NOTES.

On page 19 sqq.

The Number of the Principles of our Creed.—The contents of our Creed

has its source in the Bible; there the Principles are taught, some

directly, others indirectly; but they are neither formulated nor

enumerated. The most ancient declaration of faith is contained in the

verse: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One” (Deut.

vi. 4). There is even a tradition (Midrash Rabboth Gen. ch. xcviii.)

that these words were first uttered by the sons of Jacob, when their

father, in the last hour of his life, wished to know whether all his

children were faithful to the inherited religion. We repeat these words

thrice a day, in the morning and in the evening; with these words on

their lips the martyrs of our nation suffered death; these words are

the last which the pious Israelite utters before “his spirit returneth

to him who hath given it.” When the Israelites took possession of

Palestine, at the solemn assembly between the mountains of Gerizim and

Ebal, they were not commanded to recite or sign a series of articles of

faith, but to declare their determination to obey the Will of God as

expressed in the Torah. This was also done by our forefathers when

standing round Sinai. They declared, “All that the Lord hath said, will

we do and hear” (Exod. xxiv. 7). When Elijah on Mount Carmel had

demonstrated the perverseness of the Baal-worship, the Israelites

declared, “The Lord, he is God.” Jonah describes himself thus: “I am a

Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of the heavens, who hath made the

sea and the dry land” (Jonah i. 9).—Also, after the Restoration in the

days of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the Jews were exhorted to act

according to the words of the Torah, and they renewed their covenant

with God in this respect, but nothing is known of a declaration of

belief, of reciting or signing articles of faith.—The struggle with the

Samaritans produced special legislation with regard to certain

religious observances, but there was no need for the formulation of a

creed. But care has been taken that the principles of our faith should

find expression in our daily prayers. Thus the sections which precede

and follow the Shema contain an indirect declaration of the three

fundamental principles of our religion, the Existence of the Creator,

Revelation, and Divine Justice. The first section, called ‏ברכת יוצר‎

praises God as the sole source of everything, of light and darkness, of

good and evil. In the second section (‏ברכת אהבה‎) we acknowledge in

gratitude the benefits of Revelation; and in the third (‏ברכת גאולה‎)

we thank God for the redemption of our forefathers from Egypt, by

inflicting punishment on our oppressors. Although much stress is laid

on faith (‏אמונה‎), and he who was found wanting in faith was

stigmatised as ‏כופר‎ or ‏כופר בעיקר‎ unbeliever or infidel, yet no

creed was officially formulated. Even the discussions between the

Sadducees and Pharisees, which concerned also the principles of faith,

brought only about certain changes in the prayer—such as the

substitution of ‏מן העולם ועד העולם‎ for ‏עד עילם‎ in the responses of

the congregation during the public service, in order to establish the

belief in the existence of another world and another life beyond the

grave.

The necessity of formulating the principles of faith arose when the

contact and intercourse with other religious communities gave frequent

occasion to discussions on these and similar subjects. Without some

fixed basis, it was feared, disorder and confusion would disturb the

peace in the camp of Israel.

Thus Saadiah says in Emunoth Ve-deoth: “I have seen men drowned, as it

were, in the sea of doubts, covered by the waves of error, and there

was no diver to bring them up from the depth, nor any swimmer to take

hold of them and draw them out. As I possessed enough of what God

taught me to support them, and had the power for upholding them granted

to me, I considered it my duty to assist and guide my fellow-men

according to the best of my abilities.” In ten chapters Saadiah

discusses the various theological problems, and defends the following

articles of faith: Existence of God; His Unity; Revelation; Free-will;

Immortality of the Soul; Resurrection of the Dead; Final Redemption of

Israel; Reward and Punishment. Although these principles do not seem to

have been shaped into the form of a solemn declaration or embodied in

the prayer, they are treated as themes familiar to the reader, and as

elements essential in the Jewish faith (‏אשר אנחנו מחויבים להאמין‎).

Rabbi Abraham ben David (Rabad, ‏רא״בד‎), in his Haemunah haramah (“The

Lofty Faith”), seems to assume three principles: Existence of God,

Prophecy, and Reward and Punishment, which to defend from the attacks

of the unbeliever, he considers as the first duty of the Jewish scholar

(‏התורני‎); but he does not follow this decision in his book. He

comprises all religious truths which he has to demonstrate under six

heads (‏עיקרים‎). The first of them he calls “Root of the faith;” it

expresses the conviction that all things in the universe owe their

existence to a “First Cause”—God. Next comes “Unity of God,” which is

followed by “Attributes of God,” “The intermediate causes of natural

changes.” “Prophecy”—or ‏האמונה האחרונה‎, “the subsequent belief,”

i.e., the belief which follows the belief in God—and “Divine

Providence.”

Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi explains to the Kuzarite king his faith as

follows: “We believe in the God of our forefathers, who brought the

Israelites forth from Egypt by signs and miracles, sustained them in

the wilderness with manna, divided for them the sea and Jordan, gave

them the Law through Moses, exhorted them through His prophets to obey

His commandments: in short, we believe all that is written in the

Torah” (Kuzari, i. 8). He then explains philosophically “the root of

the faith” in the following ten propositions: (1) The universe is

finite; (2) it had a beginning; (3) the time of the beginning had to be

determined by the Divine Being; (4) God is without a beginning; (5) God

is eternal (i.e., without an end); (6) incorporeal; (7) omniscient; (8)

all-wise, all-powerful, living; (9) free in His actions; (10) without

change. To these must be added the belief in prophecy, in the truth of

the prophecies, and in man’s free-will, which he fully discusses in the

course of the book.

Rabbenu Bachya, in his “Duties of the Hearts” (‏חובות הלבבות‎),

considers also faith as one of these duties, and expresses it in the

most simple form, “Belief in God and in His Law.” He does not, however,

devote a special chapter to faith. The first chapter treats of the

distinctively Jewish creed of God’s Unity, but less as a duty of belief

than as a duty of research and study for the purpose of philosophically

establishing that God is One. The author states only briefly in the

prefatory notes to the first chapter, that it is our duty to believe in

the Existence, Providence, and Unity of God, as commanded in the verse,

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

Maimonides comprehended our belief in thirteen articles, known as the

Thirteen Principles of our Creed. He insists on the fact that these

articles are not the product of chance; they are the result of long

study and deep research. Every one of them is essential, and he who

rejects any of them is an infidel (‏כופר‎), and puts himself by such

rejection outside the Jewish community (‏יוצא מכלל ישראל‎).

Rabbi Joseph Albo criticised Maimonides’ thirteen articles of faith

(‏עיקרים‎). Whilst recognising all of them as true, he would make a

difference between fundamental principles (‏עיקרים‎) and secondary

beliefs (‏שרשים‎). The former are all those dogmas by which Judaism

falls and stands, without which Jewish faith cannot be imagined; the

latter are those principles which are actually true, but Judaism can be

conceived without them. To the former he counts, e.g., the belief in

the existence of God, to the latter the belief that to Him alone prayer

is to be offered. For Judaism cannot be conceived without the belief in

God’s existence, but could be conceived without the belief that only

God is to be prayed to. Albo further finds fault with Maimonides for

not having embodied in the Creed the belief in man’s free-will, in the

truth of the Biblical account of the miracles, in the Creatio ex

nihilo, and the like. To these objections Maimonides would reply, that

the articles enumerated by him were all actually fundamental, the

question whether Judaism could be imagined without this or that

principle being of no importance whatever; and that the dogmas named by

Albo as omitted, were implied in the Thirteen Principles. According to

Albo there are three fundamental principles (‏עיקרים‎): Existence of

God, Revelation, and Reward and Punishment. The first includes four

articles (‏שרשים‎): Unity of God, His Incorporeality, Eternity, and

Perfection; the second implies three: God’s Omniscience, Divine

inspiration, and Divine messengers (prophets); the third only one:

Providence. Albo’s criticisms on Maimonides have passed away without

effect. The Principles of Faith as formulated by Maimonides have found

their way into the daily Prayer-book in prose and poetry, and have

since formed an essential element in every text-book of Jewish

religion. Modern theologians erroneously quote Albo in favour of

rejecting some of the articles, because he speaks of three fundamental

principles; but they forget that Albo never rejects any of the thirteen

principles; he only insists on making a difference between those which

are more and those which are less fundamental.

On the First Principle, pp. 22 sqq.

Maimonides does not mention the term Creator except in the beginning of

each paragraph as a substitute for “God.” He employs the philosophical

term “First Cause” in defining the existence of God. In the sixty-ninth

chapter of the first book of “The Guide” we find the explanation

thereof. He says: “The philosophers, as you know, call God the First

Cause (‏עִלָּה‎ and ‏סִבָּה‎); but those who are known by the name

Mutakallemim (Mohammedan theologians) are very much opposed to the use

of that name, and prefer to call Him ‘Maker’ (‏פּוֹעֵל‎), believing that

there is a great difference whether we use the one term or the other.

They argue thus: Those who say that God is the Cause, implicitly assume

the coexistence of the Cause with that which was produced by that

Cause, and believe that the universe is eternal, and that it is

inseparable from God. Those, however, who say that God is the Maker do

not assume the coexistence of the maker with his work; for the maker

can exist anterior to his work; we cannot even imagine how a maker can

be in action unless he existed before his own work. This is an argument

advanced by persons who do not distinguish between the potential and

the actual. For there is no difference whether we say ‘cause’ or

‘maker;’ ‘cause’ as a mere potentiality precedes its effect; and

‘cause’ as actuality coexists with its effect. The same is the case

with ‘maker;’ so long as the work is not done, he is a maker

potentially, and exists before his work; he is an actual maker when the

work is done, and then he coexists with his work.”

“The reason why the philosophers called God ‘the Cause’ and did not

call Him ‘the Maker’ is not to be sought in their belief that the

universe is eternal, but in other principles, which I will briefly

explain to you. Everything owes its origin to the following four

causes: the substance, the form, the agens, the final cause. The

philosophers believe—and I do not differ from them—that God is the

agens, the form, and the final cause of everything; in order to express

this, they call God ‘the Cause’ of all things. Every one of these three

causes leads, through a chain of causes, to God as the First Cause.”

Maimonides further points out in this chapter that the choice of the

term by no means decides the question whether the universe has had a

beginning or not.

Maimonides has been severely criticised by his successors for the

absence of the belief in “Creation from nothing” from the Creed. In

“The Guide” Maimonides distinctly states that the arguments for

“Creation from nothing” and the arguments against it are equi-balanced,

and that for this reason he follows the literal interpretation of the

Scripture as regards Creation. Were the arguments in favour of the

eternity of the universe stronger, he would not have found any

difficulty in interpreting Scripture accordingly. Such being the view

of our great philosopher, he could not make the belief in Creation part

of the Creed, or declare that all who denied the Creation from nothing

were unbelievers.

However strange this argumentation of Maimonides may appear, and

however arbitrary his treatment of Scriptural teaching, his view is not

without justification. It seems strange that, in spite of all his

reverence for the Bible, he should have entrusted himself entirely to

the guidance of his own reason, and forced, as it were, the Bible by

peculiar interpretations to follow his reasoning. In truth, however,

the method of Maimonides is neither strange nor arbitrary. There is no

doubt that figurative language is extensively used in the Scriptures,

especially in the poetical and the prophetical books. Whether a certain

expression or phrase was to be understood in its literal meaning or in

a figurative sense must be learnt from the context; in some cases—as,

e.g., in the exhortation, “Ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your

heart” (Deut. x. 16)—the figurative sense is accepted by all, whilst in

other cases opinions are divided. Our decision in favour of the one

interpretation or the other is based on our conviction that the Bible

contains nothing but truth. When we discover a contradiction between a

Biblical statement and the dictates of our reason, we are sure that we

have erred either in the right understanding of the words of the Bible

or in our reasoning. On finding the mistake in our reasoning we abandon

what we have hitherto considered as fully established; but so long as

we are unable to discover where our reasoning is faulty, we either

suspend our judgment for the present and consider the question as one

of the problems which we have not yet been able to solve

satisfactorily, or, whenever possible, we attempt to reconcile by

figurative interpretation the teaching of the Bible with the results of

our research. Maimonides is therefore justified in saying that so long

as reason does not decide against the teaching of the Bible in its

literal sense he would adhere to the latter, and only if reason were to

decide against the Creatio ex nihilo, he would follow reason and

interpret Scripture accordingly.

