I.

OUR CREED.

INTRODUCTION.

Faith is the implicit and absolute belief in the truth of the communication made to us and in the trustworthiness of him who makes it to us. The child has faith in its parents that their wishes or commands are for its good; the pupil in his teachers that they impart correct knowledge; we have faith in our friends that they have no intention to deceive us; in the men of science and learning that the results of their researches may be accepted as well established. In all these cases the faith is but imperfect and of a relative and temporary character. Time, investigation, and extended observation and knowledge may either confirm the contents of our faith or may convince us that we have been in error. This is not the case with religious faith. It keeps within the boundaries of its own domain and does not encroach on that of the senses and of reason. Whatever can be known by means of scientific research and thorough investigation we need not accept on faith. Religion—I have, of course, our own religion, the Jewish, in mind—does not only not forbid such examination, but even encourages it. Thus we read in the Book of Proverbs, “A fool believeth every word, but the prudent man looketh well to his going” (xiv. 15). For this purpose God has given us intellectual faculties that we should employ them in our search for truth. At the same time, however, He has set limits to our faculties, and there are things which are beyond these limits, being nistaroth, “things hidden” from our senses, whose existence has been made known to us through the grace of God, by such means as His infinite wisdom determined. We search and investigate, examine and demonstrate, within the sphere of our senses; but all that is beyond their reach belongs to the nistaroth, the knowledge of which can only be imparted to us directly by the Almighty, or indirectly by those to whom they have been communicated by Him. Our belief with regard to these nistaroth may be supported or strengthened by philosophical or dialectical arguments, but can never be proved by mathematical or logical demonstration.

The sources from which we derive our knowledge of these nistaroth are Revelation and Tradition. God reveals things otherwise unknown to man to such persons or to such a generation as His wisdom chooses, and from those thus privileged the knowledge spreads to the rest of mankind by means of Tradition. In addition to these two sources there is a third one in ourselves: God implanted in our souls certain ideas common to all of us as essential elements of our inner life, and these ideas form to some extent the basis of our faith. Such is, e.g., the idea of an all-powerful Being, God, who is the source and origin of everything in existence.

There is no real conflict between faith and reason. It may sometimes seem as if there were such a conflict, and we then naturally begin to doubt. In such cases the truth of our faith may be doubted, but the correctness of our reasoning is no less subject to doubt. We may have erroneously included in our faith beliefs which do not belong to it, and on becoming aware that they are contrary to reason, we cast them aside without the least injury to our faith. On the other hand, our reason is not perfect; we frequently discover mistakes in our arguments and conclusions, and reject opinions which we hitherto have considered as firmly established.

Through patient and thorough investigation of our doubts, without over-estimation of our reasoning faculties, we shall be able to settle the seeming conflict between reason and faith in a satisfactory manner. The examination of our doubts will prove that none of the truths which the Almighty revealed to mankind are contrary to reason.

In this way we are enabled to separate from our faith all elements that in reality are foreign to it; we shall be able to distinguish between faith and superstition. The latter consists of erroneous notions and beliefs which can be tested and subjected to the ordinary means of inquiry. Superstition is not tolerated by true religion; strict adherence to the teachings of our holy religion is the best check to superstitious beliefs.

The importance which the Bible attaches to implicit faith in God and His word may be gathered from the following passages:—

“And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. xv. 6). The Hebrew for “righteousness” is in the original ‏צדקה‎ which is used in the Bible as the sum-total of everything good and noble in man’s life.

When the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea, it is said of them: “And Israel saw the great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians, and the people feared the Lord: and they believed in the Lord, and in Moses His servant” (Exod. xiv. 31).

Again, when Moses and Aaron had sinned at the waters of Meribah by striking the rock instead of speaking to it, they were rebuked for want of ‏אמונה‎ “faith,” in the following words: “Because ye believed not in me (‏לא האמנתם בי‎) to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them” (Numb. xx. 12).

When Moses in his song ‏האזינו‎ blamed the Israelites for their evil doings, he called them “children in whom there is no faith” ‏אמון‎ (Deut. xxxii. 20).

King Jehoshaphat, addressing the army before the battle, says: “Have faith in the Lord and you will be safe; have confidence in His prophets and you will succeed” (2 Chron. xx. 20).

In the same sense Isaiah says to King Ahaz: “If you have no faith, surely you will not be safe” (Isa. vii. 9).

Also Jeremiah, speaking of Israel’s disobedience to the word of God, exclaims: “The faith, ‏האמונה‎ is perished, and it is cut off from their mouth” (Jer. vii. 28).

The prophet Habakkuk, praying to God for an explanation why evil-doers succeed and prosper, receives the divine answer: “The righteous shall live by his faith” ‏וצדיק באמונתו יחיה‎ (Hab. ii. 4); and when Hosea predicts the future redemption of Israel, he tells them in the name of God, “And I will betroth thee unto me by faith” ‏וארשתיך לי באמונה‎ (Hos. ii. 22).

Our teachers, the sages and rabbis, who succeeded the prophets, have been equally emphatic in commending religious faith. The following are a few of their sayings concerning faith:—

“Great is the merit of faith. Through their faith in the Creator of the universe the Israelites were inspired by the holy spirit, and were enabled to sing praises to the Lord.” “Faith in the Lord was the source of all the temporal and eternal blessings which were bestowed upon Abraham; it gave him the enjoyment of this world and the world to come.” “When the Psalmist says: ‘This gate leads to the Lord; righteous people (‏צדיקים‎) shall come in through it,’ he denoted by the term ‘righteous’ those who possess faith in God” (Yalkut on Ex. xiv. 31).

In spite of the fact that the Torah and the prophets most emphatically declare faith ‏אמונה‎ to be a very essential element in Judaism, it does not seem to have the same importance in the writings of Jewish theologians and philosophers, some of whom have endeavoured to substitute reasoning and logical arguments for simple faith, and to rebuild upon scientific research the religious edifice erected on the foundation of faith. The following are the utterances of the principal Jewish theologians since the close of the Talmud on the relation between faith and reason:—

The Gaon Saadiah of Fayyum wrote a book on creeds and religious beliefs (‏אמאנאת ואעתקאד־אמונות ודעות‎). In the Introduction to this work the philosopher describes the causes of human error and doubt, and assumes four classes of believers. There are, first, those who recognise the truth found by them, cling to it, and are happy in it. There are, secondly, those who have the true principle before them, but do not recognise it, doubt its correctness, and abandon it again. The third class includes those who adopt an opinion without having recognised it as true; they mistake falsehood for truth. The last division consists of those who form no definite opinion, but remain continually in an unsettled state of mind. Saadiah is anxious to see at least his co-religionists in the first class, and his work was intended to help them towards this end.

According to Saadiah, belief or faith must be an integral part of our soul; the various truths which form the faith are stored up in the soul as in a repository, completely ready for use whenever required. It is, however, possible that we store up opinions as true which are false. Tests must be applied to each opinion in order to ascertain its right character. Three of the tests are of a general nature, but the fourth has its force only for us, the believers in the truth of the Holy Writings. The first three tests will show us whether a certain opinion is confirmed or contradicted by our senses, by our innate ideas, or by our logical reasoning. In addition to these we possess a fourth test in the trustworthy communication (‏הגדה הנאמנת‎), i.e., the contents of Holy Writ and Tradition. Holy Writ recognises the necessity of the three general tests, and frequently exhorts us to apply them. On the other hand, Saadiah is convinced that the contents of Holy Writ and Tradition are never contradicted, but in many cases are confirmed by these tests. Such confirmation is in reality superfluous; but the human mind feels more at ease when it finds that the teaching of Holy Writ is supported by other proofs. Besides, attacks on the Bible come frequently from these tests, and it is therefore useful to learn how to refute them. According to Saadiah, the truth taught in the Bible can never be contradicted by the results of scientific or philosophical research.

Thus to Saadiah philosophy and science are mere luxuries, and cannot be considered as handmaids to the Torah. They are not studied on account of their intrinsic value or as helps for the understanding of Holy Writ, but merely for the purpose of procuring proper weapons for theological warfare, or of superadding the conviction that what is known to us from the most trustworthy source is confirmed from other less reliable sources.

The poet and philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol, who is lost in enthusiasm in contemplating the powers of the human soul, humbly acknowledges that it was his faith that saved him from fall and ruin. Referring to man’s faculty of acquiring knowledge, he says in his “Royal Crown” ‏כתר מלכות‎: “Who can comprehend Thy wisdom in giving to the soul the faculty of acquiring knowledge, on which her existence depends, knowledge being her foundation? She is permanent and immortal in the same measure as her foundation is well established.” But, reflecting on human weakness, he expresses his feeling of gratitude to the Creator for His guidance in the following words: “Thou hast done yet more for me. Thou hast implanted in my heart a perfect faith, so that I believe in Thee as the true God, and in Thy prophets as true prophets; Thou hast not cast my lot among those that rebel against Thee, or among those who provoke Thy name, despise Thy Law, attack Thy servants, and disbelieve Thy prophets.” Knowledge—philosophy and science—is the very essence, the immortal element of the soul, and yet without the Word of God man would go astray and be lost.

The boundaries between faith and reason are more distinctly set forth in the Commentary on Sefer Yetsirah by Dunash ben Tamim (ed. L. Dukes in Shire Shelomoh, i. p. vi. seq.): “All these beings above and below have been created by God, and it is within the province of man to explore and to examine all of them; but he must not pass beyond these boundaries to investigate into the essence of God; ‘for in the city of his refuge shall he dwell,’ and ‘if he goeth out of his place, and the avenger of blood smite him, he hath no remedy.’ Besides, wisdom and science acknowledge that man is unable to comprehend by his own intellect anything that exists outside the sphere of created beings.”

R. Bachya, son of Joseph hassephardi, who lived in the eleventh century, treats, in the Introduction to his “Duties of the Heart,” of the three sources of human knowledge—Holy Writ, Tradition, and Reason. Bachya is fully convinced that the knowledge derived from the first two sources is complete and correct. “If you are a man endowed with knowledge and reason, and are able to demonstrate the principles of your belief and your religious practice, which you have been taught by the Sages in the name of the prophets, it is your duty to do so, and to let reason confirm what Tradition teaches. If you abstain from attempting this investigation, you neglect your duty towards your Creator.”

Still more emphatic is Shem-tob ibn Palqera in demanding the right of free inquiry into everything taught by Revelation and Tradition. In a dialogue between the believer and the inquirer (Hammebhakkesh) the former is represented as ignorant of everything our mind desires to know; whilst the wise man, who combines belief and confidence in Tradition with the right use of his reason, knows how to satisfy the inquirer, and lays down the rule, “Let the study of the Torah be the foundation, and the study of other things secondary; believe nothing that is not proved by reason or by God” (i.e., by the word of Revelation).

R. Abraham ben David, in Emunah ramah: “Because three out of four scholars (R. Akiba, Ben-azai, Ben-zoma, and Elisha) were unsuccessful in their philosophical researches, therefore many turn their backs upon science, and in consequence of this neglect they remain ignorant of the chief principles of our religion.” The object of his book is to reconcile religion and science.

R. Judah hallevi, in his “Kuzari,” endeavours to convince the Kuzarite king of the truth of the Jewish religion by philosophical arguments, but gives unhesitatingly the preference and the higher authority to Divine revelation. He is convinced that reason or philosophical argument could never refute any principle taught in the Law. He says: “Prophecy is certainly stronger than logical inference.”

R. Abraham ibn Ezra believes that man’s intellectual faculties are insufficient to solve all transcendental problems; thus, e.g., the nature of the spirit of man is unknown to most, and is only comprehended by him “whose thoughts are weighed in the balance of reason, and are established on the four elements of wisdom, viz., the three R’s: reading, writing, and reckoning; (in Hebrew, the three ‏ס‎: ‏סְפָר סֵפֶר סִפּוּר‎) and the Divine Law.” Ibn Ezra recommends the study of science, united with the belief in Divine revelation. “The Torah,” Ibn Ezra remarks in his Commentary on Ps. xix. 8, “is perfect in itself; it requires no evidence from without for the truths which it teaches.”

Maimonides’ “Guide to the Perplexed” is entirely devoted to the problem how to reconcile Scripture and reason. Scripture cannot contain anything contrary to reason; nor can the result of scientific research and philosophical speculation be conceived as contrary to reason, which is their very basis. But where any such contradiction is perceived, we are at fault either in our reasoning or in our interpretation of the Divine Writings. The Incorporeality and Unity of God are doctrines that have been fully proved, and Scripture cannot teach anything that is contrary to them. Where we believe them to be contradicted in the Holy Writings the contradiction is only apparent, and by assuming an allegorical use of words and phrases the seeming contradiction is removed.

R. Joseph Albo prefaces his book on the principles of Judaism as follows: “As the human understanding is incapable of finding out what is true and what is good, there must be a higher Being that assists us in determining what is good and in comprehending what is true. It is therefore necessary, above all, to study and to know the divine Law that guides man in these problems.”

R. Eliah del Medigo, in his Bechinath haddath (Examination of Religion) says as follows:—

“Let us first see whether or not the study of philosophy is permitted to the followers of our religion; and, if it be permitted, whether the study is to be considered a duty and a laudable act. The right-minded Jew does not doubt that the Law aims at leading us to humane conduct, good deeds, and true knowledge, the common people according to their capacity, and the more gifted according to their abilities. Certain fundamental truths are therefore set forth in the Law and the Prophets in an authoritative, poetical, or dialectical style; but the higher order of intellects are encouraged to search for proper proofs. Thus the whole nation is addressed by Isaiah: ‘Lift up your eyes on high and see who hath created these,’ and the like. Also the chief of the Prophets tells the Israelites: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One.’ Those who are more highly endowed than their fellow-men are exhorted, either directly or indirectly, to follow the course which is suitable to them. The direct exhortation to philosophical research is contained in the words: ‘Know then this day, and take it to thy heart, that the Lord He is God,’ &c.; and indirectly it is contained in the commandment to love and to fear God, as has been explained by R. Moses Maimonides.—The study of science will certainly be of use to the scholar; it leads to a knowledge of the created things, and through these to a knowledge of the Creator. Such study may even be considered as necessary to the Jewish scholar, though not to the ordinary Jew. The scholar must, however, not entirely rely on his research, but on that which is taught in the Law. In this the scholar and the ordinary man are equal, that both accept the teaching of the Torah as infallible; only with this difference, that the scholar can in addition satisfy his thirst for knowledge and confirm by scientific proof what he has already accepted as true on the authority of the Bible.”

Of modern scholars I only quote Moses Mendelssohn’s theory. He accepts unconditionally the teaching of the Bible; all its truths are absolute and perfect; no reasoning whatever can refute them; but difficulties may sometimes present themselves to us in reconciling the teaching of the Bible with that of our reason. What have we then to do? The philosopher declares: “If I were to find my reason in contradiction to the Word of God, I could command reason to be silent; but the arguments, so long as they have not been refuted, will nevertheless assert themselves in the innermost recesses of my heart; the arguments will assume the form of disquieting doubts, which will resolve themselves into childlike prayers, earnest supplication for enlightenment. I should utter the words of the Psalmist: ‘Lord, send me Thy light, Thy truth, that they may guide me, and bring me to Thy holy mount, to Thy dwelling-place!’”

The conception which Moses Mendelssohn had of Jewish belief and its relation to reason we learn from the following passage:—“I recognise no other eternal truths than those which are not only comprehensible to the human mind, but also demonstrable by human powers. This principle by no means brings me into conflict with my own religion; on the contrary, I consider it an essential element in Judaism, and the characteristic difference between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism has no revealed religion in the sense in which Christianity has. The Jews have a revealed legislation which instructs them in the divinely ordained means by which they may attain the eternal bliss. Laws and rules for conduct in life were revealed to Moses in a supernatural way, but no doctrines, no saving truth, and no general laws of logic. The latter the Eternal reveals to us, as to all men, through nature and through the things themselves; never through words and letters. The divine book revealed to Moses, though a book of laws, includes an inexhaustible treasure of truths and doctrines.... The more we study it the more we wonder at the depth of the knowledge contained in it. But these truths are taught, and not forced upon us as dogmas. Belief does not allow itself to be commanded; it is based upon conviction. In the Hebrew language, the very word which is generally translated ‘faith,’ viz., ‏אמונה‎ denotes originally confidence, trust that the promise made will also be fulfilled, and not what we understand by ‘religious faith.’”

These words of Mendelssohn show how greatly those err who quote his opinions in support of the dictum that Judaism recognises no dogmas. According to Mendelssohn, Judaism does not consist entirely of laws; it teaches also certain truths. We have certain dogmas without which the laws can have no meaning, yet there is no precept, “Thou shalt believe.” Nowhere in our Law, whether written or oral, is a solemn declaration of our creed demanded. In so far Mendelssohn’s view is correct; but when he believes that all the truths we are taught in Scripture can be made evident by logical demonstration he is mistaken. As to the meaning of ‏אמונה‎ comp. supra, p. 4.

THE THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES OF OUR CREED.

The main source of our creed is the Bible, and among the Biblical books, chiefly the Pentateuch (‏תורה‎). In these books we find many truths taught by God Himself, or by His inspired messengers, and they form the substance of our creed. It matters little how we arrange them, how we collect them into groups, and subdivide these again, provided we believe in them implicitly. In the Bible they are not arranged systematically; they are intermingled with, and are contained implicitly in, the history and the laws that form the subject-matter of the Scriptures; it is the observance of those laws which constitutes the best evidence of the belief seated in the heart. No declaration or recital of a creed is commanded in the Pentateuch; no tribunal is appointed for inquiring whether the belief of a man is right or wrong; no punishment is inflicted or threatened for want of belief. It became, however, necessary to formulate the truths taught in the Bible, when disputes arose as to their meaning and to their validity. The Mishnah, therefore, declares certain opinions as un-Jewish and contrary to the teaching of the Divine Word. Later on, when controversies multiplied between the various sections of the Jewish nation, as well as between Jews and Christians and Jews and Mohammedans, it was found most important to settle the form and arrangement of our beliefs. Moses Maimonides, the great religious philosopher, taught, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, thirteen principles of faith, which found general acceptance among the Jews, and are known as the Thirteen Principles. They have found their way into the Prayer-book in two different forms, one in prose and one in poetry. Maimonides, in commending them to the reader, says: “Read them again and again and study them well, and let not your heart entice you to believe that you have comprehended their full meaning after having read them a few times; you would then be in a great error, for I have not written down what occurred to my mind at first thought. I first thoroughly studied and examined what I was going to write, compared the various doctrines, the correct ones and the incorrect ones, and when I arrived at what we ought to accept as our creed, I was able to prove it by arguments and reasoning.” The thirteen articles as put forth by Maimonides, and called by him principles and foundations of our religion, are the following:—

1. The first principle: The belief in the existence of the Creator; that is, the belief that there exists a Being who requires no other cause for His existence, but is Himself the cause of all beings.

2. The second principle: The belief in the Unity of God; that is, the belief that the Being who is the cause of everything in existence is One; not like the unity of a group or class, composed of a certain number of individuals, or the unity of one individual consisting of various constituent elements, or the unity of one simple thing which is divisible ad infinitum, but as a unity the like of which does not exist.

3. The third principle: The belief in the Incorporeality of God; that is, the belief that this One Creator has neither bodily form nor substance, that He is not a force contained in a body, and that no corporeal quality or action can be attributed to Him.

4. The fourth principle: The belief in the Eternity of God; that is, the belief that God alone is without a beginning, whilst no other being is without a beginning.

5. The fifth principle: The belief that the Creator alone is to be worshipped, and no other being, whether angel, star, or ought else, all these being themselves creatures.

6. The sixth principle: The belief in Prophecy; that is, the belief that there have been men endowed with extraordinary moral and intellectual powers, by which they were enabled to reach a degree and kind of knowledge unattainable to others.

7. The seventh principle: The belief that our teacher Moses was the greatest of all prophets, both those before him and those after him.

8. The eighth principle: The belief in the Divine origin of the Law; the belief that the whole Pentateuch was communicated to Moses by God, both the precepts and the historical accounts contained therein.

9. The ninth principle: The belief in the integrity of the Law; that both the written and the oral Law are of Divine origin, and that nothing may be added to it or taken from it.

10. The tenth principle: The belief that God knows and notices the deeds and thoughts of man.

11. The eleventh principle: The belief that God rewards those who perform the commandments of His Law, and punishes those who transgress them.

12. The twelfth principle: The belief that Messiah will come at some future time, which it is impossible for us to determine; that he will be of the house of David, and will be endowed with extraordinary wisdom and power.

13. The thirteenth principle: The belief in the revival of the dead, or the immortality of the soul.

These thirteen principles (‏שלשה עשר עקרים‎) may be divided into three groups, according to their relation to the three principles:—1. Existence of God. 2. Revelation. 3. Reward and punishment. The first group includes the first five principles, the second the next four, and the third the remaining four. In this order they will now be considered.

1. EXISTENCE OF GOD ‏מציאות הבורא‎.

The notion of the existence of God, of an invisible power which exercises its influence in everything that is going on in nature, is widespread, and common to almost the whole human race. It is found among all civilised nations and many uncivilised tribes. The existence of God may be regarded as an innate idea, which we possess from our earliest days. This is the origin of Natural Religion. Thinkers of all ages and nations have attempted to confirm this innate idea by convincing arguments. Prophets and divine poets have frequently directed the attention of those whom they addressed to the marvels of nature in order to inspire them with the idea of an All-wise and All-powerful Creator.

“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these? Who is He who bringeth them forth by number? All of them He calleth by name, by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not one is lacking” (Isa. xl. 26). “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork” (Ps. xix. 2).

The regularity in the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies, which enables us to foretell the exact time and duration of an eclipse of the sun or the moon, is certainly a strong argument for the belief that there is a mighty and wise Creator who fixed the laws in accordance with which these luminaries move.

“Beautiful are the luminaries which our God has created. He has formed them with knowledge, reason, and understanding; He endowed them with power and strength to rule in the midst of the world. Full of splendour and beaming with light, they illumine the whole world; they rejoice when they rise, they are glad when they set, doing in reverence the will of their Master” (Sabbath Morning Service).

A similar regularity we notice when looking on the face of the earth. The various seasons of the year, each with its peculiar aspect and influence, the sequence of day and night at regular intervals, the gradual and systematic development of vegetable and animal life—all point forcibly to the fact that these things do not owe their existence to chance, but to the will of an Almighty and All-wise Creator.

Again, if we consider the structure of a single plant, or of a single animal, we find that every one of the members and parts of which it is composed has its peculiar function or purpose in the economy of the whole plant or the whole animal. Let one of these component parts refuse its function or cease to fulfil its purpose and the whole is disorganised. Certainly there must be a Being who makes the different members of an organism co-operate for the development and advantage of the whole. The idea of purpose which regulates this co-operation cannot have originated in the parts nor in the whole, but in the conception of Him by whose Will these were created.

“The finger of God” is further recognised in the important events of the life of the individual as well as in the history of whole nations. We are frequently reminded of the lesson, “The heart of man deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (Prov. xvi. 9). “Salvation is the Lord’s, and on Thy people it is incumbent to bless Thee” (Ps. iii. 9).

Another argument in support of the belief in the existence of God is taken from the moral consciousness which every human being possesses. This points to the existence of a higher Being, perfect in goodness, as the origin and cause of the moral consciousness in our own heart.

These and similar arguments are employed to strengthen and purify our belief in God. The question, however, arises, are these arguments alone sufficient to convince us? Are they strong enough to resist the attacks of scepticism?

On examining them thoroughly we shall find them of excellent service to the believer. His belief is strengthened against many doubts by which he may be assailed; and scepticism will be kept at bay by these arguments. But of themselves and unsupported they may not always suffice to establish belief in God; and if they carry conviction with them for the moment, we are not sure whether fresh arguments of opponents might not again unsettle the mind. Another method was therefore chosen by the Almighty, by which certainty is attained, and a sure guide is given for our moral and religious life. It is Revelation. Of this we shall speak later on.

The principal forms of religion or worship that sprang from the natural belief in God are Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism, Theism, and Deism.

1. The first form of Divine worship of which history and archæology give us information is Polytheism. The creating and ruling power of some invisible Being was noticed everywhere. Every manifestation of such influence was ascribed to its peculiar deity, which was worshipped according to the peculiar conception of the deity in the mind of the individual person, family, or nation. This is chiefly the kind of idolatry mentioned in the Bible and combated by the prophets.

A very general object of worship were the stars. Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in Kuzari iv. 1, in trying to explain the origin of this practice, says as follows:—“The spheres of the sun and the moon do not move in the same way. A separate cause or god was therefore assumed for each, and people did not think that there was a higher force on which all these causes depended.” The ancient monuments and the treasures stored up in our museums show how great was the variety of forms which idolatry took, and to how great an extent people adhered, and still adhere, to this kind of worship. But there have been thinkers and philosophers even among the idolatrous nations who sought a unity in the construction and working of the universe, and early arrived at the idea of a First Cause as the sole source of all that exists.

2. The fact that the influence of the Divine power makes itself perceptible to the observing eye of man everywhere produced another kind of human error: Pantheism (All-God). Modern Pantheism dates from Spinoza; but long before Spinoza, when the secret forces at work in the changes noticed by us in all material objects were recognised as properties inherent in the substance of things, these forces were considered as the sole independent causes of the existing universe, and the combination of these forces, called Nature, was considered to be the First Cause, or God. A modification of this theory is contained in the philosophy of Spinoza. According to this great philosopher’s system, the universe in its entirety has the attributes of the Deity: there exists nothing but the Substance (God), its attributes, and the various ways in which these attributes become perceptible to man. Spinoza tried to defend himself from the reproach of describing God as corporeal, but he did not succeed. The attribute of extension or space which God possesses, according to Spinoza, is only conceivable in relation to corporeal things. The philosophy of Spinoza is in this dilemma: either God is corporeal, or the corporeal world does not exist. Both assumptions are equally absurd. It is true, in one of his letters he complains that he has been misrepresented, as if he believed God to consist of a certain corporeal mass. But we cannot help assuming the existence of a certain corporeal mass, and if this is not God, we must distinguish in our mind God and something that is not God, contrary to the fundamental doctrine of Pantheism. Besides, there are many incongruities and improbabilities involved in this theory. It has no foundation for a moral consciousness. The wicked and the good are alike inseparable from God. They both result with necessity from the attributes of God, and they cannot be otherwise than they actually are. If we, by the consideration that injury done to us by our fellow-man was not done by that person alone, but by a series of predetermined necessary causes, may be induced to conquer hatred against the apparent cause of our injury, we may equally be induced by the same reasoning to consider the kindness and benefits of our friends not worthy of gratitude, believing that they were compelled to act in this manner, and could not act otherwise.

3. Pantheism, by teaching All in One and One in All, is opposed to the theory of man’s responsibility to a higher Being, denies the existence of God in the ordinary sense of the word, and is, in its relation to true religion, equal to atheism.

In the Bible atheism is stigmatised as the source of all evils. Thus the patriarch Abraham suspected the people of Gerar, that there was “no fear of God” in the place, and was afraid “they might slay him” (Gen. xx. 11); whilst Joseph persuaded his brothers to have confidence in him by the assertion, “I fear God” (Ib. xlii. 18). The first instance of an atheist we meet in Pharaoh, king of Egypt, when he defiantly said, “I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Exod. v. 2). Another form of atheism is warned against in the words of Moses: “Lest thou sayest in thine heart, My strength and the power of my hand has got for me all this wealth” (Deut. viii. 17); and “Lest they say, Our hand is high, and it is not the Lord that hath done all this” (Ib. xxxii. 27). The prophets likewise rebuke the people for want of belief in God. In the Psalms, the crimes and evil designs of oppressors are traced to godlessness. “The wicked says in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. xiv. 1). But this atheism of the Bible is not a theoretical or dogmatic one; it is not the result of thought, or of deep inquiry into the causes of things, but merely the voice of an evil inclination which tempts man to act contrary to the command of God, and assures him of immunity, under the impression that his actions are not watched by a higher authority. In post-Biblical literature we meet with the phrase, ‏לית דִּין ולית דַּיָּן‎ “There is no judgment, and there is no judge,” as the basis of atheism.

4. Although the conviction of man’s responsibility to a higher authority is the essential element in the belief in God, yet the notion of godlessness was so intimately connected with crime and wickedness, that those who rejected the authority and mastership of the Deity refused to be called godless or atheists. Many philosophers retained the name “God” (theos, deus) for their “First Cause” of the universe, although it is deprived of the chief attributes of God. Thus we have as the principal religious theories resulting from philosophical investigations, Theism and Deism. Literally these two terms denote, Theory of God, or Belief in God; the one word being derived from the Greek theos, the other from the Latin deus, both meaning “God.”

There is, however, an essential difference between the two theories. Theism and Deism have this in common, that both assume a spiritual power, a divine being, as the cause and source of everything that exists. They differ in this: to Theism this power is immanent in us and the things round us; Deism considers this power as separate from the things. Revelation or prophecy is altogether denied by the Deists, whilst the Theists would accept it after their own fashion and rationalise it.

All these various systems of religion have this in common, that they attempt to remove from religion everything that cannot be comprehended by human reason. But all attempts to substitute human reason for Divine authority have failed. A limit has been set to human reason, and that cannot be overcome. In every system of religion—the natural and the rational included—there is a mystic element, which may be enveloped in a mist of phrases, but remains unexplained. Whether we call the Creator and Ruler of the universe God, Deus, or Theos, His relation to the universe, and to man in particular, cannot be determined by the laws which determine the natural phenomena in the universe, created by His Will.

