Outlines of New Testament History [1898]

[Stone]

OUTLINES OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

BY REV. FRANCIS E. GIGOT, D.D., Mooney Professor of the Sacred Scriptures in St. Joseph’s Seminary Dunwoodie, New York.

SECOND AND REVISED EDITION

NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO. BENZIGER BROTHERS, PRINTERS TO THE PUBLISHERS OF HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE

Nihil Obstat. J. B. HOGAN, S.S., D.D., Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur. † MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York. NEW YORK, July 20, 1898.

1898, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS.

PREFACE
THE present is a companion volume to the “Outlines of Jewish History” published some months ago. It deals with the historical data supplied by the inspired writings of the New Testament, in exactly the same manner as the preceding work did with the various events recorded in the sacred books of the Old Testament. In both volumes the writer has pursued the same purpose and followed the same methods.

Both works have been prepared for the special use of theological students, not, however, without the hope that they may prove serviceable to a much larger number of readers, such as teachers of Bible history in Sunday-schools, colleges, academies, and the like. In neither volume has it been the aim of the writer to supply a substitute for the Bible itself, but rather a help towards a more careful perusal of the inspired record. With this purpose in view, he has set forth such results of modern investigation as may render the sacred narrative more intelligible and attractive. Many of the difficulties which are daily being raised on historical grounds are also touched upon, and the biblical student is supplied with constant references to further sources of information.

Like the historical writings of the New Testament, the present volume contains two distinct, though very closely connected parts. The first part, gathered from the four narratives of our canonical gospels, describes the life and times of Our Lord; the second, based mainly on the book of the Acts, presents a brief sketch of the labors of Peter, Paul, James, and John, the leading apostles of Christ. The first part, under the title of “The Gospel History,” takes up the sacred narrative at the point where it was left in the “Outlines of Jewish History,” and deals with the three-and-thirty years of Our Lord’s mortal life; the second, entitled “The Apostolic History,” narrates the principal events connected with the planting and early spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire down to the year 98 A.D.

As an additional help to the student, two maps—one of Palestine in the Time of Our Lord, the other of the Roman Empire in the Apostolic Times—have been especially prepared, and will be found at the end of the volume, together with a Chronological Table established on the now commonly admitted fact that the birth of Our Lord took place some years before what is called the Christian era.

July 16, 1898.

[Stone]

PART FIRST - THE GOSPEL HISTORY OR THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CHRIST
FIRST PERIOD - BEFORE OUR LORD’S PUBLIC MINISTRY

CHAPTER I. GEOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST

I.  VARIOUS NAMES: Palestine: the most common origin.

II. SITE AND SIZE:

1. Site: Latitude and Longitude.—Boundaries.—Admirable situation.

2. Size: Length.—Breadth.—Total area.

III. GENERAL ASPECT AND DIVISIONS

IV. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF

1. Eastern Palestine:

    The high table-land beyond Jordan.

    Rivers and mountains.

2. Western Palestine:

    Three long Parallel Tracts:

    Sea-coast.

    The hilly country.

    The Jordan valley.

    Mountains (begin in the south and proceed northward).

    Lowlands (three principal).

    Rivers: Only one; streams or torrents besides.

    Lakes.


1. Various Names. Palestine, the scene of Gospel history, has in different ages been designated by the following names: (1) the land of Chanaan; (2) the land of Promise; (3) the land of Israel; (4) the land of Juda or Judæa; (5) the Holy Land; (6) Palestine. This last, by far the most common name, was originally applied by the Hebrews merely to the strip of maritime plain inhabited by their encroaching neighbors, the Philistines, hence the name; but ultimately it became the usual appellation for the whole country of the Jews.


2. Site and Size. Palestine lies between the 31° and 33° 20′ of north latitude, and between the 34° 20′ and 36° 20′ of east longitude. In the time of Christ it was limited on the west by Phenicia and the Great or Mediterranean Sea; on the south by the Brook of Egypt, the Negeb, the south end of the Dead Sea, and the Arnon river; on the east by Arabia; on the north by Anti-Lebanon, Lebanon, and Phenicia. Its situation in the temperate zone, in the centre of the ancient world, has often been admired: it combined, with a sufficient isolation from heathen influences, a position well suited to the preservation and spread of the true religion among mankind.

Like many regions which have played a great part in the world’s history, Palestine is a very small country. Its average length is about 150 miles, and its average breadth west of the Jordan a little more than 40 miles, east of the Jordan a little less than 40 miles. The total area between the Jordan and the Great Sea is about 6600 square miles; the portion east of the Jordan has an area of about 5000 or perhaps 6000 square miles,—making the whole area of Palestine 12,000 or 13,000 square miles, or about equal to the two States of Massachusetts and Connecticut together.


3. General Aspect and Divisions. A single glance at a physical map of the Holy Land is quite sufficient to make us realize that its general aspect is that of a mountainous country. It owes this hilly appearance to the great Lebanon range, whose eastern branch (the Anti-Lebanon) is prolonged through Palestine by two distinct chains of mountains, the one on the west side, with the exception of one broad depression (the plain of Esdrælon), extending as far as the desert of Sinai, the other, on the east of the Jordan, reaching as far as the mountains of Arabia Petræa. To the west of each one of its mountain-chains Palestine has a large plain, namely, the valley of the Jordan and the sea-coast, so that the Holy Land is naturally divided into four parallel tracts extending north and south. Three of these parallel tracts are almost entirely situated to the west of the Jordan and are usually designated under the name of Western Palestine, while the track altogether east of the Jordan is known as Eastern Palestine or the Transjordanic region.

In the time of Christ Eastern Palestine comprised several great tracts of country, the exact limits of which cannot be defined at the present day. These regions were (1) Peræa Proper, which lay chiefly between the rivers Arnon and Jabbok; (2) Galaaditis (Galaad); (3) Batanea (Basan); (4) Gaulanitis (Golan); (5) Ituræa; (6) Trachonitis; (7) Abilene; (8) and finally, the Decapolis, which lay partly west of the Jordan.

The country west of the Jordan included only three great regions, viz., Judæa, Samaria, and Galilee. Of these regions Judæa was the most famous. It extended along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea almost as far north as Mount Carmel, but on the northeast its limit did not extend quite as far as Sichem. Its southern part formed a portion of Idumæa, and it extended westward from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean. It was about 40 miles wide, and was divided into eleven districts whose metropolis was Jerusalem. North of Judæa lay Samaria, which derived its name from the ancient capital of the kingdom of Israel, and whose central position in Western Palestine gave it great political importance. Finally, north of Samaria was Galilee, 50 miles long by 20 to 25 miles wide. It was divided into Upper or Northern, and Lower or Southern, Galilee.


4. Physical Description of Eastern and Western Palestine. The country beyond Jordan consists in a table-land whose length is about 150 miles from the Anti-Lebanon on the north to the Arnon river on the south, and whose breadth varies from 30 to 80 miles from the edge of the Jordan valley to the edge of the Arabian desert. Its surface, which is tolerably uniform, has an average elevation of about 2000 feet above the level of the sea, and while its western edge is broken by deep ravines running into the valley of the Jordan, its eastern edge melts away into the desert.

Eastern Palestine has three natural divisions, marked by the three rivers which cut it at right angles to the Jordan—the Arnon, the Jabbok, and the Yarmuk. Across the northernmost of these divisions, which extends from Anti-Lebanon to the Yarmuk, “the limestone which forms the basis of the country is covered by volcanic deposits. The stone is basalt, the soil is rich, red loam resting on beds of ash, and there are vast ‘harras’ or eruptions of lava, suddenly cooled and split open into the most tortuous shapes. Down the edge of the Jordan valley and down the border of the desert run rows of extinct volcanoes. The centre of this northern province is a great plain, perhaps 50 miles long by 20 miles broad, scarcely broken by a hill, and almost absolutely without trees. To the west of this, above the Jordan, is the hilly and once well-wooded district of Jaulan (Golan of Scripture); to the east the ‘harras’ and extinct volcanoes already noticed; and in the southeast, the high range of Jebel Hauran. All beyond is desert draining to the Euphrates.”

In the second division of Eastern Palestine, which extends from the Yarmuk to the Jabbok, the volcanic elements almost entirely disappear and the limestone comes into view again. The surface of the country is generally made up of high ridges covered with forests and furnishing rich pasturage; eastward, there are plains covered with luxuriant herbage.

The third division of the Transjordanic region lies between the Jabbok and the Arnon rivers. In it “the ridges and forests alike diminish, till by the north of the Dead Sea, the country assumes the form of an absolutely treeless plateau, in winter bleak, in summer breezy and fragrant. This plateau is broken only by deep, wide, warm valleys like the Arnon, across which it rolls southward; eastward it is separated from the desert by low, rolling hills.”

The country west of the Jordan, or Western Palestine, by far the most important in Gospel history, is naturally divided into three long parallel tracts extending north and south:

(1) Sea-coast. This tract is a plain, the main portion of which extends without a break from the desert below Gaza to the ridge of Mount Carmel. A great part of this plain is flat and naturally fertile. It is intersected by deep gullies which have high earthen banks, and through some of which flow perennial streams. The neighborhood of these streams is marshy, especially towards the north. This main portion of the maritime plain is some 80 miles long and from 100 to 200 feet above the sea, with low cliffs near the Mediterranean; towards the north it is 8 miles, and near Gaza 20 miles, broad. North of the headland of Carmel, which comes within 200 yards of the sea, is the second and narrower portion of the maritime plain extending to Phenicia through the territory of Acre; very near this town the plain has an average width of about 5 miles and is remarkably fertile.

(2) The Hilly Country. Next to the coast-plain eastward comes the high table-land, which gives to Western Palestine the aspect of a hilly region. This tract is about 25 miles wide, and its eastern slopes are extremely steep and rugged. The fertility of this highland region improves gradually as one goes northward.

The southern district below Hebron is mostly made up of barren uplands. Passing a little farther north into Judæa, we find the central and northern parts of the hilly country scarcely more fertile, for the soil is poor and scanty, and springs are very rare; its western and northwestern parts, being reached by sea-breezes, offer a better vegetation, olives abound, and some thickets of pine and laurel are to be noticed; the eastern part is an uninhabitable tract known as the wilderness of Judæa.

Proceeding northward from Judæa to Samaria, the central section of Western Palestine, the country gradually opens and is more inviting. Its rich plains become gradually larger; the valleys are tillable and possess springs; there are orange-groves and orchards; the mountains are still bare of wood; northwest of Nablous, however, the slopes are dotted with fields of corn and tracts of wood.

Proceeding still northward, we reach Galilee, the northernmost division of Western Palestine, where we find the plain of Esdrælon, 15 square miles in extent. The vegetation is more luxuriant here than elsewhere west of the Jordan, and springs are abundant. The hills are richly wooded with oaks, maples, poplars; covered with wild flowers, rich herbage, etc. East of these hills is the rounded mass of Mount Thabor, covered with oaks and contrasting with the bare slopes of the Little Hermon about 4 miles distant to the southwest. North of Thabor is the plain El Buttauf, of a similar nature to that of Esdrælon, but much more elevated.

(3) The Jordan Valley. This valley extends from the base of Mount Hermon to the southern shore of the Dead Sea. Its width varies from half a mile to 5 miles; at some points it is 12 miles broad. At the foot of Mount Hermon this valley is about 1000 feet above the sea; 12 miles below, it is upon the sea-level; 10 miles farther south it is lower by 692 feet; and 65 miles farther, at the Dead Sea, it is 1292 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. The mountains on either side reach a great altitude, some points being 4000 feet high. These heights, combined with the deep depression of the valley, afford a great variety of temperature, and bring into close proximity productions usually found widely apart.

Mountains, Lowlands, Rivers, and Lakes of Western Palestine. Along the coast the only mountain of importance is the ridge of Carmel, the highest point of which is about 1750 feet. In the hilly region, the best-known points of elevation are: Hebron, 3000 feet; Mount Olivet, 2600 feet; Mounts Hebal and Garizim, 3000 feet; Little Hermon and Thabor, 1900 feet.

The three principal lowlands are: (1) the maritime plain subdivided into Philistia, the plain of Saron, and the plain of Acre; (2) the plain of Esdrælon; (3) the valley of the Jordan.

The most important river of Palestine is the Jordan. At the junction of its three principal sources it is 45 feet wide and flows in a channel from 10 to 20 feet below the level of the plain. It traverses successively the lakes of Merom and Genesareth, and empties itself into the Dead Sea after an actual course of 260 miles, although the distance between its source and the Dead Sea is not more than 136 miles in a straight line. Its width varies from 45 to 185 feet, and its depth from 3 to 12 feet.

Three things are chiefly noticeable in connection with this river, namely: (1) its enormous fall of nearly 3000 feet; (2) its endless windings; (3) the absence of towns on its banks. The other streams of Western Palestine worthy of mention are the Leontes, the Belus, the Cison, and the Zerka.

The three principal lakes are the lake of Merom, the lake of Genesareth, and the Dead Sea.

[Stone]

PART FIRST - THE GOSPEL HISTORY OR THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CHRIST
FIRST PERIOD - BEFORE OUR LORD’S PUBLIC MINISTRY

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER II

I. HEROD, KING OF JUDÆA.

  1. Origin and Early Life.
  2. Accession to the Jewish Throne.
  3. Consolidation of his Power.

II. PUBLIC WORKS IN

  1. Jerusalem: Theatre; Palace; Temple.
  2. Palestine and Foreign Countries.

III. SOCIAL LIFE IN JERUSALEM.

  1. The Court and the Upper Classes.
  2. The People and their Hatred of Herod.

IV. RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF THE JEWS.

  1. Jerusalem the Religious Centre of the Jewish World.
  2. Heathenism Widespread in Palestine.
  3. The Messianic Expectation.

V. LAST PERIOD OF HEROD’S REIGN.

  1. Domestic Affairs of Herod.
  2. Condition of Palestine at Herod’s Death.



§ 1. Herod, king of Judæa

1. Origin and Early Life. Herod, whose last years of reign mark the beginning of New Testament history, did not, as was claimed by his partisans, descend from one of the noble Jewish families which returned from Babylon, but belonged to the despised children of Edom, whom the valiant John Hyrcanus had formerly conquered and forcibly converted to the Jewish faith. He was the second son of the shrewd Antipater, who during the rule of the weak Machabean prince Hyrcanus II. gradually became the real master of Judæa under the title of procurator conferred upon him by Julius Cæsar, and who profited by this fulness of power to appoint Herod, then only twenty-five years old, to the government of Galilee.

In that province Herod soon displayed the energy which ever characterized him. He crushed a guerrilla warfare, and put to death Ezechias, its leader, and nearly all his associates. This aroused the indignation of the patriots of Jerusalem, and Herod, as professing the Jewish religion, was summoned to appear before the great Sanhedrim for having arrogated to himself the power of life and death. He appeared, but escaped condemnation through the interference of Hyrcanus II., and took refuge near Sextus Cæsar, the president of Syria.

