Between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the narrative of the New Testament stretches a period of approximately four centuries. An understanding of the vicissitudes through which the Jews passed during this time, with special emphasis on their history under the later Seleucid rulers and during the years that witnessed the rise of Roman power in the Mediterranean, is necessary to a proper appreciation of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels. This article summarizes briefly the experiences of the Jews under the waning power of Persia and during the protracted struggle for control of the Palestine between the Seleucids to the north and the Ptolemies to the south. More detailed consideration is given to developments growing out of attempts by Antiochus Epiphanes to Hellenize the Jews, to the extension of Roman power throughout the Mediterranean world, and to the political situation in Palestine under the Hasmonaeans and under the Herod the Great.

I. The Jews Under the Persians During the 4th Century

Nehemiah and After.--Historical records of the Jews during the 5th century b.c. have been scanty, but extra-Biblical evidence is gradually coming to light. According to the Elephantine papyri Johanan was high priest in 410 B.C. and a Persian by the name of Bagoas (Bagoses, Bagohi, Bigvai) was appointed governor of Judea at least by 407 B.C. (Olmstead thinks he was Nehemiah's successor). This Bagoas, mentioned in the Elephantine papyri as the governor of Judea in the days of Sanballat (and therefore of Nehemiah), lived nearly a century earlier than the eunuch Bagoas who was a commander of Artaxerxes III against Egypt and who later became Persia's kingmaker. It is possible to harmonize the incidents connected with Nehemiah's governorship, involving several men who later became high priests (see Vol. III, pp. 79, 80), and the statements of Josephus about Bagoas and Johanan, etc.

The Persians did not interfere with the Jewish religion, although the Zoroastrians, to whom fire was sacred, felt it was a desecration to burn flesh in the flames. This may possibly be one of the reasons why Bagoas had put a fine of 50 drachmas on every lamb offered on the Temple altar in Jerusalem, although the quarrel with the Jewish high priest would seem a sufficient reason. In Egypt the Jews of Elephantine offered sacrifices in their temple (see Vol. III, pp. 81-83) until it was destroyed by the Egyptians. In the Egypt the Persian dislike of animal sacrifices would be supported by the Egyptians, who worshiped some of the animals offered by the Jews in Elephantine. When the local ruler was absent, therefore, the Egyptians destroyed this Jewish temple. It lay in ruins for some time while the Jews sought, first through Johanan, then through Bagoas, for permission to rebuild. Bagoas, in giving this permission, authorized only meal offerings and incense for the new temple.

Dangers to the Jewish Religion.--The returned Jews during the reign of Artaxerxes I were probably acquainted with the teaching of Zoroastrianism, since it was the official religion of the Persian Empire. Nehemiah and other leaders probably realized the necessity of exercising care lest the common people confuse the worship of Jehovah with that of Ahura-Mazda. Both Persians and Jews believed that there would come a great judgment day, when the God of righteousness would vanquish the adversary of all good, and that then the righteous would be given a blessed abode under new conditions. The Persians arranged their two opposing spirits, the righteous Ahura-Mazda, and the evil Ahriman, in a dualism that tended to make them equal. The Jews, through their sacred literature, spoke much of one eternal all-powerful God, and very little of a distinctly inferior evil adversary who had at one time been created perfect (Eze. 28:14-19), but who later became the author of all sin.

A Rival Religion in Samaria.--The Jews returning to Jerusalem were opposed when they tried to set up standards of worship at variance with the popular concepts of the half-pagan peoples who had settled in the land (see Vol. II, pp. 949, 950; Vol. III, p. 69) during the Captivity. Thinking of them as narrow and bigoted fanatics, Sanballat and Tobiah made every effort to thwart their plans. A son of Joiada the priest was banished by Nehemiah because of his marriage to the daughter of Sanballat. This may have been the Manasseh mentioned by Josephus (see on Neh. 13:28, 29), whom Sanballat of Samaria welcomed and made priest of a rival Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim. The result was a rival Samaritan cult, which is mentioned in the New Testament (John 4:20), and still survives in a remnant numbering a few hundred souls.

The Development of Jewish Tradition.--Such opposition as that of the Samaritans gave great impetus to the study and exaltation of the Torah (Pentateuch) on the part of the Jews, who set about strictly enforcing all its requirements. Synagogues were established throughout the land. Readings from the Scriptures, presented in the Sabbath services, were translated or explained in Aramaic, which had become, during the Exile, the spoken language of the people (see Vol. I, pp. 29, 30). Through these explanations the rabbis guided the minds of the laity in what were considered proper interpretations of the Torah. Under such conditions it was not at all strange that a body of traditional interpretation of the Scriptures gradually grew up, although the leaders disagreed among themselves on points of doctrine and procedure. Revived Jewish nationalism had driven them to study their sacred books, but they became confused as to the correct meaning of Scripture. Instead of laying aside their preconceived opinions and letting the Spirit of God guide them into all truth, they hewed out for themselves broken cisterns of error from which to drink. These false concepts paved the way for the rejection of Christ by the leaders of His day. Here were laid the foundations of a complex body of tradition (see Vol. V, pp. 95-100) that was to dominate Jewish religion through subsequent centuries.

The Tradition of Jaddua and Alexander.--For the reigns of Artaxerxes II (Mnemon), 405/04--359/58 B.C., and Artaxerxes III (Ochus), 359/58--338/37, when Johanan and Jaddua were high priests, there are few records concerning the Jews. Without doubt antagonism continued.

Josephus mentions an incident connected with the campaign of Alexander, which, though many scholars label it unhistorical, is here given because of its possible bearing on Daniel's prophecy of Greece, and because it is not inherently impossible if an early date for Daniel is accepted.

The story goes (Josephus Antiquities xi. 8. 4, 5 [325-339]) that from Tyre Alexander went to Jerusalem en route to Egypt and was shown the prophecy of Daniel (probably ch. 8:21); that he was so impressed by it that he granted the Jews great favors, not only for themselves but also for their kinsfolk in lands he might conquer in the future (see Vol. III, pp. 372, 373). It is true that Josephus, referring to Sanballat and Darius III as contemporaries, confuses this story with the one about the marriage of Sanballat's daughter to a son of Joiada (Neh. 13:28), but it is not impossible that this or another Jaddua was high priest in Alexander's time and that such an incident could have occurred. God could direct Alexander as easily as He could Cyrus in the days of Daniel.

Another incident led to Alexander's bestowal of favors on the Jews. The Samaritan leaders burned to death the governor, Andromachus, whom Alexander had stationed in Samaria to administer all Coele-Syria and Palestine. Upon his return from Egypt, Alexander avenged this outrage, gave certain border territory claimed by Samaria to the Jews, and granted them other privileges.

II. Rise of the Greeks and Macedonians

The Greek Background.--Historically, the peoples living in Greece, on the islands of the Aegean Sea, and on the west coast of Asia Minor formed part of the successive waves of Indo-European peoples who came from the northeast in the 2d millennium b.c. (see on Dan. 2:39). By the close of the 6th century a democratic form of city-state government was developed in Greece. Each city was a direct, not a representative, democracy, in which all citizens met to vote on all issues. This was possible because each body of citizens was small (slaves and "strangers" of nonnative descent, who had no political or social standing, formed the majority). These small, independent Greek states, which were developing democratic principles of administration, eventually challenged the autocratic power of Persia.

The Persian War With Greece.--The Ionian Greek settlements on the eastern coast of the Aegean Sea, formerly under Lydia, were incorporated into the Persian Empire along with Lydia, though it took many years to reduce them to Persian control. Half a century after Cyrus the aid furnished to the revolting Ionians by the European Greeks evoked the vengeance of Persia. The city-states in Greece, which had proved themselves incapable of any long-term concerted action because of bitter jealousies and intrigues, where thus driven to work together in the face of the Persian threat. The campaigns of Darius I and Xerxes against the Greeks ended in failure, first at Marathon in 490 B.C., later, in 480, at Salamis, and, in 479, at Plataea (see on Dan. 11:2; also Vol. III, pp. 59-61). About the same time the Persians suffered serious losses at Mycale on the Ionian coast. Thus Greece was saved from the Persian Empire, and the Greeks of Ionia (the Aegean Islands and the west coast of Asia Minor) joined in a defensive league with the Athens and other Greek city-states that had participated in the Persian defeat. This period of Athenian leadership was the Golden Age of Greek culture. In 431 began the Peloponnesian War, which spanned more than 25 years, in which Athens and Sparta struggled for supremacy and both were supplanted by Thebes. This war weakened the Greek states still further and gave Persia an opportunity to play off Greek against Greek.

Alexander's Conquest of the Persian Empire

While Greece proper was embroiled in conflict the semi-Greek country of Macedonia to the north became a monarchical state and sought to expand its territory. About the time that Artaxerxes III (Ochus) became king of Persia, 23-year-old Philip II came to the throne of Macedonia and started the formation of a national army. He soon gained supremacy over nearly all of Greece. But before his plan for a united Greek-Macedonian attack on Persia could be executed, Philip was assassinated.

Alexander the Great.--Philip left the torch of conquest to be carried by his 20-year-old son, Alexander the Great (see on Dan. 2:39; 7:6). Within two years of his accession Alexander was able to secure the backing of all Greece and Macedonia in an alliance against the Persian Empire. With his Macedonian army he pushed eastward around the Aegean, crossed the Hellespont, and won his first important battle at the Granicus River (334). He then rapidly deprived Persia of her source of revenue from all Asia Minor. Darius, coming up the Euphrates, met him at Issus, near the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean. There the Persians were routed (333). Alexander next pushed on through Syria and Palestine, taking all the main cities (in 332 Tyre stood a seven-month siege). He marched toward Egypt, assured of a warm reception, for that country had despised Persian control since the days when their cities and temples had been so ruthlessly destroyed. Gladly the Egyptians threw their gates open to Alexander as their liberator (332) and crowned him as Pharaoh. He, in turn, joined them in their worship of Egyptian deities. Egypt acclaimed him as a god and offered him worship as the true son of Amen-Ra. He founded Alexandria and then returned, in the spring of 331, through Syria to push on eastward.

Crossing the Euphrates and the Tigris, he met Darius and his army in October, 331, on the plain of Gaugamela in a battle more popularly known by the name of the neighboring town of Arbela. Here the Persian forces met a disastrous defeat, Darius himself fleeing to Ecbatana in Media. Then in rapid succession came the surrender of Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis. After burning Persepolis, Alexander started to Ecbatana in pursuit of Darius, early in 330, only to find that he had escaped to the east. Pursuing farther, Alexander found only the corpse of the great king, who had been slain by his own men.

He gave Darius a royal burial, and then proceeded with his expedition, going as far as the Jaxartes and Indus rivers during the next three years. In 326 he crossed the Indus and penetrated northern India as far as his men would follow him, then returned via the coast (325) to Susa, where celebrations were held at the founding of a new world monarchy (324) designed to fuse East and West through Greek civilization. To cement the union of Greek and Persian peoples, Alexander and some of his Macedonian officers took Persian wives. He founded many Greek cities over the vast empire. In 323 the king was in Babylon to supervise the organization of an Arabian expedition, and while there contracted a fever that proved fatal. He died June 13, 323 B.C., having reigned in Philip's place for slightly less than 13 years.

While changing the face of the world in so short a time he had not tried to change the religion of his conquered peoples. Persian Zoroastrianism continued, and has lived on through the centuries. The Egyptians, the Jews, the Greeks, kept their religions. But the thinking of mankind in the whole Mediterranean world was affected by the spread of Hellenic ideas and by Alexander's concept of a world empire of united races and peoples with a common language, literature, and culture. The Hellenistic period, ushered in by Alexander, paved the way for the Greco-Roman civilization, in which Judaism was modified and Christianity developed into a worldwide faith.

III. Alexander's Successors and the Dissolution of His Kingdom

Alexander's Heirs Under Regents.--The administration of the Persian territory just conquered was not easy task. Alexander's generals agreed to place on the throne Philip Arrhidaeus, the feeble-minded half brother of Alexander, as joint king with the infant Alexander, son of the Bactrian princess Roxana, born after his father's death. Macedonian leaders (mostly Alexander's generals) were appointed as governors throughout the empire. The conflicting interests of the generals, of Alexander's widow Roxana, of his mother Olympias, and of partisans of Philip Arrhidaeus led to a decade of wars and intrigue. For a summary of the struggles that went on among these successors of Alexander, see Vol. IV, pp. 824, 825.

Antigonus Makes Strongest Bid for Empire.--In the long and complex struggle for power among numerous contending "successors," the issues tended to center in the attempt of Antigonus to gain and keep the power for himself. His chief opponents--Cassander in Macedonia, Ptolemy in Egypt, and Lysimachus in Thrace--formed an alliance proposed by Seleucus. After the struggle reached a stalemate in 312-311 B.C., the settlement of 311 left the principal territories of the empire in the hands of these five leaders (see The Principal Territories in Alexander's Empire). The next decade was filled with confusion of all kinds. Cassander put to death the child-king Alexander and his mother Roxana. For the attempt of Antigonus to win the whole empire for himself and for his ensuing struggle against Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, (see Alexander's Empire Divided into Four Kingdoms.) This struggle came to a climax in 301 at the decisive battle at Ipsus in Phrygia, which the four allies won. Antigonus was slain and his territory divided.

The Fourthfold Division of the Empire.--Thus, in 301, the question of a united empire versus separate kingdoms was settled (see Alexander's Empire Divided into Four Kingdoms). The strongest bid for unity had failed. In place of Alexander's one empire there were four independent Macedonian kingdoms, plus minor fragments (chiefly in Asia Minor). Seleucus' territory extended from Asia Minor nearly to the Indus, with capitals at Antioch on the Orontes, in Syria, and Seleucia on the Tigris, near the present city of Baghdad. Ptolemy of Egypt had regained gained the districts of Palestine and southern Syria. Lysimachus had not only Thrace but also a large portion of northwestern Asia Minor. Cassander held Macedonia and was busy trying to consolidate all of Greece. Demetrius' scattered holdings could not be considered a fifth kingdom.

IV. The Hellenestic Kingdoms

It would be profitless to follow the rivalries, wars, and intrigues between these Hellenistic kingdoms and the family quarrels of their Macedonian ruling houses, whose complex intermarriages and changing alliances confuse the picture with similar names and petty details. A mere outline of the principal developments must suffice, to show how the four kingdoms became three and later fell one by one to Rome. See Vol. IV, pp. 824, 825.

Lysimachus' Kingdom Eliminated.--Not many years after the battle at Ipsus, in 301, Lysimachus gained control of two of the four divisions of the empire as they had been settled upon in 301--the western and the northern. But Lysimachus was defeated and killed in a war with Seleucus in 281, after which Ptolemy Ceraunus snatched the fruits of victory from the winner. In 280 he assassinated the victorious Seleucus, and seized Macedonia. Thus, although Seleucus briefly held the title to three of the four divisions, he actually never occupied Macedonia. His death left his son Antiochus I with what had been territories of Seleucus and Lysimachus. Macedonia was ruled by the house of Antigonus for more than a century, until it became a protectorate of Rome at the close of the third Macedonian war in 168 B.C., and finally a province of Rome in 146.

The Four Kingdoms Reduced to Three.--Thus within about 40 years after Alexander's death, and 20 years after the division at Ipsus, his vast territory had passed through the hands of many claimants. Now, all the empire, except minor fragments, was under the control of three dynasties of Macedonian blood. The house of Ptolemy ruled Egypt; the house of Antigonus, replacing that of Cassander, had taken over Macedonia; the house of Seleucus held the east and the former territory of Lysimachus in the north (see Three Principal Kingdoms of Alexander's Empire, and The Hellenistic Empires).

In 279 the invading Gauls, an eastern wave of the barbarians well known by that name in Roman history, entered Macedonia and Greece, whence they were driven out. Some of them overran large parts of Asia Minor. Harbored by local kings who wished to harass the rulers of the Seleucid line, they plundered the country for many years and extorted tribute. Finally after nearly half a century they were decisively defeated by the ruler of Pergamum, which later became the most important of the small states that grew out of fragments of Lysimachus' empire. Henceforth these Gauls were confined to the region of Asia Minor that took its name, Galatia, from them. This later became the Roman province in which Paul founded various churches and to which he wrote the epistle to the Galatians (see Introduction to Galatians in Vol. VII).

Although these small states retained their separate existence, nearly all the territory of Alexander's empire remained under the three strong Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt, and the Seleucid empire (the last is often called Syria, because Antioch became its principal capital and its territory later shrank to Syria alone). These three kingdoms dominated the eastern Mediterranean until they were absorbed successively as provinces of the Roman Empire. Accordingly, many brief histories omit mention of the earlier fourfold division of Alexander's empire and refer only to the final stage of three kingdoms.

Palestine, situated on the corridor between Egypt and the Seleucid empire, remained for many years a bone of contention between "the king of the south" and "the king of the north." Hence the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucid kings (see Hellenistic Ruling Houses) are more important to Biblical studies than Macedonia. Palestine was under the Ptolemies until about 200 B.C., when it fell to Seleucid control.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Antiochus I and II.--Ptolemy II Philadelphus hoped to take Syria and make it, along with Palestine, a buffer state against aggression from the Seleucid empire. In 272 B.C. he forced Seleucus' successor, Antiochus I (280-262/61), to give him control of much of the coastal lands in Asia Minor and Syria. For another decade Ptolemy aided Greece in its unsuccessful effort against Macedonian rule; then he signed a peace treaty with Antigonus II of Macedonia.

V. Palestine Under Hellenistic Rule

Palestine Under the Ptolemies.--Soon after the death of Alexander, Ptolemy made Syria and Palestine tributary to Egypt. Antigonus subjugated these districts temporarily, and Palestine changed hands several times before 301. In this time of change and uncertainty many Jews left Palestine to settle in the new city of Alexandria, where the Jewish population eventually formed a large self-governing segment of that cosmopolitan capital, and became Hellenized to the extent of needing the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek.

After the Battle of Ipsus in 301, where Antigonus was slain, Syria fell to Seleucus; but Palestine, which Ptolemy had occupied, was left to Egypt, though Seleucus never gave up his claim to it. Judea learned to take advantage of the opportunity for intrigue with both sides. Under the Ptolemies the chief cities of Phoenicia and Palestine were considerably Hellenized, and new cities were established, with Greek forms of government. But Jerusalem remained the center of a Jewish state under the civil as well as the religious leadership of the high priest, who was the representative of the people in dealing with the king. There was also a council of elders derived, as some think, from the assembly of Nehemiah's day. Thus the lives of the people were still regulated by Jewish laws and customs, although there began a gradual process of absorption of Hellenism from the use of the Greek language and the contacts with the officials and the Greek settlers in the cities. This, however, developed slowly, and reached a climax under Antiochus IV (see Sec. VII).

From the beginning there was a constant war of intrigue and diplomacy, as well as intermittent fighting, among the three houses of Seleucus, Ptolemy, and Antigonus. In this struggle Ptolemy II Philadelphus relied on Palestine as a buffer state against Seleucus, hence his liberal gifts to the Jews.

Being literary-minded, Ptolemy II, with his counselors, began to collect books from other nations for his great library in Alexandria. Men of letters were welcomed in the city. According to Josephus, the king, at the request of the chief librarian, asked the high priest Eleazar to send Palestinian scholars to make a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus the translation was begun that is now called the Septuagint. It is uncertain whether the version was made for an official presentation to the Alexandrian library or whether it was produced privately for the Alexandrian Jews. Only the Pentateuch was translated then, and other portions of the Old Testament canon were added later (see Vol. I, p. 39).

Josephus tells us that one of the Ptolemies made Joseph, a nephew of the high priest Onias I, tax collector for the whole area of Palestine, Coele-Syria, and Phoenicia, and showered favors upon him. Palestine was left largely to its own devices so long as the taxes were paid and the Egyptian authority recognized. Little is known of the details of this period, but it is evident that the Jews fared better than later, when the Seleucids took over the country. Yet there arose a party which was to give Palestine into the hands of the Seleucid house, little realizing what the future held for them.

In 221, the year in which Ptolemy III was succeeded by Ptolemy IV Philopator, Antiochus III (the Great) came into Palestine on his way against Egypt, but the venture was a failure. In 219 he took Seleucia on the Mediterranean. In 218 he succeeded in placing garrisons in various places in Palestine. In 217 Egypt met and defeated him in Raphia, south of Gaza. Tradition has it that Ptolemy IV visited Jerusalem, outraged the Jews by going into the holy of holies, and was smitten with superstitious terror. Egypt held Palestine for another decade or so. The invasions of Egyptian territory and the native uprisings within Egypt give clear evidence of the inefficiency of Ptolemy IV's administration. His death came just about the time when Rome and Philip V of Macedonia were signing a treaty of peace, and when Antiochus, who had been strengthening himself in Asia, was returning to Antioch.

In 203 Ptolemy IV was succeeded by his son Ptolemy V Epiphanies, who was only four years old. Egypt sought the help of Rome, but Philip V of Macedonia and Antiochus made an alliance against Ptolemy, and the Seleucid forces penetrated Palestine for the third time. In a decisive battle in 201/200 near Panium, not far from Mt. Hermon, the Egyptian forces were defeated. The result was that Egypt permanently lost Palestine to the Seleucid empire.

Palestine Under the Seleucid Empire.--The Jews had changed masters, and it soon became clear that they did not profit thereby. The comparatively lenient policy of the Ptolemies was replaced by a closer supervision, a greater demand for taxes, interference in the appointment of the high priests, and later by religious persecution.

Antiochus III, who had come to the throne at a time when the Seleucid empire was weak, succeeded in extending its territory approximately to the original boundaries. Soon after he conquered Palestine he was confronted with the opposition of Rome, which was alarmed by his growing power and his alliance with Philip V of Macedonia. In 190 at Magnesia in Asia Minor, Antiochus was decisively defeated by Rome. He lost Asia Minor permanently and paid a large indemnity. One consequence of this was increased taxes extracted from Palestine. It is said that Antiochus' successor, Seleucus IV Philopator, trying to raise money to pay the Romans, attempted to confiscate the Temple treasure, but that his envoy, Heliodorus, was frightened off by supernatural apparitions (2 Macc. 3:6-39).

The successor of Seleucus IV was Antiochus IV Epiphanes, notorious as the persecutor of the Jews. His efforts to conquer Egypt were blocked by Rome; his unsuccessful struggles with the Jews helped to weaken his empire within. From his time on there was a gradual decline, and a century later his kingdom was absorbed by the Roman Empire. Since Rome held an increasingly dominant position in the East in the time of Antiochus III and IV, it is necessary to turn attention to this new Western power before proceeding with the period of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

VI. The Rise of Rome to Dominance

The Early Growth of Rome.--Rome, originally composed of several independent tribes living on a cluster of seven hills, became a city-state ruled by elective kings, with a senate or council of elders and an assembly representing the people. By about 500 B.C. the king was replaced by two consuls elected annually. During the 5th century the laws were codified. One important step in the rise of the common people was the appointment of tribunes of the people, officers who enjoyed personal inviolability and who had the power of veto over the magistrates in defense of the common people. During the time of Alexander's conquests to the east and the division of his empire among his successors, Rome was occupied with internal political struggles and with territorial expansion in Italy.

Soon after the conquest of Italy was complete Rome became involved in a protracted struggle with Carthage, a Phoenician colony on the North African coast that now loomed as Rome's most dangerous rival. Rome had formed alliances with districts all along the coast of Africa as far west as Spain and held a good portion of sicily, where the war with Carthage (known as the First Punic War) began. It took Rome 23 years (264-241) to bring Carthage to her knees. The victor imposed a heavy indemnity and took Sicily, which became the first Roman province.

Soon after the peace treaty Carthage aroused Rome's jealousy and alarm by gaining a strong foothold in Spain. This led to the Second Punic War (218-201), as a result of which Carthage gave up Spain and most of her navy, paid heavy tribute, and promised not to make war without Rome's permission.

Roman Intervention in Macedonia.--By 200 B.C., with Carthage, her only genuine rival, no longer a menace, Rome had become mistress of the western Mediterranean. The acquisition of foreign provinces gave her the beginnings of a genuine empire. Rome did not at first seek new territories in the East. But she was the strongest power in the Mediterranean; and in her efforts to protect herself, her trade, and her allies, she was drawn into one local issue after another until eventually she became acknowledged conqueror of the whole Mediterranean world.

In the step-by-step acquisition of the remains of Alexander's empire, Rome's first involvement was with Macedonia during the Second Punic War. Philip V of Macedonia attempted to assist Carthage, but Rome prevented this and formed alliances with certain Greek states and with Pergamum against Philip. This First Macedonian War (215-205) was followed by the Second Macedonian War (200-196). Rome defeated Macedonia at Cynoscephalae (197), and declared all Greece free. By breaking the power of Macedonia, Rome had merely weakened the rival of the Seleucid kingdom, and henceforth had to reckon with Antiochus III (the Great).

Rome and Antiochus the Great.--While Rome and Philip were occupied in warfare, and Egypt was torn by native uprisings, Antiochus the Great invaded Syria and Palestine. With the battle at Panium, 201/200, Egypt had forever lost control of Palestine (see p. 26). It soon came completely under the rule of the house of Seleucus, and the fortunes of the Jews took a turn for the worse.

As soon as Antiochus had made peace with Egypt he invaded Greece, but was defeated at Thermopylae by the Romans and forced to flee back to Asia Minor. At Magnesia, near Smyrna, in 190, he was decisively defeated by the Romans. By the subsequent peace treaty the Seleucid kingdom had to pay a large indemnity, and to give up all its holdings west and north of the Taurus range. Rome did not keep this conquered territory, but gave it to her allies, principally Pergamum and Rhodes.

Rome Ends the Macedonian Kingdom.--Perseus, son of Philip V, was regarded as an enemy of Rome. Envoys sent to Macedonia kept returning with growing concern. Finally the murder of the king of Pergamum, while traveling in Greece, was made the occasion for a Third Macedonian War (171-168), in which, at the Battle of Pydna (168), Rome completely crushed Macedonia. She did not annex the territory, however, but divided it into four separate republics which she placed under her protection. Thus ended the ruling house of the Antigonids. The kingdom of Macedonia, one of the three surviving kingdoms of Alexander's former domain, was no more.

Rome and Antiochus IV Epiphanes.--After his defeat by Rome, Antiochus the Great sent his son Antiochus (later called Epiphanes) there as a hostage. Eventually, however, Antiochus Epiphanes took the throne (175) of the Seleucid empire. While Rome was busy with the Third Macedonian War (which ended the Macedonian kingdom in 168), she had to meet another attempt of the Seleucid house to gain control of the Near East. Antiochus Epiphanes marched against Egypt. He was about to take the country when the envoy of the victorious Romans arrived with an ultimatum requiring Antiochus to leave Egypt, then an ally under the protection of Rome. Antiochus, who well understood Roman military power, withdrew.

Thus by 168 B.C. Rome had conquered one of the three surviving Hellenistic kingdoms, assumed protection of the second, and repulsed the third by the mere word of an envoy, although she did not annex any of their territory until some years later. The frustrated Antiochus returned from Egypt and turned his attention to the Jews.

VII. Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jews

While in Greece Antiochus Epiphanes had become acquainted with Hellenic culture and was enamored of Greek sports, theatricals, and pageantry. When he came to power he was filled with dreams of uniting all the peoples of his empire by the common bond of Hellenistic culture. He made the mistake of trying to force what had until then been a natural and gradual development.

Gradual Hellenization of the Jews.--It has been mentioned that the Jews who settled in Alexandria, soon after it was founded, became Hellenized during the period of Ptolemaic rule over Palestine. There were Jews in the principal cities of the empire, and even in Palestine many cities became centers of Greek culture of a sort. Those who dealt closely with officials had to use the Greek language, and many among the upper classes in Judea, including the leading priests, adopted Hellenistic dress and customs. The younger minority felt that the old faith and morals were out of date, but the mass of the people were inclined to distrust the new ways. In opposition there grew up a conservative party that stood for the strict observance of Judaism according to the Torah. These conservatives came to be known as the Hasidim (Chasidim or Assideans), or pious ones (see p. 51). The cleavage between these two parties of Jews, the Hasidim and the Hellenists, became a major controversy after the Seleucids took over. Onias III, a high priest early in the Seleucid period, was conspicuously pious, and a contender for traditional Judaism against the Hellenizing trend.

Onias' brother Jason, a Hellenizer, bribed Antiochus to make him high priest in Onias' place, and then set out to make Jerusalem a Greek city. But in a few years Antiochus sold the high priesthood to a higher bidder, this time to Menelaus, who was not even of the priestly tribe, but a Benjamite, and therefore not in favor with the people. Strife between the supporters of the different factions in Jerusalem gave Antiochus an opportunity to intervene. Josephus tells how the Hellenizers went to Epiphanes informing him of their wish to adopt the Hellenistic mode of living that he was fostering, and requesting permission to build a gymnasium in Jerusalem. This was particularly offensive to the conservatives, because in the gymnasium the athletes exercised in the nude, as did the Greeks. Soon the officials of the Temple were more interested in the public games than in the ministrations of their holy office. Greek names became popular. For example, Eliakim was changed to Alcimus, Joshua to Jason.

Hellenization Enforced by Antiochus.--It was on his return from a campaign against Egypt that Antiochus Epiphanes entered Jerusalem, where he was warmly welcomed by the liberals. According to 1 Maccabees this was in 170/69 B.C., but there is difference of opinion as to the dating of his Egyptian campaigns, and even as to the method used in 1 Maccabees of reckoning the Seleucid Era (see p. 25, note 2). It was at some time between 170 and 168 that Antiochus visited Jerusalem, and to show his appreciation of the Hellenizing leaders there, he put to death many of the conservatives and a few who wished to return to Egyptian sovereignty. He was even permitted to take many of the Temple treasures.

In 168, some think in order to same face after his humiliation by the Romans in Egypt, Epiphanes marched into Palestine, and entering Jerusalem by treachery, plundered the Temple, stopped the morning and evening sacrificial offering, erected an idolatrous altar before the Temple for the sacrifice of swine, burned some of the buildings, and destroyed portions of the city wall. He built a fortress south of the Temple area in the old City of David and placed a garrison there. He ordered the Jews to cease their worship of Jehovah and offer worship instead to the Olympian Zeus and Dionysus, to cease circumcision, to disregard the Sabbath, to use the pig as both an article of diet and a victim of sacrifice, and to destroy the Torah. Josephus adds (Antiquities xii. 5. 5 [257-264]) that when the Samaritans saw the disgrace of Jerusalem they went to Epiphanes, disavowing any relationship to the Jews and asking to be permitted to call their sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. This was granted, and they were officially freed from any connection with the Jews. See on Dan. 11:14.

The Maccabees Revolt.--Finding that the faithful chose death rather than resistance on the Sabbath day, the troops of Antiochus martyred many. Not only the Hasidim (see p. 51), but the rank and file of the people stood against this religious persecution. But very soon the opposition took a new form at the town of Modein, 18 mi. (29 km.) northwest of Jerusalem, about midway to Joppa. When Mattathias, a man of the priestly lineage, was commanded as leader of his district to initiate the service ordered by the king, he refused. He and his five sons slew another Jew who offered the idolatrous sacrifice, and the Syrian guard as well. Then, leaving their town, they fled to the wilderness, where they were joined by hundreds of loyal Jews who determined to be true to their faith. They used armed resistance on any day of the week. Thus a war between the Jewish nationalists and the Seleucid house was begun that ended only when the Jews achieved a measure of independence.

Judas Maccabaeus Restores the Temple Worship.--On the death of Mattathias (167/66) the leadership fell to his son Judas, who took the surname Maccabaeus. Thus this family of patriots, originally the house of Hashmon (the Hasmonaeans), became known as the Maccabees. A Syrian army sent out to quell Judas was defeated in two encounters, of which the second took place near Beth-horon. Antiochus Epiphanes, called east because of a Parthian uprising, commissioned Lysias to act for him in his absence, and to continue the war against Judas. In the first encounter at Emmaus (166/65), Judas Maccabaeus repulsed the enemy. Then Lysias tried to come at Jerusalem from the south. Judas was victorious again at Beth-sur (165), a few miles southwest of Jerusalem. By the terms of peace arranged with Lysias, both Jewish factions were permitted to live in Jerusalem; Menelaus remained as high priest; the Temple was to be restored to the worship of God. All emblems of pagan worship were obliterated, and new burnt offering altar was erected. On the 25th of Chisleu (165), Judas had the Temple rededicated, and that day has ever since been memorialized by the feast known today as Hanukkah (feast of lights), referred to in the New Testament as the Feast of the Dedication (John 10:22). See on Dan. 11:14.

Josephus says that the restoration of the Temple "took place on the same day on which, three years before, their holy service had been transformed into an impure and profane form of worship. For the Temple, after being made desolate by Antiochus, had remained so for three years" (Antiquities xii. 7. 6 [320]). This he connects with "the prophecy of Daniel," without identifying it. But Daniel's prophecy fits a Roman oppressor, not a Macedonian, and, further, it speaks of 2300 days (see Dan. 8:9-14). Those who try to make the text say that 2300 "evenings and mornings" mean 1,150 literal days cannot make the interval equal either exactly 3 1/2 years or 3 years.

Therefore, for several reasons, Daniel cannot refer to the trouble wrought by Antiochus Epiphanes, but to some other far-reaching event that seems to have eluded the search of many a student from the time of Christ on. (For a study of this question see on Dan. 8; 9.)

Antiochus Epiphanes found so much trouble in the east that he never returned to Antioch. Foiled in the attempt to loot the treasures in a temple of Nanai in Elymaïs, he escaped--unlike his father. Later he fell ill and died in Media (164/63). On his deathbed he appointed one of his associates, Philip by name, as regent for his young son, Antiochus V Eupator. When Philip returned to Antioch to contend with Lysias for the regency, he found that Lysias and the boy king had gone back to Palestine to quell factional uprisings. This time Lysias was engaged in defeating the forces of Judas at Bethzacharia, but just as he placed Jerusalem under siege he learned that Philip was already at Antioch claiming the regency. In the face of this threat Lysias hastily arranged terms of peace with Judas, whereby Menelaus the high priest was taken from office, brought to Antioch, and there put to death. Alcimus, who, though a descendant of Aaron, was not of the high priestly line, was appointed high priest in Menelaus' place, but he was deposed by the people when it became known that he opposed Judas. The high priesthood thus suffered from the union of political with religious authority in one person.

There ensued conflict between Lysias and Philip for control of the boy king, revolts in the eastern provinces, and the arrival from Rome of Demetrius, son and rightful heir of Seleucus IV, who had 12 years before been cheated out of his throne by Antiochus IV. Warmly welcomed in Syria, Demetrius instigated the assassination of the boy king Antiochus V, thus depriving Lysias of his power, and as a result Demetrius I Soter gained the throne in 162/61.

Jews Seek Alliance With Rome.--Judas Maccabaeus sought to strengthen the Hasmonaean cause by securing the friendship of Rome. Probably in 161 he obtained a treaty intimating friendship without assuring assistance in case of internal warfare. On the request of the Jewish Hellenizers, Demetrius sent a force to garrison Jerusalem, and to confirm in the high priesthood Alcimus, leader of the Hellenistic party who had appealed to him for help. But the Hasmonaean bands still roamed the country, and won a victory over Nicanor at Adasa, near Beth-horon (162/61). Demetrius then sent a force large enough to crush the revolt. At Elasa, some ten miles north of Jerusalem, in 161, Judas Maccabaeus was killed. His brothers, with refugees from his army, fled to the desert. Both the Hasidim and the Hellenizers were tolerated under the Seleucid control. Alcimus died the following year, and the office of high priest may have been vacant for several years, probably because of factional strife.

Jonathan in Michmash.--The Seleucid forces again returned in an attempt to destroy the Hasmonaean guerrillas. They fortified various cities, but found it more expedient to make peace with the new Maccabean leader, Jonathan, brother of Judas. Jonathan was given Michmash for the official residence of the Hasmonaeans, where they could live independent of the Hellenistic forces in Jerusalem. Here he spent some years strengthening his hold on the conservatives among his people, and eventually dominated all Judea outside Jerusalem.

VIII. The Maccabean Struggle for Independence

Jonathan Gains Control of Judea.--The reign of Demetrius I did not last long. In a few years the upheavals in the Seleucid empire gave Jonathan an opportunity to strengthen the position of the Hasmonaean house and of Judea. Alexander Balas, a weakling sponsored by Attalus of Pergamum as the supposed son of Antiochus Epiphanes, was recognized by Rome and backed by Ptolemy VI Philometor of Egypt as claimant to the Seleucid throne against Demetrius I. In 153/52 he was established in Ptolemais, a port south of Tyre. Both rivals, seeking advantage through a buffer state in Palestine, offered inducements to Jonathan. Demetrius returned Jonathan's hostages, abandoned the garrisons in Judea, and finally offered complete freedom to the Hasmonaeans. Not to be outdone, Alexander Balas, by making Jonathan high priest in 153, won his support. Soon Alexander Balas with his allies defeated and killed Demetrius. Jonathan, the new high priest, went to Ptolemais to the wedding of the new king to Ptolemy's daughter, Cleopatra Thea (grand-daughter of the first Cleopatra, but not one of the seven queens of Egypt who bore that name [see p. 24]). On this occasion Jonathan was made general and governor in Palestine. Thus the Maccabean, or Hasmonaean, house came into control of the Jewish nation in 151/50.

Jonathan Gains Foothold in Samaria.--When the youthful Demetrius Nicator, son of Demetrius I, the real scion of the Seleucid house, entered northern Syria to depose Alexander Balas, Jonathan stood for Balas against the governor of Coele-Syria, who espoused the cause of Demetrius. In this fighting Jonathan took Joppa, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. But Ptolemy now repudiated Alexander Balas and gave Cleopatra to Demetrius, whom he installed as Demetrius II in 146. In the ensuing war both Balas and Ptolemy were killed. Demetrius II was unable to rule with a strong hand. In spite of complaints to the king from the garrison in Jerusalem and from the liberal Jews, Jonathan appeased the young Demetrius with costly gifts, and so was victorious. He was confirmed as high priest and was given control of several important districts in Samaria.

In 145 B.C., Tryphon, a military leader from Apamea, marched against Antioch, forced Demetrius back to the coastal cities, and enthroned the infant son of Balas and Cleopatra Thea as Antiochus VI. Jonathan, thinking that this turn of affairs offered further opportunity for the advancement of a Jewish state, made alliance with Antiochus VI through Tryphon. About this time he sent a new envoy to the Senate at Rome in the hope of furthering the overtures made by Judas. Tryphon, making a pretense of friendliness, treacherously seized Jonathan and slew him, probably in 143/42; but, needing more men, Tryphon did not follow up this assassination. Returning to Antioch, he dethroned the child Antiochus VI and made himself dictator, but Demetrius II still held the coastal provinces.

Simon--High Priest, General, Prince.--Jonathan's brother Simon at once took charge of the Hasmonaeans at Jerusalem. In retaliation for the murder of his brother, Simon threw his support to Demetrius II. In return the Jewish state was practically made free, all arrears in tribute being remitted and future tribute abolished. The Seleucid garrison in Jerusalem was starved into submission, and the Jews considered that the last hindrance to their independence had been removed, in 143/42. At the time of the feasts of the sixth month in 141 the people in formal assembly conferred the high priesthood on the house of Hashmon, and Simon received the title "High Priest and General and Ethnarch (Ruler of the People) of God." The Jewish state was now politically independent, and it began to expand further with the conquest of Joppa and Gazara (Gezer).

Palestine in the Maccabean Period

In 141/40 Demetrius II went to fight the Parthians, and soon was taken prisoner. Realizing what a valuable hostage he would make, the Parthians showed him every courtesy and gave him a daughter of the Parthian king. In 139/38 his brother Antiochus Sidetes entered Syria, hoping to drive out Tryphon and restore the kingdom to the house of Seleucus. Cleopatra Thea, learning of her husband's marriage to a Parthian princess, gave her hand and her assistance to his brother, Antiochus. Tryphon then murdered the child Antiochus VI, but within a few weeks was taken and forced to kill himself. Thus Antiochus VII Sidetes gained the throne. A strong king, he determined that Palestine should be brought under control. His first attempt failed, however, and for three years Judea had some semblance of peace. Then in 135, at a feast in Jerusalem, Simon met his death through the treachery of a son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, kept the assassin from assuming control and was installed in his father's place as high priest.

IX. From Priest State to Kingdom

Antiochus VII, Last Strong Seleucid King.--Soon after John Hyrcanus took over, Antiochus VII, invaded Palestine in force, overran the country, and laid siege to Jerusalem. After more than a year Hyrcanus was forced to seek terms. Antiochus accepted tribute and hostages and imposed an indemnity, yet did not further deprive the Jews of their freedom, possibly out of respect for Rome. A little later Antiochus VII, the last strong Seleucid king, was killed (in 129) while campaigning against the Parthians in an effort to re-establish Seleucid rule in the east. Babylonia was thenceforth lost to Parthia, and the Seleucid empire never recovered its former strength.

During this campaign the Parthians freed Demetrius II and sent him back to Syria, hoping to stop the Seleucid advance. Demetrius II, whose reign was interrupted for ten years by his brother's rule while he was a prisoner in Parthia, now resumed control, on Antiochus' death (129). However, he was opposed by his former wife Cleopatra and by an Egyptian-sponsored pretender. After several years of intermittent civil war, Demetrius II was murdered, in 126/25. Later (115-113) Antiochus VIII (Grypus), Cleopatra Thea's son by Demetrius II, and Antiochus IX (Cyzicenus), her son by Antiochus VII, fought for supremacy. From then on there was strife between the factions of various successive and rival kings, until Rome took over in 64. This gave the Jewish state its opportunity for growth.

John Hyrcanus Incorporates Samaria and Idumaea.--While Rome was standing by, watching the houses of Seleucus and Ptolemy destroy themselves, John Hyrcanus again became an independent prince and expanded his territory in Palestine. He destroyed the city of Samaria and the temple on Mt. Gerizim. An Arab people from Transjordan called Nabataeans, who gained considerable power during the Seleucid decline, had dispossessed the Edomites, many of whom settled in the Negeb, or southern Palestine. John Hyrcanus next moved against these Edomites, now called Idumaeans, and forced them either to leave the country or to be circumcised and become Jews (Josephus Antiquities xiii. 9. 1 [254-258]). Thus the Hasmonaeans, at first champions of freedom against religious persecution, ended by forcing religion on others. This effort to weld together the houses of Esau and Jacob, a plan that had failed in the past, was destined to bring much suffering and sorrow in later years when the Idumaean Herods ruled over the Jews. See The Hasmonaeans and the Herods.

John Hyrcanus found little opposition from without, but much within his own nation. For some time the Hasidim--the strict party of the "pious"--had become alienated from the increasingly worldly Hasmonaean priest-rulers. Hyrcanus belonged to the Pharisees, as the principal representatives of the older Hasidim came to be called (see p. 51). But, according to tradition, the Pharisees offended him, with the result that he became a member of the Sadducees (the successors of the older moderate Hellenists) and so conducted himself as to win the antagonism of the populace.

The Hasmonaean Kingdom.--On the death of John Hyrcanus (Hyrcanus I) in 105/04, his wife was to succeed him as civil ruler and his son Aristobulus (I) as high priest, says Josephus. But Aristobulus starved his mother to death, imprisoned three of his brethren, and took to himself the joint title of ruler and high priest. His brother Antigonus assisted him in the government until he fell into disfavor and was assassinated. In his one brief year of rule Aristobulus warred against the Ituraeans, a heathen people to the north. Taking Galilee, he forced the inhabitants, like the Idumaeans, to be circumcised and become Jews. At Aristobulus' death (103) Alexandra (Salome), his widow, opened the door of the prison to his brother Alexander Jannaeus. She gave him her hand in marriage, and made him ruler and high priest. Alexander, if not Aristobulus before him, added the title of king. He slew his other captive brother and appeased the Pharisees by giving them important offices in the government. He then planned on the seizure of outlying districts to bring the kingdom of Israel back to about the area it had occupied in the days of David. Alexander's first move, against Ptolemais on the coast, west of Galilee, embroiled the Jews in a struggle between Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus and his mother, Cleopatra III of Egypt. Alexander Jannaeus was defeated, not only at Ptolemais, but at Gaza and other Judean towns. Nevertheless he remained master of occupied territories.

Alexander Jannaeus was greatly detested by the Jews, both in Jerusalem and in the army. Once when he, as high priest, went to the altar to offer sacrifice, the people pelted him with citrons. Enraged at this, he had more than 6,000 slain. Later, a civil war broke out, in which the Jews for a time allied themselves with a Seleucid prince against their own king, who persecuted the Pharisees with barbarity.

Despite his many defeats, Alexander Jannaeus acquired territory east of the Jordan and on the formerly Philistine coast, thus extending the borders of the country to approximately where they had stood in the height of the early Hebrew monarchy.

X. Decline of the Hasmonaean Power

Finally, in 76/75 Alexander Jannaeus died. His widow, Alexandra (Salome), possibly on his advice, sided with the Pharisees and so established herself as reigning queen. The Pharisees had suffered so much under the cruel rule of Jannaeus that they were willing to have a woman reign if only they could come back into power. Keeping the civil authority in her own hands, Alexandra (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods) entrusted the high priesthood to her son Hyrcanus II. But her son Aristobulus II sided with the Sadducees. Strife between the liberal Sadducees and the conservative Pharisees flared up again. Hyrcanus II permitted a persecution of the Sadducees that drove them to other parts of Palestine and left them determined to raise up a rebellion against him.

On Alexandra's death in 67 the entire authority of the kingdom, both civil and religious, went to Hyrnacus II, but the contest between Hyrnacus and his brother Aristobulus resulted in the intervention of Rome and the end of Hasmonaean rule in 63 B.C. Before the closing chapter of Jewish independence is concluded, it will be necessary to go back to pick up the thread of Roman history that leads to Pompey's conquest of the East.

XI. Rome to the End of the Republic

In Section VI the sketch of the development of Rome ended with the year 168 B.C. By that time Rome had put an end to the first of the Hellenistic monarchies and had turned back the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes from the conquest of Egypt, but had annexed no territory. At first Rome used her power in the East in attempts to preserve the peace. In her efforts to avoid unprofitable or unnecessary wars, Rome repeatedly sent commissions to the East to investigate appeals, claims, and counterclaims, and of course to win whatever advantage she could. She sought to build up the smaller states, like Pergamum, which won leadership in Asia Minor through alliance with Rome; when the Seleucid empire threatened to become too powerful she encouraged divisive elements, such as the Jews; she made allies of Egypt against Syria, of the Greeks against Macedonia, and the like. But when Rome became alarmed, she fought ruthlessly. Eventually a series of wars led to territorial expansion that overtaxed her republican constitution and ended in despotism.

The Third Punic War (149-146 B.C.).--By 150 Rome was alarmed by the reviving prosperity of once-prostrate Carthage (see p. 27). Although some Roman leaders had realized that Carthaginian competition was not a threat, there was a party that constantly stirred up the fearful memories of Hannibal, and demanded the complete obliteration of the rival city. Carthage, provoked by adjoining Numidia, an ally of Rome, broke her promise not to wage war without Rome's consent. Rome's vengeance was the Third Punic War. After a three-year siege Carthage was utterly destroyed in 146.

The Fourth Macedonian War (149-148) and Corinth.--While besieging Carthage, Rome was met with an uprising in Macedonia, and trouble with the Achaean League of cities in southern Greece. In 146, the year of the destruction of Carthage, Rome annexed Macedonia as a province, broke up the Achaean League, and completely destroyed Corinth, taking off to Italy her art treasures. The administration of Greece was then assigned to the Roman governor of Macedonia.

Rome Acquires Pergamum.--In 133 the last king of Pergamum bequeathed to Rome his territory, which embraced a considerable portion of Asia Minor. From then on annexation continued until Rome took over Syria, and finally Egypt, by 30 B.C. But parallel to this growth of empire was an internal revolution that took place in Roman government and society in the century from 133 to 30 B.C.

Rome's Century of Revolution.--During the century witnessing the decline of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid houses, Rome ot only expanded territorially but also shifted from a republic to a one-man rule. As Rome grew from a city-state 20 miles square to a nation and then an empire, the popular assembly of citizens meeting at Rome to vote became virtually a local machine. The Senate, which had started as an advisory body to the magistrates, gradually became supreme. But it was sadly unfitted to rule an empire. Civic loyalty gave way to grasping for individual aggrandizement.

Contact with other nations had brought tremendous changes. Commerce with, and tribute from, foreign lands had made Rome most wealthy and created new standards of living. Slaves, captured in the wars, soon replaced native farm labor, and as a result unemployment grew. Association with the provincials, particularly with Greece and the East, had introduced great changes in religion, politics, philosophy, art, and literature. New social vices crept in, bringing increased crime, bribery, and intrigue. The same sort of disintegration that had wrecked the house of Israel in the days of the divided kingdom contributed to the decline and collapse of the Roman Republic and the rise of absolutism.

Attempts at Reform.--Italy had been a land of small farms. When the farmers were called to long extended wars their lands were absorbed into large estates devoted to grazing. Tiberius Gracchus, as tribune in 133, attempted to have the state allot public lands to the unemployed. This met such violent opposition on the part of the estate holders that it cost Tiberius his life. In 123 his brother, Gaius Gracchus, became a tribune. He secured the sale of public grain to the poor at half price, and encouraged the landless to settle in the provinces. But his reforms resulted in his death also. Both of the Gracchi tried to have citizenship extended to all in Italy.

A few years later the assembly asserted its power by choosing Gaius Marius, a man of humble origin, as commander against Numidia. Marius' innovation of recruiting paid troops led to the later professional army. He was successful in Numidia and later against two invading Germanic tribes, the Cimbri and Teutones. Marius continued, as consul, to impress upon the army its real superiority over the Senate. Then long-standing discontent occasioned by Rome's reluctance to grant citizenship to all the allied peoples in Italy brought on civil war (the Social War), which finally ended with the extension of citizenship to all Italians.

Political Rule by Military Leaders.--The sequel of the war with the Italian allies was a ruthless civil war between a successful general, Sulla, champion of the aristocratic Senatorial party, and Marius, leader of the people's party. Sulla gained political victory and dictatorship through the power of the soldiery. However, he retired after putting through his legislative program strengthening the power of the Senate.

After Sulla's death in 78, one of his own officers, Pompey, distinguished himself both at home and abroad. Elected consul with Crassus for the year 70, Pompey instituted some excellent reforms, but he made clear that any final decision in matters of state lay, not with the Senate or the assembly--as was theoretically the case--but with the leader of the military.

Rome Takes Syria and Palestine.--In 67 the popular party made Pompey commander of the forces Rome sent to the East to rid the sea of the Cilician pirates, a task he accomplished in three months. The next year he was authorized to wage war with the recalcitrant kings of Pontus and Armenia. Victorious, he pushed on to the Caspian and subjected Asia Minor to the will of Rome. In 64 Pompey campaigned in Syria, ended the Seleucid monarchy, and turned southward into Palestine. He took Jerusalem and broke the power of the Hasmonaeans. By 63 Syria and Judea were added to the Roman territory (see p. 38).

Caesar and the First Triumvirate.--In 60 Pompey, together with Julius Caesar and Crassus, a financial colossus of great influence, formed an unofficial alliance to dominate the Senate. This was known as the First Triumvirate. Caesar, a nephew of Marius by marriage and a partisan of the popular party, had once been deprived of his property by Sulla, and fled from Rome until Sulla's death. In 60, after a year as governor of farther Spain, he was elected consul for 59. The triumvirate worked together to control legislation and to realize their separate ambitions in provincial commands--Caesar in Gaul, Pompey in Spain, and Crassus in Syria and the East. Crassus was killed in his campaign against Parthia in 53. Pompey was elected sole consul for the year 52.

In 49, when Caesar was required by the Senate to leave his legions and stand for consular election as a private citizen, he refused, and crossed the Rubicon River into Italy proper with his troops. Pompey and most of the Senate fled to Greece. At Pharsalus, in Thessaly, Pompey was defeated in 48. Caesar used the constitutional machinery as a tool. For example, he was voted a dictator for life. In fact, the republic was dead, and Caesar was the master of the Roman world. He made some useful reforms, including the introduction of the 365 1/4 day calendar that we use, with only slight correction, today (see Vol. I, p. 176; Vol. II, p. 118). But he was suspected of wanting to make himself king and was therefore assassinated in 44 B.C.

Octavian the Heir of Caesar.--At the death of Julius Caesar it was hoped that Mark Antony, then consul, could reorganize the government along the old lines of democracy. But immediately Octavius, or Octavian (later the Emperor Augustus), then an 18-year-old lad, the grandnephew of Caesar and adopted heir, appeared in rome to secure his heritage. After a year of wrangling with Antony, a new triumvirate was formed (in 43) consisting of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus. Following the defeat of Cassius and Brutus, the leading conspirators, both of whom finally committed suicide, Octavian and Antony divided the empire. Octavian took Italy and the West. Antony, taking Egypt, Syria, and the East, forgot his administrative duties in his intoxication with Cleopatra VII, queen of Egypt, who was perhaps more skilled in the arts of intrigue than her great-great aunt Cleopatra Thea of a century before (see p. 33). With Cleopatra, who had charmed Caesar, Antony dreamed of a divine kingship. In 32 Octavian declared war on Antony, and in 31 won a great naval victory off Actium, on the western coast of Greece. Antony and Cleopatra fled to Egypt, leaving their land forces to capitulate. Thereupon Antony's subordinates and the allied and subject princes of the East submitted to Octavian, who went into winter quarters before going on to Egypt in 30. Finally both Antony and Cleopatra ended their lives in suicide. Thus in 30 B.C. Egypt, the last of the great Hellenistic monarchies into which Alexander's domain was divided, became a Roman province.

Octavian Becomes the Emperor Augustus.--Octavian, now undisputed master of the Roman world, took care to avoid the title of king, so obnoxious to the Romans. Preserving the external form of republican government, he ruled by holding the offices or the powers of various magistracies simultaneously. The Senate also voted him the title of Augustus ("Majestic"), and he was known as the princeps ("first" or "chief" citizen); his rule was regarded as a "principate" rather than a monarchy (on the attitude of the eastern provinces, see p. 237). Indeed, his successors for a long time preserved this legal fiction of the principate, although historians are right in saying that the republic was dead and that Augustus was the first Roman emperor. He was a monarch in fact if not in name, and the title imperator ("commander" of the armies), which was the source of his imperial power, came in later times to mean "emperor" in a monarchical sense. Augustus was a wise and moderate ruler who brought peace and prosperity to his vast empire. It was during a census decreed by him that the New Testament era was ushered in at Bethlehem.

XII. The End of Hasmonaean Independence

The Origin of the Herods.--The fall of the Jewish priest-kingdom to Rome has been mentioned (p. 35), but not described. The end of Hasmonaean rule was linked closely with the rise of the Herod family, of Idumaean ancestry, that is, of the Edomites who were compelled by the Maccabean John Hyrcanus to accept the Jewish faith (see p. 34; see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods).

This close connection of Edomite and Jew gave to an Edomite named Antipater (or Antipas) opportunity to take a civil post in the Jewish kingdom, and he became governor of Idumaean for the Jews. His son, also named Antipater, seems later to have held the same position. When civil war broke out between the Maccabean brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, the younger Antipater supported Hyrcanus and brought with him the alliance of Aretas III, king of the Nabataeans, an Arabian people of Transjordan and the old Edomite territory. Aretas attacked and defeated Aristobulus, who took refuge in the citadel in Jerusalem.

The Coming of Pompey.--It was at this point that the Romans entered the war. Pompey remained in the East after overthrowing the kings of Pontus and Armenia in 66 B.C. (see p. 37). In 65 the general whom Pompey sent into Syria was waited upon by emissaries from both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Probably for the very practical reason that Aristobulus was safely ensconced in Jerusalem, the Romans sided with him against Hyrcanus.

Proceeding south, the Roman army forced Aretas to raise his siege of Jerusalem and withdraw. But the arrogant conduct of Aristobulus caused Pompey to distrust him and to make him a prisoner. The Roman army took possession of the city with the treacherous aid of adherents of Hyrcanus, although Aristobulus' soldiers continued to hold the Temple hill for three months longer. The Romans succeeded in breaking through the walls in the summer or autumn of 63 B.C. In the ensuing capture of the Temple site some 12,000 Jews were slain. Pompey and his offices entered the holy of holies and gazed in astonishment at a sacred shrine that had no visual representation of the God who was worshiped there (see Josephus War i. 7. 6 [152]).

Pompey ended the Maccabean kingdom and took considerable territory away from Judea. He permitted Hyrcanus to continue as high priest and to rule with the title of ethnarch ("ruler of the people"), probably under the supervision of the Roman governor of Syria. Antipater was made his prime minister. Aristobulus and his sons were sent to Rome as prisoners. They escaped, however, and three separate times rose up in revolt against the Romans. Each time they were disastrously defeated. In exasperation, Gabinius, the Roman proconsul of Syria, divided Judea into five districts, each governed by a council of elders. Under this arrangement Hyrcanus retained less and less administrative responsibility, while Antipater took more and more authority, becoming virtually the ruler. In 54 B.C. Crassus, the triumvir (see p. 37), the successor of Gabinius as proconsul of Syria, on the pretext of requiring money for a Parthian campaign, plundered the Temple treasure, with the result that the Jews revolted in 53. In 48, when Pompey was slain in Egypt, after his defeat by Julius Caesar at the Battle of Pharsalus, Antipater changed sides and became a vigorous and efficient partisan of Julius Caesar. In return, Caesar granted favors to the Jews. Hyrcanus was accorded full authority, in 47, with the titles of ethnarch and high priest, which titles were made hereditary to the Jews. Nevertheless, Antipater was still the man actually in power, and made this clear to the Jews, to the great disgust of the nobility. Antipater appointed his son Phasael governor of Jerusalem and its environs, and a younger son, Herod, later Herod the Great, governor of Galilee.

After Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44, Cassius, one of the conspirators against Caesar, secured the Roman command in the East, and to him Antipater and Herod gave wholehearted support. In return, Cassius made Herod governor of Coele-Syria. Shortly thereafter Antipater was poisoned in Jerusalem.

In 42 B.C., after the defeat of Brutus and Cassius, Antony assumed control of Roman interests in the East. Having been previously a friend of Antipater, Antony refused the pleas of the pleas of the Jews to remove the Herodian house and retained Herod and his brother as ethnarchs of Palestine. Hyrcanus was allowed to remain, but only as a high priest. Herod strengthened his position with the Jews by betrothing himself to Mariamne, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus II (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods).

Herod as King.--The next year the Parthians invaded Syria, and Antigonus, a son of Aristobulus, raised the banner of revolt and gained the help of a force of Parthians. Phasael was made prisoner and eventually killed himself, while Herod fled and finally reached Rome. There, Herod won the favor of Antony and Octavian, who were at that time in alliance, and the Roman Senate, in 40 B.C., unanimously voted Herod the kingship of Judea.

Although Herod had the help of Roman arms, it took him three years to gain possession of his throne. The Jews who opposed him made their last stand in Jerusalem. It required almost three months to take the upper city and the Temple site. The subsequent slaughter was frightful, for both the Romans and the Jews of Herod's party were enraged at the stubborn resistance offered them. Antigonus, the last Maccabean to function as king, was scourged ignominiously, and, at Herod's earnest plea, put to death. Herod was now (37 B.C.) "master of a city in ruins and king of a nation that hated him."

XIII. The Reign of Herod the Great

From the point of view of politics and culture Herod was rightly called "great." He succeeded in maintaining a balance of allegiance in the shifting current of a difficult political stream; on the one hand he strengthened his kingdom and protected its prosperity, while on the other he retained the friendship and cooperation of Caesar Augustus. But along with his sounder qualities he was possessed of a growing jealousy and suspiciousness of nature that caused him to murder his closest relatives and best friends.

Herod and the Sanhedrin.--Almost immediately upon gaining the throne, Herod executed 45 nobles who had led in the revolt of Antigonus. Many of these men were members of the Sanhedrin, and their loss necessitated its reorganization. The new council thus organized was dominated by the Pharisees. However, many of these Pharisees were opposed to Herod and had even refused to take an oath of allegiance to him; consequently he did not allow them to exert a significant influence on politics. Accordingly, the Sanhedrin became chiefly a place for theological discussion.

Herod and the Hasmonaeans.--Herod insulted the remnant of the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) family by appointing as obscure Babylonian (or Egyptian) Jew as high priest. Because Herod suspected the Hasmonaeans of plotting against him, he eventually put to death old Hyrcanus II; his daughter Alexandra, Herod's mother-in-law; Hyrcanus' grandson, Herod's own brother-in-law, the well-favored Aristobulus III; and finally Mariamne, Aristobulus' sister and Herod's own wife. Except for his sons by Mariamne, this marked the end of the Hasmonaean house, which for almost 150 years had been foremost in Jewish affairs.

Hellenization.--Like Alexander the Great, Herod's patron, Augustus, was determined to unify the Roman world through the diffusion of Greek culture. Herod was quick to follow his example, and attempted to do for Palestine what Augustus was doing on a larger scale for the empire. A tide of heathenism swept over Jerusalem. Greek races and games were the order of the day, the religion and trappings of paganism flourished within sight of the Temple, and shrines to pagan gods were erected at various places throughout the country. When in reaction some of the Pharisees plotted against Herod, he retaliated vigorously and destroyed many of them.

Herod the Builder.--At strategic places throughout his dominions Herod built fortresses to keep the turbulent Jews in check; in fact, his own beautiful palace in Jerusalem was virtually a fortification. He spent years and thousands of talents in building the city of Caesarea and in providing for it an artificial but effective harbor. His building activities also took him outside Palestine. He presented market places, gymnasiums, and temples to communities as far away as Greece, Rhodes, and Syria.

Herod's greatest project was the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple of Zerubbabel, beautiful though it had been, was now almost 500 years old and badly in need of repair. Herod determined to satisfy his own artistic pride, and at the same time to win the friendship of the Jews, by giving them a magnificent place of worship. Eighteen months were devoted to rebuilding the sanctuary proper, and eight years were spent on the surrounding platforms, walls, courts, and porches. After the work had been brought to this point, and the buildings were in full use, much still remained to be done; in fact, the details of the Temple were not completed until after a.d. 62, only a few years before it was destroyed by the Romans.

Herod's Last Days.--Aristobulus and Alexander, Herod's sons by his Hasmonaean wife Mariamne, had been educated at Rome, and were tall, handsome men, proud of their Hasmonaean blood. When they returned to Jerusalem they became the objects of plots by Herod's sister Salome and his son Antipater. As a result the suspicion of Herod was aroused against these two sons, and he finally brought about their execution in 7 B.C. At the same time some three hundred Jews accused of sympathizing with them were stoned to death. Antipater continued to scheme, until, only five days before his own death, Herod ordered this son executed also.

As Herod approached the end of his life he could pride himself on many substantial achievements. He was leaving monuments of great artistic beauty; commerce and manufacturing in Palestine were in sound condition. But Herod was not loved by his people; they hated him for his heavy taxation, his paganizing activities, and his unbounded cruelties. When he fell ill and it was declared that he could not recover, wild rejoicing broke out in Jerusalem, and a mob tore down the golden eagle--hated emblem of their Roman overlords--that Herod had placed over the entrance to the Temple. When he did recover, however, Herod wreaked his vengeance upon many of these disappointed celebrants.

Sensing that his last days were upon him, the old king ordered his sister Salome to imprison in the hippodrome all the leaders of the Jews and to kill them as soon as he himself was dead, in order that the nation might be in mourning when his time came. Although she did carry out the order of imprisonment, Salome later released the men.

One of the last acts of Herod the Great was the malicious killing of the infants of Bethlehem in the vain endeavor to destroy the Messiah, the newborn Jesus, of whom he had heard from the wise men of the East (Matt. 2:1-18). Joseph and Mary escaped with the infant to Egypt, where they remained until Herod died early in 4 B.C. (for the date, see p. 242). The history from the death of Herod is continued in the following article on pp. 63-80.

Bibliography

Apocrypha, Old Testament. A collection of Jewish writings inferior to the Old Testament in spiritual and literary value. They introduce doctrinal concepts based on Jewish tradition rather than on the inspired record of the Old Testament. See pp. 84-87.

The Cambridge Ancient History. Edited by J. B. Bury and others. 12 vols. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926-39 (vols. 1 and 2, rev. ed. 1970-75). Perhaps the most exhaustive ancient history available. In three of the volumes, VII: The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of Rome (1928); VIII: Rome and the Mediterranean 218-133 B.C. (1930); IX: The Roman Republic 133-14 B.C. (1934), numerous chapters by different authorities deal with the events covered in this article. The treatment is fair to the original sources, and different schools of thought are taken into account where there is variation of opinion.

Finkelstein, Louis, ed. The Jews. 4th ed. New York: Schocken Books, 1970-71. 3 vols. Vol. 1 covers their history; vol. 2, their religion and culture; vol. 3, their role in civilization. Written by various scholars.

Ghirshman, Roman. Iran. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1954, 1978. A history from the earliest times to the Islamic conquest.

Josephus, Flavious. Works. See entry on p. 81.

Olmstead, A. T. History of Palestine and Syria to the Macedonian Conquest. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1931. 664 pp. Reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1965. A history of the eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from the beginning of history to the time of the restoration from the Babylonian captivity, and the development of the various sects in Judaism. Critical in approach, it gives only one school of thought on various controverted points.

_______. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948. 576 pp. and 70 plates. Completed after the author's death, but expressing his views. Careful in historic detail, but dogmatic on controversial points.

Schürer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Translated by John Macpherson, Sophia Taylor, and Peter Christie. 5 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d. Old (completed in 1897) but scholarly and authoritative. Its Division I (2 vols.) comprises the political history of Palestine, 175 B.C. to a.d. 135; Division II (3 vols.) deals with the internal condition of Palestine and the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, discussing also Jewish Hellenistic literature and works in Greek, including the OT Apocrypha. For modern editions of parts of this work, see the next two entries.

_______. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus. Ed. Nahum N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken Books, 1961, a 1-vol., abridgement, revised, of Division I of the original work, i.e., the political history, 175 B.C.--a.d. 135.

_______. The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus. New York: Schocken Books, 1972, A 1-vol., unabridged reprint of vol. 3 of Division II.

I. Introduction

The period discussed in this article began with the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. and closed with the end of the Second Jewish Revolt in a.d. 135. This was the period in which John the Baptist, Jesus, and His apostles lived and carried out their public ministry. All of these men were Jews who lived in Palestine. Consequently Jewish history during this period is of primary significance for an understanding of New Testament Christianity. First-century Judaism constituted the environment into which Christianity was born.

During this period Jewish history is marked by unrest in both religious and political affairs. Judaism was divided into several opposing sects, whose differences were often as much political and social as they were religious. Thus the Pharisees stood for a legalistic puritanism, the Sadducees represented the political and social aristocracy, the Essenes aloofly waited for the Messiah in monastic, other-worldly colonies, while the Herodians and Zealots occupied the extreme political poles of collaboration with the Romans and insurrection against them.

Jewish life during this period centered to a large degree in the local synagogue. Here the Jews gathered not only to worship God but also to read and expound the Law and the Prophets. Often, too, the synagogue provided a school for the instruction of Jewish youth. Both by their writings and by their way of life the Jews made a marked impact on the pagan world around them. They carried on active proselyting activities and won many converts from heathenism, either as sympathizers or as full-fledged, circumcised Jews.

Messianic expectation was strong among the Jews during this period. Many believed the Promised One was about to appear, and both the Pharisees and the Essenes had fairly elaborate doctrines in regard to His advent. Consequently it was possible for several impostors claiming to be the Messiah to gather about themselves a credulous following. This expectation of a world deliverer appeared not only in Judaism but also in a less-developed form in heathen circles.

Jewish political unrest was aggravated during this period by a succession of unscrupulous Roman procurators who ruled Judea. Conditions deteriorated to such an extent that in a.d. 66 the Jews began a revolt against the Romans which they continued until a.d. 73. By that time Jerusalem, with its Temple, had been destroyed and the nation dispersed. Years of quiet recuperation followed this national catastrophe. During the early years of the 2d century several minor insurrections by Jews occurred in various parts of the Roman Empire, and finally, in a.d. 132, full-scale rebellion broke out once more in Palestine. Within three years the Jews were again prostrate before the Roman juggernaut. To forestall further rebellion, the Romans forbade any Jew ever again to enter the city of Jerusalem. Thereafter Palestinian Judaism ceased to be of primary significance for the history of Christianity.

II. Political Divisions

The region given by the Romans to Herod the Great and his descendants comprised a number of areas that were distinct by custom, and even by dialect. These differences had come about through the process of history.

Judea.--Judea occupied southern Palestine west of the Dead Sea. It included the territories once occupied by the Hebrew tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, and took in most of the ancient region of Philistia on the Mediterranean Sea. its northern boundary ran east from Joppa to the Jordan, and its southern frontier followed a line beginning just south of Gaza and continuing through Beersheba to the Dead Sea (see Palestine During the Ministry of Jesus). It included the cities of Joppa, Jamnia, Gaza, Bethlehem, Jericho, and Hebron, with the capital, Jerusalem.

Judea was largely a hilly plateau, or long ridge running north and south, which rose rapidly from a narrow coastal plain, and which, in several places, reached an altitude of more than 3,000 feet (c. 1,000 m.). On the east the descent was extremely rapid to the Jordan valley and the Dead Sea, the surface of which lay almost 1,300 feet (c. 400 m.) below sea level. In size Judea under Herod was some 55 miles (c. 90 km.) from north to south, and about the same distance from east to west. Its hills and valleys lent themselves to agriculture, sheep raising, and wine culture on a small scale.

Samaria.--Samaria lay to the north of Judea, in territory that was settled by the tribes of Ephraim, western Manasseh, and part of Benjamin. It was bounded on the north by the plain of Esdraelon and Mt. Gilboa. It centered on Mts. Gerizim Berizim and Ebal, at the feet of which lay the ancient city of Shechem (near present Nablus), with Jacob's well nearby. Samaria, long the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, was situated a few miles farther north. Samaria consisted of rolling country with fertile valleys.

The enmity between Jews and Samaritans had a background in the separation of the northern kingdom from the southern (see Vol. II, p. 76), which lasted from the secession under Jeroboam I in 931 B.C. until the captivity of the northern tribes in 723/722 B.C. The Assyrians deported many of the Israelites and replaced them with mixed races of heathen people from other captured provinces (2 Kings 17:24). These people brought their heathen gods with them. When disaster came to these new settlers the Assyrians superstitiously sent them an Israelitish priest to introduce them to the God of the land. The mingling of the Israelites who remained in the land with the heathen immigrants resulted in a mixed religion, partly a worship of Jehovah and partly a heathen ritual.

When the Jews returned to Judea from Babylon this religious situation constituted a very strong reason for their hatred of the Samaritans. Almost immediately there was friction between the two peoples (see Vol. III, pp. 69-72, 321, 322 see on Ezra 4; Neh. 4; 6). The Samaritans interfered with the rebuilding of Jewish cities, and when overtures of alliance were made by the Samaritans, the Jews rejected them. The Samaritans established their own temple on Mt. Gerizim in opposition to that in Jerusalem. The enmity thus crystallized never changed for the better. During the Maccabean struggle the Samaritans collaborated with Antiochus Epiphanes (see p. 30; see on Dan. 11:14). There was no social intercourse of any kind between the two peoples (Neh. 2 to 6; John 4:9).

Galilee.--Galilee lay to the north of Samaria, bounded on the north by the Litani River and the southern foothills of Mt. Hermon, on the east by the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. It was shut off from the Mediterranean Sea on the west by the narrow coastal strip of ancient Phoenicia, with its cities of haifa, Acre (Ptolemais), Tyre, Zarephath, and Sidon. Galilee included cities such as Gischala, Chorazin, Capernaum, Nazareth, and Jezreel. It comprised the territory of the ancient tribes of Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, Asher, and the northern section of Dan.

Galilee was fertile, with an industrious, independent, hardy people. Because of the presence of a Greek-speaking population in their midst, the Galileans of Israelite descent were particularly zealous in retaining their Judaism. This was the land of Christ's boyhood and youth, and the province from which He drew the majority of His disciples.

Peraea.--Peraea lay east of the Jordan River, opposite Samaria and northern Judea, and comprised the ancient land of Reuben and Gad. Prominent among its natural features were Mt. Nebo and the brook Jabbok. In the old days this area had been grazing country, and it still supported herds of cattle and sheep.

Other Areas Under Herod.--North and east of the Sea of Galilee lay an extensive territory also ruled by the Herodian family. In the western part of this area, on the eastern shore of Galilee, was the district of Gaulanitis, which included the cities of Bethsaida Julias and Gergesa. Farther to the north, east of northern Galilee, lay the city of Paneas (Caesarea Philippi). These northeastern territories extended north to Mt. Hermon and east to the environs of Damascus.

Decapolis.--In the midst of Herod's dominion was an extensive, autonomous area dominated by an association of Greek-speaking cities. Originally ten in number, these cities gave the name of Decapolis--"ten cities"--to their district. Beginning at the eastern end of the Valley of Esdraelon, the Decapolis district extended across the Jordan to include a wide area north and east of Peraea, running from the river Yarmuk south to Philadelphia. In ancient times much of this area had been occupied by the tribe of Manasseh.

III. Daily Life in Palestine

Home Life.--Home life in Palestine was in some ways similar to what can still be found in some places in the Middle East today. The houses of the ordinary peasantry were built of mud, bricks, or stone, with a packed-earth floor and a flat roof of timbers and reeds or branches, plastered with mud. The interior was often of two parts, in one of which the floor was raised a foot or more above the other. On the upper level the women did their work and the family slept, probably often in one bed rolled out on the floor; on the lower level animals could stay when it was necessary for them to have shelter, the children might play, and other work could be done. A stairway often ran up the side of the house to the roof, and there the family might sleep in summertime. Such houses as this usually opened into a courtyard, and indeed often several houses were built together, connected in such a way as to form an enclosure with their common courtyard in the center. Such structures, dependent so much on the use of mud, were frequently damaged seriously by rains and floods.

People in better circumstances, of course, built much more substantial and comfortable houses. They usually contained at least two rooms, sometimes several around a court. The homes of the rich often were much more extensive. The better houses were built of squared stone.

By modern standards, furniture even in the homes of the better class was simple; people usually sat on mats on the floor, and their rooms contained often little more than a chest or two, a bedroll, and some small tables. Small oil lamps made of clay provided light at night. Heating was by open fires, often of charcoal, either in a pit in the earthen floor in poorer homes or in a brazier in the houses of those who could afford it.

Jewish women had a status relatively higher than that of other Eastern Mediterranean women, other than the Romans. They enjoyed a position of respect and influence beyond their legal status. Esther and Judith were portrayed as saviors of their people. The Jewish marriage contract seems already at this time to have protected the property of women, and that they enjoyed some legal claim upon property held by their husbands may be inferred from the text of a deed of sale recently discovered. This document, dated "in the year 3 of Israel's Freedom" (a.d. 134), records the sale of a house by one Hadar son of Judah; at the end of the deed is the following declaration: "Further, I, Shalom daughter of Simeon, the w[ife of] the aforementioned Hadar, may raise no objections to the sale of the said house [for evermo]re, ... for evermore" (S. Abramson and H. L. Ginsberg, "On the Aramaic Deed of Sale of the Third Year of the Second Jewish Revolt," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 136 [December, 1954], p. 19).

Palestinian clothing was loose and relatively simple. The basic garment for both men and women was a tunic, the chitoµn ("coat," Matt. 5:40; 10:10), which, in the case of men, at least, might be either long or short. Laboring men, indeed, sometimes wore only a waistcloth. Another form this undergarment might take was that of a sheet simply wound about the body, with one end flung over the shoulder. A cloth or leathern girdle was frequently worn about the waist, though by no means always. Various types of headgear were common, including both straw and felt hats, but Jews seem most frequently to have worn a head scarf much like the prayer shawl still seen in synagogues. Jewish men wore a garment with tassels (s\éÆs\ith) on each corner (Num. 15:37-40); in NT times this was worn conspicuously (cf. Matt. 9:20; 23:5), but in later ages as an undergarment. The common footgear was the sandal, although leather shoes were also known. The most important outer garment was the himation. The clothing of women was much like that of the men, but doubtless more colorful, and the headgear of a married woman consisted of a scarf or band binding the hair about the head. They often decorated themselves with strings of coins, and with both earrings and nose ornaments. While Roman men commonly wore their hair short and shaved their faces, Palestinian Jews appear generally to have had long hair and beards.

Economic Life.--Basic to life in Palestine was agriculture. The population was made up largely of middle-class farmers who were small landholders. It was to this class that Jesus referred when He spoke of the "householder" (see Matt. 13:52), or "the goodman of the house" (Luke 12:39). Though sometimes in a position to hire help, these farmers, together with their women and children, did much of their own work, plowing, sowing, and harvesting. For food they depended to a large extent upon their own crops, and thus their living, while adequate under favorable conditions, was seldom abundant enough to permit the amassing of any wealth. In time of crop failure these people often found themselves in dire straits, which at best required them to hire themselves out as day laborers, and at worst, to sell themselves as slaves. Thus a large proportion of the population of Palestine in the first century lived at little better than a subsistence level.

A much smaller group among the farming population were able to acquire sufficient land to produce a surplus above their own needs, which they sold to the nonfarming population at a profit. This put them in a dominant position as regards agriculture, for they had ready money and surplus seed to lend to the poorer peasants, and produce to create a vegetable and fruit market. There were also a few large estates held chiefly by aristocrats and administered by stewards (see Luke 16:1).

In addition to these landholders there were several types of farmers who worked by contract: tenant farmers, lessees, renters, and day laborers (see Matt. 20:1). Finally at the bottom of the economic scale were the slaves, who were neither so numerous nor so badly treated in Palestine as they were among the Romans. Slaves of Jewish blood were indentured servants; that is, they served for a fixed period of six years. Gentile slaves, however, fell in another category, and were the absolute chattels of their masters. Generally speaking, they were not so well treated by their Jewish masters as were Jewish slaves.

Besides those occupied with agriculture, a large portion of the population was engaged in handicrafts. It was the Jewish ideal that every man, no matter how exalted in life his station, should teach his son a trade (AA 346, 347). Leading rabbis of ancient times are recorded as having been woodcutters, shoemakers, bakers, and one of them was a well digger. Jewish literature mentions some 40 different kinds of tradesmen in Palestine during this period, among whom were tailors, builders, millers, tanners, butchers, dairymen, barbers, laundrymen, jewelers, weavers, potters, coopers, glassmakers, copyists, and painters. Also there were fishermen, apothecaries, physicians, beekeepers, poultrymen, and shepherds. Many tradesmen not only manufactured their wares but also sold them directly; others dealt through middlemen.

Trade was brisk, not only in domestic produce, but also in articles imported from abroad. In fact, perhaps as much as one half of the commerce of Palestine dealt with foreign goods. Jewish ships manned by Jewish crews carried much of this trade. Commerce was facilitated by a regular banking system, which made it possible for merchants to draw by manuscript check on accounts in such distant cities as Alexandria or Rome.

Most business, of course, was done either by barter or by direct cash payment. Two systems of coinage were common in Palestine, one following the Roman scale and another the Greek. Some of these coins, particularly the denarius, were issued by the Roman Government itself, and others, such as the lepton, were minted by the Jewish authorities. The procurators also struck coinage for use in Palestine. The largest unit of all, the talent, was not a coin, but a unit of account.

The following table of monetary units mentioned in the New Testament gives their approximate weights, but it should be borne in mind that weights of various coins fluctuated from time to time.

Coins in the New Testament

Unit Weight

Units based on Greek system:

Drachma ("piece of silver," cf. Luke 15:8) 3.8 g.

Stater ("piece of money," Matt. 17:27; = 4 drachmas) 17.5 g.

Mina ("pound," cf. Luke 19:13; = 100 drachmas; not a coin, but a unit of account)

Talent (Matt. 18:24; 25:15; = 60 minas; not a coin, but a unit of account)

Units based on Roman system:

Lepton ("mite," cf. Mark 12:42) .5-1 g.

Kodrantes ("farthing," Matt. 5:26; Mark 12:42, the Roman quadrans; = 2 lepta) 1.5-3 g.

Assarion ("farthing," Matt. 10:29; Luke 12:6, the Roman as; = 4 quadrantes) bronze, 6-8 g.

Denarius ("penny," cf. Matt. 18:28; 20:9, 10; = 16 asses) silver, 3.89 g.

While it is possible to compute approximate values in modern money for these ancient coins, such equivalents are soon out of date, and give little idea as to purchasing power, the real determining factor in money value. Perhaps a better realization of the value of this money can be gained from the fact that a denarius was a day's wages for a common farm laborer (see Matt. 20:2).

New Testament also mentions several measures of capacity and length. Some of these were of Hebrew origin, while others were Greek and Roman. Although New Testament measures, such as batos, saton, and koros are the Hebrew bath, se'ah, and kor, there is evidence that during the period between the 6th century b.c. (from which comes the best evidence of their capacity in Old Testament times; see Vol. I, pp. 166, 167) and the 1st century a.d., they had changed considerably in their actual capacities. It is impossible to give an absolute equivalent for each unit of measure mentioned in the New Testament, both because several of these units varied in capacity at different times and places, and because some of these terms appear to have represented more than one size of measurement (somewhat as the gallon varies in the U.S. and British countries today). The following tables of capacity are based, as far as Hebrew measures are concerned, upon Josephus' statement that a bath (batos) equaled 72 sextarii (Antiquities viii. 2. 9 [57]). Since present information indicates that the Roman sextarius may be calculated at .547 liter, which is 1.156 U.S. pints liquid or .994 pint dry measure, it is possible to arrive at a fair approximation for the batos. On the supposition that the relationships between the bath and other Hebrew measurements had remained constant since Old Testament times, the saton and the koros may also be calculated.

Dry Measure

Unit U.S./Metric

Choinix ("measure," Rev. 6:6; Greek; = 2 sextarii) .99 qt. / 1.09 l.

Modios ("bushel," Matt. 5:15; Roman; = 16 sextarii) 7.95 qt. / 8.75 l.

Saton ("measure," cf. Matt. 13:33; Jewish; = 24 sextarii) 11.93 qt. / 13.13 l.

Koros ("measure," cf. Luke 16:7; Jewish; = 10 batoi) 14.92 bu. / 5.25 hl.

Liquid Measure

Xesteµs ("pot," cf. Mark 7:4; Roman; = sextarius) 1.156 pt. / .547 l.

Batos ("measure," cf. Luke 16:6; Jewish; = 72 sextarii) 10.41 gal. / 39.40 l.

Metreµteµs ("firkin," cf. John 2:6; Greek) 10.27 gal. / 38.88 l.

or, if equivalent to OT "bath" 5.81 gal. / 22.00 l.

Linear Measure

Peµchus ("cubit," Matt. 6:27; Greek, representing Heb. ammah) about 1 ft. 5½ in. / .4445 m.

Orguia ("fathom," cf. Acts 27:28; Greek) about 6 ft. / 1.8 m.

Stadion ("furlong," cf. Luke 24:13; Greek) about 606 ft. 6 in. / 185 m.

Sabbatou hodos ("a sabbath day's journey," Acts 1:12; Jewish) about 2,916 ft. / 889 m.

Milion ("mile," Matt. 5:41; Roman) about 4,855 ft. / 1,480 m.

For the measurement of time the Jews of the New Testament period used their own traditional calendar (see the discussions of this calendar, Vol. II, pp. 100-123; Vol. V, pp. 236, 238). Living in the Roman Empire, they were familiar also with the Roman calendar (see Vol. V, pp. 237, 239). The Jews began the calendar day with sunset, but counted the daytime hours from sunrise. As is shown in Matt. 20:1, 3-6, 8, 12, the working day began "early in the morning" and continued until the twelfth hour, "when even was come." Thus the daylight period was divided into twelve equal parts, or hours, which varied somewhat in length with the seasons. The night was divided into "watches"; in Old Testament times there were three of these (see Ex. 14:24; Judges 7:19). However, the New Testament uses instead the Roman system, which divided the night into four watches (see Matt. 14:25; Mark 6:48), apparently known as evening, midnight, cockcrowing, and morning (see Mark 13:35), and each approximately three hours long. That this system was in common use among the Jews in the 1st century is implied by Josephus (Antiquities v. 6. 5 [223]; xviii. 9. 6).

The common language of Palestine in the 1st century was Aramaic, which had been widely spoken in both the Babylonian and the Persian Empire, and which the Jews had brought home with them on their return from the Babylonian captivity (see Vol. I, p. 30). In addition to Aramaic, much Greek was also in use in Palestine as a result of centuries of Hellenistic influence. This was particularly true in the cities of the Decapolis and in other Hellenistic cities, such as Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee, which was situated only four miles from Jesus' home at Nazareth. Jews born in the Gentile world outside of Palestine, who had returned to their national ho

IV. The Sects of Judaism

The Pharisees..--The conquest of the ancient East by Alexander the Great (331 B.C.) was followed by a more permanent cultural invasion by Greek language, customs, ideas, and religion. Eventually, attempts by Antiochus Epiphanes to Hellenize the Jews, that is, to compel them to adopt Greek culture, provoked the most determined resistance (see pp. 28-31; see on Dan. 11:14). Led by Judas Maccabaeus and other members of his family, later known as Maccabees or Hasmonaeans, the Jews heroically defeated the forces of Antiochus and secured their own freedom (164 B.C.). Among the Jews, particularly those of the more wealthy and educated classes and those residing beyond the borders of Palestine, there was a gradual tendency to adopt Greek culture. Such Jews were known as Hellenists and constituted the liberal element of Jewish society. But most of those who lived in Judea clung tenaciously to the customs and religion of their forefathers.

In opposition to Greek influences, there arose in Judea a conservative movement whose members adopted the name Hasidim (Heb. chasidim), meaning "pious ones," or "saints" (see on Ps. 16:10; see Additional Note on Psalm 36). The Pharisees, whose name means "separatists," owed their origin to the Hasidim, and first appeared as a political party about 120 B.C., during the time of John Hyrcannus (pp. 29, 34). The Pharisees were the popular, orthodox, majority party. Their program was one of rigid adherence to the law and to the host of traditional interpretations which at the time were growing out from it. They insisted on avoiding public responsibility and civic duties. While not withdrawing from the hum and bustle of life, they were critical judges of it, and so sought to avoid its supposedly defiling contacts. They insisted on reliance upon God to lead His people and to work for them as He had in the past.

But church and state were united in Judea, as in all governments of that day. Among the Jews religion was the concern of the state in a peculiar way. It had always been so, from Moses through Samuel to David, under whom the priestly class had become distinct from the civil authority. Furthermore, the Hasmonaean house had been a priestly one, although not indeed of the direct high priestly line of Aaron. Therefore, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, sons of Mattathias, the old priest of Modin, were still priests the while they ruled their newly redeemed country, and none had a more effective claim to the high priestly office. But to this union of religious and political leadership the Pharisees objected. They wished to separate religion from the concern of the state, to rid the high priesthood of political entanglements, and to divorce themselves from civic activity.

All of these endeavors were difficult to achieve. For the Jews there was no logical line of separation between religion and other activities of life. The priesthood was so responsible a part of public life that it could not escape political involvements. Instead of withdrawing physically from society, as did the Essenes and the later Christian monks, the Pharisees became partisans of any leader who would espouse their views. As students of the law, they were the party of the scribes, or theologians, and hence, although not made up of the common people, they were the popular spiritual guides. They pressed their beliefs with ardor and conviction, and won numerous adherents to their point of view.

The Pharisees believed in a future life. God would give His people happiness in the divine presence, which only a righteous man could enjoy. In that beatific state good men would receive the rewards of their virtue. Conversely, the wicked, the resisters of God, those who disobeyed His law, would suffer forever in a place of torment. However, not all Pharisees agreed on the details of future rewards and punishments meted out to the faithful and the unfaithful. There were many variations of thought about the afterlife. A common belief among the Pharisees was the concept that in an intermediate place all the souls of the dead awaited transfer, each to its ultimate destiny. From this imaginary place--Hades--those not yet prepared to enter "Abraham's lap" (see Talmud K\iddushin 72a, Soncino ed., p. 369) could, from one side, view in anticipation its pleasures, while from the other side those not yet confirmed to an evil destiny could see the reality of the horrors awaiting them.

In His parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), Christ used the teachings of the Pharisees concerning the future life as a vehicle for emphasizing that one should profit in this life by warnings and admonitions for his betterment (COL 263-265). Following his arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 23:6-10), Paul used to his advantage the belief of the Pharisees in the resurrection, in order to divide his accusers.

The Messianic hope was bright with the Pharisees. The Anointed One would come and restore, and greatly add to, the glory that was Israel's during the reign of David (see Vol. IV, p. 31). Messiah would rule the world (see Vol. IV, p. 30). David had been powerful and had wielded great influence in the world, but Messiah would transcend all other rulers. David had been wise and good, but Messiah would be righteousness personified, and although they did not conceive of Him as God, they believed that He would be clothed with supernatural power. The terms legalism, nationalism, and Messianism may be used to describe the Pharisees' philosophy and objectives.

As the Hasmonaean house grew older in experience and the duties of state involved more and more international contacts, the rulers became less strictly Jewish and more marked by the very Hellenism against which old Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabaeus had revolted. This tendency was accelerated until, eventually, the Hellenizing policies of the Herodian dynasty prevailed. It was to this development, so contrary to everything they believed, that the Pharisees stood opposed.

