APP. XV APPENDIX XV. THE LOCATION OF SYCHAR, AND THE DATE OF OUR LORD'S VISIT TO SAMARIA, (See Vol. i. Book III. ch. viii.) I. THE LOCATION OF SYCHAR. ALTHOUGH modern writers are now mostly agreed on this subject, it may be well briefly to put before our readers the facts of the case. Till comparatively lately, the Sychar of St. John iv. was generally regarded as representing the ancient Shechem. The first difficulty here was the name, since Shechem, or even Sichem, could scarcely be identified with Sychar, which is undoubtedly the correct reading. Accordingly, the latter term was represented as one of opprobrium, and equivalent to 'Shechar' (in Aramæan Shichra), as it were, 'drunken town,' or else Sheker' (in Aramæan Shikra), lying town.' But, not to mention other objections, there is no trace of such an alteration of the name Sychar in Jewish writings, while its employment would seem wholly incongruous in such a narrative as St. John iv. Moreover, all the earliest writers distinguished Sychar from Shechem. Lastly, in the Talmud the name Socher, also written Sichra, frequently occurs, and that not only as distinct from Shechem, but in a connection which renders the hypothesis of an opprobrious by-name impossible. Professor Delitzsch (Zeitschrift für Luther. Theol. for 1856, ii. pp. 242, 243) has collected seven passages from the Babylon Talmud to that effect, in five of which Sichra is mentioned as the birthplace of celebrated Rabbis-the town having at a later period apparently been left by the Samaritans, and occupied by Jews (Baba Mez. 42 a, 83 a, Pes. 31 b, Nidd. 36 a, Chull. 18 b, and, without mention of Rabbis, Baba K. 82 b, Menach. 64 b. See also Men. vi. 2, and Jer. Shek. v. 2). If further proof were required, it would be sufficient to say that a woman would scarcely have gone a mile and a half from Shechem to Jacob's Well to fetch water, when there are so many springs about the former city. In these circumstances, later writers have generally fixed upon the village of 'Askar, half a mile from Jacob's Well, and within sight of it, as the Sychar of the New Testament, one of the earliest to advocate this view having been the late learned Canon Williams. Little more than a third of a mile from 'Askar is the reputed tomb of Joseph. The transformation of the name Sychar into 'Askar is explained, either by a contraction of 'Ain 'Askar, 'the well of Sychar,' or else by the fact that in the Samaritan Chronicle the place is called Iskar, which seems to have been the vulgar pronunciation of Sychar. A full description of the place is given by Lieutenant Conder (Tent-Work in Palestine, vol. i. pp. 71 &c., especially pp. 75 and 76), and by M. Guérin, La Samarie,' vol. i. p. 371, although the latter writer, who almost always absolutely follows tradition, denies the identity of Sychar and 'Askar (pp. 401, 402). DATE OF CHRIST'S VISIT TO SYCHAR. II. TIME OF OUR LORD'S VISIT TO SYCHAR. This question, which is of such importance not only for the chronology of this period, but in regard to the unnamed Feast at Jerusalem to which Jesus went up (St. John v. 1), has been discussed most fully and satisfactorily by Canon Westcott (Speaker's Commentary, vol. ii. of the New Testament, p. 93.) The following data will assist our inquiries. 1. Jesus spent some time after the Feast of Passover (St. John ii. 23) in the province of Judæa. But it can scarcely be supposed that this was a long period, for 6 2ndly, in St. John iv. 45 the Galileans have evidently a fresh remembrance of what had taken place at the Passover in Jerusalem, which would scarcely have been the case if a long period and other festivals had intervened. Similarly, the King's Officer' (St. John iv. 47) seems also to act upon a recent report. 3rdly, the unnamed Feast of St. John v. 1 forms an important element in our computations. Some months of Galilean ministry must have intervened between it and the return of Jesus to Galilee. Hence it could not have been Pentecost. Nor could it have been the Feast of Tabernacles, which was in autumn, nor yet the Feast of the Dedication, which took place in winter, since both are expressly mentioned by their names (St. John vii. 2, x. 22). The only other Feasts were: the Feast of Wood-Offering (comp. The Temple,' &c., p. 295), the Feast of Trumpets, or New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Esther, or Purim. To begin with the latter, since of late it has found most favour. The reasons against Christ's attendance in Jerusalem at Purim seem to me irresistible. Canon Westcott urges that the discourse of Christ at the unnamed Feast has not, as is generally the case, any connection with the thoughts of that festival. To this I would add, that I can scarcely conceive our Lord going