Chapter XVI: Book III (2)

Page 231.—_Scythopolis._] It is uncertain for what reason the Greeks gave the name of Σκυθοπόλις to Bethshan, unless from some event connected with the incursion of the Scythians mentioned by Herod, i. 104. who spread themselves to the confines of Egypt, in the middle of the seventh century before Christ. The present name is Bysan: many remains of the ancient town of Su are still visible, from which Burckhardt estimates its ancient circumference at three miles, (p. 343.) Here he crossed the Jordan. From Bethshan to near Jericho, the western bank of the Jordan is very barren, and there are no remains of cities on it, (345 note.) Herod built a city to the north of Jericho, and thus produced an increase of cultivation in the surrounding country, before desert. Jos. Ant. xvi. 5. 3. The great plain of Esdraelon begins near Bethshan, and extends across to Carmel. Egmont and Heyman, ii. 28. Jos. Ant. xii. 8. 5. The boundaries of Galilee are laid down by Josephus, and its fertility and populousness described, Bell. Jud. iii. 3. Vit. 45.

Page 233.—_The gate with its pious inscriptions._] The Jews of the present day, to avoid profaning the word of God by public exposure, write the passages of the law on parchment, (called Mezuzoth) and enclose it in the door-post. Leo of Modena, P. i. c. 2.

Page 237.—“_He giveth it to his beloved in sleep._”] “Perennem et solidam felicitatem dat suis quasi in somno,” Dathe, i. e. without thought or labour on their part.

Page 241.—There are allusions in many passages of Scripture to parts of the nuptial ceremonies; as Gen. xxiv. xxxiv. 8. Judges xiv. Isaiah lxii. 10. Esther ii. 8-12. Tobit viii. 19. 1 Maccab. ix. 37. Matth. ix. 15. xxii. xxv. John ii. 1-10. Ps. xix. 5. Jer: vii. 34. But the circumstances by which our author has filled up his description, are chiefly taken from the accounts of nuptial ceremonies among the nations of the east at the present day. See Russell’s Aleppo, i. 281; 436. ii; 48. 79. Harmer, iii. 295. Calmet’s Dict. Art. _Marriage_, Fragments to Calmet, Nos. xlix. clvii. clxiii. Calmet’s Dissert. vol. i. 277.

The lifting of the bride over the threshold appears to be a Greek rather than an Oriental custom; at least I do not remember to have seen it mentioned in the authors who have described Oriental marriages. Nor is it very probable that a Gentile, as Myron was, should have been allowed to take part in so sacred a ceremony. Besides these companions, the New Testament alludes to one, the paranymph or friend of the bridegroom, (John iii. 29.) who stood at the door of the nuptial chamber.

Page 245.—These benedictions are those (much abridged) which the Jews still employ at marriages. See Calmet.

Page 251.—_The Orphici of Thrace._] Of the Orphic and Pythagorean discipline, see Herod, ii. 81. and Valckenaer on Euripid. Hipp. 956. The Tomyri of Dodona were the priests of Jupiter, Strabo, 1. vii. p. 506. They were the same probably as the Selloi, whose rigid mode of life is alluded to by Homer, II. xvi. 233. Ἀπθὶ δὲ Σελλοὶ, Σοὶ ναίους’ ὑποθῆται ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαιεῦναι. Soph. Trach. 1168. Heyne, Excurs. ad Il. loc cit. A fragment of the Cretans of Euripides, preserved by Porphyry, shows that the Curetes, priests of Idæan Jupiter, led a life very similar to the Essenes. Καὶ Κουρήταν Βόκχος ἐκλήθην, ὁσιωθέις. Πάλλευκα δ’ ἔχων εἴματα, θεύγω Γένεσίν τε βροτῶν καὶ νεκροθήκης Οὐ χριμπτόμενος· τήν τ’ ἐπψύχων Βρῶσιν ἐδεστῶν πεθύλαγμαι.

