destruction of the kingdom of Israel, in the tract belonging to it (2 Kings xvii. 24, ff., o'ɔ, Zaμapɛîtai), had constantly been an object of detestation to the Jews, because of their relig ion, which had been at first compounded of Judaism and hea thenism. The Samaritans, indeed, under the direction of the Jewish priest Manasseh, supported by the Persian viceroy Sanballat, had retained the Pentateuch, (409 B.C.), erected a temple on Gerizim, established a levitical priesthood-in short, the whole of Judaism as it then was;2 but all served merely to inerease the hatred of the Jews against them, although they were united from this time onward, not only by neighborhood, but also by a similar religion, and a series of like fortunes. This hatred entertained by the Jews, which the Samaritans seemed not to have returned with like virulence, was not abated in their native land by the destruction of the temple on Gerizim by John Hyrcanus (109 B.c.); it was transferred to Egypt where Jewish and Samaritan colonies had been planted by Alexander and Ptolemy Lagus, and has continued to the latest times.

3

The Samaritans held fast by Judaism, as it had come to them by Manasseh, with rigid strictness; and therefore the later developments of it among the Jews remained unknown to them,, as they did also to the Sadducees. Besides, in the history of

4

the Samaritans were originally a heathen people, who accommodated themselves by degrees to the Mosaic institution, see Dr. Kalkar's treatise, die Samaritaner ein Mischvolk, in Pelt's theolog. Mitarbeit. Jahrg. 3, Heft 3. (Kiel. 1840) p. 24.-[Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, art. Samaritans.]

2 Nehem: xiii. 28 Comp. Joseph. Ant. xi. 7, 2. 8; 2. 4. 6, who places incorrectly the defection of Manasseh under Darius Codomannus, instead of Darius Nothus. Prideaux hist. des Juifs. ii. 397. Jahn bibl. Archäologie, ii: 1, 278. G. Gesenius de pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate. Halae. 1815. 4.

1

3 Samaritan warriors were transplanted into Thebais by Alexander (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, 6), into Lower Egypt and Alexandria by Ptolemy Lagus (Jos: 1. c. xii. 1). A controversy between the Jews and Samaritans at Alexandria is related by Josephus, 1. c. xiii. 3, 4.

4 Concerning their doctines see Philastrius de haer. cap. 7. Epiphanius de haer. 9. Leontius de sectis, c. 8. Their pentateuch was printed along with the Samaritan translation in the Paris Polyglott, 1629. A more accurate knowledge of their condition and doctrines in modern times has been obtained from the letters of the Samaritans to Jos. Scaliger; 1589; to men at Oxford, through the medium of Robert Huntingdon, 1671; to Job Ludolf, 1684 (see these letters in Eichhorn's Repertorium ix. and xiii.); and to De Sacy (since 1808), comp. Sylv. de Sacy mémoire sur l'état actuel des Samaritains. Paris. 1812 (translated into German in Stäudlin's and Tzschirner's Archiv. for Kg. I. iii. 40). These were. revised, and along with the recent letters containing two of 1820, republished by De Sacy in the Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibl. roy. T. xii. Paris. 1829. In addition, a letter of 1700 was made known by Hamaker in the Archief voor kerkelijke Geschiedenis door Kist en Royaards, v. 1 (Leiden. 1834). Besides this, Samaritan poems exist, which

5

this people there was no ground for the same degree of national arrogance and hatred of every thing foreign as existed among the Jews. And while among the Jews the extravagant national feeling fostered a more sensuous apprehension of the doctrine of a special Divine providence in favor of their nation, and of the Messiah, and by this means favored a worldly view of the doctrines of religion; that smaller measure of national pride existing among the Samaritans was the cause of their looking at Judaism more in its spiritual aspect. This tendency was certainly promoted by the connection of the Samaritans with those of the same faith who had settled in Alexandria, and who were then partakers of Grecian culture. Still, however, the spiritual tendency which characterized the constantly oppressed people received no scientific improvement. But yet in Samaria there appeared in the first century in succession three founders

6

belong to the times of the Arabs, and were first used in Gesenius de Samaritanorum theologia ex fontibus ineditis comm. (Weihnachtsprogramm, Halle. 1822. 4), and subsequently published: Carmina Samaritana e codd. Londinensibus et Gothanis ed. et illustr. Guil. Gesenius. Lips. 1824. 8.

5 Hence Josephus blames them (Ant. xi. 8, 6) : εἰσὶν οἱ Σαμαρεῖς τοιοῦτοι τὴν φύσιν, ἐν μὲν ταῖς συμφοραῖς ὄντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἀρνοῦνται συγγενεῖς ἔχειν, ὁμολογοῦντες τότε τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ὅταν δέ τι περὶ αὐτούς λαμπρὸν ἴδωσιν ἐκ τύχης, ἐξαίφνης ἐπιπηδῶσιν αὐτῶν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, προσήκειν αὐτοῖς λέγοντες, καὶ ἐκ τῶν Ἰωσήπου γενεαλογοῦντες αὑτοὺς ἐκγόνων Εφραΐμου καὶ Μανασσού. So, too, they are said to have professed them. selves to Alexander, Ἐβραῖοι μὲν εἶναι, χρηματίζειν δ' οἱ ἐν Σικίμοις Σιδώνιοι (Joseph. 1. c.). On the contrary, to Antiochus Epiphanes as ovтes Tò ůvékabev Lidóvioi (Joseph. Ant. xii. 5, 5). In like manner, they are said to have escaped threatening danger under this king by calling their temple ἱερον Διός Ελληνίου, but without making other change in their worship, Joseph. 1. c. cf. 2 Macc. vi. 2.

