The Jewish religion

The second group of principles refers to Revelation. The real process of revelation, by what means and in what manner the infinite and incorporeal Being makes His Will known to man, and how the latter becomes conscious and convinced of the fact that a Divine communication has been made to him, remains a mystery to all but those privileged persons who have been actually addressed by the Almighty. “As the blind man who had never possessed the sense of sight is incapable of comprehending the actual process of seeing, so are we, born without that wonderful prophetic eye, without the prophetic faculty of the mind, incapable of comprehending and depicting the process of inspiration that goes on within the mind of the privileged” (Schmiedl, Studien, p. 183). God reveals Himself also in nature, in the power and wisdom displayed in its phenomena. He reveals Himself in the history of nations, and especially in the history of Israel. He reveals Himself in the intelligence of man. In all these cases the revelation is made to all alike. Those who have eyes may see, those who have ears may hear, and [47]recognise, every one according to his capacity, the presence of the Almighty in the working of the laws of nature, in the development and fates of nations, and in the life of every individual person. In all these cases we can test and prove the revelation by ourselves, and need not exclusively rely on authority. When, however, a Divine communication is made to one privileged individual, through whom it is made known to a whole community, or to mankind, there is no other means of testing the correctness of the revelation than the trustworthiness of the privileged individual.

The first lesson or proof given to the Israelites of the fact that such revelation was not only possible, but had actually been vouchsafed by the Almighty, was the revelation on Mount Sinai, the ‏מעמד הר סיני‎, which became the foundation of the faith of Israel. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever” (Exod. xix. 9). The trustworthiness of Moses having thus been tested and established “for ever,” his teaching remained the foundation of the teaching of all succeeding prophets, and the test of their truthfulness and genuineness. A prophet who taught anything opposed to the law of Moses could not be a true prophet, although he supported his words by signs and miracles (Deut. xiii. 2, sqq.). Besides, revelation of the Divine Being had taken place before. God revealed Himself to the first man. Adam heard the voice of God; he felt the presence of the Almighty, and learnt the amount of evil man brings upon himself by disobeying the word of God. The [48]consciousness of the existence of God, and of the fact that He has revealed Himself to man, has been inherited by the descendants of Adam. It has not been preserved in all men in the same strength and purity. The notion of a Divine Being, and of His revelation to man, became in course of time corrupt, and led to the corruption of the human race, with the exception of Noah and his family. “Noah was a righteous man; perfect he was in his generations: with God did Noah walk” (Gen. vi. 9). The inherited consciousness of God’s existence and of His rule over man was strengthened in him by fresh, direct revolution of God. He was told that the wicked would be destroyed by a flood, and that he with his family would be saved. “The righteous man” witnessed the infliction which the wicked brought upon themselves by evil deeds, and also that protection of himself and his family which had been promised and granted by the Almighty. After Noah had left the ark the word of God was again communicated to him, promising that never again would a flood be sent to destroy all living beings—a promise which succeeding generations up to the present have seen fulfilled. In the midst of rain the “sign of covenant,” the rainbow, reminds us still of His promise and its fulfilment. Of the descendants of Noah the Semites alone seem to have preserved the belief in God’s existence and His revelation to man in its original purity; and of the Semites it was Abraham who was chosen by Providence to be the founder of a family of faithful believers in God, who formed, as it were, the centre from which the true faith should spread in all directions over the whole face of the earth. Abraham [49]received Divine communications, and so also his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Even when the children of Israel were in Egyptian slavery, and when they did not hearken to Moses “because of anguish of spirit, and because of cruel bondage,” the memory of these revelations was never entirely extinguished in their minds; and when again addressed by Moses and Aaron “the people believed; and when they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped” (Exod. iv. 31). Their faith was strengthened when they witnessed the fulfilment of the Divine message which was brought to them by Moses: “And they believed in the Lord, and in Moses His servant” (Ibid. xiv. 31).

The foundation of the belief in the possibility of Divine revelation having thus been laid, that belief was further strengthened through the revelation on Mount Sinai, when every Israelite heard and understood the words addressed to him by God, “who had brought them out of Egypt, of the house of bondage;” they heard the very words which Moses subsequently told them in the name of God, and they were convinced of the truth of the words of Moses. He taught them that there would be other persons chosen by God to bring messages from Him to the children of Israel or to mankind, and at the same time he laid down the rule by which the truth of such messages could be tested.

