CHAPTER XLIV.

A.D. 1800-1885.

THE JEWS IN AFRICA, AMERICA, AND ASIA.—CONCLUSION.

The position of the Jews in Morocco is less secure than in most

Mahometan countries. They suffer from the fanaticism of the

Mahometans, who are a less humanized race than their Asiatic

brethren. Robbery and murder are perpetrated almost with impunity,

the protection of the law being almost a dead letter, so far as they

are concerned. As an evidence of their abject condition, it is said

that they are compelled to go bare-foot in most of the principal

cities. Beyond the bounds of Morocco large numbers of Jews lead

a nomad life, dwelling in tents, keeping flocks and herds, and

cultivating the land in their vicinity. Their condition in Cairo

and Alexandria is somewhat better, and there are many wealthy Jews

in these cities. But everywhere they are liable to the outbreaks

of blind fanatical fury to which reference has so often been made.

An instance of this occurred in 1863, which it is important to

notice, as showing only too plainly the condition of things in those

countries. A Spaniard had died suddenly at Saffi, and the Spanish

authorities required an examination into the circumstances of his

death. To avert suspicion from themselves, the Moors accused a Jewish

boy, who was in the dead man’s service, of poisoning him. He denied

the crime, but was scourged until he confessed it, and implicated

several other persons. A popular outbreak would have ensued if the

Morocco Jews had not appealed to Sir Moses Montefiore. He requested

the intervention of our Government, and made an expedition to

Morocco, where he not only succeeded in releasing several Jews, who

had been detained in prison on charges which could not be proved,

but obtained an audience of the Sultan of Morocco, who received

him with great distinction. He pointed out to the Sultan that the

Jews of Morocco were without any legal protection, and were in

consequence frequently subject to outrages for which they could

obtain no redress; and he entreated that equal justice might be

secured to them as to other inhabitants of the country. In a few days

an edict was issued, commanding that in future Jews, Christians,

and Mahometans should be treated with equal justice throughout the

Sultan’s dominions. Experience has shown that it is more easy to

obtain these concessions from Moslem sovereigns than to ensure their

due observance by subordinate officers. Still, there can be no doubt

that this is a great advance in the social condition of the Jews of

Morocco.

There are a good many Jews in Brazil and in the United States of

America. In the last-named country it needs not to be said that

they enjoy the most entire toleration. Jewish hospitals, Jewish

orphanages, free schools, almshouses, benevolent institutions of

all kinds, exist in the principal cities, in which also magnificent

synagogues are to be found. The authority of the Rabbins, however, is

not so great, as a rule, as it is in European countries. It is said

that there is great laxity in their ritual—some discarding Hebrew

altogether in their liturgies, some making the Sunday instead of

the Saturday their day of religious observance. Their increase of

population during the last few generations has been extraordinarily

rapid. Jews are found scattered in Mexico and in the great South

American cities, but not in any great numbers.

In the dominions of the Sultan, both the European and the Asiatic,

the position of the Jews during the present century has varied little

from what it was in those which preceded it. As has been already

remarked, they are more kindly and fairly treated than in other

Mahometan countries—the result, probably, of freer communication

with Europe. But here, too, they are liable to sudden outbursts of

religious fanaticism or commercial jealousy, and on these occasions

they suffer great injustice and cruelty. Two signal instances of this

occurred A.D. 1840.

In that year, a Greek boy in the island of Rhodes having suddenly

disappeared, a woman affirmed that she had seen him, shortly before,

in company with a Jew. It chanced to be near the time of the

Passover, and, strange as it may seem, some of the European consuls,

on no better evidence than this, raised the old slander that the boy

had been murdered, in order that his blood might be used for ritual

purposes. The Jew was arrested, and denied any knowledge of the boy.

He was thereupon put to the torture, under which his reason gave way,

and he uttered the names of several Jews, who were at once assumed to

be his accomplices. They were seized, and in their turn put on the

rack; the Jewish quarter was closed, and no food allowed to enter it;

and it is even said that an attempt was made to convey a dead body

into one of the houses, in order that it might be found there. The

story spread in all directions, and popular risings and outrages on

the Jews ensued.

The affair at Damascus was even more serious. Father Tomaso, a monk,

who for many years had practised medicine, suddenly disappeared. A

report was spread that he had been last seen in the Jewish quarter,

which was instantly invaded by a mob of Christians, who denounced the

Jews as his murderers. Count Menton, the French Consul, actuated, it

is believed, by political motives, took up the matter and insisted

on the punishment of the offenders, as he chose to consider the

Jews. He produced persons who swore that the monk had been seen to

enter the shop of a Jewish barber, from which he had never issued

forth again. The barber was seized and bastinadoed, until in his

agony he accused several of the richest Jews in the city as having

been concerned in the murder. They were subjected in their turn to

tortures, under which two of them died, and several more confessed

their complicity in the crime. A young Jew, who swore that he had

seen Father Tomaso enter the house of a Turkish merchant, on the

evening of his disappearance, was bastinadoed to death, in order to

induce him to retract his statement. The French Consul now laid the

confessions which had been extracted from the prisoners before the

Turkish Pacha, and insisted on their being immediately put to death.

Fortunately the Pacha thought it his safer course to apply to head

quarters for instructions, and thus sufficient time was given for

the report of what had occurred to reach England. There it created

a profound sensation. A large meeting of influential Jews was held

in London, at the house of Sir Moses Montefiore, who was deputed

to seek an interview with Lord Palmerston, at that time Foreign

Secretary. From him Sir Moses received all possible help; but it was

thought advisable that a special mission should be sent to the East

to represent the matter in its true light to the Turkish authorities.

Sir Moses himself undertook the office, and proceeded to Syria,

accompanied by M. Cremieux, a Jewish member of the French Chamber,

and several others. They learned that at Rhodes the prisoners had

been liberated, and the governor who had sanctioned the proceedings

dismissed from his office; but the Damascus affair was still

undetermined. Sir Moses obtained an interview with the Pacha of

Egypt, who endeavoured to compromise the matter by offering to pardon

all the prisoners who had been accused. But he was answered that

it was not justice to pardon innocent men. What was demanded was a

complete and honourable acquittal of the accused. This was presently

granted, and the prisoners discharged from custody. Subsequently

Sir Moses had an interview with the Sultan himself, on the 6th of

November in the same year, 1840, when he obtained from him—as he had

formerly done from the Sultan of Morocco—the celebrated firman, which

granted to the Jews, everywhere throughout the Turkish dominions, the

most complete protection.

In Persia, Bokhara, Yemen, and Central Asia, numerous colonies

of Jews exist, engaged as a rule in trade, but also occasionally

employed in agriculture. They are not as wealthy, apparently,

as their Western brethren. Many of them, indeed, are extremely

poor, earning their subsistence as day labourers. They speak and

write their own language only, though able to converse with the

inhabitants of the country. They live very much among themselves,

never intermarrying with strangers, and carry their differences to

the Rabbi of their synagogue, who, indeed, is the judge authorized

by the law for the settlement of their disputes. One cause of

their isolation is their fear of allowing their children to study

secular subjects, which they think would be likely to undermine the

foundations of their faith.

In the Holy Land, it was reported in 1881 that there were about

15,000 Jews in Jerusalem, about half its population. Whether that

is correct or not, it is certain that the number of Jews in that

city is steadily, though not rapidly, increasing, and has been on

the increase ever since the Crimean War. Whatever may be thought

about that war, one of its consequences was to open Palestine to

European settlers; and, as might have been expected, the Jews

availed themselves of the opportunity of obtaining for themselves

a home in the ancient land of their fathers. But very few of

those who have attempted this possessed the means of comfortably

establishing themselves. It has been remarked by one who knows the

Jews well, that they are contented to live elsewhere so long as

life goes prosperously with them. It is the poor, the unfortunate,

the persecuted, who seek a refuge there. Old people again, whose

children are out in the world, come to spend the remainder of their

days in religious exercises. A few Rabbins also devote themselves to

the work of looking after the various communities thus established.

The Montefiore Testimonial Committee has done something to assist

this immigration. It has established agricultural communities in

various places, notably beyond the western walls of Jerusalem, where

four thousand Jews are lodged in comfortable houses, especially built

for them. The population has trebled itself, according to trustworthy

information, since 1860.

But there are great drawbacks. The Jews are not naturally disposed to

manual labour, preferring, as they themselves say, to work with their

brains rather than their hands. There is also the temptation—which

always besets those who live, to some extent, on the charity of

others—to abuse the generosity of their benefactors, by doing no

work at all themselves. There is also the competition of the native

labourer, the fellah, who is used to the climate, and hard labour and

poor food, and who can live at about one-third of what is necessary

for the Jew. On the whole, it cannot be said that the lower classes

of Jews are prospering in the Holy Land.

There are, however, many synagogues both of Ashkenazim and Sephardim

Jews in Jerusalem, and Talmudical schools supported by large

contributions levied on Jews throughout the world. Schools also exist

at Hebron, Tiberias, Safed, Jaffa, and other towns. There are also

three Jewish hospitals in Jerusalem, as well as numerous almshouses.

All sects of Jews are represented in Jerusalem, Chasidim and

Karaites, as well as the orthodox adherents of the Rabbins. On the

whole, though there is no doubt that the condition of the Palestinian

Jews has been ameliorated of late years, it is still doubtful whether

any permanent improvement can be effected while the country continues

to be subject to Turkish misrule.

Here, then, we bring to an end this strangely varied, yet still more

strangely monotonous, narrative—not, as in the case of any other

ancient people, because its national history has come to an end, but

simply because we cannot read the future. Eighteen centuries have,

in all other instances, effected so vast a change in the condition

of a nation, that it is difficult to trace any identity between its

earlier and its later generations. Eighteen centuries ago our own

ancestors were savage tribes, living in wattled huts, staining their

naked bodies with woad, and practising barbarous and bloody rites.

In language, in religion, in mental and moral culture, in social

organization, they were so wholly different from ourselves that it

is difficult to discover any point of resemblance between the two.

But in all these respects, the Jew of the first century differs but

little from his descendant eighteen hundred years afterwards. He

speaks the same tongue, he holds the same creed, he observes the same

habits, or nearly the same habits, of life as his forefathers did

all that long period ago. And yet that long period is not half the

life of the Jewish people. It began in an age when the tradition of

the Flood was still fresh on earth; it is still in the fulness of

its life, when the eye of faith can distinguish, not very far off,

the dawning of the Judgment Day. How is this strange tale to end?

What is to be the last act of this amazing drama? Jerusalem has been

long trodden down of the Gentiles; the times of the Gentiles are

nearly fulfilled. What is to follow? Are the Jews to be restored,

as a distinct people, to the Land of Promise, and there accept Him

whom their fathers rejected as their King? There is no subject on

which speculation is more busy, or on which more confident judgments

are pronounced. But it is the voice of man that speaks, not of God.

One thing alone is sure. God has not cast away His people. Who can

read their history, and doubt that? But when, where, or how, He may

be pleased to take them again into favour, no man can foretell. Our

children will behold the solution of the riddle, and bless God for

His mercy. Let us, too, bless God, and wait in faith.

THE END.

_APPENDIX I._

STATISTICS OF JEWISH POPULATION.

It is always difficult to determine the number of Jews resident

either in the Holy Land or in any other country of the world. The

remark applies to ancient, even more than modern, times. It is not

only that the information afforded by writers is scanty, but that

the statements made by some historians differ greatly from those

supplied by others; while a good deal must be rejected as wholly

incredible. To take an instance, we are informed by the author of

the Book of Samuel,[230] that the military population of David’s

kingdom was 1,300,000. But in the parallel passage in the Book of

Chronicles[231] the number is stated to be nearly 300,000 more.

‘To attempt reconciling these discrepancies,’ says an intelligent

writer,[232] ‘would be wasted labour.’ During the reign of Rehoboam,

B.C. 975, the number of the men of Judah who drew the sword is

rated at 180,000.[233] But at the accession of his son, not twenty

years afterwards, it is 400,000.[234] Whether we are to attribute

these contradictions to corruptions of the text or to different

modes of calculation, signifies little to us. The two statements

are quite irreconcilable with one another. Josephus’s numbers,

again, are wholly untrustworthy. He reckons the sum of those who

returned with Zorobabel from Babylon, at the enormous figure of

4,628,000 and 47,000 women.[235] This is, of course, an absolute

impossibility; and we know, from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,

that the real amount was 42,000.[236] It has been suggested that

Josephus’s text is corrupt in this passage. But if so, it may well be

assumed to be corrupt in other similar places also. Thus he affirms

that the numbers shut up in Jerusalem during the siege by Titus

was 2,700,000,[237] while the estimate of Tacitus is 600,000.[238]

Here again, though the reckoning of the Roman historian is probably

below the mark, he having omitted to allow for the unusual number

of residents at the time of the siege, yet that of Josephus must

be rejected as incredible.[239] The circumference of the walls of

Jerusalem is generally admitted to have been about four miles. The

space thus enclosed within the walls would be about equal to that

part of the area of London which extends from Tyburn Gate to the

British Museum in one direction, and from the Regent’s Park to

Whitehall in the other, drawing an imaginary circle, of which the

Regent’s Circus would be the centre. The portion thus enclosed—hardly

one tenth part of what lies within the bills of mortality—may contain

half a million persons. Allowing for the narrow streets of old

Jerusalem, we may reckon that the same area in that city would hold

100,000 more, thus very nearly verifying the statement of Tacitus. No

doubt, at the time of the Passover, vast numbers came from foreign

lands, and these found accommodation, as well as they could, in

Jerusalem itself, or in the environs. Many probably were lodged in

outlying villages, and many more, according to the common practice

in the East, slept in the open air. These would, of course, be

driven into Jerusalem by the approach of the Roman armies, and thus

the numbers at the beginning of the siege might have amounted to a

million or thereabouts. But the notion of nearly three millions being

crowded into the area above described is simply preposterous.