On the murder of Julius Cæsar (B.C. 44), and the possession of Syria by Cassius, Antipater and Herod changed sides, and in return for substantial services Herod was recognized as governor of Cœle-Syria, that is, of the fertile valley between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. When the battle of Philippi (B.C. 41) placed the Roman world in the hands of Antony and Octavius, the former obtained Asia. Once more Herod knew how to gain the new ruler, and he became tetrarch of Judæa, with the promise of the crown if all went well.

2. Accession to the Jewish Throne. Forced the following year, by an irruption of the Parthians, who had espoused the cause of his rival Antigonus (the son of Aristobulus II.), to abandon Jerusalem, Herod first betook himself to Egypt, and then to Rome. There, owing chiefly to the influence of Antony, he was declared king of Judæa by the Roman senate, and, preceded by the consuls and the magistrates, he walked in procession between Antony and Octavius to the capitol, where the usual sacrifices were offered and the decree formally laid up in the archives.

After an absence of barely three months, Herod was again in Palestine, where, at the head of an army, he soon made himself master of Galilee. He next set himself at work to take the Holy City. But before investing it—which he did in the early spring of B.C. 37—he repaired to Samaria to wed the unfortunate Machabean princess, Mariamne, betrothed to him five years before. The uncle of that ill-fated queen was Antigonus, whom Herod now besieged in Jerusalem. After a siege of six months Jerusalem fell, and a fearful scene of carnage ensued. At length Herod, by rich presents, induced the Romans to leave the Holy City, carrying Antigonus with them (June, B.C. 37). Herod, the Idumæan, now ascended the throne of Judæa and inaugurated his long reign of 37 years.

3. Consolidation of His Power. The first part of Herod’s reign (B.C. 37–25) was spent in bloody endeavors to consolidate his power. Antigonus was executed, together with forty-five of his more prominent partisans. The aged Hyrcanus II., who had taken refuge among the Parthians, was induced by the most solemn promises of protection to return to Jerusalem, and was then assassinated (B.C. 30). Aristobulus III., the grandson and successor of Hyrcanus in the priesthood, was drowned at Jericho by the orders of the king, and even Mariamne—the only wife for whom Herod ever bore a real affection—fell a victim to her husband’s blind jealousy. The next victim whom the tyrant suspected of plotting against his throne was Alexandra, his mother-in-law. And when, at length, he discovered, concealed with his brother-in-law, the sons of Babas, distant relatives of the Machabean family, whom he had long sought for in vain, he had them put to death together with their protector. Only then did he feel sure that no Asmonean would endanger his possession of the Jewish throne.

Meanwhile, and also with a view to consolidate his power, Herod neglected nothing to keep up friendly relations with Rome. To please his then all-powerful patron, Antony, he gave up to Cleopatra—who exercised a controlling influence over Antony—a valuable part of his dominions, the fertile district of Jericho. Upon the fall of Antony at Actium (B.C. 31) he succeeded in making a friend of Octavius on the island of Rhodes. Not only did this new patron confirm him in his kingdom, but he greatly enlarged it. When Herod sent his two sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus, to Rome for their education, he received from Octavius a new increase of territory, and afterwards was appointed procurator of the province of Syria, and with such authority that his colleagues in command could take no step without his concurrence.


§ 2. Public Works

1. In Jerusalem. To establish himself still more in the favor of Augustus, Herod imitated him in great works of peace. He erected a theatre within the Holy City, and without the walls an amphitheatre in which he held games in honor of the emperor with horse and chariot races and the bloody fights of gladiators and wild beasts. He not only embellished the old residence of the Asmoneans which stood at the end of the bridge between the southern part of the Temple and the upper city, but built for himself in the upper city a royal palace with wide porticoes, rows of pillars and baths, and for the adornment of which he spared neither marble nor gold. Contiguous to that new palace arose three towers of great size and magnificence to which he gave the names of Hippicus, after one of his friends, Phasælus, after his brother, and Mariamne, after his beloved wife. He restored and enlarged the citadel, which he named Antonia, after his former patron. Finally, the most magnificent of all his buildings in Jerusalem was the Temple, which in its former condition was out of keeping with the beautiful recent structures in the Holy City, and which after its rebuilding by Herod became justly the greatest national glory of the Jews.

2. In Palestine and Foreign Countries. Herod’s love of building naturally extended to other places within his dominions. Samaria, already raised from its ruins by Gabinius, was now reconstructed in a magnificent style, fortified, and adorned with a temple in honor of Augustus; hence its new name of Sebaste (Augusta). Jericho received among other embellishments a theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome. In place of the ancient Capharsaba, Herod founded the city of Antipatris, thus named from his father; the new city of Phasælis arose north of Jericho; to one of the many strongholds which he built in various directions he gave the name of Herodium, and he took care that it should be supplied with rooms splendidly fitted up for his own use; other fortresses, like that of Machœrus, were restored and adorned with royal palaces. No less than twelve years of work were spent in raising a maritime city on the site of Straton’s tower, and which received the name of Cæsarea in honor of the emperor. Its exposed anchorage was slowly transformed into a safe harbor by a strong breakwater, which was carried far out into the Mediterranean, and from the quays which lined its harbor the stately city arose in the form of an amphitheatre. In its centre was a hill, on which Herod built a temple dedicated to Augustus, with two colossal statues, one of Rome, and the other of the emperor.

This munificence of the Jewish monarch was not, however, limited to his own dominions. “For the Rhodians he built at his own cost the Pythian temple. He aided in the construction of most of the public buildings of the city of Nicopolis, which Augustus had founded near Actium. In Antioch he caused colonnades to be erected along both sides of the principal street.… Tyre and Sidon, Byblus and Berytus, Tripolis, Ptolemais and Damascus were also graced with memorials to the glory of Herod’s name. And even as far as Athens and Sparta proofs of his liberality were to be found.”


§ 3. Social Life in Jerusalem

1. The Court and the Upper Classes. In his great desire to please Augustus and appear a liberal and cultured prince, Herod held a court whose splendor and general tone resembled in many ways that of the emperor. Like the Roman ruler, the king of Judæa surrounded himself with men accomplished in Greek literature and art, and many among them were placed in offices of trust or honor. Prominent among them was the historian, Nicholas of Damascus, on whom Herod relied implicitly, and to whom he intrusted all important and difficult diplomatic missions. Another Greek, a certain Ptolemy, was at the head of the royal finances, while other Greeks or half-Greeks acted as tutors or travelling companions to his sons. Foreign mercenaries surrounded his person, and in so far contributed to give to his court a non-Jewish aspect. Again, the personal example of the king, who had himself submitted to receive lessons from Nicholas of Damascus in philosophy, rhetoric, and history, contributed powerfully to make his various officers reach a wider and higher culture than that which had ever been witnessed at the court of the Asmoneans. Unfortunately the Jewish monarch ever remained a barbarian at heart, and his practice of polygamy, together with his suspicious temperament, greatly interfered with the peace and happiness of those immediately connected with him.

Under Herod the upper classes lost much of their hereditary power, and endeavored to make up for it by a life of luxury and enjoyment; yet the high priests continued to form an influential aristocracy.

2. The People and their Hatred of Herod. Amid all his power and glory, Herod himself realized how far he was from enjoying the good-will of his subjects at large. He knew that they murmured at his introduction of foreign and heathen practices, his arbitrary setting up and deposition of the high priests, his prodigal expenditure, and his terrible severity against his opponents. Hence he several times attempted to pacify the people by truly generous and liberal deeds; but their gratitude did not last long, and time and again serious conspiracies endangered his life.


§ 4. Religious Condition of the Jews

1. Jerusalem the Religious Centre of the Jewish World. In consequence of such popular opposition to his rule, as to that of a hated Idumæan and of a direct representative of the foreign and pagan authority of Rome, Herod carefully refrained from interfering with all that the worship of Jehovah in His own sanctuary required in the eyes of the Jews of Palestine and of the Dispersion. Under him, therefore, as under his predecessors, Jerusalem remained the great metropolis of Judaism. It was at the Holy City that the dispersed Jews regularly congregated in hundreds of thousands, bearing their yearly tribute and anxious to worship the God of their ancestors within the sacred precincts of His Temple. It was in the Holy City that each important section of the Hellenistic Jews had contributed to erect a beautiful synagogue, where those of the same tongue and country and interests could hold meetings of their own, and welcome their fellow-countrymen at the time of the annual festivals. It was in Jerusalem that the great masters of Israel, looked up to by the whole Jewish world, expounded the Law and the traditions of the elders, and from the Holy City that all the parts of the Eastern and Western Dispersion received the teachings of their fathers, the regulations for the feast-days, etc. All this had besides the advantage to secure for the capital of Judæa a commerce, an influence, a prestige which it would never have possessed otherwise, and, as long as he was able to control it by the free appointment or removal of the head of the Jewish hierarchy, Herod had no direct interest to interfere with it.

2. Heathenism Widespread in Palestine. That this conduct of the Jewish king was simply the result of expediency is made plain by his manner of action wherever he felt himself free to encourage heathenism. Not only far away, in Phenicia, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, he made himself the ostentatious patron of everything pagan, rearing temples, theatres, porticoes, gymnasia, etc., but also around the central district of Palestine, and even to some extent within its limits, he started or encouraged idolatry. Gaza, Ascalon, Dor, Cæsarea, Joppe, Samaria, Panias were desecrated by heathen temples, altars, idols, and priests. Even “in the Temple of Jerusalem the Grecian style of architecture was freely adopted. It is true that in the Temple proper Herod could not venture to forsake the traditional forms; but in the building of the inner fore-courts we see the influence of Greek models.” Indeed the king went so far as to place within its sacred precincts a number of trophies, and to display over its main entrance a golden eagle, the symbol of pagan Rome.

3. The Messianic Expectation. It is easy to understand how such unholy changes, forced upon the Jewish patriots and believers by the iron hand of the royal Idumæan, made them long ardently for the reign of the Messias, which their sacred books represented as a future kingdom of righteousness, and which their apocryphal literature—such writings, for instance, as the Sibylline Books, the Book of Enoch, and the Psalter of Solomon—described chiefly under the attractive images of material prosperity. False Messiahs made their appearance at the very moment of Our Lord’s stay in Egypt, and the message of John the Baptist, a little later, gave a new impulse to the general belief that the Messias was at hand. Not only the New Testament is full of references to such an expectation, but even pagan writers bear witness to it.

The full frame of mind of Our Lord’s contemporaries regarding the person and work of the Messias will be gradually unfolded in the course of the present work; yet, even from now, it may be useful to set forth the general belief of the time. According to the popular ideal, the Messias was to be primarily a political leader, a mighty deliverer of His people from the tyranny of its pagan oppressors, and also a restorer of the Jewish institutions in their primitive purity. Issued from David’s race and born in Judæa, He was expected to start a world-wide empire, of which Jerusalem would be the capital, and in which the sons of Abraham would be superior in things temporal as well as spiritual to the rest of the world. To be admitted into this Messianic kingdom it would be sufficient to observe the enactments of the Mosaic law, to which the Messias would Himself be subjected. Finally, a large number of Jews believed that if the nation was once engaged in such an extreme conflict with the Romans as to threaten Jerusalem and its Temple with destruction, the Messias must needs appear.

We shall see later on how Our Lord gradually modified these expectations.


§ 5. Last Period of Herod’s Reign

1. Domestic Affairs of Herod. The last period of Herod’s rule (B.C. 15–4) was disgraced by scenes of bloodshed still more awful than those which darkened its first years, and the history of his domestic affairs is that of a long succession of intrigues and murders. Antipater, his eldest son by his former wife Doris, accused his stepbrothers Alexander and Aristobulus of wishing to avenge upon Herod the death of Mariamne, their mother. Antipater was believed, as well as the court people whom the accuser had won over, and who were constantly inventing new reports. Accusations and reconciliations now alternated with each other; but the calumnies did not cease in the king’s palace till Alexander and Aristobulus were strangled by his order at Sebaste (B.C. 7). A multitude of Pharisees, with some of the courtiers who had conspired against Herod in favor of Pheroras, his brother, were put to death. Upon further inquiry, the death of Pheroras brought to light the whole secret history of years. He had died by taking poison sent by Antipater to dispatch Herod. Even the second Mariamne—the daughter of Simon the high priest—was proved to have been privy to the plot, and her son Philip was, on this account, blotted out of his father’s will (B.C. 5). Antipater, now unmasked, was handed over for trial to the Syrian proprætor. Easily convicted, he was led away in chains. At last the strong nature of Herod gave way under such revelations, a deadly illness seized him, and soon word ran through Jerusalem that he was no more. At once riots took place; but the troops were turned out and the unarmed rioters scattered; many who had been seized were put to death.

Antipater was executed only five days before his father’s demise. Herod died in the seventieth year of his age (750 U.C.).

2. Condition of Palestine at Herod’s Death. At the news of the tyrant’s death frightful anarchy prevailed in Palestine. The popular voice, backed up by tumult and riot, clamored for the redress of grievances, such as the diminution of public burdens, the release of the prisoners with whom Herod had crowded the dungeons, the abandonment of onerous taxes, etc. Very soon, in fact, Archelaus, to whom Herod had left by his last will the government of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, saw himself compelled to send a large body of troops against the rioters, 3000 of whom were slain.

A little later the Roman officials seized upon the treasures of the late king, and insurrection upon insurrection broke out against them. Even the troops of Herod wandered about in bands, plundering as they pleased, and false Messiahs appeared who assumed the diadem and gathered troops of bandits. Finally, a large number of the Jews had been so disgusted with the Herodian rule that they sent 500 of their number to Augustus to ask him not to ratify the will of the deceased monarch, and to suppress the royal authority in Judæa.

[Stone]

CHAPTER III - THE INCARNATION AND NATIVITY

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER III

I. THE INCARNATION.

1. The Annunciation
to Zachary: Conception and circumcision of the precursor.
to Mary: Place; Gabriel’s message; “the Word made Flesh.”

2. The Visitation.
Departure of Mary.
Scene on arrival (the Magnificat).

3. The Marriage of Our Blessed Lady.
Marriage Ceremonies in the East.
St. Joseph’s anxious misgivings removed.
The marriage itself.

   
II. THE NATIVITY.

1. Not in Nazareth.
The enrolment
Nature and extent.
Connection with Cyrinus.
The two genealogies (general features—theories).
Date of birth (approximative).

2. But in Bethlehem.
The town: situation and description.
The inn: An Eastern khan described.
The manger (cave, ox, and ass, etc.).

3. The Adoration of the Shepherds (Luke 2:18–20).



§ 1. The Incarnation

1. The Annunciation. Herod was still living when the birth of the precursor of Christ was foretold (October, 6 B.C.; 748 U.C.). Elizabeth, his mother, and Zachary, his father, both of priestly race, after having long prayed for a son, had now lost all hope to see this, their most ardent desire, fulfilled; but their request, we are told by the sacred narrative, was finally granted.

When the days of the ministration of the priestly course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, had come, he repaired to the Temple of Jerusalem to carry out whatever duties might be assigned to him by lot. To burn incense on the golden altar in the Holy Place was the most honorable of the functions of the simple priests, and this office now fell to Zachary. During this ceremony the people waited in the Court of Israel, praying in silence till the priest should reappear; and, as a rule, he never tarried in the Holy Place longer than was absolutely necessary. On that day the people waited long for Zachary, and when he came out he was speechless; hence, all understood that something extraordinary had happened. He had had a vision, which is recorded in St. Luke (1:11–20), and during which he was told by the angel Gabriel that Elizabeth should bear him a son whom he should call John, and who would be the holy precursor of the Messias.