Page 251.—_Worship of the earlier Samaritans._] When Salmanassar had led captive the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel, he supplied their place by colonies from Babylon and other places, (2 Kings xvii.) who brought with them their various idols. From this people and the Israelites left in the land, sprung the Samaritans, who, if the Jews may be believed, joined the worship of Jehovah with that of idols. Selden, de Dis Syris, p. 327. Addit. p. 285.

Page 253.—_Insult to the beard._] The Scriptures contain proofs of the susceptibility of the Hebrews on the subject of an indignity offered to their beards, 2 Sam. x. 1-5. “The Arabs,” says Niebuhr, “never shave off their beard. In the mountains of Yemen, where strangers are seldom seen, it is a disgrace to appear shaven: they supposed our European servant had committed some crime, for which we had punished him by cutting off his beard.” I am not aware, however, that the cutting off the hair was a judicial punishment among the Jews, unless Nehemiah xiii. 25. Isaiah 1. 6. should be thought to refer to it. The effect produced upon Elisama, by Myron’s action, will hardly be thought to be exaggerated when compared with the following passage from D'Arvieux’s account of the Arabs: “The Arabians have so much respect for their beards that they look upon them as sacred ornaments; nothing can be more infamous than for a man to be shaved; they make the preservation of their beards a capital point of religion, because Mahomet never cut off his. Among them it is more infamous for any one to have his beard cut off, than among us to be publicly whipped or branded with a hot iron. Many men in that country would prefer death to such a punishment. The wives kiss their husbands’ beards and children their fathers’, when they come to salute them: the men kiss one another’s beards when they salute in the streets, or come from a journey. They admire and envy those who have fine beards. ‘Pray do but see,’ they cry, ‘that beard; the very sight of it would persuade any one that he to whom it belongs is an honest man.’ If any one with a fine beard is guilty of an unbecoming action, ‘What a disadvantage is this,’ they say, ‘to such a beard! How much such a beard is to be pitied!’ If they would correct any one’s mistakes, they will tell him, ‘For shame of your beard! Does not the confusion that follows such an action light on your beard?’ If they entreat any one, or use oaths in affirming or denying any thing, they say, ‘I conjure you by your beard, by the life of your beard, to grant me this—or by your beard this is or is not so,’ They say farther, in the way of acknowledgment, ‘May God preserve your blessed beard! May God pour out his blessings on your beard!’ And in comparisons, 'This is more valuable than one’s beard,'” Mœurs des Arabes par M. D'Arvieux, quoted in Fragments to Calmet, xciii. Niebuhr (Descr. de l'Arabie, p. 26) mentions an Arab who was so highly offended that a man had even accidentally let fall some of his spittle on his beard, that it was with great difficulty he could be prevented from taking sanguinary vengeance for the affront. The reader who remembers Dr. Clarke’s description (Travels, v. 242.) of the paroxysm of ungovernable rage produced in an Arab by a blow, will not think the account in the text hyperbolical. “The Arab, recovered from the shock he had sustained, sought only to gratify his anger by the death of his assailant. Having speedily charged his _tophaike_, (musquet) although trembling with rage to such a degree that his whole frame appeared to be agitated, he very deliberately pointed it at the object of his revenge, who only escaped assassination by dodging beneath the horses, as often as the muzzle of the piece was directed against him. Finding himself thus frustrated in his intentions, his fury became ungovernable: his features livid and convulsed, seemed to denote madness: no longer knowing what he did, he levelled his _tophaike_ at the captain of Djezzar’s guard.”

Page 254.—_Ramoth Gilead._] It was fifteen miles to the westward of Philadelphia or Amman. (Reland, p. 474, Burckhardt, p. 358.) Its site, therefore, must be near that of Szalt, (Burckhardt, p. 347) perhaps El Meysera, which stands on the Zerka, the Jabok of Scripture, and near the mountains which are still called Djebal Djalaad (Gilead.) Or if the words of Jerome, (Loc. Heb.) “juxta fluvium Jabbok,” should be thought not necessarily to imply that it was _on_ the Jabbok, the site of the ruined towns Djelaad and Djelaoud on mount Gilead itself, (Burckhardt, 348.) will suit the elevated position implied in the name Ramoth. The Arnon is now called Modjet. See Burckhardt’s map. Mr. Buckingham supposes Ramza (which is not upon the Zerka, nor on mount Gilead) to be Ramoth. Travels, p, 337.