What is our conception of the Deity? The fundamental idea, from which all our notions concerning God are derived, and which we have in common with all other believers in God, is that He is the First Cause, the Creator of the universe. This idea expressed in the term ‏הבורא יתברך שמו‎ forms the basis of our creed. It is the Creator that is described in it. Seven of the articles begin, “I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name,” &c.

We do not use the term “First Cause,” because it is too narrow; it only expresses part of the truth, not the whole of it. By “First Cause” some understand the cause of the gradual development of the primitive matter into the innumerable variety of things contained in the universe; the development of the original chaos into system and order. It is true that the Creator is the cause of all this; but He is more than this: He is the cause of the primitive matter, and of the original chaos. For He has created the world out of nothing. The first verse of the Bible teaches us creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo): “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. i. 1); that is, the whole universe. It is true that there were men who explained the meaning of the Hebrew root ‏ברא‎ in a different manner, and desired to assign to it the meaning: cutting out, forming out of a given material. But they certainly misunderstood the spirit of the Scriptures. The eternal coexistence of God and matter would imply a dualism utterly incompatible with the teaching of the Bible. The frequently repeated declaration, “He is our God; there is none besides” (‏אין עוד‎), clearly excludes every form of dualism. Those who assert that the universe could not come from nothing belong to the class of people of whom the Psalmist says, “And they returned and tempted God, and set limits to the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41).

If we cannot understand the act of the Creation, it is our own intellect that is limited; and if we were to persuade ourselves that we understand better the eternity of matter, we should deceive ourselves. We cannot conceive matter without form as existing in reality, nor can we have a clear notion of anything infinite. We are human beings, endowed by the will and wisdom of the Creator with limited physical and intellectual faculties, and in things that surpass our powers we cannot do better than follow the guidance of the Divine Word. If we do so we may be sure that we shall be on the right way to truth.

The first principle declared in our creed is this: God is not only the Creator of the heavens and the earth, with all their hosts; He is also the constant ruler of all created beings; He is ‏בורא ומנהיג‎. We therefore praise Him in our daily Morning prayer as “Doing wonders; renewing in His goodness the work of the creation every day.” When we observe the ordinary phenomena in nature, occurring in accordance with certain fixed laws which have been discovered and described by man, we see in them the greatness of the Creator by whose will these laws are still in force, and by whose will any or all of these laws may one day cease to continue.

It has been asserted that any interruption or change of these fixed laws would indicate a weakness and want of foresight on the part of the Creator, and a fault in the plan of the Creation. This notion has led people either to deny the truth of the Biblical accounts concerning the miracles wrought by the Almighty, or to admit the correctness of the facts while denying their miraculous character, or to consider the fixed laws of nature, together with their exceptions, as designed in the original plan of the Creation. How short-sighted is man! He cannot even fully comprehend his own short-sightedness! God made him ruler over the works of His hands, and he presumes to be the ruler of God Himself! When we learn from numerous observations and experiments the law that seems to regulate certain recurring phenomena, have we then fathomed the infinite wisdom of God in the Creation? Do we know the reason which led Him to produce certain things according to certain laws, and not otherwise? Have we in discovering a law of nature obtained the power of prescribing the same law to God, and disallowing Him to deviate therefrom? Far be it from us human beings, dust and ashes, to arrogate to ourselves such a right! It may even be one of the objects with which miracles were wrought to teach us that we do not yet know all things, that events may happen which we are unable to foresee, that phenomena may appear which we are unable to explain according to the laws hitherto discovered; in short, that our knowledge and wisdom are limited.

The fact that God has created the universe ex nihilo has been expressed by Jewish philosophers as follows:—God is the only Being who demands no cause for His existence; the very idea of God implies existence, and cannot be conceived without it. All other beings owe their existence to certain causes, in the absence of which they would not exist. God alone is therefore only active, without ever being passive, only cause without ever being effect, whilst every other being is both active and passive, cause and effect; it has been produced by certain causes, and is in its turn the cause of the existence of other beings. In the first article a phrase expressing this idea has been added: “And He alone is the active cause of all things, whether past, present, or future.” By the addition of this sentence it was intended to deny the Eternity of matter (‏קדמות העולם‎). The reference to past, present, and future is to emphasise the constant action of the Creator, and the dependence of the natural forces on His Will. The first principle has, therefore, the following form:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is both Creator and Ruler of all created beings, and that He alone is the active cause of ALL things, whether past, present, or future.” [3]

Before passing on to the second principle concerning God, let us briefly answer a question that has frequently been asked: What is the relation between the theory of evolution, or in general the results of modern science, and the history of the creation as related in the Bible? In the Biblical account of the creation the various kinds of plants and animals are described as the result or different and distinct acts of the Creator, whilst according to the theory of Evolution one creative act sufficed, and the great variety of creatures is the result of gradual development according to certain laws inherent in the things created. The Bible tells us of six days of the creation, whilst according to the theory of evolution it must have taken millions of years before the various species could have developed the one from the other. Whilst the Biblical account describes the earth as the centre of the universe, astronomy shows that the earth is one of the most insignificant of the bodies that fill the infinite space of the universe. According to astronomy and geology, the age of the earth numbers millions of years; from the Biblical account we infer that the earth is comparatively young. In the Bible man is described as the aim and end of the whole creation; natural history and the theory of evolution consider man simply as one of the forms resulting from a natural development of the animal world. What shall be our decision in this discrepancy? Shall we shut our eyes to the results of modern science in our firm belief in the truth of the Bible? Or shall we accept the former and abandon the latter?

We should adopt neither of these alternatives. We have great confidence in our reasoning power, and in the results of science based on reason, but we have still greater confidence in the truthfulness of Divine teaching. The conflict is not a modern product; it existed in former times as well. When the Jews first became acquainted with Greek literature and philosophy, faith was shaken in the heart of many a Jew that was led away by the attractive language and the persuasive arguments of the Greek. Such was the case with the Jews in Alexandria, who were almost more Greek than Jewish. Feeling that their faith in their old traditions was beginning to give way, they looked about them for the means of reconciling faith and philosophy. Where the literal sense of Holy Writ was awkward, the allegorical interpretation was substituted for it; but the authority of the Bible was recognised. Later on, in the Middle Ages, when Aristotle, as understood and interpreted in the Arabic schools, was infallible, perplexity again became general, among the educated and learned, as to the course to be pursued in case of a conflict; whether to remain true to the Bible or to join the banner of Aristotle. The most prominent amongst the Jewish theologians who sought the way of reconciliation was Moses Maimonides. This philosopher wrote his famous work, “Guide of the Perplexed,” expressly for those scholars who, whilst firmly adhering to the inherited faith, had been trained in the study of philosophy, and were unwilling to abandon either. Maimonides shows the way how to explain Biblical passages implying statements contrary to philosophical teachings, and how to reconcile theology and philosophy. A similar task was undertaken in modern times by Moses Mendelssohn in his “Jerusalem” and “Morgenstunden,” in order to show that strict adherence to the Jewish religion is quite compatible with the teaching of philosophy. The various systems of philosophy in Alexandria, in the Mohammedan countries in the Middle Ages, and in Germany in the last century, which threatened to endanger our religion, have lived their time and have gone to their fathers, giving way to new systems and new ideas, whilst the authority of the Word of God has maintained its place. This having been the case in former days, there is no reason why we should not in the present conflict assume, primâ facie, that the scientific and philosophical dogmas now in favour, alike with Jews and non-Jews, will have their time, and will ultimately give way to other theories, and the present conflict will then likewise terminate, dying a natural death. This reflection should put us on our guard lest we be persuaded by the plausibility of the modern philosophical and scientific dogmas, and throw aside our religious faith and traditions. We ought to bear in mind that, however correct the conclusions of modern science may appear that can be tested by our senses, theories which are not subject to such tests are in reality nothing but hypotheses to which a greater or lesser degree of probability attaches.

Suppose now—always bearing in mind the imperfect character of our powers of observation—we were to observe that certain plants or species of animals developed by training and circumstances into new species, or to see plants being transformed into animals, or even to notice literally “the foal of a wild ass born a man,” what would all this prove? That the Creator endowed the species of plants and animals with such properties as would enable them to transform into new species, or into any other of the species already in existence; but it does not follow that the Creator must have adopted the same method in the act of creation. He created as many species as His wisdom determined, although they might all have been able to develop from one single species. Suppose the problem which the Alchymists of the Middle Ages proposed to themselves, viz., to produce an animal being by mere chemical combination, had actually been solved, would any one have believed that all animals had been produced in that way? Or does the success of artificial hatching of eggs convince any person that all birds have sprung from artificially hatched eggs? The same argument applies to the geological formation of the earth. We notice changes brought about through natural forces, and mark the amount of change effected in a certain period; we are then able to calculate what time would be required for such or such a change—provided that only those laws be in force which we have noticed in our calculation. Is it reasonable or logical to apply to the act of creation the laws which have been brought into force through this very act? “He said, and it was: He commanded, and they were created” (Ps. xxxiii. 9). The word of God produced in a moment what the natural forces established by the Creator would effect by gradual development in millions of years.

It is true that the earth is one of the most insignificant bodies in the universe, and man is a small portion of the creatures on earth, and yet it is neither impossible nor unreasonable to believe that the benefits which man derives from the various parts of the creation, from the sun, the moon, and the stars, were essential elements in the scheme of the All-wise Creator.

Attempts have frequently been made to interpret the Biblical account of the creation in such a manner as to reconcile it with the scientific theories of the time. Thus it has been argued that the period between the creation of “heaven and earth” and the creation of “the light” is not described in the Bible, and may have been millions of millions of years. It has likewise been suggested that the term “day” is to be understood in the sense of “period.” It has further been pointed out that the account of the creation of animals indicates a process of development rather than a creatio ex nihilo; for it says, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly living beings,” &c. (Gen. i. 20). “Let the earth bring forth living beings,” &c. (Ibid. 24). These interpretations may be true, and may suffice temporarily to check sceptical ideas that rise in our mind; but without the firm belief in the Word of God, and the consciousness of the insufficiency of human reason thoroughly to understand the plans and ways of God, our faith can never be safe. Supported by this belief we shall always be able to brave the ever-recurring billows of scepticism.

2. The next principle contained in our Creed concerning God is the Unity of God.

“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exod. xx. 2–3). This is the first lesson the Israelites were taught when God revealed Himself to them on Mount Sinai. The words, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deut. vi. 4), are proclaimed by us thrice every day; we recite them when we rise; keep them in memory during the day, and repeat them in the evening before we go to rest; they form our watchword throughout our life, and with these words upon our lips we end our earthly existence. The Unity of God is the doctrine that distinguishes the Jews from other religious sects, in so far as the Jews were the first nation of Monotheists. From them Monotheism has spread among other peoples, who, however, did not always receive or preserve it in its original purity. We not only proclaim God as One, refusing to recognise as divine any power beside Him, but refrain also from attributing to God anything that might directly or indirectly involve any notion contrary to the Unity of God.

For this reason certain Jewish philosophers considered it unlawful to assign to God any positive attribute. They feared this might lead to dualism, to believe in God and in His attribute as two distinct beings, because attributes are so easily personified and addressed as separate deities. Some theologians even were of opinion that the admission of God’s attributes is itself a form of dualism which must be excluded from our faith. Nevertheless, attributes are assigned to God both in the Scriptures and in our Prayers. We must not, however, forget that such attributes do not describe anything inherent in the Divine Being, but only God’s relation to man and His actions in such terms as are intelligible to human beings. Most of the attributes are interpreted as being of a negative character, indicating what we must not say of God. When we speak of the Will, Wisdom, and Spirit of God, we do not speak of anything separate from the Divine Being, but of the Divine Being Himself. The Jewish doctrine of the Unity of God does not admit any kind of dualism in the Divine Being, and therefore rejects the existence of Divine Attributes as distinct from God Himself. He is One, simple and indivisible. Even this property of being One seemed to some theologians to be contrary to strict unity, and we are therefore taught that we must not understand it in the sense of a numerical unit, in which sense the term is used when applied to created beings. The second article therefore declares: “The Creator is One, and there is no Oneness like His in any way.”

The Unity of God is the creed which the Jews have always proclaimed by word of mouth, to which they have given expression throughout their literature, and for which they have willingly sacrificed their lives as martyrs. When persecuted by Mohammedans or Christians the Jews were frequently forced to break the Sabbath, to ignore the dietary laws, and to neglect Divine worship. They bore all this patiently when under pressure of persecution, but when they were asked to renounce the belief in God’s Unity they did not doubt for a moment as to what their duty was; they adhered firmly to ‏יחוד השם‎ “the belief in God’s Unity,” and sacrificed their lives for ‏קדוש השם‎ “the sanctification of God’s name.”

The Jews have been victorious. In spite of persecution and oppression they have maintained their faith. The doctrine of the Unity of God, for which they had to suffer so much in past centuries, is now admitted as true by most of their former persecutors.

In order to make clear what we mean by unity, and to express that God could not be conceived as existing at any time in a double form, we add the words: “And He alone was, is, and will be our God.” The second article runs therefore as follows:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is One; that there is no Oneness like His, in any way, and that He alone was, is, and will be our God.”

3. The strict Unity of God, in the sense explained above, implies His Incorporeality, which forms the subject of the third article. Corporeality implies substance and form, a dualism which must be rigidly excluded from God. It would not have been necessary to formulate a special article for the exclusion of corporeality from the idea of God but for the fact that many erroneous notions have been entertained on the subject. Besides the fact that the corporeality of God was assumed by certain religious sects, there have been scholars among the Jews who defended the literal sense of anthropomorphic phrases in the Scriptures.

In the Bible anthropomorphic expressions are employed in order to illustrate the different acts of Divine Providence in such a way as to render them more intelligible to us human beings. We consist of body and soul, and we produce an impression or exercise an influence on others by means of our body and by the activity of our bodily organs. How an incorporeal being acts upon the corporeal world we are unable fully to comprehend, much less to describe. If we desire to picture to ourselves or to others the fact that through Divine Providence something has been produced on earth, we must employ the same phrases which we use in describing human acts which effect a similar result. In reality, however, there is no comparison or similarity between God and corporeal beings, between His actions and ours.

When we therefore speak of the house of God we mean the house which we devote to our prayers, in which we feel the omnipresence of the Almighty more than in any other place. The heaven is called the throne of God and the earth His footstool only to express the idea that the majesty of God is far beyond comparison with that of any earthly ruler, and that the house of God built by human hands is not intended to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Being but those of man. We call Him our Father and He calls us His children, because we love Him as we love our father, and He loves us as a father loves his children. In the same sense the Psalmist (ii. 7) repeats the words of God to him, “Thou art my son; I have this day begotten thee.” Such expressions as these are anthropomorphic.

The Bible frequently exhorts us not to imagine or ascribe to God any form or likeness. Comp. Deut. iv. 15, “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of fire.” In the same sense the prophet asks in the name of God (Isa. xl. 18), “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness will you compare unto Him?” “To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal to Him? saith the Holy One” (Ibid. 25).

We declare therefore in the third article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is not a body, that corporeal relations do not apply to Him, and that there exists nothing that is in any way similar to Him.”

4. The next property we declare of God in the Creed is the eternity of God. As He is the cause of everything in existence, and requires no cause for His existence, and as it is impossible to separate the idea of existence from the idea of God, it follows that God is always in existence, and that neither beginning nor end can be fixed to His existence. Maimonides, in expressing his belief in the eternity of God, lays stress only on God being without a beginning, and in this sense he interprets the phrase Dip ‏אלהי קדם‎ (Deut. xxxiii. 27), “the eternal God” who is without a beginning. That God is without end is equally true, but Maimonides did not desire to introduce this idea into the fourth article as a distinguishing characteristic, as it is not necessary to believe that the universe will once come to an end. If it please the Almighty to give the universe existence for ever, it will continue for ever. Following, however, the example of the prophets, who told us in the name of God, “I am the first, and I am the last,” we express this idea in our Creed, and understand it thus: If, by the will of the Almighty, the entire universe should come to an end, God’s existence would still continue. Thus the Psalmist says, “Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment: as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end” (Ps. cii. 26–28).

The fourth article is:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, was the first, and will be the last.”

6. After having declared our faith in God as the sole Ruler of the universe, who is One, incorporeal and eternal, we proclaim Him as our Supreme Master, who alone is capable of granting our petitions. All existing things are under His control; all forces in nature only work at His will and by His command. No other being possesses the power and independence to fulfil our wishes of its own accord, if it were approached by us with our prayers. It is, therefore, to Him alone that we can reasonably address our petitions, and in doing so we have confidence in the efficacy of our prayers, for “the Lord is nigh to all those who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth” (Ps. cxlv. 18).

This article, although expressly directed against idolatry, and primarily against the worship of “the angels, the stars, and the spheres,” implies our belief in God as the Omnipotent, who can do everything, and can help us when we have not any prospect of relief.

We therefore declare in the fifth article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, alone is worthy of being worshipped, and that no other being is worthy of our worship.”

The Omnipotence of God is also implied in the first article, which declares Him the Creator and the Ruler of the universe. That Maimonides does not directly make omnipotence, like unity, incorporeality, &c., the subject of a separate article has its good reason, and is not “the result of mere chance.” Silly questions were frequently asked; e.g., how far the omnipotence of God extended, whether it implied the power of making twice two equal to three, or the whole of a magnitude larger than the sum of its parts, and similar logical impossibilities. To avoid misunderstanding, Maimonides did not express our belief in the omnipotence of God in a separate article, but the first and the fifth articles imply it.

We believe of God that He is immutable or unchangeable. It is, however, not necessary to express this in a separate article. By declaring the Unity of God we proclaim also His Immutability, since unity, in the sense in which we conceive it, is incompatible with any kind of change. Whatever the change might be that we assumed in God, it would destroy the idea of His unity.

There are other qualities which we ascribe to God. We call Him perfect, all-wise, good, kind, merciful, long-suffering, and the like; in short, whatever we find in our own person good and noble we believe to be present in God in a higher degree, in the most perfect form. But these attributes approach very closely anthropomorphisms, which Maimonides rigidly excludes from the Creed. They express rather the impressions produced in our soul by the different acts of God’s Providence, and do not describe God Himself.

Of this class of attributes are the thirteen divine attributes, ‏שלש עשרה מדות‎ (Exod. xxxiv. 6). They describe in thirteen terms the goodness and mercy of God towards man in his various conditions of innocence, guilt, and repentance. These are not distinctly mentioned in our Creed, but when we declare that He is the only Being whom we can address in our prayers, we are certainly conscious and convinced that He, being good, kind, and merciful, listens to our supplications.

2. REVELATION, ‏תורה מן השמים‎.

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

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

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

A person favoured by Divine communications was called a prophet, ‏נביא‎. That which characterised a prophet and distinguished him from the ordinary man was the privilege of being chosen by Providence to be ‏מלאך יי‎ “the messenger of God” to man. This notion of the characteristics of a prophet explains the circumstance that, although Daniel was favoured with numerous prophetic visions, the book called after his name was not placed among the Prophets, but among the Hagiographa. It is on account of his addressing his brethren and informing them of the Will of God that a person was called a prophet. [4] By simply receiving a communication, without the direction to impart the knowledge acquired to others, a person may become a man of God, a man in whom there is the spirit of God, but not a prophet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, ‏תנ״ך‎

The collection of books known by these names are ‏ספרי קדש‎ or ‏כתבי קדש‎ “holy books” or “holy writings,” because the authors of these books were holy men their object is a holy one, viz., to train man to holiness, and the contents of the books is holy, free from all blemish and error. The books vary greatly in character, in style, and in purpose, but truthfulness is common to all of them. Whether they narrate events or proclaim God’s decrees, or instruct or edify their hearers, what they say is true.

The name Bible is derived from the Greek βιβλιον, “book.” ‏תנ״ך‎ (pronounced tenach) has no meaning in itself, and is a word formed of the initials of ‏תורה נביאים כתובים‎. Sometimes ‏אנ״ך‎ (the initials of the Chaldee ‏אוריתא נביאין כתיבין‎) is used instead of ‏תנ״ך‎. Another name is ‏מקרא‎ “text for reading,” as opposed to vivâ voce tradition. A passage quoted from the Bible is called ‏קרא‎ or ‏מקרא‎ or ‏כתוב‎. Christians call the books of the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament as distinguished from the New Testament.

1. ‏תורה‎ LAW.

The Torah or Law is divided into five books, and is therefore called ‏חומש‎ or Pentateuch (Fivefold or Five-book). The names of the five books are: (1) ‏בראשית‎ Genesis (Creation); (2) ‏שמות‎ Exodus (departure, scil., of the Israelites from Egypt); (3) ‏ויקרא‎ Leviticus (on the laws concerning the Levites or priests), also called ‏תורת כהנים‎ “law of the priests;” (4) ‏במדבר‎ Numbers; (5) ‏דברים‎ Deuteronomy, a Greek term denoting “second-law” or “repetition of the law,” a translation of the Hebrew ‏משנה תורה‎.

These names are derived from the beginnings of the books. The Hebrew names are either the first word of the book, as is the case in the first and the third books (‏בראשית‎ and ‏ויקרא‎), or the first characteristic word, as is the case in the other three books (‏שמות‎ the second word, ‏במדבר‎ the fifth, ‏דברים‎ the second). The English or Greek names describe the subject-matter of the first section of the book. This applies also to the rest of the Biblical writings.

The contents of the five books are as follows:—

The first book (‏בראשית‎).—It begins with the important lesson, the basis of all that is taught in the whole Bible: that God is the Creator of the whole universe. Then follows an account of the Creation, the history of the first man and the first woman, their transition from the state of innocence and happiness to the state of sin and toil, their descendants, the beginnings of industry and civilisation, the deterioration of mankind, the flood, Noah, and the succeeding generations to Abraham; the history of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Israel; the immigration of Jacob with his family into Egypt; and with the death of Joseph, the son of Jacob, the book concludes.

The book contains principally history, but mention is made also of some religious institutions. Reference is thus made to the institution of marriage (ii. 23–25); Sabbath (ii. 1–3); the Covenant of Abraham or the commandment of circumcision (xvii. 1–14); the prohibition of eating flesh cut off from an animal while alive (ix. 4, ‏אבר מן החי‎), of murder (ix. 5–6), and of eating “the sinew that shrank” (xxxii. 33, ‏גיד הנשה‎).

The second book (‏שמות‎).—The history of the family of Jacob, the Israelites, is continued: their sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the journey to Mount Sinai, the Revelation, the erection of the Tabernacle, and the events in the camp of the Israelites during their stay in the wilderness of Sinai.

The Divine precepts take a more prominent place in this book. Chief among these are the institution of the Jewish Calendar, appointing the month of Abib—Nisan—to be the first month (xii. 2); the Sacrifice of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (chap. xii.); the Sabbath (xvi. 22–30); the Decalogue (chap. xx. 1–12); civil legislation (xxi. to xxiii.); the year of release (xxiii. 10, 11); and the ‏שלש רגלים‎ or festivals of pilgrimage to the sanctuary of the Lord; viz., Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (‏פסח‎, ‏שבועות‎ and ‏סכות‎ xxiii. 14–17).

The third book (‏ויקרא‎) contains the laws revealed during the stay of the Israelites near Mount Sinai. A few historical incidents are mentioned in illustration of the Law. Leviticus contains the laws concerning the sacrifices (i. to vii.); the initiation of Aaron and his sons as priests (viii. to x.); dietary laws (xi.); laws about cleanness and uncleanness (‏טהרה וטומאה‎) in man and woman (xii. to xv.); the Day of Atonement (xvi.); prohibition of blood (xvii. 10–14); marriage laws (xviii. and xx. 10–22); laws concerning the holiness of man (xix.); laws concerning the priests (xxi., xxii. 16) and sacrifices (xxii. 17–33); the Festivals of the Lord (xxiii.); the year of release and the year of jubilee, and land-laws connected with these (xxv.); laws concerning the transfer of property to the sanctuary and the priests.

The fourth book records the departure of the Israelites from Mount Sinai, their journeyings until they came to the east of the Jordan in the plains of Moab; the chief incidents during these travels, viz., the consecration of the altar, and the instalment of the Levites as assistants to the priests in the performance of the Divine Service; the first appointment of a council of seventy elders; the punishment of Miriam for slander; the spies; the rebellion of Korah; death of Miriam; Moses and Aaron’s sin at Meribah, and their punishment; death of Aaron; wars with Sihon and Og; the blessings of Bileam instead of his intended cursings; the zeal and distinction of Phineas; war against Midian; the appointment of Joshua as future leader of Israel.

There is also in the book a list of all the stations where the Israelites had encamped during their travels through the Arabian desert (chap. xxxiii.), and a minute description of the boundaries of the land of Canaan (chap. xxxiv.).

The following are the principal laws mentioned in Numbers: the laws concerning Nazirites; concerning a woman suspected of faithlessness against her husband; the second Passover (‏פסח שני‎) for those who could not fulfil their duty on the 14th of Nisan; the law of fringes (‏ציצת‎); the law of purification of persons who have become unclean through contact with the dead body of any person (‏פרה אדומה‎ chap. xix.); the law of inheritance (xxvii.); the sacrifices for the festivals (xxviii., xxix.); the laws of vows (xxx.); laws concerning murder and cities of refuge (xxxv.).

The fifth book (‏דברים‎) contains speeches of Moses which he addressed to the Israelites during the last year of his life, reminding them of their repeated disobedience to the Divine command, and their want of confidence in Him, and exhorting them to be faithful to God. He frequently emphasises the truth that blessing and happiness can only be obtained through obedience, trouble and curses being the certain result of sin and transgression. Chapter xxviii., called ‏תוכחה‎ “exhortation” or “rebuke” (see also Lev. xxvi.), is especially devoted to this principle. In the song ‏האזינו‎ (chap, xxxii.), which all the people were to learn by heart, Moses rebukes his brethren for their ingratitude to God, and foretells them that, in the remote future, similar conduct will be visited severely, and that after a period of punishment God will show mercy to them, and again restore them to a state of happiness and glory. Before his death he gives a special blessing to each tribe. The book concludes with the death of Moses, the succession of Joshua, and the praise of Moses as the greatest of all prophets.

Many of the commandments are repeated in the course of the exhortations: the Decalogue, the laws concerning the three agricultural and national festivals (‏שלש רגלים‎), and such other laws as Moses considered necessary to impress on the heart of the Israelites before he departed from among them. The Israelites being near Jordan, and about to take possession of the promised land, their attention is called to such laws as would then come into practice, e.g., those which refer to the political and judicial arrangements of the country (xvi. to xviii.); and the solemn declaration of allegiance to the Will of God (xxvii.).

The Pentateuch is divided into verses (‏פסוקים‎), paragraphs (‏פסקות‎), and into sections called ‏סדרות‎ or “weekly portions.” The division into chapters is of comparatively modern origin.

2. THE PROPHETS

are divided into two groups: Earlier and Latter Prophets (‏נביאים ראשונים ונביאים אחרונים‎).

The Earlier Prophets do not contain prophecies in the usual meaning of the word. They contain the history of Israel from the accession of Joshua to the leadership of Israel, to the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. They are, nevertheless, called “Prophets,” for two reasons:—

(1.) The history is written in a prophetic spirit, with the view of illustrating the principle that obedience to the word of God was the cause of Israel’s prosperity and success, disobedience the cause of trouble and misery.

(2.) The Earlier Prophets include the history of Deborah, Samuel, Nathan, Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha, and a few anonymous prophets.

No collection of their speeches has been made or preserved in the Scriptures, and they are thus distinguished from the latter prophets, whose prophecies have been collected and form the contents of the “Latter Prophets.”

The following books belong to the Earlier Prophets:—

1. The Book of Joshua (‏יהושע‎), containing the history of the conquest and division of the land of Canaan by the Israelites, from their crossing the Jordan to the death of Joshua.

Among the various incidents related in the book the following are noteworthy:—The circumcision of those who had been born during the wandering of Israel in the wilderness; the celebration of the first Passover in the Holy Land; the appearance of “the prince of the host of the Lord” (v. 14), just before the war commenced, in order to remind Joshua that “the place upon which he stood was holy;” [5] the crossing of the Jordan; the taking of Jericho; the disastrous consequences of Achan’s sin, as an illustration of the principle that the whole community is made responsible for the crime of the individual till the crime is discovered and punished; the battle at Gibeon, famous through Joshua’s exclamation, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou moon, in the valley of Ajalon!” (x. 12); and the appointment of the cities of refuge.

2. The Book of Judges (‏שופטים‎) contains episodes of the history of the Israelites from the death of Joshua to the days of the high-priest Eli. The name “Judge” is identical with that of chief magistrate, or simply chief or leader. The judges were persons chosen by God, and inspired with an extraordinary spirit of courage and bravery, to be the liberators of the country, or part of the country, from the tyranny of oppressors. The virtues that were required in order to qualify them for this mission were patriotism and courage. Some of them may have continued in power after the restoration of peace and order, but on the whole their mission as judges was fulfilled with the cessation of war. They were not the religious teachers of the nation, nor are they set up as examples of piety.

During the period of the judges the tribes of Israel were not united (song of Deborah, Judges v. 15–17). There was no common government, or if there was one, it must have possessed little power and influence. The people became degraded; many worshipped idols and altogether ignored the Divine commandments. But the conscience of the nation was roused when a shocking crime was committed at Gibeah in the tribe of Benjamin, and all Israel united in demanding the punishment of the evil-doers (chaps. xix. to xxi.). The book contains two beautiful poetical passages, the song of Deborah (v.) and the parable of Jotham (ix.).

3. The two books of Samuel (‏שמואל א׳ וב׳‎)—also called the first and second books of Kings—contain the history of Israel during the time of the high-priest Eli, the prophet Samuel, and Saul, the first king of Israel (Book I.); and the reign of David (Book II.).

