1. The Traditional Law. - The brief account given in
vol. i. p. 100, of the character and authority claimed for the traditional law
may here be supplemented by a chronological arrangement of the Halakhoth
in the order of their supposed introduction or promulgation.
In the first class, or 'Halakhoth of Moses from Sinai,'
tradition enumerates fifty-five,1
which may be thus designated: religio-agrarian, four;2ritual, including questions about 'clean and unclean,' twenty-three;3
concerning women and intercourse between the sexes, three;4
concerning formalities to be observed in the copying, fastening,
&c., of the Law and the phylacteries, eighteen;5exegetical, four;6purely superstitious, one;7not otherwise included, two.8Eighteen ordinances are ascribed to Joshua, of which only one is ritual,
the other seventeen being agrarian and police regulations.9
The other traditions can only be briefly noted. Boaz, or else 'the tribunal of
Samuel,' fixed, that Deut. xxiii. 3 did not apply to alliances with Ammonite
and Moabite women. Two ordinances are ascribed to David, two to Solomon,
one to Jehoshaphat, and one to Jehoida. The period of Isaiah and of Hezekiah is
described as of immense Rabbinic activity. To the prophets at Jerusalem three
ritual ordinances are ascribed. Daniel is represented as having prohibited the
bread, wine and oil of the heathen (Dan. i. 5). Two ritual determinations are
ascribed to the prophets of the Exile.
numbers given by Maimonides, in his Preface to the Mishnah, and their
arrangement, are somewhat different, but I prefer the more critical (sometimes
even hypercritical) enumeration of Herzfeld. They are also enumerated in
Peiser's Nachlath Shimoni, Part I. pp. 47-49 b.
ii. 6; Yad. iv. 3; Tos. Peah iii. 2; Orlah iii. 9.
4 a; Nidd. 72 b; Ab. d. R. N. 19, 25; Tos. Chall. i. 6; Shabb 70 a;
Bekh. 16 a; Naz. 28 b; Chull. 27 a, 28 a; 42 a,
43 a; Moed Q 3 b. Of these, the most interesting to the Christian
reader are about the 11 ingredients of the sacred incensed (Ker. 6 b);
about the 26 kinds of work prohibited on the Sabbath (Shabb. 70 a); that
the father, but not the mother, might dedicate a child under age to the
Nazirate (Naz. 28 b); the 7 rules as to slaughtering animals; to cut the
neck; to cut through the trachea, and, in the case of four-footed animals, also
through the gullet; not to pause while slaughtering; to use a knife perfectly
free of all notches, and quite sharp; not to strike with the knife; not to cut
too near the head; and not to stick, the knife into the throat; certain
determinations about the Feast of Tabernacles, such as about the pouring out of
the water, &c.
Z. 36 b; Niddah 45 a, 72 b.
Meg. i. 9; Shabb. 28 b; Men. 32 a; 35 a.
37 b. These four Halakhoth are: as to the authoritative pronunciation of
certain words in the Bible; as to the Itur Sopherim, or syntactic and
stylistic emendation in the following five passages: Gen xviii. 5, xxiv. 55;
Numb. xxxi. 2; Ps. 1xviii. 22 (A.V. 21); xxxvi. 7 (A.V. 6); about the Qeri
velo Kethibh, words read but not written in the text; and the
Kethibh velo Qeri, words written but not read in the text.
110 b. Not to eat two (even numbers) of an egg, a nut, or cucumber,
viii. 7; Tanch. 60 a. The first of these Halakhoth speaks of the
activity of Elijah in preparation for the coming of the Messiah (Mal. iii. 23,
24, A.V. iv. 5, 6), as directed to restore those of pure Israelitish descent
who had been improperly extruded, and to extrude those who had been improperly
K. 81 a; Tos. Baba M. 11; Jer. Baba K. iii. 2. Among the police
regulations is this curious one, that all were allowed to fish in the Lake of
Galilee, but not to lay down nets, so as not to impede the navigation.
