or more, a minor Sanhedrin ought to be appointed, and of how many
members ought it to consist? Of twenty-three judges.” (Hilchoth
Sanhedrin, i. 3.) Now this is another innovation for which there is no
warrant whatever in the law of Moses. “Moses chose able men out of all
Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers
of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the
people at all times.” (Exod. xviii. 25, 26.) This is the provision which
Moses made for the administration of justice, but he says not a syllable
about the appointment of minor Sanhedrins of twenty-three, so that in
this we have another instance of the effort, which the rabbies made, to
get rid of all the Mosaic institutions, and to substitute their own. And
also another proof that the laws of the Sanhedrin were not given by
Moses, for they require this Council to appoint minor courts, contrary
to his ordinances. It appears, then, from what has been said in these
two papers, that the Sanhedrin was altogether an unlawful tribunal, and
that therefore the oral law can receive no support from its approval:
and it appears, further, that modern Judaism has entirely subverted that
order of things established by Moses. He ordained the priests, the
Levites, as the teachers of Israel. Modern Judaism has turned them out
of their office, and substituted the rabbies. Moses ordained a Supreme
Council, consisting of the priests and the judge. Modern Judaism has
destroyed that Council, and established the Sanhedrin in its place.
Moses appointed rulers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.
Modern Judaism has put an end to that order, and erected new tribunals
of twenty-three. In fact, if it were possible for the Jews to realize
all the commands of the oral law in their own land, and Moses were to
come amongst them again, he could never recognize them as his disciples.
He would not find one of his institutions remaining as he left it. It is
quite absurd, and if the subject were not so grave, it would be
ludicrous to hear the Rabbinists exclaiming that the law of Moses is
unchangeable, when they themselves have changed all its main provisions,
and made an entirely new religion. But to the Jews it ought to be a
matter of very serious enquiry, whether the Mosaic law is unchangeable
or not. If the law be unchangeable, then no rabbinical Jew can entertain
a reasonable hope of salvation, for he professes a religion which has
effected the most extensive changes. In his creed he denies the
lawfulness of change, and in his practice he changes without scruple. If
the law be unchangeable, it is the bounden duty of every Jew to give up
at once the new religion of the rabbies, and to return with all haste to
the institutions of Moses. But if he believe that the law is changeable
at pleasure, then he ought to renounce that article of his creed which
teaches its immutability. In so serious a matter as religion, he ought
to endeavour to be consistent, and not halt between two opinions. If
Moses be his lawgiver, then let him serve him. But if he be determined
to continue in the new religion of the rabbies, he ought to inquire into
their character, and the authority and motives which led them to
overturn the religion of their forefathers. Is the religion of Moses a
bad religion, which it was necessary to renounce? Or, was it only given
for a certain period, and when that period had expired, exchanged for a
new one? Had the rabbies Divine authority for the changes which they
made, or did they change it for their own convenience and interest? The
nature of the changes looks very suspicious, they all added to their
influence and power. As long as the law of Moses was observed, the
rabbies had no power either in Church or State. But by the changes which
they made, they became absolute despots over the bodies and souls of all
Israel. They had, thus, every possible temptation to reject the one and
adopt the other. But is this a reason why the Jewish people should also
reject the law of Moses? They gain nothing, and loose everything, both
for time and eternity, by the change. By adopting the new religion of
the rabbies, they give up the use of that most precious gift, their
reason, in all that regards the law and service of God. A Jew, who
receives the oral law, can have nothing but a blind faith. He has lost
the privilege of considering what God requires of him, and must simply
receive what the rabbies choose to prescribe as his duty: and if they
should even go so far as to tell him that his left hand is his right,
and his right hand his left, he must believe in the decision, and reject
the evidences of his senses. Or, if he should dare to doubt, where
Judaism reigns triumphant, he must be strangled. There is certainly
nothing very inviting in this system, nothing that should tempt a man to
prefer it to the just, and equitable, and rational religion of Moses. He
gives the law of God into the hands of the Israelite, and says, “Behold
I have set life and death before you, choose ye.” He deals with men as
rational beings, and requires implicit obedience, not to the word of
man, but to the oracles of God. He established a supreme council, but
did not permit that council to pass off their own opinions as
infallible, but commanded them to inquire of Him who alone is free from
error. It is truly astonishing that so large a portion of the Jewish
people should still prefer the religious despotism of the oral law; and
it is more astonishing still, that they should be deluded to believe,
that a system, which has subverted all the institutions of Moses, is the
Mosaic religion. But the most astonishing circumstance of all is, that
those Jews who have detected the grossness of the delusion and have
themselves renounced the practice of the oral law, should feel so
indifferent about the welfare of their brethren, and so reckless of the
interests of truth, as to look on in silence; or even appear to
countenance error by joining in the rights and ceremonies of tradition.
