Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Happy reading!
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Prologue
Part One
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
Thirteen
Fourteen
Part Two
Fifteen
Sixteen
Seventeen
Eighteen
Nineteen
Twenty
Twenty-One
Twenty-Two
Twenty-Three
Part Three
Twenty-Four
Twenty-Five
Twenty-Six
Twenty-Seven
Twenty-Eight
Twenty-Nine
Thirty
Part Four
Thirty-One
Thirty-Two
Thirty-Three
Thirty-Four
Thirty-Five
Thirty-Six
Acknowledgments
Back Cover
Prologue
Like the ones before her and the ones after, it’s the glow that draws
her in.
Amory, Massachusetts, is a college town, and, among college
students shuffling across campus in sweats and ripped jeans,
Desiree knows she won’t stand out too much. She ditched her phone
—even if it’s switched off, she has a superstitious fear of being
tracked through it—and she’s never owned a watch. Who the hell
wears a watch anymore? But now she wishes she did because she
has no idea what time it is, and she worries she might be late. It’s
already getting dark, and she can only guess what’s happening
elsewhere. She can see it in her mind’s eye: the old building that
used to be a church but is now a theater, all lit up, the backstage
abuzz with activity, people running back and forth, wired from usual
pre-show jitters. She loves this. Her costume, she knows, is already
waiting for her on one of the mobile racks with their creaky wheels.
The exquisite dress is sheathed in plastic, and a piece of tape with
her name scribbled in Sharpie marks it as hers. Desiree, the star.
The house stands a way off from the road, grass and open space
around it marking it as different. Special. It’s a beauty, shockingly
well-preserved. The only giveaways are the boarded-up windows
that now look merely dark, an inky abyss without the reflective
gleam of glass.
It doesn’t occur to Desiree how she can see all this when there are
no streetlights anywhere near, no lights from within the house itself.
The sky is cloudy, a heavy indigo mass devoid of moon or stars. But
there’s a glow about the place. The house is waiting for her.
Welcoming her. Like it’s hungry for her presence.
Just like all the other times, she has no trouble getting in. The
front door is solidly gated off, but the doors near the back are
unlocked, and she slips in with barely a creak of hinges. Lighting her
way with a trusty flashlight, she goes in.
The first time she came here—only weeks ago, although it feels
like months—she was surprised by how clean it all was. Especially
since no one seemed to guard the place or take care of it. Like the
house hadn’t quite given up on itself.
Downstairs is all emptied out, save for a chandelier wrapped in
many layers of tarp and cobwebs. Upstairs is where all the furniture
is stored, also wrapped to protect against dirt and time.
But the most astonishing things, by far, are the paintings. They’re
all of the same woman: pale face, auburn hair down past her waist.
The costumes and poses and styles vary, but it’s definitely her.
Desiree continues all the way to the fourth floor. Catching her
breath—the climb left her more winded than she expected—she
looks around: the hallway is blocked by some old wooden planks
haphazardly nailed together. There are even bits of old, discolored
warning tape. Just like last time, she ducks under it without effort.
At the end of the hallway, the door stands out, its unusual
ornamentation unlike anything else in the house. The beam of her
flashlight reflects in the smooth, shiny lacquer of its surface; she can
see the ghostly outline of her own face. When she grasps the
handle, the door opens smoothly.
There are paintings of the same woman everywhere. The smallest
one would probably reach just above her waist, the gilt of its frame
glinting dully. She’s overcome with the sensation of being watched,
like the paintings’ eyes move, ever so subtly, to follow her every
movement. Except, before, she used to find it comforting rather than
eerie.
“I’m sorry I took that dress,” she says out loud, not sure who she’s
talking to. “But we needed it for the play, do you understand?”
At the same time, she knows, deep down, she’s being dishonest.
She needed it for the play. But, earlier today, she realized she
couldn’t go on stage in it as it was. Something was missing, the
costume incomplete.
She feels along the wall: in the corner, cleverly camouflaged with
the same drab wallpaper that covers the walls, is another door.
It gives a soft click and opens to reveal a storage space. The lid of
the trunk lifts without resistance. The ray of light from Desiree’s
flashlight roams the trunk’s dusty insides, but, except for some fabric
at the bottom, it’s empty.
An unpleasant jolt travels up her spine. It was here—the jewelry
box. It has to be here. This is where she left it last time, she’s
certain. No one else has been here since. Right? She never told a
soul that she came here.
But the jewelry box is nowhere to be found, just like the stunning
necklace and earrings inside it. She dreamed of it at night. She saw
herself in the costume, with the earrings and necklace glimmering
along her jawline. That’s why she’s risking it all to be here.
She grabs one piece of the fabric at the bottom and pulls it out,
gingerly shaking out the dust. It’s a dress, one she hasn’t seen
before, and she has to admit it’s pretty. And well-preserved, given
how old it probably is. A gown of dark-red velvet. A thought flits
through her mind: if I wore this to prom, everyone would die. And,
so, curiosity wins: she steps into the dress and eases it up her torso.
It’s not a bad fit, truth be told.
At the other end of the room, she notices another door.
Desiree has to duck to pass through, but, forgetting all caution,
that’s exactly what she does.