After the return from Babylon traditionalism rapidly expanded,
and its peculiar character more and more clearly developed. No fewer than
twelve traditions are traced back to the three prophets who flourished at that
period, while four other important legal determinations are attributed to the
prophet Haggai individually. It will readily be understood that Ezra occupied a
high place in tradition. Fifteen ordinances are ascribed to him, of which some
are ritual. Three of his supposed ordinances have a general interest. They
enjoin the general education of children, and the exclusion of Samaritans from
admission into the Synagogue and from social intercourse. If only one legal
determination is assigned to Nehemiah, 'the men of the great Synagogue' are
credited with fifteen, of which six bear on important critical and exegetical
points connected with the text of the Scriptures, the others chiefly on questions
connected with ritual and worship. Among the 'pairs' (Zugoth) which
succeeded the 'Great Synagogue,' three 'alleviating' ordinances (of a very
punctilious character) are ascribed to Jose, the son of Joezer,10
and two, intended render all contact with heathens impossible, to him and his
colleague. Under the Maccabees the feast of the dedication of the Temple was
introduced. To Joshua the son of Perachya, one punctilious legal determination
is ascribed. Of the decrees of the Maccabean High-Priest Jochanan we have
already spoken in another place; similarly, of those of Simon the son of
Shetach and of his learned colleague. Four legal determinations of their
successors Shemayah and Abhtalion are mentioned. Next in order comes the
prohibition of Greek during the war between the Maccabean brothers Hyrcanus and
Aristobulus. This brings us to the time of Hillel and Shammai, that is, to the
period of Jesus, to which further reference will have to be made in another
to tradition (Sot. 47 a and b) the Eshkoloth, or 'bunches
of grapes,' ceased with José. The expression refers to the Rabbis, and Herzfeld
ingeniously suggests this explanation of the designation, that after José they
were no longer undivided like bunches of grapes, but divided in their opinions.
For other explanations comp. Derenbourg, u. s. pp. 88, 456-458.
2. The Canon of Scripture. - Reference has been made in
the text (vol. i. p. 107) to the position taken by Traditionalism in reference
to the written as compared with what was regarded as the oral Revelation.
Still, nominally, the Scriptures were appealed to by the Palestinians as of
supreme authority. The views which Josephus expresses in this respect,
although in a popular and Grecianised form, were substantially those
entertained by the Rabbis and by his countrymen generally (comp. Ag. Apion, i.
7, 8).11 A sharp
distinction was made between canonical and non-canonical books. The test of the
former was inspiration, which had ceased in the time of Artaxerxes, that is,
with the prophet Malachi. Accordingly, the work of the elder Jesus the son of
Sirach (Jeshua ben Sira, ben Eliezer) was excluded from the Canon, although it
is not unfrequently referred to by Rabbinic authorities in terms with which
ordinarily only Biblical quotations are introduced.12
According to the view propounded by Josephus, not only were the very words
inspired in which a prediction was uttered, but the prophets were unconscious
and passive vehicles of the Divine message (Ant. iv. 6. 5, comp generally, Ant
ii. 8. 1; vi. 8, 2; viii. 13, 3; ix. 3, 2, 8, 6; x. 2, 2; 4, 3). Although
pre-eminence in this respect was assigned to Moses (Ant. iv. 8, 49), yet Divine
authority equally attached to the sayings of the prophets, and even, though
perhaps in a still inferior degree, to the 'Hymns,' as the Hagiographa
generally were called from the circumstance that the Psalter stood at the head
of them (comp. Philo, De Vita contempl., ed. Mangey, voi. ii. p.
475; St. Luke xxiv. 44). Thus the division of the Bible into three sections -
the Law, the Prophets, and the other 'Writings' - which already occurs in the
prologue to the work of Jesus the son of Sirach,13
seems to have been current at the time. And here it is of great interest, in
connection with modern controversies, that Josephus seems to attach special
importance to the prophecies of Daniel as still awaiting fulfilment (Ant. x 10.
4; 11. 7).
a detailed account of the views of Josephus on the Canon and on Inspiration,
I take leave to refer to my article in 'Smith's Dictionary of Christian
Biography,' vol. iii pp 453, 454.
Zunz, Gottesd Vortr. pp. 101, 102, and C. Seligmann, d Buch d
Weish d. Jesus Sirach. The Talmudic quotations from the work of the elder Jesus
have been repeatedly collated I may here take leave to refer to my collection
translation of them in Append. II. to the 'History of the Jewish Nation.'
also 2 Macc. ii. 13, 14.
That the Rabbis entertained the same views of inspiration,
appears not only from the distinctive name of 'Holy Writings' given to the
Scriptures, but also from the directions that their touch defiled the hands,14
and that it was duty on the Sabbath to save them from conflagration, and to
gather them up if accidentally scattered, and that it was not lawful for heirs
to make division of a sacred roll (Comp. Shabb. xvi. 1; Erub. x. 3; Kel. xv. 6;
Yad. iii. 2-5; iv. 5 [where special reference is made to Daniel 6]). From what
we know of the state of feeling, we might have inferred, even if direct
evidence had not existed that a distinctive and superior place would be
ascribed to the Books of Moses. In point of fact, the other books of Scripture,
alike the Prophets and the Hagiographa,15
are only designated as Qabbalah ('received,' handed down, tradition),
which is also the name given to oral tradition.16
It was said that the Torah was given to Moses (Jer. Sheq. vi. 1) 'in
(letters of) white fire graven upon black fire,' although it was matter of dispute
whether he received it volume by volume or complete as a whole (Gitt.