The Sadducees.--The meaning of the name Sadducee is not known, unless it came from the priestly family name of Zadok (see 1 Kings 2:35), which was probably used as a rallying point of sorts for the exponents of the aristocratic point of view. Such exponents the Sadducees were, with a strong concern for the secular interests of the nation. Thus the Sadducees were quite different from the Pharisees. The material and political success that attended the efforts of the Maccabean family was a source of deep satisfaction to them. Their interests were primarily political. Separatism was contrary to their outlook.

They were not antireligious, but felt that the welfare of the nation as they conceived of it did not require that religious considerations be decisive in all matters. They accepted the Torah, the Law, as canonical, but rejected the rest of the Old Testament as uninspired, and denied the value of tradition (see on Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44), of which the Pharisees made so much.

Consequently, the Sadducees refused to accept the teaching of a future life, or of angels, or of spirits of any sort, or of future retribution, for they declared that they failed to find in the Torah plain statements on these matters (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 1. 4; War ii. 8. 14 [164-165; Acts 23:8]). Whereas the Pharisees confessed dependence upon God for help, the Sadducees relied upon themselves. Thus they were prepared to enter into foreign alliances and to utilize any other means that promised to benefit the nation.

Standing as they did for the aristocratic side of Jewish life, the Sadducees were not representative of the people as a whole. They were a reincarnation, in a sense, of the Hellenistic party among the earlier Jews, against whom the Hasidim had arisen, whereas the Pharisees, on the other hand, were the ideological descendants of the Hasidim.

At first the Hasmonaean princes successfully avoided becoming partisans of either the Pharisees or the Sadducees, but worked with both, distributing public offices and honors between them. It was during the long principate of John Hyrcanus I, son of the noble Hasmonaean Simon, that an indiscretion on the part of some leaders among the Pharisees drove the Hasmonaeans into the arms of the Sadducees (Josephus Antiquities xiii. 10. 6 [293-296]). From then on the Hasmonaean house was more openly Hellenistic, that is, less Judaistic, in its policies and procedures, and the Sadducees exerted more and more influence in national affairs. Comparatively little is known of the Sadducees, however, because they have left no literature whatsoever.

The Essenes.--A third Jewish sect was the Essenes, who, like the Pharisees, appear to have been an outgrowth of the Hasidim. The Essenes represent, apparently, the extreme conservative side of the same development that resulted in Pharisaism. They put into practice the sterner tenets of the Pharisees' beliefs.

Minor differences between the various sources on Essenism appear to indicate that the sect was divided into two groups, one of which was characterized by the rejection of marriage. In other ways both types of Essenes carried the separatism of the Pharisees to the point of withdrawal from society, and consequently led what was virtually a monastic life. They avoided trade, refused to hold slaves, and to some extent, at least, shunned the sacrifices of the Temple. They refused to take oaths, held goods in common, had communal meals with food prepared by priest-cooks, dwelt in houses apart from non-Essenes, and gave careful fraternal aid to one another in sickness or other adverse circumstances. They dressed in white and practiced meticulous cleanliness. Particularly conspicuous in this regard was their emphasis on ceremonial washings by immersion, which they practiced daily.

The Essenes believed in the pre-existence of souls, in reference to which they held to a philosophic dualism and hence rejected the resurrection of the body. Their teaching had elements apparently derived from Zoroastrianism. Some phases of it resembled also certain features of Greek Pythagoreanism.

The archeological discoveries at Khirbet QumraÆn, near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, aroused new interest in this sect (see Vol. I, pp. 31-34; Vol. IV, pp. 86-88). It is now widely thought among scholars that the buildings at Qumrân belonged to an Essene community that flourished in the 1st century b.c., and again, after a period of vacancy, in the 1st century a.d.; and that the manuscripts found there were an Essene library. Similarities between these documents--particularly The Manual of Discipline and The Habakkuk Commentary--and a treatise discovered in Cairo in 1896, originating with a group known as the Damascus Covenanters, led to the further suggestion that this Damascus group was also Essene. Fragments from the same Damascus Covenanters were also found at Qumrân caves 4 and 6--proving the connection beyond doubt.

These documents reveal striking parallels with certain aspects of early Christianity, and demonstrate a closer connection than had previously been realized between the teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus, on the one hand, and of certain elements in Judaism, on the other. The coming of Messiah--in fact, two messiahs--was an important Qumrân belief. The groups at Qumrân and Damascus, at least, traced their origin to a prophet, "the Teacher of Righteousness." He had organized his followers into a "New Covenant" (or "New Testament") in preparation for the Messianic kingdom, and had come into serious conflict with the dominant religious authorities among the Jews.

The Qumrân community purposed to help, by their purity of life and strict obedience to the law, to prepare the world for the coming kingdom. They insisted that acts of purification, such as their daily immersions, were useless if not preceded by a cleansing of the heart by "a holy spirit," which, they believed, God made known to them through "His Anointed One." Their emphasis on spiritual cleanliness in preparation for the Messianic kingdom, their washings, their high ethical standards, and their locale in the wilderness of Jordan near the Dead Sea closely parallel the ministry of John the Baptist. Like him, they declared themselves to be a fulfillment of Isa. 40:3. So striking are these similarities that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that John must have had some contact with this sect. Certain aspects of the teaching of the apostle John and of Paul also find illuminating parallels in the literature of this group. This, of course, does not mean that these apostles borrowed their gospel message in any part from the Essenes.

The Herodians.--The Herodians arose at a later time than the foregoing parties and were apparently interested almost solely in politics. Little is known of them beyond casual references in the New Testament (Matt. 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13). Josephus speaks of "partisans of Herod" (Antiquities xiv. 15. 10 [450]). It would appear that they were Galileans who wished to see scions of the house of Herod ruling in Palestine, rather than foreigners.

The Zealots.--Like the Herodians, the Zealots were political in their interests and in their program. Various theories are held as to their origin. Some see them as derived, like the Pharisees and Essenes, from the Hasidim; thus they would be "pious ones" for whom politics became the chief issue of religion. Such a relationship, however, is difficult to establish by clear documentary evidence. Josephus (Antiquities xviii. 1. 6) describes a "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" that has often been equated with the Zealots, although conclusive evidence from the sources for this identification is also lacking. He attributes the founding of this sect to Judas the Galilean (or Gaulanite), who rose in revolt against a taxation, perhaps following Quirinius' census of a.d. 6 (see Acts 5:37). He reports that religiously they sided with the Pharisees, but that politically they refused to have anyone rule over them but God. Josephus does not mention the Zealots, by name at least, until the time of the Roman war (a.d. 66-70), when they appeared as a violent party under the leadership of John of Gischala (War v. 3. 1 [98-105]). Inasmuch, however, as he does report (Antiquities xviii. 1. 6) that the adherents of the "fourth sect" were particularly active during that war, it may well be that they are to be identified with the Zealots. One of Christ's disciples, Simon (not Peter), had probably been a Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

There were also groups of Jewish Christians such as the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, which arose much later, too late to be in the province of this survey. Whether any of these sects remained acceptable members of Jewish society is not clear. The main body of Jewish Christians was not thus acceptable, but was rejected by Judaism at the council of Jamnia (c. a.d. 90).

V. Jewish Religious Life

The Common People.--Important as the sects of Judaism were in the life of the nation, they represented only a fraction of the Jewish population in the 1st century. The majority of the people were unlearned in those details of the law that were so dear to the Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots, and at the same time they were also largely untouched by the sophistication of the Sadducees. These uneducated masses were known in Hebrew as Ôamme ha'ares \, "people of the land." The Pharisees despised them for their ignorance and their consequent disregard of strict tithing and ritual cleanliness, and for this reason believed them to be under a curse (see John 7:49). Jesus and His disciples did much of their work among such people, and indeed probably often were classed with them (see Matt. 11:19; 15:1, 2; John 7:15). The disregard, by the Ôamme ha'ares, of ritual and ceremonial restrictions did not mean, however, that they were necessarily without a desire for God, and these people doubtless made up the majority of those who "heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37).

Jewish life continued its development while Herod built, spent, murdered, and finally died. Messianic hopes ran high. The Pharisees urged upon the people an example of stern legalism characterized by strict observance of the Sabbath and of ritualistic rules of cleanliness. The round of services in the Temple at Jerusalem continued with unbending dignity and pomp, while its courtyards were filled with worshippers, beggars, money-changers, and sellers of sacrificial animals. Coming not only from the outlying reaches of Palestine, but from all over the world, thousands of pilgrims flocked to Jerusalem for the three great annual feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (see on Ex. 23:14-17; Lev. 23:2; Deut. 16:16, 17). The Pharisees hungered for righteousness; the common people hungered for the joy of religion; the nation hungered for the Messiah.

Religiously the common people were by no means as tied to the scrupulous observance of legal traditions as were the Pharisees. At the same time, however, the latter had considerable influence and did much to set the religious tone of the nation. This meant that traditionalism and ceremonialism played a large part in Jewish religious life and thinking. For examples of Jewish religious restrictions and observances see comments on Matt. 23:23; Mark 2:18, 23, 24; 7:2-4, 9.

The Scribes.--This group was known in Hebrew as sopherim, "scribes," "writers," and in Greek as grammateis, literally, "secretaries," or "clerks." They were also, and more exactly, termed nomikoi, "lawyers" (Matt. 22:35; Luke 7:30; etc.), and nomodidaskaloi, "teachers of the law" (1 Tim. 1:7). It was their task to study and interpret the civil and religious law and apply it to the details of daily life. Their decisions, like those of the justices of a supreme court today, carried great weight and became the basis of future interpretation. This body of decisions constituted the "tradition" against which Jesus so often spoke and which He was so often charged with violating (Matt. 15:2, 3, 6; 7:2, 3, 8, 9). Noted scribes became great teachers among the Jews. During the time of Jesus the scribes were more influential than any other group of leaders. Many of them were members of the Sanhedrin probably referred to in Matt. 26:3. Some scribes accepted Christ (Matt. 8:19), but most of them were hopelessly prejudiced against Him (Matt. 16:21). Most were Pharisees.

The Synagogue.--The synagogue, literally, the "assembly," was a focal point of Jewish community life. This characteristic institution of Judaism did not flourish until during and after the Babylonian captivity (see PK 612, 613). Tradition makes the prophet Ezekiel, one of the captives at Tel-abib by the river Chebar in Lower Mesopotamia, the founder of the synagogue. During the centuries that followed the Captivity the Jews voluntarily scattered throughout the known world, so that there was scarcely a city without its Jewish community (Acts 15:21), and every such community had its synagogue. One was to be established wherever there were ten adult males, and these ten became its first "rulers."

Perhaps more than any other single institution, the synagogue served to preserve the religion, culture, and racial consciousness of the Jewish race. The synagogue was never a place of sacrifice like the Temple at Jerusalem, and thus was not considered a place of worship in the highest sense. Services were held there each Sabbath day, at which the reading and exposition of the Law and the Prophets constituted the center of attention. During the week the synagogue also often served as a local law court (see Mark 13:9), and generally as a school. The synagogue was essentially a place for scriptural instruction and for prayer. In foreign lands Jewish communities maintained a separate existence and managed their own civil and religious affairs, subject, of course, to the law of the land (Josephus Antiquities xix. 5. 3).

The priests were not directly connected with the administration of the synagogues, for there were no sacrifices, though they were often invited to participate in the services. The affairs of each synagogue and of the community attached to it were under the supervision of a board of elders (see Luke 7:3-5), or rulers (see Mark 5:22). The chief officer, the ruler of the synagogue (see Luke 8:49; 13:14), presided at the services or arranged for others to do so, and appointed suitable men from the congregation to pray, to read the Scriptures, and to exhort the congregation. There was no clergy as such. There was at least one lesser officer, a chazzan--equivalent to a deacon in the Christian church--who cared for the humbler duties, such as taking the rolls of the Law and the Prophets from the ark and replacing them, and inflicting corporal punishment decided upon by the elders.

The ruins of synagogues, as early as the 2d century, may be seen at several sites in Palestine. Ruins at Tel H\uÆm, usually identified with Capernaum, date from the 3d century. Each synagogue was rectangular in shape, with its main entrance at the southern end. The more wealthy congregations decorated their synagogues with various ornamental devices, such as a scroll of vine leaves and bunches of grapes--Israel's national symbol--the seven-branched candlestick, a paschal lamb, the pot of manna, and many other objects and scenes from the Old Testament Scriptures. The main room of the synagogue was provided with a reading desk, a seat for the expounder, and a chest, or ark, that contained the rolls of the Law and the Prophets. There were seats, or benches, at least for the wealthier members of the congregation (see James 2:2, 3), those in the front near the reader's desk being considered the "chief seats" (see Matt. 23:6). The congregation faced the ark, and was divided, with the men (those 12 years of age and older) sitting on one side and the women and children (those between 5 and 12) on the other or on a balcony.

Attendance was required on Sabbaths and feast days, and it was considered a meritorious act to take part in the service, which by modern standards was apparently rather long. Authorities differ as to the details of the synagogue service in the 1st century, and as most of the available source materials are from rabbinical writings, it is difficult to be certain how much of it applies to the period before a.d. 70. The following outline, however, is probably a close approximation to the order of service in the synagogue as Jesus and the apostles knew it.

1. Recitation in unison of the shemaÔ--a confession of faith chiefly from such passages as Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Num. 15:37-41--before and after which a member of the congregation stood before the ark of the Law to offer, on the Sabbath, a sevenfold prayer (18 parts on other days), each part of which was confirmed by the "Amen!" of the congregation. Between the sixth and seventh parts of this prayer, priests, if present, ascended the platform of the ark, lifted their hands, and pronounced in unison the Aaronic blessing, from Lev. 9:22 and Num. 6:23-27.

2. The parashah, or reading of the appointed section of the Law (see Acts 13:15). Reverence for the Law required that the scroll be unrolled behind a curtain, out of sight of the congregation. The Law--the five books of Moses--was read through in a three-year cycle, with a definite portion assigned for each Sabbath. Each of those portions was divided into seven parts of at least three verses each. A different member of the congregation was called upon to read each of these subdivisions. Anyone who made the least mistake was immediately replaced by someone else. The reading of the Law was translated verse by verse from Hebrew into Aramaic, the language of the common people (see Neh. 8:1-8), by another person, to avoid the possibility that the translation should be mistaken for the actual text of the Scriptures.

3. The hapht\arah, or reading from the Prophets. Considered as less sacred than the Law, the scroll of the Prophets had one roller rather than two, like the Law, and might be unrolled in the sight of the congregation. There is no evidence that a cycle for the reading of the Prophets was followed during the time of Christ. Therefore, the scroll was probably handed to the one appointed by the ruler of the synagogue to read, and he chose the passage to be read. It was this part of the service in which Jesus participated in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-22); using a reading from Isa. 61, He declared to the people His mission and its prophetic authorization. The one who read from the Prophets was called the "dismisser," in view of the fact that this, together with his remarks and exhortation based on the passage read, constituted the closing part of the service.

4. The derashah, or "investigation," "study," a sermon usually given by a member of the congregation. Like the readers from the Law, the one who read the hapht\arah remained standing while he read. But for the sermon he sat down (Luke 4:20, 21). It was customary in Palestine (but not in the Diaspora) to sit down to preach. The sermon was usually based on the reading from the Prophets, but might also include that from the Law. In these discussions upon the prophetic messages, the speaker's imagination often went far afield, through paraphrase, parable, or legend, in emphasizing what he understood the prophetic message to be. Visitors were often honored by being invited to deliver the discourse. Of this privilege Paul more than once availed himself (Acts 13:14-16; 14:1; 17:1, 2, 10, 11; 18:4; 19:8).

5. The sermon was followed by the benediction. This was offered by a priest, if one was present; otherwise a prayer was offered. In some places the singing of psalms was introduced into the service.

There were in Palestine not only synagogues for native Jews but also synagogues for Jews who had been born abroad and had returned to the homeland of their fathers. Thus at Jerusalem in the days of the apostles there was a synagogue of the Freedmen ("Libertines," Acts 6:9), probably Jews, or their descendants, who had at one time been taken captive by the Romans and later set free. It was with the members of this synagogue that Stephen disputed.

There were also Jewish synagogues in Alexandria, in Antioch of Syria, in Rome, and evidently in virtually every other city of the empire, for Paul found them not only in such major places as Corinth, Ephesus, and Thessalonica, but also at Salamis in Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Berea in Greece, and doubtless many other places that are not named.

It can be readily understood what a potent force the synagogue service exerted upon the Jewish people, with its emphasis upon law, duty, and spiritual hope and aspiration. Emphasis upon Torah, the revealed will of God (see on Deut. 31:9; Ps. 19:7), gave to the Jews an ethical tone that made them outstanding among the peoples of the Roman Empire.

The Schools.--Schools were particularly important to Jewish life in that they helped to shape its character and to establish its ethical system. Formal education had played a significant role in Israelite life from early times, as is indicated by the schools of the prophets founded by Samuel and re-established by Elijah (see PP 592-602). Jewish schools were inaugurated anew, probably about 90-80 B.C., in connection with the reformation of Simeon ben Shet\ah\ and Judah ben Tabbai. They seem to have introduced schools into some of the synagogues in order to make permanent the stricter observance of ceremonial law and the better-regulated ritual that their reforms had brought about.

Among the Jews the primary responsibility for the education of youth had always lain with the father and mother in the home. They were expected to give their children a knowledge of the Torah and of the main tenets of Judaism. But in the shattering experiences through which the nation had passed, home life had been disrupted and parents themselves often needed instruction. To remedy this situation schools were established with scribes as teachers, to inculcate in the children's minds those things that would keep them true to Judaism in later years and thus would build up the nation. The town that did not provide for the religious instruction of its youth was considered to be under the curse of God (DA 69).

Though these schools filled a definite need, they grew but slowly. The education offered was only for boys. For those from well-to-do homes in the larger towns, it was a simple thing to find time and opportunity for study. But for poorer boys in smaller places, the finding of leisure for education presented serious difficulties. To keep life even at a subsistence level, it was often necessary for boys to work in the fields or at the bench with their parents. It was not, in fact, until the time of the high priest Jesus the son of Gamaliel (Joshua ben Gamla), just before the outbreak of the Roman war of a.d. 66-73, that schools were to be found in every district and in every town of any standing.

Instruction in these elementary schools was simple and rudimentary. Although reading and simple figuring were taught, the Torah was the basis of all learning. Instruction was chiefly in the ordinances and rituals of the Jewish religion, its meaning, and the importance of meeting every obligation of the law.

For privileged children of intelligence and talent there were higher schools, to which poorer lads could rarely aspire. Though the course of study in such institutions was more elaborate than in the elementary schools, still the Torah lay at its heart. These advanced schools were generally rather informal, centering on the teacher and meeting in some well-appointed synagogue or in a hall set aside for the purpose. Such higher schools existed in Jerusalem and in those larger cities abroad where there were sufficient Jews to furnish patronage and where the service of learned and influential teachers could be retained. One famous school in Jerusalem was that of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-40), which Paul attended (Acts 22:3).

As has been pointed out, instruction in the schools at all levels was based upon Scripture and Jewish tradition. The Law and its interpretation, on the basis of tradition, was the beginning and end of instruction. Particular emphasis was placed upon what the scribes through the years had added of their wisdom.

Yet there must have been faithful Jews who were dissatisfied with such instruction in legalistic tradition, and who believed that with God's blessing and illumination they could better educate their children by teaching them at home. Such parents were Mary and Joseph of Nazareth. Jesus never attended a synagogue school (DA 70, 80). His mother was His teacher, who supplemented from the Scriptures and from her own experience with God and with life what Jesus learned from nature and from communion with His heavenly Father. Joseph taught Jesus the carpenter's trade and other practical things of life. Although His enemies declared of Jesus that He had "never learned" (John 7:15), His character and ethics as a man on earth were far superior to anything the schools might have given Him (see DA 80).

The Diaspora.--For several centuries prior to the birth of Christ, the Jews had been scattered throughout the civilized world, carrying with them wherever they went a knowledge of the true God. Jewish communities were to be found in most cities of the Roman Empire. In some cities, like Nehardea and Nisibis in Mesopotamia, whence the wise men may have come, Jews formed a majority of the population. A large proportion of the inhabitants of Syria were Jews. Philo Judaeus estimated the number of Jews in Egypt alone at one million. In Alexandria they are said to have constituted a third of the population. The Jews of the Dispersion, called the Diaspora, were clearly far greater in number than those who remained in Palestine.

Wherever the Jews went they established their synagogues, to which the Gentiles were welcome. For about two centuries the Old Testament had been available in Greek, the international language of the time, and it was widely studied by the educated classes. Jews and proselytes attended the great religious festivals at Jerusalem, particularly the Passover, and returned to tell others of what they had learned there (see Vol. IV, pp. 29, 30). Although they may not have been popular among their heathen neighbors, the Jews were nevertheless respected, being in general more prosperous. Their concept and practice of morality were incomparably superior to those of the heathen. Their family life was often a model admired by the pagans about them, who noted that Jews reared all their children (did not discard unwanted ones). In spite of their failure to measure up to the high ideals to which they might have attained, it is an undeniable fact that, in spite of themselves, the Jews bore throughout the world an important and effective testimony to the one true God, Creator and Sustainer of all things (cf. Vol. IV, pp. 27-30).

Classical Roman writers show a familiarity with Jewish customs, though they do not always describe these customs accurately. Horace, for instance, mentions a friend who jokingly refused to talk business with him because it was the "thirtieth Sabbath," and who asked, "`Would you affront the circumcised Jews?' ... `I'm a somewhat weaker brother, one of the many [who have religious scruples]'" (Satires i. 9. 68-73; Loeb ed., p. 111). Though obviously speaking in jest, nevertheless Horace's friend shows himself as knowing that the Jews were supposed to refrain from talking business on their sacred days. His obscure reference to the "thirtieth Sabbath" has been interpreted in various ways, but no explanation for this phrase is fully satisfactory.

In many Gentile circles, however, the Jews appear to have been despised for their way of life, and particularly for their dietary restrictions and their Sabbath observance. Thus the Christian Father Augustine reports the philosopher Seneca as complaining of the Jews that "they act uselessly in keeping those seventh days, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of their life" (The City of God vi. 11; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol. 2, p. 120. Similarly the satirist Juvenal declares: "Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath, worship nothing but the clouds, and the divinity of the heavens, and see no difference between eating swine's flesh, from which their father abstained, and that of man; and in time they take to circumcision. ... For all which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness, keeping it apart from all the concerns of life" (Satire 14; Loeb ed., pp. 271, 273).

Tacitus, the Roman historian, presents Jewish religious practices in detail, but often misunderstands their origin and meaning. He asserts, "The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor" (History v. 4; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 179). He attributes the Jews' abstention from pork to their recollection of a plague of scab from which pigs once suffered. Their frequent fasts he understands to be in commemoration of a prolonged famine they had once undergone, and their use of unleavened bread he believes to be in memory of the haste with which they fell upon food when they finally obtained it. Concerning their observance of the Sabbath, Tacitus goes on to explain that the Jews "say that they first chose to rest on the seventh day because that day ended their toils; but after a time they were led by the charms of indolence to give over the seventh year as well to inactivity" (History v. 4; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 181).

Other pagan writers who refer to Jewish practices are Dio Cassius Roman History xxxvii. 17; Augustus Caesar, quoted by Suetonius Lives of the Caesars ii. 76; and Martial Epigrams iv. 4.

Jewish Influence.--In spite of these adverse opinions concerning the Jews, Cicero shows that Jewish influence was strong in Rome. In defending Flaccus, who, while governing the province of Asia in 62 B.C., had confiscated a large amount of gold that the Jews there had collected to send to the Temple in Jerusalem, Cicero declared of them: "You know what a big crowd it is, how they stick together, how influential they are in informal assemblies" (Pro Flacco ch. 28; Loeb ed., p. 437). However ironical this may be, it indicates that the Jews wielded a very real political influence. The prominence of such Jews as Herod Agrippa I (see p. 69) in the highest circles of Roman society and government brought some knowledge of Judaism to those areas of life.

There is also evidence that the Jewish Messianic expectation made an impact upon the Gentile world. Owing partly to the dissemination of a knowledge of the true God by the Jews, partly to the fact that heathen religions were losing their hold on the minds of thinking men, and partly to the interminable political turmoil that hung over civilization like a pall, there sprang up throughout the ancient world the expectation that a savior-king was soon to appear. Many among the Gentiles had a clearer understanding of the Messianic hope than even the Jewish religious leaders themselves (DA 33).

To be sure, this hope was perverted by the vast majority, many of whom applied it to one or another of the Caesars. One group of "wise men" even made a pilgrimage to Italy in quest of the savior-king. Inscriptions found in Priene and Halicarnassus apply Messianic language to the emperor Augustus (27 B.C.-a.d. 14). The Roman poet Virgil confirms the widespread nature of this popular Messianic hope:

"Now is come the last age of the song of Cumae; the great line of the centuries begins anew. Now the Virgin returns, the reign of Saturn returns; now a new generation descends from heaven on high. Only do thou, pure Lucina, smile on the birth of the child, under whom the iron brood shall first cease, and a golden race spring up throughout the world! ... Any lingering traces of our guilt shall become void, and release the earth from its continual dread. He shall have the gift of divine life, shall see heroes mingled with gods, and shall himself be seen of them, and shall sway a world to which his father's virtues have brought peace" (Eclogue IV; Loeb ed., vol. 1, pp. 29, 31).

The distinctly pagan Messianism of this eclogue, attributed by its composer to the oracle at Cumae, is probably to be traced to the strongly Jewish Sibylline Oracles, which in Virgil's time were already popular in the Roman world (see p. 89). In other ways Jewish Messianism in the Diaspora doubtless influenced Roman intellectuals during the Augustan era, and even later. Thus Suetonius, a Roman historian, wrote: "There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterward appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves" (The Lives of the Caesars viii. 4; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 289). Various ancient historians report a similar expectation.

Popular application of these Messianic legends and prophecies to Augustus (27 B.C.-a.d. 14) seemed justified when, during his long and peaceful reign, "the troubled sea of civil commotions sank to rest. Peace and prosperity returned and took up their permanent abode in the empire" (M. Rostovtzeff, A History of the Ancient World, Vol. II, p. 198). Centuries of strife were "suddenly and quite unexpectedly followed by peace, and when the storm of civil war was laid all at once, it seemed natural to see in this a miracle, an interference of divine power in earthly affairs" (ibid., p. 203). Tacitus spoke of "peace wholly unbroken or but slightly disturbed" (cited in James T. Shotwell, An Introduction to the History of History, p. 263). So appropriately did the era of peace seem to fulfill the popular expectation of a Messiah that Augustus was acclaimed a savior.

Proselytism.--Judaism was particularly remarkable for its ethical emphasis, which set it in sharp contrast with the generally amoral religions of the Roman world. The clients of the ancient pagan gods related themselves to their deities in terms of a contract. The priests revealed to their people the services they must render and the ritual they must follow in order to please their gods. When these requirements were acceptably performed, the gods, great and small, were under obligation at least not to annoy or harm the people, and at best to give them protection from trouble and to render them material benefits. Heathen religions today consist largely of similar attempts to placate the spirits.

The mystery cults, which grew rapidly in popularity during the imperial period, also were not primarily ethical. In these cults the worshiper sought to come into personal union with his god. Through stage after stage of initiation and ceremonial the devotee met cult requirements, at the end of which, if no irreverence in attitude or misstep in the rites interfered, he believed he would stand in the presence of the god himself. If the particular god worshiped was of a serene type, or the devotee of good disposition, the cult worship might prove of ethical value to him. But that effect would be secondary, almost accidental. Certain philosophical schools, notably Stoicism, exerted an ethical impact, but these scarcely touched the common people, nor can they rightly be regarded as religions.

As a consequence of this lack of ethics in pagan religion, the morality that the Jewish people acquired from their concept of deity and from the Torah attracted the attention of the people of the empire, especially since the Jews applied it in everyday living to a remarkable degree. Thus many were led to accept Judaism to a greater or lesser extent, and the New Testament speaks of various types of "proselytes," individuals who had newly entered the Jewish community of faith. See Vol. IV, pp. 27-30.

The centurion at Capernaum was perhaps one such proselyte, of whom the Jews said, "He loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue." This made him "worthy" in their sight (Luke 7:4, 5). Proselytes came to Jerusalem for Pentecost (Acts 2:10); Nicolas, a "proselyte of Antioch," was one of the first deacons of the Christian church (Acts 6:3-6); the Ethiopian eunuch "had come to Jerusalem for to worship" (Acts 8:27); the centurion Cornelius at Caesarea "feared God" and "prayed to God alway" (Acts 10:2); and the proselytes of Antioch in Pisidia listened earnestly to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:43). Jesus spoke roundly against the intensity of the Pharisees in proselyting, and the unfortunate spiritual consequences that devolved upon the proselyte (Matt. 23:15).

The Jews exercised considerable control over proselyting procedure. They stipulated three specific ceremonies through which a Gentile must pass in order to become a "proselyte of righteousness," that is, a full-fledged Jew. He must: (1) undergo circumcision; (2) be baptized by immersion, which baptism apparently lay in the background of the Christian rite; and (3) offer sacrifice (permissible by proxy). This last requirement, of course, became impossible of fulfillment after the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70.

Proselyting was carried on not only by the Jews within the boundaries of Judea and of Galilee but also by those of the Diaspora, those "scattered abroad." Much of the success of proselyting arose from the fact that Gentiles often were attracted by the constancy of the Jew in his religion and by his inner spiritual serenity in the face of trouble, as well as by the fraternal feeling which their stalwart religious faith enabled the Jews to show in their relationships one to another. Thus, frequently, when Gentiles examined Judaism to discover what made it effective, they were led to embrace it. As heathen religions lost their hold, and the Jews everywhere carried on aggressive missionary work, proselytes to the Jewish faith could be numbered in the hundreds of thousands, if not in the millions, according to various competent modern scholars, both Jewish and Christian.

Josephus boasts of the numbers who accepted Judaism throughout the Gentile world: "The masses have long since shown a keen desire to adopt our religious observances; and there is not one city, Greek or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and where the fasts and the lighting of lamps and many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed" (Against Apion ii. 39 [282]; Loeb ed., vol. 1, pp. 405, 407).

Herod's Successors

When Herod died he left a will that determined who should inherit his kingdom. By its provisions the territories he had striven so earnestly and with such disregard of scruple to bring under one administration were divided among his sons, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Philip. Herod gave Archelaus, his oldest surviving son, Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea. Uncertain of his ability to rule, Rome granted him only the title "ethnarch," meaning "ruler of the people." Herod Antipas became "tetrarch" of Galilee and Peraea. This term, meaning originally "ruler of the fourth part of a province," was applied in practice to the ruler of any provincial subdivision. Philip also received the title of "tetrarch" and the rulership of the northeast districts of Panias, Ituraea, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis. See Palestine Under the Herodians.

Archelaus.--Upon his father's death, Archelaus called together the people of Jerusalem. Sitting aloft on a golden throne in the Temple enclosure, he addressed them with fair words and promises. The people reacted by presenting many demands, calling for the release of prisoners, the remission of punishment for those charged with political crimes, and a reduction of taxes. It was Passover time, and the city was crowded. Fearing that an outbreak might occur, a company of soldiers entered the Temple court to keep order. These soldiers met resistance, and when a larger detachment arrived a fight resulted, in which some three thousand Jews were killed. Then Sabinus, administrator of Syria, took advantage of the presence of Roman soldiery, and had them protect him while he robbed the treasury. When this occurred, a widespread revolt in Galilee and Judea began. Such uprisings against the Romans were, of course, doomed to failure. Varus, governor of Syria, came to Palestine with an adequate force, quelled the revolt, and crucified two thousand of the unfortunate Jewish rebels.

Meanwhile, Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip had left Palestine to make good their claims to the territory of their father. At the same time a deputation of Jews also appeared at Rome to plead with Augustus that they might be put under a Roman governor directly, rather than under Herod's sons. But Augustus approved the arrangements of Herod's will, except that he refused to Archelaus any title higher than that of ethnarch. Thus the sons of Herod took over the administration of their father's kingdom.

Archelaus inherited his father's character without his capabilities. The people complained justly that his reign was barbarous and tyrannical, and in a.d. 6 Augustus banished him to Vienne in Gaul. Judea and Samaria were annexed to Syria, and were put under a Roman procurator, who was answerable to the emperor through the governor of Syria. This arrangement continued until Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great and his Hasmonaean wife Mariamne, became king in Judea in a.d. 41 by order of the emperor Caligula. See Palestine Under the Herodians.

Herod Antipas.--Herod Antipas was fairly successful in ruling Galilee and Peraea. Though he was reckless in expenditures, his craftiness enabled him to keep peace in Galilee, and thus to avoid the rebuke of Augustus, who understood his treacherous tendencies. Jesus read his character rightly when He called him "that fox" (Luke 13:32). With the accession of Tiberius to the imperial throne in a.d. 14, Antipas found himself in good favor. He built and named for the emperor the city of Tiberias on the west shore of the lake of Galilee, and also extended that name to the whole lake. Antipas did other extensive building throughout his tetrarchy. All of his efforts were in the direction of Hellenization, and his own profession of Judaism was little better than a sham. Antipas married a daughter of Aretas (see 2 Cor. 11:32), of the line of Nabataean rulers which had fought against the Romans in the war of 64-63 B.C. (see p. 38).

On occasion when Antipas visited Rome he renewed his acquaintance with Herodias, who was both his niece and his sister-in-law. Herodias, a daughter of Antipas' half brother Aristobulus, had married another of his half brothers (and her uncle), an obscure son of Herod the Great named Herod Philip. Antipas became infatuated with her, and she gladly consented to relinquish her Roman domicile for a Galilean palace. He then abandoned the daughter of Aretas and took Herodias from his half brother.

It was this shameful arrangement that John the Baptist denounced, a condemnation that resulted first in his imprisonment (Luke 3:19, 20), and then in his death at the command of Antipas when solicited by Herodias and her daughter Salome at a voluptuous banquet probably in the fortress of Machaerus (Matt. 14:3-12; Josephus Antiquities xviii. 5. 2). Antipas believed superstitiously that Jesus might be John the Baptist risen from the dead (Matt. 14:1, 2), and at one time, at least, he seems to have sought to kill Him (Luke 13:31). At Jesus' trial, however, he refused to deliver the sentence demanded by the Jews, a sentence Pilate also hoped to avoid imposing (Luke 23:4-25).

Almost ten years passed before Antipas' former father-in-law, Aretas, could revenge himself for the divorce of his daughter. When quarrels over boundary lines between the territories of these kings led in a.d. 36 to war, Aretas inflicted a serious defeat upon Antipas' troops. Antipas then ordered the Roman commander Vitellius to avenge the defeat, but before the latter could do so the emperor Tiberius died and Vitellius refused to participate in the war.

Dynastic changes now involved Antipas and hastened his downfall. The new emperor, Caligula, was a close friend of Herod Agrippa I, a son of Aristobulus and brother of Herodias. Therefore as soon as Caligula came to power he gave to Agrippa the northeast territories that had been ruled by his uncle Philip, together with the title of king. Aroused to jealousy by this favor shown her brother, Herodias insisted that Antipas go to Rome and ask the same title for himself. Against his better judgment, Antipas set out in a.d. 39, but in the meantime Agrippa reported to Caligula that Antipas had transgressed imperial regulations by accumulating a huge store of military armaments. Upon his arrival in Rome, Antipas was compelled by the emperor to acknowledge the truth of this accusation, and was promptly banished with his wife to Lyons in Gaul. Caligula then added Galilee and Peraea to the territories of Herod Agrippa I. See Palestine Under the Herodians.

Philip.--Herod's third son to succeed to rulership, Philip, was of a different caliber from his brothers. It has been said that Philip "made his leadership a blessing." Throughout his rule of 37 years he was always open to any appeal for justice, ever ready as he went about his territories to hear any case brought before him. Though his holdings were large compared with those of his brothers, they were economically retarded. With a mixed population, these territories experienced repeated uprisings, but never under Philip. His reign was one of peace in both domestic and foreign affairs. His marriage to Salome, a daughter of Herodias, facilitated friendly relations with Antipas in Galilee and Peraea during the closing years of his reign.

Although of Jewish blood through his mother, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Philip, like the other sons of Herod the Great, was a pagan at heart. He was the first Jewish ruler to place human images on his coins. Such tendencies toward Hellenization were, of course, not an annoyance to his largely pagan people.

Philip's capital was at Paneas, the ancient sanctuary of the god Pan, near one of the sources of the Jordan River. Here he rebuilt and beautified the city, and called it Caesarea in honor of the emperor. In distinction from the other place of that name on the Mediterranean, this city was often known as Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Philip also rebuilt Bethsaida on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee, and named it Julias, for the daughter of Augustus.

Tiberius and the Jews.--Philip, and also Antipas, enjoyed the friendship of Tiberius, the Roman emperor, a.d. 14-37, but the Jews themselves felt that they did not share this good favor, and blamed their difficult relations with the emperor upon Sejanus, a treacherous counselor of Tiberius. In a.d. 19, because of an embezzlement in which certain Roman Jews had been involved, Tiberius banished all Jews from the capital. Whether this edict was strictly enforced is questionable. However, at the same time, apparently with the approval of the emperor, the Senate drafted 4,000 of the younger Jews of Rome to fight brigands on the island of Sardinia. This was particularly a hardship, for the Jews had up to this time been largely exempted from service in the armed forces of Rome, and some of these young conscripts suffered for their refusal to serve (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 3. 5; Tacitus Annals ii. 85).

VII. Roman Government in Judea

The Procurators.--When Archelaus was deposed, his territories were annexed to the Roman province of Syria. As part of an imperial province, Judea was consequently ruled by a procurator, an agent of the emperor, rather than by a proconsul responsible to the Senate, as were many of the other provinces.

The headquarters of the Roman procurators in Judea was at Caesarea. There they had a small army at their disposal, made up largely of provincial troops. Although the salary of the procurator was paid from the imperial treasury, he also had certain opportunities for improving his financial affairs while in office. One of these arose from the fact that he had supreme authority in judicial matters, even to the extent of life and death, except over those persons who could prove they were Roman citizens.

There were two main checks upon the procurator's authority. He was answerable, on the one hand, to the emperor, and also more locally to the legate of Syria, and on the other, less formally, to the Jewish Sanhedrin, which was ever on guard to see that he did not exceed his authority. At the same time, however, because of the political implications of the office, the high priesthood was filled only by his consent.

No matter how carefully the procurators exercised their powers--and they were by no means always cautious--they were not able to satisfy the Jewish people. It has been rightly said that the coming of the Roman procurators to Judea marked the beginning of the end of the Jewish nation, because the Jewish people refused to be content under foreign rule.

Taxation.--With the appointment of procurators came Roman taxation. This necessitated a census with a classification of population. An enrollment already had taken place at the time of the birth of Jesus, but whether this was accompanied by a tax is not known (see on Luke 2:1).

When the first procurator, Coponius, took over the rule of Judea in place of Archelaus, a tax was levied. This was of two kinds, a poll tax (tributum capitis) and a land tax (tributum agri). Both of these were deeply offensive to the Jews: the poll tax as an evidence of enslavement (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 1. 1); the land tax as an offense to Jehovah, the real owner of the land and the dispenser of its bounties.

Although the Jews were thoroughly aroused over this tax, the high priest Joazar persuaded many of them to pay it peacefully. At the same time, however, a radical leader named Judas the Galilean stirred up a large number of persons to revolt. Quirinius, the Roman governor of Syria, suppressed this uprising with great sternness (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 1. 1). This movement under Judas probably marks the beginning of the Zealots (see p. 54). It was to this uprising that Gamaliel referred when he advised the Sanhedrin to take no drastic action against the Christians (Acts 5:38, 39).

From this time on the Romans made no further attempt to tax the Jews directly. Rather, they farmed the taxes out to contractors, the publicans (publicani) of the New Testament. These men were hated and avoided as much as possible (Matt. 11:19; 21:31). Levi Matthew was of this despised class. That Jesus would accept him as an associate (Matt. 9:9-13) was an astonishment to the patriotic Jews.

The Sanhedrin.--The Sanhedrin, while a characteristically Jewish body and not an integral part of the Roman governmental administration, nevertheless exercised some influence in civil and political as well as in strictly religious affairs. Composed of 70 men of the highest repute and influence, it was the chief governing body for the Jewish people. Although it had jurisdiction only in Judea, the effect of its attitudes and decisions was felt among Jews throughout the world. At the same time the Sanhedrin did not interfere with local jurisdiction, which was in the hands of 11 regional bodies of elders throughout Judea. Rather, it reserved for itself matters national in scope and significance. It passed ordinances and enforced them, for which purpose it had a body of police at its disposal (Matt. 26:47; John 7:32). However, because of the over-all control of the Romans, its concern was largely religious. Thus it dealt with false prophets, such as Jesus was supposed to be, and with upstart sects that needed to be suppressed lest they disturb the people. It was upon such a basis that Paul persecuted the Christians before his conversion (Acts 9:1, 2). Years later he himself barely escaped from similar prosecution (Acts 24:6-9). The Sanhedrin also discussed and settled points of doctrine and supervised the qualifications and appointment of the high priest, although in the case of this important officer both the Herods and the Roman procurators now and again interposed their authority. Over the Romans the Sanhedrin had no authority except in regard to profanation of the Temple, in which case the Jews could even execute a Roman (Josephus War vi. 2. 4 [126]). In 1871 an inscription was discovered that once had been posted in the Temple upon the wall separating the court of the Gentiles from that of the Israelites. It warned: "Let no foreigner enter within the barrier and enclosing wall about the Temple. But whoever may be caught shall be responsible for his own death that will follow." A duplicate of this inscription was found nearly three quarters of a century later.

Although the high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin (see Matt. 26:57), the procurator could call it into session. Only in case of a death sentence, however, were its decisions subject to the procurator's approval. In the case of Stephen's stoning, the Sanhedrin resorted to bribery (AA 98, 99, 101).

After the uprising over the taxation levied by Coponius, affairs in Palestine were relatively quiet for many years. At the same time, however, the legalism and aloofness of the Pharisees, the intensity of the Zealots, who were slowly growing in numbers and influence, and the religious earnestness of the people in general encouraged a spirit of restlessness. It was during these years that Jesus was quietly and thoughtfully growing to maturity in Nazareth.

Pontius Pilate.--About a.d. 26 Pontius Pilate became procurator. His harsh and unbending character, as revealed by his methods of governing, brought to the surface the spirit of revolt that had been smoldering among the Jewish people.

Pilate attempted, at the outset, to bring the hated banners of the Roman legions into the city of Jerusalem, in the face of Jewish prejudice. To accomplish this, he had his soldiers carry them in at night. When this became known, a large delegation of irate Jews went to Caesarea, where, unintimidated by the drawn swords of the soldiers, they pressed into Pilate's presence to protest his act. In the face of such reaction he soon found it wise to withdraw the army banners from Jerusalem.

To obtain a much-needed increase to the water supply of Jerusalem, Pilate built an additional aqueduct. For this project he used funds from the Temple treasury, and when the people reacted violently to such disregard for Temple property, he quelled them by a bloody massacre (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 3. 2). He followed up this offense by erecting in the city votive shields carrying the name of the emperor Tiberius. This threw the city once more into an uproar, and only when the emperor himself ordered the shields to be taken down was the tumult quieted.

One early morning in the spring of a.d. 31, a Man who had been quietly teaching the great basic truths the Jewish religion had always accepted, was brought before Pilate. This Man, Jesus of Nazareth, was accused of blasphemy and sedition. Although Pilate was not concerned with blasphemy, he was with sedition. Investigation, however, satisfied him that Jesus was not seditious. In the hope that he might avoid passing judgment in the case, he sent Him to Herod Antipas, who happened to be in Jerusalem, for it was in Herod's territory that Jesus had grown up and spent much of His ministry. But Herod refused jurisdiction, and sent Jesus back to Pilate. Pilate feared the mob, which cried out that he would be no friend of Caesar if he let the prisoner go. Thus he sentenced to death One who, he confessed, was innocent. The attitude of the Jews toward Jesus must have seemed strange to Pilate, for a few years before, when Judas the Galilean had revolted they had sought to defend him. Jesus had done only good and had taught only a life of peace. Their insistence on His death could hardly have increased Pilate's respect for them.

Pilate was governor of Judea at least five years more. His closing years were marred, especially, by the massacre of a group of Samaritans who had gathered at Mt. Gerizim to witness the discovery of sacred vessels supposedly hidden there by Moses. When the Samaritans reported this atrocity to Vitellius, Pilate's immediate superior in Syria, he ordered Pilate to account for his actions before Tiberius at Rome, and appointed a new procurator in his place. In 1961, at Caesarea, the name and title of Pontius Pilate were found for the first time on a contemporary Roman inscription.

Marcellus.--Under Marcellus, the next procurator, a serious outbreak threatened when Tiberius' successor, the self-infatuated Caligula, declared himself a god and ordered statues of himself set up in temples. There was trouble in Alexandria, where perhaps a third of the population was Jewish. (Many Jews had fled Palestine around 170 B.C. to avoid persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes and had flocked to the Jewish colony in Alexandria.) In Caligula's reign, fighting between Alexandrian Jews and Greeks resulted in the loss of many lives. The mob destroyed many synagogues and set up statues of the emperor in others. Caligula, incensed at the Jewish refusal to accept any images, determined to place his statute in the Jerusalem Temple by force. In self-defense the Alexandrian Jews formed a large delegation under the spokesmanship of Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, and this group proceeded to Rome. Although they succeeded in procuring an audience with Caligula, the emperor refused to grant them concessions of any kind.

When the Jews in Jerusalem heard of the decree of Caligula, they prepared for the worst. Rioting followed, and the situation would almost certainly have gotten out of hand had not the death of the mad Caligula in a.d. 41 brought a solution to the problem. Claudius, his successor, canceled the hated decree.

Herod Agrippa I.--One of the first acts of the emperor Claudius was to reward his friend, King Herod Agrippa I, for the part he had played in arranging the emperor's accession to the throne in a.d. 41. Claudius added Judea and Samaria to the territories of Galilee, Peraea, and the northeast, which Herod Agrippa already ruled. Thus the territories once held by Herod the Great were again united under a Jewish ruler (see Palestine Under the Herodians.).

Herod Agrippa I gave to Palestine such an excellent rule that his reign was called a golden day for Judea. Whatever his motives, he lived in careful observance of the laws of the Jews, keeping the ceremonies and carrying out the appointed sacrifices. So well did he get along with the Pharisees that, according to the Mishnah, they were willing to call him "brother." However, outside of Palestine, Agrippa, like his grandfather Herod the Great, was a patron of Hellenistic culture. In the neighboring city of Berytus (BeiruÆt) he erected a theater and an amphitheater, and enjoyed Greek games there whenever he thought it wise to do so. In other places also he manifested his generosity and his interest in Greek culture.

To the degree that Agrippa was friendly to the Jews, to that degree he was an enemy of Christianity. Because it "pleased the Jews," he put James, the brother of John, to death. For the same reason he also had Peter arrested and put in prison (Acts 12:1-3). Only the intervention of angelic power prevented Peter from suffering the same fate as his friend and colleague, James.

Shortly after this (a.d. 44) Herod Agrippa I died. Both Josephus (Antiquities xix. 8. 2) and the inspired record in Acts (ch. 12:20-23) tell the story. At Caesarea, the capital of the Judean-Samaritan province, Agrippa, beautifully clothed in glittering silver, was seated upon a judgment seat. As he addressed the people, the sun shone upon him, and they cried out, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man." While he was listening to these adulations, he was smitten with severe pain, and died within five days. Luke declares that his death was a judgment of God (Acts 12:23).

Later Procurators.--Herod Agrippa I had a son of the same name, who at the time of his father's death was but 17 years old. The emperor Claudius was advised not to entrust to this young man the government of such a turbulent country as Palestine. It became, therefore, a province again, and Cuspius Fadus was made procurator. After more than a year he was followed by a Jew, Tiberius Alexander, a nephew of Philo Judaeus. But Alexander had given up the Jewish faith, and the very fact that he was an apostate made him unsatisfactory to the Jews. Their hatred was such that when he crucified James and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean, a patriotic figure in Jewish minds, the Zealots revolted. In a.d. 48 Alexander was succeeded by Cumanus. See Palestine Under the Herodians.

Had a more skillful man than Cumanus come to the procuratorship, it is possible that the land might have been quieted, but the new governor permitted a number of small but irritating incidents to take place, which, because of the desperation of the people, kept the province in a constant state of turmoil. When a soldier in the Temple court insulted the worshipers, Cumanus, instead of punishing the offender, so handled the matter that in the resulting riot his soldiers killed a thousand people. When a Roman official was robbed and stripped by thieves, the procurator sent soldiers to plunder all the neighboring villages. When one of the soldiers tore in pieces a volume of the law, a riot was prevented only by the execution of the offender. At another time some Galileans on their way to a feast in Jerusalem were set upon by Samaritans, and many of them killed. In return for a bribe, Cumanus agreed to shelter the offending Samaritans. When revengeful Jews attacked the Samaritans, Cumanus punished them severely. To prevent an eruption of the people, Cumanus was recalled in a.d. 52.

Felix.--Cumanus was succeeded in the procuratorship of Judea by Antonius Felix, a freedman and brother of Pallas, minister of the emperor Claudius. Felix may already have been governor of part of Samaria, but if so, his experience there seems to have done little to prepare him for the larger responsibilities he now received. Tacitus, a Roman historian, says of him that he "practised every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of king with all the instincts of a slave" (Histories v. 9; Loeb ed., vol. 2, pp. 191, 193). Felix seemed utterly unable to understand the temper of the Jewish people, and lacked any desire to ameliorate the conditions that aggravated them to desperation. He married Drusilla, a daughter of Agrippa I (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods).

The Zealots, who had grown in influence during recent years, now greatly increased in numbers, and the Pharisees, patriotic Jews though they were, viewed with dread the extremes to which the Zealots were going. To make matters worse, there arose at this time an organization called the Sicarii, or "daggermen." This group were unrelentingly determined that no one but Jews should remain in Judea. They sought to achieve this goal at any cost to themselves or to their country. To this end they used intimidation, plundering, and assassination when necessary, against anyone who showed the least sympathy for the Romans. Throughout the countryside they burned villages, plundered houses, and put people ruthlessly to death.

A wise man might have been able to restore peace, but Felix was not such a man. He seemed completely unable in any way to win the regard of the Jews, and particularly that of their fanatical patriots. The severity of his measures simply aggravated the situation. In reaction, disorderly leaders, professed prophets, sprang up, who attracted the people by vain promises and led them into tumults that accomplished nothing except their own death and the intense irritation of the Romans.

The properly constituted Jewish leaders did little to remedy the situation. The scribes were concerned with theology, and the priests with greedily securing from the Temple all the material profits they possibly could. So greedy for tithes was the dominant priestly clique, that it is said that some of the priests who were not of that party died for want of food. The conservatives, who feared the rashness of the Zealots and its consequences, were able to do little to quiet the storm. The common people were like sheep without a shepherd. All of this gradually led to an intensity of concern for the Torah and a fanatic desire to fulfill the minute observances of the law.

It was during this time that Paul conducted his great missionary tours, and it was by just such a fanatical mob as Felix had repeatedly dealt with that the apostle was attacked while in the Temple at Jerusalem. This riot arose when certain Jews from western Asia Minor falsely accused Paul of desecrating the Temple by bringing a Gentile into it. Though Paul was brought before Felix as a revolutionary, he spoke, not of insurrection, but of "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." Little wonder that "Felix trembled" (Acts 24:25).

Claudius and the Jews.--Probably toward the middle of his reign Claudius (died a.d. 54) expelled the Jews from Rome (see Acts 18:2). The reasons for this drastic action are not entirely clear. Suetonius simply says that "since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome" (The Lives of the Caesars v. 25; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 53). It is possible to understand the Latin of this passage as meaning that the disturbances arose against Chrestus. No character by this name is known from any other record, and later Christians interpreted it as meaning Christus, Christ (see Lactantius The Divine Institutes iv. 7; Tertullian Apology ch. 3). Thus it would be against, not in favor of, the followers of Christ that the Jews would have rioted. Inasmuch as outside of Rome the Jews raised tumults wherever Christians showed themselves at work (see Acts 14:2-6, 19; Acts 17:5-9, 13; 18:12-17; 19:8, 9), it would not be surprising if the Jews did the same in the capital.

At the same time, however, Claudius continued the favorable policy of his predecessors toward the Herods, which by now was almost traditional. Although Claudius had disregarded the claims of Herod Agrippa's son upon his father's death in a.d. 44, yet after the latter's uncle, the king of Chalcis in the Anti-Lebanon, died some four years later, Claudius gave his kingdom in a.d. 50 to the young Herod Agrippa II. Later the emperor promoted him further by transferring him to the larger territories in northeast Palestine once held by Philip the tetrarch. Still later Nero added to his holdings. In the war of a.d. 66-73, Herod Agrippa II sided with the Romans against the Jews. See Palestine Under the Herodians.

Porcius Festus.--Probably in a.d. 60, Felix returned to Rome, and Porcius Festus took his place as procurator in Palestine. Festus was able and honest, but came on the scene too late to accomplish any lasting improvement in the rapidly disintegrating political situation. Consequently his procuratorship was distinguished only by the continuance of disorder, the rising strength of the Zealots, and the increasing defiance of the Sicarii. After only two years Festus died in office. It was this procurator who sent Paul, at his own request, to stand trial before Nero (Acts 25:11, 12). See Palestine Under the Herodians.

The Death of James.--Just after the death of Festus and before the arrival of his successor, Ananus, the high priest, brought before the Sanhedrin James, the Lord's brother. This was probably the same James who had presided at the Council of Jerusalem some thirteen years before, and had also written the Epistle of James. The Jewish leaders stoned him to death along with some others for "breaking the law." Josephus states that when the new procurator received protests from leading Jews, he sternly rebuked Ananus for assembling the Sanhedrin and delivering a death sentence without his consent. Herod Agrippa II, who controlled the high priesthood, removed Ananus from office after a tenure of only three months (Josephus Antiquities xx. 9. 1).

Albinus.--Festus' successor was Albinus, who arrived doubtless under stern orders to restore order in Judea. He proceeded at once against the Sicarii, who in turn resisted the more sharply and effectively. One of their devices was to kidnap a highly placed Jew, and under threat of taking his life, demand that the high priest secure from the Romans the liberation of their fellows who were held prisoners. The situation was further complicated by a bitter division among the priests, which arose when Herod Agrippa II appointed a new high priest. This brought about petty riots.

Instead of being a cure for the troubles in Judea, Albinus was the cause of more. Josephus declares that "there was no form of villainy which he omitted to practise" (War ii. 14. 1 [272]; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 429). His greed for money knew no bounds. He plundered private property, imposed more burdensome taxes than usual, freely accepted bribes for the release of criminals, and even went so far as to grant immunity, for money, to those Jews who were actively carrying on sedition against the Romans.

In response to this misrule the Zealots became still more inflamed and the Sicarii more aggressive. Peace-loving people lived in fear of their lives and without hope of justice. When they appealed to Rome, Albinus was ordered home. Receiving word of his recall, he endeavored to quiet matters by appeasing the seditious elements with flattery, cajolery, and bribes. This catering to disorderly groups only worsened matters, and the whole country became like a mass of combustible material, ready to ignite.

Florus.--Gessius Florus succeeded Albinus, and a more unhappy appointment could scarcely have been made. Florus did all the foolish, inconsiderate, violent, and wicked things that his predecessor had done, and did them boldly, openly, and as of right. Josephus says, "Gessius Florus made him [Albinus] appear by comparison a paragon of virtue" (War ii. 14. 2 [277]; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 431). See Palestine Under the Herodians.

Florus arrived in Palestine in a.d. 64. It was inevitable now that war must come. Repeatedly bands of Jews had robbed stores of Roman arms, and thus some of the Jewish partisans were well equipped for war. At the Passover of a.d. 65, when the governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, came to Jerusalem on a tour of his provinces, a crowd of petitioners waited upon him, asking redress. Gallus promised to admonish Florus, who was his subordinate, but when he did so, Florus justified himself, and blamed the Jews for the difficulties. Their past record of insubordination gave color, of course, to Florus' arguments.

At the same time it appears that Florus hoped for a war with the Jews in order to hide his own shameful conduct. Repeatedly, and apparently purposely, he seemed to induce rebellion, and war was not long in coming. Josephus dates the beginning of the rebellion against the Romans from an event that occurred in the spring of a.d. 66 (War ii. 14. 4 [284-288]). Florus accepted bribes from Jews that permitted them to avenge themselves, without fear of punishment, upon Greeks who had dishonored a synagogue in Caesarea. When this affair was at a crisis point, he demanded from the Temple treasury 17 talents, that is, 1,275 pounds, of silver, under excuse of its being for "Caesar's need." This aroused the people thoroughly, and in irony a few began to collect money for the "destitute." Florus used this insult as a pretext to attack the Jews. The next day his soldiers in Jerusalem massacred everyone in the market place, broke into homes, and looted and killed men, women, and children. Florus went beyond what any previous governor had dared to do, and even crucified, without a trial, Jews who had been given Roman knightly rank. Josephus numbers the men, women, and children killed in this affair at 3,600. Bernice, the sister of Herod Agrippa II, was a witness to the massacre and sought to stay Florus' hand. However, her efforts to prevent further bloodshed proved unsuccessful.

The day after the massacre more Jews lost their lives when, under another pretext of insult, Florus had two cohorts of soldiers override a multitude gathered to meet the Romans in peace.

Herod Agrippa's Intervention.--Herod Agrippa II, who had been absent in Alexandria, now returned and made an earnest speech to the people of Jerusalem, urging them not to contemplate a conflict with the Romans, but rather to make peace at any cost. He pointed out that the time to have fought for liberty was when Pompey came to Judea, one hundred years before. He referred to the great empires and famous cities of the past which now were all subject to Rome. He reminded the people that they would have no earthly allies to join them if they revolted, and that even God seemed to be on the side of the Romans, else they could not have built so great an empire. Rebellion against the Romans could lead only to disaster, not only to the people in Judea, to the city, and to their beautiful Temple, but also to the Jews abroad, "for there is," said the king, "not a people in the world which does not contain a portion of our race" (War ii. 16.4 [398]; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 479).

At the king's advice the people of Jerusalem consented to busy themselves with the rebuilding of damaged structures in the city, particularly in the Temple precincts, and to collect and pay such taxes as were in arrears. But when Agrippa urged them to submit to Florus, they became so incensed that they voted the king's banishment from Jerusalem. Agrippa thereupon returned to his own dominions.

VIII. The Jewish-Roman War, a.d. 66-73

The Beginnings of the Revolt.--In the summer of 66 two things happened, either of which meant war. Jewish insurgents captured from the Romans the fortress of Masada; and the priests stopped offering the daily sacrifice for Rome and for the emperor. Under pressure from fanatical Jews, the priests effected this by ruling that no offerings from foreign hands should be received in the Temple, and at least some of this daily offering of two lambs and a bull had been provided from the imperial treasury.

The conservatives among the Jews who wished to avoid war realized the desperate crisis that had come, and, unable to influence the insurrectionists, sent two delegations, one to Florus and the other to King Agrippa. Florus made no reply, but Agrippa sent 2,000 cavalry to help them keep order.

By this time Eleazar, leader of the radical party and a relative of the high priest, had occupied the lower city and the Temple. The conservatives, with Agrippa's cavalry, occupied the upper city. When they sought to drive the insurgents out of the Temple precincts there followed a week's bloody conflict, with great slaughter on both sides. The close of the week brought a feast day, when a number of people pressed into the Temple with many of the Sicarii. Outnumbered, the conservatives retired from the upper city, and either escaped from Jerusalem entirely or took refuge in the palace, from which they were afterward given safe-conduct. The Roman soldiers took to the towers, but soon found themselves besieged there. However, in the meantime Sicarii had killed the high priest and his brother, and factions of the extremists were fighting among themselves. Indeed it seemed almost as if the rebellion might destroy itself. The people pleaded in vain with the warring factions to make peace. When the few Roman soldiers now left in the palace tower offered to surrender, they were treacherously massacred.

Now the Jews became involved in a series of unbelievably bloody massacres. Just as they were wiping out the handful of legionaries who had surrendered at Jerusalem, the Gentiles of Caesarea arose, and in one hour, according to Josephus, killed more than 20,000 Jews there (War ii. 18. 1 [457]). Florus ordered the remnant sent in chains to the galleys. In retaliation the Jews killed Gentiles in such cities as Machaerus and Jericho, where the latter were in the minority. They also massacred Gentiles in the regions of old Philistia, Phoenicia, and the northeast provinces, extending up into Syria.

At Scythopolis (Beth-shan) near the Jordan River on the border of Galilee and Samaria, the local Jews joined with their Gentile neighbors in resisting the attacking hordes of Jewish insurrectionists, hoping thereby to guarantee later safety for themselves with the Gentiles. Suspicious of treachery, the Gentile inhabitants ordered these local Jews to withdraw to a grove until the battle was over. Three days later they massacred all these Jews, who are said to have numbered 13,000. Gentiles in other cities also attacked the Jews, and thousands were slain and more thousands put in chains. As far away as Alexandria, when a riot occurred, Roman soldiers fell upon the Jews and killed, according to Josephus, 50,000 men, women, and children (War ii. 18. 8 [497]).

The Campaign of Cestius Gallus.--The governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, now took a hand. Leading a force of some 12,000 legionaries with 1,000 cavalry and nearly 15,000 auxiliaries composed of foot soldiers, archers, and mounted men, he marched down the coast pursuing the Jewish insurrectionists, who fled before him.

At Ptolemais the Jews waited until he had passed on, and then slew a garrison of 2,000 soldiers. Cestius continued south, and when he reached Joppa, he put more than 8,000 Jews to the sword. In other towns he carried out similar atrocities. In Galilee, into which he sent a strong detachment, the Jews fled, fighting only when they thought they could do so successfully; there the Romans killed some 2,000 of them.

In the autumn of a.d. 66, Cestius next concentrated his entire force upon Jerusalem. He arrived during the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, and although it was Sabbath, the Jews abandoned their religious rites and rushed out to attack Cestius' troops. To the amazement of both Romans and Jews, they broke the Roman ranks. Indeed, Josephus declares that only a flank attack by a force of footmen and cavalry saved Cestius' forces. More than 500 Roman soldiers were killed, whereas the Jews lost only 22 men (War ii. 19. 2 [519]). At this point Agrippa sent an embassy to the Jews; their reaction was to attack his representatives, killing one and wounding the other. Encouraged by a promise of the royalist party in Jerusalem to open the gates for him, Cestius then gathered his troops to a fresh assault, and penetrated as far as the north wall of the Temple. Then an astounding thing happened: Cestius withdrew his troops, and placed himself strategically in such a poor position among the Judean hills that the Jews were able to attack him and kill more than 5,000 infantry and nearly 500 cavalry, including many officers, as well as to capture much matériel.

A Lull in the Storm.--The defeat and withdrawal of Cestius gave many of the conservative Jews a chance to flee from Jerusalem. Some of them joined Agrippa, others sought quiet in country places, and still others left the country entirely. It was at this time that the Christians in Jerusalem fled in accordance with the warning of Jesus recorded in Matt. 24:15-19. According to Eusebius, the 4th-century church historian, the Christians in Jerusalem had been warned by prophets before the war began that they should leave the doomed city and find refuge at Pella in Peraea. They now took this opportunity to make good their escape (Ecclesiastical History iii. 5. 3). During this time of comparative peace in Judea, however, the Jews of Damascus suffered bitterly. The Gentiles there had penned them up in the gymnasium under suspicion. When they learned of the Jewish victory in Jerusalem, they massacred more than 10,000 of them in one day.

The combination of disaster in the provinces and unexpected victory over Cestius at Jerusalem led the Jews finally to attempt some sort of unity. Eleazar, an extremist, gained command in the city, while generals went out to rally the forces of the Jews in various areas.

Josephus.--Joseph, son of Matthias, later, as Flavius Josephus, to be historian of the war, was assigned to Galilee. His program of action was probably illustrative of the endeavors of other generals. He sought to gain the friendship of the people, built fortifications, and trained troops. At the beginning of his work he had 100,000 men equipped with whatever kind of weapons he could find, of whom 65,000 were ready for action. He entrusted John of Gischala, a Zealot, with some troops, but eventually John repudiated Josephus' leadership and fought against him.

The Coming of Vespasian.--Rome viewed rebellious Judea not merely as a sore spot in the empire, but as an infectious center of rebellion that might spread. Nero decided, therefore, to appoint as general in supreme command of Syria a lifelong professional soldier, Flavius Vespasianus. Not only had he campaigned successfully against the Germans and had subjugated Britain; he also had political experience. Vespasian was with Nero on a tour in Greece when the emperor decided to give the Syrian commission to him. Vespasian proceeded to Syria and gathered his army at Antioch. While this was in progress a force of Jews attacked Ascalon. They were defeated by a small Roman garrison and lost two generals and 10,000 men.

The Subjugation of Galilee.--Vespasian established his headquarters at Ptolemais, on the coast north of Mt. Carmel. There, with the aid of his capable son, Titus, he gathered some 60,000 troops, of whom about 35,000 were first-line soldiers.

This location at Ptolemais put Vespasian in a position to attack Galilee. Small, bloody battles resulted between his troops and the Jews. The army of Josephus melted before the Romans, who, as they advanced, destroyed everything as a warning against further revolt. With the remnant of his troops, Josephus took up his position in Jotapata, which Vespasian immediately besieged. Surprisingly, the town held out against great odds for 47 days. When it fell (July of a.d. 67), the Romans massacred 40,000 Jews. While the siege was in progress, Trajan, father of the future Roman emperor of that name, captured nearby Japha, where he killed 27,000 Jews and sold 2,000 more into slavery. In Samaria the Romans destroyed 11,000 persons in battle at Mt. Gerizim.

Josephus fled from Jotapata with a few soldiers, and took refuge in a cave, where by agreement each soldier killed a fellow soldier in turn, until only Josephus and one other remained. These two surrendered to the Romans. (See under "Josephus," p. 94, for further comment on this Jewish leader.)

The Romans next took Joppa. There a storm destroyed the ships upon which many of the inhabitants had taken refuge, and the Romans massacred those cast up on the beach. Altogether 4,000 were killed there, and the city was razed.

Vespasian's ruthlessly bloody method was to destroy Jewish centers outside Jerusalem and thus to cut off supplies from the capital. He planned later to center his forces on Jerusalem. By the winter of a.d. 67 revolt had ceased in Galilee and the cities of the coast. John of Gischala, the leader in Galilee who had opposed Josephus, fled to Jerusalem, where the war party welcomed him warmly.

Fighting Among the Jews.--As the Romans left one devastated town after another behind them, groups of marauders moved in and carried on minor civil conflicts. The people of these towns fled when possible to Jerusalem, swelling the numbers there to be fed and kept in order. At last, sensing the importance of united action, the marauders came together and also moved into Jerusalem, where they took over control of affairs. They apprehended the best men of the city, who were opposed to violence because they saw its futility, and put many of them to death on the charge of treating with the Romans.

When the people organized a revolt against these lawless extremists, the latter fortified themselves in the Temple area and chose by lot an entirely unworthy creature for high priest. A bitter fight followed between the conservatives in the city and the Zealots and their daggermen within the Temple walls. The latter appealed to the Idumaeans for help, and admitted a large force of them into the city. A particularly bloody massacre of members of the conservative party resulted. Later, the Idumaeans realized that they had been tricked into supporting the worst element in the city, and they withdrew, disgusted at having been thus caught at so dangerous a moment. John of Gischala now gained the leadership of those who were determined to carry on the war to the bitter end.

Vespasian's officers urged him to move upon Jerusalem at this juncture, but he declined, wisely deciding to let the Jews exhaust their provisions and themselves in fighting one another. Thus the winter of 67-68 passed in comparative quiet.

At the opening of spring in a.d. 68 Vespasian proceeded with the subjugation of Peraea, which he carried out with merciless and bloody efficiency. He then moved to complete the conquest of Judea and Idumaea. By mid-June the Romans occupied an almost deserted Jericho.

Vespasian the Emperor.--Vespasian was about to lay siege to Jerusalem when word came of Nero's death. He looked on from a distance through the election and assassination in quick succession of Galba and Otho, and soon accepted his own election as emperor by troops in Egypt and Near East. Turning over to his trusted son, Titus, the management of the campaign against Jerusalem, Vespasian moved slowly toward Rome. Vitellius, who had sought the purple after Otho was killed, was himself put out of the way by partisans of Vespasian, and the latter became emperor in fact. See Palestine Under the Herodians.

A Jewish Civil War.--With the Roman troops lying at rest for the moment, a Jewish leader by the name of Simon bar Giora began a marauding campaign through Judea and Idumaea, plundering and killing. Eventually he came before Jerusalem, where some of the Zealots, who at first had opposed him, admitted him with his forces. Then Eleazar, son of Simon, another insurgent leader, formed a new group to oppose Simon bar Giora, and civil war within Jerusalem broke out once more. Thus Vespasian's policy of waiting was vindicated by the formation of three factions among the Jewish extremists: the followers of John of Gischala, those of Simon, and those of Eleazar, who by destroying one another made the Romans' task easier.

The Siege of Jerusalem.--Titus occupied the Mount of Olives in the spring of a.d. 70 and laid siege to Jerusalem. Sallies by the Jews delayed the Romans, and the tricks they played in fighting infuriated the besiegers and prepared their minds for the unmitigated cruelties they were soon to commit. The story of the siege is dreary record of attacks and counterattacks, of sorties and bombardments, and of an increasing toll of death. The Jews were fanatically brave, and the Romans became bitterly angry. Under pressure of danger the factions among the Zealots effected a precarious union, but by May 25, a.d. 70, Titus had captured the outer wall, and a week later he held the second one. Within the city, where thousands had crowded together at the time of the Passover, misery was extreme. From outside the walls Josephus pleaded in vain with the Jews to surrender, but they continued to fight both among themselves and against the Romans. In full sight of the defenders Titus crucified the Jews he captured. Provisions ran short in the city and disease broke out. Josephus preserves a report that between May 1 and July 20, over 100,000 corpses were carried outside the city for burial.

The Fall of the City.--The end was now in sight. On July 25 the Romans took the Tower of Antonia, where the fighting gave opportunity for marvels of personal valor. Not realizing how desperate was the state of the Jews, the Romans were seized by despondency, and Titus was barely able to rouse them from it. The situation now deteriorated rapidly. Some Jews of the nobility deserted to the Romans; famine was general, and a woman in deep despair even roasted and ate her infant son.

On August 30, against Titus' orders, the Temple was set on fire and destroyed. The Roman soldiers could not be restrained from taking both property and life. Titus succeeded in saving the golden seven-branched candle-stick and some other trophies for his triumph in Rome, but otherwise the ruin was complete. Both the lower and the upper city were set on fire, the walls were broken down, and as far as topography permitted, the site was leveled. Except for the three towers of Herod's palace, all Jerusalem was destroyed.

The savagery of the slaughter which marked the siege and capture of Jerusalem was perhaps the worst in the long history of Roman wars. The Jews fought one another to the death, and they fought the Romans with the courage of desperation, for the latter had no desire but to kill as many of them as possible. The conquerors sold thousands of Jews into slavery, and they sent other thousands to various cities to perish in the arenas. Titus reserved the tallest and handsomest of his captives for his triumph in Rome. It is said that 11,000 prisoners starved to death in the days that were spent in classifying and dividing the hordes of captives. Josephus estimates that the Romans took 97,000 prisoners. He calculates those who died from the siege to have reached the almost unbelievable figure of 1,100,000. He declares that the large majority of those who perished, though Jews, were visitors to the city rather than dwellers there (War vi. 9. 3 [420, 421]). With the immediate task of conquest over, Titus returned to Rome with his prisoners and trophies, exhibiting them on the way. At Rome he enjoyed a magnificent triumphal procession, which still is commemorated by the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum. On it is portrayed, among other trophies, the seven-branched candlestick from the Temple (see illustration, Vol. III, p. 40).

Fighting continued in Judea for three years, while the Romans conquered fortress after fortress and either killed or enslaved the Jews they captured. By May of a.d. 73 the bloody Jewish-Roman war was over.

IX. The Postwar Period

With the Temple gone, the Sanhedrin dispersed, and all means of self-government removed, only the synagogue remained. Consequently, though the Jews were still a race, from this time on they should be looked upon rather as a church than as a nation.

As a church, the Jews centered their lives more than ever on the synagogue. With the sacrifices no longer offered, and even the temple of Onias in Egypt closed, they looked to the Law as their present source of strength, while they focused their hope for the future on the Messiah they believed would yet come. The Law brought them an inner conviction of righteousness, which was the more needed now since the whole people were immersed in gloom and their hearts were burdened with a sense of failure and futility. The Messianic hope brought them assurance of national restoration, together with the promise of even more than they had lost. Although the Jews in this sad time could have no political life of their own, the Romans did not withdraw their political rights in the empire or interfere at all with their use of the synagogues.

The Council of Jamnia.--The Sanhedrin did not escape as a body from Jerusalem, as some have said; rather, a new council was formed at Jammia (Jabneh), a town on the coast below Joppa. The leader of this new center of Judaism was Johanan ben Zakkai, a Pharisee, a rabbi, and a disciple of the famous teacher Hillel. During the Jewish war he was a conservative, and when he saw where the leadership of the Zealots had taken the people, he escaped from Jerusalem in a coffin and surrendered himself to the Romans. After the war he obtained permission to establish a college at Jamnia. Here rabbis of conviction, intellectual stature, and influence gathered to establish the new council.

Although the Jews were now compelled to pay the Roman temple tax, the money they had previously sent to their own Temple now came to Jamnia, and thus the council sitting there had funds. Although this council had no legislative or judicial powers in any political sense, it did lead out in codifying the law and the interpretations of the rabbis. Thus it began the work which later produced the Talmud. The decisions of the council in matters of the law made themselves felt among the dispersed Jews, known as the Diaspora. More important still, it was the council of Jamnia that officially reaffirmed the canon of the Old Testament. It refused to recognize the authority of the writings of the Apocrypha (see Vol. I, p. 43).

The Rebellion Under Trajan.--The freedom the Jews enjoyed under Vespasian (a.d. 69-79) and Titus (a.d. 79-81) disappeared under Domitian (a.d. 81-96). Noted for his persecution of Christians, Domitian was equally ruthless with the Jews. Any Jew who sought to conceal his nationality was punished, and proselytes to Judaism suffered loss of property and even of life. This persecution crystallized again the Jews' sense of nationality, and once more aroused their feeling of outrage.

Nerva (a.d. 96-98) put an end to the disabilities of the Jews before the law. But 15 years later their simmering sense of outrage boiled over, and in Cyrene, Egypt, and Cyprus they broke out in revolt, attacking their Gentile neighbors rather than the political rulers. When the emperor Trajan (a.d. 98-117) led his troops against the Parthians, the Jews in Mesopotamia revolted. The Romans retaliated against every uprising of the Jews, and put them down without mercy and with heavy loss of life.

The Revolt Under Hadrian.--Like Nerva and Trajan, their successor, Hadrian (a.d. 117-138), might be described as a good man, conscious of the dignity of his office and determined in its administration. He traveled much, and knew his empire and its people. He was first of all a Roman, concerned with the welfare of Rome and of the empire. Therefore, he completed without mercy the task of stamping out the remnants of the bloody revolt that had taken place under Trajan. The emperor forbade circumcision, and in a.d. 130 he ordered that Jerusalem should be rebuilt as a pagan city, with a shrine to Jupiter erected upon the Temple site. This was more than the Jews could bear, not only because it put an end to their hopes of soon rebuilding their own Temple, but also because it meant that heathen sacrifices would constantly defile Jehovah's holy place.

Consequently, in a.d. 132 the Palestinian Jews rose once more in rebellion. Encouraged by the revered Rabbi Akiba, they hailed the leader of the uprising, Simon bar Cocheba, as the long-awaited Messiah. Under his leadership they fought, almost to a man, against the Romans. If for this war there were extant as full a record as Josephus gives of the war under Vespasian, it would tell an amazing story of courage, fanaticism, and bloodshed. Dio Cassius, the historian of Rome, estimates (History lxix. 14) that over half a million Jews lost their lives in the fighting, besides the unnumbered multitudes of civilians who succumbed to famine, disease, and the ravages of war. In a.d. 135, after three and one-half years of bitter warfare, the Romans were once more victorious, and the Jews again prostrate before their conquerors. Jerusalem, renamed Aelia Capitolina, became a Gentile city, which no Jew might enter upon pain of death. A temple to Jupiter was erected on the Temple site. See on Dan. 9:27.

These repeated rebellions put the Jews in an equivocal light before the Roman government and people. They were cursed, sneered at, and ridiculed, and watched guardedly lest they again revolt. The Romans called them in contempt the "second race," and they referred even more sneeringly to the Christians as the "third race." But 75 years later, under Caracalla, the Jews shared with all the people of the empire the general gift of Roman citizenship. By this time, however, Christianity was growing steadily. When it became a legal religion of the empire under the emperor Constantine in a.d. 313, the Jews once more found themselves confronted with serious disadvantages generally throughout the empire.

X. Jews and Christians

The Jews' Repudiation of Christianity.--The book of Acts relates instances of trouble made by Jews for the early Christians in various places (see Acts 14:2-6, 19; 17:5-9, 13; 18:12-17; 19:13). There were many sects in Judaism, all recognized as part of the Jewish religious community, and they had a remarkable measure of freedom as far as other Jews were concerned. But with Christianity the case was different. The council of Jamnia (c. a.d. 90) cast out Jewish Christians from the synagogue.

Repudiated by the Jews, the Christian group had no national grounds for its existence. The Romans officially recognized the Jewish religion, but when the Jews rejected Christianity, it was left without legal status. Thus, until the time of Constantine the Christians remained an illegal group.

Attitude of the Christians to the Jews.--Throughout the New Testament period there is no record that Christians showed hatred toward the Jews. Rather, they sought to win them to Christ. They mourned the fact that the Jews would not accept the gospel, and continued their missionary work in the face of Jewish-inspired persecutions. Paul, indeed, warned of what the Jews were doing (1 Thess. 2:14-16), but there is no record of Christian hatred against them, though that came soon after.

Through the labors of Paul and others like him the number of Gentiles in the Christian church increased rapidly, and the time came when they were in the majority. Paul had won for these converts freedom from following the Mosaic ritual, a fact which certain Jews within the Christian church resented. This, together with Gentile Christian reaction, produced a gulf between them on the one hand, and both Christian and non-Christian Jews on the other.

The Effect of the Jewish Revolts.--When the series of Jewish revolts came, the fact that Christianity was looked upon widely as a Jewish sect put the Christians in a difficult position. If they allowed themselves to be taken for Jews, they might well suffer what the Jews were enduring as a consequence of their rebellions. Therefore, Christian apologists of the 2d century began to emphasize the difference between themselves and the Jews. Thus the hatred of the Jews for Christianity, together with their revolts against the Romans, pushed Christianity rapidly into a Gentile environment, while it isolated the Jews themselves even more from the world about them. The history of the Jews in the 1st century--the period in which Christ came to them and they rejected Him--is indeed an impressive fulfillment of the doleful prophecy of Moses concerning the calamities that would come upon Israel if they were disobedient to God (Deut. 28:15-68). After a.d. 70, and certainly after a.d. 135, the Jews lost the significance they had as a nation. Even though the ensuing centuries saw great cultural development among them, this development was itself at least partially an outgrowth of the isolated position in which they found themselves. Not until recent modern times has there been a Jewish nation as such.

Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Danby, Herbert, trans. The Mishnah. London: Oxford University Press, 1954. 844 pp. A scholarly translation of the Mishnah, with notes.

Dio Cassius Cocceianus. Historia Romana. Almost half of the eighty books of history which Dio Cassius wrote around a.d. 200 survive. An excellent source for the Roman Empire and its diverse peoples. The best edition is that in the Loeb Classical Library: E. Cary, trans. Dio's Roman History. 9 vols. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1914-27.

Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish Antiquities; and The Jewish War. Josephus was a participant as a general and captive of the Romans in the Jewish revolt of a.d. 66-73. His histories are compendious, but obviously written for Roman consumption. There are some inaccuracies, particularly in respect to non-Jewish matters. A common older translation, still valuable, is that by William Whiston, which was first printed in 1736 and has gone through many editions. The best edition is that in the Loeb Classical Library: H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus, trans. Josephus. 9 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926-69.

Justin Martyr. Dialogue With Trypho. Justin, a 2d-century Christian writer, a converted philosopher, sees Judaism as an opponent of Christianity, living on borrowed time, soon to be conquered by the superior ethics and philosophy of Christianity. The most common English edition is that in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950-51), Vol. I. A reprint.

Melito of Sardis. The Homily on the Passion. Campbell Bonner, ed. and tr. London: Christophers, 1940. A work by a Quartodeciman, it expresses a 2d-century view of Christians and Jews in the 1st century.

Mercer, Samuel A. B., ed. Extra-Biblical Sources for Hebrew and Jewish History. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1913. 210 pp. A very useful collection of excerpts from sources. This work needs additions from recent finds.

Philo Judaeus. Works. Philo's works show strongly the influence of Alexandrian methods of thought and of Greek philosophy, especially Platonism. His extant writings portray Jewish thinking and ways of life during the apostolic period. His historical data are important. The best edition is that in the Loeb Classical Library: F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, trans. Philo. 10 vols. plus a 2-vol. supplement. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929-62.

Pseudo Philo. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. Tr. by Mantague Rhodes James. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917. 280 pp. An elaborate legendary narrative of events from Adam to David, by a Palestinian writer close to Pharisaic circles; it reflects the thinking of Jews of his day.

Suetonius Tranquillus, Caius. The Lives of the Caesars. More literary than historical, and favorable to the Roman Senate. He touches lightly on Jewish matters. Written about a.d. 120. The best edition is that in the Loeb Classical Library: J. C. Rolfe, trans. Suetonius. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935-39.

Tacitus, Caius Cornelius. Annals; and Histories. Valuable sources, written about a.d. 100. Unfortunately valuable portions are missing. His ideas of non-Roman peoples are subject to challenge, as illustrated by his views on the Jews. The best edition is that in the Loeb Classical Library: Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson, trans. Tacitus. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937.

Tertullianus, Quintus Septimius Florens. Works. This early Christian writer has much to say about the Jews. He manifests an anti-Semitic spirit, and deals with the Jews as enemies of Christianity. The most common edition in English is that in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950-51), Vols. III, IV A reprint.

Modern Authorities

Bevan, Edwin Robert, and Singer, Charles. The Legacy of Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928. 551 pp. A scholarly, unbiased estimate of the meaning of Judaism in the life and culture of the Western world.

Brandon, Samuel George Frederick. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1951. 284 pp. A well-documented study of early Christianity in its relation to Judaism.

Finkelstein, Louis. The Pharisees. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938. A very thorough examination of the backgrounds, beliefs, and work of Pharisaism, with excellent documentation and bibliography. See also The Jews, ed. by Finkelstein, p. 43.

Foakes-Jackson, Frederick John. Josephus and the Jews. New York: R. R. Smith, Inc., 1930. 299 pp. A skilled historian's analysis of the best-known historian of ancient Judaism and of the people he portrays.

Glover, Terrot R. Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire. 3d ed. London: Methuen and Co., 1909. 359 pp. A view of religious developments in imperial Rome.

Kent, Charles Foster. History of the Jewish People: The Babylonian, Persian, and Greek Period. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1904. An analytical and critical treatment. The work applies the higher critical method to the use of the sources.

Klausner, Joseph. From Jesus to Paul. Translated by W. F. Stinespring; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1943. 624 pp. A study of the social, political, intellectual, and religious background of the Roman Empire during New Testament times, by a competent Jewish scholar who wrote in modern Hebrew for Jewish readers. The author essays to account for the transformation of Christianity from a sect of Judaism to a world religion.

_______. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Herbert Danby; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925. 434 pp. A study of the political, economic, religious, and intellectual background of the Jewish nation during the time of Jesus, by the same writer. This is followed by an analysis of the teachings of Jesus from the Jewish point of view. Extensive use is made of ancient Jewish literary sources. The author has endeavored to be objective, and the reader will find a wealth of reliable background information.

_______. The Messianic Idea in Israel. Translated by W. F. Stinespring; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955. A systematic study of the Messianic idea in ancient Jewish literature, including the Scriptures, the Apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, the Mishnah, and the Talmud, together with an analysis of the Jewish Messianic idea and a comparison of the Jewish and the Christian Messiah. This work, like the other two by the same author, was written in Hebrew for Hebrew readers.

Oesterley, W. O. E., and Box, G. H. The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911. 443 pp. A thorough discussion of Jewish religious origins and practices, literature and institutions, with emphasis upon the current concepts and usages.

Riggs, James S. History of the Jewish People During the Maccabean and Roman Periods. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1921. 320 pp. A very thorough review of the history of the Jewish people in the period indicated. It follows very closely Josephus and First Maccabees as sources. The book has spiritual overtones, and shows faith in the leadership of the Divine in human affairs.

Safrai, S., and Stern, M., et. al., eds. The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 1. Philadelphia: Fortune Press, 1974. A composite work, with chapters by various authors. It is the first portion of a projected 10-vol. work (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum) intended as a series of handbooks on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in ancient and modern times, written by scholars of various faiths or of no religious affiliation.

Schurer, Emil. a History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. See entry on p. 43.

I. Introduction

The four centuries of Jewish history from the conquest of Alexander the Great (332 B.C.) to the destruction of the Temple (a.d. 70) were a period of considerable religious, political, and intellectual activity. It is not surprising, then, that they were also characterized by a notable body of literary productions, many of which are extant today. These works are religious in nature, for religion was woven into every phase of Jewish life. At the same time they reflect strongly the political and intellectual movements of their times. The literature from this period is made up of (1) books known as the Apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha, consisting of wisdom literature, patriotic stories, histories, and apocalyptic works; (2) the writings of the Qumrân community (probably Essenes), most of which have come from the recently discovered caves near the Dead Sea and are still in process of publication; (3) the allegorical treatises of Philo of Alexandria, the Hellenistic philosopher-theologian; and (4) the works of Josephus.

Following the destruction of the Temple, and even more so after the suppression of the revolt led by Bar Cocheba (a.d. 132-135) (see p. 79), Jewish life and thought underwent drastic changes. With both their Temple ritual and their existence as a political entity at an end, the Jews turned their intellectual energies inward in an attempt to preserve themselves from being swallowed up culturally and racially by the Gentile world. This they accomplished by emphasizing and elaborating the legal aspects of their religious life--a tendency, indeed, which already had a long history, particularly among the Pharisees. While at first their legal regulations were preserved largely by oral tradition, from the early 3d century they took definite literary form, and by the 6th century had developed into what is known as the Talmud, the traditional compilation of Jewish law. Side by side with the Talmud there came into being an extensive traditional Jewish commentary on Scripture, known as Midrash. Much of this developed in connection with the exposition of the Old Testament in the synagogue. The Midrashic literature did not achieve its final form until about a.d. 1000.

In the following pages each of these types of Jewish literature will be discussed briefly.

II. The Apocrypha

The word "apocrypha" refers in Greek to things that are "hidden." Scholars have suggested that when first applied to certain religious books, it was used to indicate that they were to be withheld from the general public because their message was of a mysterious nature, to be disclosed only to the initiated. As understood by Protestants today, the term Apocrypha describes those books of the Old Testament period that were included in the LXX but not accepted by the Jews of Palestine as Scripture, nor included in the Hebrew canon. While not generally accepted by Protestants, and thus not usually included in their Bible editions today, the Apocryphal books are considered by Roman and Greek Catholics as canonical, and may be found in Bibles used by them. Following are the books that constitute the Apocrypha.

First Esdras.--In the LXX this book precedes Ezra, which together with Nehemiah is known there as 2 Esdras. In the Latin Vulgate, on the other hand, Ezra and Nehemiah are entitled 1 and 2 Esdras, and this Apocryphal book is termed 3 Esdras. The Douay Version omits it. The largest part of this book is made up of material also found in 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah; its chief unique feature is an anachronistic story of a young guard who wins the favor of the Persian king Darius and so facilitates the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It is not known when this book was written.

Tobit.--This is a fanciful story centering on the adventures of Tobit, a Jew supposed to have been taken captive to Assyria by Shalmaneser, and of his son, Tobias. It tells how Tobias, guided by the angel Raphael in human form, made a journey from Nineveh to Ecbatana in Media; how he took the liver and gall from a ferocious fish in the Tigris, and by burning it with incense drove off a murderous demon; and how later he cured Tobit's blindness by blowing dust from the gall into his father's eyes. This story is thought by scholars to have been written in the 2d century b.c.

Judith.--This patriotic story tells how an Assyrian king, Nebuchadnezzar (entirely unknown to history), sent his general, Holofernes, to invade Palestine. When he laid siege to the city of Bethulia, Judith, a wealthy, pious, and beautiful widow, undertook to deliver the city. Entering the camp of Holofernes, she ingratiated herself with him by leading him to think she was a refugee from the Jews and would tell him the secret of conquering them. But following a drunken banquet she entered his bedroom and cut off his head. This so encouraged the Jews that they rallied and drove the Assyrians away in confusion. Non-Catholic scholars generally place the writing of Judith in Palestine about the middle of the 2d century b.c., and see it as a patriotic, but fanciful, story intended to arouse nationalistic fervor during the Maccabean wars against Antiochus Epiphanes.

Additions to Esther.--These additions consist of six passages that have been inserted in various places into the canonical book of Esther. They include a dream of Mordecai, in which he has a foreboding of the threat coming to the Jews, prayers of both Mordecai and Esther when they learn of Haman's decree, and a melodramatic description of Esther's audience with Ahasuerus. These additions seem to have been made in an attempt to enhance the religious tone of the story of Esther.

