Part 2 — CHAPTER XLIV. A.D. 1800-1885. THE JEWS IN AFRICA, AMERICA, AND ASIA.—CONCLUSION.

The position of the Jews in Morocco is less secure than in most Mahometan countries. They suffer from the fanaticism of the Mahometans, who are a less humanized race than their Asiatic brethren. Robbery and murder are perpetrated almost with impunity, the protection of the law being almost a dead letter, so far as they are concerned. As an evidence of their abject condition, it is said that they are compelled to go bare-foot in most of the principal cities. Beyond the bounds of Morocco large numbers of Jews lead a nomad life, dwelling in tents, keeping flocks and herds, and cultivating the land in their vicinity. Their condition in Cairo and Alexandria is somewhat better, and there are many wealthy Jews in these cities. But everywhere they are liable to the outbreaks of blind fanatical fury to which reference has so often been made. An instance of this occurred in 1863, which it is important to notice, as showing only too plainly the condition of things in those countries. A Spaniard had died suddenly at Saffi, and the Spanish authorities required an examination into the circumstances of his death. To avert suspicion from themselves, the Moors accused a Jewish boy, who was in the dead man’s service, of poisoning him. He denied the crime, but was scourged until he confessed it, and implicated several other persons. A popular outbreak would have ensued if the Morocco Jews had not appealed to Sir Moses Montefiore. He requested the intervention of our Government, and made an expedition to Morocco, where he not only succeeded in releasing several Jews, who had been detained in prison on charges which could not be proved, but obtained an audience of the Sultan of Morocco, who received him with great distinction. He pointed out to the Sultan that the Jews of Morocco were without any legal protection, and were in consequence frequently subject to outrages for which they could obtain no redress; and he entreated that equal justice might be secured to them as to other inhabitants of the country. In a few days an edict was issued, commanding that in future Jews, Christians, and Mahometans should be treated with equal justice throughout the Sultan’s dominions. Experience has shown that it is more easy to obtain these concessions from Moslem sovereigns than to ensure their due observance by subordinate officers. Still, there can be no doubt that this is a great advance in the social condition of the Jews of Morocco.

There are a good many Jews in Brazil and in the United States of America. In the last-named country it needs not to be said that they enjoy the most entire toleration. Jewish hospitals, Jewish orphanages, free schools, almshouses, benevolent institutions of all kinds, exist in the principal cities, in which also magnificent synagogues are to be found. The authority of the Rabbins, however, is not so great, as a rule, as it is in European countries. It is said that there is great laxity in their ritual—some discarding Hebrew altogether in their liturgies, some making the Sunday instead of the Saturday their day of religious observance. Their increase of population during the last few generations has been extraordinarily rapid. Jews are found scattered in Mexico and in the great South American cities, but not in any great numbers.

In the dominions of the Sultan, both the European and the Asiatic, the position of the Jews during the present century has varied little from what it was in those which preceded it. As has been already remarked, they are more kindly and fairly treated than in other Mahometan countries—the result, probably, of freer communication with Europe. But here, too, they are liable to sudden outbursts of religious fanaticism or commercial jealousy, and on these occasions they suffer great injustice and cruelty. Two signal instances of this occurred A.D. 1840.

In that year, a Greek boy in the island of Rhodes having suddenly disappeared, a woman affirmed that she had seen him, shortly before, in company with a Jew. It chanced to be near the time of the Passover, and, strange as it may seem, some of the European consuls, on no better evidence than this, raised the old slander that the boy had been murdered, in order that his blood might be used for ritual purposes. The Jew was arrested, and denied any knowledge of the boy. He was thereupon put to the torture, under which his reason gave way, and he uttered the names of several Jews, who were at once assumed to be his accomplices. They were seized, and in their turn put on the rack; the Jewish quarter was closed, and no food allowed to enter it; and it is even said that an attempt was made to convey a dead body into one of the houses, in order that it might be found there. The story spread in all directions, and popular risings and outrages on the Jews ensued.

The affair at Damascus was even more serious. Father Tomaso, a monk, who for many years had practised medicine, suddenly disappeared. A report was spread that he had been last seen in the Jewish quarter, which was instantly invaded by a mob of Christians, who denounced the Jews as his murderers. Count Menton, the French Consul, actuated, it is believed, by political motives, took up the matter and insisted on the punishment of the offenders, as he chose to consider the Jews. He produced persons who swore that the monk had been seen to enter the shop of a Jewish barber, from which he had never issued forth again. The barber was seized and bastinadoed, until in his agony he accused several of the richest Jews in the city as having been concerned in the murder. They were subjected in their turn to tortures, under which two of them died, and several more confessed their complicity in the crime. A young Jew, who swore that he had seen Father Tomaso enter the house of a Turkish merchant, on the evening of his disappearance, was bastinadoed to death, in order to induce him to retract his statement. The French Consul now laid the confessions which had been extracted from the prisoners before the Turkish Pacha, and insisted on their being immediately put to death.

Fortunately the Pacha thought it his safer course to apply to head quarters for instructions, and thus sufficient time was given for the report of what had occurred to reach England. There it created a profound sensation. A large meeting of influential Jews was held in London, at the house of Sir Moses Montefiore, who was deputed to seek an interview with Lord Palmerston, at that time Foreign Secretary. From him Sir Moses received all possible help; but it was thought advisable that a special mission should be sent to the East to represent the matter in its true light to the Turkish authorities. Sir Moses himself undertook the office, and proceeded to Syria, accompanied by M. Cremieux, a Jewish member of the French Chamber, and several others. They learned that at Rhodes the prisoners had been liberated, and the governor who had sanctioned the proceedings dismissed from his office; but the Damascus affair was still undetermined. Sir Moses obtained an interview with the Pacha of Egypt, who endeavoured to compromise the matter by offering to pardon all the prisoners who had been accused. But he was answered that it was not justice to pardon innocent men. What was demanded was a complete and honourable acquittal of the accused. This was presently granted, and the prisoners discharged from custody. Subsequently Sir Moses had an interview with the Sultan himself, on the 6th of November in the same year, 1840, when he obtained from him—as he had formerly done from the Sultan of Morocco—the celebrated firman, which granted to the Jews, everywhere throughout the Turkish dominions, the most complete protection.

In Persia, Bokhara, Yemen, and Central Asia, numerous colonies of Jews exist, engaged as a rule in trade, but also occasionally employed in agriculture. They are not as wealthy, apparently, as their Western brethren. Many of them, indeed, are extremely poor, earning their subsistence as day labourers. They speak and write their own language only, though able to converse with the inhabitants of the country. They live very much among themselves, never intermarrying with strangers, and carry their differences to the Rabbi of their synagogue, who, indeed, is the judge authorized by the law for the settlement of their disputes. One cause of their isolation is their fear of allowing their children to study secular subjects, which they think would be likely to undermine the foundations of their faith.

