Page images
PDF
EPUB

men and women, do observe the sabbaths and perform sacred rites according to the Jewish law, and build proseucha by the sea-side, according to the custom of their country; and if any man, whether magistrate or private person, give them any hindrance or disturbance, he shall pay a fine to the city."1

It is a question with some learned men, whether these proseucha were the same as the synagogues (of which an account will be found in the following section), or distinct edifices from the latter. Both Josephus and Philo, to whom we may add Juvenal, appear to have considered them as synonymous; and with them agree Grotius, Ernesti, Drs. Whitby, Doddridge, and Lardner;2 but Calmet, Drs. Prideaux and Hammond, and others, have distinguished between these two sorts of buildings, and have shown that though they were nearly the same, and were sometimes confounded by Philo and Josephus, yet that there was a real difference between them; the synagogues being in cities, while the proseucha were without the walls, in sequestered spots, and (particularly in heathen countries) were usually erected on the banks of rivers, or on the sea-shore (Acts xvi. 13.), without any covering but galleries or the shade of trees. Prideaux thinks the proseucha were of greater antiquity than the synagogues, and were formed by the Jews in open courts, in order that those persons who dwelt at a distance from Jerusalem might offer up their private prayers in them as they were accustomed to do in the courts of the temple or of the tabernacle. In the synagogues, he further observes, the prayers were offered up in public forms, while the proseucha were appropriated to private devotions: and from the oratory, where our Saviour spent a whole night in prayer, being erected on a mountain (Luke vi. 12.), it is highly probable that these proseucha were the same as the high places, so often mentioned in the Old Testament.3

SECTION IV.

OF THE SYNAGOGUES.

I. Nature and Origin of Synagogues.-The Synagogue_of_the Libertines explained.-II. Form of the Synagogues.-III. The Officers or Ministers.-IV. The Service performed in the Synagogues.-V. On what Days performed. VI. Ecclesiastical Power of the Synagogues.-VII. The Shemoneh Esreh, or Nineteen Prayers used in the Synagogue Service.

1. THE Synagogues were buildings in which the Jews assembled for prayer, reading and hearing the Sacred Scriptures, and other

1 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiv. c. 10. (al. 24.)

2 Philo de Legatione ad Caium, p. 1011. Josephus de vita sua, §54. Juvenal, Sat. iii. 14. Grotius, Whitby, and Doddridge on Luke vi. 12. Ernesti Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, pp. 363, 364. edit. 4to. 1792. Lardner's Credibility, book i. c. iii. 3. Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2. pp. 171–180. 3 Dr. Hammond on Luke vi. 12. and Acts xvi. 13-16. Calmet's Dict. voce Proseucha. Prideaux's Connection, part i. book vi, sub anno 444, vol. i. pp. 387— 390. edit. 1720.

instructions. Though frequently mentioned in the historical books of the New Testament, their origin is not very well known; and many learned men are of opinion that they are of recent institution.

Although sacrifices could only be offered at the holy tabernacle or temple, yet it does not appear that the Jews were restricted to any particular place for the performance of other exercises of devotion. Hence, formerly, the praises of Jehovah were sung in the schools of the prophets, which the more devout Israelites seem to have frequented on sabbath days and new moons for the purpose of instruction and prayer. (1 Sam. x. 5-11. xix. 18-24. 2 Kings iv. 23.) During the Babylonish captivity, the Jews, being deprived of the solemn ordinances of divine worship, resorted to the house of some prophet, or other holy man, who was in the practice of giving religious instruction to his own family, and of reading the Scriptures. (Compare Ezek. xiv. 1. and xx. 1. with Neh. viii. 18.) At length these domestic congregations became fixed in certain places, and a regular order of conducting divine worship was introduced. Philo1 thinks these edifices were originally instituted by Moses: but as no mention is made of them during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, their origin in Jerusalem is referred to the reigns of the Asmonaan princes, under whom they were first erected, and were soon greatly multiplied; though in Alexandria and other foreign places, where the Jews were dispersed, they were certainly of much greater antiquity.2

In the time of the Maccabees, synagogues became so frequent, that they were to be found in almost every place in Judæa. Maimonides3 says, that wherever any Jews were, they erected a synagogue Not fewer than four hundred and eighty are said to have been erected in Jerusalem, previously to its capture and destruction by the Romans. In the evangelical history we find, that wherever the Jews resided, they had one or more synagogues, constructed after those at Jerusalem. Hence we find, in Acts vi. 9. synagogues belonging to the Alexandrians, the Asiatics, the Cilicians, the Libertines, and the Cyrenians, which were erected for such Jewish inhabitants of those cities, as should happen to be at Jerusalem.