Wisdom of Solomon.--This book is divided into two distinct sections. The first deals with wisdom, whereas the second is historical, contrasting the life and religion of the Egyptians with that of Israel. The book emphasizes the work of the Spirit of God throughout. It declares that man is composed of body, soul, and an immortal spirit, and that he possesses freedom of choice. Although nothing is said of the Messiah, the author of this work does set forth a day of judgment for the wicked and the righteous. Both Catholic and Protestant scholars generally hold that this book is a product of Hellenistic Judaism of the 2d or 1st century b.c. It was written probably at Alexandria.

Ecclesiasticus.--The Latin name Ecclesiasticus was given to this book in the early days of Christianity inasmuch as it was considered fit to be read in church (Gr. ekklesia; Latin, ecclesia), even though not in the Hebrew canon. In the LXX it usually appears under the title Wisdom of Sirach, whereas the Talmud refers to it simply by its author's name, Ben Sira'. This is a large book of 51 chapters, containing many proverbs and much instruction regarding wisdom. The author feels that there is no salvation apart from man's good works, and that sin is the result of man's free choice. He believes in sacrifices of all kinds, counting them along with the religious feasts as first among man's good works. To him, wisdom is a free gift of God, to be obtained through the keeping of His commandments. Ecclesiasticus, according to its own testimony, was written in Hebrew by a Palestinian Jew, Jesus (or Joshua) the son of Sirach, and was translated into Greek by his grandson, probably about 132 B.C.

Baruch.--This book purports to have been written by Baruch, the secretary of Jeremiah (see Jer. 36:4). The setting is Babylonia during the Captivity. The book opens with a letter sent by the captive Jews to their kinsmen remaining in Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the book consists of a confession of their sin, a plea for forgiveness, a recognition of God's wisdom, and a remembrance of His promises of restoration. The book is partly prose and partly poetry. It appears to contain a historical inaccuracy in that it enjoins the Jews to "pray for the life of Nabuchodonosor [Nebuchadnezzar] king of Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar [Belshazzar] his son" (ch. 1:11), which would imply that Belshazzar was crown prince near the time when Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 B.C. Archeology has shown conclusively that only at a date several decades after 586 B.C. could Belshazzar have been so regarded (see Additional Note on Daniel 5). Non-Catholic scholars today generally hold that the book of Baruch was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, to encourage the desolated and exiled Jews of that time by reminding them of the resignation and faithfulness of their forefathers in the Babylonian captivity.

Epistle of Jeremy.--Although in the LXX this epistle forms a separate work, in the Vulgate and the Douay Version it is appended to Baruch as the final chapter of that book. It is a short address of only 73 verses that purports to have been written by the prophet Jeremiah to the Jews who were to be taken captive to Babylonia, and is largely a warning against idolatry. The book gives evidence of having been written originally in Greek, probably sometime between the 4th and 2d centuries b.c.

Additions to Daniel.--The LXX contains several additions to the canonical book of Daniel. These are the Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, and the History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

The Song of the Three Holy Children is in two main parts; the first is a prayer supposed to have been uttered by Azarias (Azariah, that is, Abednego) while walking in the fiery furnace (see Dan. 3:19-25); the second is a song of praise gratuitously attributed by the anonymous writer to all three of the Hebrews in the furnace, and is strongly reminiscent of Ps. 148.

The History of Susanna tells how two Jewish judges saw a beautiful and virtuous woman, Susanna, bathing in her garden, and became enamored of her. When they accosted her, she repulsed them, and in revenge they summoned her before a tribunal and falsely accused her of adultery. Susanna was condemned to death, but on the way to her execution she was met by Daniel, who demanded that her trial be reopened. By examining the two judges separately, he proved her innocence by their contradictory statements. They were executed and Daniel was highly exalted.

The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon contains two stories. The first, like that of Susanna, extols Daniel's prowess in detecting deceit. It tells how he demonstrated that an idol of the Babylonian god Bel (Marduk) did not actually devour food, as it was thought to do. By scattering ashes on the floor in the evening, Daniel proved the next morning, by footprints in the ashes, that priests had entered the temple of the idol at night and had eaten the food placed there for it. As a result the king had the priests killed and the temple destroyed. The second story concerns Daniel's destruction of a dragon that was worshiped by the Babylonians. By feeding it a concoction of pitch, fat, and hair, he caused it to burst and die. In retaliation the people of Babylon threw Daniel into a lions' den, where the lions refused to harm him, and the prophet Habakkuk, being transported miraculously through the air from Judea by an angel, brought him food. So impressed was the king by these miracles that he freed Daniel and destroyed his persecutors. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that these additions were not originally part of the canonical book of Daniel.

Prayer of Manasses.--This short work of only 15 verses purports to be a prayer of King Manasseh of Judah when he was imprisoned in Babylon (see 2 Chron. 33:9-13). It is not among the books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, and in official Catholic editions of the Vulgate it is placed in an appendix as Apocryphal. Luther's German Bible and the KJV both originally included it. This work appears to be a penitential psalm written perhaps in the 1st century b.c.

First Maccabees.--In contrast with the largely fabulous character of the books thus far described, 1 Maccabees is considered primary source material covering the history of the Jewish struggle for independence in the 2d century b.c. It traces the history of the period from the accession of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to the Seleucid throne in 175 B.C. to the beginning of the reign of the Hasmonaean priest-king John Hyrcanus in 135 B.C. (For the history covered by this book, see pp. 28-33.) The author of 1 Maccabees is unknown, but scholars are quite satisfied that he was a Palestinian Sadducee well acquainted with the incidents about which he wrote. The book was written in Hebrew probably about 100 B.C.

Second Maccabees.--This book is not a sequel to 1 Maccabees, but like it, begins with the accession of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and narrates the struggles of the Jews for independence from the Syrians. It carries the story only to the victory of Judas Maccabees over the Syrian general Nicanor at Beth-horon in 162/1 B.C. Although it thus covers a much shorter period than 1 Maccabees, it gives in places more detail, which sometimes appears to be literary elaboration rather than sober history. 2 Maccabees introduces new doctrinal concepts not found in the first book when it records how Judas Maccabaeus made an offering for the sins of the dead and prayed that they might be delivered from sin, in the hope of the resurrection (ch. 12:43-45). From its introduction, this book appears to have been written in Palestine about 124 B.C. (ch. 1:10), and is an epitome of a larger work by one Jason of Cyrene (ch. 2:23).

III. The Pseudepigrapha

The word "pseudepigrapha" means literally writings "falsely entitled." It is applied by scholars to a body of religious literature falsely ascribed to famous persons of the past, which appeared at the same time as the Apocrypha and was in many ways similar to it, but which is not accepted as canonical by either Jews or any segment of Christians. Roman Catholics class these works as apocryphal. A brief discussion of these books follows.

Third Maccabees.--This book of only seven chapters is included in some important manuscripts of the LXX. Because it is quite clearly folklore, it is here classed as pseudepigraphical. The story is an elaborated account of the victory of Ptolemy IV Philopator over Antiochus the Great at the Battle of Raphia (217 B.C.), and of the resultant excesses of the victorious king. The book was apparently written to show God's miraculous deliverance of the Jewish nation in times of personal greed and international intrigue.

Fourth Maccabees.--Like 3 Maccabees, this book is also included in some LXX manuscripts, but is not accepted by Roman Catholics. It is a sermon to the Jews on the supremacy of inspired reason over passion. According to this work, passions are implanted by God, and are not to be driven out, but controlled. Righteousness, justice, courage, and temperance are best attained by those brought up by the Torah.

Jubilees.--This work was written in Hebrew apparently by a Pharisee or Essene perhaps during the latter half of the 2d century b.c., although dates both earlier and later than this have been suggested. It is an extended commentary on Genesis and Exodus written from a legalistic standpoint. Of particular interest is its teaching regarding the coming Messianic kingdom, which it envisioned as a gradual development until both man and nature would reach perfection, happiness, and peace. Men would live a thousand years, and when they died, their spirits would enter a state of eternal bliss. A fragment of this work was discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls in Qumrân Cave I.

First Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch).--This is a compilation of the works of several authors, who were Pharisees, and was written partly in Hebrew, partly in Aramaic. It is known today as "Ethiopic" because it has been preserved only in an Ethiopic version.

Of particular interest are its teachings regarding the coming kingdom and the future life. It appears to declare of the transcendental ruler of that kingdom that he was hidden with God since before the creation of the world (chs. 46:1, 2; 48:6; 62:7). Several titles apparently given him are applied in the New Testament to Jesus. Thus he is called "His [God's] Anointed [or Messiah]" (ch. 52:4); "the Righteous [or Just] One" (ch. 38:2; cf. Acts 3:14); "the Elect [or Chosen] One" (Enoch 40:5; 45:3, 4; cf. Luke 23:35); and "the Son of Man" (Enoch 46:3, 4; 62:5). The different parts of 1 Enoch, apparently by different authors, indicate the presence of varying views among the Jews of the 1st century b.c. in regard to the Messianic kingdom: chs. 1-36 teach that it will be eternal on the earth after the final judgment; chs. 37-71, that it will be eternal on earth and in heaven and will be introduced by the last judgment; and chs. 91-104 hold that the Messianic kingdom is to be temporary and on earth, and will be followed by the final judgment.

Prominence is also given to Azazel, who is identified as the one who "hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn" (ch. 9:6; R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 193). The final judgment of Azazel is declared in the words, "The Lord said to Raphael: `Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. ... And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire. ... The whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin'" (ch. 10:4-8; Charles, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 193, 194). Although this identification of Azazel with Satan cannot be taken as proved on the authority of the Book of Enoch, its appearance here is evidence of the Jewish understanding of the figure of Azazel in the 1st century b.c.

1 Enoch indicates the ferment of eschatological thinking prominent in certain areas of Judaism just before and during the New Testament period. The prophecy of Enoch recorded in Jude 14 is closely paralleled in 1 Enoch 1:9. Authorities differ on dates assigned to the various sections of this book, but it is generally agreed that the entire book was in circulation at least by the middle of the 1st century b.c.

Second Enoch (Slavonic Enoch).--This work is extant only in a Slavonic version. It shows some points of similarity to 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch and may preserve elements of ancient Jewish Messianic thinking. It also has numerous similarities to early Christian literature, which may be due either to quotations in the Church Fathers from 2 Enoch, or to elements in Enoch taken from them, depending upon the date when this work was composed. One group of scholars assigns 2 Enoch to the 1st century a.d., whereas another dates it no earlier than the seventh.

Second Baruch.--This book is a compilation of several works. It declares that man is capable of fulfilling the law, and that the righteous are saved by their works. It teaches that the Messianic kingdom is soon to be established, and that then Israel will be a world empire with Jerusalem as its capital. This book was written probably during the 1st or 2d century a.d. It is extant in its entirety only in a Syriac version.

Third Baruch.--This book advocates a belief in seven heavens and in three classes of angels who intercede for three classes of men. Its author thinks that the forbidden tree was the vine, and that Adam's disobedience was due to Satan, who was envious of Christ. This book seems to show Christian influence, and was written probably no earlier than the 2d century a.d.

Fourth Ezra.--Here the author advocates an eschatological view of God in advancing the fundamental beliefs of Judaism. God is one, and unique; He has no mediatorial agency; He alone is the final judge. Israel is an elect race, and the law is a special gift to them after its rejection by other worlds. Since the love of God to Israel exceeds His love to any other people, they are His true representatives to humanity. This book contains also a fabulous story (ch. 14:19-48) of how, when the Law had been burned by Nebuchadnezzar at the destruction of Jerusalem, Ezra dictated by inspiration a new copy of it to his scribes. It is thought that Fourth Ezra was written about the end of the 1st century a.d.

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.--This work proclaims the salvation of the Gentiles, who are to be saved through Israel. It sees the Messiah as descended from Levi, not Judah, and connects the tribe of Dan with Antichrist. It looks for a resurrection when both the righteous and wicked will be raised and divided into different groups. The suggestion has been made that the Testaments were written by a Pharisee or Essene at the height of Hasmonaean prosperity, when John Hyrcanus had assumed the titles of prophet, priest, and king, and was recognized by the Pharisees as the Messiah. Whether this is so, it is generally recognized that in its present form this work contains Christian interpolations. Recently interest has been renewed in the Testaments since a fragment of one of its sections, the Testament of Levi, has been discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls in Qumrân Cave I. Similarities between the Testament of Levi and the Habakkuk Commentary and the Zadokite Fragments have also been pointed out.

Sibylline Oracles.--This is a work comprised originally of 15 books and several fragments, containing oracles developed by Jewish and probably also Christian authors from the 2d century b.c. to perhaps the 5th century a.d.

Assumption of Moses.--This work probably consisted originally of two distinct books, the Testament of Moses and the Assumption. The author, a Pharisee, attempted to draw his compatriots back to the old paths of implicit obedience to the Torah. Patriotically, he looked for the return of the ten tribes and felt that it was the duty of Israel to keep the law and to pray God to intervene in their behalf. This work seems to have been written during the 1st century a.d. Early Christian writers connected Jude 9 with this book, but Jude's words are not found in the Assumption in the sections that are extant today.

Letter of Aristeas.--This letter purports to have been written by Aristeas, an officer of the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), to his brother, Philocrates, and recounts the composition of the LXX. On account of the many anachronisms in it, scholars have generally discounted its reliability. However, it is a valuable source of information concerning the views held in ancient times concerning the origin of the LXX.

Book of Adam and Eve.--The author of this work tells the story of Adam and Eve from the creation to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and looks forward to a destruction of the earth, first by water and then by fire. He probably was a Jew of the Dispersion, writing sometime during the first four centuries of the Christian Era.

Martyrdom of Isaiah.--This book declares that King Manasseh condemned the prophet Isaiah for his claim that he saw God (Isa. 6:1), when according to Ex. 33:20 no man could see God and live.

Pirke Abôth (Sayings of the Fathers).--This is a collection of ethical and religious maxims uttered by Jewish leaders over a period of several centuries near the beginning of the Christian Era. They believed that the justice of God is revealed in the same way that justice is shown by an earthly court--a reward of peace and happiness to the keeper of the law, and punishment to the breaker of its precepts. In fact, they used the word torah, "law" or "instruction," as a term for God. This work is included in the Mishnah (see p. 99).

Psalms of Solomon.--This is a collection of 18 psalms describing the righteousness of Israel as compared with the nations about them. Two classes of Jews are depicted, the righteous, to which the author belongs, and the unrighteous, who are profane and men pleasers. These psalms were written originally in Hebrew, probably about the middle of the 1st century b.c.

Story of Ah\ik\ar.--This is a novel placed in the time of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. Ahikar, Sennacherib's vizier, is falsely accused by his nephew Nadan and condemned to death. Because Ah\ik\ar had once delivered the executioner from death, he kills a criminal in Ah\ik\ar's place, and Ah\ik\ar flees to Egypt. When Sennacherib learns that he is alive, he sends for him, and on his return Ah\ik\ar claims revenge on Nadan, who is starved to death in prison.

IV. The Literature of the Qumrân Community

For information on the history and archeology of the community at Khirbet QumraÆn see Vol. I, pp. 31-34; Vol. IV, pp. 86-88; and Vol. V, pp. 53, 54.

Damascus Document.--In the Genizah (manuscript storeroom) of a Cairo synagogue there were discovered, near the close of the 19th century, many valuable Jewish manuscripts of the early Middle Ages. Among these were two partly identical texts of a Jewish sect whose members have been called, for lack of a more accurate name, Zadokites, or Damascus Covenanters. When published in 1910 by Solomon Schechter, their discoverer, these manuscripts stirred up much controversy among scholars, since they were unique in Jewish literature. Scholars concluded that the authors of this work belonged to a sect that separated itself from the main body of the Jews, considering them apostates from the Law. The members of the sect bound themselves by a "New Covenant" and followed their own way of life and rituals. Later they left Palestine and migrated to Damascus. A few scholars thought that the sect had been founded in the 7th century a.d., but the majority of investigators who expressed themselves on the subject placed its origin between the 2d century b.c. and a.d. 70. The close relationship of these manuscripts to the pseudepigraphic Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, and the Book of Enoch pointed to the Maccabean, or the early Roman period, as their time of origin.

The Damascus Document contains admonitions and regulations. The Sabbath was to be kept according to the same rules the Pharisees of the New Testament period observed. Defilement through ritually unclean baths or forbidden food, through dealings with Gentiles, and through fornication was to be shunned, while monogamy and confession of sins were encouraged. Strong belief in the doctrine of election, in good and evil angels, in an expected Messiah, and in an eternal life is also evident.

With the discovery and study of formerly unknown works possessed by the Qumrân community in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, it has become evident that the Damascus Document emanated from the same group and should be classed with the Qumrân literature. In fact, it has been reported that some evidence of this document has come to light among the Dead Sea scrolls. The Damascus Document is sometimes referred to as the Zadokite Fragments.

Qumrân Literature.--Of the numerous fragments of non-Biblical works found among the Dead Sea scrolls, only a few are sufficiently well preserved to provide continuous text material. Of these documents four had been published by 1956. They give a picture of the customs and rules of the Qumrân sect, but tell very little about its history, since references to historical characters are few, mostly in ambiguous terms like "Teacher of Righteousness" or "Wicked Priest," and political powers appear under such veiled names as "the Kittim of Assur" or "the Kittim in Egypt."

The following non-Biblical works from the Qumrân community were also among those published early:

1. A commentary to chapters 1 and 2 of Habakkuk, in which the prophet's oracles are interpreted as finding their fulfillment in the turbulent period in which the commentator lived. (Previously cited as DSH, now 1Qp Hab.)

2. A scroll known as The War of the Sons of Light With the Sons of Darkness, describing a historical or imaginary conflict and providing mainly rules of warfare. (Previously cited as DSW, now 1QM.)

3. A scroll containing Thanksgiving Psalms that are similar to some Biblical psalms, but lack the depth and spiritual force found in the Psalms. (Previously cited as DST, now 1QH.)

4. The Manual of Discipline was easily the most important of the non-Biblical books from the Qumrân caves published at that time. It contains the rules and regulations under which the members of the sect lived, and proves that the covenanters of the Zadokite Fragments belonged to this same sect. (Previously cited as DSD, now 1 QS). It pictures the members of the sect as forming a religious society with a democratic government, whose overseers were chosen by vote. No private property was allowed. All money was kept and spent in the interest of the sect by the overseer. The sect's rules were strict, and a penal code existed for such transgressions as making false or foolish statements, vilifying or injuring a neighbor, interrupting another's speech, or sleeping during a meeting of the community.

This document describes also the rituals to be followed in the ceremony of initiation. Strong curses were pronounced at that occasion for deviations, but also an expanded Aaronic blessing (cf. Num. 6:24-26) was given, as follows:

"May he bless you with all good and keep you from all evil; may he enlighten your heart with life-giving prudence and be gracious to you with eternal knowledge; may he lift up his loving countenance to you for eternal peace" (1 QS ii. 2-4; in Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 372).

The members of the sect were also required to exercise purification rites by immersion in water, to take their meals in common, to study the Law constantly, and to live a life of sanctity and piety. Significantly, all the books of the Hebrew Bible (except, possibly, Esther) have been found in their library, some in several copies. Obviously, the members of the sect were engaged in Bible study. This fact is also revealed by the existence of several commentaries on Biblical books among their literary productions.

The regulations found in The Manual of Discipline are similar in many ways to the rules of the Essenes as reported by Philo (That Every Good Man Is Free, 75 ff.) and Josephus (Antiquities xviii. 1. 5; War ii. 8. 2 ff. [119-161]). Because of these similarities scholars generally hold either that the Qumrân community was an Essene establishment or that there was at least a relationship between it and the Essenes.

Since John the Baptist grew up in the same area, lived an ascetic life, and practiced baptism, scholars have suggested that he was influenced by the Essenes. Certain relationships between the Qumrân literature and the Gospel of John have also been suggested. Particularly striking is the contrast between the spirit of truth and error, light and darkness, found in both The Manual of Discipline and the Fourth Gospel (see 1 QS iii. 13-iv. 26; John 8:12; 11:10; 12:35; 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). Other parallels have been seen between the Qumrân writings and those of Paul. Especially interesting among these are the terms "mystery" and "knowledge," important words in Paul's vocabulary which previously had been thought to have largely a Gentile background (see 1 QS iii. 2. 6; xi. 3. 6; Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:3). Now this much is clear, that these terms had also a religious use among the Jews in general, which may throw some light on Paul's use of them. However, in view of the mass of material from Qumrân that remains to be published and studied, it is still too early to reach detailed conclusions regarding the relationships between the non-Biblical Dead Sea scrolls and the New Testament. On the other hand, it is certain that these scrolls will shed an increasingly important light on the religious thinking of the Jews in Jesus' day and on the issues at stake during that time, with the result that they will be of much help to the interpreter of the New Testament.

V. The Septuagint (LXX), Philo, and Josephus

In addition to certain of the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that were written originally in Greek and are representative of Hellenistic Judaism, there are several other important Jewish works in the Greek language. Particularly important among these are the Septuagint, known by the symbol LXX, and the works of Philo and Josephus.

The Septuagint.--For a discussion of the origin and history of this earliest translation of the Old Testament see Vol. I, p. 39. Several characteristics distinguish the LXX as compared with the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament. One of these is the appearance of doublets, that is, of synonyms placed together to translate a single Hebrew word. Another is that the LXX repeatedly avoids anthropomorphic representations of God, a trend, indeed, that was characteristic of the more philosophically-minded Jews of Alexandria. Yet another difference between the LXX and the Masoretic text is the arrangement of certain sections; thus different sequences of material appear in Ex. 35-39, [LXX 3d] 1 Kings 4-11, the last part of Jeremiah, and the end of Proverbs. This trend in the LXX also extends to the arrangement of books, which differs from the traditional Hebrew order of Law, Prophets, and Psalms (see Vol. 1, p. 37). While the LXX manuscripts vary somewhat in details of order, in general they follow the pattern preserved in English Bibles today. Of the Apocryphal books, 1 Esdras precedes Ezra; Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit precede Isaiah; Baruch follows Jeremiah; and the books of Maccabees follow Malachi. Job comes between the Song of Solomon and Wisdom; Esther, with its Apocryphal additions, between Sirach and Judith; and Daniel is accompanied by Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. See pp. 84-87.

Perhaps the most interesting difference of all between the LXX and the traditional Hebrew text is the fact that some materials appear in the Greek that are not in the Hebrew, whereas other passages are preserved in the Hebrew that do not appear in the Greek. The extent of these variations differs; in the Pentateuch the two texts are closely similar, but in the book of Daniel the LXX is quite different from the Masoretic Hebrew text. Because of this great discrepancy, the early church rejected the LXX of Daniel and substituted for it the translation made by Theodotion in the latter part of the 2d century a.d. In fact, so little was the LXX of Daniel used that it survives today in Greek in only two manuscripts, a copy among the Chester Beatty Papyri from the 2d or 3d century, and the Chigi manuscript from about the 10th century. The presence in the LXX of material not in the traditional Hebrew text extends not only to individual passages but also to books; thus the LXX contains those books now commonly known as the Apocrypha (see pp. 84-87). However, the inclusion of these additional books apparently does not rest upon a Hebrew canon different from that of the Masoretic; it seems rather to be due to the acceptance of books by Hellenistic Jews that were rejected by their more conservative brethren in Palestine.

The discoveries of the manuscripts at Khirbet QumraÆn (see p. 90) aroused new interest in the study of the LXX, for several Hebrew fragments of the Old Testament have been found there that exhibit a text much nearer to the LXX than to the traditional Hebrew text preserved in other Dead Sea scrolls, and by the Masoretes. While the full significance of these discoveries of LXX-type Hebrew texts is yet to be determined, they do appear to indicate that at least some of the differences between the Greek and the Hebrew texts heretofore known are not merely the result of bad translation or careless handling, but rest rather upon different Hebrew originals. Apparently at least as late as the 1st century b.c. more than one type of Hebrew text was in circulation. This leads to the further assumption that one of these represented that preserved by the LXX, and another, that found in the majority of the Dead Sea scrolls and the Masoretic text. However, final conclusions on the relationships of these texts must await further research.

Philo.--Philo Judaeus stands as one of the best examples of those Jewish scholars and philosophers who worked under the influence of Hellenism. He had a notable breadth of mind.

Born in Alexandria, probably between the years 20-10 B.C., Philo grew up in the atmosphere of cosmopolitan culture and the finest Jewish patterns of thought and study. He was possibly of the priestly order, and, it would appear, a Pharisee. He died about a.d. 50.

To Philo, Moses was the greatest of the ancients, as thinker, lawgiver, and exponent of divine truth. He was, Philo believed, the reliable exponent of truths that philosophy had sought eagerly but ineffectually to develop. To Philo, the desirable fruitage of philosophic study was to understand the teaching of Moses as the revelation of God and the basis of truth. It was Philo's purpose to bring out this truth, which he believed was in part clearly set forth and in part only embryonic in the book of Moses. To accomplish this, Philo applied in his exegesis of Mosaic teachings the allegorical method, which already had become a well-developed art in Alexandrian literary circles. This allegorizing Philo carried to an extreme.

The influence of non-Jewish philosophic thinking, particularly that of Plato, strongly controlled Philo. To him, references to God as a Being with feet, hands, or face were merely anthropomorphisms, that is, attributions to God of human characteristics merely as figures of speech. These Philo sought to eliminate, since he believed they were not literally true. God was the "simply Existent One," not to be thought of materially, but spiritually, or rather metaphysically. To Philo, true reason was Logos. This he did not personify, but he apparently recognized it as the Spirit of God, the divine messenger of God. Philo never united the ideas of Logos and Messiah into one divine Person, as John did so boldly (John 1:1-3, 14).

Philo's moral teaching which was influenced by the Torah on the one hand and Stoicism on the other, presents a fine distillation of the best, humanly speaking, in the accumulated interpretation of Jewish law. He believed that man's supreme end in life is to ascertain the will of God and to do it. He held that the family, the community, and the best development of self are opportunities for the exercise of good by every man of right spirit. Philo's influence was so extensive, in fact, that the teachings of the Christian Platonists Clement and Origin of Alexandria show its impact nearly two centuries later.

Josephus.--The best-known and most widely quoted Jewish writer of this period was Flavius Josephus, a priest, a scholar, an army officer rather by accident, and a historian of great importance. He was born into a noble and priestly family in Jerusalem about a.d. 37, and claimed Hasmonaean descent (see pp. 30, 75). After experimenting with the three major sects of Judaism in his day, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, he became a Pharisee at the age of 22 or 23.

Four years later Josephus went to Rome, where he interceded successfully for some Jews who had fallen into disfavor with Felix, the procurator in Palestine. Here he was so forcefully impressed with the power of Rome, that when the great revolt of a.d. 66-73 was about to break out, he, like Herod Agrippa II, sought earnestly to show the Jews the futility of rebelling against the empire. In fact, he was actually a conservative who opposed revolt as a matter of principle.

The Jews, however, rejected Josephus' advice, and so at about the age of 30 he found himself involved in the revolt that climaxed in the destruction of Jerusalem. When the Jews appointed him governor of Galilee, he led his troops from that province against the Romans, was defeated and captured, and held for two years as a prisoner. When taken before the Roman general Vespasian, Josephus prophesied that this general would become emperor, and when, in a.d. 69, Vespasian was in fact elected emperor by his troops, Josephus was paroled. In tribute to the emperor's patronage, Josephus assumed the name Flavius, which was Vespasian's family name. Before the destruction of Jerusalem the Romans sent him as a willing but unsuccessful emissary to the Jewish revolutionaries to seek to persuade them to surrender.

Josephus lived most of the rest of his life in Rome, where he received a pension and Roman citizenship, as well as the gift of an estate in Judea. He devoted the last half of his life to literary pursuits, during which time he produced four principal works.

The Jewish War, the earliest of Josephus' historical endeavors, was written first in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek by skilled linguists under his supervision. Only the Greek translation is extant. Written about a.d. 79, and consisting of seven books, the work traces the history of the Jews from the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes to the close of the great Roman war in a.d. 73. The earlier part of this history was based largely on the work of Nicolas of Damascus; the latter section consists more or less of Josephus' own observations, to which he doubtless added from records available to him in Rome. Josephus probably hoped to persuade the Jews of Mesopotamia not to attempt a revolt as their brethren in Palestine had tragically done.

Jewish Antiquities, Josephus' second great work, completed during the years a.d. 93-94, was a brief history of the people of God, from creation to the opening of the Roman war in a.d. 66. The earlier part of this work follows rather closely the Biblical account according to the Septuagint version, although at times Josephus presents as fact certain elements of Pharisaic tradition. For the portion of his work dealing with the period following the Old Testament, Josephus appears to use as sources 1 Maccabees and the writings of Polybius, Strabo, and Nicolas of Damascus. His results testify to the truth of his confession that toward the close of his work he found himself weary of his task. The Antiquities makes a number of references to Jewish characters who appear also in the New Testament, such as John the Baptist (Antiquities xviii. 5. 2), James the Lord's brother (ibid. xx. 9. 1), and Judas of Galilee (ibid. xviii. 1. 6). There is also a paragraph (ibid. xviii. 3. 3) in which Jesus of Nazareth is described in highly favorable terms, with a notation of His crucifixion and resurrection. This passage declares concerning Jesus that "He was [the] Christ." It is the general consensus of scholarship that this, though probably essentially Josephus' statement, contains Christian interpolations introducing beliefs concerning Jesus that Josephus did not hold.

Against Apion is a defense of the teachings of the Jews. Apion was an enemy of the Jews who became for Josephus the typical Gentile, in reference to whom he set forth his apology for Judaism. Inasmuch as Josephus was a Pharisee, it is that type of Judaism that he here defends. This work is important also for the fragments it preserves from the lost writings of the Babylonian historian Berosus and the Egyptian historian Manetho.

The Life is Josephus' autobiography. It was written primarily in reply to one Justus, who had accused Josephus of being the moving spirit of the Jewish revolt. In this work the author portrays himself throughout as a partisan of the Romans, a view that is hardly borne out by his account in The Jewish War.

Josephus' works have been much reviewed by critics, and with rather adverse results, for he was not free from bias. He favored the Romans in contrast with the rebellious Jews, and he favored the Jews in contrast with the Gentiles. Such an attitude is understandable on the part of a writer living at a time of bitter partisanship, who attempted an apology for a people whose conduct had brought them to defeat and subjugation, but whose spirit was still unbroken.

When Josephus is tested on certain points by archeology and by less partisan writers who deal with the same questions, it appears that he was sometimes careless in his handling of historical materials. Yet the fact remains that without Josephus' work there would be serious gaps in present-day knowledge not only of Jewish history but of Roman as well. Josephus died about a.d. 100.

VI. The Targums

In much the same way that the Jews of the Roman world outside Palestine came to feel the need of a Greek translation of the Old Testament, so also many Jews within Palestine in the centuries after the return from the Exile found themselves unable to understand the Bible in Hebrew and thus in need of a translation into Aramaic. In accordance with their more conservative tendencies, they refrained for centuries from writing down such a version, but relied rather upon oral translations of the Biblical passages read during the services on the Sabbath in the synagogue (see p. 57). After a Scripture passage was read in Hebrew, a meturgeman, or "interpreter," translated it into Aramaic.

These oral translations first began to be put into writing, probably before the time of Jesus, and certainly by the 1st century a.d. They are known as Targums, "interpretations." Since they are witnesses to the character of the Hebrew text they translate, the Targums are of some value in textual studies of the Old Testament. They are also important in that they often reveal which Old Testament passages the Jews considered to be Messianic prophecies, for the Targums consist not only of translations but also of paraphrases and comments. Thus they reveal how the Jews fifteen or more centuries ago interpreted certain texts that cannot be understood easily from the existing Hebrew text.

The earliest Targums produced probably were those dealing with the Torah, the five books of the Pentateuch. The best-known Targum on the Pentateuch is the Targum Onkelos, or Babylonian Targum. Onkelos, who traditionally is considered the author of this Targum, is frequently identified with Aquila, Rabbi Akiba's famous student who produced a very literal translation of the Old Testament into Greek. The Targum Onkelos is likewise extremely literal, although it does contain some paraphrased sections. While its real authorship is in doubt, it appears to have been written originally in Palestine and later edited in Babylonia. Another well-known Pentateuch Targum is that of pseudo-Jonathan, so called because it was erroneously attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, Hillel's most distinguished pupil. It bears also the name Yerushalmi I, since it was produced in Palestine, probably after the 7th century. It is a highly paraphrastic translation, which includes various legal and philosophical ideas. Another paraphrastic Pentateuch Targum of Palestinian origin is Yerushalmi II, also called the Fragmentary Targum, because only portions of it are extant.

The best-preserved Targum of the Prophets also bears the name of Jonathan, but scholars have found evidence that it was produced in Babylonia by Rabbi Joseph in the 4th century a.d. Targums of the Writings, the third section of the Hebrew Bible (see Vol. I, p. 37), did not appear until much later; in fact, Targums of the books Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah seem never to have been written.

VII. The Talmud

The body of Jewish civil and canonical law is contained in an extensive literature known as the Talmud, a word that means "teaching." Originating in oral tradition that developed over several centuries, the Talmud began to take written form about the beginning of the 3d century a.d. with the codification of its basic portion, the Mishnah; during the ensuing two centuries a large body of commentary on the Mishnah was elaborated and codified, which is known as Gemara. These two collections make up the Talmud as a whole, and provide the structure of historic Judaism. See p. 99.

Oral Tradition.--The rabbis of the apostolic age claimed that Jewish oral tradition was of the same divine origin as the written revelation contained in the Torah. This tradition was handed down from generation to generation until about the beginning of the 3d century a.d. when it was crystallized in written form in the Mishnah, which became the rule of conduct for orthodox Jews.

When the New Testament was written, Jewish tradition, still flourishing in oral form, concerned itself chiefly with an exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures. This was called Midrash. This exegesis was not a linguistic or historical approach in the modern sense, but rather a search for new knowledge, and the existing Bible text was used only to give direction and inspiration. Such exegesis worked by means of logical deduction, combination of related passages, and allegorical interpretation. The Midrash dealing with historical or dogmatic subjects is called Haggada ("expression"), or Haggadic Midrash, and that dealing with legal matters is called Halakah (literally, "walk," that is, "a norm," or "a rule"), or Halakic Midrash.

The term Haggada refers to non-Biblical material and to the exegesis of poetical, historical, and other nonlegal subject matter found in the Hebrew Bible. In the synagogue it was the common method of explaining the Bible, and employed symbol, allegory, fable, and parable. Haggada was not bound to strict rules of exegesis and might use almost any means by which a lasting impression could be made on the hearer. The voluminous legendary Jewish literature of the later Christian Era is largely the result of haggadic exegesis of the Bible, but only a minor section of the Talmud owes its origin to the Haggada.

The term Halakah designates the religious regulations based mainly on the legal sections of the Bible. While the Haggada was the mode of exegesis used mainly in the synagogue service, the Halakah was studied in the higher schools of religious learning. If possible, a scriptural basis was given for halakic regulations, but many rules for which no Biblical basis could be found were defended on the claim that they had been handed down by Moses from Sinai only in oral form. The Halakah was systematically collected into codes, and it was the highest ambition of every Jewish scholar of the law (the "scribe" in the New Testament) to learn and understand all the halakic rules pertaining to the religious and secular life of a conscientious Jew.

The greatest teachers of Halakah were Hillel the Elder (died c. a.d. 20) and Shammai. Both men developed their teachings in the last decades of the 1st century b.c., and their followers formed separate schools. Hillel was famous for his gentleness of character, which manifested itself in regulations more liberal than those pronounced by Shammai. Agreeing with Shammai that the letter of the Torah must be fulfilled literally, he interpreted it so that only the minimum requirements of the Law had to be met. Shammai, on the other hand, was strict, and demanded from his followers the maximum requirements of the Law.

To outsiders the differences between the schools of Hillel and Shammai often must have seemed artificial. The nature of halakic views and the differences between Hillel and Shammai are illustrated by the following example. Shammai decreed that it was not permissible to sell anything to a Gentile or to help him load his beast if he would have to travel with it on Sabbath. Hillel, however, saw no harm in allowing this (Mishnah Shabbath 1. 7, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 73). A seemingly extreme example of Shammai's punctiliousness was his insistence that in getting birds for slaughter on a festival day, a ladder might not be moved from one dovecot to another, but only from one opening to another in the same dovecot. Hillel, on the other hand, permitted both (Mishnah Bezah 1. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 39).

However, there are a few cases in which Hillel's rulings seem more strict than those of Shammai. For example, Shammai permitted an egg to be eaten that had been laid on a Sabbath, but Hillel prohibited it on the ground that the restriction against preparing food on Sabbaths applied not only to men but also to chickens (Mishnah ÔEduyyoth 4. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 22).

After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus an academy for Jewish learning was founded at Jamnia, south of Joppa (see p. 78). Here also the Sanhedrin was reorganized. The first leader of this center of Jewish learning was Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai. He it was who succeeded in saving Jewish tradition for posterity by making it, next to the Hebrew Scripture, the center of all Jewish orthodox thinking and life. Of his successors the most famous was Rabbi Akiba (c. a.d. 50--c. 132), one of the foremost Jewish thinkers of all times. Some said that Akiba gained a deeper and more penetrating understanding of the Law than did Moses himself.

Akiba's early life is shrouded in obscurity. It is certain, however, that he was of humble origin and did not begin his studies until he was a middle-aged man. Having learned to read and write only late in life, he retained a mystical awe toward writing. This reverence manifested itself in an exegesis which found meaning, not only in sentences and words, but also in letters and parts of letters. He considered it his chief task to find a real or supposed scriptural basis for every halakah through logical deduction. Thus he succeeded in bringing systematic order into the great mass of halakic material. In this way he created the first all-embracing Mishnah collection. Although this material was not yet put into writing, it is possible that some small halakic collections were written down under his direction. Rabbi Akiba is also important for his leading part in the Council of Jamnia (c. a.d. 90), where weighty decisions concerning the canon and text of the Hebrew Bible were made (see Vol. I, p. 43), and for his support of the insurrectionist Bar Cocheba as the promised Messiah during the war that began in a.d. 132 (see Vol. V, p. 79). Even before the outbreak of the war, Akiba apparently was imprisoned by the Romans, and at the end of the war he died a martyr.

Akiba's most illustrious student was Rabbi Meïr, who continued and completed his master's legal system. His importance may be inferred from the fact that in the Mishnah he is quoted more than any of his predecessors.

Mishnah.--The Mishnah (literally, "repetition") is the codified traditional law of the Jews. It contains rules and regulations formulated over many centuries by the Sanhedrin, by Hillel, by Shammai, and by other famous rabbis (known as Tama'im). It contains conclusions drawn from such pronouncements regarding new cases in which old rules needed reinterpretation or modification. Thus religious ritual regulations and prohibitions make up most of the Mishnah.

The editor of the Mishnah was Judah, son of Simon (c. a.d. 135--c. a.d. 220), who is more commonly known as Judah ha-Nasi ("Judah the Prince"), or simply as Rabbi. He directed the production of the first comprehensive edition of Jewish traditional law in written form.

Judah ha-Nasi was an extremely penetrating scholar. He studied Greek, Latin, and astronomy under secular teachers, and the teachings of Jewish law under several distinguished scholars of his time. Soon he left all his instructors behind him, and became such a recognized authority in halakah that his pronouncements were placed above those of the Sanhedrin, and its rulings were considered binding only if Rabbi Judah endorsed them. He was called ha-Nasi, the title given to the president of the Sanhedrin, and because of his strict habits of life he was called haq-qadosh, "the holy one." Following in the footsteps of Akiba and Meïr, Judah brought order into the mass of halakic rules, and grouped them into such subjects as feast days, offerings, purification, etc. This work was completed about a.d. 200 and has become the official Mishnah of Jewry.

Next to the Bible the Mishnah became the main source of Jewish religious studies, and its authority has frequently superseded the Scriptures. It also became the spiritual bond that united Jews scattered among many nations. In fact, after the Mishnah became the norm of life, the Sanhedrin and living leaders were almost superfluous.

As arranged by Judah ha-Nasi, the Mishnah is divided into six sedarim, or "orders," containing 63 tractates, each with a name indicating its contents. The six orders are:

1. ZeraÔim ("seeds"), containing 11 tractates, deals mainly with agriculture and its products.

2. MoÔed ("set feasts"), containing 12 tractates, presents regulations about the Sabbath and the feasts.

3. Nashim ("women"), containing 7 tractates, deals mainly with rules of marriage and married life.

4. Nezik\in ("damages"), containing 10 tractates, is concerned with civil and criminal laws.

5. K\odashim ("hallowed things"), containing 11 tractates, deals with offerings.

6. T\ohoroth ("cleannesses"), containing 12 tractates, is concerned with regulations about clean and unclean things.

The Mishnah hardly ever deals with purely theological subjects, and contains little haggadic material. The most noteworthy exception is the tractate ÔAboth, or Pirqe 'Aboth (the ninth tractate of Seder Nezik\in), which is a collection of edifying sentences of the most famous Jewish scholars from about 200 B.C. to a.d. 200. No other part of the Mishnah has been printed and translated so frequently.

Gemara.--The codification of the Mishnah closed an era in the history of the Jews, for it marked the completion of the work of the Tanna'im, the "traditionalists," who had transmitted the Halakah orally from generation to generation. During the following period, the scholars of Jewish law are called 'Amoraim, "pronouncers," or "exegetes." They considered it their task to study the Mishnah, to interpret it, and to resolve its real or apparent contradictions.

The 'Amoraim worked intensively during the 3d and 4th centuries of the Christian Era, and their new material, consisting of an elaborate exegesis of the Mishnah, was codified during the 4th and 5th centuries. This exegetical material at that time was called Talmud, "teaching." In later times, however, it became known as Gemara, "completion," and the word Talmud now is often applied to the combined Mishnah and Gemara. Included in the Gemara are Baraithas, which are halakic pronouncements that did not find a place in the Mishnah.

While the Mishnah was one unified work written in Hebrew and accepted by all Jews, the Gemara of Palestinian scholars, known as the Jerusalem Talmud, varied markedly from that of their Babylonian colleagues, which is called the Babylonian Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud contains Gemara to 38 tractates of the first four orders of the Mishnah and to one tractate of the sixth order. Whereas the Mishnah was written in Hebrew, the Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud was composed mainly in a western Aramaic dialect. The Babylonian Talmud contains Gemara to 34 tractates of the second to the fifth orders of the Mishnah, and to one tractate each of the first and sixth orders. The Mishnah in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds is in Hebrew, but the Gemara of the former is in western Aramaic, while that of the latter is in an eastern Aramaic dialect. The Jerusalem Talmud gained but little recognition outside of Palestine, but the Babylonian Talmud, since its final edition c. a.d. 500, has become the accepted norm of orthodox Jewry.

Tosephta.--The Tosephta, meaning "extension," "addition," is a collection and interpretation of halakic sentences parallel to but often differing from those found in the Mishnah. Thus it is not actually a part of the Talmud. Like the Mishnah, the Tosephta is divided into six orders, but contains a total of only 59 tractates as compared with the 63 of the Mishnah. Its original collectors are not definitely known, but they must have done their work before the completion of the Talmud.

VIII. Later Commentators

The work of Jewish scholars with regard to Biblical and non-Biblical writings did not cease with the completion of the Talmud. Numerous commentaries on the Talmud were produced during the succeeding centuries, as well as commentaries on the Hebrew Bible. Up to the 10th century all Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament was done with the aid either of the Haggada or of allegory, which also was much in favor among the Christian Fathers. However, the later influence of Arabic scholarship brought a change, which led Jewish scholars into studies by which a sounder grammatical and lexical approach, and a more rational understanding of the Hebrew Bible, was achieved. The earliest commentators to deserve this designation were Saadia ben Joseph (d. 942), Samuel ben Hophni (d. 1013), and Moses ibn Gikatilla, who lived also in the 11th century. However, the greatest lights among Jewish commentators labored in the 12th and 13th centuries, such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, David Kimchi, and Maimonides, whose works have influenced not only Jewish religious thinking to the present day but also to a lesser degree that of Christian commentators.

Rashi (1040-1105), a French rabbi, wrote commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud. His Bible commentary has been printed in most rabbinical Bibles, and his commentary on the Pentateuch is still widely used by Jews. Ibn Ezra (1092-1167) was a Spanish Jew who traveled extensively in the Mediterranean area, and thus gathered such encyclopedic knowledge that his commentaries on Biblical books were valuable sources of information.

David Kimchi (1160?-1235?) belonged to a family of Jewish scholars in France. His greatest exegetical work is a commentary on the prophetic books of the Old Testament. However, he was more influential as a grammarian and lexicographer; his famous Hebrew grammar, containing a list of Hebrew root words, formed for centuries the basis of Hebrew grammatical writing of both Jews and Christians.

Maimonides (1135-1204) was the most remarkable of all Jewish scholars and philosophers of the Middle Ages. Born in Spain, he came to fame as the head of Jewry in Egypt. His Arabic commentary on the Mishnah gave real meaning to many obscure sentences of the ancient rabbis, and extracted from them ethical and dogmatic values. His works influenced Christian scholastics and Moslem philosophers alike. Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, and even the philosopher Leibnitz drew basic philosophical ideas from Maimonides.

Bibliography

The Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version. New York: Nelson, 1957. 250 pp. A handy edition of the RSV Apocrypha. See entry on pp. 84-87.

The Babylonian Talmud. Translated into English with notes, glossary, and indexes under the editorship of I. Epstein. London: Soncino Press, 1935-48. 34 vols. Offers a complete translation of the whole Babylonian Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud, about one third the size of the Babylonian, has been translated into only one modern language, French, by Moïse Schwab (1871-90), in 11 vols.

Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969. 379 pp.

Burrows, Millar. The Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: The Viking Press, 1955. 435 pp. A reliable yet popularly written account of the Dead Sea scrolls by a scholar who has played a prominent part in their discovery and publication. Includes an account of their discovery, discussion of their date, background, and importance, and English translations of The Damascus Document, The Habakkuk Commentary, The Manual of Discipline, and selections from The War of the Sons of Light With the Sons of Darkness and from the Thanksgiving Psalms.

_______. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking Press, 1958, 1969. A continuation of the study of the scrolls, including translations of pieces from caves found later; also a discussion of the relation of the Qumrân/Essene sect of Christianity.

Charles, R. H., ed. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913. A scholarly and critical translation, with many notes and extensive introductions. The dates of several of these Apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works as suggested by Charles have been modified by more recent scholars.

Cohen, Abraham, ed. Everyman's Talmud. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1949. 403 pp.

Cross, Frank M., Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Rev. ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961. 260 pp. Includes the discoveries, the OT at Qumrân, and the Essenes and their beliefs in relation to the early church and to the Christian gospel.

Danby, Herbert, trans. The Mishnah. London: Oxford University Press, 1954. 844 pp. A scholarly translation of the Mishnah, with notes. Translated from the French by R. D. Barnett. London: Vallentine, Mitchell & Co., Ltd., 1954. 195 pp. 4 plates. 1 map. Further discussion of problems connected with the Qumrân sect.

Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. 2d ed., rev. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963. 167 pp.

Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish Antiquities; and The Jewish War. See entry on p. 81.

Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955. 543 pp. A study of the Messianic belief of the Jews as found in the Old Testament prophets, the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, the Mishnah and Baraithas, by a recognized authority.

Mielziner, Moses. Introduction to the Talmud. Reprint ed. New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1968. 415 pp.

Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927. 2 vols.

Philo, Judaeus. Works. See entry on p. 81.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta; id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes. 4th ed. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1971. A standard, critical ed. of the LXX, with a limited critical apparatus.

Rowley, H. H. The Relevance of Apocalyptic. A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses From Daniel to the Revelation. 2d ed. London: Lutterworth Press, [1952]. 205 pp. A short, scholarly survey tracing the development of apocalyptic and Messianic thinking among the Jews, which formed a background for Christian apocalyptic literature.

_______. The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952. 133 pp. A good survey of the historical problems connected with the scrolls; contains a 37-page bibliography on the Dead Sea scrolls to 1952.

Schürer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. See entries on p. 43 above. Contains a good history of the development of the Halakah and the Mishnah.

Stenning, J. F., ed. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953. 232 pp. Contains both the Aramaic text and an English translation. This is one of the few parts of the Targums available in English.

Strack H. L. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. English translation of the 5th German ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1945. 374 pp. An authoritative work on the subject treated.

_______, and Billerbeck, Paul. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922-28. 5 vols. A commentary on the New Testament based on Jewish rabbinical material. Particularly valuable for its copious quotations from Jewish literature, in German translation. A standard reference work for the Jewish backgrounds of the New Testament.

Urbach, Epharim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. 2 vols.

Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1947.

I. The Language of the New Testament

Greek, Universal Language of New Testament Times.--The 27 books of the New Testament are generally believed to have been composed in Greek. In the time of Christ and the apostles Greek was the universal language of the Roman Empire. It had spread throughout the world toward the end of the 4th century b.c. with the expansion of Alexander's empire. His successors were all Greek rulers, who supported the spread of Greek speech and culture. Thus Greek became so widely known and deeply rooted that the Romans, who built an empire in the 1st century b.c. from the Atlantic to Persia, could not suppress it. Latin gained predominance in North Africa, Spain, and Italy, but played no role in the Eastern world. Even in Italy, where Latin was the mother tongue, educated people, especially, used Greek as a second language. For example, the Epistle of Clement, the earliest Christian document outside of the New Testament, though written in Rome, was composed in Greek. Among the hundreds of papyri discovered in the ruined home of a scholar at Herculaneum, a city destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in a.d. 79, there were less than a dozen manuscripts in Latin--all others were in Greek.

However, other languages besides Greek were used in different parts of the empire. Thus, for example, the Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic, the people of Lystra, Lycaonian (Acts 14:11), and the population of the city of Rome, Latin. This multilingual situation is reflected in the trilingual inscription above the cross on Calvary, composed in (1) Aramaic (called Hebrew in the New Testament), the language of the country, (2) Greek, the universally understood language of the empire, and (3) Latin, the official language of the Roman administration (John 19:20). Similar conditions existed in modern Palestine during the period of British mandate before the emergence of Israel as a state, when, for example, postage stamps contained imprints in three languages and scripts: Hebrew, Arabic, and English. This practice has been continued on postage stamps of the state of Israel.

The Common Greek Language.--In phonetics, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, the Greek of the New Testament differs markedly from the language of classical works. In the 17th and 18th centuries a scholarly battle was carried on between the proponents of differing explanations of this problem. The Hebraists attributed the differences to the influence of Hebrew, on the assumption that all the writers of the New Testament were Jews who wrote in Greek but thought in Hebrew. Hence all New Testament words, forms, and syntactical constructions that differed from classical Greek were explained as Hebraisms. The purists, on the other hand, maintained that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the authors of the New Testament used the purest Greek possible. So long as only the works of classical Greek authors were known and studied there was no definitive solution to the problem.

Toward the end of the 19th century a new era began with the discovery and publication of large quantities of nonliterary documents, written chiefly on papyrus but also to some extent on broken pieces of pottery. These documents consisted of personal letters and notes, public announcements, bills and receipts, contracts and licenses, et cetera. The Greek language used in them is startlingly like that found in the Greek New Testament.

The credit for making this decisive discovery belongs largely to Adolf Deissmann, who in the 40 years following 1885 showed in numerous articles and books that the idiom of the papyri and potsherds is that of the New Testament. This means that the apostles wrote in the language of the people and not that of the historians, dramatists, and scientists. The kind of Greek used was called heµ koineµ dialektos, or, briefly, Koine, the "common one," so called because it was common to Greek-speaking peoples all over the Mediterranean area, as distinguished from the various dialects such as Attic, Doric, Ionian, and Aeolic. Elements from all these dialects are incorporated in it, but it owes more to Attic than to the others.

A study of the New Testament reveals that in developing into Koine, Attic gave up some of its most characteristic marks. Thus Attic tt became ss (thalatta, "sea," became thalassa), and rr became rs (arreµn, "male," became arseµn). The classical dual form died out, and the optative (a verb form expressing desire), as well as the so-called Attic future, seldom appeared in Koine.

Koine borrowed some words and expressions from Ionian and Doric, and developed others independently of any Greek dialect. Among the latter were the imperfects eichamen, "we were having," and eichan, "they were having," from the verb echoµ, "I have," and the imperfect elegan, "they were saying," from legoµ "I say." The Koine also produced many new words by combining commonly used nouns and verbs with prepositions. The New Testament reveals that the common Greek language was also rich in foreign loan words. From Latin it borrowed centurio, "captain," which appears as kenturion in the New Testament, and is used at times instead of the good Greek hekatontarchos. Keµnsos (from Latin census), "tax," titlos (from Latin titulus), "title," are also loan words in the New Testament. Other languages besides Latin lent words to the New Testament writers; thus gaza, "treasure," came from the Persian; kuminon, "cummin," from Malay; bussos, "linen," from Phoenician; baé¬on, "palm branch," from Egyptian; nardos, "nard," from Sanskrit; and rhedeµ, "a four-wheeled coach," from Celtic.

Many words known from classical Greek received new meanings. For example, lalia, which in classical literature meant "empty talk," "loquacity," received the new definition "saying" or "speech" (John 4:42); 8:43; daimonion and daimoµn, the "god" of the classic authors, became an "evil spirit"; and koimeµsis, "natural sleep," became a synonym for death.

Some words entered the Koine vocabulary from the Roman civil and military administration. Among these were rhabdouchos, literally "stick bearer," the lictor ("serjeant," cf. Acts 16:35), who carried the Roman insignia before the magistrates; and chiliarchos, the commander of a thousand soldiers who was the tribunus militum in the Roman military hierarchy.

Sources for a Study of New Testament Greek.--Although much more linguistic work must be done before Koine Greek is completely understood in all its linguistic aspects, the results of years of study have clarified many issues. The following materials are prominent among those that scholars have used in comparative studies to elucidate Koine.

Hellenistic prose works like those of Polybius (died c. 120 B.C.), written before Attic experienced a revival in the literary circles of the Greek-speaking world, have helped scholars understand Koine. Such writers of the imperial period as Diodorus (died c. 20 B.C.) and Plutarch (died c. a.d. 120) also wrote in the common Greek language of the people. Especially valuable are the works of Philo (c. 20 B.C.--c. a.d. 50), since, like Paul, he was a Jew who had received his scholarly training outside of Palestine, and wrote in Greek. The apocryphal Letter of Aristeas (of uncertain date) and the works of the Jewish historian Josephus (died c. a.d.100) also serve as comparative material for linguistic studies of Koine.

In addition to literary sources, numerous official documents preserved on stone or papyrus bear the character of the common language, although, like all works of that nature, they commonly use some fixed legal terms and expressions.

The LXX translation of the Old Testament (see Vol. I, p. 39) provides one of the main sources for an understanding of Koine. Since the LXX was a translation, and not an original Greek work, it introduced to the Greek-speaking world many Hebrew and Aramaic theological concepts and expressions. Thus it furnished the early Christian church with theological terminology in Greek that already was familiar among Hellenistic Jews. In this way it became a medium in the hands of the apostles for proclaiming the teachings of Christ to the Jews of the Dispersion in terms which they understood everywhere. Furthermore, from Mesopotamia to Italy it was the Bible for millions of Jews. Hence, most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are given according to the LXX. As a result of all these factors, the Greek Old Testament exerted a powerful influence on the linguistic form of the New.

The Christian Greek literature of the 2d century also serves as comparative material for an understanding of New Testament Greek. Among the various works of this period are the writings of certain of the earlier Church Fathers, apocryphal gospels and acts of the apostles, and legends about martyrs.

However, the brightest light on New Testament expressions has been shed by the written products of everyday life, found on papyri and potsherds that have become known since the turn of the century. Discovered by the thousands in ancient Egyptian city dumps and in the bellies of mummified sacred animals that had been stuffed with them, these documents provide an accurate view of the daily life and language of the common people of Egypt in Hellenistic and Roman times. They are official decrees and regulations, petitions of private individuals, complaints and requests, files of business transactions, marriage licenses, bills of divorce, wills, and letters of every kind imaginable. Especially valuable are letters written in a natural and artless style, for they furnish a multitude of expressions used in ancient everyday life. Many of these were written by husbands to their wives, by children to their parents, by friends, slaves, soldiers, officials, and students.

While these documents have proved to be veritable treasures for a better understanding of the New Testament, it is regrettable that they have been preserved only in the dry climate of Egypt. If similar material was extant from Asia Minor, Syria, or Greece, it would doubtless throw further light on Koine, for dialectical differences probably prevailed in those areas.

Some Unique Features of New Testament Greek.--Not all expressions and words found in the New Testament can be explained as belonging to the common Greek language. Some have a definite Hebrew or Aramaic background, others are new creations found only in the Bible. These latter words are sometimes called voces Biblicae, "Biblical words." At the beginning of the present century scholars still numbered them in the hundreds, and often believed them to be inventions of the apostle Paul and other Bible writers. However, since many of them now have been discovered in papyri and other ancient documents, there are today only about 50 such words in the New Testament that have not yet been found in extra-Biblical writings. Examples of such words are antimisthia, "reward," and apokatallassoµ, "to reconcile," which have chiefly a religious meaning.

Some words pose problems of interpretation even though they do appear in extra-Biblical sources. For example, the word allotriepiskopos (1 Peter 4:15), although found outside the Bible, is so obscure that translators have suggested the following five meanings: (1) "a receiver or concealer of stolen goods," (2) "a police spy," (3) "an informer," (4) "one who meddles in other men's business," and (5) "a rebel." The word epiousios, translated "daily" in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:11), though appearing in non-Biblical documents, remains sufficiently uncertain in meaning that four different interpretations have been proposed by lexicographers: (1) "necessary for life," (2) "for this day," (3) "for the following day," and (4) "for the future."

Besides these words there are many others in the New Testament which do not appear in non-Biblical works in identical form, but which nevertheless belong to the Koine. Such words are paroikia, "a sojourning," found outside of the Bible only in the form paroikos; anakainooµ, "I renew," used by Paul instead of the more common anakainizoµ; and doliooµ, "I deceive," instead of dolooµ.

Some well-known Koine words received in the New Testament a particular religious meaning which they did not carry in ordinary life. Thus, ta azuma, "the unleavened things," became a fixed term for the Jewish Feast of Unleavened Bread, which followed the Passover; to anatheµma, "the devoted gift," became the thing accursed; baptizoµ, "I dip," or, "I immerse," was applied in Christian usage particularly to the rite of baptism, and has come into English as a Greek loan word; heµ kiboµtos, "the box," was used in the New Testament to designate the ark of Noah and the ark of testimony; and heµ paraskeueµ, "the preparation," became the name for the day preceding the Sabbath, our Friday.

Semitisms in New Testament Greek.--Hebraisms are translations of Hebrew words and idioms. A number of such expressions appear in the New Testament. Thus prosoµpon lambanein is a translation of the Hebrew expression nasŒa' phanim, literally, "to lift up the face," which came to mean "to respect a person," "to discriminate." The expression stoma machairas is the same as the Hebrew pi chereb, literally, "mouth of the sword," which really means "edge of the sword," or "sharp sword." The term geenna ("hell fire," Matt. 5:22) reproduces the Hebrew ge hinnom, "the Valley of Hinnom," an expression that could not be understood by a Greek unfamiliar with the topography of Jerusalem. To the Jews of Palestine it became a symbol of the final place of judgment for the wicked, and the New Testament writers used it in that sense (see on Matt. 5:22).

The frequent use of huioi, "sons," "children," with abstract concepts in the genitive, also has its origin in Hebrew and Aramaic. The gospel writers used this word often in reporting the words of Jesus, who spoke in Aramaic. Transmitting His sayings as faithfully as possible into Greek, they used such terms as "children of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36), "children of the bridechamber ["wedding guests "]" (Matt. 9:15), "sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17), "son of peace" (Luke 10:6), "children of light" (John 12:36), and "children of this world" (Luke 16:8).

The influence of the LXX is clearly noticeable in these Semitisms, because the New Testament writers who wrote on spiritual themes unconsciously lived in the language of the Greek Old Testament, the Bible of their time. In this way linguistic peculiarities not found in secular Greek came into the New Testament. For example, the Hebrew word 'im is usually a conjunction meaning "if." Sometimes, however, it is a particle indicating a question, somewhat like a question mark. At still other times, in oaths or curses, it signifies an emphatic negation and should then be translated by some English term like "certainly not." However, in the LXX the Greek ei is used regularly for the Hebrew 'im, even though ei normally has only the meaning of "if" and none of these other connotations. The effect of this procedure is seen in Heb. 4:3, where in a divine oath the KJV translates ei as "if," "As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest." This translation obscures the real meaning, for ei is a Semitism, and is correctly rendered in RSV, "As I swore in my wrath, `They shall never enter my rest.'"

Some Greek words in the New Testament are purely transliterations of Hebrew terms, like "Alleluia ["praise the Lord"]" (Rev. 19:1); "Amen ["so be it"]" (Matt. 6:13); "manna," the bread of heaven given to the children of Israel in the desert (John 6:31); "Sabaoth ["hosts"]" (Rom. 9:29); "hosanna ["help now"]" (Matt. 21:9); and many others. The way in which these words have become common in English illustrates the process by which they first became common in Greek.

The New Testament also contains a few Aramaic expressions like "Abba ["father"]" (Mark 14:36); "Ephphatha ["be opened"]" (Mark 7:34); "Corban ["a dedicated gift"]" (Mark 7:11); and "Maran-atha ["the Lord cometh"]" (1 Cor. 16:22).

Literary Differences in New Testament Books.--Differences in literary style within the New Testament can be recognized by every reader of the Greek Bible. The novice in Greek who reads the works of John without difficulty may despair when he attempts to read Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians or the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The authors of the New Testament belonged to different classes of society, and had passed through various types of training and education. These differences in background are reflected in their language. Some used the simplest forms of colloquial Greek, whereas others attempted to approach literary language in their style and expressions.

The simplest Greek in the New Testament is that of Revelation, whereas the most skilled and elegant literary style appears in Hebrews. The works of Luke are closest to Hebrews in excellence of style, and the 13 letters bearing Paul's name probably rank next.

The Gospel of Mark, on the other hand, reveals a very simple form of language. The author was more concerned about the important content of his study than he was about the literary form. Of all the New Testament writers he used the greatest number of foreign words. Among these were Semitic terms like rabbi, "master" (Mark 9:5); rabbouni, "lord" (Mark 10:51); abba, "father" (Mark 14:36); "talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41); "Corban" (Mark 7:11); "Satan" (Mark 1:13); "Boanerges" (Mark 3:17); and Latin words for "tribute," Gr. keµnsos, Latin census (Mark 12:14); "penny," Gr. deµnarion, Latin denarius (Mark 6:37); "centurion," Gr. kenturioµn, Latin centurio (Mark 15:39); and the verb "to scourge," Gr. pharagelooµ, Latin flagello (Mark 15:15). A lover of refined Greek might not have been pleased with the many foreign words in Mark's Gospel nor its apparently monotonous use of the conjunction kai, "and."

In these respects the other Gospel writers have furnished a much smoother and better-flowing text. Matthew, for example, avoided krabatos, "a stretcher," "a bed," a foreign word of doubtful origin employed by Mark, and used instead the good Greek word klineµ (cf. Mark 2:4, 9, with Matt. 9:2, 6). In place of the Semitic expression "sons of men" (Mark 3:28), Matthew spoke simply of "men," in giving the same statement of Jesus (Matt. 12:31). Similarly he elsewhere avoided other Semitic phrases. Instead of using, without variation, the conjunction kai, "and," he often connected his clauses by means of the particles, tote, "then," and de "but," or resorted to participial constructions (cf. Mark 1:41 with Matt. 8:3).

Luke went beyond Mark and Matthew in using almost no foreign loan words. Instead of the Latin words for "tax," "captain," "penny," "to scourage," he employed appropriate Greek terms. His sentence constructions also show a more refined use of Greek phrases. He connected subordinate clauses with main clauses either by participial forms or by relative constructions. Luke always clearly defined his subjects, whereas Mark frequently used a possibly ambiguous "he." Stories omitted by Mark, but told by Luke and Matthew, show a higher form of Greek in the former than in the latter. Luke's best Greek appears in those parts of Acts where he reported as an eyewitness, rather than in the Gospels and the early part of Acts where he based his narrative on the written or oral testimony of others. His Greek reveals that he had had the opportunity of a good education; sometimes it approaches classical style.

Paul also showed in his letters that he knew the use of an elevated form of Greek, and his expressions and choice of words occasionally reveal that he was well acquainted with classical Attic. His epistles reflect clearly his education in the university city of Tarsus, and his acquaintance with the cultivated writings of his time. The following literary words, taken from the great number that occur in his writings, show this, although their excellence is lost in English translation: dispsos, "thirst" (2 Cor. 11:27); egkrateuomai, "to exercise self-control," "to be temperate" (1 Cor. 7:9; 9:25); athanasia, "immortality" (1 Cor. 15:53, 54; 1 Tim. 6:16); eleutheria, "liberty" (Gal. 2:4; etc.); anakephalaiooµ, "to sum up" (Rom. 13:9); Eph. 1:10; doµreµma, "gift" (Rom. 5:16); politeuomai, "to behave" (Phil. 1:27); pleonekteµs, "covetous" (1 Cor. 5:10, 11).

Paul sometimes used impressive literary devices to make his words pleasing to the ear. A reading of Rom. 12:3 in Greek shows how strikingly he used the words huperphronein, phronein, and soµphronein. The literary beauty of this verse is lost in translation, where in the KJV these three words are translated respectively, "to think of himself more highly," "to think," "to think soberly." In other passages also Paul effectively used similar-sounding words. A play on words appears in Phil. 3:2, 3, where the terms katatomeµ and peritomeµ reveal Paul's literary art, and find their echo even in the English translation "concision" and "circumcision." No translation, however, can adequately portray the literary force of combinations like phthonos and phonos "envy" and "murder" (Rom. 1:29), and asunetos and asunthetos, "without understanding" and "covenant-breakers" (Rom. 1:31).

From the standpoint of its language, the Epistle to the Hebrews is the literary masterpiece of the New Testament. This work contains a wealth of fine Greek expressions in beautifully flowing style. Its syntactic structure reveals a pleasant rhythm, while such plays on words as emathen and epathen ("learned," "suffered," ch. 5:8), and menousan and mellousan ("continuing," "to come," ch. 13:14) are pleasing to the ear of the Greek reader.

The foregoing survey shows how far reaching is the study of the original language of the New Testament. In order to understand fully the real meaning of the divine word, a knowledge of classical Greek is insufficient, because Bible writers did not use that language. It is necessary, rather, to discover the meaning of a New Testament word in the colloquial speech of the common people of the 1st century, since it was for them that the apostles wrote.

II. The Manuscripts of the New Testament

Necessity of a Thorough Text Study.--The books of the New Testament were written some 14 centuries before the art of printing was invented in the Western world. For long centuries the only method of reproducing the Bible was to copy its text by hand. Since all original manuscripts of the Scriptures are lost, the New Testament is available now only in copies, the earliest of which were made many years after the death of the original authors. Almost certainly none of the copies extant today were made from the original writings, but rather from other copies. In the process of recopying the Scriptures for centuries various copyists' errors were incorporated into later Bible manuscripts.

Printed works can be checked for accuracy if the original manuscript of the author is available. Changes or corrections can be made when a new edition is published, and such changes are easily recognized by comparison with earlier editions. The process is different, however, in regard to works which for centuries have been transmitted by hand and of which the original manuscripts are unavailable. In this case laborious scientific comparison often is necessary before the scholar can feel that he has probably reached the original reading of each passage. Although only a few of the thousands of variations in New Testament manuscripts are theologically significant, nevertheless since the Christian theologian and Bible student must base his faith on the authentic statements of Bible writers, this work of obtaining a reliable text is extremely important.

Therefore it is the task of the textual scholar to study carefully all extant New Testament manuscripts in order to establish a text that is as close to the original as is humanly possible. Such work is generally known by the name of textual, or lower, criticism. As contrasted with higher, or literary, criticism, which has done much to undermine faith in God's Word, lower criticism does not concern itself with the Bible as such. It endeavors, rather, by a process of critical and diligent study, to detect and eliminate copyists' mistakes and thus to arrive at a form of Biblical text that is as nearly as possible the same as that which came from the hands of the original writers. Such work has been extremely rewarding, and its accomplishments and discoveries have done much in recent years to re-establish confidence in the Bible text.

For a study of New Testament textual criticism see pp. 140-148.

The Nature of Textual Variants.--Many of these manuscripts were produced, not by professional scribes, but, especially in the early centuries when the churches were still poor, by Christians who had little education. Poor handwriting, many spelling mistakes, and other scribal errors due to unfamiliarity with the art of writing show this to have been so.

A typical copyist's error is the interchange of synonyms such as "to speak," "to say," or "to tell." Many such exchanges appear in New Testament manuscripts, although the meaning of the text is in such cases not affected. For example, some manuscripts have the word eµlthon, "came," instead of erchontai, "come" in Matt. 25:11. The difference is only one of tense and may not even be noticeable in a translation.

In many places the sequence of the words differs from one manuscript to another even though the thought may be identical. Most of these again are of no importance, as an example from Matt. 4:1 shows. Following are literal translations of four different New Testament manuscripts:

1. "Then Jesus was led up into the desert by the spirit to be tempted by the devil."

2. "Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil."

3. "Then Jesus was led up into the desert to be tempted by the devil."

4. "Then Jesus was led up into the desert to be tempted by the spirit."

The first reading is that of Codex Vaticanus, from the 4th century; the second, of Codex Sinaiticus, also from the 4th century, and of another manuscript of the 9th century; the third and fourth readings are of later medieval manuscripts.

Another type of mistake that occurs frequently is omission of words, phrases, or even whole lines. Every typist knows how easy it is to jump from one word to the same one several lines lower on the page and thus to miss the whole section lying between these two words. Scholars call this a homoeoteleutic error. Not only this kind of text omission but others as well are encountered in New Testament manuscripts.

In other cases, additions to the text appear. For example, "the" is added to nouns in certain passages that do not have it in the oldest manuscripts, the word "Christ" is added where the oldest text has only "Jesus," and similarly the attribute "holy" is prefixed to the word "Spirit."

Other variants are caused by mistakes in spelling, and confusion of words that look similar to the eye but have different meanings account for other variants. Since early New Testament manuscripts were in capital letters only, with no spaces between words, no punctuation marks, and no accents, it was easy for the untrained eye to misread certain words. Furthermore, some manuscripts show that notes written in the margins by readers were sometimes mistakenly considered part of the original text by a later copyist and were incorporated in new manuscripts. Doubtless such copyists thought that the marginal note was an omission overlooked by a previous copyist, and that it had been put in the margin after the supposed error had been discovered. In this way additions that are not present in the older copies have appeared in later manuscripts.

Besides all these unintentional variants caused by human imperfection, other changes appear in some later manuscripts, which reveal a studious effort to improve the text. In some instances, difficult passages were made simpler by explanatory remarks; in others rough words were replaced by smoother ones; in still others unusual grammatical constructions were exchanged for more common ones. Some copyists of the Gospels show the influence of similar expressions in parallel texts, and others changed unfamiliar Old Testament quotations to agree with the Old Testament text familiar to them.

Since the New Testament books found a wide distribution, and many thousands of copies were made by people of various linguistic abilities, it is not difficult to understand how variants came into Bible manuscripts. Church leaders noticed these differences and made efforts from time to time to arrive at a uniform text by revision. Thus they sometimes declared certain readings to be correct even though these readings were not always based on early manuscript evidence. In this way the church sanctioned a Greek text--the Byzantine (see p. 145)--which for many centuries was generally accepted although it probably varied in many details from the text known to the early church.

The Restoration of the Original Text.--The above discussion has shown the nature of the textual variants that the student of New Testament manuscripts encounters. In order to reconstruct a text that is as nearly identical as possible with the original, he must register and remove these variants. This involves much critical, scientific work.

First of all, every extant Bible manuscript must be found, studied, and reproduced in photographic facsimile. In this way these texts become available to scholarship in general, not simply to the few scholars who may live near where they are kept. This process is especially necessary for the oldest manuscripts, for, generally speaking, they have the greatest value for textual studies.

A comparison of older manuscripts with those of more recent date reveals mistakes that can be recognized easily and eliminated. Sometimes the same mistakes appear in a number of manuscripts that all go back to a particular text form, called an archetype. If this archetype is extant, scholars may then lay aside as unimportant for textual studies all later copies based on it. They then compare the several archetypes in an attempt to arrive at what is probably the original reading of all manuscripts. This work of ascertaining the earliest possible archetype on the basis of all available manuscript material is called recension.

The work of textual criticism is more difficult than may appear from the foregoing description. The relationship of various manuscripts to one another is not always easily recognizable, since some of them are not clear descendants of one archetype, but are hybrid in form. Not only must the New Testament scholar wrestle with these problems; he must also compare critically the earliest translations and quotations of New Testament passages in the writings of the Church Fathers, and weigh their evidence against that of the manuscripts.

There are more than 5,200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament known to exist. This great number increases the work of the textual scholar. At the same time, however, it allows him to arrive at more reliable and satisfactory results than if he had only a few early text witnesses, as is the case, for example, with the scholar who works in the field of ancient non-Biblical literature, where usually only a few early copies exist. Thus Aristotle's famous Athenian Constitution and the Didache, a Christian work of the 2d century, are each known only from one late copy. In such instances it is impossible to ascertain the original form of these texts.

Writing Materials and Styles.--Various writing materials were available to the New Testament writers. In their day people commonly wrote on pieces of broken pottery, on wooden tablets covered with wax, on leather and parchment, and on papyrus. For longer documents or literary works such as the books of the New Testament, papyrus was the cheapest and most commonly used writing material.

Papyrus. This writing material originated in Egypt. The earliest Egyptian papyrus documents date from the 6th Egyptian Dynasty in the 3d millennium b.c. From 1100 B.C. there is evidence that papyrus scrolls were a favorite export item, which the Egyptians exchanged for cedarwood in the Phoenician harbor city of Gebal. From Gebal the Phoenicians carried it to all parts of the Mediterranean world. The Greeks corrupted the name Gebal into Byblos, and since they received their writing material from that city, they called it, as well as the scrolls made from it, by the name byblos, which by way of Latin has found a place in the English language in the word Bible, the Book of books, or in such words as bibliography and bibliophile. After Egypt opened its borders to foreigners under Psamtik I (663610 B.C.), papyrus became the leading writing material of the ancient world, and held this place for many centuries. During the Ptolemaic and Roman periods there were great factories and storehouses for papyrus in Alexandria.

Papyrus was made of the stem of the papyrus plant, which in ancient times grew luxuriously in the thickets of the Nile Delta. The stem was cut with a sharp knife into thin strips about 10 in. long, which were laid down in two layers at right angles to each other, so that the fibers lay horizontally on one side and vertically on the other. These layers were then glued together with a gum solution, and pressure was applied. When the square sheets formed in this way had dried, the surfaces were smoothed by rubbing with pumice stone. Usually only the side on which the fibers ran horizontally was used for writing, but for reasons of economy both sides occasionally were inscribed. In Rev. 5:1, John speaks of a papyrus scroll with writing on both sides.

For a letter, a request, or some other short communication, a single sheet of papyrus was usually sufficiently large. Literary compositions, however, required a scroll, which was made by gluing together a number of sheets. The most common length of such a scroll was about 30 ft., but some were considerably longer. The longest ever found, the great Papyrus Harris now in the British Museum, has a length of 143 ft.

These scrolls, or books, called by the Greeks biblia and by the Romans volumina, could be seen in public and private libraries and in the bookshops of large cities during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The original Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament were most probably written on papyrus scrolls, which were large enough for the longest single book of the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles. For a short letter like Philemon, 2 or 3 John, of Jude, a single sheet was sufficient.

During the 2d century a.d. bound books made their appearance. A number of wide sheets were put upon each other, and then folded in the middle and sewed together in the fold like the signatures of a modern book. Such a book is called a codex.

The pen for writing on papyrus was made of a reed, the end of which was beaten into a fine brush. The ink was a mixture of soot, water, and a gummy substance. The writing was in columns of various width, and usually contained from 14 to 30 letters.

Parchment. The best-preserved and most famous manuscripts of the New Testament are not on papyrus, but on parchment, a material made of the hides of young goats, sheep, calves, and antelopes. These hides were tanned with lime, shaved, scraped, smoothed, and stretched over a frame. Although this process had been applied for centuries in tanning hides for leather, the people of Pergamum brought it to such a state of excellence during the 2d century b.c. that the material received its name from this city. The word for parchment in Spanish is still pergamino and in German Pergament. A parchment manuscript was called by the Greeks a diphthera, and by the Latins a membrana, a word which Paul borrowed in 2 Tim. 4:13.

During the later imperial period parchment replaced papyrus to such an extent that the latter lost its importance. Thus Bible manuscripts produced at that time, like the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century, were written on parchment. The church historian Eusebius recounts that in a.d. 331 the emperor Constantine ordered 50 parchment copies of the Scriptures made for the churches of Constantinople, the new capital of the empire (The Life of Constantine iv. 36).

Parchment codices were usually made by laying four rectangular sheets on top of each other, folding them in the middle, and sewing them together in the fold. Signatures thus formed were then bound together like a modern book. Generally speaking, this is still the method used in binding books.

The ink used for writing on parchment was usually not the carbon ink employed on papyrus, which could be washed off easily, but an ink made of iron and galls. The fine, brushlike reed pen used for papyrus was replaced in the Greek and Roman period by the split pen, made also of reed or of metal. Evenly spaced horizontal lines impressed on the parchment by a metal stylus helped to give the writing an even appearance, and similar vertical lines marked the width of columns and margins. Since these impressions showed up on the reverse as raised lines, they were drawn only on one side.

Professional scribes produced most parchment manuscripts. Luxury editions on extra-fine parchment leaves were available on special order. In such cases the writing was done with extraordinary care and the initial letters were pieces of art. Some parchments were dyed purple-red and written with silver or gold ink, as examples in the libraries of Patmos, Leningrad, Vienna, London, and Rome show. During the Middle Ages scribes frequently added miniature pictures to their texts.

In times of economic stress, when the cost of parchment, which was always expensive, skyrocketed, old manuscripts were frequently reused. The original writing was scraped and washed off with soap and water, and the writing surface was resmoothed by the use of pumice. A manuscript written on such a reused parchment is called a codex rescriptus, "a rewritten codex," or a palimpsest, "a rescraped one." Unfortunately, the erased text, being the older, is often the more important one. But such an erased text is very difficult to decipher and its restoration requires patient and careful study, plus the use of infrared photography. The two most famous Bible manuscripts of this type are the Codex Ephraemi in Paris and a Syriac Gospel manuscript in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai.

Parchment remained the most important writing material until the 16th century, when it was displaced by paper. As early as the 2d century b.c. the Chinese invented paper, and although the Arabs introduced it to the Occidental world in the 8th century, the Western world did not generally use it until the 13th.

Uncials and Minuscules. There is a striking difference between the script of commonplace ancient Greek documents such as letters and bills, and that of literary works. The former are written in a cursive manner, with many letters connected, but the latter were written almost exclusively in well-separated, carefully written formal letters, adapted from the capitals used in inscriptions. In contrast with Hebrew manuscripts, in which words were separated either by a mark or by a space, these Greek manuscripts show no such divisions. Punctuation marks, accents, and breathing marks were also lacking in such texts. The letters of this "bookhand" are called uncials, the name being derived from the Latin uncia, meaning "a twelfth part." Presumably an ordinary line of writing contained twelve such letters. A codex written in such script also came to be known as an uncial.

About the beginning of the 9th century a more beautiful and elegant cursive form of writing than the ancient, nonliterary hands was developed for the production of books. The letters were smaller and took less space and could be written more rapidly than the uncials. These letters were called minuscules, which means, literally, "rather small." The earliest known Bible manuscript written in minuscules is a Greek text now in Leningrad, which bears the date a.d. 835. From the latter 9th century on, minuscules replaced uncials more and more, until by the 10th or the 11th century the latter were completely outmoded. Greek Bible manuscripts up to and including the 8th century are therefore exclusively uncials, those from the 9th and 10th centuries are partly uncials and partly minuscules, and all from the 11th century onward are minuscules.

Script is thus one of the factors that help to establish the age of Bible manuscript. Other evidences are the form of the letters, the shape of the handwriting, the kind of abbreviations used, and the relationship of the letters to the lines drawn. Taken together, all these factors make it possible for a paleographer usually to establish within narrow limits the age of written documents, even when they bear no dates.

Scribes accustomed to writing narrow columns on papyrus retained this habit when writing on the much larger-sized parchment sheets, and therefore wrote several columns on each page. The oldest fairly complete Bible manuscripts, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, respectively, have four, three, and two columns each (see illustrations facing p. 129). Most Bible manuscripts of the uncial type have two columns, like modern printed English Bibles. Minuscules, however, usually contain only one column to a page, since in the course of time the size of book leaves became smaller.

Another external aspect of ancient Bible manuscripts that helps the student of the New Testament to understand certain problems of exegesis is the fact that word divisions at the end of a line were made arbitrarily without any rules. Thus a word might be divided after any of its letters. This has given rise to certain variants in Bible manuscripts and translations. For example, in Mark 10:40 the Old Latin translators read allois instead of all ois, and consequently made Jesus to say, "for others it is prepared," rather than "for whom it is prepared."

Since these ancient manuscripts had no punctuation marks, clauses sometimes were divided from each other at the wrong point. A classic example of this occurs in Luke 23:43 (see comment there). Although scribes occasionally divided paragraphs from each other by spaces, their manuscripts contain no division of subject matter into chapters or verses, as is found in Bibles today. Division into chapters was introduced in the 13th century, according to some authorities, by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury (died a.d. 1228), and according to others, by the Spanish cardinal Hugo a Santo Caro about a.d. 1250. Verse divisions were not introduced until three centuries later, when the publisher Robert Stephanus of Paris placed them in his Greek-Latin edition of 1551 to help in finding passages in the two different texts.

The sacred words God, Lord, Jesus, and Christ were nearly always abbreviated by contraction. It is thought that this was done out of reverence, like the treatment of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew MSS. The practice was extended to include a total of fifteen words, mostly relating to God and sacred matters. A horizontal line over these nomina sacra indicates that a contraction has taken place.

Principal Manuscripts of the New Testament.--Papyri. To designate New Testament papyri the symbol P is generally used with small raised numbers (P¹, and P², etc.). Although most copies of the New Testament written during the first three centuries of the Christian Era must have been on papyrus, only 44 fragments of such manuscripts were known before about 1930. Because of their small size these previously known fragments had little value for the history of the New Testament text. But with the discovery of two major groups of papyri during the present century the picture has radically changed. Today more than 80 New Testament papyri are known, and major portions of the New Testament are represented.

About 1930 a group of papyrus manuscripts were discovered somewhere near Hermopolis in Egypt, most of which were acquired by A. Chester Beatty. The find consisted of portions of eleven different codices, seven of which represented the Greek text of eight Old Testament books, and three containing major portions of the Greek New Testament. The ten codices containing Biblical books were all published from 1933 to 1937 by Sir Frederic Kenyon, a first-rate expert in the field of Biblical manuscripts.

The three New Testament codices are from the 3d century. They are thus about a century older than the earliest New Testament manuscripts known previously, except for some small fragments. The codex which originally consisted of the Gospels and Acts (P) is represented by 30 incomplete leaves, which contain representative portions of all four Gospels and of 14 chapters of Acts. With the exception of the Matthew portion, enough is preserved to give a clear picture of the nature of this 3d-century Gospel manuscript.

The second codex (P) consists of 86 slightly damaged leaves containing Paul's epistles. It is believed originally to have consisted of 104 leaves. The sequence of the extant books is Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians. The original collection of books in this codex probably included 2 Thessalonians following 1 Thessalonians, but the Pastoral Epistles seem to have been missing.

The third New Testament codex of the Chester Beatty Papyri (P) consists of 10 damaged leaves containing sections of Rev. 9 to 17. The whole work must have consisted of 32 leaves. This manuscript was especially welcome, since there were very few early manuscripts that contained the book of Revelation.

Although these three papyrus codices are fragmentary, they have great value, since they furnish a text of representative portions of 15 New Testament books a hundred years older than the earliest texts known up to 1930. Although there are great gaps in these preserved texts, nevertheless if we compare them with other Bible manuscripts, it is possible to determine the kind of New Testament the Christian church of Egypt used during the 3d century, slightly more than a century after the death of the apostles.

Another extremely important papyrus fragment discovered in 1935 is the Rylands papyrus No. 457 (P). It had been bought, with many other fragments, by Grenfell in 1920 for the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, but its character was not recognized until C. H. Roberts examined it in 1935. This little fragment of papyrus, about 3 1/2 by 2 1/2 in. in size, contains only parts of John 18:31-33 on the front and of vs. 37 and 38 on the back. All papyrus experts agree that it was written in the first half of the 2d century, and some prominent European scholars have dated it in the time of the emperor Trajan (a.d. 98-117). Although insignificant in size, this fragment has been of tremendous value. It has silenced those critics who dated the origin of the fourth Gospel in the late 2d century. The fact that the Gospel of John was originally written in Asia Minor, but had spread so far by the early 2d century that a copy was already current in Egypt at that time, raises the strong presumption that John's Gospel was composed during the apostolic age. See illustration facing p. 128.

The value of these discoveries was rivaled by the publication of the Bodmer papyri in the mid-1950's and early 1960's. The collection was named after M. Martin Bodmer, a Genevan bibliophile and humanist, founder of the Bodmer Library of World Literature at Cologny, a suburb of Geneva, who purchased them from an Egyptian dealer. In addition to classical, apocryphal, and early Christian works, the collection contains Biblical manuscripts in Greek, as well as in Coptic. The New Testament manuscripts are of capital importance.

Bodmer Papyrus II, P, was published in 1956 by Victor Martin, professor of classical philology in the University of Geneva. With the exception of John 6:12-35^a, the publiaction contained the first 14 chapters (down to 14:15) of the Gospel of John. On paleographical grounds Martin dated the manuscript c. a.d. 200. Herbert Hunger, the director of papyrological collections in the National Library in Vienna, advocated an earlier date, about the middle of the second century. According to these dates, the papyrus is 125 years or more earlier than the great uncials listed below. It is the best preserved of all of the Biblical papyri and takes us back to about a hundred years after the fourth Gospel was originally written. It must therefore be regarded as an important witness to the original wording of that Gospel. The 100 pages published measure 6 by 5 1/2 inches. In 1958 the fragments of the remaining 46 pages of the papyrus were published. A facsimile of the entire manuscript was published in 1962.

Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV, P⁷⁵, containing major portions of Luke and John, was published by V. Martin and P. Kaiser in 1961. These editors dated it between a.d. 175 and 225. It consists of 102 of about 144 original pages, each measuring 10 1/2 by 5 1/8 inches. It contains Luke 3:18 to 18:18 and Luke 22:4 to John 15:8. Its text agrees in the main with Codex Vaticanus and the Sahidic manuscripts of the Coptic version. It may be slightly older than P and seems to contain a better text. Both manuscripts support the Alexandrian text type, but whereas P⁷⁵ agrees with Codex Vaticanus, P seems to be closer to Codex Sinaiticus, while at the same time preserving readings not found elsewhere in the manuscripts. P⁷⁵ contains the earliest known copy of the Gospel of Luke, and, probably, the next to the oldest of John. It is therefore of inestimable value. These MSS show that the Alexandrian type of text was in existence at least as early as a.d. 200.

Papyrus Bodmer, VII-VIII, P, contains the earliest known copies of Jude and 1 and 2 Peter. These were bound up with a miscellaneous assortment of other documents, the total codex representing the work of four different scribes. Besides the three epistles, the collection contains the Nativity of Mary, apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the Eleventh Ode of Solomon, Melito's Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Philias, and Psalms 33 and 34. This papyrus codex, dating from the third century, was published by Michael Testuz in 1959. The text of the epistles is substantially like that of Codex Vaticanus and the Sahidic version.

Papyrus Bodmer XVII, P⁷⁴, was published in 1961 by Rudolphe Kasser. It contains portions of Acts, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. It is in a poor state of preservation and does not have the importance of the papyri mentioned, since it comes from the seventh century.

Number and Symbols of Uncial Parchment Manuscripts. More than 265 uncials on parchment, some only small fragments, are now known. Since discoveries of unknown Bible manuscripts are regularly made, no given number is accurate for long.

For more than a century scholars have been accustomed to designate the principal uncials by capital letters of the Latin alphabet (A, B, C, etc.). When these were exhausted, they used those capital letters of the Greek alphabet that are different from the Latin letters, such as G, D, L, and when more symbols were desired, recourse was had to the Hebrew alphabet. Hence, scholars designate the famous Codex Vaticanus by the symbol B, the Koridethianus by the Greek Q, and the Sinaiticus by the Hebrew. Although these symbols have found such wide acceptance among New Testament scholars that they can scarcely be displaced, their use has disadvantages, since the letters of even three alphabets are not sufficient in number to furnish a symbol for every uncial. For this reason Caspar René Gregory, one of the greatest of textual critics, introduced another system, giving to each uncial a sequential number prefixed by O, as O1, O2, O3, etc. Although Gregory's system is the best proposed thus far, it has found few adherents. Hermann von Soden, another noted scholar, suggested yet a different system, but scholars have not accepted it generally.

Only a few manuscripts contain all the books of the New Testament. Although there are about 190 known uncials, only 4 of them originally contained all the books, and only 46 of some 2,750 known minuscules have the entire New Testament. A complete collection of all New Testament books in one volume was unwieldy and expensive. For this reason most manuscripts contain only parts of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, the epistles of Paul, or the general epistles. Since the Gospels and Paul's writings were in wider use in the early church than were the general epistles, these books occur in a greater number of manuscripts.

