time when the Syrians worshiped the "hosts of heaven," still {276}
survives in the East. In the first chapter of the Book which bears his
name, the prophet Zephaniah threatens with the awful retribution of
Jehovah those who indulged in this practice. "I will also stretch out
mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I
will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place ... and _them that
worship the host of heaven upon the housetops_." This custom survives
in Syria, although much less extensively than in the past, and it is
"the God of the whole earth" that is worshiped, and not the host of
heaven. With much reverential regard I still remember an old neighbor
of ours, a devout Maronite, a man who really feared God and worked
righteousness, whose habit was to say his evening prayer upon the
housetop.
Of all the rich treasures of our Scriptures, few perhaps are more
precious and dearer to Christian hearts than the record of Peter's
vision while in the city of Joppa, and which is so intimately
associated with that low, flat, earthen Syrian roof. The tenth chapter
of the Book of {277} Acts hints at the broader and more profound spirit
which had begun to agitate the inner life of the "very small remnant"
of expectant souls in Israel. The wider horizon which the Christ of
God had revealed to his Jewish disciples had engendered serious doubts
in their minds with regard to the exclusive claims of Judaism to the
blessings of the Messianic kingdom. The spirit of the Beatitudes and
the Parables was resistlessly pressing the claims of all the eager
Gentiles to a share in those blessings. No doubt the soul of Peter,
the ultra-conservative disciple, was rent in twain and wavered in its
allegiance between the old claims of a "chosen people" and the new
vision of a universal kingdom founded on purity of heart and hunger and
thirst after righteousness.
It would seem that while in such a state of mind, and after the
Oriental custom, "Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the
sixth hour;[3] and he became very hungry, and {278} would have eaten:
but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven
opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a
great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth;
wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild
beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a
voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so,
Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And
the voice spake unto him the second time, What God hath cleansed, that
call not thou common."
Peter obeyed. That Oriental, who was not afraid of the mystic
revelations of God's designs took the lesson to heart. Presently we
see this conservative Jew again at the home of Cornelius, the Roman,
and hear him interpret his own vision. "Of a truth," he said to the
Roman soldier, "I perceive that God is no {279} respecter of persons:
but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is
accepted with him." Here we have the sure basis of Christian unity and
the unshaken foundation of a human commonwealth. "Other foundation can
no man lay." When all the sects and nations who profess to be the
followers of Jesus Christ respond to this Scriptural summons, and give
decent burial to their divisive creeds, however "authoritative" they
might think them to be, then will the world have valid reason to expect
swords to be beaten into ploughshares, and to hope for the coming of
God's kingdom upon the earth.
[1] Luke v: 19.,
[2] Prov. xxi: 9.
[3] The noon hour, according to Oriental calculation: Timepieces are
set at twelve, at sunset. Six o'clock is the hour of midnight and
midday. The time kept by Western peoples is known in Syria as
_affrenje_. So the laborers who came to work at "the eleventh hour,"
as it is mentioned in Matthew, the twentieth chapter, and the ninth
verse, came one hour before sunset.
{280}
CHAPTER V
THE VINEYARDS AND THE FIELDS
From time immemorial the vine and the fig tree have been the Oriental's
chief joy. Together with their actual value they possessed for him a
sacred symbolic value, especially the vine. The fullness and sweetness
of their fruits symbolized the joys of the kingdom of heaven. The
mystery of the wine cup, which the world has so sadly vulgarized,
remains very sacred to the Oriental. Christ used "the fruit of the
vine," or, as the Arabic version has it, the _yield_ of the
vine,--meaning the wine, and not grapes,--as the visible means of
spiritual communion. In the fifteenth chapter of St. John's Gospel the
Master says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches." This usage was no
doubt extant in the East before Christ. The vine, as a symbol of
spiritual as well as physical family unity, is spoken of in the Old
Testament. Israel's was Jehovah's vine. "Thou hast brought a vine out
of Egypt" is the {281} plaintive cry of the writer of the eightieth
Psalm: "thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparest
room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the
land.... Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from
heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; and the vineyard which thy
right hand hath planted."
We always thought and spoke of the Church as "the vine which God has
planted." The chanting of the foregoing words of the Psalmist by our
priest of the Greek Orthodox Church, with his hand uplifted over the
solemnly silent congregation, remains one of the most beautiful
memories of my youth. We spoke also of the family as a vine. One of
the tenderest passages in the whole Bible is the third verse of the one
hundred and twenty-eighth Psalm: "Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine
by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about
thy table."
"They shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and
none shall make them {282} afraid,"[1] is Micah's vision of peace and
security. To a Syrian in America the reading of this passage is
strongly conducive to homesickness. To sit in the luxuriant shade of
the fig tree was a daily blessing to us in the summer season. It must
have been in that season of the year that Jesus first met Nathanael.
In the first chapter of St. John's Gospel we read: "Jesus saw Nathanael
coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is
no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus
answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, _when thou
wast under the fig tree, I saw thee_."
I have no doubt that Nathanael's habit of sitting under the fig tree
was one of the characteristics which made him "an Israelite indeed."
The wine press is an ancient landmark in Syrian life, and one of the
most picturesque features of the Scriptures. The word "press" is
likely to be misleading in this mechanical age. The grapes are not
_pressed_ by any mechanical {283} contrivance, but are trodden with the
feet. Therefore, to the Orientals the wine press is _ma'sara_
(squeezing place). The grapes are thrown in a heap in a stone-flagged
enclosure about the size of an ordinary room, and trodden by the men in
their bare feet. Much gayety characterizes the _ma'sara_ season. The
work is carried on day and night until all the grapes which had been
gathered by the various families for the _ma'sara_ are converted into
wine and molasses. The quaint songs and stories which I always loved
to hear the "treaders" exchange, as they walked back and forth over the
grapes, come to me now like the echoes of a remote past. And as I
recall how at the end of a long "treading" those men came out with
their garments spattered with the rich juice of the grapes of Lebanon,
the words of Isaiah--"Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy
garments _like him that treadeth the wine fat_?"[2]--breathe real life
for me.
But in this age of rampant microbiology I {284} introduce this subject
with at least an implied apology. The picture of men treading grapes
in this manner and under such circumstances will not, I fear, appeal
strongly to the æsthetic sense of my readers. Nevertheless, all the
Scriptural wine, including the cup of the Last Supper, was produced in
this way. To the Orientals the mystic fermentation and the fire purify
the juice of the vine. The precious juice runs from the wide,
stone-flagged enclosure into deep wells, where it is allowed to become
_rawook_ (clear juice). The fresh _rawook_ is considered a delicious
drink. One of Job's bitter complaints against those who oppressed the
poor was that those unfortunates were made to "tread the wine presses,
and _suffer thirst_."[3] Having been allowed thoroughly to settle, the
juice is then heated according as to whether the wine is to be "sweet"
or "bitter." The longer the juice is boiled the sweeter the wine.
Sweet wine is called _khemer niswani_ (woman wine); the men, as a rule,
preferring the "bitter" wine. In {285} making molasses of the grape
juice, fine white clay is scattered over the grapes before they are
trodden, in order to hasten and insure a perfect settling of all the
coarse organic matter while the juice is in the "clearing wells."
I often wonder whether it is because the memories of youth grow more
romantic with the passing of the years, that the agricultural life of
the Orient seems to me more poetical than that of the Occident, or
whether it really is more enchanting. It seems to me that tools
possess more charms than machinery does, and handwork of the more
instinctive type is much more interesting than the carefully studied
and designed task. The life of the American farmer is too intelligent
to be romantic. There is so much in him of the agricultural college
and the farm journal. No awful mysteries haunt his scientifically
treated fields. Insect powders and the daily weather report and the
market "quotations" arm him with forethought, and make of him a
speculating merchant. The constant {286} improvements of agricultural
implements place a wide and ever-widening gulf between the American
farmer and his forefathers.
Not so with the Syrian farmer. To this man life is not an evolution,
but an inheritance. If the men who tilled Abraham's fields in Hebron
should rise from the dead to-day, they would find that the four
thousand years of their absence from the earth had effected no
essential changes in the methods and means of farming in the "land of
promise." They would lay their hand to the plough and proceed to
perform their daily tasks, as though nothing had happened. A very few
European ploughs are being tried in certain sections of Syria, but that
is all.
The Syrian sower goes forth to sow with his long, primitive plough on
his right shoulder, the yoke hanging from the left shoulder and the
leather bag of seed strapped to his back. In his left hand he carries
his long, hard, strong goad--the same as the one with which "Shamgar,
son of Anath, slew of the Philistines six hundred men." Through this
simple instrument he keeps {287} in touch with his pair of oxen, or
cows, which pace leisurely before him. The plough, which consists of
two wooden beams joined together, measures about twelve feet in length.
The quantity of wood in the Syrian plough makes plain the meaning of
the passage in the story of the prophet Elisha, son of Shaphat. In the
nineteenth chapter of the First Book of Kings, the nineteenth verse, we
have the account of Elijah's first meeting with his successor Elisha,
when he was ploughing in the field, "with twelve yoke of oxen before
him, and he with the twelfth." So, when Elijah cast his mantle upon
him, the son of Shaphat "took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, _and
boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen_, and gave unto the
people, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and
ministered unto him."
