Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

TITHES (T. G. zehnte), that is tenths, seem founded on a reverence for the number ten, which, as the number of the fingers and the toes, as well as from certain quali ties found or fancied in the number itself, was in the primeval ages held a sacred number, became the foundation of the decimal (L. decem, ten') system of computation (comp. Numb. xi. 19), and was, in the Decalogue or table of Ten Commandments, made the centre of the Mosaic polity. In a religion having such a nucleus (compare Matt. xxv. 1), tithes could hardly be absent; especially as they existed before Mosaism, considered as a separate institution, came into existence. Tithes were given by Abraham to Melchizedek; and the transaction is simply mentioned, as if one that was well known (Gen. xiv. 20. Heb. vii. 2). Jacob also consecrated a tithe of his property to God (Gen. xxviii. 22).

Of

In

In the Mosaic law, the tithe, or tenth of all the products of the earth, including the field, the orchard, and the garden, with the flock and the herd in general, whatever was eatable-was annually to be paid by every Israelite, as tenant of the land, to its sole proprietor, Jehovah, who appropriated the same to the support of the national religion and worship; and accordingly resigned the wealth thus accruing to the levites in vir. tue of their office, and in consideration of their possessing no share in the land. these tithes, the fruits of the earth might be redeemed by the payment of one-fifth beyond what they were worth, not in the general market, we presume, but in the sanctuary (Lev. xxvii. 30-33. Numb. xviii. 21, seq.). Of these tithes, the levites had to pay a tenth to the priests (Numb. xviii. 26-30. 2 Chron. xxxi. 4-6. Neh. x. 37, 38). Deuter. xiv. 22-27 (comp. xii. 6, seq.), the tithe is to be enjoyed in a social meal before the sanctuary, in company with the levite, strangers, widows, and orphans; and if the distance at which any one lived was too great to bring the tithe in kind, he was to turn the objects into mouey, and, proceeding to the holy place, expend it at his pleasure for the above-mertioned purposes (xiv. 28; xxvi. 12-14). The same passages require a tithe banquet to be held every third year at each dwelling-place. It may not be easy to reconcile these injunctions, of which the first seems to give all tithes to the levitical order, the second to reserve no small portion of them in the hands of the donor who admits the levite as his guest. Winer holds the latter ordinances to be an expan sion of the original tithe system, designed to favour the levites. This view cannot be sustained, because the levites are not favoured, but the reverse, and because any change made in the original legislation, under the auspices of the sacerdotal order, could hardly fail to have specially promoted their inte

rests. If, however, we view the enactments as constituting portions of one tithe-law, the several parts may in the main be found concurrent, and tithes would thus be a tenth of the annual increase, appropriated to the service of the temple and its servants, as well as to the purposes of hospitality, friendship, and charity. Should this view find due support, and prove applicable in its fullest import, it would, by presenting the tithes as a great national provision for the learned and needy classes, serve to lessen the force of the objection to the Mosaic polity, that, besides other sources of revenue, the levitical order, which probably did not constitute more than one-fiftieth of the nation, yet possessed one-tenth of its annual substance.

Doubtless, with the debasement of the national character, the sacerdotal body, whose power was very great, worked the system for their own aggraudisement. The Talmudists speak of a second and a third tithe (comp. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 8, 22); which, if; as would appear, they were separate exactions, must have been found very oppressive. If, in addition, a tenth was payable to the regal government (1 Samuel viii. 15), the Israelites, having also so much of their wealth to part with in connection with offerings of various kinds, purchased at a dear rate the advantages of their social and religious institu tions. See TAXES.