But if Josephus’s statistics on these two important points are to be

rejected as wholly untrustworthy, how are we to credit his assertions

in matters of very nearly the same kind? He tells us that Galilee in

his time contained more than two hundred towns and villages, no one

of which held less than 15,000 inhabitants.[240] If this were indeed

the case, that province, scarcely larger than one of the largest

of our English counties, must have had a population of fully three

millions, while that of the whole of Palestine would approach ten

millions. Few readers will be found to credit this.

At the same time more than one trustworthy writer affirms that

Palestine was a thickly populated country. The population to the

square mile is said to have been larger in it than in any other

portion of the Roman dominions. Diodorus,[241] Strabo,[242]

Tacitus,[243] and Dion Cassius[244] all concur in this; and

therefore, though we cannot accept Josephus’s statements as being

even approximately accurate, they may be admitted so far, as

establishing the numerous population of Palestine at the time of the

siege. Nor are we wholly without means of forming an estimate as to

its amount, independently altogether of the above-named writers. Thus

Hecatæus of Abdera (quoted by Joseph. Ap. i. 21) says that Jerusalem

in his time (A.D. 312) contained 120,000 inhabitants. Presuming the

average increase of population to have taken place, according to

this reckoning, Jerusalem at the time of the siege would contain

about 600,000—agreeing closely with Tacitus’s estimate. According

to Maccab. II., the city at the date of Antiochus Epiphanes, A.D.

180, had 160,000, or, according to others, 180,000. This would make

the number of residents at the outbreak of the civil war somewhat

less; but there would be no material difference. On the whole, we

may assume that, by dividing Josephus’s estimates by three, we

approximate to the real number. According to this, the census of the

Holy Land, A.D. 71, would be about three and a half millions, and

the total of persons besieged in the Holy City something under one

million.

It is still more difficult to estimate the total of the Jews in

other countries of the world at this time. We may safely assume that

they could not have been fewer than the inhabitants of Palestine. We

have reason to believe that the bulk of the nation did not return

with Zorobabel. Those who remained behind in the foreign countries

to which they had been conveyed throve and multiplied in their

new homes. There are grounds for supposing that, at subsequent

periods, large emigrations from the Holy Land took place, probably

at the date of King Ahasuerus’s edict, more certainly during the

persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman invasion. We have

the clearest testimony of contemporaneous writers as to the extent

to which the Jews in our Lord’s time had spread into foreign lands,

forming everywhere a distinct people, as they do at the present day.

Mommsen quotes the statement of a writer of Julius Cæsar’s date, to

the effect that it would be dangerous for the Roman governor of his

province to offend the Jews, because, on his return to Rome, he might

encounter contumely from their countrymen there. Agrippa I. wrote

to the Emperor Caligula to the same effect, but more explicitly.

‘Jerusalem,’ he says, ‘is the metropolis, not of Judæa only, but of

very many lands, on account of the colonies which from time to time

it has sent out into the adjoining countries—Egypt, Phœnicia, Syria,

Cœlo-Syria, Pamphylia, Cilicia, Asia Minor, as far as Bithynia, and

the remotest parts of Pontus; likewise into Europe—Thessaly, Bœotia,

Macedonia, Ætolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, and the Peloponnesus. Nor

are the Jewish settlements confined to the mainland. They are to be

found also in the more important islands, Eubœa, Cyprus, Crete. I

do not insist on the countries beyond the Euphrates; for with few

exceptions all of them, Babylon and the fertile regions round it,

have Jewish inhabitants.’[245] This testimony is confirmed by St.

Luke’s narrative of what occurred on the day of Pentecost immediately

following the crucifixion (Acts ii. 9, 10). It can hardly be doubted

that at the date of the commencement of this history, there were

fully as many Jews in other lands as there were in Palestine—the

whole nation numbering, at the lowest computation, not less than

seven millions.

Eighteen centuries have elapsed since that time, and the Jews are

still a distinct and peculiar people, intermarrying with other races

less than any other nation in the world. According to the rate[246]

at which population ordinarily increases, they ought to have doubled

their number more than seven times over, and to amount at the present

time to many hundreds of millions. The inherent vigour of the race

does not seem to be either intellectually or physically impaired.

It is reported by those who have studied the question, that their

health, in the various lands where they are sojourners, is at least

as good, indeed, distinctly better, than that of the populations

among which they reside. It becomes, then, an interesting and curious

question—what the amount of their numbers is in the present day.

Nor does the same difficulty we have experienced in endeavouring to

ascertain the exact sum of their population at the time of the fall

of Jerusalem, meet us when we enter on that. Statistics have been

given by trustworthy authorities, which are found, on examination, to

agree very nearly with one another. I propose to give them here in

detail.

To begin with Europe. Here the country in which they are most

numerous is Russia. In that, the official return for 1876 was

2,612,179. In Austria and Hungary it was 1,372,333; in the German

Empire, 520,575. In France their total does not exceed 60,000 or

80,000.[247] In England, the number is nearly the same. In Italy

the total is 53,000; in Holland, 68,000; in Moldavia, Servia, and

Roumania, about 300,000. In the remaining countries of Europe there

may be 20,000. These returns show a total of some hundreds of

thousands over 5,000,000 of Jews in Europe.

Proceeding to Asia, the Jews in the Turkish dominions (including

both Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia) amount to about 200,000.

In Persia, Bokhara, Samarcand, Central and Eastern Asia, it is more

difficult to ascertain their real numbers; but it is generally agreed

that these may be approximately estimated at 50,000. In Arabia, there

is a great difference of opinion, some affirming them to amount to

as many as 200,000, while more trustworthy authorities place the

total at one tenth that number. There are also the Jews of Syria and

the Holy Land, of which the census has already been given. On the

whole, the Asiatic Jews may be considered as amounting to 300,000, or

perhaps 400,000.

Turning next to Africa, the Jews of Egypt are estimated at 80,000;

those of Tripoli, 100,000; of Tunis, 50,000; of Algiers, 70,000; of

Morocco, 300,000. Thus the total of African Jews in the Northern

kingdoms somewhat exceeds half a million. If to these are added such

as are to be found in Central and Southern Africa, the entire sum may

amount to 600,000.

Lastly, in America and Australia there is said to be a Jewish

population somewhat exceeding that of Asia. Here their chief centres

are the United States, Canada, and Brazil.

From these returns, which, it may be assumed, are neither much in

excess nor much short of the actual amount, the total number of

professing Jews at the present time appears to be somewhat less

than seven millions—the very number which, so far as it is possible

to determine, was that of the Jewish people when the Lord became

incarnate upon earth. Can any man realize this astonishing fact, and

yet doubt the living miracle which the history of the Jews presents?

‘How many generations of mankind

Have risen and fallen asleep,

Yet it remains the same!’

FOOTNOTES:

[230] 2 Sam. xxiv. 9.

[231] 1 Chron. xxi. 5.

[232] Adam Clarke.

[233] 1 Kings xii. 21.

[234] 2 Chron. xiii. 3.

[235] Joseph., _Ant._ xi. 3, § 10.

[236] Ezra ii. 64; Nehem. vii. 66.

[237] Joseph., _Bell. Jud._ vi. 9, § 3.

[238] Tac. _Hist._ v. 13.

[239] This is the most probable explanation of the smallness of his

estimate of the numbers in the city during the siege. The ordinary

population would probably be about the amount he gives.

[240] Joseph., _Bell. Jud._ iii. 3, § 2.

[241] Diodor. Sic. xl. _Eclog._ 1.

[242] Strabo xvi. 2, § 28.

[243] Tacitus, _Hist._ v. 8.

[244] Dion Cass. lxix. 14. Dion makes the astonishing assertion that

Adrian destroyed nearly 1000 towns κῶμαι ὀνομαστοτόται in Palestine,

besides fortresses.

[245] Philo, _Legat. ad Gaium_, § 36.

[246] The increase of population is said by those who have made the

subject their study, to be 1/227 annually, or according to others,

1/223.

[247] This is probably too low an estimate. In a census taken in

1808, there were 80,000 Jews in France; and there has been nothing to

check their increase. Their number is more probably 100,000.

_APPENDIX II._

THE TALMUDS.

The word Talmud has several meanings, which are most nearly rendered

by ‘study,’ or ‘learning.’ There are two books so called—the

Jerusalem and the Babylonian. Each of these is made up of two

parts—the Mishna, or repetition,—it being, as it were, a reissue of

the Mosaic law,—and the Gemara, or complement, the critical expansion

of the Mishna. The Mishna of both Talmuds is the same, the Gemaras

different: that of the Babylonian being the larger as well as the

more diversified. They are encyclopædias of the Jewish knowledge of

their day, and deal with civil and criminal, as well as moral and

religious questions, law, science, metaphysics, history, and general

literature.

The Mishna was compiled by Rabbi Judah, called Hakkadosh, or ‘the

Holy,’ who lived in the reign of Antoninus Pius. It is written in

very pure Hebrew. But as many things are introduced into it which

have foreign names, there is a frequent occurrence of Latin and Greek

phrases. The Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud, which is believed to

have been completed about the end of the fourth century, is written

in what is called the Eastern Aramæan: that of the Babylonian, which

is at the least a century, and probably two centuries, later, in

Western Aramæan.

The origin of the Mishna is declared to be as follows. While Moses

was with God in Sinai, He communicated to him a twofold law, written

and oral.[248] The latter Moses repeated to Aaron, who delivered

it to Eleazar and Ithamar; they to the Seventy Elders; they to the

prophets; and the prophets to the synagogues. In this manner it

was passed on from generation to generation, to the time of the

great Jewish doctor Hillel, who lived shortly before the birth of

Christ. He digested the great mass of precepts under six heads,

still, however, without committing them to writing; which, it was

believed, would have been contrary to the intention of the Divine

Giver. Under the more formal shape which it had now assumed, the

Oral Law was passed on till the time of the destruction of Bethor,

and the final dispersion of the Hebrew people. Then, as we have

seen, Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, perceiving that the restoration of the

Jews to their ancient status was not to be looked for, and fearing

that the consequence of this would be the total loss of the ‘Law

of the Mouth,’ as it was called,—conceiving also that the peculiar

circumstances of the case justified him in breaking the rule that

had been so long observed,—embodied the traditions in a volume which

might be preserved for ever, secure from addition or change.

His countrymen endorsed this belief, and accepted the Mishna with the

most profound respect. It had scarcely been issued, when commentaries

began to be written upon it by learned Rabbins; which, about the end

of the third century, were collected into a volume by Rabbi Jochanan

Ben Eliezer, and called the Gemara. The style in which this is

written is harsh, much inferior to that of the Mishna; and even the

best Hebraists are unable to expound satisfactorily some portions of

it. This obscurity was probably the reason why another Gemara was set

on foot by the Mesopotamian Jews, about a century after the issue of

the Jerusalem Talmud. The work was begun by Rabbi Asa or Asche, and

carried on to the time of Rabbi Jose, about A.D. 500. There is some

variety of opinion as to the date of its completion; but Laurence is

generally thought to have proved satisfactorily that it cannot be

later than the beginning of the sixth century. Christian commentators

commonly prefer the Jerusalem Talmud,[249] as containing less of

fabulous and frivolous matter; but the preference of the Jews is for

that of Babylon.

The Mishna is divided into six principal heads, or Orders, as they

are called. Each Order is divided into a variety of titles or

treatises, and these again into chapters and sections. The six Orders

are: I. Zeraim, or Seeds; II. Moed, or Festivals; III. Nashim, or

Women; IV. Nezikin, or Injuries; V. Kodashim, or Holy Things; and VI.

Taharoth, or Purifications.

The First Order is subdivided into eleven treatises:—

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

follow meals.

2. Of the gleanings of vine and olive yards, alms, and first-fruits

to be given to the poor.

3. Of the purchased fruits of the earth, which may be lawfully used,

if they have paid tithe, but are illegal if they have not paid.

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

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

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

7. Of the tithes, given to the Levites.

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

9. Of the cake offered as a heave offering.

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

years.

