JUDAISM IN THE FIRST CENTURIES
OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA
THE AGE OF THE TANNAIM
VOLUME I
LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
JUDAISM
IN THE FIRST CENTURIES OF THE
CHRISTIAN ERA
THE AGE OF THE TANNAIM
BY
GEORGE FOOT MOORE
PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF RELIGION
IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
VOLUME I
CAMBRIDGE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1927
COPYRIGHT, 1927
BY THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF
HARVARD COLLEGE
First Impression, May igzj
Second Impression, November 1927
PRINTED AT THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U. S.A.
IN MEMORIAM
OBIIT MDCCCCXXIV
PREFACE
THE aim of these volumes is to represent Judaism in the centuries
in which it assumed definitive form as it presents itself in the
tradition which it has always regarded as authentic. These
primary sources come to us as they were compiled and set in
order in the second century of the Christian era, embodying the
interpretation of the legislative parts of the Pentateuch and the
definition and formulation of the Law, written and unwritten,
in the schools, in the century and a half between the reorganiza-
tion at Jamnia under Johanan ben Zakkai and his associates,
after the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70, and the promulgation
of the Mishnah of the Patriarch Judah. About the schools of
the preceding century, especially about the two great masters,
Hillel and Shammai, and the distinctive differences of their
disciples, our knowledge comes incidentally through their suc-
cessors. The whole period, from the time of Herod to that of
the Patriarch Judah is the age of the "Tannaim," the represen-
tatives of authoritative tradition.
The learned study of the two-fold law is, however, much older,
and other sources of various kinds disclose not only the continu-
ity of development in the direction of the normative Judaism of
the second century, but many divergent trends — the conflict
of parties over fundamental issues, the idiosyncrasies of sects,
the rise of apocalyptic with its exorbitant interest in eschatology
— a knowledge of all of which is necessary to a historical under-
standing of the Judaism which it is the principal object of this
work to describe.
In the Introduction I have sketched the external and internal
history of the centuries with which we are concerned so far as
religion was affected by it, and have given a summary account
of the sources on which the presentation is based. The chapters
on Revealed Religion are meant to make plain at the outset the
viii PREFACE
fundamental principle of Judaism and some of the ways in
which it was applied. The succeeding parts treat of the Idea of
God; the Nature of Man, and his relation to God; the Observ-
ances of Religion; Morals; Piety; and the Hereafter.
I have avoided imposing on the matter a systematic disposi-
tion which is foreign to it and to the Jewish thought of the times.
The few comprehensive divisions under which it is arranged are
not sharply bounded, and the same subject often naturally be-
longs in more than one of them. In such cases repetition has
seemed preferable to cross-references.
The nature of the sources makes simple citation insufficient,
and large room has therefore been given to quotations from th^m
or paraphrases of them, thus, so far as possible, letting Judaism
speak for itself in its own way. The translations keep as close
as may be to the expression of the original, even at some sacrifice
of English idiom. A peculiar difficulty arises in the biblical
quotations, which rabbinical exegesis, following its own rules or
giving rein to the ingenuity of the interpreter, frequently takes
in a way quite different from the familiar versions of the Bible
or our philological commentators. But when the meaning or
the application hinges on the turn given — at least for the nonce
— to the words, the translation must try to convey the peculiar
interpretation, however strange it may be.
References are given in the footnotes to the sources from which
the quotations are taken or on which the statements in the text
are based. In many cases these references are a selection from
a large array of different age, character, and authority. It has
seemed desirable to represent this range and variety of attesta-
tion even by what might otherwise appear a superfluity of learn-
ing. The homiletical Midrashim, for example, illustrate the
popularization of the teaching of the schools as well as the fertil-
ity of the homilists, and give evidence of the perpetuation of
the tradition in later centuries.
For the rest, I have confined the footnotes to things necessary
to immediate understanding, reserving all discussions for an
PREFACE ix
eventual volume of detached notes and excursuses. In the first
volume anticipatory references to such detached notes are made
in full-faced type; in order not unduly to delay the publication
of the work itself, similar references are not made in the second
volume.
The transliteration of Hebrew words and names follows, with
slight adaptation, the simplified system adopted in the Jewish
Encyclopedia. Proper names familiar to English readers are
left as they are in the Authorized Version.
These volumes are the outcome of studies which have ex-
tended over more than thirty years and ranged over a wide
variety of sources. The plan of the present work was conceived
ten years since; the execution has taken much more time than I
foresaw, but I venture to hope that the presentation has gained
thereby in maturity as well as in completness. When I projected
it, I contemplated a similar work on Hellenistic Judaism; the
occasional parallels and comparisons in these volumes may serve
at least to illustrate the fundamental unity of Judaism, as well
as to indicate the influence of Greek thought on the religious
conceptions of men like Philo.
The material in these volumes is drawn in great part from ex-
tensive collections made in the course of my own reading, but it
will be evident on every page that I have availed myself largely
of the work of others, especially of the mustering and critical sift-
ing of tradition in Wilhelm Bacher's Agada der Tannaiten.
Exhaustiveness I have not aimed at; inerrancy is the last thing
I should pretend to; but I trust that no essential point has been
altogether overlooked, and I am confident that those who know
the material best will be the most considerate in their judgment.
My colleague, Professor Harry A. Wolfson, has taken upon
him the onerous task of verifying in the proof-sheets the thous-
ands of references to the Talmuds and Midrashim, and by his
painstaking examination of the passages quoted or cited has
contributed much to the accuracy of the text as well as to the
correctness of the references.
x PREFACE
A work like the present is made possible by the labors of gen-
erations of scholars who have given their lives to the study of
this literature; an enumeration even of those from whom I have
learned much would read like a bibliography. Special obliga-
tions are acknowledged in the notes. The living repositories of
this learning of whom I have made inquiry on particular points
have been most generous in their response. If among them I
name especially Professor Louis Ginzberg, of the Jewish Theolo-
gical Seminary in New York, it is in acknowledgment not only
of his ready helpfulness, but of the constant encouragement I
have derived from his interest in my undertaking.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I. HISTORICAL
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM . . • • 3
II. EZRA AND THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 29
HI. THE SCRIBES . 37
IV. THE RELIGIOUS CRISIS 48
V. RISE OF THE PHARISEES 56
VI. SHAMMAI AND HILLEL . 72
VII. REORGANIZATION AT JAMNIA 83
VIII. CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 93
IX. CHARACTER OF JUDAISM . no
II. THE SOURCES
I. CRITICAL PRINCIPLES 125
II. COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 135
III. FORMULATION AND CODIFICATION 150
IV. HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES 161
V. VERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE. PRAYERS 174
VI. EXTRANEOUS SOURCES 179
"VII. TESTAMENTS. JUBILEES. SECTARIES AT DAMASCUS 190
VIII. HISTORICAL SOURCES 205
AlDS TO THE USE OF THE SOURCES 215
PART I
REVEALED RELIGION
I. NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY . 219
II. THE SCRIPTURES 235
III. THE UNWRITTEN LAW . 251
IV. THE PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 263
V. THE SYNAGOGUE . 281
VI. THE SCHOOLS . 308
VII. CONVERSION OF GENTILES . . . 323
xii CONTENTS
PART II
THE IDEA OF GOD
I. GOD AND THE WORLD ... 357
II. THE CHARACTER OF GOD . 386
III. MINISTERS OF GOD . . .... 401
IV. THE WORD OF GOD. THE SPIRIT . . 414
V. MAJESTY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 423
PART III
MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT
I. THE NATURE OF MAN . . .... 445
II. SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES . . 460
III. THE ORIGIN OF SIN 474
IV. RITUAL ATONEMENT ... 497
V. REPENTANCE . . . 507
VI. THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE .... ... 520
VII. MOTIVES OF FORGIVENESS . . 535
VIII. EXPIATORY SUFFERING ... . . 546
INTRODUCTION
I
HISTORICAL
CHAPTER I
THE FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM
THE centuries which we designate politically by the names of the
dominant powers of the age successively as the Persian, Greek,
and Roman periods of Jewish history constitute as a whole an
epoch in the religious history of Judaism.1 In these centuries,
past the middle of which the Christian era falls, Judaism brought
to complete development its characteristic institutions, the
school and the synagogue, in which it possessed not only a unique
instrument for the education and edification of all classes of the
people in religion and morality, but the centre of its religious life,
and to no small extent also of its intellectual and social life.
Through the study of the Scriptures and the discussions of gen-
erations of scholars it defined its religious conceptions, its moral
principles, its forms of worship, and its distinctive type of piety,
as well as the rules of law and observance which became authori-
tative for all succeeding time. In the light of subsequent history
the great achievement of these centuries was the creation of a
normative type of Judaism and its establishment in undisputed
supremacy throughout the wide Jewish world. This goal was
not reached without many conflicts of parties and sects and
more than one grave political and religious crisis, but in the end
the tendency which most truly represented the historical char-
acter and spirit of the religion prevailed, and accomplished the
unification of Judaism.
The definitive stage of this development was reached in the
latter half of the second century of our era and the beginning of
1 The name Judaism is now generally appropriated to the religion of this
period and what came after it, in distinction from that of the preceding cen-
turies down to the fall of the Kingdom of Judah (586 B.C.), which is called
the religion of Israel.
4 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the third. The terminus is formally marked by the completion
and general acceptance of the body of traditional law (Mishnah)
redacted by the Patriarch Judah and promulgated with his au-
thority.1 The recognized Palestinian scholars of the preceding
generations from about the beginning of the Christian era, as
transmitters of the unwritten law, are called Fannaim, "Tra-
ditioners," or, more generally, "Teachers." Their successors
are the Amoraim, — we might say, "Expositors," — a name
given in both Palestine and Babylonia to the professors who
taught the law as formulated in the Mishnah and discussed its
provisions with their colleagues and pupils. This branch, or
stage, of study was called Talmud, "Learning,"2 and eventuaMy
gave its name to the great compilations in which the discussions
of the schools through many generations are reported, the Pales-
tinian and the Babylonian Talmuds.3 The former reached sub-
stantially the shape in which it has come down to us in the
schools of Galilee in the last quarter of the fourth century; the
latter in Babylonia about a century later.4
The beginning of the period is connected by both Jewish tra-
dition and modern criticism with the name of Ezra, a priest
and scribe 6 who came from Babylonia, bringing the Book of the
Law of Moses, as a royal commissioner to investigate conditions
in Judaea, with authority to promulgate and administer this
law among the Jews in the province west of the Euphrates.6
According to the Book of Ezra, the company of Jews who re-
turned from Babylonia to the land of their fathers under the
lead of Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the seventh year of Arta-
1 The date of his death is put, on probable grounds, about 219 A.D.
1 Both the method and the name come from the age of the Tannaim.
1 The name Jerusalem Talmud commonly given to the former is a mis-
nomer.
4 On the Mishnah and the Talmuds, see further below, pp. 1506*.
6 Safer was in earlier times a scrivener or secretary. In the present in-
stance, and generally in later usage, it is a man learned in the Scriptures.
Ezra 7, 6, n, 12, 21; Neh. 8, i, 4, 9, etc.; 12,26,36. So ypawaTcfa in the
Gospels. See W. Bacher, Die klteste Terminologie der jUdischen Schrift-
auslegung, p. 134.
• Ezra 7, 14, 25 f.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 5
xerxes.1 The proclamation of the law2 did not take place, how-
ever, according to the present order of the narrative, until more
than a dozen years later,3 after Nehemiah had come, in the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes,4 as governor 6 of the district of
Judaea, and had restored the fortifications of Jerusalem.6
The Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah has generally been
identified with the first of the name, who reigned from 465 to
424, on which assumption Ezra's advent in Jerusalem falls in
the year 458 and Nehemiah's in 445. The reading of the Law
before the assembled people is commonly put in the autumn of
the latter year, at the beginning of the month Tishri.7 These are
the dates adopted by the majority of historians, and the docu-
ments of the colony at Elephantine brought to light in 1907-
1908 lend additional probability to this interpretation. Others
have dated the events under Artaxerxes II, Mnemon (reigned
404-359), which would bring Ezra to Jerusalem in 397 and
Nehemiah in 384.8 The internal difficulties of the account in
Ezra-Nehemiah are the same in either case. In the attempt to
relieve them it has been proposed to introduce Ezra's mission
in Nehemiah's second governorship, shortly after 432, by trans-
posing Ezra 7-10 to a place between Neh. 13, 4-36, and Neh.
9-10 (followed by Neh. 8);9 or even thirty-five years later, in
1 Ezra 7, 8. » Neh. 8.
3 Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1869, pp. 283 f. (cf. 287), cancelling
on critical grounds the cross-connections of Ezra and Nehemiah in Neh.
8, 9; 10, 2, 12, 26, 36, puts the reading of the Law two months after Ezra's
arrival in Jerusalem. In Hitzig's view Ezra was the redactor of our Penta-
teuch (ibid., p. 288 f.), which he brought with him complete from Babylonia.
4 Neh. 2, i.
6 nnB, Neh. 5, 14; 12, 26, and elsewhere; Knfcnn, Neh. 8, 9; 10, 2.
• Neh. 3-6.
7 Neh. 7, 73b. No year is named in the account of the reading of the
Law; it is inferred that the leaders would have proceeded to the introduction
of the Law as soon as possible after the defences of the city were restored
(Neh. 6, 15).
8 J. Elhorst; Marquart, Fundamente israelitischer und jtidischer Ge-
schichte, p. 31. See C. C. Torrey, Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-
Nehemiah (Giessen, 1896), p. 65; cf. Ezra Studies, 1910, pp. 333-335.
9 W. H. Kosters, Herstel van Israel in het Persische Tijdvak, 1894. Ger-
man translation, Die Wiederherstellung Israels, u. s. w. 1895.
6 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (398 /y).1 Nehemiah 8 is obvi-
ously misplaced where it stands. It belongs to the story of Ezra,
the chief actor in it, not to that of Nehemiah, who is brought in
(harmonistically) only in 8, 9; and the appropriate place for it,
on all the presumptions of the narrative,2 is after Ezra 8.8
These critical questions were quite foreign to the Jewish
notions of Ezra and his work. As for the dates, they had not
the Canon of Ptolemy to operate with, but only four names of
Persian kings in the confusing disorder in which they occur in
the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, and they were conse-
quently always far out of the way in their chronology of the
Persian period. The oldest rabbinical manual of chronolof /,
the Seder 'Olam Rabbah, allows for the dominion of the Medes
and Persians but fifty-two years in all, and from the rebuilding
of the temple to the overthrow of the Persian monarchy by
Alexander only thirty-four.4 This compression of the history
brought Ezra into the same generation with Zerubbabel and
Joshua, who rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem.6 With this genera-
tion he is consistently associated in Jewish tradition. He was,
it is said, a student of the law in Babylonia under Baruch son
of Neriah, the disciple and amanuensis of Jeremiah,6 and went
up to Jerusalem only after the death of his master; this explains
why he did not accompany Zerubbabel and Joshua in their
return.7 According to the Seder 'Olam, Ezra and his party
1 Van Hoonacker, Nehemie et Esdras, 1890; Nehemie en Tan 20 d' Arta-
xerxes II, 1892.
2 See especially Ezra 7, 14, 25 f.
8 C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, 1910, pp. 252 ff. His order is: Ezra 8; Neh.
7>7°-73a5 7> 73^-8, 18; Ezra 9, i-io, 44; Neh. 9, i-io, 40.
4 Seder cOlam Rabbah c. 30 (ed. Ratner, f. yia; cf. f. 69a and note 15);
' Abodah Zarah 8b-~9a (R. Jose bar Ijjalafta, a special authority in chronology).
Leaving the Medes ("Darius the Mede" in Daniel) out of the reckoning,
our chronology (after Ptolemy) gives, from the first year of Cyrus as king
of Babylon (538) to the end of Darius III (332), 206 years, and from the
completion of the second temple (516) to the same terminus, 184 years. On
the names of the Persian kings see also Rosh ha-Shanah 3!), bottom; Seder
'Olam c. 30 (Ratner, p. 68b, and notes). See Note I.
6 Ezra i-6. See Haggai; Zechanah 1-8. 8 Jer. 36 and 43.
7 Megillah i6b, bottom. They did not find his name in Ezra 2, 2.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 7
arrived in Jerusalem the year following the completion of the
temple.1 Others, however, have him go up with Zerubbabel and
Joshua and begin with them the building of the temple,2 finding
his name in Neh. 7, 7, Azariah (of which Ezra is an abridged
form; cf. Neh. 12, i).8 The most probable conjecture about the
three "sheep" who, at the opening of a new epoch, began to
build up the ruinous house in Enoch 89, 72, is that Zerubbabel,
Joshua, and Ezra are meant.
These differences do not touch the main agreement, which as-
sociates Ezra with the men of the restoration. His great part
in it was the restoration of the law. He had brought the Book
of the Law of Moses with him from Babylonia, and, as the
Jews presumably combined the dates,4 a few months after the
completion of the temple, made it public by reading it aloud
in a great assembly of the people, as narrated in Neh. 8. The
light in which this transaction appeared to later generations is
expressed in the sentence: When the law had been forgotten in
Israel, Ezra came up from Babylonia and established it.5 Ezra
was qualified to have given the law originally, if it had not
already been given by Moses.8
To the observance of this law the people, after a solemn day
of fasting and humiliation, with confession of the sins of their
forefathers and their own, bound themselves by a covenant
1 Seder 'Olam Rabbah c. 29 (ed. Ratner, f. 6yb); cf. Seder 'Olam Zufa
where it is added that Zerubbabel returned to Babylon and died there.
2 Pirke de-R. Eliezer c. 38, near the end.
3 The list of members of the Great Synagogue in a commentary on Abot
by R. Jacob ben Samson, a pupil of Rashi, begins: "Azariah, who is Ezra."
Mahzor Vitry, p. 463; cf. p. 481.
4 Ezra 6, 15-22; Neh. 7, 73b. See Rosh ha-Shanah 3b, below; 'Arakin
133 (Baraita): Ezra came to Jerusalem in the year following the completion
of the temple.
6 Sukkah 2oa, below. It is not implied that the law was altogether un-
known in Judaea, as is clear from the sequel, in which it is said that when it
had been again forgotten Hillel came from Babylonia and did the same thing,
and later still R. Shyya and his sons. The words are attributed to R. Simeon
ben Lakish, a Palestinian teacher of the third century. Cf. Sifre Deut. § 48
(ed. Fnedmann, f. 84b, above): Shaphan, Ezra, Akiba.
6 Sanhedrm 2ib, end; Tos. Sanhedrin 4, 7.
8 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
under the signature and seal of the notables, and for the whole
community by an oath and curse.1
The restoration of the law by Ezra is the theme of 4 Esdras
14, i8-48.2 The date of the first vision is given as the thirtieth
year after the destruction of Jerusalem; the seer is in exile in
Babylon.8 The situation in c. 14 is the same. The Law of God
has been destroyed (so also 4, 23), not only the legislation but
history and prophecy (14, 21). Ezra prays that he may be in-
spired to reproduce it and "write everything that has happened
in the world from the beginning, the things that were written
in Thy Law, that men may be able to find the way, and that
those who would live in the last days may live." His prayer :3
granted, and in mantic ecstasy he dictates day and night to five
stenographers for forty days the sum of ninety-four books, the
twenty-four of the Hebrew Bible and seventy others. The
former are to be made public, to be read by worthy and un-
worthy alike; the latter Ezra is to reserve to transmit them
only to the wise (sapientibus de populo tuo), "in his enim est
vena intellectus et sapientiae fons et scientiae flumen." 4 He
is imagined as the restorer, not of the Law alone but of the whole
1 Neh. 9-10. Compare the ratification of the Book of the Law in the
reign of Josiah, 2 Kings 23, 1-3. The significance of this parallel struck
Lagarde and Kuenen simultaneously in 1 870.
2 This apocalypse was written toward the close of the first century of the
Christian era.
8 G. A. Box (The Ezra-Apocalypse, p. i f.), following Kabisch, is so sure
that "no Jewish writer could have made such a blunder as to transfer Ezra
to a time so remote from his true situation," that he strikes out the name
Esdras in 3, I, and thus obtains a "Salathiel Apocalypse." That the Jews
did make precisely this "blunder" and maintained it consistently has been
shown above. See Note 2.
4 The esoteric seventy are commonly taken to be apocalyptic books like
his own. It is much more probable, however, that these books, which are to
be entrusted to the learned (D'IMn) only, are the traditional law (F. Rosen-
thai, Vier Apokryphische Bucher aus der Zeit und Schule R. Akiba's, 1885,
pp. 41, 57 f.). L. Ginzberg, 'Tamid. The Oldest Treatise of the Mishnah,'
Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, 1919 (and separately 1920), thinks
that seventy is not a round number, but a summation of the number of the
books which constituted the entire halakic literature of the Tannaim (58 Parts
of the Mishnah, 9 of Sifra, Mekilta, Sifre Num. and Deut. = 70).
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 9
Bible, and reproduces by revelation the post-exilic literature
before it had been produced, to say nothing of the seventy other
books. This autobiographic account of the restitution of the
sacred books was taken as authentic by many Christian writers
from Irenaeus down.1 Jerome had it in mind when he wrote,
in reference to the phrase "unto this day" in the Pentateuch
(Gen. 35, 4; Deut. 34, 6) : 2 Certe hodiernus dies illius temporis
aestimandus est, quo historia ipsa contexta est, sive Moysen
dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive Ezram eiusdem in-
stauratorem operis, non recuso.3
Ezra has been a great figure in modern biblical criticism also.
The surmise that Ezra was the compiler or editor of the Penta-
teuch was enounced in one form or another by several scholars
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.4 The leading critics
of the middle of the nineteenth century were agreed, however,
that all the sources into which they divided the Pentateuch
were older than the Babylonian exile, and the prevailing opinion
was that they had been united in the composite whole as we now
have it 5 in the generation between the introduction of Deute-
ronomy (621) and the fall of Jerusalem (586), or that, at the
latest, it was completed in Babylonia in the following generation.
They were agreed also that the source which begins in Genesis I
and includes the bulk of the legislation in Exodus, Leviticus,
and Numbers, though not all of the same origin or age, was the
oldest stratum of narrative and law in the Pentateuch, and
Deuteronomy the latest.6 Ezra was, as in the traditional view,
1 Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigi aphus Veteris Testament!, pp. 1156-1160.
2 These words played a prominent part in the beginnings of doubt about
the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch.
3 Adversus Helvidium c. 7 (ed. Vallarsi, II, 211 f.).
4 Andreas Masius (1574); Spinoza (1670); Richard Simon (1685); van
Dale (1696), and others.
6 More or less extensive reserve being made for minor additions, glosses,
textual changes, and the like.
8 It is sufficient here to name Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Isiael, 3 ed.,
IV (1864), 173, cf. I, 190 f.; and Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch Onderzoek,
enz., I (1865), 165 f. According to Kuenen, the redactor of the Pentateuch,
io HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the restorer of the law. He brought up the Pentateuch from
Babylonia, and was chiefly instrumental in getting it put in
force as the law of the returned exiles in Judaea.1
A radically different theory of the age of the constituent ele-
ments of the Pentateuch had been put forward a generation
earlier, namely, that the Levitical law as we find it in Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers was not the earliest stratum, but the
latest: it originated among the exiles in Babylonia, in priestly
circles under the influence of the ruling ideas of Ezekiel. That
the redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole was completed by
Ezra was regarded as probable; but no material part in it was
attributed to him.2 The ruling critics of the day promptly ard
emphatically rejected this construction based on the history of
the religion and its institutions, pronouncing on it the veto of
the critical analysis and of the language, and the episode was
almost forgotten.
Conclusions substantially agreeing with those of Vatke and
George were reached independently of them by K. H. Graf
in i866,3 with whom the modern period of criticism may be said
to begin. By an exhaustive comparison of the three strata of
legislation among themselves and with the historical books and
the prophets he argued that the ritual and ceremonial laws in
the three middle books of the Pentateuch, in the form in which
we have them, represent a development in general character as
well as in many particulars posterior to Deuteronomy and be-
yond Ezekiel. To this mass of laws many authors in the course
of a century or more had contributed. Graf surmised that Ezra
a member of the priesthood of Jerusalem, completed his task between 600
and 590 B.C.
1 See Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 3 ed., IV (1864), 173 ff.,
213 ff.
2 W. Vatke, Die Religion des Alten Testaments, 1835. A similar result
was reached independently, through a different approach, by G. F. L. George,
Die alteren jiidischen Feste, 1835.
8 Die geschichthchen Bucher des Alten Testaments. Graf had been a
pupil of Eduard Reuss at Strasbourg, who had propounded a similar theory
in a series of unpublished theses as early as 1834.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM u
«
collected these various writings and brought them with him to
Jerusalem, where in the fifteen years or so that elapsed between
his arrival and the promulgation of his Book of the Law of Moses
he compiled and redacted them, perhaps with additions of his
own. The account of the introduction of the law shows that
the community in Jerusalem till then had possessed no copy of
this book and had no definite knowledge about it.1
Kuenen, whose earlier position has been referred to above,
was led by Graf's presentation of the evidence to revise his
opinion about the general priority of the levitical legislation.
Graf had detached the laws from the corresponding narrative
in Genesis and the beginning of Exodus, the early date of which
he did not question; Kuenen made the theory consistent by
bringing this strand of the narrative also down to the exile, and
reuniting it with the legislation.2
The hypothesis with which Kuenen's name is properly asso-
ciated goes, however, very much further than Graf. It was, in
brief, that both the history and the laws in what is called the
Piiests' Code were composed in Babylonia in circles of which
Ezra, at once priest and scholar, is representative. "It was not
laws long in existence which, after having been for a time for-
gotten, were now proclaimed anew and adopted by the people.
The priestly ordinances were then for the first time made known
and imposed on the Jewish nation." 3 The introduction of
Ezra's new lawbook, the Priests' Code, made an epoch in the
history of the religion comparable to that made by Hilkiah's
Book of the Law (Deuteronomy) 4 in the reign of Josiah, and,
like the latter, was composed for the end which it accomplished.
Kuenen is inclined to conjecture that Ezra found it advisable
1 Graf, op. cit., pp 70-72.
2 Colenso and Popper had prepared the way for this step, in which Graf
himself eventually followed Kuenen.
3 De Godsdienst van Israel, II (1870), 136. He is speaking of the pro-
mulgation of the law (444 B.C.), as narrated in Neh. 8-10.
4 The correspondence between the role of Shaphan (2 Kings 22, 8 ff.) and
that of Ezra had not escaped Jewish observation. Sifre Deut. § 48 (ed.
Friedmann, p. 84 b, above).
12 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
to adapt some provisions of the book he brought from Baby-
lonia to the established usage of the priesthood in Jerusalem
whose support it was necessary to ensure, and to actual condi-
tions of other kinds; and that he did so in the years that inter-
vened between his arrival and the promulgation of the law; but
to this accessory hypothesis he attaches no great importance.1
In Kuenen's construction the Book of the Law of Moses which
Ezra, with the support of Nehemiah, introduced was the so-
called Priests' Code only.2 At a later time the older historical
and legal sources were worked into the scheme of the Priests'
Code by an unknown editor in such a way as to give a semblance
of unity and continuity to the whole, and Deuteronomy a^-
pended. Thus was eventually formed the composite work
which we call the Five Books of Moses.3
To the wide acceptance of the new conception of the nature
and significance of Ezra's work Wellhausen contributed equally
with Kuenen, and the modern critical school is often named
after him. Graf's transposition of the sources solved for him
at one stroke difficulties for which he had seen no solution, and
he found the evidence Graf adduced of the exilic origin of the
levitical law completely convincing. In regard to the introduc-
tion of the law and its effect on religion he was in accord with
Kuenen, with one important exception: in his opinion the
Priests' Code which had been drawn up in Babylonia was already
united with the older historical and legal literature that was
in the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem, presumably by Ezra
1 Godsdienst, II, 137 f.
2 Histonsch-kntisch Onderzoek, 2 ed., I, 294 f. So also E. Reuss, Ge-
schichte der Heihgen Schriften Alten Testaments, pp. 460 ff., 474; B. Stade,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, 183, and others. All these critics recog-
nized that more or less extensive additions to the laws in the original Priests'
Code were made after Ezra.
1 The most complete development of Kuenen 's theory is Eduard Meyer's
Die Entstehung des Judenthums, 1 896, in which the trustworthiness of the
account of the introduction of the law in Neh. 8 (from Ezra's Memoirs
through an intermediate source) and the authenticity of the documents in
the Book of Ezra are maintained. With Stade he lays weight on the interest
of the Persian government in the ordering of affairs in Judaea.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 13
himself, before the transactions recorded in Neh. 8-10, so that
the book to the observance of which the people then covenanted
themselves was not the Priests' Code alone but the Pentateuch,
minus later additions.1
Wellhausen recognized also that the Law made no abrupt
break in the development of the religion. It choked it only
gradually. A long time passed before the kernel turned wooden
inside the shell. Until Pharisaism prevailed, the freer impulses
emanating from the prophets remain in living force. The older
Judaism is the forecourt of Christianity. The greater part of
what in the Old Testament still exerts an influence today and
can be relished without previous historical training is a product
of the post-exilic age.2 In general, Wellhausen had a much juster
estimate of the character of Judaism than many of those who
came after him.3
For the history of Judaism the radical thing in the theory of
Kuenen is not the chronological order of the sources discovered
by criticism in the Pentateuch, nor the date assigned to the
Priests' Law and the narrative that goes with it, but the thesis
that the introduction of Ezra's lawbook changed the whole
character of the religion. It was, in the words of Kuenen, the
bngin of Judaism. The nature of the change is set out by him
in pointed antitheses: There (i.e., before Ezra) the spirit ruled,
here (after him) the letter; there the free word, here the scrip-
ture. The outstanding figure of the preceding centuries was the
prophet; after Ezra his place was taken by the scribe.4 The re-
form was anti-prophetic and anti-universalistic;5 inevitably the
law extinguished the remnants of prophecy, and it fastened ex-
clusiveness on the religion for all time to come.
1 Israeli tische und judische Geschichte, 7 ed., p. 167.
* Ibid., p 193 f.
* See the chapters, Die judische Frommigkeit, and Die Ausbildung des
Judaismus, — in the latter, particularly p. 285.
4 De Godsdienst van Israel, II, 152. See the foregoing and following pages,
146-156.
8 Ibid., p. 146.
I4 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
It is evident in this contrast that when Kuenen speaks of
the age before Ezra what he has in mind is not the actual religion
of Judah under the kingdom or after the restoration, but the
ideal of religion propounded by the prophets from Amos down
to the author of Isa. 40 ff.; and when he speaks of the age after
Ezra he has at least in the background of his mind the Judaism
of the Scribes and Pharisees in the New Testament, and in the
remote distance the Talmud. Kuenen is aware that his anti-
theses are too categorical, but they do not exaggerate the change
in the character of the Jewish religion which he believed to have
been wrought by the introduction and ratification of the Priests'
Code, nor misrepresent its nature as he conceived it.
That there are many and great differences between Judaism
in the centuries with which the present volumes have chiefly to
do and the religion of the kingdom of Judah needs no words;
the differences, as we shall see, are in fact much profounder than
those which Kuenen emphasizes. The question is whether the
adoption of Ezra's lawbook as related in Neh. 8 is the prime
cause of these differences, or, as he puts it, the origin of Judaism.
Antecedently, nothing would seem less likely to bring about
such a revolutionary result than a book like the Priests' Code,
which, as the name imports, is a law for the priests, chiefly oc-
cupied with the ritual of sacrifice and festivals; the interdictions
(sacred and abhorred) with the proper purifications or expia-
tions, about which laymen had always had to go to the priests
for expert advice; and the rights and privileges of the sacerdotal
caste. These things belong in themselves to the most primitive
elements of religion, and neither enrichment of the cultus, nor
more minute rules about interdictions and expiations, nor in-
crease of priestly revenues and prerogatives, affect their essential
character. Nor can it easily be imagined that a compact to ful-
fil their obligations under such a lawbook made a thorough and
permanent change in the attitude of the Jews toward the in-
stitutions of their religion. Nehemiah 13, 4-31, which Kuenen
derives from the Memoirs of Nehemiah, Malachi, which he puts
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 15
in his second governorship, Joel, and the various prophetic
writings which critics date in the later Persian and Greek periods,
are strong testimony to the contrary.
On the other hand, the Jews in the Persian period, before the
days of the supposed reforms of Ezra as well as after them, had
all that we possess of the pre-exilic and exilic literature, with the
increments it received in the age of the restoration. What had
been preserved and collected of the words of the prophets had
acquired, through the fulfilment of their predictions of doom, an
estimation and authority such as their contemporaries had never
accorded to their spoken words. The whole history of the people
was recast to impress upon it the moral of prophecy in what is
often called a deuteronomic pragmatism. The influence of the
prophets on the religion of the people was in fact the greatest in
the age in which it is supposed to have been finally suffocated
by the law.
The revolutionary changes in the cultus which Josiah made
in 621 on the authority of the book produced by Hilkiah (2 Kings
22-23) can hardly have lasted long after his death; in any case
it was less than half a century to the end of the kingdom and
cultus together. The opinion of most critics is that Hilkiah's
Book of the Law was expanded into the book we call Deutero-
nomy after the fall of the kingdom. It is presumable that it was
the law of the community which rebuilt the temple at the ur-
gency of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and thereafter.1
Deuteronomy is, however, much more than a book of laws; it
is the quintessence of the prophets, a monument of Hebrew
religious genius, and a chief cornerstone of Judaism. Of other
foundation stones, such as the stories of the patriarchs and God's
dealing with them in Genesis,2 the lawgiving at Sinai in the
older narratives, with the revelation of God's character in Exod.
33, 17-23; 34, 5-7, on which the Jewish conception of God is
1 Always assuming that in details it was supplemented by the tradition of
the priesthood (see, e.g., Deut. 17, 9; 24, 8).
2 Think, for example, of the ideal of faith in Abraham.
16 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
based, and the idea of holiness in Lev. 17-26, it is unnecessary
here to do more than make passing mention.
The writings which critics assign to the Persian and Greek
periods — many of the finest Psalms, the Proverbs, Job, the
later additions to the prophetic scriptures — prove that the
achievement of those centuries and their legacy to succeeding
generations was the appropriation and assimilation of the religi-
ous and moral teachings of the writings that have been named.
That Ezra's lawbook turned Judaism into an arid ritualism and
legalism is refuted by the whole literature of the following time.
This is equally manifest in the Palestinian literature outside
the canon, particularly in the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus;,
whose author was himself a Scribe. The predominance of this
element in the Judaism of a later age is attested by the juristic
exegesis (Tannaite Midrash) 1 of the second century of the
Christian era, and by the influence of the highest religious and
moral teaching of the Pentateuch and the Prophets on the
legal norms (Halakah) defined in the Mishnah and kindred
works.
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that, whatever part
Babylonian Jews returning to Jerusalem may have had in the
restoration or subsequently, the Judaism which is the subject
of our present study was not a new kind of religion introduced
from Babylonia, but a normal and fruitful growth on Palestinian
soil.
The definition and administration of the levitical law was in
the hands of the priests. Various practical modifications of the
laws to adapt them to changing conditions in Judaea in the
Persian period are recognized by critics. The permissive sub-
stitution, for example, of a pair of doves or pigeons for a lamb
in several species of sacrifice, which is a manifest appendix
to the older provision, is taken as a concession to poverty, and
seems to contemplate an urban population. Besides such natural
1 See Note 3.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 17
accommodation to circumstances, there are supplements of a
different kind, such as the cumulative scheme of sacrifices at the
festivals in Num. 28 f., or the scale of sin offerings in Lev. 4 for
the high priest, the whole congregation, the ruler, one of the
common people, which seem to represent an ideal — like the
whole of Ezekiel's programme in chapters 40-48 — rather than
an actuality. In fact, criticism since 1870 has by degrees come
to regard so large a part of these laws as "secondary," that is,
of Palestinian origin and of the later Persian period, that the
supposed original Babylonian Priests' Code threatens to become
a superfluous hypothesis, and it would not be surprising if the next
phase of criticism should maintain that the whole development
of the Law took place in Judaea.
In matters of ritual and of permissions and interdictions,
clean and unclean, purifications and expiations, it must be
understood that the great bulk of the law was always the tradi-
tional practice and rule of the priesthood; what is set down in
writing, primarily as a manual for the priests themselves, is in
general a bare outline which at every step requires the interpre-
tation of usage and technical tradition. And the vastly more
extensive unwritten law was a living and growing thing.
Of the development of civil and criminal law we have no in-
formation. The Jews possessed a few fragmentary pages from
a code of the kingdom, preserved in Exod. 21-23. From the
first section — the solitary one that remains intact — and the
surviving parts of others, it is evident that the code was ordered
and formulated with a precision that testifies to juristic experi-
ence and skill; it was plainly laid out on a large scale, and must
have made a considerable volume. The loss of this code cannot
be too greatly regretted; it would have given a survey of the
civilization of the age such as nothing else can give. Some of the
lacunae in the text have been filled by matter of similar content,
but in a preceptive form. The Book of Deuteronomy also pre-
serves remnants of ancient laws (e.g., in chap. 22). But these
survivals are clearly not sufficient for the administration of
1 8 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
justice. Here also it must be assumed that the elders of the
town or village — the heads of the families or family groups
that made up the community — administered the law in ac-
cordance with custom and precedent, a consuetudinary law in
essence older than the written law and underlying it. Like all
such common law it adapted itself to new situations by judicial
interpretation and application without the aid of legislation.
Under Persian rule the Jews were doubtless left, as in the
succeeding empires, to live under their own laws and judicial
procedure in matters that involved Jews only. The principle of
all ancient law was not uniformity for all within the territorial
limits of a state, but different laws and jurisdictions determineu
by the status or nationalities of the persons.
Deuteronomy 17, 8-13, provides for a reference to the priests
in Jerusalem and "the judge that shall be in those days" of cases
too hard for local adjudication, and binds the local judges to ac-
cept and enforce the decision.1 Through a central court of this
kind, a sufficient uniformity would be secured. In later times
the Senate or Sanhedrin in Jerusalem performed this function.
There was no conflict between this legal development, priestly
or judicial, and the appropriation and assimilation of the great
principles of religion of which we have spoken above. In a
religion which had inherited, as Judaism did, sacred scriptures
of various kinds which were all believed to embody divine revela-
tion (Torah), in which God made known his own character and
his will for the whole conduct of life, there is no incompatibility
between the most minute attention to rites and observances, or
to the rules of civil and criminal law, and the cultivation of
the worthiest conceptions of God and the highest principles of
morality, not only in the same age, but, as we see in the litera-
ture of the schools and the synagogue, by the same men. On
the contrary, the seriously religious man could not be indifferent
to any part of the revealed law of God. The same rabbis who
1 This probably belongs to the programme of the Deuteronomic reforms.
Cf. the account of Jehoshaphat's judicial institutions, 2 Chron. 19, 5-11.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 19
extended the law of tithing to garden herbs paraphrased the
principle, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, as Let thy
neighbor's property be as dear to thee as thine own, and thy
neighbor's honor as thine own, and developed the prohibition
of interest ('usury') into laws of bargain and sale and definitions
of unfair competition which to modern ideas of business seem
Utopian. They made love to God the one supremely worthy
motive of obedience to his law; and found in Exodus 34, 6 f.,
not only the character of God revealed — "God merciful and
gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in loving-kindness and
truth; keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving
iniquity and transgression and sin" — but in the imitation of
these traits the ideal of human character.
In the conditions that existed in Judaea in the age of the restor-
ation and afterwards, an urgent part of the task of the religious
leaders was to resist the admixture of heathenism and lapses
from Judaism through the intimate relations between Jews and
the surrounding peoples, and especially through intermarriage.
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah represent those worthies as
greatly concerned by the frequency of such connections in all
classes, even in the priesthood, and describe the drastic measures
they resorted to to abate the evil.1 In their attitude the origin
of Jewish exclusiveness, or, in Kuenen's phrase, the "anti-univer-
salistic" character of the reform, is sought.
The opposition to intermarriage with other peoples was,
however, no new thing; it is categorically prohibited in earlier
laws (Exod. 34, 16; Deut. 7, 3f.);2 Ezra's prayer puts the
prohibition into the mouth of "the prophets" (Ezra 9, n f.).
Nor is there anything peculiarly Jewish in the restriction of
marriage to the members of a people, citizens of a state, or even
to a class of citizens in the state. In Rome marriage was con-
fined to members of the patrician families; the offspring of a
1 Ezra 9-10; Neh. 10, 28-30; 13, 23 ff.
2 It is to be noted that there is no corresponding law in the Priests' Code,
though the patriarchal story makes plain enough the feeling of its author.
20 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
patrician by any other connection could not be Roman citizens,
nor represent either family or state in any capacity.1 The
Canuleian law of 445 B.C.,2 legitimizing intermarriage between
patricians and plebeians, was violently opposed by the former,
on the ground that it would contaminate their blood and throw
into confusion the laws concerning the gentes?
In Athens, Pericles put through a law 4 that only those both
of whose parents were Athenian citizens should be reckoned
Athenians. The law was not immediately enforced and seems
to have been generally regarded as a dead letter; but when
occasion later arose, the consequences, as recounted by Plu-
tarch, make the proceedings in Ezra 10 appear tame by com-
parison. Nearly five thousand were proved to be the offspring
of such illegitimate alliances, and were not only struck from the
register of citizens but sold into slavery.5 The text of a law of
similar effect is quoted in the prosecution of Neaera,6 which pro-
vides that an alien who cohabits with an Athenian woman under
any pretext whatever shall, on conviction, be sold into slavery;
his property also was sold, one third of the proceeds going to the
man who instituted the prosecution. In the converse case of
an Athenian citizen and an alien woman, she was to be sold into
slavery, and the man fined ten thousand drachmae. The mo-
tive of such legislation is to perpetuate a pure-bred race, especi-
ally to keep unmixed the blood of the citizen body; it is a meas-
ure of self-preservation, and nothing more. There is no equity
in judging it otherwise in the case of the Jews under the pre-
judicial title of exclusiveness.
Among the Jews, however, the preservation of the purity of
1 W. Warde Fowler, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VIII, 463.
2 The date curiously coincides with that generally taken for the adoption
of Ezra's lawbook.
8 Livy, iv. i ff.; Cicero, De republica, ii. 37.
4 In 451/50. The date is again to be noted.
6 Plutarch, Pericles, c. 37
6 Among the orations of Demosthenes, lix. 16. The speech is assigned by
critics to ca. 340 B.C.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 21
the national religion is emphasized both in the laws and in the
account of Ezra's reform. This consideration comes out strongly
in the argument of the Roman patricians; l and, in consequence
of the relation of the citizen body to the religion of the city, is
implicit in the Athenian example. But the Jews under Persian
rule had no political existence; they had only a national religion,
and in its preservation lay their self-preservation.2 That the
religious leaders had the insight to perceive this and the loyalty
to contend with all their might against the dissolution of both
nationality and religion, whether in the age of the restoration
or in the crisis of Hellenism, or after the destruction of the
temple and the war under Hadrian, is certainly not to their dis-
credit. The separateness of the Jews, their d/u£ta, was one of
the prime causes of the animosity toward them, especially in the
miscellaneous fusion of peoples and syncretism of religions in the
Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman world; but it accomplished
its end in the survival of Judaism, and therein history has vin-
dicated it.
It seems still sometimes to be imagined that the laws about
clean and unclean in the Priests' Code, including the interdic-
tions of various kinds of food and the prescription of a peculiar
mode of slaughtering animals, not only had the effect of putting
hindrances in the way of intercourse with the heathen, especially
at table, but that they were invented or revived on purpose to
accomplish this end. Of this there is neither internal nor ex-
ternal evidence. They were ancient customs, the origin and
reason of which had long since been forgotten. Some of them
are found among other Semites, or more widely; some were, so
far as we know, peculiar to Israel; but as a whole, or, we may
say, as a system, they were the distinctive customs which the
Jews had inherited from their ancestors with a religious sanction
in the two categories of holy and polluted. Other peoples had
1 Livy, iv. 2; cf. vi. 41, 4 ff.
2 Converts to the religion (proselytes) were naturalized in the race.
22 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
their own, some of them for all classes, some, as among the
Jews, specifically for the priests, and these systems also were
distinctive.1
The interdictions, which in the Pentateuch fall into a few
general classes, were, no doubt, as among other peoples, known
to everybody as part of the tradition of custom in which all
grew up. Haggai 2, 11-13, shows that responses were asked of
the priests in cases of clean and unclean; but the priests' Torah
was principally concerned with the appropriate remedies for the
inadvertent or accidental transgression of the interdictions, the
piacula and purifications prescribed or performed by them,
whereby the incommensurate consequences of intrusion into tlie
sphere of the holy or contact with the unclean might be nullified.
