). And it is stated that this existence of evil in man’s original nature was of infinite comfort in the fear which would otherwise beset us in trouble (Ber. R. 14). More than this (as will presently be shown), the existence of this evil principle within us was declared to be absolutely necessary for the continuance of the world (Yoma 69b, Sanh. 64a).

Satan, or Sammael, is introduced as the seducer of man in all the great events of Israel’s history. With varying legendary additions the story of Satan’s attempts to prevent the obedience of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac is told in Sanh. 89b, Ber. R. 56, and Tanchuma, p. 30 a and b. Yet there is nothing even astute, only a coarse realism, about the description of the clumsy attempts of Satan to turn Abraham from, or to hinder him in, his purpose; to influence Isaac; or to frighten Sarah. Nor are the other personages in the legend more successfully sketched. There is a want of all higher conception in the references to the Almighty, a painful amount of downright untruthfulness about Abraham, lamentable boastfulness and petty spite about Isaac, while the Sarah of the Jewish legend is rather a weak old, Eastern woman than the mother in Israel. To hold such perversions of the Old Testament by the side of the New Testament conception of the motives and lives of the heroes of old, or the doctrinal inferences and teaching of the Rabbis by those of Christ and His Apostles, were to compare darkness with light.

The same remarks apply to the other legends in which Satan is introduced as seducer. Anything more childish could scarcely be invented than this, that, when Sammael could not otherwise persuade Israel that Moses would not return from Mount Sinai, he at last made his bier appear before them in the clouds (Shab. 89a), unless it be this story, that when Satan would seduce David he assumed the form of a bird, and that, when David shot at it, Bath-Sheba suddenly looked up, thus gaining the king by her beauty (Sanh. 107a). In both these instances the obvious purpose is to palliate the guilt whether of Israel or of David, which, indeed, is in other places entirely explained away as not due to disobedience or to lust (comp. Ab. Zar. 4b, 5a).

4. As the Enemy of man, Satan seeks to hurt and destroy him; and he is the Angel of Death. Thus, when Satan had failed in shaking the constancy of Abraham and Isaac, he attacked Sarah (Yalkut. i. Par. 98, last lines p. 28b). To his suggestions, or rather false reports, her death had been due, either from fright at being told that Isaac had been offered (Pirqé de R. El. 32, and Targum Ps.-Jon.), or else from the shock, when after all she learned that Isaac was not dead (Ber. R. 58). Similarly, Satan had sought to take from Tamar the pledges which Judah had given her. He appeared as an old man to show Nimrod how to have Abraham cast into the fiery oven, at the same time persuading Abraham not to resist it, etc. Equally puerile are the representations of Satan as the Angel of Death. According to Abod. Zar. 20b, the dying sees his enemy with a drawn sword, on the point of which a drop of gall trembles. In his fright he opens his mouth and swallows this drop, which accounts for the pallor of the face and the corruption that follows. According to another Rabbi, the Angel of Death really uses his sword, although, on account of the dignity of humanity, the wound which he inflicts is not allowed to be visible. It is difficult to imagine a narrative more repulsive than that of the death of Moses according to Deb. R. 11. Beginning with the triumph of Sammael over Michael at the expected event, it tells how Moses had entreated rather to be changed into a beast or a bird than to die; how Gabriel and Michael had successively refused to bring the soul of Moses; how Moses, knowing that Sammael was coming for the purpose, had armed himself with the Ineffable Name; how Moses had in boastfulness recounted to Sammael all his achievements, real and legendary; and how at last Moses had pursued the Enemy with the Ineffable Name, and in his anger taken off one of his horns of glory and blinded Satan in one eye. We must be excused from further following this story through its revolting details.

But, whether as the Angel of Death or as the seducer of man, Sammael has not absolute power. When Israel took the Law upon themselves at Mount Sinai, they became entirely free from his sway, and would have remained so, but for the sin of the Golden Calf. Similarly, in the time of Ezra, the object of Israel’s prayer (Neh_8:6) was to have Satan delivered to them. After a three days’ fast it was granted, and the Yetser haRa of idolatry, in the shape of a young lion, was delivered up to them. It would serve no good purpose to repeat the story of what was done with the bound enemy, or how his cries were rendered inaudible in heaven. Suffice it that, in view of the requirements of the present world, Israel liberated him from the ephah covered with lead (Zec_5:8), under which, by advice of the prophet Zechariah, they had confined him, although for precaution they first put out his eyes (Yoma, 69b). And yet, in view, or probably, rather, in ignorance, of such teaching, modern criticism would derive the Satanology of the New Testament and the history of the Temptation from Jewish sources!

Over these six persons – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, with whom some apparently rank Benjamin – the Angel of Death had no power (Baba B. 17a). Benjamin, Amram, Jesse, and Chileb (the son of David) are said to have died (only) through ‘the sin of the serpent.’ In other cases, also, Sammael may not be able to exercise his sway till, for example, he has by some ruse diverted a theologian from his sacred study. Thus he interrupted the pious meditations of David by going up into a tree and shaking it, when, as David went to examine it, a rung of the ladder, on which he stood, broke, and so interrupted David’s holy thoughts. Similarly, Rabbi Chasda, by occupation with sacred study, warded off the Angel of Death till the crackling of a beam diverted his attention. Instances, of the awkwardness of the Enemy are related (Kethub. 77b), and one Rabbi – Joshua – actually took away his sword, only returning it by direct command of God. Where such views of Satan could even find temporary expression, superstitious fears may have been excited; but the thought of moral evil and of a moral combat with it could never have found lodgment.

III. Evil Spirits

(shedim, ruc̣in, ruc̣oṯ, lilin).

Here also, as throughout, we mark the presence of Parsee elements of superstition. In general, these spirits resemble the gnomes, hobgoblins, elves, and sprites of our fairy tales. They are cunning and malicious, and contact with them is dangerous; but they can scarcely be described as absolutely evil. Indeed, they often prove kind and useful; and may at all times be rendered innocuous, and even made serviceable.

1. Their origin, nature, and numbers. Opinions differ as to their origin, in fact, they variously originated. According to Ab. 12b, Ber. R. 7, they were created on the eve of the first Sabbath. But since that time their numbers have greatly increased. For, according to Erub. 18b. Ber. R. 20 (ed. Warsh. p. 40b), multitudes of them were the offspring of Eve and of male spirits, and of Adam with female spirits,.or with Lilith (the queen of the female spirits), during the 130 years that Adam had been under the ban, and before Seth was born (Gen_5:3): comp. Erub. 18b. Again, their number can scarcely be limited, since they propagate themselves (Chag. 16a), resembling men in this as well as in their taking of nourishment and dying. On the other hand, like the Angels they have wings, pass unhindered through space, and know the future. Still further, they are produced by a process of transformation from vipers, which, in the course of four times seven years, successively pass through the forms of vampires, thistles and thorns, into shedim (Bab. K. 16a) – perhaps a parabolic form of indicating the origination of shedim through the fall of man. Another parabolic idea may be implied in the saying that shedim spring from the backbone of those who have not bent in worship (u.s.).

Although shedim bear, when they appear, the form of human beings, they may assume any other form. Those of their number who are identified with dirty places are represented as themselves black (Kidd. 72a). But the reflection of their likeness is not the same as that of man. When conjured up, their position (whether with the head or the feet uppermost) depends on the mode of conjuring. Some of the shedim have defects. Thus, those of them who lodge in the caper bushes are blind, and an instance is related when one of their number, in pursuit of a Rabbi, fell over the root of a tree and perished (Pes. 111b). Trees, gardens, vineyards, and also ruined and desolate houses, but especially dirty places, were their favourite habitation, and the night-time, or before cock-crowing, their special time of appearance. Hence the, danger of going alone into such places (Ber. 3a, b; 62a). A company of two escaped the danger, while before three the Shed did not even appear (Ber. 43b). For the same reason it was dangerous to sleep alone in a house (Shabb. 151b), while the man who went out before cock-crow, without at least carrying for protection a burning torch (though moonlight was far safer) had his blood on his own head. If you greeted anyone in the dark you might unawares bid Godspeed to a Shed (Sanh. 44a). Nor was the danger of this inconsiderable, since one of the worst of these shedim, especially hurtful to Rabbis, was like a dragon with seven heads, each of which dropped off with every successive lowly bending during Rabbi Acha’s devotions (Kidd. 29b). Specially dangerous times were the eves of Wednesday and of the Sabbath. But it was a comfort to know that the shedim could not create or produce anything; nor had they power over that which had been counted, measured, tied up and sealed (Chull. 105b); they could be conquered by the ‘Ineffable Name;’ and they might be banished by the use of certain formulas, which, when written and worn, served as amulets.

The number of these spirits was like the earth that is thrown up around a bed that is sown. Indeed, no one would survive it, if he saw their number. A thousand at your right hand and ten thousand at your left, such crowding in the Academy or by the side of a bride; such weariness and faintness through their malignant touch, which rent the very dress of the wearers! (Ber. 6a.) The queen of the female spirits had no less a following than 180,000 (Pes. 112b). Little as we imagine it, these spirits lurk everywhere around us: in the crumbs on the floor, in the oil in the vessels, in the water which we would drink, in the diseases which attack us, in the even-numbered cups of our drinking, in the air, in the room, by day and by night.

2. Their arrangement. Generally, they may be arranged into male and female spirits, the former under their king Ashmedai, the latter under their queen liliṯ, probably the same as Agraṯ baṯ maḥlaṯ – only that the latter may more fully present the hurtful aspect of the demoness. The hurtful spirits are specially designated as ruc̣in, mazziqin (harmers), malakhey ḥabalah (angels of damage), etc. From another aspect they are arranged into four classes (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Num_6:24): the ṣap̱rirey, or morning spirits (Targ. on Psa_121:6; Targ. Cant. iv. 6); the tiharey, or midday spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Deu_32:24; Targ. Cant. iv. 6); the telaney, or evening spirits (Targ. Cant. iii. 8; iv. 6; Targ. Eccles. ii. 5); and the lilin, or night spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on Deu_32:34; Targ. Isa_34:14). [According to 2 Targ. Es ii. 1, 3, Solomon had such power over them, that at his bidding they executed dances before him.]

a. Ashmedai (perhaps a Parsee name), Ashmodi, Ashmedon, or shamdon, the king of the demons (Gitt. 68a, b; Pes. 110a). It deserves notice, that this name does not occur in the Jerusalem Talmud nor in older Palestinian sources. He is represented as of immense size and strength, as cunning, malignant, and dissolute. At times, however, he is known also to do works of kindness – such as to lead the blind, or to show the road to a drunken man. Of course, he foreknows the future, can do magic, but may be rendered serviceable by the use of the ‘Ineffable Name,’ and especially by the signet of King Solomon, on which it was graven. The story of Solomon’s power over him is well known, and can here only be referred to in briefest outline. It is said, that as no iron was to be used in the construction of the Temple, Solomon was anxious to secure the services of the worm shamir, which possessed the power of cutting stones (see about him Ab. Z. 12a; Sot. 48b; Gitt. a, b). By advice of the Sanhedrin, Solomon conjured up for this purpose a male and a female shed, who directed him to Ashmedai. The latter lived at the bottom of a deep cistern on a high mountain. Every morning on leaving it to go into heaven and hear the decrees of the Upper Sanhedrin, he covered the cistern with a stone, and sealed it. On this Benayah, armed with a chain, and Solomon’s signet with the Ineffable Name, went and filled the cistern with wine, which Ashmedai, as all other spirits, hated. But as he could not otherwise quench his thirst, Ashmedai became drunk, when it was easy, by means of the magical signet, to secure the chain around him. Without entering on the story of his exploits, or how he indicated the custody of shamir, and how ultimately the worm (which was in the custody of the moor-cock) was secured, it appears that, by his cunning, Ashmedai finally got released, when he immediately hurled Solomon to a great distance, assumed his form, and reigned in his stead; till at last, after a series of adventures, Solomon recovered his signet, which Ashmedai had flung away, and a fish swallowed. Solomon was recognised by the Sanhedrin and Ashmedai fled at sight of his signet. [Possibly the whole of this is only a parabolic form for the story of Solomon’s spiritual declension, and final repentance.]

b. liliṯ, the queen of female spirits – to be distinguished from the lilin or night-spirits, and from lela or lailah, an Angel who accompanied Abraham on his expedition against Chedorlaomer (Sanh. 96a). Here we recognise still more distinctly the Parsee elements. liliṯ is ‘the queen of Zemargad’ (Targ. on Job_1:15) – ‘Zemargad’ representing all green crystals, malachite, and emerald – and the land of Zemargad being ‘Sheba.’ liliṯ is described as the mother of Hormiz or Hormuz (Baba B. 73a). Sometimes she is represented as a very fair woman, but mostly with long, wild-flowing hair, and winged (Nidd. 24b; Erub. 100b). In Pes. 111a we have a formula for exorcising liliṯ. In Pes. 112b (towards the end) we are told how Agraṯ baṯ maḥlaṯ (probably the Zend word Agra – ‘smiting, very wicked’ – baṯ maḥlaṯ ‘the dancer’) threatened Rabbi Chanina with serious mischief, had it not been that his greatness had been proclaimed in heaven, on which the Rabbi would have shown his power by banning her from all inhabited places, but finally gave her liberty on the eve of the fourth day and of the Sabbath, which nights accordingly are the most dangerous seasons.

3. Character and habits of the shedim. As many of the Angels, so many of the shedim, are only personifications. Thus, as diseases were often ascribed to their agency, there were shedim of certain diseases, as of asthma, croup, canine rabies, madness, stomachic diseases, etc. Again, there were local shedim, as of Samaria, Tiberias, etc. On the other hand, shedim might be employed in the magic cure of diseases (Shabb. 67a). In fact, to conjure up and make use of demons was considered lawful, although dangerous (Sanh. 101a), while a little knowledge of the subject would enable a person to avoid any danger from them. Thus, although ḥamaṯ, the demon of oil, brings eruptions on the face, yet the danger is avoided if the oil is used out of the hollow of the hand, and not out of a vessel. Similarly, there are formulas by which the power of the demons can be counteracted. In these formulas, where they are not Biblical verses, the names of the demons are inserted. This subject will be further treated in another Appendix.

In general, we may expect to find demons on water, oil, or anything else that has stood uncovered all night; on the hands before they have been washed for religious purposes, and on the water in which they have been washed; and on the breadcrumbs on the floor. Demons may imitate or perform all that the prophets or great men of old had wrought. The magicians of Egypt had imitated the miracles of Moses by demoniacal power (Shem. R. 9). So general at the time of our Lord was the belief in demons and in the power of employing them, that even Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, 5) contended that the power of conjuring up, and driving out demons, and of magical cures had been derived from King Hezekiah, to whom God had given it. Josephus declares himself to have been an eye-witness of such a wonderful cure by the repetition of a magical formula. This illustrates the contention of the Scribes that the miraculous cures of our Lord were due to demoniac agency.

Legions of demons lay in waiting for any error or failing on the part of man. Their power extended over all even numbers. Hence, care must be had not to drink an even number of cups (Ber. 51b), except on the Passover night, when the demons have no power over Israel (Pes. 109b). On the other hand, there are demons who might almost be designated as familiar spirits, who taught the Rabbis, shed Joseph (Pes. 110a) and the shed Jonathan (Yeb. 122a). Rabbi Papa had a young shed to wait upon him (Chull. 105b). There can, however, be no difficulty in making sure of their real existence. As shedim have cock’s feet, nothing more is required than to strew ashes by the side of one’s bed, when in the morning their marks will be perceived (Ber. 6a; Gitt. 68b). It was by the shape of his feet that the Sanhedrin hoped to recognise, whether Ashmedai was really Solomon, or not, but it was found that he never appeared with his feet uncovered. The Talmud (Ber. 6a) describes the following as an infallible means for actually seeing these spirits: Take the afterbirth of a black cat which is the daughter of a black cat – both mother and daughter being firstborn – burn it in the fire, and put some of the ashes in your eyes. Before using them, the ashes must be put into an iron tube, and sealed with an iron signet. It is added, that Rabbi Bibi successfully tried this experiment, but was hurt by the demons, on which he was restored to health by the prayers of the Rabbis.

