accordingly their teachings were adapted to the wants of their times. As
the result of manifold foreign influences, the visible fact of the
existence of God as manifested in the Bible had been somewhat obscured.
Prophecy ceased, and the Holy Spirit which inspired a few chosen ones took
its place. Afterwards this influence was reduced to the hearing of a Voice
from Heaven, which was audible to still fewer. On the other hand the
Rabbis had this advantage that they were not called upon to fight against
idolatry as their predecessors the prophets had been. The evil inclination
to worship idols was, as the Talmud expresses it allegorically, killed by
the Men of the Great Synagogue, or, as we should put it, it was suppressed
by the sufferings of the captivity in Babylon. This change of
circumstances is marked by the following fact:—Whilst the prophets mostly
considered idolatry as the cause of all sin, the Rabbis show a strong
tendency to ascribe sin to a defect in, or a want of, belief on the part
of the sinner. They teach that Adam would not have sinned unless he had
first denied the “Root of all” (or the main principle), namely, the belief
in the Omnipresence of God. Of Cain they say that before murdering his
brother he declared: “There is no judgment, there is no judge, there is no
world to come, and there is no reward for the just, and no punishment for
the wicked.”(112)
In another place we read that the commission of a sin in secret is an
impertinent attempt by the doer to oust God from the world. But if
unbelief is considered as the root of all evil, we may expect that the
reverse of it, a perfect faith, would be praised in the most exalted
terms. So we read: Faith is so great that the man who possesses it may
hope to become a worthy vessel of the Holy Spirit, or, as we should
express it, that he may hope to obtain by this power the highest degree of
communion with his Maker. The Patriarch Abraham, notwithstanding all his
other virtues, only became “the possessor of both worlds” by the merit of
his strong faith. Nay, even the fulfilment of a single law when
accompanied by true faith is, according to the Rabbis, sufficient to bring
man nigh to God. And the future redemption is also conditional on the
degree of faith shown by Israel.(113)
It has often been asked what the Rabbis would have thought of a man who
fulfils every commandment of the Torah, but does not believe that this
Torah was given by God, or that there exists a God at all. It is indeed
very difficult to answer this question with any degree of certainty. In
the time of the Rabbis people were still too simple for such a diplomatic
religion, and conformity in the modern sense was quite an unknown thing.
But from the foregoing remarks it would seem that the Rabbis could not
conceive such a monstrosity as atheistic orthodoxy. For, as we have seen,
the Rabbis thought that unbelief must needs end in sin, for faith is the
origin of all good. Accordingly, in the case just supposed they would have
either suspected the man’s orthodoxy, or would have denied that his views
were really what he professed them to be.
Still more important than the above cited Agadic passages is one which we
are about to quote from the tractate Sanhedrin. This tractate deals with
the constitution, of the supreme law‐court, the examination of the
witnesses, the functions of the judges, and the different punishment to be
inflicted on the transgressors of the law. After having enumerated various
kinds of capital punishment, the Mishnah adds the following words: “These
are (the men) who are excluded from the life to come: He who says there is
no resurrection from death; he who says there is no Torah given from
heaven, and the Epikurus.”(114) This passage was considered by the Rabbis
of the Middle Ages, as well as by modern scholars, the _locus classicus_
for the dogma question. There are many passages in the Rabbinic literature
which exclude man from the world to come for this or that sin. But these
are more or less of an Agadic (legendary) character, and thus lend
themselves to exaggeration and hyperbolic language. They cannot,
therefore, be considered as serious legal dicta, or as the general opinion
of the Rabbis.
