Corban

STOP

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.

THE

JEWISH QUARTERLY
REVIEW

JTTLT, 1907

COBBAN.

I. Introduction.

Josephus says: " Theophrastus shows knowledge of
Jewish customs when he says the laws of the Tyrians
prevent the swearing of foreign oaths; and among them
with some others he reckons the oath called Corban. Now
this will be found among no people save only the Jews,
and it means (as one might say), being translated out of
the language of the Hebrews, gift of God V There is no
indication that this is a grudging admission wrung from
the apologist of Judaism by a triumphant opponent. It
is regarded as a piece of indisputable evidence, that the
historian named was acquainted with Jewish customs.

Elsewhere Josephus implies that the formula was used
by those who vowed themselves to God in accordance with
the directions of the Levitical code 2 . "And those who
name themselves Corban to God (now this signifies gift in
the language of the Greeks), if they wish to be released 3
from the service must pay down money to the priests, . . .
but, in the case of such as have less than the requisite
fixed sum of money 4 , it is lawful for the priests to decide

1 Josephus against Apion, i. §§ i66f. (Niese).

2 Lev. xxvii. i. 3 a<j>iio8ai. * See Lev. xxvii. i.
VOL. XIX. S S

616 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

as they will 1 ." Here Corban ia a vow of self-devotion
from which a man may be released in accordance with the
Law.

The most famous example of the full formula is found
in a passage of the Gospel according to St. Mark 2 .
There it is said that under certain conditions certain of
the Scribes refused to release their disciples from this
vow. Hence it has been inferred that this refusal was
upheld by all Scribes under all conditions, and that the
ruling was condemned by Eabbi Jesus of Nazareth and
by him alone. It would be more in accordance with
facts to say that, with the exception of Jesus himself,
and Philo, and perhaps such zealots for the Law as the
scholars of Shammai, every Eabbi of the time would have
dissolved the vow in the circumstances specified, whether
the man wished to be dispensed from it or not. The
view that the Corban was a favourite device for evading
a fundamental commandment, at which the priests or the
Scribes connived — for a consideration, and which Jesus
pilloried as it deserved, is a striking example of the
exegesis which is dominated and directed by religious
prejudice. The Rabbi has better right than the scholar,
who accepts this tradition of the commentators, to say of
his opponent in this cause, tantum religio potuit suadere
malorwm. But, since this view is prevalent and has pro-
voked certain doubts about the authenticity and historicity
of the narrative, it will be well to look a little at the
life of the times, before we proceed to examine it in detail.

It is a far cry to the Palestine, in which Herod's temple
was still a-building. The Christian Evangelists are not
concerned to expound questions of Jewish Law, even if
they had listened to them and have reported them with
more patience than Gallio the pro-consul. To under-
stand their narratives one must return — as best one may
— to the land and the time, where and when these

1 Josephus, Ant., iv, § 73 (Niese). 2 vii. 1-12.

CORBAN 617

things were done. The way is not easy; but there
is a way. Doubtless the destruction of Jerusalem is
a great gulf fixed between the present and the distant
past. Doubtless the disciples of Jesus and the disciples of
the Pharisees have long ago dissolved the partnership, to
which the records of the Acts of the Apostles and the
traditions — notably that which relates to James the
brother of Jesus — bear witness. But Philo Judaeus will
lead the student back to contemporary Alexandria; and
thence he may go up to Jerusalem for the feasts, if he will.
For though the guide wear the motley garb of an eclectic
Greek philosopher, his heart and mind are the mind and
heart of a Rabbi. Cucullua ncm facit monachwm. For all
his allegorizing and idealism, Philo's teaching is such as
Shammai and Aqiba might have applauded or inspired.
His devotion to the Nation and the doctrines of the Pharisees
.s as unquestionable as that of Saul who is also called Paul.
Both had experienced the truth, to which Josephus gave
verbal assent and expression, that the sect of the Pharisees
has an essential affinity with Stoicism.

Israel was in captivity, but not now in a strange land.
Out of Egypt they had been led into Canaan. From
Canaan they had been expelled, as Adam from Eden. To
Canaan they had been restored — but only to be oppressed
again, and that in the land which the Lord their God had
given them. Surely this was the sorest punishment of all.
The promises remained. They were unrealized because the
conditions were unfulfilled. To take refuge in apocalyptic
dreams was a counsel of despair and unfaith. Remains the
Law — as it is written through the prophet Micah : "He
hath showed thee, O man, what is good ; and what doth
the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ? V

1 Mic. vi. 8. The saying is imitated by Jesus ben Sira (Ecclus.) and
echoed by Jesus of Nazareth (Matt, xxiii. 23). It seems to have been
adopted by some of the Pharisees as an adequate compendium of the law
{Maccoth, 24 b).

S s a

6l8 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The rulers and nobles had for the most part made a
covenant with the powers of this world and were content
to offer lip-service to their rightful Lord. God had with-
drawn himself — if indeed he had ever interfered in human
affairs. For all practical purposes man was the masterless
charioteer of his own life 1 . Such it would seem were
principles of the Sadducean caste. They derived from the
Hellenizers the art of plucking the roses and with them
all the charm and joy of brave sublunary things. God's
People were enslaved and enchained ; but their great men
could wear their fetters with a grace, and take their ease in
a desecrated Zion. As for the mysteries of God, they knew
them not ; neither hoped they for the wages of righteous-
ness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls. Eeasoning
with themselves, but not aright, they said : " Our life is
short and tedious, and in the death of a man there is no
remedy: neither was there any man known to have
returned from the grave. Come on, therefore, let us enjoy
the good things that are present. Let us lie in wait for the
righteous man, because he is of disservice to us 2 ."

With these enemies of the Righteous we are not now
concerned. But in this description of them we find one
outstanding characteristic of the spirit of the age: the
present is the child of the past and must correspond to it.
There is a proverb " As is the mother, so is her daughter 3 ."
So the Sage who wrote in the name of Solomon described
what was present to him in terms of the past which is
recorded in Scripture. And we shall do well to follow his
example. For at best we cannot have all the bare facts —
valeant quantum — which represent the dry bones and
fossilized remains of the age with which we are concerned.
But we know something of the ways in which men thought
and reasoned ; and the Scriptures on which they fed their
minds are extant. We set aside then the comparison of
the sects of the Jews to the sects of Greek philosophers

1 Eoelus. a See Wisd. of Sol. ii. * Ezek. xvi. 44.

COBBAN 619

upon which Josephus relied and look rather for a prophecy
which shall supply appropriate categories.

It is written in the book of the prophet Isaiah : — " From
the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, glory
to the righteous. But I said, Leanness to me, leanness
to me, woe is me! the treacherous dealers have dealt
treacherously ; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very
treacherously. . . . And it shall come to pass that he who
fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit, and
he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit . . .V

What is this second leanness 1 Theodotion suggests that
it is the secret which the fugitive sought in his flight.

Over against the Sadducees stood the Essenes, who fled
into the wilderness. They shared the Hope of emancipation
and consolation; but they were content to stand by and
see what Almighty God would do. In the wilderness they
might prepare and purify themselves against his visitation.
So they might intercede then for the common folk, of
whom they now despaired. They fled, while flight was
possible, from the leanness to the secret. Though the
curse of emaciation befall the people, it may be only
a mystery, warning and promise in one, foreboding the
^Restoration of all things.

But the land was not peopled only by such as abused
or forewent the good things that were present. The
treacherous dealers were there, and the prophet who said,
"My leanness, my leanness" — and fled. But with them
were the Pharisees, who neither betrayed nor abandoned
the people. In Palestine and from the uttermost parts of
the earth there were voices to hear, singing, " Glory to the
righteous," and again, " Hope to the righteous," since the
glory tarried. Thus and thus was the prophecy of Isaiah
fulfilled. The people were blind and foolish, babes in fine.
But guides and instructors and teachers were at hand to be
the light of them that were in darkness 2 .