Other and kindred questions, such as those of amulets, etc., will be treated under demoniac possessions. But may we not here once more and confidently appeal to impartial students whether, in view of this sketch of Jewish Angelology and Satanology, the contention can be sustained that the teaching of Christ on this subject has been derived from Jewish sources?

(Book III. ch. 3.)

The question as to the Rabbinic views in regard to the binding character of the Law, and its imposition on the Gentiles, in Messianic times, although, strictly speaking, not forming part of this history, is of such vital importance in connection with recent controversies as to demand special consideration. In the text to which this Appendix refers it has been indicated, that a new legislation was expected in Messianic days. The ultimate basis of this expectancy must be sought in the Old Testament itself – not merely in such allusions as to the intrinsic worthlessness of sacrifices, but in such passages as Deu_18:15; Deu_18:18, and its prophetic commentary in Jer_31:31, etc. It was with a view to this that the Jewish deputation inquired whether John the Baptist was ‘that Prophet.’ For, as has been shown, Rabbinism associated certain reformatory and legislative functions with the appearance of the Forerunner of the Messiah (Eduy. viii. 7).

There were, indeed, in this, as in most respects, diverging opinions according to the different standpoints of the Rabbis, and, as we infer, not without controversial bearing on the teaching of Christianity. The strictest tendency may be characterised as that which denied the possibility of any change in the ceremonial Law, as well as the abrogation of festivals in the future. Even the destruction of the Temple, and with it the necessary cessation of sacrifices – if, indeed, which is a moot question, all sacrifices did at once and absolutely cease – only caused a gap; just as exile from the land could only free from such laws as attached to the soil of Israel. The reading of the sacrificial sections in the Law (Meg. 31b; Ber. R. 44) – at any rate, in conjunction with prayers (Ber. 2b), but especially study of the Law (Men. 110a), took in the meantime the place of the sacrifices. And as regarded the most sacred of all sacrifices, that of the Day of Atonement, it was explained that the day rather than the sacrifices brought reconciliation (Sifra 100:8). This party held the principle that not only those Divine, but even those Rabbinic, ordinances, which apparently had been intended only for a certain time or for a certain purpose, were of eternal duration (Bezah 5b). ‘The law is never to cease; there are the commandments – since there is no prophet who may change a word in them.’

So far were these views carried, that it was asserted: ‘Israel needs not the teaching of the King Messiah,’ but that ‘He only comes to gather the dispersed, and to give to the Gentiles thirty commandments, as it is written (Zec_11:12), “they weighed me my price, thirty pieces of silver” (Ber. R. 98). But even these extreme statements seem to imply that keen controversy had raged on the subject. Besides, the most zealous defenders of the Law admitted that the Gentiles were to receive laws in Messianic times. The smallest and most extreme section held that, the laws, as Israel observed them, would be imposed on the Gentiles (Chull. 92a) others that only thirty commandments, the original Noachic ordinances, supposed to be enumerated in Lv xix., would become obligatory, while some held, that only three ordinances would be binding on the new converts: two connected with the Feast of Tabernacles, the third, that of the phylacteries (Midr. on Psa_31:1, ed. Warsh., p. 30b). On the other hand, we have the most clear testimony that the prevailing tendency of teaching was in a different direction. In a very curious passage (Yalkut ii. 296, p. 46a), in which the final restitution of ‘the sinners of Israel and of the righteous of the Gentiles’ who are all in Gehinnom, is taught in very figurative language, we are told of a ‘new Law which God will give by the Messiah’ in the age to come – thanksgiving for which calls forth that universal Amen, not only on earth but in Gehinnom, which leads to the deliverance of those who are in the latter. But as this may refer to the time of the final consummation, we turn to other passages. The Midrash on Song ii. 13, applying the passage in conjunction with Jer_31:31, expressly states that the Messiah would give Israel a new law, and the Targum, on Isa_12:3, although perhaps not quite so clearly, also speaks of a ‘new instruction.’ It is needless to multiply proofs (such as Vayyikra R. 13). But the Talmud goes even further, and lays down the two principles, that in the ‘age to come’ the whole ceremonial Law and all the feasts were to cease. And although this may be regarded as merely a general statement, it is definitely applied to the effect, that all sacrifices except the thank-offering, and all fasts and feasts except the Day of Atonement, or else the Feast of Esther, were to come to an end – nay (in the Midr. on the words ‘the Lord looseth the bound,’ Psa_146:7), that what had formerly been ‘bound’ or forbidden would be ‘loosed’ or allowed, notably that the distinctions between clean and unclean animals would be removed.

There is the less need of apology for any digression here, that, besides the intrinsic interest of the question, it casts light on two most important subjects. For, first, it illustrates the attempt of the narrowest Judaic party in the Church to force on Gentile believers the yoke of the whole Law; the bearing of Paul in this respect; his relation to Peter; the conduct of the latter; and the proceedings of the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem (Ac 15). Paul, in his opposition to that party, stood even on Orthodox Jewish ground. But when he asserted, not only a new ‘law of liberty,’ but the typical and preparatory character of the whole Law, and its fulfilment in Christ, he went far beyond the Jewish standpoint. Further, the favourite modern theory as to fundamental opposition in principle between Pauline and Petrine theology in this respect, has, like many kindred theories, no support in the Jewish views on that subject, unless we suppose that Peter had belonged to the narrowest Jewish school, which his whole history seems to forbid. We can also understand, how the Divinely granted vision of the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Act_10:9-16) may, though coming as a surprise, have had a natural basis in Jewish expectancy, and it explains how the Apostolic Synod, when settling the questions, ultimately fell back on the so-called Noachic commandments, though with very wider-reaching principles underlying their decision (Act_15:13-21). Lastly, it seems to cast even some light on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel; for, the question about ‘that prophet’ evidently referring to the possible alteration of the Law in Messianic times, which is reported only in the Fourth Gospel, shows such close acquaintance with the details of Jewish ideas on this subject, as seems to us utterly incompatible with its supposed origination as ‘The Ephesian Gospel’ towards the end of the second century, the outcome of Ephesian Church-teaching-an ‘esoteric and eclectic’ book, designed to modify ‘the impressions produced by the tradition previously recorded by the Synoptists.’

(Book III. ch. viii.)

I. The Location of Sychar.

Although modern writers are now mostly agreed on this subject it may be well briefly to put before our readers the facts of the case.

Till comparatively lately, the Sychar of Jn 4 was generally regarded as representing the ancient Shechem. The first difficulty here was the name, since Shechem, or even Sichem, could scarcely be identified with Sychar, which is undoubtedly the correct reading. Accordingly, the latter term was represented as one of opprobrium, and derived from ‘shekhar’ (in Aramaean shikhra), as it were, ‘drunken town,’ or else from ‘sheqer’ (in Aramaean shiqra), ‘lying town.’ But, not to mention other objections, there is no trace of such an alteration of the name Sychar in Jewish writings, while its employment would seem wholly incongruous in such a narrative as Jn 4. Moreover, all the earliest writers distinguished Sychar from Shechem. Lastly, in the Talmud the name sokher, also written sikhra, frequently occurs, and that not only as distinct from Shechem, but in a connection which renders the hypothesis of an opprobrious by-name impossible. Professor Delitzch (Zeitschrift fuer Luther. Theol. for 1856, 2 pp. 242, 243) has collected seven passages from the Babylon Talmud to that effect, in five of which Sichra is mentioned as the birthplace of celebrated Rabbis – the town having at a later period apparently been left by the Samaritans, and occupied by Jews (Baba Mez. 42a, 83a, Pes. 31b, Nidd. 36a, Chull. 18b, and, without mention of Rabbis, Baba K. 82b, Menach. 64b. See also Men. x. 2, and Jer. Sheq. p. 48d). If further proof were required, it would be sufficient to say that a woman would scarcely have gone a mile and a half from Shechem to Jacob’s well to fetch water, when there are so many springs about the former city. In these circumstances, later writers have generally fixed upon the village of ’Askar, half a mile from Jacob’s Well, and within sight of it, as the Sychar of the New Testament, one of the earliest to advocate this view having been the late learned Canon Williams. Little more than a third of a mile from ’Askar is the reputed tomb of Joseph. The transformation, of the name Sychar into ’Askar is explained, either by a contraction of Ain Askar, ‘the well of Sychar,’ or else by the fact that in the Samaritan Chronicle the place is called Iskar, which seems to have been the vulgar pronunciation of Sychar. A full description of the place is given by Captain Conder (Tent-Work in Palestine, vol. 1 pp. 71 etc., especially pp. 75 and 76), and by M. Guérin, ‘La Samarie,’ vol. 1 p. 371, although the latter writer, who almost always absolutely follows tradition, denies the identity of Sychar and ’Askar (pp. 401, 402).

II. Time of Our Lord’s Visit to Sychar.

This question, which is of such importance not only for the chronology of this period, but in regard to the unnamed Feast at Jerusalem to which Jesus went up (Joh_5:1), has been discussed most fully and satisfactorily by Canon Westcott (Speaker’s Commentary, vol. 2 of the New Testament, p. 93). The following data will assist our inquiries.

1. Jesus spent some time after the Feast of Passover (Joh_2:23) in the province of Judaea. But it can scarcely be supposed that this was a long period, for – 

2ndly, in Joh_4:45 the Galileans have evidently a fresh remembrance of what had taken place at the Passover in Jerusalem, which would scarcely have been the case if a long period and other festivals had intervened. Similarly, the ‘King’s Officer’ (Joh_4:47) seems also to act upon a recent report.

3rdly, the unnamed Feast of Joh_5:1 forms an important element in our computations. Some months of Galilean ministry must have intervened between it and the return of Jesus to Galilee. Hence it could not have been Pentecost. Nor could it have been the Feast of Tabernacles, which was in autumn, nor yet the Feast of the Dedication, which took place in winter, since both are expressly mentioned by their names (Joh_7:2, Joh_10:22). The only other Feasts were: the Feast of Wood-Offering (comp. ‘The Temple,’ etc., p. 295), the Feast of Trumpets, or New Year’s Day, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Esther, or Purim.

To begin with the latter, since of late it has found most favour. The reasons against Christ’s attendance in Jerusalem at Purim seem to me irresistible. Canon Westcott urges that the discourse of Christ at the unnamed Feast has not, as is generally the case, any connection with the thoughts of that festival. To this I would add, that I can scarcely conceive our Lord going up to a feast observed with such boisterous merriment as Purim was, while the season of the year in which it falls would scarcely tally with the statement of Joh_5:3, that a great multitude of sick people were laid down in the porches of Bethesda.

But if the unnamed Feast was not Purim, it must have been one of these three, the Feast of the Ingathering of Wood, the Feast of Trumpets, or the Day of Atonement. In other words, it must have taken place late in summer, or in the very beginning of autumn. But if so, then the Galilean ministry intervening between the visit to Samaria and this Feast leads to the necessary inference that the visit to Sychar had taken place in early summer, probably about the middle or end of May. This would allow ample time for Christ’s stay at Jerusalem during the Passover and for His Judaean ministry.

As we are discussing the date of the unnamed Feast, it may be as well to bring the subject here to a close. We have seen that the only three Feasts to which reference could have been made are the Feast of Wood Offering, the Feast of Trumpets, and the Day of Atonement. But the last of these could not be meant, since it is designated, not only by Philo, but in Act_27:9, as ‘the fast,’ not the feast νηστεία, – not ἑορτή (comp. LXX., Lev_14:29 etc., Lev_23:27 etc.). As between the Feast of the Wood Offering and that of Trumpets I feel at considerable loss. Canon Westcott has urged on behalf of the latter reasons which I confess are very weighty. On the other hand, the Feast of Trumpets was not one of those on which people generally resorted to Jerusalem, and as it took place on the 1st of Tishri (about the middle of September), it is difficult to believe that anyone going up to it would not rather have chosen, or at least remained over, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles, which followed respectively, on the 10th and 15th days of that month. Lastly, the Feast of Wood Offering, which took place on the 15th Ab (in August), was a popular and joyous festival, when the wood needed for the altar was brought up from all parts of the country (comp. on that feast ‘The Temple and its Services,’ etc., pp. 295, 296). As between these two feasts, we must leave the question undecided, only noting that barely six weeks intervened between the one and the other feast.

(Book III. ch. xiv.)

It is not, of course, our purpose here to attempt an exhaustive account of the Jewish views on ‘demons’ and ‘the demonised.’ A few preliminary strictures are, however, necessary on a work upon which writers on this subject have too implicitly relied. I refer to Gfroerer’s Jahrhundert des Heils (especially vol. 1 pp. 378-424). Gfroerer sets out by quoting a passage in the Book of Enoch on which he lays great stress, but which the critical inquiries of Dillmann and other scholars have shown to be of no value in the argument. This disposes of many pages of negative criticism on the New Testament which Gfroerer founds on this quotation. Similarly, 4 Esdras would not in our days be adduced in evidence of pre-Christian teaching. As regards Rabbinic passages, Gfroerer uncritically quotes from Kabbalistic works which he mixes up with quotations from the Talmud and from writings of a later date. Again, as regards the two quotations of Gfroerer from the Mishnah (Erub. iv. 1; Gitt vii. 1), it has already been stated (Book III. chap. xiv., note ) that neither of these passages bears any reference to demoniac possessions. Further, Gfroerer appeals to two passages in Sifré which may here be given in extenso. The first of these (ed. Friedmann, p. 107b) is on Deu_18:12, and reads thus: ‘He who joins himself (cleaves) to uncleanness, on him rests the spirit of uncleanness; but he who cleaves to the Shechinah, it is meet that the Holy Spirit should rest on him.’ The second occurs in explanation of Deu_32:16, and reads as follows (u.s. p. 136b): ‘What is the way of a “demon” (shed)? He enters into a man and subjects him.’ It will be observed that in both these quotations reference is made to certain moral, not to physical effects, such as in the case of the demonised. Lastly, although one passage from the Talmud which Gfroerer adduces (though not quite exactly) applies, indeed, to demoniacal possessions, but is given in an exaggerated and embellished form.

If from these incorrect references we turn to what Jewish authorities really state on the subject, we have: – 

1. To deal with the Writings of Josephus. In Ant. vi. 8. 2, Josephus ascribes Saul’s disorder to demoniac influence, which ‘brought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him.’ In Antiq. vi. 8. 2, the demon-spirit is said to enter into Saul, and to disorder him. In Antiq. viii. 2. 5, Josephus describes the wisdom, learning, and achievements of Solomon, referring specially to his skill in expelling demons who caused various diseases. According to Josephus, Solomon had exercised this power by incantations, his formulae and words of exorcism being still known in Josephus’s days. In such manner a certain ‘demoniac’ in the presence of Vespasian, his officers, and troops, by putting to his nostrils a ring ‘that held a root of one of those mentioned by Solomon,’ by which the demon was drawn out amidst convulsions of the demoniac, when the demon was further adjured not to return by frequent mention of the name of Solomon, and by ‘incantations which he [Solomon] had composed.’ To show the reality of this a vessel with water had been placed at a little distance, and the demon had, in coming out, overturned it. It is probably to this ‘root’ that Josephus refers in War vii. 6. 3, where he names it baaras, which I conjecture to be the equivalent of the form בּוֹעֲרָא, boara, ‘the burning,’ since he describes it as of colour like a flame, and as emitting at even a ray like lightning, and which it would cost a man’s life to take up otherwise than by certain magical means which Josephus specifies. From all this we infer that Josephus occupied the later Talmudical standpoint, alike as regards exorcism, magical cures, and magical preventions. This is of great importance as showing that these views prevailed in New Testament times. But when Josephus adds, that the demons expelled by baaras were ‘the spirits of the wicked,’ he represents a superstition which is not shared by the earlier Rabbis, and may possibly be due to a rationalising attempt to account for the phenomenon. It is, indeed, true that the same view occurs in comparatively late Jewish writings, and that in Yalkut on Isa 46b there appears to be a reference to it, at least in connection with the spirits of those who had perished in the flood; but this seems to belong to a different cycle of legends.

