Whilst joyous Galilee was celebrating in feasts the coming of the well-beloved, the sorrowful John, in his prison of Machero, was pining away with expectation and desire. The success of the young master, whom he had seen some months before as his auditor, reached his ears. It was said that the Messiah predicted by the prophets, he who was to re-establish the kingdom of Israel, was come, and was proving his presence in Galilee by marvelous works. John wished to inquire into the truth of this rumor, and as he communicated freely with his disciples, he chose two of them to go to Jesus in Galilee.[1]
[Footnote 1: Matt. xi. 2, and following; Luke vii. 18, and following.]
The two disciples found Jesus at the height of his fame. The air of gladness which reigned around him surprised them. Accustomed to fasts, to persevering prayer, and to a life of aspiration, they were astonished to see themselves transported suddenly into the midst of the joys attending the welcome of the Messiah.[1] They told Jesus their message: "Art thou he that should come? Or do we look for another?" Jesus, who from that time hesitated no longer respecting his peculiar character as Messiah, enumerated the works which ought to characterize the coming of the kingdom of God—such as the healing of the sick, and the good tidings of a speedy salvation preached to the poor. He did all these works. "And blessed is he," said Jesus, "whosoever shall not be offended in me." We know not whether this answer found John the Baptist living, or in what temper it put the austere ascetic. Did he die consoled and certain that he whom he had announced already lived, or did he remain doubtful as to the mission of Jesus? There is nothing to inform us. Seeing, however, that his school continued to exist a considerable time parallel with the Christian churches, we are led to think that, notwithstanding his regard for Jesus, John did not look upon him as the one who was to realize the divine promises. Death came, moreover, to end his perplexities. The untamable freedom of the ascetic was to crown his restless and stormy career by the only end which was worthy of it.
[Footnote 1: Matt. ix. 14, and following.]
The leniency which Antipas had at first shown toward John was not of long duration. In the conversations which, according to the Christian tradition, John had had with the tetrarch, he did not cease to declare to him that his marriage was unlawful, and that he ought to send away Herodias.[1] We can easily imagine the hatred which the granddaughter of Herod the Great must have conceived toward this importunate counsellor. She only waited an opportunity to ruin him.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 4, and following; Mark vi. 18, and following;Luke iii. 19.]
Her daughter, Salome, born of her first marriage, and like her ambitious and dissolute, entered into her designs. That year (probably the year 30) Antipas was at Machero on the anniversary of his birthday. Herod the Great had constructed in the interior of the fortress a magnificent palace, where the tetrarch frequently resided.[1] He gave a great feast there, during which Salome executed one of those dances in character which were not considered in Syria as unbecoming a distinguished person. Antipas being much pleased, asked the dancer what she most desired, and she replied, at the instigation of her mother, "Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger."[2] Antipas was sorry, but he did not like to refuse. A guard took the dish, went and cut off the head of the prisoner, and brought it.[3]
[Footnote 1: Jos.,De Bello jud., VII. vi. 2.]
[Footnote 2: A portable dish on which liquors and viands are served in the East.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xiv. 3, and following; Mark vi. 14-29; Jos.,Ant., XVIII. v. 2.]
The disciples of the Baptist obtained his body and placed it in a tomb, but the people were much displeased. Six years after, Hareth, having attacked Antipas, in order to recover Machero and avenge the dishonor of his daughter, Antipas was completely beaten; and his defeat was generally regarded as a punishment for the murder of John.[1]
[Footnote 1: Josephus,Ant., XVIII. v. 1, 2.]
The news of John's death was brought to Jesus by the disciples of the Baptist.[1] John's last act toward Jesus had effectually united the two schools in the most intimate bonds. Jesus, fearing an increase of ill-will on the part of Antipas, took precautions and retired to the desert,[2] where many people followed him. By exercising an extreme frugality, the holy band was enabled to live there, and in this there was naturally seen a miracle.[3] From this time Jesus always spoke of John with redoubled admiration. He declared unhesitatingly[4] that he was more than a prophet, that the Law and the ancient prophets had force only until he came,[5] that he had abrogated them, but that the kingdom of heaven would displace him in turn. In fine, he attributed to him a special place in the economy of the Christian mystery, which constituted him the link of union between the Old Testament and the advent of the new reign.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 12.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xiv. 13.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xiv. 15, and following; Mark vi. 35, and following;Luke ix. 11, and following; John vi. 2, and following.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 7, and following; Luke vii. 24, and following.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. xi. 12, 13; Luke xvi. 16.]
The prophet Malachi, whose opinion in this matter was soon brought to bear,[1] had announced with much energy a precursor of the Messiah, who was to prepare men for the final renovation, a messenger who should come to make straight the paths before the elected one of God. This messenger was no other than the prophet Elias, who, according to a widely spread belief, was soon to descend from heaven, whither he had been carried, in order to prepare men by repentance for the great advent, and to reconcile God with his people.[2] Sometimes they associated with Elias, either the patriarch Enoch, to whom for one or two centuries they had attributed high sanctity;[3] or Jeremiah,[4] whom they considered as a sort of protecting genius of the people, constantly occupied in praying for them before the throne of God.[5] This idea, that two ancient prophets should rise again in order to serve as precursors to the Messiah, is discovered in so striking a form in the doctrine of the Parsees that we feel much inclined to believe that it comes from that source.[6] However this may be, it formed at the time of Jesus an integral portion of the Jewish theories about the Messiah. It was admitted that the appearance of "two faithful witnesses," clothed in garments of repentance, would be the preamble of the great drama about to be unfolded, to the astonishment of the universe.[7]
[Footnote 1: Malachi iii. and iv.;Ecclesiasticusxlviii. 10. Seeante, Chap. VI.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10; Mark vi. 15, viii. 28, ix. 10, and following; Luke ix. 8, 19.]
[Footnote 3:Ecclesiasticusxliv. 16.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xvi. 14.]
[Footnote 5: 2Macc.v. 13, and following.]
[Footnote 6: Texts cited by Anquetil-Duperron,Zend-Avesta, i. 2d part, p. 46, corrected by Spiegel, in theZeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, i. 261, and following; extracts from theJamasp-Nameh, in theAvestaof Spiegel, i., p. 34. None of the Parsee texts, which truly imply the idea of resuscitated prophets and of precursors, are ancient; but the ideas contained in them appear to be much anterior to the time of the compilation itself.]
[Footnote 7:Rev.xi. 3, and following.]
It will be seen that, with these ideas, Jesus and his disciples could not hesitate about the mission of John the Baptist. When the scribes raised the objection that the Messiah could not have come because Elias had not yet appeared,[1] they replied that Elias was come, that John was Elias raised from the dead.[2] By his manner of life, by his opposition to the established political authorities, John in fact recalled that strange figure in the ancient history of Israel.[3] Jesus was not silent on the merits and excellencies of his forerunner. He said that none greater was born among the children of men. He energetically blamed the Pharisees and the doctors for not having accepted his baptism, and for not being converted at his voice.[4]
[Footnote 1: Mark ix. 10.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13; Mark vi. 15, ix. 10-12; Luke ix. 8; John i. 21-25.]
[Footnote 3: Luke i. 17.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xxi. 32; Luke vii. 29, 30.]
