RELIGION, EDUCATION, AND MORALS AMONG THE GALILEANS.

WE come now to speak of the religious character of the Galileans, with which may be associated the kindred topics of morals and education. On these points we would not presume to speak, except after the most careful study. It is a most difficult matter to separate the Galileans from the people of Judaea, and say that they possessed this or that characteristic, in distinction from the latter. Still, there is evidence to enable us to do this to some extent; at least, it can be shown that the Galileans were equally interested with the Judaeans in all matters pertaining to education and religion. Indeed, in some respects, the advantage in regard to religion and morals will be found to be on the side of the Galileans. The impression is often given that away from the Temple, in the far northern province, ignorance and irreligion prevailed. The statement is made that 'they manifested less aversion to the religion and manners of the heathen than the people of the south, and less zeal for the religion of Moses¹.' Also, that ' from their heathen neighbours the Galileans imbibed all sorts of superstitions. Nowhere else were there so many persons possessed and plagued with evil spirits as in Galilee; since the Galilean narrow-mindedness ascribed all forms of disease to the influence of demons².' Their religious character is further described as a singular mixture of faith and superstition. It is supposed that before the destruction of Jerusalem this province was especially poor in regard to means for disseminating knowledge (understand, knowledge of the law of Moses, the only thing which 'knowledge ' meant to the Jews), and on this account' the Galileans were stricter and more tenacious in regard to customs and morals ' than the people of the south. Neubauer tells us that, on account of the picturesque scenery and delightful climate of Galilee, the mind, away from the influence of the religious formalism which existed in Jerusalem, would naturally devote itself, more to parables and legends. This writer goes so far as to state that ' this province possessed no wise men, still less a school' for which, however, he gives no authority.

We are not prepared to accept these statements, nor any one of them, as final in this matter. The first two, those of Graetz and Munk, are decidedly wrong. But since, among the Jews, 'education' meant merely education in religion, the two naturally blend together in our treatment of them. That passage in Josephus is very significant which states that during the reign of Queen Alexandra (B.C. 79-70, or 78-69) the Pharisees rose to power — 'a sect reputed to excel all others in the accurate explanation of the laws.' This means no less than that there was, at that time, a revival of Biblical study. At the death of Herod the Great we hear of two celebrated teachers, Judas and Matthias, whose 'explanation of the laws many young men attended.' But they do not appear to have taught in any special school, nor to have belonged to any organised school system whatever. The famous Hillel was not trained for a teacher; but he began to teach, and the result proved his natural fitness for that work. Neither Hillel nor Gamaliel, the teacher of young Saul, belonged to any college, seminary, or other institution of learning, i. e. in our meaning of those words. There could not be a school system where instructors (here the Rabbis) were not allowed to receive pay for their labour. Whoever understood the law thoroughly, and had facility in explaining it, provided he chose to teach, was regarded as 'a learned man ' — a Rabbi. With regard to schools and public instruction among the Jews, the Talmud is inclined, we think, to ascribe too great antiquity to the Rabbinical school system, which was developed and existed only long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and to give the impression that the systematic public instruction and training of youth prevailed long before the beginning of our era. Dr. Ginsburg³ gives too much weight to these statements of the Talmud, and thus misrepresents, unintentionally no doubt, the real state of the case at the time of Christ. In Christ's time there were no schools which it was necessary to have attended, or at which it was necessary to have graduated, in order to be regarded as a learned man. The only schools were those connected with the synagogues. The only school-book was the Hebrew Scriptures. A synagogue presupposed a school, just as in our country a church presupposes a Sunday-school. Church and district-school is not a parallel to the Jewish system of things, but church and Sunday-school is. Synagogues were found in every city throughout the land, and also in every village, unless the place was insignificant in size; and even in such cases they had their place or places of prayer. At one time Tiberias boasted of thirteen synagogues, and Jerusalem of four hundred and eighty.

The method in the schools, so far as there was any, was nearly as follows: Questions were asked and answered, opinions stated and discussed, and illustrations proposed in the form of allegories, aphorisms, or parables; corresponding, perhaps, as much as anything modern, to our adult Bible-classes⁴. In the training of boys much responsibility and labour devolved upon the father. The boy was afterwards sent to these Bible class meetings, which constituted the schools of the land, and which existed wherever there was a synagogue. Philo says: 'What else are the synagogues than schools of piety and virtue? ' Hausrath calls them ' the true schools of the nation.' Jerusalem, as the metropolis of the nation, would no doubt exert, in many respects, a dominant influence. The most eminent teachers would naturally go there, as in the case of Hillel and Gamaliel. But Sepphoris and Tiberias, the capitals in succession of Galilee, would have their eminent teachers as well; whilst every town and village might boast of its learned men — its local Rabbis or Rabbi. How often it is said that Christ went through all the cities and villages of Galilee, teaching in the schools or synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom⁵! Again, on a certain occasion in Capernaum, 'there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, who were come out of every town (κώμη) of Galilee and Judaea and Jerusalem⁶.' Sometimes the learned men of the south and the north would visit each other for friendly intercourse, when, according to Keim, they were treated with respect by the people, and given the places of honour in the synagogues. The Scribes of the south would also visit the north to watch Christ; not to see if the law was fulfilled, but to see if their traditions were violated⁷.