2. Rabbinic views. Probably the nearest approach to the idea of Josephus that ‘demons’ were the souls of the wicked, is the (perhaps allegorical) statement that the backbone of a person who did not bow down to worship God became a shed, or demon (Baba K. 16a; Jer. Shabb. 3b). The ordinary names of demons are ‘evil spirits,’ or ‘unclean spirits’ (ruaḥ raah, ruaḥ tumeah), seirim (lit. goats). shedim (sheyda, a demon, male or female, either because their chief habitation is in desolate places, or from the word ‘to fly about,’ or else from ‘to rebel’), and, mazzikin (the hurtful ones). A demoniac is called geḇer shediyin (Ber. R. 65). Even this, that demons are supposed to eat and drink, to propagate themselves, and to die, distinguishes them from the ‘demons’ of the New Testament. The food of demons consists of certain elements in fire and water, and of certain odours. Hence the mode of incantation by incense made of certain ingredients. Of their origin, number, habitation, and general influence, sufficient has been said in the Appendix on Demonology. It is more important here to notice these two Jewish ideas: that demons entered into, or took possession of, men; and that many diseases were due to their agency. The former is frequently expressed. The ‘evil spirit’ constrains a man to do certain things, such as to pass beyond the Sabbath-boundary (Erub. 41b), to eat the Passover-bread, etc. (Rosh ha-Sh. 28a). But it reads more like a caustic than a serious remark when we are informed that these three things deprive a man of his free will and make him transgress: the Cuthaeans, an evil spirit, and poverty (Erub. u.s.). Diseases – such as rabies, angina, asthma, or accidents – such as an encounter with a wild bull, are due to their agency, which, happily, is not unlimited. As stated in App. XIII. the most dangerous demons are those of dirty (secret) places (Shabb. 67a). Even numbers (2, 4, 6, etc.) are always dangerous, so is anything that comes from unwashen hands. For such, or similar oversights, a whole legion of demons is on the watch (Ber. 51a). On the evening of the Passover the demons are bound, and, in general, their power has now been restricted, chiefly to the eves of Wednesday and of the Sabbath (Pes. 109b to 112b passim). Yet there are, as we shall see, circumstances in which it would be foolhardiness to risk their encounter. Without here entering on the views expressed in the Talmud about prophecy, visions and dreams, we turn to the questions germane to our subject

A. Magic and Magicians. We must here bear in mind that the practice of magic was strictly prohibited to Israelites, and that – as a matter of principle at least – witchcraft, or magic, was supposed to have no power over Israel, if they owned and served their God (Chull. 7b; Nedar. 32a). But in this matter also – as will presently appear – theory and practice did not accord. Thus, under certain circumstances, the repetition of magical formulas was declared lawful even on the Sabbath (Sanh. 101a). Egypt was regarded as the home of magic (Kidd. 49b; Shabb. 75a). In connection with this, it deserves notice that the Talmud ascribes the miracles of Jesus to magic, which He had learned during His stay in Egypt, having taken care, when He left, to insert under His skin its rules and formulas, since every traveller, on quitting the country, was searched, lest he should take to other lands the mysteries of magic (Shabb. 104b).

Here it may be interesting to refer to some of the strange ideas which Rabbinism attached to the early Christians, as showing both the intercourse between the two parties, and that the Jews did not deny the gift of miracles in the Church, only ascribing its exercise to magic. Of the existence of such intercourse with Jewish Christians there is abundant evidence. Thus, R. Joshua, the son of Levi (at the end of the second century), was so hard pressed by their quotations from the Bible that, unable to answer, he pronounced a curse on them, which, however, did not come. We gather, that in the first century Christianity had widely spread among the Jews, and R. Ishmael, the son of Elisha, the grandson of that High-Priest who was executed by the Romans (Josephus, War i. 2, 2), seems in vain to have contended against the advance of Christianity. At last he agreed with R. Tarphon that nothing else remained but to burn their writings. It was this R. Ishmael who prevented his nephew Ben Dama from being cured of the bite of a serpent by a Christian, preferring that he should die rather than be healed by such means (Abod. Zar. 27b, about the middle). Similarly, the great R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, also in the first century, was so suspected of the prevailing heresy that he was actually taken up as a Christian in the persecution of the latter. Though he cleared himself of the suspicion, yet his contemporaries regarded him for a time doubtfully, and all agreed that the troubles which befell him were in punishment for having listened with pleasure to the teaching of the heretics (Ab. Z. 16b, 17a). The following may be mentioned as instances of the magic practiced by these heretics. In Jer. Sanh. 25d, we are told about two great Rabbis who were banned by a heretic to the beam of a bath. In return the Rabbis, by similar means, fastened the heretic to the door of the bath. Having mutually agreed to set each other free, the same parties next met on board a ship. Here the heretic by magical means clave the sea, by way of imitating Moses. On this the Rabbis called upon him to walk through the sea, like Moses, when he was immediately overwhelmed through the ban of R. Joshua! Other stories of a similar and even more absurd character might be quoted. But if such opinions were entertained of Jewish Christians, we can scarcely wonder that all their books were ordered to be burnt (Bemid. R. 9), that even a roll of the Law written by a heretic was to be destroyed (Gitt. 45b), and that Jewish Christians were consigned to eternal punishment in Gehinnom (Rosh. haSh. 17a), from which even the token of circumcision should not deliver them since an Angel would convert it into uncircumcision (Shem R. 19).

But to return. Talmudic writings distinguish several classes of magicians. The baal Oḇ, or conjuror of the dead, evoked a voice from under the armpit, or from other members of the dead body, the arms or other members being struck together, for the purpose of eliciting the sound. Necromancy might be practised in two different ways. The dead might be called up (by a method which scarcely bears description), in which case they would appear with the feet upwards. But this must not be practised on the Sabbath. Or again, a skull might, by magical means, be made to answer. This might be done on the Sabbath also (Sanh. 65a and b). Or a demon might be conjured up by a certain kind of incense, and then employed in magic. A second class of magicians (called yideoni) uttered oracles by putting a certain bone into their mouth. Thirdly, there was the ḥabar, or serpent charmer, a distinction being made between a great and a small Chabar, according as larger or smaller serpents were charmed. Fourthly, we have the meonen, who could indicate what days or hours were lucky and unlucky. Fifthly, there was the ‘searcher after the dead,’ who remained fasting on graves in order to communicate with an unclean spirit; and, lastly, the menaḥesh, who knew what omens were lucky and what unlucky (Sanh. 66a). And if they were treated only as signs and not as omens, the practice was declared lawful (Chull. 95b).

In general the black art might be practised either through demons, or else by the employment of magical means. Among the latter we reckon, not only incantations, but magic by means of the thumb, by a knife with a black handle, or by a glass cup (Sanh. 67b), or by a cup of incantation (Baba Mets. 29b). But there was danger here, since, if all proper rules and cautions were not observed the magician might be hurt by the demon. Such an instance is related, although the Rabbi in question was mercifully preserved by being swallowed by a cedar, which afterwards burst and set him free (Sanh. 101a). Women were specially suspected witchcraft (Jer. Sanh. vii. 25d), and great caution was accordingly enjoined. Thus, it might even be dangerous to lift up loaves of bread (though not broken pieces) lest they should be bewitched (Erub. 64b). A number of instances are related in which persons were in imminent danger from magic, in some of which they suffered not only damage but death, while in others the Rabbis knew how to turn the impending danger against their would-be assailants. (Comp. for example Pes. 110b; Sot 22a; Gitt. 45a; Sanh. 67b). A very peculiar idea is that about the Teraphim of Scripture. It occurs already in the Targum Ps.-Jon. on Gen_31:19, and is found also in the Pirqé de R. Eliez. 100:36. It is stated that the Teraphim were made in the following manner: a first-born was killed, his head cut off, and prepared with salt and spices, after which a gold plate, upon which magical formulas had been graven, was placed under his tongue, when the head was supposed to, give answer to whatever questions might be addressed to it.

B. After this we can scarcely wonder, that so many diseases should have been imputed to magical or else to demoniac influences, and cured either by means or by exorcism. For our present purpose we leave aside not only the question, whether and what diseases were regarded as the punishment of certain sins, but also all questions as to their magical causes and means of cure. We confine our remarks to the supposed power of evil spirits in the production of diseases. Four things are mentioned as dangerous on account of demons, of which we shall only mention three: To walk between two palm-trees, if the space is wider than four cubits; to borrow drinking-water; and to walk over water that has been poured out, unless it have been covered with earth, or spat upon, or you have taken off your shoes (Pes. 111a). Similarly, the shadow of the moon, of certain trees, and of other objects, is dangerous, because demons love to hide there. Much caution must also be observed in regard to the water with which the hands are washed in the morning, as well as in regard to oil for anointing, which must never be taken from a strange vessel which might have been bewitched.

Many diseases are caused by direct demoniac agency. Thus, leprosy (Horay. 10a), rabies (Yoma 83b), heart-disease (Gitt. 67b), madness, asthma (Bechor. 44b), croup (Yoma 77b; Taan. 20b), and other diseases, are ascribed to special demons. And although I cannot find any notices of demoniac possession in the sense of permanent indwelling, yet an evil spirit may seize and influence a person. The nearest approach to demoniac possession is in a legend of two Rabbis who went to Rome to procure the repeal of a persecuting edict, when they were met on board ship by a demon, ben temalion, whose offer of company they accepted, in hope of being able to do some miracle through him. Arrived in Rome, the demon took possession of the daughter of Caesar. On this he was exorcised by the Rabbis (‘Ben Temalion, come out! Ben Temalion, come out!’), when they were rewarded by the offer of anything they might choose from the Imperial Treasury, on which they removed from it the hostile decree (Meilah 17b, about the middle).

As against this one instance, many are related of cares by magical means. By the latter we mean the superstitious and irrational application of means which could in no way affect any disease, although they might sometimes be combined with what might be called domestic remedies. Thus, for a bad cold in the head this remedy is proposed: Pour slowly a quart of the milk of a white goat over three cabbage stalks, keep the pot boiling and stir with a piece of ‘Marmehon-wood’ (Gitt. 69 a, b). The other remedy proposed is the excrement of a white dog mixed with balsam. It need scarcely be said, that the more intractable the disease, the more irrational are the remedies proposed. Thus against blindness by day it is proposed to take of the spleen of seven calves and put it on the basin used by surgeons for bleeding. Next, some one outside the door is to ask the blind man to give him something to eat, when he is to reply: How can I open the door – come in and eat – on which the latter obeys, taking care, however, to break the basin, as else the blindness might strike him. We have here an indication of one of the favourite modes of healing disease – that by its transference to another. But if the loss of the power of vision is greater at night than by day, a cord is to be made of the hair of some animal, one end of which is to be tied to the foot of the patient, the other to that of a dog. The children are to strike together pieces of crockery behind the dog, while the patient repeats these words: ‘The dog is old and the cock is foolish.’ Next seven pieces of meat are to be taken from seven different houses, and hung up on the doorposts, and the dog must afterwards eat the meat on a dunghill in an open place. Lastly, the cord is to be untied when one is to repeat: ‘Let the blindness of M. the son of N. leave M. the son of N. and pierce the eyeballs of the dog!’ (Gitt. 69a).

We have next to refer to strictly magical cures. These were performed by amulets – either preventive, or curative of disease – or else by exorcism. An amulet was regarded as probate, if three cures had been performed by it. In such case it might be put on even on the Sabbath. It consisted either of a piece of parchment (the piṯqa, Sanh. 78b), on which certain magical words were written, or of small bundles of certain plants or herbs (also designated as qemia, an amulet, Shabb. 61a; Kidd. 73b). However, even probate amulets might fail, owing to the adverse constellation under which a person was. In any case the names and numbers of the demons, whose power it was wished to counteract, required to be expressly stated. Sometimes the amulet contained also a verse from the Bible. It need scarcely be said, that the other words written on the amulet had – at least, in their connection – little if any sensible meaning. But those learned in these arts and the Rabbis had the secret of discovering them, so that there was at least no mystery about them, and the formulas used were well known. If the mischief to be counteracted was due to demoniac agency, it might be prevented or removed by a kind of incantation, or by incantation along with other means, or in difficult cases by exorcism. As instances of the first we may quote the following. To ward off any danger from drinking water on a Wednesday or Sabbath-Evening, when evil spirits may rest on it, it is advised either to repeat a passage of Scripture in which the word qol (‘Voice’) occurs seven times (Psa_29:3-9), or else to say this: ‘Lul, Shaphan, Anigron, Anirdaphin – between the stars I sit, betwixt the lean and the fat I walk! (Pes. 112a). Against flatulence, certain remedies are recommended (such as drinking warm water), but they are to be accompanied by the following formula: ‘qapa, qapa, I think of thee, and of thy seven daughters, and eight daughters-in-law!’ (Pes. 116a). Many similar prescriptions might be quoted. As the remedy against blindness has been adduced to point the contrast to the Saviour’s mode of treatment, it may be mentioned that quite a number of remedies are suggested for the cure of a bloody flux – of which perhaps wine in which Persian onions, or anise and saffron, or other plants have been boiled, seem the most rational – the medicament being, however, in each case accompanied by this formula: ‘Be cured of thy flux!’

Lastly, as regards incantation and exorcism, the formulas to be used for the purpose are enumerated. These mostly consist of words which have little if any meaning (so far as we know), but which form a rhyme or alliteration when a syllable is either omitted or added in successive words. The following, for example, is the formula of incantation against boils: ‘baz, baziyah, mas, masiya, kas, kasiyah, sharlai and Amarlai – ye Angels that come from the land of Sodom to heal painful boils. Let the colour not become more red, let it not farther spread, let its seed be absorbed in the belly. As a mule does not propagate itself, so let not this evil propagate itself in the body of M. the son of M.’ (Shabb, 67a). In other formulas the demons are not invoked for the cure, but threatened. We have the following as against another cutaneous disease: ‘A sword drawn, and a sling outstretched! His name is not Yokhabh, and the disease stand still!’ Against danger from the demon of foul places we have the following: ‘On the head of the cast him into a bed of cresses, and beat him with the jawbone of an ass’ (Shabb. 67a). On the other hand, it is recommended as a precaution against the evil eye to put one’s right thumb into the left hand and one’s left thumb into the right hand, and to say: ‘I, M. N. belong to the house of Joseph over whom the evil eye has no power (Ber. 55b). A certain Rabbi gave this as information derived from one of the chief of the witches, by which witchcraft might be rendered harmless. The person in danger should thus address the witches: ‘Hot filth into your mouths from baskets with holes, ye witching women! Let your head become bald, and the wind scatter your breadcrumbs. Let it carry away your spices, let the fresh saffron which you carry in your hands be scattered. Ye witches, so long as I had grace and was careful, I did not come among you, and now I have come, and you are not favourable to me’ (Pes. 110 a, b). To avoid the danger of two or more persons being separated by a dog, a palm-tree, a woman, or a pig, we are advised to repeat a verse from the Bible which begins and ends with the word El (Almighty). Or in passing between women suspected of witchcraft it may be well to repeat this formula: ‘Agrath, Azelath, Asiya, Belusiya are already killed by arrows.’ Lastly, the following may be quoted as a form of exorcism of demons: ‘Burst, curst, dashed, banned be Bar-Tit, Bar-Tema, Bar-Tena, Chashmagoz, Merigoz, and Isteaham!’

