Encyclopaedia Biblica/Jesui-Job

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Jesui-Job
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

Contents

JESUI[edit]

(M^), Nu. 2644; Jesuite (^H), ibid. See ISHVI.

JESURUN[edit]

(l-WI), Is. 442, RV JESHURUN (q.v.).

JESUS[edit]

(iHCOyc [BAL]), the Greek form of JOSHUA and JESHUA.

1. See JOSHUA [i.].

2. i Esd. 5 11 = Ezra 26, JESHUAH., 2.

3. i Esd. 863 RV = Ezra 833, JESHUA ii., 3.

4. Ecclus. 49 12 etc. See JESHUA ii., 5.

5. i Esd. 524 = Ezra236, JESHUA ii.,6.

6. i Esd. 626 RV = Ezra 240, JESHUA ii., 7.

7. Father of Sirach. See ECCLESIASTICUS, 2.

8. Son of Sirach. See ECCLESIASTICUS, 2.

9. A name in the genealogy of Jesus, Lk. 3 29 (AV JOSE). See GENEALOGIES ii., $/.

10. See JUSTUS.

JESUS[edit]

  • Sources, 1-4.
  • Primitive Tradition, 5-8
  • Preaching Ministry, 9-10.
  • Teaching, 11-18.
  • Healing Ministry, 19-21.
  • Conflicts with Judaism, 22-25
  • Messianic Ideal, 26-27,
  • Passion Week, 28-31
  • The Future, 32-33
  • Literature, 34.

1. Summary.[edit]

Jesus Christ, the author and object of the Christian faith, a Jew by race, was born in Palestine towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great (CHRONOLOGY, $ 7 /.). The home of his childhood was NAZARETH, a town in the lower division of the province of GALILEE ( 5). The family to which he belonged was of humble estate. In early youth he worked at a handicraft (see JOSEPH [husband of Mary], 9). On arriving at mature manhood he became a public teacher, rapidly gained fame, gathered about him disciples, offended the ruling classes by free criticism of the prevailing religion, and ended a brief but extraordinary career by suffering crucifixion.

2. Sources.[edit]

This short summary of facts is taken from those books in the NT which bear the name of Gospels, and are our main source of information for the history of Jesus. These documents are of varying value from a historical point of view. Critical opinion is much divided as to the fourth, that which bears the name of John, the judgment of many critics being that it is the least trustworthy as a source whether for the words or for the acts of Jesus. By comparison, the first three, from their resemblances called synoptical, are regarded by many as possessing a considerable measure of historical worth. But even these, from a critical point of view, are not of equal value, nor do the contents of any one of them possess a uniform degree of historic probability. They present to the critic a curious, interesting, and perplexing problem still far from final solution. By their re semblances and differences, agreements and disagree ments, they raise many questions as to origin, relative dates, and literary connections, which have called forth a multitude of conflicting hypotheses and a most ex tensive critical literature. In the present state of the inquiry a dogmatic tone is inadmissible. All that one may do with propriety is to indicate what he regards as the most plausible opinion. We are concerned with the question here only in as far as is necessary to explain and justify the method on which the public life of Jesus is dealt with in this article.

1 See Sanday, Hampton Lectures for 1893, p. 280.

3. Mark (and Luke).[edit]

We may regard Mk. as the oldest of the synoptical Gospels, and in its leading contents the nearest to the primitive tradition. In its present form, or in an earlier shape, it appears to have been the main source of the narrative parts of the other two Gospels. In many sections the style is suggestive of an eye-witness, so as to make the reader feel that he is in contact with the ultimate source of the evangelic tradition, the oral narratives of the companions of Jesus. As reported by Eusebius (HE 839), Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, writing about 125 A. D. , described Mark as the interpreter (ep/i^veuri^s) of Peter, which probably means that he helped the apostle to put what he had to say into Greek or Latin. 1 Internal evidence supports the hypothesis of such a connection between much of the material in the second Gospel and one of the men who had been with Jesus, and with none of them more probably than with Peter as he is represented in the evangelic tradition. This Gospel is full of realisms. Its graphic style has often been remarked on. But it is not a question of merely pictorial narrative. The phenomena to be noted are descriptions to the life, vivid presentations of a striking personality, words and acts reported just as they must have been said and done, because they had impressed themselves indelibly on the ear and eye of the reporter. What specially makes for the hypothesis of an eye-witness, and generally for the primitive character of Mk. s reports, is the disregard manifest in them of conventional considera tions of the fitting and edifying. The influence of such considerations is traceable in the other two Synoptists, especially in Lk. In the third Gospel Jesus is the Lord (about a dozen times so named in narrative where Mt. and Mk. have Jesus), and it is never for a moment forgotten what religious decorum demands in recording the words and acts of so august a person age. For this Lk. may in part be personally re sponsible, but probably not altogether. The decorum of his narrative reflects the reverence of the early church for its risen and exalted Head, the writer s deference thereto showing itself in the omission of some things reported in the primitive tradition and in the putting of other things in a modified way. This reverence and its controlling influence would grow with time. The absence of that influence from Mk. s narrative as evinced by the realism, of which examples will be given as we proceed, is an index at once of antiquity and of first - hand sources of information. Peter doubt less shared the reverence of the church for its Lord. But Peter had seen and heard, and the vivid sense of the unique reality overpowered all considerations of what was becoming, such as might naturally weigh with those who had not seen or heard but drew their in formation mainly from documents. And so we see in Mk. , containing, according to Papias, the report of Peter s recollections, the real man Jesus, without the aureole of faith around his head, yet with a glory of truth, wisdom, and goodness the better seen on that very account.

4. Matthew (and Luke).[edit]

The informant who tells of Mark's connection with Peter says, also, that Matthew wrote a book of Logia < X6<y a ffwe ypW*> Eus. #-839). Most modern critics treat this statement with respect : but few identify the Logia of Papias, written (as he states) in the Hebrew tongue, with our Canonical Mt. , even to the extent of seeing in the latter a simple translation into Greek of the Hebrew original. The prevailing and intrinsically reasonable opinion is that the book of the publican apostle was the source whence the author of our Mt. drew the words or discourses of Jesus so amply reported in his Gospel. He, and also the author of Lk. ; for in the didactic ele ment there is much common to the first Gospel and the third, though the latter contains a considerable amount of peculiar material which may have been derived from a different source. The common matter is given in such varied forms and connections in the two Gospels as to suggest either various redactions of the source or very free use by one or both Evangelists. How variations might arise is easily conceivable. Collections of the words of Jesus were not made in a purely historical or antiquarian spirit. They met the demand of disciples for Christian instruction, for words of the Master by which they might guide their lives. The practical aim would influence the form and the collection of the Logia as used by preachers and catechists. The words of the Lord Jesus would almost involuntarily undergo modification to suit actual circumstances. This process has gone farthest in Lk. Besides the influence of decorum already touched upon, we note in Lk. s report of the words of Jesus, as compared with Mt. s, a certain indifference to the historical setting, to the actual cir cumstances under which and with reference to which Jesus spoke, a disregard of the religious antitheses of the time, and a translation of the sayings into terms, and an ideal transposition to a time, which fit them for the present use of the Church. The Sermon on the Mount in Lk.'s report is virtually a discourse of the exalted Lord to a Christian congregation, edited either by the Evangelist or by another in that view. Having regard to this broad contrast between the first Gospel and the third, we can have no difficulty in giving to the former the preference as to comparative originality. Neither may give the ipsissima verba; but on the whole Mt. comes nearer them than Lk.

5. Primitive tradition.[edit]

From the foregoing statement it follows that the narratives common to Mt. , Mk. , and Lk. , and the discourses common to Mt. and Lk., may with a considerable measure of confidence be regarded as a trustworthy tradition concerning the ministry of Jesus. They represent the oldest, comparatively primitive, tradition, and as such must form the basis of a statement concerning that ministry professing to be guided by a critical method. They relate exclusively to the public life, passing over in silence almost unbroken the childhood and early youth.

6. John the Baptist.[edit]

According to this primitive tradition, the public career of Jesus began when another remarkable man was performing the part of a prophet in the wilderness of Judaea : a man of austere ascetic life, symbolising the severity of his attitude as a moral critic of his time ; preaching to all classes the necessity of repentance, and baptizing in the Jordan such as received his message as the voice of God hence known as the Baptist (see ISRAEL, 92). Jesus came from Nazareth (Mk. lg) to see and hear John, and, like the others, received baptism at his hands (see JORDAN, 2), a fact stated by Mk. without note or comment, by Mt. in a way implying that it needed ex planation, by Lk. (in a participial clause) as a sub ordinate incident. Expositors and theologians have endeavoured to explain the significance of this event. It meant this at least : that Jesus felt a deep sympathetic interest in John s work. The visit to the Jordan helps us to look back into the silences of Nazareth ; it is a window into the mind of Jesus. John, we gather, was a great man for him. So he confessed at a subsequent time (Mt. 11 u), and what he said then shows what he had thought before he left the seclusion of Nazareth. To be baptized by such a man was a suitable start for his own ministry. It was a public intimation of moral solidarity. How far his tendencies, methods, and habits agreed with or differed from those of the prophet of the wilderness would appear in due course ; it was well, to begin with, that fundamental sympathy should be at once made manifest.

7. The 'Temptation'.[edit]

How long Jesus remained in the region environing the lower part of the Jordan and the Dead Sea is uncertain. Mk. states that he returned to Galilee after John had been delivered up (that is, thrown into prison by Herod, tetrarch of Galilee : see Mk. 614-29). All three Synoptists make mention of a retirement into the remoter inhospitable wilderness of Judaea, and of an experience of moral trial there, familiarly known as the Temptation. The bare fact (intrinsically credible) is stated by Mk. , without the symbolic representation given in the parallel accounts ; but the impulse to this withdrawal into solitude is very realistically described by him, as a being driven by the Spirit into the desert (Ii2), which, as external force is not to be thought of, speaks of intense mental preoccupation.

1 We might say the exclusive theatre, were it not for a few incidents connected with the final journey to Jerusalem through Peraea (little children brought to Jesus, man seeking eternal life with relative conversation, two sons of Zebedee, blind man at Jericho). Mk. makes Jesus teach multitudes in Peraea(lOi); Mt. makes him heal (19 2). There are rudimentary indications of a Samaritan ministry in Lk. (in the long insertion 9:51-18:14). The fourth Gospel makes Jerusalem and Judaea the main scene of the activity of Jesus. The Synoptists know only of one visit to Jerusalem-that during which he was crucified. How long the ministry lasted we can only conjecture. There is no chronology in the evangelic tradition. (See further, CHRONOLOGY, 447^)

8. Public career.[edit]

At length Jesus, with clarified vision and confirmed will, returned to Galilee, the main theatre of his future work as we know it from the oldest tradition, l there to enter on activities which have won for him a unique place in the history of the world. It does not clearly appear from Mk. whether he chose any particular spot as the centre from which his activity was to radiate. It is certain that Nazareth was no such centre. With the exception of an occasional visit, his native town (but see NAZARETH) was henceforth forsaken for other scenes more suitable or more sympathetic. Among these a prominent place belongs to Capernaum, a thriving populous town on the shore of the lake of Galilee.

The public ministry of Jesus presents four broad aspects :

  • (1) a preaching ministry among the people at large;
  • (2) a teaching ministry among disciples;
  • (3) a healing ministry ;
  • (4) a prophetic or critical ministry antagonistic to current conceptions and embodiments of righteousness.

9. Preaching.[edit]

i. The chief scene of the first form of ministry, the Kripvy/j.a, was the synagogue. On his way northwards from the Jordan Jesus at length arrived at Capernaum, and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught 2 (Mk. 121). Shortly thereafter he set out on a preaching tour through the towns of Galilee (139). Here one of Mk. s realisms occurs. Jesus appears in his narrative making a flight from Capernaum in the grey dawn while all are asleep, possibly a flight from the unexpected reality into which his ideal conception of his calling had brought him (Holtzmann, Handcomm. zum NT), certainly an escape from sudden entangling popularity to similar service elsewhere. For this end I left (Capernaum), said Jesus simply, in self-defence, to disciples who had pursued him (138), In Lk.'s version flight is eliminated, and a reference to his divine mission is substituted for an apology for flight (443).

Of this synagogue -ministry no detailed record has been preserved. Not a single specimen of the brief striking synagogue addresses of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels at least there is none under that name : it is possible that some discourses e.g. , the beautiful exhortation against earthly care (Mt. 6:25-34 Lk. 12:22-34) assigned to other occasions were really delivered in synagogues. Lk. has given us the text, and a general characterisation, of one synagogue address that delivered in Nazareth (418-22). If, as without sufficient reason some suspect, his account be unhistorical, it is, to say the least, a felicitous invention. The text from the Book of Isaiah (61 if.) is thoroughly typical of the religious attitude and spirit of Jesus, and the expression words of grace (\6yois TTJS xdptros) is doubtless most apt, whether we take it as applying to the manner or to the substance of the discourse. Lk. s account of the appearance of Jesus in the synagogue of Nazareth is meant, and it is fit, to be a symbolic programme of his whole preaching ministry. Mk. s contribution to the characterisation of the synagogue-tierugma is a report of the impression made by what was probably the first appearance of Jesus as a speaker in a synagogue, that in Capernaum. They exclaimed, he tells (127), What is this, a new doctrine (StSa^T?)? and he explains that the novelty was that Jesus spake not as the scribes, who appealed to authorities, but as himself having authority : with the confidence of personal insight and with the authority of self-evidencing truth.

1 f&i$a<rKev. The use of this word shows that the evangelist did not distinguish between the two forms of ministry so sharply as has been done above. Mt. uses both words (SiSa.a-K(av Kai Kripvcra-uiv 423) to describe the synagogue ministry. So Mk. uses Ki\pva cT<av in 1 39.