6 In the later Samaritan writings a progressive development of several doctrines by the influence of the Alexandrian peculiarities can not be mistaken. The characteristics of Samaritan theology are strict Monotheism, aversion to all Anthropomorphism (Gesenius de theol. Sam. p. 12, ss.), both which were manifested even in their Pentateuch (Gesenius de pentat. Sam. p. 58, ss.). According to Leontius de sectis, they denied the doctrine of angels, i. e., the improved Jewish doctrine regarding them. In the later poetical writings angels appear as uncreated influences proceeding from God ('h'n Svvájcic), comp. Gesenius de theol. Sam. p. 21, which belongs to a gnostic development, of which the first trace appears to be in Acts viii. 10. They magnified Moses and the law, rejecting all the later prophetic writings. The Sabbath and circumcision were regarded as the most important pledges of the covenant with Jehovah. The temple on Gerizim was the only true one (Deuteron. xxvii. 4, altered into 'Gesen. de Pent. Sam. 2 p. 61). According to the fathers, they denied immortality and the resurrection, i. e., they maintained the insensible state of the soul in Sheol. We find among them afterward a ressurection to a life entirely different from the present (Gesenius de theol. Sanı. p. 38). The Messiah ( or Ges. 1. c. p. 44: reductor, conversor), probably a 01' 13,

יוֹסֵף

will lead the people to repentance, and then to happiness, the nations will believe in him, and by him will be won over to the law, and to the temple on Gerizim. (Compare John iv. 25.)

of sects, of whom Dositheus' departed from the prevalent Samaritan Judaism in a very few particulars. Simon Maguss drew the germ of his syncretic magical system from the philosophical opinions then current, probably at Alexandria, and unfolded them farther, instigated, perhaps, by Christianity, which had lately appeared. In the third place, Menander,' the disciple of Simon Magus, departed little from the footsteps of his master. All three left behind them sects which continued for several centuries. The followers of Simon and Menander were often confounded with Christians by the heathen,10 and actually endeavored to insinuate themselves into the Christian church after Christianity had become the prevailing religion."1

gave himself out falsely ascribe to him (According to Jewish

7 Moshemii institt. hist. Christ. majores, Saec. i. 376, ss. ' to be the prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 18. The church fathers many peculiar doctrines which were held by all the Samaritans. tradition, the priest sent by Sennacherib, 1 Kings xvii. 27, 28, was one R. Dosthai. Drusius de tribus sectis Jud. iii. 4. It is probable, therefore, that the two persons were confounded. (A strict, ascetic life, and an overscrupulous observance of the Sabbath were peculiar to him. Origen. de princ. iv. c. 17, quo quisque corporis situ in principio sabbathi inventus fuerit, in eo ad vesperum usque ipsi permanendum esse, manifestly a literal interpretation of Exod. xvi. 29. As late as the year 588, the Dositheans and Samaritans had a controversy in Egypt about Deut. xviii. 18. (Eulogius ap. Phot. bibl. cod. 230.)

8 Mosheim, 1. c. p. 289-432. Walch's Historie der Ketzereien, i. 135, ff. Neander's gnostische Systeme. Berlin. 1818. S. 338, ff. Leben u. Lehre Simons d. Magiers, by Dr. A. Simson (in Illgen's Zeitschr. für histor. Theol. 1841, iii. 15). Act. viii. 9, 10, Zíμwvμαγεύων καὶ ἐξιστῶν τὸ ἔθνος τῆς Σαμαρείας, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτὸν μέγαν. By the people he was looked upon as ʼn dúvauiç tov Dɛov ʼn peɣáhn (cf. not. 6). Probably the Σίμων Ἰουδαῖος, Κύπριος δὲ γένος, μάγος εἶναι σκηπτόμενος apud Joseph. Αnt. xx. 7, 2. Fabulous accounts of his death at Rome (first found in the Apostol. Constitut. vi. 9, and in Arnobius, ii. c. 12) were perhaps occasioned by the occurrence related in Sueton. in Nerone, c. 12. Juvenal. Sat. iii. 79, 80. The statue on the island in the Tiber, as Justin relates, Apol. maj. c. 26 and 56, with the inscription Simoni sancto Deo, was found in 1574, and has on it, Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum, &c. (See Baronius ad ann. 44 no. 55.) On Semo Sancus or Sangus, comp. Ovid. Fast. vi. 213. Justin's mistake is apparent, although Baronius, Thirlby, Maranus, especially Fogginius de Romano Divi Petro itinere et episcopatu, Florent. 1741. 4to, p. 247, ss., wish to justify his account; and Braun (S. Justini M. Apologiae. Bonnae. 1830. p. 97) has promised a new defense of it. The followers of Simon must be regarded as Samaritan Gnostics (Justin M. Apol. maj: c. 26: kaì oxedòv πάντες μὲν Σαμαρεῖς, ὀλίγοι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν, ὡς τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν ἐκεῖνον ὁμολογοῦντες, ἐκεῖνον καὶ προσκυνοῦσι), whose system may have been developed parallel with the Christian Gnosis. Among Christians Simon has always been looked upon as the master and progenitor of all heretics (Irenaeus adv. haer. i. 27, ii. praef.), and although he never was a Christian, yet, in later times, he was thought to be the first heresiarch. In the Clementines he is the representative of Gnosis generally, and the system there attributed to him is a compound of the most striking Gnostic positions, and must not be considered genuine (see Baur's christl. Gnosis, p. 302).

