Thus it appears that the law of blasphemy, as it was understood among the Jews, extended not only to the offence of impiously using the name of the Supreme Being, but to every usurpation of his authority, or arrogation, by a created being, of the honour and power belonging to him alone.(349) Like the crime of treason among men, its essence consisted in acknowledging or setting up the authority of another sovereign than one's own, or invading the powers pertaining exclusively to him; an offence, of which the case of Moses, before cited, is a prominent instance, both in its circ.u.mstances and in its punishment. Whether a false G.o.d was acknowledged or the true one denied, and whether the denial was in express terms, or by implication, in a.s.suming to do, by underived power, and in one's own name, that which G.o.d only could perform, the offence was essentially the same.

And in such horror was it held by the Israelites, that in token of it every one was obliged, by an early and universal custom, to rend his garments, whenever it was committed or related in his presence.(350) This sentiment was deeply felt by the whole people, as a part of their religion.

Such being the general scope and spirit of the law, it would seem to have been easy to prove that Jesus had repeatedly incurred its penalties. He had performed many miracles, but never in any other name than his own. In his own name, and without the recognition of any higher power, he had miraculously healed the sick, restored sight to the blind and strength to the lame, cast out devils, rebuked the winds, calmed the sea, and raised the dead. In his own name, also, and with no allusion to the Omniscient, no "Thus saith the Lord," he had prophesied of things to come. He had by his own authority forgiven sins, and promised, by his own power, not only to raise the dead, but to resume his own life, after he should, as he predicted, be put to death. Finally, he had expressly claimed for himself a divine origin and character, and the power to judge both the quick and the dead(351). Considered as a man, he had usurped the attributes of G.o.d.

That he was not arrested at an earlier period, is to be attributed to his great popularity, and the astounding effect of his miracles. His whole career had been resplendent with beneficence to the thousands who surrounded him. His eloquence surpa.s.sed all that had been uttered by man.

The people were amazed, bewildered, and fascinated, by the resistless power of his life. It was not until his last triumphal visit to Jerusalem, after he had openly raised Lazarus from the dead, when the chief priests and elders perceived that "the world was gone after him," that they were stricken with dismay and apprehension for their safety, and under this panic resolved upon the perilous measure of his destruction.

The only safe method in which this could be accomplished, was under the sanction of a legal trial and sentence. Jesus, therefore, upon his apprehension, was first brought before the great tribunal of the Sanhedrim, and charged with the crime of blasphemy. What were the specifications under this general charge, or whether any were necessary, we are not informed. But that this was the offence charged, is manifest both from the evidence adduced and from the judgment of conviction.(352) Such was the estimation in which he was held, that it was with great difficulty that witnesses could be found to testify against him; and the two who at last were procured, testified falsely, in applying his words to the temple of Solomon, which he spake of the temple of his body. When, upon the occasion of his scourging the money-changers out of the temple, the Jews demanded by what authority he did this, Jesus replied, alluding to his own person, "Destroy _this_ temple, and in three days I will raise it up."(353) But though the witnesses swore falsely in testifying that he spake of the Jewish temple, yet his words, in either sense, amounted to a claim of the power of working miracles, and so brought him within the law.

The high priest, however, still desirous of new evidence, which might justify his condemnation in the eyes of the people, proceeded to interrogate Jesus concerning his character and mission. "I adjure thee, by the living G.o.d, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of G.o.d. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest _rent his clothes_, saying He hath _spoken blasphemy_; what _further_ need have we of witnesses? Behold, now _ye have heard his blasphemy_. What think ye?