Page 255.—_Dromedaries._] The camel is the heavy beast of burden; the dromedary is used on all occasions which require great expedition. Shaw’s Travels, 167. The Arabs represent their speed as many times exceeding that of the fleetest horse.

Page 256.—_The Goël._] The Jewish law respecting homicide and the avenger of blood, has been fully discussed by Michaelis, § 131-136, who has well illustrated the humanity and wisdom of the Mosaic legislation, especially as contrasted with the precepts of the Koran. What is said in the text of the practice of the east, applies in modern times, at least, chiefly to the Bedoween Arabs. See Niebuhr, Descr. p. 28.

It may be observed, that Goël denoted the next of kin, not merely in his character of avenger of blood, but as having the right of redemption of an estate; (Mich. §. 137.) which may seem to make the etymology given in the text doubtful.

Page 259.—_The balm of Gilead had been applied externally and internally_.] The balm of Mecca is at this day used internally in Palestine, according to Hasselquist; but I am not aware of any proof that it was so anciently. “Les Hébreux ne parlent jamais des remèdes, quand il s’agit de maux internes, de fièvres, de langueurs, de peste, de douleurs de tête ou d’entrailles, mais seulement lorsqu’il y a blessure, ou fracture, ou meurtrissure.” Calmet sur la Médecine des Hébreux, Diss. vol. i. p. 331. That the Levites practised medicine, is probable from the analogy of other sacerdotal castes, and from their being appointed to decide in cases of leprosy: in their forty-eight cities they would be sufficiently dispersed throughout the country to serve as physicians to the people.

Page 261.—_Customs of mourning._] That it was usual in mourning to cover the lower part of the face, appears from Ezek. xxiv. 16. where the prophet is forbidden to adopt the customary marks of grief. “Forbear to cry, make no mourning for the dead, _bind the tire of thine head upon thee_, and put on thy _shoes upon thy feet_, and _cover not thy lips_, and _eat not the bread of men_.” It appears from Addison’s account of the Jews in Barbary, (Harmer, iii. 382.) that they still muffle the lower part of the face in mourning. Probably the object was the same as that of the muffling the lower part of the leper’s face, (Lev. xiii. 45.) to give an indistinct and lugubrious sound to the voice. Geier de luctu Hebræorum, 259. The same passage of Ezekiel shows that it was customary to lay aside the turban, (Harmer, iii. 386. Baruch vi. 31.) and go barefoot in mourning, (Judith x. 4.) “Habebis calceamenta in pedibus quæ lugentes solent abjicere: unde et David, Abassalon filium fugiens et penitens super nece Uriæ, nudis pedibus incedit.” Hieronym. in Ezek. loc. cit. 2 Sam. xv. 30. The laying aside the sandals was a mark of humiliation, as well as sorrow; hence in times of public calamity the Romans practised a solemn supplication, called _nudipedalia_. “Cum stupet cœlum et aret annus nudipedalia denunciantur, magistratus purpuras deponunt.” Tert. de Jej. 16. Geier, p. 306. The rending of garments, beating the breast, strewing ashes on the head, and putting on sackcloth, need no illustration.

The Alijah was probably the upper chamber in which the body of Tabitha (Acts ix. 37.) was laid. Of the hasty interment of the Jews in later times, the history of Ananias and Sapphira is a sufficient proof. Such is the present practice of the east. Russell, i. 306.