Mk. makes a general preliminary statement about the preaching ministry in Galilee which may be viewed as covering the synagogue preaching : Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : re pent ye, and believe in the Gospel (1 14 f. ). Hence it may be inferred that the constant theme of the kerugma was the kingdom of God, that the kingdom was presented as a boon rather than as a demand ; as good news (euo-yy^Xioc) not as awful news the aspect under which it appeared in the preaching of John ; and that the summons of the preacher was not merely to repentance, but above all to faith i.e. , make the good news welcome. The statement is summary, and its language may be secondary, coloured somewhat by the dialect of a later time ; but even in that case we are not left without a clue to the general tenor of Jesus popular discourses. We might gather it from a saying whose authenticity is as certain as its im port is significant : I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Mk. 2 17 Mt. 9 13 Lk. 632). The value of this declaration lies in this, that, whilst spoken with reference to a particular occasion, it indicates a habitual attitude, a fixed policy. Jesus addressed himself by preference to those who could not be regarded as in the conventional sense exemplary. The chosen audience reflects light on the nature of the message. It was good tidings even ,to the ignorant, the erring, the fallen, the outcast, hint ing that the past might be forgiven and forgotten, and that the future offered great possibilities. What hope- inspiring ideas of God and man and their relations underlay such teaching ! l The occasion on which the saying was uttered also throws a contributory light on the nature of the Galilean Gospel. Jesus had been eating with publicans and sinners, and was on his defence for that act. In this connection the term call must bear the special sense of an invitation to an entertainment. Lk. s gloss to repentance restricts and even obscures the meaning. The kingdom, as Jesus preached it, was a feast, and his call was a generous invitation to come and enjoy its good things.

10. Parables.[edit]

In his popular addresses Jesus would make free use of parables. He spoke in parables to all classes, but especially to the people. 'Without parable he was not wont to speak to them' (Mk. 434). And of course the aim of the parabolic method of instruction, in as far as it had a conscious aim and was not the spontaneous outcome of natural genius, was to popularise the truths of religion : simplification with a view to enlightenment. In the conversation between Jesus and his disciples after the utterance of the parable of the sower, as reported by all the Synoptists, an opposite purpose, that of keeping the people in darkness, seems to be avowed by the preacher. It is not credible, however, that Jesus would either cherish or avow such an inhuman intention, though it is credible that in the bitterness of his disappointment at the meagre fruit of his popular ministry he might express himself in a way that might be misunderstood, on the principle of reading intention in the light of result. 2 None of the parables preserved in the Gospels is expressly connected with synagogue addresses, with the doubtful exception of the mustard seed and the leaven (Lk. 13i8-2i, cp v. 10). The treasure and the pearl (Mt. 1844-46) may be a pair of parabolic gems (setting forth the absolute worth of the kingdom of heaven) whose original setting was in such an address ; and the exquisite parables concerning the pleasure of finding things lost (Mt. 1812-14 Lk. 15) may have been first uttered on a similar occasion, unless we suppose that the original place of these parables was in an address to the publicans gathered together in the house of Matthew (Mk. 215-17, and parallels). The collection of parabolic utterances preserved in the Gospels is so large and varied that there is little room for complaint that it is not still larger ; yet one cannot but reflect what a rich addition to the evangelic memorabilia a -verbatim report of the parables spoken on the Galilean preaching tour would have been.

1 That_/Siz/4 occupied a prominent place in the religious idea of Jesus appears from the incidents of the centurion (Mt. 8 5-13), the woman with an issue (Mk. 625-34 a "d parallels), and the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk. 724-30 Mt. 1521-28). See FAITH.

2 On this, see Jiilicher, Die Gleichnissredenjesu, 131-149 ; also Einl. i. d. NT, 228.

11. Teaching.[edit]

2. The teaching (SiSa.X h) or instruction given to disciples (/Mi&r)Tai). That Jesus aimed at gathering about him a circle of disciples who should be constantly, or at least much, in his company is one of the most certain data of the primitive tradition. He began the process of selection very early (Mk. 1 16-20 Mt. 418-22), having some disciples to accompany him on his first Galilean preaching tour. He meant to make the selected ones or at least the inner circle of them in his own happy, unfor- getable phrase, fishers of men, a playful allusion to the secular occupation of those first chosen. The aim involved, of course, special instruction, and that de manded leisure. The desire of Jesus to get leisure for uninterrupted intercourse with his disciples, and rnore particularly with the body of twelve which, according to the testimony of all the evangelists, he formed out of a larger company of followers, is specially apparent in Mk. Through his preaching and healing ministries, the fame of Jesus rapidly rose to such a pitch that wherever he went large masses of people gathered round him, masses too large for any synagogue to hold, so that perforce he had to become a street or field preacher. The work was not uncongenial ; but, in the tropical climate of the lake shore, it was fatiguing, and withal it was unsatisfactory. Much sowing, little fruit : such was the feeling of the preacher, as expressed in the parable of the Sower, which is a critical review of the early Galilean ministry. Unwearied in well doing, Jesus yet began to feel with increasing depth of conviction that, if anything was to come of his labours, he must find time and opportunity for careful initiation of the few more intelligent and susceptible hearers, that continuing in his word they might become disciples indeed, and by insight into truth become enlightened, free, and apt to teach others. Mk. more than any other evangelist shows Jesus making repeated earnest efforts in this direction, fleeing from the crowd, as it were, in quest of rest and leisure for the higher work. The ascent to the hill-top (813) was such a flight. The voyage towards the eastern shore on the day of the parabolic discourse from a boat was another. The un disguised manner in which Mk. allows this to appear in his narrative is a good instance of his realism : They [the disciples] take him with them, as he was in the ship ( 4 36) , sine apparatu ( Bengel ) and sine mora. Here was flight along the only line of retreat, the shore being besieged by the vast crowd, and not easy even along that line, some of the people having got into boats to be nearer the speaker (436). The voyage towards Bethsaida at the north-western corner of the lake, after the return of the twelve from their apprentice mission (632), was a third (unsuccessful) attempt at escape. The long excursions to the north, into the regions of Tyre and Sidon and Caesarea Philippi (724-37), were likewise flights, endeavours to escape both from friends and from foes ; more successful because taking the fugitives outside the boundaries of Israel, or into a borderland where Jesus and his work were comparatively unknown.

12. The 'teaching on the Hill'.[edit]

In connection with the first and the last of these retirements some of the most important parts of the didache of Jesus were communicated to his disciples. With the ascent to the hill is connected the great 'Sermon on the Mount' unreported by Mk., preserved by Mt. and Lk. in very diverse forms, yet withal so like as to leave no reason for doubt as to their identity. Which of the two reports comes nearest to the original, and whether both do not diverge therefrom widely in different directions, are questions which cannot be discussed here (see GOSPELS). The two points which we are concerned to emphasise are : ( i ) that the discourse was didache, disciple-instruction, possibly with none present but disciples, though that is not made clear in either narrative, and therefore might more appropriately be called The Teaching on the Hill than The Sermon on the Mount ; and (2) that this teaching was given during a season of leisure, probably lasting for days. The latter point has a most important bearing on the question of the unity of the discourse as given in Mt. If we assume that it was delivered all in one gush, and on a single theme say the antithesis between Pharisaic righteousness and the righteousness of the kingdom as conceived by Jesus then certain portions must be eliminated as irrelevant : e.g. , The Lord s Prayer (69-15) and the counsel against care (6 25-34). : But if the teach ing on the hill continued for days, with different themes for each day, then the unity must be understood in a wide sense, and Mt. s version of the sermon may be a substantially correct summary of what Jesus said on various topics not closely connected with one an other. 2

The teaching on the hill as reported in Mt. affords large insight into the thoughts of Jesus on the essentials of religion : God, man, the kingdom of God, the righteousness of God.

13. Idea of God.[edit]

Jesus taught no abstract doctrine concerning God, or indeed on any subject. He did not say, 'God must be thought of as Father', and then proceed to explain what the title meant. He simply used the new name and defined as he went along by discriminating use. The title Father is applied to God no less than fifteen times in the sermon, most suggestively, so as to ascribe to him by implication a universal and a special providence (545 632), benignant and magnanimous in its action, doing good even to the unthankful and the evil (645), a perfect ethical nature whose perfection consists in gracious unmerited love (5 46-48), a spirit delighting in mercy and ready to forgive, and desiring the same spirit to rule in the hearts of those who have the supreme honour to be called God s children (614/1), an eye that carefully notes the most secret devout acts of the sincere and humble worshipper (6:14-18), an ear that hears their prayers, and a heart that is inclined to grant all the good desired or needed (7:11).

That Jesus did not employ this new name for God simply under the instinctive guidance of a happy religious genius, but with full consciousness and deliberate pur pose, is intrinsically probable, and is attested by a remarkable word ascribed to him in the evangelic tra dition, and preserved in substantially the same terms in the first and third Gospels : No one knoweth the Son, save the Father ; neither knoweth any one the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal him (Mt. 1127 Lk. 1022). In view of the statement in Lk. s preface as to the method on which he compiled his Gospel, a sober criticism will not readily acquiesce in the theory that the passage in which this text is embedded is a free poetical composition by the evangelist in the spirit of Paulinism, and that it was borrowed from him by the author of the canonical Mt. writing at a later date. 3 It is much more probable that both evangelists found it in a common source containing a collection of the sayings of Jesus, either in the form which it assumes in extant MSS, or in that current among the agnostics : No one knew the Father save the Son, and the Son save the Father and he to whom the Son shall reveal. Under either form the Logion implies a peculiar relation, if not to God, at least to the con ception of God as Father, that of one who claimed to have given currency to the name.

The whole section Mt. 11:25-30 was probably a unity of which Lk. (10:21-22) for some reason gives only a fragment. In favour of this view is the resemblance it bears to the prayer of Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclus. 51), which, like it, begins with a prayer and ends with an invitation, in the name of wisdom, to come and receive instruction. This resemblance has been used as an argument against the genuineness of the Logion come unto me (Pfleiderer, Urchrist. 513). But it is perfectly conceivable that Jesus was acquainted with Sirach, and that his utterance was coloured by the language of its closing sentences. This view meets the objection taken to the Logion on the ground of the self-eulogy in some of its expressions (Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, 577-585). When he says, 'I am meek and lowly', Jesus of Nazareth speaks in the name of wisdom (one of his self-designations according to Resch, Agrapha, 273 f.), as the earlier Jesus had spoken before him.

1 So Weiss in his Matthaus-Evangeltum, and in his edition of Meyer s Comm. on Matthew.

2 This view is taken by Lutteroth (Essai d Interpreta tion de quelques parties de I Evangile selon saint Matthieu). He takes KaSCa-avTOs (5 i) in the sense of camping out (cam/>cr), pointing to Acts 18 n and Lk. 24 49 as instances of the use of the word in a kindred sense.

3 So Pfleiderer in Urchristenthum.

14. Idea of man.[edit]

Jesus taught his doctrine of man on the same method of incidental suggestion. He asserted the worth of of man by comparisons sometimes pathetically and even humorously understating the truth, in one instance sublimely adequate. A man is better, greater, of more worth to God, and to himself, thinking rightly, than a bird (Mt. 626), a sheep (Mt. 12 12), yea, than the whole world (Mk. 836). The truth implied is that the things compared are really incommensurable. It is a Hebrew way of asserting the ideal, absolute worth of humanity, a method applied in the Epistle to the Hebrews to Chris tianity, which is declared to be better in various respects than the Levitical religion, when what is meant is that it is the absolute, perfect, therefore eternal, religion. Man s incomparable dignity in the teaching of Jesus rests on the fact that he is a son of God, not merely a creature, whether small as a bird or great as a world ; a son indefeasibly, whether good or evil, just or unjust (Mt. 645). By this lofty conception of man s relation to God, rather than by expressed statement or laboured argument, Jesus brought immortality to light. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, he said (Mt. 2232). A fortiori he would have said: God is not the Father of the dead, but of the living.

13. Woman.[edit]

Not to be overlooked even in a summary statement of Christ's teaching concerning man is his assertion of the rights of woman, in connection with married relations (Mt. 5 3 i/., cp 19 3-9 Mk. 102-12). The Jewish doctors of the time for the most part accepted the old Hebrew notion of a wife as property bought and sold, and to be put away at the pleasure of her husband. But they were zealous to have the bill of divorcement (Dt. 24 1) in due form, that the woman might be able to show that she was free to marry again, and doubtless they flattered themselves that they were thereby defending the rights of women. Jesus asserted a more radical right of woman not to be put away, except when she put herself away by unfaithful ness. He thus raised anew the prophetic cry I hate putting away (Mai. 2i6). It was an act of humanity of inestimable value to the highest interests of the race, as well as an act of heroic courage.

14. Outcasts.[edit]

By his friendly relations with the publicans and sinners Jesus gave a practical and impressive expresion of his doctrine of man. The great social gathering of the outcasts in Capernaum (Mk. 2:15-17 and parallels) brought together by Levi or Matthew, called doubtless for that immediate local service, as well as for the ulterior wider service of the apostleship, was a concrete assertion of the great truth that a man at the worst is still a man, and a son of God, and that all superficial cleavages of race, descent, colour, occupation, or even character, are of small account in comparison with that which is common to all humanity, the soul.

The so-called feast in Levi s house cannot have been merely a private entertainment given by the newly called disciple to as many of his old comrades as his dining chamber would accom modate. All the evangelists say that there were many present. Lk. s expression is a great crowd (o^Aos iroAiis). The meeting was probably in the court around which the buildings of an eastern house of any size are arranged, and of the dimensions of a congregation rather than of a dinner party. Jesus was the prime mover in the matter, and Levi merely his agent. It was a deliberate attempt on Christ s part to get into personal contact with the social outcasts of Capernaum.

By these kindred ideas of God and man and their relations Jesus became inevitably the founder of a universal religion, however narrow the limits within which his own ministry was restricted. Those who, like Baur l and Weizsacker, have interpreted his teaching in a universal sense have most truly divined his inmost thoughts.