60 a). But on the question of its inspiration not the smallest doubt
could be tolerated. Thus, to admit generally, that 'the Torah as a whole was
from heaven, except this (one) verse, which the Holy One, blessed be He, did
not speak, but Moses of himself' was to become an infidel and a blasphemer
(Sanh. 99 a).17
Even the concluding verses in Deuteronomy had been dictated by God to Moses,
and he wrote them down - not repeating them, however, as before, but weeping as
he wrote. It will readily be understood in what extravagant terms Moses himself
was spoken of. It is not only that the expression 'man of God' was supposed to
imply, that while as regarded the lower part of his nature Moses was man, as
regarded the higher he was Divine, but that his glorification and exaltation
amount to blasphemy.18
So far as inspiration or 'revelation' is concerned, it was said that Moses 'saw
in a clear glass, the prophets in a dark one' - or, to put it otherwise: 'he
saw through one glass, they through seven.' Indeed, although the opening words
of Ps. lxxv. showed, that the Psalms were as much revelation as the Law, yet,
'if Israel had not sinned, they would have only received the Pentateuch, and
the Book of Joshua,' and, in the time to come, of all Scripture the Pentateuch
alone would retain its place. It was somewhat contemptuously remarked, that the
Prophets uttered nothing as regarded practice that had not already been told in
the Pentateuch (Taan. 9 a). It was but natural for Rabbinism to declare
that the Law alone fully explained its meaning (at least according to their
interpretation of it), while the Prophets left much in obscurity.19
To mark the distinction, it was forbidden to put the Law in the same wrapper
with the Prophets, so as not to place perhaps the latter on the top of the
former (Tos. Meg. iv. 20). Among the Prophets themselves there was a
considerable difference, not only in style and training but even in substance
(Sanh. 89 a), although all of them had certain common qualifications
(comp. Ab. de R. Nathan, 37). Of all the prophets Isaiah was greatest, and
stood next to Moses. Ezekiel saw all that Isaiah saw - but the former was like
a villager, the latter like a townsman who saw the king (Chag. 13 b).
Jeremiah and Amos were, so to speak, scolding, owing to the violence of their
temperament, while Isaiah's was the book of consolation, especially in response
general statement that this decree was intended to prevent a common or profane
use of the Scripture does not explain its origin. The latter seems to have been
as follows: At first the priests in the Temple were wont to deposit the Terumah
near the copy of the Law there kept (Shabb 14 a). But as mice were
thereby attracted, and damage to the Sacred roll was apprehended, it was
enacted that the Sacred Roll in the Temple rendered all meat that touched it
unclean. This decree gave rise to another, by way of further precaution, that
even the hands which touched the Sacred Roll, or any other part of the Bible
became unclean (so that, having touched the latter, they could not touch the Terumah).
Then followed (in the course of development) a third decree, that such touch
defiled also outside the Temple. Finally, the first decree was modified to the
effect that the Sacred Roll in the Temple did not defile the hands.,
while all other Scriptures (anywhere else) defiled them (Chel xv. 6) The
explanation offered to the Sadducees by R. Jochanan b. Zakkai is evidently
intended to mislead (Yad iv. 6), Comp. Levy, Neuhebr Wörterb. vol. ii.
pp. 163, 164.
difference in the degree of inspiration between the Prophetic and the
Hagiographic books is not accurately defined. Later Jewish theologians rather
evade it by describing the former as given by 'the spirit of prophecy,' the
latter 'by the Holy Spirit.' It must, however, be admitted that in Jewish
writings 'the Holy Spirit' is not only not a Personality, but an
influence very inferior to what we associate with the designation.
proof-passages are quoted in Zunz, u. s. p.44 note, also in J. Delitzsch,
De Inspir. Script. S. pp. 7, 8.
the same time, in Meg. 31 b the formulation of the curses by Moses in
Lev. xxvi. is said to have been hrwbgh ypm (from God directly), while that in
Deut. xxviii. was ymc( ypm (from Moses himself).
more terribly repulsive instance of this can scarcely be conceived than in
Debar R. 11, of which the worst parts are reproduced in Yalkut 304 a, b, c.
generally Hamburger's Real. Encycl. vols. i. and ii. See also Delitzsch's
work already quoted, and Fürst, Kanon d. Alten Test. nach Talmud u.