In the Holy Land, it was reported in 1881 that there were about 15,000 Jews in Jerusalem, about half its population. Whether that is correct or not, it is certain that the number of Jews in that city is steadily, though not rapidly, increasing, and has been on the increase ever since the Crimean War. Whatever may be thought about that war, one of its consequences was to open Palestine to European settlers; and, as might have been expected, the Jews availed themselves of the opportunity of obtaining for themselves a home in the ancient land of their fathers. But very few of those who have attempted this possessed the means of comfortably establishing themselves. It has been remarked by one who knows the Jews well, that they are contented to live elsewhere so long as life goes prosperously with them. It is the poor, the unfortunate, the persecuted, who seek a refuge there. Old people again, whose children are out in the world, come to spend the remainder of their days in religious exercises. A few Rabbins also devote themselves to the work of looking after the various communities thus established. The Montefiore Testimonial Committee has done something to assist this immigration. It has established agricultural communities in various places, notably beyond the western walls of Jerusalem, where four thousand Jews are lodged in comfortable houses, especially built for them. The population has trebled itself, according to trustworthy information, since 1860.

But there are great drawbacks. The Jews are not naturally disposed to manual labour, preferring, as they themselves say, to work with their brains rather than their hands. There is also the temptation—which always besets those who live, to some extent, on the charity of others—to abuse the generosity of their benefactors, by doing no work at all themselves. There is also the competition of the native labourer, the fellah, who is used to the climate, and hard labour and poor food, and who can live at about one-third of what is necessary for the Jew. On the whole, it cannot be said that the lower classes of Jews are prospering in the Holy Land.

There are, however, many synagogues both of Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews in Jerusalem, and Talmudical schools supported by large contributions levied on Jews throughout the world. Schools also exist at Hebron, Tiberias, Safed, Jaffa, and other towns. There are also three Jewish hospitals in Jerusalem, as well as numerous almshouses. All sects of Jews are represented in Jerusalem, Chasidim and Karaites, as well as the orthodox adherents of the Rabbins. On the whole, though there is no doubt that the condition of the Palestinian Jews has been ameliorated of late years, it is still doubtful whether any permanent improvement can be effected while the country continues to be subject to Turkish misrule.

Here, then, we bring to an end this strangely varied, yet still more strangely monotonous, narrative—not, as in the case of any other ancient people, because its national history has come to an end, but simply because we cannot read the future. Eighteen centuries have, in all other instances, effected so vast a change in the condition of a nation, that it is difficult to trace any identity between its earlier and its later generations. Eighteen centuries ago our own ancestors were savage tribes, living in wattled huts, staining their naked bodies with woad, and practising barbarous and bloody rites. In language, in religion, in mental and moral culture, in social organization, they were so wholly different from ourselves that it is difficult to discover any point of resemblance between the two. But in all these respects, the Jew of the first century differs but little from his descendant eighteen hundred years afterwards. He speaks the same tongue, he holds the same creed, he observes the same habits, or nearly the same habits, of life as his forefathers did all that long period ago. And yet that long period is not half the life of the Jewish people. It began in an age when the tradition of the Flood was still fresh on earth; it is still in the fulness of its life, when the eye of faith can distinguish, not very far off, the dawning of the Judgment Day. How is this strange tale to end? What is to be the last act of this amazing drama? Jerusalem has been long trodden down of the Gentiles; the times of the Gentiles are nearly fulfilled. What is to follow? Are the Jews to be restored, as a distinct people, to the Land of Promise, and there accept Him whom their fathers rejected as their King? There is no subject on which speculation is more busy, or on which more confident judgments are pronounced. But it is the voice of man that speaks, not of God. One thing alone is sure. God has not cast away His people. Who can read their history, and doubt that? But when, where, or how, He may be pleased to take them again into favour, no man can foretell. Our children will behold the solution of the riddle, and bless God for His mercy. Let us, too, bless God, and wait in faith.

THE END.

APPENDIX I. STATISTICS OF JEWISH POPULATION.

It is always difficult to determine the number of Jews resident either in the Holy Land or in any other country of the world. The remark applies to ancient, even more than modern, times. It is not only that the information afforded by writers is scanty, but that the statements made by some historians differ greatly from those supplied by others; while a good deal must be rejected as wholly incredible. To take an instance, we are informed by the author of the Book of Samuel,[230] that the military population of David’s kingdom was 1,300,000. But in the parallel passage in the Book of Chronicles[231] the number is stated to be nearly 300,000 more. ‘To attempt reconciling these discrepancies,’ says an intelligent writer,[232] ‘would be wasted labour.’ During the reign of Rehoboam, B.C. 975, the number of the men of Judah who drew the sword is rated at 180,000.[233] But at the accession of his son, not twenty years afterwards, it is 400,000.[234] Whether we are to attribute these contradictions to corruptions of the text or to different modes of calculation, signifies little to us. The two statements are quite irreconcilable with one another. Josephus’s numbers, again, are wholly untrustworthy. He reckons the sum of those who returned with Zorobabel from Babylon, at the enormous figure of 4,628,000 and 47,000 women.[235] This is, of course, an absolute impossibility; and we know, from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that the real amount was 42,000.[236] It has been suggested that Josephus’s text is corrupt in this passage. But if so, it may well be assumed to be corrupt in other similar places also. Thus he affirms that the numbers shut up in Jerusalem during the siege by Titus was 2,700,000,[237] while the estimate of Tacitus is 600,000.[238] Here again, though the reckoning of the Roman historian is probably below the mark, he having omitted to allow for the unusual number of residents at the time of the siege, yet that of Josephus must be rejected as incredible.[239] The circumference of the walls of Jerusalem is generally admitted to have been about four miles. The space thus enclosed within the walls would be about equal to that part of the area of London which extends from Tyburn Gate to the British Museum in one direction, and from the Regent’s Park to Whitehall in the other, drawing an imaginary circle, of which the Regent’s Circus would be the centre. The portion thus enclosed—hardly one tenth part of what lies within the bills of mortality—may contain half a million persons. Allowing for the narrow streets of old Jerusalem, we may reckon that the same area in that city would hold 100,000 more, thus very nearly verifying the statement of Tacitus. No doubt, at the time of the Passover, vast numbers came from foreign lands, and these found accommodation, as well as they could, in Jerusalem itself, or in the environs. Many probably were lodged in outlying villages, and many more, according to the common practice in the East, slept in the open air. These would, of course, be driven into Jerusalem by the approach of the Roman armies, and thus the numbers at the beginning of the siege might have amounted to a million or thereabouts. But the notion of nearly three millions being crowded into the area above described is simply preposterous.