17. Kingdom of God.[edit]

In setting forth the summurn bonum as the kingdom of God Jesus poured his new wine into a very old linguistic skin. But that the wine, the idea connected with the phrase, was new, the parables of the new wine and the new piece of cloth (Mk. 2zi/i and parallels) suffice to prove. The kingdom he preached was ethical, spiritual, (and therefore) universal in character : not political, theocratic, national ; at least national only to those cherishing current Jewish expectations. The Beatitudes, which form the sublime introduction to the Teaching on the Hill, in either version of them, amply bear out this assertion. Obviously so in Mt. s version, really so also, though not so obviously, in Lk. s. Jesus may have said : Blessed ye poor, as Lk. reports, and the reporter may have understood the term poor chiefly in a social sense ; but it does not follow that his understanding in this case, any more than in the case of the saying, I came not to call the righteous, exhausted the Teacher s meaning. Jesus used words in a pregnant sense, and in his mind the natural and the spiritual lay close to gether : witness the saying : few things (dishes) are needful, or (rather) one (thing) i.e., the food that endures for ever Lk. ICUi/. The high ideal of man links together in his thought the social and the spiritual. The poor man passes into the blessedness of the kingdom whenever he realises what man is or may be. Poor in purse or even in character, no man is beggared who has a vision of man s chief end and good. If this be idealism, then Jesus was an idealist. He was also a poet, and words were symbols for him of thoughts which no words could adequately express. To make him the herald of a theocratic particularistic kingdom of Israel is to bring him down from these lofty regions to the low level of dull prosaic commonplace. 2

The kingdom of God, or of heaven, as it is usually designated in the first Gospel, while in its ultimate significance implying a high ideal of life, sonship realised in a heroic career rife with tribulation (Mt. 510-12), is in its initial aspect, as already indicated, a boon rather than a demand. Seek ye the kingdom (as the highest good), said the Master to his disciples (Mt. 633). It is to be sought as the sumrnum bonum, in preference to the temporal good above which Pagan aspiration rarely rises (Mt. 632). It is the bread which perisheth not, the raiment which waxeth not old, the treasure which cannot be stolen (Lk. 1233). The quest of this supreme good, in singleness of mind, is ever successful. Seek, and ye shall find" (Mt. 7?). And the quest is the noblest of human endeavours. He who so seeks the highest good fulfils at the same time the highest duty of man. In this coincidence of the chief good with the chief end lies the unique distinction of the Christian religion as expounded by its Founder.

1 Baur's view of the religion of Jesus as spiritual and universal is entirely independent of his theory as to the indebted ness of Jesus for these characteristics of his teaching to Greek philosophy and Roman world-wide empire. We may hold aloof from this theory, yet accept his view of the essential character istics of the Christianity of Christ.

  • This prosaic view pervades the treatment of Christ s teaching

in all the works of Dr. Bernhard Weiss.

18. Ethical ideal.[edit]

Jesus carefully explained his conception of the ethical ideal, both by positive statements and by keen caustic criticism of the system of religion and morals prevalent among the Jews in his time. Among the statements a foremost place belongs to the golden rule ; what you wish men to do to you do ye to them (Mt. 7 12), for which analogies can be found in other religions, but with this difference, that, whilst in the teaching of Jesus the rule assumes a positive form, in all other known instances it is given negatively. So in the saying of Confucius, do not to others what you would not wish done to yourself ( Legge, Chinese Classics, 1 191 ). The negative confines us to the region of justice ; the positive takes us into the region of generosity ; for we wish more than we can claim, or than the average man is willing to do to others. Jesus would have a disciple to be not merely SiKaios but dya06s, spontaneously doing to others all that a spirit of magnanimity prompts. The golden rule covers only the duties arising out of human relations. The summary of duty, Love God with all your heart, and your neighbour as yourself given in answer to a question at a later time (Mk. 1228-31), covers the whole ground of obligation. Thus we have religion and morality blent in one ideal as of co-ordinate importance, a combination not lying to the hand in the OT the two great commandments, though both in the law, are not given in one place (Dt. 64/. Lev. 19 18) and still less in accordance with the spirit of the time. In Rabbinism ritual was before morality, and the tendency was to sacrifice morality in the interest of religion. Jesus said : ethics before ritual the essentials of true religion consist in morality placability before sacrifice (Mt. 623), mercy before sacrifice (Mt. 913), filial affection before sacrifice (Mt. 154-6 Mk. 79-13)-

Whilst putting morality on a level with, or even in some respects above, religion, Jesus was careful to subordinate individual interests to the universal claims of the kingdom of God : Seek ye his kingdom said he to his disciples (Lk. 12 31), implying if he did not say first (Mt. 633), food or raiment being relegated to the second place. The Lord s Prayer is constructed on the same principle of subordination. First God s glory, kingdom, and will ; then, only in the second place, the temporal interest (daily bread), and even the spiritual interests (pardon and protection from tempta tion), of the worshipper. Jesus insisted that this sub ordination must be carried the length of willingness to part with life itself. First the things of God, then the things of men (Mk. 833). True to his great principle that religion and morality are one, however, Jesus gave his disciples to understand that the things of God are at the same time those of deepest concern to man. They are the true life of the spirit, for the sake of which one who understands the philosophy of life will gladly part when needful with the lower life of the body (Mk. 8:35).

The antithetic presentation of the moral ideal was given partly in didactic form, partly in the way of occasional polemics. For the didactic aspect, which concerns us here, we are indebted chiefly to Me, in whose version of the Sermon on the Mount the contrast between Jesus s interpretation of the law and that current in the Rabbinical schools is worked out in a series of examples (Mt. 521-48). This section of the sermon is omitted almost entirely by Lk., whereby the small part he has retained loses much in point. The gist of the elaborate contrast is : The law as interpreted by the scribes, externalised and restricted in scope ; as interpreted by Jesus, inward and infinite. Thou shall not kill, said the scribe ; thou shall not hate or despise, said Jesus. Thou shall love thy neighbour, and doing that thou doesl enough, said (in effecl) the scribe ; thou shall love all, making no dislinclion between fellow-countrymen or strangers, friend or foe, except as to the form love takes, said Jesus. The external is thai which is seen ; hence the tendency of an outward morality to become a morality of ostenlation. Jesus used this morality, much in vogue in his time, to emphasise by conlrasl the reserved retiring character of true piety (Ml. 6 1-8 16-18). True goodness is in the heart, and the good man is content that it should be there, visible only to the Father in heaven.

19. Healing ministry : evidence.[edit]

3. The later teaching of Jesus will be referred to in another connection. We pass, therefore, from the teaching to the healing ministry. In doing so we make a transition from a subject which is universally attractive to one which is distasteful to many because of its association with the idea of miracle. The distaste is felt not only by those who do not believe in the miraculous, but also by not a few who, whilst not ad herents of the naturalistic school, have no sympathy with the apologetic value attached to miracles as credentials of revelation. The following statement will not bring us into collision with this feeling. The miraculousness of the healing ministry is not the point in question : what we are concerned with is the question of fact. Now, as to this, the healing ministry, judged by critical tests, stands on as firm historical ground as the best accredited parts of the teaching.

The triple tradition i.e. , the narrative common to all the three Gospels contains no less than nine reports of healing acts, including the cases of the leper, the madman of Gergesa, and the dead daughter of Jairus. Then, in most of the reports the action of Jesus is so interwoven with unmistakably authentic words (e.g. , in the case of the palsied man) that the two elements cannot be separated : we must take the story as it stands or reject it entirely. That the healing ministry was not only a fact but a great outstanding fact, is attested by the popularity of Jesus, and by the various theories which were invented to account for the remark able phenomena. Mk. gives a realistic, lifelike descrip tion of the connection between healing acts and the fame of Jesus. The cure of a demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mk. 123) creates a sensation even greater than that produced by the discourse of the new preacher. They remark to one another not only on the new doctrine, but also on the authority which Jesus wields over unclean spirits (127). The result is that in the evening of the same Sabbath day, after sunset, the people of the town gather at the door of the house where Jesus resides, bringing iheir sick to be healed (132). So, again, on his return to Capernaum, after his preaching tour in Galilee, the report speedily spread ing that he had come back, a crowd assembles so large and dense as to make access to him impossible except through the roof of the house (2 1-4). Fresh recollec tions of the synagogue- sermon, but still more of the Sabbath-evening cures, explain the popular enthusiasm. The theories were various and curious. The relations of Jesus had their theory, not so much indeed about the healing acts as about the healer. Mk. reports (it is one of his realisms) that they thought him out of his senses (821). Much benevolence had made him mad. The beneficent deeds must have been there, else the madness would not have been imputed. The Pharisees, more suo, put a less friendly construction on the puzzling phenomena, seeing in them not the acts of a man more endowed with love and with power over diseases (physical and mental) than was good for his own health of body and mind, but the acts of a man in league with the prince of darkness, an incarnation of Beelzebub ( Bee\fo3oi>\ *> Mk. 822). [See BEELZEBUL.] This was a very unlikely theory, as Jesus pointed out ; but the thing to be noted is the existence of the theory, showing, as it does, that there were facts imperiously demanding explanation of some sort. Yet another theory, too curious to be an invention of the evangelists who report it (Mk. 616 Mt. 14 2), originated in the palace of Herod the murderer of the Baptist, and in his own guilt - haunted mind. This Jesus of whose marvellous works I hear is John risen again, the mysterious powers of the other world manifesting themselves through the resurrected man. The theory is perhaps absurd, yet by its very absurdity it witnesses to extraordinary facts arresting general attention, and forcing their way, how ever unwelcome, into kings houses.

20. Interpretation.[edit]

The healing ministry of Jesus presents a problem at once for exegesis, for theology, and for science. The question for exegesis is, 'What do the reports necessarily imply ?' Was the leper cured, or only pronounced clean? Was the bread that fed the thousands miraculously produced, or drawn forth by the bearing of Jesus from the stores in possession of the crowd ; or is the story merely a symbolic embodiment of the life-giving power of Jesus in the spiritual sphere ? Was the daughter of Jairus really dead ? For theology the question is, What bearing has the healing ministry on the personality of Jesus? Here is certainly something to wonder at, to start the inquiry : What manner of man is this ? Is it only a question as to the manner of the man. of a man fully endowed with powers not unexampled elsewhere, at least in kind, though lying dormant in ordinary men ? Or do the phenomena take us outside the human into the region of the strictly divine ? For science the question is, Can the acts ascribed to Jesus be accounted for by any known laws of nature e.g. , by moral therapeutics, or the emotional treatment of disease ? Care must be taken in attempting to answer this question not to understate the facts. In the case of demoniacal possession, for example, it is making the problem too easy to say that that was a merely imaginary disease. The diseases to which the name is applied in the Gospels were in some cases serious enough. The demoniac of Gergesa was a raving madman ; the boy at the foot of the hill of Transfiguration was the victim of aggravated epilepsy. The only door of escape open for scientific scepticism in such cases is doubt as to the permanence of the alleged cure.

21. An indication of character.[edit]

There is one thing about which we may have comfortable certainty. Whether miraculous or not, whether, the works of a mere man, or of one who is a man and more, these healing acts are a revelation of the love of Jesus, a manifestation of his enthusiasm of humanity, to be placed beside the meeting with the publicans of Capernaum as an aid to the understanding of his spirit and aims. By that meeting he showed his interest in a despised class of men ; by the healing ministry he showed his interest in a despised part of human nature, the body, and so evinced the healthy catholic nature of his conception of redemption. He was minded to do all the good in the world he could. He was able to heal men s bodies as well as their souls ; and he did it, thereby protesting against that pagan notion of the body, as something essentially evil and worthless, which underlies all modes of asceticism, and against a false spiritualism which regards disease of the body as essential to the health of the soul. The heal ing ministry shows Jesus, not as a thaumaturge bent on creating astonishment, but as in a large, grand, human way the friend of men, bearing by sympathy their sicknesses as well as their sorrows and sins as a burden in his heart. *

1 Such is the view of Christ s healing ministry presented in Mt. : witness the prophetic citation in 8 17. There is no desire in the first Gospel to magnify the miracle. Peter s mother-in- law simply suffers from a feverish attack. The sympathy of Jesus is the point of interest, which was the same whether the fever was severe or slight. In Lk. it is a great fever (4;-) and throughout this Gospel care is taken to magnify the power as well as the benevolence of Jesus. Mk., on the other hand, goes so far as to say that Jesus was not able to do any mighty works in Nazareth, because of the unbelief of the people

22. Pharisaic hostility.[edit]

4. The conflict with the religious leaders of Israel, called in the Gospels 'scribes and Pharisees', formed a very essential part of the public life of Jesus. It soon brought that life to a tragic end. The Gospel of Lk by toning down that aspect, omitting much of Christ's polemic against Pharisaism, and mitigating the asperity of what is retained by representing it as uttered under the control of friendly social relations (three feasts in Pharisees houses peculiar to this Gospel 736-50 1137-44 141-24), makes it impossible to form a clear idea of the religious environment of Jesus, of the heroic war fare he had to wage, and of the forces that were at work, moving steadily on towards Calvary. For in formation on these points, we must turn to the pages of Mt. and Mk. , especially of the latter, in which the course of the conflict is vividly depicted. A few anec dotes bring before us realistically Pharisaic hostility, in its rise and progress, and prepare us for the end (Mk. 2-36).

Collision was inevitable. Radical contrariety of view on the whole subject of conduct in religion and in morals was its deepest cause, and the popularity of Jesus as a preacher and a healer was a constant and increasing source of irritation.

The contrast (Izi/. ) between Jesus and the scribes, in their respective styles of preaching or teaching, remarked on by the second evangelist, was not unnoticed by the people. If they did not say, How unlike the scribes ! they at least showed the new teacher an amount of consideration not accorded to the scribes. Therefore, we are not surprised to learn that when Jesus returned from his preaching tour in Galilee to Capernaum the scribes were in a fault-finding mood (26). They took care, however, to conceal the cause of their chagrin, selecting as the point of assault neither the preaching nor the healing, but the blasphemous word of pardon : Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. The Capernaum mission to the publicans and sinners (215-17) supplied the next occasion for offence. These classes had begun to take an interest in Jesus. There were many (of them there), and they began to follow him (2 15). They had doubtless heard the story of the palsied man, and how Jesus had been sympathetic towards the sinner, and had been regarded by the scribes as a blasphemer. They naturally desired to see and hear and know the interest ing blasphemer. The offence in this instance lay in eating with such people i.e. , in having comrade- like relations with them. It was a complicated many- sided offence : a slight on the national feeling of Jews, who resented whatever reminded them of their political humiliation ; an indirect slight on the laws which the classes fraternised with habitually neglected ; it was also though this might not be so clearly perceived a slight on the prerogative of Israel as an elect people, an evil omen of an approaching revolution when the king dom of God would be thrown open to all.

23. Sabbath, etc.[edit]

Next come Sabbatic controversies trivial in occasion, but cutting contemporary Jewish prejudice to the quick, and greatly intensifying the exasperation (2:23-28, 3:1-6). These encounters revealed a radical contrariety between Jesus and the scribes in their respective conceptions of the Sabbath. Jesus expressed the difference in a saying preserved only in Mk. (2:27) : 'The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath'. The remark implied a manner of conceiving God, man, and religion, different from that in vogue, and it is not sur prising that from that day forth dislike began to deepen into hatred, harbouring murderous intentions. The author of Mk. winds up his narrative of the healing of the withered hand with the significant statement : the Pharisees went forth and straightway, with the Herodians, took counsel against him, how they might destroy him (36). The reference to the HERODIANS (q.v. ), little spoken of in the Gospels, signifies that the Pharisees now began seriously to aim at the life of Jesus, and naturally felt that the assistance of persons having influence at the court would be valuable.