At the forward end the long plough is hooked to the yoke, and at the
rear end joined to a cross-piece, whose upper extremity forms the
_cabousa_ (handle); and the lower holds the iron ploughshare. When he
puts "his hand to the {288} plough," he simply grasps the _cabousa_
with his right hand while he wields the goad with his left. The
uneven, stony ground and the lightness of the plough compel him to
maintain a firm hold on it, and to look ever _forward_. In the ninth
chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, the sixty-second verse, Jesus makes
excellent use of this point when he says, "No man, having put his hand
to the plough, and _looking back_, is fit for the kingdom of God."
The parable of the sower, in the thirteenth chapter of St. Matthew's
Gospel, is a faithful picture of the environment of the farmer in the
region of Galilee and Mount Lebanon. That primitive farmer does not
sow his seed by means of "drills" in symmetrical rows. Out of his
leathern seed bag he takes generous handfuls of grain and, "in the name
of the bounteous God," he casts the blessed seed into the soil, and
then "covers it" by ploughing. The bridle paths which wind through the
fields, and the still narrower footpaths which the wayfarers make
through those fields every season in {289} taking "short cuts" on their
weary journeys, provide ample chance for "some seeds" to fall "by the
wayside," and be devoured by the fowls of the air. In certain sections
of the country where I was brought up the "stony places" are the rule
and the "good ground" the exception. So the seeds which "fell upon
stony places" came up quickly "because they had no deepness of earth;
and when the sun was up, they were scorched." There is another reason
for this than the shallowness of the soil. The almost utter lack of
rain in that country from April to October leaves no chance for seed
cast into shallow soil to live long.
"And some fell among the thorns; and the thorns sprang up, and choked
them." For this the Syrian farmer himself is largely to blame. He
preserves the thorns for cattle feed and for fuel. Certain kinds of
thorns, especially _bellan_, are used as fuel for summer cooking, which
is done out of doors, and for baking at the _tennûr_.[4] Other thorns
are harvested, after the barley and {290} wheat harvests, threshed, and
stored for winter feed. In the sixth verse of the seventh chapter of
the Book of Ecclesiastes the writer says, "For as the crackling of
thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool." The threshing of
thorns is referred to in the Book of Judges,[5] where it says, "When
the Lord hath delivered Zabah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will
tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers."
But here again the English translation fails to give an exact rendering
of the text, although the marginal note replaces the word "tears" by
the word "thresh." The Arabic version says, "I will _thresh_ your
flesh with the thorns and briers of the wilderness _with the threshing
boards_," which is an exact picture of the treading of the oxen as they
drag the threshing board over the thorns upon the threshing floor.
When a boy it was a great delight to me to wander in the wheatfields
when the grain had just passed the "milk stage" and had begun to {291}
mature and harden. It is then called _fereek_, and is delicious to
eat, either raw or roasted. I could subsist a whole day by plucking
the heads of wheat, rubbing them in my hand and eating the fat, soft,
fragrant grain. From time immemorial wayfarers in the East have been
allowed to trespass in this manner, provided they carried no more grain
away than that which they ate. In the twenty-fifth verse of the
twenty-third chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy the reading of the
Revised Version is, "When thou comest into thy neighbor's standing
corn, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt
not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn." It was the
indulgence in this practice by the disciples, on the Sabbath, which
formed the basis of the Pharisees' protest to Jesus to the effect that
his followers dishonored the sacred day. In the sixth chapter of St.
Luke's Gospel, the first verse, the Revised Version rendering of the
text is, "Now it came to pass on a sabbath, that he was going through
the grainfields and his disciples plucked the {292} ears, and did eat,
rubbing them in their hands." The protest of the guardians of Israel's
law, and Jesus' answer in the verses which follow, give us another
revelation of the Master's central thought and motive as a religious
teacher; namely, that man's legitimate needs take precedence of all
ecclesiastical formalities.
I do not believe any account of agricultural life in Syria should omit
mentioning the plague which above all others strikes terror into the
heart of the Eastern tiller of the soil. In his prayer at the
dedication of the temple, Solomon mentions "blasting, mildew, locust,
and caterpillar."[6] Of all those unwelcome visitors, the locusts are
the most abhorred. I will give my impression of this pest in a
quotation from my autobiography:[7]
One of the never-to-be-forgotten phenomena of my early years, a
spectacle which the most extravagantly imaginative American mind cannot
picture, was the coming of the locusts into our part of the country.
If my memory serves me well, I was about twelve years old when my
father {293} and all his men, together with all the male population
over fifteen, were impressed by the governor of our district to fight
the devastating hosts of Oriental locusts. No one who has not seen
such a spectacle and the desolation those winged creatures leave behind
them can appreciate in the least degree the force of the saying of "The
Lord God of the Hebrews" to Pharaoh, "If thou refuse to let my people
go, behold, to-morrow I will bring the locusts into thy coasts."[8]
For a few weeks before they deluged our district the news came with the
caravans that the locusts were sweeping toward our region from the
"land of the south." We youngsters did not know why our elders were so
terror-stricken when they heard of it, until the scourge had come and
gone.
It was a few weeks before the time of the harvest when the clouds of
locusts enveloped our community. They hid the sun with their
greenish-yellow wings, covered the trees and the ground, the walls and
roofs of the houses, and dashed in our faces like flakes of snow driven
by the wind. The utter hopelessness of the task which confronted our
people and seemed to unite all classes in despair, assumed in my sight
a very comic aspect, and converted the calamity into a holiday. It was
so amusing to me to see our sedate aristocrats and old men and women
join the youth {294} and the common laborers in shouting, beating on
tin cans, firing muskets, setting brush on fire, striking at the cursed
insects with their hands, stamping them with their feet, and praying
God to send "a strong wind" to drive the enemy of man away. Every
_mutekellif_ (payer of the toll-tax) had to fight the locusts for so
many days or hire a substitute,
I do not clearly remember whether it was the beating on tin cans and
howling of the people or the prayed-for "strong wind" that drove the
merry locusts away. What I do remember is that when they did go away
they left the land almost stripped clean of every green thing.
It was no vain threatening when the writer of Deuteronomy warned
Israel, saying, "If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord
thy God,, to observe to do all his commandments.... All thy trees and
fruit of thy land shall the locust consume."[9]
[1] Mic. iv: 4.
[2] Is. lxiii: 2.
[3] Job xxiv: 11.
[4] See page 201.
[5] Judges viii: 7.
[6] 1 Kings viii: 37.
[7] _A Far Journey_, page 109, etc.
[8] Exod. x: 40.
[9] Deut. xxvii: 15, 42.
{295}
CHAPTER VI
THE SHEPHERD
"I am the good shepherd" is one of Jesus' most tender, most
compassionate sayings. The first sixteen verses of the tenth chapter
of St. John's Gospel, from which this saying comes, should be joined to
the twenty-third Psalm. Notwithstanding the fact that John's words are
tinged with Greek thought, as descriptive of shepherd life in the East,
those two portions of Scripture belong together.
The various phases of shepherd life in Syria are indelibly printed in
my memory. Our mountain village home was situated on the upper slope
of a rather steep hill, at the base of which a thin stream flowed over
its rocky bed. Across the narrow ravine, on the lower slope of another
hill, just opposite our home, there were three sheep and goat folds.
There for years I watched the shepherds and their flocks go out and
come in, morning and evening, from early {296} spring until late
autumn, when the shepherds dismantled the folds by removing their
thorny fences, pulled down their rude bowers, and led their flocks to
the "lowlands," where they spent the short winter season. The wailing
of Isaiah, in the twelfth verse of the thirty-eighth chapter (Revised
Version), "My dwelling is removed and is carried away from me as a
shepherd's tent," reminds me very strongly of the easy removal and
complete disappearance of that temporary shelter, which I so often saw
torn down and carried away.
While at work in the fields cutting stone for my father's building
operations in various parts of Mount Lebanon, the shepherds were all
around us. In those days I watched the shepherd lead his flock "into
the waters of rest," or the restful, refreshing waters, which the
English version renders "still waters." I watched him as, by
inarticulate, deep, guttural sounds, whistling, certain characteristic
words which the flock seemed to understand, and the flinging of pebbles
or "smooth stones," such as those {297} with which David smote Goliath,
he guided, I might say invited, the "blessed creatures," into every
nook and corner among the rocks where there was pasture. It was this
solicitous watchfulness of the shepherd which the writer of the
twenty-third Psalm had in mind when he said, "The Lord is my shepherd,
_I shall not want_." In the heat of the day the shepherd made his
flock "to lie down" in the pasture ground, and the "blessed ones," as
the shepherd always calls his sheep and goats, would fold their nimble
legs and lie down, singly and in small groups, a surpassing picture of
contentment, trustfulness, and peace. They seemed to realize that
although they were in the wilderness they had nothing to fear. For the
loving shepherd, with his strong and heavy staff, was in their midst to
ward off all danger from them.
The opening verses of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John contain
most significant allusions to the sheepfold. "Verily, verily, I say
unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but
climbeth up some other {298} way, the same is a thief and a robber."
