It is possible that the usual view taken of the passafre, ac- cording to which the words ' making: all meats clean ' Oik 719) are the concluding words of Jesus, should be accepted. This involves, however, a gi^mmatical irreirularitv, and we ought perhaps to adopt the view taken bv Origen. Greirorv Thauma- turgns, and Chrjsostom, ablv defende-l bv Field Xshteg on the Trail-slat ion of the ST. pp. 31. 32) and adopted bv Ry, Weizsacker, Swete, Gould, Salmond, that thev are the "comment of the Evangelist, and that we should translate ' thii he said, making all meats clean.' On the other hand, the notes of Menzies and ^\ ellhausen on the passage mav be consulted.
The evasion of the Law by the Tradition here asserted bv Jesus has been affirmed bv some Je\vish scholars not to have existed. (Tlie reader mav consult an appendix on 'Legal Evasions of the Law.' by Dr. Schechter in Montefiore"s Bibbert Lecturer, pp. .i,i7 .i&J ; an article bv Montefiore on 'Jewish Scholarship and Christian Silence ' in the Hibbert Journal for Jan. 1<>03 ; the rejoinder to this bv Menzies in Julv 1003, with a further rejoinder by Montefiore in Oct. 1003.) It is urged that the reference in the Jewish treatise Sedarim does not
confirm the statement in St. Mark about Corban. Dr. Menzies accepts this ; but when that is said, the matter is by no means ended. To the present writer it seems that the evidence of St. Mark is quite good e\idence for the contemporarj- Judaism. If the assertion about Corban is untrue, of course it cannot be ascribed to Jesus, who could not ha\ e quoted, as a conclusive proof that the Jews cancelled the Law by their tradition, an example which His hearers would know to have no existence. Accordingly, if the statement is mistaken, it would have to be put down to the account of the Evangelist, though how he should have hit upon it unless such a custom was actually in vogue would be difficult to understand. In forming our judg- ment on a question of this kind certain leading principles must be kept in mind. The contemporary- Judaism is most imper- fectly known to us, and the documents which we have to use as our sources of infonuation are, in many instances, centuries later than the rise of Christianity. Further, the stereot\-ping of Judaism must not be blindly accepted as if it guaranteed that doctrines or practices for which we have only late literary attestation were already developed in the time of Christ. We must remember that Judaism did not live in an intellectual vacuum, but in an atmosphere saturated with Christian germs. Especially, we cannot fot^t that controversy went on between Jews and Christians ; and under its pressure it is by no means unreasonable to believe that Judaism may have undergone a considerable modification, above all, in the elimination of matter which proved susceptible to criticism. In the light of these principles the present writer has no hesitation in regarding the statement in St. Mark as good e\"idence for the existence of the practice of Corban in thetime of Christ.
4. The next question touches Clirists relation to the Temple. His i>ersonal attitude towards it was that of a loyal Jew. Not only did He as a boy of twelve years recognize it as His Fathers house (Lk 2^), but, after He had entered on His ministry, He cleansed it by dri^-ing out the money- changers, and overturning the stalls of the traders (Mt 2P"^- ). According to the Fourth Gospel, His visits to Jerusalem were largely connected with the feasts. In His Sermon on the Mount He assumes that His discijiles will ott'er saciifice, and only requires that, before he ofi"ers, a man shall be recon- ciled to his brother (Mt 5^'). In His great indict- ment of the scriljes and Phaiisees He rebukes them for their ruling that an oath by the temple or by the altar counts for nothing, while an oath by the gold of the temple, or a gift at the altar, is binding. The temple is gi-eater than its gold, and makes it holy ; and similarly it is by the altar that the gift is sanctified. To swear by the altar is to swear not only by it, but by the offering placed ufxin it ; while to swear by the temple is to swear not only by it and all that it contains, but by Him who dwells therein iMt -IS^^^- i. But all this loyal re- cognition of the place filled by the temple and the honoiu- due to it was combined with an inward detachment from it, which was a presjige of the ultimate deliverance of Christianity from its con- nexion with it. This comes out very dearly in the stoiy of the stater in the fisli"s mouth (Mt 17'-^^-). The very doubt which was implied in the question whether Jesus paid the half - shekel which was levied as a temple -tax is most significant as to the drift towards freedom, which Avas already de- tected in His teaching. That He had not repudi- ated the toll, Peter is aware ; but the rea^^jn for His obedience comes out plainly in the conversa- tion He has with Peter on the subject. Taxes are taken by monarchs not from their sons, but from strangei"s. Therefore, since Jesus knoAvs that He and His disciples are not aliens to God, but His children, the inference is that no payment of the tax can be legitimately exjiected from the chil- dren of the Kingdom. Jesus, however, bids Peter pay the tax for lx)th, to avoid giving offence. In other words, Jesus regarded Himself and members of His Kingdom as relea.sed from eveiy obligation to pay the half - shekel for the ser\-ice of the temple, even if, in tender concession to the feelings of others, they did not avail themselves of their lilierty. The temple-due in question was not definitely commanded in the Law, tliougli it was a not unnatural deduction from Ex 30'^, which was itself a development of the rule of