Page images

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

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.

[blocks in formation]


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.

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


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 leaving 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, descendant 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 tzahv, 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, stands 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 partcular peculiar opportunities. And the consequent strength of the towns of the Cana

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic]
[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, gymnasia, 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 viva 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 popu

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 trans. lation 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' or '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 honour (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 Chaldes, Persian, Greek, and especially the new Platonie philosophy, and ascribed to the sacred books

[blocks in formation]

after the Romans, having conquered the Greeks, gave to their towns a certain municipal government, the grammateus, in the Greek cities of Asia, was the highest muniripal officer, as chosen by the people. That such magistrates had great authority, appears from the fact, that on inscriptions the year is indicated by their name, which is also borne by coins of the city over which they presided.

TRACHONITIS, an unfruitful district of Bashan, formed of the two mountain ridges called Trachone, in north-eastern Palestine, bordering on Anti-Lebanon and the territory of Damascus, and towards the south extending to Gilead, formed a part of the tetrarchy of Philip, son of Herod the Great. It is now the rugged basait region of Ledsha (Luke iii. 1).

TRADITION (L. trans, 'over,' and do, 'I give') is the rendering, in Matt. xv. 2, of a Greek term, paradosis (‘giving from,' that is, giving from hand to hand, or from mouth to mouth), which in 1 Cor. xi. 2, is translated ordinances.' Tradition is, therefore, the transmission of something from one to another; in the case before us, the transmission of a fact or doctrine from one man and one age to another. The channel of communication, left undetermined by the etymology, may be either oral (1 Cor. xi. 2) or written (Gal. i. 14), though tradition is generally used of doctrines transmitted originally by word of mouth. The term is applied, I. to the additions made by the Jewish doctors to the Mosaic laws and institutions, which are strongly condemned (Matt. xv. 2-9; compare Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 10, 6); II. probably to long-established human errors (Col. ii. 8); III. to the precepts and appointments of apostles (1 Corinth. xi. 2. 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6).

The scriptural usage of the word makes it clear that all tradition is not to be condemned. There was at the first a tradition in the church of Christ, which its members were required to observe; that namely which was spoken by Christ, or delivered by the Apostles who were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus Paul in regard to the resurrection taught what he had learnt, and in regard to the Lord's Supper transmitted what he had received. Comp. 1 Tim. i. 18. In 2 Tim. ii. 2, the principle of tradition is fully uttered when Paul says to his son in the Lord, 'The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also' Indeed, generally, the

[ocr errors]

first publication of the gospel was of a nature to give rise to tradition, by which we mean oral teaching under the infallible guidance of the Spirit, claimed by the Apostles. It was solely by word of mouth that Jesus taught. It was solely to the mind of man, under Divine Providence, that he entrusted the words of this life' By the same instrument, under attestations from eye-witnesses, did the apostles, agreeably with the command of their Divine Master (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20), begin, after his ascension, that grand missionary enterprise which is to end in the salvation of the world (Acts i. 21, seq.; ii. 14, seq.; iii. 12, seq.).

How long tradition, in this sense, lasted in the church it is not easy to determine, because no criterion has been agreed ou which may mark the line that divides tradition from the written word. If on the one side the earliest Epistle may be regarded as the limit, on the other, we can scarcely allow that tradition finished its task till the death of the last of the apostles. From the death of Jesus till the decree of the church at Jerusalem, perhaps the first Christian document (Acts xv. 23), and the earlier Epistles of Paul, a period of rather more than twenty years, tradition alone prevailed. Then came a mixed period-tradition and writing existing side by side as common witnesses and mutual help-fellows. This mixed period, covering another space of about twenty years, saw the production of the greater part of the New Testament, namely, the rest of Paul's Epistles, those of Peter, and the three synoptical Gospels. Thence to the end of the century is a second mixed period, in which was produced the Gospel of John. Thus within about seventy years from the death of Christ, oral teaching passed into the written word. Not yet, however, had tradition accomplished its whole task; for the canon had for the most part to be formed, which from the death of John came gradually into existence under the evidence of faithful men and whole communities of believers, who, or whose fathers, had received its contents from their several authors.

That the whole of what Jesus said and did was written down, there are many evidences to disprove, besides the testimony of John, if the last chapter of his Gospel is from his pen (xxi. 25). But it is equally certain that these are lost pearls. A comparison of what is offered as ecclesiastical traditions with what is found in the New Testament, shows that if the latter is of Christ, the former came from some other source.

The genuine tradition of the Christian church offers itself to our acceptance in a most trustworthy guise. The truth of this remark comes forth of itself from the outline of its history which we have given above. Naturally was the tradition preserved. Natarally did the Christian documents arise out

« PreviousContinue »