Here the reference is to the fold of the dry season, such as those I
have already mentioned. The winter sheepfold is a roofed stone hovel
called _merah_. It has one low door and no windows; therefore, by
climbing up the fold, "some other way" the robber could secure no
booty. The roofless fold is called _hedherah_ and is built of rough
stones (such as are used in New England stone fences) to the height of
five feet. Above the stone construction rises a high _seyaj_ (hedge)
of thorny branches, securely fastened between the stones. It is this
hedge which is especially designed to prevent the "thief and robber"
from climbing into the sheepfold.
"But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To
him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth
his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out." The shepherd's rude tent
is located near the door. There also his faithful dog lies. The word
"porter" in the text refers more, perhaps, to a Greek than Syrian
custom. However, in case of {299} large flocks, the under-shepherd, or
the "helper," who guards the door, answers to the "porter."
The calling of the sheep or goats by name should not be taken
literally. The animals are not named as persons are. The shepherd
_knows_ all the members of his flock by certain individual
characteristics, and realizes the fact quickly when one of them is
lost. The more prominent ones are given adjectival names, such as the
"pure white," the "striped," the "black," the "brown," the
"gray-eared," etc. But it should be borne in mind that the saying,
"And he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out," indicates
the tender love of the shepherd for his flock, but not that the animals
answer to their names. They are never trained to do that. He "leadeth
them out," not by calling their names, but by giving certain sounds
which they recognize.
"And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the
sheep follow him: for they know his voice." I find that the strong
emphasis which commentators in general place {300} upon the shepherd's
going _before_ the flock carries the impression that he does so
_invariably_. So far as I know, this is not absolutely correct. _As a
rule_, the shepherd goes before the flock, but not infrequently he is
seen behind it. The shepherd walks behind, especially in the evening
when the flock is on its way to the fold, in order that he may gather
the stragglers and protect them from the stealthy wolf. The shepherd
often walks by the side of the flock, at about the middle of the line.
In case of large flocks the shepherd goes before, and the helper behind.
One of the great delights of my boyhood days was the sight of the
"returning flock" every evening on the pebbly road on the side of the
hill close by our house. I go up on the housetop at dusk. As soon as
I hear the swishing roar of the multitude of little sharp hoofs on the
stony road, which is like the sound of an approaching hailstorm among
the trees, then I know that the "blessed ones" are near. The long line
of horny and hornless heads sweeps down the slope {301} of the hill
like an army on a "double-quick." With his strong, protecting staff in
hand, the stalwart, tender, ever-watchful shepherd appears at the end
of the line, and like an overshadowing Providence _guides_ his beloved
flock safely over the little stream and into the fold.
The effective, and, I might say, unerring, guidance of the shepherd is
especially shown when he leads his flock in the "narrow paths." In
Syria as a rule the fields are not fenced. The pastures and the
planted fields are separated by narrow footpaths, and here and there by
low stone walls, which are intended, however, more for landmarks than
for fences. The fields are the forbidden ground. In transferring his
flock from one pasture to another, the shepherd must not allow any of
his animals to stray from the beaten path into the fields. For if he
does, he will not only have to pay damages to the owners of the fields,
but will ruin his own reputation as a shepherd. In my home town we had
a shepherd who was widely famed for his skill in leading his flock in
the narrow paths. Sa'ied, who {302} supplied our community with goat's
milk during the summer, was often known to guide a flock of about one
hundred and fifty head of goats (which are much more unruly than sheep)
without a helper, in a narrow path or over a stone wall, for a
considerable distance, without allowing a single one of them to set
foot on the forbidden ground. The flock obeyed him because they _knew
his voice_ as that of their good shepherd.
It was no doubt such shepherds as Sa'ied that lent the writer of the
twenty-third Psalm his telling figure. It was the faithful guidance of
such earthly shepherds that led the ancient singer to meditate upon the
Lord's faithfulness to his own, and to utter his faith in the line, "He
leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake." The
fields of temptation lie on either side of the narrow path of rectitude
and life. The Lord will protect and lead in the right path all those
who know Him and hear His voice.
Another enchanting picture of Syrian pastoral {303} life is the
gathering of the flock. The shepherd seeks and gathers his sheep for
the purpose of transferring them to a richer pasture, or, at the end of
the day, to lead them back to the fold. He stands in the midst of the
far-scattered flock and gives certain sounds, which are to the sheep
what the notes of a bugle are to an army. His trained right arm, whose
long range and precision are proverbial, sends the pebbles whirring in
all directions, and thus "turns back" the more heedless of the flock.
It was this which the Psalmist had in mind when he said, "He restoreth
my soul." The Arabic phrase _yeriddo nefsee_, means, "he turns back my
soul," and refers to the action of the shepherd in turning the course
of his sheep toward himself. The faithful shepherd never proceeds to
lead his flock away until he is assured that all his dumb companions
are gathered together.
With what pathos does the prophet Ezekiel portray this pastoral scene
when he speaks of the infinite compassion of the divine shepherd of
Israel, who never slumbers nor sleeps! In the {304} thirty-fourth
chapter, the eleventh verse, the promise to scattered Israel is, "For
thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I, even I, will both search for my
sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the
day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out
my sheep, and will deliver them out of all the places where they have
been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out
from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring
them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by
the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will
feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel
shall their fold be; there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat
pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel.... I will seek
that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away."
The climax of the shepherd figure, as it is used in the tenth chapter
of the Gospel of John, is reached in Christ's saying, "I am the good
{305} shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep," and
in the twenty-third Psalm, in the passage, "Though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with
me: thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." Only those who have heard
the howling of a faithful shepherd at the approach of a wild beast to
the flock can clearly realize how literally true is this saying of
Christ's: "The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
Of all the shepherds I have known or have known about in my native
land, the commanding figure of one--Yusuf Balua'--rises most
prominently before me. I never want to forget old Yusuf. He was over
sixty when I first knew him. He was every inch a shepherd, having
known no other vocation in all his life. I knew that elemental man in
the "lowlands," where I spent two winters with my father, who was
called thither to erect several farmhouses for the lord of the land.
Yusuf, as he himself expressed it, "revered" my father; therefore, I
{306} was always welcome to visit Yusuf at his cave in the rocky gorge,
and to roam with him and his flock whenever my duties as my father's
helper permitted.
The flocks are kept in the "lowlands" until after the "time of birth,"
which comes in March; then they are led up into the mountains. It was
during that blessed time of birth, and while with Yusuf, that I first
beheld the original of that infinitely tender picture which is drawn in
the fortieth chapter of Isaiah, the eleventh verse, and which is also
Christ's most appealing picture. "He shall feed his flock like a
shepherd," says the prophet; "he shall gather the lambs with his arm,
and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with
young." The text is very effectively improved by the marginal note
which says, "and shall gently lead those that _give suck_." It was
that which Yusuf Balua' was doing once when I happened to be with him.
His roughly hewn figure stands now before me, with three newly born
lambs held close to his bosom, and their {307} wilted heads resting on
his massive arm. He walked gently before the anxious, slowly moving
mothers, which came close behind him, emitting low, humming sounds,
through which Nature poured out her compassionate heart.
"Let me carry one of them," I begged Yusuf. "No, my boy, not the
helpless ones," answered the tender friend. "They need the shepherd's
care now. Besides, the mothers don't know you and they would fear."
But they knew _his_ voice and followed him!
Oh, if we will but know and trust and follow our heavenly Shepherd, as
the sheep trust and follow theirs!
But I must not lose sight of what I have called the climax of the
shepherd figure in the Gospel and the Psalms; namely, the shepherd's
interposing with his own life between the flock and the wolf. The
wolf, the hyena, and the leopard are the flock's most formidable foes.
During his long life Yusuf fought many battles with those ferocious
beasts, but never lost a hoof to them in all those encounters. On more
{308} than one occasion he followed the hyena to his lair, and, by his
characteristic howling, flinging his deadly stones with his sling, and
striking with his heavy staff on the rocks, compelled the beast to
abandon his prey. Whether the unfortunate sheep was yet alive or
whether it had died, Yusuf, as a good and faithful shepherd, always
carried it back to the fold. Does not the prophet Amos assure Israel
of their Shepherd's infinite care for them in an allusion to the
faithful seeking by the earthly shepherd for even a fragment of his
lost sheep? "Thus saith Jehovah," cries Amos; "As the shepherd
_rescueth out of the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear_;
so shall the children of Israel be rescued."[1] To this care and
devotion of the shepherd, Jesus also alludes in his parabolic saying in
which he speaks of his having "come to save that which was lost." "How
think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone
astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the
mountains, {309} and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be
that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that
sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it
is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these
little ones should perish!"[2]
When I think of that deep, rocky gorge where Yusuf wintered with his
flock, and the many similar valleys which the Syrian shepherds have to
traverse daily; when I think of the wild beasts they have to fight, of
the scars they bear on their bodies as marks of their unreserved and
boundless devotion to their flocks, I realize very clearly the depth of
the Psalmist's faith when he said, "Though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me: thy rod
and thy staff, they comfort me."
[1] Amos iii: 12. Revised Version.
[2] Matt. xviii: 12-14.
