telling what had been done by Jesus, while in other instances silence was not enjoined. Of course, there were occasions, such as the raising of the young man at Nain and of Lazarus, when the miracle was done so publicly, that a command of this kind would have been impossible. But in other cases may this not be the line of demarcation, that silence was not enjoined when a result was achieved which, according to the notions of the time, might have been attributed to other than direct Divine Power, while in the latter cases [1 The following are the instances in which silence was enjoined:, St. Matt. viii. 4 (St. Mark i. 44; St. Luke v. 14); St. Matt. ix. 30; xii. 16; St. Mark iii. 12; v. 43 (St. Luke viii. 56); St. Mark vii. 36; viii. 26.] publicity was (whenever possible) forbidden? And this for the twofold reason, that Christ's Miracles were intended to aid, not to supersede, faith; to direct to the Person and Teaching of Christ, as that which proved the benefit to be real and Divine; not to excite the carnal Jewish expectancies of the people, but to lead in humble discipleship to the Feet of Jesus. In short, if only those were made known which would not necessarily imply Divine Power (according to Jewish notions), then would not only the distraction and tumult of popular excitement be avoided, but in each case faith in the Person of Christ be still required, ere the miracles were received as evidence of His Divine claims. [2 In general, we would once more thus formulate our views: In the Days of Christ men learned first to believe in His Person, and then in His Word; in the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit we learr first to believe in His Word, and then in His Person.] And this need of faith was the main point.
That, in view of his child's imminent death, and with the knowledge he had of the 'mighty deeds' commonly reported of Jesus, Jairus should have applied to Him, can the less surprise us, when we remember how often Jesus must, with consent and by invitation of this Ruler, have spoken in the Synagogue; and what irresistible impression His words had made. It is not necessary to suppose, that Jairus was among those elders of the Jews who interceded for the Centurion; the form of his present application seems rather opposed to it. But after all, there was nothing in what he said which a Jew in those days might not have spoken to a Rabbi, who was regarded as Jesus must have been by all in Capernaum who believed not the horrible charge, which the Judaean Pharisees had just raised. Though we cannot point to any instance where the laying on of a great Rabbi's hands was sought for healing, such, combined with prayer, would certainly be in entire accordance with Jewish views at the time. The confidence in the result, expressed by the father in the accounts of St. Mark and St. Matthew, is not mentioned by St. Luke. And perhaps, as being the language of an Eastern, it should not be taken in its strict literality as indicating actual conviction on the part of Jairus, that the laying on of Christ's Hands would certainly restore the maiden.
Be this as it may, when Jesus followed the Ruler to his house, the multitude 'thronging Him' in eager curiosity, another approached Him from out that crowd, whose inner history was far different from that of Jairus. The disease from which this woman had suffered for twelve years
would render her Levitically 'unclean.' It must have been not unfrequent in Palestine, and proved as intractable as modern science has found it, to judge by the number and variety of remedies prescribed, and by their character. On one leaf of the Talmud [a Shabb. 110 a and b.] not less than eleven different remedies are proposed, of which at most only six can possibly be regarded as astringents or tonics, while the rest are merely the outcome of superstition, to which resort is had in the absence of knowledge. [1 Such as the ashes of an Ostrich-Egg, carried in summer in a linen, in winter in a cotton rag; or a barley-corn found in the dung of a white she-ass, &c] But what possesses real interest is, that, in all cases where astringents or tonics are prescribed,it is ordered, that, while the woman takes the remedy, she is to be addressed in the words: 'Arise (Qum) from thy flux.' It is not only that psychical means are apparently to accompany the therapeutical in this disease, but the coincidence in the command, Arise (Qum), with the words used by Christ in raising Jairus' daughter is striking. But here also we mark only contrast to the magical cures of the Rabbis. For Jesus neither used remedies, nor spoke the word Qum to her who had come 'in the press behind' to touch for her healing 'the fringe of His outer garment.'