It has been a weary and unpleasant task to record such abject superstitions, mostly the outcome of contact with Parsee or other heathen elements. Brief though our sketch has been, we have felt as if it should have been even more curtailed. But it seemed necessary to furnish these unwelcome details in order to remove the possibility of comparing what is reported in the New Testament about the ‘demonised’ and ‘demons’ with Jewish notions on such subjects. Greater contrast could scarcely be conceived than between what we read in the New Testament and the views and practices mentioned in Rabbinic writings – and if this, as it is hoped, has been firmly established, even the ungrateful labour bestowed on collecting these unsavoury notices will have been sufficiently repaid.

(See Book III. ch. 35.)

The terribly exaggerated views of the Rabbis, and their endless, burdensome rules about the Sabbath may best be learned from a brief analysis of the Mishnah, as further explained and enlarged in the Jerusalem Talmud. For this purpose a brief analysis of what is, confessedly, one of the most difficult tractates may here be given.

The Mishnic tractate Sabbath stands at the head of twelve tractates which together form the second of the six sections into which the Mishnah is divided, and which treats of Festive Seasons (seder moed). Properly to understand the Sabbath regulations, it is, however, necessary also to take into account the second tractate in that section, which treats of what are called ‘commixtures’ or, ‘connections’ (Erubin). Its object is to make the Sabbath Laws more bearable. For this purpose, it is explained how places, beyond which it would otherwise have been unlawful to carry things, may be connected together, so as, by a legal fiction, to convert them into a sort of private dwelling. Thus, supposing a number of small private houses to open into a common court, it would have been unlawful on the Sabbath to carry anything from one of these houses into the other. This difficulty is removed if all the families deposit before the Sabbath some food in the common court, when ‘a connection’ is established between the various houses, which makes them one dwelling.. This was called the ‘Erubh of Courts.’ Similarly, an extension of what was allowed as a ‘Sabbath journey’ might be secured by another ‘commixture,’ the ‘Erubh’ or ‘connection of boundaries.’ An ordinary Sabbath day’s journey extended 2,000 cubits beyond one’s dwelling. But if at the boundary of that ‘journey’ a man deposited on the Friday food for two meals, he thereby constituted it his dwelling, and hence might go on for other 2,000 cubits. Lastly, there was another ‘Erubh,’ when narrow streets or blind alleys were connected into ‘a private dwelling’ by laying a beam over the entrance, or extending a wire or rope along such streets and alleys. This, by a legal fiction, made them ‘a private dwelling,’ so that everything was lawful there which a man might do on the Sabbath in his own house.

Without discussing the possible and impossible questions out these Erubin raised by the most ingenious casuistry, let us see how Rabbinism taught Israel to observe its Sabbath. In not less than twenty-four chapters, matters are seriously discussed as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain. Through 64½ folio columns in the Jerusalem, and 156 double pages of folio in the Babylon Talmud does the enumeration and discussion of possible cases, drag on, almost unrelieved even by Haggadah. The Talmud itself bears witness to this, when it speaks (no doubt exaggeratedly) of a certain Rabbi who had spent no less than two and a half years in the study of only one of those twenty-four chapters! And it farther bears testimony to the unprofitableness of these endless discussions and determinations. The occasion of this is so curious and characteristic, that it might here find mention. The discussion was concerning a beast of burden. An ass might not be led out on the road with its covering on, unless such had been put on the animal previous to the Sabbath, but it was lawful to lead the animal about in this fashion in one’s courtyard. The same rule applied to a packsaddle, provided it were not fastened on by girth and back-strap. Upon this one of the Rabbis is reported as bursting into the declaration that this formed part of those Sabbath Laws (comp. Chag. i. 8) which were like mountains suspended by a hair! (Jer. Shabb. p. 7, col. b, last lines). And yet in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace of anything spiritual – not a word even to suggest higher thoughts of God’s holy day and its observance,

The tractate on the Sabbath begins with regulations extending its provisions to the close of the Friday afternoon, so as to prevent the possibility of infringing the Sabbath itself, which commenced on the Friday evening. As the most common kind of labour would be that of carrying, this is the first point discussed. The Biblical Law forbade such labour in simple terms (Exo_36:6; comp. Jer_17:22). But Rabbinism developed the prohibition into eight special ordinances, by first dividing ‘the bearing of a burden’ into two separate acts – lifting it up and putting it down – and then arguing, that it might be lifted up or put down from two different places, from a public into a private, or from a private into a public place. Here, of course, there are discussions as to what constituted a ‘private place’ (רשות היחיד); ‘a public place’ (רשות הרבים); ‘a wide space,’ which belongs neither to a special individual nor to a community, such as the sea, a deep wide valley; or else the corner of a property leading out on the road or fields – and, lastly, a ‘legally free place.’ Again, a ‘burden’ meant, as the lowest standard of it the weight of ‘a dried fig.’ But if ‘half a fig’ were carried at two different times – lifted or deposited from a private into a public place, or vice versa – were these two actions to be combined into one so as to constitute the sin of Sabbath desecration? And if so, under what conditions as to state of mind, locality, etc.? And, lastly, how many different sins might one such act involve? To give an instance of the kind of questions that were generally discussed. The standard measure for forbidden food was the size of an olive, just as that for carrying burdens was the weight of a fig. If a man had swallowed forbidden food of the size of half an olive, rejected it, and again eaten of the size of half an olive, he would be guilty, because the palate had altogether tasted food to the size of a whole olive; but if one had deposited in another locality a burden of the weight of half a fig, and removed it again, it involved no guilt, because the burden was altogether only of half a fig, nor even if the first half fig’s burden had been burnt and then a second half fig introduced. Similarly, if an object that was intended to be worn or carried in front had slipped behind it involved no guilt, but if it had been intended to be worn or carried behind, and it slipped forward, this involved guilt, as involving labour.

Similar difficulties were discussed as to the guilt in case an object were thrown from a private into a public place, or the reverse. Whether, if an object was thrown into the air with the left, and caught again in the right hand, this involved sin, was a nice question, though there could be no doubt a man incurred guilt if he caught it with the same hand with which it had been thrown, but he was not guilty if he caught it in his mouth, since, after being eaten, the object no longer existed, and hence catching with the mouth was as if it had been done by a second person. Again, if it rained, and the water which fell from the sky were carried, there was no sin in it; but if the rain had run down from a wall it would involve sin. If a person were in one place, and his hand filled with fruit stretched into another, and the Sabbath overtook him in this attitude, he would have to drop the fruit, since if he withdrew his full hand from one locality into another, he would be carrying a burden on the Sabbath.

It is needless to continue the analysis of this casuistry. All the discussions to which we have referred turn only on the first of the legal canons in the tractate ‘Sabbath.’ They will show what a complicated machinery of merely external ordinances traditionalism set in motion; how utterly unspiritual the whole system was, and how it required no small amount of learning and ingenuity to avoid committing grievous sin. In what follows we shall only attempt to indicate the leading points in the Sabbath-legislation of the Rabbis.

Shortly before the commencement of the Sabbath (late on Friday afternoon) nothing new was to be begun; the tailor might no longer go out with his needle, nor the scribe with his pen; nor were clothes to be examined by lamp-light. A teacher might not allow his pupils to read, if he himself looked on the book. All these are precautionary measures. The tailor or scribe carrying his ordinary means of employment, might forget the advent of the holy day; the person examining a dress might kill insects, which is strictly forbidden on the Sabbath, and the teacher might move the lamp to see better, while the pupils were not supposed to be so zealous as to do this.

These latter rules, we are reminded, were passed at a certain celebrated discussion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, when the latter were in the majority. On that occasion also opposition to the Gentiles was carried to its farthest length, and their food, their language, their testimony, their presence, their intercourse, in short, all connection with them denounced. The school of Shammai also forbade to make any mixture, the ingredients of which would not be wholly dissolved and assimilated before the Sabbath. Nay, the Sabbath law was declared to apply even to lifeless objects. Thus, wool might not be dyed if the process was not completed before the Sabbath. Nor was it even lawful to sell anything to a heathen unless the object would reach its destination before the Sabbath, nor to give to a heathen workman anything to do which might involve him in Sabbath work. Thus, Rabbi Gamaliel was careful to send his linen to be washed three days before the Sabbath. But it was lawful to leave olives or grapes in the olive or wine-press. Both schools were agreed that, in roasting or baking, a crust must have been formed before the Sabbath, except in case of the Passover lamb. The Jerusalem Talmud, however, modifies certain of these rules. Thus the prohibition of work to a heathen only implies, if they work in the house of the Jew, or at least in the same town with him. The school of Shammai, however, went so far as to forbid sending a letter by a heathen, not only on a Friday or on a Thursday, but even on a Wednesday, or to embark on the sea on these days.

It being assumed that the lighting of the Sabbath lamp was a law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, the Mishnah proceeds, in the second chapter of the tractate on the Sabbath, to discuss the substances of which respectively the wick and the oil may be composed, provided always that the oil which feeds the wick is not put in a separate vessel, since the removal of that vessel would cause the extinction of the lamp, which would involve a breach of the Sabbath law. But if the light were extinguished from fear of the Gentiles, of robbers, or of an evil spirit or in order that one dangerously ill might go to sleep, it involved no guilt. Here, many points in casuistry are discussed, such as whether twofold guilt is incurred if in blowing out, a candle its flame lights another. The Mishnah here diverges to discuss the other commandments, which, like that of lighting the Sabbath lamp, specially devolve on women, on which occasion the Talmud breaches some curious statement about the heavenly Sanhedrin and Satan, such as that it is in moments of danger that the Great Enemy brings accusations against us, in order to ensure our ruin; or this, that on three occasions he specially lies in ambush: when one travels alone, when one sleeps alone in a dark house, and when one crosses the sea. In regard to the latter we may note as illustrative of Paul’s warning not to travel after the fast (Day of Atonement), that the Jewish proverb had it: ‘When you bind your lulaḇ  (at the Feast of Tabernacles) bind also your feet’ – as regards a sea-voyage (Jer. Shabb. 5b, Ber. R. 6).

The next two chapters in the tractate on the Sabbath discuss the manner In which food may be kept warm for the Sabbath, since no fire might be lighted. If the food had been partially cooked, or was such as would improve by increased heat, there would be temptation to attend to the fire, and this must be avoided. Hence the oven was immediately before the Sabbath only to be heated with straw or chaff; if otherwise, the coals were to be removed or covered with ashes. Clothes ought not to be dried by the hot air of a stove. At any rate, care must be taken that the neighbours do not see it. An egg may not be boiled by putting it near a hot kettle, nor in a cloth, nor in sand heated by the sun. Cold water might be poured on warm, but not the reverse (at least such was the opinion of the school of Shammai), nor was it lawful to prepare either cold or warm compresses. ‘Nay, a Rabbi went so far as to forbid throwing hot water over one’s self, for fear of spreading the vapour, or of cleaning the floor thereby! A vessel might be put under a lamp to catch the falling sparks, but no water might be put into it, because it was not lawful to extinguish a light. Nor would it have been allowed on the Sabbath to put a vessel to receive the drops of oil that might fall from the lamp. Among many other questions raised was this: whether a parent might take his child in his arms. Happily Rabbinic literality went so far as not only to allow this, but even in the supposed case that the child might happen to have a stone in its hands, although this would involve the labour of carrying that stone! Similarly, it was declared lawful to lift seats, provided they had not, as it were, four steps, when they must be considered as ladders. But it was not allowed to draw along chairs, as this might produce a rut or cavity, although a little carriage might be moved, since the wheels would only compress the soil but not produce a cavity (comp. in the Bab. Talmud, Shabb. 22a; 46; and Bets. 23b).

Again, the question is discussed, whether it is lawful to keep the food warm by wrapping around a vessel certain substances. Here the general canon is, that all must be avoided which would increase the heat: since this would be to produce some outward effect, which would be equivalent to work.

In the fifth chapter of the tractate we are supposed to begin the Sabbath morning. Ordinarily, the first business of the morning would, of course, have been to take out the cattle. Accordingly, the laws are now laid down for ensuring Sabbath rest to the animals. The principle underlying these is, that only what serves as ornament, or is absolutely necessary for leading out or bringing back animals, or for safety, may be worn by them; all else is regarded as a burden. Even such things as might be put on to prevent the rubbing of a wound, or other possible harm, or to distinguish an animal, must be left aside on the day of rest.

Next, certain regulations are laid down to guide the Jew when dressing on the Sabbath morning, so as to prevent his breaking its rest. Hence he must be careful not to put on any dress which might become burdensome, nor to wear any ornament which he might put off and carry in his hand, for this would be a ‘burden.’ A woman must not wear such headgear as would require unloosing before taking a bath, nor go out with such ornaments as could be taken off in the street, such as a frontlet, unless it is attached to the cap, nor with a gold crown, nor with a necklace or nose-ring, nor with rings, nor have a pin in her dress. The reason for this prohibition of ornaments was, that in their vanity women might take them off to show them to their companions, and then, forgetful of the day, carry them, which would be a ‘burden.’ Women are also forbidden to look in the glass on the Sabbath, because they might discover a white hair and attempt to pull it out, which would be a grievous sin; but men ought not to use looking glasses even on weekdays, because this was undignified. A woman may walk about her own court, but not in the street, with false hair. Similarly, a man was forbidden to wear on the Sabbath wooden shoes studded with nails, or only one shoe, as this would involve labour; nor was he to wear phylacteries nor amulets, unless, indeed, they had been made by competent persons (since they might lift them off in order to show the novelty). Similarly, it was forbidden to wear any part of a suit of armour. It was not lawful to scrape shoes, except perhaps with the back of a knife, but they might be touched with oil or water. Nor should sandals be softened with oil, because that would improve them. It was a very serious question, which led to much discussion, what should be done if the tie of a sandal had broken on the Sabbath. A plaster might be worn, provided its object was to prevent the wound from getting worse, not to heal it, for that would have been a work. Ornaments which could not easily be taken off might be worn in one’s courtyard. Similarly, a person might go about with wadding in his ear, but not with false teeth nor with a gold plug in the tooth. If the wadding fell out of the ear, it could not be replaced. Some, indeed, thought that its healing virtues lay in the oil in which it had been soaked, and which had dried up, but others ascribed them to the warmth of the wadding itself. In either case there was danger of healing – of doing anything for the purpose of a cure – and hence wadding might not be put into the ear on the Sabbath, although if worn before it might be continued. Again, as regarded false teeth: they might fall out, and the wearer might then lift and carry them, which would be sinful on the Sabbath. But anything which formed part of the ordinary dress of a person might be worn also on the Sabbath, and children whose ears were being bored might have a plug, put into the hole. It was also allowed to go about on crutches, or with a wooden leg, and children might have bells on their dresses; but it was prohibited to walk on stilts, or to carry any heathen amulet.