or 'Kethubhim' also bear in the Talmud the general designation of 'Chokhmah,'
wisdom. It has been asserted that, as the Prophetic Books, so the Hagiographa,
were distinguished into 'anterior' (Psalms, Proverbs, Job) and 'posterior,' or
else into 'great' and 'small.' But the statement rests on quite insufficient
however, it is , that the Hagiographa, as we possess them, formed part of the
Canon in the time of Jesus the son of Sirach - that is, even of the latest
computation of his authorship,21
about the year 130 b.c.22
Even so, it would not be easy to vindicate, on historical grounds, the
so-called Maccabean authorship of the Book of Daniel, which would fix its date
about 105 b.c. For, if other
considerations did not interfere, few students of Jewish history would be
disposed to assert that a book, which dated from 104 b.c., could have found a place in the Jewish Canon.23
But, as explained in vol. i. p. 26, we would assign a much earlier date to the
Book of Sirach. The whole question in its bearing on the New Testament is so
important, that one or two further remarks may be allowed. Leaving aside most
serious critical objections, and the unquestionable fact, that no amount of
ingenuity can conciliate the Maccabean application of Dan. ix. 24-27 with the
chronology of that period,24
while the Messianic interpretation fits in with it,25
other, and seemingly insuperable difficulties are in the way of the theory
impugned. It implies, that the Book of Daniel was not an Apocryphal, but a
Pseudepigraphic work; that of all such works it alone has come down to us in
its Hebrew or Chaldee original; that a Pseudepigraphic work, nearly
contemporary with the oldest portion of the Book of Enoch, should not only be
so different from it, but that it should find admission into the Canon, while
Enoch was excluded; that a Pseudepigraphon younger that Jesus the Son of Sirach
should have been on the Khethubhim; and, finally, that it should have passed
the repeated revision of different Rabbinic 'Colleges' - and that at times of
considerable theological activity - without the suspicion being even raised
that its authorship dated from so late a period as a century an a half before
Christ. And we have evidence that since the Babylonish exile, at least four
revisions of the Canon took place within periods sufficiently distant from each
u. s. pp. 57-59, quotes Ber. 57 b and Sot. 7 b, Ab de R. Nathan 40. But no one who reads
either Ber. 57 b, or Ab. de R. Nathan 40, would feel inclined to draw
from passages so strange and repulsive any serious inference, while Sot. 7 b
is far too vague to serve as a basis. In general, this is one of the many
instances in which Fürst, as, indeed, many modern Jewish writers,
propounds as matters of undoubted fact, what, on critical examination, is seen
to rest on no certain historical basis - sometimes on no basis at all.
in another place we have shown to be erroneous.
p. 56. See also Reuss, Gesch. d. Heil. Schr. A. T. (p. 550), who gives
its date as 132.
who holds the Maccabean origin of the Book of Daniel, is so frequently
inconsistent with himself in the course of his remarks on the subject, that it
is sometimes difficult to understand him. Occasionally, when argument is
wanting, he asserts that a thing is self-evident (es versteht sich von selbst).
Such a 'self evident' assertion, for which, however, no historical evidence is
offered - which, indeed, runs in the opposite direction - is summarized on page
100. But the word 'self-evident' has no place in historical discussions, where
only that is evident which rests on historical grounds.
is admitted even by Mr. Drummond ('Jewish Messiah,' pp. 246, 245-257,
260). Mr. Drummond's book is quoted as representing the advocacy by a
distinguished English scholar of the Maccabean theory of the authorship of
u. s. p. 261.
The question hitherto treated has been exclusively of the date
of the composition of the Book of Daniel, without reference to who may have
been its author, whether its present is exactly the same as its original form,
and finally, whether it ever belonged to those books whose right to canonicity,
though nor their age, was in controversy, that is, whether it belonged, so to
speak, to the Old Testament antilegomena.
As this is not the place for a detailed discussion of the canonicity of the
Book of Daniel - or, indeed, of any other in the Old Testament canon - we shall
only add, to prevent misunderstanding, that no opinion is here expressed as to
possible, greater or less, interpolations on the Book of Daniel, or in any
other part of the Old Testament. We must here bear in mind that the moral view
taken of such interpolations, as we would call them, was entirely different in
those times from ours; and it may perhaps be an historically and critically no
unwarranted proposition, that such interpolations were, to speak moderately,
not all unusual in ancient documents. In each case the question must be
separately critically examined in the light of internal and (if possible)
external evidence. But it would be a very different thing to suggest that there
may be an interpolation, or, it may be, a re-arrangement in a document
(although at present we make no assertions on the subject, one way or the
other), and to pronounce a whole document a fabrication dating from a much
later period. The one would, at any rate, be quite in the spirit of those
times; the other implies, beside insuperable critical difficulties, a
deliberate religious fraud, to which no unprejudiced student could seriously
regard the so-called Pseudepigrapha as forming any real analogon.
