36. Numb. vi. 24 -26.
Wondering, they had dispersed - people and priests. The day's service over, another
family of ministrants took the place of those among whom Zacharias had been; and
again, at the close of the week's service, another 'course' that of Abia. They returned to
their homes - some to Ophel, some to Jericho, some to their quiet dwellings in the
country. But God fulfilled the word which He had spoken by His Angel.
Before leaving this subject, it may be well to inquire into the relation between the events
just described, and the customs and expectations of the time. The scene in the Temple,
and all the surroundings, are in strictest accordance with what we know of the services of
the Sanctuary. In a narrative that lays hold on some details of a very complex service,
such entire accuracy conveys the impression of general truthfulness. Similarly, the sketch
of Zacharias and Elisabeth is true to the history of the time - though Zacharias could not
have been one of the 'learned,' nor to the Rabbinists, a model priest. They would have
described him as an 'idiot,'37 or common, and as a n Amha-arets, a 'rustic' priest, and
treated him with benevolent contempt.38 The Angelic apparition, which he saw, was
wholly unprecedented, and could therefore not have lain within range of common
expectation; though the possibility, or rather the fear, o f some contact with the Divine
was always present to the popular mind. But it is difficult to conceive how, if not true, the
invention of such a vision in such circumstances could have suggested itself. This
difficulty is enhanced by the obvious difference between the Evangelic narrative, and the
popular ideas of the time. Far too much importance has here been attached by a certain
class of writers to a Rabbinic saying, 39 that the names of the Angels were brought from
Babylon. For, not only was this saying (of Ben Lakish) only a clever Scriptural deduction
(as the context shows), and not even an actual tradition, but no competent critic would
venture to lay down the principle, that isolated Rabbinic sayings in the Talmud are to be
regarded as sufficient foundation for historical facts. On the other hand, Rabbinic
tradition does lay it down, that the names of the Angels were derived from their mission,
and might be changed with it. Thus the reply of the Angel to the inquiry of Manoah40 is
explained as implying, that he knew not what other name might be given him in the
future. In the Book of Daniel, to which the son of Lakish refers, the only two Angelic
names mentioned are Gabriel41 and Michael,42 while the appeal to the Book of Daniel, as
evidence of the Babylonish origin of Jewish Angelology, comes with strange
inconsistency from writers who date it in Maccabean times.43 But the question of Angelic
nomenclature is quite secondary. The real point at issue is, whether or not the Angelology
and Demonology of the New Testament was derived from contemporary Judaism. The
opinion, that such was the case, has been so dogmatically asserted, as to have almost
passed among a certain class as a settled fact. That nevertheless such was not the case, is
capable of the most ample proof. Here also, with similarity of form, slighter than usually,
there is absolutely contrast of substance.44
37. The word +ωψρη or 'idiot,' when conjoined with 'priest' ordinarily means a common
priest, in distinction to the High priest. But the word unquestionably also signifies vulgar,