The seventh chapter of the tractate contains the most important part of the whole. It opens by laying down the principle that, if a person has either not known, or forgotten, the whole Sabbath law, all the breaches of it which he has committed during ever so many weeks are to be considered as only one error or one sin. If he has broken the Sabbath law by mistaking the day, every Sabbath thus profaned must be atoned for; but if he has broken the law because he thought that what he did was permissible, then every separate infringement constitutes a separate sin, although labours which stand related as species to the genus are regarded as only one work. It follows, that guilt attaches to the state of mind rather than to the outward deed. Next, forty less one chief or ‘fathers’ of work (Aboṯ) are enumerated, all of which are supposed to be forbidden in the Bible. They are: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, sifting (selecting), grinding, sifting in a sieve, kneading, baking; shearing the wool, washing it, beating it, dyeing it, spinning, putting it on the weaver’s beam, making two thrum threads, weaving two threads, separating two threads, making a knot, undoing a knot, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches; catching deer, killing, skinning, salting it, preparing its skin, scraping off its hair, cutting it up, writing two letters, scraping in order to write two letters; building, pulling down, extinguishing fire, lighting fire, beating with the hammer, and carrying from one possession into the other.

The number thirty-nine is said to represent the number of times that the word ‘labour’ occurs in the Biblical text, and all these Aboṯ or ‘fathers’ of work are supposed to be connected with some work that had been done about the Tabernacle, or to be kindred to such work. Again, each of these principal works involved the prohibition of a number of others which were derived from them, and hence called their ‘descendants’ (toledoṯ). The thirty-nine principal works have been arranged in four groups,: the first (1-11) referring to the preparation of bread; the second (12-24) to all connected with dress; the third (25-33) to all connected with writing; and the last (34-39) to all the work necessary for a private house. Another Rabbi derives the number thirty-nine (of these Aboṯ) from the numerical value of the initial word in Exo_35:1, although in so doing he has to change the last letter (לאה, the ה must be changed into a ח to make thirty-nine). Further explanations must here be added. If you scatter two seeds, you have been sowing. In general, the principle is laid down, that anything by which the ground may be benefited is to be considered a ‘work’ or ‘labour’ even if it were to sweep away or to break up a clod of earth. Nay, to pluck a blade of grass was a sin. Similarly, it was sinful labour to do anything that would promote the ripening of fruits, such as to water, or even to remove a withered leaf. To pick fruit, or even to lift it from the ground, would be like reaping. If, for example, a mushroom were cut, there would be a twofold sin, since by the act of cutting, a now one would spring in its place. According to the Rabbis of Caesarea, fishing, and all that put an end to life, must be ranked with harvesting. In connection with the conduct of the disciples in rubbing the ears of corn on the Sabbath, it is interesting to know that all work connected with food would be classed as one of the toledoṯ, of binding into sheaves. If a woman were to roll wheat to take away the husks, she would be guilty of sifting with a sieve. If she were rubbing the ends of the stalks, she would be guilty of threshing. If she were cleaning what adheres to the side of a stalk, she would be guilty of sifting. If she were bruising the stalk, she would be guilty of grinding. If she were throwing it up in her hands, she would be guilty of winnowing. Distinctions like the following are made: A radish may be dipped into salt, but not left in it too long, since this would be to make pickle. A new dress might be put on, irrespective of the danger that in so doing it might be torn. Mud on the dress might be crushed in the hand and shaken off, but the dress must not be rubbed (for fear of affecting the material). If a person took a bath, opinions are divided, whether the whole body should be dried at once, or limb after limb. If water had fallen on the dress, some allowed the dress to be shaken but not wrung; others, to be wrung but not shaken. One Rabbi allowed to spit into the handkerchief, and that although it may necessitate the compressing of what had been wetted; but there is a grave discussion whether it was lawful to spit on the ground, and then to rub it with the foot, because thereby the earth may be scratched. It may, however, be done on stones. In the labour of grinding would be included such an act as crushing salt. To sweep, or to water the ground, would involve the same sin as beating out the corn. To lay on a plaster would be a grievous sin; to scratch out a big letter, leaving room for two small ones, would be a sin, but to write one big letter occupying the room of two small letters was no sin. To change one letter into another might imply a double sin. And so on through endless details!

The Mishnah continues to explain that, in order to involve guilt, the thing carried from one locality to another must be sufficient to be entrusted for safe keeping. The quantity is regulated: as regards the food of animals, to ‘the capacity of their mouth; as regards man, a dried fig is the standard. As regards fluids, the measure is as much wine as was used for one cup, that is – the measure of the cup being a quarter of a log, and wine being mixed with water in the proportion of three parts water to one of wine – one-sixteenth of a log. As regards a mouthful; of honey, sufficient to lay on a wound; of oil, sufficient to anoint the smallest member; of water, sufficient to wet eyesalve; and of all other fluids, a quarter of a log.

As regarded other substances, the standard as to what constituted a burden was whether the thing could be turned to any practical use, however trifling. Thus, two horses hairs might be made into a birdtrap; a scrap of clean paper into a custom-house notice; a small piece of paper written upon might be converted into a wrapper for a small flagon. In all these cases, therefore, transport would involve sin. Similarly, ink sufficient to write two letters, wax enough to fill up a small hole, even a pebble with which you might aim at a little bird, or a small piece of broken earthenware with which you might stir the coals, would be ‘burdens’

Passing to another aspect of the subject, the Mishnah lays it down that, in order to constitute sin, a thing must have been carried from one locality into another entirely and immediately, and that it must have been done in the way in which things are ordinarily carried. If an object which one person could carry is carried by two, they are not guilty. Finally, like all labour on the Sabbath, that of cutting one’s nails or hair involves mortal sin, but only if it is done in the ordinary way, otherwise only the lesser sin of the breach of the Sabbath rest. A very interesting notice in connection with Jn 5, is that in which it is explained how it would not involve sin to carry a living person on a pallet, the pallet being regarded only as an accessory to the man; while to carry a dead body in such manner, or even the smallest part of a dead body, would involve guilt.

From this the Mishnah proceeds to discuss what is analogous to carrying, such as drawing or throwing. Other ‘labours’ are similarly made the subject of inquiry, and it is shown how any approach to them involves guilt. The rule here is, that anything that might prove of lasting character must not be done on the Sabbath. The same rule applies to what might prove the beginning of work, such as letting the hammer fall on the anvil; or to anything that might contribute to improve a place, to gathering as much wood as would boil an egg, to uprooting weeds, to writing two letters of a word – in short, to anything that might be helpful in, or contribute towards, some future work.

The Mishnah next passes to such work in which not quantity, but quality, is in question – such as catching deer. Here it is, explained that anything by which an animal might be caught is included in the prohibition. So far is this carried that, if a deer had run into a house, and the door were shut upon it, it would involve guilt, and this, even if, without closing the door, persons seated themselves at the entry to prevent the exit of the animal.

Passing over the other chapters, which similarly illustrate what are supposed to be Biblical prohibitions of labour as defined in the thirty-nine Aboṯ and their toledoṯ, we come, in the sixteenth chapter of the tractate, to one of the most interesting parts, containing such Sabbath laws as, by their own admission, were imposed only by the Rabbis. These embrace: 1. Things forbidden, because they might lead to a transgression of the Biblical command; 2. Such as are like the kinds of labour supposed to be forbidden in the Bible; 3. Such as are regarded as incompatible with the honour due to the Sabbath. In the first class are included a number of regulations in case of a fire. All portions of Holy Scripture, whether in the original or translated, and the case in which they are laid; the phylacteries and their case, might be rescued from the flames. Of food or drink only what was needful for the Sabbath might be rescued; but if the food were in a cupboard or basket the whole might be carried out. Similarly, all utensils needed for the Sabbath meal, but of dress only what was absolutely necessary, might be saved, it being, however, provided, that a person might put on a dress, save it, go back and put on another, and so on. Again, anything in the house might be covered with a skin so as to save it from the flames, or the spread of the flames might be arrested by piling up vessels. It was not lawful to ask a Gentile to extinguish the flame, but not duty to hinder him, if he did so. It was lawful to put a vessel over a lamp, to prevent the ceiling from catching fire; similarly, to throw a vessel over a scorpion, although on that point there is doubt. On the other hand, it is allowed, if a Gentile has lighted a lamp on the Sabbath, to make use of it, the fiction being, however, kept up that he did it for himself, and not for the Jew. By the same fiction the cattle may be watered, or, in fact, any other use made of his services.

Before passing from this, we should point out that it was directed that the Hagiographa should not be read except in the evening, since the daytime was to be devoted to more doctrinal studies. In the same connection it is added, that the study of the Mishnah is more important than that of the Bible, that of the Talmud being considered the most meritorious of all, as enabling one to understand all questions of right and wrong. Liturgical pieces, though containing the Name of God, might not be rescued from the flames. The Gospels and the writings of Christians, or of heretics, might not be rescued. If it be asked what should be done with them on weekdays, the answer is, that the Names of God which they contain ought to be cut out, and then the books themselves burned. One of the Rabbis, however, would have had them burnt at once, indeed, he would rather have fled into an idolatrous temple than into a Christian church: ‘for the idolators deny God because they have not known Him, but the apostates are worse.’ To them applied Psa_139:21, and, if it was lawful to wash out in the waters of jealousy the Divine Name in order to restore peace, much more would it be lawful to burn such books, even though they contained the Divine Name, because they led to enmity between Israel and their Heavenly Father.

Another chapter of the tractate deals with the question of the various pieces of furniture – how far they may be moved and used. Thus, curtains, or a lid, may be regarded as furniture, and hence used. More interesting is the next chapter (xviii.), which deals with things forbidden by the Rabbis because they resemble those kinds of labour supposed to be interdicted in the Bible. Here it is declared lawful, for example, to remove quantities of straw or corn in order to make room for guests, or for an assembly of students, but the whole barn must not be emptied, because in so doing the floor might be injured. Again, as regards animals, some assistance might be given, if an animal was about to have its young, though not to the same amount as to a woman in childbirth, for whose sake the Sabbath might be desecrated. Lastly, all might be done on the holy day needful for circumcision. At the same time, every preparation possible for the service should be made the day before. The Mishnah proceeds to enter here on details not necessarily connected with the Sabbath law.

In the following chapter (xx.) the tractate goes on to indicate such things as are only allowed on the Sabbath on condition that they are done differently, from ordinary days. Thus, for example, certain solutions ordinarily made in water should be made in vinegar. The food for horses or cattle must not be taken out of the manger, unless it is immediately given to some other animal. The bedding straw must not be turned with the hand, but with other parts of the body. A press in which linen is smoothed may be opened to take out napkins, but must not be screwed down again, etc.

The next chapter proceeds upon the principle that, although everything is to be avoided which resembles the labours referred to in the Bible, the same prohibition does not apply to such labours as resemble those interdicted by the Rabbis. The application of this principle is not, however, of interest to general readers.

In the twenty-second chapter the Mishnah proceeds to show that all the precautions of the Rabbis had only this object: to prevent an ultimate breach of a Biblical prohibition. Hence, where such was not to be feared, an act might be done. For example, a person might bathe in mineral waters, but not carry home the linen with which he had dried himself. He might anoint and rub the body, but not to the degree of making himself tired; but he might not use any artificial remedial measures, such as taking a shower-bath. Bones might not be set, nor emetics given, nor any medical or surgical operation performed.

In the last two chapters the Mishnah points out those things which are unlawful as derogatory to the dignity of the Sabbath. Certain things are here of interest as bearing on the question of purchasing things for the feast-day. Thus, it is expressly allowed to borrow wine, or oil, or bread on the Sabbath, and to leave one’s upper garment in pledge, though one should not express it in such manner as to imply it was a loan. Moreover, it is expressly added that if the day before the Passover falls on a Sabbath, one may in this manner purchase a Paschal lamb, and, presumably, all else that is needful for the feast. This shows how Judas might have been sent on the eve of the Passover to purchase what was needful, for the law applying to a feast-day was much less strict than that of the Sabbath. Again, to avoid the possibility of effacing anything written, it was forbidden to read from a tablet the names of one’s guests, or the menu. It was lawful for children to cast lots for their portions at table, but not with strangers, for this might lead to a breach of the Sabbath, and to games of chance. Similarly, it was improper on the Sabbath to engage workmen for the following week, nor should one be on the watch for the close of that day to begin one’s ordinary work. It was otherwise if religious obligations awaited one at the close of the Sabbath, such as attending to a bride, or making preparations for a funeral. On the Sabbath itself it was lawful to do all that was absolutely necessary connected with the dead, such as to anoint or wash the body, although without moving the limbs, nor might the eyes of the dying be closed – a practice which, indeed, was generally denounced.

In the last chapter of the tractate the Mishnah returns to the discussion of punctilious details. Supposing a traveller to arrive in a place just as the Sabbath commenced, he must only take from his beast of burden such objects as are allowed to be handled on the Sabbath. As for the rest, he may loosen the ropes and let them fall down of themselves. Further, it is declared lawful to unloose bundles of straw, or to rub up what can only be eaten in that condition; but care must be taken that nothing is done which is not absolutely necessary. On the other hand, cooking would not be allowed – in short, nothing must be done but what was absolutely necessary to satisfy the cravings of hunger or thirst. Finally, it was declared lawful on the Sabbath to absolve from vows, and to attend to similar religious calls.

Detailed as this analysis of the Sabbath law is, we have not by any means exhausted the subject. Thus, one of the most curious provisions of the Sabbath law was, that on the Sabbath only such things were to be touched or eaten as had been expressly prepared on a weekday with a view to the Sabbath (Bez. 2b). Anything not so destined was forbidden, as the expression is ‘on account of muqṣah’ (מוקצה), i.e. as not having been the ‘intention.’ Jewish dogmatists enumerate nearly fifty cases in which that theological term finds its application. Thus, if a hen had laid on the Sabbath, the egg was forbidden, because, evidently, it could not have been destined on a weekday for eating, since it was not yet laid, and did not exist; while if the hen had been kept, not for laying but for fattening, the egg might be eaten as forming a part of the hen that had fallen off! But when the principle of muqṣah is applied to the touching of things which are not used because they have become ugly (and hence are not in one’s mind), so that, for example, an old lamp may not be touched, or raisins during the process of drying them (because they are not eatable then), it will be seen how complicated such a law must have been.

Chiefly from other tractates of the Talmud the following may here be added. It would break the Sabbath rest to climb a tree, to ride, to swim, to clap one’s hands, to strike one’s side, or to dance. All judicial acts, vows, and tilling were also prohibited on that day (Bez. Psa_139:2). It has already been noted that aid might be given or promised for a woman in her bed. But the Law went further. While it prohibited the application or use on the Sabbath of any remedies that would bring improvement or cure to the sick, ‘all actual danger to life,’ (כל ספק נפשית רוחה את חשבת, Yoma viii. 6) superseded the Sabbath law, but nothing short of that. Thus, to state an extreme case, if on the Sabbath a wall had fallen on a person, and it were doubtful whether he was under the ruins or not, whether he was alive or dead, a Jew or Gentile, it would be duty to clear away the rubbish sufficiently to find the body. If life, were not extinct the labour would have to be continued; but if the person were dead nothing further should be done to extricate the body. Similarly, a Rabbi allowed the use of remedies on the Sabbath in throat diseases, on the express ground that he regarded them as endangering life. On a similar principle a woman with child or a sick person was allowed to break even the fast of the Day of Atonement, while one who had a maniacal attack of morbid craving for food (בולמוס) = βούλιμος might on that sacred day have even unlawful food (Yoma viii. 5, 6).

Such are the leading provisions by which Rabbinism enlarged the simple Sabbath-law as expressed in the Bible, and, in its anxiety to ensure its most exact observance, changed the spiritual import of its rest into a complicated code of external and burdensome ordinances. Shall we then wonder at Christ’s opposition to the Sabbath-ordinances of the Synagogue, or, on the other hand, at the enmity of its leaders? and can greater contrast be imagined than between the teaching of Christ on this subject, and that of his most learned and most advanced contemporaries? And whence this difference unless Christ was the ‘Teacher come from God,’ Who spake as never before man had spoken?