At first she thinks this new room is filled with windows. The light of
her flashlight bounces like mad back and forth. Then she realizes
that it’s all mirrors, over a dozen standing mirrors, nearly floor-to-
ceiling.
Mesmerized, Desiree looks around. From every surface, her own
face stares back at her.
The darkness behind her seems to be stirring.
In a rush of panic, she spins around, only to realize she was seeing
the mirror’s reflection in the mirror opposite. Face-to-face, the
mirrors create the unsettling effect of a dark, endless tunnel into
nothingness.
With a sigh of relief, Desiree turns back to her reflection.
Only it’s not there. Nothing’s there.
And then, just as quickly, there is something. It takes Desiree a
beat to figure out what—or whom—she’s looking at. Auburn hair still
snakes around a face in wild curls.
But the face is gone. In its place, a smeared wax mask with black
holes where its nose should be. Exposed teeth jut out of gray gums.
Only the eyes are alive. Locking onto her own.
Choking on a shriek, Desiree stumbles back, away and away until
she trips over the hem of her pilfered velvet gown and topples to the
floor. She doesn’t hear the house creak and groan like a waking
beast. She can only look and look and look, her gaze forever fixated
on the mirror.
The floor beneath her creaks too. Dust—or ash?—rises up in small
black puffs.
Floorboards crackle and splinter, giving way beneath her weight.
Like the ones before her, and the ones after, Desiree never sees it
coming.
Part One
One
The first full rehearsal is rough in that wonderful way. Starting a new
work of art always is. And, in theater, it’s even more so: an actress is
both the medium and the message. I’m not just writing a story or
painting a picture and then ditching it—I am the story, I am the
picture, I’m all of it at once, with my body and face and soul.
But, of course, a great costume never hurts either.
I twirl in front of the full-length mirror in the costume room. The
dress is over the top on purpose. Heavy burgundy velvet with gold
brocade and giant rhinestones, the dress is fresh off the rack, but it
fits me like a glove. I do an exaggeratedly clumsy curtsy, flipping the
hem of the skirt up over my knees like my character would have
done. I look a little ridiculous but also, maybe, kind of hot.
Because this role is daring. This role is not for the girl who wants
to play the princess and the ingenue. Sure, Yvonne is a princess,
but…a different princess. This role is for a girl who’s not afraid of
looking ugly or having people laugh at her.
Our drama teacher had doubts when we started casting. I think
even my best friend Eve thought, deep down, that I couldn’t do it.
Not going to lie—I had butterflies in my stomach before my turn.
But, at the audition, I killed it. I left everything I had on the stage.
Even before the cast list was posted, I knew the part was mine.
Eve sticks her head through the door of the costume room. “There
you are! Are you coming? We’re about to start.”
Eve is dressed in her normal clothes: high-waisted jeans, a crop
top, and those flats her mom brought her from Milan that the whole
school envies. She looks me up and down, gown and all. “It’s not a
dress rehearsal, Isa.”
“I know. I think I’ll wear it anyway. It’s what Yvonne would do,
right?”
“You’re way too pretty to be Yvonne,” Eve teases.
“Yvonne isn’t meant to be ugly,” I say. “The other characters just
hate her because she doesn’t fit in. Besides, I think that’s kind of the
point, isn’t it? That looks aren’t everything.”
Eve rolls her eyes and taps one of those fancy flats. I’m one of the
few at our Brooklyn private academy whose parents aren’t uber-rich
—and, believe me, no one at this place ever lets me forget it. Most
of their parents are bankers and CEOs and the like while my mom is
a photographer and my dad does something with school
administration and rich people. Eve’s shoes from Milan cost more
than my entire wardrobe, and, if I want to keep up, I better get
creative. Even then, every so often some mean girl will quip about
how much she loves my “daring choice of an H&M skirt” or
something like that.
It all changed when I joined the theater club. They began to
respect me, grudgingly. And this role will take me to a new level. At
the end-of-term play, everyone knows there are college admissions
people in the audience, looking for talented students. Not that I’ll
ever tell anyone, except maybe Eve, but I could really use a
scholarship.
“You’ve got this, Isa,” Eve says. “You’ll act the hell out that role.
And, if they’re too stupid to give you a full ride to every college in
the universe, then it’s their loss.”
I steal one last glance in the mirror, and a dark thought eclipses
my joy like a cloud.
As if picking up on it, Eve asks, in a lowered voice, “And your
parents? Any news?”
“They haven’t decided yet. They’re up there now, touring stuff, I
guess,” I answer carefully. I don’t want her writing me off yet.
Eve comes over and gives me a hug, making the skirt of the velvet
gown rustle. “It’ll be no,” she whispers. “And even if it’s yes, my offer
still stands. My mom is on board. It’ll be fine.”
“It’ll be fine,” I repeat, willing it to be true.
“Now go and knock them dead.”
I give her the thumbs-up. Velvet dress swishing around my ankles,
I leave the costume room and head toward the stage entrance.
There’s a gasp from my classmates. Wearing the dress was the right
choice.
If my parents go through with this—if they actually make me move
and leave all this behind—I might literally knock them dead.
Two
“I’m not moving upstate with two years of school left, Mom.”
I’d thought about this at length and decided to play it rational. If I
want to convince my parents that I’m mature enough to be on my
own in Brooklyn, having a shit fit won’t help the cause.