The following passages are noteworthy:—

ii. 6–7: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich; He bringeth low and lifteth up.”

xii. 22: “The Lord will not forsake His people, for His great name’s sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people.”

xv. 22–23: “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry; because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king.”

xvi. 7: “The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”

xxiv. 14: “Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked.”

II., xxiv. 14: “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for His mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.”

The following poetical passages of the book should also be marked:—

The prayer of Hannah (ii. 1–10); David’s lament over Saul’s death (II., i. 18–27); Parable of the prophet Nathan (xii. 1–6); Song of thanksgiving by David (xxii.); David’s faith in God’s justice (xxiii. 1–7).

4. The first and the second books of Kings (‏מלכים א׳ וב׳‎), also called the third and fourth books of Kings, contain the history of Israel from the death of David to the Babylonian exile. The first book describes the last days of King David, the reign of Solomon, the division of the country into two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat, and the history of the kingdom of Israel from Jeroboam to Ahab. The second book continues the history of the kingdom of Israel from Ahab to the conquest of Samaria by Shalmanessar, king of Assyria, and that of the kingdom of Judah from Abijam, son of Jehoshaphat, to the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

I., ii. 2: “I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man.”

xviii. 21: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God. follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him.”

II., xiv. 9: “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the thistle.” [6]

Note, besides, prayer of Solomon (I., viii. 12–61) and message of Isaiah to King Hezekiah (II., xix. 21–31).

The ‏נביאים אחרונים‎ Latter Prophets, contain the following books:—

I. Isaiah (‏ישעיהו‎).—Isaiah prophesied chiefly during the Assyrian invasions in Palestine in the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. The book is divided into two main sections, separated from each other by the narrative of Sennacherib’s invasion and defeat, Hezekiah’s illness and recovery, and the congratulatory message of the Babylonian king to Hezekiah (chaps, xxxvi. to xxxix.). The first section is divided into five parts with separate headings:—

(1.) Chap. i.—This prophecy was probably repeated by Isaiah many times from the beginning to the end of his prophetic mission. The Israelites in Jerusalem and Judah are rebuked for their rebellion against God, which has brought a series of misfortunes upon the nation; God does not accept their sacrifices unless they return to Him and improve their conduct. They will be punished, but the punishment is only the means for their purification. When this effect is obtained their redemption will follow.

(2.) Chaps. ii. to v.—The fulfilment of the mission of the Israelites—the Messianic period—is depicted, when the Israelites will be so perfect in the knowledge and the worship of God, that all nations will seek enlightenment and guidance in the house of the God of Jacob. The prophet shows his brethren how they receded from that aim, and, estranging themselves from the Almighty, trusted in things that are powerless. But all these things, grand and high as they may appear, will prove worthless, and the glory of God will in the end be recognised. The prophet illustrates the conduct of the Israelites and their punishment in the beautiful parable of the vineyard (v. 1–7). As special sins are named: greediness, lust, mockery, and injustice. The punishment threatened is the invasion of a cruel conqueror.

(3.) Chap. vi.—On the occasion of the death of King Uzziah, who had presumed to approach God and to offer incense in the Holy of Holies, contrary to the Law, and was punished with leprosy, Isaiah had a vision in which he despairingly contrasted the infinite holiness of the Almighty with his own sinfulness, living as he did among people of unclean lips. He is reassured, and shown that his sin is removed when his words are inflamed by the holy fire taken from the altar of God. He must, nevertheless, not expect a speedy effect from his words to the people; they will continue in disobedience and bring upon themselves continued punishments, but ultimately, when the leaves have fallen off, the stem will remain—a seed of holiness.

(4.) vii. to xii.—The invasion of Judah by Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Aram, brings to light the want of faith in God and His word on the part of Ahaz, king of Judah. Isaiah, taking with him his son Sh’ar-yashub (“A-remnant-will-return”), a reminder of punishment and of redemption, rebukes Ahaz, and gives him a sign (‏אות‎): “The young woman is with child, and will bear a son, and call his name Immanuel” (‏עמנו אל‎ “God-is-with-us”). “Cream and honey shall he eat, when he will know to reject the evil and to choose the good.” By this sign Ahaz is informed (1) that at the time of the birth of the child Judah will be freed from the armies of the two kings, and the name Immanuel was to be the expression of thanks for the delivery; (2) another more serious invasion of the Assyrians will come and devastate the country; and after their departure the Israelites will not have any corn or bread; “cream and honey will every one eat that is left in the midst of the land.”

The invasion of Syria and Palestine by the Assyrians is also foretold in the very name of Isaiah’s own son, Maher-shalal-’hash-baz (“The spoiler hastens to be quick with the spoil”). In spite of such dark prospect the prophet sets forth the testimony and the lesson (‏תעודה‎, ‏תורה‎): “Hope in the Lord, though He hides His face from the house of Jacob. For often have people in affliction seen great light.” “A child [7] has been born unto us, called The Almighty, the Eternal, the Prince of Peace, devises wonders, for the purpose of increasing the dominion and establishing endless peace upon the throne of David and his kingdom, to order it and support it by judgment and righteousness from now even for ever” (ix. 5, 6). The Assyrian invasion is a punishment for the sins of the Israelites, and its success will continue so long as the Israelites refuse to repent and to return to God. This, however, will ultimately come to pass, and Ashur will then receive the penalty for his insolence and presumptuousness. Israel will in the end be guided by a wise and just ruler, who will spring forth from the roots of Jesse. The Messianic times will then begin, and amidst universal peace all mankind will join in the praises of God.

(5.) xiii. to xxxv.—This group of prophecies was probably delivered during the Assyrian invasion. Isaiah takes a survey of the neighbouring states, their conduct in times of success, and their well-deserved punishment in the immediate or the remote future. The prophecies are directed against Babylon, Plesheth, Moab, Damascus, Egypt, Ashdod, Babylon, Dumah, Arab, the Assyrian Shebnah, Tyre, Edom, and Ephraim. Great confusion will ensue, amid which Judah will suffer much, but he will ultimately be delivered through the Divine intervention, and will thus be strengthened in his faith in God. Isaiah rebukes Judah for seeking help from Egypt against Assyria, because such an act indicates want of faith in God. It is only the Almighty that can help in times of distress.

(6.) xxxvi. to xxxix.—The historical chapters which intervene between the two large prophetical sections of the book conclude with an account of Hezekiah’s conduct towards the Babylonian ambassadors, and the rebuke he received of Isaiah, who announced to the king that the Babylonians would one day be conquerors of Jerusalem.

(7.) xl. to xlviii.—The prediction of the Babylonian exile is followed by comforting messages and by the good tidings of the promised Restoration. Contrasting the omnipotence of God with the helplessness of earthly powers and idols, the prophet calls for absolute faith in God, who has already appointed the conqueror of Babylon and the liberator of the exiled Jews.

(8.) xlviii. to liv.—It is not only deliverance from exile that the Jews have to hope for, but far greater things. The people of the Lord are to become glorious, and to be the source of salvation to all mankind. They will suffer at the hand of the nations, but the latter will ultimately see what wrong they have done to Israel. Notwithstanding all apparent obstacles, this prophecy will be fulfilled.

(9.) lv. to lx.—The prophet exhorts the people to follow the word of God, to abandon idolatry, and to be sincere in their prayer and repentance; only then might they hope for salvation. God has punished Israel, but the redeemer will come unto Zion.

(10.) lxi. to lxvi.—Encouragement is given especially to the ‏ענוים‎ “the meek,” “the broken-hearted;” the day of vengeance is announced against the haughty and sinners. The prophet prays to God, and God answers him with the promise of the ultimate triumph of the ‏ענוים‎ and ‏יראי יי‎ “the meek and the God-fearing.”

2. Jeremiah (‏ירמיה‎).—Jeremiah prophesied in the thirteenth year of Josiah, and continued to prophesy during his reign and that of his successors, and after the fall of Jerusalem, but it is not certain how long he lived after the destruction of the Temple, and where he died. He was the son of Hilkiah, of the priests in Anathoth, in the tribe of Benjamin. He was exposed to cruel persecutions, but these did not deter him from delivering the Divine message with which he was entrusted to the king and to the people. The prophecies of Jeremiah were written down by Baruch, at Jeremiah’s dictation (chap. xxxvi.), but the book was seized by King Jehoiakim, and burnt by him. The Book of Jeremiah, in our Bible, is probably the copy made later on by Baruch, and mentioned in Jer. xxxvi. 32.

The book is composed of the following parts:—

(1.) Chap. i.—The appointment of Jeremiah as prophet “over the nations and the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (ver. 10).

(2.) Chaps, ii. to vi.—Jeremiah addresses the inhabitants of Jerusalem. “Israel is a holy portion, belonging to the Lord; whosoever eats of it is guilty, and will be punished.” Israel ought therefore to be faithful to God. This they are not, in spite of the benefits bestowed on them; they are exhorted to repentance: in vain. They are therefore threatened with a hostile invasion from the north.

(3.) Chaps, vii. to x.—The prophet addresses the people in the gate of the Temple, exhorting them to true repentance. Without obedience to God the Temple and sacrificial service have no value. The foundation of the Law is, “You shall be to me a people, and walk in the way which I command you.” You have not obeyed, and punishment is determined upon. Jeremiah, foreseeing the desolation of the country and the ruin of the nation, laments and weeps, but he is sure that God is ‏עשה חסד משפט וצדקה‎ “one who doth loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness,” and that those nations which indulged in cruelties against the Israelites when under Divine punishment will themselves not escape retribution.

(4.) xi. to xiii.—“The covenant was: Hear my voice, and do what I command you: ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.” You have broken this covenant and worshipped idols; evil must come upon you. This Jeremiah proclaimed in “the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem,” and probably also in Anathoth; whereupon he was threatened with death. Such conduct gave occasion to further prophecies concerning the wickedness of the people and their impending punishment. The fact that Israel has been chosen to be the people of the Lord and has shown himself unworthy of the distinction, is symbolised by a girdle, forming at first an ornament to man, but which when rotten by moisture in the crevices of rocks, is no longer of any use.

(5.) Chaps, xiv. to xvii.—Drought visits Judah; Jeremiah prays to God for relief from famine. God rejects his petition. The prophet is disappointed, but he is assured that God will protect him from the attacks of the people, if he tries “to bring forth a precious thing from the vile.” He tries, but in vain.

(6.) xvii. 19–27.—Exhortation to keep the Sabbath, to abstain from all manner of work, and from carrying burdens out of or into the town.

(7.) xviii.—God changes His decrees according to the deeds of man, as a potter transforms the clay from one vessel to another. Jeremiah is again insulted and threatened, and he prays to God against his persecutors.

(8.) xix. and xx.—In the valley of Hinnom, Jeremiah denounces the idolatry of Israel, and as a symbol of the impending ruin of Israel, he breaks a pot of earthenware. Returning from the valley, he announces the coming evil in the court of the Temple in the presence of the people; he is taken into prison by Pashchur, the chief of the Temple, for one day. When released he repeats the same prophecy, but feels that he has given offence, and in utter despair curses the day of his birth.

(9.) Chaps, xxi. to xxiv.—Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah, and Zedekiah (later king of Judah) sent to Jeremiah asking him to pray for the safety of the people. But Jeremiah prophesied defeat and disgrace on account of their iniquity. He went even by the command of God to the royal palace, and repeated there the Divine decree against the royal family, Shallum (= Joahaz), Jojakim, and Coniah (= Jeboiachin). There will come, however, one day a righteous offspring of David, who will rule justly and prosperously; He shall be called “The Lord is our salvation.” For the present it would be better to submit to the Babylonian rule. They are false prophets who flatter and speak in the name of God of victories over the Babylonians. The false prophets will all be punished—those who proclaim as their own prophecy the very words they heard from true prophets, those who in different words reproduce messages of the true prophets as their own, and those who invent falsehood. The advisability of submitting to the Babylonian power is also illustrated by the vision of two baskets of figs; good figs representing those who will submit, and bad figs those who prefer war with the Babylonians.

(10.) xxv. to xxvii.—Jeremiah continues, during the reign of Jehoiakim, his prophecies in favour of a peaceful submission to the Babylonians, with the Divine promise of a redemption from the exile and the restoration to their own country and dominion.

(11.) xxviii.—The same prophecy is continued during the reign of Zedekiah. He was opposed by the false prophet Hananiah, to whom Jeremiah foretold that he would be punished and die the same year; this came also to pass.

(12.) xxix. to xxxi.—To the Jews already in Babylon Jeremiah sends a letter of consolation and encourages them in their hopes for the redemption from exile. Of the same tenor were the messages spoken by Jeremiah to all Jews. In days to come a new covenant will be instituted; new in so far as it will not be broken again, the Law remaining permanently written on their heart, “I shall be their God, and they shall be my nation.”

(13.) xxxii. and xxxiii.—Jeremiah, kept in prison, bought property from his uncle Hanamel, wrote and signed the document of transfer, and handed it to Baruch. By this he expressed his conviction that the Jews would return from exile and take possession of their land. In addition to this he sent forth from the prison a Messianic prophecy, describing the future greatness of the seed of David, and the restoration of the priests and Levites to the sacrificial service.

(14.) xxxiv. and xxxv.—Jeremiah exhorts the people to keep “the year of release,” and held up the family of the Rechabites as patterns of piety, who could not be induced to break their vow of abstinence, though it was voluntarily undertaken.

(15.) xxxvi. to xlv.—Jeremiah continues to prophesy, advising, though fruitlessly, submission to the Babylonian king. Zedekiah made war against Nebuchadnezzar, was defeated, and Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians. When some Jews wanted to emigrate to Egypt, Jeremiah warned them in the name of God not to do so. He was not listened to; he was even forced to go with them; but he prophesied against them, and foretold their ruin. Baruch, to whom Jeremiah dictated his prophecies, was discontented at being driven from place to place; Jeremiah appeased and encouraged him.

(16.) xlvi. to lii.—Jeremiah prophesies against Egypt, the Philistines, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam, and Babylon. The book concludes with an account of the fall of Jerusalem, similar to that given at the end of the second book of Kings.

3. EZEKIEL (‏יחזקאל‎)—Ezekiel prophesied in exile.

(1.) Chap. i. to vii.—In the fifth year of the exile of Joiachin, Ezekiel, in the vision of the chariot, representing the rule of God over the universe, is appointed a Divine messenger, to warn the people and tell them of the impending danger, that they might not be ignorant of the fate awaiting them, whether they listened or forbore to listen. The message with which he is inspired is represented as a scroll which he swallows. The threatened danger he indicates by symbolic acts, followed by their explanation. The siege of Jerusalem is illustrated by the prophet besieging a brick representing Jerusalem, and the ruin of the nation by cutting and scattering the hair of his head and beard.

(2.) viii. to xi.—In the sixth year, on the sixth day of the fifth month, in the presence of the elders of Judah, Ezekiel is carried in a prophetic vision to Jerusalem, is shown there the sins committed by the Israelites in the very Temple, and the consequent departure of the Divine Presence from the Temple. Israel will suffer for his sins, but will at last repent and improve. God promises, “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh; that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God” (xi. 19, 20).

(3.) xii. and xiii.—The prophet indicates the coming captivity by the symbolic act of preparing the things necessary for going into exile. The false prophets and prophetesses, who tell the people to have no dread of any coming exile, will be disappointed and punished. The falsehood of the proverb, “In the length of time every vision faileth,” will then be evident.

(4.) xiv. to xix.—Ezekiel describes the sinfulness of Israel, and exhorts them to return to God, or else the threatened calamity will overcome them. He illustrates the approaching calamity by the figure of a cedar-tree and the eagle. Although the fathers have sinned, if the sons abstain from sinning they may prevent the catastrophe; for the proverb, “The fathers have eaten the sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge,” will prove untrue. If they do not improve, the catastrophe must take place which the prophet depicts in the parables of the lioness caught and of the vine consumed by fire.

(5.) xx.—In the seventh year, the Elders of Israel came to Ezekiel “to inquire of the Lord,” ‏לדרש את ה‎. Ezekiel describes the wickedness of Israel, and the punishment they deserved.

(6.) xxi. to xxiii.—Comparing Jerusalem and Samaria to two sisters, Oholibah and Oholah, he complains that the former, having witnessed the punishment of the latter, has not profited by it.

(7.) xxiv.—On the tenth day of the tenth month in the ninth year Ezekiel prophesies the siege and fall of Jerusalem on the very day on which the siege commenced. The greatness of the calamity, to express which the usual outward signs of grief would be inadequate, is indicated by the Divine command that the prophet on the death of his wife should exhibit no signs of mourning.

(8.) xxv. to xxxii.—Like Isaiah and Jeremiah, he foretells the fate of the neighbouring nations, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Philistines, Tyrians, and Egyptians. The last-named are promised recovery after forty years’ desolation of their country.

(9.) xxxiii. and xxxiv.—The prophet describes the duties and responsibilities of watchmen and shepherds, and blames those of his own time as not fulfilling their duties: “But I will save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle. And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David prince among them” (xxxiv. 22–24).

(10.) xxxv.—He prophesies against Seir, for their enmity against Israel.

(11.) xxxvi. and xxxvii.—Ezekiel foretells the restoration of Israel in the parable of the dry bones. The union of Israel and Judah is symbolically shown by the union of two staves.

(12.) xxxviii. and xxxix.—Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, will make the last efforts for the destruction of Israel. All his preparations will be in vain. He and his army will fall in the land of Israel. And the Divine promise is given: “They shall know that I am the Lord their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the nations, and have gathered them into their own land, and I will leave none of them any more there: neither will I hide my face any more from them; for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God” (xxxix. 28, 29).

(13.) xl. to xlviii.—In the fourteenth year after the fall of Jerusalem, in the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, Ezekiel is carried in a vision to the land of Israel, and is shown there the rebuilding of the future Temple, and the division of the land among the twelve tribes, the Levites and the priests.

4. THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS, ‏תרי עשר‎—

(1.) Hosea (‏הושע‎).—Hosea, a contemporary of Isaiah, prophesied about the sinfulness of the northern kingdom of the ten tribes, and turns his attention to Judah only in so far as Judah participated in the sins of Israel, and their consequences.

(a.) Chaps, i. to iii.—In an allegory of a faithless woman and her three children the sin of the ten tribes is represented, who faithlessly turned away from the worship of God in Jerusalem. The consequent three stages of punishment are represented by the names of the three children: Jezreel, referring to the catastrophe of the house of Ahab, ending in the death of Jezebel in Jezreel; Lo-ruhama (“Not pitied”), indicating the fall of the house of Jehu, from which the mercy of God was withdrawn after it had been shown in the successes of King Jeroboam II.; and the third, Lo-ami (“Not-my-people”), predicting the final dissolution of the kingdom. But a time of mercy and Divine protection is foretold by the prophet when he said in the name of God, “I will betroth thee unto me for ever; and I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness and judgment and in loving-kindness and in mercy; and I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord; and I will sow them unto me in the land, and I will show mercy to Lo-ruhama; and I will say to Lo-ami, Thou art my people; and he shall say, My God” (ii. 21, 22, 25). This happy time, however, will only come after a period of trial, represented in the allegory by the period of trial of a faithless woman before the husband has again full confidence in her. “For many days shall the children of Israel dwell without king, without prince, without sacrifice, without a statue, and without ephod and teraphim. After that the children of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and they will anxiously hasten to the Lord and to His goodness in latter days” (iii. 4, 5).

(b.) iv. to viii.—Hosea rebukes Ephraim for their sinfulness and obstinacy. When an attempt is made at repentance it is not made in earnest, and is soon abandoned. The sins of Ephraim find imitation in Judah, and therefore the punishment of Ephraim will also affect Judah.

(c.) ix. to xiv.—The prophet blames Israel for seeking help in their distress in Egypt or Assyria. He censures their conduct, and contrasts it with the kindness of God in the course of the history of Israel since the time of the patriarchs. Samaria must fall, but Israel need but earnestly return to God, and “he will be like dew to Israel, who will blossom like the lily, and extend his roots like the cedars of Lebanon” (xiv. 6); for “straight are the ways of the Lord: whilst the righteous walk by them, transgressors stumble by them” (Ibid. 10).

(2.) Joel (‏יואל‎).—Joel is a contemporary of Isaiah. Locusts have devastated the fields in Judah. Joel exhorts the people to repentance and prayer. His exhortation is acted upon, and relief is promised. At the same time the punishment of the enemies of Israel in the valley of Jehoshaphat is announced. “The day of the Lord, great and wonderful,” will be indicated by extraordinary phenomena in heaven and on earth, so clear that all will understand their significance and foresee the coming judgment.

(3.) Amos (‏עמוס‎)—Amos, a contemporary of the former, prophesied during the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam, king of Israel. Amos first mentions in short paragraphs the sinful conduct of the neighbouring states, Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah, and the punishment decreed against them, introducing each paragraph with the words, “For three sins of ... (scil., will I take back the decree of punishment), but for the fourth, I will not take it back.” He then dwells on the sins of Israel, laying special stress on the luxuries of the rich, obtained through oppression of the poor, and tells them that, though God has frequently pardoned, He will pardon no more. Amaziah, a priest of Beth-el, warns Amos, and bids him leave the country, but the prophet, nevertheless, continues to proclaim the coming judgment of God, viz., the exile of Israel, adding, however, the comforting prophecy that the time will come when Israel shall be restored to his own land and enjoy lasting happiness.

(4.) Obadiah (‏עבדיה‎).—Obadiah prophesies against the Edomites, and announces the Divine decree against them for their cruel treatment of Judah in times of distress.

(5.) Jonah (‏יונה‎).—Jonah, son of Amittai, prophesied success to King Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 25). He was sent to threaten the inhabitants of Nineveh with the destruction of their city in forty days. Instead of going to Nineveh he set out in a boat for Tarshish; during a storm he was thrown overboard, swallowed by a fish, and again brought to the shore. He then carried out the Divine mission, the result of which was that the Ninevites repented of their evil deeds and obtained a respite. Jonah, disappointed that the threat of which he was the bearer was not fulfilled, was rebuked by God, and taught by his own grief at the destruction of a plant “that had come up in a night” how wrong it was to wish that God should not show mercy upon the inhabitants of Nineveh, and to neglect anything that could lead to their repentance and consequent salvation.

(6.) Micah (‏מיכה‎).—Micah of Moresha was likewise a contemporary of Isaiah. He prophesied in Judah.

1. (i.–iii.) He raises his voice especially against the princes, magistrates, and false prophets, who unite in oppressing and ruining the people. When Micah tells them their sins and the coming punishment, they say to him, “Do not preach; they do not preach for such things; they do not offend” (ii. 6). But the prophet of the Lord is not deterred from his mission, but continues to denounce their wickedness: “Her chiefs judge for bribery, and her priests teach for payment, and her prophets decide for silver; yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord in our midst? no evil shall come upon us. Therefore shall Zion be plowed into a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the Temple as the high places of a forest” (iii. 11, 12).

2. (iv.–v.) Like Isaiah, he depicts the Messianic period, in which the house of Jacob will be an example of true faith in God to all nations; in which Israel will be restored to his land, under the rule of a descendant of David. But a period of trials and troubles must precede those happy days, in order to punish Israel, and to purify and prepare him for his future greatness.

3. (vi.–vii.) The same principles are taught in the next part (vi. and vii.) in the form of a controversy (‏ריב ליי עם עמו‎) between the Lord and His people. The latter are reminded of the benefits God has bestowed on them; and when they ask how they are expected to show their gratitude, the prophet says, “O man, He has told thee what is good; and what does the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (vi. 8).

(7.) Nahum (‏נחום‎).—The fall of Nineveh is predicted. The power of the mighty Assyrian Empire, hitherto a terror to Judah and other kingdoms, will come to an end; no remedy can save her any more.

(8.) Habakkuk (‏חבקוק‎).—Habakkuk prophesied at the time when the Casdim or Chaldeans were about to occupy the place of the Assyrians as conquerors of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and to become the rod in the hand of God for the punishment of Israel. Habakkuk, on receiving the mission to announce the Casdim as the executors of the Divine decree, is at a loss to understand why these wicked and cruel people should be chosen to chastise those who are far less wicked; why the evil-doer should swallow him who is more righteous. The answer he receives is, “But the just shall live by his faith.” The evil-doer will in due time receive his full punishment. Habakkuk then gives expression to his implicit faith in the justice of God, in a hymn which is superscribed, “Prayer (‏תפלה‎) of the prophet Habakkuk on account of errors;” for in it he rectifies, as it were, his previous groundless doubt.

(9.) Zephaniah (‏צפניה‎).—He prophesied in the days of King Josiah. He proclaims the approach of the great day of the Lord, on which all those who turned away from Him will receive their punishment, all the rich and powerful who say the Lord does neither good nor evil. He appeals to the humble in the land (‏ענוי ארץ‎) to seek the Lord in prayer, in order to be saved on “the day of the anger of the Lord.” For the Philistines, the Phœnicians, Moab, Ammon, and Assyria will be punished, nor will Jerusalem escape free. “I will then turn,” he says in the name of God, “a pure language to the nations, that all of them will call by the name of God, and serve Him with one accord” (iii. 9). “In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings wherein thou hast transgressed against me; for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty on my holy mountain. And I will leave in thy midst a poor and humble people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, and they shall not speak falsehood, and a tongue of deceit shall not be found in their mouth” (iii. 9, 11–13).

(10.) Haggai (‏חגי‎)—The Israelites, who by the command of Cyrus had discontinued the rebuilding of the Temple after the foundation had been laid by his permission, were exhorted by Haggai, in the second year of the reign of Darius, to resume the work. Guided by Zerubbabel and Joshua, son of Jehozadak, they obeyed, and the prophet describes to them the blessing which they will henceforth enjoy.

(11.) Zechariah (‏זכריה‎):—

1. (i. to vii.) Zechariah, a contemporary of Haggai, exhorts the Israelites to listen to the words of the prophets, seeing that the words of former prophets have been fulfilled. The Divine scheme for the restoration of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple in spite of all obstacles, is shown to the prophet in various visions. In one vision Joshua is appointed high-priest, notwithstanding the aspersions of his adversary (‏השטן‎), and Zerubbabel or Zemach, the political chief of the community. Joshua is exhorted “to walk in the ways of the Lord, to keep the charge entrusted to him, and to guard the House of God and His courts;” and Zerubbabel is reminded that success is not obtained “by might and strength, but by the spirit of the Lord.” “Thus the one—Zemach by name—shall sit on his throne and be ruler, and the other—Joshua—shall sit on his throne and be priest, and a counsel of peace shall be between the two” (vi. 13).

2. Chap. viii.—The prophet is asked whether the day of mourning in the fifth month is to be continued. The prophetic answer is as follows: The reason for the mourning was, that your fathers did not listen to the word of God, and were punished for their disobedience. Now, as the time of punishment is over, it is for you to prevent a recurrence of these sad experiences. What you have to do is this: Speak the truth one to another; truth and judgment of peace judge in your gates. Let no one plan in his heart the ruin of his neighbour, and do not love to swear falsely. Let the fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months be to the house of Judah for rejoicing, joy, and good seasons; love truth and peace (viii. 16, 17, 19). At the same time the promise is given that the time will come when nations will seek the Lord in Jerusalem, and say to the Jews, “We will go with you, for God is with you” (viii. 23).

3. (ix.–xi.) The prophet encourages Zion to rejoice in her future mission; her enemies round about will be brought to silence, and her king, meek and humble, “poor and riding on an ass,” “will speak peace to the nations, and his rule will extend from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth” (ix. 9, 10). Judah and Ephraim will unite, and both will enjoy the Divine protection. If this has not yet taken place, it is the fault of the “bad shepherds,” i.e., the bad leaders of the people.

4. (xii.–xiv.) The prophet foretells troubles which will come upon Jerusalem when the nations will make the last effort to take that city. They will be defeated, and Judah will be filled on that occasion with “a spirit of grace” (‏רוח חן ותחנונים‎), and will pray to God for the safety of his enemy; the very Jews, “whom the enemy desired to pierce,” will pray for him, and mourn for his death as a father mourneth for the loss of his only child. Judah will then be free from false prophets and bad shepherds. God will make Himself known to all: “And the Lord will be a King over the whole earth; on that day will the Lord be One and His name One” (xiv. 9). All will come to Jerusalem “to worship the King, the Lord Zebaoth, and to celebrate the feast of Succoth” (Ibid. 16), expressing thereby their conviction that God alone is able to afford protection and blessing.

(12.) Malachi (‏מלאכי‎).—Malachi, the last of the prophets, exhorts the priests to true reverence of the sanctuary, and to conscientious fulfilment of their duties. The distinction of the priest was based on the distinction of his conduct: “The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found on his lips; in peace and uprightness he walked with me, and many turned he back from iniquity. For the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and instruction shall they seek of his mouth, for he is a messenger of the Lord Zebaoth” (ii. 6, 7). Judah is then rebuked for his faithlessness. Both, the Levites (including the priests) and Judah, will pass through a process of refining; the wicked will be removed, whilst for “those who fear the name of God” the sun of salvation will shine. Those who desire to obtain a place among these latter must “remember the law of Moses, the servant of God, which God commanded him on Horeb for all Israel; statutes and judgments” (iii. 22). Before the great day of the Lord, the day of judgment, the Lord will send “the prophet Elijah, who will cause the hearts of fathers and children to unite in returning to God.”

3. THE HAGIOGRAPHA (‏כתובים‎).

The Hagiographa form the last collection of holy writings, composed by men who, although they were not prophets, were filled with the spirit of the Lord (‏רוח יי‎). They include the three larger works: (a) ‏תהלים‎ (or ‏תלים‎) Psalms, ‏משלי‎ Proverbs, and ‏איוב‎ Job; (b) the Five Scrolls (‏חמש מגלות‎), viz., ‏שיר השירים‎ Song of Songs, ‏רות‎ Ruth, ‏איכה‎ Lamentations, ‏קהלת‎ Ecclesiastes, ‏אסתר‎ Esther; (c) the historical books: ‏דניאל‎ Daniel, ‏עזרא‎ Ezra, ‏נחמיה‎ Nehemiah, and ‏דברי הימים‎ the two books of Chronicles.