(אגדתא דשמעון כיפא)

(Book III. ch. xxxvii)

This Haggadah exists in four different Recensions (comp. Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash, Pt. V. and Pt. VI., pp. ix., x). The first of these, reproduced by Jellinek (u.s. Pt. V. p. 26:&c., and pp. 60-62) was first published by Wagenseil in his collection of Antichristian writings, the Tela Ignea Satanae, at the close of that blasphemous production, the sep̱er toledoṯ Jeshu (pp. 19-24). The second Recension is that by Huldrich (Leyden, 1705); the third has been printed, as is inferred, at Breslau in 1824; while the fourth exists only in MS. Dr. Jellinek has substantially reproduced (without the closing sentences) the text of Wagenseil’s (u.s. Pt. V.), and also Recensions III. and IV. (u.s. Pt. VI.). He regards Recension IV. as the oldest; but we infer from its plea against the abduction of Jewish children by Christians and against forced baptisms, as well as from the use of certain expressions, that Recension IV. is younger than the text of Wagenseil, which seems to present the legend in its most primitive form. Even this, however, appears a mixture of several legends; or perhaps the original may afterwards have been interpolated. It were impossible to fix even approximately the age of this oldest Recension, but in its present form it must date after the establishment of Christianity in Rome, and that of the Papacy, though it seems to contain older elements. It may be regarded as embodying certain ancient legends among the Jews about Peter, but adapted to later times, and cast in an apologetic form. A brief criticism of the document will best follow an abstract of the text, according to the first or earlier Recension.

The text begins by a notice that the strife between the Nazarenes and the Jews had grown to such proportions that they separated, since any Nazarene who saw a Jew would kill him. Such became the misery for thirty years, that the Nazarenes increased to thousands and myriads, and prevented the Jews from going up to the feasts of Jerusalem. And the distress was as great as at the time of the Golden Calf. And still the opposing faith increased, and twelve wicked men went out, who traversed the twelve kingdoms: And they prophesied false prophecies in the camp, and they misled Israel, and they were men of reputation, and strengthened the faith of Jesus, for they said that they were the Apostles of the Crucified. And they drew to themselves a large number from among the children of Israel. On this the text describes, how the sages in Israel were afflicted and humbled themselves, each confessing to his neighbour the sins which had brought this evil, and earnestly asking of God to give them direction how to arrest the advance of Nazarene doctrine and persecution. As they finished their prayer, up rose an elder from their midst, whose name was Simeon Kepha, who had formerly put into requisition the baṯ kol and said: ‘Hearken to me, my brethren and my people! If my words are good in your sight, I will separate those sinners from the congregation of the children of Israel, and they shall have neither part nor inheritance in the midst of Israel, if only you take upon you the sin. And they all answered and said: We will take upon us the sin, if only then wilt do what thou hast said.’ Upon this, the narrative proceeds, Peter went into the Sanctuary, wrote the Ineffable Name, and inserted it in his flesh. Having learnt the Ineffable Name, he went to the metropolis (‘metropolin’) of the Nazarenes, and proclaimed that every believer in Christ should come to him, since he was an Apostle. The multitudes required that he should prove his claim by a sign (‘oṯ’) such as Jesus had done while He was alive, when Peter, through the power of the Ineffable Name, restored a leper, by laying on of hands, and raised the dead. When the Nazarenes saw this, they fell on their faces, and acknowledged his Apostolate. Then Peter delivered this as his message, first bidding them swear to do as he would command: ‘Know (said he) that the Crucified hated Israel and their law, as Isaiah prophesied: “Your new moons and your feasts my soul hateth;” know also, that he delighteth not in Israel, as Hosea prophesied: “You are not my people.” And although it is in His power to extirpate them from the world in a moment, from out of every place, yet He does not purpose to destroy them, but intends to leave them, in order that they be in memory of His Crucifixion and lapidation to all generations. Besides, know that He bore all those great sufferings and afflictions to redeem you from Gehenna. And now He admonishes and commands you, that you should do no evil to the Jews: and if a Jew says to a Nazarene, “Go with me one parasang” (Persian mile about three English miles), let him go with him two parasangs. And if a Jew smites him on the left cheek, let him present to him also the right cheek, in order that they may have their reward in this world, while in the next they will be punished in Gehenna. And if you do thus, you will deserve to sit with Him in His portion. And behold, what He commands you is, that ye shall not observe the Feast of the Passover, but observe the day of His death. And instead of the Feast of Pentecost observe forty days from the time that He was slain to when He went up into heaven. And instead of the Feast of Tabernacles observe the day of His birth, and on the eighth day after His birth observe that on which He was circumcised.’

To these commands all agreed, on condition that Peter should remain with them. This he consented to do, on the understanding that he would not eat anything except bread of misery and water of affliction – presumably not only to avoid forbidden food, but in expiatory suffering for his sin – and that they should build him a tower in the midst of the city, in which he would remain unto the day of his death, all which provisions were duly carried out. It is added, that in this tower he served the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What is still stranger, it is added, that he wrote many piutim – a certain class of liturgical poems which form part of the Synagogue service – and that he sent these throughout all Israel to be in perpetual memory of him, and especially that he despatched them to the Rabbis. The remark is the more noteworthy, as other Jewish writers also describe the Apostle Peter as the author of several liturgical poems, of which one is still repeated in the Synagogue on Sabbaths and Feast-days (comp. Jellinek, Beth ha-Midr., part v., p. 61, note). But to return. Peter is said to have remained in that tower for six years, when he died, and by his direction was buried within the tower. But the Nazarenes raised there a great fabric, ‘and this tower may be seen in Rome, and they call it Peter, which is the word for a stone, because he sat on a stone till the day of his death. But after his death another person named Elijah came, in the wickedness and cunning of his heart to mislead them. And he said to them that Simon had deceived them, for that Jesus had commanded him to tell them: it had not come into His heart to despise the Law of Moses; that if any one wished to circumcise, he should circumcise; but if any one did not wish to be circumcised, let him be immersed in foul waters. And even if he were not immersed, he would not thereby be in danger in the world. And he commanded that they should not observe the seventh day, but only the first day, because on it were created the heavens and the earth. And he made to them many statutes which were not good. But the people asked him: Give us a true sign that Jesus hath sent thee. And he said to them: What is the sign that you seek? And the word had not been out of his mouth when a great stone of immense weight fell and crushed his head. So perish all Thine enemies, O God, but let them that love Thee be as the sun when he goeth forth in his strength!

Thus far what we regard as the oldest Recension. The chief variations between this and the others are, that in the third Recension the opponent of Peter is called Abba Shaul (John also is mentioned; Jellinek, u.s. part vi., p. 156), while in the fourth Recension (in MS.), which consists of nineteen chapters, this opponent is called Elijah. In the latter Recension there is mention of Antioch and Tiberias, and other places connected with the lives of Peter and Paul, and the early history of the Church. But the occurrence of certain Romanic words, such as Papa, Vescova, etc., shows its later date. Again, we mark that, according to Recensions III. and IV., Peter sent his liturgical pieces to Babylon, which may either indicate that at the time of the document ‘Babylon’ was the centre of the Jewish population, or else be a legendary reminiscence of Peter’s labours in ‘the Church that is in Babylon’ (1Pe_5:13). In view of modern controversies it is of special interest that, according to the Jewish legend, Peter, secretly a Jew, advised the Christians to throw off completely the law of Moses, while Paul, in opposition to him, stands up for Israel and the Law, and insists that either circumcision or baptism may be practised. It will be further noted, that the object of the document seems to be: 1st, to serve as an ‘apology’ for Judaism, by explaining how it came that so many Jews, under the leadership of Apostles, embraced the new faith. This seems to be traced to the continued observance of Jewish legal practices by the Christians. Simon Peter is supposed to have arrested the progress of Christianity by separating the Church from the Synagogue, which he did by proclaiming that Israel were rejected, and the Law of Moses abolished. On the other hand, Paul is represented as the friend of the Jews, and as proclaiming that the question of circumcision or baptism, of legal observances or Christian practices, was a matter of indifference. This attempt to heal the breach between the Church and the Synagogue had been the cause of Divine judgment on him. 2ndly, The legend is intended as an apology for the Jews, with a view to ward off persecution. 3rdly, It is intended to show that the leaders of the Christians remained in heart Jews. It will perhaps not be difficult – at least, hypothetically – to separate the various legends mixed up, or perhaps interpolated in the tractate. From the mention of the piutim and the ignorance as to their origin, we might be disposed to assign the composition of the legend in its present form to about the eighth century of our era.

(See Book V. ch. vi.)

The Parables of the ‘Ten Virgins’ and of the ‘Unfaithful Servant’ close with a Discourse on ‘the Last Things,’ the final Judgment, and the fate of those at Christ’s Right Hand and at His Left (Mt 25:31-46). This final Judgment by our Lord forms a fundamental article in the Creed of the Church. It is the Christ Who comes, accompanied by the Angelic Host, and sits down on the throne of His Glory, when all nations are gathered before Him. Then the final separation is made, and joy or sorrow awarded in accordance with the past of each man’s history. And that past, as in relationship to the Christ – whether it have been ‘with’ Him or ‘not with’ Him, which latter is now shown to be equivalent to an ‘against’ Him. And while, in the deep sense of a love to Christ which is utterly self-forgetful in its service and utterly humble in its realisation of Him to Whom no real service can be done by man, to their blessed surprise, those on ‘the Right’ find work and acknowledgment where they had never thought of its possibility, every ministry of their life, however small, is now owned of Him as rendered to Himself – partly, because the new direction, from which all such ministry sprang, was of ‘Christ in’ them, and partly, because of the identification of Christ with His people. On the other hand, as the lowest service of him who has the new inner direction is Christward, so does ignorance, or else ignoration, of Christ (‘When saw we Thee…?’) issue in neglect of service and labour of love, and neglect of service proceed from neglect and rejection of Christ. And so his life either ‘to’ Christ or ‘not to’ Christ, and necessarily ends in ‘the Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world’ or in ‘the eternal fire which is prepared for the Devil and his angels.’

Thus far the meaning of the Lord’s Words, which could only be impaired by any attempt at commentation. But they also raise questions of the deepest importance, in which not only the head, but perhaps much more the heart, is interested, as regards the precise meaning of the term ‘everlasting’ and ‘eternal’ to this and other connections, so far as those on the Left Hand of Christ are concerned. The subject has of late attracted renewed attention. The doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments, with the proper explanations and limitations given to it in the teaching of the Church, has been set forth by Dr. Pusey in his Treatise: ‘What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment?’ Before adverting, however briefly, to the New Testament teaching, it seems desirable with some fulness to set forth the Jewish views on this subject. For the views held at the time of Christ, whatever they were, must have been those which the hearers of Christ entertained; and whatever these views, Christ did not, at least directly, contradict or, so far as we can infer, intend to correct them. And here we have happily sufficient materials for a history of Jewish opinions at different periods on the Eternity of Punishments; and it seems the more desirable carefully to set it forth, as statements both inaccurate and incomplete have been put forward on the subject.

Leaving aside the teaching of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphic Writings (to which Dr. Pusey has sufficiently referred), the first Rabbinic utterances come to us from the time immediately before that of Christ, from the Schools of Shammai and Hillel (Rosh haSh. 16b last four lines, and 17a). The former arranged all mankind into three classes: the perfectly righteous, who are ‘immediately written and sealed to eternal life;’ the perfectly wicked, who are ‘immediately written and sealed to Gehenna;’ and an intermediate class, ‘who go down to Gehinnom, and moan, and come up again,’ according to Zec_13:9, and which seemed also indicated in certain words in the Song of Hannah (1Sa_2:6). The careful reader will notice that this statement implies belief in Eternal Punishment on the part of the School of Shammai. For (1) The perfectly wicked are spoken of as ‘written and sealed unto Gehenna;’ (2) The School of Shammai expressly quotes, in support of what it teaches about these wicked, Dan_12:2, a passage which undoubtedly refers to the final judgment after the Resurrection; (3) The perfectly wicked, so punished, are expressly distinguished from the third, or intermediate class, who merely ‘go down to Gehinnom,’ but are not ‘written and sealed,’ and ‘come up again.’

Substantially the same, as regards Eternity of Punishment, is the view of the School of Hillel (u.s. 17a). In regard to sinners of Israel and of the Gentiles it teaches, indeed, that they are tormented in Gehenna for twelve months, after which their bodies and souls are burnt up and scattered as dust under the feet of the righteous; but it significantly excepts from this number certain classes of transgressors ‘who go down to Gehinnom and are punished there to ages of ages.’ That the Niphal form of the verb used, נידונין  must mean ‘punished’ and not ‘judged,’ appears, not only from the context, but from the use of the same word and form in the same tractate (Rosh haSh. 12a, lines 7 etc. from top), when it is said of the generation of the Flood that ‘they were punished’ surely not ‘judged’-by ‘hot water.’ However, therefore, the School of Hillel might accentuate the mercy of God, or limit the number of those who would suffer Eternal Punishment, it did teach Eternal Punishment in the case of some. And this is the point in question.

But, since the Schools of Shammai and Hillel represented the theological teaching in the time of Christ and His Apostles, it follows, that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment was that held in the days of our Lord, however it may afterwards have been modified. Here, so far as this book is concerned, we might rest the case. But for completeness’ sake it will be better to follow the historical development of Jewish theological teaching, at least a certain distance.

The doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments seems to have been held by the Synagogue throughout the whole first century of our era. This will appear from the sayings of the Teachers who flourished during its course. The Jewish Parable of the fate of those who had not kept their festive garments in readiness or appeared in such as were not clean (Shabb. 152b, 153a) has been already quoted in our exposition of the Parables of the Man without the Wedding-garment and of the Ten Virgins. But we have more than this. We are told (Ber. 28b) that, when that great Rabbinic authority of the first century, Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai – ‘the light of Israel, the right hand pillar, the mighty hammer’ – lay a dying and wept, he accounted for his tears by fear as to his fate in judgment, illustrating the danger by the contrast of punishment by an earthly king ‘whose bonds are not eternal bonds nor his death eternal death,’ while as regarded God and His judgment: ‘if He is angry with me, His Wrath is an Eternal Wrath, if He binds me in fetters, His fetters are Eternal fetters, and if He kills me, His death is an Eternal Death.’ In the same direction is this saying of another great Rabbi of the first century, Elieser (Shabb, 152b, about the middle), to the effect that ‘the souls of the righteous are hidden under the throne of glory,’ while those of the wicked were to be bound and in unrest (זוממות והולכות), one Angel hurling them to another from one end of the world to the other – of which latter strange idea he saw confirmation in 1Sa_25:29. To the fate of the righteous applied, among other beautiful passages, Isa_57:2, to that of the wicked Isa_57:21. Evidently, the views of the Rabbis of the first century were in strict accordance with those of Shammai and Hillel.

In the second century of our era, we mark a decided difference in Rabbinic opinion. Although it was said that, after the death of Rabbi Meir, the ascent of smoke from the grave of his apostate teacher had indicated that the Rabbi’s prayers for the deliverance of his master from Gehenna had been answered (Chag. 15b), most of the eminent teachers of that period propounded the idea, that in the last day the sheath would be removed which now covered the sun, when its fiery heat would burn up the wicked (Ber. R. 6). Nay, one Rabbi maintained that there was no hell at all, but that that day would consume the wicked, and yet another, that even this was not so, but that the wicked would be consumed by a sort of internal conflagration.