It cannot be denied that Maimonides travelled here on rather slippery

ground, and set a dangerous example when he admitted that he would

interpret Scripture according to his preconceived view of the world’s

beginning. But, on the other hand, it must be owned that many passages

of the Bible admit of a figurative interpretation, and the reader must

follow his own reason and discretion in deciding in each particular

case which of the two interpretations is the correct one. Maimonides

has not made excessive use of this license.

Saadiah in his Emunoth Ve-deoth devotes the first chapter to the

problem of the Creation. It is headed ‏חדוש‎ “Creation,” and examines

thirteen different opinions as to the origin of the universe. In the

conclusion of this chapter he makes the following remarks: “Perhaps

some one might ask in what manner something was produced from nothing.

To this we reply as follows: If we were able to understand this, we

should not have ascribed the creative act to God alone. But we declare

God as the only Creator, because we can form no idea as to the manner

in which something is created from nothing. Those who desire us to show

them how to do this, desire, in fact, that we should make them and

ourselves creators. We only conceive in our mind the fact of the

Creation, but cannot form an idea or image of the process itself....

There may be some who think little of the universe, and wonder that

this should be the result of all the power and wisdom of God. We reply

that He created as much as, according to His knowledge, would be within

the range of man’s observation and perception, and would be sufficient

to teach man the existence of God.... How can we conceive the idea that

the universe counts only 4633 years? But the universe has been created,

as we believe, and must have had a beginning at a certain time. Suppose

we had been living in the year 100; we should then not have been

surprised: why should we be surprised now?” The question as to the

purpose for which the universe was created, Saadiah makes three

attempts to answer. Maimonides, however, in “The Guide,” more

correctly, shows that the question is unanswerable and superfluous.

For, whatever purpose we assume, we must always further inquire what is

the purpose of this purpose, and so on ad infinitum, till we arrive at

the answer, it was the Will of God. If the prophet declares that God

“hath not created it in vain, but hath formed it for dwelling,” he

likewise says implicitly it was the Will of God that the earth should

be for a dwelling.

The question, however, arises whether the Biblical account of the

Creation harmonises in all its parts with the results of scientific

research. To prove the existence of harmony between the two discordant

elements has been since days of old the task which theologians proposed

to themselves; philosophic culture forced them to accept the doctrines

of a certain school of thought as established truths, whilst religious

feeling would not allow them to abandon the teaching of the inspired

writers. But the search after this harmony was superfluous, and the

harmony found was illusory. For, whilst the teaching of the Bible

remains unchanged, the systems of philosophy and science, like

everything human, have no claim to permanency; each system has its

season; it begins to shine, and rises higher and higher; and when it

has reached the zenith, it begins steadily to decline till it

disappears beneath the horizon of science. So long as Aristotle and

Ptolemy were dominant, theologians exerted themselves to show that the

account contained in the first chapter of Genesis fully harmonises with

Aristotle and Ptolemy. When these princes were dethroned, and their

places were occupied by others, the old harmony was gone, and a new

method had to be invented. Maimonides has clearly pointed out how the

conflict between reason and faith, where it existed, could best be

brought to a conclusion. Such of the laws of nature as have been

established by human acumen and human observation have been discovered

in the phenomena of existing nature; but the phenomenon of creation has

never been observed in nature from which we could learn the laws of

creation.

In the seventeenth chapter of the Second Book of “The Guide” Maimonides

says as follows: “Everything produced comes into existence from

non-existence; even when the substance of a thing has been in

existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself which has

gone through the process of genesis and development, after having

arrived at its final state, has properties different from those which

it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to

reality or before that time.... It is quite impossible to infer from

the qualities which a thing possesses after having passed through all

the stages of its development what its condition was at the moment when

this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing at that

moment show what its previous condition had been. If you make this

mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential

existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into

great confusion; you will reject evident truth and admit false

opinions.... If philosophers would consider this well, and reflect on

it, they would find that it represents exactly the dispute between

Aristotle and ourselves. We, the followers of Moses, our teacher, and

of Abraham, our father, believe that the universe has been produced

from nothing, and has developed in a certain manner, and that it has

been created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found

their objections on the properties which the things in the universe

possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the

existence of these properties, but hold that these properties

themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. The

arguments of our opponents are thus refuted; they have demonstrative

force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at

present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion.”

This reasoning holds good with regard to the modern theory of

Evolution. We may be able to discover numerous facts in evidence of

this theory, we may well conceive the idea of a protoplasm developing

into a whole system of worlds, and yet our belief in the truth of the

Biblical account of the Creation is not shaken in the least. The laws

of Evolution are the result of the creative act of the Almighty, and

not its causes; they include nothing that could disprove the

correctness of the theory of Creatio ex nihilo.

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, in his “Commentary on Genesis” (i.) says: “The word

‏בראשית‎ ‘in the beginning,’ teaches that nothing preceded the act of

Creation; that there was a Creatio ex nihilo. This truth forms the

foundation of the faith which the Divine Law is intended to establish

in our hearts. The opposite theory is the doctrine of the eternity of

the substance, a theory which leaves to the Creator nothing but the

function of giving form to the substance that has existed already from

eternity, and which has been the basis of the heathen belief up to the

present day.... The first word of the Torah dispels the darkness of

this false belief; and the words, ‘The opening of thy word giveth

light’ (Ps. cxix. 130), have in the Midrash correctly been applied to

the word ‏בראשית‎. Everything, the matter and the form of all beings,

is the result of the free will of the Creator, who continues to rule

matter and form, and to determine both the natural forces and the laws

of their action. For it is His free will that created matter, endowed

it with certain forces, and fixed the laws by which the forces impress

the different forms on it.”

The idea of development and evolution is not entirely excluded from the

account of the Creation. Not in one moment or in one day was the

universe produced, but in six days by successive creations of a

systematic order. In Mishnah Aboth (v. 1) this is expressed in the

following way: “By ten words (‏מאמרות‎) the universe was created,

although this could have been done by one word.” Commentators have

variously attempted to explain this fact, and to show that the order

observed in the Creation was determined by the nature of the things

themselves. Thus Ibn Ezra believes that the successive creations were

the results of the continued action of light and heat. [19] But it is

by no means necessary to reconcile the Biblical account with every

theory that happens to be considered by some scholar or school as the

right one. There may be found in nature and in the working of the

natural laws some facts analogous to certain acts of the creation; but

a perfect equality of two such incongruent things as the creation from

nothing and development of created beings is impossible. By forcing the

text of the Bible into such harmony we deprive the account of its

poetry and beauty, and weaken the force of its teaching.

Science teaches that millions of millions of years must have elapsed

before the earth received its present form; that it took millions of

years before the light of certain stars could reach the earth. In all

these calculations one important factor is ignored, viz., that for

every development something must be given, which is subject to the

process of developing; to determine in what condition that something

was, when it passed from the passive state of creation to the active

state of developing, is a problem for the solution of which there is no

analogy in nature. He who could create a germ endowed with all the

natural forces required for development and differentiation into the

great variety of forms which we perceive at present, must certainly

have been able to create the things actually endowed with these forms.

Thus, also, the various strata of the earth, whatever forms they

contain, cannot with certainty be described as the results of

development; they may just as well have come directly from the hand of

the Creator.

Maimonides (The Guide, xxx.) says in reference to this question: “You

should also know the dictum of our Sages—‘All the beings of the work in

the beginning (‏מעשה בראשית‎) were created in their full height, their

fully developed reason, and endowed with the best of properties.’ Note

this, for it involves an important principle.—The work of the Creation

went on for six days; every day brought to light a new force, a new

result of a creative action, but on the seventh day ‘God declared [20]

the work which He had done as finished,’ as endowed with the properties

and forces required for their further development” (The Guide, I.

lxvii.).

Science has proved, it is maintained, that the earth does not form the

centre of the universe, and that man does not form the principal object

in nature, in opposition to the teaching of the Scriptures that the

earth is the centre round which the whole universe revolves, and that

man on earth is the lord of the creation. Whatever view the authors of

the Biblical books held as regards the systems of the universe, whether

they placed the earth in the centre or not, whether all the stars and

systems of stars existed, in their opinion, only for the sake of the

earth or for the benefit of man, their object was to address man, to

instruct him, and to teach him the omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness of

God. For this reason the account of the Creation is given in such a

manner that man should be able to reproduce in his mind the work of

each day of the Creation, to view it from his standpoint, and to

recognise the benefits each day’s work bestowed on him. The fact that

other beings are benefited at the same time, and that the benefit they

derive is likewise part of the Creator’s design, is by no means denied

by those who believe that the well-being of man was included in the

design of the Creator. It is part of our duty of gratitude to ascribe

the benefits we enjoy to their Author. The prophets and the inspired

singers knew well the place which weak and mortal man occupies in the

universe; but they did not ignore the dignity and importance with which

the Creator endowed him in spite of all his weakness and apparent

insignificance. “What is man,” exclaims the Psalmist, “that thou art

mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? And yet

thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and hast crowned him

with glory and honour” (Ps. viii. 5, 6).

On the Fifth Principle, p. 44.

The principle that no other being but God is worthy of being addressed

in prayer implies the belief that God can fulfil our petitions. We

believe in the efficacy of prayer. It is true that when we communicate

our wishes to the Most Holy, our just Lord and our loving Father, we

are eo ipso reminded to examine our desires, whether they contain

anything unholy, anything unjust or ignoble. Prayer to God has

therefore the salutary effect of purifying, refining, and ennobling our

heart. It banishes evil thoughts, and thus saves us much pain and

sorrow. This effect may have been designed by the Creator, and it may

be for this purpose that He has endowed us with a natural impulse to

pray, and has taught us to pray in His Holy Word. But this cannot be

the direct object of prayer. The immediate effect sought to be obtained

by this act is the fulfilment of our wishes. Every such fulfilment

implies a miracle, a deviation from the regular course of nature. We

are not in the habit of praying for things which we expect as the sure

result of the natural laws; we may praise and admire nature in its

workings, but we shall never ask nature for the fulfilment of our

desires. Only those things which we believe to be dependent solely on

the free decision of the Supreme Being can form the substance of our

petitions; and since we believe that everything, the regular working of

the natural laws not excepted, depends on the Will of God, we include

in the objects of prayer whatever concerns the well-being of individual

man and society at large.

There have been thinkers that formed such an idea of God that they were

compelled to deny Him every direct influence on human affairs. Some

thought it incompatible with the notion of God’s Unity and Immutability

that He should be moved by man’s prayer to do something which otherwise

He would not have done. Again, others believe that the laws of

nature—whether given by God or not—are so permanent that they never

change under any circumstances. Prayer has therefore been explained to

be of a purely subjective character, and to effect only the

above-mentioned improvement of man’s heart. But could we really pray to

God to grant us the one thing or the other if we were convinced that He

cannot grant us anything, but must allow nature to take its course? Can

a prayer offered in such a frame of mind be called a “prayer without

lips of deceit”? In opposition to such theories our teachers purposely

introduced into the daily prayer here and there a reminder of the true

theory in words like the following: ‏המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה

בראשית‎ “Who repeateth anew every day regularly the work of the

Creation.” He is constantly ‏יוצר אור‎, ‏בורא חשך‎, ‏מחיה המתים‎; He

constantly “formeth light,” “createth darkness,” “giveth life to the

dead,” &c.; they have expressed our gratitude to God ‏על נסים שבכל יום

עמנו ועל נפלאתיך וטובתיך שבכל עת‎ “for His miracles which in our behalf

He performs every day, and for His wonders and kindnesses shown at all

times.”

