CORNELL U NM V E R S I T Y LIBRARY Dr. Morris Tenenbaum Judaica Fund 3 1924 096 083 252 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924096083252 The Pharisees and Jesus STUDIES IN THEOLOGY Christianity and Ethics. By Archibald B. D. ALEx/tHDEii, M.A., D.D. The Environment of Early Christianity. By a Anous, M.A., Pb.D. History of the Study of Theology. Vol. Vol. By Dr. C. A. BBiaaa. The Christian Hope. By W. Adams Brows, Ph.D., D.D. Christianity and Social Questions. By William CnNHiHOBAM, F.B.A., D.D., D.Bc The Justification of God. By Kev. P. T. Forsttb. Christian Apologetics. By Rev. A. E. Garth. A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament. By Qeorob Buchanan Gray, D.D., D.Llkt. Gospel Origins. By William West Holdrworth, M.A. Faith and Its Psychology. By William R. Inob, D.D. Christianity and Sin. By Robert Mackintosh, D.D. Protestant Thought before Kant. By A. C. M<:GiFri!RT, Ph.D., D.D. The Theology of the Gospels. By James MofTATT, D.D., D.LItt History of Christian Thought since Kant. By BpwARD Caldwell Moorh, D.D. The Doctrine of the Atonement. By J. K. MozLE?, M.A. Revelation and Inspiration. By Jambs Orr, D.D. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. By Abthor Samuel Peake, D.D. Philosophy and Religion. By Hastinos Eashdall, D.LItt. (Oxon.X D.C.U (Dirham), F.B.A. The Holy Spirit. By T. Rebb, M.A. (Lend.), B.A. (O»on.). The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament. By H. Wheeler BoBiNaoN, M.A. The Text and Canon of the New Testament. By Alexander Bodteb, D.LItt. Christian Thought to the Reformation. By Hbrdbet B. Workman, D.LitL The Theology of the Epistles. By H. A. A. Kehnedt, D.Bc, D.D. THE PHARISEES AND JESUS THE STONE LECTURES FOR 1915-16 DELIVERED AT THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY BY A. T. ROBERTSON A.M., D.D., LL.D., D.LITT. PBOEESSOR OF INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ABTHOR OF A 'GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT or HISTORICAL RESEARCH, EPOCHS IN THE LIFE or JESUS,' ETC. i fiii e>y y.ii' iltoS /cot" ifioB iarlv LONDON: DUCKWORTH & CO. 3 HENRIETTA ST., COVENT GARDEN FirtI PubUehed 19tO Priijted la Great Britain bj T. and A. Constabic, Printers to His Majeaty ftttiif !£diiibiirgh UoiverKity Pre-sg TO THE FACULTY AND STUDENTS OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PREFACE PoETioNS of this volume were delivered as lectures on the L. P. Stone Foundation the last week in February 1916, before the Princeton Theological Seminary. The author recalls with pleasure the kindly interest of Faculty and Students during those days. The lectures have been revised and enlarged and adapted to the purpose of the present volume. It is a gratifying sign of the times that modem Jewish scholars exhibit a friendly spirit towards Jesus and Christianity. It is highly important that Jews and Christians understand each other. That is the best way to appreciate and to admire the good in each other. The treatment of Jesus by the Pharisees and of the Pharisees by Jesus is an inflammable subject for some minds, but it is one that has to be discussed and, indeed, has been discussed with great fidelity. Recent efforts to get a new con- ception of the Pharisees make it necessary to review the whole problem in the hght of the new knowledge. If the story is a sad one, it must be remembered that the facts of history cannot be changed. We must learn the lesson of love and mutual forbearance from the strife of the past. The author does not pose as an absolutely impartial and indifferent student of the vU viii THE PHARISEES AND JESUS Tragedy of Jesus. He is a loyal and humble believer in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah of promise, the Saviour from sin. And yet, and all the more, he claims that he is competent to weigh the evidence concern- ing the grave issues between the Pharisees and Jesus. The question is not one of mere academic interest, but vitally affects the historic origins of Christianity. Cer- tainly the Pharisees form the immediate theological and historical background for the life and teaching of Jesus, and cannot be ignored by any one who wishes to understand the problems that confronted Christ in His effort to plant the true Kingdom of God in the hearts of men. Fresh discussions continue to appear in spite, partly because, of the vast literature concerning both Jesus and the Pharisees. In The Expositor for June and July 1918, Canon Box has luminous articles on ' Scribes and Sadducees in the New Testament.' In The Expositor for January and February 1919, Pro- fessor Marmostein discusses ' Jews and Judaism in the Earliest Christian Apologies.' Jewish scholars often manifest genuine interest in Jesus. Abrahams (Studies in Pliarisaism and the Gospels, 1917, p. viii) accepts on the whole ' the picture of Pharisaism drawn in Germany by Professor Schuerer and in England by Canon Charles.' That is progress at any rate. Abrahams also has the insight to see (p. 16) that Jesus was more than an Apocalyptic, but ' was also a powerful advocate of Prophetic Judaism.' He properly emphasises the freedom of the synagogue that was accorded Jesus, but denies (p. 13) that the Sanhedrin haunted and hunted Jesus everywhere. PREFACE ix I have to thank Rev. R. Inman Johnston for making the Index of Subjects, and Rev. J. M'Kie Adams for the Index of Scripture Passages. A. T. ROBERTSON. LouisvniE, Kt. November 6, 1919. ^ THE PHARISEES AND JESUS ««CT. 4. Thb Story of Phabisaio Hatb Cobimor to all the gospkls. .... 6. SouB Fbibndly Pharisees 6. PRBSTmPTION AGAINST JeSUS BBOAUSB OF JoHN THE Baptist ..... 7. Grounds or Pharisaic Dislikb of Jesus . (1) Assumption of Messianic Authority (2) Downright Blasphemy .... (3) Intolerable Association with Publicans and Sinners ...... (4) Irreligious Neglect of Faating (5) The Devil Incarnate or in league with Beelzebub (6) A Regular Sabbath Breaker (7) Utterly Inadequate Signs .... (8) Insolent Defiance of Tradition . (9) An Ignorant Impostor .... (10) Plotting to Destroy the Temple . (11) High Treason against Caesar 60 63 66 66 66 71 76 81 83 85 go 93 97 102 104 III. THE CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES BY JESUS 1. Spiritual Blindness Ill 2. FORMALIiSM 120 3. Prejudice . 126 4. Traditionalism . 129 5. Htpocrist 133 6. Blasphemy against the Holt Spirit . . 148 7. Rejection of God in Rejectinq Jesus . . . 161 List of Important Works .... 169 Index 173 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS CHAPTER I THE PHABISAIO OUTLOOK ON DOCTRINE AND LIFE 1 . The Importance of Understanding the Pharisees Theological controversy is out of harmony with the temper of the twentieth century, but one can by no means imderstand the life and teachings of Jesua if he is wholly averse to such a topic. The short earthly ministry of our Lord, at most only three and a half years in length (about the duration of an average city pastorate), fairly bristles with the struggle made by the Pharisees to break the power of Christ's popularity with the people. Jesus is challenged at the veiy start, and is thrown on the defensive by the rabbis, who are the established and accepted religious leaders of the Jewish people. They wish no revolutionary propaganda that will interfere with their hold on the masses. They are jealous of their prerogatives, these men who ' sit on Moses' seat ' (Matt, xxiii. 2).^ The thing to note here is that Jesus recognises the right of the Pharisees to sit upon their places of ecclesiastical eminence. He even commends the general tenor of their instructions : ' All things whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe ' * *Eiri Trjs Mwifff^ws ^KaO^SpAs KABiaav, The aorist here ig gnomic or timeless and suits well the honry traditions of prerogative felt by the Phorisaio incumbents of Mosaic place and power. Note ^ti, a more formal statement than 4v would give. A THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [en. (Matt, xxiii. 3).i But Jesus in the very next verse hastens to warn His hearers against the conduct of the Pharisees, "for they say and do not' {Kiyova-iv yi/) Kal ov TToiodaii'). And yet this sharp paradox is not to be taken with the utmost literalness, for not all the acts of the Pharisees were wrong, and not all their teaching is to be commended. But the heart of the criticism of Jesus is thus reached at once. It is the discrepancy between conduct and creed. When pre- sented in this form one is bound to admit that the issue is not a merely antiquarian or academic problem, but concerns every lover and seeker after righteousness in our own day. The term Pharisee has come to signify hypocrisy wherever found. Is it unjust ? This we must answer by and by. The Pharisees are interesting, indeed, from fche stand- point of historical study. They are 'the most char- acteristic manifestation of Palestinian Judaism in the time of Chri.st ' (H. M. Scott in Hastings' D.G.G.). They alone of the Jewish parties survived the destruction of the temple and the city. Modem Judaism is immensely indebted to Pharisaism. ' The Pharisees remained, as representing all that was left alive of Judaism.' ^ Indeed, Rabbi K. Kohler (Jewish Encyclopcedia , art. ' Pharisees ') says : ' Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.' He justified its ' separation ' and exclusiveness in that it preserved in the Jew his monotheism in the wreck of the old world and the barbarism of the medieval age. It is impossible to understand the atmosphere of Clirist's earthly life without an adequate Imowledge of the Pharisees. They largely created the atmosphere * jTOCTjtrarc Kal TTjpfTrf. The chance of tense from the aorist (punotiliftr) to the present imperfttive (linear) showa that Jesus had no objection to the existence of the Pharisees per ae as religious leaders. " Herford, Pharisaism, p. 45. I] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK which the people breathed, and into which Jesus came. Our Lord had to relate His message and mission at once to this dominant theology of his time in Palestine.* The people were quick to compare His message with that of the official rabbis, and to express their astonish- ment at His teaching, ' for he taught them as one having I authority and not as their scribes ' (Matt. vii. 29).^ It | is not a question whether we like the Pharisees or not. The historical environment of Jesus in Palestine can now be quite definitely outlined, at least in its broader aspects.' On the theological side, the Pharisees occupy far the major part of the space and transcend all other parties in importance, for our Imowledge of the historical setting of the teaching of Jesus. The fidelity of the picture in the Gospels is so manifest, that even Wernle * says : ' One thing is certain, that Jesus and His Gospel are intelligible from Judaism alone ; , and for this, for Jesus and His relation to Palestinian, Judaism, other and more accurate data are available. He, appeared in the last dying moments of the theocracy, and! before the exclusive rule of the Rabbis which succeeded it ; Here, it is true, it can be affirmed that only a few decades,' later the origin of Christianity would be inconceivable.' Certainly no one who knows Wernle's writings will, accuse him of being an apologist for Jesus or for Chris- tianity. He is therefore a good antidote for the theory ^ • Bouaset, Jesu Predigt, p. 32. ' The point in thvalav is that Jesus possessed the power (authority) \ ' of truth and stood on his own feet and spoke it. He felt no call to [ ^ bolster it up with the decisions of the rabbis. • Cf. Schuerer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, 6 vols. ; Angus, Environment of Early Christianity, to go no further. • Beginnings of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 33 f. • See, for instance, A. Drews, Die Zeugnisse fUr die Qeschichtlichkeit Jesu (1911), The Christ Myth (1911); W. B. Smith, Der ChristHche Jesus (1906), The Pre-Christian Jesus (1906) ; J. M. Robertson, Pagan Christs (1903). But one of their own school, F. C. Conybeare in his Historical Christ (1914), has produced a crushing reply to the whole absurdity. See also tlie whole matter surveyed by Case, The His- toricity of Jesus (1912), and by Thorburn, Jesus the Christ ; Historical or Mythical (1912). THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. that denies the historicity of Jesus, and seeks to dissi- pate all the evidence into the mist and myth of sub- jective imagination. The sharpness of the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees in so many fundamental matters argues for the reality of the controversy, and the date before the destruction of Jerusalem as the time for the picture drawn in the Gospels. It is a pathetic outcome of Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910, p. 401), when he laments : ' We can find no designation which expresses what he is for us.' He has tried to overthrow ' the modem Jesus ' of theology by the ' true historical Jesus,' but he is so confused by the dust of his own learning that he cannot recognise Jesus when he sees Him. The Gospels in a wonderful way preserve and reproduce the colouring of the life in Galilee and Jerusalem, while Pharisee and Sadducee shared the power, and were full of jealousy of each other, while the Palestinian Jew still felt his superiority in privilege over the Jew of the Diaspora, while the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was "still imbroken and seemed unbreakable. 2. The Alleged 3Iisrepresentation of the Pharisees It is now a common remark in books about the Pharisees that they are not treated fairly in the New Testament. The usually fair Rabbi Kohler ^ says : ' No true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New Testament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them, nor from Jose- phus, who, writing for Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectation of the Pharisees, represents the latter as a philosophical sect.' But Josephus was himself a Pharisee of the liberal sort. However, Oesterley (The Books of the Apocrypha, pp. 136 f.) notes that besides comparing the Pharisees to the Stoics ^ Jewish Encyclo-ptxdia (art. ' Pharisees *). 1.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK (Vita, §2) and the Essenes with Pythagoreans (A^U,., bk. XV. ch. X. § 4), Josephus apparently wrote more about the Pharisees in a paragraph which is lost from the War, bk. ii. ch. viii. § 14. His accoimt is certainly incomplete, besides its Hellenising basis. Certaiiily Paul had been a Pharisee and knew intimately the doctrines and practices of the Pharisees. And yet Herford • bluntly says : ' Paul's presentation of Pharisaic Judaism is, in consequence, at its best a distortion, at its worst a fiction.' Surely one cannot forget that this same Paul was once the pride of Pharisaism and the heroic champion of Pharisaic Judaism, in its apparently triumphant conflict with the heresy of Christianity. Montefiore ^ puts the case against Paul much more mildly when he says : ' I am, however, inclined to think that even in 60 Rabbinic Judaism was a better, happier, and more noble reUgion than one might imagine from the writings of the Apostle.' Herford ^ also pointedly charges Jesus with not being able to compre- hend Judaism. ' And alike to Christian and Jew, it is almost impossible to comprehend the religion of the other. Even Jesus could not do it.' Herford in par- ticular takes up the phrase, ' Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,' and adds : * ' That such a statement should be made of the Pharisees is to Jews hard to endure,' as hard, he argues, as for Christians to stand this sentence in the Tahnud : * ' Jesus practised magic and led astray and deceived Israel,' or the phrase about Jesus in the Mishna, ' the sinner of Israel.' And Wernle * ruth- lessly brushes aside Jesus as an interpreter of Pharisaism in the almost brutal words : ' It was His incomplete knowledge of the law which was in this point the cause of an entire deception on the part of Jesus. . . . The ' Phariaaiam, p. 191. • Judaism and St. Paul, p. 87. • Phariaaiam, p. 171. * Ibid., p. 115. Cf. b. Sanh. 107b. • TrpRtipe Sotah : ch. ix. gives the enrliest instance of it. ' Veginniiiga of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 90 f . THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. law necessitated the existence of the scribes, the mur- derers of Jesus. But all this Jesus concealed from Himself throughout His life on earth. ... The con- verse of Jesus' positive attitude towards the law is His uncompromising rejection of Pharisaism. He is so un- sparing, so entirely without any exception, that the very name of Pharisee has become a term of abuse for all ages.' Herford.^ it should be added, does draw a distinction between the method of Jesus and that of Paul : ' Paul condemned Pharisaism in theory, while Jesus condemned it in practice.' The attack of Jesus was more concrete and hurt most, and has lasted till to-day. We see, then, that moderate Jewish writers, like Kohler and Montefiore, and some non-Jewish writers like Hei-ford and Wernle, expressly claim that Jesus, Paul, and New Testament writers generally have distinctly misunderstood and misrepresented Pharisaism. The closing chapter of Herford's book on ' Pharisaism ' is entitled Pharisaism as a Spiritual Religion. He admits ^ that ' it is easy to make Pharisaism appear ridiculous, a mere extravagance of punctilious formalism,' and claims that 'Pharisaism is entitled to be judged according to what the Pharisees themselves meant by it, and its worth to be estabhshed by what they found in it.' This claim has a large element of justice in it, but Pharisaism, like Christianity, must submit to the judgment of all men, the universal conscience. Cer- tainly it is true that Christians should be willing to look at the facts about Pharisaism. It is probably true, as Montefiore ' charges, that many of the modem antag- onists of Rabbinic Judaism ' have been somewhat lack- ing in first-hand knowledge.' On the other hand, Montefiore * frankly admits that ' the Jewish scholar has hitherto shown little capacity for appreciating Paul,' ' Phari^aiam, yi. 191. ' Judaism aiid St. Paul, p. 7. Ihid., p. 107. Ibid., p. 9. I.] UtiE PHARISAIC OOTLOOK or Jesus, as he would freely add, though he does claun that the standpoint of a modem Jew towards Jesus should be of interest to Christians.' At any rate, it is perfectly clear that the subject of the Pharisee demands reinvestigation in the light of the repeated charges of unfairness in the New Testament pictures, and in par- ticular on the part of Jesus Himself. 3. The Possibility of Treating the Pharisees Fairly It can be said at once that it is not easy to do this. Oesterley and Box {The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. ix.) indeed say that ' the time is hardly ripe for a full discussion of the important issues ' con- nected with the Pharisees. But surely we cannot agree that it is impossible for Christian scholars to be just even to the enemies of Jesus. It is not necessary, how- ever, for one to become a blind champion of the Pharisees in order to do them justice. This is precisely what Herford has done in his Pharisaism. In order to do ' justice to the Pharisees ' (p. 6), he conceives it necessary to divest himself of Christianity and not to judge Phari- saism ' by the standard of the Christian religion,' as Oesterley and Box do in The Religion and Warship of the Synagogue. That is to claim that ' no one but a Jew, of whom it may be said that the Talmud runs in his blood, can fully realise the spiritual meaning of Pharisaism ' (p. 3). But it is merely special pleading to assert that no one has a right to pass judgment upon a system of thought or upon a religion save the devotees of the system . That is the plea of the Christian Scientist, of the Mormon, of the Buddhist, of the Mohammedan, but surely not of the enlightened Christian, who stands in the open and uivites comparison between Christ and all other teachers in the world. Herford poses as the ' The Rdigioua Teaching of Jesus, p. 9. THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [ofi. pioneer in the business of treating the Pharisees" fairly.' ' Something was still left to be done, by way of treating the Pharisees fairly, that is, without either contempt or condescension ; and that " something " I have tried to do.' Certainly he has set before himself a laudable ambition, but he proceeds to boost the Pharisees by depreciating Jesus while disclaiming it. ' I will yield to no one,' he says,^ ' in my reverence for Jesus ; He is to me simply the greatest man that ever lived in regard to His spiritual nature. Some may think that too little to say ; others may think it too much.' He adds (p. 125), 'I do not contend that all the Pharisees, or any of them, were the equals of Jesus in spiritual depth.' Suffer another word from Herford : ' ' He was really rejected, so far at all events as the Pharisees were con- cerned, because He undermined the authority of the Torah, and endangered the reUgion founded upon it. That Jesus really did so is beyond dispute.' Once more (p. 146) Herford says : ' Torah and Jesus could not remain in harmony. The two were fimdamentally incompatible. And the Pharisees being determined to " abide by the things they had learned," viz., Torah, were necessarily turned into opponents of Jesus.' Thus does Herford justify the Pharisees at the expense of Jesus, as a dangerous heretic who had to be put down in order to save the religion of the Jews. Herford calls this treating the Pharisees ' fairly.' What shall we say of his treatment of Jesus ? Apart from the matter of prejudice on both sides of the problem of the Pharisees, we are bound to make serious inquiry about the sources of our knowledge of the subject. We have already seen that Herford rules out Jesus and Paul as witnesses. Montefiore appeals to modern criticism as justifying the most cautious ' Pharimiem, pp. vi. f. • Jbid., p. 143. « Ibid., p. 114. »■] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 9 use of the Gospels and Epistles of Paul,* though he finds himself more at home in the atmosphere of the Synoptic Gospels than in that of the Gospel of John and Paul's Epistles (ibid., p. 8). He sees no essential reason why Jews and Christians cannot understand one another just as learned Christians have written just presenta- tions of Buddhism and Confucianism (p. 3). He recog- nises, however, that the Jew will seek to show the superiority of the Talmud to the Gospels, since ' the Jew has been told over and over again of the immense superiority of the teaching of the New Testament over the Old ' (p. 7). If we let the ancient Pharisee speak for himself, as he surely has the right to do, we are not without resources, apart from Josephus who must be considered, in spite of Kohler's protest quoted above. In particular we find the Pharisaic teaching in the Testaments of the Twelve PatriarcJis, certainly in those portions which are clearly pre-Christian, though Charles would place all these writings before Christ. Charles ^ has a very high esti- mate of this collection of sayings, and says : ' Their ethical teaching, which is indefinitely higher than that of the Old Testament, is yet its true spiritual child, and helps to bridge the chasm that divides the ethics of the Old and New Testaments.' Some scholars, Plummer, for instance, will not admit that these portions of the Testamenis that come so near the level of the New Testament in some points, are earlier than the Christian era. Shailer Matthews (Hastings' one vol. B.D., p. 40) dates the Testaments in the first and second centuries A.D., and says that ' it is full of Christian interpolations.' But at any rate we find here the view of some of the Pharisees about the time of Christ. The Psalms of Solomon, which belong to the period B.o. 70 to 40 a.d. • Tht Religiouii TearMng ofJeaui, pp. 1 H. * I'eatamenlB oj the Twelve PeUriarcM, p. 17. 10 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. and were written by a Pharisee, voice bitter antagonism toward the Sadducees and justify the downfall of the Maccabean dynasty. The Apocalypse of Esra or Second Esdras was written shortly after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem and ' is the most complete expression of Pharisaic pessimism.' It is thus possible to get an inside view of the Pharisaism of the time, and to com- pare it with the pictures in Josephus and the New Testament. But the great storehouse of Pharisaic teaching is in the Talmud and the Midrash. We may let Herford • state the case for Pharisaism here : ' In the Talmud is contained the main source for the knowledge of what Pliarisaism meant ; because it was made the storehouse in which all, or nearly all, that was held to be valuable in the Tradition of the Elders, the explicit religion of the Torah, was stored up. There is a huge literature contemporai-y with the Talmud, to which the general name of Midrash is given ; all of it is traditional, and all of it bears on the religion of the Torah, in one way or another. This is the written deposit of Pharisaism, the mark which it has left upon the literature of the world. It is there, and not in the writings of those who did not iniderstand its ideals or share its hopes, that its real meaning can alone be found.' Here we seem to have struck bottom at last. But, unfortunately, the Talmud in its written form is much later than the time of Jesus. Tlie Mishna or Second Law belongs to the period 210 A.D. This writing down of the tradition of the elders or comments on the law came to be in turn ' a code of the law for the guidance of the Jews ' (Herford, Phari- saism, p. 62). ' The Mishnah became, in its turn, the subject of study in the Rabbinical schools ' (ibid., p. 53). Then the comments of the rabbis on the Mishna were written down, and were called Gemara (completion). * Pharisaifirn, pp. 64 f. I.