II. The Synagogue

II. THE SYNAGOGUE
THE LITERATURE
Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla (in his great work Mishne Thorah), gives a systematic statement of such tradition concerning the nature of the synagogue as was held valid in his time.
Vitringa, De synagoga vetere libri tres: quibus tum de nominibus, structura, origine, praefectis, ministris et sacris synagogarum agitur, tum praecipue formam regiminis et ministerii earum in ecclesiam christianum translatam esse demonstrator, Franequerae 1696.
Joh. Gottl. Carpzov, Apparatus historico criticus (1748), pp. 307-326.
A number of older monographs on single subjects is collected in Ugolini’s Thesaurus Antiquitatum sacrarum, vol. xxi.
Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen (1831), pp. 225-376.
Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832), pp. 1-12, 329-360.
Winer, Realwörterb. ii. 548-551, “Synagogen.”
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 129-137, 183-226.
Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, i. 168 ff.
Keil, Handbuch der biblischen Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 164 ff., 444 ff.
Leyrer, art. “Synagogen,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xv. (1862), pp. 299-314.
De Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jüd. Archäologie (4th ed. 1864), pp. 369-374.
Hausrath, Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch., 2nd ed. vol. i. (1873) pp. 73-80.
Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel (1869), pp. 349-355, 582-587.
Ginsburg, art. “Synagogue,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature.
Plumptre, art. “Synagogue,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Kneucker, art. “Synagogen,” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. pp. 443-446.
Sieffert, Die jüdische Synagoge zur Zeit Jesu (Beweis des Glaubens, 1876, pp. 3-11, 225-239).
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. 1883, art. “Synagoge.”
Löw, Leop., Der synagogale Ritus (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, pp. 97 ff., 161 ff., 214 ff., 305 ff., 364 ff., 458 ff.).
Strack, art. “Synagogen,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xv. 96-100.
A deeper and more professional acquaintance with the law could only be obtained at the feet of the scribes in the Beth-ha-Midrash (see above, § 25). It was in the nature of things, that only a small fraction would acquire this. For the bulk of the people it was no small advantage, if only an elementary knowledge should become and remain a common property. But even this object was only attainable through an institution, by means of which the law was being brought nearer and nearer during his whole life to each individual of the nation. Such an institution was created by post-exilian Judaism in the custom of the reading of Scripture on the Sabbath day in the synagogue. For it is necessary first of all to remark, that the main object of these Sabbath day assemblages in the synagogue was not public worship in its stricter sense, i.e. not devotion, but religious instruction, and this for an Israelite, was above all instruction in the law. Josephus rightly views the matter in this light: “Not once or twice or more frequently did our lawgiver command us to hear the law, but to come together weekly, with the cessation of other work, to hear the law and to learn it accurately.”[1576] Nor was Philo in the wrong, when he called the synagogues “houses of instruction,” in which “the native philosophy” was studied and every kind of virtue taught.[1577] In the New Testament too, the διδάσκειν always figures as the chief function of the synagogue.[1578] The origin of these meetings on the Sabbath in buildings erected for the purpose, must at any rate be sought for in the post-exilian period. The first traces of them are the מוֹעֲדֵי אֵל of Psalms 74:8, probably of the Maccabaean era. But their commencement may well be transposed considerably farther back, perhaps to the time of Ezra. In the times of Christ the “teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath day” was already an established and naturalized institution (Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16; Luke 4:31; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10; Acts 13:14; Acts 13:27; Acts 13:42; Acts 13:44; Acts 15:21; Acts 16:13; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4). According to Acts 15:21, Moses “had from generations of old (ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων) in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Josephus and Philo, and subsequent Judaism in general, trace back the whole system to Moses himself.[1579] This is indeed of interest only as showing that later Judaism regarded it as an essential element of its religious institutions. The utter absence of testimony forbids our thinking of a pre-exilian origin.
[1576] Apion. ii. 7: Οὐκ εἰσάπαξ ἀκροασαμένους οὐδὲ δὶς ἢ πολλάκις, ἀλλ ἑκάστης ἑβδομάδος τῶν ἄλλων ἔργων ἀφεμένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκρόσιν τοῦ νόμου ἐκέλευσε συλλέγεσθαι καὶ τοῦτον ἀκριβῶν ἐκμανθάνειν.
[1577] Vita Mosis, iii. 27 (Mang. ii. 168): Ἀφʼ οὗ καὶ εἰσέτι νῦν φιλοσοφοῦσι ταῖς ἑβδόμαις Ἰουδαῖοι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν, τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον ἀναθέντες ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ θεωρίᾳ τῶν περὶ φύσιν. Τὰ γὰρ κατὰ πόλεις προσευκτήρια τὶ ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἢ διδασκαλεῖα φρονήσεως καὶ ἀνδρίας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης, εὐσεβείας τε καὶ ὁσιότητος καὶ συμπάσης ἀρετῆς, ἧ κατανοεῖται καὶ κατορθοῦται τά τε ἀνθρώπεια καὶ θεῖα. Comp. Legat. ad. Cajum, § 23 (Mang. ii. 568): Ἠπίστατο οὖν (scil. Augustus of the Roman Jews) καὶ προσευχὰς ἔχοντας καὶ συνιόντας εἰς αὐτὰς, καὶ μάλιστα παῖς ἱεραῖς ἑβδόμαις, ὅτε δημοσίᾳ τὴν πάτριον παιδεύονται φιλοσοφίαν.
[1578] Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:21; Luke 4:15; Luke 4:31; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10; John 6:59; John 18:20.
[1579] Comp. besides the two already cited passages (Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 17; Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 27), especially Philo, fragm. apud Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7, in Vitringa, p. 283 sqq. The statement of Winer (RWB. ii. 548, referring to his Diss. de Jonathanis in Pentat. paraphrasi chald. i. 30), that the Targums transfer the institution to the patriarchal period, is not quite correct. It is certainly said in Onkelos, Genesis 25:27, that Jacob served in a house of instruction (בית אולפנא), and in Targ. Jerus. 1, Genesis 33:17, that Jacob built a house of teaching (בי מדרשא). But in neither case is a synagogue proper intended. In Targ. Jerus. 1, Exodus 18:20, it is said, that the father-in-law of Moses exhorted him to teach the people the prayer, which they were to use in their synagogue (בבית כנישתהון). But here the age of the patriarchs in the stricter sense is out of question. So too do the other passages quoted by Winer equally refer to a later period. It would nevertheless be quite in accordance with the spirit of the Targums to transpose the synagogues also to the times of the patriarcha.
The whole system presupposes above all things the existence of a religious community. And here the question arises, whether in the time of Christ the civil and religious community was so separated in the towns and provinces of Palestine, that the latter possessed an independent organization. To gain clearness on the subject, we must first consider that the political constitution differed in the different towns of Palestine. We have seen (vol. i. p. 148) that a threefold variety was in this respect possible, and actually existed. The Jews might be excluded from civic rights, or Jews and non-Jews might have equal civil rights, or Jews only might be in possession of them. The first two cases were possible in towns with a chiefly Greek or strongly mixed population. In both cases the Jews would, in respect of their religious wants, be thrown back upon self-organization as a religious community. For whether they co-operated or not in the direction of civil affairs, the necessity of independent organization for religious matters was the same. In both these cases therefore the question started must be answered in the affirmative, and consequently the position of the synagogal community would be the same in these towns as in those of the Dispersion. Quite different however was the state of affairs in towns of an entirely or an almost exclusively Jewish population. Here the local authorities certainly consisted of Jews, and the few non-Jewish inhabitants were excluded from the college of elders or town senate. Of this there is no doubt with respect to Jerusalem. Since then the local authorities had often to deal also with religious affairs (for the Jewish law knows of no severance of these from civil affairs), it is a priori very probable, that the matters of the synagogue were under their jurisdiction. Or would a separate council of elders be appointed for this special purpose? In small places at all events this would have been very un-natural. But even in the larger towns, where there were several synagogues, there was no occasion for it. It was enough if the necessary officials for each synagogue (a ruler of the synagogue, an almoner and a minister), who had to care for its special concerns, were appointed by the local authorities. At least there was no urgent reason for the formation of a college of elders for each separate synagogue, though with the scantiness of our material we have to concede the possibility of this being done. Nay, in one case it is even probable; for the Hellenistic Jews in Jerusalem, the Libertines, Cyrenians, Cilicians and Asiatics evidently formed separate communities (Acts 6:9).[1580] But these were special circumstances, the difference of nationality making a special organization necessary. A separation of the political and religious community would have been quite unnatural for the simple circumstances especially of the smaller places of Palestine. It would disagree with the character of post-exilian Judaism, which indeed knows of the political, only in the form of the religious community. But there are not wanting also positive proofs, that the civil community as such also directed the affairs of the synagogue. In the Mishna e.g. it is presupposed as quite self-evident, that the synagogue, the sacred ark, and the sacred books were quite as much the property of the town, and therefore of the civic community, as e.g. the roads and the bathing establishment.[1581] The inhabitants of the town (בְּנֵי הָעִיר) had therefore the right of disposing of the former as of the latter.[1582] When Eleasar ben Asariah says, that the Musaph-prayer may only be used in a town congregation (בְּחֶבֶר עִיר), we may infer that the town congregation included the civic community as such in the synagogue worship.[1583] We may consequently assume it as probable that the congregation of the synagogue had only in towns with a mixed population an independent existence beside the political community. In purely Jewish localities, the elders of the place will have been also the elders of the synagogue. So far as the community is viewed as religious, it is called כְּנֵסֶת (properly assembly, Greek συναγωγή, Aramaean כנישתא), its members therefore בְּנֵי הַכְּנֵסֶת.[1584]
[1580] The Λιβερτῖνοι can only be Roman “freed men” and their descendants, therefore descendants of those Jews, whom Pompey despatched as prisoners to Rome, and who were there soon liberated by their masters (Philo, Leg. ad Cajum, § 23. M. ii. 568). Many of these may have subsequently returned to Jerusalem and have here formed a separate congregation. So too the numerous Hellenistic Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia dwelling in Jerusalem formed separate congregations. For the old matter of dispute as to how the passage from the Acts is to be construed, whether so as to make it mention one or two or five synagogues, must certainly be decided in the latter sense (so already, Vitringa, p. 253).
