Part 2

The sayings of the scribes, which are derogatory to the female sex, are abundantly offset by many injunctions of an opposite nature which are found in the sacred and in the expository writings of the Jews. One of the first things drilled into the mind of a young Hebrew was that his prosperity in the land depended wholly upon his observance of the law that he should "honor his father and his mother." The virtuous woman portrayed by King Lemuel was still the ideal in the time of Christ: "Her sons rise up and praise her; her husband also extols her." The declaration in the book of Proverbs that "the price of a virtuous woman is set far above that of rubies" is not to be understood in the sense of irony. "Honor your wife, that you may be rich in the joy of your home," says the Talmud; and there was a proverb: "Is thy wife little? then bow down to her and speak." The Son of Sirach said: "He that honoreth his mother is as one that layeth up treasure ... and he that angereth his mother is cursed of God."

As among all other Eastern peoples, the education of Jewish girls was greatly neglected; but it can hardly be said that they were losers on that account. They were simply saved a great deal of profitless labor which fell upon their brothers. The learning of the Jews, so far as higher education was concerned, did not add much either to the grace or the enjoyment of life. It was pedantry of the driest and dreariest kind. It consisted of interminable glosses upon the Law and of the "traditions of the elders." It exercised no faculties of the mind excepting the memory and such powers of reasoning as are employed in subtle casuistry. There was in it nothing of art or science, or even of history, except Jewish history. Greek learning was abhorred by the strictly orthodox. They said the command was that a man's study should be on the Law day and night; if anyone therefore could find time between day and night he might apply it to Gentile literature. There were schools in abundance; but they are spoken of only in relation to boys. In the fundamental moral precepts, however, and in the highest national ideals, the Jewish girls were no less thoroughly trained than were their brothers. Ozias testified to Judith, who with feminine strategy and masculine courage overthrew Holophernes: "This is not the first day wherein thy wisdom is manifested; but from the beginning of thy days all the people have known thy understanding, because the disposition of thy heart is good." Of the chaste Susanna it was said that, her parents being righteous, they taught their daughter according to the Law of Moses. Timothy owed his early training to his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois. The Israelitish mother, in the dawn of her children's intelligence, carefully taught them the lore of the ancient Scriptures and instructed them in the principal tenets of the Jewish faith. There never existed another nation that cared so thoroughly for the training of its young in the doctrines of morality and in those national memories which are efficacious in the perpetuation of an ardent patriotism. In all this the girls were privileged equally with the boys. As Edersheim says: "What Jewish fathers and mothers were; what they felt towards their children; and with what reverence, affection, and care the latter returned what they had received, is known to every reader of the Old Testament. The relationship of father has its highest sanction and embodiment in that of God towards Israel; the tenderness and care of a mother in that of the watchfulness and pity of the Lord over his people."

Religion was the breath of Jewish life. It is absolutely impossible to touch on Hebrew history, customs, or ideals, in any period or to any extent, and not to come into contact with Hebrew religion. This, as we know, was full of burdensome ritual and formalities; the Law, with all its elaborate ramifications, governed the minutiae of daily existence. Yet it is again necessary to be careful not to judge too broadly of Jewish life by the rules which the Talmud shows were laid down by the rabbis. The Pharisees, who made the formalities of religion their one business in life, could observe all the multitudinous feasts and fasts, all the ritual of washings, and bear in mind the innumerable possibilities of breaking the Sabbath--such, for example, as accidentally treading on a ripe ear of grain, which would be the act of threshing; but that the common people lived thus straitly is impossible of belief, and for this reason they were held in contempt by the strictest sect. How some of these troublesome laws related to the women is suggested by Edersheim; "A woman (on the Sabbath) must not wear such headgear as would require unloosing before taking a bath, nor go out with such ornaments as could be taken off in the street, such as a frontlet, unless it is attached to the cap, nor with a gold crown, nor with a necklace or nose-ring, nor with rings, nor have a pin in her dress. The reason for this prohibition of ornaments was, that in their vanity women might take them off to show them to their companions, and then, forgetful of the day, carry them, which would be a 'burden.' Women were also forbidden to look in the glass on the Sabbath, because they might discover a white hair and attempt to pull it out, which would be a grievous sin; but men ought not to use looking-glasses even on weekdays, because this was undignified. A woman may walk about her own court, but not in the street, with false hair."