{313}
PART V
SISTERS OF MARY AND MARTHA
CHAPTER I
WOMAN EAST AND WEST
Perhaps on no other subject do the Orient and the Occident diverge more
widely than on that of the status of woman. So far as they really
differ, and as they imagine that they differ in their regard for woman,
the Orientals and the Occidentals form two distinct human types.
From the beginning of their history, the Teutonic races, especially the
Anglo-Saxons, have been characterized by their high regard for woman.
This trait of the dwellers of north-western Europe so impressed the
Latin Christian missionaries, when they first visited those peoples,
that they described them as having "such high regard for woman to the
extent that adultery was unknown among them." And while the concluding
phrase of this historical testimony does not describe the present state
of Anglo-Saxon society with absolute correctness, {314} the statement
as a whole seems to me to be a substantially correct description of
present Anglo-Saxon life. Among the peoples of north-western Europe,
and especially among their descendants in America, woman enjoys man's
highest regard.
On the other hand, "the Oriental view of woman" has always been
considered by those Western peoples to be very contemptuous. We always
hate most deeply that vice which is the opposite of our strongest
virtue. We are most likely to exaggerate and to condemn mercilessly
any deviation from that which we ourselves consider to be the sacred
path of duty. Respect for woman being one of his strongest virtues,
the Anglo-Saxon is lashed to fury by what seems to him to be the
Oriental's utter disrespect for the mother of the race.
As I have already stated in other connections in this work, my object
is neither to accuse the Oriental nor to excuse his moral failures. My
aim is rather to interpret him to my Western readers and to determine,
if possible, to what {315} extent he really is a transgressor of the
normal rules of behavior toward woman. My intimate knowledge of life
in both hemispheres and my affectionate regard for the good qualities
of both the Orientals and the Occidentals lead me to venture to be a
reconciler of their differences. They certainly misunderstand one
another, especially with reference to the domestic and social relations
of the sexes. Time was when the various races hugged their prejudices
close to their own hearts and really enjoyed ridiculing one another.
But "the hour cometh and now is" when the peoples of the earth are
beginning to realize that righteousness and truth, kindness and good
manners, are the exclusive possessions of no one race. The peoples of
the earth are beginning to realize that a mutual sympathetic
understanding between the various races is an asset of civilization,
and a promoter of the cause of that human commonwealth for which all
good men pray and hope. Therefore, as one who owes much to both the
East and the West, {316} I deem it my duty to do what I can to promote
such a sympathetic understanding, without doing violence to the truth.
What is an obvious fact, and which can by no means be ignored, even by
the most zealous special pleader, is that the Eastern woman is far from
being the equal of her Western sister, either in culture or in domestic
and social privileges. Perhaps in no other country does woman enjoy
these blessings to the extent to which the American woman enjoys them.
Woman as man's intellectual companion, as a promoter of ideals, as a
factor in domestic and social evolution, the Orient has never known.
The Western type of woman is now partially represented in my native
land by a minority of cultivated women, but their number is
comparatively very small.
The Oriental social code (if the simple social usages in that part of
the world may be termed such) gives man the precedence. To give woman
the social and domestic prominence, the little attentions and
courtesies which she {317} enjoys in America, is to the Orientals not
only unnecessary, but uncomplimentary to both sexes.
It is perhaps for lack of such attentions and courtesies, more than for
anything else, that the Occidentals consider the Oriental woman to be
the slave of her husband. And, conversely, because of his giving the
precedence to woman in all the courtesies and comforts of life, the
Orientals, _both men and women_, consider the Occidental to be the
slave of his wife. How often have I heard Syrians say, "An _affrenjee_
[that is, a European] is quite a man until his wife whispers something
to him. Then he becomes her slave; he does just what she tells him."
The Oriental's indifference to those fine points of behavior toward
woman does not spring from the fact that he considers her to be
intrinsically his inferior, and consequently his slave. I never had
the slightest reason, nor the faintest suggestion, either by example or
precept, to believe that my mother was in any way {318} my father's
inferior. "Thou shalt honour thy father _and_ thy mother" is a
commandment which was born of the deepest life of the East. I can
think of no circumstances in Eastern life which compel a Syrian to
think of his mother, sister, and wife in other than terms of equality
in all essentials with the male members of the family.[1]
In my judgment it is the Oriental's deportment, rather than his real
intentions, which condemns him in the sight of Occidentals for his
attitude toward woman. It is perhaps hazardous to undertake to
differentiate between character and conduct, between the motive and the
method by which that motive is put into action. It is customary,
however, to say of a person that "his heart is in the right place, but
he does not know how to act." I venture to say that {319} this
characterization fits the case of the average Oriental. His heart is
in the right place. His natural endowments are good. He is
quick-witted, kind, generous, pious, obedient to parents, and a lover
of his home. So far as all these fundamentals are concerned, I find no
great difference between the Easterners and the Westerners.
However, compared with his Western cousin, the son of the Near East has
only a slight acquaintance with the _art_ of living. The working-out
of details with the view of creating harmony has always seemed to him
vanity and vexation of spirit. His intense desire for simple,
spontaneous, easy living has always refused to be encumbered by
exacting standards. In this respect he is a boy in man's clothing.
For an example, the home to him is little more than a shelter. The
riches of the home are not the artistic appointments, but human
associations. Architectural schemes, interior decorations, books,
musical instruments, living by the clock, and other Western glories are
to the Oriental {320} dispensable luxuries. The one-room or two-room
house, very simply furnished, is the essential part of the home. Why
then should one be burdened with more? The "color scheme," the harmony
or contrast of wall-paper with picture frames and carpets, and the
thousand and one articles of useful and ornamental furniture which
crowd the American home and make the "servant-girl problem" well-nigh
insoluble, are to the average Oriental a delusion and a snare. His
table appointments are also very simple. To him the "one thing
needful" is enough food to sustain life. He has no "cook-book." The
varieties of cake and pie, and the multitude of side dishes which load
the American table, do not appear on the Syrian's bill of fare. One
dish of cooked cereals, or meat and rice or some other wholesome
combination, and a few loaves of bread, satisfy his hunger. His modest
stores of grape molasses, figs, and raisins, which he visits at
irregular intervals, satisfy his craving for sweets, and his home-made
wine gives color and gayety to his feasts.
{321}
The same simple rules govern the Oriental's social activities. Whether
as an individual or as a domestic and social being, he hates to be
standardized. To him formalities have no claim upon those who are true
friends and social equals. Spontaneous living must not be too closely
yoked with etiquette, nor native wisdom with technical culture. "_Meta
weck'at elmahabbet artafa' ettekleef_" (when love occurs formalities
cease) is one of the Oriental's ancient and cherished maxims. From
early childhood the Americans are taught to observe, even within the
family circle, the niceties of "Please," "Thank you," "Pardon me," "I
beg your pardon," "May I trouble you," and so forth. To a son of the
East such behavior is altogether proper among strangers, but not among
those who really _love one another_. Between husband and wife, parent
and child, brothers and sisters, and true friends such formalities
appear to Easterners not only superficial, but utterly ridiculous. For
such persons the most essential thing is that they should love one
another. As {322} lovers they have a right to _demand_ favors from one
another. The commands of love are sweet; they must not be alloyed with
tiresome formalities.
Of course this "friendliness" of the Oriental is not altogether an
unmixed blessing. He relies too much upon his good intentions, which
his conduct does not always show. Judged, not only by Western
standards, but by the standards of the cultivated minority of his own
people, he is found wanting. It is not always easy for him to be
familiar without being vulgar, and to distinguish between the
legitimate claims of friendship and intrusion upon the exclusive rights
of others. His plea always is that he means well, which is generally
true. "His heart is in the right place."
Now I believe it can be easily seen that the Easterner's attitude
toward woman, which now rises to the height of religious reverence, now
verges on contempt, is to be traced to his uneven, juvenile temperament
and lack of culture, and not to the fact that he despises her. {323}
So long as he respects her "in his heart" and is ready to defend her at
whatever cost, he considers the fine points of conduct toward her after
the American fashion to be simply dispensable little details. Nor does
his attitude toward woman differ essentially from his attitude toward
the male portion of mankind. He has one vocabulary for both sexes,
with the inclination to be more respectful toward the gentler sex.
So woman in the East is not considered a slave by the man, and there is
a multitude of wife-ruled husbands. The family system, however, is
patriarchal. The man is recognized as the "lord of the household."
The venerable father of a family is supposed to rule, not only over the
women of the household, but over his grown sons, his younger brothers,
and even the men of his clan who are younger than himself. But such an
authority is often purely formal. The higher the level of culture in
the home, the more freedom and equality exists among the members of the
family. In cultivated Syrian {324} homes the women are free and highly
and uniformly respected by the men. Such women have no reason to envy
even the happiest American women.
[1] My statements apply particularly to the Christian women of Syria,
who enjoy greater domestic and social privileges than the Mohammedan
women. However, notwithstanding the serious limitations which orthodox
Mohammedanism imposes upon women, it would be sheer injustice to the
better class of Mohammedans to be stigmatized as enslavers and debasers
of woman.
{325}
CHAPTER II
PAUL AND WOMAN
Perhaps nowhere else is the Syrian attitude toward woman so clearly
stated as in the teachings of St. Paul. The great Apostle deals with
the fundamentals of this subject, and speaks freely of both the
privileges and the limitations of woman in the Christian East.