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 11 There were two centres when the Gemara was written out, one in Palestine and one in Babylonia The Talmud is the Midrash plus the Gemara. Hence we have the Palestinian Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud with the same Midrash, but a separate Gemara. We can see at once that it is a precarious matter to appeal to these late comments (both Midrash and Gemara) as a certain proof of the Pharisaic teaching in the first cen- tury A.D. It is for this reason that Montefiore ^ says in all candour : ' The greatest caution is necessary in ushig the Rabbinical literature to illustrate — whether by way of contrast or parallel — the statements and teachings in the Synoptic Gospels. . . . You can hardly count up the number of rules about the Sabballi in the Midrash and say, there is what tlic average Jew or Gentile in a.d. 29 was expected to observe.' Certainly we know more of Palestine and of the Jews than we once did. In fact, we know entirely too much to be as dogmatic as Herford in his special plea for the Pharisees. Montefiore ^ says there were many ' Judaisms of the first century,' and adds : ' And of Palestinian or early Rabbi- nical Judaism it may be said, that we realise better the limits of our knowledge ; we realise how meagre is its literary remains ; and we realise how the purest Rabbini- cal Judaism of 60 a.d., whether in doctrine or in the type of the average believer which it produced, may not have been wholly the same as the Rabbinical Judaism of 600 A.D.' This is well said. It is to be remembered also about the New Testament writers that they assume a knowledge of the Pharisees and nowhere give full details about their tenets. The backgroimd has to be depicted largely by imphcation. The lines have to be filled in to avoid undue emphasis. Josephus certainly toned down his picture to please the Romans. He does ' The Religious Teaching itf Jetua, p. 10. • Judaism and St. Paul, p. 4. 12 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [OB. not mention the Messianic hope of the Pharisees. As to the Tahnud, Thomson ^ says that the lateness of the Gemara, which has most to tell about the Pharisees, ' renders the evidence deduced from the Tahnudio statements of httle value.' He adds : ' Even the Mishna, which came into being only a century after the fall of the Jewish state, shows traces of exaggeration and modification of facts.' And yet it is possible to look at Jesus and the Pharisees side by side, and to see the facts and to tell the truth about them. 4. A Sketch of the History of the Pharisees up to the Time of Christ The first mention of the Pharisees by name is by Josephus, Antiquities, bk. xiii. ch. vii. § 9 : 'At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concemmg human actions ; one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes.' By ' at this time ' Josephus means the time of Jonathan Maccabseus, whose career he is describing. Jonathan succeeded Judas Maccabaeus, and was the leader of the Jews in the struggle for reUgious liberty and political independence during the j^ears B.C. 1C1-I43. But Jose- phus tells us something of the origin of these Jewish sects. The next time that he mentions the Pharisees and Sadducees is in comiection with the reign of John Hyrcanus i. (b.c. 135-106), where ^ he refers to his pre- vious mention of the Pharisees, ' as we have informed j'ou already.' The Pharisees were so hostile to the possession of both the civil and the religious power by H3Tcanus that finally Eleazar, one of the Pharisees, said to Hyrcanus : ' Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the ' • Pharisees ' in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, • Ant., bk. xiii. ch. x. {{ 6-6. I] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 13 high priesthood, and content thyself with the civil government of the people.' When pressed for his reason for that demand, Eleazar said : ' We have heard it from old men, that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.' This un- forgivable insult implied that Hyrcanus was a bastard, son of an unknown stranger, to whom his mother had given herself, and not a true son of Aaron. This pre- text angered HjTcanus still more, with the result that he left the Pharisees, to whose party he belonged, and went over to that of the Sadducees. This incident is very suggestive, and throws light in various directions. It shows that the Pharisees and Sadducees had been in existence for some time, and are in clear-cut opposition. The Pharisees wish the high priesthood to be separate from the civil government and are opposed to the union of Church and State. The Maccabees were not Zado- kites, though priests. The resentment of the Assidean purists had been shown against Judas, and led to the welcome given the treacherous Alcimus with such dire results (1 Mace. vii. 9). The Pharisees here appear more as a religious sect and less as a poUtical party. They wish, of course, for the high priest to be a Pharisee, and for the Pharisees to have control of the religious life of the people. The Sadducees are rejoiced to have Hyrcanus on their side, and make no protest against his possession of both the civil and reUgious leadership. But the Sadducees are at bottom a political party, while the Pharisees are a religious party, though each make use of both elements to carry their points. The Pharisees are now the party of the opposition with the Sadducees in authority, and they show their resentment in vigorous fashion. They fight Alexander Jannaeus so bitterly, that in a rage he has many of the Pharisees in Jerusalem slain ; according to Josephus : ^ ' He ordered about ' Ant., bk. xiii. oh. xiv. § 2. 14 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. eight hundred of them to be crucified ; and while they were Uving, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes.' Already before this, ' at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, the nation rose upon him and pelted him with citrons.' ^ Evidently the Pharisees have kept their leadership of the people, though they had lost the king and high priest. The Pharisees resented the Hellenic name ' Alexander,' which Jannseus had as well as the title of ' king,' since he was not of the Davidic line. Besides, a high priest was not allowed to marry a widow, and yet he had married the widow of his brother Aristobulus i. Alexander Jannaeus learned his lesson, and before his death advised ^ his wife to ' put some of her authority into the hands of the Pharisees, for,' he told her, ' they had great authority over the Jews.' ' Pro- mise them also that thou wilt do nothing without them in the affairs of the kingdom.' Salome Alexandra took her husband's advice, and made their son John Hyr- canus 11., ' rather than Aristobulus, high priest, because he was the elder, but much more because he cared not to meddle with pohtics, and permitted the Pharisees to do everything.' ' Josephus facetiously adds : ' So she had the name of the regent, but the Pharisees had the authority.' It was a veritable millennium for the Pharisees. The Sadducees found an ally in Aristo- bulus (Aristobulus ii.). Upon the death of Salome Alexandra the kingship also passed to -Hyrcanus, but Aristobulus made war upon Hyrcanus his brother, with the result that Hyrcanus surrendered the kingship to Aristobulus and kept the high priesthood.* Tliis com- promise was due to the mild disposition of Hyrcanus, and after all suited very well both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, for each party had what it cared most ' Jut., bk. xiii. cli. xiii. § B. « Ibid., ch. xvi. § 2. ' Ibid., ch. XV. § 5. « Ibid., bk. xiv. ch. i. § 1. 1 I-] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 16 about, the one the religious leadership, the other the political. The ' ifs ' of history are always interesting. If the Idumean upstart, Antipater, had not turned up in Jerusalem and stirred up the gentle Hyrcanus to try to regain the civil power,* the after history of the Jews might have been very different. Antipater was like the modem political ' boss ' who holds no office, and yet selects all who do hold stich positions of power. He i.i the invisible government. Antipater is concerned about the civil rule which Aristobulus has. He selects Hyr- canus as his tool because he is the more pliable of the two brothers. Antipater is neither Pharisee nor Sad- ducee, and has neither politics nor rehgion, but uses both to further his own ambition for power. So he plays the Pharisees against the Sadducees in his effort to oust Aristobulus from the kingship and to restore it to Hyrcanus, whom he can manage. He makes Hyr- canus appeal to Aretas king of Arabia for help. This fratricidal contest, with the Arabs as arbiters, furnishes Pompey with a plausible excuse to come to Jerusalem on his way back from Armenia against Tigranes, and to assert the power of Rome in the dispute, with the result, after vacillation and trickery on the part of Aristobulus, that Jerusalem is captured, Aristobulus is taken captive to Rome, and Hyrcanus is left high priest, but not king.'' The Pharisees are left where they were, but the Sadducees are worsted. This was B.C. 63, and the glorious days of Maccabean independence are over. The Roman yoke has now been placed upon the Jews. Roman wars play a part in the history of the Pharisees. Upon the defeat and death of Pompey, Hyrcanus and Antipater find themselves on the side of the vanquished. Julius Caesar reversed the policy of Pompey, and restored • Ant., §§ 2-4. Ibid., chs. ii.-v. 16 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. the party of the Sadducees to power by offering the high priesthood to Aristobulus. But Aristobulus and his son Alexander were slain, and only Antigonus, another son, was left.* Another turn in the wheel of fortune for the Pharisees came when Antipater went down to Egypt to help JuUus Caesar against Mithridates of Pontus, and did it so successfully that Caesar felt that he owed his victory to Antipater, and as a result made him his personal representative in Palestine, with Hyrcanus as high priest.* Thus the Pharisees are back again in ecclesi- astical power. Antipater Is at last supreme in Palestine. However, the death of Caesar and the victory of Antony and Octavius over Brutus and Cassius left Herod, Antipater's son and prospective son-in-law of Hyrcanus, on the side of the defeated party.' But Herod finally won the favour of Antony, ruler of the East, and was appointed Tetrarch with Hyrcanus as high priest. Thus the Pharisees retained their hold till the Parthians* came and set up Antigonus as king and high priest in Jerusalem, and so reinstated the Sadducees in power. Hyrcanus is mutilated, his ears being cut off by order of Antigonus, so that he could not be high priest any more, and was made the captive of the Parthians.* In despair Herod fled to Aretas in Arabia and then to Egypt, in search of Antony, and found him in Rome. Here Antony and Octavius, to Herod's surprise and joy, have him appointed King of Judea by the Senate. This was in B.C. 40, but it tools him three years to secure the kingdom from Antigonus and the Parthians.' Henceforth the high priesthood is in the hands of Herod the Great, who appoints his puppets to office.' ' /Int., cli. vii. § 4. ' Ibid., clis. xi-xiii. • Ibid., ch. xiii. § 10. ' Ibid., bk. %v. cli. i. § ■*. ■ Ibid., bk. xiv. ch. viii. * Ibid., ch. xiii. ' Ibid., cha. xiv.-xv. I.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 17 When the Romans make a province instead of a vassal kingdom out of Palestine, they themselves appoint the high priest.' In the ministry of Jesus the Sadducees control the high priesthood. The chief priests are Sadducees. Both Aimas and Caiaphas are Sadducees. This long struggle for power made the bitterness between these two parties very sharp. 5. I'he Standing of the Pharisees in the First Century A.D. The brief outline just given of the struggle of the Pharisees for poWer shows that they had won the sj'm- pathy and sujiport of the masses of the people. This was due mainly to the fact that the Pharisees were the , heirs and successors of the Hasidim or Assideans of the Maccabean books, the Loyalists or Puritans who resisted the efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hellenising high priests, Jason and Menelaus, to compel the Jews to adopt Greek customs, and even to worship Zeus and eat swine's flesh. It is a tragic story as it is told with simple power in 1 Mace, i.-ii. The revolt of Mattathias, ' and the long struggle under Judas and Jonathan, with ' final victory under Simon, is one of the heroic passages , of history. It is clear that the Pharisees carried over | the attitude of this patriotic party toward Hellenism, , and that the Sadducees became the heirs of the Hellen- isers. Aristobulus i. (b.c. 106) was a Sadducee, and was known as the Phil-hellene, so that one of the Mac- cabees actually went over to the standpoint of the Hellenisers, after the fight against the Hellenisers had been won by the Maccabees. Shades of Mattathias and of Judas ! The Sadducees were more hospitable to j foreign influences of all sorts, while the Pharisees stood I • Ant, bk. XX. ch. ix. § 1. B 18 THE PllARlSiiES ANl) JESUS [oh. firmly by the tradition of the eldere and the integrity of Judaism. 1 Certainly the roots of Pharisaism run back into the past, even beyond the Hasidim. Indeed, the Pharisees trace their origin in principle back to Ezra. Babbi Lakish (b. Succ. xx. ») says : ' When the Torah was forgotten, Ezra came up from Babylon and re-estab- lished it ; when it was forgotten again, Hillel came up from Babylon and re-estabUshed it ; and when it was forgotten again, R. Hija and his sons came up from Babylon and re-established it.' Herford * claims that ' while no one would say that Ezra was a Pharisee, it is true that he was a spiritual ancestor of the Pharisees, more than of any other element in post-exilic Judaism.' ' He adds : ' Pharisaism alone was the result of his work ; : and Pharisaism alone survived, to carry down through Kthe centuries the spiritual treasure of Israel.' To this last statement I should certainly object, for I agree with Paul that Christianity is the true Israel of promise, and it is a heavy load on Ezra to hold him responsible for aU the traditions and practices of the Pharisees. Herford (p. 9) even says that, ' if Ezra had not come, it is con- ceivable, and indeed highly probable, that Judaism would have disappeared altogether.' But it is true beyond a doubt that the synagogue and the scribes, the powerful agencies in the hands of the Pharisees, were used to make the law an effective guard to keep the Jews from again going after strange gods, as before the Babylonian Captivity. ' But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law (in-o v6fi.ov ipovpov- fi(6a),^ shut up (cruyKAeio/ntioi)* unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed ' (Gal. iii. 23). So then the middle wall of partition did serve a good pur- ' Jonephiig, Ant., bk. xiii. ch. xl. • Pharisaism, p. 6. " Note imperfect tense, the long process of confinement. * Shut together and the Qentiles shut out. t.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 19 pose, hard as it was to batter down this mark of hate towards the Gentiles, as it came to be (cf. Eph. ii. 14-17). The scribes so often mentioned in connection with i the Pharisees in the Gospels were a profession, not a party or sect. They were nearly all Pharisees, though some of them were Sadducees. So the scribes (copyists of the law, then students, teachers, exponents of the law, doctors or lawyers) taught the law from the Pharisaic standpoint, and helped to make Pharisaism popular and powerful. As we have seen in the time of Jesus, the Romans gave the Sadducean high priest the chief power in mtemal affairs of Jewish administration.'^ The small Sadducean aristocracy had great power, but the Pharisees had representatives in the Sanhedrin i (cf. Acts V. 34 ; xxiii. 6), and were able to exercise ■ great power with the people.^ *• The Sadducees claimed affiliation with the priests , and the Pharisees with the scribes.' The Sadducees were a priestly aristocracy of blood, while the Pharisees were an aristocracy of learning.* Kohler ^ calls the Pharisees the party of progress, and the Sadducees the party of reaction, but there are two sides to that question. The Sadducees were narrower than the Pharisees in their insistence upon the law of Moses as alone binding, in opposition; to the Pharisaic traditions, but the Sad- ducees, on the other hand, were more open to the Greek and Roman life around them, almost Hellenisers, and ridiculed the Pharisees for their ceremonial punctilios about the Gentiles. The Pharisees, though made finally an aggressive political party from necessity, were at bottom a brother- hood with oath of initiation and rules for life that dis- ' Josephus, Ant., bU. xx. ch. ix. § 1. • Ibid., bk. xviii. ch. i. J 4. ' Sohuerer, Jewish People in I'ime ofJenus Christ, div. ii. vol. ii. p. 0. • Kohler in Jewish Encycl. ' Ibid. 20 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [ofl. tingulshed them from other Jews. The old Imsidhim were " saints ' like the EngUsh Puritans or the Came- ronians in Scotland who would have none of William of Orange, because he was not a ' covenanted ' king.' The Pharisees, perushim (from parash, trna, to separate),^ those who had organised themselves into brotherhoods (habhuroth) in order to study the law and to obey its precepts. The habhurim or neighbours required an oath of fideUty in the presence of three other habhurim. This vow of initiation required the ideal of Levitical ceremonial ' purity, the avoidance of the 'am-ha-'areta (' the ignorant and careless boor ' who disregarded the Levitical requirements), the payment of tithes, the regard for other people's property, and respect for vows. These Pharisaic brotherhoods admitted women to their membership, and made proselytes as Jesus said : ' Ye compass sea and land to make one prose- lyte ' (Matt, xxiii. 15). But membership was voluntary, and certificate of good character was required as well as a period of probation. The number of the Pharisees in Palestine in the time of Jesus was about six thousand, and they were scattered all over the country, though Jerusalem in Judea was headquarters. They met Jesus in Jerusalem, in GaUlce, in Perea, in DecapoJis. They are not so powerful in the govern- ment of the country as the Herodians and the Sadducees, * Thomson in Intern. Stand. Bible Encycl. ' However, it is only fair to eny that Leszynsky [Die SadduzSer, p. 25) mnkes out a plausible cn-ie for the view that ' Pharisee ' doe,? not mean * separate,* but ' expounder ' or * interpreter,' since the root p-r-»/t means both to 'interpret' and to 'separate.' He finds the term for ' separate oneself ' tised in Niddah iv. 2 of the Sadducees in a disparnginft sense, and Iio quotes Hillcl (Aboth ii. 4) as saying: ' Separate not thj'self from the congregation.' Hence lie believes that Josophns (M'ar, bit. ii. ch. viii. § 14) rightly describes Pharisees thus: ' They nre those who seem to explain the laws willi accuracy. Oestorley (The Books of the Apocrypha, pp. 131 f.) is conn>letely convinced by these Brguments and changes his former view in The Religion arid Worship of the Synagogue. This is what the scribes (mostly Pharisees) did. But I still doubt this explanation for Pharisees. ' Cf. Lev. xix. 18. I-] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 21 though certainly they had a strong representation in the Sanhedrin (Acts xxiii. 6-9), for they were able to defeat the effort of the Sadducees to injure Paul as GamaUel had done about Peter and John (Acts v. 34 f.). But the people accepted the Pharisees as the orthodox interpreters of Judaism as opposed to the Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, and for a while the Zealots. We have seen how the Sadducees stood in bold out- line, few and powerful priestly aristocrats, against the Pharisees. Two of the other parties were offshoots of the Pharisaic movement (the Essenes and the Zealots). Thomson {Intern. Stand. Bible Encycl.) thinks that the Essenes were descendents of the Assidean purists, who fled to the desert to escape the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mace. ii. 27), and who lived on there in protest even against the Maccabeans and the Pharisees. They were Pharisees run to seed or carried to the wth degree, and the mystics of Judaism with a dash of Persian astrology and Greek philosophy and the asceticism of some of the other mystery -reUgions. The Zealots,^ on the other hand, were the fanatics of the Pharisees, who grew tired of the slow opposition of the body of the Pharisees to Roman oppression and Sadducean subserviency. These Zealots ^ precipitated the war with Rome (see Josephus' War, v. i.), and thus played the decisive part in the culmination of political Judaism. They were scornful of the time-serving Pharisees who were ready, many of them, to make peace with the Romans as Josephus did. The Herodians, on the other hand, opposed all the other parties in the insistence that Judea should have one of the Herods as king after the deposition of Archelaus. They have power even during ' See Josephus' account of the origin of the Zealots by Judas, the Gaulonite, as a protest against Roman taxation. Ant., bk. xviii. ch. i. § 1. * Simon Zelotes, one of the Twelve Apostles, belonged to this party. There were no Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or Herodians among the Twelve. 22 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [ch. the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. In the life of Christ all these parties are active and aggressive in pubUc bfe, save the Essenes, who lived in the wilder- ness apart from the whirl of politics and theology With the destruction of Jerusalem all vanish save the Pharisees, who become practically the nation. Phari- s™ after 70 a.d. may be said to be the rdigion of official Judaism, and it has remained so ever smce First It gathered round the oral law or Midrash, as the interpretation of the law. Then the Mishna was the interpretation of the oral law. Then the Gemara ex- plamed the Mishna. The Tabnud has now become the actual Jewish Bible far more than the Old Testament. The Pharisees in the time of Jesus have all the pride of a religious inheritance. They have Abraham to their father as all the Jews did, but their knowledge of the law and ceremonial punctiliousness placed them far above other Jews and all Gentiles. ' This multi- tude {'am-ha-'arets, people of the land) that knoweth not the law are accursed ' (John. vii. 49), the Pharisees scornfully retort to the soldiers in defence of their hostility to Jesus. A Pharisee is not allowed to eat at the table of another Pharisee, if his wife is one of ' the people of the land ' ('am-ha-'arets). He must not sell to one of the 'am-ha-'arets or have any association with any of them. One thinks at once of the caste system of India. The origin of this attitude is seen in the description of the heathen and half-heathen people of Palestine, in distinction from the Jews who came back from Babylon (cf. Ezra ix. If.; x. 2, 11 ; Neh. X. 28-31). They brand as 'publicans and sinners ' not merely the really wicked, but all who are not ' right- eous ' like themselves. From the Pharisaic standpoint there were two great classes of society, the righteous and the sinners. Their spiritual pride is seen to per- fection in the prayer of the Pharisee in the temple in I] THE PHARISAIO OUTLOOK 23 Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Publican in Luke xviii. We see it also all through the Psalms of Solomon, where condemnation is invoked upon the Sadducees and all others (sinners) who are not Pharisees.^ In Luke xviii. 13 the publican describes himself as ' the sinner ' (rfj) d/io/iTwAy), as the Pharisee referred to him contemptuously as ' this pubUcan.' The Pharisees are the exponents of official Judaism, the custodians of the Torah, the hope of the future, and have accepted explanations for all scripture and for every problem of life. 6. The Seven Varieties of the Pharisees The Pharisees were not at one with themselves save in opposition to everybody else. There is no logical place to stop in the business of Pharisaic seclusiveness when once it is started. The line was drawn against the Gentiles, against the 'am-ha-'arets among the Jews, against the publicans and sinners, against the^^ Sad- ducees, and then against some of the Pharisees them- selves. The Talmud itself gives the seven varieties of the Pharisees, and all but the last one are afflicted with hypocrisy, the sin that Jesus so vigorously denounces, and that stirs the modem apologists of Pharisaism to such rage. Even the Psalms of Solomon are full of denunciations of hypocrisy. Thomson {Intern. Stand. Bible Encycl.) argues that hypocrisy was ' a new sin, a sin only possible in a spiritual religion, a religion in which morality and worship were closely related.' Certainly, the true Judaism was not hypocrisy, but it is remarkable that the Psalms of Solomon (a Pharisaic book), the J^ew Testament, and Talmud (the Pharisaic Bible), all give hypocrisy as the chief sin of the Pharisees. Herford * admits that the Pharisaic theory of the Torah ' could, and in some cases did, lead to that mere formal- > Cf. Psalms of Sol. ii. 38-41 ; xiiL 6-11 ; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 16, 26. • Pharisaism, pp. 106 f. 24 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. ism and hypocrisy which have been charged upon the Pharisees as a class.' He claims that ' such formalism and h3rpocrisy were only the perversion of Pharisaism and not inherent in it.' This is one of the points to examine. Meanwhile the seven types of Pharisees are pictured in the Talmud ^ itself. (a) The ' Shoulder ' Pharisee. This type wears his good deeds on his shoulders, and is very punctilious in his observance of the Torah, traditions and all, from expediency, not from principle. He finds that Phari- saism pays one in the increased reputation for purity. As Jesus said, they did their righteousness ' to be seen of men ' (n-pos to OtaOrjvai), not for the moral and spiritual wo*th of #ie act. (6) The ' wait-a-little ' Pharisee. He always has an excuse for not doing the good deed just now, hke the Spanish proverb ' Manana ' (' to-morrow '). One is re- minded at once of the man whom Jesus invited to follow him (Luke ix. 57-60), but who excused himself on the ground that he must first go and bury his father. We know from To bit vi. 14 (' They have no other son to bury them ') that the idea of this man (probably a Pharisee) was to go and stay with his father till he was dead and buried, and then to come and follow Jesus. Another man wanted first to bid farewell to those at home (Luke ix. 61 f.). Thus the Pharisee preserved his creed at the expense of his conduct. (c) The ' bruised ' or ' bleeding ' Pharisee. This Pharisee is too pious to look at a woman, and so shuts his eyes if he fears one is coming, and stumbles against a wall, and makes the blood flow from his face. He is anxious that the blood shall be seen in order to gain credit for his piety. One is reminded of the beggars to-day who mutilate themselves to arouse pity. In ' The seven sorts of Pliarisees are described in the Babylonian Talmud {Sotah, 22b). I] THE THARISAIC OUTLOOK 25 Sotah, f . xxi. 2, we read : ' Foohsh saints, crafty villains, sanctimonious women, and self -afflicting Pharisees are the destroj'ers of the world.' There are plenty of parallels in the Brahraanism of India to-day and in types of Roman Catholicism. There were (and are) men who leer at women with lustful eyes (cf. Christ's denunciation in Matt. v. 28), but these Pharisees looked on women as the personification of evil. The disciples of Jesus were astonished to see him, a teacher (rabbi), talking in public ' with a woman ' (John iv. 27, /lera yvvaiKoi (\.d\€i), (d) The ' pestle ' or ' mortar ' Pharisee. He walks with his head down in mock humihty like a pestle in a mortar. He is also called the ' hump-backed ' Pharisee, who walked as though his shoulders bore the whole weight of the law, or the ' tumbling ' Pharisee, who was so humble that he would not lift his feet from the ground, or the ' painted ' Pharisee, who advertised his holiness by various poses, so that no one should touch and bring defilement to him. These are all caricatures, to be sure, of the true Pharisee, but they were so common that the Talmud * pictures them in great variety of detail — ' the dyed ones who do evil deeds and claim godly recompense,' ' they who preach beautifully, but do not act beautifully.' Alexander Jannasus -warned his wife against ' painted Pharisees who do the deeds of Zimri and look for the reward of Phinehas.' One is reminded of the charge of Jesus : ' For they say, and do not' (Matt, xxiii. 