"Thus was formed a middle category between the peasants or serfs and the free owners, if any such remained."

It will be noticed that in this passage the situation under the Persians is described only hypothetically. It is now clear that in Egypt where nothing changes, at least with abruptness, the system adopted by the Ptolemies is simply connected with that of the Pharaohs through that employed by the Persians. It is probable that the latter made no change in the system itself, the only difference being in the choice of other soldiers to make up the standing army. Even from a remote antiquity mercenaries were numerous in the Egyptian armies as is shown by the Shardana which appear in the texts sometimes as enemies and sometimes as forming a part of the Egyptian forces. In order to guard the important stronghold which was the Key to Southern Egypt, choice was made of Jews. There might perhaps have been some hesitation in assigning them to guard the northeast frontier near their own country; at Assouan they were sufficiently distant from the latter to remove doubt as to their fidelity. It is already known that the Jews, so impatient under the yoke of the Chaldeans, and who later revolted so justly against the religious oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes, were characterized during the Persian rule by an unflinching loyalty down to the conquest of Alexander. Satisfied with the religious liberty which they enjoyed, they kept aloof from the political intrigues of the Satrapes. We have noted in the Strasburg papyrus the affirmation that they had remained faithful subjects to the great King at a time when the Egyptians were in revolt, and how, having had the merit of this exhibition of loyalty, they were not slow in claiming its reward. The papyrus is remarkably intelligible if it be assumed that the Jews formed a part of the army, for in that case their faithful allegiance to the flag would be a matter of capital interest to the Persians.

However, as already stated, we must not too hastily conceive of them as passing their days in the performance of military exercises within the inclosure of the fortress. They were rather attached to certain divisions of the army to be called out in case of need. They were enlisted but rather in the capacity of reserve forces than of those who are stationed in garrisons. In the specifications of the civil status of Mahsiah he is designated, not as a soldier, but as a property holder.

Unfortunately when Egypt is in question it is hard to know just what is meant by property. The dérouques of the time of the Pto

lemies were more than simple possessors; their property could be transmitted by inheritance, but it could not be sold, at least without the tacit consent of the civil authorities. The Jews here in question seem to enjoy a greater liberty since they have also the power of acquiring property. It is true that if they disposed of their real estate, it was for the benefit of their families, and thus the property always remained in the hands of those who were obliged to furnish the military service. In fine, the present writer is not of the opinion that they can be assimilated to the class of colonists in so far as the latter term is opposed to that of property holder such as were the colonists in the time of the Ptolemies and under the Romans when the condition of the colonists had degenerated into mere serfdom. The Persian administration seems to have been much less oppressive as regards the rights of individuals.

It is scarcely admissible, however, that this colony had its own judicial tribunals. The English editors opined in favor of the existence of a Hebrew court of justice; not indeed in the sense that it was proper to the Jews as such, but in the sense in which the Achaemenidae designated their provinces beyond the Euphrates as beyond the river (y), Ezr. iv, 10 etc.) and for greater convenience allowed them to have their courts. But this view becomes improbable in the light of a more accurate translation made by Noeldek ." In reality they appeared before a tribunal which was probably Persian, judging from the name of the presiding officer Demidath, or before Midraag, the governor of the fortress, who was their chief in all military affairs, and who was probably not much in sympathy with them for he is accused in the Strasburg papyrus of allowing himself to be bribed by the priests of Khnoub.

21

Nevertheless they had an assembly for the settlement of affairs proper to themselves, and it was only by the authority of this body that a decree of divorce could be legally granted.

A point which interests us still more than the political status of these Jewish colonists is the question of their religious situation. The Persians allowed them full liberty for the exercise of their practices of worship, and thus we see that they recognized as legally binding the oath taken in the name of Yahu the God of the Jews. Between Khnoub and Sati the Egyptian gods of Elephantine on the one hand,

211787 Sy rendered "at the court of the Hebrews" (Text F, line 3) should be translated: "on the lawsuit that we have undertaken" with a daleth instead of a resh.

and Yahu the God of the Jews on the other, the Persians remained indifferent, and, if we are to believe the accusers in the Strasburg papyrus, their preference was on the side of the greater bakshish.