This is a salient feature of the treatment of this subject every-
where in the Pentateuch, not peculiarly in the Priests' Code.
The idea of one only God has for its corollary one religion.
That this God would one day be acknowledged and served by
all mankind was proclaimed by the prophets from Isaiah 40 ff.
on, and became the faith of the following centuries.2 It was
self-evident that the universal religion of the future would be
that which God had revealed, immutable as himself, and en-
trusted meanwhile to one people, that it might be his prophet
to the nations. The Jews were the only people in their world
who conceived the idea of a universal religion,3 and labored to
realize it by a propaganda often more zealous than discreet,
which made them many enemies; and precisely in the age when
1 See Frazer, Golden Bough, III, chapters in-vn (pp. 100-418); X, chap.
ii (pp. 22-100, passim). Priests, in Greece, P. Stengel, Gnechische Kultus-
alterttimer, §§ 20-22; at Rome, G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer,
§ 67; Samter, in Real-Encyclopaedic der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
VI, col. 2486 ff. — Anyone who will take the trouble to compare Aulus Gelhus,
x. 15, on the restrictions to which the Flamen Diahs was subject with the
corresponding Jaws for the Jewish high priest will find that the latter are few
and simple by contrast.
1 See Zech. 8, 20-23; Zech. 14, 16-21; 14, 9; etc.
* On Nationality and Universality, see below, Part I, chapter i, and
Vol. II, pp. 371 ff.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 23
the "anti-universalistic" law was enthroned in the completest
authority was the expansion of Judaism at its height.1
Of the history of the Jews in Palestine under Persian rule there
is no record. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah give a glimpse
of the internal situation at the time of the rebuilding of the
temple (520-516 B.C.) and let us divine the flaring up of the
hope of national restoration which attached to the person of
Zerubbabel. The fragmentary Memoirs of Nehemiah, eighty
years or more later, show that Jerusalem had recently passed
through a crisis — we do not know what — in which its fortifi-
cations had been dismantled, and tells how he restored them,
and of the domestic and foreign difficulties of his task as gover-
nor.
The discovery a few years ago of a series of documents from
a Jewish military colony on the upper Nile, ranging over the
greater part of the fifth century, gives a surprising picture of the
religion of this remote and isolated community, and reveals some-
thing of their relations to the authorities in Palestine. Bagohi,
the governor of Judaea, and Johanan the high priest in Jerusa-
lem, to whom the Jews of Elephantine write in 408, are doubtless
the Bagoses and Johannes of the story in Josephus, Antt. xi.
7, i . Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, named in the same
letter, is generally taken to be identical with the Sanballat with
whom Nehemiah had so much trouble.2 With the conquest of
Alexander (333 B.C.) the Jews come at least casually within the
view of the Greek historians.
With the expulsion of one of the sons of Joiada the son of
Eliashib the high priest, who had married a daughter of Sanbal-
lat (Neh. 13, 28 f.), is commonly connected the so-called Sa-
maritan schism, with its rival temple at Shechem. There is,
indeed, nothing of this in the text cited, but it is thought to
furnish the true date for events which Josephus narrates as oc-
1 See Part I, chapter vii.
2 If this identification is right, it would settle the question about the
Artaxerxes of Nehemiah in favor of Artaxerxes I.
24 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
curring in the times of the last Darius and Alexander the Great.1
The Alexander part of the story in Josephus is not embellished
legend but pure fiction of a species very familiar in the Hellenis-
tic literature of the Jews. The romance of Manasseh and Nikaso,
which puts the brand of illegitimacy on the whole succession of
Samaritan high priests, the founding of the temple on Gerizim
by a heathen, the accession to the Shechemites of reprobates who
fled from Jerusalem under charges of eating the unclean or vio-
lation of the sabbath, and the like,2 are from the same hand
and display the same motive. A historian may properly decline
to admit such testimony as to either fact or date.3
It is probable that Shechem, one of the most venerable religi-
ous sites in the land, had all along been a place of worship, with
a priesthood of its own and a cultus not unlike that in Jerusalem,
though, of course, lacking the sacra publica — in rabbinical
phrase, a public high place. As such there was no reason why
the Jews should concern themselves particularly about it. All
this took an entirely different complexion when the claim was
set up that Gerizim, and not Zion, was the place which God had
chosen for his habitation, or "to put his Name there" (Deut.
12, 5, and often), the only place in the land where sacrifice was
legitimately offered, vows absolved, festivals observed, and the
rest.4 It is this claim, not the mere building of the Shechemite
temple, that constitutes the Samaritan schism. Jews and Sa-
maritans 6 worshipped the same God with the same rites; they
1 Antt. xi. 7, 2; 8, 2-7. Josephus1 source, as appears from internal evi-
dence, was a historical work by an Alexandrian Jew whose ambition it was
to magnify his own nation in the eyes of Greek readers, and who lost no oc-
casion to vilify the "Samaritans" of Shechem. See, besides the present
passage, his account of the disputation before Ptolemy Philometor, Antt.
xiii. 3, 4, and the next note.
* Antt. xi. 8, 7.
* As to date he may take warning from the story of Bagoses and the high
priest John.
4 See John 4, 20; cf. Josephus, Antt. xiii. 3, 4.
6 It is to be observed that, as the name of a religious body, Samaritans
does not mean the people of the city of Samaria, or of the old kingdom of
Israel, but only those who worshipped on Mt. Genzim.
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 25
had the same law, the complete Pentateuch. The differences
between them in the interpretation and application of this law,
when we begin to know about them, are not fundamental. But
on the sole place where God had ordained that he should be wor-
shipped the breach was irremediable.
The Samaritans, as has been said, had the entire Pentateuch,
which they have preserved to this day in an archaic script, a
peculiar variety of the old Hebrew alphabet, while the Jews
before the Christian era adopted for the Scriptures the new
"Syrian" style of letters.1 They had their own interpretation
of the laws, which often coincided with that of the Jews, and
we have Jewish testimony to the strictness with which they
observed such as they accepted.2 The date of the schism was
formerly debated in its bearing on the introduction of the Law
among the Samaritans, as a terminus post quern non for the final
redaction of the Pentateuch. The nature of the testimony, as
we have seen, does not warrant any chronological decision. All
other considerations, however, incline the scales of probability
to the fourth century, rather than the fifth.
For the rest, if we had no testimony, we should infer from the
following history that the elevation of Shechem from provincial
obscurity to a religious capital of high pretensions was more
likely to have come about through an abrupt change than by the
slow growth of local ambitions. The temple may have been
built and a high priest of indisputable legitimacy installed, and
a complete copy of the Judaean lawbook, the Pentateuch,
procured, with no further intention than to match Jerusalem.
The idea of supplanting Jerusalem came from the law itself. In
it they found that Moses had enjoined the people, as soon as
they came into the land, to put the blessing on Mt. Gerizim
and the curse on Mt. Ebal (Deut. n, 29; cf. 27, 11-26; Josh.
8> 33 £)• In Deut. 27, 4, the Jewish text has "Mount Ebal,"
1 They ascribed this exchange to Ezra; see below, p. 29. Cf. 4 Esdras
14, 42: scripserunt quae dicebantur successione notis quas non sciebant.
2 Berakot 4yb, and repeatedly; IJullm 4a; Niddah 56b. (Matters of
tithes, etc., slaughtering of animals, uncleanness, tombs.)
0.6 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
where the whole tenor of the context demands "Gerizim," as the
Samaritan Hebrew reads; the same change has been made in
the Jewish text in Josh. 8, 30. At Shechem, also, Joshua, at the
end of the complete conquest, made the final covenant with
the people and set up a memorial of it by the sanctuary of the
Lord.1 Shechem-Gerizim was therefore manifestly the place so
often spoken of in Deuteronomy where God would put his name;
Jerusalem had usurped a precedence never meant for it. So far
as the letter of Scripture went, the Shechemites could make out
an embarrassingly good case; but it was worthless against pre-
scriptive possession.
The hostility of Jerusalemites and Shechemites was deep ana
lasting; it was carried into the Diaspora, especially in Egypt.
Sirach relieves himself: "Two peoples my soul abhors, and the
third is no people: The inhabitants of Seir, the Philistines, and
that fool nation that dwells in Shechem."2 Antiochus Epiphanes
made no fine distinctions of locality among worshippers of the
God of the Jews, and dedicated the temple on Gerizim to Zeus
Xenios,3 as he converted that of their rivals in Jerusalem into a
temple of Zeus Olympics. John Hyrcanus destroyed it when
he took Shechem in 128 B.C., but a religion that has no idol to
house has no real need of a temple, and the Samaritans were as
much of a thorn in the side of the Jews afterwards as before.
The durable animosity of the two parties appears in the Gospels
and the Tannaite literature, and in many later testimonies.
1 On the passages cited see Eduard Meyer, Die Israehten und ihre Nach-
barstamme, pp. 542 ff., and on the whole subject, C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies,
pp. 321 ff.
2 Ecclus. 50, 25/5 cf. Deut 32, 21.
8 2 Mace. 6, 2. The letter of the Samaritans to the king in Josephus (Antt.
xii. 5, 5), in which they disclaim any kinship or sympathy with the Jews and
ask the king to name their "anonymous temple," temple of "Zeus Hella-
nios," to which Antiochus graciously accedes, comes from the same source
with xi. 7, 2; 8, 2-7; xin. 3, 4, and is on the face of it fraudulent. In the
revolt of the Jews under Nero, the Samaritans (in 67 B.C.) assembled under
arms on Mt. Gerizim, evidently to attempt on their own account to throw
CHAP, i] FOUNDATIONS OF JUDAISM 27
The Samaritans took over only the Pentateuch, and later ex-
pressly rejected the Prophets and the rest of the Jewish Scrip-
tures. They thus excluded themselves from the religious and
intellectual progress of Judaism to which that literature contri-
buted so much. Of a learned study even of the Law, like that
of the Scribes and their successors, there is no trace. Their
reactionary conservatism meant stagnation from the beginning.
Through the Persian and into the Macedonian period a good
deal was written which got into the final collection of Jewish
Scriptures. Chronicles (of which Ezra-Nehemiah was once a
part) was probably written somewhere between 300 and 250 B.C.
In the Psalter there are psalms from the heat of the Maccabaean
struggle.1 The collection of prophetical writings contains
oracles for which a situation and occasion can be found only in
the Persian age or later. In our ignorance of the history of those
centuries, the attempt to assign more definite dates to these
compositions by what seem to be allusions to events of the time
is unprofitable guesswork which frequently moves in a circle.
What is more important is the character of this late prophecy,
particularly the large place taken in it by what in the wider
sense may be called eschatological motives — the final crisis and
deliverance — the foreshadowing of apocalyptic without the
mechanism of visions or the fiction of ancient seers, for which
anonymity as yet suffices.2
A striking feature of many psalms is the note of intestine
strife. Society is divided into two classes, the righteous, pious,
lowly, on the one side, and the rich and powerful, the wicked
and ungodly, on the other — in the phrase of more modern
puritans and pietists, the godly and the worldly. What is new
here is not the condemnation of the wicked but the self-con-
off the Roman yoke. Vespasian's prompt offensive extinguished the rising
in blood. Josephus, Bell. Jud in. 7, 32.
1 This was noted by Theodore of Mopsuestia in the fourth century and
in the Reformation age by Calvin and others.
2 Isa. 24-27 is a striking example. See also Zech. 9-14.
28 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
sciousness of the righteous and the outcry of personal grievance.
The same note is heard in the Hellenistic Wisdom of Solomon
and in the Judaean Psalms of Solomon.
Of the active intellectual life of this period, the discussion of
the problem of theodicy in the Book of Job is conclusive proof,1
as it is the most conspicuous achievement in Hebrew literature.
1 It is worth noting incidentally that the problem of the Book of Job does
not arise from the Law, but from the doctrine of retribution in Ezekiel,
pushed to the end of its logic by what was evidently the current orthodoxy
of the times.
CHAPTER II
EZRA AND THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE
FROM this critical and historical survey it is time to return to
the point of view of the Jews themselves, from which all their
notions of this period were formed. As we have seen, Ezra was
for them the restorer of the law received in its entirety by Moses
from the mouth of God, and delivered by him at various times
to the Israelites, from Sinai to the Plains of Moab. Neither
Ezra nor any other had ever added a word to this law or sub-
tracted a word from it. They found in Neh. 8 that Ezra had
not only read the law in the Hebrew in which it was given, but
taken pains that it should be understood by having it rendered
orally into the vernacular Aramaic as it was read; hence the
institution of the Targum was referred to him.
To Ezra is ascribed the substitution, in the copying of the
Scriptures, of the "Assyrian" (Syrian) characters, with which
we are familiar in manuscripts and printed books, for the old
Hebrew alphabet which was retained by the Samaritans.1 Ten
ordinances (ta^anot) of his are enumerated, some of which have
to do with the service of the synagogue,2 the rest with domestic
and personal matters, most of them, from our point of view, of
a somewhat trivial character. It appears that in this case, as in
others noted below, customs the origin of which was lost in
antiquity were carried back to the beginning of the new era.
What is of importance, however, is that the exercise of legislative
authority is ascribed to Ezra and his contemporaries and succes-
1 Sanhedrin 2ib-22a; Jer. Megillah 7ib-c. Origen on Psalm, 2, 2; Jerome,
Prologus Galeatus.
2 Synagogue service on Sabbath afternoon, and on Monday and Thursday
mornings (market days), on which days the courts should be open. Megillah
31 b adds that the commmations m Lev. 26 should be read before Pente-
cost and those in Deut. 28 before New Year's. See Note 3.
30 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
sors. The Book of the Law of Moses might be a final law, but
it was not a finished law. Many things which had, from a time
when the memory of man ran not to the contrary, been gener-
ally observed and were regarded as necessary and binding were
not contained in it at all. Some of these figure in later times as
"traditions of Moses from Sinai";1 others as ordinances of
Ezra, or of the prophets of his time, or the men of the Great
Synagogue, or more indefinitely of the Soferim, or the Early
Elders.2
Nehemiah 10, 29-40, which is the conclusion of the history of
Ezra, records the compact which the notables and the people
entered into ' to walk in God's law which was given by Moses,
the servant of God, and to observe and do all the command-
ments of the Lord our lord, and his statutes and ordinances/
pledging themselves particularly not to intermarry with the
people of the land, not to trade with them on a sabbath or a holy
day; to leave (the produce of) the seventh year3 free to all,
and in that year to cancel all loans.4 Then follow obligations 5
which they imposed on themselves for which there was no pre-
scription in the law: a poll-tax of one third of a shekel for the
maintenance of the public cultus, an arrangement for purveying
the wood for the altar by families in turn through the year; 6
and, in connection with a pledge faithfully to bring to the temple
the various pnmitiae assigned for the support of the priests and
to let the Levites have their tithes, a regulation for the super-
vision by a priest of the Levites in their collection of tithes, to
make sure that the priests got the tithe of the tithe that was
coming to them. Here was an example of ordinances supple-
See p. 256.
Zefccntm ha-rishomm.
Cf. Exod. 23, 10 f.; Lev. 25, 3-7.
Deut. 15, 1-3.
Miswot, the usual word for the particular commandments of the law
According to M. Ta'anit 4, 5, in the Herodian temple wood was brought
in by the families who had this privilege on nine days in the year. The
fifteenth of Ab was a general festival of wood-offering. Megillat Ta'anit 5;
cf. Josephus, Bell. Jud. 11. 17, 6.
CHAP, ii] EZRA. THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 31
mentary to the law, framed, it would be assumed, by the leading
men, whom Ezra associates with himself when he says, "We
imposed on ourselves obligations."
It is probably from this precedent that the idea of the body
commonly called the Great Synagogue arose.1 It was imagined
as a kind of council which in that generation made ordinances
and regulations as they found necessary, and promulgated them
with authority.
In tracing the continuous tradition of the Law from Moses to
the days of Shammai and Hillel — Moses, Joshua, the elders, the
prophets, — the Pirk£ Abot has, "The prophets transmitted it to
the men of the Great Synagogue." The last in the prophetic
succession were Haggai and Zechariah, who had a leading part
in the rebuilding of the temple, and Malachi,2 whom the Jews
made a contemporary of the other two. These were the link
between their predecessors in the prophetic tradition and the
Great Synagogue. In the Abot de-R. Nathan, these prophets
of the restoration have a place by themselves: "Haggai, Zech-
ariah, and Malachi received the tradition from the prophets;
the men of the Great Synagogue received it from Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi." 3 They are doubtless reckoned among
the prophets in that body.4 Ezra was one of the leading mem-
bers, and, in the light of Neh. 8-10, was naturally thought of
as presiding over the body. Nehemiah was associated with
him, as in those chapters. Others were Zerubbabel and Joshua;
also Mordecai. In a commentary on Abot in the Mahzor Vitry 6
1 Keneset ha-Gcdolah. It was not, in our use of the word, a synagogue at
all; a better rendering is Great Assembly, or Convention. In Hebrew this
distinction is indicated by the epithet 'Great/ for which a far-fetched ex-
planation is given in Yoma 6cjb. See Note 4.
2 Some identified Malachi with Ezra. Megillah I5a; Targum on Mai. i,
i; Jerome, Preface to Malachi. Nehemiah was similarly identified with
Zerubbabel.
3 Abot de-R. Nathan i, 3.
4 Megillah I7b. In M. Peah 2, 6 (Gamaliel II) the Pairs receive the tra-
dition fiom the Prophets.
6 Page 463. To harmonize Neh. 10, 3, with 12, i.
32 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the following list is given: "Azariah (that is Ezra, who came up
from Babylon with his company of returning exiles), Zerubba-
bel, Joshua, Nehemiah, Mordecai-Bilshan." 1 In older texts the
Great Synagogue is represented as a large body, numbering one
hundred and twenty members, and including other prophets
besides those named.2
To the Men of the Great Synagogue is ascribed the completion
of the collection of sacred books,3 adding to it the books of
Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther, and the Twelve Prophets, in which
group Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were appended to the
earlier prophets. Ezra wrote his own book (of which our Nehe-
miah was a part), and Chronicles as far as his own genealogy.4
A number of slight alterations of the text from motives of rever-
ence are sometimes called corrections of Ezra,6 sometimes cor-
rections of the Soferim,6 who are identified with the men of the
Great Synagogue. They are also said to have prescribed the
benedictions and prayers (in the daily prayer), and the benedic-
tions ushering in holy time or marking its close (I^iddush and
Habdalah).7 They authorized the observance of the Feast of
Purim, and fixed the days that were to be kept.8 Some thought
that they prescribed the curriculum of study in the three chief
branches of Jewish learning, Midrash, Halakah, and Haggadah.9
1 After Neh. 7, 7. The identification of Mordecai with the Bilshan of
that verse, Meivaliot 6j\r, Targum Cant. 7, 3; cf . 6, 4. Another \\st (Malazor
Vitry, p. 481, from Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim) makes Azariah (Ezra)
the intermediary between Zechariah and the Great Synagogue, viz., Zerub-
babel, Joshua, Nehemiah, and Mordecai-Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum,
Baanah (Ezra 2, 2).
1 Cf. Berakot 3ja with Megillah I7b and Jer. Berakot 4d; Megillah 2a
with Jer. Megillah jod. On the discrepancies in these statements see W.
Bacher, 'Synagogue, The Great,' Jewish Encyclopedia, XI, 640 f.
8 Baba Batra 1 5a. This must be what is meant when it is said that they
"wrote" these books, as when it is said in the preceding context that Heze-
kiah and his associates "wrote" Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes.
4 Ibid. B &OTJJ "Jlpn.
6 DnBlD "Jlpn. Tanhuma, Beshallafc § 16 (on Exod. 15, 7). See Bacher,
Tannaiten, II, 205 n.; Termmologie, I, 83 f.
7 Berakot jja.
8 Megillah 2a. See below, p. 319. 9 Jer. Shekalim 48c.
CHAP, ii] EZRA. THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 33
Thus the distinctive religious institutions of Judaism as it
was in the first centuries of our era were carried back to its be-
ginnings. Ezra and the Men of the Great Synagogue were be-
lieved to have introduced these institutions and regulations by
ordinances (ta^anof) having the force of law, as their successors,
the Soferim, and the Rabbis who succeeded them did.1
The motto of the Men of the Great Synagogue in Abot I, i,
is: "Be deliberate in giving judgment, and raise up many
disciples, and make a barrier about the law." The first two
clauses contemplate the learned, to whom these hortatory coun-
sels are directed, as judges and as teachers of the law; the third
is addressed to them as makers of law. We have seen how the
ordinances (tal&anoi) attributed to the leaders of the restora-
tion and of the authorities in later generations formed in reality
a body of legislation supplementary to the written law in the
Pentateuch. Another side of the law-making of the same au-
thorities was enactments meant to guard against any possible
infringement of the divine statute.2 This is what is here meant
by making a barrier around the law. Thus — to take an example
from the first page of the Mishnah — things which by the letter
of the law must be completed before morning,3 by rabbinical rule
must be done before midnight, " to keep a man tar removed from
transgression." 4
The distinction between the ordinances and decrees of the
Scribes (Soferim) and the biblical law is constantly made in the
juristic literature, but the authority of the Scribes or the Learned
to make such regulations was not questioned, nor was the trans-
gression or neglect of their rules a venial offense. On the con-
1 E.g , Simeon ben Shatah, Hillel, Johanan ben Zakkai; the Synod at
Usha, etc.
2 Authority for such an extension of the law was found in Lev. 18, 30,
interpreted, "Ye shall make an injunction additional to my injunction."
Sifra Ahare, end; Yebamot 2ia. Perpetuity; annulment, Gitt'm 36b.
3 See, e.g., Lev. 7, 15; 22, 30.
4 M. Berakot i, i. The technical name for such prohibitions is gezerot,
which we might render 'decrees/ On the whole subject see Weiss, Dor,
II, 50 ff.; Jewish Encyclopedia, 'Gezerah* and 'Tal&anah.'
34 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
trary, a more serious matter is made of the words of the Scribes
than of the words of the (written) law.1
It is clear that the Jews in the early centuries of our era had
no other knowledge of the restoration or of Ezra and the Great
Synagogue than what they gathered from the sources we possess,2
combined in an artificial and erroneous chronological scheme.3
They imagined that body in the likeness of a rabbinical council,
legislating like one by ordinance and decree, and thus founding
the distinctive institutions of Judaism. Its individual members
were, like the rabbis in their time, both teachers in the law schools
and judges in the courts, and, in a way, law-makers. The maxim
attributed to them embodies the ideal of Jewish scholars in all
after time.
One of the last survivors of the Great Synagogue was Simeon
the Righteous,4 and it is in conformity to the rabbinical chronol-
ogy, which has room for but one generation (thirty-four years)
between the rebuilding of the temple 6 and the fall of the Persian
Empire,6 that Simeon is the high priest who, arrayed in full
pontificals, went out to meet Alexander the Great.7 Historically,
this Simeon the Righteous is probably the high priest Simeon
son of Onias, contemporary of Jesus son of Sirach,8 with an
eloquent eulogy of whom (50, 1-24) that author brings his
Praise of the Forefathers (41, 1-50, 24) to a close. The public
works for which Simeon is here lauded, the repairs on the temple
and the strengthening of its fortifications and those of the city,
1 A collection of utterances to the same effect in Jer. Berakot 30, apropos
of the instance in M. Berakot i, 3.
1 The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, and the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah.
8 See Note 4.
4 Abot i, 2. See Note 5.
6 CompJeted, by our dates, in 516 B.C.
6 Above, p. 6.
1 Itv OMT cYvTonoVogy, 331 fc.c. Yoma 693.. "J0^^* (,Antt. x\. fc, 4. ^%
325 ff.) tells the story of Jaddua (Neh. 12, n, 22), who in his succession of
high priests is Simeon's grandfather.
8 Ca. 200 B.C.
CHAP, ii] EZRA. THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 35
would fit very well with this date when Jerusalem had recently
been taken and retaken in the struggle between Syria and Egypt.1
It will be observed that in his catalogue of worthies Sirach
passes at once from Zerubbabel and Joshua and Nehemiah,2
who rebuilt the temple or restored the walls of Jerusalem, to his
contemporary Simeon, who did the like. He apparently knew
no notable name between. No more did the author of Abot i,
1-2; and inasmuch as to be of any use such a chain of tradition
must possess unbroken continuity, it followed of necessity that
Simeon must have been associated with the men of the Great
Synagogue. He is, however, not only one of the last survivors
of that group, but the beginning of a new succession of teachers,
singly or in pairs, who are known by name, and who by degrees
come into historical light.
Simeon's memorable word was: "The world rests on three
pillars, on the Torah, on the cultus, and on works of charity"3 —
we may paraphrase, knowledge of divine revelation, the worship
of God, and deeds of lovingkindness to men. Antigonus of
Socho, who received the traditional law from Simeon, said: "Be
not like slaves who serve their masters with the expectation of
receiving a gratuity; but be like slaves who serve their master
without expectation of receiving a gratuity, and let the fear of
Heaven be upon you," 4 the often repeated principle that duty
should be done for God's sake, or for its own sake (because it is
duty),6 not for the reward of obedience. 'The man who fears
the Lord delights greatly in His commandments' (Psalm 112, i) :
"In His commandments, not in the reward of His command-
ments." 6
1 It is a tempting conjecture that, in the story from which Yoma 69 was
derived, the king whom Simeon went out to make his peace with was not
originally Alexander, but one of these contending monarchs, most likely
Antiochus III. See Note 5.
2 Ezra \s nowhere named.
3 Abot i, a. 4 Ibid, i, 3.
6 See Vol. II, pp. 95 ff.
6 'Abodah Zarah I9a. R. Eleazar (ben Shammua'), quoting the words of
Antigonus.
36 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
These sayings are set down at the beginning of the Sentences
of the Fathers as recognized fundamentals of Judaism. They
have so many counterparts in the Tannaite literature that they
might be called Maxims of the Pharisees.1
1 See the Catena on Abot by Noah Kobryn (Wilna, 1868).
CHAPTER III
THE SCRIBES
THE book of Jesus son of Sirach, commonly cited by the ab-
breviated title, Sirach,1 is a landmark in the history of the
Jewish religious literature of this age. It is the work of a single
author who has put his own name to it (50, 2y),2 and who makes
his individuality felt throughout. It was plainly not composed
as a whole on a preconceived plan, and may perhaps be de-
scribed as a collection of short essays, written probably at in-
tervals of time. The situation, however, is the same in them all,
and the external and internal evidence coincide to fix the date
in the vicinity of 200 B.C.
The author makes it abundantly evident that he was a
teacher, and we may imagine that he set down from time to time
in writing such lessons as he was accustomed to give to young
men of the upper classes in Jerusalem, or that he worked up his
notes for the purpose of publication. The subject of his instruc-
tion was "wisdom" (oxx^ta)3 in the sense of that word which
the Book of Proverbs made familiar. Another common term is
7T(u5e(a, for which "education" is perhaps our nearest equiva-
lent, with the understanding that, like the Hebrew musar which
it commonly represents, it is primarily moral instruction and dis-
cipline. The wisdom which he aimed to impart was not theoreti-
cal philosophy or ethics but a practical guide for the conduct
of life in the various stations and relations in which those who
frequented his instruction might find themselves.
Jewish wisdom was, however, fundamentally a religious ethic.
Its first principle, its mainspring and motive, was "the fear of
1 In the Latin Bible, Ecclesiasticus.
2 The case is unique.
8 In Hebrew, ^okmah.
37
38 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the Lord," and its normative principle was the law of God
revealed in the Scriptures. Sirach explicitly identifies Wisdom,
which has just sung its own high praises (24, 1-22), with " the
law which Moses commanded, an inheritance to the congrega-
tion of Jacob."1 Judaism is the only true wisdom, as it is the
only true religion.
The emphasis on this uniqueness is explained by the circum-
stances of the times. The inclination to adopt the Hellenic
civilization, which was fast becoming oecumenic, was not far
from its climax in Jerusalem in his day, and was nowhere
stronger, we may be sure, than among the young aristocrats who
were sent to school to him. Sirach was himself a cultivated
man of their own class; he had broadened his mind by travel,
and perhaps been in the service of one or another of the Hellen-
istic rulers. That he knew Greek may fairly be presumed. There
was all the more force in his words when such a man declared
his conviction that whatever there was in the wisdom of the
Greeks, however excellent their science, art, and letters, — their
culture, in a word, — the wisdom of the Jews, even in the classic
Greek definition, "knowledge of things divine and human,"
was vastly superior, because it came from God himself.
It is upon this axiomatic premise that he treats every subject.
Wisdom is the condition of well-being and happiness, and wisdom
is conformity to the will of God as He has revealed it. Man is
accountable for his own conduct, he cannot shift the responsibil-
ity upon God (15, i iff.); His judgment is inescapable (16,
17 ff.). The evils which experience shows to be the consequence
of misdoing are retributive. The religious point of view prevails
throughout,2 and is emphasized at points where it evidently
encountered skepticism. Significant also is the prominence of
the national note. The Praise of the Forefathers is a swift
summary of the great things God did for them and through
1 Ecclus. 24, 23 (32); cf. i, 1-15. On this identification in rabbinical
sources see pp. 263 ff.
2 A comparison with Proverbs on this point is instructive.
CHAP, in] THE SCRIBES 39
them, well fitted to inspire the loyalty of Jews to their religion
and their people. Sirach has faith also in the national future,
his conception of which is set forth in a prayer for the speedy
realization of this hope.1
What makes the Book of Sirach of peculiar importance in our
present inquiry is not only that he was a teacher of religious
morals to young men in a critical age, but that in his primary
calling he was a biblical scholar and a teacher of the Law, a
representative of the class of Soferim. His eminent attainments
in the Scriptures are commemorated by his grandson and trans-
lator in his preface, and the book itself fully confirms this esti-
mate. Sirach himself calls his school, to attendance on which
he invites the unlearned, by a name which is later appropriated
to the seat of more advanced biblical studies.2 It may fairly
be presumed that besides such instruction in religion and morals
as we have in the Book of Sirach, law in the narrower sense was
in his time studied in schools. On matters of ritual, and in
questions of clean and unclean with the proper purifications and
expiations, the priests were the recognized authorities; but a
knowledge of the civil and criminal law was necessary for the
judges before whom such cases were brought, and that compe-
tence in this field could be acquired only by what we should call
the professional studies of the Scribe, Sirach strongly reiterates.3
It involved not only the juristic interpretation of the laws in the
Pentateuch, but knowledge of the common law that went be-
side it and supplemented it, and of the ordinances and decrees
of earlier or contemporary authorities. We need not assume that
didactic lectures were given on these subjects; it may be that
students acquired their knowledge by frequenting the sessions
of the learned and listening to their discussions;4 but whatever
1 Ecclus. 33, 1-22 (Swete). Here also the contrast to Proverbs is to be
noted.
2 Ecclus. 51, 23: av\iaBriT€ kv OLKU 7rat5etas3 for which the recently dis-
covered Hebrew has 'CTTID JV31 U^l. Cf. also 51, 29, WBP3.
8 Ecclus. 38, 33; 39, i; cf. 39, 8.
4 See Abot i, 4, and below, p. 46.
4o HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the method may have been, there was an effective provision for
legal education.
That small matters as well as great received attention is illus-
trated in Ecclus. 42, where the author exhorts his reader not
to be ashamed to conform to the "law and covenant of the Most
High" because others (Gentiles or hellenized Jews) ridiculed
such scrupulousness. Such matters are care for the accuracy of
weights and measures, and in buying and selling. The Hebrew
Sirach is more explicit. It speaks of dusting scales and balances
and of wiping off measures and weights, on which the Mishnah
lays down the rule: "A shopkeeper must wipe his measures
twice a week and wipe off his weights once a week and wipe his
scales every time he uses them." 1
An attentive reading of Sirach shows many striking parallels
not only to religious and moral sentences such as are collected
in the Pirke Abot or are scattered through the rabbinical litera-
ture,2 but to the rules and regulations which are finally formu-
lated in the Mishnah and kindred lawbooks.
In a memorable passage Sirach draws the portrait of the ideal
Scribe:3
Learning is the privilege of leisure. Husbandmen and artisans
are the support of the social structure, but, wholly occupied
as they must be in their several callings and often highly expert
in them, they have no time for the wide-ranging studies that
make the scholar. They are therefore not qualified to be called
to the council or to take the lead in the assembly; they cannot
sit on the judge's bench, for they do not understand the princi-
ples of the law, and cannot bring out the rights of the case and a
just judgment. Different is the case of the man who gives his
whole mind to it, and concentrates his thought on the law of the
Most High. He will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and
1 M. Baba Batra 5, 10. Compare also the sequel in the Mishnah with
Ecclus. 42, 4b-5a.
1 The schoolmen of the Tannaite period cultivated the art of condensing
wisdom into pithy aphorisms which we associate with the class of proverb-
makers, and did quite as well in it.
, "JB1D. See Ecclus. 38, 24-39, XI-
CHAP, in] THE SCRIBES 41
occupy himself with the study of prophecies, and pay attention
to expositions of famous men, and will penetrate into the elusive
turns of parables. He will search out the hidden meaning of pro-
verbs, and will be versed in the enigmas of parables.1
He will serve among the magnates and appear in the presence
of the ruler. He will travel in foreign countries, for he has ex-
perience of good and evil among men. He will resolve to rise early
to the service of the Lord his creator, and will make his petition
to the Most High; he will open his mouth in prayer, and beseech
forgiveness for his sins. If the great Lord please, he will be
filled with a spirit of understanding, and will himself pour out
like rain his words of wisdom, and praise the Lord in prayer.2
He will direct aright his counsel and knowledge, and reflect on
the hidden things of God. He will make public the instruction
he has to impart, and his pride will be in (knowledge of) the law
of the covenant of the Lord.
Many will praise his understanding, and his reputation will
never be obliterated; the memory of him will not pass away, but
his name will live to countless generations. Other nations will
talk of his wisdom, and the congregation (of Israel) will tell
forth his praise. If he lives he will leave a greater name than
the multitude; and if he rests from his labors, it will be greater
still.
The Scribes, as Sirach here represents them, were a professional
class, with a wide range of learning and activities. Of the pre-
vious history of this class little is to be known. Ezra appears in
the name and character of a Scribe, and the Men of the Great
Synagogue were thought of after the same pattern. In Sirach,
however, they are an institution, for which a history must be
assumed to bring it to the stage on which we find it there. The
biblical scholars, students and teachers of the law written and
unwritten, not only have attained great proficiency in their
calling, but as a class have taken an independent place alongside
1 His studies embrace all parts of the Scripture. The Praise of the Fore-
fathers (c. 44 ff.) takes us over Sirach's canon, and his familiarity with all
parts of it is evident throughout his book.
2 The Scribe seems here to be thought of as holding discourse and leading
thejprayers in a religious assembly.
42 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the priesthood, in whose hands in older times was the law and
its interpretation.
The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. It is
here, and not in the introduction of the Priests' Code, which
would presumably have tended in quite the opposite direction,
that Judaism as we know it has its antecedents. Many of the
early Scribes may have been priests, as some of the most eminent
rabbis were in later times; but there is no indication that Sirach
was one, or that priests had any precedence, much less preroga-
tive, in the calling of the Scribes.
Manifold as the activities of the Scribes, or of individuals
among them, may have been, the field in which their labors
had most to do with shaping the future of Judaism was un-
questionably what in a wide sense we may call jurisprudence.
The development of a lay jurisprudence, not dependent on the
priesthood, the hereditary custodians of the law, presumes the
publication of a body of written law accessible to any who chose
to occupy themselves with the study of it. According to the
narrative in Ezra and Nehemiah, an official publication of the
Book of the Law of Moses took place in Ezra's time; and, apart
from this account, there is evidence in the later books of the
Old Testament of the existence of such a work, substantially
our Pentateuch, in the Persian period. The history of Roman
jurisprudence offers a partial analogy. It was the surreptitious
publication about 300 B.C. of a digest of forms of legal procedure
which had previously been kept to themselves by the ponttfices
that made possible the rise of professional jurisconsults and
of legal education.1
It is a natural supposition that the lay Scribes did not concern
themselves so much about points of ritual with which the
priests alone had to do as about other spheres of the law. Later,
however, they extended their research to that field, and at last,
relying on popular support, undertook to regulate or reform
1 See the article, 'Jurisprudentia,' in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopa-
die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, X, col. 1 159 ff.
CHAP, in] THE SCRIBES 43
priestly practice in conformity with the letter of the law or their
own exegesis of it. The character and conduct of the priesthood,
particularly of the sacerdotal aristocracy, was frequently very
remote from such an ideal of the office as would be formed from
the study of the Law. After Simeon the Righteous, who perhaps
owed the laudatory cognomen to the contrast with his succes-
sors,1 high priests who bought their appointment from the king
were willing tools of his hellenizing plans, and turned the Scribes,
with all the Jews who were zealous for their own religion (the
IJasidim), against them. The national high priests, from John
Hyrcanus in his later years, went over to the Sadducean party,
and the priestly nobility under Herod and the procurators were
of the same stripe. The Scribes, on the other hand, had the
support of the Pharisaean party, to which many of them be-
longed. The Pharisees in turn had the people behind them, and
with the growing importance of the synagogue, the profession-
ally educated class gained increasing influence as the teachers
of the people. Both the scope and the methods of study in the
schools of the law changed, as we shall see, with time and chang-
ing conditions, and scholars became more and more the dominant
factor in the conservation and development of Judaism through
all the vicissitudes of the centuries.
The old name, Scribes, was apparently the only one in use in
the age from which the Gospels come. In the Tannaite litera-
ture scholars are called Hakamim, in the sense of " the learned,"
students are Talmide IJakamim, disciples of the learned,2 the
name Soferim, Scribes, being restricted to the learned of an older
time. The sources at our command do not disclose the reason for
this change in usage or the date at which the new designation
was introduced. It may perhaps be connected with the reorgani-
zation of the schools after the destruction of Jerusalem and the
1 The Talmud tells a scandalous story about his own sons. Menahot
1090; Jer. Yoma 430; Tos. Sotah 13, 6 ff. One of these sons was the founder
of the Onias Temple in Egypt.
2 The latter name, as the more modest, is often used of those who have
passed beyond the student stage.
44 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
use thereafter of Rabbi as a title for what we might call a
diplomaed Doctor of the Law.
In sketching the history of the Scribes we have run ahead of our
subject. To return to Sirach, it remains to direct attention to
another aspect of his book which is of even greater importance
than those which have hitherto engaged us. More completely
and more certainly than any other writings of the period the
Book of Sirach shows us the extent to which the higher religious
and ethical principles of the Law and the Prophets had been
selectively appropriated, coordinated, and assimilated by the
best learning and thought of his time, and were digested for ends
of education. No less clearly does it prove the progress which
had been made since the beginning of the Persian period in the
direction of later Judaism. The same thing, in different degrees,
may be observed in other writings of the Persian and Mace-
donian centuries when we bring them into parallel with Sirach.
The value of the book as a landmark is very great in another
respect, because it enables us to assure ourselves that the
theology and ethics of the Tannaim in the second century of
our era were substantially the same as those of the Soferim at
the beginning of the second century before it.
Hardly less instructive in comparison with the rabbinical
literature is the silence of the book on some points on which the
Tannaim laid great stress, particularly on retribution after
death or the revivification of the dead (resurrection of the body).
On this account Sirach has been labelled Sadducee. It does not
appear that the rabbis entertained any such suspicion.
The book of Ben Sira in Hebrew was well known in the Tan-
naite period and later, highly esteemed, and not infrequently
quoted, sometimes with the formula usual with quotations from
the Bible.1 It was, in fact, found necessary sometime about
1 See Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Eccle-
siasttcus, etc. (1897), p. xix-xxx; I. Levi, Jewish Encyclopedia, XI, 390.
CHAP, in] THE SCRIBES 45
the end of the first century of our era to make a formal deliver-
ance to the effect that it was not sacred Scripture.1 This did not
imply any depreciation of the book itself; it was sufficient that
it was written at a time when, with the death of the last prophets,
the inspiration of biblical books had ceased.2
After Antigonus of Socho the tradition is said to have been
carried on by a couple of colleagues in each succeeding generation,
beginning with Jose ben Jo'ezer of §eredah and Jose ben Johanan
of Jerusalem, and ending with Shammai and Hillel.3 The first
pair fall in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.c.).4
Between them and the last, in the time of Herod, three pairs
have to fill a space of more than a century and a quarter. What
is historically established is that Shemaiah and Abtalion were
the most highly reputed teachers of the Law and heads of the
Pharisees in the earlier part of Herod's reign (37-4 B.C.); and
that Simeon ben Shatah was active under Alexander Jannaeus
(103-76) and had great influence with his successor Queen
Alexandra (76-67), who is said to have been Simeon's sister.
Most of the members of these pairs are hardly more than names;
besides the sentences ascribed to them in the Abot, what little
is told of them is chiefly legendary. It is evident that the Tan-
naim had nothing like a continuous historical tradition of the
lives and labors of their predecessors.
1 Tos Yadaim 2, 13.
2 Abaye, a Babylonian scholar of the 4th century, in answer to the question
why the book was disapproved, quotes utterances that might seem objec-
tionable or foolish. Sanhedrin loob.
3 Abot i, 4 ff. According to M. JJagigah 2, 2, the first named in each pair
was the president, the second the vice-president, of the Sanhedrin. This is
carrying back into antiquity the organization of the high court after the de-
struction of Jerusalem.
4 A midrashic legend makes Jose ben Jo'ezer one of the company of
scholars who paid with their lives for their confidence in the high priest
Alcimus (162/161 B.C. i Mace. 7, 16). Gen. R. 65, 22; Midrash Tehilhm
on Psalm 11,7. The death of Jose ben Jo'ezer and his colleague is remembered
as a disastrous crisis in the history of the schools. M. Sofah 9, 9; Sojah
47a-b; Temurah I5b.
46 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
The maxims of Jose ben Jo'ezer testify to his zeal for the study
of the Law: "Let thy house be a meeting place of the learned,
and sit in the dust at their feet and thirstily drink in their
words." 1 Jose ben Jo'ezer and his colleague Jose ben Johanan
are the first in this series of authorities in whose names decrees
(gezerof) 2 are reported. They are said to have pronounced
heathen soil unclean, and also that glass vessels are unclean.3
Looking back out of the controversies of schools and conflict
of individual opinions in a later age, scholars idealized a past of
which they had no record, and sometimes went so far as to
imagine that previous to this pair the authorities had always
been in complete accord: the two Jose's differed on a single
point in the ritual of private sacrifice on holy days,4 and down
to Shammai and Hillel this was the sole controversy.5 Shammai
and Hillel raised the number of contentions to four, but, "When
their disciples increased in numbers and did not attend their
masters as diligently as they ought, the divisions of opinion
multiplied in Israel. They formed two parties, the one declaring
unclean what the other declared clean; and things will not re-
turn to their former state (of unanimity) till the Son of David
comes." 6 From our point of view, the actual tradition of the
disputes of the schools begins in the generation before the
Christian era. The differences of the "houses" of Shammai and
Hillel are in the foreground from that time to the destruction of
Jerusalem in the year 70, and were not wholly composed for a
good while after that.7
1 Abot i, 4. Compare the advice of Joshua ben Perahiah (ibid., i, 6):
"Take to yourself a master (teacher), and get for yourself a comrade (in
studies); and judge every man in the most favorable light."