“This idea of God’s real and active rule in the universe is the basis

of prayer. It is not only the belief in the truth of the Biblical

account of miracles that enables us to pray to our Father, but the

conviction that wonders and miracles are constantly wrought by Him. In

the Talmud and in the Midrash man’s earning his daily bread (‏פרנסה‎)

is declared to be a miracle by no means inferior to the miracles

wrought for the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt.—‘Is need

greatest, is God nearest,’ is a well-known saying, the truth of which

many have experienced in the course of their life. Those who have been

dangerously ill, and after having found that man, with all his science

and resources, was incapable of affording relief, gradually recover

their former health; those who have shared with others a common danger,

and while their companions, under exactly the same circumstances,

perished, were themselves saved; those who, having exhausted every

means conceivable to them of obtaining a livelihood, at length find a

new path of subsistence opened to them: all these have experienced the

Divine help and His nearness in their distress; they have learnt to

recognise the miraculous power of Providence. But it is not only in

such extraordinary events that the finger of God is seen; to him who

has eyes to see they appear daily and hourly. We are exposed to many

dangers, the existence of which we frequently only learn when we are

safe; we escape them by a miracle.” [21]

The Immutability of God and of His decrees is frequently insisted upon

in Scripture. “I, the Lord, I change not” (Mal. iii. 6). “God is not a

man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent”

(Num. xxiii. 19). “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for

he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Sam. xv. 29). “And he hath

established them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree, and it shall

not pass away” (Ps. cxlviii. 6).—This immutability, however, does not

interfere with the free-will of man and its consequences. The teaching

of the Bible is beautifully expressed in the well-known sentence:

‏תשובה תפלה וצדקה מעבירין את רע הגזרה‎ “Repentance, prayer, and good

deeds remove the evil of the divine decree” (Musaf of Rosh ha-shanah);

whatever a man has forfeited by evil deeds, he may recover by prayer

and improved conduct. This lesson is taught in the Bible on every page,

and is illustrated by the history of Israel. For this reason the

prophets were sent to the people of Israel to exhort them, and to show

them how they could, by means of repentance, ward off the impending

catastrophe. To non-Israelites the same mercy was extended, as is shown

by the history of the mission of the prophet Jonah.—Mishnah Aboth (iv.

13) therefore declares, “Repentance and good deeds are like a shield

against punishment,” ‏תשובה ומעשים טובים כתריס בפני הפרענות‎.

The seeming incongruity of the two principles, God’s immutability and

man’s hope for mercy and pardon from God, has to some extent occupied

the attention of our ancient teachers. “If our condition for a whole

year is determined in advance, what is the good of our daily prayers

and our supplication for God’s help in times of trouble?” Such is the

question asked in the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-shanah (16a), and the

answer is given, ‏יפה צעקה קודם גזרה ואחר גזרה‎ “Prayer is of good

effect both before the decree and afterwards.” It is always in the

power and in the will of the Almighty to accede to our petitions and to

fulfil our wishes. The question has since been repeated frequently, but

no better solution has as yet been supplied.

Abraham, who was the first teacher of monotheism, has also been made by

tradition the father of prayer. In the Biblical account he is the first

who uttered a prayer; a prayer in the true sense of the word, not for

himself, but for his fellow-men. The words of Cain, ‏גדול עוני מנשא‎

“My punishment is greater than I can bear,” have not the character of

prayer, nor can the “calling by the name of God” in the age of Enosh be

considered with certainty as an expression of prayer. Tradition

relates, therefore, that before Abraham there was no one that called

God by the name ‏אדון‎ “Lord.” Abraham was the first who recognised God

as Lord of man, in whose hand his fate lies,—the condition sine quâ non

of prayer. From Abraham onwards prayer remained the chief refuge in

danger, and the best, solace and relief in time of trouble.

Whilst, however, insisting on the belief in the efficacy of prayer, our

Sages teach us that it would be wrong to expect that every petition

uttered before God must be granted. We pray to the Almighty, being

convinced that it is in His power to grant what we pray for; but we

must trust in the wisdom and mercy of God, that the rejection of our

petition is also for our good. “He is near to all those who call on

him, to all those that call on him in truth,” who continue to trust in

Him and His goodness even when their wishes are not fulfilled. It would

be almost equal to superstition to believe that any words, however

earnest and devout, uttered by us will infallibly have the desired

effect. The Mishnah (Aboth ii. 13) therefore teaches: ‏אל תעש תפלתך קבע

אלא רחמים ותחנונים‎ “Do not make thy prayer a fixed claim or demand,

which must be fulfilled, but a supplication for mercy, which may or may

not be granted.” The belief that the prayer will undoubtedly be

fulfilled is denounced in the Talmud as ‏עיון תפלה‎ “Looking out with

certainty for the effect of the prayer.” [22] Since the principal

object of prayer is the granting of our petitions, prayer will be

superfluous when no wants will any longer be felt, ‏לעתיד לבוא התפלות

בטלות‎ “In future prayers will be discontinued;” only ‏תפלת תודה אינה

בטלה לעולם‎ “The prayer of thanksgiving will never be discontinued.”

“In the enjoyment of the purest blessings our feelings of gratitude

will never die out” (Yalkut on Ps. lvi.).

Rabbi Joseph Albo, in the book Ikkarim, says (IV. xvi.): “Although

Prayer is not one of the principles of our Torah, it is intimately

connected with the belief in Providence, and every one who believes in

Providence ought to believe in the efficacy of prayer. For he who does

not pray to God in time of trouble either does not believe in Divine

Providence, or if he does believe, he doubts whether God is able to

supply his wants; in both cases man is an unbeliever. It is also

possible that a person who believes in Divine Providence and in God’s

Omnipotence doubts whether he deserves that his prayer should be

granted—a feeling of humility which ought indeed to fill the heart of

every person—but this idea must not prevent him altogether from praying

to God concerning his wants. If he does not pray from this reason, he

may believe in God’s justice, but he does not believe in His mercy and

kindness. It is also contrary to the teaching of the Bible. ‘Not

relying on our righteousness do we offer our supplication before you,

but on your great mercy!’ For the benefits bestowed by God on His

creatures are acts of love, not of recompense.... Man receives

benefits, whether he is entitled to them or not, because prayer gives

him a qualification which he does not possess by nature, and enables

him to receive such good things as could not be obtained from any other

being or through any other means....

“There are some who doubt the efficacy of prayer; they argue thus: We

must assume that a certain good thing has been either decreed or not

decreed in favour of a certain person: if it has been decided, prayer

is not wanted; and if it has not been decided, how can prayer effect a

change in the Will of God, who is unchangeable? Neither righteousness

in action, nor prayer, is of any avail in procuring any good thing that

has not been ordained, or in escaping any evil that has been decreed.

This is also the argument of Job in chap. xxi. But the answer to these

arguments is this: Whatever may have been decreed, certain conditions

must be fulfilled before the decree is executed. If a good harvest is

decreed to a certain person, he must plough and sow before he can

secure such a harvest; if punishment is decreed against him, the

punishment is not inflicted in the absence of continued and repeated

sinning. The history of King Ahab shows that the evil decreed against

any sinner takes no effect if the sinner repents and is turned into

another man. The change that takes place in man himself is the direct

effect of prayer and righteousness; it prepares and qualifies him for

receiving benefits and protection from evil. Our Sages say therefore:

Prayer has its good effect both before and after the Divine decree. The

Immutability of God is not less consistent with Efficacy of Prayer than

it is with His knowledge of things which are possible, and may happen

or may not happen. God and His knowledge being unchangeable, everything

must be certain and nothing merely possible. And yet we are convinced

of the existence of these things, and believe at the same time in the

Immutability of God’s knowledge. In the same manner we are convinced of

the Efficacy of Prayer without doubting the Immutability of God’s

Will.”

On Revelation, p. 46.

The term ‏נביא‎ “prophet” only expressed the prophet’s function of

addressing his fellow-men when inspired and impelled by the Spirit of

the Lord. The verb “to prophesy” is therefore in Hebrew expressed by

the nifal or passive. In so far as the Word of God has been revealed to

him he is called ‏ראה‎, ‏חוזה‎ and ‏צפה‎ “Seer,” ‏איש אלהים‎ “Man of

God,” ‏איש הרוח‎ “The inspired.” In the time of Samuel the title ‏ראה‎

was generally given to the prophet instead of ‏נביא‎ (1 Sam. ix. 9), as

his advice was also sought by many who believed him to be able to

foresee coming events and to know everything. As, however, the word

‏נביא‎ only describes the prophet as addressing his fellow-men, it is

used both of the true and the false prophets, and also of teachers and

preachers generally. The Targum on the Prophets (Jer. xxix. 15; Isa.

xxix. 10) renders, therefore, the term ‏נביא‎ in some instances:

‏מלפין‎ “teachers,” ‏ספריא‎ “scholars.”

The enthusiasm manifested by the prophet in his mode of address, or in

his endurance of insult and ill-treatment, made him sometimes appear in

the eyes of the public as though he were struck with madness, so that

scoffers used ‏נביא‎ and ‏משגע‎ “mad,” as synonyms (Jer. xxix. 26), and

‏מתנבא‎ is both one who acts as a prophet and one who imitates the

appearance of a prophet (1 Sam. xviii. 10).

The false prophets are divided by Jeremiah into three classes: there

were those who were guilty of a direct plagiarism, preaching the Divine

messages of the true prophets and describing them as their own

inspiration. There were others who plagiarised and reproduced true

prophecies in a form and style of their own, and others again who

altogether invented dreams and visions. The principal test for

distinguishing between the true and the false prophets was the purity

of moral and religious conduct. In matters wholly indifferent as

regards morality and religion the prophet was believed after having

established his trustworthiness in some way or other, and his advice

was acted upon. The prophet himself could easily detect the fraud of a

false prophet; for what he was commanded by God to do, another prophet

could not, speaking in the name of the same God, order not to be done.

The prophet, therefore, who deceitfully induced “the man of God” to

return to Beth-el by the very way which the word of God had forbidden

him to go again (1 Kings xiii. 18), could not have been a true prophet,

although he was subsequently entrusted with a Divine message for “the

man of God.” Bileam was likewise for a certain purpose made the bearer

of God’s words, although he was by no means a good man. In either case

the sinful intention of the false prophet was stigmatised as contrary

to the Will of the Most High, and both had, as it were, to own the

wickedness of their intention or the wrong of their actions.

The subject-matter of the prophecy is called “the vision,” “the word of

God,” or “the burden of the word of God.” In the days of Jeremiah the

term “burden of the Lord” seems to have been used contemptuously of the

prophetic utterances in the sense of “trouble” and “strife” (comp.

Deut. i. 12), and the prophet was ironically asked by the people, “What

is the burden of the Lord?” Jeremiah exhorts them to say, “What hath

the Lord answered thee?” or “What hath the Lord spoken?” “But the

burden of the Lord shall ye remember no more; for the burden shall be

the man’s to whom His word is brought” (Jer. xxiii. 36).

On the Sixth Principle, p. 131.

Saadiah in Emunoth ve-deoth iii. says: “Some men believe that we have

no need of prophets, our reason being able to distinguish between good

and evil. But if this were the case, God would not have sent messengers

to us, because He does not do a thing that is purposeless. I considered

the question thoroughly, and found that the mission of the prophets was

necessary, not only for the promulgation of categorical commands, but

also for that of rational precepts. Thus the duty of thanksgiving to

God for His goodness is dictated by our own reason, but the Divine

messengers had to fix the time and the form of thanksgiving. Again,

adultery is rejected by our reason as a crime; but the Divine teaching

determines the conditions of the bond that unites man and wife....

“As a test of the prophet’s truthfulness and trustworthiness a sign is

given, which consists of an act implying a deviation from the ordinary

laws of nature (comp. Exod. iii. and iv.). The Israelites are therefore

frequently reminded of ‘the great wonders which their eyes saw’ (Deut.

vii. 19). Those who believed after the sign was given were ‘the

righteous,’ whilst those who did not believe ‘went astray.’ ...

“The object of ‘the wonders’ was to produce belief in the prophecies;

except for such a purpose as this, the regular course of Nature is not

disturbed, so that man can make his plans and arrange his affairs on

the basis of the continuance of the laws of Nature. The messengers sent

by God were not angels, but men like ourselves, in order that the force

of the sign may be more apparent; for, seeing that beings like

ourselves perform things which we cannot perform, we conclude that a

higher Being has endowed them with extraordinary power for a special

purpose. If, however, angels had been chosen for the task of prophets,

we should not have considered their performance as signs; but, not

knowing the nature of angels, we should have thought that such acts

were within the regular and natural powers of angels. Prophets, like

other human beings, cannot dispense with the regular functions of the

organs of their body; they are subject to the different conditions of

health; to poverty, ill-treatment on the part of their fellow-men, and

to ignorance about future events, except those communicated to them by

Divine inspiration.—I found it necessary to state this here, because

there are people who believe that the prophet does not die like

ordinary people; others deny him the sensation of hunger and thirst;

others again think that he does not suffer from violence and wrong

directed against him, and some even believe that nothing is hidden from

him. These ‘do not know the thoughts of the Lord, and do not understand

His counsel.’