1 Isa. xxiv. 16.

2 See Bom. ii. 19 f. for these titles of the Kabbis.

620 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Separating themselves from all impurity, the Pharisees
went about among the masses, calling them to repentance
and amendment of life) that they might be deserving of
mercy. If Israel could but keep the commandments,
God's promise was due to be fulfilled and the coming
age should come.

It was a hard saying, almost a mockery. The way of
virtue is rough ; stumbling-blocks are many. Falls are
inevitable — but not failure. The reward of a precept is
a precept, and the reward of complete obedience is life.
The Law of Moses contained many commandments framed
for different stages in the history of the Nation. Considered
as a whole, it was inconsistent with itself. And who could
remember all its requirements — to say nothing of the
indispensable obedience ? It is written : " All things
cannot be in a man, for the son of man is not immortal."
But it is written again : " There is forgiveness with thee,
that thou mayest be feared." Without the forgiveness
of God true piety was impossible. All we stumble much.
Failing forgiveness, we must needs despair and proceed to
add sin to sin, as being already banned. And the Law
has provided means of atonement for all sins of ignorance.
It is only the man who sins with a high hand that is
without the pale. And this is the man who is conscious
of all the commandments relevant to the action which he
contemplates, and performs it with deliberate intention.
An ordinary man may be distracted by natural affection
or worldly cares from the service of Jehovah. For such
there is and there was forgiveness, so he sin — if sin he
must — in ignorance. He must be reproved and convicted ;
but if being convicted he show repentance, he will avoid
wilful sin, for which there is no remedy.

This conviction and generally the direction of the people
was the function of the Scribes of the Pharisees. No matter
that for long no faithful prophet had appeared. The Sages
and the Scribes were also God's Apostles. They had followed
the prophets in their insistence upon the general principles

COBBAN 621

of the Law, and in their proper persons they had inherited
and developed a system of case law, whose observance
should preclude the transgression of the earlier Torah.

The men of the Great Synagogue said three things : " Be
deliberate in judgment, and raise up many disciples, and
make a fence to Torah V R. Aqiba said : " Tradition is
a fence to Torah." The point is developed by Philo
with characteristic amplitude. As a practical moralist
he accepted without hesitation the principle that humanly
speaking this tradition is of more immediate importance
than the Law itself, whose corollary and safeguard it is.

" Moreover also, this profitable precept was added to the
code, 'Disturb not boundaries of the neighbour which
they that were before thee set.' This law it would seem
. . . does not only contemplate the removal of covetousness,
but also the keeping of the ancient customs. For customs
(e07j) are unwritten laws, dogmas (decisions) of men of old
not engraved on pillars and parchments, which moths
destroy, but upon souls of those who share the same polity.
For children ought to inherit from parents (apart from
their property) the ancestral customs, in which they were
educated and with which they have lived from their very
cradles, and not to despise them because the tradition
thereof is unwritten. For he that obeys the written laws
does not deserve praise, being admonished by compulsion
and fear of punishment ; but he that abides by the unwritten
laws, displaying a voluntary virtue, is worthy of eulogies 2 ."

Now in respect of both these things, conditions of forgive-
ness and directions for right conduct, there was room for
diversity of opinion. In the first case, the Temple and
its priests were not always accessible ; therefore some
substitute was necessary. In the second case, different
Rabbis took different views of the relative importance of

1 Pirqe Aboth, init.

2 Philo, Be lustiUa (De Specc. Legg., iv), ii, p. 360 f. m (ed. Conn and
Wendland, vol. V, p. 24a).

622 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

conflicting precepts. Moreover, the standard to which
appeal lay was itself also, like the unwritten tradition, the
product of a long life, and that the life of a nation ; though
the Scribes wished rather to reconcile than to recognize its
inconsistencies. The result was that the pious were split up
into different schools, and said — to take typical examples :
" I am of Shammai and I of Hillel." But Shammai and
Hillel, John Baptist and Jesus, had a common aim — to
secure obedience to the revealed will of God. So far and
so long as the means were subordinated to that end, their
disciples were of one accord together. After all, the means
which they prescribed were, to all appearance, command-
ments of men. One said this and another that; but of all
such "philosophical precepts and exhortations" Philo can
say : " God asks of thee, Mind, nothing heavy and various
or hard (Moepyov), but quite a simple thing and easy. It is
to love him as benefactor, or else to fear him at least as
ruler and lord, and to go by all roads that lead to accept-
able worship, and to serve him, not as by the way, but
with all the soul filled with the love of God, and to embrace
his commandments, and to honour justice. . . . Which of
these duties is difficult or troublesome % x "

Such were the Pharisees, the champions of the Tradition
and the real rulers of the people at this time. Ascetic
and yet lenient in the exercise of their power, they were
devoted to the Law. For the sake of the Hope, whose
fulfilment depended upon the observance of God's will, they
were ready to co-operate with the advocates of any method
of enforcing it. God used instruments in the past in order
to accomplish his purpose for his people. Not all his
servants were to the mind of the Pharisees. But to the
other characteristics of the Stoics, which they shared, they
added the habit of suspending their judgment, until some
proof should be given whether such and such a thing were
of God or not.

1 Philo, ii. 357 m, De Vict, Offer. Compare Matt. xi. 28 f.

CORBAN 623

The narrative of the controversy, if such it can be called,
which is permanently associated with Corban presents other
features of interest, which are not without importance for
the proper understanding of the situation. It is preserved
by the first and the second of the four Evangelists, and the
third recounts a similar incident which leads up to the
same teaching about real as contrasted with external purity.
This teaching does not enter into the scope of the present
article : it is sufficient to note here that such insistence on
the requisite significance of sacraments is common in the
writings of the prophets and in the tradition of the
elders.

The account given in the Gospel according to St. Matthew
presents some rearrangement of the original, and, though
clearly secondary, is worth some consideration.

" Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and
scribes, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition
of the elders ? for they do not wash their hands when they
eat bread. But he answered and said to them, And why do
ye transgress the commandment of God for your tradition ?
For God said, Honour the father and the mother ; and, He
that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But
ye say, Whoso say to the father or the mother, Gift be the
profit thou mightest have had of me, he shall not honour the
father of him 1 . So ye have invalidated the word (law) of
God for your tradition. Hypocrites 2 , well did Isaiah 3
prophesy concerning you, saying,

1 The Sinaitic Syriac converts the formula from that of a vow into that
of an oath : — "Corban if thou shalt be profited from me," i. e. "I swear
by the Gift which is upon the altar that thou shalt not be profited from
me.'' The Curetonian Syriac has "my offering thou shalt he profited
from me,'' in apparent agreement with the old Latin version donum
meum prqficiet tibi. In this case we have to consider one who says and
does not. Compare Jas. ii. 15 f. : "If a brother or sister be naked, and in
lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye
warmed and filled ; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the
body ; what doth it profit ? "

2 Syr. Kespecters of persons. * Isa. xxix. 13.

624 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This people honoureth me with the lips,

but their heart is far away from me.
But vainly do they worship me,

teaching doctrines commandments of men 1 ."

From the question propounded it appears that there
were already disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem, with whom
the Pharisees were ready to fraternize. The Gospels
attributed to St. Luke and St. John bear out the inference ;
and even when the scandal of a crucified Messiah had
alienated the many, James can say to Paul, " Thou seest,
brother, how many myriads there are among the Jews of
them that have believed and all are zealots for the law 2 ."
The statement is so incredible, that it must be fact and not
fiction ; and it is supported by Paul's reference to Christians
who avoided persecution from the Jews by insisting upon
the circumcision of their Gentile converts 3 .