The Principal Uncials. No student of the New Testament text can remember all Bible manuscripts, and scarcely even all uncials. However, he should be acquainted with some of the oldest and most famous manuscripts on whose testimony standard printed editions of the Greek New Testament text and modern translations such as the RV, ASV, and RSV are based.

Codex Vaticanus (B). The Codex Vaticanus is one of the two oldest parchment codices of the Bible now known. How it found its way into the Vatican Library is unknown, but in 1481, when the first catalogue of that library was made, the Codex Vaticanus already was part of it. For several centuries it remained unused, and Vatican authorities occasionally even withheld it from scholars who wished to consult it. After many fruitless efforts the German textual critic, Constantin Tischendorf, finally succeeded in obtaining permission for its publication, which occurred in 1867. A scientifically satisfactory facsimile reproduction appeared in 1904, making this priceless document available to all scholars.

The extant codex consists of 759 leaves, of which 142 contain the New Testament. The Gospels, the Acts, the general epistles, and Paul's letters up to Heb. 9:14 are preserved. The remainder of Hebrews, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation are missing. The pages are 9 by 9 in. in size, containing three columns of 42 lines each. The writing is neat and elegant and is in the style of the 4th century. The manuscript has unfortunately suffered through additions by a later had sometime between the 8th and 10th centuries, which retraced script that had become faint, and added diacritical markings. Furthermore, this unknown scribe acted as a textual critic by refusing to retrace such words and letters as seemed to him out of place. Two later correctors made even further alterations. See illustration facing p. 129.

Codex Sinaiticus, sometimes indicated by the symbol S, especially by printers who do not have a font of Hebrew letters). This manuscript is the second of the two oldest parchment codices of the Bible. Tischendorf discovered 129 leaves of it in a wastepaper basket in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai in 1844. Of these, he was able to take away at the time 43 leaves, which came into the possession of the library of the University of Leipzig. After a second search in 1853, which proved fruitless, he finally succeeded in discovering the remainder of the manuscript during a third stay at the monastery in 1859. Through Tischendorf's mediation, the monastery donated the codex to Alexander II, czar of Russia, who placed it in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. In 1933 the Soviet Government sold it to Great Britain for œ100,000, and since that time it has been in the British Museum in London. In 1862 Tischendorf published the Sinaiticus in facsimile type in four monumental volumes. A photographic reproduction appeared in 1911. See illustration facing p. 129.

This codex consists of 346 leaves; the complete New Testament occupies 145 of these. Also included are the apocryphal Letter of Barnabas and one third of the Shepherd of Hermas. The pages measure 17 by 15 in., and contain 4 columns of 48 lines each. The script, although similar to that of Vaticanus, is somewhat less carefully executed, and contains many corrections made by three different hands. This manuscript was written in the 4th century, probably somewhat later than Vaticanus.

Codex Alexandrinus (A). For several centuries this uncial was the only ancient Bible manuscript generally known in Europe. It was written in the 5th century in Egypt. In 1621 the well-known Greek patriarch Cyril Lucar took it from Alexandria to Constantinople upon his appointment to the patriarchate of the latter city. Seven years later he presented it to King Charles I of England. In 1757 George II installed it in the British Museum. Its New Testament text was first published in 1786 in type, a photographic reproduction was produced in 1879, and a second edition was issued on a reduced scale in 1909.

The manuscript comprises a total of 773 leaves, of which the New Testament accounts for 144. The leaves are 12 1/2 by 10 1/2 in., and carry two columns of 50 lines each. The script is heavy and large. Missing from the manuscript are chapters 1-24 of Matthew, two leaves of John, and 3 leaves of 2 Corinthians. In addition to the canonical books of the New Testament, Alexandrinus also contains the two epistles of Clement of Rome. See illustration facing p. 129.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). This palimpsest was originally in Constantinople, from where it was taken to Florence when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453. When Catherine de' Medici became the bride of Henry II of France in the 16th century, she received this manuscript as part of her dowry and took it to Paris, where it is now in the National Library. Originally written in the 5th century, the text of this manuscript was erased in the 12th century and replaced by 38 treatises of the Syrian Church Father Ephraem, from whom the codex received its name. Although the original text had been declared illegible, Tischendorf, after patiently working two years, successfully deciphered the manuscript and published its New Testament portion in facsimile type in 1843.

The manuscript consists of 209 leaves, of which 64 contain sections of the Old Testament, and 145 of the New. These leaves are 12 1/2 by 19 1/2 in., and carry only one column to the page. Every book of the New Testament is represented with the exception of 2 Thessalonians and 2 John, but none is perfect; thus only about five eighths of the New Testament is extant.

Codex Freerianus (W). This codex was written toward the end of the 4th or in the early 5th century and contains the Gospels only. In 1906 Mr. Charles L. Freer bought it in Cairo. It is now in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. This manuscript shows strange peculiarities in its text. Matthew, Luke 8:13 to Luke 24:53, and John 1:1 to John 5:12 exhibit the Byzantine type of text; the rest of Luke and of John agree with the text presented by the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; Mark 1:1 to Mark 5:30 reveals a Western type of text, and the remainder of Mark, a Caesarean. (See below for a further discussion of these various types of text.) Another variant in the ending of Mark is the so-called "Freer Logion," for a discussion of which see on Mark 16:14.

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D). This manuscript is an uncial of the 6th century containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin. It takes its name from the fact that it was once the property of the French Reformer Theodorus Beza, who in 1581 presented it to the library of the University of Cambridge. Its bilingual character points either to southern France or to southern Italy as its place of origin. Especially in Luke's writings this manuscript shows strange peculiarities that are found also in Old Syriac and Old Latin translations. It also contains many gaps.

Codex Claromontanus (D). The letter D is also assigned to this bilingual manuscript, since it contains only Paul's epistles, which Codex Bezae does not have, and it also once belonged to Beza. The manuscript takes its name from the monastery of Clermont, to which it at one time belonged. It is now in the National Library in Paris. Like Bezae, Claromontanus is from the 6th century and was probably once a companion volume to it.

Codex Koridethianus (Q). This uncial of the Gospels differs in many respects from those already mentioned. It is of late origin, having been written probably in the 9th century by an unskilled scribe who had only a rudimentary knowledge of Greek. Von Soden noticed it first in 1906, but it did not become well known until Beermann and Gregory published it in 1913. Its name is derived from the monastery of Koridethi in the Caucasus, where it formerly was kept. It is now at Tiflis in the U.S.S.R. Koridethianus is a valuable manuscript because its text, particularly of Mark, is of the Caesarean type, which goes back at least to the third century.

Minuscules. Although there are more than 2,750 minuscules available for study, their value is far less than that of the uncials, because they are of rather late date. Only 46 minuscules contain the whole New Testament; all others carry only parts of it, the Gospels being represented most often. Minuscule manuscripts are identified by Arabic numerals.

Although most minuscules reveal a type of text that is of late origin, there are some that apparently are copies of very early manuscripts. Minuscule 33, for example, has a text that is almost identical with that of Codex Vaticanus. Some minuscules form families, like 1, 118, 131, and 209, which Kirsopp Lake discovered go back to an archetype similar to the Greek New Testament that Origen used in Caesarea, generally called the Caesarean text. Another related family was discovered by the Irish scholar W. H. Farrar, minuscules 13, 69, 124, and 346.

Lectionaries. Lectionaries are books containing the New Testament scriptural lessons in their proper sequence, to be read in worship services during the church year. Some contain the lections for the Sabbaths and Sundays only, while others include those for weekdays, as well. The number of known lectionary manuscripts has reached 2,135. Although their value for the reconstruction of the original text is very small, since most of them are rather late copies, they do aid in helping to trace the places of origin and the geographical spread of certain readings, as the monasteries and churches in which these manuscripts were written are often known.

A summary of available New Testament manuscripts reveals that scholars are in the possession of some manuscripts that are not far removed in time from the original authors. The great uncials, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were written about 250 years after the apostles, and the Beatty and Bodmer Papyri go back a century earlier, so that there is a gap of little more than 100 years between the writing of the originals and the production of our earliest extant copies. In this respect the New Testament scholar is in a much more fortunate position than the student of other famous Greek works of antiquity. For example, the writings of Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, Aristophanes, Plato, and others are known only through medieval copies written in minuscules, 12 to 16 centuries after the death of their authors. Copies of Latin works are removed usually 500 to 700 years from their authors. Because New Testament manuscripts go back so much nearer to the originals, modern scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament can be depended upon as not varying in virtually any important point from the manuscripts of the original writers.

The Ancient Translations of the New Testament.--When Christian teaching spread into countries where Greek was not spoken, versions of the sacred writings of the church in the vernacular were needed. Hence, probably toward the end of the 2d century, the New Testament was translated into Syriac, a form of Aramaic spoken in northern Syria and Upper Mesopotamia. For the Christians of Italy and Northern Africa translations were made into Latin about the same time, and for the believers of Upper Egypt, into Coptic also probably before a.d. 200. Later, mostly during the early Middle Ages, translations were made into Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and Arabic.

The most ancient versions, Syriac, Old Latin, and Coptic, have great value for textual research. Their importance lies in the fact that they were made earlier than any extant Greek manuscript. Thus they serve as witnesses to the textual types that existed toward the end of the 2d century. Since they come from limited geographical areas, they are also helpful in revealing the place of origin of certain peculiar readings and textual variants. However, their usefulness is also subject to limitations in that no translation is a faithful rendering of the original, and these ancient translations are extant only in later copies which, like all other manuscripts, have their own textual histories. The same limitations are shared by later medieval translations such as the Arabic, Anglo-Saxon, Waldensian, and Old German. Some of these, indeed, were translations of translations, having been taken from the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text.

Old Latin Translations. These translations date from the time before Jerome produced the Vulgate late in the 4th century. Each manuscript varies widely from all the others. Augustine, commenting on this fact, said that the number was known of those who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the Seventy), but that this could not be said of the number of those who had made Latin translations. Fewer than 50 manuscripts of these Old Latin translations are known, coming from the 4th to the 13th century. Their text is closely related to the Greek text of Bezae, and in some respects to that of the Old Syriac translation. The name Itala, frequently applied to the Old Latin translations, is incorrect, and is based on a misunderstanding of an expression of Augustine, who actually used this term for the Vulgate.

The Vulgate. The great differences between the various Old Latin translations necessitated a complete revision. This was undertaken by Jerome under the sponsorship of his friend Pope Damascus. Jerome used an Old Latin text of European type and corrected it in accordance with Greek manuscripts. He began his work on the New Testament about a.d. 382. By 405 he had also made a translation of the Old Testament. Since his work was sponsored by Rome, Jerome's translation gradually replaced earlier versions, and finally received the honored title of Vulgate, "the common one." Its acceptance, however, was not secured until its text had experienced some modifications. Hence, the Vulgate, as known today, is by no means purely the product of Jerome. A critical edition of the Vulgate New Testament was published at Oxford by a group of Anglican scholars (1899-1954). Since 1907, Benedictine scholars have been at work on a revised Latin Bible; most of the Old Testament books have been published.

Old Syriac Translations. The history of Bible translations into Syriac shows great similarities to that of translations into Latin inasmuch as early translations of obscure origin finally gave way to a recognized standard version.

The Diatessaron. The Diatessaron is a Gospel harmony prepared by the apologist Tatian probably in the second half of the 2d century. Its name probably means literally, "through four," implying that it is a harmony of the four Gospels. Although for several centuries the Syrian church used the Diatessaron almost exclusively instead of the four Gospels, no Syriac copy of Tatian's work is extant. It is known only from some free translations into Arabic, Latin, Dutch, and from one leaf of a Greek text. The question as to whether or not the Diatessaron was written originally in Syriac or in Greek is not settled.

The Curetonian Syriac. This manuscript of the Gospels, found in a Coptic monastery in Egypt, came into the possession of the British Museum in 1842. It was written in the 5th century, and is named after its modern editor, W. Cureton. The translation of the four Gospels, of which it is a copy, was made about a.d. 200.

The Sinatic Syriac. This manuscript of the Gospels was discovered by Mrs. A. S. Lewis and Mrs. A. D. Gibson in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai in 1892. It is a palimpsest, and presents a translation that is probably earlier than that preserved by the Curetonian Syriac.

No manuscript of the Old Syriac version of Acts and the Pauline epistles is extant. It is known only through citations by Eastern Fathers and, in the case of Acts, by Ephraim's commentary preserved only in Armenian.

The Peshitta. This version, whose name means "simple" or "common" was produced about the beginning of the fifth century and became the Syriac Vulgate even after the Syriac churches split into Nestorian and Monophysite branches in a.d. 431. This version lacked four of the general epistles (2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John) and Revelation. More than 350 manuscripts of it are known, of which several date from the 5th or 6th centuries.

The Coptic Translations. The native language of Egypt in Christian times is known as Coptic. The Coptic dialect used in Lower Egypt was called Bohairic, and that current in Upper Egypt was termed Sahidic. More than 120 New Testament manuscripts in Bohairic, dating probably from the 9th century to the 12th, are known. These show few variants and are faithful reproductions of the type of text represented by the great Greek manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

A Sahidic translation is also extant that is closely related in textual form to the Bohairic version. At the same time it also contains readings found in Codex Bezae, in Old Latin and in Old Syriac translations. Extant manuscripts of the Sahidic New Testament are not so plentiful as those in Bohairic. They date probably from the 5th to the 9th century. It is not settled just when these Coptic translations were originally made, but it seems probable that the Sahidic appeared in the early 3d century, and the Bohairic a little later.

Quotations of the Church Fathers.--The Church Fathers used the New Testament freely, as may be seen from the great number of quotations found in their works. Justin Martyr, in his writings, uses 300 direct or indirect New Testament quotations; Irenaeus, 1,800; Clement of Alexandria, 2,400; Tertullian, more than 7,000; Origen, almost 18,000. New Testament quotations in early Christian literature have about the same value for textual study as the early translations, since works composed in the 2d and 3d centuries are older than most extant Bible manuscripts. Furthermore it is usually known when and where the Church Fathers lived, and the character of their quotations is therefore often a help in finding the place and approximate time of origin of certain variants and types of text. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the type of text used by Cyprian, who wrote in North Africa, was probably a text common in that part of the world. Similarly, the text quoted by Origen, who lived first in Alexandria and later in Caesarea, was not probably either the Alexandrian or Caesarean recension. When agreements are found between quotations in the works of the Church Fathers and certain New Testament manuscripts, it may be concluded that the latter represent a text type common at the time and place those particular Fathers wrote.

However, it should not be overlooked that the use of quotations in the Church Fathers has its limitations. Most of the quotations are short, some important New Testament passages are never quoted, and it is not known whether a given writer quoted from memory or actually copied. It is therefore misleading to declare every variant found in the Fathers to be an important witness for a certain textual type. It should also be remembered that the manuscripts containing the works of the Fathers have had their own history of transmission, and may not always faithfully represent the original writings.

For a discussion of the history of the printed Greek New Testament text and of textual criticism see pp. 140-146.

III. History of the New Testament Canon

In regard to the meaning of the word canon, and its use as technical term to designate the collection of sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, see Vol. I, p. 36.

Although the roots of canon formation go back to the apostolic age, a uniform recognition of all New Testament books throughout Christendom was not achieved for several centuries.

It may be said at the outset that the New Testament canon came into being neither by a papal decree nor by the decision of an ecumenical church council. Neither was it the result of a miracle, although this claim is made in the following legendary story: The delegates to the Council of Nicaea, desirous to know which books were canonical and which not, are said to have placed under the communion table all books for which a place in the canon was claimed. Then they prayed that the Lord would show them which books were canonical by miraculously placing them on top of the stack. According to the story, this miracle happened during the prayer, and thus the New Testament canon was established. This story, which is of obscure origin, has not the slightest credibility.

Holy Scriptures in the Early Church.--The collection of sacred writings in the New Testament found its prototype in the canon of the Old Testament. Throughout the Greek-speaking world, the LXX, the Bible (Old Testament) of the Jewish dispersion, became the Bible of Christendom. With it Christians accepted the Jewish doctrine of divine inspiration, so that in the books of the Old Testament they did not see the words of Samuel, David, or Isaiah merely, but rather the Word of God, the product of a divine spirit and wisdom. Since the Christians believed that the Jews, by their rejection of Christ, had lost their privileges and had been rejected by God (see Vol. IV, pp. 30-33), the Christian church considered itself the only rightful owner and interpreter of this Word of God. The Old Testament contained prophecies pointing to Christ and also many glorious promises for the true people of God, whom the Christians believed themselves to be. All of this made the Old Testament dear to the early church.

Besides the Old Testament the early church possessed the "Words of the Lord" as received from Jesus Himself or from the apostles, who had been eye-witnesses. The church considered the words and prophecies of Jesus as on the same inspired level as the sayings of the Old Testament. Thus Paul could quote the Pentateuch as "scripture" (1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Deut. 25:4) and couple with it a statement of Jesus (Luke 10:7). It was only natural that as the apostles carried the gospel throughout the world, many of the Lord's words and much reminiscence about Him circulated orally. An evidence of this is the instance where Paul, in speaking to the elders of Ephesus, used a saying of Jesus that appears nowhere in the Gospels (Acts 20:35). That oral tradition concerning the words of Jesus existed into the 2d century is demonstrated by Eusebius' account (Ecclesiastical History iii. 39. 2-4) of the interest displayed in them by Papias (first third of 2d century).

At the same time, however, certain initial steps in the formation of the New Testament canon are recognizable in the earliest Christian period. Already during the first generation of Christians there appeared written records of the life of Christ. Luke, in the prologue to his Gospel (ch. 1:1-4), testifies that several works describing the life and teachings of Jesus existed in his time. He goes on to assure his readers that he tells his story in reliable form.

It can be assumed that the majority of churches possessed the written Gospel before the end of the 1st century. The acquaintance of the early Church Fathers with these writings is apparent from their quotations of them. The word "gospel" appears in the New Testament only as a singular term designating the glad tidings of Jesus. Justin Martyr, about a.d. 150, was the first to employ the plural form, "The Gospels" (Gr. ta euaggelia), as a designation for the written accounts of Jesus' life. Gradually the phrase, "It is written," used generally for quotations from the Old Testament, was applied also to sayings of the Lord. The first appearance of such a usage is in the Epistle of Barnabas (ch.4), written before a.d. 150. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement, from about the same date, speaks of the teaching of the "Books and the Apostles" concerning the church (ch. 14; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, p. 255), a reference that may include the Gospels with the Old Testament as the "Books," and that certainly demonstrates the status the epistles had attained by this time.

Besides the Gospels, other Christian works circulated in the early church. Among these the epistles of the apostle Paul took first place. Paul wrote usually to meet specific problems in certain localities. At the same time, however, he encouraged the distribution of his letters, as is evident from his request that the Colossians (Col. 4:16) and the Laodiceans exchange his letters. It can be taken for granted that before passing on its letter to another congregation, a church usually would make a copy. It was probably in this way that Paul's letters first were copied, and that collections of these copies grew. That such collections existed already in the apostolic age is intimated by Peter (2 Peter 3:15, 16), probably about a.d. 65. Similarly, Clement of Rome, writing to the church at Corinth 30 years later, could admonish them, "Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul" written to them (I Clement, ch. 47; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, p. 243). The fact that Clement goes on to refer to the content of 1 Corinthians would seem to indicate not only that this epistle had been preserved at Corinth, but also that Clement had a copy available at Rome.

Other witnesses for the early distribution of Paul's writings are Ignatius and Polycarp, both of whom wrote in the first half of the 2d century. About a.d. 117 Ignatius wrote from Smyrna to the Ephesians that Paul "in all his Epistle makes mention of you in Christ Jesus" (Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch. 12; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 55). Probably toward the middle of the 2d century Polycarp wrote to the Philippians concerning Paul that "when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you" (Polycarp to the Philippians, ch. 3; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 33). Elsewhere in the same epistle (ch. 12) Polycarp quotes Paul (Eph. 4:26) as "scripture." These statements clearly indicate that both Ignatius and Polycarp were well acquainted with at least two of Paul's letters, and that they expected the churches likewise to know them. Therefore it seems most probable that a collection of Paul's epistles must have had wide distribution only a few decades after his death.

Other epistles besides those of Paul also must have come into circulation very early. Peter had addressed his first letter to the Christians of five provinces of Asia Minor, and had thus clearly given it the character of a circular letter. James had the same aim in addressing his epistle "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." John addressed the Revelation to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia, and specifically claimed divine inspiration for it (chs. 1:1-3; 22:18, 19). It is only reasonable to conclude that these books quickly found a wide circulation.

From these evidences it is obvious that books originating in the time of the apostles that either recounted the life of Christ or contained important messages of apostles were highly valued by the church and were considered authoritative.

Development of the New Testament Canon, A.D. 140-180.--The first man to establish a canon was the heretic Marcion about the middle of the 2d century. He was a thorough anti-Semitist who held that Jehovah in the Old Testament was the Jewish God of wrath and justice, and that He had nothing in common with the Christian God of love. Marcion claimed to be a true interpreter of the Christian theology of Paul, and being an excellent organizer, he fixed for his own sectarian church a Bible canon that conformed to his ideas. He eliminated entirely the Old Testament and also certain books of the apostolic age. Consequently his Bible consisted only of the Gospel of Luke, the writings of the apostle Paul, and a book of his own, called the Antithesis, in which he presented his arguments for rejecting the Old Testament. His collection of Paul's epistles, called the Apostolikon, consisted of ten letters of Paul: Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, Romans, First and Second Thessalonians, "Laodiceans" (Ephesians), Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. He rejected 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews, and also changed the text of those books that he accepted, to agree with his theology.

Marcion's activity forced the church to take a stand with regard to what books could justly claim the status of Scripture. Unfortunately few sources are available that clearly show how the Christian church acted in regard to this matter in the middle of the 2d century. A clear picture of the New Testament canon does not emerge until about a.d. 200. The meager sources that are available on this subject from the period under consideration are the following.

Justin Martyr, a contemporary of Marcion, wrote several works at Rome about a.d. 150, in which he treated the Gospels as Holy Scripture on a par with the Old Testament. Describing the Christian church service, he says that in their gatherings Christians read the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets (that is, the Old Testament) before the sermon (First Apology, ch. 67). Writing for pagan readers, Justin used a literary word, apomneµmoneumata, "memoirs," to refer to the Gospels, as he explains in the preceding passage (ibid., ch. 66). In mentioning the Gospels before the Old Testament in describing Christian Scripture reading, he indicates that the church accorded the Gospels a position at least as high as that of the Old Testament. Justin also declares (Dialogue, ch. 103) that the Gospels had been composed by the apostles or the disciples of the apostles. He sometimes introduces quotations from the Gospels with some such formula as, "Christ has said" (ibid., chs. 49; 105), and sometimes with the phrase, "It is written" (ibid. chs. 49; 100; 107).

While it has been debated how many Gospels Justin knew, the evidence is strong that he used all four of them. Some of his quotations are not found in the exact form in which they appear in the canonical Gospels, and may have been taken from extra-Biblical sources. Since about the same time 2 Clement uses sayings of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels (chs. 4; 5; 12), it would not be surprising to find Justin doing the same. Justin's writings reflect acquaintance not only with the Gospels but also with Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Acts. He quotes the Revelation between a statement from the Old Testament and a saying of the Lord (Dialogue, ch. 81).

Tatian, a pupil of Justin, made a harmony of the four canonical Gospels, which would seem to indicate that he considered these books as apart from apocryphal works. This harmony, known as the Diatessaron (literally, "Through four"), appears to have been the standard form in which the gospel story circulated in the Syriac-speaking church for some two centuries. See p. 122.

Theophilus of Antioch (died c. a.d. 181) puts the Gospels on a level with the prophetic books of the Old Testament, and declares that they were written by pneumatophoroi, "spirit-bearing [men]" (To Autolycus ii. 22; iii. 12).

That the book of Revelation was highly valued at this time is indicated by Justin Martyr (Dialogue ch. 81), Theophilus (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History iv. 24), and Apollonius (Eusebius ibid. v. 18).

New Testament Canon at End of 2d Century.--The existence of a canon, in the sense of a generally recognized group of books constituting the New Testament, becomes apparent near the end of the 2d century. Witnesses to such a canon are extant from various parts of the Roman world. From Rome itself comes a document called the Muratorian Fragment; from Gaul, the testimony of Irenaeus of Lyons; from Africa, Tertullian of Carthage; and from Egypt, Clement of Alexandria. The earliest known systematic list of New Testament books is the Muratorian Fragment, named after its discoverer, L. A. Muratori, who found it in the library of a monastery at Milan in 1740. The beginning and end of the document are missing, and its Latin is barbarous and poorly spelled. Scholars generally have concluded that this fragment originally was written in Rome toward the end of the 2d century. It furnishes a list of books that might be read publicly in church, and also mentions several books that should not be read.

In the missing portion at the beginning of the Muratorian Fragment there was evidently a remark about Matthew; this was followed by a notation on Mark, of which only one line is preserved. Since Luke is called the third, and John the fourth Gospel, there is no doubt that Matthew headed the list. The Acts of the Apostles come next, and following them the epistles in this order: 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy. He also includes Jude and 1 and 2 John. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John are omitted. Certain other books are either called in question or rejected outright. Thus of the Apocalypse of Peter (not to be confused with the epistles of Peter), the Fragment declares that although some accepted it, others thought it should not be read in church. The epistles to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians and the Shepherd of Hermas are denied a place in the canon at all. Concerning Revelation, the Fragment states that although John wrote to the seven churches, he spoke to all.

Irenaeus' New Testament canon can easily be reconstructed on the basis of his numerous Biblical quotations. He recognized the four Gospels as the only canonical ones and characterized them as the four pillars of the church (Against Heresies iii. 11. 8). He also accepted 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Acts, and Revelation. Irenaeus does not quote from Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter, and they may have been absent from his collection of New Testament books. Neither does he mention 3 John and Jude, but this may have been accidental, since both are very short. On the other hand, Irenaeus apparently considered the Shepherd of Hermas to be canonical, as he introduces a quotation from that work with the words, "The Scripture declared" (ibid. iv. 20.2).

A study of Tertullian's writings reveals much the same picture with regard to his New Testament canon. Although he quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews, he did not consider it to be canonical, thinking that it had been written by Barnabas (On Modesty ch. 20). Tertullian accepted the Shepherd of Hermas during his earlier years, but rejected it later.

Clement of Alexandria, a representative of the Eastern Church, showed a more liberal attitude toward sacred writings than was common in the West. Besides the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he used also--although as somewhat lesser authorities--the apocryphal gospels of the Hebrews and the Egyptians. His New Testament canon contained also 14 books of Paul, including Hebrews, which the Eastern Church accepted as Pauline without hesitation, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Acts, and Revelation, as well as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and other noncanonical writings. Whether he knew James, 3 John, and 2 Peter is not certain. Clement's writings clearly show that books already rejected in the Western Church as noncanonical were still used without scruple in the East. A clear distinction between the apostolic and the nonapostolic writings was made at this time only in the West.

A study of the principal witnesses to the New Testament canon at the end of the 2d century shows that the four Gospels, 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Acts, and Revelation were generally recognized as canonical. While some in the West still doubted James, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Hebrews there were those in the East who felt free to use certain apocryphal writings as authentic.

This brief survey of the evidence shows that the New Testament canon during the 2d century did not develop so much through a process of collecting apostolic writings as through a process of rejecting those whose apostolic origin was not established. In the course of the first hundred years of the Christian church many books had been written. Every Christian sect and province had produced writings, especially so-called Gospels. These were copied and distributed, with the result that the body of Christian literature grew to formidable size. It was soon noticed that gall had been mixed with honey, to use an expression of the Muratorian Fragment that describes works that claimed apostolic origin yet propounded Gnostic teaching. A clear stand regarding these spurious books became necessary.

A trend in the opposite direction, which intensified the need for a canon, was emphasized by the heretic Marcion. In order to have support for his anti-Jewish teachings, he rejected not only all spurious works but also several books of undisputedly apostolic origin. His rejection of such genuinely apostolic works, together with the widespread use of nonapostolic writings, forced Christians to decide what to accept and what to reject.

One principle that Christians adopted in determining the validity of a book was the status of the author. Whatever was not clearly of apostolic origin, they rejected. The only exceptions made were the works of Mark and Luke, who were the associates of venerated apostles. Another basis of canonicity was the contents of books for which a place was claimed in the New Testament. Even books purporting to be of apostolic origin were rejected when they were found to contain Gnostic elements. One example of such works is the so-called Gospel of Peter.

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History vi. 12) records an incident that illustrates how church leaders gave counsel in the choice of a canon. About a.d. 200 the church at Rhosus, near Antioch, seems to have been divided over the use of the Gospel of Peter. The church members there submitted their dispute to Serapion, bishop of Antioch. He was not familiar with this work, and thinking that all the Christians at Rhosus were orthodox, he allowed its use. Later, however, when he became aware of the Gnostic character of this gospel, he wrote a letter to Rhosus and retracted the permit he previously had given. It is most interesting to note that a bishop allowed a book unknown to him to be read in church, apparently because it carried an apostle's name as author, but that he prohibited it as soon as he recognized by its contents its spurious character and authorship. Similar cases may frequently have occurred, although no further records of such decisions have been preserved.

Canon After a.d. 200 in the East.--The first evidence after a.d. 200 concerning the New Testament canon in the East comes from Origen (died c. a.d. 254). He observed that differences existed among the various churches in regard to the content of the New Testament, and he differentiated between generally recognized writings and contested ones. Eusebius presents a record of Origen's views (ibid. vi. 25), according to which the four Gospels, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation were generally accepted. Although Eusebius seems to have forgotten it, Acts should be added, because Origen clearly shows that he considered it as belonging to the same group. According to Eusebius' testimony, Origen lists as still contested 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Hebrews. That he also placed Jude in this category is apparent from his own remarks (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus XVII. 30). Although the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, and the Didache stood on the borders of the canon, Origen was convinced that they were not apostolic.

A controversy over the Revelation took place in the Eastern Church during the 3d century. Orthodox Christians had not previously questioned the authenticity of this book. They had always accepted it as inspired and apostolic. Origen had expressed no doubts about the authority of Revelation, but his followers attacked it vehemently. Particularly notable in this regard was Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (died c. a.d. 265), who wrote a treatise in which he sought to disprove the apostolic authorship of the book. The Alexandrian theologians seem to have turned against the Revelation because its vivid picture of the reality of the judgment and the heavenly kingdom did not agree with their allegorical and spiritualized theology. As a result of this controversy, the faith of many Christians in the book of Revelation was shaken, and for more than a century the Eastern Church was not sure whether the book was acceptable or not.

By the time Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire (a.d. 313), the line of demarcation between recognized and rejected books already had been drawn. Thus Eusebius, writing about a.d. 325 (ibid. iii. 25, Loeb ed., vol. I, pp. 257, 259), divided into three classes the New Testament books claiming canonicity. His first class consisted of the "Recognized Books": the four Gospels, Acts, 14 epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation. His second class was made up of "Disputed Books," which he divided again into those that were "known to most" Christians: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and works that were "not genuine": the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. In his third class Eusebius placed "altogether wicked and impious" writings, such as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias.

Eusebius' discussion reveals clearly that Christians definitely had separated the chaff from the wheat of New Testament scripture before Christianity became a recognized state religion early in the 4th century. The books he classifies as "Recognized Books" and "Disputed Books which are nevertheless known to most" are the same 27 New Testament books recognized as canonical by all Christians today. All others he rejected.

An important factor in settling the question of the canon in the Greek Church was the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (a.d. 367). As the leading man of his time, Athanasius told his bishops and their people that the canon of the New Testament consists of 27 books. He made no criticism of any book, nor any differentiation between books. Of all the apocryphal works, he mentioned only the Didache and the Shepherd, and stated that although these two books do not belong to the canon, they might be used for the edification of candidates in baptismal classes.

Although Athanasius' directives were binding legally only in Egypt where he was the recognized spiritual leader, yet his personality was so strong that the whole Greek-speaking church was influenced by his verdict. Although some theologians of the East rejected Revelation as late as the 5th century, his canon of 27 books came to be the recognized standard.

The formation of the canon experienced a different course in the Syriac-speaking church, which lay east of the imperial Roman borders in the area of the Upper Euphrates, Mesopotamia, and Persia. During the 2d century, Christianity took strong root in this area, and the Gospels probably were translated into Syriac before a.d. 200, as is indicated by the Curetonian and Sinaitic Gospel manuscripts (see p. 122). However, these Gospels seem to have been used much less than the Diatessaron, the Gospel harmony prepared by Tatian probably a few years earlier. During the 3d and 4th centuries the Syrian church knew the Gospel almost exclusively in this latter form. In the 5th century, leaders of the Syrian church, such as Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Rabbula of Edessa, made strong efforts to eliminate the Diatessaron in favor of "the Gospel of the Separated," as the four individual Gospels were called.

Little is known concerning the early use of other New Testament books among the Syrians. From the Doctrina Addai, written about a.d. 350, it appears that the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles were in use in the Syriac-speaking churches along with the Old Testament and the Diatessaron. However, it is not known how early the Syrian churches had become acquainted with these books, or whether they had the general epistles and the book of Revelation. A list of New Testament books in Syriac from the 3d century found in the monastery at Mt. Sinai lists only the four Gospels, the Acts, and the epistles of Paul, including Hebrews.

A new Syriac translation, the Peshitta (see p. 122), appeared with strong ecclesiastical support in the early 5th century. It replaced the Diatessaron with the four Separate Gospels, and contained also the Acts, 14 epistles of Paul, and 1 Peter, 1 John, and James. Thus the Syriac New Testament canon consisted of 22 books, and so remained for many years. As a result of the Christological controversies of the 5th century, some elements of Syriac-speaking Christianity, under pressure from the West, accepted the canon of 27 books, while others retained only the 22.

Canon After a.d. 200 in the West.--The testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the Muratorian Fragment shows that at the turn of the 3d century, the New Testament canon had reached a rather fixed form in the West. The four Gospels, the Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation, and perhaps also 2 John and Jude were generally recognized as belonging to the canon. Second Peter, James, 3 John, and Hebrews had not yet achieved this recognition, although some apocryphal works were still at times accepted. The history of the canon after a.d. 200 therefore involves chiefly the acceptance of three general epistles and Hebrews, and the rejection of some questionable apocrypha.

The Western Church did not have so many notable scholars as the East, but its church discipline was stronger, and consequently the development of the canon in the West did not involve as much vacillation as in the East. The Western Church finally followed the East in accepting Hebrews, while at the same time it strongly defended the Revelation, a book the East did not favor during the 3d century and part of the 4th. Finally, the Greek theologians reversed their attitude and accepted Revelation into their canon.

The general epistles still were little used in the Latin Church during the whole 3d century. Quotations from these books hardly ever appear in the Latin Fathers of this period, and when they do, they are taken from 1 John and 1 Peter. In the 4th century, however, the general epistles received wide acceptance. Two canon lists witness to this. One, a list discovered by Theodor Mommsen, probably from Africa, lists five general epistles: three letters of John, two letters of Peter. However, a later hand has added to one of the two extant copies of this canon the remark, una sola, "one only," to both entries, perhaps indicating that while the original author of this list reckoned three letters of John and two of Peter as canonical, a later reader voiced his opposition to this view. The second canon list from the 4th century is the Catalogus Claromontanus, found between Philemon and Hebrews in the uncial manuscript D at Paris. It lists all seven general epistles in the following sequence: 1 and 2 Peter, James, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude.

The final decision concerning the New Testament canon was taken by the Latin Church in a.d. 382, when the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damascus, decreed officially that the seven general epistles form an integral part of the New Testament. This decree attributed the First Epistle of John to the apostle and the other two to another John, supposed to have been a presbyter. The church of North Africa followed suit, when during the council of Hippo (a.d. 393) and the 3d council of Carthage (a.d. 397) decrees were voted similar to that made at Rome in a.d. 382.

The Epistle to the Hebrews likewise did not find complete acceptance in the Western Church until the second half of the 4th century. The main reason for this lay in its disputed authorship. The Latin Fathers of the 3d and 4th centuries either did not mention Hebrews or rejected its Pauline authorship. Consequently it is also absent from the Catalogus Claromontanus, unless it is indicated there under the entry "Epistle of Barnabas," which is possible, but improbable. However, the great Latin theologians and ecclesiastical leaders of the latter part of the 4th century stood strongly under the influence of the Greek theology of the East, where the Pauline authorship of Hebrews had never been doubted. Hence, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Vigilius of Thapsus, Ambrose, Augustine, and other Western leaders began to accept Hebrews as canonical. This trend was legalized at the Synod of Rome in a.d. 382, which declared the canon to possess 14 letters of Paul. The subsequent African councils of Hippo and Carthage also accepted Hebrews as Pauline. Augustine, in his New Testament canon, as presented in his work De doctrina christiana (II. 8, 12-14), does not vary in any way from the canon of Athanasius of Alexandria contained in his 39th Easter Letter (see p. 129). From this time on the Latin and Greek churches had the same New Testament canon of 27 books.

The apocryphal books of the New Testament were rejected earlier and more resolutely in the Western Church than among the Christians of the East. By a.d. 200 a clear stand was taken in the West with regard to books whose apostolic origin was questionable, as is attested by Tertullian and the Muratorian Fragment, while at the same time some of these same books were used by Clement of Alexandria with no scruples. Apocryphal books were still part of the Eastern Church literature in the 3d and 4th centuries as Origen's and Eusebius' works testify. At that time these books were unanimously rejected by the Latin Church Fathers. However, later Bible manuscripts reveal that in some circles apocryphal books remained in use until the Middle Ages. Twenty of these manuscripts are known to contain a Latin translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, and more than 100 of them have the so-called Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

It is a remarkable fact that not one of the ecumenical church councils of the early centuries attempted to fix the canon. The first ecumenical council (though recognized as such only by the Roman Catholic Church) to deal with the canon was the Council of Trent (1545-64), which for the first time established by decree a canon of Scripture binding upon all members of the Catholic Church. Although earlier councils had dealt with the canon, as mentioned, they were not ecumenical, and had jurisdiction only over certain ecclesiastical provinces.

A study of the development of the New Testament canon provides convincing evidence that the hand of Providence led in the formation of God's written Word. As has been seen in the foregoing survey, the decisions that brought into being the canon of 27 books were not essentially the work of an organized church expressing its will through either a pope or a general council. Rather, the canon of Scripture developed gradually over a period of some four centuries as many Christian men under the guidance of the Spirit of God recognized that certain works had been inspired by that same Spirit, and that other works had not.

In this divinely directed work of selection, certain standards aided the early Christians in deciding which books merited a place in Scripture and which did not. One of these standards was authorship. The New Testament was the good news concerning Jesus Christ, and Christians naturally believed that the most authentic presentations of this message were those written by men who had been with Jesus. Consequently only those works were accepted finally concerning which Christians were clearly convinced that they were the products of an apostle or of a companion of an apostle writing in the apostolic period. Thus the books of Mark and Luke were admitted because every Christian was convinced that they had been written in the time of the apostles Peter and Paul, and perhaps under their supervision. On the other hand, the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, although widely accepted in the 2d century, was ultimately dropped from the canon because its contents showed that it could not have been written by that apostle. Similarly, the Shepherd of Hermas, a book favored by some early Christians, did not finally achieve a place in the canon because it originated in the postapostolic period.

Another standard which guided the early church in the selection of the canon was that of content. This sometimes involved more subtle judgment than did the question of authorship. It necessitated the evaluation of a book in terms of its inner consistency, its agreement with the rest of Scripture, and its conformity with Christian experience. It was doubtless largely by this principle that the early Christians rejected the many Gnostic gospels and apocalypses.

Essential to the successful accomplishment of all of this was the guidance of the Spirit of God, the Spirit who led the minds of the prophets and apostles as they wrote, and who has brought conviction to the heart of every true believer in Jesus Christ, as he has read the Scripture, that it is truly the Word of God.

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. and ed. by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. xl, 909 pp., 2d ed., 1979. The 2d ed., revised and augmented by Gingrich and F. W. Danker, incorporates the changes and additions in Bauer's 5th German ed., corrects errors, and expands the bibliography by thousands of new entries. The best NT Greek lexicon available. Includes references to the Church Fathers, papyri, and current scholarly literature.

Blass, Friedrich W., and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A translation and revision of the 9th-10th German edition, incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner, by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. 372 pp. An authoritative source for Greek grammar and syntax.

Bruce, Frederick F. The English Bible: A History of Translations From the Earliest English Versions to the New English Bible. 3d revised ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. 274 pp. The best and most up-to-date history of the English Bible.

The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome. Ed. by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. 1970. 648 pp. Vol. 2: The West From the Fathers to the Reformation. Ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. 1909. 566 pp. Vol. 3: The West From the Reformation to the Present Day. Ed. by S. L. Greenslade. 1963. 590 pp. Cambridge: University Press. A comprehensive history of the Bible including languages and script, text, canon, and translation by a team of experts.

Campenhausen, Hans von. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Trans. by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. 342 pp. Comprehensive treatment of the NT canon by an expert on the period of the early church.

Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Pub. Co., 1968. 316 pp. Inspiration and canonicity are presented from the conservative position of an evangelical.

Kubo, Sakae, and Specht, Walter. So Many Versions? Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Press, 1975. 244 pp. The most thorough and up-to-date work on the most commonly used 20th-century English versions.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. 284 pp. A lucid, reliable guide to the textual criticism of the NT.

_______. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. 498 pp. The origin and transmission of all the NT versions made prior to a.d. 1000. Contains lists of the earliest MSS of each, gives the noteworthy printed editions, and discusses the scholarly investigation and textual analysis of each. Limitations on the use of each is presented by collaborating scholars.

Moulton, James H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1906-1970. A work begun by Moulton, who was assisted by W. F. Howard in the second volume, and completed (the last two volumes on syntax and style) by Nigel Turner. On a par with Debrunner-Funk, but much easier to understand.

part i: lower criticism

I. Introduction

The criticism of the Bible may be divided into what historically has been termed "lower" and "higher" criticism. In the broadest sense, lower criticism deals with both the language (vocabulary, grammar, syntax) and the history of the transmission of the text, including the attempt to restore the reading of the original autographs. As used in the present article, however, the expression "lower criticism" is confined to the study of the Biblical text, and thus is equivalent to the more precise term, "textual criticism." It involves the study and comparison of extant manuscripts, the determination of their historical and geographical interrelationships, and, most important of all, the development and application of criteria and techniques for restoring as nearly as possible the original wording of the text of the Bible. The necessity for such a study rests on two well-known facts regarding the transmission of the text of the sacred writings: (1) The disappearance of the autographs of all the books of the Bible. (2) The separate production of every copy of every book, laboriously, by hand, before the invention of printing in the middle of the 15th century. The copies of the autographs became in turn the exemplars for other copies, which, in turn, became the exemplars of other copies. During this process of repeated copying and recopying, transcriptional errors inevitably came into the Sacred Text. The introduction of scribal errors raises a serious question for the Bible student: where variants occur, that is, where the manuscripts read more than one way in a given passage, which reading is the correct one? Which reading did the lost autograph contain? This is the question that textual scholars try to answer. They seek to provide Bible students with as accurate a text as present-day scholarship can produce.

II. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament

Materials.--Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 and subsequently the textual criticism of the Old Testament was seriously hampered by the scarcity of comparative source material. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts known dated from the 9th to the beginning of the 11th centuries a.d. The most widely used edition of the Hebrew Bible, the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, is based on the Leningrad Codex B19a, completed in a.d. 1008. In the new 1978 edition of this Bible, known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, edited by Karl Elliger, the critical apparatus was thoroughly revised and updated by the inclusion of evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls, et cetera, but the Hebrew text is still largely a reproduction of Codex Leningradensis. This codex is one of several important Hebrew manuscripts associated with the ben Asher family, a famous Jewish family of Masoretic scholars in Tiberias for five generations. The Masoretes were the custodians of the traditional Hebrew text from the 6th to the 11th centuries a.d. They invented a system of vocalization for the Hebrew text, which had heretofore been written without vowels, and established rules for a faithful transmission of the Bible text as it existed in their day (see Vol. I, p. 34). The standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament is therefore known as the Masoretic Text (MT).

Four other Hebrew manuscripts containing the ben Asher text are extant. The earliest of these is the Cairo Codex of the Former and Latter Prophets, written by Moses ben Asher and dated a.d. 895. The Leningrad Codex of the Latter Prophets is dated a.d. 916. The British Museum Codex (Oriental 4445) is an incomplete manuscript of the Pentateuch, dated a.d. 950. The famous Aleppo Codex, originally containing the entire Old Testament but now partially destroyed, is considered to be the most accurate of all. This codex, which was corrected and punctuated by Aaron ben Asher in a.d. 930, is the chief authority for a new edition of the Hebrew Bible being published in Jerusalem.

These manuscripts represent the acme of the work of the Hebrew scribes. But they are many centuries removed from the time of the original authors of the Hebrew Bible. Why are the Hebrew manuscripts so comparatively late? Two major explanations for this phenomenon can be given. In the first place the ravages of war and persecution threatened the very survival of these ancient documents.

A second reason is the well-established Jewish custom of burying old worn-out manuscripts to protect the name of God from desecration. They were first hidden away in a room attached to the synagogue, perhaps in the cellar or attic, known as a Geniza (i.e., "hiding place"). When the Geniza was full, the manuscripts were removed and, with an elaborate ceremony, buried. The forces of nature were thus allowed to destroy them; hence, few early Hebrew manuscripts have been found.

But in spite of the comparative lateness of the extant Hebrew manuscripts, there are grounds for confidence that they represent accurately the substantial wording of the Hebrew Scriptures as they were penned by the original authors. This confidence rests, in the first place, on the extreme care with which the Hebrew scribes did their work. They devised methods which ensured, so far as it is humanly possible, the accuracy of their work. They prescribed: "An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least to deviate. No word or letter, not even a Yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him."--A. B. Davidson, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 89.

The Samaritan Pentateuch is a source available to the textual scholar for a comparison with the traditional text of the Hebrew manuscripts. The Samaritan Pentateuch is a separate recension of the Hebrew text, written in a modified form of the old Semitic alphabet, and transmitted separately from the standardized Hebrew text of the Jews. It is therefore useful as a check on the possible transcriptional errors that have crept into the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch through its numerous copyings. Its value for this purpose, however, is qualified by the obscurity of the history of its origin and transmission, and by the lateness of the Samaritan manuscripts representing it, none of which are earlier than the 10th century a.d..

The Septuagint. The oldest and most important of the ancient versions of the Old Testament is the old Greek translation known as the Septuagint. The name is derived from septuaginta, the Latin word for seventy, and hence is frequently designated by the Roman numeral LXX. The name is derived from the tradition set forth in the Letter of Aristeas that it was produced by 70 or 72 Jewish translators, in 72 days. Strictly speaking, the name applies to the Pentateuch, which was probably produced in the 3d century b.c. to meet the religious needs of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. In the time of Origen (a.d. 186-253/4) the name "Septuagint" was used, as it is today, for the whole Greek Old Testament, which was completed about the 2d century b.c.

Two facts will illustrate the importance of the Septuagint for textual criticism. The first is the age of the manuscripts extant. Apart from the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nash Papyrus, the extant manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament are substantially older than the Hebrew manuscripts on which the Hebrew Bible is based. The second fact is of more significance: the Septuagint was produced before the Hebrew text was standardized about the 1st century a.d. Hence that version is an important aid in restoring a text that existed before the Masoretes did their work.

But the use of the old Greek version for textual study is not without its problems and limitations. The quality of the translation varies from the slavishly literal to the paraphrastic. When the version shows a different reading than that found in the Hebrew Bible, it must be determined whether the divergence is a result of a free paraphrase or a different reading in the underlying Hebrew. If it is the latter, it must then be determined whether the reading represented by the version is superior to that found in the Masoretic text.

In the 2d century a.d., three rival Greek translations were produced: Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. These, together with the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters and in Greek transliteration, plus the LXX, constituted the six columns of Origen's Hexapla, a sixfold edition of the Old Testament.

The Syriac Peshitta. Christians had a translation of the Old Testament in the Syriac language before the 3d century a.d. Although this translation has been in Christian hands as far back as it can be traced, it shows such strong Jewish influences that some scholars have advocated that much of it must have come from Jewish hands. Others have explained this reflection of Judaism as a result of Jewish-Christian origin. Whatever explanation is given the phenomenon, there are passages that are little more than transliterations of western Aramaic into the Syriac script. This version, known as the "Peshitta" (i.e., "simple"), shows the effects of later revision on the basis of the Septuagint. There are manuscripts of the version as early as the 5th century a.d., but for the textual criticism the Peshitta of the Old Testament must be used with caution. Its text agrees in the main with the Masoretic text. When the Peshitta and the Septuagint agree against the Hebrew, the possibility must be entertained that the Syriac was revised at that point by the use of the Greek, and the former may not therefore be an independent witness.

The Latin Vulgate.The Vulgate was produced by Jerome in response to the appeal of Pope Damasus that he revise the Latin manuscripts of the Bible. He spent several years, beginning about a.d. 389 and finishing about 405, in making a new translation of the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew. His translation, which became known as the Vulgate, meaning "common" or "popular," is the official Latin version of the Bible. Jerome strove for fidelity to the Hebrew text of his time; nevertheless, for the purposes of textual criticism, the Vulgate has several disadvantages. One is the freedom Jerome exercised in translating. It was his studied purpose to give a rendering in idiomatic and graceful Latin rather than to translate literally. Hence it is often difficult to determine with precision the underlying Hebrew text. Another is the fact that the version was made after the Hebrew text had been standardized. Hence when the underlying text can be determined, it is usually in agreement with the Hebrew we have today. In cases where it differs, it must be recognized that the text was often influenced either directly or indirectly by the Septuagint.

The Aramaic Targums. As these have come down to us, they are a combination of real translation with free paraphrase and the addition of explanatory material. The official Targum of the Pentateuch, Targum Onkelos, probably originated in Palestine but attained its written form in Babylon in the 5th century a.d. It is, for the most part, a simple and strictly literal translation. The Hebrew text on which it is based is essentially like the Masoretic text. There are two other Jewish Targums on the Pentateuch, both from Palestine. The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan is based on Onkelos, with patches of older and more fulsome materials from Palestine. The Jerusalem Targum (formerly spoken of as the Fragmentary Targum) circulated as late as the 10th century in Palestine. In 1957 a complete copy of it was identified in a manuscript in the Vatican Library (Neofati I). It is written in first-century Aramaic, thought to resemble the language Jesus and the apostles knew. Its underlying Hebrew text must have differed at times from the Masoretic text. The official Targum of the Prophets bears the name of Jonathan ben Uzziel. It paraphrases more freely than does Onkelos.

The generally late date of most of the written Targums, their paraphrastic and homiletic tendencies, and their introduction of explanations and alterations, militate against their free use in textual criticism. However, when they are used critically and carefully, they have considerable value.

The Dead Sea Scrolls. The sensational discovery of the now--famous Dead Sea scrolls in 1947, and subsequently (see Vol. I, pp. 31-34), revolutionized the textual criticism of the Old Testament. At that time no Old Testament scholar had the slightest hope that Hebrew Bible manuscripts antedating the period of the Masoretes would ever be found. Hence when the first group of scrolls came to light, many scholars were slow in believing that they were genuine, or, if genuine, that they were as old as they appeared to be.

Subsequent discoveries, however, have furnished incontestable evidence, both archeological and paleographical, that at long last Hebrew texts many centuries older than those previously known are indeed available. Tens of thousands of fragments of manuscripts, both Biblical and secular, were found in the other caves that clustered about Khirbet Qumran. The greatest cache came from Cave 4, discovered in 1952. It contained thousands of fragments of some 480 scrolls, of which 100 were Biblical, representing every book in the Hebrew Bible except Esther. The excavation of the ruins of Khirbet Qumran during several campaigns, beginning in 1951, brought to light the community center of a Jewish religious sect, the Essenes, and clearly demonstrated its connection with the discoveries in the caves. The huge caves in the WaÆdéµ Murabba ÔaÆt, some twelve miles southwest of Qumran, produced documents left behind by the Jews who participated in the Bar Cochba revolt of a.d. 132-135, some of which were dated. Among the Biblical materials discovered was a scroll of the Minor Prophets (from Joel to the beginning of Zechariah), dating from the 2d century a.d.

The Qumran scrolls of the Hebrew Bible take us back to a period before the Biblical text was standardized, about the latter part of the 1st century a.d. Nevertheless, most of them are in substantial agreement with the wording of the Hebrew Bible that has been handed down through the Masoretes. The Dead Sea scrolls, then, are a reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the transmission of the Hebrew text. The study of these documents has convinced scholars that the sacred text should be treated with far greater respect than it had received in the scholarly world during the preceding two centuries.

The great Isaiah scroll (1QIs), found in Cave 1, contains thousands of variations from the Masoretic text, but the vast majority of these make no difference in the meaning. They are in the nature of deviations in spelling, grammatical forms, and endings. Among the variants that are significant in meaning, the majority appear to be a result of manifest errors in copying. The scroll was not written with the painstaking accuracy of the professional Jewish scribes of a later period. It appears to be in the nature of a popular, unofficial manuscript produced by amateurs.

After allowance is made for such variants, the text of 1QIs agrees to a remarkable degree with the traditional text. Millar Burrows, who edited the scroll for publication, regarded this fact as its most significant characteristic.

The presence of occasional superior variants in a rather poorly copied manuscript was regarded by Millar Burrows as the second significant feature of the scroll. Some of the significant variants have been reflected in the translation of Isaiah in recent versions such as the Revised Standard Version, The Jerusalem Bible, the New American Standard Bible, The New English Bible, The New American Bible, The Modern Language Bible, the Good News Bible, and the New International Version. The committee of translators that produced the Revised Standard Version, of which Burrows was a member, adopted a total of thirteen readings from the Isaiah scroll (see Isa. 3:24; 14:4, 30; 15:9; 21:8; 23:2; 33:8; 45:2, 8; 49:24; 51:19; 56:12; 60:19). At least eight of these are supported by one or more of the ancient versions. Afterward Dr. Burrows had second thoughts regarding the adoption of some of these variants and concluded that in some cases the traditional reading should have been retained after all. The New International Version, produced by a committee of about 100 evangelical scholars, made at least eleven changes in the traditional text of Isaiah on the basis of the scroll together with the support of ancient versions (see Isa. 14:4; 21:8; 33:8; 37:20, 25, 27; 45:2; 49:24; 51:19; 52:5; 53:11). It is worthy of note that only six of these are identical with the changes made in the Revised Standard Version.

The fragmentary copy of Isaiah (1QIs), containing major portions of Isaiah 41-66, also found in Cave 1, is a more accurately written copy, but at the same time also shows fewer and less significant variants from the Masoretic text. The most significant variant in it is its agreement with 1QIs and the Septuagint in adding the word "light" to Isaiah 53:11, making the clause read "After the travail of his soul he shall see light." It also agrees with 1QIs and the Septuagint in reading "their transgressions" rather than "transgressors."

Fragments of about a dozen other Isaiah manuscripts were recovered from Cave 4, including two commentaries (peshers). The text of these fragments conforms closely to the traditional Hebrew. These manuscripts of Isaiah give evidence of the antiquity of the textual tradition transmitted in our printed Hebrew Bible. Whatever revising and editing was done in the 1st century a.d., no significant alteration in the consonantal text was made. The Dead Sea scrolls reassure us of the substantial accuracy of the Hebrew text.

The majority of the copies of other Old Testament books also support the Proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. For example, although some of the fragments of the fifteen different manuscripts of Genesis have individual readings that agree with the Hebrew underlying the Septuagint, as a whole they support the traditional Hebrew text. The manuscripts of the remaining books of the Pentateuch, however, represent three different types of text. The majority support the Proto-Masoretic type. But among the fifteen manuscripts of Exodus known, one (4QEx^a) contains a type of text that closely resembles what must have been the underlying Hebrew of the Septuagint. The same is true of a fragment containing Deuteronomy 32:41-43 (4QDeut^b). No Hebrew manuscripts were previously known that show these characteristic readings of the Greek Old Testament. A text similar to that of the Samaritan Pentateuch is represented by a manuscript of Exodus (4Qpaleo Ex^m) coming from the early 2d century b.c., and written in the paleo-Hebrew script. In the portions of some forty columns that have survived, one can observe the additions and explanatory expansions from parallel passages characteristic of the Samaritan Pentateuch. There is no evidence, however, that the manuscript contained the special "sectarian" readings that support Samaritan doctrines. Similarly, the sizable fragments of a manuscript of Numbers (4QNum^b) contains the expansions found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, but they also frequently have individual readings that agree with the Septuagint. It is evident, then, that the manuscripts exhibit three lines of transmission: the Proto-Masoretic, the text underlying the Septuagint, and the Proto-Samaritan.

It has long been recognized that the Hebrew text of the books of Samuel contains numerous textual problems. In the process of transmission it appears that the Hebrew text of these books has suffered, particularly through accidental omissions. The Septuagint often contains what are evidently the Greek equivalent of these missing portions. The discovery of the fragments of three manuscripts (4QSam^a,b,c) in Cave 4 is therefore of great significance. This is particularly true of 4QSam^b, which is dated about the last quarter of the 3d century b.c., and of which large portions of the text have been preserved. Concerning these manuscripts, Frank M. Cross, Jr., who published 4QSam^a and ^b, asserts:

"The text of Samuel contained in three scrolls from Cave IV is widely at variance with that of the traditional Masoretic Bible; it follows systematically the rendering of the Septuagint of Samuel."--The Ancient Library of Qumran, p. 179.

The text of 4QSam^b, he further points out, at times preserves readings that are superior to both the Septuagint and the traditional Hebrew. He then shows the significance of this for the textual criticism of the historical books of the Old Testament:

"These manuscripts established once and for all that in the historical books the Septuagint translators faithfully and with extreme literalness reproduced their Hebrew Vorlage. And this means that the Septuagint of the historical books must be resurrected as a primary tool of the Old Testament critic. This is a repudiation of much of the textual theory and method developed and applied to the Hebrew text of Samuel during the last generation."--ibid., pp. 180f.

This does not mean, he goes on to point out, that the readings in the Septuagint are necessarily superior to those in the traditional Hebrew. Each reading must be individually studied and, with extreme care, evaluated. Each one must be considered on its own merit.

For more than a century the cumulative weight of archeological evidence has confirmed the views of conservative Christians in the field of higher criticism (see pp. 159-175). Now it is equally gratifying to find discoveries such as those at Qumran similarly vindicating their faith in the authenticity of the text of the Old Testament as it has come down to us. The gap that separates us from the original text of the Old Testament has by no means been bridged completely, but the Qumran discoveries have narrowed the gap appreciably and confirmed the confidence of the conservative Christian in the fundamental reliability of its text.

III. Textual Criticism of the New Testament

Materials.--(For a discussion of the principal Greek manuscripts and of the most important versions of the New Testament, see pp. 116-123). When contrasted with the relatively scarce Old Testament textual materials, the thousands of extant New Testament manuscripts present abundant sources for lower criticism. Consequently, New Testament textual criticism has been most profitable and has, to a remarkable extent, succeeded in determining what was probably the original reading of the apostolic autographs. This establishment through lower criticism of a reliable Greek text made possible a scientific study of the language of the New Testament, which, in turn, has been a significant factor in leading scholars over the last century to retreat from the extreme criticism that declared most of the New Testament to be postapostolic.

Although textual criticism has made its greatest contribution during the last one hundred years, an understanding of its development necessitates a survey of the history of the various printed editions of the Greek New Testament.

Early Printed Editions.--Although printing by means of movable type was invented in Europe around 1450, no complete Greek New Testament was printed until the second decade of the 16th century. This may have been partly because of the expense and difficulty of producing a font of Greek type, but primarily it was because of the authoritative prestige of the Latin Vulgate.

The Complutensian Polyglot. The first man to plan the publication of a Greek New Testament was the Spanish Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros (1436-1517), more commonly known as Ximenes. In 1502 he arranged for a group of scholars to work on a polyglot edition of the whole Bible, which presented the Old Testament in parallel columns in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, and the New Testament in Greek and Latin. The Old Testament, which was printed in four volumes, was completed in 1517. Volume 5, containing the New Testament, was printed in 1514, but was not released for publication by Pope Leo X until 1522. In the meantime, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus had appeared on the market, and thus Ximenes lost the honor of being the first to publish a Greek New Testament.

Erasmus' Greek New Testament. The first published Greek New Testament was edited by the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), and appeared March 1, 1516. Johannes Froben, an enterprising printer in Basel, Switzerland, was eager to publish a Greek New Testament before Ximenes' work could be issued. He persuaded the Dutch humanist from Rotterdam to prepare the copy for publication. After ten months of work the first edition appeared on the market in February, 1516. The editing was hastily done, with a consequent loss in quality. The work was based on a few late minuscule manuscripts, which were available at Basel, but not any of the early great uncials so famous today. The text of the Gospels was based on codex 2, a poor minuscule manuscript of the 12th century, corrected by codex 1, a 10th-century MS of considerable value. For Acts and Paul's writings, he used mainly a 13th-century MS (2 ^ap) and for Revelation only one MS (1^r), of the 12th century. Unfortunately, the latter lacked the last leaf containing the final six verses of Revelation 22. Erasmus supplied this lack by retranslating these verses from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. He also interpolated material from the Vulgate at other points in the NT. As a result there are still words and phrases in the "Received Text" (see below on the Elzevir version) of the Greek NT that are not found in any Greek MS.

The Greek text of Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum, as he entitled the first edition, was accompanied in a parallel column by a new elegant Latin translation, the first Latin translation of the entire New Testament since the time of Jerome. Unfortunately, the first edition contained hundreds of typographical errors. In the four later editions (2d ed., 1519; 3d ed., 1522; 4th ed., 1527; 5th ed., 1535) most of these careless errors were corrected. The second edition, entitled Novum Testamentum, became the basis of Luther's Das Neue Testament Deutzsch. The 3d edition is famous for the introduction of the famous "three witnesses" passage in 1 John 5:7, 8a. This Comma Johanneum, as it is called, consists of the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth." Although this addition was found in the Vulgate of Erasmus' time, the Greek manuscripts known to him did not have it, and he therefore omitted it in his 1st and 2d editions. It is now known that this passage appeared first in late Latin manuscripts, but is missing in all early Greek texts. None of the other old versions contains it, and no Father of the church quotes it even when arguing about the Trinity. Thus, it is clear that the Comma Johanneum has no right to be part of the Bible text, and that modern translators are justified in omitting it.

Dominance of the Textus Receptus.--Robert Stephanus (Estienne, 1503-1559), a Parisian printer, scholar, and protégé of Francis I, published four editions of the Greek New Testament between 1546 and 1551 that were mainly reprints of Erasmus. His 3d edition of 1550, known as the "royal edition" (editio regia), contained a critical apparatus in which variant readings from 15 manuscripts were cited. The text, which was substantially that of Erasmus, became the generally accepted form of the Greek text in Great Britain. The 4th edition of 1551, published in Geneva, is notable for the first use of numbered verse divisions in the New Testament. Stephanus made them as a reference tool for a concordance on which he was working, which was published by his son Henri in 1594.

Théodore de Béze (1519-1605), Calvin's friend and successor at Geneva, published four independent editions (in 1565, 1582, 1589, 1598) of the Greek New Testament, all of them differing but little from Stephanus. Although he had Codex Bezae and Codex Clarmontanus in his possession, he made little use of them. The translators of the King James Version of 1611 relied heavily on these editions, together with the last two of Stephanus.

The Elzevir Brothers. The name Textus Receptus, or Received Text, is derived from the 2d edition, 1633, of the Greek Testament produced by two Dutch printers, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. The preface of this edition puts forth the claim in Latin: "You have therefore the text [textum], now received [receptum] by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." The designation Textus Receptus for the Erasmian textual edition is derived from this sentence. This Erasmus-Stephanus-Beza text became the basis for all of the principal Protestant versions of the New Testament, including the English versions, before 1881. For 300 years whenever and wherever the Greek NT was printed it was in the form of the Textus Receptus.

The Accumulation of Textual Evidence, 1633- 1830.--During the last two centuries of the Textus Receptus' supremacy, however, textual evidence was accumulating that indicated that a more accurate text could be produced. Better and older Greek manuscripts became available for study. In 1627 the 5th-century Codex Alexandrinus arrived in England as a gift from Cyril Lucar, the patriarch of Constantinople.

The London Polyglot Bible. Thirty years later Brian Walton (1600(?)-1661) produced the London Polyglot Bible, the 5th volume of which contained the New Testament with variant readings from Codex Alexandrinus, designated "A," at the foot of the page. The 6th volume contained a critical apparatus with the first systematic collection of variant readings from the Textus Receptus from "above forty old Greek manuscripts." Among these were Codex Bezae (5th century, cited as "Cant"), and Codex Clarmontanus (6th century, cited as "Clar"). It also cited readings from the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions.

John Mill. In 1707 John Mill (1645-1707) after 30 years of work produced a collection of about 30,000 variant readings from the Textus Receptus in the notes and appendices of his Greek New Testament.

Richard Bentley. Although attempts were made to improve the traditional text, no one had the courage to abandon the Textus Receptus and begin afresh from the Greek manuscripts themselves. In 1720 Richard Bentley (1662-1742), an illustrious classical scholar, published his Proposals for Printing a Critical Edition of the New Testament. He planned a Greek and Latin New Testament that would correspond, he felt, with the text of the 4th century, but the great master of Trinity College, Cambridge, died before he succeeded in implementing his proposals. His importance lies chiefly in the stimulus he gave to others to study the manuscripts.

Bengel. In 1734 Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) published the Textus Receptus, but for the first time classified the variant readings he included in the margin under five categories according to the degree of superiority, equality, or inferiority each had to the text printed. He also advanced the view that since the vast majority of New Testament manuscripts were written after the 10th century, manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. To choose readings on the basis of majority support by the manuscripts would result in a text of late medieval times.

Wettstein. Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693-1794) is notable for two significant contributions: (1) His nomenclature of manuscripts. He distinguished the uncials by capital letters, and the minuscules by Arabic numerals, thus instituting a system that still survives. (2) His collection of materials. His two-volume Greek New Testament (1751-2) contained the readings of more than 300 manuscripts, as well as a collection of parallels to New Testament passages from classical, Jewish, and Christian writers, which is still consulted by scholars.

Semler and Griesbach. The idea of grouping manuscripts was further developed by Johann Salomo Semler (1725-1791) and Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812). Both divided New Testament manuscripts into three groups. In addition, two of Griesbach's canons of criticism still have a qualified application: The shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer, and the more difficult reading is to be preferred to the easier.

Decline of the Textus Receptus.--Karl Lachmann (1793-1851). The first major break with the tradition of the Textus Receptus was accomplished by Karl Lachmann in two editions (1831 and 1842-50), in which he disregarded the "received text" and attempted to reconstruct what he believed to be the New Testament current in the 4th century. While Lachmann's work contained manifest weaknesses, it was significant for the fact that he turned the attention of scholars toward the desirability of securing a text superior to that traditionally received.

Tregelles. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875) produced a new critical text of the New Testament that he hoped would displace the Textus Receptus. He traveled extensively for the purpose of collating Greek manuscripts. His critical work was distinguished by scrupulous exactness. From 1857 to 1872 he produced a single edition of the New Testament.

Tischendorf. Constantin Tischendorf (1815-1874) was the greatest discoverer, collector, and publisher of New Testament manuscripts who has ever lived. He discovered more than 20 uncials, published most of them for the first time, and published 24 editions of the Greek New Testament between 1841 and 1873. To his genius and perseverance New Testament scholarship owes the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, the decipherment of the Ephraemi, and the first publication of the Vaticanus. His crowning publication was the 8th edition of his critical Greek Testament, Editio Octava Critica Major, containing a rich apparatus not yet superseded, in seven parts between 1864 and 1872. His publications did much to reestablish confidence in the apostolic authorship of the New Testament, which extreme higher critics had denied.

Westcott and Hort. In 1881, after nearly thirty years of research work on the textual problems of the New Testament, two Cambridge scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, produced their monumental The New Testament in the Original Greek. They built on, refined, and further developed the critical methodology of earlier textual scholars mentioned above, and used it rigorously and consistently. Since their principles and methods have had a profound impact on textual studies, they must be briefly summarized here.

They begin by examining individual variant readings for the purpose of determining in a particular passage the one that appears to be the most probable. In this process, two kinds of internal evidence are considered: (1) Intrinsic probability, which examines the several variants and seeks to determine, in the light of the context, which one the original author is most likely to have written. Which one is in harmony with the author's known style and habits of speech and thought, and makes the best sense in the context? (2) Transcriptional probability, which looks at the several variants from the viewpoint of the copyists. Knowing the proclivity of scribes, and the characteristic scribal errors that occur, which variant best explains the origin of the others, but cannot itself be explained by them?

By using intrinsic and transcriptional evidence, Westcott and Hort sought to determine the character and reliability of individual manuscripts. If a particular manuscript has consistently good readings, it may be assumed that it is a good witness. Hence, by using the first step one can form an opinion of the comparative value of the various manuscripts. A manuscript that has good readings where one can test it may be presumed to have good readings also in places where the internal evidence is uncertain. On this basis, Westcott and Hort concluded that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the best New Testament witnesses.

They then proceeded to divide the manuscripts into family groupings, and concluded that they fall into four principal types of text: (1) Syrian Text, the form of text found in most of the minuscule manuscripts, the later uncials, and many of the later versions and the quotations of the later Church Fathers. (2) Neutral Text, the type of text found in Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus the Alexandrian Fathers in a separate category. They differ from the neutral more in language than in substance. (4) Western Text. A name applied to a small group of manuscripts represented chiefly by the bilingual Codices Bezae (D), and Clarmontanus (Dp), a few minuscules, the Old Latin version(s), the Curetonian Syriac, and almost all the Fathers of the 2d and 3d centuries. This early and widespread text is characterized by alterations and expansions.

The Westcott and Hort text definitely influenced the committee producing the RV and ASV, and became the basis of the Twentieth-Century New Testament and Goodspeed's An American Translation, as well as influencing such Greek texts as Nestle and the United Bible Societies' text. Westcott and Hort brought about the final dethronement of the Textus Receptus, in spite of its scholarly defense by F. H. A. Scrivener, J. W. Burgen, and Edward Miller. More recently the Textus Receptus has been championed by Edwin F. Hills and Wilbur N. Pickering.

Other Critical Greek Texts.--The Resultant Greek Testament. Richard Francis Weymouth (1822-1902) produced a Greek Testament representing the reading chosen by the majority of ten of the leading textual scholars of the 19th century. It was the basis of Weymouth's translation, The New Testament in Modern Speech.

Weiss. Bernhard Weiss (1827-1918) published a Greek New Testament in three volumes in Leipzig, 1894-1900, with a second smaller edition in 1902-1905. His text was edited on the principle of selecting in each case the reading deemed most intrinsically appropriate to the writer and the context. Because his studies led him to conclude that the best ancient manuscript was Codex Vaticanus, his resulting text is much like that of Westcott and Hort.

Von Soden. Herman Freiherr von Soden published a new Greek text with a critical apparatus (I, 1902-10, II, 1913). The text was based on Von Soden's textual theory, with his division of manuscripts into three categories, which were divided by Von Soden into a bewildering number of subgroups. The whole complicated scheme has been described as a "magnificent failure." Von Soden's text, however, was used as the basis for Moffatt's brilliant translation of the New Testament.

Souter. In 1910 Alexander Souter reproduced the Greek text that Archdeacon Edwin Palmer had constructed inferentially as the text behind the Revised Version of 1881. To this he added a selected critical apparatus, with valuable citations of evidence from the Fathers, especially the Latin Fathers. It was reproduced in 1947 at Oxford with the addition of newer evidence.

Nestle-Aland. Before the appearance of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament, the most widely used text in recent times was the Nestle-Aland. It is a critical-eclectic text originally published in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle and based on a majority of agreement between Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weiss (from the 3d edition on; the first two used Weymouth), with a small critical apparatus. A thorough revision is anticipated in the 26th edition, under the editorship of Kurt Aland.

UBS. The United Bible Societies have sponsored a critical edition of The Greek New Testament with an apparatus of exegetically important variant readings, prepared by an international committee under the editorship of Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. The first edition appeared in 1966; with the third edition, 1975, the name of Carlo M. Martini was added to the list of editors.

Greek Text of N.E.B. The eclectic text constructed by the translators of The New English Bible was edited with an introduction, textual notes, and appendix by R. V. G. Tasker (1964). The textual notes give the rationale for a large number of the choices made in the text. Often they daringly chose readings that have the support of only a very small group of manuscripts of the Western type.

Textual Criticism Since Westcott and Hort.--Continuing studies have modified the conclusions of Westcott and Hort in the 20th century. One of the factors bringing about a change was the new discovery of important manuscripts. Among these are the four purple parchments (NOSF) of the 6th century, written in silver and gold ink; the 5th-century Washington Codex (W) of the four Gospels discovered in Cairo in 1906; the 84 surviving leaves of the Washington manuscript of the Pauline Epistles (I), dating from the 5th or 6th century; and the rediscovery in 1901 of Codex Koridethi (Q) after being "lost" in a convent for 30 years. Among the versions, mention should be made of the discovery of the palimpsest manuscript of the Old Syriac Gospels at St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai in 1892. But the most startling discoveries, because of their age, were papyri, including the three New Testament Codices of the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, and, more recently, the Codices of John, Jude, and 1 and 2 Peter, and Luke and John among the Bodmer Papyri.

With respect to Westcott and Hort's classification of manuscripts into text types, a number of modifications and clarifications have been made. Canon B. H. Streeter's The Four Gospels, with its theory of local texts, has had a marked influence in this area. The following principal text types are now generally accepted:

(1) Byzantine. This is the designation for the text found in the later manuscripts that Westcott and Hort termed Syrian. Since the term "Syrian" is subject to confusion with Syriac, and since the text's chief center of predominance was Constantinople, plus the fact that it was the text most widely used in the Byzantine church, scholars today prefer the designation Byzantine Text. A late form of this text is the Textus Receptus, which formed the basis of the KJV and many other translations into modern languages until the 19th century. That text is also spoken of as the "Greek Vulgate" the "Ecclesiastical Text," the "Koine [Common] Text" or the "Traditional Text." (2) Alexandrian. This category combines Westcott and Hort's Neutral and Alexandrian. Twentieth-century scholars maintain that there is not sufficient differentiation between the two to justify the retention of separate categories. Rather the manuscripts the Cambridge scholars classified as Alexandrian may simply represent differing degrees of fidelity to the text represented by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. "Neutral" as a designation for preferred manuscripts is a presumptive term. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, though still regarded as having a splendid text, are not as free from transcriptional corruptions as the Cambridge professors thought. (3) Western. This early and widespread text type has been carefully studied, and it is more highly regarded today than it was by Westcott and Hort. Its striking readings and additions are especially noteworthy in Luke and Acts. (4) Caesarean. Through the work of Streeter, Lake, Blake, and New, a new text type has been identified. It began with the discovery about 1875 by W. H. Ferrar that a group of manuscripts were textually related. This group, to which other manuscripts have since been added, is known as Family 13 or the Ferrar Group, which is headed by Manuscript 13.

Another group of related manuscripts, discovered by Kirsop Lake, is known as Family 1 (because headed by Manuscript 1). It was further discovered that the two families are textually related, as well as being related to some other Codices. After the rediscovery of the Koridethi Gospels, Professors Lake and Blake found that these related manuscripts were also related to these Gospels. To this family of manuscripts, Codex W in Mark, chapters 15-16, and the Beatty Papyrus Codex of the Gospels were added. B. H. Streeter called this new text type Caesarean because Origen used this kind of text at Caesarea. The Old Georgian, Old Armenian, and Palestinian Syriac (in Mark) versions also have the same text type.

Recent textual critics also attach more significance to the testimony of ancient versions and the Fathers than Westcott and Hort did. Many of them also hold that no one text type preserves all the original readings. This situation has led scholars to conclude that the restoration of the original text cannot be achieved simply by following objective rules of criticism to determine which of several variant readings is best, and that it is not feasible to choose any one manuscript or group of manuscripts as the "best manuscripts." This means that the present trend in textual criticism is toward eclecticism. Hence the shift is to a stronger reliance on what Westcott and Hort called intrinsic and transcriptional probability.

Even though these theories and methods of contemporary scholars represent a definite departure from those employed by Westcott and Hort, nevertheless there are only slight differences in the main critical texts now followed, such as the Nestle-Aland and United Bible societies, as compared with the text of Westcott and Hort. The Greek text on which The New English Bible is based, constructed by the eclectic method, however, differs considerably. While most of the readings adopted agree with the major critical texts, frequently different readings were adopted that are supported by a very small group of manuscripts of the Western type.

New Testament Textual Criticism in This Commentary.--The importance of textual evidence to a correct understanding of many passages in the New Testament makes it desirable to take note, throughout this commentary, of textual differences that have a significant bearing upon the meaning of these passages. It is not the purpose of this commentary, however, to approach the exegesis of Holy Writ in terms of a highly technical textual discussion, which would prove of little value to the average reader. Hence references to variant readings are not, as a general rule, accompanied by detailed evidence for or against a given reading; such evidence may be found in the critical apparatus of technical works such as Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece. However, a general evaluation of textual evidence is given, based on the readings of the more important manuscripts, the ancient versions, and patristic quotations from Scripture--here referred to collectively as "textual evidence"--in harmony with generally recognized principles of textual study. Unavoidably, a certain subjective element is often involved in this evaluation. See pp. 10, 116-123.

The evidence for or against a given reading is generally indicated by one of the following statements:

1. "Textual evidence attests the reading ..." (Where, with possible exceptions of minor importance, textual evidence for a reading appears conclusive.)

2. "Textual evidence favors the reading ..." (Where textual evidence is less than conclusive.)

3. "Textual evidence is divided between the readings ..." (Where textual evidence for or against a reading is indecisive.)

4. "There is some [or slight] textual evidence for the reading ..."

5. "[Important] textual evidence may [also] be cited for [or against] the reading ..." (Where a variant reading is mentioned only as a matter of interest and [or] with no attempt at evaluation.)

part ii: higher criticism

I. Introduction

As contrasted with lower criticism, which concerns itself largely with linguistic and textual matters, higher criticism is devoted to the study of such questions as the authorship, time, place, and circumstances of writing, historical validity, and literary relationships of a work.

The higher criticism of the Bible may be divided into two types, which in many aspects blend into one discipline--that which takes a skeptical attitude toward the Bible, and that which criticizes it on the basis of available historical evidence.

The skeptic relegates Bible narratives to the realm of fiction, because, says he, they describe events that cannot have happened under ordinary circumstances, and cannot be explained by means of known laws of nature. He affirms that stories concerning the earliest events, such as the record of creation, the longevity of the early patriarchs, and the story of the Flood, are ancient myths, and he rejects everything that must be accepted by faith.

The historical critic, on the other hand, draws his conclusions from internal evidence by studying the historical parts of the Bible, its laws, prophecies, and wisdom literature, and compares them with what is known from other sources. Higher critics evaluate the possible historicity of Bible stories; that is, they try to determine how much of a certain story is historical fact and how much of it is the product of the mind of a later writer. Clear and specific prophecies dealing with historical events are considered to have been written after the events described had happened.

Arguments of the Skeptic Not Discussed Here.--It is not the purpose of this article to study the arguments advanced by the skeptic against the reliability of the Bible. He challenges the truth of events and facts that can be seen only with the eye of faith and are therefore invisible to the unbeliever. In view of the fact that such points of faith cannot be verified by objective evidence, they are outside the range of this study.

For this reason the allegedly mythical character of the early stories of the Bible, much emphasized by critical scholars of a skeptical turn of mind, will not be discussed. Skeptics refuse to believe that Abraham, at the age of 99 years, begat a son, and that, according to the Bible record, he had several others later, by Keturah. They also question that he was able to defeat the disciplined armies of four monarchs from the east with his band of household slaves.

Some of the events described in these Bible stories have parallels in ancient as well as in modern times that show that under certain circumstances extraordinary things can, and do, take place. For instance, it has happened more than once in history that a small band of determined warriors has defeated a large and well-disciplined army, especially when the attack was made by surprise. One could in this way explain Abraham's victory over the armies from the east, or the massacre of Shechem's population by Jacob's sons. However, such parallels are still no proof that the challenged events described in the Bible actually took place. It is one thing to prove that such events could have occurred, and another to prove that they did occur. It is for this reason that their discussion is passed over here. Such accounts are believed by the one who accepts the Bible as an accurate historical record, and rejected by those who reject all but what they are compelled to believe, on the basis of what they consider incontrovertible evidence.

Critical Arguments of a Historical Nature.--However, many of the incidents related in the Bible as historical facts, but which have been declared unhistorical by the higher critic, have proved to be substantiated by recent archeological evidence. The arguments of the higher critics in this category can therefore be examined and proved untenable by sound evidence of a scientific nature. However, this brief survey will not attempt to treat the subject under discussion in an exhaustive way. This is neither possible within the confines of an article, nor necessary, since so many critical theories of the past have been exploded and are no longer held even by critical scholars themselves.

II. Higher Criticism of the Old Testament

In the higher criticism of the Old Testament the study of the Pentateuch has played a pre-eminent part. Theories developed in regard to these books have been applied to a critical evaluation of other Old Testament books. Since an understanding of Pentateuchal criticism forms a basis for the understanding of the problems and arguments brought up by critics with regard to other books of the Old Testament, it is necessary first to study the scholarly views held during the last two hundred years with regard to the first five books of the Old Testament. Furthermore, Pentateuchal criticism has involved such radical departures from traditional views that it has brought about a rewriting of Israelite history by critics who accept its conclusions. This radically revised historical structure has affected the critical view of almost all the Old Testament. Consequently, in the present article the higher criticism of the Pentateuch is given particular emphasis. Space forbids a careful study of the critical views held with regard to every Old Testament book, but some of the main critical arguments regarding books other than the Pentateuch will be discussed, together with evidence that indicates these views to be invalid.

History of Pentateuchal Criticism.--Pre-Reformation Critics. Like other Jews of their own time and like their ancestors for centuries past, Jesus and the apostles believed that Moses was the inspired author of the Torah, that is, the Law, or Pentateuch.

Few Christian or Jewish writers of pre-Reformation days doubted this traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. However, some of the Church Fathers, Irenaeus (died c. a.d. 200), Clement of Alexandria (died c. a.d. 220), Tertullian (died c. a.d. 230), and others, accepted the fictitious story of the spurious book of IV Ezra (written c. a.d. 100) to the effect that all books of the Old Testament that were in existence at the time of Nebuchadnezzar were lost when he destroyed Jerusalem, and that they were later rewritten by five scribes to whom Ezra dictated them by inspiration. Of the orthodox Church Fathers only Jerome (5th century), the translator of the Bible into Latin, expressed guarded doubts regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the reliability of the story of IV Ezra. Others who did so included the Nazarenes, members of various Gnostic sects, Celsus, a Platonic philosopher (c. a.d. 180), and Ptolemy, a Valentinian Gnostic (c. a.d. 175). However, even after allowance is made for dissent, it may be said that Christian scholarship in general accepted the traditional authorship of all Bible books.

The Jews had always believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The Talmud expressly affirms this to be so, and attributes to Joshua only the last eight verses of Deut. 34, describing the death of Moses (Talmud Baba Bathra 14b-15a, Soncino ed., pp. 71-73). Ibn Ezra, however, a famous medieval Jewish scholar (a.d. 1092-1167), expressed some doubt with regard to the Mosaic authorship of certain passages of the Pentateuch. This he did by cleverly observing that certain Jewish scholars of previous centuries had dated these passages later than the time of Moses. In this way he avoided suspicion as to his own orthodoxy.

From the Reformation to Jean Astruc. The Reformers were all stanch believers in the inspiration of the Bible. They translated it into their respective modern languages, and did everything in their power to encourage the people to regulate their faith and way of life in harmony with its teachings. There were no critics of the Bible among the Reformers or their immediate successors, with the exception of a few minor leaders such as Karlstadt. He declared that Moses could not have been the author of the Pentateuch, since its style and diction are the same as those of the other Old Testament books.

Some Protestants of the 17th century specifically expressed their opinions on the subject of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. T. Hobbes (1651) held that Moses "wrote all that which he is there said to have written," implying that sections not specifically attributed to Moses' pen by direct testimonies of the books themselves may have been written by someone else. The Calvinist Isaac la Peyrère (1655) saw in the Pentateuch, not an autograph of Moses, but a transcript of a transcript. The first man to attribute any part of Genesis to Babylonian influence, long before the Pan-Babylonians of the early 20th century, was Jean le Clerc (1685). He proposed that Gen. 1 to 11 was written by an Israelite author who lived in Babylonia after the fall of Samaria but before the Jewish exile, since both the Samaritans and the Jews had the Pentateuch.

Roman Catholic scholars of the post-Reformation period were even more critical than were Protestants, and several during the 16th and 17th centuries are known to have denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. A. Masius (1574) held that it was compiled by Ezra from ancient documents, whereas the Jesuit B. Pereira (1594), although attributing the greater part of the Pentateuch to Moses, nevertheless recognized later hands. Other Catholic scholars, like J. Bonrère (1625), Episcopius (died 1643), and R. Simon (1678), held similar views. The last-mentioned writer even denied the inspiration of some part of the Pentateuch.

The Age of Literary Criticism From Astruc to 1850. Jean Astruc (died 1766), who was court physician to Louis XV of France, is usually considered the founder of higher Biblical criticism. His Conjectures, published anonymously in 1753, laid the basis for higher critical views that have been current ever since. He was a keen student of the Bible, which he read in the original languages. In reading the book of Genesis he observed that the name 'Elohim is used in some parts almost exclusively, whereas the name Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh) appears in others. This observation led him to the conclusion that Moses used different sources, one (Astruc's "A" source) coming from the time when the name of God was 'Elohim, and the other (his "B" source) when it was Yahweh. Astruc communicated his observations to his friends, who urged him to publish them. Astruc, at first reluctant to do this for fear of disturbing anyone's faith, was finally persuaded to publish his findings without revealing himself as the author. His theory was hailed as a great discovery, and formed the basis of all higher critical theories developed since that time.

J. G. Eichhorn was the first influential theologian to follow Astruc in his reasoning. He made an attempt to characterize the various styles and thoughts of the two source writers, calling the one who used the divine name 'Elohim, "Elohist," and labeling the other "Jahvist" because of his use of the name Jahveh (Yahweh). In the earliest edition of his Introduction (1780) Eichhorn, like Astruc, considered Moses the "redactor," or editor, of Genesis, but in later editions gave up this conservative view and denied the Mosaic authorship of Genesis altogether.

The next writer who followed this way of reasoning was K. D. Ilgen, whose published views (1798) on Genesis differentiated among 17 documents, supposedly written by three authors. These he called the "first Elohist" (E¹), the "second Elohist" (E²), and the "Jahvist" (J). It is of interest to note that Ilgen attributed to his own "second Elohist" some parts Astruc attributed to the "Jahvist." This marks the beginning of differences among critical scholars, and a rather general lack of agreement noticeable in all their works.

The aforementioned writers limited their literary criticism to Genesis. But Alexander Geddes, a Scottish priest, extended his study to the whole Pentateuch, and insisted (1792) that the first five books of the Bible were compiled in Solomon's time from a mass of fragmentary documents of varying value. Then came J. S. Vater, who went further than any of his predecessors, claiming (1802) that the Pentateuch is the result of a slow and gradual literary growth that was not complete even when the Babylonian exile began.

It is not possible to describe all the different views proposed during the first hundred years after the publication of Astruc's Conjectures. Only the most influential works will be mentioned here. Among these belongs the Historical-Critical Introduction to the Bible, by W. M. L. De Wette (1817), in which he claimed that many cultural and religious conditions described in the Pentateuch did not exist until the time of the kings of Israel and Judah, and offered this as proof that it could not have been written earlier. He considered Genesis and Exodus to be a theological epic, Leviticus a collection of late laws, Numbers a supplement of miscellaneous matters, and Deuteronomy a product of the time of King Josiah.

During the first half of the 19th century other scholars, who proposed hypotheses by which they explained the development of the Pentateuch, were strongly influenced by the idea of progress, the philosophical forerunner of the evolution theory. One widely accepted hypothesis was propounded by J. F. L. George (1835). He claimed that some parts of the Pentateuch reflect "the Age of Myths"; other parts, the next stage of development, "the Age of Poets and Prophets"; and the latest sections, "the Age of Reason."

The Triumph of Biblical Higher Criticism. Another hypothesis, called the "New Documentary Theory," was proposed by H. Hupfeld in 1853. In a short time it found more adherents than anything previously suggested. Hupfeld distinguished among three main sources for Genesis: (1) an original E source, (2) a later E source, and (3) a J source. These three sources were then, according to Hupfeld, skillfully combined by a redactor (R). Although his theory does not seem to vary much from that suggested by Ilgen in 1798, his "discovery" of R was hailed as a great achievement, and tremendously influenced the thinking of all critical scholars.

The next stage in the history of higher criticism was reached when K. H. Graf (1815-1869), a teacher of Hebrew, published his epoch-making work on the historical books of the Old Testament (1866). He expanded Hupfeld's theory by dating the J and (Hupfeld's "later") E sources as earlier than Deuteronomy, which according to him had been produced in Josiah's time (c. 621 B.C.). His great achievement was in convincing scholars that Hupfeld's original E source was in fact the latest of all, and had not existed before Ezra's time. He maintained that this source, containing laws and religious instruction, was written by a priest long after the Exile.