3), of the broad phylacteries and the large borders on their garments, of the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the market places, and the wish to be hailed as Rabbi or Doctor (Matt, xxiii. 3-6). (e) The ' ever-reckoning ' or ' compounding ' Pharisee. > Jer. Beracliolh, f. ix. 7, f. 13 ; Bab. Sotah, t. 22, 1 ; Avvth d'Rabbi Nathan, ch. 37, 20 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. He is always on the look-out for something ' extra ' to do to make up for something that he has neglected. He is the ' reckon-it-up ' Pharisee, trying to counterbalance his evil deeds with his good ones. He is anxious to have his few sins deducted from his many virtues and leave a clean balance-sheet. One is reminded of the Roman Catholic system for buying one out of purgatory and the whole system of indulgences. Pharisaism made a large contribution to Roman Catholic doctrine and life. It is easy to recall what Jesus said about tithing mint, dill, cummin, and about straining out gnats and swallowing camels. (/) The ' timid ' or ' fearing ' Pharisee. His relation to God is that of trembling awe in dread of punishment. They imagine that they can satisfy God with outward performance, and keep the outside of the cup scrupu- lously clean, but neglect the inside of the cup (Luke xi. 39 f). They watch heaven with one eye and keep the other open for the main chance on earth, cross-eyed or cock-eyed instead of focussing both eyes in a single look at the glory of God (Matt. vi. 19-23). Hence, though ravening wolves, they will even put on sheep's clothing (Matt. vii. 15). This type of Pharisaism actually projected a conception of God as a devout Pharisee ' who repeats the Sh'ma to himself daily ; wears phylacteries on the wrists and forehead ; occupies Himself three times every day in studying His own law ; has disputes with the angels about legal minutiae ; and finally summons a Rabbi to settle the difference.' ^ (g) The ' God-loving ' or ' bom ' Pharisee. This type is supposed to be like Abraham, and to show the true Pharisaism, of which the other six types are variations or perversions. Certainly, no one would say that all the Pharisees were hypocrites. Nor did Jesus mean that, but simply that hypocrisy had come to be the • Farror, Life of Livu, p. 163. I.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 27 distinguishing characteristic of Pharisees as a class or party. To this fact the Talmud itself bears clear testi- mony. The emphasis upon external observances drifted logically and naturally to that result. There were Pharisees who were friends of Jesus, men like Nicodemus, who cautiously felt their way and finally, enhsted on his side. There were voluble Pharisees who quickly flocked to Christ, till he exposed their emptiness, when they deserted him (John viii. 30 f.). 7, TJie Two Schools of Theology With all this variety among the Pharisees as pictured in the Talmud, it is no wonder that there were two schools of Pharisaism in Jerusalem (the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai) which took opposite posi- tions on many points of theology, some of them trivial enough, as, for instance, whether it was proper to eat an egg laid by a hen on the Sabbath day. One is re- minded of the Big Endians and the Little Endians in GulUver'a Travels. The LiUiputians split hopelessly on the grave issue as to which end to stand the egg upon. There was ' the plague of Pharisaism ' in Palestine, and the Talmud bears its own terrible condemnation of it, in spite of its being the standard exposition of Pharisaic theology. It is urged by Buchler,* as we shall see later at more length, that it was the school of Shammai that made the washing of hands binding law about 100 A.D. against the protest of the school of Hillel. ' Up to this time the school of Shammai, and perhaps also some of the more strict HilleUtes, may have prac- tised the washing of hands ; but it was not yet binding law.' It was, he holds, insistence on strict Levitical purification for priests and teachers of the law that was the occasion of Christ's sharp criticism of the Shammai ' Der Qalilaiache 'Am-ha-'are(a des ^weileri Jahrhwiderls, pp. 127-131. 28 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [en. Pbansees in Mark vii. They championed the most narrow type of ceremonial piety and exclusiveness. Oesterley and Box i think that the school of Shammai was m the ascendant in Palestine up to a.d. 70, when the school of Hillel gained the upper hand. U so, this fact partiaUy explains the intensity of Christ's denun- ciation of these rigorous legalists in such general terms. They were the real leaders of the majority. At the same tune one is enabled to understand the friendly inter- course that existed between Christ and the Pharisees of the Hillel school of thought, who on occasion took his part against the school of Shammai. We see this division of sentiment among the Pharisees about Christ in John viii. 9, 10 ; x. 19-21 ; xii. 42. In Luke v. 17- 26, the Pharisees are apparently greatly impressed by what Jesus said and did. So Chwolson " argues that Christ attacked only the extremists among the Pharisees, but he goes too far in exonerating the Pharisees from any part in the death of Jesus, and seeking to place all the blame on the Sadducees. Elbogen ' reminds us that the Pharisees were the guardians of the Prophets and of the Hagiographa as well as of the Pentateuch. 8. The Two Methods of Pharisaic Teaching In Ezra the Scribe it is common to find the origin of the Je\vish scribes, and also of the Pharisees in prin- ciple, though not in time. We know not whether the ' assembly ' described iu Neh. x. became the great synagogue hypothecated by some scholars for . this period. One of the treatises in the Mishna, called the Pirke Aholh or Sayings of the Fathers, ascribes this saying to the men of the Great Synagogue : ' Be deli- berate in judgment ; make many disciples ; make a ' Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 129. • Das htzte Pnssomnhl Christi und der Tag des Todes. ' The Seligioue Views of the Pharisees, p. 2. I.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 20 hedge for the law.' But no one knows who said this. Herford ^ regards this saying as the key to the inter- pretation of the Talmud : ' DeUberation in judgment is the key to the casuistry of the Talmud,' and thus even Herford admits the ' casuistry,' though he justifies it. It has always been the aim of Rabbinical Judaism to make disciples, and the hedge about the Torah was ' the means taken to keep the divine revelation from harm.' This saying does let us into the heart of the secret of Pharisaism. Herford * holds that, even apart from this saying, with the conception of the law held by Ezra, ' Pharisaism was certain to appear sooner or later, and the Talmud itself was the implied, though distant, result of the process by which that conception was to be worked out.' In other words, Herford main- tains that Pharisaism is the natural and inevitable out- come of the Old Testament teaching, while Jesus made a distinct departure from the real Judaism of the past. This view misinterprets the Old Testament, the Pharisees and Jesus, in my opinion. At any rate, there is no doubt of the fact that Pharisaism grew out of the effort to honour the Torah, and was the religion of the Torah. But surely Herford ' is asking too much when he asks us to feel sympathy with the idea that ' Rabbinical devotion could express itself quite naturally in terms which to the unenlightened Gentile appear extravagant — as, for instance, when it is said that God studies Torah for three hours every day ' (b. A. Zar. 3b). He adds : * ' It is near the truth to say that what Christ is to the Christian, Torah is to the Jew.' With the Pharisees, Torah included the unwritten as well as the written word of God. Herford^ iimvittingly justifies Jesus when he says : ' And he (the Pharisee) would say that ' Pharisaism, p. 26. See also Taylor, Sayings of tite Jewish Fathers (1897) ; Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud (1903). • Pharisaism, p. 28. ' Ibid., p. 68. • Ibid., p. 171. • Ibid., p. 04. 30 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. the unwritten was more important than "the written because the unwritten unfolded what was concealed in the written, and extended its application.' This con- ception of the superiority of the oral law to the written on the part of the Pharisees is implied in what Josephus » says about their following the conduct of reason. Only they did not put it that way. This oral teaching or tradition of the elders was held to be authoritative. Rabbi Eleazar of Modin says : ' Wliosoever interprets Scripture in opposition to tradition has no part in the future world.' Once more we read : ' The voice of the Rabbi is as the voice of God ' (Ervbin, fol. 21, col. 2), and ' To be against the word of the scribes is more punishable than to be agamst the word of the Bible ' {Sanh. XI. 3). Surely Jesus * does not strain the point at all when he says with fine irony : ' Full well do ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your tradition.' In time the rabbis ' came to say this : ' Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai, and dehvered it to Joshua and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue.' They either read all the oral law into the written law (eisegesis) or twisted it out of the written law (exegesis) in ways wonderful to behold. The oral teaching itself (like the later Tahnud) came to be divided into two parts (HalacJiah and Haggadah). In broad general terms Halachah (from 'Ir'J' to go) means the way to go or rules of life, the rule of right conduct. This was the part that was considered bind- ing and as authoritative as the Pentateuch itself. Much of it covered what is usually included by us in civil and criminal law. The rabbis were masters of canon and civil law, real LL.D.'s ; or rather it was all one and the same with them. Lawyers and doctors of divinity were these rabbis, as we see them in the New Testa- ' Ant., \)k. xviii. ch. i. § 3. ' Mark vii. 9. » Pirici Aboth. r.\ THE PHARISAIC OtlTLOOK 31 ment. The Halachah included careful decisions arrived at with great deliberation, ' guided by the recorded opinion of earlier teachers, when known, and also by recognised rules of interpretation.' ^ The whole of life came under the control of the Halachah, as we shall see later. The Halachah is the most distinctive element in Pharisaic teaching, and received the most careful con- sideration.* By it they must in all fairness be judged. And yet Herford ' says : ' It is the Halaclmh which has laid the Pharisees open to so much misrepresentation and obloquy.' One may properly ask if it is misrepre- sentation even if it is obloquy. ' Undoubtedly the rabbis thought that the Halachah as interpreted by them was the will of God. Hence they ga.ve to that Halachah, which more than anything else has brought scorn and ridicule upon them, the patient labour of about six centuries.' * One example of the Halacliah may be given. In Num. xv. 38 we read this command to Moses : ' Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringes of each border a cord qi blue : and it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember the commandments of Jehovah, and do them.' This is just the kind of precept in the law that delighted the rabbis, and gave free range for expansion. The white wool and the blue threads would make pretty ' symbols of innocence and heaven.' ^ But the scribes ' added a mountainous mass of oral pedantries.' * They argued that the fringe must consist of four threads of wliite wool, one of which must be wound round the others as follows : seven times with a double knot, then eight times with a double knot, then eleven times with • Herford, Pftarwatsm, p. 97. • Ibid., p. 108. • Fnrrar, Lije of Lives, p. 167. » Ibid., p. 90. • Ibid. Ibid. 32 THE PHARISEES AND jESUS [cA. a double knot, then thirteen times with a double knot, 'because 7-[-8+ 11=26, the numerical value of the letters of Jehovah (nin'), and 13 is the numerical value of Achad, one, so that the number of windings represents the words " Jehovah is one." ' ' But what shall we say to the remark of Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Isaaki, 1040-1105 A.D.), 'the prince of commentators' on the Talmud ? He says : ' The precept concerning the fringes is as weighty as all the other precepts put together,' and again he says : ' He who observes the precept about the fringes shall have 2800 slaves to wait on him.' * Of this custom Jesus said : ' They enlarge the borders ' or fringes of their garments (fKyaXvvoviriv K/jao-n-eSa) for purposes of display, with all the Pharisaic knots tied according to tlie rules of the rabbis in the Halachah. By Halachah, therefore, the Pharisees meant all the legal and ritual element in the Scripture, and all ' the usages, customs (Minhdgim), ordinances (Teqan6th) and decrees (Gezeroth) for which there is little or no authority in the Scripture.' ^ But what is the Haggadah ? This term is from nagad (\33), to say, and was applied to all the interpretations of Scrijiture that were not precept.* Under this designa- tion we find almost anything about everything. The rabbis by no means agreed with themselves, and they did not require uniformity of belief in every detail. A rabbi could say utterly contradictory things if it was merely Haggadah, for it was not binding. Weber ^ is justly open to criticism, for seeking to produce a system of Pharisaic theology in so far forth as the Haggadah is concerned. Herford ^ sarcastically remarks : ' Chris- ' Fnrrar, Life of Lives, p. 158. ' SImbbolh, f. 29, 1 ; Maccolh, f. 23, 2. ' Sohechter, Studies in Judaism, p. 228. , , „ , . « aacher, Jewish Quarterly Review, 1892, pp. 400 ff. ; cf. also Herford, Pharisaism, p. 232. „ . „ , an.i • Jildische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud, etc., 2 AiUI. 1897. • Pharisaism, p. 236. I.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 33 tian scholars are pathetically grateful to Weber for having given them an orderly and methodical arrange- ment of the medley of Pharisaic doctrines ; certainly he has done so, but with as much success and as much truth as if he had described a tropical jungle, believing it to be a nursery -garden.' Anything may find a place in the Haggadah, provided it can be shown to have some vague connection with a word or letter of Scripture, however irrelevant the interpretation, illustration, or appUcation may be. Here we find ' astronomy and astrology, medicine and magic, theosophy and mysti- cism.' ^ In popular form the rabbis have had free play for imagination, for anecdote, for parable, for fable. Recall Paul's warnings to Timothy against ' fables and endless genealogies ' (1 Tim. i. 4), ' profane and old wives' fables ' (iv. 7), and to Titus against those who give heed to ' Jewish fables and commandments of men ' (i. 14). Hear Herford * again, the modem apologist of Phari- saism : ' Ethical principles, mystical speculations, medi- tations on providence and the wonders of creation, the imaginings of pious fantasy, and even the play of daring wit. No freak of allegory, of word-play, of fantastic juggling with letters and syllables, is without illustration in the Haggadah.' The Haggadah dealt with what a man was to believe and to feel (his theology), while the Halachah set forth what he was to do (moraUty or ethics) .' Halachah led to pure externalism, ' all that was internal and higher being merely Haggadic,' * and so not binding. This distinction drove a wedge between the spiritual and intellectual on one side, and the performance of rites and ceremonies as real religion on the other. As a specimen of Halachah we read * Soheohter, Studies in Judaism, p. 228. * Pharisaism, p. 241. ' Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 105. * Ibid., p. 100. 34 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. (B. Meg. 86d) that during a discussion about purity in the heavenly academy Rabbah was summoned from earth to prove the correctness of the Almighty's opinion on the subject. Once more the Talmud tells us how to see demons. Rabbi ^ says : ' Whoever wishes to see them let him take the interior covering of a black cat, the kitten of a first-born black cat, which is also the kitten of a first-born, and let him bum it in the fire, and powder it, and fill his eyes with it, and he will see them.' It must be borne in mind that the distinction between Halnchah and Haggadah applies both to the Midrash ^ and the Talmud.' The Mishna was mainly Hahchah, but the Gemara was largely Haggadah. The Babylonian Talmud, which is the one in common use among Jews to-day, is more casuistical in the Gemara than the Palestinian.* ' It was said by some that the written law was like water, the Mishnah like wine, and the Gemara like hippocras or spiced wine.' ^ The Baby- lonian Gemara had an extra touch of spice. I cannot pose as an impartial witness, but I have never read a book so dull as the minutiae and hair- splitting tortuosities of the Mishna and the Gemara. One opens almost anywhere and it requires a positive effort to go on. This wine has lost its flavour for me. Take this specimen, selected at random (Baba Kamma, cli. iv. Mishna iii.). Mishna : ' An ox belonging to an Israehte that gored an ox belonging to the sanctuary, or of the sanctuary that gored one of a commoner, there is no liability, for it is written : the ox of another but not of the sanctuary, Ex. xxi. xxxi.' Gemara : ' This Mishna is not in accordance with R. Simeon b. Menassia of the following Boraitha : An ox of a commoner that ' Berachoth, fol. 6, col. 1. , , „ „ "o ok • See Oosterley, Religion and Womhtp of the Synagogue, pp. <9-95. • Ibid., pp. 55-68. * l'>*'i- P- O*- • Pick, The Talmud, p. CO. !•] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 36 gored an ox of the sanctuary ; or vice versa, is free, for it is written, an ox of another, but not of the sanctuary. R. Simeon b. Menassia, however, says that an ox of the sanctuary that gored an ox of a commoner is free, but an ox of a commoner that gored an ox of the sanctuary, whether vicious or not, the whole damage must be paid.' And on the twistification and casuistry go for another page. It is not possible to give a picture of the long line of rabbis who have given themselves so devotedly to the explication of the involutions of the Torah. The Talmud and the Midrash are the chief monuments of their wisdom and their industry. Each rabbi sought to add one great saying to the endless store to be passed on to future generations. Hillel's great rule was : ' That which is hateful to thyself do not do to thy neighbour. This is the whole law, and the rest is mere commentary ' ^ — the negative form of the Golden Rule. The great word of his rival Shammai was : ' Let thy repetition of the law be at a fixed hour ; sjjeak little, but do that which thou hast to do with cheerful countenance.' ^ The word of Gamaliel i., Rabban, ' Our Teacher,' the teacher of the Apostle Paul, was : ' Procure thyself a teacher, avoid being in doubt, and do not accustom thy- self to give tithes by guess.' ' Gamaliel had gained some knowledge of Greek literature, a heresy from the standpoint of the rabbis, but he was excused on the ground that he needed it for diplomatic intercourse with the government. 9. The Chief Points in Pliarisaic Theology At once we are confronted with the importance and the difficulty of distinguishing between the later theology > Shabbath, fol. 31, col. 1. • Aboth, 1. 16. • Ibid., i. 16. 30 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. of the rabbis and that current in Palestine, in the first century a.d. Clearly both Halachah and Haggadah are far more extensive in the written Midrash than M'as true in the time of Jesus. But Herford ^ admits that ' the intention of it is the same for the earlier as for the later. Wherefore it is legitimate to use the Talmud, to illustrate the principle of Halachah, as accepted in the New Testament period.' But, as already stated, the theology of the Pharisees, so far as their beliefs were concerned, was mainly Haggadah. But the New Testa- ment, Josephus, the Psalms of Solomon, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 2 Esdras, the Talmud, and the Midrash agree in the main outlines of Pharisaic theology. We can only give the picture in bold outline. Elbogen " is right in his plea that justice be done the Pharisees, for the jireservation of monotheism in oppo- sition to the powerful pressure of Greek polytheism, for the emphasis on individualism, and for the prominence of belief in a future life. It is impossible to over-esti- mate the A'alue placed upon the study of Torah by the rabbis. Rabbi Jacob said {Pirke Aboth, iii. 10) : ' He who is walking by the way and studying, and breaks off his Mishnah (study) and says, How fine is this tree ! and how fine is tliis fallow ! they account it to Inm as if he were guilty of death.' Again Rabbi Dosithai says (iii. 12) in the name of Rabbi Meir : ' When a scholar of the wise sits and studies and has forgotten a word of his laishnah, they account it unto him as if he were guilty of death.' Once more Rabbi Li'eser (Pirki Aboth, ii. 14) says : ' Warm thyself before the fire of the wise, i)ut beware of their embers, perchance thou mayesfc be singed, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss the hiss of a fiery serpent, and all their words are as coals of fire. > Phariaaism, p. 249. • The Religious View of the Phanseea, p. Z. 1.1 TttE PltARiSAiC OUTLOOK 37 Rabban Jocbanan ben Zakai placed such an estimate upon one of his disciples, that he said (Pirke Aboth, ii. 2) : ' If all the wise of Israel were in a scale of a balance, and EU'ezer ben Hyrqanos in the other scale, he would outweigh them all.' In a way the Pharisees as a whole were theological moderates as between Sadducees and Hellenisers on the one hand, and the Essenes on the other. The Essenes were far more reactionary than the Pharisees, while the Sadducees lent a listening ear to the allurements of Hellenism. The outstanding features of Pharisaic theology, as distinct from practice, are easily grasped. They are four. (a) They held both to divine sovereignty and human free agency. The Essenes were fatalists and denied human responsibiUty, while the Sadducees rejected divine sovereignty over man's actions. Josephus speaks of the matter twice. In Antiquities, bk. xviii. ch. i. § 3, he says : ' When they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit ; since their notion is that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what He wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously.' Josephus here occupies the standpoint and uses the language of Greek philosophy, but properly represents the Pharisees on this point as the Talmud shows. In the War, bk. ii. ch. viii. § 14, he says : ' These ascribe all to fate and to God, yet they allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of man, although fate does co-operate in every action.' By ' fate ' Jose- phus means the personal God, not a mere abstraction like the view of the Stoics. On this point, which is fundamental, the Pharisees occupied in general the stand- point about: God and man that modem Calvinists maintain. ^8 tHE PitARtSEES AND JESlfS [CH. {b) They placed the oral law on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures. We have had this pomt illus- trated already, but let us bear in mind Josephus again. In Antiquities, bk. xiii. ch. x. § 6, he saj's : ' What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses ; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but arc not to observe what are dehvered from the tradition of our forefathers.' Josephus wrote in the latter part of the first century a.d., but long before any of the oral law was written down in Mishna or Gemara. Josephus pays this tribute to Pharisaic exegesis : ' The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skilful in the exact explanation of their laws ' {War, bk. ii. ch. viii. § 14). And this also : ' They also pay a respect to such as are in years ; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in anything which they have introduced.' That is more euphemistic, at any rate, than the language of Jesus : ' They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoul- ders ; but they themselves will not move them with their finger' (Matt, xxiii. 