These are only instances of regulations which were so numerous as severely to tax the memory of those who did little else but study to observe them. We are sure that they could not have characterized the common Jewish life; yet there was not a man, however loose in conduct or humble of birth, who was not well versed in the moral precepts of Moses and in the exalted national ideals of the Prophets. In the cases--and they were many--where this wisdom was not justified of her children, the punctilious observance of outward forms, conjoined with the most extreme arrogance of race, laid the Jew open to the contempt of both Greek and Roman. Yet there was enough latent impetus and genuine religious life in Israel to form the basis of that Christianity which was destined to overreach Greek philosophy and to revolutionize Rome; and there are many indications in the Gospels that the credit for the incalculable service of preserving alive the smouldering embers of piety must, to a predominant degree, be awarded to the mothers and daughters of Israel. Elizabeth, no less than Zacharias her husband, was a type of many who "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless." There was also one Anna whose devotion was so great that she seemed to make the temple her constant home. Nevertheless, in religion, as in other things, the Jewish women, as all of their sex in the ancient world, were obliged to be content with an inferior position. In the great temple at Jerusalem they were allowed to occupy only the second court: to the Court of Israel, where their male relatives worshipped, they could not penetrate. They had no occasion, however, to complain of lack of space, for in this Court of the Women there was room for over fifteen thousand persons; and, for their convenience, the priests had very considerately placed therein the treasury chests. It was here that the poor widow whom Christ eulogized cast in her "two mites." In this court also was Solomon's Porch, where the Master, recognizing no inequality, taught both sexes alike. In the synagogues, the women of Palestine were obliged to occupy as inconspicuous a position as possible, and on the way thither it was required of them that they should take the back and less frequented streets, in order that the minds of the men might not be diverted from sacred meditations by their presence. This bit of hypocritical phariseeism not only indicates the inferior plane which women were supposed to occupy, but also that, however honored they may have been as wives and mothers, they enjoyed no portent of that chivalry which afterward grew from and was fostered by Christianity.

The existence of the Jewish woman was by no means secluded. She was allowed to mingle freely in outdoor life. She accompanied her family on their journeys to the great festivals which were held in Jerusalem. Indeed, we read of Galilean women following Jesus into Judæa, evidently unescorted by male relatives. Females also entertained mixed companies in their own homes. It is probable, however, that there was more freedom of movement among the lower-class women than was enjoyed by their sisters of high degree. While the former dwelt in mean and small houses, in which there was little possibility of seclusion, the latter had large and luxurious homes, with great interior courts and special apartments for their own use. The luxuriousness of these wealthy women rivalled that of Rome itself. We read of one Martha, the wife of a high priest, who, when she went to the temple, had carpets laid from her house to the door of the temple. Upon the poorer women were imposed the hardships of labor: "two women grinding at the mill" was a common sight in every home.

In that momentous drama the leading figure of which was the Son of Man, women of greatly varying character and position played a part. There were Herodias, and Procla, the wife of Pilate: these were the highest ladies in the land; there were Martha of Bethany, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward, representing the middle class; Mary, the mother of Jesus, from among the poor; and Mary of Magdala, from among a class of women who were numerous in Palestine, one of whom the Gospel designates as "a woman who was a sinner."

Of the two first mentioned little may be said in this connection, as they were far from being Christian women, though the wife of Pilate earned for herself the respect of all succeeding generations by pleading for the life of Jesus.

Herodias is connected with this story only on account of the cruel determination with which she sought and compassed the death of John the Baptist. The grand-daughter of Herod the Great, she inherited not only his impetuous ambition, but also his ferocity. She had been married to Herod Philip, her uncle. This son of the first Herod was a wealthy private resident of Jerusalem; but Herodias could not be content to stand aside as a mere spectator of the brilliant game of governing. So she seized the opportunity which the presence of Antipas in her house, by her husband's hospitality, gave her to begin an intrigue, which ended in her marital union with the tetrarch. By this conduct she trampled on Jewish law and offended the people. Not that the severing of the marriage bonds was a thing unusual among the Jews; indeed, the facilities for divorce were exceedingly liberal. A man could put away his wife for the most trifling cause. "If anyone," said the rabbis, "see a woman handsomer than his wife, he may dismiss his wife and marry that woman." It was considered ample cause for divorce if a wife went out without her veil. The disciples of Hillel even went so far as to hold that if a woman spoiled her husband's dinner, by burning or over salting it, sufficient cause was given him, if he so chose, to put her away. This is the point of the question with which the Pharisees came to try Christ. "Is it lawful," said they, "for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" So, then, that which shocked the Jews and caused them to agree with John in his denunciation of Herod was not that the latter divorced his first wife, the daughter of Aretas, but that he took Herodias, she not having been put away by her husband, Philip. Here is some very remarkable moral sophistry. It would have been right, in the sight of Jewish law, for Herod and Philip to have exchanged wives, after legally divorcing them for any cause which might have seemed to them proper; but there was no law, nor was there any conceivable wrong, which could give Herodias the right to leave her husband of her own free will. Women could not gain divorce. So, according to the Jewish idea, the fault of Herod consisted solely in the fact that Philip had not yet seen fit to release Herodias. Whether or not John the Baptist concurred with the ideas of his time on this subject we do not know; but the One who came after him put marriage on a far higher basis and restricted divorce to its essential cause.