They answered and said, _He is guilty of death_."(354) We may suppose the mult.i.tude standing without the hall of judgment, able, through its avenues and windows, to see, but not to hear, all that was transacting within. It became important, therefore, to obtain some reason upon which the high priest might rend his clothes in their sight, thus giving to the people, by this expressive and awful sign, the highest evidence of blasphemy, uttered by Jesus in the presence of that august a.s.sembly. This act turned the tide of popular indignation against him, whose name, but a short time before, had been the theme of their loudest hosannas. There was now no need to go into the past transactions of his ministry, for matter of accusation. His friends might claim for him on that score all that the warmest grat.i.tude and love could inspire; and all this could be safely conceded. But here, his accusers might say, was a new and shocking crime, just perpetrated in the presence of the most sacred tribunal; a crime so shocking, and so boldly committed, that the high priest rent his clothes with horror, in the very judgment seat, in the presence of all the members of the Sanhedrim, who, with one accord, upon that evidence alone, immediately convicted the offender and sentenced him to death.

If we regard Jesus simply as a Jewish citizen, and with no higher character, this conviction seems substantially right in point of law, though the trial were not legal in all its forms. For, whether the accusation were founded on the first or second commands in the decalogue, or on the law, laid down in the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, or on that in the eighteenth chapter and twentieth verse, he had violated them all, by a.s.suming to himself powers belonging alone to Jehovah. And even if he were recognized as a prophet of the Lord, he was still obnoxious to punishment, under the decision in the case of Moses and Aaron, before cited. It is not easy to perceive on what ground his conduct could have been defended before any tribunal, unless upon that of his superhuman character. No lawyer, it is conceived, would think of placing his defence upon any other basis.

The great object of exciting the people against Jesus being thus successfully accomplished, the next step was to obtain legal authority to put him to death. For though the Sanhedrim had condemned him, they had not the power to pa.s.s a capital sentence; this being a right which had pa.s.sed from the Jews by the conquest of their country, and now belonged to the Romans alone. They were merely citizens of a Roman province; they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many other things relating to their police and munic.i.p.al regulations; but they had not the power of life and death. This was a princ.i.p.al attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took care to reserve to themselves in order to be able to reach those individuals who might become impatient of the yoke, whatever else might be neglected.

_Apud quos (Romanos), vis imperii valet; inania transmittuntur_.(355) The jurisdiction of capital cases belonged ordinarily to the governor general or _Praeses_ of a province, the _Procurator_ having for his princ.i.p.al duty only the charge of the revenue and the cognizance of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance of capital crimes was, in some cases, given to certain _Procurators_, who were sent into small provinces, to fill the places of governors, (_Vice Praesides_,) as clearly appears from the Roman laws. The government of all Syria was at this time under a governor general, or _Praeses_; of which Judea was one of the lesser dependencies, under the charge of Pilate as _Vice Praeses_, with capital jurisdiction.(356)

It could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself with the cognizance of any matter, not pertaining to the Roman law; much less with an alleged offence against the G.o.d of the Jews, who was neither acknowledged nor even respected by their conquerors. Of this the chief priests and elders were fully aware; and therefore they prepared a second accusation against Jesus, founded on the Roman law; as likely to succeed with Pilate, as the former had done with the people. They charged him with attempting to restore the kingdom of Israel, under his own dominion as king of the Jews. "We found this fellow, said they, perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying, That he himself is Christ, a king."(357)

It was a charge of high treason against the Roman state and emperor; a charge which was clearly within Pilate's cognizance, and which, as they well knew, no officer of Tiberius would venture lightly to regard. Pilate accordingly forthwith arraigned Jesus, and called upon him to answer this accusation. It is worthy of note, that from the moment when he was accused of treason before Pilate, no further allusion was made to the previous charge of blasphemy; the Roman governor being engaged solely with the charge newly preferred before himself. The answer of Jesus to this charge satisfied Pilate that it was groundless, the kingdom which he set up appearing plainly to be not a kingdom of this world, but his spiritual reign in righteousness and holiness and peace, in the hearts of men.