2 Widening the scope of prohibitive laws. See p. 33.
8 Shabbat I4b; the explanations in the Talmud, ibid. I5b. Other deliver-
ances of Jose ben Jo'ezer on questions of clean and unclean are found in
'Eduyot 8, 4; cf. Sifra, Shemmi Perek 9, end (ed. Weiss f. 55b).
4 The nanDD to Wl, Temurah i6a, top; cf. I5b.
B Jer. IJagigah yyd; Tos. IJagigah 2, 8.
8 Jer. IJagigah I.e.
7 See below, pp. 80 f., 86.
CHAP, in] THE SCRIBES 47
Simeon ben Shatah, the restorer of the Law in the reign of
Queen Alexandra,1 is the first in the series of pairs who stands
out with a certain distinctness of character. He was the author
of several ordinances (ta^anof)^ perhaps the most important of
which have to do with the marriage contract (ketubah)?
1 Kiddushin 66a. See below, p. 58 n. 6.
2 See below, Vol II, pp 122 f.
CHAPTER IV
THE RELIGIOUS CRISIS
WITHIN a few years after the death of Sirach there came a
momentous crisis in the history of the Jews in Palestine. He
had probably seen Judaea pass finally from the dominion of the
Ptolemies to that of the Seleucids by the battle of Panium in
198 B.C., and the restorations of the walls of the temple and city
under the high priest Simon l may have been made possible by
the favor of Antiochus III.2 But evil times soon followed.
The Seleucids were much more zealous for disseminating the
blessings of Hellenic culture among their subjects than the
Ptolemies, and in the cities of Syria, long since completely de-
nationalized, the populations displayed a gratifying alacrity in
adopting the newest fashion in civilization. Of the finer intel-
lectual and aesthetic influences of Greek culture little is discerni-
ble; the difference in this respect between Antioch and Alex-
andria is salient. The picture which Poseidonios, himself a
native of Apameia, paints of the Syrian cities in his day was
probably no less true at an earlier time.3
In the century of Ptolemaic rule, knowledge of the Greek
language must have been common among the upper classes,
especially among the higher priesthood in Jerusalem, to whom,
indeed, their relations with the government on the one hand, and
intercourse with the large Greek-speaking Jewish population of
Egypt and the Cyrenaica on the other, made it a necessity. Nor
is there any doubt that Greek civilization exercised over many
Jews the same fascination it had for other Orientals, and that
among them its customs and fashions were imitated, its luxuries
1 Ecclus. 50, i ff.
1 Josephus, Antt. xii. 3, 3 §§ 138 ff.
1 Frag. 1 8. C. Muller, Frag. Historicorum Graecorum, III, 258.
48
CHAP, iv] THE RELIGIOUS CRISIS 49
eagerly sought after. Some families acquired great wealth in
fanning the taxes by the usual methods of extortion and oppres-
sion, and with riches their power grew and their ambitions rose,
as we read in the romance of the Tobiads.1 They made no effort,
so far as we know, to promote the spread of foreign ways among
their countrymen otherwise than by setting a bad example.
Shortly after the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes, however,
a calculated attempt of this kind was made, and the initiative
came from the highest quarters. A brother of the high priest
Onias, who hellenized his Jewish name Jesus 2 into Jason, in-
gratiated himself with the new king by displaying a flattering
zeal for civilization and by his willingness to pay well for it.
Besides the high price he offered for the appointment to the high
priesthood in the room of his brother, he promised other large
sums for the privilege of establishing a gymnasium in Jerusalem
with the institution of ephebi, and for the enrolment of Jews as
Antiochian citizens,3 enterprises which were doubtless quite to
the mind of Antiochus, especially when accompanied by tangible
considerations. With the Jews the argument for assimilation
ran, "Let us go and make alliance with the peoples around us,
for since we separated from them many evils have befallen us." 4
Jason was made high priest in 175/4 B.C. The privileges con-
ferred by Antiochus III were annulled; Jerusalem was given a
Greek constitution, with a right for its citizens to acquire —
doubtless not gratuitously — Antiochian citizenship also. A
gymnasium was built below the citadel; athletic young Jews
enrolled as ephebi scandalized their pious elders by putting on
broad-brimmed Greek hats. Priests hurried through their office
in the temple to take part in the sports. Many submitted to a
surgical operation to efface the blemish of circumcision, which
provoked the ridicule of bystanders when the Jewish youths
stripped for gymnastic exercises. When Greek games were being
1 Josephus, Antt. xii. 4, I ff.
2 Jeshu'a (Joshua). Jason of Gyrene is probably a parallel instance.
* 2 Mace. 4, 8 f. 4 i Mace, i, n.
50 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
held at Tyre in the presence of the king, the Jewish high priest,
Jason, sent ambassadors 1 with a contribution for the sacrifices
to Hercules.2
The hellenization of Jerusalem was thus in full swing. Jason's
success encouraged a certain Menelaus3 to imitate his example,
and he supplanted Jason in the high priesthood by larger prom-
ises. That he did not get possession without bloodshed may be
inferred from 2 Mace. 4, 25, which on this occasion remarks,
"He had the passions of a cruel tyrant and the fury of a ferocious
wild beast." He prevailed, however, and Jason found a refuge
beyond the Jordan, whence later, upon a rumor of Antiochus'
death in Egypt, he emerged, took Jerusalem by a coup de main,
and executed sanguinary vengeance on the defenders, but was
unable to maintain his conquest and was soon in flight again.
That the efforts of the king and his creatures to heathenize
them ran counter not only to the attachment of the Jews to their
religion but to their national sentiment is clear. The high priest
and the senate had received Antiochus III as a deliverer from
the misgovernment of the recent Ptolemies, and he was politic
enough to assume the r6le. But notwithstanding the new politi-
cal constellation, Judaea was closer in every way to Egypt than
to Syria, and the associations of a hundred years were not sun-
dered in a day. Whatever expectations of better times may have
been raised by the first acts of Antiochus III were speedily
dashed. The chronic financial straits of the Seleucid empire,
especially in consequence of the crushing indemnity imposed by
1 Geojpol, such as the Athenians sent to the four great Hellenic games. It
was a religious function. The ambassadors were not so completely emanci-
pated as the high priest, and asked that the contribution be expended on the
fleet. 2 Mace. 4, 18-20.
2 With whom Melkart, the god of Tyre, was identified.
3 In good Jewish, Menahem. It has been inferred from 2 Mace. 4, 23
(Menelaus brother of Simon, of the tribe of Benjamin, ibid., 3, 4), that
Menelaus was not of priestly extraction. There was, however, an order of
priests, Mtmamin (Neh. 12, 17, cf. 12, 5; i Chron. 24, 9), for which some
Greek MSS and the Syriac have Benjamin; cf. Ta'anit I2a. See Geiger,
Urschrift und Uebersetzungen, pp. 221 f.
CHAP, iv] THE RELIGIOUS CRISIS 51
the Romans after Magnesia, made the burden of taxation more
onerous than ever; Seleucus IV had tried to rob the temple in
Jerusalem of its treasures and the large private deposits laid up
in it; Menelaus appropriated some of its golden vessels to use
in bribing Syrian officials, and left his brother Lysimachus to get
the rest. To crown all this came the aggressive hellenizing
policy of Antiochus IV. From such an evil and threatening
present it would be strange if the Jews had not looked back to
the good old times of Ptolemaic rule, when, whatever other
grievances they had, at least nobody tried to modernize them,
and they were left to isolate themselves in their national religion
and customs as completely as they liked.
Such was the situation when the war between Antiochus IV
and Egypt opened. That the sympathy of very many Jews
should be on the Egyptian side was inevitable, and Antiochus
was doubtless apprised by Menelaus of their disloyal sentiments.
On his way back from this campaign in the autumn of the yeai
169 he came up to Jerusalem with a considerable force.1 Under
the conduct of the high priest, Menelaus, he entered the adytum
of the temple, the Most Holy Place, and when he left carried
off the altar of incense, the candelabra, the table of shewbread,
the golden utensils of the cultus, and everything else he could
lay his hands on, even stripping the gold plating from the front
of the edifice.2
In the spring of 168 B.C. Antiochus invaded Egypt a second
time, but in the midst of his operations the Roman senate inter-
vened and peremptorily ordered him out of the country. The
temper in which he returned to Syria may be imagined, nor
would it be strange if he vented it on anything that came in his
way. Whatever vindictiveness there may have been, however,
in his dealing with the Jews, the measures he took in Judaea
1 According to 2 Mace. 5, 1 1, to punish the city for its supposed connivance
in Jason's raid, construed as a revolt.
2 i Mace, i, 20-24; 2 Mace. 5, 15 f.; cf. Josephus, Antt. xii. 5, 3. These
accounts speak of much bloodshed in the city, which, according to 2 Mace.,
he turned over to his soldiers to sack.
52 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
were themselves justified by political reasons.1 His promising
scheme for hellenizing the Jews, so to say from within, by the
agency of the high priests and an upper-class minority had had
an effect diametrically opposite to his expectations. It had
created a national opposition which was strengthened by every-
thing he did to accomplish his end. This national opposition
had become an Egyptian party, whose rejoicing in his discom-
fiture was probably more sincere than discreet. Even if he could
have brought himself to reverse his policy, he could not hope to
regain their allegiance by the sacrifice of the only supporters he
had. On the other hand, elementary strategical considerations
forbade him to leave a stronghold like Jerusalem in the posses-
sion of a thoroughly disloyal population so near the frontier of
a hostile empire.
He proceeded therefore to demolish the walls of the city and
pull down or burn many of its houses. On the eastern hill, south
of the temple, he built and strongly fortified a smaller city, and
colonized it with foreigners. What was in his eyes the loyal
remnant of the Jews was also established there under the pro-
tection of a mercenary garrison in the citadel which held it
for the king through all vicissitudes until 142 B.C.
When this had been accomplished Antiochus converted the
temple to the worship of the Olympian Zeus.2 The great altar
in the court became the pedestal of a smaller altar of Greek
fashion (j3co/i6s), on which swine were offered in sacrifice.3 The
whole Jewish cultus was thus superseded.
Antiochus understood perfectly well that the heart of the op-
position to him was religious. He resolved to extirpate the
religion. All its observances, particularly circumcision and the
1 The essentially political motive of the religious persecution is evident
from the fact that it was confined to Palestine. There is no evidence that the
Jews in Syria or Babylonia were molested in the observance of their religion.
2 The Samaritan temple on Genzim was similarly dedicated to Zeus
Xenios.
8 The high priest Menelaus remained in office as the political head of the
nation. It is not to be supposed that he officiated in the worship of the new
god who had usurped the temple.
CHAP, iv] THE RELIGIOUS CRISIS 53
keeping of sabbaths and festivals, were prohibited under pain
of death. Copies of the Law were destroyed and 'he possession
of such a volume was made a capital offense. "Altars were set
up in the towns and villages, and participation in the heathen
sacrifices was made a test of loyalty. Many obeyed the king's
edict either voluntarily or under duress. Those who refused
thus publicly to apostatize were put to death. Many fled and
concealed themselves from the king's officers.
This persecution provoked an insurrection headed by Judas
Maccabaeus and his brothers. Their bands roved through the
country, destroying the altars, circumcising the children, and
ruthlessly harrying the "apostates" who had submitted to the
royal decree. The Syrian commanders made the mistake of
underrating their enemy, and the defeats they suffered in the
first encounters led larger numbers to rally to Judas and raised
the confidence of his followers. Antiochus himself had greater
enterprises, which took him to the far east of his empire never
to return. The expeditions successively despatched by the
regent Lysias failed to suppress the revolt. In the autumn of
the year 165 Judas got possession of the temple, which he re-
stored and reconsecrated.1 Law-abiding priests were installed
and the worship resumed in its ancient forms. The temple was
strongly fortified, especially against attack from the side of the
citadel. The regent Lysias was by this time convinced that the
attempt to root out the religion was a failure. After negotia-
tions with Judas, full liberty was guaranteed to the Jews to
worship their own God in their own way and live according to
their national law and custom, and an amnesty was offered in
the king's name 2 to all who had taken part in the rebellion, on
condition that they came in within a month.
This change in the policy of the government did not bring
peace. Judas and his brothers did not deem their task accom-
plished so long as their countrymen beyond Jordan and in
1 Kislev (roughly December) 25, 165 B.C.
2 Antiochus V, Eupator.
54 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
Galilee, or on the seaboard and in Idumaea, were harassed by
the heathen, and undertook what are now called punitive ex-
peditions for their relief. Nor were they content to leave the
citadel of Jerusalem itself in foreign hands. When Judas laid
siege to this fortress, however, it was relieved by a Syrian army,
and Judas was in turn besieged in the temple and reduced by
famine to the verge of capitulation. Lysias was in a position to
dictate terms, and besides requiring Judas to evacuate the temple
made it indefensible by breaching its fortifications. But religi-
ous liberty was again guaranteed; that phase of the struggle
was ended.
The attempt to hellenize Judaea by force aroused, in the act
of resistance to it, a violent hostility to heathenism with all its
works and ways. The neighboring peoples reciprocated this
enmity in full measure and made the Jews settled among them
suffer from it on every occasion, partly as a vent to their own
feelings and a pretext for violence and rapine, partly perhaps as
a demonstration of loyalty. In defense of their outraged coun-
trymen the Maccabees, when they were able, retaliated in kind.
At home they had to reckon with the loyalist party. The
revolt was not, as is sometimes imagined, the uprising of the
Jewish people with one heart to save its imperilled religion. To
say nothing of the high priests and their ilk, what would nowa-
days be called the solid part of the community, the men of prop-
erty and position in Jerusalem, would have been unlike their
kind if peace and order in which to enjoy their privilege had not
seemed to them the condition of all earthly good. Many of
them had compromised themselves too deeply by compliance
with the king's edict to hope to make their peace with the rebels
who were so merciless against all "apostates." After the re-
covery of the temple and the guarantee of religious liberty by
the compact between Lysias and Judas, the cause for which the
Maccabaean faction had taken up arms was no longer a living
issue, but peace and order were as far away as before. The more
evidently the aim of this party now developed into the autonomy
CHAP, iv] THE RELIGIOUS CRISIS 55
of Judaea under one of the rebel chiefs, the more strongly the
royalists were opposed to the movement. For a quarter of a
century there was always a possibility that in some of the over-
turnings of the times they might come into power again.
The subsequent chapters of the political history of Judaea
need not be summarized here. Suffice it to say that in the twenty
years that followed the death of Judas l his brothers Jonathan
and Simon by adroit and unscrupulous use of the opportunities
political conditions put in their hands achieved the goal of in-
dependence. Demetrius II recognized Simon as high priest and
the autonomous ruler of a Jewish state. First Maccabees records
that in the year lyo2 the yoke of the heathen was removed from
Israel, and the people of Israel began to date documents and
contracts, 'In the year (so and so) of Simon, the great high
priest and commander-in-chief and ruler of the Jews ' (13, 41 f.).3
1 In the spring of 160 B c.
2 Of the Seleucid era, equivalent to 143/2 B c.
3 The use of a native era was the formal attestation of independence.
CHAPTER V
RISE OF THE PHARISEES
SIMON'S son and successor, John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.C.),
waged aggressive wars. on all sides. He made a campaign east
of the Jordan in the old territory of Moab; took Shechem and
destroyed the temple on Mt. Gerizim which pretended to rival
Jerusalem; conquered the Idumaeans in the south and made
Jews of them by compulsory circumcision; recovered Joppa
and Gazara; and finally, toward the end of his reign, after a
long siege conducted by his sons, captured the city of Samaria
and totally destroyed it. Aristobulus, who assumed the title
King,1 in his brief reign (104 B.C.), pursued a similar policy in
judaizing Galilee. His brother and successor, Alexander Jan-
naeus (103-76 B.C.), conquered the remaining cities on the coast,
including Gaza, and waged war with varying fortunes beyond
Jordan. At the height of his success his dominion extended
almost to the traditional bounds of the empire of Solomon.
/The wars in which the Jews engaged, first for religious liberty,
then for the independence of Judaea, and finally for the recon-
quest of the whole land of Israel, arpused an aggressive national
spirit which was reflected in religionj Triumphant Judaism was
under no temptation to assimilate itself to the religions of the
heathen over whom its God had given it the victory. Some
enthusiasts saw in the events of the time the Lord's deliverance
foretold in ancient prophecies and the dawning of the yet more
glorious day that was to follow. The Jews in other lands shared
in this exaltation of spirit. As in older times, the triumphs of
the Lord were a revival of religion, in the sense, at least, of
enthusiasm for it and heightened loyalty to it.
1 Josephus, Bell. Jud. i. 3, I. Jannaeus was the first to put the title in
the Greek legend on his bilingual coins.
56
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 57
That otherwise this century was favorable to religious ad-
vance can hardly be imagined. Its history is written in a suc-
cession of wars at home and abroad which must have wrought
wide devastation and, according to all experience, demoraliza-
tion on a corresponding scale, all the more because they were
in some sort wars of religion.
Our sources deal, however, almost exclusively with political
history, and tell us nothing about the everyday doings of com-
mon men. We can well believe that in the intervals of peace
and even amid the disorders of war scholars stedfastly pursued
their studies in Scripture and tradition, and pious men were as
scrupulous in die^ observance of their religious duties as in
happier times. /In the early years of the period we read of a
company of scholars (0waya>y97 ypa/x/zarew^) who presented
themselves to the newly appointed high priest Alcimus, and had
reason to rue their simplicity; 1 and though we have no other
notice of them it is certain from later events that the learned
succession was not broken off.j
} Later we find the guild of scholars (Scribes) with their tradi-
tion supported by what may properly be called a party of tra-
dition, the Pharisees.J The first mention of the Pharisees in
Josephus 2 is in a paragraph injected without relation to the
context in the midst of Jonathan's wars with Demetrius II and
his negotiations with the Romans and the Spartans,3 telling that
"about this time" there were three schools, or sects (cup^creis),
of the Jews, who entertained different notions about fate and
free will, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, for
fuller information about which the reader is referred to what he
had written previously in the second book of the Jewish War.
/A little further on the Pharisees emerge on the historical stage
in conflict with John Hyrcanus,4 and here we find them in their
true character as the partisans of the unwritten law. "The
Pharisees have delivered to the common people by tradition
1 i Mace. 7, 12 ff. 2 Antt. xhi. 5, 9 §§ 171-173.
1 In 139 B.C. 4 Antt.xhi. 10, 5 f.
58 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
from a continuous succession of fathers certain legal regula-
tions which are not written in the Law of Moses, on which ac-
count the Sadducean sort rejects them, affirming that what is
written is to be regarded as law, but what comes from the tradi-
tion of the fathers is not to be observed." On this point the
Pharisees have the mass of the people on their side, and they
have so much influence that anything they say, even against a
king or a high priest, finds ready credence.1 Elsewhere the im-
portance they attach to the exact interpretation and application
of the laws is noted^J
[According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus was a disciple of the
Pharisees and highly esteemed by them. Later, however, he
broke with them upon a personal grievance, and went over to
the Sadduceesj In conformity to the Sadducean position that
the Bible only is law, he abrogated the ordinances the Pharisees
had established,3 and punished those who observed them. This,
it is added, was the cause of the hatred of the commonalty
toward him and his sons.4 What is patently a doublet of this
story is told in the Talmud of King Jannai (Alexander Jan-
naeus); 5 with a sequel which makes it certain that Jannai is not
here a confusion of names with Johanan (Hyrcanus),6 as has
sometimes been assumed.7 That John Hyrcanus went over to
the Sadducees is attested by another Baraita: "Do not put
confidence in yourself till the day of your death; for there was
1 Cf. Antt xvn. 2, 4 § 41.
2 Bell. Jud 11. 8, 14 § 162.
3 The implication is that they had previously been backed by his authority.
4 The difficulties of Hyrcanus with the Pharisees are elsewhere ascribed
to the jealousy of the latter. See Bell. Jud. i. 2, 8 § 67, and Antt. xin. 10, 5
§ 288 (ultimately from the same source); cf. also Antt xm. 10, 7.
6 Jannai is here a nickname for Jonathan, as is proved by his coins.
6 "They slew all the leading scholars of Israel, and the world was upside
down until Simeon ben Shatah came and restored the law to its old place."
This restoration took place under Queen Alexandra. Ipddushin 66a. Cf.
Josephus, Antt. xm. 13, 5 § 372; 14, 2 § 383.
7 Of which of the two the story was first told is of no great moment.
That there was an estrangement between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees seems
to be sufficiently attested independently of the legend of its origin.
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 59
Johanan the high priest (Hyrcanus), he ministered for eighty
years,1 and became a Sadducee at the last." 2
fit is clear that in the latter part of the second century before
our era the Pharisees were already established in a position of
great influence, and thenceforward they bore a leading part in
the development and triumph of normative Judaism — so prom-
inent, in fact, that the name Pharisaism is sometimes given
to it.j
[Of the origin and the antecedents of the Pharisees there is
no record. It is commonly surmised that they were the succes-
sors of those who in earlier generations called themselves Hasi-
dim,3 to distinguish themselves as what we call religious men
from their worldly and indifferent countrymen! Their temper
is illustrated by the fact that, at the beginning orthe persecution
under Antiochus Epiphanes, a body of refugees of this kind let
themselves be slaughtered, with their wives and children, in their
retreat in the wilderness, rather than profane the sabbath by
raising a hand to defend themselves, saying, "Let us all die
together in our innocency." 4 Before long, however, the "Asi-
daeans" joined forces with the Maccabaean leaders,5 consenting
under the stress of circumstances to a suspension of the sabbath
observance to permit fighting in self-defence.6
When religious liberty was secured, and a new high priest,
Alcimus, was appointed in the room of Menelaus, the Asidaeans
were the first to seek to make peace with him and the Syrian
general Bacchides who came to see him installed in his office.7
Alcimus was not disposed to condone their part in the rebellion,8
and, as Judas and his brothers declined his treacherous overtures
for a conference, executed sixty of the Scribes and the religious
1 Yoma 93 also gives him 80 years.
2 Berakot 29a
8 Literally, the Pious, or the Religious.
4 The name Asidaean does not occur in this narrative, i Mace. 2, 29-38.
6 Ibid 2, 42-44' Tore <rwfjxOrl0'av irpfa avrovs <rvvaya)y'Q 'A<7i5aio»' iff-
Xvpoi Swd/£€i airb 'Icrpa^X, Tras 6 cicouataf 6/zcpos rcg *>6/zco. This reading (Cod.
A. al , Vulg.) is obviously right; see i Mace. 7, 13, 2 Mace. 14, 6.
6 i Mace. 2, 40 f. 7 Cf. 2 Mace. 14, 6. 8 i Mace. 7, 13 ff.
60 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
who indiscreetly put themselves in his power, to the disillusion-
ment and consternation of the rest. This is all that om sources
tell us about the attitude or the conduct of the Asidaeans in the
Maccabaean struggle, and if the connection of the Pharisees with
them were established it would add nothing to our knowledge of
the latter. *
(jChe word PhariseeJ1 represents the name in its vernacular
form, PSrisha.2 The derivation from the verb perash (Hebrew
parash} is plain; not so the significance and occasion of the
name. cThe interpretation that first suggests itself is 'one who
is separated, or, is separate';3 but from whom or from what
— a complement which is necessary to give it meaning — the
word contains no intimation; nor does either usage or tradition
supply the deficiency.]
From the peculiar rules and customs of the Pharisees it is
commonly inferred that they were so called because they religi-
ously avoided everything that the law branded as unclean, and
for fear of contamination kept aloof from persons who were
suspected of negligence in such matters.4 Definitions in this
general sense were current among the Church Fathers.8 In the
'Aruk6 the name is defined: "A Pharisee is one who separates
himself from all uncleanness and from eating anything unclean,"
in distinction from the mass of the common people, who were
not so particular. In the Tannaite and Amoraic sources the
name Perushim is used in contrast to 'Am ha-Are§, the ignorant
and negligent vulgus.7
1 <£api(7atos, Pharisaeus.
2 In rabbinical texts it appears only in the equivalent Hebrew form, Parush.
8 "Separatist," which is sometimes used as an equivalent, is objectionable,
because, through its English associations, it may suggest that the Pharisees
separated themselves as a sect from the body of the Jewish church.
4 So Wellhausen, Pharisaer und Sadducaer, pp. 76 ff. Schurer, Geschichte
des judischen Volkes, u. s. w., II, 398 f.
5 See Schurer, I.e.
6 A lexicon to the Talmud by Nathan ben Jehiel of Rome (died 1106).
7 And m accounts of controversies, e.g. with Sadducees.
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 61
Such an appellation might have been bestowed on them in
a derogatory sense by those who resented their pretensions to
superior purity or were otherwise prejudiced against them,1 and,
as has happened in similar cases — the Methodists, for instance
— been accepted with a favorable implication by the Pharisees
themselves. On the other hand, it may have been a name origin-
ally assumed by them. In the latter case, it may be observed
that in the Tannaite Midrash parush is frequently associated
with fyadoshy 'holy/ In Lev. n, at the end of the chapter of
unclean beasts, fishes, birds, and vermin with which the Israel-
ites are forbidden to defile themselves, this prohibition is en-
forced by the motive: 'For I am the Lord thy God. Hallow
yourselves therefore and be ye holy; for I am holy.' On this
the Sifra: "As I am holy, so be ye also holy; as I am separate
(parush), so be ye also separate (perushim)." 2 Similarly, on Lev.
19, 2 ('Ye shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy'):
"Be ye separate (perushim)." Again, in the Mekilta on Exod.
19, 6 ('Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation') :
"Holy — holy, hallowed, separated from the peoples of the
world and their detestable things." 3 Separateness in these con-
texts is synonymous with holiness in God and in man; the ideal
of holiness for Israelites is the ideal of separateness, and it is
easy to see how those who made it their end to fulfil this ideal
might take its name PirHshlm as a less presuming title than
Others look for the origin of the name in an historical situation
and conjecture that it was originally applied to the Asidaeans
who separated from Judas Maccabaeus when freedom of religion
was achieved and a legitimate high priest succeeded Menelaus.
An alluring parallel is adduced from the early history of Islam,
when the ultra-religious faction in his army seceded from Ali
1 It is applied to them by their opponents, the Sadducees.
1 Shemmi Perelt 12 (ed. Weiss, £.57 b). Exactly so also on 20, 26 (£edo-
shim, end, f. 93d, top), in a similar connection.
8 Ed. Fnedmann, f. 6ja; ed. Weiss, f. 7ia.
62 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
in his conflict with Mo'awiya and from this secession were called
Kharijites, 'Come-outers.' 1
[Jii more than one place in Josephus the Pharisees are said to
be noted for their precise and minute interpretation of the laws,2
and it is thought by some that the name may be derived from
this activity. The verb parashy perash, in fact, means not only
'separate' but 'distinguish,' or 'express distinctly,' and so,
' interpret.' The Pharisees would, in this view, be ' the exegetes.' 3
To this theory it is objected that perushlm is not a natural ex-
pression in Hebrew for ' exegetes.' Others would take the name
in the more general sense, something like 'precisians,' to which
this difficulty need not apply.
The foregoing cursory survey of the proposed explanations of
the name may suffice to show that etymology has no addition
to make to what is known of the Pharisees from historical
sources.
The breach between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees has
already been mentioned. In the later years of his rule he had
to put down a seditious movement which grew to the proportions
of war. The motive of the insurrection is said to have been
envy inspired by the king's success.4 In the corresponding
passage in the Antiquities 5 the same motive is alleged, but
mention is somewhat inconsequentially introduced of the ill-
disposition of the Pharisees toward him, and their influence with
the people. We have already seen that the hostility of the
masses toward him and his sons is attributed to his abrogation
1 E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christen turns, II, 283 f. (1921).
The same theory of the origin of the name was propounded by Professor
Mary I. Hussey m the Journal of Biblical Literature, XXXIX (1920), 66-69.
2 Bell. Jud i. 5, 2 § no; h. 8, 14 § 162; Antt. xvn. 2, 4 § 41.
3 This explanation was, so far as I know, first advanced by Graetz. It
has recently found an advocate in Leszynsky, Die Sadduzaer (1912), pp.
27 ff., 105 ff.
4 Bell. Jud. i. 2, 8 § 67. It is generally recognized that Josephus here
reproduces the statements and judgment of his source, presumably Nicolaus
of Damascus.
8 Antt. xhi. 10, 5 § 288.
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 63
of the ordinances of the Pharisees. If this enmity broke out
in overt act it would give a more intelligible reason for the sedi-
tion than the vague "envy" of Josephus' first source. After the
suppression of the revolt, both accounts relate that Hyrcanus
lived in prosperity and ruled well. Josephus concludes with a
eulogy of him as one whom God had deemed worthy of the three
greatest things, the government of the nation, and the high
priesthood, and the gift of prophecy.1
The conflicts of Alexander Jannaeus with his people were
much more serious. The beginning was a riot in the temple at
the Feast of Tabernacles where he was officiating as high priest.
The multitude, incensed by his negligence in -a part of the cere-
mony, threw at him the citrons 2 they carried in the festal pro-
cession, and shouted the slander that his mother had been a
captive in war, and that he, therefore, was disqualified for the
priesthood. He turned his Pisidian mercenaries on the mob,3 and
the disturbance was quelled after six thousand had been killed.
In the sequel of Alexander's disastrous defeat in a war with
the Arabs in which he lost almost the whole of his army, the
malcontents took advantage of his calamity to rebel against
him. The civil war lasted six years, and cost fifty thousand
lives; but, although beaten, his enemies rejected his overtures
of peace — nothing but his death could reconcile them to him.
The implacables called in the Seleucid Demetrios Eukairos to
deliver them from their native king, and joined forces with him.
Despite the gallantry of his mercenaries, who were cut to pieces
in the battle, Alexander was defeated and put to flight. The
very completeness of their success, however, caused a revulsion,
and six thousand of the Jews who had fought under the Syrian
banner decamped from the victorious army and went over to
Alexander, out of pity for him in his fallen fortunes, it is said;
more likely because in the moment of triumph it dawned upon
1 Antt. xiii. 10, 7 § 299. Cf. Jer. Sotah 24!); Sofcah 3ja.
2 Etrogim.
3 Like all the tyrants of the time, the Asmonaean princes maintained a
guard corps of foreigners, as, for that matter, David had done.
64 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
their tardy intelligence that the collapse of the Judaean na-
tional kingdom meant inevitable subjection to the Seleucid
dominion from which the Asmonaeans had delivered them.
Demetrios abandoned such inconstant allies and withdrew.
Left a free hand, Alexander at length completely crushed the
rebellion. He celebrated his triumph by the crucifixion of eight
hundred of his prisoners 1 at Jerusalem with circumstances of
ingenious atrocity, which caused such a panic that eight thousand
who had reason to fear a like fate fled the country and did not
venture to return till after the king's death.2
This intestine strife is frequently represented in modern books
as a conflict between Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees.
This rests, however, on an inference from the character of the
two parties rather than on the testimony of the sources. Neither
in the primary account of the civil contention in the War nor in
the secondary one in the Antiquities do the Pharisees figure at
all. In the former they come in only after the events of Alex-
ander's last years, the accession of Queen Alexandra, and a
description of the character and conduct which won for her the
good-will of the people.3 "The Pharisees associated themselves
with her administration, a body of Jews who profess to be more
religious than the rest, and to explain the laws more precisely.
Alexandra, being fanatically religious, paid great attention to
them. By degrees they insinuated themselves into the confidence
of the foolish woman, and soon got the management of affairs,
banishing or recalling, liberating or imprisoning, whomsoever
they pleased. In a word, the advantages of royalty were theirs,
the cost and the troubles were Alexandra's." 4
1 Taken at the capture of the rebels' last refuge, the city of Bemesehs
(or Bethome, the site is unknown).
2 Josephus, Bell. Jud. i. 4, 3-6; Antt. xiii. 13, 5-14, 2. However greatly
some or all of the numbers may be exaggerated, the ferocity of the long-
continued struggle is beyond question.
• Bell. Jud. i. 4, 7-5, I-
4 Ibid. i. 5, 2 §§ no f. This is the first mention of the Pharisees in the
War. The characterization and the depreciatory judgment are taken bodily
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 65
Nor is there any mention of the Pharisees as agitators, insti-
gators, or belligerents anywhere in the parallel account of the
civil war in the Antiquities. They appear only in the melo-
dramatic deathbed scene, where the dying king counsels the
weeping queen, as soon as she returns to Jerusalem, to give some
measure of power to the Pharisees, who would laud her for this
honor, and make the people favorable to her; it was by affront-
ing them that he had come into collision with the nation.1 Act-
ing on this advice, she let the Pharisees do anything that they
pleased, and commanded the populace to obey them. She also
restored all the ordinances that the Pharisees had introduced
in accordance with ancient tradition and her father-in-law
Hyrcanus had annulled.2 According to the rabbinical sources,
this restoration took place under the superintendence of Simeon
ben Shatah, a brother of the queen.
How they exercised their power when Alexandra let them
have their own way in internal affairs is illustrated by their
treatment of the counsellors and loyal supporters of the late king.
They themselves killed Diogenes, a distinguished man and
friend of Alexander, whom they accused of advising him to
execute the eight hundred prisoners that he crucified, and
they persuaded the queen to put to death the others who had
incited him against them. When she yielded to them for reli-
gious reasons,3 they themselves put out of the way whomsoever
they wished. The nobles 4 appealed to Aristobulus, who per-
suaded his mother to spare their lives on account of their rank,
but to banish them from the city if she deemed them at fault.
from Josephus' source in this part of the book, the historian Nicolaus of
Damascus.
1 Antt. xin. 15, 5. Note also the king's directions about what was to be
done with his body, and the effect of this stratagem. The historical value
of the story of the king's dying counsels in the Antiquities may be zero; but
the power of the Pharisees is no less apparent in the account of their relations
with Alexandra in the War.
2 Antt. xni. 1 6, 2 § 408; cf. 1 6, i § 405.
1 virb deicndaiiJLOvlas in Josephus' source is meant in a derogatory sense,
"out of superstition." 4 oi SwaroL.
66 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
Amnesty being granted on these terms, they were scattered
through the country.1
/The succinct definition of the Pharisees quoted above, "A body
of Jews who profess to be more religious than the rest and
to explain the laws more precisely," 2 describes them as they
appeared to an outside observer who had ample opportunity
of acquaintance with them in the days of HerodL] These are
exactly the traits that characterize them in the first three Gos-
pels and the Acts of the Apostles. [In those writings they are
frequently bracketed with the Scribes in the phrase "Scribes
and Pharisees/' The Scribes, as we have seen, were a learned
class whose vocation was the study and exposition of the LawJ
In the first instance biblical scholars, as the name suggests, they
became authorities also in the unwritten branch of the law, in
the development of which they had the leading partJfThe
Pharisees were a party whose endeavor it was to live in strict
accordance with the law thus interpreted and amplified, and to
bring the people to a similar conformity. Most of the Scribes were
of this party,3 but the bulk of the Pharisees were not scholars^
The devotion of the Pharisees to the traditional law, with its
manifold regulations or ordinances (j>6/u/za), is signalized by
Josephus (or his sources) in numerous passages, some of which
have previously been cited.4 This was in fact their distinguishing
characteristic — they were the zealous partisans of the unwritten
law. The fundamental issue in their controversy with the Sad-
ducees was the obligation of traditional rules and observances
1 Bell. Jud. i. 5, 3 § 114. In the parallel account in Antt. xni. 16, 2 f.
§§ 41 1-417, they set forth the peril they are in, plead their services to the king
and their loyalty to his house, and beg that if the queen was resolved to
prefer the Pharisees, she would assign them to garrison duty in the fortresses.
It may be observed that the sources on which Josephus draws in both ac-
counts are distinctly hostile to the Pharisees, though from different sides.
2 Bell. Jud. i. 8, 14 § 162; cf. Antt. xvn. 2, 4 § 41; xvhi. I, 3 § 12.
8 Note oi 7pa/z/iOT€is T&V QapLcraiuv, Mark 2, 16.
4 Bell. Jud. 11. 8, 14 § 162; Antt. xvii. 2, 4 § 41; Vita c. 38 § 191. How
they were abrogated by John Hyrcanus (Antt. XIH. 10, 6 § 296) and reenacted
by Alexandra (xm. 16, 2 § 308) has already been told.
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 67
for which there was no direct biblical authority.1 Herein lies
the historical importance of the Pharisees. They mediated to
the people the knowledge of the law, impressed upon them by
precept its authority, and set them the example of punctilious
observance of its minutiae. They were the better able to do
this because their adherents were drawn from various social
classes, but principally, it appears, from that medium layer of
society in which puritan movements in all religions have found
their chief support.
^In opposition to the Pharisees, the Sadducees maintained that
the written law alone was valid, and rejected the additions the
Pharisees made to it on the alleged authority of ancient tradi-
tion.2.. The written law, however, requires interpretation, and
in their interpretation the Sadducees were in general more
literal, and in matters of criminal law more severe, than the
Pharisees.3 These interpretations and the precedents estab-
lished under them could not fail to constitute what may in a
proper sense be called a Sadducean tradition; but, however
tenaciously they may have adhered to it in practice or in con-
troversy, they did not ascribe to it intrinsic authority as the
Pharisees did to their " tradition of the elders." The Sadducees
were all the more under the necessity of having such a body of
common law because for a long time the actual administration
was in the hands of the classes among whom they were most
numerously represented. In later times, at least, they had
schools of their own; and the different temper of the two parties
is illustrated when we read in Josephus that, while the Pharisees
showed the greatest deference to their seniors and had not the
audacity to contradict their utterances, among the Sadducees
it was counted a virtue to dispute the teachers whom they
frequented.4
1 Antt. xin. 10, 6 §§ 297 f. This is confirmed by the Mishnah.
2 Ibid. xvm. i, 4 § 16. Matt. 15, i ff., Mark 7, i ff.
* Ibid. xx. 9, i § 199; cf. xui. 10, 6 § 294.
4 Ibid. xvm. i, 3 § 12; i,4§i6. Josephus is probably describing things
as they were in his own youth.
68 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
The primary cleavage between the Sadducees and the Phari-
sees was on the doctrine of revelation. Scripture is the only
authority, said the Sadducees; Scripture and Tradition, said
the Pharisees. Next to this the most important doctrinal dif-
ference between the two was in the field of eschatology. The
Pharisees believed in the survival of the soul, the revival of the
body, the great judgment, and the life of the world to come. The
Sadducees found nothing in the Scriptures, as they read them
in their plain sense, about the resurrection of the dead or retri-
bution after death, and rejected these new imaginations along
with the subtleties of exegesis by which they were discovered in
the Law.1
In Acts 23, 8, the Sadducees are said to deny not only the
revival of the dead but the existence of angels and spirits. That
they consistently rationalized the biblical appearances of angels
into men acting as the messengers of God is unlikely; but it is
in accord with their whole attitude that they should repudiate
as vulgar superstition the exuberant angelology and demonol-
ogy which flourished in that age and was cultivated in apocalyp-
tic circles.2 With it would fall the belief in the individual
guardian angel (Acts 12, 15; Matt. 18, 10), as well as in ghosts,
the spirits of dead men (Luke 24, 37, 39).
The statement of several of the Fathers that the Sadducees
(like the Samaritans) acknowledged as Scripture nothing but
the Pentateuch may be a misunderstanding of what Josephus
says about their rejection of everything but the written law,
meaning that they did not admit legal or doctrinal deductions
from the Prophets.
The origin or occasion of the name Sadducee is as obscure
as that of the Pharisees. It is evidently formed from the proper
name which is familiar in the English Old Testament as Zadok,
1 Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 14 § 175; Antt. xviii. I, 4 § 16. Cf. Mark 12, 18-27
(Matt. 22, 23-33; Luke 20, 27-40); Acts 23, 6-9. For specimens of the rab-
binical proofs see Sanhedrin 900; cf. also Matt. I.e.
2 Take the Book of Enoch for an example. For the esoteric lore of the
Essenes about the names of angels see Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 7 § 142.
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 69
and the derivative would mean 'a follower of Zadok' — in the
English 'a Zadokite/ The most widely accepted surmise con-
nects the name with that Zadok whom Solomon installed as
chief priest in the room of Abiathar, when he deprived him on
account of his participation in Adonijah's attempt to seize the
throne.1 As the priesthood of Jerusalem before the exile, " the
sons of Zadok" are, in Ezekiel's ideal of the restoration, to be
the only priests of the new temple; the descendants of the old
local priesthoods, the priests of the high places, being degraded
to a lower order of the clergy, and strictly excluded from all
higher sacerdotal functions and privileges.2 On the testimony
of the Chronicler, not all the priests of the second temple traced
their lineage to Zadok, but the descendants of Zadok were more
numerous among the leading men.3
The name Zadokite (Sadducee) may thus first have desig-
nated an adherent, or partisan, of the priestly aristocracy, and
in time have been extended to all who shared the principles or
opinions current in those circles. In Acts 5, 17, we read, "The
high priest stood up and those that were with him (which is
the sect of the Sadducees)." In Acts 4, 9, also, the high priests
and the Sadducees act together, just as elsewhere the Scribes
and Pharisees are coupled.
In the Abot de R. Nathan (c. 5) it is narrated how the twin
heresies of the Sadducees and the Boethusians about retribution
after death started in the. schools of two disciples of Antigonus
of Socho named respectively Zadok and Boethus.4 They
1 i Kings 2, 35. So A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel,
1857; Sadducaer und Pharisaer, 1863; Wellhausen, Pharisaer und Saddu-
caer, 1874.
2 Ezek. 44, 10-16; 48, ii; 43, 19; 40, 46. Cf. 2 Kings 23, 8-9; Deut
18, 6-8.
8 i Chron. 24, 1-6. The author, there as elsewhere, makes the conditions
existing at his own time an institution of David. See also the Hebrew text
of Sirach, 51, 12 (in a psalm-like passage to which there is no Greek or Syriac
counterpart), and the writing of the Damascene sect, ed. Schechter, page 4,
lines 2 f.
4 There is a strong probability that the Boethusians really got their name
from a high priest of Herod's creation.
70 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
reasoned that Antigonus would never have exhorted men to
serve God without hope of reward if he had believed that there
was another world and a resurrection of the dead. The existence
of such an explanation shows that it had not occurred to the Jews
to connect the name with the Zadokite priesthood. The possi-
bility remains that the party, or sect, perpetuates the name of
some (to us) unknown founder or leader.1
Lllie adherents of the Sadducees were found only in the class
of the well-to-do; they had no following among the masses,
who were on the side of the Pharisees.2 This item in the char-
acterization of the Sadducees has of late years been greatly
emphasized. They were, it is said, not properly a religious; party,
or sect, as the Pharisees were, but primarily a social class, the
aristocracy of the priesthood, together with the wealthy and in-
fluential laity whom community of interests and culture attached
to the sacerdotal nobility, with whom they were frequently allied
also by marriage. Their position on the sole authority of Scrip-
ture or on the new eschatology was the instinctive conservatism
of the upper classes, clerical and lay, in the face of an aggressive
and popular party which threatens their primacy. This repre-
sentation, closely associated with the first theory of the origin
of the name Sadducee reported above, is a reaction from the
older notions which made the division between Pharisees and
Sadducees purely dogmatic. It gives a good explanation of the
fact that the Sadducees were almost exclusively of the upper
classes. But in laying the whole stress on the hierarchical and
social affiliations of the Sadducees, it runs counter to the un-
animous testimony of the sources. Whatever their origin, they
were, in contemporary eyes, a religious party in Judaism, char-
acterized by the distinguishing beliefs — or negations — which
have been set forth above.
The triumph of the Pharisees under Alexandra was the restora-
1 So most recently Eduard Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Chnsten-
tums, II, 209 f.
2 Josephus, Antt. xin. 10, 6 § 298; xvin. i, 4 § 17. "Their doctrine reaches
only a few men, but those who hold the highest offices."
CHAP, v] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 71
tion of their regulations, which were in effect a legislation sup-
plementary to the Law in the form of an interpretation of it or a
fence about it. Of the particular regulations and ordinances
which were then at issue no record has come down to us.1 The
subsequent elaboration in the schools and the ultimate compre-
hensive and codified collections made in the second century of
our era superseded all earlier formulations.