[1581] Nedarim v. 5: “Things which belong to a town are e.g. the roads, the bathing institution, the synagogue, the sacred chest or ark, the sacred books.”
[1582] Megilla iii. 1: “If the inhabitants of a town have sold the open place of the town, they may with the produce buy a synagogue; if a synagogue, then a sacred ark; if a sacred ark, then veils for the Holy Scriptures; if these, then the Holy Scriptures; if these, then a book of the law.”
[1583] Berachoth iv. 7: “R. Eleasar ben Asariah says: The Musaph-prayer (that added to the usual prayer on Sabbaths and holy days) is only used in a town congregation. The learned say: In a town congregation and out-side one. R. Judah says in the name of the latter: Wherever there is a town congregation, an individual is free from the Musaph-prayer.” The unusual word חבר עיר is, it is true, variously explained. Since however it means in any case an associated community (not as Maimonides explains it, an individual scholar), and since the religious community is elsewhere called, not חכר, but כנסת, חבר must mean just a civil associated community, which also very well suits the passage cited from Megilla 27b, by Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v.
[1584] Bechoroth v. 5; Sabim iii. 2. כְּנֵסֶת must be written, not with Segol, but with Tsere in the penultimate. Comp. the Aramaic כנישתא, and Cod. de Rossi 138, where indeed כְּנֵסֶת is not quite constantly but still in most passages correctly pointed. The Greek συναγωγή is used in the sense of “congregation,” e.g. Acts 6:9; Acts 9:2. Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 1004 sq. Add. n. 2114b, 2114bb (Inscriptions of the Pantikapaion in the Cimmerian Bosphorus): συνεπιτροπεώσης τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Frequently in Roman-Judaic epitaphs. Corp. Inscr. Grace. n. 9902 sqq. That it was in later Judaism the usual expression for “congregation” is evident, especially from the language of the Fathers, who only distinguish between συναγωγή and ἐκκλησία to make the former signify the Jewish, the latter the Christian congregation. Nay the Ebionites retained the expression συναγωγή for the Christian congregation also (Epiphan. haer. xxx. 18: συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν). And even in patristic literature συναγωγή is sometimes used for the Christian congregation (see Harnack, Zeitschr. für Wissenschaftl. Theol. 1876, p. 104 sqq., and his note on Hermas Mandat, xi. 9, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition of the Patr. Apostol.). In Christian Palestinian Aramaic, כנישתא, which answers to the Greek συναγωγή, seems to have been the usual word for “church” (see Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iv. 217. Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 335). Still in the Christian sphere ἐκκλησία has certainly from the first, even from the time of St. Paul, maintained the supremacy. This contrast between the Jewish and Christian usage of language is at first sight strange, since no actual distinction is made in the Old Testament between συναγωγή and ἐκκλησία. The LXX. put συναγωγή for עֵדָה, and as a rule ἐκκλησία for קָהָל; as the Targums do כנישתא for עדה, and generally קהלא for קהל. The former is chiefly used in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Joshua, the latter in Deuteronomy , 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (for particulars see the Concordances), both very frequently without real difference to designate the “congregation” of Israel. Later Judaism however seems already to have made a distinction in the use of the two terms, and such an one that συναγωγή designated the congregation more on the side of its empirical reality, ἐκκλησία more on that of its ideal signification; συναγωγή being the associated congregation as constituted in some one place; ἐκκλησία, on the other hand, the assembly of those called by God to salvation, especially like קָהָל, the ideal church of Israel (on קָהָל, comp. in the Mishna, Jebamoth viii. 2; Kiddushin iv. 3; Horajoth i. 4-5; Jadajim iv. 4). When then Augustine says συναγωγή = congregatio, which is used also of animals, ἐκκλησία = convocatio, which is on the contrary used rather of men (see Enarrat. in Ps. lxxxi. 1), this much at least is true, that the latter is in fact the worthier term. Συναγωγή only expresses the empiric matter of fact, ἐκκλησία contains as well a dogmatic judgment of value. From this distinction between the terms which, as it seems, soon became a prevailing one even in Judaism, it is easily understood, that Christian usage took possession almost exclusively of the latter expression. Lastly, we have here to note in passing the expression צִבּוּר so frequently used in the Mishna. It denotes generally the Church, not as a community, but only as an aggregate in contrast to the individual, thus e.g. in the yet to be discussed expression שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, Berachoth v. 5; Rosh hashana iv. 9. In sacrificial language the public sacrifices, which were offered in the name of all Israel, are קרבנות צבור, Shekalim iv. 1, 6; Sukka v. 7; Sebachim xiv. 10; Menachoth ii. 2, viii. 1, ix. 6, 7, 9; Temura ii. 1; Kerithoth i. 6; Para ii. 1. Comp. also חטאת צבור, Joma vi. 1; Sebachim v. 3 and elsewhere; זבחי שלמי צבור, Pesachim vii. 4; Sebachim v. 5 and elsewhere. A public fast is called a fast, which was ordered, על הצבור, Taanith i. 5, 6, ii. 9, 10. צִבּוּר then is everywhere not the “community,” but the “aggregate.”
The authority of the elders of the community in religious matters must be conceived of as analogous to that which they possessed in civil affairs. As then the civil administration and jurisdiction were entirely in their hands, so presumably was the direction of religious matters exclusively their affair. There is at least no trace of any direct deliberation and determination of the whole congregation in individual cases of discipline and government, of the kind which we meet with in the Christian Church at Corinth, In the Jewish community, on the contrary, these were administered by means of appointed officials, i.e. the elders of the congregation. In particular were the latter very probably competent to exercise that most important act of religious discipline, the infliction of excommunication or exclusion from the congregation. The strict administration of this means of discipline was for post-exilian Judaism nothing less than a vital question. In its continual contact with its heathen neighbours, the Jewish Church could only keep itself intact by the most careful separation from itself of all foreign elements. As then the firmer organization of the post-exilian Church had begun by the proclamation, that every one who would not submit to the new order should be excluded from the congregation (Ezra 10:8), so had care to be continually exercised for the exclusion of opposing elements in the way of Church discipline. That this regulation actually existed in the time of Christ is proved by repeated allusions in the New Testament (Luke 6:22; John 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2). The only question is, whether there were various kinds of exclusion. Many scholars have, after the example of Elias Levita († 1549) in his “Tishbi,” distinguished three different kinds: (1) נִדּוּי, (2) חֵרֶם, (3) שַׁמַּתָּא. Of these however the latter forthwith falls away, נִדּוּי and שַׁמַּתָּא being, as Buxtorf already showed, used in the Talmud synonymously.[1585] Only the distinction between two kinds has been handed down: the נִדּוּי or temporary exclusion, and the חֵרֶם or permanent ban.[1586] It is however difficult to say how old this distinction is. All that is directly testified to in the New Testament is the ἀφορίζειν (Luke 6:22) or ἀποσυνάγωγον ποιεῖν or γίνεσθαι (John 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2), therefore only the custom of expulsion as such. When in the well-known passage of the First Epistle to the Corinthians the expression παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ (ver. 5) also occurs beside αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου (ver. 2), it is just a question, whether by the former we are to understand a stricter form of excommunication. In the Mishna too expulsion is only mentioned as such and the possibility of readmission assumed.[1587] On the other side, the Old Testament is already acquainted with the term חֵרֶם, i.e. the permanent excommunication or curse; and that it was current (in the sense of the curse) at least as a dogmatic notion to later Judaism also, is proved by the expressions ἀνάθεμα and ἀναθεματίζειν so repeatedly occurring in the New Testament (Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9; Mark 14:71; Acts 23:12; Acts 14:21). The actual practice of anathematizing in the synagogues is proved from the 2nd century after Christ and onwards by the statement of Justin and other Fathers, that the Jews in their daily prayer always pronounced curses upon the Christians.[1588] It is true that the infliction of the ἀνάθεμα upon certain individuals is not here spoken of, and it is also questionable, whether the curses were pronounced directly upon Christians. But at any rate the actual custom of anathematizing in public worship at that period is proved. It is therefore at least possible, that so early as the time of Christ, two kinds of exclusion from the congregation took place, either without or with the infliction of the ἀνάθεμα. Nothing more definite can be asserted in the absence of direct evidence.[1589] It is highly probable that only the elders of the congregation were authorized to inflict this extreme penalty. For as in post-exilian Judaism the bulk of the people as such nowhere—so far as we know—exercised jurisdiction, we must not assume it with respect to excommunication. In fact we see, e.g. from John 9:22, that it was inflicted by the Ἰουδαίοις, i.e. in the language of this Gospel, by the authorities of the nation. And this is indirectly confirmed by the circumstance, that in the era of the Mishna, when the political organization of the nation was dissolved, and the professional scribes more and more acquired the powers of the former local authorities, it was just the “learned” (חֲכָמִים) who inflicted and abolished excommunication.[1590] In the Talmudic and post-Talmudic periods also, this was in the hands of competent church authorities.[1591]
[1585] Lex. Chald. col. 2462-2470 (s.v. שמתא). Comp. also Levy, Chald. Wörterb. s.v. חרם.
