Chapter XVII (continued, part 6)
Similarly Tobit xiv. 5-7 may be compared with our quotations on Ps. xc, Is. lx. 3, and especially on Zech. viii. 23, also on Gen. xlix. 11.
Wisdom of Solomon iii. 7, 8 may be compared with our remarks on Is. lxi. 1.
Ecclus. xliv. 21 &c. and xlvi. 11 may be compared with our quotations on Ps. lxxxix. 22-25; Ps. cxxxii. 18; Ezek. xxix. 21.
Ecclus. xlviii. 10, 11. See the comments on Is. lii. 7, also our references on Mal. iii. 1; Mal. iv. 5; Deut. xxv. 19 and xxx. 4; Lam. ii. 22. In Sotah ix. 15 Elijah is represented as raising the dead.
Baruch 11. 34, 35; iv 29 &c.; and ch. v. are so thoroughly in accordance with Rabbinic, and, indeed, with Scriptual views, that it is almost impossible to enumerate special references.
The same may be said of 1 Macc. ii. 57; while such passages as iv. 46 and xiv. 41 point forward to the ministry of Elijah as resolving doubts, as this is frequently described in the Talmud (Shekalim ii. 5; Men. 45 a, Pes. 13 a; and inother places). Lastly, 2 Macc. ii. 18 is fully enlarged on in the Rabbinic descriptions of the gathering of Israel.
Perhaps it may be as well here to add the Messianic discussion in the Talmud, to which such frequent reference has been made (Sanhedrin, beginning at the two last lines of p. 96 b, and ending at p. 99 a). The first question is that asked by one Rabbi of the other, whether he knew when the Son of the Fallen would come? Upon which follows an explanation of that designation, based on Amos ix. 11, after which it is added that it would be a generation in which the disciples of the sages would be diminished, and the rest of men consume their eyes for sorrow, and terrible sorrows so follow each other, that one had not ceased before the other began. Then a description is given of what was to happen during the hedbomad when the Son of David would come. In the first year it would be according to Amos iv. 7; in the second year there would be darts of famine; in the third year great famine and terrible mortality, in consequence of which the Law would be forgotten by those who studied it. In the fourth year there would be abundance, and yet no abundance; in the fifth year great abundance and great joy, and return to thestudy of the Law; in the sixth year voices (announcements); in the seventh wars,and a the end of the seventh the Son of David would come. Then follows some discussion about the order of the sixth and seventh year, when Ps. lxxxix. 51 isreferred to. Next we have a description of the general state during those days. Sacred places (Academies) would be used for the vilest purposes, Galilee be desolated, Gablan laid waste, and the men of Gebul wander from city to city, and not find mercy. And the wisdom of the scribes would be corrupted, and they who fear sin be abhorred, and the face of that generation would be like that of a dog, and truth should fail, according toi Is. lix. 15. (Here a side issue is raised.) The Talmud then continues in much the same terms to describe the Messianic age as one, in which children would rebel against their parents, and as one of general lawlessness, when Sadduceeism should universally prevail, apostasy increase, study of the Lawdecrease; and, generally, universal poverty and despair of redemption prevail, the growing disregard of the Law being pointed out as specially characterising the last days. R. Kattina said: The world is to last 6,000 years, and during one millennium it is to lie desolate, according to Is. ii. 17. R. Abayi held that this state would last 2,000 years, according to Hosea vi. 2. The opinion of R. Kattian was however, regarded as supported by this, that in each period of seven there is a Sabbatic year, the day here = 1,000 years of desolateness and rest, the appeal world was to last 6,000 years: 2,000 in a state of chaos, 2,000 under the Law, and 2,000 being the Messianic age. But on account of Israel's sins those years were to be deducted which had already passed. On the authority of Elijah it was stated that the world would not lass less than eighty-five jubilees, and that inthe last jubilee the Son of David would come. When Elijah was asked whether at the beginning or at the end of it, he replied that he did not know. Being further asked whether the whole of that period would first elapse or not, he similarly replied, his meaning being supposed to be that until that term people were not to hope for the
Advent of Messiah, but after that term they were to look for it. A story is related of a man being met who had in his hands a writing in square Hebrew characters, and in Hebrew, which he professed to have got from the Persian archives, and in which it was written that after 4,290 years from the Creation the world would come to an end. And then would be the wars of the great sea-monsters, and those of Gog and Magog, and the rest of the time would be the time of the Messiah, and that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, would only renew His world after the 7,000 years; to which, however, one Rabbi objects, making it 5,000 years. Rabbi Nathan speaks of Habakkuk ii. 3 as a passage so deep as to go down to the abyss, reproving the opinion of the Rabbis who sought out the meaning of Daniel vii. 25, and of Rabbi Samlai, who similarly busied himself with Ps. lxxx. 5, and of Rabbi Akiba, who dwelt upon Haggai ii. 6. But the first kingdom (Babylonian?) was to last seventy years; the second (Asmonaean?) fifty-two years; and the rule of the son of Kozebhah (Bar Kakhabh, the false Messiah) two and a half years. According to Rabbi Samuel, speaking in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Let the bones of those be broken who calculate the end, because they say, They end has come, and the Messiah has not come, therefore He will notcome at all. But still expect Him, as it is said (Hab. ii. 3), 'Though it tarry,wait for it.' Perphaps thou wilt say: We wait for Him, but He does not wait for it. On TALMUDIC DISCUSSION THE MESSIAH. this point Is. xxx. 18. But if so, what hinders? The quality of judgment. But in that case, why should we wait? In order to recieve, according to the last clause of xxx. 18. On which follows a further discussion. Again, Rabh maintains that all the limits of time as regards the Messiah are past, and that in now only depends on repentance and goos works whan He shall come. To this Rabbi Samuel objected, but Rabh's view was supported by Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if Israel repented they would be hard like those od Haman, when Israel would repent. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer was further supported bt Jer. iii.22,to which Rabbi Joshua objected by quoting Is. lii. 3, which seemed to imply thatIsrael's redemption was not dependent on their repentance and good works. On this Rabbi Joshua retorted by quoting Mal. iii. 7, to which again Rabbi Joshua replied by by quoting Jer. iii. 14, and Rabbi Eleizer then urged Jer. iv. 1, upon which Rabbi Joshua retorted from Dan. xlix. 7. Rabbi Eliezer then urged Jer. iv.1, upon which Rabbi Joshua retorted from Dan. xii. 7, and so effectually silenced Rabbi Eliezer. On this Rabbi Abba propounded that there was not a clearer mark of the Messianic term than that in Is. xxxvi. 8. To which Rabbi Eliezer added Zech. viii. 10. On this the question is raised as to the meaning of the words 'neitherwas there any peace to him that went out or came in.' To this Rabh gave answer that it applied to the disciples of the sages, according to Ps. cxix. 165. On which Rabbi Samuel replied that at that time all the entrances would be equal (i.e. that all should be on the same footing of danger). Rabbi Chanina remarked that the Son of David would not come till after fish had beeeb sought for for the sick and not found, according to Ezek. xxxii. 14 in connection with Ezek. xxix. 21. RabbiChamma, the son of Rabbi Chaina, said that the Son of David would not come until the vile dominion over Israel had ceased, appealing to Is. i. 26. Ula saidJerusalem is not to be redeemed, except by righteousness, according to Is. i. 27We pass over the remarks of Rabbi Papa, as not adding to the subject. Rabbi Jochanah said: If thou seest a generation that increasingly diminishes, except Him, which many sorrows come like a stream, expect Him, according to Is. lix. 19, 20.He also added: The son of David does not come except in a gemneration where all are either righteous, or all guilty, the former idea being based on Is. lx. 21, the latter on Is. lix. 16 and xlviii. 11. Rabbi Alexander said, that Rabbi Joshua the son of Levi referred to the contradiction in Is. lx. 22 between the words 'in his time' and again 'I will hasten it,' and explained it thus: If they are worthy, I will hasten it, and if not, in His time. Another similar contradiction between Dan. vii. 13 and Zech. ix. 9 is thus reconciled: if Israel deserve it, He will come in the clouds of heaven; if
