JABESH.—Father of Shallum, who usurped the kingdom of Israel by the assassination of king Zechariah (2 K 15:10, 13, 14).

JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD.—A city which first appears in the story of the restoration of the Benjamites (Jg 21). Probably it bad not fully recovered from this blow when it was almost forced to submit to the disgraceful terms of Nahash the Ammonite (1 S 11). In gratitude for Saul’s relief of the city, the Inhabitants rescued his body from maltreatment by the Philistines (1 S 31:11–13)—an act which earned them the commendation of David (2 S 2:4).

According to the Onomasticon, the site is 6 Roman miles from Pella. The name seems to be preserved in Yabis, a wady tributary to the Jordan, which runs down at the south part of transJordanic Manasseh. The site itself, however, is not yet identified with certainty.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

JABEZ.—1. A city in Judah occupied by scribes, the descendants of Caleb (1 Ch 2:55). 2. A man of the family of Judah, noted for his ‘honourable’ character (1 Ch 4:9ff.); called Ya’bēts, which is rendered as if it stood for Ya’tsēb, ‘he causes pain.’ In his vow (v. 10) there is again a play upon his name.

W. EWING.

JABIN (‘[God] perceives’).—A Canaanite king who reigned in Hazor, a place near the Waters of Merom, not far from Kedesh. In the account, in Jg 4, of the defeat of Jabin’s host under Sisera, the former takes up quite a subordinate position. In another account (Jos 11:1–9) of this episode the victory of the two tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali is represented as a conquest of the whole of northern Canaan by Joshua. Both accounts (Jos 11:1–9, Jg 4) are fragments taken from an earlier, and more elaborate, source; the Jabin in each passage is therefore one and the same person.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JABNEEL.—1. A town on the N. border of Judah, near Mt. Baalah, and close to the sea ( Jos 15:11). In 2 Ch 26:6 it is mentioned under the name Jabneh, along with Gath and Ashdod, as one of the cities captured from the Philistines by Uzziah. Although these are the only OT references, it is frequently mentioned (under the name Jamnia) in the Books of Maccabees (1 Mac 4:15, 5:58, 10:69, 15:40, 2 Mac 12:8, 9, 40) and in Josephus. Judas is said to have burned its harbour; it was captured by Simon from the Syrians. In Jth 2:28 it is called Jemnaan. After various vicissitudes it was captured in the war of the Jews by Vespasian. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Jabneel, now called Jamnia, became the home of the Sanhedrin. At the time of the Crusades the castle Ibelin stood on the site. To-day the village of Yebna stands on the ruined remains of these ancient occupations. It stands 170 feet above the sea on a prominent hill S. of the Wady Rubin. The ancient Majumas or harbour of Jamnia lies to the West. ‘The port would seem to be naturally better than any along the coast of Palestine S. of Cæsarea’ ( Warren ).

2. An unknown site on the N. boundary of Naphtali not far from the Jordan (Jos 19:33).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

JABNEH.—See JABNEEL.

JACAN.—A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5:13).

JACHIN.—1. Fourth son of Simeon (Gn 46:10, Ex 6:15) called in 1 Ch 4:24 Jarib; in Nu

26:12 the patronymic Jachinites occurs. 2. Eponym of a priestly family (1 Ch 9:10, Neh 11:10).

JACHIN AND BOAZ.—These are the names borne by two brazen, or more probably

bronze, pillars belonging to Solomon’s Temple. They evidently represented the highest artistic achievement of their author, Hiram of Tyre,’ the half-Tyrian copper-worker, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre to do foundry work for him,’ whose name, however, was more probably Huram-abi (2 Ch 2:12, Heb. text). The description of them now found in 1 K 7:15–22 is exceedingly confused and corrupt, but with the help of the better preserved Gr. text, and of other OT. references (viz. 7:41, 42, 2 Ch 3:15–17, 4:12, 13 and Jer 52:21–23 = 2 K 25:17), recent scholars have restored the text of the primary passage somewhat as follows:—

And he cast the two pillars of bronze for the porch of the temple; 18 cubits was the height of the one pillar, and a line of 12 cubits could compass it about, and its thickness was 4 finger bread the (for it was) hollow [with this cf. Jer 52:21]. And the second pillar was similar. And he made two chapiters [i.e. capitals] of cast bronze for the tops of the pillars, etc. [as in RV]. And he made two sets of network to cover the chapiters which were upon the tops of the pillars, a network for the one chapiter and a network for the second chapiter. And he made the pomegranates; and two rows of pomegranates in bronze were upon the one network, and the pomegranates were 200, round about upon the one chapiter, and so he did for the second chapiter. And be set up the pillars at the porch of the temple,’ etc. [as in v. 21 RV].

The original description, thus freed from later glosses such as the difficult ‘lily work’ of v. 19, consists of three parts; the pillars, their capitals, and the ornamentation of the latter. The pillars themselves were hollow, with a thickness of metal equal to three inches of our measure; their height, on the basis of the larger cubit of 20¹/₂inches (see Hastings’ DB iv. 907^a), was about 31 feet, while their diameter works out at about 6¹/₂feet. The capitals appear from 1 K 7:41 to have been globular or spheroidal in form, each about 8¹/₂feet in height, giving a total height for the complete pillars of roughly 40 feet. The ornamentation of the capitals was twofold: first they were covered with a specially cast network of bronze. Over this were hung festoon-wise two wreaths of bronze pomegranates, each row containing 100 pomegranates, of which it is probable that four were fixed to the network, while the remaining 96 hung free (see Jer 52:23).

As regards their position relative to the Temple, it may be regarded as certain that they were structurally independent of the Temple porch, and stood free in front of it—probably on plinths or bases—Jachin on the south and Boaz on the north (1 K 7:21), one on either side of the steps leading up to the entrance to the porch (cf. Ezk 40:49). Such free-standing pillars were a feature of Phœnician and other temples of Western Asia, the statements of Greek writers on this point being confirmed by representations on contemporary coins. A glass dish, discovered in Rome in 1882, even shows a representation of Solomon’s Temple with the twin pillars flanking the porch, as above described (reproduced in Benzinger’s Heb. Arch. [1907], 218).

The names ‘Jachin’ and ‘Boaz’ present an enigma which still awaits solution. The meanings suggested in the margins of EV—Jachin, ‘he shall establish,’ Boaz, ‘in it is strength’—give no help, and are besides very problematical. The various forms of the names presented by the Greek texts—for which see EBi ii. 2304 f. and esp. Barnes in JThSt v. [1904], 447–551–point to a possible original nomenclature as Baal and Jachun—the latter a Phœnician verbal form of the same signification (‘he will be’) as the Heb. Jahweh.

The original significance and purpose of the pillars, finally, are almost as obscure as their names. The fact that they were the work of a Phœnician artist, however, makes it probable that their presence is to be explained on the analogy of the similar pillars of Phœnician temples. These, though viewed in more primitive times as the abode of the Deity (see PILLAR), had, as civilization and religion advanced, come to be regarded as mere symbols of His presence. To a Phœnician temple-builder, Jachin and Boaz would appear as the natural adjuncts of such a building, and are therefore, perhaps, best explained as conventional symbols of the God for whose worship the Temple of Solomon was designed.

For another, and entirely improbable, view of their original purpose, namely, that they were huge candelabra or cressets in which ‘the suet of the sacrifices, was burned, see W. R. Smith’s RS ², 488; and for the latest attempts to explain the pillars in terms of the Babylonian ‘astral mythology,’ see A. Jeremias, Das alte Test. im Lichte d. alt. Orients ²[1906], 494, etc.; Benzinger, op. cit., 2nd ed. [1907] , 323, 331.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

JACINTH.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES, p. 467^a.

JACKAL.—Although the word ‘jackal’ does not occur in the AV, there is no doubt that this animal is several times mentioned in OT: it occurs several times in RV where AV has ‘fox.’ (1) shū’āl is used in Heb. for both animals, but most of the references are most suitably tr. ‘jackal.’

The only OT passage in which the fox is probably intended is Neh 4:3. (2) tannīm (pl.), AV

‘dragons,’ is in RV usually tr. ‘jackals.’ See Is 34:13, Jer 9:11, 10:22 etc. Post considers

‘wolves’ would be better. (3) ’iyyīm, tr. AV ‘wild beasts of the island’ (Is 13:22, 34:14, Jer 50:39), is in RV tr. ‘wolves,’ but Post thinks these ‘howling creatures’ (as word implies) were more probably jackals. (4) ’ōhīm, ‘doleful creatures’ (Is 13:21), may also have been jackals. The jackal (Canis aureus) is exceedingly common in Palestine; its mournful cries are heard every night. During the day jackals hide in deserted ruins, etc. (Is 13:22, 34:13, 35:7), but as soon as the sun sets they issue forth. They may at such times be frequently seen gliding backwards and forwards across the roads seeking for morsels of food. Their staple food is carrion of all sorts (Ps 63:10). At the present day the Bedouin threaten an enemy with death by saying they will ‘throw his body to the jackals.’ Though harmless to grown men when solitary, a whole pack may be dangerous. The writer knows of a case where a European was pursued for miles over the Philistine plain by a pack of jackals. It is because they go in packs that we take the shu’ālim of Jg 15:4 to be jackals rather than foxes. Both animals have a weakness for grapes ( Ca 2:15). Cf. art. Fox.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

JACOB.—1. Son of Isaac and Rebekah. His name is probably an elliptical form of an original Jakob’el, ‘God follows’ (i.e. ‘rewards’), which has been found both on Babylonian tablets and on the pylons of the temple of Karnak. By the time of Jacob this earlier history of the word was overlooked or forgotten, and the name was understood as meaning ‘one who takes by the heel, and thus tries to trip up or supplant’ (Gn 25:26, 27:36, Hos 12:3). His history is recounted in Gn 25:21–50:13, the materials being unequally contributed from three sources. For the details of analysis see Dillmann, Com., and Driver, LOT³, p. 16. P supplies but a brief outline; J and E are closely interwoven, though a degree of original independence is shown by an occasional divergence in tradition, which adds to the credibility of the joint narrative.

Jacob was born in answer to prayer (25:21), near Beersheba; and the later rivalry between

Israel and Edom was thought of as prefigured in the strife of the twins in the womb (25:22f., 2 Es 3:16, 6:8–10, Ro 9:11–13). The differences between the two brothers, each contrasting with the other in character and habit, were marked from the beginning. Jacob grew up a ‘quiet man’ ( Gn 25:27 RVm), a shepherd and herdsman. Whilst still at home, he succeeded in overreaching Esau in two ways. He took advantage of Esau’s hunger and heedlessness to secure the birthright, which gave him precedence even during the father’s lifetime (43:33), and afterwards a double portion of the patrimony (Dt 21:17), with probably the domestic priesthood. At a later time, after careful consideration (Gn 27:11ff.), he adopted the device suggested by his mother, and, allaying with ingenious falsehoods (27:20) his father’s suspicion, intercepted also his blessing. Isaac was dismayed, but instead of revoking the blessing confirmed it (27:33–37), and was not able to remove Esau’s bitterness. In both blessings later political and geographical conditions are reflected. To Jacob is promised Canaan, a well-watered land of fields and vineyards (Dt 11:14 , 33:28), with sovereignty over its peoples, even those who were ‘brethren’ or descended from the same ancestry as Israel (Gn 19:37f., 2 S 8:12, 14). Esau is consigned to the dry and rocky districts of Idumæa, with a life of war and plunder; but his subjection to Jacob is limited in duration (2 K 8:22), if not also in completeness (Gn 27:40f., which points to the restlessness of Edom).

Of this successful craft on Jacob’s part the natural result on Esau’s was hatred and resentment, to avoid which Jacob left his home to spend a few days (27:44) with his uncle in Haran. Two different motives are assigned. JE represents Rebekah as pleading with her son his danger from Esau; but P represents her as suggesting to Isaac the danger that Jacob might marry a Hittite wife (27:46). The traditions appear on literary grounds to have come from different sources; but there is no real difficulty in the narrative as it stands. Not only are man’s motives often complex; but a woman would be likely to use different pleas to a husband and to a son, and if a mother can counsel her son to yield to his fear, a father would be more alive to the possibility of an outbreak of folly. On his way to Haran, Jacob passed a night at Bethel (cf. 13:3f.), and his sleep was, not unnaturally, disturbed by dreams; the cromlechs and stone terraces of the district seemed to arrange themselves into a ladder reaching from earth to heaven, with angels ascending and descending, whilst Jehovah Himself bent over him (28:13 RVm) with loving assurances. Reminded thus of the watchful providence of God, Jacob’s alarms were transmuted into religions awe. He marked the sanctity of the spot by setting up as a sacred pillar the boulder on which his head had rested, and undertook to dedicate a tithe of all his gains. Thence forward Bethel became a famous sanctuary, and Jacob himself visited it again (35:1; cf. Hos 12:4).

Arrived at Haran, Jacob met in his uncle his superior for a time in the art of overreaching. By a ruse Laban secured fourteen years’ service (29:27, Hos 12:12, Jth 8:26), to which six years more were added, under an ingenious arrangement in which the exacting uncle was at last outwitted (30:31ff.). At the end of the term Jacob was the head of a household conspicuous even in those days for its magnitude and prosperity. Quarrels with Laban and his sons ensued, but God is represented as intervening to turn their arbitrary actions (31:7ff.) to Jacob’s advantage. At length he took flight whilst Laban was engaged in sheep-shearing, and, re-crossing the Euphrates on his way home, reached Gilead. There he was overtaken by Laban, whose exasperation was increased by the fact that his teraphim, or household gods, had been taken away by the fugitives, Rachel’s hope in stealing them being to appropriate the good fortune of her fathers. The dispute that followed was closed by an alliance of friendship, the double covenant being sealed by setting up in commemoration a cairn with a solitary boulder by its side (31:45f., 52), and by sharing a sacrificial meal. Jacob promised to treat Laban’s daughters with special kindness, and both Jacob and Laban undertook to respect the boundary they had agreed upon between the territories of Israel and of the Syrians. Thereupon Laban returned home; and Jacob continued his journey to Canaan, and was met by the angels of God (32:1), as if to congratulate and welcome him as he approached the Land of Promise.

Jacobs next problem was to conciliate his brother, who was reported to be advancing against him with a large body of men (32:6). Three measures were adopted. When a submissive message elicited no response, Jacob in dismay turned to God, though without any expression of regret for the deceit by which he had wronged his brother, and proceeded to divide his party into two companies, in the hope that one at least would escape, and to try to appease Esau with a great gift. The next night came the turning-point in Jacob’s life. Hitherto he had been ambitious, steady of purpose, subject to genuine religious feeling, but given up almost wholly to the use of crooked methods. Now the higher elements in his nature gain the ascendency; and henceforth, though he is no less resourceful and politic, his fear of God ceases to be spoilt by intervening passions or a competing self-confidence. Alone on the banks of the Jabbok (Wady Zerka), full of doubt as to the fate that would overtake him, he recognizes at last that his real antagonist is not Esau but God. All his fraud and deceit had been pre-eminently sin against God; and what he needed supremely was not reconciliation with his brother, but the blessing of God. So vivid was the impression, that the entire night seemed to be spent in actual wrestling with a living man. His thigh was sprained in the contest; but since his will was so fixed that he simply would not be refused, the blessing came with the daybreak (32:28). His name was changed to Israel, which means etymologically ‘God perseveres,’ but was applied to Jacob in the sense of ‘Perseverer with God’ (Hos 12:3f.). And as a name was to a Hebrew a symbol of nature (Is 1:26, 61:3), its change was a symbol of a changed character; and the supplanter became the one who persevered in putting forth his strength in communion with God, and therefore prevailed. His brother received him cordially (33:4), and offered to escort him during the rest of the journey. The offer was courteously declined, ostensibly because of the difference of pace between the two companies, but probably also with a view to incur no obligation and to risk no rupture. Esau returned to Seir; and Jacob moved on to a suitable site for an encampment, which received the name of Succoth, from the booths that were erected on it (33:17). It was east of the Jordan, and probably not far from the junction with the Jabbok. The valley was suitable for the recuperation of the flocks and herds after so long a journey; and it is probable, from the character of the buildings erected, as well as from the fact that opportunity must be given for Dinah, one of the youngest of the children (30:21), to reach a marriageable age (34:2ff.), that Jacob stayed there for several years.

After a residence of uncertain length at Succoth, Jacob crossed the Jordan and advanced to Shechem, where he purchased a plot of ground which became afterwards of special interest. Joshua seems to have regarded it as the limit of his expedition, and there the Law was promulgated and Joseph’s hones were buried (Jos 24:25, 32; cf. Ac 7:16); and for a time it was the centre of the confederation of the northern tribes (1 K 12:1, 2 Ch 10:1). Again Jacob’s stay must not be measured by days; for he erected an altar (33:20) and dug a well (Jn 4:6, 12), and was detained by domestic troubles, if not of his own original intention. The troubles began with the seduction or outrage of Dinah; but the narrative that follows is evidently compacted of two traditions. According to the one, the transaction was personal, and involved a fulfilment by Shechem of a certain unspecified condition; according to the other, the entire clan was involved on either side, and the story is that of the danger of the absorption of Israel by the local Canaanites and its avoidance through the interposition of Simeon and Levi. But most of the difficulties disappear on the assumption that Shechem’s marriage was, as was natural, expedited, a delight to himself and generally approved amongst his kindred (34:19). That pressing matter being settled, the question of an alliance between the two cians, with the sinister motives that prevailed on either side, would be gradually, perhaps slowly, brought to an issue. There would be time to persuade the Shechemites to consent to be circumcised, and to arrange for the treacherous reprisai. Jacob’s part in the proceedings was confined chiefly to a timid reproach of his sons for entangling his household in peril, to which they replied with the plea that the honour of the family was the first consideration.

The state of feeling aroused by the vengeance executed on Shechem made it desirable for Jacob to continue his journey. He was directed by God to proceed some twenty miles southwards to Bethel. Before starting, due preparations were made for a visit to so sacred a spot. The amulets and images of foreign gods in the possession of his retainers were collected and huried under a terebinth (35:4; cf. Jos 24:26, Jg 9:6). The people through whom he passed were smitten with such a panic by the news of what had happened at Shechem as not to interfere with him. Arrived at Bethel, he added an altar (35:7) to the monolith he had erected on his previous visit, and received in a theophany, for which in mood he was well prepared, a renewal of the promise of regal prosperity. The additional pillar he set up (35:14) was probably a sepulchral stele to the memory of Deborah (cf. 35:20), dedicated with appropriate religious services; unless the verse is out of place in the narrative, and is really J’s version of what E relates in 28:18. From Bethel Jacob led his caravan to Ephrath, a few miles from which place Rachel died in childbirth. This

Ephrath was evidently not far from Bethel, and well to the north of Jerusalem (1 S 10:2f., Jer

31:15); and therefore the gloss ‘the same is Bethlehem’ must be due to a confusion with the other Ephrath (Ru 4:11, Mic 5:2), which was south of Jerusalem. The next stopping-place was the tower of Eder (35:21) or ‘the flock’—a generic name for the watch-towers erected to aid in the protection of the flocks from robbers and wild beasts. Mic 4:8 applies a similar term to the fortified southern spur of Zion. But it cannot he proved that the two allusions coalesce; and actually nothing is known of the site of Jacob’s encampment, except that it was between Ephrath and Hebron. His journey was ended when he reached the last-named place (35:27), the home of his fathers, where he met Esau again, and apparently for the last time, at the funeral of Isaac.

From the time of his return to Hebron, Jacob ceases to be the central figure of the Biblical narrative, which thenceforward revolves round Joseph. Among the leading incidents are Joseph’s mission to inquire after his brethren’s welfare, the inconsolable sorrow of the old man on the receipt of what seemed conclusive evidence of Joseph’s death, the despatch of his surviving sons except Benjamin to buy corn in Egypt (cf. Ac 7:12ff.), the bitterness of the reproach with which he greeted them on their return, and his belated and despairing consent to another expedition as the only alternative to death from famine. The story turns next to Jacob’s delight at the news that Joseph is alive, and to his own journey to Egypt through Beersheha, his early home, where he was encouraged by God in visions of the night (46:1–7). In Egypt he was met by Joseph, and, after an interview with the Pharaoh, settled in the pastoral district of Goshen (47:6), afterwards known as ‘the land of Rameses’ (from Rameses II. of the nineteenth dynasty), in the eastern part of the Delta (47:11). This migration of Jacob to Egypt was an event of the first magnitude in the history of Israel (Dt 26:5f., Ac 7:14f.), as a stage in the great providential preparation for Redemption. Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years (47:28), at the close of which, feeling death to be nigh, he extracted a pledge from Joseph to bury him in Canaan, and adopted his two grandsons, placing the younger first in anticipation of the pre-eminence of the tribe that would descend from him (48:19, He 11:21). To Joseph himself was promised, as a token of special affection, the conquered districts of Shechem on the lower slopes of Gerizim (48:22, Jn 4:5). Finally, the old man gathered his sons about him, and pronounced upon each in turn a blessing, afterwards wrought up into the elaborate poetical form of 49:2–27. The tribes are reviewed in order, and the character of each is sketched in a description of that of its founder. The atmosphere of the poem in regard alike to geography and to history is that of the period of the judges and early kings, when, therefore, the genuine tradition must have taken the form in which it has been preserved. After blessing his sons, Jacob gave them together the directions concerning his funeral which he had given previously to Joseph, and died (49:33). His body was embalmed, convoyed to Canaan by a great procession according to the Egyptian custom, and buried in the cave of Machpeiah near Hebron (50:13).

Opinion is divided as to the degree to which Jacob has been idealized in the Biblical story. If it be remembered that the narrative is based upon popular oral tradition, and did not receive its present form until long after the time to which it relates, and that an interest in national origins is both natural and distinctly manifested in parts of Genesis, some idealization may readily he conceded. It may be sought in three directions—in the attempt to find explanations of existing institutions, in the anticipation of religious conceptions and sentiments that belonged to the narrator’s times, and in the investment of the reputed ancestor with the characteristics of the tribe descended from him. All the conditions are best met by the view that Jacob was a real person, and that the incidents recorded of him are substantially historical. His character, as depicted, is a mixture of evil and good; and his career shows how, by discipline and grace, the better elements came to prevail, and God was enabled to use a faulty man for a great purpose.

2. Father of Joseph, the husband of Mary (Mt 1:15f.).

R. W. MOSS.

JACOB’S WELL.—See SYCHAR.

JACUBUS (1 Es 9:48) = Neh 8:7 Akkub.

JADA.—A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:28, 32).

JADDUA.—1. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:21). 2. A high priest ( Neh 12:11, 22). He is doubtless the Jaddua who is named by Josephus in connexion with Alexander the Great (Jos. Ant. XI. viii. 5, cf. vii. 2, viii. 7).

JADDUS (AV Addus).—A priest whose descendants were unable to trace their genealogy at the return under Zerub., and were removed from the priesthood (1 Es 5:38). He is there said to have married Augia, a daughter of Zorzelleus or Barzillai, and to have been called after his name. In Ezr 2:61 and Neh 7:63 he is called by his adopted name Barziliai.

JADON.—A Meronothite, who took part in rebuilding the wail of Jerusalem (Neh 3:7). The title ‘Meronothite’ occurs again 1 Ch 27:30, but a place Meronoth is nowhere named. According to Jos. (Ant. VIII. viii. 5, ix. 1), Jadon was the name of the man of God sent from Judah to Jeroboam (1 K 13).

JAEL.—The wife of Heber, the Kenite (Jg 4:11, 17). The Kenites were on friendly terms both with the Israelites (1:16) and with the Canaanites, to whom Jabin and his general, Sisera, belonged. On his defeat by the Israelites, Sisera fled to the tent of Jaei, a spot which was doubly secure to the fugitive, on account both of intertribal friendship and of the rules of Oriental hospitality. The act of treachery whereby Jael slew Sisera (Jg 4:21) was therefore of the basest kind, according to the morals of her own time, and also to modern ideas. The praise, therefore, accorded to Jael and her deed in the Song of Deborah (Jg 5:24–27) must be accounted for on the questionable moral principle that an evil deed, if productive of advantage, may be rejoiced over and commended by those who have not taken part in it. The writer of the Song of Deborah records an act which, though base, resulted in putting the seal to the Israelite victory, and thus contributed to the recovery of Israel from a ‘mighty oppression’ (Jg 4:3); in the exultation over this result the woman who helped to bring it about by her act is extolled. Though the writer of the Song would probably have scorned to commit such a deed himself, he sees no incongruity in praising it for its beneficent consequences. This is one degree worse than ‘doing evil that good may come,’ for the evil itself is extolled; whereas, in the other case, it is deplored, and unwillingly acquiesced in because it is ‘necessary.’ The spirit which praises such an act as Jael’s is, in some sense, akin to that of a Jewish custom (Corban) which grew up in later days, and which received the condemnation of Christ, Mk 7:11; in each case a contemptible act is condoned, and even extolled, because of the advantage (of one kind or another) which it brings.

In Jg 5:6 the words ‘in the days of Jael’ create a difficulty, which can be accounted for only by regarding them, with most scholars, as a gloss. See also BARAK, DEBORAH, SISERA.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JAGUR.—A town in the extreme south of Judah (Jos 15:21). The site is unknown.

JAH.—See GOD, § 2 (g).

JAHATH.—1. A grandson of Judah (1 Ch 4:2). 2. A great-grandson of Levi (1 Ch 6:20, 43). 3. A son of Shimei (1 Ch 23:10). 4. One of the ‘sons’ of Shelomoth (1 Ch 24:22). 5. A Merarite Levite in the time of Josiah (2 Ch 34:12).

JAHAZ (in 1 Ch 6:78, Jer 48:21 Jahzah).—A town at which Sihon was defeated by Israel (Nu 21:23, Dt 2:32, Jg 11:20). After the crossing of the Arnon, messengers were sent to Sihon from the ‘wilderness of Kedemoth’ (Dt 2:26), and he ‘went out against Israel into the wilderness and came to Jahaz’ (Nu 21:23). Jahaz is mentioned in connexion with Kedemoth (Jos 13:18 , 21:36). These passages indicate a position for Jahaz in the S. E. portion of Sihon’s territory.

Jahaz was one of the Levite cities of Reuben belonging to the children of Merari (Jos 13:18 ,

21:36 (see note in RVm], 1 Ch 6:78). According to the Moabite Stone (11:18–20), the king of Israel dwelt at Jahaz while at war with king Mesha, but was driven out, and the town was taken and added to Moabite territory. Isaiah (15:4) and Jeremiah (48:21, 34) refer to it as in the possession of Moab. The site has not yet been identified.

JAHAZIEL.—1. A Benjamite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:4). 2. One of the two priests who blew trumpets before the ark when it was brought by David to Jerusalem (1 Ch 16:6). 3. A Kohathite Levite (1 Ch 23:19, 24:23). 4. An Asaphite Levite who encouraged Jehoshaphat and his army against an invading host (2 Ch 20:14). 5. The ancestor of a family of exiles who returned (Ezr 8:5); called in 1 Es 8:32 Jezelus.

JAHDAI.—A Calebite (1 Ch 2:47).

JAHDIEL.—A Manassite chief (1 Ch 5:24).

JAHDO.—A Gadite (1 Ch 5:14).

JAHLEEL.—Third son of Zebulun (Gn 46:14, Nu 26:25); patron. Jahleelites (Nu 26:25).

JAHMAI.—A man of Issachar (1 Ch 7:2).

JAHWEH.—See GOD, § 2 (f).

JAHZAH.—The form of Jahaz (wh. see) in 1 Ch 6:78 and Jer 48:21.

JAHZEEL.—Naphtah’s firstborn (Gn 46:24, Nu 26:48); in 1 Ch 7:13 Jahziel; patron. Jahzeelites (Nu 26:48).

JAHZEIAH.—One of four men who are mentioned as opposing (so RV) Ezra in the matter of the foreign wives (Ezr 10:15). The AV regarded Jahzeiah and his companions as supporters of Ezra, rendering ‘were employed about this matter.’ This view is supported by LXX, 1 Es 9:14 RVm; but the Heb. phrase here found elsewhere (cf. 1 Ch 21:1, 2 Ch 20:23, Dn 11:14) expresses opposition.

JAHZERAH.—A priest (1 Ch 9:12); called in Neh 11:13 Ahzai.

JAHZIEL.—See JAHZEEL.

JAIR.—1. A clan of Jairites lived on the east of Jordan who were called after Jair. This Jair was of the children of Manasseh (Nu 32:41), and—if we may assume a traditional fusion—a ‘judge’ (Jg 10:3ff.). The settlement of this clan marks a subsequent conquest to that of the west of Jordan. The gentilic Jairite is used for Ira (2 S 20:26). 2. The father of Mordecai (Est 2:5), 3.

The father of Elhanan. See ELHANAN, JAARE-OREGIM).

W. F. COBB.

JAIRUS (= Jair).—This Greek form of the name is used in the Apocrypha (Ad. Est 11:2) for Mordecai’s father Jair (Est 2:5); and (1 Es 5:31) for the head of a family of Temple servants. In

NT it is the name of the ruler of the synagogue whose daughter Jesus raised from the dead ( Mk 5:22, Lk 8:41). In || Mt. (9:18) he is not named. The story of this raising comes from the ‘Petrine tradition.’

A. J. MACLEAN.

JAKEH.—Father of Agur, the author of the proverbs contained in Pr 30.

JAKIM.—1. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:19). 2. A priest, head of the 12th course (1 Ch 24:12).

JALAM.—A ‘son’ of Esau (Gn 36:5, 14, 18, 1 Ch 1:35).

JALON.—A Calebite (1 Ch 4:17).

JAMBRES.—See JANNES AND JAMBRES.

JAMBRI.—A robber tribe which attacked and captured a convoy under the charge of John the Maccabee. The outrage was avenged by Jonathan and Simon, who waylaid and slaughtered a large party of the ‘sons of Jambri’ (1 Mac 9:35–42).

JAMES

1. James, the son of Zehedee, one of the Twelve, the elder brother of John. Their father was a Galilæan fisherman, evidently in a thriving way, since he employed ‘hired servants’ (Mk 1:20). Their mother was Salome, and, since she was apparently a sister of the Virgin Mary (cf. Mt

27:56 = Mk 15:40 with Jn 19:25), they were cousins of Jesus after the flesh. Like his brother, James worked with Zebedee in partnership with Simon and Andrew (Lk 5:10), and he was busy with boat and nets when Jesus called him to leave all and follow Him (Mt 4:21, 22 = Mk 1:19 , 20). His name is coupled with John’s in the lists of the Apostles (Mt 10:2 = Mk 3:17 = Lk 6:14) , which means that, when the Twelve were sent out two by two to preach the Kingdom of God (Mk 6:7), they wentin company. And they seem to have been men of like spirit. They got from Jesus the same appellation, ‘the Sons of Thunder’ (see BOANERGES), and they stood, with Simon Peter, on terms of special intimacy with Him. James attained less distinction than his brother, but the reason is not that he had less devotion or aptitude, but that his life came to an untimely end.

He was martyred by Herod Agrippa (Ac 12:2).

2. James, the son of Alphæus (probably identical with Clopas of Jn 19:25 RV), styled ‘the Little’ (not ‘the Less’), probably on account of the shortness of his stature, to distinguish him from the other Apostle James, the son of Zebedee. His mother was Mary, one of the devoted women who stood by the Cross and visited the Sepulchre. He had a brother Joses, who was apparently a believer. See Mk 15:40, Jn 19:25, Mk 16:1.

Tradition says that he had been a tax-gatherer, and it is very possible that his father Alphæus was the same person as Alphæus the father of Levi the tax-gatherer (Mk 2:14), afterwards Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist. If these identifications he admitted, that family was indeed highly favoured. It gave to the Kingdom of heaven a father, a mother, and three sons, of whom two were Apostles.

3. James, the Lord’s brother (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD). Like the rest of the Lord’s brethren, James did not believe in Him while He lived, but acknowledged His claims after the Resurrection. He was won to faith by a special manifestation of the risen Lord (1 Co 15:7). Thereafter he rose to high eminence. He was the head of the Church at Jerusalem, and figures in that capacity on three occasions. (1) Three years after his conversion Paul went up to Jerusalem to interview Peter, and, though he stayed for fifteen days with him, he saw no one else except James (Gal 1:18, 19.). So soon did James’s authority rival Peter’s. (2) After an interval of fourteen years Paul went up again to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1–10). This was the occasion of the historic conference regarding the terms on which the Gentiles should be admitted into the Christian Church; and James acted as president, his decision being unanimously accepted ( Ac 15:4–34). (3) James was the acknowledged head of the Church at Jerusalem, and when Paul returned from his third missionary journey he waited on him and made a report to him in presence of the elders (Ac 21:18, 19).

According to extra-canonical tradition, James was surnamed ‘the Just’; he was a Nazirite from his mother’s womb, abstaining from strong drink and animal food, and wearing linen; he was always kneeling in intercession for the people, so that his knees were callous like a camel’s; he was cruelly martyred by the Scribes and Pharisees: they cast him down from the pinnacle of the Temple (cf. Mt 4:5 , Lk 4:9), and as the fall did not kill him, they stoned him, and he was finally despatched with a fuller’s club.

This James was the author of the NT Epistle which bears his name; and it is an indication of his character that he styles himself there (1:1) not ‘the brother,’ but the ‘servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ See next article.

4. James, the father of the Apostle Judas (Lk 6:16 RV), otherwise unknown. The AV ‘Judas the brother of James’ is an impossible identification of the Apostle Judas with the author of the Epistle (Jude 1).

DAVID SMITH.

JAMES, EPISTLE OF

1. The author claims to be ‘James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ’ (1:1). He is usually identified with the Lord’s brother the ‘bishop’ of Jerusalem, not a member of the Twelve, but an apostle in the wider sense (see JAMES, 3). The name is common, and the writer adds no further note of identification. This fact makes for the authenticity of the address. If the Epistle had been pseudonymous, the writer would have defined the position of the James whose authority he wished to claim, and the same objection holds good against any theory of interpolation. Or again, if it had been written by a later James under his own name, he must have distinguished himself from his better known namesakes. The absence of description supports the common view of the authorship of the letter; it is a mark of modesty, the brother of the Lord not wishing to insist on his relationship after the flesh; it also points to a consciousness of authority; the writer expected to be listened to, and knew that his mere name was a sufficient description of himself. So Jude writes merely as ‘the brother of James.’ It has indeed been doubted whether a Jew of his position could have written such good Greek as we find in this Epistle, but we know really very little of the scope of Jewish education; there was every opportunity for intercourse with Greeks in Galilee, and a priori arguments of this nature can at most be only subsidiary. If indeed the late date, suggested by some, be adopted, the possibility of the brother of the Lord being the author is excluded, since he probably died in 62; otherwise there is nothing against the ordinary view. If that be rejected, the author is entirely unknown. More will be said in the rest of the article on the subject; but attention must be called to the remarkable coincidence in language between this Epistle and the speech of James in Ac 15.

2. Date.—The only indications of date are derived from indirect internal evidence, the interpretation of which depends on the view taken of the main problems raised by the Epistle. It is variously put, either as one of the earliest of NT writings (so Mayor and most English writers), or among the very latest (the general German opinion). The chief problem is the relationships to other writings of the NT. The Epistle has striking resemblances to several books of the NT, and these resemblances admit of very various explanations.

(a) Most important is its relation to St Paul. It has points of contact with Romans: 1:22, 4:11 and Ro 2:13 (hearers and doers of the law); 1:2–4 and Ro 5:3–5 (the gradual work of temptation or tribulation); 4:11 and Ro 2:1, 14:4 (the critic self-condemned); 1:21, 4:1 and Ro 7:23, 13:12 ; and the contrast between 2:21 and Ro 4:1 (the faith of Abraham). Putting the latter aside for the moment, it is hard to pronounce on the question of priority. Sanday-Headlam (Romans, p. lxxix.) see ‘no resemblance in style sufficient to prove literary connexion’; there are no parallels in order, and similarities of language can mostly be explained from OT and LXX. Mayor, on the other hand, supposes that St. Paul is working up hints received from James.

The main question turns upon the apparent opposition between James and Paul with regard to ‘faith and works.’ The chief passages are ch. 2, esp. vv. 17, 21ff., and Ro 3:28, 4, Gal 2:16. Both writers quote Gn 15:6, and deal with the case of Abraham as typical, but they draw from it apparently opposite conclusions—St. James that a man is justified, as Abraham was, by works and not by faith alone; St. Paul that justification is not by works but by faith. We may say at once with regard to the doctrinal question that it is generally recognized that there is here no real contradiction between the two. The writers mean different things by ‘faith.’ St. James means a certain belief, mainly intellectual, in the one God (2:19), the fundamental creed of the Jew, to which a belief in Christ has been added. To St. Paul ‘faith’ is essentially ‘faith in Christ’ ( Ro 3:22, 26 etc.). This faith has been in his own experience a tremendous overmastering force, bringing with it a convulsion of his whole nature; he has put on Christ, died with Him, and risen to a new life. Such an experience lies outside the experience of a St. James, a typically ‘good’ man, with a practical, matter of fact, and somewhat limited view of life. To him ‘conduct is three-fourths of life,’ and he claims rightly that men shall authenticate in practice their verbal professions. To a St. Paul, with an overwhelming experience working on a mystical temperament, such a demand is almost meaningless. To him faith is the new life in Christ, and of course it brings forth the fruits of the Spirit, if it exists at all; faith must always work by love (Gal 5:6). He indeed guards himself carefully against any idea that belief in the sense of verbal confession or intellectual assent is enough in itself (Ro 2:6–20), and defines ‘the works’ which he disparages as ‘works of the law’ (3:20, 28). Each writer, in fact, would agree with the doctrine of the other when he came to understand it, though St. James’s would appear to St. Paul as insufficient, and St. Paul’s to St. James as somewhat too profound and mystical (see SandayHeadlam, Romans, pp. 102 ff.).

It is unfortunately not so easy to explain the literary relation between the two. At first sight the points of contact are so striking that we are inclined to say that one must have seen the words of the other. Lightfoot, however, has shown (Galatians³, pp. 157 ff.) that the history of Abraham, and in particular Gn 15:6, figured frequently in Jewish theological discussions. The verse is quoted in 1 Mac 2:52, ten times by Philo, and in the Talmudic treatise Mechilta. But the antithesis between ‘faith and works’ seems to be essentially Christian; we cannot, therefore, on the ground of the Jewish use of Gn 15, deny any relationship between the writings of the two Apostles. This much, at least, seems clear; St. James was not writing with Romans before him, and with the deliberate intention of contradicting St. Paul. His arguments, so regarded, are obviously inadequate, and make no attempt, even superficially, to meet St. Paul’s real position. It is, however, quite possible that he may have written as he did to correct not St. Paul himself, but misunderstandings of his teaching, which no doubt easily arose (2 P 3:16). On the other hand, if with Mayor we adopt a very early date for the Epistle, St. Paul may equally well be combating exaggerations of his fellow-Apostle’s position, which indeed in itself must have appeared insufficient to him; we are reminded of the Judaizers ‘who came from James’ before the Council (Ac 15:24). St. Paul, according to this view, preserves all that is valuable in St. James by his insistence on life and conduct, while he supplements it with a profounder teaching, and guards against misinterpretations by a more careful definition of terms; e.g. in Gal 2:16 (cf. Ja 2:24) he defines ‘works’ as ‘works of the law,’ and ‘faith’ as ‘faith in Jesus Christ.’ We must also bear in mind the possibility that the resemblance in language on this and other subjects may have been due to personal intercourse between the two (Gal 1:19, Ac 15); in discussing these questions together they may well have come to use very similar terms and illustrations; and this possibility makes the question of priority in writing still more complicated. It is, then, very hard to pronounce with any certainty on the date of the Epistle from literary considerations. On the whole they make for an early date. Such a date is also suggested by the undeveloped theology (note the nontechnical and unusual word for ‘begat’ in 1:18) and the general circumstances of the Epistle (see below); and the absence of any reference to the Gentile controversy may indicate a date before the Council of Ac 15, i.e. before 52 A.D.

(b) Again, the points of contact with 1 Peter (1:10, 5:19; 1 P 1:24, 4:8) and Hebrews (2:25 ; He 11:31), though striking, are inconclusive as to date. It is difficult to acquiesce in the view that James is ‘secondary’ throughout, and makes a general use of the Epp. of NT.

(c) It will be convenient to treat here the relation to the Gospels and particularly to the Sermon on the Mount, though this is still less decisive as to date. The variations are too strong to allow us to suppose a direct use of the Gospels; the sayings of Christ were long quoted in varying forms, and in 5:12 St. James has a remarkable agreement with Justin (Ap, i. 16), as against Mt 5:37. The chief parallels are the condemnation of ‘hearers only’ (1:22, 25, Mt 7:25, Jn 13:17), of critics (4:11, Mt 7:1–5), of worldliness (1:10, 2:5, 6 etc., Mt 6:19, 24, Lk 6:24); the teaching about prayer (1:5 etc., Mt 7:7, Mk 11:23), poverty (2:5, Lk 6:20), humility (4:10, Mt 23:12), the tree and its fruits (3:11, Mt 7:16; see Salmon, Introd. to NT 9 p. 455). This familiarity with our Lord’s language agrees well with the hypothesis that the author was one who had been brought up in the same home, and had often listened to His teaching, though not originally a disciple; it can hardly, however, he said necessarily to imply such a close personal relationship.

3. The type of Christianity implied in the Epistle.—We are at once struck by the fact that the direct Christian references are very few. Christ is only twice mentioned by name (1:1, 2:21) ; not a word is said of His death or resurrection, His example of patience (5:10, 11; contrast 1 P 2:21), or of prayer (5:17; contrast He 5:7). Hence the suggestion has been made by Spitta that we have really a Jewish document which has been adapted by a Christian writer, as happened, e.g., with 2 Esdras and the Didache. The answer is obvious, that no editor would have been satisfied with so slight a revision. We find, indeed, on looking closer, that the Christian element is greater than appears at first, and also that it is of such a nature that it cannot be regarded as interpolated. The parallels with our Lord’s teaching already noticed, could not be explained as due to independent borrowing from earlier Jewish sources, even on the very doubtful assumption that any such existed containing the substance of His teaching. Again, we find Christ mentioned (probably) in connexion with the Parousia (5:7, 8) [5:6, 11 are probably not references to the crucifixion, and ‘the Lord’ is not original in 1:12]; ‘beloved brethren’ (1:16, 19, 2:5), the new birth (1:18), the Kingdom (2:5), the name which is blasphemed (2:7), and the royal law of liberty (1:25, 2:8) are all predominantly Christian ideas. It cannot, however, be denied that the general tone of the Epistle is Judaic. The type of organization implied is primitive, and is described mainly in Jewish phraseology: synagogue (2:2), elders of the Church (5:14), anointing with oil and the connexion of sin and sickness (ib.). Abraham is ‘our father’ (2:21), and God bears the OT title ‘Lord of Sabaoth’ (5:4) [only here in NT]. This tone, however, is in harmony with the traditional character of James (see JAMES, 3), and with the address ‘to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion’ (1:1), taken in its literal sense. St. James remained to the end of his life a strict Jew, noted for his devotion to the Law (Ac 15, 21:20), and in the Epistle the Law, though transformed, is to the writer almost a synonym for the Gospel. His argument as to the paramount importance of conduct is exactly suited to the atmosphere in which he lived, and of which he realized the dangers. The Rabbis could teach that ‘they cool the flames of Gehinnom for him who reads the Shema [Dt 6:4],’ and Justin (Dial. 141) bears witness to the claim of the Jews, ‘that if they are sinners and know God, the Lord will not impute to them sin.’ His protest is against a ceremonialism which neglects the weightier matters of the Law; cf. esp. 1:27, where ‘religion’ means religion on its outward side. His Epistle then is Judaic, because it shows us Christianity as it appeared to the ordinary Jewish Christian, to whom it was a something added to his old religion, not a revolutionary force altering its whole character, as it was to St. Paul. It seems to belong to the period described in the early chapters of the Acts, when the separation between Jews and Christians was not complete; we have already, on other grounds, seen that it seems to come before the Council. Salmon (Introd. to NT p. 456) points out that its attitude towards the rich agrees with what we know of Jewish society during this period, when the tyranny of the wealthy Sadducean party was at its height (cf. Jos. Ant. XX. viii. 8; ix. 2); there are still apparently local Jewish tribunals (2:6). The movement from city to city supposed in 4:13 may point to the frequent Jewish migrations for purposes of trade, and the authority which the writer exercises over the Diaspora may be paralleled by that which the Sanhedrin claimed outside Palestine. We may note that there are indications that the Epistle has in mind the needs and circumstances of special communities (2:1ff., 4:1, 5:13); it reads, too, not like a formal treatise, but as words of advice given in view of particular cases.

On the other hand, many Continental critics see in these conditions the description of a later age, when Christianity had had time to become formal and secularized, and moral degeneracy was covered by intellectual orthodoxy. The address is supposed to be a literary device, the Church being the true Israel of God, or to have in view scattered Essene conventicles. It is said that the absence of Christian doctrine shows that the Epistle was not written when it was in the process of formation, but at an altogether later period. This argument is not altogether easy to follow, and, as we have seen, the indications, though separately indecisive, yet all combine to point to an early date. Perhaps more may be said for the view that the Epistle incorporates Jewish fragments, e.g. in 3:1–18, 4:11–5:6; the apostrophe of the rich who are outside the brotherhood is rather startling. We may indeed believe that the Epistle has not yet yielded its full secret. It cannot be denied that it omits much that we should expect to find in a Christian document of however early a date, and that its close is very abrupt. Of the theories, however, which have so far been advanced, the view that it is a primitive Christian writing at least presents the fewest difficulties, though it still leaves much unexplained.

4. Early quotations and canonicity.—The Epistle presents points of contact with Clement of Rome, Hermas, and probably with Irenæns, but is first quoted as Scripture by Origen. Eusebius, though he quotes it himself without reserve, mentions the fact that few ‘old writers’ have done so (HE ii. 23), and classes it among the ‘disputed’ books of the Canon (iii. 25). It is not mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, but is included in the Peshitta (the Syriac version), together with 1 Peter and 1 John of the Catholic Epistles. The evidence shows that it was acknowledged in the East earlier than in the West, possibly as being addressed to the Eastern ( ? ) Dispersion, though its apparent use by Clem. Rom. and Hermas suggests that it may have been written in Rome. The scarcity of quotations from it and its comparative neglect may be due to its Jewish and non-doctrinal tone, as well as to the facts that it did not claim to be Apostolic and seemed to contradict St. Paul. Others before Luther may well have found it ‘an epistle of straw.’

5. Style and teaching.—As has been said, the tone of the Epistle is largely Judaic. In addition to the Jewish features already pointed out, we may note its insistence on righteousness, and its praise of wisdom and poverty, which are characteristic of Judaism at its best. Its illustrations are drawn from the OT, and its style frequently recalls that of Proverbs, and the Prophets, particularly on its sterner side. The worldly are ‘adulteresses’ (4:4; cf. the OT conception of Israel as the bride of Jehovah, whether faithful or unfaithful), and the whole Epistle is full of warnings and denunciations; 54 imperatives have been counted in twice as many verses. The quotations, however, are mainly from the LXX; ‘greeting’ (1:1) is the LXX formula for the Heb. ‘peace,’ and occurs again in NT only in the letter of Ac 15:23. The points of contact with our Lord’s teaching have been already noticed; the Epistle follows Him also in its fondness for metaphors from nature (cf. the parables), and in the poetic element which appears continually; 1:17 is actually a hexameter, but it has not been recognized as a quotation. The style is vivid and abrupt, sometimes obscure, with a great variety of vocabulary; there are 70 words not found elsewhere in NT. There is no close connexion of ideas, or logical development of the subject; a word seems to suggest the following paragraph (e.g. ch. 1). Accordingly it is useless to attempt a summary of the Epistle. Its main purpose was to encourage endurance under persecution and oppression, together with consistency of life; and its leading ideas are the dangers of speech, of riches, of strife, and of worldliness, and the value of true faith, prayer, and wisdom. The Epistle is essentially ‘pragmatic’; i.e. it insists that the test of belief lies in ‘value for conduct.’ It does not, indeed, ignore the deeper side; it has its theology with its teaching about regeneration, faith, and prayer, but the writer’s main interest lies in ethics. The condition

of the heathen world around made it necessary to insist on the value of a consistent life. That was

Christianity; and neither doctrinal nor moral problems, as of the origin of evil, trouble him. The Epistle does not reach the heights of a St. Paul or a St. John, but it has its value. It presents, sharply and in emphasis, a side of Christianity which is always in danger of being forgotten, and the practical mind in particular will always feel the force of its practical message.

C. W. EMMET.

JAMES, PROTEVANGELIUM OF.—See GOSPELS [APOCRYPHAL], § 5.

JAMIN.—1. A son of Simeon (Gn 46:10, Ex 6:15, Nu 26:12, 1 Ch 4:24). The gentilic name Jaminites occurs in Nu 26:12. 2. A Judahite (1 Ch 2:27). 3. A priest (? or Levite) who took part in the promulgating of the Law (Neh 8:7; in 1 Es 9:48 Iadinus).

JAMLECH.—A Simeonite chief (1 Ch 4:34).

JAMNIA (1 Mac 4:15, 5:58, 10:69, 15:40, 2 Mac 12:8, 9, 40).—The later name of Jabneel (wh. see). The gentilic name Jamnites occurs in 2 Mac 12:9.

JANAI.—A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5:12).

JANGLING.—‘Jangling,’ says Chaucer in the Parson’s Tale, ‘is whan man speketh to moche before folk, and clappeth as a mille, and taketh no kepe what he seith.’ The word is used in 1 Ti 1:6 ‘vain jangling’ (RV ‘vain talking’); and in the heading of 1 Ti 6 ‘to avoid profane janglings,’ where it stands for ‘babblings’ in the text (1 Ti 6:20).

JANIM.—A town in the mountains of Hebron, near Beth-tappuah (Jos 15:53). The site is uncertain.

JANNAI.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:24).

JANNES AND JAMBRES.—In 2 Ti 3:8 these names are given as those of Moses’ opponents; the Egyptian magicians of Ex 7:11, 22 are doubtless referred to, though their names are not given in OT. They are traditional, and we find them in the Targumic literature ( which, however, is late). Both there and in 2 Ti 3:8 we find the various reading ‘Mambres’ ( or ‘Mamre’). ‘Jannes’ is probably a corruption of ‘Johannes’ (John); ‘Jambres’ is almost certainly derived from a Semitic root meaning ‘to oppose’ (imperfect tense), the participle of which would give ‘Mambres.’ The names were even known to the beathen. Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23–79) mentions ‘Moses, Jamnes (or Jannes), and Jotapes (or Lotapes)’ as Jewish magicians (Hist. Nat.

XXX. 1 ff.); thus ‘Jannes,’ at least, must have been a traditional name before the Christian era.

Apuleins (c. A.D. 130) in his Apology speaks of Moses and Jannes as magicians; the Pythagorean

Numenius (2nd cent. A.D.), according to Origen (c. Cels. iv. 51), related ‘the account respecting Moses and Jannes and Jambres,’ and Eusebius gives the words of Numenius (Prœp. Ev. ix. 8). In his Commentary on Mt 27:8 (known only in a Latin translation), Origen says that St. Paul is quoting from a book called ‘Jannes and Mambres’ (sic). But Theodoret (Com. in loc.) declares that he is merely using the unwritten teaching of the Jews. Jannes and Jambres are also referred to in the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus § 5 (4th or 5th cent. in its present form?), and in the Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 1 (c. A.D. 375). Later Jewish fancy ran wild on these names; according to some they were Balaam’s sons; according to others they were drowned in the Red Sea; or they were put to death, either for inciting Aaron to make the Golden Calf or at a later stage of the history.

A. J. MACLEAN.

JANOAH.—1. A town in the northern mountains of Naphtali, near Kedesh (2 K 15:29). It is probably the modern Yanūh. 2. A place on the border of Ephraim (Jos 16:6, 7); situated where the present Yānūn now stands, with the supposed tomb of Nun.

JAPHETH (Heb. Yepheth).—1. One of the sons of Noah. The meaning of the name is quite uncertain. In Gn 9:27 there is a play on the name—‘May God make wide (yapht) for Yepheth [i.e. make room for him], that he may dwell in the tents of Shem.’ The peoples connected with

Japheth (10:1–4) occupy the northern portion of the known world, and include the Madai

(Medes) on the E. of Assyria, Javan (Ionians, i.e. Greeks) on the W. coast and islands of Asia Minor, and Tarshish (Tartessus) on the W. coast of Spain. On the two traditions respecting the sons of Noah see HAM. 2. An unknown locality mentioned in Jth 2:25.

A. H. M’NEILE.

JAPHIA.—1. King of Lachish, defeated and slain by Joshua (Jos 10:3ff.). 2. One of David’s sons born at Jerusalem (2 S 5:14b–16, 1 Ch 3:5–8, 14:4–7). 3. A town on the south border of Zebulun (Jos 19:12); probably the modern Yāfā, near the foot of the Nazareth hills.

JAPHLET.—An Asherite family (1 Ch 7:32f.).

JAPHLETITES.—The name of an unidentified tribe mentioned in stating the boundaries of the children of Joseph (Jos 16:3).

JARAH.—A descendant of Saul, 1 Ch 9:42. In 8:36 he is called Jehoaddah.

JAREB.—It is not safe to pronounce dogmatically on the text and meaning of Hos 5:13 , 10:6. But our choice lies between two alternatives. If we adhere to the current text, we must regard Jareb (or Jarīb) as a sobriquet coined by Hosea to indicate the love of conflict which characterized the Assyrian king. Thus ‘King Jarib’ = ‘King Warrior,’ ‘King Striver,’ ‘King Combat,’ or the like; and the events referred to are those of B.C. 738 (see 2 K 15:19). Most of the ancient versions support this, as, e.g., LXX ‘King Jareim’; Symm. and Vulg. ‘King Avenger.’ If we divide the Hebrew consonants differently, We get ‘the great king,’ corresponding to the Assyr. sharru rabbu (cf. 2 K 18:19, 28, Is 36:4). It has even been thought that this signification may be accepted without any textual change. In any case linguistic and historical evidence is against the idea that Jareb is the proper name of an Assyrian or an Egyptian monarch. Other, less probable, emendations are ‘king of Arabia,’ ‘king of Jathrib or of Aribi’ (both in N. Arabia).

J. TAYLOR.

JARED.—The father of Enoch (Gn 5:15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 1 Ch 1:2, Lk 3:37).

JARHA.—An Egyptian slave who married the daughter of his master Sheshan (1 Ch 2:34f.).

JARIB.—1. The eponym of a Simeonite family (1 Ch 4:24 = Jachin of Gn 46:10, Ex 6:15 ,

Nu 26:12). 2. One of the ‘chief men’ who were sent by Ezra to Casiphia in search of Levites ( Ezr 8:16); called in 1 Es 8:44 Joribus. 3. A priest who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:18); called in 1 Es 9:19 Joribus.

JARIMOTH (1 Es 9:28) = Ezr 10:27 Jeremoth.

JARMUTH.—1. A royal city of the Canaanites (Jos 10:3 etc.), in the Shephēlab, assigned to Judah (Jos 15:35). It is probably identical with ‘Jermucha’ of the Onomasticon, 10 Roman miles from Elentheropolis, on the Jerusalem road. This is now Khirbet Yarmūk, between Wādy esSarūr and Wādy es-Sant, about 8 miles N. of Beit Jibrīn. 2. A city in Issachar, allotted to the

Gershonite Levites (Jos 21:29, LXX B Remmath). It corresponds to Ramoth in 1 Ch 6:73, and Remeth appears in Jos 19:21 among the cities of Issachar. Guthe suggests er-Rāmeh, about 11 miles S. W. of Jenīn, but this is uncertain.

W. EWING.

JAROAH.—A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5:14).

JASAELUS (1 Es 9:30) = Ezr 10:29 Sheal.

JASHAR, BOOK OF (sēpher ha-yāshār, ‘Book of the Righteous One’).—An ancient book of national songs, which most likely contained both religious and secular songs describing great events in the history of the nation. In the OT there are two quotations from this book—(a) Jos 10:12, 13; the original form must have been a poetical description of the battle of Gibeon, in which would have been included the old-world account of Jahweh casting down great stones from heaven upon Israel’s enemies. (b) 2 S 1:19–27; in this case the quotation is a much longer one, consisting of David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan. In each case the Book of Jashar is referred to as well known; one might expect, therefore, that other quotations from it would be found in the OT, and perhaps this is actually the case with, e.g., the Song of Deborah (Jg 5) and some other ancient pieces, which originally may have had a reference to their source in the title (e.g. 1 K 8:12f.).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JASHEN.—The sons of Jashen are mentioned in the list of David’s heroes given in 2 S 23:32. In the parallel list (1 Ch 11:34) they appear as the sons of Hashem, who is further described as the Gizonite (wh. see).

JASHOBEAM.—One of David’s mighty men (1 Ch 11:11, 12:6, 27:2). There is reason to believe that his real name was Ishbosheth, i.e. Eshbaal (‘man of Baal’). Cf. ADINO and JOSHEBBASSHEBETH.

JASHUB.—1. Issachar’s fourth son (Nu 26:24, 1 Ch 7:1; called in Gn 46:13 Iob; patron. Jashubites (Nu 26:24). 2. A returned exile who married a foreigner (Ezr 10:29); called in 1 Es 9:30 Jasubus.

JASHUBI-LEHEM.—The eponym of a Judahite family (1 Ch 4:22). The text is manifestly corrupt.

JASON.—This Greek name was adopted by many Jews whose Hebrew designation was

Joshua (Jesus). 1. The son of Eleazar deputed to make a treaty with the Romans, and father of

Antipater who was later sent on a similar errand, unless two different persons are meant (1 Mac 8:17, 12:16, 14:22). 2. Jason of Cyrene, an author, of whose history 2 Mac. (see 2:23, 26) is an epitome (written after B.C. 160). 3. Joshua the high priest, who ousted his brother Onias III. from the office in B.C. 174 (2 Mac 4:7ff.), but was himself driven out three years later, and died among the Lacedæmonians at Sparta (2 Mac 5:9f.). 4. In Ac 17:6ff. a Jason was St. Paul’s host at Thessalonica, from whom the politarchs took bail for his good behaviour, thus (as it seems) preventing St. Paul’s return to Macedonia for a long time (see art. PAUL THE APOSTLE, § 8). The Jason who sends greetings from Corinth in Ro 16:21, a ‘kinsman’ of St. Paul (i.e. a Jew), is probably the same man.

A. J. MACLEAN.

JASPER.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES, p. 467^a.

JASUBUS (1 Es 9:30) = Ezr 10:29 Jashub.

JATHAN.—Son of Shemaiah ‘the great,’ and brother of Ananias the pretended father of Raphael (To 5:13).

JATHNIEL.—A Levitical family (1 Ch 26:2).

JATTIR.—A town of Judah in the southern mountains, a Levitical city (Jos 15:48, 21:14, 1 Ch 6:42). It was one of the cities to whose elders David sent of the spoil from Ziklag (1 S 30:27). Its site is the ruin ‘Attīr, N.E. of Beersheba, on a hill spur close to the southern desert.

JAVAN, the Heb. rendering of the Gr. Iaōn, ‘Ionian, is a general term in the Bible for Ionians or Greeks; very similar forms of the name occur in the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions. In the genealogical table in Gn (10:2, 4) and 1 Ch (1:5, 7) Javan is described as a son of Japheth and the father of Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim (or better, Rodanim, i.e. Rhodes); from the reference to Kittim (Kition) as his son, it is possible that the passage refers particularly to Cyprus. In Is 66:19 Javan is included among the distant countries that will hear of Jahweh’s glory; in Jl 3:6 the sons of the Javanites are referred to as trading in Jewish captives with the Phœnicians and Philistines; in Ezk 27:13 Javan, with Tubal and Meshech, is described as trading with Tyre in slaves and vessels of brass. In all three passages the references are to the Ionian colonies on the coast of Asia Minor. In Ezk 27:19 Javan appears a second time among the nations that traded with Tyre; clearly the Ionians are not intended, and, unless the text is corrupt (as is very probable), the reference may be to an Arab tribe, or perhaps to a Greek colony in Arabia. In Dn 8:21, 10:20, 11:2, where ‘the king,’ ‘the prince,’ and ‘the kingdom’ of Javan are mentioned, the passages have reference to the Græco-Macedonian empire.

L. W. KING.

JAVELIN.—See ARMOUR, ARMS, § 1 (b).

JAZER.—An Amorite town N. of Heshbon, taken by Israel (Nu 21:32), allotted to Gad ( Jos

13:25 etc.), and fortified by it (Nu 32:35). It lay in a district rich in vines (Is 16:8 etc., Jer 48:32).

It is probably represented by Khirbet Sār, about 7 miles W. of ‘Ammān, a mile E. of Wādy Sīr.

Judas Maccabæus took the city, which was then in the hands of the Ammonites (1 Mac 5:9; Jos. Ant. XII. viii. 1).

W. EWING.

JAZIZ.—A Hagrite who was ‘over the flocks’ of king David (1 Ch 27:31).

JEALOUSY.—The law of the ‘jealousy ordeal’ (in which a wife suspected of unfaithfulness had to prove her innocence by drinking the water of bitterness [‘holy water’ mixed with dust from the floor of the Tabernacle]) is found in Nu 5:11–31. The conception of idolatry as adultery and of Jehovah as the Husband of Israel led the OT writers frequently to speak of Him as a jealous God (Ex 20:5, Dt 5:9, Jos 24:19, 1 K 14:22, Ps 78:58, Ezk 36:6, Nah 1:2). This jealousy is the indication of Jehovah’s desire to maintain the purity of the spiritual relation between Himself and His people. Extraordinary zeal for this same end is characteristic of the servants of Jehovah, and is sometimes called jealousy with them (2 Co 11:2, Nu 25:11, 13, 1 K 19:10). A few times the word is used in a bad sense (Ro 13:13, 1 Co 3:3, 2 Co 12:20, Gal 5:20, Ja 3:14 ,

16).

D. A. HAYES.

JEARIM, MOUNT.—Mentioned only in Jos 15:10, where it is identified with Chesalon (wh. see).

JEATHERAI.—An ancestor of Asaph (1 Ch 6:21); called in v. 41 Ethni.

JEBERECHIAH.—The father of Zechariah, a friend of Isaiah (Is 8:2).

JEBUS, JEBUSITES.—The former is a name given to Jerusalem by J in Jg 19:11 and imitated by the Chronicler (1 Ch 11:4); the latter is the tribe which inhabited Jerusalem from before the Israelitish conquest till the reign of David. It was formerly supposed that Jebus was the original name of Jerusalem, but the letters of Abdi-Khiba among the el-Amarna tablets prove that the city was called Jerusalem (Uru-salim) about B.C. 1400. No trace of Jebusites appears then. When they gained possession of it we do not know. J states that at the time of the Israelite conquest the king of Jerusalem was Adoni-zedek (Jos 10:3), and that the Israelites did not expel the Jebusites from the city (Jos 15:63, Jg 1:21). During the time of the Judges he tells us that it was in possession of the Jebusites (Jg 19:11), and gives a brief account of its capture by David (2 S 5:6–8). E mentions the Jebusites only once (Nu 13:29), and then only to say that, like the Hittite and Amorite, they inhabit the mountain. The favourite list of Palestinian nations which D and his followers insert so often usually ends with Jebusite, but adds nothing to their history. P mentions them once (Jos 15:8). They are mentioned in Neh 9:8 and Ezr 9:1 in lists based on D, while Zec 9:7 for archaic effect calls dwellers in Jerusalem ‘Jebusite’ (so Wellhausen, Nowack, and Marti). The name of the king, Adoni-zedek, would indicate that the Jebusites were Semitic,— probably related to the Canaanite tribes.

David captured their city and dwelt in it, and it was subsequently called the ‘city of David.’ From references to this (cf. JERUSALEM) it is clear that the Jebusite city was situated on the southern part of the eastern hill of present Jerusalem, and that that hill was called Zion. Its situation was supposed by the Jebusites to render the city impregnable (2 S 5:6).

One other Jebusite besides Adoni-zedek, namely, Araunah, is mentioned by name. The

Temple is said to have been erected on a threshing-floor purchased from him (cf. 2 S 24:16–24, 2 Ch 3:1). It would seem from this narrative that the Jebusites were not exterminated or expelled, but remained in Jerusalem, and were gradually absorbed by the Israelites.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

JECHILIAH (In 2 K 15:2 Jecoliah).—The mother of king Uzziah (2 Ch 26:3).

JECHONIAH.—See JEHOIACHIN.

JECHONIAS.—1. The Gr. form of the name of king Jeconiah, employed by the English translators in the books rendered from the Greek (Ad. Est 11:4, Bar 1:3, 9); called in Mt 1:11 f. Jechoniah. 2. 1 Es 8:92 = Ezr 10:2 Shecaniah.

JECOLIAH.—See JECHILIAH.

JECONIAH.—See JEHOIACHIN.

JECONIAS.—1. One of the captains over thousands in the time of Josiah (1 Es 1:9); called in 2 Ch 35:9 Conaniah. 2. See JEHOAHAZ, 2.

JEDAIAH.—1. A priestly family (1 Ch 9:10, 24:7, Ezr 2:36 [in 1 Es 5:24 Jeddu], Neh 7:39 , 11:10, 12:6, 7, 19, 21). 2. One of the exiles sent with gifts of gold and silver for the sanctuary at Jerusalem (Zec 6:10, 14). 3. A Simeonite chief (1 Ch 4:37). 4. One of those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3:10).

JEDDU (1 Es 5:24) = Ezr 2:36 Jedaiah.

JEDEUS (1 Es 9:30) = Ezr 10:29 Adaiah.

JEDIAEL.—1. The eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Ch 7:6, 10, 11). 2. One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:45), probably identical with the Manassite of 12:20. 3. The eponym of a family of Korahite porters (1 Ch 26:2).

JEDIDAH.—Mother of Josiah (2 K 22:1).

JEDIDIAH (‘beloved of J″’).—The name given to Solomon by the prophet Nathan (2 S 12:25) ‘for the LORD’S sake.’ See SOLOMON.

JEDUTHUN.—An unintelligible name having to do with the music or the musicians of the Temple. According to 1 Ch 25:1 etc., it was the name of one of the three musical guilds, and it appears in some passages to mask the name Ethan. Jeduthun (Jedithun) occurs in the headings of Pss 39, 62, 77, and appears to refer to an instrument or to a tune. But in our ignorance of Hebrew music it is impossible to do more than guess what Jeduthun really meant.

W. F. COBB.

JEELI (1 Es 5:33) = Ezr 2:56 Jaalah, Neh 7:58 Jaala.

JEELUS (1 Es 8:92) = Ezr 10:2 Jehiel.

JEGAR-SAHADUTHA (‘cairn of witness’).—The name said to have been given by Laban to the cairn erected on the occasion of the compact between him and Jacob (Gn 31:47).

JEHALLELEL.—1. A Judahite (1 Ch 4:16). 2. A Levite (2 Ch 29:12).

JEHDEIAH.—1. The eponym of a Levitical family (1 Ch 24:20). 2. An officer of David (1 Ch 27:30).

JEHEZKEL (‘God strengtheneth,’ the same name as Ezekiel).—A priest, the head of the twentieth course, 1 Ch 24:18.

JEHIAH.—The name of a Levitical family (1 Ch 15:24).

JEHIEL.—1. One of David’s chief musicians (1 Ch 15:18, 20, 16:5). 2. A chief of the Levites (1 Ch 23:8, 29:8). 3. One who was ‘with (= tutor of?) the king’s sons’ (1 Ch 27:32). 4. One of Jehoshaphat’s sons (2 Ch 21:2). 5. One of Hezekiah’s ‘overseers’ (2 Ch 31:13). 6. A ruler of the house of God in Josiah’s reign (2 Ch 35:8). 7. The father of Obadiah, a returned exile ( Ezr 8:9); called in 1 Es 8:35 Jezelus. 8. Father of Shecaniah (Ezr 10:2); called in 1 Es 8:92 Jeelus, perhaps identical with 9. One of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:26); called in 1 Es 9:27 Jezrielus. 10. A priest of the sons of Harim who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:21) ; called in 1 Es 9:21 Hiereel.

JEHIELI.—A patronymic from Jehiel No. 2 (1 Ch 26:21, 22; cf. 23:8, 29:8).

JEHIZKIAH.—An Ephraimite who supported the prophet Oded in opposing the bringing of Judæan captives to Samaria (2 Ch 28:12 ff. ).

JEHOADDAH.—A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:36); called in 9:42 Jarah.

JEHOADDAN (2 Ch 25:1 and, as vocalized, 2 K 14:2. The consonants of the text in 2 K 14:2 give the form Jehoaddin [so RV]).—Mother of Amaziah king of Judah.

JEHOAHAZ

1. Jehoahaz of Israel (in 2 K 14:1 and 2 Ch 34:8, 36:2, 4 Joahaz) succeeded his father Jehu. Our records tell us nothing of him except the length of his reign, which is given as seventeen years (2 K 13:1), and the low estate of his kingdom, owing to the aggressions of Syria. A turn for the better seems to have come before his death, because the forces of Assyria pressing on the north of Damascus turned the attention of that country away from Israel (vv. 3–5).

2. Jehoahaz of Judah (in 1 Es 1:34 Joachaz or Jeconias; in v. 38 Zarakes) was the popular choice for the throne after the death of Josiah (2 K 23:30). But Pharaoh-necho, who had obtained possession of all Syria, regarded his coronation as an act of assumption, deposed him in favour of his brother Jehoiakim, and carried him away to Egypt, where he died (v. 34). Jeremiah, who calls him Shallum, finds his fate sadder than that of his father who fell in battle (Jer 22:10–12).

3. 2 Ch 21:17, 25:23 = Ahaziah, No. 2.

H. P. SMITH.

JEHOASH, in the shorter form JOASH, is the name of a king in each of the two lines, Israel and Judah.

1. Jehoash of Judah was the son of Ahaziah. When an infant his brothers and cousins were massacred, some of them by Jehu and some by Athaliah. After being kept in concealment until he was seven years old, he was crowned by the bodyguard under the active leadership of Jehoiada, the chief priest. In his earlier years he was under the influence of the man to whom he owed the throne, but later be manifested his independence. Besides an arrangement which he made with the priests about certain moneys which came into their hands, the record tells us only that an invasion of the Syrians compelled him to pay a heavy tribute. This was drawn from the Temple treasury. Jehoash was assassinated by some of his officers (2 K 11 f.).

2. Jehoash of Israel was the third king of the line of Jehu. The turn of the tide in the affairs of Israel came about the time of his accession. The way in which the Biblical author indicates this is characteristic. He tells us that when Elisha was about to die Jehoash came to visit him, and wept over him as a great power about to be lost to Israel. Elisha bade him take bow and arrows and shoot the arrow of victory towards Damascus, then to strike the ground with the arrows. The three blows which he struck represent the three victories obtained by Jehoash, and the blame expressed by Elisha indicates that his contemporaries thought the king slack in following up his advantage. Jehoash also obtained a signal victory over Judah in a war wantonly provoked, it would seem, by Amaziah, king of Judah (2 K 13:10 ff. ).

H. P. SMITH.

JEHOHANAN.—1. 1 Ch 26:3 a Korahite doorkeeper. 2. 2 Ch 17:15 one of Jehoshaphat’s five captains. 3. Ezr 10:6 (Jonas, 1 Es 9:1; Johanan, Neh 12:22, 23; Jonathan, Neh 12:11) high priest. He is called son of Eliashib in Ezr 10:6, Neh 12:23, but was probably his grandson, Joiada being his father (Neh 12:11, 22). 4. Ezr 10:28 (= Joannes, 1 Es 9:29), one of those who had taken ‘strange’ wives. 5. Neh 6:18 son of Tobiah the Ammonite. 6. Neh 12:13 a priest in the days of Joiakim. 7. Neh 12:42 a priest present at the dedication of the walls.

JEHOIACHIN, king of Judah, ascended the throne when Nebuchadrezzar was on the march to punish the rebellion of Jehoiakim. On the approach of the Chaldæan army, the young king surrendered and was carried away to Babylon (2 K 24:8ff.). His reign had lasted only three months, but his confinement in Babylon extended until the death of Nebuchadrezzar—thirtyseven years. Ezekiel, who seems to have regarded him as the rightful king of Judah even in captivity, pronounced a dirge over him (19:1ff.). At the accession of Evil-merodach he was freed from durance, and received a daily allowance from the palace (2 K 25:27f.). Jeremiah gives his name in 24:1, 27:20, 28:4, 29:2 as Jeconiah, and in 22:24, 28, 37:1 as Coniah. In 1 Es 1:43 he is called Joakim, in Bar 1:3, 9 Jechonias, and in Mt 1:11, 12 Jechoniah.

H. P. SMITH.

JEHOIADA.—1. Father of Benaiah, the successor of Joab, 2 S 8:18, 20:23 etc. It is probably the same man that is referred to in 1 Ch 12:27, 27:34, where we should probably read ‘Benaiah the son of Jehoiada.’ 2. The chief priest of the Temple at the time of Ahaziah’s death (2

K 11:4 etc.). The Book of Chronicles makes him the husband of the princess Jehosheba ( or Jehoshabeath, 2 Ch 22:11), by whose presence of mind the infant prince Jehoash escaped the massacre by which Athaliah secured the throne for herself. Jehoiada must have been privy to the concealment of the prince, and it was he who arranged the coup d’état which placed the rightful heir on the throne. In this he may have been moved by a desire to save Judah from vassalage to Israel, as much as by zeal for the legitimate worship.

H. P. SMITH.

JEHOIAKIM, whose original name was Eliakim, was placed upon the throne of Judah by Pharaoh-necho, who deposed the more popular Jehoabaz. His reign of eleven years is not well spoken of by Jeremiah. The religious abuses which had been abolished by Josiah seem to have returned with greater strength than ever. At a time when the kingdom was impoverished by war and by the exactions of Egypt, Jehoiakim occupied himself in extravagant schemes of building to be carried out by forced labour (2 K 23:24–24:7). Things were so had that in the fourth year of his reign Jeremiah dictated to Baruch a summary of all his earlier discourses, and bade him read it in public as though to indicate that there was no longer any hope. The king showed his contempt for the prophetic word by burning the roll. Active persecution of the prophetic party followed, in which one man at least was put to death. Jeremiah’s escape was due to powerful friends at court (Jer 22:13–19, 36:1–26, 26:20–24). It was about the time of the burning of the Book of Jeremiah that the Egyptian supremacy was ended by the decisive battle of Carchemish. The evacuation of Palestine followed, and Jehoiakim was obliged to submit to the Babylonians. His heart, however, was with the Pharaoh, to whom he owed his elevation. After three years he revolted from the Babylonian rule. Nebuchadrezzar thought to bring him into subjection by sending guerilla bands to harry the country, but as this did not succeed, he invaded Judah with an army of regulars. Before he reached Jerusalem, Jehoiakim died, and the surrender which was inevitable, was made by his son. Whether Jeremiah’s prediction that the corpse of the king should be denied decent burial was fulfilled is not certain.

H. P. SMITH.

JEHOIARIB (1 Ch 9:10, 24:7, elsewhere Joiarib; called in 1 Mac 2:1 Joarib).—The name of one of the twenty-four courses of priests; first in David’s time (1 Ch 24:7), but seventeenth in the time of Zerub. (Neh 12:6) and of the high priest Joiakim (12:19). The name is omitted, probably by accident, in the list of the priests that ‘sealed to the covenant’ (Neh 10). The clan is mentioned among those that dwelt in Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (11:10).

JEHONADAB or JONADAB.—1. Son of Shimeah, David’s brother, and the friend of Amnon the son of David. He is described as ‘a very subtil man.’ He aided Amnon to carry out his intrigue against his half-sister Tamar (2 S 13:3ff.), and after the assassination of Amnon was the first to grasp the true state of affairs, and to allay the king’s distress by his prompt report of the safety of the royal princes (2 S 13:30ff.). 2. Son of Rechab, of the clan of the Kenites (1 Ch 2:55), and formulator of the rules imposed upon descendants, the Rechabites (Jer 35; see

RECHABITES). Jehonadab was thoroughly in sympathy with the measures adopted by Jehu for the vindication of the religion of J″ (2 K 10:15, 23).

JEHONATHAN.—A more exact rendering of the name usually represented in English as Jonathan. In RV this form occurs twice. 1. 2 Ch 17:8 one of the Levites sent out by Jehoshaphat with the Book of the Law to teach the people in the cities of Judah. 2. Neh 12:18 the head of the priestly family of Shemaiah in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua.

JEHORAM, in the shorter form JORAM, is the name of two kings in the OT.

1. Jehoram of Israel was a son of Ahab (2 K 3:1), and came to the throne after the brief reign of his brother Ahaziah. The first thing that claimed his attention was the revolt of Moab. This he endeavoured to suppress, and with the aid of Jehoshaphat of Judah he obtained some successes. But at the crisis of the conflict the king of Moab sacrificed his son to his god Chemosh. The result was that the invading army was discouraged, and the allies retreated without having accomplished their purpose (2 K 3:4ff.). It is probable that the Moabites assumed the offensive, and took the Israelite cities of whose capture Mesha boasts. The prophet Elisha was active during the reign of Jehoram, and it is probable that the siege of Samaria, of which we have so graphic an account in 2 K 6 and 7, also belongs to this period. Jehoram engaged in the siege of Ramoth-gilead, and was wounded there. The sequel in the revolt of Jehu is well known. See JEHU.

2. Jehoram of Judah, son of Jehoshaphat, came to the throne during the reign of the other Jehoram in Israel. He was married to Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. All that the history tells us is that he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and that Edom revolted successfully from Judah in his time. In endeavouring to subdue this revolt Jehoram was in great danger, but with a few of his men he cut his way through the troops that surrounded him (2 K 8:16–24).

3. A priest sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the Law (2 Ch 17:8).

H. P. SMITH.

JEHOSHABEATH.—See JEHOSHEBA.

JEHOSHAPHAT.—1. The ‘recorder’ in the reigns of David and Solomon (2 S 8:16 etc., 1 K 4:3). 2. One of Solomon’s commissariat officers (1 K 4:17). 3. Father of king Jehu (2 K 9:2 ,

14). 4. The son of Asa, king of Judah. He receives a good name from the compiler of the Book of Kings (1 K 22:43). This is chiefly because he carried out the religious reforms of his father. The important thing in his reign was the alliance of Judah with Israel (v. 44), which put an end to

their long hostility. Some suppose the smaller kingdom to have been tributary to the larger, but on this point our sources are silent. The alliance was cemented by the marriage of the crown prince Jehoram to Ahab’s daughter Athaliah (2 K 8:18). Jehoshaphat appears as the ally of Ahab against Syria, and himself went into the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 K 22). He also assisted Ahab’s son against the Moabites (2 K 3). He seems to have had trouble with his own vassals in Edom, and his attempt to renew Solomon’s commercial ventures on the Red Sea was unsuccessful (1 K 22:48).

H. P. SMITH.

JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF (Jl 3:2, 12).—The deep valley to the E. of Jerusalem, between the city and the Mt. of Olives, has since the 4th cent. A.D. been identified by an unbroken Christian tradition with the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Moslems and Jews have also for centuries looked upon this valley as the scene of the Last Judgment. The Jews especially consider this of all places on earth the most suitable for burial, as it is taught that all bodies buried elsewhere must find their way thither at the last day. The valley was the ordinary place for graves in pre-exilic times (2 K 23:6 etc.). In spite, however, of these traditions, it is quite probable that the name of this valley was at one time Wady Sha‘fāt, from the neighbouring village of Sha‘fāt, and that this suggested to early Christian pilgrims, in search of sites, the Biblical name Jehoshaphat. The so-called ‘Tomb of Jehoshaphat,’ which lies near the traditional ‘Tomb of Absalom,’ is an impossible site, for in 1 K 22:50 and 2 Ch 21:1 it is stated that he was buried in the city of David. The valley, moreover, does not suit the conditions, in that it is a nachal (wady)—the nachal Kidron (wh. see),—whereas the Valley of Jehoshaphat was in Heb. an ‘ēmeq (a wide, open valley). It has been suggested that the valley (‘ēmeq) of Beracah, where Jehoshaphat returned thanks after his great victory (2 Ch 20:26), may be the place referred to by Joel. It is, however, at least as probable that the prophet did not refer to any special locality and gave the name Jehoshaphat, i.e. ‘Jehovah judges,’ to an ideal spot.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

JEHOSHEBA (2 K 11:2; Jehoshabeath in 2 Ch 22:11).—Daughter of Jehoram of Judah. On the death of her half-brother Ahaziah, she was instrumental in preserving the Davidic stock, by concealing the infant Jehoash in a lumber-room of the palace (RVm). According to the Chronicler, she was wife of Jehoiada.