Then came Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who brought higher critical views to full maturity. His gift of plausible presentation and fascinating ability to convince students and readers of the apparent soundness of his opinions made him the father of the so-called Graf-Wellhausen theory, which to all critical scholars of his time became an almost sacrosanct institution. The prolific activity of his students and followers, particularly during the years immediately after publication of his epochal History of Israel (1878), together with other circumstances, enabled critical Bible scholars to occupy the majority of theological chairs in schools of higher learning, especially in Europe. In this way almost all ministerial students in Europe, and later many also in America, came under the influence of the Wellhausen school. For a long time its teachings were considered absolute facts, first by the great majority of theological scholars and students, and later also by ministers and many of the informed laity.

The Graf-Wellhuasen theory, briefly, consists of the following scheme: The Bible writer called Jahvist (J), a citizen of the southern kingdom of Judah, wrote his source material, among which, for example, are the patriarchal stories from Abraham to the Exodus, in the middle of the 9th century b.c. A century later the writer called Elohist (E), living in the northern kingdom of Israel, wrote his account. These two documents were cleverly combined into one book, JE, by a redactor or editor (R^JE) about 650 B.C. In 621 B.C. the book of Deuteronomy (D) was produced, although not in the form we know it. This book was worked over by another redactor (R^D) about 550 B.C. Between the years 500 and 450 B.C. a priestly writer (P) wrote the legal and religious parts of the Pentateuch, which were then incorporated into the other books of a presumed Mosaic origin by another redactor (R^P), who did his final work of editing about 400 B.C. or a little later. Since that time, according to the theory, the Pentateuch has not experienced appreciable modification.

A schematic picture of this theory of reckoning with four source authors (JEDP) and three redactors (R^JER^DR^P) appears as follows:

J written c. 850 B.C.
E written c. 750 B.C. } combined to constitute JE by R^JE (c. 650 B.C.)

D written in 621 B.C. and added to by R^D (c. 550 B.C.)

P written c. 500-450 B.C. {and incorporated, with additions, into JED by R^P (c. 400 B.C.)

Although this scheme was accepted by most scholars as the basic hypothesis for all further study, modifications of a minor or even a major nature were introduced by almost every man who wrote on the subject. Many did not accept the J source as a unit, but subdivided it into J¹ and J², or into J¹, J², and J³, assigning to each a different period of writing. E was equally subdivided into E¹ and E², as was D into D and D^s, and also P into P, P^H, and P^s, the ^s being an abbreviation for "supplement," the ^H for "Holiness Code," a label given to Lev. 17 to 26. This splitting of sources into subdivisions was done because scholars discovered apparent differences in the material attributed to the various standard sources J, E, D, and P. Also, scholars disagreed widely as to the sequence or the time of production of the different sources. Some of the most famous of Wellhausen's followers, such as R. Kittel, H. Strack, W. W. Baudissin, and A. Dillman, argued that P worked in pre-exilic time. This placed him about 100 to 200 years earlier than Wellhausen had. E. König and Baudissin, furthermore, considered E much earlier than J, reversing Wellhausen's order, and some scholars were convinced that Deuteronomy had been produced earlier than 621 B.C.

A study of the many higher critical explanations of the Old Testament, even of those propounded after the triumph of the Graf-Wellhausen theory over all rivals, shows that hardly two authors agree either with regard to the time when the different supposed authors of the Pentateuch wrote their respective sections, or to the sequence of the sources. The only point that all these higher critical works have in common is their agreement that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch.

When the higher critical scholars experienced their greatest triumph, in the last decades of the 19th century and the first of the 20th, Bibles were published intended to teach the uninitiated reader the results of literary criticism of the Bible, as higher criticism is also called. In these Polychrome or Rainbow Bibles various sources discovered by modern scholarship are indicated in different colors. To give an example, E. C. Bissel's Genesis Printed in Colors, published in 1892, uses seven different colors in presenting the text of Genesis. On some of these pages five different colors are used to indicate as many different sources. On page 56, for example, which contains parts of Gen. 48 and 49, appear four sections, totalling nine verses, printed in red (E), three containing six verses printed in black (J), one line consisting of one third of a verse printed in blue (P), one section of eight verses in orange (J¹), and two words in green indicating the hand of an editor or redactor (R).

An analysis of Gen. 15 provides a further example of Bissel's Genesis. The first three verses are printed in brown, attributed to the combined source JE. The word "Dammesek" ("of Damascus" in the KJV) in v. 2, however, is underlined, since it is considered a gloss or a later addition. Verse 4 belongs to J, as do also vs. 6, 9-11, 17, and 18, which are printed in black. Verse 5, printed in red, is from the E source, and vs. 7, 8, 12-16, and 19-21, are in green, representing a late redactor. The history of this chapter according to the Graf-Wellhausen theory would therefore be the following as interpreted by Bissel's Genesis:

1. Verses 4, 6, 9-11, 17, 18, and some material of vs. 1-3 were written in 850 B.C., and contained all that was known about this vision of Abraham in the 9th century b.c.

2. Verse 5, together with parts of vs. 1-3, was composed about 750 B.C. Thus, in the latter part of the 8th century, people had two different accounts of the vision of Abraham, one written by J and the other by E, written 100 years apart.

3. The two stories were combined into one account by R^JE in 650 B.C. The beginnings of both narratives were so cleverly blended, being now vs. 1-3, that it is impossible to discover what was originally J and what was E. But the rest of J (vs. 4, 6, 9-11, 17, 18) and E (v. 5) was taken over without any editorial work. Hence, by the time of Josiah, the people had only one story of the vision, consisting of the equivalent of our vs. 1-6, 9-11, 17, and 18.

4. Finally, the story was expanded by R in the 5th century. He added to it vs. 7, 8, 12-16, and 12-21. Thus the story achieved the form in which we have it, with the exception of the word "Dammesek," which was added in v. 2 by some later copyist.

The explanation of Genesis based on Bissel's work, however, does not agree with the findings of other scholars. Holzinger, for example, says in Kautzch's Bible that the different sources of Gen. 15 cannot be isolated with certainty, and refrains from attempting to do so. The analysis of Gen. 15 by the Polychrome Bible of Paul Haupt (1896) differs widely from that of Bissel as to the original sources of the various sections. See table on next page.

These existing differences leave the nonexpert reader bewildered and confused. He fails to understand why scholars cannot agree in regard to their conclusions, and why certain passages in the Pentateuch declared by one writer to have been written by J, have with equal certainty been attributed to E, R, or D by another scholarly writer. The first may have based his assumption on the fact that these passages contained the name Yahweh, while the second author may have considered the name Yahweh a later addition made by a redactor, but that the style, contents, and character of the passages indicate that someone other than J wrote them.

That higher criticism of the Bible achieved so great a triumph and found so many followers can be attributed only to the human tendency to follow brilliant and convincing leaders without examining the evidence they offer. This tendency is evident not only in the political and religious world but also in the scholarly. That men of learning and discernment still follow these theories is due to the fact that Bible criticism was long held to be synonymous with scholarship in the theological world, and that any man who sought recognition as a scholar had to fall in line with the verdict of the founders of the science of higher Bible criticism. If a man wanted his ideas printed in scholarly journals and by reputable publishers, he had to be a critic. If he took exception to established opinion, he was ridiculed, ostracized, or perhaps simply ignored.

But there were other reasons than the different names for God that led Wellhausen and his followers to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and to brand it the product of later times. These various reasons will now be discuss

The Arguments of Higher Critics.--The reasoning of nonskeptical higher critics is based on historical and linguistic evidence. Only a limited number of these arguments can be discussed within the confines of this article. However, those considered here are representative of many others of a similar nature and provide a fair sampling of the issues involved.

Divine Names. The argument based on the different divine names, which forms the basis of higher criticism, has been considered in the preceding section.

Babylonian Origin of the Flood Story. It is a strange fact that the archeological discoveries made in Bible lands during the 19th century seemed, at first sight, to provide material that disproved rather than confirmed the accuracy of the Bible. It is true that many finds came to light which were acclaimed by

Verse Genesis Printed in Colors Polychrome Bible

1 JE 11 words E, 8 words J²

2 JE with a later gloss 10 words J², 6 words E

3 JE 7 words E, 5 words J²

4 J J²

5 E E

6 J J²

7 R J² with a redactional gloss

8 R J²

9 J J²

10 J J²

11 J J²

12 R 7 words J², 6 words JE

13 R JE

14 R JE

15 R JE

16 R JE

17 J 5 words JE, 10 words J²

18 J 18 words J², 2 words D

19 R D

20 R D

21 R D

conservative Christians as supporting the Bible, but these same discoveries were often pointed to by the critics as supporting their critical views.

The discovery of the cuneiform tablet containing the Babylonian Flood story may serve as an example of this tendency. When, in 1872, George Smith found among the tablets of Ashurbanipal's library of Nineveh, now in the British Museum, one that contained a Babylonian Flood story closely resembling that of the book of Genesis, Bible-believing Christians were delighted to find that other ancient people knew about the Flood. They accepted this, the Gilgamesh Epic (see Vol. I, p. 115), as evidence that that great catastrophe actually occurred. Critical scholars, however, have maintained that the Babylonian Flood story is based on a disastrous local flood limited to the Mesopotamian valley, caused by the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, and that the story of this disaster was embellished by the writers and poets of many generations until it reached the form in which it appears in the Gilgamesh Epic.

They claimed, furthermore, that this Babylonian story became known to the Jews during the Exile in Babylonia, and was taken over by them. Jewish writers are then supposed to have adapted it to their own religious ideas and inserted it in their Scriptures. This was done, they alleged, by purifying it of its Babylonian polytheistic and immoral features, thus bringing it into harmony with Jewish religion and ethics. A large segment of Bible scholars, instead of seeing in the discovery of the Babylonian Flood story a corroboration of the Biblical account, believed this discovery proved them right in assigning the Biblical Flood story to the realm of myth and folklore.

It was similarly claimed by critical scholars that the stories of creation, of the Tower of Babel, and of others were also borrowed from Babylonian legends during the Exile and incorporated into Jewish sacred literature.

The Problem of Hebrew Script. During the 19th century Egypt and Mesopotamia, the two great civilizations of antiquity, were proving to the astonished world that they possessed complicated systems of writing during the earliest periods of their history. In Palestine, however, no Hebrew inscriptions of equal age were found. The oldest alphabetic inscription discovered in the land of Moab in 1868, the Mesha (Moabite) Stone, is from the second half of the 9th century b.c. But no trace of Hebrew writing from the time of Moses, in the second millennium b.c., had been found in Palestine. Bible critics therefore concluded that writing was unknown in Palestine before David's time, and that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch in Hebrew because such a script simply did not exist in his time. If he wrote at all, it was said, he must have used Egyptian hieroglyphs or Babylonian cuneiform.

The Patriarchal Setting. Much effort was expended by the scholarly world to show that the historical and cultural setting in which the patriarchs lived was erroneously depicted in Genesis. In fact, it has been claimed that the men of the first millennium b.c. who wrote down the patriarchal stories used their own conditions as a setting for the narratives, and by giving many inaccurate details betrayed the fact that they had no knowledge of actual conditions in the patriarchal age. For example, higher critics asserted that the Hebrew writers depict the patriarchs as living in a world regulated by fixed laws and regulations. But such laws, the critics asserted, could not have existed in a primitive society, and mention of them in the Bible clearly shows that stories implying their existence were therefore composed at a later time.

Iron in the Patriarchal Age. That Genesis mentions the existence of iron and workers in iron before the Flood, and that Joshua describes the Canaanites as having chariots of iron in the time of the conquest, was considered by critical scholars as clear evidence that the books containing such statements are of very late origin, since it seemed that iron was not used until the end of the second millennium b.c.

Abraham's Camels. It was also held that the mention of camels in the Abraham narrative is a clear proof of the late origin of Genesis, because, it was maintained, the camel did not come into use before the 12th century b.c.

The Hittites. The Hittites, a people mentioned in different books of the Bible, were also once a target for critical scholars. Hittites were unknown from non-Biblical sources, such as classical Greek authors, and hence were declared to be one of the legendary peoples invented by the writers of the Old Testament.

Philistines in the Patriarchal Age. Mention of the Philistines in the patriarchal stories was also taken as proof that these narratives were of a late origin, since it seemed that the Philistines had not come to Palestine before the 12th century b.c.

Aramaic Words. Aramaic words and phrases in the Pentateuch and other early Old Testament books seemed to prove a late origin for these books, since only very late Aramaic inscriptions and extra-Biblical texts were known during the 19th century a.d.

Place Names. Late place names also seemed to point to the late origin of the books containing them. The city of Dan, for example, is mentioned in Gen. 14 in connection with Abraham's fight against the four Mesopotamian kings. But this city did not receive its name until several centuries after Abraham's death; hence, its occurrence in the book of Genesis was taken as evidence of the late origin of that book. The same argument was applied to city names like Rameses, Hebron, Bethel, and other late place names found in books that, according to traditional belief, were written before these names existed.

The Exodus. The Biblical accounts of Israel's sojourn in Egypt and of the Exodus have constantly been targets of the critical world. A few scholars have denied the sojourn in Egypt as well as the historicity of the Exodus, since these events are not mentioned in any Egyptian records. Others, admitting that the strong tradition about the Exodus must have some historical basis, limit it to a few tribes only, declaring that not all of Jacob's sons had migrated to Egypt. The seven years of famine in Joseph's time have been declared of legendary origin, since it was considered unthinkable that there should have been no normal inundation of the Nile for that length of time. Many other details connected with the Exodus story were likewise relegated to the realm of fiction.

Uniformity of Language. One of the strong arguments in favor of a late origin of the Pentateuch, the uniformity of the Hebrew language throughout the Old Testament, has been stressed by many critics. The reasoning ran thus: If the Pentateuch had been written eight centuries before Isaiah, or nine centuries before Jeremiah, it should reveal linguistic peculiarities in vocabulary, grammar, and syntax that would be markedly different from those found in the extant Pentateuch manuscripts. Some poetical sections like the oracles of Balaam, the song of Moses, the blessings of Jacob and Moses, which show a more archaic language than the rest of the Pentateuch, have been considered remnants of older source materials taken over by the later writers of the Pentateuch and incorporated into the narrative in appropriate places.

Chronology. Every reader of the Old Testament notes at once the great amount of chronological data. The first impression is that it should be easy to arrive at correct dates, with the help of so much chronological information. However, all who have worked in the field of Biblical chronology know that it proves to be a difficult and often baffling field of study. Generations of scholars have tried their hands on the problems involved, and yet have been unable to harmonize certain apparently conflicting statements. Problems have also arisen between the chronological pattern of the Bible and that of secular historical records.

These difficulties have led most scholars to question seriously the chronological data of the Old Testament. Very few have felt confidence in their accuracy. Old Testament scholars have therefore dealt with them as they pleased--often changing them to fit modern concepts of ancient chronology. As a result, no two scholars have been able to agree on many chronological problems. Most of them have explained the chronological difficulties to be the work of late compilers and editors who used historical sources that they did not understand and that often contradicted one another. This conflicting material, the critics declare, was in some cases incorporated by the editor without any change, while in other cases editorial additions were made. When the editor failed to understand the real issues involved, he succeeded only in making matters worse than they were already.

Historical Reports of the Period of the Kings. No critic doubts that David, Solomon, and other men of the period of the kings are historical figures. But critics in general have little confidence in the accuracy of the stories told of the exploits of these kings. It is pointed out that in the few cases where an event is described in the Bible as well as in other contemporary records, there are always major discrepancies between the two accounts. Since the extra-Biblical records are found in documents written shortly after the events happened, while the Bible texts have been transmitted from generation to generation, often orally, the first-mentioned documents are considered more reliable by the critical historian. Accordingly, these secular sources should be given preference over the Bible as source material in the reconstruction of ancient history.

Sennacherib's Judean campaign serves as a good example of this type of problem, since it is described in detail in three books of the Bible (2 Kings 18; 19; 2 Chron. 32; Isa. 36; 37), and also in contemporary royal records of Assyria. Numerous details differ in the accounts as given by the two nations, the Jews and the Assyrians. The disaster of Sennacherib's army, which plays a prominent part in the Biblical story, is not mentioned at all by the Assyrians. According to the Bible, Hezekiah's tribute was sent to Lachish, but according to Sennacherib's records, to Nineveh. These and other discrepancies are taken by the critics as evidence that the Biblical story was written down at a time when the writer had only a vague notion of what had actually happened, and is therefore inaccurate.

Official Documents. Some books of the Old Testament, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, contain official decrees. They have often been called spurious by the critics and put on the same level as those found in apocryphal Jewish literature, whose fictitious character can be demonstrated. These supposed official documents were fabrications of the later writer, it is claimed, to give to the stories in which they are inserted an air of authenticity. Official decrees, it is said by the critics, would not have favored the Jews to the extent described, for example, in Ezra 7:12-26, and hence cannot be accepted as authentic.

Late Criteria in Psalms and Other Hymns. The Psalms and other songs found in the Old Testament have been another constant target of higher critics. Typical of the critical views in regard to this subject is a statement made concerning the time when the Psalms were written:

"The great majority of psalms was presumably written during the assembling of the Psalter, between 400 and 100 B.C. and shortly before, in the fifth century. The real question with regard to the Psalter is not whether it contains Maccabean psalms of the second century, but rather whether any psalms are pre-exilic poems" (Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament [New York, 1941], p. 629).

Usually, isolated phrases constitute the only supposed "proof" of late authorship. That the expression "the mountain of thine inheritance," for instance, occurs in the song of Moses (Ex. 15:17), is taken as evidence that this song was not composed earlier than Solomon's time, when the Temple was built on Mt. Zion.

Ps. 110 may serve as a typical example of the reason why, according to critics, a "Davidic" psalm should be dated in the Maccabean age. In the first verse the Lord's pronouncement begins with the Hebrew word sheb, "sit." The sh (one letter in Hebrew) of the word sheb, taken together with the first letter of v. 2, m, the first letter of v. 3, Ô (ayin), and the initial letter of v. 4, n, produce the group of consonants shmÔn, which, with the appropriate vowels, reads ShimeÔon, or Simeon. This name, it is claimed by the critic, must refer to Simon Maccabeus, and therefore Ps. 110 was "the oracle by which Simon Maccabeus was solemnly confirmed in the office of leader and high priest in 141 B.C." (ibid., p. 630).

Problem of Deutero-Isaiah. For a discussion of this problem see Vol. IV, pp. 84-86.

Late Date of Ezekiel. Until recent years little question was raised regarding the authenticity of the book of Ezekiel. Scholars generally accepted the traditional view that Ezekiel was a Hebrew carried captive to Babylon with Jehoiachin, and that there he composed the prophecies that bear his name. In fact, so settled did many critical scholars consider the traditional date of Ezekiel that they made it a corner post in the radical reconstruction of the priestly materials (see p. 152) of the Pentateuch.

In 1924, however, Gustav Hölscher introduced a new period in the study of Ezekiel by suggesting that in general the only genuine parts of the book were written in poetry. As a result of his extensive study he concluded that less than 170 verses of the entire book were actually the work of Ezekiel. In 1931 C. C. Torrey followed with an even more radical work (Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930]), concluding that the book is a fiction written in the 3d century b.c.

The most recent major study from this general point of view is that of W. A. Irwin (The Problem of Ezekiel[Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1943]). He sees Ezekiel as made up of a nucleus of authentic materials, together with much commentary on these by later writers. He seeks to separate genuine from spurious materials by a comparison of the phrases that introduce different sections of the book, and by an elaborate analysis of literary style. He identifies certain passages as later commentary on other passages because he sees them as misinterpretations of what Ezekiel actually wrote. Irwin concludes, "The material which we possess from the prophet Ezekiel constitutes rather less than 25 per cent of the bulk of the first thirty-nine chapters of his book" (ibid., p. 283). He believes that the genuine nucleus was written in Palestine, that later editors worked probably not only there but also in Babylon and Egypt, and that the whole book was assembled in its present form in Hellenistic times.

Maccabean Dating of Daniel. For a discussion of the critical problems of the book of Daniel see Vol. IV,

Consideration of Higher Critical Arguments.--Some of the most important arguments offered by higher critics have been presented above. A consideration of these major arguments is now in order--it is not necessary to examine the many minor points of evidence that are used to support the critical point of view.

The Divine Names. The theories built on the occurrence of different divine names in the Old Testament books have formed the basis of all higher Bible criticism, and are still considered its main pillars. Conservative scholars have long pointed to the lack of any valid reason for the assertion that the different divine names in the Old Testament are evidence of multiple authorship. Ancient versions such as the LXX show that the Hebrew text from which they were translated seems to have had divine names that differ, in many instances, from those found in the Masoretic text (see Vol. I, pp. 34-36). The Hebrew word 'Elohim is generally represented in the LXX by the Greek word Theos, "God," and Yahweh by the Greek Kurios, "Lord." But in many instances the word Kurios is found in passages where the present Hebrew text has 'Elohim, and Theos appears where the Hebrew text has Yahweh. This observation leads conservative scholars to the conclusion that the divine names 'Elohim, Yahweh, and 'Adonai (which the LXX also renders as Kurios) were formerly used as interchangeably as the names "God" and "Lord" are today. Consequently, no particular significance can be attached to the use of a particular divine name in any given passage.

This theory proposed by conservative scholars was proved correct for the first time by a Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah. Discovery of a complete manuscript of a major book of the Old Testament produced in the 2d century b.c. (see Vol. I, p. 31 ff.) made it possible to determine whether the Masoretic text as we have it today (from the 9th century a.d.) is or is not consistent in retaining the divine names as they appeared in manuscripts a millennium closer to the originals, or whether the various terms are used more or less interchangeably. An examination of the text of the complete Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah revealed that this ancient Hebrew Bible manuscript (1QIs) differs from the Masoretic rendering of the different divine names in 16 passages. This is conclusive evidence that these names provide no basis whatever for determining authorship. And inasmuch as the edifice of higher criticism has been built upon the varying usage of the divine names, the entire structure is left suspended like a mirage on the tremulous horizon of the arid desert of skepticism. The following list presents the differences in the use of the divine names between this Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah and the Masoretic text a millennium later:

This tabulation shows that in 16 Isaiah texts there are differences in the divine names used, between this Dead Sea scroll and the Masoretic text. The fallacy of basing a hypothesis on the occurrence of certain divine names in the existing Hebrew text is clear. Furthermore, the conservative view, that the three divine names were used more or less interchangeably throughout the Old Testament, is vindicated. There could be no more eloquent testimony to the fundamental inaccuracy of the methods followed by higher critics and of the unreliability of their dogmatic conclusions. Even if there were no evidence but this, their position would be left completely untenable.

The Flood Story Not Borrowed From the Babylonians. Similarities between the Biblical and Babylonian accounts of the Flood are obvious, but these similarities do not constitute proof that the writer of Genesis borrowed his story from the Babylonians. There are also great differences between the two stories. While Noah, the "preacher of righteousness," proclaimed a message of warning to his fellow men and doubtless bent every effort to convert and save his contemporaries, the Babylonian Noah--whose name, Ut-napishtim, bears no resemblance to that of Noah--was commissioned to deceive his fellow citizens in order to prevent them from also building ships and saving themselves.

Again, the Bible describes the Flood as a righteous punishment upon the wicked antediluvians, whereas the Babylonian story gives the impression that the cataclysm was due to a whim of the gods. It states that their "heart led" them "to produce the flood," yet when its destructive results were seen they became so "frightened by the deluge" that they, "shrinking back, ascended to the heaven of Anu," "cowered" there "like dogs," and "crouched against the outer wall." One of them, the goddess "Ishtar, cried out like a woman in travail," and regretted deeply having spoken "evil in the assembly of the gods, ordering battle for the destruction of my people." Though the similarities point to a common origin, these differences, typical of many found in the two stories, show clearly that the Biblical account has preserved a purer account, infinitely more elevated, moral, logical, and consistent with itself than its Babylonian counterpart. In view of the fact that historical facts generally suffer adulteration--rather than purification--during the process of transmission, it is far more reasonable to consider the obviously inferior Babylonian account a perversion of the original as represented by Genesis. The very existence of the Babylonian story is, nevertheless, excellent testimony to the historicity of the Deluge.

Since the Babylonian Flood story was discovered, scholars have found many similar stories preserved by the various peoples of earth, on every continent and many islands of the sea. The ancient Egyptians knew of the story. The memory of a great Flood survives among the Eskimos; the Indians of Central America; the most southern inhabitants of South America; the Iranians; the people of India, China, and Central Asia; and the islanders of the Pacific. Although the various accounts show differences, because of long, and in many cases oral, transmission, most of them agree in several important points, as for example that the catastrophe was universal, that only a few were saved, and that an ark was provided.

The existence of numerous stories about a universal flood among both ancient and modern peoples strongly implies the historicity of this event. The Babylonian Flood story is therefore only one of many that have kept alive the memory of this, the greatest of all catastrophes to fall upon our world. That it is more similar to the Bible story than any other account of the Flood is due to the fact that it comes from the very region where the ark landed and the human race again took root. Once the historicity of the Flood is granted, there is no longer any basis for the assumption that the Jews borrowed the story from the Babylonians, for the argument that the author of Genesis borrowed his story from other sources is based on the assumption that it is a legend and not a historical account.

Geology itself provides further concrete evidence of the universal extent of the Deluge. The fossil remains of plants and animals are found distributed over practically the entire service of the earth. These remains always occur in stratified rock deposits, which, almost without exception, were deposited in their present position by water--often obviously by waters in violent motion. The universal distribution of these remains and the depth of their burial testify unmistakably to both the worldwide extent and the terrific violence of the Noachian Deluge. The evidence of the rocks and the fossils they contain is mute but eloquent testimony to the fact that plant and animal life on this earth was once obliterated by a flood. No other theory offers a consistent and credible explanation of all the observed geological facts. See Vol. I, pp. 70-97.

Moses Could Have Written the Pentateuch. When the claim was first made by the Wellhausen school that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch in Hebrew, since that language had not been reduced to writing in the second millenium b.c., no Hebrew inscriptions or manuscripts were known earlier than the Moabite Stone of the 9th century b.c. Then came the phenomenal discovery of the Amarna tablets, in 1887, hundreds of letters written by Palestinian, Syrian, and other Asiatic rulers to the Egyptian Pharaoh. They date from the 14th century b.c., the time of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua and the elders. It became clear at once that writing was in wide use during the period of the Exodus, when Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Rudolf Kittel, editor, of the famous Hebrew Bible bearing his name, wrote a History of the Hebrews in 1888, 10 years after Wellhausen's first epoch-making History of Israel. Kittel, although far from being a conservative, opposed the Wellhausen theory that the history of Israel prior to Saul's and David's kingships lay in impenetrable darkness and that no trace exists of a pre-Davidic literature. In opposition to Wellhausen he claimed that the Hebrew tradition as preserved in the earliest books of the Bible deserves more respect than is commonly given them. When Kittel presented the first copy of his work to the famous Professor Kautzsch, expecting from him a favorable recommendation to be used for publicity purposes, Kautzsch declined, after leafing through the book, with the comment, "I am very sorry, but we are farther advanced since Wellhausen."

Shortly after this incident the discovery of the Amarna archive, already referred to, revealed that the Canaanites did, indeed, have a rich literature, that writing was widespread in the time of Moses, and that the historical and cultural conditions of that time agree to an amazing extent with those described in the Pentateuch. In describing this discovery Kittel points out the reluctance of critics to accept the evidence of new information and to abandon theories consequently proved to be erroneous:

"One would think that after 1890 Wellhausen, Stade, and the formidable number of second-and third-rank scholars, who dealt with the history of Israel, would make use of the new evidence. But nothing of the kind happened--a proof of the difficulty with which men change their views or are willing to increase their learning beyond a certain limit. Wellhausen and Stade have never retracted any of their theories, and the others have written their books, mostly according to the scheme given by Wellhausen, as if nothing had happened. It was not until the Code of Hammurabi was found, and the unfortunate Babel-Bible quarrel had passed, that minds were slowly convinced a new era had dawned" (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 7th ed. [Stuttgart, 1925], p. x, author's translation).

The advocates of higher criticism have repeatedly claimed that only scholastic honesty has brought them to the conclusions they hold with regard to the Bible. Wellhausen said once that "if it [the Israelite tradition] were only possible, it would be folly to prefer any other possibility" (Komposition des Hexateuch [1885], p. 346). However, the attitude of many critics toward the credibility of the Bible changed very little even when archeological discoveries proved their theories untenable, as clearly stated in Kittel's statement quoted previously. This fact reveals clearly that scholars themselves are not exempt from the human weakness of disliking to retreat from a position once taken. Scholars are human, and, like other people, do not like to see their work disproved, discredited, and discarded. Hence, occasionally, they cling to outmoded theories, forgetful that intellectual honesty should lead them to be the first in confessing the error of their theories and admitting the truth of the Bible record.

As already noted, the Amarna Letters disproved the claim that there was little writing outside of Egypt and Mesopotamia in the middle of the second millennium b.c. However, all these documents were written in Babylonian cuneiform and provided no evidence that Moses could have written his books in an alphabetic Hebrew script such as that in which the Pentateuch has come down to us. But the fact that such a script was available to him was not long in coming to light.

In 1904-5 Sir Flinders Petrie discovered numerous inscriptions in the Egyptian copper mines on Sinai, written in an unknown script. When deciphered by Gardiner, Cowley, Sethe, and others, from 1916 on, they turned out to be written in the earliest alphabetic Hebrew script known, a script invented at Sinai by Canaanite or Edomite miners during the 15th or 16th century b.c., immediately prior to the time of Moses. Many inscriptions in the same proto-Semitic script have since been unearthed in Palestine, at such sites as Lachish, Tell el-Heséµ, Shechem, Megiddo, Beth-shemesh, etc. These inscriptions all date from the second millennium b.c., and reveal that Canaanite alphabetic writing--practically identical with Hebrew--was widespread in the time of Moses. This discovery left the critics, who base their theory of a late origin for the Pentateuch primarily on the argument that there was no Hebrew writing in Moses' time, without a shred of evidence for their contention.

Environment of Patriarchal Age Correctly Depicted in Genesis. The oft-repeated claim that the cultural, historical, and geographical setting in which the patriarchs lived was different from that described in Genesis was never based on evidence, but only on a presumption elevated to the rank of dogmatic assertion. The same is true of the fictitious claim that the legal material of the Pentateuch exhibits a stage of social development that did not exist before the first millennium b.c. Discovery of the Code of Hammurabi and of other law codes from even earlier times has proved that laws strikingly similar to those of Moses were widely known during the early centuries of the second millennium b.c. (see Vol. I, pp. 616-619). Furthermore, tablets and inscriptions from Nuzi, in Mesopotamia, and elsewhere make evident that the social and cultural conditions of patriarchal times were precisely those met in the Biblical stories (see on Gen. 11:31; 12:16; 14:1; 15:2; 16:16; 19:24; 23:3, 11; 24:10; 30:9; 31:47; 37:36; 38:24; etc.).

Honest scholars express surprise when archeological discoveries show remarkable agreement between ancient records coming from the patriarchal period and stories about the patriarchs in the Bible. Prof. Alfred Jeremias, a pronounced critic, was led to make the following admission:

"The milieu [setting] of the stories of the Patriarchs agrees in every detail with the circumstances of Ancient-Oriental civilization of the period in question, as borne witness to by the monuments. ... Wellhausen worked out from the opinion that the stories of the Patriarchs are historically impossible. It is now proved that they are possible. If Abraham lived at all, it could only have been in surroundings and under conditions such as the Bible describes" (The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East [New York, 1911], vol. 2, p. 45).

Many similar testimonies might be quoted. As to this significant change of attitude on the part of critics, the celebrated American Orientalist W. F. Albright wrote:

"Eminent names among scholars can be cited for regarding every item of Gen. 11-50 as reflecting late invention, or at least retrojection of events and conditions under the Monarchy into the remote past, about which nothing was thought to have been really known to the writers of later days.

"The archaeological discoveries of the past generation have changed all this. Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition" ("The Biblical Period," The Jews; Their History, Culture and Religion [New York, 1949], p. 3).

Archeological discoveries have thus proved wholly wrong the view that the writer of Genesis was unfamiliar with the conditions of patriarchal times. In the very field where critical scholarship once appeared to win its greatest triumphs it has now suffered its most significant defeat. Were he alive, intellectual honesty would compel Wellhausen, the patron saint of higher criticism, to recant his indictment of the Old Testament (see also Vol. I, p. 100).

The Use of Iron in the Patriarchal Age. Even scholars who admitted that the environment of the patriarchal period is correctly depicted in the Pentateuch took exception to the mention of iron in Gen. 4:22; Deut. 3:11; etc. These texts were considered anachronistic, since an extensive use of iron before the 12th century b.c. was not generally admitted in the world of metallurgical experts. However, iron objects have been recovered from Egyptian tombs of the predynastic period, and iron tools have been found embedded in the masonry of the Pyramid of Cheops and the pyramid temple of Menkure (Mycerinos), both of the Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (commonly dated by Egyptologists as c. 2500 B.C.). Iron objects have also been discovered in tombs of the Sixth, Eleventh, and Eighteenth Dynasties (c. 2200, 2000, and 1500 B.C. respectively). In Mesopotamia the ruins of Tell Chagar Bazar, Tell Asmar, and Mari have produced iron implements made in the third millennium, thus furnishing evidence that iron was produced in the earliest periods of history. Moreover, texts of the time of Hammurabi (18th century b.c.) and the Amarna Letters (14th century b.c.) provide literary evidence for the use of iron in the patriarchal age and in the time of Moses, in both Mesopotamia and Egypt. This is conclusive evidence that iron was known and used long before the time of Moses, and that statements in the Pentateuch about the early use of iron agree with known facts.

The Patriarchs Possessed Camels. According to Gen. 24:10, Abraham possessed camels. They were also found in Egypt during his time (Gen. 12:16). But modern scholars would have us believe that one of "of the most obvious errors" of the books containing the passages of Gen. 12:16 and Ex. 9:3 is "the assumption that camels were used in Egypt in ancient times" (Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament [New York, 1941], p. 154).

It is true that according to currently available evidence the domesticated camel cannot have been widely used in the third and second millenniums b.c. But there is clear evidence that it was used at times as a beast of burden in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, not only during the patriarchal period, but even earlier, as the following brief survey of the evidence will show.

A predynastic tomb at Abusir el-Meleg and one of the First Dynasty at Abydos in Egypt brought to light clay figurines of camels. A rope made of camel's hair was found in a Third or Fourth Dynasty setting in the Faiyûm, and another figurine of a camel came from the Nineteenth Dynasty (c. 1300 B.C.) at Rifeh. This evidence clearly implies that the camel was known as a beast of burden in Egypt during the third and second millenniums b.c.

From Mesopotamia come pictorial representations of the camel, in the form of figurines or on seals, from the very earliest historical period of Erech, from the Ur III level at Eshnunna (c. 2000 B.C.), and elsewhere, from the middle of the second millennium b.c. One 18th-century figurine of a camel was found at Byblos in Syria, and one of the 15th century at Gezer in Palestine. All these representations found in various countries of the ancient Near East attest the use of the camel throughout those lands during the patriarchal period.

Early Hittites. Although the Hittites appear frequently in the Biblical narrative, they are never mentioned in classical sources. They had disappeared so completely from secular history that less than 100 years ago critics of the Bible boldly stated that they had never existed. However, the discoveries of the last 50 years have entirely changed this situation. Today it is known that the Hittites were a great nation during early Old Testament times, and that their influence and power extended over great parts of Asia Minor and Syria.

The increase of knowledge concerning the Hittites is apparent from a comparison of the length of articles devoted to this nation in various editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article on the Hittites in the eighth edition (1860) consisted of only eighth single-column lines, whereas in a current edition (1947) ten full pages of two columns each are devoted to a description of their history, culture, and religion.

It has been found, from archeology, that legal procedures implicit in the account of Abraham's purchase of Machpelah from the children of Heth, or Hittites, were specifically those of the Hittites (see on Gen. 23:3, 11). It is becoming more and more evident that even the earliest references to Hittites in the patriarchal age are not anachronisms. Archeology has resurrected the ancient Hittites, and thereby corroborated the Bible record in a most remarkable way.

Philistines in the Patriarchal Age. It is true that a great wave of Philistines came to Palestine together with other "Peoples of the Sea" in the 12th century b.c., during the reign of Ramses III. This was several centuries after the patriarchal age, during which time, according to the Pentateuchal records, Philistines were already living in southwestern Palestine. Since the Philistines do not appear in Egyptian records preceding the 12th century, their mention in the early books of the Bible was considered evidence of late authorship.

However, like the long-forgotten Hittites, the early Philistines are beginning to experience a historical resurrection. Conservative Biblical scholars have waited long and patiently for evidence of the presence of the Philistines in Palestine during the patriarchal age. Then, since 1929, the first traces of such evidence have come to light. In the alphabetic texts from Ugarit (Ras Shamrah), dating from the middle of the second millennium b.c., two to three centuries before the invasion of the "Peoples of the Sea" during the reign of Ramses III, Philistines are mentioned. These Philistines known to the scribes of Ugarit are so far the earliest ones encountered in extra-Biblical sources, but they do prove the existence of some Philistines in the region of Syria-Palestine before the great migration of peoples that brought great numbers of Philistines to Palestine.

Other evidence for the existence of early Philistines is the discovery of Cretan pottery in the layers of ruined Palestinian cities of the patriarchal age. It is known that the Philistines came to Palestine from Crete, a historical fact revealed by both Biblical (Crete-Caphtor, Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7; see also on Gen. 10:14) and archeological evidence, to which island they had come in earlier times and may have destroyed the old Minoan civilization. Cretan pottery in Palestine during the patriarchal age is therefore an indirect evidence for the presence of Cretans, probably Philistines, in Palestine. In the Bible the Cretans are grouped with the Philistines, as in the bodyguard of David, which consisted of Cherethites and Pelethites--Cretans and Philistines--(2 Sam. 8:18; 15:18; etc.). The same relationship is evident from Zeph. 2:4, 5.

Although evidence for the presence of Philistines in patriarchal Canaan is limited, enough has come to light to show that some had migrated from Crete long before the time of Ramses III. Some of them had settled in the region of Gerar in the time of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 21:34; 26:1), though not in great numbers. This probably accounts for their readiness to make treaties with these powerful patriarchs (see Gen. 21:22-24; 26:26-28). By the time of the later judges, however, successive migrations had occurred and the Philistines had become sufficiently strong to oppress the Israelites, posing a serious threat to their independent existence. The Bible and archeology are thus in agreement that some Philistines had settled in Canaan prior to the 12th century b.c., and that after that time they became both numerous and powerful.

Aramaic Words No Proof for Late Date. When the earliest Aramaic texts and inscriptions known were those of the 8th or 9th century b.c. and no extra-Biblical information was available on Aramaeans during the patriarchal age, it was boldly claimed by critics that Aramaic words in the Pentateuch (see on Gen. 31:47) and the mention of Aramaeans, or Syrians (Gen. 25:20; Deut. 26:5; etc.), prove the late origin of these records. Today no conscientious scholar presumes to offer this argument against the authenticity of the Bible. The north-Canaanites texts of Ugarit, written in the middle of the second millennium b.c., about the time of the Exodus, contain various Aramaic words and expressions, revealing the fact that Aramaeans had penetrated Syria by that time.

One example of the early occurrence of Canaanite (a language nearly identical with Hebrew) and Aramaic words in extra-Biblical texts will suffice. This example is especially important because it also proves the Hebrew text of Psalms 2 correct--a passage on which every critical scholar dealing with the Psalms has made some textual "corrections." In a letter from Ugarit (C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook [Rome, 1947], no. 138) the expression "my son" is used twice, in line 3 in Aramaic, bari, but in line 16 in Hebrew, beni. Like other Ugaritic texts, this letter proves, in the first place, the existence of an Aramaic vocabulary in the time of the Exodus, when this letter was written, and second, that Aramaic and Hebrew words were used side by side in the same text.

Ps. 2 also contains these identical Hebrew and Aramaic words. Critics have declared that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that in the original text of the Psalms the word "son" should have been expressed by two different words, Heb. ben, in v. 7, and Aramaic bar, in v. 12. Hence they emended, or corrected, the text in such a way as to dispose of bar. However, the Ugaritic text, much shorter than Psalms 2 and written several centuries earlier, shows the same use of the same Hebrew and Aramaic words side by side. This example, which could be multiplied by other illustrations, shows clearly that the occurrence of Aramaic words, or even entire sections, as in the book of Ezra, is no proof whatever of a late origin.

The Aramaeans are likewise mentioned in extra-Biblical text of the middle of the second millennium b.c. They appear in the Amarna Letters under their cuneiform name Achlame, and from that time onward in unbroken sequence in the historical documents of the ancient world. Their occurrence in connection with the Pentateuchal record is therefore in complete harmony with what is known about them from contemporary records.

Late Place Names No Proof of Late Origin. It cannot be denied that place names are found in the Pentateuch which did not exist in the time of Moses. The city of Dan is mentioned in Gen. 14:14 and Deut. 34:1, although its name was Leshem, or Laish, until the time of the judges (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:29), when the Danites conquered the city and gave to it the name of their illustrious ancestor. In Genesis the land of Goshen is once called "the land of Rameses" (Gen. 47:11), a name not applied to that region until four centuries after Jacob settled there, or two centuries after Moses penned the narrative. The same may be said of other late names (see on Gen. 32:28; Ex. 1:11; etc.).

However, the occurrence of such late place names is by no means a proof that the books containing them were not written earlier. All the Old Testament has come down to us in copies and copies of copies. Later copyists have simply exchanged obsolete names for current ones, so that readers might be able to recognize the cities of which the text spoke. This procedure is comparable to that of a modern reviser of the Bible who revises the outmoded expressions of former editions (see below under Uniformity of Language).

The Exodus a Historical Fact. It is true that no extant Egyptian records specifically mention the Israelites either during the time of their sojourn or at the Exodus. This, however, is not at all strange in view of the fact that the Egyptians, like other ancient peoples, usually omitted from their official records any mention of events unfavorable to them. Of the Hyksos period, when for more than a century Egypt was ruled by Semitic and Hurrian foreigners, hardly any contemporary Egyptian records have been found. Even those Egyptian kings who liberated the country from Hyksos rule were silent concerning them, though they had every reason to be proud of their achievement. If it were not for the tomb inscription of an army officer who took part in the war of liberation, which mentions a few important facts about the different campaigns against the Hyksos, we would have to depend almost completely on later semilegendary stories and the incomplete list of Hyksos kings. As it is, we have pitifully little source material with which to reconstruct the history of that important period of ancient Egyptian history in which, most likely, Joseph was prime minister of Egypt and in which Jacob's family settled in Goshen.

Although the seven-year famine of Joseph's time has not been attested by Egyptian records, another, earlier, famine of seven years is recorded in Egyptian documents. Since this document has been discovered, the critics' claim that a seven-year drought was incredible stand exposed as false.

Because archeological discoveries now prove that many details of the Exodus in the Biblical narrative reveal an intimate knowledge of Egyptian life and culture, and because the whole account corresponds so exactly with the known history of the Eighteenth Dynasty, when the Exodus seems to have taken place, no valid doubt concerning the historicity of that great event can longer be entertained. Few and feeble indeed are the voices of critics that now deny the Exodus, though there is still considerable difference of opinion as to the time. The event has been variously assigned to the 17th, 16th, 15th, and 13th centuries. Critical scholars tend to prefer the latter, though some of them believe that two such movements occurred, one in the 15th, the other in the 13th, century, and that later the records of both were combined into one story. Space does not permit a discussion of these differences (see on Gen. 21:32). It is sufficient to state that the findings of more than 100 years have convinced scholars that the Exodus must be considered a historical fact. The conservative student of the Bible has witnessed with great satisfaction the current trend toward a more positive attitude on the record of Israel's sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus.

Uniformity of Language. Every student of the Hebrew Bible notices that no great linguistic differences occur in the historical books of the Old Testament. However, this fact is no proof that all these books were composed in a comparatively short period of time, as the higher critics have claimed.

Conservative scholars have attempted to explain this fact by assuming that uniformity of language was achieved by later recensions, or revisions, to bring the vocabulary, grammar, and orthography into harmony with the standards of later times. This work of revision ceased, the conservative assumed, shortly after the Exile when the Old Testament canon was fixed. They also claimed that the poetic parts of the Bible show a more archaic form because poetry has a greater tendency to withstand modernization in spelling, style, and diction than does prose. As long as no ancient Hebrew manuscripts were available these assumptions could not be proved, and the views of conservatives in this regard were as hypothetical as those of the critics.

The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls (see Vol. IV, pp. 86-88) has brought about a remarkable change in this situation. For the first time in modern history we are now able to examine Hebrew Bible manuscripts 1,000 years or so older than the most ancient ones previously known. In some instances we are even so fortunate as to have fragments from several copies of the same Bible books. More important yet, a complete scroll of Isaiah is now available, and another in fragmentary form (both now at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem).

These various copies of Bible books represent successive stages of revision. These incomplete Isaiah scroll (1QIs) from Qumrân Cave I is almost identical with the Masoretic text, found in the Hebrew Bible, whereas the complete Isaiah scroll (1QIs) from the same cave, shows the so-called plene writing, that is, the insertion of various letters as aids to pronunciation, and the use of consonants to indicate vowels. This difference constitutes evidence that a certain Hebrew library in the time of Christ possessed two different copies of Isaiah, one representing an earlier stage of spelling and grammatical revision than the other. It is thus unmistakable that copyists spelled words according to current rules of spelling--which changed from time to time--much as English spelling has changed through the centuries. By way of comparison, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, written in the vicinity of 600 years ago, are completely unintelligible to the average reader unless modern spelling and in some cases modern words are used. The same is true to a less extent of many passages from Spenser and Shakespeare, who wrote about 400 years ago. Even the English of American Colonial times is often obscure, chiefly because of archaic spelling. It is therefore certain that the present form of the Hebrew Bible text represents only its latest revision in spelling, grammar, etc., and in no way proves an early or late authorship. The date must be determined on the basis of other evidence.

It would be foolish to say that Isaiah was not written earlier than the 2d century b.c., because our earliest text of that book shows a type of spelling in use during the 2d century. It is also untenable to use the present form of the Hebrew text of any Bible book to establish the date of its original writing.

Chronology Confirms Accuracy of Bible. Generations of scholars have puzzled over the chronological data of the Bible, and have felt that every effort to bring harmony out of what seemed a chronological chaos was doomed to defeat. How could one harmonize Daniel's statement that he had been taken captive by King Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1), with that of Jeremiah, who says that Nebuchadnezzar's first year was Jehoiakim's fourth (Jer. 25:1, 2)? Archeology has solved the problem by showing that Assyrian and Babylonian kings did not count the calendar year of their accession as their first regnal year, but labeled it "accession year." It was only with the following New Year's Day that they began their "first" year. Hence, Daniel's statement that he was taken captive in the third year of Jehoiakim, which was--as we now know--Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and Jeremiah's statement equating Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year with the fourth of Jehoiakim (according to Jewish reckoning), are equally correct. This is but one of many examples where archeological evidence has furnished the solution to apparently contradictory chronological statements of the Bible.

Another alleged Biblical contradiction is equally easy of solution. The chronological data of the Bible make it certain that Jehoram of Judah was associated on the throne for some years with his father Jehoshaphat. 2 Kings 3:1 dates the accession of the Israelite king Jehoram in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, while 2 Kings 1:17 dates the same event in the 2d year of Jehoram of Judah, meaning apparently his 2d year as a coregent. Hence, the 18th year of Jehoshaphat was the 2d year of his son's coregency. Instead of being in disagreement, the two texts provide important data for establishing the length of the coregency of Jehoram with Jehoshaphat.

The documents preserved in the sands of Assyria and Babylonia provide accurate dates for many events of secular history beginning with about 1000 B.C. Dates thus established have been most helpful in fixing Bible chronology on a secure foundation. The increased knowledge of ancient calendars, methods of reckoning the years of a king's reign, and different systems of computation in regard to ancient events have solved many perplexing problems. This has enabled us to reconstruct the chronological framework of the Bible without discarding any data as unreliable, as the critics have done. We see now a harmonious chronological pattern where before only chaos was apparent. There remain a few baffling chronological statements for which no satisfactory answer can as yet be given, but the overwhelming majority of the chronological data no longer pose any problem whatever. Once again archeological evidence has provided the key to an understanding of ancient systems which were previously unknown. It has proved that the authors of the books of the Bible knew whereof they wrote and did not give us erroneous information. Rather, it was the critics who erred in criticizing what their limited knowledge and even more limited wisdom and skill were inadequate to deal with.

The words of one critical scholar are significant in this respect. W. A. Irwin, sometime professor of Old Testament of the University of Chicago, wrote in the foreword to E. R. Thiele's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Chicago, 1951) the following remarkably frank admission:

"The astonishing fact is that he demonstrates conclusively the precise and dependable accuracy of Hebrew chronology of the times of the kingdoms" (p. xiv).

"He has taken passages commonly regarded as patent disclosures of carelessness, if not of ignorance, on the part of the Hebrew historians, and has shown them to be astonishingly reliable. It is an achievement of far-reaching significance. We have, it is true, come some distance from the radical criticism of half a century ago. In treatment of the text and in appraisal of the historic reliability of the records we are in a much more cautious mood, as we have seen at one uncertain point after another our skepticism dissipate under new-found facts. But yet many uncertainties remain. And it is a matter of first rate importance to learn now that the Books of Kings are reliable in precisely that feature which formerly excited only derision" (pp. xvi, xvii).

What is said here of the accuracy of Biblical chronology with regard to the period of the kings is equally true with regard to other periods, although, because of a lack of clear extra-Biblical evidence, it is not yet possible to offer conclusive proof of every detail. Nevertheless, the dry figures of chronological data have contributed significantly in establishing the reliability of the Old Testament.

Historical Reports Are Reliable. Wherever the counterpart of a Biblical story occurs in an extra-Biblical document, there are, naturally, differences between the two accounts. Critical scholars usually have more confidence in the secular source and declare the Bible story as of secondary value. An unbiased examination, however, leads to an entirely different conclusion. The Bible narratives bear the stamp of truthfulness in that they record the weak as well as the strong character traits of their heroes, and the defeats as well as the victories of their own nation. This no other ancient nation did. Outstanding examples of the freedom with which the Bible records sin are the cases of David, Israel's greatest king, of Solomon, and even of the nation's most revered patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob.

A study of the records of other ancient nations in this respect is most revealing. The Egyptian records never mention any defects of their legitimate kings, never tell about a defeat of their own army. Their battle pictures and reliefs depict numberless fallen, wounded, and mutilated enemies, but never a single Egyptian casualty. The same observation can be made in regard to the records that have come to us from ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyriologist Otto Weber has stated this fact in the following words:

"All official history-writing of the Assyrians culminates in extravagant praise of the king, and has as its only purpose to hand down to posterity this praise. . . . It is evident that the credibility of the royal inscriptions under these circumstances must be looked upon with suspicion. In not one royal Assyrian inscription is failure admitted in plain words; but we do have instances in which an obvious defeat has been transformed by the accommodating history writer into a brilliant victory. It was customary in most cases to skip silently over undertakings of which the king had no reason to be proud" (Die Literatur der Babylonier und Assyrer [Leipzig, 1907], pp. 227, 228).

How unbiased the Biblical records are, in contrast to those contained in the historical writings of Israel's neighbors, is evident. A defeat is never denied by Biblical writers; a victory, not exaggerated. Causes of disasters are openly discussed, national shame is never concealed, and mistakes are mercilessly rebuked. What other nation, ancient or modern, measures up to this high level of truthful reporting? The more the records of ancient nations are studied, the more those of the Bible demand respect (see Vol. I, p. 100).

For example, take the Biblical story of Sennacherib's Judean campaign, mentioned on p. 157 as an example of the arguments of critics. Sennacherib's claim to having besieged Hezekiah in Jerusalem like a bird in a cage is true--a fact mentioned also in the Bible. That the Assyrian king, however, does not claim to have captured either Jerusalem or Hezekiah is a significant fact. The royal scribe passed over the disaster in silence. No Assyrian king would have been humble enough to mention it, and none of his scribes would have dared to record it. Yet this silence on the part of the Assyrians does not make their defeat less real. The various other apparent discrepancies between the two records, Assyrian and Jewish, are to be understood similarly.

This example, to which many others could be added, shows that Biblical records deserve pre-eminent credit as faithful witnesses to the events narrated. This fact has, in recent years, been recognized by an increasing number of critical scholars. However, these scholars assign credit for this conservative trend to the labors of the higher critics, as the following quotation from the celebrated Old Testament scholar H. H. Rowley shows:

"In general, it may be said that there has been a tendency towards more conservative views on many questions than were common at the opening of our period. These more conservative views are not shared by all scholars, though they are widespread, and any assessment of the position today is bound to give prominence to them. They are hailed sometimes as evidence of the failure of critical scholarship, and as the justification of the older conservatism that has been mentioned. This is quite inaccurate and misleading. For they are reached by the critical method, and hence must be accounted among its fruits. On the other hand, their conservatism is both other and firmer than the older conservatism, just because it is critically, and not dogmatically, based, and because it is built squarely on the evidence, instead of merely using the evidence as a support where it is convenient, and explaining it away where it is not." (The Old Testament and Modern Study [Oxford, 1951] pp. xvii, xviii).

Conservative Christians naturally rejoice that the vast array of archeological evidence confirms and vindicates their faith in the trustworthiness of God's Word. One by one the dogmatic assertions of many of the higher critics have been answered by facts that intellectual honestly and their own rules of logic compel them to accept. Conservative Bible scholarship has sought to warn against such assertions, based as they were on an unproved, and now thoroughly discredited, theory. Higher critics are to be commended for their objective attitude toward the new evidence, which logically should lead them on to confidence in the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God.

Official Documents Are Genuine. The documents interspersed in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther have generally been rejected by critical scholars as being of an apocryphal or fictitious nature. However, even before their authenticity could be demonstrated by archeological evidence, a few discerning scholars pointed out the fact that these documents possessed all the marks of genuineness. The great historian Eduard Meyer wrote in 1896 that these documents are an accurate reflection of conditions in the Persian Empire, and agree completely with what is known about the institutions and history of that period. He said also that should Persian government decrees ever be found, arguments higher critics had raised against the authenticity of the Biblical documents would vanish.

This implied hope was fulfilled unexpectedly by the discovery of Aramaic papyri on the Nile island of Elephantine in Upper Egypt, beginning in 1903. Here were documents written in the same language as portions of Daniel and Ezra. Coming from a Jewish colony and written in the 5th century, when Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah lived, the documents found at Elephantine provided information of great value in clarifying Biblical history of that time. These papyri contain official letters written to Persian officers, and even a copy of a royal decree dealing with regulations touching the Jewish Passover. The latter document confirms the authenticity of similar decrees inserted in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The distinguished Orientalist A. Cowley, who edited these papyri, made the following statements in regard to the importance of Elephantine Papyrus 21 as related to the Persian decrees recorded in the Bible:

"What has hitherto seemed incredible is that they [the Persian kings] should have concerned themselves with detail of ceremonial, as in the letter of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7, but the present papyrus (and the style of other letters in this collection) removes all reason for doubting the genuineness of the Persian letters in Ezra" (Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century b.c. [Oxford, 1923], p. 62).

"Various reasons may have induced the Great King to intervene in the religious affairs of an obscure settlement [the Jewish colony in Elephantine], but whatever they were, the case is exactly parallel to that of the letter of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7¹²+, and shows that we need not doubt the authenticity of the latter document. The similarity of the style of the letter in Ezra to that of texts in this collection is striking" (ibid., pp. xxiv, xxv).

Who would have thought that a contemporary copy of an official Persian decree dealing with Jewish religious regulations would ever be found? Yet the sands of Egypt, strangely enough, have preserved this very thing, which now corroborates the authenticity of several passages in the Sacred Word of God.

No Maccabean Psalms in the Psalter. Perhaps the titles of 116 of the 150 psalms did not all originate with their authors, but they are very ancient. In fact, they were already old when the LXX was produced in the 3d and 2d centuries b.c. This can be seen from the fact that many of the musical terms used in these headings were no longer understood by the translators of this ancient version.

According to the Hebrew titles of the psalms, 73 of the 150 hymns bear the name of David as their author. The oldest one, Ps. 90, was composed by Moses in the 15th century b.c., the latest ones, Ps. 126 and 137, after the Exile, probably in the late 6th century b.c. No convincing evidence for a late date is found elsewhere in the Psalms.

The arguments put forth by critics by which, for example, they date Ps. 110 in the Maccabean age, will not impress any unbiased reader as being very scientific. Such a play with letters reminds one of the cabalistic nonsense by means of which some medieval Jews and Christians tried to explain, or rather, to explain away, Scripture. It is strange indeed that such arguments should appeal to scholars of the present enlightened era, but they are set forth and defended in all seriousness in a modern Introduction to the Old Testament, which, after its first publication in 1941, was used in theological seminaries of America more than any other book dealing with the subject. This is clear evidence of the readiness with which many critical scholars accept anything, however absurd, that may conceivably be used to discredit the traditional origin and authorship of the various Bible books.

Canaanite literature recovered since excavations began in 1929 at Ugarit (Ras Shamrah) provides a wealth of poetic material paralleling the Psalms. These Canaanite poems are of a mythological nature and come from the latter half of the second millennium b.c. They contain numerous expressions, phrases, and words which are found also in the Psalms. There are also many close parallels in grammar, concerning which W. F. Albright makes the following remarks:

"It is remarkable how many apparent anomalies in early Hebrew verse, which have been explained away or amended by scholars, turn out to be accurate reflections of Canaanite grammatical peculiarities which were forgotten long before the time of the Masoretes, who vocalized the consonantal Hebrew text of the Bible in the seventh to ninth centuries a.d. These grammatical peculiarities grow fewer and fewer in later Hebrew verse and are scarcely to be found at all in our latest biblical poetry.

"With this new independent criterion for dating it becomes possible to push back the dates generally accepted for many early Hebrew poems" ("The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," Religion in Life, Vol. XXI [Autumn, 1952], p. 543).

Albright has demonstrated (Hebrew Union College Annual, vol. 23 [1950-51], Part I, pp. 1-40) that Ps. 68, often attributed to the Maccabean period (2d century b.c.), contains so many Canaanite parallels of the second millennium that it is safe to say that it is one of the earliest psalms in the collection of Hebrew hymns to come down to us. Since this psalm is attributed by its title to David, who lived in the 11th-10th centuries b.c., and the expressions used in it are parallel to others in texts of the 14th century b.c., there is no difficulty whatever in concluding that David used common poetic phrases in the composition of his hymns. Albright has dated Ps. 68 in the 10th century b.c., a date that agrees completely with Davidic authorship.

The expression "mountain of thine inheritance" used by Moses in his famous song of praise (Ex. 15:17) has also been found in pre-Israelite hymns of Ugarit. Critics had considered these words as evidence of a late origin, for they were satisfied that such a statement could not have been made before the Solomonic Temple stood on Mt. Zion. They thought that it could apply only to this particular mountain. Now the term "the mountain of mine inheritance" is found in Ugaritic poems. There this term applies to Baal's dwelling on a mountain in the far north. Whether Moses knew this Canaanite expression is unimportant, but the fact that it existed in the literature of Moses' time is of extreme importance. Hence, there remains no difficulty in accepting this expression (Ex. 15:17) as coming from the lips of Moses, either as a poetic expression widely used during that time (see also Isa. 14:13), or as a coincidental parallel to the Ugaritic poem, without having any relationship to it.

For further discussion of critical problems in the Psalms see Vol. III, pp. 617-619, 864, 865.

The Unity of Isaiah. For a discussion of evidences for the unity of Isaiah see Vol. IV, pp. 84-86.

The Authenticity of Ezekiel. In considering the radical criticisms of the book of Ezekiel proposed especially by Hölscher, Torrey, and Irwin, several points must be kept in mind. First is the fact that such criticisms by leading scholars are of comparatively recent date, whereas some of the most extreme critics of the past have accepted Ezekiel as authentic. Second, it is significant that each of the leading critics of the book has advanced a theory of authorship and a reconstruction of the materials that is widely different from the others. Thus no generally recognized view of Ezekiel has been achieved yet by critical scholarship. Finally, it has been shown that at least several of the important arguments for a late date for Ezekiel do not rest upon solid evidence. Thus to argue that a passage is spurious because it evidences a variation from its context is to deny the original author the liberty of introducing new interpretations of his figures of speech as his prophecy progresses. C. G. Howie (The Date and Composition of Ezekiel) has recently marshaled much scholarly evidence in favor of the traditional authorship, date, and place of writing of Ezekiel. Whereas scholars have argued for a late date because they believed the book contained many late Aramaic words, Howie has shown (pp. 47-68) that there is much less Aramaic in Ezekiel than has been thought, and that the Aramaisms that do appear are not out of harmony with the time when the book declares itself to have been written. Thus it is fair to say that the higher criticism of the book of Ezekiel has not established a recognized position, and there is much evidence to favor the traditional view, held by this commentary, that the book was written by Ezekiel in Babylonia in the 6th century b.c.

43-750.

Conclusion.--In the foregoing pages, arguments representative of the higher criticism of the Bible have been discussed. Most of these arguments have been shown to be invalid by recent archeological findings. These discoveries provide conclusive evidence that many higher critical theories are untenable. However, there will always remain some arguments that can neither be demonstrated by the critic to be correct nor proved by the conservative to be fallacious. The nature of such arguments, and the paucity of certain kinds of ancient documents and other key materials, probably always will leave some Biblical statements either to be accepted in faith as being true or to be rejected because their validity cannot be proved.

Many scholars have been impressed by the cumulative force of archeological material that has been unearthed, which has cast light on what were dimly understood passages. This material has confirmed strange customs, conditions, or historical events described in Scripture, and solved difficulties and apparent contradictions. In the foregoing pages some statements of famous scholars have been presented which show the new trend among learned students of the Bible toward a much more conservative attitude in regard to it. As a result of archeology the study of the Old Testament is now approached with more sympathetic understanding than at any time during the last two centuries, and its veracity and reliability are less challenged than some decades ago.

How archeological evidence has influenced honest scholars of recent years is well illustrated by the example of one of the most famous living Orientalists, W. F. Albright, who, coming forth from the extreme critical school of Paul Haupt, began his scholarly career as a confirmed radical. In 1919 he went to Jerusalem and soon became the director of the American School of Oriental Research, the most important American archeological research center in Palestine. Ten years of field work in the Near East gradually shifted Albright from the radical position to one halfway between the conservative and the critical. He himself described this remarkable change in an obituary for Melvin G. Kyle, the well-known conservative writer, scholar, and teacher, who died in 1933. This testimony speaks for itself:

"The writer used to meet Dr. Kyle occasionally, before coming to Palestine in 1919, at learned society meetings. In those days, the fact that we were apparently at antipodes with regard to most crucial biblical and oriental problems seemed to preclude all real friendship. In the spring of 1921 Dr. Kyle came to Jerusalem with his family for a stay of several weeks as lecturer in the School, during the writer's year as acting director. The acquaintance then developed soon ripened into friendship.

"We seldom or never debated biblical questions, but there can be no doubt that our constant association with the ever-recurring opportunity for comparing biblical and archeological data has led to increasing convergence between our views, once so far apart. To the last, however, Dr. Kyle remained staunchly conservative on most of his basic positions, while the writer has gradually changed from the extreme radicalism of 1919 to a standpoint which can neither be called conservative nor radical, in the usual sense of the terms" (W. F. Albright, "In Memoriam," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 51 [September, 1933], pp. 5, 6).

However, the reader should not think that the serious defeats critical scholarship has suffered during recent decades have dealt it a death blow, or that higher Bible criticism is approaching its end. This is not so. It is true that the number of extreme radicals among the followers of Wellhausen has lately become much smaller than it used to be, but the conservative student of the Bible should not forget that certain fundamental hypotheses of higher criticism are as widely accepted as if they were demonstrable facts. They have been repeated and taught so many times and in so many books that most scholars seem to have forgotten that they are still hypotheses and not established facts.

It is not expected that the information here set forth will greatly alter that thinking of men of critical bent. Its purpose is to furnish the reader who believes in the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible with information concerning the present status of the critical Bible scholarship. It should prove comforting to know that skeptical criticism has suffered serious setbacks, and that many critical arguments can be met successfully with the weapons archeology has already retrieved from the sand and debris of Bible lands and placed in our hands. It should also be a source of deep satisfaction to know that the Christian faith rests on a firm foundation, the inspired and unerring Word of God, and that the old Bible stands unmoved by the fiercest onslaughts of its most formidable foes. This section may most appropriately end with a further line from the pen of W. F. Albright, who in concluding his article "The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology (1932-1952)," declared:

"New archeological material continues to pour in, compelling revision of all past approaches to both Old and New Testament religion. It becomes clearer each day that this rediscovery of the Bible often leads to a new evaluation of biblical faith, which strikingly resembles the orthodoxy of an earlier day" Religion in Life, Vol. XXI [Autumn, 1952] p. 550).

III. Higher Criticism of the New Testament

Many of the same principles that have been applied to the higher criticism of the Old Testament have also been employed in the critical study of the New. In the mid-19th century an extremely radical school of criticism emanated from the University of Tübingen in Germany (consequently known as the Tübingen School). It declared that practically none of the New Testament was written by the authors whose names are attached to its books, placed the Gospels in the 2d century and recognized only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians as being authentically Pauline. The establishment of a reliable Greek text by such scholars as Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort (see pp. 142-144) and further critical study have tended generally to revise these conclusions in a conservative direction so that now the Gospels are widely recognized as being from the 1st century (although not necessarily by their reputed authors), and there is general agreement on Paul's authorship of all the epistles attributed to him, with the exception of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and perhaps Ephesians. Accordingly the present article will confine itself to those books regarding which the chief critical problems still exist--the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and the Revelation.

Synoptic Problem.--At least since the time of Augustine (d. a.d. 430), Christian scholars have been aware of the literary similarities that exist between the Synoptic Gospels, and many scholars have sought to reconstruct the history of these relationships, which are known as the "synoptic problem." The attempts at solution of this problem have been especially vigorous since the early 19th century. Of particular importance among the proposed solutions are these:

Theory of One Original Aramaic Gospel. The Christian Father Papias, writing in the 2d century, is quoted by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History iii. 39. 16; Loeb ed., p. 297) as declaring: " `Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew [Aramaic] language and each interpreted them as best he could.' " On the basis of this statement some scholars have held that those passages that are most nearly identical in the Synoptics are the result of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all having used Matthew's original Aramaic Gospel as a source for their narratives in Greek. This view is generally rejected by scholars today because many of the parallel passages are of such a nature that they must have arisen from a Greek, not an Aramaic, source.

Fragmentary Theory. This view has been widely held in different forms. Some scholars have emphasized the fact that memories of Jesus doubtless were kept alive in the church in oral form for some time after His death. In the course of a few years, particularly in the Orient, these would tend to take more or less fixed forms upon which the evangelists might draw. Thus at least many of the verbal coincidences in the Gospels might be explained. Other scholars have sought to solve the synoptic problem in much the same way, but have laid emphasis rather upon the fact, implied by Luke (ch. 1:1), that many written accounts of Jesus were in circulation. They suggest that these were fragments--a discussion, a report of a miracle, a saying--and that the evangelists drew from different collections, which in many instances overlapped.

Two-Document Theory. This view is basic to almost all the thinking on the synoptic problem at the present time. It holds that there are two basic document upon which the synoptic writers drew for their materials. The first of these is identified as the Gospel of Mark, which is held to have been the earliest of the canonical Gospels. The second document, according to this theory, is made up of those materials not in Mark, but which are common to both Matthew and Luke. This was previously referred to as "the logia" by those who considered it to be identical with Papias' Aramaic Matthew (see above), as he refers to that document by the Greek term ta logia ("the oracles"). At the present time, however, scholars generally prefer to speak of it simply as Q, from the German Quelle, "source."

Four-Document Theory. In 1924 B. H. Streeter (The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins) proposed an amplification of the two-document theory that seeks to account for materials in Matthew and Luke other than those thought to be from Mark and Q. He seeks to identify four sources that he believes came from four centers of early Christianity: Mark from Rome; Q from Antioch; most of the materials peculiar to Luke, which he designates as L and believes came from Caesarea; and material peculiar to Matthew, which he designates as M and believes represents the memories of the church at Jerusalem. Scholars have not generally accepted the whole of Streeter's hypothesis, but there is wide agreement that four bodies of material may be discerned in the Synoptic Gospels, although their places of origin may not be as readily ascertained as Streeter held.

Theory of Aramaic Originals. Charles Cutler Torrey broached this theory in 1912, and published it in elaborate form in 1933. He holds that all the Gospels were written originally in Aramaic. He argues that there are many mistranslations in the Greek Gospels that can be solved only by putting them into Aramaic, from which language he believes they were originally translated. Torrey's hypothesis, while attracting wide attention, has not been accepted by many scholars, for those who have championed his view have had difficulty in agreeing as to what the supposed mistranslations are. Further, it seems most unlikely that so many mistranslation as he proposes to find would have been tolerated by the early church in a day when both Greek and Aramaic were living languages. A further difficulty lies in the fact that there is scarcely any Palestinian Aramaic from the 1st century extant to serve as a model for the language in which Torrey holds the Gospels originally to have been written.

Theory of Forms. In 1919 Martin Dibelius proposed a new approach to the synoptic problem that is commonly known by the German term Formgeschichte, or "form criticism." It has since been elaborated by Rudolf Bultmann. This is not so much an alternative to the two- and four-document hypotheses as it is an attempt to analyze the literary "forms" represented in the Gospels. Proponents of form criticism hold that for some time after the crucifixion the stories about Jesus were preserved only orally, and that the church naturally preserved what was best suited to guide it in questions of belief and conduct, to instruct inquirers, to use in worship, and to aid in controversy. Thus, they hold, various types of literature developed: parables, miracle narratives, a particular point of teaching, and the passion story. These are believed to have circulated widely and to have attained rather fixed literary form. It is thought that when the evangelists wrote, they gathered these various fragments, or used previously written collections of them. This, advocates of form criticism believe, would account for both similarities and differences to be found in the Synoptic Gospels.

Underlying most of the foregoing theories is the premise that the Gospels were produced in the same way that any ordinary religious work is produced, that is, that the authors of the Gospels were endowed with no specific revelation or supernatural guidance, but relied entirely upon fallible human documents and memories, which they in turn felt free to adapt and to emend to suit their specific purposes. Such an assumption this commentary vigorously rejects. Not only did the Holy Spirit direct the authors of the Gospels to reliable source materials, He also gave them knowledge of events by direct revelation. Thus the Gospels, as also all other Scripture, are unique when compared with the whole body of man's literary production; consequently it is not possible to treat their literary history entirely in the same way that a critic analyzes the factors that contribute to the production of a work that springs solely from human genius.

At the same time this commentary refrains from taking the antithetical position that the writers of Scripture wrote under verbal dictation by the Holy Spirit, and that consequently the verbal parallels--even breaks in sentence structure--are to be explained on the basis of the Spirit's having chosen to dictate the same words to different writers. Peter states specifically that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). They spoke and wrote according to their own individualities and characteristics, as is indicated by the varied styles of writing that they display, but free of the errors found in other writings. God through His Spirit gave light and understanding to the Bible writers' minds. He led them to written and oral sources of truth, and by supernatural revelation gave them knowledge of events of the past and the future that otherwise they could not have known. All of these they have recorded in their own words (see GC v-vii).

What, then, can be said in regard to the synoptic problem? The following points represent the tentative suggestions of this commentary:

1. It appears indubitable from Luke 1:1-3 and from the verbal parallels in the Synoptic Gospels that Matthew and Luke, at least, were led by the Holy Spirit to use previously written documents in the preparation of their Gospels. That many people should have preserved accounts, oral and written, of the life, work, and teachings of Jesus was only normal, and Luke states specifically that this happened (ch. 1:1). He goes on to imply that before writing his own account he had made research among the sources available to him, when he says, "It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account" (ch. 1:3, RSV). A careful comparison of Matthew with Mark and Luke indicates that Matthew also employed literary sources. For instance, the parallel passages in Matt. 9:6, Mark 2:10, 11, and Luke 5:24 are nearly identical in wording, each one containing the same ungrammatical break in sense. Such passages presuppose some type of literary interrelationship between their authors. Striking examples of the use of identical but unusual words in parallel passages add further evidence to support this conclusion. Thus it seems clear that the Spirit of God led the authors of the first and third Gospels to use previously written accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, and probably oral reports as well. That such a procedure was entirely in harmony with the working of Inspiration is clear from the Old Testament, where verbally identical passages appear in the writings of different authors (see 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18; 2 Kings 18:13 to 20:19 and Isa. 36-39; 2 Kings 24:18 to 25:21, 27-30 and Jer. 52:1-27, 31-34).

2. The Gospel of Mark probably was the first of the Gospels to be written. It is a notable fact that this Gospel is duplicated in subject matter almost completely by the other Gospels. Westcott (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 192) has found only 24 verses in the entire book of Mark that are without parallels. This is revealed in another way by the table in Vol. V, p. 192, which shows that on the basis of the Gospel sections followed in this commentary, only 1 per cent of Mark's account is reported by him exclusively. The rest is also contained, though not necessarily in similar language, in at least one of the other three Gospels. If then, as reported by Papias (see p. 176), Mark drew his materials from the reminiscences of Peter, it is obvious that he did not copy them from either Matthew or Luke. Yet the verbal parallels are such that a documentary relationship evidently existed. That Mark is basic to Matthew and Luke rather than a condensation of either of them appears clear from the fact that although when taken as a whole Mark's Gospel is the shortest, yet in many of the events that he does narrate he gives his account in greater detail than do either Matthew or Luke. This seems to indicate that the first and third Gospels present Mark's materials with additions, rather than that Mark is a condensation from them.

3. Inasmuch as there seems to be a literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, and further, inasmuch as Mark was apparently the earliest written, it follows that Mark was evidently one of the written sources upon which Matthew and Luke drew in composing their accounts of Jesus.

4. It was only natural that many oral reports regarding the life and teaching of Jesus circulated in the early church. The apostolic Gr. keµrugma, preaching, centered upon Christ, and particularly on His death and resurrection (see Acts 2:22-24; 10:38-40; 26:22, 23). Consequently the reports of those who had been with Christ must have attained a wide currency in the early church. Paul's reference (Acts 20:35) to a saying of Jesus that is not included in the Gospels is an indication of one type of such material that was in circulation, while John declares (ch. 21:25) that there were "many other things which Jesus did," preserved by other writers, or only orally. These would tend in time to take a more or less set form. At the same time, however, it is clear from Luke 1:1 that many written documents regarding Jesus existed. Thus in apostolic times there must have been in circulation a considerable body of materials, both oral and written. Probably the Gospel writers were led by the Holy Spirit to draw some of their materials from such sources.

5. Similarities in the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark, indicate that they drew upon another common source, or sources, besides Mark. Although the exact content and place of origin of this source cannot be determined, the term Q may be considered a working label for purposes of identification.

6. Matthew, at least, undoubtedly incorporated personal memories into his Gospel.

7. In the case of Luke it appears probable that his Gospel began to take shape during his stay at Caesarea, which, as far as is known, was his first opportunity to gather information in Palestine regarding the life of Jesus. Literary evidence, indeed, appears to suggest that the non-Marcan materials of Luke may have constituted a sort of first edition of the Gospel of Luke, as they begin with the introductory part of the book and go on to include the story of Jesus' death and resurrection. The most probable point in Luke's career at which he would have come in contact with Mark's Gospel would be during his stay at Rome at the time of Paul's first imprisonment (see Col. 4:10, 14), for this is the first time there is evidence that Luke and Mark were together. Here then he may have added such materials from Mark's Gospel to his own previously written account as the Holy Spirit led him to choose.

Although it is not possible to offer a final solution to these problems, the student of the Bible may be confident that the Synoptic Gospels represent a divinely inspired, interrelated effort by early Christian writers, who recognized the validity of narratives written by their fellow Christians. The Holy Spirit led in the choice of materials, safeguarded in their handling, and added to them by direct revelation, that an authentic, inspired record of the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God might be preserved to His church.

Gospel of John.--From early times Christian tradition has assigned the writing of the Gospel of John to the 1st century, dating it later than the Synoptic Gospels. This tradition prevailed until the early 19th century, when critical scholars began to deny that it could have been written earlier than about a.d. 150, and that therefore the apostle John could not have been its author. It was alleged that this Gospel reflects a stage in the development of Christian thought that was, presumably, characteristic of the 2d century. It was alleged, further, that in many respects the book of John reflects Gnostic thought, and that, accordingly, it could not have been written until Gnosticism had become a major influence within the church. However, as E. R. Goodenough of Yale University observes, the fundamental difficulty with critical thinking on the dating of John was the reasoning that it "`could not' have been written before 100 because an earlier date would destroy his [the higher critic's] whole conception of the evolution of Christianity" ("John a Primitive Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXIV [1945], p. 147).

Today the picture has changed radically. A series of vital discoveries has led critical scholars to abandon their theory of a late date for the writing of the Gospel of John. The first of these discoveries consists of a small scrap of papyrus containing John 18:31-33, 37, 38, known as Rylands Papyrus 457 and commonly designated P (see p. 117, and illustration opp. p. 128). Purchased years earlier with other papyri in a provincial town of Egypt, it was not published until 1935. The handwriting indicates that this fragment was written about a.d. 125, which makes it the oldest known manuscript of any portion of the New Testament.

With this date three of the most outstanding papyrologists, Sir Frederic Kenyon, W. Schubart, and H. Idris Bell, agree (An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library, edited by C. H. Roberts, Manchester, 1935). The famous New Testament scholar Adolph Deissmann dates it in the days of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138), or possibly Trajan (a.d. 98-117).

Discussing this manuscript shortly after its discovery, Deissmann declared it to be of the utmost importance for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. In the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Dec. 3, 1935, he wrote:

"A multitude of hypotheses concerning a late origin of the Gospel according to John will quickly wither hot-house plants. We have in the Rylands papyrus a certain documentary proof that the Gospel according to John not only existed in the first half of the 2nd century, but that its copies had already reached Egypt. The origin of the Gospel is therefore to be put back into much earlier times."

Commenting on the significance of this dramatic find, Sir Frederick Kenyon, editor of the Chester Beatty Papyri, comments:

"Even so small a scrap is proof of the existence of the whole manuscript, and shows that a codex of the Fourth Gospel was circulating in mid-Egypt before the middle of the second century. It thus confirms the evidence for the traditional date of that Gospel" (The Bible and Archaeology, p. 226).

"If there was one point on which the advanced school felt more confident than another it was the late date of the Fourth Gospel. . . .It is, therefore, satisfactory to find that it is precisely in the case of the Fourth Gospel that the new evidence for a first-century date is the most convincing" (ibid. p. 287).

He says again that the evidence from the Rylands Papyrus 457 "goes far towards confirming the traditional date of composition [of the Gospel According to John], in the last years of the first century" (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940], p. 128).

Also in 1935, fragments of an unknown gospel narrative (Egerton Papyrus 2), which was discovered in Egypt, were published (Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri, edited by H. Idris Bell and T. C. Skeat, London). The gospel narratives preserved in these fragments are so similar to those of the canonical Gospels as to make it evident that the writer of this unknown gospel borrowed his information from the canonical ones. Of special interest is the fact that several close parallels exist with rather widely separated passages of the Fourth Gospel, belonging to different episodes (see, for instance, on John 5:39). These fragments, written in Egypt not later than the middle of the 2d century, thus provide evidence that the Fourth Gospel was used, together with the Synoptics, in Egypt before the middle of the 2d century a.d. Speaking of this most interesting discovery, the conservative and scholarly Kenyon observes:

"If a compilation based upon it could be circulating in a provincial town in Egypt before the end of the first half of the second century the Gospel itself must surely have been written before the end of the first century, and the contentions of the `advanced' critics of the nineteenth century, that it was not produced until after a.d. 150, vanish into smoke" (The Bible and Archaeology, p. 217).

In 1945 E. R. Goodenough, professor of the history of religion at Yale University, advanced arguments that there is nothing specifically Gnostic in John, as critics claimed, and that it goes back to the beginnings of Christianity. Further evidence in this direction was provided two years later by a second remarkable discovery, made at Chenoboscium in Upper Egypt. Some forty Gnostic treatises found there have shown that Gnosticism in the 2d century apparently was quite different from the principles stated in the Fourth Gospel.

The publication of certain Dead Sea scrolls (see pp. 90-92) has provided a fourth confirmation for the 1st-century writing of John. Some of these documents indicate that the supposedly later theological ideas of John actually antedate the period of Christ's ministry. Furthermore, W. F. Albright (Archaeology of Palestine [London, 1954], pp. 244-249) has set forth numerous examples of references in John to places, persons, and things that clearly go back to a time prior to the First Jewish Revolt, in a.d. 66-70.

Thus, as with so many other matters affecting the validity and inspiration of the Scriptures, later discoveries have proved invalid the former contention of higher criticism that the Gospel of John is from the second half of the 2d century. Commenting on this dramatic change in critical thinking, W. F. Albright comments that "there is no reason to date the Gospel after a.d. 90; it may be earlier" ("The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," Religion in Life, Vol. XXI, No. 4, pp. 550, 1952). In discussing this same problem The Interpreter's Bible remarks that "the late date that once found favor with critical scholars is now almost universally abandoned. . . . It is therefore increasingly difficult to accept a date much later than the end of the first century for the publication of the Gospel" (vol. 8, pp. 441, 442).

From every point of view it is safe to date the Gospel of John about the year a.d. 90, and thus within the lifetime of the apostle whose name it bears. Consequently it is reasonable, even on critical premises, to hold that the apostle John was its author. The majestic depth of understanding of the nature and purpose of the mission of Christ set forth in the Gospel of John makes it difficult to believe that another than John the Beloved could have been the penman.

Ephesians.--Certain characteristics of the Epistle to the Ephesians have led many critical scholars to doubt that Paul was the author of this book, and to think that it was written, rather, by an unknown author who attached Paul's name to the work so that it might have greater prestige. Particularly important among these critical problems in Ephesians are the following:

Scholars have noted that much of the material in Ephesians is paralleled in Paul's other epistles. This has given rise to the theory that the supposedly unknown author of Ephesians may have built up the epistle by gathering concepts and phraseology from Paul's other letters.

Furthermore, it is a striking fact that Ephesians lacks entirely the personal greetings at the end of the book that are such a characteristic feature of Paul's letters. This becomes all the more remarkable when it is remembered that the apostle had been some two years at Ephesus, a longer period than he had spent with any other church before writing them. Nor does he treat of any specific church problems in this epistle, as he frequently does in his other writings. In addition, the benediction (ch. 6:23, 24) is in the third person, which was not Paul's normal style, and such an impersonal farewell is hardly to be expected of him in writing to a church for which he had labored so long.

A third feature of the epistle that has raised doubt as to its genuineness is the fact that the best manuscript evidence indicates that the letter was not originally addressed to the Ephesians at all. The three earliest extant manuscripts of Ephesians, from the 3d and 4th centuries, read in ch. 1:1 ,"Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus." The evidence that such was the original reading is strengthened further by the commentary of Origin (died a.d. 254) on Ephesians, which concurs in this omission. Basil (died c. a.d. 379) testifies that no old manuscripts in his day contained the words "at Ephesus" in ch. 1:1 (Against Eunomius ii. 19). Tertullian (died c. a.d. 230) reports that the mid-2d century heretic Marcion declared the epistle not to have been written to the Ephesians, but rather to the Laodiceans (Against Marcion v. 17, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 464, 465). Although Tertullian defended the epistle as having been sent to the Ephesians, he did not base his argument on ch. 1:1, as would be expected if in his day it had read "to the saints which are at Ephesus." Rather, he made his appeal "on the true tradition of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans" (loc. cit.).

All this has led some scholars to suggest that the book of Ephesians was written sometime after the death of Paul. Edgar J. Goodspeed (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 224, 225) has proposed the view that the epistle was written at the time Paul's other letters were collected and sent into circulation as a unit, and that Ephesians was built up from his other works as a general epistle to serve as an introduction to the collection.

In evaluating these problems a distinction must be carefully borne in mind between the problem of the destination to which the letter originally was sent, and the question as to its authorship. If a reasonable solution to the first question can be found, the problem of authorship becomes much less acute.

Inasmuch as the earliest manuscripts of Ephesians do not testify to its having contained the name "Ephesus" in ch. 1:1, and inasmuch as the testimony of Church Fathers earlier than the time of these manuscripts indicates that their Bibles similarly lacked this reading, it seems reasonable to conclude that the original autograph of this epistle had only a general salutation. There is nothing in Scripture elsewhere that disagrees with such a conclusion.

If then, as seems probable, Paul sent out his epistle now known as Ephesians to a general audience of readers rather than specifically to the Ephesian congregation, the other problems regarding Pauline authorship are more readily solved. It is immediately understandable that he would not have appended such personal greetings as he attaches to his other letters. Similarly the formality of his benediction fits perfectly in such a setting, and his intimation (ch. 3:2) that some might not have heard of his call to apostleship becomes intelligible.

Ernest Percy (Die Probleme der Kolosser-und Epheserbriefe, Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946) has shown by an extensive study of Ephesians as compared with Paul's other epistles that in language, style, and particularly in theological concepts Ephesians is so much in agreement with the other letters that on purely critical grounds the evidence of its authenticity is much stronger than are the arguments that may be brought against it (see ibid., pp. 443-448).

Percy has demonstrated that an especially close relationship exists between Ephesians and Colossians (cf. Eph. 1:1 with Col. 1:1; Eph. 1:13 with Col. 1:5; Eph. 1:15 with Col. 1:4, 9; Eph. 2:12 with Col. 1:21; Eph. 2:15 with Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:16 with Col. 1:22; Eph. 6:18 with Col. 4:2; Eph. 6:21 with Col. 4:7), a much closer relationship, indeed, than between Ephesians and any other of Paul's letters. This similarity seems to be best explained by the view that both epistles were written by the same author, Paul, and virtually at the same time. That such was the case is indicated by the fact that Eph. 6:21, 22, which introduces Tychicus as the agent by whom Paul sends the letter, is virtually identical to Col. 4:7, 8. A comparison of Col. 4:9 with Philemon 10, 12 indicates further that the Epistle to Philemon probably was sent at the same time. Thus Tychicus apparently carried with him three letters on his journey to the Roman province of Asia (in western Asia Minor)--a personal letter from Paul to Philemon, who evidently was a member of the church at Colossae; a letter (Colossians) specifically to the church at Colossae; and a letter not addressed to any specific church, but intended probably to circulate among the various churches of the province of Asia, such as Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, and Laodicea, perhaps with those believers especially in mind whom Paul had not known personally. This, apparently, was the epistle now known as Ephesians. Whether Tychicus had a fourth letter addressed to the church at Laodicea (see Col. 4:16), or whether that letter is identical with this general letter, cannot be known.

It is reasonable to believe that when this general letter had paid its visit to the various churches of the area for which it was intended, it would have come to rest in the possession of the congregation at Ephesus, inasmuch as Ephesus was the chief city of the province of Asia, and furthermore, since it was the site of such prolonged labor by Paul, where his memory must especially have been cherished. If this is what happened, as seems probable, it is not difficult to understand that when Paul's epistles were first gathered from the churches to which they had been sent and in which they had been preserved, the epistle found in the possession of the Ephesians congregation would naturally be entitled Ephesians.

Although the foregoing suggestions cannot be conclusively proved, they do afford a reasonable explanation for the supposed difficulties in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and they provide a positive theory for the authorship and destination of the epistle that is in harmony both with the evidences of Scripture and the standards of reputable scholarship.

Pastoral Epistles.--By this term is meant the epistles to Timothy and to Titus. Although the other epistles bearing Paul's name are generally recognized by critical scholars as being authentically Pauline (with the possible exception of Ephesians), many critics reject the Pauline authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Following are the chief arguments set forth by certain scholars in support of the view that Paul was not the author of these epistles:

When the historical allusions in the Pastoral Epistles (such as 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:20; Titus 3:12) are compared with the history of Paul's life in Acts, it is clear that they do not fit into the pattern of his career as portrayed there.

The Pastoral Epistles reveal a more developed structure of church organization than is seen elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, specific qualifications are given both for elders or bishops(1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-13), regulations are laid down for the conduct and women in church 1 Tim. 2:8-15, and stipulations are made for the care of widows and for their conduct. (1 Tim. 5:3-16). Critical scholars have felt that all this portrays a development in ecclesiastical organization so far in advance of that revealed elsewhere in the New Testament that the Pastoral Epistles should rather be dated sometime during the 2d century.

The theory that these letters originated in the century following the apostles has been bolstered further by an appeal to the warning against "oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20). In Greek this reads, antitheseis teµs pseudoµnumou gnoµseoµs, which may be translated. "antitheses of falsely named gnoµsis [knowledge]. "About the middle of the 2d century Marcion, a heretical teacher, produced a work that he called the Antitheses. Furthermore, many of Marcion's views were similar to those of the Gnostics, who emphasized the importance of gnoµsis, or knowledge. Consequently some scholars have seen in this passage from 1 Timothy a warning against the 2d-century heretic Marcion, and so have dated the book accordingly, holding that Paul's name was attached to the epistle to give it prestige in the struggle with Marcion and Gnosticism.

Still another reason that critical scholars have given for rejecting the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is the fact that their vocabulary is quite different from that of Paul's other epistles. They contain a much larger number of words not used elsewhere in Paul's epistles than do any other of his writings.

These arguments have led many scholars to deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. However, this commentary holds with those who believe that there is strong and wholly satisfactory evidence that these writings are authentically Pauline.