Hereafter the foes of Jesus come before us attacking his healing ministry on a side at which it appeared to them vulnerable. The meeting with the outcasts of Capernaum had given a choice opportunity for a calumnious assault upon his moral character, of which they seem to have taken advantage to the full extent (Mt. 11 19). The cures of demoniacs formed the basis of the attempt to rob him of the fame fairly won by his wonderful works (Mk. 822). The cures themselves could not be denied, nor the power they evinced ; but was the power necessarily from heaven, might it not be from an opposite quarter? The men who made the malign suggestion knew better ; but it was enough for them that the suggestion was plausible. Hence the solemn warning of Jesus against blasphemy i.e. , speak ing evil of that which is known to be good (Mk. 829).

24. Ritual.[edit]

The next encounter had reference to ritual ablutions (Mk. 71-23 Mt. ISi-zo). 1 This time, Jesus assumed the offensive, and exposed the vices inherent in the systems represented by the scribes ; declaring in effect that the hedging of the Law by the multiplied rules of legal doctors had for its result the setting of the Law aside, and giving as an example the doctrine of Corban in its bearing on the fifth command ment. This was offence enough ; but Jesus added to it by an appeal to the multitude, to whom he addressed one of those great emancipating sayings which sweep away the cobwebs of artificial systems better than elaborate argument that which defiles is not what goeth into the mouth but what cometh out of it. It was a virtual abrogation, not merely of the traditions of the Elders, but even of the ceremonial law of Moses : a proclamation of the great truth that moral defilement alone is of importance.

25. Jesus sees the crisis.[edit]

When it had come to this, a crisis was at hand. Jesus knew it, and retired from the scenes of strife, partly to escape for a while from the malice of his foes, and still more to prepare his disciples, by seasonable instructions, for the inevitable end. The time of these later instructions was that of the northerly excursions 2 already referred to, and their main theme was sacri fice. Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that he himself must suffer death at the hands of the religious leaders, and that they and all faithful souls must be prepared to endure hardship for truth and righteousness (Mk. 8:30-34 Mt. 16:21-24 Lk 9:21-23) ; and from this time forth he devoted much attention towards developing in the twelve the heroic temper demanded by the situation. It was no easy task ; for, while the master was continually preoccupied with the cross, the disciples were often thinking vain thoughts. The contrast is depicted in a realistic manner by Mk. They were in the way, going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus was going before them : and they were amazed (10:32). They could not comprehend the intense preoccupation betrayed in the master s manner. It filled them with awe. The sequel explains. The ambitious request of James and John followed soon after, as comic scenes succeed tragic ones in a drama. Hence the need for inculcating such recondite truths of the kingdom as that greatness comes by service ; that childlikeness is the condition of entrance into the king dom ; that ambition aspiring to greatness and trampling on weakness is a cursed passion, deserving drowning, with a heavy millstone round the neck, in the deepest part of the sea ; and that only through brotherly kind ness and charity can one hope to win the favour of God (Mt. 18 Mk. 9:33-50).

1 The preceding incidents are common to the three Synoptists. This one is omitted by Lk. along with a group of other narra tives, including the second storm on the lake, the Syro- Phoenician woman, the second feeding, the demand for a sign in short, the whole of Mt. 14:22-16:12 and Mk. 6:45-8:21 except that Mk. 8:15 Mt. 16:6 = Lk. 12:1. These omissions were probably in tentional on Lk.'s part, the incidents being known to him, but passed over for various reasons.

2 The Gospels speak of two excursions one to the regions of Tyre and Sidon, another to the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi. Even so conservative a critic as Weiss is inclined to resolve the two into one by treating the second feeding as a merely literary duplicate of the first.

26. Messiah.[edit]

During the period of wandering in the north the disciple Peter, the foremost man among the twelve, and usually their spokesman on important occasions, made an eventful declaration concerning the master. Jesus had himself led up to it by introducing into their conversation, as they journeyed towards Caesarea Philippi, the topic : Who do men say that I am? (Mt. 1613-20 Mk. 827-30 Lk. 9 18-21 ). 1 That general question disposed of, there came a second : And you, who say you that I am ? The answer of Peter was: Thou art the Christ (Mk. 829). It was apparently the answer which Jesus anticipated and wished ; which would imply that he regarded himself as one in whom the Messianic hope of the Jewish people was fulfilled. Can this indeed have been so ? Can such an one as Jesus, so wise and good, and so utterly out of sympathy with the religious spirit of his time, have thought himself the Messiah, or even taken any in terest in the Messianic idea? It is evident that one occupying the position of Jesus as a religious teacher could not escape having some conscious attitude to wards that idea, friendly or indifferent or hostile. And it is certain that he would be utterly unsympathetic towards the Messianic ideas current among the Jews of his time. Pharisaic notions of the Messianic king and kingdom would be as distasteful to him as Pharisaic notions of the Law, of righteousness, of God, and of man. His attitude towards the whole circle of ideas associated with conventional religion was, without doubt, that of a radical sceptic. But he did not live in the region of negation. His way was to discard unwelcome ideas and put better ones in their place. He did this in connection with all the other subjects above mentioned, and doubtless he acted on the same principle in connection with the Messianic hope this all the more decisively because that hope was not rabbinical but pro phetic in its origin, associated with some of the most spiritual aspirations of OT saints and seers, if also find ing expression occasionally in materialistic or political representations of the good time coming. By elective affinity Jesus would choose the purest and loftiest elements in prophetic delineations, and out of these form his Messianic idea. From certain indications in the Gospels the voice from heaven at the Baptism and the Transfiguration, the text of the discourse in the syna gogue of Nazareth, the intimate connection between the confession of Peter and the first distinct intimation of the approaching Passion it may be inferred that Deutero-Isaiah was the chief source of his conception, and that his Messiah was one endowed abundantly with the charisma of love (Is. 61), therefore well-pleasing to God (Is. 42i), and destined to be a man of sorrow (Is. 53).

Messiah stands for an ideal, the summum bonum embodied in a person. The Jews believed that such a person would come. Jesus might very sincerely share the expectation, as the Baptist did. Could he also regard himself as the coming one ? He could not, if a Messianic consciousness implied self-asserting preten sions, or, generally, states of feeling incompatible with a lowly spirit. He could, if the Messianic vocation pre sented itself to his mind as a duty, rather than as a dignity, as a summons to a career of suffering, a tempting to renunciation rather than to usurpation. So, in fact, it did appear to him. The man of sorrow in Is. 53 is ideal Israel ; the faithful in Israel, the men who stand for God and righteousness in an evil world, conceived poetically as an individual. Jesus thought of himself as that individual, the representative of all who live sacri ficial and therefore redemptive lives. See MESSIAH.

1 In consequence of the long omission, this section in Luke follows immediately after the first feeding, and there is no in dication that it did not happen at the same place. There is no trace of the excursion to the north in his narrative.

27. 'Son of man'.[edit]

All goes to bear out this assertion e.g. the self-designation Son of man, so much used by Jesus. The meaning of this title he never defined any more than he formally defined the name 'Father' applied to God. It is doubtful if OT texts can give us much help towards fixing its import. We must watch the Son of man in the act of so designating himself, defining the name by dis criminating use. Doing this, we receive the impression that the title is chosen because it is one that makes no claims. In Aramaic it means simply the man. If it be Messianic, through the use made of it in Daniel and the Book of Enoch, it is furtively so, an incognito. The admiring people frequently called Him Son of David, and the early Christian Church laid stress on the title as an important link in the chain of Messianic proof. Hence the genealogies in Mt. and Lk. Even Paul recognises the Davidic descent as in its own place important (Rom. Is). There is no evidence that Jesus repudiated the title ; 1 but the title Son of man does show that he regarded the other (as implying physical descent and therefore regal rights) as of little significance. Others said Son of David ; he said Son of Man. 2 See SON OF MAN.

The message from the imprisoned Baptist to Jesus (Mt. 11 2/ Lk. 7 i8/) is not without significance in this connection : Art thou the coming one ? By some (e.g. , Holtzmann in Handcomm.) the question is viewed as the utterance rather of a budding than of a waning faith. But the comments of Jesus on the message and on the man who sent it, bearing a stamp of authenticity upon them and probably taken by the two evangelists from the Book of Logia, demand the latter inter pretation. Blessed is he who findeth no cause of stumbling in me. John had found cause of stumbling in Jesus, in whom from the first his prophetic eye had detected an extraordinary person. John s Messiah was to be an iconoclast, a hewer down of barren trees and effete institutions, one coming in the fury of the Lord to destroy by the wind and fire of judgment. Jesus hitherto had been nothing of the kind ; rather a preacher of good news, even to the immoral ; a healer of disease, a teacher of wisdom, with nothing like a fan in his hand, save one of searching moral criticism on the ways of scribes and Pharisees. Therefore, John began to fear that, after all, this was not the Christ. His fear is a valuable testimony to the kind of Christ Jesus believed in and was : one seeking to save rather than to judge, and just on that account liable to be misunderstood even by a John, and to be despised and rejected by a religious but ungodly world. How far apart the two prophets were in their ideas and tendencies, may be estimated from the striking remark made by Jesus concerning the Baptist : the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Mt. 11 u).

1 The discussion between Jesus and the scribes in the temple on the relation of the Christ to David has been interpreted in this sense. But the question of Jesus does not necessarily imply denial in toto of Davidic descent, or more than a hint as to the comparative unimportance of it. It meant, in effect : You begin at the wrong end, physical descent ; and it lands you in an unspiritual conception of Messiah.

2 The passages in which the title is used in an apocalyptic sense seem to breathe a different spirit. They cannot be discussed here.

28. Entry into Jerusalem.[edit]

The triumphal entry into Jerusalem by Jesus towards the close of his career may seem to conflict with the view set forth above, and to exhibit a Messiah parading his claims. The story belongs to the triple tradition, and must be accepted as historical (Mt. 21 i-n Mk. 11 i-n Lk. 1929-44) ; but cp HOSANNA. Mt. , after his usual manner, represents the whole transaction as happening in order that a certain prophetic oracle might be fulfilled. So he viewed it, and so he wishes his readers to view it ; but it does not follow that Jesus rode into the holy city on the foal of an ass with conscious intention to fulfil prophecy. The less intention on his part, the greater the value of any uniformity between prophecy and fact. Action with intention might show that he claimed to be, not that he was, the Messiah. On the other hand, his right to be regarded as the Messiah would have stood where it was though he had entered Jerusalem on foot. The actual mode of entrance could possess at most only the value of a symbol. And Jesus seems to have been in the mood to let it have such value, and that just because it was in harmony with his habit of avoiding display and discouraging vulgar Messianic hopes. There was really no pretentiousness in riding into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass. It was rather the meek and lowly one entering in character. The symbolic act was in harmony with the use of the title Son of man, shunning Messianic pretensions, yet showing himself as the true Messiah in a deeper way. Mk. s narrative of the incident is to be preferred as preserving most of the primitive simplicity. It is only in his version that Jesus instructs his disciples to tell the man from whom the young ass is being borrowed that it will be returned when he has had his use of it (Mk. 11 3). Some modern commentators, influenced by con ventional notions of dignity, will not allow even Mark to put the matter so. But he does ; it is cne of his realisms. 1

The thoughts of Jesus, then as always, were humble ; but those of his followers were more ambitious, and such as to provoke the ire of those who sought his undoing. They shouted Hosannas in his honour, as to the Son of David through whom the long hoped-for kingdom was about to come. The very children in the streets, according to Mt. (21 15), caught up the cry, to the chagrin of the guardians of conventional proprieties. The enthusiasm of the people who had come up with Jesus to keep the feast of the passover men and women from Galilee, proud of their prophet and king was his death-knell. He had come up to Jerusalem fully convinced that he was going to meet death. Therefore, he used his short time to bear a final testimony against plausible falsehood and sham holiness, and for truth and godliness. Many incidents and utterances are packed into that eventful week the cleansing of the Temple, parables of judg ment ( Two sons, Vinedressers, Marriage of the king s son), sundry encounters with captious disputants, and a sublime anti- Pharisaic discourse in which the foibles and vices of a degenerate piety are depicted with pro phetic plainness and artistic felicity (Mt. 23). During that fatal week last words had to be spoken to dis ciples, among which was a foreboding reference to the approaching judgment-day of Israel, accompanied by useful hints for their guidance in a perilous time (Mk. 13 Mt. 24 Lk. 21 ). The tender pathos of the situation is immortalised in the anointing in Bethany (Mt. 266-13 Mk. 143-9), tne hol y supper (Mt. 2626-29 Mk. 1422-25 Lk. 22 17-20), and the agony in Gethsemane (Mt. 26 36-46 Mk. 14 32-42 Lk. 22 39-46).

1 The true reading is ev0ii avrbv aTrocrrf AAei TraAiv where irdAii implies that the reference is to returning the colt to its owner, not to the readiness with which the owner, after explana tions, will send it to Jesus.

29. Passion.[edit]

The story of the passion is told at great length, with much agreement, though also with many variations, in all the four Gospels, a sure index of the intense interest taken in the tragic theme within the apostolic church. This interest would not be of late growth. When the apostles began to preach Jesus crucified and risen, they would encounter the eager demand, 'Tell us how it happened' ! Faith would make three demands for information concerning its object : What did he teach? What did he do? What did he suffer ? Some think that the demand for information con cerning the teaching came first and was first met. But even those who, like Holtzmann, take this view regard the history of the passion as the nucleus of the narrative department of the evangelic tradition. First the logia, then the passion drama, then the anecdotes of memorable acts. Whether this was the true genetic order of the three masses of oral tradition, which in combination make up our evangelic records, may reasonably be doubted. The passion group perhaps took shape earliest. The apostles would have to tell at once what they knew, the main facts of the case, especially when preaching outside Jerusalem. Thus began to form itself the passion- chronicle : the main facts first, then this nucleus gradually gathering accretions of minor incidents, till by the time written records began to be compiled the collection of passion-memorabilia had assumed the form which it bears in, for example, the Gospel of Mk. The presumption is that the collection as it stands there is the truth, or at least the truth as far as it could be ascertained.