Even the tribe of Levi itself has lost its zeal, and abdicated the
sacred office committed to it by God. For eighteen hundred years there
has not appeared in Israel one single person zealous for the law of
Moses. All have been content with calling Moses their master, and there
the matter ends. The priests and the people all unite in violating his
laws, and trampling upon the ruins of his institutions, and then expect
other people to believe that they are the faithful disciples of Moses.
Footnote 35:
Compare Deut. xiii. 13, and Hilchoth Accum, c. iv.
No. XLV.
SANHEDRIN CONTINUED.
How a nation, so acute and so fond of learning as the Jews, should ever
have been imposed upon by so clumsy an imposture as that of the oral
law, is truly astonishing. The exceeding folly of some of its
ordinances, the incredibility of the legends with which it abounds, the
extravagant pretensions of its doctors, the grinding tyranny of its
despotic tribunals, all seem calculated to awaken doubt in the mind of
the most credulous, and the most ignorant. But the utter want of
evidence to support its claims ought to be sufficient to open the eyes
of even superstition itself. To establish the genuineness of an oral
tradition, an unbroken chain of witnesses, from the rise of the
tradition to the present time, is indispensably necessary. The
succession of persons who received it from their predecessors, and
transmitted it to their followers, must be clearly and accurately made
out; and the want of a single link, or the existence of a single chasm
in the chain of transmission is quite sufficient to discredit the whole,
and to invalidate the claims to genuineness. To prove the genuineness of
the תורה שבעל פה, oral law, it is necessary not only to point out a
succession of persons, but a succession of Sanhedrins, for, as we have
seen, the Sanhedrin was regarded as the foundation and pillar of
tradition. If a single chasm in history exists, where a Sanhedrin cannot
be pointed out, or if the assigned succession be inconsistent with the
written and inspired records of the people, the claims of the oral law
are invalidated, and the Jewish nation convicted as the abettors of a
pious fraud, or the unwitting dupes of an imposture. Now we have already
shown that the Sanhedrin was not instituted by Moses, and was never
heard of until after the Greek conquest of the land of Israel; and hence
it inevitably follows, that the oral law is totally destitute of that
chain of testimony, by which alone its genuineness could be established.
