Appendix

APPENDIX
PARTICIPATION OF GENTILES IN THE WORSHIP AT JERUSALEM
Considering the wall of rigid separation which, as regards matters of religion, the Jews had erected between themselves and the Gentiles, it would not readily occur to one that these latter were also permitted to take part in the worship at Jerusalem. And yet that such was the case is a fact as well authenticated as any fact could be. Nor are we thinking here of the large body of proselytes, i.e. of those Gentiles who, to some extent, professed their adherence to the faith of Israel, and who on this account testified their reverence for Israel’s God by sacrificing to Him. No, we have in view such as were real Gentiles, and who, in sacrificing at Jerusalem, would by no means care to acknowledge that in so doing they were professing their belief in the superstitio Judaica. There is however but one way of understanding this singular fact, and that is by reflecting how formal and superficial the connection often is, in practical life, between faith and worship,—a connection that originally was of so very intimate a character,—and also how this was peculiarly the case at the period now in question, The presenting of a sacrifice with a view to its being offered in some famous sanctuary was very often nothing more than an expression, on the part of the offerer, of a cosmopolitan piety, nay, in many instances a mere act of courtesy toward a particular people or a particular city, and not in the least intended to be regarded as indicating the man’s religious creed. And if this was a thing that occurred in the case of famous sanctuaries elsewhere, why should it not take place at Jerusalem as well? There was no reason why the Jewish people and their priests should discountenance an act intended to do honour to their God, even though it were purely an act of politeness. As for the offering of the sacrifice, that was really the priests’ affair; it was for them to see that this was gone about in proper and due form. And if the sacrifice were provided, there did not seem to be any particular reason for caring at whose expense it was so. In any case the Jew was not called upon, through any religious scruple, to decline a gift of this nature even from one who did not otherwise yield obedience to the law. And accordingly we find the Old Testament itself proceeding on the assumption that a sacrifice might be legitimately offered even by a Gentile (בֶּן נֵכָר).[1132] And so the Judaism of later times has also carefully specified what kinds of sacrifices might be accepted from a Gentile and what might not: for example, all were to be accepted that were offered in consequence of a vow or as freewill offerings (all נְדָרִים and נְדָבוֹת); while, on the other hand, those of an obligatory character, such as sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and those presented by those who had issues, and by women after child-birth and such like, could not be offered by Gentiles.[1133] The offerings therefore which these latter were permitted to present were burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and drink-offerings.[1134] Hence it is, that in enumerating the special legal prescriptions relating to offerings, there is frequently a reference, at the same time, to the sacrifices of the Gentiles as well.[1135]
[1132] Leviticus 22:25 and Dillmann’s note. It is here stated that it would be unlawful to take blemished animals for victims even from a Gentile, which presupposes, of course, that, generally speaking, Gentiles might lawfully present sacrifices.
[1133] Shekalim i. 5.
[1134] Thank- or peace-offerings they were debarred from presenting, for the simple reason that they would not possess the Levitical purity required of those who, in this instance, partook of the flesh of the victims at the sacrificial feast (Leviticus 7:20-21).
[1135] Shekalim vii. 6; Sebachim iv. 5; Menachoth v. 3, 5, 6, vi. 1, ix. 8. Comp. farther, Hamburger’s Real-Encycl. für Bibel u. Talmud, 2nd part, art. “Opfer der Heiden.”
The general fact, that sacrifices were offered by and in the name of Gentiles, is one that is vouched for in the most explicit way possible by Josephus, who informs us that on the occasion of the breaking out of the revolution in the year 6 A.D., precisely one of the first things done was to pass a resolution declaring that it was no longer lawful to take sacrifices from Gentiles.[1136] By way of protesting against such a proceeding, the opposite conservative party took care to point out that “all their forefathers had been in the habit of receiving sacrifices at the hands of Gentiles;” and that if the Jews were to be the only people among whom a foreigner was not to be allowed to sacrifice, then Jerusalem would incur the reproach of being an ungodly city.[1137] History records at least several remarkable instances of the matter now in question. When we are told, for example, that Alexander the Great once sacrificed at Jerusalem,[1138] the truth of this fact no doubt depends on how far it is historically true that this monarch ever visited that city at all. But be this as it may, the simple fact of such a thing being even recorded goes to prove that Judaism looked upon such a proceeding as perfectly legitimate and proper. Then Ptolemaeus III. is likewise alleged to have offered sacrifices at Jerusalem.[1139] Again, Antiochus VII. (Sidetes), while he was at open feud with the Jews and was in the very act of besieging Jerusalem, went so far as, on the occasion of the feast of Tabernacles, to send sacrifices into the city, presumably with the view of disposing the God of the enemy in his favour, while the Jews on their part cordially welcomed the sacrifices as a token of the king’s sympathy with their faith.[1140] Further, when Marcus Agrippa, the distinguished patron of Herod, came to Jerusalem in the year 15 B.C., he there sacrificed a hecatomb, consequently a burnt-offering consisting of no fewer than a hundred oxen.[1141] Once more, Josephus tells us with regard to Vitellius, that he came to Jerusalem at the Passover season in the year 37 A.D., for the purpose of offering sacrifice to God.[1142] How frequent such acts of courtesy or cosmopolitan piety were may be further seen from the circumstance that Augustas expressly commended his grandson Caius Caesar, because on his way from Egypt to Syria he did not stay to worship in Jerusalem.[1143] Tertullian is therefore perfectly justified in saying that once upon a time the Romans had even honoured the God of the Jews by offering Him sacrifice, and their temple by bestowing presents upon it.[1144] Nor are we to suppose that it is merely proselytes that are in view when Josephus describes the altar at Jerusalem as “the altar venerated by all Greeks and barbarians,”[1145] and says of the place on which the temple stood, that it “is adored by the whole world, and for its renown is honoured among strangers at the ends of the earth.”[1146]
[1136] Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4.