It is plain, from the New Testament, that the custom of employing hired mourners prevailed among the Jews in our Saviour’s time; (Matt. ix. 23. Mark v. 38.) and probably the “mourning women” (Jer. ix. 17.) are to be understood of hired mourners, such as the Romans called _præficæ_. It is mentioned (Amos viii. 3.) as a characteristic of a great mortality, that the dead should be _cast forth in silence_. Males seem also to have been employed as mourners. Amos v. 16.

Page 262.—_The body was wrapped in a sheet._] That the arms and feet were swathed separately, and not fastened to the body or together, is rendered probable by John xi. 44. where Lazarus, when raised to life, is represented as _coming forth_ from the sepulchre, before the grave clothes are taken off. The sheet is the σίνδων, in which, according to Matt, xxvii. 59. Joseph of Arimathea wrapt the body of our Saviour, on the evening of the crucifixion, when there was no time for the minute bandaging with the κειρίαι, mentioned in the history of Lazarus. But whether both were combined, as mentioned in the text, may be doubted.

The wringing of the hands above the head was a mark of extreme grief. Jer. ii. 37. Geier, 290.

Page 264.—_Burning was reckoned dishonourable._] “Corpora condere, quam cremare, e more Egyptio.” Tac. Hist. v. 5. They differed, however, in this from the Egyptians, that they only _wrapt_ the body in spices, and did not fill the cavities with them. The burnings mentioned in Scripture, in connection with royal funerals, appear to have been burnings of spices, (2 Chron. xvi. 14.) in other cases a mark of a great mortality, as (Amos vi. 10.) requiring a more expeditious kind of sepulture. Josephus (cont. Apion. ii. 26.) is referred to as mentioning the custom of all who met a funeral joining in the lamentation; Πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς παριοῦσι θαπτομένου τινὸς καὶ συνελθεῖν καὶ συναποδύρασθαι ἐπόησε νόμιμον. The common reading, however, is περιοῦσι, “survivors of the family,” which suits the connection better. Of the Hebrew sepulchres a large account is given in Nicolaus de Sepulchris Hebræorum, Lugd. Bat. 1606. The custom of throwing a sod is introduced from the practice of the modern Jews. Buxtorf Synagoga, c. 35. p. 502. The annual whitening of the sepulchres was, according to the Rabbins, a charge of the magistracy, and performed in the month Adar, (Nicolaus, p. 237) i. e. a short time before the Passover; a circumstance of which Harmer (iii. 449.) does not appear to have been aware. It is remarkable that the Mahometans whiten their sepulchres before their great solemnity of Ramadan.

Page 265.—_The bread of mourning and the cup of consolation._] This custom is alluded to in Ezek. xxiv. 17. Jer. xvi. 5. 7. 8. “Neither shall men break bread among them on account of a mourner, to comfort him over a deceased friend; nor shall men make them drink of the cup of consolation because of one’s father, or because of one’s mother.” Blayney’s Translation, and the margin of the common Bible. “The origin of this custom undoubtedly was, that the friends of the mourner who came to comfort him; (and that they often came in great numbers we may learn from John xi. 19.) easily concluding that a person so far swallowed up of grief as even to forget his bread could hardly attend to the entertainment of so many guests, each sent in his proportion of meat and drink, in hopes to prevail on the mourner, by their example and persuasion, to partake of such refreshment as might tend to recruit both his bodily strength and his spirits.” Blayney. Geier de luct. Heb. p. 166.

Page 265.—_The mourning lasted seven days._] The shortest term of mourning appears to have been seven days; (Gen. 1. 10. Jos. Ant. xvii. 8.) many extended it to thirty. Num. xxxiv. 8. Bell. Jud. iii. 8. “At Aleppo,” says Russell, “the near relations visit the sepulchre on the third, the seventh, and the fortieth day after the interment. The women likewise visit the graves on their ordinary garden days. They set out early in the morning, attended by a small train of females, carrying flowers and aromatic herbs to bestrew the tomb. The moment they arrive at the place, they give loose afresh to their sorrow in loud screams interrupted at intervals by the chief mourner, who, in a lower tone of voice, recalls the endearing circumstances of past times, or, in a tender apostrophe to the deceased, appeals to the pains she incessantly employed to render his life happy: she describes the forlorn condition of his family now he is gone, and mingles fond reproach with professions of unalterable affection.” ii. 311.