Pilate therefore acquitted him of the offence. "He went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, _I find in him no fault at all_."(358) Here was a sentence of acquittal, judicially p.r.o.nounced, and irreversible, except by a higher power, upon appeal; and it was the duty of Pilate thereupon to have discharged him. But the mult.i.tude, headed now by the priests and elders, grew clamorous for his execution; adding, "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place."(359) Hearing this reference to Galilee, Pilate seized the opportunity, thus offered, of escaping from the responsibility of a judgment, either of acquittal or of condemnation, by treating the case as out of his jurisdiction, and within that of Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was then in Jerusalem on a visit. He therefore sent Jesus and his accusers to Herod; before whom the charge was vehemently renewed and urged. But Herod, too, perceived that it was utterly groundless, and accordingly treated it with derision, arraying Jesus in mock habiliments of royalty, and remanding him to Pilate.(360) The cause was then solemnly re-examined by the Roman governor, and a second judgment of acquittal p.r.o.nounced. For "Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers, and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people; and behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man, touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him."(361)

It may seem strange to us that after a judgment of acquittal thus solemnly p.r.o.nounced, any judge, in a civilized country, should venture to reverse it, upon the same evidence, and without the pretence of mistake or error in the proceedings. Probably, in the settled jurisprudence of the city of Rome, it could not have been done. But this was in a remote province of the empire, under the administration not of a jurist, but a soldier; and he, too, irresolute and vacillating; fearful for his office, and even for his life, for he served the "dark and unrelenting Tiberius." As soon as he proposed to release Jesus, "the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar."(362) Whereupon "Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required."(363) That Jesus was executed under the pretence of treason, and that alone, is manifest from the tenor of the writing placed over his head, stating that he was king of the Jews; such being the invariable custom among the Romans, in order that the public might know for what crime the party had been condemned.(364) The remaining act in this tragedy is sufficiently known.

In the preceding remarks, the case has been considered only upon its general merits, and with no reference to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. But M. Dupin, in his tract on the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, in reply to Mr. Salvador's account of it, has satisfactorily shown that throughout the whole course of that trial the rules of the Jewish law of procedure were grossly violated, and that the accused was deprived of rights, belonging even to the meanest citizen. He was arrested in the night, bound as a malefactor, beaten before his arraignment, and struck in open court during the trial; he was tried on a feast day, and before sunrise; he was compelled to criminate himself, and this, under an oath or solemn judicial adjuration; and he was sentenced on the same day of the conviction. In all these particulars the law was wholly disregarded.(365)

THE JEWISH ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS. BY MR. SALVADOR.

MR. JOSEPH SALVADOR, a physician and a learned Jew, a few years ago published at Paris, a work, ent.i.tled, "Histoire des Inst.i.tutions de Mose et du Peuple Hebreu," in which, among other things, he gives an account of their course of criminal procedure, in a chapter on "The Administration of Justice;" which he ill.u.s.trates, in a succeeding chapter, by an account of the trial of Jesus. As this is the recent work of a man of learning, himself a Jew, it may be regarded as an authentic statement of what is understood and held by the most intelligent and best informed Jews, respecting the claims of our Lord, the tenor of his doctrines, the nature of the charge laid against him before the Sanhedrim, and the grounds on which they condemned him. The following translation of the last-mentioned chapter will therefore not be unacceptable to the reader. It will be found in Book IV. chapter iii., ent.i.tled, "The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus."

The reader will bear in his mind, that it is the language of an enemy of our Saviour, and in justification of his murderers.

"According to this exposition of judicial proceedings," says the Jew, "I shall follow out the application of them in the most memorable tried in history, that of Jesus Christ. I have already explained the motives which have directed me, and the point of view in which I have considered the subject; I have already shown, that among the Jews no t.i.tle was a shelter against a prosecution and sentence. Whether the law or its forms were good or bad, is not the object of my present investigation; neither is it to ascertain whether we ought to pity the blindness of the Hebrews in not discovering a Deity in Jesus, or to be astonished that a G.o.d personified could not make himself comprehended when he desired it. But since they regarded him only as a citizen, did they not try him according to their law and its existing forms? This is my question, which can admit of no equivocation. I shall draw all my facts from the Evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether all this history was developed after the event, to serve as a form to a new doctrine, or to an old one which had received a fresh impulse.