The Talmud charges the Galileans with neglecting tradition⁸, and the passages in the Gospels just referred to show that there was some ground for such a charge in Christ's time. Further, this charge and the visits of the Jerusalem doctors just referred to, both show that while Jerusalem, where were the Temple and the Sanhedrin, exercised a dominant influence in reference to matters of religion, yet the Galileans were in a measure independent of it in this respect. A just distinction to make is this: that in Jerusalem were the champions of tradition, and in Galilee the champions of the law. Adherence to the strict letter of the law may be regarded as a prominent characteristic of the learned men of Galilee, in distinction from those of Jerusalem⁹. In Jerusalem novelties were introduced and changes made, according to emergencies, and sometimes licenses allowed, in regard to religious and other usages, which would not be tolerated in Galilee.

If we may refer to Christ in this connection, perhaps the remarks just made will be illustrated by His wonderful familiarity with the Scriptures, His great regard for the law, and His contempt for tradition. The Scribes and learned men of Galilee, so far as we can judge, were familiar with the law; worship in the synagogues was strictly maintained; and there appears to have existed here a freer and healthier and religious life than in the south. Among the different sects in Jerusalem Christ met with an atmosphere that was cheerless and dismal. In the freer north, far away from the bleak home of priests and Levites, there was a people less -under the influence of the 'straiter' sects, less hardened and narrowed by the dogmatic systems which prevailed in the holy city; among which people Christ for the most part found a welcome. Without seeking to draw too sharp a distinction between the people of Galilee and those of Judaea, it is no doubt true that the former lacked the narrow prejudices of the latter towards the people of other nations; for, to mention a single instance, it is a worthy son of the north who, at Joppa, in a wonderful vision, first learns and teaches to his countrymen that great lesson of the Master, that the Gentiles, as well as themselves, may share in the new gospel of the grace of God¹⁰ And, in general, the influences in Galilee tended to develop and enlarge the national mind and character, while those in Judaea tended to contract and dwarf the same. The peasants and shepherds on the rather poor uplands of Judaea are spoken of as ignorant and narrow — the slavish tools of the priesthood of Jerusalem —the fuel easily kindled into 'uproars of the people¹¹' In Josephus, Wars, IV. iii. 8, a case is mentioned where brigands 'drag a. rustic from the country' who ' scarcely knew what the high-priesthood meant,' for the purpose of making him high-priest.

In regard to the violation of the laws pertaining to marriage, public sentiment seems to have been a unit throughout the land. The case of Antipas and John the Baptist furnishes an illustration. The custom of the Jews was a peculiar one: a man who did not marry a deceased brother's widow in case there had been no children, was a criminal; but such marriage, in case there had been children, was itself criminal! Again, a man might divorce his wife; but if a wife divorced her husband it was a public abomination! Herodias divorced herself from Herod Philip (not the tetrarch), 'confounding the laws of our country.' Archelaus also scandalised the nation by marrying his brother's widow, when she had children by her first husband. Also, that morbid sensitiveness of the Jews in regard to images and statues was shared in by the people of the whole country alike. The people of Tiberias, when Caius wanted his statue put up in the Temple, 'stretched out their throats, and were ready to die;' 'they left off tilling the ground;' and ' the land remained unsown.' Several particulars, however, are mentioned in regard to morals and certain other things which show a greater degree of strictness in Galilee than in Judaea. For instance, the great care of the Galileans was for reputation, while the Judaeans cared less for reputation, and more for money. We regard this statement as all the more significant, because it was made by the ancient Rabbis themselves. Also, as to labouring on Passover eves, some synagogical rites, devoting goods directly to God, and not to the priests, funeral customs, provision for widows, marriages being celebrated with decorum, a spirit of charity or benevolence, and as to regulations in regard to the intercourse of betrothed persons — in all these respects, greater strictness is conceded to the Galileans.