The unbelief of Zachary at the voice of the angel had been punished by a temporary dumbness; and at the end of his week’s service he departed to his own house.

In due time a child was born to Elizabeth, and on the eighth day after his birth he underwent the rite of the circumcision, in which he received the name of John, as foretold by the angel. It was on the day of the circumcision of his son that Zachary recovered his power of speech, and uttered a beautiful canticle known as the “Benedictus,” from its first word in the Latin Vulgate. It is essentially a Messianic hymn, Hebraic in its language and conceptions. In the first part Zachary, speaking as a priest, praises God for the realization of all the Messianic hopes created by the prophets of the Old Testament; in the second part, speaking as a father, he addresses his son as destined to exercise a preparatory ministry to the Lord.

Six months after his appearance to Zachary, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth, a humble village unknown and unnamed in the Old Testament, and hidden away among the hills of Galilee. It is there that, far from their ancestral seat, Joseph and Mary lived, who were both of the tribe of Juda and the house of David; and it is to Mary “a virgin espoused to Joseph,” that the angel was directed. The precise place where he visited her is not indicated in the Gospel; but the Latin tradition, which affirms that he found Mary in a grotto over which stood the house which was ultimately carried by angels into Italy, agrees with the expression used in the inspired record: “And the angel being come in.”|

What follows in the sacred narrative is as simple and unpretentious as a legend of Oriental imagination would have been gorgeous and hyperbolical. The angel appeared probably under the form of a man, and saluted Mary with these remarkable words: “Hail, full of grace,”—a translation objected to by Protestant writers, chiefly because of erroneous dogmatic views,—“the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women.” At these words Mary was troubled; but after bidding her not to fear, Gabriel delivered his wonderful message, which summarized the principal Messianic predictions of the Old Testament, and by means of which Mary easily understood she was to be the mother of the Messias. Whereupon she humbly inquired, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” The angel told her that by His omnipotence, the Lord would make of her the virgin-mother of the Son of God. To this he added a suitable sign: the pregnancy of her cousin Elizabeth. Mary then believed in the infinite power of God, and submitted humbly to His eternal designs in these simple words: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to Thy word.” Then was it also that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” and became for us all a permanent source of grace and the Mediator of the new and eternal Covenant.

2. The Visitation (March–April, 749, 5 B.C.). From St. Luke’s statement (1:39) that “Mary went into the hill country with haste,” it may be inferred that she at once began her journey, even before she informed St. Joseph of the incomparable honor bestowed upon her. She wished to congratulate Elizabeth on her pregnancy revealed by the angel, and unite with her in praising God. It is beyond doubt that Joseph did not accompany Mary on her journey, but it is not unlikely that she was accompanied by some of her friends, or a body of neighbors going up to the Pasch, now near at hand.

She went to the “house of Zachary,” in the hill country of Juda. As the name of the town where Zachary resided is not indicated in the sacred text, several places are mentioned as having possibly given birth to the holy precursor: (1) Hebron, a very ancient city situated in the hill country, and pointed out by a Jewish tradition as St. John’s birthplace; (2) Yuttah, a town about 4 or 5 miles south of Hebron, a priestly town also, but without tradition connecting it with the birth of St. John; (3) Ain Karin, 4 miles west of Jerusalem, which Greek and Latin traditions concur in marking as the home of Zachary.

As the distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem is about 80 miles, if Zachary lived at Hebron, about 20 miles farther south, the whole journey would take up four or five days.

The scene on Mary’s arrival is very beautiful. It bears the impress of the holiest joy: Mary salutes first her cousin Elizabeth, and at once the yet unborn John leaps for joy and is sanctified in the womb of his mother; while Elizabeth herself, filled with enthusiasm, proclaims blessed the mother of her Lord. All this is manifestly the result of the presence of Our Lord, unseen, but inspiring all. Again, there is a great contrast between the excited enthusiasm of Elizabeth, who “cried out with a loud voice,” and Mary’s canticle, which breathes a sentiment of deep and inward repose, in harmony with her more complete and more constant dependence on the Holy Spirit.

The Magnificat is made up of three stanzas, in the first of which Mary praises God for His benefits to her; in the second she praises Him for His judgments over the world; in the third she praises Him for His mercy towards Israel. Commentators justly observe that the expressions of the Magnificat being almost entirely borrowed from the Old Testament poetry, Mary could easily give vent to her feelings of gratitude in the poetical form under which they have come down to us.

3. The Marriage of Our Blessed Lady. The marriage customs of the East have ever differed considerably from those in vogue among the Western nations.

After the selection of the bride, the espousals or betrothal took place, and were formal proceedings undertaken by a friend or legal representative on the part of the bridegroom, and by the parents on the part of the bride. The wedding itself was simply the removal of the bride from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom. But between the betrothal and the wedding an interval might elapse varying from a few days to a full year for virgins. During this period the communications between the bride and bridegroom were conveyed by “the friend of the bridegroom,” and the bride was considered as a wife, so that any unfaithfulness on her part was punishable with death, the husband having, however, the option of putting her away.

It is in the light of these Eastern customs that we should understand the marriage of our blessed Lady, as recorded by St. Matthew.

After an abode of about three months Mary left the house of Zachary to “RETURN TO HER OWN HOUSE.” This last expression seems to indicate that Mary, “betrothed” to St. Joseph, had not yet been taken to him, as we learn in a more explicit manner from the following words of the first gospel: “When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child.”

After Mary’s return to her own house her pregnancy was now so advanced that it was very soon noticed either by her parents or by the friend of the bridegroom: “She was found with child,” i. e., she was recognized as such, and the fact, being ascertained, was made known to Joseph.

Great was the anxiety of Joseph, her husband, at this news, for he was considered as such after the betrothal, and as a “just man,” i.e., a faithful observer of the Law, he felt bound to repudiate Mary. This he might do in two ways. He could either summon her before the law-courts to be judicially condemned and punished,—this course would have “PUBLICLY EXPOSED HER,”—or he could choose a milder course: he could put her away by a bill of divorce written before witnesses, but without assigning the cause of the divorce; and to this latter course he inclined: “being not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.”| While thinking on those things, viz., how to put her away, the angel of the Lord appeared to him and, manifesting the innocence of Mary, directed him to take her unto himself, i.e., to bring her into his housed.

Joseph, obedient to the divine command, took Mary, his wife, unto himself, “and he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son.”


§ 2. The Nativity

1. Christ Not Born in Nazareth. It might naturally have been expected that Mary’s child would have been born in Nazareth, but an enrolment prescribed by Augustus made a distant village the birthplace of Jesus. This enrolment was most likely a registration of persons and property, a census which would serve as basis for future taxation; and, as St. Luke tells us, it extended throughout the whole Roman empire.

Strong objection has been taken to the statement of the Evangelist that a universal census was carried into effect in Judæa before the death of Herod. In point of fact no explicit statement can be found in any contemporary writer concerning the taking of a universal census at this time. But many things make it probable that it was actually taken: (1) from his accession to the empire Augustus was anxious to have a uniform system of taxation applied to the provinces; (2) under him a census was certainly effected in provinces such as Gaul and Spain; (3) it is well established that he commenced, if he did not carry out, a complete geometrical survey of the empire; (4) several Latin writers refer to Augustus’s Breviarium Imperii, i.e., to a little book written out in the hand of the emperor himself, and treating of the number of his soldiers, of the taxes, imposts, etc., of the empire. Under Herod, Judæa was not yet, it is true, a Roman province, but its reduction to that condition sooner or later was already determined, and it is beyond question that if Augustus ever wished to have a census taken in Palestine during the lifetime of Herod, the obsequious king would not attempt to resist.

A still greater difficulty has been found in the statement of St. Luke that this enrolment took place when Cyrinus was governor of Syria, because it seems to conflict with the following data gathered from other sources: Cyrinus filled the governorship of that province some ten years later than this, and then took a census of Judæa. The actual governor of Syria at the time of the death of Herod—an event which is usually placed not long after Our Lord’s birth—was not Cyrinus, but Quintilius Varus. Nay, more, Tertullian, in his treatise against Marcion, affirms as a positive fact “that the census which could give official information regarding the family and descent of Christ had been taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus”—that is, by the immediate predecessor of Varus in the governorship of Syria.

It would be a long and tedious work even to enumerate all the theories which have been advanced to show how St. Luke’s statement harmonizes with the data which have just been mentioned, and the accuracy of which cannot well be denied. Suffice it to say (1) that recent investigations have proved that Cyrinus was twice governor of Syria, and (2) that it may be supposed that the census was begun by S. Saturninus, so that Tertullian could speak of it as taken by this officer, and that it was completed by Cyrinus during his first governorship: in this way St. Luke could no less accurately ascribe it to the latter.

In carrying out the imperial edict Herod was careful not to override the national customs of the Jews, according to which they should be enrolled at the place with which they were connected by the ties of tribe or family. This brought Joseph into Judæa, to the city of David, for, as we learn in detail from the two genealogies of Our Lord, Joseph was of the house and family of David.

Both genealogies manifestly profess to give the human pedigree of Our Lord, and yet they present several important differences. St. Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, begins with Abraham; St. Luke, writing for Gentile Christians, goes back to Adam, the father of all men. In St. Matthew the genealogies are introduced by the word “begot”; in St. Luke, by the genitive with the ellipsis of the word “son.” St. Luke gives twenty-one names between David and Zorobabel, whilst St. Matthew gives only fifteen, and all the names, except that of Salathiel, are different. Again, St. Luke gives seventeen generations between Zorobabel and Joseph, whilst St. Matthew gives only nine, and all the names are different. Finally, while St. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, St. Luke calls him the son of Heli.

Two principal theories deserve notice in connection with Our Lord’s genealogies. The first maintains that St. Luke gives the genealogy of our blessed Lady, while St. Matthew gives that of St. Joseph. This solution would indeed do away with all the differences mentioned above; unfortunately it finds no basis in tradition, and seems opposed to the natural meaning of St. Luke (3:23). The second theory considers both genealogies as the genealogies of St. Joseph; but while St. Matthew shows that Our Lord is the son of David by legal succession, St. Luke shows that He is such by natural succession. In this latter view both genealogies should also be considered as genealogies of Mary, inasmuch as, Mary being either the niece or the first cousin of Joseph, the ancestors of Joseph—both legal and natural—are also her ancestors.

Whatever may be thought of these opinions the Davidic descent of Christ had been predicted as one of the essential marks of His Messiahship, and its realization in Our Lord’s person is put beyond question by the testimony of the New Testament writers and of tradition.

It is at the end of the journey of Joseph to the seat of his ancestors that Mary—who had accompanied him, because doubtless at this particular time she was unwilling to be left alone at Nazareth—gave birth to Jesus, “her first-born Son.” This leads us to speak of the exact date of Our Lord’s birth.

The precise YEAR in which Christ was born is still a matter of discussion among scholars. They agree generally that, when in the 6th century our received chronology was framed, an error—which has hitherto remained uncorrected—was made in the calculation of the year of Our Lord’s birth: but they are at variance in their estimate of the extent of this error. The most common view among them is that the date of Our Lord’s birth was five years earlier than is represented in our common chronology (749 instead of 753 U.C.); and we may remark that this view harmonizes well with our data regarding both the latest and the earliest year at which the birth of Christ can be put.

The latest year to which Our Lord’s birth can be assigned would seem to be the year 750 U.C.; for on the one hand, St. Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, and not long before his death; and on the other hand, Josephus relates facts which point to the conclusion that the death of the Jewish king took place between the 13th of March and the 4th of April, 750.

The earliest year at which Our Lord’s birth can be put would seem to be 749 U.C.; for (1) at His baptism a few months before the Pasch of 780 U.C., Jesus was “about” thirty years of age, and the word “about,” under St. Luke’s pen, hardly allows us to admit that Christ was then one full year more or less than thirty; (2) the universal enrolment which was carried out in Judæa, and occasioned Our Lord’s birth in Bethlehem, must be put as near as possible to the beginning of the administration of Cyrinus, and Cyrinus was governor from the autumn of 750 to 753 U.C.

Thus, then, the choice remains possible between the latter part of 749 and the beginning of 750 U.C.; the probabilities are in favor of 749 U.C., or five years before the Christian vulgar era.

The month in which Our Lord was born may be determined in the following manner: From St. Luke| we gather that the conception of John the Baptist took place in either the month of April or of October, and counting onwards fifteen months—for six months intervened between the annunciation to Zachary and that to Mary, and nine months between this latter event and the birth of Jesus—we reach June and December, in one or other of which Christ’s birth is to be placed. Now when we bear in mind that in the night Our Lord was born the shepherds tended their flocks, we feel that the month of June cannot be thought of, because in this month the fields are absolutely parched around Bethlehem; in the month of December, on the contrary, the earth is clothed with rich verdure, so that this is most likely the month in which Jesus was born. In fact, an early tradition of the Church designates this month as the time of Our Lord’s birth.

The day itself on which Christ was born is believed to have been the 25th of December, through an immemorial tradition of the Western Church.

2. Birth of Christ in Bethlehem. It was, then, on this memorable day (25th of December, 749 U.C.), that the Incarnate Word of God was born in Bethlehem, the little city of David, according to the prophecy of Micheas (5:2).

The town, as it now stands, is situated about 5 miles south of Jerusalem, on a narrow ridge running pretty nearly east to west. The slopes of the ridge are in many parts covered by terraced gardens, shaded by rows of olives, with figs and vines. On the top of the hill lies the village in a kind of irregular triangle, at about 150 yards from the apex of which is the noble basilica of Justinian, now surrounded by three convents: Greek, Latin, and Armenian. The houses have flat roofs, and the streets are narrow and crooked; the population is about 8000 souls.

Joseph and Mary reached Bethlehem by the northwest, and on their arrival they failed to find accommodation in the inn, crowded by earlier comers. Then, as now, an Eastern inn was simply an enclosed space surrounded by open recesses, of which the paved floor is raised above the ground. In the centre there is the courtyard and water for the cattle; behind is found the stable, which in that region consists sometimes of a cave of limestone; and when no place can be had in the inn, travellers must be satisfied with a corner in the courtyard or else in the stable. So was it with Joseph and Mary when they reached the inn of Bethlehem, for the manger spoken of by St. Luke suggests that they either withdrew to the stable of the inn itself, or to some neighboring cave used at the time for the purpose of a stable. The cave, now shown as the Grotto of the Nativity, is southeast from the town and covered by the Latin convent. It has been modified through ages, and is now 38 feet long by 11 wide, and 9 feet high. A silver star in a marble slab at the eastern end marks the precise spot where Our Lord was born. Here is the inscription: Hic de virgine Maria, Jesus Christus natus est. Fine silver lamps are always burning around. The manger was taken to Rome in 1486 by Pope Sixtus V., but a marble one has taken its place.

The tradition, however ancient, which speaks of an ass and an ox as standing over the crib, is probably without sufficient grounds.

