There are also some instances in the Talmud and the Midrashim of Biblical quotations not in harmony with the received text. This discrepancy is either due to the fact that preachers and expounders quoted from memory, and may have erroneously confounded two similar passages, or it is due to the carelessness of the copyists. Indications of a Biblical text at variance with the received text are found in the ancient Versions. But, with the exception of the Chaldee Version of the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and that of [205]the Prophets by Jonathan, we have no authorised Version, and it is uncertain how many of the discrepancies have their origin in a corrupt text in the hands of the translator, and how many of them are due to the error of the translator in misreading or mistranslating the correct text before him. By no means are these facts sufficient ground for doubting the correctness of the received text, however plausible the suggested emendations may appear.

Samaritans and Mohammedans have accused the Jews of having altered the text of the Bible; but they have not proved the charge. (See Emunah-ramah, 5th Principle, chap. ii.)

Modern critics have impugned the authenticity of most of the Biblical books. We will discuss their opinions concerning three of these books, and these are the most important ones concerning which Tradition speaks most decidedly, viz., the Pentateuch, the Prophecies of Isaiah, and the Book of Daniel.

The existence of the Pentateuch at the time when the other Biblical books were written is clear from the frequent references to the history and the laws contained in it. Such are, e.g.: “Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law which Moses, my servant, commanded thee,” &c. “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth,” &c. (Jos. i. 7, 8). “As Moses, the servant of the Lord, commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses,” &c. “And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and cursing, according to all that is written in the book of the law” (Ibid. viii. 31, 32, 34). “Keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses,” &c. (1 Kings [206]ii. 3). “But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses,” &c. (2 Kings xiv. 6). “Keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of the covenant” (Ibid. xxiii. 21). “Remember the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, statutes and judgments” (Mal. iii. 16).

The authors of the other books of the Bible show familiarity with the words, the phrases, and the contents of the Pentateuch. Thus Psalm civ. is based on the first chapter of Genesis; the flood is mentioned in Ps. xxix. and in the prophecies of Isaiah (liv. 9); the history of the Patriarchs and of the Israelites in Egypt and in the wilderness in Ps. cvi., lxxviii.; the history of Jacob is alluded to in Hosea xii.; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Isa. i. 9, Amos iv. 11.

Of the laws contained in the Pentateuch many are mentioned or alluded to in the books of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; the feast of Passover (Jos. iv.), Tabernacles (Zech. xiv. 16–20, Ezra iii. 4, Neh. viii. 14–18); the first day22 of the seventh month (New-year) is mentioned as a “holy day” (Neh. viii. 10). The dietary laws are referred to by Isaiah (lxvi. 17); the laws of cleanness and uncleanness form the text of a prophecy of Haggai (ii. 10 sqq.). Such phrases as “Uncircumcised in heart” (Jer. ix. 25) and “Thou wilt purify me with hyssop and I shall be clean” (Ps. li. 9) show familiarity with the laws of the Pentateuch. Sabbath and sacrifices are frequently mentioned. Critics, however, assert that certain laws seem to have been unknown or out of practice in the period of the Judges and the Kings. There is, e.g., a perfect silence as to the celebration of “the Day of Blowing the shofar” and “the Day of Atonement,” even where such [207]mention is suggested by the context, as Kings viii. 65, 66, and Nehemiah viii. But the inspired historians preferred to describe the celebration of those festivals that had been neglected, or those that were also of national and political importance by concentrating the mass of the people in the capital; such festivals were Passover and Tabernacles. The Day of Blowing the shofar and the Day of Atonement were set aside for quiet, private devotion and meditation, the additional service in the Temple being in the hands of the priests, and the observation of these days as holy days in accordance with the Law was a matter of course, and was not considered by the authors as a memorable event that required special notice. One of the prophecies of Isaiah (chap, lviii.) seems to have reference to the Day of Atonement.

That in the days of the Judges, when “every man did what was right in his eyes,” and during the reign of wicked kings many laws were ignored or broken is not at all surprising. When the sacrifices offered up by Samuel and Solomon are adduced as a proof that the Law, which only allows priests to sacrifice, was not known in those days, the argument is based on a misinterpretation of the Biblical text. When laymen brought sacrifices, the priests performed the service for them; the principal thing to be mentioned was in whose name or in whose presence the sacrifice was brought; it was unnecessary to state that the priests had to sprinkle the blood and to burn certain portions upon the altar; no one doubted it.

Another argument against the authenticity of the Pentateuch has been based on the fact related in the second book of Kings (xxii. 8 sqq.): “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found a book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it [208]came to pass when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.” It is maintained by some scholars that the book, which seems to have been an unknown thing to those who found it and to the king, had only just then been written. This is not what is directly stated in the Bible. Hilkiah speaks of the Law ‏התורה‎, the well-known Torah; he would not have said so if the Torah had not been in existence before. Furthermore, the king on hearing the words of the book rent his garments, and sent to inquire of the Lord concerning the words of this book; for “great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book.” These words of the king clearly show that the king was convinced of the divine character of the book, and also of its existence in the time of his forefathers. The fact that King Josiah accuses “the fathers” suggests the following explanation of the event:—During the reign of the wicked King Manasseh the reading of the Law was interrupted; the book itself was hidden lest it should be destroyed by the idolatrous priests; now that it was found again, the king was reminded that the Torah had been neglected in the interval through the sin of the preceding generation. Whether there was another copy of the Law in the Temple, whether the one found by Hilkiah was complete, or contained only a portion of the Law, perhaps Deuteronomy, chap. xxvii. and chap. xxviii., which are in the Pentateuch called “the words of this covenant” and also “the words of the curse,” titles which occur also in reference to the above copy in the books of Kings and Chronicles; to these and similar questions the Biblical account gives no decided answer. Only so much is certain that the book found was not new or unknown to those who found it, and the king recognised it as the book of the Torah.