But if Josephus’s statistics on these two important points are to be rejected as wholly untrustworthy, how are we to credit his assertions in matters of very nearly the same kind? He tells us that Galilee in his time contained more than two hundred towns and villages, no one of which held less than 15,000 inhabitants.[240] If this were indeed the case, that province, scarcely larger than one of the largest of our English counties, must have had a population of fully three millions, while that of the whole of Palestine would approach ten millions. Few readers will be found to credit this.

At the same time more than one trustworthy writer affirms that Palestine was a thickly populated country. The population to the square mile is said to have been larger in it than in any other portion of the Roman dominions. Diodorus,[241] Strabo,[242] Tacitus,[243] and Dion Cassius[244] all concur in this; and therefore, though we cannot accept Josephus’s statements as being even approximately accurate, they may be admitted so far, as establishing the numerous population of Palestine at the time of the siege. Nor are we wholly without means of forming an estimate as to its amount, independently altogether of the above-named writers. Thus Hecatæus of Abdera (quoted by Joseph. Ap. i. 21) says that Jerusalem in his time (A.D. 312) contained 120,000 inhabitants. Presuming the average increase of population to have taken place, according to this reckoning, Jerusalem at the time of the siege would contain about 600,000—agreeing closely with Tacitus’s estimate. According to Maccab. II., the city at the date of Antiochus Epiphanes, A.D. 180, had 160,000, or, according to others, 180,000. This would make the number of residents at the outbreak of the civil war somewhat less; but there would be no material difference. On the whole, we may assume that, by dividing Josephus’s estimates by three, we approximate to the real number. According to this, the census of the Holy Land, A.D. 71, would be about three and a half millions, and the total of persons besieged in the Holy City something under one million.

It is still more difficult to estimate the total of the Jews in other countries of the world at this time. We may safely assume that they could not have been fewer than the inhabitants of Palestine. We have reason to believe that the bulk of the nation did not return with Zorobabel. Those who remained behind in the foreign countries to which they had been conveyed throve and multiplied in their new homes. There are grounds for supposing that, at subsequent periods, large emigrations from the Holy Land took place, probably at the date of King Ahasuerus’s edict, more certainly during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman invasion. We have the clearest testimony of contemporaneous writers as to the extent to which the Jews in our Lord’s time had spread into foreign lands, forming everywhere a distinct people, as they do at the present day. Mommsen quotes the statement of a writer of Julius Cæsar’s date, to the effect that it would be dangerous for the Roman governor of his province to offend the Jews, because, on his return to Rome, he might encounter contumely from their countrymen there. Agrippa I. wrote to the Emperor Caligula to the same effect, but more explicitly. ‘Jerusalem,’ he says, ‘is the metropolis, not of Judæa only, but of very many lands, on account of the colonies which from time to time it has sent out into the adjoining countries—Egypt, Phœnicia, Syria, Cœlo-Syria, Pamphylia, Cilicia, Asia Minor, as far as Bithynia, and the remotest parts of Pontus; likewise into Europe—Thessaly, Bœotia, Macedonia, Ætolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, and the Peloponnesus. Nor are the Jewish settlements confined to the mainland. They are to be found also in the more important islands, Eubœa, Cyprus, Crete. I do not insist on the countries beyond the Euphrates; for with few exceptions all of them, Babylon and the fertile regions round it, have Jewish inhabitants.’[245] This testimony is confirmed by St. Luke’s narrative of what occurred on the day of Pentecost immediately following the crucifixion (Acts ii. 9, 10). It can hardly be doubted that at the date of the commencement of this history, there were fully as many Jews in other lands as there were in Palestine—the whole nation numbering, at the lowest computation, not less than seven millions.

Eighteen centuries have elapsed since that time, and the Jews are still a distinct and peculiar people, intermarrying with other races less than any other nation in the world. According to the rate[246] at which population ordinarily increases, they ought to have doubled their number more than seven times over, and to amount at the present time to many hundreds of millions. The inherent vigour of the race does not seem to be either intellectually or physically impaired. It is reported by those who have studied the question, that their health, in the various lands where they are sojourners, is at least as good, indeed, distinctly better, than that of the populations among which they reside. It becomes, then, an interesting and curious question—what the amount of their numbers is in the present day. Nor does the same difficulty we have experienced in endeavouring to ascertain the exact sum of their population at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, meet us when we enter on that. Statistics have been given by trustworthy authorities, which are found, on examination, to agree very nearly with one another. I propose to give them here in detail.

To begin with Europe. Here the country in which they are most numerous is Russia. In that, the official return for 1876 was 2,612,179. In Austria and Hungary it was 1,372,333; in the German Empire, 520,575. In France their total does not exceed 60,000 or 80,000.[247] In England, the number is nearly the same. In Italy the total is 53,000; in Holland, 68,000; in Moldavia, Servia, and Roumania, about 300,000. In the remaining countries of Europe there may be 20,000. These returns show a total of some hundreds of thousands over 5,000,000 of Jews in Europe.

Proceeding to Asia, the Jews in the Turkish dominions (including both Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia) amount to about 200,000. In Persia, Bokhara, Samarcand, Central and Eastern Asia, it is more difficult to ascertain their real numbers; but it is generally agreed that these may be approximately estimated at 50,000. In Arabia, there is a great difference of opinion, some affirming them to amount to as many as 200,000, while more trustworthy authorities place the total at one tenth that number. There are also the Jews of Syria and the Holy Land, of which the census has already been given. On the whole, the Asiatic Jews may be considered as amounting to 300,000, or perhaps 400,000.

Turning next to Africa, the Jews of Egypt are estimated at 80,000; those of Tripoli, 100,000; of Tunis, 50,000; of Algiers, 70,000; of Morocco, 300,000. Thus the total of African Jews in the Northern kingdoms somewhat exceeds half a million. If to these are added such as are to be found in Central and Southern Africa, the entire sum may amount to 600,000.

Lastly, in America and Australia there is said to be a Jewish population somewhat exceeding that of Asia. Here their chief centres are the United States, Canada, and Brazil.

From these returns, which, it may be assumed, are neither much in excess nor much short of the actual amount, the total number of professing Jews at the present time appears to be somewhat less than seven millions—the very number which, so far as it is possible to determine, was that of the Jewish people when the Lord became incarnate upon earth. Can any man realize this astonishing fact, and yet doubt the living miracle which the history of the Jews presents?

‘How many generations of mankind Have risen and fallen asleep, Yet it remains the same!’

FOOTNOTES:

APPENDIX II. THE TALMUDS.

The word Talmud has several meanings, which are most nearly rendered by ‘study,’ or ‘learning.’ There are two books so called—the Jerusalem and the Babylonian. Each of these is made up of two parts—the Mishna, or repetition,—it being, as it were, a reissue of the Mosaic law,—and the Gemara, or complement, the critical expansion of the Mishna. The Mishna of both Talmuds is the same, the Gemaras different: that of the Babylonian being the larger as well as the more diversified. They are encyclopædias of the Jewish knowledge of their day, and deal with civil and criminal, as well as moral and religious questions, law, science, metaphysics, history, and general literature.