up to a feast observed with such boisterous merriment as Purim was, while the season of the year in which it falls would scarcely tally with the statement of St. John v. 3, that a great multitude of sick people were laid down in the porches of Bethesda.1 But if the unnamed Feast was not Purim, it must have been one of these three, the Feast of the Ingathering of Wood, the Feast of Trumpets, or the Day of Atonement. In other words, it must have taken place late in summer, or in the very beginning of autumn. But if so, then the Galilean ministry intervening between the visit to Samaria and this Feast leads to the necessary inference that the visit to Sychar had taken place in early summer, probably about the middle or end of May. This would allow ample time for Christ's stay at Jerusalem during the Passover and for His Judæan ministry. 6 As we are discussing the date of the unnamed Feast, it may be as well to bring the subject here to a close. We have seen that the only three Feasts to which reference could have been made are the Feast of Wood Offering, the Feast of Trumpets, and the Day of Atonement. But the last of these could not be meant, since it is designated, not only by Philo, but in Acts xxvii. 9, as the fast,' not the feast noreía, not coprý (comp. LXX., Lev. xiv. 29 &c., xxiii. 27 &c.). As between the Feast of the Wood Offering and that of Trumpets I feel at considerable loss. Canon Westcott has urged on behalf of the latter reasons which I confess are very weighty. On the other hand, the Feast of Trumpets was not one of those on 1 I must here correct the view expressed in my book on 'The Temple,' p. 291, due to a misunderstanding of St. John iv. 35. Of course, if the latter had implied that Jesus 765 APP. XV APP. XV which people generally resorted to Jerusalem, and as it took place on the 1st of Tishri (about the middle of September), it is difficult to believe that anyone going up to it would not rather have chosen, or at least remained over, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles, which followed respectively, on the 10th and 15th days of that month. Lastly, the Feast of Wood Offering, which took place on the 15th Ab (in August) was a popular and joyous festival, when the wood needed for the altar was brought up from all parts of the country (comp. on that feast 'The Temple and its Services,' &c., pp. 295, 296). As between these two feasts, we must leave the question undecided, only noting that barely six weeks intervened between the one and the other feast. JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT THE DEMONISED. 767 APPENDIX XVI. ON THE JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT DEMONS AND 'THE DEMONISED,' TOGETHER WITH SOME NOTES ON THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JEWS AND JEWISH CHRIS- (See Vol. i. Book III. ch. xiv.) It is not, of course, our purpose here to attempt an exhaustive account of the Jewish views on 'demons' and 'the demonised.' A few preliminary strictures are, however, necessary on a work upon which writers on this subject have too implicitly relied. I refer to Gfrörer's Jahrhundert des Heils (especially vol. i. pp. 378424). Gfrörer sets out by quoting a passage in the Book of Enoch on which he lays great stress, but which the critical inquiries of Dillmann and other scholars have shown to be of no value in the argument. This disposes of many pages of negative criticism on the New Testament which Gfrörer founds on this quotation. Similarly, 4 Esdras would not in our days be adduced in evidence of pre-Christian teaching. As regards Rabbinic passages, Gfrörer uncritically quotes from Kabbalistic works which he mixes up with quotations from the Talmud and from writings of a later date. Again, as regards the two quotations of Gfrörer from the Mishnah (Erub. iv. 1; Gitt. vii. 1), it has already been stated (vol. i. p. 481, note 4) that neither of these passages bears any reference to demoniac possessions. Further, Gfrörer appeals to two passages in Sifré which may here be given in extenso. The first of these (ed. Friedmann, p. 107 b) is on Deut. xviii. 12, and reads thus: 'He who joins himself (cleaves) to uncleanness, on him rests the spirit of uncleanness; but he who cleaves to the Shechinah, it is meet that the Holy Spirit should rest on him.' The second occurs in explanation of Deut. xxxii. 16, and reads as follows (u. s. p. 136 b): What is the way of a "demon " (Shed)? He enters into a man and subjects him.' It will be observed that in both these quotations reference is made to certain moral, not to physical effects, such as in the case of the demonised. Lastly, although one passage from the Talmud which Gfrörer adduces (though not quite exactly) applies, indeed, to demoniacal possessions, but is given in an exaggerated and embellished form. If from these incorrect references we turn to what Jewish authorities really state on the subject, we have :— 1. To deal with the Writings of Josephus. In Antiq. vi. 8. 