As this is almost the only occasion on which we can obtain a glimpse of Christ's outward appearance and garb, it may be well to form such accurate conception of it, as is afforded by a knowledge of the dress of the ancient Hebrews. The Rabbis laid it down as a rule, that the learned ought to be most careful in their dress. It was a disgrace if a scholar walked abroad with clouted shoes; [2 In Ber. 43 b, it is explained to refer to such shoes as had 'clouts on the top of clouts.'] to wear dirty clothes deserved death; [b Shabb. 114 a] for 'the glory of God was man, and the glory of man was his dress.' [c. Derekh Erets s. x towards the end.] This held specially true of the Rabbi, whose appearance might otherwise reflect on the theological profession. It was the general rule to eat and drink beleow (or else according to) a man's means, but to dress and lodge above them, [d Babha Mez. 52a; Chull. 84 b.] [3 Accordingly, when a person applied for relief in food, inquiry was be made as to his means, but not if he applied for raiment (Babha B 9 a).] For, in these four things a man's character might be learned; at his cups, in many matters, when he was angry and by his ragged dress, [e. Erub. 65 b.] Nay, 'The clothing of the wife of a Chabher (learned associate) is of greater importance than the life of the ignorant (rustic), for the sake of the dignity of the learned' [f Jer. Horay. 48 a, 4 lines from bottom.] Accordingly, the Rabbis were wont to wear such dress by which they might be distinguished. At a latter period they seem at their ordination to have been occasionally arayed in a mantle of gold-stuff [a Babha Mez. 85 a.] Perhaps a distinctive garment, most likely a head-gear, was worn, even by 'rulers' ('the elder,' ), at their ordination. [1. But I admit that the passage Vayyik. R.2) is not quite' clear. The Maaphoraeth there mentioned may not have been an official dress, but one which the man otherwise used, and which was only specially endeared to him by the recollectionthat he had worn it at his ordination.] The Palestinian Nasi, or President of the Sanhedrin, also had a distinctive dress, [b Ber. 28 a.] and the head of the Jewish community in Babylon a distinctive girdle, [c. Horay. 13 b.] [2 In general, I would here acknowledge my indeptedness on the very difficult subject of dress to Sachs, Beitrage z. Sprach- u. Alterth.-Forsch.; to the Articles in Levy's Dictionaries; and especially to Brull, Trachten d. Juden. The Article in Hamburger's Real-Encykl. is little more than a repetition of Brull's. From other writers I have not been able to derive any help.
In refering to the dress which may on a Sabbath be saved from a burning house-not, indeed, by carrying it, but by successively putting it on, no fewer than eighteen articles are mentioned, [d Shabb. 120 a; Jer. Shabb. 15d.] If the meaning of all the terms could be accurately ascertained, we
should Know precisely what the Jews in the second century, and presumably earlier, wore, from the shoes and stockings on their feet to the gloves [3 So Landau renders one of the words in Shabb. 120 a. I need scarcely say that the rendering is very doubtful.] on the hands. Unfortunately, many of these designations are in dispute. Nor must it be thought that, because there are eighteen names, the dress of an Israelite consisted of so many separate pieces. Several of them apply to different shapes or kinds of the same under or upper garments, while the list indicates their extreme number and variety rather than the ordinary dress worn. The latter consisted, to judge by the directions given for undressing and dressing in the bathroom, of six, or perhaps more generally, of five articles: the shoes, the head-covering, the Tallith or upper cloak, the girdle, the Chaluq or under-dress, and the Aphqarsin or innermost covering, [e Deiekh Erest R. x p. 33 d.] As regarded shoes, a man should sell his very roof-tree for them, [4 Brill regards this as controversial to the practices of the early Christians. But he confounds sects with the Church.] although he might have to part with them for food if he were in a weak condition through blood-letting, [f Shabb. 129 a; comp. Pes. 112a.] But it was not the practice to provide more than one pair of shoes, [g Jer. Shabb. vi. 2] and to this may have referred the injunction [h St. Matt. x. 10] of Christ to the Apostle not to provide shoesfor their journey, or else to the well-known distinction between shoes (Manalim) and sandals (Sandalim). The former, which were sometimes made of very coarse material, covered the whole foot, and were specially intended for winter or rainy weather; while the sandals, which only protected the soles and sides of the feet, were specially far summer use. [i B. Bathra 58 a, lines 2 and 3 from top.]
In regard to the covering of the head, it was deemed a mark of disrespect to walk abroad, or to pass a person, with bared head. [1. On the other hand, to walk about with shoes loosed was regarded as a mark of pride.] Slaves covered their heads in presence of their heads in presence of their masters, and the Targum Onkelos indicates Israel's freedom by paraphrasing the expression they 'went out with a high hand' [a Exod. xiv. 8.] by 'with uncovered head' [2 The like expression occurs in the Targum on Judg. v. 9.] The ordinary covering of the head was the so-called Sudar(or Sudarimn), a kerchief twisted into a turban, and which might also be worn round the neck. A kind of hat was also in use, either of light material or of felt (Aphilyon shel rosh or Philyon). [b Kel. xxxix. 1 .]The Sudar was twisted by Rabbis in a peculiar manner to distinguish them from others, [c Pes. 111b. See also the somewhat profane etymology of in Shabb. 77 b,.] We read besides of a sort of cap or hood attached to garments.
Three, or else four articles commonly constituted the dress of the body. First came the under-grment, commonly the Chalug of the Kittuna [3 Also, Kittanitha, and Kittunita.] (The Biblical Kethoneth), from which latter some have derived the word 'cotton.' The Chalug might be of linen or of wool, [d Jer. Shan. 20 c, bottom.] The