In the third century of our era we have once more a reaction, and a return to the former views. Thus (Kethub. 104a, about the middle) Rabbi Eleasar speaks of the three bands of Angels, which successively go forth to meet the righteous, each with a welcome of their own, and of the three bands of Angels of sorrow, which similarly receive the wicked in their death – and this, in terms which leave no doubt as to the expected fate of the wicked. And here Rabbi José informs us (Tos. Ber. vi. 15), that ‘the fire of Gehenna which was created on the second day is not extinguished for ever.’ With this view accord the seven designations which, according to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, attach to Gehenna (Erub. 19a, line 11, etc., from bottom – but the whole page bears off the subject). This doctrine was only modified, when Ben Lakish maintained, that the fire of Gehenna did not hurt sinners from among the Jews (Kethub. u.s.). Nor does even this other saying of his (Nedar. 8b, last four lines) necessarily imply that be denied the eternity of punishment: ‘There is no Gehinnom in the world to come’ – since it is qualified by the expectation that the wicked would be punished (נידונין), not annihilated, by the heat of the sun, which would be felt as healing by the righteous. Lastly, if not universal beatification, yet a kind of universal moral restoration seems implied in the teaching of Rabbi Jehudah to the effect that in the saeculum futurum God would destroy the yeṣer hara.

Tempting as the subject is, we must here break off this historical review, for want of space, not of material. Dr. Pusey has shown that the Targumim also teach the doctrine of Eternal Punishment – though their date is matter of discussion – and to the passages quoted by him in evidence others might be added. And if on the other side the saying of Rabbi Akiba should be quoted (Eduy. ii. 10) to the effect that the judgment of the wicked in Gehenna was one of the five things that lasted for twelve months, it must be remembered that, even if this be taken seriously (for it is really only a  jeu d’ esprit), it does not necessarily imply more than the teaching of Hillel concerning that intermediate class of sinners who were in Gehenna for a year – while there was another class the duration of whose punishment would be for ages of ages. Even more palpably inapt is the quotation from Baba Mez. 58b (lines 5, etc., from the bottom). For, if that passage declares that all are destined to come up again from Gehenna, it expressly excepts from this these three classes of persons: adulterers, those who put their fellow-men publicly to shame, and those who apply an evil name to their neighbors.

But there can at least be no question, that the passage which has been quoted at the outset of these remarks (Rosh haSh. 16b, 17a), proves beyond the possibility of gainsaying that both the Great Schools, into which Rabbinic teaching at the time of Christ was divided, held the doctrine of Eternal Punishments. This, of course, entirely apart from the question who – how many, or rather, how few – were to suffer this terrible fate. And here the cautions and limitations, with which Dr. Pusey has shown that the Church has surrounded her teaching, cannot be too often or earnestly repeated. It does, indeed, seem painfully strange that, if the meaning of it be at all realised, some should seem so anxious to contend for the extension to so many of a misery from which our thoughts shrink in awe. Yet of this we are well assured, that the Judge of all the Earth will judge, not only righteously, but mercifully. He alone knows all the secrets of heart and life, and He alone can apportion to each the due meed. And in this assured conviction may the mind trustfully rest as regards those who have been dear to us.

But if on such grounds we shrink from narrow and harsh dogmatism, there are certain questions which we cannot quite evade, even although we may answer them generally rather than specifically. We put aside, as an unhealthy and threatening sign of certain religious movements, the theory, lately broached, of a so-called ‘Conditional Immortality.’ So far as the reading of the present writer extends, it is based on bad philosophy and even worse exegesis. But the question itself, to which this ‘rough-and-ready’ kind of answer has been attempted, is one of the most serious. In our view, an impartial study of the Words of the Lord, recorded in the Gospels – as repeatedly indicated in the text of these volumes – leads to the impression that His teaching in regard to reward and punishment should be taken in the ordinary and obvious sense, and not in that suggested by some. And this is confirmed by what is now quite clear to us, that the Jews, to whom He spoke, believed in Eternal Punishment, however few they might consign to it. And yet we feel that this line of argument is not quite convincing. For might not our Lord, as in regard to the period of His Second Coming, in this also have intended to leave His hearers in incertitude? And, indeed, is it really necessary to be quite sure of this aspect of eternity?

And here the question arises about the precise meaning of the words which Christ used. It is, indeed, maintained that the terms αἰώνιος and kindred expressions always refer to eternity in the strict sense. But of this I cannot express myself convinced (see ad voc. Schleusner, Lex., who, however, goes a little too far; Wahl, Clavis N. T.; and Grimm, Clavis N. T.), although the balance of evidence is in favour of such meaning. But it is at least conceivable that the expressions might refer to the end of all time, and the merging of the ‘mediatorial regency’ (1Co_15:24) in the absolute kingship of God.

In further thinking on this most solemn subject, it seems to the present writer that exaggerations have been made in the argument. It has been said that, the hypothesis of annihilation being set aside, we are practically shut up to what is called Universalism. And again, that Universalism implies, not only the final restoration of all the wicked, but even of Satan and his angels. And further, it has been argued that the metaphysical difficulties of the question ultimately resolve themselves into this: why the God of all foreknowledge had created beings – be they men or fallen angels – who, as He foreknew, would ultimately sin? Now this argument has evidently no force as against absolute Universalism. But even otherwise, it is rather specious than convincing. For we only possess data for reasoning in regard to the sphere which falls within our cognition, which the absolutely Divine-the pre-human and the pre-created – does not, except so far as it has been the subject of Revelation. This limitation excludes from the sphere of our possible comprehension all questions connected with the Divine foreknowledge, and its compatibility with that which we know to be the fundamental law of created intelligences, and the very condition of their moral being: personal freedom and choice. To quarrel with this limitation of our sphere of reasoning, were to rebel against the conditions of human existence. But if so, then the question of Divine foreknowledge must not be raised at all, and the question of the fall of angels and of the sin of man must be left on the (to us) alone intelligible basis: that of personal choice and absolute moral freedom.

Again – it seems at least an exaggeration to put the alternatives thus: absolute eternity of punishment – and, with it, of the state of rebellion which it implies, since it is unthinkable that rebellion should absolutely cease, and yet punishment continue; annihilation; or else universal restoration. Something else is at least thinkable, that may not lie within these hard and fast lines of demarcation. It is at least conceivable that there may be a quartum quid – that there may be a purification or transformation (sit venia verbis) of all who are capable of such – or, if it is preferred, an unfolding of the germ of grace, present before death, invisible though it may have been to other men, and that in the end of what we call time or ‘dispensation,’ only that which is morally incapable of transformation – be it men or devils – shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev_20:10; Rev_20:14, Rev_20:15; Rev_21:8). And here, if, perhaps just, exception is taken to the terms ‘purification’ or ‘transformation’ (perhaps spiritual development), I would refer in explanation to what Dr. Pusey has so beautifully written – although my reference is only to this point, not to others on which he touches (Pusey, What is of Faith, etc., pp. 116-122). And, in connection with this, we note that there is quite a series of Scripture-statements, which teach alike the final reign of God (‘that God may be all in all’), and the final putting of all things under Christ – and all this in connection with the blessed fact that Christ has ‘tasted death for every man,’ ‘that the world through Him might be saved,’ and, in consequence, to ‘draw all’ unto Himself, comp. Col_1:19, Col_1:20 (comp. Joh_3:17; Joh_12:32; Rom_5:18-21; 1Co_15:20-28; Eph_1:10; Col_1:19, Col_1:20; 1Ti_2:4; 1Ti_2:6; 1Ti_4:10; Heb_2:9; 1Jo_2:2; 1Jo_4:14 – all which passages, must, however, be studied in their connection).

Thus far it has been the sole aim of the present writer to set before the reader, so far as he can, all the elements to be taken into consideration. He has pronounced no definite conclusion, and he neither wishes nor purposes to do so. This only he will repeat, that to his mind the Words of our Lord, as recorded in the Gospels, convey this impression, that there is an eternity of punishment; and further, that this was the accepted belief of the Jewish schools in the time of Christ. But of these things does he feel fully assured: that we may absolutely trust in the loving-kindness of our God; that the work of Christ is for all and of infinite value, and that its outcome must correspond to its character; and, lastly, for practical purposes, that in regard to those who have departed (whether or not we know of grace in them) our views and our hopes should be the widest (consistent with Scripture teaching), and that as regards ourselves, personally and individually, our views as to the need of absolute and immediate faith in Christ as the Saviour, of holiness of life, and of service of the Lord Jesus, should be the closest and most rigidly fixed.

