This essay on Nazareth should be read as a companion to my other essay The Son of Father Superior. As I did there, also here I have transcribed some material from the priceless dictionaries of Professor William Smith; and I've interspersed my comments within the text, as I usually do.

The question to be investigated is this: If indeed Apollonius was "the Jesus Christ" and was crucified, as evidenced by the image on the Shroud of Turin, why was he said to have been a Galilean from Nazareth, rather than an Aramaean Assyrian from Tyana or elsewhere north of Jerusalem? Why Nazareth? As you may know, Dr. Raymond W. Bernard titled his 1956 book Apollonius the Nazarene; and Dr. Bernard equated the Nazarenes with the Essenes, suggesting that Apollonius was a "Nazarene-Essene" only for philosophical identification, not for having been born in Nazareth proper.

Let's look for an answer.

Elizabeth, mother of John The Baptist, was divinely impregnated whilst married to the high-priest Zecharias. In Smith's A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume I, page 1040, we find the following: "Zecharias was 'a priest of the course of Abia'" (Luke i.5), and he was engaged in the duties of his course when the birth of John The Baptist was foretold to him; and it has been thought possible to calculate, from the place which the course of Abia held in the cycle, the precise time of the Saviour's birth. All these data are discussed below." "Abia" here refers to "Abijah" so this was obviously a "cult" within Judaism, but curiously it also resembles the Aramaic root-word "abba" meaning father superior or high-priest, as in "Jesus Bar Abbas". You can read more about John The Baptist in my essay devoted to that subject.

Elizabeth travelled "to the south" to deliver her baby. Some have supposed that she travelled as far as Hebron, south of Jerusalem. Presumably she and Zecharias also were Galileans, since she and Mary were cousins. Soon thereafter, Mary joined her in the south, during which time Mary also was divinely impregnated with Jesus. Mary stayed with Elizabeth until after John's birth, and then they returned to their native countries, probably Nazareth of Galilee. This was six months before the birth of Jesus, at which time the shepherds were said to be out in their fields at night, tending their flocks. In the month of December, it is too cold at night for the shepherds to herd their sheep in the fields, and the flocks are brought back to their shelters at the end of the day. Some have postulated that Jesus was actually born in October, when it would still have been warm enough for the shepherds to stay out in the fields at night, and that this "true" birth was later discarded by the Catholic Church in favor of the "pagan" holiday celebrating the birth of Mithras on December 25, as a way for the Roman government, seeking political stability, to appease the "dissident" Mithraic movement, the chief rival to Christianity within the Empire. At any rate, Jesus could not have been born any later than October, meaning that John was born around April.

Just prior to Jesus' birth, Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar ordered that a census be taken for the purposes of future taxation in Palestine. Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register and pay their taxes. Hardly anything is known about the life of Joseph. He was much older than Mary, and his father was said to have been named Heli. Jesus was born during this trip to Bethlehem, and eventually the family returned to settle in Nazareth. The "Bar Mitzvah" of this Jesus at age 12 took place in the synagogue at Nazareth, after which time this Jesus disappeared from history for 18 years.

Assuming, as I do, that the "Jesus" born of Mary was actually Jesus Barabbas, orThe Son Of Father Superior, he probably received a fine religious upbringing. Following his "Bar Mitzvah", during the missing 18 years he moved to Jerusalem and began his "divinely inspired" insurrection against the Roman rule. Presumably he returned home to Nazareth from time to time to visit his parents and other relations and friends. He and John The Baptist had grown up as cousins, and by 27 CE John was "crying in the wilderness" and baptizing revolutionary sympathizers in the River Jordan north of Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, perhaps a third of the way north between Jerusalem and Nazareth.

In that same spring of 27 CE, Apollonius of Tyana and Damis of Ninevah returned to Babylon from their trip to India. After visiting Babylonian Prince Bardanes, they departed for points west and south. From Babylon there were two major highroads, one west to Damascus and the Lebanon, and the other north to Ninevah and on west to Edessa and Antioch. Whichever road they took, they turned up later that year in the vicinity of the River Jordan, Sea of Galilee and Nazareth. Apollonius expressed solidarity with the political cause of John by being baptized. He became the long-awaited "Messiah" rather by default. Certainly John could tell that Apollonius was a philosophical "cut above" the average Palestinian and on an equal with the Essenes and other holy Jewish cults. Apollonius spoke with a strange, northern, Syrian-like Aramaic accent not completely unlike the Nazarene accent. However, in Jerusalem Jesus Barabbas had become known as a "Messiah" as well. It should be added here that John The Baptist did not recognize the "Messiah" whom he baptized as someone that he had met before, which would have been reported differently in the Gospels if this "Messiah" had been John's childhood cousin Jesus, considering how close Mary and Elizabeth were.

Thus, it was in Nazareth where the confusion originated as to whether Apollonius of Tyana or Jesus Barabbas of Nazareth was the "true" Messiah. Read on for further details.

A Dictionary of the Bible by Professor William Smith & Others (Boston, 1863), Volume II, Pages 468-475.

NAZARETH is not mentioned in the Old Testament or in Josephus, but occurs first in Matt. ii. 23, though a town could hardly fail to have existed on so eligible a spot from much earlier times. It derives it celebrity almost entirely from its connexion with the history of Christ, and in that respect has a hold on the imagination and feelings of men which it shares only with Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

[COMMENT: There is no reason to doubt this information. If Nazareth was not mentioned in either the Old Testament or Josephus, then it certainly had no "historical" importance. Josephus died in Rome at the turn of the Second Century. Why did he not mention "Jesus of Nazareth", alongside John The Baptist? Josephus must have decided that events transpiring at Nazareth and in the Galilee were of no real importance to the history of the Jews. RS]

It is situated among the hills which constitute the south ridges of Lebanon, just before they sink down into the Plain of Esdraelon. Among those hills is a valley which runs in a waving line nearly east and west, about a mile long and, on the average, a quarter of a mile broad, but which at a certain point enlarges itself considerably so as to form a sort of basin. In this basin or enclosure, along the lower edge of the hill-side, lies the quiet secluded village in which the Saviour of men spent the greater part of His earthly existence.

The surrounding heights vary in altitude, some of them rise to 400 or 500 feet. They have rounded tops, are composed of the glittering limestone which is so common in that country, and, though on the whole sterile and unattractive in appearance, present not an unpleasing aspect diversified as they are with the foliage of fig-trees and wild shrubs and with the verdure of occasional fields of grain. Our familiar hollyhock is one of the gay flowers which grow wild there. The enclosed valley is peculiarly rich and well cultivated: it is filled with corn-fields, with gardens, hedges of cactus, and clusters of fruit-bearing trees. Being so sheltered by hills, Nazareth enjoys a mild atmosphere and climate. Hence all the fruits of the country -- as pomegranates, oranges, figs, olives -- ripen early and attain a rare perfection.

[COMMENT: If there were corn-fields growing in the Nazareth valley when Professor Smith's dictionary was published, they were certainly not there in the First Century of our Common Era. Corn is a plant native to North America and was not cultivated in other parts of the world until after America's "discovery" by Christopher Columbus in 1492. RS]

Of the identification of the ancient site there can be no doubt. The name of the present village is en-Nazirah, the same, therefore, as of old; it is formed on a hill or mountain (Luke iv.29); it is within the limits of the province of Galilee (Mark i.9); it is near Cana (whether we assume Kana on the east or Kana on the north-east as the scene of the first miracle), according to the implication in John ii.1,2,11; a precipice exists in the neighbourhood (Luke iv.29); and, finally, a series of testimonies (Reland, Pal., 905) reach back to Eusebius, the father of Church history, which represent the place as having occupied an invariable position.

[COMMENT: In "the good ol' days" back before 1975, when all hell broke loose in Lebanon and half the country was destroyed in the ensuing years (a great tragedy of our modern time), Lebanon was one of the finest countries on the face of the Earth. It was my favorite country of all. I went to Beirut several times, to Baalbeck once and up the coast to the Riviera-like Casino du Liban to gamble in elegance on starlit evenings. Beirut, which reminded me of France, was the most exciting "party city" that I have ever visited. Bar none. Bring back the good ol' days! And, somewhat parenthetically, I might add here that when I was living and working in the Middle East, I heard the old legend that if a man wanted to find both the most beautiful and the most clever wife, then he should go to Syria to look for a bride. And it is true: there are many extraordinarily beautiful women in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia; so it should be no surprise that their men keep them veiled in public! But not so in "the Lebanon" which in the "good ol' days" was a playground for Saudi aristocrats, a place for women, especially, to throw off their veils, dress in Gucci fashions and dance the night away at fancy cabarets along the Lebanese "Corniche", the "French Riviera" of the Middle East.

[At any rate, this is a very fertile area of the Middle East. It has a climate similar to that of New Orleans and Galveston, or Casablanca perhaps. The winters are mild. Nestled in these rolling mountains are all sorts of picturesque valleys like this description of Nazareth. From a purely touristic point of view, I recommend Lebanon highly if you are ever in that part of the world. I think that slowly but surely it is getting back to its old self, despite all the Islamic fundamentalism trying to surround it.