The extra-canonical books illustrate in various ways the
existence of an unwritten law scrupulously observed by religious
people. Judith, for example, breaks her voluntary fast in
mourning for her husband on the Sabbath and the day before
it, on the New-Moon and the day before, on the Festivals, and
the joyous days of the house of Israel.2 When she set out for
the camp of Holophernes she took with her her own victuals,
wine, and oil, in order not to have to eat the unclean food of the
heathen.3 Daniel and his comrades are unwilling to defile them-
selves with their rations of food and wine from the king's table,
and persuade the chief eunuch to give them pulse to eat and
water to drink, on which they thrive miraculously.4 Tobit
shows that the unwritten law about the burial of the neglected
dead was regarded as a duty of the highest obligation,5 as it is in
rabbinical law.6 Evidently much which we otherwise know only in
the rabbinical sources of the first and second centuries after our
era was custom and law in the preceding centuries.
1 The ordinances of Simeon ben Shatah are from the reign of Alexandra.
On sectarian Halakah from this age, see below, pp. 198 f , 200-202
2 Judith 8, 6. Cf. the prohibition of fasting on the Sabbath, Jubilees 50,
12; and perhaps the Damascus text (p. n, 1. 4), on which see Gmzberg
p. 90 f. (reading 3jnJT for aiyrp). "The day before" seems to be super-
erogatory.
3 Judith 10, 5; 12, 1-4, 19.
4 The reason for the specification of 'pulse ' is perhaps that, being dry,
it did not contract uncleanness by contact. See M. 'Uk§m 3, i; Maimon-
ides, Hilkot Tum'at Okelm i, i.
5 Tobit i, 17-19; 2, 1-9. The fffi» n».
6 It takes precedence even of the study of the Law, the circumcision of a
son, or the offering of the paschal lamb. Megillah jb, et alibi. Priests —
even the high priest — and nazintes are allowed to make themselves unclean
by burying a m¥B HD. Sifre Num. § 26; cf. Sifre Zu£a on Num. 6, 7.
CHAPTER VI
SHAMMAI AND HILLEL
THE recognition given by Queen Alexandra to the Pharisees
doubtless augmented their already dominant influence with the
great body of the people, a leadership they never lost. What
part they took in the strife between her sons, Hyrcanus and
Aristobulus, is not recorded. We have seen that Aristobulus
was not in sympathy with her policy of letting the Pharisees
have their own way in dealing with those who were obnoxious to
them, and pleaded the cause of the officers and friends of Jan-
naeus who were in fear of their lives from them. It is natural
to suppose that this class supported the energetic younger son,
who evidently had a good deal of his father about him, rather
than his faineant brother Hyrcanus whom Alexandra had made
high priest and presumptive successor to the crown. But whether
the Pharisees were any better content with the latter, especially
when he let himself be managed by the Idumaean Antipater for
his own ambitious schemes, is doubtful.
Certain it is that when the two brothers appeared before
Pompey in Damascus with their rival claims to the throne, " the
nation" (r6 Wvos) protested against them both: By their an-
cestral constitution the Jews were subject to the priests of the
God^they worshipped; these men, though descendants of the
priests, .were trying to change the form of government so as to
bring the nation into servitude. Against Aristobulus in particu-
lar more than a thousand of the most distinguished of the Jews,
"whom Antipater had suborned," testified in support of Hyr-
canus' accusations.1 The protest, it is not superfluous to remark,
is_ against the royal form of government, of which the Asmon-
aeans^had given them all the experience they wanted; not on
1 Antt. xiv. 3> a § 41.
72
CHAP, vi] SHAMMAI AND HILLEL 73
the ground that these- priests had usurped the throne of David
and were no legitimate kings — an interpretation sometimes
read into the passage. The supporters of Aristobulus were a lot
of swaggering young bloods whose garb and mien made a bad
impression on the Romans; the cause of Hyrcanus was in the
hands of Antipater.
Pompey talked softly to them both, and postponed a decision
till he should visit Judaea. The suspicious actions of Aristo-
bulus brought him thither sooner than he had planned. The
supporters of Hyrcanus let the Romans into the city; the par-
tisans of Aristobulus occupied the temple and prepared to stand
a siege. The Romans proceeded to a regular investment, in
which labors they had every assistance from Hyrcanus. The
walls were finally breached and the temple taken, with much
slaughter not only of the defenders but of the priests, who went
on unflinching with the routine of their office till their blood was
mingled with that of the sacrificial victims. As a reward for
his other services to the Romans and for keeping the Jews in
the country from fighting on the side of Aristobulus, Pompey
gave the high priesthood to Hyrcanus; the "authors of the
war" he executed.1
The inland cities which the Jews in the preceding reign had
subjected were separated from Judaea and put under the ad-
ministration of a Roman official; those on the coast were made
free cities of the province of Syria. "The nation which a little
while before had been so highly exalted, he shut up in its own
boundaries." The royal authority, which had been a preroga-
tive of the high priest, was done away; the government was
an aristocracy. Aristobulus and his sons, Antigonus and Alex-
ander, made repeated unsuccessful efforts in the next quarter
of a century to regain their dominion by arms. Antipater and
his sons, Phasael and Herod, with their puppet Hyrcanus, were
always on the Roman side, and in the vicissitudes of the civil
wars managed to be always in the end on the winning side.
1 Josephus, Antt. xiv. 4.
74 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
The restoration of Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, by the aid
of the Parthians, which drove Herod out of the country and
sent him as a suppliant to Rome, proved to be the making ot
his fortune, for the Senate, at the instance of Mark Antony
supported by Octavian, made Herod king, and promised him
aid to get possession of his kingdom. Three years elapsed, how-
ever, before Jerusalem itself, after a protracted siege ending
with the storming of the temple, fell into the hands of the allied
forces of the Romans under Sosius and of Herod. Antigonus
surrendered himself to the Romans, and shortly after, at Her-
od's instance, was decapitated by Antony's orders in Antioch.
The sentiment of loyalty to the Asmonaean house, from which
had sprung their rulers for a century and a quarter, and with
which were connected the memories of the wars of liberation
and of conquest that seemed to bring back the glorious times
of the old monarchy, was still strong. As often as Aristobulus
or his sons raised the standard of revolt they found a following
waiting for them. When the Parthians released Hyrcanus,
whom they had carried off as a prisoner, and allowed him to go
to Babylonia, the Jews in the whole region east of the Euphrates
treated him with the honor due to a high priest and king, and
urged him to remain with them and not return to Jerusalem,
where he could expect no such recognition.1
The resistance of the Jews to Herod was to a king imposed
on them by the Romans — a king who was not only not of the
blood royal, but not even of the Jewish race. Antony caused
Antigonus to be beheaded — the first time the Romans had in-
flicted such ignominy on a king — because he was convinced
that in no other way could the Jews be brought to acknowledge
Herod; they held their former king in such esteem that not even
tortures could force them to give Herod that title.2 One of
Herod's first measures when he had taken Jerusalem was to put
to death forty-five prominent men of the party of Antigonus and
1 Josephus, Antt. xv. 2, 2.
* Strabo, quoted in Josephus, Antt. xv. I, 2 §§ 9 f.
CHAP, vi] SHAMMAI AND HILLEL 75
confiscate their property, and to punish many others, while he
promoted men of private station who had been well disposed
to himself. He especially honored the two leading Pharisees,
Pollio and Sameas, because when he besieged Jerusalem they
counselled their fellow citizens to surrender the city.1 Pollio, we
are told, had an additional claim on his favor, because, when
Herod had been summoned before the Sanhedrin by Hyrcanus
for executing the brigands in Galilee without a trial, and that
body let itself be intimidated by Herod's defiant mien, he had
foretold that if they let Herod off he would be the undoing of
them all 2 — a prediction which he fulfilled to the letter.
From the Jewish aristocracy Herod had nothing to expect. His
double alliance with the Asmonaean house through his marriage
with Mariamne 3 did not legitimate the Idumaean parvenu in
their eyes, and his hand in the death of Antigonus, and later
of the aged Hyrcanus himself, made reconciliation with the
partisans of either branch impossible. Alexandra's ambition
was to have her son Aristobulus (III) made high priest in suc-
cession to his grandfather Hyrcanus; Herod's interest, after he
had been made king by the Romans, was to let no Asmonaean fill
that office with its traditions of royalty. When, acting on this
policy, he installed a Babylonian Jew named Ananel, of priestly
lineage but unrelated to the aristocratic priesthood of Jerusalem,4
1 Josephus, Antt. xv. i, i.
2 Ibid xiv. 9, 4 § 176.
3 Her father Alexander was the eldest son of Aristobulus II; her mother,
Alexandra, a daughter of Hyrcanus. It is a probable surmise that the initia-
tive in this alliance came from the gnl's mother or from Hyrcanus himself. —
Mariamne was apparently very young when she was betrothed to Herod
(perhaps as early as the year 42). In his flight from Jerusalem before the
Parthians (40) he carried off to security in the fortress of Masada, with his
own kindred, Alexandra and her daughter. The marriage itself was cele-
brated at Samaria in 37, on the eve of his siege of Jerusalem. Josephus, Bell.
Jud. xiv. 15, 14 §467.
4 Josephus, Antt. xv. 2, 4 § 22 (cf. 3, i § 39 f.). In M. Parah 3, 5,
Hanamael is called an Egyptian. Possibly he was a Jew of Babylonian
extraction living in Egypt. The Boethus family, which furnished at least
four high priests, came from Alexandria (Antt. xv. 9, 3 § 320). What the
j6 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
Alexandra secretly besought Cleopatra to use her influence to
persuade Antony to have Herod confer the high priesthood on
Aristobulus. The intrigue was no secret to Herod; but he yielded
to the importunity of Mariamne in behalf of her brother, de-
prived Ananel, and made Aristobulus high priest in his place,
though he was still a youth in his teens. The discovery of a
fresh intrigue of Alexandra with Cleopatra, and a demonstration
by the people at the Feast of Tabernacles of their attachment to
Aristobulus and the memory of his fathers, made plain to Herod
that he had not made peace in his family by his concession, but
had given a figure-head if not a rallying point to the old loyalties;
and he lost no time in arranging a drowning accident at Jericho,
followed by a magnificent funeral by which the youth's kindred
and friends were not deceived. Ananel was restored to the high
priesthood, and thenceforward Herod made and unmade high
priests as it pleased him, but raised none to that rank who had
any other claim to it than that they were his creatures.
By war and proscriptions the upper classes, among whom the
Sadducees were numerous, had been brought to low estate.
Herod exerted himself, on the other hand, to put the mass of
the people under obligation to him by remission of taxes in bad
years,1 and in a time of famine by distribution of grain which
he imported from Egypt, and by using his influence with the
Roman authorities to gain exemptions and privileges for the
Jews in foreign parts, particularly in Asia Minor and the Greek
islands. The rebuilding of the temple in fabulous splendor grati-
fied the passion for such works which he had indulged in many
other cities, but it was doubtless meant also to display himself
to his subjects as a munificent patron of religion. In this en-
deavor to win the loyalty of the common people he had every
reason to keep on good terms with the Pharisees, and when they
refused to take the oath of allegiance which he demanded, he was
religious Jews thought of these priests may be read in Pesahim 5ya; Tos
Menahot 13, 21.
1 On the disaffection of the people and its religious causes, see Antt. xv.
10, 4 § 365-
CHAP, vi] SHAMMAI AND HILLEL 77
politic enough to let it pass and to exempt the Essenes also from
the requirement.1
The Pharisees on their side did not meddle in politics or incite
the people against Herod. They were not a dynastic or nation-
alist party, and were content with the freedom they enjoyed
to pursue their religious studies and practices, and to labor
with their countrymen for a better observance of the divine law.
With this harmless employment of the intellect of the nation
Herod was doubtless well pleased, and he had no motive for
interfering with regulations and ordinances for the Jewish life.
When it came to laws for the kingdom, he made them himself
as occasion required, without concern for the ancient legislation,
as when in his zeal to suppress crime he enacted a law that house-
breakers should be deported from his kingdom — a punishment,
as Josephus remarks, unheard of in Jewish law, and very un-
pleasant for the burglars.2
With the reign of Herod coincides roughly the activity of the
last of the Pairs, Shammai and Hillel, and the beginning of
the Tannaite school tradition. Shammai was a native Judaean,
while Hillel came from Babylonia to Jerusalem when already a
mature man. There were schools of the Law in Babylonia, as in
other centres of Jewish population, and there is good reason to
believe that Hillel had been a student in his own country 3 before
he migrated to Jerusalem to sit under the most eminent teachers
and expositors of the time, Shemaiah and Abtalion.4 The name
of Hillel is associated with certain hermeneutic norms for juristic
deduction and analogy which are called Hillel's Seven Rules.5
1 Antt. xv. 10, 4 §§ 370 f.; cf. xvii. 2, 4 § 42.
1 Ibid. xvi. i, i. For many other examples of Herod's tyrannical disregard
of Jewish law, see Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, II, 127 ff. See
also Josephus, Antt. xv. 10, 4 § 365.
* Jer. Pesahim 33a, below, specifies three problems which he had solved
and proved before he went up to Palestine. Cf. also &iddushin 75a.
4 The story of the privations and hardships he overcame in the pursuit of
learning is told in a Baraita (Yoma 35b) to show that poverty is no excuse
for neglecting the study of the Law.
* Middot. They are found in Tos. Sanhedrin 7, n.
78 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
They are obvious principles of interpretation for a divinely re-
vealed law every word of which was significant and authorita-
tive, and had doubtless been thus applied by scholars before his
time; but with Hillel they became a method, defining certain
ways in which logically valid conclusions in the juristic field are
derivable from the written law.
It is a surmise for which some probability may be claimed
that, in germ at least, this method came from the Babylonian
schools. In Jerusalem the doctors of the Law sat at the fountain-
head of tradition and were able to draw directly upon that
source for answer to the questions that arose in practice or in
discussion. In remoter lands this appeal to tradition must often
have been unavailable, and the necessity of arriving at an au-
thoritative conclusion from the biblical text itself must have
been correspondingly more strongly felt.1
However this may be, an old Baraita instructively illustrates
the attitude of the strict traditional school toward an attempt to
settle questions of law by reasoning in lieu of authority, and
their low opinion of Babylonian scholarship. The Elders of
Bathyra2 were in doubt whether, in case the fourteenth of
Nisan fell on a Sabbath, the slaughter and preparation of the
paschal victim was an obligation superior to the sabbatical
prohibition of labor.3 Hillel was recommended to them as a dis-
ciple of Shemaiah and Abtalion who might know the tradition
on the point. Instead of the tradition they asked, however, he
undertook to demonstrate to them by three distinct arguments
that the Passover took precedence of the Sabbath. They con-
temptuously exclaimed, "How could we expect anything of a
1 The same difference, as is well known, existed in Moslem jurisprudence
between the traditional school of Medina and the jurists in other lands, who
gave larger scope to logical deductions and analogical inferences (kiyas).
2 The name nTnn is usually thus transliterated on the supposition that it
is the place Ea6vpa in Batanaea where Herod in the last years of his reign
established a small garrison colony of Babylonian Jews. Josephus, Antt.
xvn. 2, i f.
8 For the conflicting opinions on this question, see Chwolson, Das letzte
Passamahl, pp i8ff.; Ginzberg, Erne unbekannte judische Sekte, pp. 99^, 204.
CHAP, vi] SHAMMAI AND HILLEL 79
Babylonian!" and proceeded to pick his reasoning to pieces.
Though he sat and argued to them all day,1 they did not accept
his conclusion, until he said to them, "Thus I heard it from
Shemaiah and Abtalion." As soon as he fell back from argu-
ment to recognized authority, they rose from their seats and
elected him their president (Nasi). He requited them for their
previous disrespect with reproaches: If they had used their op-
portunities for study under the two great scholars who taught
in their own country, they would have had no need to call in a
Babylonian.2
Many anecdotes about Shammai and Hillel illustrate the
contrasted temperaments of the two men, and set the rigorous-
ness of the one over against the humanity of the other. Tin the
interpretation and application of the laws Shammai was nearly
always more stringent than Hillel, and that not merely from a
harsher disposition but in consequence of his traditional prin-
ciplel] It has been remarked above that what has been called
the^old Halakah, whether exemplified in the schools or the
sects, was in general stricter than that which eventually pre-
vailed. In this sphere Shammai was conservative of the letter
of tradition and developed its consequences in the same spirit.
Hillel came from another environment. In Babylonia a large
part of the legislation, including the ritual of the temple, and
many laws which were not in force "outside the Land," had only
an academic interest, and the traditions on these matters were not
binding rules of practical observance as the Palestinian teachers
endeavored to make them. It was natural under these circum-
stances that the unwritten law should be more largely deduced
from the text itself by certain exegetical principles.
1 In this long debate he had opportunity to exemplify the rest of his rules,
which are introduced as "the seven norms that Hillel expounded in the
presence of the elders of Bathyra." See above, pp. 77 f , and Sifra, Intro-
duction, end (ed. Weiss, f. 3 a).
2 Jer. Pesahim jja; Pesahim 66a, and elsewhere. On the deference of the
Bene Bathyra, see Baba Mesi'a 840-8 5a. Who the Elders of Bathyra were,
and what is meant by their Nasi, are curious questions which do not here
concern us.
8o HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
When he came to be the head of a school in JerasalemTHillel
recognized that the laws must take account of actual conoitions.
The septennial cancellation of debts in Deut. 15, for example
might have been a benevolent institution in the society for which
the law was framed, but in his time it worked great hardship to
the necessitous borrower, who in the later years of the period
could get no accommodation. To remedy this evil he devised
the "Prosbul," which left the law unchanged, but by a legal
fiction secured the creditor against the loss of his loan through
thejcomiRg of the year of release.1
jJMore important than such striking adaptations of the law to
circumstances was eventually the application of his hermeneutic
principles to establish the harmony between tradition and
Scripture^ It may be conjectured that at least one motive of
this endeavor was to silence the Sadducees with their contention
that tradition is devoid of authority — only Scripture is law —
by proving from Scripture that what is explicit in tradition is
implicit in Scripture. From particular instances the schools
went on to a consecutive juristic exegesis of the legislative parts
of the Pentateuch, the Tannaite Midrash, and by the results
amplified the unwritten law. To this phase of the work of the
schools, especially in the second century, we shall have occasion
to recur further on.
Whatever may have been the relation between the members
of the preceding Pairs, there is no intimation that they were
the heads of rival schools.2 Shammai and Hillel, however, rep-
resent such different tendencies that a division of this kind was
inevitable. It perpetuated itself after the death of the two
masters, and the school differences between the "House of
Shammai" and the "House of Hillel" fill a large room in what is
recorded of Jewish tradition from about the beginning of the
Christian era to the war of 66-72. More than three hundred
1 The reason and the legal form of words are given in Sifre Deut. § 113;
M. Shebi'it 10, 2, etc.; cf.
2 See above, p. 46.
CHAP, vi] SHAMMAI AND HILLEL 81
conflicting deliverances of the two schools on matters of law and
observance are reported in one connection or another in the
Talmud.1 In their very zeal for the Law they were fast making
of it "two laws." The evil consequences of these dissensions
were so obvious that even partisanship could not be blind to them.
We hear of what we should call rabbinical conferences, in which
members of the two schools came together to discuss their dif-
ferences and to reach a decision by a majority vote. At one
such meeting, in which the Shammaites outnumbered the Hillel-
ites, eighteen restrictive decrees (gezerof) were adopted,2 and
there is mention of other meetings later. Some have thought
that such conferences were a regular institution with periodical
sessions; but the sources give no support to this theory.
It seems that in the middle decades of our first century the
Shammaites were the more numerous, as well as the more ag-
gressive, and it was perhaps only after the fall of Jerusalem that
the Hillelites gained the ascendency. The rigorist tendencies of
the former school were perpetuated in certain leading rabbis of
the following generations; and it is possible that some irreconcil-
able Shammaites were left on one side by the movement of uni-
fication, but danger that the differences of the schools would
split their adherents into sects was over. The dissidence of these
two schools may be regarded as an inner crisis in the history of
Pharisaism, from which the more progressive tendency emerged
superior.
Hillel, of all the rabbis, is the most familiar name to most
Christians. He owes this reputation to the anecdotes which
illustrate his genial temper and to the fine religious and moral
aphorisms that are quoted from him; but his great significance
in the history of Judaism lies not so much in these things as in
the new impulse and direction he gave to the study of the Law,
the new spirit he infused into Pharisaism.
1 A classified enumeration of them with references in Weiss, Dor, I, 168 ff.
See Jewish Encyclopedia, III, 115 f.
2 M. Shabbat I, 4 ff.; cf. Tos. Shabbat I, 8 ff. (see I, 16).
82 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
Under the procurators the Jews had larger room to manage
their own affairs in their own way than under Herod. The
Roman administration had need of a representative and re-
sponsible intermediary between it and the people, and found
such an organ in the Council,1 or Sanhedrin,2 which under Her-
od's autocratic rule had probably cut politically a very small
figure. In this body, under the presidency of the high priest,
besides the heads of the great priestly families, lay elders, men
of rank and authority,3 had seats; among both, probably, there
were legal experts, Scribes. The upper priesthood was prevail-
ingly Sadducean; among the other members of the Sanhedrin
the Pharisaean party was represented.4
In religious matters the Romans did not interfere at all.
Sacrifices for the emperor were regularly offered in the temple
according to the Jewish rite; but, except for the project of
Caligula to instal an image of himself in the temple and an oc-
casional faux pas of a procurator, the peculiarities of the Jews
were respected. Cases between Jew and Jew were left to the
adjudication of their own tribunals, from the village judges up
to the high court in Jerusalem.8
1 In Josephus usually ffov\rj.
2 avvedpiov.
8 dvvaToL
4 The composition of the Council, or Senate as it had earlier been called,
and the mode of election to it, are nowhere described in our sources.
* The nearest modern analogy is the status of the several so-called 'na-
tional ' churches, millets (e g , the Armenians), in the former Turkish empire.
On the power of the Sanhedrin under the procurators to pronounce and
execute sentence of death according to Jewish law, see Juster, Les Juifs dans
1'empire romain, II, 133 ff.
CHAPTER VII
REORGANIZATION AT JAMNIA
IN the commotions which grew into the rebellion under Nero
the most eminent of the Pharisees joined the high priests and
the influential men of the city in futile efforts to restrain the
people from plunging headlong into war and ruin. After the
failure of Cestius Gallus' attempt to take Jerusalem by assault,
and his retirement, which pursuit turned into precipitate flight,
seeing that there was no more hope of peace, they tried to keep
the control of affairs in their own hands, making the high priest
Ananus and Joseph ben Gorion governors of the city, and ap-
pointing military commanders for the several districts to pre-
pare for the impending war.1 Their efforts were in vain. /One
faction outdid another in atrocities, and things took their inevi-
table course to the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the
temple in 70 A.D^J
It is related that in the midst of the internecine strife within
the walls in which the Jews were destroying themselves while
the Romans looked on, Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai made his
escape from the city to the Roman camp, and (in one form of
the story) obtained from the commander permission to settle
in Jamnia and establish a school there. Thus, even before the
final catastrophe, the study of the Law had found refuge in the
new seat from which the restoration was to proceed.2 What is
certain is that at Jamnia (Jabneh),3 under the lead of Johanan
1 It is a probable view that these measures were taken by the Sanhedrin,
which was the only authority left in the city. In support of this opinion it
may be noted that the generals appointed seem all to have been members of
priestly aristocracy, like Josephus who was sent to organize the defense of
Galilee.
2 Lam. R. on Lam. i, 5; Abot de-R. Nathan c. 4; GiUm 56a-b.
8 On the coastal plain a little north of the parallel of Jerusalem, in a region
which had been spared the devastation of war.
83
84 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
ben Zakkai in the years immediately following the destruction
of Jerusalem, the work of conservation and adaptation was ac-
complished with such wisdom that Judaism not only was tided
over the crisis but entered upon a period of progress which it may
well count among the most notable chapters in its history.
In the succession of teachers Johanan ben Zakkai is said to
have received the tradition from Shammai and Hillel, and there
is a story that Hillel, when his disciples gathered around his
sick-bed, declared Johanan, the youngest of them all, to be the
greatest, "father of wisdom and father of future generations." 1
Unless we could stretch our imagination to allotting to each of
them, like Moses, a hundred and twenty years of life, as the rab-
binical scheme does, there is some difficulty in supposing that
Johanan was an immediate pupil of Hillel, but that in a larger
sense he deserves to rank as the greatest of his disciples may
be freely admitted. Before the war he was a man of impor-
tance in Jerusalem, and his teaching attracted many students,
some of whom were themselves scholars of renown before the
migration to Jamnia.2 It seems that they accompanied him
thither or soon followed him. After the fall of the city other
scholars and students resorted to the new seat of learning, or
established themselves in neighboring places.
The re-opening of the schools was not, however, the only
contribution of Johanan to the restoration of Judaism. There
was urgent need of a body competent to determine matters of
the utmost importance to all Jews, foremost among which was
the fixing of the calendar with the correct dates of all the festi-
vals and fasts, for which the law prescribed days certain as of
the essence of the observance. Innumerable questions arose also
from the cessation of the temple worship, for which there was
no rule or precedent, and about which an authoritative decision
was necessary if there was not to be endless perplexity of con-
science and confusion of practice.
1 Jer. Nedarim 39!).
1 Five are named, with the master's estimate of them, in Abot 2, 8.
CHAP, vn] REORGANIZATION AT JAMNIA 85
The doctors of the Law in Jamnia and its vicinity, under the
lead of Johanan ben Zakkai, accordingly formed themselves into
a council, which assumed such of the functions of the Sanhedrin
as did not inevitably lapse with the loss of its political character.
But, however it may have regarded itself as a successor to the
Sanhedrin, the Great Bet Din 1 at Jamnia was a very different
body from its predecessor. The Sanhedrin, under the procura-
tors, was a national council, having recognized political powers
and responsibilities. At its head was the high priest, and the
aristocracy of the priesthood constituted a large part of its
membership.2 The lay notables were closely allied to them and
shared their Sadducean leanings. £fn the Sanhedrin the Sad-
ducees were therefore, to the end, a strong, if not the predominat-
ing partyTJ Johanan ben Zakkai was a leader of the Pharisees, and
anecdotes about him laid in the time before the war tell with sat-
isfaction how he worsted the Sadducees in controversy, and even
thwarted a high priest who was going to burn the red heifer ac-
cording to Sadducean rule and precedent. His disciples and
colleagues were from the same party, and his rabbinical council
was a purely Pharisaean body.8 It was the definitive triumph
of Pharisaism.
The two tendencies in Pharisaism, represented by the Sham-
maites and the Hillelites respectively, persisted, but the influence
of Johanan ben Zakkai and his disciples contributed much to the
ultimate predominance of the Hillelites. The outcome is re-
corded in legendary form: A voice from heaven (bat £07) was
heard (at Jabneh), saying, The teachings of both schools are
words of the Living God, but in practice the Halakah of the
school of Hillel is to be followed.4
jlJDie classes to which the Sadducees chiefly belonged had been
reduced to insignificance. Many had perished in the war or by
1 High Court The name ' Sanhedrin' was not assumed by the Bet Din at
Jamnia, nor by the Bet Dm, or academy, of the Patriarchs (L. Ginzberg).
* Mark 14, 53, 55 (Matt. 26, 57, 59); Acts 4, 5 {-'> 5> 27> 34, 4'; *, 12.
1 See L. Ginzberg, ' Bet Din,' Jewish Encyclopedia, III, 1 14 f.
4 Jer. Berakot 30, end; 'Erubin ijb.
86 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the daggers of assassins,Qthers had been executed by the Romans
or carried into slavery. Tin the new order of things the Sadducees
lost the extrinsic importance which the high station of their
adherents had given them, and subsided into a sect which, be-
sides preserving memories of controversies the subject of which
had ceased to existl and making itself disagreeable by cavilling
at specific rules oFdicta of the Pharisees, had for its differential
doctrine the rejection of the whole Pharisaean eschatology. The
Pharisees made a dogma of the resurrection of the dead, and thus
the Sadducees became heretics: the Israelite who denies that
the resurrection is revealed in the Torah has no lot in the World
to Come.
Before the death of Johanan ben Zakkai, Gamaliel II l suc-
ceeded him, with the title Nasi, which Greek and Latin writers
render "Patriarch," but for which we might use "President." 2
His great endeavor was to secure the recognition of all Jewry
for the Bet Din at Jamnia and submission to its authority. His
colleagues thought him too arbitrary in asserting his own pre-
eminence, and he was for a time deprived of the presidency of
the academy (yeshibaK). It was probably in his time that the
long-standing strife between the schools of Shammai and Hillel
was terminated by a general decision in favor of the latter, and
the grave evil of conflicting observances, with the possibility of
schism about them, overcome.
The controversy between the two schools over the question
whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs were holy scripture
was decided by a majority vote in favor of both of them, follow-
ing the opinion of the school of Hillel. Another decision in this
period — the time and place are unknown — concerning what we
call the canon of Scripture was that the Book of Ben Sira (Eccle-
siasticus) was not sacred scripture, nor any other books written
from his time on. The passages in the Tosefta which report this
1 Called Gamaliel of Jabneh to distinguish him from his grandfather of
the same name.
2 ' Nasi ' is, in Ezekiel 40 ff , the title of the civil head of the Jewish people,
and as such the Patriarch was recognized by the Roman government.
CHAP, vii] REORGANIZATION AT JAMNIA 87
decision name specifically "the gospel" (euangelion) and the
books of the sectarians (or heretics), among which, in the con-
text, it is fair to presume that Christian writings are at least
included.1
The older and younger contemporaries of Gamaliel II, and their
disciples and successors in the next generation,2 are the funda-
mental authorities of normative Judaism as we know it in the
literature which it has always esteemed authentic. One main
division of their learned labors was the definition and exact for-
mulation of the rules of the unwritten law (Halakah), as they
had been received through tradition, or were adapted to meet
new conditions, or were developed by biblical exegesis or casuis-
tic discussion. Along with this ran the minute study, in course,
of the written law in the Pentateuch from Exodus to Deuteron-
omy, in primary intention a juristic exegesis with constant ref-
erence to the Halakah.
In the interpretation of the Law large use was made of the
Prophets and the Hagiographa,3 and the numerous quotations
from these writings prove that the Tannaim were no less familiar
with them than with the Pentateuch itself. An index to one
of the Tannaite Midrashim, such as Friedmann has appended
to his edition of the Mekilta, is ample evidence of this. The
quotations from Isaiah in the 250 pages of the Mekilta fill three
closely printed pages; those from the Psalms take five. Ruth is
the only book of the Twenty-Four from which there is no quo-
tation. Hoffmann's index to his Midrash Tannaim is equally
to the point.
The two great scholarchs of the generation before the war
under Hadrian were R. Akiba ben Joseph and R. Ishmael ben
Elisha. To Akiba is commonly attributed the systemization of
the Halakah with which we are familiar, distributing the rules by
1 Tos. Yadaim 2, 13; cf. Tos. Shabbat 13 (14), 5.
2 Say, from 80 to 140 A D.
3 These books contained the "tradition" (Kabbalah) by the side of the
Law (Torah), from which parallels, explanations, and illustrations were drawn
88 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
subjects under six capital divisions with numerous subdivisions,
thus giving the unwritten law the form of a code.1 This arrange-
ment greatly facilitated a mastery of its vast and varied con-
tents and the exact transmission of its concise phraseology.
In the interpretation of Scripture, Akiba went on the principle
that in a book of divine revelation no smallest peculiarity of ex-
pression or even of spelling is accidental or devoid of significance,
and evolved certain new hermeneutic rules for the discovery of
the meaning thus suggested by the letter.2 By these methods,
and by fabulous acumen and ingenuity in the employment of
them, Akiba found in the written law many things for which
theretofore it had been possible only to allege tradition.3 For
Greek-speaking Jews the proselyte Aquila, who had imbibed the
principles of Akiba, provided a translation in which he endeav-
ored to reproduce in Greek the peculiarities of the Hebrew so
literally that the reader might apply to it the Akiban herme-
neutics. There was another reason for a new version in the fact
that the Gentile Christians had appropriated the Septuagint, and
based their apologetic and polemic on its renderings, proving, for
example, the conception of Christ by a virgin mother from its
fj irapOevos in Isa. 7, 14, which Aquila corrected to 17 veavis.
Ishmael adhered more closely to the methods of interpreta-
tion embodied in the seven norms of Hillel. These he analyzed
and subdivided, with some modification, into thirteen, which
became the standard principles of juristic hermeneutics.4 In
contradiction to Akiba he held that the Torah speaks ordinary
human language; 6 varieties in the mode of expression of which
1 Topical treatment of parts of the material was older; Akiba carried it
through the whole.
2 In the rules about extension and restriction, of which he made a great
deal, he had a predecessor in Nahum of Gimzo.
8 Attention has been so focussed on these curiosities that Akiba's real
merits as an exegete are seldom recognized
4 They are prefixed to Sifra. For purposes of homiletic "improvement"
the strict logic of legal deduction is not insisted on.
6 DHK ^3 |1B^3 rrffl mm. SifreNum §ii2(ed.Fnedmann,p.33a,end),
and in many other places
CHAP, vii] REORGANIZATION AT JAMNIA 89
in common speech no notice would be taken are not to be forced
to yield a hidden significance.
From these schools there is preserved a series of Tannaite
Midrash on the books from Exodus to Deuteronomy,1 which,
though incomplete and in part fragmentary, far outrank all
other sources in the disclosure they make of the biblical inter-
pretation of the schools and of the religious and moral teachings
they based upon the Books of Moses.
This flourishing epoch in the history of the schools was brought
to an abrupt end by the war under Hadrian. According to Cas-
sius Dio the Jews rebelled because the emperor, on his visit to
Judaea in the spring of 130, gave orders for the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, with a temple of Jupiter Capitolinus to be erected on
the site of the ruined Jewish temple.2 The revolt did not actually
break out, however, until 132, after Hadrian had left Syria. The
Jews had cherished the expectation that in time they would be
allowed to rebuild the temple as they had done after its destruc-
tion by Nebuchadnezzar. So long as it lay in ruins nothing for-
bade such hope; but, apart from the profanation of the holy
place which renewed the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and his
"abomination of desolation," it could not be imagined that the
Romans would ever permit a temple of the Jupiter of the Capitol
to be razed to make room for the God of the Jews. The con-
version of Jerusalem into a heathen city must be prevented or
all was lost. The leader of the Jews was acclaimed by Akiba the
"Star out of Jacob" of Balaam's prophecy (Num. 24, 17), a
militant Messiah, whence the name (preserved in Christian
writers) Bar Cocheba, "the Star man."3 Early in the revolt
1 See below, pp. 135 ff.
2 Was there a deliberate irony in dedicating this temple to the god to
whom, since Vespasian, the Jews had had to pay the didrachm poll tax
previously levied for the temple in Jerusalem?
8 From coins it is learned that his name was Simeon. In Jewish sources
he is called Bar Kozibah, probably from the name of his native town. Not all
his colleagues shared Akiba's enthusiasm. When he declared Bar Kozibah to
be the messianic king, Johanan ben Torta replied, "Akiba, grass will be growing
on your cheeks long before the Son of David comes." Jer. Ta'anit 68d.
90 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
the Jews got possession of the ruins of Jerusalem and held it for
some time. The war itself lasted three years and a half, and
ended with the fall of Bether, a few miles from Jerusalem, in
I34/I35-
The war had one incidental result of which mention must be
made briefly here: it brought about the final separation of the
Nazarenes from the rest of the Jews. Hitherto these "disciples
of Jesus the Nazarene" had been a conventicle within the syna-
gogue, rather than a sect. Their peculiarity was the belief that
the Messiah foretold in the Scriptures had appeared in the reign
of Tiberius in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been
executed by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, at the
instance of the chief priests, as a prospective revolutionary,
" the king of the Jews." His followers believed that he had come
to life again and been taken up to heaven, whence he would soon
come again in power and glory, to execute the divine judgment
on those who had rejected him and usher in the expected golden
age.1 For the rest they were pious and observant Jews, who wor-
shipped in the temple and in the synagogues like others. Their
efforts to make converts to their belief, especially at the begin-
ning, when they gathered crowds around them in the courts of
the temple to argue about it, led to the intervention of the au-
thorities to prevent disturbances, but there was no attempt to
put a ban on the belief itself. The Jews had no doctrine about
the Messiah invested with the sanction of orthodoxy, and on the
fundamental articles of Judaism, the unity of God, his peculiar
relation to Israel, the revelation of his character, will, and pur-
pose in Scripture, the Nazarenes were as sound as any Jews
could be. On the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and
the final judgment they held with the Pharisees, with all the more
tenacity because the resurrection of Jesus was the cornerstone
of their faith, and in their observance of the Law conformed to
tradition as expounded by the Scribes and Pharisees.2
1 Matt. 24, 29 ff. (Dan. 7, 13 f.); Acts i, 11.
2 See Matt. 5, lyff.; 23, 2.
CHAP, vii] REORGANIZATION AT JAMNIA 91
The destruction of Jerusalem, interpreted as a judgment of
God on the nation which had repudiated the Messiah He had
sent and the precursor of the greater crisis to follow, lent to their
propaganda a revived activity and a new argument; and, to
judge from the acutely hostile utterances of several of the lead-
ing rabbis of the two generations after the war,1 it had consider-
able success. The commination which Rabban Gamaliel II
caused to be introduced in the daily prayer was presumably
meant to make it impossible for a Nazarene to lead the prayers
in the synagogue or to join in them. What effect this had in
driving them out of the synagogues is unknown.
It was impossible, however, for those who had their own Mes-
siah in Jesus of Nazareth, and saw in the commotions of the times
the signs of his imminent coming from heaven to judgment, to
acknowledge the revolutionary Messiah, Bar Cocheba, and join
their countrymen in the revolt. According to Justin Martyr,
Bar Cocheba took dire vengeance upon them if they refused to
deny Jesus their Messiah.2 That their disloyalty to the national
cause should have been visited upon them by the revolutionists
is natural enough, without emphasizing the motive of persistent
religious antipathy as Justin does in the context. Probably
those who could sought refuge outside the area of war.
When the war was over, they, as Jews, were forbidden to
enter Aelia equally with the rest. The succession of bishops of
the circumcision in Jerusalem ended; the church that replaced
them was a Gentile church.3 The Nazarenes and off-shoots from
them are found thenceforth east of the Jordan, and later in the
region of Aleppo. Coincidently, the rabbinical invective sub-
sided when they became a sect outside the synagogue.4
Meantime the messianic faith of the disciples of Jesus had
1 See Tos. Yadaim 2, 13; Tos. Shabbat 13 (14), 5; (Jer. Shabbat 150;
Shabbat n6a in uncensored texts).
2 Apology, c. 31. Justin was a native of Neapohs in Palestine (Shechem),
and a contemporary.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 5-6.
4 Later controversy is with catholic Christians.
92 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
spread through Greek-speaking Jews to Gentiles, and in the
process had become Christianity, which presently cut loose from
Judaism altogether, throwing off the Law, written as well as un-
written, even to the cardinal observances of circumcision and
the sabbath, and by its worship of "the Lord Christ," the Son
of God, seemed to infringe the principle of monotheism. In
Jewish eyes it was not a heretical Judaism, but — whatever it
might have owed to Judaism in its origin — was in its nature a
wholly different religion. There can be no doubt that the know-
ledge of this development abroad increased the prejudice against
the Nazarenes at home, although they were as averse as the
rabbis themselves to its antinomian trend.
Christianity made many converts among Greek-speaking Jews
and many more in the Gentile fringe of the synagogue; but
neither the Nazarenes in Palestine, whom the church soon
branded as heretics for their backwardness in Christology and
their adherence to Jewish observances, nor Gentile Christianity
made any mark on Judaism. Even reminiscences of controversy
are infrequent in the Tannaite literature.1
1 More of them are preserved in the Tosefta than in any other source.
CHAPTER VIII
CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM
THE reconquest cost the Romans very dear, but it was almost
the destruction of the population of Judaea. Hadrian under-
stood the religious motive of the war, and took vengeance on
the religion. Jerusalem was rebuilt with many splendid public
edifices, and, as Aelia Capitolina, was made a Roman colonia;
Jupiter Capitolinus got his temple, in which stood an equestrian
statue of Hadrian. Jews were forbidden to enter or even ap-
proach the city on pain of death. Circumcision of children and
the observance of sabbaths and festivals were prohibited under
the same penalty. The edict struck at the root when it made
the study and teaching of the Law, and even the possession of
a copy of it, a capital crime.
Antoninus Pius relaxed these vindictive enactments, and
scholars were at liberty to resume their calling. Some eminent
rabbis had perished in the war; others, foremost among them
Akiba, had been put to death for defying the edict; the rest
had been dispersed. There was danger that the results of the
labors of the previous two generations might be lost. The im-
mediate task of the survivors was to recover and complete the
work of their predecessors.
Judaea and the adjacent region had been so completely de-
vastated by the war that when it became possible to revive the
schools and convene a rabbinical synod Galilee was the seat of
this restoration. The first assembly of this kind was held at
Usha, only nine or ten miles inland from Haifa.1 Later, the
centre of Jewish learning and authority in Palestine shifted to
the eastward into Galilee proper, to Sepphoris and its vicinity,
1 Usha and the neighboring Shefar'am were probably outside the jurisdic-
tion of the governor of Judaea.
93
94 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
and ultimately to Tiberias.1 The rabbis who are named in the
account of the synod at Usha 2 are the most distinguished of the
disciples of Akiba, and there is no question that the men who
had sat under him had the leading part in the revival.
Scholars set up schools in various places, and soon attracted
large numbers of students. Hitherto Galilee had in this respect
been behind other parts of Jewry, but now that learning knocked
at their doors they responded to its invitation with the zeal for
which they were noted.
The branches and methods of study were the same as before
the war. In the field of the Halakah the first thing was to make
sure that nothing was lost of the accumulated mass of tradi-
tional laws, and that they were reproduced in their exact terms,
and then to complete the distribution and ordering of these
aws up on Akiba's plan. Every head of a notable school did this
in his own school, and, where there were diverse traditions or con-
flicting opinions among his predecessors, exercised his right to
choose among them or to add his own opinion. Thus every
principal school had its own Mishnah.
The Mishnah of R. Meir was taken by the Patriarch Judah 3
in the next generation as the basis of his own, which soon ac-
quired what may not inaptly be called canonical authority not
only in Palestine but in Babylonia, and is always meant when
" the Mishnah" is named without other qualification. The filia-
tion is defined in an often cited dictum of R. Johanan (bar Nap-
paha):4 "In the Mishnah when no authority is specifically
named it is understood to be R. Meir; in the Tosefta R. Nehe-
miah; in Sifra R. Judah (ben Ila'i); in Sifre R. Simeon (ben
Yohai); all of them following R. Akiba." 5 Modern criticism
1 Ten successive migrations of the high court are enumerated in Rosh ha-
Shanah 3ia-b.
2 Cant. R. on Cant. 2, 5. R. Judah (ben Ila'i), R. Nehemiah, R. Meir, R.
Jose (ben IJalafta), R. Simeon ben Yo^ai, R. Ehezer son of R. Jose the
Galilean, and R. Ehezer ben Jacob. Cf. the lists of his disciples in Gen.
R.61,3-
8 Judah ha-Nasi; generally cited simply as "Rabbi."
4 Third century. 6 Sanhedrin 86a, and elsewhere.
CHAP, vm] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 95
has its reserves about some of these, and even in the Mishnah
R. Johanan's simplification holds only for the general relation
of our Mishnah to that of R. Meir, and of Meir's to Akiba.