The disciples of Jesus were faithful to these principles of their master. This respect for John continued during the whole of the first Christian generation.[1] He was supposed to be a relative of Jesus.[2] In order to establish the mission of the latter upon testimony admitted by all, it was declared that John, at the first sight of Jesus, proclaimed him the Messiah; that he recognized himself his inferior, unworthy to unloose the latchets of his shoes; that he refused at first to baptize him, and maintained that it was he who ought to be baptized by Jesus.[3] These were exaggerations, which are sufficiently refuted by the doubtful form of John's last message.[4] But, in a more general sense, John remains in the Christian legend that which he was in reality—the austere forerunner, the gloomy preacher of repentance before the joy on the arrival of the bridegroom, the prophet who announces the kingdom of God and dies before beholding it. This giant in the early history of Christianity, this eater of locusts and wild honey, this rough redresser of wrongs, was the bitter which prepared the lip for the sweetness of the kingdom of God. His beheading by Herodias inaugurated the era of Christian martyrs; he was the first witness for the new faith. The worldly, who recognized in him their true enemy, could not permit him to live; his mutilated corpse, extended on the threshold of Christianity, traced the bloody path in which so many others were to follow.
[Footnote 1:Actsxix. 4.]
[Footnote 2: Luke i.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. iii. 14, and following; Luke iii. 16; John i. 15, and following, v. 32, 33.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 2, and following; Luke vii. 18, and following.]
The school of John did not die with its founder. It lived some time distinct from that of Jesus, and at first a good understanding existed between the two. Many years after the death of the two masters, people were baptized with the baptism of John. Certain persons belonged to the two schools at the same time—for example, the celebrated Apollos, the rival of St. Paul (toward the year 50), and a large number of the Christians of Ephesus.[1] Josephus placed himself (year 53) in the school of an ascetic named Banou,[2] who presents the greatest resemblance to John the Baptist, and who was perhaps of his school. This Banou[3] lived in the desert, clothed with the leaves of trees; he supported himself only on wild plants and fruits, and baptized himself frequently, both day and night, in cold water, in order to purify himself. James, he who was called the "brother of the Lord" (there is here perhaps some confusion of homonyms), practised a similar asceticism.[4] Afterward, toward the year 80, Baptism was in strife with Christianity, especially in Asia Minor. John the evangelist appears to combat it in an indirect manner.[5] One of the Sibylline[6] poems seems to proceed from this school. As to the sects of Hemero-baptists, Baptists, and Elchasaïtes (Sabiens Mogtasilaof the Arabian writers[7]), who, in the second century, filled Syria, Palestine and Babylonia, and whose representatives still exist in our days among the Mendaites, called "Christians of St. John;" they have the same origin as the movement of John the Baptist, rather than an authentic descent from John. The true school of the latter, partly mixed with Christianity, became a small Christian heresy, and died out in obscurity. John had foreseen distinctly the destiny of the two schools. If he had yielded to a mean rivalry, he would to-day have been forgotten in the crowd of sectaries of his time. By his self-abnegation he has attained a glorious and unique position in the religious pantheon of humanity.
[Footnote 1:Actsxviii. 25, xix. 1-5. Cf. Epiph.,Adv. Hær., xxx. 16.]
[Footnote 2:Vita, 2.]
[Footnote 3: Would this be the Bounaï who is reckoned by the Talmud(Bab.,Sanhedrim, 43a) amongst the disciples of Jesus?]
[Footnote 4: Hegesippus, in Eusebius,H.E., ii. 23.]
[Footnote 5: Gospel, i. 26, 33, iv. 2; 1st Epistle, v. 6. Cf.Actsx. 47.]
[Footnote 6: Book iv. See especially v. 157, and following.]
[Footnote 7:Sabiensis the Aramean equivalent of the word"Baptists."Mogtasilahas the same meaning in Arabic.]
Jesus, almost every year, went to Jerusalem for the feast of the passover. The details of these journeys are little known, for the synoptics do not speak of them,[1] and the notes of the fourth Gospel are very confused on this point.[2] It was, it appears, in the year 31, and certainly after the death of John, that the most important of the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem took place. Many of the disciples followed him. Although Jesus attached from that time little value to the pilgrimage, he conformed himself to it in order not to wound Jewish opinion, with which he had not yet broken. These journeys, moreover, were essential to his design; for he felt already that in order to play a leading part, he must go from Galilee, and attack Judaism in its stronghold, which was Jerusalem.
[Footnote 1: They, however, imply them obscurely (Matt. xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34). They knew as well as John the relation of Jesus with Joseph of Arimathea. Luke even (x. 38-42) knew the family of Bethany. Luke (ix. 51-54) has a vague idea of the system of the fourth Gospel respecting the journeys of Jesus. Many discourses against the Pharisees and the Sadducees, said by the synoptics to have been delivered in Galilee, have scarcely any meaning, except as having been given at Jerusalem. And again, the lapse of eight days is much too short to explain all that happened between the arrival of Jesus in that city and his death.]
[Footnote 2: Two pilgrimages are clearly indicated (John ii. 13, and v. 1), without speaking of his last journey (vii. 10), after which Jesus returned no more to Galilee. The first took place while John was still baptizing. It would belong consequently to the Easter of the year 29. But the circumstances given as belonging to this journey are of a more advanced period. (Comp. especially John ii. 14, and following, and Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 46.) There are evidently transpositions of dates in these chapters of John, or rather he has mixed the circumstances of different journeys.]
The little Galilean community were here far from being at home. Jerusalem was then nearly what it is to-day, a city of pedantry, acrimony, disputes, hatreds, and littleness of mind. Its fanaticism was extreme, and religious seditions very frequent. The Pharisees were dominant; the study of the Law, pushed to the most insignificant minutiæ, and reduced to questions of casuistry, was the only study. This exclusively theological and canonical culture contributed in no respect to refine the intellect. It was something analogous to the barren doctrine of the Mussulman fakir, to that empty science discussed round about the mosques, and which is a great expenditure of time and useless argumentation, by no means calculated to advance the right discipline of the mind. The theological education of the modern clergy, although very dry, gives us no idea of this, for the Renaissance has introduced into all our teachings, even the most irregular, a share ofbelles lettresand of method, which has infused more or less of thehumanitiesinto scholasticism. The science of the Jewish doctor, of thesoferor scribe, was purely barbarous, unmitigatedly absurd, and denuded of all moral element.[1] To crown the evil, it filled with ridiculous pride those who had wearied themselves in acquiring it. The Jewish scribe, proud of the pretended knowledge which had cost him so much trouble, had the same contempt for Greek culture which the learned Mussulman of our time has for European civilization, and which the old catholic theologian had for the knowledge of men of the world. The tendency of this scholastic culture was to close the mind to all that was refined, to create esteem only for those difficult triflings on which they had wasted their lives, and which were regarded as the natural occupation of persons professing a degree of seriousness.[2]
[Footnote 1: We may judge of it by the Talmud, the echo of the Jewish scholasticism of that time.]
[Footnote 2: Jos.,Ant., XX. xi. 2.]
This odious society could not fail to weigh heavily on the tender and susceptible minds of the north. The contempt of the Hierosolymites for the Galileans rendered the separation still more complete. In the beautiful temple which was the object of all their desires, they often only met with insult. A verse of the pilgrim's psalm,[1] "I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God," seemed made expressly for them. A contemptuous priesthood laughed at their simple devotion, as formerly in Italy the clergy, familiarized with the sanctuaries, witnessed coldly and almost jestingly the fervor of the pilgrim come from afar. The Galileans spoke a rather corrupt dialect; their pronunciation was vicious; they confounded the different aspirations of letters, which led to mistakes which were much laughed at.[2] In religion, they were considered as ignorant and somewhat heterodox;[3] the expression, "foolish Galileans," had become proverbial.[4] It was believed (not without reason) that they were not of pure Jewish blood, and no one expected Galilee to produce a prophet.[5] Placed thus on the confines of Judaism, and almost outside of it, the poor Galileans had only one badly interpreted passage in Isaiah to build their hopes upon.[6] "Land of Zebulon, and land of Naphtali, way of the sea, Galilee of the nations! The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." The reputation of the native city of Jesus was particularly bad. It was a popular proverb, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"[7]
[Footnote 1: Ps. lxxxiv. (Vulg. lxxxiii.) 11.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70;Actsii. 7; Talm. ofBab.,Erubin, 53a, and following; Bereschith Rabba, 26c.]
