44 Human Levitation. (January, 
in this story, where it is an alternative term for ‘‘ tempter,” 
though Mark, who gives no detail thereof, uses the Hebrew 
“Satan,” and AraBoroc does not occur in his gospel. It is a 
word, then, used by no narrator except in this story; in this 
by only two of them; and elsewhere by Jesus alone, either 
in mystical doctrine and parable, or, once out of three, as a 
name for Judas. From the gospels alone, the only natural 
conclusion respecting this ‘‘ tempter,’’ whether seen convey- 
ing Jesus about, or with him on ‘“‘the pinnacle of the 
temple ”’ (necessarily visible to multitudes), would seem to 
be, that he was some man well-known to the multitude ; 
and this has been the view of those critics in the present 
age who, like Strauss and Rénan, have chosen to ignore the 
existence of any other ancient materials on this history than 
are in every child’s hands. They hold that the priestly 
party deputed some subtle Pharisee to test and expose the 
new Prophet’s claims, and the contests to which he drew 
him, first in the Jordan wilderness, and afterwards at the 
capital, are what the forty days’ temptation denote. Now, 
according to the legend translated for us by Luther and 
Wagenseil, and which was certainly current among the 
jews of the fifth century,* as soon as news of the movement 
excited by the Galilean wonder-worker reached the Jeru- 
salem Sanhedrin, they consulted, and agreed that the miracles 
proved their author to have obtained access by magical arts 
to the adytum of the temple, and stolen from thence the 
knowledge of the right utterance of the mightiest divine 
name, which was well-known to be recorded on a certain 
stone, and the pronouncer of which might effect any prodigy 
whatever. Hence the precautions taken always for its con- 
cealment, since David had found this stonet at his first 
preparing the foundations ; and there was now danger of the 
whole nation, or even world, being perverted, by the abuse 
* T follow Wagenseil’s translation in vol. ii. of his ‘* Tela Ignea Satane,” 
Altdorf: 1681. That this document has undergone no essential change since 
the fifth century appears from its ending with the story of Simeon Stylites, 
whom it confounds with Simon Peter, and regards as the highest authority 
then among Christians. But the reverence of Christendom for this fakeer 
could not continue such as to convey this notion, even to outsiders like the 
Jews, much longer than poor Simeon’s own life, which ended in 459. This 
legend must rank then, for date, with our gospels, no MS. of which can be 
traced with certainty above that century, 
+ The stone, it is insisted, was untouched by tools, yet having ‘‘insculptum 
nomen Dei ineffabile.’ The tradition evidently grew from certain prophetic 
texts, especially Zech.,, iii..gq; having some relation also to Isa., xxviii., 16, 
and Ps., cxvill., 22, the two verses most quoted (ten times) in the New Testa- 
ment. The idea of healings and other wonders to be wrought by the utterance 
of a name or spell, was also plainly prevalent in New Testament times :—Aé¢ts, 
iii., 16; iv., 10, 29; V., 40; and, especially, xix., 13. 