“It is, further, my conviction that the prophets were satisfied, by

some extraordinary supernatural phenomena, that they were addressed by

the Almighty. (Comp. Exod. xxxiii. 9 and Ps. xcix. 7: ‘In a pillar of

cloud he speaketh to them.’)

“As to the relation of the Egyptian Magicians to Moses, we are informed

that ten miracles were wrought by Moses and only three by the

Magicians. Even these three were only mentioned in order to show the

difference between Moses and the Magicians. Moses acted openly, the

Magicians secretly; the effect of Moses’ doing was felt throughout the

whole country, that of the Magicians only in a limited space....

“Some one might ask, ‘How could Jonah have been chosen for his mission?

Wisdom would forbid us to appoint for an important mission a messenger

that is disobedient.’ But I have examined the Book of Jonah, and have

not found any statement as regards the disobedience of Jonah. On the

contrary, I assume that he, like all prophets, brought the Divine

message to the Ninevites. We frequently find in the Pentateuch. ‘Speak

to the children of Israel and tell them,’ and we assume that Moses told

the Israelites, although this is not distinctly mentioned. The reason

why Jonah fled is this: the first message which he actually brought to

the inhabitants of Nineveh contained simply a summons to repentance. He

feared that he would be again sent to threaten with punishment if they

did not return; and if they returned and the threatened catastrophe did

not occur, they might in course of time begin to doubt the veracity of

his words. He therefore left the land, which was distinguished as the

land of prophecy (Jonah iv. 2).”

Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi, in the book Cuzari (V. xii.), describes prophecy

as an extraordinary gift granted by the Almighty to such human beings

as are qualified for it by the highest degree of intellectual

development, moral conduct, and an earnest desire for communion with

God. Such qualification is found only in a few privileged

individuals—“the heart of mankind” (‏לב האדם‎)—who, as it were, possess

it as an inheritance transmitted from generation to generation, but it

can only be possessed or acquired under certain favourable conditions,

e.g., that the prophet live in Palestine, the land of prophecy, or have

his attention directed to Palestine (I. xcv.).

It was, however, necessary that mankind should derive a benefit from

the revelations made to the prophets. All had to learn that it was

possible for a human being to receive a direct communication from God.

This lesson was given when the Israelites stood round Mount Sinai, and

suddenly became prophets. For, although the Israelites believed in the

Divine mission of Moses after he had done many wonderful deeds, there

remained yet a doubt in their minds whether God could speak to man, and

whether the Torah did not originate in the plans and schemes of human

beings, which by the help and assistance of God developed to

perfection; for it seemed strange to them to ascribe speech, which is

corporeal, to a spiritual being. It is this doubt which God intended to

remove from their hearts; they were therefore commanded to sanctify

themselves inwardly and outwardly, whereby they were prepared for the

condition of prophets and for hearing the words of God which were to be

directly addressed to them. After a preparation of three days they

received the Decalogue, not from any prophet or other person, but from

God Himself. But they felt their weakness and their inability to

witness such a great sight again. They were convinced that the Torah

was communicated by God to Moses, and was not the result of human

invention; that prophecy does not consist in the union of the soul of

man with the active intellect, in his attaining to great wisdom, or in

his mistaking his own words for the words of God. Such erroneous

opinions were refuted by the revelation on Mount Sinai.—But, objects

the king of the Cuzarites, to believe that God spoke to the Israelites

and wrote the Decalogue on the tables of stone amounts to believing in

a corporeification of the Deity.—To which objection the following reply

is given:—“Far be it from us to think that the Torah contains anything

contrary to reason. The Decalogue commences with the commandment to

believe in God, and prohibits in the second commandment the

representation of God in any corporeal form. How could we, who deny

corporeality even to some of His creatures, attribute any corporeal

property to the Supreme Being? For it is not the tongue, heart, or

brain of Moses that speaks to us, instructs and guides us, but his soul

which is rational, incorporeal, and not subject to the relations of

space; we ascribe to the soul attributes of angels, of spiritual

beings. How much more is this the case with God! We have, therefore, no

reason for rejecting the Biblical account of the revelation on Mount

Sinai; but we admit that we do not know how the idea became corporeal

and was turned into audible speech, what new thing was then created or

what things then in existence were annihilated. He is Almighty, and

when we say that He created the tablets and covered them with His

writing, it was done, like the creation of the heavens, by His word;

that is, it was His Will that His thought should become corporeal to a

certain extent and assume the form of tables, and that a certain

writing be inscribed on them. Just as the division of the sea and the

formation of a broad path between the walls of water was done directly

by His Will, without using instruments or employing intermediate

causes, so the air that reached the ear of the prophet assumed such a

form that sounds were perceived expressing the idea which God desired

to communicate to the prophet or to the people” (I., lxxxvii.–lxxxix.).

In describing the different meanings of the names of God, Elohim and

the Tetragrammaton, [23] the author says: “The nature of Elohim can be

perceived by reason, which teaches us that there exists a being who

governs the universe. The opinions at which people arrive vary

according to the different modes of reasoning which they employ; the

opinions of the philosophers have the greatest probability. But the

idea contained in the Tetragrammaton cannot be found by reasoning, but

is perceived intuitively by that prophetic vision during which man is

almost separated from his fellow-men, transformed into an angel, and

filled with another spirit; ... previous doubts concerning God

disappear, he smiles at the arguments by which men generally arrive at

the idea of a deity and unity; he then worships God in love, and would

rather sacrifice his life than abandon the worship of God” (IV., xv.).

Abraham Ibn Ezra explains the words “And the Lord spake to Moses” as

referring to true speech and not to speech with the mouth, which is

merely a representation of the other. “God spake to Moses” as man

speaketh to his neighbour; that is to say, directly and not through a

messenger (On Exod. xxxiii. 11).—In commenting on the Nineteenth Psalm

he says: “The first part shows how the intelligent man can find in

nature evidence for the existence and power of the Deity; but there is

a far better and more trustworthy witness: the Law, &c, called by David

‘perfect,’ because no other evidence is required in support of the

Divine utterances contained in the Holy Writings” (On Ps. xix. 8).—Ibn

Ezra is so firm in his belief in the truth of the Divine Writings that

he sets aside the contrary opinions of men as absurd. “We believe in

the words of our God and abandon the vain opinions of the sons of man”

(On Gen. vii. 19).—Whatever message they brought from God was true, and

its realisation could be relied upon provided that the conditions were

fulfilled, which were either expressed or implied. In other things,

however, which were not contained in the Divine message they were not

infallible (On Exod. iv. 20). The prophets were trained for the office.

The sons of the prophets (or “the disciples”) led a contemplative life

of seclusion, in the hope of receiving inspiration, every one according

to his faculty (On Exod. iii. 15). The first step in this preparation

was “the training in the fear of the Lord,” which leads man to heed the

negative precepts of the Law. Then follows “the worship of God,” which

includes the observance of all positive precepts (Yesod Mora, vii.).

Maimonides (Mishneh torah, I.; Yesode ha-torah, vii. 1):—“One of the

principles of our faith is to believe that God inspires men. The

inspiration can only take place in men who distinguish themselves by

great wisdom and moral strength; who are never overcome by any passion,

but, on the contrary, overcome all passions; who possess wide and

profound knowledge. If those who are endowed with these various gifts,

and, being physically perfect, enter the garden of speculation, are

absorbed in these great and difficult problems, have the mind to

understand and to comprehend, sanctify themselves more and more,

abandon the ways of the common people that walk in the deep darkness of

the time, and zealously train themselves in freeing their mind from

useless things, the vanities and tricks of the time, in order always to

keep the mind free for reflecting on higher things, on the most holy

and pure forms, on the whole work of the Divine Wisdom from the first

sphere to the centre of the earth, and to comprehend thereby the

greatness of God: then they will at once be inspired with the holy

spirit, their soul will then be in the society of angels, they will

become other beings, they will feel that they are not the same as

before, that they are above other men, even above the wise. Thus it is

said of Saul, ‘And thou wilt prophesy with them, and be turned into

another man’” (1 Sam. x. 6).

The same opinion is expressed by Maimonides in his “Commentary on the

Mishnah” (Sanhedrin, xi. 1), and in “The Guide” (III., xxxii.). In the

latter (l.c.) the various views on prophecy are fully discussed, and

the difference between the view of Maimonides and that of the

“philosophers” is given more distinctly. According to the philosophers,

the highest physical, moral, and intellectual development is the sole

means for the acquisition of the prophetic faculty. Maimonides demands

in addition to this the Divine Will; he reserves, as it were, for the

Supreme Being a kind of veto, and believes that the prophetic faculty

may, by Divine interference, i.e., by a miracle, be withheld from a

person in spite of all preparation and fitness. He compares this

interference to the sudden paralysis and equally sudden recovery of the

hand of King Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii. 4). Although the physical

conditions for the motion of the hand were present, the motion could

not take place, because it was the Will of God that the hand should at

that particular time not be able to perform its natural functions.

The question naturally suggests itself, Why, then, is the number of

prophets so exceedingly small? Why are there no prophets amongst the

large host of philosophers whose intellectual faculties have been most

highly developed, and who apparently live in a sphere of ideals far

above earthly and ordinary passions? Maimonides denies the fact that

the conditions are fulfilled; he believes that the life of the

philosophers is on the whole not so pure as would qualify them for the

office of prophecy (II., xxxvi.).

But Bileam, Laban, and Abimelech enjoyed the privilege of Divine

communication, although they had not attained to the highest degree of

moral sanctity. Maimonides says in reference to the dreams of Abimelech

and Laban (ibid., chap. xli.): “The sentence, ‘And Elohim (an angel)

came to a certain person in the dream of the night,’ does not indicate

a prophecy, and the person to whom Elohim appeared is not a prophet;

the phrase only informs us that the attention of the person was called

by God to a certain thing, and at the same time that this happened at

night. For just as God may cause a person to move in order to save or

kill another, so He may cause, according to His Will, certain things to

rise in man’s mind in a dream by night. We have no doubt that the

Syrian Laban was a wicked man and an idolater. Abimelech, though

himself a virtuous man, is told by Abraham, ‘I said, Surely there is no

fear of God in this place’ (Gen. xx. 11). And yet of both it is said

that Elohim appeared to them in a dream. Note and consider the

distinction between the phrases ‘Elohim came’ and ‘Elohim said;’

between ‘in a dream by night’ and ‘in a vision by night.’ In reference

to Jacob it is said, ‘And an angel said to Israel in visions by night’

(Gen. xlvi. 2), whilst in reference to Abimelech and Laban it is said,

‘Elohim came to Abimelech (or to Laban) in the dream by night’ (Ibid.

xx. 3 and xxxi. 24). Onkelos therefore renders this phrase: ‘A word

came from the Lord,’ and not ‘God revealed himself.’”

Bileam is, according to Maimonides, in some respect like Laban and

Abimelech; what God told him in a dream by night was not a prophecy. In

other respects he is described by this philosopher as a person endowed

with ‏רוח הקדש‎ “the holy spirit;” i.e., he felt that some influence

had come upon him, and that he had received a new power which

encouraged him to speak for a certain object (The Guide, xlv.).

Maimonides adds that at that time Bileam was still a virtuous man.—This

view of the position which Bileam occupies in the class of inspired men

is different from the place assigned to him in the Midrash, where the

following passage occurs: “‘There arose no prophet again in Israel like

Moses;’ that is to say, in Israel none arose, but among other nations

there was a prophet as great as Moses, namely, Bileam” (Sifre, Deut.

xxxiv. 10). Whatever may be the meaning of these words—whether they are

meant as a satire or not—they seem to indicate that Bileam possessed a

high degree of prophetic faculty. But comparing the deeds of Bileam

with those of Moses, we find that the latter guided the Israelites and

led them to good deeds and to a virtuous life, whilst Bileam misled

those who followed his guidance to sin and vice.

