GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 25 



ing their ritual from the institutions of Moses, hold the flesh of the 

 hog in utter abhorrence. Paxton, in his Illustrations of Scripture, 

 vol. i., says, " The hog was justly classed by the Jews among the 

 vilest animals in the scale of animated nature ; and it cannot be 

 doubted that his keeper generally shared in the contempt and abhor- 

 rence which he had excited. The prodigal son in the parable had 

 spent his all in riotous living, and was ready to perish through want, 

 before he submitted to the humiliating employment of feeding 

 swine." 



We pass over Paxton's description of the hog as the " vilest of 

 animals," because there is no sense in the expression, and its pre- 

 sumed meaning is unworthy notice. It cannot, however, be doubted, 

 from the passage in Luke, (xv. 15,) and from others well known, 

 that herds of swine were kept by the Jews, perhaps for sale and 

 profit. Dr. J. Kitto says, " There does not appear to be any reason 

 in the law of Moses why the hog should be held in such peculiar 

 abomination. There seems nothing to have prevented the Jews, if 

 they had been so inclined, to rear pigs for sale, or for the use of the 

 lard. In the Talmud there are some indications that this was actu- 

 ally done ; and it was probably for such purpose that the herds of 

 swine, mentioned in the New Testament, were kept, although it is 

 usual to consider that they were kept by the foreign settlers in the 

 land. Indeed the story which accounts for the peculiar aversion of 

 the Hebrews to the hog, assumes that it did not originate until about 

 one hundred and thirty years before Christ, and that previously 

 some Jews were in the habit of rearing hogs for the purposes indi- 

 cated. 



The same writer, in a note upon Luke viii. 32, enters at greater 

 length into this subject. " We have already," he says, " intimated 

 our belief that there was much error in supposing that the law which 

 declared that certain kinds of animals were not to be used for food, 

 should be understood as prohibiting them from rearing, for any other 

 purpose, the animals interdicted as food. There was certainly 

 nothing in the law to prevent them from rearing hogs, more than 

 from rearing asses, if they saw fit to do so. It appears, in fact, that 

 the Jews did rear pigs for sale to their heathen neighbors, till this 

 was forbidden after the principle of refining upon the law had been 

 introduced. This prohibition demonstrates the previous existence 

 of the practice ; and it did not take effect till about seventy years 

 B.C., when it is alleged to have originated in a circumstance which 

 occurred between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the sons of King 

 Alexander Janneus. Aristobulus was besieging Hyrcanus in Jeru- 

 salem ; but not wishing to interrupt the services of the temple, he 

 permitted an arrangement under which money was let down from 

 the temple in a box, in return for which the lambs required for the 

 daily sacrifices were sent up. It at last occurred to a mischievous 