30. Critical considerations.[edit]

For modern criticism the story, even in its most historic version, is not pure truth, but truth mixed with doubtful legend. Still, even when it is examined with a critical microscope, as it has recently been by Dr. Brandt, 1 not a few of the relative incidents stand the test. Betrayal by one of the twelve, desertion by all of them, denial by Peter, death-sentence under the joint responsibility of Jewish rulers and Roman procurator, assistance in carrying the cross from Simon of Cyrene, crucifixion on a hill called Golgotha, the crime charged indicated by the significant inscription on the cross-beam, King of the Jews, 2 death if not preceded by a prayer for the murderers, or by the despairing cry My God, my God, at least heralded by a loud voice. In these eight particulars we have the skeleton of the story, all that is needful to give the passion its tragic interest, or even to form the basis for theological constructions. The details omitted the process before the Sanhedrin, the interviews with Pilate and Herod, the mockery of the soldiers, the preferential release of Barabbas, the sneers of passers-by, the two thieves, the parting of the raiment, the words from the cross, the preternatural concomitants of death are more or less of the nature of accessories, enhancing the impressiveness of the picture, suggesting additional lessons, but not changing the character of the event.

Still, even accessories are not to be lightly sacrificed. Critical estimates are to be received with caution even in a historical interest, and to measure their value it is important to have a clear idea about the nature of the interest taken by the primitive church in the story of the passion. Now, there can be no doubt that along with sympathy with the fate of a beloved Master went a theoretic or dogmatic interest, at least in a rudimentary form. There was a desire to harmonise the passion with faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. This was obviously a vital matter for disciples. They could not continue to believe in Jesus as the Christ unless they could satisfy themselves that he might be the Christ, the cross notwithstanding ; nor could their faith be triumphant unless they could further satisfy themselves that he was all the more certainly the Christ just because he was crucified. The words of the Master concerning suffering as the appointed lot of all faithful souls might help them to attain this insight. With this doctrine as a key, they would see new meanings in OT texts, and gradually learn from histories, Psalms, and prophecies that the path appointed for the godly, and therefore above all for the Messiah, was a path of sacrifice. Thenceforth unison between OT experiences and teaching and the incidents of the passion would become proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus. The offence of the cross would be turned into an apology for faith in the crucified.

Were those primitive apologists content with cor respondence between texts and undeniable facts ? Did they invent facts to suit Hebrew oracles, so as to bring out correspondence even in curious details and make the apologetic as convincing as possible ? There was certainly a temptation to do so, and we are not entitled a priori to assume that they did not yield to the temptation in any instance. On the other hand, we must be on our guard against too hastily assuming the contrary. The probability is that, on the whole, facts suggested texts, instead of texts creating facts. The reasonableness of this stalement may be illustrated by an example taken from the history of the infancy in Mt. The last of several prophetic citations in that chapter is, 'He shall be called a Nazarene' (223). See NAZARETH. The fact that Nazareth was the home of Jesus is inde pendently certain. It is equally certain that, but for the fact, the supposed prophetic citation would never have occurred to any one s mind ; for it is the weakest link in the chain of prophetic evidence for the Christ- hood of Jesus. This instance suggests that what faith was busy about in these early years was not the manu facturing of history, but the discovering in evangelic facts, however minute, the prophetic fulfilments which are sometimes so far-fetched as to make it inconceivable how they could ever have been thought of unless the facts had gone before. This general observation may be applied to some of the most pathetic incidents in the passion history the prayer for forgiveness, the taunts of passers-by, the casting of lots for possession of the garments.

1 Die Evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Chris- tenthums aufGrund einer Kritik der Rerichte fiber das Leiden und die Aitferstchting Jesu, 1893.

2 This points to Messianic pretensions imputed or confessed. But such pretensions had two aspects, a religious and a political. It was the religious aspect that was dealt with in the trial before the Sanhedrin as reported hy the Synoptists ; but of course it would be the political aspect that the Sanhedrists brought under the notice of Pilate. The Messianic idea would have no interest for him except in so far as it involved a claim to temporal power.

31. Ethical significance.[edit]

If legendary elements of a supernatural character found their way into the traditions, it is not to be wondered at in connection with events which appealed so powerfully to the imagination of believers. The thing to be noted is that when criticism has done its work the passion narratives remain in their main details history, not legend. A history how profoundly significant as well as moving ! With its theological import we have here no concern ; but we may not leave such a theme without briefly indicating its ethical lessons. The crucifixion of Jesus exhibits in a uniquely impressive manner the destiny of righteousness in this world. He was crucified not by accident, not altogether or even mainly through misunderstanding, but because his wisdom and goodness were inconvenient and trouble some. The passion history further sets before us a story not of fate merely, but of love. It is the story of one who was willing to die. He knew more or less dis tinctly what was to happen, consented to it, and was helped to do it by the thought that out of the wrong and evil befalling himself good to others would come. In proof of this statement, it is sufficient to point to the Lord s supper. The passion-history, finally, encourages large hope for the world.

32. Words about the future.[edit]

Christianity could not have entered on its victorious career unless the followers of the Crucified had believed that he not only died but also rose again. This is acknowledged even by those who like Dr. Ferdinand Baur, have themselves no faith in the resurrection. The primitive disciples believed that their Master rose on the third day, and that he would soon come to the earth again ; and this faith and hope became the common possession of the apostolic church. The faith and the hope both find support and justification in the words of Jesus as reported by the evangelists. Sad predictions of approaching doom have added to them the cheering words, and shall rise again (Mk. 931 and parallels). Many sayings promise the coming of the Son of man in glory, and that speedily, even within the lifetime of the present generation. These sayings present one of the hardest problems for the student of the Gospels : on one side a critical problem which has to deal with the question how far the words of Jesus have been coloured by the hopes of the apostolic age ; on another side, an exegetical one having for its task to interpret these words in harmony with others which seem to imply not only a delayed parousia (parables of the Ten Virgins, the Upper Servant playing the Tyrant, and the Unjust Judge), but also an indefinitely protracted Christian era (parables representing the kingdom as subject to the law of growth the Sower, the Wheat and Tares, the Mustard seed, and, above all, the Seedgrawing gradually, peculiar to Mk. 4 26-29 and his most valuable distinctive contribution to the stock of evangelic traditions). Though some of the relative logia belong to the later and less accredited stratum of tradition, there is no reason to doubt their genuineness. Jesus seems to have had two ways of speaking about the future partly because, as he himself confessed, he had no clear vision of time s course (Mk. 1832) ; partly owing to the purpose his utterances were meant to serve. Some of them were promises meant to cheer (Mk. 92 and parallels) ; some, didactic statements bearing on the nature of the kingdom of God (Mk. 426-29). In the former the advent is appropriately represented as near ; in the latter it is by tacit implication indefinitely remote.

33. Conclusion.[edit]

The words of Jesus concerning the future show limitation of vision. In other directions we may discover indications that he was the child of his time and people. But his spiritual intuitions are pure truth, valid for all ages. God, man, and the moral ideal cannot be more truly or happily conceived. Far from having outgrown his thoughts on these themes, we are only beginning to perceive their true significance. How long it will be before full effect shall be given to his radical doctrine of the dignity of man ! How entirely in accord with the moral order of the world, as interpreted by the whole history of mankind, his doctrine of sacrifice as at once the penalty and the power of righteousness in an evil world ! The purity of the doctrine may seem to be compromised by occasional references to the reward of sacrifice, e.g. , Great is your reward in heaven (Mt. 612); things renounced are to be received back an hundredfold (Mk. lOso). But the idea of reward cannot be eliminated from ethics. The heroic man is and must be blessed. The apocalyptic presentation of the reward in the Gospels is a matter of form. The essential truth is that it is ever well with the righteous.

34. Literature.[edit]

Besides the books referred to in the article, and the many Lives of Jesus, the following works may be consulted : Wendt, Die Lchre Jesu ; Weizsacker, das Apostolische Zeitalter; Wellhausen, Isr. u. Jfid. Gesch. ; Baldensperger, das Selbst-beivusstseinjesu ini Lichte derftlessianischen Hoffnungenseiner Zeit ; Harnack, Dogmengeschichte. The first two and the last of these works have been translated.

On the sources generally, compare GOSPELS. For History of Period, see CHRONOLOGY, 43-63, HERODIAN FAMILY, and ROME. Contemporary life and thought are illustrated in such articles as ESSENES, HERODIANS, PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, SCRIBES, SYNAGOGUE, TEMPLE. Further details of life and teaching are dealt with under such headings as NATIVITY, RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION NARRATIVES, WONDERS, PARABLES (cp FIG-TREE, HUSKS, LEAVEN, SCORPION, VIRGINS, and so forth), LORD S PRAYER, MESSIAH, SON OF GOD, SON OF MAN, ESCHATOLOGY, % 2 ff- On the names of persons and places mentioned in the Gospels, see the separate articles (Places: BETHABARA, BETHANY, BETHF.SDA, BETHLEHEM, BETHSAIDA, CAPERNAUM, DAIMANUTHA, EMMAUS, GETH- SEMANE, JERUSALEM, OLIVES [MT. OF!, NAIN, NAZARETH, SALIM, SYCHAR, SILOAM : Persons : the several evangelists and apostles, also CLOPAS, HEROD, JOSEPH (NT Ol), JOHN THE BAPTIST, LAZARUS, LYSANIAS, MARTHA, MARY, NATHANAEL, NICODEMUS, PILATE, QUIRINIUS, and the like). A. B. B.

JETHER[edit]

PJV ; ie0ep [BAL]).

1. Ex. 4i8 EVmjr. (toflop [BAL]), another form of JETHRO [y.n.]. Sam. and some MSS have nTT-

2. Gideon s first-born son (Judg. 820).

3. The father of Amasa (i K. 25 32 [om. A]) by Abigail. In 2 S. 17:25 (MT) he is called ITHRA (H^ ; ietra ; J >k_. ; tefyxxj [Jos.] ; but 10800 [BA ; so B in i Ch.]), and described, according to the best reading, as a Je/reelite. In i Ch. 2 17, however, he appears as an Ishmaelite ; hence Thenius, Wellhausen, Driver, Klostermann, Budde, Lohr, H. P. Smith read *7MJ!BV n Sam. But the rival reading ^Kjnr is less likely to be a conjectural emendation (see ABIGAIL, 2 ; JEZREEL i., 2).

4. A Jerahmeelite (i Ch. 232). See JERAHMEEL, g 2.

5. A Judahite, i Ch. 4 17 (lefltpet [B]).

6. An Asherite, i Ch. 738(flj)p [B], n6pav [L]), see ITHRAN, 2.

7. See JETHETH.

JETHETH[edit]

(HIT; Jetheth, OS 131 3) one of the dukes of Edom, Gen. 8640 (ieBep [A], ie6ep [D sil -EL]), i Ch. I 5 i deeer [B], - e [A], -ep [L]).

In view of the readings of it is plausible to read in , which occurs also as a Jerahmeelite and Judahite name (see JETHER). Cp GENEALOGIES i., 5. s. A. C.

JETHLAH[edit]

RV ITHLAH (nfytfi ceiA<\9*. [B]. ie6A<\ [A], 16. [L], I66AAN [OS 26878], an unidenti fied site in Danite territory (Josh. 1042), associated with Zorah, Eshtaol, Bethshemesh, Aijalon, and Timnah.

JETHRO[edit]

( niV, Jithro, 77 ; cp Sab. *?N"ini D"im ; either shortened from Jithron [see ITHRAN and cp Ithra in JETHER, 3], or mispointed for Jithru [cp GASHMU] ; io9op [BAL]). Father of Moses wife, ZIPPORAH, Ex. 3 1 [but L does not give the priest s name], 4i8 [see JETHER, i], 18i/: All these passages belong to E ; the first and third of them add priest of Midian. This was most probably interpolated from Ex. 2i6 (J) by the redactor (R), who also removed the discrepant name Hobab from that passage, and thus produced a superficial harmony, against which, however, Nu. 1029 and Judg. 4n protest (see HOBAB).

The futile attempts of the ancients to reconcile the discrep ancies of the documents require no elaborate consideration. Josephus (Ant. ii. 12 i) says that Jethro was a surname of Reuel ("irv, superiority ); this seems to have influenced A i n Ex. 2i6i8. Targ. Jon. in Ex. 2i8 represents REUEL [q.v.] as Zipporah s grandfather. In the former case Hobab, in the latter both Hobab and Jethro are brothers-in-law of Moses. Apart from other considerations, the only biblical sense of |nh is father-in-law, though jnn doubtless can be used in the looser sense of wife s relation .1

There is no anachronism in the description given of Jethro or Hobab in Exodus as a priest, and by implica tion as a sheikh of the Midianites ; such dignitaries there must have been in ancient Arabia. Though we cannot adopt Hommel's statement that the ideas and language (and particularly the ritual terms) of the Priestly Code (P) are largely influenced by instruction which Moses received from the Kohen Midian, there need be no a priori objection to the view that Arabian culture impressed its mark, at more than one period, on the Israelites. It is certainly remarkable that such an early record as JE represents the Midianite as Moses instructor in the art of legislation (Ex. 18), and as having been asked by Moses to be his guide in the desert, for which a good reward is held out to him in the Promised Lan(J (Nu. 1029-32). 2 As Judg. 1 16 represents, Hobab (loOop [B]) did actually accompany Moses ; 3 Hobab has evidently dropped out of the text and should be restored, though possibly both here and in the other passages where our text has Hobab we should change Hobab into Jonadab (see HOBAB). The clan called b ne Hobab is also designated Kenite ; it might, however, with sufficient accuracy have been called Midianite, the line of demarcation between the tribes in S. Palestine not being very definite (see AMALEK, MIDIAN). Not impossibly, however, the original text called Jethro or Hobab a Misrite (i.e. , virtually a N. Arabian) ; the readings of MT may be corrupt (see KENITES). It should be observed that according to the tradition Jethro was a worshipper of Yahwe. (Ex. 18:9-12 [E]).

It is interesting to notice that Sha'ib occurs as the name of a Wady on the E. of the Jordan, opposite Jericho (see Baed.l 3 ), 162 and NIMKIM); and that the diminutive Shu'aib is the name given by Mohammed to Jethro. But the name Shu'aib may after all be distinct from Hobab, and in any case the Mohammedan legends have no historical value. Cp Ew. Hist. 244, n. 2.

1 So probably in Ex. 4 25, D OT jnn, one newly admitted into (my) family by the shedding of blood.

2 Ex. 18, at all events, is misplaced, Israel having already arrived at the Mount of God (cp 5 S). But the Mount of God is Horeb (Sinai) near which Jethro lived (cp 3 i), which makes the latter s request to return to his own land, w. 6 27, unnecessary ; cp similarly Nu. 1030. See EXODUS i., 5.