[Footnote 3: Passage from the treatiseErubin,loc. cit.]
[Footnote 4:Erubin,loc. cit., 53b.]
[Footnote 5: John vii. 52.]
[Footnote 6: Isa. ix. 1, 2; Matt. iv. 13, and following.]
[Footnote 7: John i. 46.]
The parched appearance of Nature in the neighborhood of Jerusalem must have added to the dislike Jesus had for the place. The valleys are without water; the soil arid and stony. Looking into the valley of the Dead Sea, the view is somewhat striking; elsewhere it is monotonous. The hill of Mizpeh, around which cluster the most ancient historical remembrances of Israel, alone relieves the eye. The city presented, at the time of Jesus, nearly the same form that it does now. It had scarcely any ancient monuments, for, until the time of the Asmoneans, the Jews had remained strangers to all the arts. John Hyrcanus had begun to embellish it, and Herod the Great had made it one of the most magnificent cities of the East. The Herodian constructions, by their grand character, perfection of execution, and beauty of material, may dispute superiority with the most finished works of antiquity.[1] A great number of superb tombs, of original taste, were raised at the same time in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.[2] The style of these monuments was Grecian, but appropriate to the customs of the Jews, and considerably modified in accordance with their principles. The ornamental sculptures of the human figure which the Herods had sanctioned, to the great discontent of the purists, were banished, and replaced by floral decorations. The taste of the ancient inhabitants of Phoenicia and Palestine for monoliths in solid stone seemed to be revived in these singular tombs cut in the rock, and in which Grecian orders are so strangely applied to an architecture of troglodytes. Jesus, who regarded works of art as a pompous display of vanity, viewed these monuments with displeasure.[3] His absolute spiritualism, and his settled conviction that the form of the old world was about to pass away, left him no taste except for things of the heart.
[Footnote 1: Jos.,Ant., XV. viii.-xi.;B.J., V. v. 6; Mark xiii. 1, 2.]
[Footnote 2: Tombs, namely, of the Judges, Kings, Absalom, Zechariah, Jehoshaphat, and of St. James. Compare the description of the tomb of the Maccabees at Modin (1 Macc. xiii. 27, and following).]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiii. 27, 29, xxiv. 1, and following; Mark xiii. 1, and following; Luke xix. 44, xxi. 5, and following. CompareBook of Enoch, xcvii. 13, 14; Talmud of Babylon,Shabbath, 33b.]
The temple, at the time of Jesus, was quite new, and the exterior works of it were not completed. Herod had begun its reconstruction in the year 20 or 21 before the Christian era, in order to make it uniform with his other edifices. The body of the temple was finished in eighteen months; the porticos took eight years;[1] and the accessory portions were continued slowly, and were only finished a short time before the taking of Jerusalem.[2] Jesus probably saw the work progressing, not without a degree of secret vexation. These hopes of a long future were like an insult to his approaching advent. Clearer-sighted than the unbelievers and the fanatics, he foresaw that these superb edifices were destined to endure but for a short time.[3]
[Footnote 1: Jos.,Ant., XV. xi. 5, 6.]
[Footnote 2: Jos.,Ant., XX. ix. 7; John ii. 20.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiv. 2, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark xiii. 2, xiv. 58, xv. 29; Luke xxi. 6; John ii. 19, 20.]
The temple formed a marvelously imposing whole, of which the presentharam,[1] notwithstanding its beauty, scarcely gives us any idea. The courts and the surrounding porticos served as the daily rendezvous for a considerable number of persons—so much so, that this great space was at once temple, forum, tribunal, and university. All the religious discussions of the Jewish schools, all the canonical instruction, even the legal processes and civil causes—in a word, all the activity of the nation was concentrated there.[2] It was an arena where arguments were perpetually clashing, a battlefield of disputes, resounding with sophisms and subtle questions. The temple had thus much analogy with a Mahometan mosque. The Romans at this period treated all strange religions with respect, when kept within proper limits,[3] and carefully refrained from entering the sanctuary; Greek and Latin inscriptions marked the point up to which those who were not Jews were permitted to advance.[4] But the tower of Antonia, the headquarters of the Roman forces, commanded the whole enclosure, and allowed all that passed therein to be seen.[5] The guarding of the temple belonged to the Jews; the entire superintendence was committed to a captain, who caused the gates to be opened and shut, and prevented any one from crossing the enclosure with a stick in his hand, or with dusty shoes, or when carrying parcels, or to shorten his path.[6] They were especially scrupulous in watching that no one entered within the inner gates in a state of legal impurity. The women had an entirely separate court.
[Footnote 1: The temple and its enclosure doubtless occupied the site of the mosque of Omar and theharam, or Sacred Court, which surrounds the mosque. The foundation of the haram is, in some parts, especially at the place where the Jews go to weep, the exact base of the temple of Herod.]
[Footnote 2: Luke ii. 46, and following; Mishnah,Sanhedrim, x. 2.]
[Footnote 3: Suet.,Aug.93.]
[Footnote 4: Philo,Legatio ad Caium, § 31; Jos.,B.J., V. v. 2,VI. ii. 4;Actsxxi. 28.]
[Footnote 5: Considerable traces of this tower are still seen in the northern part of the haram.]
[Footnote 6: Mishnah,Berakoth, ix. 5; Talm. of Babyl.,Jebamoth, 6b; Mark xi. 16.]
It was in the temple that Jesus passed his days, whilst he remained at Jerusalem. The period of the feasts brought an extraordinary concourse of people into the city. Associated in parties of ten to twenty persons, the pilgrims invaded everywhere, and lived in that disordered state in which Orientals delight.[1] Jesus was lost in the crowd, and his poor Galileans grouped around him were of small account. He probably felt that he was in a hostile world which would receive him only with disdain. Everything he saw set him against it. The temple, like much-frequented places of devotion in general, offered a not very edifying spectacle. The accessories of worship entailed a number of repulsive details, especially of mercantile operations, in consequence of which real shops were established within the sacred enclosure. There were sold beasts for the sacrifices; there were tables for the exchange of money; at times it seemed like a bazaar. The inferior officers of the temple fulfilled their functions doubtless with the irreligious vulgarity of the sacristans of all ages. This profane and heedless air in the handling of holy things wounded the religious sentiment of Jesus, which was at times carried even to a scrupulous excess.[2] He said that they had made the house of prayer into a den of thieves. One day, it is even said, that, carried away by his anger, he scourged the vendors with a "scourge of small cords," and overturned their tables.[3] In general, he had little love for the temple. The worship which he had conceived for his Father had nothing in common with scenes of butchery. All these old Jewish institutions displeased him, and he suffered in being obliged to conform to them. Except among the Judaizing Christians, neither the temple nor its site inspired pious sentiments. The true disciples of the new faith held this ancient sanctuary in aversion. Constantine and the first Christian emperors left the pagan construction of Adrian existing there,[4] and only the enemies of Christianity, such as Julian, remembered the temple.[5] When Omar entered into Jerusalem, he found the site designedly polluted in hatred of the Jews.[6] It was Islamism, that is to say, a sort of resurrection of Judaism in its exclusively Semitic form, which restored its glory. The place has always been anti-Christian.