3. The Adoration of the Shepherds. The first to worship the new-born Saviour were humble shepherds who, on the night of Our Lord’s birth, tended their flocks in the fields, or on the eastern hills near Bethlehem. A brilliant light suddenly dazzled their eyes, and an angelic voice broke upon their ears. Bidding them not to fear, it announced the birth of the Lord Christ, and gave them a sign whereby they would find Him in the city of David. Instantly a heavenly choir chanted the praises of God, saying:

Glory to God in the highest,

On earth peace,

Good will towards men!

Obedient to the heavenly message, the shepherds hastened to make proof of the mysterious sign and found the Babe in the manger.

Having offered their homage to the divine Infant, they withdrew praising the God of Israel and proclaiming all that they had seen and heard.

[Stone]

CHAPTER IV - THE EARLY INFANCY
SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER IV

I. THE EIGHTH DAY AFTER THE NATIVITY

1. Circumcision and Naming of Our Lord.


II. THE FORTIETH DAY AFTER THE NATIVITY

1. The Two Ceremonies:
Purification of Mary Described.
Presentation of Jesus

2. The Two Meetings:
Simeon: The personage.
Canticle and words to Mary.
Anna the prophetess.
Historical Conclusion of St. Luke 2:39.


III. THE EPIPHANY

1. Adoration of the Magi:
1. Time of arrival of the Magi.
2. Country they came from:
Arabia?
Chaldæa?
Persia?
3. Their quality, number, and names.
4. The star (conjectures—how a sign to the Magi?).

2. Massacre of the Holy Innocents:
An historical fact.
Number of children murdered.

3. Flight into Egypt:
The road followed; the distance.
Place and length of sojourn.



§ 1. The Eighth Day after the Nativity

1. Circumcision and Naming of Our Lord. Born under the Law, our divine Lord willed to comply faithfully with its various prescriptions. Among the many rites it enjoined was the religious ceremony of the circumcision which every male child in Israel had to undergo as a sign of its incorporation into the chosen people of God. The rite was to be performed exactly on the eighth day after the birth of the child, even though it were a Sabbath day. On the eighth day, then, after His birth, Our Lord received in His sacred flesh the bloody incision, the spiritual import of which was death to sin.|

From the brief notice which St. Luke gives to Our Lord’s circumcision it may be inferred that everything took place according to the ceremonial with which it had gradually come to be surrounded; in presence of ten witnesses, the father, or some other member of the family, made the bloody incision and then pronounced the accustomed blessings.

The place where the ceremony was carried out is not mentioned in the Gospel, but it was most likely either the inn of Bethlehem, or the house where the Magi found Our Lord later on, and in which St. Joseph had provided accommodation as soon as possible for Jesus and Mary.

Together with the circumcision, Our Lord publicly received the name which had been destined for Him by God, the sacred name Jesus. This name corresponds to the Josue of the Old Testament, and means “JEHOVAH’S SALVATION”: it was given to Our Lord to indicate “that He should save His people from their sins.” The name of Jesus is the personal name of Our Lord, and that of Christ is added to it to identify Him with the expected Messias. It must be noticed that others besides Our Lord have borne the name of Jesus.


§ 2. The Fortieth Day after the Nativity

1. The Two Ceremonies of that Day Described. In connection with the birth of a male child, the Jewish Law required that the mother should remain forty days separated from holy things, and that at the end of this period she should appear at the Temple with the sacrifice of a yearling lamb for a burnt-offering, and a turtle dove or a young pigeon for a sin-offering. Those who could not afford to bring a lamb were allowed to offer a turtle dove or a pigeon as a substitute; and it is an evidence of the humble station of Mary that she brought two turtle doves—the offering which was permitted to the poor.

To comply with these requirements of the Law, Mary started for the Temple early on the fortieth day. She had to appear in the Court of the Women as soon as the morning incense had been offered. There her two turtle doves, bought either from the Temple officer, or from the merchants who had changed the Outer Court into a noisy bazaar, would be taken from her by the Levites into the Court of the Priests to be burned on the altar. After a time, a priest would come with some of the blood, and having sprinkled her with it, would pronounce her clean.

The second ceremony to be gone through on the fortieth day, was prescribed by the Jewish Law in connection with the birth of a first-born son. In order to keep alive the remembrance that God had delivered the Hebrews from Egypt by the death of the Egyptian first-born, the Law required that every first-born male should be sacred to Jehovah, and after subsequent modifications it finally prescribed that all the first-born should be presented before the Lord, as a symbolical act of surrender for His service, but they could be redeemed for five shekels (about $2.85), from the service of the tabernacle.

On the prescribed day, Joseph and Mary were in the Temple to present Jesus to God and redeem Him from the service of the altar. Joseph declared formally to the priest that Jesus was his first-born Son, whom he offered to him as to God’s representative. Upon being asked which he preferred, either to give up his first-born or to redeem Him, he answered that he wished to redeem Him, and handed the money to the priest with a prayer. The priest then proclaimed the redemption of the child, and concluded the ceremony with a prayer.

2. The Two Meetings on the Fortieth Day. While Joseph and Mary were still before the gate of the Court of the Israelites, a man named Simeon entered this same Court by the Nicanor gate. Traditions represent him as an aged man, and this is naturally suggested by his words, as recorded in St. Luke (2:29 sq.). Some attempts have been made to identify him with Rabban Simeon, the son of the great Hillel, and father of Gamaliel, who was afterwards president of the Sanhedrim.

The Gospel narrative describes him as a just and devout man in close union with God, whose mind was filled with an earnest longing for the Messias, as the “Consolation of Israel.” He had been favored with a divine assurance that he should not die until his desire had been fulfilled. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he came into the Temple and recognized in the holy Child the object of his ardent desires. Taking Him in his arms, he blesses God, and bursts forth into the canticle known in the evening office of the Church, as the “Nunc Dimittis.” Simeon desires no longer to live, for he has seen the Saviour promised by Jehovah to all nations—to the Gentiles as a light, and to the Jews as their glory. While Joseph and Mary were wondering at these words, Simeon blessed them in his transports of joy and love, and with prophetic insight spoke of the future of the Child and His mother.

At that instant, we are told, an aged woman (she was eighty-four years old) of the tribe of Aser, coming in, approached the gate. She had lost her husband after seven years of marriage, and had ever since persevered in her widowhood. Her long life had been spent in deeds of piety, either actually dwelling in the Temple or scarcely leaving it for necessary purposes. She also gave praise to Jehovah, and spoke of the Child to “all that looked for the redemption of Israel.”

St. Luke concludes this section of his Gospel by this statement, that when Joseph and Mary “had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city of Nazareth.” This seems to conflict with what is said in the narrative of St. Matthew, who places the flight into Egypt from Bethlehem and before the departure for Galilee. Several solutions of this difficulty have been proposed. By some it has been supposed that Joseph and Mary went at once to Nazareth to settle their affairs and came back to Bethlehem, their return being followed by the adoration of the Magi and the flight into Egypt. Others hold that they went to Galilee only after their return from Egypt, and that St. Luke fails here, as on other occasions, to mark accurately the sequence of events, either because he was not concerned about it or because he followed simply his sources of information, in which the order of events was not taken into account.


§ 3. The Epiphany

1. The Adoration of the Magi. The holy Child was sought and recognized not only by Jews (the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna), but also by representatives from the Gentile world. These were the Magi, who were seen in Jerusalem inquiring for the birthplace of the King of the Jews. The particular time at which this occurred has ever been a matter of discussion, although an early tradition places the visit of the Magi on the thirteenth day after Our Lord’s birth (January 6th), and this date seems to be in harmony with St. Matthew who apparently connects the adoration of the Magi directly with the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

It seems, however, impossible to place this event before the Purification in Jerusalem on the fortieth day, for Joseph, who left Bethlehem immediately after the departure of the Magi, remained in Egypt “till after the death of Herod,” that is, several months, and then withdrew to Galilee without coming to the Holy City.

The time at which the Wise Men arrived at Bethlehem may therefore be determined with considerable accuracy: they came after, and most likely only a few days after, the Purification. But the country from which they came cannot be indicated with the same amount of probability.

The Gospel tells us that the Magi came “FROM THE EAST,” a general expression which includes all the nations east of Jerusalem, even Arabia and Persia. Three countries in particular have been suggested by commentators: (1) Arabia, because the gifts offered by the Magi are native to this country, and also because of the prediction in Psalm 71:10, 15, “The kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts.… To him shall be given of the gold of Arabia.” But the gifts offered were common throughout the East, and Arabia is perhaps too far south; (2) Chaldæa, because more east than Arabia, and a great seat of astrology; (3) and with greater probability, Persia, because of the historical association of the word “Magi” with a priestly Persian caste, and also because early pictures in the catacombs represent the Magi wearing the Persian dress.

The name of Magi originally belonged to a high sacerdotal caste among the Persians and Medes. They formed the king’s privy council, and cultivated astrology, medicine, and occult natural sciences. During the time of the Chaldæan dynasty there also existed an order of Magi at the court of Babylon, of whom Daniel was made the president. Subsequently the name was applied to Eastern astrologers, interpreters of dreams, and even to those sorcerers who made pretension to supernatural knowledge. The whole story of the visit of the Magi leads us to admit that the Wise Men who came to worship Our Lord were not of this last description. That they were astrologers or students of the heavens may be inferred from St. Matthew (2:2), “we have seen His star in the East.” If they came from Persia, their name of Magi—which in Persian means priest—would naturally suggest that they belonged to the priestly caste of that country. They are often spoken of as kings: it is more probable, however, that this quality was ascribed to them on account of Psalm 71:10, and this only in the sixth century.

Early pictures in the catacombs represent three Magi worshipping the infant Jesus. The names of Melchior, Balthasar, and Caspar were given them only at a much later period.

Many conjectures have been made about the star which guided the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Some take it to have been an extraordinary meteor or comet, or a passing star such as has been seen in later times to blaze suddenly forth and rapidly disappear. The great astronomer Kepler calculated that some time before Our Lord’s birth (747 U.C.) there was a remarkable conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign of Pisces, to which in the spring following Mars was added: this conjunction many take as the star of the Magi. Others finally—and with greater probability—consider this star as a purely miraculous sign having the very peculiar motion indicated by St. Matthew (2:9), shedding down its rays in some remarkable way so as to indicate a peculiar spot, and bearing in the Gospel narrative the generic name of “star.”

But whatever the star was, the Wise Men took it as a sign of the birth of the great King of Judæa, the land ruled by that section of the heavens in which it was seen. They may have been helped to this conclusion by the prophecy of Balaam, by the prophecies of Daniel, and by the general expectation which at the time seems to have pervaded the East, that a king should arise in Judæa to rule the world; moreover, great multitudes of the Jews were spread through the East, and their Messianic hopes were most likely known to the Magi. However all this may be, the sight of the star and the inner workings of divine grace determined them to undertake a journey to the far-distant land of the Jews.

After a journey of about four months, if they started from Persia, and of about seventy days, if they came from Chaldæa, the Magi arrived at the Jewish capital expecting to obtain there full information about the particular place where the new King of the Jews was born. Their question much more than their dress excited the curiosity of the Holy City.

Scarcely was Herod informed of their question, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” when he trembled for his crown and formed an artful plan to get rid of the royal descendant of David, whom all expected at that time as the Messias. He therefore consulted the chief priests and scribes as to the place where this great monarch should be born, and the Magi regarding the time when the star had appeared. Then he sent the latter away to Bethlehem, the city of David, bidding them return and report the finding of the Babe to him, on the pretext that he, too, wished to worship Him.

As they went, the star reappeared, and guided them to “the house” where Jesus was. Entering, they fell down before the Babe and presented their gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh; after which, in compliance with a divine warning, they left for their own country without coming back to Jerusalem.

2. The Massacre of the Holy Innocents. The departure of the Magi from Bethlehem was soon reported to Herod, for this village is but a few miles distant from the Holy City. In a frenzy of passion the aged tyrant gave orders for the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem and its neighborhood “from two years old and under.” This fact is not recorded by Josephus, it is true; but his silence may be accounted for in various ways. Neither is it mentioned by heathen writers; but they knew little about Jewish internal history. At any rate, the order to slaughter the Holy Innocents is in full accordance with the historical character of Herod as we described it in Chapter II.

Herod’s edict extended to “Bethlehem and its neighborhood”; its victims were to be children “of two years old and under.” This latter expression indicates that on the one hand two years was the extreme limit beyond which the tyrant did not think it necessary to go, and that on the other hand he did not know what exact relation the time of the appearance of the star had to the birth of Jesus.

The number of children cannot have been large: perhaps fifty were slain; some writers even conjecture that the number did not exceed ten or fifteen.

3. The Flight into Egypt. Upon the departure of the Magi, St. Joseph, warned from heaven, fled into Egypt with the mother and the divine Infant, so that the cruelty of Herod missed its mark.

The route followed by the Holy Family was, according to tradition, by way of Hebron, Gaza, and the desert; and as this is the most direct way, it is very likely the true one. A few hours sufficed to place them out of danger; and after about three days’ journey they reached the Egyptian boundary.

Egypt was, at the time, a convenient place of refuge, because easily reached from Judæa, outside of Herod’s power, and full of Jewish residents. The particular place where St. Joseph settled in this foreign land is probably Metaryîeh, near Heliopolis, and about two hours distant from Cairo. There he waited until he received a new message from heaven, i.e., “until the death of Herod.”

[Stone]

LIFE OF CHRIST IN NAZARETH

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER V

I. FIRST YEARS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS:
1. The Return from Egypt:
    At what time?
    By what road?

2. Developments of His Human Life:
    Physical: developments both real and normal.
    Mental: Apparent: words of St. Luke.
    Real: Protestant views.
          Catholic teaching.

3. Apparition among the Doctors:
    At the age of twelve.
    Appeal of Mary. Response of Jesus.


II. YOUTH AND EARLY MANHOOD OF CHRIST:
1. His Surroundings:
    The Place:
    The province of Galilee described.
    The town of Nazareth.
    The People:
      A mixed population.
      The Jewish element.
    Family and Relatives:
    Parents: St. Joseph disappears.
    “Brothers and Sisters”:
    Not full brothers and sisters.
    Either half brothers and sisters,
    Or only cousins.

2. His Occupations:
    The trade of St. Joseph.
    No special training under any great Rabbi.
    The rest: A matter of conjecture.



§ 1. First Years of the Life of Jesus

1. Our Lord’s Return from Egypt. The date of Our Lord’s return from Egypt is intimately connected with the date of Herod’s death. For on the one hand, the Gospel tells us that St. Joseph remained in Egypt till he received word from God, and on the other hand, there are good grounds to admit that St. Joseph received the divine message very soon after the death of Herod, and that he then did not delay, but rather hastened his return.

Considering how numerous were the Jews in Egypt, how constant their communications with Palestine, how great their hatred of Herod, it is certain that the news of Herod’s death would have soon reached St. Joseph in the ordinary way; but it was first made known to him by the angel of the Lord, so that a very short interval must be admitted between the death of the monarch and the angelic message. That St. Joseph hastened his return upon this divine message is implied in the fact that he did not know that Archelaus was Herod’s successor till he reached the Holy Land. Now, as is very probable, Herod died in April, 750 U. C., so that Our Lord’s return is most likely to be placed in this same year, after about two months of sojourn in Egypt.