The Mishnah in Sanhedrin, however, has, if only by its position in a legal
tractate, a certain _Halachic_ (obligatory) character. And the fact that
so early an authority as R. Akiba made additions to it guarantees its high
antiquity. The first two sentences of this Mishnah are clear enough. In
modern language, and positively speaking, they would represent articles of
belief in Resurrection and Revelation. Great difficulty is found in
defining what was meant by the word _Epikurus_. The authorities of the
Middle Ages, to whom I shall again have to refer, explain the Epikurus to
be a man who denies the belief in reward and punishment; others identify
him with one who denies the belief in Providence; while others again
consider the Epikurus to be one who denies Tradition. But the parallel
passages in which it occurs incline one rather to think that this word
cannot be defined by one kind of heresy. It implies rather a frivolous
treatment of the words of Scripture or of Tradition. In the case of the
latter (Tradition) it is certainly not honest difference of opinion that
is condemned; for the Rabbis themselves differed very often from each
other, and even Mediæval authorities did not feel any compunction about
explaining Scripture in variance with the Rabbinic interpretation, and
sometimes they even went so far as to declare that the view of this or
that great authority was only to be considered as an isolated opinion not
deserving particular attention. What they did blame was, as already said,
scoffing and impiety. We may thus safely assert that reverence for the
teachers of Israel formed the third essential principle of Judaism.(115)
I have still to remark that there occur in the Talmud such passages as
“the Jew, even if he has sinned, is still a Jew,” or “He who denies
idolatry is called a Jew.” These and similar passages have been used to
prove that Judaism was not a positive religion, but only involved the
negation of idolatry. But it has been overlooked that the statements
quoted have more a legal than a theological character. The Jew belonged to
his nationality even after having committed the greatest sin, just as the
Englishman does not cease to be an Englishman—in regard to treason and the
like—by having committed a heinous crime. But he has certainly acted in a
very un‐English way, and having outraged the feelings of the whole nation
will have to suffer for his misconduct. The Rabbis in a similar manner did
not maintain that he who gave up the belief in Revelation and
Resurrection, and treated irreverently the teachers of Israel, severed his
connection with the Jewish nation, but that, for his crime, he was going
to suffer the heaviest punishment. He was to be excluded from the world to
come.
Still, important as is the passage quoted from Sanhedrin, it would be
erroneous to think that it exhausted the creed of the Rabbis. The liturgy
and innumerable passages in the Midrashim show that they ardently clung to
the belief in the advent of the Messiah. All their hope was turned to the
future redemption and the final establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on
earth. Judaism, stripped of this belief, would have been for them devoid
of meaning. The belief in reward and punishment is also repeated again and
again in the old Rabbinic literature. A more emphatic declaration of the
belief in Providence than is conveyed by the following passages is hardly
conceivable. “Everything is foreseen, and free will is given. And the
world is judged by grace.” Or, “the born are to die, and the dead to
revive, and the living to be judged. For to know and to notify, and that
it may be known that He (God) is the Framer and He the Creator, and He the
Discerner, and He the Judge, and He the Witness,” etc.(116)
But it must not be forgotten that it was not the habit of the Rabbis to
lay down, either for conduct or for doctrine, rules which were commonly
known. When they urged the three points stated above there must have been
some historical reason for it. Probably these principles were controverted
by some heretics. Indeed, the whole tone of the passage cited from
Sanhedrin is a protest against certain unbelievers who are threatened with
punishment. Other beliefs, not less essential, but less disputed, remain
unmentioned, because there was no necessity to assert them.
It was not till a much later time, when the Jews came into closer contact
with new philosophical schools, and also new creeds which were more liable
than heathenism was to be confused with Judaism, that this necessity was
felt. And thus we are led at once to the period when the Jews became
acquainted with the teachings of the Mohammedan schools. The Caraites came
very early into contact with non‐Jewish systems. And so we find that they
were also the first to formulate Jewish dogmas in a fixed number, and in a
systematic order. It is also possible that their separation from the
Tradition, and their early division into little sects among themselves,
compelled them to take this step, in order to avoid further sectarianism.
The number of their dogmas amounts to ten. According to Judah Hadasi
(1150), who would appear to have derived them from his predecessors, their
dogmas include the following articles:—1. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 2. The
existence of a Creator, God; 3. This God is an absolute unity as well as
incorporeal; 4. Moses and the other prophets were sent by God; 5. God has
given to us the Torah, which is true and complete in every respect, not
wanting the addition of the so‐called Oral Law; 6. The Torah must be
studied by every Jew in the original (Hebrew) language; 7. The Holy Temple
was a place elected by God for His manifestation; 8. Resurrection of the
dead; 9. Punishment and reward after death; 10. The Coming of the Messiah,
the son of David.
How far the predecessors of Hadasi were influenced by a certain Joseph
Albashir (about 950), of whom there exists a manuscript work, “Rudiments
of Faith,” I am unable to say. The little we know of him reveals more of
his intimacy with Arabic thoughts than of his importance for his sect in
particular and for Judaism in general. After Hadasi I shall mention here
Elijah Bashazi, a Caraite writer of the end of the fifteenth century. This
author, who was much influenced by Maimonides, omits the second and the
seventh articles. In order to make up the ten he numbers the belief in the
eternity of God as an article, and divides the fourth article into two. In
the fifth article Bashazi does not emphasise so strongly the completeness
of the Torah as Hadasi, and omits the portion which is directed against
Tradition. It is interesting to see the distinction which Bashazi draws
between the Pentateuch and the Prophets. While he thinks that the five
books of Moses can never be altered, he regards the words of the Prophets
as only relating to their contemporaries, and thus subject to changes. As
I do not want to anticipate Maimonides’ system, I must refrain from giving
here the articles laid down by Solomon Troki in the beginning of the
eighteenth century. For the articles of Maimonides are copied by this
writer with a few slight alterations so as to dress them in a Caraite
garb.