they are not deserving, He will come poor, and riding upon an ass. Upon this it is remarked that Sabor the King sneered at Samuel, saying: Yousay that the Messiah is to come upon an ass: I will send Him my splendid horse. To which the Rabbi replied: Is it of a hundred colours, like His ass? Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi, saw Elijah, who stood at the door of Paradise. He said to him: When shall the Messiah come? He replied: When that Lord shall come (meaning God). Rabbi Joshua, the son of Levi,said: I saw two (himself and Elijah), and I heard the voice of three (besides the former two the Voice ofthe son of Jochai, and said to him: Shall I attain the world to come? Elijah replied: If it pleaseth the Lord. Upon which follows the same remark: I have seen the Messiah come? To ehich the answer is: Go and ask Him thyself. And where does He abide? At the gate of the city (Rome). And what is His sign? He abides among the poor, the sick and stricken. And all unbind, and bind up again the wounds at the same time, but He undoes (viz the bondage) and rebinds each separately, so that if they call for Him they may not find him engaged. [1 The Vienna edition of the Ta,mud has several lacune on this page (98) a)]. He went to meet Him and said: peace be to Thee, my Rabbi and my Lord. he replied to him: Peace be to thee, thou son of Levi. he said to Him: When wilt Thou come, my Lord? He replied to hiim: To-day. Then he turned to Elijah, who said to him: He has assured and thy Father of the world to come. He said to him: But He has decieved me in that He said: I come to-day, and he has not come. He said to them: Have he not promided me that he would not seek a sign? They said to him: Notwithstanding do it. He said to them: If so, the waters from the cave of Pamias (one of the sources of the Jordan) shall be changed into blood. In that moment they were changed into blood. Then the Rabbi goes on to predict that the land would be overun by enemies, very stable being filled with their horses. Rabh said that the son of David not come till the kingdom (i.e foreign domination) should extend over Israel for nine months, according to Micah v. 3. Ula said: Let Him come, and may I be found worthy to stand. the shadow of the dung of His ass (according to some: the tail of his ass). Abayi said Raba: Why has this been the bearing of your words? If on account of the sorrows of the Messiah, we have the tradition that Rabbi Eliezer was asked by his disciples, what a man should do to be freed from the sorrows of the Messiah; on ehich they were told: By busying yourselves with the Torah, and with good works. And you are a master lead to occasion of danger. to this confronting replies are given from Scripture, such as Gen. xxviii. 15, and other passages, some of them being subjected to detailed commentation. Rabbi Jochanan expressed a similar dislike of seeing the days of the Messiah, onwhich Resh lakish suggested that it might be on the ground of Amos v. 19, or rather on that of Jer. xx. 6. Upon this, such fear before God is accounted for by the consideration that what is called service above is not like what is called service below (the family above is not like thr family below), so that one kind may outweigh the other. Rabbi Giddel said, that Rabh said, that Israel would rejoice in the years of the Messiah. Rabbi Joseph said: Surely, who else would rejoice in the years of the Messiah. Rabbi Joseph said: Surely, who else would rejoice in them? Chillak and Billak? (two imaginary names, meaning no one). This, to exclude the words of Rabbi Hillel, eho said: There is no Messiah for Israel, seeing they have had Him in the time of Hezikiah. Rabh said: The world was only created for David; Samuel, for Moses; and Rabbi Jochanan, for the Messiah. What is His Name? The school of Rabbi Jannai said: Jinnon, according to Ps. lxxii. 17. The school of Rabbi Chanina siad: Chaninah, according to Jer.xvi. 13. And some say Menachem, the son of Hezikah, according to Lam. i. 16. And our Rabbis say: The Leprous One of the house of Rabbi, is His Name, as it is written is liii. 4.Rabbi Nachman said: It He is among the living, He is like me, according to Jer. xxx. 21. Rabh said: If He is among the living, He is like Rabbi jehudah the Holy, and if among the dead he is like Daniel, the man greatly beloved. Rabbi Jehudah said, Rabh said: God will raise up to them another David, according to
Jer. xx. 9, a passage which evidently points to the future. Rabbi Papa said to Abaji: But we have thisother Scripture Ezek. xxxvii. 25, and the two terms (Messiah and David) stand related like Agustus and Caesar. Rabbi Samlai illustrated Amos v. 18, by a parable of the cock. and the bat which were looking for the light. The cock said to the bat: I look for the light, but of what use is the light to thee? So it happened to a Sadducee who said to Rabbi Abahu: When will the Messiah come? He answered him: When darkness covers this people. He said to him: Dost thou intend to curse me? He replied: Itis said in Scripture Is. lx. 2. Rabbi eliezer taught: The days of a King,H the Kingthere spoken of being the unique king, the Messiah. Rabbi said: Three generations, according to Ps. lxxii. 5. Rabbi Hillel said: Israel shall have no more Messiah,for they had him in the days of Hezikiah. Rabbi Joseph said: May god forgive Rabbi Hillel: when did hezikiah live? During the first Temple. And Zechariah prophesied during the second Temple, and said Zech. xi. 9. We have the traditionthat Rabbi Eliezer said: The days of the Messiah are forty years. it is written Deut. vii. 3,4, and again in Ps xc. 15 (shoeing that the days of rejoicing must be like those of affliction in the wilderbess). Rabbi Dosa said: Four hundred yearsquoting Gen. xv. 13 in connection with the same Psalm. Rabbi thought it was 365 years, according to Is. lxii. 5. Rabbi Jehudah said, that Rabbi Samuel said, that the days of the Messiah were to be as from the day that the world was created until now, according to Deut. xi. 21. Rabbi jehudah said, that Rabbi Samuel said, that the days of the Messiah were to last for Israel 7,000 years (a Divine marriage-week), according to Is. lxii. 5. Rabbi Jehudah said, that Rabbi Samuel said, that the days of the Messiah were to be as from the day that the world was created until now, according Duet. xi. 21. Rabbi Nacham said: As from the days of Noah till now, according to Is. liv. 9. Rabbi Chija said, that Rabbi Jochanan said: All the prophets have only prophesied in regard of the days of the Messiah; but in regard to the world to come, eye has not seen, O god, beside Thee, what He hath preparefor him that waiteth for Him (Is. lxiv. 4). And this is opposed to what Rabbi Samuel said, that there was no differences between this world and the days of the Messiah, except that foreign domination would cease. Upon which the Talmud goes off to discourse upon repentance, and its relation to perfect righteousness. Lengthy as this extract may be, it will at least show the infinite differences between the Rabbinic expectation of the Messiah, and the picture of him presented in the New Testament. Surely the Messianic idea, as realised in Christ, could not have been derived from the views current in those times!
ON THE SUPPOSED TEMPLE-SYNAGOGUE.
APPENDIX X.
(Vol. i. Book 11. ch. x.p. 246).