4). Hear now some of the Jewish Fathers on the subject of learning this oral law : ' There are four characters ui scholars. Quick to hear and quick to forget, his gain is excelled by his loss ; slow to hear and slow to forget, his loss is excelled by his gain ; quick to hear and slow to forget, is wise : slow to hear and quick to forget, this is an evil lot ' {Pirkfi Ahoth, v. 18). These correspond somewhat to the four temperaments. And then this : ' There are four characters in college-goers. He that goes and does not practise, the reward of going is in his hand : he that practises and does not go, the reward of practice 1.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 39 is in his hand : he that practises is pious : he that goes not and does not practise is wicked ' (v. 20). And once more this : ' At five years old, Scripture : at ten years, Mishna : at thirteen, the Commandments : at fifteen, Talmud : at eighteen, the bridal : at twenty, pursuits : at thirty, strength : at forty, discernment : at fifty, counsel : at sixty, age : at seventy, hoariness : at eighty, power : at ninety, decrepitude : at a hundred, it is as though he were dead, and gone and had ceased from the world.' (c) The Pharisees beUeved in the future Ufe. The Sadducees scouted this idea and the absence of any definite teaching on the subject in the Pentateuch. And yet Jesus refuted the Sadducees on this very point with a quotation from the Pentateuch, and charged them with ignorance of the Scriptures and of the power of God when they failed to see that God, as the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is the God of the living and not of the dead.' On this subject Josephus says of the Pharisees : ' They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this hfe ; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.' * Josephus also ' puts it thus : ' They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.' It is interesting to note that the words of Josephus about ' eternal punishment ' are quite similar to those used by Jesus * in Matt. xxv. 40. But we must not argue that the Pharisees held to the transmigration of ' Mfttt. Txii. 29-33 ; Murk xii. 24-27 ; Luke xx. 34-40. ' Ant,, bk. xviii. ch. i. § 3. " War, bk. ii. ch. viii. § 14. ' Josephua has diSla ri/(Ciip(a KoKianyOai while Jesus is reported ti3 using c/s Kb\tiffiv altSjviov. 40 THE PHARISEES ANt) JESUS [oh. souls. The language of Josephus is probably due to his effort to put doctrine in a way not to shock Hellenic ideas, since the Greek contempt for the body made the idea of the resurrection of the body abhorrent to both Greeks and Romans. ^ In this matter the Pharisees follow the main lines of Jewish doctrine (of. Dan. xii. 2). In the Psalms of Solomon, only the resurrection of the righteous is presented : " ' The hfe of the righteous is for ever. But sinners shall be taken away imto destruc- tion.' Again : ' But they that fear the Lord shall rise again unto life eternal ' (Ps. of Sol. iii. 16). Hence in the New Testament the Pharisees are represented as beUeving in angels and spirits, which the Sadducees deny (Acts xxiii. 8). (rf) The Pharisees had messianic expectations. It is not easy to present in one paragraph the conceptions of the Messiah held by the Pharisees. But at least it can be said at once that they revived and preserved beUef in the Messiah, however mistaken their idea of Him was. The Sadducees expected no Messiah. The Apocrypha has a strange dearth of reference to the Messiah. The oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes quickened faith in the future hfe and in the Messiah as the DeUverer of Israel. Curiously enough, Josephus, though himself a Pharisee of the hberal sort (somewhat hke the modern reformed Jews), does not mention the Messiah as the behef of the Pharisees in his description of them. He does, indeed, give one paragraph {Ant., bk. xviii. ch. iii. § 3) in which he describes Jesus as one who was ' Christ,' which term he probably used more as a proper name or as an appel- lative in the language of the people, without admitting that Jesus was really the Messiah of Jewish hopes. It is ijossible to take the passage as it stands in this sense Thomson, Intern. Stand. Bible Enciicl. • xiii. 9 f. 1.1 THE PHARISAIC OtJTLOOK 41 (so Burkitt and Harnack) * without having to eliminate it (all or part) as Christian addition. Josephus's own belief on the subject of the Messiah appears in War, bk. vi. ch. V. § 4, where he refers to ' an ambiguous oracle in their sacred writings ' which had deceived many of their wise men into thinldng that the Messiah belonged to the Jews alone. Josephus pointedly says : ' Now this oracle denoted the government of Vespasian who was appointed emperor in Judea.' Crude as this view appears, one must remember that Josephus wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple, and after the Jewish state had disappeared. And in the reign of Hadrian about a hundred years after the death of Jesus, it was the great Rabbi Aqiba who led the revolt against Hadrian, in order to establish Bar-Cochba (son of a star) as the political Messiah. The Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Messiah, a,nd the great Pharisaic leEider a hundred years later accepted Bar-Cochba as Messiah. But it was a poUtical Messiah that the Pharisees expected, and in that sense they received Bar-Cochba with such lamentable results. There is grDund for thinking that, if Jesus had been willing to pose as a political Messiah, with the claim of a world kingdom to throw off the Roman yoke, the Pharisees would have ralUed round him. Indeed, on one occasion, there was a popular uprising to take Jesus by force and make Him king, since the crowd was persuaded that He was the prophet that was to come into the world (John vi. 14 f.). The Pharisees did not agree in all their ideas about this Messiah, but in broad outline they did. The political kingdom was to be presided over by the king Messiah, who was not divine, and yet was supernatural in mission and in manifesta- tion.^ He is pre-mundane, and possibly eternal in His ' See also Beitz, Chriatua-Zeugnisac aua dem klaaaieehen Altertum, 1896, pp. ft. • Byb. Oraolos, vv. 286 f. ; Enocli, xlvii. 3. it THE PIIARtSEES AND JESUS [oh. pre -existence.! He is the Son of Man ^ and the Son of God,* though we have to use Enoch with great caution, because of the uncertainty as to the dates of the various portions. In the Psalms of Solomon the Messiah is free from sin,* the Son of David to reign over Israel, the righteous king, taught of God, Christ the Lord.^ Here (Psalms of Solomon xvii. 23-30) we see the popular exjiectations of the Messiah. In the Talmud many marvels are presented that were to accompany the coming of the Messiah, wliich was to be sudden.' Some thought that the Messiah was to come with apocalyptic display out of heaven. Thus is to be understood the frequent request of the Pharisees for Jesus to produce a sign from heaven. The devil apparently had this idea in mind when he suggested to Jesus to let the people see Him sailing doAvn from the pinnacle of the temple. So the rabble in Jerusalem argue : ' Howbeit, we know this man whence he is : but when Christ cometh no one knoweth whence he is ' (John vii. 27). Little effort was made to combine into a coherent whole these contra- dictory views of a human and yet a supernatural Messiah (Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, 1886, pp. 135 f.). But there seems to be no connection with Philo's logos teaching (Baldensperger, Selbstbewusstsein Jesn, p. 88). The Pharisees did not expect a suffering or dying Messiah.^ They would hear nothing of a Messiah that was not to set up His political kingdom and throw off the Roman yoke, but who was simply to die and pass away. Tliey wanted one who would abide for ever (John xii. 34). But we cannot close this discussion ' Cf. Turgiini on Isn. ix. ; Micali v. 2. ■ Rnocli xlviii. 2. • Enoch ov. 2. * xvii. 41. * xvii. 35 f. Here the LXX translation of Lnni. iv. 20 occiita (XpiffrAs Kvpio!) as we liave it in Liilte ii. 11. • Cf. Edersheini, Life and Times, vol. i. pp. 176 f. ' Dtthnon, Der leidende mid slerbendc Measias, 1S88, pp. 3, 22 f. t.] !r&E PHARISAIC 0U*L00it 43 without a word about the identification of the Messianic hope with John Hyrcanus i., who was regarded as prophet, priest, and king, thus abandoning the tribe of Judah for the tribe of Levi. This transition appears in the Book of Jubilees and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Charles * makes a clear statement of this phase of the subject. See Test. Levi, viii. 14 : ' A king shall arise in Judah, and shall establish a new priesthood. . . . And his presence is beloved as a prophet of the Most High.' This was applied to John Hyrcanus i. in the height of Pharisaic enthusiasm, but alas ! for human hopes, John Hyrcanus deserted the Pharisees for the Sadducees, and therewith perished this Messianic hope. But the two nerve centres of Judaism were the love of the law and the hope of the Messiah. The two poles round which Jewish life re- volved were ' fulfilment of the law and hope of future glory.' * The temple and the synagogue kept up the fulfilment of the law and of tradition under the tute- lage of priest and scribe. The hope of the future fell in the main to the apocalyptists,' who must have sepa- rate treatment directly. We are not quite done with the work of the scribe. 10. The Practice of Pharisaism in Life Let us quote Herford again. ' Paul condemned Pharisaism in theory, while Jesus condemned it in practice.' * Jesus ' was really rejected, so far at all events as the Pharisees were concerned, because He undermined the authority of the Torah, and endan- gered the religion founded upon it.' ^ Once more hear Herford : ' Torah and Jesus could not remain in har- ' Religious Development between the Old and the New Teetamenta, pp. 79-84. ' Sohiierer, Jewish People, div. ii. vol. ii. p. 93. • Horford, Pharisaism, p. 191. • Ibid., p. 143. » Ibid., p. 140. 44 THE PtlAftlSfeES ANJb JfistS toB. mony. The two were fundamentally incompatible.' We must therefore see what is the Pharisaic view of life that clashed so sharply with that of Jesus. We may note at once that it is HalacJiah, not Haggadah, with which we are now concerned. These matters are bind- ing. ' It is more culpable to teach contrary to the precepts of the scribes than contrary to the Torah itself.' 1 These precepts for conduct apphed to every detail of life. Nothing is left to chance, or to the initia- tive or conscience of the individual. Everything is worked out with casuistical hypothesis, and it is all important and necessary. ' There is no real distinc- tion of great and small, important and trivial, in the things that are done in accordance with Halachah,' says Herford.2 So Josephus : » ' Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet. . . , And whatsoever they (the people) do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction.' The Pharisees applied their interpretation of the ceremonial law to the Sabbath, to meals, to ablutions, to travel, to trade, to deahngs with Gentiles, to relations with the 'Am-ha-'ards, to tithing, to everything. All tJiis led to that exteniaUsm and professionalism in religious service that Jesus condemned so severely. But we must hear the Pharisees themselves. Twelve trea- tises of the Mishna discuss the subject of purification. ' He who lightly esteems hand-washing will perish from the earth ' (Sotah, iv.). The rabbis found forty -nine reasons for pronouncing each animal clean or unclean, and pronounced seven hundred kinds of fish and twenty- four kinds of birds unclean.'' Imagine therefore the terror of Simon Peter, in his vision on the house-top at Joppa, when he was invited by the Lord to rise, slay ' Sanhedrin, xi. 3. • Ant., bk. xviii. cli. i. § 3. • Pharitaitm, p. 101. • Sopherim, xvi. 0. t I.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 46 and eat all manner of beasts and birds, and he a pious Jew. The rabbis added many regulations about the observance of mere rules, and then found them so incon- venient that they devised plans for evading them, for they were lawyers and fulfilled one of the functions of the modem lawyer in showing one's cUents how to evade the law. The Book of Jubilees ^ has this paragraph about the Sabbath : ' Every one who desecrates the Sabbath, or declares that he intends to make a journey on it, or speaks either of buying or selling, or he who draws water and has not provided it upon the sixth day, and he who lifts a burden in order to take it out of his dwell- ing-place, or out of his house shall die. And every one who makes a journey, or attends to his cattle, and he who kindles a fire, or rides upon any beast, or sails upon a ship on the sea upon the Sabbath day, shall die.' Hear the Talmud : ' A fracture may not be attended to. If any one has spramed his hand or foot, he may not pour cold water on it.' ^ One was not allowed to write on the Sabbath, save on something dark or with the hand upside down. One is not allowed to read by lamphght or to cleanse clothing. Women were not to look in the mirror on the Sabbath day because they might see a grey hair and be tempted to pull it out. Some knots could be tied on the Sabbath and others not. One must state what kind of a knot it was. To untie the knot of camel drivers and of sailors is a sin, while a knot that can be untied with one hand is allowed. One must not . kindle a fire on the Sabbath. Some churches in America used to consider it a sin to have fire in church on Sunday. Vinegar could be used for sore throat if it was swallowed, but not as a gargle. If the burden grew too heavy, one could evade these heavy laws by the rule of intention. An egg laid on the Sabbath day could be eaten, provided one intended to kill 60. * Shabbath, xxii. 6. 46 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. the hen.i So an ox " could be taken out of the ditch if one intended to kill it. In case of peril of life, one was aUowed to send for the physician. The Jews, after the unfortunate experience of Mattathias, would fight on the Sabbath, but only in the case of attack by the enemy.' But ' life under the law ' had the added burden of the distinction between the clean and the unclean. This applied to persons and things and places. Part of these rules restetl on the Levitical laws, and have a basis of value for hygienic purposes, and so as a means of keeping the people of Israel separate from the idolatrous practices of the Gentiles. But the rabbis could not rest content with the details of the law of Moses. They must define the most minute items with no chance of mistake. In the matter of utensils there was the question of material (earthen, wooden, leathern, glass, iron, gold, silver) and the shape (whether hollow or flat). If the vessel is unclean and one's hands are clean, how shall he take hold of the vessel ? If the vessel is broken, what is to be done ? Then the problem of purification is a serious one. There is pond water, spring water, running water in streams, collected water from the pond or spring or stream or rain water, and clean water and unclean water. Each kind has its special function, and must be properly used if one is to be clean.* If ram water and river water are mixed in the bath, what is one to do ? And then what about hail, snow, frost, and dew ? And then the hands must be washed before eatmg. Pouring water on the hands would answer for ordinary purposes, but in case of eating holy things the hands must be completely dipped ' On tile whole subject of the Sabbath, Bee Schuerer, Jewish People, div. ii. vol. ii. pp. 96-105. ' These examples come from the Tractate ShabbalK in the Miahna. • JoBephiis, Ant., bk. xiv. ch. iv. § 2. * See the Tractate Kelim. I] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 47 in water. The cups, platters, pots must be properly cleansed. Piety came at a high price to the Pharisees. And then one must be careful about his associates. Were they clean ? The Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, and kept away from the homes of Gentiles. Peter's apology to Cornehus (Acts x. 28) for violating the law of his people by entering his house is a case in point. A rabbi must not talk with a woman in pubUc and not too much with his wife, else he will go to Gehenna. In the Jewish Prayer Book * we read : ' Blessed art thou, Lord God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a heathen. Blessed art thou . . . who hast not made me a bondman. Blessed art thou . . . who hast not made me a woman.' The Pharisee thus has pride of race, of position, of sex, and of laborious personal purity by attention to the formulae for righteousness, by doing which he gained salvation. In all this he thought that he was doing the will of God. Rabbi ben Tema ^ says : ' Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a stag, and strong as a lion, to do the will of your Father in heaven.' It is easy to see that the study of these details required time. In Sirach xxxviii. 24-26 we read : ' The wisdom of a scribe cometh by opportunity of leisure; And he that hath little business shall become wise. How can he get wisdom that holdeth the plow, That glorieth in the goad, That driveth oxen, and is occupied in their labours, And whose talk is of bullocks 1 ' Here is fine scorn for ' clodhoppers ' or the 'Am-ha- 'arets, the people of the land. Josephus ' had a sort of contempt for this casuistry, as we see : ' For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued them- selves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law ' PirH Aboth, v. 20. ■ Singer, Auth. Ed., p. B. * Ant., bk. xvii. oh. ii. { 4. 48 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [OH. of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favoured by God, by whom this Bet of women was in- veigled. ... A cumiing sect they were.' But with all these peccadillos, and partly by reason of them, the Pharisees had the multitude on their side,* while the Sadducees were able to persuade none but the rich. 11. The Apocalyptists It is good to turn to a more pleasing phase of Jewish life and thought, even if only for a moment. The apoca- lyptists took the place of the prophets, and grew up beside the scribes. In the main they seem to have been Pliarisees, though they did not belong to the main stream of Pharisaic thought.* Certain aspects of their teaching were incorporated by the Pharisees, as in their Messianic expectations presented in the SybiUine Oracles, Book of Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, and 2 Esdras. Apocalypse was resorted to as a means of expressing the hopes of the people in times of persecu- tion. We see it in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. The persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes stimu- lated it. They were often pseudepigraphic, with the idea that the name of an ancient worthy would gain a hearing for their message. The veiled form of the message in symbols made it a pillar of light for the initiated, and a cloud of darkness for the enemies of the chosen people. The apocalyptists deal mainly with the future hopes of the people. They kept alive the fire when it was hard to do it. Charles {Religious Devel., p. 45) says : ' All Jewish apocalypses, therefore, from 200 B.o. onwards, were of necessity pseudonymous if they sought to exercise any real influence on the nation ; for the Law was everything, belief in inspiration was dead amongst them, and the canon was closed.' It is • Josephus, Ant., bk. xiii. ch. x. § 6. •Thomson, however, thinks (art. 'Apocalyptical Literature' in Inter. Stand. Bible Ennycl.) that moat of these boolcs were written by Essenes. I.] THE PHARISAIC OUTLOOK 49 clear that eschatological elements in the teaching exist. I am not able to follow Schweitzer, and make that the determining factor in the message of Jesus. That is to Ine a \evf one-sided view of the facts. Indeed, the positive ethical note (not mere interim ethics) is present in the Jewish apocalyptists along with the confused eschatology. Both John the Baptist and Jesus made uee of the apocalyptic imageiy of the Old Testament and of the popular writers of later days. These apoca- lyptists were largely neglected by the rabbinical legaUsts, but their ideas had gained a powerful hold on certain elements of the people. The law stood in the way of fresh truth, and the apocalyptists had no easy task. Indeed, the best of these books, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ' was never officially accepted or otherwise by the Pharisees. It was never authoritative save in certain circles of Pharisaic mystics, who must in due time have found a congenial home in the bosom of the rising Cliristian Church. So little did the Pharisaic legalists — the dominating power of Pharisaism — appre- ciate this Avork that they did not think it worth pre- serving. For its preservation the world is indebted to the Christian church.' i In fact, it is by no means clear whether the book, as we now have it, has not been largely interpolated by Christian writers who have inserted teachings of Jesus here and there. At any rate, the teaching in this book is not sacramental legahsm, but is a much nearer approach to that of Jesus in its emphasis upon the inward and the spiritual. Charles * shows ' Charles, Rel. Devel., p. 157. • Ibid., pp. 161 ft. See further Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses ; Cook, The Fathers of Jesus ; Thomson, Boohs vihich have Influenced Our Lord ; Danziger, Jewish Forerunners of Jesus ; Toy, Judaism and Christianity ; Hughes, JSthica of Jewish Apocryphal Literature ; Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus ; Sandny, The Life of Christ in llecent Research ; Dobsohiitz, Eschatology of the Gospels ; Worsloy, The Apocalypse of Jesus ; Winstixnloy, Jesus and the Future ; Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology ; Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of Last Things. D 60 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS tcK. tliat tho teaching of the Testaments concerning forgive- ness of injuries is far superior to that in the Talmud, and ' is in keeping with the entire ethical character of that remarkable book, which proclaims in an ethical setting that God created man in His own image, that tlie law was given to lighten every man, that salvation was for all mankind through conversion to Judaism, and that a man should love both God and his neighbour.' It is entirely possible that Zacharias and Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna, Joseph and Mary, John and Jesus Imew the teachings of this side of Jewish thought, the apocalyptic tone and shading behind which gUmmered the real flame in spiritual life. But the colUsion between the Pharisees and Jesus was in a different realm. The PJiarisees themselves regarded the apocalyptists as an eddy in the stream. The real Pharisees we have seen as pictured in their o\vn writings. What will they tliink of and do to the new Rabbi, who suddenly appears in the temple, and usurps authority in tho home of priest and scribe ? They stand in Jerusalem entrenched in the hearts of the people as the exponents of current Jewish orthodoxy and professors of special holiness, the preservers of traditional Judaism. They sit in Moses' seat with all the authority of hoary antiquity. They stand against the tide of Hellenism and every theological upstart. No one can be an accredited teacher of Judaism without their imprimatur. They had trouble with John the Baptist. One day Jesus appears in the temple with a scourge of cords in His hands. He has asserted His Messianic authority over priest and scribe, Sadducee and Pharisee. The Pharisees have reached a crisis in their history. What shall they do with Jesus 7 II.] PHARISAIC RESENTMENT TOWARD JESUS 61 CHAPTER II THE rHAKISAIO RESENTMENT TOWABD JESUS Since the Jews and apologists for Pharisaism complain that the Gospels and Paul's Epistles treat the Pharisees unfairly, it is only fair to begin mth the Talmud to interpret Jewish feeling toward Jesus. Herford (Ghris- tianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903, p. 7) insists that ' it is obvious that the Rabbinical literature must also be consulted, if a thorough investigation into the origin of Christianity is to be made.' 1 . The Spirit of the Talmud toward Jesus It is not necessary here to discuss at length the ques- tion whether the Talmud quotes the Gospels or the Gospels the Talmud. Renan * argued that it was in- admissible to assert that the compilers of the Talmud made any use of the Gospels or any Christian teaching. This idea of Renan was championed by Deutsch," who alleged that to maintain that the Tahnud made use of the New Testament would be like saying that Sanscrit sprang from Latin. The point in this argument is that the Tahnud rests mainly on oral tradition that ante- dates the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus. But Wellhausen ^ brands this theory ' a mere superstition,' and holds that the Talmud ' is based on literature and • Life oj Jesua, p. 108. • The Quarterly Review, Oot. 1867. ' leraelitiache und jildiache Geschichle, 1894, p. 31 footnole. h2 THE PIlARtsE^S AND JESUlS tod, refers to literature.' i Pick » shows that a number of these parallels in the Talmud to sayings of Jesus are referred to rabbis who lived a long time after Jesus.' He holds this view to be ' a vain glorification of modem Judaism, which, on the one hand, rejects the Talmud as a religious code, but makes use of it for controversial purposes.' Stapfer.