JEWISH HISTORY.* THE leading facts is the annals of the
Hebrew race are generally well known to both Jews and Christians, and are credited by all save those who are ambitions of the reputation of philosophic thinkers. Nobody, we believe, now asserts the books of the Old Testament to be the composition of imagina- tive recluses in the darkest gloom of the Middle Ages, or holds, with Volney, that the New Testament is merely a solar myth, the Apostles representing the signs of the zodiac. No cultivated person, however hostile to revealed truth, would now venture to attack Christianity through the sides of Judaism or adopt the slander of Voltaire that " the chosen people were the moat abominable on the face of the earth." On the contrary, the work before us, though sternly impartial, shows that the Jews possessed and practised virtues far beyond what could have been at all expected in their age and locality, that the greed of pecuniary gain which has been laid to their charge is but a parasitic growth of later times, the natural product of insult and oppression, that on several occasions they equalled the Romans in valour and the Hellenes in intellectual power, while they surpassed both in zeal for the education of their youth, in wise and punctilious regard for sanitary arrangements, and for the comforts and proprieties of civic, social, and domestic life. There are, however, some features in their history and character which require and will amply repay careful consideration, a few of which Dr. Edersheim has omitted to notice, while his remarks on others seem to require even a little qualification. The author holds that the government of Israel from the Exodus to the adoption of monarchy was a theocracy, and this view is generally entertained by Biblical scholars who, as the present writer conceives, have not paused to consider what the term logically means. When we reflect how prone to sin and folly individuals, and still more masses of men, are, we may be allowed to doubt whether a purely theocratic system can possibly be workable save in a state of nearly perfect innocence and of total isolation, in-
" Some safer home in depth of woods embraced,
Some happier island in the watery waste."
So far as the Constitution, political as well as ecclesiastical, was the offspring of divine inspiration, and that on sundry occasions we meet with divine interference in full activity, the theocratic theory must be accepted, but a political con- stitution is a species of machine requiring human agency to be set in action, and as we meet with instances of priestly authority as well as mention of the " princes of the people ' and of popular assemblies, we are disposed to think that the theocracy was supplemented and rendered practical by sacer- dotal and aristocratic influence in matters of detail, the former exerted in the interpretation of the law, the latter most probably in dealings with foreign nations under circum- stances for which the law did not provide. Such cases would become more frequent as the power of Israel increased and commerce was more fully developed. As in the United States, a measure, though approved unanimously by both branches of the Legislature, fails to become law if the Supreme Court of Judges should decide that it con- travenes the fundamental principles of the Constitution, so the erroneous resolutions of princes or people could be annulled by the High Priest as contrary to the great code propounded on Sinai, and if he failed in this the Lord raised up the prophet to make known his will. But a pure and strictly logical theocracy seems to us as unworkable as a theoretic monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, all requiring, to be efficient, the alloy of some extraneous element. We may observe here that the Hebrew aristocracy depended, in the best days of the nation, on birth and primogeniture, and was probably the really warlike element in an agricultural and pastoral population, though in the period of decadence, wealth, and subsequently Rabbinical learning, possessed greater influence. No nation in ancient or medimval times entertained such just views on the mechanism of education, or so much respect for learned and competent teachers, and some of their rules on this important subject might well be adopted in our own country even at the present day. The Rabbis inculcated that learning was to be sought, not as a means to an end, but as a good per se, and some went so far as to assert that any other • History of the Jewish Notion. By Rev. Alfred Edereheim, M.A., D.D., Ph.D. London : Longinans, Green, and CO.
motive of study was sinful, but this disinterested belief is now held only in Scotland and Germany. From the return from the Captivity for several centuries after the overthrow of the Holy City each synagogue had its school, the teacher receiving a small salary, in return for which he instructed the poorer pupils, but could take fees from the wealthier. No teacher could instruct personally more than twenty-five pupils; if the number increased he was bound to employ an assistant, while not many years since we knew of one teacher having to instruct one hundred and ten boys in a city where it might have been hoped that the local rulers would have bad some common-sense. Two schools were not allowed in the same synagogue-district, nor could boys be sent to distant seminaries ; thus the independence of the teacher was pro- tected, unfair competition avoided, and the boarding-school system, which, though in a few, and only a few, respects it may be beneficial to the pupils, is apt to be degrading to the master, and may deprive him of all moral influence, was altogether unknown. It is to be regretted that the curri- culum of a Jewish school was too restricted, little being taught save the most rudimentary subjects, and the law as explained by the traditions of the Elders. A large majority of the Jews believed it sinful to study the philosophy or literature of their heathen neighbours, and this conscientious scruple is far more entitled to respect than the modern objection to the immortal literatures of Rome and Greece that " they do not pay." Some of the more enlightened Rabbis applied themselves successfully to mathematics and physical science, and down to the Renaissance the Jewish physicians were considered the most learned and skilful practitioners, though they too often—we fear deceitfully—countenanced the follies of astrology and alchemy. The specimens, however, which Dr. Edersheim has given us of Talmudic rules, legends, and discussions, as also of the controversies in the colleges and between the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, would lead us to think the Jewish mind mast labour under a strong propensity to logical quibbling and erudite trifling, though their views on ethical questions are well worthy of our admiration.