[ocr errors]

TITLE, a Latin word in English letters, representing the inscription put by Pilate over the head of our Lord, declaratory of the reason why he was crucified. What John (xix. 19) with strict propriety speaks of as 'a title," Matthew terms his accusation,' and Mark, 'the superscription of his accusation.' This 'title,' as John informs us, was written to the following effect: 'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.' Of course it must have been written on a tablet of some kind. It was usual for the title, inscribed on a piece of wood, to be set on the top of the cross. In a mixed population the inscription was in divers languages: the grave of the third Gordian, on the borders of Persia, bad a title or inscription written in Greck, Latin, Persian, Jewish, and Egyptian letters. In the case of the title set over the cross of Jesus, the Hebrew (John xix. 20; compare Luke xxiii. 38) naturally stood first, as being the vernacular. It is also in agreement with what might have been expected from the existence in Judea of the Roman dominion, that the tablet bearing the charge should have a Latin name. That name, titulus, has here a genuine classical sense, such as was current in the age of Augustus; from which the term afterward deviated more and more as time went on, till at last it came to signify a title of honour, and in the plural to denote a place of worship. The use of the term titulus, therefore, is an argument that the Gospel of John was produced near

the age to which the crucifixion refers, and under circumstances which gave the writer opportunities of minute and exact information.

The tablet bearing the title is said to have been discovered by Helen, the mother of Constantine, and by her conveyed (A. D. 325) to Rome, where it was preserved in the church of the Holy Cross; and at length, in 1492, to have been anew brought to light, being found in the vaulted roof of the same church while it was undergoing repairs. The facts were asserted by an inscription and a bull of Pope Alexander VI. Without expressing an opinion as to the identity of the discovered with the original title, or entering into the consideration of some verbal questions connected with the subject, we present to the reader a fac-simile of the portion of the title, such as it was seen and described by Nicquetus (Titulus Sanctæ Crucis, authore Honorato Nicqueto, 1695). The inscription corresponds with the statement of John, presenting traces of the Hebrew first, then the Greek, and then the Latin. The words, conformably to ancient custom in Judea, are

read from right to left. The Hebrew is the least, the Latin the most distinct. The last presents in full the word NAZARENUS, the Nazarene (' of Nazareth,' John xix. 19), with two letters, apparently R and E, which with X would make REX or King; so that, as John states, the title thus appears to have run-Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,' and consequently contained the scoffing implication that Jesus had suffered death for high treason against the Roman sovereignty.

The mention of the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, is in the case perfectly natural; for it was requisite that the accusation should be legible to the native population and to the Jews of the dispersion, as well as the proselytes, speaking Greek and Latin, that had come from all parts of the world in order to celebrate the solemnities of the Passover; and well do these three tongues correspond with and symbolize the three great currents of civilisation and social influence which were theu gathered together in Jerusalem as a great

common centre.

را ادور

ІОХИЭТАТА И ІЯГѴИЗЛАГАЙ

TITUS was a fellow-labourer with Paul, of Greek parentage (Gal. ii. 1—3), and converted by the apostle, who hence calls him his own son (Tit. i. 4). He remained uncircumcised (Gal. ii. 3).

Of the details of his history little is known. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, has given no account of him. Paul supplies brief notices of Titus, which, though fragmentary, are valuable because incidental. From these we learn that Titus accompanied Paul in his visit from Antioch to Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1— 3). Then is he sent by Paul from Ephesus to Corinth (2 Cor. vii. 13, 14; xii. 18). The apostle, having been disappointed in expecting to find at Troas Titus, his 'brother' (ii. 13), met him in Macedonia (vii. 5, seq.), whence he again sent him to Corinth, with his Second letter to the church in that city (viii. 6, 16--18, 23). Continuing to work

with Paul, Titus is left by him in the island of Crete (Tit. i. 5), was with him in Rome, whence he proceeded to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10). Paul wrote to him a letter while he was in Crete, in which he requests Titus to come to him at Nicopolis when the apostle should send to him Artemas or Tychicus (Tit. iii. 12). These latter facts do not completely fall in with the known events of Paul's history; but as our acquaintance with that history, especially in its concluding portions, is fragmentary and defective, we are not at liberty to determine that they are not to be received. This would be to draw a positive conclusion from our ignorance. If they presented an obvious contradiction to known facts, the state of the case would be far different. As it is, these scattered notices could scarcely have been fabricated, and therefore they possess a claim on our credence. In

formation is not to be rejected because incomplete. Its very rarity enhances its value. Tradition makes Titus bishop of Crete, in which island it states that he died.

The passages referred to above show that Paul held Titus in high esteem, and in regard to their common work stood with him in intimate relations.