^ who once asserted that Hillel was the real forerunner and teacher of Jesus, renounced his former opmion as erroneous. Hillel is the only rabbi of importance whose sayings at all parallel those of Jesus, and who also lived before Christ. There are beyond a doubt, exceUent maxims, 'even some close parallels to the utterances of Christ' (Farrar, Life of Christ, vol. ii. p. 485), but they are chiefly proverbs more or less common to the age. And in these parallels the saying of Jesus has a crispness and originality all its own. Take for instance this, the most famous of all, the so-called Golden Rule, which in one form or another is used by Isocrates, Diogenes Laertius (from Aristotle), Confucius, Tobit, the Epistle of Aristeas, Hillel. The form of Hillel is this : ' What is hateful to thee, do not to another. This is the whole law, all else is only com- mentary.' Jesus says : ' Therefore all things what- soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to thein ; for this is the law and the prophets.' It is 130ssible that in some instances the Talmud made use of Christian teachuig, since it did incorporate matter from neighbours of the Babylonian Jews, and from others more or less hostile to the Jews.* One has to call attention also to the fact that the Talmud as now published is much less severe toward Jesus than was once the case. Farrar ^ notes that the ' Trniislalion of B. Pick, Je^ius in Ike Talmud, p. 75. « Ibid., 1913, p. 78. ' Palestine in tlie Time of Christ, 3rd ed., p. 289. ' DunUp Moore, Talmud in Schaff-Henog Encyclopedia, • Lije of Christ, vol. ii. p. 452, n.] PHARISAIC RESENTMENT TOWARD JESUS 63 name of Jesus appears only about twenty times in un- expurgated editions of the Talmud, the last of which was pubhshed in Amsterdam in 1644. Professor B. Pick ^ has one of these collections of the Talmudic sayings about Jesus, which was published in 1644 by the Jews themselves, for the benefit of other Jews after the Jewish Synod at Petrikau, Poland (a.d. 1631), issued a circular to the effect that future editions of the Talmud should omit the passages about Jesus. Other copies of the collection exist also. Dalman has published this collection of the passages expurgated from the Talmud and Midrash, to which H. Laible has added an intro- ductory essay.* The bitterness between Jews and Christians had become very intense in Europe. Rabbi Tarphon is quoted in the Talmud ' as saying of the Christians and the Christian writings : ' By the life of my son, should they [these Christian writings] come into my hand, I would bum them together with the names of God which they contained. Were I pursued, I would rather take refuge in a temple of idols than in their [Christians'] houses. For the latter are wilful traitors, wliile the heathen sinned in ignorance of the right way.' The day came when Christians burned copies of the Talmud. ' The Talmud in wagon loads was burned at Paris in 1242.' * Montefiore {Judaism and St. Paul, p. 55) says : ' When Christianity became the State Church of the Roman Empire, it was forbidden under severe penalties for anybody to become a prose- lyte to Judaism.' So bitter was the feeling between Jews and Christians, that in a.d. 1240, Rabbi Jechiel actually denied that the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud was Jesus of Nazareth, but modern Jews do not hold to this absurdity.^ In order to understand the real atti- ' Jesut in the Talmud, p. 6. ' Jeaua Chriatue im Thalmv-d, 1891. • Shabbath, fol. 116, qt. 1. * Pick, Jeaiu in the Talmud, p. 6. • Levin, Die JWigionfdispulation del Rabbi Jechiel von Parin, 18(59, p. 193. Cf. also Herford, Chrietinnily in Talmud and Midrash, p. 38. 54 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [OH. tude of the Talmud toward Jesus, we must use the expurgated passages as weU as the rest. The same hostihty appears in the Mishna, the Tosephta (addition to the Mishna), the Geniara (commentary on the Mshna) the Mdrash (homiletical hterature). In fact, the height of hate 18 readied in the Middle Ages. ' In that period the hatred of Jesus, which was never quite dormant, begot a literature, in comparison with which the Talmud must be termed almost innocent. The Toldoth Jeshu literature originated, which is stiU continued. In the Toldoth Jeshu a detailed picture of the Ufe of Jesus was put together, of which the authors of the Talmud had no anticipation.'! Respectable Jews are not to be held responsible for these tirades. Herford « is much more sympathetic with Rabbinism than is Pick or Laible, but he reproduces faithfully in Enghsh dress the work of Dalman and Laible, and does not seek to conceal the spirit of the Talmud toward Jesus.' There is not room to quote and discuss all the passages in the unexpur- gated Talmud that refer to Jesus, but most of them are beyond dispute. The anachronisms and crass errors of fact found in the Talmudic references can only be explained on the basis of the refusal of many of the rabbis to read the Gospels or other Christian writmgs. Jesus is called Ben Stada and also Ben Pandira in the Talmud ; * why we do not know, though both express contempt and mockery of Jesus.* Rabbi Eliezer said to the Wise : ' Did not Ben Stada bring spells from Egypt in a cut which was upon his flesh ? They said to him, He was a fool, and they do not receive proof from a fool.' Here Jesus is called a fool, and it is added that the paramour of Marj-^ was named Pandira and the ' Pick, Jesus in the Talmud, p. 11. " Chrislinnily in Talmud and Midraah. ' Ibid., p. ix. : ' My only aim is to present foots.' • Shabbath, 104b. • Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 38 ff Jesus in the Talmud, pp. 14 fi. j Origan (ap. Epiph. Haer., 78). Pick, 1 II.] PHARISAIC RESENTMENT TOWARD JESUS 6r> husband was Stada. In the Mishna * it is stated that Jesus was a bastard, as shown by both of His pedigrees, and that Mary ' played the harlot with carpenters.' ^ Indeed, a late passage ' claims that Mary confessed to Rabbi Akiba that Jesus was a bastard, though Rabbi Akiba lived a hundred years later.* Jesus is accused of practising magic, and in this we see a tacit admission of His miracles : ' Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led astray and deceived Israel.'" He is accused of heresy under a figurative expression : ' That thou mayst not prove a son or disciple who bums his food in public hke Jeshu the Nazarene.' • Herford ' makes it plain that by this phrase the charge of heresy is con- veyed. Jesus is called a liar by Rabbi Abahu : ■ 'If a man say to thee, " I am God," he is a Uar ; if " the son of man," the evil people will laugh at him ; if " I will go up to heaven," he saith, but shall not perform it.' The reference to Jesus is beyond doubt, and the second and third chapters of John may be here in mind. Jesus is likened to Balaam ' and is grouped with Balaam *" and Titus (the three chief enemies of Israel) in hell. In some editions of the Talmud ' Jesus ' is changed hero to ' the sinner of Israel.' Jesus is called ' the deceiver,' and in the case of a deceiver who tempts others to apostasy from Judaism, the concealment of witnesses to trap the accused is justified as in the case of Jesus.'* Laible ** holds that this species of legal procedure really rests on the trial of Jesus as reported in the Gospels. There is a curious little book by Rabbi A. P. Drucker, ' M. Jeb. iv. 13. So also b. Jonia 66d. " b. Sanh. 106a. • b. Kallah. 51a. * Laible (Jcsui Ohristua im Talmud, p. 34) denies that this passage refers to Jesus, but the Jews took it so. • b. Sanh. 107b. • Ibid., 103a. ' Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 57 R. ' j. Taanith. 65b. • M. Sanh. x. 2. >• b. aitt. B6b, 57o. >' T. Sanh. x. 11 ; b. Sanh. G7a, " Jesus Christua im Talmud, p. 76. • J_ 66 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [en. The Trial of Jestu, (1907), in which he undertakes to TTi.^ T "^^ ^^*' procedure, as given in the Talmud, that the Jewish trial of Jesus as reported in the Gospels 18 a myth, smce in the Gospels this procedure is violated at so many pomts. There is a grim humour in the argument which blandly assumes that the Sanhedrin however much they hated Jesus, could not have violated the techmcahties and regularities of their own courts in oi-der to convict Jesus. Facts are made to bend to Jogic and to the demands of theological controveray But the Tahnud rises up to smite Rabbi Drucker in the face. Rabbi Drucker charges Caiaphas the Sadducee with a conspiracy against Jesus and the Jewish people, and with then laying the blame on the people for kilUng their beloved leader ! In some passages in the Tahnud reference is made to the crucifixion of i Jesus, but once ^ It IS said that Jesus was led away and stoned at Lydda, but no effort is made to blame Pontius Pilate for the deatJi of Jesus. Certamly the Talmud adds nothing to our knowledge of Jesus, but it does show with terrible fidelity the intensity of Jewish hatred toward Christ. ' He is the deceiver, the sorcerer, the apostate, the sinner of Israel ; his birth Jewsh contempt blackened into disgrace, and his death is dismissed as the mere execu- tion of a pernicious criminal.' * 2. Jetvish Hatred Show7i in Early Christian Writings Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho gives us a vivid portrayal of how Jews felt towards Jesus m the second century a.d. ' Ye have killed the Just and His prophets before Him. And now ye despise those who hope in Him and in God, the King over all and Creator of all things, who has sent Jesus.' * ' The Jews hate us. • T. Sank. ix. 7. • Pick, Jeaus in the Talmud, p. 44. • b. SanJi. 43n. • Dialogue, 10, n.] PHARISAIC RESENTMENT TOWARD JESUS 57 because we say that Christ is already come, and because we pomt out that He, as had been prophesied, was crucified by them.' ^ ' In your synagogues ye curse all who have become Christians, and the same is done by the other nations, who give a practical turn to the curse, in that when any one acknowledges himself a Christian, they put him to death .'^ 'Nay, ye have added thrusts, that Christ taught those impious, unlawful, horrible actions, which ye disseminate as charges above all against those who acknowledge Christ as Teacher and as the Son of God.' ' ' Your teaehera exhort you to permit yourselves no conversation whatever with us.' * ' The tigh priests of your nation have caused that the name of Josus should be profaned and reviled throughout the whole world.' ^ In his Apology * Justin also says : ' The Jews regard us as foes and opponents, and Idll and torture us if they have the power. In the lately ended Jewish war, Bar-Cochba, the instigator of the Jewish revolt, caused Christians alone to be dragged to terrible tortures, whenever they would not deny and revile Jesus Christ.' These quotations make very sad reading, but they at least serve to bridge the chasm between the Talmud and the New Testament, and to show the unbroken stream of Jewish resentment towards Jesus and His disciples in the early centuries. Tertullian '' also represents the second coming as a glorious spectacle in which he says to the Jews : ' This is your carpenter's son, your harlot's son ; your Sabbath- breaker, your Samaritan, your demon-possessed ! This is He whom ye bought from Judas ; this is He who was struck with reeds and fists, dishonoured with spittle, and given a draught of gall and vinegar ! This is Ho whom His disciples have stolen secretly, that it may be ' Dialogue, 36. • Ibid., 108. ' Ibid., 117. ' De SpectaculiSf 30 (a.d. • Ibid., 90. • Ibid., 112. • i. 31. 197-8). 68 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. said He was risen, or that the gardener abstracted that his lettuces might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors ! '1 The irony is withering, almost blistering. Origen quotas from the True Word of Celsus charges a^oiit Jesus which Celsus had evidently learned from the Jews, and which are similar to those found in the Talmud, even to the point of saying that Jesus was Mary s son by a soldier named Panthera (or Pandira) that He learned sorcery and magic in Egypt, and gave Himself out as a god who was bom of a virgin. Thus we see that the Jewish view of Jesus was widespread in the second century and was known among the heathen also. 3. The Picture in the Acts of the Apostles Here the hostility towards Christians grows directly out of the claim made by Peter and John, that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. Thus the Sadducees are stirred to the same activity against the disciples of Jesus that they had shown towards Him (Acts iv. 1-3). They were the last of the Jewish parties to be enlisted against Jesus, but the first against the disciples. The very vehemence of the Sadducaic onset against the apostles caused the Pharisees to hold aloof, and even to thwart the plans of the Sadducees for a while (Acts v. 33-42). Peter and John aroused the Sadducees, but it was Stephen who enraged the Pharisees by the same in- sistence on the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God, and hence the possibility of real worship of God apart from the temple in Jerusalem, that made the Pharisees rise against Christ. Indeed, some of the same charges are made against Stephen that were made against Jesus (Acts vi. 9-14). Tlie death of Stephen by stoning (sort ' Quoted from Pick, Jesua in the Talmud, pp. 10 f. » i. pp. 28-32. n.] PHARISAIC RESENTMENT TOWARD JESUS 59 of mob law) shows the unrestrained anger of the Pharisees that the heresy of Jesus, which they had hoped to destroy, is now as aUve as ever, if not more so. The violent and successful persecution of the disciples by the Sanhedrin (Sadducees and Pharisees now united again as against Jesus) bears witness to deep-rooted hatred of Jesus. When Paul was converted, he was hated by the Jews with more bitterness than Peter or Stephen. Finally the mob in Jerusalem clamours for his blood as they did for that of Jesus. Before the San- hedrin, whose agent Paul had once been, ho stands un- abashed and actually succeeds in setting the Pharisees and Sadducees against each other by proclaiming him- self a Pharisee still on the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, a curious example of the sudden revival of theological strife in an artificial unity. It is not perti- nent to spend more time on the situation in the Acts. This sketch is given simply to show that the chain of hate is unbroken through the centuries till the Talmud is written down. The after history demands an ex- planation of this fierceness toward Jesus. The Gospels alone give an adequate solution of the facts of the later history, as given by both Jew and Christian. We are not here concerned with the question of who is right and who is wrong in this situation. The roots of the con- troversy go back to the time of Jesus, as shown in thei Gospels. To bo sure, Montefiore ^ tries to break the force of Paul's arraignment of Rabbinic Judaism, by saying that it ' is not Rabbinic Judaism as we know it from the Rabbinic literature and from Rabbinic life. For those criticisms, it must be remembered, are not intended to be (like the mordant criticisms of Jesus) criticisms of the perversions of Rabbinic Judaism of the defects of its quaUties.' But Montefiore does not under- stand Paul, for Paul shoAvs that Christianity is the true ' Judaism and St, Paul, pp. 22 f, 60 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. Judaism and Pharisaiem the perveraion. No doubt to Montefiore Paul « seems often to be BghtingZZl - because Montefiore takes Pharisaism to bTSTe r^al Judaism, and Paul's spiritual elevation is too mrefied hi ri ^"Vf '^ "^^ ''''''' *^« ^P'«"«« of Paul Ike (Ron ix it" Ti'^'f' ^'^ '^'"'^ *« '^^^^k over it 4. TAe 5 J. Weiss, Dot SItcstt Evang., pp. 52-9. ni.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 117 cases, one has to begin all over again and learn his alphabet. This is the charge that Jesus here makes against the Pharisees. They have lost the gift of spiritual sight or insight into spiritual things. Jesus speaks to them in an unknown tongue. They have lost the use of tlje ear, eye and heart. This is the law of nature and of grace. The failure to use an organ leads to the loss of the organ. The proper use of the organ develops the brgan and enriches the user. The Pharisees were the heirs of the past, and had the privilege of witnessing the Messianic times which prophets of old (Moses, Isaiah, Micah) had desired to see (Matt. xiii. 17). And now, alas ! the Pharisees stare at the wondrous sight wth wide-open blind eyes, and the message of Jesus the Me.st)iah falls upon ears deadened and dulled to the sweetest of all soimds. Their hearts are tough like the tanned hide of an animal no longer sensitive to life and truth. What a pitiful description ! The Psalms of Solomon (a Pharisaic book) had said : ' BlesEcd are the}' that shall be bom in those days, to behold the blessings of Israel ' (xvii. 50). If the words of Jesus sound hard and pitiless, it must be noted that He in spealdng as an intei-preter of facts. The Pharisees had made their choice, and Jesus must go on with His task. When Jesus denounced the Pharisees for making void the word of God by their tradition, the disciples, after they had gone into the house (Mark vii. 17), said : ' Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended (caused to stumble, etrKavSaXla-Orjirav) when they heard this saying ? ' (Matt. xv. 12). Evidently the Pharisees winced under the burning words of Jesus, and the dis- ciples felt that Jesus had gone too far on this occasion. But Jesus justified His conduct by saying : ' Let them alone : they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the Wind, both shall fall into the pit ' (Matt. xv. 14). It is probably a proverb (cf. Romans ii. 19) and paints 118 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. the Pharisees in an unforgettable picture. A peasant of Galilee once said to Rabbi Chasda • : ' When the Shepherd is angry with the sheep, he blinds their leaders.' It is well known that sheep will follow the leader blindly over the chfE to death. The Pharisees are pictured by Jesus as blindly leading the blind into the pit. No sadder word can be spoken of those who pose as guides of hght and truth. I once met two blind men in Cincinnati. One was a citizen there, and said that he was taking the other one around, to show him the city. It was more sad than humorous. On another occasion Jesus sadly said : ' For judgment came I into this world, that they that see may not see ; and that they that see may become blind ' (John ix. 39). This almost bitter word is recorded after the feast of tabernacles, only six months before the end, when the man bom blind, healed by Jesus and cast out of the synagogue by the Pharisees, had his spiritual eyes opened also. ' Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said unto him, ' Are we also bhnd ? ' (John ix. 40). They saw the point in the pierc- ing words of Jesus, and understood that He meant to portray their spiritual blindness. There is a difference between having eyes and not using them, and having no eyes to use (Westcott in loco). The Pharisees were the shinuig example of wasted spiritual privilege. They had become bhnd by the non-use of their eyes. Jesus sorrowfully added : ' If ye were blind ' (bhnd to start with, without responsible gifts of mind and heart), ' ye would have no sin, but now ye say, We see : your sin remaineth.' The Pharisees claimed to have superior spiritual perceptions, and could not claim immunity on the score of lack of eyes and minds. The Pharisees asserted the right to 'dictate to Jesus how He should make good His claim to be the Messiah ' Baba Kama, fol. 52a. See Sandoy and Headlam, Rom. ii. 19. m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 119 by giving them a sign from heaven (Matt. xvi. 1 ; Mark viii. 11). The answer of Jesus is partly ironical, but at bottom very sad, for ' he sighed deeply in his spirit ' (Mark viii. 12). People usually profess wisdom about the weather in their section of the coimtry. Some of the weather-wise gain respect because of the number of signs for the weather which they have. The one mentioned by Jesus is well-nigh universal and is a true sign, the difference between the redness of the sky in the evening and in the morning. Jesus finds no fault with this knowledge of the weather, but with the dull- ness of the Pharisees about the Messianic era. ' Ye know how to discern the face of the heaven ; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times ' (Matt. xvi. 3). The Pharisees failed as interpreters of religion and hfe. They were helpless to understand what went on before their very eyes because it did not correspond with their preconceptions. To-day the blight of medisevaUsm rests like mildew upon some ministers' minds, who cannot read the Word of God in the light of the present. On the other hand, some Modernists brush Jesus aside, as Himself out of touch with reality, and claim to have the vital spark of spiritual truth independent of Christ and the gospel message. It has always been difiScult to read the signs of the times. The prophet sees beyond his age, and lashes his age into action to come up to his ideal of the future. His age slays him and the coming age builds him a monument. Jesus is here the prophet, and the Pharisees do not understand His dialect. In Luke xi. 52-64 we have a dramatic picture of the conduct of the lawyers (vofiiKoi) who took up the cudgels in defence of the Pharisees : * Master, in saying this thou reproachest us also ' (fat ij/nas vPpt(iii, thou insultest even us), for the lawyers were the better in-, structed among the Pharisees (Plummer in loco). The last of the three woes for the lawyers (perfectly impartial 120 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. as to number) is this : ' Woe unto you lawyers ! for ye took away the key of knowledge ; ye entered not in yourselves, and those that were entering in ye hindered.' This is a fearful uidictment of the scribes, who were the interpreters of Scripture and of the way of salva- tion, but who themselves were on the outside of the house of spiritual knowledge, had lost the key to open it, and would not let others find it. The picture of Jesus drawn in the Talmud justifies this charge. Not simply are the scribes blind themselves, but they endeavour to keep others blind also. ' For ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers ' (Luke ii. 46). The lawyers had made the ceremonial and moral law far more burdensome than it was intended to be by their ' intolerably burdensome interpretations ' (Plummer). The record in the Tahnud more than proves this indictment. Some modem lawyers are in the employ of men who pay the lawyers to show them how to evade the law. These lawyers were skilful both ill addition of burdens for others, and in evasion for themselves. The best instructed of the Pharisees in Je^vish legal lore show the utmost density of spiritual insight. So exasperated are this group of scribes and Pharisees, that outside the house they ' began to press upon him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things ; laying wait for Mm (hke a wild animal) to catch something out of his mouth ' (Luke xi. 54). 2. Formalism (Matt. v. 17-vi. 18 ; Luke ii. 37-54 ; xviii. 1-14) One of the purposes of the Sermon on the Mount was precisely to show the difference between Christ's idea of righteousness, and that of the scribes and Pharisees, the religious teacliers of the Jews. Many books have been nr.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 121 written on this sermon, wliich has not always been understood. It is not a complete statement of all that Jesus preached, but it does set forth in clear outline the fundamental differences between Jesus and the rabbis. Jesus placed the emphasis on the inward reahty ; the rabbis on the outward form. With Jesus spirit is the determining factor ; with the Pharisees it is the letter of the law, or rather their interpretation of the law, which is more binding than the law itself. Jesus puts God's kingdom before righteousness (Matt. vi. 33) ; the rabbis place righteousness before the kingdom. Tlie Beatitudes depict the spiritual state of those who with a new heart are endeavouring to live the life of goodness with divine help and with inward joy. The ' woes ' in Luke vi. 24-26 describe the self-satisfied Pharisees who love money and praise and power, the very opposite traits. Both Jesus and the rabbis appeal to the Old Testament, but Jesus seizes the moral content and intent, and lifts the ethical standard higher by going into the purposes of the heart, while the rabbis were busy with innuendoes and petty punctilios of the fringes of morality. Jesus reafiirms the moral force of the law and the pro23hets as interpreted by Him, but scouts the flimsy peccadillos of the Pharisees : ' For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven ' (Matt. v. 20). Did Jesus prove this daring arraignment 7 He pointedly states that the Pharisees' standard of righteousness falls short of that required for the kingdom of heaven. He does not say that the rabbis taught no true things. This they did, as can be easily seen from the Pharisaic apocalypses and the Talmud and the Midrash. There are grains of wheat in this chaff in varying quantities. The best of the Jewish non-canonical books, The Testa- ment of the Twelve Patriarchs, was neglected by the 122 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. Pharisees. If the Pharisaic conception of righteous- ness can be properiy judged by the Tahnud, the charge of Jesus is amply proven. Jesus gives the proof Himself in detail as reporiied by Matthew. I may say at once that I hold to the essential unity of this sermon. The proof given by Jesus applies both to the ideal and the life. Plummer is clearly correct in saying that Jesus is not referring to 'the hypocritical professions of the scribes and Pharisees ; nor to their sophistical evasions of the Law.' He is challenging the inadequacy of the best that the Pharisees offered to men, even those who kept closest to the Old Testament itself. For even here they were content with scrupulous observances of the letter of the law. The six illustrations (Matt. v. 21-48) used by Jesus to show the superiority of His ideal over that of the Pharisees all get their pomt from the fact that Jesus is not satisfied with the mere external obedience to the Old Testament requirement about murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaUation, neigh- bours and enemies. Indeed, the ideal of Jesus on these points is considered too high and even impracticable by some modern reformers. Perhaps in the non- resistance argument Jesus has the Zealots in mind, and is opposing violence toward Rome ; but even so one needs clear spiritual conceptions to be able to apply this loftiest of all ethical standards to avoid the absurdities of Tolstoi. The conscience of the world approves what Jesus said, but the world hesitates on the brink of the application, or, alas I flings it all to the wind in the mad whirl of war. But Jesus warned His hearers against the Pharisaic practice, as well as against their teaching about righteousness. Jesus is not ridiculing righteous- ness (5iKaio(Tvvr)). Far from it. The rather He uses it as the synonym for the highest good (sumTnum bonum) of the ancients.