tested, tried, used or cast aside, as the case might be. It was the first time, [1 The remark in the 'Speaker's Commentary' (St. Luke iv. 16), that Jesus had been in the habit of expounding the Scriptures in Nazareth, is not only groundless, but inconsistent with the narrative. See ver. 22. Still more strange is the supposition, that 'Jesus offered to read and to expound, and signified this intention by standing up. This might be done by any member of the congregation.' Most assuredly such would not be the case.] so far as we know, that He taught in a Synagogue, and this Synagogue that of His own Nazareth.
It was, surely, a wondrously linked chain of circumstances, which bound the Synagogue to the Church. Such a result could never have been foreseen, as that, what really was the consequence of Israel's dispersion, and, therefore, indirectly the punishment of their sin, should become the means of fulfilling Israel's world-mission. Another instance this, of how Divine judgment always bears in its bosom larger mercy; another illustration how the dying of Israel is ever life to the world; another manifestation of that supernatural Rule of God, in which all is rule, that is, law and order, and all the supernatural, bringing to pass, in the orderly succession of events, what at the outset would have seemed, and really is, miraculous. For the Synagogue became the cradle of the Church. Without it, as indeed without Israel's dispersion, the Church Universal would, humanely speaking, have been impossible, and the conversation of the Gentiles have required a succession of millennial miracles.
That Synagogues originated during, or in consequence of the Babylonish captivity, is admitted by all. The Old Testament contains no allusion to their existence, [2 This seems at first sight inconsistent with Ps. lxxiv.8. But the term rendered 'Synagogues' in the A. V. has never been used in that sense. The solution of the difficulty here comes to us through the LXX. Their rendering, (let us make to cease), shows that in their Hebrew MSS. they read. If so, then the probably belonged to the next word, and the text would read: 'Let us suppress altogether, the Sabbath and all the festive seasons in the land.' Comp. Ehrt, Abfass. Zeit. u. Abschl. d. Psalt. pp. 17-19.] and the Rabbinic attempts to trace them even to patriarchal times [3 The introduction of morning, midday, and afternoon prayers is respectively ascribed to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The Targum of Onkelos and the Targum Ps., Jon. on Gen. xxv. 27 imply their existence in the time of Jacob. In B. Kama 82 a, and Jer. Megill. 75 a, its services are traced to the time of Moses. According to Sanh. 94 b, Synagogues existed in the time of Hezekiah. It is needless to follow the subject further. We take the present opportunity of adding, that, as the Rabbinic quotations in this chapter would be so numerous, only those will be given which refer to points hitherto unnoticed, or of special
importance.] deserve, of course, no serious consideration. We can readily understand how during the long years of exile in Babylon, places and opportunities for common worship on Sabbaths and feast-days must have been felt almost a necessity. This would furnish, at least, the basis for the institution of the Synagogue. After the return to Palestine, and still more by 'the dispersed abroad,' such 'meeting-houses' (Battey Khenesiyoth, domus congregationum, Synagogues) would become absolutely requisite. Here those who were ignorant even of the language of the Old Testament would have the Scriptures read and 'targumed' to them. [1 The expressions 'Targum' and 'targuming' have been previously explained. The first indication of such paraphrasing in the vernacular is found in Neh. viii. 7, 8.] It was but natural that prayers, and, lastly, addresses, should in course of time be added. Thus the regular Synagogue, service would gradually arise; first on Sabbaths and on feast, or fast-days, then on ordinary days, at the same hours as, and with a sort of internal correspondence to, the worship of the Temple. The services on Mondays and Thursdays were special, these being the ordinary market-days, when the country-people came into the towns, and would avail themselves of the opportunity for bringing any case that might require legal decision before the local Sanhedrin, which met in the Synagogue, and consisted of its authorities. Naturally, these two days would be utilised to afford the country-people, who lived far from the Synagogues, opportunities for worship; [a Baba K. 82 a.] and the services on those days were of a somewhat more elaborate character. Accordingly, Monday and Thursday were called 'the days of congregation' or 'Synagogue' (Yom ha-Kenisah).