3 See Moore and Budde. This must have been expressed in the passage which Nu. 1029-32 represents. The redactor, to avoid inconsistency with Ex. 1827 has stopped abruptly at z: 32.

JETUE[edit]

(~r1B*, lerrOYP [BA>EL]), a son of Ishmael, Gen. 25 15 (terovp [A] ; Jethur), i Ch. 1 31 (terovp [L] ; Jetur) ; cp i Ch. 5 19 (roupaid [B], tTovpauop [A], KTT- [L]; Jturaei); see ISHMAEL, g 4 (7), ITUR-KA.

JEUEL[edit]

(TgW?), b. Zerah, a post-exilic (Judahite) inhabitant of Jerusalem : i Ch. 96 ( enemA [B], ieHA [AL]).

Jeuel is also the Kt. in i Ch. 835 (AV JFHIEL, RV JF.IIM),

1 Ch. ll4 4 (AV JEHIEL, RV JEIEL), 2 Ch. 26 n (EV JEIEL),

2 Ch. 29 13 (AV JEIEL), Ezra 8 13 (AV JEIEL). See JEIEL.

JEUSH[edit]

(K -llP, 53 ; [Kr. always ; so also Kt. except Gen. 865 14 i Ch. 7 10 &!> .], [God] helps ? cp Ar. god yagfith, which is transliterated teyovSo? in an inscription from Memphis; see reff. in Buhl, Gesch. d. Edom. 49, n. i, who opposes the view ; in Gen. iovs [ADE] -uA [L] ; in Ch. irjou? [L]).

1. An Edomite clan, son of Esau by his Horite wife Oholi- bamah, Gen. 3651418. See ANAH, BASHEMATH, EDOM, 3 (Gen. 36 5, ie<r/3ovs [E], v. 14 tevs [A], v. 18 leotiA. [A], leovrjA [D], i Ch 1 35 leovA. [BA]).

2. b. Bilhan in agenealogy of BENjAMlN(y.. sandgii.a), I Ch. 7 10 (aov? [B], iew [A]).

3. b. Eshek in a genealogyof BENJAMIN (g.v., 9, ii. 0), 1 Ch. 839 (*ai vay [cy sup. ras. B?], ttas [A]; RV, AV JEHUSH); probably the same as (2).

4. b. Shimei, a division of Gershonite Levites, i Ch. 23 lo^/C (tcoa? [BL ; once in A]); cp (i) above and see GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v].

5. b. Rehoboam, 2Ch. 11 19 (iaou8 [B], om. A, ieou [L]).

JEUZ[edit]

(PIT, see Uz ; lAcoc [B], leoyc [A], ico&c [L]), a name in a genealogy of Benjamin (q.v. , 9, ii. J3); i Ch. 8iof. See JQR 11 105, 3.

JEW[edit]

Wt\\, yhudi ; Aram. H-liT*. fhudai ; Ass. Ya- u-da-ai, loviaios, Jud&us), i.e., a man of Yehudah i.e., JUDAH, [q.v.}. JEHUDI [q.v.] and the fem. JUDITH (JVT1.T, y huditk) are used as proper names ; but the form Jehudijah (nnirp, i Ch. 4 isf) cannot be relied upon (see JEHUDIJAH). The adj. louSaiVcos, Jewish, occurs in 2 Mace. 8 n, etc., Tit. 1 14; the adv. lovfaiKu; in Gal. 2 14 ; the verb Iou8atfeii (in Esth. 817 D ~irrnp> became Jews ), Gal. 2 14 ; the substantive Ioviaioyios ( religion of the Jews, Jews religion ) in 2 Macc. 2 21 81 1438 Gal. 1 13/

1. Use in OT.[edit]

1. A subject of the kingdom of Judah, 2 K. 16:5 26:25 Jer. 32:12 33:19 40:12 41:3 43:9 (Me wish men = men of Judah); 44i 5228-30.

The date of the passages does not come into consideration, for the Assyrian phrase Ya'uhazi Ya'udai ( 'Ahaz the Judahite' ) in Tiglath-pileser's inscription shows that HlfV was already current in the sense of man of the land of Judah. Jer. 34:9 is not included ; Hirp has grown out of -\\y (see Giesebr. ad loc.).

2. A Hebrew of the Babylonian or Persian province of Judah, or of the Maccabjean state, Zech. 823 Neh. 1 2 4i_/C [833^] 4 12 [6] i Mace. 820 23 etc.

3. A member of the Jewish race, broadly taken, Ezra 4 12 23 65 68 etc., Esth. 25 846 613 85 etc., Dan. 3s.

2. Use in NT.[edit]

The word is used in the NT, chiefly in the plur. , to denote

1. Jews as distinct from Gentiles or proselytes, or Samaritans, Mk.?3 Jn.26i3 4922 5i 64 72 194042 Acts 2 10 2139 2424 (Drusilla, a Jewess ). Similarly of Jewish Christians(Actsl6i a Jewess who believed ), Gal.2i 3 cpjn.8 3 i.

2. Of 'Israelites indeed' - Jews worthy of the name, Rom. 228/ Rev. 2989.

3. Of Jews, as antagonistic to Jesus or to the Gospel, Mt. 2815 Rom. 2 17 2 Cor. 11 24 i Thess. 2 14 and especially Jn. 64152 848-57 9 is 10 19 11 19313336 12911. Cp Zahn, Einl. 2554.

Jewess occurs twice, Acts 16 1 2424.

JEWEL[edit]

the rendering of several Hebrew words (see below). See generally ORNAMENTS, PRECIOUS STONES.

(i) D nin, harftzlm ; AV chains [of gold] ; RV strings [of jewels] ; (2) Vn, Art.Zor rrSrt, helyah; (3) Dnifl, til rim (Cant. 1 10 ; AV rows [of jewels]/ RV plaits [of hair] ). On all three see NECKLACE, 1 and 5.

For (4) DJ3, nezem, and (5) S jy, agil, see RING, i/.

(6) nV^D, segullah. See PECULIAR TREASURE.

(7) (l ?3, ketl (Is. 61 10 ; cp Nu. 31 50 3H7 3, jewels of gold, 2 Ch. 32 27 men 3, AV pleasant jewels RV goodly vessels ). See ORNAMENTS (i).

JEWRY[edit]

p-liV), Dan. 5i 3 AV, RV JUDAH [?.;.].

JEWS LANGUAGE[edit]

(ITl-liT), 2 K. 18:26, etc. See HEBREW LANGUAGE, 2.

JEZANIAH[edit]

(-in^P), Jer. 408. See JAAZANIAH, i.

JEZEBEL[edit]

("?aj\S ; iezd,BeA [BAL]. The two explanations in Ges. Thes. are non-habitatio, i.e., 'chaste' ; and 'island of habitation' perhaps a title of Tyre. But (against i) a negative particle N is unprovable [see ICHABOD, note, and cp NAMES, 45], and (against 2) ^31 in a personal name will naturally bear its well-attested sense of exaltation. The first element K should be explained as in ICHABOD, JEZER, ITHAMAR. Konig s explanation, 'exalted isle' [Exp. T., 10 190 (Jan. 99)], so far as isle goes, is surely wrong. So, too, is DHM s theory that ^TN is an intentional alteration of the Phoen. ^niNVyj ['Baal exalts', or 'is a husband'?] so that it should mean un-exalted. An artificial etymology, 'what filth', is implied in MT of 2 K. 9:37 [^37 = jDl]> see below.)

Daughter of Ethbaal of Tyre (see AHAB), wife of Ahab (i K. 16 3 i 1841319 19i/. 1\ 5 ff. 2 K. $lff.\ ATHALIAH (q. v.), queen of Judah, was her daughter. Nothing more clearly shows Ahab's thoroughly political instinct than his marriage with this Tyrian princess. It is not so clear, however, whether he foresaw the religious consequences of the step. Solomon had married foreign women, and erected special sanctuaries for them ; but the religious influence of no one of these was supreme. Ahab was perhaps a monogamist , like Jeroboam. At any rate, Jezebel had too proud a nature to be content to worship her own god with a few Tyrian sojourners ; the Tyrian Baal-worship must have equal rights with the worship of Yahwe. According to the Elijah-narratives Jezebel destroyed all the prophets of Yahwe except ELIJAH [q.v.], and even that brave prophet had to seek refuge from her in Horeb. She is made responsible for the judicial murder of NABOTH [q.v.], and Elijah's legendary biographer connects her dreadful end with a curse pronounced on her by Elijah on the occasion of Naboth's death (i K. 21:23). The dramatic tale of Jehu's entrance into Jezreel need not be repeated (see JEHU).

It is worth while, however, to relieve the Deuteronomic com piler of Kings from the tastelessly savage words of MT of 2 K. 9:37. The true reading can probably be recovered from L (cp Klo. snote), "And the carcass of Jezebel shall be like the carcass of Naboth, and there shall be none to say, Woe is me."

In Rev. 2:20 there seems to be implied a misinterpreta tion of words of Jehu in 2 K. 9:22. The name Jezebel is given to a false prophetess, 1 who had influence in the church of Thyatira, and is accused of seducing Christians to commit fornication, and to eat things offered to idols. Fornication is probably meant literally. Whether a party of false teachers is here personified, or whether (as Bousset and Schlirer suppose) an individual is meant, is disputed. At any rate, the adherents of Jezebel and the NICOLAITANS (q.v. ) represent the same antinomian tendency (cp 2 Pet. 2i 18).

JEZELUS[edit]

dezHAoy [BA]). i. 1 Esd. 832 = Ezra 8 5, JAHAZIEL, 5.

2. i Esd. 8 36= Ezra 8 9, JEHIEL, 8.

JEZER[edit]

("IV" 1 ; leccep [!])> m genealogy of NAPHTALI (Gen. 40 24 [P], iiro-aap [ADL], Nu. 2649 [PL <P [BF], iecrpi [A], i Ch. 7 13 tcrcn-ojp [B], eraap [A]), gentilic Jezerite (Nu. 2649, I*!?, o i<rpi [A], 6 ie<rep[e]i [BF], -<rcr. [L]); cp IZRI (ix ) in i Ch. 25 n.

JEZIAH[edit]

(nr). RVIzziAH (n-r [Ba. Ginsb.]; a third variant is fT7 [Ginsb.], i.e., Jeza-iah, see NAMES, 32 ; tafias [L]), b. Parosh, in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end); Ezra 10 25 (af[e]ia [BA], aSia [N])= i Esd. 9 26

1 AB Vet. Lat., etc., read ri]V yvvaiKa. <rov i.e., they make her the wife of the Angel of the Church (so Lachm., Zahn [Einl. 2608]) ; KCP Copt., Vg. TT\V yvvalKa (so Tisch., Treg., WH). [AV] EDDIAS, [RV] IEDDIAS, [RV ng.] IZZIAH or IEZIAS s [B], ie6St. [A]).

JEZIEL[edit]

pft Kt - ir some MSS read ^N) and ^NV , perhaps corruption of Jahazi-el, ^H Trr, God sees, see NAMES, 31, but also, there, n. - 2), b. Azmaveth, one of David s warriors, i Ch. 12 3 (iiuijA. [BN], afiijA [A], [L], Jazicl, ^^Q* [but in a different text]). See DAVID, n (a, Hi.).

JEZLIAH[edit]

RV IZLIAH (nN^>r ; z& P ei\ [B]. ezAi* [A], iezeAl<\ [L]), b. Elpaal, in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v. , 9, ii. ); i Ch. 8 i8f.

JEZOAR[edit]

pnyi Kt., in VI Kr.), iCh. 4 7 AV, RV IZHAR (q.v. [ii.]).

JEZRAHIAH[edit]

(iVrnr, 35, 'Yahwe rises' ), a Levite musician priest in the procession at the dedication of the wall (see EZRA ii. , 13^-), Neh. 1242 (om. BN*A, lezplAC [N c a mgr L]). The identical Hebrew name appears elsewhere as IZRAHIAH.

JEZREEL[edit]

(^Ninr; God sows iezpAeA [AL], also B in Hos. 14/T ii [22] 222 [24], -a^A [L generally in Ki.]; lefaprjAo. [Jos.] ; i<rpa7)A [B nearly always; AL in i S. 29 ii 2 S. 2944, and A in i K. 20 [21] 23 2 K. 9 toj. Other forms are B s ecrpae i K. 4i2, e<JepA Judg. 633, and A s iea/3A. i K. 1846 2 K. 936, ifpaeA i S. 29 1, 2Ch. 226, and <SQ s tecrpaeA in Hos. In [22]. Gentilic form JEZREELITE ( ^KJint ; 6 icrpai)A[e]injs [BA], 6 iefpa>)A. [L]), i K. 21 1 6 etc., in 2 K. 9 21 o ifpaijA. [A], 825 6 lafparjX. [A]).

1. Clan and town.[edit]

i. Originally a clan -name, analogous to Israel, Jerahmeel, Ishmael ; then the name of a city and district; lastly that of the long, deep vale dominated by the city of Jezreel. 1

Of the existence of the Jezreelite clan in N. Palestine, we have no direct biblical evidence ; but it may be surmised that the fact recorded bombastically in king Merneptah's famous inscription (see ISRAEL, 7, end) was the extinction of a tribe called, not Israel, but Jezreel. Renouf's conjecture that the stele actually spoke of Jezreel is not indeed confirmed (see Spiegelberg's report, and Exoousi. , 2) ; but it remains possible that the spelling Isir'il ( = Israel) is due to a mistake of the ear such as was, at any rate, often made by Greek scribes. The place is assigned in Josh. 19 18 (tafr\ [B], ie<7/meX [L]) to Issachar. We know from Judg. 5 that this tribe suffered greatly from Canaanitish preponderance (cp ISSACHAR) ; and since Taanach, Ibleam, and Megiddo on the one side and Beth-shean on the other are represented in Judg. 127 as Canaanitish enclaves, we may, for geographical reasons, assume that Jezreel, though coveted by Issachar, also long remained Canaanitish.

Josh. 17:16 probably confirms this view ; we read there of the Canaanites of Beth-shean and of the poy ( einek) of Jezreel as having formidable chariots of iron.