11. Of first-fruits generally.

The Second Order contains thirteen treatises:—

1. Of the Sabbath day.

2. Of various Sabbatical rules.

3. Of the Passover.

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

5. Of the great Day of Atonement.

6. Of the Feast of Tabernacles.

7. Of Pentecost.

8. Of certain things forbidden on Feast Days.

9. Of the New Year.

10. Of the Fasts and Days of Humiliation.

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

13. Of the three great Festivals.

The Third Order has seven titles:—

1. Of the Law of Levitical Marriage.

2. Of Marriage Contracts.

3. Of Women’s Vows.

4. Of the Vows of Nazarites.

5. Of Writings of Divorcement.

6. Of the Putting away of Wives.

7. Of the Ceremony of Espousal.

The Fourth Order has nine sections:—

1. Injuries inflicted by Violence, Wounds, etc.

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

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

4. The Sanhedrin.

5. Stripes.

6. Oaths.

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

8. Decrees of Judges and Apothegms of Wise Men.

9. Record of Errors in the Decisions of Judges.

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

1. Sacrifices.

2. Oblations and Offerings.

3. Things Profane.

4. The First Born.

5. Valuations of Males and Females.

6. Exchange and Redemption.

7. Atoning Sacrifices.

8. Trespass Offerings.

9. The Daily Sacrifice.

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

11. Offerings of Birds.

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

1. Purifying of Vessels.

2. Tents and Tabernacles, and Pollution by Corpses.

3. Vestments and Uncleanness by Leprosy.

4. The Ashes of the Heifer Purifying the Unclean.

5. Purifications generally.

6. Vessels containing Water.

7. Separation for Legal Impurity.

8. Legal Impurity generally.

9. Regulations concerning Uncleanness.

10. The Washing of Lepers.

11. The Washing of Hands.

12. Supplementary matters.

The Gemaras, it should be noted, are not so much commentaries on the

Mishna, as a series of disquisitions on passages in Holy Scripture,

or on the text of the Mishna, or possibly on some question of Jewish

law. Great subtlety of thought is displayed in these discussions.

Points of similarity are discovered between things which are, to

ordinary observation, wholly diverse, and points of difference

between things apparently quite identical. The ruling principle

of the writers seems to be, that in the sacred writings, and more

particularly in the Pentateuch, there is not a word, not a letter,

that has not its special use and significance. Where this is not

patent or easy of discovery, they hold that it is nevertheless

latent in the text, and will be brought out when events have taken

place, or opinions have been propounded, which were necessary to its

development—as what appears to be a mere speck in a photograph may

be enlarged until it is found to be in itself a complete picture.

These lengthy and abstruse speculations are frequently varied by

incidental anecdotes (called Haggadoth), which serve to illustrate

the writer’s meaning, by allegories, proverbs and parables, or

sometimes by the wildest Oriental legends, myths, and romantic tales.

Some of these are extremely touching and beautiful; others absurd,

frivolous, and extravagant, bordering occasionally on the profane,

if not the blasphemous. There is, in fact, a strange and bizarre

mixture of heterogeneous subjects. Eastern fancies are intermingled

with the speculations of the Greek and Roman moralists. A celebrated

writer has described the Talmud as ‘an extraordinary monument of

human industry, human wisdom, and human folly.’[251] The probable

explanation of this perversion of high intellect and patient study

is to be found in the fact that the writers, being excluded by the

peculiarity of their social and political position from handling the

topics on which literary men ordinarily employ their pens, they were

driven to busy themselves with the only subjects open to them. Hence

too, probably, the extraordinary respect paid to the Talmuds by the

Jewish people. They have ever regarded these books, and especially

the Babylonian Talmud, with the profoundest reverence and affection.

Indeed, they have been charged with bestowing more of their regard on

them than on their own inspired Scriptures. They have a proverb, that

‘They who study the Scriptures do a virtuous, but not an unmixedly

virtuous, act. They who study the Mishna perform a wholly virtuous

act, and merit a reward. But they who study the Gemara perform the

most virtuous of all acts.’ And again, ‘The Scriptures are water, the

Mishna wine, the Gemara spiced wine.’[252]

As regards the history of the Talmuds, it is a singular fact

that no notice is taken of either Mishna or Gemara by any of the

Fathers belonging to the first four centuries of Church history,

notwithstanding that they frequently handle the subject of Jewish

tradition. Even Tertullian, when specially writing on this subject,

while he speaks of the primal law given to Adam, and the laws of

the Two Tables committed to Moses, makes no mention of the Mishna.

Augustine, in the fifth century, does name the δευτέρωσις, or

Second Law; but even he speaks of it as containing the _unwritten_

traditions of the Jews, transmitted from one generation to another

by word of mouth. We can only suppose that, although the Mishna was

indeed completed before the end of the second century, the knowledge

of it was for a long time confined to the learned among the Jews,

and for a still longer time to the Hebrew nation generally. The same

was the case as regards the completed Jerusalem Talmud. There was,

in fact, no recognition of the work by Christians until the time of

the Emperor Justinian, who, about the middle of the sixth century,

issued a Novella, or edict, against it. He allowed the reading of

Scripture in the synagogues, but prohibited that of the Mishna, as

being ‘the mere invention of earthly men, who had nothing of Heaven

in them.’ From his time to the sixteenth century of Christianity,

popes and kings have put forth one manifesto after another, warning

men against its perusal, and ordering the book itself to be

suppressed, and even publicly destroyed. In 1286 Pope Honorius IV.

wrote to Archbishop Peckham, requiring him to forbid the perusal of

the Talmud as a ‘liber damnabilis,’ from which all of manner of evil

was certain to arise. Nor were the popes content with prescribing

it. In 1230 Gregory IX., following the example of his predecessor

Innocent, burned twenty cartloads of it. In 1553, during the Feast

of Tabernacles, all the copies that could anywhere be found were

committed to the flames by order of Julius III.; and a few years

subsequently, 12,000 volumes underwent the same fate by command of

Paul IV. During the last half of the sixteenth century the Talmud was

in this manner brought to the stake no less than six times, and was

burned, not by the single copy, but by the waggonload. The Hebrew

copyists of those times must have laboured hard to prevent the total

disappearance of the book. But the establishment of the printing

presses, and the declaration of Reuchlin, early in the sixteenth

century,[253] in its favour, in the course of a generation or two put

an end to the attempts to root out all traces of it.

The celebrated Maimonides, in the twelfth century, made an epitome

of the laws of the Talmud, which many prefer to the Talmud itself,

forasmuch as he omits the strange fables with which the original work

abounds, and preserves the really valuable matter. The name of his

book is Yad-ha-chazzak, or _The Strong Hand_. It is of great use to

those who wish to gain a knowledge of Jewish laws and ceremonies.

FOOTNOTES:

[248] The meaning of this is, that the development of the Law is

contained in the Law itself. There must have been from the first

difficulties in the interpretation of the Law. These were referred

to Moses. His decisions were traditionally preserved, and called the

Oral Law, this is figured by God’s delivering the Oral Law to Moses.

A Rabbinical fable further declares that God committed the Written

Law to Moses by day, and the Oral by night. This symbolizes, first,

that God’s law is the true measure of time, and secondly, that the

Written Law is to the Oral as the light to the darkness.

[249] The Jerusalem Talmud contains only four of the six Orders which

make up that of Babylon, and a portion of the fifth. Whenever, it

should be noted, ‘The Talmud’ is spoken of, without any intimation

_which_ Talmud is referred to, the expression must be understood to

mean that of Babylon.

[250] Here introduced because idolatry is sometimes the subject of

judicial proceedings.

[251] Against this, however, may be set the opinion of the

celebrated Buxtorf. He says, that ‘it contains excellent lessons in

jurisprudence, medicine, physics, ethics, politics, and astronomy;

admirable proverbs, and apothegms and shining gems of eloquence,

not less ornamental to the Hebrew tongue than are the flowers of

eloquence to the Greek and Latin languages. Nor would the knowledge

of Hebrew and Chaldee be complete without them.’

[252] Some persons might be inclined to remark on this saying, that

it is a great deal truer than its authors were aware of. Yet its

meaning has probably been misunderstood, and there is no intention

of disparaging Scripture. It may only mean, that the Mishna is the

knowledge of Scripture with more knowledge added, and the Gemara is

the knowledge of Scripture and Mishna combined with a yet further

addition of knowledge.

[253] See p. 269.

_APPENDIX III._

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

THE TARGUMS.

The Targums are expository paraphrases of the Books of the Old

Testament. They are written in Chaldee, which was more familiar to

the Jews after Ezra’s time than the Hebrew. It would appear that

after the return from Captivity it was the habit in the synagogue

worship to read out some portion of Scripture in the Hebrew, and then

give orally a Targum on the passage in question. But the _written_

Targums—viz., those of Jonathan, Onkelos, Jonathan son of Uzziel,

Jerusalem, and Joseph the Blind—were none of them composed, or at all

events committed to writing, much before the era of our Lord. They

come therefore within the scope of the present work.

The Targum of Jonathan is the most ancient, and is generally thought

to have been drawn up in its present form about thirty years before

the birth of Christ. That of Onkelos is somewhat later, and is

concerned with the Books of Moses only. It is greatly superior to

its predecessor in simplicity of language and purity of style. It is

quoted in the Mishna, but does not seem to have been known to the

early Christian Fathers.

The Targum of the younger Jonathan comments on the Books of the

Prophets only. It resembles that of Onkelos in purity of style, but

is less simple, and runs occasionally into allegory. It is believed

that additions have been made to it by doctors who lived long

subsequently to its author.

The Targum of Jerusalem deals with the Books of Moses, or rather with

a portion of them. It is little better than a fragment of an ancient

paraphrase of the Pentateuch.

The Targum of Joseph the Blind is on the Hagiographa, viz., the

Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, Job, and

Ruth. The style is very corrupt Chaldee, containing many foreign

words.

There is no Targum on Daniel, Ezra, or Nehemiah, because these books

were already written in Aramaic. The Targums are of much value in

establishing the genuineness of the present Hebrew text, proving it

to be the same as it was when the Targums were written. They are

also useful in Jewish controversy, as showing the manner in which

the Jews, previously to the Christian era, interpreted the great

prophecies respecting the Messiah.

MASSORA.

This word properly denotes tradition; and those persons are called

Massorites who determined the meaning of the Hebrew text by adding

pointed vowels to it. There are in the Hebrew language four vowels,

but these were found insufficient; and further, it was a frequent

practice in early times to omit these vowels, writing the consonants

only of the words. The consequence of this was, that the meaning of

a word was often ambiguous, its sense becoming different according

to the vowels inserted. Thus there is said to have been a dispute

between David and Joab as to the meaning of the word זנר (Deut.

xxv. 19). In one of his raids against the Amalekites, Joab slew the

men, but spared the women and children. David rebuked him for this,

alleging that the command was ‘to blot out the memory of,’ _i.e._,

to exterminate (זֵנֶר) the Amalekites. But Joab answered that the word

was זׇנׇר, ordering the slaughter of the males only.[254] In order to

put a stop to perplexities so caused, the Massorites[255] are said

to have added the points, or pointed vowels, of which there are

fourteen. These are placed below or above the consonants, supplying

the place of vowels, where these are wanting, and determining the

pronunciation, when present.

The Massorites not only added the vowel points, but numbered the

chapters, sections, verses, words, and even the letters of the sacred

text. Thus they have noted the fact that there are in the Book of

Genesis 1,534 verses, 20,713 words, and 78,100 letters. They have

also marked the central verse, word, and letter of the book. They

have done the same also in the instance of all the other Books of

the Old Testament. The object is to preserve the inspired text from

interpolation, mutilation, in fact, change of any kind, and also to

give facilities for reference. Much of their work has been censured

as ‘laborious trifling;’ but it has been of service to scholars

nevertheless.

The age to be assigned to the Massorites is a matter of doubt. Some

have affirmed that Moses himself communicated to the elders this

method of elucidating and preserving inviolate the Sacred Writings.

Others ascribe the invention of the Massoretic vowels to Ezra, and

the Great Synagogue of his time. But neither of these opinions has

much to support it; and the most trustworthy authorities place them

in the fifth or sixth century of Christianity. The fact that there

were many variations in the sacred text long subsequently to the time

of Ezra, is clearly enough proved by the versions of the Septuagint

writers, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, none of which are in

entire accordance with one another. This could not have been the

case if, previously to the date of these translators, the Massorites

had completed their labours. Jerome states that the text was not

determined even in his time. The most approved view seems to be that

of Walton. He thinks that the work was begun early in the fifth

century, and came gradually more into notice, until it was completed,

_circa_ 1030 A.D. Maimonides appears to say that the final revision

was made by the famous scholar Rabbi Ben Asher. The Massorites, it

should be noted, have been charged with endeavouring to pass off

erroneous readings favourable to their own views, and, in order to

secure this object, preventing any recurrence to the original and

genuine text.

CABBALA.

This word also denotes tradition, and originally included all the

interpretations of Scripture, which the Jews professed to have

received, in the first instance, from Moses, and in the second, from

Ezra. But subsequently it came to be used for an abstruse species

of science, by which certain passages of Holy Writ are mystically

explained. The Cabbala, in this sense, has many processes, of which

the three best known are Gematria, Notaricon, and Themurah.[256] The

first mentioned of these consists in assuming the letters of a Hebrew

word to denote ciphers, or arithmetical numbers, and then explaining

every word by the arithmetical value of the letters composing it.

Thus, for example, the letters of the word Jabo-Shiloh (Gen. xlix.

10), that is, ‘Shiloh shall come,’ when reckoned according to their

arithmetical valuation, make up the same number as does the Hebrew

word ‘Messiah.’ Hence the Cabbalists infer that Shiloh signifies the

same as Messiah.

Notaricon consists in taking every letter of a word as being in

itself a complete word, and the letters, when put together, as a

complete sentence. Thus, the first word of the Book of Genesis,

Bereshith, resolved into its component letters, is understood to mean

Bara, Rakia, Arez, Shamaion, Iam, Tehomoth, _i.e._, ‘He created the

firmament, the earth, the heavens, the sea, and the deep.’ Or again,

the initial letters of every word in a sentence may be formed into a

word, possessing, of course, a mystical meaning.

