brave, intensely national Galileans;9 with the deeper feelings and almost instinctive habits
of thought and life, which were the outcome of long centuries of Old Testament training;
but also with the petty interest and jealousies of such places, and with all the
ceremonialism and punctilious self-assertion of Orientals. The cast of Judaism prevalent
in Nazareth would, of course, be the same as in Galilee generally. We know, that there
were marked divergences from the observances in that stronghold of Rabbinism, 10 Judæa
- indicating greater simplicity and freedom from the constant intrusion of traditional
ordinances. The home- life would be all the purer, that the veil of wedded life was not so
coarsely lifted as in Judæa, nor its sacred secrecy interfered with by an Argus -eyed
legislation. 11 The purity of betrothal in Galilee was less likely to be sullied,12 and
weddings were more simple than in Judæa - without the dubious institution of
groomsmen, 13 14 or 'friends of the bridegroom' 15 whose office must not unfrequently have
degenerated into utter coarseness. The bride was chosen, not as in Judæa, where money
was too often the motive, but as in Jerusalem, with chief regard to 'a fair degree;' and
widows were (as in Jerusalem) more tenderly cared for, as we gather even from the fact,
that they had a life-right of residence in their husband's house.
8. The inference, that the expression of Nathanael (St. John i. 46) implies a lower state of
the people of Nazareth, is unfounded. Even Keim points out, that it only marks disbelief
that the Messiah would come from such a place.
9. Our description of them is derived from notices by Josephus (such as War iii. 3, 2),
and many passages in the Talmud.
10. These differences are marked in Pes. iv. 5; Keth. iv. 12; Ned. ii. 4; Chull. 62 a; Baba
K. 80 a; Keth. 12 a.
11. The reader who wishes to understand what we have only ventured to hint, is referred
to the Mishnic tractate Niddah.
12. Keth. 12 a.
13. Keth. 12 a, and often.
14. Comp. 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' &c., pp. 152 &c.
15. St. John iii. 29
Such a home was that to which Joseph was about to bring the maiden, to whom he had
been betrothed. Whatever view may be taken of the genealogies in the Gospels according
to St. Matthew and St. Luke - whether they be regarded as those of Joseph and of Mary, 16
or, which seems the more likely,17 as those of Joseph only, marking his natural and his
legal descent18 from David, or vice versâ19 - there can be no question, that both Joseph
and Mary were of the royal lineage of David.20 Most probably the two were nearly
related,21 while Mary could also claim kinship with the Priesthood, being, no doubt on
her mother's side, a 'blood-relative' of Elisabeth, the Priest-wife of Zacharias.22 23 Even
this seems to imply, that Mary's family must shortly before have held higher rank, for
only with such did custom sanction any alliance on the part of Priests.24 But at the time of
their betrothal, alike Joseph and Mary were extremely poor, as appears - not indeed from
his being a carpenter, since a trade was regarded as almost a religious duty - but from the