Far from finding in the other books of the Bible any evidence—whether positive or negative—of the later origin [209]of the Torah, we feel convinced that their contents presuppose not only the existence of the Torah, but also the authors’ familiarity with it. Without the Torah the other books are unintelligible. There is nothing in the Pentateuch that betrays a post-Mosaic origin. If the Pentateuch had been written in the period of the Kings, the author would have mentioned Jerusalem as the appointed place for the Sanctuary; in the rebukes (‏תוכחה‎), in addition to idolatry, the social corruption pointed out by the prophets would have been mentioned; the restrictive law concerning the marriage of heiresses would have been superfluous, as it only applied to the first generation that entered Palestine.

The phrase ‏עבר הירדן‎ has been quoted as a proof that the author of the Pentateuch must have lived in Palestine, or else he could not have called the east banks of the Jordan “the other side of Jordan;” but this translation is wrong. The phrase only means the banks of Jordan.

In the Talmud the Pentateuch in its entirety is ascribed to Moses. “Moses wrote his book and the book of Bileam” (Babyl. Talm. Baba Bathra, 14b). The book of Bileam is the section of Numbers which contains the parables of Bileam (from xxii. 2 to xxiv.).

There is, however, a difference of opinion with regard to the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. According to Rabbi Jehudah (or Rabbi Nehemiah) Joshua wrote this passage. Rabbi Shimeon objected: “Is it possible that the Torah was incomplete when Moses was told, ‘Take this book of the law?’ (Deut. xxxi. 26).23 God dictated the last eight verses of the Pentateuch to Moses, and the latter wrote them with tears.”

With this exception, no doubt was entertained by any [210]of the Rabbis as to the integrity of the Torah. Various, however, were the opinions as to the method followed by Moses in writing down the events and the laws. Rabbi Jochanan, following the opinion of Rabbi Banaah, held that the Torah was written by Moses piecewise at different times, just as the events happened or as each law was revealed to him. Rabbi Shimeon ben Lakish said “it was given at one time in its entirety” (Babyl. Talm. Gittin 60a).

Passages of the Torah which seemed to contradict each other, or to be contradicted by statements found in other books of the Bible, were thoroughly discussed and explained. The belief in the integrity and divinity of the Torah was so strong that those who rejected either of these beliefs were considered as unworthy of the blessings of the future world (Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin 99a).

With the rise of Karaism Bible criticism received new encouragement, as in the warfare between Karaism and Rabbinism, or Scripturalists and Traditionalists, it furnished both sides with sharp weapons. Some, however, of the commentators went further, and gave utterance to all sorts of heterodox views. Thus a certain Yitzchaki of Spain was of opinion that Gen. xxxvi. 31–43 was a later addition, on account of the phrase, “These were the kings who ruled over Edom before a king ruled over Israel.” The critics forgot that this passage is intended to point out the advance which Esau’s descendants had made, when the prophecy, “And kings shall come forth out of thee” (xxxv. 11) had not yet been fulfilled in the case of the Israelites.

Of the Commentators of the Middle Ages, Ibn Ezra is generally singled out as an advanced scholar who held certain passages of the Pentateuch as later additions. Ibn Ezra was far from such views, and he sharply rebuked those who entertained them. Thus he says of Yitzchaki, the author of the above criticism, “Every one who will hear this will [211]laugh at him, and his book deserves to be burnt.” With equal vigour he criticises a grammarian who pointed out certain passages as grammatically incorrect, and also another scholar who in his interpretations of the Bible did not take sufficient notice of the traditional accents. The error concerning Ibn Ezra has its origin in his habit of adding the phrase, “The words have some deeper sense” (‏יש לו סוד‎), whenever the literal interpretation does not quite satisfy him, or when the object of the author in adding a seemingly superfluous sentence is not clear to him; as, for instance, in the four passages referred to in the Commentary on Deuteronomy i. 2, namely, “The Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. xii. 6), “On the mount of the Lord will it appear” (Ibid. xxii. 14), the repetition of the sacrifices of the twelve princes (Num. vii.), and the stations enumerated in Numbers (chap. xxxiii.), in addition to the detailed geographical description of Deut. i. 1 sqq. The meaning of this remark has been misunderstood by the early expounders of Ibn Ezra’s Commentary, and since then the mistake has been repeated by most of the critics of the Bible. Spinoza, in his theological treatise, quotes Ibn Ezra, with the usual misinterpretation, in support of his view concerning the Torah.