The view of Maimonides, that man after due preparation and training may

still be debarred from the rank of prophet, is severely criticised by

the Commentators of the Guide. They maintain that God, after having

invited and encouraged man to approach Him, would not then thwart the

very hope He had implanted. According to their opinion, God’s hand is

extended to all; every one may acquire the prophetic faculty, and those

who have not acquired it have not been duly qualified for it. (Comp.

the Comm. of Ephodi, Narboni a. o. on “The Guide,” II., xxxii.).

Albo (Ikkarim, III., vii. sqq.) likewise admits that it is impossible

to imagine a prophet who has not attained a high degree of moral and

intellectual perfection. But he does not consider the prophetic faculty

as a natural development of man’s intellectual faculties. It is solely

and directly due to Divine inspiration (‏שפע אלהי‎), by means of which

man acquires a knowledge of things which are otherwise beyond the

limits of human intellect. Of what nature the inspiration is, how it

gives certitude to the prophet, and by what psychical process it is

accomplished, only the prophet himself can fully comprehend. Albo, like

Maimonides, assumes different degrees of inspiration from the

inspiration (‏רוח ה׳‎) which moved Samson to heroic deeds and David to

sacred songs, to the prophetic communion of Moses with God “face to

face.” The clearness of the prophet’s utterances varies according to

the different degrees of his prophetic faculty, although all are

equally true.

On the Seventh Principle, p. 133.

The words ‏שנבואת משה רבנו ע׳׳ה היתה אמתית‎ have been wrongly

translated “that the prophecy of Moses was true,” because this is

contained in the sixth principle, which applies equally to Moses and to

all other prophets. The term ‏אמתית‎ does here not denote “true,” but

“real,” “perfect,” or “direct;” and the difference between the Divine

inspiration of Moses and that of other prophets is expressed in the

above phrase, in accordance with the distinction made in the Pentateuch

(Num. xii. 8). It has been considered necessary to formulate this

distinction between Moses and other prophets in a separate article,

because it is of great importance in the proof of the Immutability of

the Law.

Maimonides in “The Guide” (chap. xxxv.) and Mishneh torah (I., Hilchoth

Yesode ha-torah vii. 6) fully describes the difference between Moses

and other prophets. He enumerates four points:—(1.) Other prophets

received the Divine message in a vision or a dream, whilst Moses

received it in a state of complete consciousness, being awake, and

apprehending the words like those spoken by a man to his fellow-men.

(2.) Other prophets received the message in images, which they had

first to interpret before communicating it to their fellow-men; Moses

was addressed by God in clear words and not in figurative speech. (3.)

Other prophets were overcome by the sight, and were in a state of fear

and trembling; Moses experienced nothing of this kind. (4.) Moses was

sure to receive a Divine reply whenever he sought it; not so the other

prophets.

Maimonides comes thus to the conclusion that the term “prophet” when

applied to Moses cannot have the same meaning as it has when applied to

other Divine messengers; and the prophecy of Moses differs from that of

other prophets not only in degree, but in kind. There are, however,

other theologians who hold that the prophecy of Moses is of the same

kind as that of other prophets, and excels the rest only by a higher

degree of prophetic faculty. (Comp. Albo Ikkarim, III., xvii.)

On the Eighth Principle, p. 134.

The integrity and authenticity of the Pentateuch has been subjected to

all kinds of tests by critics of every age. The Massoretic remarks, to

which allusions are found in the Talmud, seem to include the result of

critical examination of the text of the Bible. Thus we read in the

treatise Aboth di-Rabbi Nathan (chap. xxxiv.): “There are ten passages

in the Pentateuch which are provided with points on the top of the

letters, namely, Gen. xvi. 5; xviii. 9; xix. 33; xxxiii. 4; xxxvii. 12;

Num. iii. 39; ix. 10; xxi. 30; xxix. 15; Deut. xxix. 28. What is the

meaning of these points? Ezra—who is supposed to have added them—said,

‘If Elijah should come and show me that the reading was wrong, I should

tell him that for that reason I marked them with points; and if he

should say that I wrote correctly, I should remove the points.’” In the

treatise Soferim (vi. 4) the following passage occurs:—“Rabbi Simeon

ben Lakish said, Three copies of the Pentateuch were found in the hall

of the Temple; they are called Sefer meonah, Sefer zatute, and Sefer

hee. In the one ‏מעון‎ was written instead of ‏מעונה‎ (Deut. xxxiii.

27), in the other ‏זאטוטי‎ (Exod. xxiv. 5) instead of ‏נערי‎, and in

the third eleven times ‏היא‎ instead of ‏הוא‎. The reading that was

found only in one of the three copies was rejected, and that of the

other two preferred. The received text has therefore ‏מעונה‎, ‏נערי‎,

and ‏היא‎.”

These instances which tradition has preserved, are evidence of the

great care and conscientiousness with which Ezra the Scribe and other

men transcribed and multiplied copies of the Pentateuch. We learn

further from these instances that the text was never altered, even

where the sense did not seem quite clear; and where the reading had

been changed in some cases, the Massoretic notes show the way how to

read the word whilst the text was retained in its original form. This

is the cause of the Keri and Kethib, “How the word is read” and “How it

is written.” In the Talmud a certain number of passages are described

as tikkun soferim, “The style of the scribes;” others as ittur soferim,

“Elegance of the scribes.” Commentators have interpreted these terms as

indicating alterations of the text; but the instances quoted for

illustration do not contain any trace of such a process. An instance of

tikkun soferim is, “And Abraham stood yet before the Lord” (Gen. xviii.

22). These words were believed to continue the account of the Divine

vision introduced by the words, “And God appeared to Abraham” (ibid.

xviii. 1), and interrupted by the narrative of the visit of the three

angels. The reader might have expected, “And God stood yet before

Abraham.” The method of expressing the same in the above form for the

sake of euphemism is called tikkun soferim. From the instances of ittur

soferim quoted in the Talm. Nedarim 37b, we infer that the occasional

omission of the copulative vav was designated by that name. (Comp. Gen.

xviii. 5, ‏אחר‎).

In Midrashic interpretations of the Bible we frequently meet with the

phrase ‏אל תקרי‎, “Do not read,” seemingly implying an emendation of

the Biblical text. It is, however, certain that the authors of such

interpretations did not for a moment entertain the idea that the

passage in question was corrupt and required correction. What was meant

by the above phrase is this: A Jewish audience was supposed to be

familiar with the text of the Bible, and it was therefore believed that

the lessons which the teacher or preacher desired to impart would

better reach the heart of the listener, and be more easily retained in

his memory, if it were expressed in the words of some Biblical passage.

If a passage could, by a slight alteration, be made to serve this

purpose, such alteration was adopted and introduced with the words ‏אל

תקרי‎, “Do not read, ... but ...”

There are also some instances in the Talmud and the Midrashim of

Biblical quotations not in harmony with the received text. This

discrepancy is either due to the fact that preachers and expounders

quoted from memory, and may have erroneously confounded two similar

passages, or it is due to the carelessness of the copyists. Indications

of a Biblical text at variance with the received text are found in the

ancient Versions. But, with the exception of the Chaldee Version of the

Pentateuch by Onkelos, and that of the Prophets by Jonathan, we have no

authorised Version, and it is uncertain how many of the discrepancies

have their origin in a corrupt text in the hands of the translator, and

how many of them are due to the error of the translator in misreading

or mistranslating the correct text before him. By no means are these

facts sufficient ground for doubting the correctness of the received

text, however plausible the suggested emendations may appear.

Samaritans and Mohammedans have accused the Jews of having altered the

text of the Bible; but they have not proved the charge. (See

Emunah-ramah, 5th Principle, chap. ii.)

Modern critics have impugned the authenticity of most of the Biblical

books. We will discuss their opinions concerning three of these books,

and these are the most important ones concerning which Tradition speaks

most decidedly, viz., the Pentateuch, the Prophecies of Isaiah, and the

Book of Daniel.

The existence of the Pentateuch at the time when the other Biblical

books were written is clear from the frequent references to the history

and the laws contained in it. Such are, e.g.: “Only be thou strong and

very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the

law which Moses, my servant, commanded thee,” &c. “This book of the law

shall not depart out of thy mouth,” &c. (Jos. i. 7, 8). “As Moses, the

servant of the Lord, commanded the children of Israel, as it is written

in the book of the law of Moses,” &c. “And he wrote there upon the

stones a copy of the law of Moses which he wrote in the presence of the

children of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the

blessing and cursing, according to all that is written in the book of

the law” (Ibid. viii. 31, 32, 34). “Keep the charge of the Lord thy

God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes and his commandments,

and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of

Moses,” &c. (1 Kings ii. 3). “But the children of the murderers he slew

not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of

Moses,” &c. (2 Kings xiv. 6). “Keep the passover unto the Lord your

God, as it is written in the book of the covenant” (Ibid. xxiii. 21).

“Remember the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in

Horeb for all Israel, statutes and judgments” (Mal. iii. 16).

The authors of the other books of the Bible show familiarity with the

words, the phrases, and the contents of the Pentateuch. Thus Psalm civ.

is based on the first chapter of Genesis; the flood is mentioned in Ps.

xxix. and in the prophecies of Isaiah (liv. 9); the history of the

Patriarchs and of the Israelites in Egypt and in the wilderness in Ps.

cvi., lxxviii.; the history of Jacob is alluded to in Hosea xii.; the

destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Isa. i. 9, Amos iv. 11.

Of the laws contained in the Pentateuch many are mentioned or alluded

to in the books of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; the feast of

Passover (Jos. iv.), Tabernacles (Zech. xiv. 16–20, Ezra iii. 4, Neh.

viii. 14–18); the first day [24] of the seventh month (New-year) is

mentioned as a “holy day” (Neh. viii. 10). The dietary laws are

referred to by Isaiah (lxvi. 17); the laws of cleanness and uncleanness

form the text of a prophecy of Haggai (ii. 10 sqq.). Such phrases as

“Uncircumcised in heart” (Jer. ix. 25) and “Thou wilt purify me with

hyssop and I shall be clean” (Ps. li. 9) show familiarity with the laws

of the Pentateuch. Sabbath and sacrifices are frequently mentioned.

Critics, however, assert that certain laws seem to have been unknown or

out of practice in the period of the Judges and the Kings. There is,

e.g., a perfect silence as to the celebration of “the Day of Blowing

the shofar” and “the Day of Atonement,” even where such mention is

suggested by the context, as Kings viii. 65, 66, and Nehemiah viii. But

the inspired historians preferred to describe the celebration of those

festivals that had been neglected, or those that were also of national

and political importance by concentrating the mass of the people in the

capital; such festivals were Passover and Tabernacles. The Day of

Blowing the shofar and the Day of Atonement were set aside for quiet,

private devotion and meditation, the additional service in the Temple

being in the hands of the priests, and the observation of these days as

holy days in accordance with the Law was a matter of course, and was

not considered by the authors as a memorable event that required

special notice. One of the prophecies of Isaiah (chap, lviii.) seems to

have reference to the Day of Atonement.

That in the days of the Judges, when “every man did what was right in

his eyes,” and during the reign of wicked kings many laws were ignored

or broken is not at all surprising. When the sacrifices offered up by

Samuel and Solomon are adduced as a proof that the Law, which only

allows priests to sacrifice, was not known in those days, the argument

is based on a misinterpretation of the Biblical text. When laymen

brought sacrifices, the priests performed the service for them; the

principal thing to be mentioned was in whose name or in whose presence

the sacrifice was brought; it was unnecessary to state that the priests

had to sprinkle the blood and to burn certain portions upon the altar;

no one doubted it.

Another argument against the authenticity of the Pentateuch has been

based on the fact related in the second book of Kings (xxii. 8 sqq.):

“And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found

a book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Shaphan the scribe

showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book.

And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass when the king

had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.”

It is maintained by some scholars that the book, which seems to have

been an unknown thing to those who found it and to the king, had only

just then been written. This is not what is directly stated in the

Bible. Hilkiah speaks of the Law ‏התורה‎, the well-known Torah; he

would not have said so if the Torah had not been in existence before.