1. Psalms (‏תהלים‎).—The Psalms are hymns containing praises of God’s greatness, prayers for His mercy, and meditations on His wisdom, power, justice, and goodness. However various the Psalms are in form and contents, they have this in common, that they all are based on the purest and sincerest trust in God’s justice and goodness. “The mighty and proud, ‏זדים‎ who rely on their own strength and are guided by the dictates of their own will, cannot succeed for ever; the poor and humble, ‏ענוים‎ who rely on God’s mercy and are guided by the word of God, will not suffer for ever.” This is the truth which the Psalmist proclaims in his songs over and over again. Yet there is a great variety in the contents of the Psalms. Some are simply praises of God’s greatness, e.g., viii., xix., xxxii., xcii., xcv. to xcix., ciii., civ., &c. Others are the expression of gratitude, e.g., ix., xviii., xxxiv., lxvi., lxviii., &c. Many are prayers in time of trouble; in most of these the suppliant feels sure that God will accept his prayer, and is confident that help will come. Such psalms are iii., iv., v., vi., xii., xiii., &c. To this class belong also all the psalms which refer to the troubles of David during the reign of Saul, as lii., liv., lvi., lix., lxiii., &c.; some of the Asaph-psalms, lxxiii., lxxvii., lxxix., lxxx.; the penitential psalms, in which the sinner prays for mercy, as xxv., xxxii., xxxviii., li.; and those in which a longing is expressed for the House of God, e.g., xxvii., xlii., xliii., lxv., lxxxiv. Some psalms are a protest against those who rely on human force and human cunning instead of having faith in God, a protest of the ‏ענוים‎ against the view and creed of the ‏זדים‎ and ‏גאים‎ or ‏גוים‎ e.g., ix. and x., xi., xiv., xvi., xvii., &c. Some psalms are of a more didactic character, showing the way of true happiness (Ps. i.), depicting a truly pious life (xv., xxiv.), or the excellence of the word of God, as xix., cxix.; or the uselessness of sacrifice without purity of heart (xl., l., li.).

The poetical form of the Psalms, as of Hebrew poetry in general, is parallelism. The sentences are formed in such a manner that the psalm can be arranged in lines divisible into two parts, which are either two elements of a single idea, or a double expression of the same idea, or a combination of two ideas or things opposed to each other, illustrating an idea by its antithesis. In some of the Psalms the parallelism is perfect throughout, in others it is partly abandoned, probably in order not to slavishly subordinate the idea to the form of its expression. The same is to be noticed as regards other forms of the Psalms. Some are arranged alphabetically, that is, the successive verses begin with successive letters of the alphabet; but deviations from the plan are met with almost in all such psalms. There are psalms which are divided into a certain number of parts or strophes, each part beginning or ending with the same phrase or verse; but almost invariably these phrases or verses undergo some modification.

The style is naturally poetical, and figurative language is employed throughout. God is a Rock (‏צור‎), an habitation (‏מעון‎), a Shepherd (‏רועה‎), who feeds His flock with great care and love; He is an eagle, under whose wings (‏אברתו‎, ‏כנפיו‎) the weak find protection; He rides in the heavens of the heavens of old (‏רכב בשמי שמי קדם‎). Man is compared to “grass that withers,” to a “flower that blossoms in the morning, and in the evening it is withered and dried up;” the life of man is but a breath (‏הבל‎); a lie (‏כזב‎); light in the balance (‏במאזנים לעלות‎); he changes like a garment, like a raiment. The days of a long life are like the days of the heavens, the sun or the moon (‏כימי שמים‎, ‏לפני שמש‎, ‏עם שמש‎ or ‏לפני ירח‎). The mighty are mountains with many peaks (‏הרים גבנונים‎), they have horns like those of the unicorns, whilst the weak are “a wall bent” (‏קיר נטוי‎), “a fence thrust down” (‏גדר הדחויה‎); “they have sunk in deep mire;” “they have come into fire and into water;” “the waters have come unto the soul.” The meek are “broken in heart,” “crushed in spirit.” The wicked and unjust are like lions and dogs; they have poison “like the poison of a serpent, like a deaf adder that stoppeth its ears, that does not listen to the voice of charmers, to the clever sorcerer.” Their words are smooth like cream and oil, whilst in the heart there are war, daggers, sharp swords. The threatened one runs like a hind, escapes like a bird. Those who have no higher aim than material enjoyments are like “sheep driven to death;” “man in his dignity, without understanding, is like cattle that perish.” Mishaps come upon man like the waves of the sea. The Divine judgment visits the wicked like a thunderstorm; it shakes the earth like an earthquake or volcano. Sinners receive “the cup of confusion” (‏כוס התרעלה‎) at the hand of God; for “a cup is in the hand of the Lord, and the wine therein is red; it is full with drink, and He pours out from it, but its dregs all the wicked of the earth will suck and drink.”

The sinner is punished by his own deed; “he digs a pit and falls into it;” he feels like a sick person whose “bones are troubled, and wither;” his purification is toe healing of the soul; he is purified with hyssop; he becomes whiter than snow (li. 9). When man sins he feels as if he had become a changed creature, as if he had now been born and conceived in sin (ver. 7); when he repents and improves, God creates in him a new heart, and renews a firm spirit within him (ver. 12). The wife of the God-fearing man is compared to the fruitful vine, his children to young olive-trees (cxxviii.). The righteous will flourish like a palm-tree, will grow high like a cedar upon Lebanon (xcii. 13). Whilst the righteous is like a tree planted by the brook of water, the wicked are like chaff which the wind drives away (i. 3, 4). Israel is likened to a vine brought from Egypt and planted in Palestine (lxxx. 9). Peacefulness and brotherly love, between high and low, the mighty and the weak, the rich and the poor, the wise and the simple, are illustrated by the fine oil that flows down from the head to the beard, the beard that descends over the garments, and the dew of the high Hermon that comes down to the lower mountains of Zion (cxxx.).

There are some instances of play upon words (lvi. 9), and of rhymes (cxlv. 11; xxxiv. 6); the latter are apparently not intentional.

Although we generally speak of the Psalms of David, only a portion of them was composed by King David; the headings ascribe also one psalm to Moses, two to King Solomon, twelve to Asaph, one to Heman, and one to Ethan; and some have no author mentioned in the heading. Many have no superscription at all, and most of these seem to belong to a later period.

The individual psalms have various names. The most general of them is ‏מזמור‎ a poem, set in music. Of some it is distinctly stated that they were intended to be sung; this is expressed in the heading by the word ‏שיר‎ “song,” which either precedes or follows the title ‏מזמור‎ or stands alone without ‏מזמור‎. The term, ‏שיר‎ “song,” is further qualified by ‏חנוכת הבית‎ “of the dedication of the house,” ‏ידידות‎ “of love,” and ‏המעלות‎ or ‏למעלות‎ “of degrees leading upward,” i.e., towards God. Another name occurring in twelve psalms is ‏משכיל‎ “instructive song;” the maschil proclaims the lesson that God is King of the universe, and that those are happy who trust in His justice and mercy. A similar meaning attaches to ‏ללמד‎ the word superadded to ‏משכִל‎ in Ps. lx.; lit. “to teach,” i.e., that the song be learnt by all, in order that people may strengthen their confidence in God in times of trouble (comp. 2 Sam. i. 18). The meaning of ‏להזכיר‎ which occurs in two psalms (xxxviii. and lxx.), is “for prayer.” There is one psalm ‏לתודה‎ (c.), “for thanksgiving;” another “for the Sabbath-day,” ‏ליום השבת‎ (xcii.). Four psalms are called ‏תפלה‎ “prayer” (xvii., lxxxvi., xc, cii.); one (cxlv.), ‏תהלה‎ “praise;” one (vii.), ‏שגיון‎ “an error,” [8] referring to the miscalculation of the wicked in preparing weapons against the innocent, which weapons are turned against themselves; and six are superscribed ‏מכתם‎ “a jewel.” Such a jewel is the Psalmist’s “faith in God,” that inspires him with hope and pure joy in the midst of misfortune.

The headings include also instructions for the singers and references to the musical instruments which are to be used. The most general term is ‏למנצח‎ “to the chief,” scil., of the singers or Levites; it refers to the chief of a particular division of the Levites if it is followed by a qualifying phrase, and to the chief of all the Levites if it is not followed by any qualification. The term ‏למנצח‎ describes the psalm as a Temple-song, although this may not have been its original object. Even poems which have been composed by David on certain personal events became—perhaps slightly modified—national songs, and formed part of the public service. The adaptation was easy, because these historical psalms rarely contain any allusion to the particular event mentioned in the superscription.

The term ‏למנצח‎ is qualified by ‏על נגינת‎ “on a stringed instrument,” ‏נגינת‎ being the particular instrument of the Levites, of whom this ‏מנצח‎ was the master. The term ‏בנגינות‎ which in several psalms follows the word ‏למנצח‎ is grammatically unconnected with the latter; it means “on stringed instruments,” and is the instruction for the ‏מנצח‎. There were several kinds of such instruments; two kinds are named ‏שמינית‎ and ‏גתית‎ “the neginath with eight strings” or “chords,” and “the gittith” coming from Gath, a town in the land of the Philistines. Other kinds of musical instruments are ‏נהילות‎ (v.), ‏מחלת‎ (liii.), and ‏עלמות‎ (xlvi.); these are hollow flute-like instruments, also called ‏נבלים‎ (1 Chron. xv. 20). In some cases the division of Levites is named instead of the instrument: ‏ידותון‎ “Jeduthun” (xxxix., lxii. and lxxvii.; comp. 1 Chron. xxv. 3); ‏לבני קרח‎ “to the sons of Korah” (xlii. to xlix., and lxxxiv. to lxxxviii.); once the direction occurs ‏לענות‎ (lxxxviii.), “to sing alternately,” referring to the two divisions of Levites headed by ‏הימן האזרחי‎ and ‏איתן האזרחי‎ “the Ezrahite Heman,” and “the Ezrahite Ethan” (lxxxviii. and lxxxix.).

A few terms are met with in the headings which describe the contents of the psalm in a poetical style. Such are (a.) ‏שושן עדות‎, ‏ששנים עדות‎ and ‏ששנים‎ (lx., lxxx., xlv., and lxix.), “Testimony for the lily or lilies,” or “for lilies.” The poet calls by this name the flower of the nation, the meek and God-fearing, who are under the special protection of God, and are destined to be crowned in the end with glory and victory, (b.) ‏אילת השחר‎ (xxii.), “The strength of the dawn.” The phrase refers to the strength given to the sufferer in the darkness of his despair by the awakening of his faith in God, which is compared by the poet to the dawn as the forerunner of daylight, (c.) ‏אל תשחת‎ “Do not destroy” (lvii., lviii., lix., and lxxv.). By this heading the author indicates that the psalm is a protest against the self-confidence of the wicked in the success of their wickedness, either with reference to their evil designs against the author himself, or to their plans in general. (d.) ‏יונת אלם רחקים‎ “Dove in the force of those far,” scil., from God (lvi.). The psalm contains the expression of David’s faith in God when he was caught by the Philistines in Gath.

In some of the headings the event is mentioned which prompted the Psalmist to compose the psalm: David’s flight from Jerusalem when Absalom rebelled against him (iii.); the slander of the Benjamite Kush (vii.); the death of Labben (ix.); rescue from the hands of Saul and other enemies (xiii.); dedication of the house (xxx.); David’s escape from Abimelech, king of the Philistines (xxxiv.); his capture by the Philistines in Gath (lvi.); his stay in the cave of Adullam (lvii., cxlii.); danger of being put to death by the servants of Saul (lix.); war with Aram and Edom (lx.); sojourn in the wilderness of Judah (lxiii.).

The order of the Psalms is not chronological; e.g., chap. iii. refers to the rebellion of Absalom, whilst chap, cxlii. was composed before the death of Saul. The principle which guided the collector in fixing the place of each psalm is not known. But it is certainly not the result of mere chance that the first two psalms speak of the Law of God, and of the punishment of those who rebel against God and against His anointed; and that the last psalm calls upon all to praise God with all their soul: “Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord, Hallelujah!” Nor is it mere chance that the psalms are divided, like the Law, into five groups or books, each one ending with a doxology. It is possible that the psalms were recited or sung at the public service in a manner corresponding to the reading of the Law and the Prophets.

The first two books contain most of the psalms superscribed ‏לדוד‎ “by David,” but there are also some in the other books (one in III., two in IV., fourteen in V.). At the end of the second book (lxxii. 20) the following words are added: “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended;” i.e., the hope which has just been expressed in the words ‏וימלא כבוד יי את כל הארץ‎ “And the whole earth shall be filled with the glory of God,” forms the aim and end of all the prayers of David, the son of Jesse. The verse does not mean that the first seventy-two chapters of the Psalms contain all the prayers of David, as there are several psalms of David between chaps, lxxiii. and cl.

The Psalms were composed by David and other authors partly for private use, partly for the public service in the Temple and other places of worship. Of those that were originally for private use some were subsequently adapted for public service, and even those intended from the beginning for public worship were adapted to the different modes of recitation or singing. The Book of Psalms includes, therefore, two recensions of several chapters; e.g., xiv. and liii.; xviii. and 2 Sam. xxii.; lx. 7–14 and cviii. 7–14; lvii. 8–12 and cviii. 2–6; cv. 1–15 and 1 Chron. xvi. 8–22; xcvi. and 1 Chron. xvi. 23–33; cxxxv. and cxxxvi.

A considerable portion of our daily prayers consists of psalms. We distinguish the following groups:—(a.) ‏פסוקי דזמרא‎ “Verses of song,” Ps. cxlv. to cl.; to which the following are added on Sabbaths and Festivals: xix., xxxiv., xc, xci., cxxxv., cxxxvi. (called ‏הלל הגדול‎ “the great Hallel”), xxxiii., xcii., and xciii. (b.) ‏שיר של יום‎ “Song of the day;” a different psalm is recited each day of the week after the morning prayer in the following order: xxiv., xlviii., lxxxii., xciv., lxxxi., xciii., xcii. (c.) ‏קבלת שבת‎ “Friday evening psalms,” xcv. to xcix. (d.) Sabbath afternoon psalms: civ., cxx. to cxxxiv. (e.) ‏הלל‎ “Praise,” cxiii. to cxviii. (f.) Penitential psalms after evening prayer on week-days, in the following order: xxv., xxxii., xxxviii., li., lxxxvi.

2. ‏משלי‎ Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel. The Book of Proverbs belongs to those Biblical books which are called ‏ספרי חכמה‎ “books of wisdom.” They appeal to the reason of man, and do not support their words by the authority of Revelation, although the authors and those who gave them the final shape were inspired and guided by the ‏רוח ה׳‎ “the divine spirit.” The commandments of God and His ways are referred to as the safest guide for man in all conditions of life. Three books are included in this class: Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes.

“The Proverbs of Solomon” are divided into the following six sections:—(A.) Introduction, i. to ix.; (B.) Collection of Proverbs: (a.) Proverbs of Solomon, x. to xxii. 16; (b.) Words of the Wise, xxii. 17 to xxiv. 22; (c.) Second group of Words of the Wise, 23 to 34; (d.) Proverbs of Solomon collected by the men of Hezekiah, xxv. to xxviii.; (e.) Words of Agur-bin-yakeh, xxx.; (f.) Words of Lemuel, xxxi.

The fourth section (chaps, xxv. to xxix.) is introduced by the following superscription:—“Also these are the Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, had removed.” The men of Hezekiah seem to have been uncertain whether this section should form part of the book, because of the seeming contradiction between the fourth and fifth verses of the twenty-sixth chapter. The men of the Great Synagogue decided the question in favour of its incorporation in the book, and reconciled the seeming contradiction by their interpretation.

The fifth collection of proverbs is ascribed to Agur-bin-yakeh, an allegorical phrase meaning “collection deserving respect.” The collection is further called “the burden”—the usual heading of prophecies—in order to give it more weight. Also the rest of the superscription, “The saying of the man Leïthiel,” Leïthiel ve-ucchal, is of an allegorical character, signifying, “God—i.e., the word of God—is my task, and I shall prevail.” The phrase is set forth more clearly in the succeeding verses: human knowledge is insufficient, but “All the word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who trust in him” (xxx. 5). The second half of this collection has the heading La-alukah, “For a necklace” (comp. i. 9), similar in meaning to the heading ‏מכתם‎ “Jewel,” in the Psalms. The form of these proverbs, based on the numbers two, three, and four, is similar to that of the prophecies of Amos (chaps, i. and ii.). The last collection is headed, “Words to Lemuel, the king; the burden wherewith his mother instructed him.” The contents of the instruction is, “Be not licentious and intemperate; help the poor and oppressed.” The name Lemuel is likewise allegorical, meaning “God-ward.” The book concludes with the praises of a virtuous woman.

(A.) Introduction.—The object of the book is set forth in verses 2 to 7 of the first chapter as follows: “To make man know wisdom and instruction, comprehend words of understanding, and take the instruction of acting wisely, with justice, judgment, and righteousness; to give skill to the simple; to the young knowledge and discretion; that the wise may hear and increase doctrine, and the prudent acquire cleverness to understand proverb and figure, the words of wise men and their allegories. The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” This last sentence is the basis of the book. Without fear of the Lord all knowledge and wisdom will prove insufficient for establishing man’s true happiness. The Introduction consists of several connected addresses, in which the author persuades the reader to listen to his advice, and keep away from wicked people before it is too late. He exhorts man to entrust himself to the guidance of the Lord, and not to rely on his own understanding. “Be not wise in thine eyes, fear the Lord, and depart from evil” (iii. 7). He warns against bad society, against becoming security for debtors, and against idleness. The two ways open to man are allegorically represented by two women, the one wise, the other foolish; the one leading to happiness, the other to ruin; each one inviting man to her house, and displaying in the very act of invitation her full character.

(B.) The collections of proverbs begin with the tenth chapter. The proverbs have the form of parallelism, each verse being divided into two parts, mostly containing an antithesis illustrating the difference between the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad, the just and the unjust, the industrious and the idle, the rich and the poor, and the like. Each verse is a proverb by itself, and is independent of the verses which precede and follow. There are only a few passages in which several verses are connected, and these occur in the later collections, e.g., xxii. 22–23, 24–25, 26–27; xxiii. 1–3, 4–5, 6–9, 10–11, 12–13, 20–21, 29–35; xxiv. 3–7, 10–12, 30–34; xxvii. 23–27. The whole of the thirtieth chapter consists of small paragraphs of three or four verses, and the last chapter consists of two continuous parts.

In these collections of proverbs we find advice for every condition of our life. Our relation to God is shown; how He loves the good and just:—

“The way of the wicked is an abomination of the Lord; but he loveth him who pursues righteousness” (xv. 9).

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination of the Lord, but the prayer of the righteous is his pleasure” (xv. 8).

“The Lord is far from the wicked, but he heareth the prayer of the righteous” (xv. 29).

“To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (xxi. 3).

He protects the poor, the weak, the widow, and the orphan:—

“He who oppresseth the poor, blasphemeth his Maker; and he who is gracious to the needy, honoureth him” (xiv. 31).

“He who is gracious to the poor, lendeth to the Lord, and he will repay him his reward” (xix. 17).

“Do not rob the poor because he is poor; and do not crush the poor in the gate, for the Lord will plead their cause, and will take the soul of those who rob them” (xxii. 23).

“The Lord will pull down the house of the proud, and will establish the border of the widow” (xv. 25).

“The rich and the poor meet; the Maker of them all is the Lord” (xxii. 2).

He punishes the evil-doer and rewards the righteous:—

“Do not say, I will repay evil; hope in the Lord, and he will help thee” (xx. 22).

“He who closeth his ear because of the crying of the poor, he also will call and will not be answered” (xxi. 13).

“He who keepeth a command, keepeth his soul; he who despiseth his ways shall die” (xix. 16).

“When the Lord is pleased with the ways of man, he will cause even his enemies to make peace with him” (xvi. 7).

“The Lord will not let the soul of the righteous be hungry, but the desire of the wicked will he thrust back” (x. 3).

He knows the heart of man:—

“There is a test for silver, and a refining pot for gold; but God trieth the hearts” (xvii. 3).

He directs all events:—

“Man’s heart planneth his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (xvi. 9).

“The horse is prepared for the day of war, but the victory is the Lord’s” (xxi. 31).

His blessing is a true blessing:—

“The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and doth not increase trouble with it” (x. 22).

His Will alone must be obeyed:—

“There is no wisdom, and no understanding, and no counsel against the Lord” (xxi. 30).

“Whoso despiseth a word will be punished, but he who feareth a commandment will be rewarded” (xiii. 13).

“Without a vision the people cometh into disorder; but he who keepeth the Law, happy is he” (xxix. 18).

The fear of the Lord is the basis of a virtuous and happy life:—

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (i. 7); the fountain of life (xiv. 27); the fear of the Lord adds days, but the years of the wicked will be short” (x. 27).

According as we display wisdom or folly we make others and ourselves happy or unhappy:—

“A wise son giveth joy to his father, and a foolish son is the sorrow of his mother” (x. 1).

“The wisdom of woman buildeth her house, and folly pulleth it down by her hands” (xiv. 1).

“Eat, my son, honey, for it is good, and honeycomb, which is sweet for thy palate; know that thus is wisdom for thy soul; if thou hast found it, there is a future, and thy hope will not be cut off” (xxiv. 13, 14).

“The prudent seeth evil, and is hidden; the ignorant pass by, and are punished” (xxvii. 12).

“As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman without discretion” (xi. 22).

“The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well to his going” (xiv. 15).

The ways of wisdom and folly are frequently displayed in our words:—

“In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin, but he who spareth his words acts wisely” (x. 19).

“A soft answer turneth back wrath, but a harsh word raiseth anger” (xv. 1).

“Also a fool when silent is considered wise; he who closeth his lips is prudent” (xvii. 28).

“He who keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from troubles” (xxi. 23).

“By long-suffering the prince is persuaded; and a soft tongue breaketh a bone” (xxv. 15).

“Answer not a fool like his folly, lest thou be equal to him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his eyes” (xxvi. 4, 5).

The principal virtues recommended to man are righteousness (‏צדקה‎), honesty (‏אמונה‎), truthfulness (‏אמת‎), meekness (‏ענוה‎), industry, thrift, temperance, contentment, and moderation:—

“Treasures of wickedness are of no profit, but righteousness delivereth from death” (x. 2).

“Better a little in the fear of the Lord than a large treasure, and confusion therewith” (xv. 16).

“The righteousness of the upright maketh his way straight, but the wicked falleth by his wickedness” (xi. 5).

“The remembrance of the righteous is for blessing; but the name of the wicked will rot” (x. 7).

“Guilt is the interpreter of fools, but favour that of the straightforward” (xiv. 9).

“To do justice is joy to the righteous, and a terror to evil-doers” (xxi. 15).

“Like a fountain made turbid and a well that is corrupted, is the righteous that yieldeth in the presence of the wicked” (xxv. 26).

“Where a man of honesty is, there is multitude of blessings; but he who hasteneth to become rich will not be guiltless” (xxviii. 20).

“The lip of truth will be established for ever, but the tongue of falsehood for a moment” (xii. 19).

“A witness of faithfulness is he who does not lie, but he who uttereth falsehood is a false witness” (xiv. 5). [9]

“A lip of excellency becometh not a low man; how much less doth a lip of falsehood a noble man!” (xvii. 7).

“Pride came, and shame came; but with the meek is wisdom” (xi. 2).

“Meekness cometh before honour” (xv. 33). “Pride cometh before the fall, and haughtiness of spirit before the stumbling” (xvi. 18). “Let another praise thee, and not thy mouth; a stranger, and not thy lips” (xxvii. 2).

“He is poor who worketh with a slack hand, but the hand of the industrious maketh rich” (x. 4).

“Better is he who thinketh little of himself, and is a slave to himself, than he who thinketh much of himself and lacketh bread” (xii. 9).

“The hand of the industrious shall rule, but the slack hand shall be tributary” (xii. 24).

“In all labour there is profit; but when there is only a word of lips it leads but to want” (xiv. 23).

“Also he who is lazy in his work is a brother to the man that destroyeth” (xviii. 9).

“I passed by the field of a slothful man, and the vineyard of a man wanting heart; and behold, thorns have come up over the whole of it; its surface is covered with thistles, and its stone-fence is pulled down. And I beheld, I turned my heart, I saw, I took instruction: a little of sleep, a little of slumber, a little of joining the hands to lie down; then thy poverty cometh like a traveller, and thy want like an armed man” (xxiv. 30–34).

“The righteous eateth to the fulness of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall want” (xiii. 25).

“Wine is a mocker, strong drink roareth, and every one that erreth therein will not be wise” (xx. 1).

“Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath complaining? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? Those who tarry long at the wine; those who come to search mixed drink. Do not look upon the wine though it be red, though it send forth its colour through the cup, though it flow smoothly; in the end it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an asp; thine eyes shall see strange things, and thy heart shall speak perverse things; and thou shalt be like one that lieth in the midst of the sea, and like one that lieth on the top of the mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick. They have beaten me; I felt it not. When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again” (xxiii. 29–35).

“He who is greedy after gain troubleth his house, but he who hateth gifts shall live” (xv. 27).

“He whose desire is wide stirreth up strife, but he who trusteth in the Lord shall be fattened” (xxviii. 25).

“There are who spend liberally, and there is an increase; and there are who withhold more than is right, and yet it leads to want” (xi. 24).

“Know well the state of thy flock; set thy heart to the droves; for treasure is not for ever, nor a crown for generation and generation. When hay is gone, and grass is spoilt, and the herbs of the field are gathered in, there are lambs for thy clothing, and he-goats are the price of a field: and there will be goats’ milk enough for thy food, for the food of thy house, and maintenance for thy maidens’ (xxvii. 23–27).

“Lust overcome is sweet to the soul; but to depart from evil is the abomination of fools” (xiii. 19).

“Better is he who is long-suffering than a hero; and he who ruleth his spirit is better than he who conquereth a city” (xvi. 32).

“Like an open town without a wall is the man whose spirit is without restraint” (xxv. 28).

The following proverbs refer to the relation between husband and wife, and between man and his neighbour as friend or enemy, father and child, rich and poor, king and people:—

“He who hath found a wife hath found a good thing, and obtained favour of the Lord” (xviii. 22).

“A virtuous wife is the crown of her husband, but a wicked woman is like rottenness in his bones” (xii. 4).

“House and wealth are the inheritance of fathers, but a wise wife is from the Lord” (xix. 14; chap. xxxi. 10 to end).

“He who revealeth a secret is a slanderer, but he who is faithful in spirit covereth a thing” (xi. 13).

“Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love covereth all sins” (x. 12).

“Better is a meal of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith” (xv. 17).

“He who covereth transgression seeketh love, but he who repeateth a matter separateth a friend” (xvii. 9).

“Open rebuke is better than secret love” (xxvii. 5).

“He who saith to the wicked, Thou art righteous, him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him; but to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them” (xxiv. 24, 25).

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are like smoke” (xxvii. 6).

“When there is no wood the fire goeth out; so when there is no tale-bearer strife ceaseth” (xxvi. 20).

“A kind man doth good to his soul, and a cruel man troubleth his flesh” (xi. 17).

“Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thy heart be glad when he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him” (xxiv. 17, 18).

“The righteous knoweth the feelings of his cattle, but the heart of the wicked is cruel” (xii. 10).

“He who curseth his father and his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness” (xx. 20).

“Children’s children are the crown of old men, and the glory of children are their fathers” (xvii. 6).

“The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it” (xxx. 17).

“Where there is the instruction of the father, there is a wise son; but a mocker will he be who heard no rebuke” (xiii. 1).

“He who spareth his rod hateth his son, and he who loveth him chastiseth him early” (xiii. 24).

“Chastise thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul turn to his crying” (xix. 18).

“Train the lad in his way, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (xxii. 6).

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (xxii. 15).

“Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from death” (xxiii. 13, 14).

“The benevolent shall be blessed, for he hath given of his bread to the poor” (xxii. 9).

“The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that stilleth the thirst of others shall also have his thirst stilled” (xi. 25).

“He who despiseth his neighbour sinneth, but whoso is gracious to the poor is happy” (xiv. 24).

“In the multitude of people is the glory of the king; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince” (xiv. 28).

“The king’s wrath is like messengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it” (xvi. 14).

“The heart of a king is in the hand of the Lord like brooks of water; He turneth it whithersoever He liketh” (xxi. 1).

On miscellaneous subjects:—

“There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing; there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches” (xiii. 7).

“The heart knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy” (xiv. 10).

“If care is in the heart of man, let him still it; if a good thing, let him brighten it up” (xii. 25).

“He is a guide to life who keepeth instruction, but he that refuseth reproof misleadeth” (x. 17).

“Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth” (xxvii. 1).

“All the ways of man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits” (xvi. 2).