The Mishna was compiled by Rabbi Judah, called Hakkadosh, or ‘the Holy,’ who lived in the reign of Antoninus Pius. It is written in very pure Hebrew. But as many things are introduced into it which have foreign names, there is a frequent occurrence of Latin and Greek phrases. The Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud, which is believed to have been completed about the end of the fourth century, is written in what is called the Eastern Aramæan: that of the Babylonian, which is at the least a century, and probably two centuries, later, in Western Aramæan.

The origin of the Mishna is declared to be as follows. While Moses was with God in Sinai, He communicated to him a twofold law, written and oral.[248] The latter Moses repeated to Aaron, who delivered it to Eleazar and Ithamar; they to the Seventy Elders; they to the prophets; and the prophets to the synagogues. In this manner it was passed on from generation to generation, to the time of the great Jewish doctor Hillel, who lived shortly before the birth of Christ. He digested the great mass of precepts under six heads, still, however, without committing them to writing; which, it was believed, would have been contrary to the intention of the Divine Giver. Under the more formal shape which it had now assumed, the Oral Law was passed on till the time of the destruction of Bethor, and the final dispersion of the Hebrew people. Then, as we have seen, Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, perceiving that the restoration of the Jews to their ancient status was not to be looked for, and fearing that the consequence of this would be the total loss of the ‘Law of the Mouth,’ as it was called,—conceiving also that the peculiar circumstances of the case justified him in breaking the rule that had been so long observed,—embodied the traditions in a volume which might be preserved for ever, secure from addition or change.

His countrymen endorsed this belief, and accepted the Mishna with the most profound respect. It had scarcely been issued, when commentaries began to be written upon it by learned Rabbins; which, about the end of the third century, were collected into a volume by Rabbi Jochanan Ben Eliezer, and called the Gemara. The style in which this is written is harsh, much inferior to that of the Mishna; and even the best Hebraists are unable to expound satisfactorily some portions of it. This obscurity was probably the reason why another Gemara was set on foot by the Mesopotamian Jews, about a century after the issue of the Jerusalem Talmud. The work was begun by Rabbi Asa or Asche, and carried on to the time of Rabbi Jose, about A.D. 500. There is some variety of opinion as to the date of its completion; but Laurence is generally thought to have proved satisfactorily that it cannot be later than the beginning of the sixth century. Christian commentators commonly prefer the Jerusalem Talmud,[249] as containing less of fabulous and frivolous matter; but the preference of the Jews is for that of Babylon.

The Mishna is divided into six principal heads, or Orders, as they are called. Each Order is divided into a variety of titles or treatises, and these again into chapters and sections. The six Orders are: I. Zeraim, or Seeds; II. Moed, or Festivals; III. Nashim, or Women; IV. Nezikin, or Injuries; V. Kodashim, or Holy Things; and VI. Taharoth, or Purifications.

The First Order is subdivided into eleven treatises:—

1. Treats of the prayers and benedictions which are to precede and follow meals.

2. Of the gleanings of vine and olive yards, alms, and first-fruits to be given to the poor.

3. Of the purchased fruits of the earth, which may be lawfully used, if they have paid tithe, but are illegal if they have not paid.