Modern critics have attempted to analyse the Pentateuch, and to assign to it several authors, revisers, and editors. But there is little harmony among the critics; the one considers as the latest addition what the other holds to be the oldest portions of the book. Numerous emendations are made by every one of them in order to establish his special theory. The fundamental principle of most of them is that the section in which the name Elohim is prevalent could not have been written by the author of another section in which the Tetragrammaton is employed. But the two names, though denoting the same Being, are not identical in meaning: the one signifies the Almighty, who is the Ruler of the [212]universe, the Master and Judge of all beings; the other is the name of the Merciful Father, who reveals Himself to man, interferes in his behalf, and has especially revealed His Providence and Kindness to the Israelites.

A careful study of the Hebrew Bible will show that it is not the author, or the age of the author, but the contents of the passage that determined which of the Divine names was to be used. The same author repeats the same account with some variation, according to the lesson which he intends to convey to the reader. The proofs which are based on the differences discovered in two accounts of apparently the same event, or on seeming contradictions or anachronisms, are so indifferently supported that they are not able to conquer the fortress of Faith and Tradition. The difficulties pointed out by the critics vanish before patient study and the earnest longing for instruction and comfort offered by the Bible.

The Book of Isaiah has likewise been subjected to the analytical test of the critic, and it is generally believed that the prophecies contained in the book have not all been written by the same author or in the same age. The book is divided into two large sections; the second section, from chap. xl. to chap, lxvi., is thought to have been composed shortly before the return of the Jews from Babylon. Although it is possible that anonymous prophecies were added to a book, the reasons which induced critics to make such a division are untenable. The first reason is the difference in style; but we must take account of the difference in the contents of the two sections. The prophecies in the first section have mostly a threatening tendency with regard to imminent punishment, whilst in the second section Israel is to be encouraged in his faith in the Almighty and in his hopes for a better future. It is but natural that the style should not be the same in both sections. [213]Another reason for ascribing the second section to a later prophet is the fact that Koresh (Cyrus), king of Persia, is mentioned by name, and the fall of Babylon and the consequent deliverance of the Jews are described as well-known facts of the past. This and similar arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the character of the prophecies. The critics ignore the essential difference between the writings of inspired messengers of God and those of ordinary men. They deny to the man of God the power of foreseeing and foretelling coming events of which his fellow-men could not have any knowledge. By such arguments the critics set limits to the power and wisdom of God, and employ the same measure for both that which is Divine and that which is human. A Divine prophet has, by the Will of the Almighty, the future unrolled before him; he sees the catastrophe which is to come centuries later, and perceives its effect and its end. Even when he reviews the present state of affairs and takes the immediate future into consideration, his eyes frequently behold scenes and events of “the end of the days” (‏באחרית הימים‎), which he points out as the goal of our hopes and aspirations. When he warns, advises, or encourages his brethren with regard to their present wants, the virtues and the happiness of the Messianic age are not rarely introduced. Earlier events, though still future in time, appear then in the light of accomplished facts, and in their description the past tense is used instead of the future. Thus it happened that the prophet Isaiah, who flourished during the reign of King Hezekiah, could take his standpoint on the return of the Jews from Babylonia, look back at the exile as a thing of the past, and reveal to his brethren further troubles, the succeeding final redemption, and the ultimate triumph of the faithful and God-fearing over the faithless and wicked.

It is true that it is an unusual thing for a prophet to name a king who is to rule centuries after the death of the [214]prophet, unless the name is a common noun, and has by its meaning some bearing on the prophecy. The name Cyrus fulfils, perhaps, this condition; according to Ktesias, it signifies “sun,” an appropriate name to be given to the king who is destined to be the deliverer of a captive people. King Cyrus may have assumed this name when he became convinced of the mission entrusted to him by Providence.

The authenticity of the Book of Daniel has likewise been impugned, and its advocates are, it must be admitted, at present very few. The narratives which the book contains are considered as improbable or even impossible, and its visions as prophecies ex facto. It was written, according to these critics, in the period of the Maccabees, and the name of Daniel was chosen in order to give more weight to the contents of the book, Daniel being known as a man famous for his piety among his fellow-exiles. Against this we have the distinct evidence in the book, in which the author is described as the same Daniel that lived during the Babylonian exile; Jewish tradition knew of no other author of the book than Daniel. Although the Book of Daniel was not placed amongst the books of the Prophets, because he was not charged with any mission to his fellow-men, the visions described in Daniel were nevertheless, in Jewish literature, considered as true and genuine prophecy. The narratives have the distinct object to teach that piety and firmness in obedience to the word of God can conquer the rage of the most powerful tyrants; this tendency on the part of the author is especially noticed in the manner in which every circumstance bearing on this lesson is depicted. This, however, does not detract the least from the truth and genuineness of the facts which, by the plan of Providence, seem to have taken place for this very purpose. The demand of the king that the magicians should tell him his dream, which he himself had forgotten, and that failing to do so they should be put to death; [215]the decree commanding his subjects to worship the idol and to pray to him, and other foolish royal acts, almost incredible to us, are strange indeed, but would appear less strange if all the records of the acts of Eastern tyrants had been preserved. It has been contended that the history of the Syrian wars with Egypt, and the suffering of the Jews through the Syrian invasion, is given in such detail as could only be done by a contemporary. But apart from the fact that a careful study of the visions of Daniel will convince us that we have here only a faint outline of the Syrian wars and not a detailed description, it must not be forgotten that the author only reproduces what was shown to him by the Omniscient concerning the most important event in the history of the nation—the preservation of the holy religion through the firmness and the courage of a few faithful servants of God. The fulfilment of the portion of the vision which referred to the period of the Maccabees is a guarantee for the fulfilment of the prophecies yet unrealised.