^ The phrase ' do righteousness ' is ' Cf. stalker. The Ethici oj Jefut. ni.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 123 common enough (Ps. cvi. 3 ; Isaiah Iviii. 2) and is used by Jesus, in the sense of practical goodness (cf. the Epistle of James). But the Pharisees vitiate the whole matter, not merely by wrong teaching and evasive subtle- ties, but by doing righteous acts ' to be seen ' of men, to have glory of men. They not merely did these things to gain favour with God as ojiera operata, but to increase their reputation for piety with men. Jesus selects alms, prayer and fasting as typical instances of this hollow mockery and formaUsm. It is a bit curious that far back in Tobit xii. 8 we read : ' Prayer is good with fast- ing and alms and righteousness.' The Pharisees as a class have come to be mere formaUsts in reUgious life, as they were sticklers for the letter of the law. The picture here drawn by Jesus is in a way the most severe because it appUes to the great mass of the scribes and Pharisees, and is drawn on a large canvas. The in- sinuation in John viii. 32, that the Pharisees are spiritual slaves and need to be set free by the truth that Jesus preaches, angers them very much. They are not merely the slaves of their own rules, but they are in the bondage of sin. Jesus insisted that even the Pharisees, the so- called righteous class, were the bondservants of sin. ' If therefore the Son shall make you free ye shall be free indeed ' (John viii. 36). A long time after this Jesus bluntly said to the Pharisees who ' marvelled that he had not washed before dinner ' : ' Now do ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter ; but your inward part is full of extortion and wickedness ' (Luke xi. 39). It is well to have the outside of the cup clean. Certainly a cup dirty outside is not attractive. The language is difficult and is variously interpreted, but the most natural way is to take the second part of the sentence as the direct appUcation of the figure of the cup or platter. The Pharisee cared much that Jesus had not bathed His 124 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. hands before the breakfast, but he was unconcerned about the condition of his own heart. Proper form and etiquette are not to be despised, but the Pharisees ' pass over {7rapipx€,7ec) judgment and the love of God.' The anxiety for scrubbing the pot clean on the outside has led to absolute neglect of the inside, where the food is which is eaten and which does the real harm. This food is full of deadly germs (extortion and wickedness). One result of this stickUng for the formalities is the immediate vanity that insists on ' the chief seats in the synagogue, and the salutations in the market-places' (Luke xi. 43), a point in social etiquette which is strong in those anxious to have their place and prestige recog- nised. i At another breakfast with a Pharisee Jesus ' marked how they chose out the chief seats ' (Luke xiv. 7). It was so noticeable that Jesus fixed (fnixiav) His attention on it, and spoke a parable about the embar- rassment of such a custom. If three recUned on a couch, the worthiest had the centre, the next the left, and the third the right (Edersheim, Life and Times, vol. ii. pp. 207, 494). This emptiness of reaUty makes tJie Pharisees like ' the tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not.' Certainly this ' woe ' is pronounced with the utmost sadness of heart on the part of Jesus. At another time ' The Pharisees who were lovers of money ' ' scoffed at ' Jesus (e'f t/iuxrj/pifoi/, turned the nose out at, Luke xvi. 14), because of the parable of the imjust steward. Jesus noticed the scoffing and said : ' Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men ; but God knoweth your heart : for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God ' (xvi. 15). This justification (SiKaiovcrts ; cf. Sucaio- Tvvij) ' in the sight of men ' (iviowtov tQv dvOpiowiDv) is what the Pharisees cared most about. In a word, ' Cf. Madame Esmond (Warrington) in Thackeray's The Virginiann. m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 126 they prefer reputation to character. They had rather stand well in the eye of men than in the eye of God. But God knows (yndtrKft, as if by experience) the hearts of men, and reads beneath the formahsm the facts of the case concerning the iimer life. What is ' high ' (vif>r]X.6i') with men may be ' abomination ' {fiSekvy/ia) with God. We know that money counts more than morals with the average man. Even in business men act on the piinciple that might makes right. Politics is a realm from which preachers and pious people are often excluded. They do not know how to be practical politicians. The formalism of the Pharisee is graphically presented in the immortal parable of the Pharisee and the publican engaged in prayer in the temple. The Pharisees ' trusted in themselves that they were righteous ' (Luke xviii. 9). They were the standard of righteousness in theory and conduct, and even the judges of their own community. This complacency of some Pharisees is commented on in the Talmud, on the part of those ' who implore you to mention some more duties which they might perform.' So far as they are aware they have ' done ' all the per- formances required by the Pharisaic rules. They stand ready to do more if they can be pointed out. This Pharisee ' stood and prayed thus with himself ' (Tpos lavroc) as Jesus almost facetiously pictures him. He addresses God, to be sure, but liis gratitude is not concerning the goodness of God, but concerning his own superiority to ' the rest of men,' as, for instance, ' this pubhcan.' He not simply had an exorbitant estimate of his own righteousness, but he 'set at naught' ((^ovOivovvrai Toils XoiTrous), treated the rest as nothing. The in- evitable result of mere formalism is spiritual pride. The constant effort to reach the low standard of out- ward observance easily ministers to pride of perform- ance. Hence vanity and conceit, constant demons in 126 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. the path of preachers, beset the Pharisees -mth. great success. They acquired an ecclesiastical pose, not to say tone, and expected to be greeted with due formality as ' rabbi ' (Matt, xxiii. 18). And yet it must be said in defence of this rabbi that his claim to be moral was probably correct. Some of the rabbis described in the Tahnud were men of unclean life. But, alas ! the Chris- tian ministry is not able to throw stones on this subject, when the long centuries are counted. Thackeray in The Virginians dares to say : 'A hundred years ago the Abb6 Parson, the clergyman who frequented the theatre, the tavern, the race course, the world of fashion, was no uncommon character in English society.' The Pharisees at an3' rate pretended to a holy life, and often attained it in externals. They had their spiritual fashions for phylacteries and for fringes on their garments (Matt, xxiii. 6), and were punctilious to appear at street comers, market-places, synagogues, feasts, and other public places ' to be seen of men.' They found joy in this constant appearance before the public eye. They had no daily papers or press agencies to keep them before the public, but they managed to be their own publicity bureau. 3. Prejudice (John v. 40 ; Matt. xi. 16-19 ; Luke vii. 29-35) The charge of prejudice against Jesus is implied all through the long conflict with the Pharisees. They have prejudiced the case against Him. This attitude of the Pharisees has been specifically proven in the pre- ceding chapter. Here it is only necessary to mention two or three words of Jesus on the subject. In John v. 39, Jesus commends the Pharisees for searching the Scriptures {fpawarc, indicative), but adds : ' and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life ' (xai ou OiXtTt iXOfiv Trp6% /xc). They are not willing to obtain Ufe m.] CONDEMNATION OP THE PHARISEES 127 at the hands of Jesus. He is to the Pharisees persona mm grata and Jesus knows it. The will is set against Him and His message. It is a closed circuit. One may compare John vii. 17 : 'If any man wiUeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching.' The Pharisees were prejudiced against both John the Baptist and Jesus. It is not absolutely certain that in Luke vii. 29-30 we have the commandment of Jesus rather than a paren- thetical note of the Evangelist. Certainly it is very imusual to have such an interpolation right in the midst of the discourse of Jesus. We do have appended notes of the Evangelists added at the close of Christ's addresses. I agree therefore with Plummer, that here we have the contrast of the e£Eect of John's preaching upon the people and upon the hierarchy, the contrast drawn by Jesus Himself. ' All the people when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.' They ' admitted the righteousness of God ' (Plummer, tSiKaidio-ai' Thi> Otov) in making this demand upon them, in treating them practically as heathen. The baptism was accepted in this spirit. ' But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for them- selves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him.' They set aside as null and void so far as they were con- cerned {i'i0eTriya, Matt.) or by m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 129 her children {riKva, Luke). After all, that is what matters, and Jesus shows His independence of Pharisaic criticism, and His determination to pursue His road to the end. He is not deaf to what they say, but He discounts it. They have become hke common scolds, and it is impossible to conform to their whims and foibles, which vary with the days. The thing that does not change is their settled antipathy to any doctrine or rule of fife that does not square in every petty detail with their own. It is possible for a modem church to fall into this Pharisaic groove in deaUng with different pastors. Certainly the minister who sets out to please the world will find the world fickle as a flirt. The picture of the Pharisees as the elder brother (Luke xv. 25-32) who is angry at the reception given the returning prodigal is not a caricature. They not only hmited the love and the grace of God to the Jews (or proselytes from the Gentiles), but to those among the Jews who followed the narrow path marked out for them by the rabbis in the oral law. This attitude amounts to a ' legalistic perversion of religion in Judaism ' (Scott, Hastings' D.C.O). They were jealous and angry at Jesus for preaching to the poor and outcast. They are in a petty pout of prejudice because He does not confine His message to their social and reUgious castes. 4. Traditionalism (Matt. xv. 1-20; Mark vii. 1-23) This criticism of the Pharisees by Jesus is involved in many of the incidents already discussed under the sections on spiritual blindness and formalism. But on one occasion this specific charge comes to the front in Christ's reply to the attack of the Pharisees for allowing the disciples to eat with unwashed hands. This attack was discussed in the preceding chapter, but the defence of Jesus takes the turn of a sharp counter attack, and 130 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. it is just this phase of the matter with which we are here concerned. The Pharisees demand of Jesus : ' Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders ? ' (Mark vii. 6). Thus the whole question of the Midrash or oral law is raised for discussion. Jesus does not evade it. On the contrary. He seems to welcome the opportunity to show how the scribes and Pharisees actually set their oral law above the written law of the Old Testament. This is precisely the position of the rabbis in the Talmud, as we have sho^vn. The charge of Jesus therefore is not an exaggeration. ' Ye leave the commandment of God and hold fast the tradition of men ' (Mark vii. 8). They are tenacious {Kpartirt) of tradition and careless of God's word. Jesus accuses the rabbis of placing the Halachah above the Torah, as the Talmud plainly does. ' To be against the word of the scribes is more punishable than to be against the word of the Bible.' * ' The voice of the rabbi is as the voice of God.' ^ ' He who transgresses the word of the scribes throws away his life.' ' Swete (on Mark vii. 8) doubts if the rabbis made this claim openly in Christ's time. We have no means of knowing how soon they put this contention into words. Clearly they were guilty of doing the thing in reality, for later it is an accepted doctrine with them. Matthew (xv. 6) reports Jesus as saying : ' And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.* Some of the MSS. read ' law ' (vd/xos) here rather than ' word ' (A.oyos), but the point is not material, since the antithesis is clearly between the oral teaching and the written law (Torah). The word for 'make void' (riKvprna-art) is the usual one for annulling a legal enactment. So we have it in Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) 126 : ' They annulled thy ' Sanh., si. § 3. ' Erubin, fol. 21, col. 2. " Berachoth, fol. iv. ool. 2. ni.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 131 law.' The Pharisees are charged with deliberate defiance of the law of God, because they prefer the traditions of men, as Isaiah ^ has well said (xaXws, a beautiful illus- tration of what Isaiah prophesied). It is with the keenest irony that Jesus continues : * Full well do ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your traditions ' (Mark vii. 9). Swete (on Mark in loco) makes ' full well ' (xaAws) ' in part ironical.' To me it is wholly so here. Irony is a dangerous weapon, for the delicate edge is easily turned on a dull surface. Surely even the Pharisees on this occasion felt its keen point. At any rate the illustration of ' corban ' used by Jesus makes it perfectly plain. This is a Marcan Aramaism.' Corban '= gift (Sw/ooc). It is a consecrated gift. ' The scribes held that the mere act of declaring any property to be corban, aUenated it from the service of the person addressed (Swete, in loco). It is not per- fectly clear whether, in the instance cited by Jesus, the son actually dedicated his property to God in haste, and was not allowed by the scribes to use it for the support of his needy parents, or whether he merely pretended to dedicate it wliile really keeping it for liis own use (a more flagrant act, to be sure). But in either case, the point in the iUustration is, that the Pharisees and scribes justified the son in his evasion of responsibility for the support of his parents, because he had taken advantage of one of the technicaUties of the oral law. They cared more for the strict observance of their rules about ' corban ' than they did about the support and welfare of the son's father and mother. So now the Pharisees had criticised the disciples for eating with imwashed hands. ' Rigid scrupulosity about things of httle moment may be accompanied with utterly unscrupu- ' xxix. 13. * Dalman, Words oj Jeaut, p. 139 n. 132 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. lous conduct in matters that are vital ' (Plummer, Matt. Ml loco). This is merely one illustration. ' Many such like things ye do ' (Mark vii. 13). The tautology ' is effective. Jesus considered the matter so vital that He called the multitude to Him (Matt. xv. 10 ; Mark vii. 14), probably as the Pharisees withdrew in utter defeat and inability to reply to this exposure of the inherent defect in their teaching. Jesus makes an appeal for attention : ' Hear me all of you and under- stand ' (Mark vii. 14). He announces what seems to us almost a platitude, so used have we become to the conception of Jesus, but to the Pharisees it was abso- lutely revolutionary. The startling statement is to the effect that defilement is what comes out of the heart, not what goes iiito the mouth. Jesus means, of course, moral and spiritual defilement, not sanitary rules of health. The Pharisees had made their ceremonial rules of diet a matter of spiritual life and death. The disciples themselves are astounded at this amazing and un-Jewish doctrine from the Master, and question Him about it privately in the house (Matt. xv. 12 ; Mark vii. 17). Jesus expresses amazement at their dullness of comprehension, and explams the parable in plain language (Matt. xv. 16-19). Peter was impressed by it, but it was not till after his experience on the housetop at Joppa (Acts x.) that he was able to see what Mark adds about what Je.sus said : ' Making all meats clean' (Mark vii. 19). The power of tradition over men is tremendous in all ages. Jesus went up against the most immovable mass of it in human history. We use the terms ' schoolman ' and ' medievahsm ' for the hair-spUtting perversions of Christianity in the Middle Ages. But these men at least had glimpses of the spirit of Christ, a thing that cannot be said of the Pharisaic contention for tradition. ' llap6iioia TOiaPro, m.] CONDEMNATION Of TfiE PlIAtllSEES 133 6. Hypocrisy (Matt. vi. 2-7 ; v. 15-23 ; Luke vi. 37-42 Matt. XV. 7-9 ; Mark vii. 6, 7 ; Matt. xvi. 5-12 Mark viii. 14-21 ; Luke xii. 1 , 2 ; xiii. 15-17 Matt, xxiii. 13-39) There is no dispute as to the hypocrisy of some of the Pharisees. We have already seen that six of the seven varieties of Pharisees portrayed in the Talmud by the rabbis are described as hypocrites. John the Baptist used the term ' offspring of vipers ' (Matt. iii. 7 ; Luke iii. 7) afterwards employed by Jesus also (Matt, xii. 34). These severe terms may be subject to some quaUfications. In the Talmud the six varieties arc caricatures of the true Pharisees. In the Gospels the Pharisees as a class are arraigned as hypocrites, though we are not to understand that Jesus admits no excep- tions. There were exceptions beyond a doubt, but we cannot soften down the words of Jesus to mean that only a few Pharisees were hypocrites, and tliat the great mass of Pharisees were acceptable to God. Jesus cannot be made to say that Pharisaism was the true exponent of the Old Testament or the adequate mani- festation of the will of God for holy living. To be sure, the term hypocrite (iVoKpiT)-;;) does not necessarily always carry the worst meanuig of the word. Matthew is fondest of the word and has it fifteen times, while in Mark it occurs once, and in Luke four times. It was used originally of an interpreter of riddles or dreams, the reply of the oracle. The Attic usage applied the term to actors on the stage, who merely acted a part and recited the piece. It was but a step from this to one not on the stage, who pretended to be what he was not. The actors sometimes wore masks (cf. Mardi Gras to-day). Demosthenes {Cor. 321, 18) uses the verb for ' pretend ' and Polybius '(xxxv. 2) has the same sinister force. In the Septuagint text of Job we have 134 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. it also (xxxiv. 30 ; xxxvi. 13). In Ps. of Sol. iv. 7, the Sadduceea are accused of hypocrisy because of their Hellenising tendencies. It is open to us to say that the Pharisees who are designated hypocrites by Jesus were not always conscious that they were acting a pari) or were purposely pretending to be what they knew to be untrue about themselves. This distinction would inevitably exist. Jesus apparently applied the word to the Pharisees in both senses. In some instances it was all a hollow mockery, an empty shell ; in others, the Pharisees are pointedly pictured as posing for the purpose of creating a false impression about them- selves. This is the obvious implication of the words ' to be seen ' (irpos to dtaOijvai, purpose, not result) the 6rst time that we meet the charge in the Gospels (Matt. vi. 1,2). The ostentatious piety of the Pharisees about giving alms, prayer, and fasting, is ridiculed by Jesus, with a touch of humour that bites like sarcasm. The picture of the Pharisee blowing a trumpet to attract attention to his gifts may be drawn from life or not. We do not know, though Cyril of Alexandria states that it was a Jewish custom to summon the poor by trumpet to receive alms, much as hogs on the farm are ' called ' by the farmer to the trough, or children by the house- wife. M'Neile (in loco) thinks that the trumpet was used in times of drought for pubUc prayer and fasting. But the whole picture is comical in the extreme when we see the pious rabbi taking a stand at the street comer and praying with long and vain repetitions, so that the passers-by may see him praying. It is posi- tively grotesque when we think of the disfigurement of the face ^ and the assumption of a sad countenance ((TKv0pwTroi) ' that they may be seen of men to fast ' > King Jftnnai {Sotah. 22b)spfeaks of ' dyeJ ' or ' coloured men, who pretend to be Pharisees.' One is reminded of the vanity of Herod the Great, who dyed liis hair to show that he was still young. m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 136 (Matt. vi. 16). One is entitled to think that Jesus said these words with something of a twinkle in his own eyes, and that the people saw the palpable justice of the humour. To be sure, in a way many people were im- posed upon by this procedure, and rated their rabbis high for their pretentious and punctiUous piety. ' They have their reward ' in full here (dirixova-iv rbv /xwrflor). In the papyri and ostraca this word (airoxv) is used of a receipt in full * for a debt. The Pharisees do get glory from men by the exercise of their hypocrisy, but they do not deceive God, who knows the motive in the gift, the prayer, the fasting. Hence Jesus urged secrecy in prayer. We need public gifts, public prayer, and pubhc fasting at times, but these exercises easily become perfunctory and meaningless, and even evil in motive. Plummer (Matt, in loco) warns Christians against the easy peril of hypocrisy to-day when the papers and magazines give ready pubUcity to the gifts of church members, and easily stimulate false pride and love of praise. The Christian gets his recompense, but not necessarily in pubUc. After all, the chief reward for being good is just goodness and the privilege of becoming better. Jesus does not apply the term hypocrite to the ' evil eye ' (irovijphs 60a\ii6s) as opposed to the ' single eye ' (an-Xoiis d<^5oX/ios). Here avarice is the Pharisaic vice that is condemned, but it is entirely possible that this logion has a backward look at the treasure laid up on earth (mammon), which is diUgently watched with one eye, while the other is piously rolled up to God in heaven. ' Ye cannot serve God and mammon ' (Matt. vi. 25), whether one is cross-eyed or cock-eyed. M'Neile separates these logia, but Jesus seems to blend them in Matthew's report. At any rate, Jesus does say ' thou hypocrite ' to the captious critic who is quick to see the ■ Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 229 ; Wilcken, Ostraka, ii. 136 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oB. mote or splinter or speck (to Kopc^os) in the eye of his brother while he has a long stick or beam (SoKoi/) in liis own eye, of which he seems blissfully unconscious (Matt. vii. 3-5 ; Luke vi. 41 f.). This oriental hyperbole is meant to be a reductio ad absurdum of the censorious spirit, whether in Pharisee or in others. The Pharisees had acted toward Jesus in precisely this spirit. The saying is probably a proverb which Jesus has seized and used for his purpose. It is hke our ' People in glass houses ought not to throw stones.' Rabbi Tarphon is quoted as using this proverb to prove that men of his day (about 100 a.d.) could not take reproof. If one said : ' Cast the mote out of thine eye,' the one addressed would answer : ' Cast the beam out of tliine eye ' {Erach., 16 b). But M'Neile (Matt. vii. 3) thinks that ' this was probably an attack on the N. T. words.' Toward the close of the Sermon on the Moimt Jesus warns His hearers against ' false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves' (Matt. vii. 15). These 'false prophets' {i/'tvSoTrpoyJTai) ' can hardly refer to anjiihing but scribes and Pharisees ' (Plummer in loco), though the saying is true in a much wider application. False Christian prophets did appear at a later time, false teachers (2 Peter), even false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13), and false Christs. There had been false prophets in the Old Testament times (Zech. xiii. 2). These hypocrites look like sheep and pass as sheep till they turn and rend the sheep, ' ravening wolves ' (Aukoi apnaya) as they really are. The use of wolf for the enemy of the flock is common in the Old Testament (Ezek. xxii. 27 ; Zeph. iii. 3). At a later time in the allegory of the Good Shepherd (John x. 1-21), Jesus will term the Pharisees thieves and robbers, because they steal and kill and destroy and do not defend the sheep m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 137 against the wolves. The Pharisees winced under these words, and some of them said that He had a demon and was mad. In the retort of Jesus against the charge of the Pharisees that the disciples had simied because they ate with un- washed hands, Jesus branded the Pharisees as hypo- crites at the very outset : ' Ye hypocrites ' (Matt. xv. 7) ; ' you the hypocrites ' (Mark vii. 6). Jesus proved the charge of hypocrisy in this instance by applying to the Pharisees the words of Isaiah xxix. 13 : ' This people honoureth me with their lips ; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.' The tortuous use of corban, already explained, illustrated well the Pharisaic hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees were guilty of placing ablutions before love, technicalities before equity, the ceremonial before the moral, law before life. When Jesus warned the disciples against ' the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees ' (Matt. xvi. 6), ' the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod ' (Mark viii. 15), they exhibited a surprising obtuseness of intel- lectual apprehension. Accustomed as Jesus was to the dullness of these gifted men in spiritual matters because of their difficulty in shaking themselves free from the Pharisaic environment and outlook, he yet expressed repeated amazement that they could not perceive this elementary parabolic turn till he explained that He meant ' the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees ' (Matt. xvi. 12). On this occasion the dis- ciples might have been confused by the inclusion of Sadducees and Herod with the Pharisees. For the first time Jesus warns the disciples against the Sadducees. Here a political atmosphere (M'Neile) seems apparent. But in truth the puzzle of the disciples was over the simple use of leaven and literal bread. They rose to 138 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [C3H. no metaphor at all. At a much later time Luke (xii. 1) quote? Jesus as saying to the disciples : ' Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, wliich is hypocrisy.' Perhaps Jesus did not mean to say that the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herod was precisely the same kmd of leaven. At any rate in Luke xii. He proceeds to show how useless hypocrisy is, for everythmg that is covered up shall be uncovered and made known. ' Whatsoever ye have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light ' (Luke xii. 3). Hypocrisy is folly and is unmasked at last (Plummer). One has little difficulty in sharing the indignation of Jesus against the ruler of the synagogue, who pretended to rebuke the people while in reality censuring Jesus for healing the poor old hunch-backed woman on the Sabbath day in the synagogue (Luke xiii. 10-17). Under profession of zeal for the law he showed his real animus against Jesus the Healer (Plummer). Jesus turns upon this contemptible ecclesiastical cad ^ who had rather keep his little rules than save the poor old woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound these eighteen years. The Master denounces all who shared the narrow view of the synagogue leader as ' ye hypo- crites.' The rebuke was so effective that ' all Ids adver- saries were put to shame ' {Kayya-xvvovTo), hung their heads down for very shame and could not say a word. They had at least a sense of shame left. There are probably Christians who wish that Jesus had been more temperate in His language about the Pharisees, as He is reported in Matt, xxiii., or who even hope that the Evangelist has exaggerated, for dramatic reasons, the words of the meek and lowly Nazarene on this occasion. At least they will say that Jesus laboured under undue excitement and is not to be held to strict account for language uttered under such a nervous ' Cyril of Alexandria cbIIe liiir Paanavtat irSfairoSoi'. m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 139 strain and in response to such severe criticism as He had undergone. We must face the facts of the case as they are. The extent of the discourse makes it impossible to say that we have only a momentary and unexpected outburst. We must seek a deeper justification for the violence and severity of this language if we accept it as a credible report of the words of Jesus. It is true that it is reported only by Matthew, but one suspects that it belonged to Q. At any rate, we have had already various terms used by Jesus about the Pharisees, quite on a par with those employed by Him here. It is rather the cumulative effect of the rolling thunder of Christ's wrath that makes one tremble, as if in the pre- sence of a mighty storm of wind, thunder, and light- ning. The storm has burst beyond a doubt. Let us first seek the reasons for its violence as seen in these seven woes upon the Pharisees. The psychology of this denunciation is simply the long strain of the attacks of the Pharisees upon Jesus, probably for three years, culminating in the series of assaults on this last Tuesday in the temple. Jesus had heretofore exposed the hjrpo- crisy of the Pharisees, but after all His indignation was like a pent-up volcano that had to burst at last. The time had come for a full and final arraignment of the Pharisees, who far more than the Sadducees (with all due respect to Montefiore and others who have sought to push the odium upon the Sadducees) are responsible for the tragic culmination in Jerusalem. The Pharisees have hounded Jesus in Judea, Galilee, Perea, and now in Jerusalem. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing who must be exposed once for all. With the Gospel in one's hands, I do not see how it is possible to criticise Jesus for this fierce philippic against Pharisaism. It needed to be said. We have various woes from Jesus already, as the four woes in connection with the four Beatitudes in 140 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. Luke vi. 20-6; the woes upon Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum (Matt. xi. 21-4) ; the three upon the Phansees (Luke xi. 42-4), and the three likewise upon the lawyers (Luke xi. 46-52) ; and the woe upon the world because of occasions of stumbling (Matt, xviii. 7). M'Neile is by no means sure that these seven woes in Matt, xxiii. were spoken on this occasion. Allen notes thai; the sayings in Luke xi. ' are incorporated in Matt, xxiii., but without distinction of audience, in a different order, and in different language,' proof, he holds, of a different written source for Matthew and Luke. One may ask if Jesus never repeated His sayings ? Is it strange that He should describe Pharisees at different times and places in different language, but with the same substantial idea ? Plummer suggests that, since the author of Matthew is so fond of the number seven, he has here made an artificial grouping of the seven woes tor dramatic effect, like the sevenfold woe in Isaiah v. Perhaps so, but one surely wiU not be considered un- critical if he holds that the discourse in Matt, xxiii. 8 too sedate and powerful for mere artificial compila- ;ion. Plummer admits : ' These seven woes are like ihunder in their unanswerable severity, and like light- ling in their unsparing exposure. They go direct to he mark, and they illuminate while they strike. And ^et there is an undertone of sorrow, which makes itself leard when the storm is over.' The signs of life are lere if anywhere in the Gospel of Matthew. The reporter nay, to be sure, have balanced the various parts of the enunciation in literary fashion. Allen terms verses 3-32 ' seven illustrations of Pharisaic " saying " and not doing," under the charge in verse 3 : " For they %y and do not." ' M'Neile holds that the first three 'oes deal with the teaching of the scribes (14-22, erse 13 spurious), the second three treat the life of the harisees (23-28), while the seventh and last is directed m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 141 against the nation as a whole (29-33). With this Plummer agrees save that with him the seventh is transitional, treating somewhat both of the Pharisaic teaching and the Pharisaic character. One may note also that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus arraigns the teaching of the scribes in ch. v. and the conduct of the Pharisees in chs. vi.-vii. We have seen what the Pharisaic outlook was on doctrine and life. Here in burning words Jesus lays bare the fatal defects in both. Let us examine the charge of hypocrisy in each woe. The first woe is the most severe of all, for the scribes and Pharisees are the religious teachers of the people who look to them for light and leading. They are charged with keeping the people out of the kingdom of heaven who are trying to enter in (tous tla-epxoiifvov?, cona- tive participle). It is hke sailors in a lifeboat who club away the drowning passengers in the sea who clamber up the sides of the boat. Only in this instance the scribes and Pharisees are not in the lifeboat, but drag down \dth them those who are trying to swim to shore. It is the travesty of ecclesiastical obscuran- tism. Luke (xi. 52) spoke of the key of knowledge that opened to the kingdom. Here it is the kingdom of heaven that is shut against men. ' A fragment of a Lost Gospel' (Grenfell and Hunt, lines 41-46) has it: ' the key of the kingdom they hid,' and the marginal reading in Luke xi. 52 is 'ye hid' («kp>5^ot«). These so-called religious leaders ' hid ' the key in order to keep the people in ignorance and death, the people who had shown a desire to find light and life in their enthu- siasm for John the Baptist and for Jesus. The parallel is com2)lete between this attitude and that of ecclesi- astics in later ages who seek to keep the Bible away from the people in order to control the people by the priests. But other exponents of the kingdom are in peril of the same sin, when by their misinterpretations 142 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. they hide the true meaning of the Scriptures from them- selves and from the people.* It is obscurantism, not illumination. Their light is darkness. The saddest part of it all is that for most people the door that is thus closed is finally shut. The second woe grows out of the fii-st and carries it a step further, but draws a sharp distinction between the kingdom of heaven and Pharisaism. The Phari- sees claimed a monopoly of the kingdom of heaven, but Jesus has already described them as outside with the doors shut by themselves. One must not confuse Pharisaism with Judaism. There were many prose- lytes to Judaism, but few to Pharisaism. The Gentiles would not be able to respond easily to the refinements of Pharisaism. But the zeal of the Pharisees was ' to make one proselyte ' to Pharisaism, not to Judaism.* They had poor success at it, but when they did win a Gentile, the result was lamentable. The zeal of new converts was seen in the double (SiirkoTtpov) emphasis of the new Pharisee on all the extemaUties of Pharisaism. 'The more perverted,' alas ! Jesus uses very harsh language here, ' twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.' It is Gehenna {vlhv ytei i'»js), not Hades. These preachers with their converts are pictured as heirs of heU, not of heaven.' In the third woe (16-22) we miss the sonorous triplet, • scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.' M'Neile therefore argues for an independent group of sayings. The ' blind guides ' (o5»;yoi tvi^Aoi) reminds us of Matt. XV. 14. Plummer sees a more direct assault on the Pharisaic teaching, because of the specific charge of casuistry in the use of oaths (16-19), not legal oaths, but the use of common language in conversation. The tHoTt.JudaisticGhriitianity.p.iil. oni (T « On the Jewish propaganda see Schuerer, div. a. vol. u. pp. ^Jl n. Bousset, Kei. JuVi., pp. 80-82. • ' Sons of Gehinnoin ' is found in Both. Haah. 17b. m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 143 Talmud (Kidd, 71a) speaks of oaths ' by the temple ' and (Taanith, 24a) ' by the temple service,' though this precise hair-spUtting oath is not given. But it is of a piece with Pharisaism and is hardly mere caricature, to spht a hair between the temple and the gold of the temple. In verses 20-22 the careless use of oaths is condemned. The temple is God's temple and God's throne is in heaven. The fourth woe (xziii. 23 f .) turns to Pharisaic scrupu- losity in legal details of which the Talmud gives so many illustrations. The Pharisee had an abnormal sensitiveness about details in everyday life. These verses about legalism in daily (23-28) Ufe correspond closely with the three woes to the Pharisees in Luke xi. 39-44. The law of tithing was scriptural and expUcit. All ' the seed of the land ' and ' the fruit of the tree ' was subject to tithes (Lev. xxvii. 30 ; Deut. xiv. 22 f.), in particular the regular staple crops Uke wheat, wine, and oil. But the rabbis carried it to the minutest item. In the Talmud {Maaser i. 1) we read : ' Everything which is eatable, and is preserved, and has its nourish- ment from the soil, is liable to be tithed.' So also {Maaser iv. 5) : ' Rabbi Eliezer said. Of dill must one tithe the seed, and the leaves, and the stalks.' These three herbs (mint, dill, cummin) were used for cooking, for flavouring, and for medicine. In Luke xi. 42 Jesus says that the Pharisees tithe ' every herb.' But Jesus does not complain at this scrupulosity with herbs. It was literalism, but not necessarily wrong. It is in the contrast that Jesus finds the hj^ocrisy. C!oupled with this anxiety over legal niceties is a laxity about the weightier matters of the law (to (Sapvrepa rov vo/xoi) like judgment {Kpitrii, justice), mercy (;Mo) with eternal consequences, but even so the point remains true that no one will ni.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 161 commit this sin save as an irrevocable culmination. It is quite possible for men to come perilously near to this same sin to-day when the work of grace in the heart of man is by some ridiculed as a superstition and a delusion, if not worse. 7. Rejection of God in Rejecting Jesus (John v. 42 f. ; vi. 52 ; Matt. xvii. 12 ; John vii. 48 ; viii. 21- 52 ; X. 25-38) Like a Miserere there runs a deep imdertone of dis- appointment through the teaching of Jesus that He has to carry on His work with the active opposition of the reUgious leaders of the time. Votaw (Biblical World, Dec. 1916, p. 397) says that Jesus ' elevated Jewish ethics so distinctly, He reformed Judaism so thoroughly, that the scribes and Pharisees — ^the official moral and rehgious teachers of His nation — rejected Him ; and the Gentiles of the Mediterranean world, whom Jewish ethics had failed to win, became converts to His gospel.' Jesus is conscious of the opposition all the time, and endeavours to open the eyes of these hopelessly blind leaders. But He consistently warns the Pharisees of their doom, and tries to make them understand that in rejecting Him they were also rejecting God the Father who sent Him. This point comes out more sharply in the Fourth Gospel, but it is present in the Synoptic Gospels also. Finally, the warning becomes doom, but the Pharisees turned a deaf ear, and thought that with the death of Jesus they had achieved final victory over the Messianic Pretender. The words of Jesus fall Uke those of a judge upon those who have wasted their opportunity. The Pharisees have just made a formal efEort to kill Jesus (John v. 18), when He explains why they will not come to Him that they may have lite : ' But I know you 152 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. that ye have not the love of Grod in yourselves. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not ; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive ' (John V. 41-43). This irony was literally true, as the case of Bar-Cochba proved. But note that here Jesus accuses the Pharisees of being without love for God. Jesus says expressly : ' I know you ' by experience. ' I have come to know you ' (iyviaKa vfxas) to my sorrow. When the Jews in the synagogue in Capernaum ' strove one with another ' {ifiixovTo npbi dAX^Xous, John vi. 52) because Jesus claimed to be the bread of life, better than the manna in the wilderness, He made appropriation of His flesh and blood essential to hfe. The Pharisees led the people away then and have led them away since. Jesus early foresaw the miserable outcome of the spiritual deadlock between Him and the Pharisees. He predicted His death on the occasion of His first visit to Jerusalem (John ii. 19). Toward the close of His ministry He repeatedly predicted His death (finally crucifixion) at the hands of the Sanhedrin (' the elders and chief priests and scribes,' Matt. xvi. 21). He saw clearly that, as they had done to John the Baptist what they listed, so they will do to the Son of man (Matt. xvii. 12). The vague connection of the Pharisees with the death of John is noted in John iv. 1-4. The rejection of both John and Jesus by the Pharisees (Matt. xi. 16-19) would lead to the same result in both cases. Finally, Jesus defies the Pharisees openly as His enemies at the last feast of tabernacles : ' Why seek ye to kill me ? ' (John vii. 19). ' Where I am ye cannot come ' (vii. 34), he added. The Pharisees took this condemnatory sentence as a confession of defeat on the part of Jesus, and ridiculed His apparent decision to go to the Dispersion, and give up His work in Palestine (John vii. 35 f .). A few days later Jesus again said to the lu.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 163 Pharisees, that whither He went they could not come (John viii. 21). This time they sneered that He probably meant to commit suicide. But Jesus left no room for cavil in His reply : ' Ye are from beneath ; I am from above,' and this : ' Ye shall die in your sins : for except ye shall beUeve that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.' These cutting words reveal the depth of the cleavage between Jesus and the Pharisees. They are on different sides of the chasm, with different origin, spirit, purpose, destiny. There is no ' he ' after the ' I am ' (ei/xi) in the Greek. Westcott {in loco) takes this absolute use of the verb to be a direct claim to be ' the invisible majesty of God ; that I unite in virtue of My essential Being the seen and the unseen, the finite and the infinite.' If so, Jesus means to tell the Pharisees plainly that their rejection of Him involves the rejection of God. This is not a popular doctrine to-day with Jews, Unitarians, and others who take a lower view of the nature and mission of Jesus. But unacceptable as it may seem to many modem minds, I see no escape from it as the con- ception that Jesus Himself placed upon His person and mission as the Revealer of God to men. The Pharisees were qviick to see the tremendous claim made by Jesus, and repUed eagerly : ' Who art thou ? ' (viii. 25, a-v Ti's ef;), hoping to catch Him with a formal Messianic claim, in order to make a charge of blasphemy against Him. Jesus evaded their trap, but stood His ground. The talk grew more direct and personal between Jesus and the Pharisees. Finally Jesus flatly said that they were not the children of God, but children of the devil (John viii. 40-44). Of course, in one sense all men are children of God the Creator, and in another we are all bom with the taint of sin in our natures and have to be bom again into the family of God. But here Jesus seems to mean something worse if possible than an unregenerate state of heart, though that was undoubtedly 1C4 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [CH. true of these men. He accuses them of deliberately trying to murder Him, with doing the work of the devil for the devil, with utter inability to recognise the Son of God, and hence with being aliens to the family of God. They do not know either the Father or the Son, and hence do not belong to the family of God. The indict- ment is scathing in the extreme. Jesus is the test of love for God. He reveals God to men and also reveals men to themselves. We know whether we belong to the spiritual family by our attitude to Jesus the Son of God and the Elder Brother of the redeemed. So Jesus drives the wedge into the hearts of the Pharisees : ' Which of you convicteth me of sin ? If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me ? He that is of God heareth the words of God : for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God ' (viii. 46 f .). The only answer of the Pharisees was that Jesus was a Samaritan, and had a demon, and then in speechless rage they tried to kill him. Three months later, at the feast of dedication, the Pharisees again flock around Jesus to get Him to say plainly if He is the Messiah, but Jesus answers : ' Ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me ' (John X. 26 f.). He insists that the Pharisees must believe His works, if not His words, ' that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father ' (John x. 38). The issue is always there, the irrepressible conflict. Jesus is the Revealer of the Father, and without Him they cannot understand the Father. A good while before Jesus had spoken that peculiarly Johannine saying preserved in Matt. xi. 27 and Luke x. 22 : ' Neither doth any one know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.' Thus the key to knowledge of the Father is in the hands of the Son. Qn this point Q III.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 155 reinforces the Johannine type of teaching very strongly. After the raising of Lazarus John (xi. 47 f.) notes that ' the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council ' concerning the problem of Jesus. The end was near at hand. It was not merely to harry the Pharisees after their defeat in the great temple debate, that Jesus asked them the question : ' What think ye of the Christ ? Whose son is he ? ' (Matt. xxii. 41 f.). He argues with them in their Halackah method (Briggs, Psalms, i. liv.), but with no qmbble. Apart from the current view that David was the author of Ps. ex. which the Pharisees accepted, Jesus shows the Messianic interpretation of the Psalm, wliich may have been new to them (M'Neile). But it shows clearly that the Pharisees are poor inter- preters of Scripture, when they reject Jesus and wish to kill Him for claiming to be the Son of God as well as the Son of man. The mystery of the nature of Jesus remains, to be sure, but mystery is in everything at bottom as science shows. Jesus here uncovers the incapacity and insincerity of His enemies in their attitude toward Him. They are speechless. Jesus made the Pharisees convict themselves con- cerning the justice of God in punishing them for their conduct toward Him. He caught them unawares by the story of the husbandman and the vineyard. When the husbandmen kept mistreating and kilUng the messengers sent by the householder, finally he sent to them his beloved son, whom they hkewise killed. ' When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen ? They say imto him. He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render unto him the fruits in their season ' (Matt, xxi. 40 f.). The Pharisees and Sadducees are the ones who answer thus. Jesus did not leave the apphcation 150 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [oh. doubtful, but added : ' Therefore I say unto you the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given Uy a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt, xxi 43). Then Jesus added these solemn words • And he that faUeth on this stone shaU be broken to pieces ; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust' (xxi. 44). Matthew further adds this conclusion : ' And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parable, they perceived that He spake of them.' ^ The case is made out and the verdict of Jesus has become history. The leaders in Jerusalem brought upon the city the doom that Jesus foresaw. The Pharisees with the Sadducees invoked the blood of Jesus upon their heads and upon their children (Matt, xxvii. 25). Pilate knew that for envy the chief priests had dehvered Jesus up (Mark xv. 10). His wife's message about her dream aroused his superstition, and that intensified his sense of elemental Roman justice. Pilate had supreme contempt for the Jews, and in par- ticular for the Pharisaic refinements as did GaUio in Corinth. But the public washing of Pilate's hands as if that could wash away "the blood of this righteous man ' is a childish performance and thoroughly Pharisaic in principle. The blood of Jesus is still on the hands of Judas, Caiaphas, Sadducees and Pharisees, and Pilate. The dramatic washing of the hands is a common enough symbol for freedom from guilt and suits the oriental atmosphere and Pilate's embarrassment.' So Lady Macbeth sought in vain to wash out ' the damned spot ' from her hands. Both M'Neile and Plummer regard the disclaimer by Pilate as a later note added to the Gospel and as unliistorical. I confess that I fail to see • Pluinmpr quotes instances nmone the Jews (Deut. xxi. 6 ; Ps. xxvi. 8; Ixziii. 