[Yes, there is no doubt that modern-day En-Nazirah is ancient Nazareth. RS]

The modern Nazareth belongs to the better class of eastern villages. It has a population of 3000 or 4000, a few are Mohammedans, the rest Latin and Greek Christians. There is one mosque, a Franciscan convent of huge dimensions but displaying no great architectural beauty, a small Maronite church, a Greek church, and perhaps a church or chapel of some of the other confessions. Protestant missions have been attempted, but with no very marked success. Most of the houses are well built of stone, and have a neat and comfortable appearance. As streams in the rainy season are liable to pour down with violence from the hills, every "wise man", instead of building upon the loose soil on the surface, digs deep and lays his foundation upon the rock which is found so generally in that country at a certain depth in the earth. The streets or lanes are narrow and crooked, and after rain are so full of mud and mire as to be almost impassable.

[COMMENT: Certainly by now, almost 140 years after this writing, the streets and highways of Nazareth are quite modernized. It has always been unfortunate that tourists can't drive from Tel Aviv to Beirut through these scenic mountains. Lebanon, like parts of California, is a country where in January you can snow-ski in the mountains in the morning and bask on the sunny, warm beach in the afternoon. If true peace ever comes to the Middle East, the drive from Tel Aviv to Beirut will be most enjoyable! RS]

A description of Nazareth would be incomplete without mention of the remarkable view from the tomb of Neby Ismail on one of the hills behind the town. It must suffice to indicate merely the objects within sight. In the north are seen the ridges of Lebanon and, high above all, the white [snow-capped, RS] top of [Mount, RS] Hermon; in the west, Carmel, glimpses of the Mediterranean, the bay and the town of Akka; east and south-east are Gilead, Tabor, Gilboa; and south, the Plain of Esdraelon and the mountains of Samaria, with villages on every side, among which are Kana, Nain, Endor, Zerin (Jezreel), and Táannuk (Taanach). It is unquestionably one of the most beautiful and sublime spectacles (for it combines the two features) which earth has to show. Dr. Robinson's elaborate description of the scene (Bib. Res., ii.336,7) conveys no exaggerated idea of its magnificence or historical interest. It is easy to believe that the Saviour, during the days of His seclusion in the adjacent valley, came often to this very spot and looked forth thence upon those glorious works of the Creator which so lift the soul upward to Him.

[COMMENT: This spot is probably just as much a "tourist site" now as then. When Apollonius passed through Nazareth, he certainly took in this scenic view. RS]

The passages of Scripture which refer expressly to Nazareth though not numerous are suggestive and deserve to be recalled here. It was the home of Joseph and Mary (Luke ii.39). The angel announced to the Virgin there the birth of the Messiah (Luke i.26-28). The holy family returned thither after the flight into Egypt (Matt. ii.23). Nazareth is called the native country of Jesus: He grew up there from infancy to manhood (Luke iv.16), and was known through life as "The Nazarene". He taught in the synagogue there (Matt. xiii.54; Luke iv.16), and was dragged by His fellow-townsmen to the precipice in order to be cast down thence and be killed. "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was written over His Cross (John xix.19), and after His ascension He revealed Himself under that appellation to the persecuting Saul (Acts xxii.8). The place has given name to His followers in all ages and all lands, a name which will never cease to be one of honour and reproach.

[COMMENT: In other words, "Nazareth" is mentioned fewer than ten times in the New Testament, as annotated here. Although I regularly attended Bible School in my youth and read all the Gospels, I didn't recall this episode in which the Nazarenes tried to hurl the "Messiah" over the cliff. So I attempted to search for more information in the Smith Dictionary entry concerning Jesus.

[Now I am going to break into the Nazareth narrative to insert some background information, as it were, from Smith's A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume I, pages 1041-1042, 1050, 1053-1054. This information will "set the stage" for the cliff episode in Nazareth. RS]

Thirty years had elapsed from the birth of our Lord to the opening of His ministry. In that time great changes had come over the chosen people. Herod the Great had united under him almost all the original kingdom of David; after the death of that prince it was dismembered forever. Archelaus succeeded to the Kingdom of Judaea, under the title of Ethnarch; Herod Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, and Philip tetrarch of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, Batanaea, and Paneas. The Emperor Augustus promised Archelaus the title of king, if he should prove worthy; but in the tenth year of his reign (UC 759) [6 CE, RS] he was deposed in deference to the hostile feelings of the Jews, was banished to Vienne in Gaul, and from that time his dominions passed under the direct power of Rome, being annexed to Syria, and governed by a procurator. No king nor ethnarch held Judaea afterwards, if we except the three years when it was under Agrippa I.

[COMMENT: Thus, when both John The Baptist and Jesus Barabbas, Son of Mary, were about ten years old, their native country was annexed to Syria and made an official part of the Roman Empire. This would have been the catalyst-event that gave rise to insurrectionist movements like those of John and Barabbas. Cappadocia was seized by Rome ten years later. RS]

Marks are not wanting of the irritation kept up in the minds of the Jews by the sight of a foreigner exercising acts of power over the people whom David once ruled. The publicans who collected tribute for the Roman empire were everywhere detested; and as a marked class is likely to be a degraded one, the Jews saw everywhere the most despised among the people exacting from them all, and more than all (Luke iii.13), that the foreign tyrant required. Constant changes were made by the same power in the office of high-priest, perhaps from a necessary policy. Josephus says that there were twenty-eight high-priests from the time of Herod to the burning of the temple (Ant. xx.10). The sect of Judas the Gaulonite, which protested against paying tribute to Caesar, and against bowing the neck to an alien yoke, expressed a conviction which all Jews shared. The sense of oppression and wrong would tend to shape all the hopes of a Messiah, so far as they still existed, to the conception of a warrior who should deliver them from a hateful political bondage.

[COMMENT: If their hopes of a Messiah engendered the conception of a warrior who should deliver them by revolution from the rule of Rome, then certainly Jesus Barabbas fit their ideal profile much more so than Apollonius of Tyana. RS]

It was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius the Emperor, reckoning from his joint rule with Augustus (Jan. UC 765) [12 CE, RS], and not from his sole rule (Aug. UC 767) [14 CE, RS], that John the Baptist began to teach. In this year (UC 779) [26 CE, RS] Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea, the worldly and time-serving representative of a cruel and imperious master; Herod Antipas and Philip still held the tetrarchies left them by their father. Annas and Caiaphas are both described as holding the office of high-priest; Annas was deposed by Valerius Gratus in this very year, and his son-in-law Joseph, called also Caiaphas, was appointed, after some changes, in his room; but Annas seems to have retained after this time (John xviii.13) much of the authority of the office, which the two administered together.

John The Baptist, of whom a full account is given below under his own name, came to preach in the wilderness. He was the last representative of the prophets of the old covenant; and his work was twofold -- to enforce repentance and the terrors of the old law, and to revive the almost forgotten expectation of the Messiah (Matt. iii.1-10; Mark i.1-8; Luke iii.1-18). Both these objects, which are very apparent in his preaching, were connected equally with the coming of Jesus, since the need of a Saviour from sin is not felt but when sin itself is felt to be a bondage and a terror. The career of John seems to have been very short; and it has been asked how such great influence could have been attained in a short time (Matt. iii.5). But his was a powerful nature which soon took possession of those who came within its reach; and his success becomes less surprising if we assume with Wieseler that the preaching took place in a sabbatical year (Baumgarten, Geschichte Jesu, 40).

It is an old controversy whether the baptism of John was a new institution, or an imitation of the baptism of proselytes as practised by the Jews. But at all events there is no record of such a rite conducted in the name of and with reference to a particular person (Acts xix.4), before the ministry of John. Jesus came to Jordan with the rest to receive this rite at John's hands; first, in order that the sacrament by which all were hereafter to be admitted into His kingdom might not want His example to justify its use (Matt. iii.15); next, that John might have an assurance that his course as the herald of Christ was now completed by His appearance (John i.33); and last, that some public token might be given that He was indeed the Anointed of God (Heb. v.5). A supposed discrepancy between Matt. iii.14 and John i.31,33 disappears when we remember that from the relationship between the families of John and our Lord (Luke i), John must have known already something of the power, goodness, and wisdom of Jesus; what he did not know was, that this same Jesus was the very Messiah for whom he had come to prepare the world. Our Lord received the rite of baptism at His servant's hands, and the Father attested Him by the voice of the Spirit, which also was seen descending on Him in a visible shape: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. iii.13-17; Mark i.9-11; Luke iii.21,22).

[COMMENT: The preceding statements are "wishful thinking" on the part of this colleague of Professor Smith. It is clear from the Gospels that John did not recognize the "Messiah" who came forwards for baptism. In fact, John did not even realize that this new follower of his movement might possibly be the Messiah until after the baptism when the dove appeared and set down on bird-lover Apollonius' shoulder. RS]

Immediately after this inauguration of His ministry Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. ...

The Scene of the Lord's Ministry. As to the scene of the ministry of Christ, no less than as to its duration, the three Evangelists seem at first sight to be at variance with the fourth. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record only our Lord's doings in Galilee; if we put aside a few days before the Passion, we find that they never mention His visiting Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, whilst he records some acts in Galilee, devotes the chief part of his Gospel to the transactions in Judaea. But when the supplemental character of John's Gospel is borne in mind there is little difficulty in explaining this. The three Evangelists do not profess to give a chronology of the ministry, but rather a picture of it: notes of time are not frequent in their narrative. And as they chiefly confined themselves to Galilee, where the Redeemer's chief acts were done, they might naturally omit to mention the feasts, which being passed by our Lord at Jerusalem, added nothing to the materials for His Galilean ministry.