[1586] So Maimonides in Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 739.
[1587] Taanith iii. 8; Moed katan iii. 1-2; Edujoth v. 6; Middoth ii. 2.
[1588]a Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 16. Epiphan. haer. xxix. 9. Further particulars in the appendix on the Shemoneh Esreh.
[1589] Compare on the excommunication in general, Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., col. 827-829 (s.v. חרם), col. 1303-1307 (s.v. נדוי), col. 2462-2470 (s.v. שמתא). Selden, De synedriis, lib. i. cap. viii. Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 729-768. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 554-562. Bindrim, De gradibus excommunicationis apud Hebraeos, in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxvi. Gottl. Isr. Musculus, De excommunicatione Hebraeorum et ejusdem in Novo Testamento vestigiis, Lips. 1703. Danz, Ritus excommunicationis (in Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustratum, pp. 615-648). For other and older discussions, see Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2. 198 sq. Winer, RWB., art. “Bann.” Merx in Schenkel’s Bibellex. s.v. Hamburger, Real-Enc. f. Bibel und Talmud, Div. i. s.v. Wiesner, Der Bann in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig 1864.
[1590] See especially Moed katan iii. 1-2.
[1591] In Justinian’s Novell. 146, in which the reading of the Greek text of the Scriptures is allowed in Jewish synagogues, and the Jewish authorities directed not to obstruct this by the infliction of excommunication, in respect of the latter it is said: Οὐδὲ ἄδειαν ἕξουσιν οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῖς ἀρχιφερεκῖται ἢ πρεσβύτεροι τυχὸν ἢ διδάσκαλοι προσαγορευόμενοι περινοίαις τισὶν ἢ ἀναθεματισμοῖς τοῦτο κωλύειν. Maimonides assumes it as self-evident, that excommunication is inflicted by the בית דין. See on the subject in general, Vitringa, pp. 744-751.
Besides the elders who had the general direction of the affairs of the congregation, special officers were appointed for special purposes. But the peculiarity here is, that just for the acts proper to public worship—the reading of the Scriptures, preaching and prayer—no special officials were appointed. These acts were, on the contrary, in the time of Christ still freely performed in turn by members of the congregation, on which account e.g. Christ was able, whenever He came into a synagogue, to immediately address the congregation (see further particulars below on the order of public worship). But though no official readers, preachers and liturgists were appointed, it was above all necessary that: (1) An official should be nominated, who should have the care of external order in public worship and the supervision of the concerns of the synagogue in general. This was the Ruler of the synagogue.[1592] Such ἀρχισυνάγωγοι are met with in the entire sphere of Judaism, not only in Palestine,[1593] but also in Egypt,[1594] Asia Minor,[1595] Greece,[1596] Italy,[1597] and the Roman Empire in general.[1598] The office and title were also transferred from the Jews to the Judaeo-Christian churches of Palestine,[1599] nay it is also found occasionally in Christian churches beyond Palestine.[1600] The Hebrew title רֹאשׁ הַכְּנֵסֶת[1601] is undoubtedly synonymous with it. That this office differed from that of an elder of the congregation is proved by the joint occurrence of the titles πρεσβύτεροι and ἀρχισυνάγωγοι.[1602] But it is most instructive, that according to the evidence of the inscriptions one and the same person could fill the offices of both ἄρχων and ἀρχισυνάγωγος.[1603] The ἄρχοντες were in the Dispersion the “chiefs” of the congregation, in whose hands lay the direction in general. The office therefore of the Archisynagogos was at all events distinct from theirs. Nor can he have been the chief of the archontes, who was called γερουσιάρχης (see below, § 31, on the Dispersion). He had therefore nothing to do with the direction of the community in general. His office was, on the contrary, that of specially caring for public worship. He was called “archisynagogus,” not as head of the community, but as conductor of their assembly for public worship. As a rule he was indeed taken out of the number of the elders of the congregation. Among his functions is specially mentioned e.g. that of appointing who should read the Scriptures and the prayer,[1604] and summoning fit persons to preach.[1605] He had to take care that nothing unfitting should take place in the synagogue (Luke 13:14), and had also the charge of the synagogue building.[1606] There was generally but one archisynagogus for each synagogue. Sometimes however more than one are mentioned for one synagogue; so especially Acts 13:15 (ἀπέστειλαν οἱ ἀρχισυνάγωγοι πρὸς αὐτούς), while the more indefinite expression εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων (Mark 5:22) may also be explained as: one of the class of the presidents of the synagogues (see Weiss on the passage). In later times the title ἀρχισυνάγωγος seems to have been bestowed as a mere title upon even minors and women.[1607] It is remarkable that archisynagogi occur in heathen worship also. It may however be here left undecided, whether the use of the expression originated in the Jewish or heathen sphere.[1608]
[1592] Comp. on the Archisynagogi my article: Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit (Leipzig 1879), pp. 25-28. The older literature is unproductive as jumbling together so much that is heterogeneous. We bring forward Vitringa, Archisynagogus observationibus novis illustratus, Franeq. 1685. Idem, De synagoga vetere, pp. 580-592, 695-711. Rhenferd, Investigatio praefectorum et ministrorum synagogae, c. i. (Opp. phil. p. 480 sqq.; also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.).
[1593] Mark 5:22; Mark 5:35-36; Mark 5:38; Luke 8:49; Luke 13:14. Evang. Nicodemi in Thilo, Codex apocr. Nov. Test. pp. 514 sq., 640, 645 (= Acta Pilati in Tischendorf, Evang. apocr. 1876, pp. 221, 270, 275, 284).
[1594] Hadrian’s letter to Servianus in Vopiscus, Vita Saturnin. c. viii. (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, ed. Peter, 1865, ii. 209).
[1595] Acts 13:15 (the Pisidian Antioch). Epiphan. haer. xxx. 11 (Cilicia). The Inscription of Smyrna, Revue des études juives, vol. vii. No. 14, 1883, p. 161 sq.
[1596] Acts 18:8; Acts 18:17 (Corinth). Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9894 (Aegina).
[1597] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9906 (Rome). Garrucci, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei scoperto recentemente in Vigna Randanini, p. 67 (Rome). Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. n. 3657 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 3905 (Capua). Ascoli, Iscrizioni inedite o mal note greche latine ebraiche di antichi sepolcri giudaici, 1880, p. 49, n. 1, pp. 52, 57 (Venusia in Lower Italy). The same three inscriptions in Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. (1883), n. 6201, 6205, 6232. The last two also in Lenormant, La Catacombe juive de Venosa in Revue des études juives, vol. vi. No. 12 (1883), pp. 208-204. The three first named inscriptions from Rome and Capua are given also in the appendix to my work, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, Nos. 5, 19, 42.
[1598] Codex Theodosianus (ed. Haenel), xvi. 8. 4, 13, 14. Comp. also Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 137.
[1599] Epiphan. haer. xxx. 18: πρεσβυτέρους γὰρ οὖτοι ἔχουσι καὶ ἀρχισυναγώγους.
[1600]a We have at least one example in North Africa. In the ruins of an ancient Basilica at Hammâm-el-Enf, in the neighbourhood of Tunis, is found an inscription, upon which, among other things, it is said: Asterius filius Rustici acrosinagogi, Margarita Riddei partem portici tesselavit. The monogram added, and certainly belonging to the original state of the inscription, proves the inscription to be Christian. Jewish influence is however seen in the addition of the seven-branched candlestick along with the Christian monogram. See Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. v. 1884, p. 537, n. 1222 (communicated by Johannes Schmidt after the Bulletin épigraphique de la Gaule, iii. 1883, p. 107).
[1601] Sota vii. 7-8. At the blessing of the high priest on the day of atonement the procedure is as follows: “The minister of the synagogue (chassan ha-keneseth) takes a roll of the law and gives it to the archisynagogus (rosh ha-keneseth), he hands it to the president of the priests, and he to the high priest, who receives it standing and reads standing.… (8) At the reading of passages by the king on the first day of the feast of Tabernacles, the procedure is as follows: A wooden tribune (βῆμα) is erected for the king in the fore-court, and he takes his seat upon it.… The minister of the synagogue takes a roll of the law and hands it to the archisynagogus (rosh ha-keneseth), he hands it to the president of the priests, he to the high priest, he to the king, and the king receives it standing and reads sitting,” etc. The first half of this passage is also in Joma vii. 1.
[1602] Epiphan. haer. xxx. 11. 18. Codex Theodosianus, xvi. p. 13. Acta Pilati in Tischendorf, p. 221.
[1603] Garrucci, Cimitero, p. 67, Stafulo arconti et archisynagogo. Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. n. 3657. Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 3905; Alfius Juda, arcon arcosynagogus. Comp. also Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9906: Ἰουλιανὸς ἱερεὺς ἄρχων … υἱὸς Ἰουλιανοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου.
[1604] See Rashi, Bartenora and Sheringam on Joma vii. 1 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 244, 246). Rashi, Bartenora and Sheringam on Sota vii. 7 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 266, 267).
[1605] In Acts 13:15, Paul and Barnabas are summoned by the archisynagogi, in Antioch in Pisidia, to speak, if they have a λόγος παρακλήτεως.
[1606] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9894. The archisynagogus in Aegina directs the building of a synagogue (ἐχ θεμελίων τὴν συναγ[ωγὴν] οἰκοδόμησα).