But as regards the Book of Daniel, it is an important fact that
the right of the Book of Daniel to canonicity was never called in question in
the ancient Synagogue. The fact that it was distinguish as 'visions' (Chezyonoth)
from the other 'prophecies' has, of course, no bearing on the question, any
more than the circumstance that later Rabbinism, which, naturally enough, could
not find its way through the Messianic prophecies of the book, declare that
even Daniel was mistaken in, and could not make anything of the predictions
concerning the 'latter days' (Ber. R. 98).26
On the other hand, Daniel was elevated to almost the same pinnacle as Moses,
while it was said that, as compared with heathen sages, if they were all placed
in one scale, and Daniel in the other, he would outweigh them all. We can
readily understand that, in times of national sorrow or excitement, these
prophecies would be eagerly resorted to, as pointing to a glorious future.
yet there are frequent indications that Rabbinism sought guidance on these very
subjects in the prophecies of Daniel. Thus, in the Pirqé de R. Eliezer there
are repeated references to the four monarchies - the Persian, Median,
Macedonian, and Roman - when, in the time of the fifth monarchy, that of the
children of Ishmael - after a terrible war against Rome, the Messiah would come
(comp. Pirqé de R. El. 19, and especially 28, 30, and 48).
But although the Book of Daniel was not among the Antilegomena,
doubts were raised, not indeed about the age, but about the right to canonicity
of certain other portions of the Bible. Thus, certain expressions in the
prophecies of Ezekiel were questioned as apparently incompatible with
statements in the Pentateuch27
(Men. 45 a), and although a celebrated Rabbi, Chananyah, the son of
Chizkuyah, the son of Garon (about the time of Christ), with immense labour,
sought to conciliate them, and thus preserved the Book of Ezekiel (or, at
least, part of it) from being relegated among the Apocrypha, it was deemed
safest to leave the final exposition of the meaning of Ezekiel, 'till Elijah
come,' as the restorer of all things.
them the following may be mentioned (Chull. 37 b): Ezek. iv. 14 &c.,
and (Mop 45 a), Ezek. xiv. 31 were regarded as suggesting that these
prohibitions applied only to priests; (Moed. K. 5 a) Ezek. xliv.
19, seemed to imply that an ordinary Israelite might perform sacrificial
service, while Ezek. xiv. 18 appeared to enjoin a sacrifice nowhere mentioned
in the Pentateuch.
The other objections to canonicity apply exclusively to the
third division of the Old Testament, the Kethubhim or Hagiographa. Here
even the Book of Proverbs seems at one time to have been called in question
(Ab. R. Nathan 1), partly on the ground of its secular contents, and partly as
containing 'supposed contradictory statements'28
(Shabb. 30 b). Very strong doubts were raised on the Book of
Ecclesiastes (Yad. iii. 5; Eduy. v. 3), first, on that ground of its
contradiction to some of the Psalms29
(Shabb. 30 a); secondly, on that of its inconsistencies30
(Shabb. 30 b); and thirdly, because it seemed to countenance the denial
of another life, and, as in Eccl. xi 1, 3, 9, other heretical views (Vayyikra
R. 28, at the beginning).31
But these objections were finally answered by great ingenuity, while an appeal
to Eccl. xii. 12, 13, was regarded as removing the difficulty about another
life and future rewards and punishments. And as the contradictions in
Ecclesiastes had been conciliated, it hopefully argued deeper study would equally
remove those in the Book of Proverbs (Shabb. 30 b).32
Still, the controversy about the canonicity of Ecclesiastes continue so late as
the second century of our era (comp. Yad. iii. 5). That grave doubts also
existed about the Song of Solomon, appears even from the terms in which its
canonicity is insisted upon (Yad. u. s.), not to speak of express statements in
opposition to it (Ab. de. R. Nathan 1). Even when by an allegorical
interpretation it was shown to be the 'wisdom of all wisdom,' the most precious
gem, the holy of holies, tradition still ascribed its composition to the early
years of Solomon (Shir haSh. R. 1). It had been his first work, and was
followed by Proverbs, and finally by Ecclesiastes.33
But perhaps the greatest objections were those taken to the Book of Esther
(Meg. 7 a). It excited the enmity of other nations against Israel, and
it was outside the canon. Grave doubts prevailed whether it was canonical or
inspired by the Holy Spirit (Meg. u. s.; Yoma 29 a). The books of Ezra
and Nehemiah were anciently regarded as one - the name of the latter author
being kept back on account of his tendency to self-exaltation (Sanh. 93 b).