Herodias plotted and achieved John's destruction perhaps as much on account of her fear of the effect of his influence upon Herod's ambitious projects as because of her resentment at his charges against herself. She was determined that Herod should be a king, like her brother Agrippa; but the latter was a great favorite with Caligula, and when his letters were presented to the emperor at the same time that Herod appeared, in obedience to the importunities of his wife, to press his suit, the husband of Herodias was deposed and exiled to Lyons. The only praiseworthy thing that Herodias ever did, so far as is known, was on this occasion. Caligula wished to allow her to retain her own fortune, and told her that "it was her brother who prevented her being put under the same calamity with her husband." This was her reply: "Thou, indeed, O emperor, actest after a magnificent manner, and as becomes thyself in what thou offerest me; but the kindness which I have for my husband hinders me from partaking of the favor of thy gift; for it is not just that I, who have been made a partner in his prosperity, should forsake him in his misfortunes." Thereupon Caligula sent her into banishment with Herod, and gave her estate to Agrippa.

Our curiosity is greatly aroused, but in no degree satisfied, regarding another woman who dwelt at Jerusalem in the time of Christ. Pilate, the Roman procurator, had taken his wife with him to Judæa. Tradition has it that she there became a proselyte to the Jewish faith. This is by no means unlikely, for throughout the Roman world were found women who had become converts to the religion of Zion; Josephus, by his own experience, shows that at a later date even Poppæa, the wife of Nero, was extremely partial to the Jews. The Greek Church even goes further, and places Procla in its calendar of saints. Though there is no evidence extant of her having become a Christian, it need not be considered a thing impossible; indeed, it is extremely reasonable to suppose that, having endeavored to save the life of Jesus, the wonderful religious movement which succeeded His death could not have been unknown or without interest to Procla. At any rate, certain it is that she had some knowledge of Jesus, that she was to no small degree disposed in his favor, and that Pilate's wish to balk the priests in their designs on Christ's life was, in a large measure, the result of his wife's influence. But Pilate was caught with the argument that to save the Prisoner would be a sign of disloyalty to Cæsar. This incident is the most prominent instance that history affords of the unwisdom of opposing masculine ratiocinations to feminine moral intuitions.

We now turn to those women of the Gospels who were the acknowledged friends of Jesus and of the founders of Christianity. The central figure is, of course, the Blessed Mother--Mary, honored by Christians above all the daughters of the earth and adored by many millions as the Queen of Heaven; and yet how inadequate, how meagre is the veritable knowledge we possess of this immortal woman! Never has human imagination so magnificently triumphed as in the evolution of the concept of the Blessed Virgin; never has fond adoration built so marvellous an ideal upon so scanty a foundation of assured reality. A moderate-sized page would contain all that is vouchsafed regarding her in the Gospels, yet who ever disputed the claim for Mary that she is the highest representative of all that is purest and most beautiful in womanhood. This much is not a dogma of any church, but a universal feeling. This prevailing conception of the character of Mary has grown out of the conviction of what must have been the moral worth of the one fitted to bear and rear the Son of Man; and it has also resulted to a large degree from that strong human love for motherhood which seeks a perfect example on which to expend itself. The Blessed Virgin is womanhood idealized. She is the personification of all feminine beauty, both of soul and body; she is the perfect expression of the poet's highest inspiration and the artist's noblest dream. We cannot help wishing, however, that more were known of the home life of Mary; the desire to place the beautiful figure of the Representative Mother in the varied settings of common feminine life is irresistible, but this can only be done by means of what little we know of the manners and customs of her people and time.