[1607]a Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. n. 6201 (= Ascoli, Iscrizioni, p. 49, note 1): Καλλιστου νιπιου αρχοσσιναγωγου ετων γ μηνων γ. Revue des études juives, vol. vii. No. 14, p. 161 sq.: Ρουφεινα Ιουδαια αρχισυναγωγος.
[1608] Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 10. 4, mentions an ἀρχισυνάγωγος τῶν ἀπʼ Αἰγύπτου μάγων. Upon an inscription in Olynth (Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 994, Addend. n. 2007b) occurs an Αἰλιανὸς Νείκων ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος θεοῦ ἥρωος καὶ τὸ κολλήγιον Βειβίῳ Ἀντωνίῳ ἀνέστησεν τὸν βωμόν. Upon an inscription in Chios (Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 1031, Addend. 2221c) five [ἀρχισυ]νάγωγοι οἱ ἄρξαντες. A jumble of religions being the order of the day in Egypt, and the two Greek inscriptions very recent, a borrowing from Judaism is very possible in all three cases. When lastly Alexander Severus was derisively called a Syrus archisynagogus (Lamprid. Vita Alex. Sev. c. 28, in Script. Hist. Aug. ed. Peter, i. 247), it is uncertain, whether we have to think of a heathen or Jewish archisynagogus.
Besides the ruler of the synagogue, we meet with as officers of the congregation (2) the receivers of alms נַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה.[1609] They had certainly nothing to do with public worship as such, and are therefore, where the civil and the religious communities were not separated, to be regarded rather as civil officials. They must however be named here, because it was in the synagogues that the collection of alms took place.[1610] According to the Mishna the collection was to be made by at least two, the distribution by three persons.[1611] Not only was money collected (in the box, קוּפָּה), but also natural products (in the dish, תַּמְחוּי).[1612] Lastly we have to name the minister, Hebr. חַוָּן הַכְּנֵסֶת;[1613] Greek ὑπηρέτης.[1614] His office was to bring forth the Holy Scriptures at public worship and to put them by again.[1615] He was in every respect the servant of the congregation, having e.g. to execute upon those condemned to it the punishment of scourging,[1616] and also to instruct children in reading.[1617] The שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, who had to pronounce the prayer at public worship in the name of the congregation, is also generally regarded as one of its officers.[1618] In truth however the prayer was not said by a permanent officer, but by any member of the congregation (see below on Public Worship). Hence whoever said the prayer in the name of the congregation was always called שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, “plenipotentiary of the congregation.” And the “ten unemployed men” (עֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין, decem otiosi), whose business it was, especially in the post-Talmudic period, to be always present for a fee in the synagogue at public worship, for the purpose of making up the number of ten members required for a religious assembly, are still less than the Sheliach-Zibbur to be regarded as officials.[1619] Besides, the arrangement was still quite unknown in the time of the Mishna. The expression itself occurs indeed in the Mishna,[1620] but it can originally have designated none else than such persons as were not prevented by business from visiting the synagogue even on week days. For on the Sabbath every Israelite was unemployed, and therefore otiosum esse would be no specific mark of individuals. That such is the meaning also in this passage of the Mishna is quite clear from the context. Hence the usual Sabbath day worship is not even thought of in it; and still less is it said, that in every congregation ten unemployed men must be present. On the contrary, it is only stated, as a mark of a large town, that even on week days there was always without difficulty a sufficient number of synagogue frequenters present. It was not till considerably later, that the above-named arrangement was made, and an altered meaning thus given to the term.
[1609] Demai iii. 1; Kiddushin iv. 5. In the latter passage it is said, that the posterity of the גבאי צדקה are without special investigation accounted Israelites of pure blood, with whom members of the priestly class may intermarry. It is thus seen that they were really officials.
[1610] Matthew 6:2, and Lightfoot (Horae Hebr.) thereon and Wetzstein (Nov. Test.); also Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 211 sq.
[1611] Peah viii. 7.
[1612] Peah viii. 7; Pesachim x. 1. For more exact information concerning the functions of the almoners in Talmudic and post-Talmudic Judaism, see Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 375 (s.v. גבאי), 2095 (s.v. קופה), 2604 (s.v. תמחוי). Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad Matt. vi. 2. Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 544. Rhenford, De decem otiosis, Diss. i. c. 78-88. Werner, De fisco et paropside pauperum, Jenae 1725 (cited by Winer, RWB. i. 46).
[1613] Sota viii. 7-8; Joma vii. 1; Makkoth iii. 12; Shabbath i. 3 (in the latter passage only חזן). Tosefta, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 198, 23. 199. 8, 216. 7. Aramaic חזנא, Sota ix. 15. Comp. Epiphan. haer. xxx. 11: Ἀζανιτῶν τῶν παρʼ αὐτοῖς διακόνων ἑρμηνευομένων ἢ ὑπηρετῶν. The title is also found in mediaeval Hebrew epitaphs, e.g. in Paris (Longpérier, Journal des Savants, 1874, p. 668, n. 42). חזנים also occur in the temple, Sukka iv. 4; Tamid v. 3.
[1614] Luke 4:20. Such a minister of the synagogue is certainly also meant in the Roman-Judaic epitaph: Φλαβιος Ἰουλιανος ὑπηρετης. Φλαβια Ἱουλιανη θυγατηρ πατρι. Ἐν εἰρηνη ἡ κοιμησις σου (Garrucci, Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario argomento, vol. ii. 1865, p. 166, n. 22; also in my Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, Appendix, No. 30).
[1615] Sota vii. 7-8; Joma vii. 1; Luke 4:20. The commentaries on Sota and Joma (Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 266 sq., ii. 246).
[1616] Makkoth iii. 12.
[1617] Shabbath i. 3.
[1618] Berachoth v. 5; Rosh hashana iv. 9.
[1619] Buxtorf, Lex Chald. col. 292 (s.v. בטלן): Apud Rabbinos de decem בטלנין crebra fit mentio. Sunt autem decem viri otiosi, Synagogae Judaicae quasi Stipendiarii, qui stipendium accipiunt, ut in precibus et aliis conventibus sacris, in Synagoga semper frequentes adsint et ab initio ad finem cum sacerdote aut sacrorum praefecto perdurent, ne synagoga unquam in sacris sit vacua aut sacerdos solus. This precise explanation of Buxtorf is confirmed by Rabbinical authorities, e.g. Rashi on Baba kamma 82a (in Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 532), Bartenora on Megilla i. 3 (Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 388 sq.). In the Talmud the עשרה בטלנין are not often mentioned, Jer. Megilla i. 6 (70b below), Bab Megilla 5a, Baba kamma 82a, Sanhedrin 17b (in Vitringa, De decemviris otios, c. 2; De synag. p. 531); as it is in none of these passages exactly stated what was the case with these men, Lightfoot was able to set up the mistaken hypothesis (Horae Hebr. ad Matthew 4:23), that the decem otiosi were officials of the synagogue, thus making the whole number of synagogue officials to consist of these ten men. This mistake called forth a learned controversy, in which Rhenford unsparingly, and Vitringa more gently, attacked Light-foot’s opinion. See especially, Rhenford, De decem otiosis synagogae, Franequerae 1686. Vitringa, Dedecemviris otiosis, Franequerae 1687 (both also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 530-549. A short statement of the whole controversy will be found in Carpzov’s Apparatus historico-crit. pp. 310-312.
[1620] Megilla i. 3: “What is a large town? One in which are ten unemployed men. If there are fewer, it is a village.”
The building, in which the congregation assembled for public worship, was called בֵּית הַכְּנֵסֶת,[1621] Aramaic בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא or merely כְּנִישְׁתָּא,[1622] Greek συναγωγή[1623] or προσευχή.[1624] The designations συναγώγιον,[1625] προσευκτήρον[1626] and σαββατεῖον[1627] appear in single instances. Synagogues were built by preference outside the towns and near rivers, or on the seashore for the sake of giving every one a convenient opportunity for performing such Levitical purification as might be necessary before attending public worship.[1628] The size and architecture were of course very various.[1629] In northern Galilee ruins of ancient synagogues are preserved to the present time, the oldest of which are of the second, nay possibly of the first century after Christ. They may perhaps give an idea of the style of building employed for synagogues in the time of Christ.[1630] The large synagogue at Alexandria is said to have had the form of a Basilica.[1631] It is possible, that they were sometimes built like theatres, without a roof, but this is only really testified concerning those of the Samaritans.[1632] It is certainly true, that on their fast days the Jews did not offer their public prayers in the synagogue, but in an open space, perhaps also at the sea-shore.[1633] But this was done in quite open spaces, and does not prove the existence of unroofed buildings. Still more improbable is it, that just such buildings were called προσευχαί in a narrower sense, in distinction from the synagogues proper (as was after the precedent of others, admitted in the 1st edition of this work). For the testimony of Epiphanius, the supposed chief authority, by no means proves this.[1634] The Acts of the Apostles seems rather to speak for a distinction between the terms προσευχή and συναγωγή, since here, chap. 16:13, 16, a προσευχή is spoken of at Philippi, and then directly after, chap. 17:1, a συναγωγή at Thessalonica. If however any distinction at all is to exist, it can only be, that the προσευχή was intended solely for prayer, the συναγωγή for other acts of worship also. But even this distinction is untenable in Acts 16:13; Acts 16:16, since here the προσευχή is evidently the usual place of the Sabbath assembly, in which Paul also embraces the opportunity of preaching. And since, on the other hand, Philo in particular uses the word of the synagogue proper, no material distinction can be established between the two expressions.[1635]
[1621] In the Mishna in the following places: Berachoth vii. 3; *Terumoth xi. 10; Bikkurim i. 4; Erubim x. 10; *Pesachim iv. 4; Sukka iii. 13; Rosh hashana iii. 7; Megilla iii. 1-3; Nedarim v. 5, ix. 2; Shebuoth iv. 10; *Aboth iii. 10; Negaim xiii. 12. In the passages marked * the plural form בתי כנסיות occurs.