Titus, the Epistle of Paul to, professes to have been written by Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to Titus, his own son after the common faith (i. 1-3), at a time when the apostle looked for the second appearance of Christ (ii. 13), and before the time that he had determined to pass the winter at Nicopolis (iii. 12), where, on insufficient grounds, it has been held the letter was written. From the Epistle itself it appears that Paul, having been in Crete and found there much disorder, to which he could not himself apply a remedy, left Titus there in order to finish what he had begun; and to aid him in this arduous office, he wrote to his fellow labourer this Epistle, which, besides giving directions for the selection and appointment of church officers, contains specific exhortations to Titus himself, and through him to the churches in the island (i. 5), bearing immediately on their moral wants, dangers, and duties.

[ocr errors]

That the object, tone, and tendency of the composition are worthy of Paul, and such as might have proceeded from his pen, cannot be denied, nor ought we to allow the impression in favour of its authenticity thence derived to be rendered faint, still less to be effaced, by our want of materials for confidently setting forth the outward relations under which the Epistle came into exist

ence.

Those outward relations are now hidden in perpetual obscurity. With them, conjecture has been more busy than successful. Lardner thinks that Paul, in his third missionary journey, visited Crete on his leav ing Ephesus for Macedonia (Acts xix. xx.). Paley, proceeding on the notion, which has no ground in Scripture, that Paul suffered two imprisonments in Rome, advances the supposition that after his liberation in that capital, the apostle took Crete on his way to Asia. Hug assigns the time when Paul, in his second tour, passed from Corinth to Ephesus, fixing on Nicopolis, between Antioch and Tarsus, as the place to which Titus was to come. Credner, thinking that the letter bears in its substance tokens of a later state of mind, denies that it was written by Paul. On the other hand, it may be satisfactorily maintained that the state of opinion, and especially the state of morals implied in it, is such as is known to have anciently prevailed in Crete. See the article.

TOGARMAH, the third son of Gomer, lescendant of Japheth (Gen. x. 3). They

of the house of Togarmah' (Ezek. xxvii. 14; xxxviii. 6) are placed in Armenia.

TOLA (H. a worm), son of Puah, of the tribe of Issachar, judged Israel, between Abimelech and Jair, during twenty three years, and was buried at Shamer, in Ephraim, the place of his abode (Judg. x. 1—3).

TOPAZ, the probably correct rendering of the Hebrew pitdah, in Exodus xxviii. 17. Job xxviii. 19. Ezek. xxviii. 13.

TOPHET (H. a drum), the place in the vale of Hinnom, on the south-east of Jerusalem, where children were offered to Moloch, and drums (hence the name) were beaten to drown the cries of the innocent sufferers (2 Kings xxiii. 10. Jer. vii. 31, 32).

TORTOISE, the rendering, in Lev. xi. 29. of the Hebrew tsahu, the meaning of which is not known, on which account Wellbeloved preserves in his Translation the word itself.

[ocr errors]

TOWN (T. connected with dun, a hill' or ascent'), originally a fortified dwellingplace, is a word which, taken in the general sense of a residence of human beings, standis for several Hebrew terms: namely, I. Geer, from a root signifying to surround,' is used of the first city on record-that built by Cain (Gen. iv. 17). II. Kiryah, of similar import (Numb. xxi. 28. Job xxxix. 7). III. Bath. properly daughter' (Gen. xxv. 20), and denoting suburbs or small dependent towns or villages (Josh. xv. 45, 47). IV. Havoth (1 Kings iv. 13), 'hamlets' (Judg. x. 4, marg.; comp. Numb. xxxii. 41). V. Hattehr, 'a walled town' (Gen. xxv. 16), signifying an enclosed place, hence 'court (Exod. xxvii. 9; xxxv. 17). VI. Prahsohn, from a root meaning that which is broad, open, unconfined, and hence villages or unwalled towns (Judg. v. 7. 1 Sam. vi. 18). VII. Metzorah, a fenced city' or stronghold (2 Chron. xi. 10; xii. 4), such as that exhibited in the ensuing views of Jerusalem, with its hills, valleys, and walls.