[1137] Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 4: ὅτι πάντες οἱ πρόγονοι τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλογενῶν θυσίας ἀπεδέχοντο. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3: καταψηφίσασθαι τῆς πόλεως ἀσέβειαν, εἰ παρὰ μόνοις Ἰουδαίοις οὔτε θύσει τις ἀλλότριος οὔτε προσκυνήσει.
[1138] Joseph. Antt. xi. 8. 5.
[1139] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 5, init.
[1140] Antt. xiii. 8. 2.
[1141] Antt. xvi. 2. 1. Sacrifices on so large a scale as this were nothing unusual in the temple at Jerusalem. See Ezra 6:17. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xlv. (Mang. ii. 598). Orac. Sibyll. 3:576, 626.
[1142] Antt. xviii. 5. 3.
[1143] Sueton. August. cap. xciii.: Gajum nepotem, quod Judaeam prastervehens apud Hierosolyma non supplicasset, conlaudavit.
[1144] Tertullian, Apologet. cap. xxvi.: Cujus (Judaeae) et deum victimis et templum donis et gentem foederibus aliquamdiu Romani honorastis.
[1145] Bell. Jud. v. 1. 3: τὸν Ἕλλησι πᾶσι καὶ βαρβάροις σεβάομιον βωμόν.
[1146] Bell. Jud. iv. 4. 3 (ed. Bekker, v. 315. 2-4): ὁ δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης προσκυνούμενος χῶρος καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ περάτων γῆς ἀλλοφύλοις ἀκοῇ τετιμημένος.
In the class of sacrifices offered for and in the name of Gentiles should also be included the sacrifice for the Gentile authorities. As previous to the exile the Israelitish kings were in the habit of defraying the cost of the public sacrifices, so Cyrus in like manner is said to have given orders that whatever means and materials might be required for this purpose should be furnished out of the royal exchequer, at the same time however with the view of prayer being offered “for the life of the king and his sons” (Ezra 6:10). The fact of a sacrifice being specially offered in behalf of the sovereign (ὁλοκαύτωσις προσφερομένη ὑπὲρ τοῦ βασιλέως) is further confirmed by still more explicit testimony belonging to the time of the Maccabaean movement (1Ma_7:33). Consequently we see that even then, at a time when a great proportion of the people was waging war with the king of Syria, the priests were still conscientiously offering the sacrifice that, as we may venture to suppose, had been founded by the Syrian kings themselves. In the Roman period again this sacrifice, offered on behalf of the Gentile authorities, was precisely the only possible form under which Judaism could furnish something like an equivalent for that worship of the emperor and of Rome that went on throughout all the other provinces. We learn indeed from the explicit testimony of Philo, that Augustus himself ordained that, in all time coming, two lambs and a bullock were to be sacrificed every day at the emperor’s expense.[1147] It was to this sacrifice offered “in behalf of the emperor and the Roman people” that the Jews expressly pointed in the time of Caligula, when their loyalty happened to be called in question in consequence of their having opposed the erection of the emperor’s statue in the temple.[1148] And we are further informed that it continued to be regularly offered down till the time when the revolution broke out in the year 66 A.D.[1149] Then we have it, on the authority of Philo, that it was not merely a sacrifice for the emperor, but one that had been also instituted by him; a step which, in spite of his strong antipathy to Judaism, Augustus would probably deem it prudent to take from political considerations. It is true, no doubt, that Josephus affirms that the expenses connected with the sacrifice now in question were defrayed by the Jewish people themselves.[1150] Possibly however this historian himself was not at the time aware that the money to pay for the sacrifice came actually from the emperor. At the same time it would appear that, on special occasions, very large sacrifices were offered in behalf of the emperor at the public expense; as, for example, in the time of Caligula, when a hecatomb was offered on each of three different occasions, first on the occasion of that emperor’s accession to the throne, then on that of his recovery from a serious illness, and lastly at the commencement of his campaign in Germany.[1151]
[1147] Philo, Leg. ad Cajum, sec. xxiii. (ed. Mang. ii. 569): προστάξας καὶ δι αἰῶνος ἀνάγεσθαι θυσίας ἐνδελεχεῖς ὁλοκαύτους καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων προσόδων, ἀπαρχὴν τῷ ὑψίστῳ θεῷ, αἳ καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἐπιτελοῦνται καὶ εἰς ἅπαν ἐπιτελεσθήσονται. He also uses terms almost identical with these in sec. xl., ed. Mang. ii. 592, where however he adds the remark, that ἄρνες εἰσὶ δύο καὶ ταῦρος τὰ ἱερεῖα, οἷς Καῖσαρ ἐφῄδρυνε [l. ἐφήδυνε] τὸν βωμόν.