The intention of Joseph was to settle down in Bethlehem as the proper place in which to rear the Son of David, near Jerusalem, from which the Messias was expected to extend His rule over the world. He therefore started by the great caravan road which connects Egypt with Damascus. This road passes by Gaza and Ramleh; and it is probably in this last-named town—which is connected by a branch road with Jerusalem—that Joseph, in obedience to a new divine message, gave up his purpose to reside in Bethlehem, and withdrew into Galilee. To reach this province, now under the rule of Herod Antipas, he had only to pursue his way on the caravan road, first northward through the plain of Saron, and next eastward across the mountains, into the plain of Esdrælon. A little north of the plain of Esdrælon lies the upland town of Nazareth, in which Joseph took up his abode again, and in which “THE CHILD GREW AND WAXED STRONG.”

2. Developments of Our Lord’s Human Life. The words of St. Luke, just quoted, point to what all grant to have been the real condition of Our Lord’s physical life, viz., a condition of natural development. After its miraculous conception in the virginal womb of Mary, Our Lord’s body was subject to the ordinary laws of growth: from helpless infancy it passed through the stage of childhood, and the natural increase in strength and age,| into the full vigor of man’s estate. The physical developments of Christ’s human life were then both real and normal.

As to the developments of His mental life, they are the object of considerable difficulty. When St. Luke writes (2:52) “AND JESUS INCREASED IN WISDOM AND AGE,” it is plain that the Evangelist refers to such an intellectual growth of Our Lord as appeared to His contemporaries no less real than His actual increase in years and bodily strength. The difficulty is to know whether such growth was real after the manner in which the mind of a child gradually expands into all manner of knowledge.

Here, recent Protestant writers depart considerably from the teachings of past ages. They admit that the growth undergone by Our Lord’s mind was a strictly human growth, with all its weaknesses and imperfections and its gradual acquisition of positive knowledge. According to them, Jesus did not know from the beginning that He was the true Son of God; and it was only after long years of prayer and reflection that He became absolutely sure of His Messianic calling. Such a conception of Our Lord’s mental life is hardly reconcilable with His divine character, and contradicts not only the constant teachings of ecclesiastical tradition, but also the impression which the Gospel narrative produces upon the mind of an impartial reader, concerning Our Lord’s knowledge during His mortal life.

The common teaching of Catholic theologians is entirely different. They admit that Our Lord’s mind was endowed with a twofold knowledge which was not susceptible of increase, viz.: the beatific vision and an infused knowledge, in virtue of which He was ever “full of wisdom and of truth.” But besides, they hold that His mind acquired an experimental knowledge, the actual development of which depended upon the natural and gradual exercise of His mental powers acting on the data of His senses, and in virtue of which He was truly advancing in wisdom as He increased in age. Such a co-existence of growth in knowledge, with a possession of all its ultimate results, is not without parallel in ordinary human life; the telescope, for instance, may verify a result of which we have been previously informed by a mathematical calculation; and we are all constantly learning by direct observation, things already known to us.

3. Our Lord’s Apparition among the Doctors. At the age of twelve, a Jewish boy began to be instructed in the Law and to be subject to its regulations. Among these stood prominent the obligation to appear before the Lord three times a year, and as Joseph and Mary had no longer to fear the cruelty of Archelaus, who had been banished the year before by Augustus, they took up with them to the Holy City, and for the first time, the Child Jesus.

This was on the occasion of the Paschal feast of the year 761 U.C. [8 A.D.]. It was the greatest of all the Jewish solemnities, lasted seven days, and was attended by countless Jews who came to Jerusalem from every part of the world. When the seven days were over and the various caravans formed of kinsmen and fellow countrymen proceeded on their homeward journey, relatives could easily be separated without feeling any anxiety. Thus it was that Joseph and Mary did not feel any anxiety when they first noticed the absence of Jesus; they simply thought that “He was in the company,” and that they would easily find Him at the end of their first day’s journey home, most likely at Beeroth, about 10 miles north of Jerusalem. Not finding Him, however, “AMONG THEIR KINSFOLK AND ACQUAINTANCE,” they spent the next day in returning to the Holy City and seeking Him there. But it was only on the following day—the third after the separation—that they found Him within the sacred precincts of the Temple.

The precise part of the Temple where Our Lord was sitting with the Jewish doctors cannot be identified with certainty. It was most likely, however, the Hall of Gazith, where the Sanhedrim, together with the scribes, ordinarily assembled. During the Paschal festivities in particular, the eminent Jewish doctors of the time sat surrounded by great throngs eager to be instructed by them. Jesus was among their auditors, and He soon astonished all by His questions and answers.

At the sight of Jesus, Mary could not help addressing to Him a maternal reproach, which was at the same time an appeal to His filial love for Joseph and for her. “Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Behold Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.” To this tender appeal of His mother Jesus made an answer full of mysterious meaning: “How is it that you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about the things that are My Father’s?” Even Joseph and Mary did not realize the full sense of these words, for we are expressly told that “they understood not the word that He spoke unto them.”


§ 2. Youth and Early Manhood of Christ

1. His Surroundings. The return of Jesus to Nazareth was followed by a long period of silent subjection and obscurity, of which the Gospel narrative says nothing, beyond this brief statement: “He (Jesus) went down with them (Joseph and Mary), and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.” But, with our present knowledge of the circumstances of the time and place, it is possible, and may prove interesting, to obtain a distinct idea of Our Lord’s surroundings during the long years of obscurity which preceded, and in some measure extended to, His public ministry.

The province in which Jesus spent no less than thirty years of His mortal life is Galilee, the northernmost of the three parts of Palestine, west of the Jordan. It lay almost wholly inland, and was divided into Upper and Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee comprised the mountain range, a prolongation of Anti-Lebanon, which lay between Phenicia and the upper Jordan. As the town of Capharnaum was in Upper Galilee, this district must have touched to the east the lake of Genesareth, while to the west it reached to the coast of Tyre and Sidon. Upper Galilee was more especially the “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Lower Galilee included the great triangular plain of Esdrælon, with its offshoots which run down to the Jordan and the lake of Genesareth, and the whole of the hill country adjoining it on the north, to the foot of the mountain range.

From the writings of Josephus it may be gathered that the Galilee of Our Lord’s time had a rich and well-cultivated soil, that it abounded in fruit and forest trees, and that numerous large towns and populous villages—amounting to no less than 240—thickly studded the face of the country. And there is no doubt that Lower Galilee, in particular, was ever one of the richest and most beautiful sections of the Holy Land.

The town of Nazareth—called Our Lord’s “own country” in the Gospels, lies on the western side of a small valley of Lower Galilee, a little north of the plain of Esdrælon, about 14 miles from the Sea of Galilee and 66 miles north of Jerusalem, in a straight line. It is reached from the plain of Esdrælon by rocky and precipitous paths, and its population in Our Lord’s day is variously estimated from 5000 to 15,000 inhabitants. Its flat-roofed houses are to-day, in general, built of stone, and have a neat and comfortable appearance, but its streets or lanes are narrow and crooked, and after rain are so full of mud and mire as to be almost impassable. Nazareth enjoys a mild atmosphere and climate, and all the fruits of the country—as pomegranates, oranges, figs, olives—ripen early and attain a rare perfection. Its present population is about 7500 souls. At the northeast of the town is the Fountain of the Virgin, whither, it is supposed, Jesus often accompanied Mary when she went to draw water, as the women of Nazareth do in the present day.

The village is surrounded by some fifteen heights, several of which rise to an altitude of 400 or 500 feet. They have rounded tops and present a pleasing aspect, diversified as they are with the foliage of fig trees, wild shrubs, occasional fields of grain, and countless gay flowers. From the top of the hill northwest of Nazareth there is a most remarkable view often described by travellers, and preferred by Porter even to that which is enjoyed from the top of Mount Thabor. Finally, a prevalent tradition indicates as the Mount from the summit of which the inhabitants of Nazareth wished to throw Our Lord, a hill about 2 miles southeast of the town.

If from the country and town we pass to the people in the midst of which Jesus spent His youth and early manhood, we easily notice that it was a mixed population, the various foreign elements of which—Assyrians, Phenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs—had been brought thither by trade, exercise of power, or the natural intermingling of the neighboring populations, as Galilee was the great thoroughfare between Syria and Egypt. The Galilean Jews were fervent worshippers of Jehovah, and crowded to the Holy City at the feasts and to the local synagogues on Sabbath days. Far from admitting new doctrines, they remained extremely faithful to the Law, most likely because of the influence of the Pharisees and doctors of the Jews, who seem to have been settled in every town. Contact with strangers did nor affect their morals, and their courage could not be questioned; and yet they were despised by the Jews of the south, who boasted to live near the Temple, amid a less mixed population, on a holier soil, to possess a greater culture and to speak a purer dialect.

That Nazareth had a worse name among them than any other Galilean town is not proved.

In the home itself at Nazareth we find two persons most dear to Jesus and whom the gospels call His parents; 1. Mary, His true mother, of the race of David, married young to Joseph, and who survived both Joseph and Jesus. 2. Joseph, a descendant of David, working at his trade for his daily bread, the foster-father of Jesus, and who died before Him—a tradition says when Jesus was eighteen years old.

Besides His parents Our Lord had relatives, who lived also in Nazareth, and perhaps under the same roof with Him. They are indeed called in the gospels “HIS BROTHERS” and “HIS SISTERS,” never His cousins or kinsmen; but all grant that this does not necessarily define the degree of relationship which they bore Him, and in fact scholars are still divided respecting this difficult question.

Many Protestant writers think that these relatives were the full brothers and sisters of Jesus, or children both of Joseph and Mary, the mother of the Lord. This view would have the advantage that it takes the words “brothers” and “sisters” in their strictest natural sense; and after having been admitted by ancient heretics, written down by St. Jerome, it has been revived in Germany by Herder, Strauss, etc.; in England by Alford, Edersheim, etc.; and in America by Schaff, Lyman Abbott, Easton, Gould, etc. But it is irreconcilable with the ancient and constant tradition of the Church, which has made the perpetual virginity of Mary an article of Catholic belief. It is also repugnant to the common instinct of Christians, who have ever felt “that the selection of a woman to be the mother of the Lord carries with it as a necessary implication that no other could sustain the same relation to her, and that the selection of a virgin still more necessarily implied that she was to continue to be so.” Even from a lower standpoint this view is hardly compatible with the fact that our dying Saviour intrusted His mother to St. John, if she had other children to take care of her. Finally, while the words “brother,” “sister,” may certainly be understood otherwise than in their strict natural sense, it is significant that nowhere in the gospels are those relatives of Jesus called the children of Mary, the mother of the Lord. It is plain, therefore, that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were not His full brothers and sisters.

When this erroneous view has been set aside two opinions remain, each with its respective amount of probability. The first maintains that these relatives of Our Lord were only His half-brothers and half-sisters, or children of Joseph by a former marriage. This view goes back to the earliest ages of Christianity; it has been admitted by many of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and is in the present day the current notion of the Greek Church. It does not present any unsurmountable difficulty, and has the advantage that it takes the words “brothers,” “sisters,” in a natural sense.

The second opinion takes the words “brothers,” “sisters,” in a broad sense as equivalent to “cousin.” This view was strongly advocated, and, indeed, to all appearance, started, by St. Jerome. Under the influence of this great Doctor it has become the current opinion of the Latin Church. There is no doubt that the words “brother,” “sister,” may be understood as equivalent to “cousin.” Again, if Our Lord had no brother in the natural sense of the term we understand easily why He gave John to Mary as her son. It has also been noticed that Jesus is designated at Nazareth by an appellation usual to the only son of a widow. For these and other such reasons this third opinion remains very probable, although its partisans seem, at times, to rely too much on conjectures to strengthen their position.

2. Our Lord’s Occupations. The life of Jesus in Nazareth was indeed a life of obscurity. Subject to His parents, as all good children are, He was simply known as the “carpenter’s son” and as the “carpenter.” This last expression implies that He had learned and that He actually toiled at the humble trade of His foster-father. We can gather also that He received none of the curious learning of the time, and was subjected to no special training under any great rabbi, such as St. Paul had under Gamaliel: for we are told that “the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?”|

This is all we know for certain about Our Lord’s occupations during His youth and early manhood. Several attempts have been made to fill up the gaps of the sacred narrative and to present a fuller picture of the life of Jesus in Nazareth.

The first of these attempts goes back to the early times of Christianity, when it gave birth to legendary accounts, samples of which have come down to us in the gospel of Thomas and the Arabic gospel of the infancy. No one can peruse these apocryphal gospels without feeling of how little use they must ever remain to complete the picture drawn from the sacred text. They hardly ever record a fact of real importance not already supplied by our canonical gospels, while they abound in wonders which they ascribe to Jesus, and of a character always unlikely, sometimes even childish.

This is also the case, to a large extent, with the descriptions of Our Lord’s life in Nazareth which were drawn during the Middle Ages. They breathe the childlike piety of the time, but also bespeak its great lack of acquaintance with Oriental customs and manners. Only in our century have really scientific efforts been made to retrace in descriptions that would be true to life the youth and early manhood of Christ. Contemporary scholars have availed themselves of all the sources of information at their disposal to describe accurately the manner of life of a young and poor artisan of Galilee in the time of Christ, and they bid us contemplate in the picture thus drawn a faithful image of Our Lord’s life in Nazareth. Like the other young men of His time and country, we are told, Jesus frequented the school of Nazareth and received the ordinary instruction imparted there; attended divine service in the synagogue of that city on the Sabbath and festival days; went up with the Galilean caravans to Jerusalem for the yearly celebration of the Pasch, etc. Of course, as the divine character of Jesus remained absolutely concealed during this period of His life, it is only natural to picture Him to ourselves as conforming to the ordinary ways of the young men of His time and condition. It remains true, however, that we have no positive information about the extent it pleased the Son of God to conform to, or dispense with, the natural conditions of the time, so that many features of His life in Nazareth as described by recent scholars must ever appear an object of more or less plausible conjecture.

[Stone]

CHAPTER VI. THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF THE JEWS DURING THE LIFETIME OF JESUS

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER VI

I. SOCIAL CONDITION:
1. The Sons of Herod the Great:

Herod Philip II.
  Men;
  titles;
  territories.
Herod Antipas
Archelaus

2. Immediate Roman Domination over Judæa:
When imposed?
How exercised?
Under Augustus.
Under Tiberius.

3. The Internal Divisions:
Pharisees
  Origin;
  tenets;
  influence.
Sadducees
Essenes
Samaritans


II. RELIGIOUS CONDITION:

1. The Temple of Jerusalem:
  Situation and general aspect.
  Description of enclosures and of Temple proper.
2. The Aaronitical Priesthood:
  The simple priests.
  The high priest (social and religious influence).