The reply of Jesus deals with the transgression of the tradi-
tion generally without apparent reference to the particular
case adduced. It is implied that the tradition of the elders
is not of such paramount authority as the Pharisees main-
tained. Jesus speaks as a Sadducee among Pharisees ; and
suggests to them that, as transgressors of God's Law, they
have no right to arraign the transgressors of mere human
traditions. The Law does not support their requirement of
ceremonial purity, and their conduct has been denounced
by the prophet Isaiah. No defence or justification of the
conduct alleged is offered by Jesus. For the original
narrative we must go to Mark.

to 1 -

II. Jewish Sacramental Meals.

So far as it can be determined, the beginning of the
original narrative would seem to have been as follows : —

" And there gather to him the Pharisees and some of
the scribes, being come from Jerusalem, and having seen

1 Matt. xv. 1-9. 2 Acts xxi. 20. 3 Gal. vi. 12.

COEBAN 625

some of his disciples that with common hands they eat
the loaves. And they ask him, Why walk not thy
disciples after the tradition of the elders, but with
common hands they eat the loaf?"

For the sake of Gentile readers two notes were added : —
(i) the explanation of common : — " that is unwashen."
(ii) a summary of that part of the tradition which con-
cerns purifications: — "For the Pharisees and all the Jews
except with the fist they wash the hands do not eat,
holding the tradition of the elders. And from market,
except they bathe, they do not eat. And other many
things there are which they received to hold, washings
of cups, and pitchers and pots 1 ."

The former gloss is adopted by Matthew in place of the
original phrase. The latter appears to be based upon the
parallel incident recorded by Luke 2 , in which it is said :
"Ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and the
dish\"

This ruling of the Scribes, that one should wash one's
hands before eating bread, has no certain warrant of
Scripture ; and even after the destruction of the Temple
it was not always regarded as a matter of obligation.
There is no need therefore to follow the later copyists,
Western and Syrian, in assuming that the conduct of
Jesus' disciples was censured or condemned 4 by these
inquirers.

It is true that God requires cleanness or innocency
in his people ; and that clean hands are the outward and
visible sign which should accompany and betoken a pure
heart. So, for example, the Psalmist puts cleanness of

1 Of "/dp iaptaatot iced it&vTts ol 'lovScuoi, kav pelj Tvy/iy vbf/covrai t<Js x*Tpas,
0\>K iaOloviTi, Kpatovvres rijv napASoaiv ranr -upta^vrkposv KaX Sorb ayopas, icW
pi) pairriowvTai, oiiK iaffiovai' Kal dX\a iroAAd lartv & mpiKafiov KparUSi,
PavTurnobs norr/plcar teal ^tarmv kcu. x a ^ K ^ a >" (Mark vii. 3 f.).

a Luke xi. 37-42. 3 ToO itorijpiov xai tov irivaKos.

4 The "Eeceived Text" adds ipi/mf/curro, Codex Bezae xark-yvmaav at the
end of Mark Yii. 2.

626 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

hands as the equivalent of righteousness, which is obedience
to all the judgments and statutes of the Lord.

" Jehovah rewards me according to my righteousness ;

" According to the cleanness of my hands returns to me.

" Because I have kept the ways of Jehovah,

" And have not acted wickedly (in departing) from my
GodV

But the actual ablution is only required of priests, when
they approach the altar, and of persons who are about to
partake of a sacrificial meal. So it is written : " And
Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and
feet, when they went into the tent of meeting, and when
they came near the altar 2 " ; and again : " Samuel said to
the elders of Bethlehem . . . Sanctify yourselves and come
with me to the sacrifice 3 ."

Special precepts * might be found, which convey the
general principle to those who can pierce beneath the
surface ; but the excessive repetition of rites and cere-
monies is apt to lead to mere formalism and a neglect of
their significance. The Rabbis and the Sages, therefore, did
not regard this practice as a universal duty, incumbent
upon all at this time, but left it as a matter which each
man should decide for himself.

It is said in the treatise entitled Blessings : " We have
learned that to wash oneself before meals is optional, but
to do so after meals is obligatory : to wash oneself before
meals is an interruption, but not so after meals. What
does this interruption mean ? According to R. Jacob ben
Aha, it means that one should wash twice. R. Samuel
ben Isaac asked: 'Why do they insist so strongly upon
the accomplishment of an action which has just been
stated to be optional ? ' ' It is of importance,' says
R. Jacob ben Idi, 'for it happened once that pork was
given to a man to eat as not seeing him wash himself

1 Ps. xviii. 21 f. Compare Ps. xxiv. 4, where Briggs (J. C. C, ad loc.)
suspects interpolation of hands, and Job ix. 30 ; xvii. 9.

2 Exod. xl. 31 f. » 1 Sam. xvi. 8. * e.g. Lev. xv. n.

CORBAN 627

before the meals. . . . Others say that three persons died
as a consequence of this negligence 1 .'"

The story of the Jew who omitted to wash his hands
before eating, and was therefore given pork to eat, is told
more fully in the Bemidbar Mabba 2 . It seems legitimate
to infer from it that the practice arose in the time of the
persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes ; and that to wash one's
hands and to repeat the appropriate blessing before a meal
had come to be the characteristic mark of a devout Jew.

But in view of the admitted discrepancy of rulings on
this point of the Halacha, the question is rather why did
the Pharisees or some of the Scribes or both incline to insist
upon it as a duty. Apparently they had witnessed the
extraordinary sanctity of the disciples of Jesus in Jerusa-
lem, and by their present errand recognized the authority
of the Prophet of Nazareth. That the Law was inconsistent
with itself they knew. The prophets, the sages, and the
scribes in turn had repealed its provisions. A teacher whom
some regarded as a faithful prophet was within his rights,
if he had really repealed this prescription of the Tradition.
If the ritual act of hand- washing had lost its significance
and connotation of inward purity, it were better abolished ;
as another prophet had said, " Eend your hearts, and not
your garments."

These Pharisees and these Scribes do not justify the
custom to which they adhered. Its purpose and origin
were presumably matter of common knowledge. It was
the duty of the father and the teacher to explain why
such and such rites were observed in Israel. But now the
student is left without instruction to rediscover the cause
of the practice for himself.

From the passages of Scripture already cited, it would
appear that the duty was binding only upon such as were

1 Jerusalem Talmud Berakhoth, VIII, Gemara.

2 § xx : on Numbers xxiv. 3, He took up his parable and said. " Halacha,
He that hath eaten without washing his hands, of what does he become
guilty ? Our Babbis have taught : — the washing of the hands before the
meal is optional, but after the meal it is a duty."

628 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in some respect of a priestly character, and upon them and
others at such times as they were preparing for a sacrificial
meal.

Pharisees and Nazarenes — at any rate those who resided
at Jerusalem — naturally spent their lives in the service of
Jehovah. So far they shared the priestly function and
character, and could not free themselves from the require-
ments of the current priestly code. If then the meal, to
which reference is made, were in any sort sacrificial, those
who partook of it must first wash their hands. Jesus, the
Pharisees would assume, had presumably given a dispensa-
tion to his disciples in respect of this custom as in that of
fasting.

It is unnecessary to cite later conceptions, whether Jewish
or Christian, of the table as an altar and the ordinary meal
as a sacrament 1 . It would be easy to reply that this evidence
was not valid for the time, when the temple of Jerusalem
was standing. None the less it must be urged that there
were Jews in foreign parts and outside the Holy City who
could not always go up to the central sanctuary when they
wished to enter the presence of God. The benediction of
of the meal required preparation of heart, if not always of
hand, at all times. And if God provided the food, he was
in some sort the giver of the feast and was recognized as
present there, if only in the person of a hypothetical priest.