[1148] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 10. 4: Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ μὲν Καίσαρος καὶ τοῦ δήμου τῶν Ῥωμαίων δὶς τῆς ἡμέρας θύειν ἔφασαν. From the conclusion of this sentence we see that, like the public sacrifices, the daily sacrifice for the emperor was also offered partly in the morning and partly in the evening.
[1149] Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4.
[1150] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 6, fin.: Facimus autem pro eis (scil. imperatoribus et populo Romano) continua sacrificia; et non solum quotidianis diebus ex impensa communi omnium Judaeorum talia celebramus, verum quum nullas alias hostias ex communi neque pro filiis peragamus, solis imperatoribus hunc honorem praecipuum pariter exhibemus, quem hominum nulli persolvimus.
[1151] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xlv. (ed. Mang. ii. 598). Sacrifice and prayer in behalf of the Gentile authorities is recommended generally in Jeremiah 29:7; Bar_1:10-11. Aboth iii. 2: “Rabbi Chananiah, president of the priests, said: Pray for the welfare of the higher authorities” (מלכות meaning here the Gentile authorities). For the Christian practice, comp. 1 Timothy 2:1-2. Clemens Romanus, lxi.; and in addition, the material collected by Harnack (Patrum apostol. opp. i. 1, ed. 2, 1876, p. 103 f.). Mangold, De ecclesia primaeva pro Caesaribus ac magistratibus Romanis preces fundents, 1881.
Besides offering sacrifices, it was also very common for Gentiles to bestow gifts upon the temple at Jerusalem. Pseudo-Aristeas, for example, gives a very minute account of the splendid presents which Ptolemaeus Philadelphus gave to the temple on the occasion of his requesting the Jewish high priest to send him a number of persons who would be sufficiently competent to take part in a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, the articles presented being twenty golden and thirty silver cups, five goblets, and a golden table of elaborate workmanship.[1152] Although this story may belong to the realm of the legendary, still it may be regarded as faithfully reflecting the practice of the time. For, apart from this, we have it vouched for elsewhere over and over again that the Ptolemies frequently gave presents to the temple of Jerusalem.[1153] Nor was it different in the Roman period. When Sosius, in conjunction with Herod, had suceeded in conquering Jerusalem, he presented a golden crown.[1154] Marcus Agrippa too, on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem to which we have already referred, presented gifts for the further embellishment of the temple.[1155] Among the vessels of the temple which John of Gischala caused to be melted during the siege were the wine goblets (ἀκρατοφόροι) that had been presented by Augustus and his consort.[1156] Altogether it was not in the least unusual for Romans to dedicate gifts to the temple.[1157] And so, strange to say, in this way even the exclusive temple of Jerusalem became in a certain sense cosmopolitan; it too received the homage of the whole world in common with the more celebrated sanctuaries of heathendom.
[1152] Pseudo-Aristeas in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus, ii. 2. 108-111 (also in Merx’ Archiv, i. 262-269); in the citation as given in Antt. xiii. 3. 4; contra Apion. ii. 5, init.
[1153] 2Ma_3:2; 2Ma_5:16. Joseph. Antt. xiii. 3. 4; contra Apion. ii. 5, init.
[1154] Antt. xiv. 16. 4.
[1155] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xxxvii., ed. Mang. ii. 589.
[1156] Bell. Jud. v. 13. 6. Comp. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xxiii., ed. Mang. ii. 569.
[1157] Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 10 (Bekker, v. 305. 20 f.). Comp. ii. 17. 3.