Prior to the Captivity the besetting sin of the Jews was their proneness to polytheism and idolatry caused by that intercourse with heathen neighbours which inclination prompted and commerce necessitated. But after the Return they were marked in a much higher degree by a fanatical hatred not only of image-worship, but of the fine arts in general—always excepting music—and even of the graceful and health-giving gymnastics of their Hellenised neighbours. We can account for this change of sentiment only by their acquaintance with the Persian theology, which discounten- anced idolatry and even temple-worship of any kind. From Persia, too, they derived the metempsychosis which was assuredly held by some at the Christian era as well as the rudiments of Manicheism and Gnosticism. These elements affected alike Christianity and Judaism, the earliest heresiarchs being of Jewish race ; and when alloyed by somewhat of Hellenic speculation, gave rise to sectarianism, which had been hitherto unknown in the Hebrew community. The main question at issue was that which has agitated the Christian Church for several centuries, and is still in active operation, most probably never to be decided,—namely, What is the divinely appointed rule of belief and practice ? The Pharisees adopted the law, the Prophets, the Hagiographa with some reserve, and probably the Apocryphal writings, to which they added the " Traditions of the Elders " supposed to have been imparted to Moses during his stay on the Holy Mount, and Rabbinical decisions given as occasion arose. Hence they often failed in sensitiveness to pure moral principle, and attached undue importance to the trivialities of ritual and a sanctified exterior. The Sadducees, while respecting the Prophets as moral teachers, considered themselves bound by the Mosaic code alone, and valued themselves chiefly on their observance of strict justice to their fellow - men, a virtue which their name is held by some to denote. Of the Essenes, who are not mentioned in Scripture, we know almost nothing, save from the writings of Philo, who was favourable to them, except that while reverently studying the sacred books, they attached more importance to the inward light which was given to every sincere believer. The Rabbis also held that they themselves were favoured with a similar illumination which they termed Bath-Kol =the daughter of the voice, by which it is supposed they meant a species of echo of the words of the Lord to Moses.
The question whether the majority of the Hebrew race believed in the immortality of the soul and a futurity of rewards and punishments is not affected by there being no allusion in the Pentateuch to these doctrines or by the sanc- tions of the law being altogether temporal, only one text, and that of very doubtful interpretation, bearing at all on the point. Bat the Prophetical Books and the Hagiographa abound with references to these doctrines, while the Gospels and Epistles, the compositions of pious Jews, evidently take them for granted as an integral part of the Hebrew creed. The practice of prayers for the departed, which still obtains among them, and is as ancient as the Asmonean Princes, furnishes strong evidence on this point. Indeed it would be absurd to suppose that an intelligent people would not have accepted a belief which has been held by all mankind in all ages and climes, save by a few who have philosophised away their common-sense or aim at the reputation of en- lightened thinkers.
Religious sectarianism is often followed by political schism, and the Pharisees and Sadducees found their counter- parts in the Herodians and Galileans, the former supporting the Idamean despotism, and in some instances asserting Herod to be the promised Messiah, while the latter, a. turbulent and uncultivated race, were intensely national, and doggedly resisted all foreign authority. Though the Romans allowed local government in their provinces, they de- prived the Jewish sacerdotal Magistracy of the power of inflicting capital punishment; but as certain offences, such as blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking, were not recognised by Roman law, though declared worthy of death by the Mosaic code, zealots undertook to execute the sentences of the High Priest by assassination. This practice was termed judicium zeli, and as habitual violations of the law, even when prompted by excusable impulses, soon degenerate into serious crime, the zealots became brigands or rebels, and Palestine under Roman rule seemed relapsing into anarchy. Yet the renowned Rabbi Hillel supported the authority of Herod, and his successor, Gamaliel, was favourable to Roman supremacy,. while the school of Shammai aimed at independence; but while on theological and legal questions their differences were of no real importance their followers quarrelled all the more, even to the shedding of blood. Dr. Edersheim has given a succinct and accurate narrative of the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, paralleled in later times by the storm- ing of Mexico by Cortez, the strife being maintained from street to street, and even from house to house, and ending in the destruction of an ancient nationality. As the Judaising Christians had migrated before the siege to Pella, so such of the Rabbis as escaped death or slavery withdrew to Jamnia, where they framed a system of ritual which dispensed with sacrifices, and continued to impart religions and legal instruction. The system of traditional teaching was of two kinds,—the Halacha, which dealt only with the legislative enactments of the Fathers, and the Hagada, which sanctioned free and developed interpretation. The Miahna, a collection of traditions drawn up about A.D. 190, recognises both systems; it was commented on in the Gemara, and afterwards expanded into the twelve folio. volumes of the Babylonish Talmud, which is looked on by the Jews still as of paramount authority.
The great work of Josephus, the only authority we possess on the downfall of Jewish nationality—the rival work of Justus being unfortunately lost—is tainted by inconsistencies, vanity, exaggeration, and, as some think, falsehood, and his character as a military commander is sullied by vacillation, mismanagement, and, we fear, perfidy. Some instances in much more recent history would lead us to think that no man, however able, should hold a high command in a war of which he disapproves or of whose success he despairs, but it is Probable that a reputation for theoretic skill, seniority, or influence in high places will for a long time decide the selection. The Jewish leader may in some points furnish a parallel to Thucydides, since both disapproved of the wars in which they held command, and therefore failed in their ill- concerted efforts, and both incurred the reprobation of their fellow-countrymen and lived in voluntary exile.
So much valuable information is to be found in this book
that to review it as it deserves would require a small volume, but we have found little to dissent from and much to admire, and can therefore earnestly recommend it to the serious-minded and inquisitive student.
Previous page