John, on the other hand, writing later, and giving an account of the Redeemer's life which is still less complete as a history (for more than one-half of the fourth Gospel is occupied with the last three months of the ministry, and seven chapters out of twenty-one are filled with the account of the few days of the Passion), vindicates his historical claim by supplying several precise notes of time: in the occurrences after the baptism of Jesus, days and even hours are specified (i.29,35,39,43, ii.1); the first miracle is mentioned and time at which it was wrought (ii.1-11). He mentions not only the Passovers (ii.13,23; vi.4; xiii.1, and perhaps v.1), but also the feast of Tabernacles (vii.2) and of Dedication (x.22); and thus it is ordered that the Evangelist who goes over the least part of the ground of our Lord's ministry is yet the same who fixes for us its duration, and enables us to arrange the facts of the rest more exactly in their historical places.

It is true that the three Gospels record chiefly the occurrences in Galilee; but there is evidence in them that labours were wrought in Judaea. Frequent teaching in Jerusalem is implied in the Lord's lamentation over the lost city (Matt. xxiii.37). The appearance in Galilee of scribes and pharisees and others from Jerusalem (Matt. iv.25, xv.1) would be best explained on the supposition that their enmity had been excited against Him during visits to Jerusalem. The intimacy with the family of Lazarus (Luke x.38), and the attachment of Joseph of Arimathea to the Lord (Matt. xxvii.57), would imply, most probably frequent visits to Jerusalem.

But why was Galilee chosen as the principal scene of the ministry? The question is not easy to answer. The Prophet would resort to the Temple of God; the King of the Jews would go to His own royal city; the Teacher of the chosen people would reach in the midst of them. But their hostility prevented it. The Saviour, who, accepting all the infirmities of "the form of a servant", which He had taken, fled in His childhood to Egypt, betakes Himself to Galilee to avoid Jewish hatred and machinations, and lays the foundations of His church amid a people of impure and despised race.

To Jerusalem He comes occasionally, to teach and suffer persecution against Him that He left Judaea: "When Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee" (Matt. iv.12) [29 CE, RS]. And that this persecution aimed at Him also we gather from St. John: "When therefore the Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John ... He left the Judaea and departed into Galilee" (iv.1,3). If the light of the Son of Righteousness shone on the Jews henceforward from the far-off shores of the Galilean lake, it was because they had refused and abhorred that light [to shine in Jerusalem, RS]. ...

After a sojourn at Jerusalem of uncertain duration, Jesus went to the Jordan with His disciples; and they there baptized in His name. The Baptist was now at Aenon near Salim; and the jealousy of his disciples against Jesus drew from John an avowal of his position, which is remarkable for its humility (John iii.27-30).

"A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I have been sent before Him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."

It had been the same before; when the Sanhedrim sent to enquire about Him he claimed to be no more than "the voice of One crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias" (John i.23); there was one "who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose" (i.27). Strauss thinks this height of self-renunciation beautiful, but impossible (Leben Jesu, ii.1§46); but what divine influence had worked in the Baptist's spirit, adorning that once rugged nature with the grace of humility, we do not admit that Dr. Strauss is in a position to measure.

How long this sojourn in Judaea lasted is uncertain. But in order to reconcile John iv.1 with Matt. iv.12, we must suppose that it was much longer than the "twenty-six or twenty-seven" days, to which the learned Mr. Greswell upon mere conjecture would limit it. From the two passages together it would seem that John was after a short time cast into prison (Matt.), and that Jesus, seeing that the enmity directed against the Baptist would now assail Him, because of the increasing success of His ministry (John), resolved to withdraw from its reach.

In the way to Galilee [29 CE, RS] Jesus passed by the shortest route, through Samaria. This country, peopled by men from five districts, whom the king of Assyria had planted there in the time of Hoshea (2 K. xvii.24&c), and by the residue of the ten tribes that was left behind from the captivity, had once abounded in idolatry, though latterly faith in the true God had gained ground. The Samaritans even claimed to share with the people of Judaea the restoration of the Temple at Jerusalem, and were repulsed (Ezra iv.1-3).

In the time of our Lord they were hated by the Jews even more than if they had been Gentiles. Their corrupt worship was a shadow of the true; their temple on Gerizim was a rival to that which adorned the hill of Zion. "He that eats bread from the hand of a Samaritan," says a Jewish writer, "is as one that eats swine's flesh." Yet even in Samaria were souls to be saved; and Jesus would not shake off even that dust from His feet. He came in His journey to Sichem, which the Jews in mockery had changed to Sychar, to indicate that its people were drunkards (Lightfoot), or that they followed idols (Reland, see Hab. ii.18). ...

[COMMENT: The Jews of Jerusalem and Judaea, it seems, didn't like any of these "northern" Jews of Samaria and Galilee. RS]

Jesus now returned to Galilee, and came to Nazareth, His own city. In the Synagogue He expounded to the people a passage from Isaiah (lxi.1), telling them that its fulfilment was now at hand in His person. The same truth that had filled the Samaritans with gratitude, wrought up to fury the men of Nazareth, who would have destroyed Him if He had not escaped out of their hands (Luke iv.16-30).

[COMMENT: Here are these verses from Luke (Revised Standard Version). "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 'The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.' And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, 'Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.' And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said 'Is not this Joseph's son?' And he said to them 'Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, "Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country."' And he said, 'Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; and Elijah was sent to the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.' When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. But passing through the midst of them, he went away."

[That is a most enigmatic Biblical passage when you think about it carefully. A possible different version of this event by Matthew is provided below. In both descriptions the Nazarenes asked if this man was "Joseph's son". They did not recognize this "Jesus" with certainty as Joseph's son. Let's assume that they were confused and that this man was actually Apollonius of Tyana, returning to Nazareth to seek safety following the execution of John. He entered the synagogue and took the Aramaic version of the Book of Isaiah from the attendant, opened it and read at random. At first, the Nazarenes seemed to have been pleased with what he said, until he mentioned the time when "the heaven was shut up" and the leprosy epidemic broke out.

[The period of Elijah and his successor Elisha spanned the years from about 900-840 BCE. These years coincided with the last period of The Cosmic Tree, the Hebrew Mount Zion. This idea that "the heaven was shut up" had nothing to do with Yggdrasill but refers to the fact that there was no rain for three and a half years. The period of these prophets overlapped the reign of Amenhotep III, The Magnificent, and the Akhnaton El-Amarna Period in Egypt, the reign of Menelik I in Ethiopia and the glorious marriage and alliance of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria with the daughter of the King Burnaburiash of Babylonia.

[Why would the Nazarenes, upon hearing this period of history mentioned, be filled with such wrath that they would try to kill Apollonius? Did Apollonius bring up a local "taboo" subject, of which he was unaware? Perhaps these Nazarenes knew that their own local "Jesus Barabbas, Son of Mary" would never have openly referred to this unmentionable period of their history, since it was "blasphemy" and punishable by death. This is curious indeed! RS]

He came now to Capernaum. On his way hither, when He had reached Cana, He healed the son of one of the courtiers of Herod Antipas (John iv.46-54), who "himself believed, and his whole house". This was the second Galilean miracle. At Capernaum He wrought many miracles for them that needed. Here two disciples who had known Him before, namely, Simon Peter and Andrew, were called from their fishing to become "fishers of men" (Matt. iv.19), and the two sons of Zebedee received the same summons. After healing on the Sabbath a demoniac in the Synagogue, a miracle which was witnessed by many, and was made known everywhere. He returned the same day to Simon's house, and healed the mother-in-law of Simon who was sick of a fever. At sunset, the multitude, now fully aroused by what they had heard, brought their sick to Simon's door to get them healed. He did not refuse His succour, and healed them all (Mark i.29-34). He now, after showering down on Capernaum so many cures, turned His thoughts to the rest of the Galilee, where other "lost sheep" were scattered: "Let us go into the next towns that I may preach there also, for therefore came I forth: (Mark i.38).

[COMMENT: Therapeut and thaumaturge Apollonius had studied the healing methods of the Pythagorean physician Asclepius. Thus, it is not surprising that during this time in Palestine, he practiced his healing powers, whether they were "scientific" or "miraculous". RS]

The journey through the Galilee, on which He now entered, must have been a general circuit of that country. His object was to call on the Galileans to repent and believe the Gospel. This could only be done completely by taking such a journey that His teaching might be accessible to all in turn at some point or other. Josephus mentions that there were two hundred and four towns and villages in Galilee (Vita, 45): therefore such a circuit as should in any real sense embrace the whole of Galilee would require some months for its performance. "The course of the present circuit," says Mr. Gresswell (Dissertations, vol. ii.293), "we may conjecture, was, upon the whole, as follows: First, along the western side of the Jordan, northward, which would disseminate the fame of Jesus in Decapolis; secondly, along the confines of the tetrarchy of Philip, westward, which would make Him known throughout Syria; thirdly, by the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, southward; and, lastly, along the verge of Samaria, and the western region of the lake of Galilee -- the nearest points to Judaea proper and to Peraea -- until it returned to Capernaum."

In the course of this circuit, besides the works of mercy spoken of by the Evangelists (Matt. iv.23-25; Mark i.32-34; Luke iv.40-44) He had probably called to Him more of His Apostles. Four at least were His companions from the beginning of it. The rest (except perhaps Judas Iscariot) were Galileans, and it is not improbable that they were found by their Master during this circuit. Philip of Bethsaida and Nathanael or Bartholomew were already prepared to become His disciples by an earlier interview. On this circuit occurred the first case of the healing of a leper; it is selected for record by the Evangelists, because of the incurableness of the ailment. So great was the dread of this disorder -- so strict the precautions against its infection -- that even the raising of Jaius' daughter from the dead, which probably occurred at Capernaum about the end of this circuit, would hardly impress the beholders more profoundly.