“Think about it. It’s ridiculous. I’ll have to go to a new high school,
which probably doesn’t even have a theater program. Everything I’ve
worked for will be for nothing!”
“It won’t be for nothing,” my mom says. “You’re being dramatic,
Izzy.”
“Mom, dramatic is just a sexist word to describe a woman who’s
passionate about what she does. And I’m not being dramatic.”
Only now I realize she used my childhood nickname. Not a good
sign. Only second-worst to my full name, Isabella.
“We thought of everything. The high school in Amory is great. One
of the best in the country…”
“So is my actual high school,” I point out. “And I don’t have to start
over from zero.”
“…and they have a theater program. I checked. Theater, dance,
arts. And they do at the university too.”
“What does it matter?”
“You’ll have a leg up in admissions, for one thing. And it’ll be free,
for another.”
“There’s so much wrong with that, I don’t know where to even
start.” I fold my arms over my chest. “Taking away someone’s well-
deserved spot in the program because my parents work there?
You’re always the first one to speak out against this stuff.”
But, for some mysterious reason, my mom’s social consciousness
seems to have vaporized. Of course. We don’t need it anymore, now
that it’s inconvenient, do we? This whole new development is so out
of character that it’s like someone swapped my once-cool mom for a
complete stranger. My mom, Taylor Brixton, the edgy photographer,
a celebrity almost. Well…she used to be.
“I even showed the dean your Instagram,” she says. “He thinks
you’d be an ideal candidate.”
“You showed my photos to some strange guy? Those are private!”
“Well, you did post them for the entire internet to see,” Taylor
points out. Which is…not wrong, I guess. But still.
“Eve’s parents will move into Eve’s old room and give us the big
one. We’ll each have our own desk. It’ll be fine. Don’t you trust me?”
“I’m not going to impose on Eve’s parents like that.” Taylor—I’ve
called her that for forever, except when I’m mad at her or when she
does things like, you know, turn my entire life upside down (I think it
makes her feel like a Cool Mom, so she doesn’t object)—shakes her
head. “Izzy, you can’t live with someone else’s family for two-plus
years like some languishing exchange student.”
“Mom. We’ve been over this. Izzy is a little girl’s name. I’m almost
seventeen.”
Mom sighs. “Isabella, I’ve always done my best to do things that
are in your best interest. I’ve always encouraged you to march to
the beat of your own drum, haven’t I? I always wanted you to be an
individual, to express yourself and find your voice. Haven’t I?”
I nod. “And now you’re cashing in.”
That might have been harsh, however deserved. My mother’s fair
skin grows pink, and I almost regret what I said. Almost.
She’s not wrong. My whole life, she’s always been as much a friend
as a mom. Except friends don’t rip your life out by its roots for a
bigger paycheck. I mean, there have to be other teaching jobs out
there, a bit closer to home. And why on earth did that college in the
middle of nowhere choose my parents to court, of all people?
Taylor sighs. “Isa, I don’t think you realize universities don’t just
hand out coveted teaching positions with possibility of tenure. We
were extremely lucky—”
“I beg to differ.”
“We were extremely lucky,” she repeats stubbornly, “to even be
considered. Not to mention lucky to live in that house. When I saw it
across that lawn, it’s like—like it was glowing. Like it was calling to
me—”
“That’s not luck,” I sneer. “That’s a quest in a video game.”
“That’s not fair,” Taylor says. “All I want is for you to at least
consider how there might be a silver lining. I mean, you’ll be
surrounded by history and culture…” She’s oblivious to my simmering
fury. “We’ll live in a historic mansion that once belonged to a famous
artist’s model, not to mention your namesake—”
“Isabella Granger,” I cut in. “Yeah, yeah, I can google, big whoop.”
“And you don’t find that the least bit interesting?”
“First, she’s not just an artist’s model. She was a great
philanthropist of her times, a patron of the arts. How crass of you to
remember her as that chick who posed for paintings.”
“Isa, I love you, but this is somewhat in bad faith.”
“Well, I find the whole thing crass. It’s like living at the Louvre. And
wiping your ass every day in front of the Mona Lisa.”
I can practically hear Taylor grit her teeth: crick-squeak. I know I’m
only digging my own grave, but I can’t help it. My hands are
shaking, and my body is hot all over, and, suddenly, all my strategy
is out the window. “I can’t believe you’re doing this. I—I’m the star
of the school play, for god’s sake! How could you?”
And now I’ve done it. Mom’s face hardens. Definitely no longer
Taylor the mom-friend. Taylor is full parent. Something I’ve only
seen a handful of times, and it never ended well.
“You surprise me, Isabella. That’s not how I raised you. There’s
more to the world than Brooklyn, and you’re coming with us. I think
it’ll be an enriching experience, something for you to write about in
your college applications…to places that aren’t Amory University, if
you must.”
***
I let my mom think I’m sulking in my room, but there’s no time for
sulking. I better find a way to fix this.
I pick up my phone and text Eve.