With regard to the synagogue of the Libertines, a considerable difference of opinion exists among the learned, whether these Libertines were the children of freed men (Italian Jews or proselytes), or African Jews from the city or country called Libertus, or Libertina, near Carthage. The former opinion is supported by Grotius and Vitringa; the latter (which was first hinted by Oecumenius, a commentator in the close of the tenth century), by professor Gerdes, Wetstein, Bishop Pearce, and Schleusner.

It is well known that the antient Romans made a distinction be tween the Liberti and the Libertini. The Libertus was one who

1 Philo, De Vita Mosis, lib. iii. p. 685.
2 Josephus, De Bell. Jud. lib. vii. c. 3. § 3.
3 In Tephilla, c. 11.

had been a slave, and obtained his freedom: the Libertinus was the son of a libertus. But this distinction in after ages was not strictly observed; and Libertinus also came to be used for one not born but made free, in opposition to Ingenuus, or one born free.3 Whether the Libertini mentioned in this passage of the Acts, were Gentiles, who had become proselytes to Judaism, or native Jews, who having been made slaves to the Romans were afterwards set at liberty, and in remembrance of their captivity called themselves Libertini, and formed a synagogue by themselves, is differently conjectured by the learned. It is probable, that the Jews of Cyrenia, Alexandria, &c. erected synagogues at Jerusalem at their own charge, for the use of their brethren who came from those countries, as the Danes, Swedes, &c. have built churches for the use of their own countrymen in London; and that the Italian Jews did the same; and because the greatest number of them were Libertini, their synagogue was therefore called the synagogue of the Libertines.

In support of the second opinion above noticed, viz. that the Libertines derived their name from Libertus or Libertina, a city in Africa, it is urged that Suidas in his Lexicon, on the word Aßegrivos, says, that it was ovoua evous, a national appellative; and that the Glossa interlinearis, of which Nicholas de Lyra made great use in his notes, has, over the word Libertini, e regione, denoting that they were so styled from a country. Further, in the acts of the celebrated conference with the Donatists at Carthage, anno 411, there is mentioned one Victor, bishop of the church of Libertina; and in the acts of the Lateran council, which was held in 649, there is mention of Januarius gratia Dei episcopus sanctæ ecclesiæ Libertinensis, Januarius, by the grace of God, bishop of the holy church of Libertina; and therefore Fabricius in his Geographical Index of Christian Bishoprics, has placed Libertina in what was called Africa propria, or the proconsular province of Africa. Now, as all the other people of the several synagogucs, mentioned in this passage of the Acts, are called from the places whence they came, it is pro

1 Cives Romani sunt Liberti, qui vindictà, censu aut testamento, nullo jure impediente manumissi sunt. Ulpian. tit. 1 § 6.

2 This appears from the following passage of Suetonius concerning Claudius, who, he says, was ignarus temporibus Appii, et deinceps aliquamdiu Libertinos dictos, non ipsos, qui manumitterentur, sed ingenuos ex his procreatos. In vita Claudii, cap. xxiv. § 4. p. 78. Pitisci.

3 Quintilian. de Institutione Oratoria, lib. v. cap. 10. p. 246. edit. Gibson, 1693. Qui servus est, si manumittatur fit Libertinus-Justinian. Institut. lib. i. tit. v., Libertini sunt, qui ex justa servitute manumissi sunt. Tit. iv. Ingenuus est is, qui statim ut natus est, liber est; sive ex duobus ingenuis matrimonio editus est, sive ex libertinis duobus, sive ex altero libertino, et altero ingenuo.

4 Of these there were great numbers at Rome. Tacitus informs us (Anal. lib. ii. cap. lxxxv.) that four thousand Libertini, of the Jewish superstition, as he styles it, were banished at one time, by order of Tiberius, into Sardinia; and the rest commanded to quit Italy, if they did not abjure, by a certain day. See also Suetonius in vita Tiberii, cap. xxxvi. Josephus (Antiq. lib. xviii.cap. iii. § 5. edit. Haverc.) mentions the same fact. And Philo (Legat. ad Caium, p. 785. Ĉ. edit. Colon. 1613.) speaks of a good part of the city beyond the Tiber, as inhabited by Jews, who were mostly Libertini, having been brought to Rome as captives and slaves, but being made free by their masters, were permitted to live according to their own rites and customs.

bable that the Libertines were denominated in like manner; and as the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, who came from Africa, are placed next to the Libertines in that catalogue, the supporters of this opinion think it probable that they also belonged to the same country. But we have no evidence to show that there were any natives of this place at Jerusalem, at the period referred to in the Acts of the Apostles. On the contrary, as it is well known that, only about fifteen years before, great numbers of Jews, emancipated slaves, or their sons, were banished from Rome, it is most likely that the Libertines mentioned by Luke were of the latter description, especially as his account is corroborated by two Roman historians.1