[Footnote 1: Jos.,B.J., II. xiv. 3, VI. ix. 3. Comp. Ps. cxxxiii.(Vulg. cxxxii.)]
[Footnote 2: Mark xi. 16.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xxi. 12, and following; Mark xi. 15, and following;Luke xix. 45, and following; John ii. 14, and following.]
[Footnote 4:Itin. a Burdig. Hierus., p. 152 (edit. Schott); S.Jerome, inIs.i. 8, and in Matt. xxiv. 15.]
[Footnote 5: Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 1.]
[Footnote 6: Eutychius,Ann., II. 286, and following (Oxford 1659).]
The pride of the Jews completed the discontent of Jesus, and rendered his stay in Jerusalem painful. In the degree that the great ideas of Israel ripened, the priesthood lost its power. The institution of synagogues had given to the interpreter of the Law, to the doctor, a great superiority over the priest. There were no priests except at Jerusalem, and even there, reduced to functions entirely ritual, almost, like our parish priests, excluded from preaching, they were surpassed by the orator of the synagogue, the casuist, and thesoferor scribe, although the latter was only a layman. The celebrated men of the Talmud were not priests; they were learned men according to the ideas of the time. The high priesthood of Jerusalem held, it is true, a very elevated rank in the nation; but it was by no means at the head of the religious movement. The sovereign pontiff, whose dignity had already been degraded by Herod,[1] became more and more a Roman functionary,[2] who was frequently removed in order to divide the profits of the office. Opposed to the Pharisees, who were very warm lay zealots, the priests were almost all Sadducees, that is to say, members of that unbelieving aristocracy which had been formed around the temple, and which lived by the altar, while they saw the vanity of it.[3] The sacerdotal caste was separated to such a degree from the national sentiment and from the great religious movement which dragged the people along, that the name of "Sadducee" (sadoki), which at first simply designated a member of the sacerdotal family of Sadok, had become synonymous with "Materialist" and with "Epicurean."
[Footnote 1: Jos.,Ant., XV. iii. 1, 3.]
[Footnote 2: Ibid., XVIII. ii.]
[Footnote 3:Actsiv. 1, and following, v. 17; Jos.,Ant., XX. ix. 1;Pirké Aboth, i. 10.]
A still worse element had begun, since the reign of Herod the Great, to corrupt the high-priesthood. Herod having fallen in love with Mariamne, daughter of a certain Simon, son of Boëthus of Alexandria, and having wished to marry her (about the year 28 B.C.), saw no other means of ennobling his father-in-law and raising him to his own rank than by making him high-priest. This intriguing family remained master, almost without interruption, of the sovereign pontificate for thirty-five years.[1] Closely allied to the reigning family, it did not lose the office until after the deposition of Archelaus, and recovered it (the year 42 of our era) after Herod Agrippa had for some time re-enacted the work of Herod the Great. Under the name ofBoëthusim,[2] a new sacerdotal nobility was formed, very worldly, and little devotional, and closely allied to the Sadokites. TheBoëthusim, in the Talmud and the rabbinical writings, are depicted as a kind of unbelievers, and always reproached as Sadducees.[3] From all this there resulted a miniature court of Rome around the temple, living on politics, little inclined to excesses of zeal, even rather fearing them, not wishing to hear of holy personages or of innovators, for it profited from the established routine. These epicurean priests had not the violence of the Pharisees; they only wished for quietness; it was their moral indifference, their cold irreligion, which revolted Jesus. Although very different, the priests and the Pharisees were thus confounded in his antipathies. But a stranger, and without influence, he was long compelled to restrain his discontent within himself, and only to communicate his sentiments to the intimate friends who accompanied him.
[Footnote 1: Jos.,Ant.XV. ix. 3, XVII. vi. 4, xiii. 1, XVIII. i. 1, ii. 1, XIX. vi. 2, viii. 1.]
[Footnote 2: This name is only found in the Jewish documents. I think that the "Herodians" of the gospel are theBoëthusim.]
[Footnote 3: The treatise ofAboth Nathan, 5;Soferim, iii., hal. 5; Mishnah,Menachoth, x. 3; Talmud of Babylon,Shabbath, 118a. The name ofBoëthusimis often changed in the Talmudic books with that of the Sadducees, or with the wordMinim(heretics). Compare Thosiphta,Joma, i., with the Talm. of Jerus., the same treatise, i. 5, and Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 19b; Thos.Sukka, iii. with the Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 43b; Thos. ibid., further on, with the Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 48b; Thos.Rosh hasshana, i. with Mishnah, same treatise ii. 1; Talm. of Jerus., same treatise, ii. 1; and Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 22b; Thos.Menachoth, x. with Mishnah, same treatise, x. 3; Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 65a; Mishnah,Chagigah, ii. 4; and Megillath Taanith, i.; Thos.Iadaim, ii. with Talm. of Jerus.;Baba Bathra, viii. 1; Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 115b; and Megillath Taanith, v.]
Before his last stay, which was by far the longest of all that he made at Jerusalem, and which was terminated by his death, Jesus endeavored, however, to obtain a hearing. He preached; people spoke of him; and they conversed respecting certain deeds of his which were looked upon as miraculous. But from all that, there resulted neither an established church at Jerusalem nor a group of Hierosolymite disciples. The charming teacher, who forgave every one provided they loved him, could not find much sympathy in this sanctuary of vain disputes and obsolete sacrifices. The only result was that he formed some valuable friendships, the advantage of which he reaped afterward. He does not appear at that time to have made the acquaintance of the family of Bethany, which, amidst the trials of the latter months of his life, brought him so much consolation. But very early he attracted the attention of a certain Nicodemus, a rich Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrim, and a man occupying a high position in Jerusalem.[1] This man, who appears to have been upright and sincere, felt himself attracted toward the young Galilean. Not wishing to compromise himself, he came to see Jesus by night, and had a long conversation with him.[2] He doubtless preserved a favorable impression of him, for afterward he defended Jesus against the prejudices of his colleagues,[3] and, at the death of Jesus, we shall find him tending with pious care the corpse of the master.[4] Nicodemus did not become a Christian; he had too much regard for his position to take part in a revolutionary movement which as yet counted no men of note amongst its adherents. But he evidently felt great friendship for Jesus, and rendered him service, though unable to rescue him from a death which even at this period was all but decreed.
[Footnote 1: It seems that he is referred to in the Talmud. Talm. of Bab.,Taanith, 20a;Gittin, 56a;Ketuboth, 66b; treatiseAboth Nathan, vii.; Midrash Rabba,Eka, 64a. The passageTaanithidentifies him with Bounaï, who, according toSanhedrim(see ante, p. 212, note 2), was a disciple of Jesus. But if Bounaï is the Banou of Josephus, this identification will not hold good.]
[Footnote 2: John iii. 1, and following, vii. 50. We are certainly free to believe that the exact text of the conversation is but a creation of John's.]
[Footnote 3: John vii. 50, and following.]
[Footnote 4: John xix. 39.]