In the third chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, the twenty-eighth
verse, Paul says, "There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus." And this equality is not to be understood to be
limited to the bestowal of church rites upon men and women alike. It
embraces the essential points of conduct of the male and female members
of the household toward one another. Fidelity to the marriage vow is
to be equally observed by both husband and wife. This the Apostle
urges upon his fellow believers, not as a superior authority, {326} but
as a friend. In the seventh chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, the fourth verse, he says, "The wife hath not power over
her own body, but the husband; and _likewise_ also the husband hath not
power over his own body, but the wife." In the fourteenth verse of
this same chapter, the equal potency of the spiritual influence of both
the husband and the wife is also recognized. "The unbelieving
husband," says the Apostle, "is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband." In the fifth chapter
of the Epistle to the Ephesians, the "Apostle to the Gentiles" rises to
the noblest height of Eastern thought concerning woman and reveals
Christianity's conserving and sanctifying power. Beginning at the
twenty-fifth verse, he says: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify
and cleanse it, ... that he might present it to himself a glorious
church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish. {327} So ought men to love their
wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth
it, even as the Lord the church."
This is precisely what the marriage union in the East always meant to
us. By this sacred bond the husband and the wife are made "one flesh."
That the Oriental has not definitely succeeded in making his daily
conduct always conform to his highest ideals and to the noble precepts
of the Gospel is evident, and not at all strange. Here he has
succeeded no better than his Anglo-Saxon superior has in conforming his
conduct to the command, "Love your enemies." My point is that down
deep in the Syrian heart the spirit of Paul's words abides. It serves
the son of the East in time of trouble as his quick and tender
conscience. The real trouble with him has been his aversion to
strictly systematic living. He does love his wife as he loves himself,
but in reality he does not fully know how to love himself.
{328}
Paul, on the other hand, does not ignore the conventional limitations
which Eastern traditions impose upon woman. He recognizes the
patriarchal government of the family. In the chapter just quoted, the
Apostle says: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is
the head of the Church." Much trouble may be avoided by the unfriendly
critics of Paul and Christianity in general, if such critics would keep
in mind the conditional nature of this command. Whether as a Syrian or
as an American I do not believe in subjecting the wife to the husband,
nor the husband to the wife. Domestic life should be based on perfect
coöperation of husband and wife, in spiritual as well as in
administrative matters. Toward this goal the Americans have made the
greatest advance. However, Paul's command can by no means be justly
construed as giving the husband unlimited tyrannical authority over the
wife. "The husband is the head of the wife, _even as Christ is the
head of the {329} Church_." The church is not the slave of Christ, but
his beloved bride. So the supremacy here is that of loving care and
consideration. Therefore, the fact that the traditions of the East
give the man conventional supremacy over the woman has never meant to
us sons of that land that our mothers and sisters were abject slaves.
And it should be borne in mind that the women of Syria are not always
so submissive as those traditions would lead a Westerner to believe. I
might say that in the majority of cases the man finds it no easy task
to make his formal authority over the woman of real effect. The
heartfelt complaints of discouraged husbands, that "not even all the
angels of heaven can subdue a woman," are not unfrequently heard in the
land of the Bible.
Perhaps the part of Paul's teaching which seems to Westerners to seal
the fate of woman is that found in the eleventh chapter of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians. Here the Apostle declares: "For a man
indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory {330} of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. Neither was
the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
I think any serious Bible student will easily realize that as a good
shepherd Paul must have felt that he should not travel much faster than
the weakest of his flock. In the passage just quoted he stoops low for
the purpose of accommodating the prejudices of _certain_ Orientals.
And in so doing he contradicts his own saying, "There is neither male
nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," and the great passage
in the first chapter of Genesis, the twenty-seventh verse, "So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; _male
and female_ created he them."
The Eastern man has from time immemorial decreed that woman's social
privileges should be limited, because of his fear for her. In such an
unstable social order as that which has existed in the East for ages
woman is constantly exposed to danger. Woman-stealing was very
prevalent in ancient times, and is still practiced {331} among the
Arabian tribes which hover on the eastern borders of Syria. In modern
Syria such practices no longer exist, but their faint echoes are still
heard in times of tribal fights. On such occasions the cry is heard
(and I often heard it myself), "You dogs, to-day we shall take your
women booty [_nesbee hereemekûm_]."
It is because of these ancient fears, and not from a desire on the part
of the man to enslave her, that the social privileges of the woman in
the East are so limited. The duty to protect always carries with it
the right to discipline. And the greater the danger, the more strict
the discipline. The weaker men of the clan, because they need to be
protected, are also in subjection to the "men of counsel" (_ahil erry_)
and to the stronger fighters.
And it may be easily inferred that in such circumstances woman's charms
are a danger to her. She must be secluded, as among the Mohammedans,
or simply limited in her social intercourse, as among the Christians,
in order to hide those charms from the curious stranger. {332} For
this reason also she must be heavily veiled when she goes out, as among
the Moslems, or at least have her head covered always, as among the
Christians. So when Paul said, "Every woman that prayeth or
prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head,"[1] he simply
gave wise recognition to an ancient social custom. A more liberal
course on his part would have marked Paul as a violent disturber of
venerable traditions.
The chief charm of an Oriental woman is her _hishmat_ (modesty). But
modesty in a stricter sense than that accepted in the Occident.
Feminine timidity (_jubn_) is very extensively sung by the Arabian
poets. A charming woman, especially a maiden, is she who is timid,
shy, retiring, of a few words. "She has a mouth to eat, but not to
speak," is a high tribute paid to a maiden. For a woman to take a
leading part in conversation in the presence of men is boldness. I do
not know how they manage to do it, but, _as a rule_, in the presence of
men the women of {333} Syria exercise marvelous control over their
organs of speech.
Do you understand now why Paul says, in the fourteenth chapter of his
First Epistle to the Corinthians, the thirty-fourth verse, "Let your
women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them
to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience"? To Oriental
ears, as perhaps to Puritan ears of the good old type, such words are
poetry set to music. They do not degrade, but honor woman by not
making her common.
It would, perhaps, throw further light on the Easterners' regard of
woman as a sacred being when it is known why they call the wife
_hûrmat_. This term is derived from _heram_--a consecrated and wholly
sacred object. _Heram_ is the name of the Mohammedans' most sacred
shrine of Mecca. The wife is the husband's most sacred possession,
therefore she is called _hûrmat_. The plural of this is _harem_, a
term which to Westerners has a most obnoxious connotation. But not so
to Orientals. In the West {334} _harem_ simply means sensuality and
polygamy in their worst form. In the East it means simply and purely
the women of a household, or of a clan, whether it be Christian or
Mohammedan. It does not necessarily mean plurality of wives. A man's
mother, wife, sisters, and daughters constitute his _harem_; for they
are all sacred to him.
Now it will not be difficult to understand, I believe, why it is that
the man in the East takes precedence of the woman in all social
affairs, and why the sexes are segregated at public feasts and on other
similar occasions. It is for the same reason that we find no women
disciples at the Last Supper. In the parable of the prodigal son, the
father meets the returning penitent, the father bestows "the best robe"
on the son, the father orders the feast, and doubtless presides over
it. So it was also when Abraham entertained the angels, and Zacchæus
entertained Jesus--the man was the entertainer. However, in these two
cases the women might have acted as hostesses,--because the {335}
guests were holy persons. We have a striking example of the freedom
which is permitted to women in such cases in the story of Mary and
Martha. They entertained Jesus, first because apparently they had no
parents living, and their brother was young, and second because Jesus
was no mere guest, but a holy person.[2]
Notwithstanding all these social conventions, however, the mother has a
right to demand from her children the same loving obedience which they
accord to their father. They must honor their father and their mother
alike. Upon coming home from a journey I always saluted my parents by
kissing their hands, as a mark of loving submission. According to
custom, I saluted my father first, and my mother second, but in the
same identical manner, and invoked their _radha_ (good pleasure) toward
me, with religious reverence. I always knew that to disrespect and
disobey my mother was not only bad manners, but a sin. So obnoxious
has disobedience to parents been to the respectable {336} families of
the East that the ancient Israelites made it a capital crime. In the
twenty-first chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy the stipulation of the
law is: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not
obey the voice of his father, or the voice of _his mother_, and that,
when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall
his father _and_ his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the
elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say
unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious,
he will not obey our voice.... And all the men of his city shall stone
him with stones, that he die."[3] Needless to say that this cruel
punishment is no longer inflicted upon rebellious sons in the East.
The record, however, indicates the joint authority of the husband and
wife over their own children, and the public approval of it.