Page 269.—_The palms._] See the account of the various uses of this tree (the natives reckon up 360) in Mariti’s Travels, ii. p. 348. Harris’s Nat. Hist. of the Bible. “A considerable part of the inhabitants of Egypt, Arabia, and Persia subsist almost entirely upon its fruit; they boast also of its medicinal virtues. Their camels feed upon the date-stone; and from the leaves they make couches, baskets, bags, mats, and brushes; from the branches, cages for their poultry, and fences for their gardens; from the fibres of the boughs, thread, ropes, and rigging; from the sap is prepared a spirituous liquor, and the body of the tree furnishes fuel.” Clarke, v. 409. Notwithstanding their being wholly destitute of lateral branches, and of great height, they are climbed with ease by the prominences of the bark, which form a kind of natural ladder. “The _terebinth_,” says Mariti, (iii. 29.) “has leaves of a figure much like that of the olive. The flowers are like those of the vine, and grow in bunches; they are of a purple colour, and produce no fruit. The fruit grows among the branches; they are of the size of juniper berries, hang in clusters, and contain each a small seed, of the size of a grape-stone: they are of a ruddy purple colour and are remarkably juicy.” The _pistachio_, is the בטן of the Hebrews, (Gen. xliii. 11.) still called _bouttoum_ in the Holy Land. (Burckhardt, 346.) Harris’s N. H. of the Bible, Art. _Nut._ It was found, if not exclusively, at least in the highest perfection, in Syria and Palestine; (Bochart, Geogr. Sacr. lib. i. c. 10. Op. iii. 387.) and is reckoned by Jacob (Gen. xliii. 11.) among the choice fruits of the land which his sons were to carry down as a present into Egypt.

Page 269.—_The balsam was scraped from the tree._] “Balsamum, modica arbor: ut quisque ramus intumuit si vim ferri adhibeas, pavent venæ: fragmine lapidis aut testa aperiuntur.” Tac. Hist. v. 6. This was the most precious kind of the balsam, called _opobalsamum_; that expressed from the seeds, _carpobalsamum_; that obtained by crushing and boiling down the shoots, _xylobalsamum_.

Page 275.—_The simoom._] Dr. Clarke (iv. 252.) says of the simoom, as experienced by him in Palestine, “Its parching influence pervaded all places alike, and coming as from a furnace, it seemed to threaten us all with suffocation. The author was the first who sustained serious injury from the fiery blast, being attacked by giddiness accompanied with burning thirst, headach, and frequent fits of shivering ensued, and these ended in violent fever.” Notwithstanding the respectable authorities for its deadly effects in the desert, the accurate Burckhardt (Travels in Nubia, p. 189) says, “I inquired, as I had often done before, whether my companions had often experienced the Semoum, which we translate by the poisonous blast of the desert, but which is nothing more than a violent south-east wind. They answered in the affirmative; but none had ever known an instance of its having proved fatal. I have been repeatedly exposed to the hot wind in the Syrian and Arabian deserts, in Upper Egypt and Nubia. The hottest and most violent I ever experienced was at Suakin, yet even there I felt no particular inconvenience from it, although exposed to all its fury in the open plain. For my own part I am perfectly convinced that all the stories which travellers, or the inhabitants of the towns of Egypt and Syria, relate of the Semoum are greatly exaggerated, and _I never could hear of a single well-authenticated instance of its having proved mortal either to man or beast._ I never observed that the Semoum blows close to the ground, as commonly supposed, but always observed the whole atmosphere appear as if in a state of combustion: the dust and sand are carried high into the air, which assumes a reddish, or bluish, or yellowish tint, according to the nature and colour of the ground from which the dust arises.”