4. Of mixtures of various kinds of grain, and the wool of animals.

5. Of the laws relating to the Sabbatic, or seventh, year.

6. Of the first-fruits, given to the Priests.

7. Of the tithes, given to the Levites.

8. Of the second tithe, to be sent up to Jerusalem.

9. Of the cake offered as a heave offering.

10. Of the fruits of trees to be counted as uncircumcised for three years.

11. Of first-fruits generally.

The Second Order contains thirteen treatises:—

1. Of the Sabbath day.

2. Of various Sabbatical rules.

3. Of the Passover.

4. Of the half shekel paid as tribute to the Sanctuary.

5. Of the great Day of Atonement.

6. Of the Feast of Tabernacles.

7. Of Pentecost.

8. Of certain things forbidden on Feast Days.

9. Of the New Year.

10. Of the Fasts and Days of Humiliation.

11. Of the Feast of Purim. 12. Of the lesser Jewish Festivals.

13. Of the three great Festivals.

The Third Order has seven titles:—

1. Of the Law of Levitical Marriage.

2. Of Marriage Contracts.

3. Of Women’s Vows.

4. Of the Vows of Nazarites.

5. Of Writings of Divorcement.

6. Of the Putting away of Wives.

7. Of the Ceremony of Espousal.

The Fourth Order has nine sections:—

1. Injuries inflicted by Violence, Wounds, etc.

2. Leases, Hirings, Loans, Exchanges, etc.

3. Succession to Property, Partnerships, Contracts, etc.

4. The Sanhedrin.

5. Stripes.

6. Oaths.

7. Witnesses, Evidence, also Idolatry.[250]

8. Decrees of Judges and Apothegms of Wise Men.

9. Record of Errors in the Decisions of Judges.

The Fifth runs to eleven treatises, which deal with:—

1. Sacrifices.

2. Oblations and Offerings.

3. Things Profane.

4. The First Born.

5. Valuations of Males and Females.

6. Exchange and Redemption.

7. Atoning Sacrifices.

8. Trespass Offerings.

9. The Daily Sacrifice.

10. Dimensions, Form, and Structure of the Sanctuary.

11. Offerings of Birds.

The Sixth and last Order contains twelve heads, relating to:—

1. Purifying of Vessels.

2. Tents and Tabernacles, and Pollution by Corpses.

3. Vestments and Uncleanness by Leprosy.

4. The Ashes of the Heifer Purifying the Unclean.

5. Purifications generally.

6. Vessels containing Water.

7. Separation for Legal Impurity.

8. Legal Impurity generally.

9. Regulations concerning Uncleanness.

10. The Washing of Lepers.

11. The Washing of Hands.

12. Supplementary matters.

The Gemaras, it should be noted, are not so much commentaries on the Mishna, as a series of disquisitions on passages in Holy Scripture, or on the text of the Mishna, or possibly on some question of Jewish law. Great subtlety of thought is displayed in these discussions. Points of similarity are discovered between things which are, to ordinary observation, wholly diverse, and points of difference between things apparently quite identical. The ruling principle of the writers seems to be, that in the sacred writings, and more particularly in the Pentateuch, there is not a word, not a letter, that has not its special use and significance. Where this is not patent or easy of discovery, they hold that it is nevertheless latent in the text, and will be brought out when events have taken place, or opinions have been propounded, which were necessary to its development—as what appears to be a mere speck in a photograph may be enlarged until it is found to be in itself a complete picture. These lengthy and abstruse speculations are frequently varied by incidental anecdotes (called Haggadoth), which serve to illustrate the writer’s meaning, by allegories, proverbs and parables, or sometimes by the wildest Oriental legends, myths, and romantic tales. Some of these are extremely touching and beautiful; others absurd, frivolous, and extravagant, bordering occasionally on the profane, if not the blasphemous. There is, in fact, a strange and bizarre mixture of heterogeneous subjects. Eastern fancies are intermingled with the speculations of the Greek and Roman moralists. A celebrated writer has described the Talmud as ‘an extraordinary monument of human industry, human wisdom, and human folly.’[251] The probable explanation of this perversion of high intellect and patient study is to be found in the fact that the writers, being excluded by the peculiarity of their social and political position from handling the topics on which literary men ordinarily employ their pens, they were driven to busy themselves with the only subjects open to them. Hence too, probably, the extraordinary respect paid to the Talmuds by the Jewish people. They have ever regarded these books, and especially the Babylonian Talmud, with the profoundest reverence and affection. Indeed, they have been charged with bestowing more of their regard on them than on their own inspired Scriptures. They have a proverb, that ‘They who study the Scriptures do a virtuous, but not an unmixedly virtuous, act. They who study the Mishna perform a wholly virtuous act, and merit a reward. But they who study the Gemara perform the most virtuous of all acts.’ And again, ‘The Scriptures are water, the Mishna wine, the Gemara spiced wine.’[252]

As regards the history of the Talmuds, it is a singular fact that no notice is taken of either Mishna or Gemara by any of the Fathers belonging to the first four centuries of Church history, notwithstanding that they frequently handle the subject of Jewish tradition. Even Tertullian, when specially writing on this subject, while he speaks of the primal law given to Adam, and the laws of the Two Tables committed to Moses, makes no mention of the Mishna. Augustine, in the fifth century, does name the δευτέρωσις, or Second Law; but even he speaks of it as containing the unwritten traditions of the Jews, transmitted from one generation to another by word of mouth. We can only suppose that, although the Mishna was indeed completed before the end of the second century, the knowledge of it was for a long time confined to the learned among the Jews, and for a still longer time to the Hebrew nation generally. The same was the case as regards the completed Jerusalem Talmud. There was, in fact, no recognition of the work by Christians until the time of the Emperor Justinian, who, about the middle of the sixth century, issued a Novella, or edict, against it. He allowed the reading of Scripture in the synagogues, but prohibited that of the Mishna, as being ‘the mere invention of earthly men, who had nothing of Heaven in them.’ From his time to the sixteenth century of Christianity, popes and kings have put forth one manifesto after another, warning men against its perusal, and ordering the book itself to be suppressed, and even publicly destroyed. In 1286 Pope Honorius IV. wrote to Archbishop Peckham, requiring him to forbid the perusal of the Talmud as a ‘liber damnabilis,’ from which all of manner of evil was certain to arise. Nor were the popes content with prescribing it. In 1230 Gregory IX., following the example of his predecessor Innocent, burned twenty cartloads of it. In 1553, during the Feast of Tabernacles, all the copies that could anywhere be found were committed to the flames by order of Julius III.; and a few years subsequently, 12,000 volumes underwent the same fate by command of Paul IV. During the last half of the sixteenth century the Talmud was in this manner brought to the stake no less than six times, and was burned, not by the single copy, but by the waggonload. The Hebrew copyists of those times must have laboured hard to prevent the total disappearance of the book. But the establishment of the printing presses, and the declaration of Reuchlin, early in the sixteenth century,[253] in its favour, in the course of a generation or two put an end to the attempts to root out all traces of it.

The celebrated Maimonides, in the twelfth century, made an epitome of the laws of the Talmud, which many prefer to the Talmud itself, forasmuch as he omits the strange fables with which the original work abounds, and preserves the really valuable matter. The name of his book is Yad-ha-chazzak, or The Strong Hand. It is of great use to those who wish to gain a knowledge of Jewish laws and ceremonies.

FOOTNOTES:

APPENDIX III. THE TARGUMS, MASSORA, CABBALA, SEPHER-YETZIRA, AND ZOHAR.

THE TARGUMS.

The Targums are expository paraphrases of the Books of the Old Testament. They are written in Chaldee, which was more familiar to the Jews after Ezra’s time than the Hebrew. It would appear that after the return from Captivity it was the habit in the synagogue worship to read out some portion of Scripture in the Hebrew, and then give orally a Targum on the passage in question. But the written Targums—viz., those of Jonathan, Onkelos, Jonathan son of Uzziel, Jerusalem, and Joseph the Blind—were none of them composed, or at all events committed to writing, much before the era of our Lord. They come therefore within the scope of the present work.

The Targum of Jonathan is the most ancient, and is generally thought to have been drawn up in its present form about thirty years before the birth of Christ. That of Onkelos is somewhat later, and is concerned with the Books of Moses only. It is greatly superior to its predecessor in simplicity of language and purity of style. It is quoted in the Mishna, but does not seem to have been known to the early Christian Fathers.

The Targum of the younger Jonathan comments on the Books of the Prophets only. It resembles that of Onkelos in purity of style, but is less simple, and runs occasionally into allegory. It is believed that additions have been made to it by doctors who lived long subsequently to its author.

The Targum of Jerusalem deals with the Books of Moses, or rather with a portion of them. It is little better than a fragment of an ancient paraphrase of the Pentateuch.

The Targum of Joseph the Blind is on the Hagiographa, viz., the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, Job, and Ruth. The style is very corrupt Chaldee, containing many foreign words.

There is no Targum on Daniel, Ezra, or Nehemiah, because these books were already written in Aramaic. The Targums are of much value in establishing the genuineness of the present Hebrew text, proving it to be the same as it was when the Targums were written. They are also useful in Jewish controversy, as showing the manner in which the Jews, previously to the Christian era, interpreted the great prophecies respecting the Messiah.

MASSORA.

This word properly denotes tradition; and those persons are called Massorites who determined the meaning of the Hebrew text by adding pointed vowels to it. There are in the Hebrew language four vowels, but these were found insufficient; and further, it was a frequent practice in early times to omit these vowels, writing the consonants only of the words. The consequence of this was, that the meaning of a word was often ambiguous, its sense becoming different according to the vowels inserted. Thus there is said to have been a dispute between David and Joab as to the meaning of the word זנר (Deut. xxv. 19). In one of his raids against the Amalekites, Joab slew the men, but spared the women and children. David rebuked him for this, alleging that the command was ‘to blot out the memory of,’ i.e., to exterminate (זֵנֶר) the Amalekites. But Joab answered that the word was זׇנׇר, ordering the slaughter of the males only.[254] In order to put a stop to perplexities so caused, the Massorites[255] are said to have added the points, or pointed vowels, of which there are fourteen. These are placed below or above the consonants, supplying the place of vowels, where these are wanting, and determining the pronunciation, when present.