Job, ‏איוב‎—The Book of Job consists of the following three parts:—

(a.) Introduction (i. and ii.).—God is figuratively represented as presiding over a council of ministers (‏בני האלהים‎ “sons of God”), amongst whom also the accuser (‏השטן‎ “the hinderer,” one who is hostile to the word of God) appears. While God praised the piety of Job, the accuser doubted the purity of his heart, and suggested that if any adversity were to befall Job he would no longer be pious; Job, exposed to hard trials, remained firm in his faith in God. “Naked came I forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither; the Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken: let the name of the Lord be praised” (i. 21). “Skin for skin,” said the accuser, “and everything that man hath, he giveth for his soul; but stretch now forth thy hand and touch his bone and his flesh: surely he will take leave of thee in thy presence” (ii. 5). The trial was granted. And when Job’s wife was surprised that Job was still holding to his integrity, adding “Take leave of God and die,” he replied, “Thou speakest like the speaking of one of the wicked women. Are we to accept of God the good, and shall we not accept the evil?”—“In all this did Job not sin with his lips, and did not find fault with God” (i. 22). His friends came to see him, but felt so distressed that they sat with him for seven days without uttering a word.

(b.) Discussion between Job and his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu; Job asserting his innocence, and consequent inability to see the justice of his afflictions; his friends contending that he has sinned, and has been justly punished; Elihu attempts to justify Job’s sufferings, on the plea that they are merely a reminder sent by God that Job has sinned, and must seek reconciliation with God, who is All-wise, All-good, and All-powerful; God addresses Job, and shows him man’s inability to comprehend the Divine power and wisdom in the creation and in the ruling of the universe; whereupon Job repents.

(c.) Conclusion.—God rebukes the friends of Job, that they have not spoken rightly like His servant Job (xlii. 7), and richly compensates Job for his sufferings and losses.

The book has no heading, and therefore we do not know by whom or when it was written. There is, however, a tradition, mentioned in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, p. 14b), that Moses wrote the Book of Job. Even about Job himself it is impossible to ascertain at what time he lived. But the description of his riches and the length of his life leads us to think of the time of the patriarchs. His name is mentioned only in one other book of the Bible. The prophet Ezekiel names him together with Noah and Daniel as a righteous man who would, by his piety, save himself in the time of general calamity, though he would not be able to save his generation (Ezek. xiv. 14). There is also an opinion that Job never existed at all. ‏איוב לא היה ולא נברא אלא משל היה‎ “Job never lived; nor has he had any existence; the story is all only an allegory” (Babyl. Talm. Baba Bathra, 15a). This dictum can only refer to the detailed account of the manner in which the misfortune came upon Job, and the poetical discussion of Job and his friends. But it is undeniable that a pious man of the name of Job lived, and escaped from a calamity to which others succumbed; since it is clear that Ezekiel refers to real and not to imaginary personages. Job and his friends were not Israelites. The patriarch lived in the land of Uz in Arabia; the friends came from Teman, Shuah, Naamah, and Buz, in the south, east, west, and north of Uz. Like the Book of Jonah, this book conveys the lesson, ‏חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא‎ “The pious of all nations have a portion in the world to come” (Maim., Mishneh-torah I. Hilchoth Teshubah, iii. 5). God rewards the righteous of all nations, punishes those among them who deserve punishment, and pardons the penitent.

The introduction and conclusion are written in prose, but the principal part of the book is poetical, and consequently parallelism is a predominant feature of the book.

The following are a few sentences from the book:—

“Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (ii. 10).

“The small and great are there (in the grave), and the servant is free from his master” (iii. 19).

“Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (iv. 17).

“Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty” (v. 17).

“Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling?” (vii. 1).

“He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength; who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered?” (ix. 4).

“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (xiii. 15).

“For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and he will rise in the end over the dust” (xix. 25).

“And when my skin is gone, when worms have destroyed this body, and when my flesh is no more, yet shall I see God” (xix. 26).

“And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil, that is understanding” (xxviii. 28).

The following passages are noteworthy, on account of both their lofty thought and their poetical form:—

Eliphaz mildly rebukes Job, exhorting him to repentance (iv.).

Job’s charge against the cruelty of his friends (v. 12–30).

Bildad’s view of God’s justice (viii. 3–13).

Job’s conception of God’s Omnipotence (ix. 2–12).

Zophar’s explanation of God’s justice (xi. 2–7, 10–15).

Job’s declaration of his faith in God (xiii. 6–16; xix. 23–27; xxiii. 3–12).

Job’s confession of man’s dependence on God’s wisdom (xxviii. 1, 2, 12–28).

Job’s defence of his innocence (xxxi.).

Elihu’s defence of God’s justice (xxxiii. 8, 9, 12–30).

Job is shown his ignorance (xxxviii. 3–24); his impotence (xl. 9–14).

Job’s contrition (xlii. 2–6).

The three books, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, are distinguished from the rest of the Bible by their peculiar accents, which are on this account called ‏מעמי אמ״ת‎ “the accents of the books, ‏תהלים‎, ‏משלי‎ and ‏איוב‎.”

The Song of Solomon, ‏שיר השירים‎ (lit., The Song of Songs = the most poetical song).—The faithfulness of the beloved to her lover, her resistance to all temptation, and the concentration of all her thoughts on the well-being of her lover, form the theme of the book. The relation between lover and beloved has been interpreted allegorically as representing the relation between God and Israel. The latter remains faithful to his God, throughout all vicissitudes of fortune. “I am for my lover, and my lover is for me,” is the centre of this feeling of faith. According to the heading and the tradition, King Solomon is the author of the book.

Ruth, ‏רות‎—The book contains the history of Ruth, a Moabite woman, who, by her marriage with Boaz, became the founder of the house of David. Elimelech of Beth-lehem in Judah, with his wife Naomi and his two sons, left his country in time of famine in order to stay in the land of Moab. There the two sons marry Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. Elimelech and the two sons die. Naomi returns to Judah; Orpah, at the request of Naomi, remains in Moab and goes back to her family, but Ruth insists on accompanying Naomi, saying, “Whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried: so the Lord do to me, and more also, if ought but death will part thee and me” (i. 16, 17).

Naomi having lost her property, Ruth was obliged to glean ears of corn in the fields in order to maintain herself and her mother-in-law. She happened to glean in the field of Boaz, a near relative of Elimelech. Boaz having noticed her, and having heard of her conduct toward Naomi, married her; his son was Obed; the son of the latter was Jesse, the father of David. Thus the virtues of Ruth, modesty, faithfulness, and industry, were rewarded; this is one of the lessons derived from the book. The principal object of the book, however, is to show the origin of the house of David.

The Lamentations of Jeremiah, ‏איכה‎—The name of the author is not mentioned in the book, but tradition informs us that the prophet Jeremiah composed these lamentations. The first four chapters are alphabetical; in the third chapter there are three verses for each letter; the fifth chapter is not alphabetical. The cause of the lamentations is the catastrophe of the kingdom of Judah through the victories of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, although neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Babylon is mentioned in the book.

Ecclesiates, ‏קהלת‎—This book contains reflections on the vanity of man’s labours and plans; whatever man aims at as the source of his happiness and blessing proves in the end useless and deceptive. Man is disappointed to find everything transient; he discovers just people in misery, and wicked people in apparent comfort; he begins to doubt whether virtue and wisdom are really conducive to true happiness. Thus man, left to himself, is at a loss to find the right way to happiness. The author therefore concludes his reflections with the exhortation: “The end of the word in which everything is heard is, Fear God, and keep His commandments, for that is the whole of man. For every deed will God bring to account, together with every hidden thought, whether good or bad” (xii. 13, 14).

Koheleth mentioned in the heading is King Solomon. The philosophical reflections are frequently intermixed with proverb-like lessons and maxims, of which the following are a few examples:—

“For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow” (i. 18).

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (iii. 1).

“The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh” (iv. 5).

“Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit” (iv. 6).

“Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and readiness to hear is better than the fools’ giving of sacrifice; for they consider not that they do evil” (iv. 17).

“Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few” (v. 1).

“When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed” (v. 3).

“A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death better than the day of one’s birth” (vii. 1).

“Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools” (vii. 9).

“Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldst thou destroy thyself?” (vii. 16).

“Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldst thou die before thy time?” (vii. 17).

“There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not” (vii. 20).

“Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment” (ix. 8).

“A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left” (x. 2).

“He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him” (x. 8).

“He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap” (xi. 4).

“Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them” (xii. 1).

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to the God who gave it” (xii. 7).

Esther, ‏אסתר‎—The history of the conception and frustration of the wicked plans of Haman against Mordecai and the Jews is described in this book. Ahasuerus, king of Persia, sent Vashti, his wife, away, and married Esther, a cousin of Mordecai. Haman, enraged against the Jews because Mordecai did not bow before him, planned to kill the Jews on the thirteenth of Adar; but Esther frustrated Haman’s design; Haman himself and his ten sons were killed; and the Jews were allowed to take up arms against those who attacked them. The Jews defended themselves victoriously on the thirteenth of Adar; in Shushan, the capital, also on the fourteenth. This deliverance was the cause of the institution of Purim.

The name of the author is not mentioned; the book was probably written by Mordecai and Esther (comp. Esther ix. 29).

Daniel, ‏דניאל‎—The author of this book is not named. The book is called Daniel because it contains the history and the visions of Daniel. According to a tradition mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra, 15a), the men of the Great Synagogue wrote or edited the book probably from trustworthy traditions, partly written, partly oral. The last six chapters seem to have been written by Daniel himself; he speaks in them of himself in the first person.

The object of the book is to show that God is the Ruler of the Universe. The author, therefore, gives, on the one hand, examples of men of great piety and genuine faith in God—Daniel and his friends; and, on the other hand, examples of men of great wickedness—Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar; the former enjoyed glorious victories, the latter received their due punishment. The style is throughout bold and emphatic; the frequent heaping of synonyms is to serve the purpose of emphasis. In the last chapters the author shows that the misdeeds of the wicked and the sufferings of the pious are foreseen by God, and that both the punishment of the former and the redemption of the latter form part of the Divine plan in the government of mankind. We are thus exhorted to remain firm in our faith in time of oppression, and to wait patiently for deliverance, which is sure to come.

Although Daniel belonged to those distinguished men to whom God communicated coming events in visions, he is not classed among the prophets, because he had no Divine message to bring to his fellow-men, and he was not charged to address them in the name of God. Daniel was brought to Babylon, together with other captives, in the third year of Jehoiakim, and remained there during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and the first years of Cyrus the Persian. He distinguished himself by great piety and wisdom, so that in a prophecy of Ezekiel (xiv. 14), in the sixth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin, he is mentioned, together with Noah and Job, as famous for piety, as one of those whom God protects from danger because of their righteousness, although their piety could not save their fellow-men. The same prophet mentions him as a wise man (xxviii. 3).

The book is divided into two parts: (A.) An account written in Chaldee of Daniel’s wisdom and piety, with a Hebrew Introduction (i. to vi.). (2.) The visions of Daniel in Chaldee and Hebrew (vii. to xii.). In the introductory chapter the author narrates the principal facts of the training of Daniel in Babylonian wisdom, and his great success at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. Then follows the Chaldee portion, including the following subjects:—

(1.) Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream.—The king demands that the sages initiated in Babylonian wisdom shall tell him his dream, which he himself has forgotten, and its interpretation. They cannot do it, and many of them are put to death. Daniel arrests the slaughter; for he prays to God, and God reveals to him the king’s dream.

When Daniel appeared before the king he began thus: “The secret which the king wants to know, no wise men can tell. But there is a God in heaven, the revealer of secrets, and He has let King Nebuchadnezzar know what will come to pass in the remote future” (ii. 27, 28). The dream was this: He saw a big statue, its head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs and feet of iron and clay. A large stone fell upon the legs of the statue, broke them, and the whole statue fell together and was crushed into pieces; then the stone grew larger, and filled the whole earth. The following was the interpretation of the vision: The statue represented a series of earthly kingdoms; the gold was Nebuchadnezzar, the silver referred to his successors, the brass to the Persian government, the iron to the Greek, and the mixture of iron and clay to the kingdoms that would then follow, all of which would ultimately be overthrown, and the Divine kingdom would then be recognised by all. Daniel was greatly rewarded; he and his friends received high positions in the government of the empire.

(2.) Nebuchadnezzar erected a large statue, and commanded that at certain times all should worship it; disobedience was to be punished with death. Daniel’s friends did not bow before it, and were accused before the king. They said to the king, “There is a God whom we worship; He can save us from the burning furnace and from thy hand, O king. And if He does not save us, let it be known to thee, O king, that we shall not worship thy god, and not bow down before the golden image which thou hast set up” (iii. 17, 18).

They were thrown into the furnace, and miraculously saved. Thereupon Nebuchadnezzar sends letters to all the peoples of his empire, testifying to the greatness of God, and narrating what wonderful thing had occurred to him. He had a strange dream, and none but Daniel was able to interpret it; the dream was literally fulfilled according to Daniel’s interpretation. The dream, which, after the manner of such phenomena, introduced and mingled together diverse elements, was this: He saw a high tree with many branches and much foliage. Suddenly an angel from heaven came, and ordered the tree to be cut down, but the root to be left for seven seasons, bound with fetters of iron and brass, in the midst of the grass of the field. The heart of man was to be taken from it, and replaced by a heart of beasts. The interpretation was, that the mighty Nebuchadnezzar would be removed from the society of man, and live like a beast with beasts for seven seasons. This happened to him just when he was boasting of his greatness and said, “Is this not great Babylon which I have built for the royal house, in my great power, and to my great glory?” (iv. 27). He was humbled, recognised the dominion of God over the whole universe, and was again, after seven seasons, restored to his former power and dignity. “Praised be God,” he exclaimed, “whose deeds are all truth, and whose ways are justice, and who can humble those who walk in pride” (Ibid. 34).

(3.) King Belshazzar, in the midst of a banquet, at which the holy vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem were used, perceived a hand writing on the wall opposite him strange signs which none could read. Daniel was called, and read the writing: “Mene, mene, tekel upharsin,” and explained it thus: The days of thy government are counted and brought to a close; thou hast been weighed and found wanting; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians (v. 25–28). That same night King Belshazzar was killed, and the Mede Darius was made king (v. 30–vi. 1).

(4.) King Darius, advised by his officers, who sought to find an opportunity for overthrowing Daniel, issued an order, that within thirty days no god or other being except Darius should be prayed to, and that transgressors against this decree should be punished with death. Daniel prayed to God three times a day at his open window. He was thrown into the lions’ den; but God protected him from the mouths of the lions. When he was taken out of the den, his accusers were thrown into it, and the lions immediately devoured them. Thus Darius was forced publicly to recognise the Omnipotence of God.

(5.) A dream of Daniel is related by the author in Daniel’s own words, who had written down the dream, and explained the chief points. [10] The following is the dream:—He saw four beasts, viz., a lion, a bear with three ribs in its mouth, a leopard with four wings and four heads, and a fourth beast with iron teeth and ten horns, one of the horns being small, but having “a mouth speaking haughtily.” In a court of justice the latter beast was sentenced to death, and the other beasts were to be deprived of their power; but respite was granted to them for a time and a season. The royal power was given to one who approached the judge appearing like a human being, and not like any of the beasts. His rule was to remain for ever. The interpretation of the dream is this: There will be four different kingdoms; out of the fourth ten different kingdoms will be formed. One of these will haughtily presume to oppose the Will of God, and to abolish the festivals and the religion of the holy ones. It will succeed for “a season, seasons, and half a season,” and will then be utterly destroyed, whilst the rule of “the holy ones” [11] will in the end be firmly established and continue for ever.

The indefinite character of the vision shows that it was intended to apply to all those oppressors of the Jews who at different times have presumed, or still presume, to be able to abolish the religion of “the holy ones.” Whether the oppression lasts a “season of seasons” (or “a season and seasons”), i.e., a very long time, or “half a season,” i.e., a very short time, the holy ones are exhorted to remain firm in their faith in God’s justice. The truth of this vision is especially illustrated by the failure of the attempts of Antiochus Epiphanes after a temporary success. More definite are the numbers 2300 “evening-mornings” (viii. 14), 1290 days and 1335 days (xii. 11, 12); but the absence of any further description as to the date of the first of these days leaves even to these numbers a certain degree of indetermination. From the context we learn that they are somehow connected with the persecution to which the Jews were subjected by Antiochus Epiphanes. 2300 days (or 6 years 110 days) passed between the decree of the Syrian king enforcing idolatry and the peace with Lysias granting religious liberty; there were 1290 days between the decree forbidding the practice of the holy religion and the enforcement of idolatry in the Temple of Jerusalem, and 1335 days is the period between the latter event and the death of Antiochus.

(B.) The second part contains visions of Daniel as written down by himself.

(1.) In the third year of Belshazzar, Daniel had the following vision:—Being in Susan, in the province of Elam, near the river Ulai, he saw a ram with two unequal horns pushing towards west, north, and south. From the west came a goat with one horn, and overthrew the ram; in the place of the one horn four horns grew up in all directions; there was one small horn which pushed on against the south, the east, and Palestine; it rose even against the host of heaven and the chief of the host, and destroyed his holy place. Daniel heard one holy one saying to another, “This state of things will last till ‘evening-morning 2300.’” The angel Gabriel gave him the interpretation of the vision: The ram represented the empire of the Medes and the Persians, the goat that of the Greeks, out of which four kingdoms would be formed; in one of these a wicked king would venture to rise against the Prince of princes, but his power would in the end be destroyed. Daniel was told to keep the vision secret, for it referred to a distant future (viii. 26).

(2.) In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, Daniel reflected on the seventy years of exile foretold by Jeremiah, and fervently prayed to God for pardon and the restoration of Jerusalem. At the end of his prayer the angel Gabriel appeared to him, and told him that the hoped-for restoration would not take place before the lapse of seventy weeks of trouble and anxiety. There would elapse seven weeks before the “princely anointed” (‏משיח נגיד‎) led the Jews back to Palestine; sixty-two weeks of trouble and anxiety were predicted for the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple; and one week’s misery on the arrival of a new prince or governor, who would strengthen the covenant of the enemies and entirely suspend the Divine Service in the Temple for a short time. [12]

(3.) In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, Daniel, after three weeks’ mourning and fasting, had the following vision on the twenty-fourth day of the first month:—He saw near the river Tigris (Hiddekel) a man of extraordinary appearance, who told him that he came in answer to his prayers; that for twenty-one days (x. 13) he was opposed by the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and had on his side only one of the princes, Michael. Future events are foretold: the fall of Persia, the division of the Greek kingdom, the wars between the Northern country (Syria) and the Southern (Egypt), the troubles of the Jews, the ultimate deliverance of the Jews out of danger, and the glorious victory of the teachers “who taught many, and led them to righteousness” (‏המשבילים ומצדקי הרבים‎ xii. 3). When Daniel asked, “Till when have we to wait for the end of these wondrous things?” (‏עד מתי קץ הפלאות‎ Ibid. 6), he was told, “After a season, seasons, and a half (‏למועד מועדים וחצי‎ Ibid. 7) [13] all these things will come to an end.” He further asks, “What then?” He is told, “The things must remain sealed till the time of the end (‏עד עת קץ‎ Ibid. 9), when the wise and good (‏משכלים‎) will understand them.” The vision ends with the words addressed to Daniel: “But thou go toward the end, and thou wilt rest, and rise for thy lot at the end of the days” (xii. 13).

Ezra, ‏עזרא‎—The Book of Ezra relates the first return of the Jews under Zerubbabel from Babylon to Palestine by the permission of King Cyrus (‏כורש‎) of Persia, the construction of the altar, the foundation and the building of the Temple by permission of King Darius. It also describes the second settlement of Jews from Babylon in Palestine under Ezra, the Scribe, in the reign of Artaxerxes, and his energy in purifying the community from intermarriages with heathen people. The book is written in Hebrew, with the exception of iv. 8–vii. 27, which includes several documents written in Chaldee by the Persian kings. The author of the book is probably Ezra; he speaks of himself in the first person (vii. 28; viii. 1, &c.); he is also named as the author of the book in the Babylonian Talmud; and lastly, the name of the book is Ezra, although Ezra is only mentioned in the second half of the book. The special merit of Ezra was the promotion of the study of the Law; his name is followed by the title, “A ready scribe of the Law of Moses” (‏סופר מהיר בתורת ה׳‎ vii. 6), and “Scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord and His statutes for Israel” (‏ספר דברי מצות ה׳ וחקיו על ישראל‎ vii. 11); the task he set to himself was “to study the Law of God (‏לדרוש את תורת ה׳‎), and to practise it, and to teach in Israel Law and judgment” (vii. 10).

Nehemiah, ‏נחמיה‎—The heading probably indicates the author, “Words of Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah.” [14] The book contains the history of Nehemiah’s visit to Jerusalem by the permission of King Artaxerxes, and the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s supervision, in spite of the opposition of Sanballat and Tobiah the Ammonite; his example of disinterestedness and of liberality towards the poor, which is followed by the princes and the rich; the reading and expounding of the Law by Ezra; the celebration of the festival of the first of Tishri and of Tabernacles; the renewal of the covenant “to walk in the Law of God, which was given through Moses the servant of God,” to keep Sabbath, to abstain from intermarrying with the heathen, and to contribute towards maintaining the Sanctuary; the provision for filling Jerusalem with inhabitants by selecting by lot one-tenth of the general population to dwell in the holy city; the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem; and Nehemiah’s energy in enforcing the laws of Sabbath and of marriages. The two books Ezra and Nehemiah are also called by some “two books of Ezra,” and by some “the book of Ezra.” Nehemiah is written in Hebrew.

The Chronicles, ‏דברי הימים‎—The two books of Chronicles contain the following three parts: (1) Genealogical tables (I., i.–ix.); (2) the history of the death of King Saul, the history of David and Solomon (I., x.–II., ix.); (3) the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam till the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (II., x.–xxxvi.). Special attention has been given by the author to the arrangements made at various periods for the Temple-service, by King David (I., xxiii. sqq.), King Hezekiah (II., xxix.), and King Josiah (II., xxxiv., xxxv.).

The author is not named in the book; according to the tradition it is Ezra. As the genealogical tables give six generations after Zerubbabel (I., iii. 19–24), we may assume that the author wrote about fifty years after Zerubbabel; that is, the last years of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The sources from which the author derived his information were, besides the Biblical books, the following:—The book of the kings of Judah; the book of the kings of Israel, registers probably kept in the Temple archives; the histories of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the Seer; the prophecy of Ahijah of Shilo; the visions of Jedo; the Midrash of the prophet Iddo; the history of Jehu, son of Hanani; the history of Isaiah, son of Amoz, and the history of Hozai.

This is the last book of the series of Holy Writings. Books that were written later, whatever their intrinsic value may be, were not considered holy, and were not received into this collection. There are a number of books known as Apocrypha (‏גנוזים‎), lit. “Hidden things” or “put aside,” that is, kept separate from the Holy Scriptures. They were not considered as genuine, as they consisted of a mixture of fact and fiction, truth and error. They were, however, not suppressed or forbidden; in the Talmud several quotations from these books are met with. The following are the principal books belonging to the Apocrypha:—

(1.) The Book of Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom based on the fear of God, and guided by it, is the source of man’s true happiness, and if wisdom and virtue are not rewarded by success in mundane affairs, the reward is sure to come in the future world. This is the quintessence of the lessons taught in this book. The kings and potentates of the earth are frequently exhorted to be just and kind towards their people, and to remember that they are but human beings, weak and mortal, like the rest of mankind; wisdom alone can raise them to higher perfection and happiness.

“For the very true beginning of her is the desire of discipline, and the care of discipline is love. And love is the keeping of her laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of incorruption. And incorruption maketh us near God. Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom. If your delight be then in thrones and sceptres, O ye kings of the people, honour wisdom, that ye may reign for evermore” (vi. 17–21).

“For regarding not wisdom, they got not only this hurt, that they knew not the things which were good, but also left behind them to the world a memorial of their foolishness, so that in the things wherein they offended they could not so much as be hid. But wisdom delivered from pain those that attended upon her. When the righteous fled from his brother’s wrath, she guided him into right paths, shewed him the kingdom of God, and gave him knowledge of holy things that made him rich in his travels, and multiplied the fruit of his labours” (x. 8–10).

(2.) The Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach.—Proverbs, maxims, and moral lessons collected by Joshua (Jesus), son of Sirach of Jerusalem. After having studied the Law, the Prophets, and the other Holy Writings, he thought it advisable to write a book on knowledge and wisdom for those who seek instruction, in order to lead them to greater obedience to the Law. Joshua’s grandson migrated from Palestine to Egypt, and translated the work of his grandfather into Greek for those who could not read the Hebrew original. The translation was made in the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes II. of Egypt (3888 A.M.).

The contents of the book are similar to those of the Proverbs of Solomon: the author recommends the acquisition of wisdom, patience, faith in God, meekness, obedience of children to parents, charity, cautiousness in the use of the tongue, temperance, honesty, and the like. As models of piety and wisdom the principal heroes in the Bible, from Adam to Joshua, son of Jehozadak, are named, and in addition to these Simon the high priest.

“My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation. Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure, and make not haste in time of trouble. Cleave unto him, and depart not away, that thou mayest be increased at thy last end. Whatsoever is brought upon thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art changed to a low estate. For gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity. Believe in him, and he will help thee: order thy way aright, and trust in him” (ii. 1–6).

“But he that giveth his mind to the law of the Most High, and is occupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of the most ancient, and be occupied in prophecies. He will keep the sayings of most renowned men, and where subtle parables are, He will be there also. He will seek out the secrets of grave sentences, and be conversant in dark parables” (xxxix. 1–3).

(3.) Baruch.—The book may be divided into two parts. In the first part Baruch, son of Nerijah, the amanuensis of the prophet Jeremiah, addresses, in Babylon, Jehoiachin, the captive king of Judah, and the other captive Jews; they send money to Jerusalem for sacrifices, with a letter exhorting their brethren to return to God, and comforting them with the prospect of a glorious future. The second part contains a letter of Jeremiah to his brethren in Jerusalem denouncing idolatry.

The letters are probably not genuine, not being in harmony with the facts related in the books of Jeremiah and Kings.

(4.) The Book of Tobit.—Tobit, of the tribe of Naphtali, a good and pious man, was one of those who were carried away into the Assyrian captivity. One of the charitable acts to which he devoted himself with special zeal was the burying of the dead. Twice was misfortune brought upon him for practising this deed of piety. Once he had to flee, and to remain away from his family in misery and want, and a second time something fell into his eyes, and he became blind. In both cases he was saved out of his trouble, and was greatly rewarded for his patience, his faith in God, and his perseverance in the performance of the Divine commandments. The author of the book is not known.

(5.) Judith.—An incident of Jewish history during the Persian rule. Judith is set forth as an ideal of piety, beauty, courage, and chastity. Holofernes, a general in the service of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria, conquers many lands, but meets with vigorous resistance in Judea; he besieges Bethulia and endeavours to suppress the Jewish religion. He falls by the hands of Judith. Thus the stratagem and the courage of the Jewish heroine, combined with the plans of Divine justice, frustrated the wicked plans of the heathen conqueror, and delivered the besieged city.

(6.) Additions to the Books of Daniel and Ezra, containing—

(a.) The song of the three men in the furnace (Dan. iii.).

(b.) The false charges brought against Susanna, and her deliverance through Daniel.

(c.) Bel and the Dragon. Cyrus, the Persian, worshipped these idols, but was convinced by Daniel that they had no claim whatever to man’s worship.

(d.) The apocryphal Book of Esdras, containing portions of the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah; only chaps. iii. and iv. being original. In these it is related how Zerubbabel distinguished himself before King Darius in describing Woman and Truth as the mightiest rulers of mankind, and thus obtained permission to return to Palestine and rebuild the Temple. A second apocryphal Book of Esdras is named, in which Ezra is represented as a prophet addressing his brethren in the name of God, and telling them the visions he had.

(7.) The Books of the Maccabees.—Three books containing the history of the Maccabees, and various episodes of the wars against the Syrian oppressors, both legendary and historical.

Sixth Principle.—“I firmly believe that all the words of the Prophets are true.”

By “the Prophets” the prophets thus designated in the Bible are to be understood who have proved themselves to be the true messengers of God, and were accepted as such by the people. They either counselled the people what to do under various circumstances, in times of peace and in times of war, in times of security and in times of danger, or they announced the coming catastrophe as a punishment sent by the Almighty for disobedience, and foretold future happiness and prosperity in case of improvement and return to God. Those prophecies that referred to the proximate future have been verified by subsequent events, and so also will those prophecies that refer to the remote future and have not yet been fulfilled.

“A prophet out of thy midst, of thy brethren, like unto me, will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee; unto him ye shall hearken” (Deut. xviii. 15). “The former things, behold, they are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they will spring forth, I shall let you hear” (Isa. xlii. 9). “I have also spoken unto the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and by the ministry of the prophets have I used similitudes” (Hosea xii. 11). “And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved” (Ibid. 14).

In the sixth article we declare our belief in the fact that the Almighty has communicated His Will to human beings, although we are incapable of forming a clear and definite idea of the manner in which such communication took place. The selection of the individual for the office of a prophet, as well as of the time, the place, and the object of the Divine communication, is dependent solely on the Will of God, whose Wisdom and Plan no mortals are able to fathom. We know only the fact that Malachi closed the series of Prophets, but are ignorant of the reason why since Malachi no human being has “found a vision from the Lord.” Mankind is, however, not altogether deprived of the benefit of prophecy; the holy book need only be opened, and the message of the prophets is heard once more.

Seventh Principle.—“I firmly believe that the prophecy of Moses was a direct prophecy, and that Moses was the chief of the prophets, both of those who preceded him and of those who followed him.”

All that has been said with regard to the sixth article applies to the prophecy of Moses. There is, however, this distinction between the words of Moses and the words of other prophets:—whilst other prophets chiefly addressed their own generation, blaming their brethren for disobedience to the Divine Law, threatening with punishments and comforting with blessings of which experience was to be made in the remote future, Moses addresses all times and generations, communicating to them laws “for all generations,” “everlasting statutes,” “the things which have been revealed for us and our children for ever.” He is therefore proclaimed by the Almighty as the greatest prophet. When Miriam and Aaron had spoken against Moses, God rebuked them, saying, “If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of the Lord shall he behold” (Num. xii. 6–8). The Torah concludes with the praise of Moses, as follows: “And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: in all the signs and the wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land; and in all the mighty hand, and in all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. xxxiv. 10–12).