It may be that one of the fruits of the victory commemorated in Judg. 5 was the conquest of Jezreel (Budde, Ri.-Sam. 47). In the time of Saul, at any rate, Jezreel was Israelitish ; not far from it ( by the fountain [of Harod] which is by Jezreel ) was the camp of the Israelites before the great battle in which Saul was said to be slain (i S. 29 1 ; see, however, SAUL, 4). The district of Jezreel is included in the kingdom of Ishbaal (aS.28/., but the text is doubtful). 2 It was afterwards the residence of Ahab and, after him, of Joram; hard by was the vineyard of NABOTH (i K. 21 1), where Joram, Ahab's second son, was slain by Jehu (2 K. 921^:). It was at the palace of Jezreel that the usurper had his famous encounter with Jezebel (2 K. 9 30-37). According to Hosea, vengeance would be taken on Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and where should this be but in the vale of Jezreel ? At the same time so Hosea interpreted to himself the divine message of which he was conscious the guilt-laden kingdom of N. Israel would come to an end (Hos. \+f. ; v. n [2a] is much later).

1 For slightly different views of the development see We. CH 254, n. 2 ; Bu. Ri.-Sa. 46, n. i. The passages quoted by We. to prove that Jezreel was originally the name of a district, not of a city, are i S. 29 i n 28.2944. The inference is not justifiable ; the clan of Jezreelites not merely occupied a district ; they must have had one chief settlement called after their own name. That Jezreel was the name of a city in David s time is certain (Bu. rightly quotes i 8.2643). Both We. and Bu., however, seem to misunderstand i S. 29 ii, where, comparing (5, we should read Wnb^a DnVriV *>3> >( ?B\ and the Philistines went up to fight against Israel the equivalent of the statement in 31 i (cp. the duplicate statements in 284, 29 i ; see GILBOA). In 28.29 ^Njnr ^NI ( and over Jezreel ) may be a corruption of -^NI Ilirt o r B lJH ( and over the Girzites, or Girshites ); see GIRZITES. In 2 S. 4 4 Jezreel evidently means the district of Jezreel.

2 See preceding note.

The next time the place is mentioned, it is called Esdraelon (Judith 89 46 7 3), and Esdraelon is the name given by Eusebius (OS 267 52 ; Jer. [133 14] omits the name) to a very notable village in the great plain between Scythopolis and Legio ; the Jerusalem Itinerary locates it 10 R. m. from Scythopolis. In the times of the Crusaders the Franks knew it as Gerin (Gerinum ; William of Tyre, 2226); in 1173 the Jewish traveller, Benjamin of Tudela, calls it Zarein. From Saladin s time onwards Zer in has no doubt been the Arabic name of the village which has succeeded the ancient Jezreel (Zer m for Jezreel, as Betin for Bethel). Strange indeed it is, that a place once so important should have such a miserable modern representative ! The tower referred to in 2 K. 9 17, which was a part of the citadel, has long since disappeared. The ruined tower of the squalid modern village is not ancient ; but the view from it compensates one to some extent for disappoint ments.

Westward, the Carmel ridge may be followed until it terminates at the sea; in the distant east the Jordan line is made out easily ; Gilboa seems near enough for you so to strike it with a stone that the missile would rebound and reach Little Hermon before it fell. The great mountain walls of Bashan and of Eglon [ Ajlun] rise in the far east, and seem to forbid any search beyond them (Harper, In Scripture Lands, 285).

In fact, Jezreel itself stands high ; you would hardly guess how high, as you approach it riding across the gently swelling plain of Esdraelon. Looking east ward, however, you see that there is a steep, rocky descent on that side into the valley of Gilboa, with the remains of wine-presses cut in the rock, which, with a white marble sarcophagus (found by GueYin), are the only relics of any antiquity at Zer in.

2. Vale.[edit]

We noticed just now (in Josh. 17 16) the phrase the emek (pay) of Jezreel ; the meaning of this has now to be stated clearly. An poj; ( emek} is a wide avenue running up into a mountainous country ; the emek of Jezreel ought therefore to mean, not the great central plain (nypa, bik dh} W. of Jezreel, the gate of which is Megiddo, but the broad deep vale E. of Jezreel (between the so-called Little Hermon and Gilboa), descending to the Jordan, the gate of which is Jezreel. It should be borne in mind that the later phrase the plain of Esdraelon (Judith 18) is less correct than the early phrases the plain of MEGIDDO [q. v. ] and the Great Plain. l We do not mean that the great plain could not be designated the plain of Jezreel, for Jezreel looks two ways along the emek or vale to the Jordan, and across the bik dh or plain to Mount Carmel. But if one place has more claim than another to give its name to the great central plain, it is Megiddo at least if MEGIDDO [^.z / .] is Lejjun or Legio, which looks as if it were set there for the very purpose of guarding the chief entrance of the plain from Sharon. The Vale of Jezreel, then, is the fit name for that broad deep vale with its gate at Jezreel, which three miles after it has opened round Gilboa to the south . . . suddenly drops over a bank some 300 feet high into the valley of the Jordan (GASm. HG -$$7}. Near the edge of this bank rises the mound which covers the ruins of Beth- shean, in a position not surpassed for strength by any in Palestine. See BKTH-SHEAN. T. K. c.

2. A place in the hill -country of Judah (Josh. 1856 iapi)A [B], lefipaeA [A], i [p]A [L]), not far from Carmel, whence came Ahinoam, David s wife (i S. . .043, i<rpar)A [B], iia<A [A], i(fpa7)A [L]), and J ether or Ithra, his brother-in-law (28. 17 25). Perhaps this name lies hidden in the miswritren JERUEL in 2 Ch. 20. See ABIGAIL, 2 ; AHINOAM ; AMASA, i ; JETHER, 3 ; also SAUL, 4.

1 See GASm. HG 384/5 Furrer in Schenkel,

JEZREEL[edit]

pKinp.)-

i. Mentioned in genealogical connection with Etam and SHELAH (i, q.v.) in i Ch. 43! (afpo;A [BA*], lefriijA [Al>?], -peijA [L]). Perhaps the eponym of JEZREEL, 2.

2. Name of a son of Hosea (Hos. 1 4 ; te^pacA [BAQ]), in allusion to the bloodshed of Jezreel. See above, JEZREEL i., $ i.

JEZRIELUS[edit]

dezpmAoc [A]), i Esd. 927 RV = Ezra 10a6, JEHIEL, n.

JIBSAM[edit]

RV IBSAM (D^T, 54, 'he is fragrant' ?), son of Tola (see ISSACHAR, 7), i Ch. 7 2 (B&C6.N [B], ieB- [A], IA.BC&M [L]).

JIDLAPH[edit]

(P|S T T, 54), son of NAHOR [y.v.] (Gen. 22:22 [J]; leAA&cj) [A], ieAAM> [L], om. D.). See PEDAIAH, i.

JIMNA, JIMNAH, JIMNITES[edit]

See IMNAH.

JIPHTAH[edit]

RV IPHTAH (PiriSV see JIPHTAH-EL), an unidentified site in the lowland of Judah, mentioned in the same group with Mareshah : Josh. 1643 (ied)6& [AL], om. B?). See JOTBAH.

JIPHTAH-EL, VALLEY OF[edit]

RV IPHTAH-EL ptsrnjjl^ |, cp JEPHTHAH; r<M<J>*.HA [B], rA) ie4>6<M-lA [AL]), a place on the N. border of Zebulun towards Asher, Josh. 19i42 7 f (pM KAI <J>6<MHA [B], f<M ecGAHA [L])- It has been identified with the Jotapata so well known from Josephus s account of the siege during the first Roman war (BJ iii. 7), the name of which in the Mishna is nsir, Yodfiphath (Neub. Gtogr. 203 ; cp 193, n. 6). The names Iphtah and Yodgphath (for another form see JOTBAH) may seem dissimilar ; but the old Hebrew names passed through strange vicissitudes ; the transformation of Iphtah is not impossible. Jotapata is no doubt the modern Jefat, a little to the NE. of Kanet el-Jel!l, and due N. of Sepphoris. To the NW. of Jefat lies Kabul; see CABUL, col. 615. According to Robinson (BR 8107), the valley of Iphtah-el is the great Wady Abillln, which takes its rise SW. of Jefat ; but this is not plausible. Should we not read, for j, ni?33? The letters nj?3 may have fallen out owing to the proximity of nB. The round and lofty Tell Jefat, which is only connected with the hills to the N. of it by a low saddle, would form an excellent landmark. For a less probable identification (Conder s), see DABBASHETH.

T. K. C.

1 So i Ch. 2:16 ; in 2 S. 2:18, however, he stands first.

2 How long a time elapsed between the encounter at Gibeon and the events in chap. 3 is unknown. v. 28 (cp 30x1) of the former chapter presupposes a cessation of the war ; but ch. 3:1 (cp 6a) represents the strife between the rival houses as continuing.

JOAB[edit]

PSO" 1 , 'Yahwe is father' ? cp JOAH, ABIJAH, ELIAB. A possible derivation from ;JN must not be disregarded : cp No. ZDMG, 88, p. 477 ; iua/3 [BAL]).

i. b. ZERUIAH [q. v. ], David s nephew and general (i S. 266 2 S. 2 13 etc., i K. 1 7 etc., i Ch. 2i6 ; u^3a/3 [A, Ps. 60 title], iwa [A in i Ch. 11 26]). We do not know whether he, like his elder brother Abishai, 1 followed the fortunes of David from the first. We first hear of Joab in connection with the encounter between the men of Abner and Ishbaal and the men of David at Gibeon (28. 2 ff. ; see HEI.KATH- HAZZURIM), and the vengeance which he took 2 upon ABNER [^.w.] for the violent death of his brother Asahel (2 S. 222-26) had consequences which were helpful to the claims of David, though David him self (according to 2 S. 831-39 ; cp i K. 231^) did not recognise this. It was the exploit of this warrior at the capture of Zion which, according to i Ch. 114-9, was rewarded by his promotion to be a head and commander (iB 1 ). 1 In 2 8.2023 (cp 816) we find him placed over all the host of Israel. But through what events one who began as the mere leader of a band (cp 2 S. 822) rose to the generalship (2023 ; cp 816) we are not told in 28., and, unlike Abishai, Joab is not referred to in the scanty notices of the war with the Philistines.

Passing over the wars of David and his complicity in the death of Uriah (2 8. 11), we meet with him next in the account of Absalom's exile and rebellion. Here he is represented as standing on terms of close intimacy with David and as prevailing on the king to recall his banished son (14 \ff. ), although it was not until Absalom had taken severe measures that he was able to procure him an interview with the king. 2 In the fight against Absalom (2 S. 18) a third of the people is put under his charge, although from v. 16 he would seem to have been at the head of the army. That he was directly re sponsible for the death of Absalom (w. 10-14) is rendered doubtful (i) by the conflicting statement in v. 15 which ascribes the deed to his armour-bearers, (2) by his retaining influence over the king, and (3) by the remarkable fact that no allusion is made to the deed in David s final charge (i K. 2 1 3) or elsewhere. But, however this may be, the king felt himself obliged to promise AMASA [y.v. ] the post which Joab had held.

On the occasion of Sheba s revolt (which the MT, according to its present arrangement, places immedi ately after Absalom s rebellion), the command, in the absence of Amasa, was given to Abishai, the king fully realising that Joab would naturally follow his brother (28.20). The fact that he then takes the leadership into his own hands is so much a matter of course that it does not need to be mentioned. 3 Joab finds an opportunity of ridding himself of his rival Amasa, and successfully quells the revolt.

In David's frontier wars Joab was the foremost figure ; it is true he is unmentioned in the panegyric, ch. 8:1-14, but the account in ch. 10 probably gives a more historical view. The later tradition may have deepened the horrors of his campaign in Edom, 4 but that his policy was thorough is shown by the deadly hatred which arose between Edom and Israel. An equally successful campaign was carried out against Ammon and the allied Aramaeans (ch. 10 ; see DAVID, S b], ancl in the following year Rabbath- Ammon, the capital, with all its spoil, fell into his hands (ch. 11:1, 12:26-31).

In ch. 24 (a later but pre-deuteronomic narrative ; cp SAMUEL ii., 6) Joab is ordered to number the people. The un willingness he exhibits is characteristically treated in i Ch. 21 6, Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them, for the king s word was abominable (so EV) to Joab. 5

Finally, at the close of David's life, Joab sided with Adonijah in his attempt to gain the crown (i K. ly ff.), and upon the accession of Solomon was slain by Benaiah at the altar-horns and buried in his house in the wilder ness (i K. 2:29+). See ZERUIAH, ATROTH-BETH-JOAB.

A recollection of his name may be preserved in 2 and 3 below ; otherwise he passes out of history. In the list given by BAL at tne c ] ose of i K. 2 a certain ajSei (<5 B , but eAia/3 L, cp also chap. 4 6) son of Joab is cited as captain of the army, but unfortunately there is no further evidence to support this statement. 1

In reviewing Joab s history it is difficult to gain a clear insight into his relation to David. Powerful and indispensable as he was, he was replaced by Amasa at the close of Absalom s rebellion, which throws doubt upon the suggestion that the increase in Joab s influence over David dates from the episode of Uriah. If David was afraid of Joab because of his acquaintance with the true facts of Uriah s death, he could certainly have found means to get rid of him. Joab s treachery to Uriah is not too clearly stated in 2 S. 11 15 ff.? and although Joab may have justly incurred blame, it is difficult to see why his brother Abishai (to whom David owed so much, cp, e.g. , 2 S. 21 17) should be included in the invectives against the sons of Zeruiah (cp 2 S. 830 16 io/. [seeKlo.], 19 20 [21]^).

There is a consensus of critics that the injunction ascribed to David in i K. 2s/. was written after his time to excuse the killing of Joab and Shimei (see DAVID, 12). Here, as in the section 228-34, Joab s fate is represented as a just retribution for the murder of Abner, captain of the host of Israel, and of Amasa, captain of the host of Judah. The special stress laid upon the innocence of David, 3 as well as the reiterated condemnation of the sons of Zeruiah, reveals the tendency to idealise the character of the great national hero which characterised later ages (cp DAVID, 9).

2. The father of Ge-harashim (i Ch. 4 14 ; i<o/3a/3 [BL]). See HARASHIM. Meyer (Entst. 147) suggests a connection with ATROTH-BETH-JOAB [y.v.]. The resemblance between Seraiah (the name of his father) and Zeruiah (above) is superficially striking, but apparently accidental.

3. One of the two families of PAHATH-MOAB [q.v.] in the great post-exilic list [EzRA ii., 9, 8 c], Ezra26=Neh. 7n (iwjSa/3 [B in both ])= i Esd. 5 ii (po/3oaj3 [B], AV om.); cp Ezra 8 9 = iEsd.8 3S . S. A. C.