Page 277.—The law respecting the water of jealousy will be found Num. v. 11-31. and the Rabbinical traditions in Lightfoot, Works, i. 982. Jos. Ant. iii. 11. 6. To many readers it will doubtless appear a harsh and unequal institution, authorizing one party to impose upon the other an oath of purgation, to be taken under circumstances very painful to the feelings, to remove a suspicion which might originate in unreasonable jealousy. But it must be remembered, that the idea of equality between the parties in the conjugal relation never entered into the minds of the ancients, least of all of the Orientals; and that the jealous husband would often have taken the law into his own hands and put the suspected wife to death, if this mode of satisfying his doubts had not been prescribed by the legislator. The Mosaic law did not undertake, by a perpetual miracle, to create in a barbarous age and in the bosom of the east, a people characterised by the refined humanity and respect for the rights of human nature which the influence of Christianity and centuries of improvement have produced in modern Europe, but to soften and elevate as far as possible the national character. Regarded in this light, the Mosaic law of the water of jealousy will be considered like the institution of the cities of refuge, as a humane appointment, to moderate an evil which it was impossible to eradicate. Michaelis (Mos. Law, § 263.) has shown how well the whole ceremony was adapted to strike terror into a guilty person, and prevent all but the most abandoned and hardened from attempting to perjure themselves—so that it would rarely happen that divine interposition would be called for to punish the crime. It does not appear from the law in the book of Numbers, what was, to be the punishment of the woman, if, under the influence of conscience and apprehension, she made confession. The Rabbins say that she was to be divorced; (Lightfoot, ubi supra) they also tell us that the punishment sometimes did not follow the drinking of the water for two or three years. It seems more probable, however, that it was the intention of the lawgiver, whatever the practice might be, that the woman, if she confessed, should be punished in the usual way as an adultress. See v. 31. We are told by the Rabbins that the use of this test was abolished, when the Sanhedrim lost the power of life and death. Such an _ordeal_ was indeed very abhorrent from the Roman jurisprudence. Lightfoot, Works, ii. 111.

It may be observed, that the law does not require the husband to put the offering of jealousy into the wife’s hand, as represented in the text, but into the priest’s.

Page 291.—_Blowing of trumpets._] The object for which this was appointed is not well ascertained, and various fanciful reasons are given by the Jews. Reland, Ant. Heb. p. 509. Perhaps it was nothing more than to mark the commencement of the civil year.

Page 297.—_A goat for a sin-offering._] The directions for sin-offerings are found, Lev. iv. Num. xv. 22. From these passages it appears, that these offerings were prescribed in the case of sins of ignorance; unintentional, and at the time unobserved, violations of the Levitical law. The sacrifice of Helon in the text, appears to be represented by the author as a voluntary expression of remorse for his unjust conduct; a purpose very foreign from the design of the sin-offerings spoken of in the passages above quoted. It may also be observed, that the law takes no notice of the case of a priest incurring guilt: perhaps he might be included under the general term ruler.

Besides sin-offerings, (called הטאת) trespass-offerings אשם were also to be presented, Lev. v. vi. xiv. 12, 13. xix. 20. 22. Num. vi. 11, 12.; chiefly in cases of the breach of some social duty, and in addition to the penalties provided against the offence, but also for Levitical defilement and sins of ignorance. They differed chiefly in this, that a sin-offering was sometimes made for the whole congregation; a trespass-offering only for individuals; a bullock was never sacrificed for a trespass-offering, and the blood of the latter was sprinkled at the bottom of the altar, not dropped on the horns. Jennings’s Jew. Ant. ii. 332. Lightfoot, Works, i. 929. &c.