The phrase “knew God face to face,” or “I will speak with him mouth to mouth,” and the like, denotes figuratively “the clearest, most direct, and most simple communication,” the figure being taken from the way in which men communicate to each other things when they desire to be clearly understood, and to leave no doubt as to the truth and the meaning of the communication.

Eighth Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Law which we possess now is the same which has been given to Moses on Sinai.”

The whole Torah, including both history and precepts, is of Divine origin; nothing is contained in the Torah that was not revealed to Moses by the Almighty, although we do not know in what manner Moses received the information. The history of preceding generations was probably handed down to his time by tradition; in part it may have been contained in documents then extant, as is likely to have been the case with the various genealogies mentioned in the Pentateuch. But it was by Divine inspiration that Moses knew to distinguish between truth and error, between fiction and reality. The events recorded in the Pentateuch are to demonstrate and to keep constantly before our eyes the fact that there is a higher Power that ordains the fate of men and nations according to their deeds. Everything is described in a simple and objective manner. Although the whole Torah is the work of Moses, the great prophet speaks of himself everywhere in the third person, except in the Book of Deuteronomy, in which he records his addresses to the people in the last year of his life.

The last few verses, which describe the death of Moses, the mourning of the Israelites for the death of their teacher, and his exaltation above all other prophets, have been added to the Torah by Joshua the son of Nun, the leader of the Israelites after the death of Moses. Thus, from that day until the present the Torah, in its integrity, has been in the hands of the children of Israel. It was guarded as the most valuable national treasure, and although there have been not a few generations which were corrupt and idolatrous, Israel has never been entirely bereaved of pious and faithful worshippers of the true God; and when in one generation or period the study and the practice of the Torah were neglected, they were resumed with greater vigour and zeal in the next.

There is a tradition recorded in the Talmud that after the Babylonian exile Ezra, the Scribe, replaced the ancient Hebrew characters in which the Torah had originally been written by the square characters still in use. Nothing, however, was omitted from or added to the contents of the Torah, when the present forms of the letters were introduced by Ezra. In the scrolls of the Law the letters were not provided with vowel-points and accents; the manner in which the words, phrases, and sentences were to be read was a subject of oral teaching. Also many explanations and details of the laws were supplemented by oral teaching; they were handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation, and only after the destruction of the second Temple were they committed to writing. The latter are, nevertheless, called Oral Law (‏תורה שבעל פה‎), as distinguished from the Torah or Written Law (‏תורה שבכתב‎), which from the first was committed to writing. Those oral laws which were revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai are called ‏הלכה למשה מסיני‎ “Laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai.” There are several passages in the Bible from which it appears that a certain unwritten law must have supplemented the written Law; e.g., when a man was found in the wilderness gathering sticks on the Sabbath-day, the persons who discovered him brought him to Moses. They must have been taught before, that the gathering of sticks constituted a ‏מלאכה‎, labour prohibited on the Sabbath-day, although this had not been distinctly stated in the written Sabbath-laws. Had this not been the case the Sabbath-breaker could not have been put to death, since he would have committed the sin in ignorance. The same can be said of the man who cursed the name of God; he must have known that cursing the name of God was a capital crime; for he would not have been put to death if the Israelites had not yet been taught that death would be inflicted for such an act. The question which the prophet Haggai (ii. 11) addressed to the priests, and the answers which the priests gave, lead to the conclusion that the details of the laws on uncleanness and cleanness (‏טומאה וטהרה‎) must have been known to the priests and the prophets to a greater extent than has been explained in the written Law. Besides, there were many precepts that came at once into force. These must have been fully explained to the people, who were anxious to obey the word of God.

All these explanations and the detailed rules with regard to the written Divine precepts of the Pentateuch, together with laws and institutions established in the course of time by the highest authorities of the nation in obedience to the dictates of the Pentateuch, form the contents of the Oral Law.

The Oral Law or the Tradition has been handed down in two different forms: (a) in the form of a running Commentary on the Pentateuch; such Commentaries were called Midrashim; (b) arranged according to the different subjects, and treated independently of the text of the Torah. This is done in the Talmud (“lesson,” “tradition”).

The principal Midrashim are: Mechilta (lit. “measure”) on Exodus; Sifra (“book”) on Leviticus; Sifre (“books”) on Numbers and Deuteronomy. Rabboth on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth. Yalkut (“collection”) on all the books of the Bible.

The Talmud—which exists in two different recensions, viz., the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud—consists of two elements, which have to each other the relation of text and commentary, and are called Mishnah (‏משנה‎ “learnt by heart”), and Gemara (‏גמרא‎ lit. “completion,” “a thing settled”); the former contains the traditional laws mostly without argumentation; in the latter these laws are further discussed, examined, and finally settled. Following the example of the Pentateuch, the Talmud includes two elements: laws and narratives, or Halachah (‏הלכה‎) and Agada (‏אגדה‎); the latter, the Agada, contains history, fables, allegory, meditations, prayers, reflections, philosophical and religious discussions, and a large number of moral sayings. The Midrashim likewise include these two elements.

The Mishnah is divided into the following six orders or sections (‏סדרים‎): [15]—

1. ‎‏זרעים‎ “Seeds.” Laws referring to agriculture; preceded by laws on Divine Worship. 2. ‎‏מועד‎ “Seasons.” On Sabbath and Festivals. 3. ‎‏נשים‎ “Women.” Marriage Laws. 4. ‎‏נזיקין‎ “Damages.” Civil and criminal legislation; the Government. 5. ‎‏קדשים‎ “Holy things.” On Sacrifices. 6. ‎‏טהרות‎ “Purity.” On the distinction between clean and unclean.

The laws taught in the Talmud are: (i) those which are directly or indirectly derived from the text of the Pentateuch; they are called “laws derived from the Torah” (‏מן התורה‎ or ‏מדאורייתא‎); (2) those which trace their origin to the time of Moses, or, in general, to the remote past; they are called ‏הלכה למשה מסיני‎ “Law given to Moses on Sinai;” (3) those laws which originated between the period of the Pentateuch and the close of the Bible; they are called ‏דברי קבלה‎ (“words of tradition”); (4) those which have been introduced in post-Biblical times; they are laws ‏מדרבנן‎ “laws introduced by our teachers.” These are either preventives against breaking any of the Divine precepts, and are then called ‏מרותגזרות‎ or ‏סיג‎ “a fence,” or tekanoth (‏תקנות‎ “institutions” or “regulations”) made in order to ensure obedience to the Law and improvement of conduct, to remove abuses and prevent error and misunderstanding; (5) Minhag, “Custom” (‏מנהג‎); religious practices which have not been introduced by any authority or based on a particular Biblical text, but in consequence of long usage have become as sacred as a law established by the proper authority.

These laws, as finally settled, were again codified, in various works, the most important of which are the following two: (1) Mishneh-torah (‏משנה תורה‎ or ‏יד החזקה‎ [16] lit. “Copy of the Law,” or “Strong Hand”), by Moses Maimonides (twelfth century) in fourteen books; (2) Shulchan-aruch (‏שלחן ערוך‎, lit. “Table-arranged”), by Rabbi Joseph Caro (sixteenth century).

Ninth Principle.—“I firmly believe that this Law will not be changed, and that there will not be any other Law given by the Creator, blessed be His Name.”

In this article we pronounce our belief in the immutability of the Law. Over and over again the phrase “an everlasting statute” (‏חקת עולם‎) occurs in the Pentateuch. It is true that the Hebrew term ‏עולם‎ is used in the Bible in the sense of “a very long time,” but in the phrase ‏חקת עולם‎ the word cannot have that meaning. Some indication would have been necessary to inform the people when the laws would cease to be in force. On the contrary, the test of a prophet addressing his brethren in the name of God, as a Divine messenger, consists in the harmony of his words with the precepts of the Pentateuch. A prophet who, speaking in the name of God, abrogates any of the laws of the Pentateuch is a false prophet. “If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet or unto that dreamer of dreams.... Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death; because he hath spoken rebellion against the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, ... to draw thee aside out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in” (Deut. xiii. 2–6). Moses distinctly says, “The things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Ibid. xxix. 28).

There is also an express commandment given: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Ibid. iv. 2). In two ways this law may appear to have been disregarded: there are certain sections of the Law which are at present not in force; and, on the other hand, there are many apparently new precepts at present in force which have been introduced in the course of time by the religious authorities of the nation. But these are only apparent exceptions; in reality they are entirely in harmony with the Pentateuch.

As to the first class, there are many of the Divine commandments the fulfilment of which depends on certain conditions; e.g., the existence of the Tabernacle or of the Temple and its service, the possession of Palestine by the Israelites, the independence of the Jewish State. In the absence of these conditions such laws cannot be fulfilled. The laws of sacrifices belong to this class. We are, in reference to these laws, in the same condition as a person who is physically prevented from doing what he is commanded to do, and what he is actually longing to do. The Law is not altered; our circumstances demand a temporary suspense of such laws and not their abrogation.

The second class contains all those precepts which are known as ‏מצות דרבנן‎ “Rabbinical precepts,” ‏תקנות‎ and ‏מנהגים‎ “Institutions” and “Customs.” But these imply no addition to the Torah; they are merely byelaws and regulations as regards the method of carrying out the laws of the Pentateuch, and are designed to facilitate or ensure their fulfilment, and to prevent ourselves from forgetting or disregarding them. Our teachers, the Rabbis, made it a matter of conscience to describe their own regulations as ‏דרבנן‎ non-Pentateuchical, and throughout the Oral Law and the entire Talmudic literature the distinction between ‏דרבנן‎ and ‏מן התורה‎ is noted and scrupulously upheld.

It is useless to investigate whether it would be in harmony with the immutability of the Divine Being to change the laws or any of them, or to grant a new revelation. Certainly the words “I, the Lord, have not changed” (Mal. iii. 6) have great weight; so also, “For God is not a son of man that he should change his mind” (Num. xxiii. 19). But the fact that the laws were given by God as “an everlasting statute for all generations” makes all philosophical speculation on that point superfluous. Persons who address us in the name of God as His messengers, and bid us turn away from any of the laws commanded in the Pentateuch, are in our eyes impostors, who, knowingly or unknowingly, give forth their own opinions as Divine inspirations.

3. REWARD AND PUNISHMENT, ‏שכר ועונש‎.

“Behold I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil: in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply, and that the Lord thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou passest over Jordan to go in to possess it” (Deut. xxx. 15). “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed: to love the Lord thy God, to obey his voice, and to cleave unto him: for that is thy life and the length of thy days” (Ibid. xxx. 19, 20).

The doctrine taught in this passage is the alpha and the omega of the sacred literature. The whole history related in the Bible from the Creation to the Babylonian captivity and the restoration of the Jews to their land is but one continuous series of illustrations of this doctrine. Obedience to God’s word is followed by His blessings, while disobedience is the cause of ruin and misery. Thus, in Lamentations the poet exclaims in the name of his nation, “Just is the Lord, for I rebelled against his commandment” (Lam. i. 18). Moses, in his last song exhorting the people to obedience to the Almighty, begins his address with a praise of God’s justice, saying, “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgment: a God of faithfulness, and without wrong, just and right is he” (Deut. xxxii. 4). Even those who doubted the Divine justice, in respect to the fate of individual persons or nations, admitted, “Surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him: but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow: because he feareth not before God” (Eccles. viii. 12, 13). Job, wondering why he should be subjected to the greatest trials, cannot help confessing, “Even he will be to me an help, for there shall not come before him an hypocrite” (Job xiii. 16). God is therefore called “God of judgment,” ‏אלהי המשפט‎ (Mal. ii. 17); ‏דין‎ “Judge” (1 Sam. xxiv. 15); ‏צדיק‎ “just,” ‏שופט צדיק‎ “just Judge” (Ps. vii. 12); ‏אל קנא‎ “a jealous God” (Exod. xx. 5); ‏אל נקמות‎ “God of vengeance” (Ps. xciv. 1); ‏אלהים‎ “God” in the sense of “Judge.” The rejection of this belief by the wicked is expressed by the phrase ‏אין אלהים‎ “There is no God.” Thus David exclaims, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God; they are corrupt; they have done abominable things; there is none that doeth good” (Ps. xiv. 1). In post-Biblical literature we find this unbelief, which is characterised as the source of all corruption and wickedness, expressed by the phrase, ‏לית דין ולית דינא‎ “There is no judgment, and there is no judge” (Targ. Ps. Jonathan, Gen. iv. 8).

There are two different sources from which such unbelief springs forth—limitation of God’s powers and limitation of man’s capacities. The one of these sources leads to a denial of God’s Omniscience, whilst the other deprives man of his freewill. There are some who argue that God is too high to notice the ways and the acts of individual men, and that these must be utterly insignificant in comparison with God’s greatness. “They crush thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage. They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. And they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob consider” (Ps. xciv. 5–7). “And thou sayest, What doth God know? Can he judge through the thick darkness? Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the sphere of heaven” (Job xxii. 13, 14). The very words which the Psalmist addresses to God with a heart full of gratitude, “What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?” (Ps. viii. 5), are uttered in a rebellious spirit by the unbeliever, who thus “sets limits to the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41). But the power of God is not limited, nor is His wisdom or His goodness; He is not only “the God of heaven,” but also “the God of the earth.” He who has created everything has certainly a knowledge of everything. “Lift up your eyes on high and see who hath created these things. He who bringeth forth by number their host, calleth all of them by name; not one of them escapeth the knowledge of him who is great in might and strong in power” (Isa. xl. 26). The Psalmist thus replies to those who deny God’s Omniscience: “Consider, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear; he that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the nations, shall he not correct, even he that teacheth man knowledge? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, however vain they be” (Ps. xciv. 8–11). It would indeed be absurd to imagine that the Creator of all things should not take notice of everything that His hands have made. What difference can it make to the Almighty whether He provides for the whole human race or for one individual man? It would be attributing to the Divine Being human weakness and false pride if we assumed that He is too great to take notice of any single creature of His! Rabbi Jochanan said wherever in the Bible we find a description of the greatness of God, there we find His meekness. Thus, e.g., it is said in the Torah: “For the Lord, your God, he is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the mighty, the great, the strong, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment” (Deut. x. 17, 18).

That man is not insignificant in the eyes of God is clearly expressed in the account of the Creation, where we are taught that man was made by God ruler “over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. i. 26). “Man is loved by the Almighty,” say our Sages, “because he is created in the image of God; but it was by a love still greater that it was made known to him that he was created in the image of God” (Mishnah Aboth, iii. 18).

One of the chief blessings man received at the hands of his Creator is freewill. Within certain limits man can determine his own actions. When he is about to do a thing, he can reflect on it, examine its nature, investigate into its consequences, and accordingly either do it or refrain from doing it. God said to the Israelites, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; and thou shalt choose life” (Deut. xxx. 19). Our freedom, however, is not unlimited. There are various causes that prevent us from remaining firm to our will. If we resolve to do what is beyond our physical condition, we cannot carry it out. Again, if a man chooses to do what would interfere with the will of his fellow-men, he will frequently be compelled to abandon or change his own determination; especially as he is in most cases ignorant of the thoughts and plans of his fellow-men. In a still higher degree this is the case with regard to the designs of the Supreme Being. Hence the great difference between our will and our actual deeds. We have, however, the conviction that ‏בא לטהר מסייעין לו מן השמים בא לטמא פותחין לו‎ “He who wishes to purify himself is helped by Heaven towards his aim, while he who desires to defile himself will find the means thereto” (Babyl. Tal. Shabbath, p. 104).

We admit that there are influences over which man has no control, and which, on the contrary, help to shape his will. No man is so isolated as to be entirely inaccessible to outward influences. Man inherits certain ideas and habits from his parents; others are forced upon him by his surroundings, especially in his earliest youth; society and the State compel him to conform to certain notions and laws; climate and temperature also have no small share in the formation of man’s will. But in spite of all these influences man’s will is free, and it is by reason of his free-will that he chooses to conform to the rules of society and the laws of the State. Hence it happens that individuals, subject to almost the same influences, still vary greatly in their resolutions. What the one praises is an abhorrence to the other; what repels the one attracts the other; what is recommended by the one is denounced by the other.

Although there may be many who profess to believe in predestination or fate, as a matter of fact all nations, ancient and modern, have based their constitutions on the belief in man’s responsibility for his actions. Every State has its laws, its system of reward and punishment. A principle so general and so essential for the safety and welfare of society, as well as of each individual, cannot be a mere illusion; its good effect has been tested and is generally recognised.

In case of criminals and sinners, we make allowance for the possible outward influences under which the offender may have fallen; we assume the broad principle, ‏אין אדם חוטא אלא אם כן נכנס בו רוח שטות‎ “No one sinneth unless the spirit of folly has entered into him” (Babyl. Talm. Sotah, 3a); but no one would go so far as to acquit the sinner altogether from blame. We pity him and try to teach him how to return to the right path, and how to overcome outward evil influences. When David had become aware of the greatness of his sin and sincerely repented, he prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall return unto thee” (Ps. li. 10–13). Both elements are here harmoniously united. God’s interference is asked for; He helps man to carry out his good resolution; but man has free-will, and the author of the psalm, in seeking the assistance of God, feels nevertheless the weight of his own responsibility.

Tenth Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, knoweth all the actions of men and all their thoughts, as it is said, ‘He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, He that considereth all their works’ (Ps. xxxiii. 15).”

In the rhymed form of the Creed (‏יגדל‎) this article is expressed thus: “He watcheth and knoweth our secret thoughts; He beholdeth the end of a thing in its beginning.” Here the author proclaims not only the Omniscience of God, but also His foresight; His knowledge is not limited, like the knowledge of mortal beings, by space and time. The entire past and future lies unrolled before His eyes, and nothing is hidden from Him. Although we may form a faint idea of the knowledge of God by considering that faculty of man that enables him, within a limited space of time, to look backward and forward, and to unroll before him the past and the future, as if the events that have happened and those that will come to pass were going on in the present moment, yet the true nature of God’s knowledge no man can conceive. “God considereth all the deeds of man,” without depriving him of his free-will; he may in this respect be compared to a person who observes and notices the actions and the conduct of his fellow-men, without interfering with them. It is the Will of God that man should have free-will and should be responsible for his actions; and His foresight does not necessarily include predetermination. In some cases the fate of nations or of individual men is predetermined; we may even say that the ultimate fate or development of mankind is part of the design of the Creation. But as the actual design in the Creation is concealed from man’s searching eye, so is also the extent of the predetermination a mystery to him. To solve this problem is beyond the intellectual powers of short-sighted mortals; it is one of “the hidden things that belong to the Lord our God.”

David, in Ps. cxxxix. 1–12, describes the Omniscience and the Omnipresence of God in the following way: “O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; thou understandest my thoughts afar off. Thou searchest out my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me shall be night; even the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.”

Our belief in God’s Omniscience is beautifully expressed in the Musaph prayer of New-year: “Thou rememberest the work of bygone times, and thinkest of all the imaginations of former days; all hidden things are revealed before thee; also all the multitude of hidden things which are from the beginning. For there is no forgetting before the throne of thy glory, and nothing is concealed from thine eye. Thou rememberest every deed, and no thought is hidden from thee. Everything is revealed and known before thee, O Lord our God, who beholdest and seest to the end of all generations.”

Eleventh Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be He, rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress His commandments.”

The immediate reward and punishment for our conduct we receive in the pleasure and happiness we experience in doing something good, and in the grief and remorse we ought to feel on learning that we have displeased the Almighty by our conduct. As a rule, every good act leads to further good acts, and every sin to further sins; and our Sages say therefore: “The reward of a good act (‏מצוה‎) is another good act, and the punishment for a transgression is another transgression.”

But when we speak of the principle of Retribution, we generally mean such reward and punishment as is given in addition to the feeling of happiness or unhappiness inseparable from our actions.

This principle of retribution has been proclaimed in the grand Revelation made to all Israel on Mount Sinai, in the Decalogue which has been accepted by all civilised nations as the basis of religion: “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments” (Exod. xx. 5, 6). We understand the doctrine of retribution only in its general outlines; we are convinced of the truth of the Divine words, “There is no peace to the wicked” (Isa. lvii. 21); but how the law is applied in every single case is known to God alone. It is presumptuous on the part of short-sighted man to criticise God’s judgments, and to find injustice in the seeming prosperity of the wicked and the seeming misery of the righteous. What man is able to estimate the merits of his neighbour fully and correctly? “For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Sam. xvi. 7). This our inability of rightly estimating the merits of our neighbour’s actions, is illustrated by the Biblical narrative of Cain and Abel. Both brought sacrifices to the Lord; and we cannot discover any difference in their actions, and yet the sacrifice of Cain was rejected by God and that of Abel was accepted. Some important element there must therefore be in man’s deeds which is hidden from his neighbour’s eye, but is known to the Almighty. The inability of man to penetrate into the secret of God’s rule is also illustrated by the prophet Habakkuk. He asked, “Wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he; and makest men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things that have no ruler over them?” Whereupon he receives the Divine answer: “Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.... Behold, there is crookedness in the eyes of him whose soul is not straight; but the just will live by his faith” (Hab. i. 13, 14, and ii. 2, 4).

One of the Psalmists (Asaph; Ps. lxxiii. 2 seq.) confesses that this problem had greatly troubled him and endangered his faith. He says: “As for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious of the arrogant, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death; but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.... Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out by them. And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the Most High? Behold, these are the wicked, and being always at ease, they increase in riches. Surely in vain have I cleansed my heart, and washed my hands in innocency; for all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning. If I had said, I will speak thus; behold, I had dealt treacherously with the generation of thy children. When I think how I might know this, it is trouble in mine eyes: until I come into the sanctuary of God; then shall I consider their latter end.” The temporary success and seeming prosperity of the wicked does not shake the firm belief of the singer in the justice of God; his communion with God, his coming into the sanctuaries of God, is a blessing which the soul of the pious yearns for, and in comparison with which all the wealth and power of the wicked is but a deceitful shadow.

The Book of Job illustrates the vanity of man’s attempts to lift the veil that conceals the plan of God’s decrees. The reader is informed beforehand why Job is afflicted with pains and troubles. But Job and his friends have not been informed. Job desires to know what act of his has brought upon him that terrible calamity, if it is to be endured as a punishment; he protests his innocence, and criticises the justice of the Almighty. The three friends declare with certainty that Job’s sufferings are a punishment for sins committed, and are angry that Job does not accept their view.

God appears, rebukes Job for his presumption, but declares that the view expressed by his friends, insinuating sinful conduct to Job, was wrong, and that Job, who contended that he did not know the cause of the suffering, spoke more rightly than his friends. For Job had not been afflicted because of his sins, and this was shown to the friends of Job by the compensation which God gave Job for all that he had lost and suffered.

Koheleth likewise shows the futility of man’s endeavour to find independently of Divine revelation the aim and object of man’s life on earth, or the share his free-will has in the performance of his actions and the determination of his fate. Man is lost in a labyrinth of problems, out of which he can extricate himself only by faith in God and His guidance. The result to which the investigations of Koheleth led him is expressed thus: “Fear God, keep his commandments; for this is the whole of man’s duty. For every action God will bring to judgment together with all hidden thoughts, whether good or evil” (Eccles. xii. 13).

The acts of Divine justice recorded in the sacred literature serve as a warning to the evil and an encouragement to the good. They are all of a material character, as only in this shape can they be perceived by man. But by no means do they exhaust all the ways of God. The Divine retribution so frequently referred to in the Law points mostly to the good or evil consequences which the conduct of the Israelites will bring upon the whole community or state, because the whole community is benefited by the virtues and injured by the misconduct of each of the members composing it; it is the duty of the authorities, by watchfulness and by well-defined punishments, to prevent the spread of disobedience to the Divine Law. What other rewards or punishments await the individual in this life or after death we do not know. But there are, especially in the Psalms, numerous indications that the pious sufferer was sure that everlasting happiness would more than compensate for the absence of material and transient success in this life. The following passages may serve as an illustration:—

“Many sorrows shall be to the wicked, but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about” (Ps. xxxii. 10).

“How precious is thy loving-kindness, O God! and the children of men take refuge under the shadow of thy wings. They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures. For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light” (xxxvi. 8–10).

“For evil-doers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the land” (xxxvii. 9).

“For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off” (Ibid. 28).

“Mark the perfect man; and behold the upright: for the latter end of that man is peace. As for transgressors, they shall be destroyed together; the latter end of the wicked shall be cut off” (Ibid. 37, 38).

In these and similar passages the pious and enthusiastic singer has in his mind something more durable and permanent than this short life, or otherwise the conflict between his hopes and the reality would have shaken his faith.

Twelfth Principle.—“I firmly believe in the coming of Messiah; and although he may tarry, I daily hope for his coming.”

When Abraham was chosen by God to be the founder of a nation proclaiming the Unity of God, when he was commanded to separate from his relatives and friends and to travel a stranger in a foreign land, the blessing promised to him was not to be enjoyed by him in the present, but by his descendants in remote future: “All the families of the earth shall be blessed in thee” (Gen. xii. 3). The same promise was repeated when Abraham stood the trial, and was ready to bring any sacrifice in obedience to the Will of the Supreme Being: “All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves in thee” (Ibid. xxii. 18). The conviction that the seed of Abraham have the distinction and the mission to become a source of a blessing to all mankind was transmitted from generation to generation; from Abraham through Isaac to Jacob or Israel, whose descendants, the Israelites, guarded the inherited charge, as their peculiar treasure. Before receiving the Decalogue on Mount Sinai, the Israelites were reminded of this their mission in the words, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. xix. 6). It was not by force of arms or by persuasion that they were to influence the whole earth, but by setting an example of noble, pure, and holy conduct. A special spot was selected for them where they should, in seclusion from the rest of the world, be trained in the true worship of God and in the practice of virtue. Zion and Jerusalem became in course of time the religious centre from which “instruction came forth and the word of the Lord.” The Israelites became negligent in their mission and faithless to their holy charge. Instead of leading other nations to the true worship of God, they allowed themselves to be misled by them to idolatry; instead of living a pure life of justice and righteousness, they yielded to luxury and lust, and committed acts of injustice and oppression. They were punished. Troubles followed troubles; they lost their independence and their religious centre. The men of God, the prophets, from Moses to the last of the prophets, Malachi, foretold the catastrophe, but at the same time added words of comfort and encouragement, pointing to a distant future, when “her appointed time of trouble will be complete, and her guilt atoned for;” when Israel will be restored to his land, and under the guidance of Messiah, “the Anointed of the Lord,” he will be filled with the fear of the Lord and an earnest desire to do that which is just and right. Moses, in one of his last addresses to Israel, said, “And it shall come to pass, when all these things have come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which 1 have set before thee; and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice, according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; that the Lord thy God will return thy captivity, and have compassion on thee, and will return, and gather thee from all the peoples whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thy outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee,” &c. (Deut. xxx. 1–3). The glorious times of Messiah are described by Isaiah in the following words: “And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall reprove many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa. ii. 2–4). The same has been prophesied in almost identical words by Micah (iv. 1–4), a contemporary of Isaiah. The peace of the Messianic period is figuratively described by Isaiah in the following verses: “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall lie down together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. xi. 6–9). In the days of Messiah all people will unite in the proclamation of the Unity of God and in His worship: “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall the Lord be one, and his name one” (Zech. xiv. 9). “Then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent” (Zeph. iii. 9).

The distinction given to Israel and to his land will again appear in all its glory. Israel is punished, deprived of independence, even despised and ill-treated at times; but with all this he is loved by God, and not rejected by Him for ever. Isaiah prophesies as follows: “Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant; O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me” (Isa. xliv. 21). “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall my covenant of peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee” (Ibid. liv. 10). Comp. lix. 20, 21; lx. 19–21; lxvi. 22; Jer. xxxiii. 25, 26; Hos. ii. 21, 22.

Those who during the years of Israel’s punishment have despised and ill-treated him will repent of their conduct when they witness his wonderful redemption. Their repentance is beautifully depicted by Isaiah in the passage beginning, “Behold, my servant will be successful” (lii. 13). Israel, the servant of God, patiently bears insults and persecution, faithfully waiting for the fulfilment of the Divine promise. Israel’s oppressors will then, on seeing how God loves him, confess their wrong and own that Israel has innocently suffered at their hands. With the redemption of Israel is connected the restoration of the throne of David. “A branch of the house of David” will be at the head of the nation, upon whom “the spirit of the Lord will rest, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. xi. 2). Thus Jeremiah prophesies: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king, and deal wisely, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness” (xxiii. 5, 6). All the attributes of Messiah are those of a human being in his highest possible perfection. No superhuman qualities are ascribed to him; all his glory, all his success, is dependent on the Will of God. He is an ideal man, and an ideal king, but not more; if miracles are to be wrought, it is not Messiah who will perform them, but God, who will act wondrously for Messiah and Israel. The advent of Messiah is not expected to change the nature of man, much less the course of the world around us. The only change we expect is, that the Unity of God will be acknowledged universally, and that justice and righteousness will flourish over all the earth. Those who believe in a superhuman nature of Messiah are guilty of idolatry. Our Sages express this principle in the words, ‏אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד‎, “There is no other difference between the present time and the days of Messiah but the restoration of Israel’s independence.”