Apart from such general considerations, there is definite
evidence that ordinary meals, or those to which guests were
invited, were regarded as equivalent to sacrificial meals. It
is written in the Law : " And this shall be the right of the
priests from the people, from them that sacrifice the sacrifice,
whether ox or sheep ; he shall give to the priest the shoulder,
the two cheeks, and the maw 2 ."

1 Mr. Abrahams adds the note, " That the table became so regarded in
later Judaism is undeniable, and some Jewish customs still prevalent
are based on the idea that the meal — especially the Sabbath meal — is a
sacrifice and a sacrament."

2 Dout. xviii. 3.

COKBAN 629

The language points unmistakably to a sacrificial meal ;
but Philo and Josephus agree with the Kabbis in extending
the statute, and therefore the formula sacrifice the sacrifice,
to meals which had no specifically religious purpose. Thus
Philo says, " From those things which are sacrificed (slaugh-
tered) away from the altar for the sake of flesh-eating, three
things are enjoined to be given to the priest, arm, cheek, and
what is called the maw V

And again : " Moses teaches by examples. He begins by
admonishing and chastening the appetite of the belly ; for
he assumed that men would never give the rein to the other
lusts or appetites, but would restrain them because the eldest
and chief of them all had learned to obey the laws of tem-
perance. ... So he bridled the desire both of eating and of
drinking, by precepts which are conducive to self-control
and to philanthropy, and, the greatest of all, to piety. . . .
He enjoins that no one taste anything at all before he
separate 2 the firstfruits 3 ."

From this it follows that any and every meal must be
shared with God himself in the person of his priests, and
thus becomes a means of communion between God and his
worshippers, which is independent of the Temple and the
Temple-worship. When the Temple was destroyed, all sur-
viving rites and ceremonies inevitably rose in importance,
and were enforced as equivalent substitutes for the system
of sacrifices, which necessarily ceased. Hence the pious
custom practised by the righteous became the duty of
every Jew who deserved the name, as in the days of the
persecution. Bread is a term wide enough to cover all
food. It is a Rabbinic commonplace that all eating of bread
is to be understood of the study of Torah. Gatherings are
properly for the sake of feasting *. The food is that which
God created for men to partake of with thanksgiving ; for
it is sanctified by means of God's word and supplication 5 .

1 ii, p. 235 m. 2 Suucptvat. ' ii, p. 351; it,

4 ow&yuv means elsewhere, if not in Mark, 1. c, to entertain.
* 1 Tim. iv. 4.

630 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

So in his prison the Rabbi Aqiba will go thirsty, that he
may sanctify himself for his scanty meal. So the Christians
of Corinth must realize that they gather together to eat the
feast of the Lord God, and must conduct accordingly, for
fear of what penalties they may incur if they neglect the
requisite discrimination of the firstfruits 1 .

It is written in the Law : " Sanctify yourselves therefore,
and be ye holy 2 ." Two purifications are required. It is
a duty to wash one's hands before and after a meal. For
the meal is the substitute for the sacrifice of the Peace
Offering, which is also the sacrifice of salvation 3 . And it
is written again : " This is the law of the sacrifice of peace
offerings. ... If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he
shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened
cakes . . . and beside the cakes . . . leavened bread ....
but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of
peace offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his
uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off
from his people 4 ." On the other hand, if the meal have
no sacred character, the unclean and the clean may eat
thereof 5 ; thus there was no need for the washing of
hands, benediction, or discrimination.

Mark's phrases, the loaves and the loaf or the bread 6
perhaps bewray his consciousness that the celebration of
the Holy Communion was based upon an extant practice
of the Pharisees. But whether he knew it or not, it seems
a plausible conclusion, from the evidence available, that in
the Assembly of the home for the meal — whether all daily
meals or one of them, or one meal in each week — the
Pharisees had found something to supplement the Assembly
of the House of Assembly as an adequate alternative to the
Temple of Jerusalem.

1 1 Cor. xi. 20-30. a Lev. xx. 7.

3 LXX, ti}s Svaias rov aarrjpiov.

1 Lev. vii. 11 ff. 5 Deut. xii. 15, 22.

• robs aprovs (Mark vii. 2), rbv aprov (Mark vii. 5).

CORBAN 63I

III. The Law oe God and the Precepts op Men.

" Jesus saith to them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you
(as it is written), This people with the lips honoureth me,
but the heart of them is far away from me ; but in vain
they xvorship me, teaching teachings commandments of
men. [Leaving the commandment of God, ye retain the
tradition of men *.] "

The requirement that the hands should be washed as a
religious duty before any or any particular meal involves
a multiplication of observances and a potential supersession
of the worship at Jerusalem. Similar conditions and causes
had produced similar results at an earlier time in the his-
tory of Israel. With bitter irony the prophet Amos had
said to those who forsook and belittled the central sanc-
tuary: "Come to Bethel and transgress, to Gilgal and
multiply transgressions; and bring your sacrifices every
morning and your tithes every three days, and offer a
sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and
proclaim freewill offerings and publish them ; for this liketh
you, O ye children of Israel, saith the Lord God 2 ."

Ceremonies and acts of ritual have no value in them-
selves. To multiply them beyond what is written is to
transgress ; for it implies that their performance is in
itself meritorious. But men need ritual for their souls'

1 Mark vii. 6-8, Westcott and Hort edit the text thus : 6 Si einev avrois
KaXats kirpO(t>f)Ttv<rev 'Haaias vtpl {i/xaiv tu>v inro/cptraiv, &$ yiypatrrai on
OStos & Xabs rots \tiKeaiv fit «/*§,

■fj Si KtipSia avrwv iroppa dir«x« &n kpov'
p6.Tr)V Si ciPovTcd ixe,

StSaatiovTes SiSaa/taKias ivToW/iaTa dvBpimaiv'
atplvrts rip> IvroXty rov 8tov fcpareiTt rip/ itapaSoaiv rwv avQp&rnoiv, But
the Sinaitic Syriac omits rum vttok/mtw (only here in St. Mark), which
Christian copyists would he only too ready to insert. Codex Bezae
omits &s yiypairrai on, which is at any rate obviously parenthetic : com-
pare its addition of and said which is supported by the Sinaitio Syriac.
8 Amos iv. 46.
VOL. XIX. T t

632 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

sake. The service of the Synagogue could not wholly
replace the worship of the Temple. The ministry of the
word, to adopt phrases which belong to the Nazarene sect
of Judaism, must be supplemented by the ministry of tables,
if God is to be accessible otherwhen than on Sabbath
and elsewhere than in Synagogue. Even, perhaps par-
ticularly, those who could find their way to the Temple at
more than the necessary seasons feel the need of additional
means of grace. So the men who succeeded Moses and the
prophets provided the props and satisfactions of piety,
which were lacking, for men's sake. True, such things
were the teaching of men, but what else is Torah
itself? The only difference is that the authors of the
Law were men who had acquired sanctity because they
lived so long ago. Now — in the first century of the current
era — as then, it was true that tnentem mortalia tangunt.
The guides of the people inspired directly or indirectly
endeavour to cope with human needs.

The text of this prophecy of Isaiah is that of the Sep-
tuagint 1 , whose language is faithfully reproduced, and not
that of the Masoretic Hebrew 2 . The original triplet has
been adapted — probably not now for the first time — for the
purposes of separate quotation. In particular the prefatory
formula the Lord said seems to be disregarded.