The very fact that the historical references in the epistles to Timothy and Titus do not fit into the framework of the Acts is an indication that they come from a period of Paul's life subsequent to his imprisonment at Rome as recorded in Acts 28. If the Pastoral Epistles are allowed to speak for themselves, they reveal Paul as having been released from imprisonment and having traveled extensively in Crete, Asia Minor, and Greece, and then having been arrested and imprisoned at Rome a second time. Similarly, the fact that persons are mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles who appear nowhere else in the Pauline letters (Crescens, 2 Tim. 4:10; Carpus, ch. 4:13; Onesiphorus, chs. 1:16; 4:19; Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, ch. 4:21; Artemas, Titus 3:12; Zenas, ch. 3:13) is a further evidence that these epistles come from a later period of Paul's career, rather than an indication of forgery. In fact, it is difficult to account for a forger's having introduced events and persons into his work that do not fit into what is otherwise known of Paul's life, for such elements would immediately have been recognized as evidences of spuriousness. Instead, a clever forger would have made his writings as consonant as he possibly could with the authentic epistles of Paul. Thus these historical aspects of the Pastoral Epistles may be seen as evidences of their authenticity.

As for the question of the type of church organization revealed in the Pastoral Epistle, it can be said that although problems of church polity are discussed in greater detail in these writings than elsewhere in the New Testament, nevertheless there is nothing in them that is out of harmony with other evidences regarding the organization of the church during Paul's lifetime. Just as other phases of Christian life and belief are emphasized in Paul's other writings, so church polity is taken up in particular detail in the Pastoral Epistles.

The passage in 1 Tim. 6:20 dealing with the "antitheses of falsely named gnoµsis" does not necessarily refer to Marcion's work. Gnoµsis, "knowledge," is a familiar word in Paul's vocabulary, and is quite intelligible without being taken to refer to any particular heretical opinion, although in fact, as a technical term gnoµsis probably already was current among early Gnostics in his day. Similarly antitheses does not necessarily refer to Marcion's book, but easily fits the present context with its common meaning of "oppositions," "counterpropositions." Thus Paul may be understood as warning Timothy against the "counterpropositions of falsely named knowledge," as contrasted with the gospel.

The difference between the vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles and that of Paul's other writings is probably best to be accounted for on the ground that he was writing the Pastorals at a later point in his career after further travel and experience. The difference may also be due to the probability that he employed different scribes who exercised some choice in phraseology.

Hebrews.--The question of the identity of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a major critical problem. However, inasmuch as the book itself makes no claim regarding its authorship, this question is not one concerning which conservatives and critical scholars are greatly at variance. Accordingly it is not treated in the present article. For a discussion of the problem the reader is referred to the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews in Vol. VII.

Second Peter and Jude.--Perhaps the book of the New Testament that has been declared postapostolic, and thus spurious, by the greatest number of scholars is 2 Peter. The chief reasons for this opinion are the following:

In language and style 2 Peter is quite different from 1 Peter. 2 Peter gives a special status to the epistles of Paul, referring to them, not only as a collection, but apparently as "scripture" (2 Peter 3:15, 16), that is, on the same level of inspiration and authority as the Old Testament. Many scholars have felt that Paul's epistles could hardly have been collected during his (or Peter's) lifetime from the various churches to which they were sent, and that during that same period they certainly could not have attained a status equal to that of the Old Testament Scriptures.

A third reason is the fact that since early Christian times serious doubts have been expressed as to 2 Peter's right to a place in the New Testament canon (see pp. 127-131).

However, before a decision is made regarding the authenticity of 2 Peter, several factors must be taken into consideration that favor the view that it was written by the apostle Peter:

First, either 2 Peter was written by the apostle, or it is an outright forgery. Not only does it begin in the usual way, giving "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ" as its author, but its writer claims to have been one of those who was with Christ upon the mount of transfiguration (see 2 Peter 1:17, 18; cf. Matt. 17:1). Unless this is an outright falsification, the author can be none other than the apostle Peter.

Although it is a fact that the style of language of 2 Peter is different from that of the first epistle, this may reasonably be accounted for by the probability that Peter, as an unschooled Palestinian whose mother tongue was Aramaic, doubtless employed secretarial aid in phrasing an epistle he was writing in Greek. If Paul, who was fully at home in Greek, used secretaries, as he quite evidently did, it is even more logical to think that Peter, whose native language was Aramaic, would have done so, and that these secretaries would have exerted a definite influence on the wording of his letters in Greek. Thus two different secretaries may well have written down for him his two different epistles.

As for the question of Peter's reference to Paul's epistles, it must be recognized that there is no definitive evidence as to when the epistles of Paul came into circulation either as separate volumes or as a collection. Although scholars have generally felt that this must have occurred no earlier than the latter part of the 1st century, there is in fact no proof that it could not have begun during the lifetime of Paul and Peter. Considering the breadth and intensity of Paul's missionary activity and his resulting prominence in the apostolic church, and considering the fact that his and Peter's paths repeatedly crossed, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that Paul's letters probably enjoyed some circulation even before his death.

The further problem of Peter's having classed Paul's epistles as "scripture" likewise cannot be considered an absolute proof of a late date for this epistle. There is no proof that Peter could not and should not have recognized them as such. Paul believed that he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 7:40; 1 Tim. 4:1), and it would not seem unreasonable to think that Peter would have recognized this to be a fact and so have classed the writings of Paul among the inspired writings belonging to the church.

Another question connected with 2 Peter is that of its relationship to the Epistle of Jude. A careful comparison of 2 Peter 2:1 to 3:3 with Jude 4-18 reveals that these two books have much material in common. Although many scholars have concluded that the writer of 2 Peter drew upon Jude, yet Jude 17, 18 appears to be a direct reference to 2 Peter 3:2, 3. If this is so, the priority of 2 Peter would be an evidence for its apostolic authorship. However, this argument cannot be urged in proof of the authenticity of 2 Peter, for the exact relationship between the two epistles has not been settled.

Although the arguments against the authenticity of 2 Peter are serious when viewed on purely scientific grounds, they cannot be considered as proofs. And when the claims of the book itself are considered from a spiritual standpoint, those claims give strong reason for rejecting any theory of postapostolic authorship, particularly when many of the apparent problems connected with the Petrine authorship of this epistle can be explained successfully.

Revelation.--In the middle of the 3d century, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, issued a work in which he maintained that the Revelation was written by a John other than the apostle (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History vii. 25. 7-27). His arguments have had wide currency among those scholars who reject the apostolic authorship of the Revelation.

Dionysius pointed out that the vocabulary and literary style of the Revelation is strikingly different from that of the Gospel according to John. Revelation shows an unusual amount of liberty with the ordinary standards of Greek diction and syntax, whereas the language of the Gospel of John is regular.

Dionysius also emphasized the fact that in the Revelation the author gives his name repeatedly (see Rev. 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), but that in the Gospel its author makes an effort to conceal his identity. Such a situation he felt could point only to different authorship.

Since Dionysius' time it has also been pointed out that the 2d-century Church Father Papias, as quoted by Eusebius (ibid., iii. 39. 4), seems to indicate that about the end of the 1st century there were two men named John who were prominent in the church, one the apostle and the other the elder (see 2 John 1; 3 John 1). Eusebius and many scholars since his time have been inclined to believe that the latter of these, John the elder, was the author of the Revelation.

Still a further argument centers on a tradition that John the apostle died a martyr's death several decades before the end of the 1st century, when the Revelation quite clearly was written.

When the foregoing arguments are analyzed, they are found not to be as weighty as at first they may seem. As for the question of linguistic differences between the Revelation and the Gospel, it must be pointed out that these two books themselves imply that they were written under very different circumstances. When writing the Revelation, John was a prisoner on the island of Patmos; the Greek of this book is clearly in harmony with its having been written under such circumstances, for it reflects the work of a man who, while able to express himself forcefully, was not writing in his mother tongue. Repeatedly Semitic thought patterns may be seen behind the Greek of the Revelation, and in a few instances the real sense of the writer apparently is to be had only by translating the Greek into Hebrew or Aramaic. Perhaps most significant of all, the language of Revelation demonstrates a number of departures from standard grammatical and syntactical usage that would not normally have appeared in a literary work.

On the other hand, the Gospel is grammatically correct. Two explanations of this problem are possible. First, some scholars have held that the Fourth Gospel originally was written in Aramaic and later translated into the Greek. Although this view has not been successfully established, yet if true, it provides an explanation for the differences that exist between the Gospel and the Revelation. Second, there is a tradition that John wrote his Gospel, not on Patmos, but when he was at liberty. Thus he would have been able to avail himself of secretarial aid. It is not unreasonable to think that he may have relied upon the help of bilingual secretaries to translate or phrase in correct Greek the thoughts he may have expressed to them in Aramaic. The theological tone of the Gospel implies that it was intended for a cultured audience. Consequently, it is reasonable to believe that John may have used secretaries in writing his Gospel. This could adequately account for the differences that exist between the language of the Gospel and that of the Revelation.

In regard to the question of John's name being attached to the Revelation and not to the Gospel, although no final solution can be given, a reasonable explanation can be offered. The Gospel is an account of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus. It stands or falls, not upon John's testimony, but upon historical fact. Thus there was no more need for him to append his name than there was for the other Gospel writers to include theirs in their accounts of Jesus' life. But with an apocalyptic work like the Revelation the situation was different. In a prophetic work, an account of things his fellow men could not have seen as historical facts, the identity and reputation of the prophet were of primary importance. Thus, like virtually every other prophetic writer in the Bible, the author of the Revelation included his name in his book.

Although it is true that, as Eusebius quotes Papias, the latter seems to indicate that there were two Johns, nevertheless two facts must be borne in mind. First, Papias' writings are no longer extant, so that Eusebius' quotation cannot be checked against them, although presumably he quoted correctly. Second, although Papias does mention two Johns, it is not clear from Eusebius' quotation whether they are indeed references to two men, or only two references to one man. Thus while it cannot be denied categorically that there were not two prominent Christians named John at the end of the 1st century, neither can it be proved.

On the question of whether John the apostle lived long enough to have written the Revelation, it must be recognized that the tradition to the effect that he died long before the end of the 1st century is based largely on inferences and arguments from silence, rather than upon clear positive evidence. In fact, Justin Martyr (died c. a.d. 165; Dialogue 81), Irenaeus (died c. a.d. 202; Heresies iv. 20. 11; v. 35. 2), Tertullian (died c. a.d. 230; Against Marcion iii. 14), Hippolytus (died c. a.d. 236; Treatise on Christ and Antichrist xxxvi), and Origen (died c. a.d. 254; Commentary on John i. 14) all understood the Revelation to have been written by John the apostle, and it is not until the criticism of Dionysius in the middle of the 3d century that any orthodox Christian writer raised a question as to the apostolic authorship of the Revelation.

Thus there is no convincing reason for rejecting the view that the Revelation was written by John the apostle, and the belief of the early church was distinctly in that direction.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion it should be pointed out that there is a legitimate, as well as a destructive, higher criticism. Legitimate criticism seeks to take all that linguistic, literary, historical, and archeological study has proved in regard to the Bible, and to use this in determining the approximate dates of writing, the probable authors, where the authors' names are not stated, the conditions under which they wrote, and the materials they used in their writing. But for the Christian who accepts the Scriptures as spiritually trustworthy to declare a book of the Bible to be pseudepigraphical is to say that it contains a palpably false statement regarding its own origin. Such conclusions go beyond the limits of legitimate criticism, as it is understood by this commentary.

While it may not be possible at present to disprove, convincingly, all the claims of destructive criticism, two important facts must be borne in mind. First, that the general trend of Biblical criticism for the last half century has been increasingly in the direction of the conservative position, which accepts the claims of Scripture for itself. This is not to say that modern archeological discovery and linguistic study have disproved all the arguments against the authenticity of the Bible, but it is a fact that they have made significant contributions toward refuting many of the more extreme criticisms. Second, it must be recognized that the great majority of critical arguments against the authenticity of the Bible stand only as unproved hypotheses. Although it is not possible categorically to disprove many of these, neither can they be proved, and it is usually possible to offer positive explanations of the problems that seemingly might militate against the authenticity of the Scripture. In such a situation the burden of final proof rests upon the critic who would disavow that which the Bible claims for itself, and as such proof is not forthcoming, the conservative Christian is justified in continuing to believe that the plain statements of the different books of the Bible regarding their authorship are trustworthy.

Bibliography

The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome. Ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. 1970. 648 pp. Vol. 2: The West From the Fathers to the Reformation. Ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. 1969. 566 pp. Vol. 3: The West From the Reformation to the Present Day. Ed. S. L. Greenslade. 1963. 590 pp. Cambridge: University Press. A comprehensive history of the Bible including languages and script, text, canon, and translation by a team of experts.

Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumran. Rev. ed. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1961. A comprehensive survey of the discoveries of the scrolls in the Judean Desert, and their bearing on the textual criticism of the Old Testament.

Feine, Paul and Johannes Behm. Introduction to the New Testament. Completely reedited by Werner G. Kümmel. Trans. by A. J. Mattill. 14th ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966. Standard New Testament introduction from a liberal point of view.

Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968. Standard historical critical Old Testament introduction from the liberal point of view.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3d rev. ed. Downer's Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970. The most detailed New Testament introduction from a conservative viewpoint.

Harrison, Roland K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1969. The most detailed Old Testament introduction from an evangelical point of view.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966. And Egyptologist's evaluation of the historical-critical method and its conclusions.

Ladd, George Eldon. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1966. An assessment of the several kinds of criticism from a conservative viewpoint.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament. (See entry on p. 133.)

I. The Four Gospels

Inspiration has provided four more or less interdependent accounts of the life and teachings of our Lord. Each of these four has its own distinctive characteristics, each emphasizes certain aspects of the life and teachings of Jesus, each makes a unique contribution to the gospel narrative as a whole. Furthermore, each was apparently written with a specific objective in view that determined its arrangement of material, which is sometimes chronological and sometimes topical. See pp. 175-179, 272.

A complete picture of the gospel story can be secured only when the four accounts are properly blended together into one unified, chronological narrative. The arrangement of events by which such a composite narrative becomes possible is called a harmony of the Gospels. Less than half a century after the four Gospels are known to have been circulating together (which was soon after a.d. 125) Tatian combined the four accounts into one called the Diatessaron (c. a.d. 170; see p. 122). Since the appearance of this, the first Gospel harmony, countless attempts have been made to arrange the events of the life of our Lord in chronological order.

Although fundamental harmony pervades the four Gospel accounts, and although the four have much in common, there are at least three chronological problems that call for a solution. These problems are due largely to the fact that each Gospel records incidents not related by the others, and to the further fact that where the same incidents are recorded in more than one Gospel they do not always appear in the same order. These three major problems are: (1) how to determine the length of Jesus' ministry, (2) how to coordinate the Judean ministry, reported only by John, with the Galilean ministry of the Synoptics, as the first three Gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke--are commonly known, and (3) how to correlate events in the Peraean ministry, related only by Luke, with certain other events of the same period given by the other Gospel writers. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the various problems encountered in arranging a Gospel harmony. For a discussion of each of these three major problems see p. 247, Additional Note on Luke 4, and comment on Matt. 19:1 respectively, and for other problems see opening comment on the passages involved. Concerning the synoptic problem, see pp. 175-179, 306, 307.

Because of the existing differences of opinion on how to correlate the Gospel of John with the Synoptics, modern Gospel harmonies generally omit John. The best Greek harmonies are those of Burton and Goodspeed (A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek) and Albert Huck (Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, reprinted 1949). The best English harmonies are those of the International Council of Religious Education (Gospel Parallels) and Ralph D. Heim (A Harmony of the Gospels, including John).

As noted, each of the four Gospels makes its own distinctive contribution to the Gospel story, and thus to a harmony of the Gospels. Acquaintance with the particular characteristics of the Gospels not only renders them individually more intelligible and meaningful, but contributes to a richer understanding and appreciation of the Gospel narrative as a whole. The following facts relating to each of the Gospels are particularly worthy of note in the construction of a harmony.

Matthew.--The author of the first Gospel was an eyewitness to events that occurred during approximately the last half of Jesus' ministry. In length and completeness his account is second only to that of Luke. Of the 179 incidents in the accompanying Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew has 95, or 53 per cent, and of these 14 are exclusive with him. Matthew tends to group events in topical order, and as a result his account often deviates from strict chronological order. Matthew is pre-eminently the reporter of Jesus' sermons and other discourses, such as the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5 to 7), instruction given the Twelve (ch. 10), the Sermon by the Sea (ch. 13), the last day of teaching in the Temple (chs. 21; 22), and our Lord's return (chs. 24; 25). Matthew has altogether 21 of the 40 parables narrated by the various Gospel writers, and 20 of the 35 miracles.

Mark.--So far as is known, Mark was not an eyewitness of the events he describes. It is generally believed that he narrates the life of Christ as he heard it from the lips of the apostle Peter (see p. 178). Mark relates 79 of the 179 incidents listed in the accompanying Gospel Harmony (about 44 per cent), or nearly as many as Matthew, in less than two thirds of the space. Mark relates 18 of the 35 miracles, but only 6 of the 40 parables. Obviously it was Mark's purpose to report what Jesus did rather than what He said. The Gospel according to Mark might, for lack of a more exact term, be called a brief biography of our Lord. It follows a much more precise chronological pattern than that of Matthew. The resemblance between Matthew and Mark is particularly striking. Similarly, Mark has much in common with Luke, but Matthew resembles Luke less than it does Mark.

Luke.--As Luke specifically states (see on ch. 1:1-4), he was not an eyewitness of the events he describes. His Gospel is both longer and more complete than any of the others. Of the 179 incidents in the Harmony outline, Luke has 118, or about 66 per cent. Of these, 43 incidents are exclusive with Luke. They are concerned mostly with the infancy and childhood of Jesus (chs. 1; 2), and with the period of His Peraean ministry (chs. 9:51 to 18:34), to which Luke devotes 31 per cent of his space. His order is more nearly chronological than that of Matthew, but not so much so as that of Mark or, more especially, that of John. Luke reports 26 of the 40 parables, and 20 of the 35 miracles (see p. 192). From a historical point of view Luke is more full and complete than either of the first two Gospels, and, for that matter, than John. Luke stands first in length, in completeness, in uniqueness, and in the number of miracles and parables reported.

John.--In scope and content the Gospel of John is almost altogether different from the Synoptic Gospels. Although the writer of the fourth Gospel was an eyewitness of the life and ministry of Jesus from beginning to end, he mentions only 48 of the 179 incidents listed in the Harmony outline (27 per cent), far less than any of the others (see chs. 20:30, 31; 21:25). Nevertheless, of these 48 incidents 31 are exclusive with him. Without the record given by John we would have little or no information concerning the first year of Jesus' ministry, devoted largely to Judea. More important yet, John, alone among the gospel writers, follows a strictly chronological sequence from beginning to end and provides a framework by which it is possible to determine the approximate length of Jesus' ministry (see sec. II below).

With the entire scope of Jesus' life and ministry vividly in mind, John selected, primarily, those incidents that mark turning points and crises. But in each instance he shows greater interest in the significance of the event--as reflected each time by an accompanying discourse--than in the event itself. Like Matthew, though without duplication, John reports various discourses at considerable length; however, those reported by Matthew deal primarily with the kingdom of heaven and the character of its subjects, whereas those of John are concerned almost exclusively with Jesus' nature as the incarnate Son of God and with the purpose of His earthly mission. John is not so much a sermon reporter like Matthew, or a biographer like Mark, or a historian like Luke. He is pre-eminently a theologian, whose inspired insight led him to set Jesus Christ forth as the incarnate Son of God.

For further information concerning the Gospels see the Introduction to each. For a discussion of certain theories concerning the relationship of the Gospels to each other see pp. 175-179.

Data significant to the construction of a harmony of the Gospels may be compared thus:

II. Chronology of the Gospel of John

The chronological precision of the Gospel of John provides the basic framework for the construction of a harmony. Among the Synoptics--the first three Gospels--Mark presents the most nearly chronological order of events, and for incidents not reported by John the order in Mark is therefore usually followed. Where Matthew differs from Mark, preference may be given to the order confirmed by Luke. Where the chronology of the Gospels themselves is not altogether clear, sequence as stated or implied in The Desire of Ages is followed. Numerous minor incidents whose chronological setting is not certain have been tentatively assigned a position on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is important to remember that while the fundamental pattern of events as represented by this Harmony is fairly well established, the assignment of a place to many of these minor incidents is only tentative. For Christian Era dating followed in the Harmony, see pp. 240-254.

In view of the importance of the Gospel of John in the construction of a harmony of the Gospels, the following data provided by the fourth Gospel are particularly to be noted:

John identifies three Passovers (chs. 2:13; 6:4; 13:1) and an unnamed "feast of the Jews" (ch. 5:1). Although the latter has been identified with various Jewish feasts, it seems preferable to consider it a Passover, the second of Jesus' ministry (see p. 247;The Duration of Christ's Ministry). Thus, John records incidents at four successive Passover festivals. Jesus was baptized several months prior to the first of these Passovers, and the length of His ministry was therefore approximately three and a half years. According to the tentative chronology adopted by this commentary, the four Passovers of the ministry of our Lord were those of a.d. 28, 29, 30, 31.

The Passover of a.d. 28 seems to have been the occasion of Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem after His baptism (see John 2:11-13; cf. DA 154, 161), for it was at this feast that He announced His mission as the Messiah and entered upon His work (DA 161). The incidents of John 5 are said to have taken place at His "second visit to Jerusalem" (MB 2). Furthermore, events of ch. 6, which John identifies with the Passover season (v. 4), occurred one year after those of ch. 5 (see DA 393, 213; cf. 231, 232). From the Passover of a.d. 29 to the Feast of Tabernacles in the autumn of a.d. 30 Jesus attended none of the national festivals (John 6:4; cf. ch. 7:1, 2; DA 450, 451), and was therefore absent from the Passover of a.d. 30 (see DA 395). Some three years elapsed between the baptism and the Feast of Tabernacles of a.d. 30 (DA 467), and 3 1/2 years between the baptism and the final Passover (DA 233; cf. 506, 541, 664). Also, three years elapsed between the first and last Passover, those of a.d. 28 and 31 (DA 591, 593; cf. 161).

In order to correlate the Judean ministry reported by John with the Galilean ministry reported by the synoptic writers, it is necessary to ascertain the time when the Galilean ministry began. Some assign this to the autumn of a.d. 28 and others to the spring of a.d. 29, after the Passover. On the basis of evidence presented in the Additional Note on Luke 4 this commentary tentatively assigns the formal opening of the Galilean ministry of our Lord to the late spring of a.d. 29.

The period between the Passovers of a.d. 28 and 29 was devoted largely to Judea, that between the Passovers of a.d. 29 and 30 almost exclusively to Galilee, and that between the Passovers of a.d. 30 and 31 to regions bordering on Galilee, to Samaria, and to Peraea. For further information on this problem see, The Duration of Christ's Ministry , the Opening of the Galilean Ministry, and The Ministry of Our Lord.

III. The Gospel Harmony and Its Use

Most commentaries on the Gospels comment more or less at length on each Gospel; others follow a harmonistic arrangement, commenting once on each incident. This commentary gives major comment on each incident in connection with the Gospel that reports it most fully. Comment on parallel accounts in the other Gospels is limited to additional narrative details and linguistic and textual problems that occur there. Where the various accounts of the same incident are approximately equivalent, comment is generally given on that of Matthew. Where two Gospel reports of the same incident are marked by extensive differences, major comment appears on both.

For instance, the story of the paralytic lowered through the roof appears in all three of the Synoptics, but major comment on the incident is given only for the account in Mark, limited comment in Luke, and none in Matthew. Comment in Luke is restricted to details of the incident not given by Mark. Turning to comment on the incident as reported in Mark 2:1, the reader will find the following entry:

1. Again he entered. [The Paralytic Lowered Through the Roof, Mark 2:1-12=Matt. 9:2-8=Luke 5:17-26. Major comment: Mark. See Early Galilean Ministry; The Ministry of Our Lord; on miracles pp. 208-213.]

The equals sign (=) indicates parallel accounts of this incident in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The expression, "Major comment: Mark," indicates that the incident is there commented on at length. The map referred to indicates where the incident occurred, and the chart, its chronological relationship to other incidents. Reference to the section on miracles will provide helpful comment on miracles in general and an analysis of this particular miracle in comparison with others. Further helpful information may be had by turning to this incident (No. 40) in the Harmony of the Gospels (p. 197).

For major comment on any incident in the life of our Lord and for related information provided in this volume of the commentary, see the Harmony of the Gospels on pp. 196-201. For a statement of the principles followed in the construction of this Harmony see pp. 190-193. For a discussion of the basic chronological problems involved see pp. 240-264. For a chronological study of each incident see major comment on the incident. For maps and charts paralleling the Harmony see The Nativity, Childhood and Youth of Jesus , Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover, Judean Ministry from First Passover A.D. 28 , Early Galilean Ministry , Middle Galilean Ministry , Closing Galilean Ministry, Retirement from Public Ministry, Early Peraean Ministry, Closing Peraean Ministry, Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus, Closing Ministry at Jerusalem, The Resurrection and Subsequent Events and a Synopsis of the Life of Christ, a Suggestive Chronology of Christ's Birth, The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, The Reigns of the Herods, The Duration of Christ's Ministry, the Opening of the Galilean Ministry, The Ministry of Our Lord, the Crucifixion In Relation To The Passover, the Passion Week, the Resurrection to Ascension, Palestine Under the Herodians, respectively. For comparative tables of the parables and miracles of our Lord see pp. 205-207 and 210-213, respectively. For an index to the Harmony see pp. 202, 203.

How to Use the Harmony of the Gospels.--The following illustration will assist the reader in making use of the Gospel Harmony. On p. 197 appears the entry:

1. A glance at the heading IV. Ministry in Galilee (Second Passover, A.D. 29--Third Passover, A.D. 30), preceding No. 32 (top of p. 197), indicates the period of our Lord's ministry during which incident No. 52 occurred. The more immediate setting of the incident may be ascertained by a glance at the Harmony sections preceding and following No. 52.

2. The title, "A Blind and Dumb Demoniac," is standard for this incident throughout the commentary. That the additional title, "The Unpardonable Sin," does not appear as a separate entry indicates that the discourse of our Lord on this subject was closely connected with the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac. The two should be studied together.

3. The designation "M-14" following the incident indicates that this incident appears as No. 14 in the table of miracles, pp. 210-213. This table facilitates a comparison with similar miracles and with other miracles performed at about the same time or under similar circumstances. The table also provides information concerning the purposeful relationship of the miracle to the ministry of our Lord as a whole (see p. 211).

4. The designation "P-15" following the incident indicates that in the table of parables, pp. 205-207, one there entitled "Seven Unclean Spirits" (included in the references listed for No. 52 of the Harmony) appears as No. 15. This table facilitates comparison with similar parables and indicates the special points of truth illustrated by each parable. Where the title of the parable is not listed separately in the Harmony, as here, the table of parables indicates where major comment may be found. Bracketed parable numbers (see Nos. 77, 102) indicate that the parables so designated, while similar to those included in the Harmony references, were not given at the same time and are therefore not identical.

5. Boldface type for the Scripture reference to Matthew indicates that major comment on the incident of No. 52 of the Harmony appears there. The same incident is also recorded in Mark and Luke, as the references given indicate, but comment there covers only details not mentioned by, or commented on in connection with, Matthew. As may be inferred from the entry, John does not record the incident at all. Bracketed references (see Nos. 107, 156 of the Harmony) indicate that the passages so designated, while similar, are not strictly parallel to those designated by the other references.

6. The number "6" in the column headed "Map" indicates that incident No. 52 of the Harmony appears on the map of the Middle Galilean Ministry). The Middle Galilean Ministry clarifies the geographical setting of the incident, in so far as this is known, and shows its relationship to preceding and following incidents. Bracketed map numbers, as in No. 55 of the Harmony, indicate that the geographical and chronological setting of the incident of that section may be ascertained from the Middle Galilean Ministry, but that it is not specifically listed on the map.

7. The number "7" in the column headed "Chart" indicates that incident No. 52 of the Harmony appears in The Ministry of Our Lord of the series of charts on the life and ministry of our Lord (see pp. 227-234). Bracketed chart numbers, as in No. 177 of the Harmony, indicate that the chronological setting of incident No. 177 is not specifically listed there, but may be ascertained by a comparison of the chart, Resurrection to Ascension , with comment on Matt. 28:

a harmony of the gospels

[See explanation, pp. 194, 195.]

I. Infancy to Manhood (Autumn, 5 B.C.--Autumn, A.D. 27)

How to Use Index to the Harmony of the Gospels.--An index to the Harmony of the Gospels appears on pp. 202, 203. Because the same incidents are not always narrated by the various gospel writers in precisely the same order, a harmony of the Gospels cannot list all passages in order, chapter by chapter. The index facilitates the location of harmonistic data on any Gospel passage without a laborious search of the Harmony. For instance, the reader may desire to find the section of the Harmony on Simon's Feast as recorded in Luke 7:36-50. In view of the fact that this incident occurred at the close of Christ's ministry it does not appear in the Harmony along with other references to Luke 7 (see Nos. 47, 51, 61, 62). A glance at the Index indicates that Luke 7:36-50 appears as No. 128 of the Harmony.

Index to the Harmony of the Gospels

IV. Parables and Their Interpretation

The English word "parable" is from the Gr. paraboleµ, "a juxtaposition," "a comparison," "an illustration," "parable," "a proverb," from a verb meaning "to put one thing by the side of another [for comparison]," "to throw beside." The Gr. paraboleµ and its Hebrew equivalent (see Vol. III, p. 945) are broader in meaning than our word "parable." However, parables listed as such in this commentary are those that properly fall within the stricter limits of the English word. According to the English definition a parable is a narrative whose primary purpose is to teach truth. In literary form it is an extended metaphor. Many of Christ's parables were brief to the point of being metaphors or proverbs.

In the Gospels a parable is a narrative "placed alongside" a certain spiritual truth for purposes of "comparison." The parables of our Lord were usually based on common experiences of everyday life familiar to His hearers, and often on specific incidents that had recently occurred (see DA 499) or that they could see at the time (COL 34; cf. MB 36, 37). The narrative itself was simple and brief, and its conclusion usually so obvious as to involve no uncertainty (see Matt. 21:40, 41). Placed alongside the spiritual truth it was designed to illustrate, the parable thus became a bridge by which the hearers might be led to understand and appreciate that truth. It met the people where they were and, by a pleasant and familiar path, led their thoughts to where Jesus sought to direct them. It was a window through which the soul might gaze upon vistas of heavenly truth.

By parables Jesus: (1) aroused interest, attention, and inquiry; (2) imparted unwanted truth without arousing prejudice; (3) evaded the spies who pursued Him relentlessly; (4) created in the minds of His hearers lasting impressions that would be renewed and intensified when the scenes presented in the parables again came to mind or to view; (5) restored nature as an avenue for knowing God. Parables revealed truth to those willing to receive it, and at times concealed it from others.

In studying the parables of Jesus it is most important to follow sound principles of interpretation. These principles may be briefly summarized thus:

1. A parable is a mirror by which truth can be seen; it is not truth itself.

2. The context in which a parable is given--the place, circumstances, persons to whom it was spoken, and the problem under discussion--must be taken into consideration and made the key to interpretation.

3. Christ's own introduction and conclusion to the parable generally make its fundamental purpose clear.

4. Every parable illustrates one fundamental aspect of spiritual truth (see list of principles illustrated by the various parables of our Lord, pp. 205-207). Details of a parable are significant only as they contribute to the clarification of that particular point of truth.

5. Before the meaning of the parable in the spiritual realm can be understood it is necessary to have a clear picture of the situation described in the parable, in terms of Oriental customs and modes of thought and expression. Parables are vivid word pictures that must be seen, so to speak, before they can be understood.

6. In view of the fundamental fact that a parable is given to illustrate truth, and usually one particular truth, no doctrine may be based upon the incidental details of a parable.

7. The parable, in whole and in part, must be interpreted in terms of the truth it is designed to teach, as set forth in literal language in the immediate context and elsewhere in Scripture.

The following list of parables has been selected on the basis of the definition stated on p. 203. These parables are grouped topically, according to the principal truth Christ designed each to illustrate. The scripture listed for each parable gives the place in this commentary where major comment on the parable appears. Cross references following each group of parables indicate other parables in this list with secondary lessons appropriate to the group in which the cross references appear. Cross references accompanying each parable indicate other parables or groups of parables in this list that teach the same or related truths. The section indicated in the Harmony of the Gospels (see pp. 196-201) leads to other sources of information related to each parable. The column headed "Principles Illustrated" provides a brief analysis of the principal teaching or teachings of each parable (see below). For the chronological order of the parables see pp. 196-201.

The Parables of our Lord

[For an explanation see p. 204.]

V. The Nature and Purpose of Miracles

The Gospel writers refer to the miracles of our Lord by a variety of terms. The most common are dunamis, "power," and seµmeion, "sign." The former is used when it is desired to characterize the miracle as a manifestation of divine power; the second, as a visible confirmation of Jesus' divine authority. When the reaction of the people is uppermost in the writer's mind he uses teras, "wonder," thaumasion, "wonderful thing," endoxon, "glorious thing," or paradoxon, "strange thing." Inasmuch as teras was the common word for a "wonder" performed by a magician, New Testament writers always use with it one of the words that mark a genuine miracle as an act of God. Jesus commonly spoke of His miracles as erga, "works."

Webster defines our English word "miracle" as "an event or effect in the physical world deviating from the known laws of nature, or transcending our knowledge of these laws; an extraordinary, anomalous, or abnormal event brought about by superhuman agency." The Oxford English Dictionary defines "miracle" as "a marvellous event occurring within human experience, which cannot have been brought about by human power or by the operation of any natural agency, and must therefore be ascribed to the special intervention of the Deity or of some supernatural being; chiefly, an act (e.g. of healing) exhibiting control over the laws of nature, and serving as evidence that the agent is either divine or is specially favoured by God." The word "miracle" is from the Latin miraculum, "an object of wonder," "a wonderful thing," "a strange thing," "a marvelous thing," "a wonder," "a marvel," from mirari, "to wonder at," "to be astonished at."

Our word "miracle" thus specifically designates any occurrence that appears unaccountable because of the finite limitations of human knowledge and understanding. There are no miracles in the sight of God, for His knowledge and understanding are infinite. The miraculous aspect of certain phenomena does not lie so much in the occurrences themselves as in the effect they produce in the minds of finite beings who witness them. The occurrence itself is objective; its miraculous aspect is subjective.

As men's knowledge and understanding increase, some occurrences they formerly considered miraculous may cease to appear so. For instance, when the art of printing was first invented men generally considered it miraculous and attributed it to the devil. What would men of that time and bent of mind have thought of television? The miracles of our Lord, however, called into operation power wholly unknown to man and produced results that cannot, even today, be explained on the basis of human knowledge.

Nevertheless, what appears to be a violation of natural law as we understand it may simply be the operation of a higher, unknown law of nature that modifies or counteracts a lower, known law. Gravity, for instance, draws all objects earthward. But a higher law of nature counteracts the law of gravity when a living creature lifts those same objects, when the sun lifts tons of moisture into the air to form clouds, or when capillary action lifts sap from the roots of a giant sequoia to its topmost branches. Or, one law may be modified by another, as when centrifugal and centripetal forces operate in balance to maintain a planet in its course. The forces of nature operate according to the expressed will of God, and it is hardly appropriate to consider miracles as violations of natural law. More properly, they are variations from the operation of natural law as known and understood by men. God never works contrary to Himself.

A miracle of healing is no greater than the miracle of a transformed life. In fact, such a life is the greatest of all miracles. In each, God is simply at work in ways we do not fully understand (cf. John 3:8), for our good in this life and in the life to come. There is a spiritual law to the effect that "the wages of sin is death," but there is also a higher law to the effect that "the gift of God is eternal life" (Rom. 6:23; 7:21 to 8:4). See DA 406, 407.

To see the miracles of our Lord in their true perspective, as related to His mission to this earth, it is necessary to understand something of the purpose that prompted them and the conditions under which they could be effected:

Why did Jesus perform miracles? Every miracle of our Lord served a definite purpose; He never exercised divine power to satisfy idle curiosity or to demonstrate the possession of ability to do so (DA 730), or to benefit Himself (DA 729). "His wonderful works were all for the good of others" (DA 119; cf. 406), and contributed materially and spiritually to their welfare. He sought by this means to assure all men of the love, sympathy, and care of their heavenly Father. Evidence of His work for them, demonstrated in unusual ways, would lead to a better understanding and a deeper appreciation of how He meets their needs in more common ways from day to day (DA 367). See DA 143.

Again, the miracles of our Lord illustrated spiritual truth. The man healed of paralysis in Capernaum was first cured of spiritual paralysis (Mark 2:9-11). The blind man at Siloam enjoyed the restoration of both natural and spiritual eyesight (John 9:5-7, 35-38). The bread provided for the 5,000 was designed to lead their minds to the true Bread of Life that came down from heaven (John 6:26-35). The raising of Lazarus demonstrated Christ's power to impart life to all who believe in Him (John 11:23-26; cf. 5:26-29) and His power to inspire new life in those who are spiritually dead. "Every miracle was of a character to lead the people to the tree of life, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations" (DA 366).

Above all, the miracles of our Lord testified to His divine mission as the Saviour of mankind and attested the truth of His message. Again and again Jesus pointed to His mighty works as evidence of His divine authority and Messiahship (Matt. 11:20-23; John 5:36; 10:25, 32, 37, 38; 14:10, 11), and sincere-hearted men accordingly recognized divinity operating in and through Him (Matt. 13:54; Luke 9:43; 19:37; 24:19; John 3:2; 6:14; 9:16, 33).

Not only did the miracles of Christ contribute in a general way toward the realization of these objectives, but each miracle, at least of those recorded in the Gospels, seems to have been significant in and of itself (see on Luke 2:49). Accordingly, a study of the miracles of our Lord should include an investigation of their results, and thus of the purpose that prompted them, and that led the evangelists to record them (see column, "Purpose and/or Result," pp. 210-213).

Under what circumstances did Jesus perform miracles? "Christ never worked a miracle except to supply a genuine necessity" (DA 366). God is not honored in being called upon to do that which men are able to do for themselves. Only when men recognize that their needs are beyond human wisdom and skill to supply, can the ultimate purpose of a miracle be realized. Indeed, there must first be a profound sense of need. Next, there must be faith that God can and will supply the help so desperately needed. There must also be an earnest desire, an intense longing, that God will supply this need. There must be readiness of heart and mind to act on faith, in harmony with whatever God may require. Finally, there must be willingness to order the life henceforth in harmony with the principles of the kingdom of heaven, and to bear witness to the love and power of God.

In the following table the miracles of our Lord are listed in chronological order. The Scripture reference given indicates the place in this commentary where major comment appears. Miracles are designated numerically as dealing with: (1) disease and deformity, (2) demon possession, (3) death, (4) the forces of nature. The section in the Harmony of the Gospels (see pp. 196-201) indicated for each miracle leads to other sources of information related to each miracle, such as the maps and charts on which they appear. The column headed "Purpose and/or Result" provides a brief analysis of the special contribution of each miracle to our Lord's mission on earth. Cross references indicate other miracles comparable as to purpose or result.

The Miracles of our Lord

[For explanation see preceding paragraph.]

Maps and Charts Illustrating The Life and Ministry of Jesus

The following series of maps on the life and ministry of our Lord represents graphically the chronological sequence of events as set forth in the Harmony of the Gospels (pp. 196-201). It should be remembered, however, that the exact time and location of many incidents are not known. For the principles followed in the construction of the Harmony, and thus also of the maps, see pp. 190-193.

The series of charts following the maps provides a graphic representation of the chronological relationship of events as set forth in the Harmony. Some of the charts illustrate the narrative sequence of events, while others are concerned with chronological problems that arise in a study of the Gospel record.

The Nativity of Jesus

Childhood and Youth of Jesus From Nativity to Manhood

Early Ministry of Jesus

Judean Ministry of Jesus

Early Galilean Ministry of Jesus

Middle Galilean Ministry of Jesus

Closing Galilean Ministry of Jesus

Jesus' Retirement From Public Ministry

Early Peraean Ministry of Jesus

Closing Peraean Ministry of Jesus

Closing Ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem

Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion of Jesus

The Resurrection of Jesus and Subsequent Events

I. Introduction

The events recorded in the New Testament occurred in the 1st century of our era--a period for which the chronology of the Roman Empire is well established--yet their dates cannot be settled beyond dispute because the writers did not give us enough information. The only New Testament mention of a specific year (the 15th of Tiberius) has been subject to varying interpretations. The epistles carry no date lines, and the writers of the Gospels were more interested in the meaning of events than in their dating.

Modern scholars sometimes write dogmatically about the chronology of the life of Christ, but their writing is based on subjective interpretations of evidence that is not sufficiently clear to be conclusive. The reader of this commentary will find that although the New Testament writers provide enough in the way of time statements to show that they were in no uncertainty, they do not give us enough on which to reconstruct more than an approximate chronological scheme of events. Even the order of events, pieced together from the four Gospels, is at times uncertain. Allowance must be made for possible variations.

New Testament chronological problems are either internal, concerned with the interpretation of the text itself, or external, concerned with the relation between New Testament events and secular chronology. The purpose of this article is to present the facts that can be known, and to point to the conclusions that may reasonably be reached, on the most important external chronological problems within the scope of Volume V: the b.c.-a.d. dating of (1) the birth of Christ, (2) His baptism, and thus the beginning of His ministry, and (3) His crucifixion and resurrection. As a preface to this, it is necessary to explain various ancient chronological eras and methods of reckoning years.

II. Calendars and Year Reckonings

The world in which Jesus lived was the Roman Empire of Augustus and Tiberius. In this empire many peoples and nations from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, from the mouth of the Rhine to the cataracts of the Nile, were united under Roman dominion and enjoyed the Roman peace. But in this area, especially in the East, where the civilizations were much older than the civilization of Rome, the local languages, customs, and religions still persisted. And so did the various methods of reckoning time. Even in official matters dates were expressed in terms of the regnal and calendar reckoning of the local area.

Varying Calendars in First Century a.d.--The Roman calendar had been changed under the authority of Julius Caesar from lunar to solar at the beginning of the year 45 B.C. That is, the Roman months, formerly lunar, had been adjusted by Sosigenes, an astronomer from Egypt, to the Egyptian 365-day solar year, with the addition of an extra day every four years, thus making the year average 365 1/4 days. But this Julian calendar, which eventually became the heritage of all Europe, was not imposed uniformly throughout the whole Roman Empire (see Vol. I, pp. 176, 177; Vol. II, p. 118).

In Egypt itself Augustus introduced the leap-year system, with the result that the Egyptian New Year's Day, Thoth 1, ceased to slip backward through the seasons as it had always done (see Vol. I, p. 176; Vol. II, pp. 104, 154) and became fixed to August 29 (or 30 in some years). Otherwise the Egyptian calendar remained the same, with its twelve 30-day months under the old names, and the five extra days at the end (thenceforth six every fourth year).

The provinces east of Egypt kept their lunar calendars of 12 and 13 months (see Vol. II, pp. 103, 104), but during the early centuries of Roman occupation most of them adopted from Rome the year of 365 (366) days, and adapted their own Macedonian and Semitic lunar-month names to the Julian months of 31, 30, or 28 (29) days. Thus in Syria, for example, the Semitic calendar year began with the equivalent of Tishri, which was changed from a lunar month to one of 31 days, coinciding with the Julian October. It is not known to what extent this change had taken place in the 1st century of the Christian Era.

The Jewish Calendar.--The Jews, however, kept their lunar calendar with its months of 30 and 29 days, its year of 12 or 13 months, and its two beginnings of the year: the religious year, from Nisan to Nisan, in the spring, and the civil year from Tishri to Tishri, in the autumn (see Vol. II, pp. 102-104, 109, 116). In Christ's time, however, the ecclesiastical year, beginning in the spring, seems also to have been the regnal year (see p. 238), that is, the year by which the reigns of the local Jewish (quasi-Jewish) Herodian kings were numbered.

The Jews, like the other ancient Semites, had a lunisolar calendar, that is, lunar months with a periodical adjustment to keep the calendar year in step with the seasons. Twelve lunar months total about 11 days less than the true solar year, which governs the seasons. Therefore an extra month (called an embolismic, or intercalary, month) was added every two or three years--Adar, the 12th month, was followed by a 13th month, Adar II. This was necessary to keep Nisan, the 1st month, in line with the barley harvest season (early April), to permit the offering of the wave sheaf (the omer) just after the Passover, during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Vol. II, pp. 100, 101, 103-105). The Babylonians had developed a calendar cycle in the 4th century b.c. that employed a different method of inserting extra months; they doubled their 12th month, Addaru, six times in every 19-year cycle; but in one year (now numbered the 17th) they doubled Ululu (Jewish Elul), the 6th month (see Vol. II, pp. 112-114).

The Jews, so far as is known, never at any time inserted an Elul II after the 6th month. Such a procedure would have produced an irregular interval between the festivals that the Levitical law prescribed in the 1st and 7th months. Further, the fact that the need for the extra month was governed by the relation of mid-Nisan to the barley harvest indicates that originally, when the calendar presumably depended solely on observation, the 13th month would necessarily be inserted in the spring, just preceding Nisan, and there is no reason to suppose a change to doubling the 6th month. Nothing is known of a regularly recurring Jewish 19-year cycle, like that of the Babylonian calendar, in Jesus' day. Yet there seems to be evidence that the priestly officials who regulated the calendar had some knowledge of methods of theoretical calculation, although they always observed the ancient custom of announcing the months on the basis of actual observation of the moon and of the seasons. According to tradition, it was not until some centuries after Christ that the rabbis systematized their calendar on the basis of fixed rules of calculation known to all.

Roman Methods of Designating Years.--The Romans, with their republican heritage, did not date by the years of their emperors' reigns, for the simple reason that in Italy and the West an emperor was not regarded as a reigning monarch. Augustus, the organizer of the Roman Empire that replaced the republic, was called the princeps, literally the first, or chief (citizen), and his rule was not technically a monarchy but a principate. The equivalent Greek terms heµgemoµn and heµgemonia for the emperor and his rule were used in the Eastern provinces, where Greek was the official governmental language, a heritage from Alexander and the Hellenistic kingdoms. We rightly call Augustus the first Roman emperor, and we think of the emperors as monarchs, which in actual practice they were. But their power stemmed from their holding the office of imperator, commander of the armed forces (whence the later term "emperor"). Legally they ruled by virtue of the powers of various civil offices that were originally voted to Augustus and were, in form, voted to each succeeding emperor. Not until the time of Diocletian (a.d. 284-305) was the Roman government formally reorganized as an absolute monarchy.

In ordinary dating the Romans used the formula "in the consulship of--and--," naming each year after the two consuls, the joint chief magistrates of the republic, who were elected yearly. Under the empire the consuls still held office (as mere figureheads) annually, from January 1. Surviving consular lists enable us to locate such consular years in the b.c. and a.d. scale. Until 23 B.C. Augustus legalized his control of the state by holding the consulship every year (with various "colleagues" who actually had no power). At first he reckoned his years by the number of times he had been consul. Then he relinquished the consulship and changed to what became the official method of designating the years of an emperor--by the number of years he had held the tribunician power, that is, the power (though not the office) of tribune (on the tribunes as protectors of the rights of the people under the republic, see p. 27). Such years were reckoned as beginning on the anniversary of the first bestowal of the tribunician power. (The Romans, unlike the Orientals, attached importance to personal birthdays and were more accustomed to reckoning from anniversaries; the Easterners were inclined to reckon full calendar years, from New Year's Days.)

Regnal Years Used in the East.--In the Eastern provinces and dependent kingdoms of the Roman Empire the custom of dating by the numbered calendar years of each reign had so long prevailed that the peoples of the East continued to apply this method, in their respective local calendars, to Roman emperors.

The local differences are apparent in the case of Augustus, since the setting up of his rule over the empire was not a single event accomplished in a day. We today generally date his reign from 27 B.C. because in January of that year he was given the honorific name of Augustus and his chief constitutional powers were voted to him by the Senate. But in the East his rule was dated from his conquests there. In Syria and neighboring provinces it was regarded as beginning in 31 B.C. with the Battle of Actium on September 2, the decisive point at which he won control of the empire by his defeat of Antony. In Egypt his reign was counted from the death of Cleopatra in 30 B.C., for he was regarded as her successor, by right of conquest, as king of Egypt. There his reign was reckoned by Egyptian calendar years from Thoth 1, 30 B.C.

A regnal-year dating formula, such as that used by Luke, "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius"--a phrase apparently never used by Tiberius himself in Rome--would depend for its meaning on the particular local calendar used by the writer; that is, on whether he was counting the year from the Egyptian Thoth 1 (always, after the time of Augustus, in August), or from the Jewish Nisan or Tishri, etc. During and after the Hellenistic period local Syrian calendars varied even from city to city.

Two Methods of Numbering Regnal Years.--The date would depend also on which of two methods was used in numbering the regnal years. By one method the unexpired portion of the calendar year after the king's death was called the accession year of the new king; the year 1 of the new reign was the first full calendar year, beginning with the next local New Year's Day after the accession. This was the so-called accession-year method, sometimes known as postdating. This system of numbering had been employed in earlier centuries in Babylonia, Assyria, and the kingdom of Judah, also among the postexilic Jews in Nehemiah's day (see Vol. II, pp. 120, 138, 139; Vol. III, p. 101). But it had been discontinued, even in Babylonia, at the Macedonian conquest, when the years of Alexander the Great began to be numbered by another method (already long known in Egypt)--the so-called antedating, or non-accession-year system. By this reckoning the calendar year that had begun as the last year of the old reign ended as the year 1 of the new king, and thus carried two numbers. The incoming ruler's year 1 extended from the date of accession to the first New Year's Day following, at which time year 2 began (see Vol. II, pp. 138, 139).

Jewish Methods of Dating.--For the New Testament, the Jewish reckoning of years is important, but nothing is known of Jewish dating from contemporary 1st-century dated documents comparable with the tablets we have in such abundance from an earlier period in Mesopotamia. Palestinian coins carrying regnal-year numbers of Roman emperors are known, but there is no double dating or other synchronism (see Vol. II, p. 135; Vol. III, p. 88) by which the b.c. or a.d. Julian year can be located. However, the only available indications, from Jewish literature, imply that in the time of Christ the regnal years of the local Jewish kings were reckoned from the spring. This may seem strange, in view of the earlier fall-to-fall year of the kings of Judah and of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (see Vol. II, pp. 134, 140, 146; Vol. III, pp. 102-105). However the spring-beginning year (of the Seleucid Era) seems to have been used in the time of the Maccabees (see p. 25, note 2), probably in distinction from the fall-to-fall Macedonian reckoning of the Seleucid Era years. The newly independent Jewish rulers, the so-called Maccabeans, were not of the ancient royal line of Judah. They were Hasmonaeans of the tribe of Levi, and were priest-kings. It would be natural that they should emphasize the religious year, beginning Nisan 1, in the spring, rather than the old Judahite regnal year. Consequently it is not surprising to find Josephus, writing in the 1st century, reckoning the years of Herod the Great, the successor of the Hasmonaeans, from the spring, and also by the so-called non-accession-year method. Nor is it surprising to find the tradition of the same method preserved in the Talmud, which states that Nisan 1 was the New Year for Israelite kings (but Tishri 1, in the autumn, for foreign kings as reckoned by the Jews). Just as the Jews of the time of 1 Maccabees seem to have used their own spring-to-spring reckoning in contrast with the fall-to-fall years of the Syrian kings, so presumably they would also follow the same distinction between the years of the local Herods, who were at least nominally Jews, and those of the Roman emperors, who were foreign.

Roman and Greek Traditional Eras.--Historians in the Roman Empire dated events in two traditional eras whose starting points were placed at much earlier but actually unknown dates:

The Greek Olympiads were four-year periods marked off by the quadrennial Olympic games, starting from the supposed origin of the games in the summer of 776 B.C. The 3d year of the 195th Olympiad, for example (abbreviated Ol. 195.3), corresponds to a.d. 3/4, midsummer to midsummer.

The Roman A.U.C. reckoning (ab urbe condita, "from the founding of the city"), dating from the supposed year of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus, was not unanimously agreed upon by Roman writers; but the commonly accepted authority, Varro, placed the founding of the city in what corresponds to 753 B.C. Although the exact date was supposed to have been April 21, the years A.U.C. are sometimes reckoned by Roman calendar years from January 1. This era, like the Olympiads, was frequently used in historical statements, but ordinary Roman dating was by the consulships (see p. 237).

Eastern Eras in Use in Time of Christ.--In the easternmost region of the Roman Empire the Seleucid Era, begun by the Seleucid kings, was reckoned from the autumn of 312 B.C. by the official Macedonian calendar, though in Babylonia it was always counted from the Babylonian New Year in the spring of 311, and possibly by the Jewish writer of 1 Maccabees from the spring of 312 (see p. 25, note 2). There were several eras of Augustus. One was the Actian Era, dated from the victory of Augustus (then Octavian) at Actium, September 2, 31 B.C. This era was carried on after Augustus' death, so that in the reign of Tiberius we find coins minted for a few years in Antioch and its neighboring port of Seleucia bearing double dates, in the Actian Era and in regnal years of Tiberius. The Egyptians had another era of Augustus, counted from Thoth 1, 30 B.C., reckoning his regnal years as king of Egypt after the death of Cleopatra. Some also count an Augustan Era from 27 B.C., when the constitutional rule of Augustus began.

The Christian Era.--The Christian Era does not belong historically in a discussion of the 1st century, because it was not invented until centuries later. However, since it is purportedly a reckoning from the birth of Christ and the very phrase "1st century" is expressed in terms of this era, and since all New Testament events (except the Nativity) are dated in it by modern writers, the era must be explained. In the 6th century after Christ a monk named Dionysius Exiguus devised a new Easter table, in which he introduced a new method of numbering the years. Placing the birth of Christ, according to the best information he had access to, in the Roman year A.U.C. 754, he began his new scale of years "in the year of our Lord" (Latin Anno Domini nostri; more often, omitting the word for "our," Anno Domini, or a.d.) 532. The era did not come into general use for ordinary dating until some centuries later, but it is now worldwide, familiar even in Moslem and Far Eastern nations that still retain their old calendars. It has long been known that Dionysius fixed on the wrong year for the birth of Christ, but the usefulness of the scale is unimpaired so long as we understand that a.d. 1956, for example, was not the 1956th year from the birth of Christ, but the 1956th of the artificial scale called the Christian Era, whose starting point is several years later than the true date of the Nativity. Authorities differ as to the exact amount of the error, but it is certainly not less than about four years, and the Christ's birth must therefore be given a "before Christ" date.

III. The Date of Christ's Birth

Traditional Date.--Probably the most prevalent date assigned to the birth of Christ has been 4 (or 5) b.c., although some date it in 6, 8, or even earlier. The popularity of 4 B.C. probably stems from Ussher, who considered that the Christian Era was four years late. He placed his creation date at 4004 B.C. because he believed that Christ was born in the year 4000 from the creation of the world, that is 5/4 B.C., fall to fall. Thus he placed the date of the Nativity near the end of 5 B.C., and this year has appeared in the margins of many editions of the English Bible for 250 years. But it is now known that Ussher's dates, compiled 300 years ago, are far from accurate. Many of them are approximately correct, but many more are entirely misleading. Newer discoveries in archeology have made it possible to know many ancient dates with a certainty that was beyond the reach of scholars of Ussher's day. Now 5 B.C. can be regarded as approximately correct for the birth of Christ. However, the evidence is not complete enough to furnish proof of the exact year, as will become evident.

Enrollment in the Time of Quirinius (Cyrenius).--Luke tells us that Jesus was born at the time of a census decreed by Augustus, and that it was "the first enrollment, when Quirinius [Cyrenius, KJV] was governor of Syria" (Luke 2:2, RSV). Josephus names Sentius Saturninus and Quintilius Varus as successive governors from about 9 B.C. until after the death of Herod (Antiquities xvi. 9. 1; xvii. 5. 2; 9. 3). Therefore critics have charged Luke with an error. However, the evidence does not rule out the probability that Christ was born at the time of the census conducted during Quirinius' governorship. Two inscriptions mentioning Quirinius have been interpreted by some to indicate that he was joint governor of Syria before the death of Herod, and that the census referred to by Luke was one conducted in 8 or 6 B.C., not the one in the later governorship of Quirinius, a.d. 6 (see Caird in the bibliography at the end of this article). Others prefer to explain Luke's census as one that had been ordered by Augustus in 8 B.C., and begun in Palestine somewhat later (at which time Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem), then left unfinished at Herod's death, and completed under Quirinius (and therefore associated with the latter's name).

Josephus states that Cyrenius undertook a Roman census of Judea in about a.d. 6 or 7 (Antiquities xviii. 1. 1; 2. 1; xx. 5. 2), and mentions an insurrection led by Judas of Galilee in opposition to it. Acts 5:37 refers to the same uprising. This census came soon after Archelaus was deposed and Judea was formally annexed to the Roman province of Syria in a.d. 6. Taken together, these facts suggest the possibility that Jewish antagonism had made it impossible to complete the census (and tax levy based on it) under Herodian rule, and that as soon as Judea was incorporated into the province of Syria the census and tax levy were duly carried out. See the Suggestive Chronology of Christ's Birth.

It has been objected that there is no record of any imperial decree for taxation in Judea prior to that carried out by Quirinius in a.d. 6 or 7, but it must be remembered that detailed records of the Roman administration of Palestine are lacking. Though tributary to Rome, Herod and Archelaus exercised a considerable degree of independence in local affairs, and it is more than likely that they levied taxes in their own names and paid tribute to Rome out of their own coffers. It is entirely possible that Herod, belatedly perhaps, may have carried out a registration called for somewhat earlier by Augustus. Such a decree, though actually issued in Herod's name, could properly be considered a Roman edict inasmuch as Herod was subject to Caesar. Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, their ancestral home, to be registered. The empire permitted a census to be taken by local methods. That such a practice was sometimes followed in the East is demonstrated by a papyrus of a century later, showing that in Egypt the people were required to return to their homes to enroll in the census (see Caird in the bibliography).

Star Cannot Be Dated.--All attempts to arrive at a date for the star of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:2) by astronomical calculations are worthless. No natural heavenly body could have led the travelers from the east and then have turned south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem and finally stood over a single house. Obviously the star was miraculous (see DA 60) and nonastronomical.

Death of Herod Dated in 4 B.C.--Josephus dates Herod's death in the 37th year of his reign counted from his appointment, or the 34th counted from his actual acquisition of the kingdom, that is, 4/3 B.C., Nisan to Nisan. Some have supposed that Herod died late in 4/3, and thus have placed the birth of Jesus in the autumn of 4 B.C. or later, but the more generally accepted interpretation of Josephus' narrative is the view that Herod died in the first few days of Nisan, 4 B.C. It is explained elsewhere that if Herod died in early April, 4 B.C., the events between the birth of Christ and the slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem, while Herod was still alive, would put the Nativity in early 4 B.C. at the very latest, perhaps some months earlier, in the autumn of 5 B.C. (see on Matt. 2:1; also the Suggestive Chronology of Christ's Birth). It could not have been far from either 5 or 4 B.C., for Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when He began His ministry in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius."

IV. Beginning of Christ's Ministry

The chief chronological statement for the beginning of Christ's ministry is Luke 3:1, 2. Before discussing this important text, two other phrases, one expressed definitely as a round number and the other apparently so, will be considered first.

"About Thirty Years of Age."--Luke says (ch. 3:23) literally that "Jesus himself was beginning about thirty years of age." This has been most often interpreted, from Tyndale down to the present time, as Jesus' age when He began His ministry; that is, that "Jesus himself was beginning," is to be understood as "Jesus was, when He began," about thirty. (See Luke's use of the same construction with the same word for "beginning" in Acts 1:22). It is true that if Jesus was born, at the latest, in 4 B.C., He would have completed His 30th year in a.d. 27. But aside from the uncertainty of the exact Biblical method of counting age, the Greek word hoµsei, "about," here indicates a round number. Jesus would certainly be "about thirty" within range of at least a year or two in one direction or the other. If Luke, who gave us a more detailed narrative than the other Gospel writers, had been informed of Jesus' exact age, he would hardly have been content with the vague phrase "about thirty." Jesus' precise birth date and His exact age at the time of His baptism are not at all necessary to determine the date of the beginning of His ministry. It has been suggested that Luke meant to indicate that Jesus was at least thirty, that is, at the age when He might be considered ready to begin a lifework of leadership (see on Luke 3:23).

The Forty-six Years of the Temple.--The attempt has sometimes been made to derive the date of Christ's ministry from the statement that "forty and six years was this temple in building" (John 2:20). This was not a historian's considered statement of chronology, written after a consultation of the records. It was part of an oral rejoinder. The intention of the speaker was not to relate a historical fact, but to heap scorn on the supposedly preposterous claim of Jesus that He could rebuild the Temple in three days. The figure may have been exact; it was just as likely an approximation. Certainly no starting point or ending point was indicated. Therefore it is not to be classed as a precise chronological datum from which to calculate a date.

However, a period of 46 years from the time of the building of Herod's Temple can be computed as a reasonably close approximation. The Temple was begun, says Josephus, in the 18th year of Herod's reign (Antiquities xv. 11. 1). Elsewhere he gives the 15th year (War i. 21. 1 [401]). Some regard these dates as the same year in the two reckonings of Herod's reign (from his appointment by the Romans in 40 B.C. and from his actual taking control of Judea in 37 B.C.). However, others regard Antiquities as correcting an earlier error in War. Still others suggest that Herod may have begun preparations three years before he began actual building operations; or that the 46 years are to be counted from the end of the first stage, when the completion of the Temple building, exclusive of the court and other buildings, was celebrated by a great festival (Antiquities xv. 11. 6). If we take the 15th year of the reign, 23/22 B.C., the interval is 49 years to the earliest possible reckoning of the 15th year of Tiberius. However, if the starting point was the beginning of the construction in the 18th year, 20/19 B.C. (in January, 19 B.C., probably, since the first year and a half of building ended in midsummer, with the celebration on the anniversary of Herod's acquisition of the throne), then 46 full years ended in a.d. 28. And it was a few months later, at the Passover of that year, according to the earliest possible interpretation of the 15th year of Tiberius, that the 46-year statement was made. Obviously, in view of the lack of an exact starting point, and of the casual nature of the remark, this 46-year statement cannot be regarded as establishing any date conclusively.

Much more specific and detailed is Luke's chronological statement obviously intended to date the beginning of Christ's ministry. This will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Luke's Dating Formula.--The same chapter that contains the phrase "about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23), contains the only definite regnal-year date in the New Testament: John the Baptist came from the wilderness "into all the country about Jordan, preaching," just preceding the baptism of Jesus, in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:3, 1). Luke also places this event during the administration of Pontius Pilate (a.d. 26-36), of Herod (Antipas) (4 B.C.-a.d. 39), of Philip (4 B.C.-a.d. 33/34), and Lysanias (exact dates unknown, but about this time), and the priesthood of Annas (c. a.d. 6-14) and Caiaphas (c. a.d. 18-36). This combination of dates assigns the date of Luke's event to a.d. 26-34 (see The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2). But only the 15th year of Tiberius can limit it to a specific year.

"The Fifteenth Year of the Reign of Tiberius."--The identification of this regnal year depends on Luke's method of dating, since the years of an emperor's reign were counted by various subject peoples in their own differing local calendars, not by a uniform official reckoning. Officially, Tiberius, like Augustus, was princeps (Gr. heµgemoµn) and imperator, never king, and "the fifteenth year of the reign" (of the heµgemonia) was not a Roman dating formula at all. The Roman date would likely have been expressed as the 29th (or 30th) year of Tiberius' tribunician power, or as a consular year (see p. 237). Luke's phrase was an Eastern one, current in the provinces that had formerly reckoned their dates by the regnal years of their own kings and overlords, each in its own calendar (see pp. 236-238, 245). What calendar year did Luke use? Did he count as Tiberius' year 1 the year in which the king came to the throne, or the first full calendar year beginning at the next New Year's Day? Did he count the beginning of the reign from Augustus' death or from a coregency beginning earlier? We must know all this in order to answer the question: What did Luke mean when he said "fifteenth year"? Unfortunately we do not know all this. From the source evidence available the answer can have, at best, only a high probability of accuracy.

Coregency of Tiberius With Augustus.--Some authorities have sought to count Luke's 15th year of Tiberius from one of several points before the death of Augustus. It is well known that Tiberius held numerous high offices in Roman civil and military administration while Augustus was still living. In 6 B.C. he was invested with the tribunician power jointly with Augustus for five years. Then in a.d. 4 he was adopted as Augustus' son and heir, and given the joint tribunician power for ten years (June 27 a.d. 4), which power was renewed in a.d. 13, presumably for ten years more. In order to assure the succession, Augustus made him joint ruler in the administration of the provinces. Says a contemporary writer: "At the request of his father that he should have in all the provinces and armies a power equal to his own, the senate and the Roman people so decreed" (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 121. 1, 2; Loeb ed., p. 307). The difficulty is that there is disagreement as to whether this joint rule began in a.d. 11, 12, or 13. If, as some have argued, Luke's word for "reign" (heµgemonia) was intended to mean Tiberius' coregency as contrasted with his sole reign, there is no evidence to support such a usage. On the other hand, there is considerable source evidence indicating that neither Tiberius nor anyone else began to count the years of his rule before the death of Augustus.

Accession of Tiberius.--Augustus died at Nola, in Campania, Italy, on August 19, in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius, in the 44th year from the Battle of Actium (Dio Cassius lvi. 29. 2; 30. 5). The year is indisputably a.d. 14. Tiberius, away on a journey, was hastily summoned to his father's deathbed. Tiberius announced the emperor's death, and, having been for a year or more the commander of the armies, and joint ruler in the provinces, seems to have been accepted without question by the provincials. But in Italy he carried on the government only provisionally, since Rome was not legally a hereditary monarchy--not a monarchy at all in the eyes of the Romans. It was seemingly with reluctance that Tiberius accepted the titles and powers of the late emperor. (See Velleius Paterculus ii. 123. 1, 2; 124. 2, 3; Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, "Tiberius" iii. 23. 1; 24. 1, 2; Tacitus, Annals, i. 5, 7; Dio Cassius lvii. 2. 1-4; 3. 1; 7. 1.)

In the East, where regnal-year reckoning was customary, all documents would have begun to be dated in Tiberius' reign as soon as news of his accession had arrived. The year number would change at the next New Year's Day in each local calendar: in Egypt on Thoth 1, August 29 or 30; on the island of Cyprus in September; in Syrian Antioch on Tishri 1, the new moon of October (unless by that time the Semitic month Tishri had already been shifted to coincide with the Julian October, as was certainly the case later). The question is, Was it Tiberius' year 1 or year 2 that began at the New Year's Day following his accession?

What Was the "First Year" of Tiberius?--It has been explained that by the postdating, or accession-year, method of numbering regnal years, the remainder of the calendar year in which the reign began was called the accession year, with the year 1 beginning at the next New Year's Day after the accession; but that by the antedating, or non-accession-year, system, the year 1 was that in which the new king came to the throne, with the year beginning at the next New Year's Day called year 2 (see p. 238). This second method, the antedating, or non-accession-year, system is attested by various source documents as the common reckoning used in the Near East in the early period of the Roman Empire.

It would be taken for granted from this evidence that in the East in general the 1st year of Tiberius ended and his 2d year began sometime between late August and October, a.d. 14, were it not for direct source evidence that in Egypt, Cyprus, and possibly Syria, Tiberius' year 1 began at the autumn New Year of a.d. 14 (which would make the year 15 of his reign a.d. 28/29). These source data for Tiberius appear to be exceptional, with the numbering running a year later than usual because the accession took place so late (August 19) as to be unknown until after the New Year in distant areas. In view of the differing calendars of the various Eastern peoples, Luke's dating method must be decided on the evidence from his own country, and not from any other.

Jewish Reckoning of Tiberius' Reign.--But all that has been said still leaves unanswered the key question: Did the Jews reckon Tiberius' "year 1" as the short interval beginning at some time after August 19 and ending at the next Jewish New Year's Day (October, a.d. 14), or did they reckon his first year as beginning at the New Year's Day of a.d. 14? Unfortunately, there are no known inscriptions or coins from Palestine that prove one or the other. However, there is evidence for 1st-century Jewish dating practice from Jewish literature. Josephus indicates unmistakably that the reigns of Herod the Great and his sons were reckoned by the antedating, or non-accession-year, method (see p. 239, note 2; The Reigns of the Herods).

Further, since the rabbinical tradition concerning the reckoning of the years of Jewish kings (see note 2) is demonstrated by Josephus as valid for the 1st century, we may reasonably regard the other portion of the same tradition as valid also; namely, the Jewish reckoning of foreign kings from Tishri 1. In that case Luke would be expected to count the years of Tiberius, a Roman ruler, from Tishri 1, with his 2d year beginning at the first New Year's Day of his reign, namely, Tishri 1 in a.d. 14. Since the mid-October date of Tishri 1 allows ample time for the news of Augustus' death on August 19 to reach Palestine before Tishri 1, it can hardly be supposed that the Jews, like the Egyptians, began to reckon Tiberius' year 1 only after their New Year's Day in a.d. 14.

If, then, Luke employed the normal Jewish method of dating, as seems most probable, we should expect him to designate as the 15th year of Tiberius the Jewish civil year running from autumn to autumn, a.d. 27/28. This is not proved from direct contemporary evidence, but from known Jewish usage it seems to be the most probable solution.

Date of Jesus' Baptism.--If Luke 3:1 refers to a.d. 27/28 as the year in which John the Baptist came out of the wilderness and in which he baptized Jesus, this agrees perfectly with the interpretation of the chronology of Christ's ministry that puts His baptism at some time soon after Tishri 1, in the autumn of a.d. 27 or 483 years after "the going forth of the commandment" in the autumn of 457 B.C. (see Sec. V).

V. Length of Christ's Ministry and the 70th Week

Three and a Half Years of Christ's Ministry.--Since the writers of the four Gospels were not concerned with uniformity or with strict chronological order, there have always been differences of interpretation in reconstructing the sequence and duration of the events of Christ's ministry. No one of the various harmonies of the Gospels can claim complete proof for its chronology. Some assign one year, others two and over, others three and a half, some even seven years to the period. This commentary presents a tentative chronological outline of the Bible narratives built on John's three Passovers (John 2:13; 6:4; 12:1) and one other feast unnamed (John 5:1) but interpreted to be likewise a Passover, and thus it assigns 3 1/2 years to the ministry of Christ (see pp. 193; The Duration of Christ's Ministry), beginning it in the autumn of a.d. 27 and ending it in the spring of a.d. 31.

Daniel's Seventy Weeks.--The lack of conclusive proof for the exact date of the beginning of the ministry of Christ has not only led to differences of opinion as to the events involved, but also caused critics to assert contradictions between the Synoptic Gospels and John, and to attack the historical application of the prophecy of the 70 weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) to the life of Christ. The great prophetic period that was to "seal up the vision and prophecy" by pointing out the time of "Messiah the Prince" has, through the centuries, been interpreted by most theological writers as pointing to Christ's first advent, with the crucifixion occurring either in the midst or at the end of the 70th week. The standard historicist interpretation since the Reformation has been that the 70th weeks follows immediately the 69th week, with no time gap, and that the events prophesied to take place in the 70th week find their fulfillment in connection with the life of Christ. This commentary sets forth what was the majority interpretation during the 19th-century advent movement, namely, that the 70 weeks begin with the 7th year of Artaxerxes (see on Dan. 9:25). This article shows that, by placing the baptism of Christ at the beginning of the 70th week, and His crucifixion in the "midst of the week," the available evidence for the dating of the ministry of Christ can be harmonized with that interpretation.

There is no difficulty in locating "the going forth of the commandment" at the beginning of the 70 weeks in the autumn of 457 B.C. That has been covered in preceding volumes (see on Dan. 9:25; for the establishment of the date, see Vol. III, pp. 100, 103, 104). The reader who finds a possible harmony between the events prophetically foretold for the end of that period and the historical data for the life of Christ, can let the weight of prophetic fulfillment decide his preference in the case of dates that are open to varying interpretations such as a.d. 27, 28, or 29 for the beginning of Christ's ministry, and 30, 31, or 33 for His crucifixion.

To summarize: At present there is no conclusive historical and chronological proof, neither is there disproof, that Jesus began His ministry in the autumn of a.d. 27, at the end of 69 weeks of years after 457 B.C.; and that He ended the symbolism of the sacrifices and offerings at the cross 3 1/2 years later, in the spring of a.d. 31, with the latter half of the 70th week extending 3 1/2 years longer, to the end of 490 years from the starting point. But though one cannot hold these dates as definitely proved by direct historical source evidences, one can hold them as wholly reasonable deductions from the prophecy--as conclusions not incompatible with any known fact and in harmony with many facts that are known from recent research.

VI. Death and Resurrection of Christ.

Three questions present themselves in connection with the death of Christ: (1) On what day of the week did He die? (2) What was the connection between that day and the Feast of the Passover? (3) What was the year? This section deals with No. 1. No. 2 is examined in Additional Notes on Matt. 26, Note 1. No. 3 is examined in Section VII.

Time Between Crucifixion and Resurrection.--Through the centuries Christendom has been quite agreed that Jesus died on the cross Friday afternoon and rose from the tomb early the next Sunday morning. However, in recent years some have contended that when Christ said He would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40), He meant He would be in the grave 72 hours. On this assumption is built the Wednesday crucifixion theory, which places the resurrection on Sabbath afternoon. (A more recent, less exact, Thursday proposal merely computes: "Thursday plus 3 days equals Sunday.") Hence we should examine Christ's statements regarding the matter.

When Jesus spoke beforehand of His death and resurrection, He used several phrases concerning "three days," and once "three days and three nights." Of course, by modern Western reckoning, if we speak of three days after an event we mean three full days or more. Now three full 24-hour days after Friday afternoon would, strictly speaking, extend to Monday afternoon. But our problem is not what those phrases may mean to Westerners, but what Jesus meant by them and what His Near Eastern hearers understood by them.

Meaning of "Day."--There were various forms of speech used in Christ's day that do not have the same meaning for us. Some examples of these have already been explained ("600 years old," "son," or "brother"; see Vol. I, pp. 181, 182; Vol. II, pp. 136, 137; see on 1 Chron. 2:7).

What did Jesus mean by a "day"? He once spoke of the day having 12 hours (John 11:9, 10), referring obviously to the daytime as opposed to the night. This was literally true as Jesus meant it, for when He lived among men the time between sunrise and sunset was divided into 12 equal parts, or "hours," which "hours" varied in length according to the season. The fact that today we use clock hours of uniform length, in which sunrise and sunset are more or less than 12 sixty-minute hours apart most of the time, does not make Jesus' statement incorrect. Similarly His phrase "three days" must be interpreted according to what those words meant then to those people, not what they mean to us today.

Although "day" was, and is, sometimes used to mean the daylight hours, nevertheless the word, when used in counting a series of days, means in both ancient and modern usage a period including a day and a night. The Greek language, in which the New Testament was written, had a word for "night-day," nuchtheµmeron (see 2 Cor. 11:25); and Genesis enumerated each successive day of creation as composed of "evening" and "morning." Jesus' "three days and three nights" are merely "three [calendar] days," as then understood.

Different Phrases for Same Period.--This is clear from the fact that He refers at different times to the same period--the interval between His death and His resurrection--as "in three days," "after three days," on "the third day." Once, because He is quoting from Jonah (ch. 1:17), He uses the phrase "three days and three nights." Unless we accuse Jesus of contradicting Himself, we must accept all these phrases as meaning the same period of time. Even the priests and Pharisees who quoted Jesus as predicting His resurrection "after three days," asked Pilate to have the tomb guarded "until the third day" (not "until after the third day"). Obviously, "after three days" meant "the third day":

The following texts mention this three-day period:

"In three days"

"After three days"

"The third day"

Matt. 26:61; 27:40

27:63; 12:40 (and 3 nights)

16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64

Mark 14:58 (within)

8:31

9:31; 10:34

Luke

9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46

John 2:19-21

What, then, did these various three-day expressions mean? We can find out easily by comparing other passages in the Bible that refer to time periods in similar

Three Days, Inclusive.--The question of how long Jesus was in the tomb rose from a modern misunderstanding of inclusive reckoning, the common ancient method of counting. It included both the day (or year) on which any period of time began and also that on which it ended, no matter how small a fraction of the beginning or ending day (or year) was involved. One example of this method is a period (when Shalmaneser besieged Samaria) beginning in the 4th year of Hezekiah and the 7th year of Hoshea, and ending in the 6th year of Hezekiah and the 9th of Hoshea, "at the end of three years" (2 Kings 18:9, 10; see Vol. II, p. 136). It was evidently counted thus: 4, 5, 6 (of Hezekiah's reign), three years, inclusive.

Take another example. We say that a child is not one year old until after he has lived 12 full months from the date of his birth. He becomes one year old as he enters his second year of life, and becomes 2 years old after he completes his second year. Thus a child is called "10 years old" all through his 11th year, and becomes 11 only after he has reached the end of 11 full years. Not so in the Bible. Noah was, literally, "a son of 600 years" "in the six hundredth year" of his life (Gen. 7:6, 11); although his 600 years were not reckoned inclusively (see Vol. I, p. 181 and note), these verses show that in his 600th year his age was considered 600, not 599. A Hebrew baby was circumcised when he was "eight days old" (Gen. 17:12), "the eighth day" (Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59), or "when eight days were accomplished" (Luke 2:21). The Bible lists several periods of "three days" that ended during, not after, the third day, and thus covered less than three full 24-hour days (see Gen. 42:17-19; cf. 1 Kings 12:5, 12 with 2 Chron. 10:5, 12).

Not only among the Hebrews, but also among other ancient peoples, we have examples of inclusive reckoning. This was common in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Vol. II, p. 136). It is still found in the Far East today. Even in some countries of Europe a week's interval is referred to as "eight days," and a three-day round trip ticket bought on Sunday, for instance, is expected to be used on Tuesday. In modern Japan, until MacArthur's government changed the system for the convenience of the compilers of vital statistics, a child born in December was a year old for the remainder of the month and became two years old on January 1; "two years old" meant having lived in two calendar years, regardless of how small a fraction of either year was involved. Similarly, in Chinese reckoning a child born late last year is two years old this year (the second calendar year of his life) and will be three years old as soon as next year begins. Obviously, this is not a literal reckoning but is based on a concept of time that comes down from a long cultural usage. Similarly, we must bear in mind the cultural concepts of time that were held in Jesus' time.

Since the common custom of inclusive reckoning is well attested for the Hebrews, for other ancient nations, and in the East down to modern times, it seems wholly unreasonable to understand Jesus' words about a three-day period in terms of our modern Western mathematical method of reckoning. By common usage His hearers would count the three days successively as:

1. The day of the crucifixion.

2. The day after that event.

3. The "third" day after (by modern count, the second day after).

We cannot insist that when Jesus once said that He would rise after three days (Mark 8:31) He meant after the end of the third full day, or 72 hours. For that He would have said "on the fourth day." (For the phrase "four days ago" meaning three full days, or at least 72 hours, see on Acts 10:30.)

But we are not left with merely an obvious deduction as to what Jesus meant by "third day." We have it from His own lips. In speaking of Herod on one occasion He said, "Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:32, 33). Thus He equated the third day with the day after tomorrow--the third day counted inclusively.

Crucifixion on Friday.--What day, we may inquire, was the day on which this three-day prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled? The answer is, "The first day of the week" (Mark 16:9; see on Matt. 28:1). Late "that same day" (Luke 24:1, 13), two disciples met Him on the road to Emmaus, and in talking of the crucifixion of their Master and their own deep disappointment, declared, "To day is the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:21). Jesus Himself said, when He appeared to the Twelve in the upper room, "Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:46). As Paul later said, "He rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4). Sunday, obviously, was the third day.

What, then, was the day of the crucifixion, seeing that Sunday was the third day, or the "day after tomorrow"? Obviously, the preceding Friday, the day before the Sabbath. This is in exact accord with Luke's statement that the women left the embalming unfinished on the day of preparation as the Sabbath drew on, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment before returning on the first day of the week (Luke 23:54 to Luke 24:1). They would not have waited several days, as is supposed by those who put Jesus' death on Wednesday and make the Sabbath here mentioned merely a festival, or ceremonial, sabbath. Besides, the phrase "an high day" is taken by many to indicate that in that year the festival sabbath fell on the weekly Sabbath (see on John 19:31).

VII. Year of the Crucifixion

Section VI of this article has shown that Jesus died on Friday and rose on the following Sunday. In Additional Notes on Matt. 26, Note 1, reasons are set forth for holding that He died on the day that was called the 14th of Nisan by the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus to Pilate. The topic still to be discussed is the year of the crucifixion, to which the New Testament gives no clue except what can be derived from the statement about the 15th year of Tiberius and from the length of Jesus' ministry. Contemporary non-Biblical history furnishes no independent evidence. The nearest approach to a date is the bare statement of Tacitus that Christus, founder of the hated Christians, was put to death in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate (Annals xv. 44). The early church generally agreed that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14 (a few said the 15th), but soon lost track of computing that Jewish-calendar date. There was, from the earliest writings, a wide disagreement on the year. According to one tradition the date was March 25 in the consulship of the Gemini (a.d. 29); another identified the darkness of the cross with a solar eclipse mentioned by a pagan annalist, Phlegon, as occurring in Ol. 202.4 (the 4th year of the 202d Olympiad, a.d. 32/33); there was also a tradition in some quarters that a.d. 31 was the year of the crucifixion (see Ogg in the bibliography, p. 265).

The a.d. 29 date, generally connected with the theory of a one-year ministry, offers no possibility of a Friday Nisan 14; the 14th would fall on Saturday, Sunday, or beyond. A solar eclipse always occurring at new moon could not have occurred at a Passover (which was a full-moon feast), nor can an eclipse last so long. The modern tendency has been to attempt to settle the crucifixion date by computing the lunar date backward from modern astronomical tables for the most likely year between 30 and 33 that would allow a Friday 14th of Nisan. The date is limited to a time within Pilate's term of office (a.d. 26-36) and somewhat after Tiberius' 15th year, and to a Jewish year in which the day for slaying the Passover lamb fell on a Friday. Consequently the problem has come to be regarded as a search for a Friday 14th of the Jewish month Nisan, the lunar month beginning with the crescent moon (see Vol. II, pp. 114-116) of either March or April. Since astronomical evidence has been claimed for different dates, its validity must be discussed here, though the variation in methods and results indicates that extreme caution is to be observed in basing a conclusion on astronomical and calendrical calculation alone. Such computation can fix dates based on specific eclipse records or other exact data: but new-moon computation can merely exclude a date completely if it places a month in an obviously impossible relationship to the moon's phases. A lunar date computed as possible is not thereby proved to be the actual date; there are too many uncertainties (see Appendix to this article, pp. 255-265).

Possible Years for a Friday Crucifixion.--By modern methods of calculating the astronomical new moon and estimating the interval between that and the first day of the lunar month, it may be concluded that a Friday 14th could have occurred in three possible lunar months between a.d. 28 and 33:

a. The month beginning one day and about 22 hours after the new moon of March, a.d. 30 (approximately March 25), if reckoned from the visibility of the crescent (the 14th being Friday, April 7).

b. The month beginning three days and about four hours after the new moon of April, a.d. 31 (approximately April 14), if reckoned by a somewhat longer but possible interval after the astronomical new moon (the 14th being Friday, April 27).

c. The month beginning one day and about five hours after the new moon of March, a.d. 33 (approximately March 21, with the 14th on April 3), if this unusually early date could introduce Nisan, rather than Adar II.

No other years in this period offer a possible Friday Passover day.

A.D. 33 an Untenable Date.--In the past the long-accepted date of the crucifixion was a.d. 33 (set forth as early as the 13th century by Roger Bacon). This has appeared in the Ussher-Lloyd marginal dates in many KJV Bibles. However, this date is seldom advocated today. It was originally based on the assumption that the Jewish calendar of the 1st century a.d. was computed exactly the same as the revised form of that calendar that was introduced several centuries after Christ and has come down through the Middle Ages to modern times. This later Jewish calendar allows the Passover to come much earlier (at times as early as March 15). The possible Friday 14th in a.d. 33 would require Nisan to begin March 21, four days ahead of the earliest Nisan 1 of the Babylonian cycle in that period (see p. 236), and earlier than Elephantine papyri (5th century b.c.) would indicate for older Jewish practice. Hence the month beginning on March 21, a.d. 33, would be expected to be an Adar II.

If that month was Nisan, one of two alternatives is true: either the whole Jewish cycle was then running earlier than the Babylonian, or that was an exceptionally early Nisan, out of line with the usual cycle. Such an unusual cycle would begin Nisan in March most of the time, and in some years not merely four days ahead of the expected limit, but much earlier than that; therefore such a cycle would be out of harmony with the offering of the wave sheaf (see p. 236), which was part of the Nisan festivals as long as the Temple stood. If the Nisan of a.d. 33 was an irregular month, earlier than normal for the fixed cycle, then in the absence of positive documentary evidence this date for the crucifixion becomes a mere conjecture. Since there is no evidence to support either premise, a.d. 33 should not be considered unless it offers the only possible Friday 14th in the whole period, and such is not the case. The lunar month beginning in March, a.d. 33, should, from all the evidence, be an Adar II. In that case Nisan came a month later, in which the 14th was not on Friday. Thus the evidence is so strong against a.d. 33 as to rule it out of serious consideration. This reduces the choice to a.d. 30 or 31.

Choice Between 30 and 31.--The most popular choice, in this century, has been a.d. 30. Though some who reckon two or even three years as the duration of Christ's ministry have held this date, a 3 1/2-year duration cannot be reckoned as ending in a.d. 30 without supposing a coregency reckoning for the 15th year of Tiberius. Therefore the more recent exponents of this date have tended to advocate a duration of one year or little more. The basis has generally been the lunar computation of Friday, April 7, as the 14th of Nisan. Further, the fact that this date harmonizes with the Babylonian 19-year cycle (as developed in the 4th century b.c.), whereas 33 does not, has been taken in some quarters as decisive evidence in favor of 30.

A modern New Testament scholar points out this uncertainty, citing the most confident modern exponent of that date: "A. T. Olmstead identified the day of Jesus' crucifixion as Friday, April 7, a.d. 30--probably correctly if the Jerusalem Jews followed the Babylonian calendar in reckoning Passover" (Sherman E. Johnson, exegetical comment on Matt. 26:17 in The Interpreter's Bible; italics supplied). However, the year 30 rests on two assumptions: (1) that Nisan in that year was the lunar month beginning in March, not in April; and (2) that the month began with the observation of the crescent on the evening of March 24. Neither of these assumptions can be proved.

Not all scholars accept the two basic assumptions on which the date a.d. 30 depends. Some of them, employing different but equally valid premises and marshaling evidence that seems to them equally, if not more, reasonable, reach the conclusion that a.d. 31, rather than a.d. 30, is the more probable year. In the absence of actual documentary evidence as to the Jewish method of computing the calendar in the early 1st century, it seems unsafe to assume that the Jewish Nisan in a.d. 30 was necessarily the lunar month beginning in March. It is pointed out (see Appendix, p. 258) that in a.d. 30 the Jewish calendar in all probability did not follow the Babylonian cycle, which would begin Nisan with the March moon, but that there is equal if not greater probability that the Jews began that Nisan in April. This April Nisan would not have had a Friday Passover. It is further pointed out that a.d. 31 is astronomically possible if Nisan in that year began after more than the minimum interval from the astronomical new moon--a day or two later than some have calculated. Likewise it is noted that an intentional delay of one day for partisan reasons may be implied in the difference between the Thursday night observance of the Passover supper by Christ and His disciples and the Friday evening observance by the Jewish leaders who took Jesus before Pilate--a difference ascribed by critics to a discrepancy between the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels and John (see Additional Notes on Matt. 26, Note 1; for a discussion of the astronomical and calendrical arguments for 30 and 31 see Appendix, pp. 255-258).

Those who present evidence that may point to a.d. 31 frankly admit that, in the present state of knowledge, the case for that year cannot be established by astronomical and calendrical proof. But they consider it proper to call attention to facts that indicate an equal lack of certainty for a.d. 30, and the advisability of refraining from any dogmatic assertion in behalf of either year. The conclusion may be reached that 31, or some other year, can be considered astronomically possible or probable if certain conditions are assumed. But in the absence of source data establishing the now unknown conditions, calendar computation must be subordinated to other factors in making a decision as to the more probable year. The advocates of 31 have generally reckoned a 3 1/2-year ministry from late a.d. 27, and have taken also into account the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of "the midst of the week" (Dan. 9:27).

Conclusion Impossible From Calendar Data Alone.--The fact remains that at the present time we cannot be sure of the lunar-calendar system of the Jews in the 1st century. Therefore we cannot say with certainty, "This, according to lunar astronomy, was the year of the crucifixion." With our knowledge of general principles derived from Babylonian records, from earlier Jewish papyri, and from later Jewish tradition, we can say that only three times during the period allowable for the crucifixion can a possible Friday 14th of Nisan be computed from lunar data. Since one of these, a.d. 33, seems untenable, the alternatives are a.d. 30 or 31. We may add, in favor of 31, the consideration of the "midst" of the 70th week (see p. 247), 3 1/2 years after the baptism of Jesus. But so far as the lunar-calendar evidence goes, the field remains open for those who by one system arrive at a.d. 31 (in the mathematically exact "midst" of the "week"), and those who by another method arrive at a.d. 30 (which some accept as the approximate midst of the week). Other considerations than lunar calculation must decide the choice.