9 Mosheim, 1. c. 432–438.

10 Justin. Apol. ii. p. 70.

11 Regarding the Simonians see Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 1, 4. For the Menandrians, iii. 26, 2.

$ 19.

RELATION OF THE TIMES TO CHRISTIANITY IN ITS INFANCY.

From the view that has been given it may be seen, that the popular religions of the heathen had become superannuated at the time of Christ, and that unbelief and superstition were on the point of putting an end to all true religion. It is further apparent, that Judaism, losing more and more its spiritual character, threatened to sink down in externalities. Under these circumstances many heathens must have longed for a religion which put an end to their doubts and agitations, satisfied the demands of their moral nature, and afforded them consolation and inward peace. The circumstance of Christianity coming from the East, whose mystical religions had at that time attracted general attention to itself, must have facilitated at least the introduction of it. Not could it be otherwise than that many Jews felt the emptiness of their ceremonial service, especially as they had been already guided to a more spiritual worship of God by many passages in their own prophets. On the other hand, expectations of the Messiah prepared the way for Christianity among the Jews.

But however much there was in the circumstances of these times which must have promoted Christianity, there was not less to obstruct it. Among the Jews, national pride, earthly hopes of Messiah, and habituation to an almost external religion; among the heathen, unbelief as well as superstition, which prevailed at this time, the stain attaching to Jewish origin, and the political grounds which, in the universal opinion, rendered it necessary to abide by the national religion. Christianity

could reckon on toleration on the part of the state, agreeably to the principles of the Romans, only as long as it was confined to the Jewish people. But a religion which, like the Jewish, did not only declare all other national religions false, but was likewise gathering adherents among all nations in a more suspicious degree than the Jewish, and was threatening to extinguish all others, could not be endured by the Roman government without an abandonment of the old state religion. The

toleration which all philosophical systems and foreign superstitions found at Rome could not, therefore, be expected by Christianity ;1 for an external observance of the state religion was at least consistent with the nature of such systems and superstitions.2

FIRST CHAPTER.

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

J. J. Hess Lebensgeschichte Jesu, 3 Bde. Ste Aufl. Zürich. 1822 u. 23. 8. The same: Lehre, Thaten, und Schicksale unseres Herrn, v. verschiedenen Seiten beleuchtet. 2 Hälften. 3te Aufl. Zürich. 1817. 8. J. G. Herder vom Erlöser der Menschen nach unsern 3 ersten Evangelien. Riga. 1796. 8. The same: von Gottes Sohn der Welt Heiland, nach Johannis Evangel. Riga. 1797. 8. J. Ch. Greiling das Leben Jesu von Nazareth. Halle. 1815. 8. H. E. G. Paulus das Leben Jesu, als Grundlage einer reinen Gesch. d. Urchristenthums. Heidelb. 1828. 2 Bde. 8. Dr. A. Hase das Leben Jesu. Ein Lehrbuch zunächst für akadem. Vorlesungen. Leipz. 1829. 3te Aufl. 1840. 8.-Dr. Strauss's Leben Jesu has given a new impulse to a scientific treatment of the subject. Tübingen. 1835, 36. 4te Aufl. 1840. 2 Bde. 8. The fruits of it are especially A. Neander's Leben Jesu Christi. Hamburg. 1837 (4te Aufl. 1845). 8. Chr. F. v. Ammon Gesch. d. Lebens Jesu mit steter Rücksicht auf die vorhandenen Quellen. Bd. 2. Leipzig 1842-4. 8.

F. V. Reinhard Versuch über den Plan, den der Stifter der christl. Religion zum Besten der Menschen entwarf. 5te Ausg. with additions by Heubner. Wittenb. 1830. 8. G.

1 Although the Christian apologists often appeal to it, Justini M. Apol. maj. c. 18, 24, 26. Tertulliani Apologeticus, c. 24, 46.

2 In opposition to the wrong views taken by Voltaire Traité sur la tolérance, 1763, c. 8–10, (Oeuvres éd. Deux-Ponts. Tom. 40, p. 271, ss.), relative to the toleration of the Romans, and the exclusive fault of the Christians in bringing persecutions on themselves, Hegewisch made very just remarks in his treatise on the epoch in Roman history most favorable to aumanity. Hamburg. 1800. p. 173.