The Scripture was indeed a text, to which both Pharisee
and Sadducee might well appeal in their controversies about
the validity of the Oral Tradition. If such it be — a proof-
text and no more — the extent to which its original context
is contemplated by Jesus must remain a doubtful question.
It can hardly be excluded absolutely. Jesus might wish
to correct erroneous conclusions derived from it in its

1 Koi elirtv Kvpws 'Eyyifa fioi 5 \abs otros iv t$ oro/ian airov teat iv rots
Xfiteoiv airrav TifiSbaiv yx, i) Si icapBia airmv troppai airlxu &r' i/iov' i/Arrpv
Si ak&ovrai /*« SiSatTKOVTfs evrdKitara avOpi/iraiv ical Sifiaamkias.

* Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draws near | with
its mouth and with its lips they honour me and its heart it removed from
me I and their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been
taught.

COKBAN 633

naked form. And possibly he actually adduced more of
the preface or the sequel, which his reporters omitted as
irrelevant or superfluous. At least he may have advised
the Scribes to read the whole section for their guidance.

The preface speaks of a time when men shall be drunken,
not with wine, but with a spirit of stupor 1 . It is a time
when " All vision is become unto you as the words of
a book that is sealed, which men deliver unto one that
is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee, and he saith,
I cannot, for it is sealed V It is a time when "all they
that watch for iniquity are cut off, that make a man an
offender by a word . . . and turn aside the just with
a thing of nought 3 ."

It is not merely the case that the actual proof-text
is an obvious weapon to use. Its original context squares
with the situation as Paul conceived it, and Jesus before
him 4 .

That the teachers of the people were dependent upon the
written word of God for their enlightenment was no fault
of their own. They had found as yet no faithful prophet
and were shut up to the painful task of interpretation of
Scripture. Perforce they taught " every man his neighbour
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord 5 ." Not
yet was the promise of the new covenant fulfilled. Only
in the coming age would God write his law in the heart
of his children, so that all should know him from the
least of them unto the greatest of them.

The closing verse of this first section of Jesus' reply
is omitted by the Sinaitic Syriac version and also by
Matthew. It appears to be a doublet of the opening of
the second section and is repeated in another form at its
close. The accretion may be due to different translations
of the original saying, or more probably to the collocation
of correspondent Scriptures which constitutes primitive
exegesis. The disciples of Jesus believed the Scripture

1 Compare Kom. xi. 8. 2 Isa. xxix. n. ' Isa. xxix. 20 f.

* Rom. xi. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 19 ; compare John xii, 40. 5 Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii) 31 ff.

T t %

634 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and the word which Jesus said 1 : they understood the
sayings when they had correlated them to the oracles of
the earlier prophets.

In consequence of this interpolation the usual Marcan
and Talmudic formula and he was saying has been inserted.
The Imperfect tense denotes that in the Evangelist's opinion
the chief point of the incident is not yet reached. The
vivid Present is used only of the original question 2 and
of the private instruction of the disciples 3 .

The original saying in its original form would seem
to be —

" Ye leave the commandment of God to establish

your tradition^."

It is the link between Isaiah's prophecy and the appeal
to a current ruling of some scribes. The tradition is " the
commandments of men," to which Isaiah referred. The
scribes leave the commandment of God, by refusing to
give their disciples leave to obey it 6 . This paronomasia
has become obscured in the Greek text, which is now
received by all ; but may be restored with the help of
the preceding doublet and the Sinaitic Syriac.

The substitution of ye annul (aOenire) for ye leave
(d^iere) might be the result of scribal error: t and ei are
practically indistinguishable, and cf> is easily confused with 6.
But a prophecy of Ezekiel, the titular Son of Man, offers
a more plausible explanation. It is written: "And there
came a word of Jehovah unto me, saying, Son of man, say
unto her, Thou art a land which is not cleansed . . . and
her priests have annulled my law 6 , and have profaned
my holy things: between holy and profane they did not
distinguish, neither have they showed difference between
unclean and clean 7 ."

1 John ii. 22. 2 Mark vii. 5. 3 Mark vii. 18.

1 , A<pitTe tt)v hvroXty tov Oeov tva tt)v napaSoaiv bfiwv ar^ffrjre.
6 Mark vii. 8 a<pivTes rr)v evToXTp tov 0tov KpareiTt rty irapaOoffiv to/v
dvOpanrav (from avOpiiveiv of Isa., 1. c).

Ezek. xxii. 23 ff. ' 1XX, sai ol Upets }fikTt\oav rbv vofiov fiov.

COKBAN 635

This prophecy was not adduced by Jesus ; for on a
superficial view it was absolutely inappropriate. The
distinction between clean and unclean had now been
carried to an excess, if excess he possible. The Sabbaths
of God were observed with the utmost exactitude. The
very name of God was preserved from profanation by all
the devices which human ingenuity could suggest. Men had
been found by God and for God, who should fence a fence
and stand in the gap before God for the land \ The fence
maker was surely the Rabbi, as the Greek translator
implies by his rendering : — " a man of right behaviour and
standing before the Lord completely in the crisis of the
land, that he destroy it not utterly 2 ."

It is noteworthy that neither Jesus nor even the subterra-
nean interpreter of his Saying sees fit to apply to the
scribes as yet the denunciation of their order by Jeremiah.
At the end when the keepers of the vineyard determined
to slay him who claimed to be the heir, a parable is spoken
and a parable is performed, in which trace^ of this pro-
phecy may be found. God's vineyard is to be taken from
the rulers of Israel ; and the fig-tree, that has nothing but
leaves, is blighted. As it is written : " How do ye say,
We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us 1 Vain
hath become the false pen of the scribes. The sages are
shamed . . . because they repudiated the law of ihe Lord.
. . . Therefore I will give . . . their fields to the heirs, and
they shall gather their fruits, saith the Lord. . . . There are
no figs on the fig-trees, and the leaves have fallen off 3 ."

Here, however, there is no denunciation; only a state-
ment of fact. Tradition conflicts with the Law. What of
that 3 In the exercise of the authority committed to them,
the Scribes, like Jesus himself, were ready to repeal what

1 See Ezek. xxii. 26, 30.

2 Ezek. xxii. 30, LXX, avSpa &va<rTp«p6iitvov dpBZs nal iarara ttpb irpooumov
fiov bX.o<sx*p&s iv Katpa tjjs t?s tov /m) tis t£\os IfaXet^cu avrffV.

3 Jer. viii. 8 ff., LXX. The omission of 10 b-ia is perhaps an example
of the Expurgation with which Justin taxes Trypho.

636 THE JEWISH QUAETEELY EEVIEW

was said to them of old. Had not the Psalmist set aside
the whole system of sacrifices 1 ? Had not Jeremiah foreseen
a new Covenant 2 ?

If Moses and Aaron were to be superseded, it was
a small thing that as a punishment a man should be
debarred from the performance and therein from the
reward of "the fii'st commandment with promise." For
this saying is connected with what follows rather than
with what precedes. "Upon the seat of Moses," Jesus
said to the crowds and to his disciples, "the Scribes
and the Pharisees have sat them down. All things
therefore whatsoever they say to you, do and observe 3 . "

And in reference to the minutiae of the Tradition, which
seem to us the meticulous requirements of a wanton
pedantry, he said again, The Scribes tithe mint and anise
and cummin. Nothing is so small that their Law neglects
it. In their attention to trifles they tend to lose sight
of the great essential principles involved. They are right
to do as they do, but not to forsake justice, mercy, and
faith K

So Philo, his contemporary, who strove more suo to
proclaim the inward significance of the Law and to fulfil
it, insists that apprehension of the spirit does not warrant
neglect of the letter. Like the good Christian, the good
Jew must provide things honest in the sight of all men— as
the Pharisees did. There is a virtue in a consensus of
opinion and some truth in the proverb, Vox populi vox
Dei. Not for nought do the Pharisees of any religion —
hypocrites though they may be — perform their rites and
ceremonies so as to be seen by men for an example. The
fourth gift promised to Abraham (Gen. xii. 2) is greatness
of name. . . . He who both is and appeal's good is truly
happy and really great of name. One should provide for
fair fame (-npovoi]T£ov . . . evfanCas) as for a great thing and

1 Ps. xv. 6-8 ; see Epistle to the Hebrews, x. 5-9.

a Jer. xxxi. 31-4 ; see Heb. viii. 7-13.