As to the celebrated doctors of the time, Jesus does not appear to have had any connection with them. Hillel and Shammai were dead; the greatest authority of the time was Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel. He was of a liberal spirit, and a man of the world, not opposed to secular studies, and inclined to tolerance by his intercourse with good society.[1] Unlike the very strict Pharisees, who walked veiled or with closed eyes, he did not scruple to gaze even upon Pagan women.[2] This, as well as his knowledge of Greek, was tolerated because he had access to the court.[3] After the death of Jesus, he expressed very moderate views respecting the new sect.[4] St. Paul sat at his feet,[5] but it is not probable that Jesus ever entered his school.
[Footnote 1: Mishnah,Baba Metsia, v. 8; Talm. of Bab.,Sota, 49b.]
[Footnote 2: Talm. of Jerus.,Berakoth, ix. 2.]
[Footnote 3: PassageSota, before cited, andBaba Kama, 83a.]
[Footnote 4:Actsv. 34, and following.]
[Footnote 5:Actsxxii. 3.]
One idea, at least, which Jesus brought from Jerusalem, and which henceforth appears rooted in his mind, was that there was no union possible between him and the ancient Jewish religion. The abolition of the sacrifices which had caused him so much disgust, the suppression of an impious and haughty priesthood, and, in a general sense, the abrogation of the law, appeared to him absolutely necessary. From this time he appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of Judaism. Certain advocates of the Messianic ideas had already admitted that the Messiah would bring a new law, which should be common to all the earth.[1] The Essenes, who were scarcely Jews, also appear to have been indifferent to the temple and to the Mosaic observances. But these were only isolated or unavowed instances of boldness. Jesus was the first who dared to say that from his time, or rather from that of John,[2] the Law was abolished. If sometimes he used more measured terms,[3] it was in order not to offend existing prejudices too violently. When he was driven to extremities, he lifted the veil entirely, and declared that the Law had no longer any force. On this subject he used striking comparisons. "No man putteth a piece of new cloth into an old garment, neither do men put new wine into old bottles."[4] This was really his chief characteristic as teacher and creator. The temple excluded all except Jews from its enclosure by scornful announcements. Jesus had no sympathy with this. The narrow, hard, and uncharitable Law was only made for the children of Abraham. Jesus maintained that every well-disposed man, every man who received and loved him, was a son of Abraham.[5] The pride of blood appeared to him the great enemy which was to be combated. In other words, Jesus was no longer a Jew. He was in the highest degree revolutionary; he called all men to a worship founded solely on the fact of their being children of God. He proclaimed the rights of man, not the rights of the Jew; the religion of man, not the religion of the Jew; the deliverance of man, not the deliverance of the Jew.[6] How far removed was this from a Gaulonite Judas or a Matthias Margaloth, preaching revolution in the name of the Law! The religion of humanity, established, not upon blood, but upon the heart, was founded. Moses was superseded, the temple was rendered useless, and was irrevocably condemned.
[Footnote 1:Orac. Sib., book iii. 573, and following, 715, and following, 756-58. Compare the Targum of Jonathan, Isa. xii. 3.]
[Footnote 2: Luke xvi. 16. The passage in Matt. xi. 12, 13, is less clear, but can have no other meaning.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. v. 17, 18 (Cf. Talm. of Bab.,Shabbath, 116b). This passage is not in contradiction with those in which the abolition of the Law is implied. It only signifies that in Jesus all the types of the Old Testament are realized. Cf. Luke xvi. 17.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. ix. 16, 17; Luke v. 36, and following.]
[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 9.]
[Footnote 6: Matt. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19; Mark xiii. 10, xvi. 15; Luke xxiv. 47.]
Following out these principles, Jesus despised all religion which was not of the heart. The vain practices of the devotees,[1] the exterior strictness, which trusted to formality for salvation, had in him a mortal enemy. He cared little for fasting.[2] He preferred forgiveness to sacrifice.[3] The love of God, charity and mutual forgiveness, were his whole law.[4] Nothing could be less priestly. The priest, by his office, ever advocates public sacrifice, of which he is the appointed minister; he discourages private prayer, which has a tendency to dispense with his office.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xv. 9.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. ix. 14, xi. 19.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. v. 23, and following, ix. 13, xii. 7.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xxii. 37, and following; Mark xii. 28, and following; Luke x. 25, and following.]
We should seek in vain in the Gospel for one religious rite recommended by Jesus. Baptism to him was only of secondary importance;[1] and with respect to prayer, he prescribes nothing, except that it should proceed from the heart. As is always the case, many thought to substitute mere good-will for genuine love of goodness, and imagined they could win the kingdom of heaven by saying to him, "Rabbi, Rabbi." He rebuked them, and proclaimed that his religion consisted in doing good.[2] He often quoted the passage in Isaiah, which says: "This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."[3]
[Footnote 1: Matt. iii. 15; 1Cor.i. 17.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. vii. 21; Luke vi. 46.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xv. 8; Mark vii. 6. Cf. Isaiah xxix. 13.]
The observance of the Sabbath was the principal point upon which was raised the whole edifice of Pharisaic scruples and subtleties. This ancient and excellent institution had become a pretext for the miserable disputes of casuists, and a source of superstitious beliefs.[1] It was believed that Nature observed it; all intermittent springs were accounted "Sabbatical."[2] This was the point upon which Jesus loved best to defy his adversaries.[3] He openly violated the Sabbath, and only replied by subtle raillery to the reproaches that were heaped upon him. He despised still more a multitude of modern observances, which tradition had added to the Law, and which were dearer than any other to the devotees on that very account. Ablutions, and the too subtle distinctions between pure and impure things, found in him a pitiless opponent: "There is nothing from without a man," said he, "that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." The Pharisees, who were the propagators of these mummeries, were unceasingly denounced by him. He accused them of exceeding the Law, of inventing impossible precepts, in order to create occasions of sin: "Blind leaders of the blind," said he, "take care lest ye also fall into the ditch." "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."[4]
[Footnote 1: See especially the treatiseShabbathof the Mishnah and theLivre des Jubilés(translated from the Ethiopian in theJahrbücherof Ewald, years 2 and 3), chap. I.]
[Footnote 2: Jos.,B.J., VII. v. 1; Pliny,H.N., xxxi. 18. Cf.Thomson,The Land and the Book, i. 406, and following.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 1-14; Mark ii. 23-28; Luke vi. 1-5, xiii. 14, and following, xiv. 1, and following.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xii. 34, xv. 1, and following, 12, and following, xxiii. entirely; Mark vii. 1, and following, 15, and following; Luke vi. 45, xi. 39, and following.]
He did not know the Gentiles sufficiently to think of founding anything lasting upon their conversion. Galilee contained a great number of pagans, but, as it appears, no public and organized worship of false gods.[1] Jesus could see this worship displayed in all its splendor in the country of Tyre and Sidon, at Cæsarea Philippi and in the Decapolis, but he paid little attention to it. We never find in him the wearisome pedantry of the Jews of his time, those declamations against idolatry, so familiar to his co-religionists from the time of Alexander, and which fill, for instance, the book of "Wisdom."[2] That which struck him in the pagans was not their idolatry, but their servility.[3] The young Jewish democrat agreeing on this point with Judas the Gaulonite, and admitting no master but God, was hurt at the honors with which they surrounded the persons of sovereigns, and the frequently mendacious titles given to them. With this exception, in the greater number of instances in which he comes in contact with pagans, he shows great indulgence to them; sometimes he professes to conceive more hope of them than of the Jews.[4] The kingdom of God would be transferred to them. "When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto these husbandmen? He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons."[5] Jesus adhered so much the more to this idea, as the conversion of the Gentiles was, according to Jewish ideas, one of the surest signs of the advent of the Messiah.[6] In his kingdom of God he represents, as seated at a feast, by the side of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, men come from the four winds of heaven, whilst the lawful heirs of the kingdom are rejected.[7] Sometimes, it is true, there seems to be an entirely contrary tendency in the commands he gives to his disciples: he seems to recommend them only to preach salvation to the orthodox Jews,[8] he speaks of pagans in a manner conformable to the prejudices of the Jews.[9] But we must remember that the disciples, whose narrow minds did not share in this supreme indifference for the privileges of the sons of Abraham, may have given the instruction of their master the bent of their own ideas. Besides, it is very possible that Jesus may have varied on this point, just as Mahomet speaks of the Jews in the Koran, sometimes in the most honorable manner, sometimes with extreme harshness, as he had hope of winning their favor or otherwise. Tradition, in fact, attributes to Jesus two entirely opposite rules of proselytism, which he may have practised in turn: "He that is not against us is on our part." "He that is not with me, is against me."[10] Impassioned conflict involves almost necessarily this kind of contradictions.