In like manner have the authenticity and the integrity of other Biblical books been rejected; the method and the arguments are the same; they are based on a misunderstanding of the true essence of prophecy and inspiration, and originate in a want of belief in the Omniscience and Omnipotence of the Divine Being.

On the Ninth Principle, p. 139.

In the Pentateuch there is not the slightest indication that the laws revealed on Sinai might be superseded by a future Revelation. On the contrary, we meet repeatedly with the phrases, ‏חקת עולם‎, “an everlasting statute,” ‏לדרות עולם‎, “for everlasting generations,” and similar expressions, which clearly show the intention of Him who gave the laws that these should last for ever. The Israelites were told that [216]Prophets would be sent to them, and that they must listen to the Prophets and obey them, but at the same time they were commanded to put to death a prophet who would attempt “to turn them aside from the way which the Lord commanded them to walk therein” (Deut. xiii. 6). Besides, the Prophets never speak of a new Revelation, which would supersede the Torah. When Jeremiah prophesies about a new covenant, the context teaches the reader what is meant by the “new covenant.” He speaks of the future and final restoration of Israel as follows: “Behold, days will come, saith the Lord, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant which I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, when I set my Law among them and write it upon their heart: both I shall be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Jer. xxxi. 31–33). The Law is not to be altered, but it will dwell more firmly in the heart of Israel; the deliverance from Egypt was soon forgotten, but the future deliverance will plant the fear and love of God—here called the Law of God—in the hearts of the people in such a manner that it will take a deep root and will not be plucked out of it again. There occur, however, in Talmud and Midrash sayings which seem to imply a future alteration of the Law; e.g., “In future all prayers will cease except that of thanksgiving: in future all sacrifices will cease except that of thanks-offering” (Midrash on Ps. c.). In these sayings their authors simply intended to emphasise the duty of thanksgiving; even in the state of physical and moral perfection, when there will be a perfect absence of trouble and fear and a perfect immunity of sin, so that there will be nothing to be prayed [217]for, nothing to be atoned for through sacrifice, the duty of offering prayers and sacrifices of thanksgiving will still remain in full force. Another saying of this kind is: “If all festivals were to cease, Purim will never be forgotten” (Piyyut for Sabbath Zachor); that is, even if other festivals should be neglected, Purim is so much liked that it will never be forgotten by the Jews. In Talmud Jerus. Megillah (i. 7) we read: “The reading from the Prophets and the Hagiographa may at some future time be discontinued, but the reading of the Pentateuch will never be abolished.” The idea expressed by this dictum is, that the warnings or consolations or prayers may become superfluous by the changed condition of the future, but the laws and statutes of the Pentateuch will always remain in force.

In sayings of this kind the time to which they are meant to apply is not defined. “The future” (‏לעתיד לבא‎) may mean the time of Messiah, or else the time of the Resurrection, or what we are used to call “the future life.” As in the above quotation, the authors aimed at inculcating some moral lesson for the present state of things, and not at describing the results of philosophical speculation with regard to remote times. A new revelation, or the abrogation of the Law or part of it, is nowhere mentioned.

On the contrary, it is emphasised in the Talmud that the Torah has been given to Israel in its entirety, and nothing has been reserved for a second revelation. “The Law is not any longer in heaven,” it is entirely in the hands of man. The only authority recognised in the interpretation of the Law was that based on knowledge, tradition, and common sense. Authority claimed for this purpose on the ground of supernatural privilege, prophecy, bath-kol or miracle, was not recognised (Babyl. Talm. Baba Metsia, 59b).

Maimonides (Mishneh torah, Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah ix.) says on this principle as follows:—“It has been distinctly stated in the Torah that its precepts remain in [218]force for ever without change, diminution, or addition. Comp. ‘The word which I command you that you must keep to do, thou shalt not add ought unto it nor take ought away from it’ (Deut. xiii. i); ‘That which has been revealed for us and for our children for ever is to do all the words of this Law’ (Ibid. xxix. 28). Hence it follows that we are bound for ever to do according to the words of the Torah. It is further said, ‘An everlasting statute for all your generations’ (Exod. xii. 14, 17, et passim); ‘It is not in heaven’24 (Deut. xxx. 12). Hence we see that a prophet cannot reveal any new law. If, therefore, any man, whether an Israelite or a non-Israelite, should rise, perform signs and miracles, and say that the Lord sent him to add one precept or to abolish one of the Divine precepts, or to interpret a precept in a way different from what has been handed down to us from Moses, or assert that the precepts which were given to the Israelites had only temporary force and were not permanent laws: such a man is a false prophet, because he contradicts the prophecy of Moses. The mission of the Prophets after Moses is to exhort the people to obey the Law of Moses, and not to make a new religion.”—Comp. “The Guide,” II. xxxix.; and Saadiah, Emunoth ve-deoth, III. chap. vii. to x.

Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in the book Cuzari, seems to have a different view. He likewise believes in the permanent character of the Torah, but he modifies his view in accordance with his interpretation of the words, “And thou shalt do according to the word which they—viz., the priests and the judge that shall be in those days—will tell thee from that place which the Lord shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they will teach thee” (Deut. xvii. 9, 10). According to his view, these words [219]imply that from time to time prophets or inspired men, or the highest authority of the nation, whilst the Shechinah was still filling the Temple, issued laws and orders, which had legal force, and all were bound to obey them. But since the destruction of the Temple there has not been any man or any court that had the authority to make new permanent laws. According to Maimonides, however, there were no additions made to the Torah; the Rabbinical laws are either temporary regulations or served as a means of ensuring the strict observance of the Torah.

Albo, in criticising the principles of faith as laid down by Maimonides, objects also to the Ninth Principle, and contends that it is not fundamental, since the belief in the Divine origin of the Law does not necessarily imply the belief in its eternity. But although the possibility of a second revelation superseding the first is admitted in principle or theory, it does not follow that such revelation has in reality been made. If any person asserts that he is sent by God to repeal the old laws or to alter them, he must prove his Divine mission before he can be believed. We are fully convinced of the Divine mission of Moses, and our conviction of the Divine mission of the new prophet must at least be equally strong. The Divine character of the mission of Moses was revealed to the Israelites by God Himself; and only such direct revelation could satisfy us as to the trustworthiness of the new prophet (Ikkarim III. xix.).

R. Abraham ben David, in his book Emunah-ramah, finds in various passages of the Bible indications that the Torah was to remain in force permanently. Thus Isaiah and Zechariah, speaking of the remote future, refer respectively to the celebration of Sabbath and New-moon, and to the celebration of Sukkoth. Again, in refuting the claims of Christians on behalf of Jesus, and of Mohammedans on behalf of Mohammed, to a Divine mission to substitute a new covenant [220]for the old one, Rabbi Abraham argues thus: “The divinity of the old covenant, or the Torah, has been admitted by both Jesus and Mohammed; we need not prove it. But the Divine authority asserted by them for its abrogation or change is not admitted by us; it must be proved; and since no proof has been given, it must be rejected” (Fifth Principle, chap. ii.).

On the Tenth Principle, p. 148.

It is noteworthy that this principle is exceptionally supported by a Biblical verse. The same may be noticed in the book Cuzari (V. xviii.), in the enumeration of the principles of faith according to the methods of Mohammedan Theologians (Medabberim); the principle of God’s Omniscience is supported by a Biblical verse, only with this difference, that in the Cuzari it is not exactly the principle of God’s Omniscience, but its proof derived from the Creation, that is supported by a quotation from Ps. xciv. The reason of the anomaly is this: Some of the opponents of this principle contend that it would be derogatory to the greatness of God if He were to take notice of the doings of each individual being. To this the reply is given: The Psalmist, who was far from saying anything derogatory of God, declared that God knows the deeds and the thoughts of each individual.

The problem how to reconcile God’s Prescience and Omniscience with man’s Free-will has of course engaged the attention of all Jewish theologians and philosophers, and, though in different ways and words, they all assume that God’s knowledge of a thing is by no means the cause of its existence. (See Cuzari, V. xx.; “Guide,” III. xx.; Saadiah, Emunoth, II. chap, ix.)

Perhaps a reconciliation is not necessary at all, there being no conflict. We should not call it a defect in God if His Omniscience were restricted to things knowable; a prescience [221]of things to be determined by man’s free-will is contradictory in itself, and illogical, and to say that God would not be omniscient if He did not know them, is as absurd as to say that God would not be omnipotent if He could not make twice two to be three.

On the Eleventh Principle, p. 150.

The subject of this creed has been the main thought of the lesson preached by the prophets, of the hymns sung by the psalmists, and of the narratives written by the sacred chroniclers, as has been illustrated above (p. 155) by Biblical quotations. To these may be added (1.) the song haazinu, the professed object of which was to remind the Israelites of God’s Justice whenever evil should befall them. The words which form the basis of the song, viz., “The Rock, perfect is his work,” &c. (Deut. xxxii. 4), are also at present recited at funeral rites, as ‏צדוק הדין‎, an expression of our firm belief in God’s Justice. (2.) The prophet who laments over the fall of Jerusalem declares: “Out of the mouth of the Most High do not come forth the evil things and the good (i.e., man causes them by his evil or good deeds, which are the result of his own free will and not of the Will of God). Why should man complain (of what has befallen him), being master over his sins?” (Lam. iii. 38, 39).

In the Talmud the doctrine of God’s Justice is expressed thus: “Thy employer is trustworthy, that he will pay thee the reward of thy deeds” (Aboth ii. 21). “The shop is open, and the merchant gives on credit, and all who like may come and borrow; but the collectors go constantly about, and exact payment whether the debtor is willing to pay or not, for they have something to rely upon, and the judgment is a just judgment; and everything is prepared for a banquet” (Aboth iii. 20). “God does not withhold ought of the desert of any creature” (Pesachim, 118a). [222]

It is, however, emphatically declared in the Talmud that the reward of good deeds is given to the righteous in the future life, ‏עולם הבא‎, “The reward for obedience to the Divine commandments is not to be expected in this world” (Kiddushin, 39b). “The Law says with reference to the Divine precepts, ‘Which I command thee this day to do them;’ hence we infer that their performance is to take place this day, i.e., in this life, but their reward will be received in the future life” (Abodah-zarah, 3a).