Page 302.—The ritual for the day of atonement will be found, Lev. xvi. xxiii. 27-32. Num. xxix. 7-11. What is described in the text beyond the warrant of these passages, is derived from Rabbinical authority. See the treatise Joma יומא i. e. _the_ day κατ’ ἐξοχὴν) in Surenh. Mischna, ii. 206. et seq. Lightfoot, i. 961. It is doubtful whether a substitute were chosen to fill the place of the high-priest; for Josephus (xvii. 6. 4.) mentions an instance in which, having incurred pollution just before the day of atonement, it was necessary to create another for the rites of this day. As the high-priest had on this day to perform the office of a common priest, for which his splendid robes of ceremony would have been inconvenient, he went through this part of his duties in the ordinary sacerdotal dress of byssus, i. e. probably at this time cotton. The word by which the material of the priest’s dress is described in the Mosaic law is שש or בד, בוץ (byssus) not occurring in any of the books of Scripture before the captivity. As the Jewish ritual was formed in so great a degree upon that of Egypt, where the priests certainly wore linen garments, in a country early celebrated for its flax, (Exod. ix. 31.) it is probable that the garments of the priests were directed by the law to be made of this material, but that when the use of cotton was learnt, it was substituted for linen. This appears to have been the case in Egypt also; for Herodotus (ii. 81.) describes the priests as wearing κιθῶνας λινεόυς, but the mummies as being swathed, σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι (85.) while Pliny (N. H. xix. 1.) says, “Superior pars Ægypti, in Arabiam vergens, gignit _fruticem quem gossypion_ vocant; _vestes inde sacerdotibus_ Ægypti gratissimæ.”

Page 306.—_He hurled the goat down._] It does not appear that the goat was to be thrown from the rock for the purpose of destroying it, but to be turned into the wilderness, (Jos. Ant. iii. 10. 3.) as an emblem of the sin of the people, pardoned and removed from sight. This is the obvious etymology of the name עו אול, _caper abitus_, or _scape goat_, as our translation renders it. The desert of Zuk appears to have no existence but in Rabbinical geography.

Page 307.—_His meil._] The meil (מעיל)of the high-priest was worn immediately over his linen vest or tunic, and had bells and pomegranates round the borders; it had no sleeves, and sat close round the neck. The dress of the ordinary priests and the high-priest is described by Josephus, (Ant. iii. 7.) who also unfolds the spiritual meaning of every part.

Page 314.—_The Feast of Tabernacles._]—The law for its observance is found Exod. xxiii. 16. (where it is called “the feast of ingathering at the end of the year.”) Lev. xxiii. 33-43. Deut. xvi. 16. Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 12. It was one of the greatest of all the Jewish festivals. Jos. Ant. viii. 4, The treatise entitled _Succah_ in the Mishna, (Surenh. ii. 259.) contains the traditions of the Rabbins. See Lightfoot, i. 974. Reland, p. 477. It was at once a memorial of the wandering in the desert, and a thanksgiving for the close of harvest.

The Jews, both in ancient and modern times, (Jos. Ant. iii. 10. xiii. 13. 5.) have interpreted the command in Lev. xxiii. 40. “And ye shall take unto you the boughs of _goodly trees_,” to mean branches of the citron. They make them into a bundle with the other boughs there mentioned, though it is probable that the goodly trees are pointed out as the materials of which the booths were to be constructed. Comp. Nehem, viii. 18. The Samaritans (Basnage, History of the Jews, vii. c. 26.) and the Karaite Jews (Reland, 485.) appear to understand the words of the law in this sense.

Page 317.—_Drawing of water from Siloah._] This was evidently practised in our Saviour’s time; who, according to his usual custom of making passing events subservient to purposes of instruction, “cried in the temple on the last the great day of the feast, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” John vii. 37. Which words, according to the Evangelist, referred to the effusion of the Holy Spirit. It is probable that the custom originally alluded to the rain: for, according to the Mishna, they began to pray for rain after the Feast of Tabernacles, and continued to do so till the Passover. Surenhus. ii. 356. It is doubtful whether the drawing the water were performed, as here represented, on every day of the festival: from the Evangelist we should rather conclude that it was only on the last. The Rabbinical traditions are discordant.