3. The Synagogues:
  Origin and development.
  Organization and authority.

4. The Scribes:
  Who they were and how divided?
  On what did they rest their traditions?

5. The Sanhedrim:
Origin, constitution and authority.



§ 1. Social Condition

1. The Sons of Herod the Great. The last will of Herod the Great having, after a time, been confirmed by Augustus, Palestine was divided between three of his sons:

(1) Herod Philip II., a son of Herod and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, became tetrarch of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and the district of Panæas. He was a just and moderate ruler, entirely devoted to the duties of his office. He rebuilt Panæas, near the sources of the Jordan, and called it Cæsarea, in honor of the emperor. As he left no children, at his death his dominions were annexed to the Roman province of Syria. He ruled thirty-seven years, from B.C. 4 to A.D. 34.

(2) Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan, was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa. In character he was unscrupulous, tyrannical and weak, cruel and cunning,| though not remorseless. He was a truly Eastern despot, capricious and sensual. In defiance of the Jewish law he had married the wife of Herod Philip—his brother, who was then living as a private citizen in Rome—and this led him to the murder of John the Baptist. It was before this prince that Our Lord appeared at the time of His passion.

His greatest architectural work was the erection of a city which he called Tiberias, in honor of the emperor. After his banishment to Lyons, in Gaul, his territories were given to Herod Agrippa I., his nephew. He was tetrarch forty-one years, from B.C. 4 to A.D. 38.

(3) Archelaus, like Herod Antipas, was a son of Herod and Malthace. He did not enter upon his possessions without opposition and bloodshed, but Augustus confirmed the will of Herod in its essential provisions. Archelaus received the title of ethnarch, with the promise of that of king if he should rule to the satisfaction of Augustus. His territories included Idumæa, Judæa, and Samaria. By his tyranny and cruelty he roused his subjects to appeal to Rome for redress. He appeared before the emperor, and after his cause was heard he was banished to Vienna, in Gaul. After a rule of ten years (B.C. 4 to A.D. 6) his territories were annexed to the Roman province of Syria, and thus Judæa was placed under the immediate Roman domination.


2. The Immediate Roman Domination over Judæa. The Jews had asked for this direct government of Rome at the death of Herod the Great, in the hope that the Romans would allow them to manage their national affairs after their own customs, under their high priests. This hope was revived by the banishment of Archelaus, but it did not last long. Judæa and Samaria were united to Syria, of which Publius Cyrinus was made president or proprætor, while the immediate direction of affairs was given to a procurator, residing at Cæsarea. The powers of this inferior officer cannot be exactly defined. In general, he was subject to the president of the province; yet, in districts lying far from the main province, he seems to have had a large discretionary power, a considerable number of troops at his disposal, and, in certain cases, the power of life and death.

The immediate Roman domination was exercised over the various provinces of the empire in an irritating, vexatious, and oppressive manner, but it was particularly so in Judæa, on account of the peculiar character of the Jews, which contrasted so much with that of the Romans.

It must be said, however, that under Augustus the rule of Rome over the Jews was fairly tolerable; but the exercise of the Roman power required chiefly two taxes: a poll and a land tax, the latter tax amounting to one-tenth of all grain and two-tenths of fruit and wine. To establish these taxes a second census was necessary. The fiercer spirits in Judæa rebelled at the idea that the fruits of a land consecrated to Jehovah should be given to pagan strangers, and that tithes to be paid to God alone should henceforth be paid to a heathen lord. Judas, the Galilean, led the insurrection against the census: he perished, and his followers dispersed.

Towards the close of the reign of Augustus the procurators of Judæa succeeded one another rapidly; but his successor, Tiberius, pursued a different policy. During his long reign Judæa had only two procurators: Valerius Gratus (A.D. 15–26) and Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26–36).

Under Gratus things went from bad to worse. He changed the high priests five times in eleven years, and the load of public taxes became so unendurable that the Jews appealed to Rome for relief; but in all probability their entreaties did not bring them any alleviation of misery. The successor of Gratus was Pontius Pilate, the very type of the rich and corrupt Roman of his age. He was a worldly-minded statesman, conscious of no higher wants than those of the present life, yet by no means unmoved by feelings of justice and mercy. But all his better feelings were overpowered by a selfish regard for his own security.

As specimens of his administration we may notice the four following facts:

(1) He transferred the winter quarters of the army from Cæsarea to Jerusalem; hence the soldiers introduced into the Holy City the Roman standards, on which were the image of the emperor and the imperial eagle. No previous governor had ventured on such an outrage and Pontius Pilate had sent his men in by night. The Jews poured down in crowds to Cæsarea to obtain from him the removal of the odious symbols. Pilate yielded after five days of resistance, and the standards were withdrawn.

(2) On another occasion he hung up in his palace, at Jerusalem, some gilt shields which were simply inscribed with the names of the donor and of the deity to which they were consecrated. This the Jews so resented that they appealed to Tiberius, and they obtained the removal of the shields objected to.

(3) On the appropriation by Pilate of the revenue arising from the redemption of vows to the construction of an aqueduct a riot ensued. It was suppressed by means of soldiers sent among the crowds, armed with concealed daggers, and who slew not only rioters, but also casual spectators. The aqueduct was completed without further hindrance.

(4) Later on he slaughtered certain Galileans at some great festival at Jerusalem. This apparently took place in the Outer Court of the Temple, since the blood of the worshippers was mingled with their sacrifices.

The conduct of Pilate was equally tyrannical towards the Samaritans; and on their complaint to Vitellius, then president of Syria, he was ordered to go to Rome, whence it seems Caligula banished him to Vienna, in Gaul.


3. The Internal Divisions. The Pharisees formed the most prominent party or guild among the Jews during the lifetime of Our Lord. As their name indicates, they originally arose as champions of the separateness of the Jewish people from other nations. They consequently held fast by the distinctive beliefs of the Jewish race, as, for instance, the hope of a great national deliverer in the person of a Messias, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, of a divine Providence, of an oral tradition equal in authority with the written law. Nor were they less zealous in carrying out the external observances of their ancestors, such as fasts, prayers, tithes, ablutions, sacrifices, etc. They were ardent patriots, ever willing to lay down their lives for the national independence, and hating the foreign yoke with a bitterness mingled with scorn. The multitudes, although not actually enrolled among the Pharisees, were under their sway, and zealously adhered to a party so intensely national in politics and orthodox in religion. To the Pharisaic party belonged also most of the scribes. Finally, although there were found noble characters among the leaders of the party, self-conceit, arrogance, and hypocrisy had become the general characteristics of the sect.

The origin of the Sadducees is probably to be traced to a natural tendency opposed to that which gave birth to the Pharisaic party, viz., the desire to tide closely with the ruling power. Their opposition to the Pharisees extended both to religious tenets and to social customs. They notably denied the immortality of the soul, the existence of a divinely revealed oral tradition, etc. They ridiculed Pharisaic exclusiveness, affected Greek culture, enjoyed foreign amusements, and thought it useless to fight for the freedom of their country. They belonged chiefly to the upper and wealthy classes, and formed a kind of priestly aristocratic party in close alliance with the ruling power; an extreme section of them were the Herodians.

The origin of the Essenes is very obscure. In the time of Josephus, the Essenes lived in small colonies or villages at long distances from the towns, principally in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea. The differences between them and the Pharisees lay mainly in rigor of practice and not in articles of belief. Those who wished to join them had to pass through two periods of probation. They employed themselves chiefly in agriculture and were devoted to silence and contemplation. Some of them lived in ordinary society, as, for instance, Menahem, a friend of Herod; but they generally formed an exclusive and isolated community. Their organization resembled closely that of our monastic orders.

For centuries the Samaritans had been despised by the Jews, as a mixed race descending from the Assyrian colonists who had settled in the land of Israel when the northern kingdom was destroyed in the eighth century before Christ. At the time of Our Lord, the hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans had reached its climax; and this is explained by several contemporary events: notably, by the connivance of the Samaritans with Herod the Great before his accession to the Jewish throne, by the favor which that prince ever showed to them, by their willing submission to the census and their ready adoption of Roman usages, and finally, by their daring violation of the Temple of Jerusalem during a Paschal festival.


§ 2. Religious Condition

1. The Temple of Jerusalem. The great centre of the religious life of the Jews during the lifetime of Our Lord was the Temple of Jerusalem. Herod had rebuilt it on its original site, Mount Moria, east of the Holy City. He had, however, considerably enlarged its enclosure to the south; and it is very probable that the present enclosure of the so-called Mosque of Omar represents that of the Temple as enlarged by Herod the Great.

When we think of the Jewish Temple, our impulse is to picture to ourselves some building like a classical temple or a great cathedral. But the first effort of our imagination should be to picture to ourselves a system of structures, one quadrangle within another, the second standing upon higher ground than the outermost, and the Temple proper upon a position highest of all. We should imagine the appearance of a wide open space spoken of by the prophets as “THE COURT OF JEHOVAH’S HOUSE,” while “THE HOUSE” itself, or Temple proper, was erected on the highest of a series of successive terraces, which rose in an isolated mass from the centre of the Court, or rather nearer to its northwestern corner.

The Outer Court—the first to be entered when approaching the Sacred Mount—was called “the Court of the Gentiles,” not because it was set apart for them, but because Gentiles rigorously excluded from every other portion of the Temple enclosures were permitted, with all others, to enter there. In form it was a quadrangle, surrounded by a strong and lofty wall, with but one gate to the east, one to the north, four to the west, and two to the south. On the inner sides of this wall extended porticoes or cloisters of white marble Corinthian columns: the ceiling was flat and finished with cedar. On three sides there were two rows of columns, but on the southern side, the cloister (the Royal Porch) deepened into a fourfold colonnade, and its axis was in a straight line with the axis of the colossal bridge which spanned the Tyropœon valley. These porticoes or porches around the Court of the Gentiles were most convenient places for friendly or religious intercourse, for meetings or discussions. The open court was paved with stones of various colors, and in it the buyers and sellers congregated.

From near the middle of the Court of the Gentiles arose the series of enclosed terraces, on the summit of which was the Lord’s house. This more sacred ground was fenced off by low balustrades of stone, along which, at regular intervals, stood pillars with inscriptions in Greek and Latin, warning Gentiles not to proceed farther, on pain of death. Besides this barrier, a separation was formed by a flight of fourteen steps leading up to a platform or narrow terrace, beyond which arose the wall of the Inner Court with its four gates to the north and to the south, and one to the east.

The eastern portion of this second quadrangle or Inner Court was called the Court of the Women, not because it was set apart exclusively for their use, but because they were not allowed to advance beyond it. This court covered a space of more than 200 feet square, and its eastern gate—which formed the principal entrance into the Temple—was the Beautiful Gate. All round the court ran a simple colonnade, and within it was the Treasury; finally, in each of its four corners were chambers, one of which was for the performance of the vows of the Nazarites.|

From the western side of the Court of the Women fifteen semicircular steps led through the Gate of Nicanor into the narrow Court of Israel, reserved for the men who had accomplished certain acts of purification. Two steps led up from the Court of Israel to the Court of the Priests, with which it practically formed but one court, divided into two by a low balustrade one and one-half feet high. A colonnade ran around three sides of the Court of the Priests; and among its many chambers we may notice the hall Gazith, the meeting-place of the Sanhedrim. The Court of the Priests surrounded the Temple proper, and contained the great Altar of Burnt-offerings, together with the apparatus required for its service.

The House, or Temple proper, remains to be described. Its form was that of an inverted T (^), and it was divided into three parts: the Vestibule, the Holy Place, and the Holy of holies.

The Vestibule was reached by a flight of twelve steps, and was wider than the rest of the House by 30 feet on each side. Its entrance was covered by a splendid veil, and within it a number of dedicated gifts were kept. Folding doors, plated with gold and covered by a rich veil, formed the entrance to the Holy Place, and above it hung a gigantic vine of pure gold, a beautiful symbol of Israel. In the Holy Place were, to the south, the golden candlestick, to the north the table of “the loaves of proposition,” and beyond them the altar of incense, near to the entrance to the Holy of holies, or Most Holy Place. The latter was now entirely empty, a large stone, on which the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement, occupying the place where the Ark had stood. A wooden partition separated the Most Holy from the Holy Place, and over the door hung the “SECOND VEIL.” The Holy Place was but 60 feet long from east to west, and 30 feet wide; and the Holy of holies was 30 feet long and as many wide. On three sides of the Temple proper there were side buildings three stories high, and so arranged that the Temple proper rose above them like a clear-story rising above aisles, and bearing aloft a gabled cedar roof with golden spikes on it, and surrounded by an elegant balustrade.

At the northwestern corner of the Temple enclosure stood the fortress Antonia, ever reminding the Jewish worshippers of the hated Roman yoke.

2. The Aaronitical Priesthood. The persons who had charge of the Temple, and a large number of whom were always in residence, were the priests, whose duty it was to mediate between Jehovah and His people. They formed a sacred order, to which no one could be admitted who did not belong to it by birth; for according to the legislation of the Pentateuch, “THE SONS OF AARON” were alone entitled to the rights and privileges of the Jewish priesthood. Physical defects, however,—amounting to 142 at the time of Our Lord,—disqualified a descendant of Aaron, not indeed for the priestly order, but for the exercise of its functions. So that, before being selected for the discharge of the sacred duties of the priesthood, a man had to prove (1) that he was a legitimate descendant of Aaron, and (2) that he was exempt from all disqualifying bodily blemishes.

If a young man had duly established this to the satisfaction of the Sanhedrim, he was set apart for the priestly ministry by a special consecration, which originally lasted seven days, and consisted in sacrifices, purifications, the putting on of the holy garments, the sprinkling of blood, and anointing with oil. It is probable, however, that the anointing with oil was no longer in use in Our Lord’s time.

For the service of the Temple, the numerous descendants of Aaron had been divided by David into twenty-four courses, which would officiate in regular succession, changing every Sabbath, so that each course would be in attendance at the sanctuary at least twice a year. It is true that only four of these courses came back from the Exile, but they were divided afresh into twenty-four courses, each of which formed a distinct body, with presidents and elders at its head. After the return, the number of priests rapidly increased in the Holy Land: and yet, however numerous, they must have been comfortably provided for. They had a considerable share in the victims which the Jews of all nations offered in sacrifice in the Holy City; and even independently of these sacrifices, dues of various kinds were paid to them, such as first fruits, tithes of the products of the ground, the redemption money for the first-born of man and beast, etc.

Although in some cases the priests exercised judicial functions, and were in charge to preserve and expound the Law, their duties were mainly sacrificial. They had to prepare and offer the daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices, and such as were brought by individuals at the great festivals or on special occasions, and in general they conducted the public service of the sanctuary.

At the head of the whole Jewish priesthood was the high priest. He was to be a person especially sacred, hence any bodily imperfection or blemish excluded him from the office. There were, besides, other disqualifications, such as illegitimacy, idolatry, etc. Under the Romans this office was too often entrusted to persons who had neither age nor learning nor rank to recommend them.

The services of the consecration, which originally lasted seven days, consisted in sacrifices, anointing with oil, and putting on of the sacred garments. But in Our Lord’s time the anointing had long ceased to be in use, and a simple investiture was gone through, together with the offering of the sacrifices. We have already noticed that under the Roman domination the high priests had become mere puppets in the hands of the Roman procurators, and that Gratus and Pontius Pilate were famous for the rapid deposition and substitution of high priests which they effected.