The facts here presented show us that human abodes in Canaan were either hamlets, villages, enclosed towns, with, in some cases, their dependencies, or strong and fortified cities. Towns were obviously secure places where the more civilised few took up their abode, and developed their resources under such cover as locality (on eminences) and enclosures might afford them against the yet barbarous or semi-barbarous multitude. In such places also protection was sought against invaders. Originally every town was an enclosure, if not a fortification (Numbers xxxii. 17). Hence places where civilisation is known to have flourished in early periods were strongholds, or protected by strongholds, as Tyre (Joshua xix. 29. 2 Sam. xxiv. 7). Hills were naturally chosen as sites. Palestine afforded in this part cular peculiar opportunities. And the consequent strength of the towns of the Cana

[merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

place, though to some extent defined by the nature of the ground on which it stands, has in the lapse of many centuries undergone great changes. At the present day, Oriental towns are in many cases spread over a wide space and contain large open places, such as gardens, orchards, &c. Similar in their ground-plan were Babylon and Nineveh of old. At the gates of a city, the chief place of public resort, where justice was administered and public meetings held, were unoccupied spaces, greater or less in area (Neh. viii. 1, 16. 2 Chron. xxxii. 6. 2 Samuel xxi. 12. Job xxix. 7. Cant. iii. 2. Ezra x. 9). Here were the general markets (2 Kings vii. 1). Besides those at the gate, there may have been other squares, wide places or chief streets (Judg. xix. 15, 17, 20. Gen. xx. 2), also ordinary streets (Jer. xxxvii. 21. Job xviii. 17. Isaiah v. 25). Streets in Eastern towns now are very nar. row; built so, it is said, for the sake of the shelter they thus afford against the burning rays of the sun. If we may judge by those of Jerusalem, the Palestinian streets of old were by no means wide. The streets were for the most part without pavement, and probably always without sewers, so that they were either dusty or dirty (Ps. xviii. 42. 2 Samuel xxii. 43). Streets received their names from some peculiarity (Acts ix. 11), or the goods made or sold in them (Jer. xxxvii. 21). The modern bazaars are streets filled with shops or booths, in each of which are exposed for sale wares of the same kind. Jerusalem, as not itself abounding in fountains, had aqueducts even before the captivity (Is. vii. 3; xxii. 9. 2 Kings xx. 20. Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 3, 2. J. W. ii. 17, 9). Other towns were for the most part supplied

by fountains and wells, of which great care was taken (J. W. iii. 7, 13. See CISTERNS, JERICHO, WATER).

Palestine and its towns underwent enlarge ment and improvement under the Herods, when a considerable Greek population existed in the land, giving rise to theatres, amphitheatres, gymuasia, race-courses, tem ples, and other stately buildings (Joseph. Antiq xvi. 5, 2; xviii. 2, 1, 3; xx. 9, 4). During the invasions, wars, and other causes of change, many towns must in earlier periods have been destroyed (Josh. vi. 24; xi. 11), founded (Judg. i. 26. 1 Kings xvi. 24), restored, enlarged, strengthened, or beautified (Judges xviii. 28. i Kings xii. 25; xv. 17. 2 Chron. viii. 5); and in the Roman period, Palestine, in the number and beauty of its towns, bore a comparison with the finest portions of the civilised world; so possible is it for outward splendour and national decay to co-exist! In the time of Joshua, Canaan numbered 600 towns of greater or less dimensions. In the days of Josephus (Life, 45), Galilee alone contained 204. The names of towns, like other names (see the article), were significant; though owing to the different races that inhabited Palestine, it is not always easy to discover the signification. Such as contain Baal in them may be considered as of Canaanite origin, and consequently very old. When towns of the same name existed, they were discriminated by the name of the tribe or district to which they severally belonged. In the time of the Herods, many old towns received new names in honour of distin guished Romans, as Diospolis, Neapolis, Sebaste, Cæsarea, Tiberias; few of which, however, put an end to the old name, which

of the peculiar condition of the church and circumstances of the writers. A tradition of twenty years might, for all great practical purposes, preserve itself in purity. When,

in the next twenty years, writing was placed by the side of tradition, the one would authenticate the other, and the result be a higher kind of testimony than each could have exclusively borne (Luke i. 1-4). And the final voice of the church, given by the affixing of its seal to the canon, c'oses and attests the formation of a body of written evidence, superior to any other known in the whole of literary history, because divine. See the articles CANON, EPISTLES, GOSPEL.

