The second group of principles refers to Revelation. The real process
of revelation, by what means and in what manner the infinite and
incorporeal Being makes His Will known to man, and how the latter
becomes conscious and convinced of the fact that a Divine communication
has been made to him, remains a mystery to all but those privileged
persons who have been actually addressed by the Almighty. “As the blind
man who had never possessed the sense of sight is incapable of
comprehending the actual process of seeing, so are we, born without
that wonderful prophetic eye, without the prophetic faculty of the
mind, incapable of comprehending and depicting the process of
inspiration that goes on within the mind of the privileged” (Schmiedl,
Studien, p. 183). God reveals Himself also in nature, in the power and
wisdom displayed in its phenomena. He reveals Himself in the history of
nations, and especially in the history of Israel. He reveals Himself in
the intelligence of man. In all these cases the revelation is made to
all alike. Those who have eyes may see, those who have ears may hear,
and recognise, every one according to his capacity, the presence of the
Almighty in the working of the laws of nature, in the development and
fates of nations, and in the life of every individual person. In all
these cases we can test and prove the revelation by ourselves, and need
not exclusively rely on authority. When, however, a Divine
communication is made to one privileged individual, through whom it is
made known to a whole community, or to mankind, there is no other means
of testing the correctness of the revelation than the trustworthiness
of the privileged individual.
The first lesson or proof given to the Israelites of the fact that such
revelation was not only possible, but had actually been vouchsafed by
the Almighty, was the revelation on Mount Sinai, the מעמד הר סיני,
which became the foundation of the faith of Israel. “And the Lord said
unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may
hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever” (Exod.
xix. 9). The trustworthiness of Moses having thus been tested and
established “for ever,” his teaching remained the foundation of the
teaching of all succeeding prophets, and the test of their truthfulness
and genuineness. A prophet who taught anything opposed to the law of
Moses could not be a true prophet, although he supported his words by
signs and miracles (Deut. xiii. 2, sqq.). Besides, revelation of the
Divine Being had taken place before. God revealed Himself to the first
man. Adam heard the voice of God; he felt the presence of the Almighty,
and learnt the amount of evil man brings upon himself by disobeying the
word of God. The consciousness of the existence of God, and of the fact
that He has revealed Himself to man, has been inherited by the
descendants of Adam. It has not been preserved in all men in the same
strength and purity. The notion of a Divine Being, and of His
revelation to man, became in course of time corrupt, and led to the
corruption of the human race, with the exception of Noah and his
family. “Noah was a righteous man; perfect he was in his generations:
with God did Noah walk” (Gen. vi. 9). The inherited consciousness of
God’s existence and of His rule over man was strengthened in him by
fresh, direct revolution of God. He was told that the wicked would be
destroyed by a flood, and that he with his family would be saved. “The
righteous man” witnessed the infliction which the wicked brought upon
themselves by evil deeds, and also that protection of himself and his
family which had been promised and granted by the Almighty. After Noah
had left the ark the word of God was again communicated to him,
promising that never again would a flood be sent to destroy all living
beings—a promise which succeeding generations up to the present have
seen fulfilled. In the midst of rain the “sign of covenant,” the
rainbow, reminds us still of His promise and its fulfilment. Of the
descendants of Noah the Semites alone seem to have preserved the belief
in God’s existence and His revelation to man in its original purity;
and of the Semites it was Abraham who was chosen by Providence to be
the founder of a family of faithful believers in God, who formed, as it
were, the centre from which the true faith should spread in all
directions over the whole face of the earth. Abraham received Divine
communications, and so also his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Even
when the children of Israel were in Egyptian slavery, and when they did
not hearken to Moses “because of anguish of spirit, and because of
cruel bondage,” the memory of these revelations was never entirely
extinguished in their minds; and when again addressed by Moses and
Aaron “the people believed; and when they heard that the Lord had
visited the children of Israel, and that He had seen their affliction,
then they bowed their heads and worshipped” (Exod. iv. 31). Their faith
was strengthened when they witnessed the fulfilment of the Divine
message which was brought to them by Moses: “And they believed in the
Lord, and in Moses His servant” (Ibid. xiv. 31).
The foundation of the belief in the possibility of Divine revelation
having thus been laid, that belief was further strengthened through the
revelation on Mount Sinai, when every Israelite heard and understood
the words addressed to him by God, “who had brought them out of Egypt,
of the house of bondage;” they heard the very words which Moses
subsequently told them in the name of God, and they were convinced of
the truth of the words of Moses. He taught them that there would be
other persons chosen by God to bring messages from Him to the children
of Israel or to mankind, and at the same time he laid down the rule by
which the truth of such messages could be tested.