From Moses to the Maccabees there is one continued chasm, an immense and
impassable abyss, which separates between modern Judaism and truth. But
as the rabbies have endeavoured to fill up the yawning gulf or rather to
build a bridge in the air for the purpose of passing it, we think it
necessary to examine the success of their efforts. They say, that a
chain of testimony, such as is wanted, does actually exist, and have
endeavoured to point out the various links. If this prove fallacious,
then the last and only hope of modern Judaism is gone; to prove the
fallacy does not require much argument. The chain of testimony as
pointed out by the rabbies themselves, is inconsistent with history, and
wants continuity even at the very commencement. The first part of the
succession is thus described:—
אף על פי שלש נכתבה תורה שבע׳׳פ למדה משה רבינו כולה בבית דינו לשבעים
זקנים ואלעזר ופנחס ויהושע שלשתן קבלו ממשה , וליהושע שהוא תלמידו של משה
רבינו מסר תורה שבע׳׳פ וצוהו עליה , וכן יהושע כל ימי חייו למד על פה ,
וזקנים רבים קבלו מיהושע , וקבל עלי מן הזקנים ומפנחס ׃
“Although the oral law was not written, Moses our master taught it all
in his Council to the seventy elders; Eleazar also, and Phinehas, and
Joshua, all three, received it from Moses. But to Joshua, who was the
disciple of Moses our master, he delivered the oral law, and gave him a
charge concerning it In like manner Joshua taught it by word of mouth
all the days of his life; and many elders received it from Joshua, and
Eli received it from the elders, and from Phinehas.” (Preface to the Yad
Hachazakah.) Now here the want of continuity begins, immediately after
the third link in the chain. That Joshua should inherit the oral law
from Moses is very likely, if there was any to be inherited, but who was
Joshua’s successor the rabbies cannot tell us. It is not enough to say
that the elders received it from Joshua; who were the elders, and who
was the next president of the Sanhedrin, and who was the president after
that? To make out a chain of witnesses, we must at least have their
names, but ought to know, besides, their character, their piety, their
probity, before we can depend upon their testimony. The absence of this
detail shows that the rabbies had no information on the subject, and
were merely trying to make up a story to impose upon the credulous. It
is self-evident that if they had possessed an accurate detail, they
would have given it; but as they do not, we must infer that they had it
not; and as the Bible gives no information on the subject, we must
assert, that the chain of testimony terminates at the second link. So
far are the rabbies from being able to prove a succession of Sanhedrins
from the time of Joshua to their own, that they are compelled to make a
grand leap from Joshua to Eli, and thus to leave a chasm of more than
two hundred years, which of itself is sufficient to overthrow the claims
of the oral law, and to stamp the Jews as the most credulous of men if
they believe without any evidence. It is true that the rabbies endeavour
to stop up this great cavity with a great falsehood. They say that Eli
received the oral law from Joshua’s elders, and from Phinehas; which
assertion implies that all these persons lived to be about three hundred
years old! And yet, if it were true, it would not be sufficient to make
out the proof, for which the succession of Sanhedrins is absolutely
necessary, and especially for this period. From the book of Judges, it
appears, that in the interval between Joshua and Eli, and even in the
next generation after Joshua’s death, the people forsook the law of
Moses, even the written law, and gave themselves up to idolatry. Thus we
read, “And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being
an hundred and ten years old.... And also all that generation were
gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after
them, which knew not the Lord, nor the works which he had done for
Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,
and served Baalim.” (Judges ii. 8-11.) Now, here the inspired writer
says that Joshua and all that generation died, which expressly
contradicts the rabbinic assertion that Joshua’s elders lived to the
time of Eli; and, further, he says, that the Israelites turned aside to
idols: where was the Sanhedrin at that time? If it existed, why did it
not stop the torrent of corruption, and punish the transgressors? And
why was it necessary for God to raise up Judges to do the Sanhedrin’s
work? We do not once read of the Sanhedrin, or any other council,
helping Israel. In the book of Judges, deliverance is ascribed solely to
the judges whom God raised up. “When the Lord raised them up judges,
then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of
their enemies all the days of the judge.... And it came to pass when the
judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than
their fathers.” (Ibid. 18, 19.) Indeed, that saying so often repeated in
the book of Judges, “In those days there was no king in Israel, but
every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” shows that there
was no Sanhedrin either. If any council of the kind, armed with such
despotic power, had existed, the children of Israel could not have done
that which was right in their own eyes. Whether, then, we look at the
Bible or at the rabbinic account, we have a period of more than two
hundred years, during which there is no evidence at all either for the
existence of the Sanhedrin or of the oral law. The chain of testimony,
therefore, offered by the rabbies, is not complete; and is, moreover,
unworthy of credit, as it contains a gross falsehood concerning the age
to which Joshua’s elders lived. A little more examination will show us
that it contains more than one falsehood. After telling us that David
received the oral law from Samuel and his council, it thus proceeds:—
אחיה השילוני מיוצאי מצרים היה ולוי היה ושמע ממשה והיה קטן בימי משה והוא
קבל מדוד ובית דינו , ואליהו קבל מאחיה השילוני ובית דינו ׃
“Ahijah the Shilonite was one of those who came out of Egypt, and a
Levite, and he heard the oral law from Moses: but he was little in the
days of Moses, and received the oral law from David and his council. And
Elijah received from Ahijah the Shilonite and his council.” Now, in the
first place, this statement is very absurd. To suppose that one, who had
heard the law from Moses, should at last receive it from David, is
contrary to probability: but to assert that Ahijah was a little boy in
the time of Moses, and that he lived until the reign of Solomon, that
is, above five hundred years, is manifestly a falsehood, and, whether
wilful or not, completely destroys the credibility of this attempt at a
succession of witnesses. If involuntary, and the result of error, it
shows that the rabbies who have transmitted this story were so weak in
intellect as to swallow any improbability; and that as they transmitted
one lie, they may have transmitted more. But if voluntary, no one will
argue that the testimony of wilful liars is worth much. This last
attempt, therefore, to prop up the authority of the oral law is vain.