But there is more to be said about _radha-elwalideen_ (the parents'
good pleasure). I do {337} not know whether the words "good pleasure"
convey the real significance of the word _radha_, which as it pertains
to parents is one of the most sacred terms in Oriental speech. The
_radha_ of a parent is a benediction which includes complete
forgiveness to the child of all offenses and indicates the parent's
spiritual satisfaction with his offspring. To secure the parent's
expressed _radha_ at the hour of death is equal to a sacrament. I can
think of no human experience that can be more impressive, more tender,
and more deeply religious than that of an Oriental imploring a dying
parent to assure him of his or her _radha_ before the end came. The
weeping son grasps the hand of his dying parent, and, leaning over
tenderly to catch the faint utterances, says: "Father,[4] bestow your
_radha_ upon me; forgive me and bless me, so that Allah also may
forgive and bless me; your _radha_, father!" If the departing parent
is still able to speak, he looks up toward heaven and says: "You have
my _radha_, my dearly beloved {338} son; and may Allah bestow his holy
_radha_ upon you and bless you and the work of your hands. May the
earth produce riches for you, and heaven shower benedictions upon you;
pray for me, my dearly beloved." But if the departing father or mother
is no longer able to utter words, the repeated pressing of the hand and
the turning of the eyes upward indicate the parent's response to the
petition of the son or daughter. The refusal of a parent to grant his
_radha_, which is most rare, is to an Oriental a haunting horror.
In ancient Israel the deathbed blessing was bestowed with special
emphasis upon the first-born son because with it came the heritage of
the patriarchal office. Thus, when Isaac bestowed his last blessing
upon his tricky son Jacob, he said:[5] "God give thee of the dew of
heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine: Let
people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy
brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down {339} to thee." And what
is also most touching in this story is poor Esau's agony when he
discovered that the blessing to which he was the rightful heir had gone
to his brother. "And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one
blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau
lifted up his voice and wept."[6]
[1] 1 Cor. xi: 5.
[2] See page 207.
[3] Verses 18-21.
[4] The same also is asked of the mother.
[5] Gen. xxvii: 28, 29.
[6] Gen. xxvii: 38.
{340}
CHAPTER III
JESUS AND HIS MOTHER
One of the perplexing passages in the New Testament is that found in
the fourth verse of the second chapter of St. John's Gospel, where
Jesus says to his mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" That
it has been very difficult for many devout readers of the Bible to
reconcile this passage to the Master's gentleness and goodness is very
well known to me. On numerous occasions I have been asked to give my
interpretation of this saying in the light of the status of woman in
the East, and to state whether, in my opinion as a Syrian, Jesus could
have meant to be harsh and disrespectful to his mother. Before
undertaking to give my own view of this passage, I wish to present two
interpretations of it which I have heard certain American preachers
give. One of those preachers who was proud to call himself "a free
lance" stated in my hearing that on the {341} occasion when Jesus spoke
these words "he simply lost his temper." The redeeming feature of this
comment, in my opinion, is its brevity. It is short, but neither sweet
nor to the point. The other interpreter (or interpreters, for I do not
recall where and when I heard this), assuming that the station of woman
in the East was very low, stated that by addressing his mother in a
seemingly harsh manner, Jesus infringed no rule of propriety. Having
already stated at considerable length the "Oriental view of woman," I
deem it necessary here simply to say that the foregoing interpretation
rests on a misconception of the facts.
In trying to throw some light on this passage I will say that,
notwithstanding its seeming harshness in the English translation, I
find no real reason to believe that in uttering it Jesus indicated that
he was angry, or that he meant to be disrespectful to his mother. This
somewhat impersonal form of address to a woman is very common in the
East. It _might_ be so spoken as to mean disrespect, but as a rule,
and {342} according to the Oriental manner of speech, it is dignified
and in good taste. At present the term _hûrmat_ is more extensively
used in such cases in Syria. Among the nobility and the educated
minority of the people the word _sitt_ (lady) is employed in addressing
a woman. However, this impersonal form of address is employed by a man
when speaking to a woman who is a stranger to him. The correct form
is, "O woman," the same which Jesus used in saying to the "woman of
Canaan," in the fifteenth chapter of Matthew, the twenty-eighth verse,
"O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt." In
the same manner the Master assured the woman who had "a spirit of
infirmity,"[1] "Woman,[2] thou art loosed from thine infirmity." A
superb example of this Oriental usage is found in the fourth chapter of
St. John's Gospel, the twenty-first verse, in Jesus' conversation with
the Samaritan woman. With solemn dignity he says to her: "Woman, {343}
believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain,
nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.... But the hour cometh, and
now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit
and in truth."
From the foregoing examples it may be easily seen that the form of
Jesus' address to his mother could not be considered disrespectful.
Therefore the difficulty which the text offers springs from the fact
that it represents Jesus as speaking to his own mother as he would
speak to a woman _who was a stranger to him_. Why did he do that? The
answer to this question depends partially on thorough knowledge of
Oriental thought and largely on acquaintance with the theology of St.
John's Gospel.
As every Bible scholar knows, the purpose of this Gospel is to present
Jesus to the world as the incarnation of the Logos--the Word. Here the
Master is spoken of, not as the prophet of Galilee, but as the One who
came down from heaven. Therefore the Son of God was by virtue of this
supernatural character above all {344} earthly connections. His mother
was only human, only finite. On the occasion of his addressing her as
a stranger she is represented as interfering with him as he was about
to work a miracle. Such a thing, according to St. John's Gospel, was
beyond her understanding. Consequently as a _divine_ being speaking to
a _human_ being, Jesus said to his earthly mother, "Woman, what is mine
and what is thine?" This is the original form. The English
translation, "Woman, what have I to do with thee," is good, although
the more refined attitude of the West toward woman makes the expression
seem rather harsh. Stated in simplest terms the Oriental understanding
of these words is, "Leave me alone." In Jesus' case the further
implication of the passage is that, as Mary's vision of spiritual
things was not Jesus' vision, even though he was her son in the flesh,
she was not competent to exercise authority over him, seeing that he
was a divine being. In a higher sense she was a stranger to him.
With real consistency the writer of the Fourth {345} Gospel clings to
this view of Jesus' divinity to the end. In the nineteenth chapter we
find the Master speaking from the cross. He speaks, not as a human
sufferer, but as a triumphant heavenly being. He addresses his mother
in the same manner as he did at the marriage feast in Cana of
Galilee--"Woman." In the twenty-fifth verse it is said: "Now there
stood by the Cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary
the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his
mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his
mother, Woman, behold thy son!" In this lofty yet tender manner the
Master committed his loving mother to the care of his beloved disciple.
The excellent qualities of a man are credited by Orientals largely to
_haleeb el-omm_ (the mother's milk) and the mysterious influences of
the prenatal period. Aside from its nutritive qualities, _el-redha'_
(suck) is supposed to possess certain mystic influences which tend to
fashion the possibilities of character. Whenever a man, {346}
especially a youth, speaks "words of wisdom," his admiring hearer is
likely to exclaim, "Precious was the milk that nourished thee!" Among
the choice blessings which Jacob asked for Joseph the patriarch did not
forget to include the "blessings of the breasts, and of the womb."[3]
Nothing can be loftier to an Oriental than the passage in the eleventh
chapter of St. Luke's gospel, the twenty-seventh verse. Jesus is
represented in the preceding verses as disputing triumphantly with his
theological adversaries. His trenchant periods, "Every kingdom divided
against itself is brought to desolation.... He that is not with me is
against me," and his simple yet profound reasoning that a human heart
which is not filled with the spirit of God is bound to become the abode
of evil spirits, deeply stir his hearers. So the text tells us, "A
certain woman of the company lifted up her voice and said unto him,
Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou hast
sucked!"
{347}
The most solemn occasion on which I heard this expression used in my
native land was that when the great Patriarch of Antioch visited our
town in Mount Lebanon. Upon his arrival at the priest's house, where
he was entertained, the waiting multitude, including the governor of
the district, stood with bowed heads to receive the prelate's
benediction. I shall never forget that scene. Standing in the door,
our revered and beloved patriarch seemed to us to be a visitor from the
celestial sphere, full of truth and grace. As he lifted his right arm
and imparted his blessing to the silent assemblage, a woman of our
church, a mother, who was almost overcome with emotion, advanced toward
the spiritual ruler, and with her face and open palms turned toward
heaven, exclaimed, in the vernacular Arabic, "Blessed be the inwards
that bore you, and the breasts you sucked!" Whereupon the
distinguished visitor bestowed a special blessing upon the humble
suppliant, to the great satisfaction of the profoundly affected
multitude.
[1] Luke xiii: 12.
[2] The English translation changes the form, "O woman" to "Woman"
arbitrarily.
[3] Gen. xlix: 25.
{348}
CHAPTER IV
"A GRACIOUS WOMAN"
To the East woman is known only as wife and mother, and, of course, as
the home-maker. The statement, "Woman's place is in the home," is
never a matter of dispute in that part of the world. In the home are
to be found both "woman's rights" and woman's duties. Education,
literary pursuits, "club life," and civic endeavors are no vital
interests to the Eastern woman, nor to her husband to any appreciable
extent. Marriage is a religious union. The highest and most sacred
duty of the husband and wife is to beget many children, bring them up
"in the fear of the Lord," and be such good example to them, as to
enable them to live a pious life, and to transmit their good heritage
to the unborn generations. Marriage of inclination, preceded by a
period of courtship as in the West, is very rare in the East. The
reason of this has {349} been hinted in the preceding chapters. Lack
of education and social and political stability necessitates the
curtailing of woman's social privileges, for her own safety. These
limitations are especially narrow in the case of "maidens," or
"virgins"; that is, unmarried young women. They are not supposed to
participate in social functions as their mothers do, nor to form
friendships with young men, even among their near relatives. The
contracting of a marriage is not so much an individual as it is a
clannish affair. The young people may, or may not be acquainted with
one another. Among Christians, the young man may frequent the home of
his future wife's parents, and even converse with her now and then, but
only in the presence of other members of the family. "Going with a
young lady" is unknown to the East, and is a feature of Western life
which Orientals generally condemn. The marriage is agreed upon by the
families or clans of the contracting parties, because the family or
clan is involved in the conduct and affected by the {350} reputation of
each one of its members. The shame of a woman is a burden to all her
kindred. Interclannish marriages form alliances and impose defensive
and offensive obligations. Whenever a woman of one clan, who is
married into another, is cruelly treated by her husband, her own
clansmen are supposed to rise and defend her, else they become a byword
in the community.