[COMMENT: That concludes the inserted material. Nazareth was undoubtedly the "capital" of the Galilee. Now, I'll resume the Nazareth transcription. RS]

The origin of the disrepute in which Nazareth stood (John i.47) is not certainly known. All the inhabitants of Galilee were looked upon with contempt by the people of Judaea because they spoke a ruder dialect, were less cultivated, and were more exposed by their position to contact with the heathen. But Nazareth laboured under a special opprobrium, for it was a Galilean and not a southern Jew who asked the reproachful question, whether "any good thing" could come from that source. The term "good", having more commonly an ethical sense, it has been suggested that the inhabitants of Nazareth may have had a bad name among their neighbours for irreligion or some laxity of morals. The supposition receives support from the disposition which they manifested towards the person and ministry of our Lord. They attempted to kill Him; they expelled Him twice (for Luke iv.16-29 and Matt. xiii.54-58 relate probably to different occurrences) from their borders; they were so wilful and unbelieving that He performed not many miracles among them (Matt. xiii.58); and, finally, they compelled Him to turn his back upon them and reside at Capernaum (Matt. iv.13).

[COMMENT: Regarding the expulsion of "Jesus" from Nazareth, the cliff-episode of Luke has already been noted. Here is the RSV version of Matthew xiii.53-58: "And when Jesus had finished these parables [at Capernaum, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, RS], he went away from there, and coming to his own country [nearby Nazareth, RS] he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where did this man get all this?' And they took offence at him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honour except in his own country and in his own house.' And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief."

[Elsewhere in Professor Smith's Dictionary, it is related that Joseph had four sons and two daughters. In the above list we find sons James (The Just), Joseph, Simon and Judas. If Jesus is also counted amongst the sons, then Joseph had five sons. He also was married previously before he became connected with Mary. NOTA BENE: None of Joseph's sons is named Thomas! Unless "Judas" refers to St. Jude Didymus Thomas, the twin of "Jesus", then Thomas, as a brother of "Jesus", arises purely from the fact that Damis/Tomas was the constant companion of Apollonius. Surely Damis and Apollonius dressed alike, had similar hairstyles and beards, and so forth, and could have been thought of by strangers as "twins". Considering how much that I know about this, I feel certain that this reference by Matthew to Joseph's son Judas would be impossible to connect to St. Jude Didymus Thomas; but any reader is free to prove me wrong. In Hebrew/Aramaic the word "didymus" means "twin"; and both Damis and St. Thomas were said to have been "Syrians" or "Assyrians", not Jews, by birth. See also my essay The Crucifixion of Saint Damis. RS]

[These verses in Matthew do not explicitly state that Jesus was expelled from Nazareth after this incident, which is reminiscent of what was reported above by Luke. It could be that "Jesus" gave more or less the same retort to the Nazarenes on both occasions. If in fact this "Jesus" was actually Apollonius, then we can understand how the local people might have misunderstood exactly who was who. Jesus Barabbas himself might have been in and out of Nazareth at that time as well, and often gone unrecognized as an adult by the Nazarenes, who recalled only the child who'd grown up as the carpenter's son.

[Here is a quick insert about Capernaum, where the Messiah spent a lot of time. This information comes from A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume I, page 273:

[There is no mention of Capernaum in the Old Testament or Apocrypha, but the passage Is. ix.1 (in Hebrew, viii.23) is applied to it by St. Matthew. The word Caphar in the name perhaps indicates that the place was of late foundation. The few notices of its situation in the New Testament are not sufficient to enable us to determine its exact position. It was on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and, if recent discoveries are to be trusted, was of sufficient importance to give to that Sea, in whole or in part, the name of the "lake of Capernaum". (This was also the case of Tiberias, at the other extremity of the lake.) It was in the "land of Gennesaret", that is, the rich, busy plain on the west shore of the lake, which we know from the descriptions of Josephus and from other sources to have been at that time one of the most prosperous and crowded districts in all Palestine. Being on the shore, Capernaum was lower than Nazareth and Cana of Galilee, from which the road to it was one of descent; to the general level of the spot even if our Lord's expression "exalted unto heaven" had any reference to height of position in the town itself. It was of sufficient size to be always called a "city"; had its own synagogue, in which our Lord frequently taught -- a synagogue built by the centurion of the detachment of Roman soldiers which appears to have been quartered in the place. But besides the garrison there was also a customs station, where the dues were gathered both by stationary and by itinerant officers. If the "way of the sea" was a great road from Damascus to the south, the duties may have been levied not only on the fish and other commerce of the lake, but on the caravans of merchandise passing to Galilee and Judaea.

[End of insert. Now to resume the Nazareth transcription. RS]

It is impossible to speak of distances with much exactness. Nazareth is a moderate journey of three days from Jerusalem; seven hours, or about twenty miles, from Akka or Ptolemais (Acts xxi.7); five or six hours, or eighteen miles, from the Sea of Galilee; six miles west from Mount Tabor, two hours from Cana, and two or three from Endor and Nain.

[COMMENT: By "moderate journey" the writer intended the time-perspective of the publication of this dictionary, which was the year 1863, when travel was still by foot or donkey. Nazareth is about 60 miles (100 kms) north of Jerusalem, and it was the custom in those times to refer to one day's travel as being about 20 miles (32 kms). Today, of course, we could drive that distance in one hour. RS]

The origin of the name is uncertain. For the conjecture on the subject, see NAZARENE.

We pass over, as foreign to the proper object of this notice, any particular account of the "holy places" which the legends have sought to connect with events in the life of Christ. They are described in nearly all the books of modern tourists; but, having no sure connexion with biblical geography or exegesis, do not require attention here. Two localities, however, form an exception to this statement, inasmuch as they possess, though in different ways, a certain interest which no one will fail to recognise. One of these is the "Fountain of the Virgin", situated at the north-eastern extremity of the town, where, according to one tradition, the mother of Jesus received the angel's salutation (Luke i.28). Though we may attach no importance to this latter belief, we must, on other accounts, regard the spring with a feeling akin to that of religious veneration. It derives its name from the fact that Mary, during her life at Nazareth, no doubt accompanied often by "the child Jesus", must have been accustomed to repair to this fountain for water, as is the practice of women of that village at the present day. Certainly, as Dr. Clarke observes (Travels, ii.427), "if there be a spot throughout the holy land that was undoubtedly honoured by her presence, we may consider this to have been the place; because the situation of a copious spring is not liable to change, and because the custom of repairing thither to draw water has been continued among the female inhabitants of Nazareth from the earliest period of its history." The well-worn path which leads thither from the town has been trodden by the feet of almost countless generations. It presents at all hours a busy scene, from the number of those, hurrying to and fro, engaged in the labour of water-carrying. See the engraving, i.632, of this Dictionary.

The other place is that of the attempted Precipitation [cliff episode, RS]. We are directed to the true scene of this occurrence, not so much by any tradition as by internal indications in the Gospel history itself. A prevalent opinion of the country has transferred the event to a hill about two miles south-east of the town. But there is no evidence that Nazareth ever occupied a different site from the present one; and that a mob whose determination was to put to death the object of their rage, should repair to so distant a place for that purpose, is entirely incredible.

[COMMENT: Two miles is not a "distant" place at all! Many small towns of 3-4000 people are two miles wide. RS]

The present village, as already stated, lies along the hill-side, but much nearer the base than the summit. Above the bulk of the town are several rocky ledges over which a person could not be thrown without almost certain destruction. But there is one very remarkable precipice, almost perpendicular and forty or fifty feet high, near the Maronite church, which may well be supposed to be the identical one over which His infuriated townsmen attempted to hurl Jesus.

The singular precision with which the narrative relates the transaction deserves a remark or two. Casual readers would understand from the account that Nazareth was situated on the summit, and that the people brought Jesus down thence to the brow of the hill as if it was between the town and the valley. If those inferences were correct, the narrative and the locality would then be at variance with each other. The writer is free to say that he himself had these erroneous impressions, and was led to correct them by what he observed on the spot. Even Reland (Pal. 905) says: "Nazareth -- urbs aedificata super rupem, unde Christum precipitare conati sunt." But the language of the Evangelist, when more closely examined, is found neither to require the inferences in question on the one hand, nor to exclude them on the other. What he asserts is, that the incensed crowd "rose up and cast Jesus out of the city, and brought him to the brow of the hill on which the city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."

It will be remarked here, in the first place, that it is not said that the people either went up or descended in order to reach the precipice, but simply that they brought the Saviour to it, wherever it was; and in the second place, that it is not said that the city was built "on the brow of the hill", but equally as well that the precipice was "on the brow", without deciding whether the cliff overlooked the town (as is the fact) or was below it. It will be seen, therefore, how very nearly the terms of the history approach a mistake and yet avoid it. As Paley remarks in another case, none but a true account could advance thus to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it.

The fortunes of Nazareth have been various. Epiphanius states that no Christians dwelt there until the time of Constantine [c320 CE, RS]. Helena, the mother of that emperor, is related to have built the first Church of the Annunciation here. In the time of the Crusaders, the Episcopal See of Bethsean was transferred there. The birthplace of Christianity was lost to the Christians by their defeat at Hattin in 1183, and was laid utterly in ruins by Sultan Bibars in 1263. Ages passed away before it rose again from this prostration. In 1620 the Franciscans rebuilt the Church of the Annunciation and assaulted the French general Junot at Nazareth; and shortly after, 2100 French, under Kleber and Napoleon, defeated a Turkish army of 25,000 at that battle, spent a few hours at Nazareth, and reached there the northern limit of his Eastern expedition. The earthquake which destroyed Safed, in 1837, injured also Nazareth. No Jews reside there at present, which may be ascribed perhaps as much to the hostility of the Christian sects as to their own hatred of the prophet who was sent "to redeem Israel".