A person favoured by Divine communications was called a prophet, ‏נביא‎. That which characterised a prophet and distinguished him from the ordinary man [50]was the privilege of being chosen by Providence to be ‏מלאך יי‎ “the messenger of God” to man. This notion of the characteristics of a prophet explains the circumstance that, although Daniel was favoured with numerous prophetic visions, the book called after his name was not placed among the Prophets, but among the Hagiographa. It is on account of his addressing his brethren and informing them of the Will of God that a person was called a prophet.2 By simply receiving a communication, without the direction to impart the knowledge acquired to others, a person may become a man of God, a man in whom there is the spirit of God, but not a prophet.

It is our belief that God would not reveal Himself to any one that is unworthy of such distinction. As a conditio sine quâ non it was necessary that the prophets distinguished themselves in every kind of virtue, that they set to their fellow-men an example of purity in thought, loftiness in speech, and nobility in action. As regards general knowledge and experience they were inferior to none of their contemporaries. In the Talmud the saying occurs: ‏אין השכינה שורה על אדם אלא אם כן היה חכם גבור ועשיר‎ “The Divine spirit does not rest on man, unless he is wise, strong, and rich” (Babyl. Talm. Shabbath, 92a). This is certainly a true conception of the character of a prophet, “strong” and “rich” being understood in a figurative sense: “strong” in possessing mastery over his passions, and “rich” in being contented with what he has (Aboth iv. 1). It was a matter of indifference, however, whether the [51]prophet was strong in body or weak, whether he had many earthly possessions or none at all.

In spite of his distinction from his fellow-men in wisdom, moral strength, and contentedness, the prophet remained a human being; he was, like every other person, exposed to the temptation to sin and liable to error. The sins and errors of prophets are recorded in order to save us from despair when we are conscious of our sinfulness, and to show us the way to repentance. This is illustrated especially in the history of the prophet Jonah. The records of the sins of prophets serve as a warning that we should not consider any man as perfect or deify him.

Although the prophet is assumed to have been wise, surpassing his fellow-men in knowledge and wisdom, it is by no means necessary to believe that he was familiar with all sciences, or that he knew any of the discoveries made in later times. The prophet had frequently to inform his brethren of what would happen in future, to tell them of things which no human eye could foresee. But he had in general no greater knowledge of coming events than other men, except in reference to those events concerning which he had received a message from God for His people or for mankind.

Can a man be trained for the office of a prophet? Was there a school or institution for this purpose? Every one could certainly be trained in the primary conditions of a prophet, in the exercise of all human virtues, and in the acquisition of all available knowledge; and it was the duty and the aim of the prophets to encourage all their brethren to such training by their own example. But the principal element in prophecy [52]the Divine communication, depended solely on the Will of God. “The sons of the prophets” are generally believed to be the pupils of the prophets; they formed “the schools of the prophets.” These schools, however, could not have been schools or colleges in the ordinary sense of the word. The sons of the prophets were instructed by the prophets, but not with the purpose of training them as prophets. It seems that the sons of the prophets served as agents for promulgating the inspired messages of their chief. Most probably they led a simple, pious life, were God-fearing, and spent their time when meeting together in music and song, repeating hymns and lessons taught by their master.

An account of some of the messages and deeds of the prophets is given in the Biblical books; some of their speeches also are preserved, in the section of the Bible called “Latter Prophets,” ‏נביאים אחרונים‎. The speeches of the prophets were in some cases prepared and written down before they were spoken, in others delivered ex tempore without preparation, and were written down afterwards from memory, either by the prophet himself or by one of his hearers, or were handed down vivâ voce from generation to generation before they were committed to writing.

There is another kind of Divine revelation which did not find expression in any message to the Israelites or to mankind, but in a certain supernatural impulse given to the thought or will of a person as regards his words and actions. Such an impulse is called inspiration, and the inspired person is moved to speak or act by the ‏רוח יי‎ “spirit of the Lord.” [53]

It was the spirit of the Lord that moved Samson to heroic deeds against the enemies of his people; David likewise felt that Divine impulse when pouring forth his heart before the Lord in his Psalms. He says: “The spirit of the Lord spake in me, and His word was on my tongue” (2 Sam. xxiii. 2). It was the spirit of the Lord that filled the hearts of those who collected and sifted the Holy Writings containing law, history, prophecies, and poetry, and gave them the form in which we possess them now.