Date Adopted in This Commentary.--The whole question of the Passover date in connection with the death of Christ is so complex that, as has been stated, no one view has ever been set forth with complete proof from unequivocal astronomical or calendrical data. However, one has a right to seek, from the evidence offered, what seems the most reasonable basis for a choice. This article has presented Biblical and non-Biblical evidences that may be taken as pointing to a.d. 31, but the uncertainty of the lunar evidence necessitates reliance on the interpretation of the Biblical text and the historical factors. This commentary has set forth the date a.d. 31 in terms of the evidence for Christ's ministry as a whole. It has been shown that the earliest possible date of Jesus' baptism at the age of about 30, in the 15th year of Tiberius, is the autumn of a.d. 27 (see p. 247). Since this commentary employs a harmony of the Gospels that gives Jesus a ministry of 3 1/2 years, following His baptism, it naturally selects the year 31 for the crucifixion, which is 3 1/2 years after the autumn of a.d. 27. That is the earliest date compatible with both the 15th year and the duration of Christ's ministry, and it is the latest year compatible with both the midst of the 70th week and the lunar factors. In the face of the absence of adequate proof for either 30 or 31, no one can find fault with the selection of 31, even though it does not at present command majority acceptance.

VII. Conclusion

This much can be concluded from the data presented in this article--the evidence nowhere contradicts the Gospel narratives. Further, the evidence can be harmonized with the Gospels within reasonable possibility. The lack of sufficient exact data does not in any way throw doubt on the Gospels, which contain so many evidences of historical accuracy as to give us confidence in their trustworthiness. The date for the birth of Christ is known to be as early as somewhere near the beginning of 4 B.C., perhaps a few months earlier. His baptism was, according to the most likely method of reckoning, in 27/28; the crucifixion, while undetermined astronomically as between a.d. 30 and 31, is, by the most exact interpretation of the 70th week (see p. 248), placed in a.d. 31.

appendix

Many have thought that the date of the crucifixion can be determined very easily by computing the date of a new moon or a full moon by means of astronomical tables. This appendix is inserted to show the complexity and uncertainty of such computation. This calls for a discussion of two points:

1. The methods and factors involved in the attempts made to prove the possibility or probability of a Friday Nisan 14 in either a.d. 30 or a.d. 31.

2. The limitations of these methods, that is, the impossibility of depending on modern lunar computation to establish any precise date in the time of Christ in the absence of source documents throwing light on the Jewish calendar at that time.

The application of lunar data to the problem of finding any Passover date in New Testament times involves two variable factors. The choice must be made between the March new moon and the April new moon in any given year as the basis for identifying the month of Nisan. Then the astronomical new moon (conjunction) must be calculated backward from modern lunar tables with a small but sometimes significant margin of error. Finally the interval between that point and the visible crescent must be calculated, according to astronomical or calendrical theory, in order to arrive at the most probable sunset for the beginning of the first day of the month. It must be remembered that our lack of exact knowledge of the actual practices of those times may lead us to choose the wrong month or the wrong day; consequently no result is more than a probability. This element of uncertainty is made clear in the letters from astronomers reproduced at the end of this appendix.

Calendrical Arguments on A.D. 30 and 31

The Basis for the Dates A.D. 30 and 31.--Obviously in a.d. 31 the lunar month beginning in April must have been Nisan, for the March new moon would have been too early that year to allow the mid-Nisan Passover season, with the offering of the wave sheaf of new barley, to coincide with the barley harvest. But in a.d. 30 the lunar month beginning presumably on March 25 was possibly late enough for Nisan. On the other hand it was possibly early enough to have been designated Adar II, the 13th month (see p. 236). March 25 may be considered too near the borderline to allow a definite decision on this point without specific evidence.

Those who believe that the Jewish calendar of that time coincided with the Babylonian are sure that a.d. 30 was the year of the crucifixion because of their certainty that in that year the Babylonian Nisanu, the 1st month (corresponding to the Jewish Nisan), was the lunar month beginning in March--one of the three possible lunar months in which the 14th could be on Friday (see p. 252). Nisanu would not have begun in April that year; a.d. 30/31 was a 13-month year in the Babylonian calendar, according to the fixed cycle that was developed in the 14th century b.c. and still used in astronomical texts through Jesus' day; and a 13-month year always began in March. If the Jews likewise began Nisan with that same March new moon, then Friday, April 7, a.d. 30, could have been the 14th of Nisan, the Passover day. If, on the other hand, the Jews repeated Adar in a.d. 30, then Friday, April 7, would have been the 14th of Adar II, not of Nisan. If so, the Passover day of a.d. 30 would have come a month later, and so not on Friday. In that case a.d. 30 could not have been the year of the crucifixion; this would leave 31 as the best possibility.

Accordingly, the alternative conditions for determining the year of the death of Jesus by the lunar calendar may be stated as follows:

If the Jews had an Adar II in A.D. 30, the crucifixion could not have occurred in that year.

If the Jews had an Adar II in A.D. 31, then the crucifixion might have occurred in either 30 or 31, according to one of two differing interpretations of the reckoning of the month from the new moon.

The date generally accepted in the scholarly world today is a.d. 30. It appears in most reference books and in the new study helps in recent Oxford Bibles. This date is based on the assumption that the Jewish calendar of Christ's time, like the Babylonian calendar, was based on the observation of the crescent moon each month, and that both calendars inserted the 13th months in the same years, according to the Babylonian 19-year cycle as fixed in the 4th century b.c. How valid is that assumption?

The following paragraphs will discuss the astronomical and calendrical evidence for a.d. 30, which is built on one set of assumptions, and for the alternative date of 31, which is based on other assumptions; and they will indicate the inadequacy of technical proofs for either. The last two paragraphs of Sec. VII give reasons for the adoption of the date a.d. 31 in this commentary.

The Case for A.D. 30.--The twin foundations on which is built the current theory that a.d. 30 was the crucifixion year (see p. 253) are: (1) The assumption that we can be certain that Nisan began in March, not April, in a.d. 30, because the 1st-century Jews used the same fixed 19-year cycle the Babylonians had developed in the 4th century b.c.; and (2) the assumption that we can know that Nisan 1 was March 24, because ancient Jewish lunar dates can be computed to the day from modern lunar tables and from a theoretical calculation of the interval between conjunction and visibility. But neither assumption can be proved. In the most modern tables of the Babylonian calendar (see Parker and Dubberstein in the bibliography, p. 266), the element of uncertainty involved in attempts to fix a Babylonian or Jewish date to the exact day is made clear in the authors' statement of their method of reckoning.

These tables trace the gradual development of the Babylonian calendar. On ancient clay-tablet documents from Babylonia, date lines mentioning Addaru II or Ululu II in specific regnal years indicate the location of many Babylonian 13-month years. The sequence of such years appears to have become fixed about 367 B.C. in a regular 19-year cycle, with an Addaru II added in the 3d, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 19th year of each cycle, and an Ululu II in the 17th. From such data Parker and Dubberstein have continued this cycle on through a.d. 75, and have tabulated the Julian dates (see p. 236) of the first of each Babylonian month, thus reconstructing a relatively complete approximation of the Babylonian calendar for several centuries. We must allow a possible error of a day in some of the months, also that of a month occasionally when, in the absence of a source document dated in a 13th month, the extra month may have been tabulated in the wrong year. In applying these Babylonian lunar-calendar tables to Biblical dates, the authors allow the possibility of a still higher proportion of the months being a day off because of the difference in longitude between Babylon and Jerusalem; and of course a discrepancy of a month would occur whenever the Jews inserted the extra month at a different time from the Babylonian calendar.

The Parker-Dubberstein tables are a valuable tool for approximating with reasonable accuracy the actual ancient Babylonian calendar, especially for the period following the fixing of the cycle of months in the 4th century b.c. For historical purposes a one-day margin of error is microscopically small, and even that of a month is most often negligible. Biblical scholars may be justified in applying these tables, with proper caution, to the approximation of Jewish dates as well. But it is another matter entirely to base a precise date, a specific day of the week, on a modern reconstruction that is admittedly only a variable approximation to the Jewish calendar. Such a date as Friday, April 7, a.d. 30, for the day of the crucifixion should, at most, be offered only as a high probability, not as an established fact.

Schram's astronomical tables locate the March conjunction on March 22 in a.d. 30. Conjunction (the astronomical "new moon") occurs when the moon passes directly between the earth and the sun, with its unlighted face turned toward the earth (see Vol. II, p. 115). It is an invisible phenomenon, but its specific point of time can be computed, even for the 1st century, within a margin of two or three hours. However, the actual day designated as Nisan 1 in the Babylonian calendar was determined by variable factors--by the size and brightness of the first crescent, by its distance above the local horizon, and by atmospheric conditions (see Vol. II, pp. 115, 116). The date of March 25 for Nisan 1 in a.d. 30 on the reconstructed Babylonian table is a modern estimate, subject to differences of opinion, and impossible to verify.

Was the crescent visible after sunset of March 24? Or was the sky obscured, and the moon not seen until the next night, with the result that the month was delayed one day if it followed a 29-day month? Even if the Babylonian Nisanu 1 was March 25, with the 14th of the month consequently on Friday, April 7, does that prove conclusively that the 14th of that lunar month also fell on Friday, April 7, in the Jewish calendar? What if for any reason the moon was not visible in Jerusalem on the same day as in Babylon; or if possibly the Jewish calendar officials used any system of reckoning the month that was different from the Babylonian method? Further, even if both calendars began a month on March 25, it is not necessarily certain that the Jews called that month Nisan. If they had a differing cycle, or if in that spring the barley harvest was considered too late, that borderline date of March 25 could easily have been the first of Adar II, and in that case Nisan 14, a month later, was not on Friday.

Technical Evidence Inadequate for Proof.--The current acceptance of a.d. 30 as the established date of the crucifixion is based by some on the premise that the Jews after the Captivity adopted the Babylonian calendar entire and in detail. At least it is based on certain assumptions, none of which can be proved, and against several of which there is at least some evidence: (1) that both Jews and Babylonians reckoned the first of the month solely from the appearance of the crescent moon; (2) that March 25, a.d. 30, a date estimated from variable factors by modern calculation, was the actual Nisan 1 in both Babylonia and Jerusalem; (3) that neither cloudy weather nor any element of calculation delayed the Jewish Nisan and the preceding month by so much as one day; (4) that the Jews, though bound to local observation for the first of each month, followed a fixed Babylonian cycle for the insertion of their 13th months, regardless of the Palestinian barley harvest or any other local factors.

The Alternative of A.D. 31.--There is more than one method of arriving at a.d. 31, but little has been published in the way of technical treatment. One exposition of the view is the hypothesis that the Jews in Christ's day were using at least a partly calculated rather than a purely observed month, and that they probably put Nisan 14 (when the Passover lamb was slain) after the full moon by intentionally allowing, at times, a day longer between conjunction and the first of Nisan. Others propose that the same date would result from a possible adjustment, suggested in one explanation of the Johannine-Synoptic question of the Passover supper: The Friday 14th of Nisan in the year of the crucifixion may have been the result of an intentional delaying of Nisan 1 later than the moon would seem to have required, by the priests who were in charge of the calendar. Such a delay might conceivably have been planned in order to make the offering of the wave sheaf on the 16th of Nisan fall on the day following the Decalogue Sabbath. Among the Sadducees, of whom the leading priests were the chief representatives, some believed that "the morrow after the sabbath" (Lev. 23:15, 16) meant the morrow after the weekly Sabbath, not the festival sabbath. In that case Thursday could have been the 14th day according to the moon, but Friday the 14th according to the official calendar, or at least according to the priestly officials who took Jesus to Pilate but would not enter his palace because they were observing the Passover on Friday evening. There is no record in Jewish literature of such a difference in observance, though there is reference to attempts to manipulate the calendar by such parties (see Talmud Ross Hashanah 22b and Note 7 in Soncino ed., p. 95). Certain Sadducees and Pharisees engaged in bitter controversy over whether the day of the wave sheaf should follow the first Passover sabbath or the weekly Sabbath, and that two schools of thought among the Pharisees contended over whether the law of the Sabbath took precedence over the law of the festival.

Mention has been made of the uncertainty as to whether the Jewish calendar had 13 months in a.d. 30/31, which was a 17th year in the standard Babylonian cycle. On this point the only documentary evidence comes from three 17th-year papyri of an earlier period. These papyri from Elephantine (see Vol. III, pp. 79-83, 103-107) show that Jewish practice was certainly not consistent--that an Adar II was just as possible in the 16th year as in the 17th. It is also pointed out that if the Jews had a fixed cycle by the time of Christ, it was not unlikely that their counterpart of the Babylonian Ululu II in the 17th year was an Adar II at the end of the preceding year. It has been explained that if the Jewish year a.d. 30/31 was a common year of 12 months, then Nisan in a.d. 30 is completely eliminated (see p. 255) as a possible date for the crucifixion. However, a.d. 31 is possible, regardless of whether Adar II came in 30 or 31, if Nisan 1 in 31 began after a long interval from conjunction, or if it was delayed by design.

Computation in the Jewish Calendar.--Since so much depends on the question of the element of calculation in the Jewish month, and on a possible fixed cycle of years, it may be well to examine the evidence on these two factors. The Jewish calendar reckoning was, according to the Talmud, always at least professedly empirical, that is, based on observation of the crescent and of the seasons, fixed by a committee of the Sanhedrin. Yet the Talmud contains indications that there was some leeway for the calendar officials to use their discretion. Remembering always that the Talmud is several centuries later than the time of Christ--though it is thought to reflect usage of earlier times--and that it is sometimes contradictory, we may review, for what it is worth, some of the evidence on the calendar that it contains.

The Talmud mentions three conditions, any two of which would indicate the need for inserting a 13th month to delay Nisan until the next moon: (1) if the equinox was late in relation to the end of Adar, that is, if the 12th month ended too early in March; (2) if the barley crop would not be ripe in time for the wave sheaf ceremony; (3) if the immaturity of the fruit trees showed that it was still too early; another condition mentioned was if the spring lambs, necessary for the Passover, were still too young. Even if the intercalation of the extra month was determined by seasonal conditions alone, two of those conditions were necessary to determine the need for the delay. This left room for decision by the authorities (see Talmud Sanhedrin 11b, Soncino ed., p. 49). As for the barley harvest, the three principal areas of Palestine differed in the time of ripening; in deciding the necessity of inserting the second Adar, the crop must be judged too immature in two out of the three areas. The rule that the extra month must not be announced before Tishri 1 (six months ahead of time) proves that the experts had ways of computing it in advance by theoretical methods. On the rules in the Talmud for inserting the extra month, see Sanhedrin 11a-13b, Soncino ed., pp. 44, 49-61. Rabbi Akiba (c. a.d. 50-132), when he was imprisoned, is said to have calculated three successive 13-month years in advance. He could hardly have done this without knowledge of some kind of cycle.

To summarize: The whole picture gives the impression that those responsible for the adjustment of the calendar had considerable theoretical computation back of their apparently empirical methods--observation of the moon and the seasons--and that the old empirical methods, though unnecessary, were perpetuated ceremonially (see appendix to the tractate Rosh Hashanah, Soncino ed., p. 178). It would seem that the officials, while scrupulously receiving witnesses each new moon (see Vol. II, pp. 113, 122), could have made use of certain regulations to delay the month at times; and in the multiple conditions for determining the 13th month they must have had considerable opportunity for using their own judgment (see Talmud Rosh Hashanah 22a-25b, and appendix, Soncino ed., pp. 91-115, 181). The Talmud indicates that they made calendar calculations of some sort known only to the select few. They could calculate the equinox approximately, and could hardly have been completely ignorant of the lunar-calendar theory that was already long known to the Babylonians and the Greeks, such as the 19-year cycle. When the rules for the Jewish calendar were finally published in a systematic form, so as to free the distant Jews from dependence on Jerusalem, these rules were not claimed to be a new invention, but the promulgation of methods long preserved in priestly circles. It is entirely possible, though not provable, that as early as the 1st century the priests may have regulated the month of Nisan in order to locate the day of the Passover in relation to the full moon or to place it on a certain day of the week (cf. Talmud Rosh Hashanah 20a, 22b, Soncino ed., pp. 91-115), or that they determined the insertion of the 13th months by a fixed, repeating cycle, while following, in a formal sense, the old empirical practices out of pure conservatism.

The Possibility of a Fixed Cycle.--By the 3d century, at least, the Christians knew of the Jewish 19-year cycle (see an extract from Anatolius in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History vii. 32). If there was such a Jewish cycle in the 1st century, what might have been its scheme? Did its 13th months, recurring in the same years in each successive cycle, agree with the 13th months in the Babylonian cycle that had been standardized in the early 4th century b.c. A rather close alignment of the Babylonian and Jewish months is indicated for the 5th century b.c. by certain of the Elephantine papyri (see tables in Vol. III, pp. 108, 109). This similarity may have resulted from similar empirical methods, but as late as the time of Christ it may also have been the result of the Jews using a similar form of the 19-year cycle, a cycle of which the 1st-century Jewish officials could hardly have been ignorant.

If a regular Jewish cycle, approximating the Babylonian, existed already in the 1st century, the Jews would be expected to insert a second Adar either six months earlier or six months later than the Babylonian Elul II in the 17th year (see p. 236). Which would it be? It cannot be said with certainty. However, it is interesting to note that if the later numbering of the Jewish cycle years can be extended backward into a 1st-century form of the cycle that approximates the Babylonian series, an Adar II of the Jewish 8th year would fall six months earlier than an Elul II in the Babylonian 17th year; and that in such a case an Adar II would fall in both a.d. 30 and a.d. 33, and would eliminate both these years as possible crucifixion dates, leaving a.d. 31 as the best possibility. But that is at present no more than an interesting conjecture, since we have no direct evidence for Jewish practice in the 1st century. Their cycle, if any, is not known, and they may have used purely empirical methods that put Adar II in differing years without a system, so that it might have fallen in either 30 or 31, for example. Historical evidence at present provides no basis for being certain of the 13th month in either year.

A Matter of Probability.--So far as actual proof from astronomical and calendrical evidence goes, the question of a.d. 30 versus 31 can be settled only in terms of relative probability. In the 1st century, either the Jews employed a regular 19-year cycle, with a fixed sequence of 13-month years, or they did not. If they had no regular sequence, as many think, a date such as Friday, Nisan 14 in a.d. 30, which depends on the identity of a Jewish 13-month year with a 17th year of the Babylonian cycle (see p. 255 and note), is a mere guess. If they had a fixed sequence, there is no proof that it was identical with the Babylonian cycle, and it could not be the same as the later form of the Jewish cycle, which runs too early for the barley harvest. If their earliest fixed sequence of 13-month years was the same as they had later, when they standardized their calendar, then the Jewish year a.d. 30/31, the year corresponding to the Babylonian 17th, was certainly not a 13-month year, with Nisan 14 on Friday. It has been shown that if calculated factors affected Nisan 1 in a.d. 31, there are several possible reasons for considering that year not only possible as the crucifixion year, but the more probable of the two.

Expert Testimony on Lunar Calculation

The reasons for the choice of a.d. 31 as the crucifixion year, for the purposes of this commentary, have been explained (see p. 254). Because of the inherent uncertainties involved in modern attempts to reckon an ancient calendar date when ancient source documents are not available, particular attention has been given to nonastronomical factors. In evaluating the evidence offered from lunar calculation, the editors of this commentary felt the need of expert information on the degree of reliability of such evidence. Accordingly, the editor wrote to several leading astronomers asking their opinion (1) concerning the degree of accuracy possible in reckoning back to the Julian date of any new moon or full moon in Christ's time on the basis of modern lunar tables; and (2) concerning the elements of uncertainty in converting such an ancient date from astronomical terms to a specific day in the Jewish calendar, as would be necessary in order to assign a Julian date to the crucifixion.

In their answers to the first question the four astronomers who replied differ as to the degree of error that must be allowed for in calculating an ancient phase of the moon, this margin of error being attributed chiefly to the variation in the rotation of the earth on its axis. (This rotational variability, which cannot be predicted, is not due to uncertainty in calculating the relative motions of the heavenly bodies; it affects only the time of day at which a new moon, for example, occurred. This error can be eliminated only in instances where ancient source documents, such as eclipse records, give the hour of the occurrence.) Occasionally this small margin of error would result in uncertainty as to whether the moon reached an angle of possible visibility in a given locality before or after moonset. In such cases a few minutes' difference could make the difference of a whole day in the Jewish calendar, since a crescent not quite far enough from the sun to be seen on one evening cannot be seen until the next evening.

In their answers to the second question, however, the astronomers unanimously point to an important and unavoidable uncertainty in every ancient lunar calendar date. Even if a new moon could be reckoned accurately to the fraction of a second, there would still remain the variable and unverifiable elements affecting the interval between conjunction and the first visibility after sunset (see p. 256). On this question the replies agree in pointing out the uncertainty involved in any method of reckoning from the astronomical data to a specific day of a Jewish month whenever ancient source data are not available. Thus they make clear the impossibility of identifying the Julian equivalent of any Jewish Passover with absolute certainty.

The commentary editor's letter of inquiry and the replies from astronomers are here reproduced in full:

[This letter was addressed to several astronomers.]

"January 15, 1956

"Dear Sir:

"I am writing as editor of a 7-volume Bible Commentary, of which the Old Testament volumes have already been issued. In dealing with the correlation of Bible chronology with the known facts of ancient history in terms of Julian dating, our editorial staff naturally wish to avoid unwarranted statements. We have proceeded on the basis that certain dates in the Old Testament period can be established with a high degree of certainty by interpreting, through modern astronomical calculations, ancient source documents such as specific eclipse records, Babylonian astronomical tablets, or papyri giving equivalent solar and lunar dates. There seems, however, to be a contrast between the relative certainty of the results obtainable when such sources are available, and the attempts to compute specific New Testament lunar dates, such as a Passover date in the time of Christ, by calculation from modern astronomical tables, in the absence of ancient dated Jewish documents. Our study has led us to doubt the reliability of Jewish lunar dates thus computed. Accordingly, may I ask you two questions?

"1. Parker and Dubberstein's Babylonian Chronology (Univ. of Chicago, 1942) based on Schoch's Table M and Sidersky's work, claims only 70 per cent accuracy, to the day, for its Babylonian calendar, and allows an even smaller percentage for corresponding Jewish dates. I have been told that in dating the phases of the moon as far back as the 1st century a.d. a possible error of about two hours must be allowed for. Yet I have also been told that certain tables such as those of Schoch and Neugebauer, designed for computing lunar-calendar dates from lunar tables, have an error measured in minutes. Do these tables, calculated especially for ancient times, go into further refinements of computation that would decrease the usual error, or must their margin of error be added to the two hours?

"2. Apart from the foregoing margin of error, there seem to be so many variable calendrical factors, that I wonder how much validity there is in present-day attempts to date Christ's crucifixion from lunar tables, seeing that these attempts rest on the assumption that such tables as the aforementioned make it possible for us to know exactly in what years the 14th of the Jewish lunar month of Nisan came on Friday. My reason for doubting the validity of these attempts is that the determination of such a date as Nisan 14 seems to be dependent on (1) reckoning backward from modern tables to lunar conjunction, with apparently the possibility of a wider margin of error than I had thought; (2) estimating theoretically the interval between conjunction and the visible crescent for the beginning of the month, with the further uncertainty of Jewish practice and local weather, and (3) identifying that lunar month as Nisan (rather than Adar II) by extending the earlier Babylonian 19-year cycle into the 1st century without dated source documents, and without any assurance that it was in use in that form in Palestine. Therefore I would ask: What validity, if any, is there in lunar calculation as a method for arriving at Nisan 14 in any year of the 1st century a.d.

"Pardon my encroaching on your valuable time. Your early reply will be greatly appreciated. Unless you state otherwise I shall understand that your answer may be quoted.

"Sincerely,

(Signed) F. D. Nichol"
"department of the navy
u.s. naval observatory
Washington 25, D.C.

"In Reply Refer to
NavObsy/G
H5(14)
Ser 127

January 24, 1956

"Mr. Francis D. Nichol, Editor
Review and Herald
Takoma Park
Washington 12, D.C.

"Dear Mr. Nichol:

"Your letter of 15 January 1956 has been received. The 70 per cent accuracy which Parker and Dubberstein estimate for their table of chronology refers to the percentage of cases in which a date taken from the table will agree with the astronomically computed date for the beginning of the month. The uncertainty of one day could be avoided by computing the beginning of every month, instead of using Schoch's Table M, but the labor that this would require would not be justified. When a case arises in which the exact day is important, a computation may be made if desired; however, the astronomically computed date still is liable to an error of at least one day, partly because of unavoidable uncertainties in the computed time of new moon, but principally because of the uncertainty in the interval from new moon to the time when the crescent was actually observed.

"In answer to your first question, the error in the calculated time of new moon is due partly to the computational errors from the approximations in the particular tables used, and partly to the uncertainties in the orbital elements of the sun and the moon, and the variations which have occurred in the rate of rotation of the earth. The computational error of Schoch's tables for new moon, which were used by Parker and Dubberstein as the astronomical basis of their table, is less than 5 minutes. The possible additional error from errors in the orbital elements adopted by Schoch, and from variations in the rate of rotation of the earth, is very difficult to estimate, but the uncertainty is at least 2 or 3 hours in the first century a.d.

"The interval from new moon to the appearance of the crescent cannot be calculated from theory alone. Criteria must be established empirically for each individual geographical locality. Different writers have not always agreed completely on these criteria; and moreover, some allowance presumably must be made for variations due to local practices and circumstances at the time of each observation.

"In addition, the reliability of the correlation of dates in the ancient lunar calendars with dates in the Julian calendar depends upon the accuracy with which the calendar has been restored and the chronology established. We are not qualified to comment on this phase of the problem; the second edition of Parker and Dubberstein, published in 1946, undoubtedly is the best that was then attainable, though admittedly subject to further improvement. In answer to your second question, therefore, your conclusion that because of the three factors you mention, attempts to fix the dates of Nisan 14 in the early Jewish calendar are of doubtful validity, is correct. The dates of Nisan 14 in the years of the first century of the Christian era cannot possibly be determined by any astronomical calculation; they can be fixed, if by any means at all, only by the study and interpretation of contemporary records.

"You are welcome to quote this letter if you wish to do so, but we prefer that it be quoted in full and not in part.

"Sincerely yours,

(Signed) G. M. Clemence
Director Nautical Almanac
U.S. Naval Observatory"
"H.M. Nautical Almanac Office,
Royal Greenwich Observatory,
Herstmonceux Castle,
Nr. Hailsham, Sussex,
England.
"24th January, 1956.

"Ref. 79/4
"Mr. Francis D. Nichol,
Editor, Review and Herald,
Takoma Park,
Washington 12, D.C.,
U.S.A

"Dear Sir,

"In reply to your interesting letter of 15 January 1956, I regret that I am not able to give you much authoritative information or assistance in connection with your questions. Full answers can only be given by an authority on ancient chronology, and I can make no claim to be that.

"The chief difficulty in calculating the phase of the Moon two thousand years ago is the impossibility of predicting the irregularities of rotation of the Earth in the last two thousand years. It is known that the speed of rotation has been gradually slowing down owing to tidal friction, and a mean value for the effect of this is included in the secular acceleration of the Moon's longitude; this value is itself uncertain and there must be added to this the fluctuations in the Moon's longitude due to irregular changes in the speed of rotation of the Earth, which cannot be predicted. To some extent all of these changes are smoothed out by the fact that the values for the secular acceleration have been deduced from a study not only of modern observations but also of the records of ancient eclipses. Taking all things into consideration, I think it unlikely that the phase of the Moon will be in error by more than a few minutes of time at the beginning of the Christian era.

"An explanation of the possible error of two hours is that certain tables omit some of the periodic perturbations in the Moon's motion; while greatly simplifying the calculations, these omissions can give rise to errors of about this order.

"I cannot answer authoritatively your second question, since this depends upon the theoretical estimate for the interval between new Moon and the first observation of the visible lunar crescent. A considerable amount of work has been done on this subject by such authorities as Fotheringham, Schoch, and Neugebauer, but the fact remains that purely local conditions can invalidate even the most careful work in respect of a particular observation of the lunar crescent.

"Yours faithfully,

(Signed) D. H. Sadler

"Mr. Francis D. Nichol, Editor
Review and Herald
Takoma Park
Washington 12, D.C.

"Dear Mr. Nichol:

"I have your letter of January 15, and I hope the following remarks will clarify your questions:

"1. It is necessary sharply to distinguish between the problem of determining the moments of conjunctions or oppositions and the problem of first visibility of the new moon. All modern tables which you mention will give conjunctions or oppositions with extremely high accuracy. Consequently, all data which are connected with eclipses are fully trustworthy.

"Exactly the opposite, however, is the case in the problem of first visibility. All modern tables have to make arbitrary assumptions as to the visibility conditions in antiquity in general or in specific localities. These assumptions are highly arbitrary, and even for modern times, extremely unreliable. Since the phenomenon of first visibility is connected with sunset, all such tables involve inaccuracies of one full day. There are, of course, many cases where the question of first visibility might be decided with a great probability, but many critical cases will always remain undecided. I can refer you to contemporary Babylonian computations of first visibilities, which often leave the result in doubt. Modern tables are probably no better, and often worse. For reference I may quote my article, `The Babylonian Method for the Computation of the Last Visibilities of Mercury,' Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 95, No. 2, 1951; and Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, London, 1955, Vol. 3, Plates 140 ff.

"2. Your reasons for doubting the validity of dating a Nisan 14 are fully justified. Every single argument mentioned by you would suffice to make the results truly doubtful.

"Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) O. Neugebauer"
astronimisches rechen-institut in heidelberg
"Heidelberg, 21.2.1956
Grabengasse 14
Telefon 71231/330
71666

"Mr. F. D. Nichol
Editor of Review and Herald
Takoma Park
Washington 12, D.C., U.S.A.

"Dear Mr. Nichol:

"Professor Fricke has turned over to me the task of investigating the questions that you asked in your letter to him, and has requested that I answer you.

"Concerning your first question, there is this to say: the computation of the phases of the moon is based on the determination of New Moon. For this purpose one may use one of several tables which differ from each other however by the accuracy of the results to which they lead. There are in fact tables that yield results which may be in error by as much as an hour. On the other hand, by using C. Schoch's tables (Astronomical etc. ...) one obtains the time of New Moon with an accuracy of a few minutes. In chronological problems one has to deal often with the determination of the new crescent, the visibility of which--as is well known--plays a distinctive role in the course of the old Jewish calendar. The accuracy of its computation by means, for example, of Neugebauer's tables, is fully adequate for chronological requirements.

"I shall come now to your second question, namely with what accuracy may a 14 Nisan be computed. As long as the determination of 14 Nisan is based on the appearance of the new crescent--thus a purely astronomical problem--we encounter no difficulties whatever. The motion of the sun and moon back to ancient times is known well enough from eclipse data to compute the New Moon and the new crescent with sufficient accuracy, as stated above. The question is, however, whether at the time of Christ the beginning of the month was determined by the observation of the new crescent, or whether at that time other calendar forms were in widespread usage. This is an important matter that students of Antiquity must settle.

"If one assumes, for once, that the beginning of the month was based on the observation of the new crescent, one cannot affirm nor deny with complete certainty that a computed determination of a 14 Nisan would coincide with that obtained from actual observations of the new crescent. A departure from computational results may occur under certain circumstances if, in case of poor observing conditions, the length of the month was determined cyclically. In the same fashion, the empirical use of the intercalation [i.e. the insertion of a correction, such as a second Adar] may lead to discrepancies. Therefore each case must be considered separately in the handling of this problem, because it is always possible that, through the favorable situation of a particular case, a reliable computation may ensue, whereas, on the other hand, no unequivocal answer may be obtained in unfavorable circumstances.

"With kind regards,

(Signed) Dr. Ulrich Baehr."[Translation from the German by Simone Daro Gossner of the U.S. Naval Observatory.--Editors.][In 1974 an inquiry as to any change, after 18 years, in the validity of the views expressed in the above letters was addressed to three of these four astronomers. Dr. D. H. Sadler pointed out that recent researches into the rotation of the earth and the secular acceleration of the moon indicate that the estimate, in his letter of January 24, 1956, of the possible errors in the times of the phases of the moon was overoptimistic. The other two responses--from Drs. O. Neugebauer and R. L. Dunscombe (who replied as the incumbent in the position held by Dr. Clemence in 1956)--were similar. Both agreed that the earlier letters could stand unaltered, and that newer lunar tables (which agree within minutes of time with all other modern tables) have not lessened the uncertainty inherent in the calculation of ancient dates in lunar calendars. Such a reconstruction depends on estimating the variable interval from the astronomical new moon to the visible crescent.--Editors.]

Bibliography

Amadon, Grace. "Ancient Jewish Calendation," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXI 227-280. A technical study proposing a.d. 31 as the crucifixion year, based on the interesting hypothesis that the Jews in Christ's time regulated Nisan 1 so as to make the 13th coincide with the full moon. It is valuable for one who can use the lunar data discriminatingly; though its calendrical theory of Nisan 13 has not gained acceptance; and extant evidence does not substantiate its placing the customary Passover supper on the evening that begins Nisan 14. See the criticism of this article by Richard A. Parker ("Ancient Jewish Calendation: A Criticism") in the same journal, LXIII (1944), 173-176, and Miss Amadon's reply ("The Crucifixion Calendar") in the same issue, pp. 177-190.

Boak, Arthur E. R. A History of Rome to 565 A.D. 4th ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955. 569 pp. A good short history of Rome, concise, readable, and authoritative. Chapters 16 and 17 deal with the events of the New Testament period.

Caird, G. B. "The Chronology of the NT," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, pp. 599-607. In sec. A.1.b, pp. 600, 601, is a discussion of a census at the time of the birth of Christ, referring to Quirinius and to another census of that period in which a return to the family home was required for the enrollment.

The Cambridge Ancient History (see entry on page 43). Vol. X, The Augustan Empire, covering the period from 44 B.C. to a.d. 70, gives the background of the organization and administration of the empire in New Testament times. Of special interest for this study are chapters 5, 11, and 19, on Augustus, Herod, and Tiberius.

Horn, Siegfried H., and Wood, Lynn H. The Chronology of Ezra 7 2d ed., rev. Washington: Review and Herald, 1970. 192 pp. A semitechnical work establishing the date 457 B.C. from source evidence. Its earlier chapters give the basic facts, with documentation, on ancient calendars and year reckonings. See the tentative tabulation of a Jewish calendar by these authors in this commentary, Vol. III, pp. 108, 109; see also, on calendrical problems, other books listed in the bibliography of the article on the Jewish calendar in Vol. II, p. 123.

Josephus, Flavius. See entry on p. 81.

Ogg, George. The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus. Cambridge: The University Press, 1940. 339 pp. A survey of the dates set forth by various writers, arriving at the dates 28/29 to 33 for the ministry of Jesus. The student of the subject who can sift out the various opinions and weigh the evidence to reach his own conclusions will find helpful material in this book, even though its conclusions are not acceptable. For example, it explains and refutes the coregency theory of the 15th year of Tiberius (pp. 173-183); it discusses the differing solutions of the problem of the Last Supper and the Jewish calendar (ch. 9); it presents numerous views of the length of Christ's ministry (chs. 4-6), also of the date of the crucifixion and the methods of lunar computation commonly used (ch. 10).

Olmstead, A. T. "The Chronology of Jesus' Life," Anglican Theological Review, XXIV (1942), 1-26. An unduly dogmatic assertion of the supposedly fixed dating of the ministry of Jesus. By eliminating one Passover text from the Gospel of John and applying the "feast of the Jews" to Tabernacles, this article gives Christ's ministry as a little over one year. Its exposition of April 7, a.d. 30, as the crucifixion date is not new, but it goes beyond others in claiming absolute proof from a (theoretical) reconstruction of the Babylonian calendar (see Parker and Dubberstein in this bibliography). The same author, soon after his article came out, was betrayed into publishing a further unwarranted conclusion by his too-cursory examination of a new book on ancient synagogue readings from Scripture. He inserted into an appendix to his book Jesus in the Light of History (Scribner's, 1942) the assertion that the ministry of Jesus began with His sermon from Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth on Dec. 18, a.d. 28, and therefore lasted exactly 475 days! For a refutation of Olmstead's dogmatic assertions concerning supposedly fixed dates see Carl H. Kraeling, "Olmstead's Chronology of the Life of Jesus," in the same volume of the same journal, pp. 334-354.

Parker, Richard A., and Dubberstein, Waldo H. Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1957. 47 pp. Contains tables giving the Julian date of the 1st of each month of the Babylonian lunar calendar, reconstructed from tables of Schoch and Sidersky, and incorporating information concerning certain 13th months from Babylonian sources. Its warning (p. 25) of a possible day's error in some of the months, and more for Jewish dates, should be heeded.

Talmud. See entry The Babylonian Talmud on p. 101.

INTRODUCTION

1. Title. The most ancient of the extant Greek NT manuscripts entitle the book "According to Matthew." The title appearing in the KJV, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," is found in the majority of the later manuscripts, but without the "Saint." The title in the Textus Receptus (see p. 142), "The Holy Gospel According to Matthew," is found only in late manuscripts. In the Scriptures the term "gospel" (Gr. euaggelion) means "good tidings"; that is, the good tidings of salvation as set forth in the life and teachings of Jesus. It is not applied to the written record itself. However, after the period of the NT the term was applied also to the writings themselves, either singly or collectively.

2. Authorship. Ancient Christian writers unanimously and consistently attribute the first of the four Gospels to Matthew the disciple. Internal evidence indicates that the book was obviously written by a Jew converted to Christianity. Such was Matthew (Matt. 9:9; cf. Mark 2:14). Being a publican prior to his call to discipleship, he was presumably accustomed to preserving written records, a qualification doubtless of great value to one composing a historical narrative. The modest reference to himself at the feast (Matt. 9:10; cf. Luke 5:29) is comparable to the manner in which John (John 21:24) and possibly Mark (Mark 14:51, 52) refer to themselves, and hence may be an indirect testimony to his authorship.

About a.d. 140 Papias of Hierapolis, as quoted by Eusebius (Church History iii. 39, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d series, vol. 1, p. 173), stated that "`Matthew wrote the oracles [sayings] in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.'" According to Irenaeus half a century later, as quoted by Eusebius (Church History v. 8, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d series, vol. 1, p. 222), "`Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.'" On the basis of these and similar statements by later writers some have concluded that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic (the "Hebrew" of Papias and Irenaeus) and later translated into Greek. This theory, however, has not met with general acceptance. The evidence submitted to date is far from conclusive. In view of the fact that numerous "works" are known to have circulated among the Jews in oral form only, it is thought that Papias' reference to Matthew's writing of the "oracles" of Jesus designates an oral rather than a written composition, and that the "gospel" of Irenaeus may also have been an oral account. There is no evidence that Papias and Irenaeus refer to what we know today as the Gospel of Matthew. The reasons for concluding that the Gospel of Matthew as we have it today was originally written in Greek are as follows:

1. The Greek text of Matthew does not reveal the characteristics of a translated work. Supposed Aramaisms occur in the other Gospels also, and may reflect nothing more than that the writer thought in Aramaic as he wrote in Greek. The book of Revelation is replete with Aramaic idiomatic expressions.

2. The uniformity of language and style convey the distinct impression that the book was originally written in Greek.

3. The great linguistic similarities to the Greek of Mark, in particular, and to a less extent of Luke, seem to preclude the possibility of the Greek being a translation.

Concerning the origin of the four Gospels see pp. 175-181.

3. Historical Setting. Throughout the lifetime of Christ the land of Palestine was under the jurisdiction of Rome, whose legions, led by Pompey, subjugated the region and annexed it to the Roman province of Syria in 64-63 B.C. Having enjoyed political independence for some 80 years before the coming of the Romans, the Jews profoundly resented the presence and authority of foreign civil and military representatives. The appointment by the Roman Senate of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) as king over a large part of Palestine, made the lot of the Jews even more bitter. See pp. 39-42.

Understandably, the desire for independence became a national obsession and affected practically every phase of national life. Above all else, this desire colored the religious thinking of the day and the interpretation of the Messianic passages of the OT. The subjugation of the Jews by Rome was the direct result of disobedience to the divine requirements (see Vol. IV, pp. 30-33). Through Moses and the prophets God had warned His people of the sufferings that would follow disobedience.

Quite naturally the Jews looked for deliverance from the twofold yoke imposed upon them by Caesar and Herod. Repeatedly, would-be messiahs arose to champion the rights and redress the wrongs of their people--by the sword. The Jews fondly believed that the Messianic prophecies of the OT promised a political messiah who would both deliver Israel from foreign oppression and subdue all nations. The political aspirations thus distorted the Messianic hope, and since Jesus of Nazareth did not fulfill these false expectations, national pride effectively prevented the recognition and acknowledgment of Him as the One to whom the prophets had borne witness.

For a more complete discussion of the historical background of the Gospels see pp. 41-67.

4. Theme. The theme of each of the four Gospels is the incarnation, exemplary life, public ministry, vicarious death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It was not by accident that all four Gospels became part of the sacred canon of the NT. Each has its own distinctive contribution to make to the Gospel narrative. So much was involved in the mission of the Son of God to this earth that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, even for one most closely associated with Jesus, to grasp the significance of every detail of that wonderful life. In order that there might be preserved for future generations as complete a picture as necessary of the life and ministry of Jesus, Inspiration led and qualified four men to preserve a record of the Gospel narrative, perhaps each from the point of view that appealed to him personally. Each of the four evangelists was guided by a distinct objective as he wrote. Each omitted certain incidents mentioned by the others and added details of his own. See pp. 191, 192.

The Roman World at the Birth of Jesus.

It is as if four painters sat down to produce a portrait of Jesus, each one from a different point of view. With each the subject is the same but the aspect is different. Taken together, all four portraits provide a more complete and perfect concept of Jesus than any single picture. The composite picture presented by the four evangelists enables us to see the life of Christ in true perspective. All we need to know about the Saviour has been revealed (see CW 158).

Guided by Inspiration, each evangelist selected incidents and arranged them in the pattern that seemed most appropriate to the objective from his point of view. Thus, he often omitted incidents narrated by the others, with the result that it is at times difficult to correlate the various parts of the Gospel narrative and assign each its correct place in the sequence of events. "There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. The miracles of Christ are not given in exact order" (EGW MS 24, 1886). For a suggestive arrangement of events in the life of Christ, see pp. 196-201.

Each of the four evangelists introduces Jesus to his readers in a characteristic manner, in keeping with the objectives of his Gospel narrative. Matthew and Luke both present Him with emphasis upon His role as the Son of man; Mark and John place emphasis upon His true divinity and point to Him as the Son of God. Matthew presents Jesus as the Son of Abraham, a Jew, the One who came in fulfillment of promises made to the fathers. Luke points to Him as the Son of Adam (Luke 3:38), and thus the Saviour of all mankind. Taking His divinity for granted, Mark simply states that He is the Son of God (Mark 1:1). John affirms that the true humanity of Jesus (John 1:14) in no way depreciates the fact that He is divine in the absolute sense of the word (John 1:1-3).

One distinctive characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew is the completeness with which the author reports the sermons and other discourses of the Saviour. He presents Christ as the great Teacher. His Gospel contains six major discourses, reported at considerable length, which the other Gospels record either briefly or not at all. These are as follows: (1) the Sermon on the Mount, chs. 5-7, (2) the discourse on discipleship, ch. 10, (3) the Sermon by the Sea, consisting entirely of parables, ch. 13, (4) the discourse on humility and human relations, ch. 18, (5) the discourse on hypocrisy, ch. 23, (6) the discourse on Christ's return, chs. 24, 25.

A second important characteristic has to do with those aspects of the Gospel that clearly reveal the kind of reading audience Matthew primarily had in mind as he wrote. This audience seems to have consisted largely of Jewish Christians and unbelieving Jews. It was evidently his purpose to convert the latter to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of prophecy, and to confirm the faith of the former. More than all the other Gospel writers combined, Matthew presents Jesus as the One to whom the types of the OT pointed forward and the One in whom they were fulfilled. He presents Jesus as coming, not to set aside "the law," but to fulfill it (ch. 5:17). He presents Jesus as the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, the father of the nation and its most illustrious king.

It was their false concept of the person of Messiah and of the nature of His kingdom that led the Jews to reject Him. The Messiah of their dreams was a great king who would lead the nation to independence and world supremacy. But of Messiah as the King of righteousness, the One who would lead them to conquer sin in their own lives and to realize true spiritual freedom, they had no understanding. The Jews were unable to reconcile those passages of the OT that envision a suffering Messiah with others that foretell His glorious reign, with the result that they ignored the former and misapplied the latter (see DA 30, 212, 257, 777). For the Jews these seemingly contradictory passages were apparently an insoluble paradox. They looked exclusively for what they took to be the kingdom of His glory--and found no place in their plans for the kingdom of His grace, the necessary prerequisite to the kingdom of glory (see on chs. 4:17; 5:2, 3). Matthew seems to have had a burden to resolve the dilemma that the conquering Messiah was also a suffering Messiah. He solves this problem by showing that Jesus was indeed the King of Israel and the "Seed" promised to David, yet also a suffering Messiah. See on Matt. 2:1.

Another important fact to remember in studying the book of Matthew is that this Gospel presents the life of Christ in essentially a logical, topical order, rather than a chronological one. To be sure, there is general chronological sequence in the arrangement of the major phases of Jesus' life and ministry. But the sequence of events within any given period does not necessarily follow the true chronological order. In fact, Matthew deviates from strict chronological sequence to a greater degree than any of the other Gospel writers, his major objective being to develop a concept of the life and mission of Jesus that will contribute to his primary purpose in writing. He is not the chronicler, recording events as they transpire, but the historian, reflecting upon the significance of those events against the larger background of their setting in the history of the chosen nation. See pp. 191, 192.

5. Outline. The following brief outline reflects Matthew's purpose in his arrangement of the Gospel story. For a more detailed, chronological outline see pp. 196-201.

I. Birth, Infancy, and Childhood, 1:1 to 2:23.

A. Before the birth of Jesus, 1:1-25.

B. The childhood of Jesus, 2:1-23.

II. Preparation for Ministry, Autumn, a.d. 27, 3:1 to 4:11.

A. Ministry of John the Baptist, 3:1-12.

B. The baptism, 3:13-17.

C. The temptation, 4:1-11.

III. Galilean Ministry, Passover to Passover, a.d. 29-30, 4:12 to 15:20.

A. Early Galilean ministry, 4:12-25.

B. The Sermon on the Mount, 5:1 to 8:1.

C. Jesus' power over disease, nature, and demons, 8:2 to 9:34.

D. Instruction on methods of evangelism, 9:35 to 11:1.

E. The delegation from John the Baptist, 11:2-30.

F. Conflict with the Pharisees, 12:1-50.

G. The Sermon by the Sea: parables of the kingdom, 13:1-52.

H. The close of public ministry in Galilee, 13:53 to 15:20.

IV. Retirement From Public Ministry, Spring to Autumn, a.d. 30, 15:21 to 18:35.

A. Ministry in regions bordering on Galilee, 15:21-39.

B. Further conflict with the Pharisees, 16:1-12.

C. Looking forward to the cross, 16:13 to 17:27.

D. The problem of humility in human relations, 18:1-35.

V. Peraean Ministry, Autumn to Spring, a.d.. 19:1 to 20:34.

A. Teaching and healing in Peraea, 19:1 to 20:16.

B. The last journey to Jerusalem, 20:17-34.

VI. Closing Ministry at Jerusalem, Passover, a.d. 31, 21:1 to 27:66.

A. Conflict with the scribes and Pharisees, 21:1 to 23:39.

B. Instruction regarding the second coming of Christ, 24:1 to 25:46.

C. The arrest and trial, 26:1 to 27:31.

D. The crucifixion and burial, 27:32-66.

VII. The Resurrection; Postresurrection Appearances, 28:1-20.

Matthew Chapter 1

1 The genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph. 18 He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary when she was espoused to Joseph. 191 The angel satisfieth the misdeeming thoughts of Joseph, and interpreteth the names of Christ.

1. The book of the generation. [The Human Ancestry of Jesus, Matt. 1:1-17=Luke 3:23b-38. Major comment: Matthew and Luke.] This is Matthew's title for the family record of Jesus appearing in vs. 1-17, and has been rendered variously as "genealogy," "book of the genealogy," "book of the nativity," "ancestry," or "birth roll." The opening words of ch. 2:1 favor the view that Matthew may also have intended this title to cover his narrative of the circumstances leading up to the birth of Jesus (ch. 1:18-25).

In composing an account of the life of Jesus designed primarily for readers of Jewish birth (see p. 273), Matthew begins in typical Jewish style by giving Jesus' family pedigree. Because the coming of Messiah is a matter of prophecy, he shows that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the One to whom Moses and the prophets bore witness. Inasmuch as Messiah was to be the seed of Abraham (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16), the father of the Jewish nation, and of David, founder of the royal line (Isa. 9:6, 7; 11:1; Acts 2:29, 30), Matthew presents evidence that Jesus qualifies as a descendant of these two illustrious men. Without such evidence, His claim to Messiahship would be held invalid, and additional proofs could be dismissed without further examination of His claim (cf. Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64).

At the time Matthew wrote, it was probably possible to verify his genealogy of Jesus by comparing it with accessible public records. A large part of it (vs. 2-12) could be checked against OT lists (1 Chron. 1:34; 2:1-15; 3:5, 10-19). The fact that, so far as we know, no contemporaries of Matthew, even the avowed enemies of the Christian faith, ever challenged the validity of this family pedigree is excellent testimony favoring the genuineness of the genealogical list.

Jesus. Gr. Ieµsous, equivalent to the Heb. YehoshuaÔ, "Joshua" (see Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8, where Luke and Paul refer to Joshua as "Jesus"). The name has generally been taken to mean "Jehovah is salvation" (see Matt. 1:21). Some scholars suggest the translation, "Jehovah is generosity." Joshua's original name (see Vol. II, p. 169), Oshea, was changed to Jehoshua (see on Num. 13:16). Joshua is an abbreviation of Jehoshua. When Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the common language of the Jews, after the Babylonian captivity, the name became YeshuaÔ, the form transliterated into Greek as Ieµsous. YeshuaÔ was a common name given Jewish boys in NT times (see Acts 13:6; Col. 4:11), in harmony with the Hebrew custom of selecting names having religious connotations (see also on Matt. 1:21).

Today, names are but little more than identification tags. But in Bible times a name was chosen with the greatest of care because it signified the faith and hope of the parents (see PK 481), the circumstances of the child's birth, his own personal characteristics, or was related to his life mission--particularly when the name was divinely appointed.

The name Jesus is fraught with historic and prophetic memories. As Joshua led Israel to victory in the earthly promised land, so Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, came to open for us the gates of the heavenly Canaan. But not only is Jesus the Captain of our salvation (Heb. 2:10), He is also "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession" (Heb. 3:1). The high priest, upon the return from Babylonian captivity (see on Ezra 2:2), bore the name Joshua (Zech. 3:8; 6:11-15). As Hosea (the name is identical in the Hebrew with the Oshea of Num. 13:16) loved an undeserving wife, sought in vain, for a time, to win her affections, and finally bought her back at the slave market (Hosea 1:2; 3:1, 2), so Jesus came to set the human race free from the slavery of sin (Luke 4:18; John 8:36).

Christ. Gr. Christos, a translation of the Heb. Mashiach (see on Ps. 2:2), "Messiah," meaning "Anointed," or "Anointed One." Before the resurrection, and commonly so in the four Gospels, Jesus is generally referred to as the Christ, making the term a title rather than a personal name. After the resurrection the definite article was generally dropped from common usage and "Christ" became a name as well as a title.

In OT times the high priest (Ex. 30:30), the king (2 Sam. 5:3; cf. 1 Sam. 24:6), and sometimes prophets (1 Kings 19:16) were "anointed" upon consecration to holy service, and were therefore mashiach, "anointed" (Lev. 4:3; 1 Sam. 24:6; 1 Chron. 16:21, 22). In Messianic prophecy the term came to be applied specifically to the Messiah, who, as Prophet (Deut. 18:15), Priest (Zech. 6:11-14), and King (Isa. 9:6, 7), was the One ordained to be our Redeemer (Isa. 61:1; Dan. 9:25, 26). As Prophet He came to represent the Father before men, as Priest He ascended to represent men before the Father, and as King He liberates those who believe in Him, not only from the power of sin in this life, but also from the kingdom of sin--and reigns over them in the kingdom of glory.

Christos is from chrioµ, a verb which means, "to rub," "to massage," "to anoint." In the NT, Christ is said to be "anointed" (Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb. 1:9).

Used together, as in Matt. 1:18; 16:20; Mark 1:1; etc., the two names "Jesus" and "Christ" constitute a confession of faith in the union of the divine and human natures in one Person, of belief that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary, Son of man, is indeed the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God (see Acts 2:38; etc.). See Additional Note on John 1; see on Matt. 1:23; John 1:1-3, 14; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 2:9.

Son of David. This was the popular designation by which rulers (Matt. 22:42; Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41) and common people (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9; Mark 10:47, 48; Luke 18:38, 39; cf. John 7:42) alike referred to the expected Messiah. Its use as a Messianic title points to an understanding of the prophecies predicting the Davidic descent of the Messiah. To a people weary of the Roman yoke it implied also the restoration of their kingdom to the independence and prosperity of David's illustrious reign. David himself had understood that the promise of a son to sit upon his throne (2 Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 132:11) would be fulfilled by the one who was to redeem Israel (Acts 2:29, 30; see on Deut. 18:15). Again and again the prophets of old spoke thus of the Messiah (Isa. 9:6, 7; 11:1; Jer. 23:5, 6; etc.). NT writers repeatedly apply the title "seed of David" to Christ (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; etc.). As the Son of David, Jesus became heir both to David's throne and to the Messianic promises given to David.

Son of Abraham.Among the heroes of faith, Abraham had the distinction of being called the "Friend" of God (James 2:23; cf. 2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8). Because of his faithfulness (see Gal. 3:7, 9) Abraham was selected to become the father of God's chosen people. The promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed was, according to Paul, a definite Messianic prediction (Gen. 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:16). In harmony with his endeavor to convince the Jews of the Messiahship of Jesus, Matthew appropriately and purposefully carries Christ's genealogy back to Abraham, whereas Luke, writing for Gentile Christians, considered it essential to trace Christ's ancestral record back to the father of our race. To show that Jesus descended from Abraham, and was thus eligible for consideration as heir to the promises made to him, was sufficient for Matthew's purpose. See on John 8:35, 39.

For a discussion of differences between the lists of Matthew and Luke see on Luke 3:23.

2. Abraham begat Isaac. Except for variations owing to the Greek transliteration of Hebrew names, and for certain intentional omissions (see on vs. 8, 11, 17), Matthew's genealogy from Abraham to Zorobabel agrees with similar lists in the OT (see 1 Chron. 1:28, 34; 1 Chron. 2:1, 4, 5, 9-12, 15; 3:15-19; cf. Ruth 4:18-22). There are no records with which to compare the names of the intertestamental period from Zorobabel to Christ.

Judas. That is, Judah (see on Gen. 29:35). Paul states that it was "evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda" (Heb. 7:14).

His brethren. Matthew here alludes to the other sons of Jacob, perhaps with the intention of reminding Jews of other tribes that Jesus of the tribe of Judah was their Saviour too.

3. Phares and Zara. These were children of Thamar (Tamar) by Judah (see on Gen. 38:6-30). Thamar, probably a Canaanites (see Gen. 38:2, 6), was Judah's daughter-in-law.

Thamar. It is the exception, rather than the rule, to find women named in Hebrew genealogical lists. Even so, Matthew refers to them incidentally rather than specifically as genealogical links. The fact that the names of such honored women as Sarah and Rachel are omitted suggests that the four women mentioned were probably in each case included because of unusual circumstances. It is likely that all four--Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bath-sheba--were of Gentile origin. Herein lies an implied rebuke to Jewish exclusiveness, and a tacit recognition of the fact that Jesus belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.

With the exception of Ruth, scandals were attached to the names of all these women. A merely human historian might have chosen to pass over their names in silence for fear that the honor of the Messiah be tarnished. But Matthew specifically quotes the Master as saying to the Pharisees that He came not "to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (ch. 9:13). It may be that Matthew, himself a publican and therefore sometimes classed with harlots (see ch. 21:31, 32), found in his heart a tender place for others who were generally shunned as living beyond the pale of respectability.

5. Salmon. See Ruth 4:20; cf. 1 Chron. 2:11. Salmon was a near relative of Caleb and Ephrath (1 Chron. 2:9-11, 19, 24) and of Bethlehem (whose father is another "Salma," see 1 Chron. 2:50, 51, 54), and hence of a family known to have settled Bethlehem Ephratah (see 1 Chron. 2:24, 51, Moffatt; Micah 5:2; see on Gen. 35:19). Some commentators suggest that Salmon may have been one of the spies sent by Joshua into the city of Jericho before Israel crossed the Jordan (Joshua 2:1).

It is sometimes objected that Rahab of Jericho cannot be Rahab the wife of Salmon because the generations Matthew lists between Salmon and David are too few to span the time interval between Rahab of Jericho and David. But this objection is not necessarily valid because: (1) Matthew elsewhere intentionally omits certain of the ancestors of Jesus (see on vs. 8, 11, 17), and following the author of Ruth, may possibly have done so here as well. (2) Rahab was probably young at the time of her marriage (see Joshua 6:23), Booz (Boaz) was evidently no longer young when he married Ruth (Ruth 3:10), and Jesse was along in years when David was born (1 Sam. 17:12-14).

Rachab. See Vol. II, p. 424; see on Ruth 1:1; 2:1. There appears to be little reason to doubt that this is Rahab the Canaanitess, the harlot of Jericho who protected the Hebrews sent to spy out that city prior to its capture (Joshua 2; see on ch. 6:23). She is the only person by that name mentioned in the Bible, and the Gr. Rhachab of Matthew is an accurate transliteration of the Heb. Rachab. However, in Heb. 11:31 and James 2:25 the spelling is Raab. (The "Rahab" of Ps. 87:4; 89:10; and Isa. 51:9 is from the Heb. rahab, and is a symbolic name for Egypt.) Also, the fact that Rahab is mentioned by name, contrary to the usual rule of not mentioning women in genealogical lists, suggests that Matthew had some special reason for including her. Whatever the case, the Rahab of Joshua 2 holds an honored place in the hall of heroes of faith (Heb. 11:31), and James refers to her as an example of faith in action (James 2:25).

Ruth. The Moabitess who accompanied Naomi upon her return from Moab to Bethlehem (see Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chron. 2:3-15). The beauty of her devotion to Naomi (Ruth 1:16) and her unobtrusive winsomeness are unsurpassed in the annals of any age.

6. David the king. Even under the Hebrew monarchy the government of Israel was, in principle at least, a theocracy (DA 737, 738; see Vol. IV, p. 27). As supreme Ruler, God sought to direct national policy through His ambassadors, the prophets. David was responsive to divine leadership and sought to maintain a spirit of true humility before the Lord. When reproved for an evil course of action, he manifested an attitude of genuine repentance. He acknowledged his guilt, sought forgiveness, and set out anew to obey the voice of the Lord (2 Sam. 12:1-13; 24:10, 17; Ps. 51:4, 10, 11; etc.). It was David's contrition of heart that made it possible for God to exalt and prosper him (see 1 Kings 3:6; 8:25; Isa. 57:15; Micah 6:8).

Solomon. The second son of Bath-sheba, born after David's sincere repentance and forgiveness (2 Sam. 12:13-24; 1 Kings 1:11-40).

8. Josaphat. That is, Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:41-43). Variations in the spelling of names is common in the Bible. Most of the variations in the genealogical list are due to the fact that the names in Matthew's Greek text appear in the main as they do in the LXX. The translators of the KJV simply transliterated the Greek names instead of going back to the Hebrew names of which these Greek names were a transliteration. Sometimes individuals were also known by different names. Thus Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:6) was also called Jeconiah (1 Chron. 3:16) or Jechonias (Matt. 1:11), on the basis of the Greek text.

Joram begat Ozias. Here Matthew omits the names of three successive kings of Judah between Joram (Jehoram) and Ozias (Uzziah or Azariah; see 1 Chron. 3:11, 12), namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. This omission could hardly have been accidental, for the royal genealogy, which appears repeatedly in the OT, was a matter of common knowledge; nor could it have been a copyist's error (see on Matt. 1:17). It has been suggested that it may have been Matthew's purpose to reduce the 19 names from Solomon to Jehoiachin to 14, to correspond to the number of generations from Abraham to David (v. 17).

It has also been suggested that Matthew considered these three least worthy of a place in the genealogy of Jesus. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were the immediate successors of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and wife of Joram (2 Chron. 22-25). It was Athaliah who introduced Baal worship into the southern kingdom (see on 2 Kings 11:18), as her mother had into the northern kingdom (see 1 Kings 16:31, 32). Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah all did evil in the sight of the Lord (2 Chron. 22:3, 4; 2 Chron. 24:17, 18; 2 Chron. 25:14), at least in the latter part of their reigns.

9. Achaz. See 2 Kings 16.

Ezekias. That is, Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-20). One of the good kings of Judah; but his son Manasses (Manasseh), though he lived to repent of his evil ways, devoted a long and wicked reign to the task of obliterating the reforms of his father.

10. Amon begat Josias. Following the wicked reigns of Manasses (2 Kings 21:1-18) and Amon (2 Kings 21:19-26), Josias (Josiah, 2 Kings 22:1 to 23:28), greatgrandson of Ezekias, and last of the good kings of Judah, ascended the throne. Of the 20 rulers in the ruling house of the southern kingdom over a period of 345 years, a minority served the Lord. In striking contrast, 20 kings representing ten dynasties reigned in the northern kingdom over a period of 209 years, but there was not one among them who remained faithful to the Lord.

11. Jechonias. Here occurs the the second certain omission in Matthew's list (see on v. 8). Jechonias (Jehoiachin, 2 Kings 24:6, Jeconiah, 1 Chron. 3:16, or Coniah, Jer. 22:24) was actually the son of Jehoiakim and thus literally the grandson, not the son, of Josias (1 Chron. 3:15, 16). Some have suggested that the addition of Jehoiakim to the list would make a more symmetrical division of the generations mentioned in Matt. 1:17 (see comments there), and that Matthew may have originally included the name of Jehoiakim but that it was accidentally lost at a later time, owing to its similarity to Jehoiachin. There is some textual evidence (see p. 146) for inserting the name Jehoiakim between Josias and Jechonias.

His brethren. If Jehoiakim were included (see the foregoing under "Jechonias"), then the "brethren" would refer to actual blood brothers--Jehoahaz and Zedekiah (see on 1 Chron. 3:15). Otherwise, the expression "his brethren" would be true only in a loose sense. Three of the sons of Josias--Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah--reigned on the throne of Judah, but one was actually the father and the other two were uncles of Jechonias.

Carried away to Babylon. Thus closes the second division of Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (see on v. 17). The period covered deals with the monarchy from its golden age under David and Solomon down to its dissolution and the dark age of Jewish history--the Babylonian captivity.

Between David and Salathiel, Luke lists six more genealogical links than Matthew gives (see Luke 3:27-31). The taking into account of the four omissions by Matthew (see on v. 8 and the foregoing under "Jechonias") leaves a difference of only two. These may simply indicate that the ancestral line followed by Luke contained two more generations than the royal line followed by Matthew. Such a difference is easily possible in a period of five centuries. Between David and Jesus--a period of about 1,000 years--Luke lists 15 more generations than does Matthew, implying further omission on the part of Matthew.

12. Jechonias begat Salathiel. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. 22:30), Jechonias was to die "childless," but this is immediately explained as meaning that "no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." Several sons of Jechonias, including Salathiel (Shealtiel), are listed in 1 Chron. 3:17, 18. It is possible that one or more of these accompanied him to Babylon (see on Jer. 22:28). Jechonias was a young man of 18 at the time of his captivity (see 2 Kings 24:8). Upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar, 37 years later, he was released from prison, "dined regularly at the king's table" (2 Kings 25:29, RSV), received a regular allowance from the royal treasury, and enjoyed royal favor, apparently, during the remainder of his life (see on 2 Kings 25:27-29).

Salathiel begat Zorobabel. See on Luke 3:27. In compliance with the decree of Cyrus, which brought the 70 years of captivity to a close, Zorobabel led some 50,000 Jews back to Jerusalem. See on Ezra 2:2.

15. Matthan begat Jacob. Nothing more is known of the eight persons listed from Abiud to Matthan (vs. 13-15) than their names, none of them being mentioned elsewhere. These eight generations span five centuries. Matthew may have omitted certain names here in order that the third section of his genealogy might correspond to the first two sections (see on Matt. 1:17; Ezra 7:5). The facts that (1) the number of generations listed hardly seems proportionate to the length of time, that (2) Luke lists, for this period, nine more generations than Matthew, and that (3) Matthew omitted four names from the second section of his genealogy (see on vs. 8, 11) at least hint at such a possibility.

It has been suggested that the names Matthan, in Matthew, and Matthat, in Luke (ch. 3:24), are both variant spellings for Matthew (not the evangelist), and that therefore the two names "Matthan" and "Matthat" in reality indicate one and the same person. If so, Jacob and Heli (Luke 3:23) would be brothers. Heli is thus presumed to have had no male heir and to have adopted Joseph, his nephew, as his own legal son and heir (cf. on Luke 3:27). The objective of this suggestion is to make Joseph properly the "son of Heli," as in Luke (ch. 3:23), as well as the son of Jacob, as in Matthew. According to another theory, Jacob married the childless widow of his brother Heli, in harmony with the levirate marriage law (Deut. 25:5-10). Joseph, the first son born to this union, would actually be the son of Jacob but legally the son and heir of Heli. Both of these suggestions, originally advanced by certain early Church Fathers, are based upon supposition and therefore open to serious question. For a further discussion of the problem see on Luke 3:23.

16. Joseph the husband. Matthew carefully avoids stating that Joseph "begat" Jesus. Joseph was related to Jesus, says Matthew, not as His father, but as the husband of His mother. The generic link "begat," employed up to this point, is dropped, Matthew thereby emphasizing the fact of the virgin birth.

Mary. Gr. Maria, Mariam in the LXX, from the Heb. Miryam. Like Joseph, Mary was of the house of David (DA 44; cf. Acts 2:30; 3:23; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), for it was through her alone that Jesus could literally be "the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3; cf. Ps. 132:11). The fact that Mary's "cousin" (Luke 1:36) was "of the daughters of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) in no way requires that Mary be of the tribe of Levi instead of the tribe of Judah. For the word translated "cousin" see on Luke 1:36.

It seems that Mary spent her early life in Nazareth (Luke 1:26). She had a kinswoman, Elisabeth, the wife of Zacharias (Luke 1:36). Also, she had relatives in Cana, a village near Nazareth (see John 2:1, 5; DA 144, 146). The idea that her mother's name was Anna is based exclusively on tradition. Mary was highly favored of the Lord and blessed among women (Luke 1:28, 42). From the first promise of a deliverer, who was to be of the "seed" of the woman (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 12:5), devout mothers in Israel hoped that their first-born might be the promised Messiah (DA 31). To Mary this great and unique honor was given.

Mary was no doubt chosen primarily because at the appointed time (Dan. 9:24-27; Mark 1:15; Gal. 4:4) her character more closely reflected the divine ideals of motherhood than that of any other daughter of David. She was one of that select minority who were "waiting for the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25, 38; Mark 15:43; cf. Heb. 9:28). It was this hope that purified her life (cf. 1 John 3:3) and qualified her for her sacred role (PP 308; PK 245; DA 69). Every mother in Israel today may cooperate with Heaven as Mary did (DA 512), and may, in a sense, make of her children sons and daughters of God. See on Luke 2:52.

Of whom. In Greek this expression is in the feminine singular, thus making "Mary" the antecedent and expressly excluding Joseph as the natural father of Jesus. But by his marriage to Mary, Joseph became the legal, though not the literal, father of Jesus (see ch. 13:55).

17. All the generations. It is clear from the record that Matthew omits at least four names he would have included had it been his intention to provide a complete genealogy (see on vs. 8, 11). There may have been other omissions in that part of the list covering the intertestamental period, for from Abraham to Christ, inclusive, Luke lists 56 names to Matthew's 41 (see on Matt. 1:15). Therefore, by "all the generations" Matthew clearly refers to those he has listed, and not to all the progenitors of Christ who actually lived and might have been included in a full list. It is possible that the number of names in the second and third sections of the genealogy were adjusted to correspond with the number in the first section.

Matthew may have adopted the device of an abbreviated, numerically symmetrical list, as an aid to the memory. Abbreviated lists are found in the OT, as, for example, in Ezra (see on Ezra 7:1, 5). But that abbreviated genealogy was evidently considered adequate proof of Ezra's descent from Aaron, at a time when others were denied admission to the priesthood because they could not give acceptable proof of their ancestry (Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64). The Jewish philosopher Philo and the Jewish historian Josephus, both of whom were practically contemporary with Jesus, gave abbreviated genealogies that they evidently considered adequate to establish their pedigrees. An Arab today commonly gives his ancestry by mentioning a few prominent names, his purpose being, not to provide a complete list, but simply to establish descent.

Matthew's threefold division of the genealogy is historically sound, for each section constitutes a distinct period in Jewish history. During the first, from Abraham to David, the Hebrew economy was essentially patriarchal; during the second it was monarchic; and during the third the Jews were under the dominion of various foreign powers.

Fourteen generations. Three divisions, each composed of 14 generations, would total 42 instead of the 41 listed by Matthew. This seeming discrepancy has been explained in various ways. Some propose that the name Jechonias should be counted twice, as the last name in the second group and the first in the third group. Others are of the opinion that Matthew originally listed the name Jehoiakim between those of Josias and Jechonias (see on v. 11).

Unto Christ. Literally, "unto the Christ" (see on v. 1). Matthew is thinking of Christ in historical perspective as the Messiah of prophecy.

18. The birth. [The Announcement to Joseph; His Marriage, Matt. 1:18-25. See The Nativity.] Perhaps Matthew mentions no more of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus than were necessary by way of evidence that His coming constituted a fulfillment of the OT prophecies (see v. 22). In harmony with the purpose of his Gospel, Matthew, in contrast with Mark and Luke, omitted much of the human interest side of Jesus' life in order that he might concentrate on Jesus' teachings (see p. 191).

His mother Mary. Jesus was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3). Mary was as much in need of salvation from her sins as any other son or daughter of Adam (Rom. 3:10, 23). There is but "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Espoused to Joseph. That is, betrothed, or engaged, to him. Both Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth (Luke 1:26, 27; 2:4), "their own city" (Luke 2:39), though, as descendants of David, they considered Bethlehem their ancestral home (see DA 66). The fact that they found lodging in Bethlehem only with difficulty suggests that neither of them had close relatives living there at the time. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house and lineage of David (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:26, 27; 2:4; see on Matt. 1:16). They were probably members of the small circle that eagerly studied the prophecies and looked for the coming of the Messiah (DA 44, 47, 98). If so, knowing that the time was near, they, like other members of this group, no doubt prayed that God would hasten His coming (see Luke 2:25, 26, 38). It seems that Joseph was a widower at the time of his marriage to Mary. He had at least six other children (Matt. 12:46; 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3; DA 90, 321; four brothers and an unspecified number of sisters are mentioned), all probably older than Jesus (DA 86, 87). See on Matt. 1:25.

Before they came together. Matthew has already indicated that Joseph was not the father of Jesus (v. 16). Here, he reaffirms the fact. During the time of betrothal the prospective bride and groom were bound legally as husband and wife though they did not live together (Deut. 22:23, 24). Betrothal constituted a legal relationship, a solemn covenant that could be broken only by legal means, that is, by divorce (see Mishnah, Git\t\in 8. 9, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 389; K\iddushin 3:7, 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 318, 320).

Found with child. See on Luke 1:26-38. The angel had appeared to Mary after her betrothal (Luke 1:26, 27), but prior to the time of her conception (Luke 1:31, 35). Of the visit of the angel to Mary, Joseph apparently knew nothing till later. The appearance of the angel to Joseph did not occur until he already knew that Mary was "with child" (Matt. 1:18, 20).

Holy Ghost. Better, "Holy Spirit." "Ghost" is from an old Anglo-Saxon word. The expressions translated "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" (Luke 11:13; etc.) are identical in the Greek. The Holy Ghost is represented as the Agent through whom the creative and life-giving power of God is exercised (cf. Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; John 3:3-8; Rom. 8:11; etc.). The role of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Jesus is more clearly stated by Luke than by Matthew (Luke 1:35). It was by the agency of the Holy Spirit that "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14), and that the Son of Mary could be called the "Son of God" (see on Luke 1:35).

In an endeavor to discredit Jesus as the Messiah, the Jews manufactured the fiction that He was an illegitimate child (John 8:41; 9:29). But it is worthy of note that the most learned Jewish scholars today recognize that story to be sheer invention. Joseph Klausner, for instance, says that "there is no historical foundation for the tradition of Jesus' illegitimate birth" (Jesus of Nazareth, p. 36).

The incarnation of Jesus is a sublime and unfathomable miracle. He was "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6; John 1:2), adored by the heavenly hosts and seated upon the throne of the universe. But as the King of glory He chose to "give back the scepter into the Father's hands" (DA 22, 23), that He might "for a little while" be made "lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:7, 8, RSV), "in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7). Afterward, He would again receive "all power" (Matt. 28:18), be "enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels" (AA 38), and be crowned "with glory and honor" (Heb. 2:7, RSV; see also Isa. 52:13-15). The mystery of the incarnation, however, is far surpassed by the mystery of the condescending love that prompted it (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Gal. 2:20; 1 John 4:9). The "mystery of godliness" is the grand ministry of all time (1 Tim. 3:16). See on Phil. 2:7, 8; see Additional Note on John 1.

19. Just. Gr. dikaios, which may describe one who is correct, as observant of rules and customs, or righteous, as in accordance with what is right. In the NT dikaios is often used in the broad sense of correspondence to the divine standard. Thus Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 1:5, 6), Simeon (Luke 2:25), and Joseph of Arimathaea (Luke 23:50) are all described as dikaios. Pilate's wife referred to Jesus as a "just man," Gr. dikaios (Matt. 27:19). From the Jewish point of view a "just man" was a strict observer of the laws of Moses and of rabbinical traditions. As a result, Joseph may have questioned whether it would be morally right for him to marry someone who, it appeared, was an adulteress.

Not willing. Joseph tempered his sense of justice with mercy for the supposed offender. He was "not willing" to bring upon Mary additional embarrassment and suffering. The presumed offense was against himself. He could legally "put her away" merely by declaring that she did not please him (Matt. 19:3, 8; Mark 10:4), without mentioning his reason for doing so.

A public example. The fact that Joseph sought to spare Mary the embarrassment of a public trial is evidence of his own integrity as well as of his considerateness toward her.

Minded to put her away. Or, "resolved to divorce her" (RSV). From the time of betrothal both parties were legally bound, each to the other, and might be separated only by divorce (see on chs. 1:18; 5:27).

20. The angel. This was probably Gabriel, who had already appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:11, 19); and to Mary (see on Luke 1:19).

In a dream. Luke (ch. 1:26-38) implies that the angel appeared to Mary visibly, not in a dream or a vision: he "came in unto her" (v. 28). To Joseph, however, the angel appeared in a dream while he was brooding over the problem that perplexed him. Inspired dreams are one of God's appointed ways of revealing His will to men (Num. 12:6; Joel 2:28; cf. Gen. 20:3; 31:11, 24; 41:1; etc.)

Thou son of David. Joseph knew, of course, that he was of the royal line. He may even have been heir apparent to the throne of David, as could be implied by Matthew's genealogy.

Fear not. He was not to hesitate or to question Mary's virtue. As a "just man" (v. 19) Joseph need have no fear that by taking Mary he would forfeit righteousness. In fact, God required this act of faith.

Wife. Gr. guneµ, meaning (1) woman in general (chs. 9:20; 13:33; etc.), (2) a wife (chs. 14:3; 18:25), (3) one betrothed (Gen. 29:21, LXX; Deut. 22:23, 24, LXX; cf. Rev. 21:9). Here the third meaning evidently applies.

21. She shall bring forth. The angel did not tell Joseph that his "wife" would bear him a son, as he had told Zacharias concerning John (Luke 1:13). Jesus was to be born "the Son of God," not the son of Joseph (Luke 1:35), but from the moment of Jesus' birth Joseph was to be as His father. Like other children, Jesus would be benefited by a father's companionship, guidance, and protection.

Call his name. Joseph was to have the privilege of naming his "Son," an act usually considered to be the paternal prerogative (see Luke 1:59-63). Mary was also to participate in the naming of Jesus (Luke 1:31). Names of Jewish children were officially bestowed a week after birth, on the child's eighth day, when the rite of circumcision was performed (Luke 2:21).

Jesus. See on v. 1.

He shall save. The name Jesus means "Jehovah is salvation" (see on v. 1). The word translated "he" is emphatic, as if the angel had said, "For he it is who shall save," etc.

Echoing down through the ages of antiquity had sounded the promise, "Lo, I come" (Ps. 40:7; Zech. 2:10; Heb. 10:7). For centuries the Hebrew people--His people--had waited expectantly for the coming of their Deliverer. Now, "when the fulness of the time was come" (Gal. 4:4), the finger of destiny pointed to the One who was to fulfill these expectations. See on John 1:14.

From their sins. Sin had bound men (Rom. 6:16; 2 Peter 2:19) in its prison house (Isa. 42:7). Christ came that He might loose the bonds, open the prison doors, and deliver the captives from the sentence of death (Isa. 61:1; Rom. 7:24, 25). He came to save us from our sins, not in our sins. He came, not only to save us from sins actually committed, but from our potential tendencies that lead to sin (Rom. 7:23-5; 1 John 1:7, 9). He came to redeem us from "all iniquity" (Titus 2:14), including every hereditary and cultivated tendency to evil (DA 671).

Christ did not come to save His people from the power of Rome, as the Jews fondly hoped, but from the power of a far more formidable foe. He did not come to "restore again the kingdom to Israel" (Acts 1:6), but to restore the dominion of God in the hearts of men (Luke 17:20, 21). Christ did not come primarily to save men from poverty and social injustice (Luke 12:13-15), as many apostles of the social gospel claim today, but from sin, the fundamental cause of poverty and injustice.

22. All this was done. Every important aspect of the life and mission of Jesus--His nature, His birth, the events of His life, and most particularly His sufferings and death--were all foretold by the prophets of old (see DA 242, 820). Not only so, but every act of His life was performed in fulfillment of a plan that existed from eternity. Ere He came to earth that plan lay before Him in all its details, and each event had its appointed hour (DA 147, 451; see on Deut. 18:15; Luke 2:49).

That it might be fulfilled. Expressions of this nature are characteristic of Matthew (see chs. 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9, 35). The Greek construction here employed may indicate either purpose or simply result. Accordingly this clause may be translated either, "in order that it might be fulfilled," or, "as a result it was fulfilled." Matthew uses this construction in both ways, and the context must determine in each case which is intended. The predictions concerning Christ had been made supernaturally; their fulfillment came about largely in a natural way, so far as men could see, yet with events ordained by Him who "ruleth in the kingdom of men" (Dan. 4:17; DA 147; see on Luke 2:49). Certain things happened, not to fulfill prophecy, but rather in fulfillment of prophecy. The sense of Matthew's statement, "that it might be fulfilled," would therefore be rendered more appropriately, "in fulfillment of" (see on Deut. 18:15).

23. A virgin. Literally, "the virgin." Directly and indirectly Matthew and Luke supply evidence to confirm the truth of the virgin birth: (1) Both affirm that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). (2) They declare that Mary was to "bring forth a son" who was not to be the son of Joseph (see on Matt. 1:21) but the Son of God (Luke 1:35). (3) Mary remained a virgin "till she had brought forth" Jesus (Matt. 1:25). (4) Mary affirmed her virginity to the angel (Luke 1:34). Thus the virgin birth of Jesus is fully attested, even apart from the word "virgin" itself, and would stand even if Matthew had never used that word in this setting.

Matthew and Luke, writing as they did under divine direction, would not have related the story of the virgin birth if it had not been true. They knew well how the Jewish leaders had taunted Jesus because of the mysterious circumstances surrounding His birth, and that they were giving critics further opportunity for ridicule by repeating the story (see DA 715).

There can be no doubt that Matthew here uses "virgin" in the strict sense of the word, in reference to Mary as a chaste, unmarried young woman. For a consideration of the objection that the prophecy of Isaiah, "a virgin shall conceive," applied only to a local situation in his day, see on Isa. 7:14. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Matthew applies Isaiah's prediction to Christ, and in doing so uses the word parthenos, which strictly means "virgin" and nothing else. For a complete discussion of the problem of Isa. 7:14 see Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 151-169.

Rejecting all miracles, modern Bible critics generally dismiss the idea of the virgin birth as unworthy of an enlightened mind. They direct attention to the fact that, of all NT writers, only Matthew and Luke even mention it. They stress the fact that neither Mark, presumably the earliest of the Gospels, nor John, written to confirm the divinity of Jesus, nor Paul, the great theologian of the NT, so much as allude to it. The critics conclude that Mark knew nothing of the virginity of Mary, and that John and Paul considered the idea too fanciful to be worth mentioning.

These are all arguments from silence, and as such prove nothing. Matthew and Luke refer to the virginity of Mary as one detail of the birth narrative, and since Mark and John do not record the birth narrative at all they have no comparable reason for referring to this particular detail of it. The same is true of Paul, who stresses the incarnation, the union of divinity with humanity, as the great central fact implicit in the birth of Jesus. As the means by which the incarnation was accomplished, the virgin birth is, in a sense, incidental to the greater truth. The Pauline concept of the deity of Jesus Christ is wholly consistent with the virgin birth (see Phil. 2:6-8; Col.1:16; Heb. 1:1-9; etc.). Except for the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection Paul is almost altogether silent concerning details of the life narrative of our Lord, and he deals with these three events simply as historical facts.

The critics point to the fact that pagans attributed the greatness of such men as Alexander, Pythagoras, Plato, and Augustus Caesar to descent from the gods and to supposed virgin birth. But this is no more valid an argument than to say that the existence of spurious coins and counterfeits of the great masterpieces of art proves that there are no genuine ones.

If the statements of Matthew and Luke relative to the virgin birth are to be dismissed as incredible because the truth thus expressed transcends human knowledge and experience, many other passages throughout the Gospels must be discarded on the same basis. If the human mind is made the standard for determining the reliability of Scripture, the Bible ceases to be the Word of God to man and becomes merely a human document.

It should not be forgotten that the entire plan of salvation is a miracle, a "mystery" (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 1:9; 3:9; Col. 1:27; 2:2; Rev. 10:7). In the first place, it is a mystery that God could love sinners (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). It is likewise a mystery that infinite wisdom could devise a plan whereby mercy might be combined with justice (Ps. 85:10) so as to meet the just claims of God's holy law and at the same time save the sinner from its penalty (John 3:16; Rom. 6:23). It is a miracle that man, who is naturally at enmity with God (Rom. 8:7), can come to live at peace with Him (Rom. 5:1). It is a miracle that Christ can deliver from the reign of sin and death a man bent on evil (Rom. 7:24; Rom. 8:1, 2), and enable him to live a perfect life in harmony with the divine character (Rom. 8:3, 4). It is a miracle that a man can be born again (John 3:3-9), that an imperfect man (Rom. 3:23) can be transformed (Rom. 12:2) by the grace of Christ into a perfect man (Matt. 5:48) and become a son of God (1 John 3:1-3). The virgin birth, the perfect life, the vicarious death, the glorious resurrection of Jesus, are all mysteries of the human mind. The Christian religion makes no apology for the great mysteries of the plan of salvation, for God's redeeming love is itself the greatest of all mysteries.

The incarnation of the Son of God is the sovereign fact of all time, the cornerstone of the Christian faith. But apart from the virgin birth there could be no true incarnation, and without the incarnation and virgin birth the Bible becomes mere fable and legend, Christianity a pious hoax, and salvation a disappointing mirage. See Additional Note on John 1.

With child. That is, by the Holy Spirit, as Luke also testifies (Luke 1:35). "When the fulness of the time" came (Gal. 4:4), God brought His Son into the world, having prepared for Him a body (Heb. 10:5).

Emmanuel. The Greek transliteration of the Heb. ÔImmanu' El, literally, "God with us." The Son of God came to dwell, not only among us, but to be identified with the human family (John 1:1-3, 14; Rom. 8:1-4; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:16, 17; DA 23). See Additional Note on John 1; see on John 1:1-3, 14 . "Emmanuel" was not so much a personal name as it was a title descriptive of His mission (cf. Isa. 9:6, 7; 1 Cor. 10:4).

24. Took unto him. See vs. 18, 20. When God spoke, Joseph acted, without doubt or delay. In this perhaps more than in any other aspect of the character of Joseph is it apparent why he was suited to be the earthly protector of Mary and her child Jesus. In taking Mary to his house, Joseph acted on faith. Such an event as that announced by the angel was unknown in the annals of human experience, but Joseph believed that "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26; cf. Gen. 18:14; Job 42:2; Jer. 32:17; Zech. 4:6; Luke 1:37; Rom. 4:21).

The role of Joseph was humble yet indispensable, and his prompt compliance with the angel's instructions made a great deal of difference, both to Mary and to public opinion.

25. Knew her not. The form of the verb in Greek is against the Roman Catholic tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity, for it implies that Mary's virginity continued only until the birth of Jesus. However, the word "till" (Gr. heoµs) is not conclusive either for or against perpetual virginity. The most natural meaning of v. 25 is that although Mary did not live with Joseph as his wife before the birth of Jesus, she did so afterward. Compare the uses of heoµs in the LXX of Gen. 8:7; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 6:23 and in Matt. 5:26; 12:20; 18:30; 22:44. Jesus had both brothers and sisters, but the brothers, at least, were older than Jesus, and therefore Joseph's children by a former marriage (see on Matt. 12:46). The fact that Jesus committed His mother to the care of John (John 19:27) may imply that Mary had no other children of her own. On the other hand, she may have had children who were not in a position to care for her or who were unsympathetic toward both her and Jesus. See on Matt. 1:18.

Her firstborn son. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of the word "firstborn." However, such an omission in no way affects the certainty that Jesus was Mary's first-born, for these same manuscripts have the statement in Luke 2:7.

Among the Jews the term "firstborn" was frequently used in a technical, legal sense. As a result of the deliverance of Israel's first-born from the tenth Egyptian plague, God claimed all the first-born sons of Israel as His own (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:13). At Sinai the tribe of Levi was accepted for the service of the sanctuary in the place of the first-born of all the tribes, but the Lord required that every first-born son be redeemed (Num. 3:45, 46). Technically, the "firstborn" might be an only child.

Called his name Jesus. Names were officially conferred on children on the eighth day after birth (Luke 2:21). At that time "Jesus" was registered as the son of Mary and Joseph. See on Matt. 1:1.

Ellen G. White Comments

21 4T 251

23 DA 19, 24, 25, 26; Ed 83; ML 290

Matthew Chapter 2

1 The wise men out of the east are directed to Christ by a star. 11 They worship him, and offer their presents. 14 Joseph fleeth into Egypt, with Jesus and his mother. 16 Herod slayeth the children: 20 himself dieth. 23 Christ is brought back again into Galilee to Nazareth.

1. When Jesus was born. [Visit of the Magi, Matt. 2:1-12. See Childhood and Youth of Jesus; the Synopsis of the Life of Christ and the Suggestive Chronology of Christ's Birth.] Matthew mentions but briefly the fact of Jesus' birth (ch. 1:25), and omits the various incidents connected with that event that are recorded in Luke 1:26 to Luke 2:40. Inasmuch as Matthew places emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah of OT prophecy, he proceeds to demonstrate the fact that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill all of those prophecies (see on ch. 1:22). He appears to mention, by way of introduction, chiefly such incidents connected with the infancy of Jesus as were matters of prophecy and such as pointed to the kingship of the Messiah (see chs. 1:1, 6, 17, 23; 2:2, 6, 15, 17, 18, 23). On the other hand, Luke, writing more for the Gentiles (see on ch. 1:3), emphasizes that Jesus, the Son of God (vs. 32, 35, 76), grew up and lived as a man among men in order that He might be the Saviour of all men (ch. 2:10, 14, 31, 32).

For the purposes of this commentary the birth of Jesus is tentatively assigned to the autumn of 5 B.C. (see p. 240; a Synopsis of the Life of Christ and a Suggestive Chronology of Christ's Birth).

Bethlehem. Literally, "house of bread." Its earlier name, Ephrath (Gen. 48:7), or Ephratah (Micah 5:2), means "fertility" (see on Gen. 35:19). The region of Bethlehem, its hills and valleys covered with vines, fig trees, olive groves, and grain, was probably, in part, the breadbasket of Judea. This vicinity was filled with memories for the Jewish people of Christ's day, as it is for Christians today. It was in this area that Ruth had gleaned in the fields of Boaz (Ruth 2-4, and that David had watched his father's flocks (1 Sam. 16:1, 11, 17:15). Here also Samuel anointed David king (1 Sam. 16:13). For further information concerning Bethlehem see on Gen. 35:19; Ruth 3:3; 4:1. See Palestine During the Ministry of Jesus.

Of Judaea. To distinguish Bethlehem "of Judaea" from Bethlehem of Galilee, a town about 7 mi. (11.26 km.) northwest of Nazareth (Joshua 19:15).

Herod. That is, Herod the Great (see pp. 39-42).

Wise men. Gr. magoi, which designated men of the various educated classes. Our word "magicians" comes from this root. But these "wise men" were not magicians in the modern sense of sleight-of-hand performers. They were of noble birth, educated, wealthy, and influential. They were the philosophers, the counselors of the realm, learned in all the wisdom of the ancient East. The "wise men" who came seeking the Christ-child were not idolaters; they were upright, men of integrity (DA 59, 61).