A person favoured by Divine communications was called a prophet,
נביא. That which characterised a prophet and distinguished him from
the ordinary man was the privilege of being chosen by Providence to be
מלאך יי “the messenger of God” to man. This notion of the
characteristics of a prophet explains the circumstance that, although
Daniel was favoured with numerous prophetic visions, the book called
after his name was not placed among the Prophets, but among the
Hagiographa. It is on account of his addressing his brethren and
informing them of the Will of God that a person was called a prophet.
[4] By simply receiving a communication, without the direction to
impart the knowledge acquired to others, a person may become a man of
God, a man in whom there is the spirit of God, but not a prophet.
It is our belief that God would not reveal Himself to any one that is
unworthy of such distinction. As a conditio sine quâ non it was
necessary that the prophets distinguished themselves in every kind of
virtue, that they set to their fellow-men an example of purity in
thought, loftiness in speech, and nobility in action. As regards
general knowledge and experience they were inferior to none of their
contemporaries. In the Talmud the saying occurs: אין השכינה שורה על
אדם אלא אם כן היה חכם גבור ועשיר “The Divine spirit does not rest on
man, unless he is wise, strong, and rich” (Babyl. Talm. Shabbath, 92a).
This is certainly a true conception of the character of a prophet,
“strong” and “rich” being understood in a figurative sense: “strong” in
possessing mastery over his passions, and “rich” in being contented
with what he has (Aboth iv. 1). It was a matter of indifference,
however, whether the prophet was strong in body or weak, whether he had
many earthly possessions or none at all.
In spite of his distinction from his fellow-men in wisdom, moral
strength, and contentedness, the prophet remained a human being; he
was, like every other person, exposed to the temptation to sin and
liable to error. The sins and errors of prophets are recorded in order
to save us from despair when we are conscious of our sinfulness, and to
show us the way to repentance. This is illustrated especially in the
history of the prophet Jonah. The records of the sins of prophets serve
as a warning that we should not consider any man as perfect or deify
him.
Although the prophet is assumed to have been wise, surpassing his
fellow-men in knowledge and wisdom, it is by no means necessary to
believe that he was familiar with all sciences, or that he knew any of
the discoveries made in later times. The prophet had frequently to
inform his brethren of what would happen in future, to tell them of
things which no human eye could foresee. But he had in general no
greater knowledge of coming events than other men, except in reference
to those events concerning which he had received a message from God for
His people or for mankind.
Can a man be trained for the office of a prophet? Was there a school or
institution for this purpose? Every one could certainly be trained in
the primary conditions of a prophet, in the exercise of all human
virtues, and in the acquisition of all available knowledge; and it was
the duty and the aim of the prophets to encourage all their brethren to
such training by their own example. But the principal element in
prophecy the Divine communication, depended solely on the Will of God.
“The sons of the prophets” are generally believed to be the pupils of
the prophets; they formed “the schools of the prophets.” These schools,
however, could not have been schools or colleges in the ordinary sense
of the word. The sons of the prophets were instructed by the prophets,
but not with the purpose of training them as prophets. It seems that
the sons of the prophets served as agents for promulgating the inspired
messages of their chief. Most probably they led a simple, pious life,
were God-fearing, and spent their time when meeting together in music
and song, repeating hymns and lessons taught by their master.
An account of some of the messages and deeds of the prophets is given
in the Biblical books; some of their speeches also are preserved, in
the section of the Bible called “Latter Prophets,” נביאים אחרונים.
The speeches of the prophets were in some cases prepared and written
down before they were spoken, in others delivered ex tempore without
preparation, and were written down afterwards from memory, either by
the prophet himself or by one of his hearers, or were handed down vivâ
voce from generation to generation before they were committed to
writing.
There is another kind of Divine revelation which did not find
expression in any message to the Israelites or to mankind, but in a
certain supernatural impulse given to the thought or will of a person
as regards his words and actions. Such an impulse is called
inspiration, and the inspired person is moved to speak or act by the
רוח יי “spirit of the Lord.”
It was the spirit of the Lord that moved Samson to heroic deeds against
the enemies of his people; David likewise felt that Divine impulse when
pouring forth his heart before the Lord in his Psalms. He says: “The
spirit of the Lord spake in me, and His word was on my tongue” (2 Sam.
xxiii. 2). It was the spirit of the Lord that filled the hearts of
those who collected and sifted the Holy Writings containing law,
history, prophecies, and poetry, and gave them the form in which we
possess them now.