In another place [2 See Book I. pp. 19, 77.] it has been shown, how rapidly andgenerally the institution of Synagogues spread among the Jews of the Dispersion in all lands, and what important purposes they served. In Palestine they were scattered over the whole country, though it is only reasonable to suppose, that their number greatly increased after the destruction of the Temple, and this without crediting the Jewish legend as to their extraordinary number in certain cities, such as 480, or 460, in Jerusalem. [3 These numbers, however, seem to have been symbolical. The number 480 is, by Gimatreya, deduced from the word 'She that was full of (meleathi) in Is. i. 21. Comp. Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 40 d, towards the end, or else 480 = 4 x 10 x 12.] In the capital, and probably in some other large cities, there were not only several Synagogues, but these arranged according to nationalities, and even crafts. [4 Comp. Megill. 26.] At the same time it deserves notice, that even in so important a place as Capernaum there seems either not to have been a Synagogue, or that it was utterly insignificant, till the want was supplied by the pious gentile centurion, [a St. Luke vii. 5.] This would seem to dispose of the question whether, as is generally assumed, a Jewish community in a place, if numbering ten heads of families, was obliged to build a Synagogue, and could enforce local taxation for the purpose. Such was undoubtedly the later Rabbinic ordinance, [b Maimonides, Hilc. Tephill, xi 1.] but there is no evidence that it obtained in Palestine, or in early times.
Generally, of course, a community would build its own Synagogue, or else depend on the charitable assistance of neighbours, or on private munificence. If this failed, they might meet for worship in a private dwelling, a sort of'Synagogue in the house.' [c Comp. Philem. 2.] For, in early times the institution would be much more simple than at a later period. In this, as in other respects, we must remember that later Jewish arrangements afford no evidence of those which prevailed while the Temple stood, nor yet the ordinances of the chiefs of Babylonian ACademies of the customs existing in Palestine, and, lastly, that the Rabbinic directions mark rather an ideal than the actual state of things. Thus, to mention an instance of some importance, because the error
has been so often repeated as to be generally believed, and to have misled recent explorers in Palestine, there is no evidence that in Palestine Synagogues always required to be built in the highest situation in a town, or, at least, so as to overtop the other houses. To judge from a doubtful [1 See the notes in Maimonides, Hilc. Tephill. xi. 2; p. 75 b.] passage in the Talmud, [d Shabb. 11 a.] this seems to have been the case in Persia, while a later notice [e Tos. Meg. ed. z iv. 23.] appeals in support of it to Prov. viii. 2. But even where the Jews were most powerful and influential, the rule could not have been universally enforced, although later Rabbis lay it down as a principle, [f Maimonides, Hilc. Tephill. xi. 2.] Hence, the inference, that the Galilean Synagogues lately excavated cannot date from an early period, because they are not in prominent positions, is erroneous. [2 Comp. Lieut. Kitchener's article on the Synagogues of Galilee (P.E.F. Report, July 1878, pp. 126 &c). The inference, that they date from the beginning of the third century, when the Jews were in high favour with the Emperor Alexander Severus, is all the more ungrounded, that at that time, if ever, the Jewish authorities would strictly adhere to Talmudic directions as to the structure of Synagogues.]
But there were two rules observed, which seem to have been enforced from early times. One of these enjoined, that a Synagogue should not be erected in a place, unless it contained ten Batlanim, [3 From 'battel,' which here seems to have the same meaning as the Latin vacare rei, to have leisure for a thing.] or men of leisure, who could devote their time to the Synagogue worship and administration. [1 This is expressly stated in Jer. Megill. i. 6, p. 70 b, towards the end.] This was proved by the consideration, that common worship implied a congregation, which, according to Jewish Law, must consist of at least ten men. [2 Comp. Megill. iv. 3; Sanh. i. 6. That ten constituted a congregation was derived from Numb. xiv. 27. Similarly, it was thought to be implied in the fact, that if ten righteous men had been in Sodom, the city would not have been destroyed. But in case of necessity the number ten might be made up by a male child under age (Ber. R. 91, pp. 160 a and b).] Another, and perhaps more important rule was as to the direction in which Synagogues were to be built, and which worshippers should occupy during prayer. Here two points must be kept in view: 1st. Prayer towards the east was condemned, on the ground of the false worship towards the east mentioned in Ezek. viii. 16. [a Comp. Jer. Ber. iv. 5; Baba B. 25 a.] 2ndly. The prevailing direction in Palestine was towards the west, as in the Temple. Thus, we read [b Tos. Megill.iii. 3.] that the entrance into the Synagogue was by the east, as the entrance through the Beautiful Gate into the Sanctuary. This, however, may refer, not to the door, but to the passage (aisle) into the interior of the building. In other places, [c Baba B. 25 a and b; Jer. Ber. iv. 5.] the advice is simply given to turn towards Jerusalem, in whatever direction it be. In general, however, it was considered that since the Shekhinah was everywhere in Palestine, direction was not of paramount importance.
If we combine these notices, and keep in view the general desire to conform to the Temple arrangements, the ruined Synagogues lately excavated in the north of Galilee seem, in a remarkable manner, to meet the Talmudic requirements. With the exception of one (at Trbid, which has its door to the east), they all have their entrances on the south. We conjecture that the worshippers, imitating in this the practice in the Temple, made a circuit, either completely to the north, or else entered at the middle of the eastern aisle, where, in the ground-plan of the