Themurah, is where the letters are transposed so as to form a new

word—sometimes by the process known to us as anagram, sometimes by

the substitution of one letter for another. The Cabbalists believed

that the Scriptures contained endless recondite meanings, which might

be brought to light by patient investigation. They were persuaded

that the sacred writers had some special secret reason for their

choice of every word they employed, and for its place in the verse,

chapter, and book in which it is found.

BOOK OF YETZIRA.

Though some of the Chasidim professed a reverence for the Talmud,

their system of theology is in reality antagonistic to it.[257] The

basis of their confession of faith is, not the Talmud, but the Book

of Zohar. This, together with the Yetzira, contains the fullest

exposition of their views.

The age of the Sepher-Yetzira, Book of Creation, is a matter of

dispute. By many it has been assigned to the seventh or eighth

century. More trustworthy authorities consider it to have been

composed greatly earlier. In the Talmud there is the mention of a

Sepher-Yetzira, a book older, apparently, than the Mishna itself.

If this is the same work as that now under consideration, it must

be referred to the first, or at latest the second, century of

Christianity. The language and style of the book are in accordance

with this notion, being those of the Apostolic age; and though there

are passages suggesting a later date than this, scholars are inclined

to coincide in the view of M. Adolph. Francke,[258] that the book

belongs to the Apostolic age.

BOOK OF ZOHAR.

The Sepher-Zohar, Book of Light,[259] is of the more importance,

because it is accounted the code and text-book of the theological

system, as adopted by the Chasidim. It takes the form of a commentary

on the Mosaic Books, and is extremely mystical and full of allegory.

Its contents are thus described by Surenhusius: ‘Veteris Ecclesiæ

judaicæ fundamenta, prout Templo Hierosolymano stante secundo

erant, non ex opere Talmudico, vel ab alio quodam auctore antiquo,

sed ex Zohare tantum sunt quærenda. Cum in opere Talmudico, leges

Ecclesiasticæ, forenses et politicæ exponantur, in Zohare autem

loca scripturæ sacræ ad Theologiæ capita reducantur, in quibus de

Existentiâ, de Attributis, de Epithetis, ac Nominibus Dei, itemque de

Messiâ, de Angelis, tam bonis quam malis, de animâ humanâ, ejusdemque

origine ac statu, atque, ut uno verbo dicam, de cognitione Dei nostri

per Messiam genuinum Filium, agitur.’

Its authorship and date are even more a matter of dispute than

those of the Yetzira. It is said by many to be the composition

of Simeon Jochaides (Simeon ben Yochai), who is believed to have

lived somewhere about the time of our Lord. Others, though they do

not consider Simeon to be the actual author, yet are of opinion

that it was written by one of his scholars, who embodied in it his

master’s teaching. The language in which it is written is that of the

Palestinian Jews in the times immediately preceding the composition

of the Talmud. ‘The ideas and expressions also,’ writes Etheridge,

‘belong to that date.’ It would be possible, however, perhaps not

very difficult, to simulate that style, if it was the object of the

composer to pass it off as the production of an early age; and it is

difficult to believe that some of the contents of the book could be

the work of any Jew of the date assigned. M. Francke’s opinion here

also is the safest to follow. He places it in the seventh century.

The notion, however, that the Zohar is simply the composition of

Moses de Léon, fully six hundred years afterwards, finds supporters

even at the present day.

It is in form, as has already been intimated, a commentary on the

Pentateuch; but in reality a heterogeneous mass of doctrine—the

Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, and Rabbinical conceptions being

inextricably blended together. It professes to reveal great

mysteries; but the revelation is conveyed in language so enigmatical

and obscure that it is often difficult to arrive at any definite

meaning. It recognises God as the Infinite, having no beginning,

and no end of existence; and declares that He has revealed Himself

under ten forms, or rather emanations, to which the Zohar gives the

name of Sephiroth. These ten are Transcendency (the crown), Wisdom,

Knowledge, Mercy, Justice, Beauty, Triumph, Glory, Basis, Dominion.

In all these representations the Triune character of the Godhead is

exhibited.[260] Hence, in the confession of faith adopted by the

Zoharites, as the followers of Jacob Frank and others were called,

the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as held by the Church Catholic,

was distinctly professed.

FOOTNOTES:

[254] This story may, or may not, be historical; but any way it

illustrates the use of the Massoretic points.

[255] The Massorites were an inferior description of Scribes, whose

profession it was to write out copies of the Hebrew Scriptures; also

to teach the people the true readings, as well as to comment on them.

They called their work ‘Massora,’ or tradition, because they believed

that God gave the Law on Sinai, imparting to Moses, at the same time,

the true interpretation.

[256] Graetz says of the Cabbala, that it is a fungous growth, which

since the thirteenth century has crept over the body of the Law.

[257] The Talmud is said to have been publicly burnt in Podolia,

A.D. 1755, by some Sabbathain Cabbalists. On the other side, the

Rabbinical Talmudists have repeatedly condemned the Cabbalism of the

Chasidim.

[258] _La Cabbale_, par Adolph. Francke, Paris, 1843; a work of

extensive research and profound learning.

[259] Daniel xii. 3. The word is there rendered by our translators,

as ‘brightness.’

[260] It is proper to remark that Jewish controversialists deny

the existence of Trinitarian doctrine in the Book of Zohar. On the

contrary, they affirm that they were wont to twit the Cabbalists

with ‘believing in ten gods, whereas (said they) even the Christians

believed in only three.’

_APPENDIX IV._

THE ATTEMPT UNDER JULIAN TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE.

Grave doubts have been advanced, by one writer or another, of what

may be called the ancient belief on this subject. It has been

questioned: I. Whether the attempt to rebuild the Temple ever was

really made; and II. whether, allowing the work to have been begun

and interrupted, its interruption was not due to natural causes only.

I. It is argued, chiefly by Lardner,[261] that Julian did no more

than project such an undertaking, which he never attempted to carry

into effect. In his letter addressed to the Jewish people, he tells

them, ‘_if_ he returned from his Persian expedition, he would rebuild

and inhabit with them the holy city of Jerusalem.’ But, as he never

returned, Lardner argues that he never made the promised attempt.

The same appears to be the tradition of the Jews.[262] Thus, David

Gans, in the fifteenth century, writes, ‘The work was prevented from

being accomplished, _for_ Julian never returned, but perished in

the Persian War;’ and similarly Cassel: ‘He made preparations for

restoring the Temple, but, after a brief reign, fell in battle.’ A

passage from one of Julian’s orations is, further, quoted by Lardner,

in which he says that, ‘he conceived the design of rebuilding the

Temple.’ But, as he does not add that he executed it, Lardner reasons

that he probably did not.

It is almost needless to say that these arguments carry very little

weight. The reader should note that Julian did not promise to rebuild

the _Temple_, on his return from Persia, but _Jerusalem_. As that

city was then standing, his meaning must have been, that he would

restore it to its pristine magnificence. This would be a long and

costly work, which might well require his personal presence. But he

might commit the rebuilding of the Temple, the design of which was

well known, to a deputy—an instalment, so to speak, of the greater

work to follow. Nor can it be reasonably argued, that, because a man

does not say that he put in force a design, _therefore_ he _did_ not

put it in force.[263]

Whatever weight Lardner’s reasoning might carry is lost altogether,

when we take into consideration the testimony of the contemporaneous

historians, and those of the age immediately following. The first

include Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom,

Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Ammianus Marcellinus; the second,

Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. All these record the main facts,

viz., the repeated bursting forth of the fire, until the work was

abandoned from the impossibility of persisting. Each adds some minor

details, which do not affect the credibility of the occurrence

itself.[264] The most important witness is Ammianus Marcellinus, a

heathen and a personal friend of the Emperor. It will be better to

give his account of the matter in his own words. ‘The Emperor was

meditating,’ he writes,[265] ‘the restoration, at an unlimited

expense, of the Jewish Temple, and had committed the care of the

matter to Alypius of Antioch. When, then, Alypius was vigorously

prosecuting the work, and the governor of the province was rendering

him his help, frightful balls of fire breaking forth with continued

outbursts near the foundations, again and again consumed the workmen,

and rendered it impossible to approach the spot; and in this manner

the element more obstinately (_i.e._, more obstinately than even

the pertinacious persistence of the workmen) driving them away, the

attempt was abandoned.’

In the face of evidence like this, he must be a hardy advocate who

would maintain that the occurrence never took place.

But it may be contended that although it did take place, there was

nothing in it of a miraculous character. It may be alleged,—

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

(2) That there may have been an explosion of foul air, caused by

the sudden opening of the vaults under the Temple. These had long

been closed, and the noxious vapours, coming into contact with the

workmen’s fires, exploded.

(3) That it is improbable that such a miracle _would_ be worked,

there being nothing in the rebuilding of the Temple which _called

for_ a miracle. Our Lord, no doubt, had declared that the Temple

should be utterly destroyed, but not that it should never be rebuilt.

Nor had Daniel (rightly understood), or any other prophet, ever said

so.

(4) That the age in which the miracle is related to have taken place

is one in which miracles are spoken of as having been of almost daily

occurrence—some of them frivolous and childish to the last degree. In

these no reasonable man can place any faith; and there is nothing to

separate this miracle from them.

Let us consider these objections.

1. Earthquakes have always been of common occurrence in Palestine.

Nor is it denied that an earthquake took place on the present

occasion. But a simple earthquake will not account for the bursting

forth of the fiery balls, _as often as the labourers attempted to

resume the work_. No other earthquake ever exhibited these phenomena.

2. This explanation was, I believe, unknown to Warburton, Basnage,

Lardner, or Gibbon. It appears to have been first suggested in a

German magazine,[266] by the celebrated Michaelis, in the latter

half of the eighteenth century. But, on inquiry, it appears more

ingenious than probable. Who knows that the caverns under the Temple

_had_ been hermetically sealed for a long time previously to Julian’s

attempt? They were constantly opened at other times (as the story

told by Benjamin of Tudela evidences), and no such result followed.

The present was but one out of many occasions when foundations had

been dug and buildings erected in the same spot; but without any

explosion or fiery outburst. How was it that Solomon’s workmen, and

Zorobabel’s, and Adrian’s, and I know not how many more—how was it

that they escaped the fatal injuries that befell those of Julian?

Again, the phenomena related by Marcellinus and others do not accord

with the idea of an explosion of mephitic gases. These ignite

instantaneously, and burn till exhausted. They could not be described

by any writer as ‘_balls_ of fire’ breaking forth with continual

outbursts, as often as the labourers attempted to resume the work.

It is also evident that the fire did not break forth the moment the

ground was opened, but only when the whole foundation had been laid

and the masons had begun to build; for Chrysostom says that some of

the stones already laid were thrown down.

3. In dealing with this objection, we enter on new and more difficult

ground. It may be true, and I incline to believe it is so, that

the truth of Holy Writ was not, so to speak, imperilled by this

enterprise. If it had succeeded, I do not see that any saying of

Inspiration would have been thereby contravened.[267] But such

an occurrence would surely have been at variance with the Divine

purpose in setting up the Christian Church. Type and shadow were

to vanish when the reality and the substance came. The rebuilding

of the Jewish Temple would have been an unmeaning renewal of them.

Further, such strange anomalies as the reconstruction of the Holy

of Holies, with its veil unrent, and the renewal of the Temple

sacrifices, foreshadowing an event long past, would have disturbed

the faith of large numbers of professing members of the Church, as

well as deterred equally large numbers from entering its pale. It

is a difficult—it may be thought a presumptuous—thing to attempt

determining what would be a sufficient reason for expecting a

miracle. But if there ever has been an instance in the history of the

Christian Church when a miracle was, so to speak, demanded, it was

the one we have under consideration. Almighty God had been directly

challenged by the supreme human ruler of the earth, and in the sight

of all Christendom, to show the right. Do we wonder that, as at Mount

Carmel, He answered by fire?

4. These considerations make it easy to deal with the last of the

four objections. It may freely be granted that the age of Julian was

signalized by the endless recurrence of reported miracles—most of

which must be regarded with grave suspicion, while many others are

wholly unworthy of credit. Thus Gregory relates of Julian, that one

day when he was sacrificing, the entrails of the victim were found

to be impressed with the emblem of a cross within a circle.[268] On

another occasion, when he attempted to build a heathen temple over

the spot where a Christian had been buried, it fell down again as

soon as it was put up.[269] These are two instances, out of many, of

the idle tales current in that day. If the occurrence we have now

under consideration is to be classed with these, no one could wonder

at the unwillingness of men to lend it credit. But it stands entirely

apart from them. It was not worked at the command or through the

entreaty of any man. It was not manifested to prove the truth of any

disputed dogma, or the sanctity of any theological leader, or the

orthodoxy of any party in the Church. It was wrought by the finger of

God directly and visibly; and, unless we are prepared to affirm that

since the Apostolic age He has never openly interfered in the affairs

of men, we may reasonably believe that He interfered here.

FOOTNOTES:

[261] Lardner, V. iii. p. 603 ff.

[262] Cassel, I. § 53. Other Jewish writers, as Jost, admit the

occurrence, but deny the miracle.

[263] Lardner also insists much on the silence of Jerome, Prudentius,

and Orosius. If facts of history are to be doubted because some

historians of the time do not mention them how many would remain

which could be regarded as certain?