Putting aside, as quite untenable, the idea of a regular Beth ha-Midrash in the Temple (though advocated even by Winche), we have to inquire whether any historical evidence can be adduced for the existence of a Synagogue within the bounds of the Temple-buildings. The notice (Sot. vii. 8) that on every Sabbatic year lection of certain portions was made to the people in the 'Court,H and thata service was conducted there during public fasts on account of dry weather
(Taan. ii. 5), can, of course, not be adduced as proving the existence of a regular Temple-Synagogue. On the other hand, it is expressly said in Sanh. 88 b, lines 19, 20 from top, that on the Sabbaths and feast-days the members of the Sanhedrin went out upon the Chel of Terrace of the temple, when questions were asked of them and answered. It is quite true that in Tos. Sanh. vii. (p. 158, col. d) we have an maccurate statement about the second of the Temple-Sanhedrin as sitting on the Chel (instead of at the entrance of the Preists' Court, as in Sanh. 88 b), and that there the Sabbath and festive discourses are loosely designated as a 'Beth haMidrash' which was on' the Temple-Mount. [1 So laos by Maimonides, Yad ha-Chas. vol. iv. p. 24i a (Hilc. Sanc. ch. iii.).] But since exactly the same description, indeed, in the same words, of what took place is given in the Tosephta as in Talmud itself, the former must be corrected by the latter, or rather the term 'Beth ha-Midrahs' must be taken in the wider and more general sense as the 'place of Rabbinic exposition,' and not as indicating any permanent Academy. Buteven if the words in the Tosephta were to be taken in preference to those in theTalmud itself, they contain no mention of any Temple-Synagogue. Equally inappropriate are the other arguments in favor of this supposed Temple-Synagogue. The first of them is derived from a notice in Tos. Sukkah. iv. 4, in which R. Joshua explains how, during the first night of the Feast of Tabernacles, the pious never 'saw sleep' since they went, first' to the Morning Sacrifice, thence of the Synagogue, thence the Beth ha-Midrash, thence to the Evening Sacrifice, and thence to the "joy of the house of water drawing" (the night-feast and services in the Temple-Courts). The only other argument is that from Yoma vii. 1,2 where we read that while the bullock and the goat were burned the High-Priest read to the people certain portions of the Law, the roll of which was handed by the Chazzan of the Synagogue (it is not said which Synagogue) to the head of the Synagogue, by him to the Sagan, and by the Sagan to the High-Priest. [2 A similar arrangment is described in Sot. vii. 8 as connected with the reading of the Law by the kings of Israel to the people sccording to Duet xxxi. 10. Will it be argued from this that there was a Synagogue in the temple in the early days of the king?] How utterly inconclusive inferencefrom these notices are, need not be pointed out. More than this, the existence of a Temple-Synagogue seems entirely incompatible with the remark in Yoma vii. 2, that it was impossible for anyone present at the reading of the High-Priest to witness the burning of the bullock and goat, and that, not because the former took place in a regular Temple-Synagogue, but 'because the way was far and the two services were exactlyat the same time.' Such, so far as I know, are all the Talmudical passages from which the existence of a regular Temple-Synagogue has been inferred, and with what reason, the reader may judge for himself.
It is indeed easy to understand that Rabbinism and later Judaism should have wished to locate a Synagogue and a Beth ha-Midrash within the sacred precincts of the Temple itself. But it is difficult to account for the circumstance that suchChristian scholars as Reland, Carpzov, and Lightfoot should have been content torepeat the statement without subjecting its grounds to personal examination. Vitringa (Synag. p. 30) almost grows indignant at the possibility of any doubt, and that, although he himself quotes passages from Maimonides to the effect thatthe reading of the Law by the High-Priest on the Day of Atonement took place in the Court of the Women, and hence not in any supposed Synagogue. Yet commentators generally, and writers on the Life of Christ have located the sitting of our Lord among the Doctors in the Temple in this supposed Temple-Synagogue. [1 In a former book ('Sketches of Jewish Life in the Time of our Lord') I had expressed hesitation and misgivings on the subject. These (as explained in the text), a fuller study has converted into absolute certitude against the popularly accepted hypothesis. And what, indeed, could have been the meaning of a Synagogue, which, after all, stood as substitute for the Temple
and its Services, within the precincts of the Temple; or how could the respective services be so arranged as not to clash; or, lastly, have not the prayers of the Synagogue, admittedly, taken the place of the Services and Sacrifices of the Temple?]
ON THE PROPHECY, IS. XL. 3
APPENDIX XI
(See vol. i. Book II. ch. xi. p.260, Note 2.) ACCORDING to the Synoptic Gospels, the public appearance and preaching of John was the fulfilment of the prediction with which the second part of the prophecies of Isaiah opens, called by the Rabbis, 'the book of consolations.' After a briefgeneral preface (Is. xl. 1, 2), the words occur which are quoted by St. Matthew and St. Mark (Is. xl. 3), and more fully by St. Luke (Is. xl. 3-5). A more appropriate beginning of 'the book of consolations' could scarcely be conceived.
The quotation of Is. l. 3 is made according to the LXX., the only difference being the change of 'paths of our God' into 'His paths.' The divergences between the LXX. and our Hebrew text of Is. xl. 4, 5 are somewhat more numerous, but equally unimportant, the main difference from the Hebrew original lying in this, that, instead of rendering 'all flesh shall see it together,' we have in the LXX. and the New Testament, 'all flesh shall see the salvation of God.' As it can scarcely be supposed that the LXX. read for, we must regard their rendering as Targumic. Lastly, although according to the accents in the Hebrew Bible we should read, 'The Voice of one crying: In the wilderness prepare,' &c.,yet, as alike the LXX., the Targum, and the synoptists render, 'The Voice of onecrying in the wilderness: Prepare,' their testimony must be regarded as outweighing the authority of the accents, which are of so much later date.
But the main question is, whether Is. xl. 3, &c., refers to Messianic times or not. Most modern interpreters regard it as applying to the return of the exiles from Babylon. This is not the place to enter on a critical discussion of the passage; but it may be remarked that the insertion of the word 'salvation' in v.5 by the LXX. seems to imply that they had viewed it as Messianic. It is, at any rate, certain that the Synopists so understood the rendering of the LXX. But this is not all. The quotation from Is. xl. was regarded by the Evangelists as fulfiled, when John the Baptist announced the coming Kingdom of God. We have proof John, they only took the view of their contemporaries in appying Is. lx. 3, &c.,to the preaching of the Baptist. The evidence here seems to be indisputable, for the Targum renders the close of v. 9 ('say unto the cities of Judah, Behold yourGod!') by the words: 'Say to the cities of the House of Judah, the Kingdom of your God shall be manifested.'
In fact, according to the Targum, 'the good tidings' are not brought by Zion nor by Jerusalem, but to Zion and Jerusalem.
THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES
APPENDIX XII
(See vol. i. Book II. ch. xi. p. 273.) ONLY those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and sometimes bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their Baptism. Our present remarks will be confined to the Baptism of Proselytes.