List of Authorities
Chiefly Used in Writing This Book.
Alford: Greek Testament.
Von der Alm: Heidn. u. jued. Urtheile ueber Jesu u. die alten Christen.
Altingius: Dissertationes et Orationes.
Apocrypha: S. P. C. K. Commentary on The Apocryphal Gospels.
Auerbach: Berith Abraham.
Bacher: Die Agada der Babylon. Amoraeer.
Baeck: Geschichte des Jued. Volkes u. seiner Literatur.
Baedeker: Syrien u. Palaestina.
Baehr: Gesetz ueber Falsche Zeugen nach Bible u. Talmud.
Barclay: City of the Great King.
Beer: Leben Abraham’s.
Beer: Leben Mosis.
Beer, P.: Geschichte d. relig. Sekten d. Juden.
Bengel: Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
Bengel: Alter der juedischen Proselytentaufe.
Bergel: Naturwissenschaftliche Kenntnisse d. Talmudisten.
Bergel: Der Himmel u. seine Wunder.
Bergel: Die Eheverhaeltnisse der alten Juden.
Berliner, Dr. A.: Targum Onkelos.
Bertholdt: Christologia Judaeorum.
Beyschlag: Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments.
Beyschlag: Zur Johanneischen Frage.
Bickell: Die Entstehung der Liturgie aus der Einsetzungsfeier.
Bleek: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, ed. Mangold.
Bleek: Synoptische Erklaerung d. drei Evangelien.
Bloch: Studien z. Gesch. der Sammlung d althebr. Literatur.
Bloch: Das Mosaisch-talmud. Polizeirecht.
Bloch: Civilprocess-Ordnung nach Mos. rabb. Rechte.
Bochartus: Hierozoicon.
Bodek: Marcus Aurelius u. R. Jehudah.
Bodenschatz: Kirchliche Vorfassung der heutigen Juden.
Boehl: Forschungen nach einer Volks bibel zur Zeit Jesu.
Boehl: Alttestamentliche Citate im N.T.
Bonar: The Land of Promise.
Braun: Die Soehne des Herodes.
Braunius: De Vestitu Hebraeorum.
Brecher: Das Transcendentale im Talmud.
Bredow: Rabbinische Mythen, etc.
Brueckner: Die Versuchungsgeschichte unseres Herrn Jesu Christi.
Brueck: Rabbinische Ceremonialgebraeuche.
Bruell: Fremdsprachliche Redensarten im Talmud.
Bruell: Trachten der Juden.
Buber: Pesikta.
Bucher: Des Apostels Johannes Lehre vom Logos.
Burgon: The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.
Buxtorf: Exercitationes.
Buxtorf: Synagoga Judaica.
Buxtorf: Lexicon Talmud.
Calvin: Comment. (passim).
Cahen: Repertorium Talmudicum.
Carpzov: Chuppa Hebraeorium.
Caspari: Einleitung in das Leben Jesu Christi.
Cassel: Das Buch Kusari.
Cassel: Lebrbuch der Jued. Gesch. u. Literatur.
Castelli: Commento di Sabbatai Donnolo sul libro della Creazione.
Castelli: Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei.
Cavedoni: Biblische Numismatik.
Charteris: Canonicity. Chasronoth Hashas.
Cheyne: Prophecies of Isaiah.
Chijs: De Herode Magno.
Cohen: Les Déicides.
Commentaries, Speaker’s, on the Gospels; Camb. Bible on the Gospels.
Conder: Tent Work in Palestine.
Conder: Handbook to the Bible.
Conforte: Liber Kore ha-Dorot.
Cook: The Rev. Version of the Gospels.
Creizenach: Shulcan Aruch.
Cremer: New Testament Dictionary.
Cureton: Syriac Gospels.
Daehne: Juedisch-Alex. Religions Philos.
Davidson: Introduction to the Study of the New Testament.
Davidson: The Last Things.
Dachs: Codex Succa Talmudis Babylonici.
Danko: Historia Revelationis Divinae N.T.
Danko: De Sacra Scriptura ejusque interpretatione Commentarius.
Delaunay: Moines et Sibylles dans l’antiquité Judéo-Grecque.
Delitzsch: Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu.
Delitzsch: Geschichte der jued. Poesie.
Delitzsch: Durch Krankheit zur Genesung.
Delitzsch: Ein Tag in Capernaum.
Delitzsch. Untersuchungen ueb. die Entsteh. u. Anlage d. Matth.-Evang.
Delitzsch; Talmudisehe Studien.
Delitzsch: Jesus und Hillel.
Derenbourg: Essai sur l’Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine.
Deutsch: Literary Remains.
Deylingius: Observationes Sacrae.
Dillmann: Das Buch Henoch.
Doellinger: Heidenthum und Judenthum.
Drummond: The Jewish Messiah.
Dukes: Zur Rabbinischen Sprachkunde.
Dukes: Rabbinische Blumenlese.
Duschak: Zur Botanik des Talmud.
Duschak: Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud.
Duschak: Juedischer Cultus.
Duschak: Schulgesetzgebung.
Ebrard: Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangel. Geschichte.
Edersheim: History of the Jewish Nation.
Edersheim: The Temple, its Ministry and its Services.
Edersheim: Sketches of Jewish Social Life.
Ehrmann: Geschichte der Schulen u. der Cultur unter den Juden.
Eisenmenger: Entdecktes Judenthum.
Eisler: Beitraege zur Rabb. Sprach- u. Alterthums-kunde.
Ellicott: New Testament Commentary: Gospels.
Ellicott: Lectures on the Life of our Lord.
Encyclopeadia Britannica (passim).
Ethridge: The Targums on the Pentateuch.
Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History.
Ewald: Abodah Sarah.
Ewald: Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
Ewald: Bibl. Jahrb. (passim).
Fabricius: Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T.
Farrar: Life of Christ.
Farrar: Eternal Hope.
Fassel: Das Mos. rabb. Civilrecht.
Fassel: Gerichts-Verf.
Field: Otium Norviceuse.
Filipowski: Liber Juchassin.
Fisher: Beginnings of Christianity.
Frankel: Targum der Proph.
Frankel: Ueb. d. Einfl. d. palaest. Exegese auf die Alexandr. Hermeneutik.
Frankel: Monatschrift fuer das Judenthum (passim).
Frankel: Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta.
Frankel: Einleitung in d. Jerusalem Talmud.
Franck: d. Kabbala.
Freudenthal: Hellenistische Studien.
Friedenthal: Jessode haddat weikere Haemuna.
Friedlaender: Sittengeschichte Roms.
Friedlaender: Ben Dosa u. seine Zeit.
Friedlaender: Patristische u. Talmudische Studien.
Friedlieb: Oracula Sibyllina.
Friedlieb: Archaeologie der Leidensgeschichte.
Friedmann: Siphré debe Rab.
Fritzsche u. Grimm: Handbuch zu den Apokryphen.
Fritzsche u. Grimm: Libri V. T. Pseudepigraphi Selecti.
Fuller: Harmony of the Four Gospels.
Fuerst: Der Kanon des A. T.
Fuerst: Kultur u. Literaturgeschichte der Juden in Asien.
Fuerst: Biblioth. Jued. (passim.)
Fuerstenthal: Menorath Hammaon.
Fuerstenthal: Jessode haddat.
Geier: De Ebraeorum Luctu Lugentiumque Ritibus.
Geiger: Das Judenthum u. seine Geschichte.
Geiger: Beitraege z. Jued. Literatur-Gesch.
Geiger: Zeitschrift fuer Jued. Theol. (passim.)
Geiger: Urschrift u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel.
Geikie: Life and Words of Christ.
Gelpke: Die Jugendgesch. des Herrn.
Gerlach: Die Roem. Statthilter in Syrien u Judaea.
Gfroerer: Philo.
Gfroerer: Jahrh. d. Heils.
Ginsburg: Ben Chajim’s Introd.
Ginsburg: Massoreth HaMassoreth.
Ginsburg: The Essenes.
Ginsburg: The Kabbalah.
Godet: Commentar.
Godet: Bibl. Studies.
Goebel: Die Parabeln Jesu.
Goldberg: The Language of Christ.
Graetz: Geschichte der Juden.
Green: Handbk. to the Grammar of the Grk. Test.
Grimm: Die Samariter.
Grimm: Clavis N.T.
Gronemann: Die Jonathansche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung.
Gruenebaum: Sittenlehre desJudenthums.
Guérin: Description de la Palestine et Samarie.
Guillemard: Hebraisms in the Greek Testament.
Guenzburg: Beleuchtung des alten Judenthums.
Hamburger: Real Encyklopaedie f. Bibel u. Talmud.
Hamelsveld: Dissertatio de aeedibus vet. Hebr.
Haneberg: Die relig. Alterth. der Bibel.
Harnoch: De Philonis Judaei Log. Inquisitio.
Hartmann: Die Hebraeerin am Putztische u. als Braut.
Hartmann: Die enge Verbindung des A. T. mit dem Neuen.
Hase: Leben Jesu.
Haupt: Die A. T. Citate in den 4 Evangelien.
Hausrath: Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte.
Herzfeld: Geschichte Israels.
Herzfeld: Handelsgeschichte der Juden des Alterthums.
Herzog: Real-Encyklopaedie (passim).
Hildesheimer: Der Herod. Tempel n. d. Talmud u. Josephus.
Hilgenfeld: Juedische Apokalyptik.
Hirschfeld: Halach. u. Hagad. Exegese.
Hirschfeld: Tractatus Macot.
Hitzig: Geschichte des Volkes Israel.
Hoffmann: Leben Jesu.
Hoffmann: Abhandlungen ueb. die Pentat. Gesetze.
Hofmann: Schriftbeweis.
Hofmann: Weissagung u. Erfuellung.
Holdheim: d. Cerem. Ges.
Hottinger: Juris Hebr. Leges.
Huschke: Ueb. d. Census u. die Steuerverf. d. frueh. Roem. Kaiserzeit.
Huschke: Ueb. d. z. Zeit d. Geb. Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census.
Havercamp: Flavius Josephus.
Ideler: Chronologie.
Ikenius: Antiquitates Hebraicae.
Ikenius: Dissertationes Philologico-theologicae.
Jellinek: Beth haMidrash.
Joel: Blick in d. Religionsgesch. d. 2ten Christlichen Jahrh.
Joel: Religions Philos. des Sohar.
Jost: Gesch. d. Judenth. u. seiner Sekten.
Jowett: Epistles of St. Paul, Romans, Galatians, Thessalonians.
Josephus Gorionides: ed. Breithaupt.
Juynboll: Comment. in Hist. Gentis Samaritanae.
Keil: Einl. in. d. Kanon. u. Apokryph. Schriften des A. T.
Keim: Geschichte Jesu von Nazara.
Kennedy: Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Kirchheim: Septem Libri Talmudici parvi Hierosol.
Kirchner: Jued. Passahf.
Kitto: Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature (passim).
Kobut: Juedische Angelologie u. Daemonologie.
Koenig: Die Menschwerdung Gottes.
Koester: Nachw. d. Spur. einer Trinitaetslehre vor Christo.
Krafft: Judische Sagen u. Dichtungen.
Krauss: Die Grosse Synode.
Krebs: Decreta Athen in honor Hyrcani P. M. Judaeorum.
Krebs: Decreta Roman. pro Judaeis.
Krebs: Observationes in Nov. Test.
Kuhn: Staedt. u. buergerl. Verfass d. Roem. Reichs.
Landau: Arukh.
Lange: Bibelwerk (on Gospels).
Lange: Leben Jesu.
Langen: Judenthum in Palaestina z. Zeit Christi.
Langfelder: Symbolik des Judenthums.
Lattes: Saggio di Giunte e Correzzioni al Lessico Talmudico.
Lavadeur: Krit. Beleucht. d. jued Kalenderwesens.
Lenormant: Chaldean Magic.
Levi: Historia Religionis Judaeorum.
Levy: Neuhebr. u. Chaldaeisch. Woerterbuch.
Levy: Chaldaeisch. Woerter b. ueber die Targumim.
Levy: Gesch. der Juedisch. Muenzen.
Levyssohn: Disputatio de Jud. sub. Caes. Conditione.
Lewin: Fasti Sacri.
Lewin: Siege of Jerusalem.
Lewyssohn: Zoologie des Talmuds.
Lightfoot: Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in 4 Evangel.
Lightfoot: Commentary on Galatians.
Lightfoot: Commentary on Colossians
Lisco: Die Wunder Jesu Christi.
Low: Beitraege z. jued Alterthumskunde.
Low: Lebensalter in d. jued. Literatur.
Loewe: Schulchan Aruch.
Lowy: Biggoreth ha Talmud.
Lucius: Essenismus in sein Verhaeltn z. Judenth.
Luecke: Johannes (Gospel).
Lundius: Juedische Heiligthuemer.
Luthardt: Johann. Evangelium.
Luthardt: Die modern. Darstell. d. Lebens Jesu.
Lutterbeck: Neutestamentliche Lehrbegriffe.
McLellan: New Testament (Gospels).
Madden: Coins of the Jews.
Maimonides: Yad haChazzakah.
Marcus: Paedagogik des Talmud.
Marquardt: Roem, Staatsverwaltung.
Martinus: Fidei Pugio.
Maybaum: Die Anthropomorph. u. Anthropopath. bei Onkelos.
Megillath Taanith.
Meier: Judaica.
Meuschen: Nov. Test ex Talmude et Joseph.
Meyer: Seder Olam Rabba et Suta.
Meyer: Buch Jezira.
Meyer: Kommentar. (on Gospels).
Meyer: Arbeit u. Handwerk. im Talmud.
Midrash Rabboth.
Midrashim. (See List In Rabb. Abbrev.)
Mill: On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels.
Mishnah
Molitor. Philosophie der Geschichte.
Moscovitor: Het N.T. en de Talmud.
Mueller: Mess. Erwart. d. Jud. Philo.
Mueller: Zur Johann Frage.
Mueller, J.:Massech Sopher.
Muenter: Stern der Weisen
Nanz: Die Besessenen im N.T.
Neander: Life of Christ.
Nebe: Leidensgesch. unser. Herrn Jesu Christi.
Nebe: Auferstehungsgesch. unser. Herrn Jesu Christi.
Neubauer: La Géographie du Talmud.
Neubauer and Driver: Jewish Interpreters of Isaiah. liii.
Neumann: Messian. Erschein. bei d. Juden.
Neumann: Gesch. d. Mess. Weissag. im A. T.
New Testament. Ed. Scrivener. Ed. Westcott and Hort. Ed. Gebhardt,
Nicolai: De Sepulchris Hebraeorum.
Nizzachon Vetus. et Toledoth Jeshu.
Nicholson: The Gospel accord. to the Hebrews.
Norris: New Testament (Gospels).
Nork: Rabbinische Quellen u. Parallelen.
Nutt: Samaritan History.
Otho: Lexicon Rabbin. Philolog.
Outram: De Sacrificiis Judaeorum et Christi.
Othijoth de R. Akiba.
Oxlee: Doc. of Trinity on Princips. of Judaism.
Pagninus: Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae.
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements (passim)
Perles: Liechenfeierlichk. im Nachbibl, Judenth.
Philippson: Haben wirklich die Jud. Jesum gekreuzigt?
Philippson: Israelit. Religionslehre.
Philo Judaeus: Opera.
Pictorial Palestine (passim).
Picturesque Palestine.
Pinner: Berachoth
Pinner: Compend. des Hieros. u. Babyl. Thalm.
Pirké de R. Elieser.
Plumtre: Comment. on the Gospels.
Plumptre: Bible Educator (passim).
Pocock: Porta Mosis.
Prayer-books, Jewish: i: Arnheim. ii: Mannheimer. iii: Polak (Frankfort ed.). iv. Friedlaender. v. F. A. Euchel. vi. Jacobson. vii. Pesach Haggadah. viii. Rodelheim ed.
Pressensé: Jesus Christ: His Time, Life, and Works.
Prideaux: Connec. of O. and N.T.
Pusey: What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment?
Rabbinowicz: Einleit. in d. Gesetzgeb. u. Medicin d. Talm.
Ravuis: Dissertat. de. aedib. vet. Hebr.
Redslob: Die Kanonisch. Evangelien.
Reland: Antiquit. Sacr. veter. Hebr.
Reland: Palaestina.
Remond: Ausbreit. d. Judenthums.
Renan: L’Antechrist.
Renan: Vie de Jésus.
Renan: Marc-Auréle.
Rhenferd et Vitringa: De Decem Otiosia Synagogae.
Riehm: Handwoerterb. d. bibl. Alterth. (passim).
Rheim: Lehrbegriff d. Hebraerbriefs.
Riess: Geburtsjahr Christi.
Ritter: Philo u. die Halacha.
Roberts: Discussion on the Gospels.
Robinson: Biblical Researches in Palestine.
Roeth: Epistola ad Hebraeos.
Rohr: Palaestina z. Zeit Christi.
Roensch: Buch Jubilaeen.
Roos: Lehre u. Lebensgesch. Jesu Christi.
Roesch: Jesus-Mythen d. Talmudist.
Rosenmueller: Biblisch. Geographie.
Rossi, Azarjah de: Meor Enajim.
Possi, Giambernardo de: Della Lingua Propria di Christo.
Sachs: Beitraege z. Sprach u. Alterthumskunde.
Saalschuetz: Musik bei d. Hebraeern.
Saalschuetz: Mos. Recht.
Salvador: Roemerherrschaft in Judaea.
Salvador: Gesch. d. Jued. Volkes.
Sammter: Baba Mezia.
Schenkel: Bibel-Lexicon (passim).
Schleusner: Lexicon Gr. Lat. in N.T.
Schmer: De Chuppa Hebraeorum.
Schmilg: Der Siegeskalender Megill Taanith.
Sckneckenburger: Neutestament. Zeitgeschichte.
Schoettgen: Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae.
Schreiber: Principien des Judenthums.
Schroederus: Comment. de Vestitu Mulier. Hebr.
Schuerer: Neutestam. Zeitgesch.
Schuerer: Gemeindeverfass. d. Juden in Rom in d. Kaiserzeit.
Schwab: De Talmud de Jerusalem.
Schwarz: D. Heilige Land.
Schwarz: Tosfita Shabbath.
Scrivener: Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Seder Hadoroth.
Selden: De Synedriis Ebr.
Selden: De Jure Naturati et Gent. Hebr.
Selden: Uxor Ebraica.
Sepp: Leben Jesu.
Sevin: Chronologie des Lebens Jesu.
Sheringhan: Joma.
Siegfried: Philo von Alexandria.
Singer: Onkelos u. seine Verhaeltn. z. Halacha.
Sion Ledorosh.
Smith: Dictionary of the Bible (passim).
Smith and Wace: Dictionary of Christian Biography (passim).
Sohar.
Tikkuney haSohar.
Saloweyczyk: Bibel, Talmud, u. Evangelium.
Sommer: Mispar haSohar.
Spencer: De Legib. Hebr. Ritual.
Spiess: Das Jerusalem des Josephus.
Spitzer: Das Mahl bei den Hebraeern.
Stanley: Sinai and Palestine.
Steinmeyer: Geburt des Herrn u. seinerste Schritte im Leben.
Steinmeyer: Die Parabeln des Herrn.
Stein: Schrift des Lebens.
Stern: Die Frau im Talmud.
Stern: Gesch. des Judenthums.
Stier: Reden des Herrn Jesu.
Strack: Pirkey Aboth.
Strack: Proleg. Crit. in V. T. Hebr.
Strauss: Leben Jesu.
Supernatural religion.
Surenhusius: Biblos Katallages.
Surenhusius: Mishnah
Talmud, Babylon and Jerusalem.
Targum, the Targumim in the Mikraoth gedoloth.
Taylor: Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirqey Ab, etc.), with critical and illustrative Notes.
Taylor: Great Exemplar.
Tauchuma: Midrash.
Thein: Der Talmud.
Theologische Studien u. Kritiken (passim).
Tholuck: Bergpredigt Christi.
Tholuck: Das Alt. Test. im Neu. Test.
Tischendorf: When were our Gospels written?
Toetterman: R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.
Traill: Josephus.
Trench: Notes on the Miracles
Trench: Notes on the Parables.
Tristram: Natural History of the Bible.
Tristram: Land of Israel.
Tristram: Land of Moab.
Trusen: Sitten, Gebraeuche u. Krankheiten. d. alt. Hebr.
Ugolinus: Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum (passim).
Unruh: Das alte Jerusalem u. seine Bauwerke.
Vernes: Histoire des Idées Messianiques.
Vitringa: De Synagoga Vetere.
Volkmar: Einleitung in die Apokryphen.
Volkmar: Marcus.
Volkmar: Mose Prophetie u. Himmel fahrt.
Vorstius: De Hebraisms Nov. Test.
Wace: The Gospel and its Witnesses.
Wagenseil: Sota.
Wahl: Clavis Nov. Test. Philologica.
Warneck: Pontius Pilatus.
Watkins: Gospel of St. John.
Weber: Johannes der Taeufer u. die Parteien seiner Zeit.
Weber: System der altsynagog. palaest. Theologie.
Weiss, B.: Lehrb. d. bibl. Theol. des N.T.
Weiss, B.: Matthaeusevangelium.
Weiss, B.: Leben Jesu.
Weiss: Mechilta.
Weiss: Siphra
Weiss: Geschichte. der jued. Tradition.
Weizsaecker: Untersuch. ueb. die evangel. Geschichte.
Wellhausen: Die Pharisaer u. die Sadducaer.
Westcott: Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.
Westcott: On the Canon of the New Testament.
Westcott: Gospel of St. John.
Wetstein: Novum Testamentum Graecum (Gospels)
Wichelhaus: Kommentar zur Leidensgeschichte.
Wieseler: Beitraege zu den Evang. u. der Evangel. Gesch.
Wieseler: Chronol. Synopse der 4 Evangelien.
Wiesner: d. Bann in s. Gesch. Entwiekelung.
Winer: Biblisches Realwoerterbuch (passim)
Winer: De Onkeloso.
Wilson: Recovery of Jerusalem.
Wittichen: Die Idee des Reiches Gottes.
Wittichen: Leben Jesu.
Wolfius: Bibliotheca Hebraea (passim).
Wordsworth: Commentary (Gospels).
Wunderbar: Bibl. talmud. Medecin.
Wuensche: Die Leiden des Messias.
Wuensche: Neue Beitraege z. Erlaeut. der Evangel.
Wuensche: Der Jerusalemische Talmud.
Wuensche: Bibliotheca Rabbinica.
Yalkut Shimeoni.
Yalkut Rubeni.
Young: Christology of the Targums.
Zahn: Forsch. zur Gesch. d. N.T. Kanons.
Zeller: Philosophie der Griechen.Zemach David.
Zimmermann: Karten u. Plaene z. Topographie des alten Jerusalems.
Zockler: Handb. d. Theol. Wissenschaften.
Zumpt: Geburtsjahr Christi.
Zunz: Zur Geschichte u. Literatur.
Zunz: Die Gottesdienst. Vortr. d. Juden.
Zunz: Synagogale Poesie.
Zunz: Ritus d. Synagogalen-Gottesdienst.
Zuckermandel: Tosephta.