Page 319.—I know not on what authority it is related that the people showered their leaves and fruit on the high-priest; and I suspect that it may have originated from a misapprehension of a passage in Josephus, (Ant. xiii. 13. 5.) in which the Jews are said to have done this as a mark of their displeasure against their high-priest Alexander. Another instance is mentioned in the Talmud, in which the people testified in the same way their displeasure against some one who had performed his office carelessly, Lightfoot, i. 976.

Page 321.—_Dancing at the Feast of Tabernacles._] See Lightfoot, i. 978. and comp. 2 Sam. vi. 14.

Page 329.—_Prophecies which pointed to Judæa for their accomplishment._] “Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judæa profecti rerum potirentur.” Suet. Vesp. 4. Tac. Hist. v. 13. Jos. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 4,

Page 330.—_Submitting to circumcision._] That among the Jews themselves there was a variety of opinion respecting the necessity of circumcision, is evident from the story of Izates, (Jos. Ant. xx. 2.) who was first converted by a Jew who advised him to neglect this rite, as a non-essential of Judaism, and afterwards was induced to submit to it by a more rigid missionary.

Page 331.—_The tribunal which sat in the gate of Nicanor._] According to the Rabbins, two tribunals sat in the temple, one in the gate of Nicanor, another beside the entrance to the court of Israel. Mishna, Surenh. v. 332.

Page 333.—_The Dionysian festivals of the Greeks._] The remark of Myron, respecting the similarity of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles to the Dionysia, is founded on a passage of Plutarch, Probl. Symp. iv. Prob. vi. vol. iii. p. 745, ed. Wyttenb. 8vo. The similarity is certainly striking, and, according to the reasoning which was once commonly applied to such coincidences, would be regarded as a proof that the rites of the heathens were derived from the Jews. In the present state of historical criticism, such a supposition would be thought improbable, especially as none of all the circumstances in which the similarity appears, is found in the institution of the festival by Moses, nor even in the account of the first celebration of it after the captivity.

Page 336.—_The last day of the Feast._] It is doubtful whether “the great day of the feast” (John vii.) were the seventh or the eighth. Jennings (Jew. Ant. ii. 228.) supposes that the Feast of Tabernacles lasted seven days, and that the eighth was the Feast of Ingathering.

Page 338.—_Day of rejoicing in the law._] Josephus represents it as an injunction of Moses, that the law should be read every sabbath; (c. Apion. ii. 17.) but this is only true of the practice of the Jews in later times, after the establishment of synagogues.

THE END.

---------------------------------------------------------

London: Printed by A. Applegath, Stamford-street.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

----------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note

There a number of minor errors in the ‘Notes and Illustrations’ at the end of the text.

The page references are sometimes in error, but in this version that
is immaterial, and were left as printed.

The world ‘all’ on p. 175 was damaged (see below), and was restored
based upon a different printing.

On p. 356, the endnote referencing p. 57 refers to Ezekiel xxxi. 22.
The word ‘battering ram’ occurs later, in verse 27.

The brief Hebrew phrases cannot always be exactly confirmed by modern sources. They have been retained as printed, using those sources only to confirm those characters which seem ambiguous.

In order to faciliate text searches, differences in spelling between the text and the endnotes, were resolved by amending the notes.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original. The following issues should be noted, along with the resolutions.

39.22 at his insinuation, that——[”] Added.

40.2 “How long since was he here[./?] Replaced.

175.16 The sabbath and the new moon, [all] the Restored.
solemnities

178.15 accompanied by more than [ /a] thousand human Restored.
voices.

199.12 On the no[r]thern and southern sides Inserted.

202.14 the lofty side of Ebal or Geri[ri]zim Removed.

217.12 for your religion and your people as [?/.] Replaced.

240.3 than the praises of a virtuous wife.[”] Added.

257.5 to the imp[r]ecations which the judges Restored.

257.11 The judges did not immedia[t]ely decide Restored.

322.23 between the spectator and [t]he temple Restored.
building

375.11 The lake Sam[a/o]chonitis. Replaced.