Lastly, the genealogical parts of the Book of Chronicles were made the subject
of very elaborate secret commentation (Pes. 62 b).
ex. Prov. xxvi. 4, 5.
for ex. Ps. cxv. 17 compared with Eccl. iv. 2 and ix. 4.
ex. Eccl. ii. 2 comp. with vii. 3; and again, vii 15, or iv. 2 comp. with ix.
school of Shammai was against, that of Hillel in favour of the Canonicity
of Ecclesiastes (Eduy. v. 3). In Tos. Yad. ii. Ecclesiastes is said to be
uninspired, and to contain only the wisdom of Solomon.
it must be admitted that some of these conciliations are sufficiently curious.
on this subject opinion differ very widely (see Shir haSh. R. 1, ed Warshan,
pp. 3 b and 4 a) the only point on which all are agreed being
that he wrote Ecclesiastes last - Rabbi Jonathan irreverently remarking that
when a man is old he utters dibhré hadhalim - vain words!
Two points still require brief mention. Even from a comparison
of the LXX. Version with our Hebrew text, it is evident that there were not
only many variations, but that spurious additions (as Daniel) were eliminated.
This critical activity, which commenced with Ezra, whose copy of the Pentateuch
was, according to tradition, placed in the Temple, that the people might
correct their copies by it, must have continued for many centuries.34
There is abundant evidence of frequent divergences - though perhaps minute -
and although later Rabbinism laid down the most painfully minute directions
about the mode of writing and copying the rolls of the Law, there is such
discrepancy, even where least it might be expected,35
as to show that the purification of the text was by no means settled.
Considering the want of exegetical knowledge and historical conscientiousness,
and keeping in view how often the Rabbis, for Haggadic purposes, alter
letters, and thus change the meaning of words, we may well doubt the
satisfactory character of their critical labours. Lastly, as certain omissions
were made, and as the Canon underwent (as will be shown) repeated revision, it may
have been certain portions were added as well as left out, and words changed as
well as restored.
Jer. Tann. 68 a we read three codices of the Pentateuch. respectively
named after one word in each codex. the reading of which was either rejected or
adopted on comparison with the others.
we have different notices about the number of verses in the Bible, the
arrangement of the psalter, the medial latter and medial word in the
Pentateuch, and the number of its sections and chapters (Kidd. 30 a;
Yalkut i. § 855). But the sum total of verses in the Bible (23,199) differs by
99 from that in our present text. Similarity, one of the most learned Rabbinic
critics of the third century declares himself at a loss about the exact medial
letter, word, and verse of the Pentateuch, while in Palestine that Pentateuch
seems to have been arranged into 1,085, in Babylonia into 378 chapters (comp. Fürst,
Kultur-u. Liter. Gesch. p. 62).
For, ancient tradition ascribes a peculiar activity to certain
'Colleges' - as they are termed - in regard to the Canon. In general, the
well-known Baraita (Baba B. 14 b, 15 a) bears, that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch, the book (Prophecies?) of Balaam, and Job; Joshua the
work that bears his name, and the last eight verses of Deuteronomy;36
Samuel the corresponding books, Judges and Ruth; David with the 'ten Elders,'
Adam, Melchisedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons
of Korah, the Psalter; Jeremiah wrote his prophecies, Lamentations, and Kings;
King Hezekiah and his Sanhedrin compiled, or edited, the Prophecies of Isaiah,
Proverbs, the Song, and Ecclesiastes; and the men of the 'Great Synagogue' the
Prophecies of Ezekiel, of the twelve Minor Prophets, and the books of Daniel
and Esther; Ezra wrote his own book and Chronicles, the work being completed by
Nehemiah, the son of Chakaliah. The last verse of Joshua were written by
Eleazar and Phinehas; the last chapters of Samuel by Gad and Nathan.37
comp. and opinion, previously quoted, about the last verses in Deut.
of the Jewish Nation,' p. 418.
Loose and uncritical as these statements may appear, they so
far help our investigations as to show that, according to tradition, certain
portions of Scripture were compiled or edited by one or another Rabbinic
'College,' and that there were several 'Colleges' which successively busied
themselves with the codification and revision of the Canon. By these
'Colleges,' we are not to understand gatherings of certain members, who
discussed and decided a question at one or more of their meetings. They rather
indicate the learned activity of the authorities during a certain period,
which are respectively designed by the generic names of 'the Sanhedrin of
Hezekiah,' 'The men of the Synagogue,' the 'Legal Court of the Maccabees,' and
finally, 'Chananayah and his College,' We have thus somewhat firmer historical
ground. If in Prov. xxv. 1, we read of the activity about the Canon of 'the Men
of Hezekiah,' and bear in mind the Scriptural account of the religious revival
of that reign (for ex. 2 Chron. xxix. 25-30; 2 Chron. xxx. 1), we scarcely required the frequent and elaborate glorification of tradition to lead us to
infer that, if the collection of the Book of Proverbs was due to their
activity, they must have equally collated the other portions of Scripture then
existing, and fixed the Canon as their time. Again, if we are to credit the
statement that they equally collected and edited the Prophecies of Isaiah, we
are obliged to infer that the continuance of that College was not limited to
the life of Hezekiah, since the latter died before Isaiah (Tos. Baba Bathra;
Yeb. 49 b).