As has been said, the sources of information about the Mother of Jesus are the four Gospels. In addition to these, there are the apocryphal Christian writings; but these are of too late origin and contain too many manifestly absurd accounts to warrant credence, except where they are corroborated by the Evangelists. The latter say nothing whatever of Mary's direct parentage. She was an offspring of the regal line, that of David; for though it is most probable that the puzzling genealogies of Matthew and Luke are those of her husband, Joseph, there are many reasons for believing that he and Mary were blood relations. Their home was at Nazareth, a beautiful hill town of Galilee, noted for the comeliness of its women. At the end of the sixth century, Antoninus Martyr remarked that the Jewish women of Nazareth were not only fairer but also more affable to Gentiles than were the other women of Palestine, and modern travellers inform us that both these characteristics are still preserved. Geikie says: "The free air of their mountain home seems to have had its effect on the people of Nazareth. Its bright-eyed, happy children and comely women strike the traveller, and even their dress differs from that of other parts.... That of the women usually consists of nothing but a long blue garment tied in round the waist, a bonnet of red cloth, decorated with an edging or roll of silver coins, bordering the forehead and extending to the ears, reminding one of the crescent-shaped female head-dress worn by some of the Egyptian priestesses. Over this, a veil or shawl of coarse white cotton is thrown, which hangs down to the waist, serving to cover the mouth, while the bosom is left exposed, for Eastern and Western ideas of decorum differ in some things.... In a country where nothing changes, through age after age, the dress of to-day is very likely, in most respects, the same as it was two thousand years ago, though the prevailing color of the Hebrew dress, at least in the better classes, was the natural white of the materials employed, which the fuller made even whiter."

We are not informed on the authority of the Gospels as to Mary's age when she was espoused to Joseph the carpenter. The apocryphal _Gospel of Mary_ states that she was fourteen, while the _Protevangelion_ places her age at twelve, which is in accordance with the custom of the East, where girls mature much earlier than with us. The betrothal consisted of mutual promises and the exchange of gifts in the presence of chosen witnesses, followed by the engaged couple ceremonially tasting of the same cup of wine, and was ended with a benediction pronounced by a priest or a rabbi. After these solemn espousals the relation between Mary and Joseph was as sacred as though marriage had really taken place; the only difference was that the couple did not yet live together. The woman was not allowed to withdraw from the contract, and the man could not fail to fulfil his promise unless he gave her a formal bill of divorcement for cause, as in the case of marriage; the laws relating to adultery were also applicable. Yet many months might intervene between the date of the betrothal and that of the marriage.

What took place during this interval in the life of the Virgin is a mystery which it would be a vain attempt to investigate. If it be judged of from a purely rationalistic standpoint, there are no historical and no scientific data which will enable us to do otherwise than simply discredit the accounts of the Nativity, as they are given by Matthew and Luke. On the other hand, if the narrative of Christ's birth is accepted with that reverent faith which has endured through nineteen centuries of Christendom, and has been and still is held by men of unrivalled intellect, there is nothing more to be said than the language of worship and wonder. We may well regret that John and Mark, or at least one of the epistolary writers, did not corroborate the testimony of the two first-named Evangelists; the scant importance Mary seems to have acquired in the Apostolic Church may appear inconsistent with the stupendous nature of her experiences; yet here is no subject for vain reasoning; we stand before a mystery which belongs wholly to the realm of faith. The science of Christology demands the acceptance of this supernatural event. But it is as little within the province of this book to defend the faith as it is to apply the canons of Higher Criticism to the writings of the New Testament.

In the picture which the Scriptures give us of Mary there is no touch so human as that which represents her, at the first intimation of the coming of her Son, hastening southward to confer with her cousin Elizabeth. To a woman must the news first be whispered, before it gains the observation of the man to whom she is espoused; and not to the gossips of Nazareth, but to her holy and sober-minded kinswoman alone could Mary impart her hopes and her fears. Poetic expression was a Jewish woman's birthright; Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, and Judith, each had magnified the Lord with a song; let Mary also, in the assurance that her Offspring is to be the Messiah long foretold, voice the exultation of her soul in like manner. "Behold, from henceforth, all generations shall call me blessed.... He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree."

Augustus Cæsar sent forth an edict that all the world should be taxed. It was an act of which we should have known little and thought less, had it not marked the occasion of the birth of Him to whom the world will never cease to pay a tribute of homage.

In the birth of Jesus, the mystery of motherhood is glorified, nay, almost deified. Mankind needed that also. The pagan world had always sought to satisfy feelings which are deep rooted in the human heart by conceiving of maternity under the form of a divine personality. A religion which does not, in some way, recognize in its object the loving kindness and the painful solicitude of the mother heart cannot survive. Mary is a symbol of that natural tender reverence and supreme confidence which motherhood inspires. The shepherds knelt before her in the stable which the necessities of poverty made the scene of her lying-in, for the inestimable graces of the mother depend not upon wealth or earthly splendor. The Wise Men from the East brought their gifts, for there is no greater wisdom than that which pays its homage before the babe at its mother's breast.

In the one great experience of maternity Mary's greatness ends, so far as the records show. Did she settle down to all appearances as an ordinary Nazareth housewife? Did she bear to Joseph other children? To many, the latter question seems like sacrilege; and yet there is nothing of authority written to the contrary.