An opinion is mentioned in the Talmud in the name of a Rabbi Hillel—not the great Hillel, the Babylonian—that “there is no Messiah for the Israelites, because they have already enjoyed the blessings of Messiah in the reign of Hezekiah” (Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin, 98b). This can only refer to the miraculous defeat of the enemy, and the direct benefits derived therefrom by the Israelites. But the Rabbi by no means rejects our belief that Messiah will come, and with him the universal worship of the One God, the universal practice of virtue in all its forms, and universal peace and prosperity. [17] Hillel, however, found no support for his view; on the contrary, his error is at once shown to him, that he forgot the prophets who prophesied after Hezekiah.

There are some theologians who assume the Messianic period to be the most perfect state of civilisation, but do not believe in the restoration of the kingdom of David, the rebuilding of the Temple, or the repossession of Palestine by the Jews. They altogether reject the national hope of the Jews. These theologians either misinterpret or wholly ignore the teaching of the Bible, and the Divine promises made through the men of God.

The hopes with which our religion inspires us can never lead us to intrigues, political combinations, insurrection, or warfare for the purpose of regaining Palestine and appointing a Jewish Government. On the contrary, our religion teaches us to seek the welfare of those nations in whose midst we live, and to conscientiously take part in the work for their national progress and prosperity, whilst patiently waiting for the miraculous fulfilment of the prophecies. Even if a band of adventurers were to succeed in reconquering Palestine for the Jews by means of arms, or reacquiring the Holy Land by purchasing it from the present owners, we should not see in such an event the consummation of our hopes.

Does the advent of Messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem imply the restoration of the Sacrificial Service? The last of the prophets, Malachi, declares that “then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in ancient years” (Mal. iii. 4). In the same spirit all the prophets spoke, and when in some cases prophets denounce sacrifices, it is only the sacrifices of the wicked that they denounce. Sacrifices must be preceded by purification of the heart, and by the earnest resolve to obey the word of God, otherwise they constitute an increase of sin. When we express our longing for the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of the Temple-Service—the return of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their song and music—it is solely our desire for the opportunity of serving God according to His Will and command, and is not a feeling that should be modified by fashion or taste. It is because of our sins that we have been deprived of our Temple; the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of the Sacrificial Service will be the result of our own purification, and the consequent Divine pardon.

When will this take place? We do not know, and are content to bear in mind that the time of our redemption is one of the “hidden things which are the Lord our God’s;” “If it tarries,” says Habakkuk, “wait for it, for it will surely come, and not later than the time fixed” (ii. 3). Certain numbers of days and weeks are mentioned in Daniel, [18] but it is not stated how these are to be counted; to which period they are intended to apply; whether to the time of the restoration under Zerubbabel, to the period of the Maccabees, to the destruction of the second Temple, or to the future and final redemption. It is also possible that these numbers have some symbolic signification. In reference to these mysterious numbers Daniel says (xii. 8–10): “And I heard, but I understood not; then said I, O my lord, what shall be the issue of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand; but they that be wise shall understand.” These words of Daniel are a warning to all those who are inclined to compute by means of the numbers given in Daniel the exact year of Messiah. Many have disregarded the warning and have fallen into gross error. It is the duty of the pious Israelite to have faith in God’s wisdom, goodness, and power: “The righteous shall live in his faith” (Hab. ii. 4).

Thirteenth Principle.—“I firmly believe that there will take place a revival of the dead at a time which will please the Creator, blessed be His name and exalted His memorial for ever and ever.”

As imperfect as is our conception of a creation from nothing, so imperfect is our notion of the resurrection of the dead. We only perceive the dissolution of the body into its elements, which enter into new combinations and form new bodies; and it is almost impossible for us to imagine a reconstruction of the original body out of its own elements. There is no doubt that the Almighty produces fresh life from death—we need only observe the action of Nature in the world around us to convince ourselves that God is ‏מחיה המתים‎ “that he gives life to things dead.” But how this will be done in reference to our own selves, whether we shall enjoy the same life, whether our future life will be an improved edition of the present one, whether all will be restored to life, or whether the new life after death will be enjoyed by the soul alone, or by body and soul jointly: these and similar questions transcend the bounds of human knowledge. We know nothing but the bare fact that God can restore to life that which is dead, and that a resurrection will take place. But all further description of this event rests on man’s imaginative powers. The fact itself is stated by Daniel (xii. 2): “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt;” it is indicated in the Pentateuch in the words, “I shall kill and I shall make alive; I have wounded and I shall heal” (Deut. xxxii. 39). According to Maimonides, the author of the Thirteen Principles, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is identical with that of the immortality of the soul, calling the life of the soul after separation from the body, resurrection; the verse quoted from Daniel is accordingly interpreted in a figurative sense. The belief in ‏תחית המתים‎ “the resurrection of the dead,” emphatically enjoined in the Talmud, was thus restricted by Maimonides to the separate life of man’s soul after his death, because the immortality of the soul appeared to him more rational and more acceptable to thinking man. This may be the case, but we, human beings, a combination of soul and body, are, in reality, as unable to conceive the separate existence of our soul as we are to comprehend the resurrection of our body. We are taught that there exists for us a life beyond the present one. But any attempt to describe that life must be considered merely as an act of imagination rather than of knowledge. It is probably for this reason that no distinct ordinance in the Pentateuch sanctioned the belief in future life, or in the immortality of the soul. The belief, nevertheless, existed among the Israelites, and found expression in several passages of the Bible. Foremost among these is the following verse of Koheleth (xii. 7): “And the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” David also gives frequent expression to this belief in his Psalms. In the Seventeenth Psalm, e.g., he speaks with contempt of the wealth and the success of the wicked, and says of himself: “As for me, I shall see thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy likeness” (Ps. xvii. 15). Similarly he says in Ps. xvi. 8–11: “I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall dwell in safety. For thou wilt not leave my soul to death, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy, in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” In the Book of Proverbs (xii. 28) we read: “In the path of righteousness there is life, and a smoothed way where there is no death.” These and similar verses show that the belief in the immortality of the soul was firmly established among the Israelites, and found frequent expression in the words of the men of God.

The belief in the Resurrection assists us in our endeavour of reconciling the apparent contradictions between the justice of God and our own experience. The latter comprises only the transient pleasures of the wicked and the sufferings of the just in this short life, and cannot be compared with the pleasure of the good and the suffering of the bad in the future, eternal life. Another benefit derived from this belief consists in its raising us above the ordinary sphere of earthly gains and losses; it turns our minds to higher aims; it purifies our heart and elevates it.

Opponents of this belief quote some passages from Job in support of their view; e.g.: “Before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and of the shadow of death” (x. 21). “As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more” (vii. 9). These and similar words were uttered by Job when he suffered great pain, and wished, as many would wish under similar circumstances, to be relieved by death from his momentary troubles, unconcerned as to what might happen in distant future. Besides, Job is not an Israelite; he is described as a man just and upright, but need not have had the same convictions and beliefs as the Israelites. How little the above verses represent the exact view of Job may be learnt from the fact that he gives also expression to the opposite belief: “If a man dieth, will he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my relief cometh” (xiv. 14). “And when my skin is gone, when worms have destroyed this body, and when my flesh is no more, yet shall I see God” (xix. 26).

NOTES.

On page 19 sqq.

The Number of the Principles of our Creed.—The contents of our Creed has its source in the Bible; there the Principles are taught, some directly, others indirectly; but they are neither formulated nor enumerated. The most ancient declaration of faith is contained in the verse: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One” (Deut. vi. 4). There is even a tradition (Midrash Rabboth Gen. ch. xcviii.) that these words were first uttered by the sons of Jacob, when their father, in the last hour of his life, wished to know whether all his children were faithful to the inherited religion. We repeat these words thrice a day, in the morning and in the evening; with these words on their lips the martyrs of our nation suffered death; these words are the last which the pious Israelite utters before “his spirit returneth to him who hath given it.” When the Israelites took possession of Palestine, at the solemn assembly between the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, they were not commanded to recite or sign a series of articles of faith, but to declare their determination to obey the Will of God as expressed in the Torah. This was also done by our forefathers when standing round Sinai. They declared, “All that the Lord hath said, will we do and hear” (Exod. xxiv. 7). When Elijah on Mount Carmel had demonstrated the perverseness of the Baal-worship, the Israelites declared, “The Lord, he is God.” Jonah describes himself thus: “I am a Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of the heavens, who hath made the sea and the dry land” (Jonah i. 9).—Also, after the Restoration in the days of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the Jews were exhorted to act according to the words of the Torah, and they renewed their covenant with God in this respect, but nothing is known of a declaration of belief, of reciting or signing articles of faith.—The struggle with the Samaritans produced special legislation with regard to certain religious observances, but there was no need for the formulation of a creed. But care has been taken that the principles of our faith should find expression in our daily prayers. Thus the sections which precede and follow the Shema contain an indirect declaration of the three fundamental principles of our religion, the Existence of the Creator, Revelation, and Divine Justice. The first section, called ‏ברכת יוצר‎ praises God as the sole source of everything, of light and darkness, of good and evil. In the second section (‏ברכת אהבה‎) we acknowledge in gratitude the benefits of Revelation; and in the third (‏ברכת גאולה‎) we thank God for the redemption of our forefathers from Egypt, by inflicting punishment on our oppressors. Although much stress is laid on faith (‏אמונה‎), and he who was found wanting in faith was stigmatised as ‏כופר‎ or ‏כופר בעיקר‎ unbeliever or infidel, yet no creed was officially formulated. Even the discussions between the Sadducees and Pharisees, which concerned also the principles of faith, brought only about certain changes in the prayer—such as the substitution of ‏מן העולם ועד העולם‎ for ‏עד עילם‎ in the responses of the congregation during the public service, in order to establish the belief in the existence of another world and another life beyond the grave.

The necessity of formulating the principles of faith arose when the contact and intercourse with other religious communities gave frequent occasion to discussions on these and similar subjects. Without some fixed basis, it was feared, disorder and confusion would disturb the peace in the camp of Israel.

Thus Saadiah says in Emunoth Ve-deoth: “I have seen men drowned, as it were, in the sea of doubts, covered by the waves of error, and there was no diver to bring them up from the depth, nor any swimmer to take hold of them and draw them out. As I possessed enough of what God taught me to support them, and had the power for upholding them granted to me, I considered it my duty to assist and guide my fellow-men according to the best of my abilities.” In ten chapters Saadiah discusses the various theological problems, and defends the following articles of faith: Existence of God; His Unity; Revelation; Free-will; Immortality of the Soul; Resurrection of the Dead; Final Redemption of Israel; Reward and Punishment. Although these principles do not seem to have been shaped into the form of a solemn declaration or embodied in the prayer, they are treated as themes familiar to the reader, and as elements essential in the Jewish faith (‏אשר אנחנו מחויבים להאמין‎).

Rabbi Abraham ben David (Rabad, ‏רא״בד‎), in his Haemunah haramah (“The Lofty Faith”), seems to assume three principles: Existence of God, Prophecy, and Reward and Punishment, which to defend from the attacks of the unbeliever, he considers as the first duty of the Jewish scholar (‏התורני‎); but he does not follow this decision in his book. He comprises all religious truths which he has to demonstrate under six heads (‏עיקרים‎). The first of them he calls “Root of the faith;” it expresses the conviction that all things in the universe owe their existence to a “First Cause”—God. Next comes “Unity of God,” which is followed by “Attributes of God,” “The intermediate causes of natural changes.” “Prophecy”—or ‏האמונה האחרונה‎, “the subsequent belief,” i.e., the belief which follows the belief in God—and “Divine Providence.”

Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi explains to the Kuzarite king his faith as follows: “We believe in the God of our forefathers, who brought the Israelites forth from Egypt by signs and miracles, sustained them in the wilderness with manna, divided for them the sea and Jordan, gave them the Law through Moses, exhorted them through His prophets to obey His commandments: in short, we believe all that is written in the Torah” (Kuzari, i. 8). He then explains philosophically “the root of the faith” in the following ten propositions: (1) The universe is finite; (2) it had a beginning; (3) the time of the beginning had to be determined by the Divine Being; (4) God is without a beginning; (5) God is eternal (i.e., without an end); (6) incorporeal; (7) omniscient; (8) all-wise, all-powerful, living; (9) free in His actions; (10) without change. To these must be added the belief in prophecy, in the truth of the prophecies, and in man’s free-will, which he fully discusses in the course of the book.

Rabbenu Bachya, in his “Duties of the Hearts” (‏חובות הלבבות‎), considers also faith as one of these duties, and expresses it in the most simple form, “Belief in God and in His Law.” He does not, however, devote a special chapter to faith. The first chapter treats of the distinctively Jewish creed of God’s Unity, but less as a duty of belief than as a duty of research and study for the purpose of philosophically establishing that God is One. The author states only briefly in the prefatory notes to the first chapter, that it is our duty to believe in the Existence, Providence, and Unity of God, as commanded in the verse, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

Maimonides comprehended our belief in thirteen articles, known as the Thirteen Principles of our Creed. He insists on the fact that these articles are not the product of chance; they are the result of long study and deep research. Every one of them is essential, and he who rejects any of them is an infidel (‏כופר‎), and puts himself by such rejection outside the Jewish community (‏יוצא מכלל ישראל‎).

Rabbi Joseph Albo criticised Maimonides’ thirteen articles of faith (‏עיקרים‎). Whilst recognising all of them as true, he would make a difference between fundamental principles (‏עיקרים‎) and secondary beliefs (‏שרשים‎). The former are all those dogmas by which Judaism falls and stands, without which Jewish faith cannot be imagined; the latter are those principles which are actually true, but Judaism can be conceived without them. To the former he counts, e.g., the belief in the existence of God, to the latter the belief that to Him alone prayer is to be offered. For Judaism cannot be conceived without the belief in God’s existence, but could be conceived without the belief that only God is to be prayed to. Albo further finds fault with Maimonides for not having embodied in the Creed the belief in man’s free-will, in the truth of the Biblical account of the miracles, in the Creatio ex nihilo, and the like. To these objections Maimonides would reply, that the articles enumerated by him were all actually fundamental, the question whether Judaism could be imagined without this or that principle being of no importance whatever; and that the dogmas named by Albo as omitted, were implied in the Thirteen Principles. According to Albo there are three fundamental principles (‏עיקרים‎): Existence of God, Revelation, and Reward and Punishment. The first includes four articles (‏שרשים‎): Unity of God, His Incorporeality, Eternity, and Perfection; the second implies three: God’s Omniscience, Divine inspiration, and Divine messengers (prophets); the third only one: Providence. Albo’s criticisms on Maimonides have passed away without effect. The Principles of Faith as formulated by Maimonides have found their way into the daily Prayer-book in prose and poetry, and have since formed an essential element in every text-book of Jewish religion. Modern theologians erroneously quote Albo in favour of rejecting some of the articles, because he speaks of three fundamental principles; but they forget that Albo never rejects any of the thirteen principles; he only insists on making a difference between those which are more and those which are less fundamental.

On the First Principle, pp. 22 sqq.

Maimonides does not mention the term Creator except in the beginning of each paragraph as a substitute for “God.” He employs the philosophical term “First Cause” in defining the existence of God. In the sixty-ninth chapter of the first book of “The Guide” we find the explanation thereof. He says: “The philosophers, as you know, call God the First Cause (‏עִלָּה‎ and ‏סִבָּה‎); but those who are known by the name Mutakallemim (Mohammedan theologians) are very much opposed to the use of that name, and prefer to call Him ‘Maker’ (‏פּוֹעֵל‎), believing that there is a great difference whether we use the one term or the other. They argue thus: Those who say that God is the Cause, implicitly assume the coexistence of the Cause with that which was produced by that Cause, and believe that the universe is eternal, and that it is inseparable from God. Those, however, who say that God is the Maker do not assume the coexistence of the maker with his work; for the maker can exist anterior to his work; we cannot even imagine how a maker can be in action unless he existed before his own work. This is an argument advanced by persons who do not distinguish between the potential and the actual. For there is no difference whether we say ‘cause’ or ‘maker;’ ‘cause’ as a mere potentiality precedes its effect; and ‘cause’ as actuality coexists with its effect. The same is the case with ‘maker;’ so long as the work is not done, he is a maker potentially, and exists before his work; he is an actual maker when the work is done, and then he coexists with his work.”

“The reason why the philosophers called God ‘the Cause’ and did not call Him ‘the Maker’ is not to be sought in their belief that the universe is eternal, but in other principles, which I will briefly explain to you. Everything owes its origin to the following four causes: the substance, the form, the agens, the final cause. The philosophers believe—and I do not differ from them—that God is the agens, the form, and the final cause of everything; in order to express this, they call God ‘the Cause’ of all things. Every one of these three causes leads, through a chain of causes, to God as the First Cause.” Maimonides further points out in this chapter that the choice of the term by no means decides the question whether the universe has had a beginning or not.

Maimonides has been severely criticised by his successors for the absence of the belief in “Creation from nothing” from the Creed. In “The Guide” Maimonides distinctly states that the arguments for “Creation from nothing” and the arguments against it are equi-balanced, and that for this reason he follows the literal interpretation of the Scripture as regards Creation. Were the arguments in favour of the eternity of the universe stronger, he would not have found any difficulty in interpreting Scripture accordingly. Such being the view of our great philosopher, he could not make the belief in Creation part of the Creed, or declare that all who denied the Creation from nothing were unbelievers.

However strange this argumentation of Maimonides may appear, and however arbitrary his treatment of Scriptural teaching, his view is not without justification. It seems strange that, in spite of all his reverence for the Bible, he should have entrusted himself entirely to the guidance of his own reason, and forced, as it were, the Bible by peculiar interpretations to follow his reasoning. In truth, however, the method of Maimonides is neither strange nor arbitrary. There is no doubt that figurative language is extensively used in the Scriptures, especially in the poetical and the prophetical books. Whether a certain expression or phrase was to be understood in its literal meaning or in a figurative sense must be learnt from the context; in some cases—as, e.g., in the exhortation, “Ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart” (Deut. x. 16)—the figurative sense is accepted by all, whilst in other cases opinions are divided. Our decision in favour of the one interpretation or the other is based on our conviction that the Bible contains nothing but truth. When we discover a contradiction between a Biblical statement and the dictates of our reason, we are sure that we have erred either in the right understanding of the words of the Bible or in our reasoning. On finding the mistake in our reasoning we abandon what we have hitherto considered as fully established; but so long as we are unable to discover where our reasoning is faulty, we either suspend our judgment for the present and consider the question as one of the problems which we have not yet been able to solve satisfactorily, or, whenever possible, we attempt to reconcile by figurative interpretation the teaching of the Bible with the results of our research. Maimonides is therefore justified in saying that so long as reason does not decide against the teaching of the Bible in its literal sense he would adhere to the latter, and only if reason were to decide against the Creatio ex nihilo, he would follow reason and interpret Scripture accordingly.

It cannot be denied that Maimonides travelled here on rather slippery ground, and set a dangerous example when he admitted that he would interpret Scripture according to his preconceived view of the world’s beginning. But, on the other hand, it must be owned that many passages of the Bible admit of a figurative interpretation, and the reader must follow his own reason and discretion in deciding in each particular case which of the two interpretations is the correct one. Maimonides has not made excessive use of this license.

Saadiah in his Emunoth Ve-deoth devotes the first chapter to the problem of the Creation. It is headed ‏חדוש‎ “Creation,” and examines thirteen different opinions as to the origin of the universe. In the conclusion of this chapter he makes the following remarks: “Perhaps some one might ask in what manner something was produced from nothing. To this we reply as follows: If we were able to understand this, we should not have ascribed the creative act to God alone. But we declare God as the only Creator, because we can form no idea as to the manner in which something is created from nothing. Those who desire us to show them how to do this, desire, in fact, that we should make them and ourselves creators. We only conceive in our mind the fact of the Creation, but cannot form an idea or image of the process itself.... There may be some who think little of the universe, and wonder that this should be the result of all the power and wisdom of God. We reply that He created as much as, according to His knowledge, would be within the range of man’s observation and perception, and would be sufficient to teach man the existence of God.... How can we conceive the idea that the universe counts only 4633 years? But the universe has been created, as we believe, and must have had a beginning at a certain time. Suppose we had been living in the year 100; we should then not have been surprised: why should we be surprised now?” The question as to the purpose for which the universe was created, Saadiah makes three attempts to answer. Maimonides, however, in “The Guide,” more correctly, shows that the question is unanswerable and superfluous. For, whatever purpose we assume, we must always further inquire what is the purpose of this purpose, and so on ad infinitum, till we arrive at the answer, it was the Will of God. If the prophet declares that God “hath not created it in vain, but hath formed it for dwelling,” he likewise says implicitly it was the Will of God that the earth should be for a dwelling.

The question, however, arises whether the Biblical account of the Creation harmonises in all its parts with the results of scientific research. To prove the existence of harmony between the two discordant elements has been since days of old the task which theologians proposed to themselves; philosophic culture forced them to accept the doctrines of a certain school of thought as established truths, whilst religious feeling would not allow them to abandon the teaching of the inspired writers. But the search after this harmony was superfluous, and the harmony found was illusory. For, whilst the teaching of the Bible remains unchanged, the systems of philosophy and science, like everything human, have no claim to permanency; each system has its season; it begins to shine, and rises higher and higher; and when it has reached the zenith, it begins steadily to decline till it disappears beneath the horizon of science. So long as Aristotle and Ptolemy were dominant, theologians exerted themselves to show that the account contained in the first chapter of Genesis fully harmonises with Aristotle and Ptolemy. When these princes were dethroned, and their places were occupied by others, the old harmony was gone, and a new method had to be invented. Maimonides has clearly pointed out how the conflict between reason and faith, where it existed, could best be brought to a conclusion. Such of the laws of nature as have been established by human acumen and human observation have been discovered in the phenomena of existing nature; but the phenomenon of creation has never been observed in nature from which we could learn the laws of creation.

In the seventeenth chapter of the Second Book of “The Guide” Maimonides says as follows: “Everything produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself which has gone through the process of genesis and development, after having arrived at its final state, has properties different from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality or before that time.... It is quite impossible to infer from the qualities which a thing possesses after having passed through all the stages of its development what its condition was at the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing at that moment show what its previous condition had been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion; you will reject evident truth and admit false opinions.... If philosophers would consider this well, and reflect on it, they would find that it represents exactly the dispute between Aristotle and ourselves. We, the followers of Moses, our teacher, and of Abraham, our father, believe that the universe has been produced from nothing, and has developed in a certain manner, and that it has been created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. The arguments of our opponents are thus refuted; they have demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion.”

This reasoning holds good with regard to the modern theory of Evolution. We may be able to discover numerous facts in evidence of this theory, we may well conceive the idea of a protoplasm developing into a whole system of worlds, and yet our belief in the truth of the Biblical account of the Creation is not shaken in the least. The laws of Evolution are the result of the creative act of the Almighty, and not its causes; they include nothing that could disprove the correctness of the theory of Creatio ex nihilo.

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, in his “Commentary on Genesis” (i.) says: “The word ‏בראשית‎ ‘in the beginning,’ teaches that nothing preceded the act of Creation; that there was a Creatio ex nihilo. This truth forms the foundation of the faith which the Divine Law is intended to establish in our hearts. The opposite theory is the doctrine of the eternity of the substance, a theory which leaves to the Creator nothing but the function of giving form to the substance that has existed already from eternity, and which has been the basis of the heathen belief up to the present day.... The first word of the Torah dispels the darkness of this false belief; and the words, ‘The opening of thy word giveth light’ (Ps. cxix. 130), have in the Midrash correctly been applied to the word ‏בראשית‎. Everything, the matter and the form of all beings, is the result of the free will of the Creator, who continues to rule matter and form, and to determine both the natural forces and the laws of their action. For it is His free will that created matter, endowed it with certain forces, and fixed the laws by which the forces impress the different forms on it.”

The idea of development and evolution is not entirely excluded from the account of the Creation. Not in one moment or in one day was the universe produced, but in six days by successive creations of a systematic order. In Mishnah Aboth (v. 1) this is expressed in the following way: “By ten words (‏מאמרות‎) the universe was created, although this could have been done by one word.” Commentators have variously attempted to explain this fact, and to show that the order observed in the Creation was determined by the nature of the things themselves. Thus Ibn Ezra believes that the successive creations were the results of the continued action of light and heat. [19] But it is by no means necessary to reconcile the Biblical account with every theory that happens to be considered by some scholar or school as the right one. There may be found in nature and in the working of the natural laws some facts analogous to certain acts of the creation; but a perfect equality of two such incongruent things as the creation from nothing and development of created beings is impossible. By forcing the text of the Bible into such harmony we deprive the account of its poetry and beauty, and weaken the force of its teaching.

Science teaches that millions of millions of years must have elapsed before the earth received its present form; that it took millions of years before the light of certain stars could reach the earth. In all these calculations one important factor is ignored, viz., that for every development something must be given, which is subject to the process of developing; to determine in what condition that something was, when it passed from the passive state of creation to the active state of developing, is a problem for the solution of which there is no analogy in nature. He who could create a germ endowed with all the natural forces required for development and differentiation into the great variety of forms which we perceive at present, must certainly have been able to create the things actually endowed with these forms. Thus, also, the various strata of the earth, whatever forms they contain, cannot with certainty be described as the results of development; they may just as well have come directly from the hand of the Creator.

Maimonides (The Guide, xxx.) says in reference to this question: “You should also know the dictum of our Sages—‘All the beings of the work in the beginning (‏מעשה בראשית‎) were created in their full height, their fully developed reason, and endowed with the best of properties.’ Note this, for it involves an important principle.—The work of the Creation went on for six days; every day brought to light a new force, a new result of a creative action, but on the seventh day ‘God declared [20] the work which He had done as finished,’ as endowed with the properties and forces required for their further development” (The Guide, I. lxvii.).

Science has proved, it is maintained, that the earth does not form the centre of the universe, and that man does not form the principal object in nature, in opposition to the teaching of the Scriptures that the earth is the centre round which the whole universe revolves, and that man on earth is the lord of the creation. Whatever view the authors of the Biblical books held as regards the systems of the universe, whether they placed the earth in the centre or not, whether all the stars and systems of stars existed, in their opinion, only for the sake of the earth or for the benefit of man, their object was to address man, to instruct him, and to teach him the omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness of God. For this reason the account of the Creation is given in such a manner that man should be able to reproduce in his mind the work of each day of the Creation, to view it from his standpoint, and to recognise the benefits each day’s work bestowed on him. The fact that other beings are benefited at the same time, and that the benefit they derive is likewise part of the Creator’s design, is by no means denied by those who believe that the well-being of man was included in the design of the Creator. It is part of our duty of gratitude to ascribe the benefits we enjoy to their Author. The prophets and the inspired singers knew well the place which weak and mortal man occupies in the universe; but they did not ignore the dignity and importance with which the Creator endowed him in spite of all his weakness and apparent insignificance. “What is man,” exclaims the Psalmist, “that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? And yet thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour” (Ps. viii. 5, 6).

On the Fifth Principle, p. 44.

The principle that no other being but God is worthy of being addressed in prayer implies the belief that God can fulfil our petitions. We believe in the efficacy of prayer. It is true that when we communicate our wishes to the Most Holy, our just Lord and our loving Father, we are eo ipso reminded to examine our desires, whether they contain anything unholy, anything unjust or ignoble. Prayer to God has therefore the salutary effect of purifying, refining, and ennobling our heart. It banishes evil thoughts, and thus saves us much pain and sorrow. This effect may have been designed by the Creator, and it may be for this purpose that He has endowed us with a natural impulse to pray, and has taught us to pray in His Holy Word. But this cannot be the direct object of prayer. The immediate effect sought to be obtained by this act is the fulfilment of our wishes. Every such fulfilment implies a miracle, a deviation from the regular course of nature. We are not in the habit of praying for things which we expect as the sure result of the natural laws; we may praise and admire nature in its workings, but we shall never ask nature for the fulfilment of our desires. Only those things which we believe to be dependent solely on the free decision of the Supreme Being can form the substance of our petitions; and since we believe that everything, the regular working of the natural laws not excepted, depends on the Will of God, we include in the objects of prayer whatever concerns the well-being of individual man and society at large.

There have been thinkers that formed such an idea of God that they were compelled to deny Him every direct influence on human affairs. Some thought it incompatible with the notion of God’s Unity and Immutability that He should be moved by man’s prayer to do something which otherwise He would not have done. Again, others believe that the laws of nature—whether given by God or not—are so permanent that they never change under any circumstances. Prayer has therefore been explained to be of a purely subjective character, and to effect only the above-mentioned improvement of man’s heart. But could we really pray to God to grant us the one thing or the other if we were convinced that He cannot grant us anything, but must allow nature to take its course? Can a prayer offered in such a frame of mind be called a “prayer without lips of deceit”? In opposition to such theories our teachers purposely introduced into the daily prayer here and there a reminder of the true theory in words like the following: ‏המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית‎ “Who repeateth anew every day regularly the work of the Creation.” He is constantly ‏יוצר אור‎, ‏בורא חשך‎, ‏מחיה המתים‎; He constantly “formeth light,” “createth darkness,” “giveth life to the dead,” &c.; they have expressed our gratitude to God ‏על נסים שבכל יום עמנו ועל נפלאתיך וטובתיך שבכל עת‎ “for His miracles which in our behalf He performs every day, and for His wonders and kindnesses shown at all times.”