“Rabbi Elazar ha-kappar used to say, ‘Those that have been born will die; those that have died will come to life again; those that have come to life again will be judged.’ He said so in order that he himself might bear in mind, and tell others, and that it might become generally known, that God, who has formed and created man’s heart and understands all his doings, is the Judge, the Witness, and the Prosecutor; He before whom there is no wrong, no forgetfulness, no partiality, and no bribery, will one day judge. Let thy imagination not persuade thee that the grave is a refuge for thee. For without thy consent hast thou been born, and without thy consent wilt thou die, and without thy consent thou art brought to life again to account for thy deeds before the King of kings, blessed be He” (Aboth iv. 22).

The immediate enjoyment of the reward is, however, not excluded. We read in the Law, “Do this and thy days will be long;” and the Mishnah teaches, “These are the good acts, the fruit of which man enjoys in this life, whilst the full reward awaits him in the world to come: honouring father and mother, the practice of charity, peace-making between man and man, and above all the study of the Law” (Mishnah, Peah. i. 1).

The faithful Israelite is not discouraged at the sight of the successes of the wicked; on the contrary, he believes: “If to those who break the Divine laws such kindness is shown [223]by God, what must be His goodness to those who obey Him!” (Midrash Yalkut on Isaiah viii. 1). As regards the troubles of the good, our Sages teach that the good will receive their reward “in proportion to their suffering.” Yet pious men do not seek trouble and pain merely for the prospect of future compensation; on the contrary, they avail themselves of every possible means to secure relief, and would even renounce in their agony all compensation in the future world, in order to secure release from pain in the present (Babyl. Talm. Berachoth, 5a).

As the life of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was free from care and trouble, and such a life was the ideal of human hopes and wishes, the Garden-Eden, ‏גן עדן‎ (lit., “the garden of pleasure”), became the symbol of man’s happiness in its perfection, such as will fall to the share of the good and the righteous. On the other hand, the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, was a place of horror and disgust; a place where at one time children were burnt to Moloch, and where later the refuse of the city was cast. Dwelling in the valley of Hinnom (‏גיהנום‎) became the symbol of the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked. Gan-eden or Paradise, and Gehinnom or Hell, are thus mere figures to express our idea of the existence of a future retribution, and must not be taken literally as names of certain places.

The detailed descriptions of Paradise and hell as given in books both profane and religious are nothing but the offspring of man’s imagination.

The question has been asked, How long shall the punishment of the wicked last? Will it be eternal? and if so, is it compatible with God’s goodness? This and similar questions do not concern us in the least. Our task is to do what the Lord has commanded us to do, and to trust, as regards the future, in Him, who knows best to combine goodness and [224]justice. We must here bear in mind that “God’s thoughts are not ours.”

Equally ignorant are we as to the cause of the suffering and of the death of each individual; but of this we are certain, if death is punishment, that every one dies for his own sin. This theory is so frequently repeated in the Bible that it is surprising how the theory of Vicarious Death and Vicarious Atonement could be considered as harmonising with the teaching of the Bible. We are taught that God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation; but at the same time we are told that the children are only punished if they repeat the sins of their fathers, and even then only for their own sins (comp. p. 251). It has been asserted that Isaiah in chap. liii. assumes the principle of vicarious atonement. That this is not the case we can easily see if we turn from the Anglican Version to the original Hebrew, and translate it literally and in accordance with the context. Isaiah, in describing the future glory of the servant of the Lord (= Israel), tells us what those people who oppress Israel will then feel, and how they will give expression to their feeling of shame and regret, saying, “Surely he hath borne griefs caused by us, and carried sorrows caused by us: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded through our transgressions, bruised through our iniquities” (comp. Family Bible, Anglican Version, revised by M. Friedländer). Sin-offerings were brought, but not as a vicarious atonement, although the sinner might well have felt that he himself deserved the treatment endured by the sacrifice. The sin-offering could not have been a vicarious atonement, as it was not offered when the sin was committed knowingly. Maimonides explains the various laws concerning sin-offering as based on the principle that the sacrifices serve as the means of reminding us more vividly [225]of our sins, and of their evil consequences (The Guide, III. xlvi.; comp. Mic. vi. 6–8).

On the Twelfth Principle, p. 155.

A belief in Messiah, although not directly taught, is assumed in the Mishnah as existing; and the days of Messiah (‏ימות המשיח‎) are spoken of as an event that admits of no doubt (comp. Mishnah Berachoth, i. 5). That this belief was in reality taught by the religious heads of the Jewish community is clearly shown by the introduction into the Amidah of a prayer25 for the speedy appearance of Messiah.