This difference of procedure between the East and the West in
contracting a marriage does not seem to result in a decidedly marked
difference in domestic happiness. In both the East and the West, the
perfectly happy and the perfectly unhappy marriages are rare. In both
hemispheres the large majority of married people soon learn that
domestic happiness depends in no small measure on adherence to the
well-known rule: "In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in
all things charity." As I have already stated, the Oriental does not
know the art of living as the Occidental does, yet the Easterner enjoys
as much home happiness {351} as those Occidentals who are on the same
level of culture with him.
Women in the East are classified, not with reference to education and
social interests or the lack of them, but with reference to virtue and
its opposite. A happy husband says, "I lift my head high [_arfa'
rasy_] because of my wife. Her _siett_ [reputation] is like musk in
fragrance. She is _taj rasy_ [a crown to my head]." So also speaks
the writer of the Book of Proverbs, in the twelfth chapter, and the
fourth verse: "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that
maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones." In both the East and
the West the opinion is accepted that "as a jewel of gold in a swine's
snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion."[1]
The Orient and the Occident diverge considerably in their description
of feminine charms in poetry and literature. Here I find the Orientals
to be very inconsistent. Their strong aversion to the free mention of
women in {352} conversation and to her sharing of social privileges
equally with the man, contrasts very sharply with their license in
describing her charms in their poetry. A most perfect specimen of this
poetry in the Bible is Solomon's Song. Its Oriental freedom in
describing the "beloved spouse," renders it practically unfit for
public use. Its poetical charms are exquisite, and its passion is
pure, but judged by Western standards, the faithfulness of its realism
appears licentious. It is exhilarating to read the poet's lines in
which he calls his "fair one" to go with him into the fields and
vineyards.
"Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.
For, lo, the winter is past,
The rain is over and gone;
The flowers appear on the earth;
The time of the singing of birds is come,
And the voice of the turtle dove is heard in our land;
The fig tree ripeneth her green figs,
And the vines are in blossom,
They give forth their fragrance.
Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.
O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock,
In the covert of the steep place,
Let me see thy countenance,
{353}
Let me hear thy voice;
For sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely."[2]
In the opening verses of the fourth chapter the poet's vision of his
"love" is also beautiful.
"Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair;
Thine eyes are as doves behind thy veil:
Thy hair is as a flock of goats,
That lie along the side of mount Gilead.
Thy teeth are like a flock of ewes that are newly shorn
Which are come up from the washing; ...
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet,
And thy mouth is comely."
All this is beautiful and perfectly acceptable to both the East and the
West. Not so the opening lines of the seventh chapter. The Revised
Version modifies the original text. King James's Version gives the
lines just as Oriental poetry past and present would render them. The
rendering of the second verse by the Revised Version, "Thy body is like
a round goblet," and, "Thy waist is like an heap of wheat," renders the
words meaningless. However, the modesty of the revisers is to be
commended.
{354}
Arabic poetry is full of such passages, which abound also in Syrian
vernacular songs, which are sung with perfect propriety among all
classes. In discussing such a subject as this one can hardly resist
the temptation to judge. To me the more chaste way of the West in
poetizing feminine charms is far superior to the altogether too free
realism of the East, which I do not feel at all inclined to defend.
Yet I would not be loyal to good conscience if I did not offer an
explanation in behalf of the land of my birth. Ever since I began to
read Arabic poetry, for which I developed great fondness, to the
present day, I do not remember that its descriptions of feminine
loveliness ever really suggested to me licentious thoughts. The
general effect of such delineations upon me was of the same sort as
that which the sketching of love scenes by a great novelist produces.
Its charms were those of the poetic art, and not those of the seductive
feelings of sordid passion.
To us _'aroos esshi'ar_ (the bride, or spouse of the poet) is purely an
imaginary creature. It is {355} the poet's spirit of inspiration
objectified in a female form. He does not describe a woman, but an
angelic creature whose body and soul are both pure. Only the very
commonplace versifier gets demoralized and infects his reader with the
same feeling. The true poet soars far above "the things that perish,"
and is perfectly safe to follow. His infatuation is known as _el howa
el'adhry_ (pure, or aspirational love). Here, then, without the
slightest attempt to excuse his phraseology, I find at least a partial
justification for the Eastern poet, and for the writer of Solomon's
Song.
The simple, eloquent, and fully inclusive description of the "virtuous
woman," in the thirty-first chapter of the Book of Proverbs, is rather
a composite than an individual picture. It expresses the Syrian's
noblest idea of the true wife and the real home-maker:--
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall
have no need for spoil.
{356}
She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
She is like the merchant's ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her
household, and a portion to her maidens.
She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruits of her hands
she planteth a vineyard.
She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out
by night.
She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
She stretcheth out her hands to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her
hands to the needy.
She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household
are clothed with scarlet.
She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and
purple.
Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of
the land.
She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the
merchant.
Strength and honor are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to
come.
{357}
She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of
kindness.
She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread
of idleness.
Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he
praiseth her.
Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the
Lord, she shall be praised.
Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in
the gates.
Here we have the real "Oriental view of woman," and a glorification of
virtue, loyalty, industry, wisdom, kindness, and charity, unsurpassed
in its beauty and simplicity. I have said that this remarkable picture
is rather composite than individual. Yet the true, diligent, and
virtuous Syrian wife and mother comes near being the ideal woman of the
ancient Scriptural writer. His question, "Who can find a virtuous
woman?" does not mean that such a woman cannot be found; nor his
saying, "For her price is far above rubies" mean that women are bought
and sold in the market. The {358} sense of the writer can be
adequately expressed by saying, "Happy is he who hath a virtuous woman,
for her worth is far above all earthly riches." But for the existence
of women approaching his ideal, this writer could not have given the
world his picture of the "virtuous woman."
I feel that no detailed commentary on these verses is needed. The
virtues here enumerated are universally cherished. I will, however,
call attention to the Oriental features of this great passage. In
saying that "the heart of her husband doth safely trust in her," the
writer shows that the good wife is by no means a despised creature in
the Syrian home. She is loved and trusted as her husband's
life-partner, and exerts no inconsiderable influence upon him. The
value of such a wife's counsel in the estimation of her husband and
friends is also indicated in the saying, "She openeth her mouth with
wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness." "She seeketh wool,
and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands," or, as the Arabic
version {359} has it, "with willing hands." The flax is now rarely
found in Syria. Wool and silk cocoons are spun into thread by means of
the spindle, woven on hand looms, and made into garments by the women,
especially in the rural districts. This verse should be joined to
verse nineteen, which says, "She layeth her hands to the spindle, and
her hands hold the distaff." The Revised Version says, "She layeth her
hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle." In explaining
this passage some commentators speak of the spinning wheel, and of the
distaff, as the dictionary defines it: "A rotating vertical staff that
holds the bunch of flax or wool in hand-spinning." But this is not the
"spindle" which is intended in the passage before us. The Syrian
spindle (_meghzel_) which a woman may carry wherever she goes, is a
small instrument. It consists of a smooth wooden pin, or stem, about
the size and shape of a long wooden pen holder. This is inserted at
its thick end into a hole of a hemispherical "top" or whorl, which is
the exact shape of the crown of a small {360} mushroom. It is this top
which the English translation calls "distaff." A small brass hook
fastened to the end of the stem, which protrudes slightly above the
whorl, completes the spindle. In spinning a quantity of wool is wound
on a small wooden or wire frame into which the woman inserts her left
hand, the frame passing over the fingers and held inside the palm next
to the thumb, thus leaving the thumb and all the fingers free. The
spinner fastens the hook of the spindle to the bunch of wool and twirls
the spindle swiftly at its lower end, between the thumb and the middle
finger of the right hand, and then draws the thread deftly with the
fingers of both hands. When the twisted thread is about the "length of
an arm," the spinner unhooks it without breaking it off, winds it on
the stem of the spindle, just below the whorl, then fastens it again to
the hook close to the raw material. The operation is thus continued
until the bunch of wool is converted into a "spindleful" of thread.
The spindle as it is mentioned in the passage {361} under
consideration, and in this peculiarly constructed language, symbolizes
diligence and industry. "She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her
hands hold the distaff" is equivalent to saying "She is never idle," or
as the Syrians say, "Her spindle is never out of her hands."
As a general rule spinning in Syria is done by the older women. It is
often used as an occasion for diligent spinners "to get together." I
recall very clearly the palmy days of my grandmother as a spinner, and
some of the delightful spinning sociables she enjoyed with her peers.
