First: The Holy or Sacred Text was given in consonants only, without any voweling, or signs of vowels.
Second: The letters were written one after the other at equal distances, without any separation whatever of distinct words, and without any punctuations whatever, such as commas, semi-colons, colons or periods.
It will be seen at once that a various reading of the text might be had in many places, both by differing arrangements of letters, and by a differing supplying of vowels. A very important difference of reading may be instanced in the first line of Genesis. It is made to be read “B’rashith bârâ Elohim,” etc., “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”; wherein Elohim is a plural nominative to a verb in the third person singular. Nachminedes called attention to the fact that the text might suffer the reading, “Brash ithbârâ Elohim,” etc. “In the head (source or beginning) created itself (or developed) Gods, the heavens and the earth,”—really a more grammatical rendering.
What the originally and intended right reading was who can tell? It may be surmised, however, that it was made to subserve a co-ordinating, symmetrical and harmonious working of the characters to unfold and develop their various uses;—as sound signs to frame a narrative,—as numbers to develop geometrical shapes and the numerical enunciations of their elements, comparisons and applications,—as pictures to show forth ideas in some accordance with the story told, and finally,—as musical sounds to give an appropriate song to embrace the whole. The whole compass was to embrace rational proof, through operations in nature, of the existence of that Divine Contriving Willing Cause which we call God. But be this as it may there was no end of effort for thousands of years, by the best trained and most learned men of the Hebrews and Jews, to give and preserve what had to be decided upon by them as the right reading of the Sacred Text. This reading was certainly perfected as we have it, as early as the time of Ezra; and as to the various readings which offered, the present was perfected as the orthodox one,—or that one to be received by the profound vulgar.
It must be known that it is claimed for the Sacred Scroll by the Hebrew, that no letter in it has ever been changed, and that even the marginal readings were part of the original text for a varied use thereof, in perfect accord with the object of its writing. Unlike the Christian Gospels, with the Hebrews and Jews, alike, the original text was sacredly precious as to its every and very letter, and had to be thus preserved. To the contrary of this, the Gospels can be changed in their reading to suit the currently changing ideas of what the same should be. The marks to indicate “right reading” were after the time of Ezra gradually made public, were called Massorah, and finally, edited by Ben Chajim, were published by Bomberg, in Venice, in the fifteenth century.
After this fashion and mode the books of the Old Testament were prepared and read by the Jews long before the time of the Christian Era. They were thus accepted at that time; and afterwards by the Christian World:—so that, to day, we accept the record, as thus prepared by the ancient orthodox Jewish and Hebrew Church.
Whatever may have been the Jewish mode of complete interpretation of these books, the Christian Church had taken them for what they show on their first face,—and that only. As they may be read orally, so is their fullest meaning to be gathered from the oral reading; and by means of what the sound of the words may convey to the ear the full and complete intendment of meaning is to be had. The Christian Church has never attributed to these books any property beyond this; and herein has existed its great error.
Now, as said, the substance of the Cabbalah is a rendering of the secret doctrine of the Old Testament, and this is not only asserted, but an argument is raised about the matter in the following set terms: “If the Law simply consisted of ordinary expressions and narratives, ex. gr. the words of Esau, Hagar, Laban, the ass of Balaam, or of Balaam himself, why should it be called the Law of Truth, the perfect law, the true witness of God? Each word contains a sublime source, each narrative points not only to the single instance in question, but also to generals.” (Sohar iii, 149 b). “Woe be to the son of man who says that the Tora (Pentateuch) contains common sayings and ordinary narratives. * * There is the garment that every one can see, but those who have more understanding do not look at the garment but at the body beneath it; while the wisest, the servants of the Heavenly King, those who dwell at Mount Sinai, look at nothing else but the soul (i.e., the secret doctrine), which is the root of all the real Law.” (Sohar, iii, 152 a).
Now it is a strange thing, that in the quotations made by Dr. Ginsburg in his Essay,[75] can be gleaned a series of data wherewith to arrange a philosophy of Cabbalistic teaching, covered by the names and remarks on the Ten Sephiroth. The “trick of the thing” lays plainly before the eyes in its development, and yet is perfectly concealed from unintelligent observation. In other words, the very text is laughing at the worthy doctor, while he is criticising it with an apparent aspect of superiority and authority. The same thing is to be found in the text of Plutarch’s Morals, by C. W. King, and in many other texts where the like phenomenal mode is practiced. It in fact is said that the Cabbalah is evolved by “hints scarcely perceptible,” and the cunning of the concealment is something to admire and laugh at. The description in Sohar of the mode of communication tends to explain what has been said:
“The opinion that the mysteries of the Cabbalah are to be found in the garment of the Pentateuch is still more systematically propounded in the following parable: ‘Like a beautiful woman, concealed in the interior of her palace, who when her friend and beloved passes by, opens for a moment a secret window and is seen by him alone, and then withdraws herself immediately and disappears for a long time, so the doctrine only shows herself to the chosen (i. e., to him who is devoted to her with body and soul); and even to him not always in the same manner. At first she simply beckons at the passer by with her hand, and it generally depends upon his understanding this gentle hint. This is the interpretation known by the name of râmäz. Afterwards she approaches him a little closer, lisps him a few words, but her form is still covered with a thick veil, which his looks cannot penetrate. This is the so-called dārausch. She then converses with him with her face covered by a thin veil; this is the enigmatic language of the hāgadah. After having thus become accustomed to her society, she at last shows herself face to face and entrusts him with the innermost secrets of her heart. This is the secret of the Law, sod. He who is thus far initiated in the mysteries of the Tora will understand that all these profound secrets are based upon the simple literal sense, and are in harmony with it, and from this literal sense not a single iota is to be taken and nothing is to be added to it.” (Sohar, ii, 99.)