***
“Immediately the fever left her.”――Matthew viii. 15: Mark i. 31: Luke iv. 39. It may seem
quite idle to conjecture the specific character of this fever; but it seems to me a very
justifiable guess, that it was a true intermittent, or fever and ague, arising from the marsh
influences, which must have been very strong in such a place as Capernaum,――situated
as it was, on the low margin of a large fresh water lake, and with all the morbific agencies of
such an unhealthy site, increased by the heat of that climate. The immediate termination of
the fever, under these circumstances, was an abundant evidence of the divine power of
Christ’s word, over the evil agencies, which mar the health and happiness of mankind.
During some time after this, Peter does not seem to have left his
home for any long period at once, until Christ’s long journeys to
Judea and Jerusalem, but no doubt accompanied Jesus on all his
excursions through Galilee, besides the first, of which the history has
been here given. It would be hard, and exceedingly unsatisfactory,
however, to attempt to draw out from the short, scattered incidents
which fill the interesting records of the gospels, any very distinct,
detailed narrative of these various journeys. The chronology and
order of most of these events, is still left much in the dark, and most
of the pains taken to bring out the truth to the light, have only raised
the greater dust to blind the eyes of the eager investigator. To
pretend to roll all these clouds away at once, and open to common
eyes a clear view of facts, which have so long confused the minds of
some of the wisest and best of almost every Christian age, and too
often, alas! in turn, been confused by them,――such an effort,
however well meant, could only win for its author the contempt of the
learned, and the perplexed dissatisfaction of common readers. But
one very simple, and comparatively easy task, is plainly before the
writer, and to that he willingly devotes himself for the present. This
task is, that of separating and disposing, in what may seem their
natural order, with suitable illustration and explanation, those few
facts contained in the gospels, relating distinctly to this apostle.
These facts, accordingly, here follow.
It is deserving of notice, that on this first mission, Jesus seems to have arranged the
twelve in pairs, in which order he probably sent them forth, as he certainly did the seventy
disciples, described in Luke x. 1. The object of this arrangement, was no doubt to secure
them that mutual support which was so desirable for men, so unaccustomed to the high
duties on which they were now dispatched.
Their destination, also, deserves attention. The direction of Jesus was, that they should
avoid the way of the heathen, and the cities of the Samaritans, who were but little better,
and should go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This expression was quoted,
probably, from those numerous passages in the prophets, where this term is applied to the
Israelites, as in Jeremiah l. 6, Isaiah liii. 6, Ezekiel xxxiv. 6, &c., and was used with peculiar
force, in reference to the condition of those to whom Jesus sent his apostles. It seems to
me, as if he, by this peculiar term, meant to limit them to the provinces of Galilee, where the
state and character of the Jews was such as eminently to justify this melancholy appellative.
The particulars of their condition will be elsewhere shown. They were expressly bounded on
one side, from passing into the heathen territory, and on the other from entering the cities of
the Samaritans, who dwelt between Galilee and Judea proper, so that a literal obedience of
these instructions, would have confined them entirely to Galilee, their native land. Macknight
also takes this view. The reasons of this limitation, are abundant and obvious. The
peculiarly abandoned moral condition of that outcast section of Palestine,――the perfect
familiarity which the apostles must have felt with the people of their own region, whose
peculiarities of language and habits they themselves shared so perfectly as to be unfitted
for a successful outset among the Jews of the south, without more experience out of
Galilee,――the shortness of the time, which seems to have been taken up in this
mission,――the circumstance that Jesus sent them to proclaim that “the kingdom of heaven
was at hand,” that is, that the Messiah was approaching, which he did in order to arouse the
attention of the people to himself, when he should go to them, (compare Luke x. 1,) thus
making them his forerunners; and the fact, that the places to which he actually did go with
them, on their return, were all in Galilee, (Matthew xi., xix. 1, Mark vi. 7, x. 1, Luke ix. 1‒51,)
all serve to show that this first mission of the apostles, was limited entirely to the Jewish
population of Galilee. His promise to them also in Matthew x. 2, 3, “you shall not finish the
cities of Israel, before the son of man come,” seems to me to mean simply, that there would
be no occasion for them to extend their labors to the Gentile cities of Galilee, or to the
Samaritans; because, before they could finish their specially allotted field of survey, he
himself would be ready to follow them, and confirm their labors. This was mentioned to
them in connection with the prediction of persecutions which they would meet, as an
encouragement. For various other explanations of this last passage, see Poole’s Synopsis,
Rosenmueller, Wetstein, Macknight, Le Sainte Bible avec notes, &c. in loc. But Kuinoel,
who quotes on his side Beza, Bolten, and others, supports the view, which an unassisted
consideration induced me to suggest.
“Anointed with oil.” Mark vi. 13. The same expression occurs in James v. 14, and needs
explanation from its connection with a peculiar rite of the Romish church,――extreme
unction, from which it differs, however, inasmuch as it was always a hopeful operation,
intended to aid the patient, and secure his recovery, while the Romish ceremony is always
performed in case of complete despair of life, only with a view to prepare the patient, by this
mummery, for certain death. The operation mentioned as so successfully performed by the
apostles, for the cure of diseases, was undoubtedly a simple remedial process, previously
in long-established use among the Hebrews, as clearly appears by the numerous
authorities quoted by Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Paulus, from Rabbinical Greek and Arabic
sources; yet Beza and others, quoted in Poole’s Synopsis, as well as Rosenmueller,
suggest some symbolical force in the ceremony, for which see those works in loc. See also
Kuinoel, and Bloomfield who gives numerous references. See also Marlorat’s Bibliotheca
expositionum, Stackhouse’s History of the Bible, Whitby, &c.