Jesus was born of a family of small fortune; Joseph, his supposed father, perceived that his wife was big before they had come together. If he had brought her to trial, in the ordinary course of things, Mary, according to the 23rd verse of the 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy, would have been condemned, and Jesus, having been declared illegitimate, could never, according to the 2nd verse of the 23rd chapter, have been admitted to a seat in the Sanhedrim.(366) But Joseph, who, to save his wife from disgrace, had taken the resolution of sending her away privately, soon had a dream which consoled him.(367)

After having been circ.u.mcised, Jesus grew like other men, attended the solemn feasts, and early displayed surprising wisdom and sagacity. In the a.s.sembly on the Sabbath, the Jews, eager for the disputes to which the interpretation of the law gave rise, loved to hear him. But he soon devoted himself to more important labours; he p.r.o.nounced censures against whole towns, Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida.(368) Recalling the times of Isaiah and Jeremiah, he thundered against the chiefs of the people with a vehemence which would in our day be terrific.(369) The people then regarded him as a prophet;(370) they heard him preach in towns and country without opposition; they saw him surrounded with disciples according to the custom of the learned men of the age; whatever may have been the resentment of the chief men, they were silent as long as he confined himself to the law.

But Jesus, in presenting new theories, and in giving new forms to those already promulgated, speaks of himself as G.o.d; his disciples repeat it; and the subsequent events prove in the most satisfactory manner, that they thus understood him.(371) This was shocking blasphemy in the eyes of the citizens: the law commands them to follow Jehovah alone, the only true G.o.d; not to believe in G.o.ds of flesh and bone, resembling men or women; neither to spare nor listen to a prophet who, even doing miracles, should proclaim a new G.o.d, a G.o.d whom neither they nor their fathers had known.(372)

Jesus having said to them one day: "I have come down from heaven to do these things," the Jews, who till then had listened to him, murmured and cried: "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph and of Mary? we know his father, his mother, and his brethren; why then does he say that he has come down from heaven?"(373) On another day, the Jews, irritated from the same cause, took stones and threatened him. Jesus said unto them, "I have done good works in your eyes by the power of my Father, for which of these works would you stone me? It is for no good work," replied the Jews, who stated the whole process in few words, "but because of thy blasphemy; for being a man,(374) thou makest thyself G.o.d."(375)

His language was not always clear. Often his disciples themselves did not comprehend him. Among his maxims, some of which showed the greatest mildness, there were some which the Hebrews, who were touched only through their natural sense, thought criminal. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me."(376) Finally, if he wrought miracles before certain of the people, his replies to the questions of the doctors were generally evasive.(377)

In regard to political relations, he caused dissensions.(378) A great number of disorderly persons whom he had the design of reclaiming, but who inspired dread in the national council, attached themselves to him;(379) his discourse flattered them inasmuch as he p.r.o.nounced anathemas against riches. "Know," said he, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."(380) In this state of affairs, the council deliberates; some are of opinion that he should be regarded as a madman,(381) others say that he seeks to seduce the people.(382) Caiaphas, the high priest, whose dignity compels him to defend the letter of the law, observes that these dissensions would furnish an excuse to the Romans for overwhelming Judea, and that the interests of the whole nation must outweigh those of a single individual; he const.i.tutes himself the accuser of Jesus.(383)

The order is given to seize him. But let us pause here upon a fact of the highest importance. The senate did not begin by actually seizing Jesus, as is now the practice; they begin by giving, after some debate, an order that he should be seized.(384) This decree is made public; it is known to all, especially to Jesus. No opposition is offered to his pa.s.sing the frontier: his liberty depends entirely upon himself. This is not all; the order for his arrest was preceded by a decree of admonition. One day, Jesus having entered the temple, took upon himself authority contrary to the common law; then he preached to the people, and said: "That those who should believe in him should be able to do all things, so that if they should say to a mountain, remove thyself and cast thyself into the sea, it would obey." Then the chief priest and senators went to find him and said to him, "By what authority doest thou these things? who gave thee this power?"(385)