Of all the disciples of Akiba, R. Meir was probably the best
qualified to undertake the redaction of the Mishnah. He had
studied under R. Ishmael also, and not only learned tradition
in his school but became familiar with his method of connecting
Halakah with Scripture.1 He did not, however, addict him-
self unreservedly to the hermeneutic principles of either school,
discerning, presumably, that deduction by rule may be as un-
intelligent as interpretation by guess, and no more conclusive,
inasmuch as the contrary result can in most cases be arrived
at by another rule. On the other hand, his own dialectic, in
which considerations were adduced on both sides of a question,
often left his hearers in doubt what his conclusion was.2
R. Meir is said to have died in Asia (probably meaning the
province), and to have been buried, by his own direction,
beside the sea which washed the shores of the Land of Israel.8
Other passages speak of missions or visits to Asia on more than
one occasion, and it has been conjectured that he was born
there,4 in which case it would be supposed that, like Saul of
Tarsus, his mother tongue was Greek. He taught chiefly at
Tiberias and the vicinity, and there are several stories in the
homiletic Midrash about his intercourse with a philosopher,
Abnimos ha-Gardi, in whom it has been proposed to recognize
the cynic Oinomaos of Gadara, whose gibes at the gods and their
oracles would have been much to the liking of a Jew.6
1 The third of his masters was Elisha ben Abuyah, with whom, to the scan-
dal of some of his colleagues, he remained in intimate relations even after the
revered teacher became an infidel.
2 'Erubm ijb; cf. 53 a. This is given as the reason why, although he had
no equal in his generation, it was not decided that the rule (Halakah) is as
defined by R. Meir.
3 Jer. Kilaim J2c, below. His tomb is now shown in Tiberias.
4 That he was of proselyte parentage is an independent legend.
6 " A contemner of all things divine and human." Julian, Orat. vi. (199 A).
— Gadara and Tiberias were within an easy day's journey of each other.
96 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
Besides the Mishnah of R. Meir, Judah digested much ma-
terial not only from other Mishnah collections but from the
juristic Midrash. Some important sections had been brought
to substantially their present form in earlier generations; l others
had been especially worked up by individual contemporaries
in their schools.2 It is probable that in this redaction Judah had
the cooperation of his Bet Din, and that the preeminence which
his Mishnah immediately attained was due to the fact that it
represented the deliberations of this body as well as the authority
of the patriarch and his right of ordination.
Our Mishnah is frequently concise to an extreme; the Halakah
is formulated in a few words, with no indication of the grounds,
biblical or logical, for the decision. In the schools the meaning
and reason of the rule were expounded and discussed, and it is
probable that in some of them the Halakot were not so com-
pletely skeletonized as in the Mishnah of the Patriarch Judah;
somewhat of the elucidation was included in their Mishnah col-
lections. Three such "Large Mishnahs" are known by reference
to them in the Talmud, under the names of R. IJiyya, Bar l£ap-
para, and R. Hosha'ya,3 the first two of whom were disciples of
Rabbi, the last a pupil of theirs. These Large Mishnahs ampli-
fied, explained, and sometimes corrected our Mishnah.
The Mishnah is often described as a code of rabbinical law.
If this expression is used of it, however, it must be understood
that it was not meant to be a legal code in the sense those words
first suggest to us, a corpus of law systematized for practical
use, but an instrument for the study of the law, an apparatus of
instruction.
One work of a similar character to the Mishnah has survived,
1 Those which deal with the worship in the temple were probably com-
posed in the generation following the destruction, from the tradition of priests
(of whom there were in the schools a number who had ministered in the tem-
ple), to preserve the tradition for the expected restoration.
1 It is known that certain scholars were regarded as special authorities
on particular subjects or fields of the law.
1 Jer. Horaiyot 48c; Peseta ed. Buber f. I22a; Eccles. R. on 2, 8, etc.
CHAP, vin] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 97
the Tosefta. The (Aramaic) name, which means "Supplement/1
probably expresses the opinion of a later generation about its
relation to the Mishnah rather than the compiler's intention.
It is laid out on the same lines as the Mishnah and is in large
part parallel to it, but differs in many particulars and contains
much additional matter which gave ground for its name.1
Other scholars of that generation set themselves to collect and
edit the Tannaite Midrash, the juristic interpretation of the
Mosaic legislation, as it had been developed on older founda-
tions in the schools of Ishmael and Akiba.
The literature is thus extensive and varied. The writings that
have come down to us and those that are known only through
extracts or quotations were all redacted in substantially their ex-
tant form toward the close of the second century or in the first
quarter of the third. They are all compilations, in which the
work of previous generations of scholars is preserved, reviewed,
and continued to the date of redaction.
The question whether this body of teaching — to avoid for
the moment the question-begging word "literature" — was trans-
mitted solely memoriter, and when it was first committed to
writing, is acutely controversial. In the Middle Ages, R. Jacob
ben R. Nissim on behalf of the Jews of Kairwan addressed the
latter question (with others about the Tannaite literature) to
Sherira Gaon, head of the Babylonian school at Pumbeditha.
Sherira replied that the Mishnah was first reduced to writing
and published by Rabbi (the Patriarch Judah), in whose age
this became necessary, as it had not been before,2 and this became
the accepted opinion among North African and Spanish scholars.3
On the other hand, Rashi 4 maintained that the Mishnah
1 See below, pp. 155 f.
2 The Response is dated in the Seleucid year 1298, corresponding to 987 A.D.
Two recensions exist, which are contradictory on this point. They are printed
side by side in Lewin's edition, p. 18; cf. p. 23. Comparison leaves no uncer-
tainty as to the authenticity of the so-called Spanish recension.
8 Nissim, Samuel ha-Nagid, Abraham ben David, Maimonides, and others.
See Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 5th ed. (1921), p. 15.
4 Died in 1105.
98 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
as well as the Talmud was not reduced to writing till after the
age of the Amoraim; through all those centuries the enormous
and ever-growing mass of tradition and discussion was deposited
solely in the memories of the learned. In this he was followed
by the French Talmudists, and the so-called French recension of
the Letter of Sherira was made to support the theory that the
writing down of Halakah had always been forbidden. When,
by virtue of the excellence of his commentary, Rashi became the
supreme interpreter through whom all European students were
inducted into the Talmud, his appeal to Talmudic tradition
itself, and the internal evidence he adduced that in the age that
made the Talmud there was no Talmud — no written compila-
tion — were widely accepted and tenaciously held.
The critic who, disregarding this controversy, takes the in-
ternal evidence of the literature itself will find in it as much
proof as can be had in such matter, that in the compilation of
these works written sources were used not only by the final
redactors, but in all probability by those predecessors who, in
the middle of the second century, revived the schools of the Law
after the rescinding of Hadrian's edict. The use of written
sources is peculiarly clear in the composition of the Midrash
books,1 but there are whole treatises in the Mishnah which are
probably a century or more older in writing than the publication
of the Mishnah of the Patriarch Judah.
No doubt in the earlier period, as in Talmudic times, the
theory was that tradition was strictly oral. No manuscript was
allowed in the school; the teacher quoted from memory, and
the students were required to memorize the Halakot. Such
manuscripts as existed were, therefore, in the private posses-
sion of teachers for use as an aid to memory in preparation or
reference.2 They may frequently have been memoranda on
particular topics.3
1 See D. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die halachischen Midraschim, 1887.
2 The history of Moslem tradition is an instructive parallel.
8 See Maimonides in the Introduction to his Mishneh Torah.
CHAP, vm] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 99
In the oral transmission of tradition in the schools the aim
was to secure not only substantial correctness but verbal ac-
curacy, and a comparison of the reports that have reached us
through different channels and in works of different character
indicate that this aim was in large measure attained not only
in individual schools but in the interchange between them.
This is especially the case in the Halakah, where it was most
important. The exact and concise formulation was adapted to
memorizing and memoriter reproduction, and the order fre-
quently seems to be intended to make it easier for the memory
by more superficial associations, rather than determined by the
logical development of the topic. Such associations are often
found in the connection or juxtaposition of biblical laws, which
was naturally reflected in the halakic conclusions of the juristic
Midrash. This Tannaite Midrash itself was scholastic, and its
transmission and reproduction was subject to a kind of control
which did not exist in the freer homiletic Midrash that had for
its object the instruction and edification of popular audiences
in the synagogue.
One further remark may be made about these sources, namely
that, notwithstanding all the deference to the "traditions of
the elders" attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament
and by Josephus, there is in the Tannaite literature no apparent
tendency to attach traditions to the great names of former
generations in order to give them the prescription of antiquity
or the authority of famous masters. The principle that in de-
fining the law the high court of each generation or the consensus
of its scholars had the same authority as those of every other 1
removed the motive for such antedating.
The language of the Tannaite literature is Hebrew, but a
Hebrew with characteristic peculiarities of its own which dis-
tinguish it sharply from that of even the latest books of the
Old Testament. The Jews were fully aware of the difference,
1 Sifre Deut. §§ 153-154; Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, on Deut.
17,11.
ioo HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
and call one "the language of the Bible," the other "the lan-
guage of scholars." 1 The latter is neither simply a degererate
Hebrew whose idiom was disintegrated by the influence of the
Aramaic vernacular, nor is it an artificial language, a kind of
academic jargon. It is a scholastic language, which has its roots
not only in biblical Hebrew but in living speech, and was devel-
oped and adapted to serve as a medium for technical definition
and discussion. Classical Hebrew owes its charm to the wealth
of its diction and the subtlety of its syntax, neither of which
excellences is conducive to the juristic precision which the schools
of the Law aimed at. Their idiom, on the other hand, is admir-
ably fitted to their purpose, and it may fairly be inferred that it
had had a long evolution in the schools before it attained the
stage in which we have our first acquaintance with it. There
are peculiarities of terminology which distinguish the Midrash
of the school of Ishmael from that of Akiba, for example; but
the scholastic language was established before their time, and it
continued through the whole period unchanged. To have created
and perfected such an instrument is a part of the work of the
Tannaim not to be underestimated.
Perhaps something similar may be said about the language
of the official Targums. The closeness with which they repro-
duce the Hebrew original trammels the freedom of Aramaic
idiom, but apart from this these Targums make the impression
of a conventional rather than of a colloquial vehicle, another
"language of scholars," one might guess. A learned language it
must have been, at least in Babylonia, where the vernacular
belonged to a different branch of the Aramaic family.
The method of interpretation employed in the schools, es-
pecially in that of Akiba, which deduced rules of law and obser-
vance, or religious and moral lessons, from minute peculiarities
1 R. Johanan (3d century) objected to mixing the two by using biblical
words or conforming to the biblical gender of nouns instead of following the
usage of the school language: TOVyf) D'JMH pG?fn HD^i? mm p&>?. flhillin
I37b; 'Abodah Zarah 58b, cf. Jer. Nazir jia. Both are "the holy language,"
CHAP, vin] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 101
of expression and even of orthography, presumes a standard
text, copies of which consistently agreed in these peculiarities.
In earlier centuries there was no such uniformity, as appears not
only from a comparison of the Hebrew text used by the early
Greek translators with that which we have in manuscripts and
printed editions, but from a collation of parallel passages in the
Hebrew Bible itself. The later Greek versions, beginning with
Aquila, on the other hand, are evidently based on a Hebrew
text substantially identical with ours (without our vowel points
and accents), and the Tannaite Midrash frequently operates
with what we should call its eccentricities. It is a good inference
from these facts that the fixing of a standard text was the work
of the biblical scholars of this period. The need was greatest in
the case of the Pentateuch, and probably this was earliest taken
in hand. From the second century of our era the Jews had a
standard Hebrew text which was transmitted with great fidelity,
and if the fixing of this text is to be attributed to their prede-
cessors in the schools, as seems probable, it must be regarded as
in all its consequences one of the most important things they did.
Aquila translated this text with extreme literalness for Greek-
speaking Jews; 1 others made more readable versions of it, some
keeping closer to the Septuagint, some rendering with more
freedom and a literary aim. Christian scholars revised their
Septuagint by the aid of these new Jewish translations, to bring
it into accord with the Hebrew.
In the lands of Aramaic speech the reading of the Hebrew
Scriptures in the synagogue was accompanied by an oral trans-
lation into the vernacular.2 An effort to create a standard
1 Aquila is said to have made his version under the auspices of R. Eliezer
(ben Hyrcanus) and R. Joshua (ben Hanamah), contemporaries of Rabban
Gamaliel II (Jer. Megillah 7ic); in another place (Jer. Ipddushin 59a,
above) he is associated with Akiba. The version would thus be earlier than
the war under Hadrian. The first reference to it by name in a Chiistian
author is in Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. ni. 24 (aL 21).
2 The custom was believed to go back to the time of Ezra (Neh. 8, 8). Jer.
Megillah 74d; Nedanm 3yb.
102 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
Aramaic version was made in the Tannaite period in the so-
called Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch.1 The dialect of
this version is Palestinian, and it certainly originated in that
country, though the language has suffered some adaptation to
Babylonian usage, and it was in Babylonia that it obtained
official recognition and authority. It is cited in the Babylonian
Talmud as "our Targum," and quotations are introduced with
the words, "as we translate," sometimes over against the render-
ing of the Palestinians.
The Hebrew text represented by this version is what has been
called above the standard text of the second century. The
translation for the most part follows the text closely, and in its
interpretation agrees with the schools of the period, particularly
with that of Akiba. This is especially evident where the inter-
preter indicates (generally in an unobtrusive way) the Halakah
implied in the text.2
The Babylonian Jews had an authorized Aramaic version of
the Prophets also, which, like that on the Pentateuch, they
got from Palestine. It resembles the latter in its general char-
acter, but, as was unavoidable in the interpretation of the
prophecies, paraphrases more freely.
That both these Targums were redacted in writing there is
no more reason to question than that Aquila wrote down his
translation.
The Jews in the region of Nisibis spoke an Aramaic dialect
so different from those of Palestine on the one side and of Baby-
lonia on the other that they must have felt the need of a trans-
lation of their own, and it is highly probable that what we call
the Syriac version of the Pentateuch and some of the other books
of the Old Testament was made by Jewish scholars, though it
lK is a Babylonian pronunciation of D^pV ('AicyXas, Aquila), whose
Greek version is repeatedly mentioned in the Talmudic literature. What in
Jer. Megillah 71 c (near the top) is said of this version is in the Babylonian
Talmud (Megillah ja) erroneously transferred to the Aramaic translation
(Targum).
2 See A. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, Theil 2, pp. 224-245.
CHAP, viii] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 103
has come down to us only as part of the Bible of the Syrian
church. It, also, is based on the Hebrew standard text, and shows
many traces of Jewish interpretation. This might be accounted
for by the hypothesis that the translation was made by Jewish
converts to Christianity, but the simpler supposition, especially
in view of the antiquity of the version, is that it was appropriated
from the Jews. Aphraates and Ephrem show how close was the
intercourse between Christians and Jews in that part of the East.
The former has a larger and more accurate knowledge of Jewish
teaching than any of his contemporaries, and himself utilized a
good deal of the Haggadah.
Besides their labors in the fields of Mishnah and Midrash,
the Tannaim presumably had their part in the development of
worship in the synagogue. The introduction of features of the
temple cultus such as the blowing of the horn at New Year's and
the festal procession at Tabernacles was older, but it went
further after the destruction of the temple, when the erection of
the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on its site, ending all hopes of
an early restoration, left the synagogue the one seat of religious
worship.
The revision of the old daily prayers under the direction of
R. Gamaliel II has already been mentioned, and various other
regulations about prayers are ascribed to him, some of which
did not meet the approval of all his contemporaries. The dis-
cussions in the Mishnah show the importance that the rabbis,
particularly after the war under Hadrian, attached to uniformity,
and how they endeavored to attain it in many points in which
there had previously been variety of usage and about which
there were divided opinions. Our sources are more concerned
with modalities and circumstances than with the content of the
prayers. There is good reason to think, however, that by the
end of this period the framework of the liturgy had been fixed
substantially as, with much variety in particulars and large ex-
pansion, it has remained ever since. Prayer books with fixed
forms for all occasions came much later.
104 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
The study of the Law was pursued in Babylonia from a time
at least before the Christian era, but little beyond the mere fact
is known. Students went thence to sit under famous Palestinian
doctors, as we have seen in the case of Hillel. Before the war
under Hadrian, Hananiah, a nephew of R. Joshua ben Hananiah,
migrated to Babylonia and established there a school of great
repute. In the suspension of the schools in Palestine he under-
took to regulate the calendar independently, a step which, if
acquiesced in, would have thrown the observance of the festivals
into confusion, and divided the Babylonian Jews from the rest,
who took their calendar from Palestine. The remonstrances of
the Palestinian authorities when they began to function again
did not move him, but he was persuaded by Judah ben Bathyra,
head of the school at Nisibis, to desist, and the schism was
averted.1
Under Simeon ben Gamaliel, R. Nathan — called, from his
native land, the Babylonian — came to Palestine, and was ap-
pointed by the patriarch vice-president of his Bet Din. He may
have owed this elevation to the fact that he was a son of the
civil head of Babylonian Jewry, the Resh Galuta, but he could
not have filled the post in such company unless he had been a
respectable scholar. No mention is made of his teachers, and
it is a fair presumption that at least the foundations of his learn-
ing were laid in Babylonian schools.
Of much greater consequence for the future of Judaism in
Babylonia was the migration to Tiberias of R. IJiyya in the
days of the Patriarch Judah. With him came two sons, Judah
and Hezekiah, who became scholars of note in Palestine. His
nephew, Abba Arika, generally called simply Rab, Master,
by way of eminence (in the same way that Judah I is called
Rabbi), was brought up by R. IJiyya as a son. Besides the in-
struction he received from his uncle, he early became a member
of the rabbinical academy over which the Patriarch Judah pre-
sided at Sepphoris, where in time he became eminent equally
1 See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 385-389.
CHAP, vin] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 105
for erudition and acumen. Thus equipped with all the learning
of the Palestinian schools, and with a restricted ordination by
the Patriarch,1 Rab returned to Babylonia before the death of
Rabbi,2 and taught for a time in the school of Rab Shela at
Nehardea, but after the death of the latter established at Sura a
school of his own which was frequented by a concourse of students
from many quarters.3
At Nehardea, R. Shela was succeeded by Mar Samuel, a native
of that city, whose wide learning in secular as well as religious
subjects became famous, and under whom that school also
flourished greatly.
In both schools the Mishnah of the Patriarch Judah was made
the textbook of instruction in the traditional law, and thus the
unity of Judaism was assured. On the other hand, the posses-
sion of the Mishnah and the eminence of the heads of the two
schools, who were not surpassed in learning and ability by any of
their generation in Palestine, made it unnecessary for advanced
students to go to Palestine to complete their education, and thus
the foundation was laid for the independent development of
Talmudic studies in Babylonia. The coming and going of
scholars between the two centres of Jewish learning, however,
kept up close intercourse, and counteracted any tendency to
provincialism. Other parts of the Tannaite literature, especially
the Midrash of the school of Akiba, and other Mishnah collec-
tions, had a recognized though secondary place in the Baby-
lonian schools.
There was a school at Nisibis before the destruction of the
temple, presided over by Judah ben Bathyra. A second of the
same name, presumably a grandson or nephew of the first, was
head of the school there in the first half of the second century,
1 Sanhednn 5a-b; Weiss, Dor, III, 133.
2 In 219 A.D.
3 Nehardea was the chief centre of Babylonian Jewry, residence of the
Exilarch. It was situated not far from ancient Babylon, to the south. Sura
was one or two days' journey farther south, in the vicinity of the later city of
Kufa. Pumbeditha succeeded Nehardea, in the vicinity of which it was.
106 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
as we have seen. In the time of persecution under Hadrian, R.
Eleazar ben Shammua', one of the disciples of Akiba who was
ordained by Judah ben Baba, set out to go to Nisibis and hear
R. Judah ben Bathyra there, as did also R. Johanan ha-Sandelar.1
Judah ben Bathyra had himself been a student under R. Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus, and discussions between him and Akiba are re-
ported. His intervention to dissuade R. Hananiah, nephew of
R. Joshua, from fixing the calendar independently is evidence
that his counsel carried much weight.
Rome had long had a considerable Jewish population, partly
attracted by trade, partly carried thither as prisoners of war
from Pompey on. Many of the latter had been redeemed from
slavery by their countrymen or emancipated by their masters.
The victory of Titus brought a fresh influx of Jewish captives,
among whom were many of high station in their own people,2
and the war under Hadrian brought others.3 The leaders of
Palestinian Jewry took a great interest in the Roman commun-
ity, and we read more than once of missions or visitations under-
taken by them. Under Domitian, Gamaliel II made a journey
thither in company with Eleazar ben Azariah, Joshua ben Hana-
niah, and Akiba, and it is related that they discoursed in the
synagogues and school-houses, and discussed religious subjects
with heathen and Christians.4 After the war under Hadrian we
hear of a visit to Rome by R. Simeon ben Yohai and R. Eleazar,
son of Jose ben IJalafta.6 There was already a school of the Law
in Rome, presided over by R. Mathia ben IJeresh, whose name
is associated with R. Jonathan and R. Josiah, the chief disciples
of R. Ishmael. At the same time that Judah ben Bathyra went
1 Sifre Deut. § 80. See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 374 f., II, 275.
2 Ishmael ben Ehsha, later famous head of a school, is said to have been
one of these; see, however, Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 166.
8 On the numbers of Jews sold into slavery at different times see Juster,
Les Juifs dans 1'empire romam, II, 17 f.
4 The references to this journey and what happened on it are collected by
Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 79. See Vogelstein und Rieger, Geschichte der Juden
in Rom, I, 28 f.
6 Yoma 53b~54a; Me'ilah I7a-b.
CHAP, vm] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 107
to Nisibis, R. Mathia ben IJeresh went to Rome, and planted
there, so far as is known, the first regular rabbinical school.
The relation of these schools to those in Palestine tended to
bring the Jews in the Diaspora into line with those of the home
land. Not only was the traditional law as formulated and
codified in those schools accepted as final authority, but their
principles and methods were perpetuated and their work carried
on by succeeding generations in the same spirit. In time the
Babylonian schools outshone those of Palestine and were aware
of it, but they remained true to the type which had been im-
pressed on them at the beginning.
About the relations of the Palestinian schools to the Greek-
speaking part of the Jewish world comparatively little is known.
The writings of Philo precede our rabbinical sources by a cen-
tury or more, during which time the schools had been most
active in the discussion and definition of the traditional law,
and the question how the Alexandrian Halakah of his day was
related to contemporary Palestinian teaching cannot be posi-
tively answered. Agreement in many points may signify no
more than that the Scripture was explicit or the custom ancient
and uniform; disagreement, that the Palestinian Halakah had
not reached the stage in which we know it. On the whole, how-
ever, it seems probable that Alexandrian scholars of his day did
not feel themselves bound by the authority of their Palestinian
colleagues.
It appears, from the absence of quotations or references in
Christian writers like Clement of Alexandria, that the age of a
flourishing Hellenistic Jewish literature in Alexandria did not last
long after Philo. The war of 66-72 was attended by some com-
motions in Egypt, which led to the closing of the temple of Onias,
but had no other effect of which we are informed. Jewish cul-
ture in those regions must have suffered much more severely from
the ravages of war in the reign of Traj an. While the emperor was
engaged in his Parthian campaign (116-117 A.D.) the Jews in
the Cyrenaica and Egypt and in Cyprus rose in a formidable
io8 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
insurrection. The rebellion was put down with vindictive sever-
ity, and the outcome, however large subtractions we may be in-
clined to make from the numbers in which the narrators in-
dulge, must have been a vast calamity to the Jews of those
countries.
The wars under Nero and Vespasian and under Trajan were
not only revolts against the imperial government but inter-
necine conflicts between the Jewish and Greek (Gentile) civilian
population of the regions affected, with all the atrocities of which
mobs doubly inflamed by enmities of race and religion are
capable.1 Pagan opinion made the Jews everywhere the ag-
gressors, and the dislike in which they were widely held deepened
into animosity toward these irreconcilable enemies of gods and
men. It is a reasonable inference that this hostile temper had
its natural effect on conversions to Judaism, which in the pre-
ceding generations had been numerous. The law prohibiting
circumcision, also, remained in full force for proselytes, the ex-
emption made by Antoninus Pius applying only to the case of
Jews circumcising their own sons.
The new Christian movement drew into itself many of the
looser adherents of the synagogue 2 and some of its proselytes,
and probably a still larger number of the kind of Gentiles from
which these Greek-speaking accessions had come. Jews like
the Alexandrian Apollos and Aquila from Pontus, with his wife
Prisca, were active in spreading the gospel before or with Paul,
and they had numerous successors. Such defections would tend
to stiffen the conservatism of the stricter sort among the Jews
of the dispersion, and lead them to look to Palestine for guidance
and support.
The patriarch, who was recognized both by the Jews and by
1 See Josephus, Bell. Jud. n. 18; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv. 2; Cassius Dio,
Ixviii. 32. Juster, Les Juifs dans Pempire remain, II, 182-190
2 The 'religious persons' (o-e^o/zewn) of the New Testament
CHAP, vin] CONSOLIDATION OF JUDAISM 109
the Roman government as the head of the Jewish nation,1 main-
tained intercourse with the communities in the dispersion by
delegates whom he sent periodically to visit them.2 One object
of these missions was to collect the tax imposed for the support
of the patriarch.3 Another was doubtless the publication of the
calendar.4 Eusebius says that they delivered the circular letters
of the patriarch. They may very well have been an effective in-
strumentality in bringing about uniformity of observance be-
tween the Greek Diaspora and Palestine in other matters.5
The history of Greek-speaking Jewry in these centuries is ex-
tremely obscure; but in the end the triumph of normative
Judaism as it had been developed in the schools of Palestine and
Babylonia seems to have been complete; not only was law and
usage uniform, but the intellectually hellenized Judaism which
flourished in the century or two before our era disappears.
1 The Jews in the Parthian empire (Babylonia, Mesopotamia, etc.) had a
similar civil head, the Resh Galuta, ' Chief of the Exile/ for whom, as for the
patriarchs in Palestine, Davidic ancestry was claimed; but in religious
matters the authority of the Patriarch was recognized
2 Sheluhim^ aTroo-roXoi; in Roman law apostoh.
3 The Theodosian Code calls it aurum coronanum.
4 See the letter of Rabban Gamaliel II to the Jews in Babylonia, Media,
Greece, etc , announcing the intercalation of a thirteenth month, Jer. San-
hedrm i8d, and the letters of R S meon ben GamaLel and Johanan ben
Zakkai, Midrash Tannaim, pp. 175 f.
5 Easebms on Isa 18, I.
CHAPTER IX
CHARACTER OF JUDAISM
OF all the religions which at the beginning of the Christian era
flourished in the Roman and Parthian empires Judaism alone
has survived,1 and it survived because it succeeded in achieving
a unity of belief and observance among Jews in all their wide
dispersion then and since. The danger of a widening gulf be-
tween Aramaic-speaking Jews and Greek-speaking Jews, which
at the beginning of our era was not inconsiderable, was com-
pletely overcome. The influential party which we know by the
name of Sadducees, who maintained that the Scripture alone
was law, denying authority to the traditional law of their op-
ponents, the Pharisees, shrunk after the war of 66-72 A.D. to
a heretical sect whose distinguishing mark was the rejection of
the doctrine of retribution after death. In the second century
Pharisaism was completely triumphant both in establishing the
authority of the traditional law and in making its eschatology
Jewish orthodoxy. Down to the rise of the Karaites in the
eighth century and their revolt against the Talmud there was
nothing that deserves the name of schism, and that movement,
after a period of vigorous and often violent controversy lasting
some four centuries, gradually subsided into an innocuous sect.
The ground of this remarkable unity is to be found not so
much in a general agreement in fundamental ideas as in com-
munity of observance throughout the whole Jewish world.
Wherever a Jew went he found the same system of domestic ob-
servance in effect. This was of especial importance in the sphere
of what are now called the dietary laws, because it assured him
1 Zoroastrianism, represented by about 100,000 Parsees in India, chiefly
in Bombay and the vicinity, and perhaps 10,000 in Persia, is the sole ex-
ception.
CHAP, ix] CHARACTER OF JUDAISM in
against an unwitting violation of their manifold regulations.
If he entered the synagogue he found everywhere substantially
the same form of service with minor variations. The prayers
(Shema' and Tefillah) might legitimately be said in any lan-
guage,1 but in the public prayers Hebrew seems to have been
generally used wherever Palestinian example was followed. In
the same area the lessons were read in Hebrew accompanied by
an Aramaic translation. The often cited Novel of Justinian 2
shows that at that time there was a party among the Jews who
contended that Hebrew was the only proper language for this
purpose, while others, in accordance with the older usage of the
Grecian synagogues, maintained that the lessons might also be
read in a Greek translation. The decision of the emperor author-
izes the use of Greek, commending the Septuagint but permit-
ting the version of Aquila. "The Synagogue of Israel" (Keneset
Israel) — we should say the Jewish church — might with good
right have taken to itself the title catholic (universal) Judaism
in an inclusive sense, not, like catholic Christianity, with the
implied exclusion of a multitude of sects and heresies.
This unity and universality, as has been said, was not based
upon orthodoxy in theology but upon uniformity of observance.
But the same authorities which had regulated and systematized
the worship and observance had also set forth the fundamental
principles of the Jewish religion and its religious ethics and ex-
emplified its characteristic piety, and these also were dissemi-
nated through the schools and the synagogues as an integral part
of traditional belief and practice.
The character of this catholic Judaism can only be appre-
hended and appreciated through a detailed exhibition of its au-
thentic teachings, but some of its distinctive features may be
briefly summarized here.
1 M. Sotah 7, i; Tos. So^ah 7, 7; cf. Shabbat I2b. Maimonides, Hilkot
Tefillah i, 4.
1 Novel. 146 (553 A.D.). See Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire remain, I,
369 E
112 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
The foundation of Judaism is the belief that religion is re-
vealed. What man is to believe concerning God and what duty
God requires of man, he has made known in one form or another
by revelation. Specific commandments had been given to Adam,
Noah, Abraham, and Jacob; to Moses the complete revelation
was given once for all. The prophets who came after him re-
peated, explained, emphasized, applied, what was revealed to
Moses; they added nothing to it. The revelation to Moses was
in part embodied in writing in the Pentateuch, in part trans-
mitted orally from generation to generation in unbroken suc-
cession down to the schools of the Law in which tradition was
defined, formulated, and systematized. The whole of religion
was revealed — "nothing was kept back in heaven" — and the
whole content of revelation was religion.
There could be but one religion properly deserving the name,
for God is One; and revelation was not only consistent but
identical throughout, for God is ever the same. The forefathers
had fallen away from the true religion, not only by worshipping
other gods and by worshipping their own God in a heathenish
way, but by tolerating injustice and immorality. Later genera-
tions were far from living up to the acknowledged standard set
for them in the twofold Law. But whatever the sins or short-
comings of the people, however negligent or however zealous in
the practice of their religion, religion itself was neither impaired
nor improved. It was perfect from the beginning, and therefore
unalterable.
Modern students approach Judaism with prepossessions of so
radically different an order that it requires an effort of imagina-
tion to put ourselves at this point of view. The idea of historical
development in religion, as in science and in institutions — in
civilization as a whole — so dominates us that it is hard to un-
derstand a religion to which it is a contradiction in terms. But
it is idle to try to comprehend Judaism at all unless we are pre-
pared to accept its own assumptions as principles of interpreta-
tion, and not substitute ours for them.
CHAP, ix] CHARACTER OF JUDAISM 113
Nevertheless, theory to the contrary notwithstanding, Juda-
ism had made great progress between the days of the last proph-
ets and the end of the age of the Tannaim, and it had made it
chiefly through the appropriation and assimilation of the pro-
phetic teaching, including the prophetic element in the Law.
In this process a notable change took place. The mission
and the message of the prophets was to the nation. The people
in its solidarity was responsible for the evils, individual, social,
political, which they denounced, and upon the guilty nation the
judgment of God was about to fall. In its ruin the whole people
would suffer the doom which collectively they had deserved.
The only way of averting the catastrophe or repairing it was a
religious and moral reformation in which the whole people
should turn from their evil ways to God and the doing of his
will, and to the allegiance and obedience of its origins. For this
thoroughgoing reformation, our word, coming through the Latin
version of the prophetic Scriptures, is Repentance.
The previsions of the prophets were fulfilled in the extinction
of the national state and the breaking up of the people. In the
dissolution of the political community and the bond of a com-
mon cultus, and often in close contact and association with
heathen, adherence to the religion of his fathers became for the
individual not a matter of course but a matter of choice. Many,
doubtless, fell away and were absorbed in the surrounding hea-
thenism. The saving remnant was the true Israel.
Into this situation came an individualizing of the doctrine of
sin, retribution, and repentance, such as we find in Ezekiel. That
God bestows his favor on those who please him by conformity to
his will and visits his displeasure on those who transgress or ig-
nore it was in a general way an old and universal belief. Ezekiel
converts it into an inexorable law of retribution, and as a coun-
terpart he makes repentance the sole but all-sufficient ground for
the remission of all former offences of the individual, as the earlier
prophets from Hosea on had done for those of the nation.1 The
1 Ezek. 18; Hosea 14, 2-10 (cf. 2, 16-25).
II4 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
law of retribution, especially when construed quantitatively as
it is by Job's friends, conflicts with experience, and if such retri-
bution in this life is insisted on as a necessary corollary to God's
justice, can only lead to a denial of his justice, as the author of
the book set himself to show by the example of Job. From this
dilemma an escape was ultimately found in the transfer of the
final sphere of retribution to an existence beyond death.
The individualizing of repentance was of vastly greater religious
consequence. It not only became a cardinal doctrine of Juda-
ism — its doctrine of salvation — but it impressed upon the
religion itself its most distinctive character. The piety of the
Psalmists is a testimony to the penetration of this idea. The
interpreters of the Law taught that the promises of divine for-
giveness attached to the prescribed sacrifices and expiations, in-
cluding those of the Day of Atonement, contain the implicit con-
dition of repentance, and when sacrifices and expiations ceased
with the destruction of the temple, that repentance of itself suf-
ficed.1 Religion thus became a personal relation of the individual
man to God.
Long before the sacra pubhca in behalf of all Jews everywhere
came to an end, the synagogue had become for the vast majority
the real centre of the common religious life, and the cessation of
sacrifice, however deeply it was deplored, caused no crisis. Re-
ligion had its seat in the home also, in the domestic rites, the
table blessings, the private prayers, and parental instruction of
children. The personalizing of religion was furthered by the
many observances obligatory on every individual, on the head
of the family, the wife and mother, and gradually on the children
as they grew up.
The synagogue was not in Jewish apprehension primarily a
house of worship, but a place where the common prayers were
said together and individuals offered their private petitions, and
where the Scripture was read, interpreted, and expounded — a
1 See Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV, cols. 4223-4225 (§§ 50-52).
CHAP, ix] CHARACTER OF JUDAISM 115
place of religious instruction and edification. It was a unique
institution in the ancient world and it had a unique purpose, to
educate a whole people in its religion. In this it was supple-
mented by the more advanced study of the Bet ha-Midrash, the
Lecture-Room, and by what we may call professional schools for
the study of the traditional law and the juristic exegesis of the
written law.
The idea of God in Judaism is developed from the Scriptures.
The influence of contemporary philosophy which is seen in some
Hellenistic Jewish writings — the Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Mac-
cabees, and above all in Philo — is not recognizable in normative
Judaism,1 nor is the influence of other religions, among which it
is natural to think first of Zoroastrianism, to be discovered. The
tendency of Zoroastrianism to exempt God from responsibility
for the evil in the world by attributing the latter to another au-
thor conflicted so obviously with the fundamental idea of unity
and with the explicit teaching of the Scriptures that it was re-
jected by Jewish religious thinking with all other forms of the
heresy of "two powers."
In the development of older conceptions both reflection and
selection have a part, especially in regard to the moral character
of God. Jewish monotheism was reached neither by postulat-
ing the unity of nature nor by speculation on the unity of Being
— the physical or the metaphysical approach of science and
philosophy — but by way of the unity of the moral order in the
history of the world, identified with the will and purpose of
God. In it, therefore, the personality of God was as integral as
his unity.
Nothing in the universe could resist God's power or thwart his
purpose. His knowledge embraced all that was or is or is to be.
Though his abode was in the highest heaven, there was no place
and no humblest thing on earth devoid of his presence. He was
1 Superficial acquaintance with Philonic conceptions was apparently me-
diated in the third century by contact with Christian theologians in centres
like Caesarea.
1 1 6 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
at once above all and in all. He was wholly righteous, and could
not abide unrighteousness. But he was at the same time merci-
ful, compassionate, and long-suffering. His two moral attributes
were justice and mercy, but it was mercy that best expressed his
nature. These ideas are derived from the Law and the Prophets.1
They were illustrated and confirmed by God's dealing with the
patriarchs and by the history of the nation interpreted in the
light of prophetic teaching.
The thought of God as father has its antecedents in the same
sources, but has a much more prominent place in Judaism.
While in Philo the phrase "father and maker," adopted from
Plato, is used in the sense of 'author/ in Judaism, "Father in
heaven" expresses a personal relation to the people collectively
and to the individual. Taking it not as a theological proposi-
tion but as the attitude of piety, it is a summary of the whole re-
lation between God and the religious man.
God's love to the forefathers is constant to their descendants
also; they may be rebellious and sinful children, but they are
his children still. What God demands of men is a responsive
love, the love of the whole man, mind, soul, possessions, and
effort. This is the sole worthy motive of obedience to God's re-
vealed will, and it gives to right conduct the religious touch of
emotion.
The corollary of the law, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God/
is 'Thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself/ and, lest we should
suppose this to be restricted to the fellow Israelite, the same
chapter contains the additional injunction, 'Thou shalt love the
stranger (ger) as thyself.' The rabbis defined this obligation,
The property and the good name of another should be as precious
to you as your own, and applied the principle to the laws of trade
and to competition in business, and they made it prohibit in-
jurious gossip as well as slanderous defamation.
Sin, in a revealed religion, is "any want of conformity unto,
1 Especially in such passages as Exod. 34, 5-7; Deuteronomy, passtm, and
among the prophets particularly Hosea and Jeremiah; cf. also i Kings 8.
CHAP, ix] CHARACTER OF JUDAISM 117
or transgression of, the law of God," ! equally whether the act
or neglect itself is malum per sey or is morally indifferent. This
conception, whether entertained by Jew or Puritan, is often
called "legalism," and many bad things are said about it. The
far-reaching religious consequences of the establishment of this
relation between sin and law are commonly overlooked. For
where sin is the violation or the neglect of a divine law, the only
remedy is God's forgiveness. The primitive expiations and puri-
fications are perpetuated in the Mosaic laws, but they no longer
possess in themselves a mysterious, or if we choose, a magical,
efficacy; they are rites which God has appointed for men to seek
pardon through, and are thus conditions of forgiveness. Judaism,
as we have seen, made repentance the condition sine qua non of
them all, and eventually the substitute for them all.
Correspondingly, transgressions of what we call the moral law,
for which the Mosaic law has no specific expiations — only the
universal riddance by the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement
— are not forgiven except upon condition of individual repent-
ance. In other words, the legal conception of sin leads directly
to the recognition that the only remedy for sin is God's forgiving
grace, having its ground in his mercy, or his love, and its indis-
pensable condition in repentance, a moral renovation of man
which is compared to a new creation, with its fruit in works meet
for repentance. To the Jewish definition of repentance belong
the reparation of injuries done to a fellow man in his person,
property, or good name, the confession of sin, prayer for forgive-
ness, and the genuine resolve and endeavor not to fall into the
sin again.
The Jews in their wide dispersion looked forward to the day
when they should be gathered again to their own land as the
prophets had foretold, and an era of peace and prosperity should
follow. The implicit or explicit condition of this restoration was
a reformation (repentance) so complete that it amounted to a
transformation of the whole character of the people. The mag-
1 Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 14.
1 1 8 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
nitude of this change so impressed Jeremiah and Ezekiel that
they could conceive it possible only as the work of God himself,
who should not only cleanse them but put a new heart and a new
spirit — his own spirit — in them and 'cause them to walk in
his statutes and keep his judgments and do them/ 1 Repent-
ance itself is a gift of God, for which he is besought in prayer by
the congregation and by the individual.
The prophets had depicted the golden age in various forms and
frequently with idyllic imagery. The common element which
was in the foreground of Jewish religious thought was freedom to
live their own life and follow their own religion unhindered by
foreign dominion, enjoying the favor of God. Some prophecies
foretold a restoration of the monarchy under a prince of the line
of David, and greater stress was perhaps laid on the legitimate
succession out of antipathy to the Asmonaean kings.2 The Scion
of David, or the Son of David, or the Anointed (Messiah) son of
David are titles of the expected king in the Tannaite literature
and in the liturgy.8 The character of this ruler in the golden age
to come is set forth in Isaiah n, I ff., which the official Targum
closely follows.
In other prophecies, notably in Isaiah 40 ff., there is no men-
tion of an earthly sovereign; God himself is the king of Israel.
Borrowing the word from Josephus, we may call this the theo-
cratic, in distinction from the political, type of the national hope.
There is in the prophecies no indication of the human instrumen-
talities through which the will of the divine king is effectuated.4
In the thought of the makers of normative Judaism we may be
sure that it was not a hierocracy, in which God was represented
on earth by the priesthood. Rather it was the "learned," the
36, 25 ff.; cf. n, 19 f.; Jer. 31, 31 ff.; 17, 14; Psalm 51, 9, 12.
See M. Yoma 8, 9, R. Akiba: Blessed are ye, Israelites. Before whom are ye
purified and who purifies you? Your Father who is in heaven. (Ezek. 36,
25 ff., combined with Jer. 17, 14).
2 Psalms of Solomon 2, and especially 17.
1 "The Messiah," without anything more, is not found in the older sources.
4 The Nasi (E.V. "Prince") in Ezek. 40 ff. has no such general commission.
CHAP, ix] CHARACTER OF JUDAISM 119
authoritative interpreters of the divine law, who would in that
age not only teach the law but as judges apply it. The time
when the Messiah should appear, or the rule of God be estab-
lished in power, was fixed in God's plan, and signs of its ap-
proach were given in the prophets, but it was God's secret, into
which it was not for men to pry.1
The idea of God's rule in his own people widened into the ex-
pectation of a day when his sovereignty should be established
and acknowledged by all mankind, when 'the Lord shall be
King over all the earth; in that day shall the Lord be One and
his name One' (Zech. 14, 9). The universality of the true reli-
gion is the origin and meaning of the phrase, Malkut Shamaim,
"the reign of God," or, in the familiar rendering of our version in
the New Testament, "the kingdom of Heaven," for the coming,
or in their phrase, the revealing, of which prayer is made.
The utterances of the prophets about the fate of the heathen
nations in this consummation were various. In the Books of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel there are collections of vindictive
oracles which consign them all and single to destruction, while
others foretell only the overthrow of the great powers which suc-
cessively oppressed Israel. The conversion of the remaining
heathen appears in both the royal and the theocratic forms of
the expectation.
One of the most salient differences between Judaism and the
older religion of Israel is in the beliefs about what is beyond
death. The ancient Israelites shared the primitive notions of
survival, and imagined the dead, shadows of their living selves,
as inhabiting the family tomb or gathered with the great multi-
tude of the dead of all nations in a dismal cavern in the inwards
of the earth, the common lot of all.2 To the end of the Old Testa-
ment and beyond, this continued to be the general belief. Other
1 This caution was perhaps accentuated by the disillusion of the Bar
Cocheba war. Akiba had deduced in his way that the deliverance was due.
See Sanhedrin 97b.
2 For the latter see Isa. 14, 4 ff.; Ezek. 32, 17 ff.
120 HISTORICAL [INTRODUCTION
peoples with whom the Jews were in contact had earlier sepa-
rated the good from the bad dead — however they discriminated
these categories — and their religions and philosophies developed
the idea of divine retribution in the hereafter, frequently pictur-
ing the wicked there in torments apt to their offence. The pre-
vailing representation was that the soul is by nature imperish-
able, and at death goes to the place and lot in another sphere of
existence which the individual has deserved by his character and
conduct in this life. Such conceptions were current in the Hel-
lenistic world, and were appropriated by some of the Greek-
speaking Jews, as we see in the Wisdom of Solomon.