1 The Chronicler's account of the way in which he rose to distinction ignores the important part which he played in coun teracting Abner ; the Abner episode is, in fact, omitted in Chron.

2 It is difficult to place much confidence in the notice (14 28ff) that two years elapsed before Absalom saw David's face. w. 25-27 are an acknowledged gloss ; but since v. 2&& is an almost identical repetition of v. 2\b, it is probable that v. 28 is also a gloss, and v. 29 follows immediately upon v. 24.

3 So, at any rate, Bu. (SBOT), m opposition to the almost general opinion that for Abishai (7>. 6) we should read Joab (so Pesh.). If, as has been suggested elsewhere (see AJSL 16 168 [1900]), the connection between the revolts of Sheba and Absa lom and the story of Amasa s murder are both due to a redactor, it is probable that Pesh. is right, and that the alteration to Abishai occurred after the two narratives had been joined, and was, indeed, rendered absolutely necessary by 19 13114].

  • In i Ch. 18 12 the campaign is ascribed to Abishai.

8 i Ch. 27 24 says that Joab began to number, but finished not.

JOAB, HOUSE OF[edit]

See ATROTH-BETH-JOAB.

JOACHAZ[edit]

(ICOXAZ [A], IOO&XAZ [ L ])> iEsd. 1 3 4- See jEHOAHAZ.

JOACHIM[edit]

(icodvKeiM [BAQ]), Bar. 1 3 , and Joacim i Esd. Is? 43 ; RV Joakim. See JEHOIAKIM, JEHOIACHIN. Joakim is also the name of a son of Zerubbabel (i Esd. 5s), of the high priest in Judith s time (Jud. 46), and of the husband of Susanna (Sus. 1 1).

JOADANUS[edit]

(|60A6.NOC[B], IU)<\AANOC[A]), I Esd. 9 19 = Ezra 10 18, GEDALIAH, 5.

JOAH[edit]

(nNi\ Yahwe is brother, cp -irVn^, and see NAMES, 44; la) A X [BNALOQ]).

1. b. Asaph, Hezekiah s vizier at the time of Sennacherib s invasion (2 K. 18 18, iiacra<j>ar [BA, omitting b. Asaph ], w. 26 37, iwas [B ; in v. 26 tioa-a^ar A] ; Is. 863, i<a\ [N*], i<oa/3 [P], v. ii itoas [B], om. NT, v. 22 iwa/3 [r]).

2. b. Joahaz, Josiah s vizier during the religious reforms (2 Ch. 348, tovax [B], iwas [AL] om. Pesh., tcoaTTji/ [Jos. Ant. x. 4i]>.

3. b. Zimmah, a Gershonite Levite (i Ch. 621 [e] : iu>a/3 [B], icoae [L]; 2Ch. 29 12: om. B., uoa [A], iwSaafl [L])- See GENEALOGIES i., 7 (iii., b), and note that ASAPH (y.v. 3, cp i above) is also a Gershonite name.

4. b. OBED-EDOM [q.v.] (i Ch. 26 4 : i.iaa.6 [B], -S [L], tuaa [A]).

JOAHAZ[edit]

(THNV, cp TPlKin* ; ICOAX&Z [BAL]).

1. The father of JOAH [2] (2 Ch. 348 ; tcoa x [B], om. Pesh.).

2. ( = mNirr, JEHOAHAZ), king of Israel (2 K. 14 1; iwaxas [B], a X a/[A]).

3. ( = inNirp, JEHOAHAZ), king of Judah (2 Ch. 8624).

JOANAN[edit]

i. (ICO&NAN [A], ICON& [B], om. L), i Esd. 9 1 = Ezra 106, RV Jonas. See JOHANAN, 2.

2. (naavav [Ti. WH]), Lk. 3 27 RV. See GENEALOGIES ii., 3/

1 Joab, according to Thenius, is a mistake for Shaphat (cp <Ta<t>[ar] BA i K.46).

2 David orders Uriah to be placed in the thick of the battle and then left. But in w. 11 f. Uriah appears to join with other heroes in an onslaught against the city (no names of enemy or city are given in 11 zjf.) and falls with them. Nor is the intro duction of Abimelech in v. 21 a case in point, for how was a city to be taken without going up to the wall (as in 2 S. 17 13)?

3 i K. 2 32 : my father David knew it not ; cp the awkward expression 2 S. 3 28 J3 nrwp in j;D7 1.

JOANES[edit]

(|U)ANOY [WHJ, -NNOY [ Ti -])- J n - l-2 RV m e-, AV Jona, RV John. See BAR-JONA, JOHN.

JOANNA[edit]

or rather, as in RV JOANAN (IOOAN&N [Ti. WH]), eighteenth in the ascending genealogical series which begins with Joseph, Mary's husband, in Lk. 823-38. See GENEALOGIES ii., 3/.

JOANNA[edit]

(icoANN<\[Ti.], iu>6.N&[WH] ; cp Aram. JOnV, "jriV, Ber. R. 64, b. Sot. 22 a, from an original Heb. jSrW or nsm\ Dalm. Jiid.-Pal. Aram. 142, n. 9, cp BAR-JONA), wife of CHUZA (Lk. 83). She was one of the pious women who ministered to Jesus and the twelve apostles (airro?s [Ti. WH]) of their substance, and of those who went to the sepulchre to embalm his body (Lk. 83 24iof).


JOANNAN[edit]

(ICOANNHC [ANY]), i Mace. 2 2, RV John. See MACCABEES i. , i, 3.

JOARIB[edit]

(i Macc. 2i). See JEHOIARIB.

JOASH[edit]

(E>Ki.T, and, in an abbreviated form, KW. Both forms occur in i and 2, but in T,ff. the latter is consistently found ; cp yasi-ilu, an Arabian tribal-name, temp. Sennacherib and A3ur-bani-pal [Hommel, Exp.T. 8562^]; Sab. QIN JN, Sin. l!?1K3Ki etc. 1 Possibly Yah gives, 26, see Gray, HPN I54./C, but more probably it is not a verbal form ; twas [BNAL] ; ias[A 2 K. 148]).

1. b. Ahaziah, king of Judah (B.C. 835-796), who was hidden during the usurpation of Athaliah and crowned at the age of seven (2 K. 12 2 Ch. 24).

On the two parallel accounts of the revolution which placed Joash on the throne, (a) 2 K. 11:1-12, 11:18b-20, (b) ib. vv. 13-18a, see Stade, ZA TIV 5 280 jf. ( 85), who is followed by Benzinger and Kittel. The former, which emphasizes the religious motives of the revolution, may have come from a work on the history of the temple. The account in 2 Ch. 22:10-23:21 is largely recast ; but, where this is not the case, can be used as a parallel text to (a).

We know but little of Joash s long reign. Somehow the temple had been allowed to get into disrepair, and Joash made a new arrangement for the due preservation of the fabric, the priests being made responsible for this. The temple is evidently regarded as a royal possession. A statement of more historical interest (turned to his own account by the Chronicler, 2 Ch. 24a3J) is concerned with the inroad of the Syrians under Hazael, who only departed on receiving a large tribute. No doubt this inroad stands in close connection with Hazael s successful wars against Jehu or Jehoahaz. Joash met his death at the hands of assassins, which was possibly an act of private vengeance for the cruel murder of Zechariah b. Jehoiada, the priest. (This is suggested by the statement of 2 Ch. 2425, which may be not wholly incorrect.) See ISRAEL, 31; CHRONICLES, 8 ; CHRONOLOGY, 35.

2. b. Jehoahaz (797-783 B.C. ?), king of Israel (2 K. 13 io!4 2 Ch. 25). One of the greatest of the Israelitish kings. His success over BENHADAD [q. v. ] b. Hazael (which is said to have been foretold by Elisha, 2 K. 13 14^) and his victory over Amaziah, followed by his breaking down of the wall of Jerusalem, are the most prominent facts of his reign. That Judah was reduced to vassalage was the result, according to the narrative, of an audacious challenge of Amaziah b. Joash (i), king of Judah, which provoked the scornful and only too prophetic parable of the thistle and the cedar (2 K. 148^). See AMAZIAH, i.

3. Father of GIDEON \q.v.} (Judg. 6-8). See AMAZIAH.

4. A prince (lit. the king s son ) temp. Ahab (i K. 2226 cp 2 Ch. 1825 4<uao-a [B]). Either the title king s son was given to officers of state, or members of the royal house did not disdain such an office as the governorship of the prison. Possibly ~->Dn is a corruption of ^NDnT (Che.), see HAMMELECH.

5. A son of SHELAH [y.v.], b. Judah, i Ch. 422 (iioaSa [B]).

6. One of David s heroes (t Ch. 12 3, iwa [B], uopas [A]). See DAVID, ii a, iii. S. A. C.

1 See Cook, Aramaic Glossary, s.V. BOX, 1BOK.

JOASH[edit]

(KW, 80, 'Yahwe aids', for CW, cp Ar. gatha and Sab. n. pr. fill/PX. This, however, is not favoured by the Gk. transcription iwas [BAL], which does not presuppose the harder j; [ = ]. See JEUSH

i. b. BECHER [q.v.] in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 9, ii. a), i Ch. 1 8, cp IEUSH, v. 10, and i Ch. 23 iof. [&].

2. One of David s overseers (i Ch. 27 28). See DAVID, ii.

JOATHAM[edit]

(I6GA.6&M [Ti. WH]). Mt. 1 9 , RV JOTHAM [y.v.].

JOAZABDUS[edit]

(itozABAoc [A]), i Esd. 9 48 = Neh. 87, JOSABAD.

JOB[edit]

PV), Gen. 4613 AV, a corruption of JASHUB (q.v., i).

JOB[edit]

P l K ; iu>B, fos), the hero of the Book of Job (cp also Ezek. 141420 Jas. 5n, on which see below), M confounded in the postscript to LXX with JOBAB (q.v. 2), king of Edom (Gen. 8633).

1. Name.[edit]

Though this confusion is due to a late uncritical writer, probably a Jewish Haggadist, 1 we must admit the possi bility that there may be a connection between the names. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar all have points of contact with name-lists in Genesis, and we should naturally expect this to be the case with lyyob. It is true, most critics before Dillmann have explained lyyob from the Hebrew, as if the original framer of the story of Job either coined the name or at least modified it so as to make it symbolic of his hero ; the alternatives are ( i ) the pious = Ar. awwdb, one who turns to God (see Koran, 88162944) ; (2) the assailed, or persecuted i.e. , by God, or by Satan. Neither is very satis factory. The former is not definite enough in meaning, nor is the root Israelitish ; 2 the latter implies an ex ceptional use of the grammatical form (cp -nV = "nS )- There is no indication that the writers of Job thought of any meaning for the name.

2. Its origin.[edit]

Another problem remains the true origin of the name. In Am. Tab. 2376 13 we find Aiab a personal name in N. Palestine (Che. Expos. 1897, 6, p.23); possibly Aiab = Iyyob. 3 In the next article (JOB, BOOK OF, 4), the name of the hero of Job (^rx from JTN?) is traced to Ea-bani, the name of an ancient Babylonian hero, whose creation out of clay has been compared with the narrative in Gen. 27 (see CREATION, 20, n. 4). Ea-bani seems to have been confounded with Gilgames, who, according to the myth, was attacked by some sore disease, and was supernaturally healed. For other legendary Hebrew names of Babylonian origin, see CAINITES, 6-8, 10. On the land of Uz see Uz.

1 Bleek, Dillmann, Budde ascribe it to a Hellenist ; but the arguments of Frankel (MGW/21 3o8/ [ 72]) deserve attention. See Uz.

  • Cp Lag. Uebers. 90.

3 Cp also the later Heb. U; Dalm. Aram. WB.

4 The saying was, however, tampered with. See Frankel, i/>. 310 ; and cp Job and Sol. (K>/. On Resh Lakish see further Gratz, Hist, cfthe Jeivs (ET), 2500^

3. Job's character.[edit]

The question whether Job really lived - which is distinct from the question whether he actually said and did all that is related of him in our book - can only be answered in the affirmative if we are prepared to regard Cain, Enoch, and Noah as historical personages. The saying of Resh Lakish, 'Job existed not, and was not created, but is (only) a parable', 4 shows that great freedom of speech upon such matters was allowed among Jewish doctors. There has been some vagueness in the utterances of modern Christian scholars, who have not always considered that for a story to have a tradi tional basis is not equivalent to its being founded on fact. The moral value of the story of Job is un impaired by the denial of its historicity ; like the story of Jonah it is a parable, and the only question is a parable of what? The ancients were struck by Job s righteousness (Ezek. 14 14 20 Ecclus. 49g [Heb. text]), or by his patient endurance (Jas. 5n). To Mohammed, too, Job was a model of piety and patience (Koran, 38:40), and the Mohammedans humor ously call the camel 'abu Eyyub', "Job's father". In Christian Egypt, too, as Amelineau remarks, 1 the story of Job was very popular, but not the speeches. The one was practical, the other appeared to be specu lative. Theodore of Mopsuestia witnesses to the same preference of the story to the speeches in his time. For evidence of the further legendary development of the story of Job in the Jewish and Moslem world see D. 13. Macdonald, AJSL 14 137-164 [ 98] ; K. Kohler, The Testament of Job, Kohut Memorial Volume ( 97), 264-338.

4. References.[edit]

In Ecclus. 499 LXX is certainly wrong in reading [Q 13 N f r 3VN ; the latter reading is supported both by Syr. and by our Hebrew text. The recovered Heb. text, however, must be corrupt. Smend thinks he can read N^J in the MS after 2VN (Das hebr. Fragment, "97, p. 32). <&, however, has fi> o/u/Spco = Tye 2, and this is what the copyist of our MS may have meant to give ; but the word we want is "^"H, and in b 73 7D7DDH should be 7J5D<T| and the [ D"l]l of Cowley and Neubauer should be [H3]l. The passage then becomes, He also mentioned Job the upright, who uttered right words (see Job 42 7). In Jas. 5n Zahn (Einl. 1 55) may be right in preferring the reading ifiere (AB3 1331 L Arm.) to fi&fTf (B*N Ks. w.). The verse becomes, Ye have heard of the patience of Job and the end (appointed by) the Lord. See (here) that the Lord is full of compassion and pitiful.

T. K. C.

1 Version Thebaine du Livre de Job, PSBA, 87, p. 109.