We are not quite certain as to the form of the letters in the original copies of the Holy Writings; but from the way in which the Pentateuch is written now in the Synagogue scrolls, we may infer with certainty that the ancient copies of the Torah contained no vowels or accents, and that these have come down to us by oral tradition.

For the multiplication of copies, human copyists had to be employed. It is by no means contrary to our faith in the Bible to assume that, as far as the human work of these copyists is concerned, it must have been subject to the fate of all human work, to error and imperfection. And, in fact, there are many copies of the Bible that abound in mistakes; there are passages in Scripture that vary in the different manuscripts; hence the numerous variæ lectiones met with in the critical editions of the Bible. But, on the other hand, it would not be reasonable to assume that the holy literature and the national treasure, very limited in size, should have been neglected by the religious authorities of the time to such an extent that no reliable, correct copy was kept, to be consulted in case [54]of doubt or difference of opinion. This being the case with all Biblical books, it applies with special force to the Torah or Pentateuch, which contains the Divine commandments. The least alteration made by copyists—unknowingly or knowingly—might involve a question of life and death. Must it not have been the duty of the judicial authority to keep a correct authorised copy in a safe place? It is certainly most reasonable to assume that such a copy was kept, and that there were in every generation among the priests or prophets men who had a thorough knowledge of the Law, and could easily detect any interference with the text. As the laws do not form a separate section of the Bible, but are interwoven with a historical account of important events from the Creation to the death of Moses, the entire Pentateuch, composed of both laws and history, was preserved with the same anxiety and watchfulness. That great care was taken in copying the Law we learn from the fact mentioned in the Talmud, that Ezra minutely examined the three scrolls he found in the Temple, and in three passages noticed different readings, of which he adopted the one found in two copies.

The other books of the Bible are of less importance, but the exclusion of error on the part of the copyist, though it has not the same, has yet a high degree of certainty, inasmuch as they too formed part of the holy, national literature. If a mistake should be clearly proved, it would not be contrary to our religious principles to admit it. But we shall find, after thorough study and examination of the impugned passages, that there is in each case far greater doubt as to the correctness of any of the numerous emendations suggested [55]than of the traditional and Massoretic text before us. It may frequently occur that some emendations appear strikingly correct, and yet after due reflection they are found more doubtful than the original. It is therefore our duty thoroughly to examine each proposed emendation, and to hesitate long before admitting the incorrectness of the received text and the correctness of the emendation.

One of the means of preserving the text of the Scriptures in its integrity has been the Massorah. The notes which are found in the margin of Biblical books form part of the Massorah. At first the Massorah was part of the oral tradition; exceptional forms of letters, punctuation, and words were probably taught vivâ voce, and learnt by heart, especially by scribes, readers, and teachers. Where a confounding with other and similar forms was apprehended, attention was called to the fact, and by certain notes and rules it was guarded against. The material for the Massorah increased in the course of time, in the same degree as, with the multiplication of copies of the Scriptures, the number of misreadings and misinterpretations increased. Although these notes were arranged and written down at a late period, they helped to preserve the Biblical text in its integrity, and it is therefore stated in the Mishnah (Aboth iii. 13): “Massorah (tradition) is a fence to the Law.”

As to the name of the author of each book or section, and the time and place of its composition, we are guided by the headings where such are extant; in the absence of these we are left to the resources of our own judgment or fancy. There is no reason whatever [56]to doubt the correctness of these headings, as the religious and learned authorities of the time were trustworthy men, who would not add a heading where none was handed down to them by tradition. Several books and many psalms are therefore left without a heading; there was no sure tradition about them. How far the heading of a book or section extends, whether it was meant only for the beginning or for the whole of it, is in some cases doubtful, and must be decided by the nature and contents of the book. For instance, the second part of Isaiah, from chap. xl. to the end, has no heading of its own; it is therefore open to discussion whether the heading in the first verse of the first chapter describes only the first thirty-nine or all the sixty-six chapters of the book. It is possible that Psalms, ascribed, according to their heading, to David, consist of two or more parts, of which one only was composed by David. The names of the books do not necessarily imply a reference to the author. The Book of Joshua, e.g., may have received its name from its contents, the history of the Israelites under Joshua being contained in it. The two books of Samuel could not have been written by Samuel, not even the whole of the first book, since the death of Samuel is therein recorded; but they owe their name to the fact that the first book commences with the history of Samuel.