I must dismiss the Caraites with these few remarks, my object being
chiefly to discuss the dogmas of the Synagogue from which they had
separated themselves. Besides, as in everything Caraitic, there is no
further development of the question. As Bashazi laid them down, they are
still taught by the Caraites of to‐day. I return to the Rabbanites.(117)
As is well known, Maimonides (1130‐1205), was the first Rabbanite who
formulated the dogmas of the Synagogue. But there are indications of
earlier attempts. R. Saadiah Gaon’s (892‐942) work, _Creeds and Opinions_,
shows such traces. He says in his preface, “My heart sickens to see that
the belief of my co‐religionists is impure and that their theological
views are confused.” The subjects he treats in this book, such as
creation, unity of God, resurrection of the dead, the future redemption of
Israel, reward and punishment, and other kindred theological subjects
might thus, perhaps, be considered as the essentials of the creed that the
Gaon desired to present in a pure and rational form. R. Hannaneel, of
Kairowan,(118) in the first half of the eleventh century, says in one of
his commentaries that to deserve eternal life one must believe in _four_
things: in God, in the prophets, in a future world where the just will be
rewarded, and in the advent of the Redeemer. From R. Judah Hallevi’s
_Cusari_, written in the beginning of the twelfth century, we might argue
that the belief in the election of Israel by God was the cardinal dogma of
the author.(119) Abraham Ibn Daud, a contemporary of Maimonides, in his
book _The High Belief_,(120) speaks of _rudiments_, among which, besides
such metaphysical principles as unity, rational conception of God’s
attributes, etc., the belief in the immutability of the Law, etc., is
included. Still, all these works are intended to furnish evidence from
philosophy or history for the truth of religion rather than to give a
definition of this truth. The latter task was undertaken by Maimonides.
I refer to the thirteen articles embodied in his first work, _The
Commentary to the Mishnah_. They are appended to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin,
with which I dealt above. But though they do not form an independent
treatise, Maimonides’ remarks must not be considered as merely incidental.
That Maimonides was quite conscious of the importance of this exposition
can be gathered from the concluding words addressed to the reader: “Know
these (words) and repeat them many times, and think them over in the
proper way. God knows that thou wouldst be deceiving thyself if thou
thinkest thou hast understood them by having read them once or even ten
times. Be not, therefore, hasty in perusing them. I have not composed them
without deep study and earnest reflection.”
The result of this deep study was that the following Thirteen Articles
constitute the creed of Judaism. They are:—
1. The belief in the existence of a Creator; 2. The belief in His Unity;
3. The belief in His Incorporeality; 4. The belief in His Eternity; 5. The
belief that all worship and adoration are due to Him alone; 6. The belief
in Prophecy; 7. The belief that Moses was the greatest of all Prophets,
both before and after him; 8. The belief that the Torah was revealed to
Moses on Mount Sinai; 9. The belief in the Immutability of this revealed
Torah; 10. The belief that God knows the actions of men; 11. The belief in
Reward and Punishment; 12. The belief in the coming of the Messiah; 13.
The belief in the Resurrection of the dead.
The impulse given by the great philosopher and still greater Jew was
eagerly followed by succeeding generations, and Judaism thus came into
possession of a dogmatic literature such as it never knew before
Maimonides. Maimonides is the centre of this literature, and I shall
accordingly speak in the remainder of this essay of Maimonists and Anti‐
Maimonists. These terms really apply to the great controversy that raged
round Maimonides’ _Guide of __ the Perplexed_, but I shall, chiefly for
brevity’s sake, employ them in these pages in a restricted sense to refer
to the dispute concerning the Thirteen Articles.
Among the Maimonists we may probably include the great majority of Jews,
who accepted the Thirteen Articles without further question. Maimonides
must indeed have filled up a great gap in Jewish theology, a gap,
moreover, the existence of which was very generally perceived. A century
had hardly elapsed before the Thirteen Articles had become a theme for the
poets of the Synagogue. And almost every country where Jews lived can show
a poem or a prayer founded on these Articles. R. Jacob Molin (1420) of
Germany speaks of metrical and rhymed songs in the German language, the
burden of which was the Thirteen Articles, and which were read by the
common people with great devotion. The numerous commentaries and homilies
written on the same topic would form a small library in themselves.(121)
But on the other hand it must not be denied that the Anti‐Maimonists, that
is to say those Jewish writers who did not agree with the creed formulated
by Maimonides, or agreed only in part with him, form also a very strong
and respectable minority. They deserve our attention the more as it is
their works which brought life into the subject and deepened it. It is not
by a perpetual Amen to every utterance of a great authority that truth or
literature gains anything.