3 Matt, xxiii. 1-3. * Matt, xxiii. 23.

CORBAN 637

beneficial to the life in (lit. with) the body. It comes to
almost all who with joyful contentment (<rvv acr/xewo-^o)
Kivovm) disturb none of the existing ordinances, but keep
the ancestral polity carefully. For there are some who,
regarding the literal laws as symbols of spiritual things,
have elaborated some overmuch while they lightly slighted
others. Such I should blame for their levity. For they
ought to care for both the more exact search for invisible
things and also for blameless husbandry of the manifest.
But now, as in a desert, they live alone by themselves or
have become bodiless souls knowing neither city, nor
village, nor home, nor, in a word, any company of men
at all ; they peer over what is apparent to the many, and
seek truth naked as it is in itself. But the sacred word
teaches them to have regard for a good reputation and not
to relax (\few) any of the things contained in the customs
which divine (Qecrniarioi) and greater men than those of our
time decreed.

The Sabbath may be a lesson of teaching about the
power belonging to the uncreated and of rest from labour
and inactivity of the creature. But let us not therefore loose
the legislation concerned with it as to light a fire, or till
the ground, or carry burdens, or lay accusations, or go to
law, or demand back deposits, or exact loans, or do the
other things which are commanded on non-feast days.

Nor yet because the feast is a symbol of the soul's
gladness and of thanksgiving to God should we renounce
the assemblies at the seasons of the year.

Nor yet because circumcision signifies the excision of
pleasure and all passions, and the destruction of impious
opinion wherein the mind supposed itself competent to
beget of itself, may we destroy the law laid down for
circumcision. Since we shall neglect the ritual of the
sanctuary and ten thousand other things if we take heed
only to that which is indicated by means of allegories.

We must regard the literal sense as like a body and the
others like soul. ... If we keep the one, the other, of which

638 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the first is symbol, will be more clearly recognized, and
forbye we shall escape censure and accusation from the
many.

Seest thou not that even to Abraham the sage it saith that
both great goods and small accrue. . . . The former corre-
spond to the laws of nature, the latter to made laws 1 .
The self-taught Isaac prays for the lover of wisdom that
he may receive both spiritual and material good things 2
(Gen. xxvii. 38).

IV. CORBAtf.

" And he was saying to them, Ye do well that ye leave
the commandment of God, that ye may establish your
tradition 3 . For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy
mother j and, He that curseth father or mother let him
surely die : but ye say, If a man say to the father or the
mother, Corban he the profit thou mightest have had of
me — no longer do ye let him leave to do anything to the
father or the mother [making of none effect the word of
God by the tradition which ye delivered; and many
such-like things ye do~\ 4 ."

The preface has already been discussed. It remains here
to notice that the law infringed is described as the com-
mandment of God or the word of God, although it is cited
with the formula Moses said. His description agrees with
ancient and modern usage. It is written, God spake these
words and said. And Philo speaks of the Ten Oracles as
"those which God Himself pronounced without prophet
or interpreter 5 ."

1 Demigr. Air. (ed. Cohn and Wendland, vol. II, §§ 86-94).

2 Ibid., § 101 (ed. Cohn and Wendland, vol. II, p. 28S), p. 452 m.

3 Ka\Sis is generally regarded as bitterly ironical (so 2 Cor. xi. 4). The
rendering given is that of the Sinaitic Syriac : compare Jer. i. 12 rawn
nwr, LXX, Ka\itis tuipa/cas.

i Mark vii. 10-13.

5 Be Specc. Legg., iii, § 7.

COBBAN 639

The conclusion is not necessarily a mere doublet of the
preface like its predecessor. The Scribes by their ruling
did actually invalidate the law in question so as to nullify
the promise which it contained \

So at long last we reach the appeal to the practice of
Corban. At the outset it must be noticed that Jesus breaks
off suddenly in his account of the action which is taken
by the persons addressed in the specified circumstances.
Such abruptness — an anacoluthon — as the grammarians
call it — is commonly the sign of intense emotion. "Ye
say . . ." What do they say ? We are not told — only that
it comes to this : " Ye no longer permit him to do any-
thing to father or mother."

What then is the feeling which arrests and interrupts
the utterance? The common answer seems to be indig-
nation such as any pious Jew would feel at the neglect
of the honour due to parents. But if any one inclines to
accept this view let him hear the words of Jesus : " He
said to another, Follow me. But ho said, Permit me first
to bury my father. He said to him, Let the dead bury
their dead, but do thou proclaim the kingdom of God.
Moreover another said, I will follow thee, Lord, but first
permit me to take leave of my household. Jesus said to
him, No one who has put his hand to the plough and
looks behind is fit for the kingdom of God 2 ."

And again, "When multitudes were going with him he
turned and said to them, He that cometh unto me and
hateth not father and mother and brothers and sisters and
wife and sons, my disciple he cannot be 3 ."

This renunciation is required by the Law of the High
Priest and the Nazirite. He must so far as possible be
removed from human infirmity. Like tbe fugitive Levite
he must renounce his kindred. A priest may defile him-

1 Cf. Gal. iii. 17 Sia9^jKt]v irpoKeKvpai/ievrjv uird tov 0eov 5 . . . vo/tos ovk disvpoi
ds t& Karapr/rjacu. ri)v kmyyehlav.

2 Luke ix. 59 ff.

3 Luke xiv. 25 f. Matthew (x. 37) mitigates the severity of the demand.

640 THE JEWISH QUAETEELY EEVIEW

self for his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and virgin
sister ; but not the high priest \

So Philo 2 : " The high priest he withdrew from all
mourning. And reasonably enough. For the services of
the other priests one can perform in place of another, so
that even if some are mourning none of the customary
rites is omitted. But the services of the high priest none
is permitted to do. For which cause he must remain
always undefiled without touching a dead body, in order
that he may be ready at the fitting seasons and perform
without let or hindrance the prayers and sacrifices on
behalf of the world.

" And apart from this, being allotted to God, and having
become the leader of the holy order, he ought to be
alienated from all created things. He must not be so
overcome by affection for parents, or children, or brethren,
as to postpone any of the holy rites, which were better
done immediately. The commandments of the law design
that he become superior to pity, and live always without
grief. For the law wishes him to partake of a greater
nature that belongs to man as he approaches nearer to
the divine nature, being, if one must say the truth, midway
between both, that through this sort of intermediary men
may appease God, and God using a kind of underling may
extend and supply his graces to mankind."

Jesus then required of his disciples that they should
devote their lives absolutely to the service of God. This
sacrifice of human affections he had made himself.

The first-bom son of his mother, he belonged as such to
God. " They brought him up to Jerusalem to present
him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord,
Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to

1 Lev. xxi : N.B. omission of wife. Compare Deut. xxxiii. 9 (father,
mother, brethren, children), and Matt. x. 37 (father, mother, son,
daughter), with Luke xiv. 26 (father, mother, wife, children, brethren,
and sisters). Compare 1 Cor. vii. 32 £f.