[1622] See Levy, Chald. WB. s.v. Idem, Neuhebr. WB. s.v.
[1623] Frequently in the New Testament. In Josephus only three times, Antt. xix. 6. 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 4-5, vii. 3. 3. In Philo, Quod omnis probis liber, § 12, ed. Mang. ii. 458 (on the Essenes): εἰς ἱεροὺς ἀφικνούμενοι τόπλους, οἵ καλοῦνται συναγωγαί. Frequently also in the later literature, e.g. Codex Theodosianus, xvi. 8, passim. Comp. also Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9894 (Aegina). The use of the term συναγωγή to designate a Christian place of worship can as yet be only twice pointed out, one strange to say among the anti-Judaistic Marcionites in an inscription of A.D. 319 at Deir-Ali, about three miles south of Damascus: συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν κώμ(ης) Λεβάβων (Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, vol. iii. n. 2558. Comp. also Harnack, Zeitschr. für wissenschaft. Theol. 1876, p. 103). The other example is the inscription of Hammâm el-Enf (already mentioned, note 62a), which begins: Sancta synagoga Naron pro salutem suam ancilla tua Julia Gnar de suo proprio tesselavit (read: Sanctam synagogam Naron [itanam] pro salute sua ancilla tua Julia Nar[onitana] de suo proprio tesselavit).
[1624] Philo, In Flaccum, § 6, 7, 14 (Mang. ii. 523, 524, 535). Legat. ad Caj. § 20, 23, 43, 46 (Mang. ii. 565, 568, 596, 600). Acts 16:13 : ἔξω τῆς πύλης παρὰ ποταμὸν οὗ ἐνομίζομεν προσευχὴν εἶναι. Joseph. Vita, c. 54: συνάγονται πάντες εἰς τὴν προσευχήν, μέγιστον οἴκημα πολὺν ὄχλον ἐπιδέξασθαι δυνάμενον. Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 1004 sq. Addend. n. 2114b, 2114bb (Inscriptions of Pantikapaion on the Cimmerian Bosphorus). Juvenal, Sat. iii. 296: Ede, ubi consistas, in qua te quaero proseucha? Gruter, Corp. Inscr. p. 651, n. 11: Dis M. P. Corfidio Signino pomario de aggere a proseucha, etc. (Corfidius of Signia, fruit seller at the wall near the proseuche.) Comp. 3Ma_7:20 : τόπον προσευχῆς. The word occurs also in heathen worship as the designation of a place of prayer. See Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2079 (Inscription of Olbia on the Pontus Euxinus). Epiphan. haer. lxxx. 1, on the heathen Massalians (see the words farther on). Also in Gruter, Inscr., it is surely rather a heathen proseuche that is meant.
[1625] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 40 (Mang. ii. 591). Idem, De somniis, ii. 18 (Mang. i. 675). Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9908: πατηρ συναγωγιων.
[1626] Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 27 (Mang. ii. 168).
[1627] Joseph. Antt. xvi. 6. 2 (in an edict of Augustus). The learned Hug thought that a “Sabbath house” was also mentioned upon a Greek inscription at Thyatira (Einl. in das N. T. 4th ed. ii. § 89, p. 290). See Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 3509: Φάβιος Ζώσιμος κατασκευάσας σορὸν ἔθετο ἐπὶ τόπου καθαροῦ, ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως πρὸς τῷ Σαμβαθείῳ ἐν τῷ Χαλδαίου περιβόλῳ κ.τ.λ. This Σαμβαθεῖον however is a sanctuary of the Chaldean or Persian sibyl, whose name was according to Suidas properly Σαμβήθη See Stephanus, Thes. s.v. Σαμβήθη.
[1628]a See especially Acts 16:13. Deutsch. Sacra Judaeorum ad littora frequenter exstructa, Lips. 1713. Comp. also note 92, below. There is not indeed a trace of this in Rabbinical literature, but on the contrary the injunction is to build the synagogues upon the highest point in the town (Tosefta, Megilla iv. p. 277, lin. 16 sq., ed. Zuckermandel). For this reason the fact asserted by us has been quite disputed by Löw (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, pp. 167-170). But this theoretic injunction is no proof that the custom existed (comp. note 117, below). Löw even points out, that synagogues were frequently built outside the towns (pp. 109 sqq., 161 sqq.). That in doing this the neighbourhood of water should be sought, where it was to be had, is at least very probable. Comp. Aristeas (ed. Mor. Schmidt, p. 67) on the seventy interpreters: ὡς δʼ ἔθος ἐστὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἀπονιψάμενοι τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς χεῖρας, ὡς ἂν εὔξωνται πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Jdt_12:7. Clemens, Alex. Strom. iv. 22. 142. It is not said, that the hands must always be washed or bathed before prayer, but that one or the other must be done in proportion to the degree of Levitical uncleanness which may exist. Cautious persons may have preferred to do too much, rather than too little in this respect. See in general, Vitringa, De synag. pp. 1091, 1105 sq. It is well known, that the custom of washing the hands and of other lustrations was practised also in heathenism (Odyss. ii. 261, iv. 750 sqq.; Ilias, vi. 266 sq. Potter, Archaeolog. graec. ii. 4), and in the Christian church (see Tertullian, De oratione, c. 13: Ceterum quae ratio est, manibus quidem ablutis, spiritu vero sordente orationem obire. Passages from Chrysostom in Suicerus, Sacrorum observationum, lib. sing. p. 153). See in general, Pfannenschmidt, Das Weihwasser im heidnischen und christlichen Cultus, 1869.
[1629] See in general, Löw, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissenschaft des Judenth. 1884, p. 214 sqq.
[1630]a The importance and great antiquity of these ruins was already rightly recognised by Robinson (Recent Biblical Researches, vol. iii. pp. 70, 71, 74, 342, 346, 367, 368 sq.). They were afterwards thoroughly treated of especially by Renan (Mission de Phénicie, pp. 761-783). For delineations, see The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, vol. i. pp. 231, 232, 252, 397-399, 401. Comp. also the articles of Wilson and Kitchener in the Quarterly Statement, 1869 and 1878, printed in the Survey, etc. Special Papers, pp. 294-305. Also Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, pp. 387, 390, 391, 398, 394, 397. Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, i. 342-345, 502. Guérin, Galilée, i. 198-201, 227-231, 241 sq., ii. 95, 100 sq., 357 sq., 429 sq., 441, 447-449. On the ruins of Tell Hum specially, The Recovery of Jerusalem, by Wilson, Warren, etc. (1871), pp. 342-346. The ruins discovered are: Kasiun, Kefr Birim, el-Djisch, Meiron, Nabartein, Kedes (?), Tell Hum, Keraze, Irbid. The five first lie west and south-west of Lake Merom, Kedes north-west (the meaning of the ruins there is however doubtful), Tell Hum and Keraze on the Lake of Gennesareth, Irbid north-west of Tiberias. In Kefr Birim, el-Djisch, Meiron and Irbid ruins are already spoken of by Jewish pilgrims of the Middle Ages, who for the most part attribute their building to Simon ben Jochai (second century after Christ); the synagogue at Irbid is even referred to the much more ancient Nittai of Arbela. See Carmoly, Itinéraires de la Terre Sainte des xiiie, xive, xve, xvie, et xviie siècle, traduits de l’hebreu (Bruxelles 1847), pp. 132, 136, 380 (Kefr Birim), pp. 262, 452 sq. (Gush Caleb = el-Djisch), pp. 133 sq., 184, 260 (Meiron), pp. 131, 259 (Arbel = Irbid). The date of the synagogue at Kasiun is decided by a Greek inscription of the time of Septimus Severus (A.D. 197) found among the ruins (Renan, p. 774). The style of the other synagogues being more or less akin to this, it is very probable, that they all belong to the flourishing period of Rabbinical Judaism in Galilee, i.e. to the second, third and fourth centuries after Christ. Renan tries to refer some even to the first century, especially the very well preserved one in Kefr Birim (p. 773). Pious imagination may therefore indulge in the thought, that the ruins at Tell Hum (= Capernaum) may possibly be those of the synagogue built by the Roman centurion, in which Jesus often taught (Wilson in The Recovery, p. 345. Guérin, Galilée, i. 229 sq. Bädeker, 390). Almost all these synagogues lie north and south, so that the entrance is at the south. As a rule they appear to have had three doors in the front, one chief entrance and two smaller side doors (so in Kefr Birim, Meiron, Tell Hum). In some it is still discernible, that they were divided by two rows of columns into three aisles (as in Nabartein and Kasiun); the synagogue at Tell Hum had even five aisles. Some had a portico in front (as in Kefr Birim and Meiron). In general the architecture was influenced by the Graeco-Roman, while it yet very characteristically differed from it. It was especially distinguished by rich and superfluous ornamentation.
[1631] Jer. Sukka v. 1, fol. 55ab; the same passage is also in Tosefta, Sukka 198, 20 sqq., ed. Zuckermandel. Philo too mentions among the proseuchae of Alexandria a μεγίστη καὶ περισημοτάτη (Leg. ad Caj. § 20, Mang. ii. 565).
[1632] Epiph. haer. lxxx. 1.