The Massorites not only added the vowel points, but numbered the chapters, sections, verses, words, and even the letters of the sacred text. Thus they have noted the fact that there are in the Book of Genesis 1,534 verses, 20,713 words, and 78,100 letters. They have also marked the central verse, word, and letter of the book. They have done the same also in the instance of all the other Books of the Old Testament. The object is to preserve the inspired text from interpolation, mutilation, in fact, change of any kind, and also to give facilities for reference. Much of their work has been censured as ‘laborious trifling;’ but it has been of service to scholars nevertheless.

The age to be assigned to the Massorites is a matter of doubt. Some have affirmed that Moses himself communicated to the elders this method of elucidating and preserving inviolate the Sacred Writings. Others ascribe the invention of the Massoretic vowels to Ezra, and the Great Synagogue of his time. But neither of these opinions has much to support it; and the most trustworthy authorities place them in the fifth or sixth century of Christianity. The fact that there were many variations in the sacred text long subsequently to the time of Ezra, is clearly enough proved by the versions of the Septuagint writers, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, none of which are in entire accordance with one another. This could not have been the case if, previously to the date of these translators, the Massorites had completed their labours. Jerome states that the text was not determined even in his time. The most approved view seems to be that of Walton. He thinks that the work was begun early in the fifth century, and came gradually more into notice, until it was completed, circa 1030 A.D. Maimonides appears to say that the final revision was made by the famous scholar Rabbi Ben Asher. The Massorites, it should be noted, have been charged with endeavouring to pass off erroneous readings favourable to their own views, and, in order to secure this object, preventing any recurrence to the original and genuine text.

CABBALA.

This word also denotes tradition, and originally included all the interpretations of Scripture, which the Jews professed to have received, in the first instance, from Moses, and in the second, from Ezra. But subsequently it came to be used for an abstruse species of science, by which certain passages of Holy Writ are mystically explained. The Cabbala, in this sense, has many processes, of which the three best known are Gematria, Notaricon, and Themurah.[256] The first mentioned of these consists in assuming the letters of a Hebrew word to denote ciphers, or arithmetical numbers, and then explaining every word by the arithmetical value of the letters composing it. Thus, for example, the letters of the word Jabo-Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10), that is, ‘Shiloh shall come,’ when reckoned according to their arithmetical valuation, make up the same number as does the Hebrew word ‘Messiah.’ Hence the Cabbalists infer that Shiloh signifies the same as Messiah.

Notaricon consists in taking every letter of a word as being in itself a complete word, and the letters, when put together, as a complete sentence. Thus, the first word of the Book of Genesis, Bereshith, resolved into its component letters, is understood to mean Bara, Rakia, Arez, Shamaion, Iam, Tehomoth, i.e., ‘He created the firmament, the earth, the heavens, the sea, and the deep.’ Or again, the initial letters of every word in a sentence may be formed into a word, possessing, of course, a mystical meaning.

Themurah, is where the letters are transposed so as to form a new word—sometimes by the process known to us as anagram, sometimes by the substitution of one letter for another. The Cabbalists believed that the Scriptures contained endless recondite meanings, which might be brought to light by patient investigation. They were persuaded that the sacred writers had some special secret reason for their choice of every word they employed, and for its place in the verse, chapter, and book in which it is found.

BOOK OF YETZIRA.

Though some of the Chasidim professed a reverence for the Talmud, their system of theology is in reality antagonistic to it.[257] The basis of their confession of faith is, not the Talmud, but the Book of Zohar. This, together with the Yetzira, contains the fullest exposition of their views.

The age of the Sepher-Yetzira, Book of Creation, is a matter of dispute. By many it has been assigned to the seventh or eighth century. More trustworthy authorities consider it to have been composed greatly earlier. In the Talmud there is the mention of a Sepher-Yetzira, a book older, apparently, than the Mishna itself. If this is the same work as that now under consideration, it must be referred to the first, or at latest the second, century of Christianity. The language and style of the book are in accordance with this notion, being those of the Apostolic age; and though there are passages suggesting a later date than this, scholars are inclined to coincide in the view of M. Adolph. Francke,[258] that the book belongs to the Apostolic age.

BOOK OF ZOHAR.

The Sepher-Zohar, Book of Light,[259] is of the more importance, because it is accounted the code and text-book of the theological system, as adopted by the Chasidim. It takes the form of a commentary on the Mosaic Books, and is extremely mystical and full of allegory. Its contents are thus described by Surenhusius: ‘Veteris Ecclesiæ judaicæ fundamenta, prout Templo Hierosolymano stante secundo erant, non ex opere Talmudico, vel ab alio quodam auctore antiquo, sed ex Zohare tantum sunt quærenda. Cum in opere Talmudico, leges Ecclesiasticæ, forenses et politicæ exponantur, in Zohare autem loca scripturæ sacræ ad Theologiæ capita reducantur, in quibus de Existentiâ, de Attributis, de Epithetis, ac Nominibus Dei, itemque de Messiâ, de Angelis, tam bonis quam malis, de animâ humanâ, ejusdemque origine ac statu, atque, ut uno verbo dicam, de cognitione Dei nostri per Messiam genuinum Filium, agitur.’

Its authorship and date are even more a matter of dispute than those of the Yetzira. It is said by many to be the composition of Simeon Jochaides (Simeon ben Yochai), who is believed to have lived somewhere about the time of our Lord. Others, though they do not consider Simeon to be the actual author, yet are of opinion that it was written by one of his scholars, who embodied in it his master’s teaching. The language in which it is written is that of the Palestinian Jews in the times immediately preceding the composition of the Talmud. ‘The ideas and expressions also,’ writes Etheridge, ‘belong to that date.’ It would be possible, however, perhaps not very difficult, to simulate that style, if it was the object of the composer to pass it off as the production of an early age; and it is difficult to believe that some of the contents of the book could be the work of any Jew of the date assigned. M. Francke’s opinion here also is the safest to follow. He places it in the seventh century. The notion, however, that the Zohar is simply the composition of Moses de Léon, fully six hundred years afterwards, finds supporters even at the present day.

It is in form, as has already been intimated, a commentary on the Pentateuch; but in reality a heterogeneous mass of doctrine—the Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, and Rabbinical conceptions being inextricably blended together. It professes to reveal great mysteries; but the revelation is conveyed in language so enigmatical and obscure that it is often difficult to arrive at any definite meaning. It recognises God as the Infinite, having no beginning, and no end of existence; and declares that He has revealed Himself under ten forms, or rather emanations, to which the Zohar gives the name of Sephiroth. These ten are Transcendency (the crown), Wisdom, Knowledge, Mercy, Justice, Beauty, Triumph, Glory, Basis, Dominion. In all these representations the Triune character of the Godhead is exhibited.[260] Hence, in the confession of faith adopted by the Zoharites, as the followers of Jacob Frank and others were called, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as held by the Church Catholic, was distinctly professed.

FOOTNOTES:

APPENDIX IV. THE ATTEMPT UNDER JULIAN TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE.