In Judaea the belief in retribution after death took a different
form. At the end of the present age of the world there was to be
a universal judgment. The bodies of the dead would come out
of the tomb and be reunited with their souls, that both together,
the man entire, might be judged in the great assize. Those who
were justified in the judgment would live forever on a transfig-
ured earth, exempt from all the infirmities of flesh and the evils
of the present world, while the wicked would be condemned to
the unquenchable fire. This new eschatology was not unop-
posed. The Sadducees, as we have seen, rejected it for want of
warrant in Scripture. The Pharisees were zealous for it, and in-
sisted that it could be found in the Law. In the second century,
if not earlier, they made a dogma of it by attaching an anathema
to the proposition — whoever denies that the revivification of
the dead is taught in the Torah has no part in the Future World.
Eventually the doctrine triumphed completely.
The transfer of the sphere of final retribution to another ex-
istence not only put theodicy beyond the reach of refutation be-
cause beyond experience, but — what was of far greater religious
consequence — reversed the whole interpretation of the experi-
ences of this life. The afflictions of the upright are no longer
punishments, but chastisements of love, evidence of God's
favor, not of his displeasure. The prosperity of the wicked is
God's way of letting irreclaimable sinners heap up for themselves
CHAP, ix] CHARACTER OF JUDAISM 121
greater condemnation. Nowhere is the effect of the individual-
izing of religion more conspicuous than in this eschatology. In
the universal judgment every man is judged on the ground of
his personal character and conduct.1
The new eschatology did not displace the national hope. When
the necessity of an adjustment was felt, it was accomplished by
making the old golden age, the Days of the Messiah, which had
once been final and perpetual, an intermediate and temporary
period of determinate length,2 after which, with convulsions
among the nations and cataclysms in nature, the last act in the
history of "this world" was ushered in. There was no attempt
to construct a doctrine of the Messianic Age or the Last Things.
The apocalypses in their enthusiastic vagaries make up shifting
combinations of native and alien elements. The sobriety and
reticence of the authentic literature is a testimony to the good
sense of the rabbis. Some of them had their own adventures in
the occult, cosmological or theosophical, but they did not profess
to reveal the secrets of the hereafter, and they evidently had
little taste for such revelations.
Judaism thus made religion in every sphere a personal relation
between the individual man and God, and in bringing this to
clear consciousness and drawing its consequences lies its most
significant advance beyond the older religion of Israel. It was,
however, a relation of the individual to God, not in isolation,
but in the fellowship of the religious community and, ideally, of
the whole Jewish people, the Keneset Israel. Not alone the syna-
gogue but the entire communal life — even what we should call
the secular life — knit together by its peculiar beliefs, laws, and
observances was the expression and the bond of this fellowship.
Thus Judaism became in the full sense personal religion without
ceasing to be national religion.
1 Adherence to the true religion is, as in Zoroastrianism, a weighty factor
in this judgment, but that upright Gentiles have a lot in the Future World
is an opinion frequently expressed.
2 There were various opinions about its duration, of which the thousand
years (millennium) in the Revelation of John is one.
II
THE SOURCES
Mekilta, 135
Mekilta de-R. Simeon b. Yohai, 138
Sifra, 140
Sifre on Numbers, 143
Sifre Zuta, 144
Sifre on Deuteronomy, 145
Midrash Tannaim, 146
The Mishnah, 150
Tosefta, 155
Pirke Abot, 156
Abot de-R. Nathan, 158
Seder 'Olam, 158
Bereshit Rabbah (Genesis), 163
Shemot Rabbah (Exodus), 167
Ekah Rabbati (Lamentations), 167
Pesikta de-R. Kahana, 168
Pesikta Rabbati, 169
Wayyikra Rabbah (Leviticus), 169
Tanhuma, 169
Debarim Rabbah (Deuteronomy),
170
Bemidbar Rabbah (Numbers), 171
Sirach, 179
Psalms of Solomon, 1 80
Gospels and Acts, 183
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 187
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
190
Jubilees, 193
The Schismatic Sect in Damascus,
200
1 Maccabees, 205
2 Maccabees, 206
Flavius Josephus, 208
Philo, 211
CHAPTER I
CRITICAL PRINCIPLES
THE aim of the present work is to exhibit the religious concep-
tions and moral principles of Judaism, its modes of worship and
observance, and its distinctive piety, in the form in which, by the
end of the second century of the Christian era, they attained
general acceptance and authority. The evolution of this norma-
tive Judaism and the causes of its supremacy have been outlined
in the historical part of this Introduction. It remains to give
account briefly here of the sources from which the following
representation of Judaism is derived.
This survey is not intended to serve a bibliographical purpose,
but to put readers who may not be familiar with this literature
in a position to use these volumes understandingly. For more
detailed information recourse may be had to H. Strack, Ein-
leitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 5 ed. (1921); E. Schiirer,
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zei taker Jesu Christi, 4 ed.
(1901-1909), 3 volumes; l J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Tempire
romain (1914), 2 volumes; and to the relevant articles in the
Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906), 12 volumes. For the Apo-
crypha and Pseudepigrapha see also the introductions to the
.several books in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
of the Old Testament (1913), 2 volumes.
In any such undertaking the primacy is properly given to
those sources which are recognized by the religion itself as au-
thentic. The historian who attempts to set forth the theology
and ethics of the Christian church, say in the Ante-Nicene period,
takes as fundamental the men and the books which the church
has accepted as in the line of the catholic tradition, authentic ex-
1 Schurer is cited by the pages of the 3d edition, which are carried in the
headlines of the 4th.
125
126 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
ponents of its doctrine and discipline; and especially the consen-
sus of the representative leaders and the official acts of synods
and councils. There are many other writings to which no such
authority was accorded. Some of them the church at large ig-
nored; some it repudiated as infected with error or as plainly
heretical. The interest of much of this material is considerable,
and its value to the historian as a whole very great for the insight
it gives into the varieties of belief and opinion among Christians,
and the way in which the doctrine of the church was formed in
conflict with sects and heresies, and ultimately prevailed. The
number of Christians who were addicted to one or another of
these factions was large; some of them in certain regions were
serious rivals of the catholic church, and themselves professed to
be the true church. But whatever use the historian may make
of their literature, he does not form from it his conception of
Christianity or mix it up with the sources which contain the
recognized teachings of the church.
The same obvious methodical principle applies to Judaism.
It may properly claim to be represented by the teachers and the
writings which it has always regarded as in the line of its catholic
tradition, all the more because the resulting consensus is authori-
tative, and is embodied in a corpus of tradition possessing not
only universal authority but in some sense finality. Numerous
other Jewish writings have come down to us from these centur-
ies,1 to which neither biblical nor rabbinical authority attached.
With the exception of Sirach, they are ignored in the Tannaite
literature and in the Talmud, or only included as a class in a pro-
hibition of reading from "extraneous books." Considering the
character of the rabbinical literature on the one hand and of
these writings on the other, there is nothing particularly signifi-
cant in this silence. Some of these books are edifying popular
tales, such as Judith and Tobit, or moral counsels in a setting of
ancient story like the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs;
Jubilees is bent on a radical reconstruction of the calendar which
3 With a solitary exception, in Christian hands.
CHAP, i] CRITICAL PRINCIPLES 1 27
would not commend itself to conservatives. From such books
the historian gets glimpses of the religion of the times outside the
schools, and inasmuch as these writings come chiefly from the
centuries preceding the Christian era this evidence is welcome,
even when not intrinsically of immense importance.
A singular genus of literature which was in vogue in this period
has an especial interest, namely the apocalypses, in which, in
fantastic visions demanding angelic interpretations, the time and
circumstance of the end of the present order of things, the secrets
of nature, the interiors of hell and heaven with their occupants,
are revealed to ancient seers and recorded by them for far distant
times. Of these compositions we shall have occasion to speak
further on. In the present connection it is sufficient to say that
not only are the writings themselves ignored in the Tannaite
literature, but many of the subjects with which they deal are
foreign to it. It may be inferred from their number and volume
that they found eager acceptance, particularly in times of tribu-
lation which inspired new ones and caused old ones to be re-
vamped to match a postponement of the date. One of the latest
(4 Esdras) was written by a man of genius, and another (the
Syriac Baruch) had an author full of haggadic lore. But it may
well be doubted whether the exegetical and juristic studies of the
rabbis, and under ordinary circumstances the hard realities of
life for the people, let them get more excited about the end of the
world and afterwards than either scholars or the mass of Chris-
tians today over the cabalistic combinations and chronological
calculations of our own millenarians.
However that may be, inasmuch as these writings have never
been recognized by Judaism,1 it is a fallacy of method for the
historian to make them a primary source for the eschatology of
Judaism, much more to contaminate its theology with them.
That Christians set a high value on the apocalypses is natural.
The imminent return of Christ, as Daniel had seen the Son of
1 It does not appear that the authorities ever felt it necessary even to
repudiate them.
128 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
Man in his vision, was a corner-stone of their faith. For Jews it
was at most one of various ways in which, with prophetic au-
thority, the deliverance of Israel and the inauguration of a golden
age could be conceived; l to Christians it was the only one, for
it was his own prediction.2 It is indeed not impossible that the
earliest form of this belief accessible to us was influenced by such
revelations as are preserved in the Book of Enoch (cc. 37-64).
Christians had, therefore, the strongest motive for appropri-
ating every apocalypse they found in the hands of Jews, besides
recasting similar material for themselves as in the Revelation of
John. The entire tradition of the Jewish apocalyptic literature
(excepting of course the Book of Daniel) is Christian, and the
many versions of 4 Esdras show how wide and lasting its influ-
ence was. In Judaism nothing of the kind is to be discovered.
The eschatological apocalypse, which from the days of Antiochus
IV to those of Domitian had apparently revived in every crisis of
the history, disappears completely. Personally conducted visits
to Paradise and Gehenna were attributed to some favored rabbis,
notably to Joshua ben Levi; and much later Enoch reemerges
in a similar r&le with descriptions of the Heavenly Courts and
the like, showing that some reminiscence of his journeys through
the universe had survived or been revived.3
When we come to deal with Jewish teaching concerning the
hereafter of the nation, the world, and the individual,4 we shall
have occasion to take the testimony of the apocalypses for a type
of eschatology which, at least in some circles, for two or three
centuries attracted writers and readers, though, so far as the
evidence goes, without countenance from the exponents of what
we may call normal Judaism. But upon this, as on other points,
normal Judaism must be allowed to speak for itself.
1 The Son of David (Messiah) coming with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7,
13), or, lowly and riding on an ass (Zech. 9, 9). Sanhedrm 98a. See Part VII.
2 Mark 13 and parallels; cf. Acts i, i-ii; 3, 19-23; I Thess. 4, 14-17, etc.
8 Several pieces of this sort are to be found in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch
(1853-1877, six parts). Among these particular mention may be made of
that in Part V, pp. 170-190. 4 Vol. II, pp. 278 ff.
CHAP, i] CRITICAL PRINCIPLES 129
The most mischievous consequence of basing a representation
of Judaism upon the apocalypses is not, however, in the sphere
of eschatology but of theology — the idea of God. The concep-
tion of an extramundane God, remote and inaccessible in his
majesty and holiness, — "transcendent" God, as they say, —
which is set down in so many modern books as characteristically
Jewish, is created in this way. As I have written elsewhere:
"Whoever derives the Jewish idea of God chiefly from apoca-
lypses will get the picture of a God enthroned in the highest hea-
ven, remote from the world, a mighty monarch surrounded by a
celestial court, with ministers of various ranks of whom only the
highest have immediate access to the presence of the sovereign,
unapproachable even by angels of less exalted station, to say
nothing of mere mortals; and this not because theological re-
flection has elevated him to transcendence, but because the en-
tire imaginative representation is conditioned by the visionary
form. If the prophet has a vision of the throne-room of God's
palace, as in Isaiah 6, or the seer is conducted by an angel through
one heaven after another to the very threshold of the adytum,
what other kind of representation is possible? To extract a
dogma from such visions is to misunderstand the origin and na-
ture of the whole apocalyptic literature." l
There are several reasons for the precedence given by many
modern Christian authors to writings which Judaism does not
recognize over those sources which it has always regarded as
authentic. The first is that the prime interest of almost all who
have written on the subject is in the beginnings of Christianity,
to which Judaism serves as a background, an environment, and
often, with a more or less conscious apologetic motive, as a con-
trast. Another, of a more temporary character, is the elation of
discovery by which the just proportion of things is dislocated, as
may be observed in the recent boom of the mysteries in the re-
1 'Christian Writers on Judaism/ Harvard Theological Review, XIV
(1921), 247-248. For another source of this error see ibid., pp. 227-228,
233-134.
SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
construction of early Christianity. The apocalypses and kindred
writings, the most important of which (except the Latin of 4
Esdras) have come down to us chiefly in Oriental languages (Ethi-
opic, Syriac, Armenian, etc.), had engaged the attention of philol-
ogists well back in the last century, and much excellent work was
done on them, not only in the editing and translating of texts and
the investigation of the critical problems, but in the discussion
of the bearings of these discoveries on the history of Judaism and
Christianity, but these labors made little stir outside the circle
of the learned. In the present generation, the English scholar
R. H. Charles has been indefatigable in editing, translating, and
commenting on these books, and in popularizing the whole sub-
ject.
These writings are therefore accessible in modern translations;
the Apocrypha and such books as the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs have long been known in Greek or Latin. Of the
rabbinical sources, on the contrary, a great part, including those
which are of the first importance for such an investigation, are
not available in translation at all; while their nature is such that
the best translation is in many cases intelligible only to those
who are acquainted with the ways of the original. Quite natu-
rally recent Christian scholars who have written on Judaism
have drawn chiefly on the sources they could read rather than
on those they knew only through select quotations, and, when
they introduce rabbinical parallels, not seldom exemplify the
danger of quotation — frequently at several removes — without
knowledge of the context or the hermeneutic method.1
In justification of the preference for the Apocrypha and Pseud-
epigrapha over the rabbinical sources it is often urged that the
former are considerably the older; with the exception of the two
great apocalypses, 4 Esdras and the Syriac Baruch, toward the
end of the first century, almost all the rest precede the Christian
era, while the oldest books in which the teachings of the Tannaim
are preserved date, as such, from the end of the second century.
1 See Harvard Theological Review, u. s., pp. 235 f.
CHAP, i] CRITICAL PRINCIPLES 131
Here, as not infrequently, the Christian era is taken as if in some
way it marked an epoch in the history of Judaism. The point
really in mind is that the books assigned to the preceding period
were in circulation in the generation in which Jesus appeared and
in that which produced the first three Gospels or their sources,
and may, therefore, so far as dates go, have had some influence
on the beginnings of the religious movement that became Chris-
tianity; while on the other hand, it is said, we cannot know how
much of the teaching of the Tannaim, which we have only in
compilations from the end of the second century, was really
current in the time of Jesus and his immediate disciples.1
This chronological discrimination of sources has evidently no
significance for Judaism itself, but only for the Jewish ante-
cedents of Christianity. Even from the latter point of view it
is fallacious. If Jesus and his immediate disciples had any ac-
quaintance with notions such as we find in the apocalypses, say
in Enoch 45-58, it may be taken for certain that they did not
get them by reading the books, but by hearsay, perhaps remote
hearsay. In the same way they had their knowledge of the
teachings of the Scribes from the homilies of the synagogue and
other religious discourses. With our Gospels the case is ante-
cedently somewhat different. One or more of the writers may
have looked up things in books, as they undoubtedly looked up
Bible texts and brought in more Scripture.2 But that even they
drew immediately on apocalyptic writings is not demonstrable.
The series of Tannaite sources begins to flow in any volume
only with the reestablishment of the schools at Jamnia after the
destruction of Jerusalem, that is, about the time when our trio of
Gospels may be supposed to have attained the form in which we
know them. But the task of Johanan ben Zakkai and his fellows
was one of conservation, not of reformation. The following gen-
1 That in the sphere of religion and morals this skepticism is not justified
will be abundantly evident in the sequel.
1 There are places in the Gospel of Matthew which suggest contributions
by a more learned hand. Cf., e.g., Matt. 5, 30, with Niddah ijb (R. Tarfon).
See Vol. II, pp. 268 f.
132 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
erations made great progress both in the formulation and order-
ing of the rules of the oral law and in connecting them with the
biblical law, and the interrupted work was taken up again after
the war under Hadrian, but of anything like a new departure or
a new religious attitude there is no indication.
The Gospels themselves are the best witness to the religious
and moral teaching of the synagogue in the middle forty years of
the first century, and the not infrequent references, with ap-
proval or dissent, to the current Halakah are evidence of the
rules approved in the schools of the Law and taught to the people.
It is this relation between the Gospels and the teaching of the
rabbis, whether tacitly assumed or criticized and controverted,
which makes them the important source they are for a knowledge
of the Judaism of their time, and on the other hand makes the
rabbinical sources the important instrument they are for the
understanding of the Gospels. The Gospels with the first part
of the Acts of the Apostles are thus witnesses to authentic Jewish
tradition, while the apocalypses (and the kindred element in the
Gospels) represent groups, or at least tendencies, outside the
main current of thought and life.1
What may for brevity be called the rabbinical sources divide
themselves into three classes. In the first place there are the
rules of the traditional law (Halakot), succinctly formulated,
generally without citation of the relevant biblical law or reason
for the particular rule, eventually codified in six grand divisions
with many tractates under each. Systematic compilations are
called Mishnah;2 the individual rules are Mishnayot. The
Midrash of the schools, frequently distinguished by modern
scholars as the Halakic, or Tannaite, Midrash, constitutes the
second class. It is in primary intent the juristic exegesis of the
1 On the opinion that much of this literature comes out of a sectarian
movement, by some identified with the Essenes, see Vol. II, pp. 280 f.
2 When Mishnah in the sense of 'study of tradition' is used in contrast to
Mikra, 'study of the Bible/ it includes Halakah, Midrash, and Haggadah.
See below, p. 319.
CHAP, i] CRITICAL PRINCIPLES 133
biblical laws, by means of which the rules of the traditional law
are derived from the written law or connected with it. The
third class is the Homiletical Midrash (Midrash Haggadah),
which may be roughly described as collections of sermonic ma-
terial for ends of religious and moral instruction and edification.
Like modern compilations made for a similar purpose, the Hom-
iletical Midrash draws largely upon the discourses of favorite
preachers in the school or the synagogue, often by name; and
these quotations, with or without an author's name, are passed
on from one book to another for centuries.
The Homiletic and Expository Midrashim are compilations
for practical purposes. Their contents had no place in the school
tradition like the Halakah and the Halakic Midrash; for the
Haggadah, however highly it was valued, had no such authority.
The oldest collections of this kind in our hands are from a time
not far removed from the completion of the Palestinian Talmud.
Many earlier authors are quoted in them by name, and the at-
tributions are frequently confirmed by other testimony or by in-
ternal evidence. The large body of anonymous matter, unless
in particular instances it can be otherwise dated, may be of any
age down to the final editing of the book — so far as there was such
a stage in its history — or may have been introduced in copies of it
after that from the Haggadah of the Talmud or from other ex-
tant or lost Midrashim. In this state of the case the anonymous
Haggadah in these works can be used to any critical purpose for
the period with which we are concerned only when it is parallel
to known teaching of that time. There is indeed in most of this
matter little originality of ideas, but great ingenuity in getting
familiar lessons and morals into and out of biblical texts where
nobody had ever looked for them, or in illustrating them by ex-
empla, biblical or legendary, or newly invented parables.
For our purpose the second class, the Tannaite Midrash, is
first in importance. As has been said above, the books in which
we have it all come substantially from the second century, and
embody the authoritative teaching of the schools from the restor-
134 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
ation at Jamnia under Johanan ben Zakkai to the generation of
the Patriarch Judah. They represent both the great schools of
the beginning of that century, those of Akiba and Ishmael, and
it may be assumed that where they agree, especially in principles
or interpretations for which no authority is named and no dissent
recorded, they reproduce the common tradition of the preceding
generations, and in many cases, as can often be proved, of a longer
past. The Mishnah collections are of the same age, and the
established Halakah is in many instances of the highest value as
evidence of the way and measure in which great ethical principles
have been tacitly impressed on whole fields of the traditional
law.1 The concise technical formulation of the rule requires ex-
planation outside itself,2 for which recourse must be had to the
Talmud, and that in its turn often recurs to the Halakic Midrash.
1 Some striking examples in the laws of bargain and sale are cited m Part V.
2 Like any code, the Mishnah demands a juristic commentary.
CHAPTER II
COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS
THE Halakic Midrash is primarily interpretation of the laws
in the Pentateuch. It does not, however, confine itself strictly
to juristic exegesis even in the laws, and where narrative accom-
panies the laws sometimes includes the former also. The pro-
portion of legal and non-legal matter (Halakah and Haggadah)
differs in the different books of the Pentateuch, but in all of them
the latter forms a large, and in some instances even the larger,
part of the contents. It is this religious and moral element by
the side of the interpretation of the laws, and pervading it as
principle, that gives these works their chief value to us.
The Tannaite Midrash on Exodus is known as Mekilta. This
Aramaic term (like the Hebrew Middah) means measure, norm,
rule. Thus the hermeneutical rules of R. Ishmael are the Thir-
teen Middot. In the homiletical Midrash on Leviticus the books
which a Bar Mekilan (Mekilta scholar) is supposed to have
mastered (besides the Halakot) are called collectively Middot.1
Elsewhere we read that the professional reciter of traditions
(Tanna) must be able to cite Halakot, Sifra, Sifre, and Tosefta.2
The name Mekilta is first found specifically appropriated to the
Midrash on Exodus after the close of the Babylonian Talmud.3
It begins with the first piece of legislation, the law of the
Passover in Exod. 12; goes on with the narrative from 13, 17,
1 M^ddot (Mekilata) in Lev R. 3, 8 presumably correspond to the Sifra
and Sifre of ]£iddushm 490. The Sifre of the Babylonian schools included
Exodus as well as Num Deut. See Hoffmann, p. 45 ff.
2 Lev. R. 3, i.
3 See D. Hoffmann, Zur Emleitung in die halachischen Midraschim, p. 36.
In a Response of one of the Geonim (Harkavy, no. 229, p. 107) it is referred
to as the Palestinian Mekilta ($>«-)£» pNl). R. Nissim of Kairwan and R.
Samuel ha-Nagid (first half of the nth century) call it the Mekilta of R.
Ishmael, by which name it has since been generally known.
135
136 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
through ch. 19 to ch. 20 (Decalogue 20, 2-17), and the laws in
21, 1-23, 19. After this only the sabbath laws in Exod. 31, 12-
17, and 35, 1-3, are taken up. The conclusion of the covenant
(Exod. 24, i-n), Moses' ascent of the mount to receive the
tables of stone (24, 12-18), with the sequel, the golden calf, the
breaking of the tables of the law, etc. (Exod. 32-34), as well as
the plans and specifications for the tabernacle and its furnish-
ings (25, 1-31, n) and the execution of these directions (35, 4-
40, 38) are not commented on. There is some reason to think
that the original work covered more of Exodus than what is now
extant.
The basis of the Mekilta is a Midrash of the school of R.
Ishmael, as is especially evident in the legal chapters, but many
rabbis of the second century who were not of the school are
quoted in it, down to the Patriarch Judah, whose name occurs
over fifty times; his great contemporaries appear seldom, and
later authorities hardly at all — not even R. IJiyya. It may
fairly be inferred that the editor had for his additions a parallel
second-century source (or sources), the chief authorities in which
were Akiba with some of his contemporaries and disciples. On
the single verse, Exod. 14, 15, utterances of a score of rabbis are
adduced, from Shemaiah and Abtalion in the time of Herod to
the Patriarch Judah at the end of the second century.1
Of peculiar interest in the Mekilta are the chapters on the de-
liverance of Israel at the Red Sea (Exod. 14) and the Song (15,
1-21). The former closes with a eulogy of faith (on 14, 31,
'They had faith in the Lord and in his servant Moses'), in
which biblical texts and examples are lavished on the theme,
"Great is faith," the Jewish counterpart to Hebrews n. To
the literary beauty of that chapter there is no approach; but in
the conception of faith as invincible trust in God, and in recog-
nition of such faith as the fundamental principle of religion, there
is a full parallel. "Through faith alone Abraham our father ac-
quired this world and the world to come, as it is written, And
1 Such profusion, it should be said, is not the rule.
CHAP, ii] COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 137
Abraham had faith in the Lord, and He imputed it to him for
righteousness" (Gen. 15, 6). 'The righteous shall live through
his faith' (Hab. 2,4).
The Midrash on the Song (Exod. 15) brings together clause
by clause in profusion the biblical sentences on the greatness and
the majesty of God; his might and his mercy; his relation to his
people and his interventions on their behalf throughout their
history and in the future; his incomparable godhead, sole in
power and knowledge and above all in holiness; his eternal
kingship. The hundreds of quotations introduced under these
heads, and the lessons drawn from them in a few words scattered
through the catena, come nearer than any other passage in this
literature to being a connected exhibition of these topics in what
may be called the biblical doctrine of God, as that doctrine was
interpreted by Jewish scholars. Other aspects of the divine
character are treated in the Tannaite Midrash in appropriate
contexts. The most fruitful of these for the Jewish conception
of God (in Exod. 33-34) is unfortunately not covered by the
Mekilta.
The editions of the Mekilta now in common use are: I. H.
Weiss, Mechilta. Der alteste halachische und hagadische Com-
mentar zum Zweiten Buche Moses. Vienna, 1865. With an in-
troduction and commentary by the editor (in Hebrew). — M.
Friedmann, Mechilta de-Rabbi Ismael, der alteste halachische
und hagadische Midrasch zu Exodus. Vienna, 1870. With an
introduction, critical and explanatory notes, and indexes (in
Hebrew). The latter is the more highly esteemed, and in recent
works the Mekilta is prevailingly cited by the pages of Fried-
mann's edition. Since this volume has become extremely rare,
I have regularly given references to the pages of Weiss also, as
well as to the chapters and sections of the Midrash itself, and
sometimes to chapter and verse of Exodus. — J. Winter und A.
Wiinsche, Mechiltha. Ein tannaitischer Midrasch zu Exodus.
Erstmalig ins Deutsche iibersetzt und erlautert. Leipzig, 1909.
With introduction, notes, indexes of biblical texts cited in the
Mekilta, of the Tannaim whose names appear in it, and to its
technical terminology. The volume answers all the purposes
138 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
which such a translation can be expected to serve. The notes give
the most necessary elucidation.
Some mediaeval authors cite a Midrash on Exodus, in which
they found both legal and non-legal matter, under the name of
Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben Yohai,1 and scholars here and there
down to the early sixteenth century show acquaintance with this
work. That it was not identical with our Mekilta was demon-
strated by Friedmann in the introduction to his edition of the
latter (pp. li-lv).
In a conglomerate Midrash on the Pentateuch brought to
Europe from Southern Arabia, called Midrash ha-Gadol (The
Large Midrash), extracts from a Tannaite Midrash on Exodus
different from our Mekilta were observed, and the conjecture
was hazarded that they were taken from the lost Mekilta de-R.
Simeon ben Yohai. A collection of these extracts was made by
David Hoffmann, of Berlin, from a manuscript of the Midrash
ha-Gadol in the Royal Library there, and published in parts in a
periodical, Ha-Peles.2 In 1905, after further critical study, and
with the control put in his hands by the independent tradition
of the fragments (twelve scattered leaves) of a manuscript found
in the Genizah at Cairo, Hoffmann issued a greatly revised
edition of the whole, under the title Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben
Yohai.3
The Midrash ha-Gadol is a compilation of the thirteenth cen-
tury at the earliest, the author of which drew freely on authors
as late as Maimonides (d. 1204). Unlike the comprehensive
Midrashic catena on the Bible, the Yalkut Shim'oni, the Midrash
ha-Gadol gives no indication either in general or in particular of
the sources from which its materials were taken, nor has the
1 R. Moses ben Nahman (d. ca 1270) in his commentary on the Penta-
teuch in a half-dozen places. See Hoffmann, Emleitung in die halachischen
Midraschim, p. 48; Introduction to his edition of Mechilta de-R. Simeon ben
Yohai (1905), p. vi.
2 Vols. I-IV (1900-1904).
8 In justification of this attribution see L. Gmzberg in the Lewy Fest-
schrift, pp. 403 ff.
CHAP, ii] COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 139
compiler any conscience about trimming his texts, or mixing up
extracts from the dictionary and mediaeval commentators with
those from the Talmuds and the ancient Midrashim, and, worse
yet, about dressing up passages from Maimonides' Code and
other authors in Talmudic style and introducing them by the
technical formula for Tannaite tradition.1 Nor did he take the
trouble to mark the place where he dropped one source and went
on with another.
The extrication of a single lost source from this medley and
the reconstruction of it in continuity is an enterprise in criticism,
on the difficulty of which it is unnecessary to expatiate. Two
circumstances came to the critic's help. One was that for Exodus
the compiler appeared to have had only one source of the kind,
so that extensive conflation had not to be reckoned with; 2 the
second, that the dozen pages of the Genizah manuscript furnish
for several considerable passages an opportunity to test the com-
piler's method. That there is a large residuum of uncertainty,
the editor fully recognizes.
The legal part turns out to be, as was anticipated, a Midrash
of the school of Akiba, and here the differences, formal and ma-
terial, from the Mekilta of R. Ishmael are salient. In the non-
legal portions (Haggadah),3 on the other hand, the differences
between the two are few;4 the greater part of the matter is com-
mon to both. It has been surmised with some probability that
this Midrash is identical with a collection cited in the Talmuds
as Tane IJizkiah, or Tanna de-Be IJizkiah, attributed to R.
Hezekiah son of R. IJiyya, in the early third century.6 Among
the names of the Tannaim the contemporaries of the Patriarch
1 S. Schechter, Midrash Hag-gadol (Genesis), 1902, p. xin. The Midrash
ha-Gadol on Exodus (to Exod. 20, 21) was edited by D. Hoffmann, Berlin,
1913, and the completion of the book is expected from L. Gmzberg.
2 Hoffmann, Preface, § 2, p. vni.
3 Namely, the Parashahs Beshallah and Yitro to the end of Exod. 19.
4 Hoffmann, Preface, § 3, p. xi. Hoffmann remarks that the same thing
is true in the Sifre of Numbers (school of Ishmael) and the Sifre Zuta: the
haggadic parts are almost the same.
6 Ibid., § 4, p. xn.
I4O SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
Judah are more numerous than in our Mekilta, but there the
array ends. It is noteworthy that in Hoffmann's index neither
R. IJiyya nor his son Hezekiah appears.
The parts of the Book of Exodus over which the Midrash ex-
tends are the same as in the extant Mekilta of R. Ishmael, ex-
cept that the volume edited by Hoffmann begins with Exod. 3, 1
(the call of Moses and his deprecation), followed by 6, i.1 In
an appendix (pp. 167-173) the editor has collected other pieces
on verses here and there in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.
The edition is: D. Hoffmann, Mechilta de-Rabbi Simon b.
Jochai, ein halakischer und haggadischer Midrasch zu Exodus.
1905. Pp. xvi, 180. With an introduction and notes (in Hebrew),
and an index of names.
The Tannaite Midrash on Leviticus was known in the Baby-
lonian schools as Sifra de-Be Rab,2 The Book of the School,3 more
frequently abridged to Sifra. The old name of the Book of
Leviticus was Torat Kohanim,4 the Priests' Law, and the legal
Midrash on the book is known by this name also.
The contents of the Book of Leviticus are almost wholly
legal, though there is a slender thread of narrative connection,
and the law is sometimes, as in cc. 8-io,5 precedent instead of
formal prescript.6 It deals not only with ritual but with many
of the laws which regulated the religious life of the individual and
the family, and with fundamental moral precepts. It was " filled
with a multitude of legal rules" (Halakot), and it attached to
them great promises on condition of obedience, and denounced
the direst woes on unfaithfulness (Lev. 26, 3-45). It was well
fitted, therefore, as, so to say, a compendium of the law, to be
1 The rabbis who contribute on 6, i, are specially worthy of note.
2 Berakot lib, i8b.
8 Hoffmann, Einleitung, u.s. w., p. 35; cf. i6f. Others take Rab as a proper
name (R. Abba Arika, head of the school at Sura; died in 247), understand-
ing either that he composed the work, or edited it, or that this was the recen-
sion used in his school.
4M.Megillah3, 5.
5 With which 1 6, i f., connects. 6 See also Lev. 24, 10-23.
CHAP, ii] COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 141
the beginning of study in the schools both elementary and ad-
vanced.1
The Sifra is a continuous legal commentary on Leviticus, fol-
lowing the text almost clause by clause. Where the same law
occurs in more than one context the comment also is occasionally
repeated, but elsewhere a reference to the place where the sub-
ject is treated suffices.
The redaction of Sifra is ascribed on internal evidence to R.
Qiyya, an associate of the Patriarch Judah, and falls, therefore,
in the early decades of the third century.2 The Talmud attri-
butes that part of the work for which no authority is named to
R. Judah (ben Ila'i),3 and the inference is that R. IJiyya took the
Midrash of R. Judah as the basis of his work. Another consid-
erable source was a Midrash of R. Simeon ben Yohai. Both
these scholars were disciples of R. Akiba, and the book as a
whole bears all the distinguishing marks of his school. It was
redacted after the completion of our Mishnah, which the editor
evidently had before him in some places in his work. The rabbis
whose names occur most frequently in Sifra, besides Judah and
Simeon and their common master Akiba, are Akiba's contem-
poraries, R. Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus), R. Jose the Galilean, R.
Ishmael; his disciples, R. Meir and R. Jose (ben IJalafta); and
in the following generation, Rabbi himself and, less frequently,
some of his distinguished colleagues. Later authorities are not
quoted.
The account of the installation of Aaron and his sons, Lev. 8,
i-io, 7, not being properly laws, seem not to have been dis-
cussed in the school of Akiba, and the editor had for them no
commentary from R. Judah or R. Simeon ben Yoliai. The gap
is filled from other sources which show their different origin by
1 It has been suggested that the earliest schools were for the young priests,
whose studies naturally began with this book
2 See D. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung m die halachischen Midraschim, pp.
20 ff.
8 As the anonymous element in the Mishnah is attributed to R. Meir.
'Erubin 96b; Sanhedrin 86a, etc.
142 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
diversities in phraseology as well as substance. The chapters on
incest (Lev. 18 and 20) were skipped in the public lectures in
Akiba's school,1 and it is to be presumed that a Midrash of his
school would also pass over these laws. Internal evidence sup-
ports this inference: the comment on them bears the marks of
the Midrash of the school of Ishmael which was taken to fill the
gap.2 From a similar source comes the so-called Baraita de-R.
Ishmael prefixed to the Sifra, containing his thirteen herme-
neutic rules.
Notwithstanding its predominantly legal character, Sifra is
one of the most valuable sources for the religion of the Tannaite
period. In it the idea of the holiness of the people as the corre-
late of the holiness of God has its completest expression.
The editions most in use are: M. L. Malbim,3 Sifra, i. e., the
Book Torat Kohanim, with the commentary (by the editor) Ha-
Torah we'ha-Mi§wah. Bucharest, 1860. — I. H. Weiss,3 Sifra
de-Be Rab, i. e., the Book Torat Kohanim, with the commentary
of Abraham ben David of Posquieres (d. 1198), etc. Vienna,
1862. — M. Friedmann had an edition of Sifra in hand, but his
death left it unfinished. A fragment (as far as Lev. 3, 9) was
published posthumously: Sifra. Der alteste Midrasch zu Levi-
ticus. 1908.
There is no translation in a modern language, and the Latin
translation in Ugolini Thesaurus cannot be depended on.
In my citations from the Sifra the folios and columns of Weiss'
edition are given, as well as the name of the current division of
the work and number of the section (Perek).4
1 M. IJagigah 2, i, and Jer. IJagigah yya.
2 Ahare 13, 3-15; Kedoshim 9, 1-7; and 9, n-ii, 14 (Weiss' numera-
tion). These passages are not in the first printed edition (Venice, 1545). See
Weiss1 notes on f. 85d, 910. They are commented on, however, by R.
Abraham ben David (d. 1198), and were therefore in the manuscripts known
to him. See Hoffmann, Zur Emleitung, u. s. w , p. 29 f.
3 Title in Hebrew.
4 There was an older division into nine parts, but it is now divided into
fourteen:
i. Wayyikra Nedabah (Lev. 1-3); 2. Wayyikra IJobah (Lev. 4-5);
3. Sau (Lev. 6-7); 4. Mekilta de-Millu'im (Lev. 8); 5. Shemim (Lev. 9-
CHAP, ii] COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 143
Under the name Sifre are comprehended two works which,
though of diverse origin, have long been treated as one, namely,
a Midrash on Numbers and one on Deuteronomy. Sifr£ is ap-
parently an abbreviation of Sifre de-Be Rab,1 Books of the
School, that is, Midrash collections recognized in the Baby-
lonian schools by the side of Sifra on Leviticus. Into the diffi-
cult questions that arise about this nomenclature we have here
no occasion to go; for us it is only the title of the volume gen-
erally known as Sifre. The Talmud makes R. Simeon (ben
Yohai) the authority for Sifre so far as no other is named; 2 but
the Talmudic Sifre cannot be off-hand identified with the work
that has reached us under this name; in fact, there are good
grounds to the contrary.
Our Sifre on Numbers begins with 5, I, the first legal passage,
and ends with the next to last chapter in the book (35, 34). On
very considerable parts of Numbers, however, there is no Mid-
rash. These vacancies are chiefly in the narrative chapters,8
but are not confined to them.4 It would be rash to infer that
these large gaps existed in the ancient Midrash; they may result
from a subsequent curtailment which cut the book down to the
legal part, and there are some indications that this was the case.
Sifre on Numbers is from the school of R. Ishmael, like the
Mekilta on Exodus, to which it has in all respects a close affinity.
The disciples of R. Ishmael, R. Josiah and R. Jonathan, and
others who hardly figure at all in Sifra, are here frequently
quoted. The interpretations of the leaders of the rival school,
n); 6. Tazria* (Lev. 12); 7. Tazria* Nega'im (Lev. 13); 8. Me§ora' Nega'im
(Lev. 14); 9. Me§ora* Zabim (Lev. 15); 10. Ahare Mot (Lev. 16-18);
11. &edoshim (Lev. 19-20); 12. Emor (Lev. 21-24); 13- Behar (Lev. 25);
14. Behukkotai (Lev. 26, 3-27, 34).
1 See above on Sifra. Sifre de-Be Rab, Alfasi, R. Eananel, Rashi.
a Sanhedrin 86a.
3 Solid omissions, ch. 13-14 (the spies, etc.); 16-17 (Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram); 20-24 (from the death of Miriam to the death of Aaron); 22-24
(Balak, Balaam); 31, 25-35, 8.
4 Thus, for instance, the offerings on New Year's and the Day of Atone-
ment, 29, i-i i, and the abbreviation of the rest of the chapter (Tabernacles)
144 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
Akiba, Simeon ben Yohai, R. Judah (ben Ila'i), also are often
given, and those of Rabbi (the Patriarch Judah) . As in the other
Tannaite Midrashim, his contemporaries appear rarely, and with
them the list ends. The redaction, therefore, like that of the
others, probably falls in the early third century. Besides his
principal source, the editor seems to have made use of others.
A number of haggadic comments elsewhere ascribed by name to
R. Simeon ben Yohai which are found in Sifre Num. are prob-
ably derived from a special source.
The edition generally cited is: M. Friedmann, Sifre debe Rab,
der alteste halachische und hagadische Midrasch zu Numeri und
Deuteronomium. Vienna, 1864. With an introduction, critical
and explanatory notes, and indexes. — The most recent edition is:
H. S. Horovitz, Siphre d'be Rab, Fasciculus primus: Siphre ad
Numeros adjecto Siphre Zutta, cum variis lectionibus et adno-
tationibus, ed. H. S. Horovitz. Leipzig, 1917. The introduction
(in German) discusses the critical problems.
The Sifre is cited by the numbered paragraphs, and, when
they are long, by the pages of Friedmann's edition.
As in Exodus the Midrash of the school of Ishmael (Mekilta)
had a parallel from the school of Akiba,1 so in Numbers also there
was a parallel to Sifre which is cited by some mediaeval authors
as Sifre Zuta (Minor Sifre),2 which name has passed into modern
books. Sifre Zuta is somewhat largely excerpted, by the side of
our Sifre, in the Yalkut Shim'oni, and these extracts have the
unmistakable marks of the school; on the other hand, they pre-
sent peculiarities which distinguish them from the most familiar
works of that school as we know them in Sifra. It is inferred
that the Midrash came from a less conspicuous branch of the
school. The homiletic Midrash on Numbers, Bemidbar Rabbah,
has drawn upon the Sifre Zuta in numerous places,8 and in the
1 Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben Yohai.
2 For other names, see Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage der Juden, ed. 2,
p. 51, n.d.
3 For a list see Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung, u.s.w., pp. 61 f. In these com-
pilations there is no indication of the source.
CHAP, ii] COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 145
Midrash ha-Gadol on Numbers there are many extracts which
are not in our Sifre, and of which the Sifre Zuta may be sur-
mised to be the source. Where there is no other evidence, the
habits of the compiler very often leave the ascription highly
dubious. In Horovitz's edition of the Sifre on Numbers the prob-
able (or possible) remains of the Zuta are collected (pp. 227-
336), the most doubtful being marked with a °. A fragment of
a manuscript from the Cairo Genizah containing Num. 31, 23 f.;
35, 11-20, was printed by Schechter in the Jewish Quarterly
Review, VI (1894), 657-663.
The half of our Sifre containing the Midrash on Deuteronomy
is not all of one piece. The legal part (Deut. 12, 1-26, 15) comes
from the school of Akiba, resembling Sifra but with minor pe-
culiarities of its own. One of these is the frequent formal deduc-
tion of the Halakah from the exegesis of the text. Differences
of our text from that of quotations in the Babylonian Talmud
suggest that, as in the case of Sifra, the book has come down to
us in a Palestinian recension, and Hoffmann, attributing the
original redaction to R. Simeon ben Yohai, conjectures that this
recension represents the school of R. Johanan (bar Nappaha).
The references to the Halakah seem to point to our Mishnah,
and the recension in our hands is evidently later than Rabbi.
The exegesis of the laws, beginning with Deut. 12, is preceded
by Midrash on passages in the earlier chapters (i, 1-30; 3, 23-
29; 6, 4-9 (Shemac); n, 10-32 (containing the second para-
graph in the recitation of the Shema', Deut. n, 13-21). The
last two are from the school of Ishmael; * the first two are ap-
parently composite, the predominant element being from Simeon
ben Yohai combined with extracts derived from the school ot
Ishmael. What follows the legislation (Deut. 31, 14; 32, 1-34,
12) is, like the Midrash on the laws, from the school of Akiba
(R. Simeon ben Yohai).
The comment on the Deuteronomic legislation (i 2-26) occupies
1 They contain, however, passages from Simeon ben Yohai, e.g., §31,
where he claims that his interpretation of four passages is better than Akiba's
146 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
less than half of the Sifre,1 and such passages as are named above
in Deut. 6 and 1 1 are peculiarly fruitful sources for religious and
moral instruction. Of especial interest in another way is the
topographical section on the boundaries of the land at different
times, and on its towns and cities (§51). From the nature of
much of the legislation in Deuteronomy, a great deal in the
Midrash on chapters 12-26 is of quite as great value for the
religious and moral teaching of Judaism in this period as the
parts called haggadic; take for illustration the topic of charity
and the relief of the poor, or the principles of justice.
References are made to Friedmann's edition, as on Numbers.
Of the Sifre on Deuteronomy there is a recent German trans-
lation with notes by Gerhard Kittel: Sifre zu Deuteronomium.
Part I. (to § 54, Deut. n, 28) Stuttgart, 1922.
The Sifre has evidently not reached us in its original extent,
as appears from quotations in the Talmuds and later writings
which are no longer found in our copies. The Midrash ha-Gadol
on Deuteronomy contains, besides many excerpts which sub-
stantially agree with our Sifre and are doubtless taken from it,
much that obviously comes from a different Tannaite source
(or sources). D. Hoffmann, whose reconstruction of the Mekilta
de-R. Simeon ben Yohai (on Exodus) has been described above,
has collected from the Midrash ha-Gadol and elsewhere these
remains of Tannaite Midrash on Deuteronomy, to which he has
properly given the non-committal title, Midrasch Tannaim zum
Deuteronomium (two parts, Berlin, 1908, 1909). The preface (in
German) sets forth the relation of this material to our Sifre, and
the editor's method. Indexes of the biblical quotations, of the
names of the Tannaim and others, and of places, add to the
usefulness of the volume.