[Footnote 1: I believe the pagans of Galilee were found especially on the frontiers—at Kedes, for example; but that the very heart of the country, the city of Tiberias excepted, was entirely Jewish. The line where the ruins of temples end, and those of synagogues begin, is to-day plainly marked as far north as Lake Huleh (Samachonites). The traces of pagan sculpture, which were thought to have been found at Tell-Houm, are doubtful. The coast—the town of Acre, in particular—did not form part of Galilee.]
[Footnote 2: Chap. XIII. and following.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xx. 25; Mark x. 42; Luke xxii. 25.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. viii. 5, and following, xv. 22, and following; Mark vii. 25, and following; Luke iv. 25, and following.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. xxi. 41; Mark xii. 9; Luke xx. 16.]
[Footnote 6: Isa. ii. 2, and following, lx.; Amos ix. 11, and following; Jer. iii. 17; Mal. i. 11;Tobit, xiii. 13, and following;Orac. Sibyll., iii. 715, and following. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 14;Actsxv. 15, and following.]
[Footnote 7: Matt. viii. 11, 12, xxi. 33, and following, xxii. 1, and following.]
[Footnote 8: Matt. vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xv. 24, xxi. 43.]
[Footnote 9: Matt. v. 46, and following, vi. 7, 32, xviii. 17; Luke vi. 32, and following, xii. 30.]
[Footnote 10: Matt. xii. 30; Mark ix. 39; Luke ix. 50, xi. 23.]
It is certain that he counted among his disciples many men whom the Jews called "Hellenes."[1] This word had in Palestine divers meanings. Sometimes it designated the pagans; sometimes the Jews, speaking Greek, and dwelling among the pagans;[2] sometimes men of pagan origin converted to Judaism.[3] It was probably in the last-named category of Hellenes that Jesus found sympathy.[4] The affiliation with Judaism had many degrees; but the proselytes always remained in a state of inferiority in regard to the Jew by birth. Those in question were called "proselytes of the gate," or "men fearing God," and were subject to the precepts of Noah, and not to those of Moses.[5] This very inferiority was doubtless the cause which drew them to Jesus, and gained them his favor.
[Footnote 1: Josephus confirms this (Ant., XVIII. iii. 3). Comp.John vii. 35, xii. 20, 21.]
[Footnote 2: Talm. of Jerus.,Sota, vii. 1.]
[Footnote 3: See in particular, John vii. 35, xii. 20;Actsxiv. 1, xvii. 4, xviii. 4, xxi. 28.]
[Footnote 4: John xii. 20;Actsviii. 27.]
[Footnote 5: Mishnah,Baba Metsia, ix. 12; Talm. of Bab.,Sanh.,56b;Actsviii. 27, x. 2, 22, 35, xiii. 16, 26, 43, 50, xvi. 14, xvii. 4, 17, xviii. 7; Gal. ii. 3; Jos.,Ant., XIV. vii. 2.]
He treated the Samaritans in the same manner. Shut in, like a small island, between the two great provinces of Judaism (Judea and Galilee), Samaria formed in Palestine a kind of enclosure in which was preserved the ancient worship of Gerizim, closely resembling and rivalling that of Jerusalem. This poor sect, which had neither the genius nor the learned organization of Judaism, properly so called, was treated by the Hierosolymites with extreme harshness.[1] They placed them in the same rank as pagans, but hated them more.[2] Jesus, from a feeling of opposition, was well disposed toward Samaria, and often preferred the Samaritans to the orthodox Jews. If, at other times, he seems to forbid his disciples preaching to them, confining his gospel to the Israelites proper,[3] this was no doubt a precept arising from special circumstances, to which the apostles have given too absolute a meaning. Sometimes, in fact, the Samaritans received him badly, because they thought him imbued with the prejudices of his co-religionists;[4]—in the same manner as in our days the European free-thinker is regarded as an enemy by the Mussulman, who always believes him to be a fanatical Christian. Jesus raised himself above these misunderstandings.[5] He had many disciples at Shechem, and he passed at least two days there.[6] On one occasion he meets with gratitude and true piety from a Samaritan only.[7] One of his most beautiful parables is that of the man wounded on the way to Jericho. A priest passes by and sees him, but goes on his way; a Levite also passes, but does not stop; a Samaritan takes pity on him, approaches him, and pours oil into his wounds, and bandages them.[8] Jesus argues from this that true brotherhood is established among men by charity, and not by creeds. The "neighbor" who in Judaism was specially the co-religionist, was in his estimation the man who has pity on his kind without distinction of sect. Human brotherhood in its widest sense overflows in all his teaching.
[Footnote 1:Ecclesiasticusl. 27, 28; John viii. 48; Jos.,Ant., IX. xiv. 3, XI. viii. 6, XII. v. 5; Talm. of Jerus.,Aboda zara, v. 4;Pesachim, i. 1.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 5; Luke xvii. 18. Comp. Talm. of Bab.,Cholin, 6a.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. x. 5, 6.]
[Footnote 4: Luke ix. 53.]
[Footnote 5: Luke ix. 56.]
[Footnote 6: John iv. 39-43.]
[Footnote 7: Luke xvii. 16.]
[Footnote 8: Luke x. 30, and following.]
These thoughts, which beset Jesus on his leaving Jerusalem, found their vivid expression in an anecdote which has been preserved respecting his return. The road from Jerusalem into Galilee passes at the distance of half an hour's journey from Shechem,[1] in front of the opening of the valley commanded by mounts Ebal and Gerizim. This route was in general avoided by the Jewish pilgrims, who preferred making in their journeys the long detour through Perea, rather than expose themselves to the insults of the Samaritans, or ask anything of them. It was forbidden to eat and drink with them.[2] It was an axiom of certain casuists, that "a piece of Samaritan bread is the flesh of swine."[3] When they followed this route, provisions were always laid up beforehand; yet they rarely avoided conflict and ill-treatment.[4] Jesus shared neither these scruples nor these fears. Having come to the point where the valley of Shechem opens on the left, he felt fatigued, and stopped near a well. The Samaritans were then as now accustomed to give to all the localities of their valley names drawn from patriarchal reminiscences. They regarded this well as having been given by Jacob to Joseph; it was probably the same which is now calledBir-Iakoub. The disciples entered the valley and went to the city to buy provisions. Jesus seated himself at the side of the well, having Gerizim before him.
[Footnote 1: Now Nablous.]
[Footnote 2: Luke ix. 53; John iv. 9.]