We are not quite certain as to the form of the letters in the original
copies of the Holy Writings; but from the way in which the Pentateuch
is written now in the Synagogue scrolls, we may infer with certainty
that the ancient copies of the Torah contained no vowels or accents,
and that these have come down to us by oral tradition.
For the multiplication of copies, human copyists had to be employed. It
is by no means contrary to our faith in the Bible to assume that, as
far as the human work of these copyists is concerned, it must have been
subject to the fate of all human work, to error and imperfection. And,
in fact, there are many copies of the Bible that abound in mistakes;
there are passages in Scripture that vary in the different manuscripts;
hence the numerous variæ lectiones met with in the critical editions of
the Bible. But, on the other hand, it would not be reasonable to assume
that the holy literature and the national treasure, very limited in
size, should have been neglected by the religious authorities of the
time to such an extent that no reliable, correct copy was kept, to be
consulted in case of doubt or difference of opinion. This being the
case with all Biblical books, it applies with special force to the
Torah or Pentateuch, which contains the Divine commandments. The least
alteration made by copyists—unknowingly or knowingly—might involve a
question of life and death. Must it not have been the duty of the
judicial authority to keep a correct authorised copy in a safe place?
It is certainly most reasonable to assume that such a copy was kept,
and that there were in every generation among the priests or prophets
men who had a thorough knowledge of the Law, and could easily detect
any interference with the text. As the laws do not form a separate
section of the Bible, but are interwoven with a historical account of
important events from the Creation to the death of Moses, the entire
Pentateuch, composed of both laws and history, was preserved with the
same anxiety and watchfulness. That great care was taken in copying the
Law we learn from the fact mentioned in the Talmud, that Ezra minutely
examined the three scrolls he found in the Temple, and in three
passages noticed different readings, of which he adopted the one found
in two copies.
The other books of the Bible are of less importance, but the exclusion
of error on the part of the copyist, though it has not the same, has
yet a high degree of certainty, inasmuch as they too formed part of the
holy, national literature. If a mistake should be clearly proved, it
would not be contrary to our religious principles to admit it. But we
shall find, after thorough study and examination of the impugned
passages, that there is in each case far greater doubt as to the
correctness of any of the numerous emendations suggested than of the
traditional and Massoretic text before us. It may frequently occur that
some emendations appear strikingly correct, and yet after due
reflection they are found more doubtful than the original. It is
therefore our duty thoroughly to examine each proposed emendation, and
to hesitate long before admitting the incorrectness of the received
text and the correctness of the emendation.
One of the means of preserving the text of the Scriptures in its
integrity has been the Massorah. The notes which are found in the
margin of Biblical books form part of the Massorah. At first the
Massorah was part of the oral tradition; exceptional forms of letters,
punctuation, and words were probably taught vivâ voce, and learnt by
heart, especially by scribes, readers, and teachers. Where a
confounding with other and similar forms was apprehended, attention was
called to the fact, and by certain notes and rules it was guarded
against. The material for the Massorah increased in the course of time,
in the same degree as, with the multiplication of copies of the
Scriptures, the number of misreadings and misinterpretations increased.
Although these notes were arranged and written down at a late period,
they helped to preserve the Biblical text in its integrity, and it is
therefore stated in the Mishnah (Aboth iii. 13): “Massorah (tradition)
is a fence to the Law.”
As to the name of the author of each book or section, and the time and
place of its composition, we are guided by the headings where such are
extant; in the absence of these we are left to the resources of our own
judgment or fancy. There is no reason whatever to doubt the correctness
of these headings, as the religious and learned authorities of the time
were trustworthy men, who would not add a heading where none was handed
down to them by tradition. Several books and many psalms are therefore
left without a heading; there was no sure tradition about them. How far
the heading of a book or section extends, whether it was meant only for
the beginning or for the whole of it, is in some cases doubtful, and
must be decided by the nature and contents of the book. For instance,
the second part of Isaiah, from chap. xl. to the end, has no heading of
its own; it is therefore open to discussion whether the heading in the
first verse of the first chapter describes only the first thirty-nine
or all the sixty-six chapters of the book. It is possible that Psalms,
ascribed, according to their heading, to David, consist of two or more
parts, of which one only was composed by David. The names of the books
do not necessarily imply a reference to the author. The Book of Joshua,
e.g., may have received its name from its contents, the history of the
Israelites under Joshua being contained in it. The two books of Samuel
could not have been written by Samuel, not even the whole of the first
book, since the death of Samuel is therein recorded; but they owe their
name to the fact that the first book commences with the history of
Samuel.