[COMMENT: If this Jewish hatred of the "redeemer prophet" continued from the time of Apollonius until as late as the time of Professor Smith, then the Jews can certainly hold a grudge! One wonders if this hatred still exists in modern Israel. RS]

NAZARENE, an inhabitant of Nazareth. This appellation is found in the New Testament applied to Jesus by the demons in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark i.24; Luke iv.34); by the people, who so describe him to Bartimeus (Mark x.47; Luke xviii.37); by the soldiers who arrested Jesus (John xviii.5,7); by the servants at His trial (Matt. xxvi.71; Mark xiv.67); by Pilate in the inscription on the cross (John xix.19); by the disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv.19); by Peter (Acts ii.22, iii.6, iv.10); by Stephen, as reported by the false witness (Acts vi.14); by the ascended Jesus (Acts xxii.8); and by Paul (Acts xxvi.9).

[COMMENT: Regardless of whether Jesus Barabbas, Son of Mary, was from Nazareth, the fact that this city is associated with the crucifixion automatically links Apollonius to Nazareth, because the image of Apollonius is that found on the Shroud of Turin. The "highfalutin" Jerusalem Jews probably heard the northern accent of Apollonius and didn't distinguish it as being Cappadocian, assuming only that it "sounded Nazarene". By way of comparison, it would be difficult for most Texans to discern the nuances of accents between "Yankees" from Boston and New York City, or conversely, for a person from New Jersey to tell the difference between the American Southern accents of people from Georgia and Louisiana. RS]

This name, made striking in so many ways, and which, if first given in scorn, was adopted and gloried in by the disciples we are told, in Matt. ii.23, possesses a prophetic significance. Its application to Jesus, in consequence of the providential arrangements by which His parents were led to take up their abode in Nazareth, was the filling out of the predictions in which the promised Messiah is described as a Netser, i.e., a shoot, sprout, of Jesse, a humble and despised descendant of the decayed royal family. Whenever men spoke of Jesus as the Nazarene, they either consciously or unconsciously pronounced one of the names of the predicted Messiah, a name indicative both of his royal descent and his humble conditions. This explanation, which Jerome mentions as that given by learned (Christian) Jews in his day, has been adopted by Surenhusius, Fitzsche, Gieseler, Krabbe (Leben Jesu), Drechsler (on Is. xi.1), Schirlitz (N.T. Wörterb.), Robinson (N.T. Lex.), Hengstenberg (Christol.), De Werte, and Meyer. It is confirmed by the following considerations:

(1) Netser, as Hengstenberg, after de Dieu and others, has proved, was the proper Hebrew name of Nazareth. (2) The reference to the etymological signification of the word is entirely in keeping with Matt. ii.21-23. (3) The Messiah is expressly called a Netser in Is. xi.1. (4) The same thought, and under the same image, although expressed by a different word, is found in Jer. xxiii.5, xxxiii.15; Zech. iii.8, vi.12, which accounts for the statement of Matthew that this prediction was uttered "by the prophets" in the plural.

It is unnecessary therefore to resort to the hypothesis that the passage in Matt. ii.23 is a quotation from some prophetical book now lost (Chrysost., Theophyl., Clericus), or from some apocryphal book (Ewald), or was a traditional prophecy (Calovius; Alexander, Connexion and Harmony of the Old and N.T.), all which suppositions are refuted by the fact that the phrase "by the prophets", in the N.T., refers exclusively to the canonical books of the O.T. The explanation of others (Tert., Erasm., Calv., Bez., Grot., Wetstein), according to whom the declaration is that Jesus should be a Nazarite, i.e., one especially consecrated or devoted to God (Judg. xiii.5), is inconsistent, to say nothing of other objections, with the Sept. mode of spelling the word, which is generally Naziraios, and never Nazowraios.

[COMMENT: These words (transliterated here) are written in Greek in the dictionary. The former has an "i" and the latter an "ow" (to distinguish the Greek letter omega from the single "o" of omicron). I am not exactly sure what distinction was being made by this writer. But I would guess that if Apollonius deliberately went to Nazareth, perhaps to study the Hebrew prophets from a purely intellectual standpoint, or accidentally, during which time he became confused with the "messianic nature" of native-son Jesus Barabbas, Son of Mary, Apollonius' entanglement in contemporary "politics" from a "homebase" in Galilee resulted in his being considered as a "Nazarene"; and again I emphasize the general "northern" influence in his manner of speaking Aramaic. RS]

Within the last century [i.e., 1760-1860, RS] the interpretation which finds the key of the passage in the contempt in which Nazareth may be supposed to have been held has been widely received. So Paulus, Rosenm., Kuin., Van der Palm., Geradorf, A Barnes, Olsh., Davidson, Ebrard, Lange. According to this view the reference is to the despised condition of the Messiah, as predicted in Ps. xxii, Is. liii. That idea, however, is more surely expressed in the first explanation given, which has also the advantage of recognising the apparent importance attached to the signification of the name ("He shall be called"). Recently a suggestion which Witsius borrowed from Socinus has been revived by Zuschlag and Riggenbach, that the true word is [in Hebrew, RS] my Saviour, with reference to Jesus as the Saviour of the world, but without much success.

Once (Acts xxiv.5) the term Nazarenes is applied to the followers of Jesus by way of contempt. The name still exists in Arabic as the ordinary designation of Christians, and the recent revolt in India was connected with a pretended ancient prophecy that the Nazarenes, after holding power for one hundred years, would be expelled.

[COMMENT: If a word such as Nazarenes exists in modern Arabic to describe Christians, then the Islamic tradition also indicates that En-Nazirah was connected to the life of Christ. I am otherwise unaware of this linguistic reference. The "recent revolt" in India must have been one that occurred in "recent times" prior to the publication of Smith's dictionary in 1863. RS]

NAZARITE, more properly NAZIRITE (Num. vi, Judg. xiii, Lam. iv.7; Nazaraeus), one of either sex who was bound by a vow of a peculiar kind to be set apart from others for the service of God. The obligation was either for life or for a defined time. The Mishna names the two classes resulting from this distinction, "perpetual Nazarites" (Nazaraei nativi) and "Nazarites of days" (Nazaraei votivi).

I. There is no notice in the Pentateuch of Nazarites for life; but the regulations for the vow of a Nazarite of days are given in Num. vi.1-21.

The Nazarite, during the term of his consecration, was bound to abstain from wine, grapes, with every production of the vine, even to the stones and skin of the grape, and from every kind of intoxicating drink. He was forbidden to cut the hair of his head, or to approach any dead body, even that of the nearest relation. When the period of his vow was fulfilled, he was brought to the door of the Tabernacle and was required to offer a lamb for a burnt-offering, a ewe for a sin-offering, and a ram for a peace-offering, with the usual accompaniments of peace-offerings (Lev. vii.12,13) and of the offering made at the consecration of priests (Ex. xxix.2) "a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil" (Num. vi.15).

He brought also a meat-offering and a drink-offering, which appear to have been presented by themselves as a distinct act of service (ver. 17). He was to cut off the hair of "the head of his separation" (that is, the hair which had grown during the period of his consecration) at the door of the Tabernacle, and to put it into the fire under the sacrifice on the altar. The priest then placed upon his hands the sodden left shoulder of the ram, with one of the unleavened cakes and one of the wafers, and then took them again and waved them for a wave-offering. These, as well as the breast and the heave, or right shoulder (to which he was entitled in the case of ordinary peace-offerings, Lev. xii.32-34), were the perquisite of the priest. The Nazarite also gave him a present proportioned to his circumstances (ver. 21).

FOOTNOTE: It is said that at the south-east corner of the court of the women, in Herod's temple, there was an apartment appropriated to the Nazarites, in which they used to boil their peace-offerings and cut off their hair. Lightfoot, Prospect of the Temple, c. xvii; Reland, A.S. p.1.c.8§11.

[COMMENT: Apollonius of Tyana was most certainly not a "Nazarite". Apollonius did not eat meat; he did not condone the sacrifice or sport-killing of animals; and he did not ever cut his hair. These "Nazarites" came from strictly Jewish customs connected with the Old Law of Moses. Since, in the first place, Apollonius was not a Jew, then he could never have achieved the venerated status of "Nazarite". And these "Nazarites" were not necessarily "Nazarenes". Personally I find all of these bizarre rituals to be quite fascinating but puzzling. Why would such "Nazarites" go to all this ritualistic trouble, especially Queen Helena who is discussed below? All of these ancient ceremonies and rituals were pure "bullshit", to use a modern Texas expression. RS]

If a Nazarite incurred defilement by accidentally touching a dead body, he had to undergo certain rites of purification and to recommence the full period of his consecration. On the seventh day of his un-cleanness he was to cut off his hair, and on the following day he had to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons to the priest, who offered one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering. He then hallowed his head, offered a lamb of the first year as a trespass-offering, and renewed his vow under the same conditions as it had been at first made.