[264] Thus, Gregory says that the doors of a church were miraculously

closed against the fugitives, and a fiery flame issuing from it

destroyed them; that a circle and cross of fire were visible in the

heavens, and crosses of fire seen on the garments of the spectators.

Chrysostom states that the workmen had dug out the foundation, and

begun to build, when the flames burst forth. Socrates, that the

building tools and implements were consumed by fire, and were a

whole day burning, He adds, what is important, that the earthquake

occurred during the night, and the fires broke out on the following

day. Theodoret says that the earthquake threw down some of the stones

of the newly laid foundations, and shook some of the excavated earth

back into the hole out of which it had been dug. Chrysostom confirms

him in this.

[265] Ammian. Marcellin. XXIII. 1. It has been suggested that he took

his account without inquiry from Christian writers. So Gibbon, ch.

XXXIII. But that a heathen historian and devoted friend of Julian

should in this manner have recorded what was at once unfavourable to

his creed and painful to his feelings as a friend, is too improbable

to need refutation.

[266] _Magazin von Lichtenberg._ Quoted by the editor of Ammian.

Marcell. in his notes.

[267] Warburton argues that not only did our Lord never declare that

the Jewish Temple should not be rebuilt, but that He even implied

that it would be, when He said (St. Luke xxi. 24), ‘Jerusalem shall

be trodden down of the Gentiles, _until_ the times of the Gentiles be

fulfilled.’ But this is to mistake the meaning of the Greek phrase

Ἄχρις οὗ, ἔως οὗ. These denote a state of things up to a given point,

but determine nothing as to what will follow. See Chrysostom on St.

Matt. i. 25 etc.

[268] Greg. Naz. Orat. III.

[269] Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. IV.

_APPENDIX V._

THE BLOOD ACCUSATIONS.

Among the many accusations which have been advanced against the Jews,

there are three, which may be distinguished from the others as ‘Blood

Accusations,’ and which have been the causes of terrible suffering to

them. The first of these is the charge of crucifying boys, in parody

of the Saviour’s death upon the cross; the second, that of using

Christian blood in the preparation of the Paschal cakes; the third,

that of possessing themselves, by underhand means, of the consecrated

Host, for the purpose of insulting and stabbing it. It might seem

that this last was not a _blood_ accusation. But, as it was believed

that they cut and pierced the wafer, as being the very body of the

Lord, which indeed bled like any human body under their knives, it

may be classed with the other two. The first is the most ancient, and

the one which has been most pertinaciously adhered to; though the

other two have been continually repeated and accredited. Our present

object is to inquire when these charges were first made, and what

could have given rise to them.

As regards the time and origin of the notion respecting their

crucifixion of boys, I have at p. 73 suggested the probable source

of that accusation. Of all the Jewish feasts, the most mirthful,

or rather the most riotous, was the Feast of Purim; of which it

was said that ‘the Jews were wont to drink, until they could not

distinguish between the blessings pronounced on Mordecai and the

curses imprecated on Haman.’ At this feast, in the earlier centuries

of Christianity, it was customary to introduce the effigy of Haman

suspended on his gibbet; and the resemblance of this figure to a

crucified malefactor soon engaged the notice of the Jews. Hence jests

and innuendos against our Blessed Lord came to be a common topic

among the revellers; on which ground the Jews were forbidden by the

Christian emperors to celebrate this feast. Nor did the Jews confine

their insolence to words. On one occasion, at Inmestar, they seized a

Christian youth, whom they fastened to Haman’s gibbet, and scourged

so mercilessly that he died under their hands. This, of course,

provoked a fierce outburst of indignation and horror; and we can well

understand that the tradition of the outrage would spread far and

endure for many generations.

The second accusation—that of mixing Christian blood with the

Passover cakes, or, as some said, with the Paschal sacrifice itself,

does not appear to have been advanced until some time in the 13th

century, though the exact date cannot be determined. Now, it is at

least remarkable in connection with this charge, that it was first

made just about the time when the doctrine of Transubstantiation

was beginning to take forcible hold on men’s minds.[270] That

was declared for the first time to be a doctrine of the Catholic

faith, by a Lateran Council A.D. 1215. According to that belief,

the eucharistic wafer became, after consecration, the actual body

and blood of the Lord, so that men actually ate His flesh and drank

His blood. It may be assumed as tolerably certain that the Jews

would mock and deride this doctrine; which great numbers of pious

Christians found themselves unable to accept. Even if the Jews did

not openly satirize the Christians who upheld this extravagant

conception, their opinion about it would be notorious enough; nor

could the knowledge of what the Jews thought about it fail to

exasperate still further the bitterness with which the extreme

zealots of Ultramontanism already regarded them. It was an easy and

obvious addition to the old charge of crucifying a Christian in

mockery of the Saviour’s passion, to say that the Jews further mixed

the blood of their victim with the Paschal bread, in order to deride

the holy rite whereby Christians became partakers of His very body

and blood.

The Jews themselves allege other reasons for the circulation of

this slander. They declare the charge to have been first made in the

earliest ages of the Church, and to have been levelled, nominally

indeed at the Jews, but really at the Christians. A vague rumour of

the words spoken by Jesus at the Paschal Supper, when He delivered

the cup to the Apostles, ‘This is My blood,’ had spread among the

heathen, and given the idea that the Christians actually drank human

blood at their religious celebrations. It is true that the authors of

these accusations attribute the offence to the Israelites; but (say

the Jews, and so far certainly truly) the earlier heathen writers

continually confound the Christians with Jews, regarding the former

as simply an heretical Jewish sect. Further, it is alleged that the

calumny derived some support from the known practice of certain

heretical Christian sects, notably the Cataphrygians, who mixed with

the consecrated bread the blood of infants, which they extracted from

them by puncturing a vein. This, however, is nothing more than a

plausible theory. Granting that such reports gained currency in the

first or second century of Christianity, the Christians, against whom

they were really circulated, would know their monstrous falsehood,

and entirely disregard them. It is impossible to conceive that they

would have retorted such a charge on the Jews, or even countenanced

its circulation.

Again, it is said that there is an imperative order in the

Talmud,[271] that the Jews shall, at the Passover, drink a certain

quantity of ‘red wine,’ and that this ‘red wine’ was supposed to

mean really human blood, though the command was disguised under

a metaphor. But independently of the extravagance of such an

interpretation of very plain and simple words, the charge made

against the Jews was not that of _drinking_ Christian blood, but of

mixing it with the Passover bread. No one ever supposed that for any

of the four cups drunk at the Paschal Feast a cup of human blood was

substituted.

If the idea above named has nothing but its likelihood to support it,

at all events it has that. And the third charge, brought not long

afterwards, of getting surreptitious possession of the consecrated

wafer in order to treat it with indignity, tends to strengthen

the likelihood. It is alleged that, not content with deriding the

doctrine of Transubstantiation, they were eager to insult the body of

the Lord itself. They would bribe with a large sum some official to

purloin the Host, and hand it over to them—when they would stab it

with their knives, and it would bleed, like any human body—they, it

was assumed, remaining wholly unmoved by the sight of so tremendous a

miracle, nay, only anxious, by multiplied evidence of it, to increase

their own condemnation in the sight of Heaven! It is beyond dispute

that these alleged marvels were quoted in support of the doctrine

of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist. It is hardly too much

to assume that the charges against the Jews were coined—partly,

no doubt, in consequence of the bitter hate with which they were

regarded, but partly also to establish the certainty of the popular

dogma of the day.

I have not thought it necessary to advance any arguments to prove

the falsehood of these accusations. No competent tribunal by which

they have been tried has ever failed to declare them groundless.

Indeed, no person who has the most ordinary acquaintance with the

Mosaic ritual, but must be aware, not only of the falsehood, but of

the absurdity and the impossibility of the charges. The touch, nay

the mere contiguity, of a dead body, according to the Jewish law,

rendered all persons in its vicinity unclean, so that they could not

partake in, much less celebrate, religious rites until they were

purged from the pollution. How then could the blood of a murdered

person be used in the consecration of victims and offerings, which

its very presence would _ipso facto_ desecrate? If nothing short of

the most distinct statement on the subject will satisfy some minds,

they have even that. The words of Moses, Levit. vii. 26, 27, are, ‘Ye

shall eat _no manner_ of blood’ (πᾶν αἷμα σὐκ ἔδεσθε)—no blood, not

even of beast or bird, how much less, of man!

FOOTNOTES:

[270] ‘These accusations began only 600 years ago,’ writes De Virga

in the _Shebet Yehuda_ published in Amsterdam A.D. 1651. ‘They

commenced in the reign of Alphonso X. of Castile. In his time there

was a priest in Spain who in his sermons declared that the Israelites

could not sacrifice their Passover unless they had Christian blood to

use in the performance of the rite.’

[271] Hierosolym. Talmudis, Fol. II. 1. ‘Quæritur de mensurâ

poculorum, quæ ebiberunt ad Pascha, aliaque convivia sacra; et

qualitate vini. Præceptum est. ut vino rubido præstat officium.

Vinum rubrum requiritur in sacris.’ See Lightfoot, _Index Talmud.

Hierosolym._ Vol. X. p. 509 of his works.

INDEX.

A.

Abarbanel (Isaac), 234, 239, 249, 256.

Abarbanel (the brothers), 249.

Abasside Caliphs, 137.

Abba-bar-Huna, 64 _n._

Abbas I., Shah, 278.

” II. ” 279, 309.

Abdalla, Caliph, 130.

” father of Mahomet, 89.

Abdebrahim, 158.

Abdel-Muman, Caliph, 144.

Abderachman I., _or_ Abderraman, Caliph, 111, 127.

Abderachman II., Caliph, 129.

Abendana, 264.

Aben-Ezra, 157.

Aberdeen, Lord, 368.

Abner, Rabbi, 218.

Aboab, Emmanuel, 307.

” Isaac, 307.

Abraham, the Patriarch, 17, 59, 91.

Abraham, Rabbi, 288.

” Usque, 258.

” of Wallingford, 182.

Abrantes, 261.

Abu Beker, Caliph, 94, 95 _n._

” Giafar, 108.

Abul Abbas, Caliph, 112.

Acra, Mount, 29.

Adonis, Worship of, 51.

Adrian, Emperor, 42, 43, 47, 51.

Adrianople, 313.

Ælia Capitolina, 51.

Æthiopia, 92, 115.

Ætius, 92.

Africa, 96.

Ageda, Plain of, 286.

Agobard, Bishop, 125.

Agrippa I., King, 21.

” II. ” 25.

Agrippina, 297.

Ahmed Kader, Caliph, 130.

Aila, 94.

Aizhadin, 95.

Akiba, Rabbi, 44-50.

Alarcos, 145.

Albert, D., of Austria, 203, 207.

Albigenses, 171, 235.

Albinus, Procurator, 24.

Alcantara, Bishop of, 214 _n._

Alexander, Tiber., Procur., 23, 26.

Alexander II., Czar, 368.

” II., Pope, 132.

” IV. ” 197, 201.

” VI. ” 222, 240 _n._, 242.

Alexandria, 22 _n._, 42, 76, 81, 96, 372.

Alexandria, Library at, 95.

Algiers, 281.

Alkihoran, 128.

All Saints’ Day, 186.

Almamon, Caliph, 107 _n._

Almohades, The, 144.

Almozal, 161.

Alphonso II., King of Naples, 239.

Alphonso IV., King of Portugal, 244.

Alphonso V., King of Portugal, 239 _n._

Alphonso V., King of Spain, 234.

” VI. ” ” 133.

” VII. ” ” 145.

” VIII. ” ” 145.

” IX. ” ” 145.

” X. ” ” 173, 176 _n._

Alphonso XI., King of Spain, 213.

Alroy, El David, 155, 314.

Alsatia, 168, 203, 206, 320, 357.

Alvarez, Father, 119 _n._

” Garcia, 230.

Al Wathek, Caliph, 110.

Alypius, 68.

Amaria, 155.

Ambivius, Procurator, 20.

Ambrose, Bishop, 72.

Amina, 89.

Ammianus Marcellinus, App. IV.

Amru, 96.

Amsterdam, 119, 292, 294, 301, 312.

Anakia, 311.

Ananus, High Priest, 30, 31 _n._

” of Babylon, 109.

Anastasius, Emperor, 83.

Ancona, 252, 255.

Andalusia, 174, 232.

Anencletus II., Pope, 200.

Angoulême, 191.

Anjou, Duke of, 194.

Antioch, 26, 72 _n._

Antiochus Epiphanes, 118.

” King of Commagene, 34 _n._

Antipas, Herod, 21.

Antipatris, 28.

Antonelli, Cardinal, 359, 360.

Antonia, Tower of, 30, 35.

Antoninus, Emperor, 54.

Antwerp, 258.

Appollonius Tyaneus, 59.

Aquitaine, 122.

Arabia, 92, 98, 155.

Arabian Nights, 115.

Aragon, 171, 177, 217, 228, 233.

Arbues D’Avila, 238.

Arch of Titus, 39.

Archelaus, 19.

Arianism, 100.

Arians, 73, 92, 100 _n._

Aristobulus, 21.

Aristotle, 159.

Arles, 126.

Armleder, 203.

Arnheim, 219.

Arnold, Archbishop, 142 _n._

Artaxerxes, King, 85.

