AS a rule, Jewish readers approach the works of Christian writers upon Jewish subjects with distrust. They are accustomed to find in them either the misrepresentations of Anti-Semitic hatred or the misrepresentations of conversionist love. The present book, based upon lectures delivered at Oxford upon the Hibbert foundation, is a representative of the rare group of studies belonging to neither class. It embodies an earnest and surprisingly successful attempt to depict justly the religious life of the Jews in the time of the Talmud. The writer is well prepared for his task by thirty years' devoted study of Rabbinical literature; he is known as the author of a careful and scholarly work on "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash."
The book includes a preliminary historical sketch, a study of what the Rabbis meant by Torah, indicating the true nature of Pharisaic legalism, chapters on the attitude of Jesus and of Paul toward the Pharisees, and two final chapters on the Pharisaic theology. The book is valuable as a Christian reply to Weber, the German author of a learned, widely-used, and thoroughly unfair presentation of Jewish theology. Mr. Herford frankly confesses that he is an apologist of the Pharisees, but his book is in no sense an iconoclastic attack upon the ideas received among Christians as to the character of the Pharisees. He freely admits, as any fair-minded Jew would, the dangers of the Pharisaic system, but he is likewise careful to point out that these dangers were by no means destructive of true spiritual life. It is most refreshing to find a book of this sort included in the Crown Theological Library, along with the erudite but anti-Jewish works of Bousset and Harnack.
The Truth About the Pharisees
MR. HERFORD aims to set forth the truth about the Pharisees rather than to present new ideas or conclusions. Nevertheless, his book contains here and there new suggestions. His theory that the men of the Great Synagogue were identical with the Soferim, though it has a certain plausibility, is hardly supported by any great weight of historical evidence. It is interesting to learn that the Synagogue represents the oldest form of congregational worship, and is the oldest human institution that has survived without interruption. The parallel between the Hassidim and the Saints of Cromwell's time (p. 38) is curious. Mr. Herford has the somewhat strange notion (pp. 44-5) that there is a sign of "mutual distrust" in the weeping of the High Priest and the representatives of the Beth Din after the former had taken the oath to observe the regulations concerning the Day of Atonement. To the ordinary reader of the Mishnah the tears seem a perfectly natural expression of the emotional strain under which all the people labored on the great day.
It is hard to part from Mr. Herford's admirable book without quoting a very fine tribute which he pays to the Jewish people. In speaking of the influence of Ezra's ideals, he says (p. 55): "The Talmud is the witness to show how some of his countrymen, some of the bravest, some of the ablest, some of the most pious and saintly, and a host of unnamed faithful, were true to those ideals and clung to those hopes; and how, through good report and ill report, through shocks of disaster and the ruin of their state, ground down by persecution, or torn by faction, steadily facing enemies within, they held on to the religion of the Torah."
University of Illinois
II
Judaism and Philanthropy[C]
SOME years ago I met a certain Russian Jew at a conference called to discuss various problems of education. He was an immigrant who had made his fortune through speculation in real estate, and with his rise in fortune he had, it was evident, thrown off, one after another, the social habits, the religious outlook, and the organization of the daily life which were the heritage he had brought with him from Russia. He was at that time, he told me, president of a large Jewish congregation, whose pillars of support were men like himself. He complained bitterly of their backwardness and illiberality. They would not introduce an organ and refused to change the prayer book or to secure an "advanced" rabbi. For himself, he did not care whether they had a synagogue—I mean temple—at all. He retained no longer any of the superstitions or narrowness of his colleagues, and if it were not for the fact that he felt himself out of place among members of the radically reformed temple he would have attended that long ago. He was a member of it, of course. His wife had made him join some years ago. It was a double expense, to be sure, but his wife wanted to be active in the Women's Council, and the children met other nice children in the Sunday School. He did not think anyhow that synagogal affiliation made any difference.