Grave doubts have been advanced, by one writer or another, of what may be called the ancient belief on this subject. It has been questioned: I. Whether the attempt to rebuild the Temple ever was really made; and II. whether, allowing the work to have been begun and interrupted, its interruption was not due to natural causes only.

I. It is argued, chiefly by Lardner,[261] that Julian did no more than project such an undertaking, which he never attempted to carry into effect. In his letter addressed to the Jewish people, he tells them, ‘if he returned from his Persian expedition, he would rebuild and inhabit with them the holy city of Jerusalem.’ But, as he never returned, Lardner argues that he never made the promised attempt. The same appears to be the tradition of the Jews.[262] Thus, David Gans, in the fifteenth century, writes, ‘The work was prevented from being accomplished, for Julian never returned, but perished in the Persian War;’ and similarly Cassel: ‘He made preparations for restoring the Temple, but, after a brief reign, fell in battle.’ A passage from one of Julian’s orations is, further, quoted by Lardner, in which he says that, ‘he conceived the design of rebuilding the Temple.’ But, as he does not add that he executed it, Lardner reasons that he probably did not.

It is almost needless to say that these arguments carry very little weight. The reader should note that Julian did not promise to rebuild the Temple, on his return from Persia, but Jerusalem. As that city was then standing, his meaning must have been, that he would restore it to its pristine magnificence. This would be a long and costly work, which might well require his personal presence. But he might commit the rebuilding of the Temple, the design of which was well known, to a deputy—an instalment, so to speak, of the greater work to follow. Nor can it be reasonably argued, that, because a man does not say that he put in force a design, therefore he did not put it in force.[263]

Whatever weight Lardner’s reasoning might carry is lost altogether, when we take into consideration the testimony of the contemporaneous historians, and those of the age immediately following. The first include Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Ammianus Marcellinus; the second, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. All these record the main facts, viz., the repeated bursting forth of the fire, until the work was abandoned from the impossibility of persisting. Each adds some minor details, which do not affect the credibility of the occurrence itself.[264] The most important witness is Ammianus Marcellinus, a heathen and a personal friend of the Emperor. It will be better to give his account of the matter in his own words. ‘The Emperor was meditating,’ he writes,[265] ‘the restoration, at an unlimited expense, of the Jewish Temple, and had committed the care of the matter to Alypius of Antioch. When, then, Alypius was vigorously prosecuting the work, and the governor of the province was rendering him his help, frightful balls of fire breaking forth with continued outbursts near the foundations, again and again consumed the workmen, and rendered it impossible to approach the spot; and in this manner the element more obstinately (i.e., more obstinately than even the pertinacious persistence of the workmen) driving them away, the attempt was abandoned.’

In the face of evidence like this, he must be a hardy advocate who would maintain that the occurrence never took place.

But it may be contended that although it did take place, there was nothing in it of a miraculous character. It may be alleged,—

(1) That there was simply an earthquake, to which the whole was due.

(2) That there may have been an explosion of foul air, caused by the sudden opening of the vaults under the Temple. These had long been closed, and the noxious vapours, coming into contact with the workmen’s fires, exploded.

(3) That it is improbable that such a miracle would be worked, there being nothing in the rebuilding of the Temple which called for a miracle. Our Lord, no doubt, had declared that the Temple should be utterly destroyed, but not that it should never be rebuilt. Nor had Daniel (rightly understood), or any other prophet, ever said so.

(4) That the age in which the miracle is related to have taken place is one in which miracles are spoken of as having been of almost daily occurrence—some of them frivolous and childish to the last degree. In these no reasonable man can place any faith; and there is nothing to separate this miracle from them.

Let us consider these objections.

1. Earthquakes have always been of common occurrence in Palestine. Nor is it denied that an earthquake took place on the present occasion. But a simple earthquake will not account for the bursting forth of the fiery balls, as often as the labourers attempted to resume the work. No other earthquake ever exhibited these phenomena.

2. This explanation was, I believe, unknown to Warburton, Basnage, Lardner, or Gibbon. It appears to have been first suggested in a German magazine,[266] by the celebrated Michaelis, in the latter half of the eighteenth century. But, on inquiry, it appears more ingenious than probable. Who knows that the caverns under the Temple had been hermetically sealed for a long time previously to Julian’s attempt? They were constantly opened at other times (as the story told by Benjamin of Tudela evidences), and no such result followed. The present was but one out of many occasions when foundations had been dug and buildings erected in the same spot; but without any explosion or fiery outburst. How was it that Solomon’s workmen, and Zorobabel’s, and Adrian’s, and I know not how many more—how was it that they escaped the fatal injuries that befell those of Julian?

Again, the phenomena related by Marcellinus and others do not accord with the idea of an explosion of mephitic gases. These ignite instantaneously, and burn till exhausted. They could not be described by any writer as ‘balls of fire’ breaking forth with continual outbursts, as often as the labourers attempted to resume the work. It is also evident that the fire did not break forth the moment the ground was opened, but only when the whole foundation had been laid and the masons had begun to build; for Chrysostom says that some of the stones already laid were thrown down.

3. In dealing with this objection, we enter on new and more difficult ground. It may be true, and I incline to believe it is so, that the truth of Holy Writ was not, so to speak, imperilled by this enterprise. If it had succeeded, I do not see that any saying of Inspiration would have been thereby contravened.[267] But such an occurrence would surely have been at variance with the Divine purpose in setting up the Christian Church. Type and shadow were to vanish when the reality and the substance came. The rebuilding of the Jewish Temple would have been an unmeaning renewal of them. Further, such strange anomalies as the reconstruction of the Holy of Holies, with its veil unrent, and the renewal of the Temple sacrifices, foreshadowing an event long past, would have disturbed the faith of large numbers of professing members of the Church, as well as deterred equally large numbers from entering its pale. It is a difficult—it may be thought a presumptuous—thing to attempt determining what would be a sufficient reason for expecting a miracle. But if there ever has been an instance in the history of the Christian Church when a miracle was, so to speak, demanded, it was the one we have under consideration. Almighty God had been directly challenged by the supreme human ruler of the earth, and in the sight of all Christendom, to show the right. Do we wonder that, as at Mount Carmel, He answered by fire?

4. These considerations make it easy to deal with the last of the four objections. It may freely be granted that the age of Julian was signalized by the endless recurrence of reported miracles—most of which must be regarded with grave suspicion, while many others are wholly unworthy of credit. Thus Gregory relates of Julian, that one day when he was sacrificing, the entrails of the victim were found to be impressed with the emblem of a cross within a circle.[268] On another occasion, when he attempted to build a heathen temple over the spot where a Christian had been buried, it fell down again as soon as it was put up.[269] These are two instances, out of many, of the idle tales current in that day. If the occurrence we have now under consideration is to be classed with these, no one could wonder at the unwillingness of men to lend it credit. But it stands entirely apart from them. It was not worked at the command or through the entreaty of any man. It was not manifested to prove the truth of any disputed dogma, or the sanctity of any theological leader, or the orthodoxy of any party in the Church. It was wrought by the finger of God directly and visibly; and, unless we are prepared to affirm that since the Apostolic age He has never openly interfered in the affairs of men, we may reasonably believe that He interfered here.