Asa _or_ Asche, Rabbi, 85.

Asaph, St., Bishop (Drummond), 345.

Ascalon, 44, 162.

Ashkenaz, 340 _n._

Ashkenazim, 292 _n._, 340 _n._

Assassins, 31.

Augustus, Emperor, 20, 55.

Aurelian, Emperor, 60.

Aurelius, Emperor, 54, 298.

Austerlitz, Battle of, 356.

Austria, 169, 365.

Averroes, 158.

Avignon, 201, 252, 255, 274, 320.

Avila, Bishop of, 232.

Ayala, Lopes de, 215.

Azores, 121.

Azotus, 54.

B

Baalbek, 95.

Babylon, 40, 128.

Babylonian Schools, 129.

Baechoo, 116.

Bagdad, 161, 162.

Bajazet, Sultan, 252 _n._

Balavignus, 205.

Balsora, 116.

Bamberg, 273.

Banditono, 206.

Bannister’s ‘Holy Land,’ 225 _n._

Barabbas (Jew of Malta), 225 _n._

Barbarini, Cardinal, 307.

Barbary, 228.

Barcelona, 138, 160, 217, 240.

” Cortes at, 172.

Barchochebas, 44-50.

Barons’ War, 184.

Basle, Council at, 206.

Basnage, 112, 123.

Basques, The, 231.

Bassorah, 161.

Bauer, Bruno, 362.

Bavaria, 141.

Bayonne, 276, 319.

Beausobre, 65 _n._

Belgium, 365.

Belgrade, 314.

Belisarius, 84 _n._, 92, 94 _n._

Belmont, Baron de, 305.

Beltran, Bishop, 230.

Benedict XIII., Pope, 230.

” XIV. ” 338.

” the Jew, 150.

Beni Israel, The, 120.

Benjamin of Tudela, 112, 115, 155 _n._, 157, 161.

Bennefeld, 206.

Berlin, 324, 336.

” Treaty of, 369.

Bernaldes, 239.

Bernard of Clairvaulx, 136 _n._, 142, 199, 200 _n._

Bernard the Banker, 321.

” the Monk, 220.

Bernardino di Feltre, 222.

Berne, 205.

Bernhardt, Herr, 336.

Bethlehem, 51, 247.

Bethor, _or_ Bither, 44, 49.

Bezetha, 29, 30.

Beziers, Jews of, 122 _n._, 127.

Black Death, 204.

Blanche of Castile, 164, 166.

Blood Accusations, 73 _n._, 142, 183, 366, App. V.

Bohemia, 146, 209.

Bokhara, 376.

Boleslaus of Poland, 208.

Bologna, 202, 257, 358, 359.

Bomberg, 258.

Boniface IX., Pope, 244.

Bordeaux, 191, 276, 319.

Borgia, Roderic, 298.

Borne, Louis, 337.

Borromeo, Cardinal, 224.

Borrow’s ‘Bible in Spain,’ 265 _n._

Bosnia, 314.

Bosra, 95.

Botouschani, 370 _n._

Brabant, 208.

Braganza, 244.

Bragaza, 239 _n._

Brandenburgh, 271.

Brazil, 299, 373.

Bremen, 361.

Brentford, 341.

Brescia, 223.

Breslau, 220, 337 _n._

Brett, Samuel, 286, 287.

Bristol, Jew of, 154.

Brokers, Jewish, 349.

Bruhl, Count, 338.

Brunn, 335.

Brussels, 208.

Buda, 286.

Bular, King, 111.

Burgos, 217.

” Bishop of, 218.

” Council of, 213.

Buxtorf, 200, App. II.

C.

Cabbala, Appendix III.

Cabbalists, 109, 157.

Cæsarea, 20, 24, 26, 44, 84.

Cairo, 281, 372.

Caligula, Emperor, 21, 22.

Calixtus III., Pope, 222.

Canon, Don Santo de, 218.

Canterbury, Archb. of (Sumner), 351, 353.

Canton, 116.

Caorsini, The, 199.

Capistran, 220.

Capnio. _See_ Reuchlin.

Cappadocia, 114.

Captivity, Princes of, 41, 114.

Caracalla, Emperor, 58.

Cardoso, 315.

Carlisle, Earl of, 351.

Carthagena, 240.

Carulet, 206.

Carvajal, 211 _n._

Casimir III., King of Poland, 204, 208.

Cassius, Avidius, 54.

Castile, 228.

Catherine, Regent of Spain, 229.

” of Portugal, 303.

Cavades, King of Persia, 85.

Cayenne, 299.

Census of Spanish Jews, 176.

Chajon, Nehemiah, 315.

Chanina, 85.

Charlemagne, Emperor, 123.

Charles the Bald, Emperor, 126.

” V., ” 261.

” VI., ” 332.

” VII., ” 327.

” II., King of England, 303.

” II., King of France, 127.

” III., ” ” 127.

” IV., ” ” 193.

” V., ” ” 194.

” VI., ” ” 195.

” VIII., ” ” 257.

” II., King of Spain, 301.

” III., ” ” 317.

” IV., ” ” 318.

Charles Edward, 342.

” of Moravia, 207.

Chasidim, 377.

Chaucer, 183.

Chelmnicki, 292.

Chignon, 192.

Chillon, 205.

Chilperic, 83, 105.

China, Jews of, 116.

” Cochin, Jews of, 119, 120.

Chisuk Emuna, 270 _n._

Chosroes, King of Persia, 91, 93, 115, 118.

Chouts, 162.

Claudius, Emperor, 23, 55.

Clement IV., Pope.

” V., ” 201, 204.

” VI., ” 201, 207, 244.

” VII., ” 252.

” VIII., ” 255.

” XII., ” 318.

” XIII., ” 338.

Clotaire I., King of France, 83.

” II., ” ” 105.

Clugny, Peter of, 224.

Cohen, Alexander, 210.

” Esther, 129.

Coke, Sir E., 276 _n._

Coleridge, S. T., 176, 295 _n._

Cologne, 141, 220.

Coloman, King of Hungary, 146.

Colossus of Rhodes, 108 _n._

Constans, Emperor, 67.

Constantine, Copronymus, 107 _n._

” Emperor, 54, 66.

Constantinople, 81, 107, 162, 279, 312, 332.

Copin, 183.

Coponius, Procurator, 20.

Cordova, 105, 111, 112, 127, 158, 217, 232.

Cordova, Gonsalvo de, 257.

Corneglio, Father, 253.

Cornwall, Earl of, 182.

Cossacks, Rebellion of, 289.

Costa Da, Historian, 362, 363.

” ” Isaac, 340.

” ” Uriel, 293.

Cremieux, M., 375.

Cremona, 257, 258.

Crete, 76.

Crimean War, 376.

Cromwell, Oliver, 302, 303.

Crusades, Causes of, 137.

Ctesiphon, 94.

Cufa, 94, 162.

Cumanus, V., Procurator, 23.

Cush, Land of, 115.

Cuspius Fadus, Procurator, 23.

Cyprus, 42.

Cyrene, 40.

Cyril of Alexandria, 76.

D.

Dagobert, King of France, 105.

D’Aguilar, Miss, 265 _n._

Damascus, 44, 95, 112, 279, 374.

Damietta, 281.

Daniel, 310.

Dashwood, Sir J., 345.

Da Silva, 294.

David, Francis, 270.

D’Avila, Arbues, 236.

Decius, Emperor, 59.

Deckendorf, 203.

D’Enghien, Duke of, 143.

Denmark, 365.

Dennis, King of Portugal, 244.

De Pass, 346 _n._

Dessau, 336.

De Vries, 296.

Dickens, Charles, 225 _n._

Dion Cassius, 50.

Diospolis, 54.

D’Israeli, Benjamin, 155.

” Isaac, 276 _n._

Dnieper, River, 289

Doesborg, 219.

Dohm, Counsellor, 328.

Domenge, Father, 117.

Dominic, 172.

Domitian, Emperor, 41.

Domus, Conversorum, 183.

Dover, 275.

Dublin, Abp. of (Whately), 351.

Du Jon, 284.

Dunaan, King of Homer, 92.

E.

Ecbatana, 94.

Ecija, Archdeacon of, 227.

Edessa, 108 _n._

Edward the Confessor, 133.

” I., King of England, 164, 166, 184, 185, 341.

Egbert of York, 133.

Egeria, 55.

Egica, King of Goths, 10.

Egypt, 40, 76, 94, 96.

Egyptian Jew, 24.

Elam, 114.

Eleazar, 25, 30.

Elias (Prussian Jew), 324.

” Rabbi, 182.

Eliezer, 49.

” the Printer, 250.

Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, 329, 338.

Elnabar, 161.

Elvira, Council of, 100.

Embden, 263.

Emesa, 95.

Emmanuel, King of Portugal, 246, 261.

Emmanuel, Victor, King of Italy, 360 _n._

Encyclopædists, 321.

Ende, Van. Physician, 295.

Enghien, 208.

Enriquez, 299.

Epistola Obsc. Vir., 269 _n._

Eslingen, 206.

Esther, Book of, 118.

Estherka, 208.

Euchel, Isaac, 337.

Eugenius III., Pope, 142.

” IV., ” 221.

Eusebius, 52, 54, 58.

Evora, 244.

Exeter, Bishop of (Philpotts), 351, 353.

Expulsion of Jews from Empire, 209.

Expulsion of Jews from England, 186.

Expulsion of Jews from France, 195.

Expulsion of Jews from Portugal, 248.

Expulsion of Jews from Russia, 147.

Expulsion of Jews from Spain, 240.

Ezra, 56, 57 _n._

” Book of, 118.

F.

Fadai, 93.

Fadus, Cuspius, Procurator, 23.

Farwah, 96.

Felix, Procurator, 24.

Felletti, Padre, 359.

Ferdinand I., King of Spain, 132.

” III. ” ” 173.

” IV. ” ” 211.

” VI. ” ” 317.

” I., Emperor, 272.

” II. ” 286.

” III. ” 286.

” King of Aragon, 233.

” King of Portugal, 244.

Fermosa, Rachel, 145.

Ferrara, 256, 258.

” Duke of, 305.

Ferrer, Vincentius, 228, 236.

Festus, P., Procurator, 24.

Feudal System, The, 134, 135.

Fez, 281.

Flaccus, Aquilius, 22 _n._

Flagellants, The, 205.

Fleisch, Raind, 169.

Florence, 197, 222, 256.

Florinda, 104 _n._

Florus, Gessius, Procurator, 24, 25 _n._

Fouché, 143.

Franchise, Jews admitted to, 349.

Franconia, 146.

Frank, Jacob, 334, 335, 336.

Frankels, Rabbi, 336.

Frankfort, 285, 312, 361.

Franza, 233.

Frederick II., Emperor, 200, 286.

” III. ” 269 _n._

” William, Elector, 286, 324.

Frederick William I., King of Prussia, 325.

Frederick William II., King of Prussia, 325.

Frederick (the Great) III., King of Prussia, 325, 336.

Freiburg, 205.

Frideswide, St., 184.

Friedlander, David, 337.

Fulvia, 20.

G.

Gabriol, Solomon, 138.

Gadara, 28, 44 _n._

Galba, Emperor, 29.

Galicia, 333.

Gallio, 57.

Gallus, Cest., Prefect, 25, 27, 31 _n._

Gamala, 20 _n._, 44 _n._

Gamaliel I., II., III., IV., Presidents of Sanhedrin, 57 _n._

Gamaliel IV., 77.

Gans, David, 274.

Gaon, _or_ Geon, 86 _n._

Garcia, Alvares, 230.

Garonne, 191.

Gaubil, Father, 117.

Gaulonitis, 20 _n._

Gaza, 309.

Geiger, 363.

Geneva, 205.

Gennath (Gate of Jerusalem), 30.

Genoa, 82, 222, 241, 258.

Geonim, 86.

George III., King of England, 347.

George IV., King of England, 348.

Georgius, Prefect, 98.

Gerasa, 31, _n._

Germany, 146, 360, 370.

Ghetto, 202, 229, 255, 306 _n._

Ghibellines, 197.

Giaffir, 110.

Gibbon, Historian, 107, 159, 244 _n._, 255, 358.

Gibraltar, 240, 317.

Giles, St., Cripplegate, 134.

Gischala, 28, 30.

Godolphin, Lord, 340.

Goethe, 295 _n._

Golden Age of Judaism, 106.

Goldsmid, Mr., 349.

” Sir Isaac, 350.

Gomez, Emmanuel, 299.

Gompertz, 324.

Gonsalez of Calatrava, 214 _n._

Gonsalvo de Cordova, 257.

Gooch, Bishop of Norwich, 344.

Gordon, Lord G., 346 _n._

Goshen, 156.

Gotesel, Priest, 146.

Gozani, Father, 117.

Graetz, Historian, 324, 363, App. III.

Granada, 128, 132.

” King of, 192.

Grant, Mr. R., 349.

Gratus, Valer., Procurator, 20.

Greece, 162.

Grégoire, Abbé, 322.

Gregory I., Pope, 82, 197.

” VII. ”, 145.

” IX. ”, 243.

” XIII. ”, 255.

Grimaldi, 346 _n._

Grotius, 284.

Guadelete, River, 104.

Gudule, St., 209.

Guelderland, 219.

Guelf, 197.

Guinea, Gulf of, 246.

H.