JEHOVAH—See God, § 2 (f).

JEHOVAH-JIREH.—The name given by Abraham (Gn 22:14) to the spot where he offered a ram in place of his son. The name means ‘Jehovah sees,’ and probably also (with reference to Gn 22:8) ‘Jehovah provides.’ The proverb connected in v. 14 with the name clearly relates to the Temple hill, ‘the mount of the Lord.’ But it is not easy to see the exact connexion between the name and the proverb. The most obvious translation is ‘in the mount of Jehovah one appears’ (referring to the festal pilgrimages to Jerusalem), but in that case the connexion can be only verbal. Other possible translations are: (1) ‘In the mount of Jehovah it is seen,’ i.e. provided; this is a possible translation in the context; but it appears to be suggested that the proverb had an existence independently of the tradition of Abraham’s sacrifice; in which case the meaning assigned to the verb is not a natural or obvious one. (2) ‘In the mount of Jehovah, Jehovah is seen.’ The significance of the phrase would then be that, as Jehovah sees the needs of those who come to worship Him, so as a practical result He is seen by them as a helper. Other translations have been suggested which do not, however, alter the general sense. Driver decides that, unless the connexion be regarded as purely verbal, the last suggestion quoted above seems the most satisfactory. In any case, the point lies in the relation between the name which Abraham gave to the place of his sacrifice and some popular proverb dealing with the Temple at Jerusalem.

A. W. F. BLUNT.

JEHOVAH-NISSI (‘J″ is my banner’).—The name given by Moses to the altar he erected after the defeat of Amalek, Ex 17:15 (E). God is considered the centre or rallying point of the army of Israel, and the name of God as their battle-cry (cf. Ps 20:7f.). The interpretation of v. 16 is somewhat doubtful. Many critics read nēs (‘banner’) for kēs (= kisseh, ‘throne’), but this appears neither to be necessary nor to yield a suitable sense. The meaning is probably either ‘J″ hath sworn, (EV), or ‘I (Moses) swear’ (with hand uplifted to J″’s throne).

JEHOVAH-SHALOM.—The name given by Gideon to the altar he erected in Ophrah ( Jg

6:24). The name means ‘J″ is peace’ (i.e. well-disposed), in allusion to J″’s words in v. 23 ‘Peace be unto thee.’

JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH (‘J″ is there’).—The name to be given to the restored and glorified Jerusalem (Ezk 48:35; cf. Is 60:14–22, 62:2, Rev 21:2f.). ‘The prophet beheld the LORD forsake His temple (ch. 11), and he beheld Him again enter it (ch. 43); now He abides in it among His people for ever.’

JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU (‘J″ is our righteousness,’ or ‘J″ our righteousness,’ Jer 23:6,

33:16).—In both passages (which are in fact the same prophecy repeated) it is the title of the

Branch, the perfectly Righteous King, who is to rule over the people on their return from the Captivity.

JEHOZABAD.—1. One of the servants of king Joash who conspired against his master and joined in his assassination (2 K 12:21 = 2 Ch 24:26). 2. A Benjamite chief (2 Ch 17:18). 3. A Levitical family (1 Ch 26:4). A shortened form of the name is Jozabad (wh. see).

JEHOZADAK.—Father of Joshua the high priest (1 Ch 6:14, 15, Hag 1:1, 12, 14, 2:2, 4 , Zec 6:11). The name is shortened to Jozadak in Ezr 3:2, 8, 5:2, 10:18, Neh 12:26. It appears as Josedek in 1 Es 5:5, 48, 56, 6:2, 9:19, Sir 49:12.

JEHU.—1. A prophet, the son of Hanani (1 K 16:1 etc.). 2. A Judahite (1 Ch 2:38). 3. A Simeonite (1 Ch 4:35). 4. One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 12:3). 5. A king of Israel. Like the other founders of dynasties in that country, he obtained the throne by the murder of his monarch. It is evident that a considerable party in Israel bad long been dissatisfied with the house of Ahab. This was partly on account of its religious policy, but perhaps even more for its oppression of its subjects,—so emphatically illustrated by the story of Naboth. The leader of the opposition was Elijah, and after him Elisha. Jehu, when in attendance upon Ahab, had heard Elijah’s denunciation of the murder of Naboth (2 K 9:25f.). Later he was general of the army, and commanded in the operations at Ramoth-gilead in the absence of king Jehoram. The latter had gone to Jezreel on account of wounds he had received. Elisha saw this to be the favourable moment to start the long-planned revolt. His disciple anointed the general, and the assent of the army was easily obtained. The vivid narrative of Jehu’s prompt action is familiar to every reader of the OT. The king was taken completely by surprise, and he and his mother were slain at once (2 K 9, 10).

The extermination of Ahab’s house was a foregone conclusion. The skill of Jehu is seen in his making the chief men in the kingdom partners in the crime. The extermination of the royal house in Judah seems uncalled for, but was perhaps excused by the times on account of the close relationship with the family of Ahab. It has been suggested that Jehu purposed to put an end to the independence of Judah, and to incorporate it fully with his own kingdom. But we have no direct evidence on this head. Hosea saw that the blood of Jezreel rested upon the house of Jehu, and that it would be avenged (Hos 1:4).

Elisha’s activity extended through the reign of Jehu, but the narrative of the prophet’s life tells us little of the king. From another source—the Assyrian inscriptions—we learn that Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser in the year 842 B.C., which must have been the year of his accession. He probably hoped to secure the great king’s protection against Damascus. But he was disappointed in this, for after a single expedition to the West in 839 the Assyrians were occupied in the East. The latter portion of Jehu’s reign was therefore a time of misfortune for Israel.

H. P. SMITH. JEHUBBAH.—An Asberite (1 Ch 7:34).

JEHUCAL.—A courtier sent by king Zedekiah to entreat for the prayers of Jeremiah ( Jer 37:3f.); called in Jer 38:1 Jucal.

JEHUD.—A town of Dan, named between Baalath and Bene-berak (Jos 19:45). It is probably the modern el-Yehūdīyeh, 8 miles E. of Joppa.

JEHUDI (generally = ‘a Jew,’ but appears to be a proper name in Jer 36:14, 21, 23).—An officer of Jehoiakim, at whose summons Baruch read to the princes of Judah the roll of

Jeremiah’s prophecies, and who was afterwards himself employed to read the roll to the king.

JEHUDIJAH (1 Ch 4:18 AV).—See HAJEHUDIJAH.

JEHUEL.—A Hemanite in Hezekiah’s reign (2 Ch 29:14).

JEIEL.—1. A Reubenite (1 Ch 5:7). 2. An ancestor of Saul (1 Ch 8:29, supplied in RV from

9:35). 3. One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:44). 4. 5. The name of two Levite families: (a) 1 Ch 15:18, 21, 16:5, 6, 2 Ch 20:14; (b) 2 Ch 35:9 [1 Es 1:9 Ochielus]. 6. A scribe in the reign of Uzziah (2 Ch 26:11). 7. One of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:43). In 2. 3. 6. Kethībh has Jeuel.

JEKABZEEL (Neh 11:25).—See KABZEEL.

JEKAMEAM.—A Levite (1 Ch 23:19, 24:28).

JEKAMIAH.—1. A Judahite (1 Ch 2:41). 2. A son of king Jeconiah (1 Ch 3:18).

JEKUTHIEL.—A man of Judah (1 Ch 4:18).

JEMIMAH.—The eldest of Job’s daughters born to him after his restoration to prosperity (Job 42:14).

JEMNAAN (Jth 2:28).—See JABNEEL.

JEMUEL.—A son of Simeon (Gn 46:10, Ex 6:15) = Nemuel of Nu 26:12, 1 Ch 4:24.

JEPHTHAH.—Spoken of simply as ‘the Gileadite,’ and as being a ‘mighty man of valour.’ In Jg 11:1 it is said that he was ‘the son of a harlot,’ for which cause he was driven out from his home in Gilead by his brethren. Hereupon he gathers a band of followers, and leads the life of a freebooter in the land of Tob. Some time after this, Gilead is threatened with an attack by the Ammonites, and Jephthah is besought to return to his country in order to defend it; he promises to lead his countrymen against the Ammonites on condition of his being made chief (king?) if he returns victorious. Not only is this agreed to, but he is forthwith made head of his people ( Jg 11:4–11).

In the long passage which follows, 11:12–28, Israel’s claim to possess Gilead is urged by messengers who are sent by Jephthah to the Ammonite king; the passage, however, is concerned mostly with the Moabites (cf. Nu 20, 21), and is clearly out of place here.

The ‘spirit of the Lord’ comes upon Jephthah, and he marches out to attack the Ammonites. On his way he makes a vow that if he returns from the battle victorious, he will offer up, as a thanksgiving to Jahweh, whoever comes out of his house to welcome him. He defeats the Ammonites, and, on his return, his daughter, an only child, comes out to meet him. The father beholds his child, according to our present text, with horror and grief, but cannot go back upon his word. The daughter begs for two months’ respite, in order to go into the mountains to ‘bewail her virginity.’ At the end of this period she returns, and Jephthah fulfils his vow ( an archæological note is here appended, 11:40, concerning which see below). There follows then an episode which recalls Jg 8:1–3; the Ephraimites resent not having been called by Jephthah to fight against the Ammonites, just as they resented not being called by Gideon to fight against the Midianites; in the present case, however, the matter is not settled amicably; a battle follows, in which Jephthah is again victorious; the Ephraimites flee, but are intercepted at the fords of Jordan, and, being recognized by their inability to pronounce the ‘sh’ in the word Shibboleth, are slain. Jephthah, after continuing his leadership for six years, dies, and is buried in Gilead, but the precise locality is not indicated.

Whether the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter be historical or not, its mention is of considerable interest, inasmuch as it bears witness to the prevalence among the early Israelites of practices which were widely recognized among ancient peoples as belonging to the essentials of religion. In the story before us we obviously must not expect to see the original form; it is a compilation from more than one source, and has been worked over in the interests of later religious conceptions; that two totally distinct practices have, therefore, got mixed up together need cause no surprise. The first of these practices was the sacrifice of a human being at times of special stress (the sacrifice of the firstborn belongs to a different category); the second is that known as the ‘Weeping for Tammuz.’ Among early peoples there were certain rites which represented the death and resurrection of vegetation, in connexion with which various myths arose. In their original form (in which human sacrifice played a part) these rites were intended, and believed, to be the means of assisting Nature to bring forth the fruits of the earth. Among such rites was that known as ‘the Weeping for Tammuz’ (= Adonis), cf. Ezk 8:14; the rite was based on the myth that Tammuz, a beautiful youth, was killed by a boar; Tammuz was the personification of the principle of vegetation, and represented the Summer, while the boar represented the Winter. This death of Tammuz was celebrated annually with bitter wailing, chiefly by women (Jg 11:40); often ( though not always, for the rite differed in different localities) his resurrection was celebrated the next day, thus ensuring by means of imitative magic the re-appearance of fresh vegetation in its time.

The ‘bewailing of virginity’ (v. 37), and the note, ‘she had not known a man’ (v. 39), are inserted to lay stress on the fact that if Jephthah’s daughter had had a husband, or had been a mother, her father would have had no power over her; since, in the one case, her husband would have been her possessor, and in the other, she could have claimed protection from the father of the child, whether the latter were alive or not.

W. O. E.OESTERLEY.

JEPHUNNEH.—1. The father of Caleb (Nu 13:6). 2. A son of Jether an Asherite (1 Ch

7:38).

JERAH.—Mentioned in the genealogies of Gn 10:26 and 1 Ch 1:20 as a son of Joktan. Probably, in analogy with other names in this connexion, Jerah is to be taken as the designation of an Arabian tribe. The Arabic geographers refer to places named Warākh, Yurākh, and Yarāch, with any one of which it might be identified. On the other hand, in Hebrew the word signifies ‘new moon’; it may therefore be the translation of a totemic clan-name. In fact, Bochart pointed out that ‘sons of the moon’ is a patronymic still found in Arabia.

W. M. NESBIT.

JERAHMEEL (‘May El have compassion!’) 1. A non-Israelite clan in the extreme S. of Palestine, with which David cultivated friendly relations during his exile (1 S 27:10, 30:29). After Saul’s death the Jerahmeelites formed part of the little principality over which he reigned in Hebron. How indistinct the recollection of them was appears from the various forms assumed by their name in MSS of the LXX: Jesmega, Isramelei, Aermon, Israel, Jeramelei. Subsequently they were considered to have been a Judahite clan (1 Ch 2:9, 25ff., 35–42: here Jerahmeel is Caleb’s elder brother; the list of his descendants in vv. 35–42 is of later origin than vv. 9, 25–27 and brings them down to the Chronicler’s day). We have no historical or other records connected with these names, save that Molid (v. 29) is a town mentioned elsewhere (Jos 19:2, Neh 11:26). 2. LXX and Old Lat. read ‘Jerahmeel’ at 1 S 1:1 as the name of Samuel’s grandfather. In all probability the Jeroham of MT is an abbreviated form, like Jacob for Jacob-el, or the Yarkhamu found in a Babylonian list of Hammurabi’s time. 3. One of the three men ordered by Jehoiakim to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch (Jer 36:26). AV follows Vulg. (filio Amelech), calling him ‘son of Hammelech’: RV, with LXX, ‘the king’s son.’ He was a scion of the royal house, but not necessarily a child of Jehoiakim. 4. In a list of Levites (1 Ch 24:20–31) drawn up considerably later than that in 23:6ff., Jerahmeel’s name is added as son of Kish (MT ‘sons’: the text is in a confused state). There must at the time have been a division of Levites called after him, and not, as previously, after Kish.

J. TAYLOR.

JERECHU (1 Es 5:22) = Ezr 2:34, Neh 7:36 Jericho.

JERED (the same name as Jared in Gn 5:15, 16, 18, 20, 1 Ch 1:2).—A Judahite (1 Ch

4:18).

JEREMAI.—A Jew of the family of Hashum who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:33 [1 Es 9:34 Jeremias]).

JEREMIAH.—1. A warrior of the tribe of Gad, fifth in reputation (1 Ch 12:10). 2. The tenth in reputation (1 Ch 12:13) of the same Gadite band. 3. A bowman and slinger of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Ch 12:4). 4. The head of a family in E.Manasseh (1 Ch 5:24). 5. A Jew of Libnah, whose daughter, Hamutal or Hamital, was one of the wives of Josiah, and mother of Jehoahaz (2 K 23:31) and Zedekiah (2 K 24:18, Jer 52:1). 6. The son of Habazziniah and father of Jaazaniah, the head of the Rechabites (Jer 35:3) in the time of the prophet Jeremiah. 7. A priest who

returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:1). His name was given to one of the twenty-two courses of priests (Ezr 2:38–39, Neh 7:39–42, 12:13). 8. A priest who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:2) and took part in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (12:34). 9. The prophet. See next article.

JEREMIAH

1. The times.—Jeremiah the prophet was born towards the close of Manasseh’s long and evil reign (c. B.C. 696–641), the influence of which overshadowed his life (Jer 15:4, 2 K 23:26). He prophesied under Josiah and his sons from the year 626 to the fall of Jerusalem in B.C. 586 (1:2f.), and for some short time after this until he vanishes from sight amongst the fugitive Jews in Egypt (chs. 40–44).

Through Josiah’s minority (see JOSIAH) the ethnicizing régime of Manasseh continued; Jeremiah’s earliest preaching (chs. 2–6), and the prophecies of his contemporary Zephaniah ( wh. see), reveal a medley of heathen worships in Jerusalem, gross oppression and profligacy, insolence and insensibility characterizing both court and people. Meanwhile an international crisis is approaching. The giant power of Asshur, which for a century had dominated Israel’s world, is in rapid decline, and is threatened by the new Median State on its eastern border; Nahum (wh. see) had already celebrated Nineveh’s downfall in his splendid verses. The Assyrian capital was saved for the time by the irruption of the Scythian nomads (Ezekiel’s Gog and Magog), who were swarming southwards from the Oxus plains and over the Caucasus passes. These hordes of wild horsemen overran Western Asia for a generation, leaving a lasting horror behind them. Nineveh avoided capture by the Medes in 625 only at the expense of seeing her lands wasted and her dependencies stripped from her. The war-cloud of the Scythian invasion overhangs the sky of Zephaniah, and of Jeremiah at the outset of his ministry. The territory of Judah seems, after all, to have escaped the Scythian deluge, which swept to the borders of Egypt. The nomad cavalry would reach with difficulty the Judæan highlands; and if Josiah, coming of age about this time, showed a bold front against them and saved his country from their ravages, we can account for the prestige that he enjoyed and used to such good purpose. At the same date, or even earlier, the Assyrian over-lordship had been renounced; for we find Josiah exercising independent sovereignty. It was not as the vassal of Nineveh, but in the assertion of his hereditary rights and as guardian of the old territory of Israel, that he challenged Pharaoh-necho, who was attempting to seize the lost western provinces of Assyria, to the fatal encounter of Megiddo in the year 608 (2 K 22:2, 23:15–20, 2 Ch 35:20). The Pharaoh pointedly calls him

‘thou king of Judah,’ as if bidding him keep within his bounds (2 Ch 35:21). Jeremiah praises Josiah, in contrast to his son, as an upright and prosperous king, good to the poor and commending his religion by his rule (Jer 22:15–17).

The great event of Josiah’s reign was the reformation effected by him in its eighteenth year

(B.C. 621), upon the discovery of ‘the book of the law’ in the Temple (2 K 22:8–23:25; see DEUTERONOMY). So far as concerned outward religion, this was a drastic and enduring revolution. Not merely the later idolatries imported from the East under the Assyrian supremacy, but also the indigenous rites of Molech and the Baalim were abolished. Above all, an end was put to the immemorial cultus of the local ‘high places,’ at which the service of Jehovah had been corrupted by mixture with that of the Canaanite divinities. Worship was centralized at the royal Temple of Jerusalem; and the ‘covenant’ with Jehovah made by king and people there in the terms of Deuteronomy, followed by the memorable Passover feast, was designed to inaugurate a new order of things in the life of the people; this proved, in fact, a turning-point in Israel’s history. However disappointing in its immediate spiritual effects, the work of Josiah and his band of reformers gave the people a written law-book and a definitely organized religious system, which they carried with them into the Exile to form the nucleus of the OT Scriptures and the basis of the later Judaism.

The fall of Josiah in battle concluded the interval of freedom and prosperity enjoyed by Judah under his vigorous rule. For three years the country was subject to the victorious Pharaoh, who deposed and deported Shalum-Jehoahaz, the national choice, replacing him on the throne of Judah by his brother Eliakim-Jehoiakim. The great battle of Carchemish (605), on the Euphrates, decided the fate of Syria and Palestine; the empire of Western Asia, quickly snatched from Egypt, passed into the strong hands of the Chaldæan king Nebuchadrezzar, the destined destroyer of Jerusalem. From this time ‘Babylon’ stands for the tyrannous and corrupting powers of the world; she becomes, for Scripture and the Church, the metropolis of the kingdom of Satan, as ‘Jerusalem’ of the kingdom of the saints. The Chaldæan empire was a revival of the Assyrian,—less brutal and destructive, more advanced in civilization, but just as sensual and sordid, and exploiting the subject races as thoroughly as its predecessor. The prophecies of

Habakkuk (chs. 1 and 2) reveal the intense hatred and fear excited by the approach of the Chaldæans; the ferocity of Nebuchadrezzar’s troops was probably aggravated by the incorporation with them of Scythian cavalry, large bodies of which still roamed south of the Caspian. The repeated and desperate revolts made by the Judæans are accounted for by the harshness of Nebuchadrezzar’s yoke, to escape which Tyre endured successfully a thirteen years’ siege. His enormous works of building (see Hab 2:12, 13) must have involved crushing exactions from the tributaries.

Jehoiakim, after Carchemish, transferred his allegiance to Babylon. For three years he kept faith with Nebuchadrezzar, and then—apparently without allies or reasonable hope of support— rebelled (2 K 24:1). Jehoiakim was a typical Eastern despot, self-willed, luxurious, unprincipled, oppressive towards his own people, treacherous and incompetent in foreign policy. Jeremiah denounces him vehemently; the wonder is that he did not fall a victim to the king’s anger, like his disciple Uriah (Jer 26:20–24, 36:26–30, 22:13–19). The revived national faith in Jehovah, which had rested on Josiah’s political success, was shaken by his fall; the character of the new king, and the events of his reign, furthered the reaction. A popular Jehovist party existed; but this was the most dangerous factor in the situation. Its leaders—the prophet Hananiah amongst them (Jer 28)—preached out of season Isaiah’s old doctrine of the inviolability of Zion; even after the capture of Jerusalem in 597 and the first exile, ‘the prophets’ promised in Jehovah’s name a speedy re-instatement. The possession of the Temple and the observance of the Law, they held, bound Jehovah to His people’s defence. The fanaticism thus excited, of which the Jewish race has given so many subsequent examples, brought about the second, and fatal, rupture with Babylon.

Nebuchadrezzar showed a certain forbearance towards Judah. On Jehoiakim’s first revolt, in 601, he let loose bands of raiders on the Judæan territory (2 K 24:2; cf. Jer 12:9, 14); four years later be marched on the capital. Jehoiakim died just before this; his youthful son Jehoiachin (called also Jeconiah and Coniah) surrendered the city, and was carried captive, with the queenmother and the élite of the nobles and people, to Babylon, where he lived for many years, to be released upon Nebuchadrezzar’s death in 561 (2 K 24:6–17, 25:27–30, Jer 22:24–30).

The reign of Mattaniah-Zedekiah, raised to the throne by Nebuchadrezzar, was in effect a repetition of that of his elder brother. Zedekiah failed through weakness more than through wickedness; he sought Jeremiah’s advice, but lacked decision to follow it. Early in his reign a conspiracy was on foot in Palestine against the Chaldæans, which he was tempted to join ( Jer 27:1–11; see RVm on v. 1). The Judæans, instead of being cowed by the recent punishment, were eager for a rising; public opinion expressed itself in Hananiah’s contradiction to Jeremiah’s warnings (ch. 28). The same false hopes were exciting the exiles in Babylon (ch. 29). Nebuchadrezzar, aware of these movements, summoned Zedekiah to Babylon (Jer 51:59); the latter was able, however, to clear himself of complicity, and returned to Jerusalem. At last Zedekiah yielded to the tide; he broke his oaths of allegiance to Nebuchadrezzar—conduct sternly condemned by Ezekiel (17:11–21) as well as by Jeremiah—and the Jewish people were launched on a struggle almost as mad as that which it undertook with Rome 650 years later. The siege of Jerusalem was stubbornly prolonged for two years (588–586). The Egyptians under the new and ambitious Pharaohhophra (Apries, 588–569), effected a diversion of the Chaldæan troops (Jer 37:5–10, Ezk 17:15); but, as often before, Pharaoh proved ‘a broken reed to those who trusted in him.’ Reduced by famine, Jerusalem was stormed, Zedekiah being captured in his attempt to escape, and meeting a pitiable death (2 K 25:1–7). This time Nebuchadrezzar made an end of the rebels. Jerusalem was razed to the ground; the survivors of the siege, and of the executions that followed, were carried into exile. A remnant, of no political importance, was left to till the ground; the bulk of these, after the tragic incidents related in Jer 39–43, fled to Egypt. Jeremiah, who had in vain resisted this migration, was carried with the runaways; he had the distress of seeing his companions relapse into open idolatry, protesting that they had fared better when worshipping ‘the queen of heaven’ than under the national Jehovah. Jewish tradition relates that he died at the hands of his incensed fellow-exiles. The prophet’s prediction that the sword of Nebuchadrezzar would follow the fugitives, was fulfilled by the Chaldæan invasion of Lower Egypt in the year 569, if not earlier than this. The Babylonian empire lasted from B.C. 605 to 538,—a little short of the ‘70 years’ assigned to it, in round numbers, by Jeremiah (25:11 , 29:10).

2. The man.—The Book of Jeremiah is largely autobiographical. The author became, unconsciously, the hero of his work. This prophet’s temperament and experience have coloured his deliverances in a manner peculiar amongst OT writers. His teaching, moreover, marks an evolution in the Israelite religion, which acquires a more personal stamp as its national framework is broken up. In Jeremiah’s life we watch the spirit of revelation being driven inwards, taking refuge from the shipwreck of the State in the soul of the individual. Jeremiah is the prophet of that ‘church within the nation,’ traceable in its beginnings to Isaiah’s time, to which the future of revealed religion is henceforth committed. This inner community of heartbelievers survived the Exile; it gave birth to the Bible and the synagogue.

Jeremiah was a native of Anathoth, a little town some 3¹/₂miles N. E.from Jerusalem, perched high on the mountain-ridge and commanding an extensive view over the hills of Ephraim and the Jordan valley, towards which his memory often turned (4:15, 7:14, 15, 12:5 , 31:4–5, 18, 49:19). Jeremiah had no mere Judæan outlook; the larger Israel was constantly in his thoughts. His father was ‘Hilkiah [not the Hilkiah of 2 K 22:4], of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin’ (1:1); but he does not show, like the contemporary priestprophet Ezekiel, the sacerdotal mind. Anathoth had been the settlement of Abiathar, the last high priest of Eli’s house, who was banished thither by Solomon (1 K 2:26); Jeremiah may have been a scion of this deposed line. His mission brought him, probably at an early period, into conflict with ‘the men of Anathoth,’ who sought his life (11:18–23). His attempt to visit Anathoth during the last siege of Jerusalem, and the transaction between himself and his cousin over the field at Anathoth (32:6ff., 37:11–14), go to show that he was not entirely cut off from friendly relations with his kindred and native place.

Jeremiah’s call (ch. 1) in B.C. 626 found him a diffident and reluctant young man,—not wanting in devotion, but shrinking from publicity, and with no natural drawing towards the prophetic career; yet he is ‘set over the nations, to pluck up and to break down, and to build and to plant’! Already there begins the struggle between the implanted word of Jehovah and the nature of the man, on which turns Jeremiah’s inner history and the development of his heroic character,—all things considered, the noblest in the OT. His ministry was to be a long martyrdom. He must stand as ‘a fenced city and an iron pillar and brazen walls against the whole land,’—a solitary and impregnable fortress for Jehovah. The manner of his call imports an intimacy with God, an identification of the man with his mission, more close and complete than in the case of any previous prophet (see vv. 5 and 9). No intermediary—not even ‘the spirit of Jehovah,’—no special vehicle or means of prophetical incitement, is ever intimated in his case:

simply ‘the word of Jehovah came to’ him. He conceives the true prophet as ‘standing in Jehovah’s council, to perceive and hear his word’ (23:18; cf. Is 50:4). So that he may be in person, as well as in word, a prophet of the coming tribulation, marriage is forbidden him and all participation in domestic life (16:1–13),—a sentence peculiarly bitter to his tender and affectionate nature. Jeremiah’s imagination was haunted by his lost home happiness (7:34, 16:9 , 25:10, 33:11). Endowed with the finest sensibilities, in so evil a time he was bound to be a man of sorrows.

Behind the contest waged by Jeremiah with kings and people there lay an interior struggle, lasting more than twenty years. So long it took this great prophet to accept with full acquiescence the burden laid upon him. We may trace through a number of self-revealing passages, the general drift of which is plain notwithstanding the obscurity of some sentences and the chronological uncertainty, Jeremiah’s progress from youthful consecration and ardour, through moods of doubt and passionate repugnance, to a complete self-conquest and settled trust (see, besides chs. 1, 11 , 16 already cited, 8:18–9:2, 15:10, 11 and 15–21, 17:14–18, 18:18–23, 20, 26 and 30–32). The discipline of Jeremiah may be divided into four stages, following on his supernatural call:—(a) the youthful period of fierce denunciation, B.C. 626–621; (b) the time of disillusion and silence, subsequent to Josiah’s reforms, 621–608; (c) the critical epoch, 608–604, opened by the fall of Josiah at Megiddo and closing in the fourth year of Jehoiakim after the battle of Carchemish and the advent of Nebuchadrezzar, when the paroxysm of the prophet’s soul was past and his vision of the future grew clear; (d) the stage of full illumination, attained during the calamities of the last days of Jerusalem.

To (a) belongs the teaching recorded in chs. 2–6, subject to the modifications involved in condensing from memory discourses uttered 20 years before. Here Jeremiah is on the same ground as Zephaniah. He strongly recalls Hosea, whose love for ‘Ephraim’ he shares, and whose similitude of the marriage-union between Jehovah and Israel supplies the basis of his appeals. Judah, he insists, has proved a more faithless bride than her northern sister; a divorce is inevitable. Ch. 5 reflects the shocking impression made by Jeremiah’s first acquaintance with Jerusalem; in ch. 6 Jehovah’s scourge—in the first instance the Scythians—is held over the city. With rebukes mingle calls to repentance and, more rarely, hopes of a relenting on the people’s part (3:21–25; in other hopeful passages critics detect interpolation). Jeremiah’s powerful and pathetic preaching helped to prepare the reformation of 621. But as the danger from the northern hordes passed and Josiah’s rule brought new prosperity, the prophet’s vaticinations were discounted; his pessimism became an object of ridicule.

(b) Jeremiah’s attitude towards Josiah’s reformation is the enigma of his history. The collection of his prophecies made in 604 (see chs. 1–12), apart from the doubtful allusion in 11:1–8, ignores the subject; Josiah’s name is but once mentioned, by way of contrast to

Jehoiakim, in 22:13–19. From this silence we must not infer condemnation; and such passages as 7:22, 23 and 8:8 do not signify that Jeremiah was radically opposed to the sacrificial system and to the use of a written law. We may fairly gather from 11:1–8, if not from 17:19–27 ( the authenticity of which is contested), that Jeremiah commended the Deuteronomic code. His writings in many passages show a Deuteronomic stamp. But, from this point of view, the reformation soon showed itself a failure. It came from the will of the king, not from the conscience of the people. It effected no ‘circumcision of the heart,’ no inward turning to Jehovah, no such ‘breaking up of the fallow ground’ as Jeremiah had called for; the good seed of the Deuteronomic teaching was ‘sown among thorns’ (4:3, 4), which sprang up and choked it. The cant of religion was in the mouths of ungodly men; apostasy had given place, in the popular temper, to hypocrisy. Convinced of this, Jeremiah appears to have early withdrawn, and stood aloof for the rest of Josiah’s reign. Hence the years 621–608 are a blank in the record of his ministry. For the time the prophet was nonplussed; the evil he had foretold had not come; the good which had come was a doubtful good in his eyes. He could not support, he would not oppose, the work of the earnest and sanguine king. Those twelve years demonstrated the emptiness of a political religion. They burnt into the prophet’s soul the lesson of the worthlessness of everything without the law written on the heart.

(c) Josiah’s death at Megiddo pricked the bubble of the national religiousness; this calamity recalled Jeremiah to his work. Soon afterwards he delivered the great discourse of 7:1–8:3 , which nearly cost him his life (see ch. 26). He denounces the false reliance on the Temple that replaced the idolatrous superstitions of 20 years before, thereby making ‘the priests and the prophets,’ to whose ears the threat of Shiloh’s fate for Zion was rank treason, from this time his implacable enemies. The post-reformation conflict now opening was more deadly than the prereformation conflict shared with Zephaniah. A false Jehovism had entrenched itself within the forms of the Covenant, armed with the weapons of fanatical self-righteousness. To this phase of the struggle belong chs. 7–10 (subtracting the great interpolation of 9:23–10:16, of which 10:1– 16 is surely post-Jeremianic); so, probably, most of the matter of chs. 14–20, identified with the ‘many like words’ that were added to the volume of Jeremiah burnt by Jehoiakim in the winter of 604 (36:27–32).

The personal passages of chs. 15, 17, 18, 20 belong to this decisive epoch (608–605, between Megiddo and Carchemish). The climax of Jeremiah’s inward agony was brought about by the outrage inflicted on him by Pashhur, the Temple overseer (ch. 20), when, to stop his mouth, the prophet was scourged and put in the stocks. He breaks out,’ O Jehovah, thou hast befooled me, and I have been befooled!’ and ends by ‘cursing the day of his birth’ (vv. 7–18). Jehovah has used His almighty power to play with a weak, simple man, and to make him a laughing-stock! Jehovah’s word is ‘a fire in his bones’; he is compelled to speak it, only to meet ridicule and insult! His warnings remain unfulfilled, and God leaves him in the lurch! He desires nothing but the people’s good; yet they count him a traitor, and put down his terrifying visions to malignity! This last reproach cut Jeremiah to the heart; again and again he had repelled it (15:10, 17:16 , 18:20). The scene of ch. 20 was Jeremiah’s Gethsemane. It took place not long before the crisis of ‘the fourth year of Jehoiakim,’—the occasion when the roll of doom was prepared (ch. 36) which was read to the people and the king, and when, after the battle of Carchemish, Nebuchadrezzar was hailed as Jehovah’s servant and executioner (ch. 25). At this juncture the conclusive breach with Jehoiakim came about, when the faithless king, by running his knife through Jeremiah’s book, severed the ties which had bound prophecy to the secular throne of David since Samuel’s day. Recalling at this date his misgivings and inward fightings against God, the prophet virtually tells us that they are past. From the years 605–4 he marches with firm step to the goal; he sees the end of God’s kingdom, and the way. Jeremiah is at last equal to his office, ready ‘to pluck up and to break down the nations, and to build and to plant.’ Master of himself, he is master of the world.

(d) Chs. 30–33 (33:14–26 are wanting in the LXX; the remainder of 33, along with 32:16–44 , lies under grave critical suspicion) contain a distinct ‘word of Jehovah,’ committed to a separate ‘book.’ This is ‘the Book of the Future of Israel and Judah’ (Duhm), and the crown of Jeremiah’s life-work. Like the Christian prophet who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jeremiah fled to the ideal and eternal from the horrors of the national downfall; as the earthly Zion sinks, the image of God’s true city rises on his soul. The long foreseen catastrophe has arrived; Jeremiah meets it bravely, for ‘days are coming,’ Jehovah tells him, ‘when I will restore the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, and I will cause them to return to the land of their fathers’ (30:3ff.). The prophet adds deeds to words: he takes the opportunity of buying, before witnesses, a field at Anathoth offered during the siege by his cousin Hanameel, in token that ‘houses and fields and vineyards shall yet again be bought in this land’ (32:15). But the restoration means something far better than recovery of the land; it will be a spiritual renovation, a change of heart going deeper than Josiah’s renewal of the old covenant. ‘They shall be my people,’ Jehovah promises, ‘and I will be their God; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever.… And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will put my fear in their hearts’ (32:38, 39; vv. 31–44 of this disputed chapter are full of Jeremianic traits). The announcement of the ‘new covenant’ in ch. 31:31–34 is the kernel of the ‘Book of the Future’; this is Jeremiah’s greatest contribution to the progress of the Kingdom of God. This passage touches the highwater mark of OT prophecy; it was appropriated by the Lord Jesus at the Last Supper, and supplied the basis of the NT doctrine of salvation (see He 10:14–18). To deprive Jeremiah of the New-Covenant oracle (as B. Duhm, e.g., would do) is to remove the top-stone of his life’s edifice; it is to make his rôle one of ‘plucking up and breaking down,’ with no commensurate ‘building and planting’ (1:10) upon the desolated site. Jeremiah had read first in his own heart the secret thus conveyed to Israel. The mission which he had borne for long as a painful yoke, he learnt to rest in with entire contentment. He is able to say, ‘I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart’; and he prophesies that, under the new covenant, every man shall say this.

Jeremiah’s style and powers as a writer have been underestimated; better justice is done to them by recent scholars. The gloom overshadowing many of his pages has been repellent; and the mistaken attachment of his name to ‘Lamentations’ has brought on him the disparaging epithet of ‘the weeping prophet.’ Much of the book comes to us from other pens; in its narrative parts we recognize the hand of Baruch; and allowance should be made for editorial glosses and additions, here and there interrupting the flow and impairing the force of the original. Jeremiah’s language is touched with occasional Aramaisms, and shows some falling off from the perfection of the classical Hebrew of the 8th century. Jeremiah has neither the sublimity and sustained oratorical power of Isaiah, nor the pungency of Amos, nor the poignancy of Hosea, nor the fire and verve of Nahum, nor the subtlety of Habakkuk; but in richness of imagery, in fulness of human interest, in lucidity and naturalness, in his command of the various resources of poetry, eloquence, pathos, and practical appeal, by virtue of the combination of excellences he presents and the value of his total output, Jeremiah is the greatest of the writing prophets.

3. The Book.—We owe the Book of Jeremiah to his collaborator Baruch (ch. 36). In fairness, this should be entitled ‘The Book of Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch the scribe.’ With Baruch’s help Jeremiah issued in 604 ‘a roll of a book,’ containing the sum of his public teaching up to that date. This volume was not too large to be read to the assembled people, and read aloud twice more in the course of the same day. In size and contents it corresponded to chs. 2–12 of the existing book (the two fragments of 9:23–26 seem to be a later Jeremianic, and 10:1–16 a postJeremianic insertion; some would also refer 12:7–17 to a subsequent date). The destruction of the first roll by Jehoiakim called for a new edition, containing ‘many like words,’ which added to the bulk of the first publication: chs. 1 and 14–20, with (possibly) 25, may be taken to contain the supplementary matter referred to in 36:32, extending and illustrating chs. 2–12 (ch. 13 is out of place, since it bears in the allusion of vv. 18, 19 manifest reference to the captivity of 597). With the exceptions named, and some others of less moment, chs. 1–20 may be read as the re-written roll of Jer 36:32, which dated from the winter of B.C. 604.

In chs. 21:11–23:40 we find a distinct collection of oracles, relating to the kings (down to Jehoiachin) and prophets, associated under the designation of ‘shepherds’; it is prefaced by a story (in 3rd person: 21:1–10) about king Zedekiah, germane to the later collection of chs. 37– 39. Chs. 13 and 24 and 27–29 are reminiscences of Jeremiah relative to the early years of

Zedekiah’s reign, subsequent to the First Captivity (597)—surely ch. 35, the story of the Rechabites (in 1st person), relating to Jehoiakim’s closing years, should come in here. This added matter may have gone to make up a third edition of Jeremiah-Baruch’s work, published about this date, extending over chs. 1–29, with the deductions and addition previously noted ( ch.

26 is mentioned below).

Chs. 30–33 form a totally distinct work from the Book of Doom thus far analyzed; this is Jeremiah’s book of promise or consolation, recording the revelation of his people’s future given to him during the last slege of Jerusalem. Chs. 37–39, to which 21:1–10 should be attached, and 40–44, are two distinct memoirs, bearing on Jeremiah’s history (a) in the final siege, and (b) after the capture of Jerusalem; the authorship of his secretary is indicated by the fact that the short oracle concerning Baruch (ch. 45) is set at the end of these narratives, though the event related took place earlier, in 604. It is to be noted that the data of 1:1–3 do not cover the matter of chs. 40–44. It looks as though that superscription was drawn up when the book extended only from ch. 1–39, and as though we ought to recognize a fourth stage in the growth of Jeremiah’s book—a redaction made soon after the fall of Jerusalem, which was supplemented afterwards when Baruch added chs. 40–45, making the fifth (enlarged) edition. To (a) is prefixed the supremely important Baruch story (ch. 36), of the same date as the above-mentioned (ch. 45) which concludes (b). Ch. 26 is a detached narrative piece, out of place where it stands; this appears to be Baruch’s account of the crisis in Jeremiah’s work to which 7:1–8:3 relates (B.C. 608). Altogether, we may credit to Baruch’s memoirs of Jeremiah chs. 26, 36, 37–39 and 40–45 ; to some extent he probably worked over and edited the matter received by dictation from his master.

This leaves remaining only the collection of Foreign Oracles, which have been separately placed at the end of Jeremiah’s works, in chs. 46–51; and the Historical Appendix, ch. 52 , borrowed by his editors from the Book of Kings (or by the compilers of Kings from this place). The great doom of the Chaldæans and Babylon in chs. 50:1–51:58, judged by internal evidence, was certainly a postscript to Jeremiah’s work and a product of the Exile; critical doubts, of less gravity, attach to other parts of the Foreign Oracles. In 38:28b–39:10 we find already inserted, in shorter form, the first part of the narrative incorporated in ch. 52. Ch. 52:28–30 supplies a valuable bit of tradition about the Captivity wanting in Kings, missing also in the LXX text of Jeremiah. The final redaction of the canonical ‘Jeremiah’ (the sixth edition?) dates considerably posterior to the Exile; for 50:2–51:58, if written by an exilic prophet, could hardly have been ascribed to Jeremiah until a late age. On the other hand, chs. 50–52 are found in the LXX, which dated c. B.C. 200, and must therefore have been incorporated in the book before this time.

The LXX departs from the Massoretic text in two main respects: (1) in arrangement,—the Foreign Oracles (chs. 46–51) being let in between vv.13 and 14 of ch. 25, and running in a different order. It is not unlikely that the Dooms of the Nations were originally associated with ch. 25; but their Greek position cannot possibly be sustained. (2) Again, the LXX text differs from the MT in quantity, being shorter by some 2700 words, or one-eighth of the whole. The subtracted matter consists partly of omissions of paragraphs and sentences—amongst the chief of these being 11:7, 8, 17:1–4, 29:16–20, 33:14–26, 48:45–47, 51:45–48, 52:2, 3, 28–30; partly of abbreviations,—titles shortened, proper names dispensed with, synonyms dropped and descriptions curtailed. The former phenomena point, in a number of instances, to accretions gathered by the MT subsequently to the date of translation; the abbreviations betray in the translator a studied attempt at conciseness. It has been supposed that the LXX rested on an older and purer recension of the Hebrew text, preserved in Egypt; but this theory is abandoned. ‘Both texts’ of Jeremiah ‘have the same archetype; but this archetype underwent a gradual process of expansion, and the process is represented at an earlier stage in the MS or MSS underlying the LXX, and at a more advanced stage in those at the basis of the MT.… Speaking generally, the

MT is qualitatively greatly superior to the Greek; but, on the other hand, quantitatively, the Greek is nearer the original text. This judgment is general, admitting many exceptions,—that is, cases where the quality of the Greek text is better, and its readings more original than the Hebrew; and also cases where, in regard to quantity, the Hebrew is to be preferred, the omissions in the LXX being due to faults in the translator’s MS, to his own oversight, or to his tendency to scamp and abridge’ (A. B. Davidson).

SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK

I. The great Book of Doom, dictated by Jeremiah in B.C. 604: chs. 1–20, 25, with parts ( probably ) of 46–51, corresponding to the original volume read by Baruch (36:2, 10) and the ‘many like words’ added on re-writing (36:32).

(a) The book burnt by Jehoiakim: chs. 2–12 (minus 9:23–10:16 etc.). This included—

1. The Judgment upon Judah’s treachery towards Jehovah: chs. 2–6, embodying Jeremiah’s pre-reformation teaching [3:6–18 has slipped out of its place; this oracle should come either before (Cornill), or after (Bruston), the rest of chs. 2, 3].

2. The Judgment upon Judah’s hypocrisy. chs. 7–12 (? 12:7–17; minus 9:23–10:15) ; belonging to the post-reformation preaching of 608 and onwards.

(b) The ‘many like words,’ illustrating (a): chs. 1:14–20, and probably 25, etc.; consisting of scenes and reminiscences from Jeremiah’s earlier ministry, up to B.C. 604 [ch. 13 was later; it has been displaced; see § V.].

II. The Judgment on the Shepherds (kings, priests, and prophets): chs. 21–23 [21:1–10 has been transferred from § V.: the remainder of this section need not have been later than c. B.C. 597].

III. Later memoranda of Jeremiah, extending from c. 600 to 593: chs. 12:7–17 (?) 13, 24, 27–29 and 35. §§ II. and III. may have been added to § I. to form a third (enlarged) edition of the great Book of Doom, issued in the middle of Zedekiah’s reign and before the final struggle with Nebuchadrezzar.

IV. The little Book of Consolation: chs. 30–33, dating from the second siege.

V. Baruch’s Memoirs of Jeremiah:

(a) Before the Fall of Jerusalem (covered by the title in 1:1–3): chs. 26, 36, 34, 37–39, with 21:1–10.

(b) After the Fall of Jerusalem: chs. 40–44. (c) Baruch’s personal note: ch. 45.

Whether the above memoirs were introduced by Barocbor extracted later by other editors from a separate work of his, cannot be determined with certainty. The position of ch. 45 speaks for his editing up to this point; but if so, some later hand has disturbed his arrangement of the matter. In some instances the displacements we have noted may be due to accidents of transcription.

VI. The Collection of Foreign Oracles: chs. 46–49 [50:2–51:58] 51:59–64—against Egypt (2) , Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and Hazor, Elam [Babylon]. In the LXX the Dooms are differently arranged, attached to 25:13, and slightly shorter. The Babylon Doom admittedly betrays the hand of a late compiler; additions to Jeremiah’s work are suspected in other parts of the section, particularly in the Dooms of Egypt and Moab.

VII. The Historical Appendix: ch. 52, nearly identical, by general admission, with 2 K 24:18–25:30.

The above must be taken as a general outline and sketch of the growth of the work. There are a number of detached fragments, such as 9:23, 24 and 25, 26, the true connexion of which is lost. And postJeremianic interpolations and annotations, relatively numerous, must be recognized; the most conspicuous of these, besides the last three chapters, are 10:1–16 and 33:14–26.

G. G. FINDLAY.

JEREMIAS (1 Es 9:34) = Jeremai in Ezr 10:33.

JEREMIEL.—The archangel who in 2 Es 4:36 answers the questions of the righteous dead. AV has Uriel, the angel sent to instruct Esdras (2 Es 4:1, 5:20, 10:28).

JEREMOTH.—1. 2. Two Benjamites (1 Ch 7:8, 8:14). 3, 4. Two Levites (1 Ch 23:23 , 25:22); the latter called in 24:30 Jerimoth. 5. A Naphtalite (1 Ch 27:19). 6, 7, 8. Three of those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:26, 27, 28). In the last instance Qerē has ‘and Ramoth’ (so AV). For Nos. 6 and 8. 1 Es. (9:27, 30) has Hieremoth; for No. 7 it has (v.28) Jerimoth.

JEREMY.—The form in which the name of the prophet Jeremiah appears in both AV and RV of 1 Es 1:28, 32, 47, 57, 2:1, 2 Es 2:18, as well as in AV of 2 Mac 2:1, 5, 7, Mt 2:17, 27:9. In the last three passages RV has Jeremiah. The form Jeremy is used also in both AV and RV in the title of the Epistle ascribed to the prophet in Bar 6:1. See art. APOCRYPHA, § 10.

JERIAH.—The chief of one of the Levitical courses (1 Ch 23:19, 24:23, 26:31 [in this last AV and RV Jerijah]).

JERIBAI.—One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:46).

JERICHO.—A city situated in the Jordan valley about 5 miles from the north end of the Dead Sea, now represented by the miserable village of er-Rīha. It was the first city conquered by the Israelites after their passage of the Jordan. The course of events, from the sending of the spies to the destruction of Achan for infraction of the tabu on the spoil, is too well known to need repetition here (see Jos 1–7). A small hamlet remained on the site, belonging to Benjamin ( Jos 18:21), which was insignificant enough for David’s ambassadors to retire to, to recover from their insulting treatment by Hanun (2 S 10:5, 1 Ch 19:5). The city was re-founded by Hiel, a Bethelite, who apparently endeavoured to avert the curse pronounced by Joshua over the site by sacrificing his sons (1 K 16:34). A college of prophets was shortly afterwards founded here (2 K 2:4), for whose benefit Elisha healed its bitter waters (v. 18). Hither the Israelites who had raided

Judah, in the time of Ahaz, restored their captives on the advice of the prophet Oded (2 Ch 28:15). Here the Babylonians finally defeated Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, and so destroyed the Judahite kingdom (2 K 25:5, Jer 39:5, 52:8). Bacchides, the general of the Syrians in the Maccabæan period, captured and fortified Jericho (1 Mac 9:50); Aristobulus also took it ( Jos. Ant. XIV. i. 2). Pompey encamped here on his way to Jerusalem (ib. XIV. iv. 1). Its inhabitants, whom the great heat of the Ghōr had deprived of fighting strength, fled before Herod (ib. XIV. xv. 3) and Vespasian (BJ IV. viii. 2). In the Gospels Jericho figures in the stories of Bartimæus (Mt 20:29, Mk 10:46, Lk 18:35), Zacchæus (Lk 19:1), and the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30).

The modern er-Rīha is not exactly on the site of ancient Jericho, which is a collection of mounds beside the spring traditionally associated with Elisha. The Roman and Byzantine towns are represented by other sites in the neighbourhood. Ancient aqusducts, mills, and other antiquities are numerous, as are also remains of early monasticism.

The site, though unhealthy for man, is noted for its fertility. Josephus (BJ IV. viii. 3) speaks of it with enthusiasm. Even yet it is an important source of fruit supply. The district round Jericho is the personal property of the Sultan.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

JERIEL.—A chief of Issachar (1 Ch 7:2).

JERIJAH (1 Ch 26:31).—See JERIAH.

JERIMOTH.—1, 2. Two Benjamites (1 Ch 7:7, 12:5). 3, 4, 5. Three Levites (1 Ch 24:30 [called in 25:22 Jeremoth] 25:4, 2 Ch 31:13). 6. A son of David and father of Rehoboam’s wife (2 Ch 11:18).

JERIOTH.—One of Caleb’s wives (1 Ch 2:18), but almost certainly the MT is corrupt.

JEROBOAM is the name of two kings of Israel.

1. Jeroboam I. was the first king of the northern tribes after the division. His first appearance in history is as head of the forced labourers levied by Solomon. This was perhaps because he was hereditary chief in Ephraim, but we must also suppose that he attracted the attention of Solomon by his ability and energy. At the same time he resented the tyranny of the prince whom he served, and plotted to overthrow it. The design came to the knowledge of Solomon, and Jeroboam fled to Egypt. On the king’s death he returned, and although he did not appear on the scene when the northern tribes made their demand of Rehoboam, he was probably actively enlisted in the movement. When the refusal of Rehoboam threw the tribes into revolt, Jeroboam appeared as leader, and was made king (1 K 11:26ff., 12:1–14:20). Jeroboam was a warlike prince, and hostilities with Judah continued throughout his reign. His country was plundered by the Egyptians at the time of their invasion of Judah. It is not clearly made out whether his fortification of Shechem and Penuei was suggested by the experiences of this campaign or not. His religious measures have received the reprobation of the Biblical writers, but they were intended by Jeroboam to please the God of Israel. He embellished the ancestral sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan with golden bulls, in continuance of early Israelite custom. It is fair to assume also that he had precedent for celebrating the autumn festival in the eighth instead of the seventh month.

2. Jeroboam II. was the grandson of Jehu. In his time Israel was able to assert its ancient vigour against its hereditary enemy Syria, and recover its lost territory. This was due to the attacks of the Assyrians upon the northern border of Damascus (2 K 14:23–29). The temporary prosperity of Israel was accompanied by social and moral degeneracy, as is set forth distinctly by Amos and Hosea.

H. P. SMITH.

JEROHAM.—1. The father of Elkanah and grandfather of Samuel (1 S 1:1). 2. A Benjamite family name (1 Ch 8:27, 9:8). 3. A priestly family (1 Ch 9:12, Neh 11:12). 4. ‘Sons of Jeroham’ were amongst David’s heroes (1 Ch 12:7). 5. A Danite chief (1 Ch 27:22). 6. The father of Azariah, who helped Jehoiada in the overthrow of Athaliah (2 Ch 23:1).

JERUBBAAL.—A name given to Gideon (Jg 6:32, 7:1, 8:29, 35, 9:1, 2, 5, 16, 19, 24, 28 , 57). It is = ‘Baal strives,’ Baal being a name for J″, as in Ishbaal, Meribbaal; it cannot = ‘one who strives with Baal,’ as Jg 6:32 would suggest. This name was altered to Jerubbesheth (besheth = ‘shame’) when Baal could no longer be used of J″ without offence (2 S 11:21); cf. Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth.

JERUBBESHETH.—See JERUBBAAL.

JERUEL.—The part of the wilderness of Judæa that faces the W. shore of the Dead Sea below En-gedi. It was here that Jehoshaphat encountered a great host of the children of Moab, Ammon, and other trans-Jordanic tribes (2 Ch 20:16).

JERUSALEM

I. SITUATION.—Jerusalem is the chief town of Palestine, situated in 31° 46′ 45″ N. lat. and 35° 13′ 25″ E. long. It stands on the summit of the ridge of the Judæan mountains, at an elevation of 2500 feet above the sea-level. The elevated plateau on which the city is built is intersected by deep valleys, defining and subdividing it.

1. The defining valleys are: (1) the Wady en-Nār, the Biblical Valley of the Kidron or of

Jehoshaphat, which, starting some distance north of the city, runs at first (under the name of

Wady el-Jōz) in a S. E.direction; it then turns southward and deepens rapidly, separating the Jerusalem plateau from the ridge of the Mount of Olives on the east; finally, it meanders through the wild mountains of the Judæan desert, and finds its exit on the W. side of the Dead Sea. (2) A deep cleft now known as the Wady er-Rabābi, and popularly identified with the Valley of the son of Hinnom, which commences on the west side of the city and runs down to and joins the Wady en-Nār about half a mile south of the wall of the present city. In the fork of the great irregular Y which these two valleys form, the city is built.

2. The chief intersecting valley is one identified with the Tyropœon of Josephus, which commences in some olive gardens north of the city (between the forks of the Y), runs, ever deepening, right through the modern city, and finally enters the Wady en-Nār, about ¹/₈mils above the mouth of the Wady er-Rabābi. There is also a smaller depression running axially across the city from West to East, intersecting the Tyropœon at right angles. These intersecting valleys are now almost completely filled up with the accumulated rubbish of about four thousand years, and betray themselves only by slight depressions in the surface of the ground.

3. By these valleys the site of Jerusalem is divided into four quarters, each on its own hill. These hills are traditionally named Acra, Bezetha, Zion, and Ophel, in the N. W., N. E., S. W., and S. E.respectively; and Ophel is further subdivided (but without any natural line of division) into Ophel proper and Moriah, the latter being the northern and higher end. But it must be noticed carefully at the outset that around these names the fiercest discussions have raged, many of which are as yet not within sight of settlement.

4. The site of Jerusalem is not well provided with water. The only natural source is an intermittent spring in the Kidron Valley, which is insufficient to supply the city’s needs. Cisterns have been excavated for rain-storage from the earliest times, and water has been led to the city by conduits from external sources, some of them far distant. Probably the oldest known conduit is a channel hewn in the rock, entering Jerusalem from the north. Another (the ‘low-level aqueduct’) is traditionally ascribed to Solomon: it brings water from reservoirs beyond Bethlehem; and a third (the ‘high-level aqueduct’) is of Roman date. Several conduits are mentioned in the OT: the ‘conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field’ ( Is 7:3), which has not been identified; the conduit whereby Hezekiah ‘brought the waters of Gihon straight down on the west side of the city of David,’ also referred to as the ‘conduit’ whereby he ‘brought water into the city’ (2 K 20:20, 2 Ch 32:30), is probably to be identified with the Siloam tunnel, famous for its (unfortunately undated) Old Hebrew inscription.

II. HISTORY

1. Primitive period.—The origin of the city of Jerusalem is lost in obscurity, and probably, owing to the difficulties in the way of excavation, must continue to be matter of speculation. The first reference that may possibly be connected with the city is the incident of the mysterious ‘Melchizedek, king of Salem’ (Gn 14:18), who has been the centre of much futile speculation, due to a large extent to misunderstanding of the symbolic use of his name by the authors of Ps 110 (v. 4) and Hebrews (chs. 5–7). It is not even certain that the ‘Salem’ over which this contemporary of Hammurabi ruled is to be identified with Jerusalem (see SALEM); there is no other ancient authority for this name being applied to the city. We do not touch solid ground till some eight or nine hundred years later, when, about 1450, we find ‘Abd-khiba, king of Urusalim, sending letters to his Egyptian over-lord, which were discovered with the Tell el-Amarna correspondence. The contents of these letters are the usual meagre record of mutual squabbles between the different village communities of Palestine, and to some extent they raise questions rather than answer them. Some theories that have been based on expressions used by ‘Abd-khiba, and supposed to illuminate the Melchizedek problem, are now regarded as of no value for that desirable end. The chief importance of the Tell el-Amarna correspondence, so far as Jerusalem is concerned, is the demonstration of the true antiquity of the name ‘Jerusalem.’

Where was the Jerusalem of ‘Abd-khiba situated? This question, which is bound up with the authenticity or otherwise of the traditional Zion, and affects such important topographical and archæological questions as the site of David’s tomb, is one of the most hotly contested of all the many problems of the kind which have to be considered by students of Jerusalem. In an article like the present it is impossible to enter into the details of the controversy and to discuss at length the arguments on both sides. But the majority of modern scholars are now coming to an agreement that the pre-Davidic Jerusalem was situated on the hill known as Ophel, the southeastern of the four hills above enumerated, in the space intercepted between the Tyropœon and Kidron valleys. This is the hill under which is the only natural source of water in the whole area of Jerusalem—the ‘Virgin’s Fountain,’ an intermittent spring of brackish water in the Kidron Valley—and upon which is the principal accumulation of ancient débris, with ancient pottery fragments strewn over the surface. This hill was open for excavation till three or four years ago, though cumbered with vegetable gardens which would make digging expensive; but lately houses have commenced to be built on its surface. At the upper part of the hill, on this theory, we cannot doubt that the high place of the subjects of ‘Abd-khiba would be situated; and the tradition of the sanctity of this section of the city has lasted unchanged through all the varying occupations of the city—Hebrew, Jewish, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, and modern Mohammedan. Whether his be the ‘land of Moriah’ of Gn 22:2 is doubtful: it has been suggested that the name is here a copyist’s error for ‘land of Midian,’ which would be a more natural place for Jahweh worship in the days of Abraham than would the high place of the guardian numen of Jerusalem.

In certain Biblical passages (Jos 18:28 [but see RV], Jg 19:10, 1 Ch 11:4) an alternative name, Jebus, is given for the city; and its inhabitants are named Jebusites, mentioned in many enumerations with the rest of the Amorites (Gn 10:16, Ex 23:23, Jos 3:10 etc.), and specially assigned to this city in Jg 1:21. Until the discovery of the Tell el-Amarna correspondence it was supposed that Jebus was the primitive name of the city, changed on the Israelite conquest to Jerusalem; but this has been rendered untenable, and it now seems probable that the name of Jebus is a mere derivative, of no authority, from the ethnic Jebusites, the meaning and etymology of which are still to seek.

CF. ART. JEBUS. At the Israelite immigration the king of Jerusalem was Adoni-zedek, who headed a coalition against Gibeon for having made terms with Joshua. This king is generally equated with the otherwise unknown Adoni-bezek, whose capture and mutilation are narrated in Jg 1:5–7 ( see Moore’s Judges, ad loc.). The statement that Judah burnt Jerusalem (Jg 1:8) is generally rejected as an interpolation; it remained a Jebusite city (Jg 1:21, 19:11) until its conquest by David. According to the cadastre of Joshua, it was theoretically just within the south border of the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 15:8, 18:16, 28).

2. David and Solomon.—The city remained foreign to the Israelites (Jg 19:11) until the end of the period of 7¹/₂years which David reigned in Hebron, when he felt himself powerful enough to attack the Jebusite stronghold. The passage describing his capture of the city is 2 S 5:4–10 , and few passages in the historical books of the Old Testament are more obscure, owing partly to textual corruption and partly to topographical allusions clear to the writer, but veiled in darkness for us. It appears that the Jebusites, trusting in the strength of their gates, threw taunts to the Israelite king that ‘the blind and the lame would be enough to keep him out’; and that David retorted by applying the term to the defenders of the city: ‘Go up the drain,’ he said to his followers, ‘and smite those blind and lame ones.’ He evidently recognized the impregnability of the defences themselves; but discovered and utilized a convenient drain, which led underground into the middle of the city. A similar drain was found in the excavation at Gezer, with a device in the middle to prevent its being used for this purpose. During the revolt of the fellahīn against Ibrahim Pasha in 1834, Jerusalem, once more besieged, was entered through a drain in the same way. It need hardly be said that David’s, ‘gutter’ has not yet been identified with certainty.

If the identification of the Jebusite city with Ophel be admitted, we cannot fail to identify it also with the ‘city of David,’ in which he dwelt (2 S 5:9). But when we read further that David ‘built round about from Millo and inward’ we are perplexed by our total ignorance as to what

Millo may have been, and where it may have been situated. The word is by the LXX rendered Acra, and the same word is used by Josephus. The position of the Acra is a question as much disputed as the position of the Jebusite city, and it is one for which far less light can be obtained from an examination of the ground than in the case of the other problem mentioned. As soon as David had established himself in his new surroundings, his first care was to bring the ark of

Jahweh into the city (2 S 6), but his desire to erect a permanent building for its reception was frustrated by Nathan the prophet (2 S 7). The site of the Temple was chosen, namely, the threshing-floor of Araunah (2 S 24:16) or Ornan (1 Ch 21:15), one of the original Jebusite inhabitants, and preparations were made for its erection.

As soon as Solomon had come to the throne and quelled the abortive attempts of rivals, he commenced the work of building the Temple in the second month of the fourth year of his reign, and finished it in the eighth month of his eleventh year (1 K 6). His royal palace occupied thirteen years (1 K 7:1). These erections were not in the ‘city of David’ (1 K 9:24), which occupied the lower slopes of Ophel to the south, but on the summit of the same hill, where their place is now taken by the Mohammedan ‘Noble Sanctuary.’ Besides these works, whereby Jerusalem received a glory it had never possessed before, Solomon built Millo, whatever that may have been (1 K 9:24), and the wall of Jerusalem (9:15), and ‘closed up the breach of the city of David’ (11:27),—the latter probably referring to an extension of the area of the city which involved the pulling down and rebuilding elsewhere of a section of the city walls.

3. The Kings of Judah.—In the fifth year of Rehoboam, Jerusalem sustained the first siege it had suffered after David’s conquest, being beleaguered by Shishak, king of Egypt (1 K 14:25) , who took away the treasures of the Temple and of the royal house. Rehoboam provided copper substitutes for the gold thus lost. The royal house was again pillaged by a coalition of Philistines and Arabs (2 Ch 21:16) in the time of Jehoram. Shortly afterwards took place the stirring events of the usurpation of Athaliah and her subsequent execution (2 K 11). Her successor Joash or Jehoash distinguished himself by his repair of the Temple (2 K 12); but he was obliged to buy off Hazael, king of Syria, and persuaded him to abandon his projected attack on the capital by a gift of the gold of the Temple (2 K 12:18). Soon afterwards, however, Jehoash of Israel came down upon Jerusalem, breached the wall, and looted the royal and sacred treasuries (2 K 14:14). This event taught the lesson of the weakness of the city, by which the powerful king Uzziah profited. In 2 Ch 26:9, 15 is the record of his fortifying the city with additional towers and ballistas; the work of strengthening the fortifications was continued by Jotham (2 K 15:35, 2 Ch 27:3). Thanks probably to these precautions, an attack on Jerusalem by the kings of Syria and of Israel, in the next reign (Ahaz’s), proved abortive (2 K 16:5). Hezekiah still further prepared Jerusalem for the struggle which he foresaw from the advancing power of Assyria, and to him, as is generally believed, is due the engineering work now famous as the Siloam Tunnel, whereby water was conducted from the spring in the Kidron Valley outside the walls to the reservoir at the bottom of the Tyropœon inside them. By another gift from the apparently inexhaustible royal and sacred treasures, Hezekiah endeavoured to keep Sennacherib from an attack on the capital (2 K 18:13) ; but the attack, threatened by insulting words from the emissaries of Sennacherib, was finally averted by a mysterious calamity that befell the Assyrian army (2 K 19:35). By alliances with Egypt (Is 36:6) and Babylon (ch. 39) Hezekiah attempted to strengthen his position. Manasseh built an outer wall to the ‘city of David,’ and made other fortifications (2 Ch 33:14). In the reign of Josiah the Book of the Law was discovered, and the king devoted himself to the repairs of the Temple and the moral reformation which that discovery involved (2 K 22). The death of Josiah at Megiddo was disastrous for the kingdom of Judah, and he was succeeded by a series of petty kinglings, all of them puppets in the hands of the Egyptian or Babylonian monarchs. The fall of Jerusalem could not be long delayed. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon captured and looted it, and carried away captive first Jehoiachin (2 K 24:12), and finally Zedekiah, the last king of Judah (ch. 25).

The aspect and area of the Jerusalem captured by Nebuchadnezzar must have been very different from that conquered about 420 years before by David. There is no direct evidence that David found houses at all on the hill now known as Zion; but the city must rapidly have grown under him and his wealthy successor; and in the time of the later Hebrew kings included no doubt the so-called Zion hill as well. That it also included the modern Acra is problematical, as we have no information as to the position of the north wall in preexilic times; and it is certain that the quite modern quarter commonly called Bezetha was not occupied. To the south a much larger area was built on than is included in modern Jerusalem: the ancient wall has been traced to the verge of the Wady er-Rabābi. The destruction by Nebuchadnezzar and the deportation of the people were complete: the city was left in ruins, and only the poorest of the people were left to carry on the work of agriculture.

4. The Return.—When the last Semitic king of Babylon, Nabonidus, yielded to Cyrus, the representatives of the ancient kingdom of Judah were, through the favour of Cyrus, permitted to re-establish themselves in their old home and to rebuild the Temple. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are the record of the works then undertaken, the former being specially concerned with the restoration of the Temple and the religious observances, the latter with the reconstruction of the fortifications of the city.

The Book of Nehemiah contains the fullest account that we have of the fortifications of Jerusalem, and it has been the most carefully studied of any source of information on the subject. A paper by Prof. H. G. Mitchell on the ‘Wall of Jerusalem according to Nehemiah’ (in the JBL for 1903, p. 85) is a model of exhaustive treatment. Careful comparison is made therein between the statements of Nehemiah and the results of excavation. We cannot here go into all the arguments brought forward for the identifications, but they seem conclusive. Starting at the head of the Wady er-Rabābi (Valley of Hinnom so-called), we find at the S. W. corner of the wall a rock-scarp which seems to have been prepared for a strong tower, identified with the tower of the furnaces (Neh 3:11). Then comes the Valley-gate, which has been found half-way down the valley (Neh 3:13). At the bottom of the valley, where it joined the Kidron, was the Dung-gate (Neh 3:15), outside of which was found what appears to have been a cess-pit. Turning northward, we find the Fountain-gate (Neh 3:13) in close proximity to the ‘made pool,’ i.e. the pool of Siloam at the foot of the Tyropœon Valley; and the Water-gate on Ophel, over the ‘Virgin’s Fountain.’ The gates on the north-east and north sides of the wall cannot be identified, as the course of that part has not been definitely determined. They seem to have been, in order, the Horse-gate the East-gate, the gate Hammiphkad (‘the appointed’?), after which came the corner of the wall. Then on the north side followed the Sheep-gate, the Fish-gate, and, somewhere on the north or north-west side, the Old-gate. Probably the Ephraim- and Cornergates (2 K 14:13) were somewhere in this neighbourhood. Besides these gates, the Temple was provided with entrances, some of whose names are preserved; but their identification is an even more complex problem than that of the city-gates. Such were the gate Sur and the Gate of the guard (2 K 11:6), the Shallecheth-gate at the west (l Ch 26:16), Parbar (26:18), and the Eastgate (Ezk 11:1). The Beautiful-gate, of Ac 3:10 was probably the same as the Nicanor-gate, between the Women’s and the Priests’ Court: it is alluded to in the epitaph of the donor, Nicanor, recently-discovered at Jerusalem.

5. From Alexander the Great to the Maccabees.—By the battle of Issus (B.C. 333)

Alexander the Great became master of Palestine; and the Persian suzerainty, under which the Jews had enjoyed protection and freedom to follow their own rites, came to an end. Alexander’s death was the signal for the long and complicated struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemys, between whom Jerusalem passed more than once. One result of the foreign influences thus brought to bear on the city was the establishment of institutions hitherto unknown, such as a gymnasium. This leaven of Greek customs, and, we cannot doubt, of Greek religion also, was disquieting to those concerned for the maintenance of Deuteronomic purity, and the unrest was fanned into revolt in 168, when Antiochus Epiphanes set himself to destroy the Jewish religion.

The desecration of the Temple, and the attempt to force the Jews to sacrifice to pagan deities (1

Mac 1:2), led to the rebellion headed by the Maccabæan family, wherein, after many vicissitudes, the short-lived Hasmonæan dynasty was established at Jerusalem. Internal dissensions wrecked the family. To settle a squabble as to the successor of Alexander Jannæus, the Roman power was called in. Pompey besieged Jerusalem, and profaned the Temple, which was later pillaged by Crassus; and in B.C. 47 the Hasmonæans were superseded by the Idumæan dynasty of the Herods, their founder Antipater being established as ruler of Palestine in recognition of his services to Julius Cæsar.

6. Herod the Great.—Herod the Great and his brother Phasael succeeded their father in B.C. 43, and in 40 Herod became governor of Judæa. After a brief exile, owing to the usurpation of the Hasmonæan Antigonus, he returned, and commenced to rebuild Jerusalem on a scale of grandeur such as had never been known since Solomon. Among his works, which we can only catalogue here, were the royal palace; the three towers—Hippicus, Phasaelus (named after his brother), and Antonia; a theatre; and, above all, the Temple. Of these structures nothing remains, so far as is known, of the palace or the theatre, or the Hippicus tower: the base of Phasaelus, commonly called David’s tower, is incorporated with the citadel; large fragments of the tower Antonia remain incorporated in the barracks and other buildings of the so-called Via Dolorosa, the street which leads through the city from the St. Stephen’s gate, north of the Temple enclosure: while of the Temple itself much remains in the substructures, and probably much more would be found were excavation possible. See TEMPLE.

7. From the time of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem.—The events in the life of Christ, in so far as they affect Jerusalem, are the only details of interest known to us for the years succeeding the death of Herod in B.C. 4. These we need not dwell upon here, but a word may fitly be spoken regarding the central problem of Jerusalem topography, the site of the Holy Sepulchre. The authenticity of the traditional site falls at once, if it lie inside the north wall of Jerusalem as it was in Christ’s time, for Christ suffered and was buried without the walls. But this is precisely what cannot be determined, as the line of the wall, wherever it may have been, is densely covered with houses; and it is very doubtful whether such fragments of wall as have from time to time been found in digging foundations have anything to do with each other, or with the city rampart. A priori it does not seem probable that the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre should have been without the walls, for it assumes that these made a deep re-entrant angle for which the nature of the ground offers no justification, and which would be singularly foolish strategically. The identification of the site cannot with certainty be traced back earlier than Helena; and, though she visited Jerusalem as early as 326, yet it must not be forgotten that in endeavouring then to find the tomb of Christ, without documents to guide her, she was in as hopeless a position as a man who under similiar circumstances should at the present year endeavour to find the tomb of Shakespeare, if that happened to be unknown. Indeed, Helena was even worse off than the hypothetical investigator, for the population, and presumably the tradition, have been continuous in Stratford-on-Avon, which certainly was not the case with Jerusalem from A.D. 30 to 326. A fortiori these remarks apply to the rival sites that in more recent years have been suggested. The so-called ‘Gordon’s Calvary’ and similar fantastic identifications we can dismiss at once with the remark that the arguments in their favour are fatuous; that powerful arguments can be adduced against them; that they cannot even claim the minor distinction of having been hallowed by the devotion of sixteen centuries; and that, in short, they are entirely unworthy of the smallest consideration. The only documents nearly contemporary with the crucifixion and entombment are the Gospels, which supply no data sufficient for the identification of the scenes of these events. Except in the highly improbable event of an inscription being at some time found which shall identify them, we may rest in the certainty that the exact sites never have been, and never will be, identified.

In A.D. 35, Pontius Pilate was recalled; Agrippa (41–44 A.D.) built an outer wall, the line of which is not known with certainty, on the north side of the city, and under his rule Jerusalem grew and prospered. His son Agrippa built a palace, and in A.D. 64 finished the Temple courts. In 66 the Jews endeavoured to revolt against the Roman yoke, and brought on themselves the final destruction which was involved in the great siege and fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

8. From the destruction of Jerusalem to the Arab conquest.—The events following must be more briefly enumerated. In 134 the rebellion of the Jews under Bar Cochba was crushed by Hadrian, and the last traces of Judaism extinguished from the city, which was rebuilt as a pagan Roman town under the name of Ælia Capitolina. By 333 the Jews had acquired the right of visiting annually and lamenting over the pierced stone on which their altar had been erected. Under Constantine, Christianity was established, and the great flood of pilgrimage began. Julian in 362 attempted to rebuild the Temple; some natural phenomenon—ingeniously explained as the explosion of a forgotten store of naphtha, such as was found some years ago in another part of the city—prevented him. In 450 the Empress Eudocia retired to Jerusalem and repaired the walls; she built a church over the Pool of Siloam, which was discovered by excavation some years ago. In 532 Justinian erected important buildings, fragments of which remain incorporated with the mosque; but these and other Christian buildings were ruined in 614 by the destroying king Chosroës II. A short breathing space was allowed the Christians after this storm, and then the young strength of Islam swept over them. In 637 Omar conquered Jerusalem after a four months’ siege.

9. From the Arab conquest to the present day.—Under the comparatively easy rule of the

Omeyyad Califs, Christians did not suffer severely; though excluded from the Temple area

(where ‘Abd el-Melek built his beautiful dome in 688), they were free to use the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre. This, however, could not last under the fanatical Fatimites, or the Seljuks who succeeded them; and the sufferings of the Christians led to that extraordinary series of piratical invasions, commonly called the Crusades, by which Palestine was harried for about a hundred years, and the undying tradition of which will retard indefinitely the final triumph of Christianity over the Arab race. The country was happily rid of the degraded and degrading Latin kingdom in 1187, when Jerusalem fell to Saladin. For a brief interval, from 1229 to 1244, the German Christians held the city by treaty; but in 1244 the Kharezmian massacre swallowed up the last relics of Christian occupation. In 1517 it was conquered by Sultan Selim I., and since then it has been a Turkish city. The present walls were erected by Suleiman the Magnificent (1542). In recent years the population has enormously increased, owing to the establishment of Jewish refugee colonies and various communities of European settlers; there has also been an extraordinary development of monastic life within and around the city.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

JERUSHA (2 K 15:33 = JERUSHAH 2 Ch 27:1).—Mother of Jotham king of Judah.

JESAIAS.—See JESHAIAH, 4.

JESHAIAH.—1. A grandson of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3:21). 2. One of the sons of Jeduthun (1

Ch 25:3, 15). 3. A Levite (1 Ch 26:25). 4. The chief of the Benē-Elam who returned (Ezr 8:7 [1 Es 8:33 Jesaias]). 5. Chief of the Merarites (Ezr 8:19 [1 Es 8:48 Osaias]). 6. A Benjamite ( Neh

11:7).

JESHANAH.—A town taken from Jeroboam by Abijah (2 Ch 13:19). It is the modern ‘Ain Sīnia, about 3¹/₄miles north of Bethel.

JESHARELAH.—See ASHARELAH.

JESHEBEAB.—A Levite, the head of the fourteenth course (1 Ch 24:13).

JESHER.—A son of Caleb (1 Ch 2:18).

JESHIMON.—This word, derived from a Heb. root meaning ‘to be waste or desolate,’ is used either as a common noun (= ‘desert,’ ‘wilderness’) or (with the art., ‘the Jeshimon’) as a proper name (Nu 21:20, 23:28, 1 S 23:19, 24, 26:1, 3). In the latter usage the reference is either to the waste country in the Jordan valley N. of the Dead Sea and east of the river (so apparently in Numbers), or to the eastern part of the hill-country of Judah on the western shore of the Dead Sea (so 1 Sam.).

JESHISHAI.—A Gadite family (1 Ch 5:14).

JESHOHAIAH.—A Simeonite family (1 Ch 4:36).

JESHUA (another form of Joshua).—1. Joshua the son of Nun (Neh 8:17). 2. The head of the ninth course of priests (1 Ch 24:11). 3. A Levite in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31:15). 4. A man of the house of Pahath-moab whose descendants returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2:6, Neh 7:11 [1 Es 5:11 Jesus]); perhaps identical with No. 2 above. 5. A Levitical house or its successive heads in the times of Zerub., Ezra, and Nehemiah; mentioned in connexion with the building of the Temple (Ezr 3:9), the explanation of the Law (Neh 8:7, cf. 9:4f.), and the sealing of the covenant (10:9). Cf. also Ezr 2:40 [1 Es 5:26 Jesus] 8:33 [1 Es 8:63 Jesus], Neh 7:43, 12:8, 24. 6. The high priest who along with Zerub. headed the first band of exiles. In Ezr. and Neb. he is called Jeshua, in Hag. and Zec. Joshua. He took a leading part in the erection of the altar of burntoffering and the laying of the foundations of the Temple (Ezr 3:2ff.). In Hag. and Zec. he is frequently coupled with Zerub., after these prophets had begun to stimulate the people to undertake building operations in earnest (Hag 1:1, 12, 14, Zec 3:1ff., 6:10, 11). He is eulogized in Sir 49:12 [Jesus], 7. A priestly family, Ezr 2:36 = Neh 7:39 = 1 Es 5:24 [Jesus]. 8. A town in the south of Judah (Neh 11:26). The site is possibly at the ruin Sa’wi west of Tett ’Arad and south of ‘Attīr.

JESHURUN.—A poetic or a pet-name for Israel which occurs four times in the OT ( Dt

32:15, 33:5, 26, Is 44:2). It is found in the later writings, and represents a patriotic feeling that

Israel was = yashar-Ei, ‘the upright of God.’ If this be so, then we may accept the rendering of Jeshurun as the ‘righteous little people.’ In Balaam’s elegy,’ Let me die the death of the righteous’ seems to refer to the Israel of the preceding clause, and in Ps 83:1 the thought which underlies Jeshurun appears, if we adopt the tempting reading: ‘Truly God is good to the upright.’ W. F. COBB.

JESIAS (1 Es 8:33) = Ezr 8:7 Jeshaiah.

JESIMIEL.—The eponym of a Simeonite family (1 Ch 4:36).

JESSE (more correctly Jishai, cf., as regards formation, Ittai; perhaps an abbreviated form; the meaning of the name is quite uncertain).—A Bethlehemite, best known as the father of David. The earliest historical mention of him (1 S 17:12; see DAVID, § 1) represents him as already an old man. On this occasion he sends David to the Israelite camp with provisions for his brothers; this was destined to be a long separation between Jesse and his son, for after David’s victory over the Philistine giant he entered definitely into Saul’s service. There are two other accounts, each of which purports to mention Jesse for the first time: 1 S 16:1ff., in which Samuel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint David; and 1 S 16:18, in which Jesse’s son is sent for to play the harp before Saul. Nothing further is heard of Jesse until we read of him and his ‘house’ coming to David in the ‘cave’ of Adullam; David then brings his father and mother to Mizpeh of Moab, and entrusts them to the care of the king of Moab (1 S 22:3, 4). This is the last we hear of him. In Is 11:1 the ‘stock of Jesse’ is mentioned as that from which the Messiah is to issue; the thought probably being that of the humble descent of the Messiah as contrasted with His glorious Kingdom which is to be.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JESUS, the Gr. form of the name Joshua or Jeshua, is employed as a designation of—1. Joshua the son of Nun (AV of 1 Mac 2:55, 2 Es 7:37, Sir 46:1, Ac 7:45, He 4:8, in all of which passages RV has Joshua). 2. 1 Es 5:11 = Jeshua of Ezr 2:6 and Neh 7:11. 3. 1 Es 5:24 = Jeshua of Ezr 2:36 and Neh 7:39. 4. Jeshua (Joshua), the high priest (1 Es 5:5, 8, 48, 56, 68, 70, 6:2 , 9:19, Sir 49:12). 5. A Levite (1 Es 5:26, 58, 8:63, 9:48) who in Ezr 2:40, 3:9 is called Jeshua. 6. An ancestor of our Lord (Lk 3:29 RV, where AV has Jose). 7. Jesus, son of Sirach. 8. Jesus called Justus, a Jewish Christian residing in Rome, saluted by St. Paul in Col 4:11. 9. See next article.

JESUS CHRIST.—There is no historical task which is more important than to set forth the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and none to which it is so difficult to do justice. The importance of the theme is sufficiently attested by the fact that it is felt to be His due to reckon a new era from the date of His birth. From the point of view of Christian faith there is nothing in time worthy to be set beside the deeds and the words of One who is adored as God manifest in the flesh, and the Saviour of the world. In the perspective of universal history. His influence ranks with Greek culture and Roman law as one of the three most valuable elements in the heritage from the ancient world, while it surpasses these other factors in the spiritual quality of its effects. On the other hand, the superlative task has its peculiar difficulties. It is quite certain that a modern European makes many mistakes when trying to reproduce the conditions of the distant province of Oriental antiquity in which Jesus lived. The literary documents, moreover, are of no great compass, and are reticent or obscure in regard to many matters which are of capital interest to the modern biographer. And when erudition has done its best with the primary and auxiliary sources, the historian has still to put the heart-searching question whether he possesses the qualifications that would enable him to understand the character, the experience, and the purpose of Jesus. ‘He who would worthily write the Life of Jesus Christ must have a pen dipped in the imaginative sympathy of a poet, in the prophet’s fire, in the artist’s charm and grace, and in the reverence and purity of the saint’ (Stewart, The Life of Christ, 1906, p. vi.).

1. The Literary Sources

(A) CANONICAL

(1) The Gospels and their purpose.—It is now generally agreed that the Gospel according to Mk. is the oldest of the four. Beginning with the Baptism of Jesus, it gives a sketch of His Public

Ministry, with specimens of His teaching, and carries the narrative to the morning of the Resurrection. The original conclusion has been lost, but there can be no doubt that it went on to relate at least certain Galilæan appearances of the risen Lord. This Gospel supplies most of our knowledge of the life of Jesus, but its main concern is to bring out the inner meaning and the religious value of the story. It is, in short, a history written with the purpose of demonstrating that Jesus was the expected Messiah. In proof of this it is sufficient to point out that it describes itself at the outset as setting forth the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mk 1:1), that the faith of the disciples culminates in Peter’s confession that He is the Christ (8:29), that the ground of His condemnation is that He claims to be ‘the Christ, the Son of the Blessed’ (14:61, 62), and that the accusation written over His cross is ‘The King of the Jews’ (15:26).

The Gospel according to Mt. is now usually regarded as a second and enlarged edition of an Apostolic original. The earlier version, known as the Logia on the ground of a note of Papias (Euseb. HE iii. 39), was a collection of the Memorabilia of Jesus. As the Logia consisted mainly of the sayings of our Lord, the later editor combined it with the narrative of Mk. in order to supply a more complete picture of the Ministry, and at the same time added fresh material from independent sources. Its didactic purpose, like that of Mk., is to exhibit Jesus as the Messiah, and it supports the argument by citing numerous instances of the fulfilment in the life of Jesus of OT prediction. It is sometimes described as the Gospel of the Jewish Christians; and it appears to have addressed itself specially to the difficulties which they felt in view of the destruction of Jerusalem. Could Jesus, they may well have asked, be the Messiah, seeing that His mission had issued, not in the deliverance of Israel, but in its ruin? In answer to this the Gospel makes it plain that the overthrow of the Jewish State was a punishment which was foreseen by Jesus, and also that He had become the head of a vaster and more glorious kingdom than that of which, as Jewish patriots, they had ever dreamed (28:18–20).

The Gospel according to Luke is also dependent on Mk. for the general framework, and derives from the original Mt. a large body of the teaching. It follows a different authority from Mt. for the Nativity, and to some extent goes its own way in the history of the Passion; while ‘the great interpolation’ (9:51–18:14), made in part from its special source, forms a priceless addition to the Synoptic material. Lk. approached his task in a more consciously scientific spirit than his predecessors, and recognized an obligation to supply dates, and to sketch in the political background of the biography (2:2, 3:1, 23). But for him also the main business of the historian was to emphasize the religious significance of the events, and that by exhibiting Jesus as the Saviour of the world, the Friend of sinners. He is specially interested, as the companion and disciple of St. Paul, in incidents and sayings which illustrate the graciousness and the universality of the gospel. Prominence is given to the rejection of Jesus by Nazareth and Jerusalem (4:16–30, 19:41–44), and to His discovery among the Gentiles of the faith for which He sought (17:18, 19). It is also characteristic that Lk. gives a full account of the beginnings of the missionary activity of the Church (10:1–20).

The author of the Fourth Gospel makes considerable use of the narratives of the Synoptists, but also suggests that their account is in important respects defective, and in certain particulars erroneous. The serious defect, from the Johannine point of view, is that they represent Galilee as the exclusive scene of the Ministry until shortly before the end, and that they know nothing of a series of visits, extending over two years, which Jesus made to Jerusalem and Judæa in fulfilment of His mission. That there was a design to correct as well as to supplement appears from the displacement of the Cleansing of the Temple from the close to the beginning of the Ministry, and from the emphatic way in which attention is drawn to the accurate information as to the day and the hour of the Crucifixion. And still more designedly than in the earlier Gospels is the history used as the vehicle for the disclosure of the secret and the glory of the Person of Jesus. The predicate of the Messiah is reaffirmed, and as the Saviour He appears in the most sublime and tender characters, but the Prologue furnishes the key to the interpretation of His Person in a title which imports the highest conceivable dignity of origin, being, and prerogative:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth’ (1:1, 14).

Trustworthiness of the Gospels.—It is impossible to proceed on the view that we possess four biographies of Jesus which, being given by inspiration, are absolutely immune from error. The means by which they were brought into shape was very different from the method of Divine dictation. The Evangelists were severely limited to the historical data which reached them by ordinary channels. They copied, abridged, and amplified earlier documents, and one document which was freely handled in this fashion by Mt. and Lk. was canonical Mk. That mistakes have been made as to matters of fact is proved by the occurrence of conflicting accounts of the same events, and by the uncertainty as to the order of events which is often palpable in Mt. and Mk., and which to some extent baffled Lk. in his attempt ‘to trace the course of all things accurately.’ There is also considerable diversity in the report of many of our Lord’s sayings, which compels us to conclude that the report is more or less inaccurate. Whether giving effect to their own convictions, or reproducing changes which had been made by the mind of the Church on the oral tradition, writers coloured and altered to some extent the sayings of our Lord. At the same time the Synoptics, when tested by ordinary canons, must be pronounced to be excellent authorities. They may be dated within a period of forty to fifty years after the death of Christ—Mk. about A.D. 69, Mt. and (probably) Lk. not later than A.D. 80. ‘The great mass of the Synoptic Gospels had assumed its permanent shape not later than the decade A.D. 60–70, and the changes which it underwent after the great catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem were but small, and can without difficulty be recognized’ (Sanday, Outlines). Further, that Gospels composed in the second generation can be trusted to have reproduced the original testimony with general accuracy may be held on two grounds. There is every reason to believe the ecclesiastical traditions that the contents of original Mt. were compiled by one of the Twelve, and that the reminiscences of Peter formed the staple of Mk. (Euseb. HE iii. 39). It is also certain that the Synoptic material was used throughout the intervening period in the Christian meetings for worship, and the memory of witnesses must thus have been in a position to ensure the continuity of the report, and to check any serious deviations from the oldest testimony. The general trustworthiness is further supported by the consideration of the originality of the Synoptic picture of Jesus and His teaching. The character of Jesus, and the acts in which it is revealed, form a whole which has the unmistakable stamp of historical reality, and forbids us to think that to any great extent it can have been the product of the collective Christian mind. Jesus, in short, is needed to explain the Church and cannot be Himself explained as the product of His own creation. It is also to be noticed that the Synoptic teaching has a clear-cut individuality of its own which shows that it has sturdily refused to blend with the Apostolic type of theology.

With the Fourth Gospel the case stands somewhat differently. If it be indeed the work of John the ‘beloved disciple, its authority stands higher than all the rest. In that case the duty of the historian is to employ it as his fundamental document, and to utilize the Synoptics as auxiliary sources. In the view of the present writer the question is one of great difficulty. It is true that there is a powerful body of Patristic testimony in support of the tradition that the Fourth Gospel was composed by the Apostle Johnin Ephesus in his old age—about A.D. 95. It is also true that the Gospel solemnly stakes its credit on its right to be accepted as the narrative of an eye-witness (Jn 19:35, 21:24). And its claim is strengthened by the fact that, in the judgment even of many unsympathetic witnesses, it embodies a larger or smaller amount of independent and valuable information. On the other hand, it is a serious matter that a Gospel, appearing at the close of the century, should practically recast the story of Jesus which had circulated in the Church for sixty years, and should put forward a view of the course of the Ministry which is not even suspected in the other Apostolic sources. Passing to the teaching, we find that the process which was in discoverable in the Synoptic report has here actually taken place, and that the discourses of Jesus are assimilated to a well-marked type of Apostolic doctrine. There is reason to believe that for both history and doctrine the author had at his disposal Memorabilia of Jesus, but in both cases also it would seem that he has handled his data with great freedom. The treatment of the historical matter, it may be permitted to think, is more largely topical, and the chronological framework which it provides is less reliable, than is commonly supposed. The discourses, again, have been expanded by the reporter, and cast in the moulds of his own thought, so that in them we really possess a combination of the words of Jesus of Nazareth with those of the glorified Christ speaking in the experience of a disciple. The hypothesis which seems to do justice to both sets of phenomena is that John was only the author in a similar sense to that in which Peter was the author of Mk., and Matthew of canonical Mt., and that the actual composer of the Fourth Gospel was a disciple of the second generation who was served heir to the knowledge and faith of the Apostle, and who claimed considerable powers as an executor. In view of these considerations, it is held that a sketch of the life of Jesus is properly based on the Synoptic record, and that in utilizing the Johannine additions it is desirable to take up a critical attitude in regard to the form and the chronology. There is also much to be said for expounding the teaching of Jesus on the basis of the Synoptics, and for treating the Johannine discourses as primarily a source for Apostolic doctrine. It is a different question whether the interpretation of Christ which the Fourth Gospel supplies is trustworthy, and on the value of this, its main message, two remarks may be made. It is, in the first place, substantially the same valuation of Christ which pervades the Pauline Epistles, and which has been endorsed by the saintly experience of the Christian centuries as answering to the knowledge of Christ that is given in intimate communion with the risen Lord. Moreover, the doctrine of Providence comes to the succour of a faith which may be distressed by the breakdown of the hypothesis of inerrancy. For it is a reasonable belief that God, in whose plan with the race the work of Christ was to be a decisive factor, took order that there should be given to the after world a record which should sufficiently instruct men in reply to the question, ‘What think ye of Christ?’

(2) The Epistles.—From the Epistles it is possible to collect the outstanding facts as to the earthly condition, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. Incidentally St. Paul shows that he could cite His teaching on a point of ethics (1 Co 7:11), and give a detailed account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (11:23ff.). It is also significant that in allusions to the Temptation (He 4:15), the Agony (5:7), and the Transfiguration (2 P 1:17), the writers can reckon on a ready understanding.

(B) EXTRA-CANONICAL SOURCES

(1) Christian

(a) Patristic references.—The Fathers make very trifling additions to our knowledge of the facts of the life of Jesus. There is nothing more important than the statement of Justin, that as a carpenter Jesus made ploughs and yokes (Dial. 88). More valuable are the additions to the canonical sayings of Jesus (Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels⁸, 1895; Resch, Agrapha², 1907). Of the 70 Logia which have been claimed, Ropes pronounces 43 worthless, 13 of possible value, and 14 valuable (Die Sprüche Jesu, 1896). The following are deemed by Huck to be noteworthy (Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien³, 1906):—

(1) ‘Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you; and ask heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added to you’ (Origen, de Orat. § 2).

(2) ‘If ye exalt not your low things, and transfer to your right hand the things on your left, ye shall not enter into my kingdom’ (Acta Philippi, ch. 34).

(3) ‘He who is near me is near the fire, he who is far from me is far from the kingdom’ (Origen, Hom.

in Jer. 20:3).

(4) ‘If ye kept not that which is small, who will give you that which is great?’ (Clem. Rom. ii. 8).

(5) ‘Be thou saved and thy soul’ (Exc. e. Theod. ap. Clem. Alex. § 2).

(6) ‘Show yourselves tried bankers’ (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 28).

(7) ‘Thou hast seen thy brother, thou hast seen God’ ib. i. 19).

More recent additions to the material are to be found in Grenfell and Hunt, Sayings of our Lord (1897) and New Sayings of Jesus (1904).

(b) Apocryphal Gospels.—These fall into three groups according as they deal with the history of Joseph and Mary (Protevangelium of James), the Infancy (Gospel of Thomas), and Pilate (Acts of Pilate). They are worthless elaborations, with the addition of grotesque and sometimes beautiful fancies (‘Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations,’ vol. xvi. of the Ante-Nicene Library, 1870). Of more value are the fragments of the Gospels of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, and Peter (Hilgenfeld, NT extra canonem receptum², 1876–84; Swete, The Akhmim Fragment of the Gospel of Peter, 1903).

(2) Jewish sources.—Josephus mentions Jesus (Ant. XX. ix. 1), but the most famous passage (XVIII. iii. 3) is mainly, if not entirely, a Christian interpolation. The Jews remembered Him as charged with deceiving the people, practising magic and speaking blasphemy, and as having been crucified; but the calumnies of the Talmud as to the circumstances of His birth appear to have been comparatively late inventions (Huldricus, Sepher Toledot Jeschua, 1705; Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud, 1900).

(3) Classical sources.—There is evidence in the classical writers for the historical existence, approximate date, and death of Jesus, but otherwise their attitude was ignorant and contemptuous (Tac. Ann. XV. 44; Suetonius, Lives of Claudius and Nero; the younger Pliny, Epp. X. 97, 98 ; Lucian, de Morte Peregrini; Celsus in Origen; cf. Keim, Jesus of Nazara [Eng. tr.], 1876, i. pp.

24–33).

2. Presuppositions.—It is impossible to write about Christ without giving effect to a philosophical and religious creed. The claim to be free from presuppositions commonly means that a writer assumes that the facts can be accommodated to a purely naturalistic view of history. As a fact, there is less reason to construe Christ in naturalistic terms than to revise a naturalistic philosophy in the light of ‘the fact of Christ.’ A recent review of the whole literature of the subject (Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906) shows how profoundly the treatment has always been influenced by a writer’s attitude towards ultimate questions, and how far the purely historical evidence is from being able to compel a consensus sapientium. There are, in fact, as many types of the Life of Christ as there are points of view in theology, and it may be convenient at this stage to indicate the basis from which the work has been done in the principal monographs.

TYPES OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST

I. Elimination of the supernatural, from the standpoint of (1) Eighteenth Century Deism—Paulus, Das Leben Jesu, 1828; (2) Modern Pantheism—D. F. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1835–36 (Eng. tr. 1846); (3) Philosophical Scepticism—Renan, La Vie de Jésus, 1863 (Eng. tr. 1864).

II. Reduction of the supernatural, with eclectic reservation, from the standpoint of Theism—Seeley, Ecce Homo, 1866; Hase, Die Gesch. Jesu, 1876; Keim, Die Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, 1867–72 (Eng. tr.

1873–77); O. Holtzmann, Das Leben Jesu, 1901 (Eng. tr. 1904).

Within the rationalistic school there have emerged somewhat radical differences in the conception formed of Jesus and His message. One group conceives of Him as a man who is essentially modern because the value of His ideas and of His message is perennial (Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums, Eng. tr. 1901); another regards Him as, above all, the spokesman of unfulfilled apocalyptic dreams ( J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892). Bousset mediates between the two views (Jesus.

1906).

III. Reproduction of the Biblical account in general agreement with the faith of the Church—Neander, Das Leben Jesu Christi, 1837 (Eng. tr. 1848); B. Weiss, Das Leben Jesu, 1882 (Eng. tr. 1883) ; Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1884; Didon, Jesus Christ, 1891; Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, 1906.

The books of this group have a second common feature in their acceptance of the Fourth Gospel as a valuable history. The works of Weiss and Sanday dispose of the arrogant assumption of Schweitzer (op. cit.) that competent scholarship now regards the cardinal questions as settled in a negative sense. (For a full bibliography see Schweitzer, op. cit., art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in PRE³).

3. The Conditions in Palestine (Schürer, GJV³[HJP II. i. 1 ff.]).—The condition of the Jews at the birth of Christ may be summarily described as marked by political impotence and religious decadence.

(1) The political situation.—From the age of the Exile, the Jews in Palestine were subject to a foreign domination—Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, in rapid succession. Following upon a century of independence under the Maccabees, the country was incorporated in the Roman Empire as a division of the province of Syria. In certain circumstances, which have a parallel in

British India, the Romans recognized a feudatory king, and it was with this status that Herod the Great reigned over Palestine. At his death in B.C. 4, his dominions were divided among his three sons; but on the deposition of Archelaus in 6 A.D., Judæa and Samaria were placed under a Roman procurator. Herod Antipas and Philip continued to rule as vassal princes, with the title of tetrarchs, over Galilee and Ituræa respectively. The pressure of the Roman rule was felt in the stern measures which were taken to suppress any dangerous expressions of national feeling, and also in the exactions of the publicans to whom the taxes were farmed. Internal administration was largely an affair of the Jewish Church. To a highly spirited people like the Jews, with memories of former freedom and power, the loss of national independence was galling; and their natural restlessness under the foreign yoke, combined as it was with the Messianic hopes that formed a most vital element of their religion, was a source of anxiety not only to the Roman authorities but to their own leaders.

(2) The religious situation.—From the religious point of view it was a decadent age. No doubt there is a tendency to exaggerate the degradation of the world at our Lord’s coming, on the principle that the darkest hour must have preceded the dawn; and in fairness the indictment should be restricted to the statement that the age marked a serious declension from the highest level of OT religion. It had, in fact, many of the features which have re-appeared in the degenerate periods of the Christian Church. (a) One such feature was the disappearance of the prophetic man, and his replacement as a religious authority by representatives of sacred learning. As the normal condition of things in the Christian Church has been similar, it cannot in itself be judged to be symptomatic of anything worse than a silver age that the exponents of the Scriptures and of the tradition were now the chief religious guides of the people (see SCRIBES). Moreover, a very genuine religious originality and fervour had continued to find expression in the Apocalyptic literature of later Judaism (see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE). (b) A more decisive proof of degradation is the exaltation of the ceremonial and formal side of religion as a substitute for personal piety and righteousness of life. This tendency had its classic representatives in the Pharisees. The best of their number must have exhibited, as Josephus shows, a zeal for God and a self-denial like that of Roman Catholic saints—otherwise the veneration of the people, which Josephus shared, would be inexplicable (Ant. XVII. ii. 4); but as a class our Lord charges them with sins of covetousness and inhumanity, which gave the colour of hypocrisy to their ritualistic scruples (Mt 24; see PHARISEES). (c) A further characteristic of decadence is that the religious organization tends to come in the place of God, as the object of devotion, and there appears the powerful ecclesiastic who, though he may be worldly and even sceptical, is indispensable as the symbol and protector of the sacred institution. This type was represented by the Sadducees—in their general outlook men of the world, in their doctrine sceptics with an ostensible basis of conservatism,—who filled the priestly offices, controlled the Sanhedrin, and endeavoured to maintain correct relations with their Roman masters. It can also well be believed that, as Josephus tells us, they professed an aristocratic dislike to public business, which they nevertheless dominated; and that they humoured the multitude by an occasional show of religious zeal (see SADDUCEES).

In this world presided over by pedants, formalists, and political ecclesiastics, the common people receive a fairly good character. Their religion was the best that then had a footing among men, and they were in earnest about it. They had been purified by the providential discipline of centuries from the last vestiges of idolatry. It is noteworthy that Jesus brings against them no such sweeping accusations of immorality and cruelty as are met with in Amos and Hosea. Their chief fault was that they were disposed to look on their religion as a means of procuring them worldly good, and that they were blind and unreceptive in regard to purely spiritual blessings. The influence which the Pharisees had over them shows that they were capable of reverencing, and eager to obey, those who seemed to them to speak for God; and their response to the preaching of John the Baptist was still more to their honour. There is evidence of a contemporary strain of self-renouncing idealism in the existence of communities which sought deliverance from the evil of the world in the austerities of an ascetic life (Jos. Ant. XVIII. i. 5; see ESSENES). The Gospels introduce us to not a few men and women who impress us as exemplifying a simple and noble type of piety—nourished as they were on the religion of the OT, and waiting patiently for the salvation of God. Into a circle pervaded by this atmosphere Jesus was born.

4. Date of Christ’s Birth (cf. art. CHRONOLOGY, p. 135^b, and in Hastings’ DB).—If John began to baptize in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar (Lk 3:1)—being A.D. 29–and if Jesus WAS thirty years of age when He was baptized (v. 23), the traditional date fixed by Dionysius Exiguus would be approximately correct. But it is probable that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned by Lk. from his admission to joint-authority with Augustus in A.D. 11–12, so that Jesus would be thirty in A.D. 25–6, and would be born about B.C. 5. This agrees with the representation of Mt. that He was born under Herod, since Herod died B.C. 4, and a number of events of the Infancy are mentioned as occurring before his death. A reference in Jn 2:20 to the forty-six years during which the Temple had been in course of construction leads to a similar result—viz. A.D.

26 for the second year of the Ministry, and B.C. 5 for the Birth of Jesus.

5. Birth and Infancy (cf. Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 1907).—Mt. and Lk.

have a narrative of the Infancy, and agree in the following points—that Jesus was of David’s line, that He was miraculously conceived, that He was born in Bethlehem, and that the Holy Family permanently settled in Nazareth. The additional incidents related by Mt. are the appearance of the angel to Joseph (1:18–24), the adoration of the Magi (2:1–12), the flight into Egypt (vv. 13–15), the massacre at Bethlehem (vv. 16–18). Lk.’s supplementary matter includes the promise of the birth of John the Baptist (1:5–23), the Annunciation to Mary (vv. 26–38), the visit of Mary to Elisabeth (vv. 39–56), the birth of the Baptist (vv. 57–80), the census (2:1 ff.), the vision of angels (2:8–14), the adoration of the shepherds (vv. 15–20), the circumcision ( v.

21), the presentation in the Temple (vv. 22–39).

The narratives embody two ideas which are singly impressive, and in conjunction make a profound appeal to the feelings and the imagination. The humiliation of the Saviour is emphasized by one set of events—the lowly parentage, the birth in a stable, the rage of Herod, the flight of His parents to a distant land. The other series shows Him as honoured and accredited by heaven, while earth also agrees, in the representatives of its wealth and its poverty, its wisdom and its ignorance, to do Him honour at His coming. ‘A halo of miracles is formed around the central miracle, comparable to the rays of the rising sun’ (Lange, Life of Christ, Eng. tr. i. 257 , 258).

At this point the influence of theological standpoint makes itself acutely felt. In the ‘Lives’ written from the naturalistic and Unitarian standpoints, the mass of the material is described as mythical or legendary, and the only points left over for discussion are the sources of invention, and the date at which the stories were incorporated with the genuine tradition. The residuum of historical fact, according to O. Holtzmann, is that ‘Jesus was born at Nazareth in Galilee, the son of Joseph and Mary, being the eldest of five brothers and several sisters, and there He grew up’ (Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. p. 89). The chief grounds on which the negative case is rested may be briefly considered.

(1) The narratives of the Infancy are not a part of the original tradition, since they are known to only two of the Evangelists, and have no Biblical support outside these Gospels. To this it seems a sufficient reply that additions may have been made later from a good source, and that there were obvious reasons why some at least of the incidents should have been treated for a time with reserve.

(2) The two Gospels which deal with the Infancy discredit one another by the incompatibility of their statements. Mt., it is often said, supposes that Bethlehem was Joseph’s home from the beginning; Lk. says that he made a visit to Bethlehem on the occasion of a census. According to Mt., the birth in Bethlehem was followed by a flight into Egypt; according to Lk., they visited Jerusalem and then returned to Nazareth. But the difficulties have been exaggerated. Though it is quite possible that Mt. did not know of an original residence in Nazareth, he does not actually deny it. And although neither Evangelist may have known of the other’s history, it is quite possible, without excessive harmonistic zeal, to work the episodes of Mt. into Lk.’s scheme. ‘The accounts may be combined with considerable plausibility if we suppose that Joseph and Mary remained a full year in Bethlehem, during which the presentation in the Temple took place, and that the visit of the Magi was much later than the adoration of the shepherds’ ( Gloag, Introd. to the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 136, 137).

(3) The events narrated are said to be inconsistent with the indirect evidence of other portions of the Gospels. If they really occurred, why was Mary not prepared for all that followed? and why aid Jesus’ brethren not believe in Him? (Mk 3:21, 31ff., Mt 12:46–50). In particular, the body of the Gospels contains, it is said, evidence which is inconsistent with the Virgin-birth. The difficulty is a real one, but hardly greater than the difficulty presented in the fact that the mighty works of the Ministry did not overbear doubt and disbelief in those who witnessed them.

(4) The narratives in question are also said to have had their origin in man’s illusory ideas as to the proper manner of the coming of a Divine messenger. The history of the founders of other religions—e.g. Confucius and Gautama—shows a fond predisposition to invest the birth of a Saviour or a mighty prophet with a miraculous halo; and it is suggested that similar stories were invented about Christ, with the effect of obscuring the distinctive thought and purpose of God. They are ‘deforming investitures, misplaced, like courtdresses on the spirits of the just’ (Martinean, Loss and Gain). There is undeniable force in this, but it will be noticed that it is an observation which would make an end, as indeed those who use it intend, of the whole miraculous element in the life. If, on the other hand, we believe that the life of Christ was supernatural, it is easily credible that the rising of the Sun was heralded, in Lange’s image, by rays of glory.

Of the events of the glorious cycle which have the joint support of Mt. and Lk. there are three which have been felt to have religious significance.

(1) The Davidic descent.—It was an article of common belief in the primitive Church that Jesus was descended from David (Ro 1:3). Mt. and Lk. supply genealogies which have the purpose of supporting the belief, but do not strengthen it prima facie, as one traces the descent through Solomon (Mt 1:6), the other through a son of David called Nathan (Lk 3:31). The favourite way of harmonizing them is to suppose that Mt. gives the descent through Joseph, Lk. through Mary, while others think that Mt. gives the list of heirs to the Davidic throne, Lk. the actual family-tree of Jesus. It may well be believed that descendants of the royal house treasured the record of their origin; and on the other hand it seems unlikely that Jesus could have been accepted as Messiah without good evidence of Davidic origin, or that a late fabrication would have been regarded as such.

(2) The Virgin-birth (cf. Gore, Dissertations on the Incarnation, 1895; Lobstein, The VirginBirth of Christ, Eng. tr. 1903).—The student is referred for a full statement on both sides to the works above cited, but a remark may be made on the two branches of the evidence. (a) The objections based on historical and literary grounds, as distinct from anti-dogmatic prejudice, are of considerable weight. No account of Mk.’s purpose satisfactorily explains his omission if he knew of it, and it seems incredible that, if known, it would not have been utilized in the Pauline theology. Upon this it can only be said that it may have been a fact, although it had not yet come to the knowledge of Mk. and Paul. Further, Mt. and Lk. themselves raise a grave difficulty, since the whole point of the genealogies seems to be that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph. The usual, though not quite convincing, answer is, that Jesus was legally the son of Joseph, and therefore David’s heir. It must probably be admitted that the original compilers of the genealogies shared the ignorance of the earliest Gospel, but ignorance or silence is not decisive as to a fact. (b) It has been common to exaggerate the doctrinal necessity of the tenet. It is usually held to have been necessary to preserve Jesus from the taint of original sin; but as Mary was truly His mother, an additional miracle must have been necessary to prevent the transmission of the taint through her, and this subsidiary miracle could have safeguarded the sinlessness of Jesus without the miraculous conception. Nor can it be said that it is a necessary corollary of the Eternal Sonship of Christ; since it is found in the Gospels which say nothing of His pre-existence, and is absent from the Gospel which places this in the forefront. And yet it would be rash to say that it has no value for Christian faith. The unique character of Christ, with its note of sinless perfection, cannot be explained by purely natural factors; and the doctrine of the Virgin-birth at least renders the service of affirming the operation of a supernatural causality in the constitution of that character. It must also be said that the negation is generally felt to be a phase of an anti-supernatural campaign to which the overthrow of this position means the capture of an outwork, and a point of departure for a more critical attack. It is also difficult for a Christian thinker to abandon the dogma without feeling puzzled and distressed by the alternative explanations which open up.

(3) The Birth at Bethlehem (cf. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 1902).—For the birth at Bethlehem we have the statement of the Gospels. Lk. seems to have investigated the point with special care, and explains the presence of Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem as due to a census which had been ordered by Augustus (Lk 2:1). It has frequently been assumed that Lk. has blundered, as Quirinius was not governor of Syria until A.D. 6, when he made an enrolment; and the impossible date to which we are thus led seems to discredit the whole combination. In defence of Lk. it is pointed out that Quirinius held a military appointment in Syria about B.C. 6 which may have been loosely described as a governorship, and that there is evidence for a twelve years’ cycle in Imperial statistics which would give a first enrolment about the same date.

6. Years of Preparation (cf. Keim, vol. ii. pt. 2).—The silence of the Gospels as to the boyhood and early manhood of Jesus is broken only by the mention of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Lk 2:41ff.). Even if it be true that none of His townsfolk believed on Him, it might have been expected that the piety of His disciples would have recovered some facts from the public memory, and that in any case the tradition would have been enriched at a later date by members of the family circle. The only possible explanation of the silence is that during the years in Nazareth Jesus did and said nothing which challenged notice. It is also evident that the silence is an indirect testimony to the credibility of the great events of the later years, as there was every reason why the tradition, had it not been bound by facts, should have invested the earlier period with supernatural surprises and glories.

(1) Education of Jesus.—Earliest in time, and probably chief in importance, was the education in the home. The Jewish Law earnestly impressed upon parents, especially upon fathers, the duty of instructing their children in the knowledge of God, His mighty acts and His laws, and also of disciplining them in religion and morality. ‘We take most pains of all,’ says Josephus, ‘with the instruction of children, and esteem the observation of the laws, and the piety corresponding with them, the most important affairs of our whole life’ (c. Apion, i. 12). ‘We know the laws,’ he adds, ‘as well as our own name.’ It was the home in Nazareth that opened to Jesus the avenues of knowledge, and first put Him in possession of the treasures of the OT. It also seems certain that in His home there was a type of family life which made fatherhood stand to Him henceforward as the highest manifestation of a love beneficent, disinterested, and allforgiving. It is probable that Jesus had other teachers. We hear in the course of the same century of a resolution to provide teachers in every province and in every town; and before the attempt was made to secure a universal system, it was natural that tuition should be given in connexion with the synagogue to boys likely to ‘profit above their equals.’ Of the officers connected with the synagogue, the ruler and the elders may sometimes have done their work as a labour of love, and there is evidence that it could be laid on the chazzan as an official duty. The stated services of the synagogue, in which the chief part was the expounding of the Scriptures by any person possessed of learning or a message, must have been an event of the deepest interest to the awakening mind of Jesus. From early childhood He accompanied His parents to Jerusalem to keep the Feast—the utmost stress being laid by the Rabbis upon this as a means for the instilment of piety. It has also been well pointed out that the land of Palestine was itself a wonderful educational instrument. It was a little country, in size less than the Scottish Highlands, of which a great part could be seen from a mountain-top, and every district visited in a few days’ journey; and its valleys and towns, and, above all, Jerusalem, were filled with memories which compelled the citizen to live in the story of the past, and to reflect at every stage and prospect on the mission of his people and the ways of God (Ramsay, The Education of Christ, 1902). To these has to be added the discipline of work. Jesus learned the trade of a carpenter, and appears to have practised this trade in Nazareth until He reached the threshold of middle age (Mk 6:3). It is perhaps remarkable that none of His imagery is borrowed from His handicraft. One has the feeling that the work of the husbandman and the vinedresser had more attraction for Him, and that His self-sacrifice may have begun in the workshop. The deeper preparation is suggested in the one incident which is chronicled. The point of it is that even in His boyhood Jesus thought of God as His Father, and of His house as His true sphere of work (Lk 2:49. The holy of holies in the silent years was the life of communion with God in which He knew the Divine Fatherhood to be a fact, and became conscious of standing to Him in the intimate relationship of a Son.

(2) Knowledge of Jesus.—There is no reason to suppose that Jesus studied in the Rabbinical schools. Nor is there more ground for the belief, which has been made the motive of certain ‘Lives of Christ’ (Venturini, Natürliche Gesch. des grossen Propheten von Nazareth, 1800–2) , that He had acquired esoteric wisdom among the Essenes. It has also become difficult for those who take their impressions from the historical records to believe that, while in virtue of His human nature His knowledge was progressive and limited, in virtue of His Divine nature He was simultaneously omniscient. All we can say is that He possessed perfect knowledge within the sphere in which His vocation lay. The one book which He studied was the OT, and He used it continually in temptation, conflict, and suffering. He knew human nature in its littleness and greatness—the littleness that spoils the noblest characters, the greatness that survives the worst pollution and degradation. He read individual character with a swift and unerring glance. But what must chiefly have impressed the listeners were the intimacy and the certainty with which He spoke of God. In the world of nature He pointed out the tokens of His bounty and the suggestions of His care. The realm of human affairs was to Him instinct with principles which illustrated the relations of God and man. He spoke as One who saw into the very heart of God, and who knew at first hand His purpose with the world, and His love for sinful and sorrow-laden men.

7. Jesus and the Baptist.—The religious common-placeness of the age, which has been described above, was at length broken by the appearance of John the Baptist, who recalled the ancient prophets. He proclaimed the approach of the Day of the Lord, when the Messiah would take to Himself His power and reign. He rejected the idea that the Jews could claim special privileges on the ground of birth (Mt 3:9), and proclaimed that the judgment, with which His work would begin, would be searching and pitiless. Along with other Galilæans Jesus repaired to the scene of the ministry in the lower Jordan valley, and received baptism (Mk 1:9), not, indeed, as though He needed repentance, but as a symbol and means of consecration to the work which lay before Him. The Gospels are more deeply interested in the impression made by Jesus on John, modern writers in the influence exerted by John upon Jesus. According to all the Synoptics, John proclaimed the near advent of the Messiah; according to Mt., he may have implied that Jesus was the Messiah (3:14); while the Fourth Gospel states that he explicitly pointed Him out as the Messiah to his disciples (1:29, 36). If we suppose that Jesus held intercourse for a time with the Baptist, it is easy to believe that the stainlessness and commanding greatness of His character at least evoked from the Baptist an avowal of his own inferiority. That he went so far as to declare Him the Messiah whom he preached is a statement which it is difficult to accept literally, or as meaning more than that the school of the Baptist pointed to its consummation in the school of Christ. On the other hand, contact with the Baptist’s ministry evidently precipitated the crisis in the life of Christ. The man who re-discovered the need and the power of a prophetic mission was an instrument in bringing Jesus face to face with His prophetic task; while his proclamation of the impending advent of the Messiah must have had the character for Jesus of a call to the work for which, as the unique Son, He knew Himself to be furnished. It is evident that the act of baptism was accompanied by something decisive. According to Mk., Jesus then had a vision of the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove, and heard a voice from heaven, ‘Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’ (1:10, 11). This is more probable than the statement that it was a public revelation (Lk 3:21, 22), or that it was the Baptist to whom the vision was vouchsafed (Jn 1:32). We shall hardly err if we suppose that Jesus spoke to the disciples of His baptism as the time when His Messianic consciousness became clear, and He received an endowment of strength for the task to which He was called.

8. The Temptation.—The view taken of the significance of the Baptism is confirmed by the narrative of the Temptation, which would naturally follow closely upon the acceptance of the Messianic vocation (Mk 1:12–13, Mt 4:1–11, Lk 4:1–13). Like the scene at the Baptism, the temptations probably came to Jesus in the form of a vision, which He afterwards described to His disciples. It has generally been agreed that the temptations must be understood as growing out of the Messianic commission, but there is wide difference of opinion as to their precise significance. The view which seems most probable to the present writer may be briefly set forth, it being premised that Luke’s order seems to answer best to the logic of the situation. Assuming that in the Baptism Jesus accepted the Messianic call, the possibilities of the ensuing ordeal of temptation were three—that He should recoil from the task, that He should misconceive it, or that, rightly apprehending it, He should adopt wrong methods. The first temptation, accordingly, may very naturally be supposed to have consisted in the suggestion that He should choose comfort rather than hardship—that He should turn back, while there was yet time, from the arduous and perilous path, and live out His days in the sheltered life of Nazareth. This He rejected on the ground that there are higher goods than comfort and security; ‘man shall not live by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4). The heroic course resolved on, the great question to be next faced was if He was to aim at establishing a kingdom of the political kind which the people generally expected, or a kingdom of a spiritual order. To found and maintain an earthly kingdom. He knew, meant the use of violence, craft, and other Satanic instruments; and of such means, even if the end had approved itself to Him as His vocation, He refused to make use (Mt 4:8ff.). This decision taken, the question remained as to the way in which He was to win belief for Himself and His cause. For one with perfect trust in God it was a natural suggestion to challenge God to own Him by facing risks in which His life could be saved only through the interposition of a stupendous miracle (4:5ff.). But this He put aside as impious, and cast upon the Father the care of making His path plain, while He awaited, prudently as well as bravely, the gradual disclosure of His call to work and danger.

9. Duration of the Ministry (cf. art. CHRONOLOGY above and in DB).—The Synoptics give no certain indication of the length of the period. It is argued that the incident of plucking the ears of corn (Mk 2:23) points to April or June of one year, and that at the feeding of the five thousand we are in the spring (‘green grass,’ Mk 6:39) of the year following; while at least another twelve months would be required for the journeys which are subsequently recorded. The chronological scheme usually adopted is based on the Fourth Gospel, which has the following notes of time:— a Passover (2:13), four months to harvest (4:35), a feast of the Jews (5:1), another Passover (6:4) , the feast of Tabernacles (7:2), the feast of Dedication (10:22), the last Passover (11:55). The first four ‘can be combined in more than one way to fit into a single year—e.g. (a) Passover—May— any lesser feast—Passover; or (b) Passover—January—Purim (February)—Passover.’ ‘From 6:4 to 11:55 the space covered is exactly a year, the autumn Feast of Tabernacles (7:2), and the winter Feast of Dedication (10:22), being signalized in the course of it’ (art. ‘Chronology’ in DB i. 409^a, 408^a).

It was a wide-spread opinion in Patristic times, supported by the phrase ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’ (Lk 4:19), that the ministry lasted only one year; and in the opinion of some modern scholars it can be maintained that even the Fourth Gospel includes its material between two Passovers (Westcott and Hort, Greek Test.; Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus). On the other hand, it was asserted by Irenæus (adv. Hær. ii. 22) on the ground of Jn 8:57, and of an alleged Johannine tradition, that from ten to twenty years elapsed between the Baptism and the

Crucifixion. Jn 8:57 is quite inconclusive, and the best authority for the Johannine tradition must be the Gospel, the evidence of which may be summed up by saying that ‘while two years must, not more than two years can, be allowed for the interval from Jn 2:13, 23 to Jn 11:55’ ( art.

‘Chronology’ in DB).

10. Periods of the Life of Christ.—The divisions are necessarily affected by the view which is taken of the value of the chronological scheme of the Fourth Gospel.

Keim, who generally follows the guidance of the Synoptics, divides as follows:— Preliminary period of self-recognition and decision.

1. The Galilæan spring-time, beginning in the spring of A.D. 34 [certainly much too late], and lasting for a few months. Characteristics: the optimism of Jesus, and the responsiveness of the people.

2. The Galilæan storms, extending over the summer and autumn of A.D. 34 and the spring of the following year. Scene: Galilee and the neighbouring regions. Characteristics: increasing opposition, and intensification of the polemical note in the teaching of Jesus.

3. The Messianic progress to Jerusalem, and the Messianic death at the Passover of A.D. 35. Scene: Peræa and Jerusalem (Jesus of Nazara).

The Johannine material can be combined with the Synoptic in two periods, each of which lasted about a year. The following is the scheme of Hase:— Preliminary history.

1. The ‘acceptable year of the Lord,’ marked by hopefulness, active labour, and much outward success. Scene: Judæa and Galilee. Time: from the Baptism to the Feeding of the Multitude (some months before Passover of the year A.D. 30 or 31 to shortly before Passover of the following year).

2. The year of conflict. Scene: Galilee, Peræa, Judæa. Time: from the second to the last Passover.

3. The Passion and Resurrection. Scene: Jerusalem. Time: Passover (Gesch. Jesu).

The months between the Baptism and the first Passover may be regarded as a period with distinct characteristics, and we may distinguish (1) the year of obscurity, (2) the year of public favour, (3) the year of opposition (Stalker, Life of Jesus Christ, 1879).

The division into sub-periods has been most elaborately carried out by Dr. Sanday (Outlines of the

Life of Jesus Christ).—

A. Preliminary period—from the Baptism to the call of the leading Apostles. Sources: Mt 3:1–4:11 , Mk 1:1–13, Lk 3:1–4:13, Jn 1:6–4:54. Scene: mainly in Judæa, but in part also in Galilee. Time: winter

A.D. 26 to a few weeks before Passover, A.D. 27.

B. First active or constructive period. Sources: Mt 4:13–13:53, Mk 1:14–6:13, Lk 4:14–9:6, Jn 5. Scene: mainly in Galilee, but also partly in Jerusalem. Time: from about Pentecost, A.D. 27, to shortly before Passover, A.D. 28.

C. Middle or culminating period of the active ministry. Sources: Mt 14:1–18:35, Mk 6:14–9:50, Lk 9:7–50, Jn 6. Scene: Galilee. Time: Passover to shortly before Tabernacles, A.D. 28.

D. Close of the active period—the Messianic crisis in view. Sources: Mt 19:1–20:34, Mk 10:1–52, Lk 9:51–19:28, Jn 7:1–11:57. Scene: Judæa and Peræa. Time: Tabernacles, A.D. 28, to Passover, A.D. 29. E. The Messianic crisis—the last week, passion, resurrection, ascension. Sources: Mt 21:1–28:20, Mk 11:1–16:8 [16:9–20], Lk 19:29–24:52, Jn 12:1–21:23. Scene: mainly in Jerusalem. Time: six days before Passover to ten days before Pentecost, A.D. 29.

Weiss’s scheme agrees with the above so far as regards the duration of the ministry (from 2 to 3 years), and the date of the Crucifixion (Passover, A.D. 29). His periods are: (1) the preparation, corresponding to Dr. Sanday’s ‘preliminary period’ down to the wedding in Cana of Galilee; (2) the seedtime, including the remainder of ‘the preliminary period,’ and the first active or constructive period; (3) the period of first conflicts, and (4) the period of crisis, corresponding to the ‘middle or culminating period’; (5) the Jerusalem period, corresponding to the close of the active period; (6) the Passion and the subsequent events.

Useful as the above schemes of Weiss and Sanday are for arranging the subject-matter, and deserving as they are of respect for their scholarly grounding, the writer doubts if we can pretend to such exact knowledge of the course of events. Even if we assume that the Fourth Gospel gives a reliable chronological framework, it is a very precarious assumption that the Synoptic material, which is largely put together from a topical point of view, can be assigned its proper place in the scheme. Further, it is by no means clear that we are right in supposing that there was a Judæan ministry which ran parallel with the Galilæan ministry. There is much to be said for the view that the narratives of the Fourth Gospel presuppose a situation towards the close of them inistry, and that in interweaving them with the Synoptic narratives of the Galilæan period, we anticipate the actual march of the history. The view here taken is that there was a Galilæan ministry, for which the Synoptics are almost the sole source; that this was followed for some months before the end by a Judæan ministry, the materials of which are supplied mainly by the Fourth Gospel; and that finally the sources unite to give a picture of the Last Week, the Passion, and the Resurrection.

(A) THE GALILÆAN MINISTRY.—Jesus seems to have remained with the Baptist until the latter was put in prison (Mk 1:14), when He returned to Galilee. The change of scene, which in any case was natural in view of the blow that had been struck, served to mark the distinctness of His mission from that of John. He may also have been influenced by His knowledge of the greater receptiveness of the Northern stock. The centre of His activity was the populous district, studded with prosperous towns, which lay around the Sea of Galilee. From Capernaum, in which

He lived for a time (Mt 4:13, Mk 9:33), He had easy access to the other cities on the Lake, and He also appears to have made wider circuits throughout Galilee, in the course of which He preached in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk 4:16ff.). At the close of the period He penetrated to the regions beyond—being found on the ‘borders’ of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7:24), then in the heathen district of Decapolis to the east of Jordan (v. 31), afterwards in the towns of Cæsarea Philippi in the dominions of the tetrarch Philip (8:27). Except for the incidental references above referred to, there is nothing to fix the duration of the Galilæan ministry; but though crowded with labours and incidents, it seems to have been comparatively short. Its importance is measured by the fact that it set the Christian gospel in circulation in the world, and laid the foundation of the Christian Church.

(1) Treatment of the materials.—In dealing with this period, the characteristic task of the historian may almost be said to begin where that of the Evangelists ends. The modern student is not only interested in chronology and in the details of the environment, but he tries to bring the course of events under the point of view of development, and to penetrate to the causes which explain the movement and the issue of the history. The Gospels, on the other hand, contribute a picture rather than a history—a picture, moreover, in which the setting is presupposed rather than described, while they leave us in ignorance of much that we should like to know about hidden forces and springs of action. It seems advisable to begin by reproducing in its salient aspects the Synoptic picture of the Galilæan ministry, based primarily on Mk., and thereafter to advert to some contributions which have been made to the better elucidation of the course of events.

(2) The picture of the Galitæan Ministry.—The principal source is the sketch in Mk., which sets forth the Ministry from the point of view of one who regarded it as the manifestation of the Messiah. The chronological order of events is necessarily mirrored to some extent, as the narrative describes a mission and its outcome; but the arrangement as well as the selection of the material is largely governed by topical considerations. The topics of Mk. may be summarized as follows:—(a) the preliminary attestation of Jesus as the Messiah; (b) the Messianic activities; (c) the opposition to Jesus, and His self-vindication; (d) the attitude of Jesus Himself to the question of His Messiahship; (e) the results of the Galilæan Ministry.

The above argument is taken over by Mt., with some change in the order of the sections, while he supplements from the older Apostolic source the meagre account given by Mk. of the contents of the teaching of Jesus. Lk. follows Mk. more closely in the sections dealing with the Galilæan ministry, but incidentally shows the uncertainty of the chronological scheme by transferring to the beginning the visit to Nazareth (4:16–30; cf. Mk 6:1–6, Mt 13:53–58), on the apparent ground that it could be regarded as in some respects a typical incident.

(a) The preliminary attestation.—The Synoptic tradition puts in the forefront certain credentials of Jesus. John the Baptist predicted His coming (Mk 1:7–8), a voice from heaven proclaimed Him to be the Son (v. 11), the demons knew Him (vv. 23, 24; cf. 5:7); while the chosen few, though as yet not knowing Him for what He is, instinctively obeyed His call (1:18) , and the multitude recognized in Him an extraordinary man (1:22). Apart from the references to the Baptist and the vision at the Baptism, the facts which underlay this apologetic argument were that demoniacs were peculiarly susceptible to His influence, and that upon the uncorrupted and unprejudiced heart Jesus made the impression of a commanding authority which was entitled to be obeyed.

(b) The Messianic activities.—Upon the credentials follows a description of the labours by which Jesus proceeded to carry out His plan, and which revealed Him as the Messiah. The means employed were three—to teach the nature, the blessings, and the laws of the Kingdom, to exemplify its power and its spirit in mighty works, and to call and train men who should exemplify the new righteousness, and also share and continue His labours.

(i) The ministry of teaching (cf. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, Eng. tr. 1892).—The work which lay nearest to the hand of Jesus, as the Messiah, was to preach. He needed to preach repentance, as the condition of the reception of the Kingdom; He needed to gain entrance for a true conception of its nature; and He had to legislate for the society which was to own Him as its King. It is accordingly as the Messiah prophet that He is introduced: ‘Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel’ (Mk 1:14, 15). Following upon a similar notice (4:23) , Mt. interpolates the Sermon on the Mount, in which the principles of the gospel of the Kingdom are set forth, on the one hand as a revision of the OT moral code, on the other as an antithesis to the maxims and the practice of contemporary Judaism. The meagre specimens of our Lord’s teaching which Mk. thought it sufficient for his purpose to give, are further supplemented by Mt. in his collection of the parables of the Kingdom, and by Lk. in the peculiar section which includes the parables of the Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Son.

The synagogues were open, at least in the first period, to Jesus. He also taught wherever opportunity offered—in the house, on the mountain-side, from a boat moored by the shore of the Lake. To a large extent His teaching was unsystematic, being drawn forth by way of comment on some casual incident, or of a rejoinder made to a question or an objection. On other occasions, e.g. when preaching in the synagogue, we must suppose Him to have treated of some large subject in a set discourse, but it is unlikely that any one contained more than an exposition of an OT passage (Lk 4:16ff.), or the message of one of the parables (Mt 13:1ff.). The grand characteristic of His manner of teaching has been described as the combination of the utmost degree of popular intelligibility with memorable pregnancy of expression (Wendt, § 2). (a) The means by which intelligibility was attained was the copious use of the concrete example, and of the comparison of ideas. The comparison is used in three forms—the simile, the metaphor, and the parable. The parables, again, obviously fall into three classes. In one class we have a story which illustrates by a concrete example an attitude which Jesus desired to commend or to condemn (the Good Samaritan, Lk 10:30ff.; the Pharisee and the Publican, 18:10ff.). Those of a second class draw attention to a law operating in the natural world which has its counterpart in the Kingdom of God (the Seed Growing Secretly, Mk 4:26–29; the Mustard Seed, 4:30–32). in a third class there is a description of an event which has occurred in special circumstances, whether in nature or in the dealings of man with man, and the particular event is employed to illustrate some aspect of the Divine message (the Sower, Mt 13:1ff.; the Prodigal Son, Lk 15:11ff.). (b) The second note of the teaching of Jesus, which might perhaps be called incisiveness, is illustrated in the numerous short sayings, or aphorisms, into which He condenses a body of doctrine or precept (Mk 4:22, 24, 10:31). It is also seen in the naked, often paradoxical, fashion, in which He states a principle. The doctrine of non-resistance, e.g., He teaches in uncompromising form by means of the special instance (Mt 5:38–41), and leaves it to the disciple to discover the other considerations which cross and limit its application. The latter observation is of importance as a preservative against the errors of an excessive literalism in the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus. It is also desirable to bear in mind the rule, which is one of the gains of modern exegesis, that each of the parables of Jesus is to be regarded as the vehicle of one great lesson, and that it is illegitimate to treat it as an allegory every detail of which has been consciously filled with didactic meaning. As regards the aim of Jesus in His teaching, it might be thought self-evident that it could be nothing else than to make His message clear to His hearers. It is therefore surprising to read that the parables are spoken by Jesus with the purpose of obscuring to them that are without the truths which they reveal to the disciples—‘that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand’ (Mk 4:10–12, Mt 13:10–15, Lk 8:9, 10). That the teaching of Jesus was largely misapprehended is, of course, true, and also that it had the effect of making those worse who rejected it, but this would appear to be an instance in which the Church has misreported a tragic consequence as an original and deliberate intention.

(ii) The mighty works (cf. Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels, 1886).—The teaching ministry was accompanied from the first by acts of healing, and these were followed later by other acts involving superhuman power. The Synoptic account of the mighty works may be briefly summarized.—(1) They were very numerous, and were of different kinds. In addition to the miracles which are described in detail, there are references of a general sort which imply that Jesus’ work was cast to a large extent in the form of a healing ministry (Mk 1:33, 34). Some of the miracles might be understood as faith-cures wrought upon persons suffering from nervous disorders or mental derangement, but those are inextricably bound up with others which are not explained by moral therapeutics, while a third group not explained imply a supernatural control of the forces of external nature. The healing miracles may be divided as follows:—(a) cure of organic defects (the blind, Mk 10:46–52; the deaf and dumb, 7:31–37); (b) disease (leprosy, Mk

1:40–45, Lk 17:11–16; fever, Mk 1:29–31; dropsy, Lk 14:1–6; paralysis, Mk 2:1–12, Mt 8:5– 13); (c) death (Mk 5:22ff., Lk 8:41). As a special group, conceived as miracles in the spirit world, are the cures of epilepsy and lunacy (Mk 1:21–28, 5:1–20, 7:24–30, 9:14ff.). The Nature miracles have been classified as (a) miracles of creative power (feeding of the multitude, Mk 6:35–44, 8:1–10; walking on the water, 6:48, 51); (β) Miracles of Providence, including ( i. ) miracles of blessing (the miraculous draught of fishes, Lk 5:1–11; the stilling of the tempest, Mk 4:35–41); and (ii.) a miracle of judgment (the cursing of the fig-tree, Mk 11:12–14, 20; cf. Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels³, 1895, App. E).—(2) The working of miracles was conditioned in various ways. The general condition on the side of the patients was the presence of faith ( the woman with the issue, Mk 5:25–34; Bartimæus, Mk 10:46–52). In the absence of faith Jesus could do nothing or little (Mk 6:4–6, Mt 13:58). It was not, however, necessary that this faith should be personal: in some cases it was the vicarious faith of a parent or of a friend that had power and prevailed (the centurion’s servant, Mt 8:5–13: the daughter of the Syrophœnician woman, Mk 7:24–30). In some instances the miracle is represented as having its spring in sympathy, apart from any reference to the spiritual condition of the sufferer (the fever, Mk 1:29– 34; dropsy, Lk 14:1–6); while in cases of possession it could take place in the face of reluctance and antagonism (the unclean spirit. Mk 1:21ff.: the man in the tombs, 5:1–17). As regards the powers of Jesus, the impression is not given that He was in possession of an omnipotence which He was able to wield at will. For what He is able to accomplish He is dependent on the Father, who supplies Him with power in the measure in which it is needed for the discharge of His mission. In the background of the miracles was the life of communion with God which Jesus lived. ‘This kind,’ He significantly says, ‘can come out by nothing, save by prayer’ (Mk 9:29). It would also appear that the cures made a demand upon His energies which gave rise to a feeling of physical exhaustion (Mk 5:30).—(3) The significance of the miracles. The leading point of view in which they are regarded in the Gospels is undeniably the evidential. In the fundamental narrative the argument advances from the testimonies as the first link, to the mighty works as the second link, in the chain of Messianic proof. It would be impossible to state the evidential aspect more strongly than is done in the reply to the question of John the Baptist (Mt 11:2 ff. ).

(iii) The calling and teaching of disciples (cf. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 1877).— The effect of the Ministry was that Jesus, like the prophets of old, John the Baptist, and the Rabbis, gathered around Him a group of disciples. The great body of those who regarded Him as a Divinely sent teacher must have remained in their homes, and been content to hear Him when they had a convenient opportunity; and there is no reason to think that they were organized in any way into societies, except in so far as a natural instinct would prompt them to meet and speak one to another of the things which they had seen and heard. There was a second body of disciples, sometimes large but fluctuating in size, which accompanied Jesus on His journeys. Some He invited to join this company, others He sternly invited to count the cost (Mt 8:19 ff. ). Within this company He formed an inner circle of twelve, who left all for His sake, and with a few breaks were found constantly at His side. The call of Simon and Andrew, James and John (Mk 1:16ff.). Is related to have occurred in the first days of the Galilæan ministry. An early Christian tradition (Ep. Barn. 5) speaks of the Apostles as reclaimed sinners of the worst type, but this is manifestly an exaggeration designed to illustrate the regenerative power of the gospel.

The leading members of the band were fishermen—of a craft which is pursued under a sense of dependence on Providence, and therefore tends to foster the spirit of piety. The sons of Zebedee seem to have been in better circumstances than the rest, and Matthew the tax-gatherer doubtless wielded a competent pen; but they were ignorant men as tested by the standard of the schools, whether ancient or modern. Humility, sincerity, and prudence, coupled with trust in God and devotion to Himself, were the qualifications which chiefly guided Jesus in selecting them (Mt 10:5ff, 16:17). In calling the Apostles, Jesus was satisfying a need of His own inner life. It was a maxim of the Rabbis that it was a sin to have no friend with whom to discourse of the Divine Law, and for Jesus this opportunity was provided by their intimate converse. It is also evident that He was wont to feel strengthened by their sympathy (Mk 14:37). On the other hand, He needed them for the work of the Kingdom. It was necessary that in them the righteousness of the Kingdom should be personally manifested, so that men might see their good works and glorify the Father (Mt 5:16). For this reason we find that it becomes increasingly the peculiar care of Jesus to perfect their training in knowledge and in character. He also looked to them as instruments to aid Him in His work.

‘To the disciples were left the details of the daily provision of food; they furnished the boat, they rowed Him across the lake; sometimes one and sometimes another of them executed His commissions; they were His channels of communication with the people, with the sick, with the Pharisees’ (Keim, iii. p. 280).

They were to Jesus ‘arms and eyes,’ and even in a sense ‘an extended personality.’ He assigned to them powers and duties similar to His own. He appointed ‘twelve that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to cast out devils’ (Mk 3:14f.). ‘And they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them’ (6:12, 13).

(c) The opposition and self-vindication.—Two sections in Mk., with parallels in Mt. and Lk., are devoted to explaining why certain classes refused to believe in Jesus, and to showing how He replied to their objections. The charges may be reduced to three heads—blasphemy, irreligious conduct, and insanity.

(i) The charge of blasphemy was early brought against Jesus by certain of the scribes, on the ground that He professed to forgive sins (Mk 2:7). The reply of Jesus is that in healing the paralytic He gives evidence that He has received this authority from God. The same general charge is implied in the request of the Pharisees, ‘seeking of Him a sign from heaven, tempting him’ (8:11)—the ground taken being that it was impious to teach as He did, unless He could produce satisfying evidence of a Divine sanction. Had the Evangelist edited his material with inventive licence, we should have expected to this question the same reply as was sent to John the Baptist. Instead, we have the startlingly authentic word, ‘Why doth this generation seek a sign? There shall no sign be given’ (v. 12). It is incredible that this should mean that Jesus disclaimed to work miracles; but it certainly implies that He did not, and probably that He could not, when He was challenged to perform them out of connexion with moral conditions, and as a mere contribution to a controversy.

(ii) Irreligious conduct.—There are charges of sins of omission and of sins of commission. Among the sins of omission charged against Jesus is His neglect of fasting—a recognized exercise of the holy life, which had been enforced by John the Baptist (Mk 2:18). The reply is that there is a time to fast, and that the time will come for His disciples when their Master is taken away (vv. 19, 20). To the same category belongs the accusation which was preferred by the Pharisees and certain of the scribes, that some of His disciples neglected the laws of ceremonial purity and ate with unwashed hands (7:1ff). Jesus replies that defilement consists in the impure heart, which is the source of all evil (v. 20). Of the sins of commission the chief transgression charged was that He and His disciples did not keep the Sabbath (2:23–28), and He defended Himself by appealing to OT precedent, and by laying down the principle that the Sabbath law could not be broken by doing good to man on that day. It was also a common ground of accusation that His manner of life, especially His consorting with disreputable persons, stamped Him as wanting in the character of sanctity (2:16). He replied that He visited them as a physician (v. 17).

(iii) The charge of insanity was also made. The Evangelist does not shrink from recording that some of His friends thought that He was beside Himself (Mk 3:21). Scribes from Jerusalem repeated this in the form that He was the tool of diabolical influences (v. 22). ‘How can Satan,’ He asked, ‘cast out Satan?’ (v. 23).

(d) The attitude of Jesus Himself to the Messiahship.—While the Synoptics labour to show by accumulated proofs that Jesus was the Messiah, they do not represent Him as obtruding the claim. On the contrary, He enjoins silence upon those who know. He forbids the spirits to testify (1:25), He even takes steps to keep secret the notable miracles—such as the healing of the leper (1:44), and the raising of the daughter of Jairus (5:43), which would have been likely to carry conviction to the general mind. The impression which is conveyed is that Jesus desired that His disciples, without being prompted, and as the result of their knowledge of Him, should draw the right inference as to His dignity and mission. Even when the grand discovery was made and proclaimed by Peter at Cæsarea Philippi—and in all the Gospels this confession is recognized as momentous—Jesus enjoined reserve (Mk 8:27–30, Mt 16:13ff.). Henceforward, He spoke of it freely to the Twelve with the purpose of preparing them for the unexpected issue of His Messiahship in suffering and death. Following upon Peter’s confession,’ He began to teach them that he must suffer many things, and be killed, and on the third day rise again’ (Mk 8:31). The same was the burden of His teaching on the last journey through Galilee (9:30–32). These predictions of His Passion, it may be added, were manifestly precious to the Primitive Church as removing a stumbling-block in the way of believing the Messiahship. The Crucifixion was a very real difficulty to faith, but it would have been much greater had not the Apostolic witnesses testified that He who claimed to be the Messiah had also foretold His own death.

(e) The results of the Galilœan ministry.—The Synoptic tradition, while not concealing the darker side of the picture, is most concerned with the achievements and the gains of the Galilæan period. It is well known that, as Jesus foretold, much of the seed fell on bad soil or came to nothing. We read of a Woe pronounced by Jesus on Chorazin and Bethsaida which expresses a sense that He had failed to produce a general change for the better in the cities by the Lake ( Mt 11:20ff.). Luke, in particular, puts in the forefront His rejection by the people of His own town (Lk 4:28–30). But as the Primitive Christians looked back on it, it might well seem, in the light of later confidence and optimism, that the success was more conspicuous than the failure. The people reverenced in Him One of superlative greatness—either the Baptist, or Elijah, or ‘the prophet’ (Mk 8:28). He had gathered round Him a body of disciples, who were the germ of the future Church (Mt 16:18). Above all, they had risen, in spite of prejudice and opposition, to a heroic avowal of the faith in His Person and in His mission which was to move and to transform the world (Mk 8:29).

The epic treatment of the Galilæan ministry.—In the treatment of this period many modern ‘Lives’ proceed on the footing that the Galilæan ministry has the tragic interest of a splendid failure following on the brightest hopes. It has been common enough in public life for great men to sink from popularity, through conflict, to neglect and impotence; and there is not a little to suggest that it was so with Jesus in Galilee. The usual representation is that, after being borne along on a tide of popular enthusiasm, the opposition grew more persistent and envenomed, He was forsaken by the multitude, and was forced to move from place to place with a handful of faithful followers. The dramatic effect is sedulously laboured by Keim, who represents Him as becoming a homeless fugitive, seeking safety from His enemies in distant journeys or in obscure places. Graphic pictures are drawn of the change in the popular attitude. ‘Formerly the multitude of hearers thronged Jesus, so that He could not eat in the house in peace, and had to betake Himself from the shore to the lake. Now He sits alone in the house with the disciples, and the collectors of the Temple-tax know not whether they are to assess Him as still a member of their community’ (O. Holtzmann. Christus, 1907, p. 71). In explanation of His desertion by the multitude, use is made of the incident recorded in Mk 7:1ff., which, it is thought, was popularly regarded as meaning that He had been definitely repudiated by the highest religious tribunal. The latter, it is supposed, moved the Galilæan authorities to action which menaced the liberty of Jesus, and even His life.

This dramatic treatment is not wholly justified by the records and is to some extent dependent on inherent probability in the idyllic early days, when we are told that only the first murmurs of opposition were heard, Mk. says that the cry of blasphemy and of Sabbath-breaking was already raised against Jesus, and that there was a conspiracy to murder Him (3:6). At the close of the period, again, when He is pictured as a discredited popular hero, the verdict of Galilee still is that He is a Divine messenger (8:28), while at the Transfiguration, which falls in the darkest days, a great multitude still attends upon His steps (9:4). The truth would seem to be that the Synoptics, especially Mk., have given insufficient expression to the element of movement and to the proportion of failure, and that modern biographers have striven too much after strong effects. At the same time the modern work has certainly brought into clearer relief certain points. It seems certain that there was a growing bitterness and violence on the part of the religious authorities, as seen in the fact that Jesus ceased to preach in the synagogues. There was also a measure of popular disappointment, which was the inevitable result of the absence of the patriotic note from the teaching of Jesus, and of the high-pitched spirituality of His demands. Jesus, moreover, regarded the response of Galilee to His preaching as having been representatively given, and as tantamount to a refusal to repent and believe the gospel. As to the motive of the journeys of the last months, there are various considerations to be taken into account. That one motive was to avoid the machinations of His enemies is quite possible, as this would have been in accordance with a counsel given by Him to His disciples ( Mt 10:23). But this was quite consonant with a purpose to proclaim the gospel in regions hitherto unevangelized. And if, as is true, there is little evidence that these journeys had a missionary aim, it may well be that for Jesus the most pressing necessity now was to devote Himself to the training of the disciples, and in their society to prepare them, along with Himself, for the trials and the tasks that awaited them at Jerusalem.

Theories of development.—It is characteristic of the modern writing of history to postulate a process of evolution and to try to explain its causes; and reference may here be made to the treatment from this point of view of the central theme of the period—the Messianic consciousness of Jesus. The Gospels know of development only in the form of a growth in the faith of the disciples, and of a modification of the educative method of Jesus; but the question is raised whether the original plan of Jesus, and the means by which He proposed to accomplish it, were not also altered during its course. The theories which may be noticed are those of (1) a modification of His earlier ideas under the influence of John the Baptist; (2) the substitution of the idea of a purely spiritual Kingdom for that of a theocratic State, under the impression which had been made upon Him by the providential course of events; (3) His more complete adoption, also as the outcome of experience, of the Apocalyptic conception of a heavenly Kingdom to be founded on the ruins of the earthly world.

(1) The Galilæan ministry which has been described is supposed by Renan to represent a declension from an earlier stage. He supposes that for some months, perhaps a year, previously. Jesus had laboured in Galilee as the teacher of a simple gospel of Divine and human love. On joining John the Baptist He absorbed his ideas and his spirit, and after the arrest of the latter began to publish a new message ‘Jesus is no longer simply a delightful moralist; aspiring to express simple lessons in short and lively aphorisms, He is the transcendent revolutionary who essays to revolutionize the world from its very basis, and to establish on earth an ideal which He had conceived (Life of Jesus, Eng tr p 106). It is clear, as already said, that a time came when Jesus became certain of His Messianic vocation; but that He was already engaged in teaching before He came into contact with the Baptist, there is no evidence whatever. And ‘the Galilæan spring-tide,’ as Keim calls it. certainly does not bear out the idea that the influence of the Baptist had tinged the spirit of Jesus with gloom.

(2) According to Hase, the experiences of the Galilæan ministry led to a modification of the hopes and plans of Jesus. At the outset He expected to found a Kingdom such as the OT prophets had foretold, viz. a Kingdom which, while distinguished by piety and righteousness, would be in form a glorious revival of the Kingdom of David. He also hoped that the people as a whole would repent and believe the gospel, and accept Him as the great emancipator. ‘Down to the time when His earthly career was approaching the catastrophe, we never hear a rebuke of the worldly hopes which the Messianic idea everywhere called forth; and on the other hand, He spoke of the Apostles as sitting on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and answered questions of the disciples about places of supreme honour and power.’ ‘But when, in view of the falling away of the people. His earthly destruction seemed impending, He recognized it to be the purpose of God, and made it His own purpose to establish only a spiritual Kingdom in loyal hearts, and left it to the wonder-working energy of His Heavenly Father to make it grow into a world-power’ (Gesch. Jesu², 517 ff.). This construction derives a certain plausibility from the fact that it seems to be a general law of Providence that God only gradually reveals His purpose to His chosen instruments, and that the founding and reformation of religions has seldom been carried out in accordance with a predetermined plan. But apart from the doctrinal difficulty of supposing that Jesus was ignorant of a matter so vital, the weight of the historical evidence is against the hypothesis. The story of the Temptation makes it clear that Jesus from the beginning rejected the idea of a Messiahship resting on a basis of political power. He was, moreover, too deeply versed in OT history not to know the usual fate of the prophets. An early saying is preserved, in which He compared the Galilæan spring-tide to a wedding which would be followed by bereavement and mourning (Mk 2:19, 20).

(3) A more recent phase of the discussion was initiated by Baldensperger (Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 1888). who made use of the ideas of the Jewish Apocalyptic literature to explain the later teaching of Jesus. He differs from Hase in that he holds that the political ideal was completely rejected in the wilderness, and that during the Galilæan period Jesus made prominent the spiritual nature of the Kingdom—although not knowing when and how it was to be realized. At the later date, when the fatal issue became probable, He would welcome the thought of His death as solving many difficulties, while He more fully appropriated the current Apocalyptic ideas of the Kingdom, and promised to return in the clouds to establish by supernatural means a Kingdom of a heavenly pattern. The interesting fact brought out by this line of investigation is that in His Messianic utterances Jesus applied to Himself, to a much greater extent than was formerly supposed, the contemporary Jewish conceptions about the Messiah, the manner of His advent, and the exercise of His power. But the attempt so to enter into His consciousness as to trace a development in His attitude towards these ideas is too speculative to be readily endorsed.

At the opposite pole is the theory of Wrede (Das Messias-geheimniss, 1901), who denies that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah, and regards the relative passages, and also the injunctions to secrecy, as fiction. But even the Resurrection would not have created the belief in the Messiahship had Jesus not made the claim in life (Jülicher, Neue Linien, 1906, p. 23).

(B) THE JUDÆAN MINISTRY.—In seeking to follow the footsteps of Jesus after His departure from Galilee, we have to choose between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. All that the former directly tell us is that He next entered upon a mission in Judæa and beyond Jordan, Mk 10:1 (‘Judæa beyond Jordan,’ Mt 19:1). and that after an undefined interval He travelled by way of Jericho, with a company, to keep the last Passover in Jerusalem. According to the Fourth Gospel, the Peræan sojourn was only an episode in a Southern ministry which extended over six months, and of which the scene was laid mainly in Jerusalem. There can be little doubt that at this point the Fourth Gospel is in possession of reliable information. Mk. and Mt. are very vague in their notices, and Lk. uses the journey to Jerusalem (9:51–18:14) as the framework of a mass of material which obviously belongs to a number of different places and times. It is to be noticed that there are incidental references in Mk. and Lk. which imply that there were visits to Jerusalem before the end—notably the incident at the inhospitable Samaritan village, which may well have occurred when Jesus went up on an earlier occasion from Galilee (Lk 9:51–55; cf. 17:11–19). We may hold, as Tatian held, that the Fourth Gospel misplaces important events, and even that events of the Judæan ministry are altogether ante-dated; but it seems certain that it is right in placing a mission to Jerusalem immediately after the closing scenes in Galilee. Apart from the confidence and circumstantiality of the report, there are various considerations which make it probable that He proceeded to Jerusalem. For Jesus Himself, with His knowledge of the destined end, felt the necessity of bringing things to a decisive issue. He was straitened till His baptism should be accomplished (12:50). From the point of view of the disciples, who could not believe in the tragic event, it was natural to expect Him to lay before the religious leaders and the people of the capital the evidence that had created their own faith. We also hear of a natural taunt of those who believed not. Why hesitate to submit the case to those who are really competent to judge? (Jn 7:4). On the other hand, there are facts which are difficult to explain on the supposition that Jesus only arrived in Jerusalem a few days before the Crucifixion. The knowledge and the hatred of His enemies disclosed in the last week, point to earlier collisions, and an earlier ministry of some duration seems clearly implied in the words, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’ (Mt 23:37).

(1) Sequence of events.—At the Feast of Tabernacles, which fell in the third week of the month Tishri (Sept.–Oct.), Jesus appeared in Jerusalem, where He taught and disputed in the courts of the Temple, making many disciples (Jn 8:30). The healing of the man blind from his birth belongs to this time. After a brief retirement (8:59), He returned to the Feast of Dedication (10:22) on the last week of the ninth month (Nov.–Dec.), when His claims and rebukes led to a threat of stoning, and to plans for His arrest (10:31, 39). He next withdrew beyond Jordan, where

His ministry met with much success (Jn 10:40–42, with which matter in Mk 10, Mt 19, 20, Lk

18:15–19:27 may be parallel). Hence He returns to Bethany on hearing of the sickness of Lazarus, whom He raises from the dead (Jn 11:1–46). Next follows a sojourn with His disciples at Ephraim, a town supposed to be in the N.E. of Judæa (11:54). The narratives are combined by the hypothesis that from Ephraim He proceeded to join the train of Galilæan pilgrims—probably at Jericho (Mk 10:46, Mt 20:29, Lk 18:35); and that in their company He made His last journey to Jerusalem. He arrived on the Friday, before the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, and lodged at Bethany (Jn 12:1).

(2) The Johannine picture.—In passing from the Synoptics to the Fourth Gospel we are conscious of many differences. In contrast to the free movement of act and speech, there is something stereotyped in the way in which events develop and arguments are sustained. In place of the vividness and the rich variety of the Synoptic discourses, we have the frequent recurrence of a few themes, and the citeration and exemplification of the fundamental ideas of the Gospel. But what is most noticeable is that, while with the Synoptics the Messiahship of Jesus is a secret which is spoken of only after a great venture of faith in the Apostolic circle, there is here no evidence whatever of reserve. The confession of Peter is mentioned (6:69), but many have known Him before,—Andrew as far back as the Baptism (1:41). Moreover, the point of most of the discourses delivered by Jesus is that He is the Messiah, and more than the Messiah, and that His claim rests upon the strongest authentication. That this was the burden of His teaching after Cæsarea Philippi, we may well believe, for it is quite in accordance with the situation disclosed by the Synoptics at the close of the Galilæan ministry, that Jesus, after being assured of the faith of the Apostles, should have proceeded to urge His claim in the boldest and most public way. But for the same reason it is difficult to believe that the discourses connected with earlier visits to Jerusalem, which contain the same message, are properly dated. The interview with Nicodemus, as well as the cleansing of the Temple, may well belong to the later phase of the ministry; and the story of the woman of Samaria may be an incident of the journey from Galilee to the Feast of Tabernacles. The supposition that the Fourth Gospel has interwoven with the Galilæan period events which all belong to the one Judæan ministry of the last six months seems to the writer to go far to lighten the difficulties of the harmonist, and to make it possible to profit, without being misled, by its history.

(a) The self-witness of Jesus.—He publicly claims to be the Messiah. ‘If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.’ ‘Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not, (10:24, 25; cf. 9:35–37). There is also developed a high doctrine of His origin and primordial dignity. He is from God (7:29); He is before Abraham was (8:58); He and the Father are one (10:30)—which last is interpreted to mean that being a man, He makes Himself God (v. 33). Proportional to His dignity are the blessings which He bestows—repose and refreshment of soul (7:37; cf. 4:14), true life (5:40), spiritual freedom (8:32), resurrection and life everlasting (11:25).

(b) The proof of Christ’s claim.—To the repeated demand for corroboration Jesus appeals to God as His witness. The source of His doctrine, God also attests its truth (8:18). In this connexion the healing of the blind man (ch. 7) is thought of as decisive: ‘When the Christ shall come,’ the multitude ask, ‘will he do more signs than those which this man hath done?’ (v. 31). His Divine mission, it is further declared, is accredited by His disinterested zeal for God’s glory (8:49, 50). On the other hand, great stress is laid on the fact that the attitude to Christ is determined by the spirit and the life of those who come in contact with Him. Those who are of the truth instinctively recognize Him for what He is, as the sheep know the voice of their shepherd (10:4, cf. 18:37). To a good man Christ is self-evidencing. ‘If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching whether it be of God’ (7:17).

(c) The explanation of the Passion.—He speaks of His sufferings and death not merely to His disciples, but to the half-believing (3:14), and before the multitude (10:1–20). The points of view under which the Passion is presented are that it is not an evidence of God’s rejection, but an act of self-surrender which calls forth the Father’s love (10:17), that death comes in the line of the vocation of a good shepherd (10:11ff.), that it is His own voluntary act (10:18), and that it is at once the ground of salvation (3:14f.) and the secret of the gospel’s spell (12:32).

(d) The response of the hearers.—The Fourth Gospel shows us Jesus surrounded by three classes—a band of believers, the multitude which, though divided and wavering, is deeply impressed, and the religious leaders who regard Him with hatred or contempt. The charges, as in Galilee, are mainly Sabbath-breaking (7:23) and blasphemous utterances (10:33); and the attempt is made further to discredit Him as unlearned (7:15) and a Galilæan (v. 41). Finally, a definite resolution is formed to destroy Him. What brought matters to a head, according to this Gospel, was the raising of Lazarus, which produced a popular excitement that portended the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, and gave reason to fear the infliction of the most severe retribution by the Romans (11:48).

11. The week of the Passion.—A view may be given of the probable order of events between the arrival of Jesus in Bethany on the eve of the Sabbath and the Crucifixion.

Saturday: the supper in the house of Simon the leper (Jn 12:1ff., Mk 14:3 ff. ).

Sunday: the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mk 11:1–10 ||), visit to the Temple, return to Bethany (Mk 11:11).

Monday: visit to Jerusalem, the cursing of the fig-tree (Mk 11:12–14), the cleansing of the Temple (Mk 11:15–18||), return to Bethany (v. 19).

Tuesday: visit to Jerusalem, teaching in the Temple, interrogation by members of the Sanhedrin ( Mk 11:27–33 ||), Pharisees (12:13–17), and Sadducees (12:18–27||), and others; parables (Mk 12:1–12 ||); return to Bethany.

Wednesday: visit to Jerusalem, denunciation of the Pharisees (Mk 12:38–40||), discourse on the last things (Mk 13:5–37||), deliberations of the Sanhedrin (14:4), the overtures of Judas (14:10), return to Bethany.

Thursday: preparation for the Passover (Mk 14:12–16), the Last Supper (14:17–26||) the Agony (14:32–42||), the betrayal and the arrest (14:43 ff.|| ).

The chief difficulties presented by the narratives may be briefly noticed. (a) The Synoptists make the triumphal entry take place on the arrival of Jesus with the pilgrims from Galilee ( Mk 11:1ff.), while according to John it was arranged while Jesus was staying at Bethany (12:1, 12).

(β) The anointing in Bethany, which is seemingly placed by Mk. (14:1) two days before the Passover, is expressly dated by Jn. (12:1) six days before the Passover, (γ) The day of our Lord’s death, according to all accounts, was on the Friday; but while the Synoptics make this to have been the Passover day, or the 15th Nisan (Mk 14:12, 17), the Fourth Gospel represents it as the day before the Feast of the Passover (13:1), or the 14th Nisan. In each of these cases there is reason to believe that the Fourth Gospel is accurate. As regards the day of our Lord’s death, it is unlikely that the Passover day, which had the sanctity of a Sabbath, would have been profaned by the Jewish authorities engaging in business, while the evidence of haste in carrying out the crucifixion points to the same conclusion.

(1) The activity of Jesus.—In agreement with the general view of the Judæan ministry given in the Fourth Gospel, the work of Jesus during the last week falls mainly under the point of view of an affirmation of His Messiahship in deed and word. Naturally, also, His mind is turned to the future, and His discourses set forth the power and glory reserved for the crucified Messiah in the counsels of God. The explanation and vindication of His mission have their counterpart in an attack upon the principles of those who had rejected Him and who were plotting His destruction.

(i) The Messianic acts.—The triumphal entry, in which Jesus was offered and accepted the homage of the multitude (Mk 11:1ff.), is decisive evidence that He made the claim to be the Messiah. Evidently, also, there is a natural connexion between the public assumption of His dignity and the cleansing of the Temple. According to one account, Jesus proceeded immediately after His triumphal entry to carry out the reform of the Temple of God (Mt 21:12, 13).

(ii) The Messianic discourses.—The burden of the discourses in which the Messlanic claim is prominent is that there awaits Him the same fate as the prophets—that He will be rejected by His people and put to death (parables of the Vineyard, Mk 12:1–12; and the Marriage Feast, Mt 22:1–14). But beyond this seeming failure, two vistas open up into the future. The death is the prelude to a glorious future, when Christ will return a second time, accompanied by the angels, and will have at His command all power needed for the establishment and defence of His Kingdom. For this type of teaching the main source is the so-called ‘Synoptic Apocalypse’ ( Mk

13:5–37, Mt 24:4–36, Lk 21:8–36), with the topics of the Day of the Son of Man, the Passover, and the Last Judgment. The other leading thought is that the guilt of the rejection of their Messiah will be terribly avenged upon the Jews in the horrors of the last days, and especially in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple (Mk 13:1, 2, Mt 24:1, 2, 15 ff. ).

(iii) The polemics.—The self-vindication of Jesus naturally involved an examination of the position of those who rejected His claim. We have already seen the nature of His replies to the detailed objections which were made to His teaching. As the crisis approaches, He advances, in the manner represented by the Fourth Gospel to be characteristic of the whole Judæan ministry, to an attack upon the religions position of His adversaries—especially of the professed saints and religious guides. Their hypocrisy, their spiritual pride, their blindness, the cupidity and cruelty which their pretended sanctity cannot wholly mask, are exposed in the most merciless invective (the Woes of Mt 23:1–36).

(2) Reasons for the hatred of Jesus.—We are accustomed to think of the opposition to Jesus as due to a temporary ascendency of a diabolic element in human nature, but as a fact the hatred of the principal parties, and the murderous conspiracy in which it issued, are too easily intelligible from the point of view of average political action. The chief responsibility rests with the Sadducees, who dominated the Sanhedrin, and who set in motion the machinery of the law. As we saw, they were statesmen and ecclesiastics, and it is the recognized business of the statesman to maintain social order, of the ecclesiastic to defend the interests of an institution, by such measures as the exigencies of the case seem to demand. And if they were convinced that the popular excitement aroused by Jesus was likely to be made a pretext by the Romans for depriving them of the last vestiges of national existence (Jn 11:48); and if, on the other hand, His reforming zeal in the Temple was an attack on one of the sources of the revenues of the priesthood (Mk 11:15–18), they could claim that what they did was to perform an administrative act under the compulsion of higher expediency. The Pharisees, while less able to strike, exhibited a more venomous hatred. They represented the standpoint of religious conservatism; and it has been no uncommon thing, or universally censured, for men to believe that what is essential in religion is old and unchangeable, and that it is a duty to God to suppress, if necessary by violence, the intrusion of new and revolutionary ideas. And though it is true that the old, to which they clung, itself contained the promise of the new, the new approached them in such unexpected shape that the conservative spirit could feel justified in attempting to crush it. Again, political and ecclesiastical leaders depend greatly on public respect and confidence, and are moved by the instinct of self-preservation to protect themselves against those who humiliate them or threaten to supplant them. It is therefore no surprising conjunction that soon after the exposure of the religion of the scribes and Pharisees, we read of a consultation to ‘take him and kill him’ (Mk 14:1, Mt 26:2, Lk 20:19). On the whole, therefore, it would appear, not indeed that the enemies of Jesus were excusable, but that they were so closely representative of normal ways of judging and acting in public life as to involve mankind, as such, in the guilt of the plot which issued in the death of Jesus.

(3) The preparation of a case.—Unless resort was to be had to assassination, it was necessary to frame a capital charge which could be substantiated before a legal tribunal, and a series of attempts were made at this time to extract from Jesus statements which could be used for this purpose. To convict Him of blasphemy might be sufficient, but as the consent of the Roman authorities had to be procured to the death penalty, it was an obvious advantage to have the charge of sedition in reserve. The first question, evidently framed by the Sanhedrin, was as to His authority (Mk 11:27–33||). If we may believe the Fourth Gospel, He had often enough claimed to be from God, and to speak the things which the Father had showed Him; but He refuses to fall in with their design, and puts a question about John the Baptist which reduces them to confusion. It is quite probable that the incident of the woman taken in adultery (Jn 7:53– 8:11) occurred at the same time—the intention being to compromise Jesus by eliciting a merciful judgment which would have the character of the repudiation of a Mosaic commandment. Jesus avoided the snare—inasmuch as He did not challenge the law which visited adultery with death, but at the same time made an appeal to the consciences of the accusers which constrained them to fall away from the charge. The question about the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæsar ( Mk 12:13–17||) was designed to procure a deliverance which would support the charge of treason. The answer of Jesus clearly meant that He regarded the Roman rule as part of the providential order which He did not propose to disturb, while yet it implied that there was a region into which the authority of Rome did not extend. While this answer baulked the immediate purpose of His questioners, it may be that it so far served their end as to damp the popular enthusiasm with which He had been welcomed to Jerusalem. The question of the Sadducees about re-marriage and immortality (Mk 12:18–27) does not seem to have had any more serious purpose than to make a sceptical point; while the question of the scribe touching the first commandment of all likewise appears to have lain outside of the plot (12:28 ff.|| ).

(4) The maturing of the plan.—On the Wednesday a meeting of the Sanhedrin was held in the house of Caiaphas (Mt 26:3; cf. Mk 14:1), at which it was resolved to apprehend Jesus. It was of importance to avoid a tumult, and they found a welcome instrument in Judas, who could undertake to guide them to His place of retirement (Mk 14:10, 11). It is suggested in all accounts that the motive was mercenary (Mk 14:11; cf. Jn 12:6), but it is also implied that Judas was beside himself when he lent himself to such an act of treachery (Lk 22:3, Jn 13:27). Many moderns, following De Quincey, have thought that the action of Judas was intended to force Jesus to put forth His power. It would thus be of a kind with the policy of Themistocles when he knew that the Greek fleet could conquer if driven into a corner, and sent a seemingly treacherous message to the Persians urging them to advance to the attack. It is more probable that Judas was a patriotic fanatic who could not reconcile himself to the new conception of the Messiah, and now judged it to be a lost cause.

12. The Last Supper.—The Wednesday night, as before, was passed at Bethany. On the forenoon of the Thursday Jesus sent two of His disciples into the city, to bespeak a room from one of His friends, and to make the necessary preparation for the Paschal meal. The chronological difficulty already referred to is best surmounted by supposing that Jesus in partaking of the Passover with His disciples anticipated by a day the regular celebration. The matters recorded are the feet-washing (Jn 13:1ff.), the announcement of the betrayal (Mk 14:18– 21||), the institution of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Mk 14:22–25, Mt 26:26–29, Lk 22:15–20, 1 Co 11:23ff.), and the farewell discourses (Jn 14–17).

13. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper.—It was in accordance with a deeply human instinct that Jesus, knowing the hour of separation to be at hand, desired to celebrate in the company of His disciples, whom He sometimes called His children, the most solemn domestic observance of OT religion (Lk 22:15). It was further in agreement with His method of teaching that, in distributing to them bread and wine, He should have given to the act the significance of a parable and made it to testify of spiritual things (Mk 14:22 ff. ).

In the older period of controversy the questions agitated were, of a kind which could be settled only by high doctrinal considerations, but there has been a recent discussion of the whole subject, conducted on literary and historical grounds, in which the following questions have been raised. (1) Did Jesus intend to institute a rite which should be repeated among His followers as the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?

The main reason for denying it is that there is no injunction to repeat it in Mk. or Mt., or in the oldest text of Lk., and that we are thus thrown back on St. Paul as the sole authority. Some have therefore thought of the Apostle, who was familiar with the power of mysteries, as the founder of the institution (P. Gardner, The Origin of the Lord’s Supper, 1893). But the recollection of its repetition as a sacrament goes back to the earliest days of the Church (Ac 2:42, 46); and, besides, it is incredible that ‘a usage which was practically the invention of St. Paul could have spread from an outlying Gentile Church over the whole of Christendom’ (Sanday, Outlines).

(2) Are the elements of bread and wine an essential part of the observance? It has been contended by Harnack (TU vii. 2) that in the primitive usage the only constant element was bread, and that water was frequently, if not commonly, used in place of wine. If a liberty is to be allowed with the original institution, there is less to be said infavour of unfermented wine, which destroys the symbolism, than of water, which was expressly used by our Lord as an emblem of the highest blessings which He bestows ( Jn 4:14, 7:37).

(3) How was the sacrament intended to be observed? Was it intended to become an element in a purely religious service, or to be grafted as an actual meal upon the social life of a community? It was certainly instituted in connexion with a common meal; in Apostolic times it followed on, if it was not identical with, the Agape; and this mode of observance continued to be popular, as Augustine attests, down to the fifth century. But, while there may be reason to regret that a mode of observance ceased which was calculated to have a hallowing influence in the sphere of social intercourse, now almost entirely secularized, we must believe with St. Paul that the primitive association of it with a common supper entailed the greater danger of secularizing, and even profaning, the sacrament (1 Co 11:21, 22).

(4) What meaning did Jesus intend the sacrament to convey? In recent discussion it has been conceived as essentially predictive in character—i.e. as a foretaste of the communion which the disciples would enjoy with their Master in the future Kingdom of Heaven. Its central lesson has also been declared to be that food and drink when rightly used are a means of grace—that they become ‘the food of the soul when partaken of with thanksgiving, in memory of Christ’s death’ (Harnack). Without denying to these suggestions an element of truth, it may be firmly held that the average thought of the Church has more nearly divined the meaning of Jesus in interpreting it as a parable of salvation through His sacrifice. The bread and wine were symbols of the strength and joy which Christ bestowed through His life-giving gospel, and He desired His death to be remembered as the sacrifice which in some way ratified and ushered in the new dispensation (Mk 14:24).

The attitude of the Fourth Gospel to the Lord’s Supper is enigmatical. It relates the incident of the feet-washing (13:2ff.), and furnishes in another context a discourse which has the aspect of containing the sacramental teaching of the Gospel (6:5ff.). It is incredible that there was a purpose of denying the institution of the ordinance by Christ, but it may well be that the Fourth Gospel intended to emphasize the truth that ‘eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood’ of Christ is a spiritual act which is not tied exclusively to the rite of the Lord’s Supper.

14. The inner life of Jesus during the period.—The soul of Jesus was agitated by a succession of deep and conflicting emotions. Amid the hosannas of the triumphal entry He wept over Jerusalem (Lk 19:41). In pain and wrath He contended with His enemies, and in the intervals of conflict He spoke of a peace which the world could not take away, and uttered words of thanksgiving and joy. He was gladdened by tokens of faith and devotion from His followers (Jn 12:3), and He was also wounded in the house of His friends, when one of the Twelve became the tool of His enemies, and even Peter’s faith failed. More and more exclusively He felt Himself thrown for sympathy on the unseen presence of the Father (16:32). ‘Every night he went out, and lodged in the mount that is called the mount of Olives’ (Lk 21:37). He probably spent the night in the open air and gave hours of vigil to the duty, which He now so earnestly enforced, of watching and praying. It was to look around and before, and to look upward to the Father, that

He left the supper-room and ‘went unto a place called Gethsemane’ (Mk 14:32–42). It may well be that there were many thoughts that burdened His mind in the Agony, but the plain sense of the narrative is that He prayed that He might be enabled, in some other way than through shame and death, to accomplish the work which had been given Him. Being truly man, He could shrink from the impending ordeal of humiliation and suffering, and ask to be spared; being the perfect Son, He added, ‘howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt’ (v. 36). ‘To such a prayer the only possible answer was that He received from the Father the assurance that according to His holy and loving counsel there was no other possible way’ (Weiss, ii. 500). Then He arose and went forward to meet the armed band which Judas had guided through the darkness to His retreat.

15. The Passion.—The order of events.—

The arrest, in Gethsemane on the Thursday, some time before midnight (Mk 14:4–52, Mt 26:47–56 , Lk 22:47–53, Jn 18:1–12).

Removal to the palace of the high priest, private examination by Annas (Jn 18:13 ff. )

Trial in the early morning before the Sanhedrin, meeting in the high priest’s palace, and presided over by Caiaphas, condemnation and buffeting (Mk 14:53–65, Mt 26:57, 68, Lk 22:66–71), Peter’s denial ( Mk 14:66–72 || ).

Trial before Pilate at daybreak, probably in the Fort of Antonia (Mk 15:2–5, Mt 27:11–14, Lk 23:2–5 , Jn 18:33–38).

Jesus before Herod (Lk 23:6–12).

The Roman trial resumed, the sentence, the mocking, and the scourging (Mk 15:6–20, Mt 27:16–30 , Lk 23:13–25, Jn 18:39, 19:16).

The journey to the Cross (Mk 15:20–23, Mt 27:31–34, Lk 23:26–32, Jn 19:16, 17)

The Crucifixion, beginning at 9 A.M. (Mk 15:25), or after noon-day (Jn 19:14); death and burial ( Mk 15:34–47, Mt 27:46, 61, Lk 23:44–56, Jn 19:28–42).

The primary source is the narrative in Mk., which, however, becomes meagre and somewhat external in its report of the events subsequent to Peter’s fall. The author of the Fourth Gospel claims to have had opportunities for a more intimate view of things (Jn 18:15), and as a fact gives illuminating information about the more secret proceedings of the authorities. Lk. adds some incidents, notably the appearance before Herod.

(1) The trials.—In the Jewish trial there are usually distinguished two stages—a private examination before Annas (Jn 18:13ff.), and the prosecution before the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Caiaphas (Mk 14:53). There is, moreover, reason to suppose that the second of these was a meeting of a committee of the Sanhedrin held during the night, or of the Sanhedrin meeting as a committee, and that it was followed by a regular session of the Council at daybreak, at which the provisional finding was formally ratified (Mk 15:1).

(i) The examination before Annas.—Annas, who had been deposed from the high priesthood twenty years before, continued to be the de facto leader of the Council, and it was natural for him to wish to see Jesus, with a view to putting matters in train. In reply to his question about His disciples and His teaching, Jesus asked him to call his witnesses—the point being that according to Jewish law a man was held to be innocent, and even unaccused, until hostile witnesses had stated their case.

(ii) The trial before the Sanhedrin.—At the subsequent meeting of the Council the ordinary procedure was followed, and the indictment was made by witnesses. The charge which they brought forward was a constructive charge of blasphemy, founded on the statement that He had attacked sacred institutions in threatening to destroy the Temple (Mk 14:58). The evidence not being consistent (v. 69), the high priest appealed directly to Jesus to say if He claimed to be the Christ (v. 61). Though this question was contrary to law, which forbade any one to be condemned to death on his own confession, Jesus answered ‘I am.’ The supernatural claim was forthwith declared, with signs of horror and indignation, to amount to blasphemy, and He was ‘condemned to be worthy of death’ (v. 64). That a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin was thereafter held to ratify the judgment is implied in Mk 15:1, and was probably necessary to regularize the proceedings, as capital trials might be begun only in the daytime. (On this and cognate points, see Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ, 1905.)

(iii) The Roman trial.—It is not quite certain whether the Sanhedrin had the right of trying a person on a capital charge; in any case, a death-sentence required to be endorsed by the Roman governor. The Jews obviously took the position that in a case of the kind it was the duty of the governor to give effect to their judgment without going into its merits; but Pilate insisted on his right to make a full review of the charge and its grounds. In this situation, against which they protested, they felt the difficulty of securing sentence on the religious charge of blasphemy, and accordingly fell back on the political charge of treason. ‘They began to accuse him, saying. We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king’ (Lk 23:2). In reply to Pilate’s question, Jesus claimed to be a king, but doubtless disarmed the governor’s suspicion by some such addition as that He was a king in the realm of the truth (Jn 18:36). Then follow three devices of Pilate to evade responsibility—the remand to the tribunal of the vassal-prince of Galilee, Herod Antipas (Lk 23:8ff.); the proposal to scourge Him and release Him (v. 16); and the reference to the multitude (Mk 15:6ff.). Foiled in each attempt, he still hesitated, when the accusers put the matter in a light which overwhelmed his scruples. They threatened to complain that he had not supported them in stamping out treason

(Jn 19:12). Tiberius was known to be peculiarly sensitive on the point of laesa majestas, while Pilate’s hands were not so clean that he could welcome any investigation; and he therefore pronounced Him guilty of sedition as the pretended king of the Jews, and delivered Him to be crucified (v. 16). He was then scourged, dressed with mock emblems of royalty, treated with derision and insult, and led forth to the place of execution (Mk 15:16 ff. ).

The action of the judges.—There has been considerable discussion of the action of the judges of Jesus from the point of view of Jewish and Romao law. That the procedure and verdict of the Jewish authorities were according to the law which they were set to administer has been ably argued by Salvador (Hist. des Institutions de Moise 3, 1862), but it seems to have been shown that in the proceedings the most sacred principles of Jewish jurisprudence were violated, and that ‘the process had neither the form nor the fairness of a judicial trial’ (Taylor Innes, op. cit.). It has also been argued that, in view of the requirements of the Roman law, and of the duties of his position, Pilate was right in passing sentence of death (Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). On this it must be said that as Pilate did not believe Jesus to be guilty of the crime imputed to Him, he must be held to have transgressed the spirit of Roman justice. On the other hand, it is true that ‘the claim of Jesus was truly inconsistent with the claim of the State which Cæsar represented.’ and that in sentencing Jesus to death Pilate faithfully, if unconsciously, interpreted the antagonism of the Roman Empire and the, Christian religion (Taylor Innes, op. cit. p. 122).

(2) The disciples in the crisis.—The disciples made no heroic figure in the catastrophe. They took to flight at the arrest (Mk 14:50), and Peter, who followed afar off, denied his Master with curses (v. 66ff.). It is also significant that no attempt was made to capture the Apostles; apart from Jesus it was evidently thought that they were quite negligible. In fairness it should, however, be remembered that the two opportunities which they might have had of showing their courage were denied them—they were forbidden by Jesus to resist when He was arrested ( Mt 26:52), and no witnesses were allowed to come forward in His defence at the trial. The beloved disciple, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and two other women, was present at the crucifixion (Jn 19:25).

(3) The bearing of Jesus.—The words of Jesus during the last day were few. For the most part He listened to the accusations, and bore the indignities, in silence. The oldest report, while making Him testify that He suffered and died as the Messiah, represents Him as deliberately refusing to answer the false witnesses, or to plead before Pilate. The other accounts relate that He condescended, as is probable enough, to point out the iniquity of the procedure (Mt 26:55, Jn 18:21), and to explain to Pilate the true nature of His claim (Jn 18:36). The decision in Gethsemane gave Him the insight and the resolution that bore Him unshaken through the ordeal of the trials. He expressed the assurance that, had He asked, the Father would have delivered Him by His angels (Mt 26:53); but He knew the Father’s will, to which He had bowed, to be that, according to the Scriptures (v. 54), He should be led as a lamb to the slaughter. What He felt towards His enemies can only be gathered from His silence—which may have had in it an element of holy scorn, but certainly also involved compassion for the blinded men who were now fixedly committed to their murderous purpose. Whether actually heard by witnesses or not, the first word on the cross (Lk 23:34) assuredly expresses an authentic thought of Him who had taught,’ Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you’ (Mt 5:44). Only less striking is the self-forgetting sympathy that came to expression in the journey of Jesus to the cross, when the women bewailed and lamented Him: ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children’ (Lk 23:28).

(4) The Crucifixion.—The scene of the execution was Golgotha (Mk 15:22), possibly so named from the skull-like contour of the eminence. Crucifixion was a form of death by torture which was reserved by the Romans for slaves and rebels, and that combined the height of ignominy with the extremity of suffering. ‘Terrible were the sufferings caused by the piercing of the hands and the feet in the most sensitive parts, the extension of the limbs with their hurning wounds, the impeding of the circulation of the blood, the growing oppression and exhaustion, the increasing thirst under the long-drawn mortal agonies’ (Weiss, ii. 536). The indignity of such a death was heightened by the spectacle of the soldiers casting lots for His garments (Mk 15:24) , and by the taunts of His fellow-sufferers, of the multitude, and of the priests (vv. 29–32). The narcotic draught which was usually offered to the victim, was refused by Jesus (v. 23). For six hours, according to vv. 25, 34, His torments endured; and late in the afternoon, with a loud cry, He expired (v. 37). The accompanying signs, according to Mk., were a darkness lasting for three hours (v. 33), and the rending of the veil of the Temple (v. 38), to which Mt. adds the portent— ‘many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised’ (27:52). Both, along with Lk. (23:47), record a confession of faith by the Roman centurion. Jn. relates, with a solemn affirmation of the authority of an eye-witness, that a soldier ‘pierced his side with a spear, and straightway there came out blood and water’ (19:34).

The Seven Words on the cross are commonly supposed to have been spoken in the following order:—

(1) ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’ (Lk 23:34)—assigned to the time when He was being nailed to the cross.

(2) ‘To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise’ (v. 43)—spoken to the penitent robber.

(3) ‘Woman, behold thy son’; ‘Behold thy mother’ (Jn 19:26, 27)—spoken to Mary, and to the beloved disciple.

(4) ‘I thirst’ (v. 28).

(5) ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mk 15:34, Mt 27:46).

(6) ‘It is finished’ (Jn 19:30).

(7) ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit’ (Lk 23:48).

The ‘words’ are not all equally certain. On textual grounds (1) is placed by WH in double brackets, and is regarded by Weiss as unquestionably a second-century gloss. The incident of the penitent robber was unknown to the oldest tradition. Evidently there was also uncertainty as to the last utterance of Jesus. That reported by Mk.-Mt. is certainly authentic; none could have invented a saying which ascribed to Jesus a sense of desertion by the Father in the hour of death. On the other hand, the character of Jesus requires us to believe that upon the agony there supervened the filial trust and resignation which find expression in the Lukan and Johannine words.

(5) The burial.—There were friends of Jesus who, though powerless to resist the general will, were at least able to secure the seemly burial of the body. With Pilate’s permission, Joseph of Arimathæa, with whom Nicodemus is associated (Jn 19:39), had the corpse removed from the cross, wrapped in a linen cloth, and laid in a rock-hewn tomb—the entrance to which was closed by a great stone (Mk 15:43ff.||). Mt. adds that, at the request of the Jewish authorities, the stone was sealed, and a guard set over the tomb (27:62–63).

16. The Resurrection.—Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples of Jesus believed that, after being crucified, dead and buried, He rose again from the dead on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter He met and conversed with them in different places. The proof that they believed this is the existence of the Christian Church. It is simply inconceivable that the scattered and disheartened remnant could have found a rallying-point and a gospel in the memory of one who had been put to death as a criminal, if they had not believed that God had owned Him and accredited His mission in raising Him up from the dead. There are many difficulties connected with the subject, and the narratives, which are disappointingly meagre, also contain irreconcilable discrepancies; but those who approach it under the impression of the uniqueness of Christ’s Person and of His claim on God, find the historical testimony sufficient to guarantee the credibility of the central fact.

(1) The rising on the third day.—There is a consensus of testimony in the Gospels to the following facts—that on the morning of the first day of the week certain women went to the sepulchre, that they found the stone rolled away and the grave empty, that they were informed by an angel that Jesus was risen, and that they were bidden to convey the news to the other disciples. Whether the discovery was first made by Mary Magdalene alone (Jn 20:1), or in company with other women (Mk 16:1); whether there was one angel (Mt 28:2), or two ( Jn 20:12); whether fear or joy preponderated (Mk 16:8, Mt 28:8), were points on which the report varied. A more serious discrepancy is that, according to the oldest source, the message to the disciples was that they would meet the risen Lord in Galilee (Mk 16:7, Mt 28:7); while as a fact all the Gospels, except the mutilated Mk., proceed to narrate appearances in Jerusalem, and Lk. knows of no other. It cannot, however, be said that the inconsistency is insuperable, as Mt. has consciously combined the Galilæan promise with a reference to a preliminary appearance in Jerusalem (Mt 28:8–10).

(2) The places and number of the appearances.—Subject to the possibility of confusion arising from the slightness of the allusions, the Biblical list is as follows:—

(1) To certain women as they returned from the sepulchre (Mt 28:8–10).

(2) To Mary Magdalene on the same day (Jn 20:11–18).

(3) To Peter, on the day of the Resurrection, in Jerusalem (Lk 24:34, 1 Co 15:5).

(4) To two disciples on the same day on the way to Emmaus (Lk 24:13–35; cf. Mk 16:12, 13).

(5) To the ten Apostles on the same day in Jerusalem (Mk 16:14–18, Lk 24:36–49, Jn 20:19–23, 1 Co

15:5).

(6) To the eleven Apostles a week later in Jerusalem (Jn 20:26–29).

(7) To several disciples, including at least four Apostles, at the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1–23).

(8) To five hundred brethren (1 Co 15:6; cf. perhaps Mt 28:16–20).

(9) To James (1 Co 15:7).

(10) To the Apostles at Jerusalem before the Ascension (Lk 24:50–52, Ac 1:3, 8; cf. Mk 16:19). St. Paul adds the appearance to himself on the way to Damascus (1 Co 15:8, 9:1). (Milligan, Resurrection of our Lord, 259–261).

The accounts present many difficulties. Why does Mt. relate the appearance in Jerusalem to the women only, and ignore the all-important manifestations to the Twelve? If, according to the message of the angel, the scene of the intercourse of the risen Lord with His disciples was to be in Galilee, why does Lk. record only appearances in Jerusalem and in the neighbourhood? Further, as the disciples are in Jerusalem eight days after the Resurrection, and again at the Ascension, it seems difficult to interpolate a return to Galilee in which the Apostles resumed their former avocations (Jn 21:3). It has been supposed by some that after the Crucifixion the disciples returned to Galilee, that it was among the haunts which were instinct with memories of Him that Jesus returned to them in vision, and that this older recollection, though not altogether eradicated, has been blurred in the Gospels by later manipulation. But the most certain of all the facts is that belief in the Resurrection began on the third day—which points to Jerusalem; while the difficulty about fitting the Galilæan appearances into the chronological scheme is reduced by consideration of the rapidity with which the little country could be traversed.

(3) The mode of existence of the risen Christ.—There are two sets of notices which are not easily combined in an intelligible conception. On the one hand, there are several statements which create the impression that Jesus resumed the same mode of bodily existence which was interrupted at His death upon the cross. The story of the empty tomb (Mk 16:1–8||) meant that the body which had hung upon the cross was revivified. That it was a body of flesh and blood, capable of being handled, and sustained by food and drink—not an apparition of a spiritualistic kind,—is a point which is specially emphasized in details of the narratives (Jn 20:27, Lk 24:30). On the other hand, it is far from being a normal life in the body. His face and form have a strange aspect. He appears suddenly in the midst, the doors being shut (Jn 20:26), and as suddenly vanishes out of their sight (Lk 24:31). To this series belong the references of St. Paul, who places the appearance to himself on a level with the others, and speaks of Christ as possessing a body which is not of flesh and blood, but has been transfigured and glorified (1 Co 15:50, Ph 3:21). The explanation of the phenomena, according to Schleiermacher, is that in the one set of statements we have the matter described from the side of the risen Christ, in the other an account of the impression which He made on the disciples (Leben Jesu). Others conceive that while after the Resurrection He existed as a spiritual being, He yet assumed material substance and form at special moments for special purposes (Rothe, Theologische Ethik). The primitive theory probably was that after the Resurrection His mode of existence was the same as during the ministry, with an augmentation of the power over His body which He even then possessed ( Mk 6:45–50), and that only at the Ascension was the body transformed. Some modern theologians hold that the body was raised from the grave as a spiritual body, others that it was gradually spiritualized in the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The phenomena belong to a sphere about which we cannot dogmatize.

(4) Denial of the Resurrection.—The negative case has two branches: (1) a critical examination of the historical evidence; (2) a hypothesis which shall explain how the Church came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. On the first head it has already been suggested that it is unfair to magnify the discrepancies and ignore the important consensus.

The explanations began with (1) the theory of imposture. The disciples, it was said, were unwilling to return to work, and in order that they might still have a message, they stole the body, and pretended that Christ had risen (Reimarus, Von dem Zwecke Jesu u. seiner Jünger, 1892). No one now believes that any great religion, least of all Christianity, was founded on fraud. The disciples might indeed have been themselves deceived by finding the tomb empty. Joseph of Arimathæa might have removed the body to another grave without the knowledge of the disciples (O, Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, 1901). But it is difficult to believe that a misapprehension so easily corrected could have been allowed to develop into the universal belief that He had been seen alive.

(2) In the school of Eighteenth Century Rationalism the favourite explanation was that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but revived in the cool of the sepulchre, and again appeared among His disciples (most recently Hase, Gesch. Jesu², 727 ff.). It is true that to escape with His life after being nailed to the cross might have been described as a resurrection from the dead; but it is incredible that the Roman soldiers should have failed to carry out the execution of a condemned man, and equally incredible that a lacerated and emaciated man, who soon afterwards died of His wounds, should have made the impression of having come off as more than a conqueror.

(3) The usual explanation now given from the naturalistic stand point is that the appearances were purely visionary. Visions are common phenomena of the religious life in times of excitement; they are, moreover, often contagious, and it is supposed that they began with the women, probably with Mary Magdalene (Renan, Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. p 296), and were repeated for a time in the Apostolic circle. The most weighty objections to this hypothesis are, that while in other cases the visions have followed faith, in the case before us they created it out of sorrow and despair, and also that while other visions have led to nothing considerable, these brought the Church into existence and immeasurably enriched the higher life of the world.

(4) The hypothesis of Keim is to the effect that the appearances were real in so far that Jesus, whose spirit had returned to God, produced upon the minds of believers impressions which they interpreted as bodily manifestations. Christian faith oversteps these boundaries (of the natural order), not merely in the certain assurance that Jesus took His course to the higher world of spirits, but also in the conviction that it was He and no other who, as dead yet risen again, as celestially glorified even if not risen, vouchsafed visions to His disciples. It thus completes and illumines what to science remained an obscure point and a vexatious limitation of its knowledge’ (Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. vi. p. 360). This theory deserves to be treated with more respect than it has commonly received from apologists. It at least rejects the idea that the visions were hallucinations; and we are not so well-informed as to the nature of existence as to be able to deny reality to what is given in experiences which are due to the power, and which are according to the purpose, of God. The most serious difficulty for those who follow the records is that it supposes that the grave was not left empty, and that the body underwent corruption.

(5) Another theory, which has recently had some currency (Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, pp. 363–7) finds the basis of the belief in a physical resurrection in a misconception of the meaning of mystical utterances of the disciples about union and communion with Christ. It is, however, clear that St. Paul distinguished very clearly between the experience that to him ‘to live was Christ,’ or that ‘Christ lived in him,’ and the appearance which he had witnessed on the way to Damascus. ‘They said they had seen Jesus after His death, and their hearers understood them to mean they had seen Him in the body.’ If they were not put right by the Apostles, it is fairly said that this some what compromised their character for candour (Bruce, Apologetics 2, 396 f.).

The impression conveyed by a review of the various theories is that the phenomena which generated the faith of the Church have not been explained on naturalistic principles. They are intelligible only as an intermingling of two universes of being ordinarily kept distinct. They have something in common with the phenomena of Spiritualism, and as a fact the Spiritualist claims to understand elements in the story which Christians have humbly accepted in faith, and to find supremely credible what the ordinary rationalism dismisses as superstition. It is, however, only in a very indirect way, if at all, that Christian faith can derive support from Spiritualism. It seems to be proved that if communication is established at all with the spirit-world, it is merely with ‘the dregs and lees of the unseen universe’—with spirits who either have not the power or else the will to communicate anything of importance to man; and, this being so, the Resurrection and appearances of Christ, with their unique and far-reaching spiritual result, come under a totally different Divine economy. In the risen Christ we have the one authentic glimpse of the world which otherwise can do no more than attest its existence to those who peep and mutter ( Waite, Studies in Mysticism, 1906).

(5) Significance of the Resurrection.—(a) In the Primitive Church the Resurrection was regarded as at once the authentication of Christianity, and a vitally important element of doctrine.

Its apologetic value was appraised equally highly in the appeal to Jews and to Gentiles (Ac 4:10 , 17:31). The argument was that God had accredited Jesus’ mission and accepted His work in raising Him up from the dead. In recent apologetic, at least of the English school, there has been a tendency to stake the truth of Christianity on the evidence for the Resurrection (Row, Christian Evidences, 1887); but it is always to be remembered that the evidence for the miracle itself depends for its credibility on the anterior impression of the supernatural made by the Person of Christ. It is not so generally recognized that the Resurrection has the value of a vindication of the ways of God. Had the Ruler of the Universe given no sign when the spotless and loving Christ was made away with by His murderers, the problem of evil would have been well-nigh overwhelming, and faith in the supremacy of a moral order would have lacked one of its strongest supports. (b) Doctrinally the Resurrection was regarded as possessing a high significance for Christ Himself. It is, indeed, an exaggeration to say that for St. Paul the

Resurrection had the importance which earlier thought claimed for the Baptism, and later thought for the Virgin Birth, viz. of constituting Jesus Son of God; but he at least regarded it as marking the transition from the foreshadowing to the full reality of the power and glory of the Son of God (Ro 1:4). It was also the source of the most characteristic and vital elements of his eschatological teaching. In the life of the risen Christ he saw the prototype of the life which awaits those that are His in the future state (Phil 3:21). He also used the resurrection of Christ, though assuredly without any suggestion that it was only a figure, as a parable of the beginning, the manifestations, and the goal of the new life (Ro 6:4).

16. The character of Jesus.—In this section it is not proposed to deal with the doctrine of the Person of Christ (see PERSON OF CHRIST), but only to gather up the main features of the character of the Man Christ Jesus as it is portrayed in the Gospels. The point of view is somewhat modern, but does not necessarily imply a naturalistic or Unitarian interpretation of Christ (Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. vol. ii.; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, 1906, ch. 2.).

The task of describing the character of Jesus is difficult. Jesus is one of the most real and lifelike figures in history, and there is a way of observing, feeling, and judging which is unmistakably Christ-like; but when we try to describe Him we are in danger of setting forth ‘a mere personified system of morals and psychology, consisting of a catalogue of all possible virtues and capabilities’ (Hase). There is therefore something to be said for leaving the matter where it is left by the Gospels, which simply reveal the character in telling the story of the life. The general observation which is most convincing is that in Jesus there were combinations of qualities which are usually found in isolation, and regarded as mutually inconsistent. This holds good, first, in the region of temperament. It is easy to show that at least three of the recognized temperaments—the sanguine, the melancholic, and the choleric, were manifested by Jesus, and that what is good in the phlegmatic had its counterpart in His repose and purposefulness. From a similar point of view it has been said that ‘there was in Him the woman-heart as well as the manly brain—all that was most manly and all that was most womanly’ (F. W. Robertson, Serm. ii. 231; but contrariwise Hase: ‘His character was thoroughly masculine,’ § 31). It has been held by some that He belonged to the class of ecstatic men, by others that He reasoned and acted with the serenity of the sage: the truth is that repose was the normal condition of His spirit, but that it was intermittently broken by prophetic experiences of vision and tumult. On the intellectual side we find the abstract power which unerringly seizes upon the vital principle, united with the poet’s mind which delights to clothe the idea with form and colour and to find for it the most perfect artistic expression. Another and more impressive contrast is presented in the force and the gentleness of His character. From Him there went out an influence which either awed men into docile submission or roused them to a frenzy of opposition, while the same Jesus spoke words of tender solace to a penitent Magdalene, and called the little children to His side. He also combined with wide outlook and sublime purpose an active interest in small things and in inconsiderable persons. Recognizing it as His vocation to build the Kingdom of God, He did not consider a day lost in which He conversed with a woman of Samaria at a wayside well.

While these and similar traits help to give greater vividness to our conception of Jesus, the essential content of what is called His character lies in His attitude, on the one hand to the Father, on the other to the problems of duty which arise for a man among men.

(1) Beginning with the God-ward side of the character of Jesus, that which we describe as piety, we find that it combines familiar traits with others which are novel and unique. To a large extent it is a fulfilment of the Jewish ideal of piety, but it shows impressive omissions and deviations from the OT pattern. He fulfils it in that He has a constant sense of the presence of God, and regards all events as instinct with a Divine meaning of guidance, of blessing, or of judgment. He lives in habitual prayerfulness, giving thanks, supplicating, interceding for others. He shows a sensitive reverence for all that is called God—His name, His word, His house, and is full of prophetic zeal for His honour. It is His meat and His drink to labour in the tasks which are made known to Him as the will of God. When that will approaches Him as a call to suffer and die, He trusts implicitly in the wisdom and goodness of the Father, and prays that His will be done.

There are, however, two significant particulars in which the religion of Jesus, if we may so term it, differed from the piety of Hebrew saints, as well as of the saints of Christian times, (a) The penitential note is one of the most distinctive features of the OT. The depth of the sense of sin may almost be said to be the measure of sanctity, and the same may be said of those whom the Christian Church has chiefly venerated as its religious heroes. But of penitence the

experience of Jesus shows no trace. While teaching His disciples to pray, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ He Himself never confessed sin. Neither in Gethsemane nor on the cross, when the near approach of death challenged Him to pass righteous judgment on His past life, was He conscious of any lapse from fidelity to the Father’s commands.—(b) A second note of Hebrew piety is a sense of dependence upon God, accompanied by the knowledge that to Him belongs the glory, and that the human instrument counts for nothing in comparison. But Jesus, while confessing His dependence on the Father in teaching and healing, does not speak of Himself as a mere agent who delivers a message and accomplishes a work—and is forthwith forgotten. Enjoying a filial intimacy with God which contrasts markedly with the aloofness of God in OT times, and the fear manifested in His presence even by prophets, He claimed prerogatives which they would have regarded as a usurpation of the sphere of God. For He forgave sins, claimed a faith and a devotion toward Himself which were indistinguishable from worship, and foretold that He would return to judge the world. What makes these utterances the more striking is that He simultaneously invited men to learn of Him as meek and lowly in heart (Mt 11:29). We therefore seem to be driven to the conclusion that Jesus was less than a saint, unless He was more than a man. Unless He was sinless, He was guilty of a self-righteousness which was more blinded than that of the Pharisees; and unless He had a unique dignity and commission, He was guilty of an overweening arrogance. The hypothesis of a unique experience and vocation, or the belief that He was in a unique sense Divine, is more credible than the charge of imperfect piety.

(2) In studying the character of Jesus on the ethical side, it is useful to observe the form in which He recognized and realized the fundamental virtues. Wisdom He would scarcely have described as a virtue. He did not Himself possess or value it in the range which it began to have with the Greeks, but He assuredly had wisdom in the grand way of thinking deep thoughts about God and man which have been worked up in philosophical systems, and also in the homely form of prudent dealing with tasks and dangers. Courage He certainly did not illustrate in the typical form that it assumes in a man of war; but there is abundant proof of physical as well as of moral courage in the heroism which led Him, while discarding force and foreseeing the issue, to go up to confront His powerful enemies in the name of God and truth. One glimpse of His bearing is unforgettable. ‘And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them; and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid’ (Mk 10:32). The virtue of temperance or self-control might seem to lie on a plane on which He did not condescend to be tried. But in its essence, as the virtue which requires the surrender of the lower for the higher, of the temporary for the enduring good, it has its illustration, not merely in the victory of the Temptation, but in the mould of self-sacrifice in which His whole life was cast. Justice, as the virtue which renders to all their due, entered deeply into the thought and life of Jesus. The parable of the Unjust Steward, which on a superficial view makes light of dishonesty, is placed in a setting of words of Jesus from which it appears that He thought it useful to give His disciples the test of an honest man, and even made common honesty a condition of admission to life ( Lk 16:10–12). It is also noteworthy how often He commends the wise and faithful servant; while His own ideal might be summed up as the performance with fidelity of His appointed work. Not even the sympathy of Jesus is more distinctive than His conscientiousness in regard to the claims both of God and of man.

The character of Jesus also exemplified the fundamental quality of steadfastness. He praised it in others: John the Baptist, who was no reed shaken with the wind; Simon, whom He surnamed the rock-like man. His whole ministry, which began with victory in the Temptation, had behind it the force of steady and of resolute purpose. ‘He steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem’ ( Lk 9:51) may serve for a description of the way in which He held straight on to His preconceived and predetermined goal.

On this general groundwork of character there emerges the love of Jesus, which was marked by extraordinary range and intensity. For man as man He had ‘a prodigality of sympathy’ and looked on Himself as a debtor to all who were burdened by suffering or sin. It may indeed be observed that His love, while all-embracing, had degrees. The centurion of Capernaum and the Syrophœnician woman came within its scope, but He looked on the people of Israel as those who had the first claim on His affection and service. He shared the feelings for Jerusalem which are expressed in many of the Psalms, and yearned over the holy city more than over the cities of the Lake. Within the house of Israel there were three—perhaps four classes, whom He regarded with a peculiar tenderness. First in order came the disciples, next the common people and the social outcasts, and doubtless we may add the children. It is hard to believe that the family-circle at Nazareth was not also one of the nearer groups, but during the period of the Ministry the attitude of His kinsfolk, with the probable exception of Mary (Jn 19:26), diverted His strong natural affection to those who were His kinsfolk after the spirit. The ways in which His love expressed itself were on the one hand to seek to make those He loved truly His own by binding them to Himself by their faith and devotion; on the other, to bestow on them, and that at whatever cost to

Himself, all benefits which it lay within his vocation to confer. The forms of service to which His sympathy prompted Him were as many as the forms of human distress. His mission, indeed, proceeded on the footing that the worst evils from which men suffer are spiritual, and that the benefactor whom they chiefly need is one who will lead them to repentance and show them the Father. But no small part of His ministry also was occupied with works of the philanthropic kind, which it would be altogether wrong to interpret on the analogy of some modern enterprises, as having the mere purpose of creating a favourable disposition for the gospel. His distinctive work was to comfort by saving, but He also acted as one who felt that the relief of pain had its own independent claim.

In seeming contrast with the gentleness of the sympathetic Christ was the sternness which marked many of His words and acts. It is of interest to note that the disciple, whom Jesus loved is remembered in the Synoptics (Lk 9:49–56) chiefly as a man with a capacity for fiery indignation; and this quality may well have been one that drew Jesus and John more closely together. If there were some sins that moved Jesus chiefly to compassion, there were others that roused Him to holy wrath. Those who, like prodigals and fallen women, could be described as their own worst enemy, He chiefly pitied, but sterner measure was never meted out than by Jesus to those whose guilt had the quality of profanity or of inhumanity. The profanity which irreverently dealt with the things of God—in swearing, in corrupting His word, in polluting His Temple, was unsparingly rebuked—on one memorable occasion by act; and the great offence of the Pharisees in His eyes was that, while making a parade of sanctity before men, they were insulting God by acting a lie. The second type of sin which provoked His burning invective was inhumanity towards the weak. An example is the sin of those who make one of the little ones to offend (Mt 18:6), which may perhaps be taken literally of those who pervert children; and the unpardonable aggravation of the guilt of the scribes was that, while making long prayers, they devoured widows’ houses (Mk 12:40 || ).

While the character of Jesus has commonly been regarded, even by non-Christians, as the noblest that the world has seen, it has not escaped criticism in ancient or modem times. Two forms of the indictment may be alluded to. Renan professes to find evidence of deterioration, and in this the real tragedy of the life of Jesus. Writing of the last days, he says: ‘His natural gentleness seems to have abandoned Him: He was sometimes harsh and capricious, contact with the world pained and revolted Him. The fatal law which condemns an idea to decay as soon as it is applied to convert men applied to Him.’ He is even said to have yielded to the wishes of His enthusiastic friends; and to have acquiesced in a pretended miracle by which they sought to revive His sinking cause. His death was a happy release ‘from the fatal necessities of a position which each day became more exacting and more difficult to maintain’ (p. 252). To a pessimistically tinged scepticism there may be something congenial in this representation. As a fact the idea of degeneration is borrowed from the career of Mohammed, and has no support except in the assumption that Jesus was uncommissioned to represent the Divine wrath against sin. Very different was the insight of him who wrote that He ‘learned obedience by the things which he suffered,’ and was thus made perfect (He 5:8–9).

From the Hellenic point of view it is a common criticism that the character of Jesus is one-sided or fragmentary. There are, it is said, elements of human excellence which He either did not possess or which He deliberately undervalued and renounced. There were whole spheres of valuable human experience into which He did not enter—married life, political service, scientific labour, the realm of æsthetic interests. His attitude, also, to the economic side of human affairs was unsatisfactory: He taught men to despise wealth and distribute it among the poor, and thus struck at the very foundations of the social fabric. In reply to this indictment, it is sometimes urged that the character of Jesus actually included most elements which enter into the Hellenic ideal—notably the æsthetic sense as seen in His close observance and love of things beautiful, intellectual vitality and acquisitivéness, and the temperate enjoyment of the pleasures of the table in the society of His friends. It is also pointed out that His principles sanction a much wider range of activity than He Himself actually exemplified. In His love to man, which designed to bestow every form of real good, there lay the sanction of all the activities—scientific, economic, political, as well as religious and philanthropic, which fill out with helpful service the various spheres of duty in the modern world. At the same time it must be admitted that Jesus was not the universal man in the literal sense, but was limited in His equipment and aim by the special character of His mission. He was ascetic in the sense that in His scheme of values He severely subordinated all the goods of this world to spiritual blessings, and taught that the first were to be despised and renounced in the measure in which they imperilled the second. He exemplified self-limitation and self-sacrifice, not indeed as an end in itself, but as a necessary condition of accomplishing the highest for God and man.

17. The fundamental ideas of our Lord’s teaching.—It is one of the gains of modern theology that Biblical Theology is separated from Dogmatics, and that the sacred writers are allowed to speak for themselves without being forced into consistency with a system of ecclesiastical doctrine. In pursuance of this historical task, interest has centred chiefly in the attempt to expound and systematize the teaching of Jesus. It was naturally felt that no Christian documents are so valuable for an understanding of the Christian religion as those which contain the teaching of the Founder, and that, indispensable as the Apostolic writings are, they are in a very real sense derivative and supplementary. Experience also showed that the teaching of Jesus, which in the oral tradition was for a time the main sustenance of the Primitive Church, has been able to quicken and refresh the religious life of not a few in the modern world who had ceased to feel the power of the stereotyped phrases of a traditional theology. An account of our Lord’s teaching, it has to be added, is properly based on the Synoptics. The authentic matter of the Fourth Gospel is so inextricably blended with believing experience and reflexion that it can only be set forth as a supplement to the heads of doctrine collected from the Synoptists (Wendt), or utilized as a source for the Johannine Theology ( Weiss ).

In addition to the sketches in the great manuals of NT Theology (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des NT, Eng. tr. 1882–3; Beyschlag, NT Theol Eng. tr 1891; Holtzmann. Lehrbuch der NT Theol., 1897 ;

Stevens, Theol. of NT, 1899), there are numerous monographs, of which the most important is Wendt, Lehre Jesu (Eng. tr. 1892), and the most interesting are Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 1890, and Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums (Eng. tr. 1901).

A. THE KINGDOM OF GOD.—The Evangelists give as the summary description of the message of Jesus—‘the gospel of the kingdom.’ ‘And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom’ (Mt 4:23; cf. Mk 1:14, 15, Lk 8:1). As Jesus was conscious of being the promised Messiah, it was natural that His teaching ministry should be largely directed to setting forth the nature, the privileges, and the laws of the Messianic Kingdom. Most modern expositors, accordingly, have treated the idea of the Kingdom as central, and as supplying a scheme under which the whole body of the teaching may be systematically arranged. Thus, after determining the nature of the Kingdom in relation to the past of Israel, and to the ideas of contemporary Judaism, Weiss treats of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messiah and His work, of its realization in the righteousness and the privileges of its members, and of its predicted consummation in the future.

(1) The nature of the Kingdom.—In elucidating Christ’s conception of the Kingdom, it is usual to begin by contrasting it with pre-existing ideas. In the first place, it is clear that, while Jesus claimed to fulfil OT prophecy, and to be the Messiah for whom the people waited, He broke with the general strain of Messianic prophecy and expectation in the important particular that He rejected the conception that the Kingdom would exist in the form of a political organization. It was a very natural aspiration for the Jews to desire to be free and powerful, and more than a respectable ambition, when it is remembered that the Empire of which they dreamed was to carry in its train the worship and service of the true God; but Jesus substituted for the political conception the idea of a Kingdom which was spiritual in its nature, and by consequence universal. Its essentially spiritual character is shown by the nature of its blessings—among which there is frequent mention of the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and the like, but little of earthly good and nothing of political power. A Kingdom which ‘cometh not with observation’ (Lk 17:20) could not be of the same kind with the kingdom of the Maccabees or the Roman Empire. And if it was a spiritual Kingdom, in which membership was granted on terms of faith and love, it followed that it was in principle a universal Kingdom. It was no monopoly of those of Jewish birth, for not all Jews had faith, and of some who were Gentiles He said that He had not found so great faith in Israel (Mt 8:10). ‘Many shall come from the east and the west … but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness’ (vv. 11, 12).

The further elucidation of its nature may be carried out by the help of an analysis of the idea of a kingdom. It involves authority and rule (doctrine of God and of the Messiah), blessings which are enjoyed by the citizens (the Kingdom as ‘a good,’ the privileges), laws which are enacted and enforced (the righteousness of the Kingdom), a title to citizenship (conditions of entrance), an organization of the subjects in community of life and service (the Kingdom as a community, doctrine of the Church), a future and a destiny (doctrine of the Last Things).

The Kingdom as present and as future.—One of the difficulties of the subject is that in some passages Jesus speaks of the Kingdom as present, while in many others He speaks of it as future; and there has been a wide difference of opinion as to the relation of the two sets of utterances, and the importance to be attributed to the eschatological series.

(i) The Kingdom as a present reality.—That the Kingdom had come, and was a present reality on earth when He taught and laboured, is stated in a number of passages. He speaks of His mighty works as proof. ‘If I by the spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you’ (Mt 12:28; cf. Lk 10:18). In the same sense it is said ‘the kingdom of God is among you,’ (not ‘within you,’ which could not have been said to the Pharisees (Lk 17:21)). It is also implied that there are those who are already in the Kingdom (Mt 11:11). The parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Mt 13:31–33), and also of the Seed Growing Secretly (Mk 4:26–29), seem clearly to teach that the Kingdom was then present in the world in small and lowly beginnings, which were to be succeeded by a process of wonderful growth and expansion.

(ii) The Kingdom as a future event.—In a larger number of cases He spoke of the Kingdom, and of entrance into it, as future. ‘Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 5:20). ‘Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the ‘world’ (Mt 25:34). Moreover, a very large portion of His teaching is concerned with the man tier of the establishment of the Kingdom in the last days, and with the sublime events by which it is to be ushered in and established.

The time of the Consummation, Jesus declared, was unknown even to the Son (Mk 13:32), but it would be heralded by various signs—persecution, apostasy, the preaching of the gospel throughout the world (Mt 24). Upon this would follow the return of the Son of Man, who would come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (24:30, 25:31; cf. Mk 14:62). The immediate purpose of the Return is to sift the righteous and the wicked, to execute judgment upon the enemies of God, and to gather together the elect from the four winds (Mt 24:29ff.). Thereafter there is established a Kingdom which cannot be moved, in which the blessed enjoy all that is promised them in the love of God. The scene appears to be laid on earth (Mt 5:4). So far as the picture is elaborated it is by utilizing the tones and the colours of earthly experience, as well as familiar forms of dignity, power, and enjoyment (Mk 10:40, 14:25, Mt 8:11). At the same time the spiritual blessings are of course the chiefest (Mt 5:8), and the transfiguration of the natural is suggested in a significant particular (Mk 12:25).

(iii) Relation of the two aspects of the Kingdom.—There are three main views as to the relation of the two sets of utterances about the Kingdom; they may be distinguished as the traditional, the liberal; and the eschatological.

(a) According to the traditional view, both groups of sayings are authentic, and are easily combined into a consistent whole. Jesus could say that the Kingdom was present in respect that it had come, and future in respect that it had not yet fully come in power and glory. Its history falls into two stages, one of which is now under the dispensation of the Spirit, the other to come in stupendous acts of judgment and mercy at the Second Advent.

(b) The liberal view of modern theology is that the eschatological outlook of Jesus was borrowed from, or accommodated to, temporary forms of Jewish thought, and that the valuable and enduring element is the conception of the Kingdom as entering into the life of mankind in this world, growing in range and power, and destined to permeate society and all its institutions with its Divine spirit. From this point of view the Second Coming, the central event of the history, is to be understood as a spiritual return which has been taking place in the events of history from Pentecost down to the present hour. Similarly the Last Judgment is interpreted as a continuous process which runs parallel with the history of nations and churches. That this view has some support in the Fourth Gospel must be admitted. The return or which Christ there speaks with much fulness is the mission of the Spirit, and the Judgment which is before the mind of the Evangelist is almost always the judgment which is simultaneous with character and conduct. There may even be claimed for it some support from the Synoptic teaching—as in the dating of the Return ‘from now’ (Mt 26:64), and the distinction of ‘days of the Son of Man’ (Lk 17:22), and also in the association of the Second Coming with the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24). But on the whole it must be said that the attempt to impute the purely spiritual conception to Jesus is unhistorical. It may be argued that His sayings are examples of prophecy, and that theology has a warrant to recast prophetic sayings in new forms. But it can hardly be gainsaid that Jesus thought of the Return as a definite event, visible and impressive, which would challenge the attention of all mankind, and involve acts that would revolutionize the order of our world.

(c) Some modern scholars hold that the distinctive teaching of Jesus was that the Kingdom was a supernatural Kingdom, to be established by Divine power at His Second Coming, and that the references in the Gospels to a present Kingdom with a gradual development are either illusory or unauthentic ( J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes). On this view Jesus claimed to be the Messiah only in the sense that He looked forward to becoming the Messiah. He was, like John the Baptist, a forerunner, but with the difference that the future Messiah to whom He bore witness was the Jesus of the Second Advent. The textual evidence which supports the view that Jesus founded a present Kingdom of God on earth before His death is discounted on the ground that an event which is imminent may be intelligibly said to be present. Thus the confession at Cæsarea Philippi is to be taken proleptically: it merely meant that Peter believed that He was the Messiah designate, or the heir to the office. ‘Jesus departed this life with the consciousness that the Kingdom was not yet established’ (J. Weiss). The parables which speak of a gradual development of the Kingdom of God are explained either as having been interpolated or as teaching a different lesson. But this accentuation of the eschatological side of our Lord’s teaching is hardly likely to be accepted, as Schweitzer claims, as an assured result of criticism. If even in the OT the Jewish State was sometimes conceived of as the present Kingdom of God, and if the Rabbinical theology sometimes spoke of the Kingdom of God as a power to be yielded to now, it is difficult to see why Jesus should not have entertained the similar conception which is contained or implied in the texts quoted. Above all, it is impossible to believe that Jesus, who taught that the highest blessings are enjoyed in communion with God, did not hold that the Kingdom was present among those who experienced His love and who obeyed His will.

B. THE HEAVENLY FATHER AND HIS CHILDREN.—It may be doubted if the teaching of Jesus is most satisfactorily set forth under the forms of the Kingdom. The difficulty even of the traditional conception, the doubts as to the correctness of this conception which have been referred to, and also the transitoriness of types of political constitution, suggest that the organizing idea may better be sought in another sphere. As a fact the central conceptions of His religious and ethical teaching are borrowed not from the political, but from the domestic sphere. When it is said that ‘one is your Father,’ and that ‘all ye are brethren’ (Mt 23:8, 8), we have the description of a family. To the writer it therefore seems that the teaching is best expounded under the rubric of the Heavenly Father and His children, or the holy family, and in what follows we shall confine ourselves mainly to the elucidation of the heads of this gospel of Divine and human love.

(1) The Heavenly Father.—Christ could take for granted in His hearers the elements of the knowledge of God set forth in the OT, as one God, all-powerful, all-wise, all-holy, all-good. This splendid spiritual inheritance He enriched by the content of His doctrine of God as the Heavenly Father. The name, indeed, was not new. Even the Greeks spoke of Zeus as the father of gods and men; while in not a few OT passages God is likened to and even named a Father. For the Greeks, however, the Fatherhood of God hardly meant more than that He was the God of Creation and Providence, while in OT thought God, as Father was the protecting God of Israel, or the Father of the Messianic King. On the lips of Jesus the name meant that God was the Father of individual men, who lavished upon each the utmost resources of a Father’s wise and tender care. It may, in fact, be said that if we study human fatherhood at its best, note every lovely and gracious feature which is realized or adumbrated in an earthly home, and then attribute these in perfected form to the heart and the will of the Almighty, we discover the heads of the teaching of Jesus concerning God.

The relation of an earthly father to his children involves at least seven points—to him they owe their existence, from him they borrow his nature and likeness, he provides for their wants, he educates and disciplines them, he holds intimate intercourse with them, he is graciously disposed to forgive their offences, and he makes them his heirs. All this, now, Jesus has affirmed of God in relation to men. The first two points—that it is He that made us, and not we ourselves, and that we are made in His image—were articles of OT doctrine which He did not need to emphasize; though it may be pointed out that His conception of the infinite value of the individual soul had its roots in His belief that man hears the image of the Heavenly Father. The other points mentioned are quite explicitly emphasized.

(a) God provides for the wants of His children. He is aware of their bodily wants (Mt 6:32): the God who feeds the fowls and clothes the lilies will not suffer His children to be in want. This, in fact, is deduced directly from the idea of fatherhood. ‘If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?’ (7:11). That the provision includes spiritual blessings as its chief part is made explicit in Lk 11:13.

(b) God educates and disciplines His children. Jesus does not say this expressly, but it may be noticed that there are two aspects of a child’s earthly training which are reproduced in what He says about the Divine education of souls. A child’s education, though arduous and painful, is designed for its good; and similarly, Jesus says, Blessed are the poor, the mourners, the persecuted, the reviled (Mt 5:3ff.). The second aspect is that the children do not always appreciate the wisdom and kindness of the discipline, but must be asked to take it on trust. Similarly, the earthly child must often trust the Heavenly Father’s love where he cannot comprehend His purpose, saying, ‘Yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight’ ( Mt 11:26).

(c) God holds intimate intercourse with His children. It does not lie in the idea of an earthly parent to hold aloof from his children, and God admits His to close communion with Himself. On their side it takes the form of prayer, on His of response. They are encouraged to seek both spiritual and material blessings, and that importunately (parables of the Importunate Widow, Lk 18:1ff.; the Friend at Midnight, 11:5ff.), and they are assured that ‘whatsoever they shall ask in prayer, believing, they shall receive’ (Mt 21:22).

(d) God is graciously disposed to forgive His children’s offences. His way with sinners is not the way of a man with his enemy, to whom he refuses on any terms to be reconciled, or of a creditor with his debtor, who insists on full payment, but that of a father, who meets a penitent son in a spirit of magnanimity, rejoices over his return, and receives him back to his home. The point of the three great parables in Lk 15 is that, while the respectable world was sceptical about the restoration of the erring, and frowned on those who attempted it, there is in heaven a charity that believeth all things, and joy unspeakable over one sinner that repenteth.

(e) God destines His children to an inheritance. This is itself, as has been indicated, a distinct and large topic of the teaching of Jesus, and it is sufficient here to refer to a text in which the logic of the relationship is clearly brought out: ‘Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom’ (Lk 12:32).

In the light of the above analysis we are in a position to deal with the much-discussed question, Did Jesus conceive of God as the Father of all men, or only as the Father of those who are within the family-Kingdom? It may be that Jesus applies the name of Father to God only in relation to the children of the Kingdom, but the palpable meaning of His teaching is that God is the Father of all men, while yet it is not possible for Him to be the Father, in the full sense of the word, of those who are living in impenitence and in alienation from Him. He is the Father of all to the extent that they are created by Him, are made in His image, have their wants supplied by Him, and are disciplined by Him; but just as it is impossible for an earthly father to forgive a contumacious son, to hold intercourse with an absent son, and to make an heir of a son who has already squandered his portion, so is it impossible for God to be in the full sense a Father to those who shun His face and spurn His gifts.

(2) The terms of sonship.—The next great theme is the question how men become members of the family-Kingdom. Negatively Jesus teaches that we are not born into it, as one was born into the Jewish State, and also that membership is not an order of merit conferred in recognition of distinguished attainments in piety and virtue. The most important and comprehensive utterance of our Lord on the point is this—‘Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 18:3). Here again we can trace the fidelity of the detail to the fundamental idea of the family-Kingdom: what should be so necessary in the son as childlikeness? On examination childlikeness proves to include a variety of qualities which are elsewhere declared by Jesus to be conditions of sonship: (a) Trustfulness.—When Jesus

proposed the children as a model, there can be little doubt that He had prominently in mind the child’s capacity of faith. He would have His followers trust in the wisdom and the love of the Father with the sublime confidence with which a child naturally trusts in an earthly parent. There are examples of the joy which He felt at unexpected cases of heroic faith, e.g. of the centurion of Capernaum and the Syrophœnician woman. The grand object of this faith was God. ‘Have faith,’ He says, ‘in God’ (Mk 11:22). But this faith in God included also faith in Himself as the appointed instrument for the performance of God’s great work with men. (b) Sense of need.—A child, being cast upon others for the supply of its wants, has a keen sense of need. And this sense, which from one point of view is humility, is also a prominent mark of the children of the Kingdom. We are asked to admire the publican, who, in contrast to the self-satisfied Pharisee, confessed his unworthiness and his need of mercy (Lk 18:13). The self-complacency of the Rich Young Ruler showed that though not far from, he was still outside of, the Kingdom of God ( Mk 10:17ff.). The Beatitude is for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Mt 5:6). (c) The penitential spirit.—With childlikeness may also be associated the grace of penitence, for childhood, when not spoiled by hardening influences, is the period of the sensitive conscience. In any case penitence is closely bound up with faith as the essential condition. ‘He came into Galilee preaching and saying, Repent ye and believe the gospel’ (Mk 1:15). The stages of penitence are vividly illustrated in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11–32). (d)

Resolution.—A fourth parallel is that in the child there is, along with a sense of need, a resolute determination to secure what it values. There are some, it is true, who receive the heavenly blessings in response to an invitation, or almost under compulsion, but the rule is that they are like the merchantman seeking goodly pearls, and willing to make any sacrifice to secure what they seek. ‘The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force’ ( Mt 11:12).

(3) The privileges of the children.—The enumeration of these has already been anticipated in what has been said of the implications of the Divine Fatherhood. The children possess, in fact or in promise, the fulness of the blessings which God as the Heavenly Father, who is also allpowerful, is disposed to bestow. They include the forgiveness of sins, access to the Father in prayer, the provision needed for the supply of bodily and spiritual wants, guidance in perplexity, protection in danger, power of a supernatural kind, and the assurance that their names are written in heaven (Lk 10:20). The privileges are summarily described as life (Mt 7:14, Mk 9:43) and as salvation (Lk 19:9), Their exceeding value is emphasized in particular maxims (Mt 16:26), and in the parables of the Hid Treasure and of the Pearl of Price (Mt 13:44–46). In spite of the hardships and perils of the life to which they are called, the habitual mood of the children is one of repose and even of joy (Mt 11:28–30, Lk 6:23).

(4) The filial and fraternal obligations—The observation that the teaching of Jesus is in substance a system built up out of the higher elements of family life is confirmed when we approach its practical ideal. This is made up of filial obligations towards God, and of fraternal obligations towards men.

(i) The duties towards God are those which naturally devolve upon the children in consideration of the Father’s greatness, wisdom, and goodness. Love being the great thing manifested by God towards them, their fundamental duty is to love Him in return with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all their mind, and with all their strength (Mk 12:30). Their special duties towards God, which are also privileges, are these—to trust Him wholly, to make their desires known to Him in prayer, to perform with fidelity the work He gives them to do, and to submit in meekness and patience when He calls them to suffer.

(ii) Duty towards man.—The supreme fraternal obligation, like the filial, is love. ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, (Mk 12:31). By our neighbour we are to understand all who are in need, and whom it is in our power to help (parable of the Good Samaritan, Lk 10:30ff.). When we inquire how this principle manifests itself, it appears that the Christian ethic has three features which are commonly described as inwardness, self-sacrificing service, and the passive virtues. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to illustrate how these form an ethical ideal which has its prototype in the life of the family.

(a) Inwardness.—A distinctive feature of the ethical teaching of Jesus is the insistence that it is not sufficient to refrain from overt acts of wrong, and to perform the overt acts which duty requires. The heart must be pure and the motive right. From this point of view benefactions that are not accompanied by sympathy lose half their value. On the other hand, the evil purpose has the quality of an evil act; hatred is murder in the minor degree. Now, startling as is the demand for a perfect heart in an ethic of general obligation, it is familiar enough in family life. There a woman counts all benefactions as worthless if she do not possess her husband’s love; or, again, the hatred of brothers and sisters is at once felt to have an enormity of guilt beyond that of most evil deeds.

(b) Disinterested service.—In what is said of the forms of service the ideal is manifestly suggested by brotherhood. Of the chief forms may be distinguished first beneficence, which is specially directed to the relief of the poor, the entertainment of the homeless, the tending of the sick, the visiting of captives (Mt 25:34ff.), the comforting of the sorrowful, the reconciliation of those who are at feud (Mt 5:9). Another is the ministry of teaching; without doubt Jesus intended His disciples, as one of their chief forms of service, to follow Him in the disseminating of the truths which He taught. A third is the spiritual ministry proper, which has the same end as His own pastoral work—to save souls from sin, and to help them to rise to higher ends of excellence and nobility. The ideal here, in short, is that the kind of things which the parent, the brother, and the sister do, or may be expected to do, in accordance with the spirit of family life, are made binding in their application to our fellow-men as such. We may also notice two accompanying rules. (α) The service is to be disinterested. This is enforced by the counsel that we are preferably to perform acts of kindness to those who are not in a position to make a return (Lk 6:34f.). (β) They are also to be done unostentatiously—not as by the Pharisees, who blow a trumpet before them, but so that the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth (Mt 6:2–4). In the first of these counsels we see a reflexion of the spirit which has its purest expression in maternal devotion. The second states the condition without which the best service in any sphere loses its grace.

(c) The passive virtues.—A third group of graces, specially known as the passive virtues, includes meekness and patience under adversity and wrong, and the forgiveness of injuries. Very great stress is laid on forgiving injuries, of which Jesus alludes to three kinds—injury to the person (Mt 5:39), loss of property (v. 40), and defamation of character (5:11). Instructions are given as to the steps to be taken in securing reconciliation, beginning with private expostulation (Mt 18:15). As motives to forgiveness we are reminded that we ought to forgive as we hope to be forgiven, and also that, as God sets the example of ready clemency, the child ought to imitate the Father (Mt 5:45). These virtues, it will again be noticed, were not new on the soil of family life. From the beginning there have been women who within the sphere of the home have borne hardship meekly, endured wrong patiently, and been ready to forgive unto seventy times seven.

(5) The unique Son and His work.—It may be thought that the scheme which has been followed is inconsistent with the witness borne by Jesus to His Person and His work, inasmuch as His claims have no obvious counter-part in the life of the family. The whole subject is treated in a special article (PERSON OF CHRIST), but must be glanced at here in the general context of Synoptic doctrine. In the first place, it is certainly true that Jesus asserted for Himself a peculiar dignity, and for His work a peculiar efficacy. He calls Himself not a Son, but the Son (Mt 11:27) , who stands in a unique relation to the Father, and who also makes upon the other children a demand for faith and obedience. If now we ask what it is that makes Christ unique, we find that the stress is laid upon three particulars—(a) He is in the Father’s confidence, and from Him the other children obtain their knowledge of the Father (ib.). (b) He fully possesses the privileges and fulfils the obligations which are involved in sonship. (c) His death was the means of procuring for them the highest blessings (Mk 14:24||). Now, all these things, if not explained by, have at least parallels in, the life of the family. The son, who in all respects obeys his father’s will, enjoys a position of peculiar intimacy and influence. The eldest son in many countries, and not least in the Jewish tradition, often occupies an intermediate position between the head and the subordinate members of the family. And if Jesus, as He certainly did, looked upon Himself as the eldest brother of the family-Kingdom—who first realized its privileges and its righteousness, and as the Son in whom the Father was well pleased, and whom consequently He took into His deepest confidence—we can see how He could teach that faith in Him was an element in the gospel. Nor are the references to the necessity of His death, as is sometimes said, inconsistent with the gospel of the Heavenly Father. Every death in a family tends to be a means of grace; the death in a noble cause of one who is revered and loved is an almost matchless source of inspiration; and there were reasons, apart from deeper theological explanations, why Jesus should teach that His death would do more even than His life to make effective the gospel of Divine and human love.

(6) The brotherhood as a society.—It followed from the nature of the teaching of Jesus that His followers should form themselves into a society. Community of faith and aim made it natural for them to do so, and those whose relations were of the nature of brotherhood were bound to realize it in a common life and common service as well as in common institutions. That the purpose of Jesus went in this direction from the first appears from the call and training of the twelve Apostles. In the later period of His Ministry we have references to a Christian society under the name of the Church (Mt 16:18, 18:15–20). These references have indeed been thought by some critics to be of later ecclesiastical origin; but when the breach with the Jewish authorities became inevitable, He must, in thinking of the future, have conceived of His followers as a separate society. The omissions are as remarkable as the provisions. There is nothing said about forms of worship, nothing about ecclesiastical constitution. The few

provisions may be gathered up under the following heads:—

(a) General principles.—The ruling spirit is the desire of each member to help all and each according to the measure of his ability. Titles which involve the assumption of personal authority are to be avoided (Mt 23:8). Honour and influence are to be proportionate to service (Mk 10:43 , 44). It is to be a contrast to the natural society in two respects—that no one seeks his own but only the general good, and that there are no distinctions of rank and power resting upon accident, intrigue, or violence. In the light of these maxims the promise to Peter must be interpreted ( Mt 16:18). It certainly meant that Peter was the chief instrument by which in the primitive period the Church was to be built up, but the promise was to Peter as confessing Christ, and by implication to all who make themselves his successors by sharing his faith.

(b) The work of the Christian society.—There can be no doubt that this is formulated by Jn. in accordance with the mind of Jesus in the words—‘As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world’ (17:18; cf. Mk 3:14ff.). His instructions to the Twelve, and to the Seventy, in which He appoints and equips them for a ministry like His own, show that He conceived of the society as an instrument which should carry on His works of preaching and healing. The risen Lord lays on the conscience the duty of making disciples of all nations ( Mt 28:19). The work of the Church which is spoken of in most detail is discipline, the aim of which is declared to be the improvement of the erring brother, while the stages of the procedure are laid down (Mt 18:15ff.). Importance is also attached to the function of binding and loosing (v. 18) , which is regarded as the prerogative of the Christian society as a whole, not of a particular class. The reference is to forbidding and permitting—i.e. framing maxims and rules of life which should be recognized as operative within the society.

(c) The religious rites.—There is every reason to believe that Jesus instituted two simple rites to be observed in the society. That baptism was appointed by Him has been denied, on the ground that it is vouched for only in the narrative of the post-resurrection life, and that it embodies a Trinitarian formula (Mt 28:19). It is, however, antecedently probable, from the connexion of Jesus with the Baptist, that He took over the rite of baptism, while its use from the beginning of the Christian Church as the sacrament of initiation presupposes its appointment or sanction by Jesus. The institution of the Lord’s Supper as a standing ordinance has already been referred to.

(7) The future and the inheritance.—The teaching of Jesus about the future, so far as it deals with the Return, has already been touched on, and it is sufficient now to note—(1) references to the growth of the Christian society on earth; (2) the glimpses of the final inheritance.

(a) The development of the society.—There are a number of passages, especially in the parables, which imply a history of the Church marked by three features—a gradual growth to a world-leavening and world-overshadowing influence, debasement through a large admixture of evil elements, and experiences of trial and persecution (Mt 13).

(b) The final portion.—It is in vain that we look in the teaching of Jesus for instruction upon many eschatological questions which have exercised the minds of theologians. His message may be summed up in the two articles, that there is a fearful punishment reserved for those who come to the Judgment in unbelief and impenitence, and that for those who are His there remains a great and an enduring inheritance. As to the conditions and the content of the blessedness of those who ‘enter into life’ there is a large measure of reserve. He has no doctrine of the intermediate state. He fixes our gaze on the final state in which there is no longer any human impediment to prevent the bestowal of all that is in the heart of the Father to give—peace, blessedness, glory, with opportunity of service. As to the ultimate fate of the wicked, we can only say that it is a problem for the solution of which the letter of certain sayings makes in one direction (Mt 25:46), while His proclamation of the Father’s unlimited and untiring love makes in the other.

18. The credibility of the teaching.—The teaching of Jesus contains two salient features (apart from the Christology), which are of such fundamental importance in a view of life that they may be briefly touched on from an apologetic point of view. The questions are—Is the Fatherhood of God, as Jesus proclaimed it, a fact? Is the Christian ethic, as expounded in the Sermon on the Mount, practicable?

(1) The doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood, on which virtually everything turns, is inexpressibly beautiful and consoling; but there is evidence that Jesus Himself was conscious of difficulties. Otherwise He would not have spoken of faith as making a demand on the will. His insistence on the need of importunity in prayer shows that He felt that events do not always, and at the first glance, fit into a scheme of things in which the hand of the Heavenly Father is manifest. In Gethsemane and on the cross, if words mean anything, He felt to the full the trial of faith. When we question human experience, there are numberless persons who say that they have been unable to trace the tender individualizing discipline of a Heavenly Father which Jesus assumed, and that things rather seem to have been governed, except in as far as they have themselves compelled results, by a blind and deaf fate. Modern views of the reign of law increase the difficulty. If the Universe is a vast mechanism, grinding on in accordance with inviolable laws to predetermined issues, where is the possibility of the intervention of a Father’s hand to control the individual lot, and to mete out such blessings as we need or pray for? These are real difficulties which burden many a sincere mind and trouble many a sensitive heart. But it is to be considered that, apart from the authority which may be claimed for a revelation, there is good ground for believing in the title of man to interpret God, as Jesus did, in the light of the idea of Fatherhood. God is revealed in His works; among these works the greatest thing that has come into view on earth is the self-sacrificing love and the disinterested service which are associated with the sanctities of family life; and we may well be sceptical that God is less in goodness than a human parent, or His purpose with mankind less generous than that of an earthly father with his family. Theistic philosophy construes God in the light of man’s rational and moral nature; Christ’s method was similar, except that He took as His clue the moral nature as it is revealed at its best, namely, in the life of the home. Nor are the objections of the strength which is often supposed. The Universe is no doubt machine-like, but it does not therefore follow that it puts it out of the power of God to deal paternally and discriminatingly with His children. In the first place, God’s greatest gifts consist of things with which the mechanism of nature has absolutely nothing to do—such as communion with God, forgiveness of sins, peace, joy, spiritual power. And as regards the outward circumstances of our lot, with which it has to do, it is quite possible to hold, as many profound thinkers have held, that God works in and through general laws, and yet is able by their instrumentality to accomplish particular providences and to vouchsafe answers to prayer. Nor does it seem that any bitter human experience can be such as to justify disbelief in the Divine Fatherhood, because the witnesses to the truth include those who have tasted the extremity of human sorrow. The paradox of it is that the belief in the Fatherhood of God comes to us attested by many who were beyond others sons and daughters of affliction; and owes its place in the world’s heart above all to Him who, dying in unspeakable agony, said,

‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’

(2) The Christian ethic.—The modern criticisms of the morality of the Sermon on the Mount are two—that it is imperfect, and that it is impracticable. The first objection has already been touched on in part, and we need refer now only to the line of criticism which finds fault with its exaltation of the passive virtues as a mark of weakness. What lends some colour to this is that, as a matter of fact, many weak characters naturally behave in a way that bears some resemblance to the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. They endure wrongs meekly, do not strike back, and are incapable of sustaining a feud. But it may still be, and actually is, a great thing for a strong man to do from principle what a weakling does from indolence or cowardice. The objection that the Christian ethic is impracticable is more frequently heard, at least in Great Britain. Even the Church finds it impracticable to act on our Lord’s principle of secrecy in the matter of giving, while it would seem that the individual who carried out His precepts in business would be ruined, and that the nation which followed His programme of non-resistance would perish. The weight of the objection is so far reduced by the observation that our Lord’s precepts are designed to be followed, not in the letter, but in the spirit—so that, e.g., the really important thing is, not to give to a thief who may have stolen a coat a cloak in addition, but to cherish kindly feelings for him, and to act in his best interests, which may mean putting him in gaol. Similarly, our duty to the poor is to give wise expression to our love of them, which may very properly take account of the experience that indiscriminate charity increases the distress which it professes to relieve. The really essential thing is that brotherly love should prevail, that that which is to a large extent a fact in the sphere of the family should become truly operative in the class, the community, the nation, and among the peoples of the earth. It is to be remembered, too, that every ideal which has become practicable was once deemed impracticable—there have been states of society in which it seemed impossible to be honest, or temperate, or chaste; and though the Christian ideal towers high above the general practice of our generation, it may be that that practice will one day be looked back on as belonging to the half-savage practice of the world’s youth. And in the present it has often been made sublimely practicable for those whom the Holy Spirit touched, and whose hearts were set aflame with a Christ-like love of man.

W. P. PATERSON.

JETHER.—1. Father-in-law of Moses (RVm of Ex 4:18 E), prob. a mistake for Jethro. 2.

Eldest son of Gideon (Jg 8:20). 3. An Ishmaelite, father of Amasa (1 K 2:5, 32, 1 Ch 2:17. See ITHRA). 4. 5. Two men of Judah (1 Ch 2:32, 4:17). 6. A man of Asher (1 Ch 7:38); called in v. 37 Ithran, the name of an Edomite clan (Gn 36:26).

JETHETH.—An Edomite clan (Gn 36:40 = 1 Ch 1:51).

JETHRO (once, Ex 4:18a Jether).—An Arab sheik and priest of the Sinaitic Peninsula, the father-in-law of Moses; referred to by this name in Ex 3:1, 4:18 and 18:1, 2ff. (E), as Reuel in the present text of Ex 2:18 (J), and as Hobab in Nu 10:29 (also J). He welcomed Moses and received him into his family (Ex 2:21), and many years later visited him at Sinai (Ex 18:1 ff.), heard with wonder and delight of the doings of Jahweh on behalf of Israel (v. 9ff.), and gave advice about administration (vv. 17–26). Later still he probably acted as guide to the Israelites (Nu 10:29ff.; cf. the AV of Jg 1:16 and 4:11). As to the two or three names, it may be noted that Arabic inscriptions (Minæan) repeatedly give a priest two names. The name Jethro (Heb. Yithrō) may mean ‘pre-eminence.’ See art. HOBAB.

W. TAYLOR SMITH.

JETUR.—See ITURÆA.

JEUEL.—1. A Judahite (1 Ch 9:6). 2. A Levitical family name (2 Ch 29:13). 3. A contemporary of Ezra (Ezr 8:13). In 2 and 3 Qerē has Jeiel.

JEUSH.—1. A son of Esau by Oholibamah; also the eponym of a Horite clan (Gn 36:5, 14 , 18 = 1 Ch 1:35). 2. A Benjamite chief (7:10). 3. A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:39). 4. The name of a Levitical family (1 Ch 23:10f.). 5. A son of Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:19).

JEUZ.—The eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Ch 8:10).

JEW.—The name by which the descendants of Israel have been known for many centuries. It is corrupted from Judah. After the division of the kingdom in B.C. 937, the southern portion was called by the name of the powerful tribe of Judah, which composed most of its inhabitants. It was in this kingdom that the Deuteronomic reform occurred, which was the first step in the creation of an organized religion sharply differentiated from the other religions of the world. This religion, developed during the Exile, bore the name of the kingdom of Judah. All Israelites who maintained their identity were its adherents, hence the name ‘Jew’ has absorbed the name ‘Israel.’ For their history, see ISRAEL (I. 21–30) and DISPERSION. For their religion, see ISRAEL (II. 5, 6).

On the special meaning of ‘the Jews’ in Jn. see p. 481^bf.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

JEWEL.—Gn 24:53 ‘the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold.’ They were not jewels set in silver and in gold. Ornaments made of gold or silver were in older English called jewels. Now the word is confined to precious stones.

JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.—The greater number of the precious stones in the Bible occur in three lists which it will be instructive to tabulate at the outset. These are: (A) the stones in the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:17–20, 39:10–13); (B) those in the ‘covering’ of the king of Tyre (Ezk 28:13); (C) those in the foundation of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:19, 20). The three lists are to some extent mutually connected. A contains 12 stones. B in Heb. has 9, all taken from A, with traces of A’s order in their arrangement. In LXX the two lists are identical, and possibly the Heb. of B is corrupt. C also has 12 stones, and is evidently partly dependent on the LXX of A and B.

It seems likely that in List A as well as in List B the LXX iaspis corresponds to the Heb. yashepheh, and that the sixth and twelfth names in the Heb. of A have been interchanged.

		A.—THE HIGH PRIEST’S BREASTPLATE
Exodus		Hebrew LXX		AV	RV
28:17, 39:10	{	1. ’Odem Sardion		Sardius (mg. Ruby)	Sardius ( mg. Ruby)
		2. Pitdah Topazion		Topaz	Topaz
		3. Bareqeth Smaragdos		Carbuncle	Carbuncle (mg. Emerald)
28:18, 39:11	{	4. Nophek Anthrax		Emerald	Emerald ( mg. Carbuncle)
		5. Sappir Sappheiros		Sapphire	Sapphirs
		6. Yahalom Iaspis (Yashephe h?)		Diamond	Diamond ( mg. Sardonyx)
28:19, 39:12	{	7. Leshem Ligurion		Ligure	Jacinth ( mg. Amber)
		8. Shebo Achates		Agate	Agate
			9. ’AchlamahAmethystos	Amethyst	Amethyst
28:20, 39:13	{		10. Tarshish Chrysolithos	Beryl	Beryl ( mg. Chalcedony)
			11. Shoham Beryllion	Onyx	Onyx ( mg. Beryl)
			12. YashephehOnychion ( Yahalom? )	Jasper	Jasper

Reference to these tables will simplify the use of the following notes, which include other precious stones of the Bible besides those mentioned above. In endeavouring to identify the stones in List A, three things have to be kept in view. From the dimensions of the breastplate—a span (8 Or 9 inches) each way (Ex 28:16)—the 12 stones which composed it must, even after allowing space for their settings, have been of considerable size, and therefore of only moderate rarity. Further, as they were engraved with the names of the tribes, they can have been of only moderate hardness. lastly, preference should be given to the stones which archæology shows to have been actually used for ornamental work in early Biblical times. In regard to this point, the article by Professor Flinders Petrie (Hastings’ DB iv. 619–21) is of special value.

B.—THE ‘COVERING’ OFTHE KING OF TYRE (EZK 28:13)

Hebrew	LXX		AV		RV
1. ’Odem	1. Sardion		Sardius (mg. Ruby)		Sardius (mg. Ruby)
2. Pitdah	2. Topazion		Topaz		Topaz
9. Bareqeth	3. Smaragdos		Carbuncle		Carbuncle ( mg. Emerald)
8. Nophek	4. Anthrax		Emerald (mg. Chrysoprase)		Emerald ( mg. Carbuncle)
7. Sappir	5. Sappheiros		Sapphire		Sapphire
6. Yashepheh	6. Iaspis 7. Ligurion 8. Achates 9. Amethystos		Jasper		Jasper
4. Tarshish		10. Chrysolithos		Beryl (mg. Chrysolite)	Beryl
5. Shoham.		11. Beryllion		Onyx	Onyx
3. Yahalom		12. Onychion		Diamond	Diamond

Adamant (Ezk 3:9, Zec 7:12).—See Diamond below.

Agate (List A 8 [Heb. shebo]). The Gr. equivalent achates (whence ‘agate’) was the name of a river in Sicily. The modern agate is a form of silica, occurring in nodules which when cut across show concentric bands of varying transparency and colour. The ancient achates ( Pliny, HN xxxvii. 54) probably included the opaque coloured varieties of silica now distinguished as jasper (see Jasper below). Flinders Petrie suggests that shebo may be the carnelian—also a form of silica (see Sardius below). ‘Agates’ (RVm ‘rubies’) stands for Heb. kadkod in Is 54:12 (LXX iaspis), Ezk 27:16. Red jasper is perhaps to be understood.

C.—THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Rev.		Greek AV	RV
21:19	{	1. Iaspis Jasper	Jasper
		2. Sappheiros Sapphire	Sapphire ( mg. Lapis-lazuli)
		3. Chalkedon Chalcedony	Chalcedony
		4. Smaragdos Emerald	Emerald
21:20	{	5. Sardonyx Sardonyx 6. Sardion Sardius	Sardonyx Sardius
		7. Chrysolithos Chrysolyte	Chrysolite
		8. Beryllos. Beryl	Beryl
		9. Topazion Topaz	Topaz
		10. Chrysoprasos Chrysoprasus	Chrysoprase
		11. Hyakinthos Jacinth	Jacinth ( mg.

Sapphire)

	12. Amethystos Amethyst	Amethyst
Rev.	Greek AV	RV
21:19	1. Iaspis Jasper	Jasper
	2. Sappheiros Sapphire	Sapphire ( mg. Lapis-lazuli)
	3. Chalkedon Chalcedony	Chalcedony
	4. Smaragdos Emerald	Emerald
21:20	5. Sardonyx Sardonyx	Sardonyx
	6. Sardion Sardius	Sardius
	7. Chrysolithos Chrysolyte	Chrysolite
	8. Beryllos. Beryl	Beryl
	9. Topazion Topaz	Topaz
	10. Chrysoprasos Chrysoprasus	Chrysoprase
	11. Hyakinthos Jacinth	Jacinth ( mg. Sapphire)
	12. Amethystos Amethyst	Amethyst

Amber.—Doubtful tr. In Ezk 1:4, 27, 8:2 of chashmal (AVm ‘electrum,’ Amer. RV ‘glowing metal’); cf. also Ligure below.

Amethyst (List A 9 [Heb. ’achlamah, LXX amethystos], C 12 [amethystos]). It is agreed that the common amethyst, properly called amethystine quartz, is meant. This is rock-crystal (transparent silica) coloured purple by manganese and iron. The Oriental amethyst is a much rarer gem, composed of violet corundum (oxide of aluminium),—in short, a purple sapphire. The name of the amethyst is derived from its supposed property, no doubt associated with its winelike colour, of acting as a preventive of intoxication.

Beryl (List A 10, B 4; also Ca 5:14, Ezk 1:16, 10:9, Dn 10:6 [Heb. tarshish]). What the ‘tarshish stone’ was is difficult to say. LXX renders it variously, but never by beryllion or beryllos. Topaz (RVm in Ca 5:14), yellow rock-crystal (false topaz), yellow serpentine, jacinth, and yellow jasper (Flinders Petrie) have been suggested as possible identifications. It is generally agreed that beryl is more likely to correspond to shoham (List A 11, B 5; Gn 2:12, Ex 25:7, 28:9 , 35:9, 27, 39:6, 1 Ch 29:2, Job 28:16), which LXX renders beryllion in A, EV always ‘onyx,’ but

RVm generally ‘beryl.’ Beryl is a silicate of aluminium and beryllium, with a wide range of tints from yellow, through green, to blue, according to the proportion of the colouring matter (oxide of chromium). The commonest form of the crystal is a six-sided prism. Now each of the two shoham stones in Ex 28:9, 10, 39:6 was engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel. A hexagonal prism such as beryl would best lend itself to this purpose. In NT beryllos occurs in List C 8.

Carbuncle (List A 3, B 9 [Heb. bareqeth or -ath, LXX smaragdos]). Bareqeth is simply a ‘lightning’ or ‘flashing’ stone.’ But ‘carbuncle’ (from carbunculus, a small glowing coal) denotes a red or fiery stone, and cannot correspond to the smaragdos, which was green ( Pliny, HN xxxvii. 16). It is rather the equivalent of Gr. anthrax (Heb. nophek, List A 4, B 8). Pliny names 12 varieties of smaragdos, the most important of which is doubtless our emerald. This stone should probably be substituted for ‘carbuncle’ in A and B; so RVm (see Emerald below). Flinders Petrie, however, thinks that the smaragdos was greenish rock-crystal ( silica ).

‘Carbuncle’ occurs more appropriately in Is 54:12 for Heb. ’abhnē’eqdach (‘stones of burning,’ RVm ‘rubies’). Any red stone like the garnet may be meant.

Chalcedony (List C 3). The modern stone of this name is semi-opaque or milky silica, but the ancient one was probably the green dioplase (silicate of copper). This at least seems to have been the kind of smaragdos that was found in the copper mines of Chalcedon (Pliny, HN xxxvii. 18). There was some confusion, however, between the ‘stone of Chalcedon’ and the carchedonia (stone of Carthage), which was red (Pliny, ib. xxxvii. 25, 30). Carchedon occurs as a various reading for chalcedon in Rev 21:19.

Chrysolite (RV; AV ‘chrysolyte’; List C 7). In modern mineralogy this is the peridote ( see Topaz below). The ancient gem was some other golden-coloured stone. Yellow quartz, yellow corundum, jacinth, or some variety of beryl may possibly be understood.

Chrysoprase (RV; AV ‘chrysoprasus,’ List C 10). The prasius of Pliny (HN xxxvii. 34) was a leek-green chalcedony (from Gr. prason, a leek), of which there was a golden-tinted variety. The latter may be the NT Chrysoprase. Possibly, however, both Chrysoprase and chrysolite in List C refer to yellowish shades of beryl. The modern Chrysoprase is a slightly translucent silica, coloured a beautiful apple-green by oxide of nickel.

Coral (Job 28:18, Ezk 27:16) is the calcareous ‘skeleton’ secreted by some of the compound actinozoa. Red coral (corallium rubrum) is common in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. In the living state the branching calcareous framework is covered by the ‘cœnosarc’ or common tissue of the organism, from which the individual polyps protrude. In the coral of commerce the living tissue has of course disappeared, and only the solid ‘skeleton’ remains. ‘Coral’ is also a possible rendering of peninim (so RVm in the passages under Ruby below).

Crystal.—In Job 28:17, AV thus renders Heb. zekukith, but RV understands ‘glass.’ In the next verse, however, RV has ‘crystal’ for Heb. gabish, instead of AV ‘pearls.’ In Ezk 1:22 ‘crystal’ stands for Heb. qerach (RVm ‘ice’). In NT krystallos appears in Rev 4:6, 21:11, 22:1. In all these cases except the first the reference is probably to rock-crystal (colourless transparent quartz).

Diamond (List A 6, B 3). The Heb. yahalom probably stood in the twelfth place in List A, where LXX has onychion. Hence in this list RVm has ‘sardonyx’ for ‘diamond.’ The latter is in any case an impossible rendering. The diamond was unknown in ancient times. It would have been too hard to engrave, and a diamond large enough to have borne the name of a tribe and to have filled a space in the high priest’s breastplate would have been of incredible value. The yahalom was most likely the onyx, a banded form of silica (see Onyx below). ‘Diamond’ also occurs in Jer 17:1 as the material of an engraving tool. The Heb. is shamir, which is rendered ‘adamant’ in two other passages where it is found (Ezk 3:9, Zec 7:12). The reference is probably to corundum or emery (aluminium oxide), a very hard mineral.

Emerald (List A 4, B 8; also Ezk 27:16 [Heb. nophek, LXX anthrax, RVm ‘carbuncle’]). Some red fiery stone is plainly intended, the red garnet being the most likely. ‘Emerald’ is more probably the equivalent of Heb. bareqeth in List A 3, B 9 (see Carbuncle above). The common emerald is identical in composition with the beryl, but differs from it in hardness and in its bright green colour. The Oriental emerald (green corundum) is very rare. In NT ‘emerald’ stands for smaragdos; in List C 4, and in Rev 4:3, where the rainbow is compared to it. The latter passage is among Flinders Petrie’s grounds for supposing that smaragdos is rock-crystal, which produces by its refraction all the prismatic colours.

Jacinth (Gr. hyakinthos, List C 11). In Rev 9:17 the breastplates of the visionary horsemen are compared to jacinth (RV ‘hyacinth’). There is no doubt that hyakinthos denoted the modern sapphire (blue corundum). So RVm in List C. The modern jacinth is a silicate of zircon. RV reads ‘jacinth’ for Heb. leshem in List A 7 (AV ‘ligure’).

Jasper (List A 12, B 6). The Heb. is yashepheh, and in B this corresponds to the LXX iaspis. Probably yashepheh should stand sixth in A also, in which case iaspis would again be the LXX equivalent. In NT iaspis occurs in List C 1, and also in Rev 4:3, 21:11, 18. In 21:11 the ‘jasper stone’ is luminous and clear as crystal. The iaspis of Pliny was primarily a green stone (HN xxxvii. 37), but he enumerates many other varieties. It was also often transparent, and we must apparently take it to mean the green and other shades of chalcedony or semi-transparent silica. In modern terminology jasper denotes rather the completely opaque forms of the same substance, which may be of various colours—black, brown, red, green, or yellow.

Ligure (List A 7). The Heb. leshem is rendered by LXX ligurion, an obscure word which is possibly the same as lyngkurion, the latter being a yellow stone which was supposed to be the congealed urine of the lynx (Pliny, HN xxxvii. 13). Some identify the lyngkurion with the modern jacinth or yellow jargoon (silicate of zircon). So RV. Others take the ligurion to be amber, which the Greeks obtained from Liguria (so RVm). Flinders Petrie identifies it with the yellow agate.

Onyx (List A 11. B 5; also Gn 2:12, Ex 25:7, 28:9, 35:9, 27, 39:6, 1 Ch 29:2, Job 28:16). The Heb. shoham is rendered variously in LXX, but in List A by beryllion, and it is probable that shoham is the beryl; so generally RVm (see Beryl above). Flinders Petrie suggests that green felspar may be intended. It would seem more correct to make ‘onyx’ the twelfth stone in List A, where LXX has onychion. If, as is probable, the Heb. yahalom (A 6) and yashepheh (A 12) should change places, onychion would thus stand for the former, which RVm renders ‘sardonyx.’ We should then substitute ‘onyx’ or ‘sardonyx’ for ‘diamond’ in List B 3 also. The onyx was a banded semi-transparent silica similar to the modern agate, the name being suggested by the contrast between the white and flesh-coloured zones of the finger-nail. In the special variety called the Roman onyx—the modern nicolo (onlculus)—the layers are opaque, and alternately whitish-blue and black.

Ruby (always in pl. ‘rubies’ [Heb. peninim or peniyyim], Job 28:18, Pr 3:15, 8:11, 20:15 , 31:10 [in all which passages RVm has ‘red coral’ or ‘pearls’], La 4:7 [RVm ‘corals’; in this last passage the context shows that some red stone is meant]). The true or Oriental ruby is red corundum (aluminium oxide), a very precious stone. The spinel ruby is an aluminate of magnesium. Both would be included along with red garnets under the general name ‘carbuncle.’ Sapphire (List A 5, B 7, also Ex 24:10, Job 28:6, 16, Ca 5:14, Is 54:11, La 4:7, Ezk 1:26 ,

10:1 [Heb. sappir, LXX sappheiros]). Sappheiros occurs in NT in List C 2. Pliny (HN xxxvii.

32) describes this stone as of an azure colour, opaque, refulgent, with spots of gold. This cannot apply to the transparent modern sapphire, which was the ancient hyakinthos (see Jacinth above). It exactly fits the lapis lazuli (mainly a silicate of calcium, aluminium, and sodium), which is of a bright blue colour and is often speckled with yellow iron pyrites (sulphide of iron). In powdered form it is known as ‘ultramarine.’

Sardius (List A 1, B 1 [Heb. ’odem, LXX sardion]). In NT sardion occurs in list C 6, and also in Rev 4:3 (AV ‘sardine stone,’ RV ‘sardius’). The root meaning of ’odem is ‘red,’ and sardion, though popularly derived from Sardis (Pliny, HN xxxvii. 31), is rather the Persian sered (‘yellowish red’). AVm and RVm have ‘ruby’ in Lists A and B, but it is most likely that the ‘sardius’ is carnelian (semi-transparent silica, coloured red by oxide of iron). Flinders Petrie suggests red jasper, which is much the same in composition, but opaque.

Sardonyx (List C 5; also RVm for ‘diamond’ in list A 6). A variety of onyx or banded silica in which red layers of sardius were present. The typical sardonyx was that in which the bands were alternately black, white, and red, for Pliny (HN xxxvii. 75) describes how the genuine stone was imitated by cementing layers of these colours together.

Topaz (List A 2, B 2; Job 28:19 [Heb. pitdah, LXX topazion]). Topazion stands also in List C 9. The stone so named by the Greeks was not the modern topaz (silicate of aluminium in which some of the oxygen is replaced by fluorine), but the peridote (yellowish-green silicate of magnesium). Flinders Petrie thinks that the name may have been given still earlier to green serpentine, which was actually used in Egyptian work, and is a hydrated form of the same substance as peridote. The Oriental topaz is yellow corundum, and the so-called ‘false topaz’ is yellow quartz. RVm has ‘topaz’ for ‘beryl’ (i.e. the ‘tarshish stone’) in Ca 5:14.

If the stones above mentioned be classified according to their composition, it will appear that, in spite of the bewildering variety of names, the principal groups are comparatively few.

The largest number of stones come under silica, the crystallized form of which is distinguished as quartz. When colourless or nearly so, quartz is called ‘rock-crystal.’ Yellow quartz is the false topaz, violet or amethystine quartz the common amethyst. The amorphous semi-opaque varieties of silica are grouped under the modem term ‘chalcedony.’ This may be red (sardius, carnelian), leek-green (prasius, ancient jasper), or banded (onyx, sardonyx, modern agate). Opaque silica gives the modern jasper (ancient agate), which may be coloured red, green, yellow, etc.

A second group is formed by the silicates (silica in combination with metallic oxides). Thus we have modern jacinth (silicate of zircon), peridote or ancient topaz (silicate of magnesium), dioptase or ancient chalcedony (silicate of copper), modern topaz (mainly silicate of aluminium), felspar (silicate of aluminium with sodium, potassium or calcium), beryl and common emerald (silicate of aluminium and beryllium), lapis lazuli or ancient sapphire (silicate of aluminium, calcium and sodium), garnet (silicate of aluminium and calcium, or a similar combination).

A third group consists of aluminium oxide (alumina), and includes the opaque corundum, of which emery is an impure form, and the transparent modern sapphire (blue), Oriental ruby ( red), Oriental topaz (yellow), Oriental amethyst (violet), and Oriental emerald ( green ).

Lastly, we have an aluminate (alumina in combination with a metallic oxide) in the spinel ruby (aluminate of magnesium).

Alabaster in the modern sense is gypsum or sulphate of lime. The ancient or Oriental alabaster, however, was a form of carbonate of lime, and was largely used for vases, which were thought to be specially adapted for preserving unguents (Pliny, HN xiii. 3). The term ‘alabaster’ seems to have been applied in a general sense to vases even when not made of this material.

There are two well-known instances in NT in which an alabaster ‘box’ (AV) or ‘cruse’ (RV) of ointment was used (Lk 7:37, Mt 26:7, Mk 14:3).

JAMES PATRICK.

JEWRY.—This old form occurs frequently in the older versions, but rarely in AV. In Dn 5:13 it stands for Judah; In Lk 23:5, Jn 7:1 and occasionally in the Apocr. for Judæa.

JEZANIAH.—A Judahite military officer who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah (Jer 40:8). He is called in 2 K 25:23 Jaazaniah, and is apparently to be identified also with Azariah of Jer 43:2.

JEZEBEL (meaning uncertain).—Daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre and previously high priest of the Tyrian Baal; wife of Ahab, king of Israel, of the dynasty of Omri. Jezebel’s evil influence in the land of Israel, especially in combating the religion of Jahweh in the Interests of Baal-worship, was exercised not only during the twenty-two years of Ahab’s reign, but also during the thirteen years of the rule of her two sons, Ahaziah and Joram; moreover, this influence extended, though in a less degree, to the Southern Kingdom of Judah, where Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel, seems to have followed in the footsteps of her mother (2 K 8:18). In her strength of character, her lust for power, her unshrinking and resolute activity; her remorseless brushing aside of anything and everything that interfered with the carrying out of her designs, she was the veritable prototype of Catherine de Medicis.

In the OT the figure of Jezebel is presented in connexion with some dramatic episodes which are probably recorded as illustrations, rather than as exceptionally flagrant examples, of her normal mode of procedure. These are: the account of the trial of strength between the prophets of Baal and Elijah (1 K 18:19–19:3), the narrative about Naboth and his vineyard (1 K 21:1–16) , and, as illustrating her obstinate, unbending character to the very end—note especially her words to Jehu in 2 K 9:31–the story of her death (2 K 9:30–37).

In Rev 2:20 the name of Jezebel occurs; she calls herself a prophetess, and tempts men to wickedness. It is questionable whether the mention of the name here has any reference at all to the queen Jezebel.

W. O. E.OESTERLEY.

JEZELUS.—1. 1 Es 8:32 = Ezr 8:5 Jahaziel. 2. 1 Es 8:35 = Ezr 8:9 Jehiel.

JEZER.—The head of the Jezerites (Nu 26:49, 1 Ch 7:13).

JEZIEL.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 12:3).

JEZRAHIAH.—The leader of the singers at the dedication of the walls of Jerus. ( Neh 12:42). In 1 Ch 7:3 bis the same name is rendered Izrahiah.

JEZREEL.—The Hebrew name from which is derived the name of the Plain of Esdraelon

(see ESDRAELON). The plain is called ‘the Valley of Jezreel’ in Jos 17:16, Jg 6:33, Hos 1:5.

1. Primarily, however, it denotes an Important city overlooking the Plain on the south in the border of the tribe of Issachar. Here, by ‘the fountain of Jezreel’—probably the powerful spring known as ‘Ain Jalūd—the Israelites encamped against the Philistines before the battle of Gilboa (1 S 29:1). It is named as an important town in the short-lived kingdom of Ishbosheth (2 S 2:9). Under Solomon it was in the administrative district of Baana (1 K 4:12). But the chief interest of the town’s history centres in the time of the reign of Ahab, who established here a royal residence, to which he retired when the three years’ drought came to an end (1 K 21:1, 18:45) , and whence he saw and coveted the vineyard of Naboth (21). It is probable, however, that the ‘ivory palace’ of 1 K 22:39 was not at Jezreel, but at the capital, Samaria. To Jezreel came Joram to recover from the wounds received in battle with the Syrians (2 K 8:29); and here, on the revolt of Jehu, were that king and his mother Jezebel slain (ch. 9), as well as all that remained of the house of Ahab (ch. 10). This is the last we hear of Jezreel, which thereafter seems to have sunk into insignificance. The place is represented both in situation and in name by the modern village of Zer‘in, a poor and dirty hamlet. Except a few ruined tombs and fragments of sarcophagi, there are no remains of antiquity to be seen in the neighbourhood.

2. There was a second Jezreel, of which nothing is known save that it was in the territory of

Judah (Jos 15:56) and was the native place of one of David’s wives, Abinoam (1 S 25:43). 3. A Judahite (1 Ch 4:3). 4. The symbolical name of Hosea’s eldest son (Hos 1:4). 5. Jezreel ( ‘whom God soweth’) is a title symbolically applied to Israel in Hos 2:22 f.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

JEZRIELUS (1 Es 9:27) = Ezr 10:26 Jehiel.

JIDLAPH.—A son of Nahor (Gn 22:22).

JOAB (‘Jahweh is father’).—1. One of the sons of Zeruiah—the eldest according to 2 S 2:18, the second according to 1 Ch 2:16–and thus the nephew of David. It is perhaps not too much to say that, humanly speaking, the Davidic dynasty would not have been established had it not been for the military genius and the loyalty of Joab. So consistently loyal was Joab to the royal house (see ADONIJAH), that one is tempted to question whether the passage, 1 K 2:5, 6 , which describes David’s ingratitude, is genuine; certain it is that if David really felt with regard to Abner and Amasa as he is described as feeling in this passage, it is surprising that he should have left to the wisdom of Solomon the duty of inflicting the punishment due; Joab’s death would seem to have been due rather to his loyalty in supporting David’s rightful heir, Adonijah.

Above all, Joab was a skilled general; this is seen by the number of victories he gained, namely, over the army of Ishbosheth under the leadership of Abner (2 S 2:12–32); over the Jebusites (1 Ch 11:6–9); over the Syrians and Ammonites (2 S 10:1–19, 11:1, 12:26–29); over Absalom (18:5–17); over Sheba (20:4–22). These are specifically mentioned, but there must have been very many more, for those which are spoken of generally as David’s victories were in all probability due to Joab, who is repeatedly spoken of as David’s commander-in-chief (e.g. 2 S 8:16, 20:22 etc.).

Secondly, his loyalty to the house of David is Illustrated by his whole life of devoted service, and especially by such conspicuous instances as his desire to make his victory over the Ammonites appear to have been gained by David (2 S 12:20ff.); his slaying of Abner [ though other motives undoubtedly played a part in this act, it is certain that Joab regarded Abner as a real danger to the State (3:24, 25)]; the reconciliation which he brought about between David and Absalom (14:1ff.); his slaying of Absalom when he realized his treachery to David (18:14 ff., 19:6); his words to David in 2 S 19:5–7—one of the most striking instances of his attachment; and lastly, his championship of the rightful heir to the throne, which cost him his life (1 K 1:7 , 2:34). How close was the tie between David and Joab may be seen, further, in the blind obedience of the latter, who was willing to be partaker in David’s sin (2 S 11:6–26).

The darker side of Joab’s character is to be seen in his vindictiveness and ruthless cruelty; for although it is only fair to plead the spirit of the age, the exigencies of the State’s weal, and the demand of blood-revenge, yet the treacherous and bloodthirsty acts of which Joab was guilty constitute a dark blot upon his character (see 2 S 3:22–27, 1 K 11:16; cf. 2 S 18:14, 20:9, 10.).

2. Son of Seralah (1 Ch 4:14; cf. Neh 11:35), 3. A family which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:6 = Neh 7:11 = 1 Es 5:11; cf. Ezr 8:9 = 1 Es 8:35).

W. O. E.OESTERLEY.

JOAOHAZ.—1 Es 1:34 = Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah; cf. 2 Ch 36:1.

JOADANUS.—One of the sons of Jesus, the son of Josedek (1 Es 9:19); called in Ezr 10:18 Gedaliah.

JOAH.—1. Son of Asaph, and ‘recorder’ at Hezekiah’s court (2 K 18:18, 26, 37 = Is 36:3 , 11, 22). 2. A Levitical family name (1 Ch 6:21 [apparently same as Ethan of v. 42], 2 Ch 29:12).

3. A Levite (1 Ch 26:4). 4. Son of Joahaz, and ‘recorder’ at Josiah’s court (2 Ch 34:8).

JOAHAZ.—1. Father of Joab the ‘recorder’ (2 Ch 34:8). 2. See Jehoahaz, 1.

JOAKIM.—The name is spelt Jehoiakim in canon. books, but Joacim or Joachim in Apocr. AV, and Joakim everywhere in Apocr. RV.

In Apocr. the name belongs to six persons. 1. King Jehoiakim (1 Es 1:37–42, Bar 1:3). 2.

Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, who is erroneously called Joakim in 1 Es 1:43. 3. A priest, son of

Hilkiah, to whom the captives are said to have sent money for the purchase of offerings and Incense (Bar 1:7). 4. A high priest in the days of Holofernes and Judith (Jth 4:6, 14). 5. A son of Zorobabel (1 Es 5:5). 6. The husband of Susanna (Sus. 1, 4, 63).

JOANAN.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:27).

JOANNA.—The wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod Antipas, one of ‘certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities,’ She ministered to Jesus of her substance, and after the crucifixion helped to anoint His body (Lk 8:3, 24:10).

JOANNES.—1. 1 Es 8:38 = Ezr 8:12 Johanan. 2. 1 Es 9:29 = Ezr 10:28 Jehohanan.

JOARIB.—The head of the priestly family from which the Maccabees were descended (1 Mac 2:1, 14:29). Acc. to 1 Ch 24:7 this family, there called that of Jehoiarib, was the first of the twenty-four courses of priests.

JOASH.—1. See JEHOASH. 2. The father of Gideon (Jg 6:11 etc.). 3. A son of Ahab (1 K 22:26). 4. A son of Shelah (1 Ch 4:22). 5. A Benjamite (1 Ch 12:3). 6. A son of Becher (1 Ch 7:8). 7. A servant of David (1 Ch 27:28).

JOB

1. The man Job.—Job is referred to in the OT in the book bearing his name, and in Ezk

14:12–20, where he is mentioned as a conspicuous example of righteousness; in the Apocr in Sir 49:9 [Heb. after Smend and Ryssel], and the Vulg. of To 2:12; and in the NT in Ja 5:11, the last two passages alluding to his patience. The reference in Ezk. shows that righteous Job was a familiar figure in some Jewish circles in the 6th cent. B.C. On the assumption that the Job of the book is sketched, as to the main outlines, after ancient tradition, probably the same in substance as that known to Ezk., we have to think of him as a Gentile living in patriarchal times either in the Hauran or on the confines of Idumæa and Arabia (see UZ), and his friends also must be regarded as Gentiles.

This conclusion is supported by the names of God generally employed in the poem. The

Tetragrammaton, which is used 31 times by the writer in the prose parts, occurs only once in the poetic portions (12:9), and is ascribed to Job only in one verse in the Prologue (1:21). Adonai is also met with once (28:28). God is usually referred to by Job and his associates by names not distinctively Jewish: Et, 55 times; Etoah, 41 times out of 57 in the whole OT; and Shaddai, 31 times out of 48 in OT; Etohim is comparatively rare in the poem. The entire absence of distinct allusions to Israelitish history points to the same conclusion. The great word torah, ‘law,’ is used only once (22:22), and then in the general sense of ‘instruction.’ According to a lost work, ‘Concerning the Jews,’ by one Aristeas, cited by Euseb. (Ev. Praep. ix. 25), and the appendix in the LXX, said to be taken from a Syriac book but standing in some relation to Aristeas, Job is to be identified with Jobab, king of Edom (Gn 36:33). This identification, which appears also in the Testament of Job, a work probably containing an ancient Jewish nucleus, although critically worthless, is not without interest and value, as possibly preserving a fragment of old tradition. The name Job, which probably belongs to the traditional story, is in Heb. ’Iyyōb. The apparently similar name Job (AV) of Gn 46:13, a son of Issachar, is differently spelt (in Heb. Yōb), and is therefore given in the RV as Iob. Jobab, which is met with in several connexions (Gn 10:29 Joktanite; Gn 36:33 Edomite; Jos 11:1 Canaanite; 1 Ch 8:9 Benjamite), seems to be quite distinct, although Cheyne remarks (in EBi) that the possibility of a connexion must be admitted. The meaning of ’Iyyōb is extremely uncertain. If explained from the Heb., it means either ‘attacked’ or ‘attacker’ (Siegfried in JE). If explained with the help of the Arabic ’ayyūb, it means ‘returning,’ ‘penitent.’ In all probability it was a foreign name taken over with the story, which seems in the first instance to have been of foreign origin. The name Aiab, which was current in the north of Palestine c. B.C. 1400 (Tell el-Amarna Letters, No. 237 Winckler [118 Petrie]), may be a Canaanitish equivalent, but no stress can be laid on the similarity. It has also been noticed that aiabu in Bab. meant ‘enemy’ (ib. 50 Winckler [147 Petrie]), but this cannot be regarded at present as more than a coincidence.

2. The Book of Job

(1) Place in the Canon.—Except in the Syriac Bible, which locates it between the Pentateuch and Joshua, on account of its supposed great antiquity, the book is always reckoned as one of the Kethubim or Hagiographa, and is often given the third place. It is usually grouped with Ps. and Prov., with which it is associated by the use of a special system of accentuation (except in the Prologue and Epilogue), but the order of the three books varies.

In a baraitha in the Bab. Talm. (Baba bathra 14b), which probably gives the most ancient order

(Ryle, Canon of OT, 232), it comes after Ruth and Ps.; in many Heb. MSS, especially Spanish, and in the Massorah, after Ch. and Ps.; in the German MSS, which have been followed in most printed editions, after Ps. and Proverbs. Of the LXX MSS Codex B has the remarkable order: Ps., Pr., Ec., Ca., Job, Wis., Sir.; A has Ps., Job, Proverbs. In printed editions of the LXX and Vulg. Job usually comes first, and this order is generally adopted in European versions, owing no doubt to the influence of the Latin Bible.

(2) Text.—The Heb. text of Job was long regarded as excellent, but has been much questioned in recent years, some critics resorting very largely to emendation with the help of the Versions and free conjecture. The reaction against the earlier view has probably led some scholars too far. When the difficulty of the theme, its bold treatment in many places, and the large number of words, forms, and uses not met with elsewhere (according to Friedrich Delitzsch, 259) are duly taken into account, the condition of the text is seen to be less corrupt than might have been expected. Much discussion has been occasioned by the peculiar character of the LXX as restored to its original form by means of the Sahidic translation first published in 1889. This version differs in extent from the Massoretic text more widely in Job than in any other book. There are two interesting additions: the expansion of 2:8 and the appendix at the end of the book; but the chief characteristic is omission. A little less than one-fifth of the Heb. text is absent—about 400 lines out of, roundly speaking, 2200 for the whole book and 2075 for the poetic portions. A few have found in this shorter edition the original text of the book, but most ascribe the minus of the LXX to defective understanding of the Hebrew, imperfect acquaintance with the structure of Heb. poetry, and the desire to conform to Hellenic standards, etc., rather than to variation of text. This version therefore, in the opinion of most competent judges, is of little use for the restoration of the text. Here and there it suggests a better reading, e.g. in 8:13 a ‘latter end’ for ‘paths,’ but in the main the Massoretic text is greatly to be preferred. It is not improbable, however, that the arrangement of the latter is wrong in a few passages: e.g. in ch. 31 , where vv. 35–37 form a more fitting close than vv. 38–40.

(3) Analysis.—The book, as we have it, is a poem framed in prose, with bits of prose interspersed. The prose portions are as follows: the introduction, often called the Prologue (ch. 1 f.), stating the problem, ‘the undeserved suffering of a good man,’ giving a partial solution, and bringing on the scene the hero’s three friends; short headings (3:1, 4:1 etc.); a supplementary note (31:40c.); a brief introduction to the speeches of Elihu (32:1–6); and the sequel, often called the Epilogue (42:7–17). The poem opens with a monologue in which Job curses the day of his birth (ch. 3). This is followed by a series of three dialogues extending over chs. 4–28: (i.) 4–14 ; (ii.) 15–21; (iii.) 22–28.

The three friends in succession, probably in order of seniority, reason with Job, all from the generally accepted standpoint that suffering is a sure indication of sin. As the discussion proceeds they become more and more bitter, until the most moderate and dignified of them, Eliphaz, actually taxes Job with flagrant iniquity (22:5–9). In the third dialogue, as we have it, one of the speakers, Zophar, is silent. Job replies at length to each expostulation, sometimes sinking into depression on the verge of despair (14:1– 12 etc.), occasionally rising for a moment or two into confidence (16:19, 19:25–27), but throughout maintaining his integrity, and, notwithstanding passionate utterances which seem near akin to blasphemy (10:8–17, 16:7–17), never wholly losing his faith in God.

The dialogues are followed by a monologue spoken by Job (chs. 29–31), consisting of a vivid retrospect of the happy past (ch. 29), a dismal picture of the wretched present (ch. 30), and what Marshall calls ‘Job’s oath of self-vindication’—an emphatic disavowal of definite forms of transgression, in a series of sentences most of which begin with ‘if,’ sometimes followed by an imprecation (ch.31). The succeeding six chapters (32–37) are ascribed to a new character, a young man, Elihu the Buzite, who is dissatisfied] with both Job and his friends. The distinctive note of his argument is the stress laid on the thought that God teaches by means of affliction; in other words, that the purpose, or at least one main purpose, of trial is discipline (33:19–28 , 36:10, 15). Elihu then drops out of the book, and the remainder of the poem (chs. 38–42:6) is devoted to Jahweh’s answer to Job’s complaint, calling attention to the Divine power, wisdom, and tenderness revealed in creation, in the control of natural forces and phenomena, in the life of birds and beasts, and in the working of Providence in human history, and suggesting that He who could do all this might surely he trusted to care for His servant; and Job’s penitent retraction of his ‘presumptuous utterances.’

(4) Integrity.—On the question whether the book, as we have it, is a single whole or a combination of two or more parts, there is a general agreement among scholars in favour of the latter alternative. There are clear indications of at least two hands. The speeches of Elihu ( chs. 32–37) are ascribed by most (not by Budde, Cornill, Wildehoer, Briggs, and a few others) to a later writer, who desired to supplement, and to some extent correct, the work of his predecessor.

The chief reasons alleged for this conclusion are: (1) the silence about Elihu in the Epilogue. (2) The fact that the whole section can be removed without any break of continuity, 31:40c. linking on naturally to 38:1. (3) The Aramaic character of the diction, and the occurrence of words and phrases not found elsewhere in the poem. (4) Literary inferiority. (5) Theological diversity, the conception of God differing from what is met with in the rest of the book (Marshall, Job and his Friends, p. 82 ff. ).

The third of these reasons has been shown to be inconclusive. The language of Elihu is not inconsistent with the view that these chapters were written by the author of the dialogues. The fourth reason is not without weight, but it must be allowed that there are some very fine things in these chapters, and it must be remembered that they have probably been handed down less carefully than some other parts of the book, on account of the disfavour with which some of the ancient Jews regarded Elihu (‘inspired by Satan’—Test. of Job, ch. 41). In any case, Friedrich Delitzsch has gone too far in describing the author as ‘a fifth-rate poet.’ The remaining three reasons, however, seem to be nearly decisive.

The fine poem in ch. 28, which contrasts the success of man in finding precious ore with his utter failure to find wisdom, does not fit in with the context, and is therefore regarded by many as an addition. The striking, but rather turgid, descriptions of the hippopotamus and the crocodile in chs. 40, 41 are also held by many to be an interpolation. Some question the verses about the ostrich (39:13–18). The Prologue and Epilogue are considered by some to be the relies of an earlier work in prose.

A few scholars go much further in critical analysis. Bickell, for instance, in his search after the original text, expunges not only the speeches of Elihu and the Prologue and Epilogue, but also the whole of the speeches of Jahweh, and many smaller portions. Cheyne (in EBi) seems to find four main elements in the book, as we have it, ‘which has grown, not been made’: (1) the Prologue and the Epilogue; (2) the dialogue; (3) the speeches of Jahweh; (4) the speeches of Elihu. Marshall (in Com.), on the ground that there are different strata of theological belief, also finds four elements, but only in part the same. (1) The dialogues up to 27:23, with the Epilogue, and part of the Prologue; (2) chs. 28–31, and the speeches of Jahweh; (3) the speeches of Elihu; (4) the references to the heavenly council in chs. 1 and 2.

(5) Nature of the Book.—The class of Heb. literature to which the Book of Job belongs is clearly the Chokhmah or Wisdom group, the other representatives of which are Pr., Ec., and Sir.—the group which deals with questions of practical ethics, religious philosophy, and speculation. The book is mainly—not entirely, as one of the Rabbis thought (Baba bathra, 15a)—a work of imagination, but, in the judgment of most, with a traditional nucleus, the extent of which, however, is uncertain, as there are features in both the Prologue and the Epilogue which suggest literary invention: e.g., the recurrence of the words ‘I only am escaped alone to tell thee’ (1:15, 16, 17, 19), the use of the numbers 3 (1:2, 17, 2:11, 42:13) and 7 (1:2f., 42:8 , 13), and the doubling of Job’s possessions (42:12). The poem, as handed down to us, can hardly he described in modern terms. It contains lyrical elements, but could not appropriately he designated lyrical. It has more than one dramatic feature, but is not really a drama. It reminds one of the epos, but is not an epic. It is didactic, but, as Baudissin has observed, soars high above a mere didactic poem. It is emphatically sui generis. It stands absolutely alone, not merely in the literature of Israel, but in the literature of the world.

(6) Poetic Form.—The Austrian scholar Bickell, who has been followed by Duhm, and in England by Dillon, has tried to show that the poem was written throughout in quatrains, but the textual havoc wrought in the attempt seems to prove clearly that he is, in part at least, on the wrong track. Very few critics accept the theory. The only thing that seems to be certain about the poetic method of the writer or writers is the use throughout of the parallelism of members, which has long been known as the leading feature of ancient Oriental poetry. A verse usually consists

of two lines or members, but there are many instances where there are three (3:4ff., 9), and one at least where there is only one (14:4). More than eight hundred out of about a thousand verses, according to Ley, consist of two lines, each of which has three independent words. But here again there are many exceptions, some no doubt due to textual corruption, but more in all probability to the poet’s mastery of the forms which he employed.

(7) Purpose and teaching.—The chief object of the poet to whom we owe the dialogues, and probably the Prologue and the Epilogue, and the speeches of Jahweh, and we may add, of the compiler or editor of the whole book, is to give a better answer to the question, ‘Why are exceptionally good men heavily afflicted?’ than that generally current in Jewish circles down to the time of Christ. A subsidiary object is the delineation of spiritual experience under the conditions supposed, of the sufferer’s changing moods, and yet indestructible longing for the God whom he cannot understand. The poet’s answer, as stated in the speeches of Jahweh, seems at the first reading no answer at all, but when closely examined is seen to be profoundly suggestive. There is no specific reply to Job’s bitter complaints and passionate outcries. Instead of reasoning with His servant, Jahweh reminds him of a few of the wonders of creation and providence, and leaves him to draw the inference. He draws it, and sees the God whom he seemed to have lost sight of for ever as he never saw Him before, even in the time of his prosperity; sees Him, indeed, in a very real sense for the first time (42:5). The book also contains other partial solutions of the problem. The speeches of Elihu lay stress, as already observed, on the educational value of suffering. God is a peerless teacher (36:22b), who ‘delivereth the afflicted by his affliction, and openeth (uncovereth) their ear by adversity’ (36:15). The Prologue lifts the curtain of the unseen world, and reveals a mysterious personality who is Divinely permitted to inflict suffering on the righteous, which results in manifestation of the Divine glory. The intellectual range of the book is amazingly wide. Marshall observes that ‘every solution which the mind of man has ever framed [of the problem of the adversity of the righteous, and the prosperity of the wicked] is to be found in the Book of Job.’ On the question of the hereafter the teaching of the book as a whole differs little from that of the OT in general. There is yearning for something better (14:13–16), and perhaps a momentary conviction (19:25–27), but the general conception of the life after death is that common to Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians.

(8) The characters.—The interest of the Book of Job is concentrated mainly on the central figure, the hero. Of the other five leading characters by far the most interesting is the Satan of the Prologue, half-angel half-demon, by no means identical with the devil as usually conceived, and yet with a distinctly diabolical tendency. The friends are not very sharply differentiated in the book as we have it, but it is probable that the parts are wrongly distributed in the third dialogue, which is incomplete, no part being assigned to Zophar. Some ascribe 27:7–10, 13–23 to Zophar, and add to Bildad’s speech (which in the present arrangement consists only of ch. 25) vv. 5–14 of ch. 26. what is left of Job’s reply being found in 26:1–4, 27:2–6, 11f. Marshall finds Zophar’s third speech in chs. 25 and 26:5–14, and Bildad’s in 24:18–21. There seems to be considerable confusion in chs. 25–27, so that it is difficult to utilize them for the study of the characters of Bildad and Zophar. Eliphaz seems to be the oldest and most dignified of the three, with something of the seer or prophet about him (4:12–21). Bildad is ‘the traditionalist.’ Zophar, who is probably the youngest, is very differently estimated, one scholar designating him as a rough noisy fellow, another regarding him as a philosopher of the agnostic type. It must be allowed that the three characters are not as sharply distinguished as would be the case in a modern poem, the writer being concerned mainly with Job, and using the others to some extent as foils. Elihu, who has been shown to be almost certainly the creation of another writer, is not

by any means a copy of one of the three. He is an ardent young man, not free from conceit, but with noble thoughts about God and insight into God’s ways not attained by them.

(9) Date.—In the Heb. Sirach (49:8–10) Job is referred to after Ezekiel and before ‘the Twelve.’ which may possibly suggest that the writer regarded the book as comparatively late. The oldest Rabbinic opinion (Baba bathra, 14b) ascribed the book to Moses. Two Rabbis placed Job in the period of the return from the Exile (ib.15a), one as late as the Persian period (ib.15b). These opinions have no critical value, but the first has exercised considerable influence. Modern students are generally agreed on the following points:—(1) The book in all its parts implies a degree of reflexion on the problems of life which fits in better with a comparatively late than with a very early age. (2) The dialogue, which is unquestionably one of the oldest portions, indicates familiarity with national catastrophes, such as the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria, the overthrow of Damascus, and the leading away of large bodies of captives, including priests and nobles, from Jerusalem to Babylon (12:17–25), which again, on the assumption that the writer is an Israelite, points to an advanced stage of Israelitish history. Many take a further step. ‘The prophet Jeremiah in his persecutions, Job who is called by Jahweh “my servant Job” (42:7), and the suffering Servant of Jahweh in the exilic prophet are figures which seem to stand in the connexion of a definite period’ (Baudissin, Einleitung, 768), and so point at the earliest to the Exile and the decades immediately preceding it. These and other considerations have led most recent critics to date the main poem near, or during, or after the Exile.

Some earlier scholars (Luther, Franz Delitzsch, Cox, and Stanley) recommended the age of Solomon, others (Nöldeke, Hitzig, and Reuss) the age of Isaiah, and others (Ewald, Riehm, and apparently Bleek) the period between Isaiah and Jeremiah. Marshall thinks that the dialogue may have been written as early as the time of Tiglath-pileser III (B.C. 745–726), but not earlier. Dillmann, König, Davison (in Hastings’ DB), and Driver favour the period of the Exile; Cheyne (in EBi) puts the earliest part after B.C. 519; G.

Hoffmann, c. B.C. 500; Duhm, from 500 to 450; Budde, E.Kautzsch, and Peake, c. 400; the school of Kuenen, the 4th or 3rd cent.; O. Holtzmann the age of the Ptolemys; and Siegfried (in the JE), the time of the Maccabees.

At present the period from c. B.C. 600 to c. 400 seems to command most approval. The later portions of the book, especially the speeches of Elihu, may have been written a century or more after the main poem. Marshall thinks that the latest element may be as late as the age of Malachi, and Duhm confidently assigns ‘Elihu’ to the 2nd cent. B.C. A definite date is evidently unattainable either for the whole or for parts, but it seems to be tolerably certain that even the earlier portions are much later than used to be assumed.

(10) Authorship.—Besides the Talmudic guess cited above, very few attempts have been made to fix on an author. Calmet suggested Solomon, Bunsen Baruch, and Royer (in 1901) Jeremiah. None of these views needs to be discussed. Whoever was the author of the main poem, he was undoubtedly an Israelite, for a Gentile would not have used the Tetragrammaton so freely. Of familiarity with the Law there are, indeed, very few traces, but that is doubtless owing to the poet’s wonderful skill, which has enabled him to maintain throughout a Gentile and patriarchal colouring. There is no reason for thinking that he wrote either in Babylonia or in Egypt. He must have lived in some region where he could study the life of the desert. It has been remarked that all the creatures he names (except the hippopotamus and the crocodile, which may have been introduced by a later hand) are desert creatures. He was intimately acquainted with the life of caravans (6:15–20). He knew something of the astronomy of his time (9:9, cf. 38:31f.). He had some acquaintance with the myths and superstitions of Western Asia: cf. 9:13, 25:2, 26:12 , where there may be allusions to the Babylonian myth about the struggle between the dragon of Chaos and Marduk, the god of light; 3:8, 26:13, where reference may be made to popular notions about eclipses and to the claims of magicians; and perhaps 29:18b., where some find an allusion to the fabulous phœnix. He was probably familiar with the Wisdom-lore of Israel, and possibly of Edom, and may safely be assumed to have known all that was worth knowing in other departments of Heb. literature (cf. Job 7:17f. with Ps 8:4f., and Job 3:3, 10 with Jer 20:14–18 , although the order of dependence is by no means certain in the latter case). The poetic execution reveals the hand of a master. It seems most natural to look for his home in the south or southeast of the Holy Land, not far from Edom, where he would come in frequent contact with Gentile sages, and could glean much from travellers.

(11) Parallels to Job.—Cheyne (in EBi) has endeavoured to connect the story of Job with the Babylonian legend of Eabani, but the similarity is too slight to need discussion. A far closer parallel is furnished by a partially preserved poem from the library of Ashurbanipal, which probably reproduces an ancient Babylonian text. It represents the musings of an old king, who has lived a blameless and devout life, but is nevertheless terribly afflicted in body and mind— pursued all day, and without rest at night—and is apparently forsaken of the gods. He cannot understand the ways of Deity towards either himself or others. ‘What seems good to a man is bad with his god.… Who could understand the counsel of the gods in heaven?’ The poem ends with a song of praise for deliverance from sin and disease (Der Alte Orient, VII. No. 3, pp. 27–30, and extra vol. ii. 134–139; and M. Jastrow in JBL xxv [1906], p. 135 ff.).

The Jesuit missionary, Père Bouchet, called attention in 1723 to the story of the ancient Indian king Arichandiren who, in consequence of a dispute in an assembly of gods and goddesses and holy men as to the existence of a perfect prince, was very severely tested by the leader of the sceptical party. He was deprived of his property, his kingdom, his only son, and his wife, but still trod the path of virtue, and received as rewards the restoration of wife and son, and other marks of Divine favour. These parallels, however, interesting as they are, do not in the least interfere with the originality and boldness of the Hebrew poem, which must ever be regarded as the boldest and grandest effort of the ancient world to ‘justify the ways of God to men.’

W. TAYLOR SMITH.

JOBAB.—1. A son of Joktan in the genealogies (Gn 10:29, 1 Ch 1:23), and therefore probably an Arabian geographical name. Glaser identifies Jobab with YHYBB ( likely

Yuhaybab), a tribe mentioned in the Sabæan inscriptions. Sprenger through the LXX form Iobor relates it to Wabār, a considerable region in S. Arabia. 2. A king of Edom (Gn 36:33f., 1 Ch 1:44f.), confused, in the apocryphal appendix to the LXX version of Job, with Job (see JOB, § 1). 3. A king of Madon, ally of Jabin of Hazor against Joshua (Jos 11:1). 4, 5. Name of two Benjamites (1 Ch 8:9 and 18).

W. M. NESBIT.

JOCHEBED.—A sister of Kohath, married to Amram her nephew, and mother of Aaron and Moses (Ex 6:20) and Miriam (Nu 26:59). An earlier writer, E, in narrating the birth of Moses, speaks of his mother as a daughter of Levi, but does not give her name (Ex 2:1).

JOD.—The tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalm to designate the 10th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

JODA.—1. A Levite (1 Es 5:58); called in Ezr 3:9 Judah; elsewhere Hodaviah, Ezr 2:40 ; Hodevah, Neh 7:43; Sudias, 1 Es 5:26. 2. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:26).

JOED.—A Benjamite (Neh 11:7).

JOEL.—1. The prophet (see next article). Regarding his personal history we know nothing. 2. A son of Samuel (1 S 8:2, 1 Ch 6:28 [RV] 6:33). 3. An ancestor of Samuel (1 Ch 6:36, called in v. 24 Shaul). 4. A Simeonite prince (1 Ch 4:35). 5. A Reubenite (1 Ch 5:4, 8). 6. A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5:12). 7. A chief man of Issachar (1 Ch 7:3). 8. One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:38).

9, 10, 11. Levites (1 Ch 15:7, 11, 17, 23:8, 26:22, 2 Ch 29:12). 12. A Manassite chief (1 Ch 27:20). 13. One of those who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:43 [1 Es 9:35 Juel]). 14. A Benjamite overseer after the Exile (Neh 11:9).

JOEL, BOOK OF

1. Analysis.—The Book of Joel clearly falls into two parts: (1) a call to repentance in view of present judgment and the approaching Day of Jahweh, with a prayer for deliverance (1–2:17); (2) the Divine answer promising relief, and after that spiritual blessing, judgment on the Gentile world, and material prosperity for Judah and Jerusalem (2:18–3 [Heb. 4]:21).

(1) The immediate occasion of the call to repentance is a plague of locusts of exceptional severity (1:2f.), extending, it would seem from the promise in the second part (2:25), over several years, and followed by drought and famine an severe as to necessitate the discontinuance of the meal- and drinkoffering, i.e. probably the daily sacrifice (cf. Ex. 29:41, where the same Heb. words are used of the daily meal-offering and drink-offering). This fearful calamity, which is distinctly represented as present (‘before our eyes’ 1:16), heralds ‘the great and very terrible day of Jahweh’ (2:11), which will be ushered in by yet more fearful distress of the same kind (2:1–11). The reason of all this suffering actual and prospective is national sin, which, however, is not specified. Jahweh’s people have turned away from Him (implied in 2:12). Let them turn back, giving expression to their penitent sorrow in tears, mourning garb, general fasting, and prayer offered by priests in the Temple (2:12–17).

(2) The second part opens with the declaration that the prayer for mercy was heard: ‘Then … the Lord … had pity on his people’ (2:18 RV). It seems to be implied that the people had repented and fasted, and that the priests had prayed in their behalf. The rendering of this passage in the AV, ‘Then will … the Lord pity his people,’ is generally rejected by modern scholars as inaccurate, being, according to Driver, ‘grammatically indefensible.’ What we have in the original is not prediction, but historical statement. This Divine pity, proceeds the prophet, speaking in Jahweh’s name, will express itself in the removal of the locusts (2:20), and in the cessation of the drought, which will restore to the land its normal fertility, and so replace famine by plenty (2:22–26). But higher blessings yet are in store for the people of Jahweh. His Spirit shall afterwards be poured but on all, inclusive even of slaves (2:28f. [Heb. 3:1f.]). And when the

Day of Jahweh comes in all its terror, it will be terrible only to the Gentile world which has oppressed Israel The gathered hosts of the former, among whom Phœnicians and Philistines are singled out for special condemnation (3 [Heb. 4]:4–8), shall be destroyed by Jahweh and His angels in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (3 [Heb. 4:11b f.]), and then Jerusalem shall be a holy city, no longer haunted by unclean aliens (3 [Heb. 4]:17), and Judah, unlike Egypt and Edom, will be a happy nation dwelling in a happy because well-watered land, and Jahweh will ever abide in its midst (3 [Heb. 4]:18–21).

2. Integrity.—The unity of the book was questioned by the French scholar Vernes (in 1881) , who, however, admitted the weakness of his case, and by the German scholar Rothstein ( in 1896), the latter finding a follower in Ryssel (in the JE). These critics assign the two parts to different writers in different ages. Baudissin (Einleitung) suggests extensive revision. These theories have found little acceptance. Recent criticism generally regards the book, with the exception of a gloss or two, as the work of one hand.

There are indeed two distinctly marked parts, as was shown in the analysis, but that is in no way incompatible with unity of authorship, for the following reasons: (a) The second part does not contradict but supplements the first. (b) The thought of ‘the day of Jahweh’ as a day of terror is common to both (1:15 and 2:31 [Heb. 3:4]). (c) The alleged lack of originality in the second part, in so far as it exists, can bereasonably accounted for by its apocalyptic character. (d) The distinctive features of the first part, which is mainly historic, are largely due to the special theme—the description of locusts and their ravages, which is unique in Heb. literature.

3. Date.—There is no external evidence. The place of the book in the Canon is not conclusive, for the Book of Jonah, which was manifestly written after the fall of Nineveh, is also found in the former part of the collection of the Twelve, and comes before Micah, the earliest portions of which are beyond doubt much older. Hence the question can be answered, in so far as an answer is possible, only from the book itself.

The facts bearing upon it may be briefly stated as follows: (1) The people addressed are the inhabitants of Judah (3 [Heb. 4]:1, 6, 8, 18ff.), and Jerusalem (2:32 [Heb. 3:5] 3 [Heb. 4]:6, 16f., 20). Zion is mentioned in 2:1, 15, 23, 32 [Heb. 3:5] 3 [Heb. 4]:16, 17, 21. There is no trace of the kingdom of Samaria. The name ‘Israel’ is indeed used (2:27, 3 [Heb. 4]:2, 16), but, as the first and last of these passages clearly show, it is not the kingdom of Israel that is meant, but the people of God, dwelling mainly about Jerusalem. (2) There is no mention of royalty or aristocracy. (3) The Temple is repeatedly referred to (1:9, 13f., 15, 2:17, 3 [Heb. 4]:6), and by implication in the phrase ‘my holy mountain’ (2:1, 3 [Heb. 4]:17): its ritual is regarded as of high importance (1:9, 18, 2:14), and its ministers stand between the people and their God, giving expression to their penitence and prayer (1:9, 13, 2:17). (4) The people are called on to repent of sin (2:12f.), but in general terms. No mention is made of idolatry or formalism, or sensuality, or oppression—the sins so sternly denounced by Amos and Isaiah. (5) The foreign nations denounced as hostile to Israel are the Phœnicians (3 [Heb. 4]:4), the Philistines (ib.), Egypt and Edom (3 [Heb. 4]:19). Reference is also made to the Grecians (‘sons of the Ionians,’ 3 [Heb. 4]:6). and the Sahæans or S. Arabians (3 [Heb. 4]:8) as slave-dealers. Assyria, Babylonia, and Aram are neither named nor alluded to. (6) The history of Judah and Jerusalem includes a national catastrophe when the people of Jahweh were scattered among the nations and the land of Jahweh was divided amongst new settlers (3 [Heb. 4]:2). (7) This book of 73 verses contains 27 expressions or clauses to which parallels, more or less close, can be adduced from other OT writings, mainly prophetic. In 12 passages there is verbal or almost verbal correspondence: cf. 1:15b and Ezk 30:2f.; 1:15c and Is 13:6; 2:2 and Zeph 1:15; 2:6 and Nah 2:10 [Heb. 11]; 2:13 and Ex 34:6; 2:14 and 2 S 12:22; 2:27b and Ezk 36:11 etc.; 2:27c and Is 45:5f., 18; 2:31 b [Heb. 3:4], and Mal 4:5 [Heb. 3:23]; 2:32 [Heb. 3:5] and Ob 17; 3 [Heb. 4]:16 and Am 1:2; 3 [Heb. 4]:1 and Jer 33:15 etc. In two other places there is contrast as well as parallelism. 2:28 [Heb. 3:1] answers to Ezk 39:29, but the latter has ‘on the house of Israel,’ the former ‘on all flesh,’ and 3 [Heb. 4]:10 is the reverse of Is 2:4 and Mic 4:3. The last clause of 2:13 is found also in Jon 4:2 in the same connexion and nowhere else. (8) The Heb. exhibits some features which are more common in late than in the earlier literature. There are a few Aramaisms: ’ālāh ‘lament’ (1:8); sōph ‘hinder part’ (2:20) for qēts; the Hiphil of nāchath 3 [Heb. 4]:11), and rōmach (3 [Heb. 4]:10)—a word of Aramaic affinities; and several expressions often met with in late writers. Still, it is not advisable to lay much stress on this point.

With these facts before them critics have concluded that the book must be either very early or late. Many, led by Credner, found evidence of pre-exilic date, and most of these, after him, selected the minority of Joash of Judah (c. B.C. 737). König prefers the latter part of the reign of Josiah (B.C. 640–609). Recent critics with a few exceptions (Orelli, Kirkpatrick, Volck, and to some extent Baudissin) regard the book as post-exilic: c. B.C. 500 (Driver, but not without hesitation); after the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah (E.Kautzsch, W. R. Smith, G. A. Smith on the whole, Martl, the school of Kuenen, Nowack, Cornill, and Horton). Positive decision

between these widely divergent views is at present impossible. Much can be said, as Baudissin has recently shown, in favour of a pre-exilic date, which, if proved, would modify our conception of the growth of Israelitish religion; but several points seem to strongly favour postexilic origin: the religions atmosphere, the political situation in so far as it can be discerned, reference to the Greeks, and the literary parallelisms, most of which are more intelligible on the assumption of borrowing by Joel than vice versa.

4. Interpretation.—The ancient Jews, as represented by the Targum, and the Fathere, who have been followed by Pusey, Hengstenberg, and others, to some extent even by Merx, regarded the locusts of the Book of Joel as not literal but symbolic. That view, however, is now generally abandoned. The seemingly extravagant descriptions of the locust-swarms, and the havoc wrought by them, have been confirmed in almost every point by modern observers. What is said about their number (1:6), the darkness they cause (2:10), their resemblance to horses (2:4), the noise they make in flight and when feeding (2:5), their irresistible advance (2:7ff.), their amazing destructiveness (1:7, 10ff., 2:3), and the burnt appearance of a region which they have ravaged (2:3ab)—can hardly be pronounced exaggerated in view of the evidence collected by Pusey, Driver, G. A. Smith, and other commentators. The colouring of the picture is no doubt Oriental and poetic, but when allowance is made for that, it is seen to be wonderfully true to life. The description of the locusts as ‘the northern army’ (2:20) is indeed still unexplained, but is insufficient of itself to overthrow the literal interpretation. On the apocalyptic character of the latter portion of the book there is general agreement.

5. Doctrine.—As compared with some of the other prophetic writings, say with DeuteroIsaiah and Jonah, the Book of Joel as a whole is particularistic. The writer’s hopes of a glorious future seem limited to Judah and Jerusalem, and perhaps the Dispersion (2:32 [Heb. 3:5]). On the other hand, it is remarkable that the outpouring of the Spirit is promised to ‘all flesh,’ not merely to ‘the house of Israel’—a general way of stating the promise which made the NT application possible (Ac 2:16ff.). So the book may be said to contain a germ of universalism. Its other most striking characteristic, from the doctrinal standpoint, is the importance attached to ritual and the priesthood, and the comparatively slight stress laid on conduct. Still, it is here that we find the caustic words: ‘Rend your heart and not your garments’ (2:13).

6. Style.—In style the Book of Joel takes a very high place in Hebrew literature. It is throughout clearly, elegantly, and forcefully written. Skilful use is made of parallelism—note the five short clauses in 1:10; of Oriental hyperbole (2:30f. [Heb. 3:3f.]); and of word-play, e.g. shuddadh sadheh ‘the field is wasted’ (1:10), yābhēshu … hōbhīsh ‘are withered … is ashamed’ (1:12), shōd mish-shaddai ‘destruction from the Almighty’ (1:15), and the play on the verb shāphat and the name Jeho-shaphat in 3 [Heb. 4]:2, 12).

W. TAYLOR SMITH.

JOELAH.—A warrior who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:7).

JOEZER.—One of David’s followers at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:6).

JOGBEHAH.—A town of Gad in Gilead (Nu 32:35), named also in connexion with Gideon’s pursuit of the Midianites (Jg 8:11). It is the present ruin el-Jubeihāt (or Ajbeihāt), N. W. from Rabbath-ammon, and about midway between that place and es-Sault.

JOGLI.—The Danite chief who took part in the division of the land (Nu 34:22).

JOHA.—1. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:16). 2. One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:45).

JOHANAN.—1. 2 K 25:23, Jer 40:8–43:5, the son of Kareah, chief of ‘the captains of the forces,’ who after the fall of Jerusalem joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. After the murder of Gedaliah he pursued Ishmael and the other conspirators, recovered the captives, and, in spite of the protest of Jeremiah, carried them to Egypt. 2. A son of Josiah (1 Ch 3:15). 3. 1 Ch 3:24 a post-exilic prince of the line of David. 4. 1 Ch 6:9, 10 a high priest. 5. 6. 1 Ch 12:4, 12 two warriors who came to David to Ziklag, a Benjamite and a Gadite respectively. 7. Ezr 8:12 (Joannes, 1 Es 8:38) one of those who returned with Ezra. 8. 2 Ch 28:12 an Ephraimite. 9. See JONATHAN, No. 7, and JEHOHANAN, No. 3.

JOHN.—1. The father of Mattathias, and grandfather of the five Maccabæan brothers (1

Mac 2:1). 2. The eldest son of Mattathias (1 Mac 2:2). In B.C. 161 he was slain by the ‘sons of

Jambri’ (1 Mac 9:35–42). In 2 Mac 8:22, and perhaps again 10:19, he is by mistake called

Joseph. 3. The father of Eupolemus (1 Mac 8:17, 2 Mac 4:11), who was sent by Judas

Maccabæus as an ambassador to Rome. 4. An envoy sent by the Jews to treat with Lysias (2 Mac

11:17). 5. One of the sons of Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 16:2), commonly known as John Hyrcanus, and described as ‘a (valiant) man’ (1 Mac 13:53). See MACCABEES, § 5, 6. The father of Simon Peter (Jn 1:42, 21:15–17 RV; AV Jonas), who is called in Mt 16:7 Bar-Jona (h). In the latter passage the form Jōnās may be a contraction for Jōanēs, or possibly Peter’s father had two names, as in the case of Saul—Paul. 7. One of the high-priestly family (Ac 4:6). 8. John Mark (see MARK). 9. 10. For the Baptist and the Apostle see the following two articles.

JOHN THE BAPTIST.—The single narrative of John’s birth and circumcision (Lk 1) states that, as the child of promise (v. 13), he was born in ‘a city of Judah’ (v. 39), when his parents were old (v. 7). They were both of priestly descent (v. 5), and his mother was a kinswoman of the mother of Jesus (v. 36). John was a Nazirite from his birth (v. 15); he developed self-reliance in his lonely home, and learnt the secret of spiritual strength as he communed with God in the solitudes of the desert (v. 80). In the Judæan wilderness—the wild waste which lies to the west of the Dead Sea—this Elijah-like prophet (v. 17) ‘on rough food throve’; but, notwithstanding his ascetic affinities with the Essenes, he was not a vegetarian, his diet consisting of edible locusts (Lv 11:22) as well as the vegetable honey which exudes from fig-trees and palms ( Mt 3:4). For this and for other reasons—as, e.g., his zeal as a social reformer,—John cannot be called an Essene (Graetz). It was not from these ‘Pharisees in the superlative degree’ ( Schürer ) that the last of the prophets learnt his message. His familiarity with the OT is proved by his frequent use of its picturesque language (Lk 3:17, cf. Am 9:9, Is 66:24; Jn 1:23, cf. Is 40:3; Jn 1:29, cf. Is 53:7, Ex 29:38, 12:3), but he heard God’s voice in nature as well as in His word: as he brooded on the signs of the times, the barren trees of the desert, fit only for burning, and the vipers fleeing before the flaming scrub, became emblems of the nation’s peril and lent colour to his warnings of impending wrath (cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL p. 495).

In the wilderness ‘the word of God came unto John’ (Lk 3:2). The phrase implies (1 S 15:10 etc.) that, after more than three centuries of silence, the voice of a prophet was to be heard in the land, and the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 3:1–12, Mk 1:1–8, Lk 3:1–20) tell of the stirring effects of his preaching in ever-widening circles (Mt 3:5), and give a summary of his message. It is probable that, in the course of his successful six months’ ministry, John moved northwards along the then more thickly populated valley of the Jordan, proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom to the crowds that flocked to hear him from ‘the whole region circumjacent to Jordan’ (Lk 3:3) ; once at least (Jn 10:40) he crossed the river (cf. Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospel, p. 35 f.; Warfield, Expositor, III. [1885] i. p. 267 ff.; and see BETHANY, SALIM). ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Mt 3:2) was the Baptist’s theme, but on his lips the proclamation became a warning that neither descent from Abraham nor Pharisaic legalism would constitute a title to the blessings of the Messianic age, and that it is vain for a nation to plead privilege when its sins have made it ripe for judgment. There is a Pauline ring in the stern reminder that Abraham’s spiritual seed may spring from the stones of paganism (Lk 3:8, but also Mt 3:9, cf. Ro 4:16, 9:7, Gal 4:28). On the universality of the coming judgment is based John’s call to repentance addressed to all men without respect of persons. The axe already ‘laid to the root of the trees’ (Lk 3:9) will spare those bringing forth good fruit, and not those growing in favoured enclosures. Soldiers, publicans, and inquirers of different classes are taught how practical and how varied are the good works in which the ‘fruits’ of repentance are seen (Lk 3:8 ff. ).

The baptism of John was the declaration unto all men, by means of a symbolic action, that the condition of entrance into God’s Kingdom is the putting away of sin. It was a ‘repentancebaptism,’ and its purpose was ‘remission of sins’ (Mk 1:4) [Weiss regards this statement as a Christianized version of John’s baptism, but Bruce (EGT, in loc.) agrees with Holtzmann that forgiveness is implied ‘if men really repented’]. John’s baptism was no copying of Essene rites, and it had a deeper ethical significance than the ‘divers washings’ of the ceremonial law. It has close and suggestive affinities with the prophet’s teaching in regard to spiritual cleansing ( Is 1:16, Ezk 36:25, Zec 13:1), the truth expressed in their metaphorical language being translated by him into a striking symbolic act; but John’s baptism has most definite connexion with the baptism of proselytes, which was the rule in Israel before his days (Schürer, HJP II. 322 f.). John sought ‘to make men “proselytes of righteousness” in a new and higher order. He came, as Jesus once said, “in the way of righteousness”; and the righteousness he wished men to possess … did not consist in mere obedience to the law of a carnal commandment, but in repentance towards God and deliberate self-consecration to His kingdom’ (Lambert, The Sacraments in the NT, p. 62). When Jesus was baptized of John (Mt 3:13ff., Mk 1:9ff., Lk 3:21f.), He did not come confessing sin as did all other men (Mt 3:6); the act marked His consecration to His Messianic work, and His identification of Himself with sinners. It was part of His fulfilment of all righteousness (v. 15), and was followed by His anointing with the Holy Spirit. John knew that his baptism was to prepare the way for the coming of a ‘mightier’ than he, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk 1:8). But after Pentecost there were disciples who had not advanced beyond the Baptist’s point of view, and were unaware that the Holy Spirit had been poured out (Ac 18:25, 19:3f.).

The narrative in Jn 1:15–34 assumes as well known the Synoptic account of John’s activity as evangelist and baptizer (v. 25f.). From what John heard and saw at the baptism of Jesus, and from intercourse with Jesus, he had learnt that his mission was not only to announce the Messiah’s coming, and to prepare His way by calling men to repent, but also to point Him out to men.

Many critics regard the words, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’ ( v.

29), as inconsistent with John’s later question, ‘Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?’ ( Mt 11:3); but if John learnt from Jesus what was His ideal of the Messiah’s work, it may well be, as Garvie says, ‘that Jesus for a time at least raised John’s mind to the height of His own insight; that when the influence of Jesus was withdrawn, John relapsed to his own familiar modes of thought; and that the answer of Jesus by the two disciples … was a kindly reminder’ of an earlier conversation (Expositor, vi. [1902] v. 375).

This heightened sense of the glory of Jesus was accompanied by a deepening humility in

John’s estimate of his own function as the Messiah’s forerunner. In his last testimony to Jesus

(Jn 3:29) ‘the friend of the bridegroom’ is said to have rejoiced greatly as he heard the welcome tidings that men were coming to Jesus (v. 26). It was a high eulogy when Jesus said, ‘John hath borne witness unto the truth’ (Jn 5:33); but it also implied the high claim that the lowlier members of the Church, which is His bride, enjoy greater spiritual privileges than he who, in spite of his own disclaimer (Jn 1:21), was truly the Elijah foretold by Malachi (Mt 11:14; cf. Mal 4:5),—the herald of the day of which he saw only the dawn. It was not John’s fault that in the early Church there were some who attached undue importance to his teaching and failed to recognize the unique glory of Jesus—the Light to whom he bore faithful witness (Jn 1:7f.).

The Synoptic narrative of the imprisonment and murder of John yields incidental evidence of his greatness as a prophet. There were some who accounted for the mighty works of Jesus by saying ‘John the Baptist is risen from the dead’ (Mk 6:14).

Josephus (Ant. XVIII. v. 2) makes the preaching of John the cause of his execution, and says nothing of his reproof of Antipas for his adultery with his brother’s wife (Mk 6:18). Some historians (e.g. Ranke) arbitrarily use Josephus as their main source, to the disparagement of the Gospels. But Sollertinsky (JThSt i. 507) has shown that when the person of Antipas is concerned, ‘we are bound to consider the historian’s statements with the greatest care.’ Schürer (op. cit.). who holds that the real occasion of John’s imprisonment was Herod’s fear of political trouble, nevertheless allows that there is no real inconsistency between the statement of Josephus and the further assertion of the Evangelists that John had roused the anger of Herod, and still more of Herodias, by his stern rebuke.

The last mention of John in the Gospels (Mt 21:26, Mk 11:32, Lk 20:6) shows that Herod had good cause to fear the popular temper. John’s influence must have been permanent as well as wide-spread when the chief priests were afraid of being stoned if they slighted him. After the transfiguration our Lord alluded to the sufferings of John, as He endeavoured to teach His disciples the lesson of His cross: ‘I say unto you that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed’ (Mk 9:13).

J. G. TASKER.

JOHN THE APOSTLE.—The materials for a life of St. John may be divided into three parts: (1) The specific information given in the canonical Scriptures; (2) early and well-attested tradition concerning him; (3) later traditions of a legendary character, which cannot be accepted as history, but which possess an interest and significance of their own. But when all the evidence on the subject is gathered, it is impossible to give more than a bare outline of what was in all probability a long life and an unspeakably important ministry. The present article must he taken in conjunction with those that follow, in view of the controversies which have arisen concerning the authorship of the ‘Johannine’ writings.

1. The Scripture data.—John was a son of Zebedee, a master-fisherman in good position, plying his craft in one of the towns on the Lake of Galilee, possibly Bethsaida. It is probable that his mother was Salome, one of the women who ‘ministered’ to Christ in Galilee (Mk 15:41), a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. This may be inferred from a comparison of Mt 27:56 and Mk 15:40, 16:1 with Jn 19:25.

The last passage is best understood as naming four women who stood by the Cross of Jesus—His mother, His mother’s sister Salome, Mary wife of Clopas who was also mother of James and Joses, and Mary Magdalene. The interpretation which would find only three persons in the list, and identify Mary ‘of Clopas’ with the sister of Jesus’ mother, is open to the objection that two sisters would have the same name, and it involves other serious difficulties.

In Jn 1:40 two disciples are mentioned as having heard the testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus and having accompanied the new Teacher to His home. One of these was Andrew, and it has been surmised that the other was John himself. If this was so, the incident must be understood as constituting the very beginning of John’s discipleship.

In Mt 4:18–22, Mk 1:16–20 an account is given in almost the same words of the call of four fishermen to follow Jesus. Two of these were John and his elder brother James, who were with their father in a boat on the Lake of Galilee, mending their nets. In Lk 5:1–11 a different account of the call is given. Nothing is said of Andrew; Peter is the principal figure in the scene of the miraculous draught of fishes, while James and John are mentioned only incidentally as ‘partners with Simon.’ Directly or indirectly, however, we are told that to John, whilst engaged in his craft, the summons was given to leave his occupation and become a ‘fisher of men.’ The call was immediately obeyed, and constitutes an intermediate link between the initial stage of discipleship and the appointment to be one of twelve ‘apostles.’ In the lists of the Twelve (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:14 , Lk 6:13), John is always named as one of the first four, and in the course of Christ’s ministry he was one of an inner circle of three, who were honoured with special marks of confidence. These alone were permitted to be present on three occasions—the raising of Jairus’ daughter, narrated in Mk 5:37, Lk 8:51; the Transfiguration, described in three accounts (Mt 17:1, Mk 9:2, Lk 9:28): and the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, mentioned by two of the Synoptists ( Mt 26:37 and Mk 14:33). On one or perhaps two occasions Andrew was associated with these three—possibly at the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother (Mk 1:29), and certainly at the interview described in Mk 13:3, when Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives and was ‘asked privately’ concerning His prophecy of the overthrow of the Temple.

On two notable occasions the brothers James and John were associated together. They appear to have been alike in natural temperament. It is in this light that the statement of Mk 3:17 is generally understood—‘he surnamed them Boanerges, which ‘is Sons of thunder.’ Some uncertainty attaches to the derivation of the word, and the note added by the Evangelist is not perfectly clear. But no better explanation has been given than that the title was bestowed, perhaps by anticipation, in allusion to the zeal and vehemence of character which both the Apostles markedly exhibited on the occasions when they appear together. In Lk 9:54 they are represented as desirous to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritan village which had refused hospitality to their Master. In Mk 10:35 they come to Christ with an eager request that to them might be allotted the two highest places in His Kingdom, and they profess their complete readiness to share with Him whatever suffering or trying experiences He may be called to pass through. According to Mt 20:20, their mother accompanied them and made the request, but v. 24 shows that indignation was roused ‘concerning the two brethren,’ and that the desire and petition were really their own. Once in the Gospels John is described as associated with Peter, the two being sent by Christ to make ready the Passover (Lk 22:8). Once he figures by himself alone, as making inquiry concerning a man who cast out demons in the name of Jesus, though he did not belong to the company of the disciples (Mk 9:38, Lk 9:49). As an indication of character this is to be understood as evincing zealous, but mistaken, loyalty. Christ’s reply was, ‘Forbid him not’; evidently John was disposed to manifest on this occasion the fiery intolerant zeal which he and his brother together displayed in Samaria. Though the words ‘ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of’ do not form part of the best-attested text in Lk 9, they doubtless describe the kind of rebuke with which on both occasions the Master found it necessary to check the eagerness of a disciple who loved his Master well, but not wisely.

In the early part of the Acts, John is associated by name with Peter on three occasions. One was the healing of the lame man by the Temple gate (3:4). The next was their appearance before the Sanhedrin in ch. 4, when they were found to be men untrained in Rabbinical knowledge, mere private persons with no official standing, and were also recognized by some present as having been personal followers of Jesus, and seen in His immediate company. In 8:15 we read that the two were sent by their brother-Apostles to Samaria, after Philip had exercised his evangelistic ministry there. Many had been admitted into the Church by baptism, and the two Apostles completed the reception by prayer and the laying on of hands, ‘that they might receive the Holy Spirit.’ These typical instances show that at the outset of the history of the Church Peter and John came together to the front and were recognized as co-leaders, though they were very different in personal character, and Peter appears always to have been the spokesman. This note of personal leadership is confirmed by the incidental reference of Paul in Gal 2:9, where James (not the son of Zebedee), Cephas, and John are ‘reputed to be pillars’ in the Church at Jerusalem.

Our knowledge of John’s history and character is largely increased, and the interest in his personality is greatly deepened, if he is identified with ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ the author of the Fourth Gospel, and the John of the Apocalypse. Both these points are strongly contested in modern times, though the identification is supported by an early, wide-spread, and steadily maintained tradition. An examination of these questions will be found on pp. 479, 483 , 797^b; but here it may be pointed out what additional light is shed on John’s life and character if his authorship of the Fourth Gospel is admitted. In Jn 13:23 the disciple whom Jesus loved is spoken of as ‘reclining in Jesus’ bosom’ at the Last Supper. The phrase implies that on the chief couch at the meal, holding three persons, Jesus was in the middle and John on His right hand, thus being brought more directly face to face with the Master than Peter, who occupied the lefthand place. This explains the expression of v. 25 ‘he, leaning back, as he was, on Jesus’ breast’; as well as Peter’s ‘beckoning’ mentioned in v. 24. John has been also identified with the ‘other disciple’ mentioned in Jn 18:15, 16 as known to the high priest and having a right of entrance into the court, which was denied to Peter. Again, the disciple whom Jesus loved is described in Jn 19:26 as standing by the cross of Jesus with His mother, as receiving the sacred charge implied by the words,’ Woman, behold thy son!’ and ‘Behold thy mother!’ and as thenceforth providing a home for one who was of his near kindred. In 20:3 he accompanies Peter to the tomb of Jesus; and while he reached the sepulchre first, Peter was the first to enter in, but John was apparently the first to ‘believe.’ In ch. 21 the two sons of Zebedee are among the group of seven disciples to whom our Lord appeared at the Sea of Tiberias, and again the disciple whom Jesus loved and Peter are distinguished: the one as the first to discern the risen Lord upon the shore, the other as the first to plunge into the water to go to Him. The Gospel closes with an account of Peter’s inquiry concerning the future of his friend and companion on so many occasions; and in 19:35 as well as in 21:24 it is noted that the disciple ‘who wrote these things’ bore witness of that which he himself had seen, and that his witness is true.

It is only necessary to add that the John mentioned in Rev 1:4, 9 as writing to the Seven

Churches in Asia from the island of Patmos was identified by early tradition with the son of Zebedee. If this be correct, much additional light is cast upon the later life of the Apostle John

(see REVELATION [BOOK OF]).

2. Early tradition.—Outside the NT only vague tradition enables us to fill up the gap left by Christ’s answer to Peter’s question, ‘Lord, and what shall this man do?’ We may gather that he spent several years in Jerusalem. After an indefinite interval he is understood to have settled in Ephesus. Eusebius states (HE iii. 18, 20) that during the persecution of Domitian ‘the apostle and evangelist John’ was banished to Patmos, and that on the accession of Nerva (A.D. 96) he returned from the island and took up his abode in Ephesus, according to ‘an ancient Christian tradition’ (lit. ‘the word of the ancients among us’). Tertullian mentions a miraculous deliverance from a cauldron of boiling oil to which John had been condemned during a persecution in Rome, presumably under Domitian. Eusebius further states that John was living in Asia and governing the churches there as late as the reign of Trajan. He bases this assertion upon the evidence of Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria. The former says that ‘all the elders associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness,’ and that he remained in Ephesus until the time of Trajan. Clement recites at length the well-known touching incident concerning St. John and the young disciple who fell into evil ways and became the chief of a band of robbers, as having occurred when ‘after the tyrant’s death he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus.’ Tertullian confirms the tradition of a residence in Ephesus by quoting the evidence of the Church of Smyrna that their bishop Polycarp was appointed by John (de Pr. Hær. 32). Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus towards the end of the 2nd cent., in a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, speaks of one among the ‘great lights’ in Asia—‘John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate,’ as having fallen asleep at Ephesus. The Muratorian Fragment, which dates about A.D. 180, records an account of the origin of the Fourth Gospel, to the effect that John wrote it in obedience to a special revelation made to himself and Andrew. This story is somewhat mythical in character and is not elsewhere confirmed, but it proves the early prevalence of the belief in the Apostolic origin of the Gospel. Irenæus states that the Gospel was written specially to confute unbelievers like Cerinthus, and tells, on the authority of those who had heard it from Polycarp, the familiar story that St. John refused to remain under the same roof with the arch-heretic, lest the building should fall down upon him. Ephesus is said to have been the scene of this incident. All traditions agree that he lived to a great age, and it is Jerome (in Gal. 6:10) who tells of his being carried into the church when unable to walk or preach, and simply repeating the words, ‘Little children, love one another.’ Christ’s enigmatical answer to Peter, ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ led, as Jn 21:23 indicates, to the belief that John would not die, but would be translated.

Still, in spite of the record, the legend lingered long in the Church, and is mentioned by Augustine, that though apparently dead, the beloved Apostle was only asleep, and that the dust upon his tomb rose and fell with his breathing. The poet Browning, in his Death in the Desert, adopts the ancient tradition concerning the Apostle’s great age and lingering death, and imagines him recalled from a deep trance and the very borderland of the grave to deliver a last inspired message.

The universal belief of the early Church that St. John maintained a prolonged ministry in Ephesus has never been challenged till recent years. The arguments adduced against it, though quite inadequate to set aside positive evidence, have been accepted by critics of weight, and at least deserve mention. The chief fact of importance urged is the silence of writers who might well be expected to make some reference to it. Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians, and Ignatius in writing to the Ephesians, refer to Paul and his writings, but not to John or his ministry. Clement of Rome, writing about 93–95 concerning the Apostles and their successors, makes no reference to John as an eminent survivor, but speaks of the Apostolic age as if completely past. If John did labour in Asia for a generation, and was living in the reign of Trajan, it is not unnatural to expect that fuller reference to the fact would be found in the writings of the sub-Apostolic Fathers. But the reply is twofold. First, the argument from silence is always precarious. The literature of the early years of the 2nd cent. is very scanty, and little is known of the circumstances under which the fragmentary documents were written or of the precise objects of the writers. The silence of the Acts of the Apostles in the 1st cent., and of Eusebius in the 4 th, is in many respects quite as remarkable as their speech and much more inexplicable. It is quite impossible for the most acute critic in the 20th cent. to reproduce the conditions of an obscure period, and to understand precisely why some subjects of little importance to us are discussed in its literature and others of apparently greater significance ignored.

It is the weight of positive evidence, however, on which the tradition really rests. Irenæus, in a letter to Florinus preserved for us by Eusebius, describes how as a boy he had listened to ‘the blessed Polycarp,’ and had heard ‘the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.’ And lest his memory should he discredited, he tells his correspondent that he remembers the events of that early time more clearly than those of recent years; ‘for what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it.’ It is incredible that a writer brought so near to the very person of John, and having heard his words through only one intermediary, should have been entirely in error concerning his ministry in Asia. Polycrates, again, a bishop of the city in which St. John had long resided and laboured, wrote of his ministry there after an interval not longer than that which separates our own time from (say) the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 or the battle of Waterloo. His testimony obviously is not that of himself alone, it must represent that of the whole Ephesian Church; and what Irenæus remembered as a boy others of the same generation must have remembered according to their opportunities of knowledge. The explicit testimony of three writers like Polycrates, Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria carries with it the implicit testimony of a whole generation of Christians extending over a very wide geographic area. The silence of others notwithstanding, it is hardly credible that these should have been mistaken on a matter of so much importance. The theory that confusion had arisen between John the Apostle and a certain ‘John the Elder’ is discussed in a subsequent article (see p. 483), but it would seem impossible that a mistake on such a subject could be made in the minds of those who were divided from the events themselves by so narrow an interval as that of two, or at most three, generations.

3. Later traditions.—It is only, however, as regards the main facts of history that the testimony of the 2nd cent. may be thus confidently relied on. Stories of doubtful authenticity would gather round an honoured name in a far shorter period than seventy or eighty years. Some of these legends may well be true, others probably contain an element of truth, whilst others are the result of mistake or the product of pious imagination. They are valuable chiefly as showing the directions in which tradition travelled, and we need not draw on any of the interesting myths of later days in order to form a judgment on the person and character of John the Apostle, especially if he was in addition, as the Church has so long believed, St. John the Evangelist.

A near kinsman of Jesus, a youth in his early disciple ship, eager and vehement in his affection and at first full of ill-instructed ambitions and still undisciplined zeal, John the son of Zebedee was regarded by his Master with a peculiar personal tenderness, and was fashioned by that transforming affection into an Apostle of exceptional insight and spiritual power. Only the disciple whom Jesus loved could become the Apostle of love. Only a minute and delicate personal knowledge of Him who was Son of Man and Son of God, combined with a sensitive and ardent natural temperament and the spiritual maturity attained by long experience and patient brooding meditation on what he had seen and heard long before, could have produced such a picture of the Saviour of the world as is presented in the Fourth Gospel. The very silence of John the Apostle in the narratives of the Gospels and the Acts is significant. He moved in the innermost circle of the disciples, yet seldom opened his lips. His recorded utterances could all he compressed into a few lines. Yet he ardently loved and was beloved by his Master, and after He was gone it was given to the beloved disciple to ‘tarry’ rather than to speak, or toil, or suffer, so that at the last he might write that which should move a world and live in the hearts of untold generations. The most Christ-like of the Apostles has left this legacy to the Church—that without him it could not have adequately known its Lord.

W. T. DAVISON.

JOHN, GOSPEL OF.—Introductory.—The Fourth Gospel is unique among the books of the NT. In its combination of minute historical detail with lofty spiritual teaching, in its testimony to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the preparation it makes for the foundations of Christian doctrine, it stands alone. Its influence upon the thought and life of the Christian Church has been proportionately deep and far-reaching. It is no disparagement of other inspired Scriptures to say that no other book of the Bible has left such a mark at the same time upon the profoundest Christian thinkers, and upon simple-minded believers at large. A decision as to its character, authenticity, and trustworthiness is cardinal to the Christian religion. In many cases authorship is a matter of comparatively secondary importance in the interpretation of a document, and in the determination of its significance; in this instance it is vital. That statement is quite consistent with two other important considerations. (1) We are not dependent on the Fourth Gospel for the facts on which Christianity is based, or for the fundamental doctrines of the Person and work of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels and St. Paul’s Epistles are more than sufficient to establish the basis of the Christian faith, which on any hypothesis must have spread over a large part of the Roman Empire before this book was written. (2) On any theory of authorship, the document in question is of great significance and value in the history of the Church. Those who do not accept it as a ‘Gospel’ have still to reckon with the fact of its composition, and to take account of its presence in and influence upon the Church of the 2 nd century.

But when these allowances have been made, it is clearly a matter of the very first importance whether the Fourth Gospel is, on the one hand, the work of an eye-witness, belonging to the innermost circle of Jesus’ disciples, who after a long interval wrote a trustworthy record of what he had heard and seen, interpreted through the mellowing medium of half a century of Christian experience and service; or, on the other, a treatise of speculative theology cast into the form of an imaginative biography of Jesus, dating from the second or third decade of the 2nd cent., and testifying only to the form which the new religion was taking under the widely altered circumstances of a rapidly developing Church. Such a question as this is not of secondary but of primary importance at any time, and the critical controversies of recent years make a decision upon it to be crucial.

It is impossible here to survey the history of criticism, but it is desirable to say a few words upon it. According to a universally accepted tradition, extending from the third quarter of the 2 nd cent. to the beginning of the 19th, John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, was held to be the author of the Gospel, the three Epistles that went by his name, and the Apocalypse. This tradition, so far as the Gospel was concerned, was unbroken and almost unchallenged, the one exception being formed by an obscure and doubtful sect, or class of unbelievers, called Alogi by Epiphanius, who attributed the Gospel and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus! From the beginning of the 19th cent., however, and especially after the publication of Bretschneider’s Probabilia in 1820, an almost incessant conflict has been waged between the traditional belief and hypotheses which in more or less modified form attribute the Gospel to an Ephesian elder or an Alexandrian Christian philosopher belonging to the first half of the 2nd century. Baur of Tübingen, in whose theories of doctrinal development this document held an important place, fixed its date about

A.D. 170, but this view has long been given up as untenable. Keim, who argued strongly against the Johannine authorship, at first adopted the date A.D. 100–115, but afterwards regarded A.D. 130 as more probable. During the last fifty years the conflict has been waged with great ability on both sides, with the effect of modifying extreme views, and more than once it has seemed as if an agreement between the more moderate critics on either side had become possible. Among the conservatives, Zahn and Weiss in Germany, and Westcott, Sanday, Reynolds, and Drummond in this country, have been conspicuous; whilst, on the other hand, Holtzmann, Jülicher, and Schmiedel have been uncompromising opponents of the historicity of the Gospel on any terms. Schürer, Harnack, and others have taken up a middle position, ascribing the book to a disciple of John the Apostle, who embodied in it his master’s teaching; whilst Wendt and some others have advocated partition theories, implying the existence of a genuine Johannine document as the basis of the Gospel, blended with later and less trustworthy matter.

The position taken in this article is that the traditional view which ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to John the Apostle is still by far the most probable account of its origin, the undeniable difficulties attaching to this view being explicable by a reasonable consideration of the circumstances of its composition. Fuller light, however, has been cast upon the whole subject by the discussions of recent years, and much is to be learned from the investigations of eminent scholars and their arguments against the Johannine authorship, especially when these do not rest upon a denial of the supernatural element in Scripture. In the present treatment of the subject, controversy will be avoided as far as possible, and stress will be laid upon the positive and constructive elements in the examination. The method adopted will be to inquire into (1) the External Evidence in favour of St. John’s authorship; (2) the Internal Evidence; (3) the scope of the Gospel and its relation to the Synoptics; (4) Objections and suggested alternative Theories; (5) Summary of the Conclusions reached.

1. External Evidence.—It is not questioned that considerably before the close of the 2 nd cent. the four Gospels, substantially as we have them, were accepted as authoritative in the Christian Church. This is proved by the testimony of Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, writing about A.D. 180; Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A.D. 170; Clement, head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, about 190; and Tertullian, the eloquent African Father, who wrote at the end of the century, and who quotes freely from all the Gospels by name. The full and explicit evidence of the Muratorian Canon may also be dated about A.D. 180. Irenæus assumes the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel as generally accepted and unquestioned. He expressly states that after the publication of the other three Gospels, ‘John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, himself also published the Gospel, while he was dwelling at Ephesus in Asia.’ He tells us that he himself when a boy had heard from the lips of Polycarp his reminiscences of ‘his familiar intercourse with John and the rest of those that had seen the Lord.’ He dwells in mystical fashion upon the significance of the number four, and characterizes the

Fourth Gospel as corresponding to the ‘flying eagle’ among the living creatures of Ezk 1:10 and 10:14. Theophilus of Antioch quotes it as follows: ‘John says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God’ (Aut. 22). The Muratorian Fragment, which gives a list of the canonical books recognized in the Western Church of the period, ascribes the Fourth Gospel to ‘John, one of the disciples,’ and whilst recognizing that ‘in the single books of the Gospels different principles are taught,’ the writer adds that they all alike confirm the faith of believers by their agreement in their teaching about Christ’s birth, passion, death, resurrection, and twofold advent. Clement of Alexandria, in handing down ‘the tradition of the elders from the first,’ says that ‘John, last of all, having observed that the bodily things had been exhibited in the Gospels, exhorted by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual gospel’ (Eus. HE vi. 14). Tertullian, among other testimonies, shows his opinion of the authorship and his discrimination of the character of the Gospels by saying, ‘Among the Apostles, John and Matthew form the faith within us; among the companions of the Apostles, Luke and Mark renovate it’ (adv. Marc. iv. 2).

Was this clearly expressed and wide-spread belief of the Church well based? First of all it must be said that the personal link supplied by Irenæus is of itself so important as to be almost conclusive, unless very strong counter-reasons can be alleged. It was impossible that he should be mistaken as to the general drift of Polycarp’s teaching, and Polycarp had learned directly from John himself. On the broad issue of John’s ministry in Asia and his composition of a Gospel, this testimony is of the first importance. The suggestion that confusion had arisen in his mind between the Apostle and a certain ‘Presbyter John’ of Asia will be considered later, but it is exceedingly unlikely that on such a matter either Polycarp or his youthful auditor could have made a mistake. The testimony of churches and of a whole generation of Christians, inheritors of the same tradition at only one remove, corroborates the emphatic and repeated statements of Irenæus.

It is quite true that in the first half of the 2nd cent. the references to the Gospel are neither so direct nor so abundant as might have been expected. The question whether Justin Martyr knew, and recognized, our Gospels as such has been much debated. His references to the Gospel narrative are very numerous, and the coincidences between the form of the records which he quotes and our Gospels are often close and striking, but he mentions no authors’ names. In his first Apol. ch. 61 (about A.D. 160), however, we read, ‘For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ which would appear to imply, though it does not prove, an acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. Other references to Christ as ‘only begotten Son’ and the ‘Word’ are suggestive. The recent discovery of Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 160) makes it certain that that ‘harmony’ of the Gospels began with the words, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and that the whole of the Fourth Gospel was interwoven into its substance. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (before A.D. 120) apparently quotes 1 Jn. in the words, ‘For every one who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist,’ but no express citation is made. The Epistles of Ignatius (about A.D. 110) apparently show traces of the Fourth Gospel in their references to ‘living water,’ ‘children of light,’ Christ as ‘the Word’ and as ‘the door,’ but these are not conclusive. Papias may have known and used this Gospel, as Irenæus seems to imply (adv. Hær. 36); and Eusebius distinctly says that he ‘used testimonies from the First Epistle of John’ (HE iii. 39).

Some of the most noteworthy testimonies to the use of the Gospel in the former part of the 2nd cent. are drawn from heretical writings. It is certain that Heracleon of the Valentinian school of Gnostics knew and quoted the Gospel as a recognized authority, and it would even appear that he wrote an elaborate commentary on the whole Gospel. Origen quotes him as misapprehending the text, ‘No one has seen God at any time.’ Hippolytus in his Refutation of all Heresies (vi. 30) proves that Valentinus (about A.D. 130) quoted Jn 10:8, ‘The Saviour says, All that came before me are thieves and robbers,’ and that Basilides a little earlier made distinct reference to Jn 1:9: ‘As it is said in the Gospels, the true light that enlighteneth every man was coming into the world.’ Slighter and more doubtful references are found in the Clementine Homilies and other heretical writings, and these go at least some way to show that the peculiar phraseology of the Fourth Gospel was known and appealed to as authoritative in the middle of the 2nd century.

It is not, however, by explicit references to ‘texts’ that a question of this kind can be best settled. The chief weight of external evidence lies in the fact that between A.D. 150 and 180 four Gospels were recognized in the Church as authentic records, read in the assemblies, and accepted as authoritative. Also, that the fourth of these was with practical unanimity ascribed to St. John, as written by him in Asia at the very end of the 1st century. This acceptance included districts as far apart as Syria and Gaul, Alexandria, Carthage and Rome. Can the whole Church of A.D. 180 have been utterly mistaken on such a point? True, the early Christians were ‘uncritical’ in the modern sense of the word criticism. But they were not disposed lightly to accept alleged Apostolic writings as genuine. On the other hand, the inquiry into their authenticity was usually close and careful. A period of fifty years is short when we remember how generations overlap one another, and how carefully traditions on the most sacred subjects are guarded. It is hardly possible to suppose that on such salient questions as the residence of the Apostle John for twenty years in Asia, and the composition of one of the four authoritative Gospels, any serious error or confusion could have arisen so early. At least the prima facie external evidence is so far in favour of Johannine authorship that it must stand accepted, unless very serious objections to it can be sustained, or some more satisfactory account of the origin of the Gospel can be suggested.

2. Internal Evidence.—The first point to be noted under this head is that the book makes a direct claim to have been written by an eye-witness, and indirectly it points to the Apostle John as its author. The phrase ‘We beheld his glory’ (1:14) is not decisive, though, taken in connexion with 1 Jn 1:1–4, if the Epistle be genuine, the claim of first-hand knowledge is certainly made. There can be no question concerning the general meaning of 19:35, though its detailed exegesis presents difficulties. The verse might be paraphrased, ‘He that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is genuine and real; and he knoweth that he speaketh things that are true, so that ye also may believe.’ No one reading this can question that the writer of the narrative of the Crucifixion claims to have been present and to be recording what he had seen with his own eyes. A peculiar pronoun is used in ‘he knoweth,’ and Sanday, E. A. Abbott, and others would interpret the word emphatically, of Christ; but its use is probably due to the fact that the writer is speaking of himself in the third person, and emphasizes his own personal testimony. Parallel instances from classical and modern writers have been adduced. In 21:24 further corroboration is given of the accuracy of the disciple who was at the same time an eye-witness of the events and the author of the narrative. It appears, however, to have been added to the Gospel by others. ‘We know that his witness is true’ is probably intended as an endorsement on the part of certain Ephesian elders, whilst the ‘I suppose’ of v. 25 may indicate yet another hand. In addition to these more or less explicit testimonies, notes are freely introduced throughout the Gospel which could proceed only from a member of the innermost circle of Christ’s disciples, though the writer never mentions his own name. Instead, he alludes to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ in such a way that by a process of exhaustion it may be proved from chs. 20 and 21 that John was intended. It can hardly be questioned that the writer delicately but unmistakably claims to be that disciple himself. An ordinary pseudonymous writer does not proceed in this fashion. The authority of an honoured name is sometimes claimed by an unknown author, as in the Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Baruch, not fraudulently, but as a literary device to give character to his theme. In this case, however, the indirect suggestion of authorship either must indicate that the Apostle wrote the book, modestly veiling his own identity, or else it points to an unwarrantable pretence on the part of a later writer, who threw his own ideas into the form of a (largely imaginary) narrative. Some modern critics do not shrink from this last hypothesis; but it surely implies a misleading misrepresentation of facts incredible under the circumstances. A

third theory, which would imply collaboration on the part of one of John’s own disciples, will be discussed later.

Does the Gospel, then, as a whole bear out this claim, directly or indirectly made? Is it such a book as may well have proceeded from one who ranked amongst the foremost figures in the sacred drama of which Jesus of Nazareth was the august centre? The answer cannot be given in a word. Many features of the Gospel strongly support such a claim. Putting aside for the moment its spiritual teaching, we may say that it displays a minute knowledge of details which could have come only from an eye-witness who was intimately acquainted not only with the places and scenes, but with the persons concerned, their characters and motives. No artistic imagination could have enabled an Ephesian Christian of the 2nd cent. either to insert the minute topographical and other touches which bespeak the eye-witness, or to invent incidents like those recorded in chs. 4 and 9, bearing a verisimilitude which commends them at once to the reader. On the other hand, there is so much in the Gospel which implies a point of view entirely different from that of Christ’s immediate contemporaries, and there are so many divergences from the Synoptics in the description of our Lord’s ministry—as regards time, place, the manner of Christ’s teaching, and particular incidents recorded—as to make it impossible to ascribe it to the son of Zebedee without a full explanation of serious difficulties and discrepancies. But for these two diverse aspects of the same document, there would be no ‘Johannine problem.’ It will be well to take the two in order, and see if they can be reconciled.

It has been usual to arrange the evidence in narrowing circles; to show that the author must have been a Jew, a Palestinian, an eye-witness, one of the Twelve, and lastly the Apostle John. It is impossible, however, to array here all the proofs available. It must suffice to say that a close familiarity with Jewish customs and observances, such as could not have been possessed by an Ephesian in A.D. 120, is shown in the account of the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. 7), the Dedication (10:22), Jews and Samaritans (4:19, 20), conversation with women in public (4:27), ceremonial pollution (18:28), and other minute touches, each slight in itself, but taken together of great weight. The numerous references to the Messianic hope in chs. 1, 4, 7, 8. and indeed throughout the Gospel, indicate one who was thoroughly acquainted with Jewish views and expectations from within. Familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures and a free but reverent use of them are apparent throughout. The places mentioned are not such as a stranger would or could have introduced into an imaginary narrative. As examples we may mention Bethany beyond Jordan (1:28), Ænon (3:23), Ephraim (11:54), the treasury (8:20), the pool of Siloam (9:7), Solomon’s porch (10:23), the Kidron (18:1). It is true that difficulties have been raised with regard to some of these, e.g. Sychar (4:5); but recent exploration has in several instances confirmed the writer’s accuracy. Again, the habit of the writer is to specify details of time, place, and number which must either indicate exceptional first-hand knowledge, or have been gratuitously inserted by one who wished to convey an impression of ‘local colour.’ The very hour of the day at which events happened is noted in 1:39, 4:6, 52, 19:14; or ‘the early morning’ is mentioned, as in 18:28, 20:1, 21:4; or the night, as in 3:2, 13:30. The specification of six water-pots (2:6), five and twenty furlongs (6:19), two hundred cubits (21:8), and the hundred and fifty-three fishes (21:11), is a further illustration either of an old man’s exact reminiscences of events long past or of a late writer’s pretended acquaintance with precise details.

The portraiture of persons and incidents characteristic of the Gospel is noteworthy. The picture is so graphic, and the effect is produced by so few strokes, often unexpected, that it must be ascribed either to an eye-witness or to a writer of altogether exceptional genius. The conversations recorded, the scene of the feet-washing, the representation of the Samaritan woman, of the man born blind, the portraiture of Peter, of Pilate, of the priests and the multitude, the questionings of the disciples, the revelation of secret motives and fears, the interpretations of Christ’s hidden meanings and difficult sayings—may, as an abstract possibility, have been invented. But if they were not—and it is hard to understand how a writer who lays so much stress upon truth could bring himself to such a perversion of it—then the author of the Gospel must have moved close to the very centre of the sacred events he describes. In many cases it is not fair to present such a dilemma as this. The use of the imagination in literature is often not only permissible, but laudable. It is quite conceivable that a Jew of the 2nd cent. before Christ might use the name of Solomon, or the author of the Clementine Homilies in the 2nd cent. A.D. might write a romance, without any idea of deception in his own mind or in that of his readers. But the kind of narrative contained in the Fourth Gospel, if it be not genuinely and substantially historical, implies such an attempt to produce a false impression of first-hand knowledge as becomes seriously misleading. The impossibility of conceiving a writer possessed of both the power and the will thus deliberately to colour and alter the facts, forms an important link in the chain of argument. Fabulous additions to the canonical Gospels are extant, and their character is well known. They present a marked contrast in almost all respects to the characteristic features of the document before us. The name of John is never once mentioned in the Gospel, though the writer claims to be intimately acquainted with all the chief figures of the Gospel history. As deliberate self-suppression this can be understood, but as an attempt on the part of a writer a century afterwards to pose as ‘the beloved disciple,’ a prominent figure in elaborate descriptions of entirely imaginary scenes, it is unparalleled in literature and incredible in a religious historian.

A volume might well be filled with an examination of the special features of the Gospel in its portrayal of Christ Himself. Even the most superficial reader must have noticed the remarkable combination of lowliness with sublimity, of superhuman dignity with human infirmities and limitations, which characterizes the Fourth Gospel. It is in it that we read of the Saviour’s weariness by the well and His thirst upon the Cross, of the personal affection of Jesus for the family at Bethany, and His tender care of His mother in the very hour of His last agony. But it is in the same record that the characteristic ‘glory’ of His miracles is most fully brought out; in it the loftiest claims are made not only for the Master by a disciple, but by the Lord for Himself— as the Light of the World, the Bread from Heaven, the only true Shepherd of men, Himself the Resurrection and the Life. He is saluted not only by Mary as Rabboni, but by Thomas as ‘my Lord and my God.’ The writer claims an exceptional and intimate knowledge of Christ. He tells us what He felt, as in 11:33 and 13:21; the reasons for His actions, as in 6:6; and he is bold to describe the Lord’s secret thoughts and purposes (6:61, 64, 18:4, 19:28). More than this, in the Prologue of a Gospel which describes the humanity of the Son of Man, He is set forth as the

‘only’ Son of God, the Word made flesh, the Word who in the beginning was with God and was God, Creator and Sustainer of all that is. This marked characteristic of the Gospel has indeed been made a ground of objection to it. We cannot conceive, it is said, that one who had moved in the circle of the Immediate companions of Jesus of Nazareth could have spoken of Him in this fashion. The reply is obvious. What kind of a portrait is actually presented? If it be an entirely incredible picture, an extravagant attempt to portray a moral and spiritual prodigy or monstrosity, an impossible combination of the human and the Divine, then we may well suppose that human imagination has been at work. But if a uniquely impressive image is set forth in these pages, which has commanded the homage of saints and scholars for centuries, and won the hearts of millions of those simple souls to whom the highest spiritual truths are so often revealed, then it may be surmised that the Fourth Gospel is not due to the fancy of an unknown artist of genius in the 2nd cent., but it is due to one who reflected, as in a mirror, from a living reality the splendour of Him who was ‘the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’

3. Scope of the Gospel and its relation to the Synoptics.—It cannot be denied that there are grave difficulties in the way of our accepting the conclusion to which we are irresistibly led by the above arguments. Some of these were felt as early as the 2nd and 3rd cents., and have always been more or less present to the minds of Christians. Others have been more clearly brought out by the controversy concerning the genuineness of the Gospel which has been waged through the last half-century. In this section it will be convenient to try to answer the questions, How does this Gospel, if written by the Apostle John, stand related to the other three?, how can the obvious discrepancies be reconciled?, and how far do the writer’s object and method and point of view account for the unique character of the narrative he has presented?

It is clear, to begin with, that the plan of the Fourth Gospel differs essentially from that of the Synoptics. The writer himself makes this plain in his own account of his book (20:30, 31). He did not undertake to write a biography of Christ, even in the limited sense in which that may be said of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; he selected certain significant parts and aspects of Christ’s work, for the purpose of winning or conserving faith in Him, presumably under special difficulties or dangers. We are therefore prepared for a difference in the very framework and structure of the book, and this we assuredly find.

The Fourth Gospel opens with an introduction to which there is no parallel in the NT. The circumstances of Christ’s birth and childhood, His baptism and temptation, are entirely passed by. His relation to John the Baptist is dealt with from a later, doctrinal point of view, rather than from that of the chronicler describing events in their historical development. Only typical incidents from the ministry are selected, and only such aspects of these as lend themselves to didactic treatment. It will be convenient here to give a brief outline of the plan and contents of the Gospel.

THE PROLOGUE: 1:1–18. The Word—in Eternity, in Creation, in History and Incarnate.

PART i.: 1:19–12:50. Christ’s manifestation of Himself in a Ministry of Life and Love.

1. The proclamation of His message, the testimony of the Baptist, of His works, and of His disciples. The beginnings of faith and unbelief, 1:19–4:54.

2. The period of Controversy and Conflict; Christ’s vindication of Himself against adversaries, partly in discourse, partly in mighty works, 5:1–12:50.

PART ii.: 13:1–20:31. Christ’s manifestation of Himself in Suffering, in Death, and in Victory over Death.

1. His last acts, discourses, and prayer, 13:1–17:26.

2. His betrayal, trial, death, and burial, 18:1–19:42.

3. His Resurrection and Appearances to His disciples, ch. 20.

THE EPILOGUE: 21:1–23. Further Appearances and Last Words. Notes appended by other hands: 21:24, 25.

The following are some detailed differences of importance. The exact duration of Christ’s ministry cannot be determined either by the Synoptic narratives or by St. John’s; but it would appear that in the former it might he compressed within the compass of one year, whilst the latter in its mention of Passovers and Festivals would require more than three. Again, the Synoptic Gospels describe a ministry exercised almost entirely in Galilee up to the closing scenes in Jerusalem; St. John has little to say of Galilee, but he does mention an important visit to Samaria, and narrates at length events and controversies in Jerusalem of which the other Evangelists say nothing. On these points, however, it may be remarked that none of the Gospels professes to he complete; that an exact chronological outline can with difficulty be constructed from any of them; and that each gives passing hints of events of which the writer had cognisance, though it does not come within his purpose to describe them.

Minute difficulties of detail cannot he discussed here. But the difference between the Synoptists and St. John with regard to the date of the Last Supper and Christ’s death has a special importance of its own. The first three Gospels represent Jesus as partaking of the regular Passover with His disciples, and as being crucified on the 15th of Nisan; St. John describes the Last Supper as on the day of ‘preparation,’ and the crucifixion as taking place on the 14th Nisan, the great day of the Passover. Various modes of reconciliation have been proposed, turning upon the meaning of the phrase ‘eating the Passover’ and on the Jewish mode of reckoning days from sunset to sunset. It has been further suggested that the term ‘Passover’ was applied to the eating of the sacrifice called Chagigah, which was offered on the first Paschal day immediately after the morning service. The explanations offered of the discrepancy are ingenious, and one or other of them may be correct. But it can hardly be said that any has commanded general acceptance among critics, and meanwhile the difference remains. It must not be supposed, however, that this necessarily implies an error on the part of the Fourth Gospel. Many critics contend earnestly that St. John gives the more consistent and intelligible account of the Last Supper, the trial and the death of Jesus in relation to the Jewish festival, and that the phraseology of the Synoptists may be more easily and satisfactorily explained in terms of St. John’s narrative than vice versa. The objection that the writer of the Fourth Gospel had a dogmatic reason for changing the day and representing Christ as the true Passover Sacrifice offered for the sins of the world, is not borne out by facts. The writer nowhere speaks of Christ as the Paschal Lamb (not even in 19:36), and his allusion to the date is too slight and casual to warrant the supposition that he wishes to press home the teaching of 1 Co 5:7. Further, if the Synoptic tradition of the date had been established, it is most unlikely that an anonymous writer of the 2nd cent. would have set himself in opposition to it. If St. John wrote of his own superior knowledge, a discrepancy is intelligible, and the correction of a previous misapprehension may have been intentional. It may be said in passing that the argument drawn from the Quartodeciman controversy—whether Christians ought to keep the Passover at the same time as the Jews, i.e. always on 14th Nisan, whatever day of the week it might be, or always on Sunday as the first day of the week, on whatever day of the month it might fall—cannot legitimately be made to tell against the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. The controversy concerned the relation between Christians and Jews as such, rather than the exact date of Christ’s death and its meaning as a Passover sacrifice.

We reach the centre of difficulty, however, when we try to understand the marked difference between the body of the Synoptic narrative on the one band and St. John’s on the other. St. John’s omissions are so striking. He never refers to the miraculous birth of Christ; he gives no account of the Transfiguration, the institution of the Eucharist, or the Agony in the Garden; a large number of miracles are not described, nor is their occurrence hinted at; no parables are recorded, though the Synoptics make them a chief feature of Christ’s teaching, and the very word for ‘parable’ in its strict sense does not occur in the book. On the other hand, his additions are notable. How is it that the Synoptists have nothing to say of the changing of Water into Wine, of the Feet-washing, and especially of the Raising of Lazarus? Is it conceivable that if such a miracle was actually worked it could have had no place in any of the great traditional accounts of His ministry? Are we to understand that the Synoptists are correct when they place the Cleansing of the Temple at the end of Christ’s ministry, or St. John when he describes it at the beginning? Other apparent discrepancies are of less importance. They concern the Anointing of Jn 12 as compared with the narratives of Mt 26, Mk 14, and Lk 7; the accounts of the trial of Jesus given in the Synoptics in their relation to that of Jn.; and the appearances of the Lord after His Resurrection as recorded by St. John in the 20th and 21st chapters.

Further, the most superficial reader cannot but be struck by the different representations of Christ’s ministry in its main features. The Synoptic Gospels do not contain the long discourses which are reported in St. John, always couched in a peculiar and characteristic diction, nor do they mention the frequent controversies with ‘the Jews,’ who are represented in the Fourth Gospel as frequently interrupting Christ’s addresses with questions and objections to which the Synoptists present no parallel. The very mention of ‘the Jews,’ so often and so unfavourably referred to, is, it is said, a sign of a later hand. The writer of the Fourth Gospel uses the same somewhat peculiar style, whether he is reporting Christ’s words or adding his own comments, and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two. In doctrine also, it is contended, there are irreconcilable differences between the Three Evangelists and the Fourth. Judgment is viewed by the Synoptists as a great eschatological event in the future, but by St. John as a present spiritual fact accomplished even whilst Christ was on earth. It is said, further, that Gnostic and other heresies of various kinds belonging to the 2nd cent. are alluded to in the Gospel, and that the Johannine authorship is therefore untenable. Last, but by no means least, the use of the word Logos to describe the Eternal Word, and the doctrines associated with the name that are found in the Prologue, point, it is said, conclusively to an Alexandrian origin, and are practically irreconcilable with the authorship of the son of Zebedee.

An adequate solution of these acknowledged difficulties can be found only in a full consideration of the circumstances under which, and the objects for which, the Gospel was written. It is an essential part of the hypothesis of Johannine authorship that the book was not composed till a generation after the death of St. Paul, in a community where Christianity had been established for nearly half a century. Such an interval, at such a rapidly advancing period of Christian history, implied changes of a deep and far-reaching kind. An ‘advanced Christology’— that is to say, a fuller development of the doctrines implied in the fundamental Christian belief that ‘God was in Christ,’ and that Christ was ‘the Son of the living God’—was to be expected. The hearing of this truth upon current religious ideas among both Jews and Gentiles became more clearly seen in every succeeding decade. No writer, be he aged Apostle or Ephesian elder, could write in A.D. 100 as he would have written fifty years before. The very point of view from which the wonderful Life of lives was considered and estimated had changed. With it had changed also the proportionate significance of the details of that life and work. The central figure was the same. His words and deeds remained, indelibly imprinted upon the mind of one who had lived ‘when there was mid-sea and the mighty things.’ But if an artist at the same time knows his work and is true to the realities he paints, his perspective changes, the lights and shadows of his picture alter, and the relative size of objects depicted is altered, when a new point of view is taken up.

If the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel at all, it must have been composed under these conditions, as early tradition asserts that it was. The same tradition declares that it was written under pressure from without, that it presupposed the first three Gospels, and was not intended to cover the ground occupied by them, that it was ‘a spiritual Gospel’—which is only another way of saying what the author himself has told us, that he recorded some among the many signs that Jesus did, viewed from the side of a Divine mission and purpose,’ that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life through his name’ (Jn 20:31). Omissions and additions, therefore, such as are obvious in a comparison between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel, cannot count as arguments against the authenticity of the latter. Neither can a more completely developed doctrine of the Person of Christ, nor a somewhat altered representation of His ministry and utterances. We have rather to ask whether the modifications observable in the latest narrative of all, written after a long time, under altered conditions, and from a different point of view, imply an incompatibility so marked that it cannot be ascribed to an eye-witness and an Apostle. All the Gospels are confessedly fragmentary, and if one of the Twelve was induced after the lapse of nearly two generations to supplement the records of Christ’s life already in existence, and to present a selection of his own reminiscences for the purpose of inducing and maintaining Christian faith, quite as large a measure of difference in the narrative as that sketched in a previous paragraph may justly he expected. Some of those discrepancies have been exaggerated. For example, the mode of speaking of ‘the Jews’ In the Fourth Gospel is prepared for by the expressions found in Mt 28:15, Mk 7:3, Lk 7:3 and 23:51. Indeed, such a habit of estimating and describing the members of a nation which had so steadily set itself against Christ and His followers as to have become the very embodiment of virulent opposition to Christianity, was inevitable. Again, it is undeniable that, as St. John from his later point of view discerned not only the glory that should come after the shame and the death of the Saviour, but the glory that was implied in His suffering and death on behalf of the world, so he described not only the final judgment that was to come at the end of all things, but the present judging, searching, sifting power of Christ’s words and presence in the earth, as the Synoptists do not. His point of view in this and in other respects is confessedly more ‘spiritual.’ But he is not unmindful of that aspect of judgment which predominates in the Synoptics. In 5:21–29 the two points of view are harmonized, and a very definite reference is made to a final judgment as an eschatological event. If it is true, as we read in 12:31, that ‘now is the judgment of this world,’ the same chapter reminds us (v. 48) that Christ’s word will judge men ‘In the last day.’ There is no contradiction, except for shallow interpreters, between the statements that the Kingdom of pod is already come, and that its coming must he waited for with patience, perhaps during a long period. A believer in ‘judgment’ already accomplished is so far prepared for the confident expectation of a final judgment at the end of the ages.

But the examination of details necessarily lies outside the scope of the present article. The only further point which can be noticed here concerns the style and diction of the Fourth Gospel, and the contrast observable between the discourses of Jesus as reported in it and in the three Synoptics. So marked a difference in this respect does obtain, that an upholder of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel must be prepared to admit that the aged Apostle sees all the objects he describes through a medium of his own, and casts his record into a shape moulded by the habit and working of his own mind. The personal stamp of the writer is very strongly impressed upon his material. Inspiration is quite consistent with marked individuality in the prophet’s character and writings, and the highest kind of inspiration is inseparable from this. The accuracy of the chronicler who regards himself as a mere recording pen is one thing, the truth of the artist or historian who passes all that he knows through the alembic of his own vigorous and active mind is another. As regards the form of the narrative, St. John, if he be the writer, must have allowed himself freedom to present his record in a mould determined by the later working of his own mind and the conditions of the times in which he lived. He presents us not with an exact photograph—though traces of the photography of memory are fairly abundant—but with a free and true picture of the life of Him who was and is the Life indeed.

Differences in the mode of presentation do indeed exist, but they need not he exaggerated. For example, as regards the number and length of Christ’s discourses recorded, the Fourth

Gospel is not separated from the rest by some impassable gulf. Dr. Drummond has calculated

that whilst in Mt. Christ speaks 139 times, in Jn. He speaks only 122 times; and that as regards length of speeches, Mt. records 111 utterances not exceeding 3 verses and Jn. 96; of speeches exceeding 3 and not exceeding 10 verses, Mt. gives 16 and Jn. 20; whilst of discourses exceeding 20 verses, Mt. records 4 and Jn. 3 only. Then as regards the character of the sayings of Jesus, it is often represented that those recorded in the Synoptics are pithy, incisive, and telling, whereas in Jn. the style is prolix and monotonous. Dr. Drummond, however, enumerates sixty detached logia taken from the Fourth Gospel quite as aphoristic and memorable as any contained in the other three, whilst it has often been pointed out that in Mt 11:25–27 Is found in germ the substance, both in matter and in form, of teaching which is fully developed by St. John. At the same time it is not denied that the Fourth Evangelist allows himself the liberty of blending text and comment in one narrative marked by the same characteristic diction, so that, as in ch. 3, it is not altogether easy to determine whether Jesus or John the Baptist or the Evangelist is speaking; or, as in 17:3, whether the Evangelist has not expressed in his own words the substance of what fell from the Master’s lips. Such freedom, however, is not really misleading. A measure of translation, of re-statement and reproduction, was necessary from the very nature of the case. Harnack says of the NT generally, ‘The Greek language lies upon these writings only like a diaphanous veil, and it requires hardly any effort to retranslate their contents into Hebrew or Aramaic.’ Such slight, but easily penetrable veils, partly of language, partly of representation, necessarily rest over the four narratives of our Lord’s life and ministry which have been handed down through different media and under different conditions. The argument here briefly sketched out goes to show that the Fourth Gospel contains no representation of the Person, words, or works of Christ incompatible or seriously inconsistent with those of the Synoptics, whilst at the same time it bears the indubitable marks of a sacred individuality of its own.

4. Alternative theories.—A considerable number of eminent scholars of the last two generations have not been satisfied by the line of argument indicated above, and they decline to accept not only the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, but also its historical trustworthiness. It is easy to understand that considerations which would strongly appeal to Christian believers might have small weight with those who reject the supernatural, and cannot admit the evidence of an alleged eye-witness of the raising of Lazarus, and who profess to be able to trace the growth of the legend which transformed the prophet of Nazareth into the Word of God Incarnate. For them the document we are examining is an ideal composition of the 2 nd cent., of no greater historical value than the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Clementine

Recognitions. Others, who are convinced that the book embodies early and perhaps Apostolical traditions, have adopted mediating theories of different types, pointing to the use by a 2nd cent. writer of earlier ‘sources,’ much as the Logia document is supposed to have been used by the author of ‘Matthew’ or the Markan document by St. Luke. The late date assigned by Baur to the composition of the Gospel has long been given up as impossible, and a theory of ‘forgery’ is no longer advocated by any one whose judgment is worth considering. Few responsible critics now would place the document later than A.D. 110–120, and the good faith of the writer is hardly questioned even among those who most strenuously deny that his facts have any historical basis.

Among partition-theories may be classed that of Renan, who considers that the history of the Fourth Gospel is more accurate than that of the Synoptics, and that it was probably derived from the Apostle John by one of his disciples; but he slights the discourses as tedious and almost entirely fictitious. Wendt, on the other hand, holds that a ‘third main original source’ of the Gospels—in addition to the Logia of Matthew and the original Mark—is to be found in the groundwork of the discourses of the Fourth Gospel, whilst the historical framework came from another hand and is less trustworthy. Ewald held that St. John composed the Gospel with the aid of friends and disciples whose pens are discernible in the body of the work, whilst the 21st chapter is entirely theirs, though written with the Apostle’s sanction and before his death. Dr. E.A. Abbott holds that John the son of Zebedee was the author of the Gospel, but not in its present shape. He says that viewed as history the document must be analyzed so as to ‘separate fact from not-fact,’ but that it has considerable value in correcting impressions derived from the Synoptic Gospels, whilst the spiritual significance of the Gospel is exceedingly high. Harnack attributes the authorship to ‘John the Elder’ of Ephesus, a disciple of the Apostle, who has incorporated in his work some of his teacher’s reminiscences, so that it might be styled ‘Gospel of John the Elder according to John the Son of Zebedee.’ He holds that the Gospel, the three Epistles and the Apocalypse in its latest, i.e. its Christian, form, were all written by John the Elder in Asia about A.D. 100. Bousset ascribes the Gospel to a disciple of this John, who had access to traditional knowledge concerning Christ’s Judgœn ministry which enabled him in some respects to correct and to supplement the Synoptic accounts. Schmiedel, on the other hand, considers that the Gospel cannot be the work of any eye-witness, Apostolic or non-Apostolic, and that it was not meant to record actual history. The author is ‘a great and eminent soul,’ in whom the tendencies of his time (about A.D. 120) are brought to focus; and he finds in the Gospel ‘the ripest fruit of primitive

Christianity—at the same time the furthest removed from the original form.’

The mention of ‘John the Elder’ brings to view the only definite alternative theory of authorship that has gained much support. It is based upon a much discussed passage from Papias, preserved for us by Eusebius (HE iii. 39), of which the following sentence is the most important: ‘If, then, any one came who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.’ Upon this foundation the hypothesis has been set up that the John who at the end of the 1st cent. gained such a position of influence in Ephesus was not the Apostle, but a presbyter of the same name. It follows that Irenæus totally misunderstood Polycarp when he claimed to have heard ‘John,’ imagining that he meant the Apostle; and moreover, that Polycrates was mistaken in his reference to the Apostle’s residence in Ephesus; and further, that Clement of Alexandria and the whole Church of the 2nd cent. were similarly misled. ‘John the Elder’ is at best a shadowy personage. Dr. Salmon contended that he had no real existence, but that Papias in the extract names the Apostle John twice over, though through his ‘slovenliness of composition’ it might seem as if two distinct persons were intended. It would appear, however, to be fairly established that a second John, known as ‘the Presbyter,’ was recognized by Papias, and perhaps by Eusebius, but he is an obscure figure; history is almost entirely silent about him, and there is no proof that he was ever in Asia at all. It is hard to believe that such a person was really the author of a book which so boldly challenged and so seriously modified evangelical tradition, and that, by an inexplicable mistake which arose within the living memory of persons actually concerned, his personality was confused with that of one of the inner circle of the twelve Apostles of the Lord.

5. Summary and Conclusion.—It will be seen that some approximation has taken place between the views of those who have defended and those who have assailed the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospel, since the middle of the last century. It is fairly agreed that the date of its composition must be fixed somewhere between A.D. 90 and 110. It is further agreed by a large majority of moderate critics that the Gospel contains historical elements of great value, which must have come from an eye-witness. These are independent of all the sources upon which the Synoptists had drawn, and they enable us in many important particulars to supplement the earlier narratives. It is admitted, further, that the discourses at least contain valuable original material which may have come from John the Apostle, though many contend that this has been

so ‘worked over’ by a later hand that its general complexion has been altered. On the other hand, it is admitted by many who maintain the Johannine authorship, that the Apostle must have written the Gospel in advanced age, that he may have been aided by others, that he has cast his reminiscences into a characteristic form determined by the working of a mind saturated with the teaching of Christ but retaining its own individuality, and that he was of necessity largely influenced by the conditions of the time in which he wrote.

It is not pretended that the measure of approximation thus reached amounts to agreement. The difference in time between A.D. 90 and 110 may appear slight, but the earlier date admits the possibility of Apostolic authorship, and the later does not. The agreement to recognize elements of value in the historical portion of the Gospel is important, but it does not extend to the admission of the possibility that one who had himself witnessed with his own eyes the signs and mighty works that Jesus wrought, did also at the close of his life record with substantial accuracy what he had heard and seen, so that readers of to-day may be assured that they are studying history and not a work of pious Imagination. The deep chasm remains practically unbridged which separates those, on the one hand, who hold that the view of the Person and work of Christ taken in the Fourth Gospel can claim the authority of an eye-witness, one of ‘the men who companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,’ and, on the other, those who hold that the document contains a ‘developed’ and practically unhistorical representation of facts, devised to support a doctrinal position which belongs essentially not to the first, but to the fourth generation of primitive Christians.

This distinction is deep and vital. It need not be exaggerated, as if such representative scholars as Harnack and Schürer on one side, and Sanday and Drummond on the other, are fundamentally antagonistic in their views of Christianity. But the distinction should not be minimized, for a deep doctrinal difference is often tacitly implied by it. John the Presbyter may seem to be removed by but a hair’s breadth from John the Apostle at whose feet he sat, but it is a question of vital importance to the Christian faith of to-day whether, when we read the first and the eighth and the fourteenth chapters of the Fourth Gospel, we are listening to the voice of an Apostle recalling the memories of years long past and recording them in a form suited to strengthen the belief of his own and succeeding times, or to a developed doctrinal manifesto of the early 2nd cent., in which are included a few reminiscences derived from the lips of an aged Apostle before he passed away from earth. The difference thus indicated can with difficulty be removed, because it depends upon a still deeper difference in the mode of viewing Christian origins. The point really at issue between two classes of scholars and critics is this—Did the facts and events, a selected record of which is contained in the Fourth Gospel, take place substantially as described, or has a reconstruction of the original tradition been effected, in all good faith, for dogmatic purposes? Is the picture of the unique Person here described a faithful reflexion of a Divine Reality, or has the comparatively distant remembrance of a true prophet been sublimated into the portrayal of such a Being as never actually lived and spoke on earth?

A spiritual Gospel must be spiritually discerned. External evidence is most important in its place, and in this instance the testimony which assigns the Gospel to the Apostle John is early, wide-spread, explicit, and practically unchallenged in the early Church. Internal evidences, again, are most valuable, and the claims directly and indirectly made by the writer have been briefly described in this article, and the lines along which a vindication of those claims may be established have been indicated. Also, in determining a disputed question of authorship, alternative theories should be compared and their relative probability estimated. Accordingly, it has here been contended that the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of Johannine authorship, though some difficulties involved in that hypothesis have not been denied, and the possibility of co-operation on the part of John’s disciples in Ephesus has not been excluded. But ‘evidences’ cannot prove spiritual truth, and the ultimate criterion between different views of this Gospel is practically furnished by the writer’s own words, ‘These are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.’ Those who hold such views of God, of Jesus Christ, of history, and of the Christian religion, as to be able to accept the view that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God, the Word of God Incarnate, who wrought works that never man wrought and spoke words such as mere man never spake, who died for our sins and rose again from the dead and lives now to impart the gift of that Spirit whom He promised—will find little difficulty in accepting the statement that John the Apostle who saw the things recorded in the Gospel ‘hath borne witness, and his witness is true.’ Those to whom such statements are on other grounds quite incredible, and who ascribe them not to the religion of Jesus and His first disciples, but to the dogma of a period which had advanced beyond the teaching of Paul to a point which is characteristic of the 2nd cent., will naturally adopt any theory of authorship that the case allows rather than admit that the Fourth Gospel was written by the son of Zebedee. Absolute demonstration is from the nature of the case impossible, but it may fairly be said that the external and internal evidences combined are such as would in any ordinary case, and apart from all doctrinal prepossessions, be considered strong, if not conclusive, in favour of the Johannine authorship of the Gospel. It may be said in closing that the conditions of current opinion have made it necessary to devote this article almost entirely to the discussion of the question of authorship. But the contents and nature of the Gospel have incidentally been brought somewhat fully into view, and an outline of its theological teaching will be found in a subsequent article.—JOHN THEOLOGY OF].

W. T. DAVISON.

JOHN, EPISTLES OF.—The three Epistles known by this name have from the beginning been attributed to the Apostle John, and were admitted as canonical in the 3rd century. Some points of obvious similarity in style and diction indicate a connexion between them, but their internal character and the external evidence in their favour are so different that it will be convenient to deal with them separately. I. FIRST EPISTLE

1. Authorship, Genuineness, etc.—The Epistle ranked from the first among the

Homologoumena, and the testimony in favour of its authenticity is early, varied, and explicit. Its great similarity to the Fourth Gospel in phraseology and general characteristics made it natural to attribute the two documents to the same author; and few questions, or none, were raised upon the subject till comparatively recent years. A very small number of eminent critics at present dispute the identity of authorship.

(1) So far as external evidence is concerned, Polycarp, writing about A.D. 115 to the Philippians, quotes the words, ‘For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist,’ with evident allusion to 1 Jn 4:3, though the author is not named. Polycarp was a disciple of John, as his own disciple Irenæus informs us. Eusebius several times refers to this Epistle, saying (HE v. 20) that Papias used it and (v. 8) that Irenæus made free use of it. The passages 1 Jn 2:18 and 5:1 are expressly attributed by Irenæus to the Apostle. According to the Muratorian Canon, Epistle and Gospel were closely associated: ‘What wonder that John makes so many references to the Fourth Gospel in his Epistle, saying of himself’—and then follows a quotation of 1 Jn 1:1. Clement of Alexandria at the close of the 2nd cent. quotes 516 as the words of ‘John in his larger Epistle.’ Tertullian quotes the language of 1:1 as that of the Apostle John, and Origen definitely refers the words of 3:8 to ‘John in his catholic Epistle.’ All the ancient versions include the Epistle among those canonically recognized, including the Peshitta and the Old Latin. The only exceptions to this practically universal recognition of its genuineness and authenticity are the unbelievers vaguely called Alogi, because they rejected the doctrine of the Logos, and Marcion, who accepted no books of NT except St. Luke’s Gospel and St. Paul’s Epistles. So far as external testimony is concerned, the early recognition of the Epistle as written by St. John is conclusively established.

(2) The similarily of diction between Gospel and Epistle is so close that it cannot be accidental, and it cannot escape the notice of the most superficial reader. The repeated use, in a characteristic way, of such cardinal words as Life, Love, Truth, Light, and Darkness; the recurrence of phrases which in both documents figure as watchwords,—‘to be of the truth,’ ‘of the devil,’ ‘of the world’; ‘the only begotten Son,’ ‘the Word,’ ‘knowing God,’ ‘walking in the light,’ ‘overcoming the world,’ and the special use of the word ‘believe,’ speak for themselves. The use of literary parallels always requires care; but in this case the similarity is so close as incontestably to establish a connexion between the two documents, whilst the handling of the same vocabulary is so free as irresistibly to suggest, not that the writer of the Gospel borrowed from the Epistle, or vice versa, but that the two writings proceed from the same hand. If this is so, the genuineness of each is doubly attested.

Jos. Scaliger in the 16th cent. was practically the first to challenge the genuineness of all three Epistles, but not until the time of Baur and the Tübingen school of critics in the last century was a sustained attack made upon them. Since that time there have never been wanting critics who have denied the Johannine authorship of the First Epistle. Some contend that Gospel and Epistle proceed from the same author, who, however, was not the Apostle John, but John the Presbyter or some later writer. The view taken by Holtzmann, Schmiedel, and some others is that the two documents come from different writers who belong to the same general school of thought.

The chief ground of the objections raised against the Johannine authorship of the First Epistle is the alleged presence of references to heretical modes of thought which belong to a later age. Docetism, Gnosticism, and even Montanism are, it is said, directly or indirectly rebuked, and these forms of error do not belong to the Apostolic period. The reply is threefold, (a) Those who ascribe the Epistle to John the Apostle do not date it before the last decade of the 1st cent., when the Apostolic age was passing into the sub-Apostolic. (b) No references to full-grown

Gnosticism and other errors as they were known in the middle of the 2nd cent. can here be found. But (c) it can be shown from other sources that the germs of these heresies, the general tendencies which resulted afterwards in fully developed systems, existed in the Church for at least a generation before the period in question, and at the time named were both rife and mischievous.

The points chiefly insisted on are: the doctrine of the Lagos; the form of the rebuke given to the antichrists; the references to ‘knowledge’ and ‘anointing’; the insistence upon the coming of Christ in the flesh, in condemnation of Docetic error; the distinction between mortal and venial sins; and some minor objections. In reply, it may he said that none of these is definite or explicit enough to require a later date than A.D. 100. The Epistle is indeed indirectly polemic in its character. While constructive in thought, the passing references made in it to opponents of the truth are strong enough to make it clear that the opposition was active and dangerous. But there is nothing to show that any of those condemned as enemies of Christ had more fully developed tendencies than, for example, Cerinthus is known to have manifested in his Christology at the end of the 1st century. Judaizing Gnosticism had appeared much earlier than this, as is evidenced by the Epistles to the Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles. The use of the words ‘Paraclete’ (2:1) and ‘propitiation’ (2:2), and the way in which the coming of Christ is mentioned in 2:28, have also been brought forward as proofs of divergence from the teaching of the Gospel, on very slender and unconvincing grounds.

2. Place and Date.—Whilst very little evidence is forthcoming to enable us to fix exactly either of these, the general consensus of testimony points very decidedly to Ephesus during the last few years of the 1st century. Irenæus (adv. Hær. iii. 1) testifies to the production of the Gospel by St. John during his residence in Asia, and the probability is that the Epistle was written after the Gospel, and is. chronologically perhaps the very latest of the books of the NT. If, as some maintain, it was written before the Gospel. it cannot be placed much earlier. The determination of this question is bound up with the authorship and date of the Apocalypse,—a subject which is discussed elsewhere. (See REVELATION [BOOK OF]).

3. Form and Destination—This document has some of the characteristics of a letter, and in some respects it is more like a theological treatise or homiletical essay. It may best be described as an Encyclical or Pastoral Epistle. It was addressed to a circle of readers, as is shown by the words, ‘I write unto you,’ ‘beloved,’ and ‘little children,’ but it was not restricted to any particular church, nor does it contain any specific personal messages. The term ‘catholic epistle’ was used from very early times to indicate this form of composition, but in all probability the churches of Asia Minor were kept more especially in view by the writer when he penned words which were in many respects suitable for the Church of Christ at large. A reference in Augustine to 3:2 as taken from John’s ‘Epistle to the Parthians’ has given rise to much conjecture, but the title has seldom been taken seriously in its literal meaning. It is quite possible that there is some mistake in the text of the passage (Quæsœ. Evang. ii. 39).

4. Outline and Contents.—Whether Gospel or Epistle was written first, the relation between the two is perfectly clear. In both the Apostle writes for edification, but in the Gospel the foundations of Christian faith and doctrine are shown to lie in history; in the Epistle the effects of belief are traced out in practice. In both the same great central truths are exhibited, in the same form and almost in the same words; but in the Gospel they are traced to their fount and origin; in the Epistle they are followed out to their only legitimate issues in the spirit and conduct of Christians in the world. So far as there is a difference in the presentation of truth, it may perhaps be expressed in Bishop Westcott’s words: ‘The theme of the Epistle is, the Christ is Jesus; the theme of the Gospel is, Jesus is the Christ.’ Or, as he says in another place: ‘The substance of the Gospel is a commentary on the Epistle: the Epistle is (so to speak) the condensed moral and practical application of the Gospel.’

The style is simple, but baffling in its very simplicity. The sentences are easy for a child to read, their meaning is difficult for a wise man fully to analyze. So with the sequence of thought. Each statement follows very naturally upon the preceding, but when the relation of paragraphs is to be explained, and the plan or structure of the whole composition is to be described, systematization becomes difficult, if not impossible. Logical analysis is not. however, always the best mode of exposition, and if the writer has not consciously mapped out into exact subdivisions the ground he covers, he follows out to their issues two or three leading thoughts which he keeps consistently in view throughout. The theme is fellowship with the Father and the Son, realized in love of the brethren. Farrar divides the whole into three sections, with the headings,’ God is light,’ ‘God is righteous,’ ‘God is love.’ Plummer reduces these to two, omitting the second. With some such general clue to guide him, the reader will not go far astray in interpreting the thought of the Epistle, and its outline might be arranged as follows:—

Introduction: The life of fellowship that issues from knowledge of the gospel (1:1–4).

i. GOD IS LIGHT. The believer’s walk with God in light (1:5–10); sin and its remedy (2:1–6); the life

of obedience (2:7–17): fidelity amidst defection (2:18–29).

ii. GOD IS RIGHTEOUS LOVE. True sonship of God manifested in brotherly love (3:1–12). Brotherhood

in Christ a test of allegiance and a ground of assurance (3:13–24). The spirits of Truth and Error (4:1–6). The manifestation of God as Love the source and inspiration of all loving service (4:7–21). The victory of faith in Love Incarnate (5:1–12).

Conclusion: The assured enjoyment of Life Eternal (5:13–21).

Such an outline is not, however, a sufficient guide to the contents of the Epistle, and a very different arrangement might be justified. The writer does not, however, as has been asserted, ‘ramble without method,’ nor is the Epistle a ‘shapeless mass.’ The progress discernible in it is not the straightforward march of the logician who proceeds by ordered steps from premises to a foreseen conclusion: it is rather the ascent by spiral curves of the meditative thinker. St. John is here no dreamer; more practical instruction is not to be found in St. Paul or St. James. But his exhortations do not enter into details: he is concerned with principles of conduct, the minute application of which he leaves to the individual conscience. The enunciation of principles, however, is uncompromising and very searching. His standpoint is that of the ideal Christian life, not of the effort to attain it. One who is born of God ‘cannot sin’; the ‘love of God is perfected’ in the believer, and perfect love casts out fear. The assured tone of the Epistle allows no room for doubt or hesitation or conflict one who is guided by its teaching has no need to pray. ‘Help thou my unbelief.’ The spirit of truth and the spirit of error are in sharp antagonism’ and the touchstone which distinguishes them must be resolutely applied. The ‘world,’ the ‘evil one,’ and ‘antichrist’ are to be repelled absolutely and to the uttermost; the writer and those whom he represents can say, ‘We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one.’ Bright light casts deep shadows, and the true Christian of this Epistle walks in the blaze of gospel day. One who knows the true God and has eternal life cannot but ‘guard himself from idols.’

The writer of such an Epistle is appropriately called the Apostle of love. Yet the title taken by itself is misleading. He is the Apostle equally of righteousness and of faith. He ‘loved well because he hated—hated the wickedness which hinders loving.’ There is a stern ring, implying however no harshness, about the very exhortations to love, which shows how indissolubly it is to be identified with immutable and inviolable righteousness. If to this Epistle we owe the great utterance, ‘God is Love’—here twice repeated, but found nowhere else in Scripture—to it we owe also the sublime declaration, ‘God is Light, and in him is no darkness at all.’ And the Epistle, as well as the Gospel, makes it abundantly clear that the spring of Christian love and the secret of Christian victory over evil are alike to be found in ‘believing’: in the immovable and ineradicable faith that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is come in the flesh, and that in Him the love of God to man is so manifested and assured that those who trust Him already possess eternal life, together with all that it implies of strength and joy, and all that flows from it of obedience and loving service.

Textual questions can hardly be touched upon in this article. But it is perhaps worth pointing out that whilst the corrected text restores the Utter half of 2:23, which in AV is printed in italics as doubtful, there can now be no question that the passage (5:7, 8) referring to the three witnesses in heaven, as read in AV. does not form part of the Epistle. The words are wanting in all Greek MSS except a few of exceedingly late date; nor are they found in the majority of the Greek Fathers, or in any ancient version except the Latin. They undoubtedly form a gloss which found its way into the text from Latin sources; and the insertion really breaks the connexion of thought in the paragraph.

II. THE SECOND EPISTLE.—The Second and Third Epistles of St. John are distinguished from the First by their brevity, the absence of dogmatic teaching, and their private and personal character. They are found among the Antilegomena of the early Church in their relation to the Canon: apparently not because they were unknown, or because their authorship was questioned, but because their nature made them unsuitable for use in the public worship of the Church. The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 180) refers to two Epistles of John as received in the Catholic Church, and Irenæus about the same date specifically quotes 2 Jn 10f. as coming from ‘John the disciple of the Lord.’ He also quotes v. 7 apparently as occurring in the First Epistle. Clement of Alexandria by a mention of John’s ‘larger Epistle’ shows that he was acquainted with at least one other shorter letter. Origen states that the two shorter letters were not accepted by all as genuine, but he adds that ‘both together do not contain a hundred lines.’ Dionysius of Alexandria appeals to them, adding that John’s name was not affixed to them, but that they were signed ‘the presbyter.’ They are omitted from the Peshitta Version, and Eusebius describes them as disputed by some, but in the later 4th cent. they were fully acknowledged and received into the Canon. The Second Epistle, therefore, though not universally accepted from the first, was widely recognized as Apostolic, and so short a letter of so distinctly personal a character could never have been ranked by the Church among her sacred writings except upon the understanding that it bore with it the authority of the Apostle John. The title ‘the Elder’ does not militate against this, but rather supports it. No ordinary presbyter would assume the style of the elder and write in such a tone of absolute command, whilst an anonymous writer, wishing to claim the sanction of the Apostle, would have inserted his name. But no motive for anything like forgery can in this case be alleged. The similarity in style to the First Epistle is very marked. Jerome among the Fathers, Erasmus at the time of the Reformation, and many modern critics have ascribed the Epistle to ‘John the Presbyter’ of Ephesus, but there is no early reference to such a person except the statement of Papias quoted by Eusebius and referred to in a previous article.

Much discussion has arisen concerning the person addressed. The two leading opinions are (1) that the words ‘elect lady and her children are to be understood literally of a Christian matron in Ephesus and her family; and (2) that a church personified, with its constituent members, was intended. Jerome in ancient times took the latter view, and in our own day it has been supported by scholars so different from one another as Lightfoot, Wordsworth, Hilgenfeld, and Schmiedel. It is claimed on this side that the exhortations given are more suited to a community, that ‘the children of thine elect sister’ can be understood only of a sister church, and that this mode of describing a church personified is not unusual, as in 1 P 5:13, ‘She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you.’ On the other hand, it is urged that this mystical interpretation destroys the simplicity and natural meaning of the letter (see especially vv. 5, 10), that the church being constituted of members, the distinction between the ‘lady’ and her ‘children’ would disappear, and that if the lady be a private person of influence the parallel with the form of salutation to another private person in the Third Epistle is complete. This hypothesis still leaves difficulty in the exact interpretation of the words Eklektē Kyria. Some would take both these as the proper names of the person addressed; others take the former as her name, so that she would be ‘the lady Eklektē,’ others would render ‘to the elect Kyria,’ whilst the majority accept, in spite of its indefiniteness, the translation of AV and RV. On the whole, this course is to be preferred, though the view that a church is intended not only is tenable but has much in its favour. The fact that the early churches so often gathered in a house, and that there was so strong a personal and individual element in their communitylife, makes the analogy between a primitive church and a large and influential family to be very close. Thus an ambiguity may arise which would not be possible to-day.

It remains only to say that, as in style, so in spirit, the similarity to 1 Jn. is very noticeable.

The same emphasis is laid on love, on obedience, on fellowship with the Father and the Son, and the inestimable importance of maintaining and abiding in the truth. The same strong resentment is manifested against deceivers and the antichrist, and the same intensity of feeling against unbelievers or false teachers, who are not to be received into the house of a believer, or to have any kindly greeting accorded them. Whether the Epistle was actually addressed to a private person or to a Christian community, it furnishes a most interesting picture of the life, the faith, and the dangers and temptations of the primitive Christians in Asia Minor, and it contains wholesome and uncompromising, not harsh and intolerant, exhortation, such as Christian Churches in all ages may not unprofitably lay to heart.

III. THIRD EPISTLE.—The two shorter Epistles of St. John were called by Jerome ‘twin sisters.’ They appear to have been recognized together at least from the time of Dionysius of Alexandria, and they are mentioned together by Eusebius (HE iii. 25), who refers to the Epistles ‘called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the Evangelist or to another person of the same name.’ They are found together in the Old Latin Version, are both omitted from the Pesh., and they were included together in the lists of canonical books at the end of the 4th cent. by the Council of Laodicea and the Third Council of Carthage. References to the Third Epistle and quotations from it are naturally very few. It is short, it was written to a private person, it does not discuss doctrine, and its counsels and messages are almost entirely personal. But its close relationship to the Second Epistle is very obvious, and the two form companion pictures of value from the point of view of history; and St. John’s Third Epistle, like St. Paul’s personal letter to Philemon, is not without use for general edification.

The person to whom it is addressed is quite unknown. The name Gaius (Lat. Caius) is very common, and three other persons so called are mentioned in NT, viz., Galus of Corinth (1 Co 1:14; cf. Ro 16:23); Gaius of Derbe (Ac 20:4); and Galus of Macedonia (Ac 19:29). A bishop of Pergamos, appointed by the Apostle John and mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, was also called Gaius, and some critics are disposed to identify him with St. John’s correspondent. This is, however, a mere conjecture, and the letter is addressed, not to a church official, but to a private layman, apparently of some wealth and influence. It is written in a free and natural style, and deals with the case of some of those travelling evangelists who figured so prominently in the primitive Church, and to whom reference is made in the Didache and elsewhere. Some of these, perhaps commissioned by John himself, had visited the Church to which Gaius belonged, had been hospitably entertained by him, and helped forward on their journey, probably with material assistance. But Diotrephes—an official of the church, perhaps its ‘bishop’ or a leading elder— who loved power, asserted himself arrogantly, and was disposed to resist the Apostle’s authority. He declined to receive these worthy men who at their own charges were preaching the gospel in the district. He also stirred up feeling against them, and at least threatened to excommunicate any members of the church who entertained them. The evil example of Diotrephes is held up for condemnation, whilst in contrast to him, a certain Demetrius is praised, whose reputation in the Church was excellent, who had won the confidence of the Apostle, and—higher commendation still—had ‘the witness of the truth itself.’ Tried by the strictest and most searching test of all, the sterling metal of Demetrius’ character rang true. Full information is not given us as to all the circumstances of the case. Probably Diotrephes was not wholly to be blamed. It was quite necessary, as the Didache shows us, to inquire carefully into the character of these itinerant preachers. Some of them were mercenary in their aims, and the conflict of opinion in this instance may have had some connexion with the current controversies between Jewish and Gentile Christians. But it is the spirit of Diotrephes that is blameworthy, and the little picture here drawn of primitive ecclesiastical communities with their flaws and their excellences, their worthy members and ambitious officers, their generous hosts and kindly helpers, and the absent Apostle who bears the care of all the churches and is about to pay to this one a visit of fatherly and friendly inspection, is full of interest and instruction.

We have no information as to the time at which, or the places from and to which, these brief letters were written. They rank, with the Gospel and the First Epistle of St. John, as among the latest documents in the NT.

W. T. DAVISON.

JOHN, THEOLOGY OF.—It is the object of this article to give a brief account of St. John’s teaching as contained in his Gospel and Epistles. Without prejudging in any way the authorship of the Apocalypse, it will be more convenient that the doctrine of that book should be considered separately. Enough if it be said here that, despite the obvious and very striking difference in the form and style of the book, the underlying similarities between it and those to be now considered are no less remarkable. Careful students, not blinded by the symbolism and other peculiarities of the Revelation, who have concentrated attention upon its main ideas and principles, have come to the conclusion that if it did not proceed from the same pen that wrote the Gospel and Epistles, it belongs to the same school of Christian thought. See REVELATION

[BOOK OF].

1. Some general characteristics of the teaching of St. John.—(1) It was not in vain that the designation ‘the theologian’ was given to him, as in the title of the Apocalypse and elsewhere. The word means in this connexion that it was St. John’s habit to consider every subject from the point of view of the Divine. Not only is God to him the most real of all beings—that should be true of every religious man—but all the details of his very practical teaching are traced up to their origin in the nature and will of God. The opening of his Gospel is characteristic. History is viewed from the standpoint of eternity, the life of Jesus is to be narrated not from the point of view of mere human observation, but as a temporal manifestation of eternal realities.—(2) But it must not for a moment be understood that the treatment of human affairs is vague, abstract, unreal. St. John has a firm hold upon the concrete, and his insight into the actual life and needs of men is penetrating and profound. He is not analytical as St. Paul is, nor does he deal with individual virtues and vices as does St. James. But in the unity and simplicity of a few great principles he reaches to the very heart of things. His method is often described as intuitive, contemplative, mystical. The use of these epithets may be justified, but it would be misleading to suppose that a teacher who views life from so high a vantage-ground sees less than others. The higher you climb up the mountain the farther you can see. Those who contrast the spiritual with the practical create a false antithesis. The spiritual teacher, and he alone, can perceive and deal with human nature, not according to its superficial appearances, but as it really is at its very core.—(3) Only it must not be forgotten that the view thus taken of nature and conduct is ideal, absolute, uncompromising. The moral dualism which is characteristic of St. John is in accordance with the sentence from the great Judgment-seat. Light and darkness—good and evil—truth and falsehood—life and death—these are brought into sharp and relentless contrast. Half-tones, delicate distinctions, the subtle and gradual fining down of principles in the complex working of motives in human life, disappear in the blaze of light which St. John causes to stream in from another world. ‘He that is begotten of God cannot sin’ (1 Jn 3:9); he that ‘denieth the Son hath not the Father’ (2:23); ‘we are of God, the whole world lieth in the evil one’ (5:19). Such a mode of regarding life is not unreal, if only its point of view be borne in mind. In the drama of human society the sudden introduction of these absolute and irreconcilable principles of judgment would be destructive of distinctions which have an importance of their own, but the forces, as St. John describes them, are actually at work, and one day their fundamental and inalienable character will be made plain.—(4) Another feature of St. John’s style and method which arrests attention at once is his characteristic use of certain words and phrases—‘witness’ (47 times), ‘truth,’ ‘signs,’ ‘world’ (78 times), ‘eternal life,’ ‘know’ (55), ‘believe’ (98), ‘glory,’ ‘judgment,’ are but specimens of many. They indicate a unity of thought and system in the writer which finds no precise parallel elsewhere in Scripture, the nearest approach, perhaps, being in the characteristic phraseology of Deuteronomy in the OT. St. John is not systematic in the sense of presenting his readers with carefully ordered reasoning—a progressive argument compacted by links of logical demonstration. He sees life whole, and presents it as a whole. But all that belongs to human life falls within categories which, from the outset, are very clear and definite to his own mind. The Gospel is carefully constructed as an artistic whole, the First Epistle is not. But all the thoughts in both are presented in a setting prepared by the definite ideas of the writer. The molten metal of Christian thought and feeling has taken shape in the mould of a strikingly individual mind: the crystallization of the ideas is his work, and there is consequently a unity and system about his presentation of them which may be described as distinctly Johannine. The truth he taught was gained direct from the Master, and its form largely so. But in describing the teaching we shall use the name of the disciple.

2. The doctrine of God which underlies these books is as sublime in its lofty monotheism as it is distinctively ‘Christian’ in its manifestation and unfolding. No writer of Scripture insists more strongly upon the unity and absoluteness of the only God (Jn 5:44), ‘the only true God’ (17:3), whom ‘no man hath seen at any time’ (1:18); yet none more completely recognizes the eternal Sonship of the Son, the fulness of the Godhead seen in Christ, the personality and Divine offices of the Holy Spirit. It is to St. John that we owe the three great utterances, ‘God is Spirit’ (Jn 4:24), ‘God is Light’ (1 Jn 1:5), ‘God is Love’ (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

The deductions drawn from the doctrine of the spirituality of God show the importance of its practical aspects. God as Spirit is not remote from men, but this conception of His essence brings Him, though invisible, nearer to men than ever. God as Light exhibits Himself to us as truth, holiness, and righteousness. Some interpreters understand the phrase as designating the metaphysical being of God, others His self-revelation and self-impartation. The context, however, points rather to the ineffable purity of His nature and the need of holiness in those who profess to hold fellowship with Him. That God is loving unto every man, or at least to Israel, was no new doctrine when John taught; but up to that time none had ever pronounced the words in their profound simplicity—‘God is Love.’ John himself could never have conceived the thought; he learned it from his Master. But if the form in which he expressed it is accurate—and what Christian can question it?—, it ‘makes one thing of all theology.’ Love is not so much an attribute of God as a name for Himself in the intimate and changeless essence of His being. That there is the slightest inconsistency between the Divine love and the Divine righteousness is incredible; but if God is love, no manifestation of God’s justice can ever contradict this quintessential principle of His inmost nature. Again, the words that follow the statement show that in the Apostle’s mind the practical aspects of the doctrine were prominent. Contemplation with him does not mean speculation. Abstract a priori deductions from a theologonmenon are not in St. John’s thought: his conclusions are, ‘He that loveth not knoweth not God’ (1 Jn 4:8), ‘We also ought to love one another’ (v. 11). Nor does this high teaching exclude careful discrimination. The love of the Father to the Son, His love to the world as the basis of all salvation, the closer sympathy and fellowship which He grants to believers as His own children, are not confused with one another. But the statement that God is love goes behind all these for the moment, and teaches that the principle of self-impartation is essential, energetic, and ever operating in the Divine nature, and that it is in itself the source of all life, all purifying energy, and all that love which constitutes at the same time the binding and the motive power of the whole universe.

3. The Logos.—The object for which the Gospel was written, we are told, was that men might believe that Jesus was not only the Christ, but also the Son of God. The former belief would not necessarily change their views of the Godhead; the latter, if intelligently held and interpreted in the light of Thomas’ confession (for instance), would undoubtedly affect in some direction the intense monotheism of one who was born and bred a Jew. Was it possible to believe that in Jesus God Himself was incarnate, and at the same time to believe completely and ardently in the unity of God? The answer of the writer is given substantially in the Prologue, in the doctrine of the Eternal Word. It is unnecessary to discuss in detail whence John derived the word

Logos: the doctrine was practically his own. There can be little question that the Memra of the Targums, based on the usage of such passages as Ps 33:6, 147:15, and Is 55:11, formed the foundation of the idea, and it is tolerably certain that the connotation attaching to the word had been modified by Philo’s use of it. It does not follow, however, that St. John uses the word either as the Psalmist did, or as the paraphrast or the Alexandrian philosopher employed it. Taking a word which his hearers and readers understood, he put his own stamp upon it. Philo and St. John both drew from Hebrew sources. Philo employed an expression which suited his philosophy because of its meaning ‘reason,’ and it was employed by him mainly in a metaphysical sense. St. John, however, availed himself of another meaning of the Greek word Logos, and he emphasizes the Divine ‘utterance,’ which reveals the mind and will of God Himself, giving a personal and historical interpretation to the phrase. The Word, according to the teaching of the Prologue, is Eternal, Divine, the Mediator of creation, the Light of mankind throughout history; and in the latter days the Word made flesh, tabernacling amongst men, is the Only-begotten from the Father full of grace and truth. This cardinal doctrine once laid down, there is no further reference to it in the Gospel, and in the only other places in NT where a similar expression is used (1 Jn 1:1 and Rev 19:13) it is employed with a difference. Even in the Prologue the conception of the Word is not abstract and philosophical, but when the introduction to the Gospel is finished, the idea never appears again; the narrative of the only Son, revealing for the first time the Father in all His fulness, proceeds as if no account of the Logos had been given. When the basis of the Gospel story has been laid in a deep doctrine of the Eternal Godhead, the idea has done its work, and in the actual narrative it is discarded accordingly. The Christology of St. John would be quite incomplete without his doctrine of the Logos, but it is not dependent on this. Christ’s unique Personality as Son of God may be fully known from His life on earth, but the Prologue gives to the narrative of His ministry in the flesh a background of history and of eternity. In all ages the Logos was the medium of Divine revelation, as He had been of creation itself, and of the Godhead before the world was. Pre-temporal existence and pre-incarnate operation having been described with sublime brevity, the Evangelist proceeds calmly with the story to which this forms an august introduction. See also art. LOGOS.

4. The Fatherhood of God, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.—It is unnecessary to point out how influential the Prologue has been in the history of Christian thought, but it is well to remember also that to St. John more than to any other writer we owe the development of the Christian doctrine of the Godhead, as modified by the above cardinal conceptions. The doctrines of the Fatherhood of God and of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person do not indeed depend upon the witness of St. John. The Synoptists and St. Paul, not to speak of other NT writers, would furnish a perfectly adequate basis for these vital truths of Christian faith. But neither would have influenced Christian thought so profoundly, and neither would have been so clearly understood, without St. John’s teaching and Christ’s words as reported by him. The meaning of the term ‘Son of God’ as applied to Jesus is brought to light by the Fourth Gospel. Without it we might well have failed to gain an adequate conception of Fatherhood and Sonship as eternal elements in the Divine nature, and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son Incarnate is brought out in the fifth and other chapters of the Gospel as nowhere else. So with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The whole of Scripture bears its testimony. Even in the OT more is said of the Spirit of God than is often recognized, and the teaching of St. Paul and St. Luke is full of instruction. But without the farewell discourses of Christ to His Apostles as recorded in Jn 14– 16, our ideas of His Person and office would be comparatively meagre. The very term

‘Paraclete,’ not found outside the Gospel and 1 Ep., is itself a revelation. The personality of the Spirit and His distinctness from the Father and the Son, whilst Himself one with them, are elucidated with great clearness in these chapters. On the other hand, in his Epistle, St. John has much less to say than St. Paul of the Spirit in relation to the life of the believer.

5. On the subjects of sin and salvation, St. John’s teaching harmonizes fully with that of the

NT generally, whilst he maintains an individual note of his own, and brings out certain aspects of Christ’s teaching as none of the Synoptists does. To him we owe the definition, ‘sin is lawlessness’ (1 Jn 3:4). He describes sin in the singular as a principle, rather than actual sins in the concrete. No dark lists enumerating the Protean forms of sin, such as are found in St. Paul, occur in St. John, but he emphasizes with tremendous power the contrast between flesh and spirit, between light and darkness. The perennial conflict between these is hinted at in the Prologue, and it is terribly manifest alike in the ministry of the Saviour and in the life of the Christian in the world. To St. John’s writings chiefly we owe the idea of ‘the world as a dark and dire enemy,’ vague and shadowy in outline, but most formidable in its opposition to the love of the Father and the light of the life of sonship. The shades of meaning in which ‘world’ is employed vary (see 8:23, 12:31, 17:14, 25, 18:36 and 1 Jn 2:15, 16). The existence of evil spirits and their connexion with the sin of man are dwelt on by St. John in his own way. He does not dwell on the phenomena of demoniacal possession, but he has much to say of ‘the devil’ or ‘the evil one’ as a personal embodiment of the principle and power of evil. Upon his doctrine of Antichrist and ‘the sin unto death’ we cannot now dwell.

Potent as are the forces of evil, perfect conquest over them may be gained. The victory has already been virtually won by Christ as the all-sufficient Saviour, who as Son of God was manifested that He might undo or annul the works of the devil (1 Jn 3:8). His object was not to condemn the world, but to save it (3:17). That the Cross of Christ was the centre of His work, and His death the means through which eternal life was obtained for men, is made abundantly clear from several different points of view. John the Baptist points to the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (1:29). The Son of Man is to be ‘lifted up’ like the serpent in the wilderness (3:14), and will draw all men unto Himself (12:32). He gives His flesh for the life of the world (6:51). Only those who ‘eat his flesh’ and ‘drink his blood’ have eternal life (6:53–56). He is the propitiation for the sins of the world (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10), and it is His blood that cleanses from all sin those who walk in the light and have fellowship with the Father and the Son (1 Jn 1:7). St. John dwells but little on the legal aspects of sin and atonement; his doctrine on these matters is characteristic, confirming, whilst in supplements, the doctrines of St. Paul concerning justification and sanctification. What Paul describes as entire sanctification John eulogizes as perfect love—two names for the same full salvation, two paths to the same consummate goal.

It is most instructive to compare St. Paul and St. John in their references to faith and love. No student of these two great twin brethren in Christ could decide which of them deserves to be called the Apostle of faith, or which the Apostle of love. St. John uses the word ‘faith’ only once (1 Jn 5:4), but the verb ‘believe’ occurs nearly 200 times in his writings, and his usage of it is more plastic and versatile than that of St. Paul or the writer of Hebrews. Again, if the word ‘love’ occurs much more frequently in St. John, he has composed no such hymn in its honour as is found in 1 Co 13. The light he exhibits as a simple white ray St. Paul disperses into all the colours of the rainbow. The shades of meaning in St. John’s use of the word ‘believe’ and his delicate distinction between two Greek words for ‘love’ deserve careful study.

6. The true believer in Christ enters upon a new life. The nature of this life is fully unfolded in St. John’s writings, in terms which show an essential agreement with other parts of NT, but which are at the same time distinctively his own. The doctrine of the New Birth is one example of this. The Gospel gives a full account of the discourse of Christ with Nicodemus on this subject, but both Gospel and Epistle contain many of the Apostle’s own statements, which show no slavish imitation on his part either of the words of the Master or of Paul, but present his own views as a Christian teacher consistently worked out. In the Prologue the contrast between natural birth ‘of blood, of the will of the flesh, of the will of man,’ and the being spiritually ‘born of God,’ is very marked. Those whose life has been thus renewed are described as ‘having the right to become children of God,’ and the condition is the ‘receiving’ or ‘believing on the name’ of Him who, as Word of God, had come into the world. The phrase used for the most part in Jn 3 and in 1 Jn. is ‘begotten again’ or ‘anew’ or ‘from above.’ The word ‘begotten,’ not employed thus by other NT writers, lays stress on the primary origin of the new life, not so much on its changed character. Two participles are employed in Greek, one of which emphasizes the initial act, the other the resulting state. But all the passages, including especially 1 Jn 2:29, 3:9, 5:1, 18 , draw a very sharp contrast between the new life which the believer in Christ enjoys and the natural life of the ordinary man. He to whom the new life has been imparted is a new being. He ‘doeth righteousness,’ he ‘does not commit sin,’ he ‘cannot sin,’ because he has been begotten of God and ‘his seed abideth in him.’ Love and knowledge are marks of this new begetting, and the new life is given to ‘whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ.’ Some difficulty attaches to the interpretation of one clause in 1 Jn 5:18, but it is clear from that verse that he who enjoys the new life ‘doth not sin,’ and that ‘the evil one toucheth him not.’ The change is mysterious, but very real, and the term used by St. John to indicate this relation—‘children,’ instead of ‘sons’ as is usual with St. Paul—lays stress upon the close and intimate personal bond thus created, rather than upon the status and privileges of sonship. St. John, as we might expect, emphasizes the vital, not the legal, element; believers are not merely called children, ‘such we are’ (1 Jn 3:1, 2) and cannot be otherwise. When new life has actually been infused, it must manifest its characteristic qualities.

The nature of the Christian’s vital union with God in Christ is illustrated from different points of view. Our Lord’s allegory—not parable—of the Vine and the Branches is full of instruction, but no analogy drawn from vegetable life suffices adequately to describe the fellowship between Christ and His disciples; this is rather to be moulded after the pattern of the spiritual fellowship between the Father and the Son (Jn 15:9, 17:21–23); and the terms

‘communion’ and ‘abiding’ are strongly characteristic of the First Epistle (1:3, 2:6, 27, 28, 3:24 , 4:12 etc.). The strong phrases of Jn 6, ‘eating the flesh’ and ‘drinking the blood’ of Christ, are employed, partly to express the extreme closeness of the appropriation of Christ Himself by the believer, partly to emphasize the benefits of His sacrificial work, as the faithful receive in the Lord’s Supper the symbols of His broken body and blood poured out for men.

Lest, however, what might be called the mystical element in John’s theology should be exaggerated, it is well to note that the balance is redressed by the stress laid upon love in its most practical forms. Love of the world—that is, the bestowal of supreme regard upon the passing attractions of things outward and visible—is absolutely inconsistent with real love to the Father and real life in Christ (1 Jn 2:15–17). Similarly strong language is used as regards social relationships and the love of others; for the word ‘brother’ must not be narrowed down to mean exclusively those who belong to the Christian communion. No man whose life in relation to men is not actuated by love can be said to walk in the light (1 Jn 2:9, 10); hatred is murder (3:12, 15) ; willingness to help another in need is a test of true love, nominal and professed affection will not suffice (3:17, 18); a man who professes to love God and does not manifest a spirit of loving helpfulness adds falsehood to his other sins—‘he is a liar’ (4:20). The frequent repetition of some of these phrases and their interchange with others, such as ‘doing righteousness,’ ‘walking in the truth,’ ‘being in the light,’ ‘abiding in him,’ ‘God abiding in us,’ and the like, show that St. John is dealing with the very central core of spiritual life, and that for him, as for St. Paul, it is true that ‘he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law … for love is the fulfilment of the law.’

No more comprehensive phrase, however, to describe in brief the blessings of the gospel is to be found in St. John’s theology than ‘eternal life.’ It occurs 17 times in the Gospel and 6 times in the First Epistle, while ‘life’ with substantially the same meaning is found much more frequently. ‘Life’ means for St. John that fulness of possession and enjoyment which alone realizes the great ends for which existence has been given to men, and it is to be realized only in the fulfilment of the highest human ideals through union with God in Christ. Eternal ‘life’ means this rich existence in perpetuity; sometimes it includes immortality, sometimes it distinctly refers to that which may be enjoyed here and now. In the latter case it is not unlike what is called in 1 Ti 6:19 ‘the life which is life indeed.’ It is defined in Jn 17:3 as consisting in the knowledge of God and Christ, where knowledge must certainly imply not a mere intellectual acquaintance, but a practical attainment in experience, including a state of heart and will as well as of mind, which makes God in Christ to be a true possession of the soul—that fellowship with God which constitutes the supreme possession for man upon the earth. But a contrast is drawn, e.g. in 3:16 and 10:28, between ‘eternal life’ and ‘perishing’ or ‘moral ruin’; and in one of St. John’s sharp and startling contrasts, the choice open to man is described as including only these two solemn alternatives—‘He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him’ (3:36). The idea thus broached carries us beyond the boundaries of earthly existence; according to Christ’s teaching, whoever keeps His word ‘shall never taste of death’ (8:52), and ‘though he die, yet shall he live’ (11:25). Knowledge of God and union with Christ impart to the believer a type of being which is not subject to the chances and changes of temporal existence, but is in itself unending, imperishable, so that in comparison with it no other kind of life deserves the name.

7. This opens up naturally the question of St. John’s Eschatology. It has already been said (see p. 482^a) that some critics find an inherent contradiction between St. John’s view of judgment and that set forth by the Synoptists, and it has been pointed out in reply that he recognizes ‘judgment’ not merely as here and now present in history, but as still to be anticipated in its final form in the life beyond the grave. Similar statements have been made in reference to Christ’s ‘coming’ and the ‘resurrection.’ That each of these three events is recognized as still in the future, to be anticipated as coming to pass at the end of the world, or at ‘the last day,’ is clear from such passages as the following: ‘judgment’ in Jn 12:48 and 1 Jn 4:17; ‘coming’ in Jn 14:3 and 1 Jn 2:18, 28; ‘resurrection’ in Jn 5:28, 29, 6:39, 40, 11:24 etc. But it cannot be questioned that St. John, much more than St. Paul or the Synoptists, uses these words in a spiritual sense to indicate a coming to earth in the course of history, a spiritual visitation which may be called a ‘coming’ of Christ (see Jn 14:18, 23, 28 and perhaps 21:22), as well as a judgment which was virtually pronounced in Christ’s lifetime (12:31 etc.). Similarly, in 5:21 it is said that ‘the Son quickeneth whom he will,’ where the reference cannot be to life beyond the grave—a view

which is confirmed by vv. 22, 23, where we are told that he who hears Christ’s word has passed from death to life, does not come into judgment, and that ‘the hour now is’ in which the dead shall hear His voice and live. There is nothing in these descriptions of present spiritual blessing to interfere with the explicit statement that after death there shall be a resurrection of life and a resurrection of judgment (5:29), any more than our Saviour intended to deny Martha’s statement concerning the resurrection at the last day, when He said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life’ (11:25).

It may perhaps be fairly said that St. John in the Gospel and Epistles lays emphasis upon the present spiritual blessings of salvation rather than upon future eschatological events described by means of the sensuous and material symbolism characteristic of the Apocalypse. But the two ideas, so far from being inconsistent, confirm one another. The man who believes in the present moral government of God in the world is assured that there must be a great day of consummation hereafter; while he who is assured that God will vindicate Himself by some Great Assize in the future life cannot surely imagine that meantime He has left the history of the world in moral confusion. The spiritual man knows that the future lies hid in the hints and suggestions of the present; he is certain also that such hints and suggestions must find their perfect realization and issue in a consummation yet to come. No Christian teacher has understood the deep-lying unity between the material and the spiritual, the present and the future, the temporal and the eternal, more completely than St. John ‘the divine.’

W. T. DAVISON.

JOIADA.—1. One of the two who repaired the ‘old gate’ (Neh 3:6). 2. High priest, son of Eliashib (Neh 12:10, 11, 22). One of his sons married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 13:28f.).

JOIAKIM.—A high priest, son of Jeshua (Neh 12:10, 12, 26).

JOIARIB.—1. Ezr 8:16, one of the two teachers sent by Ezra to Iddo to ask for ministers for the Temple. 2. Neh 11:5, one of ‘the chiefs of the province that dwelt in Jerusalem’ in Nehemiah’s time. See also JEHOIARIB.

JOKDEAM.—A city of Judah (Jos 15:58), whose site has not been identified. See JORKEAM.

JOKIM.—A Judahite (1 Ch 4:22).

JOKMEAM.—A town in Ephraim given to the Levites, near Beth-horon (1 Ch 6:68). In Jos 21:22 it is called Kibzaim. No site answering to either of these names is known. Jokmeam is mentioned also in 1 K 4:12, where AV has incorrectly ‘Jokneam.’

JOKNEAM.—A royal Canaanite city ‘in Carmel’ (Jos 13:22), on the boundary of Zebulun

(19:11), ‘the brook’ before it being the Kishon. It was assigned to the Merarite Levites ( Jos

21:34). It is probably identical with Cyamon of Jth 7:5. The Onomasticon places ‘Cimona’ 6 Roman miles N. of Legio, on the road to Ptolemais. This points definitely to Tell Kaimūn, a striking mound about 7 miles N.W. of el-Lejjūn, with remains of ancient buildings.

W. EWING.

JOKSHAN.—Son of Abraham and Keturah, and father of Sheba (Saba) and Dedan ( Gn 25:2, 1 Ch 1:32). The name seems quite unknown, and the suggestion that it is identical with Joktan seems the most plausible.

JOKTAN, according to the genealogical tables in Genesis and 1 Chron., was one of the two sons of Eber, and the father of thirteen sons or races (Gn 10:25–30, 1 Ch 1:19–23); In the first table it is added that his descendants dwelt from Mesha to Sephar. Though the names of the majority of his sons have not been satisfactorily identified, it is clear that he is represented as the ancestor of the older Arabian tribes. The list of his sons is probably not to be taken as a scientific or geographical classification of the tribes or districts of Arabia, but rather as an attempt on the part of the writer to incorporate in the tables such names of Arabian races as were familiar to him and to his readers. It will be noted that Seba and Havilah occur also as the sons of Cush ( Gn 10:7), the peculiar interest attaching to them having doubtless given rise to a variety of traditions with regard to their origin and racial affinities. The name of Joktan himself, like the names of many of his sons, has not yet been identified or explained. Its identification by the native Arab genealogists with Kahtān, the name of an Arabian tribe or district, is without foundation; there appears to have been no real connexion between the names, their slight similarity in sound having probably suggested their identification. The supposition that Joktan was a purely artificial name devised for the younger son of Eber, in order to serve as a link between the Hebrew and Arab stocks, amounts to little more than a confession that the origin of the name is unknown.

L. W. KING.

JOKTHEEL.—1. A city described (Jos 15:33–38) as lying in ‘the Shephēlah.’ It came into possession of the tribe of Judah. Its site has not been recovered. 2. The name (which some have sought to explain from the Arab., ‘protection of God’) given (2 K 14:7) to Sela, the ancient capital of the Edomites, after its capture by Amaziah king of Judah.

JONADAB.—See JEHONADAB.

JONAH

1. The man Jonah.—Jonah (‘dove’) is found in the Bible as the name of only one person, the Israelitish prophet of 2 K 14:25 and the Book of Jonah. All that is really known about him is found in those two sources. According to both, he was the son of Amittai (LXX and Vulg. A mathi), and the former connects him with Gath-hepher, a place named in Jos 19:13, in the territory of Zebulun, now probably represented by el-Meshhed, 2½ miles to the E. of Sepphoris, and not far from Kefr Kennā and Nazareth, in the neighbourhood of which is a grave of Nebi Yūnus or Yūnis. If this identification is right, Jonah was not only Israelitish in the narrower sense, but Galiæan. He seems to have lived and worked in the latter part of the 9th cent. B.C. or in the earlier part of the 8th. His one prediction, recorded in Kings, of the extension of the kingdom of Samaria from the Orontes to the Dead Sea, is said to have been fulfilled in the reign of Jeroboam II. (B.C. 790 to 749 or 782–741). It has generally been inferred that the prediction was also uttered in that reign, but the inference is uncertain. It may have been delivered under Jehoash (B.C. 802–790 or 798–782), or even under Jehoahaz (815–802 or 798). Still, Jonah may be reasonably regarded as to some extent a contemporary of Jeroboam II. There is no mention in Kings of any connexion of Jonah with Assyria, but it is quite possible that the memory of a visit to Nineveh was preserved by tradition or in some lost historical work. From B.C. 782–745 , Assyria was comparatively weak, and was governed by relatively insignificant kings.

That the Jonah of Kings is identical with the Jonah of the book was questioned by Winckler in 1900 , but the objection was withdrawn in 1903. The identification of Jonah with the son of the widow of Zarephath, which is mentioned by Jerome, and other assertions of Jewish origin, have no historical value.

2. Book of Jonah

(1) Analysis

Jonah, the son of Amittai, is commanded by Jahweh to go to Nineveh and announce there impending judgment (1:1f.). For a reason not mentioned until near the end of the book (4:2f.)—the fear that Jahweh will repent of His purpose, and spare the Ninevites—he refuses to obey, and in order to escape from. Jahweh’s immediate jurisdiction goes down to Joppa, and books himself in a ship manned by heathen, almost certainly Phœnicians, for Tarshish, probably the Phœnician colony in the S. W. of Spain, called by the Greeks Tartessus, and now represented by Cadiz and the country round (1:3f.). When a violent storm comes on, and the prayers of the mariners to their gods are of no avail, they conclude that there is some one on board who has offended some deity, and cast lots to discover the culprit. The lot falls on Jonah (1:4–7), who acknowledges his guilt and advises them to cast him overboard (1:8–12). After making futile efforts to bring the vessel to land (1:13), the sailors reluctantly cast him into the sea, with the result that the storm at once subsides and the wondering heathen adore the God of the Hebrews (1:14–16). Jonah is swallowed by a fish appointed for the purpose by J″, and remains in its belly 3 days and 3 nights (1:17), during which time he prays (2:1). His prayer, which fills the greater part of the chapter, is rather a psalm of praise (2:2–9). He is then cast by the fish on the land at a place not specified (2:10), is commanded to discharge the neglected duty, goes to Nineveh and delivers his message over a third of the city (3:1–4). King and people repent, and show their repentance in a public fast (which includes even the domestic animals), and pray (3:5–9). Their penitence and prayer are accepted, to the prophet’s disgust (3:10–4:4). As he sulks in a booth outside the city, waiting to see the issue, a remarkable series of experiences is arranged for his instruction (4:5–8): the shooting up of a castor-oil plant (or, as some think, a bottle-gourd) appointed by Jahweh, which delights him by its welcome shade; the killing of the plant by a worm, also appointed by Jahweh; and the springing up of a hot wind which also blows by Divine appointment, so that the now unshaded prophet is so tormented by the heat, that, like Elijah (1 K 19:4), he longs for death. When he still sulks, it is pointed out to him that if he, a man, cares for the plant which sprang up and perished so quickly, and which was in no way the product of his toil, how much more must God care for the great city, which has in it so many thousands of little children and much cattle (4:9–11).

(2) Integrity.—Most recent critics ascribe 1, 2:1–10, 3 and 4, with the exception of a few glosses, to one writer. About the hymn or psalm in 2:2–9 there is diversity of opinion. There are three views: (1) that it is by the same writer (G. A. Smith); (2) that it was used by him but not written by him (Baudissin); (3) that it was inserted by an editor who missed the prayer referred to in 2:1 (Nowack, Marti, Cheyne, Kautzsch, and perhaps Horton). The last view is on the whole the most probable, for the following among other reasons. (a) The psalm fits in with the experience of a ship-wrecked mariner who has reached the shore, rather than with the situation ascribed to Jonah (2:3–6); (b) it has been aptly described as ‘a cento of passages from the psalms’ (there are echoes of passages in Ps 3, 18, 30, 31, 42, 50, 116, 120, 142), which implies that the writer had a considerable part of our present Psalter before him, and so points to the study rather than the belly of a fish.

(3) Date and Authorship.—The book used to be regarded as Jonah’s composition, but that belief is now generally abandoned except in the Roman Catholic Church. Since Nineveh is clearly referred to as no longer standing: ‘Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city’ (3:3), the terminus a quo cannot be placed earlier than about B.C. 600 (fall of Nineveh B.C. 606). The terminus ad quem is fixed by the mention of the Twelve Prophets in Sirach (49:10), c. B.C. 200. The date therefore lies between 600 and 200. For closer definition the following facts are helpful.

The anonymous reference to the Assyrian king, and perhaps the description of him as ‘the king

of Nineveh’ (3:6), suggests a considerable interval between Assyrian times and the composition of the book. The Heb. is distinctly late. There are several indications of Aramaic influence: sephīnāh ‘ship’—a word common to Aramaic and Arabic, found here only in the OT; shāthaq ‘be calm’; ta‘am ‘decree’; hith‘ashshēth in the sense of ‘think’; minnāh ‘prepare,’ ‘appoint,’ etc. Had it been possible to assign the book to the 8th or the 9th cent. B.C., these phenomena might have been accounted for on the assumption of Aramaic influence on a Galilæan dialect, but as that date is out of the question, they point to a much later period, the 4th or 5th cent. ( König, Driver, E. Kautzsch, Budde, Cheyne), c. B.C. 300 (Marti). Cheyne puts the psalm as late as the prayer in the appendix to Sirach. It has been suggested that the book is an extract from a larger work, e.g. the ‘commentary of the book of the kings’ referred to in 2 Ch 24:27, as it begins: ‘Now (Heb. wa-) the word of the Lord came to Jonah’; but other historical Heb. writings begin in the same abrupt manner.

(4) Interpretation.—The ancient Jews seem to have regarded the book as historical (3 Mac 6:8, To 14:4–8; Jos. Ant. IX. x. 2), and were followed by Christian interpreters. Modern scholars are greatly divided. Archdeacon Perowne, J. Kennedy, and Clay Trumbull have defended the old view. Kleinert, König, C. H. H. Wright, G. A. Smith, and Cheyne treat the book as an allegory of the fortunes of the people. Jonah, ‘the dove,’ represents Israel. Jonah the prophet stands for Israel, which was to prophesy amongst the nations. The sea figures the destruction which repeatedly fell on Israel. Cheyne supplements the symbolical key by the mythological. The fish (that is the dragon, the subterranean sea) refers to Babylon, which swallowed Israel, not to destroy it but to give room for repentance; and the link between Jonah and the original myth is found in Jer 51:34–44. E. Kautzsch, Driver, Nowack, and Marti see in the story a didactic narrative founded on an ancient tradition.

(5) Teaching.—The prominence given by Christian expositors to the incident of the fish has tended to obscure the chief aim of the writing—to protest against the narrowness of thought and sympathy which prevailed among the Jews of the time, and was daily growing in intensity. Whoever the author was, he had higher thoughts about God than most of his contemporaries, perhaps it may even be said than any other of the writers of the OT, and entertained more charitable feelings towards the Gentile world than most of his people. The God of Israel, he believed, cared for all men. Penitent Gentiles, and many in Gentile circles, were ready to repent if only they were taught; could obtain pardon as readily as penitent Jews. Nay, Jahweb sought their repentance. Nowhere in pre-Christian literature can be found a broader, purer, loftier, tenderer conception of God than in this little anonymous Heb. tract. Cornill describes it as ‘one of the deepest and grandest things ever written.’ ‘I should like,’ he adds, ‘to exclaim to any one who approaches it: “Put thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” ’ How high the teaching of the book rose above later Judaism, say the Judaism of the time of Christ, and the following generation, is strikingly shown by the way in which it is summarized by Josephus (Ant. IX. x. 2). There is not a word there about the penitence of the Ninevites, or God’s remonstrance with Jonah. The main lesson of the book is absolutely ignored by the proud Pharisaic priest. Another leading thought of the book is the duty of Israel to make its God known to the Gentiles.

(6) The book in the Synagogue and the Church.—It is said in the Mishna (Ta‘anith, ii. 1) that the ritual of a public fast in time of drought included reference by the leader of the congregation to the Book of Jonah, and it has been used from ancient times to the present day in the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement. Christians were early attracted to it by the remarkable allusions in the Gospels: Mt 12:32ff., 16:4, Lk 11:29f–32. The reference to the entombment in the fish is in Mt. only. The allusion to the repentance of the Ninevites is in both Mt. and Lk. The significance of the former has been much debated, and some have regarded it as a proof of the historicity of the OT narrative. That in no way follows. Our Lord found the story in the

Scriptures, and appealed to it as something generally known to His hearers. His use of it fastened on the imagination of the early Christians, and led them to take great interest in the whole Book of Jonah. The remains of early Christian art in catacomb paintings, on sarcophagi, lamps, glasses, etc., include a very large number of pictures which have some part of the story of Jonah for their theme. Dr. Otto Mitius, who published a monograph on the subject in 1897, has noted 177 examples. The oldest, in the Catacomb of S. Callisto, may date from the 1st century.

(7) Parallels to Jonah.—Attention has often been called to the classical myths of Andromeda and Hesione, the scene of the former of which is laid in the neighbourhood of Joppa, but reference to them, even indirectly, is improbable. Nor is it likely that the Heb. writer had in mind a dragon myth of

Babylonia. A really striking parallel to part of the first chapter (1:7–15) was noted by a German scholar in 1896 in Buddhistic literature. A young man of Benares named Mittavindaka, the son of a merchant, went to sea in defiance of his mother’s objection. When after a time the vessel was unable to proceed on its course, owing to some mysterious impediment, the sailors concluded that it must be through the sin of some one on board, and therefore cast lots to discover the offender. The lots were cast three times, and each time the lot fell to Mittavindaka. As he was clearly the culprit, they turned him out of the ship, and placed him on a raft. Their ship was then able to continue the voyage. The close correspondence of this Indian story with the part of the Biblical story referred to is very remarkable, but need not point to any connexion between the two beyond community of feeling and action, under similar circumstances, of Indian and Phœnician mariners.

W. TAYLOR SMITH.

JONAM.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30).

JONAS.—1. 1 Es 9:1 = Ezr 10:6 Jehohanan, Neh 12:23 Johanan. 2. 1 Es 9:23 = Ezr 10:23 Eliezer. 3. 2 Es 1:39 the prophet Jonah. 4. See JOHN, No. 6.

JONATHAN (‘J″ hath given’).—1. A Levite, the ‘son’ of Gershom (wh. see); according to Jg 18:30 he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan up to the Captivity. Jonathan was taken into the service of Micah as ‘father and priest’ (Jg 17:10); but, not long after he had taken up his abode there, six hundred Danites came that way and induced Jonathan to leave Micah and join them as their priest (18:11–31). 2. The eldest son of Saul; he appears, in the first instance, as a brave and successful leader in battle. 1 S 13, 14 contain a graphic account of the way in which the Israelites threw off the Philistine yoke; in this campaign Jonathan took a leading part. He first of all, at the head of a thousand men, smote the Philistine garrison in Geba; this was the signal for the outbreak of war. The Philistine army gathered together and encamped in Michmash. Jonathan, accompanied only by his armour-bearer, at great risk surprised an advanced post of the

Philistines, and slew about twenty men; the suddenness and success of this coup so terrified the Philistines that the whole host of them fled in panic. The popularity of Jonathan is well illustrated by the fact that the people prevented Saul from carrying out a vow which would have cost Jonathan his life (1 S 14:24–46). The implicit trust which Saul placed in Jonathan is seen in the words of the latter in 1 S 20:2: ‘Behold my father doeth nothing either great or small, but that he discloseth it unto me.’ The faithfulness and trustworthiness of Jonathan as here shown gives an insight into what must have been that friendship for David which has become proverbial. All the characteristics of truest friendship are seen in Jonathan in their full beauty—love (1 S 18:1) , faithfulness (20:2ff). disinterestedness (20:12). and self-sacrifice (20:24–34). The last we hear of Jonathan is his death upon the battlefield, fighting the foes of his country. In David’s lament the spirit of the departed hero speaks in unison with his friend: ‘Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women’ (2 S 1:26).

3. The son of the priest Mattathias; the youngest of the four Maccabæan brothers (2 Mac

8:22), who played an important part during the Maccabsan revolt (see MACCABEES). 4. A nephew of David (2 S 21:21; cf. prob. 1 Ch 27:32). 5. A son of Abiathar the priest (2 S 15:27 ff., 17:17–20, 1 K 1:42). 6. A scribe in whose house Jeremiah was imprisoned (Jer 37:15–20 38:26). 7. A high priest (Neh 12:11): called in v. 22f. Johanan. 8. One of David’s heroes (2 S 23:32, 1 Ch 11:34). 9. A Levite (Neh 12:35). 10. The son of Kareah (Jer 40:8). 11. The father of Peleth and Zaza (1 Ch 2:32f.). 12. One of David’s treasurers (1 Ch 27:25). 13. Father of Ebed (Ezr 8:6). 14. One of those who opposed (RV) or assisted (AV) Ezra in the matter of the foreign marriages

(Ezr 10:15). 15. A priest (Neh 12:14). 16. Son of Absalom, in the time of Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 13:11). 17. A priest who led the prayer at the first sacrifice after the Return (2 Mac 1:23). W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JONATH ELEM REHOKIM.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

JOPPA.—The principal seaport of S. Palestine; a place of high antiquity, being mentioned in the tribute lists of Thothmes III., but never before the Exile in Israelite hands, being in Philistine territory. It was theoretically assigned to the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:46), and is spoken of as a seaport in 2 Ch 2:16 and Ezr 3:7 [where RV reads ‘to the sea, unto Joppa’ in place of AV ‘to the sea of Joppa’]: these, and its well-known connexion with the story of Jonah (1:3), are the only references to the city to be found in the OT. The Maccabees wrested it more than once from the hands of their Syrian oppressors (1 Mac 10:75, 12:33, 13:11); it was restored to the latter by Pompey (Jos. Ant. XIV. iv. 4), but again given back to the Jews (ib. XIV. x. 6) some years later.

Here St. Peter for a while lodged, restored Tabitha to life, and had his famous vision of the sheet (Ac 9, 10). The traditional sites of Tabitha’s tomb and Simon the tanner’s house are shown to tourists and to pilgrims, but are of course without authority. The city was destroyed by Vespasian (A.D. 68). In the Crusader period the city passed from the Saracens to the Franks and back more than once: it was captured first in 1126, retaken by Saladin 1187, again conquered by Richard Cœur de Lion in 1191, and lost finally in 1196. In recent years it is remarkable for Napoleon’s successful storming of its walls in 1799. It is now a flourishing seaport, though its harbour—little more than a breakwater of reefs—is notoriously bad and dangerous. A railway connects it with Jerusalem. It is also one of the chief centres of the fruit-growing industry in Palestine, and its orange gardens are world-famed. Tradition places here the story of Andromeda and the seamonster.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

JORAH.—The name of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:18); called in Neh 7:24 Hariph, which is probably the true form. 1 Es 5:16 reads Arsiphurith.

JORAI.—A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5:13).

JORAM.—1. 2. See JEHORAM (1 and 2). 3. Son of Toi (2 S 8:10) (in 1 Ch 18:10 called Hadoram). 4. A Levite (1 Ch 26:25). 5. 1 Es 1:9 = 2 Ch 35:9 Jozabad.

JORDAN.—The longest and most important river in Palestine.

1. Name.—The name ‘Jordan’ is best derived from Heb. yārad ‘to descend,’ the noun

Yardēn formed from it signifying ‘the descender’; it is used almost invariably with the article. In

Arabic the name is esh-Sheri‘ah, or ‘the watering-place,’ though Arabic writers before the Crusades called it el-Urdun. Quite fanciful is Jerome’s derivation of the name from Jor and Dan, the two main sources of the river, as no source by the name of Jor is known.

2. Geology.—The geology of the Jordan is unique. Rising high up among the foothills of Mt.

Hermon, it flows almost due south by a most tortuous course, through the two lakes of Huleh and Galilee, following the bottom of a rapidly descending and most remarkable geological fissure, and finally emptying itself into the Dead Sea, which is 1292 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. In its short course of a little more than 100 miles it falls about 3000 feet, and for the greater portion of the journey runs below the level of the ocean. No other part of the earth’s surface, uncovered by water, sinks to a depth of even 300 feet below sea-level, except the great Sahara. Professor Hull, the eminent Irish geologist, accounts for this great natural cleft by supposing that towards the end of the Eocene period a great ‘fault’ or fracture was caused by the contraction from east to west of the limestone crust of the earth. Later, during the Pliocene period, the whole Jordan valley probably formed an inland lake more than 200 miles long, but at the close of the Glacial period the waters decreased until they reached their present state. Traces of water, at heights 1180 feet above the Dead Sea’s present level, are found on the lateral slopes of the Jordan valley.

3. Sources.—The principal sources of the Jordan are three: (1) the river Hasbani, which rises in a large fountain on the western slopes of Mt. Hermon, near Hasbeiya, at an altitude of 1700 feet; (2) the Leddan, which gushes forth from the celebrated fountain under Tell el-Qadl, or Dan, at an altitude of 1500 feet—the most copious source of the Jordan; and (3) the river Banias, which issues from an immense cavern below Banias or Cæsarea Philippi, having an altitude of 1200 feet. These last two meet about five miles below their fountain-heads at an altitude of 148 feet, and are joined about a half-mile farther on by the Hasbani. Their commingled waters flow on across a dismal marsh of papyrus, and, after seven miles, empty into Lake Huleh, which is identified by some with ‘the waters of Merom’ (Jos 11:5, 7). The lake is four miles long, its surface being but 7 feet above sea-level.

4. The Upper Jordan is a convenient designation for that portion of the river between Lake Huleh and the Sea of Galilee. Emerging from Lake Huleh, the river flows placidly for a space of two miles, and then dashes down over a rocky and tortuous bed until it enters the Sea of Galilee, whose altitude is 682 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. It falls, in this short stretch of 10¹/₂miles, 689 feet. At certain seasons its turbid waters can be traced for quite a considerable distance into the sea, which is 12¹/₂miles long.

5. The Lower Jordan is an appropriate designation for that portion of the river between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. The distance in a straight line between these two seas is but 65 miles, yet it is estimated that the river’s actual course covers not less than 200, due to its sinuosity. In this stretch it falls 610 feet, the rate at first being 40 feet per mile. Its width varies from 90 to 200 feet. Along its banks grow thickets of tamarisks, poplars, oleanders, and bushes of different varieties, which are described by the prophets of the OT as ‘the pride of Jordan’ ( Jer 12:5, 49:19, 50:44, Zec 11:3). Numerous rapids, whirlpools, and islets characterize this portion of the Jordan. The river’s entire length from Banias to the Dead Sea is 104 miles, measured in a straight line.

6. Tributaries.—Its most important tributaries flow into the Lower Jordan and from the East. The largest is the Yarmuk of the Rabbis, the Hieromax of the Greeks, and the Sheri‘at elManadireh of the Arabs, which drains Gilead and Bashan in part. It enters the Jordan 5 miles south of the Sea of Galilee. The Bible never mentions it. The only other tributary of considerable importance is the Jabbok of the OT, called by the natives Nahr ez-Zerka or Wady el-‘Arab. It rises near ‘Amman (Philadelphia), describes a semicircle, and flows into the Jordan at a point about equidistant from the two seas. On the west are the Nahr el-Jatūd, which rises in the spring of Harod at the base of Mt. Gilboa and drains the valley of Jezreel; Wady Fārah, which rises near Mt. Ebal and drains the district east of Shechem; and the Wady el-Kelt, by Jericho, which is sometimes identified with the brook Cherith.

7. Fords.—The fords of the Jordan are numerous. The most celebrated is that opposite Jericho known as Makhadet el-Hajlah, where modern pilgrims are accustomed to bathe. There is another called el-Ghōranïyeh near the mouth of Wady Nimrin. North of the Jabbok there are at least a score. In ancient times the Jordan seems to have been crossed almost exclusively by fords (1 S 13:7, 2 S 10:17); but David and his household were possibly conveyed across in a ‘ferryboat’ (2 S 19:18; the rendering is doubtful).

8. Bridges are not mentioned in the Bible. Those which once spanned the Jordan were built by the Romans, or by their successors. The ruins of one, with a single arch, may be seen at Jisr ed-Damieh near the mouth of the Jabbok. Since its construction the river bed has changed so that it no longer spans the real channel. This bridge is on the direct route from Shechem to Ramothgilead. There is another called Jisr el-Mujamīyeh, close by that of the new railroad from Haifa to Damascus, or about 7 miles south of the Sea of Galilee. A third, built of black basalt and having three arches, is known as the Jisr ‘Benat-Yā‘gub, or ‘bridge of the daughters of Jacob,’ situated about two miles south of Lake Huleh on the direct caravan route from Acre to Damascus. A temporary wooden bridge, erected by the Arabs, stands opposite Jericho.

9. The Jordan valley.—The broad and ever-descending valley through which the Jordan flows is called by the Arabs the Ghōr or ‘bottom’; to the Hebrews it was known as the ‘Arabah. It is a long plain, sloping uniformly at the rate of 9 feet to the mile, being at the northern end 3 , and at the southern end 12 miles broad. For the most part the valley is fertile, especially in the vicinity of Beisan, where the grass and grain grow freely. Near the Dead Sea, however, the soil is saline and barren. The ruins of ancient aqueducts here and there all over the plain give evidence of its having been at one time highly cultivated. By irrigation the entire region could easily be brought under cultivation once more and converted into a veritable garden. In the vicinity of Jericho, once the ‘city of palms,’ a large variety of fruits, vegetables, and other products is grown. The most fertile portion under cultivation at the present time is the comparatively narrow floor-bed of the river known as the Zōr, varying from a quarter to two miles in width, and from 20 to 200 feet in depth below the Ghōr proper. This is the area which was overflowed every year ‘all the time of harvest’ (Jos 3:15). It has been formed, doubtless, by the changing of the river bed from one side of the valley to the other.

10. The climate of the Jordan valley is hot. The Lower Jordan in particular, being shut in by two great walls of mountain, the one on the east, and the other on the west, is decidedly tropical. Even in winter the days are uncomfortably warm, though the nights are cool; in summer both days and nights are torrid, especially at Jericho, where the thermometer has been known to register 130 Fahr. by day, and 110 after sunset. This accounts largely for the unpeopled condition of the Lower Jordan valley both to-day and in former times.

11. Flora and fauna.—The trees and shrubs of the Jordan valley are both numerous and varied. The retem or broom plant, thorns, oleanders, flowering bamboos, castor-oil plants, tamarisks, poplars, acacias, Dead Sea ‘apples of Sodom,’ and many other species of bush, all grow in the valley. The papyrus is especially luxuriant about Lake Huleh.

Animals such as the leopard, jackal, boar, hyæna, ibex, porcupine, and fox live in the thickets which border the banks. The lion has completely disappeared. The river abounds in fish of numerous species, many of them resembling those found in the Nile and the lakes of tropical Africa. Of the 35 species, however, known to exist, 16 are peculiar to the Jordan.

12. The Jordan as a boundary.—In view of what has been said, it is obvious that the Jordan forms a natural boundary to Palestine proper. In the earlier books of the OT we frequently meet with the expressions ‘on this side Jordan,’ and ‘on the other side of the Jordan,’ which suggest that the Jordan was a dividing line and a natural boundary. In Nu 34:12, indeed, it is treated as the original eastern boundary of the Promised Land (cf. Jos 22:25). Yet, as Lucien Gautier suggests (art. ‘Jordan’ in Hastings’ DCG), it was not so much the Jordan that constituted the boundary as the depressed Ghōr valley as a whole.

13. Scripture references.—The Jordan is frequently mentioned in both the OT and the NT. Lot, for example, is said to have chosen ‘all the circle of the Jordan’ because ‘it was well watered everywhere’ (Gn 13:10); Joshua and all Israel crossed over the Jordan on dry ground (Jos 3:17) ; Ehud seized the fords of the Jordan against the Moabites, cutting off their retreat (Jg 3:28) ; Gideon, Jephthah, David, Elijah, and Elisha were all well acquainted with the Jordan; Naaman the Syrian was directed to go wash in the Jordan seven times, that his leprosy might depart from him (2 K 5:10). And it was at the Jordan that John the Baptist preached and baptized, our Lord being among those who were here sacramentally consecrated (Mt 3 and parallels). To-day thousands of pilgrims from all parts of the civilized world visit the Jordan; so that, as G. A. Smith (HGHL, p. 496) reminds us, ‘what was never a great Jewish river has become a very great Christian one.’

GEORGE L. ROBINSON.

JORIBUS.—1. (AV Joribas) 1 Es 8:44 = Jarib, Ezr 8:16. 2. 1 Es 9:19 = Jarib, Ezr 10:18.

JORIM.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:29).

JORKEAM.—A Judahite family name (1 Ch 2:44). We should perhaps read Jokdeam, the name of an unidentified place in the Negeb of Judah (Jos 15:56).

JOSABDUS (1 Es 8:63) = Jozabad, No. 6.

JOSAPHIAS (1 Es 8:36) = Ezr 8:10 Josiphiah.

JOSECH (AV Joseph).—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:26).

JOSEDEK.—See JEHOZADAK.

JOSEPH (in OT and Apocr.).—1. The patriarch. See next article. 2. A man of Issachar ( Nu 13:7). 3. A son of Asaph (1 Ch 25:2, 9). 4. One of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:42); called in 1 Es 9:34 Josephus. 5. A priest (Neh 12:14). 6. An ancestor of Judith (Jth 8:1). 7. An officer of Judas Maccabæus (1 Mac 5:18, 56, 60). 8. In 2 Mac. 8:22, and probably also 10:19, Joseph is read by mistake for John, one of the brothers of Judas Maccabæus.

JOSEPH.—Jacob’s eleventh son, the elder of the two sons of Rachel; born in Haran. The name is probably contracted from Jehoseph (Ps 81:5), ‘May God add’ (cf. Gn 30:23f., where etymologies from two sources are given). Joseph is the principal hero of the later chapters of Genesis, which are composed mainly of extracts from three documents. J and E supply the bulk of the narrative, and as a rule are cited alternately, the compiler often modifying a quotation from one document with notes derived from the other. From P some six or seven short excerpts are made, the longest being Gn 46:6–27, where the object and the parenthetic quality are evident. For the details of analysis, see Driver LOT ⁶, 17 ff. The occasional differences of tradition are an evidence of original independence, and their imperfect harmonization in the joint narrative is favourable to its substantial historicity.

At present the date of Joseph can be only provisionally fixed, as the account of his life neither mentions the name of the ruling Pharaoh nor refers to distinctive Egyptian manners or customs in such a way as to yield a clue to the exact period. The Pharaoh of the oppression is now generally taken to be Rameses II. of the 19th dynasty (c. B.C. 1275–1208); and if this be correct, the addition of the years of residence in Egypt (Ex 12:41) would bring Joseph’s term of office into the reign of the later Hyksos kings (c. B.C. 2098–1587; for dates and particulars, see Petrie, History of Egypt).

With the return of Jacob to Hebron (Gn 35:27) he ceases to be the central figure of the story, and Joseph takes his place. Of his life to the age of 17 (Gn 37:2) nothing is told, except that he was his father’s favourite, and rather too free in carrying complaints of his brothers and telling them of his boyish dreams. Sent to Shechem, he found that his brothers had taken their flocks northwards fifteen miles, to the richer pasturage of Dothan. As soon as he came within sight, their resentment perceived its opportunity, and they arranged to get rid of him and his dreams; but the two traditions are not completely harmonized. J represents Judah as inducing his brothers to sell Joseph to a company of Ishmaelites; but E makes Reuben a mediator, whose plans were frustrated by a band of Midianites, who had in the interval kidnapped Joseph and stolen him away (40:15). The phraseology is against the identification of the two companies; and the divergent traditions point to a natural absence of real agreement among the brothers, with a frustration of their purposes by means of which they were ignorant. What became of Joseph they did not really know; and to protect themselves they manufactured the evidence of the bloodstained coat.

In Egypt, Joseph was bought by Potiphar, a court official, whose title makes him chief of the royal butchers and hence of the body-guard; and the alertness and trustworthiness of the slave led quickly to his appointment as major domo (Egyp. mer-per), a functionary often mentioned on the monuments (Erman, Life in Anc. Egypt, 187 f.). Everything prospered under Joseph’s management; but his comeliness and courtesy attracted the notice of his master’s wife, whose advances, being repelled, were transformed into a resentment that knew no scruples. By means of an entirely false charge she secured the removal of Joseph to the State prison, which was under the control of Potiphar (40:3), and where again he was soon raised to the position of overseer or under-keeper. Under his charge were placed in due course the chief of the Pharaoh’s butlers and the chief of his bakers, who had for some unstated reason incurred the royal displeasure. Both were perplexed with dreams, which Joseph interpreted to them correctly. Two years later the Pharaoh himself had his duplicated dream of the fat and lean kine and of the full and thin ears; and as much significance was attached in Egypt to dreams, the king was distressed by his inability to find an interpreter, and ‘his spirit was troubled.’ Thereupon the chief butler recalled Joseph’s skill and his own indebtedness to him, and mentioned him to the Pharaoh, who sent for him, and was so impressed by his sagacity and foresight that exaltation to the rank of keeper of the royal seal followed, with a degree of authority that was second only to that of the throne. The Egyptian name of Zaphenath-paneah (of which the meaning is perhaps ‘The God spake and he came into life,’ suggesting that the bearer of the name owed his promotion to the Divine use of him as revealer of the Divine will) was conferred upon him, and he married Asenath, daughter of one of the most important dignitaries in the realm, the priest of the great national temple of the sun at On or Heliopolis, seven miles north-east of the modern Cairo.

So far as Egypt was concerned, Joseph’s policy was to store the surplus corn of the years of plenty in granaries, and afterwards so to dispose of it as to change the system of land-tenure. Famines in that country are due generally to failure or deficiency in the annual inundation of the Nile, and several of long endurance have been recorded. Brugsch (Hist.²i. 304) reports an inscription, coinciding in age approximately with that of Joseph, and referring to a famine lasting ‘many years,’ during which a distribution of corn was made. This has been doubtfully identified with Joseph’s famine. Other inscriptions of the kind occur, and are sufficient to authenticate the fact of prolonged famines, though not to yield further particulars of the one with which Joseph had to deal. His method was to sell corn first for money (rings of gold, whose weight was certified by special officials), and when all this was exhausted (47:15), corn was given in exchange for cattle of every kind, and finally for the land. The morality of appropriating the surplus produce and then compelling the people to buy it back, must not be judged by modern standards of justice, but is defensible, if at all, only in an economic condition where the central government was responsible for the control of a system of irrigation upon which the fertility of the soil and the produce of its cultivation directly depended, and where the private benefit of the individual had to be ignored in view of a peril threatening the community. Instead of regarding the arrangement as a precedent to be followed in different states of civilization, ground has been found in it for charging Joseph with turning the needs of the people into an occasion for oppressing them; and certainly the effect upon the character and subsequent condition of the people was not favourable. The system of tenure in existence before, by which large landed estates were held by private proprietors, was changed into one by which all the land became the property of the crown, the actual cultivators paying a rental of one-fifth of the produce (47:24). That some such change took place is clear from the monuments (cf. Erman, Life in Anc. Egypt, 102), though they have not yielded the name of the author or the exact date of the change. An exception was made in favour of the priests (47:22), who were supported by a fixed income in kind from the Pharaoh, and therefore had no need to part with their land. In later times ( cf. Diodorus Siculus, i. 73 f.) the land was owned by the kings, the priests, and the members of a military caste; and it is not likely that the system introduced by Joseph lasted long after his death. The need of rewarding the services of successful generals or partisans would be a strong temptation to the expropriation of some of the royal lands.

The peculiarity of the famine was that it extended over the neighbouring countries (41:56f.) ; and that is the fact of significance in regard to the history of Israel, with which the narrative in consequence resumes contact. The severity of the famine in Canaan led Jacob to send all his sons except Benjamin (42:4) to buy corn in Egypt. On their arrival they secured an interview with Joseph, and prostrated themselves before him (37:7, 42:6); but in the grown man, with his shaven face [on the monuments only foreigners and natives of inferior rank are represented as wearing beards] and Egyptian dress, they entirely failed to recognize their brother. The rough accusation that they were spies in search of undefended ways by which the country might be invaded from the east, on which side lines of posts and garrisons were maintained under two at least of the dynasties, aroused their fears, and an attempt was made to allay Joseph’s suspicions by detailed information. Joseph catches at the opportunity of discovering the truth concerning Benjamin, and, after further confirming in several ways the apprehensions of his brothers, retains one as a hostage in ward and sends the others home. On their return (42:35 E), or at the first lodgingplace (42:27 J) on the way, the discovery of their money in their sacks increased their anxiety, and for a time their father positively refused to consent to further dealings with Egypt. At length his resolution broks down under the pressure of the famine (43:11ff.). In Egypt the sons were received courteously, and invited to a feast in Joseph’s house, where they were seated according to their age (43:33), and Benjamin was singled out for the honour of a special ‘mess’ (cf. 2 S 11:8) as a mark of distinction. They set out homewards in high spirits, unaware that Joseph had directed that each man’s money should be placed in his sack, and his own divining-cup of silver (44:5; the method of divination was hydromancy—an article was thrown into a vessel of water, and the movements of the water were thought to reveal the unknown) in that of Benjamin. Overtaken at almost their first halting-place, they were charged with theft, and returned in a body to Joseph’s house. His reproaches elicited a frank and pathetic speech from Judah, after which Joseph could no longer maintain his incognito. He allayed the fears of his conscience-stricken brothers by the assurance that they had been the agents of Providence ‘to preserve life’ (45:5; cf. Ps 105:17ff.); and in the name of the Pharaoh he invited them with their father to settle in Egypt, with the promise of support during the five years of famine that remained.

Goshen, a pastoral district in the Delta about forty miles north-east of Cairo, was selected for the new home of Jacob. The district was long afterwards known as ‘the land of Rameses’ (47:11) from the care spent upon it by the second king of that name, who often resided there, and founded several cities in the neighbourhood. In Egypt swine-herds and cow-herds were ‘an abomination’ to the people (46:34; cf. Hdt. ii. 47, and Erman, op. cit. 439f.), but there is no independent evidence that shepherds were, and the contempt must be regarded as confined to those whose duties brought them into close contact with cattle, for the rearing of cattle received much attention, the superintendent of the royal herds being frequently mentioned in the inscriptions. Joseph’s household and brothers flourished during the seventeen years (47:27f.) Jacob lived in Egypt. Before his death he blessed Joseph’s two sons, giving preference to the younger in view of the greatness of the tribe to be derived from him, and leaving to Joseph himself one portion above his brethren, viz. Shechem (48:22 RVm). After mourning for the royal period of seventy days (50:3; cf. Diod. Sic. i. 72), Joseph buried his father with great pomp in the cave of Machpelah, and cheered his brothers by a renewed promise to nourish and help them. He is said to have survived to the age of 110 (50:22), and to have left injunctions that his body should be conveyed to Canaan when Israel was restored. The body was carefully embalmed (50:26), and enclosed in a mummy-case or sarcophagus. In due course it was taken charge of by Moses (Ex 13:19), and eventually buried at Shechem (Jos 24:32).

Of the general historicity of the story of Joseph there need be no doubt. Allowance may be made for the play of imagination in the long period that elapsed before the traditions were reduced to writing in their present form, and for the tendency to project the characteristics of a tribe backwards upon some legendary hero. But the incidents are too natural and too closely related to be entirely a product of fiction; and the Egyptian colouring, which is common to both of the principal documents, is fatal to any theory that resolves the account into a mere elaboration in a distant land of racial pride. Joseph’s own character, as depicted, shows no traces of constructive art, but is consistent and singularly attractive. Dutifulness (1 Mac 2:53) is perhaps its keynote, manifested alike in the resistance of temptation, in uncomplaining patience in misfortune, and in the modesty with which he bore his elevation to rank and power. Instead of using opportunities for the indulgence of resentment, he recognizes the action of Providence, and nourishes the brothers (Sir 49:15) who had lost all brotherly affection for him. On the other hand, there are blemishes which should be neither exaggerated nor overlooked. In his youth there was a degree of vanity that made him rather unpleasant company. That his father was left so long in ignorance of his safety in Egypt may have been unavoidable, but leaves a suspicion of inconsiderateness. When invested with authority he treated the people in a way that would now be pronounced tyrannical and unjust, enriching and strengthening the throne at the expense of their woe; though, judged by the standards of his own day, the charge may not equally lie. On the whole, a very high place must be given him among the early founders of his race. In strength of right purpose he was second to none, whilst in the graces of reverence and kindness, of insight and assurance, he became the type of a faith that is at once personal and national (He 11:22), and allows neither misery nor a career of triumph to eclipse the sense of Divine destiny.

R. W. MOSS.

JOSEPH (in NT).—1. 2. Two ancestors of our Lord, Lk 3:24, 30.

3. The husband of Mary and ‘father’ of Jesus.—Every Jew kept a record of his lineage, and was very proud if he could claim royal or priestly descent; and Joseph could boast himself ‘a son of David’ (Mt 1:20). His family belonged to Bethlehem, David’s city, but he had migrated to

Nazareth (Lk 2:4), where he followed the trade of carpenter (Mt 13:55). He was betrothed to Mary, a maiden of Nazareth, being probably much her senior, though the tradition of the apocryphal History of Joseph that he was in his ninety-third year and she in her fifteenth is a mere fable. The tradition that he was a widower and had children by his former wife probably arose in the interest of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Evangelists tell us little about him, but what they do tell redounds to his credit. (1) He was a pious Israelite, faithful in his observance of the Jewish ordinances (Lk 2:21–24) and feasts (Lk 2:41, 42). (2) He was a kindly man. When he discovered the condition of his betrothed, he drew the natural inference and decided to disown her, but he would do it as quietly as possible, and, so far as he might, spare her disgrace. And, when he was apprised of the truth, he was very kind to Mary. On being summoned to Bethlehem by the requirements of the census, he would not leave her at home to suffer the slanders of misjudging neighbours, but took her with him and treated her very gently in her time of need (Lk 2:1–7). (3) He exhibited this disposition also in his nurture of the Child so wondrously entrusted to his care, taking Him to his heart and well deserving to be called His ‘father’ (Lk 2:33, 41, 48, Mt 13:55, Jn 1:45, 6:42). Joseph never appears in the Gospel story after the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus had attained the age of twelve years and become ‘a son of the Law’ (Lk 2:41–51); and since Mary always appears alone in the narratives of the public ministry, it is a reasonable inference that he had died during the interval. Tradition says that he died at the age of one hundred and eleven years, when Jesus was eighteen.

4. One of the Lord’s brethren, Mt 13:55, where AV reads Joses, the Greek form of the name. Cf. Mk 6:3.

5. Joseph of Arimathæa.—A wealthy and devout Israelite and a member of the Sanhedrim. He was a disciple of Jesus, but, dreading the hostility of his colleagues, he kept his faith secret. He took no part in the condemnation of Jesus, but neither did he protest against it; and the likelihood is that he prudently absented himself from the meeting. When all was over, he realized how cowardly a part he had played, and, stricken with shame and remorse, plucked up courage and ‘went in unto Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus’ (Mk 15:43). It was common for friends of the crucified to purchase their bodies, which would else have been cast out as refuse, a prey to carrion birds and beasts, and give them decent burial; and Joseph would offer Pilate his price; in any case he obtained the body (Mk 15:45). Joseph had a garden close to Calvary, where he had hewn a sepulchre in the rock for his own last resting-place; and there, aided by Nicodemus, he laid the body swathed in clean linen (Mt 27:57–61 = Mk 15:42–47 = Lk 23:50–56 = Jn 19:38–

42).

6. Joseph Barsabbas, the disciple who was nominated against Matthias as successor to Judas in the Apostolate. He was surnamed, like James the Lord’s brother, Justus (Ac 1:23). Tradition says that he was one of the Seventy (Lk 10:1). 7. See BARNABAS.

DAVID SMITH.

JOSEPHUS (1 Es 9:34) = Joseph, Ezr 10:42.

JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS.—Jewish historian and general, born about A.D. 37 or 38, and died in the first years of the 2nd century.

1. Life.—According to his Life, Josephus was descended from a Maccabæan house, and was thus of both royal and priestly lineage. He states that he showed great precocity, and that the learned men of his race used to consult him when he was fourteen years of age. He studied successively with the Essenes and the Pharisees, as well as with the Sadducees. For three years he was a student with a hermit named Banus—very probably one of the Essenes—although Josephus does not seem to have been admitted to the higher grades of the order. At the age of 26 he went to Rome to bring about the acquittal of certain priests who had been arrested and sent to Rome for trial by Felix. In this he was successful, and even gained the favour of the Empress Poppæa.

Not long after his return from Rome the revolution of A.D. 66 broke out, and he was at once swept into its current. Of the events which follow he has given us two accounts, the earlier in the Jewish War [BJ], the later in his Life, written shortly before his death. These accounts are not always consistent, the latter showing more subservience to the Romans. In particular, he attempts to justify himself, and the Pharisees with whom he was associated, for participation in the revolt, by declaring that they judged it better for moderate men than for radicals to direct the course of events. The BJ, however, does not suggest this questionable proceeding on the part of the Jewish authorities.

The course of the war in Galilee, and particularly his own relations therewith, are minutely narrated by Josephus. His position was one of great difficulty. The Galilæans were grouped in various parties, ranging from those who opposed war with Rome to radicals like those who followed John of Giscala. The plans of Josephus and his fellow-commissioners from Jerusalem were further complicated by jealousies between the various cities, particularly Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Taricheæ. None the less, Josephus seems to have gone about the work of organizing the revolution energetically. He fortified the cities as well as he could, and attempted to introduce Roman military methods among the troops he was gathering. Whether he was, as he claims, too strict in the matter of booty, or, as his enemies claimed, too lukewarm in the cause of the revolution, complaints were lodged against him at Jerusalem, and an investigating committee was sent into Galilee. Various adventures then followed, but in the end Josephus seems to have been acquitted and to have gained a complete ascendency over his local enemies. John of Giscala, however, subsequently went to Jerusalem, and proved a persistent enemy, while the Zealot party as a whole seems never to have been satisfied with the attitude of Josephus.

The approach of Vespasian from the north at once showed how half-hearted had been the revolutionary sympathies of many of the Galilæan cities. Several of them surrendered without serious fighting, and Vespasian, after one or two desperate battles, was soon in possession of all Galilee excepting Jotapata on the east of the Sea of Galilee, where Josephus and his surviving troops were entrenched. Reinforcements the Sanhedrin could not send, and for forty-seven days the Romans besieged the city. During that time Josephus, if his own account is to be believed, performed marvellous deeds of strategy and valour. But all to no purpose. The city fell, and was razed to the ground. Josephus was taken prisoner, after having by a trick escaped being killed by his own soldiers. On being brought to Vespasian he claimed prophetic ability, and saluted the general as Emperor. For this and other reasons he won favour with Vespasian, was given his freedom, and took his benefactor’s family name, Flavius.

When Titus undertook the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus accompanied him as interpreter or herald. By this time, however, he had become hateful to the Jews, and could accomplish nothing in the way of inducing them to make terms with the Romans. When the city was captured, he was able to render some service to the unfortunate Jews because of the favour in which he stood with Titus. He was subsequently given estates in Judæa, and was thus enabled to live during the remainder of his long life as a gentleman of leisure, devoted to the pursuit of literature. He enjoyed the friendship of Titus and of king Agrippa II. He was several times married, and left several children.

2. Writings.—The chief importance of Josephus lies not in his career as a leader of the Jewish revolution, but in the works which have come down to us. Generally speaking, his writings are intended to disabuse his Greek and Roman contemporaries of some of the misconceptions that then existed concerning the Jews. To that end he does not hesitate to employ various ingenious interpretations of historical events, as well as legends, and even to hint that the Jewish records which he quotes have certain allegorical meanings to be disclosed in a subsequent work, which, however, he never wrote.

(1) The earliest of these writings is that Concerning the Jewish War, a work in seven books.

It covers briefly the period from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to the outbreak of the war of A.D. 66–70, and then narrates the events of the war in detail. It was originally written in Aramaic, but was re-written by Josephus in Greek. It was probably issued before 79, as it was presented to Vespasian. Because of the reference to the Temple of Peace as finished (BJ VII. v. 7), it must have been written after 75. The work, while inaccurate at many points, and full of a tendency to present the actions of the Jews in as favourable a light as possible, is of inestimable value so far as its record of facts is concerned, and particularly for the light it throws on the state of society in the midst of which Jesus laboured. The book found favour with Vespasian and Titus and Agrippa

II.

(2) The Antiquities of the Jews.—This great work in twenty books is one of the most important monuments which have come down to us from antiquity. It was published in the year 93. It covers the history of the Jews from the earliest Biblical times to the outbreak of the revolution of A.D. 66. It is particularly interesting as an illustration of the method by which the facts of Hebrew history could be re-written for the edification of the Greeks and Romans. It abounds in legends and curious interpretations. Josephus was by no means dependent upon the OT exclusively. He constantly refers to non-Biblical writers, mentioning by name most of the

Greek and Roman historians. He used constantly the works of Alexander Polyhistor, Nicholas of Damascus, and Strabo. He probably also used Herodotus. The work abounds in collections of decrees and inscriptions which make it of great value to secular as well as to Biblical historians. The later books give very full accounts of the life of Herod I., for which Josephus is largely dependent upon Nicholas of Damascus, the historiographer of Herod. In his treatment of the Maccabees he is largely dependent upon First Maccabees. His account of the successors of Herod is hardly more than a sketch, but that of the events leading up to the revolution is more complete.

(3) The Life.—This work was written in reply to Justus of Tiberias, by whom Josephus was accused of causing the revolt. In his Life Josephus represents himself as a friend of the Romans, but many statements are disproved by his earlier work, the BJ. This Life appeared after the death of Agrippa II., that is, in the beginning of the 2nd century.

(4) Against Apion.—This is a defence of the Jewish people against the attacks of their enemies and calumniators, chief among whom was Apion, a grammarian of Alexandria, who wrote during the first half of the 1st cent. A.D. It was written probably about the same time as the Life, and is particularly valuable as a narrative of the charges brought against the Jewish religion by the Greeks. It also serves as an exposition of the customs and views of the Jews of the 1 st century, not only in Judæa but throughout the Dispersion.

3. The importance of Josephus to the Biblical student.—As a contemporary of the NT writers, Josephus describes the Jewish background of Christian history as does no other writer of antiquity. The Book of Acts is particularly illuminated by his writings, while the chronology of the Apostolic period is given its fixed dates by his references to Jewish and Roman rulers. Josephus, it is true, does not add to our knowledge of the life of Christ. While his reference to John the Baptist is possibly authentic, and while it is not impossible that he mentions Jesus, the entire passage (Ant. XVIII. iii. 3) can hardly have come from Josephus in its present form. At the same time, his narrative of the events of the Gospel period and his description of the character of the various rulers of Judæa serve to corroborate the accuracy of both the Gospels and Acts. As furnishing data for our knowledge of Jewish legends, parties, practices, and literature, his importance is exceptional. Even if we did not have the Mishna, it would be possible from his passages to reconstruct a satisfactory picture of the Jewish life of NT times. His few references to the current Messianic expectations of his day are particularly valuable. On the other hand, his comments upon and explanations of the OT are of comparatively small value.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

JOSES.—1. One of the ‘brethren of the Lord’ (Mk 6:3, 15:40, 47, Mt 27:56). In Mt 13:55 AV has Joses, but RV correctly Joseph. 2. The natal name (Ac 4:36 AV) of Barnabas; RV correctly has Joseph.

JOSHAH.—A Simeonite chief (1 Ch 4:34).

JOSHAPHAT.—1. One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:43). 2. A priest in David’s time (1 Ch

15:24).

JOSHAVIAH.—One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:46).

JOSHBEKASHAH.—A son of Heman (1 Ch 25:4, 24). There is reason to believe that this and five of the names associated with it are really a fragment of a hymn or prayer.

JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH occurs in RV of 2 S 23:8 as a proper name in place of the meaningless ‘that sat in the seat’ of the AV. But the text is corrupt, and the original name Jashobeam must be restored from the parallel passage, 2 Ch 11:11, just as the ‘Hachmonite’ must be substituted for the ‘Tahchemonite.’

JOSHIBIAH.—A Simeonite chief (1 Ch 4:35).

JOSHUA (on forms and meaning of the name see next art.).—1. The successor of Moses. See next article. 2. The Bethshemite in whose field was the stone on which the ark was set, on its return from the land of the Philistines (1 S 6:14, 18). 3. The governor of Jerusalem in the time of Josiah (2 K 23:8). 4. The high priest who along with Zerub. directed affairs at Jerusalem after the restoration (Hag 1:1, 12, 14 etc., Zec 3:1, 3, 6 etc.). In the books of Hag. and Zec. he is called Joshua, in Ezr. and Neh Jeshua (wh. see). See also JESUS, 2.

JOSHUA (cf. JESUS, 1).—The successor of Moses as leader of Israel. He is called Hoshea in Dt 32:44, Nu 13:8; and in Nu 13:16 this is represented as his original name. But Nu 13 is late, and the versions in Dt. show that ‘Joshua’ was probably the original reading. The most likely rendering of the name is ‘Jahweh is salvation.’ The son of Nun and of the tribe of Ephraim, he commanded the army in the battle with Amalek (Ex 17:8–16), attended on Moses at Mt. Sinai (32:17f.), and at the Tent of Meeting (33:11; all these passages are from E); acted as one of the twelve spies (Nu 13:8, 14:6–9), was spared along with Caleb (14:30, 38; all P). His subsequent history belongs to the story of the conquest of Canaan (see following article). He was buried in Timnath-serah (Jos 19:50, 24:30) or Timnath-heres (Jg 2:9), in the hill-country of Ephraim.

The view is widely held that Joshua has no historical reality as a person, that his name is merely the name of a clan in Ephraim, and that his leadership in Israel represents, and puts back into the period of the conquest the commanding position which Ephraim had come to hold in the Israelite confederation. And the effort is made to show that he makes his appearance first in E, the N. Israelite or Ephraimite source. But the old poetic fragment Jos 10:12f. represents him as speaking in the name of united Israel, and Jos 17:14–18 brings him into view in his dealings with his own tribe as having more than their interests in his mind, as being in some sense the arbiter of the confederacy. And while it is difficult on any reading of the history to understand why all our sources say nothing about the conquest of Central Palestine, this becomes doubly difficult if originally this was the scene of Joshua’s first activity and influence. The historical foundation for making the hero of Ephraim into the conqueror of all Canaan is absent.

It seems more probable that Joshua led the nation in their first assault on Palestine, that under his leadership the entry by Jericho was won, and a wedge thrust into the land by the capture of Bethel and Ai. After this early and united victory, the tribes may have divided for their future settlements, and the separate conquests may have been carried out, as the traditions in Jg. represent them, in a more piecemeal and imperfect fashion. But this is not incompatible with the fact that Joshua may have retained such a position of arbiter as, e.g., Jos 17 gives him. The loose confederacy, which still recognized its unity against its enemies, may have turned naturally for guidance to one who led its early efforts. In our later sources the conquest was conceived in a different fashion. It was represented as thorough, and as carried out by a united people. The writers naturally grouped all this round the name of one who had been able, though only for a short time, to give the tribes a sense of unity and to begin their assault on their new land. They idealized both his person and his work. But only on the supposition that there was something to idealize is it possible to understand why a man, who belongs to a clan in Ephraim which is otherwise unknown, came to be set up as the hero under whom they won their foothold among the nations, and passed from wandering tribes into a people.

A. C. WELCH.

JOSHUA

1. Place in the Canon.—The book was placed by the Jews among the Early Prophets, i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings. The reason generally accepted for this is that Joshua, unlike Exodus or Leviticus, does not contain Torah or law. But Genesis, which recounts only the origins of the nation to which the Torah was delivered, was included in the Pentateuch; Joshua, which relates the conquest of the land where the Torah was to be practised, was excluded. Jewish tradition worked with criteria of which we are ignorant, but in separating Joshua from the Pentateuch it may have recognized the presence of different documents.

Modern criticism has insisted on connecting the book more closely with the Pentateuch, on the ground that, since all the Pentateuch documents look forward to the fulfilment of Jahweh’s promise of Palestine, Joshua, which relates the conquest, is a necessary sequel. This, however, forgets (a) that all Hebrew history is a unity in which the conquest of Palestine is merely an incident; (b) that Deuteronomy looks forward beyond the conquest to the erection of a national sanctuary, for which Joshua provides no more than the foundation. And there are other evidences that Joshua formed part of a history which extended through the period of the Judges to the establishment of the kingdom in Jerusalem. It is possible that a wider recognition of this fact may help to clear up some of the difficult questions as to the composition of the book.

2. Structure and contents.—The book falls into three parts: (a) the conquest, chs. 1–12; (b) the division of the land, chs. 13–21; (c) a conclusion, chs. 22–24. It is convenient to discuss these separately.

(a) In chs. 1–12, an account, closely akin to JE, supplies the foundation. It relates the mission of the spies to Jericho (2:1–9, 12–24), and the consequent passage of Jordan (3:1, 5, 10–17, 4:1– 11a, 15–18, 20). In the latter story a difference in substance proves the presence of two accounts, but every effort to identify one of these with J, the other with E, fails from insufficient criteria. It recounts the circumcision at Gilgal, which it views as a novelty (‘the second time’ of 5:2 is absent from the LXX), since by this means the reproach of the circumcised Egyptians is removed from the people (5:2f., 8f.). The story of the capture of Jericho and Ai (in both of which the presence of two accounts is clear) follows (5:13–6:27, 7:2–26, 8:1–29), with the trespass of Achan. Joshua then makes a compact with the Gibeonites (9:3–9a, 11–15a, 16, 22f., 26, 27 a), and advances to the victory at Beth-horon (10:1–7, 9–11, 12b–14a), to the execution at Makkedah (10:15–24, 26f.), and to the victory at the Waters of Merom (11:1–9 [in part]).

This account has been thoroughly revised by an editor who is closely akin in spirit and language to the author of the framework of Deuteronomy. He added an introduction into which he has fused earlier material (ch. 1). He brought out certain features in connexion with the passage of Jordan—the fear inspired in the Canaanites, the presence of the 2¹/₂tribes, the exaltation of Joshua by Jahweh (2:10f., 3:2–4, 6–9, 4:11b, 12, 14, 21–24, 5:1). He gave a different reason for the circumcision at Gilgal (5:4–7), and added some details to the fraud of the Gibeonites (9:1f., 9b, 10, 24f., 27b.), and to the story of Beth-horon (9:8, 12a, 14b, 25). He concluded the conquest of the South (10:28–43) and the victory at Merom (11:10–23), with a summary of the result; and he added a review of the entire conquest in ch. 12. In his work he does not add independent material to his original, but by his arrangement and omissions gives a new aspect to the account. Thus several indications point to his having omitted much from his documents. It is sufficient to mention one—the absence of any account of the conquest of Central Palestine. This is the more remarkable since at 8:30–35 we have a statement of how Joshua built an altar at Ebal, before the country between Gilgal and Mount Ephraim was subdued. Probably this formed the conclusion to JE’s narrative of the conquest of Central Palestine; possibly it was derived from E, a source which was specially interested in North Israelite sanctuaries, and which (see DEUTERONOMY) was a favourite source with D. Further, the conquest of South Palestine in its present form does not agree with Jos 15:14–19 = Jg 1:10–15. The latter passages represent South Palestine as conquered, not in one sweeping rush, but gradually; not by the action of the united tribes under one head, but by the effort of one tribe or of several in combination. Again, 11:21f. assigns to Joshua the victory over the Anakim, which in 14:12, 15:15ff. and Jg 1:10–15 is attributed to Judah, and especially to Caleb. Evidently the editor has sought to group round one representative figure, and assign to a specific period, the conquest which covered a considerable time and engaged many leaders. His chief interest in the details of history centres round their capacity to be used to point a moral. Thus it is noteworthy bow few chronological data appear in the chapters in comparison with earlier books. He gives prominence to the motives which governed Joshua, and to the Divine support promised to and received by him. He magnifies the leader’s successes, and considers him the representative of the nation and the successor of Moses.

A few verses in this section, 4:13, 19, 5:10–12, 7:1, 9:15b, 17–21, are generally assigned to P, but they are so isolated and so vague that nothing can be done with them except catalogue them, and express the doubt whether they ever belonged to a separate work.

(b) In chs. 13–21 the situation is different, and the critical results more uncertain. The same three sources can be traced as in the earlier section; but, on the one hand, the portions assigned to P take a character and range wholly unlike those which characterize this document throughout the Pentateuch; on the other, it is still a subject of debate whether the section owes its final form to a Deuteronomic or a Priestly editor, D or P. The present writer’s view is that D edited this section also, using as his sources JE and what is called P. (The other view is held, e.g., by Driver.)

(1) P (so called), as the more complete, is given first. It began with the assembly of the tribes at Shiloh for the division (18:1), and a statement as to the lot assigned to the 2¹/₂tribes (13:15– 32). It then proceeded to the division (14:1–5). The lot of Judah is first described (15:1–13, 20– 44, 48–62). Then follows the lot of the children of Joseph (16:4–8, 17:1a, 3f., 7, 9a, 9c, 10 a), who are counted as two, and of whom Manaseeh, as firstborn, is named first. The lots of Benjamin (18:11–28), Simeon (19:1–8), Zebulun (vv. 10–16), Issachar (vv. 17–23), Asher ( vv.

24–31), Naphtali (vv. 32–39), Dan (vv. 40–46, 48) are described, and then comes a conclusion (v. 51) corresponding with the opening (18:1). On this followed the law and list of the cities of refuge (20:1–3, 6a, 7–9), and a list of the Levitical cities (21:1–42).

(2) D incorporated with this, material drawn from JE. He introduced the division of the land with a review of the undivided land, and a statement of the lot assigned to the 2¹/₂tribes (13:1– 14). He therefore dislodged the introduction (18:1). Into the lot of Judah he inserted the account of Caleb’s settlement there (14:6–15, 15:14–19), and of Jerusalem (v. 63).[Vv. 45–47 may be a late addition, written, after the Philistines had disappeared, to conform Judah’s boundary to the ideal of v. 12]. Into the lot of the children of Joseph he inserted material from the older source (16:1–3, 9f., 17:1b, 2, 5, 8, 9b, 10b–18), which represented the lot of the sons as one (17:14–18). Before the lot of Benjamin he placed the statement of a survey made for the seven remaining tribes (18:2–6, 8–10 [from JE; v. 7 is from D]). This may represent the historical fact that the two strong clans of Judah and Ephraim were the first to be settled. But the break at this point in the original source gave occasion to insert 18:1 here. In the description of the remaining seven lots only a few verses (19:9, 47, 49f.) come from JE, but the list of Naphtali’s cities (vv. 32–39) , which is entirely different in character from the description of the other lots, may be from JE, according to which (18:9) the country was distributed by cities. This is one of the facts which support those who hold that P edited JE.

It deserves notice that the account of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon—the districts which were inhabited after the Exile—is more exhaustive than that of the others. The fact suggests that the editor, who gave the book its final form, wrote at a late date, or at least that late hands retouched the book.

In the account of the cities of refuge (ch. 20), vv. 4f., 6b, which have been added to the earlier source, are absent from the LXX. They must have been added at a late date to bring the section into agreement with the Deuteronomic law.

(3) D concluded the section on the division of the land with his formal close, 21:43–45.

(c) In chs. 22–24 D took the account of the dismissal of the 2¹/₂tribes (22:9–34) from P, providing it with his own introduction (vv. 1–6). The account is late, since it views the conquest as simultaneous, complete, and national. He took ch. 24—the renewal of the covenant—from JE (probably E), and added only a few verses (11b, 13, 31). To these he attached Joshua’s parting counsels (ch. 23).

The source named P takes much the same position about the conquest as the final editor. The chief difference lies in the fact that it associates Eleazar with Joshua, but these two formally divide the conquered territory.

It seems probable that the Book of Joshua once formed part of a greater whole—a history written in the Deuteronomic spirit and based on earlier sources, which covered the period from the conquest to the kingdom. This view is tenable along with the opinion that P was the final editor, who, adding some sections on the division which he extracted from older sources, brought the book to its present form.

A. C. WELCH.

JOSIAH.—1. King of Judah, who succeeded his father Amon when only eight years old (2 K 22:1). The religious condition of the people, which was bad under Amon, continued without essential improvement, so far as we know, until the eighteenth year of Josiah. The sudden change then made resulted from the finding of the Book of Instruction in the Temple (v. 8ff.); but it is possible that the minds of king and people were prepared for it by the Scythian invasion. The demand of the book for a thorough reformation powerfully affected the king and his officers. The book was read publicly, and king and people entered into a solemn covenant to act according to its injunctions. Its central demand was the removal of all altars in the country except the one at Jerusalem. This was henceforth to be the only sanctuary in Judah. The carrying out of this programme is related in detail, and we learn that the conclusion of the work was marked by the celebration of the Passover in a new manner and with unusual solemnity (23:21ff.).

Josiah’s reign was characterized by justice, as we learn from Jeremiah, but we know no more of it until the end of the king’s life. The Assyrian empire was tottering to its fall, and Pharaohnecho thought to seize the provinces nearest him and attach them to Egypt. He therefore invaded Palestine with an army. Josiah was ill-advised enough to attempt resistance. In the battle which ensued he was slain (23:29). His motive in undertaking this expedition has been much discussed. Probably he hoped to restore the real independence of Judah. That he was beloved by his people is indicated by their deep and long-continued mourning.

2. Son of Zephaniah (Zec 6:10).

H. P. SMITH.

JOSIAS = Josiah, king of Judah (1 Es 1:1, 7, 18, 21–23, 25, 28, 29, 32–34, Bar 1:8); in 1 Es 8:36 Josaphias.

JOSIPHIAH.—The father of one of Ezra’s companions (Ezr 8:10); in 1 Es 8:36 Josaphias.

JOT AND TITTLE.—In Mt 5:18 Jesus says, ‘Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled’ (||Lk 16:17). The Greek words iōta and keraia (WH kerea) were translated by Tindale ‘iott’ and ‘tytle,’ and these forms were retained in all the versions. The 1611 ed. of AV has ‘iote’ (one syllable) and ‘title,’ but modern printers have turned iote into ‘jot,’ and ‘title’ into ‘tittle.’ The iota is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet, as is the yod in the later Hebrew. The keraia (literally ‘little horn’) is any small mark distinguishing one letter from another, like the stroke of a t.

JOTBAH.—Named only in 2 K 21:19. It was probably in Judah, but the site is unknown.

JOTBATHAH.—A station in the journeyings of the Israelites (Nu 33:33f., Dt 10:7) , described as ‘a land of brooks of waters.’ Its position is unknown.

JOTHAM (judge).—The youngest son of Jerubbaal, who, by hiding himself, escaped the massacre of his brethren by Abimelech (Jg 9:5). When Abimelech had been proclaimed king by the Shechemites, Jotham appeared, close to where they were assembled, on Mt. Gerizim, and addressed to them the ‘Parable of the Trees’ (9:8–20). The parable, which is somewhat incongruous in parts, is intended as an appeal to the conscience of the Shechemites; in case the appeal should turn out to be fruitless (which indeed proved to be the case), Jotham utters a curse (v. 20) against both Abimelech and the Shechemites; this curse is shortly afterwards fulfilled. After his address, Jotham flees to Beer, fearing the vengeance of Abimelech, and we hear of him no more.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JOTHAM.—1. A king of Judah in the time of Isaiah. His father was afflicted with leprosy, and Jotham had some sort of regency before becoming sole ruler (2 K 15:5). We know nothing of him except that he rebuilt or ornamented one of the gates of the Temple (v. 35), and that the hostilities which later culminated in the invasion of Judah began before his death (vv. 37, 38).

2. A Calebite (1 Ch 2:47).

H. P. SMITH.

JOY.

The noun joy and its synonyms, rejoicing, gladness, mirth, the verb joy—more usually rejoice, also be (and make) joyful, be (and make) glad or merry—with the corresponding adjectives, represent in the OT a rich variety of Heb. synonyms not easily distinguishable. NT Greek expresses the emotion by three leading words: (a) the ordinary chara (vb. chairō; cf. charis, ‘grace’); (b) a term signifying excited, demonstrative joy, exultation—as noun rendered ‘gladness’ (Lk 1:14, Ac 2:46, He 1:9; ‘exceeding joy’ in Jude 24), as vb. ‘be exceeding glad’ (Mt 5:12, Rev 19:7), or ‘rejoice greatly’ (Ac 16:34, 1 P 1:6, 8 ,

4:13)—never found in Paul; (c) almost peculiar to Paul (who uses noun and vb. 34 times in 1 and 2 Cor., 8 times in Ro., and 8 times elsewhere), denoting joy over some personal distinction or possession, and mostly rendered ‘glorying’ or ‘boasting’ by AV, by RV uniformly ‘glorying,’ except in Ro 5:2f. where it appears twice as ‘rejoicing.’ (d) In Lk 12:19, 15:23 etc., 2 Co 2:2, we find a familiar Gr. word for festive, social joy; (e) in Ac 27:22 etc., Ja 5:13, a similar term signifying cheerfulness or high spirits. The Beatitudes of OT (under the formula ‘Blessed!,’ or ‘Happy, is the man,’ etc., as in Ps 1:1, 127:5) and of the NT (Mt 5:3ff. etc.) come under this head, as they set forth the objective conditions, spiritual or material, of religious happiness; while ‘peace’ designates the corresponding inward state forming the substratum of joy, which is happiness in its livelier but fluctuating emotional moods. Joy is to peace as the sunshine and bright colours are to the calm light and sweet air of a summer day: on the relations of the two, see Jn 14:1, 27f., 15:11, 16:19–33, Ro 14:17, 15:13, 32f., Gal 5:22, Ph 4:1–7 etc.).

Joy is more conspicuous in Christianity than in any other religion, and in the Bible than in any other literature. Psychologically, joy is the index of health, resulting from the adequate engagement of the affections and the vigorous and harmonious exercise of the powers; it is the sign that the soul has found its object. In the OT, as between J″ and Israel, joy is mutual. Its

ascription to J″ indicates the realism of the Heb. conception of the Divine personality: J″

‘rejoices in his works (Gn 1:31 etc., Ps 104:31), and ‘rejoices over’ His people ‘for good’ ( Dt

30:9, Zeph 3:17 etc.; cf. Lk 15:7, 10). ‘The righteous’ in turn ‘rejoice in J″,’ (Ps 97:12, 149:2 etc.), in the fact that they have such a God and know Him (Ps 4:6f., 16:11f., 100 etc.)—this is the supreme happiness of life, it is ‘life’ in the full sense (Ps 36:9, 63:1–7 etc.)—particularly in His ‘mercy’ and ‘faithfulness’ and ‘salvation’ (Ps 21:1–7, 51:7–17, 85, 89:1–8, Is 25:9, Hab 3:17 ff.), in His wise and holy ‘statutes’ (Dt 4:7f., Ps 119); they ‘rejoice before J″,’ expressing their joy by sacrifice and feast (Dt 12:10–12 etc.), they rejoice in the natural boons of life, in the guidance of Providence (Ps 103, 116, 118 etc.), in national blessings and success (Ex 15, 1 K 8:66, Is 55, Neh

12:43 etc.), in J″ ’s ‘judgments’ on wrong-doers (1 S 2:1–10, Ps 48:4ff., 68:1–6 etc.), and in His ‘promises,’ which bring hope and light into the darkest days (Ps 27:1–6, Jer 15:16, Zec 2:10, 9:9 etc.).

The OT joy in God breaks out again in the Canticles of the NT (Lk 1:46ff., 68ff., 2:28 ff.), being all the while sustained on ‘the hope of Israel,’ and gathering in the hidden reservoir of pious Jewish hearts. This ‘joy in God’ was strong in Jesus; the intimations given by Mk 2:18–22 , Mt 5:10–12, 6:16ff., 25–34, 11:16–19, Lk 10:21 and 15 (the whole ch.), Jn 2:1–11, 15:11, 17:13 , should correct the one-sided impression that in His ordinary temper our Lord was the ‘man of sorrows’; the glow of happiness felt in His company formed an element in the charm of Jesus. Christian joy is associated with the ‘finding’ of life’s ‘treasure’ in true religion (Mt 13:44 etc.), with the receiving of salvation through Christ (Ac 2:46, 16:34, 1 Th 1:6), with the influence of the Holy Spirit on the soul (Ro 14:17, Gal 5:22, Eph 5:18–20), with success in work for God and man, and hope of heavenly reward (Lk 10:20f., Jn 4:36, Ro 12:12, Ph 1:18, 1 P 4:13; cf. Ps 17:14f., 126:5), and with spiritual fellowship and friendship (Ro 12:15, 2 Co 7:7–16, Ph 2:1ff., 2 Jn 4 etc.)—‘the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,’ etc., an inseparable pair (see Jn 15:9–14). The adversities which destroy earthly happiness, like obstructions crossing a stream that rises from some deep spring, go to swell the tide of joy in the breast of the children of God; see, e.g., Mt 5:10ff., Jn 16:33, Ac 5:41, Ro 5:3–11, 8:31–39, 1 P 1:6–12, Rev 7:14–17, Is 35.

G. G. FINDLAY.

JOZABAD.—1. 2. 3. Three of David’s heroes (1 Ch 12:4, 20 bis). 4. The eponym of a

Levitical family (2 Ch 31:13, 35:9 [1 Es 1:9 Joram]). 5. A priest who had married a foreign wife

(Ezr 10:22 [1 Es 9:22 Ocidelus]). 6. A Levite (Ezr 8:33 [1 Es 8:63 Josabdus] 10:23 [1 Es 9:23 Jozabdus]). 7. An expounder of the Law (Neh 8:7 [1 Es 9:48 Jozabdus]). 8. An inhabitant of Jerusalem (Neh 11:16).

JOZABDUS.—1. 1 Es 9:23 = Ezr 10:23 Jozabad. 2. 1 Es 9:29 = Ezr 10:28 Zabbai. 3. 1 Es 9:48 = Neh 8:7 Jozabad.

JOZACAR.—In 2 K 12:21 it is said that Jozacar ben-Shimeath and Jehozabad ben-Shomer murdered Joash. The parallel 2 Ch 24:26 makes it clear that there was but one murderer named, and that his name has been duplicated. Jozacar and Zechariah have the same meaning, ‘Jahweb remembers.’

W. F. COBB.

JOZADAK.—See JEHOZADAK.

JUBAL.—A son of Lamech by Adah, and inventor of musical instruments, Gn 4:21 (J). The name prob. contains an allusion to yōbēl, ‘ram’s horn.’

JUBILEE.—See SABBATICAL YEAR.

JUBILEES, BOOK OF.—See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, § 2.

JUCAL.—See JEHUCAL.

JUDÆA.—A name first appearing in To 1:18 as applied to the old kingdom of Judah ( of which Judæa is merely the Græco-Roman equivalent),—as it was reoccupied after the Captivity by the returned descendants of subjects of the Southern Kingdom. Though sometimes (as in Lk 23:5, and more definitely in Ac 10:37, 26:10) loosely employed to denote the whole of Western Palestine, the name was properly confined to the southernmost of the three districts into which the Roman province of Western Palestine was divided—the other two being Galilee and Samaria. It lay between Samaria on the north and the desert of Arabia Petræa on the south; but its exact boundaries cannot be stated more definitely. After the death of Herod, Archelaus became ethnarch of Judæa, and after his deposition it was added to the province of Syria, and governed by a procurator with his headquarters in Cæsarea.

It was in the wilderness of Judæa that John the Baptist came forward as the forerunner of

Christ (Mt 3:1; cf. Mk 1:4; and Lk 3:2, ‘the wilderness’). It is probably the same as the

‘wilderness of Judah’ (Jg 1:16, Ps 63:1 [title], the desert tract to the W. of the Dead Sea. R. A. S. MACALISTER.

JUDAH (‘he is to be praised’; the popular etymologies seem to regard the name as an unabbreviated Hoph. impf. of jādāh, ‘to praise’).—Judah is represented as the fourth son of Leah by Jacob (Gn 29:35 [J] 35:23 (P]). Though he was of late birth, the Judæan document ( J ) nevertheless gives him precedence over Reuben, the firstborn, who is favoured by the later Ephraimite document E. According to J, it was Judah who proposed to sell Joseph in order to avert the danger which threatened him at the hands of his brethren (Gn 37:26ff.). Similarly, when they return to Joseph’s house with the silver cup, J gives the pre-eminence to Judah, and makes him spokesman for all in his pathetic appeal to Joseph (44:14–34). Reuben, because of his lust towards Bilhah (Gn 49:4, cf. 35:22), and Simeon and Levi, because of their barbarous conduct towards the Shechemites, fall before their enemies and into disfavour with their brethren, and Judah succeeds to the primogenitureship.

A tradition is preserved in Gn 38 which is generally supposed to be of great value as bearing upon the early development of the tribe. Judah is there said to have withdrawn himself from his brethren and to have gone down to a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. There he met with Bath-shua, a Canaanitess, whom he took to wife. She bore him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er and Onan were slain by Jahweh for their wickedness. Er’s widow, Tamar, a Canaanitess also, it seems, posing by the wayside as a hierodule, enticed Judah to intercourse with her, and of her the twin sons Perez and Zerah were born to Judah. This story is usually held to be based upon facts of tribal history, though cast in the form of personal narrative, and also to prove clearly that Judah, like other tribal names, is but the eponymous head of the tribe. It points to the settlement of Judah in the region of Adullam and its union with foreign stock. Hirah is a Canaanite clan; Er and Onan stand for two other clans which became united to Judah, but early disappeared; the other three continued to exist as constituents of Judah. Besides these it would appear that in the time of David the Calebite and Jerahmeelite tribes, mentioned in 1 Ch 2 as descendants of Perez, were incorporated into the tribe. In 1 S 27:10, 30:14 they still appear to be independent, though the Chronicler makes both Caleb and Jerahmeel descendants of Judah through Perez and Hezron, to whom also he traces David. In Nu 13 (P) Caleb, who is sent by Moses as one of the spies, belongs to Judah; but in Nu 32:12, Jos 14:6, 14 (R), Jg 3 etc., he is a

Kenizzite, the son of Kenaz. From the last passage we see that Othniel, whose chief centre was

Kiriathsepher (Debir), was another closely related tribe, and both appear from Gn 36:16, 42 ( P )

to have been Edomites. Kenites, commonly supposed to be of Midianite origin, we are told in Jg 1:16, also went up from Jericho with Judah into the Wilderness.

Of all these foreign elements by which the tribe of Judah was increased, the Calebite was the most important. In fact the Chronicler makes the Judahite stock consist largely of the

descendants of Hezron. It was the Calebite capital, Hebron, that under David (himself said to be Hezronite) became the capital of Judah. After this time the history of the tribe becomes the history of the Southern Kingdom.

P’s Sinai census (Nu 1:27) gives 74,600, and that of the Wilderness 76,500 (Nu 26:22).

The territory of the tribe is described in Jos 15:1ff. (P); but this is late and an ideal apportionment. In the Song of Deborah Judah is not even mentioned, because ‘it was not yet made up by the fusion of Israelite, Canaanite, Edomite, and Arabic elements,’ as Stade (GVI 113) puts it. The Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49:8ff.) and that of Moses (Dt 33:7) reflect conditions during the monarchy. How the tribe entered W. Canaan and obtained its early seat around Bethlehem it is impossible to say. See also TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

JAMES A. CRAIG.

JUDAH.—1. See preced. article. 2. Ezr 3:9 (cf. Neh 12:8) = 1 Es 5:58 Joda. 3. A Levite, Ezr 10:23 = 1 Es 9:23 Judas. 4. An overseer, Neh 11:9. 5. A priest’s son, Neh 12:36. 6. Lk 1:39; see Jutah. 7. See next article.

JUDAH ‘upon (AV) or at (RV) Jordan’ (Jos 19:34) is a very doubtful site. It is the general opinion that the text of this passage must be corrupt, and that the name of some place near Jordan, perhaps Chinneroth, may have been lost.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

JUDAISM.—See ISRAEL, II. §§ 5, 6.

JUDAS (in Apocr.), the Gr. equivalent of the Heb. name Judah. 1. The third son of

Mattathias, called Maccahæus (1 Mac 2:4 etc.). See MACCABEES, § 2. 2. One of two captains who stood by Jonathan at Hazor (1 Mac 11:70). 3. A Jew holding some important position at Jerusalem; he is named in the title of a letter sent from the Jews of Jerusalem and Judæa and the Jewish Senate to their brethren in Egypt, and to a certain Aristobulus (2 Mac 1:10). 4. A son, probably the eldest, of Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 16:2). In B.C. 135, he, with his father and another brother named Mattathias, was murdered at Dok by Ptolemy, the son of Abubus (16:11– 17). 5. 1 Es 9:23 = Judah of Ezr 10:23.

JUDAS (in NT)

1. Judas Iscariot.—See following article.

2. Judas, the son of James (see JAMES, 4). one of the twelve Apostles (Lk 6:16), called by

Mt. (10:3) Lebbæus and by Mk. (3:18) Thaddæus. The only thing recorded of him is that, when Jesus promised in the Upper Room to manifest Himself to the man that loved Him, he inquired:

‘Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?’ ( Jn 14:22 RV); showing that he shared the common ideal of the Messianic Kingdom. He pictured it as a worldly kingdom, and was expecting that Jesus would presently flash forth in majesty before an astonished world and ascend the throne of David; and he wondered what could have happened to prevent this consummation.

3. Judas, the Lord’s brother (Mt 13:55 = Mk 6:3).—See BRETHREN OF THE LORD. He was the author of the Short Epistle of Jude (i.e. Judas), where he styles himself ‘the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James’ (v. 1), and, like James, exhibits a stern zeal for morality.

4. Judas, the Galilæan.—He is so called both in the NT (Ac 5:37) and in Josephus, though he belonged to Gamala in Gaulanitis on the eastern side of the Lake of Galilee; perhaps because Galilee was the scene of his patriotic enterprise. At the enrolment or census under Quirinius in A.D. 7, Judas raised an insurrection. He perished, and his followers were scattered, but their spirit did not die. They banded themselves into a patriotic fraternity under the significant name of the Zealots, pledged to undying hostility against the Roman tyranny and ever eager for an opportunity to throw off its yoke.

5. Judas, a Jew of Damascus (Ac 9:11).—His house was in the Straight Street, and Saul of Tarsus lodged there after his conversion.

6. Judas Barsabbas, one of two deputies—Silas being the other—who were chosen by the rulers of the Church at Jerusalem to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and report to the believers there the Council’s decision on the question on what terms the Gentiles should be admitted into the Christian Church (Ac 15:22–33). Judas and Silas are described as ‘chief men among the brethren’ (v. 22) and ‘prophets’ (v. 32). Since they bore the same patronymic, Judas may have been a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (Ac 1:23). 7. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30).

DAVID SMITH.

JUDAS ISCARIOT.—One of the Twelve, son of Simon Iscariot (Jn 6:71, 13:26 RV). Iscariot (more correctly Iscarioth) means ‘the man of Kerioth.’ Kerioth was a town in the south of Judæa, and Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilæan. He had an aptitude for business, and acted as treasurer of the Apostle-band (Jn 12:6, 13:29).

Judas turned traitor, and sold the Lord to the high priests for thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Ex 21:32); and this dire treachery constitutes one of the hardest problems of the Gospel history. It seems to present an inevitable dilemma: either Jesus did not know what would happen, thus failing in foresight and discernment; or, as St. John expressly declares (6:64), He did know, and yet not only admitted Judas to the Apostolate, but appointed him to an office which, by exciting his cupidity, facilitated his crime. A solution of the problem has been sought by making out in various ways that Judas was not really a criminal.

(1) In early days it was held by the Cainites, a Gnostic sect, that Judas had attained a higher degree of spiritual enlightenment than his fellows, and compassed the death of Jesus because he knew that it would break the power of the evil spirits, the rulers of this world. (2) Another ancient theory is that he was indeed a covetous man and sold the Master for greed of the pieces of silver, but never thought that He would be slain. He anticipated that He would, as on previous occasions, extricate Himself from the hands of His enemies; and when he saw Him condemned, he was overwhelmed with remorse. He reckoned, thought Paulus in more recent times, on the multitude rising and rescuing their hero from the rulers. (3) He shared the general wonderment of the disciples at the Lord’s procrastination in coming forward as the King of Israel and claiming the throne of David, and thought to force His hand and precipitate the desired consummation. ‘His hope was,’ says De Quincey, ‘that Christ would no longer vacillate; he would be forced into giving the signal to the populace of Jerusalem, who would then rise unanimously.’ Cf. Rosegger, INRI, Eng. tr. p. 263. (4) His faith in his Master’s Messiahship, thought Neander, was wavering. If He were really the Messiah, nothing could harm Him; if He were not, He would perish, and it would be right that He should.

Such attempts to justify Judas must be dismissed. They are contrary to the Gospel narrative, which represents the Betrayal as a horrible, indeed diabolical, crime (cf. Jn 6:70, Lk 22:3, 4). If the Lord chose Judas with clear foreknowledge of the issue, then, dark as the mystery may be, it accords with the providential ordering of human affairs, being in fact an instance of an ancient and abiding problem, the ‘irreconcilable antinomy’ of Divine foreknowledge and human free will. It is no whit a greater mystery that Jesus should have chosen Judas with clear prescience of the issue, than that God should have made Saul king, knowing what the end would be.

Of course Judas was not chosen because he would turn traitor, but because at the outset he had in him the possibility of better things; and this is the tragedy of his career, that he obeyed his baser impulses and surrendered to their domination. Covetousness was his besetting sin, and he attached himself to Jesus because, like the rest of the disciples, he expected a rich reward when his Master was seated on the throne of David. His discipleship was a process of disillusionment. He saw his worldly dream fading, and, when the toils closed about his Master, he decided to make the best of the situation. Since he could not have a place by the throne, he would at least have the thirty shekels.

His resolution lasted long enough to carry through the crime. He made his bargain with the high priests (Mt 26:14–16 = Mk 14:10, 11 = Lk 22:3–6) evidently on the Wednesday afternoon, when Jesus, after the Great Indictment (Mt 23), was occupied with the Greeks who had come craving an interview (Jn 12:20–22); and promised to watch for an opportunity to betray Him into their hands. He found it next evening when he was dismissed from the Upper Room (Jn 13:27– 30). He knew that after the Supper Jesus would repair to Gethsemane, and thither he conducted the rulers with their band of soldiers. He thought, no doubt, that his work was now done, but he had yet to crown his ignominy. A difficulty arose. It lay with the soldiers to make the arrest, and, seeing not one man but twelve, they knew not which to take; and Judas had to come to their assistance. He gave them a token: ‘The one whom I shall kiss is he’; and, advancing to Jesus, he greeted Him with customary reverence and kissed Him effusively (Mt 26:47–50 = Mk 14:43–46 = Lk 22:47–49).

It must have been a terrible ordeal for Judas, and in that hour his better nature reasserted itself. He realized the enormity of what he had done; and he followed his Master and, in an agony of remorse, watched the tragedy of His trial and condemnation by the Sanhedrin. It maddened him; and as the high priests were leaving the Hall of Hewn Stone, the Sanhedrin’s meeting-place, he accosted them, clutching the accursed shekels in his wild hands. ‘I have sinned,’ he cried, ‘in that I betrayed innocent blood.’ He thought even now to annul the bargain, but they spurned him and passed to the Sanctuary. He followed, and, ere they could close the entrance, hurled the coins after them into the Holy Place; then rushed away and hanged himself (Mt 27:3–5).

Such is St. Matthew’s account. The tragedy was so appalling that legends grew apace in the primitive Church, and St. Luke has preserved one of these in a parenthesis in St. Peter’s speech at the election of Matthias (Ac 1:18, 19). One is glad to think that St. Matthew’s is the actual history. Judas sinned terribly, but he terribly repented, and one wishes that, instead of destroying his miserable life, he had rather fled to the Cross and sought mercy at the feet of his gracious Lord. There was mercy in the heart of Jesus even for Judas.

Was Judas present at the Eucharist in the Upper Room? St. John alone mentions his departure; and since he does not record the institution of the Supper, it is open to question whether the traitor ‘went out’ after it or before it. From Lk 22:17–21 it has been argued that he was present, but St. Luke’s arrangement is different from that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who put the institution after the announcement of the Betrayal (Mt 26:21–29 = Mk 14:18–25).

According to St. John’s account, Judas seems to have gone out immediately after the announcement, the institution following 13:38, and ch. 14 being the Communion Address.

DAVID SMITH.

JUDE, EPISTLE OF.—This short epistle is an earnest warning and appeal, couched in vivid and picturesque language, addressed to a church or a circle of churches which have become suddenly exposed to a mischievous attack of false teaching.

1. Contents

(1) Text.—For its length Jude offers an unusual number of textual problems, the two most important of which are in v. 5 and vv. 22, 23. Though the RV is probably right in translating ‘Lord’ in v. 5, many ancient authorities read ‘Jesus.’ Also, the position of ‘once’ is doubtful, some placing it in the following clause. In vv. 22, 23 editors differ as to whether there are two clauses or three. The RV, following the Sinaitic, has three; and Weymouth also, who, however, follows A in his ‘resultant’ text based on a consensus of editorial opinion. But there is much in favour of a two-claused sentence beginning with either ‘have mercy’ or ‘refute.’

(2) Outline

(i.) Salutation, vv. 1, 2. The letter opens moat appropriately with the prayer that mercy, peace, and love may increase among the readers, who are guarded by the love of God unto the day when Jesus Christ will appear.

(ii.) Occasion of the Epistle, vv. 3, 4. With affectionate greeting Jude informs his readers that he was engaged upon an epistle setting forth the salvation held by all Christians—Jews and Gentiles—when he was surprised by news which showed him that their primary need was warning and exhortation; for the one gospel which has been entrusted to the keeping of the ‘saints’ had been endangered in their case by a surreptitious invasion of false teachers, who turned the gospel of grace into a plea for lust, thereby practically denying the lordship of Jesus Christ. It had long been foretold that the Church would be faced by this crisis through these persons. (This was a common expectation in the Apostolic age; see 2 Th 2:3, 1

Ti 4:1, 2 Ti 3:1f., 4:3, 2 P 3:3, Mt 24:11, 12.)

(iii.) Warnings from history, vv. 5–7. Versed as they are in Scripture, they should take warning from the judgments of God under the Old Covenant. His people were destroyed for a postasy, though they had lately been saved from Egypt. Even angels were visited with eternal punishment for breaking bounds, and for fornication like that for which afterwards the cities of the plain perished. These are all awful examples of the doom that awaits those guilty of apostasy and sensuality.

(iv.) Description of the invaders, vv. 8–16. Boasting of their own knowledge through visions, these false teachers abandon themselves to sensuality, deny retribution, and scoff at the power of a spiritual world. Yet even Michael the archangel, when contending with Satan for the body of Moses, did not venture to dispute his function as Accuser, but left him and his blasphemies to a higher tribunal. But these persons, professing a knowledge of the spiritual realm of which they are really ignorant, have no other knowledge than that of sensual passion like the beasts, and are on their way to ruin. Sceptical like Cain, greedy inciters to lust like Balaam, rebellious like Korah, they are plunging into destruction. Would-be shepherds, they sacrilegiously pollute the love-feasts; delusive prophets, hopelessly dead in sin, shameless in their apostasy, theirs is the doom foretold by Enoch on the godless. They murmur against their fate, which they have brought upon themselves by lewdness, and they bluster, though on occasion they cringe for their own advantage.

(v.) The conduct of the Christian in this crisis, vv. 17–23. The Church need not be surprised by this attack, since it was foretold by the Apostles as a sign of the end, but should resist the disintegrating influence of these essentially unspiritual persons. The unity of the Church is to be preserved by mutual edification in Divine truth, by prayer through the indwelling Spirit, by keeping within the range of Divine love, and by watching for the day when Christ will come in mercy as Judge. Waverers must be mercifully dealt with; even the sensual are not past hope, though the work of rescue is very dangerous.

(vi.) Doxology, vv. 24, 25. God alone, who can guard the waverer from stumbling, and can remove the stains of sin and perfect our salvation through Jesus Christ, is worthy of all glory.

2. Situation of the readers.—The recipients of Jude may have belonged to one church or to a circle of churches in one district. They were evidently Gentiles, and of come standing (vv. 3 , 5). The Epistle affords very little evidence for the locality of the readers, but Syria or the Hellenistic cities of Palestine seem to suit the conditions. Syria would be a likely field for a distortion of the Pauline gospel of grace (v. 4). Also, if Jude was the brother of James of Jerusalem, whose influences extended throughout Palestine and probably Syria (Gal 2:9, 12), the address in v. 1 is explained. Syria was a breeding-ground for those tendencies which developed into the Gnostic systems of the 2nd century. Even as early as 1 Cor. ideas similar to these were troubling the Church (1 Co 5:10, 11:17ff.), and when the Apocalypse was written the churches of Asia were distressed by the Nicolaitans and those who, like Balaam, led the Israelites into idolatrous fornication (Rev 2:2, 6, 14, 15). In 3 Jn. there is further evidence of insubordination to Apostolic authority. New esoteric doctrine, fornication, and the assumption of prophetic power within the Church for the sake of personal aggrandizement, are features common to all. Jude differs in not mentioning idolatry. Possibly magic played no inconsiderable part in the practice of these libertines. We know that it met the gospel early in its progress (Ac 8:9–24, 13:6–12, 19:18 , 19). There is, however, no trace in Jude of a highly elaborated speculative system like those of the 2nd cent. Gnosticism. These persons deny the gospel by their lives,—a practical rather than an intellectual revolt against the truth. The inference from vv. 5–7 is that these errorists would not refuse to acknowledge the OT as a source of instruction; being in this also unlike Gnostics of the 2nd century. The phenomenon, as it is found in Jude, is quite explicable in the last quarter of the 1st century.

3. Authorship.—The author of this Epistle is very susceptible to literary influence, especially that of Paul. Compare Jude 1 with 1 Th 1:4, 2 Th 2:13; Jude 10, 19 with 1 Co 2:14 ; Jude 20, 21 with Ro 5:5, 8:26, Col 2:7; Jude 24, 25 with Ro 16:25–27, Col 1:22; and with the

Pastoral Epistles frequently, e.g., 1 Ti 1:3, 17, 5:24, 6:5, 2 Ti 3:6, 8, 13, 4:3f. His relation to 2 Peter is so close that one probably borrowed from the other, though there is great diversity of opinion as to which. See PETER [SECOND EP. OF], 4. (e). Bigg suggests ‘that the errors denounced in both Epistles took their origin from Corinth, that the disorder was spreading, that St. Peter took alarm and wrote his Second Epistle, sending a copy to St. Jude with a warning of the urgency of the danger, and that St. Jude at once Issued a similar letter to the churches in which he was personally interested.’ Jude is also unique in the NT in his use of apocryphal writings— the Assumption of Moses in v. 9, and the Book of Enoch in vv. 6, 14, 15 almost in the same way as Scripture.

The Jude who writes cannot be the Apostle Judas (Lk 6:16, Ac 1:13), nor does he ever assume Apostolic authority. James (v. 1) must be the head of the Jerusalem Church, and the brother of our Lord. Jude probably called himself ‘servant’ and not ‘brother’ of Jesus Christ ( Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3), because he felt that his unbelief in Jesus in the days of His flesh did not make that term a title of honour, and he may have come to understand the truth that faith, not blood, constitutes true kinship with Christ. The difficulty of accounting for the choice of such a pseudonym, and the absence from the letter of any substantial improbability against the traditional view, make it reasonable to hold that Jude the brother of our Lord was the author. He may have written it between A.D. 75 and 80, probably before 81, for Hegesippus (170) states that Jude’s grandsons were small farmers in Palestine, and were brought before Domitian (81–96) and contemptuously dismissed.

4. External testimony.—In the age of the Apostolic Fathers the only witness to Jude is the Didache, and that is so faint as to count for little. By the beginning of the 3rd cent. it was well known in the west, being included in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 200), commented upon by

Clement of Alexandria, and accepted by Origen and by Tertullian. Ensebius places it among the ‘disputed’ books, saying that it had little early recognition. It is absent from the Peshitta version. The quotations from apocryphal writings hindered its acceptance, but the early silence, on the assumption of its genuineness, is to be accounted for chiefly by its brevity and its comparative unimportance.

R. A. FALCONER.

JUDGES.—An examination of Ex 18 shows that the Hebrew word for to ‘judge’ means originally to pronounce the oracle; thus, when we read of Moses sitting to ‘judge the people’ ( v. 13), a reference to vv. 15, 16 shows that what is meant is the giving of Divine decisions: ‘… the people come unto me to inquire of God: when they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God, and his laws’ ( cf. vv. 19, 20). In the next place, the same chapter shows the word in process of receiving a wider application; owing to the increasing number of those who come to seek counsel, only specially difficult cases are dealt with by Moses, while the ordinary ones are deputed to the heads of the families, etc., to settle (vv. 25, 26). A ‘judge’ was therefore originally a priest who pronounced oracles; then the elders of the people became judges. But at an early period the functions of the ‘judges,’ at any rate the more important of them, were exercised by a chief, chosen from among the elders probably on account of superior skill in warfare,—an hereditary succession would, however, naturally tend to arise—who was to all intents and purposes a king. So the probability is that those who are known as the ‘judges’ in popular parlance were in reality kings in the ordinary sense of the word. In connexion with this it is interesting to note that in somewhat later times than those of the ‘judges’ one of the main duties of the king was to judge, see e.g. 2 S 15:1–6, ‘… there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land.… And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment’ (cf., further, 1 K 3:9, 2 K 15:5); moreover, ‘judge’ and ‘king’ seem to be used synonymously in Am 2:3, Hos 7:7, Ps 2:10. The offer of the kingship (hereditary) to the ‘judge’

Gideon (Jg 8:22ff.) fully bears out what has been said. The fact probably is that the

Deuteronomic legislators, on theocratic grounds, called those rulers ‘judges’ who were actually kings in the same sense as Saul was; fundamentally there was no difference between the two, but nominally a difference was implied.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JUDGES (Book of)

1. Name.—The Heb. title Shōphetīm (‘Judges’) is parallel to Melākhīm (‘Kings’); both are abbreviations, the full title requiring in each case the prefixing of ‘the Book of’; this full title is found for Judges in the Syriac Version, for Kings in, e.g., 2 Ch 20:34 (where ‘of Israel’ is added) 24:27. Just as the titie ‘Kings’ denotes that the book contains an account of the doings of the various kings who ruled over Israel and Judah, so the title ‘Judges’ is given to the book because it describes the exploits of the different champions who were the chieftains of various sections of Israelites from the time of the entry into Canaan up to the time of Samuel. It may well be questioned whether the title of this book was originally ‘Judges,’ for it is difficult to see where the difference lies, fundamentally, between the ‘judges’ on the one hand, and Joshua and Saul on the other; in the case of each the main and central duty is to act as leader against the foes of certain tribes. The title ‘judge’ is not applied to three of these chieftains, namely, Ehud, Barak, and Gideon, and ‘seems not to have been found in the oldest of the author’s sources’ ( Moore, Judges, p. xii.). In the three divisions of which the Hebrew Canon is made up, the Book of

Judges comes in the first section of the second division, being reckoned among the ‘Former Prophets’ (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and 2 Kings), the second section of the division comprising the prophetical books proper. In the LXX the Book of Ruth is sometimes, in some MSS, included in that of Judges, other MSS treat the Pentateuch and Jos., Jg., Ruth as one whole. [For the meaning of the word ‘judges’ see preceding article.]

2. Contents.—The book opens with an account of the victories gained by Judah and Simeon; Caleb appears as the leader of the tribe of Judah, though he is not spoken of as one of the judges. There follows then an enumeration of the districts which the Israelites were unable to conquer; the reason for this is revealed by the messenger of Jahweh; it is because they had not obeyed the voice of Jahweh, but had made covenants with the people of the land, and had refrained from breaking down their altars. The people thereupon lift up their voices and weep (whence the name of the place, Bochim), and sacrifice to Jahweh. The narrative then abrnptly breaks off. This section (1:1–2:5) serves as a kind of Introduction to the book, and certainly cannot have belonged originally to it; ‘the whole character of Jg 1:1–2:5 gives evidence that it was not composed for the place, but is an extract from an older history of the Israelite occupation of Canaan’ (Moore, p. 4). As this introduction must be cut away as not belonging to our book, a similar course must be followed with chs. 17–21; these form an appendix which does not belong to the book. It will be best to deal with the contents of these five chapters before coming to the book itself. The chapters contain two distinct narratives, and are, in their original form, very ancient; in each narrative there occurs twice the redactional note, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel’ (17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25), showing that the period of the Judges is implied. Chs. 17, 18 tell the story of the Ephraimite Micah, who made an ephod and teraphim for himself, and got a Levite to be a ‘father and a priest’ to him; but he is persuaded by 600 Danites to go with them and be their priest; they then conquer Laish and found a sanctuary there, in which a graven image (which had been taken from Micah) is set up. The narrative, therefore, purports to give an account of the origin of the sanctuary of Dan, and it seems more than probable that two traditions of this have been interwoven in these two chapters. In chs. 19–21 the story is told of how a concubine of a certain Levite left him and returned to her father; the Levite goes after her and brings her back. On their return they remain for a night in Gibeah, which belonged to the Benjamites; here the men of the city so maltreat the concubine that she is left dead on the threshold of the house in which her lord is staying; the Levite takes up the dead body, brings it home, and, after having cut it up, sends the pieces by the hands of messengers throughout the borders of Israel, as a call to avenge the outrage. Thereupon the Israelites assemble, and resolve to punish the Benjamites; as a result, the entire tribe, with the exception of six hundred men who manage to escape to the wilderness, is annihilated. Although six hundred men have survived, it appears inevitable that the tribe of Benjamin must die out, for the Israelites had sworn not to let their daughters marry Benjamites; this causes great distress in Israel. However, the threatened disaster of the loss of a tribe is averted through the Israelites procuring four hundred maidens from Jabesh in Gilead, the remaining two hundred required being carried off by the Benjamites during the annual feast at Shiloh. The children of Israel then depart every man to his home. The narrative appropriately ends with the words, ‘Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.’ Although these chapters have been very considerably worked over by later hands, it is probable that they have some basis in fact; it is difficult to account for their existence at all on any other hypothesis, for in themselves they are quite purposeless; there cannot originally have been any object in writing such a gruesome tale, other than that of recording something that actually happened.

The Book of Judges itself is comprised in 2:6–16:31; and here it is to be noticed, first of all, that a certain artificiality is observable in the structure; the exploits of twelve men are recounted, and the idea seems to be that each represents one of the twelve tribes of Israel, thus: Judah is represented by Othniel, Benjamin by Ehud, the two halves of the tribe of Manasseh by Gideon (West) and Jair (East), Issachar by Tola, Zebulun by Elon, Naphtali by Barak, Ephralm by Abdon, Gad by Jephthah, and Dan by Samson; besides these ten there are Shamgar and Ibzan, two unimportant Judges, but against them there are the two tribes Reuben and Simeon, who, however, soon disappear; while the tribe of Levi, as always, occupies an exceptional position. This general correspondence of twelve judges to the twelve tribes strikes one the more as artificial in that some of the judges play a very humble part, and seem to have been brought in to make up the number twelve rather than for anything else. The following is an outline of the contents of these chapters:—

There is, first of all, an introduction (2:6–3:6) which contains a brief but comprehensive résumé of the period about to be dealt with; as long as Joshua was alive, it says, the children of Israel remained faithful to Jahweh; but after his death, and after the generation that knew him had passed away, the people for sook Jahweh, the God of their fathers, and served Baal and Ashtaroth; the consequence was that they were oppressed by the surrounding nations. 2:15–19 sound what is the theme of the whole book: the nation distressed, a judge raised up who delivers them from their oppressors, relapse into idolatry. The introduction closes with a list of the nations which had been left in the Promised Land with the express purpose of ‘proving’ the Israelites. [For the historical value of this Introduction, see § 5.] Of the twelve Judges dealt with, seven are of Quite subordinate importance, little more than a bare mention of them being recorded; they are: Othniel (3:7–11), who delivers the children of Israel from Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia; he is mentioned incidentally in 1:13 as marrying the daughter of Caleb; Shamgar (3:31), of whom nothing more is said than that he killed six hundred Philistines; Tola (10:1–2); Jair (10:3–5); Ibzan (12:8–10); Elon (12:11, 12); and Abdon (12:13–15). Of real importance are the accounts which are given of the other five judges. (1) Ehud, who delivers Israel from Egloa, king of Moab (3:12– 30). (2) Barak, who is, however, rather the instrument of Deborah; chs. 4, 5 give accounts, in prose and poetry respectively, of the Israelite victory over Sisera. (3) Gideon. Of the last there are likewise two accounts (6–8:3 and 8:4–27), with a later addition (8:28–35); some introductory words (6:1–10) tell of the

Midianite oppression; 6:11–24 describe the call of Gideon, of which a second account is given in 6:25–

32; the invasion of the Midianites and Gideon’s preparations to resist them (6:33–35) follows; and in 6:36–40 the story of the sign of the fleece is told. Ch. 7 gives a detailed account of Gideon’s victory over the Midianites, and 8:1–3 contaios an appendix which tells of Ephraim’s dissatisfaction with Gideon for not summoning them to repel the Midianites, and the skilful way in which Gideon pacifies them. In Jg 8:4–21 comes the second account of Gideon’s victory, the result of which is the offer to him of the kingship and his refusal thereof (8:22–28); 8:29–35 forms a transition to the story of Gideon’s son, Abimelech (see below). (4) The history of Jephthah is prefaced by 10:17–18, which tells of the Ammonite oppression; Jephthah’s exploits are recounted in 11:1–12:7; a biographical note (11:1–3) introduces the hero, and a long passage (11:4–29) follows, describing how the conflict with the Ammonites arose; it is a question concerning the ownership of the lands between the Jabhok and the Arnon, which are claimed by the Ammonites, but which the Israelites maintain have been in their possession for three hundred years. As no agreement is arrived at, war breaks out. A section, which is of great interest archæologically (11:30–40), tells then of a vow which Jephthah made to Jahweh, to the effect that if he returned victorious from the impending struggle with the Ammonites, he would offer up in sacrifice the first person whom he met on his return coming out of his dwelling. He is victorious, and the first to meet him was, as according to the custom of the times he must have expected (see Jg 5:28, 1 S 18:6, 7, Ps 68:11), his daughter—the words in v. 39, ‘and she had not known man,’ are significant in this connexion;—his vow he then proceeds to fulfil. The next passage (12:1–8), which tells of a battle between Jephthah and the Ephraimites, in which the latter are worsted, reminds one forcibly of 8:1–3, and the two passages are clearly related in some way. (5) Lastly, the history of Samson and his doings is recorded, chs. 13–16; these chapters contain three distinct stories, but they form a self-contained whole. The first story (ch. 13) tells of the wonderful experiences of the parents of the hero prior to his birth; how an angel foretold that he was to be born, and that he was to be a Nazirite; and how the angel ascended in a flame from the altar on which Manoah had offered a sacrifice to Jahweh; vv. 24, 25 record his birth and hie growth to manhood, the spirit of Jahweh being upon him. The fourteenth chapter gives an account of Samson’s courtship and marriage with the Philistine woman of Timnah: vv. 1–4 his first meeting with her, and his desire that his parents should go down to Timnah to secure her for him, they at first demur, but ultimately they accompany him thither. His exploit with the lion, his riddle during the wedding-feast, the craft of his wife in obtaining the answer to the riddle from him, and the way in which he paid the forfeit to the wedding guests for having found out the answer to the riddle,—all this is told in the remainder of the chapter (vv. 5–20). Further exploits are recounted in ch. 15: Samson’s burning of the Philistines’ fields by sending into them foxes with burning torches tied to their tails (vv. 1–8); the Philistines attack Judah in consequence, but the men of Judah bind Samson with the purpose of delivering him up; he, however, breaks his bonds, and kills a thousand Philistines with the jawhone of an ass (vv. 1– 17); the remaining verses describe the miracle of the origin of the spring in En-hakkore (vv. 18–20). In ch. 16 there is a continuation of Samson’s adventures: his carrying off the gates of Gaza (vv. 1–3); his relationship with Delilah and her treachery, resulting in his final capture by the Philistines (vv. 22); their rejoicing (vv. 23–25); the destruction of the house, and death of Samson (vv. 26–30); his burial (v. 31).

The section dealing with Abimelech (ch. 9), though certainly belonging to the Gideon chapters (6–8) stands on a somewhat different basis, inasmuch as Abimelech is not reckoned among the judges (see following section): Abimelech is made king of Shechem (vv. 1–6); Jotham his brother, delivers his parable from Mt Genzim, and then flees (v. 7–21); the quarrel between Abimelech and the Shechemites (vv. 22–25); Gaal raises a revolt among the Shechemites (vv. 26–33); Abimelech quells the revolt ( vv. 34–41); Shechem is captured and destroyed (vv. 42–45); its tower burned (vv. 46–49); Abimelech’s attack Thehez, and his death (vv. 50–57). Lastly, there is the short section 10:6–16, which, like 1:1–2:5 , partakes of the nature of Introduction, and is of late date.

3. Arrangement and Sources.—The question of the sources of our hook is a difficult and complicated one; the different hypotheses put forward are sometimes of a very contradictory character, and proportionately bewildering. It seems, indeed, not possible to assign, with any approach to certainty, the exact source of every passage in the hook; but there are certain indications which compel us to see that the book is compiled from sources of varying character and of different ages; so that, although we shall not attempt to specify a source for every passage—believing this to be impossible with the hook as we now have it—yet it will he possible to point out, broadly, the main sources from which it is compiled.

(1) It may be taken for granted that the exploits of tribal heroes would be commemorated by their descendants, and that the narrative of these exploits would be composed very soon, probably immediately in some cases, after the occurrences. So ingrained is this custom, that even as late as the Middle Ages we find it still in vogue in Europe, the ‘Troubadours’ being the counterpart of the singers of far earlier ages. It is therefore clear that there must have existed among the various Israelite tribes a body of traditional matter regarding the deeds of tribal heroes which originally floated about orally within the circumscribed area of each particular tribe. Moreover, it is also well known that these early traditions were mostly sung—or, to speak more correctly, recited—in a primitive form of poetry. The earliest sources, therefore, of our book must have been something of this character.

(2) It is, however, quite certain that some intermediate stages were gone through before the immediate antecedents of our present book became existent. In the first place, there must have taken place at some time or other a collection of these ancient records which belonged originally to different tribes; one may confidently assume that a collection of this kind would have been put together from written materials; these materials would naturally have been of varying value, so that the collector would have felt himself perfectly justified in discriminating between what he had before him; some records he would retain, others he would discard; and if he found two accounts of some tradition which he considered important, he would incorporate both. In this way there would have arisen the immediate antecedent to the Book of Judges in its original form. The ‘Song of Deborah’ may be taken as an illustration of what has been said. At some early period there was a confederacy among some of the tribes of Israel, formed for the purpose of combating the Canaanites; the confederates are victorious; the different tribes who took part in the battle return home, and (presumably) each tribe preserves its own account of what happened; for generations these different accounts are handed down orally; ultimately some are lost, others are written down; two are finally preserved and incorporated into a collection of tribal traditions, i.e. in their original form they were the immediate antecedents of our present accounts in Jg 4:4ff. and 5:1 ff.

(3) We may assume, then, as reasonably certain, the existence of a body of traditional matter which had been compiled from different sources; this compilation represents our Book of Judges in its original form; it is aptly termed by many scholars the pre-Deuteronomic collection of the histories of the Judges. This name is given because the book in its present form shows that an editor or redactor took the collection of narratives and fitted them into a framework, adding introductory and concluding remarks; and the additions of this editor ‘exhibit a phraseology and colouring different from that of the rest of the book,’ being imbued strongly with the spirit of the Deuteronomist (Driver). It is possible, lastly, that some still later redactional elements are to be discerned (Cornill). Speaking generally, then, the various parts of the book may be assigned as follows: 1:1–2:5, though added by a later compiler, contains fragments, probably themselves from different sources, of some early accounts of the first warlike encounters between Israelite tribes and Canaanites. In the introduction, 2:6–3:6, to the central part of the book, the hand of the Deuteronomic compiler is observable, but part of it belongs to the pre-Deuteronomic form of the book. The main portion, 3:7–16, is for the most part ancient; where the hand of the

Deuteronomist is most obvious is at the beginning and end of each narrative; the words, ‘And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord …,’ at the beginning, and ‘… cried unto the Lord, … and the land had rest’ so and so many years, at the end, occur with monotonous regularity. ‘It is evident that in this part of the book a series of independent narratives has been taken by the compiler and arranged by him in a framework, designed for the purpose of stating the chronology of the period, and exhibiting a theory of the occasion and nature of the work which the Judges generally were called to undertake’ (Driver). The third division of the book, chs. 17–21, is ancient; ‘in the narratives themselves there is no trace of a Deuteronomic redaction’ (Moore); but they come from different sources, chs. 17, 18 being the oldest portions.

4. Text.—A glance at the apparatus criticus of any good edition of the Massoretic text, such as Kittel’s, shows at once that, generally speaking, the Hebrew text has come down to us in a good state; ‘it is better preserved than that of any other of the historical books’ (Moore). A number of errors there certainly are; but these can in a good many cases be rectified by the versions, and above all by the Greek version. The only part of the book which contains serious textual defects is the Song of Deborah, and here there are some passages which defy emendation. In the Greek there are two independent translations, one of which is a faithful reproduction of the Massoretic text, and is therefore not of much use to the textual critic.

5. Historical value.—There are few subjects in the Bible which offer to the student of history a more fascinating field of study than that of the historical value of the Book of Judges. It will be clear, from what has been said in § 3, that to gauge its historical value the component parts of the book must be dealt with separately; it is also necessary to differentiate, wherever necessary, between the historical kernel of a passage and the matter which has been superimposed by later editors; this is not always easy, and nothing would be more unwise than to claim infallibility in a proceeding of this kind. At the same time, it is impossible to go into very much detail here, and only conclusions can be given. 1:1–2:5 is, as a whole, a valuable source of information concerning the history of the conquest and settlement of some of the Israelite tribes west of the Jordan; for the period of which it treats it is one of the most valuable records we possess.

2:6–3:6, which forms the introduction to the main body of the book, is, with the exception of isolated notes such as 2:9, 3:5, of very little historical value; when, every time the people are oppressed, the calamity is stated to be due to apostasy from Jahweh, one cannot help feeling that the statement is altogether out of harmony with the spirit of the book itself; this theory is too characteristic of the ‘Deuteronomic’ spirit to be reckoned as belonging to the period of the Judges.

3:7–11, the story of Othniel, shows too clearly the hand of the ‘Deuteronomic’ redactor for it to be regarded as authentic history; whether Othniel is an historical person or not, the mention of the king of Mesopotamia in the passage, as having so far conquered Canaan as to subjugate the

Israelite tribes in the south, is sufficient justification for questioning the historicity of the section.

On the other hand, the story of Ehud, 3:12–30, is a piece of genuine old history; signs of redactional work are, Indeed, not wanting at the beginning and end, but the central facts of the story, such as the Moabite oppression and the conquest of Jericho, the realistic description of the assassination of Eglon, and the defeat of the Moabites, all bear the stamp of genuineness. In the same way, the brief references to the ‘minor’ judges—Shamgar (3:31), Tola (10:1, 2), Jair (10:5– 5), Ibzan (12:8–10), Elon (12:11, 12), and Abdon (12:13–15)—are historical notes of value; their Interpretation is another matter; it is possible that these names are the names of clans and not of individuals; some of them certainly occur as the names of clans in later books.

The ‘judgeship’ of Deborah and Barak is the most important historical section in the book; of the two accounts of the period, chs. 4 and 5, the latter ranks by far the higher; it is the most important source in existence for the history of Israel; ‘by the vividness of every touch, and especially by the elevation and intensity of feeling which pervades it, it makes the impression of having been written by one who had witnessed the great events which it commemorates’ (Moore); whether this was so or not, there can be no doubt of its high historical value; apart from the manifest overworking of the Deuteronomic redactor, it gives a wonderful insight into the conditions of the times.

Chs. 6–8, which combine two accounts of the history of Gideon, have a strong historical basis; they contain much ancient matter, but even in their original forms there were assuredly some portions which cannot be regarded as historical, e.g. 6:36 ff.

Ch. 9, the story of Abimelech, is one of the oldest portions of the book, and contains for the most part genuine history; it gives an instructive glimpse of the relations between Canaanites and

Israelites now brought side by side; ‘the Canaanite town Shechem, subject to Jerubbaal of Ophrah; his balf-Canaanite son Abimelech, who naturally belongs to his mother’s people; the successful appeal to blood, which is “thicker than water,” by which he becomes king of Shechem, ruling over the neighbouring Israelites also; the interloper Gaal, and his kinsmen, who settle in Shechem and Instigate insurrection against Abimelech by skilfully appealing to the pride of the Shechemite aristocracy—all help us better than anything else in the book to realize the situation in this period’ ( Moore ).

The section 10:6–18 contains a few historical notes, but is mostly Deuteronomic. The Jephthah story (11:1–12:7), again, contains a great deal that is of high value historically; the narrative does not all come from one source, and the Deuteronomist’s hand is, as usual, to be discerned here and there, but that it contains ‘genuine historical traits’ (Kuenen) is universally acknowledged.

Chs. 13–16, which recount the adventures of Samson, must be regarded as having a character of their own: if these adventures have any basis in fact, they have been so overlaid with legendary matter that it would be precarious to pronounce with any degree of certainty any part of them in their present form to be historical.

Chs. 17, 18 are among the most valuable, historically, in the book; they give a most instructive picture of the social and religious state of the people during the period of the Judges, and bear every mark of truthfulness.

Chs. 19–21. Of these chapters, 19 is not unlike the rest of the book in character; it is distinctly ‘old-world,’ and must be pronounced as, in the main, genuinely historical; 21:19–24 has likewise a truly antique ring, but the remainder of this section is devoid of historical reality. W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JUDGING (Ethical).—The subject of ethical judging meets us frequently in the NT. 1. It is the right and duty of a moral being to judge of the goodness or badness of actions and qualities; and Christianity, by exalting the moral standard and quickening the conscience, makes ethical judgments more obligatory than before. In cases where our judgments are impersonal there is no difficulty as to the exercise of this right. As possessed of a conscience, a man is called upon to view the world in the discriminating light of the moral law (Ro 2:14ff., 2 Co 4:2). As possessed of a Christian conscience, a Christian man must test everything by the law of Christ (Ph 1:10 RVm, 1 Th 5:21). ‘He that is spiritual judgeth all things’ (1 Co 2:15).

2. So far all is clear. But when we pass to the sphere of judgments regarding persons, the case is not so simple. It might seem at first almost as if in the NT all judgment of persons were forbidden. There is our Lord’s emphatic ‘Judge not’ (Mt 7:1). There is St. Paul’s demand, ‘Why dost thou judge thy brother?’ (Ro 14:10), his injunction, ‘Let us not therefore judge one another’ (v. 13), his bold claim that he that is spiritual is judged of no man (1 Co 2:15). There is the assertion of St. James that the man who judges his brother is making himself a judge of the law (Ja 4:11), i.e. the royal law of love (cf. 2:8). But it is impossible to judge of actions and qualities without passing on to judge the persons who perform them or in whom they inhere. If an action is sinful, the person who commits it is sinful; indeed, the moral quality of an action springs from its association with a moral personality. In condemning anything as wrong, we necessarily condemn the person who has been guilty of it. And when we look more closely at the teaching of the NT, we find that it is not judgment of others that is forbidden, but unfair judgment—a judgment that is biassed or superficial or narrow or censorious and untouched with charity. ‘Judge not,’ said Jesus, ‘that ye be not judged’; and the context shows that His meaning was, ‘Do not judge others without first judging yourself.’ ‘Let us not judge one another,’ says St. Paul; but it is in the course of a plea for liberty in non-essentials and charity in all things. ‘He that is spiritual,’ he says again, ‘is judged of no man’; but his meaning is that the natural man is incompetent to judge the spiritual man in regard to spiritual things. And when St. James couples judging our brother with speaking against him, and represents both as infringements of the royal law, it seems evident that he refers to a kind of judging that is not charitable or even just, but is inspired by malice or springs from a carping habit. Ethical judgment of personal worth was a function freely exercised by Jesus Christ (e.g. Mt 16:23, 23:13ff.||, Mk 10:21, Lk 13:32, Jn 1:47 , 6:70), and it is the privilege and duty of a Christian man. But if our judgments are to be pure reflexions of the mind of Christ, and not the verdicts of ignorance, prejudice, or selfishness, the following NT rules must be observed. We must (1) let our judgments begin with ourselves ( Mt 7:3ff.||, Ro 2:1); (2) not judge by appearances (Jn 7:24; cf. 8:15); (3) respect the liberty of our brother’s conscience (Ro 14, 1 Co 10:29); (4) not seek to usurp the office of the final Judge (1 Co 4:5, Ro 14:10); (5) beware of the censorious spirit (Ja 4:11).

J. C. LAMBERT.

JUDGMENT.—Biblical eschatology centres about the Judgment to which all humanity is to be subjected at the end of this ‘age.’ As the introduction to the Messianic Age, it was expected to occur at a definite time in the future, and would take place in the heavens, to which all humanity, whether living or dead, would be raised from Sheol. The judge was sometimes said to be God (He 12:23), sometimes His representative, the Christ, assisted by the angels (Ro 2:16, Mt 13:24– 30, 37–43, 47–50, 24:31–45; Cf. Eth. Enoch 48). In Lk 22:30, 1 Co 6:2, Christians are also said to be judges. At the Judgment, sentences would be pronounced determining the eternal states of individuals, both men and angels. Those who had done wrong would be doomed to punishment, and those who had accepted Jesus as Christ, either explicitly, as in the case of the Christians, or implicitly, as in the case of Abraham, would be acquitted and admitted to heaven. The question as to the basis of this acquittal gave rise to the great discussion between St. Paul and the Jewish Christians, and was developed in the doctrine of justification by faith.

By its very nature the thought of judgment is eschatological, and can be traced from the conception of the Day of Jehovah of the ancient Hebrews. While the Scripture writers sometimes conceived of disease and misery as the result of sin, such suffering was not identified by them with the penalties inflicted at the Judgment. These were strictly eschatological, and included non-participation in the resurrection of the body, and suffering in hell. (See ABYSS, DAY OF THE

LORD, BOOK OF LIFE, GEHENNA.)

For ‘judgment’ in the sense of justice see art. JUSTICE.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

JUDGMENT-HALL.—See PRÆTORIUM.

JUDGMENT-SEAT.—The usual word employed for this in the NT is bēma (Mt 27:19, Jn 19:13, Ac 18:12, 16f., 25:6, 10, 17, Ro 14:10, 2 Co 5:10), properly a ‘tribune.’ In the NT the word is used of the official seat (tribunal) of the Roman judge. The word kritērion used in Ja 2:5 occurs also in 1 Co 6:2, 4, where it is translated in RVm by ‘tribunal.’ See, further, art. GABBATHA.

JUDITH.—1. A wife of Esau, daughter of Beeri the Hittite (Gn 26:34; cf. 36:2). 2. Daughter of Merari, of the tribe of Simeon (8:1 [cf. Nu 1:6] 9:2); widow of Manassea of the same tribe. For the book of which she is the heroine see art. APOCRYPHA, § 9.

JUEL.—1. 1 Es 9:34 = Uel, Ezr 10:34. 2. 1 Es 9:35 = Joel, Ezr 10:43.

JULIA.—A Christian greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16:15, perhaps a ‘dependent of the Court,’ and wife or sister of Philologus (Lightfoot, Phitipp. p. 177).

A. J. MACLEAN.

JULIUS.—For the voyage to Rome St. Paul was committed with other prisoners to the charge of a centurion named Julius, ‘of the Augustan band’ or cohort (Ac 27:1). Julius showed much kindness to the Apostle, and evidently treated him as a man of importance, though he did not take his advice on a matter of navigation (27:3, 9, 11, 21, 31, 43, 28:16). Sir Wm. Ramsay suggests (St. Paul, p. 323) that, as Julius rather than the captain or ‘sailing master’ (not ‘owner’) had supreme command (27:11), the ship must have been a Government vessel. He and his soldiers were probably frumentarii or peregrini, having a camp at Rome and engaged in the commissariat of distant legions, and in bringing political prisoners. In 28:16 some MSS (not the best) say that the prisoners were delivered to the captain of the guard in Rome. This, if a gloss, is at least probably true; the captain of the peregrini would be meant. (See also art. BAND.) A. J. MACLEAN.

JUNIAS or JUNIA.—A Christian greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16:7, but it is uncertain which form is to be taken, i.e. whether a man or a woman is intended. As Junias and Andronicus ( wh. see) were ‘of note among the apostles’ (the last word being used in its widest sense), the former view is more probable. Junias (short for Junianus) was a ‘kinsman’ of St. Paul, i.e. a Jew. A. J. MACLEAN.

JUNIPER (rōthem) is undoubtedly the Arab. ratam, a species of broom very common in desert places in Palestine and Sinai. This broom (Retama retem) is in many such places the only possible shade; it sometimes attains a height of 7 to 8 feet (1 K 19:5). The root is still burned to furnish charcoal (Ps 120:4). In Job 30:4 mention is made of the roots being cut up for food. As they are bitter and nauseous and contain very little nourishment, this vividly pictures the severity of the famine in the wilderness.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

JUPITER.—This god is not really referred to in the Bible. The Roman god Iuppiter ( ‘Father of Light’ or ‘of the sky’) was recognized by the Romans as corresponding in attributes to the Greek god Zeus, and hence in modern times the term ‘Zeus’ in the Bible (2 Mac 6:2) has been loosely translated ‘Jupiter.’ The name Zeus is itself cognate with the first part of the word Jupiter, and suggests the ruler of the firmament, who gives light and sends rain, thunder, and other natural phenomena from the sky. He was conceived as having usurped the authority of his father Kronos and become the chief and ruler of all the other gods. As such he was worshipped all over the Greek world in the widest sense of that term. The case of Ac 14:12, 13 is further complicated, because there it is not even the Greek Zeus who is referred to, but the native supreme god of the Lycaonians, who was recognized by the author of Acts to correspond, as their chief god, to the Greek Zeus. All that we know of this god is that his temple at Lystra was without the city wall (Ac 14:13), and that Barnabas, as the big silent man, was taken for him. In Ac 19:35 the phrase ‘from Jupiter’ simply means ‘from the sky’ (cf. what is said above).

A. SOUTER.

JUSHAB-HESED.—A son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3:20).

JUSTICE (I.).—Justice, as an attribute of God, is referred to in AV in Job 37:23, Ps 89:14 (RV ‘righteousness’), and Jer 50:7. In all cases the Heb. is tsedeq or tsedāqāh, the word generally represented by ‘righteousness’ (see art.). The Divine justice is that side of the Divine righteousness which exhibits it as absolute fairness. In one passage this justice, in operation, is represented by mishpāt (Job 36:17). The thought of the Divine justice is sometimes expressed by the latter word, tr. in EV ‘judgment’: Dt 32:4, Ps 89:14, 97:2, Is 30:18. It is implied in

Abraham’s question (Gn 18:25): ‘Shall not the judge of all the earth do right,’ rather ‘do justice?’

(Heb. mishpāt). In Dn 4:37 ‘His ways are judgment,’ the original is dīn. In Ac 28:4 RV has ‘Justice’ instead of ‘vengeance.’ As the capital J is intended to indicate, the writer must have had in his mind the goddeas of justice of Greek poetry, Dikē, the virgin daughter of Zeus, who sat by his side. But the people of Malta were largely Semites, not Hellenes. What was their equivalent? A positive answer cannot be given, but it may be noted that Babylonian mythology represented ‘justice and rectitude’ as the children of Shamash the sun-god, ‘the judge of heaven and earth,’ and that the Phœnicians had in their pantheon a Divine being named tsedeq.

W. TAYLOR SMITH.

JUSTICE ( II. ).

1. The administration of justice in early Israel.—(a) The earliest form of the administration of justice was that exercised by the head of the family. He was not only the final authority to whom the members of a family appealed when questions of right and wrong had to be decided, and to whose sentence they had to submit, but he also had the power of pronouncing even the death penalty (see Gn 38:24). On the other hand, the rights of each member of the family were jealously safeguarded by all the rest; if harm or injury of any kind were sustained by any member, all the members were bound to avenge him; in the case of death the law of bloodrevenge laid upon all the duty of taking vengeance by slaying a member of the murderer’s family, preferably, but not necessarily, the murderer himself.

(b) The next stage was that in which justice was administered by the ‘elders’ of a clan or tribe (see Nu 11:16). A number of families, united by ties of kinship, became, by the formation of a clan, a unity as closely connected as the family itself. In this stage of the organization of society the procedure in deciding questions of right and wrong was doubtless much the same as that which obtains even up to the present day among the Bedouin Arabs. When a quarrel arises between two members of the tribe, the matter is brought before the acknowledged head, the sheik. He seeks to make peace between them; having beard both sides, he declares who is right and who is wrong, and settles the form of satisfaction which the latter should make; but his judgment has no binding force, no power other than that of moral suasion; influence is brought to bear by the members of the famity of the one declared to be in the wrong, urging him to submit,—the earlier régime thus coming into play, in a modified way; but if he is not to be prevailed upon, the issue is decided by the sword. In Ex 18:13–27 we have what purports to be the original institution of the administration of justice by the elders of clans, Moses himself acting in the capacity of a kind of court of appeal (v. 26); it is, of course, quite possible that, so far as Israel was concerned, this account is historically true, but the institution must have been much older than the time of Moses, and in following Jethro’s guidance, Moses was probably only re-instituting a régime which had long existed among his nomad forefathers. It is a more developed form of tribal justice that we read of in Dt 21:18–21; here the father of a rebellious son, finding his authority set at nought, appeals to the ‘elders of the city’; in the case of being found guilty the death-sentence is pronounced against the son, and the sentence is carried out by representatives of the community. The passage is an important one, for it evidently contains echoes of very early usage, the mention of the mother may imply a distant reminiscence of the matriarchate; and the fact that the head of the family exercises his power recalls the earlier

régime already referred to, while the present institution of the administration of justice by elders is also borne witness to. See, further, JUDGES.

Another point of importance which must be briefly alluded to is the ‘judgment of God.’ In the case of questions arising in which the difficulty of finding a solution appeared insuperable, recourse was had to the judgment of God (see Ex 22:8, 9); the ‘judges’ referred to here (RV has ‘God’ in the text, but ‘judges’ in the mg.) were those who were qualified to seek a decision from God. See, in this connexion, Dt 21:1–9.

(c) In the monarchical period a further development takes place; the older system, whereby justice was administered by the elders of the cities, is indeed still seen to be in vogue (cf. 1 K 21:8–13); but two other powers had now arisen, and both tended to diminish the power and moral influence of the elders of the cities, so far as their judicial functions were concerned.

(i) The king.—It is probable that at first he decided appeals only, but in course of time all important matters—so far as this was possible—were apparently brought before him (see 1 S 8:20, 2 S 14:4ff., 15:2–6, 1 K 3:9, 2 K 15:5); according to 1 K 7:7, Solomon had a covered place constructed, which was called the ‘porch of judgment,’ and which was in close proximity to his own palace. But though the king was supreme judge in the land, it would obviously soon have become impossible for him to attend to all the more important causes even; the number of these, as well as other calls upon his time, necessitated the appointment of representatives who should administer justice in the king’s name. The appointment of these must have further curtailed the powers of the earlier representatives of justice, already referred to. One of the worst results, however, of this was that the motives of administering justice became different; in the old days, when the sheik, or the city elder, was called upon to decide an issue, he did it rather in the capacity of a friend who desired peace between two other friends than as a strictly legal official; his interest in the disputants, as being both of his own kin, or at all events both members of the same community to which he belonged, impelled him to do his utmost to make peace. It was otherwise when a stranger had to decide between two men of whom he knew nothing; he had no personal interest in them, nor would it have been his main endeavour to try to secure a lasting peace between the two, as had been the case in earlier days among the sheiks and city elders; the tie of kinship was absent. The result was that personal interest of another kind asserted itself, and, as there is abundant evidence to show, the administration of justice was guided rather by the prospect of gain than in the interests of equity. It is an ever-recurring burden in the Prophetical writings that justice is thwarted through bribery: ‘Every one loveth gifts and followeth after rewards’ (Is 1:23; see, further, 5:7, 20, 23, Mic 3:11, 7:3, Ezk 18:8, 22:12 etc., and cf. the picture of the ideal judge in Is 11:3, 4). A very aggravated instance of the miscarriage of justice is recorded in 1 K 21; but such cases were undoubtedly rare exceptions; so far as Israel and Judah were concerned, it was not from the central authority that the perversion of justice proceeded, but rather from the king’s representatives, the ‘princes’ (sārim), who misused their authority for nefarious ends.

(ii) The priesthood.—Even before the Exile the administration of justice was to a large extent centred in the hands of the Levitical priesthood; nothing could illustrate this more pointedly than Dt 19:15–21, where the outlines of a regular, formulated, judicial system seem to be referred to, in which the final authority is vested in the priesthood. What must have contributed to this more than anything else was the fact that from early times such matters as seemed to the elders of the city to defy a satisfactory solution were, as we have already seen, submitted to the judgment of God; the intermediaries between God and men were the priests, who carried the matter into the

Divine presence, received the Divine answer, and announced that answer to those who came for judgment (see Ex 22:8, 9, and esp. Dt 33:8ff. ‘And of Levi he said, Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with tby godly one.…’). It is easy to see how, under these circumstances, the authority of the priesthood, in all matters, tended constantly to increase (see, further, Dt 17:8–13, 19:15–21).

But in spite of the rise of these two new factors—the king and the priesthood—it must be borne in mind that the elders of the cities still continued to carry out their judicial functions.

Regarding what would correspond to the modern idea of a law court, we have no data to go upon so far as the earliest period is concerned; but it may be taken for granted that, among the nomads, those who had a quarrel would repair to the tent of the sheik, in which an informal court would be held. From the time of the settlement in Canaan, however, and onwards, when city life had developed, there is plenty of information on the subject. The open space in the immediate vicinity of the city gate was the usual place for assemblies of the people, and it was here that the more formal ‘courts of law’ were held (see Am 5:12, 15, Dt 21:19, 22:15, 25:7, Zec 8:16; the ‘porch of judgment’ of king Solomon [1 K 7:7], already referred to, was of course exceptional).

2. Post-exilic period.—At the time of Ezra we find that the administration of justice by the elders of the city, which had continued throughout the period of the monarchy, is still in vogue (see Ezr 7:25, 10:14); they presided over the local courts in the smaller provincial towns. These smaller courts consisted of seven members; in the larger towns the corresponding courts consisted of twenty-three members. In the event of these lower courts not being able to come to a decision regarding any matter brought before them, the case was carried to the superior court at Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin (wh. see). The procedure in these courts was of the simplest character: the injured person brought his complaint before the judges, previous notice having been given, and publicly gave his version of the matter; the accused then in his turn defended himself;— judging from Job 31:35 a written statement was sometimes read out;—the testimony of two witnesses at least was required to substantiate an accusation; according to the Talmud, these witnesses had to be males and of age, but the testimony of a slave was not regarded as valid. Before witnesses gave their testimony they were adjured to speak the truth, and the whole truth. False witnesses—and these were evidently not unknown—had to suffer the same punishment as the victim of their false testimony would have had to undergo, or had undergone. If no witnesses were forthcoming, the truth of a matter had, so far as possible, to be obtained by the crossquestioning and acumen of the judges.

3. In the NT.—The administration of justice under the Roman régime comes before us in connexion with St. Paul (Ac 24 ff.). According to Roman law, when a Roman citizen was accused of anything, the magistrate could fix any time that suited him for the trial; however long the trial might be postponed, the accused was nevertheless imprisoned for the whole time. But there were different kinds of imprisonment recognized by Roman law, and it lay within the magistrate’s power to decide which kind the prisoner should suffer. These different grades of custody were: the public gaol, where the prisoner was bound in chains (cf. Ac 12:6, 21:33); in the custody of a soldier, who was responsible for the prisoner, and to whom the prisoner was chained; and an altogether milder form, according to which the accused was in custody only so far that he was under the supervision of a magistrate, who stood surety for him; it was only those of high rank to whom this indulgence was accorded. In the case of St. Paul it was the second of these which was put in force.

As regards appeals to the Emperor (Ac 25:11, 12), the following conditions applied when one claimed this right. In the Roman provinces the supreme criminal jurisdiction was exercised by the governor of the province, whether proconsul, proprætor, or procurator; no appeal was permitted to provincials from a governor’s judgment; but Roman citizens had the right of appealing to the tribunes, who had the power of ordering the case to be transferred to the ordinary tribunals at Rome. But from the time of Augustus the power of the tribunes was centred in the person of the Emperor; and with him alone, therefore, lay the power of hearing appeals. The form of such an appeal was the simple pronunciation of the word ‘Appello’; there was no need to make a written appeal, the mere utterance of the word in court suspended all further proceedings there.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFY

Verb and noun originate in Christian Latin (the Vulgate); Lat. analogy affords some excuse for the Romanist reading of ‘justify’ as ‘make just,’ by which sanctification is included under justification. Neither the Heb. nor the Greek original allows of any other definition of ‘justify’ than ‘count just’; it is a term of ethical relationship, not ethical quality, and signifies the footing on which one is set towards another, not the character imparted to one. The Heb. verb (abstract noun wanting) deviates from the above sense only in the late Heb. of Dn 12:3 (rendered in EV ‘turn … to righteousness’). The Greek equivalent had a wide range of meaning—denoting (1) to set right, correct a wrong thing done; (2) to deem right, claim, approve, consent to anything; (3) to do right by any one, either in vindication or in punishment ( so ‘justify’ in Scottish law = ‘execute’).

The usage of the LXX and NT, applying the word to persons, comes under (3) above, but only as taken in bonam partem; in other words, justification in Biblical speech imports the vindication or clearing from charge of the justified person, never his chastisement. Justification is essentially the act of a judge (whether in the official or the ethical sense), effected on just grounds and in foro (Dei, conscientiæ, or reipublicœ, as the case may he). It must be borne in mind that the character of Father and the office of Judge in God consist together in NT thought. We have to distinguish (1) the general use of the word as a term of moral judgment, in which there is no difference between OT and NT writers; (2) its specific Pauline use, esp. characteristic of Rom. and Galatians.

1. In common parlance, one is ‘justified’ when pronounced just on trial, when cleared of blame or aspersion. So God is ‘justified,’ where His character or doings have borne the appearance of injustice and have been, or might be, arraigned before the human conscience; see Job 8:3, Ps 51:4 (Ro 3:4) 97:2, Mt 11:19, Lk 7:29, 35, also 1 Ti 3:16. Similarly God’s servants may be ‘justified’ against the misjudgments and wrongful accusations of the world (Ps 37:6; cf.

Ex 23:7, Job 23:3–11 and 42:7–9, Ps 7:8–10, 35:19–24, 43:1, 97:8–12 etc.; and in the NT, Mt 13:43, Ro 2:5–7, 1 P 2:23; cf. 1 Ti 3:16, Rev 11:18). Even the wicked may be, relatively, ‘justified’ by comparison with the more wicked (Jer 3:11, Ezk 16:51f.; cf. Mt 12:41f.).

But OT thought on this subject arrived at a moral impasse, a contradiction that seemingly admitted of no escape. In the days of judgment on the nation Israel felt that she was ‘more righteous’ than the heathen oppressors (Hab 1:13) and that, at a certain point, she had ‘received of J″ ’s hand double for all her sins’ (Jer 10:24, Is 40:2); and J″ ’s covenant pledged Him to her reinstatement (Is 54:5–10). In this situation, towards the end of the Exile, the Second Isaiah writes, ‘My justifier is at hand!… my lord J″ will help me … who is he that counts me wicked?’

(Is 50:8f.; cf. Ro 8:31–34). For the people of J″ a grand vindication is coming: more than this, ‘J″’s righteous servant’—either the ideal Israel collectively, or some single representative in whom its character and sufferings are ideally embodied—is to ‘justify many’ in ‘bearing their iniquities,’ this vicarious office accounting for the shameful death inflicted on him (Is 53); his meek obedience to J″’s will in the endurance of humiliation and anguish will redound to the benefit of sinful humanity (cf. 53:11f. with 52:13f.). While the spiritual Israel is thus represented as perfected through sufferings and made the instrument of J″ ’s grace towards mankind, the deepened consciousness of individual sin prompted such expressions as those of Jer 17:9, Ps 51:5, 130:3, 143:2 (Ro 3:23), and raised the problem of Job 25:4, ‘How can a man be righteous with God?’ Mic 6:6–8 reveals with perfect clearness the way of justification by merit; Mic 7:1–6 shows how completely it was missed; and Mic 7:18–20 points to the one direction in which hope

lay,—the covenant grace of J″. ‘The seed of Israel’ is to be ‘justified in J″’ and ‘saved with an everlasting salvation’ (Is 45:17, 22–25); the actual Israel is radically vicious and stands selfcondemned (59:12ff., 64:6f. etc.). Such is the final verdict of prophecy.

Under the legal régime dominating ‘Judaism’ from the age of Ezra onwards, the principle of which was expressed by Paul in Gal 3:12 (‘He that doeth those things shall live in them’), this problem took another and most acute form. The personal favour of God, and the attainment by Israel of the Messianic salvation for herself and the world, were staked on the exact fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, and circumcision was accepted as the seal, stamped upon the body of every male Jew, of the covenant based on this understanding (see Gal 5:3). Ro 7:7–25 shows how utterly this theory had failed for the individual, and Ro 9:30–10:3 asserts its national failure.

2. St. Paul’s doctrine of Justification is explained negatively by his recoil from the Judaism just described. In the cross of Christ there had been revealed to him, after his abortive struggles, God’s way of justifying men (Ro 7:24, 8, 4). This was in reality the old way, trodden by

Abraham (Ro 4), ‘witnessed to by the law and the prophets’—by the Mosaic sacrifices and the Isaianic promises. Paul takes up again the threads that dropped from the hands of the later Isaiah. He sees in ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’ the mysterious figure of Is 53—an identification already made by John the Baptist and by the Lord Himself; cf. Ro 5:18–21 with Is 53:11. Upon this view the death of the Messiah on Calvary, which so terribly affronted Saul the Pharisee, is perfectly explained; ‘the scandal of the cross’ is changed to glory (1 Co 1:23–31, Gal 2:20 f., 3:13, 6:14, 2 Co 5:21). The ‘sacrifice for sin’ made in the death of Jesus vindicates and reinstates mankind before God. ‘Justification’ is, in Pauline language, synonymous with ‘reconciliation’ (atonement)—see Ro 3:23ff., 5:11 and 15–21, esp. 2 Co 5:19, where God is said to be

‘reconciling the world to himself’ in ‘not imputing to them their trespasses’; the same act which is a reconciliation as it concerns the disposition and attitude of the parties affected, is a justification as it concerns their ethical footing, their relations in the order of moral law. The ground of the Christian justification lies in the grace, concurrent with the righteousness, of God the Father, which offers a pardon wholly gratuitous as regards the offender’s deserts (Ro 3:23 f., 4:4f., 5:6, 8, 21, 6:23 etc., He 2:9). The means is the vicarious expiatory death of Jesus Christ, ordained by God for this very end (Ro 3:24f., 4:25, 5:6, 9, 2 Co 5:14, 18; cf. Mt 20:28, 26:28, He 9:12, 23; 10:18, 1 P 2:24, 3:18, 1 Jn 1:7, 4:10, 14, Rev 1:5 etc.). The sole condition is faith, with baptism for its outward sign, repentance being of course implicit in both (Ro 6:3f., Gal 3:26f.; Ro 6:2, 21, 1 Co 6:11, Ac 20:21, 22:16, 26:18 etc.); i.e. the trustful acceptance by the sin-convicted man of God’s grace meeting him in Christ (Ro 4:25, 5:1, Gal 2:20f. etc.); the clause ‘through faith in Jesus Christ’ of Ro 3:22 is the subjective counterpart (man meeting God) of the objective expression ‘through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’ (God meeting man) in v. 24.

There underlies this whole doctrine the assumption of the solidarity of mankind with Jesus Christ: He did not interfere from the outside, to make Himself a substitute for man—the ethical objection to Paullnism based on this presumption is irrelevant—but ‘offered himself unblemished to God’ from within humanity, being ‘the one man’ willing and able to perform ‘the one justificatory act,’ to render ‘the obedience’ which availed ‘for all men unto a life-giving justification’ (Ro 5:15, 21). Hence Paul is careful to refer the justification of mankind to the ‘grace of the one man Jesus Christ,’ in whom the race recognizes its highest self, side by side with the ‘grace of God’ conveyed by Him and lodged in Him, the Son of God (Ro 5:15). All great boons are won and achievements realized by individual leaders, ‘captains of salvation’ for their fellows. Moreover, the propitiatory ‘offering’ was not the mere negative satisfaction of repentance, a vicarious apology on Christ’s part for the rest of us; it was rendered by His positive ‘obedience unto death, yea the death of the cross,’ by His meek acceptance of the penalties of transgression falling on Him the undeserving, by His voluntary submission to the law that binds death to sin and that ‘numbered’ Him ‘with the transgressors,’ since He had cast in His lot with them (Is 53:12, Lk 22:37; cf. Gal. 4:5, Ro 8:2–4); this is what was meant by saying that He ‘became sin—became a curse—for us, that we might become a righteousness of God in him’ (2 Co 5:21, Gal 3:13). Our Representative was ‘delivered up’ to the execution of Calvary ‘because of our trespasses’; He ‘was raised’ from the dead, released from the prison-house, ‘because of our justification’ effected by His sacrifice (Ro 4:25)—or, as the latter clause is often understood, ‘raised to effect our’ individual ‘justification.’ Fundamentally then, justification is the sentence of acquittal passed by God upon the race of mankind in accepting Christ’s expiation made on its behalf, the reinstatement of the world in the Divine grace which embraces ‘all men’ in its scope (Ro 5:18): experimentally, it takes effect in those who hear the good news and believe; by these the universal amnesty is personally enjoyed (Ro 1:17, 3:22, 5:1, 1 Co 6:11 etc.).

Justification is realized in (a) ‘the forgiveness of sins,’ and (b) ‘adoption’ into the family of

God, whereof ‘the Spirit of God’s Son,’ poured into the heart, is the witness and seal (Ro 8:15 f., 2 Co 1:22, Gal 4:6, Eph 1:13f., That personal justification, according to St. Paul’s idea, embraces sonship along with pardon is evident from the comparison of Gal 3:13f. and 4:5 with 2 Co 5:19– 21 and Eph 1:7: on the one hand ‘adoption’ and ‘the promise of the Spirit,’ on the other hand

‘forgiveness’ or the ‘non-imputation of trespasses,’ are immediately derived from ‘redemption in

Christ’s blood’ and the ‘reconciling of the world to God’; they are alike conditioned upon faith in Jesus. The two are the negative and positive parts of man’s restoration to right relationship with God.

St. James’ teaching on Justification in 2:14–26 of his Ep., is concerned only with its condition—with the nature of justifying faith. He insists that this is a practical faith such as shows itself alive and genuine by its ‘works,’ and not the theroetical belief in God which a ‘demon’ may have as truly as a saint. On this point Paul and James were in substance agreed ( see 1 Th 1:3, 2 Th 1:11, Gal 5:6); the ‘works of faith’ which James demands, and the ‘works of the law’ which Paul rejects, are quite different things. The opposition between the two writers is at the bottom merely verbal, and was probably unconscious on the part of both.

G. G. FINDLAY.

JUSTUS.—This surname is given to three people in NT. 1. Joseph Barsabbas (Ac 1:23). 2. Titus or Titius, host of St. Paul at Corinth (Ac 18:7 RV; the MSS vary between these two forms, and some omit the first name altogether), apparently a Roman citizen who was a ‘proselyte of the gate’ (as he would later have been called), and converted to Christianity by the Apostle ( Ramsay, St. Paul the Trav. p. 256). 3. A Jew named Jesus or Joshua who was with St. Paul in his first Roman imprisonment (Col 4:11).

A. J. MACLEAN.

JUTAH or JUTTAH (in Jos 15:55 AV has Juttah, which is read in 21:16 by both AV and

RV).—A town of Judah (Jos 15:55) given to the priests as a city of refuge for the manslayer ( Jos