The defenders of Jewish tradition trace back its elements to the earliest periods of their national history. Besides the written law, according to their statement, there always was oral instruction, which passed from father to son, was specially in the custody of the priesthood, and, accumulating from age to age, was at length consigned to writing. The admission of the existence of some sort and degree of tradition in the early Jewish church, is not the admission of its trustworthiness. And until we know as a fact what is now only advanced as a probability, we cannot pronounce an opinion either in favour or disfavour of the substance of the alleged tradition; only we may remark that doctrines or facts which, in their passage down through many centuries, have no other vehicle than the changeful one of oral communication, must, if small and simple at the first, become in the course of time so ample and so degenerate as to lose nearly the whole of their value. In the transmission, a learned body or sacerdotal caste would afford no guarantee of purity, especially if their interests could be promoted by the character of the tradition which they transmitted; and the only security against corruption that could exist, would be the light of day and the force of public opinion. But in Judaism the sanctuary was closed to the people, who could exert no influence over a deposit which was held exclusively in the hands of the priests. The written word would, indeed, have some restraint on the undue growth of tradition; but it happened that the Sacred Scriptures became an almost sealed book for the people at large at the very time when tradition began to make head. While in captivity in Baby. lon, the people lost the power to read the Scriptures in their original tongue. A translation became necessary. This translation at the first was made by word of mouth, as the reader recited the Scriptures in the public assembl, The ignorance which made a translation necessary, rendered exposition and explanations desirable. These were given vivá voce in the congregation. Hence ordinary human elements were mixed with Biblical instructions, and that with almost no power of check or correction from the pepu

lar mind; so that new and corrupt forms of opinion were readily introduced, accompanied with the sanction of divine truth. In course of time, these Chaldaic interpretations were written down. Two learned Jews, Onkelos and Jonathan, formed them into a body to which was given the name of Targums, and which, besides the Aramaic translation of the sacred text, contain remarks, glosses, and explanations, transmitted from mouth to mouth, and taken down from the lips of public teachers. To this expository collection was given the name Midrash, from a Hebrew term originally signifying 'to seek or 'investigate,' but here, to expound' cr 'set forth,' that is, divine truth, which it was held could be found only in the sacred books.

Those who were engaged in these expositions bore the appellation of Midrashites, a kind of learned class, consisting of pupils and teachers, among whom instruction was given chiefly by questions and answers (Luke ii. 46), and with whom the natural quest of novelty, operating in connection with a fixed and limited circle of ideas, led to the utterance and prevalence of opinions forced and unnatural, if not absurd, and to refinements, hair-splitting subtleties, and moral casuistry, which overlaid and sometimes destroyed the divine law, even while affecting to do it bonour (Matt. xv. 3). Traces of these corrup tions are still found in the Mishna, or that portion of the Talmud in which are preserved the traditions of the ancient Midrashites. The Talmud, or oral instruction, is the great national collection of Jewish tradition. It consists of two portions-the Mishna, or text, and the Gemara, or explanation. It is not easy to define the period to which the statements of the Talmud may with safety be referred. The Mishna, as we now possess it, was formed, about 219 A. D., by Jehuda the holy. It treats in six classes, which consist of some sixty pieces, of, I. Prayers and blessings, agriculture, sacerdotal qualities; II. The sabbath, festivals, temple-dues; III. Marriage laws and vows; IV. Duties, criminal procedure, morals, and the authority of the law; V. The temple sacrifices and priestly rights; and VI. Clean and unclean. The Gemara is said to extend down to the fifth century of our era. In the expositions which it offers are incorporated Hebrew fragments, such as narratives, poems, mystical explanations of the powers of letters, &c. There are two Gemaras-the Palestinian or Jerusalem, and the Babylonian.

Among the Midrashites was formed a special class, designated Kabbalists. The earliest Kabbala-that is, revealed mysterieswas a collection of spiritual explanations, which by degrees some of the Midrashites drew from the doctrines of the Chaldee, Persian, Greek, and especially the new Platonie philosophy, and ascribed to the sacred books

« PreviousContinue »