1. Generally, as regards proselytes (Gerim) we have to distinguish between the Ger ha-Shaar (proselyte of the gate) and Ger Toshabh ('sojourner,' settled amongIsrael), and again the Ger hatstsedeq (proselyte of righteousness) and Ger habberith (proselyte of the covenant). The former are referred to by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 7. 2), and frequently in the New Testament, in the Authorised Version under the designation of those who 'fear God,' Acts xiii. 16, 26; are 'religious,' Acts xiii. 43; 'devout,' Acts xiii. 50; xvii. 4, 17; 'worship God,' Acts xvi. 14; xviii. 7. Whether the expression 'devout' and 'feared God' in Acts x. 2, 7 refers to proselytes of the gates is doubtful. As the 'proselytes of the gate' only professed their faith in the God of Israel, and merely bound themselves to the observance of theso-called seven Noachic commandments (on which in another place), the question of 'baptism' need not be discussed in connection with them, since they did not even undergo circumcision.
2. It was otherwise with 'the proselytes of righteousness,' who became 'children of the covenant,' 'perfect Israelites,' Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah), and a Sacrifice (Qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice), the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5). After the destruction of theSanctuary were restored. On this and the ordinances about circumcision it is notnecessary to enter further. That baptism was absolutely necessary to make a proselyte is so frequently stated as not to be disputed (See Maimonides, u. s.; the tractate Massekheth Gerim in Kirchheim's Septem Libri Talm. Parvi, pp. 38-44 [which, however, adds little to our knowledge]; Targum on Ex. xii. 44; Ber. 47 b; Kerith. 9 a; Jer. Yebam. p. 8d; Yebam. 45 b, 46 a and b, 48 b, 76 a; Ab. Sar. 57a, 59 a, and other passages). There was, indeed a difference between Rabbis Joshua and Eliezer, the former maintaining that baptism alone without circumcision, thelatter that circumcision alone without baptism, sufficed to make a proselyte, but the sages decided in favour of the necessity of both rites (Yebam. 46 a and b). The baptism was to be performed in the presence of three witnesses, ordinarily Sanhedrists (Yebam. 47 b), but in case of necessity others might act. The personto be baptized, having cut his hair and nails, undressed completely, made fresh proffession of his faith before what were 'the fathers of the baptism' (our Godfathers, Kethub. 11 a; Erub. 15 a), and then immersed completely, so that every part of the body was touched by the water. The rite would, of course, be accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides, Hilkh. Milah iii. 4; Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiv. 6). Baptism was not to be administered at night, nor on a Sabbath or feast-day (Yebam. 46 b). Women were attended by those of their own sex, the Rabbis standing at the door outside. Yet unborn children of proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they
were born 'in holiness' (Yebam. 78 a). In regard to the little children of preselytes opinions differed.A person under age was indeed received, but not regarded as properly an Isaelite till he had attained majority. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged. In general, the statements of a proselyte about his baptism required attestation by witnesses. Put the children of a Jewess or of a preselyte were regarded as Jews, even if the baptism of the father was doubtful.
It was indeed a great thing when, in the words of Maimonides, a stronger sought shelter under the wings of the Shekhinah, and the change of condition which he underwent was regarded as complete. The waters of baptism were to him in very truth, though in a far different from the Christian sense, the 'bathof regeneration' (Titus iii. 5). As he stepped out of these waters he was considered as 'born anew', in the language of the Rabbis, as if he were 'a little child just born' (Yeb. 22 a; 48 b, as 'a child of one day' (Mass. Ger. c. ii.). But this new birth was not 'a birth from above' in the sense of moral or spiritual renovation, but only as implying a new relationship to God, to Israel, and to his own past, present, and future. It was expressly enjoined that all the difficulties of his new citizenship should first be set before him, and if, after that, he took upon himself the yoke of the law, he should be told how all those sorrows and persecutions were intended to convey a greater blessing, and all those commandments to redound to greater merit. More especially was he to regard himself as a new man in reference to his past. Country, home, habits, friends, and relation were all changed. The past, with all that had belonged to it, was past, and he was a new, man the old,with its difilements, was burried in the waters of baptism. This was carried outwith such pitiless logic as not only to determine such questions as those of inheritance, but that it was declared that, except, for the sake of not bringingproselytism into contempt, as proselyte might have wedded his own mother or sister (comp. Yeb. 22 a; Sanh. 58 b). It is a curious circumstances that marriage with a female proselyte was apparently very popular (Horay. 13 a, line 5 from bottom; see alsoShem. R. 27), and the Talmud names at least three celebrated doctors who were the offspring of such unions (comp. Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palest., p. 223, note 2). The praises of proselytism are also sung in Vayy. R. 1. If anything could have further enhanced the value of such proselytism, it would have been its supposed anitquity. Tradition traced it up to Abraham and Sarah, and the expression (Gen. xii. 5) 'the souls that they had gotten' was explained as referring to their proselytes, since 'every one that makes a proselyte is as if he made (created) him' (Ber. R. 39, comp also the Targums Pseudo-Jon. and Jerus. and Midr. on Cant. i. 3). The Talmud, differing in this from the Targumim, findsin Exod. ii. 5 a reference to the baptism of Pharoah's daughter (Sotah 12 b, line 3; Megill. 13 a, line 11). In Shem. R. 27 Jethro is proved to have been a convert, from the circumstances that his original name had been Jether (Exod. iv. 18), an additional letter (Jethro). as in the case of Abraham, having been added to his name when became a proselyte (comp. also Zebhach. 116 a and Targum Ps.-Jon. on Exod. xviii. 6, 27, Numb. xxiv. 21. To pass over other instances, we are pointed to Ruth (Targum on Ruth i. 10, 15). and to Nebuzaradan, who is alos described as a proselyte (Sanh. 96 b, line 19 form the bottom). But is is said that in the days of David and Solomon proselytes were not admitted bythe Sanhedrin because their motives were suspected (Yeb. 76 a), or that at leastthey were closely, watched.
But although the baptism of porselytes seems thus far beyond dout, Christian theologians have discussed the question, whether the rite was practised at the time of Christ, or only introduced afterthe destruction of the Temple and its Services, to take the place of the Sacrifice previously offered. The conversy, which owed its origin chiefly to dogmatic prejudices on the part
of Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptist, has since been continued on historical or quasi-historical grounds. Thesilence of Josephus and Philo can scarcely be quoted in favour of the later origin of the rite. On the other hand, it may be urged that, as Baptism did not take the place of sacrifices in any other instance, it would be difficult account for theorigin of such a rite in connection with the admission of proselytes.
Again, if a Jew who had become Levitically defiled, required imersion, it is difficult to suppose that a heathen would have been admittd to all the services of the Sanctuary without a similar purification. But we have also positive testimony (wich the objections of Winer, Keil, and Leyrer, in my opinion do not invalidate), that the baptism of proselytes existed in the time of Hillel and Shammai. For, whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake after baptism of the Passover, [1 The case supposed by the school of Shammai would, however, have been imposible, since, according to Rabbinic directions, a certain time must have elapsed between circumsision and baptism.] the school of Hillel forbade it. This controversy must be regarded as providing thatat that time (previous to Christ) the baptism of proselytes was customary [2 The following notice from Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5. 2) is not only interesting in itself, but for the view which it presents of baptism. It shows what views rationalising Jews took of the work of the Baptist, and how little such were able to enter into the real meaning of his baptism. 'But to some of the Jews it appeared, that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and, indeed, as a righteous punishment on account of what had been done to John, who was surnamed the Baptist. for Herod ordered him to be killed, a good man, and who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For that the baptizing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not for the putting away (remission) of some sins, but for the purification of the body, after that the soul had been previously cleansed by righteousness. And when others had come in crowds, for they were exceedingly moved by hearing these words, Herod, fearing lest such influence of his over the people might lead to some rebellion, for they seemed ready to do any thing by his council, deemed it best, before anything new should happen through him, to put him to death, rather than that, when a change should arise in affairs, he might have to repent,' &c. On the credibility of this testimony see the Article on Josephus, in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography,' vol. iii. pp. 441-460 (see especially pp. 458, 159).] (Pes. viii. 8, Eduy. v. 2).