2, Josephus ascribes Saul's disorder to demoniac influence, which brought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him.' In Antiq. vi. 8. 2, the demon-spirit is said to enter into Saul, and to disorder him. In Antiq. viii. 2. 5, Josephus describes the wisdom, learning, and achievements of Solomon, referring specially to his skill in expelling demons who caused various diseases. According to Josephus, Solomon had exercised this power by incantations, his formula and words of exorcism being still APP. XVI APP. XVI 6 known in Josephus's days. In such manner a certain Eleazar had healed a 'demoniac' in the presence of Vespasian, his officers, and troops, by putting to his nostrils a ring that held a root of one of those mentioned by Solomon,' by which the demon was drawn out amidst convulsions of the demoniac, when the demon was further adjured not to return by frequent mention of the name of Solomon, and by 'incantations which he [Solomon] had composed.' To show the reality of this, a vessel with water had been placed at a little distance, and the demon had, in coming out, overturned it. It is probably to this 'root' that Josephus refers in War vii. 6. 3, where he names it Baaras, which I conjecture to be the equivalent of the form j, boara, the burning,' since he describes it as of colour like a flame, and as emitting at even a ray like lightning, and which it would cost a man's life to take up otherwise than by certain magical means which Josephus specifies. From all this we infer that Josephus occupied the later Talmudical standpoint, alike as regards exorcism, magical cures, and magical preventions. This is of great importance as showing that these views prevailed in New Testament times. But when Josephus adds, that the demons expelled by Baaras were 'the spirits of the wicked,' he represents a superstition which is not shared by the earlier Rabbis, and may possibly be due to a rationalising attempt to account for the phenomenon. It is, indeed. true that the same view occurs in comparatively late Jewish writings, and that in Yalkut on Is. 46b there appears to be a reference to it, at least in connection with the spirits of those who had perished in the flood; but this seems to belong to a different cycle of legends. 6 2. Rabbinic views.1 Probably the nearest approach to the idea of Josephus that demons' were the souls of the wicked, is the (perhaps allegorical) statement that the backbone of a person who did not bow down to worship God became a Shed, or demon (Yebam. 122 a). The most common names for demons are evil spirits,' or 'unclean spirits' (ruach raah, ruach tumeah), Seirim (lit. goats), Shedim (Sheyda, a demon, male or female, either because their chief habitation is in desolate places, or from the word 'to fly about,' or else from 'to rebel'), and Maszszikin (the hurtful ones). A demoniac is called Gebher Shedijin (Ber. R. 65). Even this, that demons are supposed to eat and drink, to propagate themselves, and to die, distinguishes them from the 'demons' of the New Testament. The food of demons consists of certain elements in fire and water, and of certain odours. Hence the mode of incantation by incense made of certain ingredients. Of their origin, number, habitation, and general influence, sufficient has been said in the Appendix on Demonology. It is more important here to notice these two Jewish ideas: that demons entered into, or took possession of, men; and that many diseases were due to their agency. The former is frequently expressed. The 'evil spirit' constrains a man to do certain things, such as to pass beyond the Sabbath-boundary (Erub. 41 b), to eat the Passover-bread, &c. (Rosh ha-Sh. 28 a). But it reads more like a caustic than a serious remark when we are informed that these three things deprive a man of his free will and make him transgress: the Cuthæans, an evil spirit, and poverty (Erub. u. s.). Diseases such as rabies, angina, asthma, or accidents-such as an encounter with a wild bull, are due to their agency, which, happily, is not unlimited. As stated in App. XIII. the most dangerous demons are those of dirty (secret) places (Shabb. 67 a). Even numbers (2, 4, 6, &c.) are always dangerous, so is anything that comes from unwashen hands. For such, or similar oversights, a whole legion of demons is on the watch (Ber. 51 a). On the evening of the Passover the demons are bound, and, in general, their power has now been 1 I would here generally acknowledge my obligations to Dr. Brecher's tractate on the subject. |