Another series of similar allegorical questions in connection with R. Joshua b.Chananyah is recorded in Bekhor. 8 a and b, but answered by the Rabbi in an anti-Christian sense. See Mandelstamm, Talmud. Stud. i. But Mandelstamm goes too far in his view of the purely allegorical meaning, especially of the introductory part. __________________________________________________________________
[4172] The word is not parable, but paroima proverb or allegory. On the essential characteristics of the Parables, see Book III. ch. xxiii.
[4173] St. John x. 6.
[4174] The figure of a shepherd is familiar in Rabbinic as in Biblical literature. Comp. Bemidb. R. 23; Yalkut i. p. 68 a.
[4175] This is the view advocated by Archdeacon Watkins, ad loc.
[4176] St. John x. 1-5.
[4177] This is the proper reading: he who locked the door from within and guarded it.
[4178] This is the literal rendering.
[4179] St. John x. 4, 5.
[4180] ver. 7.
[4181] vv. 7-9.
[4182] The words who went before Me' are questioned by many.
[4183] ver. 10.
[4184] Not as in the A.V., am come.'
[4185] As Canon Westcott remarks, this points to something more than life.'
[4186] This is the proper rendering.
[4187] Literally fair.' As Canon Westcott, with his usual happiness, expresses it: not only good inwardly (gaths) but good as perceived (kals).'
[4188] This would be all the more striking that, according to Rabbinic law, a shepherd was not called upon to expose his own life for the safety of his flock, nor responsible in such a case. The opposite view depends on a misunderstanding of a sentence quoted from Bab. Mez. 93 b. As the context there shows, if a shepherd leaves his flock, and in his absence the wolf comes, the shepherd is responsible, but only because he ought not to have left the flock, and his presence might have prevented the accident. In case of attack by force supérieure he is not responsible for his flock.
[4189] See an important note at the end of this chapter.
[4190] See Note 4.
[4191] Not fold,' as in the A.V.
[4192] St. John x. 17, 18.
[4193] St. John x. 18. __________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER XI. THE FIRST PERÆAN DISCOURSES - TO THE PHARISEES CONCERNING THE TWO KINGDOMS - THEIR CONTEST - WHAT QUALIFIES A DISCIPLE FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HOW ISRAEL WAS BECOMING SUBJECT TO THAT OF EVIL.
(St. Matt. xii. 22-45; St. Luke xi. 14-36.)
It was well that Jesus should, for the present, have parted from Jerusalem with words like these. They would cling about His hearers like the odour of incense that had ascended. Even the schism' that had come among them [4194] concerning His Person made it possible not only to continue His Teaching, but to return to the City once more ere His final entrance. For, His Peræan Ministry, which extended from after the Feast of Tabernacles to the week preceding the last Passover, was, so to speak, cut in half by the brief visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication. [4195] Thus, each part of the Peræan Ministry would last about three months; the first, from about the end of September to the month of December; [4196] the second, from that period to the beginning of April. [4197] Of these six months we have (with the solitary exception of St. Matthew xii. 22-45), [4198] no other account than that furnished by St. Luke, [4199] [4200] although, as usually, the Jerusalem and Judæan incidents of it are described by St. John. [4201] After that we have the account of His journey to the last Passover, recorded, with more or less detail, in the three Synoptic Gospels.
It will be noticed that this section is peculiarly lacking in incident. It consists almost exclusively of Discourses and Parables, with but few narrative portions interspersed. And this, not only because the season of the year must have made itinerancy difficult, and thus have hindered the introduction to new scenes and of new persons, but chiefly from the character of His Ministry in Peræa. We remember that, similarly, the beginning of Christ's Galilean Ministry had been chiefly marked by Discourses and Parables. Besides, after what had passed, and must now have been so well known, illustrative Deeds could scarcely have been so requisite in Peræa. In fact, His Peræan was, substantially, a resumption of His early Galilean Ministry, only modified and influenced by the much fuller knowledge of the people concerning Christ, and the greatly developed enmity of their leaders. This accounts for the recurrence, although in fuller, or else in modified, form, of many things recorded in the earlier part of this History. Thus, to begin with, we can understand how He would, at this initial stage of His Peræan, as in that of His Galilean Ministry, repeat, when asked for instruction concerning prayer, those sacred words ever since known as the Lord's Prayer. The variations are so slight as to be easily accounted for by the individuality of the reporter. [4202] They afford, however, the occasion for remarking on the two principal differences. In St. Luke the prayer is for the forgiveness of sins,' while St. Matthew uses the Hebraic term debts,' which has passed even into the Jewish Liturgy, denoting our guilt as indebtedness ({hebrew}). Again, the day by day' of St. Luke, which further explains the petition for daily bread,' common both to St. Matthew and St. Luke, may be illustrated by the beautiful Rabbinic teaching, that the Manna fell only for each day, in order that thought of their daily dependence might call forth constant faith in our Father Which is in heaven.' [4203] [4204] Another Rabbinic saying places [4205] our nourishment on the same level with our redemption, as regards the thanks due to God and the fact that both are day by day. [4206] Yet a third Rabbinic saying [4207] notes the peculiar manner in which both nourishment and redemption are always mentioned in Scripture (by reduplicated expressions), and how, while redemption took place by an Angel, [4208] nourishment is attributed directly to God. [4209]