What has just been indicated is fully confirmated by what we
know of the activity of Ezra (Ezra vii. 6, 10), and of his successors in the
great Synagogue. If we are to attach credit to the notice in 2 Macc. ii. 13,38
it points to such literary activity as tradition indicates. That the revision
and determination of the Canon must have been among the main occupations of
Ezra and his successors of 'the Great Synagogue' - whatever precise meaning may
be attached to that institution - seems scarcely to require proof. The same
remark applies to another period of religious reformation, that of the
so-called Asmonæan College. Even if we had not the evidence of their exclusion
of such works as those of Ben Sirach and others, there could be no rational
doubt that in their time the Canon, as presently existing, was firmly fixed,
and that no work of comparatively late date could have found admission into it.
The period of their activity is sufficiently known, and too near what may be
called the historical times of Rabbinism, for any attempt in that direction,
without leaving traces of it. Lastly, we come to the indications of a critical
revision of the text by 'Chananyah and his College,'39
shortly before the time of our Lord. Thus we have, in all, a record of four
critical revisions of the Canon up to time of Christ.
expression 'the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts' must refer to the official Persian documents concerning gifts to the Temple, &c.
13 b; Chag. 13 a; Men. 45 a.
3. Any attempt to set forth in this place a detailed exposition
of the Exegetical Canon of the Rabbis, or of their application, would
manifestly be impossible. It would require almost a treatise of its own; and a
cursory survey would neither be satisfactory to the writer nor instructive to
the general reader. Besides, on all subjects connected with Rabbinic exegesis,
a sufficient number of learned treatises exists, which are easily accessible to
students, while the general reader can only be interested in such general
results as have been frequently indicated throughout these volumes. Lastly, the
treatment of certain branches of the subject, such as a criticism of the Targumim,
really belongs to what is known as the science of 'Introduction,' either to the
Old Testament, in manuals of which, as well as in special treaties, all such
subjects are fully discussed. Besides these the student may be referred, for a
general summary, to the labours of Dr. Hamburger (Real-Encycl.). Special
works on various branches of the subject cannot here be named, since this would
involve an analysis and critical disquisition. But for a knowledge of the
Rabbinic statements in regard to the Codices and the text of the Old Testament, reference may here be made to the short but masterly analysis of
Professor Strack (Prolegomena Critica), in which, first, the various
codices of the Old Testament, and then the text as existing in Talmudical
times, are discussed, and the literature of the subject fully and critically given. The various passage are also mentioned in which the Biblical quotations
in the Mishanah and Gemara differ from our present text.40
Most of them are, however, of no exegetical importance. On the exegesis of the
Rabbis generally, I would take leave to refer to sketch of it given in the
'History of the Jewish Nation,' ch. xi., and especially in App. V., on
'Rabbinical Exegesis,' where all its canons are enumerated. Some brief notices
connected with Rabbinic Commentaries quoted in this work will be found at the
beginning of vol. i.
are in the Mishnah sixteen variations: Lev. xi. 33; xxv. 36; Numb. xxviii. 5;
xxxii. 22; Deut. xxiv. 19; Josh. viii. 33; 2 Sam. xv. 6; Is. x. 13; Ezek. xlvi.
21; Amos ix. 14: Mal. iii. 16, 23 (A. V. iv. 5); Ps. lxviii. 27; Job i. 1;
Prov. xxii. 28; 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. In the Talmud 105 such variations occur,
viz., Gen. vii 8; 23; xv. 2; xxv. 6, xxxv. 18; Ex. xii. 3, 6; xiii. 16; xxiv.
5; xxv. 13 xxxi. 1; Lev. iv. 25, 30, 34; x. 12; xv. 10; xviii. 18; Numb. v. 19;
xviii. 16; Deut. vi. 7, 9, 20; xxiii. 1; xxv. 7; xxxiii. 27; xxxiv 6; Josh.
iii. 17; x. 11; xiv. 7, 10; xvi. 6; xxiii. 15; Judg. xv. 20; xvi. 31; 1Sam. ii
24; 2 Sam. iii. 25; xxiv. 15; 2 Kings xvii. 31; xxiii. 17; Is ii. 3; xxxviii.
