representation of things in heaven, on earth, or in the waters. But the Mishnah [e Ab. Zar. iii.] seems to relax these prohibitions by subtle distinctions, which are still further carried out in the Talmud. [2 For a full statement of the Talmudical views as to images, representations on coins, and the most ancient Jewish coins, see Appendix III]
To those who held such stringent views, it must have been peculiarly galling to see their most sacred feelings openly outraged by their own rulers. Thus, the Asmonean princess, Alexandra, the mother-in-law of Herod, could so far forget the traditions of her house, as to send portraits of her son and daughter to Mark Antony for infamous purposes, in hope of thereby winning him for her ambitious plans, [f Jos. Ant. xv. 2. 5 and 6] One would be curious to know who painted these pictures, for, when the statue of Caligula was to be made for the Temple at Jerusalem, no native artist could be found, and the work was entrusted to Phoenicians. It must have been these foreigners also who made the 'figures,' with which Herod adorned his palace at
Jerusalem, and 'the brazen statues' in the gardens 'through which the water ran out,' [a Jos. Warv. 4. 4] as well as the colossal statues at Caesarea, and those of the three daughters of Agrippa, which after his death [b Acts xii. 23] were so shamefully abused by thesoldiery at Sebaste and Caesarea. [cAnt. xix. 9.1]
This abhorrence of all connected with idolatry, and the contempt entertained for all that was non-Jewish, will in great measure explain the code of legislation intended to keep the Jew and Gentile apart. If Judaea had to submit to the power of Rome, it could at least avenge itself in the Academies of its sages. Almost innumerable stories are told in which Jewish sages, always easily, confute Roman and Greek philosophers; and others, in which even a certain Emperor (Antoninus) is represented as constantly in the most menial relation of self-abasement before a Rabbi. [1 Comp. here the interesting tractate of Dr. Bodek, 'Marc. Aur. Anton, als Freund u. Zeitgenosse des R. Jehuda ha Nasi.'] Rome, which was the fourth beast of Daniel, [d Dan. vii. 23.] would in the age to come, [2 The Athidlabho, 'saeculum futurum,' to be distinguished from the 01am habba, 'the world to come.'] when Jerusalem would be the metropolis of all lands, [e Midr. R. on Ex. Par. 23.] be the first to excuse herself on false though vain pleas for her wrongs to Israel, [f Ab. Z. 2 b] But on wordly grounds also, Rome was contemptible, having derived her language and writing from the Greeks, and not possessing even a hereditary succession in her empire, [g Ab. Z. 10 a; Girt. 80 a.] If such was the estimate of dreaded Rome, it may be imagined in what contempt other nations were held. Well might 'the earth tremble,' [Ps. ixxvi. 9.] for, if Israel had not accepted the Law at Sinai, the whole world would have been destroyed, while it once more 'was still' when that [i Shabb. 88a.] happy event took place, although God in a manner forced Israel to it. And so Israel was purified at Mount Sinai from the impurity which clung to our race in consequence of the unclean union between Eve and the serpent, and which still adhered to all other nations! [3 Ab. Z. 22 b. But as in what follows the quotations would be too numerous, they will be omitted. Each statement, however, advanced in the text or notes is derived from part of the Talmudic tractate Abodah Zarah.]