Meanwhile a traitor discloses the place whither the accused had retired; the guards, authorized by the high priest and by the elders,(386) hasten to seize him. One of his disciples, breaking into open rebellion, with a stroke of his sword cuts off the ear of one of them, and brings upon himself the reproof of his master.(387) As soon as Jesus is arrested, the zeal of the apostles is extinguished; all forsake him.(388) He is brought before the grand council, where the priests sustain the accusation. The witnesses testify, and they are numerous; for the deeds of which he is accused were done in the presence of all the people. The two witnesses whom St. Matthew and St. Mark accuse of perjury, relate a discourse which St. John declares to be true, with regard to the power which Jesus arrogates to himself.(389) Finally, the high priest addresses the accused, and says: "Is it true that thou art Christ, that thou art the Son of G.o.d?"

"I am he," replies Jesus; "you shall see me hereafter at the right hand of the majesty of G.o.d, who shall come upon the clouds of heaven." At these words, Caiaphas rent his garments in token of horror.(390) "You have heard him." They deliberate.

The question already raised among the people was this: Has Jesus become G.o.d? But the senate having adjudged that Jesus, son of Joseph, born at Bethlehem, had profaned the name of G.o.d by usurping it to himself, a mere citizen, applied to him the law of blasphemy, and the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and the 20th verse in chapter 18, according to which every prophet, even he who works miracles, must be punished, when he speaks of a G.o.d unknown to the Jews and their fathers:(391) the capital sentence was p.r.o.nounced. As to the ill-treatment which followed the sentence, it was contrary to the spirit of the Jewish law; and it is not in the course of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation, who, however they might have been deceived, yet intended to act legally, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life was at their disposal. The writers who have transmitted to us these details, not having been present at the trial, have been disposed to exaggerate the picture, either on account of their prejudices, or to throw greater obloquy on the judges.

One thing is certain, that the council met again on the morning of the next day or the day following that,(392) as the law requires, to confirm or to annul the sentence: it was confirmed. Jesus was brought before Pilate, the procurator that the Romans had placed over the Jews. They had retained the power of trying according to their own laws, but the executive power was in the hands of the procurator alone: no criminal could be executed without his consent: this was in order that the Senate should not have the means of reaching men who were sold to foreigners.(393) Pilate, the Roman, signed the decree. His soldiers, an impure mixture of diverse nations, were charged with the punishment. These are they who brought Jesus to the judgment hall, who stripped him before the whole cohort, who placed upon his head a crown of thorns, and a reed in his hand, who showed all the barbarity to which the populace in all ages is disposed; who finally caused him to undergo a punishment common at Rome, and which was not in use among the Jews.(394) But before the execution, the governor had granted to the condemned an appeal to the people, who, respecting the judgment of their own council, would not permit this favour, couching their refusal in these terms: "We have a law; and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of G.o.d."(395) Then Pilate left them the choice of saving Jesus, or a man accused of murder in a sedition; the people declared for the latter; saying that the other would scatter the seeds of discord in the bosom of the nation, at a time when union was most necessary.(396)

"Jesus was put to death. The priests and elders went to the place of punishment; and as the sentence was founded upon this fact, that he had unlawfully arrogated to himself the t.i.tle of Son of G.o.d, G.o.d himself, they appealed to him thus: 'Thou wouldst save others; thyself thou canst not save. If thou art indeed the king of Israel, come down into the midst of us, and we will believe in thee, since thou hast said, I am the Son of G.o.d, let that G.o.d who loves thee come now to thine aid.'(397) According to the Evangelist, these words were a mockery; but the character of the persons who p.r.o.nounced them, their dignity, their age, the order which they had observed in the trial, prove their good faith. Would not a miracle at this time have been decisive?"

THE TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND PILATE.

Being A Refutation Of Mr. Salvador's Chapter Ent.i.tled "The Trial And Condemnation Of Jesus." By M. Dupin. Translated From The French by John Pickering, LL.D.