FOOTNOTES:

APPENDIX V. THE BLOOD ACCUSATIONS.

Among the many accusations which have been advanced against the Jews, there are three, which may be distinguished from the others as ‘Blood Accusations,’ and which have been the causes of terrible suffering to them. The first of these is the charge of crucifying boys, in parody of the Saviour’s death upon the cross; the second, that of using Christian blood in the preparation of the Paschal cakes; the third, that of possessing themselves, by underhand means, of the consecrated Host, for the purpose of insulting and stabbing it. It might seem that this last was not a blood accusation. But, as it was believed that they cut and pierced the wafer, as being the very body of the Lord, which indeed bled like any human body under their knives, it may be classed with the other two. The first is the most ancient, and the one which has been most pertinaciously adhered to; though the other two have been continually repeated and accredited. Our present object is to inquire when these charges were first made, and what could have given rise to them.

As regards the time and origin of the notion respecting their crucifixion of boys, I have at p. 73 suggested the probable source of that accusation. Of all the Jewish feasts, the most mirthful, or rather the most riotous, was the Feast of Purim; of which it was said that ‘the Jews were wont to drink, until they could not distinguish between the blessings pronounced on Mordecai and the curses imprecated on Haman.’ At this feast, in the earlier centuries of Christianity, it was customary to introduce the effigy of Haman suspended on his gibbet; and the resemblance of this figure to a crucified malefactor soon engaged the notice of the Jews. Hence jests and innuendos against our Blessed Lord came to be a common topic among the revellers; on which ground the Jews were forbidden by the Christian emperors to celebrate this feast. Nor did the Jews confine their insolence to words. On one occasion, at Inmestar, they seized a Christian youth, whom they fastened to Haman’s gibbet, and scourged so mercilessly that he died under their hands. This, of course, provoked a fierce outburst of indignation and horror; and we can well understand that the tradition of the outrage would spread far and endure for many generations.

The second accusation—that of mixing Christian blood with the Passover cakes, or, as some said, with the Paschal sacrifice itself, does not appear to have been advanced until some time in the 13th century, though the exact date cannot be determined. Now, it is at least remarkable in connection with this charge, that it was first made just about the time when the doctrine of Transubstantiation was beginning to take forcible hold on men’s minds.[270] That was declared for the first time to be a doctrine of the Catholic faith, by a Lateran Council A.D. 1215. According to that belief, the eucharistic wafer became, after consecration, the actual body and blood of the Lord, so that men actually ate His flesh and drank His blood. It may be assumed as tolerably certain that the Jews would mock and deride this doctrine; which great numbers of pious Christians found themselves unable to accept. Even if the Jews did not openly satirize the Christians who upheld this extravagant conception, their opinion about it would be notorious enough; nor could the knowledge of what the Jews thought about it fail to exasperate still further the bitterness with which the extreme zealots of Ultramontanism already regarded them. It was an easy and obvious addition to the old charge of crucifying a Christian in mockery of the Saviour’s passion, to say that the Jews further mixed the blood of their victim with the Paschal bread, in order to deride the holy rite whereby Christians became partakers of His very body and blood.

The Jews themselves allege other reasons for the circulation of this slander. They declare the charge to have been first made in the earliest ages of the Church, and to have been levelled, nominally indeed at the Jews, but really at the Christians. A vague rumour of the words spoken by Jesus at the Paschal Supper, when He delivered the cup to the Apostles, ‘This is My blood,’ had spread among the heathen, and given the idea that the Christians actually drank human blood at their religious celebrations. It is true that the authors of these accusations attribute the offence to the Israelites; but (say the Jews, and so far certainly truly) the earlier heathen writers continually confound the Christians with Jews, regarding the former as simply an heretical Jewish sect. Further, it is alleged that the calumny derived some support from the known practice of certain heretical Christian sects, notably the Cataphrygians, who mixed with the consecrated bread the blood of infants, which they extracted from them by puncturing a vein. This, however, is nothing more than a plausible theory. Granting that such reports gained currency in the first or second century of Christianity, the Christians, against whom they were really circulated, would know their monstrous falsehood, and entirely disregard them. It is impossible to conceive that they would have retorted such a charge on the Jews, or even countenanced its circulation.

Again, it is said that there is an imperative order in the Talmud,[271] that the Jews shall, at the Passover, drink a certain quantity of ‘red wine,’ and that this ‘red wine’ was supposed to mean really human blood, though the command was disguised under a metaphor. But independently of the extravagance of such an interpretation of very plain and simple words, the charge made against the Jews was not that of drinking Christian blood, but of mixing it with the Passover bread. No one ever supposed that for any of the four cups drunk at the Paschal Feast a cup of human blood was substituted.

If the idea above named has nothing but its likelihood to support it, at all events it has that. And the third charge, brought not long afterwards, of getting surreptitious possession of the consecrated wafer in order to treat it with indignity, tends to strengthen the likelihood. It is alleged that, not content with deriding the doctrine of Transubstantiation, they were eager to insult the body of the Lord itself. They would bribe with a large sum some official to purloin the Host, and hand it over to them—when they would stab it with their knives, and it would bleed, like any human body—they, it was assumed, remaining wholly unmoved by the sight of so tremendous a miracle, nay, only anxious, by multiplied evidence of it, to increase their own condemnation in the sight of Heaven! It is beyond dispute that these alleged marvels were quoted in support of the doctrine of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist. It is hardly too much to assume that the charges against the Jews were coined—partly, no doubt, in consequence of the bitter hate with which they were regarded, but partly also to establish the certainty of the popular dogma of the day.

I have not thought it necessary to advance any arguments to prove the falsehood of these accusations. No competent tribunal by which they have been tried has ever failed to declare them groundless. Indeed, no person who has the most ordinary acquaintance with the Mosaic ritual, but must be aware, not only of the falsehood, but of the absurdity and the impossibility of the charges. The touch, nay the mere contiguity, of a dead body, according to the Jewish law, rendered all persons in its vicinity unclean, so that they could not partake in, much less celebrate, religious rites until they were purged from the pollution. How then could the blood of a murdered person be used in the consecration of victims and offerings, which its very presence would ipso facto desecrate? If nothing short of the most distinct statement on the subject will satisfy some minds, they have even that. The words of Moses, Levit. vii. 26, 27, are, ‘Ye shall eat no manner of blood’ (πᾶν αἷμα σὐκ ἔδεσθε)—no blood, not even of beast or bird, how much less, of man!

FOOTNOTES: