FIRST ATTEMPTS ON JERUSALEM.
Jesus, almost every year, went to Jerusalem for the feast of the
passover. The details of these journeys are little known, for the
synoptics do not speak of them,[1] and the notes of the fourth Gospel
are very confused on this point.[2] It was, it appears, in the year
31, and certainly after the death of John, that the most important of
the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem took place. Many of the disciples
followed him. Although Jesus attached from that time little value to
the pilgrimage, he conformed himself to it in order not to wound
Jewish opinion, with which he had not yet broken. These journeys,
moreover, were essential to his design; for he felt already that in
order to play a leading part, he must go from Galilee, and attack
Judaism in its stronghold, which was Jerusalem.
[Footnote 1: They, however, imply them obscurely (Matt. xxiii. 37;
Luke xiii. 34). They knew as well as John the relation of Jesus with
Joseph of Arimathea. Luke even (x. 38-42) knew the family of Bethany.
Luke (ix. 51-54) has a vague idea of the system of the fourth Gospel
respecting the journeys of Jesus. Many discourses against the
Pharisees and the Sadducees, said by the synoptics to have been
delivered in Galilee, have scarcely any meaning, except as having been
given at Jerusalem. And again, the lapse of eight days is much too
short to explain all that happened between the arrival of Jesus in
that city and his death.]
[Footnote 2: Two pilgrimages are clearly indicated (John ii. 13, and
v. 1), without speaking of his last journey (vii. 10), after which
Jesus returned no more to Galilee. The first took place while John was
still baptizing. It would belong consequently to the Easter of the
year 29. But the circumstances given as belonging to this journey are
of a more advanced period. (Comp. especially John ii. 14, and
following, and Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 46.)
There are evidently transpositions of dates in these chapters of John,
or rather he has mixed the circumstances of different journeys.]
The little Galilean community were here far from being at home.
Jerusalem was then nearly what it is to-day, a city of pedantry,
acrimony, disputes, hatreds, and littleness of mind. Its fanaticism
was extreme, and religious seditions very frequent. The Pharisees were
dominant; the study of the Law, pushed to the most insignificant
minutiæ, and reduced to questions of casuistry, was the only study.
This exclusively theological and canonical culture contributed in no
respect to refine the intellect. It was something analogous to the
barren doctrine of the Mussulman fakir, to that empty science
discussed round about the mosques, and which is a great expenditure of
time and useless argumentation, by no means calculated to advance the
right discipline of the mind. The theological education of the modern
clergy, although very dry, gives us no idea of this, for the
Renaissance has introduced into all our teachings, even the most
irregular, a share of _belles lettres_ and of method, which has
infused more or less of the _humanities_ into scholasticism. The
science of the Jewish doctor, of the _sofer_ or scribe, was purely
barbarous, unmitigatedly absurd, and denuded of all moral element.[1]
To crown the evil, it filled with ridiculous pride those who had
wearied themselves in acquiring it. The Jewish scribe, proud of the
pretended knowledge which had cost him so much trouble, had the same
contempt for Greek culture which the learned Mussulman of our time has
for European civilization, and which the old catholic theologian had
for the knowledge of men of the world. The tendency of this
scholastic culture was to close the mind to all that was refined, to
create esteem only for those difficult triflings on which they had
wasted their lives, and which were regarded as the natural occupation
of persons professing a degree of seriousness.[2]
[Footnote 1: We may judge of it by the Talmud, the echo of the Jewish
scholasticism of that time.]
[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XX. xi. 2.]
This odious society could not fail to weigh heavily on the tender and
susceptible minds of the north. The contempt of the Hierosolymites for
the Galileans rendered the separation still more complete. In the
beautiful temple which was the object of all their desires, they often
only met with insult. A verse of the pilgrim's psalm,[1] "I had rather
be a doorkeeper in the house of my God," seemed made expressly for
them. A contemptuous priesthood laughed at their simple devotion, as
formerly in Italy the clergy, familiarized with the sanctuaries,
witnessed coldly and almost jestingly the fervor of the pilgrim come
from afar. The Galileans spoke a rather corrupt dialect; their
pronunciation was vicious; they confounded the different aspirations
of letters, which led to mistakes which were much laughed at.[2] In
religion, they were considered as ignorant and somewhat heterodox;[3]
the expression, "foolish Galileans," had become proverbial.[4] It was
believed (not without reason) that they were not of pure Jewish blood,
and no one expected Galilee to produce a prophet.[5] Placed thus on
the confines of Judaism, and almost outside of it, the poor Galileans
had only one badly interpreted passage in Isaiah to build their hopes
upon.[6] "Land of Zebulon, and land of Naphtali, way of the sea,
Galilee of the nations! The people that walked in darkness have seen a
great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon
them hath the light shined." The reputation of the native city of
Jesus was particularly bad. It was a popular proverb, "Can there any
good thing come out of Nazareth?"[7]
[Footnote 1: Ps. lxxxiv. (Vulg. lxxxiii.) 11.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70; _Acts_ ii. 7; Talm. of
Bab., _Erubin_, 53 _a_, and following; Bereschith Rabba, 26 _c_.]
[Footnote 3: Passage from the treatise _Erubin_, _loc. cit._]
[Footnote 4: _Erubin_, _loc. cit._, 53 _b_.]
[Footnote 5: John vii. 52.]
[Footnote 6: Isa. ix. 1, 2; Matt. iv. 13, and following.]
[Footnote 7: John i. 46.]
The parched appearance of Nature in the neighborhood of Jerusalem must
have added to the dislike Jesus had for the place. The valleys are
without water; the soil arid and stony. Looking into the valley of the
Dead Sea, the view is somewhat striking; elsewhere it is monotonous.
The hill of Mizpeh, around which cluster the most ancient historical
remembrances of Israel, alone relieves the eye. The city presented, at
the time of Jesus, nearly the same form that it does now. It had
scarcely any ancient monuments, for, until the time of the Asmoneans,
the Jews had remained strangers to all the arts. John Hyrcanus had
begun to embellish it, and Herod the Great had made it one of the most
magnificent cities of the East. The Herodian constructions, by their
grand character, perfection of execution, and beauty of material, may
dispute superiority with the most finished works of antiquity.[1] A
great number of superb tombs, of original taste, were raised at the
same time in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.[2] The style of these
monuments was Grecian, but appropriate to the customs of the Jews, and
considerably modified in accordance with their principles. The
ornamental sculptures of the human figure which the Herods had
sanctioned, to the great discontent of the purists, were banished, and
replaced by floral decorations. The taste of the ancient inhabitants
of Phoenicia and Palestine for monoliths in solid stone seemed to be
revived in these singular tombs cut in the rock, and in which Grecian
orders are so strangely applied to an architecture of troglodytes.
Jesus, who regarded works of art as a pompous display of vanity,
viewed these monuments with displeasure.[3] His absolute spiritualism,
and his settled conviction that the form of the old world was about to
pass away, left him no taste except for things of the heart.
[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. viii.-xi.; _B.J._, V. v. 6; Mark xiii.
1, 2.]
[Footnote 2: Tombs, namely, of the Judges, Kings, Absalom, Zechariah,
Jehoshaphat, and of St. James. Compare the description of the tomb of
the Maccabees at Modin (1 Macc. xiii. 27, and following).]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiii. 27, 29, xxiv. 1, and following; Mark xiii.
1, and following; Luke xix. 44, xxi. 5, and following. Compare _Book
of Enoch_, xcvii. 13, 14; Talmud of Babylon, _Shabbath_, 33 _b_.]
The temple, at the time of Jesus, was quite new, and the exterior
works of it were not completed. Herod had begun its reconstruction in
the year 20 or 21 before the Christian era, in order to make it
uniform with his other edifices. The body of the temple was finished
in eighteen months; the porticos took eight years;[1] and the
accessory portions were continued slowly, and were only finished a
short time before the taking of Jerusalem.[2] Jesus probably saw the
work progressing, not without a degree of secret vexation. These hopes
of a long future were like an insult to his approaching advent.
Clearer-sighted than the unbelievers and the fanatics, he foresaw that
these superb edifices were destined to endure but for a short time.[3]
[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. xi. 5, 6.]
[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 7; John ii. 20.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiv. 2, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark xiii. 2, xiv.
58, xv. 29; Luke xxi. 6; John ii. 19, 20.]
The temple formed a marvelously imposing whole, of which the present
_haram_,[1] notwithstanding its beauty, scarcely gives us any idea.
The courts and the surrounding porticos served as the daily rendezvous
for a considerable number of persons--so much so, that this great
space was at once temple, forum, tribunal, and university. All the
religious discussions of the Jewish schools, all the canonical
instruction, even the legal processes and civil causes--in a word, all
the activity of the nation was concentrated there.[2] It was an arena
where arguments were perpetually clashing, a battlefield of disputes,
resounding with sophisms and subtle questions. The temple had thus
much analogy with a Mahometan mosque. The Romans at this period
treated all strange religions with respect, when kept within proper
limits,[3] and carefully refrained from entering the sanctuary; Greek
and Latin inscriptions marked the point up to which those who were not
Jews were permitted to advance.[4] But the tower of Antonia, the
headquarters of the Roman forces, commanded the whole enclosure, and
allowed all that passed therein to be seen.[5] The guarding of the
temple belonged to the Jews; the entire superintendence was committed
to a captain, who caused the gates to be opened and shut, and
prevented any one from crossing the enclosure with a stick in his
hand, or with dusty shoes, or when carrying parcels, or to shorten his
path.[6] They were especially scrupulous in watching that no one
entered within the inner gates in a state of legal impurity. The
women had an entirely separate court.
[Footnote 1: The temple and its enclosure doubtless occupied the site
of the mosque of Omar and the _haram_, or Sacred Court, which
surrounds the mosque. The foundation of the haram is, in some parts,
especially at the place where the Jews go to weep, the exact base of
the temple of Herod.]
[Footnote 2: Luke ii. 46, and following; Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, x. 2.]
[Footnote 3: Suet., _Aug._ 93.]
[Footnote 4: Philo, _Legatio ad Caium_, § 31; Jos., _B.J._, V. v. 2,
VI. ii. 4; _Acts_ xxi. 28.]
[Footnote 5: Considerable traces of this tower are still seen in the
northern part of the haram.]
[Footnote 6: Mishnah, _Berakoth_, ix. 5; Talm. of Babyl., _Jebamoth_,
6 _b_; Mark xi. 16.]
It was in the temple that Jesus passed his days, whilst he remained at
Jerusalem. The period of the feasts brought an extraordinary concourse
of people into the city. Associated in parties of ten to twenty
persons, the pilgrims invaded everywhere, and lived in that disordered
state in which Orientals delight.[1] Jesus was lost in the crowd, and
his poor Galileans grouped around him were of small account. He
probably felt that he was in a hostile world which would receive him
only with disdain. Everything he saw set him against it. The temple,
like much-frequented places of devotion in general, offered a not very
edifying spectacle. The accessories of worship entailed a number of
repulsive details, especially of mercantile operations, in consequence
of which real shops were established within the sacred enclosure.
There were sold beasts for the sacrifices; there were tables for the
exchange of money; at times it seemed like a bazaar. The inferior
officers of the temple fulfilled their functions doubtless with the
irreligious vulgarity of the sacristans of all ages. This profane and
heedless air in the handling of holy things wounded the religious
sentiment of Jesus, which was at times carried even to a scrupulous
excess.[2] He said that they had made the house of prayer into a den
of thieves. One day, it is even said, that, carried away by his anger,
he scourged the vendors with a "scourge of small cords," and
overturned their tables.[3] In general, he had little love for the
temple. The worship which he had conceived for his Father had nothing
in common with scenes of butchery. All these old Jewish institutions
displeased him, and he suffered in being obliged to conform to them.
Except among the Judaizing Christians, neither the temple nor its site
inspired pious sentiments. The true disciples of the new faith held
this ancient sanctuary in aversion. Constantine and the first
Christian emperors left the pagan construction of Adrian existing
there,[4] and only the enemies of Christianity, such as Julian,
remembered the temple.[5] When Omar entered into Jerusalem, he found
the site designedly polluted in hatred of the Jews.[6] It was
Islamism, that is to say, a sort of resurrection of Judaism in its
exclusively Semitic form, which restored its glory. The place has
always been anti-Christian.
[Footnote 1: Jos., _B.J._, II. xiv. 3, VI. ix. 3. Comp. Ps. cxxxiii.
(Vulg. cxxxii.)]
[Footnote 2: Mark xi. 16.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. xxi. 12, and following; Mark xi. 15, and following;
Luke xix. 45, and following; John ii. 14, and following.]
[Footnote 4: _Itin. a Burdig. Hierus._, p. 152 (edit. Schott); S.
Jerome, in _Is._ i. 8, and in Matt. xxiv. 15.]
[Footnote 5: Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 1.]
[Footnote 6: Eutychius, _Ann._, II. 286, and following (Oxford 1659).]
The pride of the Jews completed the discontent of Jesus, and rendered
his stay in Jerusalem painful. In the degree that the great ideas of
Israel ripened, the priesthood lost its power. The institution of
synagogues had given to the interpreter of the Law, to the doctor, a
great superiority over the priest. There were no priests except at
Jerusalem, and even there, reduced to functions entirely ritual,
almost, like our parish priests, excluded from preaching, they were
surpassed by the orator of the synagogue, the casuist, and the _sofer_
or scribe, although the latter was only a layman. The celebrated men
of the Talmud were not priests; they were learned men according to the
ideas of the time. The high priesthood of Jerusalem held, it is true,
a very elevated rank in the nation; but it was by no means at the
head of the religious movement. The sovereign pontiff, whose dignity
had already been degraded by Herod,[1] became more and more a Roman
functionary,[2] who was frequently removed in order to divide the
profits of the office. Opposed to the Pharisees, who were very warm
lay zealots, the priests were almost all Sadducees, that is to say,
members of that unbelieving aristocracy which had been formed around
the temple, and which lived by the altar, while they saw the vanity of
it.[3] The sacerdotal caste was separated to such a degree from the
national sentiment and from the great religious movement which dragged
the people along, that the name of "Sadducee" (_sadoki_), which at
first simply designated a member of the sacerdotal family of Sadok,
had become synonymous with "Materialist" and with "Epicurean."
[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. iii. 1, 3.]
[Footnote 2: Ibid., XVIII. ii.]
[Footnote 3: _Acts_ iv. 1, and following, v. 17; Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix.
1; _Pirké Aboth_, i. 10.]
A still worse element had begun, since the reign of Herod the Great,
to corrupt the high-priesthood. Herod having fallen in love with
Mariamne, daughter of a certain Simon, son of Boëthus of Alexandria,
and having wished to marry her (about the year 28 B.C.), saw no other
means of ennobling his father-in-law and raising him to his own rank
than by making him high-priest. This intriguing family remained
master, almost without interruption, of the sovereign pontificate for
thirty-five years.[1] Closely allied to the reigning family, it did
not lose the office until after the deposition of Archelaus, and
recovered it (the year 42 of our era) after Herod Agrippa had for some
time re-enacted the work of Herod the Great. Under the name of
_Boëthusim_,[2] a new sacerdotal nobility was formed, very worldly,
and little devotional, and closely allied to the Sadokites. The
_Boëthusim_, in the Talmud and the rabbinical writings, are depicted
as a kind of unbelievers, and always reproached as Sadducees.[3] From
all this there resulted a miniature court of Rome around the temple,
living on politics, little inclined to excesses of zeal, even rather
fearing them, not wishing to hear of holy personages or of innovators,
for it profited from the established routine. These epicurean priests
had not the violence of the Pharisees; they only wished for quietness;
it was their moral indifference, their cold irreligion, which revolted
Jesus. Although very different, the priests and the Pharisees were
thus confounded in his antipathies. But a stranger, and without
influence, he was long compelled to restrain his discontent within
himself, and only to communicate his sentiments to the intimate
friends who accompanied him.
[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._ XV. ix. 3, XVII. vi. 4, xiii. 1, XVIII. i.
1, ii. 1, XIX. vi. 2, viii. 1.]
[Footnote 2: This name is only found in the Jewish documents. I think
that the "Herodians" of the gospel are the _Boëthusim_.]
[Footnote 3: The treatise of _Aboth Nathan_, 5; _Soferim_, iii., hal.
5; Mishnah, _Menachoth_, x. 3; Talmud of Babylon, _Shabbath_, 118 _a_.
The name of _Boëthusim_ is often changed in the Talmudic books with
that of the Sadducees, or with the word _Minim_ (heretics). Compare
Thosiphta, _Joma_, i., with the Talm. of Jerus., the same treatise, i.
5, and Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 19 _b_; Thos. _Sukka_, iii. with
the Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 43 _b_; Thos. ibid., further on,
with the Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 48 _b_; Thos. _Rosh hasshana_,
i. with Mishnah, same treatise ii. 1; Talm. of Jerus., same treatise,
ii. 1; and Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 22 _b_; Thos. _Menachoth_, x.
with Mishnah, same treatise, x. 3; Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 65
_a_; Mishnah, _Chagigah_, ii. 4; and Megillath Taanith, i.; Thos.
_Iadaim_, ii. with Talm. of Jerus.; _Baba Bathra_, viii. 1; Talm. of
Bab., same treatise, 115 _b_; and Megillath Taanith, v.]
Before his last stay, which was by far the longest of all that he made
at Jerusalem, and which was terminated by his death, Jesus endeavored,
however, to obtain a hearing. He preached; people spoke of him; and
they conversed respecting certain deeds of his which were looked upon
as miraculous. But from all that, there resulted neither an
established church at Jerusalem nor a group of Hierosolymite
disciples. The charming teacher, who forgave every one provided they
loved him, could not find much sympathy in this sanctuary of vain
disputes and obsolete sacrifices. The only result was that he formed
some valuable friendships, the advantage of which he reaped afterward.
He does not appear at that time to have made the acquaintance of the
family of Bethany, which, amidst the trials of the latter months of
his life, brought him so much consolation. But very early he attracted
the attention of a certain Nicodemus, a rich Pharisee, a member of the
Sanhedrim, and a man occupying a high position in Jerusalem.[1] This
man, who appears to have been upright and sincere, felt himself
attracted toward the young Galilean. Not wishing to compromise
himself, he came to see Jesus by night, and had a long conversation
with him.[2] He doubtless preserved a favorable impression of him, for
afterward he defended Jesus against the prejudices of his
colleagues,[3] and, at the death of Jesus, we shall find him tending
with pious care the corpse of the master.[4] Nicodemus did not become
a Christian; he had too much regard for his position to take part in a
revolutionary movement which as yet counted no men of note amongst its
adherents. But he evidently felt great friendship for Jesus, and
rendered him service, though unable to rescue him from a death which
even at this period was all but decreed.
[Footnote 1: It seems that he is referred to in the Talmud. Talm. of
Bab., _Taanith_, 20 _a_; _Gittin_, 56 _a_; _Ketuboth_, 66 _b_;
treatise _Aboth Nathan_, vii.; Midrash Rabba, _Eka_, 64 _a_. The
passage _Taanith_ identifies him with Bounaï, who, according to
_Sanhedrim_ (see ante, p. 212, note 2), was a disciple of Jesus. But
if Bounaï is the Banou of Josephus, this identification will not hold
good.]
[Footnote 2: John iii. 1, and following, vii. 50. We are certainly
free to believe that the exact text of the conversation is but a
creation of John's.]
[Footnote 3: John vii. 50, and following.]
[Footnote 4: John xix. 39.]
As to the celebrated doctors of the time, Jesus does not appear to
have had any connection with them. Hillel and Shammai were dead; the
greatest authority of the time was Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel. He
was of a liberal spirit, and a man of the world, not opposed to
secular studies, and inclined to tolerance by his intercourse with
good society.[1] Unlike the very strict Pharisees, who walked veiled
or with closed eyes, he did not scruple to gaze even upon Pagan
women.[2] This, as well as his knowledge of Greek, was tolerated
because he had access to the court.[3] After the death of Jesus, he
expressed very moderate views respecting the new sect.[4] St. Paul sat
at his feet,[5] but it is not probable that Jesus ever entered his
school.
[Footnote 1: Mishnah, _Baba Metsia_, v. 8; Talm. of Bab., _Sota_, 49
_b_.]
[Footnote 2: Talm. of Jerus., _Berakoth_, ix. 2.]
[Footnote 3: Passage _Sota_, before cited, and _Baba Kama_, 83 _a_.]
[Footnote 4: _Acts_ v. 34, and following.]
[Footnote 5: _Acts_ xxii. 3.]
One idea, at least, which Jesus brought from Jerusalem, and which
henceforth appears rooted in his mind, was that there was no union
possible between him and the ancient Jewish religion. The abolition of
the sacrifices which had caused him so much disgust, the suppression
of an impious and haughty priesthood, and, in a general sense, the
abrogation of the law, appeared to him absolutely necessary. From this
time he appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of
Judaism. Certain advocates of the Messianic ideas had already admitted
that the Messiah would bring a new law, which should be common to all
the earth.[1] The Essenes, who were scarcely Jews, also appear to have
been indifferent to the temple and to the Mosaic observances. But
these were only isolated or unavowed instances of boldness. Jesus was
the first who dared to say that from his time, or rather from that of
John,[2] the Law was abolished. If sometimes he used more measured
terms,[3] it was in order not to offend existing prejudices too
violently. When he was driven to extremities, he lifted the veil
entirely, and declared that the Law had no longer any force. On this
subject he used striking comparisons. "No man putteth a piece of new
cloth into an old garment, neither do men put new wine into old
bottles."[4] This was really his chief characteristic as teacher and
creator. The temple excluded all except Jews from its enclosure by
scornful announcements. Jesus had no sympathy with this. The narrow,
hard, and uncharitable Law was only made for the children of Abraham.
Jesus maintained that every well-disposed man, every man who received
and loved him, was a son of Abraham.[5] The pride of blood appeared to
him the great enemy which was to be combated. In other words, Jesus
was no longer a Jew. He was in the highest degree revolutionary; he
called all men to a worship founded solely on the fact of their being
children of God. He proclaimed the rights of man, not the rights of
the Jew; the religion of man, not the religion of the Jew; the
deliverance of man, not the deliverance of the Jew.[6] How far removed
was this from a Gaulonite Judas or a Matthias Margaloth, preaching
revolution in the name of the Law! The religion of humanity,
established, not upon blood, but upon the heart, was founded. Moses
was superseded, the temple was rendered useless, and was irrevocably
condemned.
[Footnote 1: _Orac. Sib._, book iii. 573, and following, 715, and
following, 756-58. Compare the Targum of Jonathan, Isa. xii. 3.]
[Footnote 2: Luke xvi. 16. The passage in Matt. xi. 12, 13, is less
clear, but can have no other meaning.]
[Footnote 3: Matt. v. 17, 18 (Cf. Talm. of Bab., _Shabbath_, 116 _b_).
This passage is not in contradiction with those in which the abolition
of the Law is implied. It only signifies that in Jesus all the types
of the Old Testament are realized. Cf. Luke xvi. 17.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. ix. 16, 17; Luke v. 36, and following.]
[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 9.]
[Footnote 6: Matt. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19; Mark xiii. 10, xvi. 15; Luke
xxiv. 47.]