tines, the noble gossip of the Athenian gymnasia,is he not in every respect the direct contrast to the divine proclaimer of a Heaven of them 'that are poor in spirit'? In India it was the same: the figure of a Buddha was not anticipated nor conjured up by the magic of men's longing. All such assertions belong to the wide province of that delusive historic philosophy which constructs after the event. If Christ and Christianity had been an historical necessity, as the neoscholastic Hegel asserts, and Pfleiderer and others would have us believe to-day, we should inevitably have seen not one Christ but a thousand Christs arise; I should really like to know in what century a Jesus would not have been just as 'necessary' as our daily bread? Let us therefore discard these views that are tinged with the paleness of abstraction. The only effect they have is to obscure the one decisive and pregnant thing, namely, the importance of the living, individual, incomparable personality. . . . The circumstances in which the personality is placed a knowledge of its general conditions in respect of time and space-will certainly contribute very much towards making it clearly understood. Such a knowledge will enable us to distinguish between the important and the unimportant, between the characteristically individual and the locally conventional. It will, in short, give us an increasingly clearer view of the personality. But to explain it, to try to show it as a logical necessity, is an idle, foolish task; every figure-even that of a beetle is to the human understanding a 'wonder'; the human personality is, however, the mysterium magnum of life, and the more a great personality is stripped by criticism of all legendary rags and tatters, and the more successful that criticism is in representing each step in its career as something fore-ordained in the nature of things, the more incomprehensible the mystery becomes. This indeed is the final result of the criticism to which the life of Jesus has been submitted in the nineteenth century. This [19th] century has been called an irreligious one; but never yet, since the first Christian centuries, has the interest of mankind concentrated so passionately around the person of Jesus Christ as in the last seventy years; the works of Darwin, however widespread they were, were not bought to one-tenth the extent of those of Strauss and Renan. And the result of it all is, that the actual earthly life of Jesus Christ has become more and more concrete, and we have been compelled to recognize more and more distinctly that the origin of the Christian religion is fundamentally to be traced to the absolutely unexampled impression which this one personality had made and left upon those who knew Him. So it is that to-day this revelation stands before our eyes more definite and for that very reason more unfathomable than ever."-H. S. Chamberlain, Foundations of the nineteenth century, v. 1, pp. 177-180.-"Before our eyes there stands a vision, distinct, incomparable. This picture which we behold is the inheritance which we have received from our Fathers. Without an accurate appreciation of this vision, we cannot measure and rightly judge the historical significance of Christianity. The converse, on the other hand, does not hold good, for the figure of Jesus Christ has, by the historical development of the Churches, been dimmed and relegated to the background, rather than unveiled to the clear sight of our eyes. To look upon this Figure solely by the light of a church doctrine, narrowed both in respect of place and of time, is voluntarily to put on blinkers and to narrow our own view of the eternally Divine. The vision of Christ, moreover, is hardly touched upon by the

JESUS CHRIST

dogmas of the Church. They are all so abstract that they afford nothing upon which either our understanding or our feelings can lay hold. We may apply to them in general what an artless witness, St. Augustine, said of the Dogma of the Trinity: 'But we speak of three Persons, not because we fancy that in so doing we have uttered something, but simply because we cannot be silent.'. . . Here is a man born into the world and living a life through which the conception of the moral significance of man, the whole philosophy of life, undergoes a complete transformation-through which the relation of the individual to himself, to the rest of mankind, and to the nature by which he is surrounded, is of necessity illuminated by a new and hitherto unsuspected light, so that all motives of action, all ideals, all heart's-desires and hopes must be remoulded and built up anew from their very foundations. Is it to be believed that this can be the work of a few centuries ?"-Ibid., v. 1, PP. 174-175.

Portraits of Jesus.-Christian art of the Renaissance. Modern conceptions.-"Modern painters have often pictured Jesus as something of a dreamer, a long-haired, sleepy, abstract kind of person. What a contrast we find in the energy of the real Jesus-in the straight and powerful language which he uses to men, in the sweep and range of his mind, in the profundity of his insight, the drive and compulsiveness of his thinking, in the venturesomeness of his actions."—J. R Glover, The Jesus of history, pp. 129-130.—"With the Renaissance most of the old infirmities and conventions began to be left behind, and we have a long series of bold, frank, free depictions of Christ's face, some of which are transporting and beyond praise. Artists were veritably inspired by their theme and gave rein to their genius, unhampered by tradition. Some of the earliest in this great series agonized for a vision or theophany of the supreme face, and painted metaphorically, if not literally, on the knees. The language of Christian art spoke with new eloquence. Not historic portraits but ideals were striven for, and with a freedom and originality almost suggestive of the German metaphysician who 'proceeded to construct God.' So those painters proceeded to construct the likeness of the God-man, and were unafraid either of the charge of impiety or of the danger that those who adored their creations were thereby trekking toward a new idolatry. Their license was virtually as unchallenged as that we concede to poets. In their theophanies there was, no doubt, always a man behind the face which they felt, if not saw, with the inner eye, but which they could not put on their canvas Art, then, as well as theology, had its reformation. These pictures were creations, and not copies. Religion had found a new medium of expression. Their enthusiasm was typified in Fra Angelico, who would not lay down his palette and his imaginative renderings for an archbishopric. Thus it is not surprising that even fidelity to type was thrown to the winds, and we have Christs bearded and beardless, large and small, slender and stout, dark and light, dead and alive, in agony and in ecstasy, brachiocephalic, dolichocephalic, low- and highbrowed, the ghostly post-resurrection Christ, the splendidly nourished enfleshment by Rubens, Christ with children and judging the world, etc. Despite the mummifying traditions that long persisted, early Italian art thus began to break away; and it is remarkable that it was to so great an extent the inspiration of the Virgin that inaugurated the great emancipation. Prescriptions concerning her were less rigid, and she could be so portrayed as to be

