Chapter X: Introduction (7)

“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.