II. It does not appear from the New Testament that the synagogues had any peculiar form. The building of them was regarded as a mark of piety (Luke vii. 5.): and they were erected within or without the city, generally in an elevated place, and were distinguished from the proseuchæ by being roofed. Each of them had an altar, or rather table, on which the book of the law was spread; and on the east side there was an ark or chest, in which the volume of the law was deposited. The seats were so disposed that the people always sat with their faces towards the elders, and the place where the law was kept: and the elders sat in the opposite direction, that is to say, with their backs to the ark and their faces to the people. The seats of the latter, as being placed nearer the ark, were accounted the more holy, and hence they are in the New Testament termed the chief seats in the synagogue, which the Pharisees affected; and for which our Lord inveighed against them. (Matt. xxiii. 6.) A similar precedency seems to have crept into the places of worship even of the very first Christians, and hence we may account for the indignation of the apostle James (ii. 3.) against the undue preference that was given to the rich. The women were separated from the men, and sat in a gallery enclosed with lattices, so that they could distinctly see and hear all that passed in the synagogue, without themselves being exposed to view.

III. For the maintenance of good order, there were in every synagogue certain officers, whose business it was to see that all the duties of religion were decently performed therein. These were, 1. The Agxduvaywyos, or ruler of the synagogue. (Luke xiii. 4. Mark v. 22.) It appears from Acts xiii. 15., collated with Mark v. 22. and John vi. 59., that there were several of these rulers in a synagogue. They regulated all its concerns, and gave permission to persons to preach. They were always men advanced in age, and respectable for their learning and probity. The Jews termed them Hacamim, that is, sages or wise men, and they possessed considerable influence and authority. They were judges of thefts, and similar petty offences and to them Saint Paul is supposed to allude in 1 Cor. vi. 9., where he reproaches the Corinthian Christians with carrying their differences before the tribunals of the Gentiles, as if

[blocks in formation]

they had no persons among them who were capable of determining them. Is it so, says he, that there is not a WISE MAN among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? These rulers likewise had the power of inflicting punishment on those whom they judged to be rebellious against the law; in allusion to which circumstance Christ forewarned his disciples that they should be scourged in the synagogues. (Matt. x. 17.)

2. Next to the Axiouvaywyos, or ruler of the synagogue, was an officer, whose province it was to offer up public prayers to God for the whole congregation: hence he was called Sheliach Zibbor, or, the angel of the church, because, as their messenger, he spoke to God for them. Hence also, in Rev. ii. iii. the ministers of the Asiatic churches are termed angels.

3. The Chazan appears to have been a different officer from the Sheliach Zibbor, and inferior to him in dignity. He seems to have been the person, who in Luke iv. 20. is termed ungerns, the minister and who had the charge of the sacred books.

IV. The service performed in the synagogue consisted of three parts, viz. prayer, reading the Scriptures, and preaching, or exposition of the Scriptures.

1. The first part of the synagogue service is Prayer; for the performance of which, according to Dr. Prideaux, they had liturgies, in which are all the prescribed forms of the synagogue worship.

שמונה עשרה The most solemn part of these prayers are the

(SHEMONCH ESRCH), or the eighteen prayers, which, according to the rabbies, were composed and instituted by Ezra, in order that the Jews, whose language after the captivity was corrupted with many barbarous terms borrowed from other languages, might be able to perform their devotions in the pure language of their own country. Such is the account which Maimonides gives, out of the Gemara, of the origin of the Jewish liturgies: and the eighteen collects, in particular, are mentioned in the Mishna. However, some better evidence than that of the talmudical rabbies is requisite, in order to prove their liturgies to be of so high an antiquity; especially since some of their prayers, as Dr. Prideaux acknowledges, seem to have been composed after the destruction of Jerusalem, and to have reference to it. It is evident they were composed when there was neither temple nor sacrifice; since the seventeenth collect prays, that God would restore his worship to the inner part of his house, and make haste, with fervour and love to accept the burnt sacrifices of Israel, &c. They could not, therefore, be the composition of Ezra, who did not receive his commission from Artaxerxes to go to 1 The fifth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth collects have the same allusion and reference as the seventeenth. See the original prayers in Maimonides de Ordine Precum, or in Vitringa, (de Synag. vetere, lib. iii. part ii. cap. xiv. pp. 1033—1038.,) who observes, that the Talmudists will have the seventeenth collect, which prays for the restoration of the temple worship, (reduc ministerium Leviticum in Adytum Domus tuæ, as he translates it), to have been usually recited by the king in the temple at the feast of tabernacles; which is such an absurdity that it confutes itself, and shows how little the Jewish traditions concerning the antiquity and use of their liturgies are to be depended upon.

« PreviousContinue »