The belief in the coming of Messiah in some future time has been, like the belief in the Unity of God, the source of vexatious disputations between Jews and non-Jews. Mohammedans and Christians tried by all means in their power to convince the Jews that the Anointed whose advent was prophesied by the Prophets had already appeared, the former pointing to Mohammed, the latter to Jesus, as the person realising those predictions. The Biblical passages adduced as evidence prove nothing of the kind. E.g., the three names, Sinai, Seir, and Paran, in Deut. xxxiii. 2, were interpreted by Mohammedans to refer to three revelations through Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed; and Mohammed being mentioned last, his revelation was to be the final one. It is not necessary to contradict such reasoning; one need only read the text in order to see the absurdity of the argument. Christians quoted passages from Isaiah which had no reference whatever to Messiah in evidence of the Messianity of Jesus. Children born in the days of Isaiah (vii. 14; viii. 18), whose names had reference to good or evil events of the time, were wrongly interpreted as referring to the birth of Jesus; the sufferings and final relief of the [226]servant of the Lord, that is, Israel (chaps. lii. and liii.), were applied to Jesus; the Psalmist who sings of victories which God will grant to David (cx.) is made to declare the divinity of Jesus.

Commentators and philosophers have taken notice of these arguments and refuted them. Of the many works on these topics a few may be named: “Nitsachon” (‏נצחון‎), by Lipmann Mühlhausen (1400), “Strengthening of Faith” (‏חזוק אמונה‎), by Isaak ben Abraham Troki (1594), “Vindiciæ Judæorum,” by Manasseh ben Israel (1650).

In refuting arguments brought by Christians and Mohammedans against Jews and Judaism, and rejecting the Messianic claims of Jesus and Mohammed, Jews are ready to acknowledge the good work done by the religions founded by these men, Christians and Mohammedans, in combating idolatry and spreading civilisation. Maimonides says as follows:—“The King Messiah will in some future time come, restore the kingdom of David to its former power, build the Temple, bring together the scattered of Israel, and all the ancient laws will again be in force: sacrifices will be offered, and years of release and Jubilees will be kept as prescribed in the Law. Whoever does not believe in him, or does not hope for his coming, shows a want of faith not only in the Prophets, but also in the Law; for the Law testifies concerning him in the words: ‘And the Lord thy God will again bring back thy captivity, show mercy to thee, and again gather thee, &c. If thy outcasts be at the end of the heavens, thence will the Lord gather thee,’ &c, ‘and the Lord will bring thee,’ &c. (Deut. xxx. 3–5), &c.

“You must not imagine that Messiah must prove his Messianity by signs and miracles, doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or similar things, &c. The principal thing is this: the statutes and precepts of our Torah remain for ever, and nothing can be added to them nor ought [227]taken from them. If, therefore, a descendant of David earnestly studies the Law, observes, like David his father, what the Law, both the written and the oral, enjoins, causes all Israelites to act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the commandments, and fights the wars of the Lord: he may possibly be Messiah. If he succeeds, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the outcasts of Israel, he is certainly Messiah; and if he does not succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is not the Messiah promised in the Law; he is like all the noble and good kings of the House of David who have died; and the Almighty only caused him to rise in order to try us thereby, as it is said, ‘And of the wise some will stumble, and through them the people will be tested, purified, and made white, till the time of the end comes; for there is yet a vision for an appointed time’ (Dan. xi. 35). Also Jesus, the Nazarene, who imagined that he would be Messiah, and was killed through the court of law, is alluded to in the Book of Daniel, as it is said, ‘And the sons of the transgressors among thy people will rise, in order to establish a vision, and will stumble’ (ibid. xi. 14). Can there be a greater stumbling than this? All the prophets said that Messiah will be a redeemer and a saviour to the Israelites, will bring together their outcasts, and will strengthen their obedience to the Divine precepts, but he (Jesus) caused destruction by the sword to Israel, the dispersion of those left, and their humiliation; he changed the Law, and misled many people to worship a being beside God. But the thoughts of the Creator of the universe cannot be understood by any human being, for the ways of men are not His ways, nor their thoughts His thoughts; for all the events connected with Jesus and with Mohammed, that rose after him, served only to pave the way for the King Messiah, who will reform all mankind and lead them to the unanimous service of God, as it is said, ‘For [228]then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that all may call by the name of God, and serve him unanimously’ (Zeph. iii. 9). How can this be done? Almost all people have through them—Jesus and Mohammed—become acquainted with the idea of Messiah, with the words of the Torah and the Divine precepts. Through them the knowledge of the Bible spread even unto the remotest islands and unto many nations ‘uncircumcised’ in heart and uncircumcised in flesh. They seek to justify their disobedience to the precepts of the Torah; some of them say that these precepts are Divine, but are not in force at present, and were never intended to be permanent laws; others maintain that they must not be taken literally, as they are mere symbols, the meaning of which has already been explained by Messiah. But when the true King Messiah will rise, he will prosper, be high and exalted; all will then at once know that it was falsehood what their fathers have inherited, and that their prophets and their teachers have misled them.

“Do not imagine that in the days of Messiah the course of Nature will be altered in any way, or that any new creation will take place. When Isaiah said, ‘The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid,’ he merely employed allegorical and figurative speech; and he meant to say that the Israelite will dwell in safety together with his enemy, who has been as cruel to him as wolves and leopards, &c.; all will join the true religion; they will not rob, nor commit any violence, &c., and in the days of Messiah the meaning of the allegories will be clearly known.

“Our Sages said that there will be no other difference between the present time and the days of Messiah but the independence of the people of Israel.