And yet the position of the high priest combined in one and the same person both a civil and a sacred dignity. To him alone belonged the right to officiate on the great day of Atonement. He alone could enter the Most Holy Place; he was also the supreme administrator of sacred things and the final arbiter of all religious controversies. At the same time he presided over the Sanhedrim; and in all political matters he was the supreme representative of the Jews in their relations with the Romans.

3. The Synagogues. During the captivity of Babylon the sacrificial services of the Temple were, of course, discontinued; hence, it is most likely to this period that we must ascribe the origin of a religious institution which at the return of the Jews was transplanted into Palestine, and which in Our Lord’s time was spread everywhere, viz., the institution of the synagogues. No sacrifices could be offered in these meeting-places; but public prayers were put up, and Holy Writ was read and practically expounded. The synagogues often consisted of two apartments: one for prayer, preaching, and public worship; the other for the meetings of learned men, for discussions concerning questions of religion and discipline, and for purposes of education.

In the audience chamber of a synagogue we might notice the first chairs; a desk for the reader; a chest in which the rolls of the Sacred Book were preserved; and perhaps some lamps for use at the evening worship. Over every synagogue there was a ruler whose duty it was to attend to the external affairs of the synagogue, and to maintain order in the meetings. Elders were associated with him in the management; while the inferior duties connected with the synagogue were discharged by servants or ministers.|

The rulers of the synagogue had the power to inflict excommunication or exclusion from the synagogue, a most important act of religious discipline, whereby those under excommunication were looked upon as no better than the heathen.

4. The Scribes. The chief interpreters of Holy Writ in the synagogues were the Scribes, who, far more than the priests, guided and shaped the religious life of the people at large. They belonged to different tribes and families, and also to different sects, although most of them, while being Scribes by office, were Pharisees by religious and political profession. In the time of Our Lord they were spread everywhere, and because of their special skill in the Law and in the other Sacred Writings, they were reputed as men of great learning. They loved the title of Rabbi, and required the greatest honors not only from their pupils, but also from the public at large.

By their theoretical and practical interpretation of Holy Writ they had gradually laid a most heavy burden upon the people, for it was their aim to apply the Law to all imaginable circumstances of daily life, and their work in that direction was characterized by slavery to the letter, and by subtle casuistry. Moreover, through their great attachment for the “traditions of the elders,” they had gone so far as to “make void the commandment of God,” and to teach the people to neglect some of the most fundamental principles of the moral law.

The origin of the divine authority they ascribed to these traditions is to be referred to their theory that Moses himself had delivered to Israel an oral Law together with the written Law. This oral Law was as old as the Pentateuch, and had come down in an authentic form, through the prophets to Esdras, the first and greatest of the Scribes. Hence they inferred that the whole Law, written and oral, was of equal practical authority. Through this conception of a traditional law the Scribes were led into many a departure from the spirit of the written Word, and indeed were betrayed into looking upon all their traditional customs and interpretations—however recent—as no less authoritative than the revealed precepts of the Law.

5. The Sanhedrim. It was in one of the halls of the Temple that, up to about A.D. 30, the Sanhedrim, or highest council of the Jews, made up of chief priests, elders, and Scribes, met under the presidency of the high priests. Its origin is unknown; and the view of the Jewish rabbis which identifies the Sanhedrim with the council of seventy elders on whom the Holy Spirit was poured to assist Moses in the administration of justice, is without serious grounds. This supreme tribunal of the Jews counted seventy-one members of pure Israelite descent and was governed by a president and two vice-presidents; besides, there were secretaries and other officers.

During Our Lord’s lifetime the power of the Sanhedrim extended to matters of the greatest importance. Among others, we may notice that it superintended the ritual of public worship, regulated the Jewish calendar, enforced the exact fulfilment of the Law, punished false prophets, and even exercised judicial control over the high priests. However, its privilege of carrying into effect a sentence of death it had pronounced had been taken from the Sanhedrim and reserved to the Roman procurator. The supreme authority of the decrees of the Sanhedrim was acknowledged by all the Jews dispersed throughout the world.

[Stone]

SECOND PERIOD OUR LORD’S PUBLIC MINISTRY

CHAPTER VII. THE PUBLIC WORK OF CHRIST

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER VII

I. ITS DIFFICULTIES:
1. National Susceptibilities (Romans, Samaritans, Jews).
2. Narrowness or Fears of Jewish Bodies and Authorities.
3. Popular Mistaken Notions concerning the Messias.


II. ITS MEANS:

1. Prudence of Action:

• Never a collision with Roman power.
  
• Action in perfect harmony with the distinction between the authority and the personal life of the Jewish authorities.
  
• Gradual
  
• Removal of popular prejudices.
  
• Disclosure of what He is and purposes.
  

2. Power of Words (Chief Characteristics of His Public Discourses).
3. Miracles (Perfect Mastery over all Nature, invoked as a Proof of His Statements).

III.ITS LENGTH:
Various Theories held successively through Ages: Opinion now Prevalent.
Data of the Gospels:

• The Synoptists mention only one Pasch—but imply a second one.
  
• St. John speaks certainly of three Paschs—probably of a fourth.
  
• Conclusions certain or simply probable concerning that question.
  

1. The Difficulties of Our Lord’s Work. The social and religious condition of the Jews in Our Lord’s day—which we have briefly described in the foregoing chapter—naturally created many difficulties against the acceptance of His teachings.

One of these difficulties arose from the national antipathies and susceptibilities of Our Lord’s contemporaries. The Romans despised, it is true, the Jewish nation and thought they could easily quell any revolt against their domination; yet they were naturally jealous of their authority, and would certainly resent Christ’s open assumption of the title of the Messias and His preaching of a new kingdom, for both could easily lead the Jewish multitudes to new uprisings against the hated power of Rome. Again, the Samaritans and the Jews were no less at variance between themselves than the Romans and the Jews; hence, any special favor shown by Jesus to the members of either community would certainly tell against the influence of His words and miracles upon the minds and hearts of the other.

A second and greater difficulty to Our Lord’s work was to be found in the narrowness or the fears of the Jewish leaders. To be welcome as a teacher to the Scribes and the Pharisees of His time, Jesus should have belonged to the learned class of the “Masters in Israel,” and like them He should have pledged Himself to uphold all the “traditions of the elders”; but more particularly, He should have felt bound to comply with the rules of the Scribes and the Pharisees, since “all the Jews” the Sadducees—carried them out faithfully; and the Gospel records prove that to be faithful to His mission, Our Lord had to set all these traditions aside and to unmask fearlessly the pride and hypocrisy of this the most influential of the Jewish sects. The Sadducees were no less opposed to the work of Our Lord than the Pharisees. His doctrine was in direct contradiction in several point to that of the Sadducees, and His public mission appeared to them most objectionable. On the one hand, these cautious politicians saw that the multitudes were more and more won to His cause, and feared lest they would ultimately crown Him King and rebel against Rome; and on the other hand, they were fully persuaded that Jesus had not at His disposal the forces necessary to cope successfully with the Roman legions. These various elements of opposition to Our Lord’s work were all represented in the Sanhedrim, and their ultimate combination against His work and His life led to His trial and to His execution.

It must be said, however, that the greatest difficulty our divine Lord had to contend with in the discharge of His public mission arose from the mistaken notions concerning the Messias, which were so prevalent in the mind of His contemporaries. As we have seen in Chapter II., the Jewish expectations respecting the person and work of the Messias, the nature and conditions of the Messianic kingdom, ran directly counter to what the Redeemer of the world had to be and to establish upon earth.

2. The Means used by Our Lord in His Public Work. One of the most remarkable features of the conduct of Our Lord during His public ministry is His prudence of action. During His entire public work we find no trace of the least collision with the Roman power. He usually moves in Galilee, far from immediate contact with the Roman officials, avoids assuming the Messianic title, never shows the least desire for the royal dignity, and when pressed by His enemies to declare whether it is lawful to pay the tribute to Cæsar or not, He answers in a manner which had to be distorted in order that it might be brought against Him at the time of His passion.

Our Lord did not act with less prudence in His relations with the Jewish authorities. Here, however, the avoidance of a collision was an impossibility. His mission of Saviour of souls required that He should unmask His opponents to the people and contend openly with them, and this He did repeatedly, with a severity proportionate to the ardor of His zeal. But outside these cases He acted towards them with the utmost kindness. Indeed, it may be said that His conduct was ever in perfect harmony with this most wise distinction between the authority and the person of the Jewish leaders: “All whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not.”

It is in the same prudent way that Jesus did not go at once against the mistaken Messianic notions of the people, or even of His chosen disciples. He knew that inveterate prejudices must not be handled roughly, and that a gradual light is not only more welcome, but also more effective. Hence He suggested in various ways, but especially through striking parables, the truths regarding the nature of the kingdom of God, its growth, conditions of entrance, etc., which He could not have disclosed openly without hurting uselessly the most cherished hopes of His contemporaries. And it is only towards the close of His work that He fully disclosed His equality with the Father and His true relations to the Jews and to the world.

A second means which Our Lord employed for the fulfilment of His mission is the wonderful power of His words. His discourses are a spirit, an impulse, a direction, not a series of abstract, dry enactments, so that every one of His hearers could at once feel their importance and their beauty. They are also characterized by great originality, for even when He took up the religious truths of the Old Testament revelation, He divested them of their grosser interpretations and gave them a spiritual meaning hitherto unsuspected. In opposition to the method of the Scribes, the teachers of the time, “He spoke with authority,” never repeating the opinions of interpreters before Him, never sustaining a statement by the authority of some master. Seldom He discussed with His hearers, but when controversy was engaged, either with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, He ever and easily remained victorious. So great, indeed, was the power of His words, that the multitudes, in their eagerness to hear Him, pressed upon Him in great numbers, and followed Him everywhere, forgetful of the very necessaries of life.

The miracles which our divine Lord performed were, however, the very powerful means by which He won the admiration, gratitude, and authority necessary to cope successfully with the opposition of the Jewish leaders. He multiplied these wonders at each step, and they were such as no man had wrought before Him. All the elements of nature, all the diseases of the body, life and death, and even invisible spirits felt the effects of His divine power. A simple touch, a single word was sufficient to exercise this power over the most inveterate diseases, and even His presence was not necessary for the performance of such wonders. The most hidden thoughts of His hearers, as well as the most remote events, were equally known to Him. Not only did He perform miracles Himself, but on different occasions He imparted a similar power to His messengers. It was, therefore, plain to His contemporaries that He was endowed with a perfect mastery over all creatures. The multitudes instinctively felt that the coming Messias could not be expected to perform greater miracles, and were led to consider Him as being Himself the Messias who, as they thought, by His miraculous power was to drive the foreigners from the Holy Land, submit the Gentiles to the Jews, and start a new era of material and religious prosperity. Only blind leaders, who wilfully blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, could ascribe such beneficent works to the agency of the Evil One. Finally, Our Lord Himself repeatedly appeals to His works as clear proofs of His divine mission and superhuman power.

3. Length of Our Lord’s Public Work. The ministry of Our Lord includes, indeed, the period between His baptism and His ascension; but how long this period was, is a question which has ever been debated in the Church.

During the first three centuries the prevalent opinion was that the ministry of Christ lasted not more than a year and a few months, and included only two Paschal celebrations, viz., that which followed soon on His baptism, and that which immediately preceded His crucifixion. Some writers, however, during the third and following centuries, regarded Our Lord’s ministry as including three Paschal festivals. Eusebius, who wrote in the first part of the fourth century, was the first who represented the ministry of Christ as including four Passovers; his opinion did not prevail at once, for during the latter part of the fourth century several Church writers, among whom was St. Augustine still, retained the ancient opinion, viz., that it included two Passovers only. Subsequently, however, and up to the middle of the eighteenth century, the view of Eusebius was received without misgiving, and at the present day it is by far the most prevalent among biblical scholars; it maintains that the public ministry of Our Lord lasted three years and a few months, and that it included four Paschal celebrations.

If we consult the Gospel records we shall find that none of the Evangelists states explicitly either the exact duration of Our Lord’s ministry or the number of Passovers included within the period between His baptism and His ascension. Again, we may notice that the Synoptists mention only one Pasch, namely, the last one He celebrated in Jerusalem before His death, while they incidentally refer to facts which clearly imply another Paschal festival as having occurred during Our Lord’s public ministry. Finally, we find that St. John speaks certainly of three Passovers, and probably of a fourth one in Chapter 5:1. In the last passage just referred to, the fourth Evangelist tells us that “there was a festival of the Jews and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.” Now it can be shown with great probability that this “festival of the Jews” was first of all, distinct from either of the Passovers spoken of in Chapter 2:13, and in Chapter 6:4, and next, from either the feast of Pentecost or that of Tabernacles.

We therefore conclude that while it is beyond doubt that Our Lord’s ministry included at least three Paschal celebrations, it is very probable that it included a fourth Passover, and that consequently the entire duration of the public work of Jesus extended to three years and a few months.

[Stone]

SECOND PERIOD OUR LORD’S PUBLIC MINISTRY

CHAPTER VIII. THE EARLY DAYS OF CHRIST’S PUBLIC MINISTRY

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTER VIII

I. IMMEDIATE PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC MINISTRY:
1. The Preaching of St. John:

• Time and place.
  
• Nature (essentially a preparation for the coming of the Messias).
  
• Influence (extent and reasons).
  

2. The Baptism of Our Lord:

• The baptism administered by John (where and why received by Jesus?)
  
• How was Jesus manifested to John?
  
• Date of the baptism: Jesus “about the age of thirty years.”
  

3. The Temptation:

• Where and why undergone by our divine Lord?
  
• Duration and nature.
  

II. BEGINNING OF PUBLIC MINISTRY:
1. The First Five Disciples:

• Their names, places of birth, and station in life
  
• When and how brought to Jesus?
  
• First relations with Our Lord.
  

The Titles Given to Jesus:

• The Lamb of God.
  
• The Son of God, the King of Israel.
  
• The Son of Man.
  

2. The First Miracle:
The Occasion: A wedding at Cana of Galilee.
The Miracle:

• The request of Mary Its motives.
  
• The answer of Jesus.
  
• The change of water into wine.
  

§ 1. The Immediate Preparation for Public Ministry

1. The Preaching of St. John. Our Lord was soon to commence His public life, when John, the son of Zachary, was directed by heaven to begin his mission of precursor. St. Luke tells us that this happened “in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar.” This “fifteenth year” is most likely to be reckoned from the time when this prince was associated with Augustus in the government of the empire, and consequently, it corresponds to the year 779 U.C. (A.D. 26). That it was a Sabbatical year is regarded as probable by some authors, who explain in this manner how the people could flock to John in great numbers and from all parts of the land.

Long years before this moment “of his manifestation in Israel,” the son of Zachary had lived in the Wilderness, or eastern portion of Judæa proper. In this desolate region, some 9 or 10 miles in width, by about 35 in length, he had taken his abode, most likely in some cave in the depth of a gorge to shelter himself from the glare of an Eastern sun. His food had consisted of locusts which leaped and flew on the bare hills, and of wild honey which the bees deposited in the clefts of the rocks. Thus, far from a corrupt world, in silence and prayer, he had slowly prepared himself for his difficult mission, and he now stood before all, a living example of sincerity and disinterestedness.