“This idea of God’s real and active rule in the universe is the basis of prayer. It is not only the belief in the truth of the Biblical account of miracles that enables us to pray to our Father, but the conviction that wonders and miracles are constantly wrought by Him. In the Talmud and in the Midrash man’s earning his daily bread (‏פרנסה‎) is declared to be a miracle by no means inferior to the miracles wrought for the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt.—‘Is need greatest, is God nearest,’ is a well-known saying, the truth of which many have experienced in the course of their life. Those who have been dangerously ill, and after having found that man, with all his science and resources, was incapable of affording relief, gradually recover their former health; those who have shared with others a common danger, and while their companions, under exactly the same circumstances, perished, were themselves saved; those who, having exhausted every means conceivable to them of obtaining a livelihood, at length find a new path of subsistence opened to them: all these have experienced the Divine help and His nearness in their distress; they have learnt to recognise the miraculous power of Providence. But it is not only in such extraordinary events that the finger of God is seen; to him who has eyes to see they appear daily and hourly. We are exposed to many dangers, the existence of which we frequently only learn when we are safe; we escape them by a miracle.” [21]

The Immutability of God and of His decrees is frequently insisted upon in Scripture. “I, the Lord, I change not” (Mal. iii. 6). “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent” (Num. xxiii. 19). “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Sam. xv. 29). “And he hath established them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree, and it shall not pass away” (Ps. cxlviii. 6).—This immutability, however, does not interfere with the free-will of man and its consequences. The teaching of the Bible is beautifully expressed in the well-known sentence: ‏תשובה תפלה וצדקה מעבירין את רע הגזרה‎ “Repentance, prayer, and good deeds remove the evil of the divine decree” (Musaf of Rosh ha-shanah); whatever a man has forfeited by evil deeds, he may recover by prayer and improved conduct. This lesson is taught in the Bible on every page, and is illustrated by the history of Israel. For this reason the prophets were sent to the people of Israel to exhort them, and to show them how they could, by means of repentance, ward off the impending catastrophe. To non-Israelites the same mercy was extended, as is shown by the history of the mission of the prophet Jonah.—Mishnah Aboth (iv. 13) therefore declares, “Repentance and good deeds are like a shield against punishment,” ‏תשובה ומעשים טובים כתריס בפני הפרענות‎.

The seeming incongruity of the two principles, God’s immutability and man’s hope for mercy and pardon from God, has to some extent occupied the attention of our ancient teachers. “If our condition for a whole year is determined in advance, what is the good of our daily prayers and our supplication for God’s help in times of trouble?” Such is the question asked in the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-shanah (16a), and the answer is given, ‏יפה צעקה קודם גזרה ואחר גזרה‎ “Prayer is of good effect both before the decree and afterwards.” It is always in the power and in the will of the Almighty to accede to our petitions and to fulfil our wishes. The question has since been repeated frequently, but no better solution has as yet been supplied.

Abraham, who was the first teacher of monotheism, has also been made by tradition the father of prayer. In the Biblical account he is the first who uttered a prayer; a prayer in the true sense of the word, not for himself, but for his fellow-men. The words of Cain, ‏גדול עוני מנשא‎ “My punishment is greater than I can bear,” have not the character of prayer, nor can the “calling by the name of God” in the age of Enosh be considered with certainty as an expression of prayer. Tradition relates, therefore, that before Abraham there was no one that called God by the name ‏אדון‎ “Lord.” Abraham was the first who recognised God as Lord of man, in whose hand his fate lies,—the condition sine quâ non of prayer. From Abraham onwards prayer remained the chief refuge in danger, and the best, solace and relief in time of trouble.

Whilst, however, insisting on the belief in the efficacy of prayer, our Sages teach us that it would be wrong to expect that every petition uttered before God must be granted. We pray to the Almighty, being convinced that it is in His power to grant what we pray for; but we must trust in the wisdom and mercy of God, that the rejection of our petition is also for our good. “He is near to all those who call on him, to all those that call on him in truth,” who continue to trust in Him and His goodness even when their wishes are not fulfilled. It would be almost equal to superstition to believe that any words, however earnest and devout, uttered by us will infallibly have the desired effect. The Mishnah (Aboth ii. 13) therefore teaches: ‏אל תעש תפלתך קבע אלא רחמים ותחנונים‎ “Do not make thy prayer a fixed claim or demand, which must be fulfilled, but a supplication for mercy, which may or may not be granted.” The belief that the prayer will undoubtedly be fulfilled is denounced in the Talmud as ‏עיון תפלה‎ “Looking out with certainty for the effect of the prayer.” [22] Since the principal object of prayer is the granting of our petitions, prayer will be superfluous when no wants will any longer be felt, ‏לעתיד לבוא התפלות בטלות‎ “In future prayers will be discontinued;” only ‏תפלת תודה אינה בטלה לעולם‎ “The prayer of thanksgiving will never be discontinued.” “In the enjoyment of the purest blessings our feelings of gratitude will never die out” (Yalkut on Ps. lvi.).

Rabbi Joseph Albo, in the book Ikkarim, says (IV. xvi.): “Although Prayer is not one of the principles of our Torah, it is intimately connected with the belief in Providence, and every one who believes in Providence ought to believe in the efficacy of prayer. For he who does not pray to God in time of trouble either does not believe in Divine Providence, or if he does believe, he doubts whether God is able to supply his wants; in both cases man is an unbeliever. It is also possible that a person who believes in Divine Providence and in God’s Omnipotence doubts whether he deserves that his prayer should be granted—a feeling of humility which ought indeed to fill the heart of every person—but this idea must not prevent him altogether from praying to God concerning his wants. If he does not pray from this reason, he may believe in God’s justice, but he does not believe in His mercy and kindness. It is also contrary to the teaching of the Bible. ‘Not relying on our righteousness do we offer our supplication before you, but on your great mercy!’ For the benefits bestowed by God on His creatures are acts of love, not of recompense.... Man receives benefits, whether he is entitled to them or not, because prayer gives him a qualification which he does not possess by nature, and enables him to receive such good things as could not be obtained from any other being or through any other means....

“There are some who doubt the efficacy of prayer; they argue thus: We must assume that a certain good thing has been either decreed or not decreed in favour of a certain person: if it has been decided, prayer is not wanted; and if it has not been decided, how can prayer effect a change in the Will of God, who is unchangeable? Neither righteousness in action, nor prayer, is of any avail in procuring any good thing that has not been ordained, or in escaping any evil that has been decreed. This is also the argument of Job in chap. xxi. But the answer to these arguments is this: Whatever may have been decreed, certain conditions must be fulfilled before the decree is executed. If a good harvest is decreed to a certain person, he must plough and sow before he can secure such a harvest; if punishment is decreed against him, the punishment is not inflicted in the absence of continued and repeated sinning. The history of King Ahab shows that the evil decreed against any sinner takes no effect if the sinner repents and is turned into another man. The change that takes place in man himself is the direct effect of prayer and righteousness; it prepares and qualifies him for receiving benefits and protection from evil. Our Sages say therefore: Prayer has its good effect both before and after the Divine decree. The Immutability of God is not less consistent with Efficacy of Prayer than it is with His knowledge of things which are possible, and may happen or may not happen. God and His knowledge being unchangeable, everything must be certain and nothing merely possible. And yet we are convinced of the existence of these things, and believe at the same time in the Immutability of God’s knowledge. In the same manner we are convinced of the Efficacy of Prayer without doubting the Immutability of God’s Will.”

On Revelation, p. 46.

The term ‏נביא‎ “prophet” only expressed the prophet’s function of addressing his fellow-men when inspired and impelled by the Spirit of the Lord. The verb “to prophesy” is therefore in Hebrew expressed by the nifal or passive. In so far as the Word of God has been revealed to him he is called ‏ראה‎, ‏חוזה‎ and ‏צפה‎ “Seer,” ‏איש אלהים‎ “Man of God,” ‏איש הרוח‎ “The inspired.” In the time of Samuel the title ‏ראה‎ was generally given to the prophet instead of ‏נביא‎ (1 Sam. ix. 9), as his advice was also sought by many who believed him to be able to foresee coming events and to know everything. As, however, the word ‏נביא‎ only describes the prophet as addressing his fellow-men, it is used both of the true and the false prophets, and also of teachers and preachers generally. The Targum on the Prophets (Jer. xxix. 15; Isa. xxix. 10) renders, therefore, the term ‏נביא‎ in some instances: ‏מלפין‎ “teachers,” ‏ספריא‎ “scholars.”

The enthusiasm manifested by the prophet in his mode of address, or in his endurance of insult and ill-treatment, made him sometimes appear in the eyes of the public as though he were struck with madness, so that scoffers used ‏נביא‎ and ‏משגע‎ “mad,” as synonyms (Jer. xxix. 26), and ‏מתנבא‎ is both one who acts as a prophet and one who imitates the appearance of a prophet (1 Sam. xviii. 10).

The false prophets are divided by Jeremiah into three classes: there were those who were guilty of a direct plagiarism, preaching the Divine messages of the true prophets and describing them as their own inspiration. There were others who plagiarised and reproduced true prophecies in a form and style of their own, and others again who altogether invented dreams and visions. The principal test for distinguishing between the true and the false prophets was the purity of moral and religious conduct. In matters wholly indifferent as regards morality and religion the prophet was believed after having established his trustworthiness in some way or other, and his advice was acted upon. The prophet himself could easily detect the fraud of a false prophet; for what he was commanded by God to do, another prophet could not, speaking in the name of the same God, order not to be done. The prophet, therefore, who deceitfully induced “the man of God” to return to Beth-el by the very way which the word of God had forbidden him to go again (1 Kings xiii. 18), could not have been a true prophet, although he was subsequently entrusted with a Divine message for “the man of God.” Bileam was likewise for a certain purpose made the bearer of God’s words, although he was by no means a good man. In either case the sinful intention of the false prophet was stigmatised as contrary to the Will of the Most High, and both had, as it were, to own the wickedness of their intention or the wrong of their actions.

The subject-matter of the prophecy is called “the vision,” “the word of God,” or “the burden of the word of God.” In the days of Jeremiah the term “burden of the Lord” seems to have been used contemptuously of the prophetic utterances in the sense of “trouble” and “strife” (comp. Deut. i. 12), and the prophet was ironically asked by the people, “What is the burden of the Lord?” Jeremiah exhorts them to say, “What hath the Lord answered thee?” or “What hath the Lord spoken?” “But the burden of the Lord shall ye remember no more; for the burden shall be the man’s to whom His word is brought” (Jer. xxiii. 36).

On the Sixth Principle, p. 131.

Saadiah in Emunoth ve-deoth iii. says: “Some men believe that we have no need of prophets, our reason being able to distinguish between good and evil. But if this were the case, God would not have sent messengers to us, because He does not do a thing that is purposeless. I considered the question thoroughly, and found that the mission of the prophets was necessary, not only for the promulgation of categorical commands, but also for that of rational precepts. Thus the duty of thanksgiving to God for His goodness is dictated by our own reason, but the Divine messengers had to fix the time and the form of thanksgiving. Again, adultery is rejected by our reason as a crime; but the Divine teaching determines the conditions of the bond that unites man and wife....

“As a test of the prophet’s truthfulness and trustworthiness a sign is given, which consists of an act implying a deviation from the ordinary laws of nature (comp. Exod. iii. and iv.). The Israelites are therefore frequently reminded of ‘the great wonders which their eyes saw’ (Deut. vii. 19). Those who believed after the sign was given were ‘the righteous,’ whilst those who did not believe ‘went astray.’ ...

“The object of ‘the wonders’ was to produce belief in the prophecies; except for such a purpose as this, the regular course of Nature is not disturbed, so that man can make his plans and arrange his affairs on the basis of the continuance of the laws of Nature. The messengers sent by God were not angels, but men like ourselves, in order that the force of the sign may be more apparent; for, seeing that beings like ourselves perform things which we cannot perform, we conclude that a higher Being has endowed them with extraordinary power for a special purpose. If, however, angels had been chosen for the task of prophets, we should not have considered their performance as signs; but, not knowing the nature of angels, we should have thought that such acts were within the regular and natural powers of angels. Prophets, like other human beings, cannot dispense with the regular functions of the organs of their body; they are subject to the different conditions of health; to poverty, ill-treatment on the part of their fellow-men, and to ignorance about future events, except those communicated to them by Divine inspiration.—I found it necessary to state this here, because there are people who believe that the prophet does not die like ordinary people; others deny him the sensation of hunger and thirst; others again think that he does not suffer from violence and wrong directed against him, and some even believe that nothing is hidden from him. These ‘do not know the thoughts of the Lord, and do not understand His counsel.’

“It is, further, my conviction that the prophets were satisfied, by some extraordinary supernatural phenomena, that they were addressed by the Almighty. (Comp. Exod. xxxiii. 9 and Ps. xcix. 7: ‘In a pillar of cloud he speaketh to them.’)

“As to the relation of the Egyptian Magicians to Moses, we are informed that ten miracles were wrought by Moses and only three by the Magicians. Even these three were only mentioned in order to show the difference between Moses and the Magicians. Moses acted openly, the Magicians secretly; the effect of Moses’ doing was felt throughout the whole country, that of the Magicians only in a limited space....

“Some one might ask, ‘How could Jonah have been chosen for his mission? Wisdom would forbid us to appoint for an important mission a messenger that is disobedient.’ But I have examined the Book of Jonah, and have not found any statement as regards the disobedience of Jonah. On the contrary, I assume that he, like all prophets, brought the Divine message to the Ninevites. We frequently find in the Pentateuch. ‘Speak to the children of Israel and tell them,’ and we assume that Moses told the Israelites, although this is not distinctly mentioned. The reason why Jonah fled is this: the first message which he actually brought to the inhabitants of Nineveh contained simply a summons to repentance. He feared that he would be again sent to threaten with punishment if they did not return; and if they returned and the threatened catastrophe did not occur, they might in course of time begin to doubt the veracity of his words. He therefore left the land, which was distinguished as the land of prophecy (Jonah iv. 2).”

Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi, in the book Cuzari (V. xii.), describes prophecy as an extraordinary gift granted by the Almighty to such human beings as are qualified for it by the highest degree of intellectual development, moral conduct, and an earnest desire for communion with God. Such qualification is found only in a few privileged individuals—“the heart of mankind” (‏לב האדם‎)—who, as it were, possess it as an inheritance transmitted from generation to generation, but it can only be possessed or acquired under certain favourable conditions, e.g., that the prophet live in Palestine, the land of prophecy, or have his attention directed to Palestine (I. xcv.).

It was, however, necessary that mankind should derive a benefit from the revelations made to the prophets. All had to learn that it was possible for a human being to receive a direct communication from God. This lesson was given when the Israelites stood round Mount Sinai, and suddenly became prophets. For, although the Israelites believed in the Divine mission of Moses after he had done many wonderful deeds, there remained yet a doubt in their minds whether God could speak to man, and whether the Torah did not originate in the plans and schemes of human beings, which by the help and assistance of God developed to perfection; for it seemed strange to them to ascribe speech, which is corporeal, to a spiritual being. It is this doubt which God intended to remove from their hearts; they were therefore commanded to sanctify themselves inwardly and outwardly, whereby they were prepared for the condition of prophets and for hearing the words of God which were to be directly addressed to them. After a preparation of three days they received the Decalogue, not from any prophet or other person, but from God Himself. But they felt their weakness and their inability to witness such a great sight again. They were convinced that the Torah was communicated by God to Moses, and was not the result of human invention; that prophecy does not consist in the union of the soul of man with the active intellect, in his attaining to great wisdom, or in his mistaking his own words for the words of God. Such erroneous opinions were refuted by the revelation on Mount Sinai.—But, objects the king of the Cuzarites, to believe that God spoke to the Israelites and wrote the Decalogue on the tables of stone amounts to believing in a corporeification of the Deity.—To which objection the following reply is given:—“Far be it from us to think that the Torah contains anything contrary to reason. The Decalogue commences with the commandment to believe in God, and prohibits in the second commandment the representation of God in any corporeal form. How could we, who deny corporeality even to some of His creatures, attribute any corporeal property to the Supreme Being? For it is not the tongue, heart, or brain of Moses that speaks to us, instructs and guides us, but his soul which is rational, incorporeal, and not subject to the relations of space; we ascribe to the soul attributes of angels, of spiritual beings. How much more is this the case with God! We have, therefore, no reason for rejecting the Biblical account of the revelation on Mount Sinai; but we admit that we do not know how the idea became corporeal and was turned into audible speech, what new thing was then created or what things then in existence were annihilated. He is Almighty, and when we say that He created the tablets and covered them with His writing, it was done, like the creation of the heavens, by His word; that is, it was His Will that His thought should become corporeal to a certain extent and assume the form of tables, and that a certain writing be inscribed on them. Just as the division of the sea and the formation of a broad path between the walls of water was done directly by His Will, without using instruments or employing intermediate causes, so the air that reached the ear of the prophet assumed such a form that sounds were perceived expressing the idea which God desired to communicate to the prophet or to the people” (I., lxxxvii.–lxxxix.). In describing the different meanings of the names of God, Elohim and the Tetragrammaton, [23] the author says: “The nature of Elohim can be perceived by reason, which teaches us that there exists a being who governs the universe. The opinions at which people arrive vary according to the different modes of reasoning which they employ; the opinions of the philosophers have the greatest probability. But the idea contained in the Tetragrammaton cannot be found by reasoning, but is perceived intuitively by that prophetic vision during which man is almost separated from his fellow-men, transformed into an angel, and filled with another spirit; ... previous doubts concerning God disappear, he smiles at the arguments by which men generally arrive at the idea of a deity and unity; he then worships God in love, and would rather sacrifice his life than abandon the worship of God” (IV., xv.).

Abraham Ibn Ezra explains the words “And the Lord spake to Moses” as referring to true speech and not to speech with the mouth, which is merely a representation of the other. “God spake to Moses” as man speaketh to his neighbour; that is to say, directly and not through a messenger (On Exod. xxxiii. 11).—In commenting on the Nineteenth Psalm he says: “The first part shows how the intelligent man can find in nature evidence for the existence and power of the Deity; but there is a far better and more trustworthy witness: the Law, &c, called by David ‘perfect,’ because no other evidence is required in support of the Divine utterances contained in the Holy Writings” (On Ps. xix. 8).—Ibn Ezra is so firm in his belief in the truth of the Divine Writings that he sets aside the contrary opinions of men as absurd. “We believe in the words of our God and abandon the vain opinions of the sons of man” (On Gen. vii. 19).—Whatever message they brought from God was true, and its realisation could be relied upon provided that the conditions were fulfilled, which were either expressed or implied. In other things, however, which were not contained in the Divine message they were not infallible (On Exod. iv. 20). The prophets were trained for the office. The sons of the prophets (or “the disciples”) led a contemplative life of seclusion, in the hope of receiving inspiration, every one according to his faculty (On Exod. iii. 15). The first step in this preparation was “the training in the fear of the Lord,” which leads man to heed the negative precepts of the Law. Then follows “the worship of God,” which includes the observance of all positive precepts (Yesod Mora, vii.).

Maimonides (Mishneh torah, I.; Yesode ha-torah, vii. 1):—“One of the principles of our faith is to believe that God inspires men. The inspiration can only take place in men who distinguish themselves by great wisdom and moral strength; who are never overcome by any passion, but, on the contrary, overcome all passions; who possess wide and profound knowledge. If those who are endowed with these various gifts, and, being physically perfect, enter the garden of speculation, are absorbed in these great and difficult problems, have the mind to understand and to comprehend, sanctify themselves more and more, abandon the ways of the common people that walk in the deep darkness of the time, and zealously train themselves in freeing their mind from useless things, the vanities and tricks of the time, in order always to keep the mind free for reflecting on higher things, on the most holy and pure forms, on the whole work of the Divine Wisdom from the first sphere to the centre of the earth, and to comprehend thereby the greatness of God: then they will at once be inspired with the holy spirit, their soul will then be in the society of angels, they will become other beings, they will feel that they are not the same as before, that they are above other men, even above the wise. Thus it is said of Saul, ‘And thou wilt prophesy with them, and be turned into another man’” (1 Sam. x. 6).

The same opinion is expressed by Maimonides in his “Commentary on the Mishnah” (Sanhedrin, xi. 1), and in “The Guide” (III., xxxii.). In the latter (l.c.) the various views on prophecy are fully discussed, and the difference between the view of Maimonides and that of the “philosophers” is given more distinctly. According to the philosophers, the highest physical, moral, and intellectual development is the sole means for the acquisition of the prophetic faculty. Maimonides demands in addition to this the Divine Will; he reserves, as it were, for the Supreme Being a kind of veto, and believes that the prophetic faculty may, by Divine interference, i.e., by a miracle, be withheld from a person in spite of all preparation and fitness. He compares this interference to the sudden paralysis and equally sudden recovery of the hand of King Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii. 4). Although the physical conditions for the motion of the hand were present, the motion could not take place, because it was the Will of God that the hand should at that particular time not be able to perform its natural functions.

The question naturally suggests itself, Why, then, is the number of prophets so exceedingly small? Why are there no prophets amongst the large host of philosophers whose intellectual faculties have been most highly developed, and who apparently live in a sphere of ideals far above earthly and ordinary passions? Maimonides denies the fact that the conditions are fulfilled; he believes that the life of the philosophers is on the whole not so pure as would qualify them for the office of prophecy (II., xxxvi.).

But Bileam, Laban, and Abimelech enjoyed the privilege of Divine communication, although they had not attained to the highest degree of moral sanctity. Maimonides says in reference to the dreams of Abimelech and Laban (ibid., chap. xli.): “The sentence, ‘And Elohim (an angel) came to a certain person in the dream of the night,’ does not indicate a prophecy, and the person to whom Elohim appeared is not a prophet; the phrase only informs us that the attention of the person was called by God to a certain thing, and at the same time that this happened at night. For just as God may cause a person to move in order to save or kill another, so He may cause, according to His Will, certain things to rise in man’s mind in a dream by night. We have no doubt that the Syrian Laban was a wicked man and an idolater. Abimelech, though himself a virtuous man, is told by Abraham, ‘I said, Surely there is no fear of God in this place’ (Gen. xx. 11). And yet of both it is said that Elohim appeared to them in a dream. Note and consider the distinction between the phrases ‘Elohim came’ and ‘Elohim said;’ between ‘in a dream by night’ and ‘in a vision by night.’ In reference to Jacob it is said, ‘And an angel said to Israel in visions by night’ (Gen. xlvi. 2), whilst in reference to Abimelech and Laban it is said, ‘Elohim came to Abimelech (or to Laban) in the dream by night’ (Ibid. xx. 3 and xxxi. 24). Onkelos therefore renders this phrase: ‘A word came from the Lord,’ and not ‘God revealed himself.’”

Bileam is, according to Maimonides, in some respect like Laban and Abimelech; what God told him in a dream by night was not a prophecy. In other respects he is described by this philosopher as a person endowed with ‏רוח הקדש‎ “the holy spirit;” i.e., he felt that some influence had come upon him, and that he had received a new power which encouraged him to speak for a certain object (The Guide, xlv.). Maimonides adds that at that time Bileam was still a virtuous man.—This view of the position which Bileam occupies in the class of inspired men is different from the place assigned to him in the Midrash, where the following passage occurs: “‘There arose no prophet again in Israel like Moses;’ that is to say, in Israel none arose, but among other nations there was a prophet as great as Moses, namely, Bileam” (Sifre, Deut. xxxiv. 10). Whatever may be the meaning of these words—whether they are meant as a satire or not—they seem to indicate that Bileam possessed a high degree of prophetic faculty. But comparing the deeds of Bileam with those of Moses, we find that the latter guided the Israelites and led them to good deeds and to a virtuous life, whilst Bileam misled those who followed his guidance to sin and vice.

The view of Maimonides, that man after due preparation and training may still be debarred from the rank of prophet, is severely criticised by the Commentators of the Guide. They maintain that God, after having invited and encouraged man to approach Him, would not then thwart the very hope He had implanted. According to their opinion, God’s hand is extended to all; every one may acquire the prophetic faculty, and those who have not acquired it have not been duly qualified for it. (Comp. the Comm. of Ephodi, Narboni a. o. on “The Guide,” II., xxxii.).

Albo (Ikkarim, III., vii. sqq.) likewise admits that it is impossible to imagine a prophet who has not attained a high degree of moral and intellectual perfection. But he does not consider the prophetic faculty as a natural development of man’s intellectual faculties. It is solely and directly due to Divine inspiration (‏שפע אלהי‎), by means of which man acquires a knowledge of things which are otherwise beyond the limits of human intellect. Of what nature the inspiration is, how it gives certitude to the prophet, and by what psychical process it is accomplished, only the prophet himself can fully comprehend. Albo, like Maimonides, assumes different degrees of inspiration from the inspiration (‏רוח ה׳‎) which moved Samson to heroic deeds and David to sacred songs, to the prophetic communion of Moses with God “face to face.” The clearness of the prophet’s utterances varies according to the different degrees of his prophetic faculty, although all are equally true.

On the Seventh Principle, p. 133.

The words ‏שנבואת משה רבנו ע׳׳ה היתה אמתית‎ have been wrongly translated “that the prophecy of Moses was true,” because this is contained in the sixth principle, which applies equally to Moses and to all other prophets. The term ‏אמתית‎ does here not denote “true,” but “real,” “perfect,” or “direct;” and the difference between the Divine inspiration of Moses and that of other prophets is expressed in the above phrase, in accordance with the distinction made in the Pentateuch (Num. xii. 8). It has been considered necessary to formulate this distinction between Moses and other prophets in a separate article, because it is of great importance in the proof of the Immutability of the Law.

Maimonides in “The Guide” (chap. xxxv.) and Mishneh torah (I., Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah vii. 6) fully describes the difference between Moses and other prophets. He enumerates four points:—(1.) Other prophets received the Divine message in a vision or a dream, whilst Moses received it in a state of complete consciousness, being awake, and apprehending the words like those spoken by a man to his fellow-men. (2.) Other prophets received the message in images, which they had first to interpret before communicating it to their fellow-men; Moses was addressed by God in clear words and not in figurative speech. (3.) Other prophets were overcome by the sight, and were in a state of fear and trembling; Moses experienced nothing of this kind. (4.) Moses was sure to receive a Divine reply whenever he sought it; not so the other prophets.

Maimonides comes thus to the conclusion that the term “prophet” when applied to Moses cannot have the same meaning as it has when applied to other Divine messengers; and the prophecy of Moses differs from that of other prophets not only in degree, but in kind. There are, however, other theologians who hold that the prophecy of Moses is of the same kind as that of other prophets, and excels the rest only by a higher degree of prophetic faculty. (Comp. Albo Ikkarim, III., xvii.)

On the Eighth Principle, p. 134.

The integrity and authenticity of the Pentateuch has been subjected to all kinds of tests by critics of every age. The Massoretic remarks, to which allusions are found in the Talmud, seem to include the result of critical examination of the text of the Bible. Thus we read in the treatise Aboth di-Rabbi Nathan (chap. xxxiv.): “There are ten passages in the Pentateuch which are provided with points on the top of the letters, namely, Gen. xvi. 5; xviii. 9; xix. 33; xxxiii. 4; xxxvii. 12; Num. iii. 39; ix. 10; xxi. 30; xxix. 15; Deut. xxix. 28. What is the meaning of these points? Ezra—who is supposed to have added them—said, ‘If Elijah should come and show me that the reading was wrong, I should tell him that for that reason I marked them with points; and if he should say that I wrote correctly, I should remove the points.’” In the treatise Soferim (vi. 4) the following passage occurs:—“Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, Three copies of the Pentateuch were found in the hall of the Temple; they are called Sefer meonah, Sefer zatute, and Sefer hee. In the one ‏מעון‎ was written instead of ‏מעונה‎ (Deut. xxxiii. 27), in the other ‏זאטוטי‎ (Exod. xxiv. 5) instead of ‏נערי‎, and in the third eleven times ‏היא‎ instead of ‏הוא‎. The reading that was found only in one of the three copies was rejected, and that of the other two preferred. The received text has therefore ‏מעונה‎, ‏נערי‎, and ‏היא‎.”

These instances which tradition has preserved, are evidence of the great care and conscientiousness with which Ezra the Scribe and other men transcribed and multiplied copies of the Pentateuch. We learn further from these instances that the text was never altered, even where the sense did not seem quite clear; and where the reading had been changed in some cases, the Massoretic notes show the way how to read the word whilst the text was retained in its original form. This is the cause of the Keri and Kethib, “How the word is read” and “How it is written.” In the Talmud a certain number of passages are described as tikkun soferim, “The style of the scribes;” others as ittur soferim, “Elegance of the scribes.” Commentators have interpreted these terms as indicating alterations of the text; but the instances quoted for illustration do not contain any trace of such a process. An instance of tikkun soferim is, “And Abraham stood yet before the Lord” (Gen. xviii. 22). These words were believed to continue the account of the Divine vision introduced by the words, “And God appeared to Abraham” (ibid. xviii. 1), and interrupted by the narrative of the visit of the three angels. The reader might have expected, “And God stood yet before Abraham.” The method of expressing the same in the above form for the sake of euphemism is called tikkun soferim. From the instances of ittur soferim quoted in the Talm. Nedarim 37b, we infer that the occasional omission of the copulative vav was designated by that name. (Comp. Gen. xviii. 5, ‏אחר‎).

In Midrashic interpretations of the Bible we frequently meet with the phrase ‏אל תקרי‎, “Do not read,” seemingly implying an emendation of the Biblical text. It is, however, certain that the authors of such interpretations did not for a moment entertain the idea that the passage in question was corrupt and required correction. What was meant by the above phrase is this: A Jewish audience was supposed to be familiar with the text of the Bible, and it was therefore believed that the lessons which the teacher or preacher desired to impart would better reach the heart of the listener, and be more easily retained in his memory, if it were expressed in the words of some Biblical passage. If a passage could, by a slight alteration, be made to serve this purpose, such alteration was adopted and introduced with the words ‏אל תקרי‎, “Do not read, ... but ...”

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 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 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 day [24] 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 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 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 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). [25] 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 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 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 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. 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 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; 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 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 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 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’ [26] (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 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 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 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).

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 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 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 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 prayer [27] 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 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 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 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 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,’ [28] &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’ [29] (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 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 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 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).