Three fragments of Tannaite Midrash on Deuteronomy from
the Cairo Genizah were printed by S. Schechter in the Jewish
Quarterly Review, New Series, IV (1904), 446-452 and 695-
1 Three sevenths, Hoffmann reckons.
CHAP, ii] COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 147
697, containing respectively Deut. 1 i, 31-12, 3, and 12, 27-13, i ;
Deut. n, 26-29; and Deut. 13, 14-19, which Hoffmann reprints
(pp. 56-62, and 69-7I).1
Through the recent additions to our resources (Mekilta de-R.
Simeon ben Yohai, Sifre Zuta, Midrash Tannaim) we possess
large parts of two series of Midrash on Exodus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy, which, though more or less incomplete, supple-
ment one another in such a way as to constitute an amply suffi-
cient source for the religious and moral teaching of the Tannaim,
and for the interpretation of the particular laws controlled by the
fundamental principles of religion and morals.
The value of these works to the historian is enhanced by the
fact that they fall in a sharply circumscribed period, beginning
with the associates and disciples of Johanan ben Zakkai and
closing a century and a half later with the contemporaries of the
Patriarch Judah, while much the larger part of it proceeds from
the schools of the great disciples of Akiba, transmitting and de-
veloping the teachings of their master, and correspondingly from
the immediate disciples of Ishmael. A mean lower limit for the
bulk of this Midrash may be set about the year 175. The crisis
of the war under Hadrian, and the edicts against the study of
the Law, of which Akiba and Ishmael are reputed martyrs,2 di-
vides the period in the middle.
It is a significant fact that, however much the two schools or
individual authorities in them differed about what verse of
Scripture a religious conception or a moral principle was to be
derived from, or by what exegetical arts it was to be got out of
the text, on the ideas and principles themselves there is virtual
unanimity. There could be no better proof that this consensus
is not an achievement of these generations but their common
inheritance by tradition from a time long before the beginning
of the rabbinical literature.
1 Cf. Midrasch Tannaim, pp. iv f.
2 The accounts of the fate of Ishmael are less well attested than those
about Akiba.
148 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
From the legal Midrash in the narrower sense a long previous
development of the Halakah is to be inferred, according with
other evidence. But there is every probability that in the exact
definition and formulation, and especially the organization, of
the Halakah, there was much greater activity in the schools
after the crises of 66-72 and 132-134 and much more of new de-
velopment than there was need or room for in the field of long-
established religious ideas and moral principles. The stability of
the latter is attested by the Gospels, the Book of Sirach, and the
popular writings of the intervening centuries, and by the Scrip-
tures themselves.
In the discussions of the Mishnah in Babylonian schools cer-
tain writings containing Midrash on the legislative books of the
Pentateuch were cited with formulas x which imply that more
deference was paid to them than to others of a similar kind from
which quotations are also made. That this authentic Midrash
of the school represented the tradition of the school of R. Akiba
through his eminent disciples, R. Judah ben Ila'i, R. Simeon ben
Yohai, and others, is unquestioned,2 though, with the exception
of Sifra, their precise relation to the books in our hands is un-
certain. The Midrash of the school of R. Ishmael also is very
frequently cited in the Babylonian Talmud as well as in the
Palestinian Talmud and the homiletical Midrashim.3
There are, besides these, very many quotations from Tannaite
Midrash without the name of any authority. The same is true
in Palestine, where the schools do not seem to have fixed upon
any one series of Midrash as in a sense official, just as they had
no official Targum such as Onkelos was in Babylonia. Such
quotations in the Talmuds from Tannaite sources are called
Baraita, 'extraneous* tradition, i.e., outside the authoritative
Mishnah; and this name is given both to quotations of formulated
rules (Halakah) from our Tosefta and other Mishnah collections,
1 Tanna de-Be Rab; contrast Tanna de-Be R. Ishmael (Tane R. Ishmael).
2 See the Response of R. Sherira, ed. Lewin, pp. 39-41.
1 A list of the places is given by Hoffmann, Zur Emleitung, u.s.w., pp. 18 f.
CHAP, ii] COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS 149
and to those in the form of Midrash, the connection of the rule
with Scripture or derivation from it, so that we may distinguish
Mishnah Baraita and Midrash Baraita.
A good deal of the matter thus embodied in the Talmud is from
the Midrash books described above; but there is also much from
lost works of the same character and age. The general accuracy
of the quotations which we can verify warrants confidence in
those that we cannot. The Baraitas in the Talmuds are of great
use in the critical study of the extant Midrash books; and they
add not immaterially to the volume of authentic second-century
(Tannaite) teaching.
CHAPTER III
FORMULATION AND CODIFICATION
WHEN the name Mishnah is used in contrast to Midrash, as we
have already seen, it designates the branch of Jewish learning
which has particularly to do with the rules of the traditional law
(Halakot) as such.1 The question which is the older method of
study, Midrash or Mishnah,2 is one of those simplified alterna-
tives to which a simple answer cannot be given. There is a
strong presumption that the biblical studies of the ancient
Soferim and of the learned in the priesthood were primarily di-
rected to the interpretation of the Scriptures, so far as they dealt
with the laws, and the more precise understanding and applica-
tion of what the Scripture enjoined or forbade. In this sense
the Midrash form is the older.
On the other hand, a multitude of traditional laws were of im-
memorial antiquity and had prescriptive authority independent
of Scripture, and there were besides the numerous ordinances
and injunctions (Takkanot and Gezerot) of earlier authorities.
From the second century before the Christian era, if not earlier,
probably in some connection with the Pharisaean movement,
the Scribes annexed the whole field of traditional law, and made
it their business to know and to teach its rules as a distinct
branch of learning. This led to a more technical formulation,
and to the endeavor to group them in some association, by num-
bers or otherwise, in order to facilitate memorizing them. If
1 This definition is a potion. There is in our Mishnah one whole book
(Pirke Abot) the contents of which are pure Haggadah in a precise formula-
tion resembling the Halakah, and there are pieces of Haggadah elsewhere,
e.g., at the end of M. 'Eduyot, on the mission of Elijah. So also there are
elements denved from the juristic Midrash, which in the Tose "ta are much
more common.
2 On this subject see J. Z. Lauterbach, 'Midrash and Mishnah/ Jewish
Quarterly Review, N. S., V (1914-15), 503-527; VI, 23-95, 3°3~323-
150
CHAP, in] FORMULATION AND CODIFICATION 151
this reconstruction of the history is sound, it may be said that, as
a discipline conscious of the task of connecting the written and
the unwritten law, the Tannaite Midrash assumes the existence
of Halakot. The discovery of biblical texts for traditional laws
was facilitated by new methods of exegesis, especially in the
school of Akiba. Some weight may be laid also on the order of
studies in the school, which began with the memorizing of the
Halakot or Mishnayot (single sentences of the Mishnah), and
went on thence to the biblical Midrash.
In the schools of the second century both branches of learning
were cultivated; there were numerous Mishnah collections as
there were numerous Midrash collections. Early in the third
century the Mishnah of the Patriarch Judah acquired unique
authority in Babylonia as well as in Palestine, but the others
were not thereby extinguished. They are frequently cited in the
Talmuds with the formula for Tannaite tradition, and occasion-
ally in the name of the master from whose school they came.
They contribute thus to the volume of Baraita which represents
to us the teaching of second-century Judaism. It may not be
superfluous to say that this matter, like the whole survival of
Tannaite tradition, including the Baraita, is in " the language of
the learned/' the scholastic Hebrew of the Tannaim.1
The Mishnah — to use this name henceforth not generically, for
a kind of literature, but specifically for the codification issued
by the Patriarch Judah — traces its lineage through R. Meir to
R. Akiba. The actual process was much more complex than this
simple formula, which is in fact not concerned with history but
with authority. We have no occasion, however, to involve our-
selves in the origins of the Mishnah. The classification of the
rules of the traditional law under certain topics for memory and
discussion was probably as old as the need for it. The complete
systemization is attributed to Akiba; the carrying out of the
1 The often-repeated statement that Hebrew is the language of the
Mishnah, while that of the Gemara is Aramaic, is true, so far as the latter is
concerned, only a potiori.
152 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
system, to his disciples; the particular redaction which gained
unique authority, to the Patriarch Judah.
In this, as in the Mishnahs of other teachers, the rules of the
traditional law are brought under six heads, constituting so
many grand Divisions of the work, called Sedarim,1 viz.: i,
Zera'im; 2, Mo'ed; 3, Nashim; 4, Nezikin; 5, ]£odashim; 6,
Toharot. Zera'im ('Seeds') contains the laws on agriculture,
such as the prohibition of mixed plantations, and especially the
taxes for religious and charitable purposes imposed on the prod-
ucts of the soil. To it is prefixed the important Berakot, on the
Prayers. Mo'ed (' Festivals ') is sufficiently described by its name.
It includes the laws for the Sabbath, New Moon, New Year's,
and all the seasonal and occasional feasts and fasts. Nashim
('Women'), laws dealing with marriage and divorce, the levirate,
adultery, etc.; Nezifcin ('Injuries'), civil and criminal law;2
Rodashim (' Consecrated Things'), sacrifices and offerings, ritual,
etc.; Toharot ('Cleanness'),8 laws of clean and unclean in things
and persons, purifications, etc.
Each of these principal Divisions is made up of a number of
Parts (Massektot),4 embracing laws on particular subjects that
fall under the general head, e. g., in the Division on Festivals,
the Sabbath, Passover, Day of Atonement, etc. Each Part is
subdivided into Chapters (Perakim), and the Chapters into Para-
graphs, each of which is called a Mishnah (in the Palestinian
Talmud, a Halakah).6 The Massekta (Part) is cited by name,
the Chapters and Paragraphs in the editions of the Mishnah now
1 'Orders/ i. e., orderly arrangement of the laws on the several subjects.
Cf. Seder, or Siddur, for a book in which the prayers are arranged in order.
2 To Nezikin is appended Pirke Abot, the Chapters of the Fathers —
aphorisms, maxims, sentences, of the teachers of successive generations from
the Men of the Great Synagogue down. See below, pp. 156 f.
8 Euphemistic for 'Uncleannesses.'
4 Masseket, Massekta, has an etymology and an evolution of meaning
similar to the Latin textus. The Latin translation of the Mishnah rendered it
by Tractatus, whence in English the Parts are often called 'tractates' or
'tracts,' or 'treatises,' a name which gives the uninitiated reader a notion
very unlike the thing.
6 Halakah is the older name.
CHAP, in] FORMULATION AND CODIFICATION 153
usually by number, e. g., M. Pesahim 2, 4,* i. e., Mishnah, Mas-
sekta Pesahim (Passover), Chapter 2, Paragraph 4.
The disposition of the Mishnah answers its practical purposes,
though it sometimes brings in subjects in a place where in a
strictly logical arrangement they would not be looked for. Thus,
Vows (Nedarim) are put in the division Nashim, evidently be-
cause in Num. 30, 2-17, women's vows, and the right of the father
or husband under certain conditions to annul them, are the princi-
pal subject; only verse 2 has to do with the vow of a man who is
sui juris? The only other passage which treats of the subject in
any detail, Lev. 27, is concerned only with the valuation of com-
muted vows, which in the Mishnah is dealt with under 'Arakin
('Valuations'), in Division V (]£odashim). The subsumption
of Vows under Women has for a further consequence that the
Nazirite's vow (Nazir), the rules to be observed by him, and the
ritual for the dissolution of the vow at its term (Num. 6), are
also drawn into the same division. Similar observations may
often be made on the contents of the several Parts (Massektot).
Didactic reasons frequently prevail over strictly systematic con-
siderations, and quite properly, inasmuch as the Mishnah was
not a code but an educational instrument.
Different Parts of the Mishnah vary considerably in character,
partly in consequence of the nature of the diverse subjects with
which they have to do, partly because they are based upon earlier
works proceeding from different individual scholars or different
schools. That this was the case is recognized in traditions such
as those which attribute the anonymous element in Tamid (the
Daily Burnt Offerings) and Yoma (Day of Atonement) to a
certain (otherwise obscure) R. Simeon of Mizpah, a contempor-
ary of Rabban Gamaliel II;3 in Middot (description of the
Herodian temple) to R. Eliezer ben Jacob4 (generally taken
1 Or simply Pesahim n. 4. * Cf. Deut. 23, 21-23.
3 Yoma I4.b (alleged for Tamid by R. Huna; for Yoma by R. Johanan).
The only other notice of this Simeon is in M. Peah 2, 6.
4 R. Huna in Yoma i6a, above. See Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, p. 73
(ed. Warsaw, 1923, p. 76); Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 62 f.
154 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
for the older of the name, contemporary with Akiba) ; and other
like testimonies.
There is strong probability for the opinion that some if not all
of these remoter sources of our Mishnah were in writing, as well
as the mid-century Mishnahs and Midrashes of Akiba's dis-
ciples. That the Mishnah of the Patriarch Judah was redacted
and published in writing — so far as publication can be said of
such a work — is affirmed by Sherira Gaon in the Response re-
ferred to above. It is demonstrable that additions and changes
crept into the text of the Mishnah after the Patriarch's death;
such can almost always be certainly recognized, and are relatively
inconsiderable.
The Mishnah has been transmitted in manuscripts and in
print as an independent work, and also in the two Talmuds as
the text for the discussions of the Amoraim. Each of the Tal-
muds, again, has had its own channels of transmission. Some
textual diversity has arisen in this way, but on the whole the
constancy of the tradition is satisfactory.
A critical edition of the Mishnah, as a philologist would use
that phrase, does not exist, though some individual parts have
been edited unpretentiously for learners, but with a critical text
and well-selected apparatus, by Hermann Strack. A more am-
bitious enterprise is: G. Beer and O. Holtzmann, Die Mischna.
Text, Obersetzung und ausfiihrliche Erklarung. Several parts
edited by different scholars have appeared, of very variable
quality. The commentary is frequently quite inadequate, while
some of the authors expatiate, especially in the introductions,
on things that have no relevancy to the matter in hand.
The edition that has been most useful to Christian scholars in
the past is that of Surenhusius, in six folio volumes (1698-1703),
with a Latin translation of the text and of the most approved
Jewish commentaries (Maimonides and Obadiah of Bertinoro),
together with additional comments and notes by Christian schol-
ars, and extensive indexes. Modern Jewish editions commonly
give the commentary of Bertinoro (died ca. 1500) and the notes
and glosses (Tosafot) of Yom Tob (Lipmann Heller, died 1654).
1 Beginning m 1913.
CHAP, in] FORMULATION AND CODIFICATION 155
The commentary of Maimonides (d. 1204) is printed in modern
editions of the Babylonian Talmud after each Part.
The Tosefta is a work of the same class with our Mishnah.
The disposition in six grand Divisions, the order of the primary
subdivisions,1 and in the main the subjects treated in each are
the same, and in many instances the formulation of the basic
Halakah is identical. On the other hand, the Tosefta treats the
subjects more at large than the Mishnah, very often giving the
biblical ground of the rule or the reason for it,2 which the Mish-
nah rarely does.
There is, thus, a close connection between the two, and a strik-
ing difference of method which points to a different school. R.
Johanan reports that the Mishnah derives from Akiba through
R. Meir, the Tosefta through another of Akiba's disciples, R.
Nehemiah;3 but this schematic filiation throws no light on the
salient difference of method in two collections both of which go
back to Akiba,4 nor does it account for the frequent obvious
dependency of the Tosefta on our Mishnah. The name Tosefta
(probably originally plural, Tosefata), 'Supplement' (Supple-
ments), indicates the relation which the work was thought to
have to the Halakic tradition or to our Mishnah. It is, however,
in many cases an amplified Mishnah giving the text of our
Mishnah with additions, rather than supplementary notes to
the Mishnah, while in others it has matter which is intelligible
only by recourse to sentences in our Mishnah which are not
reproduced.
The redaction of the Tosefta of the Babylonian schools is at-
1 Abot, Tamid, Middot, and 5.innim are lacking. In the subdivisions the
Tosefta occasionally follows a different and perhaps an earlier arrangement
of the Mishnah.
2 It has thus an obvious affinity to the Tannaite Midrash, with which as
Baraita it is coupled, and sometimes approximates a Talmudic treatment.
8 Sanhedrm 86a.
4 Did Akiba himself employ both methods? See Frankel, Darke ha-
Mishnah, pp. 304-307 (ed. Warsaw, 1923, pp 322-325); Lauterbach, in
Jewish Encyclopedia, XII, 207-209. This theory has not found much ac-
ceptance.
156 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
tributed by mediaeval authorities to R. IJiyya, an associate of
the Patriarch Judah,1 to whom the editing of Sifra is now ascribed.
Whatever the relation of the work to R. IJiyya, the compiler
probably drew on other contemporary collections, the "Large
Mishnahs" of R. Hosha'ya and others. The internal evidence
goes to show that the compilation falls in the first part of the
third century, but also makes it probable that various additions
were early made to it.
Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the relations
of the Tosefta and the Mishnah which need not be discussed
here. What is to our purpose is that, while in the Talmudic dis-
cussions of the traditional law it ranks only as a collateral au-
thority like the Tannaite Midrash, the Tosefta is, from the his-
torical point of view, a no less authentic, and, from its peculiar
character, a more fertile, source. It has also escaped the attention
of the censorship, which excised, especially from the Babylonian
Talmud, whatever it found offensive to Christian sensibilities.
The Tosefta is found appended to the editions of Alfasi's
Halakot (Venice, 1521, and thereafter). A separate edition, with
the use of two manuscripts, was published by M. S. Zuckerman-
del, Pasewalk, 1881. With a supplement containing a synopsis of
the contents of the Tosefta, indexes, and a glossary (Trier, 1882).
In the Mishnah there is one tractate which demands especial
notice, namely the Pirke Abot, appended to the Division Ne-
zikin. These Chapters of the Fathers are wholly different in
character from the rest of the Mishnah, for in an otherwise ex-
clusively Halakic collection it contains no Halakah. Its appro-
priateness, and the probable reason for its inclusion, lies in the
fact that it begins with the concatenated tradition of the Law
from Moses down to Shammai and Hillel, with whom the school
tradition starts. From the Men of the Great Synagogue on,
there is attributed to each of the living links in this chain a pithy
sentence, which is, so to say, his individual motto. The series
was continued in the same way to Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai
1 Shenra Gaon, ed. Lewin, pp. 6, 34 f.; cf. p. 39 (IJiyya and Hosha'ya).
CHAP, in] FORMULATION AND CODIFICATION 157
and his disciples, from whom more numerous sayings are re-
ported. The collection grew by accretion, other memorable
utterances of the older generations being introduced into it, and
by extension, each new generation contributing of its wisdom.1
Chapter 5 is made up of numerical groups, without authors'
names, e. g., by ten utterances the world was created, ten
generations from Adam to Noah and ten from Noah to Abra-
ham, ten trials of Abraham, ten miracles for the forefathers in
Egypt, etc. Chapter 6, called the Baraita of R. Meir from the
fact that the first sayings in it are in his name,2 is a loose ap-
pendix of obviously later date.
The first four chapters consist of moral and religious aphor-
isms, a kind of rabbinical Book of Proverbs with the authors'
names indicated. They differ from the Proverbs of Solomon and
the Wisdom of Ben Sira in being especially applicable to scholars
and students. They are in a sense the ethics of a class, but of a
class to which ideally all Jews should belong. It is significant
that the Chapters of the Fathers were ultimately taken up into
the synagogue service and are regularly read on sabbath after-
noons during a certain part of the year.3 The custom is at least
as old as the age of the Geonim, being referred to in the Siddur of
Rab Amram.4 The level of these sayings is very high, and, for a
knowledge of the ideals of rabbinical ethics and piety, no other
easily accessible source is equal to the Abot.
There is an edition with translation and commentary by C.
Taylor: Sayings of the Jewish Fathers. Cambridge, 1877 and
1897. — A Talmudic catena by Noah Kobryn (Warsaw, 1868)
brings together parallels to each sentence of the Abot from the
Talmuds and the Midrashim, with a running commentary, and
is a most useful key to the whole body of ethical Haggadah.
1 See Strack, 1. c., p. 54: Kern der Sammlung i, 1-15; 2, 8-14; 5, 1-5,
7-10, 13-18. Soweit reicht der Parallehsmus mit Aboth deRabbi Nathan.
3 Also called ]£inyan Torah, "Acquisition of the Law," from the content
of these initial sayings.
8 This is the use of the German and Polish rites. See I. Abrahams, Com-
panion to the Daily Prayer Book, pp. clxxvi ff.
4 See below, pp. 176 f.
158 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
With the Abot must be mentioned the Abot de-R. Nathan
which is sometimes called a Tosefta (supplement) to Abot. The
R. Nathan in the title is probably meant to be Nathan the Baby-
lonian, who filled the office of vice-president (Ab Bet Din) under
R. Simeon ben Gamaliel. If there is anything in the attribution,
it cannot apply to any form of the work that we know, which
plainly comes from a much later time than the middle of the
second century. The relation to Abot is not the same through-
out. The first part * may be described as an expansive Midrash
on Abot chapters I and 2; the second (cc. 19-30) is rather a par-
allel in form and content to Abot chapters 3 and 4 than an am-
plification and exposition like the preceding; cc. 31-41 are
numerical like Abot chapter 5.
In editions of the Babylonian Talmud the Abot de-R. Nathan
is printed in an appendix to the fourth Order (Nezikin), along
with other minor tractates, chiefly from the Gaonic age, which
are no part of the Talmud itself.2 There are manuscripts repre-
senting a different recension, which Schechter's edition 3 puts
in parallel to the common text; the latter is also revised on manu-
script authority.
A work of a different kind, the core of which at least belongs
to the Tannaite period, and which enjoyed great authority in its
field, is the Seder 'Olam, a chronological synopsis of biblical his-
tory from Adam down to the age of Alexander (Daniel), and a
continuation in brief to the destruction of the second temple and
the war under Hadrian. The endeavor to fix the dates of He-
brew history by the data given in the Scriptures had been made
by an earlier chronologer, Demetrius, probably an Alexandrian
Jew, of whose work only scanty fragments have survived.4 The
1 Chapters 1-18 m the common numeration.
2 On these see H. Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 5 ed., pp.
72-74, and the relevant articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Among them
the tracts on morals and manners (Derek Ere§) may be particularly noted.
3 Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan (Vienna, 1887), Wltn an introduction, develop-
ing a critical theory of the antecedents of the work.
4 C. Muller, Fragmenta Histoncorum Graecorum, III, 214-217. See
Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes, III, 349-351.
CHAP, in] FORMULATION AND CODIFICATION 159
Book of Jubilees imposes its peculiar system on the history from
Adam to Moses. For the post-exilic period the author of Seder
'Olam had no sufficient sources, and his schematic chronology of
the Persian centuries and thereafter, as has been shown above,
is widely in error. In c. 30 the destruction of the temple (70 A.D.),
490 years after the first destruction, begins a new era (from the
Destruction of the Temple), while, as the author remarks, in the
Diaspora the Seleucid era (3123.0.) was commonly employed.
The last chapters are evidently mutilated, and, between that and
the attempts to fill up the conclusion, are often unintelligible.
The author of the Seder 'Olam displays great ingenuity both
in his method and in the application of it, and, whether that was
his intention or not, laid the foundation for a chronology based
on the Era of Creation. A computation from the creation in even
millenniums is found in 'Abodah Zarah ga,1 citing Tanna de-Be
Eliahu.2 Seder 'Olam is several times cited in the Talmud with
the introductory formula for Tannaite tradition (Baraita).3 The
authorities cited in it are almost all prominent teachers of the
early and middle second century. R. Johanan attributed the
transmission of the work to R. Jose (ben IJalafta),4 who had
studied under Akiba and took part in the Galilean restoration
after Hadrian. In several places in our Seder 'Olam, R. Jose is
introduced by name (e. g., c. 28, near the end), from which it
may be inferred either that these passages were inserted by a
later hand (Zunz), or, if they are from his own, that for the bulk
of the book he was only transmitting an older tradition.
The Seder 'Olam is in Hebrew, like the rest of the contempor-
ary literature.
The edition cited in the present volumes is that of B. Ratner:
Seder Olam Rabba, die Grosse Weltchronik. Wilna, 1897. With
1 Not for historical purposes, but for the date of the beginning of the
messianic age in God's original plan.
2 See Seder Eliahu Rabba, ed. M. Friedmann, p. 6, below; and Fried-
mann's Introduction, p. 46.
8 'Abodah Zarah 8b; Megillah lib; Shabbat 88a, etc.
4 Yebamot 8ib; Niddah 46b, below.
160 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
critical and explanatory notes (in Hebrew). —The same author
published separately an introduction (Mebo leha-Seder 'Olam
Kabbah). An edition of the first ten chapters, with an intro-
duction by A. Marx, 1903, has not been completed.
In this connection mention may be made of the Megillat
Ta'anit, "Fasting Scroll," a calendar of days commemorating
joyous seasons or events in the history of the people on which
public fasting is not permitted and on some of which mourning
also is forbidden. The occasion is generally indicated, but with
such brevity that, especially in our fragmentary and accidental
knowledge of whole periods of the history, the reference is fre-
quently impenetrably obscure.
The calendar, the whole of which could be printed on an octavo
page, is in Aramaic, presumably because it was meant for the
guidance of the unlearned as well as the educated. It is referred
to as a well-known and authoritative writing in the Mishnah
(Ta'anit 2, 8) and often elsewhere.1 A Baraita in Shabbat ijb
attributes the composition of the scroll to Hananiah ben Heze-
kiah (ben Garon) and his associates; the scholiast names his
son Eleazar,2 which would put it in the latter part of the first or
beginning of the second century, but in any case would only
mean the redaction, with additions to date, of a list that began
much further back.3
On this calendar scholia in Hebrew were written in post-
Talmudic times, the author of which attempts a historical com-
mentary on the obscure allusions in the text. It is a critical error
to take his learned combinations for tradition.
Of modern investigations it is sufficient here to refer to Solo-
mon Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit as a source for Jewish Chronology
and History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 1922.*
1 Jer. Megillah 700; 'Erubin 62b, end.
J On c. 12, end. So also Halakot Gedolot, ed. Hildesheimer, p. 615.
8 See Judith 8, 6.
4 For the earlier literature see Zeitlin, pp. 65 f.
CHAPTER IV
HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES
THE third class of sources is the Homiletical Midrash. The
works with which we have been thus far engaged are primarily
Halakic. Their intention is either to define the rules of the tra-
ditional law or to connect these rules with the written law by the
exegesis of the legislative parts of the Pentateuch. The classes
to which we now turn are Haggadic.1 In the dichotomous divi-
sion Halakah2 is law, and whatever is notHalakah is Haggadah;3
but this definition gives no idea of the wealth and variety of the
Haggadah. The value set on the latter is strongly expressed in
Sifre on Deut. u, 22: "Those who interpret the implications (of
Scripture) 4 say: If you would learn to know Him at whose word
the world came into being, learn Haggadah, for by this means
you will come to know the Holy One and cleave to his ways." 6
On Deut. 32, 14, the Sifr£ has: "'With the kidney-fat of wheat';
these are Halakot, for they are the substance [lit., 'body'] of the
law; 'and of the blood of the grape, thou drinkest wine,' these
are Haggadot, which attract a man's heart like wine." 6 With a
reminiscence of such eulogies Zunz wrote: "The Haggadah,
1 A summary account of the most important may be found in Strack,
Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 5 ed., pp. 74-76. Cf. A. Marx's review
of Strack, Jewish Quarterly Review, N. S., XIII, 354. For a masterly
survey of this literature see J. Theodor, 'Midrash Haggadah,' Jewish En-
cyclopedia, VIII, 550-569, and 'Midrashim, Smaller,' ibid. 572-580.
2 From a verb meaning 'to walk, go'; figurative like the English 'walk,'
a way of living or acting; in Hebrew, specifically a rule to go by.
8 Etymologically, 'teaching' (of Scripture) ; in use, specifically, non-legal
teaching.
4 rnDIBH 'Bnn. See Bacher, Tannaiten, 1, 31 ; Terminologie, 1, 183 f. Bacher
connects these ancient interpreters with the times of Johanan ben Zakkai.
5 Sifre Deut. § 49 (ed. Friedmann, f. 85a). R. Joshua ben Levi took the
neglect of " the works of the Lord" in Psalm 28, 5, to be neglect of the Hag-
gadot. Midrash Tehillim in loc.
6 SifrSDeut. §317.
161
1 62 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
whose aim it is to bring heaven nearer to men and again to lift
men up to heaven, appears in this mission as the glorifying of
God and the comfort of Israel. Hence, religious truths, moral
lessons, discourse on just reward and punishment, inculcation of
the laws in which the nationality of Israel is manifested, pictures
of the past and the future greatness of Israel, scenes and stories
from Jewish history, parallels between the divine institutions
and those of Israel, encomiums on the Holy Land, inspiring nar-
ratives, and manifold consolation — these constitute the chief
content of the synagogue homilies." l
The high aim of the Haggadah is religious and moral instruc-
tion and edification; but its authors are aware that to catch and
hold the attention it must make itself interesting, and it is not
beneath its dignity to be entertaining. It is supposed to be in-
terpretation and application of Scripture, as the name Midrash
implies; but it brings freely to the illustration of the text and
its lessons matter not only from all over the Bible but from far
outside, and is in some ways the most characteristic product of
Jewish literature and life through many centuries.
High as the estimation was in which the Haggadah was held,
it did not possess authority like the Halakah. In the latter,
where there was a conflict of juristic opinion, it was necessary to
determine which was to be followed, and so far as it is proper to
speak of Jewish orthodoxy (correctness of opinion) it is solely
in this field; there was no such thing as an orthodox Haggadah.
The wide agreement on the main topics of theology and morals
was due to the fact that the Scripture was plain and the tradi-
tional understanding and application long established. Where
this was not the case there was free diversity. There was, for
example, no Jewish "doctrine of the Messiah" such as Christian
scholars have often tried to construct, no "doctrine of the Last
Things" (Eschatology), but many attempts to combine in an
imaginable sequence the diverse representations of the Scriptures,
none of which had any claim to being the sole true combination.
1 Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage der Juden, p. 349 (2 ed , p. 362).
CHAP, iv] HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES 163
It has been rightly said that the completion of the Mishnah,
which closes an epoch in the schools of the Law, was of no conse-
quence in the history of the Haggadah. The following century
concedes nothing to its predecessor, either in the wealth of the
material that has come down to us and the number of eminent
names associated with it, or in the independence and originality
of its contents.1
The Haggadah with which we are concerned flourished chiefly
in Palestine, and among the compilations presently to be de-
scribed none is of Babylonian origin.2
"Haggadah books" are mentioned repeatedly in the third
century as in the hands of several rabbis of the time, though one
of the most famous Haggadists of the age, Joshua ben Levi,
vehemently condemned these writings. We catch only one
glimpse of what was in them when the same rabbi tells that the
only time he ever looked into such a book he found in it some
numerical "correspondences" between the Pentateuch and some-
thing else in the Bible; but the memory of this one experience
gave him the nightmare.3 Other rabbis had no such prejudice
against Haggadah books. R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Lakish
are reported to have consulted one on a Sabbath,4 and Johanan
is said to have frequently had one about him,5 and to have re-
marked that, if a man learns Haggadah out of a book, it is assured
that he will not soon forget it.6
Among the Midrashim of this class the expository Midrash on
Genesis known as Bereshit Rabbah holds first place by virtue
1 W. Bacher, Agada der palastmensischen Amoraer, I, viii
2 The voluminous Haggadah of the Babylonian Talmud is in the main of
a different stamp.
8 Jer. Shabbat 150, middle.
4 Gittin 6oa; Temurah i4b. It is about the reading on the Sabbath that
the question is raised.
5 Berakot 2ja, below.
6 Jer. Berakot 9a, above. Along with other circumstances of learning
about which there is a "ratified covenant" to the same effect, e. g., learning
in an humble spirit (Prov. n, 2).
164 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
of its age and of the extent and importance of its contents. From
its first words, "R. Osha'ya (Rabbah) opened" (sc. his discourse
on Genesis i, I ff.) with the text Prov. 8, 30, the catena got the
name Bereshit de-Rabbi Osha'ya, and the like, under which it is
cited in mediaeval authors;1 and the same explanation is prob-
ably to be given of the assumption that R. Osha'ya (or Hosha'ya),
one of the most eminent scholars of the third century, was the
author of the work. The title Bereshit Rabbah has been thought
to have originated by transferring to the book the epithet Rab-
bah ('the Great,' i.e., the older) which properly belonged to
R. Hosha'ya; but this explanation is dubious:2 the name may
designate the work itself as the Large (Midrash on) Genesis.3
What is more certain is that from Genesis the title "Rabbah" 4
was extended to the other Midrashim on the Pentateuch, and
later to those on the five Megillot when these were appended to
the series on the Pentateuch, and that a plural, Rabbot, was
made to cover them all.6
Bereshit Rabbah is an expository commentary which almost
to the end follows the text of Genesis verse by verse, and espe-
cially in the earlier chapters almost word by word, skipping only
bare genealogies and repetitions which required no fresh remark,
such as Gen. 24, 35-48 (after vss. 12-27). It is especially ex-
pansive on Gen. 1-3 (Creation, Adam and Eve in the Garden),
where a whole chapter of comment is sometimes devoted to one
or two verses of the text: chapter i, for example, to Gen. i, i,
chapter 2 to Gen. i, 2, etc. This part of the work is of peculiar
interest; it sets forth the biblical teaching on these points in
1 See Theodor's edition, p. i, note; Jewish Encyclopedia, III, 62
2 Theodor, ibid III, 64.
8 A mediaeval work entitled Bereshit Rabbah, by R. Moses ha-Darshan,
quoted in Raimund Martini, Pugio Fidei, is not to be confounded with our
Midrash.
4 Note the extract from Halakot Gedolot in Zunz, Gottesdienstliche
Vortrage, u. s. w., p. 177 (2 ed., p. 187), where the adjective Rabbah is used
of Genesis only.
6 Ekah Rabbati is a different case, being taken from Lam. I, I, ha-tr
rabbati 'am.
CHAP, iv] HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES 165
Jewish interpretation in reply to cavils of objectors and in oppo-
sition to the theories of alien philosophies. It is highly probable
that some of the contributors were acquainted with Philo —
with his ideas, if not with his writings — which is not strange
since R. Hosha'ya had his school at Caesarea and was contem-
porary there with Origen, whose biblical studies brought him
into association with Jewish scholars.1 Caesarea was one of the
chief centres of Christianity in Palestine. It had a considerable
Jewish population, and it is likely that there had been contro-
versies between Jews and Christians there before the end of the
second century, as there certainly were in the third.2 Echoes of
such discussions in Caesarea or elsewhere may be heard here and
there in Bereshit Rabbah, for example, c. 8, 9 (on Gen. i, 26) .3
The opponents are by this time catholic Christians, and the Jew-
ish polemic is outspokenly directed against the deification of
Christ, as in the utterances of Abahu.4 The controversial ele-
ment in the Midrash is, however, rare, and of minor interest.
It has been fitly said of it: "This Midrash is eminently rich
in sublime thoughts and finely worded sentences, in all kinds of
parables, in foreign words, especially Greek, used freely and in-
tentionally for the sake of elegance of diction." 6
It begins on a very large scale, nearly one fourth of the whole
work being given to the section Bereshit (Gen. i, 1-5, 8) alone.
Toward the end (from about Gen. 44) it is much more cursory,
and the method changes. It is suggested that it may have been
left incomplete, and the deficiency supplied by other hands and
from different sources.
1 Ongen (d. 253) established himself there in 231 A.D. and labored
there till the Decian persecution in 250. He mentions (on Psalm i) his
acquaintance with 'lovXAos Trarptapx^s, probably a scribal error for 'lovdas
(Judah II).
2 Abahu. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, II, 96 f., 115-118; Jewish Encyclo-
pedia, I, 36 f.
8 R. Simlai, the same series of questions and answers, with two more,
in Jer. Berakot I2d, below. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 555 f.
4 Jer. Ta'anit 65 b, below; Exod. R. 29, i.
5 J. Theodor, 'Bereshit Rabbah/ Jewish Encyclopedia, HI, 63.
166 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
The homiletic character is marked by the introductions pre-
fixed to nearly all the sections, which start from a text in another
part of the Bible, most frequently from the Hagiographa, and
more or less ingeniously make the transition to the verse in
Genesis which is to be commented on. Many of these introduc-
tions bear the names of the homilists who invented them, or
whose interpretation of the text was utilized for the purpose;
the greater number, however, are anonymous, and not a few are
composite. Once the introduction — sometimes lengthy — is
despatched, the exposition goes its way without further reference
to it.
The age of such a catena is a question to which a simple answer
cannot be given. It contains much material which comes from
the second and third centuries, and may have been compiled
from previous collections. On the other hand, the redaction, in
the nature of the case, was not definitive, thus excluding later
additions. The intimate relation to the Palestinian Talmud
makes it probable that the redaction was made in the same en-
vironment and in the same age with that Talmud, say the early
part of the fifth century. The authorities named are nearly all
Palestinian, and form a succession from the second century to
well on in the fourth.
A critical edition of Bereshit Rabbah was begun in 1903 by
J. Theodor: Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparate und
Kommentare. Text, apparatus, and commentary are everything
that such an edition should be. Since Theodor 's death in 1923,
the edition has been competently carried on by Ch. Albeck, with
the use of Theodor's collations and collections. The thirteenth
part (1927), pages 961-1059. Extends to Gen. 39.6 (in Section
86), where Theodor's manuscript ended.
There are many collective editions of the Midrashim on the
Pentateuch and the Megillot, with a steadily increasing flow of
commentaries. The most comprehensive and the most fre-
quently used nowadays is that published by the house of Romm,
in Wilna. The references in the present volumes are to this edi-
CHAP, iv] HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES 167
tion.1 There is a German translation of Bereshit Rabbah and
of the other so-called "Rabbot" on the Pentateuch and the
Megillot, by August Wiinsche, under the general title, Bibliotheca
Rabbinica (1880 sqq.)-
The Midrash on Exodus (Shemot), down to the end of Exod.
ii (c. 14), resembles that on Genesis described above, and may
have been planned as a supplement to it, carrying on the narra-
tive to the point where the laws and the Mekilta begin (Exod.
12). The introductions, or proems, are regularly followed by a
running exposition of the entire lection, as in Bereshit Rabbah.
From chapter 15 (Exod. 12) on, the whole economy of the
work is different. The matter is largely taken bodily from homi-
lies in other Midrashim, especially of the Tanhuma type.2 The
compilation is unquestionably late; Zunz inclines to put it in
the eleventh or twelfth century.
An expository Midrash of character similar to Bereshit Rab-
bah and of not far from the same age is the Ekah Rabbati, on
Lamentations. Since the latter book was not divided into lec-
tions, the proems in Ekah Rabbati, thirty-six in number,3 are
prefixed in mass to the running comments on the book verse by
verse. The proems regularly begin, "Rabbi N. N. opened (his
discourse)/' with a text from somewhere else in the Bible, apt,
or applied, to the content of the Book of Lamentations taken as
an elegy on the fallen glory — an appropriate theme for the com-
memoration of the ninth of Ab, the destruction of the temple,
and for the eve of that day. The body of the Midrash has many
stories of the unhappy fortunes of the Jews, the disasters of the
Bar Cocheba war, the persecutions they suffered from the Ro-
mans, the mockery of which they were made the butt in comedy,
and the like, by the side of which, for variety, may be put the
match of wits between Jews and Athenians, in which the Greeks
1 It is an inconvenience that the subdivisions do not correspond in all
editions, and for that reason chapter and verse of the biblical text are fre-
quently added.
2 See below, pp. 169 f. 3 The older editions count 33.
168 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
come off second best. Stories make up more than one fourth of
the contents (leaving out the proems).
The Midrash on Lamentations, like that on Genesis, stands
close to the Palestinian Talmud, though somewhat later than
those two works, and had apparently certain older collections as
a source in common with Bereshit Rabbah and the Pesikta of
Rab Kahana. Here also the first chapter is treated on a much
larger scale than those that follow, as is not strange in view of
the monotony of the theme. Like Bereshit Rabbah, it abounds
in Greek words.
This Midrash is cited by chapter and verse of Lamentations.
Of a different type from the expository Midrash thus far de-
scribed is the homiletical Midrash in the stricter sense, which is
more numerously represented. One of the oldest of these, and
that in which the type is most clearly seen, is the Pesikta (Pesikta
de-Rab Kahana). It contains homilies on the lections for the
high days of the ecclesiastical calendar, not for the continuous
series of Sabbath pericopes. In the arrangement adopted by
Buber in his edition there are first six homilies for the special
Sabbaths;1 then follow homilies for the Feasts (Passover to
Pentecost inclusive, nos. 7-12); homilies on lections from the
Prophets for the Sabbaths of retribution and consolation2 (three
Sabbaths preceding the ninth of Ab, and seven after it); homilies
on lections from the Prophets (nos. 13-22); for New Year's
(no. 23); Penitential homilies, between New Year's and the Day
of Atonement (nos. 24-25 [26]); the Day of Atonement (no. 27);
Tabernacles (nos. 28-31).
In the manuscripts there are differences in order and in some
measure in contents, but the general scheme is the same. The
structure of the proems is more elaborate than of those in the
Midrash on Genesis or on Lamentations; the exposition, on the
other hand, seldom gets far beyond the beginning of the lesson.
1 Four of the five or six preceding the first of Nisan (M. Megillah 3, 4).
2 From the seventeenth of the month Tammuz to the season of Taber-
nacles: Nrujnai wn^n ,Knorm n
CHAP, iv] HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES 169
The Pesikta is one of the earlier Midrashim; that it is later
than Bereshit Rabbah and Ekah Rabbati is agreed; on the
question whether it is older or younger than the Midrash on
Leviticus, which it strikingly resembles and with which it has
some homilies in common, opinion is divided.
The only edition of the Pesikta is that of S. Buber: Pesikta,
die alteste Hagada, redigirt in Palastina, u. s. w., 1868. With an
extended introduction, and commentary. — A German translation
by August Wiinsche is included in his Bibliotheca Rabbinica.
The Pesikta Rabbati is a mediaeval work; if in the figures
near the beginning of the first homily the author himself gives
his date, it was composed in 845. It makes large use of older
sources, including the Pesikta de-R. Kahana, from which five
entire homilies are taken bodily, but in general it is of a very dif-
ferent character. The lucid and often elegant Hebrew is note-
worthy. The latest edition is by M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rab-
bati, u. s. w., Vienna, 1880.
Whatever the relation between the Pesikta and the Midrash
on Leviticus (Wayyikra Rabbah), there is no doubt that the
latter is another of the older Midrashim. It is not an exposition
of the Book of Leviticus, but a series of homilies on passages in
Leviticus, most of them on the Sabbath lections (Sedarim) of the
triennial cycle; five of them are on lessons for the Feasts, and,
apart from minor variations, are identical with five homilies in the
Pesikta.1 An interesting feature of this Midrash is the frequent
introduction of popular proverbs in Aramaic, to illustrate the
turn given by the homiiist to a verse of Scripture.
Another variety of the homiletic Midrash is represented by
what are called the Tanhuma homilies, by a generic extension of
the title of one such collection, the Midrash Tanhuma, named
after one of the most prolific homilists of the fourth century, R.
Tanhuma bar Abba, who frequently appears in it. This collec-
tion, which exists in two recensions, covers the whole Pentateuch,
1 Wayyikra Rabbah, Parashahs 20, 27-30; Pesikta 27, 9, 8, 23, 28.
170 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
though by no means evenly, following the Sabbath lections of
the triennial cycle, and has homilies also on the Festival cycle
which we have seen in the Pesikta.