2 De Monorchia, ii. 12 (p. 230 m).

CORBAN 641

the Lord) and to offer sacrifice, according to that which is
said in the law of the Lord, a pair of doves or two young
pigeons 1 ." And when the parents brought in the child
Jesus that they might do according to the custom of the
Law, Symeon, a just and pious man, who was expecting
the consolation of Israel, took him in his arms, and under
the influence of the Holy Spirit acclaimed him as Messiah 2 .
The story suggests unmistakably that this child could
not be redeemed by any sacrifice. Nevertheless, it is
said that " they accomplished all that was according to the
law of the Lord V This general statement may be held to
override the impression produced by the description of
their errand and of the intervention of Symeon and Hanna,
Even so the next and final tradition preserved in Luke's
Infancy Gospel proves that the child held himself to be
Corban.

" And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the
feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old,
they went up after the custom of the feast ; and when they
had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy
Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem ; and his parents
knew it not; but supposing him to be in the company,
they went a day's journey; and they sought for him
among their kinsfolk and acquaintance: and when they
found him not, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking for
him. And it came to pass, after three days they found
him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both
hearing them, and asking them questions: and all that
heard him were amazed at his understanding and his
answers. And when they saw him, they were astonished :
and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus
dealt with us ? behold, thy father and I sought thee sor-
rowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye
sought me? wist ye not that I must be in my Father's
house?"

1 Luke ii. 23 f. 2 Luke ii. 25 ff. 3 Luke ii. 39.

642 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Different opinions may be held with regard to the value
of these narratives. If their historicity is denied, one might
suggest that fiction must be more obviously in keeping
with the supposed character of its hero than fact, which is
apt to be irrelevant and inconvenient. In any case, Jesus
repudiated his mother and his brethren at a later time,
and commanded his disciples to obey the Scribes' directions.

The inference is irresistible. For his life or for a term of
years Jesus of Nazareth had vowed himself to the service
of the Kingdom of Heaven. Circumstances had changed ;
say, the husband of his mother died. He had consulted —
once more — with the doctors of Jerusalem, if haply he might
be released from the vow. He had no clearness in the
matter, nor had they. Scripture all but shouts outright
that vows must be performed. Had he said to his mother,
" Corban be the good thou mightest have had of me " ?
So he must say at Cana of Galilee, " Woman, what have
I to do with thee ? My time is not yet come 1 ." If his vow
was only for a term of years, did he set his face to go up to
Jerusalem at the last, because the time had come that he
should pay his vow ? Certainly death pays all debts ; and,
dying, Jesus gave his mother a son in place of himself who
was found and lost at once.

Whether this be a valid explanation of the intense
feeling which is evident in the broken saying of Jesus or
not, at least the conjecture suggests one case, in which the
formula of interdiction of advantage would be pronounced
by a son to his parent or parents. If a man believed him-
self to be a prophet of God, whether sanctified from the
womb, like Elijah, or called later to the office, like Elisha,
he must needs say farewell of his father and mother. If
for any reason, however apparently good, he desired to be
absolved from the vow of service to God, the Sages or
Scribes, to whom he must appeal in so weighty a case, had
to choose between their human instincts and the dictates of
the Law, between the honour of God and the honour of

1 John ii. 4.

CORBAN 643

parents. The problem rarely occurred, but it was impressive
and difficult enough to become an academic question for
the schools. And it is hard to justify any other answer
than that given by the Scribes to whom Jesus refers. True,
they cannot have been Pharisees of the ordinary type ; for
the Pharisees were notorious for their leniency. Perhaps
they were Scribes of the Sadducees, or shared the unswerv-
ing and unflinching devotion to the honour of God which
characterized the school of Shammai. At any rate, if a man
(as Josephus says) named himself Corban he could not be
released from his vow before the expiration of the term,
if any term were specified. It is written in the Law, "When
thou shalt vow a vow unto Jehovah thy God thou shalt not
delay to pay it ; for Jehovah thy God will surely require it
of thee, and it will be sin in thee V And the Preacher
says, " It is good that thou make no vow, rather than that
thou shouldest vow and pay not. Give not thy mouth to
make thy flesh to sin, and say not before the messenger of
God, It was an error 2 ."

It is said in the Mishna of the treatise Chagigah 3 that
" the rules concerning the dissolving of vows fly about in
the air and there is nothing upon which they can rest."
But in the Gemara a Baraita is appended which gives
some passages of Scripture to which various Rabbis
appealed in support of their various decisions. "Rabbi
Eliezer says they have something upon which they may
rest, for it is said 'when bs shall separate,' 'when he
shall separate' twice. Onu separation has to do with
binding and one separation with dissolving." This
interpretation of the repeated phrase is disallowed by
R. Tarphon on the ground that " the state of the Nazirite
is not given except on condition of separation 4 ."

1 Deut. xxiii. 21-23 ; compare Num. xxx. 2 Eccles. v. 4-6.

3 Streane's translation, p. 47.

4 Ibid., p. 48. See Lev. xxvii. 2 ; Num. vi. 2. The precise meaning
of the expression is uncertain. Gray renders : When any man or woman
shall discharge a vow, with the note, that this, to discharge or accomplish

644 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The fact is that the justification of the dissolution or
remission of a vow taxed the ingenuity of the Rabbis to
the utmost. As men they felt that it was necessary in
certain circumstances. As God's ministers they felt that
even so it was contrary to the honour of God. The point
at issue is the sanctity of the vow. Herein Scripture
conflicted with Scripture, and only God, some thought
with Philo, could resolve the controversy. "There are
some who say that they will not have so-and-so or so-and-so
to share board or roof with them, or again that they
will not confer any benefit upon so-and-so or receive
anything from him till death. And sometimes even after
the death they are still irreconcileable, refusing in wills
even to the dead bodies the performance of the customary
offices. Such I would counsel to conciliate the Deity with
prayers and sacrifices that they may win some treatment of
the soul-sicknesses, which no man is competent to heal V

For Philo vows are of the nature of a sacrament which
is vitiated by any change of purpose in the mind of the
person who makes the vow. So commenting on the
Scripture, " And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed
it," he says : —

"The characters formed according to the seventh and
truly divine light God blesses and straightway declares
holy. For he that deserves blessing (6 evXoyia-Tos) and he
that is holy are near akin to each other. Therefore of him
that vowed the great vow it saith, that if a sudden turning
swoop down and defile the mind no longer shall he be
holy 2 ."

And again, commenting on the vrordfound in the passage
" Noah found grace before the Lord God," he distinguishes

a vow, is a sense which satisfies all passages, though how it was acquired
is not clear. Numbers I. C. C, pp. 61 and 64.

1 Philo, ii, 273 m.

a p. 46 m. The reference is to Nam. vi. 9, " And if any man die very
suddenly beside him and he defile the head of his separation " ; but Philo
substitutes his spiritual interpretation for the actual letter.

COBBAN 645

between finding (eijpe<n$) and recovery (avevpe<n$), and
says : —

" Of the former the regulations of the great vow are the
clearest example. A vow is a request for good things from
God ; but the great vow is to reckon God in himself alone
as the cause of good things apart from the co-operation of
any secondary cause which appears to bestow any advan-
tage — such as the soil as fertile, the rains as giving in-
crease to seeds and plants, the air as capable of nourishing
them, agriculture as cause of crops, or physic as cause of
health, or marriage as cause of birth of children. For all
these secondary causes by God's power admit of changes
and turnings, so that often they produce abnormal and
extraordinary results. Him therefore Moses pronounces
holy who nourisheth the hair of his head, meaning the man
who increases the summary shoots of virtue's decisions in
his mind, and in a manner wears his hair long and prides
himself thereon. But sometimes he flings them off when a
whirlwind, so to say, swoops down upon the soul, and
snatches away all its noble thoughts. Now this whirlwind
is a certain unconscious turning, which suddenly pollutes
the mind and is called death. Nevertheless he puts it
away in its turn, and being cleansed takes up and remem-
bers what he had forgotten, and finds what he cast
away. . . . 1 "

But Philo describes those who take this vow as " having
become by excess of misanthropy unsociable and aloof in
nature " ; and in his treatise on Right-swearing he clearly
deprecates the practice. In this he agrees with R. Aqiba,
who summed the sense of Scripture in two sayings; —
" Vows are a fence to purity 2 ," and " Be not rash in vows
lest thou violate oaths 3 ." The Jews of Alexandria, like
the Jews of Galilee, were apparently given to much
swearing ; and the Rabbis were concerned to eradicate
this fault. Even the solemn formula of the Nazirite vow

1 p. 285 m (ed, Cohn and Wendland, vol. II, p. 75).

a Bacher, Ag. Pal. Tann., i. 276. 3 Bacher, op. cit., p. 280.