13; Josephus, Ant., bk. iv. ch. viii. { 16), and among the Gentiles (Virg. Aen. ii. 719 ; Ovid, Faeti, ii. 45). m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 167 the cogency of this argument. Pilate was more noted for inconsistency than for consistency, and this nervous conduct is thoroughly m harmony with the rest of his behaviour about Jesus. The so-called Gospel of Peter says : ' But of the Jews no one washed his hands, nor yet Herod, nor even one of his judges (Sanhedrists), and since they did not choose to wash, Pilate stood up.' That puts Pilate in a more favourable light, too favour- able, I think. But the sad fact remains, that the stain of the blood of Jesus does rest upon the Pharisees along with the rest. Later the Sanhedrin will show the utmost sensitive- ness about being charged with the death of Jesus : ' Ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us ' (Acts v. 28). So the Sanhedrin said to Peter after their passion had cooled, and they faced the peril of a revived Chris- tianity, if not also of a Risen and Triumphant Jesus. This apologetic attitude towards the death of Jesus is characteristic of modem Judaism, and at least reveals a kindlier spirit toward Jesus on the part of the modem successors of the Pharisees. Every Christian welcomes this new temper heartily, and does not wish to preserve a spirit of prejudice or of resentment. Certainly Chris- tians should be free from prejudice toward modem Jews, and should not hold them responsible for the conduct of the Pharisees toward Jesus. We cannot build monuments to the Pharisees, but Ave can be kindly in word and fleed toward those who still follow the rabbinic traditions. After all, Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were all Jews, Paul was a Jew. If modern Judaism is able to glory a bit in these great Jewish names, who will say them nay ? If they wish to build monuments to these prophets whom their fathers rejected, we shall only rejoice, provided the monu- ment is not erected on condition that we Christiana 158 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS [OB. disclaim the things for which they died. Let there be no mistake about that. We are not disposed to quibble unduly about metaphysical distinctions or to turn Pharisee ourselves in modem contention for tradition But let us not forget that Jesus stands out in clear out- line as the result of modem criticism as the one hope of the ages m whom both Jew and Gentile may unite who alone has broken down the middle wall of parti- tion between Jew and Gentile, and between both and God ; but He has done this by the Cross, which is not to be set aside as antiquated, but to be Hfted up as Jesus was lifted upon it. It is by the uphfting on the Cross that Jesus is able to draw all classes of men to Him. Modem Hellenisers still find the Cross fooHsh- ness and modem Pharisees stiU find the Cross a stumbling- block, but Paul, who was Pharisee and then Christian, found it the wisdom of God and the power of God. Montefiore (Judaism and St. Paul) finds it worth while to devote a whole book to Paul to prove how unable Paul was to understand current Pharisaism. But the efEort is an anachronism. The best Pharisees of his day placed Paul forward as their champion and exponent against Jesus. If Paul knew anytliuig, he knew Phari- saism. In many things Paul remained a Pharisee and boasted of it, though he flung behind him as worthless refuse the husks of Pharisaism when he found Jesus, the flying goal toward which he ever pressed. But the greatest of the young Pharisees of his day became the greatest Christian preacher of the ages. The man who knew Pharisaism best came to know Jesus best. He was able to relate the spiritual Pharisee or Israelite to Jesus. So then the breach between Pharisee and Christ is not unalterably fixed. The chasm can be crossed on the Cross, to which the Pharisees had Jesus nailed. It broke Paul's heart to see the Pharisees turn away from Jesus. He had to fight Pharisaism in the person m.] CONDEMNATION OF THE PHARISEES 159 of the Judaisers within Christianity itself. But Paul loved his Jewish brethren too well to let their zeal for tradition cover up the gospel as they had the law with Halachah and Haggadah. Jesus resisted the Pharisees to the death to set the human spirit free indeed. Paul took up the same fight and urged the Galatians to stand fast in the fiberty wherewith Christ had set them free. Freedom in Christ was purchased with a great price, the blood of Christ. ' He has given us new ideals. And He has given us something even above that. He has given us the power to realise these ideals ' (Warfield, ' Jesus' Mission,' Princeton Theol. Review, Oct. 1916, p. 586). Let us preserve this ideal for progress and power. Jesus still prays for His enemies, for Pharisees of to-day as of old. Let us not make it hard for any who hear the voice of Jesus to come to Him. It was love that brought the cry from the heart of Jesus over the fate of Jerusalem : ' How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not ' (Matt. xxiii. 37). It was with utter sadness of heart that Paul said : ' But vmto this d&y, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart' (2 Cor. iii. 15). It is our task to lift that veil, if we may, so that modem Jews may recognise in Jesus the eternal Messiah of promise and hope. LIST OF IMPORTANT WORKS Abbott. The Son of Man; or ContribxUiona to the Study of the Tlioughts of Jesus (1910). Abbott. Light cwi the Gospel, from an Ancient Poet (1912). Abelson. Jewish Mysticism (1913). Abrahams. Rabbinic Aids to Exegesis (Cambr. Bibl. EssayB, 1909). Abrahams. Studies in Pliarisaism and the Oospels (1917). Alexander. The Ethics of St. Paul (1910). Allen. Int. Grit. Comm. on Matthew (1907). Anous. The Environment of Early Ghristianity (1916). Anonymous. As Others Saw Him (1895). Atzbeboeb. Die Christliche Eschatologie (1890). Babylonian Talmud (Rodkinson's Translation). Back. Das Wesen des Judentums (1905). Bacon. Jesus the Son of God (191 1). Baldensperoer. Das Selbstbewusslsein Jesu. 2 Aufl. (1892). Baldensperoer. Die Messianisch-apocalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judentums. 3 Aufl. (1903). Ball. Ecclesiastical or Deutero-Canonical Books of the Old Testament (1892). Babth. Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesv. 3 Aufl. (1907). Baur. Paul the Apostle (1873-5). Bennett. The Mishna as Illustrating the Gospel (1912). Bensley and James. Fourth Esdras (1896). Bentwick. Josephu^ (\9\i). Bentwiok. Philo-Jjidmus of Alexandria (1910). Benson. The Virgin Birth of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (1914). Bergman. JUdisclie Apologelik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1908). Beenfeld. Das Talmud : seine Bedeutung und seine Oeschichte. Berbyman. JUdische Apocalyptik im neutestamentlichen Zeit- alter (1908). 160 LIST OF IMPORTANT WORKS 161 Berthelot. Die Stellung der laraeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden (1896). Berthelot. Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem des spcU. Judenthums (1909). Berthelot. Das jiidische Religion von der Zeit Esras bis zum Zeitalter Christi (1911). Bbvan. Jerusalem under the High Priests (1904). Bisohofe. Jesus und die Bahbinen (1906). BissBLL. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament (1890). BOhl. Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu. Boussbt. Jesu Predigt im ihren Gegensatz zum Judentum (1892). Bodssbt. Diejttdische Apocalyptik (1903). Bousset. Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. 2 Aufl. (1906). Boussbt. Jesus (1906). Box. The Ezra- Apocalypse (1912). Box. (Oestbrlby and). The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (1907). Box. ' Survey of Recent Literature Concerned with Judaism and its relation to Christian Origin and Early Develop- ment ' {Rev. of Theology and Philosophy, August 1910). Box. 'The Jewish Environment of Early Christianity' (The Expositor, July 1916). Braunschweiobr. Die Lehrer der Mischnah (1890). Breed. Preparation of the World for Christ. 2nd ed. (1893). Brbhier. Les idies phihsophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie (1G08). Brigqs. The Ethical Teaching of Jesus (1904). Brioos. Messianic Prophecy. Briqgs. The Messiah of the Oospels. Brioos. The Incarnation of Our Lord (1902). Broadus. Commentary on Matthew (1887). Broadus. Jesus of Nazareth (Mi^^). Bbucb. The Training of the Twelve. Beucb. The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (1892). Brucb. The Humiliation of Christ (1892). Bbuoenee. Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie (1903). BucHLBR. Das Synedrion-Jenisahm (1902). L 162 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS BuoiiLER. Das galildische 'Amha-'Arets (1906). BuBKiTT. The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (1910). BuKKiTT. Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (1914). Bdttweiser. Outliiie of the Neo-Hebraic Apocalyptic Litera- ture (1901). Cameron. The Renascence of Jesus (1915). Case. The Historicity of Jesus (1912). Case. The Evolution of Early Christianity (1914). Charles. Eschatohgy : A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in J%tdaism, and in Christianity (1899). 2nd ed. (1913). Charles. The Apocalypse of Baruch (1896). Charles. The Assumption of Moses (1897). Charles. The Ascension of Isaiah (1900). Chaeles. The Book of Jubilees (1902). Charles. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908). Charles. Apocryplia and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. (1913). Charles. Religious Development between the Old and New Testa- ments (1914). Cheyne. Religious Life After the Exile. Chwolson. iJber die Frage, ob Jesus gelebt hat (1910). Chwolson. Beitrdge zur EntivickdungsgeschichU des Judentums Chwolson.' Das letzte Passomahl Chrisli wui der Tag des Todes. Clarke. W. N. The Ideal of Jesus (1911). Clemen. Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewtsh Sources. Cohen. Les Pharisiens. 2 vols. (1877). CoNDEB. The Hebrew Tragedy {1912). ^ ,„ , Conrad. Die religiosen und sittlichen Anschauungen der aMesIa- metMichen und Pseudepigraphen (1907). Cook. The Fathers of Jesus (1886). CoENHiLL. History of the People of Israel m- Dalman. Der leidende und aterbende Messias (1888). TiATMAN The Words of Jesus (1902). SS^v. The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church (1900). Danzigbr. Jewish Forerunners of Jesus (1904). LIST OP IMPORTANT WORKS 163 Da VIES. The Relation of Judaism and Christianity (1910). DeAkb. The Book of Wisdom (1881). Dbissmann. Light from the Ancient East (1910). Dbissmann. St. Paul : A Study in Social and Religious History (1911). Dblitzsoh. Hillel and Jesus (1867). Delttzsch. Talmudische Studien. Dbnwey. Jesus and the Gospel (1908). Derbnboubg. Histoire de la Palestine. Dewick. Primitive Christian Eschatohgy (1912). DoDSCHUTZ. Christian Life in the Primitive Church (1904). DoBSOHUTz. The Eschatohgy of the Gospels (1910). DoLUNGEB. The Gentile and the Jew. 2 vols. New ed. (1906) Dbuokbb. The Trial of Jesus from Jewish Sources (1907). Dbtjmmond. Phih-Judoeus. 2 vols. (1888). Du BosE. The Gospel in the Gospels (1906). DuRELL. The Self-revelation of Our Lord (1910). DnscHAK. Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud (1877). Eaton. 'Pharisees' in Hastings' B. D. (1900). Edebsheim. Sketches of Jewish Social Life (1876). Edersheim. History of the Jewish Nation (1885). Edebsheim. The Witness of Israel to the Messiah. Edebsheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. 3rd ed. (1886). Edmunds. Buddhistic and Christian Gospels. 2 vols. (1902-9). Eebdmans. 'Pharisees and Sadducees' (The Expositor, Oct. 1914). Elbogen. Die religionsanschauungen der Pharisder (1904). Elbogen. The Religious Views of the Pharisees (translation). Encychpmdia Biblica (various articles). Encychpcedia Britannica (eleventh edition, various articles). EscHELBACHEB. Das Judentum und das Wesen des Christenlums (1905). Faiebairn. The Place of Christ in Modem Theohgy (1893). Fairbairn. Studies in Religion and Theohgy (1910). Fairweather. From the Exile to the Advent (1905). Fairwbatheb. The Background of the Gospels (1909). Fabbae. The Life of Christ. 2 vob. (1874). 104 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS Fabbab. The Life of Lives ( 1 900). Fblten. Neuteitamentliche Zeitgeschichle. 2 vols. (1910). FiHBio. Talmud und Theologie (1903). FiBBio. Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Lichte der rcd>bin. OUichnissen (1912). Forsyth. 'The Conversion of the Good' (The Conlemporartj Review, June 1916). FkibdlXndeb. The Jevoish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (1911). FbibdlXndeb. Die religiosen Bewegungen innerhalb des Jvden- tums im Zeitaller Jesu (1915). FbibdlXndeb. Synagoge und Kirche in ihren Anfdngen (1908). FriedlSndbb. Rabbinic Philosophy and Ethics (1912). FBtBDLANDEB. Ocschichte des judischen Apologetik als Vorge- schichte des Ghristentums (1903). Fbibdlandeb. Zur Enlstehungsgeschichte des ChristetUums (1894). PtaEDiiANDEB. Das Judentum in der vorchristlichen Welt (1897). FuLLKBUO. Jesus and the Pharisees (1904). Gabdner, C. S. The Ethics of Jesus and Social Progress (1914). Gabvib. Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907). Geioer. Sadducder und Pharisder (1863). Geiqeb. Das Jvdenthum und seine Oeschichte. Geike. The Life and Words of Christ. 2 vols. (1879). Glovbb. Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire (1909). GoauBL. Juifs et Romains dans Vhistoire de la passion (1911). GoLDSOHMiDT. Der babylonische Talmud (1897). Goodspbbd. IsraeCs Messianic Hope in the Tim^ of Jesus ( 1900). Geant. The Peasantry of Palestine (1907). Gbatz. Oeschichte der Juden. 6 Aufl. (1906). Gbbenhouse. The Messiah and Jewish History (1906). Greenleaf. The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice (1876). Gbessman. Der Ursprung der Israelitisch-jildischen Escha- tologie (1905). Gudemann. Judische Apologetik (1906). Gukkel. Zum religionsgeschichlUchen Verst&ndnis des N. T. 2 Aufl. (1910). LIST OF IMPORTANT WORItS 166 HaIiL. The Historical Setting of the Early Gospel (1912). Hambdrqeb. Real-Encyclopddie filr Bibel und Talmud (1883). Habnack. The Sayings of Jesus (1907). Habnaok. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three CetUuries. 2 vols. (1910). Habt. The Hope of Catholic Judaism (1910). Hatch. The Organisation of the Early Christian Churches (1895). Hastings. Bible Dictionary, Encydopcedia of Religion and Ethics (various articles), Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. Hauck. Realencyclopddie. 3 Aufl. 22 vols. Hauseath. History of N. T. Times. 4 vols. (1895). Hebpobd. Pharisaism : Its Aim and Metliods (1912). Hbrfobd. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903). Hbrshon. The Treasures of the Talmud. Hbbtz. ' Jewish Mysticism ' {The Hibbert Journal, July 1916). HixaENFELD. Die judische Apocalyptik im ihrer geschichtlichen Entwiclcelung (1857). , HoENNECKB. Dos Judenchristentum in 1 und 2 Jahrhunderten (1908). HoLSOHER. Sadduzdismus (1906). HoLTZMANN. Die judische Schriftgelehrsamkeit zur Zeit Jesu (1901). HoLTZMANN. Neutest. Zeitgeschichte. 2 Aufl. (1906). HoLTZMANN, 0. The Life of Jesus (1904). Hoet. Judaislic Christianity (1898). HosMBB. The Story of the Jews (1897). Hughes. Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature (1910). HuHN. Die messianischen Weissagungen des Israelitisch-judischen Volkes (1890). Hunter. After the Exile. 2 vols. (1890). Husband. The Prosecution of Jesus (1916). Isaacs. What is Judaism ? (1915). Jackson. New Schaff-Herzog Eneydopcedia of Religious Know- ledge (various articles). Jackson, G. The Teachings of Jesus (1903). Jackson, L. The Eschatology of Jesus (1913). Jacobus. A Standard Bible Dictionary (various articles). Jbnsen. Moses, Jesus, Paulus (1909). 166 THE PHARISEES AND JEStJS Jeremias. Babyhnisches im Neuen Testament (1905). Jewish Enct/elopcedia (various articles). Jevnsh Quarterly Review. Jordan. Jesus und die modemen Jesusbilder (1909). JosEPHTJS (various editions). JosT. Oeschichte des Jiidenthums und seine Secte. JusTER. Les Juifs dans Fempire romain. Justin Martyr. Gildersleeve's edition. Kaerst. Oeschichte des hellenistischen ZeitaUers. 2 vols. ( 1 901 -9). Kautsky. Ber Vrsprung des Ghristentums (1908). Kautzsch. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A. T. 2 vols. (1900). Keim. The History of Jesus of Nazareth. 6 vols. (1876-78). Kent. Makers and Teachers of Judaism (1911). Krao. The Ethics of Jesus (1910). Kirkpatrick. Through the Jews to God. A Challenge (1916). KoHLER. ' Pharisees ' (art. in The Jewish Eneydopcedia). KoHLER. Grundriss einer syslematischen Theologie des Juden- turns anf geschiclitlicher Orundlage (1910). KRAOsa. Leben Jesu nach jUdischen Quellen. Krauss. Griechische und lateinische LehnwSrter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. I. (1898), II. (1899). ICrUoer, Philo und Josephus als apologelen des Judentums (1906). Rrdqer. Uellenismus und Judentum im neutestamentlichen Ztitaller (1908). Laoranqe. Le Messianisme chez les Juifs (1908). Laible. Jesus Ghristus im Talmud (1900). Lake. The Stewardship of Faith (1915). Latimer. Judeafrom Cyprus to Titus (1899). Ledrain. Histoire d' Israel (1892). Legqe. Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity (1916). Leman. Histoire cmnpUte de Vidie Messianique chez le peuple d' Israel (1909). Leszynsky. Die Sadduzder {1912). Levin. Die Religionsdisputation des Rabhi Jechiel von Paris (1869). Liberty. The Political Relalums of Christ's Ministry (1916). Liqhtfoot, J. HoroB hebraicm et talmvdioae (1684). LIST OF IMPORTANT WORKS 167 Liohtley. Les Scribes (1905). Lucius. Der Essenismus (1881). Mackintosh. Rdbhi Jesus. Mackintosh. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (1912). Mahatfy. The Silver Age in the Greek World (1905). Mathews. The History of the New Testament Times in Palestine. 2nd ed. (1910). Mathews. The Messianic Hope in the New TeslametU (1905). Mathews. ' The Pharisees ' (art. in Standard S. D.). Mathews. Social Teachings of Jesus (1895). M'Neile. Commentary on Matthew (1915). Meusohen. Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitalibtis HebrcBorum iUiistratum (1736). MlBLZlNER. Introduction to the Talmud. 2nd ed. (1903). Moetatt. Theology of the Gospels (1912). Montefiore. The Wisdom of Solomon (1887). MoNTEFioRB. The Synoptic Gospels (1909). MotTTEFiORB. Aspects of Judaism (1895). Montefiore. The Religious Teaching of Jesus (1910). Montefiore. Judaism and St. Paul (1915). Montefiore. 'The Perfection of Christianity' (The Hibbert Journal, July 1916). MoNTET. Essai sur les origins des partis sadducien et pharisien et kur histoire jusqu'd. la naissance de Jisus-Christ (1883). MooRB, Dunlap. 'Pharisees' (Schaff-Herzog. Encyl.). MoRisoN. The Jews under Roman Rtde. 4th ed. (1899). MuiRHEAD. The Eschalology of Jesus (1904). Nash. ' Pharisees ' (art. in one vol. Hastings). NahbaIi. Etude sur le parti pltarisien (1890). Nicolas. Les doctrines religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux siicles antkrieures A Vire Chritienne (1860). NoRK. Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neuteat. Schrifl- stellen (1839). Oestebley. The Doctrine of the Last Things (1898). Oestbrley. Ecclesiasticus (1912). Oesterlby. Doctrinal Teachings of the Apocrypha (1914). Oestebley. Tlie Books of (lie Apocrypha (1914). 168 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS Oesterlby. The Evolution of the Messianic Idea (1908). Oesterley and Box. The Religion and Worship of the Syna- gogue (1907). Orelli. Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of Ood'a Kingdom Traced in its Historical Development (1889). Orr. IfUemational Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1915). Ottlb Y. Shart History of the Hebrews in the Roman Period ( 1900) . Pattlus. Les Juifs avant le Messie (1905). Peters. Wit and Wisdom of the Talmvd (1900). Peters. Justice to the Jew (1910). Petrie. Personal Religion in Egypt before Christianity (1909). Pfleiderer. Primitive Christianity. 3 vols. (1906-10). Prai.ippsoN. Haben wirklich die Juden Jesum gekreuzigt ! (1866). Pick. What is the Talmud ? (1887). Pick. Je^us and the Talmud (1913). Pick. The Cabala : Its Influence on Christianity and Judaism (1913). Pick. The Apocryphal Life of Jesus (1887). Plummer. Commentaries on Luke (4th ed. 1909), and Matthew (1909). PoiiANO. Selections from the Talmud. Pressen3]6. Jesus Christ : His Life, Times and Work (1879). Rabbinowicz. Kritische Uebersicht der Gesammt- und Einzel- ausgabe des Bahylonischen Talmude seit 1484. 26 vols. (1880-6). Radin. Jews among the Greeks and Romans (1916). Ragspobt. Tales and Maxims from the Talmud (1910). Ramsay. The Church in the Roman Empire (1893). Raphall. The Mishna. Raphall. Post-Biblical History of the Hebrews (1886). Renan. The Life of Jesus. 23rd ed. (1890). RiEGEL and Jordan. Simon, Son of man (1917). RiGGS. History of the Jewish People in the Maccabean and Roman Periods (1900). Robinson. The Evangelists and the Mishna (1859). RoDKlNSON. English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud (1898). RoDBiouES. Les origines du Sermon de la Montagne (1868). tJST OF IMPORTANT WORKS 169 Roi. NeujUdische Stimmen itber Jesum Christum (1910). Rylb and James. Psalms of the Pharisees (1891 ). Sandat. Christologies Ancient and Modem (1910). Sanday. The Life of Christ in Recent Research (1907). Scheohtbb. Die Chasidim (1904). Sohechthr. Studies in Judaism (1908). Scheohtbb. Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (1909). Schlatter. Israels Oesehidite vor Alexander dem Qrossen bis Hadrian (1901). Schmidt. Ecclesiastieus. Sohmitz. Die Opferanschauung des spcUeren Judentums und die Opferanschauung des Neuen Testaments (1910). Sohnbdermann. Das Judentum und die Christliche verkilndi- gung in den Evangelien (1884). Sohneider. Jesus als Philosoph. Sohoddb. The Book of Jubilees. Sohonefeld. tJber die Messianische Hoffnung von 200 vor Christo bis gegen 50 nach Christo (1874). Schoettobn. Horae Hebraicce et Talmudicw (1742). ScBBEiBEB. Die Principien des Judentums verglichen mil denen des Christentums (1877). SoHUEBBR. The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 5 vols. (1891). ■ Schwab. Le Talmud de Jirusalem (IBll). ScHWALM. La vie privie du peuple juif (i Vkpoque de Jisus-Christ (1910). Schweitzer. The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910). Scott. Christianity and the Jew (1916). Segal. 'Pharisees and Sadducees' (The Expositor, February 1917). Seitz. Christus Zeugnisse aus dem Altertum (1896). SiEFFBRT. 'Pharisaer' (Herzog's Real Encycl. 2 Aufl. 1). Singer. The Jewish Prayer Book, Singer. The Jewish Encydopmdia. Smith, D. In the Days of His Flesh. 10th ed. (1915). Smith, George Adam. Historical Qeography of the Holy Land. 2 vols. 14th ed. (1908). Smbnd. Die Weisheit des Jesus Siracli. 2 vols. (1906). Snell. The Value of the Apocrypha, 170 THE PHARISEES AND JESUS SoRLEY. The Jewish Chrulians and Judaism (1881). Spakrow-Simpson. ' Liberal Judaism and the Chriatian Faith ' {Quart. Review, Oct. 1916). Stalker. Trial and Death of Jesus Christ (1894). Stalker. Christology of Jesus (1901). Stalker. The Ethics of Jesus (1909). Stanton. The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (1880). Staffer. Palestine in the Time of Christ (1885). Staffer. Les idies religieuses en Palestine d Vijioque de Jiaus- Christ (1878). Stevenson. Wisdom and the Jewish Apocryphal Writings (1903). Stevenson. The Judges of Jesus (1909). Still. The Jetvish Christian Church (1912). Strack. Einleitung in den Talmud. 4 Aufl. (1908). Stback. Jesus, die Hdretiker und die Christen nach den dltesten Aufgaben (1910). Strauss. TheLifeof Christ Critically Examined. 4thed. (1898). SuEENHusius. Mishna. SwETB. Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Rev, ed. by Ottlby (1912). SwETE. Commentary on Mark (1902). Talmud. Various editions. Tauchma. The Midrash. Taylor. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (1887). Terry. The Sybilline Oracles (1889). Thetn. The Talmud. Thomson. ' Pharisees ' (art. in Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). Thomson. Books Which Have Influenced Our Lord. Thorburn. Jesus the Christ : Historical or Mythical (1912). Toy. Judaism and Christianity (1890). Tristram. Eastern Customs in Bible Lands. Vaoanay. Le Prohlime eschat. dans le I V. Livre d'Esdras (1907). Vbdder. The Gospel of Jesus and the Problems of Democracy (1914). Violet. Die Ezra-Apocalypse. Teil I. (1910). ViTBATJ et Martin. Les Psaumes de Salomon (1910). VoLKMAR. Einleitung in den Apokryphen. VoLZ. Jiidische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (1903). LIST OF IMPORTANT WORKS 171 VoTAW. ' The Sermon on the Mount' (vol. v. Hastings' D. B.). Wacb. Apocrypha. Two vols. (1888). Waddt-Mos3. From Malaehi to Matthew (1899). Wahl. Clavis librorum veteris testamenti apocryphorum philo- logica {1853). Walker. English Translation of the Apocrypha of the N. T. (vol. viii., 'Ante-Nicene Fathers'). Weber. Die Lehre des Talmud {\9i%Q). Weber. Jiidische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und ver- wandten Schriften (1897). Weinel. Jesus in the Nineteenth Century and After (1914). Weinstook. Jesus the Jew (1902). Weiss, B. The Religion of the N. T. (1904). Weiss, B. The Life of Christ. 2nd ed. 3 vols. (1909). Wellhausen. Die Pharisder und Sadducder (1874). Wellhausen. Israelitische und jiidische Geschichte (1894). Wendland. Die hellenistische-rbmische KuUur in ihren Bezie- hung zu Judentum und Christentum. 3 Aufl. (1912). Wenley. Preparation for Christianity in the Ancient World (1898). Wernle. Beginnings of Christianity. 2 vols. (1903-4). Wernle. Sources of Our Knowledge of Jesus (1907). Westcott. Introduction to the Four Gospels (1875). Westcott. Commentary mi John. 2 vols. (1908). Wettstein. Novum Testamerttum Greece (1761-2). Wicks. Doctrine of God in the Jewish Aprocryphal and Apoca- lyptical Literature (1915). Winstanlby. Jesus and the Future (1913). Winter and Wunschb. Die jiidische Literatur seit AbsMuss des Canon. Wise. History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth (1880). Woods. The Hope of Israel ( 1 896). Worsley. The Apocalypse of Jesus (1912). WiJNSCHE. Der Jerusalemische Talmud. WijNSCHE. Neue Beitrdge zur Erlduterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und, Midrash (1878).. WiJNSOHE. Bibliotheca Rabbinica. Zahn. Komm. on Matt. (1906). ZoECKLER. Die Apokryphen. INDEX I.— SUBJECTS Aaron, 13. Abb4 Parson, 126. Abraham, 20, 22, 26, 39, 70, 91, 138. Achad, 32. Adar, 146. Aeneid, 156. Alcimu9, 13. Alexander Jann:eu cvii. b, 6,65 t| »> xiix. 1, . 32 Maccoth, xxiU. 2, 82 »l »► xxxi. 1, . 35 Abotbi Mishna, 28,30 If M civ. b. 54 ** ti 1.16, 36 Jer. „ „ evil., 144 f» ft 1.16, 36 11 11 cxvi. 1, . 53 11 tt U.2, 37 Erubin, ,, xxi. 2, 30 180 It JI 1L4, 2 0,100 b. Jona, ,, lxvi.d. . 56 „ Tal., ft 1L8, 160 b. Succ, ,, XX. a, 18 It tt ii. 14, 86 Ros. Hash., ,, xvii. b, . 142 1* tt iii. 10, 36 Taanith, „ xxiv. a, . 143 II tt iii, 12, 36 J* 11 11 Ixv. b, . 66 tt tt iii. 20, 96 B. Meg., Ixxxvt d. 84 tt tt V.18, 38 B. Moed. qat., ,, i.a. 146 tt It T. 20, J9, 47 3. Nashim— „ Nathan „ iiivii., . 25 M. Jeb., „ iv. 13, . 65 b. Gltt., „ Ivi. b, . Ivii. ii, 65 56 6. Kodhashim— 11 11 Sotah, „ iv., ix., . 44 5 Erach, tt xvi. b, . 136 Bab. „ „ xxi. 2, . 26 6, Teharoth— 11 11 11 xxii. b, 24, 134 Tract. Kelim., , , 46 ji 11 II xxii. 1, . 26 MikwAoth, fol. iv. 1, 95 Tal. Kidd, „ Izxi. a, . 14P Kiddah, 1, iv.2, 20 INDEX 189 liATE HlOKABU Shem. B., fol. xxx., . PAOE . 87 Sopherim, fo). xvi. 6, Post Talmudio Tract 44 Talhddio Tbact b. Kallsh, fol. li. a ^6 Ab. Zar., fol. xvii. a, b. A. Zar., fol. iii. b, Babtlonian Tbaot 77 29 PHttO }. i. 4 6, JOSBPHUS Vi PAOB 1 PAOB kii.c bap viii. 14, 20 Antiq. book XV. chap X, i. 6 iv. viii. 16, 166 11 >y xvii. u. *, 47 xiii. II vii. 9, 12 If tt xvii. X. 7, 98 xiii. ,, X. 6-6, 12 If tt xviii. i. If 21 xiil. X. 6, 38 11 tt xviii. i. 8f 80 xiii. II X. 6, 48 II tt xvui. i. 3, 37 xiii. xi., . 18 II ji xviii. i. 8i 39 xiii. II xiii. 6, 14 11 It xviii. i. 3, 44 xiii. xiv. 2, 13 11 ti xviii. i. 4. 19 xiii. XV. 6, 14 II It xviii. iii. 3, 40 xiii. xvi. 2, 14 11 It XX. viii. 6. 99 xiv. 11 i. 1, 14 11 »» XX. ix. 1, 17 xiv. 11 i. 2-4, 16 11 tt XI. ix. 1, 19 xiv. If ii.-v., . 15 Wars, 11 v. i-i • 21 xiv. iv. 2, 46 11 II ii. viii. H, 5 xiv. vii. 4, 16 II It ii. viii. 14i 37 xiv. viii., . 16 11 tt ii. viii. 14i 38 xiv. xi.-xiii., . 16 11 It ii. viii. 14, 39 xiv. " xiii., . 16 11 tt vi. V. 4, 41 xiv. xiv. If II xiii. 10 xiv.-xv., . 16 16 II Life, It vii. 11 V. 1, 2| 87 6 XV. 11 i.*i 16 HprKMAN B I N D E K V, INC. Bound'Ib-PIease' DEC 02 M MANCHESTER, INDIANA 46962