To begin with, every Gentile child, so soon as born, was to be regarded as unclean. Those who actually worshipped mountains, hills, bushes, &c, in short, gross idolaters, should be cut down with the sword. But as it was impossible to exterminate heathenism, Rabbinic legislation kept certain definite objects in view, which may be thus summarised: To prevent Jews from being inadvertenly led into idolatry; to avoid all participation in idolatry; not to do anything which might aid the heathen in their worship; and, beyond all this, not to give pleasure, nor even help, to heathens. The latter involved a most dangerous principle, capable of almost indefinite application by fanaticism. Even the Mishnah goes for far [a Ab. Z. ii. 1] as to forbid aid to amother in the hour of her need, or nourishment to her babe, in order not to bring up a child for idolatry! [1 The Talmud declares it only lawful if done to avoid exciting hatred against the Jews.] But this is not all. Heathens were, indeed, not to be precipitated into danger, but yet not to be delivered from it. Indeed, an isolated teacher ventures even upon this statement: 'The best among the Gentiles, kill; the best among serpents, crush its head.' [b Mechilta, ed. Weiss, p. 33 b, line 8 from top] Still more terrible was the fanaticism which directed, that heretics, traitors, and those who had left the Jewish faith should be thrown into actual danger, and, if they were in it, all means for their escape removed. No intercourse of any kind was to be had with such, not even to invoke their medical aid in case of danger to life, [2 There is a well-known story told of a Rabbi who was bitten by a serpent, and about to be cured by the invocation of the name of Jesus by a Jewish Christian, which
was, however, interdicted.] since it was deemed, that he who had to do with heretics was imminent peril of becoming one himself, [3 Yet, such is the moral obliquity, that even idolatry is allowed to save life, provided it be done in secret!] and that, if a heretic returned to the true faith, he should die at once, partly, probably, to expiate his guilt, and partly from fear of relapse. Terrible as all this sounds, it was probably not worse than the fanaticism displayed in what are called more enlightened times. Impartial history must chronicle it, however painful, to show the circumstances in which teaching so far different was propounded by Christ. [4 Against this, although somewhat doubtfully, such concessions may be put as that, outside Palestine, Gentiles were not to be considered as idolators, but as observing the customs of their fathers (Chull. 13 b), and that the poor of the Gentiles were to be equally supported with those of Israel, their sick visited, and their dead buried; it being, however, significantly added, 'on account of the arrangements of the world' (Gitt. 61 a). The quotation so often made (Ab. Z. 3 a), that a Gentile who occupied himself with the Torah was to be regarded as equal to the High-Priest, proves nothing, since in the case supposed the Gentile acts like a Rabbinic Jew. But, and this is a more serious point, it is difficult to believe that those who make this quotation are not aware, how the Talmud (Ab. Z. 3 a) immediately labours to prove that their reward is not equal to that of Israelites. A somewhat similar charge of one-sideness, if not of unfairness, must be brought against Deutsch (Lecture on the Talmud, Remains, pp. 146, 147), whose sketch of Judaism should be compared, for example, with the first Perek of the Talmudic tractate Abodah Zarah.]
In truth, the bitter hatred which the Jew bore to the Gentile can only be explained from the estimate entertained of his character. The most vile, and even unnatural, crimes were imputed to them. It was not safe to leave cattle in their charge, to allow their women to nurse infants, or their physicians to attend the sick, nor to walk in their company, without taking precautions against sudden and unprovoked attacks. They should, so far as possible, be altogether avoided, except in cases of necessity or for the sake of business. They and theirs were defiled; their houses unclean, as containing idols or things dedicated to them; their feasts, their joyous occasions, their very contact, was polluted by idolatry; and there was no security, if a heathen were left alone in a room, that he might not, in wantonness or by carelessness, defile the wine or meat on the table, or the oil and wheat in the store. Under such circumstances, therefore, everything must be regarded as having been rendered unclean. Three days before a heathen festival (according to some, also three days after) every business transaction with them was prohibited, for fear of giving either help or pleasure. Jews were to avoid passing through a city where there was an idolatrous feast, nay, they were not even to sit down within the shadow of a tree dedicated to idol-worship. Its wood was polluted; if used in baking, the bread was unclean; if a shuttle had been made of it, not only was all cloth woven on it forbidden, but if such had been inadvertently mixed with other pieces of cloth, or a garment made from it placed with other garments, the whole became unclean. Jewish workmen were not to assist in building basilicas, nor stadia, nor places where judicial sentences were pronounced by the heathen. Of course, it was not lawful to let houses or fields, nor to sell cattle to them. Milk drawn by a heathen, if a Jew had not been present to watch it, [a Ab. Zar. 35 b.] bread and oil prepared by them, were unlawful. Their wine was wholly interdicted [1 According to R. Asi, there was a threefold distinction. If wine had been dedicated to an idol, to carry, even on a stick, so much as the weight of an olive of it, defiled a man. Other wine, if prepared by a heathen, was prohibited, whether for personal use or for trading. Lastly, wine prepared by a Jew, but deposited in custody of a Gentile, was prohibited for personal use, but allowed for traffic], the
mere touch of a heathen polluted a whole cask; nay, even to put one's nose to heathen wine was strictly prohibited!
Painful as these details are, they might be multiplied. And yet the bigotry of these Rabbis was, perhaps, not worse than that of other sectaries. It was a painful logical necessity of their system, against which their heart, no doubt, often rebelled; and, it must be truthfully added, it was in measure accounted for by the terrible history of Israel.
INTRODUCTORY
THE PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL: THE JEWISH WORLD IN THE DAYS OF CHRIST
TRADITIONALISM, ITS ORIGIN, CHARACTER, AND LITERATURE, THE MISHNAH AND TALMUD, THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, THE DAWN OF A NEW DAY.
