MR. GLADSTONE'S CONTROVERSIAL METHOD. 525 



people,* notwithstanding the strong prohibition in the law of 

 Moses (Isaiah lxv, 4"). But, in the first place, Isaiah's writings 

 form no part of the " law of Moses " ; and, in the second place, 

 the people denounced by the prophet in this passage are neither 

 the possessors of pigs, nor swineherds, but those "which eat 

 swine's flesh and broth of abominable things is in their vessels." 

 And when, in despair, I turned to the provisions of the law itself, 

 my difficulty was not cleared up. Leviticus xi, 8 (Revised Ver- 

 sion) says, in reference to the pig and other unclean animals : 

 " Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not 

 touch." In the revised version of Deuteronomy xiv, 8, the words 

 of the prohibition are identical, and a skillful refiner might pos- 

 sibly satisfy himself, even if he satisfied nobody else, that " car- 

 cass " means the body of a live animal as well as of a dead one ; 

 and that, since swineherds could hardly avoid contact with 

 their charges, their calling was implicitly forbidden, f Unfortu- 

 nately, the authorized version expressly says " dead carcass " ; 

 and thus the most rabbinically minded of reconcilers might find 

 his casuistry foiled by that great source of surprises, the " original 

 Hebrew." That such check is at any rate possible, is clear from 

 the fact that the legal uncleanness of some animals, as food, did 

 not interfere with their being lawfully possessed, cared for, and 

 sold by Jews. The provisions for the ransoming of unclean 

 beasts (Leviticus xxvii, 27) and for the redemption of their suck- 

 lings (Numbers xviii, 15) sufficiently prove this. As the late Dr. 

 Kalisch has observed in his Commentary on Leviticus, Part II, 

 p. 129, note : 



Though asses and horses, camels and dogs, were kept by the Israelites, they 

 were, to a certain extent, associated with the notion of impurity ; they might be 

 turned to profitable account by their labor or otherwise, but in respect to food 

 they were an abomination. 



The same learned commentator (loc. cit, p. 88) proves that the 

 Talmudists forbade the rearing of pigs by Jews, unconditionally 

 and everywhere ; and even included it under the same ban as 

 the study of Greek philosophy, " since both alike were considered 

 to lead to the desertion of the Jewish faith." It is very possible, 

 indeed probable, that the Pharisees of the fourth decade of our 

 first century took as strong a view of pig-keeping as did their 

 spiritual descendants. But, for all that, it does not follow that 

 the practice was illegal. The stricter Jews could not have de- 

 spised and hated swineherds more than they did publicans ; but, 



* The evidence adduced, so far as post-exile times are concerned, appears to me in- 

 sufficient to prove this assertion. 



f Even Leviticus xi, 26, cited without reference to the context, will not serve the pur- 

 pose ; because the swine is " cloven-footed " (Lev. xi, V). 