“A lonely place.”――The word desert, which is the adjective given in this passage, in the
common English version, (Matthew xiv. 13, 15, Mark vi. 31, 32, 35, Luke ix. 10, 12,) does
not convey to the reader, the true idea of the character of the place. The Greek word Ερημος
(eremos) does not in the passages just quoted, mean “desert,” in our modern sense of that
English word, which always conveys the idea of “desolation,” “wildness” and “barrenness,”
as well as “solitude.” But the Greek word by no means implied these darker characteristics.
The primary, uniform idea of the word is, “lonely,” “solitary,” and so little does it imply
“barrenness,” that it is applied to lands, rich, fertile and pleasant, a connection, of course,
perfectly inconsistent with our ideas of a desert place. Schleusner gives the idea very fairly
under Ερημια, (eremia,) a derivative of this word. “Notat locum aliquem vel tractum terrae,
non tam incultum et horridum, quam minus habitabilem,――solitudinem,――locum vacuum
quidem ab hominibus, pascuis tamen et agris abundantem, et arboribus obsitum.” “It means
a place or tract of land, not so much uncultivated and wild, as it does one thinly
inhabited,――a solitude, a place empty of men indeed, yet rich in pastures and fields, and
planted with trees.” But after giving this very clear and satisfactory account of the derivative,
he immediately after gives to the primitive itself, the primary meaning “desertus, desolatus,
vastus, devastatus,” and refers to passages where the word is applied to ruined cities; but in
every one of those passages, the true idea is that above given as the meaning, “stripped of
inhabitants,” and not “desolated” or “laid waste.” Hedericus gives this as the first meaning,
“desertus, solus, solitarius, inhabitatus.” Schneider also fully expresses it, in German, by
“einsam,” (lonely, solitary,) in which he is followed by Passow, his improver, and by
Donnegan, his English translator. Jones and Pickering, also give it thus. Bretschneider and
Wahl, in their New Testament Lexicons, have given a just and proper classification of the
meanings. The word “desert” came into our English translation, by the minute verbal
adherence of the translators to the Vulgate or Latin version, where the word is expressed by
“desertum” probably enough because desertus, in Latin, does not mean desert in English,
nor any thing like it, but simply “lonely,” “uninhabited;”――in short, it has the force of the
English participle, “deserted,” and not of the adjective “desert,” which has probably acquired
its modern meaning, and lost its old one, since our common translation was made; thus
making one instance, among ten thousand others, of the imperfection of this ancient
translation, which was, at best, but a servile English rendering of the Vulgate. Campbell, in
his four gospels, has repeated this passage, without correcting the error, though Hammond,
long before, in his just and beautiful paraphrase, (on Matthew xiv. 13,) had corrected it by
the expression, “a place not inhabited.” Charles Thomson, in his version, has overlooked
the error in Matthew xiv. 13, 15, but has corrected it in Mark vi. 31, &c., and in Luke ix. 10;
expressing it by “solitary.” The remark of the apostles to Jesus, “This place is lonely,” does
not require the idea of a barren or wild place; it was enough that it was far from any village,
and had not inhabitants enough to furnish food for five thousand men; as in 2 Corinthians xi.
26, it is used in opposition to “city,” in the sense of “the country.”
Who do men say that I am.――The common English translation, here makes a gross
grammatical blunder, putting the relative in the objective case,――“Whom do men say,” &c.
(Matthew xvi. 13‒15.) It is evident that on inverting the order, putting the relative last instead
of first, it will be in the nominative,――“Men say that I am who?” making, in short, a
nominative after the verb, though it here comes before it by the inversion which the relative
requires. Here again the blunder may be traced to a heedless copying of the Vulgate. In
Latin, as in Greek, the relative is given in the accusative, and very properly, because it is
followed by the infinitive. “Quem dicunt homines esse Filium hominis?” which literally is,
“Whom do men say the son of man to be?”――a very correct form of expression; but the
blunder of our translators was, in preserving the accusative, while they changed the verb,
from the infinitive to the finite form; for “whom” cannot be governed by “say.” Hammond has
passed over the blunder; but Campbell, Thomson, and Webster, have corrected it.
Son of Man.――This expression has acquired a peculiarly exalted sense in our minds,
in consequence of its repeated application to Jesus Christ, and its limitation to him, in the
New Testament. But in those days it had no meaning by which it could be considered
expressive of any peculiar characteristic of the Savior, being a mere general emphatic
expression for the common word “man,” used in solemn address or poetical expressions.
