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 [170]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 [171]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 [172]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 [173]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 [174]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 [175]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 [176]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 [177]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 [178]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. [179]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. [180]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.” [181]

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.17 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 [182]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 declared18 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 [183]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 [184]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; [185]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.”19

The Immutability of God and of His decrees is frequently [186]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 [187]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.” [188]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.”20 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 [189]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.” [190]

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 [191]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). [192]

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 [193]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 [194]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 [195]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 [196]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,21 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.). [197]

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 [198]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 [199]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 [200]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 [201]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 [202]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 [203]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, [204]“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 …”