“It appears from the literal meaning of the prophecies that the Messianic period will be preceded by the war of Gog and [229]Magog, and that before the war a prophet will appear to guide the Israelites, and to direct their hearts to repentance. Comp. ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah,’26 &c. (Mal. iii. 23). Elijah will not come to declare unclean that which is clean, or clean that which is unclean; nor to disqualify persons who are believed to be qualified for joining the congregation of the Lord, or to qualify persons who are believed to be disqualified; but he will come to establish peace on earth, as it is said, ‘He shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children’27 (Ibid. 24).

“Some of our Sages believe that Elijah will come before Messiah, but of all these and similar things no man knows how they will come to pass; they are unexplained in the Prophets, and our Sages have no tradition about them; they only adopt what they believe to be the meaning of the Biblical passages which refer to this subject. Hence the difference of opinion. At all events, the order and the detail of these events do not form an essential portion of our creed; we must not take too much notice of Agadoth and Midrashim speaking on these and similar themes. We must not attribute great importance to them, for they do not lead to the fear or the love of God. We must also abstain from calculating the time of the coming of Messiah, &c. All we have to do is to believe in the coming of Messiah, to wait and hope.

“It is not because they desired to have dominion over all lands and nations, and be honoured by all people, or because they desired to have plenty to eat and drink, and other pleasures, that the wise men and the prophets longed for the Messianic days, but because they would then be at leisure to study the Law and its teaching without being [230]interrupted by any oppressor, and would thus make themselves worthy of the life in the world to come (‏עולם הבא‎).

“There will not be in those days any famine, war, jealousy, or quarrel, because the good things will be in plenty, and even luxuries will be found everywhere; all will only busy themselves with trying to know the Lord. Therefore the Israelites will be great sages, knowing things which are at present hidden; they will obtain a knowledge of their Creator as far as is possible by human understanding; ‘For the earth is full with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters that cover the sea’ ” (Maim., Mishneh-torah xiv.; Hilchoth Melachim xi.–xii.).

The war of Gog and Magog against the Holy Land referred to by Maimonides is described by the prophet Ezekiel (chaps. xxxviii., xxxix.) as preceding the complete restoration of Israel. Saadiah has a different view of this war. The punishment of Israel in exile is to come to an end at a fixed time, or as soon as the Israelites by earnest and thorough repentance show themselves worthy of Divine grace. In that case no war of Gog and Magog will be waged against them. But if the Israelites should allow the approach of the time fixed for the redemption without having given signs of repentance and improvement, great troubles will be brought upon them, which will forcibly remind them of the necessity of returning to God; they will come together under a leader, Messiah ben Joseph, under whose leadership they will fight against their enemies, but will be beaten, and Messiah ben Joseph himself will be killed. Then Messiah ben David will appear, and with him the period of glory, of permanent peace and prosperity, and of the worship of the One God by all nations. The idea of a double Messiah, a warlike and a peaceful, an unsuccessful and a successful, is not expressed in any of the prophecies in the Bible, and seems to be of a later origin. Maimonides is [231]silent about Messiah ben Joseph; so also Albo in Ikkarim, and Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi in the book Cuzari. Albo discusses the question about Messiah in chap. xlii. of the fourth section of Ikkarim. He refutes the opinion of those who maintain that the Messianic prophecies refer to the reign of Hezekiah or to the restoration of Israel under Zerubbabel and Ezra. The condition of the Israelites in the reign of Hezekiah did not resemble the state of prosperity and glory and universal peace as depicted in the Messianic prophecies; the fulfilment of these prophecies is still hoped for, and our hope is founded on our belief in the truthfulness of the Word of God. (Comp. Saadiah, Em. ve-deoth, VIII. iii.).

On the Thirteenth Principle, p. 16

The belief in the Resurrection of the Dead has been formulated in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin x. i) as an essential creed: “He who says that the belief in the Resurrection of the Dead is not implied in the Law has no portion in the world to come.” There is no doubt that the Almighty has the power to give fresh life to the body in which life has been extinct. We set no limits to the Omnipotence of God. But it is different if we ask whether it is the Will of God to give new life to the dust and ashes of the dead, and to restore the soul to the dead body in which it has dwelt before. Maimonides substitutes the Immortality of the Soul for the Resurrection of the Dead, and has been vehemently attacked by those who had a different opinion. He defended his view in an essay called ‏מאמר תחיית המתים‎, “On the Resurrection of the Dead,” in which he attempts to prove that the Agadoth and Midrashim in depicting the future life employed figurative language, but in reality meant only a spiritual life, without any material enjoyment.

Saadiah defends the literal interpretation of “Resurrection [232]of the Dead” (Emunoth ve-deoth, VII.), and believes that the event will take place at the time of the final redemption (‏גאולה אחרונה‎). Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi, in Cuzari, though mentioning this principle, seems to understand it as identical with the Immortality of the Soul. The king, who was at first surprised at the scarcity of references to the future life in our prayers, confessed his complete satisfaction, after having heard the exposition of our prayers by the Jewish scholar. “I see,” he says, “that I was in error; those who pray to have the Divine light vouchsafed to them during lifetime, who long to see it with their own eyes, and to attain to the degree of prophecy, they certainly seek something better even than the future life, and they who attain it may be sure that they will also enjoy the blessing of the future life; for if the soul of a man, troubled by the wants of the body, is nevertheless cleaving to the Divine glory, how much more may this be the case after the soul has left this body!” (III. 20). [233]