The Jewish religion

by M. Friedländer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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