Furthermore, the king on hearing the words of the book rent his

garments, and sent to inquire of the Lord concerning the words of this

book; for “great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us

because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book.”

These words of the king clearly show that the king was convinced of the

divine character of the book, and also of its existence in the time of

his forefathers. The fact that King Josiah accuses “the fathers”

suggests the following explanation of the event:—During the reign of

the wicked King Manasseh the reading of the Law was interrupted; the

book itself was hidden lest it should be destroyed by the idolatrous

priests; now that it was found again, the king was reminded that the

Torah had been neglected in the interval through the sin of the

preceding generation. Whether there was another copy of the Law in the

Temple, whether the one found by Hilkiah was complete, or contained

only a portion of the Law, perhaps Deuteronomy, chap. xxvii. and chap.

xxviii., which are in the Pentateuch called “the words of this

covenant” and also “the words of the curse,” titles which occur also in

reference to the above copy in the books of Kings and Chronicles; to

these and similar questions the Biblical account gives no decided

answer. Only so much is certain that the book found was not new or

unknown to those who found it, and the king recognised it as the book

of the Torah.

Far from finding in the other books of the Bible any evidence—whether

positive or negative—of the later origin of the Torah, we feel

convinced that their contents presuppose not only the existence of the

Torah, but also the authors’ familiarity with it. Without the Torah the

other books are unintelligible. There is nothing in the Pentateuch that

betrays a post-Mosaic origin. If the Pentateuch had been written in the

period of the Kings, the author would have mentioned Jerusalem as the

appointed place for the Sanctuary; in the rebukes (‏תוכחה‎), in

addition to idolatry, the social corruption pointed out by the prophets

would have been mentioned; the restrictive law concerning the marriage

of heiresses would have been superfluous, as it only applied to the

first generation that entered Palestine.

The phrase ‏עבר הירדן‎ has been quoted as a proof that the author of

the Pentateuch must have lived in Palestine, or else he could not have

called the east banks of the Jordan “the other side of Jordan;” but

this translation is wrong. The phrase only means the banks of Jordan.

In the Talmud the Pentateuch in its entirety is ascribed to Moses.

“Moses wrote his book and the book of Bileam” (Babyl. Talm. Baba

Bathra, 14b). The book of Bileam is the section of Numbers which

contains the parables of Bileam (from xxii. 2 to xxiv.).

There is, however, a difference of opinion with regard to the last

eight verses of the Pentateuch. According to Rabbi Jehudah (or Rabbi

Nehemiah) Joshua wrote this passage. Rabbi Shimeon objected: “Is it

possible that the Torah was incomplete when Moses was told, ‘Take this

book of the law?’ (Deut. xxxi. 26). [25] God dictated the last eight

verses of the Pentateuch to Moses, and the latter wrote them with

tears.”

With this exception, no doubt was entertained by any of the Rabbis as

to the integrity of the Torah. Various, however, were the opinions as

to the method followed by Moses in writing down the events and the

laws. Rabbi Jochanan, following the opinion of Rabbi Banaah, held that

the Torah was written by Moses piecewise at different times, just as

the events happened or as each law was revealed to him. Rabbi Shimeon

ben Lakish said “it was given at one time in its entirety” (Babyl.

Talm. Gittin 60a).

Passages of the Torah which seemed to contradict each other, or to be

contradicted by statements found in other books of the Bible, were

thoroughly discussed and explained. The belief in the integrity and

divinity of the Torah was so strong that those who rejected either of

these beliefs were considered as unworthy of the blessings of the

future world (Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin 99a).

With the rise of Karaism Bible criticism received new encouragement, as

in the warfare between Karaism and Rabbinism, or Scripturalists and

Traditionalists, it furnished both sides with sharp weapons. Some,

however, of the commentators went further, and gave utterance to all

sorts of heterodox views. Thus a certain Yitzchaki of Spain was of

opinion that Gen. xxxvi. 31–43 was a later addition, on account of the

phrase, “These were the kings who ruled over Edom before a king ruled

over Israel.” The critics forgot that this passage is intended to point

out the advance which Esau’s descendants had made, when the prophecy,

“And kings shall come forth out of thee” (xxxv. 11) had not yet been

fulfilled in the case of the Israelites.

Of the Commentators of the Middle Ages, Ibn Ezra is generally singled

out as an advanced scholar who held certain passages of the Pentateuch

as later additions. Ibn Ezra was far from such views, and he sharply

rebuked those who entertained them. Thus he says of Yitzchaki, the

author of the above criticism, “Every one who will hear this will laugh

at him, and his book deserves to be burnt.” With equal vigour he

criticises a grammarian who pointed out certain passages as

grammatically incorrect, and also another scholar who in his

interpretations of the Bible did not take sufficient notice of the

traditional accents. The error concerning Ibn Ezra has its origin in

his habit of adding the phrase, “The words have some deeper sense” (‏יש

לו סוד‎), whenever the literal interpretation does not quite satisfy

him, or when the object of the author in adding a seemingly superfluous

sentence is not clear to him; as, for instance, in the four passages

referred to in the Commentary on Deuteronomy i. 2, namely, “The

Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. xii. 6), “On the mount of the

Lord will it appear” (Ibid. xxii. 14), the repetition of the sacrifices

of the twelve princes (Num. vii.), and the stations enumerated in

Numbers (chap. xxxiii.), in addition to the detailed geographical

description of Deut. i. 1 sqq. The meaning of this remark has been

misunderstood by the early expounders of Ibn Ezra’s Commentary, and

since then the mistake has been repeated by most of the critics of the

Bible. Spinoza, in his theological treatise, quotes Ibn Ezra, with the

usual misinterpretation, in support of his view concerning the Torah.

Modern critics have attempted to analyse the Pentateuch, and to assign

to it several authors, revisers, and editors. But there is little

harmony among the critics; the one considers as the latest addition

what the other holds to be the oldest portions of the book. Numerous

emendations are made by every one of them in order to establish his

special theory. The fundamental principle of most of them is that the

section in which the name Elohim is prevalent could not have been

written by the author of another section in which the Tetragrammaton is

employed. But the two names, though denoting the same Being, are not

identical in meaning: the one signifies the Almighty, who is the Ruler

of the universe, the Master and Judge of all beings; the other is the

name of the Merciful Father, who reveals Himself to man, interferes in

his behalf, and has especially revealed His Providence and Kindness to

the Israelites.

A careful study of the Hebrew Bible will show that it is not the

author, or the age of the author, but the contents of the passage that

determined which of the Divine names was to be used. The same author

repeats the same account with some variation, according to the lesson

which he intends to convey to the reader. The proofs which are based on

the differences discovered in two accounts of apparently the same

event, or on seeming contradictions or anachronisms, are so

indifferently supported that they are not able to conquer the fortress

of Faith and Tradition. The difficulties pointed out by the critics

vanish before patient study and the earnest longing for instruction and

comfort offered by the Bible.

The Book of Isaiah has likewise been subjected to the analytical test

of the critic, and it is generally believed that the prophecies

contained in the book have not all been written by the same author or

in the same age. The book is divided into two large sections; the

second section, from chap. xl. to chap, lxvi., is thought to have been

composed shortly before the return of the Jews from Babylon. Although

it is possible that anonymous prophecies were added to a book, the

reasons which induced critics to make such a division are untenable.

The first reason is the difference in style; but we must take account

of the difference in the contents of the two sections. The prophecies

in the first section have mostly a threatening tendency with regard to

imminent punishment, whilst in the second section Israel is to be

encouraged in his faith in the Almighty and in his hopes for a better

future. It is but natural that the style should not be the same in both

sections. Another reason for ascribing the second section to a later

prophet is the fact that Koresh (Cyrus), king of Persia, is mentioned

by name, and the fall of Babylon and the consequent deliverance of the

Jews are described as well-known facts of the past. This and similar

arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the character of the

prophecies. The critics ignore the essential difference between the

writings of inspired messengers of God and those of ordinary men. They

deny to the man of God the power of foreseeing and foretelling coming

events of which his fellow-men could not have any knowledge. By such

arguments the critics set limits to the power and wisdom of God, and

employ the same measure for both that which is Divine and that which is

human. A Divine prophet has, by the Will of the Almighty, the future

unrolled before him; he sees the catastrophe which is to come centuries

later, and perceives its effect and its end. Even when he reviews the

present state of affairs and takes the immediate future into

consideration, his eyes frequently behold scenes and events of “the end

of the days” (‏באחרית הימים‎), which he points out as the goal of our

hopes and aspirations. When he warns, advises, or encourages his

brethren with regard to their present wants, the virtues and the

happiness of the Messianic age are not rarely introduced. Earlier

events, though still future in time, appear then in the light of

accomplished facts, and in their description the past tense is used

instead of the future. Thus it happened that the prophet Isaiah, who

flourished during the reign of King Hezekiah, could take his standpoint

on the return of the Jews from Babylonia, look back at the exile as a

thing of the past, and reveal to his brethren further troubles, the

succeeding final redemption, and the ultimate triumph of the faithful

and God-fearing over the faithless and wicked.

It is true that it is an unusual thing for a prophet to name a king who

is to rule centuries after the death of the prophet, unless the name is

a common noun, and has by its meaning some bearing on the prophecy. The

name Cyrus fulfils, perhaps, this condition; according to Ktesias, it

signifies “sun,” an appropriate name to be given to the king who is

destined to be the deliverer of a captive people. King Cyrus may have

assumed this name when he became convinced of the mission entrusted to

him by Providence.

The authenticity of the Book of Daniel has likewise been impugned, and

its advocates are, it must be admitted, at present very few. The

narratives which the book contains are considered as improbable or even

impossible, and its visions as prophecies ex facto. It was written,

according to these critics, in the period of the Maccabees, and the

name of Daniel was chosen in order to give more weight to the contents

of the book, Daniel being known as a man famous for his piety among his

fellow-exiles. Against this we have the distinct evidence in the book,

in which the author is described as the same Daniel that lived during

the Babylonian exile; Jewish tradition knew of no other author of the

book than Daniel. Although the Book of Daniel was not placed amongst

the books of the Prophets, because he was not charged with any mission

to his fellow-men, the visions described in Daniel were nevertheless,

in Jewish literature, considered as true and genuine prophecy. The

narratives have the distinct object to teach that piety and firmness in

obedience to the word of God can conquer the rage of the most powerful

tyrants; this tendency on the part of the author is especially noticed

in the manner in which every circumstance bearing on this lesson is

depicted. This, however, does not detract the least from the truth and

genuineness of the facts which, by the plan of Providence, seem to have

taken place for this very purpose. The demand of the king that the

magicians should tell him his dream, which he himself had forgotten,

and that failing to do so they should be put to death; the decree

commanding his subjects to worship the idol and to pray to him, and

other foolish royal acts, almost incredible to us, are strange indeed,

but would appear less strange if all the records of the acts of Eastern

tyrants had been preserved. It has been contended that the history of

the Syrian wars with Egypt, and the suffering of the Jews through the

Syrian invasion, is given in such detail as could only be done by a

contemporary. But apart from the fact that a careful study of the

visions of Daniel will convince us that we have here only a faint

outline of the Syrian wars and not a detailed description, it must not

be forgotten that the author only reproduces what was shown to him by

the Omniscient concerning the most important event in the history of

the nation—the preservation of the holy religion through the firmness

and the courage of a few faithful servants of God. The fulfilment of

the portion of the vision which referred to the period of the Maccabees

is a guarantee for the fulfilment of the prophecies yet unrealised.

In like manner have the authenticity and the integrity of other

Biblical books been rejected; the method and the arguments are the

same; they are based on a misunderstanding of the true essence of

prophecy and inspiration, and originate in a want of belief in the

Omniscience and Omnipotence of the Divine Being.

On the Ninth Principle, p. 139.

In the Pentateuch there is not the slightest indication that the laws

revealed on Sinai might be superseded by a future Revelation. On the

contrary, we meet repeatedly with the phrases, ‏חקת עולם‎, “an

everlasting statute,” ‏לדרות עולם‎, “for everlasting generations,” and

similar expressions, which clearly show the intention of Him who gave

the laws that these should last for ever. The Israelites were told that

Prophets would be sent to them, and that they must listen to the

Prophets and obey them, but at the same time they were commanded to put

to death a prophet who would attempt “to turn them aside from the way

which the Lord commanded them to walk therein” (Deut. xiii. 6).