They studied the Hebrew Scriptures, and there found a clearer transcript of truth. In particular, the Messianic prophecies of the OT claimed their attention, and among these they found the words of Balaam: "There shall come a Star out of Jacob" (Num. 24:17). They probably also knew and understood the time prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 9:25, 26), and came to the conclusion that the Messiah's coming was near. See pp. 61, 62.

On the night of Christ's birth a mysterious light appeared in the sky, which became a luminous star that persisted in the western heavens (see DA 60). Impressed with its import, the wise men turned once more to the sacred scrolls. As they sought to understand the meaning of the sacred writings, they were instructed in dreams to go in search of the Messiah. Like Abraham, they knew not at first where they were to go, but followed as the guiding star led them on their way.

The tradition that there were but three wise men arose from the fact that there were three gifts (Matt. 2:11), and is without support in Scripture. An interesting but worthless legend gives their names as Gaspar, Balthasar, and Melchior. The unfounded idea that they were kings was deduced from Isa. 60:3 (cf. Rev. 21:24).

For comment on the extent of Jewish influence throughout the Roman world of Christ's time see pp. 59-62.

From the east. The Jews regarded the regions of northern Arabia, Syria, and Mesopotamia as "east." Thus Haran was in "the land of the people of the east" (Gen. 29:1, 4). The king of Moab later brought Balaam "from Aram [that is, Syria], out of the mountains of the east" (Num. 23:7; see on ch. 22:5). Isaiah spoke of Cyrus, the Persian, as "the righteous man from the east" (Isa. 41:2) and "a ravenous bird from the east" (ch. 46:11).

Some have thought that the wise men were from the same section of the "east country" as was Balaam (see DA 59, 60), whose home has recently been identified with the Sajûr Valley between Aleppo and Carchemish, a short distance from the Euphrates (see on Num. 22:5; see also PP 438, 439). If such was the case, their journey to Bethlehem would be some 400 mi. in length and would require two or three weeks of steady travel if they rode, perhaps a month if they walked. In view of the fact that they journeyed by night in order to keep the star in view (DA 60), it may be that their traveling time was even longer. However, their point of origin may have been farther to the east, and thus their traveling distance even greater.

To Jerusalem. Finally, their long journey brought them to the crest of the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem. Just before dawn, perhaps, the star faded (DA 60), and soon the glistening marble dome and walls of the sacred Temple reflected the light of a new day. The fact that the wise men were directed to Jerusalem rather than to Bethlehem (DA 61) is an indication of the divine purpose that their visit should be the means of calling the attention of the leaders of the nation to the birth of the Messiah (see vs. 3-6). The attention and interest of the people were stirred as they learned of the mission of the wise men, and their minds were directed to the prophecies.

Palestine Under Herod the Great

The leaders of the Jews were offended at the thought that the wise men were Gentiles, and refused to believe that God would pass them by in favor of men who were heathen (see DA 62, 63). For his part, Herod was enraged by the seeming indifference of the priests and scribes (vs. 3, 4), and construed the visit of the wise men to be related in some way to a plot on his own life (DA 61, 62).

2. Born King of the Jews. The question implies that the wise men were not Jews; otherwise they would have said "our king." It seems to have been generally recognized that the savior-king expected by the nations round about was to arise in Judea (see on v. 1). Upon entering Jerusalem, the wise men first made their way to the Temple, over which the star had faded from sight, but in its sacred precincts they found only ignorance, surprise, fear, and contempt (DA 60, 61).

His star. Neither a conjunction of planets, as some have thought, nor a nova, as others have suggested. The "star" that appeared on the night of Christ's birth was a "distant company of shining angels" (DA 60; v. 7). The wise men were led to interpret this unusual phenomenon as the fulfillment of Balaam's prophecy of "a Star out of Jacob" (Num. 24:17; see DA 60).

East. Gr. anatoleµ, literally, "rising." The word translated "east" in v. 1 is anatolai, plural of anatoleµ. Also, in the Greek, anatole- has the definite article, whereas anatolai has not. This difference between the two expressions has led some to the conclusion that in v. 2 Matthew is not referring to the east either as the direction in the sky in which the star appeared or as the designation of the country from which the wise men came, but rather uses anatoleµ in its literal meaning, "rising." The clause may be translated "for we have seen his star in [its] rising," that is, when it first appeared. This proved to be the point in their story that most interested Herod (v. 7). The other interpretation, "for we have seen his star in the east country" is, of course, also possible.

3. He was troubled. The catalogue of atrocities by Herod, particularly the murder of various members of his immediate family whom he suspected of plotting to do away with him and usurp his throne, testifies eloquently to the feelings of his heart upon hearing that One destined to be "King of the Jews" had been born (see pp. 61, 62). The seeming reticence of the priests to divulge information concerning the Messianic prophecies, which the wise men had no doubt mentioned, led Herod to suspect the priests of conniving with the wise men in a plot to unseat him from his throne, perhaps by exciting a popular tumult. Furthermore, it is probable that Herod himself knew of the popular expectation that a prince was to be born in Judea who was destined to rule the world. Not only so; he appears to have regarded himself as the Messiah and to have had secret longings to rule the world (see Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel, p. 374).

All Jerusalem. It is little wonder the whole city was "troubled" also, because its residents were too familiar with the atrocities of which Herod was capable. Fearing a popular tumult, he might well decree the slaughter of hundreds or thousands of the people.

4. The chief priests. Probably the officiating high priest and living priests who had formerly held that office, all having been appointed and later deposed by Herod himself. During his reign of about 33 years Herod appointed altogether nine high priests to this sacred office, which was originally intended to be hereditary and for life (Ex. 28:1; 40:12-15; Lev. 21:16-23; Num. 16:40; 17; Num. 18:1-8; Deut. 10:6). Simon, son of Boethus, may have been high priest at this time (Josephus Antiquities xv. 9. 3), or Matthias or Joazar, son-in-law and son of Boethus, respectively, who followed Simon in rapid succession (ibid., xvii. 4. 2; 6. 4; 13. 1). Others have suggested that the "chief priests" were heads of the 24 courses (see on Luke 1:5). The group Herod summoned seems to have been the learned men of the nation, who would be most likely to have the information he desired.

Scribes. These men are often spoken of as lawyers (Matt. 22:35; Mark 12:28), or "doctors of the law," literally, "teachers of the law" (Luke 5:17, 21). They were learned men whose duty it was to study, preserve, copy, interpret, and expound the Law, or sacred writings (see p. 55; see on Mark 1:22).

Demanded. Or, "inquired," the form of the verb, in Greek, implying that Herod inquired persistently. The priests apparently evaded a direct answer. Herod had to draw it out of them. The wise men had probably referred to their study of the Hebrew Scriptures, and if so, Herod could rightly have surmised that the doctors of the law must have known more than they appeared to. They were by no means as ignorant as they pretended to be, either of the prophecies themselves or of recent events that pointed to their fulfillment. They knew, no doubt, of the vision of Zacharias (Luke 1:22), of the report of the shepherds (see on Luke 2:17), and of the prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:27, 28, 34, 35). But pride and envy closed the door of their hearts to light, for obviously God had passed them by in favor of uncouth shepherds and uncircumcised heathen, as they thought. They branded the reports as fanaticism and unworthy of attention (see DA 62, 63).

Where Christ should be born. Here Herod seeks to ascertain the place of Christ's birth, as later, from the wise men, the time (v. 7).

5. Thus it is written. The quotation (v. 6) given by the chief priests and scribes does not agree entirely with either the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2 or with the LXX. It seems, rather, to be a paraphrase, or possibly from a Targum, or their own free rendering at the moment. That the import of Micah 5:2 was commonly known, even among the people, is clear from John 7:42.

6. Princes. The Hebrew of Micah 5:2 reads "thousands," which may also be rendered "families," that is, the major family subdivisions of a tribe (see on Ex. 12:37; Micah 5:2).

Rule. Gr. poimainoµ, "to shepherd." Isaiah had foretold that the Messiah would "feed his flock like a shepherd" (Isa. 40:11). Jesus spoke of Himself as the "good shepherd" (John 10:11, 14), Paul called Him "that great shepherd of the sheep" (Heb. 13:20), Peter, "the chief Shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4), and John, "the Lamb" that "will be their shepherd" (Rev. 7:17, RSV).

Diligently. Rather, "accurately." Herod demanded specific information. The reference is to the exactness of the information rather than to Herod's diligence in seeking it.

What time. Herod had already learned from the chief priests and the scribes where the Christ was to be born (vs. 4-6), now he turns to the wise men to learn when.

8. He sent them. Herod carefully concealed his own thoughts behind an exterior of professed sympathetic interest. He hoped that the wise men would return his seeming kindness. Their visit to Bethlehem would arouse no suspicion and would permit him to carry out his evil design without unnecessarily arousing the populace. The chief priests and scribes may have surmised Herod's intent, for they knew his attitude toward pretenders to the throne.

Diligently. Or, "accurately" (see on v. 7). The wise men were to press their search until they found the Messiah and verified their discovery.

9. Went before them. Setting out from Jerusalem at twilight, in keeping with their custom of traveling at night (see on v. 1), the wise men found their faith renewed by the reappearance of the star.

11. The house. By this time Jesus was at least 40 days old, perhaps older (see on Luke 2:22).

Fell down. A common Oriental manner of expressing supreme respect and reverence, to men, to idols, and to God (see Esther 8:3; Job 1:20; Isa. 46:6; Dan. 3:7; etc.).

Worshipped him. In spite of their earlier disappointments the wise men knew that this Child was the One for whom they had journeyed far.

Their treasures. Gr. theµsauroi, meaning either "caskets," "treasure chests" used as receptacles for valuables, or "treasures." The word is translated "treasures" in Matt. 6:20 and in Col. 2:3. The singular (theµsauros) denotes a storehouse in Matt. 13:52.

Gifts. In Oriental lands one would never think of paying a visit to a prince or any high official without presenting a gift as an act of homage. Compare the presentation of gifts to Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 43:11), to Samuel (1 Sam. 9:7, 8), to Solomon (1 Kings 10:2), and to God (Ps. 96:8).

Frankincense. A white or pale yellow resinous gum obtained by making incisions in the bark of trees of the genus Boswellia. It is bitter to the taste but fragrant when burned as incense. It was used as an ingredient in the sacred incense for the sanctuary (Ex. 30:8, 34). It was usually imported from Arabia (Isa. 60:6; Jer. 6:20).

Myrrh. Another aromatic gum highly prized in ancient times, bitter and slightly pungent in taste. It was probably obtained from a small tree, the Balsamodendron myrrha or Commiflora myrrha, native to Arabia and East Africa. It was an ingredient used in compounding the holy oil (Ex. 30:23-25), and perfume (Esther 2:12; Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17), and was used as an anodyne, mixed with wine (Mark 15:23), and for embalming (John 19:39).

13. A dream. [Flight to Egypt, Matt. 2:13-18. See Childhood and Youth of Jesus; a Synopsis of the Life of Christ] The manner in which the angel had first appeared to Joseph (ch. 1:20).

Flee into Egypt. Egypt was now a Roman province, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of Herod. The traditional border of Egypt was the so-called River of Egypt, the WaÆdéµ el-ÔAréÆsh, some 100 mi. (160 km.) southwest of Bethlehem. Great numbers of Jews lived in Egypt at this time, and Joseph would not therefore find himself completely among strangers. There were synagogues in the cities, and at one time, even a Jewish temple. Heliopolis (On, cf. Gen. 41:45, 50; Gen. 46:20) is the traditional place where Joseph and Mary fled for safety.

14. By night. Joseph doubtless obeyed without delay, probably leaving the same night or as soon thereafter as preparations could be made for the journey. The gifts presented by the wise men provided the necessary means for the journey (DA 65).

15. The death of Herod. He died soon after his slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem (DA 66), 4 B.C. (see pp. 42, 241), of a most painful and loathsome disease.

Might be fulfilled. The quotation as here given is from the Hebrew text of Hosea 11:1. The LXX reads, "Out of Egypt I called his children." In their original setting in Hosea the words of this prophecy refer to the deliverance of the Hebrew people from Egypt. When calling upon Pharaoh to release them, Moses said, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn" (Ex. 4:22). For Matthew's application of the words of Hosea 11:1 to Christ see on Deut. 18:15.

16. Mocked. They had "tricked" him. He felt that they had outwitted him and made a fool of him. Herod took this as an insult, and doubtless as further proof of a deep and dark plot against him.

Slew all the children. Probably only the male children. Critics of the accuracy of the Bible record observe that Josephus, in his lengthy record of atrocities committed by Herod, makes no mention of the slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem. It has been estimated, however, that in a small town whose population was probably no more than about 2,000, including its surrounding districts, there would have been only about 50 or 60 children of the age indicated, and only half that many males. Some estimate the number slightly higher. Josephus might have considered the incident relatively minor when compared with the long catalogue of more heinous crimes of Herod that he does mention. A deed such as this accords well with the callous character of Herod. It was one of the last acts of his life (DA 66). Furthermore, should Josephus mention this evil deed he would be expected to account for it, as he does at length with similar events he does record. This might involve a discussion of the Messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth, a subject which, as a Jews, he might choose to avoid. And, inasmuch as he was writing an apology of Judaism for the Romans, particularly for the emperor Vespasian, he would avoid mentioning anything that might antagonize Rome. See pp. 75, 76, 94.

Coasts. Literally, "borders," hence, "regions." In Old English, "coast" meant "frontier," or "border."

Two years old. According to Oriental reckoning, which still survives in some areas, a child is called "one year old" in its first calendar year, that is, between its birth and the next New Year's Day; and "two years old" in its second calendar year--even if it had lived only a few days or weeks. If the Jews of Christ's time counted age thus, by calendar years, it is not necessary to suppose that He was born two years before Herod died, or even that Herod, in order to make sure of his objective, set the "two-year" age limit beyond the time indicated by the wise men (Matt. 2:7). A child born at any time in 5/4 B.C. would be "two years old" in 4/3 B.C., the year of Herod's death. As to the probable time of Jesus' birth, see pp. 240-242.

17. Then was fulfilled. See Jer. 31:15. For the original application of this prophecy see on Jer. 31:15, and for the Messianic application see on Deut. 18:15.

18. Rama. Considerable difference of opinion exists as to the identity of Rama. Several towns by this name are mentioned in the OT. It is probably to be identified with Ramallah in Ephraim, about 9 mi. (14.5 km.) northwest of Jerusalem (see Additional Note on 1 Sam. 1). This town was near the border between the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin, the grandson and son, respectively, of Rachel, the wife of Jacob.

Rachel weeping. The words of Jeremiah here cited originally referred to the bitter experiences of the Hebrew captives taken to Babylon in 586 B.C. (see on Jer. 31:15). Rachel's death in the near vicinity, at the birth of Benjamin (Gen. 35:18-20), makes the figure particularly appropriate. She named her son Ben-oni, "son of my sorrow" (see Gen. 35:18). By inspiration Matthew applies the words of Jeremiah to Herod's slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem (see on Deut. 18:15).

19. When Herod was dead. [Return to Nazareth, Matt. 2:19-23=Luke 2:39, 40. Mayor comment: Matthew and Luke; see Childhood and Youth of Jesus ; charts, The Reigns of the Herods, Palestine Under the Herodians.] See p. 42.

20. Land of Israel. A general term denoting all of Palestine.

They are dead. Some think the plural refers to Herod and his son and heir apparent, Antipater (slain a short time prior to Herod's death); others, that it includes the soldiers who participated in the massacre of the infants of Bethlehem.

22. Archelaus. In his will Herod divided his domain into four parts, giving two to Archelaus and one each to Antipas and Philip (see pp. 63-65).

Archelaus proved to be the worst of the living sons of Herod. His tyranny and incompetence led the Jews and the Samaritans to appeal to Rome for his removal, which was granted in a.d. 6, tenth year of his reign. Augustus banished him to Gaul (now France), where he died.

Notwithstanding. Gr. de, "and" or "but."

A dream. This was Joseph's third recorded dream (see chs. 1:20; 2:13, 19).

Turned aside. Perhaps Joseph and Mary, understanding the prophecies of the Messiah as the Son of David, had intended to take up residence in Bethlehem.

Galilee. A transliteration of the Heb. meaning Galil, or Gelilah, meaning "circle," and thus a "circuit," or "district." Its populace was a mixture of Jew and Gentile, and the religious prejudices of dominantly Jewish Judea were less evident there. It had no large cities. The people lived mostly in rural areas and villages, and engaged in the common, toilsome pursuits of life. Its inhabitants were despised by the residents of the more sophisticated province of Judea (John 7:52; cf. Matt. 26:69; John 1:46).

From the account as given by Luke (ch. 2:39) it might appear that Joseph and Mary returned to Galilee immediately upon the presentation of Jesus at the Temple. However, Matthew makes it plain that the sojourn in Egypt intervened (see on Luke 2:39). There is no valid reason whatever for supposing the two accounts are in any way contradictory. See Palestine During the Ministry of Jesus.

23. Nazareth. A small country town about 64 mi. (102 km.) north of Jerusalem, and between the lower end of the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean, on approximately the same site as the modern en-NaÆs\irah. The ancient village was probably situated on the western slope rising from the floor of a depression surrounded by hilltops. The depression is pear-shaped, about a mile across, with the neck of the pear pointing southward and opening by a narrow, winding ravine into the broad plain of Esdraelon. The village was situated 1,144 ft. (c. 348 m.) above sea level, and about 920 ft. (c. 280 m.) above the plain. It lay in the territory anciently assigned to the tribe of Zebulun. See illustration facing p. 512.

Some have traced the name Nazareth, or Nazareth, to a root meaning "to protect," or "to guard," and assign it the meaning "watchtower," an apt description of its location high in the Galilean hills. Others derive it from a root meaning "branch" or "sprout," which would make it a descriptive name suggestive of the dense brushwood in the hills round about. The exact form of the original name, and thus its meaning, are both uncertain.

This is the first Biblical mention of Nazareth, which may imply that it was either insignificant or nonexistent in earlier times. Josephus does not include it in a list of some 200 towns and villages of Galilee. It was proverbial for its wickedness even among the people of Galilee (see on Luke 1:26).

From the top of the hill above the town a magnificent view may be had in every direction. About 20 mi. (32 km.) to the west lie the blue waters of the Mediterranean. To the south is the broad, fertile plain of Esdraelon, with the mountains of Samaria beyond. About 5 mi. (8 km.) to the east rises Mt. Tabor, and in the distance, beyond the depression of the Jordan, the plateau of Gilead. To the north are the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains.

The prophets. The fact that no specific prophecy resembling the one here referred to appears in the OT has led critical students of the Bible to point to this statement as an error, and therefore evidence that Matthew was not inspired. However, it is worthy of note that in previous instances where Matthew quotes a specific prophecy he speaks of "the prophet" (chs. 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17). His use of the plural form of the word "prophets" in this instance clearly implies reference, not to a particular prophetic statement, but to several, which, taken together, led to the conclusion here stated (see on Ezra 9:11; Neh. 1:8). It is possible, also, that Matthew quotes inspired writings that did not become a part of the canon of Scripture.

Nazarene. Some have suggested that this name was derived from the Heb. nazir, "nazirite," meaning "separated one," and that Matthew's statement originally read, "He shall be called a Nazirite" (see on Num. 6:2). But the derivation is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, Jesus was obviously not a Nazirite (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:33, 34; cf. Num. 6:2-4). The more likely root is nasar, from which is derived nes\er, a "sprout," "sprig," or "shoot."

Nes\er is translated "Branch" in Isa. 11:1, a clear Messianic prophecy. The more common word for "Branch" in Messianic prophecy is s\emach (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12). It is possible therefore that the derivation of Nazareth from nes\er may be correct, and that the prophecies of Jesus as the "Branch" could appropriately be applied to the fact that He grew up in the city of Nazareth (see on Deut. 18:15).

Others have seen in Matthew's statement concerning Christ as a Nazarene a reference to the reproach that came, first upon the town of Nazareth, and later upon Jesus and His followers. The popular attitude toward Nazareth is evident from John 1:46; cf. ch. 7:52. The Messiah would be "despised and rejected of men" (Isa. 53:3; see also Ps. 22:6-8). Jesus was to appear, not as a celebrated ruler, but as a humble man among men. He was not even to be known as a Bethlehemite, and to have what honor might attach to Him as a citizen of the city of David. Either this or the preceding solution to the problem would seem to be in accord with Scripture.

Ellen G. White Comments

1 AH 477

1, 2 DA 33, 59, 231

1-10GC 315

1-23DA 59-67

2 DA 62

3, 4 DA 61

5-8DA 62

6 PK 697

9-11DA 63

11 AH 481; CT 60; 7T 143

12-14DA 64

16-18DA 65

18 DA 32

19-23DA 66

Matthew Chapter 3

1 John preacheth: his office: life, and baptism. 7 He reprehendeth the Pharisees, 13 and baptizeth Christ in Jordan.

1. In those days. [Ministry of John the Baptist, Matt. 3:1-12 =Mark 1:1-8 =Luke 3:1-18. Major comment: Matthew and Luke; see The Ministry of Our Lord] That is, when Jesus "dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (Matt. 2:23). Jesus commenced His public ministry when He "began to be about thirty years of age" (see on Luke 3:23). This was in the autumn of a.d. 27 (DA 233; see pp. 242-247; see on Luke 3:1). John was about six months older than Jesus (see on Luke 1:39, 57), and it is reasonable to think that his ministry began about six months prior to that of Christ. Thus John may have begun in the spring of the same year, perhaps about the Passover season. Great throngs would be approaching or leaving Jerusalem in the vicinity of the very spot where John was preaching (see p. 295, "Wilderness of Judea;" see on Luke 3:1).

The apt illustrations John used in his preaching imply that the time of the (spring) harvest was not far away (see on Matt. 3:7, 12).

"In those days" the Jews living in Palestine, particularly in Judea, were on the verge of revolution. Since the assignment of Roman procurators to govern Judea in a.d. 6, upon the banishment of Archelaus by Augustus (see on ch. 2:22), the presence of Roman officers and soldiers, the exercise of Roman authority, and the resulting influx of heathen customs had resulted in one uprising after another. Thousands of the bravest men of Israel had paid for their patriotism with their blood. Conditions were such that the people longed for a strong leader to deliver them from the cruel bondage of Rome. See p. 54.

John the Baptist. For the meaning of the name John see on Luke 1:13; and for his youth and early training see on Luke 1:80. Jesus said of John that "among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet" (Luke 7:28). He was "more than a prophet" (see on Matt. 11:9). John's influence with the people eventually became so great that Herod Antipas at first hesitated to harm him (Matt. 14:1, 5; Mark 11:32), and the Jewish leaders did not dare speak openly against him (Matt. 21:26; Luke 20:6). Josephus gives a vivid account of John the Baptist that closely parallels that of the Gospels (Antiquities xviii. 5. 2).

Wilderness of Judaea. This expression generally refers to the rugged, barren hills between the Dead Sea and the crest of the central mountain range of Palestine, a region of little rainfall and few inhabitants (see Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover). John had spent much of his time as a youth and young man in the wilderness (Luke 1:80). His parents had probably lived in or near Hebron, not far from the western borders of this "wilderness."

In NT times the term wilderness was used to refer to both the rugged hills west of the Dead Sea and the lower part of the Jordan valley. According to Luke 3:3, John went from place to place, up and down the Jordan valley. Between Jericho and the Dead Sea the wilderness of Judea met that of the Jordan. John's ministry apparently began in this vicinity.

When arrested by Herod Antipas, John must have been in Herod's territory--probably Peraea--and, according to Josephus, was imprisoned at Machaerus, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea (Antiquities xviii. 5. 2). In view of the fact that baptism was so important a feature of his evangelistic program, John seems never to have been far from a place where "much water" (John 3:23) was available. This probably explains, in part at least, why he carried on most of his work in "the region round about Jordan" (Matt. 3:5; cf. DA 220). At the time of Jesus' baptism John was preaching and baptizing at Bethabara (Bethany Beyond Jordan), not far from where Israel had crossed the Jordan (DA 132; see on John 1:28; Joshua 2:1; 3:1, 16). Later he carried on his work at "Aenon near to Salim" (John 3:23). See Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover; Palestine During the Ministry of Jesus.

2. Repent. Gr. metanoeoµ, literally, "to think differently after," hence, "to change one's mind," "to change one's purpose." It includes far more than confession of sin, though in the preaching of John that was, of course, included (v. 6). Theologically the word includes not only a change of mind but a new direction of the will, an altered purpose and attitude. See on ch. 4:17.

Kingdom of heaven. See on Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15. Christ made it clear that the kingdom He established at His first advent was not the kingdom of glory (see DA 234). That would only be, He said, "when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him" (Matt. 25:31). Nevertheless, Jesus admitted before Pilate that He was indeed a "king" (John 18:33-37); in fact, this was His purpose in coming into this world (John 18:37). But He explained further that this "kingdom" was "not of this world" (John 18:36). The kingdom He came to establish "cometh not with observation," but is a reality within the hearts of those who believe in Him and become the sons of God (Luke 17:20, 21; cf. John 1:12). See on Mark 3:14.

3. This is he. John himself declared that he was the "voice" of Isa. 40:3 (John 1:23), and Jesus identified him with the "messenger" of Mal. 3:1 (Matt. 11:7-14).

Esaias. That is, Isaiah. The spelling Esaias is from the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for Isaiah. The prophecy referred to is Isa. 40:3. The reading is almost verbatim that of the LXX. Luke quotes v. 4 as well as v. 3 in his account of the ministry of John the Baptist (Luke 3:4, 5). See on Mark 1:2.

The voice. Only a voice, but what a voice! Its echo is heard yet, ringing down through the centuries. As a prophet, John was the "voice" of God to the men of his generation, for a prophet is one who speaks for God (see Ex. 4:15, 16; Ex. 7:1; Eze. 3:27). John was the "voice" of God announcing the coming of the living, incarnate "Word" of God (John 1:1-3, 14).

In the wilderness. See on v. 1.

Prepare ye the way. John not only proclaims the establishment of the "kingdom of heaven" (v. 2) but announces the imminent arrival of its king. The figure of speech employed represents the preparations to be made in advance of the announced coming of the king. When an Oriental monarch intended to visit parts of his realm he would dispatch messengers to each district to be visited, announcing his anticipated visit and summoning the inhabitants to prepare for his arrival. The local inhabitants of each district were expected to "prepare" the highway over which he would travel, inasmuch as little was ordinarily done to maintain roads. In some Oriental lands it is still customary to repair the roads over which the king or some other celebrity is about to travel.

Make his paths straight. Inasmuch as "the kingdom of God is within" those who become its subjects (Luke 17:21), the work of preparation must obviously be done in their hearts. Straightening the crooked places of men's hearts is therefore the preparation of which John here speaks. This is why John preached a "baptism of repentance" (Mark 1:4), literally, a "baptism of a change of mind" (see on Matt. 3:2). The high places of human pride and power were to be cast down (Luke 3:5; DA 215).

4. Raiment. Not only did John turn the minds of his hearers to the messages of the prophets; he wore the garb of the prophets (2 Kings 1:8; cf. Zech. 13:4; DA 102). This was a silent witness to the fact that in him the prophetic office was now--after a period of silence--restored to Israel. By both manner and dress John reminded men of the seers of old.

John's plain dress was also a rebuke to the excess of his time, to the "soft raiment" worn "in kings' houses" (Matt. 11:8), and was appropriate to his message of revolt against the evils in the world. The "kingdom" John proclaimed was "not of this world" (John 8:23); his garments reflected disdain for the things of this world. John lived, as he preached, for the invisible "kingdom." His outward appearance was a token of the message he bore.

John was a Nazirite from birth (DA 102), and his simple, abstemious life was in accord with the requirements of that sacred vow (see Luke 1:15; cf. Num. 6:3; Judges 13:4). But it is not necessary to conclude that he was an Essene (see pp. 53, 54), similar as their ways of life may have been. The Essenes withdrew from society and became ascetics. John spent considerable time alone in the wilderness, but he was not an ascetic, for he went forth from time to time to mingle with men, even before the commencement of his official period of ministry (see DA 102). It is true that there were at this time Essene communities in the "wilderness of Judaea" (v. 1), particularly along the western shore of the Dead Sea (see p. 53), but there is no historical evidence whatever that John associated with this austere sect. At the same time, there are noteworthy similarities between John and the Essenes.

Camel's hair. Not camel's hide, as some have thought, but a coarse garment of hair, roughly woven (see the foregoing).

Leathern girdle. Probably of sheepskin or goatskin, and worn about the waist to bind the long, flowing outer garment.

Meat. Gr. tropheµ, "nourishment," "food," "victuals." Tropheµ is used of food in a general sense. In Acts 14:17 and James 2:15 it is translated "food," the obvious meaning elsewhere (see Matt. 6:25; 10:10; Acts 2:46; 27:33-38; etc.). "Meat" is Old English for "food."

An abstemious diet is essential to mental strength and spiritual insight, and to a right understanding and practice of the sacred truths of God's Word (DA 101). These qualities were essential for John, who came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17), and they are essential for those who are to bear the Elijah message to the world today.

Locusts. Gr. akrides (see Additional Note at the end of chapter).

Wild honey. Probably not the sap of certain trees, as some have thought, but honey gathered by swarms of wild bees and deposited in the hollows of trees or perhaps in rocks. Some Bedouins still derive an income by collecting wild honey.

5. Then went out. The form of the Greek verb implies continued action--the people "kept on going out." The crowds kept coming to see and hear John and to be baptized by him. The fact that people kept on coming testifies to the glowing reports carried back by those who had already heard him. The fact that they were willing to drop their work and go for miles out into the wilderness bears witness to the magnetic drawing power of the message he bore.

All Judaea. John's ministry, like that of Christ, began in the vicinity of Judea, perhaps to give the Jewish leaders themselves the first opportunity to hear and accept the message (Mark 1:5; cf. DA 231, 232).

All the region. Gradually, as the word was spread by those who returned from hearing John, people came from yet greater distances (cf. Luke 3:3). It is evident, also, that John himself moved about from place to place, the better to reach people everywhere (see on v. 1).

6. Baptized. Gr. baptizoµ, "to dip," "to immerse." Baptizoµ was used of immersing cloth in dye, and of submerging a vessel in order to fill it with water. It was also used metaphorically of bloody wounds received in a fight, as in Aeschylus of dyeing (literally, "baptizing") a man in the red dye of Sardis. Baptizoµ was also used of a man drowning, as it were, in debt.

The meaning of the word itself, together with specific details of the narrative in the Gospels, makes it clear that John's baptism was administered by immersion. John the evangelist emphasizes the fact that John the Baptist "was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23). Furthermore, all four Gospel writers note that most, if not all, of John's ministry was carried on in the immediate vicinity of the Jordan River (Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5, 9; Luke 3:3; John 1:28). Had John not baptized by immersion he would have found sufficient water almost anywhere in Palestine.

The same was apparently true also of Christian baptism, for in the description of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch it is noted that both the one baptizing and the one baptized "went down ... into the water" and came "up out of the water" (Acts 8:38, 39). Had pouring or sprinkling been permissible, the eunuch, instead of waiting until they "came unto a certain water" before requesting baptism (v. 36), might have offered Philip water from his flask.

Furthermore, only immersion accurately reflects the symbolism of the baptismal rite. According to Rom. 6:3-11 Paul teaches that Christian baptism represents death. To be "baptized," Paul says, is to be "baptized into his [Christ's] death" (v. 3), to be "buried with him by baptism into death" (v. 4), to be "planted together in the likeness of his death" (v. 5), to be "crucified with him" (v. 6). Paul then concludes, "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin" (v. 11). Obviously, pouring and sprinkling are not symbols of death and burial. Paul makes his meaning doubly clear by pointing to the important fact that coming forth from baptism symbolizes being "raised up from the dead" (v. 4). It is evident that the writers of the NT knew only of baptism by immersion.

That John the Baptist was probably not the first to introduce the practice of baptism is evident from ancient sources. The Jews early followed the practice of baptizing proselytes to Judaism. It is not certain when the practice was adopted, but incidental details concerning the procedure were a point of dispute between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel in the 1st century a.d. Since by that time the practice was apparently already well established, it is highly probable that the baptism of proselytes dates from pre-Christian times. See Mishnah Pesahim 8. 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 490, 491; Talmud Pesah\im 92a, Soncino ed., pp. 491, 492; see also Tosephta Pesahim 7. 13 and Jerusalem Talmud Pesahim 8. 36b. 31, both cited in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 1, p. 103.

It is also well established that the mode of proselyte baptism was immersion. The regulations required that the entire body be covered with water (see Talmud ÔErubin 4b, Soncino ed., p. 20; Yebamoth 47a, 47b, Soncino ed., pp. 311, 312). Finds at Qumrân and in Cairo (see pp. 53, 54, 90-92) reveal that the Jewish sect known as Essenes baptized themselves daily by immersion, symbolically washing away their sins. Qumrân is in the "wilderness of Judaea," where John preached.

It is apparent that the Jews who flocked to John in the wilderness understood the meaning of the rite and considered it an appropriate procedure. Even the representatives of the Sanhedrin sent to question John did not challenge the rite of baptism itself, but only John's authority to perform it (see John 1:19-28).

That the rite of Christian baptism is simply a symbol and does not convey divine grace, is evident throughout the NT. Unless a man believes in Jesus Christ (Acts 8:37; cf. Rom. 10:9) and repents of sin (Acts 2:38; cf. ch. 19:18), baptism can be of no value to him. In other words, there is no saving power in the rite itself, apart from faith in the heart of the one receiving the rite. From these and other considerations it is clear that infant baptism is a meaningless procedure so far as the salvation of the child is concerned. Baptism can become meaningful only when the child is old enough to understand salvation, faith, and repentance.

Although the Jews recognized the validity of proselyte baptism, the rite was only for Gentile converts to Judaism. That John required it of the Jews themselves--even of their religious leaders--was the striking aspect of his baptism. Furthermore, he considered his baptism only preparatory to the baptism to be administered by Christ (Matt. 3:11). Unless the Jews accepted John's baptism and the subsequent baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ, they were no better than the heathen. Their descent from Abraham would avail them nothing (Matt. 3:9; cf. John 8:33, 39, 53; Rom. 11:21; Gal. 3:7, 29; James 2:21; etc.).

Confessing. When we confess, God forgives (1 John 1:9). John the Baptist felt an intense hatred for all kinds of sin and wrongdoing. God never sends messages to flatter the sinner; that would be fatal for eternal life. One of the marks of genuine reformation is sincere repentance of sin and a turning away from it. Similarly, it is one of the marks of the genuineness of a message from God that the communication points out sin and calls for repentance and confession. Thus it was with the prophets of old (see Isa. 1:1-20; 58:1; etc.), thus it was in NT times (Matt. 3:7; 23:13-33; Rev. 2:5; 3:15-18), and thus it is today (3T 254). John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance" (Mark 1:4); that was its most prominent characteristic. It was the sins of Israel that lay at the root of all their personal and national woes (Isa. 59:1, 2; Jer. 5:25; etc.). From these calamities they sought in vain for deliverance. They longed and prayed for release from the yoke of Rome, but most of them failed to realize that sin had to be separated from the camp before God could work for them. See Vol. IV, pp. 30-33.

7. Pharisees. For a sketch of the Pharisees and Sadducees see pp. 51, 52.

Generation of vipers. Or, "offspring of vipers," or "brood of vipers." Christ Himself later used almost identical language in addressing the Pharisees and Sadducees (chs. 12:34; 23:33). They prided themselves on being children of Abraham (see on ch. 3:9), but they failed to "do the works of Abraham" (John 8:39), and were therefore children of their "father the devil" (v. 44).

Warned you to flee. They were not sincerely seeking the repentance to which John called men and women as the only consistent preparation for the kingdom of Messiah, and this being the case, why had they come?

Wrath. It is possible that, by inspiration, John was here looking forward to those indescribable scenes of woe that accompanied the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman armies in a.d. 70--the days for which Jesus told the women of Jerusalem to weep (Luke 23:27-29), and because of which He counseled His disciples to flee from the city (Matt. 24:15-21; Luke 21:20-24). Of course, beyond is the great day of God's "wrath," the last great day of judgment (Rom. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 5:9; Rev. 6:17; etc.).

8. Bring forth. See on v. 10. The fruit borne reveals the inner character (ch. 7:20; cf. ch. 12:33). The test of conversion is a transformation in the life. The proof of the sincerity of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to John's baptism would be the radical change of mind and conduct implicit in the word "repent" (see on ch. 3:2). Mere profession is worthless.

The divine Husbandman waits patiently for the fruit of character to ripen in the lives of those who profess to serve Him (see Luke 13:6-9). But fruit "meet for repentance," that is, appropriate to or corresponding with a profession of repentance, is the fruit of the Spirit (see Gal. 5:22, 23; 2 Peter 1:5-7), and except for the presence of the Spirit in the life, cannot be brought forth. Apart from "the vine" there can be no fruit bearing (John 15:4, 5).

Repentance. See on v. 2.

9. Think not. Or, "do not begin to entertain this thought in your minds." It was the fruit of faith in the life, not descent from Abraham, that mattered (John 8:39; Gal. 3:7, 29). The fruit of which John spoke would have to be produced in the life of each individual, and was not inherited from one generation to the next (Eze. 14:14, 16; 18:5-13). It is not descent from Abraham, but the works of Abraham--spiritual descent--that is essential.

Abraham. The Jews flattered themselves that descent from Abraham made them better than other men. According to the Talmud, a single Israelite is worth more before God than all the people who have ever been or who shall be. They considered this connection a substitute for the repentance and good works for which John and Jesus called. They wanted the rewards of well-doing without meeting the requirements; in fact, they substituted their works for the faith of Abraham.

Descent from Abraham constituted the perennial boast of the Jews (John 8:33, 39). He was "the rock" whence they were "hewn" (Isa. 51:1, 2). But "God is no respecter of persons," and "in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34, 35). Only those who emulate Abraham may enjoy the privilege of claiming him as their father (Gal. 3:9).

These stones. Pebbles and rocks lay in profusion along the banks of the Jordan.

Children. In the Aramaic, in which John the Baptist spoke, there is a play on words--"stones" being 'abenin, and "children," represented either by benin, berin, or banim. Later Jesus used an expression of similar significance (Luke 19:40). Possibly, John means that it would be easier for God to raise up children to Abraham from the stones than to turn the stony hearts of the Pharisees and Sadducees into spiritual children of their professed father. Or he may simply mean that these leaders were not indispensable, and that God could replace them by turning the stones into human beings.

10. The axe. A symbol of judgment.

Laid unto. The meaning seems to be that the ax is placed there ready for action. The implication is that it is soon to be used.

Every tree. Trees are often used in the OT as symbols of people (see Eze. 17:22-24; cf. Ps. 1:3), and John's hearers fully understood whereof he spoke. Like John, Christ used a tree to represent the people of Israel (Luke 13:6-9; Matt. 21:19, 20).

Bringeth not forth. See on Luke 13:6-9. Under the symbol of a vineyard that produced nothing but "wild grapes," Isaiah had pictured the tender care of God for His people and their utter rejection for failing to "bring forth grapes" (Isa. 5:1-7; cf. Matt. 21:33-41).

Good fruit. Only a good man can grow a crop of good habits, from which there may be harvested a good character (see Gal. 5:22, 23).

Hewn down. Compare Isaiah's parable of the wild grapes (Isa. 5:1-7) and Christ's parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9). Implicit in Jesus' parable is the fact that God is long-suffering, but that if His offers of mercy are not appreciated, they are eventually withdrawn. The Jewish nation had practically outlived its day of mercy, and was about to be rejected. See Vol. IV, pp. 30-36.

Cast into the fire. In Jewish literature "fire" was a distinguishing feature of the final judgment.

11. With water. John shows clearly that he understood his baptism to be only preparatory to the work of Christ.

He that cometh. John had already spoken of his own task as that of a herald announcing the coming of the Lord (v. 3). "He that cometh," or "the coming One," was common Jewish phraseology for the Messiah.

After me. That is, in point of time. John was the "messenger" sent "before" the "face" of the Lord (Mark 1:2).

Mightier than I. John later testified concerning Christ, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). John's preaching was so filled with power that many of the people believed him to be the Messiah. Even the leaders of the nation were forced to consider the question seriously (John 1:19, 20). Christ Himself said of John that there "hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist" (Matt. 11:11). Despite this public acclaim John ever maintained a true sense of his relationship to the One who was to be "mightier than" he. Blessed is the man who meets with success and popularity, yet remains humble in his own eyes!

Shoes. Gr. hupodeµmata, literally, "things bound underneath." These "shoes" were soles bound under the foot with straps, actually "sandals." The Romans, but not the Jews, wore shoes.

Not worthy to bear. According to Luke, "not worthy to unloose" (ch. 3:16). Matthew's phrase means to take off the sandal. To the Jews a shoe was the humblest part of man's clothing. The expression "over Edom will I cast out my shoe" (Ps. 60:8; 108:9) was expressive of utter disdain. In the presence of God, Moses was commanded to remove his shoes (Ex. 3:5). To buy or sell the needy for a pair of shoes (Amos 2:6; 8:6) was to put the lowest possible price upon them. To "unloose" the shoes or to "bear" them away was the menial work of a slave. In affirming his own unworthiness to perform even this service for Christ, John was placing himself below the level of a slave. It was as if John had said, "whose slave I am unworthy to be." The followers of a great teacher were expected to perform many personal services for him, but according to a rabbinical saying, "All manner of service that a slave must render to his master a student must render to his teacher, except that of taking off his shoe" (Talmud Kethuboth 96a, Soncino ed., p. 610).

Holy Ghost. Or, "Holy Spirit." The Jews were familiar with this term. David had prayed, "Take not thy holy spirit from me" (Ps. 51:11). Isaiah stated that Israel "vexed" God's "holy Spirit" (Isa. 63:10, 11), and referred to "the Spirit of the Lord God" that was to rest upon the Messiah (ch. 61:1). John seems not to have emphasized baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2-6). For the meaning of this expression see on Matt. 1:18.

Fire. Fire and water are two great natural purifying agencies, and it is appropriate that both should be used to represent the regeneration of the heart. In a similar way, they are the two agencies by means of which God has purified, or will purify, this earth from sin and sinners (2 Peter 3:5-7). If men persistently cling to sin, they must eventually be consumed with it; how much better it is to permit the Holy Spirit to carry forward the purifying work now, while probation still lingers! A man will be either purged of sin or purged along with it. Paul said, "Fire shall try every man's work" (1 Cor. 3:13).

The sense in which Christ was to baptize with fire is not certain. This statement may have pointed forward to Pentecost, when the disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost under the symbol of fire (Acts 2:3, 4). Again, it may refer to the fires of the last day, as may be implied by the parallel nature of Matt. 3:12 (see on v. 12). It may refer to the grace of God purifying the soul. Or, again, it may refer to the fiery trials that Peter speaks of as testing the Christian (1 Peter 4:12; cf. Luke 12:49, 50). Perhaps the words of John the Baptist include more than one aspect of the Bible symbolism relating to fire.

12. Fan. Gr. ptuon, a "winnowing shovel" with which grain was lifted from the threshing floor and thrown against the wind to clear it of chaff (see on Ruth 3:2). The grain would fall back to the floor, and the chaff would be blown off to one side, and eventually burned.

Thoroughly purge. Gr. diakatharizoµ, "to cleanse thoroughly, completely," or "to cleanse from end to end." "Thoroughly" is an obsolete form of the word "thoroughly." The illustration is that of a farmer beginning at one side of his threshing floor and proceeding systematically across it to the other side.

Gather his wheat. The process of separating the righteous from the wicked takes place at the "end of the world" (see ch. 13:30, 39-43, 49, 50).

Garner. Or, "granary."

Burn up the chaff. As was frequently done by the Judean farmer once the wheat had been safely stored away. Compare on Ps. 1:4.

Unquenchable. Gr. asbestos, "inextinguishable," "not quenchable," or "unquenched." Doubtless John the Baptist based his message on the words of Malachi (ch. 3:1-3; 4; see Mark 1:2). Christ specifically stated that John fulfilled the prediction of Malachi (Mal. 4:5; cf. Matt. 11:14; 17:12). When John spoke of "unquenchable fire" he may have had in mind the words of Mal. 4:1, concerning the day of the Lord, "that shall burn as an oven," when all the wicked will "be stubble." The fire of that great day, Malachi continues, would "burn them up" so completely that "neither root nor branch" would remain (ch. 4:1; see also ch. 3:2, 3). See Josephus War ii. 17.6 [425].

Far from conveying the idea of a fire that burns eternally in which the wicked are endlessly tormented, the Scriptures emphasize the fact that the wicked are to be burned up so completely that nothing will be left of them. The idea of an eternally burning hell fire is foreign to the Inspired Word, as it is to the character of God. The Scriptures state concerning Sodom and Gomorrah that they are "set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7; cf. 2 Peter 2:6). But the fires that consumed those wicked cities went out long ago; they are not burning today. Yet those cities are given as an "example" of what the fires of the last great day will be like.

In a similar way, Jeremiah predicted that God would kindle a fire in the gates of Jerusalem that would consume even the palaces of the city, and "not be quenched" (Jer. 17:27). This was literally fulfilled a few years later when Nebuchadnezzar took the city, in 586 B.C. (Jer. 52:12, 13; cf. Neh. 1:3). Quite obviously the fire is not burning today. As chaff from a Judean threshing floor was utterly consumed, and nothing but ashes remained, so the wicked will be burned with "unquenchable fire" on the last great day until nothing but their ashes remain (Mal. 4:3). The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), eternal death, not eternal life miraculously preserved by a vengeful God, in the midst of fire that never goes out. The righteous are promised eternal life (Rom. 2:7), and the death of the wicked will be as permanent as the life of the righteous. See on Isa. 66:24.

13. Then cometh Jesus. [The Baptism, Matt. 3:13-17=Mark 1:9-11=Luke 3:21-23^a. Major comment: Matthew and Luke. See Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover; The Chronology of Luke, The Reigns of the Herods.] It was now the autumn of a.d. 27, and John the Baptist had, possibly, been preaching for about six months (see on Matt. 3:1). The autumn was the time of three important festivals: (1) Rosh Hashanah, or the festival of the blowing of the trumpets (see Vol. I, p. 709; see on Lev. 23:24; Num. 29:1); (2) Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement (see Vol. I, pp. 705, 706, 710; see on Ex. 30:10; Lev. 16); (3) the Feast of Tabernacles (see Vol. I, p. 710; see on Ex. 23:16; Lev. 23:34). At the third festival all males were expected to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem (Ex. 23:14-17). Inasmuch as the baptism of Christ occurred in the autumn, it is reasonable to think that it may have been in connection with His presence there at this festal season. The route frequently taken by Jews traveling between Galilee and Jerusalem lay through the Jordan valley (see on Luke 2:42), and if Jesus took this route in His journey to Jerusalem, He would pass close to where John was preaching and baptizing at Bethabara (Bethany Beyond Jordan) in Peraea, opposite Jericho (see John 1:28; DA 132; see on Matt. 3:1).

When Jesus heard of the message proclaimed by John He recognized His call (DA 109). This marked the close of His private life in Nazareth and the commencement of His three and a half years of public ministry, from the autumn of a.d. 27 to the spring of a.d. 31 (DA 233; cf. Acts 1:21, 22; 40>10:37-40). See The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2.

From Galilee to Jordan. See on Mark 1:9. The distance from the Lake of Galilee to the Dead Sea is about 64 mi. (102 km.).

To be baptized. Jesus had heard of John's message while still in the carpenter shop at Nazareth (DA 109), and departed, never to return to take up His tasks there.

14. Forbad him. The Greek may be rendered "had a mind to prevent him," "would have prevented him," "tried to prevent him." Though Jesus and John were related by blood, they had had no direct acquaintance (DA 109; cf. John 1:31-33). John had heard of the events connected with the birth and childhood of Jesus, and believed Him to be the Messiah (DA 109). Also, it had been revealed to John that the Messiah would seek baptism at his hands, and that a sign would then be given identifying Him as the Messiah (DA 110; cf. John 1:31-33).

I have need. John was impressed with the perfection of the character of the One standing before him and with his own need as a sinner (DA 110, 111; cf. Isa. 6:5; Luke 5:8). Thus it is ever when a sinner enters the divine presence; there comes first a consciousness of the majesty and perfection of God, and then a conviction of one's own unworthiness and need of God's saving power. When the sinner realizes and acknowledges his lost condition, his heart becomes contrite and ready for the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (see Ps. 34:18; 51:10, 11, 17; Isa. 57:15; 66:2). Where there is not first a sense of one's need of the Saviour, there is no desire for the gracious gift God has to offer the repentant sinner. Consequently there is nothing Heaven can do for him. See on Isa. 6:5.

Comest thou to me? Face to face with the One mightier than he was (v. 11), John, possessing a spirit of humility and sensing his own unworthiness, shrank from administering the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) to One who was without sin (see John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22). It seemed to him inappropriate that he should baptize Jesus. Doubtless John did not fully grasp the fact that Jesus was to set a pattern for every sinner saved by grace.

15. Suffer. That is, "let," "permit." He was not to deny Jesus' request for baptism, however inappropriate that request might at the moment seem to him.

It becometh. That is, "it is fitting," "it is proper." It was not fitting or proper to baptize Jesus in acknowledgment of personal sins, for He had no sins of which to repent. But as our example it was both fitting and proper for Him to accept baptism (see DA 111).

Fulfil all righteousness. At His baptism Jesus laid aside His private life; He was no longer simply a perfect man among men--He was henceforth to engage in His active, public ministry as their Saviour. Christ's submission to baptism by John was the seal that confirmed John's ministry and placed Heaven's stamp of approval upon it.

He suffered him. That is, John agreed to comply with the request.

16. Straightway. That is, immediately.

Out of the water. Coming forth from the Jordan, Jesus knelt upon the bank of the river in prayer, particularly for evidence that the Father accepted humanity in the person of His Son, and for the success of His mission (Luke 3:21; DA 111, 112).

Lo. Or, "behold," a common expression in Matthew and Luke. It is generally used either to introduce a new section of the narrative or to focus attention on details of an account the author considers particularly important.

Heavens were opened. Momentarily the gates of the unseen world swung ajar, as upon other significant occasions (see Acts 7:55-57).

He saw. Matthew and Mark (ch. 1:10) observe that Jesus beheld the visible descent of the Holy Spirit; John remarks that the Baptist also witnessed the divine manifestation (ch. 1:32-34). Luke simply notes that it took place (ch. 3:21, 22). A few others, perhaps certain of John's disciples and other devout persons whose souls were attuned to heaven, also saw what occurred (DA 112, 137). Otherwise, the assembled multitude witnessed only the light of heaven upon the Saviour's upturned face and felt the holy solemnity of the occasion. This manifestation of the Father's glory and voice came in response to the Saviour's prayer for strength and wisdom to pursue His mission. In it John also recognized the token that had been promised whereby he was to recognize "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (see John 1:29-34). Finally, the sublime scene was to strengthen the faith of those who witnessed it and prepare them for the announcement by which John pointed out the Messiah 40 days later.

The Spirit of God. There is no reason for supposing that the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit had not accompanied Jesus ever since His birth. What is here pointed out is a special anointing with power to accomplish the task appointed Him (Acts 10:38; see on Luke 2:49), as the prophet Isaiah had foretold (Isa. 11:2, 3). The work of the Holy Spirit in the development of character is to be distinguished from the gift of the Spirit qualifying men for certain tasks (1 Cor. 12:4-11).

Like a dove. That is, light in the shape of a dove (DA 112), perhaps similar to the tongues of fire at Pentecost (Acts 2:3). The dove was a rabbinical symbol for Israel as a nation. Christian artists have generally made use of the dove as a symbol for the Holy Spirit, doubtless on the basis of this incident.

17. A voice from heaven. Upon three occasions during the life of Christ the Father's voice was heard from heaven testifying of His Son--at His baptism, at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:5; 2 Peter 1:16-18), and as He departed from the Temple for the last time (John 12:28).

This is my beloved Son. Or, "This is my Son, the beloved." Slight textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the reading "thou art" instead of "this is" (cf. Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).

This statement combines the words and ideas of Ps. 2:7 and Isa. 42:1. According to Matthew, the Father, using the third person apparently, addressed John and a few bystanders (see on Matt. 3:16), whereas according to Mark and Luke, the Father addressed Jesus directly (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Some have seen in this difference a discrepancy in the Gospel record. On this and other alleged discrepancies see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 2.

I am well pleased. Compare the words of Isa. 42:1.

additional notes on chapter 3

Note 1

According to Matt. 3:4 and Mark 1:6 the diet of John the Baptist consisted of "locusts [Gr. akrides, plural of akris] and wild honey." Whether the Gospel writers meant that John ate nothing else, or only that these constituted his principal articles of diet, we do not know. It is also possible that "locusts and wild honey" were considered to be the distinguishing diet of a prophet, even as "raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle" marked him a successor to the ancient prophets (see DA 102). John may have subsisted on "locusts and wild honey" only at such times as other foods were not readily available. Again, "locusts and wild honey" may simply be representative of various articles of food available in the wilderness, and the expression thus a graphic Oriental way of giving emphasis to his lonely, abstemious life, far from the haunts of men.

Because the English word "locust" properly denotes both an insect and certain kinds of trees, the question naturally arises as to what, with honey, constituted the diet of John.

Elsewhere in the Scripture, and also in contemporary Greek literature, for that matter, the word akris always refers to an insect, the locust. This undeniable fact has led most commentators today to conclude that in the record concerning John the Baptist this insect is intended. It is also a fact that the locust has been part of the diet of the peoples of the Middle East from ancient times. According to the law of Moses certain kinds of locusts are clean food (Lev. 11:22), and would therefore be permissible in the diet of a Jew. These facts have led commentators in our day quite uniformly to the conclusion that akris in Matthew and Mark should be understood as designating the insect by the name "locust" rather than a species of tree.

However, from very early Christian times there has come down a tradition, widespread, emphatic, and persistent, to the effect that, in Matthew and Luke, the word akris denotes something other than an insect. Small wild birds, crabs, crayfish, wild pears or other fruit, cakes of bread, carob pods, etc., have been suggested. Tatian's Diatessaron (see p. 122) reads "milk" instead of "locusts." Most of these are obviously mere guesses, but for one--the carob pod--there appears to be a basis of linguistic and anthropological evidence.

The carob tree (Ceratonia siliqua) is cultivated extensively in lands bordering on the Mediterranean Sea, and is common in Palestine from Hebron northward. Its fruit, which matures in the late spring, is borne in flat pods somewhat the shape of the Lima bean, and from six to ten inches in length. The pods and beans may be eaten raw, cooked, or ground into flour and made into bread. They may be dried and preserved indefinitely. Though not particularly palatable, the carob has a substantial nutritive value, and has long been a staple article of the diet of the poorer classes in the Near East. The Tosephta (MaÔaseroth 2. 19 [84]) lists carob pods as a kind of food, and the Mishnah (MaÔaseroth 1. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 256) specifies that, as a food, they are to be tithed. The "husks" fed by the prodigal son to the swine were carob pods (see on Luke 15:16). Incidentally, in English, the carob is commonly known as a locust, and its beans are popularly called "St.-John's-bread." English grain dealers are said to supply carob pods as feed for cattle under the name "locusts."

Evidence tending to favor the fruit of the carob tree as the "locusts" that John the Baptist ate is as follows:

1. Available evidence indicates that the insect locust is a very poor source of food and that it would be incapable, in itself, of sustaining human life. According to Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (art. "Locust"), "the nutritious value of the insect locust is extremely small, and insufficient, [even] with honey, to support life." The fact that the "locusts" John ate seem to have constituted a major element of his diet is against the insect locust and tends to favor the fruit of the carob tree. This fact concerning the inadequacy of insect locusts as food must be accorded considerable weight in the argument that some other food than the insect is indicated by the word akris.

It is an interesting fact that carob beans were a food of the very poor in various Near Eastern lands, and still are. Anciently the Jews had a saying that "when a Jew has to resort to carobs, he repents" (Midrash Rabbah, on Lev. 11:1, Soncino ed., p. 168). It is not irrelevant to remark in this connection that John was the great preacher of repentance, and that a diet of carob beans and wild honey would certainly be appropriate in the light of the then-current concept of what a preacher of righteousness would eat. As already noted, the austere diet of John may, like his rude clothing, have been intended to characterize him in the popular mind as resembling the prophets of old.

2. Among the earliest to challenge the idea that John's diet included insect locusts were the Ebionites, a Jewish-Christian group of Syria whose origin may be traced to the Judaizing elements of NT times. Like the Essenes (see p. ), they were somewhat ascetic in their tendencies and advocated a vegetarian diet. Apparently the Ebionites omitted mention of "locusts" altogether in ch. 3:4, though Epiphanius, a Christian writer of the 4th century, charges that they substituted egkrides, "cakes," for akrides, "locusts" (see M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 9; H. A. W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament, on Matt. 3:4). It does not seem that the Ebionites had received Gospel manuscripts reading egkrides, but that they may have made this substitution or alteration in harmony with their dietary principles. All extant ancient Bible manuscripts read akrides.

3. The Greek Church Fathers, who may be presumed to have had a better knowledge of the usage of Biblical Greek than later writers, were very far from agreeing that akris in Matthew and Mark means the insect we know as locust. Most of them, in fact, seem to have thought otherwise. For example, many considered the akrides (or akridas) of the Gospels to be equivalent to akrodrua, "fruits," or the tender tips of the branches of trees or herbs.

In a sermon on the prophecy of Zacharias erroneously attributed to Chrysostom (c. a.d. 400) a comparison is drawn between Elijah and John the Baptist in which it is said that "the one lived in the mountains, the other spent his time in the desert; the one was fed by ravens, the other ate plant locusts [akridas botanoµn]." The phrase akridas botanoµn is translated into the Latin as herbarum summitates, meaning the "tips" or "shoots of plants" (see Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 50 cols. 786, 787). In another sermon similarly attributed to Chrysostom, on John the Baptist, the expression akridas ek botanoµn occurs in a description of his diet, and is translated into Latin as summitates plantarum, "shoots of plants" (ibid., vol. 59, col. 762). A note to the Latin translation explains that the Latin Vulgate has locustas for akrides, and adds that by locustas the Vulgate means not only locusts but also summitates plantarum, "tips of plants." A note to the Greek text states that Isidore of Pelusiota, repeatedly, and many other writers, give the same explanation of akrides. Isidore of Pelusiota (c. a.d. 425) specifically states (Epistle 132) that "the locusts which John ate are not as some ignorant persons think, scarab-[beetle-]like creatures. Far from it, for in reality they are the tips [Gr. akremones; Latin summitates] of plants or trees" (ibid., vol. 78 col. 270). In Epistle 5 Isidore again speaks of John's food as "the tips of plants and of leaves" (ibid., cols. 183, 184). In his Commentary on Matthew (on ch. 3:4), Theophylact of Bulgaria (c. a.d.1075) observes, "Some say the locusts [akrides] are plants, which are called black-horned; others [say they are] wild summer fruits" (ibid., vol. 123, cols. 173, 174). In his Ecclesiastical History (i. 14) Callistus Nicephorus (c. a.d. 1400) says that John "retired to the remote wilds, making use of the tender parts of trees for food" (ibid., vol. 145, cols. 675, 676). Numerous others might be cited to the same effect. The Greek writers and their Latin translators both apparently understood the "locusts" of ch. 3:4 to be a vegetarian article of diet.

It cannot be said of these Fathers of the church that their thinking was influenced, as that of the Ebionites seems to have been, by any hesitancy to accept the idea that John the Baptist ate flesh food. So far as is known, Church Fathers were not vegetarians. It would seem most difficult to provide a valid explanation for the rather general agreement of the Fathers that the akrides of the Gospels designates something other than insect locusts unless there was some foundation linguistically or in the habits of the people of the early Christian centuries.

4. It appears that the name "St.-John's-bread," as applied to the fruit of the carob tree, was introduced into various European languages by medieval pilgrims returning from the Holy Land. In the German, for instance, this is the specific name for that fruit. According to the Oxford English Dictionary "St.-John's-bread" appeared in an English-Spanish dictionary of the year 1591, as a synonym for "carob."

5. T. K. Cheyne, an eminent Bible scholar who wrote at the turn of the century, takes the position that John the Baptist's food consisted of carob beans and wild honey. He reasons that the word akrides, in all known instances of its use, means specifically the insect, that insect locusts have been eaten from ancient times, but that "common sense, however, tells us that locusts would not have been preferred by the Baptist as his habitual food to nourishment supplied by the soil. Humility would not pass over the ordinary food of the poorest class, viz. carob-pods" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. "Husks").

6. Confusion as to the meaning of akris in the Gospels seems to be related to the fact that, in various languages, the word "locust" designates both a species of insects and a species of trees. The English word "locust" is from the Latin locusta, which originally denoted a lobster or similar crustacean, and later, because of some resemblance in shape, the insect locust as well. The true locust is an insect belonging to the family Acridiidae, a term derived through the Latin from the Gr. akrides.

Accounting for the application of the term "locust" to the carob and certain other trees, the Oxford English Dictionary comments: "The Gr. name akris, properly denoting the insect, is applied in the Levant to the carob-pod, from some resemblance in form; and from very early times it has been believed by many that the `locusts' eaten by John the Baptist were these pods" (art. "Locust"). In modern Arabic the word nabat, designating the insect locust, is similarly applied also to the fruit of the carob tree. The appropriateness of applying the term "locusts" to carob pods is evident from the fact that, in Greek, they are called keratia, literally, "little horns," a name descriptive of their shape, and that the type of locust properly called akris, of the family Acridiidae, is "characterized by short horns" (Oxford English Dictionary, art. "Locust"). This resemblance in shape appears to be the basis for the double meaning of the word "locust" in the English language as well as in colloquial Levantine Greek and Arabic. According to Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, art. "Locust," "the resemblance between the insect and the bean is the reason for the identity of name [in English]."

7. Whether the same resemblance was reflected by the Hebrew and Aramaic we cannot say. However, it may be noted that the Heb. chagab, "locust" or "grasshopper," is translated akris by the LXX in Lev. 11:22; Num. 13:33; 2 Chron. 7:13; Eccl. 12:5; Isa. 40:22. In Mishnaic Hebrew charub denotes the carob pod, and is equivalent to the Arabic kharruµb, from which our word carob comes, and to the Gr. keratia. Some have suggested that in Palestine and Syria, where the Aramaic was long used by Christians, the consonantal form ch-r-b may at some time have been confused with ch-g-b, because of a similarity of sound and spelling. According to this explanation, charub, "carob," became chagab, "locust," and this substitution was reflected in the Greek text of Matt. 3:4 and Mark 1:6.

Some, suggesting that the Heb. cheryonim of the Masoretic text should read charubim, have thought that carob pods are referred to in 2 Kings 6:25 (see comment there). They also suggest that the Heb. chereb, rendered "sword" in Isa. 1:20, should be charub, "carob." In the Hebrew consonantal text the two words are identical. The translation would then be, "you shall eat the carob," which agrees well with the context. Some have thought that Matthew, with a Hebrew background, and thinking of the charub, "carob," by its colloquial name chagab, "locust," may have selected the Gr. akris, "locust," when writing. It is also possible that a similar colloquial terminology existed in Greek at that time.

8. From the strictly linguistic point of view the argument favors equating akris with the insect. But in view of all the contrary evidence here summarized, it is far from certain that this is the correct understanding of the term in Matt. 3:4 and Mark 1:6. Available evidence does not warrant a dogmatic conclusion as to precisely what foods John ate. It is worthy of note that Ellen G. White characterizes John as a vegetarian (3T 62; CH 72).

Note 2

In various places in the Gospels the writers report differently the words of Christ. They also give different accounts of certain matters, for example, the inscription on the cross. These variations have been seized upon by skeptics as proof that the Gospel writers are unreliable, even false, and thus certainly not inspired. A careful examination proves the opposite. Those who wrote the Gospels, along with the other followers of Christ, considered themselves witnesses of the events of our Lord's life. They staked everything on the truthfulness of their witness.

Now in a court, today, if witnesses all testify precisely the same regarding an incident, the conclusion is, not that they are truthful, but that they are perjurers. Why? Because experience teaches us that no two people see an event exactly alike. One point impresses one witness; another point impresses another. Again, they may all have heard exactly the same words spoken in connection with the event, but each reports the words a little differently. One witness may even report certain parts of a conversation that the other witnesses do not report. But so long as there is no clear contradiction in the thought or meaning of the variant statements, the witnesses may be considered to have told the truth. Indeed, apparently contradictory statements may often prove to be not contradictory at all, but rather complementary. See on Matt. 27:37; Mark 5:2; 10:46.

It has been well remarked that only an honest man can afford to have a poor memory. Those who have a false story to foist on the public must keep rehearsing their story to make it hold together. The honest man may not retell his story each time in exactly the same language--almost certainly he will not--but there is an inner consistency and harmony to the story that is evident to all. What is more, such a story lives and sparkles before our eyes because the teller of it is reliving the spirit and feeling of the incident. But when a man tells and retells a story with phonograph-like sameness, the most charitable thing we can say regarding him is that he has become a boresome slave to a mere form of words, and does not present a living picture of what actually happened or what actually was said. And if we are not charitably-minded, we may even become suspicious of his veracity, or at least sure of his senility.

All experience, and especially the experience of the courts through the long years, leads to the conclusion that truthful witnessing need not be--indeed, should not be--equated with carbon-copy identity of testimony of the different witnesses to an event, including their testimony as to what was said at the particular event.

Hence, the charge that the Gospel writers are unreliable because their reports differ, stands revealed as groundless. On the contrary, those writers provide the clearest proof that there was no collusion between them, that they independently reported what most particularly impressed their divinely illumined minds regarding the life of Christ. They wrote at different times and in different places their more or less different accounts. Yet there is no difficulty in discovering harmony and unity in what they wrote regarding incidents and events, including the words of our Lord and, for example, the inscription on the cross (see on ch. 27:37).

In the light of these facts the related charge that their variant reporting of Christ's words proves the Gospel writers uninspired, seems pointless. What warrant does the skeptic have for assuming that if they were inspired they would give verbatim the words of our Lord? None whatever. Words are merely a vehicle for expressing thought, and unfortunately, human language is often inadequate to express fully a speaker's thought. Might not the very fact that the Gospel writers stated our Lord's words in variant forms provide in itself a proof of their inspired insight into the range and intent of His words? Incidentally, Christ spoke in Aramaic; the Gospels were written in Greek. And is it not true that different scholars may produce most faithful translations of a certain man's writings and yet differ in the words used? Indeed, slavishly literal translations generally sacrifice something of the real thought or intent of the mind of the original writer.

We may here apply, with proper adaptation, the words of Scripture: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." There is a life-giving spirit that breathes through the four Gospels, a spirit that might easily have been smothered or stifled had the writers conformed to the skeptics' artificial standard of reporting--a slavishly identical form of words. God inspired His penmen thousands of years before carbon paper was invented.

Ellen G. White Comments

1, 2 EW 230

1-3EW 154; 8T 9

1-4FE 109, 310, 423; 4T 108

1-17DA 97-113

2 CM 40; COL 35, 276; DA 104, 506; GW 54, 55; MB 2; PK 715; 8T 332; 9T 122

2, 3 7T 139

3 DA 134, 224; MM 327; 3T 279; 7T 56; 8T 33, 329

4 DA 102; 3T 62

5 DA 104, 231

7 GW 149; 3T 557; 5T 227; 8T 252

7, 8 1T 321; 5T 225

7-9DA 105

8 EW 233

10 Ev 272; EW 154, 233; 1T 136, 192, 321, 383, 486

10-12DA 107

12 DA 215, 392; TM 373; 5T 80

13 DA 110

14, 15 DA 111

15 MB 49

16, 17 DA 112

17 CG 525; COL 274; DA 113, 119, 579; FE 405; ML 260; Te 274, 284; 7T 270

Matthew Chapter 4

1 Christ fasteth, and is tempted. 11 The angels minister unto him. 13 He dwelleth in Capernaum, 17 beginneth to preach, 18 calleth Peter, and Andrew, 21 James, and John, 23 and healeth all the diseased.

1. Then. [The Temptation, Matt. 4:1-11=Mark 1:12, 13=Luke 4:1-13. Major comment: Matthew. See the Early Ministry and Baptism to First Passover; The Ministry of Our Lord.] Gr. tote, a favorite word with Matthew. It occurs in his Gospel about 90 times compared with 6 times in Mark and 14 times in Luke (see Matt. 2:7; 3:13; 4:1, 5; etc.). It indicates a transition of thought and locates the new section of the narrative at a definite point of time, which may immediately follow the preceding incident.

Led up. The "wilderness" was literally "up" from the Jordan River--up in the hills, either of Judea, or of Peraea across the Jordan. The exact site of the temptation is not known.

Of the spirit. From birth Jesus had been under the guidance and instruction of the Holy Spirit (see on Matt. 3:16; Luke 2:52), but at the time of His baptism the Spirit descended upon Him in rich measure to endow Him with wisdom and skill for His appointed mission (Acts 10:38; cf. ch. 1:8). Jesus was "guided, step by step, by the Father's will," in harmony with "the plan" that "lay out before Him, perfect in all its details," "before He came to earth" (DA 147; see on Luke 2:49). Mark uses an even stronger expression, saying, "The spirit driveth him into the wilderness" (Mark 1:12).

Into the wilderness. The traditional site of the temptation is in the rugged, barren hills that rise to the west of Jericho, called the Quarantania in allusion to the 40 days of Jesus' stay in the wilderness. The baptism occurred in the Jordan east of Jericho (see on ch. 3:1), and the fact that Jesus returned thither at the close of the 40 days implies that the wilderness of temptation was at no great distance. This being the case, it is entirely possible that Jesus retired to the wilderness region in the vicinity of Mt. Nebo in the Mountains of Abarim, east of the Dead Sea (see on Num. 21:20; Num. 27:12; Deut. 3:17). It was from the lofty heights of Mt. Nebo that "the Lord shewed him [Moses] all the land" (Deut. 34:1-4; PP 471-477), and it may have been from the same spot, "an exceeding high mountain," that the devil presented to Christ "all the kingdoms of the world" (Matt. 4:8).

To be tempted. Gr. peirazoµ, "to attempt" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Acts 24:6; etc.), "to test," with a commendable motive in view (John 6:6; 2 Cor. 13:5), and "to test" with an evil motive in view (Matt. 19:3; Luke 11:16), particularly in the sense of luring a person to commit sin (1 Cor. 7:5; 1 Thess. 3:5; James 1:13). Here peirazoµ is used in the latter sense.

Jesus did not invite temptation, nor did He consciously place Himself on the devil's enchanted ground. He retired to the wilderness to be alone with His Father and to meditate upon the task that lay before Him.

Jesus took upon Himself human nature, and with it the possibility of yielding to sin (DA 117). He was permitted to "meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss" (DA 49). Only thus could it be said that He "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Otherwise, if, as some assert, Jesus, being divine, could not be tempted--then His temptation was a farce. It was through His human nature that He experienced temptation (cf. DA 686). Had His experience with temptation been in any degree less trying than our experiences with it, "He would not be able to succor us" (DA 117). See Additional Note on John 1; see on Luke 2:40, 52; John 1:14; Heb. 4:15; EGW Supplementary Material on Matt. 4:1-11; Rom. 5:12-19.

We have a representative before the Father who can "be touched with the feeling of our infirmities" because He "was in all points tempted like as we are." Hence we are bidden to "come boldly unto the throne of grace" for "grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:15, 16). Jesus knows by experience what humanity can endure, and He has promised to temper the power of the tempter according to our individual strength to endure, and to "provide the way of escape" (1 Cor. 10:13, RSV). Within the domain of every human heart the great conflict through which Christ passed in the wilderness of temptation is repeated. Without testing--without the opportunity to choose to do right or to do wrong--there can be no character development. It is by resisting temptation that we develop power to withstand temptation.

The devil. Gr. diabolos, from dia, "through," and balloµ, "to thrust," as an adjective meaning "slanderous" and as a substantive "slanderer," from which the English word "devil" is derived. In the LXX diabolos translates the Heb. sŒat\an, "adversary" (see on Zech. 3:1). When referring to Satan, diabolos generally appears with the article (1 Peter 5:8 is an exception). Without the article it is used of people (John 6:70; 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3).

There are those who contend that there is no personal devil, but the very words diabolos, "slanderer," and sŒat\an, "adversary," are based on the concept of the devil as a personal being. Christ "beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18). Only a personal being could fill the role of the devil of the temptation account (Matt. 4:1, 5, 8, 11), and answer to the other statements made concerning the devil by the various NT writers (John 13:2; Heb. 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8; Jude 9; Rev. 2:10; 20:2, 7-10).

2. Fasted. The word thus translated is generally used in the NT for abstinence from food as a ritual practice. But this was obviously not a ritual fast. Throughout His life Jesus was censured for the fact that His disciples did not comply with fast days prescribed by the Pharisees (Matt. 9:14; Luke 5:33; cf. Luke 18:12). There is danger today, as there was in Bible times, that fasting be thought of as a means of earning merit before God--of doing something to commend oneself to God. But that is not the kind of fast God enjoins upon men (see Isa. 58:5, 6; cf. Zech. 7:5). If men fast today, it should be with the purpose of achieving clarity of mind, the antithesis of the drowsiness that comes from overeating. Spiritual perception of truth and the will of God is markedly increased by an abstemious diet, and perhaps at times even by complete abstinence from food. Fasting does not always mean complete abstinence from all food. However, Luke remarks that Jesus ate nothing while in the wilderness of temptation (ch. 4:2).

Forty days. Compare with similar fasts by Moses (Ex. 34:28) and Elijah (1 Kings 19:8). Attempts to find in the number 40 a mystical significance are pointless. See on Luke 4:2.

3. The tempter. The devil always attacks us at our times of greatest weakness, for it is then we are most likely to fall. For this reason it is of vital importance to preserve the physical, mental, and emotional powers at a high level of strength and efficiency. Anything that weakens these powers weakens our defense against the wiles of the tempter. Such things as overwork, lack of exercise, overeating, a faulty diet, lack of sleep, or anything that lessens intellectual alertness and emotional control tends to open the way for the evil one to enter the soul. To entertain thoughts of discouragement, defeat, or resentment will have the same effect. We must set our thoughts and affections on things above (Col. 3:2) and fill our minds with things that are true, honest, pure, and lovely (Phil. 4:8). We must bring the body into subjection to the laws of our physical being, for it is impossible fully to appreciate things of eternal worth if we live in violation of the natural laws that govern our being.

Came to him. It was a personal devil that "came" to Jesus; it was a personal devil that Jesus defeated and routed. There is not the least hint given by any of the Gospel writers that the temptation was a subjective experience that occurred exclusively within the mind of Jesus, as some have contended.

If thou be. Satan had witnessed the baptism of Jesus and had heard the proclamation from heaven, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (ch. 3:17; see DA 116, 119). As far as outward appearances were concerned there seemed to be reason to doubt the truth of that proclamation. Pale, worn, emaciated, and famished beyond measure (see DA 137), Jesus hardly gave the appearance of being the Son of God. Satan's words, "If thou be," confronted Jesus with the question, "How do you know that you are the Son of God?" Similarly, in the Garden of Eden it had been the tempter's purpose to lead Eve to disbelieve the clearly stated words of God in regard to the tree of knowledge. In the same way Satan approaches men and women today, endeavoring to get them to disbelieve the plain truths clearly stated in the revealed Word of God. Only those whose faith, like that of Jesus, rests firmly on what "is written," on a plain "Thus saith the Lord," will be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. A temptation always poses a challenge to some clearly known truth. It proposes that circumstances justify departure from principle.

The Son of God. A clear echo of the words of the Father at the Jordan 40 days previously (see on ch. 3:17). With haughty contempt Satan addressed the One against whom he had spoken so bitterly in heaven before he was cast out. In fact, Jesus now looked more like a human being ready to die than like the Son of God (DA 118, 137). The words of Satan upon this occasion were later echoed by the scornful Jewish leaders as they addressed Christ on the cross (ch. 27:40). See on Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:35; John 1:1-3, 14.

Command. On occasions during His ministry Jesus was requested to authenticate His Messiahship by the display of miraculous power (Matt. 12:38; 16:1; Mark 8: 11, 12; John 2:18; 6:30). But He refused to perform miracles when challenged to do so. Rather, each miracle met some specific need of the people to whom He sought to minister. True, the forces of nature and the elements of nature might be expected to obey the command of their Creator (Matt. 8:26; John 2:6-11; etc.). But Jesus did not call upon the power of Heaven to provide for Himself anything not available to us. See p. 209.

These stones. Satan probably pointed to stones lying on the ground at Jesus' feet some of which may have been roughly in the shape of the disklike Oriental loaf of bread. Satan may even have picked up one of the stones (cf. Luke 4:3) and offered it to Jesus, as he had plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree and placed it in the hands of Eve (PP 55).

Bread. Bread here represents the material requirements of man's physical nature. It stands for the materialistic philosophy of life, which assumes that a man's life consists in the abundance of things that come into his possession, and that he lives by bread alone. And appeal to the appetite was thus the basis of Satan's opening attack on the Son of God, even as it was the basis of his approach to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Many of the temptations that come to men fall in this class. In the first place, Satan knows that temptations to the physical nature of man are more likely of immediate success. In the second place, he directs his temptations to the enfeeblement and degradation of the physical powers of man, knowing full well that through the physical nature, through the senses, he can gain access to the whole being. The physical nature must be constantly under the control of the higher powers of the mind, the will and the reason, in order to avoid ruin. The body is the medium through which the mind and soul are developed, through which character is formed (MH 130). It was the fact that, as the Son of God, Jesus did have power to satisfy His hunger by creating food, that made this temptation real.

The temptation consisted in Satan's suggestion that Christ satisfy His hunger in a wrong way, that is, without regard to what the Father's will might be. Satan's proposal covertly insinuated that God must be unkind to leave His Son alone to suffer hunger, particularly when it was entirely unnecessary.

Compare the temptations in the wilderness at the beginning of Christ's ministry with those in Gethsemane at its close (see on ch. 26:38).

4. Answered and said. See on Job 3:2.

It is written. Christ's faith in God and His knowledge of God's will were founded on the Scriptures. From childhood Christ had studied the Scriptures with diligence and was intimately acquainted with them (DA 70). In this lay the secret of His strength to meet temptation. It is faith that brings victory over the world (1 John 5:4), and faith is developed through a study of the Scriptures (Rom. 10:17). Here Christ affirms that adherence to the written Word of God is of greater value and importance than even the performance of a miracle. Christ's quotations from Scripture upon this occasion were all taken from the book of Deuteronomy.

Man shall not live. A quotation from Deut. 8:3, a truth Christ had revealed to Moses 15 centuries previously. When the temptations were over, Jesus was almost at the point of death (DA 131). Satan may have insinuated that unless Christ departed from what He deemed to be the path of duty, He would die. If so, by His response Jesus affirmed that death within the orbit of God's will is preferable to life apart from it. This form of temptation Satan presses upon many who seek to be obedient to the revealed will of God. He who sets out to live by and for "bread" alone does not really live at all, and at best is doomed to die, for "bread" without God brings death and not life.

The first words of Jesus declare complete and unquestioning submission to the Father's will as expressed in the Word of God. Jesus accepts the binding nature of that Word (cf. John 15:10), and denies the prime importance of material things. Spiritual things are of transcendent value and importance. See on Matt. 6:24-34; John 6:27.

Bread alone. Man is more than an animal; his most urgent needs are not physical and material. Jesus affirmed, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). While, on the one hand, Jesus maintained the vital importance of assisting those in need in every way possible (Matt. 25:31-46; etc.), He also made clear that this was not to take the place of loyalty and devotion to Him personally as the Messiah (ch. 26:11). True, men are "to do justly, and to love mercy" (Micah 6:8), and to love their neighbors as themselves (Matt. 22:39); but they are also to walk humbly with their God (Micah 6:8). Christ's reply to the devil is a condemnation of the materialistic philosophy of life in whatever form it may appear. The possession of things is not the ultimate, nor even a desirable aim of life (see Luke 12:15). See on John 6:27-58.

Every word. Jesus said, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me" (John 4:34). Jeremiah spoke of finding and eating the words of God, and of their becoming to him "the joy and rejoicing" of his heart (ch. 15:16). Job declared, "I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food" (ch. 23:12). Jesus, the living Word (John 1:1-3), was "the living bread which came down from heaven" (ch. 6:48-51). Paul spoke of tasting "the good word of God" (Heb. 6:5). Peter referred to the "sincere milk of the word" (1 Peter 2:2), by which the Christian is to grow.

It is of vital importance, furthermore, to heed every word of God. Man is not at liberty to select from the Word of God those portions that appeal to him, and reject others. God has provided a balanced spiritual diet for His earthborn children, and those who eat only what pleases their fancy cannot expect to enjoy a healthy Christian experience or to reach Christian maturity. Even the "least commandments" of God (Matt. 5:19) are indispensable for the one who would enter the kingdom of heaven.

5. Then. In Luke the order of the second and third temptations as they appear in Matthew is reversed. We do not know what was the actual chronological order, but there is reason to believe that the three temptations occurred in the order given by Matthew. A careful study of the nature and purpose of each temptation leads to the conclusion that the three reach a climax when Satan takes Jesus to an "exceeding high mountain" (v. 8) and shows Him the kingdoms of this world. In the first two, as listed by Matthew, Satan appears in the role of an angel of light, but in the third he overtly demands that Christ worship him (v. 9). It is this blasphemous suggestion that, according to Matthew, elicits the peremptory command, "Get thee hence, Satan" (v. 10). It is also worthy of note that The Desire of Ages comments on the three temptations in the order given by Matthew (see DA 129). See on v. 9.

The sequence of events as given in one of the Synoptic Gospels often differs from that in the others. It should be noted that none of the evangelists claim to have arranged the narrative in strictly chronological sequence (see p. 274), and it is certainly evident that not all of them have done so. See Additional Notes on Chapter 3, Note 2.

The holy city. Some Maccabean coins bear the inscription "Jerusalem the Holy." The Arabic name for Jerusalem today is el-Quds, "the Holy." It is obvious that Satan did not select the Temple as a site for his second temptation because of the lack of heights and precipices in the mountains of the wilderness; there must have been another motive. It may be that Satan sought to surround the second temptation with an air of sanctity.

Pinnacle. Gr. pterugion, diminutive form meaning, literally, "little wing," thought by some here to represent the outer rim of the Temple. A later Greek writer uses the nondiminutive form pterux to represent the point of a building. Hence pterugion may describe a turret, battlement, pointed roof, or peak. The English word "pinnacle" is from the Latin, pinnaculum, a diminutive form of pinna, "wing."

Temple. Gr. hieron, a term used to refer to the entire Temple area and the buildings it contained. The sanctuary building itself, comprising the holy and most holy places, is called, in Greek, naos. Both hieron and naos are rendered "temple" in the NT.

6. If thou be. See on v. 3. On the surface, a failure to provide an answer to Satan's challenge would appear to be a tacit admission on the part of Jesus that He was not the Son of God. In meeting the first temptation Jesus had proved loyal as a Son to the Father's will. Now the tempter proposes that He prove His loyalty and faith by an act that would, allegedly, give conclusive proof of the fact.

Cast thyself down. Surely, urged Satan, such an act of faith in God would be a supreme demonstration that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. The rabbis taught that "when the king Messiah reveals himself, then he comes and stands on the roof of the holy place" (Midrasg Pesiqtha Rabbathi 36 [162^a], cited in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. I, p. 151). Had Jesus cast Himself down, none would have witnessed the act but Satan and the angels of God (1SG 33).

It is written. Satan misinterprets and misapplies the passage he now offers Jesus as a reason for departing from the path of duty. He manipulates the Word of God in such a way as to make it appear that it approves a sinful course of action; he twists its meaning and uses it deceitfully (cf. 2 Cor. 4:2).

Give his angels charge. Satan quotes from Ps. 91:11, 12, but omits the words "to keep thee in all thy ways." Perhaps this was designed to obscure the fact that the protecting care of God is available to us only when we remain in ways of God's own choosing. Satan well knew that when a man departs from the straight and narrow way he leaves God's chosen ground and steps over onto the enchanted ground of the enemy. But Jesus refused to depart from the pathway of strict obedience to the will of the Father.

7. It is written. Satan had removed the words of Ps. 91:11, 12 from their context (see on Matt. 4:6). In order to set forth the true meaning of the words quoted from Ps. 91 and to prove that the devil had misapplied them, Jesus quoted another passage (Deut. 6:16), whose context sets forth the circumstances under which one may claim the blessing of God (see vs. 17-25). Texts isolated from their context often prove to be misleading. Also, a given passage must be understood in harmony with all others. The claim that the Scriptures may be made to teach anything and everything is true only when this principle is violated. When the Word of God is taken as a whole its truths are clear and harmonious.

Not tempt. The words used by Christ to foil the tempter were originally spoken by Moses with reference to the first occasion in the wilderness when the children of Israel murmured for water (see Ex. 17:1-7). God had provided abundant evidence of the fact that He was leading His people and would provide for their every need, as, for example, the wonders of divine power displayed in Egypt, the dramatic deliverance at the Red Sea, and more recently, the sending of the manna. Upon being supplied with food, the people had humbly promised that in the future they would trust the Lord (PP 297); yet a short time later, when given an opportunity to exercise faith, they accused Moses of intending to dispose of them in order that he might enrich himself by their possessions (Ex. 17:1-4; PP 297, 298). In spite of the evidence of divine solicitude for their needs, they "tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?" (Ex. 17:7). They put God to the test; that is, they challenged Him to prove His divine power. Their sin consisted in the fact that they came to God in the wrong spirit--one of demand and petulant anger rather than of humble, patient faith. Unless their demand was met they refused to believe in God.

It was in this same spirit that Satan now proposed that Christ should put His Father to the test. Instead of accepting by faith the Father's proclamation at the Jordan, affirming Him to be the Son of God, Jesus was to experiment in order to prove to His satisfaction that this was so. But such an experiment would reflect doubt rather than faith.

We are never to place ourselves unnecessarily or carelessly in a position where God will have to work a miracle in order to save us from the untoward results of a foolish course of action. We are not to presume upon God to rescue us when we rush unbidden into danger. Mature faith will lead us to order our lives in harmony with what God has already revealed to us, and then to trust Him for the rest.

8. An exceeding high mountain. Inspiration has not revealed the site of the third temptation. Some have suggested Mt. Nebo, from whose advantageous heights (2,644 ft.) Moses viewed the entire Promised Land (Deut. 34:1-4), and then, in vision, the course of the plan of salvation down through the ages (PP 472-477).

Sheweth him. Matthew remarks that the devil showed Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (ch. 4:8), and Luke notes that this occurred "in a moment of time" (ch. 4:5). It is futile to speculate as to how Satan may have been able to present before Jesus the colorful panorama that now passed before His eyes.

Casting aside his guise as an angel from the realms of glory, Satan now stood before Christ in his assumed role of prince of this world (DA 129). He did not hold title to this earth by right, but rather, by wresting from Adam and Eve their God-given domain. Satan claimed to have replaced Adam as the lawful ruler of the world (see Gen. 1:28; Job 1:6, 7), but he ruled as a usurper. Nevertheless, Christ did not directly contest Satan's claim, and denied only that Satan had any right to accept worship. Jesus even spoke of Satan as the "prince" of this world, in recognition of his de facto rulership (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).

The world. Gr. kosmos, "world," or "universe," from the viewpoint of its orderly arrangement in space. Luke says oikoumeneµ, the "inhabited world" (ch. 4:5), the word appearing in Matt. 24:14; Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28; 17:6; etc. A third word translated "world" in the NT is aioµn, "age," or "world," particularly the world from the viewpoint of sequences of happenings in time (Matt. 12:32; 13:39; 24:3; 28:20; Luke 18:30; etc.).

The glory of them. Satan effectively hid the seamy side of his kingdom, and presented only the dazzling glories of human prowess. He offered Jesus the role of political Messiah, a role in which the Jewish nation would have accepted Him (see John 6:15; see on Luke 4:19).

9. All these things. See on v. 8. Religiously and politically Satan effectively exercised his control over the affairs of the world (see Luke 4:6). "These things" were, of course, stolen property, but so long as they were in his hands Satan proposed to trade with them to his own advantage. Christ was the true owner, and His ownership was based on the fact that He had made "all things" (John 1:3). He had never abdicated His rights. Satan knew that Jesus had come to contest his claim, and now offered to surrender it without a conflict--but on conditions. Satan's control of the human race was not complete; there were still some who had not yielded allegiance to him. He realized the challenge implied in the sinlessness of Christ.

Will I give thee. Satan made it appear that Jesus was getting something for practically nothing--"all these things" for the paltry price of prostrating Himself once before the one who posed as their rightful owner. It was as if Satan said, "You came to earn title to this world, did You not? Accept it as a gift from me. Power and honor may be Yours for the taking." In return, all Satan asked was a transfer of personal allegiance from the Father to himself.

In refusing to comply with Satan's proposal, Christ also disavowed any unholy alliance between church and state. Christ refused to interfere with the nations of His time--consistently and completely. His only advice on matters of church-state relations was to "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (ch. 22:21).

Fall down and worship me. In Oriental lands even today prostration is the sign of absolute submission and fealty. This diabolical proposal--that God incarnate should worship the devil--constitutes the climax of blasphemy. The great issues at stake and the unholy boldness of the proposal seem to represent the maximum limit of diabolical ingenuity, and suggest that Matthew's order of the three temptations, rather than that of Luke, represents the chronological order. Having made his boldest move, Satan had nothing more to offer.