JEWISH ANGELOLOGY AND DEMONOLOGY. THE FALL FO THE ANGEIS.
APENDIX XIII
(See vol. i. Book III. ch. i. p. 306.)
Without here entering on a discussion of the doctrine of Angels of devils as present in Holy Scriptures, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha, it will be admitted that considerable progression may be marked as we advance from even the latest Canonical to Apocryphal, and
again from these to the Pseudepigraphic Writings. The same remark applies even more strongly to a comparison of the later with Rabbinic literature. There we have comparitively little of the Bibical in its purity. But, added to it, we now find much that is the outcome ofEastern or of prurient imagination, of national conceit, of ignorant superstition, and of foreign, especailly Persian, elements. In this latter respect it is true,not, indeed, as regards the doctrine of good and evil Angels, but much of its Rabbinic elaboration, that 'the names of the Angels (and of the months) were brought form Babylon ' (Jer. Rosh. haSh. 56 d; Ber. r. 48), and with the 'names,' not a few of the notions regarding them. At the same time, it would be unjust to deny that mush of the symbolism which it is evidently intended to convey is s singularly beautiful.
I. ANGELOLOGY.
1. Creation, Number, Duration and Location of the Angels. We are now considering, not the Angel-Princes but that vast unnumbered 'Host' generally designated as 'the ministering Angels'. Opinions differ (Ber. R. 3) whether they were created on the second day as being 'spirit,' winds' (Ps. civ. 4), or on the fifth day (Is. vi. 2) in accordance with the words of Creation on those days. Viewed in reference to God's Service and Praise, they are 'a flaming fire': in regard to their office, winged messengers (Pirge de R. El. 4). But not only so: every day ministering Angels are created, whose apparent destiny is only to raise the praise of God, after which they pass away into the fiery stream (Nahar deNur) whence they orginally issued [1 This stream issued from under the throne of God, and is really the sweat of the 'living creatures' in their awe at the glory of God (Ber. R. 78).] (Chag. 14a; Ber. R. 78). More than this, a new Angel is created to execute to every behest of God, and then passeth away (Chag. u. s.). This cotinual new creation of Angels, which God, and then passethallegory, partly savours of the doctrine of 'emanation,' is Biblical supported by an appeal to Lament. iii. 23. Thus it may be said that daily a Kath, or company,of Angels is created for daily sevice of God, and that every word which proceedeth from His mouth becomes an 'Angel' [Messenger, mark here the ideal unity of Word and Deed], (Chang. 14 a). The vast number of that Angelic Host, and the consequent safety of Israel as against its enemies, was described in the most hyperbolic language. There were 12 Mazzaloth (signs of the Zodiac), each having 30 chiefs of armies, each chief with 30 legions, each legion with 30 leaders, eahc leader with 30 captains, eachcaptin with 30 under him, and each of these things with 365,000 stars, and all were created for the sake of Israel! (Ber. 32. b.) Similarly, when Nebuchadnezzar proposed to ascend into heaven, and to exalt his throne above the stars, and be like the Most High, the Bath Qol replied to this grandson of Nimrod that man's age was 70, or at most 80 years, while the way from earth to the firmament occupied 500 years, [a In Jer. Ber 2 c it is 50 years.] a thickness of the firmament was 500 years, the feet of the living creatures were equal to all that had preceded, and the joints of their feet to as many as had preceded them,and so on increasingly through all their members up to their horns, after which came the Throne of Glory, the feet of which again equalled all that had preceded, and so on (Chag. 13 a [b See also Pes. 94 b.]). [1 Some add the Cherubim as another and separate class.] In connection with this we read in Chag. 12 b that there are seven heavens: the Vdon, in which there is the sun; Riqia, in which the sun shines, and the moon, stars, and planets are fixed; Shechaqim, in which are the millstones to make the manna for the pious; Aebhul, in which the Upper Jerusalem, and the Temple and the Altar, and in which Michael, the chief Angel-Prince, offers sacrifices; Maon, in which the Angels of the Ministry are, who sing by night and are silent by day for the sake of the honour of Israel (who now have their services); Machon, in which are the treasuries of snow, hail, the chambers of noxious dews, and of the receptacles of water, the
chamber of wind, and the cave of mist, nd their doors are of fire; lastly, Araboth, wherein Justice, Judgment andRighteousness are, the treasures of Life, of Peace and of Blessing, the soul of the righteous, and the spirtis and souls of those who are to be born in the future, and the dew by which the dead are to be raised. There also are the Ophanim, and the Seraphim, and the living creatures and the ministering Angels, and the Throne of Glory and over them is enthroned the Great King. [For a description of this Throne and of the Appearance of its King, see Pirqe de R. Eliez. 4.] On the other hand, sometimes every power and phenomeon in Nature is hypostatised into an Angel, such as hail, rain, wind, sea &c.; similarly, every occurence, such aslife, death, nourishment, poverty, nay, as it is expressed: there is not stalk of grass upon earth but it has its Angels in heaven 'Ber R. 10). This seems to approximate the views of Alexandrian Mysticism. So also, prehaps, the idea that certain Bibical heroes became after death Angels. But as this may be regarded as implying their service as messengers of God. we leave it for the present.