[1633] Taanith ii. 1: How is the order of the fast day solemnity? The ark (in which are the rolls of the law) is brought to the open space of the town, ashes of burnt wood are spread upon the ark and upon the heads of the prince and the chief of the court of justice, and every one else puts ashes on his own head. The eldest among those present, etc.… (here follow further liturgical directions). Tertullian, De jejunio, c. 16: Judaicum certe jejunium ubique celebratur, cum omissis templis per omne litus quocunque in aperto aliquando jam precem ad caelum mittunt. Id. Ad nationes, i. 13: Judaici ritus luceanarum et jejunia cum azymis et orationes litorales. Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 23: καὶ τὰς προσευχὰς ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τῇ θαλάσσῃ κατὰ τὸ πάτριον ἔθος. Comp. also Philo, In Flaccum, § 14, Mang. ii. 535. Löw, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, p. 166 sq.
[1634] Epiphan. haer. lxxxi. (on the Messalians): Τινὰς δὲ οἴκους ἑαυτοῖς κατασκευάσαντες ἢ τόπους πλατεῖς, φόρων δίκην, προσευχὰς ταύτας ἐκάλουν. Καὶ ἦσαν μὲν τὸ παλαιὸν προσευχῶν τόποι ἔν τε τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἔξω πόλεως καὶ ἐν τοῖς Σαμαρείταις, ὡς καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων ηὕρομεν (here follows the quotation Acts 16:13). Ἀλλὰ καὶ προσευχῆς τόπος ἐν Σικίμοις, ἐν τῇ νυνὶ καλουμένῃ Νεαπόλει ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, ἐν τῇ πεδιάδι, ὡς ἀπὸ σημείων δύο, θεατροειδής, οὕτως ἐν ἀέρι καὶ αἰθρίῳ τόπῳ ἐστὶ κατασκευασθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν πάντα τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων μιμουμένων. In explanation we remark (1) that what Epiphanius says of the heathen Messalians is of course not the rule for Jewish proceedings. And yet even they used the designation προσευχή or both kinds of places of prayer, the οἴκοι and the τόποι πλατεῖς. (2) Epiphanius certainly means to say by the learned remark which follows, that there were also among the Jews and Samaritans places of prayer under the open sky, called προσευχαί. He has however independent knowledge of this fact only among the Samaritans. With respect to the Jews he knows nothing more of it (comp. the praeterite ἦσαν τὸ παλαιόν), and only rests his assertion on Acts 16:13. And supposing he was in the right, this would not prove, that these places of prayer were called proseuchae in distinction from the synagogues.
[1635] Carpzov, Apparatus historico-crit. p. 320 (where too see other authorities for and against), also declares for the identity of the two.
Considering the value laid on these Sabbath assemblies, we must assume that there was in every town of Palestine, and even in smaller places, at least one synagogue.[1636] In the post-Talmudic period it was required, that a synagogue should be built wherever but ten Israelites were dwelling together.[1637] In the pre-Talmudic age indeed this requirement cannot be literally shown to have existed, though quite in agreement with its spirit. In the larger towns there was a considerable number of synagogues, as e.g. in Jerusalem,[1638] Alexandria,[1639] Rome.[1640] The different synagogues of one and the same town seem to have been sometimes distinguished from each other by special emblems. Thus there was in Sepphoris a “synagogue of the vine” (כנישתא דגופנא),[1641] in Rome a synagogue of the olive tree (συναγωγὴ ἐλαίας).[1642]
[1636] We find synagogues e.g. in Nazareth (Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16), Capernaum (Mark 1:21; Luke 7:5; John 6:59). Comp. Acts 15:21 : κατὰ πόλιν. Philo, De Septenario, c. 6 (Mang. ii. 282 = Tischendorf, Philonea, p. 23): Ἀναπέπταται γοῦν ταῖς ἑβδόμαις μυρία κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν διδασκαλεῖα φρονήσεως καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν.
[1637] Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla xi. 1. See Vitringa, De Synagoga, pp. 232-239. That at least ten persons form an assembly for public worship is already said in the Mishna. See Megilla iv. 3; Sanhedrin i. 6. Comp. also Megilla i. 3. With respect to the Passover, Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 9, 3.
[1638] Acts 6:9; Acts 24:12. A synagogue of Alexandrines in Jerusalem, also in Tosefta, Megilla iii., ed. Zuckermandel, p. 224. 16; Jer. Megilla 73d (in Lightfoot, Horae on Acts 6:9). The Talmudic myth, that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, is indeed simply characteristic of the insipidity of these legends.
[1639] Philo, Leg. ad Caj. c. 20 (Mang. ii. 565): πολλαὶ δέ εἰσι καθʼ ἕκαστον τμῆμα τῆς πόλεως.
[1640] Philo, Leg. ad Caj. c. 23 (Mang. ii. 568), speaks of προσευχαί in Rome in the plural. For farther particulars concerning the Roman synagogues, see below, § 31.
[1641] Jer. Nasir vii. 1, fol. 56a. Lightfoot mistakenly translates “synagogue of the Gophnites” (Horae Hebr., Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 55; Opp. ii. 211).
[1642] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9904. De Rossi, Bulletino, v. 1867, p. 16. I formerly felt great hesitation as to the meaning of the expression (see my Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, p. 17), but now consider the above explanation undoubtedly correct.
The fittings of the synagogues were in New Testament times very simple. The chief was the closet (תֵּיבָה) in which were kept the rolls of the law and the other sacred books.[1643] These were wrapped in linen cloths (מִטְפָּחוֹת),[1644] and lay in a case (תִּיק = θήκη).[1645] An elevated place (בימה = βῆμα, tribune), upon which stood the reading-desk, was erected, at least in post-Talmudic times, for him who read the Scriptures aloud or preached.[1646] Both are mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud,[1647] and may well be assumed for the time of Christ. Among other fittings, lamps may also be mentioned.[1648] Lastly trombones (שׁוֹפָרוֹת) and trumpets (הֲצוֹצְרוֹת) were indispensable instruments in public worship. The former were blown especially on the first day of the year, the latter on the feast days.[1649]
[1643] The תֵּיבָה is mentioned: Megilla iii. 1; Nedarim v. 5; Taanith ii. 1-2 (according to the latter passage it was transportable); also in the frequently recurring formula, עבר לפני התיבה (see below on Public Worship). Chrysost. Orat. adv. Judaeos, vi. 7 (Opp. ed. Montf. vol. i.): Ἄλλως δὲ, ποία κιβωτὸς νῦν παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις, ὅπου ἱλαστήριον οὐκ ἔστιν; ὅπου οὐ χρησμὸς, οὐ διαθήκης πλάκες … Ἐμοὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγορᾶς πωλουμένων κιβωτίων οὐδὲν ἄμεινον αὕτη ἡ κιβωτὸς κιβωτὸς διακεῖσθαι δοκεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλῷ χεῖρον. See on the whole subject, Vitringa, pp. 174-182. On the keeping of the sacred books in the synagogue, see Josephus, Antt. xvi. 6. 2. Chrysost. Orat. adv. Judaeos, i. 5: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ εἰσί τινες, οἵ καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν σεμνὸν εἶναι τόπον νομίζουσιν, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ πρὸς τούτους ὀλίγα εἰπεῖν … Ὁ νόμος ἀπόκειται, φησὶν, ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ βιβλία προφητικά. Καὶ τί τοῦτο; Μὴ γὰρ, ἔνθα ἂν ᾖ βιβλία τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὁ τόπος ἅγιος ἔσται; Οὐ πάντως. Similarly Orat. vi. 6 and 7. Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla xi. 3, in Vitringa, p. 182, and Bartenora on Taanith ii. 1 (Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 361), expressly say, that the sacred books were kept in the תיבה.
[1644] Kilajim ix. 3; Shabbath ix. 6; Megilla iii. 1; Kelim xxviii. 4; Negaim xi. 11.
[1645] Shabbath xvi. 1. The word תיק is also in Kelim xvi. 7-8. On the use of book-cases in classical antiquity, see Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (1882), pp. 64-66. Many expositors insist on understanding the φελόνης of 2 Timothy 4:13 as such a book-case. A representation of an old silver case for the Pentateuch among the modern Samaritans is given in The Survey of Western Palestine, etc., vol. ii. 1882, p. 206.
[1646] Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla xi. 3; Vitringa, pp. 182-190.
[1647] Jer. Megilla iii. 1, fol. 73d, below. The reading-desk is here called אנלגין = ἀναλογεῖον. For so must we read with Aruch, instead of אנגלין, as given in the editions. The same word also in Kelim xvi. 7, 8. See Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v.
[1648] Terumoth xi. 10; Pesachim iv. 4; Vitringa, pp. 194-199.
[1649] Rosh hashana iii. 3, 4, 7, and generally iii.-iv.; Taanith ii.-iii. Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 341. Vitringa, pp. 203-211 (and at p. 209, also many passages from Chrysostom). Winer, RWB., art. “Musikalische Instrumente.” Gesenius’ Thesaurus, pp. 513, 1469. Leyrer, art. “Musik,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. According to Jer. Shabbath xvii. fol. 16, Bab. Shabbath 35b, the dawn of the Sabbath was also announced by the blowing of instruments (see the passages in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, s.v. חצוצרת; Vitringa, p. 1123 sq.). Whether this was general in former times (for which Chullin i. fin. speaks), or only took place in the temple at Jerusalem (which is at all events evidenced by Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 12; Sukka v. 5), must here be left undecided.