It has been conjectured that the Nazarite vow was at first taken with some formality, and that it was accompanied by an offering similar to that prescribed at its renewal in the case of pollution. But if any inference may be drawn from the early sections of the Mishnical treatise Nazir, it seems probable that the act of self-consecration was a private matter.

There is nothing whatever said in the Old Testament of the duration of the period of the vow of the Nazarite of days. According to Nazir (cap. i §3, p.148) the usual time was thirty days, but double vows for sixty days, and treble vows for a hundred days, were sometimes made (cap. iii.1-4). One instance is related of Helena, queen of Adiabene (of whom some particulars are given by Josephus, Ant. xx.2), who, with the zeal of a new convert, took a vow for seven years in order to obtain the divine favour on a military expedition which her son was about to undertake. When her period of consecration had expired, she visited Jerusalem, and was there informed by the doctors of the school of Hillel that a vow taken to another country must be repeated whenever the Nazarite might visit the Holy Land. She accordingly continued a Nazarite for a second seven years, and happening to touch a dead body just as the time was about to expire, she was obliged to renew her vow according to the law in Num. vi.9, &c. She thus continued a Nazarite for twenty-one years.

There are some other particulars given in the Mishna, which are curious as showing how the institution was regarded in later times. The vow was often undertaken by childless parents in the hope of obtaining children: this may, of course, have been easily suggested by the cases of Manoah's wife and Hannah. A female Nazarite whose vow was broken might be punished with forty stripes. The Nazarite was permitted to smooth his hair with a brush, but not to comb it, lest a single hair might be torn out.

II. Of the Nazarites for life three are mentioned in the Scriptures: Samson, Samuel, and St. John the Baptist. The only one of these actually called a Nazarite is Samson. The Rabbis raised the question whether Samuel was in reality a Nazarite. In Hannah's vow, it is expressly stated that no razor should come upon her son's head (1 Sam. i.11); but no mention is made of abstinence from wine. It is, however, worthy of notice that Philo makes a particular point of this, and seems to refer the words of Hannah, 1 Sam. i.15, to Samuel himself. In reference to St. John the Baptist, the Angel makes mention of abstinence from wine and strong drink, but not of letting the hair grow (Luke i.15).

[COMMENT: If Luke referred to John The Baptist as a "Nazarite", then why did not he and other Jewish Gospel writers refer to "Jesus" also as a "Nazarite"? Was John a "holier man" than Jesus? Why was not ascetic, celibate "Jesus of Nazareth" elevated to this "holy status" of "Perpetual Nazarite" like John? Because the true "Jesus of Nazareth" was not a Jew at all, but an uncircumcized Gentile from Aramaean Cappadocia: Apollonius of Tyana! RS]

We are but imperfectly informed of the difference between the observances of the Nazarite for life and those of the Nazarite for days. The later Rabbis slightly notice this point. We do not know whether the vow for life was ever voluntarily taken by the individual. In all the cases mentioned in the sacred history, it was made by the parents before the birth of the Nazarite himself. According to the general law of vows (Num. xxx.8), the mother could not take the vow without the father, and this is expressly applied to the Nazarite vow in the Mishna. Hannah must therefore either have presumed on her husband's concurrence, or secured it beforehand.

The Mishna makes a distinction between the ordinary Nazarite for life and the Samson-Nazarite. The former made a strong point of purity, and, if he was polluted, offered corban [a sacrificial offering to God in fulfillment of a vow, RS]. But as regards his hair, when it became inconveniently long, he was allowed to trim it, if he was willing to offer the appointed victims (Num. vi.14). The Samson-Nazarite, on the other hand, gave no corban if he touched a dead body, but he was not suffered to trim his hair under any conditions. This distinction, it is pretty evident, was suggested by the freedom with which Samson must have come in the way of the dead (Judg. xv.16 &c).

III. The consecration of the Nazarite bore a striking resemblance to that of the high-priest (Lev. xxi.10-12). In one particular, this is brought out more plainly in the Hebrew text than it is in our version, in the LXX [Greek Septuagint, RS], or in the Vulgate. One word derived from the same root as Nazarite is used for the long hair of the Nazarite, Num. vi.19, where it is rendered "crown".

FOOTNOTE: The primary meaning of this word is that of separation with a holy purpose. Hence it is used to express the consecration of the Nazarite (Num. vi.4,5,9). But it appears to have been especially applied to a badge of consecration and distinction worn on the head, such as the crown of a king (2 Sam. i.10; 2 K. xi.12), the diadem of the high-priest (Ex. xxix.6, xxxix.30), as well as his anointed hair, the long hair of the Nazarite, and, dropping the idea of consecration altogether, to long hair in a general sense (Jer. vii.29). This may throw light on Gen. xiix.26 and Deut xxxiii.16. See section VI of this article. J.C. Ortlob, in an essay in the Thesaurus Novus Theologico-Philologicus, vol. 1. p. 587, entitled "Samuel Judex et Propheta, non Pontifex aut sacerdos sacrificans", has brought forward a mass of testimony on this subject.

[COMMENT: If John The Baptist was a "Nazarite", then obviously he, like Apollonius, had long hair. Apollonius' long hair would not have gone unnoticed by John on the day of the baptism. In our many historical representations of Jesus, he is shown to have long hair. Thus, asking again, why was longhaired John, but not Jesus, considered to be a "Perpetual Nazarite"? RS]

The Mishna points out, the identity of the law allowed more freedom (Lev. xxi.2). And Maimonides (More Nevochim, iii.48) speaks of the dignity of the Nazarite, in regard to his sanctity, as being equal to that of the high-priest. The abstinence from wine enjoined upon the high-priest on behalf of all the priests when they were about to enter upon their ministrations, is an obvious, but perhaps not such an important point in the comparison. There is a passage in the account given by Hegesippus of St. James the just (Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. ii.23), which, if we may assume it to represent a genuine tradition, is worth a notice, and seems to show that Nazarites were permitted even to enter into the Holy of Holies. He says that St. James was consecrated from his birth neither to eat meat, to drink wine, to cut his hair, nor to indulge in the use of the bath, and that to him alone it was permitted to enter the sanctuary. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the half sacerdotal character of Samuel might have been connected with his prerogative as a Nazarite. Many of the Fathers designate him as a priest, although St. Jerome, on the obvious ground of his descent, denies that he had any sacerdotal rank.

[COMMENT: The foregoing remark about James The Just (brother of Jesus) indicates that he, like Apollonius, followed certain dietary and other rules, derived, perhaps, from Essenism or Pythagoreanism. James The Just was certainly the James who was the son of Joseph and Mary; he is a "mysterious" character in this saga. RS]

IV. Of the two vows recorded of St. Paul, that in Acts xviii.18 certainly cannot be regarded as a regular Nazarite vow. All that we are told of it is that, on his way from Corinth to Jerusalem, he "shaved his head in Cenchreae, for he had a vow". It would seem that the cutting off the hair was at the commencement of the period over which the vow extended; at all events, the hair was not cut off at the door of the Temple when the sacrifices were offered, as was required by the law of the Nazarite. It is most likely that it was a sort of vow, modified from the proper Nazarite vow, which had come into use at this time amongst the religious Jews who had been visited by sickness, or any other calamity. In reference to a vow of the kind which was taken by Bernice, Josephus says that "they were accustomed to vow that they would refrain from wine, and that they would cut off their hair thirty days before the presentation of their offering." No hint is given us of the purpose of St. Paul in this act of devotion. Spencer conjectures that it might have been performed with a view to obtain a good voyage; Neander, with greater probability, that it was an expression of thanksgiving and humiliation on account of some recent illness or affliction of some kind.

The other reference to a vow taken by St. Paul is in Acts xxi.24, where we find the brethren at Jerusalem exhorting him to take part with four Christians who had a vow on them, to sanctify (not purify, as in the A.V.) himself with them, and to be at charges with them, that they might shave their heads. The reason alleged for this advice is that he might prove to those who misunderstood him, that he walked orderly and kept the law. Now it cannot be doubted that this was a strictly legal Nazarite vow. He joined the four men for the last seven days of their consecration, until the offering was made for each one of them, and their hair was cut off in the usual form (ver. 26,27). It appears to have been no uncommon thing for those charitable persons who could afford it to assist in paying for the offerings of poor Nazarites. Josephus related that Herod Agrippa I, when he desired to show his zeal for the religion of his fathers, gave direction that many Nazarites should have their heads shorn: and the Gemara (quoted by Reland, Ant. Sac.), that Alexander Jannaeus contributed towards supplying nine hundred victims for three hundred Nazarites.

V. That the institution of Nazarites existed and had become a matter of course amongst the Hebrews before the time of Moses is beyond a doubt. The legislator appears to have done no more than ordain such regulations for the vow of the Nazarite of days as brought it under the cognizance of the priest and into harmony with the general system of religious observance. It has been assumed, not unreasonably, that the consecration of the Nazarite for life was of at least of equal antiquity. It may not have needed any notice or modification in the law, and hence, probably, the silence respecting it in the Pentateuch. But it is doubted in regard to Nazaritism in general, whether it was of native or foreign origin. Cyril of Alexandria considered that the letting the hair grow, the most characteristic feature in the vow, was taken from the Egyptians. This notion has been substantially adopted by Fagius, Spencer, Michaels, Hengstenberg, and some other critics. Hengstenberg affirms that the Egyptians and the Hebrews were distinguished amongst ancient nations by cutting their hair as a matter of social propriety; and thus the marked significance of long hair must have been common to them both. The arguments of Bähr, however, to show that the wearing long hair in Egypt and all other heathen nations had a meaning opposed to the idea of the Nazarite vow, seem to be conclusive; and Winer justly observes that the points of resemblance between the Nazarite vow and heathen customs are too fragmentary and indefinite to furnish a safe foundation for an argument in favour of a foreign origin for the former.