Both in the Old and New Testament it is many times applied to men in general, and to
particular individuals, in such a way as to show that it was only an elegant periphrasis for
the common term, without implying any peculiar importance in the person thus designated,
or referring to any peculiar circumstance as justifying this appellative in that case. Any
concordance will show how commonly the word occurred in this connection. The diligent
Butterworth enumerates eighty-nine times in which this word is applied to Ezekiel, in whose
book of prophecy it occurs oftener than in any other book in the Bible. It is also applied to
Daniel, in the address of the angel to him, as to Ezekiel; and in consideration of the vastly
more frequent occurrence of the expression in the writers after the captivity, and its
exclusive use by them as a formula of solemn address, it has been commonly considered
as having been brought into this usage among the Hebrews, from the dialects of Chaldea
and Syria, where it was much more common. In Syriac, more particularly, the simple
expression, “man,” is entirely banished from use by this solemn periphrasis, (bar-
nosh,) “son of man,” which every where takes the place of the original direct form. It should
be noticed also, that in every place in the Old Testament where this expression (“son of
man”) occurs, before Ezekiel, the former part of the sentence invariably contains the direct
form of expression, (“man,”) and this periphrasis is given in the latter part of every such
sentence, for the sake of a poetical repetition of the same idea in a slightly different form.
Take, for instance, Psalm viii. 4, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of
man, that thou visitest him?” And exactly so in every other passage anterior to Ezekiel, as
Numbers xxiii. 19, Job xxv. 16, xxxv. 8, Isaiah li. 12, lvi. 2, and several other passages, to
which any good concordance will direct the reader.
The New Testament writers too, apply this expression in other ways than as a name of
Jesus Christ. It is given as a mere periphrasis, entirely synonymous with “man,” in a general
or abstract sense, without reference to any particular individual, in Mark iii. 28, (compare
Matthew xii. 13, where the simple expression “men” is given,) Hebrews ii. 6, (a mere
translation of Psalm viii. 4,) Ephesians iii. 5, Revelation i. 13, xiv. 14. In the peculiar
emphatic limitation to which this note refers, it is applied by Jesus Christ to himself about
eighty times in the gospels, but is never used by any other person in the New Testament, as
a name of the Savior, except by Stephen, in Acts, vii. 56. It never occurs in this sense in the
apostolic epistles. (Bretschneider.) For this use of the word, I should not think it necessary
to seek any mystical or important reason, as so many have done, nor can I see that in its
application to Jesus, it has any very direct reference to the circumstance of his having,
though divine, put on a human nature, but simply a nobly modest and strikingly emphatic
form of expression used by him, in speaking of his own exalted character and mighty plans,
and partly to avoid the too frequent repetition of the personal pronoun. It is at once evident
that this indirect form, in the third person, is both more dignified and modest in solemn
address, than the use of the first person singular of the pronoun. Exactly similar to this are
many forms of circumlocution with which we are familiar. The presiding officer of any great
deliberative assembly, for instance, in announcing his own decision on points of order, by a
similar periphrasis, says “The chair decides,” &c. In fashionable forms of intercourse, such
instances are still more frequent. In many books, where the writer has occasion to speak of
himself, he speaks in the third person, “the author,” &c.; as in an instance close at hand, in
this book it will be noticed, that where it is necessary for me to allude to myself in the text of
the work, which, of course, is more elevated in its tone than the notes, I speak, according to
standard forms of scriptorial propriety, in the third person, as “the author,” &c.; while here, in
these small discussions, which break in on the more dignified narrative, I find it at once
more convenient and proper, to use the more familiar and simple forms of ♦expression.
This periphrasis (“son of”) is not peculiar to oriental languages, as every Greek scholar
knows, who is familiar with Homer’s common expression υιες Αχαιων, (uies Akhaion,) “sons
of Grecians,” instead of “Grecians” simply, which by a striking coincidence, occurs in Joel
xiii. 6, in the same sense. Other instances might be needlessly ♦multiplied.
Thou art a Rock, &c.――This is the just translation of Peter’s name, and the force of the
declaration is best understood by this rendering. As it stands in the original, it is “Thou art
Πετρος, (Petros, ‘a rock,’) and on this Πετρα (Petra, ‘a rock’) I will build my church,”――a
play on the words so palpable, that great injustice is done to its force by a common tame,
unexplained translation. The variation of the words in the Greek, from the masculine to the
feminine termination, makes no difference in the expression. In the Greek Testament, the
feminine πετρα (petra) is the only form of the word used as the common noun for “rock,” but
the masculine πετρος (petros) is used in the most finished classic writers of the ancient
Greek, of the Ionic, Doric and Attic, as Homer, Herodotus, Pindar, Xenophon, and, in the
later order of writers, Diodorus Siculus.
H. Stephens gives the masculine form as the primitive, but Schneider derives it from the
feminine.