The order of divine worship was in New Testament times already tolerably developed and established. The congregation sat in an appointed order, the most distinguished members in the front seats, the younger behind; men and women probably apart.[1650] In the great synagogue at Alexandria the men are said to have sat apart according to their respective trades (אוּמָנוּת).[1651] If there was a leper in the community a special division was prepared for him. So at least the Mishna required.[1652] Ten individuals were necessary to form a regular assembly for public worship (see above, vol. ii. p. 67). The chief parts of the service were, according to the Mishna, the recitation of the Shema, prayer, the reading of the Thorah, the reading of the prophets, the blessing of the priest.[1653] To these were added the translation of the portions of Scripture read, which is assumed in the Mishna (see below), and the explanation of what had been read by an edifying discourse, which in Philo figures as the chief matter in the whole service.[1654]
[1650] On the πρωτοκαθεδρία of the scribes and Pharisees, see Matthew 23:6; Mark 12:39; Luke 11:43; Luke 20:46. Philo says at least of the Essenes, that the order was according to age, the younger sitting “below” (i.e. behind) the elder, Quod omnis probus liber, c. 12 (Mang. ii. 458): καθʼ ἡλικίας ἐν τάξεσιν ὑπὸ πρεσβυτέροις νέοι καθέζοντι. The separation of the sexes must be assumed as self-evident, although it does not happen to be mentioned in any of the more ancient authorities. For what is said in Pseudo-Philo, De vita contemplativa, c. 9, init. (Mang. ii. 482), of the Therapeutae cannot be here taken into account. Nor is a special division for women mentioned in the Talmud; see Löw, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, p. 364 sqq., especially 371.
[1651] Jer. Sukka v. 1, fol. 55ab.
[1652] Negaim xiii. 12.
[1653] The enumeration of these parts, Megilla iv. 3.
[1654] We have three summary descriptions of the public worship of the synagogue in Philo: 1. Fragm. apud Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7. 12-13, ed. Gaisf. (Mang. ii. 630), from the first book of the Hypothetica: Τί οὖν ἐποίησε [scil. ὁ νομοθέτης] ταῖς ἐβδόμαις ταύταις ἡμέραις; Αὐτοὺς εἰς ταυτὸν ἠξίου συνάγεσθαι, καί καθεζομένους μετʼ ἀλλήλων σὺν αἰδοῖ καὶ κόσμῳ τῶν νόμων ἀκροᾶσθαι τοῦ μηδένα ἀγνοῆσαι χάριν. Καὶ δῆτα συνέρχονται μὲν ἀεὶ, καὶ συνεδρεύουσι μετʼ ἀλλήλων· οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ σιωπῇ, πλὴν εἴ τι προσεπιφημίσαι τοῖς ἀναγινωσκομένοις νομίζεται· τῶν ἱερέων δέ τις ὁ παρὼν ἢ τῶν γερόντων εἶς ἀναγινώσκει τοὺς ἱεροὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς, καὶ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἐξηγεῖται μέχρι σχεδὸν δείλης ὀψίας. 2. De Septenario, c. 6 (Mang. ii. 282 = Tischendorf, Philonea, p. 23): Ἀναπέπταται γοῦν ταῖς ἑβδόμαις μυρία κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν διδασκαλεῖα φρονήσεως καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν. Ἐν οἷς οἱ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ καθέζονται, σὺν ἡσυχίᾳ τὰ ὦτα ἀνωρθωκότες, μετὰ προσοχῆς πάσης, ἕνεκα τοῦ διψῆν λόγων ποτίμων. Ἀναστὰς δέ τις τῶν ἐμπειροτάτων ὑφηγεῖται τἄριστα καὶ συνοίσοντα, οἷς ἅπας ὁ βίος ἐπιδώσει πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον. 3. Of the Essenes, Quod omnis probus liber, c. 12 (Mang. ii. 458, also in Euseb. Praep. Evang. viii. 12. 10, ed. Gaisf.): Ὁ μὲν τὰς βίβλους ἀναγινώσκει λαβὼν, ἕτερος δὲ τῶν ἐμπειροτάτων, ὅσα μὴ γνώριμα παρελθὼν ἀναδιδάσκει. I here further mention, that in the post-Talmudic period, especially in the treatise Soferim, c. 10-21 (best edition: Masechet Soferim, edited by Joel Müller, 1878), there is a series of detailed directions for the synagogue worship. Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 946-1121, following Maimonides, gives an exhaustive description of the ritual of the post-Talmudic period; comp. also pp. 667-711. The works of Jewish scholars, of which 100 are recorded by Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xv., and chiefly among these Zunz, Die ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes entwickelt, Berlin 1859, may also be consulted for the history of the synagogue ritual in the post-Talmudic period.
The Shema, so called from its commencing words, יִשְׂרָאֵל, consists of the sections Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21, Numbers 15:37-41, together with certain benedictions before and after (see particulars in Appendix). It was always distinguished from prayer proper, and is rather a confession of faith than a prayer. Hence the “reciting” not the “praying” of the Shema is spoken of (קריאת שמע). As the Shema undoubtedly belongs to the times of Christ, it is evident that certain established prayers were then already customary in public worship. It can however hardly be ascertained, how much of the somewhat copiously developed liturgy of post-Talmudic Judaism reaches back to that period.[1655] The formula by which the reader summoned to prayer, בָּרְכוּ אֶת יהוה, is expressly mentioned in the Mishna.[1656] The custom too of praying the three first and three last benedictions of the Shemoneh Esreh (of which particulars are given in the Appendix) at Sabbath and festival worship, reaches back to the age of the Mishna.[1657] It was the custom to pray standing and with the face turned towards the Holy of Holies, i.e. towards Jerusalem.[1658] The prayer was not uttered by the whole congregation, but by some one called upon for this office (the שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר) by the ruler of the synagogue, the congregation making only certain responses, especially the אָמֵן.[1659] He who pronounced the prayer stepped in front of the chest in which lay the rolls of the law. Hence עָבַר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה is the usual expression for “to lead in prayer.”[1660] Every adult member of the congregation was competent to do this.[1661] The same individual, who said the prayer, might also recite the Shema, read the lesson from the prophets and, if he were a priest, pronounce the blessing.[1662]
[1655] For a description of it, according to Maimonides, see Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 1075-1090, in general, pp. 1022-1113. Every orthodox Jewish prayer-book also gives information on the subject. On the details, see especially in Hamburger’s Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii., the articles “Abendgebet,” “Kaddisch,” “Keduscha,” “Kiddusch,” “Minchagebet,” “Morgengebet,” “Mussafgebet,” “Schema,” “Schemone-Esre.” The so-called Kaddisch is especially interesting on account of its points of contact with the Lord’s Prayer. See Hamburger as above, ii. p. 603 sqq.
[1656] Berachoth vii. 3.
[1657] Comp. on the general subject, Vitringa, p. 1024 sq. (after Maimonides). Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 367. That the custom reaches back to the period of the Mishna is evident from Rosh hashana iv. 5.
[1658] On standing at prayer, see Matthew 6:5; Mark 11:25; Luke 18:11; Berachoth v. 1; Taanith ii. 2. Lightfoot (Horae Hebr.) and Wetzstein (Nov Test.) on Matthew 6:5. On turning towards the Holy of Holies, viz. towards Jerusalem, Ezekiel 8:16; 1 Kings 8:48; Daniel 6:11; Berachoth iv. 5-6; Sifre 71b, ed. Friedmann in Weber, System der altsynag. Theol. p. 62. The same passage also in Tosefta, Berachoth iii. p. 8, ed. Zuckermandel (comp. also Löw, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, p. 310). It is striking that the still remaining ruins of ancient synagogues in Galilee have almost all the entrance towards the south (see above, note 89a). According to this it would be supposed that the Holy Land lay to the north, and that the congregation sat or stood facing the north. Or was it that the turning towards Jerusalem, i.e. towards the south, was required from the reader only? In after times, when the synagogues were regarded as an exchange for the temple, we meet with the direction to have the entrance as in the temple at the east (Tosefta, Megilla iv. p. 227, 15th ed. Zuckermandel). It seems, however, that this direction was never complied with. In the European congregations of the Middle Ages, it was the rule to place the entrance at the west, so that the worshippers might turn to the east. For further particulars, see Löw, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, p. 305 sqq. Comp. on the subject generally, Winer, RWB., art. “Gebet.” Hölemann, Die biblische Gestalt der Anbetung, in Bibelstudien, i. 96-153.
[1659] On the summons to deliver the prayer by the archisynagogus, see above, vol. ii. p. 65; on שליח צבור, p. 67. The responsive אָמֵן is already found in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 27:15 sqq.; Nehemiah 8:6; 1 Chronicles 16:36; Tob_8:8. See also Berachoth viii. 8; Taanith ii. 5. Also in Christian worship from the first, 1 Corinthians 14:16. Justin, Apol. maj. 65, 67. See generally, Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. s.v. Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 1093 sqq. Wetzstein and other expositors on 1 Cor. 14:46; Suicer, Thes. s.v. ἀμήν. Otto’s note on Justin, c. 65. Older literature in Wolf, Curae philol. in Nov. Test. on Matthew 6:13 and 1 Corinthians 14:16.
[1660] Berachoth v. 3-4; Erubin iii. 9; Rosh hashana iv. 7; Taanith i. 2, ii. 5; Megilla iv. 3, 5, 6, 8. Comp. also Taanith ii. 2.
[1661] Megilla iv. 6. In Christian congregations also the prayer was said by some member of them, see 1 Corinthians 11:4.
[1662] Megilla iv. 5.