That the Galileans 'manifested less zeal for the religion of Moses' than the people of the south, we have shown to be incorrect. Rather the contrary was true. The statement that they imbibed all sorts of superstitions from their heathen neighbours, as 'possession of devils' and the like, has not the slightest evidence in its support, either in Josephus or the New Testament. The statement stands as an assertion without proof. As to 'means for disseminating a knowledge of the law' Galilee was as well provided as Judaea; aside, perhaps, from certain eminent teachers in Jerusalem, with whom, however, it is not possible that all the learned men of Christ's time could have studied. Still, it is said that they were less 'sensitive to heathen influences,' and that a ' heathen city like Tiberias would not have been tolerated in Judaea.' The facts will not justify these assertions. There were theatres and amphitheatres in many of the large cities of the country. In the splendid theatre and the vast amphitheatre at Jerusalem were enacted all the games that were known in Italy or Greece, while Tiberias, so far as we know, had only a stadium, or racecourse. If by being 'less sensitive to heathen influences ' is meant that, apart from religious ideas, the commercial and social ideas of the Galileans were broadened and benefited by their intercourse with surrounding nations, then the statement is true. Such a result was produced by that intercourse.

As to the influence of the morals of the rulers on those of the people, there are but few data from which to judge. Alexandra, Hyrcanus' daughter, seems to have been destitute of principle in her attempt to administer by her beautiful children, Aristobulus and Mariamne, to the lust of Antony, of whom she wanted some favour. As to Herod the Great, whatever else may have been his crimes, he could never be charged with either lust or intemperance. Herod Philip was a man of whose morals no ill could be said. Archelaus' reign was short. Under the Romans, from A.D. 7 to 66, Judaea, as we have seen, suffered. in every way. Herod Antipas was neither lustful nor intemperate. His act in marrying Herodias (a violation of the law, because she had a child by her first husband, Antipas' brother) was universally condemned, and by no means imitated by his subjects. To the credit of both Herodias and Antipas, it should be said that they loved each other truly, and when Antipas was banished, and Herodias might have lived in ease in Rome or Judaea, she chose to follow her husband into exile — an act which, if people were not prejudiced against her, would be spoken of as noble.

In addition to what has been said, we are to consider: 1. That Christ was, as a rule, well received in Galilee; 2. That John the Baptist had here a strong party of adherents; 3. That this was the home of Judas, the founder of the sect of the Galileans. Although he founded his sect in Jerusalem, he is mentioned in the New Testament only in Acts v. 37; his rallying theme was, that God alone was Master; paying tribute to the Romans was slavery; they were 'not to bow to mortals as their masters.' Graetz¹² says of this Judas that 'in consequence of his life and deeds the masters of the world had so much more trouble to subdue the small Jewish people than they did to subdue the great nations of Europe.' This man's moral character cannot be impugned; he was a Puritan of the strictest school; the platform of his sect or party looked well on paper, — a grand idea about which to rally, but it was thoroughly impracticable in those unfortunate times; 4. That this was the home, also, of Eleazar, the missionary to Adiabene and the court of Izates. This man ' was very skilful in the learning of his country.' His words, 'not only to read the law, but to practise it,' represent the thorough style of his teaching. He seems to have been zealous, familiar with the law, skilful and eloquent in presenting his views; and perhaps we have a right to regard him as a representative man of Galilee.

Again, we hold the opinion that the Sermon on the Mount, whether regarded as one discourse, or as the substance of many discourses, could not have been preached in Judaea — at the beginning of Christ's ministry, at least — considering the fact that Jerusalem was the hot-bed of tradition, and considering, also, the excited state of the public mind there, wild as it was with dreams of the coming Messiah. The sermon presupposes the ability, and also a willingness, on the part of the listeners, to look beyond tradition and the mere letter of the law, to a somewhat new and enlarged application of old sayings and truths. Such a state of mind would not be looked for in Judaea at that time; but we should expect just that in the region of Capernaum.

On the general character of the people of Judaea as distinguished from those of Galilee, and how easily they were misled by false Messiahs — strange proceedings such as were never reported from Galilee — see passage in Hausrath¹³. It would have been difficult for Christ to have planted Himself in Judaea.

1) Munk, p. 33, col. i.

2) Graetz, III. p. 395. F 2

3) In art. 'Education,' in Kitto's Cyclopedia Bib. Lit., I. p. 729.

4) Luke ii. 46; xx. 2-4; see Matt. xxii. 17-22.

5) Matt. ix. 35, and many other places.

6) Luke v. 17.

7) Matt. xvi.; Mark vii.

8) Neubauer, p. 183.

9) Matt. v. 17, 18.

10) Acts x.

11) Matt. xxvi. s,.

12) Sinai et Golgotha, Paris, 1867, p. 267.

13) Neutcstamcntliche Zeitgeschichte, I. pp. 41, 42.