Albo (Ikkarim, III., vii. sqq.) likewise admits that it is impossible to imagine a prophet who has not attained a high degree of moral and intellectual perfection. But he does not consider the prophetic faculty as a natural development of man’s intellectual faculties. It is solely and directly due to Divine inspiration (שפע אלהי), by means of which man acquires a knowledge of things which are otherwise beyond the limits of human intellect. Of what nature the inspiration is, how it gives certitude to the prophet, and by what psychical process it is accomplished, only the prophet himself can fully comprehend. Albo, like Maimonides, assumes different degrees of inspiration from the inspiration (רוח ה׳) which moved Samson to heroic deeds and David to sacred songs, to the prophetic communion of Moses with God “face to face.” The clearness of the prophet’s utterances varies according to the different degrees of his prophetic faculty, although all are equally true.
On the Seventh Principle, p. 133.
The words שנבואת משה רבנו ע׳׳ה היתה אמתית have been wrongly translated “that the prophecy of Moses was true,” because this is contained in the sixth principle, which applies equally to Moses and to all other prophets. The term אמתית does here not denote “true,” but “real,” “perfect,” or “direct;” and the difference between the Divine inspiration of Moses and that of other prophets is expressed in the above phrase, in accordance with the distinction made in the Pentateuch (Num. xii. 8). It has been considered necessary [[202]]to formulate this distinction between Moses and other prophets in a separate article, because it is of great importance in the proof of the Immutability of the Law.
Maimonides in “The Guide” (chap. xxxv.) and Mishneh torah (I., Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah vii. 6) fully describes the difference between Moses and other prophets. He enumerates four points:—(1.) Other prophets received the Divine message in a vision or a dream, whilst Moses received it in a state of complete consciousness, being awake, and apprehending the words like those spoken by a man to his fellow-men. (2.) Other prophets received the message in images, which they had first to interpret before communicating it to their fellow-men; Moses was addressed by God in clear words and not in figurative speech. (3.) Other prophets were overcome by the sight, and were in a state of fear and trembling; Moses experienced nothing of this kind. (4.) Moses was sure to receive a Divine reply whenever he sought it; not so the other prophets.
Maimonides comes thus to the conclusion that the term “prophet” when applied to Moses cannot have the same meaning as it has when applied to other Divine messengers; and the prophecy of Moses differs from that of other prophets not only in degree, but in kind. There are, however, other theologians who hold that the prophecy of Moses is of the same kind as that of other prophets, and excels the rest only by a higher degree of prophetic faculty. (Comp. Albo Ikkarim, III., xvii.)
On the Eighth Principle, p. 134.
The integrity and authenticity of the Pentateuch has been subjected to all kinds of tests by critics of every age. The Massoretic remarks, to which allusions are found in the Talmud, seem to include the result of critical examination of the text of the Bible. Thus we read in the [[203]]treatise Aboth di-Rabbi Nathan (chap. xxxiv.): “There are ten passages in the Pentateuch which are provided with points on the top of the letters, namely, Gen. xvi. 5; xviii. 9; xix. 33; xxxiii. 4; xxxvii. 12; Num. iii. 39; ix. 10; xxi. 30; xxix. 15; Deut. xxix. 28. What is the meaning of these points? Ezra—who is supposed to have added them—said, ‘If Elijah should come and show me that the reading was wrong, I should tell him that for that reason I marked them with points; and if he should say that I wrote correctly, I should remove the points.’ ” In the treatise Soferim (vi. 4) the following passage occurs:—“Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, Three copies of the Pentateuch were found in the hall of the Temple; they are called Sefer meonah, Sefer zatute, and Sefer hee. In the one מעון was written instead of מעונה (Deut. xxxiii. 27), in the other זאטוטי (Exod. xxiv. 5) instead of נערי, and in the third eleven times היא instead of הוא. The reading that was found only in one of the three copies was rejected, and that of the other two preferred. The received text has therefore מעונה, נערי, and היא.”
These instances which tradition has preserved, are evidence of the great care and conscientiousness with which Ezra the Scribe and other men transcribed and multiplied copies of the Pentateuch. We learn further from these instances that the text was never altered, even where the sense did not seem quite clear; and where the reading had been changed in some cases, the Massoretic notes show the way how to read the word whilst the text was retained in its original form. This is the cause of the Keri and Kethib, “How the word is read” and “How it is written.” In the Talmud a certain number of passages are described as tikkun soferim, “The style of the scribes;” others as ittur soferim, “Elegance of the scribes.” Commentators have interpreted these terms as indicating alterations of the text; but the instances quoted for illustration do not contain any trace of such a process. An instance of tikkun soferim is, [[204]]“And Abraham stood yet before the Lord” (Gen. xviii. 22). These words were believed to continue the account of the Divine vision introduced by the words, “And God appeared to Abraham” (ibid. xviii. 1), and interrupted by the narrative of the visit of the three angels. The reader might have expected, “And God stood yet before Abraham.” The method of expressing the same in the above form for the sake of euphemism is called tikkun soferim. From the instances of ittur soferim quoted in the Talm. Nedarim 37b, we infer that the occasional omission of the copulative vav was designated by that name. (Comp. Gen. xviii. 5, אחר).
In Midrashic interpretations of the Bible we frequently meet with the phrase אל תקרי, “Do not read,” seemingly implying an emendation of the Biblical text. It is, however, certain that the authors of such interpretations did not for a moment entertain the idea that the passage in question was corrupt and required correction. What was meant by the above phrase is this: A Jewish audience was supposed to be familiar with the text of the Bible, and it was therefore believed that the lessons which the teacher or preacher desired to impart would better reach the heart of the listener, and be more easily retained in his memory, if it were expressed in the words of some Biblical passage. If a passage could, by a slight alteration, be made to serve this purpose, such alteration was adopted and introduced with the words אל תקרי, “Do not read, … but …”
There are also some instances in the Talmud and the Midrashim of Biblical quotations not in harmony with the received text. This discrepancy is either due to the fact that preachers and expounders quoted from memory, and may have erroneously confounded two similar passages, or it is due to the carelessness of the copyists. Indications of a Biblical text at variance with the received text are found in the ancient Versions. But, with the exception of the Chaldee Version of the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and that of [[205]]the Prophets by Jonathan, we have no authorised Version, and it is uncertain how many of the discrepancies have their origin in a corrupt text in the hands of the translator, and how many of them are due to the error of the translator in misreading or mistranslating the correct text before him. By no means are these facts sufficient ground for doubting the correctness of the received text, however plausible the suggested emendations may appear.