This avowal of Peter’s belief that Jesus was the Messiah, to which
the other apostles gave their assent, silent or loud, was so clear and
hearty, that Jesus plainly perceived their persuasion of his divine
authority to be so strong, that they might now bear a decisive and
open explanation of those things which he had hitherto rather darkly
and dimly hinted at, respecting his own death. He also at this time,
brought out the full truth the more clearly as to the miseries which
hung over him, and his expected death, with the view the more
effectually to overthrow those false notions which they had
preconceived of earthly happiness and triumph, to be expected in
the Messiah’s kingdom; and with the view, also, of preparing them
for the events which must shortly happen; lest, after they saw him
nailed to the cross, they should all at once lose their high hopes, and
utterly give him up. He knew too, that he had such influence with his
disciples, that if their minds were shocked, and their faith in him
shaken, at first, by such a painful disclosure, he could soon bring
them back to a proper confidence in him. Accordingly, from this time,
he began distinctly to set forth to them, how he must go to
Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders, and chief priests,
and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. There is
much room for reasonable doubt, as to the manner in which those
who heard this declaration of Christ, understood it at the time. As to
the former part of it, namely, that he would be ill-treated by the great
men of the Jewish nation, both by those ruling in the civil and
religious government, it was too plain for any one to put any but the
right meaning upon it. But the promise that he should, after this
horrible fate, rise again from the dead on the third day, did not, as it
is evident, by any means convey to them the meaning which all who
read it now, are able to find in it. Nothing can be more plain to a
careful reader of the gospels, than that his disciples and friends had
not the slightest expectation that he would ever appear to them after
his cruel death; and the mingled horror and dread with which the first
news of that event was received by them, shows them to have been
utterly unprepared for it. It required repeated positive demonstration,
on his part, to assure them that he was truly alive among them, in his
own form and character. The question then is――what meaning had
they all along given to the numerous declarations uttered by him to
them, apparently foretelling this, in the distinct terms, of which the
above passage is a specimen? Had they understood it as we do,
and yet so absolutely disbelieved it, that they put no faith in the event
itself, when it had so palpably occurred? And had they, for months
and years, followed over Palestine, through labors, and troubles, and
dangers, a man, who, as they supposed, was boldly endeavoring to
saddle their credulity with a burden too monstrous for even them to
bear? They must, from the nature of their connection with him, have
put the most unlimited confidence in him, and could not thus
devotedly have given themselves up to a man whom they believed
or suspected to be constantly uttering to them a falsehood so
extravagant and improbable. They must, then, have put some
meaning on it, different from that which our clearer light enables us
to see in it; and that meaning, no doubt, they honestly and firmly
believed, until the progress of events showed them the power of the
prophecy in its wonderful and literal fulfilment. They may have
misunderstood it in his life time, in this way: the universal character
of the language of the children of Shem, seems to be a remarkable
proneness to figurative expressions, and the more abstract the ideas
which the speaker wishes to convey, the more strikingly material are
the figures he uses, and the more poetical the language in which he
conveys them. Teachers of morals and religion, most especially,
have, among those nations of the east, been always distinguished
for their highly figurative expressions, and none abound more richly
in them than the writers of the Old and New Testament. So peculiarly
effective, for his great purposes, did Jesus Christ, in particular, find
this variety of eloquence, that it is distinctly said of him, that he
seldom or never spoke to the people without a parable, which he
was often obliged to expound more in detail, to his chosen followers,
when apart with them. This style of esoteric and exoteric instruction,
had early taught his disciples to look into his most ordinary
expressions for a hidden meaning; and what can be more likely than
that often, when left to their own conjectures, they, for a time, at
least, overleaped the simple literal truth, into a fog of figurative
interpretations, as too many of their very modern successors have
often done, to their own and others’ misfortune. We certainly know
that, in regard to those very expressions about raising the dead,
there was a very earnest inquiry among the three chief apostles,
some time after, as will be mentioned in place, showing that it never
seemed possible to them that their Lord, mighty as he had showed
himself, could ever mean to say to them, that, when his bitter foes
had crowned his life of toil and cares with a bloody and cruel exit,
he――even He, could dare to promise them, that he would break
through that iron seal, which, when once set upon the energies of
man, neither goodness, nor valor, nor knowledge, nor love, had ever
loosened, but which, since the first dead yielded his breath, not the
mightiest prophet, nor the most inspired, could ever break through
for himself. The figure of death and resurrection, has often been
made a striking image of many moral changes;――of some one of
which, the hearers of Jesus probably first interpreted it. In connection
with what he had previously said, nothing could seem more natural
to them, than that he, by this peculiarly strong metaphor, wished to
remind them that, even after his death, by the envious and cruel
hands of Jewish magistrates, over but a few days, his name, the
ever fresh influence of his bright and holy example――the undying
powers of his breathing and burning words, should still live with
them, and with them triumph after the momentary struggles of the
enemies of the truth.
the transfiguration.
Caesarea Philippi.――This city stood where all the common maps place it, in the
farthest northern part of Palestine, just at the foot of the mountains, and near the fountain
head of the Jordan. The name by which it is called in the gospels, is another instance, like
Julias Bethsaida, of a compliment paid by the servile kings, of the divisions of Palestine, to
their imperial masters, who had given, and who at any time could take away, crown and
kingdom from them. The most ancient name by which this place is known to have been
mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures, is Lasha, in Genesis x. 19, afterwards variously
modified into Leshem, (Joshua xix. 47,) and Laish, (Judges xviii. 7: xiv. 29,) a name
somewhat like the former in sound, though totally different in meaning, ( לשםleshem, “a
precious stone,” and לישlaish, “a lion,”) undoubtedly all three being from the same root, but
variously modified in the changing pronunciations of different ages and tribes. In the earliest
passage, (Genesis x. 19,) it is clearly described as on the farthest northern limit of the land
of Canaan, and afterwards, being conquered long after most of the cities of that region, by
the tribe of Dan, and receiving the name of this tribe, as an addition to its former one, it
became proverbially known under the name of Dan, as the farthest northern point of the
land of Israel, as Beersheba was the southern one. It did not, however, lose its early
Canaanitish name till long after, for, in Isaiah x. 30, it is spoken of under the name of Laish,
as the most distant part of Israel, to which the cry of the distressed could reach. It is also
mentioned under its later name of Dan, in Genesis xiv. 14, and Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1, where
it is given by the writer, or some copyist, in anticipation of the subsequent account of its
acquiring this name after the conquest. Josephus also mentions it, under this name, in
Antiquities book i. chapter 10, and book viii. chapter 8, section 4, in both which places he
speaks of it as standing at one of the sources of the Jordan, from which circumstance, no
doubt, the latter part of the river’s name is derived. After the overthrow of the Israelitish
power in that region, it fell into the hands of new possessors, and under the Greeks and
Romans, went by the name of Panias, (Josephus and Ptolemy,) or Paneas, (Josephus and
Pliny,) which name, according to Ptolemy, it had under the Phoenicians. This name,
supposed to have been taken from the Phoenician name of the mountain near, Josephus
gives to it, in all the later periods of his history, until he speaks of the occasion on which it
received a new change of name.