[Footnote 3: Mishnah,Shebiit, viii. 10.]
[Footnote 4: Jos.,Ant., XX. v. 1;B.J., II. xii. 3;Vita, 52.]
It was about noon. A woman of Shechem came to draw water. Jesus asked her to let him drink, which excited great astonishment in the woman, the Jews generally forbidding all intercourse with the Samaritans. Won by the conversation of Jesus, the woman recognized in him a prophet, and expecting some reproaches about her worship, she anticipated him: "Sir," said she, "our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth."[1]
[Footnote 1: John iv. 21-23. Verse 22, at least the latter clause of it, which expresses an idea opposed to that of verses 21 and 23, appears to have been interpolated. We must not insist too much on the historical reality of such a conversation, since Jesus, or his interlocutor, alone would have been able to relate it. But the anecdote in chapter iv. of John, certainly represents one of the most intimate thoughts of Jesus, and the greater part of the circumstances have a striking appearance of truth.]
The day on which he uttered this saying, he was truly Son of God. He pronounced for the first time the sentence upon which will repose the edifice of eternal religion. He founded the pure worship, of all ages, of all lands, that which all elevated souls will practice until the end of time. Not only was his religion on this day the best religion of humanity, it was the absolute religion; and if other planets have inhabitants gifted with reason and morality, their religion cannot be different from that which Jesus proclaimed near the well of Jacob. Man has not been able to maintain this position: for the ideal is realized but transitorily. This sentence of Jesus has been a brilliant light amidst gross darkness; it has required eighteen hundred years for the eyes of mankind (what do I say! for an infinitely small portion of mankind) to become accustomed to it. But the light will become the full day, and, after having run through all the cycles of error, mankind will return to this sentence, as the immortal expression of its faith and its hope.
Jesus returned to Galilee, having completely lost his Jewish faith, and filled with revolutionary ardor. His ideas are now expressed with perfect clearness. The innocent aphorisms of the first part of his prophetic career, in part borrowed from the Jewish rabbis anterior to him, and the beautiful moral precepts of his second period, are exchanged for a decided policy. The Law would be abolished; and it was to be abolished by him.[1] The Messiah had come, and he was the Messiah. The kingdom of God was about to be revealed; and it was he who would reveal it. He knew well that he would be the victim of his boldness; but the kingdom of God could not be conquered without violence; it was by crises and commotions that it was to be established.[2] The Son of man would reappear in glory, accompanied by legions of angels, and those who had rejected him would be confounded.
[Footnote 1: The hesitancy of the immediate disciples of Jesus, of whom a considerable portion remained attached to Judaism, might cause objections to be raised to this. But the trial of Jesus leaves no room for doubt. We shall see that he was there treated as a "corrupter." The Talmud gives the procedure adopted against him as an example of that which ought to be followed against "corrupters," who seek to overturn the Law of Moses. (Talm. of Jerus.,Sanhedrim, xiv. 16; Talm. of Bab.,Sanhedrim, 43a, 67a.)]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xi. 12; Luke xvi. 16.]
The boldness of such a conception ought not to surprise us. Long before this, Jesus had regarded his relation to God as that of a son to his father. That which in others would be an insupportable pride, ought not in him to be regarded as presumption.
The title of "Son of David" was the first which he accepted, probably without being concerned in the innocent frauds by which it was sought to secure it to him. The family of David had, as it seems, been long extinct;[1] the Asmoneans being of priestly origin, could not pretend to claim such a descent for themselves; neither Herod nor the Romans dreamt for a moment that any representative whatever of the ancient dynasty existed in their midst. But from the close of the Asmonean dynasty the dream of an unknown descendant of the ancient kings, who should avenge the nation of its enemies, filled every mind. The universal belief was, that the Messiah would be son of David, and like him would be born at Bethlehem.[2] The first idea of Jesus was not precisely this. The remembrance of David, which was uppermost in the minds of the Jews, had nothing in common with his heavenly reign. He believed himself the Son of God, and not the son of David. His kingdom, and the deliverance which he meditated, were of quite another order. But public opinion on this point made him do violence to himself. The immediate consequence of the proposition, "Jesus is the Messiah," was this other proposition, "Jesus is the son of David." He allowed a title to be given him, without which he could not hope for success. He ended, it seems, by taking pleasure therein, for he performed most willingly the miracles which were asked of him by those who used this title in addressing him.[3] In this, as in many other circumstances of his life, Jesus yielded to the ideas which were current in his time, although they were not precisely his own. He associated with his doctrine of the "kingdom of God" all that could warm the heart and the imagination. It was thus that we have seen him adopt the baptism of John, although it could not have been of much importance to him.
[Footnote 1: It is true that certain doctors—such as Hillel, Gamaliel—are mentioned as being of the race of David. But these are very doubtful allegations. If the family of David still formed a distinct and prominent group, how is it that we never see it figure, by the side of the Sadokites, Boëthusians, the Asmoneans, and Herods, in the great struggles of the time?]
[Footnote 2: Matt. ii. 5, 6, xxii. 42; Luke i. 32; John vii. 41, 42;Actsii. 30.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31; Mark x. 47, 52; Luke xviii. 38.]
One great difficulty presented itself—his birth at Nazareth, which was of public notoriety. We do not know whether Jesus strove against this objection. Perhaps it did not present itself in Galilee, where the idea that the son of David should be a Bethlehemite was less spread. To the Galilean idealist, moreover, the title of "son of David" was sufficiently justified, if he to whom it was given revived the glory of his race, and brought back the great days of Israel. Did Jesus authorize by his silence the fictitious genealogies which his partisans invented in order to prove his royal descent?[1] Did he know anything of the legends invented to prove that he was born at Bethlehem; and particularly of the attempt to connect his Bethlehemite origin with the census which had taken place by order of the imperial legate, Quirinus?[2] We know not. The inexactitude and the contradictions of the genealogies[3] lead to the belief that they were the result of popular ideas operating at various points, and that none of them were sanctioned by Jesus.[4] Never does he designate himself as son of David. His disciples, much less enlightened than he, frequently magnified that which he said of himself; but, as a rule, he had no knowledge of these exaggerations. Let us add, that during the first three centuries, considerable portions of Christendom[5] obstinately denied the royal descent of Jesus and the authenticity of the genealogies.
[Footnote 1: Matt. i. 1, and following; Luke iii. 23, and following.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. ii. 1, and following; Luke ii. 1, and following.]
[Footnote 3: The two genealogies are quite contradictory, and do not agree with the lists of the Old Testament. The narrative of Luke on the census of Quirinus implies an anachronism. See ante, p. 81, note 4. It is natural to suppose, besides, that the legend may have laid hold of this circumstance. The census made a great impression on the Jews, overturned their narrow ideas, and was remembered by them for a long period. Cf.Actsv. 37.]
[Footnote 4: Julius Africanus (in Eusebius,H.E., i. 7) supposes that it was the relations of Jesus, who, having taken refuge in Batanea, attempted to recompose the genealogies.]
[Footnote 5: TheEbionites, the "Hebrews," the "Nazarenes," Tatian,Marcion. Cf. Epiph.,Adv. Hær., xxix. 9, xxx. 3, 14, xlvi. 1;Theodoret,Hæret. fab., i. 20; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. i. 371,ad Pansophium.]