Preface.

A few years ago, Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician-and a descendant of one of those Jewish families, whom the intolerance of Ferdinand the Catholic expelled, in a body, from Spain, about the year 1492-published at Paris a learned work, ent.i.tled "Histoire des Inst.i.tutions de Mose et du Peuple Hebreu," or History of the Inst.i.tutions of Moses and the Hebrew People; and in one chapter of his work he gives an account of the _Administration of Justice_ among the Hebrews. To that chapter he has subjoined an account of the "Trial and Condemnation of Jesus;" in the course of which he expresses his opinion, that the trial, considered merely _as a legal proceeding_, was conformable to the Jewish laws.

The author of the following little work, M. Dupin, who is one of the most eminent lawyers of the French Bar, immediately called in question the correctness of Mr. Salvador's opinion, and entered upon an a.n.a.lysis of this portion of his work, with a view to examine its soundness, and the present volume contains the result of that examination, conducted with great legal skill and extensive learning.

It appears, that he had, many years before, in a little work, ent.i.tled "_The Free_ Defence of Accused Persons," published in 1815, taken the same views of this great trial; which, as he observes, has been justly called "the _Pa.s.sion_ or _Suffering_ of our Saviour; for he did in truth _suffer_, and had not a trial."

The author's attention, however, had been withdrawn from this subject for several years, when it was again brought under his notice by the work of Mr. Salvador, a copy of which was sent to him by that writer, with a request that M. Dupin would give some account of it. Accordingly, says the latter, "it is in compliance with _his request_, and not from a spirit of hostility, that I have made this examination of his work;" and he gives ample proof of his good feeling towards Mr. Salvador, with whom, he says, he is personally acquainted and for whose talents he has a great respect.

With this friendly spirit he enters upon his examination; which is conducted with an ability, learning, animation, and interest, that leave nothing to be desired. As an argument, his work is unanswerable,-he has demolished that of his adversary; and, for intense interest, we do not know any publication of the present day to be compared with it.

The introductory _a.n.a.lysis_ of Mr. Salvador's chapter on the Administration of Justice according to the Jewish Law will be highly instructive and interesting; and those persons, who have not been accustomed to read the Bible with particular reference to the _Law_, will find many new and striking views of that portion of the Scriptures. They cannot fail to be particularly struck with the extraordinary care taken to secure by law the personal liberty and rights of the citizen.

According to Mr. Salvador's view, "the fundamental division into _castes_ is the princ.i.p.al basis of the oriental theocracies." Moses, on the contrary, took for his basis the _unity_ of the people. In his system of legislation the people are every thing; and the author shows us, that every thing, eventually, is done for them, by them, and with them. The tribe of Levi was established, only to supply a secondary want; and that tribe was very far from obtaining all the powers which we are apt to attribute to it; it did not make, nor develope the laws; it did not judge or govern; all its members, even the high priest himself, were subject to the control of the Elders of the nation, or of a Senate legally a.s.sembled.

Intimately connected with these rights of the people was the _liberty of speech_; and Mr. Salvador, in his chapter on the _Public Orators and Prophets_, maintains, and in the opinion of M. Dupin, proves clearly, that in no nation was the liberty of speech ever so unlimited, as among the Hebrews. Accordingly he observes-"What an additional difference was this between the Israelites and the Egyptians! Among the latter, the ma.s.s of the people did not dare, without incurring the hazard of the most terrible punishment, to utter a word on affairs of state; it was Harpocrates, the G.o.d of silence with his finger on his closed lips, who was their G.o.d; in Israel, it was _the right of speech_."

But we forbear any further reflections, and submit this remarkable performance to our readers. Those, who are familiar with the animated tone of French writers, will perhaps discover in this translation some loss of the fire and intensity of the original; but the translator's purpose will be effected, if his version shall be found to be a faithful one.

September 3, 1839.

a.n.a.lysis Of The Chapter Of Mr. Salvador, Ent.i.tled "The Administration Of Justice" Among The Jews.(398)