2. The Angel-Princes, their location, names, and offices. Any limitation, as toduration or otherwise, of the Ministering Angels does not apply either to the Ophanim (or wheel-angels), the Seraphim, the Cayoth (or living creatures), nor to the Angel-Princes (Ber. R. 78). [2 According to Jer Ber. ix. 1, the abode of the living creatures was to an extent of 515 years' journey, which is proved from the numerical value of the word 'straight' (Ezek. i. 7).] In Chag. 13 a, b the name Chashamal is given to the 'living creatures.' The word is explained as composed of two other which mean silence and speech, it being beautifully explained, that they deep silence when the Word proceeds out of the mouth of God, and speak when He has ceased. It would be difficult exactly to state the number of the Angel-Princes. The 70 nations, of which the world is composed, had each their Angel-Prince (Targ. Jer.on Gen xi.7, 8; comp. Ber. R. 56; Shem. R. 21; Vayyi. R. 29; Ruth R. ed. Warsh. p. 36 b), who plead their cause with God. Hence these Angels are really hostile to Israel,and may be regarded as not quite good Angels, and are cast down when the nationalitywhich they represent is destroyed. It may have been as a reflection on Christian teaching that Israel was described as not requiring any representativewith God, like the Gentiles. For, as will soon appear, this was not the general view entertained. Besides these Gentiles Angel-Princes there were other chiefs, whose office will be explained in the sequel. Of these 5 are specially mentioned, of whom four surrounded the Throne of God: Michael, Gabriel, Rephael,and Uriel. But the greatest of all is Metatron, who is under the Throne, and before it. These Angels are privileged to be within the Pargod, or cloudy veil, while the others only hear the Divine commands or councels outside this curtain (Chag. 16 a, Pirque d. R. El. iv.). It is a slight variation when the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6 enumerates the following as the 6 principal Angels: Michael, Gabriel, Metatron, Yopheil, Uriel, and Yophyophyah. The Book of Enoch (ch. xx.) speaks also of 6 principal Angels, while Pirque d. R. Eliez. iv. mentions seven. In that very curious passage (Berakhoth 51 a) we read of three directionsgiven by Suriel, Prince of the Face, to preserve the Rabbis from the Techaspith (company of Evil Angels), or according to others, form Istalganith (another company of Evik Angels. In Chag. 132 b we read of an Angel called Sandalpon, who stands upon the earth, while his head reaches 500 years' way beyond the living creatures. He is supposed to stand behind the Merkabah (the throne-charriot), and make crowns for the Creator, which rise of their own accord. We also read of Sagsagel, who taught Moses the sacred Name of God, and was present at his death. But, confining ourselves to the five pricipal Angel-chiefs, we have, a. Metaron, [1 On the controversy on the meaning of the name Metatron, whether it means under the throne, or behind the throne, or is the same as Meatator, divider, arranger, representative, we will not enter.] who appears most closely to correspond to the Angel
of the Face, or the Logos. He is the representative of God. In the Talmud (Sanh. 38 b) a Christian is introduced as clumsily starting a controvesy on this point, that, according to the Jewish contention, Exod. xxiv. 1 should have read, 'Come up to Me.' On this R. Idith explained that the expression referred to the Metatron (Exod. xxxiii. 21, but denied the inference that Metatron was either to be adored, or had power to forgive sins, or that he was to be regarded as a Mediator. In continuation of this conversy we are told (Chang. 15 a, b) that, when an apostate Rabbi had seen Metatron sitting in heaven, and would have interferred from it that there were two supreme powers, Metatron received from another Angel 60 fiery stripes so as to prove his inferiority! In Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Gen. v. 24 he is called the Great Scribe, and also the Prince of this world. He is also designated as 'the Youth,' and in the Kabbalah as 'the Little God,' who had 7 names like the Almighty, and shared His Majesty. he is also called the 'Prince of the Face,' and described as the Angel who sits in the innermost chamber (Chang. 5 b), whilethe other Angels hear their commands outside the Veil (Chang. 16 a). He is represented as showing the unseen to Moses (Siphre. p. 141 a), and as instructing infants to the Midrash on Lamentation there is a revolting story in which Metatron is represented as propsing to shed tears in order that God might not have to weep over the destruction of Jerusalem, to which, however, the Almighty is made to refuse His assent. We hestitate to quote further from the passage. In Siphre on Deut. (ed. freidm. p. 141 a) Metatron is said to have shown Moses the whole of Palestine. He is alos said to have gone before Israel in the Wilderness. b. Michael ('who is like God?'), or the Great Prince (Chag. 12b). He stands at the reight hand of the throne of God. According to Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Exod. xxiv. 1, he is the Prince of Wisdom. According to the Targum on Ps. cxxxvii. 7, 8, the Prince of Jerusalem, the representative of Israel. According to Sebach. 62 a he offers upon the heavenly Altar; according to some, the soul of the pious; accourding to others, lambs of fire. But, although Michael is the Prince of Israel, he is not to be invjoked by them (Jer. Ber. ix. 13 a). In Yoma 77 a we have an instance of his inefectual advocacy for Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem. The origin of his name as connected with the Song of Moses at the Red Sea is explained in Bemidb. R. 2. Many instance of his activity are related. Thus, he delivered Abraham from the fiery oven of Nimrod, and afterwards, also, lthe Three Ckhildren out of the fiery furnace. He was the principal or middle Angel of the three who come to announce to Abraham the birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his right, and Rephael at his left. Michael also saved Lot. Michael and Gabrel wrote down that the primogeniture belonged to Jacob, and God comfirmed it. Michael and Gabriel acted as 'friends of the bridegroom' in the nuptials of Adam. Yet they cjould not bear to look upon the glory of Moses. Michael is also supposed to have been the Angel in the bush (according to others, Gabriel). At the death of Moses, Michael prepared his bier, Gabriel spread a cloth over the head of Moses, and Sagsagel over his feet. In the world to come Micheal would pronounce the blessing over the fruits of Eden, then hand them to Gabriel, who would give themto the patriacrchs, and so on to David. The superiority of Michael over Gabriel is asserted in Ber. 4 b, where, by an ingenious combination with Dan. x. 13, it is shown that Is. vi. 6 applies to him (both having the word, one). It is added that Michael flies in one fight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and the Angel of Deathin eight flights (no doubt to give time for repentance).
c. Gabriel ('the Hero of God') represents rether judgment, while Michael represents mercy. Thus he destroyed Skodom (Bab. Mex. 86 b, and other places). He restored to Tamar the pledges of Judah, which Sammael had taken away (Sot. 10 b). He struck the servants of the Egyptian princess, who would have kept their mistress from taking Moses out of the water (Sot. 12 b); also Moses, that he might cry and so awaken pity. According to some, it was he who delivered the Three
Children; but all are agreed that he killed the men that were standing outside the furnace. He also smote the army of Sennacherib. The passage in Exek. x. 2, 7 was applied to Gabriel, who had received from the Chureb two coals, which, however, he retained for six years, in the hope that Israel might repent. [a Gabriel was also designated Itmon, because he stops up the sing of Israel (Sanh. 45 b).] He is supposed to be referred to in Exek. ix. 4 as affixing the mark on the forehead which is a drawn, in the wicked, in blood (Shabb. 55 a). We are also told that he had instrucked Moses about making the Candlestick, on which occasion he had put on an apron, like a glodsmith; and that he had disputed with Michael about the meeting of a word. To his activity the brining of fruits to maturity is ascribed, perhaps because he was regarded as made of fire, while Michael was made of snow (Deb. R. 5). These Angels are supposed to stand beside each other, without the fire of the one injuring the snow of the other. The curious legend is connected with him (Shabb. 56 b, Sanh. 21 b), that, when Solomon maried the daughter of Pharaoh, Gabriel descended into the sea, and fixed a reed in it, around which a mudbank gathered, on which a forest sprang up. On this site imperal Rome was built. The meaning of the legend, or perhaps rather allegory, seems (as explained in other parts of this book) that, when Israel began to decline from God, the punishment through its enemies was prepared, which culminated in the dominion of Rome. In the future age Gabriel would hunt and slay Leviathan. This also may be a parabolic representation of the destruction of Israel's enemies.
d.Of Urel ('God is my light') and Rephael ('God heals') it need only be said, that the one stands at the left side of the Throne of glory, the other behind it. [1 Tkhe names jof the four Angel-Princess, Mjichael, Gabriel, Urie., and Raphael, are explained in Bemid. R. 2.]