The legends about him were thus the fruit of a great and entirely spontaneous conspiracy, and were developed around him during his lifetime. No great event in history has happened without having given rise to a cycle of fables; and Jesus could not have put a stop to these popular creations, even if he had wished to do so. Perhaps a sagacious observer would have recognized from this point the germ of the narratives which were to attribute to him a supernatural birth, and which arose, it may be, from the idea, very prevalent in antiquity, that the incomparable man could not be born of the ordinary relations of the two sexes; or, it may be, in order to respond to an imperfectly understood chapter of Isaiah,[1] which was thought to foretell that the Messiah should be born of a virgin; or, lastly, it may be in consequence of the idea that the "breath of God," already regarded as a divine hypostasis, was a principle of fecundity.[2] Already, perhaps, there was current more than one anecdote about his infancy, conceived with the intention of showing in his biography the accomplishment of the Messianic ideal;[3] or, rather, of the prophecies which the allegorical exegesis of the time referred to the Messiah. At other times they connected him from his birth with celebrated men, such as John the Baptist, Herod the Great, Chaldean astrologers, who, it was said, visited Jerusalem about this time,[4] and two aged persons, Simeon and Anna, who had left memories of great sanctity.[5] A rather loose chronology characterized these combinations, which for the most part were founded upon real facts travestied.[6] But a singular spirit of gentleness and goodness, a profoundly popular sentiment, permeated all these fables, and made them a supplement to his preaching.[7] It was especially after the death of Jesus that such narratives became greatly developed; we may, however, believe that they circulated even during his life, exciting only a pious credulity and simple admiration.
[Footnote 1: Matt. i. 22, 23.]
[Footnote 2: Gen. i. 2. For the analogous idea among the Egyptians, see Herodotus, iii. 28; Pomp. Mela, i. 9: Plutarch,Quæst. symp., VIII. i. 3;De Isid. et Osir., 43.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. i. 15, 23; Isa. vii. 14, and following.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. ii. 1, and following.]
[Footnote 5: Luke ii. 25, and following.]
[Footnote 6: Thus the legend of the massacre of the Innocents probably refers to some cruelty exercised by Herod near Bethlehem. Comp. Jos.,Ant., XIV. ix. 4.]
[Footnote 7: Matt. i., ii.; Luke i., ii.; S. Justin,Dial. cumTryph., 78, 106;Protoevang. of James(Apoca.), 18 and following.]
That Jesus never dreamt of making himself pass for an incarnation of God, is a matter about which there can be no doubt. Such an idea was entirely foreign to the Jewish mind; and there is no trace of it in the synoptical gospels,[1] we only find it indicated in portions of the Gospel of John, which cannot be accepted as expressing the thoughts of Jesus. Sometimes Jesus even seems to take precautions to put down such a doctrine.[2] The accusation that he made himself God, or the equal of God, is presented, even in the Gospel of John, as a calumny of the Jews.[3] In this last Gospel he declares himself less than his Father.[4] Elsewhere he avows that the Father has not revealed everything to him.[5] He believes himself to be more than an ordinary man, but separated from God by an infinite distance. He is Son of God, but all men are, or may become so, in divers degrees.[6] Every one ought daily to call God his father; all who are raised again will be sons of God.[7] The divine son-ship was attributed in the Old Testament to beings whom it was by no means pretended were equal with God.[8] The word "son" has the widest meanings in the Semitic language, and in that of the New Testament.[9] Besides, the idea Jesus had of man was not that low idea which a cold Deism has introduced. In his poetic conception of Nature, one breath alone penetrates the universe; the breath of man is that of God; God dwells in man, and lives by man, the same as man dwells in God, and lives by God.[10] The transcendent idealism of Jesus never permitted him to have a very clear notion of his own personality. He is his Father, his Father is he. He lives in his disciples; he is everywhere with them;[11] his disciples are one, as he and his Father are one.[12] The idea to him is everything; the body, which makes the distinction of persons, is nothing.
[Footnote 1: Certain passages, such asActsii. 22, expressly exclude this idea.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19.]
[Footnote 3: John v. 18, and following, x. 33, and following.]
[Footnote 4: John xiv. 28.]
[Footnote 5: Mark xiii. 35.]
[Footnote 6: Matt. v. 9, 45; Luke iii. 38, vi. 35, xx. 36; John i. 12, 13, x. 34, 35. Comp.Actsxvii. 28, 29; Rom. viii. 14, 19, 21, ix. 26; 2 Cor. vi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; and in the Old Testament,Deut.xiv. 1; and especiallyWisdom, ii. 13, 18.]
[Footnote 7: Luke xx. 36.]
[Footnote 8: Gen. vi. 2; Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxviii. 7; Ps. ii. 7, lxxxii. 6; 2 Sam. vii. 14.]
[Footnote 9: The child of the devil (Matt. xiii. 38;Actsxiii. 10); the children of this world (Mark iii. 17; Luke xvi. 8, xx. 34); the children of light (Luke xvi. 8; John xii. 36); the children of the resurrection (Luke xx. 36); the children of the kingdom (Matt. viii. 12, xiii. 38); the children of the bride-chamber (Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii. 19; Luke v. 34); the children of hell (Matt. xxiii. 15); the children of peace (Luke x. 6), &c. Let us remember that the Jupiter of paganism is [Greek: patêr andrôn te theôn te].]
[Footnote 10: Comp.Actsxvii. 28.]
[Footnote 11: Matt. xviii. 20, xxviii. 20.]
[Footnote 12: John x. 30, xvii. 21. See in general the later discourses of John, especially chap. xvii., which express one side of the psychological state of Jesus, though we cannot regard them as true historical documents.]
The title "Son of God," or simply "Son,"[1] thus became for Jesus a title analogous to "Son of man," and, like that, synonymous with the "Messiah," with the sole difference that he called himself "Son of man," and does not seem to have made the same use of the phrase, "Son of God."[2] The title, Son of man, expressed his character as judge; that of Son of God his power and his participation in the supreme designs. This power had no limits. His Father had given him all power. He had the power to alter even the Sabbath.[3] No one could know the Father except through him.[4] The Father had delegated to him exclusively the right of judging.[5] Nature obeyed him; but she obeys also all who believe and pray, for faith can do everything.[6] We must remember that no idea of the laws of Nature marked the limit of the impossible, either in his own mind, or in that of his hearers. The witnesses of his miracles thanked God "for having given such power unto men."[7] He pardoned sins;[8] he was superior to David, to Abraham, to Solomon, and to the prophets.[9] We do not know in what form, nor to what extent, these affirmations of himself were made. Jesus ought not to be judged by the law of our petty conventionalities. The admiration of his disciples overwhelmed him and carried him away. It is evident that the title ofRabbi, with which he was at first contented, no longer sufficed him; even the title of prophet or messenger of God responded no longer to his ideas. The position which he attributed to himself was that of a superhuman being, and he wished to be regarded as sustaining a higher relationship to God than other men. But it must be remarked that these words, "superhuman" and "supernatural," borrowed from our petty theology, had no meaning in the exalted religious consciousness of Jesus. To him Nature and the development of humanity were not limited kingdoms apart from God—paltry realities subjected to the laws of a hopeless empiricism. There was no supernatural for him, because there was no Nature. Intoxicated with infinite love, he forgot the heavy chain which holds the spirit captive; he cleared at one bound the abyss, impossible to most, which the weakness of the human faculties has created between God and man.
[Footnote 1: The passages in support of this are too numerous to be referred to here.]
[Footnote 2: It is only in the Gospel of John that Jesus uses the expression "Son of God," or "Son," in speaking of himself.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 8; Luke vi. 5.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 27.]
[Footnote 5: John v. 22.]