[4039] The Court of the Women' (gunaikons), Jos. Jew. War v. 5. 3; comp. also v. 5. 2), so called, because women could not penetrate further. It was the real Court of the Sanctuary. Here Jeremiah also taught (xix. 14; xxvi. 2). But it is not correct to state (Westcott), that the Council Chamber of the Sanhedrin (Gazith) was between the Court of the Women and the inner court.' It was in the south-eastern angle of the Court of the Priests - and hence at a considerable distance from the Court of the Women. But, not to speak of the circumstance that the Sanhedrin no longer met in that Chamber - even if it had been nearer, Christ's teaching in the Treasury could not (at any period) have been within earshot of the Sanhedrin,' since it would not sit on that day.
[4040] Sukk. v. 2.
[4041] Jer. Sukk. 55 b; Sukk. 53 a.
[4042] Although Rabbi Joshua tells (in the Talmud) that during all the nights of the festive week they did not taste sleep,' this seems scarcely credible, and the statement of the Mishnah is the more rational. Maimonides, however, adopts the view of the Talmud (Hilch. Lul. viii. 12).
[4043] Bemidb. R. 15, ed. Warsh. p. 62 a, b.
[4044] St. Luke ii. 32.
[4045] Ber. R. 3.
[4046] Bemidb. R. 15.
[4047] Yalk. on Is. 1x.
[4048] On Lam. i. 16, ed. Warsh. p. 64 a, b.
[4049] The passage is one of the most remarkable, as regards the Messianic views of the Rabbis. See Appendix IX.
[4050] In Dan. ii. 22.
[4051] St. Luke ii. 32.
[4052] Mark here the definite article.
[4053] St. John viii. 12.
[4054] ver. 13.
[4055] It is substantially the same evidence which is demanded by the negative physicists of our days. Nor can I imagine a more thorough misunderstanding of the character and teaching of Christianity than, for example, the proposal to test the efficacy of prayer, by asking for the recovery of those in a hospital ward! This would represent heathenism, not Christianity.
[4056] St. John viii. 13.
[4057] We mark here again the evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
[4058] Kethub. ii. 9.
[4059] Thus the testimony of a man, that during the heathen occupancy of Jerusalem his wife had never left him, was not allowed, and the husband forbidden his wife (Kethub. ii. 9).
[4060] Not, as in the A.V., tell.'
[4061] St. John viii. 14.
[4062] vv. 15, 16.
[4063] Kethub. ii. 9. Such solitary testimony only when favourable, not when adverse. On the law of testimony generally, comp. Saalschütz, Mos. Recht, pp. 604, 605.
[4064] St. John viii. 19.
[4065] Not sins,' as in the A.V.
[4066] St. John viii. 22.
[4067] Generally this is understood as referring to the supposed Jewish belief, that suicides occupied the lowest place in Gehenna. But a glance at the context must convince that the Jews could not have understood Christ as meaning, that He would be separated from them by being sent to the lowest Gehenna. Besides, this supposed punishment of suicides is only derived from a rhetorical passage in Josephus (Jew. War iii. 8. 5), but unsupported by any Rabbinic statements. The Rabbinic definition - or rather limitation - of what constitutes suicide is remarkable. Thus, neither Saul, nor Ahitophel, nor Zimri, are regarded as suicides, because they did it to avoid falling into the hands of their enemies. For premeditated, real suicide the punishment is left with God. Some difference is to be made in the burial of such, yet not such as to put the survivors to shame.
[4068] vv. 23, 24.
[4069] It would be impossible here to enter into a critical analysis or vindication of the rendering of this much controverted passage, adopted in the text. The method followed has been to retranslate literally into Hebrew: {hebrew} This might be rendered either, To begin with - He that I also tell you;' or, from the beginning He that I also tell you.' I prefer the latter, and its meaning seems substantially that of our A.V.