646 THE JEWISH QUAETEELY EEVIEW

had become a mere oath uttered vainly and with no
righteous purpose. In such circumstances the refusal of
absolution, carrying with it exclusion from the promise
of life, was the proper penalty. Moses said, "He that
curseth or dishonoureth father or mother must die." Jesus
himself cited the Scripture, and did not plead for any
mitigation of the sentence.

So Philo : " Him that sweareth vainly in an unjust
cause, God, who is gracious in nature, will never free from
guilt — for such an one is unclean and foul — though he
escape punishment from men. But he will never go scot-
free, for there are thousands of watchers, zealots for the
Lord, exact guardians of the ancestral customs."

Here then is a clue to the connexion of Jesus' reply
with the original question. His disciples are ceremonially
unclean ; and so are the disciples of the Pharisees. " These

EAT AND THOSE SWEAR WITH UNWASHEN HANDS," as the

proverb has it. " Some have such easiness in the matter
of swearing that passing by all created things they dare to
run up in their speech to the maker and father of the
universe, without first examining places if they be profane
or sacred, times if they be suitable, themselves if they be
clean in body or soul, matters if they be important, or needs
if they be urgent. No, as the saying goes, with unwashen
hands 1 , confounding everything, they swear as if it were
necessary, since nature provided them with a tongue, to use
it loosed and unbridled for illegitimate ends 2 ."

The multiplication of religious observances is a danger.
Familiarity may breed contempt in the case of meals as in
the case of vows. The Scribes were witnesses to the
danger which existed in respect of the latter. The mea-
sures which they adopted accord with the saying of Jesus,

1 Compare Hesiod, Works and Days, 724-6 :

fafii for' i£ jjovs Ai'J KelPe/iev cuffoira oTvov

Xepvi" &viirroiaiv firjS' &\Xois aOavarourtv

oi yap rolye uXiovoiv mroTiTiovai 54 r' apas.

8 Tlfpl tiopxias ii.

COEBAN 647

" But I say to you " — whatever more lenient teachers may
say — "every idle word which men shall speak, they shall
give account concerning it in the day of judgment. For
out of thy words thou shalt be justified and out of thy
words thou shalt be condemned 1 ."

Jesus will have nothing to do with the charitable expe-
dients devised by the Pharisees for the relief of their
disciples : — " Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say,
Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing ; but
whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a
debtor. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the
gold, or the temple that hath sanctified the gold ? And,
Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but
whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, he is a
debtor. Ye blind : for whether is greater, the gift, or the
altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth
by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
And he that sweareth by the temple, sweareth by it, and
by him that dwelleth therein. And he that sweareth by
the heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him
that sitteth thereon V

To refrain altogether from swearing is the only safe
course : — " Again, ye have heard that it was said to them
of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt
perform unto the Lord thine oaths : but I say unto you,
Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the
throne of God ; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of
his feet ; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great
King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou
canst not make one hair white or black. But let your
speech be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : and whatsoever is more
than these is of the evil one 3 ."

It remains to examine briefly the details of this descrip-
tion of the conflict between the ancient and the modern
lawgivers.

1 Matt. xii. 36 f. a Matt, xxiii. 16-22. 3 Matt. vi. 33-37.

VOL. XIX. U U

648 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The former of the two sayings of Moses is the text
by which the Rabbis of the school of Eliezer would seek
to open the way for the dissolution of the vow. "Were
you," they would say to the penitent delinquent, " conscious
of this chief commandment, when you made the vow from
which you seek release ? " It is indeed incredible that a
Jew should have been able to forget the honour of parents.
But anger, as Philo says, is a despotic mistress; and the
Pharisees were indulgent to human infirmity.

The second saying of Moses lays down the penalty
proper to the infringement of the first. But according to
Mark it was quoted in the form he that curseth (bbpv)
instead of he that dishonoured (rbp'o). The difference
between the Hebrew words is slight enough ; but to curse
is clearly a greater crime than to dishonour. If the Greek
represent faithfully the form of words used by Jesus, the
offence of the penitent is even more unpardonable. He
has interdicted himself from the honour of parents, and
has also prostituted the Corban formula, using it not
merely as an oath, but as a curse. It is a breach of the
third and the fourth commandments in one. "If a man
revile those whom he ought to bless or in any other way
do anything to the dishonour of parents, let him die V

The formula of interdiction of benefits as given by Mark
is a literal translation of that quoted in the treatise
Nedarim. There is a story of a man in Bethhoron, who
pronounced it against his father, and repented. The vow
was irrevocable ; and he was overreached by the friend
-whom he employed to evade it. Such a case is quite
exceptional. It was the duty of parents to provide for
their children, not of children to provide for their parents.
But the benefits for which a parent naturally looks to his
son must not be restricted too rigidly to maintenance.
There are other practical proofs of the right honouring of
father and mother a .

Nevertheless, when Philo refers to such as make this vow

1 Philo. 2 See Ecclus. iii.

COBBAN 649

he mentions only husband, father, and ruler. " If these,"
he says, "pronounce the nurture due to wife, son, and
subject sacred, they must withhold it. It is no longer theirs.
If they repent or correct what they said, then their life also
is forfeit 1 ."

If a vow be meant in this saying of Jesus, we are shut
up to the case of the Nazirite or quasi-Nazirite. If the
formula be used as a mere oath or curse, we must consider
the case of a man who, in spite of this sin, has prospered
while his father fell into want. Once more Philo comes
to our aid and states a case in point.

One of the richer class lately embraced an extravagant
and luxurious life. An old kinsman or a friend of his
father came and admonished him, counselling him to
change his mode of life in the direction of a greater
seemliness and austerity. Angered immeasurably at the
counsel, he swore that he would be as contentious as his
betters — that so long as he had the means he would never
economize, in town or country, in his travels on land or on
water, but always and everywhere he would display his
wealth 2 .

Suppose that the father lived and had only given his son
the portion of the inheritance which belonged to him — and
you have the Parable of the Prodigal Son 3 with another
ending to serve as an example.

It is written in the Law : " And it shall come to pass,
when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by
this service? that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the
Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children
of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians and
delivered our houses." This is the function of the child to
get and to keep a firm hold upon the significance of
familiar ceremonies, lest they become mere ceremonies and
nothing more. And this is also the function of Jesus,

1 Philo apud Euseb. Prep. Ev., viii. 7.

2 Philo, ii, 273 m. s Luke xv. 11 ff.

una

650 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

who thanked God that his secrets were revealed unto
babes and sucklings. " Vere scire est per causas scire."

Like Socrates at Athens, Jesus went about stirring men,
confronting them with their inconsistencies, and compelling
them to answer the question, What mean ye by this ser-
vice — and this — and this ?

There is a Baraita — an Agraphon 1 : On the same day,
Jesus, seeing one working on the Sabbath, said to him,
Man, if thou knowest what thou dost blessed art
thou ; but, if thou knowest not, cursed art thou, and
a transgressor of the law.

J. H. A. Hart.

1 Found in Codex Bezae, Luke vi. 5.