The holy precursor began his instructions in the wilderness of Judæa, and then he moved northward, apparently following the course of the Jordan. He announced the near coming of the Messias and of His kingdom, and bade his hearers prepare for this most important event by genuine sorrow for sin and a true change of life. His words went directly against one of the most mischievous errors of his contemporaries, who felt sure of a place in the kingdom of the Messias simply because of their descendance from Abraham and of their scrupulous, though soulless, discharge of outward practices of penance and religion. His language assumed a particularly severe tone when addressed to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, whom he called “offspring of vipers” because of their hypocrisy, which turned religion itself into a vice and hid a deadly malice under the appearance of zeal. As a body, these Jewish leaders rejected His exhortations to repentance and moral reform, and were far from desiring the baptism which John administered to the humble and truly repentant multitudes.

The fame of the new prophet spread rapidly, and as St. Matthew informs us, “Jerusalem and all Judæa and all the country about Jordan went out to him.” Even the most unspiritual elements of society, such as the publicans and the soldiers, felt deeply the influence of his preaching and were willing to follow his counsels.| Very soon the ministry of the precursor caused so general an excitement and so lively an expectation that “all were thinking in their hearts of John, that perhaps he might be the Christ.”

When we inquire into the causes of an influence so widespread and so considerable, we find that they were chiefly three: (1) the personal appearance of John, which was in striking contrast with that of the teachers of the time and forcibly reminded the multitudes of the ancient prophet Elias; (2) the character of his preaching, so earnest in its tone, so striking in its images, so disinterested in its motives, so practical in its bearing, so perfectly in harmony with his own life; (3) the expectation of the Messias, which was more than ever prevalent among, and dear to, the multitudes, and which the very preaching of John had rendered more lively and more certain.

2. The Baptism of Our Lord. From the summary accounts which the Gospels give us of the preaching of St. John, we easily gather that the burden of his teachings was the necessity, even for the Jews, to prepare for the Messianic kingdom by a hearty renunciation of sin and a real amendment of life. And it is this necessity which he symbolized by administering to the multitudes a baptism hitherto required only from proselytes to Judaism. He had been sent to baptize with water, and his baptism shared in the preparatory character of his entire mission, inasmuch as it taught the Jews the true frame of mind in which they should receive “the baptism with the Holy Ghost,” which was reserved to Him whom John announced.

St. John had been baptizing for some time when Jesus, leaving Nazareth, “went to the Jordan” to be baptized by the holy precursor. The precise place of Our Lord’s baptism is not indicated in the Gospel narrative, and remains doubtful down to the present day, St. John having baptized the multitudes at different points of the river. The most common opinion, however, is that Jesus was baptized on the lower Jordan, near Jericho, at a place named Bethany.

Ecclesiastical writers have suggested various motives why Jesus submitted to a rite expressive of inward repentance and intended reform. The motive the most probable, because suggested by Our Lord’s words to St. John, is that He wished thereby to comply with a general disposition of divine Providence, that He should not be exempt during His mortal life from the rites enjoined by God upon the Jews of the time.

It has been affirmed that the words of St. John by which he stayed Jesus, saying, “I ought to be baptized by Thee, and comest Thou to me?” implied a previous and personal acquaintance of the precursor with Our Lord. But such an acquaintance with the person and character of Jesus is by no means certain. The homes of John and Jesus were far removed, and the sojourn of the precursor in the wilderness extended to the very moment “of his manifestation in Israel.” We must, therefore, consider it much more probable that John had never seen Jesus before, and that he was able to discern His exalted character only through an inward inspiration. Such supernatural discernment of character was sometimes given to the prophets of old, and it should be remembered that this same precursor, when yet in his mother’s womb, had leaped for joy at the salutation of the mother of the Lord. Yet it was not till St. John had seen the appointed sign, the descent of the Holy Ghost, that he could bear official witness to the Messianic dignity of Jesus. There is no reason to suppose that the apparition of the Holy Spirit, in a bodily shape “as a dove,” was seen by the multitude. Jesus saw it,| and John also, whose mission it was to bear witness to others that Jesus “is the Son of God” and apparently no one else.

St. Luke (3:23) informs us that Our Lord at His baptism was “about the age of thirty years,” an expression the natural meaning of which is, that Jesus was some months or parts of a year more or less than thirty. He was not just thirty, nor twenty-nine, nor thirty-one years of age. Whence it follows that Jesus, born in December, 749 U.C., was baptized towards the end of 779, or the beginning of 780 U.C. The probabilities are in favor of 780 (A.D. 27).

Now the first Pasch which followed Our Lord’s baptism fell upon the 11th of April; so that in the interval between this Pasch and His baptism we must place various events—the forty days’ temptation, the return of Jesus to Galilee, where He attended the wedding at Cana, and Our Lord’s few days’ sojourn in Capharnaum immediately before going up to Jerusalem—which occupied upwards of two months. This naturally leads us to look for the traditional month of January as the month in which Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, and the climatic peculiarities of Palestine offer no valid objections to this month.

3. The Temptation. Immediately after His baptism, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness of Judæa, to be tempted by the Devil. The wild aspect of this place has already been referred to, and its descriptions by travellers enable us to realize the perfect accuracy of St. Mark’s statement, that in the wilderness the Son of God “WAS WITH BEASTS.” Tradition points to a high mountain a little west of Jericho as the “very high mountain” from which the Tempter showed Our Lord all the kingdoms of the world. This mountain, a limestone peak, exceedingly sharp and abrupt, and overlooking the plain of the Jordan and beyond, has been called the quarantania, in allusion to the fast of forty days.

That the true Son of God should have been tempted by the Evil One will ever remain a most mysterious, though most certain, event in the history of mankind. Nothing, of course, could allure to sin a divine person, and it is difficult to understand how victory over temptation could secure merit for a soul which could not sin. Various reasons, however, have been set forth to explain why our divine Lord was tually tempted. Thus, in the Epistle to the Hebrews we are told that in Jesus “we have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities; but one tempted in all things such as we are [yet] without sin.” Again, it has been said that the second Adam suffered this humiliation, that all Adam’s sons might share in His victory; and there is no doubt that Christians under temptation have ever found in the pattern of their tempted Saviour both an instructive example and a great source of power to overcome their ghostly enemy.

If we had only the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark, we would naturally suppose that Our Lord’s temptation consisted simply in the three assaults which St. Matthew records in detail, and consequently that it lasted but a short time. But St. Luke’s narrative is decisive, to the effect that Jesus was actually tempted during all the forty days He remained in the wilderness, and that it was at the end of this long period that He underwent these three great assaults.

It is not necessary to detail and refute here the various theories invented by Protestants and Rationalists, against what ecclesiastical tradition has ever believed to have been the true nature of the Tempter, and of his three final assaults against Our Lord. An impartial study of the Gospel records proves beyond all doubt that the Evangelists intended to describe a real external occurrence, in which a personal Tempter appeared to Jesus in a bodily form, spoke audible words, went visibly from place to place, and finally departed. It is clear, furthermore, that Our Lord, having no inordinate inclination towards any thing, could not be tempted to deviate from His appointed path of duty by the inward solicitations of appetite, of ambition and of worldliness, but only by the outward suggestions of the Evil One. These suggestions appealed to the threefold concupiscence of our fallen nature, and Satan hoped that they would prove the more easily successful against Jesus, because he presented them when Our Lord’s physical frame had been greatly weakened by a rigorous and prolonged fast, and also because in using them he simply proposed to Jesus to act as the worldly Messias whom the Jews expected. But Satan’s hope was doomed to disappointment. For whether approached by the Tempter in the wilderness, or led by him to the top of one of the platforms of the Temple’s enclosure, or to the summit of a high mountain, Jesus never swerved in the least from what He knew to be the divine will in His regard. He met promptly, firmly, all the suggestions of Satan by direct appeals to Holy Writ—which St. Paul in his inspired language will call later “the sword of the Spirit” finally put this enemy to flight.

The direct, and as it were personal, conflict between Jesus and Satan was over till the time of Our Lord’s ignominious passion and death; and heavenly spirits came and ministered to Jesus.


§ 2. The Beginning of Public Ministry

1. The First Five Disciples. The opening events of Our Lord’s public life are recorded only by the beloved disciple, who had been a witness of them all. He pictures to us Jesus attaching to Himself His first five disciples: Andrew, and another left unnamed in the Gospel narrative, but who was no other than John, the modest writer of the Fourth Gospel; Simon and Philip; and finally Nathanael, who is most likely identical with the apostle Bartholomew. They were all Galileans by birth; and Andrew, together with Simon and Philip, and probably John, were of Bethsaida, on the western shore of the lake of Genesareth, while Nathanael was of Cana in Galilee. Tradition represents the latter as of nobler birth than the other four, who were poor fishermen, although the father of St. John seems to have been a fisherman of some means.

The exact time at which these five men became the disciples of Jesus cannot be determined. It was, however, not long after Our Lord’s return from the scene of the Temptation, and when His holy precursor was still baptizing at Bethany, and had just given a public testimony to Christ’s Messianic character.| St. John the Baptist was, in fact, the direct means of bringing Andrew and John to Jesus, by pointing to Him as “the Lamb of God.” Both were soon convinced that they had indeed “found the Messias,”* and they immediately went in quest each of his own brother, to impart to them the good news. Andrew was the first to find Simon, his brother, and he led him to Jesus. The next day occurred the first direct call from Jesus Himself. When about to go forth into Galilee He found Philip, and at once made him His disciple by these simple words: “Follow me.” No sooner had Philip recognized Jesus as the Messias than he sought a friend of his to impart to him the same belief. This friend was Nathanael, who was at first reluctant to admit that anything good could come from Nazareth, but who soon became a fervent disciple of Jesus.†

The Gospel narrative does not describe in detail the first relations of these five disciples with their new Master. It briefly tells us of Jesus inviting Andrew and John to His temporary abode and spending long hours with them, changing the name of Simon into that of Peter, bidding Philip simply to follow Him, and finally manifesting to Nathanael a knowledge more than human. But this narrative, however brief, clearly proves two things: (1) that Our Lord had from the very beginning of His public life a most distinct knowledge of His entire mission; (2) that His first five disciples derived from their first relations with Him a real conviction that he was the long-expected Messias.

This same narrative is also remarkable for the three titles we find therein given to Jesus. The first is that of “the Lamb of God,” applied to Our Lord by St. John the Baptist.| Jesus was thereby pointed out as the “Servant of Jehovah,” spoken of by Isaias (53), who would make atonement for the sins of the people by His vicarious sufferings. The second title was that of “the Son of God, the King of Israel,” addressed to Jesus by Nathanael. In this twofold designation we should not see anything else than an emphatic recognition of Our Lord’s Messianic dignity, which, in the eyes of His new disciple, exalted Him far above all those—whether men or angels—who could be styled “the sons of God,” and made Him “the Great King” of the Jews. The last title was that of “the Son of Man,” which Our Lord applied to Himself in His conversation with Nathanael.* This was another Messianic designation in the phraseology of the time, and it was preferred by Jesus to any other in connection with His Messianic dignity, chiefly because it recalled less sensibly to the minds of His hearers their false notions of material prosperity and glory during the Messianic era.†

2. The First Miracle.‡ The faith of the first five disciples of Christ, however real, needed to be strengthened by the sight of those miracles which the Messias was expected to perform in Israel, and this sight was first granted to them on the occasion of a wedding at Cana of Galilee.

Two towns have been pointed out as the place of Our Lord’s first miracle: (1) Kana el-Jelîl, about 9 miles north of Nazareth; (2) Kefer Kenna, only 4½ miles northeast of Nazareth. Even granting that the modern name Kana el-Jelîl is nearer to the ancient name “Cana of Galilee,” yet it must be maintained that the traditional Kefer Kenna is more probably the place of the wedding, because of its proximity to Nazareth, and because of its situation on the direct road between Nazareth and the lake of Genesareth.

Upon his return from the Jordan, Jesus had not gone directly to Cana, but to Nazareth, where, however, He and His disciples did not find Mary, for “on the third day”—apparently the third day after His departure for Galilee—“there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.” Thither He directed His steps, either previously invited, or called with His disciples as soon as His coming was known.

Wedding festivities usually continued for a week, and a bridegroom in humble circumstances—such as the one spoken of in the Gospel narrative—could ill afford to make provision for an entertainment of so long duration. It has also been supposed that the unlooked-for arrival of Our Lord’s five disciples contributed to make more apparent, if indeed it did not cause, the insufficiency of the supply of wine. However this may be, Mary, who was the first to notice that the provision of wine was running short, was anxious that no one else should perceive this evidence of poverty, and betaking herself to Jesus, she said, “They have no wine.”

In these simple words of Mary, it is easy to see a modest request, prompted by her thoughtful charity and by her implicit trust in the hitherto hidden power of Our Lord to perform miracles. It was a secret, a brief appeal of His mother to One who had ever been ready to comply with her least desire, and it was made at the time which she thought the most opportune to spare a public disgrace to the family which had invited Him and His disciples. It is true that Mary was asking for a miracle, but in so doing she cannot have been guilty of fault, since she asked, or rather suggested, the very thing which Jesus did.

In answer to the request of His mother, Our Lord said: “Woman, what is to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.” These words sound harsh to our ears, but on the lips of Our Saviour they had not the same meaning as in our modern languages. First of all, the word “woman” was compatible with the utmost respect, for Jesus will use it later on, when about to die on the cross He will give to Mary one of the most tender proofs of His affection, and passages from the classics might be quoted, where the same word is used without implying the least tinge of disrespect or blame. The title “woman,” here given to Mary, seems simply to indicate that a relation different from that of mother to son is referred to. The next words, “what is to Me and to thee?” have not necessarily a reprehensive sense in Semitic languages. They denote usually, however, some divergence between the thoughts and ways of persons ser brought together. Perhaps Jesus used them here to express the following opposition. His mother seemed to imply that He was ever to be in the same dependence on her maternal wishes and suggestions, whereas, now that He was entering on His public career, Our Lord intended to work independently of them. The last words of Our Saviour to Mary, “My hour is not yet come,” have been understood in various ways, and it may be that the best one—because in greater harmony with other expressions of Jesus—is that the time appointed for Him to work miracles had not yet fully come. But our blessed Lady, fully confident that her divine Son had not completely rejected her request, or rather that He would grant it, said to the waiters, “Whatsoever He shall say to you, do ye.”

The details which follow in the sacred narrative, about the change of the water into wine, bespeak the report of an eye-witness. St. John speaks not only of water-pots used for the frequent ablutions of the Jews—in which consequently no wine could be supposed to remain—but of their number, of their material, and of their approximative size (“they contained two or three measures apiece,” that is, between about eighteen and twenty-seven gallons). He remembers the astonishment of the chief steward of the feast, who, not knowing the miraculous origin of the wine he had just tasted, hastened to address complimentary words to the bridegroom, whom he thought had kept till then his best wine. Finally, he had apparently ascertained the reality of the miracle from the mouth of the waiters who had drawn the water and had carried it to the chief steward, and his faith and that of his fellow disciples was strengthened by this first manifestation of the miraculous power of Jesus.