Besides, the Prophets never speak of a new Revelation, which would

supersede the Torah. When Jeremiah prophesies about a new covenant, the

context teaches the reader what is meant by the “new covenant.” He

speaks of the future and final restoration of Israel as follows:

“Behold, days will come, saith the Lord, when I shall make a new

covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not like

the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took

hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they

broke my covenant, and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the

covenant which I shall make with the house of Israel after those days,

saith the Lord, when I set my Law among them and write it upon their

heart: both I shall be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people”

(Jer. xxxi. 31–33). The Law is not to be altered, but it will dwell

more firmly in the heart of Israel; the deliverance from Egypt was soon

forgotten, but the future deliverance will plant the fear and love of

God—here called the Law of God—in the hearts of the people in such a

manner that it will take a deep root and will not be plucked out of it

again. There occur, however, in Talmud and Midrash sayings which seem

to imply a future alteration of the Law; e.g., “In future all prayers

will cease except that of thanksgiving: in future all sacrifices will

cease except that of thanks-offering” (Midrash on Ps. c.). In these

sayings their authors simply intended to emphasise the duty of

thanksgiving; even in the state of physical and moral perfection, when

there will be a perfect absence of trouble and fear and a perfect

immunity of sin, so that there will be nothing to be prayed for,

nothing to be atoned for through sacrifice, the duty of offering

prayers and sacrifices of thanksgiving will still remain in full force.

Another saying of this kind is: “If all festivals were to cease, Purim

will never be forgotten” (Piyyut for Sabbath Zachor); that is, even if

other festivals should be neglected, Purim is so much liked that it

will never be forgotten by the Jews. In Talmud Jerus. Megillah (i. 7)

we read: “The reading from the Prophets and the Hagiographa may at some

future time be discontinued, but the reading of the Pentateuch will

never be abolished.” The idea expressed by this dictum is, that the

warnings or consolations or prayers may become superfluous by the

changed condition of the future, but the laws and statutes of the

Pentateuch will always remain in force.

In sayings of this kind the time to which they are meant to apply is

not defined. “The future” (‏לעתיד לבא‎) may mean the time of Messiah,

or else the time of the Resurrection, or what we are used to call “the

future life.” As in the above quotation, the authors aimed at

inculcating some moral lesson for the present state of things, and not

at describing the results of philosophical speculation with regard to

remote times. A new revelation, or the abrogation of the Law or part of

it, is nowhere mentioned.

On the contrary, it is emphasised in the Talmud that the Torah has been

given to Israel in its entirety, and nothing has been reserved for a

second revelation. “The Law is not any longer in heaven,” it is

entirely in the hands of man. The only authority recognised in the

interpretation of the Law was that based on knowledge, tradition, and

common sense. Authority claimed for this purpose on the ground of

supernatural privilege, prophecy, bath-kol or miracle, was not

recognised (Babyl. Talm. Baba Metsia, 59b).

Maimonides (Mishneh torah, Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah ix.) says on this

principle as follows:—“It has been distinctly stated in the Torah that

its precepts remain in force for ever without change, diminution, or

addition. Comp. ‘The word which I command you that you must keep to do,

thou shalt not add ought unto it nor take ought away from it’ (Deut.

xiii. i); ‘That which has been revealed for us and for our children for

ever is to do all the words of this Law’ (Ibid. xxix. 28). Hence it

follows that we are bound for ever to do according to the words of the

Torah. It is further said, ‘An everlasting statute for all your

generations’ (Exod. xii. 14, 17, et passim); ‘It is not in heaven’ [26]

(Deut. xxx. 12). Hence we see that a prophet cannot reveal any new law.

If, therefore, any man, whether an Israelite or a non-Israelite, should

rise, perform signs and miracles, and say that the Lord sent him to add

one precept or to abolish one of the Divine precepts, or to interpret a

precept in a way different from what has been handed down to us from

Moses, or assert that the precepts which were given to the Israelites

had only temporary force and were not permanent laws: such a man is a

false prophet, because he contradicts the prophecy of Moses. The

mission of the Prophets after Moses is to exhort the people to obey the

Law of Moses, and not to make a new religion.”—Comp. “The Guide,” II.

xxxix.; and Saadiah, Emunoth ve-deoth, III. chap. vii. to x.

Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in the book Cuzari, seems to have a different

view. He likewise believes in the permanent character of the Torah, but

he modifies his view in accordance with his interpretation of the

words, “And thou shalt do according to the word which they—viz., the

priests and the judge that shall be in those days—will tell thee from

that place which the Lord shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do

according to all that they will teach thee” (Deut. xvii. 9, 10).

According to his view, these words imply that from time to time

prophets or inspired men, or the highest authority of the nation,

whilst the Shechinah was still filling the Temple, issued laws and

orders, which had legal force, and all were bound to obey them. But

since the destruction of the Temple there has not been any man or any

court that had the authority to make new permanent laws. According to

Maimonides, however, there were no additions made to the Torah; the

Rabbinical laws are either temporary regulations or served as a means

of ensuring the strict observance of the Torah.

Albo, in criticising the principles of faith as laid down by

Maimonides, objects also to the Ninth Principle, and contends that it

is not fundamental, since the belief in the Divine origin of the Law

does not necessarily imply the belief in its eternity. But although the

possibility of a second revelation superseding the first is admitted in

principle or theory, it does not follow that such revelation has in

reality been made. If any person asserts that he is sent by God to

repeal the old laws or to alter them, he must prove his Divine mission

before he can be believed. We are fully convinced of the Divine mission

of Moses, and our conviction of the Divine mission of the new prophet

must at least be equally strong. The Divine character of the mission of

Moses was revealed to the Israelites by God Himself; and only such

direct revelation could satisfy us as to the trustworthiness of the new

prophet (Ikkarim III. xix.).

R. Abraham ben David, in his book Emunah-ramah, finds in various

passages of the Bible indications that the Torah was to remain in force

permanently. Thus Isaiah and Zechariah, speaking of the remote future,

refer respectively to the celebration of Sabbath and New-moon, and to

the celebration of Sukkoth. Again, in refuting the claims of Christians

on behalf of Jesus, and of Mohammedans on behalf of Mohammed, to a

Divine mission to substitute a new covenant for the old one, Rabbi

Abraham argues thus: “The divinity of the old covenant, or the Torah,

has been admitted by both Jesus and Mohammed; we need not prove it. But

the Divine authority asserted by them for its abrogation or change is

not admitted by us; it must be proved; and since no proof has been

given, it must be rejected” (Fifth Principle, chap. ii.).

On the Tenth Principle, p. 148.

It is noteworthy that this principle is exceptionally supported by a

Biblical verse. The same may be noticed in the book Cuzari (V. xviii.),

in the enumeration of the principles of faith according to the methods

of Mohammedan Theologians (Medabberim); the principle of God’s

Omniscience is supported by a Biblical verse, only with this

difference, that in the Cuzari it is not exactly the principle of God’s

Omniscience, but its proof derived from the Creation, that is supported

by a quotation from Ps. xciv. The reason of the anomaly is this: Some

of the opponents of this principle contend that it would be derogatory

to the greatness of God if He were to take notice of the doings of each

individual being. To this the reply is given: The Psalmist, who was far

from saying anything derogatory of God, declared that God knows the

deeds and the thoughts of each individual.

The problem how to reconcile God’s Prescience and Omniscience with

man’s Free-will has of course engaged the attention of all Jewish

theologians and philosophers, and, though in different ways and words,

they all assume that God’s knowledge of a thing is by no means the

cause of its existence. (See Cuzari, V. xx.; “Guide,” III. xx.;

Saadiah, Emunoth, II. chap, ix.)

Perhaps a reconciliation is not necessary at all, there being no

conflict. We should not call it a defect in God if His Omniscience were

restricted to things knowable; a prescience of things to be determined

by man’s free-will is contradictory in itself, and illogical, and to

say that God would not be omniscient if He did not know them, is as

absurd as to say that God would not be omnipotent if He could not make

twice two to be three.

On the Eleventh Principle, p. 150.

The subject of this creed has been the main thought of the lesson

preached by the prophets, of the hymns sung by the psalmists, and of

the narratives written by the sacred chroniclers, as has been

illustrated above (p. 155) by Biblical quotations. To these may be

added (1.) the song haazinu, the professed object of which was to

remind the Israelites of God’s Justice whenever evil should befall

them. The words which form the basis of the song, viz., “The Rock,

perfect is his work,” &c. (Deut. xxxii. 4), are also at present recited

at funeral rites, as ‏צדוק הדין‎, an expression of our firm belief in

God’s Justice. (2.) The prophet who laments over the fall of Jerusalem

declares: “Out of the mouth of the Most High do not come forth the evil

things and the good (i.e., man causes them by his evil or good deeds,

which are the result of his own free will and not of the Will of God).

Why should man complain (of what has befallen him), being master over

his sins?” (Lam. iii. 38, 39).

In the Talmud the doctrine of God’s Justice is expressed thus: “Thy

employer is trustworthy, that he will pay thee the reward of thy deeds”

(Aboth ii. 21). “The shop is open, and the merchant gives on credit,

and all who like may come and borrow; but the collectors go constantly

about, and exact payment whether the debtor is willing to pay or not,

for they have something to rely upon, and the judgment is a just

judgment; and everything is prepared for a banquet” (Aboth iii. 20).

“God does not withhold ought of the desert of any creature” (Pesachim,

118a).

It is, however, emphatically declared in the Talmud that the reward of

good deeds is given to the righteous in the future life, ‏עולם הבא‎,

“The reward for obedience to the Divine commandments is not to be

expected in this world” (Kiddushin, 39b). “The Law says with reference

to the Divine precepts, ‘Which I command thee this day to do them;’

hence we infer that their performance is to take place this day, i.e.,

in this life, but their reward will be received in the future life”

(Abodah-zarah, 3a).

“Rabbi Elazar ha-kappar used to say, ‘Those that have been born will

die; those that have died will come to life again; those that have come

to life again will be judged.’ He said so in order that he himself

might bear in mind, and tell others, and that it might become generally

known, that God, who has formed and created man’s heart and understands

all his doings, is the Judge, the Witness, and the Prosecutor; He

before whom there is no wrong, no forgetfulness, no partiality, and no

bribery, will one day judge. Let thy imagination not persuade thee that

the grave is a refuge for thee. For without thy consent hast thou been

born, and without thy consent wilt thou die, and without thy consent

thou art brought to life again to account for thy deeds before the King

of kings, blessed be He” (Aboth iv. 22).

The immediate enjoyment of the reward is, however, not excluded. We

read in the Law, “Do this and thy days will be long;” and the Mishnah

teaches, “These are the good acts, the fruit of which man enjoys in

this life, whilst the full reward awaits him in the world to come:

honouring father and mother, the practice of charity, peace-making

between man and man, and above all the study of the Law” (Mishnah,

Peah. i. 1).

The faithful Israelite is not discouraged at the sight of the successes

of the wicked; on the contrary, he believes: “If to those who break the

Divine laws such kindness is shown by God, what must be His goodness to

those who obey Him!” (Midrash Yalkut on Isaiah viii. 1). As regards the

troubles of the good, our Sages teach that the good will receive their

reward “in proportion to their suffering.” Yet pious men do not seek

trouble and pain merely for the prospect of future compensation; on the

contrary, they avail themselves of every possible means to secure

relief, and would even renounce in their agony all compensation in the

future world, in order to secure release from pain in the present

(Babyl. Talm. Berachoth, 5a).

As the life of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was free from care

and trouble, and such a life was the ideal of human hopes and wishes,

the Garden-Eden, ‏גן עדן‎ (lit., “the garden of pleasure”), became the

symbol of man’s happiness in its perfection, such as will fall to the

share of the good and the righteous. On the other hand, the valley of

Hinnom, near Jerusalem, was a place of horror and disgust; a place

where at one time children were burnt to Moloch, and where later the

refuse of the city was cast. Dwelling in the valley of Hinnom

(‏גיהנום‎) became the symbol of the punishment to be inflicted on the

wicked. Gan-eden or Paradise, and Gehinnom or Hell, are thus mere

figures to express our idea of the existence of a future retribution,

and must not be taken literally as names of certain places.