It was a delight to me to watch those good women lay their hands to the
spindle. It is always delightful to watch an expert at his work. They
worked with the ease and inerrancy of instinct. They spun while
walking, talking, eating (informally) or even disputing. The only
thing about the useful industry which I hated heartily as a boy was
that when I came close to the feminine spinners the flying hairs from
their whirling spindles fell on me, and "made my flesh creep."
{362}
Again the virtuous woman "Considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the
fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard." Here the language of the
Scriptural writer is figurative. It refers to a good wife's thrift.
She saves the coins she earns and treasures them in the well-known
_kees_ (money bag) in a corner of the clothes chest, where heirlooms
and other precious objects are stored. In time of need she surprises
her husband by the substantial sum of money she places in his hands,
which enables him to buy a field or plant a vineyard.
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household; for all her household
are clothed in scarlet." The marginal note greatly improves the
translation by saying "double garments" instead of "scarlet." The
Arabic version says _hillel_--that is, full, or substantial, garments.
The snow is always dreaded by the common people of Syria. With it come
no sleighbells and no skating. It is a time of stress (_dhieq_). The
snow "blocks the roads and cuts a man off from his neighbor." At such
a time, because {363} of lack of fuel and adequate clothing, many of
the people suffer. So the writer of Proverbs praises the "virtuous
woman" very highly when he says, "She is not afraid of the snow for her
household," because by her foresight and unremitting care she has amply
provided for their comfort.
"Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of
the land." The Syrian husband of the good old type does not buy his
wearing apparel "ready-made" at the clothier's. His garments are made
by his wife. When he sits with the elders of the community in the
market place or at the gate of the town where those dignitaries
converse on matters of public interest, and speak parables and tell
stories, his neat appearance bespeaks the diligence and loving care of
his wife. "Verily his wife is a costly jewel," is the likely remark of
such a fortunate man's admirers. How true also to the nobler instincts
of the East are these words in this poetical description of the
virtuous woman. "Her children arise up, and call {364} her blessed;
her husband also, and he praiseth her."
The closing words of this Oriental writer who lived long before the
advent of "modern culture," reveal him as one of woman's truest friends
and wisest counselors. "Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a
woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the
fruits of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates."
This is the true "Order of Merit."
[1] Prov. xi: 22.
[2] Revised Version; ii: 10-14.
{367}
PART VI
HERE AND THERE IN THE BIBLE
HERE AND THERE IN THE BIBLE
During the time when the earlier chapters of this book were being
published in the "Atlantic Monthly," requests came to the author from
readers of those chapters for his comments on certain Scriptural
passages which did not appear in them. Some of the passages suggested
by those interested readers, I have considered in other parts of this
publication. The other passages thus suggested, and others which
presented themselves to the author during the progress of this work,
but which for some reason or other he could not include in the
preceding chapters, will now be considered, without the attempt to make
of this portion of the book a coherent whole.
"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over
all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: and I will
make thee swear by the Lord, the God of {368} heaven, and the God of
the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters
of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: but thou shalt go unto my
country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac."[1]
In the East the general custom is that the "speaking concerning a
damsel" in behalf of a young man is entrusted to the most distinguished
of his male relatives. Sometimes women are included in the mission.
They approach the young woman's father and clansmen in a very dignified
and formal manner, and, if possible, secure the "promise" for their
son. It is only in rare instances that this significant undertaking is
entrusted to one who is an alien to the groom's family (_ghareeb_) and
who acts as an ambassador. Abraham was compelled to assign this duty
to his trusted servant, because the patriarch had no relatives in
Canaan. His demand from his servant to put his hand under his master's
thigh and {369} swear by the God of heaven and earth that he would do
as he was asked is characteristically Oriental. The custom of calling
upon God to "witness" a promise or a covenant between two individuals
or clans is still extant in Syria. The placing of the hand under the
thigh, however, is no longer done, but the habit of placing the hand
under the girdle (_zinnar_) for the same purpose is generally
practiced. However, it is the one who makes the request who puts his
hand under the girdle of the one from whom the favor is asked. _Eedy
tahit zinnarek_ (my hand is under your girdle) means I come to you with
the fullest confidence to do such and such a thing for me. In the
eastern parts of Syria this practice is highly valued. Putting one's
hand under another person's girdle is almost the equivalent of entering
"under his roof" for protection from a pursuing enemy. If at all
possible, the favor must be granted. I have no doubt that this custom
is a survival in a different form of that of placing the hand under the
thigh in making a solemn promise.
{370}
Abraham's experience upon the death of his wife with "the children of
Heth" and with "Ephron son of Zohar," presents an interesting picture
of Oriental courtesy. In the twenty-third chapter of Genesis,
beginning with the third verse, the record reads, "And Abraham stood up
from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, I am a
stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a
burying-place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight." The
burying-places in the East are clannish or church possessions. The
Orientals, now as in ancient times, dread "a lonely grave." It is
always expected that a worthy stranger be offered a burying-place for
his dead in a sepulcher of the community where he happens to be, as
that he should be offered the hospitality of a home. So we read, "And
the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, Hear us, my
lord: thou art a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our
sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his
sepulchre."
{371}
That was noble of the children of Heth; they upheld the noblest
Oriental tradition by their generous act. So also did Joseph of
Arimathea when he took Jesus' body, "wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock."[2]
Abraham, however, who expected to be a permanent dweller in Canaan,
wished to have a burying-place of his own. So the aged patriarch said
again to the Hittites (verse 8), "If it be your mind that I should bury
my dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me to Ephron the son
of Zohar, that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath,
which is in the end of his field." But Ephron would not be outdone in
courtesy by his kinsman; at least he would not be accused of having
omitted the nice formalities of such an occasion. "Nay, my lord," he
said to Abraham (verse 11), "hear me: the field give I thee, and the
cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my
people give I it thee: bury thy dead."
{372}
To me this sounds "very natural." Ephron meant simply to be courteous.
It is an Oriental custom to avoid a business transaction whenever a
question of hospitality is involved, although it is not expected that
the gift would be received as offered. The language on such occasions
is purely complimentary. An Oriental offers to give you anything you
may admire of his personal possessions, but as a rule you are not
expected to accept the offer. Ephron did not really mean that he would
give his field to Abraham without money and without price, but he would
have Abraham know that he was ready to befriend him in his sorrow, and
not to deal with him simply as a customer. The patriarch acknowledged
the kindness by bowing himself down before the Hittites, but would not
accept the field as a gift. Thereupon Ephron quoted the price of the
field to the father of Israel in a truly characteristic Syrian fashion,
by saying (verse 15), "My lord, hearken unto me: a piece of land worth
four hundred shekels of silver, what is that betwixt me and thee?
{373} bury therefore thy dead." The gentle hint accomplished its
purpose, "and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver which he had named
in the audience of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of
silver, current money with the merchant."
In speaking of the haste in which the Israelites were compelled to
leave Egypt, the writer of the Book of Exodus says,[3] "And the people
took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being
bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders." In the thirty-first
verse it is said that Pharaoh "called for Moses and Aaron by night, and
said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people." As a rule the
Syrian housewife kneads the dough in the evening in order that it may
"leaven" during the night and be ready for baking early the next
morning. The saying, "And the people took their dough before it was
leavened," is meant to show that they departed before the early {374}
morning hours. Apparently the Israelites had wooden kneading-troughs
such as at present the Arabs in the interior of Syria still use. The
Syrians use earthen basins.[4] What is called kneading-trough in the
Bible resembles a large chopping-bowl, but is heavier and not so
perfectly round as the chopping-bowl which is commonly used in the
American home. In this basin the bread is also kept after it is baked.
In the thirty-ninth verse it is said, "And they baked unleavened cakes
of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not
leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry,
neither had they prepared for themselves any victual." The "cakes" are
known to the East as _melleh_; this is the word the Arabic Bible uses.
The _melleh_ is a round cake or loaf about fifteen inches in diameter
and about three inches thick. It is baked, unleavened, on the
_redhef_; that is, hot pebbles. The fire is built over an especially
prepared bed of small stones; when these are {375} thoroughly heated,
the _melleh_ is placed upon them and covered with the live coals until
it is baked. The shepherds in the mountains of Syria bake the _melleh_
very often and think there is no bread like it in delicious flavor and
sustaining quality.
It was such a "cake" which Elijah fed upon on his way to "Horeb the
mount of God." In the nineteenth chapter of the First Book of Kings,
the fourth verse, we are told that Elijah "sat down under a juniper
tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is
enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my
fathers." It is of no small significance that the legend states that
the Lord answered Elijah's prayer in terms of food. The prophet was
both tired and hungry, so when he "lay and slept under a juniper tree,
behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat.
And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a
cruse of water at his head." We have no record that Elijah after he
had eaten {376} of the _redhef_ cake, which was provided, no doubt, by
the shepherds in that region for the _nasik_ (hermit), ever longed for
death.
In the sixth chapter of the Book of Judges, the eleventh verse, begins
the story of Gideon, the "mighty man of valour," who delivered Israel
out of the hands of the Midianites. "And there came an angel of the
Lord, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto
Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the
wine-press, to hide it from the Midianites."