But this rabbinic chain of testimony goes on to tell us that, amongst
others, the oral law passed through Jeremiah the prophet:—
וירמיהו קבל מצפניה ובית דינו , וברוך בן נריה קבל מירמיה ובית דינו ׃
“Jeremiah received from Zephaniah and his council, and Baruch the son of
Neriah received from Jeremiah and his council.” Now, if this means that
Jeremiah was the נשיא, or President of the Sanhedrin, it is plainly
false. The whole history of Jeremiah shows us that he was not the
powerful head of a despotic and irresistible council, but an unprotected
and persecuted man. Had he been president of a tribunal so dreadful, and
whose sentence of excommunication was in itself sufficient to protect
him, the people and the princes would never have dared to reject his
words as they did, much less to make an attempt on his life. But if, on
the other hand, it be said that Jeremiah’s council does not mean the
Sanhedrin, then we have another chasm in the succession of Sanhedrins,
and consequently the proof fails again. But this chain of evidence is
not only contrary to fact, and to the inspired writings of the prophets;
it is also inconsistent with the oral law itself, for it asserts that
two proselytes form a part of the chain of transmission:—
שמעיה ואבטליון גרי הצדק ובית דינם קבלו מיהודה ושמעון ובית דינם , הלל
ושמאי ובית דינם קבלו משמעיה ואבטליון ובית דינם ׃
“Shemaiah and Abtalion, proselytes of righteousness, and their council,
received from Judah and Simon and their council. Hillel and Shammai and
their council received from Shemaiah and Abtalion and their council.”
Now, according to the oral law, it is unlawful for proselytes to be
members of any council or tribunal. Respecting the Supreme Council, it
is expressly said:—
אין מעמידין בסנהדרין אלא כהנים לויים וישראלים המיוחסים הראויים להשיא
לכהונה , שנאמר והתיצבו שם עמך בדומין לך בחכמה וביראה וביחס ׃
“None are to be made members of the Sanhedrin except priests and
Levites, and Israelites of so good a genealogy as to be fit to
intermarry with the priests; for it is said, ‘And they shall stand there
with thee,’ (Numb. xi. 16,) _i.e._ like unto thee in wisdom, in piety,
and in genealogy.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. ii. 1.) And even of an
inferior tribunal it is said:—
בית דין של שלשה שהיה אחד מהם גר הרי זה פסול ׃
“A tribunal of three, one of whom is a proselyte, is unlawful.” (Ibid.
9.) If then, it was unlawful for a proselyte to be a member of the
Sanhedrin, or any other tribunal, how is it that we find two at the head
of one of those councils through which the oral law was transmitted? If
the decisions of the oral law be valid, that council was illegitimate,
and therefore totally incompetent to the transmission of tradition, and
then we have a break in the chain of testimony even at that end which is
nearest to the rabbies. But if that council be considered competent,
then the oral law which condemns it cannot contain the true tradition.
But in either case, the genuineness of the law is overthrown.