Habenicht, Walter von, 140.

Hachacham, 157.

Hagenau, 168.

Hague, The, 295, 305.

Hai, 130.

Hajun, 332.

Halevi, 138, 210.

Hallam, Historian, 123 _n._

Hamadan, 94.

Haman, 73, 118.

Hamburgh, 312, 362.

Hamon, Joseph, 280.

Hanoch, Rabbi, 128, 129.

Harleian Miscellany, 287.

Harley, Lord, 346.

Haroun Al Raschid, Caliph, 108.

Harrington, 303.

Heber, 17 _n._

Hebron, 159, 377.

Hegel, 295 _n._

Hegesippus, 41.

Heine, 337.

Hela, 162.

Heliogabalus, Emperor, 58.

Henry IV., Emperor, 141.

” I., King of England, 148.

” II. ” ”, 148.

” III. ” ”, 199.

” II., King of France, 319.

” II., King of Spain, 215 (of Transtamara).

” III., King of Spain, 216, 217.

” IV., King of Spain, 231.

Hep, Hep, 141, 362.

Heracleonas, 99 _n._

Heraclius, Emperor, 91, 93, 98, 101.

Herder, 295 _n._

Herodias, 21.

Herodion, 38.

Hierax of Alexandria, 77.

Hillel I., II., III., 57 _n._

Hippicus, Tower of, 29, 43.

Hira, 94.

Hiskiah, 130.

Hochstraten, 270.

Holland, 291, 300, 332, 365.

Holmes, Nathaniel, 287.

Holy Land, 162, 225, 281, 376.

Homberg, Herr, 337 _n._

Homen Lopes, 263.

Homeritis, 92.

Honorius, Emperor, 71, 81.

Hormisdas, King of Persia, 65.

Hosdai, Rabbi, 111.

Hoshiel, Rabbi, 128.

Hugh of Lincoln, 183.

Huguenots, 320.

Hungary, 146, 332, 333, 366.

Huntingdon, 303.

Huss, John, 271.

Hypatia, 77.

I.

Idumeans, 28, 31.

Immanuel Ben Solomon, 202.

Impostors, Jewish, 154.

India, 116.

Inglis, Sir R., 351.

Inmestar, 73.

Innocent II., Pope, 197.

” III., ”, 198 _n._

” IV., ”, 197, 198.

” VIII., ”, 222.

” XI., ”, 305.

Inquisition, 235, 301, 317, 318, 365.

Ionia, 114.

Irak, 94.

Ireland, 303.

Isaac of Duren, Rabbi, 210.

” The Five, 138.

Isabella of Castile, 232, 238.

” Infanta, 246.

Isidore, Bishop of Seville, 101.

Ismail, Shah Sofi, 277.

Israel, Baal Schem, 334.

Isserlein, 210.

Istakan, 94.

Italy, 358.

Ivan III., of Russia, 273.

Izarba, 250.

J.

Jachia, Don David, 250.

” ” Solomon, 243.

Jacob, Rabbi, 206.

Jacob Hall, Oxford, 134.

Jaen, 232, 233.

Jaffa, 377.

James I., King of Aragon, 171.

” II., ” ”, 177.

” II., King of England, 304.

Jamnia, 41, 54, 56.

Jarchi. _See_ Rashi.

Jechiel, Rabbi, 166.

Jerome, 52.

” of Prague, 271.

” of Santa Fé, 230.

Jerusalem described, 29.

” present state, 376, 377.

” siege by Titus, 32-36.

” rebuilt by Adrian, 51.

” taken by Omar, 95.

Jerusalem taken by Persians, 87.

” retaken by Heraclius, 87.

Jessel, Sir G., 352, 354 _n._

Jesuits in China, 116.

JESUS CHRIST, 91.

” son of Hanani, 32.

” son of Sirach, 117.

Jethukiel, Phys., 333.

Jochaides, Simon, 54.

Jochanan, Rabbi, 57 _n._

Jonathan, High Priest, 24.

” of Enghien, 208.

John, King of England, 153, 198.

” ” France, 193.

” I., ” Spain, 216.

” II., ” ”, 228.

” I., ” Portugal, 244.

” II., ” ”, 245.

” XXII., Pope, 201.

” of Gischala, 30 _n._, 33, 37, 39.

Joppa, 44 _n._

Joseph II., Emperor of Austria, 328, 365.

Joseph, King of Khozar, 111.

” Historian, 146 _n._

” of Ecija, 213.

” of Granada, 132.

” of Osuna, 175.

” Rabbi, 129.

” Spanish Minister, 132.

Josephus, 17, 25 _n._, 28 _n._, 33, 39, 55, App. I.

Joshua, Rabbi, 190.

Jost, Historian, 64 _n._, 323.

Jotapata, 28, 44 _n._

Jovian, Emperor, 70.

Judah, Hakkadosh II. and III., 57 _n._

Judah, Chief Rabbi, 244.

” Don, 244.

” of Modena, 307.

Judas, Gaulonite, 19, 25, 314.

” Maccabæus, 56.

Jude, St., 41.

Juglar, Inquisitor, 236.

Julian, Count, 104.

” Emperor, 67, 68, 69.

” Samaritan, 83.

Julius III., Pope, 253.

Justin Emperor, 83.

” Martyr, 52 _n._

Justinian, Emperor, 83, 84.

Juvenal, 55.

K.

Kaaba, 89.

Kadijah, 90.

Kainoka, 93.

Kalba Sabua, 46.

Kaminiek, Bishop of, 334.

Karaites, The, 109, 110 _n._, 331, 377.

Kashgar, 116.

Kenana, 93.

Khaibar, 93.

Khaled, 94.

Khozar, 111, 112.

Kimchi, David, 160, 172.

Kimchis, The, 160.

Kobad (Cavades), 85.

Koraidha, 93.

Koran, The, 91 _n._

Koreish, The, 89.

L.

Lacedæmonians, 56.

Ladislaus I., King of Hungary, 146.

Ladislaus II., King of Hungary, 220.

Lamego, Ruez, 340.

Langton, Archbishop, 180.

Languedoc, 105, 127, 191, 194.

Lara, David, 299.

Lavater, 337.

Leghorn (Livorno), 222, 256, 258.

Leibnitz, 295 _n._

Leinengen, Landgrave of, 146.

Leo X., Pope, 252.

” Rabbi, 286.

” of Modena, 305.

” the Isaurian, Emperor, 83, 99, 100.

Leonis, Peter, 200.

Leopold I., Emperor, 289, 324.

” Duke, 320.

Lepanto, Battle of, 280.

Lessing, 295 _n._, 336 _n._

Levi, Samuel, 214.

” Solomon, Bishop of Burgos, 218.

Lexington, Lord, 183.

Lincoln, 150, 184.

Lipman of Mulhouse, 210.

Lippold, Physician, 271.

Lisbon, 247, 260, 301.

Lithuanians, 204.

Lombard Hall, Oxford, 134.

London, 157, 275.

Loraine, 320.

Lothair, King of France, 127.

Louis le Deb., King of France, 124.

” II., III., IV., Kings of France, 127.

Louis VIII., King of France, 163.

” IX., ” ” 224.

” XIV., ” ” 301, 320.

Louis XV., XVI., ” ” 321.

Lowe, Joel, 337 _n._

Lubeck, 361.

Lucena, 138.

Luke, St., 40.

Lunel, 190.

Luther, 224, 284.

Luzzato, Moses, 307, 333.

Lyons, 125, 321.

” Council at, 165.

” Jews of, 165.

Lysanias, 21.

Lysias, Claudius, 57.

Lyttelton, Lord, 343 _n._

M.

Maccabees, 118, 226, 331.

McCaul, Dr., 333.

Machærus, 38.

Macon, Council at, 82.

Madrid, 301.

Magi, Religion of, 69 _n._, 90, 96.

Magona, 75.

Mahomet, 89-94.

Mahrattas, 120.

Maimon, Solomon, 337 _n._

Maimonides, 157, 158, 159.

Malabar, Jews of, 115 _n._, 119.

Malach, 332.

Malaga, 138.

Malcho, 262 _n._

Malesherbes, 322.

Mammæa, 59.

Mamun, 110.

Manasseh (_or_ Menasseh) ben Israel, 287, 290, 301, 304 _n._

Manasseh, Menecier, 193.

Manes or Mani, 65.

Mantenu, Jacob, 234.

Mantua, 157, 222, 223, 257.

Marcian, Emperor, 83.

Marco Polo, 161.

Mariana, Historian, 240.

Maria Theresa, 327, 335.

Marlowe, 225 _n._

Martel, Charles, 122 _n._

Martial, 55.

Martin V., Pope, 197, 221.

Martin, Henry, 303.

Martina, 99 _n._

Martinez, Ferdinand, 216, 217.

Masada, 31 _n._, 38, 152.

Massorites, 109, Appendix III.

Master of Jews, 124.

Matthew of Paris, 180.

Matthias, High Priest, 31 _n._, 35.

” St., 115.

Maundeville, Sir J., 161.

Mauritius, Emperor, 86.

” Island, 276.

Maximilian, Emperor, 220, 269.

Maximus, Emperor, 72.

Mayence _or_ Mentz, 141, 206, 220.

Mecca, 90, 91.

Mechlenberg, 267.

Media, 114.

Medici, Catherine de, 276.

Medina, 91.

” del Campo, 212, 231.

Meir, Impostor, 85.

” Physician, 229.

” Rabbi, 274.

Melun, Council at, 164.

Menahem, 25.

Mendelssohn, Bartholdy, 337.

” Moses, 329, 336, 360.

Mendez, Andrea, 303.

” Antonio, 303.

Menton, Count, 374.

Merseburg, 272.

Mesopotamia, 42, 114.

Metz, 320.

Mexico, 374.

Michael, Emperor, 107.

” St., Island, 121.

Milan, 82.

Milman, 75, 106, 115, 179, 324 _n._

Minorca, 74.

Mishna, 84.

Modayne, 94.

Modena, 257.

Moldavia, 335, 368.

Montalcino, 253.

Montanists, 100.

Montefiori, Sir Moses, 340, 360, 368, 373, 375.

Montiel, 215.

Moravia, 332.

Moravian Impostor, 154.

Mordecai, Rabbi, 203.

Morea, The, 306.

Moriah, Mount, 29, 43.

Morocco, Jews in, 158, 281, 372, 376.

Mortara, Signor, 358, 359.

Moselle, River, 140.

Moses of Crete, 76.

” Hall, Oxford, 134.

” Hamon, 280.

” Lawgiver, 91.

” de Leon, 177.

” Luzzato, 307, 333.

” Rabbi, 128.

” Rieti, 202.

Mossey, of Wallingford, 134 _n._

Mostanged, 161.

Mosteira, Rabbi, 295.

Motokavel, Sultan, 110.

Muja, 247.

Mulhouse, 210.

Munich, 169.

Muza, 104.

” Battle of, 94.

Muzafia, Benjamin, 299.

N.

Nachmanides, 160.

Nadir, 93.

Nagra, 92.

Nantes, Edict of, 320.

Naples, 84 _n._, 197, 200.

Napoleon, 319, 356, 357, 360, 364.

Narbonne, Archbishop of, 127.

” Jews in, 124.

Narses, 92.

Nasi, Joseph, 280.

Nathan, Benjamin, 309.

” Rabbi, 129.

Navarre, 217.

Neander, Historian, 337.

Neapolitanus, Tribune, 25.

Nehemiah, Rabbi, 313.

Nejara, 215.

Nelson, 285.

Nerva, Emperor, 41, 42.

Neustadt, 206.

Newcastle, Duke of, 345.

Nicephorus, Emperor, 107.

Nicolas Czar, 367.

” a Jew, 166.

” III., Pope, 197.

” IV., ” 244.

” V., ” 221.

Niger, 58.

Nineveh, 161.

Nitzachon, The, 270 _n._

Noah, 91.

Northampton, 148 _n._

Norway, 365.

Norwich, 149, 150.

” Bishop of (Gooch), 344.

Norzi, Solomon, 307.

Novara, G., 270.

Nuremburg, 203, 220, 268.

Nyireghyaza, 366.

O.

Oceana, 303.

Offenbach, 335, 336.

Omar, Caliph, 95, 108, 112.

Ommiades, 95 _n._, 112.

Onkelos, Targum of, 250, App. III.

Oporto, 247.

Oran, 281.

Orestes, Prefect, 77.

Origen, 56, 59.

Orleans, 164.

” Regent, 320.

Orobio di Castro, 299, 301.

Orpheus, 59.

Osorio, Bishop, 249.

” Count, 213.

Osrhoene, 72.

Osuna, 174, 176.

Otho, Emperor, 29.

Oxford, 123, 134, 184.

P

Pablo, 160, 173.

Pachecho, Juan de, 233.

Padua, 223, 258.

Palestine, 96, 157, 281.

Pallas, 24.

Palma, 230.

Pampeluna, 217.

Pamphylia, 114.

Paris, Riots in, 164.

Parker, Lord, 345.

Parliament, Jewish, 181.

Parthenay, Sieur de, 192.

Parthia, 114.

Patriarch of the West, 41.

Patriarchs of Tiberias, 62, 77.

” ” suppressed, 78.

Paul, St., 25 _n._, 55, 353.

Paul II., Pope, 222.

” III., ”, 234, 262.

” IV., ”, 253.

” of Samosata, 60.