The Scripture lessons (from both the Pentateuch and the prophets) might also be read by any member of the congregation, and even by minors.[1663] The latter were only excluded from reading the Book of Esther at the feast of Purim.[1664] If priests and Levites were present, they took precedence in reading the lesson.[1665] It was customary for the reader to stand (Luke 4:16 : ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι).[1666] Both sitting and standing were allowed at the reading of the Book of Esther,[1667] and the king was also allowed to sit when he read his portion of Scripture at the feast of Tabernacles in the Sabbatic year.[1668] The lesson from the Thorah was so arranged that the whole Pentateuch consecutively was got through in a cycle of three years,[1669] for which purpose it was divided into 154 sections (פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת).[1670] On Sabbaths several members of the congregation, at the least seven, who were summoned for the purpose by some official, originally indeed by the ruler of the synagogue, took part in the reading.[1671] The first and the last of these had to pronounce a thanksgiving (בְּרָכָה) at the beginning and at the end.[1672] Each had (at the reading of the Thorah) to read at least three verses,[1673] and might never repeat them by heart.[1674] Such at least was the order prescribed by the Mishna, which certainly was observed only in the synagogues of Palestine. The Talmud expressly remarks of non-Hebraist Jews, that among them the whole Parashah was always read by one;[1675] and with this agrees Philo, who evidently assumes that the lesson from the Thorah was read by one person (see the passages, vol. ii. p. 76). The reading of the law was already followed in New Testament times by a paragraph from the prophets (i.e. the נְבִיאִים, which include the older historical books), as we see from Luke 4:17, where Jesus reads a section from Isaiah, and from Acts 13:15 : ἀνάγνωσις τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. These lessons from the prophets are mentioned also in the Mishna.[1676] As these formed the conclusion of the reading from the Scriptures, it was called הִפְטִיר בַּנָּבִיא (to close with the prophet), on which account the prophetic paragraphs were called Haphtaroth. For these no lectio continua was required;[1677] hence a choice of them was open,[1678] and they were always read by one person.[1679] They were moreover only read at the chief services on the Sabbath, and not also at week-day and Sabbath afternoon services.[1680]
[1663] Megilla iv. 5-6. That the reading of the Scripture lesson was not the work of a permanent official is evident from Philo, Fragm. ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7. 13 (see above, vol. ii. p. 76).
[1664] Megilla ii. 4.
[1665] Gittin v. 8: “The following things have been ordained for the sake of peace. The priest is the first to read, then the Levite, then the Israelite for the sake of peace.” Maimonides testifies that it was the custom in his time to give an unlearned priest precedence in reading over a learned Israelite, a proceeding which indeed he does not approve. See Maimonides, Commentary on Gittin v. 8 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 341), and Hilchoth Tephilla xii. 18 (in Vitringa, p. 981). Comp. also Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 1267. Philo too points out the precedence of the priests; only he assumes therewith that there would be but one to read the lesson, Fragm. ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7. 13: τῶν ἱερεων δέ τις ὁ παρὼν ἢ τῶν γερόντων εἷς.
[1666] Comp. Joma vii. 1; Sota vii. 7 (vol. ii. p. 64 sq.). Lightfoot on Luke 4:16.
[1667] Megilla iv. 1.
[1668] Sota vii. 8.
[1669] Megilla 29b.
[1670] See Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 3 sq. Hupfeld, Stud. und Krit. 1837, p. 830 sq. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 209-215. Grätz, Ueber Entwickelung der Pentateuch-Perikopen-Verlesung (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth. 1869, pp. 385-399). Hamburger, Real-Enc. f. Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Vorlesung aus der Thora.” The present custom of reading the Pentateuch in fifty-four sections in one year is of later origin.
[1671] On the summons to the Thorah, see Vitringa, pp. 980, 1122 (after Maimonides). According to Maimonides this was certainly done by the Chassan. But he had in the post-Talmudic period an entirely different position from that which he formerly occupied. That it was originally done by the archisynagogus may be admitted as probable from his position in other respects. Rashi and Bartenora at least testify (in the passages named above, vol. ii. p. 65) that the archisynagogus (Rosh hakeneseth) had to determine who was to read the lesson from the prophets, the Shema, and the prayer.
[1672] Megilla iv. 2. Maimonides in Vitringa, p. 983.
[1673] Megilla iv. 4.
[1674] Zunz, p. 5. Comp. Megilla ii. 1 (with respect to the Book of Esther). Taanith iv. 3 (where reciting by heart is mentioned as an exception).
[1675]A Jer. Megilla iv. 3, fol. 75a (on the direction of the Mishna that on the Sabbath seven persons should always be called upon to read the Thorah). “The foreign-speaking Jews (הלעוזות) have not this custom, but one person reads the whole Parashab.” See the passage in Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 59, note, and in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. ii. 515a, s.v. לעוז.
[1676] Megilla iv. 1-5. Further particulars in Vitringa, p. 984 sqq. Herzfeld, iii. 215 sqq. Adler, Die Haftara (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth. 1862, pp. 222-228). Hamburger, Real-Enc.f. Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Haftara.”
[1677] Megilla iv. 4.
[1678] Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 336. Comp. Luke 4:17 sqq.
[1679] Megilla iv. 5.
[1680] Megilla iv. 1-2. Of the Kethubim only the five Megilloth were used, and these only on particular occasions in the year, in the synagogue service; see Kisch, Monatsschr. 1880, p. 543 sqq.
The sacred language in which the sections of Scripture were read aloud being no longer familiar to the bulk of the people, it was necessary to ensure their better understanding by translation. Hence the reading was accompanied by a continuous translation into the Aramaic dialect. Whether the translator (מְתוּרְגְּמָן) was a permanent official, or whether any competent members of the congregation officiated by turns as interpreters, must, in the absence of more definite evidence, be here left uncertain. In the lesson from the Thorah the reader had to read one verse at a time for the translator, in the lesson from the prophets three, unless one verse formed a separate paragraph, when he was then to read it also alone.[1681]
[1681] Comp. Megilla iv. 4, 6, 10. Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 1015-1022. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 8. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. art. “Targum.” The like is also incidentally testified of Christian congregations. Thus in Scythopolis, in the time of Diocletian, the Scriptures were read in Greek, but translated by an interpreter into Aramaic. See the Syriac text of Euseb. De mart. Palaest. in Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron (1881), p. 19.
The reading of the Scriptures was followed by an edifying lecture or sermon (דְּרָשָׁה), by which the portion which had been read was explained and applied. That such explanations were the general practice is evident from the διδάσκειν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς,[1682] so frequently mentioned in the New Testament, from Luke 4:20 sqq., and from the express testimony of Philo (see above, p. 76). The preacher (דַּרְשָׁן)[1683] used to sit (Luke 4:20 : ἐκάθισεν) on an elevated place.[1684] Nor was such preaching confined to appointed persons, but, as appears especially from Philo, open to any competent member of the congregation.[1685] The service closed with the blessing, pronounced by a priestly member of the congregation, to which the whole congregation responded (אָמֵן).[1686] If no priest were present, the blessing was not pronounced, but made into a prayer.[1687]
[1682] Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:15; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10; John 6:59; John 18:20.
[1683] Ben Soma was a celebrated דַּרְשָׁן (Sota ix. 15).
[1684] Comp. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 337. Delitzsch, Ein Tag in Capernaum, p. 127 sq.
[1685]a See Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. art. “Predigt.”
[1686] Berachoth v. 4. Megilla iv. 3, 5, 6, 7. On the Blessing ritual, see Sota vii. 6 (= Tamid vii. 2): “How is the priestly blessing pronounced? In the country in three sentences, in the temple in one. In the temple the name of God is pronounced as written (יהוה), in the country according to its appellation (אדוני). In the country the priests raise their hands only as high as the shoulder, in the temple above the head, with the exception of the high priest, who must not raise his hands above the plate of the mitre. R. Judah says: He also raised his hands above the plate of the mitre.” According to Rosh hashana 31b, Sota 40b, Johanan ben Sakkai is said to have ordered that after the destruction of the temple the priests should only pronounce the blessing barefooted (Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 305, n. 3). On the whole subject, see Wagenseil on Sota vii. 6 (Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 264 sq.). Vitringa, pp. 1114-1121. Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, b. iii. c. 48. Haener, De ritu benedictionis sacerdotalis, Jenae 1671 (also in Thesaurus theol. philologicus, Amst. 1701-1702, vol. ii. p. 936 sq.). Hottinger, De benedictione sacerdotali, Marburg 1709 (also in Thesaurus novus theol.-phil., ed. Hasaeus et Ikenius, vol. i. p. 393 sqq.). Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 1265, art. “Priestersegen.”
[1687] Vitringa, p. 1120 (after Maimonides).
The order above described is that of the principal service on the forenoon of the Sabbath. The congregation assembled also on the Sabbath afternoon at the time of the Minchah offering. When then Philo says, that the Sabbath assemblies lasted μέχρι σχεδὸν δείλης ὀψίας (see above, p. 76), this is not without foundation considering the length of these services. At the afternoon service no lesson from the prophets, but only one from the Pentateuch, was read. And only three members of the congregation, neither more nor less, took part in the reading.[1688] The same order was also observed at week-day services, which were regularly held on the second and fifth week-days (Mondays and Fridays).[1689] There was also a meeting for the reading of the Thorah, in which four members of the congregation shared in the Parashah.[1690] Nor was there any festival in the year, which was not distinguished by public worship and reading from the law; and the Mishna prescribed lessons from the Pentateuch for every festival.[1691]
[1688] Megilla iii. 6, iv. 1.
[1689] Megilla iii. 6, iv. 1. Comp. i. 2, 3.
[1690] Megilla iv. 2.
[1691] Megilla iii. 5-6. Comp. Herzfeld, iii. 213. Hamburger, ii. 1265 sq. (art. “Vorlesung aus der Thora”).