The Jews were therefore free to follow the religious prescriptions of the Law, but did they do so? We may charitably assume that they did on all points concerning which we have no positive information, but it so happens that in matters where evidence is available, we are forced to admit rather important departures from the regulations of the Pentateuch. In the first place, they had an altar to Yahu, a thing absolutely forbidden by the Law, outside of Jerusalem. The Aramean word agora has no other known signification. If the editors have translated it by the word "chapel" it is because they were loth to admit that an altar could serve as a dividing mark between two pieces of land. True, but the altar could well have been in the open air like that of Jerusalem, and within an inclosure which formed the dividing limit. In no case can the meaning be a synagogue. At a later date we find mention of synagogues of the Jews, not of Yahu. Besides, later still, Onias built a temple at Leontopolis near Heliopolis, and it now appears probable that the text of Isaias which alludes to it is aimed also at other like places of worship: "In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear to Yahweh of hosts; one shall be called the city of the sun (Heliopolis). In that shall there be an altar to Yahweh in the midst of the land of Egypt"... (Is. xix, 18 s). It is allowable to assume that Elephantine was one of these five cities. The prophet does not seem to blame this worship rendered to Yahweh in Egypt; it is viewed rather as a glorious diffusion of the religion of Israel. It is therefore probable that the Jewish colony of Elephantine deemed it preferable to infringe the law prescribing the unique altar than to omit the worship of Yahweh altogether where it was impossible to go to Jerusalem. It is only later that the texts are interpreted in their stricter sense.

The Law made explicit provision for the repudiation of the wife by her husband, but it is silent on the repudiation of the husband by the wife, a thing absolutely contrary to the laws and customs governing the Semitic nomad tribes. The Code of Hammurabi (art. 142) allowed to the wife also the power of divorce. The papyri under consideration provide for the contingency in which the husband might be repudiated by the wife without specified cause, as well as for the repudiation of the wife by the husband. This laxity so contrary to the Hebrew

tradition was probably due to the influence of Egyptian customs. It is well known that the Law forbade a Hebrew to lend money at interest if the borrower was also an Israelite (Exod. xxii, 25) but it did not forbid the taking of interest if the loan were made to a gentile, nor did it in the latter case fix any limit to the amount of interest that might be demanded. We can hardly therefore pass a definite judgment on the legality of the transaction just cited where the interest charged is 60%, for though the lender is certainly a Jew, the nationality of the borrower remains unknown. The little that we do know shows then, that while the Jews of Elephantine remained true to their God, they were nevertheless not very scrupulous as to observances pertaining to the Law. It is evident that from such infractions we are not justified in inferring the non-existence of the Law, since the temple of Leontopolis was founded by Onias III towards the year 174 B. C. at a time when the Law had even been translated into Greek. We only observe that the Jews of Elephantine allowed themselves certain liberties with regard to the observances of the Law. Thus Mibtahiah swears by the goddess Sati before an Egyptian tribunal. Even at that date the spirit of the Jews of the Dispersion tended toward a differentiation from that of their brethren in Jerusalem.

We should nevertheless be exceedingly glad to discover in Egypt a copy of the Torah. We have become accustomed to expect almost anything from that soil which has the secret of preserving so well all objects confided to its keeping. The press has announced the departure of M. Clermont-Ganneau for Assouan on a mission for the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in order to undertake new excavations. Who knows but he may bring back at least some fragments of the Mosaic Law?

M. J. LAGRANGE, O. P.

Jerusalem.

A STARTING POINT IN ETHICS

Charles Plater, S. J.

"As regards Catholic apologetics" says Dr. Barry in that admirable paper on 'The Terminology of Catholic Doctrine' which should be in the hands of every ecclesiastical student,-"As regards Catholic apologetics, we must deplore in many instances the fact that they do not carry, as a military man would say, into the enemies' ranks. They fall short of the mark; they convince only those who are already persuaded; they preach to the converted; and by the general reading public they are passed by as out of date, 'mediæval,' and mere assumptions....So long as comparison is impossible, argument will be ineffective. We cannot join battle with the enemy except in a field where he will meet us. And our temptation is to abide in an entrenched or impregnable camp while he is overrunning the world."

Much has happened in the ten years which have elapsed since Dr. Barry read these words to the International Scientific Congress of Catholics at Friburg. Catholic apologetic has, to a large extent, come out of its fortress and adopted guerilla methods of warfare with some success. Or perhaps it would be better to drop the militant metaphor and to say that Catholic apologists have taken to comparison with the result that their argument is becoming effective.

Sympathetic comparison is not a thing that comes naturally or easily to the ecclesiastical student. It is the prize of strenuous work. It demands much patience and humility, and a great measure of personal interest. It cannot be imparted in a text-bock. It involves what may be called without disrespect, turning the text-book upside down. What we find in our text-books is a philosophical synthesis: constructed in an order which is admirably suited for our own training. That order is determined by what may be termed the objective interrelation of the various branches of our subject,-logic, psychology, ethics, metaphysics, natural theology, and the rest. The determining of that order is a domestic matter, and need not here concern us, though it calls for serious consideration on the part of those who have the direction of ecclesiastical studies. But, at any rate, the student's presumed possession of the Catholic faith makes the arrangement of the syllabus chiefly a matter of pedagogical convenience.