admired as well as adored. The new naturalism which began with the Renaissance had its best expressions in the domain of religious art in the delineations of the Holy Mother, who was conceived in a truly aesthetic spirit, long before the child she held began to take on traits and aspects of real childhood. Thus the right to think and feel freely was vindicating itself. Classical art did not generally favour the admission of suffering, but this was essential, if not central, in the Christian scheme. The Virgin stood both for beauty and for the new patheticism. Moreover, art at its best is always a passion for all-sided expression, and is as incomplete without shadows as without light." -G. S. Hall, Jesus, the Christ, in the light of psychology, pp. 18-19.

See also CHRISTIANITY.

ALSO IN: A. Schweitzer, Quest of the historical Jesus G. Papini, Life of Christ.-C. F. Kent and J. W. Jenks, Jesus' principles of living.-A. E. Garvie, Studies in the inner life of Jesus. JESUS, Society of. See JESUITS.

Definition.-National names.-"In the Old Testament the term 'Jews' appears to be applied to adherents of the worship of YH W H as conducted at Jerusalem after the exile: it is thus used in the late Book of Esther. In more modern usage the word is often applied to any person of the Hebrew race, apart from his religious creed. At one time during the emancipation era there was a tendency among Jews to avoid the application of the term to themselves; and from 1860 onward the words 'Hebrew' and 'Israelite' were employed to represent persons of Jewish faith and race.

At the present time the name 'Jew' is being more commonly employed."-J. Jacobs, Jew (Jewish encyclopedia, v. 7, p. 174).-There have been two principal conjectures as to the origin of the name Hebrews, by which the descendants of Abraham were originally known. One derives the name from a progenitor, Eber; the other finds its origin in a Semitic word signifying "over," or "crossed over." In the latter view, the name was applied by the Canaanites to people who came into their country from beyond the Euphrates. Ewald, who rejects this latter hypothesis, says: "While there is nothing to show that the name emanated from strangers, nothing is more manifest than that the nation called themselves by it and had done so as long as memory could reach; indeed this is the only one of their names that appears to have been current in the earliest times. The history of this name shows that it must have been most frequently used in the ancient times, before that branch of the Hebrews which took the name of Israel became dominant, but that after the time of the Kings it entirely disappeared from ordinary speech, and was only revived in the period immediately before Christ, like many other names of the primeval times, through the prevalence of a learned mode of regarding antiquity, when it came afresh into esteem through the reverence then felt for Abraham."-H. Ewald, History of Israel, v. 1, p. 284. After the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity-the returned exiles being mostly of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin"the name of Judah took the predominant place in the national titles. As the primitive name of 'Hebrew' had given way to the historical name of Israel, so that of Israel now gave way to the name of 'Judaean' or 'Jew.'"-A. P. Stanley, Lec

tures on the history of the Jewish church, v. 3, p.

ΙΟΙ.

Formation of Hebrew nation.-"The traditions indicate that the Hebrew nation is composed of four groups of tribes, which are said to be descended from four mothers. Of these groups the most important are the Leah tribes and the Rachel tribes. . . . There is considerable evidence, both archæological and biblical, to show that the Leah tribes entered Palestine and secured a footing there about 1375-1350 B.C., and that the Rachel tribes did not enter the country until 1200 B.C. or later. The evidence indicates that the Leah tribes entered the land from the south, the Rachel tribes from the east. The probability is that the Rachel tribes only were in Egypt, that it was they who were led out by Moses, and that it was with them that the covenant was made at the burning mountain called Horeb."-G. A. Barton, Religions of the world, p. 60.

Religion and the prophets.-"Analogy makes it probable that the religion of these tribes before they entered Palestine did not differ materially from that of other nomadic tribes about them. . . . Each tribe may have had its deity; at least we hear of a god Gad (Isa. 65:11) which was probably originally the god of the tribe Gad, and there is reason to believe that the tribe of Asher worshiped the goddess Ashera. In the tribe of Judah some Kenites settled. The Kenite god was Yahweh (Jehovah), and the J document written in Judah reflects the belief that the worship of Yahweh went back to the earliest times (Gen. 4:26). We cannot now determine the date of this fusion. It is possible that it began before the settlement of the Leah tribes in Palestine. . . . A theory that has in recent years won the assent of the majority of the writers on the religion of Israel is that Yahweh was the god of the Midianite-Kenites before he became the God of Israel.

There are indications that Yahweh may have been a divine name in North Arabia for . . a thousand years before Moses, and that emigrants from this region to Babylonia and Palestine had carried the name to those countries. . . . Moses, fleeing from Egypt, married the daughter of Jethro. Yahweh's priest among the Midianite-Kenites. At the burning bush on Yahweh's volcanic mountain he was so impressed with the power and majesty of