16; xlii, 5; liviii. 7; Jer. iii 22; xxix. 11; Ezek. x1. 48; xliv. 9; xlvii. 1;
Hos. iv. 11; Amos. iv. 6; viii. 11; ix. 14; Hag. ii 8; Mich. iv. 2; Zech. xii.
10; Mal. ii. 12; Ps. v. 5; xvi. 10 (where the difference is important); xxvi.
5, 6; xxxvii. 32; lvi. 11; lxii. 12; lxviii. 21; xcv. 5; xcvii. 7; cxxvii. 5;
cxxxix. 5; 6; 8; xiii. 4 xiv. 16; xxxvi. 5, 11; Ruth, iii. 15; iv. 11; Eccl.
ix. 14, 15; x. 5; Dan. ii. 29; iv. 14; vi. 18; x. 13; Ezr. iv. 3; Neh. iv. 16;
viii. 8 (bis), 15, 17; 1 Chron. iii. 17; iv. 10; v. 24; xvl. 5; xvii. 9; xxvi.
8, 23; xxvii. 34; 2 Chron. xxvi. 2; xxxi. 5, 13.
4. Somewhat similar observations must be made in regard to the
mystical Theology of the Synagogue, or the so-called Kabbalah. Its commencement
must certainly be traced to, and before, the times described in these volumes.
For a discussion of its origin and doctrines I must once more take leave to
refer to the account given in the 'History of the Jewish Nation' (pp. 435,
&c.). The whole modern literature of the subject, besides much illustrative
matter, is given in the Italian text annexed to David Castelli's edition
of Sabbatai Donnolo's Hebrew Commentary on the Book Yetsirah, or
the Book of Creation. For, the Kabbalah busies itself with these two subjects:
the History of the Creation (Yetsirah, perhaps rather 'formation' than
Creation), and the 'Merkabhah,' or the Divine apparition as described by
Ezekiel. Both refer to the great question, underlying all theosophic
speculation: that of God's connection with His creature. They treat of the
mystery of Nature and of Providence, with especial bearing on Revelation; and
the question, how the Infinite God can have any connection or intercourse with
finite creatures, is attempted to be answered. Of the two points raised, that
of Creation is of course the first in the order of thinking as well as of time
- and the book Yetsirah is the oldest Kabbalistic document.
The Sepher Yetsirah is properly a monologue on the part
of Abraham, in which, by the contemplation of all that is around him, he
ultimately arrives at the conviction of the Unity of God.
'We distinguish the substance and the form of creation; that
which is, and the mode in which it is. We have already indicated that the
original of all that exists is Divine. 1st, We have God; 2nd, God manifest, or
the Divine entering into form; 3rd, That Divine in its form, from which in turn
all original realities are afterwards derived. In the Sepher Yetsirah,
these Divine realities (the substance) are represented by the ten numerals, and
their form by the twenty-two letters which constitute the Hebrew alphabet -
language being viewed as the medium of connection between the spiritual and the
material; as the form in which the spiritual appears. At the same time, number
and language indicate also the arrangement and the mode of creation, and, in
general, its boundaries. "By thirty-two wonderful paths," so begins the Sepher
Yetsirah, "the Eternal, the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Living
God, the King of the World, the merciful and gracious God, the glorious One, He
that inhabiteth eternity, Whose Name is high and holy, has created the world."
But these ten numerals are in reality the ten Sephiroth, or Divine
emanations, arranged in triads, each triad consisting of two opposites (flowing
or emanating from a superior triad until the Divine Unity is reached), and
being reconciled in a middle point of connection. These ten Sephiroth,
in the above arrangement, recur everywhere, and the sacred number ten is that
of perfection. Each of these Sephiroth flows from its predecessor, and
in this manner the Divine gradually evolves. This emanation of the ten Sephiroth
then constitutes the substance of word; we may add, it constitutes everything
else. In God, in the world, in man, everywhere we meet these ten Sephiroth,
at the head of which is God manifest, or the Memra (Logos, the
Word). If the ten Sephiroth give the Substance, the twenty-two letters
are the form of creation and of revelation. "By giving them form and shape,.
and by interchanging them, God has made the soul of everything that has been
made, or shall be made." "Upon those letters, also, has the Holy One, Whose
Name be praised, founded His holy and glorious Name." These letters are next
subdivided, and their application in all the departments of nature is shown. In
the unit creation, the triad; world, time and man are found. Above all these is
the Lord. Such is a very brief outline of the rational exposition of the Creation, attempted by the Sepher Yetsirah.'41
of the Jewish Nation,' pp. 435, 436.
We subjoin a translation of the book Yetsirah, only
adding that much, not only as regards the meaning of the expressions but even
their translation, is in controversy. Hence, not unfrequently, our rendering
must be regarded rather as our interpretation of the mysterious original.