3. The Ministering Angels and their Ministry. The ministry of the Angels may be divided into two parts, that of praising God, and that of executing His behests. In regard to the former, there are 684,000 myriads who dily praise the Name of God. From sunrise to sundown they say: Holy, holy, holy, and from sundown to sunrise: Blessed bre the Glory of God from its place. In connection with this we may mention the beautiful allegory (Shem. R. 21) that the Angel of prayer waves crowns for God out of the prayer of Israel. As to the execution of the Divine commandsby the Angels, it is suggested (Aboth d. R. Nathan 8, that their general designation as ministering Angels might have led to jealousy among them. Accordingly, their names were always a composition of that of God with the special commission entrused to them (Shem. r. 29), so that the name of each Angel depended in Yalkut (vol. ii. Par. 797), where we are told that each Angel has a tablet on his heart, in which the Name of God and that of the Angel is combined. This change of names explained the answer of the Angel to Manoah (Bemidb. R. 10). It is impossible to enumerate all the instance of Angelic activity recorded in Talmudic writings. Angels had performed the music at the first sacrifice of Adam; they had announced the consequences of his punishment; they had cut off the hands and feet of the serpent; they had appeared to Abraham in the form of a baker, a sailor, and an Arab. 120,000 of them had danced before Jacob when he left Laban; 4,000 myriads of them were ready to fight for him against Esau; 22,000 of them descended on Sinai and stoodbeside Israel when, in their terror at the Voice of God, they fled for twelve miles. Angels were directed to close the gates of heaven when the prayer of Moses with the All-powerful, Ineffable Name in it, which he had learn from Sagsagel, would have prevented his death. Finally, as they were pledged to help Israel, so wouldthey also punish every apostate Israelite. Especially would they execute that most terible punishment of throwing souls to each other from one word to another. By the side of these debasing superstitions we come upon
beautiful allegories, such sa that a good and an evil Angel always accompained man, but especially on the eve of the Sabbath ehwn he returned from the Synagouge, and that for every precept he observed God sent him a protecting Angel. This is realistically developed in Pirke d. R. El. 15, where the various modes and time which the god Angels keep man from destruction are set forth.
It is quite in accordance with what we know of the system of Rabbinsim, that the heavenly host should be represented as forming a sort of consultative Sanhedrin. Since God never did anything without first taking counsel with the family above (Sanh. 38 b,) [2 According to Jer. Ber. ix. 7 (p. 14 b), God only takes counsel with His Sanhedrin when He takes away, not when He giveth (Job i. 21), and it is agued that, wherever the expression 'and Jehovah' ocurs, as in the last clause of 1 Kings xxii. 23m ut n eabs God His Sanhedrin.] it had been so when He resolved to create man. Afterward the Angels had interceded for Adam, and, when God pointed to his disobedience, they had urged that thus death would also come upon Moses and Aron, who were sinless, since one fate must come to the just and the unjust. Similarly, they had intercede for Isaac, when Abraham was about to offer him and finally dropped there tears on the sacrifical knife, by which its edge became blunted. And so through the rest of Israel's history, where on all critical occasion Jewish legend ntroduces the Angels on the scene.
4 Limitation of the power of the Angels. According to Jewish ideas, the faculties, the powers, and even the knowledge of Angels were limited. They are, indeed, pure spiritual beings (Vayyikra R. 24), withoust sensous requirements (Yoma 75 b), without hatred, envy, or jealousy (Clhag. 14), and without sin (Pirqe d. R. El. 46). They know much, notably the future (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and have in the Divine Light. Tyey live on the beams of the Divine Glory (Bem. R. 21), are not subject t our limitatious as to movement, see but are not seen (A b. d. R. Nath. u. s.), can turn their face to any side (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and only appear to share in our ways, such as in eating (Bar. R. 48). Still, in many respects they are inferior to Israel, and had been employed in ministry (Ber. R. 75). They were unable to give names to the animals, which Adam did (Priqe d. R. El. 13). Jocob had wrestled with the Angel and prevailed over him when the Angel wept (Chull. 95 a). Thus it was rathefr their natur than their powers ordignity whichdistinguished them from man. No angel could do two messaages at the same time (Ber. R. 50). In general they are merely instruments blindly to do a certain work, not even beholding the Throne of Glory (Bemidb. R. 14), but needed mutual assistance (Vayyikia R. 31). They are also liable to punishments (Chag. 16 a). Thus, they were banished from their station for 138 years, because they had told Lot that God would destroy Sodom, while the Angel-Princes fo the Gentiles were kept in chains till the days of Jeremiah. As regards their limited knowledge, with the exception of Gabriel, they do not understand Chaldee or Syriac (Sot. 33 a). The realistic application of thier supposed ignorence on this score need not here be reptated (see Shabb. 12 b). As the Angels are inferior to the righteous, it follows that they are so to Israel. God had informed the Angels that the creation of man was superior to theirs, and it had excited their envy. Adam attained a place much nearer to God than they, and God loved Israel more than the Angels. And God had left all the ministerng Angels in order to come to Moses, and when He communicated with him it was directly, and the Angels standing between them did not hear what passed. In connection with this ministry of the Angels on behalf of Biblical heroes a curious legend may here find its place. From a combination of Ex. xviii. 4 with Ex. ii. 15 the strange inference was made that Moses had actually been seized by Pharaoh. Two different accokunts of how he escaped from his power are given. According to the
one, the sword with which he was to be executed rebounded from the neck of Moses, and was broken, to which Cant. vii. 5 was supposed to refer, it being added that the rebound killedthe would-be executioner. According to another account, an Angel took the place of Moses, and thus enabled him to fly, his flight being facilitated by the circumstances that all the attendants of the king were miraculously rendered either dumb, deaf, or blind, so that they could not execute the behest of their master. Of this miraculous interposition Moses is supposed to have been reminded in Ex. iv. 11, for hid encouragement in undertaking his mission ot Pharaoh. In the exaggerationof Jewish boastfulness in the Law, it was said that the Angels had wished to receive the Law, but that they had not been granted this privilege (Job xxviii. 21). And sixty myriads of Angels had crowned with two crowns every Israelite who at Mount Sinai had taken upon himself the Law (Shabb. 88 a). In view of all VOL. ii. this we need scarcely mention the Rabbinic prohibition to address to the Angels prayers, even although they bore them to heaven (Jer. Ber. ix. 1), or to make pictorial representations of them (Targ. Ps-Jon. on Ex. xx. 23; Mechilta on the passage, ed. Weiss, p. 80 a).
5. The Angels are not absolutely good. Strange as it may seem, this is really the view expressed by the Rabbis. Thus it is said that, when God consulted the Angels, they opposed the creation of man, and that, for this reason, God had cconcealed from them that man would sin. bkut more than tihis, the Angels had actually conspired for the fall of man (the whole of this is also related in Pirqe d. R. El. 13). Nor had their jealous and envy been confined to that occasion. They had accused Abraham, that, when he gave a great feast at the weanng of Isac, he did not even offer to God a bullock or a goat. Similarly, they had laid charges against Ishmael, in the hope that he might be left to perish of thirst. They hadexpostulated with Jacob, because he went to sleep at Bethel. But especially had they, from envy, oposed Moses' ascension into heaven; they had objected to his being allowed to write down the Law, falsely urging that Moses would claim the glory of it for himself, and they are represented, in a strangely blashemous manner, as having been with difficulty appearsed by God. In Shabb. 88 b we have an account of how Mosses pacified the Angels, by showing that the Law was not suitable for them, since they were not subjeect to sinful desires, upon which they became the friends of Moses, and each taugth him some secret, among others the Angel ofdeath how to arrest the pestilence. Again, it is said, that the Angels were wontto bring charges against Israel, and that, when Manasseh wished to repent, the Angels shut the entrance to heaven , so that his prayer might not penetrate intothe presence of God.
Equally profane, though in another direction, is the notion that Angels might be employed for magical purposes. This had happened at the siege of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, when, after the death of that mighty hero Abika, the son of Gaphteri, Chananeel, the uncle of Jeremiah, had conjured up ministering Angels, who affrighted the Chaldees into flight. On this God had changed their names, when Chananee, unable any longer to command their services, had summoned up the Prience of the World by using the Inefable Name, and lifted Jerusalem into the air, but God had trodden it down again, to all which Lam. ii. 1 referred (Yalk. vol. ii. p. 166 c and d, Par. 1001). The same story is repeated in another place (p. 167, last line of col. c, and col. d), with the addition that the leading inhabitants of Jerusalem had proposed to defend the city by conjuring up the Angels of Water and Fire, and surrounding their city with walls of water, of fire, or of iron; but their hopes were disappointed when God assigned to the Angel names different from those which they had previousley possessed, so that when called upon they were unable to do what was expected of them.
