Part 19 (1/2)

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ xviii 25, xix 1-5 Cf Epiph, _Adv Haer_, xxx

16]

[Footnote 2: _Vita_, 2]

[Footnote 3: Would this be the Bouna who is reckoned by the Talst the disciples of Jesus?]

[Footnote 4: Hegesippus, in Eusebius, _HE_, ii 23]

[Footnote 5: Gospel, i 26, 33, iv 2; 1st Epistle, v 6 Cf _Acts_ x 47]

[Footnote 6: Book iv See especially v 157, and following]

[Footnote 7: _Sabiens_ is the Aratasila_ has the sa in Arabic]

CHAPTER XIII

FIRST ATTEMPTS ON JERUSALEM

Jesus, almost every year, went to Jerusalem for the feast of the passover The details of these journeys are little known, for the synoptics do not speak of them,[1] and the notes of the fourth Gospel are very confused on this point[2] It was, it appears, in the year 31, and certainly after the death of John, that the most important of the visits of Jesus to Jerusaleh Jesus attached froe, he conformed himself to it in order not to wound Jewish opinion, hich he had not yet broken These journeys, n; for he felt already that in order to play a leading part, he hold, which was Jerusalem

[Footnote 1: They, however, imply them obscurely (Matt xxiii 37; Luke xiii 34) They kneell as John the relation of Jesus with Joseph of Arimathea Luke even (x 38-42) knew the faue idea of the syste the journeys of Jesus Many discourses against the Pharisees and the Sadducees, said by the synoptics to have been delivered in Galilee, have scarcely any ain, the lapse of eight days is much too short to explain all that happened between the arrival of Jesus in that city and his death]

[Footnote 2: Two pilgries are clearly indicated (John ii 13, and v 1), without speaking of his last journey (vii 10), after which Jesus returned no more to Galilee The first took place while John was still baptizing It would belong consequently to the Easter of the year 29 But the circu to this journey are of a more advanced period (Co, and Matt xxi 12, 13; Mark xi 15-17; Luke xix 45, 46) There are evidently transpositions of dates in these chapters of John, or rather he has mixed the circumstances of different journeys]

The little Galilean co at home

Jerusalem was then nearly what it is to-day, a city of pedantry, acrimony, disputes, hatreds, and littleness of ious seditions very frequent The Pharisees were donificant minutiae, and reduced to questions of casuistry, was the only study

This exclusively theological and canonical culture contributed in no respect to refine the intellect It was soous to the barren doctrine of the Mussulman fakir, to that empty science discussed round about the reat expenditure of tiuht discipline of the h very dry, gives us no idea of this, for the Renaissance has introduced into all our teachings, even the ular, a share of _belles lettres_ and of method, which has infused more or less of the _humanities_ into scholasticism The science of the Jewish doctor, of the _sofer_ or scribe, was purely barbarous, unatedly absurd, and denuded of all moral element[1]

To crown the evil, it filled with ridiculous pride those who had wearied the it The Jewish scribe, proud of the pretended knowledge which had cost him so much trouble, had the same contempt for Greek culture which the learned Mussulman of our time has for European civilization, and which the old catholic theologian had for the knowledge of men of the world The tendency of this scholastic culture was to close the mind to all that was refined, to create estees on which they had wasted their lives, and which were regarded as the natural occupation of persons professing a degree of seriousness[2]

[Footnote 1: We e of it by the Talmud, the echo of the Jewish scholasticism of that time]

[Footnote 2: Jos, _Ant_, XX xi 2]

This odious society could not fail to weigh heavily on the tender and susceptible minds of the north The contempt of the Hierosolymites for the Galileans rendered the separation still more complete In the beautiful temple which was the object of all their desires, they often only rim's psalm,[1] ”I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God,” seehed at their siy, familiarized with the sanctuaries, witnessed coldly and alrim come from afar The Galileans spoke a rather corrupt dialect; their pronunciation was vicious; they confounded the different aspirations of letters, which led to ion, they were considered as ignorant and somewhat heterodox;[3]

the expression, ”foolish Galileans,” had become proverbial[4] It was believed (not without reason) that they were not of pure Jewish blood, and no one expected Galilee to produce a prophet[5] Placed thus on the confines of Judaism, and almost outside of it, the poor Galileans had only one badly interpreted passage in Isaiah to build their hopes upon[6] ”Land of Zebulon, and land of Naphtali, way of the sea, Galilee of the nations! The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon theht shi+ned” The reputation of the native city of Jesus was particularly bad It was a popular proverb, ”Can there any good thing co lxxxiii) 11]

[Footnote 2: Matt xxvi 73; Mark xiv 70; _Acts_ ii 7; Tal; Bereschith Rabba, 26 _c_]

[Footnote 3: Passage from the treatise _Erubin_, _loc cit_]

[Footnote 4: _Erubin_, _loc cit_, 53 _b_]

[Footnote 5: John vii 52]