This city, along with the adjacent provinces, after the death of the first Herod, was given
to his son Philip, made tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis. This prince, out of gratitude to the
royal donor, at the same time when he rebuilt and repaired Bethsaida, as already
mentioned, “also embellished Paneas, at the fountains of the Jordan, and gave it the name
of Caesarea.” (Josephus Antiquities book xviii. chapter 2, section 1, also Jewish War, book
ii. chapter 9, section 1,) and to distinguish it from other Caesareas, hereafter to be
mentioned, it was called from the name of its royal builder, Caesarea Philippi, that is, “the
Caesarea of Philip.” By this name it was most commonly known in the time of Christ; but it
did not answer the end of perpetuating the name of its builder and his patron, for it shortly
afterwards recovered its former name, Paneas, which, probably, never went wholly out of
use. As late as the time of Pliny, (about A. D. 70,) Paneas was a part of the name of
Caesarea. Fons Paneas, qui cognomen dedit Caesareae, “the fountain Paneas, which gave
to Caesarea a surname.” (Pliny Natural History book v. chapter 15,) which shows, that at
that time, the name Paneas was one, by which even foreign geographers recognized this
city, in spite of the imperial dignity of its new title. Eusebius, (about A. D. 315,) speaks of
“Caesarea Philippi, which the Phoenicians call Paneas, at the foot of mount Panium.”
(Φιλιππου Καισαρεια ἡν Πανεαδα Θοινικες προσαγορευσι, &c. Church History book vii. chapter
17.) Jerome, (about A. D. 392,) never mentions the name Caesarea Philippi, as belonging
to this city, except in commenting on Matthew xvi. 13, where he finds it necessary to explain
this name, as an antiquated term, then out of use. Caesaream Philippi, quae nunc dicitur
Paneas, “Caesarea Philippi, which is now called Paneas;” and in all the other places where
he has occasion to mention the place, he gives it only the name of Paneas. Thus, in
commenting on Amos viii. 14, he says, “Dan, on the boundary of the Jewish territory, where
now is Paneas.” And on Jeremiah iv. 15,――“The tribe Dan, near mount Lebanon, and the
city which is now called Paneas,” &c.――See also commentary on Daniel xiii. 16.
After the death of Philip, this city, along with the rest of his dominions, was presented by
Cains Caligula to Agrippa, who added still farther to the improvements made by Philip, more
particularly ornamenting the Panium, or famous source of the Jordan, near the city, as
Josephus testifies. (Jewish War, book iii. chapter 9, section 7.) “The natural beauty of the
Panium, moreover, was still more highly adorned (προσεξησκηται) with royal magnificence,
being embellished by the wealth of Agrippa.” This king also attempted to perpetuate the
name of one of his imperial patrons, in connection with the city, calling it Neronias, in honor
of one who is well enough known without this aid. (Josephus Antiquities book xx. chapter 8,
section 3.) The perfectly transient character of this idle appellation, is abundantly shown
from the preceding copious quotations.
The city, now called Banias, (not Belinas, as Wahl erroneously says,) has been visited
and examined in modern times by several travelers, of whom, none has described it more
minutely than Burckhardt. His account of the mountains around the city, so finely illustrates
my description of the scene of the transfiguration, that I extract largely from it here. In order
to appreciate the description fully, it must be understood that Heish is now the general
Arabic name for the mountain chain, which was by ancient authors variously called
Lebanon, Libanus, Anti-Libanus, Hermon, and Panium; for all these names have been given
to the mountain-range, on whose slope Caesarea Philippi, or Paneas, stood.
“The district of Banias is classic ground; it is the ancient Caesarea Philippi; the lake
Houle, is the Lacus Samachonitis. Immediately after my arrival, I took a man of the village to
shew me the way to the ruined castle of Banias, which bears East by South from it. It stands
on the top of a mountain, which forms part of the mountain of Heish, at an hour and a
quarter from Banias; it is now in complete ruins, but was once a very strong fortress. Its
whole circumference is twenty-five minutes. It is surrounded by a wall ten feet thick, flanked
with numerous round towers, built with equal blocks of stone, each about two feet square.
The keep, or citadel, seems to have been on the highest summit, on the eastern side,
where the walls are stronger than on the lower, or western side. The view from thence over
the Houle and a part of its lake, the Djebel Safad, and the barren Heish, is magnificent. On