Ewald supposes that Nazarites for life were numerous in very early times, and that they multiplied in periods of great political and religious excitement. The only ones, however, expressly named in the Old Testament are Samson and Samuel. The rabbinical notion that Absalom was a Nazarite seems hardly worthy of notice, though Spencer and Lightfoot have adopted it. When Amos wrote, the Nazarites, as well as the prophets, suffered from the persecution and contempt of the ungodly. The divine word respecting them was, "I raised up of your sons for prophets and of your young men for Nazarites. But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink, and commanded the prophets, saying Prophesy not." (Am. ii.11,12) In the time of Judas Maccabaeus we find the devout Jews, when they were bringing their gifts to the priests, stirring up the Nazarites of days who had completed the time of their consecration, to make the accustomed offerings (1 Macc. iii.49). From this incident, in connexion with what has been related of Agrippa, we may infer that the number of Nazarites must have been very considerable during the two centuries and a half which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. The instance of St. John the Baptist and that of St. James the Just (if we accept the traditional account) show that the Nazarite for life retained his original character till later times; and the act of St. Paul in joining himself with the four Nazarites at Jerusalem seems to prove that the vow of the Nazarite of days was a little altered in its important features.

VI. The word "crown" [I think, as it is written in Hebrew, RS] occurs in three passages of the Old Testament, in which it appears to mean one separated from others as a prince. Two of the passages refer to Joseph: one is in Jacob's benediction of his sons (Gen. xlix.26); the other in Moses' benediction of the tribes (Deut. xxxiii.16). As these texts stand in our version, the blessing is spoken of as falling "on the crown of the head of him who was separated from his brethren". The LXX render the words in one place [Greek follows. RS], and in the other [More Greek. RS]. The Vulgate translates them in each place "in vertice Nazaraei inter fratres". The expression is strikingly like that used of the high-priest (Lev. xxi.10-12), and seems to derive illustration from the use of the word "crown" [Again, I think, the same word in Hebrew. RS]

The third passage is that in which the prophet is mourning over the departed prosperity and beauty of Sion (Lam. iv.7,8). In the A.V. the words are "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire, their visage is blacker than a coal, they are not known in the streets, their skin cleaveth to their bones, it is withered, it is become like a stick." In favour of the application of this passage to the Nazarites are the renderings of the LXX, the Vulgate, and nearly all the versions. But Gesenius, de Wette, and other modern critics think that it refers to the young princes of Israel, and that the word [Hebrew. RS] is used in the same sense as it is in regard to Joseph (Gen. xlix.26 and Deut. xxxiii.16).

VII. The vow of the Nazarite of days must have been a self-imposed discipline, undertaken with a specific purpose. The Jewish writers mostly regarded it as a kind of penance, and hence accounted for the place which the law regulating it holds in Leviticus immediately after the law relating to adultery. As the quantity of hair which grew within the ordinary period of a vow could not have been very considerable, and as a temporary abstinence from wine was probably not a more noticeable thing amongst the Hebrews than it is in modern society, the Nazarite of days might have fulfilled his vow without attracting much notice until the day came for him to make his offering in the Temple.

But the Nazarite for life, on the other hand must have been, with his flowing hair and persistent refusal of strong drink, a marked man. Whether in any other particular his daily life was peculiar is uncertain. He may have had some privileges (as we have seen) which gave him something of a priestly character, and (as it has been conjectured) he may have given up much of his time to sacred studies.

FOOTNOTE: Nicolas Fuller has discussed the subject of the dress of the Nazarites (as well as the prophets) in his Miscellanea Sacra. See Critici Sacri, vol. ix. p. 1023. Those who have imagined that the Nazarites wore a peculiar dress doubt whether it was of royal purple, of rough hair-cloth (like St. John's), or of some white material.

Though not necessarily cut off from social life, when the turn of his mind was devotional, consciousness of his peculiar dedication must have influenced his habits and manner, and in some cases probably led him to retire from the world.

But without our resting on anything that may be called in question, he must have been a public witness for the idea of legal strictures and of whatever else Nazaritism was intended to express: and as the vow of the Nazarite for life was taken by his parents before he was conscious of it, his observance of it was a sign of filial obedience, like the peculiarities of the Rechabites.

The meaning of the Nazarite vow has been regarded in different lights. Some consider it as a symbolical expression of the Divine nature working in man, and deny that it involved anything of a strictly ascetic character; others see in it the principle of stoicism, and imagine that it was intended to cultivate, and bear witness for, the sovereignty of the will over the lower tendencies of human nature: while some regard it wholly in the light of a sacrifice to the person of God.

(a) Several of the Jewish writers have taken the first view more or less completely. Abarbanel imagined that the hair represents the intellectual power, the power belonging to the head, which the wise man was not to suffer to be diminished or to be interfered with, by drinking wine or by any other indulgence; and that the Nazarite was not to approach the dead because he was appointed to bear witness to the eternity of the divine nature. Of modern critics, Bähr appears to have most completely trodden in the same track. While he denies that the life of the Nazarite was, in the proper sense, ascetic, he contends that his abstinence from wine, and his not being allowed to approach the dead, figured the separation from other men which characterises the consecrated servant of the Lord; and that his long hair signified his holiness. The hair, according to his theory, as being the bloom of manhood, is the symbol of growth in the vegetable as well as the animal kingdom, and therefore of the operation of the Divine power.

FOOTNOTE: He [Bähr, RS] will not allow that this abstinence at all resembled in its meaning that of the priests, when engaged in their ministrations, which was intended only to secure strict propriety in the discharge of their duties. Bähr defends this notion by several philological arguments, which do not seem to be much to the point. The nearest to the purpose is that derived from Lev. xxv.5, where the unpruned vines of the sabbatical year are called Nazarites. But this, of course, can be well explained as a metaphor from unshorn hair.

(b) But the philosophical Jewish doctors, for the most part, seem to have preferred the second view. Thus Bechai speaks of the Nazarite as a conqueror who subdued his temptations, and who wore his long hair as a crown, "quod ipse rex sit cupiditatibus imperans praeter morem reliquorum hominum, qui cupiditatum sunt servi." He supposed that the hair was worn rough, as a protest against foppery. But others, still taking it as a regal emblem, have imagined that it was kept elaborately dressed, and fancy that they see a proof of the existence of the custom in the seven locks of Samson (Judg. xvi.13-19).

(c) Philo has taken the deeper view of the subject. In his work, On Animals fit for sacrifice, he gives an account of the Nazarite vow, and calls it [Greek words here, RS]. According to him the Nazarite did not sacrifice merely his possessions but his person, and the act of sacrifice was to be performed in the completest manner. The outward observances enjoined upon him were to be the genuine expressions of his spiritual devotion. To represent spotless purity within, he was to shun defilement from the dead, at the expense even of the obligation of the closest family ties. As no spiritual state or act can be signified by any single symbol, he was to identify himself with each one of the three victims which he had to offer as often as he broke his vow by accidental pollution, or when the period of his vow came to an end. He was to realise in himself the ideas of the whole burnt-offering, the sin-offering, and the peace-offering. That no mistake might be made in regard to the three sacrifices being shadows of one and the same substance, it was ordained that the victims should be individuals of one and the same species of animal. The shorn hair was put on the fire of the altar in order that, although the divine law did not permit the offering of human blood, something might be offered up actually a part of one's own person.

Ewald, following in the same line of thought, has treated the vow of the Nazarite as an act of self-sacrifice; but he looks on the preservation of the hair, as signifying that the Nazarite is so set apart for God, that no change or diminution should be made in any part of his person, and as serving to himself and the world for a visible token of his peculiar consecration to Jehovah.

FOOTNOTE: Lightfoot is inclined to favour certain Jewish writers who identify the vine with the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and to connect the Nazarite law with the condition of Adam before he fell (Exercit. in Luc. i.15). This strange notion is made still more fanciful by Magre (Atonement and Sacrifice, Illustration xxxviii).

[COMMENT: One wonders about this "fanciful" illustration by Magre. Was it a depiction of The Cosmic Tree?! RS]

That the Nazarite vow was essentially a sacrifice of the person to the Lord is obviously in accordance with the terms of the Law (Num. vi.2). In the old dispensation it may have answered to that "living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God", which the believer is now called upon to make. As the Nazarite was a witness for the straightness of the law, sacrifice of himself was a submission to the letter of a rule. Its outward manifestations were restraints and eccentricities. The man was separated from his brethren that he might be peculiarly devoted to the Lord. This was consistent with the purpose of divine wisdom for the time for which it was ordained.

Wisdom, we are told, was justified of her child in the life of the great Nazarite who preached the baptism of repentance when the Law was about to give way to the Gospel. Amongst those born of women, no greater than he had arisen, "but he that is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he". The sacrifice which the believer now makes of himself is not to cut him off from the brethren, but to unite him more closely with them; not to subject him to an outward bone, but to confirm him in the liberty with which Christ has made him free. It is not without significance that wine under the Law was strictly forbidden to the priest who was engaged in the service of the sanctuary, and to the few whom the Nazarite vow bound to the special service of the Lord; while in the Church of Christ it is consecrated for the use of every believer to whom the command has come, "drink ye all of this".