The detailed descriptions of Paradise and hell as given in books both

profane and religious are nothing but the offspring of man’s

imagination.

The question has been asked, How long shall the punishment of the

wicked last? Will it be eternal? and if so, is it compatible with God’s

goodness? This and similar questions do not concern us in the least.

Our task is to do what the Lord has commanded us to do, and to trust,

as regards the future, in Him, who knows best to combine goodness and

justice. We must here bear in mind that “God’s thoughts are not ours.”

Equally ignorant are we as to the cause of the suffering and of the

death of each individual; but of this we are certain, if death is

punishment, that every one dies for his own sin. This theory is so

frequently repeated in the Bible that it is surprising how the theory

of Vicarious Death and Vicarious Atonement could be considered as

harmonising with the teaching of the Bible. We are taught that God

visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third

and upon the fourth generation; but at the same time we are told that

the children are only punished if they repeat the sins of their

fathers, and even then only for their own sins (comp. p. 251). It has

been asserted that Isaiah in chap. liii. assumes the principle of

vicarious atonement. That this is not the case we can easily see if we

turn from the Anglican Version to the original Hebrew, and translate it

literally and in accordance with the context. Isaiah, in describing the

future glory of the servant of the Lord (= Israel), tells us what those

people who oppress Israel will then feel, and how they will give

expression to their feeling of shame and regret, saying, “Surely he

hath borne griefs caused by us, and carried sorrows caused by us: yet

we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was

wounded through our transgressions, bruised through our iniquities”

(comp. Family Bible, Anglican Version, revised by M. Friedländer).

Sin-offerings were brought, but not as a vicarious atonement, although

the sinner might well have felt that he himself deserved the treatment

endured by the sacrifice. The sin-offering could not have been a

vicarious atonement, as it was not offered when the sin was committed

knowingly. Maimonides explains the various laws concerning sin-offering

as based on the principle that the sacrifices serve as the means of

reminding us more vividly of our sins, and of their evil consequences

(The Guide, III. xlvi.; comp. Mic. vi. 6–8).

On the Twelfth Principle, p. 155.

A belief in Messiah, although not directly taught, is assumed in the

Mishnah as existing; and the days of Messiah (‏ימות המשיח‎) are spoken

of as an event that admits of no doubt (comp. Mishnah Berachoth, i. 5).

That this belief was in reality taught by the religious heads of the

Jewish community is clearly shown by the introduction into the Amidah

of a prayer [27] for the speedy appearance of Messiah.

The belief in the coming of Messiah in some future time has been, like

the belief in the Unity of God, the source of vexatious disputations

between Jews and non-Jews. Mohammedans and Christians tried by all

means in their power to convince the Jews that the Anointed whose

advent was prophesied by the Prophets had already appeared, the former

pointing to Mohammed, the latter to Jesus, as the person realising

those predictions. The Biblical passages adduced as evidence prove

nothing of the kind. E.g., the three names, Sinai, Seir, and Paran, in

Deut. xxxiii. 2, were interpreted by Mohammedans to refer to three

revelations through Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed; and Mohammed being

mentioned last, his revelation was to be the final one. It is not

necessary to contradict such reasoning; one need only read the text in

order to see the absurdity of the argument. Christians quoted passages

from Isaiah which had no reference whatever to Messiah in evidence of

the Messianity of Jesus. Children born in the days of Isaiah (vii. 14;

viii. 18), whose names had reference to good or evil events of the

time, were wrongly interpreted as referring to the birth of Jesus; the

sufferings and final relief of the servant of the Lord, that is, Israel

(chaps. lii. and liii.), were applied to Jesus; the Psalmist who sings

of victories which God will grant to David (cx.) is made to declare the

divinity of Jesus.

Commentators and philosophers have taken notice of these arguments and

refuted them. Of the many works on these topics a few may be named:

“Nitsachon” (‏נצחון‎), by Lipmann Mühlhausen (1400), “Strengthening of

Faith” (‏חזוק אמונה‎), by Isaak ben Abraham Troki (1594), “Vindiciæ

Judæorum,” by Manasseh ben Israel (1650).

In refuting arguments brought by Christians and Mohammedans against

Jews and Judaism, and rejecting the Messianic claims of Jesus and

Mohammed, Jews are ready to acknowledge the good work done by the

religions founded by these men, Christians and Mohammedans, in

combating idolatry and spreading civilisation. Maimonides says as

follows:—“The King Messiah will in some future time come, restore the

kingdom of David to its former power, build the Temple, bring together

the scattered of Israel, and all the ancient laws will again be in

force: sacrifices will be offered, and years of release and Jubilees

will be kept as prescribed in the Law. Whoever does not believe in him,

or does not hope for his coming, shows a want of faith not only in the

Prophets, but also in the Law; for the Law testifies concerning him in

the words: ‘And the Lord thy God will again bring back thy captivity,

show mercy to thee, and again gather thee, &c. If thy outcasts be at

the end of the heavens, thence will the Lord gather thee,’ &c, ‘and the

Lord will bring thee,’ &c. (Deut. xxx. 3–5), &c.

“You must not imagine that Messiah must prove his Messianity by signs

and miracles, doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or

similar things, &c. The principal thing is this: the statutes and

precepts of our Torah remain for ever, and nothing can be added to them

nor ought taken from them. If, therefore, a descendant of David

earnestly studies the Law, observes, like David his father, what the

Law, both the written and the oral, enjoins, causes all Israelites to

act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the

commandments, and fights the wars of the Lord: he may possibly be

Messiah. If he succeeds, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers

the outcasts of Israel, he is certainly Messiah; and if he does not

succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is not the Messiah

promised in the Law; he is like all the noble and good kings of the

House of David who have died; and the Almighty only caused him to rise

in order to try us thereby, as it is said, ‘And of the wise some will

stumble, and through them the people will be tested, purified, and made

white, till the time of the end comes; for there is yet a vision for an

appointed time’ (Dan. xi. 35). Also Jesus, the Nazarene, who imagined

that he would be Messiah, and was killed through the court of law, is

alluded to in the Book of Daniel, as it is said, ‘And the sons of the

transgressors among thy people will rise, in order to establish a

vision, and will stumble’ (ibid. xi. 14). Can there be a greater

stumbling than this? All the prophets said that Messiah will be a

redeemer and a saviour to the Israelites, will bring together their

outcasts, and will strengthen their obedience to the Divine precepts,

but he (Jesus) caused destruction by the sword to Israel, the

dispersion of those left, and their humiliation; he changed the Law,

and misled many people to worship a being beside God. But the thoughts

of the Creator of the universe cannot be understood by any human being,

for the ways of men are not His ways, nor their thoughts His thoughts;

for all the events connected with Jesus and with Mohammed, that rose

after him, served only to pave the way for the King Messiah, who will

reform all mankind and lead them to the unanimous service of God, as it

is said, ‘For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that all

may call by the name of God, and serve him unanimously’ (Zeph. iii. 9).

How can this be done? Almost all people have through them—Jesus and

Mohammed—become acquainted with the idea of Messiah, with the words of

the Torah and the Divine precepts. Through them the knowledge of the

Bible spread even unto the remotest islands and unto many nations

‘uncircumcised’ in heart and uncircumcised in flesh. They seek to

justify their disobedience to the precepts of the Torah; some of them

say that these precepts are Divine, but are not in force at present,

and were never intended to be permanent laws; others maintain that they

must not be taken literally, as they are mere symbols, the meaning of

which has already been explained by Messiah. But when the true King

Messiah will rise, he will prosper, be high and exalted; all will then

at once know that it was falsehood what their fathers have inherited,

and that their prophets and their teachers have misled them.

“Do not imagine that in the days of Messiah the course of Nature will

be altered in any way, or that any new creation will take place. When

Isaiah said, ‘The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will

lie down with the kid,’ he merely employed allegorical and figurative

speech; and he meant to say that the Israelite will dwell in safety

together with his enemy, who has been as cruel to him as wolves and

leopards, &c.; all will join the true religion; they will not rob, nor

commit any violence, &c., and in the days of Messiah the meaning of the

allegories will be clearly known.

“Our Sages said that there will be no other difference between the

present time and the days of Messiah but the independence of the people

of Israel.

“It appears from the literal meaning of the prophecies that the

Messianic period will be preceded by the war of Gog and Magog, and that

before the war a prophet will appear to guide the Israelites, and to

direct their hearts to repentance. Comp. ‘Behold, I will send you

Elijah,’ [28] &c. (Mal. iii. 23). Elijah will not come to declare

unclean that which is clean, or clean that which is unclean; nor to

disqualify persons who are believed to be qualified for joining the

congregation of the Lord, or to qualify persons who are believed to be

disqualified; but he will come to establish peace on earth, as it is

said, ‘He shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children’ [29]

(Ibid. 24).

“Some of our Sages believe that Elijah will come before Messiah, but of

all these and similar things no man knows how they will come to pass;

they are unexplained in the Prophets, and our Sages have no tradition

about them; they only adopt what they believe to be the meaning of the

Biblical passages which refer to this subject. Hence the difference of

opinion. At all events, the order and the detail of these events do not

form an essential portion of our creed; we must not take too much

notice of Agadoth and Midrashim speaking on these and similar themes.

We must not attribute great importance to them, for they do not lead to

the fear or the love of God. We must also abstain from calculating the

time of the coming of Messiah, &c. All we have to do is to believe in

the coming of Messiah, to wait and hope.

“It is not because they desired to have dominion over all lands and

nations, and be honoured by all people, or because they desired to have

plenty to eat and drink, and other pleasures, that the wise men and the

prophets longed for the Messianic days, but because they would then be

at leisure to study the Law and its teaching without being interrupted

by any oppressor, and would thus make themselves worthy of the life in

the world to come (‏עולם הבא‎).

“There will not be in those days any famine, war, jealousy, or quarrel,

because the good things will be in plenty, and even luxuries will be

found everywhere; all will only busy themselves with trying to know the

Lord. Therefore the Israelites will be great sages, knowing things

which are at present hidden; they will obtain a knowledge of their

Creator as far as is possible by human understanding; ‘For the earth is

full with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters that cover the sea’”

(Maim., Mishneh-torah xiv.; Hilchoth Melachim xi.–xii.).

The war of Gog and Magog against the Holy Land referred to by

Maimonides is described by the prophet Ezekiel (chaps. xxxviii.,

xxxix.) as preceding the complete restoration of Israel. Saadiah has a

different view of this war. The punishment of Israel in exile is to

come to an end at a fixed time, or as soon as the Israelites by earnest

and thorough repentance show themselves worthy of Divine grace. In that

case no war of Gog and Magog will be waged against them. But if the

Israelites should allow the approach of the time fixed for the

redemption without having given signs of repentance and improvement,

great troubles will be brought upon them, which will forcibly remind

them of the necessity of returning to God; they will come together

under a leader, Messiah ben Joseph, under whose leadership they will

fight against their enemies, but will be beaten, and Messiah ben Joseph

himself will be killed. Then Messiah ben David will appear, and with

him the period of glory, of permanent peace and prosperity, and of the

worship of the One God by all nations. The idea of a double Messiah, a

warlike and a peaceful, an unsuccessful and a successful, is not

expressed in any of the prophecies in the Bible, and seems to be of a

later origin. Maimonides is silent about Messiah ben Joseph; so also

Albo in Ikkarim, and Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi in the book Cuzari. Albo

discusses the question about Messiah in chap. xlii. of the fourth

section of Ikkarim. He refutes the opinion of those who maintain that

the Messianic prophecies refer to the reign of Hezekiah or to the

restoration of Israel under Zerubbabel and Ezra. The condition of the

Israelites in the reign of Hezekiah did not resemble the state of

prosperity and glory and universal peace as depicted in the Messianic

prophecies; the fulfilment of these prophecies is still hoped for, and

our hope is founded on our belief in the truthfulness of the Word of

God. (Comp. Saadiah, Em. ve-deoth, VIII. iii.).