6. The Names of the Angels. Besides those already enumerated, we may here mention, [1 Akhtariel, perhaps 'the crown of God,' seems to be neme given to theDeity (Ber. 7 a).] the Sar ha-Olam, or 'Prince of the World' (Yeb. 16 b); the Prince of the Sea, whose name is supposed to have been Rahab, and whom God destroyed because he had refused to receive the waters which had covered the world, and the small of whose daed body would kill every jone if it were not covered by water. Dumah is the Angel of the realm of the dead (Ber. 18 b). When the soul of the righteous leaves the body, the ministering Angels announce it before God, Who deputes them to meet it. Three hosts of Angels then proceed on this errand, each quoting successively one clause of Is. lvii. 2. On the other hand, when thewicked leave the body, they are met by three hosts of destroying Angels, one of which repeats Is. xlviii. 22, another Is. 1. 11, and the third Ezek. xxxii. 19 (Keth. 104 a). Then the souls of all the dead, good or bad, are handed ver to Dunah. Yorqemi is the Prince of hail. He had proposed to cool the fiery furnace into which the Three Children were cast, but Gabriel had objected that this might seem a deliverance by natural means, and being himself the Prince of the fire, had proposed, insted of this, to make the furnace cold within and hot without, in order both to deliver the Three Children and to destroy those who watched outside (Pes. 118 a and b) [1 It is said that Gabriel had proposed in this manner of deliver Abraham when in similar danger at the hands of Nimrod. And, although God had by His own Hand delivered the patriarch, yet Gabriel had obtained this as the reward of his proposal, that he was allowed to deliver the Three Children from the fiery furnance.] Ridya, or Rayda is the Angel of rain. One of the Rabbis professed to describe him from actual vision as like a calf whose lips were open, standing between the Upper and the Lower, Let you waters springs up. The representation of this Angel as a calf may be due to the connection between rainand ploughing, and in connection with this may it be notices that Ryda means both a plough and ploughing (TAan. 25 b). Of other Angels we will only name the Ruach Pisqonith, or Spirit of decision, who is supposed to have made most daring objection to what God had said, Ezek. xvi. 3, in which he is defended by the Rabbis, sincehis activity had been on behalf of Israel (Ssnh. 44 b); Naqid, the Angel of Food; Nabhel, the Angel of Poverty; the two Angels of Healing; the Angel of Dreams, Lailah; and even the Angel of Lust. [a See also the names of the five angels of destruction of whom Moses was afraid on his descent from the mount. Aganist three of them the thrce Patriarchs were to fight, God Himself being asked , or else proposing, to combat along with Moses against the other two (Sanh. R. 41; 44)
It is, of course, not asserted that all these grossly materialistic superstitious and profane views were entertained in Palestine, or at the time of our Lord, still less that they are shared by educated Jews in the West. But they certainly date from Talmudic times; they embody the only teaching of Rabbic writings about the Angels which possess, and hence, whencesoever introduce, or however developed, their roots must be traced back to far earlier times than those when they were propounded in Rabbic Academies. All the more that modern Judaism would indignantly repudiate them, do they bear testimony against Rabbic teaching. And one thing at least must be evident, for the sake of which we have undertaken the task of recording at such length views and statements repugnant to all reverent feeling. The contention of certain modern writers that the teaching about Angels in the New Testament is derived from, and represents Jewish notions must be preceived to be absolutely groundless and contrary to fact. In truth, the teaching of the New Testament on the subject of Angels represents, as compared with that of the Rabbis, not only a return to the purity of Old Testament teaching, but, we might almost say, a new revelation.
II. SATANOLOGY AND FALL OF THE ANGELS.
The difference between the Santanology of the Rabbis and of the New Testament is , if possible, even more marked than that in their Angelology. In general we note that, with the exception of the word Satan, none of the names given to the great enemy in the New Testament occurs in Rabbinic writing. More important still, the latter contain no mention of a Kingdom of Satan. In other words, the power of the wvil is not contrasted with that of good, nor Satan with God. The devil is presented rather as the enemy of man, than of God and of good. This marks a fundamental difference. The New Testament sets before us two opposing kingdoms, or principles, which excerise absolute sway over man. Christ is 'the Stronger one' who overcometh 'the strong man armed,' and taken from him not only his spoils, but his armour (St. Luke xi. 21, 22). It is a moral contest in which Satan is vanquished, and the liberation of his subjects is the consequence of his own subdual. This implies the deliverance of man from the power of the enemy, not only externally but internally, and substitution of a new principle of spirituallife for the old one. It introduces a moral element, both as the ground and as the result of the contest. From this point of view the difference between the New Testament and Rabbinism cannot be too much emphasised, and it is no exaggerationto say that this alone, the question here being one of principle not of details,would mark the doctrine of Christ as fundamentally divergent from, and imcomparably superior to, that of Rabbinsim. 'Whence hath this Man this wisdom?'Assuredly, it may be answered, not from His contemporaries.
Since Rabbinism viewed the 'great enemy' only as the envious and malicious opponent of man, the spiritual element was entirely eliminated. [1 An analogous remark would apply to Jewish teaching about the good angels, who are rather Jewish elves than the high spiritual beings of the Bible.] Instead of the personified principle of Evil, to which there is response in us, and of which all have some experience, we have only a clumsy and, to speak plainly, often a stupid hater. This holds equally true in regard to the threefold aspect under which Rabbinism presents the devil: as Satan (also called Sammael); as the Yester haRa, or evil impluse personified; and as the Angel of Death, in other words, as the Accuser, Tempter, and Punisher. Before explaining the Rabbinic views on each of these points, it is necessary to indicate them in regard to,
1. The Fall of Satan and of his Angels. This took place, not antecedently, but subsequently to the creation of man. As related in Pirqe de R. Eliezer, ch 13, the primary cause of it was jealously and envy on the part of the Angels. [2 As a curious illustration how extremes meet, we subjoin the following from Jonathan Edwards. After describing how 'Satan, before his fall, was the chief of all the angels ... nay, ... the Messiah or Christ (!), as he was the Anointed, so that in the respect, Jesus Christ is exalted unto his place in heaven'; and that 'Lucifer or Satan, while a holy angel ... was a type of Christ,' the great American divine explains his fall as follows: 'But when it was revealed to him, high and glorious as he was, that he must be a ministering spirit ot the race of mankind which he had seen newly created, which appeared so feeble, mean, and despicable, of vastly inferior not only to him, the prince of the angels, and head of the created universe, but also to the inferior angels, and that he must be subject to one of that race which should hereafter be born, he could not bear it, This occasioned his fall' (Tractate on 'The Fall of the Angels,' Works, vol. ii. pp. 608, 609, 610). Could Jonathan Edwards have heard of the Rabbinic legends, or is this only a strange coincidence? The curious reader will find much quaint information, though, I fear, little help, in Prof. W. Scott's vol. 'The Existence of Evil Spirits,' London, 1843.] Their opposition to man's creation is also described in Ber. R. 8, although there the fall of manis not traced to