[COMMENT: "Church of Christ" in this context refers to the whole of Christianity, not to the American fundamentalist denomination of the same name. Following the footnote, a short bibliography is given, but it will be omitted from this transcription. Then the article concludes. RS]

FOOTNOTE: This consideration might surely have furnished St. Jerome with a better answer to the Tatianists, who alleged Amos ii.12 in defence of their abstinence from wine, than his bitter taunt that they were bringing "Judaicas fabulas" into the church, and that they were bound, on their own ground, neither to cut their hair, to eat grapes or raisins, or to approach the corpse of a dead parent (in Amos ii.12).

The essay of Meinhard contains a large amount of information on the subject, besides what bears immediately on St. Paul's vows. Spencer gives a full account of heathen customs in dedicating the hair. The Notes of De Muis contain a valuable collection of Jewish testimonies on the meaning of the Nazarite vow in general. Those of Grotius relate especially to the Nazarites' abstinence from wine. Hengstenberg (Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 190, English translation) confutes Bähr's theory.

A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume I, Pages 581-583 (Excerpts).

ESSENES.

1. In describing the different sects which existed among the Jews in his own time, Josephus dwells at great length and with especial emphasis on the faith and practice of the Essenes, who appear in his description to combine the ascetic virtues of the Pythagoreans and Stoics with a spiritual knowledge of the Divine Law. An analogous sect, marked, however, by characteristic differences, appears in the Egyptian Therapeutae, and from the detailed notices of Josephus and Philo, and the casual remarks of Pliny, later writers have frequently discussed the relation which these Jewish mystics occupied towards the popular religion of the time, and more particularly towards the doctrines of Christianity. For it is a most remarkable fact that the existence of such sects appears to be unrecognised both in the Apostolic writings in and in early Hebrew literature.

2. The name Essene (Essenoi, Josephus; Esseni, Pliny) or Essaean (Philo) is itself full of difficulty. Various derivations have been proposed for it, and all are more or less open to objection. ...

The obscurity of the Essenes as a distinct body arises from the fact that they represented originally a tendency rather than an organisation. The communities which were formed out of them were a result of their practice, and not a necessary part of it. As a sect they were distinguished by an aspiration after ideal purity rather than by any special code of doctrine; and like the Chasidim of earlier times, they were confounded in the popular estimation with the great body of the zealous observers of the Law (Pharisees).

The growth of Essenism was a natural result of the religious feeling which was called out by the circumstances of the Greek dominion; and it is easy to trace the process by which is was natured. From the Maccabaean age there was a continuous effort among the stricter Jews to attain an absolute standard of holiness. Each class of devotees was looked upon as practically impure by their successors, who carried the laws of purity still further; and the Essenes stand at the extreme limit of the mystic asceticism which was thus gradually reduced to shape. The associations of the "Scribes and Pharisees" gave place to others bound by a more rigid rule; and the rule of the Essenes was made gradually stricter. Judas, the earliest Essene who is mentioned (c. 110 B.C.), appears living in ordinary society. Menahem, according to tradition a colleague of Hillel, was a friend of Herod, and brought upon his sect the favour of the king. But by a natural impulse the Essenes withdrew from the dangers and distractions of business. From the cities they retired to the wilderness to realize the conceptions of religion which they formed, but still they remained on the whole true to their ancient faith. To the Pharisees they stood nearly in the same relation as that in which the Pharisees themselves stood with regard to the mass of the people. The difference lay mainly in rigour of practice, and not in articles of belief.

[COMMENT: The Essenes were the "Pythagoreans" or "Therapeuts" of the Jewish faith. Although they basically adhered to the principles of orthodox Judaism, they nevertheless explored other avenues of philosophical rhetoric, similar to those explored by Apollonius of Tyana. Curiously, however, there is no mention that these Essenes were connected to Nazareth and Galilee! RS]

3. The traces of the existence of Essenes in common society are not wanting nor confined to individual cases. Not only was a gate at Jerusalem named from them, but a later tradition mentions the existence of a congregation there which devoted "one third of the day to study, one third to prayer, and one third to labour". Those, again, whom Josephus speaks of as allowing marriage may be supposed to have belonged to such bodies as had not yet withdrawn from intercourse with their fellow-men. But the practice of the extreme section was afterwards regarded as characteristic of the whole class, and the isolated communities of Essenes furnished the type which is preserved in the popular descriptions. These were regulated by strict rules, analogous to those of the monastic institutions of a later date. The candidate for admission first passed through a year's novitiate, in which he received, as symbolic gifts, an axe, an apron, and a white robe, and gave proof of his temperance by observing the ascetic rules of the order. At the close of this probation, his character was submitted to a fresh trial of two years, and meanwhile he shared in the lustral rites of the initiated, but not in their meals. The full membership was imparted at the end of this second period when the novice bound himself "by awful oaths" -- though oaths were absolutely forbidden at all other times -- to observe piety, justice, obedience, honesty, and secrecy, "preserving alike the books of their sect, and the names of the angels" (Josephus, B.J. ii.8,§7).

4. The order itself was regulated by an internal jurisdiction. Excommunication was equivalent to a slow death, since an Essene could not take food prepared by strangers for fear of pollution. All things were held in common, without distinction of property or house; and special provision was made for the relief of the poor. Self-denial, temperance, and labour -- especially agriculture -- were the marks of the outward life of the Essenes; purity and divine communion the objects of their aspiration. Slavery, war, and commerce were alike forbidden; and, according to Philo, their conduct generally was directed by three rules, "the love of God, the love of virtue, and the love of man" (Philo, l.c).

5. In doctrine, as has been seen already, they did not differ essentially from strict Pharisees. Moses was honoured by them next to God. They observed the Sabbath with singular strictness; and though they were unable to offer sacrifices at Jerusalem, probably from regard to purity, they sent gifts thither: at the same time, like most ascetics, they turned their attention specially to the mysteries of the spiritual world, and looked upon the body as a mere prison of the soul. They studied and practised with signal success, according to Josephus, the art of prophecy; familiar intercourse with nature gave them an unusual knowledge of physical truths. They asserted with peculiar boldness the absolute power and foreknowledge of God; and disparaged the various forms of mental philosophy as useless or beyond the range of man.

6. The number of the Essenes is roughly estimated by Philo at 4000, and Josephus says that there were "more than 4000" who observed their rule. Their best-known settlements were on the N.W. shore of the Dead Sea, but others lived in scattered communities throughout Palestine, and perhaps also in cities.

[COMMENT: By modern standards the Dead Sea is not too far from the Sea of Galilee. John The Baptist ministered in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. John was surely acquainted with the Essenes; and as a "Nazarite", he may have actually been amongst their number. When Apollonius showed up for baptism, John probably assumed that Apollonius was some sort of "foreign Essene" of Greco-Pythagorean origin. RS]

7. In the Talmudic writings there is, as has been already said, no direct mention of the Essenes, but their existence is recognised by the notice of the title of "the pious", "the weakly" (i.e., with study), "the retiring", their maxims are quoted with respect, and many of the traits preserved in Josephus find parallels in the notices of the Talmud. The four stages of purity which are distinguished by the doctors correspond in a singular manner with the four classes into which the Essenes are said to have been divided; and the periods of probation observed in the two cases offer similar coincidences.

8. But the best among the Jews felt the peril of Essenism as a system, and combined to discourage it. They shrank with an instinctive dread from the danger of connecting asceticism with spiritual power, and cherished the great truth which lay in the saying "Doctrine is not in heaven". The miraculous energy which was attributed to mystics was regarded by them rather as a source of suspicion than of respect; and theosophic speculations were condemned with emphatic distinctness.

9. The character of Essenism limited its spread. Out of Palestine, Levitical purity was impossible, for the very land was impure; and thus there is no trace of the sect in Babylonia. The case was different in Egypt, where Judaism assumed a new shape from its intimate connexion with Greece. Here the original form in which it was moulded was represented not by direct copies, but by analogous forms; and the tendency which gave birth to the Essenes found a fresh development in the pure speculation of the Therapeutae. Those Alexandrine mystics abjured the practical labours which rightly belonged to the Essenes, and gave themselves up to the study of the inner meaning of the Scriptures. The impossibility of fulfilling the law naturally led them to substitute a spiritual for a literal interpretation; and it was their object to ascertain its meaning by intense labour, and then to satisfy its requirements by absolute devotion. The "whole day, from sunrise to sunset, was spent in mental discipline". Bodily wants were often forgotten in the absorbing pursuit of wisdom, and "meat and drink" were at all times held to be unworthy of the light.

10. From the nature of the case Essenism in the extreme form could exercise very little influence on Christianity. In all its practical bearings it was diametrically opposed to the Apostolic teaching. The dangers which it involved were far more clear to the eye of the Christian than they were to the Jewish doctors. The only real similarity between Essenism and Christianity lay in the common element of true Judaism; and there is little excuse for modern writers who follow the error of Eusebius, and confound the society of the Therapeutae with Christian brotherhoods. Nationally, however, the Essenes occupy the same position as that to which John the Baptist was personally called. They mark the close of the old, the longing for the new, but in this case without the promise. In place of the message of the coming "kingdom" they could proclaim only individual purity and isolation. At a later time traces of Essenism appear in the Clementines, and the strange account which Epiphanius gives of the Osseni appears to point to some combination of Essene and pseudo-Christian doctrines. After the Jewish war the Essenes disappear from history. The Character of Judaism was changed, and ascetic Pharisaism became almost impossible.

Robertino Solàrion
Dallas, Texas
28 November 2002