The Anti‐Maimonists can be divided into two classes. The one class
categorically denies that Judaism has dogmas. I shall have occasion to
touch on this view when I come to speak of Abarbanel. Here I pass at once
to the second class of Anti‐Maimonists. This consists of those who agree
with Maimonides as to the existence of dogmas in Judaism, but who differ
from him as to what these dogmas are, or who give a different enumeration
of them.
As the first of these Anti‐Maimonists we may regard Nachmanides, who, in
his famous _Sermon in the Presence of the King_, speaks of three
fundamental principles: Creation (that is, non‐eternity of matter),
Omniscience of God, and Providence. Next comes R. Abba Mari ben Moses, of
Montpellier. He wrote at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and is
famous in Jewish history for his zeal against the study of philosophy. We
possess a small pamphlet by him dealing with our subject, and it forms a
kind of prologue to his collection of controversial letters against the
rationalists of his time.(122) He lays down three articles as the
fundamental teachings of Religion: 1. Metaphysical: The existence of God,
including His Unity and Incorporeality; 2. Mosaic: _Creatio ex nihilo_ by
God—a consequence of this principle is the belief that God is capable of
altering the laws of nature at His pleasure; 3. Ethical: Special
Providence—_i.e._ God knows all our actions in all their details. Abba
Mari does not mention Maimonides’ Thirteen Articles. But it would be false
to conclude that he rejected the belief in the coming of the Messiah, or
any other article of Maimonides. The whole tone and tendency of this
pamphlet is polemical, and it is therefore probable that he only urged
those points which were either doubted or explained in an unorthodox way
by the sceptics of his time.
Another scholar, of Provence, who wrote but twenty years later than Abba
Mari—R. David ben Samuel d’Estella (1320)—speaks of the seven pillars of
religion. They are: Revelation, Providence, Reward and Punishment, the
Coming of the Messiah, Resurrection of the Dead, _Creatio ex nihilo_, and
Free Will.(123)
Of authors living in other countries, I have to mention here R. Shemariah,
of Crete, who flourished at about the same time as R. David d’Estella, and
is known from his efforts to reconcile the Caraites with the Rabbanites.
This author wrote a book for the purpose of furnishing Jewish students
with evidence for what he considered the five fundamental teachings of
Judaism, viz.: 1. The Existence of God; 2. The Incorporeality of God; 3.
His Absolute Unity; 4. That God created heaven and earth; 5. That God
created the world after His will 5106 years ago—5106 (1346 A.C.), being
the year in which Shemariah wrote these words.(124)
In Portugal, at about the same time, we find R. David ben Yom‐Tob Bilia
adding to the articles of Maimonides thirteen of his own, which he calls
the “Fundamentals of the Thinking Man.” Five of these articles relate to
the functions of the human soul, that, according to him, emanated from
God, and to the way in which this divine soul receives its punishment and
reward. The other eight articles are as follows: 1. The belief in the
existence of spiritual beings—angels; 2. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 3. The
belief in the existence of another world, and that this other world is
only a spiritual one; 4. The Torah is above philosophy; 5. The Torah has
an outward (literal) meaning and an inward (allegorical) meaning; 6. The
text of the Torah is not subject to any emendation; 7. The reward of a
good action is the good work itself, and the doer must not expect any
other reward; 8. It is only by the “commands relating to the heart,” for
instance, the belief in one eternal God, the loving and fearing Him, and
not through good actions, that man attains the highest degree of
perfection.(125) Perhaps it would be suitable to mention here another
contemporaneous writer, who also enumerates twenty‐six articles. The name
of this writer is unknown, and his articles are only gathered from
quotations by later authors. It would seem from these quotations that the
articles of this unknown author consisted mostly of statements emphasising
the belief in the attributes of God: as, His Eternity, His Wisdom and
Omnipotence, and the like.(126)
More important for our subject are the productions of the fifteenth
century, especially those of Spanish authors. The fifteen articles of R.
Lipman Muhlhausen, in the preface to his well‐known _Book of Victory_(127)
(1410), differ but slightly from those of Maimonides. In accordance with
the anti‐Christian tendency of his polemical book, he lays more stress on
the two articles of Unity and Incorporeality, and makes of them four. We
can therefore dismiss him with this short remark, and pass at once to the
Spanish Rabbis.