Pedro III., King of Spain, 214.

Pelham. Mr., 342, 343.

Pella, 27 _n._

Pelusium, 96.

Peræa, 28.

Pereira, 263.

Persepolis, 94.

Persia, 94, 116, 308, 376.

Peru, Strange Building in, 121.

Peter, Emperor of Russia, 329, 338.

Peter the Hermit, 138, 140.

Peters, Hugh, 303.

Petronius, Prefect, 22.

Pfeffercorn, 268.

Pfortzheim, 269 _n._

Phasaelus, Tower of, 43.

Philip, the Arabian, Emperor, 59.

” Agrippa’s General, 26.

” II. (Augustus), King of France, 142, 163, 198.

Philip III. (the Hardy), King of France, 166.

Philip IV. (the Fair), King of France, 167.

Philip V. (the Long), King of France, 190, 193, 198.

Philip III., King of Spain, 300.

” V., ” ”, 316.

Philo Judæus, 22 _n._, 55.

Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter, 353.

Phocas, Emperor, 98.

Phrygia, 114.

Piacenza, 222.

Pichon, Joseph, 216.

” Solomon, 232.

Pilatus, P., Procurator, 20.

Pinedo, De, 298.

Pitt, Mr., 346.

Pius II., Pope, 222.

” IV., ”, 255.

” V., ”, 255.

” VI., ”, 319.

” IX., ”, 358, 360.

Plato, 159.

Ploermel, 164.

Pocock, 290.

Podolia, 33.

Poitou, 192.

Poland, 330, 333, 334, 335.

Polycarp, 55 _n._

Pombal, Don, 264.

Pompey, 55.

Pontoise, 142.

Pontus, 114.

Portaleoni, 258.

Port Maria, 240.

Portugal, 365.

Potsdam, 324.

Prague, 271, 286.

Prester, John, 112.

Princes of the Captivity, 63.

Prioress’s Tale, 183.

Prussia, 324, 326.

” Rhenish, 140.

Psephinus, Tower of, 43.

Pumbeditha, 64 _n._, 161.

Purim, Feast of, 73, 190 _n._

Pyrenees, 122.

Q.

Quietus, Lucius, 42.

R.

Rachel Fermosa, 145.

Radziwill, Prince, 307.

Raport, 363.

Rashi, Rabbi, 147.

Ravenna, 223 _n._

Raymond, Count of Toulouse, 163.

Raymond, Monk, 172.

Reccared, King of Goths, 100.

Rehoboth, 161.

Remigius, Bishop, 126.

Resch-Glutha, 115.

Resen, 162.

Reuchlin, J., 269 _n._

Rhodes, 108 _n._, 374.

Rhynsberg, 295.

Ricci, Father, 116.

Richard I., King of England, 149, 152, 159.

Richard of Pontoise, 142.

Rieti, Rabbi Moses, 202.

Rimini, 258.

Robert of Jerusalem, 201.

Roderic, King of the Goths, 104.

Rodney, Admiral, 346.

Rodolph, Monk, 141, 142.

Rodrigo, Bishop, 212.

Rodriguez, Daniel, 256.

Romaine, W., 343 _n._

Rome, 82, 197, 222, 258, 305.

Rossi, Asarja, 258.

Rothschild, Baron, 350, 356 _n._, 368.

Rothschild, Sir N., 352.

Rouen, 133.

Roumania, 368, 369.

Rufus, Procurator, 20.

” Ticinius, _or_ Turnus, 48.

Russell, Lord J., 350.

” Mr. Odo, 360.

Russia, 147, 277, 329, 333, 365.

S.

Saadi ben Joseph, 130.

Sabbathai Sevi, 309-314.

Sadoc, 20 _n._

Sadolet, Cardinal, 252.

Saladin, 158.

Salamanca, Council at, 213.

Salamons, Alderman, 349, 352.

Saloniki, 280, 281.

Samaritan Version, 117.

Samuel, Levi, 214.

” Rabbi, 132.

” Spanish Minister, 212.

Sancha, Donna, 132.

Sancho, King of Castile, 176.

” I., King of Portugal, 245.

” II., ” ”, 243.

Sanhedrin, 35, 41, 55, 57.

” President of, 57.

” in Paris, 357.

Sapor, King of Persia, 64, 65, 67.

Saragossa, 172, 237 _n._

Sassanian Dynasty, 94.

Savona, 231.

Savonarola, 224.

Scharf, 366.

Scherira, 130.

Schleirmacher, 295 _n._

Scholastica, St., 123.

Scott, Sir W., 152 _n._, 226 _n._

Sebastian, King of Portugal, 282.

Sebastople, 115 _n._

Segovia, 229.

Seidelius, 270.

Seine, River, 144.

Sejanus, 20.

Selim I., II., 280.

Sephardim, 292 _n._, 377.

Sepphoris, 56.

Septuagint Version, 117.

Sepulveda, 232.

Serenus, 112.

Servia, 368.

Sestos, 312.

Setubal, 247.

Severus, Alexander, Emperor, 59.

” Septimius, ”, 58.

” Bishop of Minorca, 74.

” Julius, 48.

Seville, 101, 173, 237 _n._

Shalmanesar, 109.

Shemariah, Rabbi, 128.

Shepherds, Rising of, 166, 190.

Shunem, 162.

Silesia, 320.

Silva, 38.

Simeon, Bishop of Ctesiphon, 67.

” Patriarch, 62, 57 _n._

” the son of Gamaliel, 57 _n._

” Stylites, 72 _n._

Simon, Son of Gioras, 31 _n._ 33, 35, 37, 39.

Simon, the Just, 57 _n._

” Zelotes, St., 115.

Sisibut, King of Goths, 101.

Sixtus, IV., Pope, 222.

” V., 255.

Smyrna, 309, 312.

Socrates, Historian, 76 _n._

Solomon, Ashkenazim, 280.

” ben Abraham, 331.

” Medigo, 307.

” Rophe, 280.

Solymosi, Esther, 366.

Southampton, 179 _n._

Spinoza, 293-298.

Spires, 141, 206, 209.

Stamford, 150.

Stephen, King of England, 148, 149.

Strasburg, 141, 293, 320.

Strauss, 360.

Stuttgard, 269 _n._

Suabia, 203.

Succession, War of, 316.

Suetonius, 25 _n._

Surenhusius, 290.

Surinam, 299.

Sweden, 365.

Switzerland, 365.

Sylvester, Pope, 65 _n._

Syria, 94.

T.

Tabuc, 94.

Tacitus, 55.

Tagus, 214.

Talmud, 84, 165, 255, 258, 269, App. II.

Talmud, the Babylonian, 85.

” ” Jerusalem, 57.

Tarichæa, 28.

Tavora, 231.

Temple burnt, 36.

” Attempt to Rebuild, 68, 69, App. IV.

” Lord, 345.

” Sir W., 305.

Tertullian, 52 _n._

Texel, 292.

Theiss, River, 366.

Thema, 162.

Theodoric I., 82.

Theodorus, 74.

Theodosius I., Emperor, 72.

” II., ”, 72 _n._, 76, 83.

Theresa Maria, 327, 335.

Theudas, 23 _n._

Thirty Years’ War, 286.

Thomas, Father, 374.

” Island of, 246.

” St., 115.

Thonon (Thun), 205.

Tiberias, 56, 157, 162, 377.

Tiberius, Emperor, 20.

Tigris, River, 161.

Timour, the Tartar, 277.

Titus, Emperor, 26-41.

Toland, John, 341.

Toledo, 101, 206, 128, 145.

” Council at, 101, 102.

Toro, 233.

Torquemada, Thomas, 235 _n._, 264, 354.

Tortosa, 230.

Toulouse, 123, 301.

” Count of, 122.

Tours, Battle of, 122.

Trajan, Emperor, 42.

Trani, 200.

Trent, 220.

Treves, 140.

” Bishop of, 141.

Tribotti, Nathan, 331.

Tripoli, 281.

Tucker, Rev. Mr., 344.

Tudela, Benjamin of. _See_ Benjamin.

Tunis, 281.

Turcomans, 111.

Turkestan, 116.

Turkey, 289, 334, 308.

Turks, 137.

Tyaneus, Apollonius, 59.

Tyre, 162.

Tyropæon, 29.

Tzaddik, 325, 334.

U.

Ukraine, 289.

United States, 373.

Urban VI., Pope, 202.

Ustazades, 67.

Utrecht, 220.

Uziel, Isaac, 299.

V.

Valencia, 217, 240.

Valens, Emperor, 71.

Valentinian, Emperor, 71.

Valladolid, 231, 232.

Valori, 256 _n._

Vandals, 96.

Van Ende, Physician, 295.

Varanes (Behram), King of Persia, 86.

Varus, 26.

Vaughan, General, 347.

Venice, 222, 258, 305.

Vera, Juan de, 175.

Verdun, 191.

Verona, 222, 258.

Vespasian, Emperor, 28, 29, 39.

Vienna, 272, 290.

” Council at, 169.

Villars, M., 301.

Virga, Solomon ben, 250.

Virgin Mary, 116.

Visigoths, 100.

Vitellius, Emperor, 29.

” Prefect, 21.

Vitringa, 290.

Vitry, 192.

Voltaire, 321, 326.

Vorburg, 295.

Vossius, T., 284.

W.

Wallachia, 333.

Walsingham, 166.

Wamba, King of Goths, 103.

” ”, Languedoc, 105.

Wathek, Al, 110.

Wellington, Duke of, 349.

Wenceslaus, Emperor, 209.

Wessely, 337.

Westphalia, 290.

Whately, Archbishop, 351.

William I., King of England, 133.

” II. ” ”, 133, 148.

William III., King of England, 304.

Wilna, 333.

Witiza, King of Goths, 103, 104.

Wolfsohn, 337 _n._

Worms, 141, 286.

X.

Ximenes, Cardinal, 261.

Y.

Yemen, 92, 376.

Yermouk, 95.

Yezdegird, King of Persia, 91, 94.

York, 134, 150, 275.

Yusef, Emir, 112.

” King, 133 _n._

Z.

Zacchæus, 161.

Zacchai, David, 129.

Zacharias, Bishop of Jerusalem, 87.

” False Messiah, 177.

” Rabbi, 288.

” Russian Jew, 273.

Zamora, Council at, 212.

Zarephath, 340 _n._

Zealots, 26, 30, 31.

Zebedee, Pharisee, 288.

Zedekias, Physician, 126.

Zeigler, Rabbi, 292.

Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, 60.

Zion, Mount, 29.

Zoffingen, 205.

Zohar, Book of, 54, 332 _n._, Appendix III.

Zonaras, 72.

Zoroaster, 69 _n._

Zosimus, 273.

Zunz, Leopold, 363.

Zutia, 85 _n._

Zutphen, 219.

Transcriber’s Notes

pg 1 Changed spelling of Chrosroes 79 to: Chosroes

pg 2 Changed spelling of Sepher-Yetsira to: Yetzira

pg 392 Changed spelling of Sepher-Yetsira to: Sepher-Yetzira

pg 19 Added word intelligent not be: not to be

pg 19 Added period to: evasion of her claims

pg 49 Combined words strong and holds to: into their strongholds

pg 50 Changed comma to period at: tenanted the streets

pg 57 Added period to: A.D 429

pg 63 Changed comma to period after: demand his submission

pg 71 Changed chapter heading dates from 365-429 to: 363-429

pg 89 Changed spelling of illustrous to: illustrious tribe of the

Koreish

pg 109 Removed repeated word of from: Gospels, of of the length

pg 110 Changed one of the Abbasside Caliphs to: Abasside

pg 126 Added comma to: refused an audience

pg 133 Changed Yusef, king of the Almorarides to: Almoravides

pg 146 Added period to: with by the government

pg 153 Changed conciliate their good-will to: goodwill

pg 155 Changed comma to period after: Tale of Alroy

pg 162 Fixed spacing for: difficult tor econcile to: to reconcile

pg 172 Removed unnecessary comma from: A.D. 1233

pg 200 Changed word eat to seat at: occupation of the eat

pg 203 Added The Jews in to chapter heading

pg 206 Changed privy to and articipators to: participators

pg 207 Added period to: punishing the offenders

pg 228 Added period to: other Christian States

pg 238 Changed spelling of considering the irreconcileable to:

irreconcilable

pg 262 Changed spelling of: aterwards returned to his to: afterwards

pg 291 Changed lay in a lifelong to: life-long

pg 300 Changed spelling of: already rcorded to: recorded

pg 302 Changed advantage to grant re-admission to: readmission

pg 307 Added period to: attained a great reputation

pg 314 Added period to: among the transgressors

pg 337 Changed , to semicolon at: professor at Breslau

pg 345 Added period to: this unfortunate measure

pg 347 Added period to: part in Jewish affairs

pg 357 Changed scarcely more that a year to: than

pg 363 Changed spelling full rights of citzenship to: citizenship

pg 367 Changed wanted it except or to: for

pg 373 Changed free schools, alms-houses to: almshouses

pg 383 Added period to: amount to 600,000

pg 404 Changed spelling of: On one occassion to: occasion

pg 407 Changed spelling of Bokkara to: Bokhara to match pg 376

pg 407 Changed spelling of Alkikoran, 128 to: Alkihoran

Added missing punctuation where needed in the Index

Various accented and non-accented words left as written

Added word The to various chapter headings