A peculiarity of this species is that many of the homilies start
with a morsel of halakic caviar as an appetizer. The audience —
perhaps the Meturgeman for them — asks a question of this
kind,1 for example: "Let our master teach us how many kinds of
clean animals there are in the world. — Thus have our rabbis
pronounced; There are ten such animals" (the catalogue fol-
lows). From the standing formula of the question, Yelammedenu
rabbenUy the Midrash (or one of its sources) is cited as Yelam-
medenu.2 On this hors d'oeuvre follow several proems, and an
exposition of the first verses of the lection. Many of the homilies
close with a forward look to the great deliverance and the fulfil-
ment of the hope and promise of the better time to come —
what moderns sometimes loosely call "messianic" conclusions.3
There are, as has been said, two recensions of the Tanhuma,
one in many editions presenting the (amplified) text of Mantua,
1563, the other edited by Buber from manuscripts in 1885.
They differ widely in Genesis and Exodus, and agree more nearly
in the three other books. The critical problems, which are even
more tangled here than in the other Midrashim, need not detain
us. Buber 's contention that his Tanhuma is older than Bereshit
Rabbah, and even than the Pesikta to which he formerly gave
the seniority, has not found much acceptance.4
The Midrash on Deuteronomy (Debarim Rabbah) is a series
of twenty-seven homilies on lessons of the triennial cycle. Each
1 The question is not always on the Halakah, e. g., "How many things
preceded the history of the world?" (i.e., the account of creation in Gen. i).
"The tradition of our rabbis is that seven things were cieated while as yet
the world was not created," etc. The question and answer are usually chosen
for some relevance to the subject in hand.
2 The author of the Yalkut cites both Tanjiuma and Yelammedenu, as
if he had them separately.
8 Compare many of the homilies in Pesikta Rabbati.
4 For the theory of the three Tanfrumas see Lauterbach in the Jewish
Encyclopedia, XII, 45 f.
CHAP, iv] HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES 171
begins with a halakic exordium, introduced in a peculiar stereo-
typed form and sometimes of considerable length; 1 upon this
follow the proem (or proems) and the text at the beginning of
the lesson. The discourse regularly concludes with promises or
consolation.
Bemidbar Rabbah, on Numbers, is less homogeneous. The
last third of the book (cc. 15-23, on Num. 8-35) is a series of
Tanhuma homilies, with a Halakah at the beginning. Chapters
1-5 are a large and free amplification of homilies of a similar
type. The inordinately long section Naso (cc. 6-14) is a com-
pilation which accompanies the text continuously. It draws on
mediaeval sources, and is not older than the twelfth century.
In an account of the sources used in the present volumes it
is unnecessary to describe particularly the Midrashim on the
Megillot, Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes. They also
draw largely on their predecessors; 2 in that on Ecclesiastes there
is considerable use of the Palestinian Talmud and some loans
from the Babylonian Talmud; even post-Talmudic tractates
are quoted.
The value of the older expository and homiletical Midrashim
(Bereshit Rabbah, Ekah Rabbati, Wayyikra Rabbah, Pesikta)
lies in the fact that they not only preserve much of the religious
and moral teaching of the second century in the names of its
authors, but are our only source (besides incidental matter of the
kind in the Talmuds) for that of the third century, in which
several of the rabbis flourished who most excelled in this branch
of tradition and instruction, such as Joshua ben Levi, Johanan,
Simeon ben Lakish, Samuel ben Nahman; nor was the fourth
century lacking in eminent representatives of the art.
1 The halakic exordium is simply noted, Halakah, instead of the Yelam-
medenu formula. E.g., Halakah. A man of Israel, is it licit for him to write
a Torah (Pentateuch) in any language? — Thus have the learned (IJakamim)
taught: There is no diffeience between books (copies of the Pentateuch) and
Tefillm and Mezuzot, except that books may be written in any language,
etc. (M. Megillah i, 8).
2 These passages sometimes represent an older and better text than our
editions of their sources.
172 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
The fertility and originality of the third-century Haggadah
especially has been remarked above. It must be understood,
however, that the originality is not in the substance of the teach-
ing but in the ingenuity with which familiar lessons are discov-
ered in unsuspected places in Scripture and new lessons in hack-
neyed texts, and in the art with which they are developed, illus-
trated, and applied. The doctrines of religion and the principles
of morals were long since unalterably established; need, or
possibility, of progress beyond them did not enter the mind of
the teachers of theology and ethics. Their task, as they con-
ceived it, could not be more aptly expressed than in the words of
the Gospel about a particular topic: "Every scribe who has
been instructed in the (nature of the) kingdom of Heaven is like
a householder who produces out of his storeroom new things and
old." 1
To assure ourselves that in the substance of the teaching,
whether the form be new or old, there is no change, it is only
necessary to compare what we have in the Midrashim and in the
Talmudic Haggadah from the third and fourth centuries with
the older homilists and the standard authority of the Tannaite
Midrash, with which again the various writings from Sirach on
are in essential agreement.
But while we thus establish the continuity through four or
five centuries, we do not overlook the fact that Judaism had
made much history in that period. The conflict over the au-
thority of the traditional law had ended in the complete triumph
of the Pharisees; the controversy about the life after death had
elevated the resurrection to the rank of a dogma and made here-
tics of the Sadducees. Other sectarians and schismatics had
been sloughed off or reabsorbed. The Essene order had appar-
ently long since disappeared.2 The disciples of Jesus the Naza-
1 Matt. 13, 53. See the preceding parables on the Kingdom, vss. 14-51,
which may be taken as examples of the "new things" that such a scribe can
bring out.
2 There is no lecogmzable mention of it in the whole body of rabbinical
literature.
CHAP, iv] HOMILETIC COMMENTARIES 173
rene, who had made some stir for a generation or two after the
fall of Jerusalem, had finally put themselves outside the pale of
Judaism in the Bar Cocheba war. The Christianity which
the rabbis had to do with thereafter was Greek, and the contro-
versy was with catholic doctrine. There were always skeptics
to be refuted, especially on the old issue of retribution, and per-
haps here and there foreign philosophical influences to be re-
sisted. These changes of complexion can be observed in the
incidence of controversy and the shifting emphasis on particular
points in successive generations; but of differences in the funda-
mental conceptions of Judaism there is no evidence.
What is true of the Midrashim holds good equally of the con-
temporary Haggadah in the Talmuds, which in the Palestinian
Talmud is intimately related to the Midrashim. Not only is the
Baraita an important source for the second century, but so too
are the utterances of the Amoraim for the third and fourth.
In the present volumes the Talmuds are cited in the custom-
ary way, the Palestinian (Jerushalmi) by the folio and column
of the Krotoschin edition (1866), the Babylonian by the folios
of each tractate, which are the same in all the current editions.
Of the former there is a French translation by Moise Schwab:
Le Talmud de Jerusalem traduit pour la premiere fois. 1 1 volumes,
1871-1889. (Vol. 1, 2ded., 1890.)— Of the latter, a German trans-
lation by Lazarus Goldschmidt: Der Babylonische Talmud . . .
moglichst sinn- und wortgetreu iibersetzt. Thus far, 8 volumes,
1897-1922. The text follows the first Bomberg edition (Venice,
1520-1523). — A translation of the haggadic parts of both Tal-
muds by August Wiinsche: Der Jerusalemische Talmud in seinen
haggadischen Bestandtheilen iibertragen, 1880; Der Baby-
lonische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen, wort-
getreu iibersetzt, u.s.w. (4 volumes, 1 886-1 SSg).1
It is proper to say that the Talmud is one of the books of
which even the best translation is in large part to be understood
only with the aid of the original and of the Hebrew commen-
taries.
1 Rodkinson's so-called English translation is in every respect impossible.
CHAPTER V
VERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE. PRAYERS
The older Aramaic translations (Targums) of the Pentateuch
and the Prophets, of which something has been said above, are
of Palestinian origin and probably date from the second century.
They show in many ways affinity to the exegesis of the Tannaim
of the school of Akiba. We have the text in a Babylonian recen-
sion of perhaps the third century, which, however, does not seem
to have gone much deeper than accommodation to the vocabulary
of the Babylonian Jews in the use of certain words. Both were
in intention as near to verbal translation as was consistent with
bringing out the meaning; the midrashic element which occa-
sionally runs loose can sometimes be proved by external evidence
to be a later accretion, and in other cases the same thing may
fairly be suspected. In Palestine they did not obtain the official
recognition they had in Babylonia, but it may be inferred that
the Babylonian schools took these Targums, along with the
Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Tannaite Midrash of the school
of Akiba, because they also represented this school and were au-
thenticated by their origin.
Besides the use that the interpreter (Meturgeman) might
make of a written version in preparation for his oral rendering
of the lessons in the synagogue, such translations could hardly
fail to be found great aids in private study, as a supplement to
oral instruction in the Scriptures. References to such a use of
them are, however, rare. In Sifre Deut. § 161, in what may be
called the progress through learning to virtue and piety, the first
biblical discipline, Mikra (learning to read the Hebrew Bible), is
followed by Targum (learning translation), but this need not
have been from a book. A probable reference to the latter is
found, however, in the precept given by R. Joshua ben Levi,
174
CHAP, v] VERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE 175
head of a school at Lydda in the first half of the third century,
to his sons, that they should read the lesson of the week privately
twice in the course of the week, and the Targum once.1 Later in
the same century R. Ammi made this a rule for all.2 The latter
prescription supposes that copies of an Aramaic version were
in the hands of the educated. This rule became general practice,
and was perpetuated to times and regions where Aramaic was
not spoken by the Jews; and the disuse of it evoked strong pro-
test. The Targum of Onkelos was thus read for centuries, and
it is a reasonable inference that it was this that Joshua ben Levi
and Ammi meant.
The usefulness of a standard version as an authentic interpre-
tation of the Scripture needs no words. And inasmuch as it
undertook in the main only to give the "plain sense" interpre-
tation, it did not hamper the freedom of the search for deeper
meanings and new combinations which was the province of
Midrash.
The Palestinian Targum on the Pentateuch ("Targum of the
Land of Israel") is frequently called Targum of Jonathan (ben
Uzziel, the reputed translator of the official Targum on the
Prophets) or, by moderns, "Pseudo-Jonathan." The former
name first appears in the fourteenth century, and probably
originated in an erroneous resolution of an abbreviation. A
similar origin may be conjectured for the name "Jerusalem
Targum," which goes back to the twelfth century. In the form
in which the Palestinian Targum is in our hands it is late, con-
taining the names of a wife and daughter of Mohammed,3 and,
in some manuscripts, references to still later events. Such pass-
ages, however, prove only that the popular Targum was kept up
to date, so to speak, as it was copied from age to age, and do not
determine the age of the bulk of the work. The relation to
Onkelos is capable of more than one interpretation, and both
interpretations may be partially right.
The translation is sometimes close, elsewhere freely para-
1 Berakot 8b. 2 Ibid. 8a, below. 3 On Gen. ai, ai.
176 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
phrastic; in many parts the Targum runs into Midrash. For
the purposes of the present volumes, it is seldom of consequence;
and the same is true of the Fragment Targum which is related
to it.
The Targums on the Hagiographa are all of too late a date to
serve us as sources, and need not be described here.1
The Targums had a time of being very much overworked by
Christian scholars in consequence of the erroneous notion that
they antedated the Christian era; and in particular the messianic
expectations of the Jews in that age were looked for in them.
Afterwards they were still more abused in the search for the
Jewish idea of a God-out-of-reach who negotiated with the
world only through the Memra and other intermediaries.2
Their true value lies in the evidence they give to the exegesis
of the Tannaite period — to the real understanding of what the
Bible said for itself.
In treating the subject of Piety (Part VI) much is made of
Jewish prayers. It is therefore necessary to say something here
about this subject. It is to be premised that prayer-books do
not make their appearance for many centuries after the period
with which we are here dealing. The oldest known work of the
kind, the Seder Rab Amram, composed after the middle of the
ninth century of our era by the head (Gaon) of the Academy at
Sura in Babylonia, at the request of Spanish communities,3 was
widely disseminated, and served as a basis for subsequent com-
pilations and as an authority on liturgical questions. In this wide
use the rules for the order of prayers and the like were preserved
with little change, but the text of the prayers themselves was
extensively accommodated to the established custom of the
1 See W. Bacher, 'Targum/ Jewish Encyclopedia, XII, 61 f.
2 See Moore, 'Intermediaries in Jewish Theology/ Harvard Theological
Review, XV (1922), 41-85; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, II (1924), 302-333 (on John i, i).
8 Rab Amram died ca. 875. On the succession of mediaeval prayer-books
see I. Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwick-
lung, pp. 358 ff.
CHAP, v] PRAYERS 177
several regions, so that the testimony of the edition or of the
manuscripts (which exhibit many variations) cannot be taken
as representing the Babylonian use in the ninth century. It
appears, however, that prayer-books were already in use in
Amram's time.
Next in order of time came the Collection of Prayers and
Hymns of Praise by Saadia (d. 942), who was led to undertake
the task by the variations of usage and the liberties which
scholars took in the way of innovations.1 Maimonides (d. 1204)
treats the regulations concerning prayer at length in the second
book of the Mishneh Torah, to which is appended an Order of
Prayers for the whole year.2 The Mahzor Vitry, compiled by
Simhah ben Samuel (d. 1105), a pupil of Rashi, is a much more
extensive work, belonging to the so-called Ashkenazic 3 branch
of the liturgical tradition. The Mahzor Vitry was edited by
Simeon Hurwitz (Berlin, 1893; anastatic reprint, Niirnberg,
Of modern editions of the Prayer-Book mention is to be made,
in the first place, of Seligman Baer, 'Abodat Israel (Rodelheim,
1868; anastatic reprint, 1901). — The Authorized Daily Prayer
Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire.
With a new translation by the Rev. S. Singer (London, 1891, and
repeatedly since); with A Companion to the Authorised Daily
Prayer Book, etc., by Israel Abrahams (revised edition, London,
1922). Both of these represent the Ashkenazic rite. — A modern
edition of the Sefardic rite is that of D. A. de Sola, revised by
M. Caster. London, 1901.
While the text of the prayers in our hands in these books is, at
the utmost, mediaeval, there is abundant evidence that the prin-
cipal prayers themselves were in use as far back as our sources
go, and were, in the age of the Tannaim, believed to be of im-
memorial antiquity. The Men of the Great Synagogue ordained
1 Probably drawn up for the use of Jews in Egypt. It is incompletely pre-
served, and has not been edited.
2 Much abridged in manuscripts and editions.
8 French (Northern) and German Jews.
178 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
the benedictions, prayers, and forms for ushering in and marking
the close of sacred time (l£iddush and Habdalah).1 Particular
benedictions or parts of the synagogue prayers are cited by
the initial words, assuming that the sequel is in everybody's
memory, and these incipits are prevailingly identical with those
of the prayers still in use and known by the same tides. The
school discussions, which reach back to the generations before
the destruction of Jerusalem (Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel)
are about modalities, not matter.2 Substance and phrase-
ology have biblical antecedents; extracanonical writings of the
centuries before our era afford numerous parallels. But the
prayers of the synagogue differ from these on the one hand in
their comprehensiveness and on the other in the conciseness of
their formulation, adapted in both respects to congregational
and individual use. The words were not prescribed, but they
tended to become fixed by repetition, and to vary chiefly by
verbal amplification. Extensive additions appear in the festival
liturgies, not in the standard prayers.
In using these and the private prayers of individual rabbis as
witnesses to the character of Jewish piety, the date to be assigned
to them is less important, because in this respect no significant
difference is to be discovered between the religiousness of the
first centuries of our era and that of the following periods down
to the invasion of mysticism.
1 Berakot jja (in the name of Johanan).
2 For a list see Elbogen, p. 247, and Notes (2 ed., pp. 554 f.).
CHAPTER VI
EXTRANEOUS SOURCES
OF Sirach and his importance as a witness to the stage at which
Judaism had arrived in the class to which he belonged, two cen-
turies before the common era, enough has been said in an earlier
chapter. It remains here to add something about his book.
The title in the Greek Bible is Soviet 'I^croO vlov Sctpax, or,
abridged, So</>£a Sctpax; in Latin and the modern versions
after it, Ecclesiasticus.1 That it was written in Hebrew is beyond
question. It was translated into Greek by a grandson of the
author who went to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemy
Euergetes, that is, in 132 B.C. His translation was probably
made there some years later.2
Among the spoils of the Genizah in Cairo were found con-
siderable fragments of two manuscripts of the work in Hebrew,
and a scrap of a third,3 besides some extracts. Altogether they
contain about two thirds of the book. The text of these eleventh-
or twelfth-century manuscripts differs widely, as would be ex-
pected, from the Greek and Syriac 4 versions. These variations
may be ascribed in part to transcriptional errors of the Hebrew
scribes, in part to an archetype already remote from the copy in
the hands of the first translator. The translations have had a
more intricate history, and manuscripts of the Greek version and
the secondary versions made from the Greek vary materially. The
critical problems thus presented are complicated and very difficult.6
1 Cyprian; Rufinus, In symbolum, c. 38. 'E/c/cAiyo-iaoTiKos, Photius; title
of cod. 248 H-P. In Syriac, KTD"OT KHODn, The Wisdom of the Son of
Sirach.
2 See the translator's Preface.
8 Marginal notes in one of them record readings from two other codices.
4 The Syriac was made from the Hebrew, though it did not escape the
influence of the Greek Bible.
6 See Peters, Der . . . hebraische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, 1902
(Prolegomena). — For the Greek version, Cod. Vaticanus Gr. 336 (Holmes and
170
i8o SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
One question was raised shortly after the first publication of
a part of the Hebrew text: is it a descendant of the original
Wisdom of Ben Sira, or a translation from the Greek or the
Syriac ? Though the case would not be without example, scholars
generally agreed in rejecting the hypothesis of translation. Sev-
eral attempts have been made to reconstruct what Sirach actu-
ally wrote, on the basis of the three primary witnesses (Hebrew,
Greek, Syriac),1 but whatever success may have been achieved
in particular instances, as a whole the result of such a contamina-
tion of recensions is not convincing, and the method must be
pronounced fallacious.
A convenient edition of the Hebrew text, with the variants of
the manuscripts, and the most important readings of the Greek
and Syriac, is: H. Strack, Die Spriiche Jesus' des Sohnes Sirachs,
u.s.w., 1903. — Norbert Peters, Der jiingst wiederaufgefundene
hebraische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, 1902. Text and trans-
lation, with critical prolegomena and commentary. — R. Smend,
Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Hebraisch und Deutsch, 1906.
— Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklart, 1906.
See also Box and Oesterley, in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha, etc.
With an extensive critical apparatus to the composite translation.
A very important source from the middle of the first century
before the Christian era are the so-called Psalms of Solomon,
which in certain Christian lists stand with First and Second
Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, etc., as
"Antilegomena," 2 in a kind of appendix to the books of the
Hebrew Bible. They are found in a few cursive manuscripts of
Parsons no. 248) is of peculiar importance. — An edition of this manuscript
with an ample critical commentary by J. H. A. Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek,
was published in Cambridge, 1909.
1 See, e g , V. Ryssel, in Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen
des Alten Testaments.
2 Substantially corresponding to what in Protestant versions of the Bible
are entitled "Apocrypha." — Another list puts the Psalms of Solomon, along
with Enoch and other apocalypses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
etc., among the Apocrypha in the ancient and catholic use of the word, for
which "Pseudepigrapha" is now commonly used.
CHAP, vi] EXTRANEOUS SOURCES 181
the Greek Bible, either following the Psalms of David or in the
Solomonic group, and they once stood in the Codex Alexandrinus
(5th century) at the very end, after the New Testament and the
Epistles of Clement.
These Psalms are preserved only in a Greek version and in a
secondary Syriac translation from the Greek; l but there is no
question that the original language was Hebrew. The age of
several of them is determined by unmistakable references to the
taking of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 B.C.) and to his death (48 B.C.).2
Inasmuch as there is no reference in them to Herod, who took
Jerusalem with the aid of the Romans in 37, or to the restoration
of the Asmonaean Antigonus by the Parthians (40 B.C.), it is
probable that the latest of the Psalms were written before these
events. It is not certain that they are all the work of one author,
but the internal situation so far as it is reflected in them corre-
sponds to conditions under the last Asmonaean princes, say
from the death of Queen Alexandra (67 B.C.); that the earlier
rulers of the family are included in the same condemnation is no
indication of date.
The author was evidently a resident of Jerusalem, and writes
with personal knowledge and feeling of the calamities that befell
the city and its inhabitants in those troubled times. He lays all
these evils at the door of the rulers and their partisans, whom he
charges with all manner of enormities. Besides all this, they
were usurpers of the throne of David, which God had sworn should
belong to his posterity forever. Pompey was the instrument
of God's judgment upon them; but his arrogance was visited
upon him in his dishonored death.
The author paints a shocking picture of the demoralization of
the times. It was not, however, universal. The familiar division
of men into righteous and wicked, sinners and saints,8 runs
1 In the sole known manuscript they are appended to what are called the
" Odes of Solomon," Christian compositions with which they have no con-
nection except Solomon's name.
2 See particularly Psalms 2; 8; 17.
(D'TDH).
1 82 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
through these Psalms, as in so many of the Psalms of David.1
The author rails at the profane who "live in hypocrisy with
the pious" and "sit in the pious congregation, though their
heart is far remote from the Lord." 2 The contrast between
these two kinds of men in character and destiny is a recurrent
theme.
Man is free and chooses his conduct for himself, and with it
his fate. "Our deeds are in the election and power of our soul,
to do righteousness or unrighteousness in the works of our
hands," etc. (9, 7-9). Directly opposite are the way in which the
righteous man receives the chastisement of the Lord and the be-
havior of the sinner when misfortune befalls him and he goes on
heaping sins upon sins. Diverse, too, are their ends. "The
destruction of the sinner is forever, and when God visits the
righteous no notice will be taken of him. . . . But those that fear
the Lord will arise to everlasting life, and their life in the light of
the Lord will never fail" (Psalm 3).
The Psalms that have no such salient features are not less
instructive for the piety they represent; 3 both the conception
and the sentiment are those of normal Judaism. The author of
the Psalms of Solomon (or the authors) was a religious-minded
man, full of the Scripture, reminiscences of which are pervasive.
He shared the belief of the Pharisees in the resurrection of the
righteous dead, of which he speaks without emphasis or argu-
ment as though it were accepted doctrine among those for whom
he wrote. He prays that God raise up for his people their king,
the son of David, in the time He has appointed, to be king over
Israel His servant, endued with all the qualities of which the
prophets had told. The picture of his reign is a composite of
ancient prophecies, free from apocalyptic fantasies. When we
1 Cf. also the Wisdom of Solomon.
2 The portrait of such a one, a man in high station, is drawn, perhaps from
life, in Psalm 4.
8 That they were sung in the synagogues (Ryssel) is extremely improbable
in view of anything we know of the service; but so far as the contents go they
would not have been unacceptable.
CHAP, vi] EXTRANEOUS SOURCES 183
come to treat of Jewish expectations of the future of the nation
we shall have occasion to discuss this Psalm more particularly.1
The Psalms of Solomon have been repeatedly edited. Those
editions whose text is based on a collation of several manu-
scripts are: Ryle and James, SFaX/zoi ZoXo/uopros. Psalms of
the Pharisees, commonly called the Psalms of Solomon, etc.
With introduction, English translation, notes, appendix and
indexes. Cambridge, 1891. — v. Gebhart, ^aX/xot ZoXo/uoz/ros.
Die Psalmen Salomo . . . herausgegeben. Leipzig, 1905 (Texte
und Untersuchungen, u.s.w., XIII, 2). — Swete, The Old Testa-
ment in Greek, etc., Ill (1894), 765-787.
English Translation in Ryle and James, above.
Turning now to the sources to which Judaism has never ac-
corded any authority, the so-called Synoptic Gospels (Matthew,
Mark, Luke) are of the first interest, for they witness to the
prevailing Jewish teaching of their time. Of the fundamental
Judaism of these writings enough has been said above; their
messianic and eschatological features in relation to Jewish ideas
on those subjects will be discussed in that connection.2 The
severe strictures they pass on the religious leaders who opposed
the movement are ex parte testimony, to be impartially weighed.
In so doing it is to be observed that this censure is directed against
persons or classes, and does not convey an implicit criticism of
Judaism itself. The whole point of the scathing denunciation of
the Scribes and Pharisees is that they are not true to the religion
they profess and their own better knowledge. Criticism of their
teaching on particular points is sometimes severe, and even goes
on to the sweeping charge of nullifying the word of God by
their tradition. But this is not to be taken as a rejection of tra-
dition in principle, like that of the Sadducees, or of the authority
of the Scribes as its custodians and expositors. Our concern,
however, is not with a critical estimation of the testimony of the
Gospels but with the sources themselves. And, it must be noted,
1 Psalm 17; cf also Psalm 18. See Vol II, p 328.
2 Vol. II, Part vn
184 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
as sources for contemporary Judaism, not as sources for the life
and teaching of Jesus.
The Gospels in our hands in Greek are the Gospels of Gentile
churches, and all of them, in different ways and measures, bear
marks of this early non- Jewish Christianity. It is the prevailing
opinion among critics that none of them — unless it be Mark —
in its present form is earlier than the fall of Jerusalem in the
year 70. Mark l tells more of the works of Jesus than of his
words, but early brings him into conflict with the Pharisees on
points of observance. Matthew has the events as in Mark,
but exhibits the teaching of Jesus much more fully from another
source. Luke has much of this matter, but distributed in quite
a different way, and has besides a good deal to which there is no
parallel in Matthew. The matter which Luke has in common
with Matthew was clearly not taken from Matthew, and it is
therefore inferred that in both Gospels it is derived independently
from a common source (generally designated by the cipher Q),
which the two authors used each in his own way.
Neither Jesus nor his immediate disciples spoke Greek.2 The
primitive tradition of his teaching was in the vernacular Aramaic
dialect of Galilee, and the first written precipitate of their tradi-
tion, collected and set down for their own use, was also in Ara-
maic.3 It would be nothing strange if subsequently some scholar
converted to their belief should have put the Gospel (Euangeliori)
of Jeshu ha-Nosri into the Hebrew which the learned used for
such purposes.4 It was perhaps such a work that was in the latter
part of the fourth century in the hands of the Nazarenes at
Beroea (Aleppo).
The Greek in which the Synoptic Gospels have come down to
1 Matthew, Mark, Luke are used here as titles of books, not as authors'
names.
8 If they knew any Greek for market purposes, they certainly did not use
a foreign language instead of their mother tongue to talk to their countrymen
or with one another about religious subjects.
8 Not, however, in dialect, but in the written language.
4 The synagogue homilies were in the common Aramaic, but all the horn-
iletic Midrashim are in Hebrew.
CHAP, vi] EXTRANEOUS SOURCES 185
us bears in places unmistakable evidence of translation from Ara-
maic. The dialect which Jesus and his Galilean disciples spoke l
is not sufficiently known to make it possible to obtain by retro-
version from the Greek the actual words he used, even if we could
suppose that the Greek was a verbal translation of a verbatim
original. The teaching of the Synagogue, on the other hand, to
which so much in the Gospels is akin in substance and phrase, is
accessible to us only in the "language of the learned," the He-
brew of the Midrash. The Aramaic link between the synagogue
exposition and the primitive Nazarene tradition underlying the
Gospel is lost. For our purpose the loss is not serious.2 If in
most cases we do not know verbally how the rabbis expressed
themselves in the language of the people, we do know how they
said the same thing in their discussion with one another, and
if through the Greek of the Gospels we hear this immediately,
we have made the connection not only with the popular instruc-
tion of the synagogue but with the larger development in the
discussions of the schools. It is to this that the interpreter of
the Gospels must resort at every turn for the understanding of
his text — not only its terms but its ideas, and frequently for
the association of ideas.
While the Gospels are thus in large measure witnesses to the
rabbinical teaching of the time, they were from the beginning
apologetic documents. As with the first part of the Acts of the
Apostles which is their sequel, their characteristic is the identi-
fication of their teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, with the Messiah.
How far the Old Testament texts they appealed to had been
interpreted messianically by the authorized expositors of Scrip-
ture, or by the greater freedom of the homilists, can, unfor-
tunately, seldom be known. We can be sure, however, that
the proof-texts the disciples of Jesus alleged as predictions of the
death of the Messiah, and of the resurrection and ascension,
1 See G. Dalman, Grammatik des judisch-palastinischen Aramaischen,
u. s. w., 1894 (2 ed. 1905).
2 Peculiarities of dialect may sometimes explain textual variations.
1 86 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
were used in that way for the first time by them. It seems clear
also that in identifying their Messiah in the second stage with
the apocalyptic "Son of Man" they were not giving an original
interpretation of Daniel 7, 13 f., but either a bit of rabbinical
Haggadah, or were drawing upon eschatological developments
of that vision such as are found in the so-called "Parables" of
Enoch.1 The Gospel according to Matthew is, of the three, the
most important source for Judaism, not only for its contents
but for its attitude; it is at once the most conservatively Jewish
of the Gospels and the most violently anti-Pharisaic. For the
prominence of both these features it may be surmised that the
history of the Nazarenes in their relations to Gentile Christianity
on the one side and to the Jewish authorities on the other was
decisive.
In the fourth century Jerome, then pursuing the ascetic life in
the desert of Calchis, consorted with a Nazarene sect in Beroea
(Aleppo), which endeavored to combine the observance of the
Law with the grace of the Gospel,2 but condemned the Scribes
and Pharisees, and by name the heads of the Tannaite schools.
The "houses" of Shammai and Hillel 3 were "the two houses of
Israel" in Isa. 8, 12, who by their traditions and Sevrepcocrets
(Mishnah) dissolved and defiled the Law. They did not accept
the Saviour, who became, in the words of the prophet, their
downfall and stumbling-block.4 In Isa. 8, 23 they found, first,
the preaching of Christ in Galilee by which the land of Zebulun
and Naphtali was freed from the errors of the Scribes and Phar-
isees, and shook off from their necks the exceeding heavy yoke
of Jewish traditions; afterwards, by the gospel of the Apostle
Paul, who was the last of the Apostles, the preaching was ex-
tended, and the gospel of Christ shone abroad to the boundaries
of the nations 4 and the way of the great sea (Isa. 8, 23). They
1 See below, Part VII.
2 Comm. on Ezek. 16, 16 (Vallarsi V, 161). He applies to them Matt. 7,
1 6 f., the patch of new cloth on the old garment.
3 The name Shammai is etymologized, dtsstpator; of Hillel, prof anus.
4 Comm. on Isa. 8, n f. (Vallarsi IV, 122 f.).
CHAP, vi] EXTRANEOUS SOURCES 187
evidently held that it was not for them, as born Jews, to emanci-
pate themselves from the law; 1 their hearty recognition of the
missionary labors of Paul shows that they did not hold, as one
wing of the believing Jews had insisted in Paul's time, that con-
verts to the Gospel were bound to put themselves under the law.
While Matthew is a Jewish Gospel, even in its antipathies,
the author of Luke pays more attention to the point of view of
Gentile Christians, to which class many, in ancient as well as
modern times, think that he himself belonged.
The first part of the Acts of the Apostles tells how the leading
disciples of Jesus, Galileans all, shortly after his death estab-
lished themselves in Jerusalem in expectation of his reappearance
from heaven, and tried to convert those who would listen to
them to their faith that Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy, by
arguing from the Scriptures that its predictions had been ful-
filled not only in his life but by his death, and that Daniel's
predictions of the coming of the Son of Man to judgment also
would presently be fulfilled in him. The interference of the
religious authorities with this propaganda, the growth of the
movement, and the internal history of the society of believers
are the principal subjects of this narrative, in which the historian
has used, directly or indirectly, Aramaic sources containing tra-
ditions of the church in Jerusalem in those eventful years. It
was not a schismatic body; its leaders and the mass of their fol-
lowers were, aside from their peculiar messianic and eschato-
logical beliefs, observant Jews, as their teacher had been.2 Some
of their Greek-speaking converts, however, were more radical,
and there were premonitory symptoms of the new direction which
the movement took with Saul of Tarsus, who became Paul the
Apostle.
With the Gospels may be mentioned in this connection the
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (Didache). Critics are al-
1 Comm. on Isa 8, 23. (Vallarsi IV, 129 f.).
2 See Matt. 5, 17-20. Whether this position is tolerable in Christianity
is a point on which Augustine and Jerome disagreed. See Jerome, Ep.^112
ad Augustinum, Augustine to Jerome, ibid , Epp. 56 and 67.
1 88 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
most unanimously agreed that the first part of this little book,
the Two Ways (cc. 1-6), is of Jewish origin, perhaps a compend
of elementary moral instruction for Gentile converts such as are
called God-fearing men (or women).1 This little manual was
early taken over by Christians for the same purpose. The Greek
text of the Didache discovered by Bryennios has an unmistak-
ably Christian passage (i, 3-2, i)2 which is not found in the old
Latin translation; but otherwise the Two Ways has not been
Christianized. The Two Ways often appears in early Christian
literature from the so-called Epistle of Barnabas on,3 while of
the rest of the book there is no such evidence, which leads to the
conjecture that the Two Ways circulated by itself.4
Chapters 7-15 are Christian, representing a very simple type
of rites, doctrine, and organization. The separation from the
Jews is signalized in the appointment of Wednesday and Friday
as the weekly fast days, instead of Monday and Thursday, as is
the custom of " the hypocrites." Baptism is into the name of
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit 6 — which it is an
anachronism to read as a trinitarian formula. Relieved of this
interpretation, the formula is one in which it is quite unneces-
sary to suspect the influence of Gentile Christianity. Jewish
believers may well have deemed it the most appropriate for the
reception of Gentile converts, who confessed their faith in the
one true God, the Father, and in his Son, the Messiah, and in
the Holy Spirit of inspiration in the society of believers and par-
ticularly in their prophets.6 Baptism into the name of Jesus
Christ (the Messiah), or of the Lord Jesus, was sufficient in the
1 Se/36/zej>oi (or <j>oflovp,evoi) rov Bebv. Actual proselytes required much
more specific instruction in the Law. See, e.g., pp 331, 333.
* Part, even of th'is, has its closest parallels, not in the Gospels but in
Jewish sources (i, 5-6).
* Chapters 1 8-20 (lacking in the single manuscript of the Latin version
which ends with c. 17).
4 It is thought by some that the eschatological close, c. 16, has a Jewish
core.
6 Matt. 28, 19. Cf. Didache 7, 1 (raOro iravra. irpodirovres — namely, the
Two Ways), with Matt. 28, 20.
6 Didache 1 1, 7 ff.
CHAP, vi] EXTRANEOUS SOURCES 189
case of Jews or Samaritans, who had no need to profess mono-
theism.1
The Christian part of the Didache shows the hand of an au-
thor familiar with Jewish customs and forms. The observance
of two fast days in each week, with the substitution of Wednes-
day and Friday for Monday and Thursday, has already been
mentioned. So the three daily hours of prayer with the recita-
tion of the prayer "the Lord commanded in the Gospel,"2
instead of the prayer used by "the hypocrites" (the Tefillah).
Even more conclusive is the character of the liturgical prayers
prescribed for the Eucharist (c. 9), and the Blessing after the
Meal (c. 10). The content is Christian; but they are through-
out reminiscent of the Jewish forms of prayer, the place of which
they take. They begin with a substitute for the ]£iddush,8 then
for the blessing of the bread, and finally a Birkat ha-Mazon in
three parts, each closing with an ascription, and a conclusion to
the whole.4
In what region the Christian community existed which has
left us this picture of itself is a question to which no answer can
pretend to be better than a guess. There is no reason to doubt
that the original language was Greek; not, like the primitive
Gospel or the first part of Acts, Aramaic. Its age can only be
inferred from the rudimentary character of the institutions,
which would incline us to a relatively early date — say, the be-
ginning of the second century; but primitive conditions may
have lasted much longer in outlying places than in the great
centres, and especially in Jewish-Christian communities. Nor is
the date, which is of interest in relation to the development of
Christian doctrine and discipline, of so much importance from
our point of view.
1 Cf. Didache 9, 5 (ol paTTTLffOevres els &VOJJLCL Kvpiov — condition of admission
to the Eucharist).
1 The Lord's Prayer as in Matthew, with the doxology, from which " the
kingdom" is omitted.
8 Therefore the blessing of the cup precedes that of the bread (cf. Luke
22, 17).
4 See G. Klein, Der alteste Christhche Katechismus (1909), pp. 214 ff.
CHAPTER VII
TESTAMENTS. JUBILEES. SECTARIES AT DAMASCUS
MENTION may properly be made here also of one or two writ-
ings which, though exhibiting idiosyncrasies which mark them
off from the main line of development, nevertheless in funda-
mental things are at one with it.
Such is that entitled The Testaments of the Twelve Patri-
archs, in which, taking the suggestion from the Blessing of Jacob
in Genesis 49, and the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33,
each of the sons of Jacob, when his time comes to die, gathers
his descendants about him and delivers to them his parting
charge. Drawing a lesson for them from his own life, he dwells
particularly on the sin (or sins) into which he had fallen, with
the consequences in his case and in general, warns his children
against the occasions and temptations which lead men into the
like sins, and commends the contrary virtues with the disposi-
tion by which they are cultivated. In one or two cases the tri-
umph over temptation (Joseph), or the superiority of the simple
life in single-mindedness (Issachar), is the main theme; the
patriarch is an illustration of virtue, rather than a warning
against vice.
In the exemplification of these moralizings the biblical story
is followed so far as it goes, but amplified and supplemented by
legendary matter, in which the wars of Jacob and his sons with
the kings of the Amorites and with Esau and his army are prom-
inent. These prototypic conflicts, spun out of Gen. 35, 5 and
36, 6, were evidently a favorite subject; we have them in the
Book of Jubilees l and in the late Midrash Wayissa'u.2
1 Jubilees 34 and 37.
2 Found in the'Yalkut on Genesis § 133; edited thence by Jellinek, Bet
ha-Midrasch, III, 1-5.
igo
CHAP, vii] SECTARIAN WRITINGS 191
The moralizing itself is throughout sound, and frequently on
a high plane. Its basis is scriptural, but it shows the same kind
of advance beyond its texts, by combination and by interpreta-
tion in the light of the higher principles of morality, which is
characteristic of the teaching of the Scribes — for example in the
repeated coupling of the commandments of love to God and love
to fellow man. There is nothing of sectarian eccentricity about it.
Noteworthy is the place of repentance, and the conception of it.
The affinity of the Testaments with Jubilees appears not only
in the Haggadah but in the prominence of "Beliar" as the name
of the chief of a realm of evil. In Beliar's train is a multitude of
"deceiving spirits" which tempt and prompt men to particular
sins. These spirits have no concrete reality, and are hardly more
than personifications of the prompting man feels in himself of
lust, covetousness, envy, jealousy, hatred, or what not.1 It is a
kind of analysis of the "evil impulse." 2 It is, however, much
more elaborated than in rabbinic sources, in which moreover the
name Belial occurs only in biblical contexts.
Besides the moralizing and legendary Haggadah there is an-
other element in the Testaments of which notice must be taken.
In almost every one of them there is an exhortation to be loyal to
Levi and Judah, to obey them, to love them, honour them, be
united to them.3 Sometimes this is reinforced by a prediction
that the tribe will fall away from them with dire consequences.
The Testament of Levi narrates as a vision a tour of Levi through
the scale of heavens, and in another his investiture there with
the pontificals of the high priest, and how his grandfather Isaac
taught him the duties of the priesthood. The exhortation he
gives his sons (c. 13) to fear the Lord, and instruct their children
in the law, and do righteousness, and get wisdom, is a high ideal
of the office.
1 See e. g. Test. Reuben 3, 3-6. To call this sort of thing " a vast demon-
ogy" (Charles) is a misnomer.
2 Cf. the dvo 5ta/3o6Xta, Test. Asher i, 2.
8 Levi has regularly the precedence and the emphasis. See e.g. Reuben 5,
8; Judah 21, 4.
192 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
By the side of these passages which magnify the priesthood
there are, however, others, in predictive form, which match the
worst things the Psalms of Solomon have to say about the priest-
hood in the days of the degenerate Asmonaeans.1 These pieces
seem to be thrust into their context, and are generally attributed
to a later author.2 On the other hand the eschatological closes of
some of the Testaments seem to be original, though they have
frequently been interpolated or glossed by Christian copyists.
The Testaments have been transmitted to us in Greek and in
an Armenian translation from the Greek.3 The Greek is less
palpably a translation than the most, but there are not lacking
indications that the original language was Hebrew.
The Testaments were long regarded as a Christian composi-
tion. The Christianity of many passages is indeed salient and of
others is strongly probable. On the other hand the bulk of the
book is prima facie Jewish, the morals no less than the legends.
Grabe, who first edited the Greek text (1698; 2 ed. 1714), saw
in it a Jewish work, interpolated by Christian hands. Evident
as this solution seems, it found no favor with following critics,
who disagreed only on what kind of Christian the author was;
and it is only in recent times that scholars generally have re-
verted to Grabe's view, a confirmation of which is found in the
fact that some of the Christian patches were not in the Greek
manuscript from which the Armenian version was made.4
Before the Christian interpolators, Jewish hands had made
additions to the Testaments, the most striking of which have
been mentioned above.
In this state of things, and with the uncertain interpretation of
references to historical situations, it is not strange that opinions
1 See especially Levi 14, 5-16, 5.
1 A book of Enoch is sometimes cited as the source of these predictions of
degeneracy.
1 Some fragments in Aramaic, and a Testament of Naphtali in Hebrew
whose relation to our Greek is very remote, may here be ignored.
4 On the Armenian version see F. C. Conybeare, in Jewish Quarterly Re-
view, v (1893), 375-398; viii (1896), 260-268, 471-485-
CHAP, vn] SECTARIAN WRITINGS 193
differ somewhat widely about the age of the original work.1 The
Asmonaean restoration is the earliest date in this period at
which such enthusiasm for the priesthood of Levi as is manifest
in the Testaments is probable; nor is it likely to have survived
the doings of Alexander Jannaeus and his successors, who corre-
sponded only too well to the character given the degenerate
priests in an addition to the Testament of Levi, chapters 14 and
15. For our purpose greater precision is not essential.
Editions of the Greek text: Robert Sinker, Testamenta XII
Patriarcharum, etc. Cambridge, 1869. (Based on a Cambridge
manuscript, with the readings of an Oxford MS. in foot notes.)
Appendix (containing a collation of the Roman and Patmos
MSS.). Cambridge, 1879. — R- H. Charles, The Greek Versions
of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs edited from nine
MSS., together with the variants of the Armenian and Slavonic
versions and some Hebrew fragments. Oxford, 1908.
Translations: R. H. Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs. Translated from the Editor's Greek Text . . . with
Introduction, Notes, and Indices. 1908. — F. Schnapp, 'Die
Testamente der zwolf Patriarchen' (in E. Kautzsch, Die Apo-
kryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, II (1900),
458-506).
The Book of Jubilees, to which a passing reference has been
made, has its name from the chronological scheme in which the
author dates every event from the creation to the eve of the
exodus by Jubilee periods of forty-nine years and their subdi-
vision by sevens: thus the birth of Abram was in the thirty-
ninth Jubilee, in the second week (heptad of years), in the seventh
year of the week.2 Frequently the exactness is carried out to
the day of the month. With this chronological system goes a
reconstruction of the calendar. Instead of a year of twelve lunar
months rudely adjusted to the solar year by the intercalation,
1 It is generally believed that the Testaments, or parts of them, are related
in some way to the Book of Jubilees; but that work is itself datable only
within rather wide limits.
1 Jubilees 11, 14 f.
194 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
when necessary, of a thirteenth month, the author would have
a solar year of fifty-two weeks (364 days), divided into four quar-
ters of thirteen weeks each, on the first day of each of which a
memorial day was appointed, without regard to the moon, which
disorders all measures of time, getting ten days out of the way
every year.1 In consequence of the abandonment of this divinely
appointed and revealed system, the festivals and the new moons
were not kept at the proper times; and inasmuch as the time was
of the essence of the observance,2 this was a grave religious lapse
which was attended by many others. The angel who makes this
revelation to Moses takes pains to affirm that the system is no
innovation: he has it written in a book in his hands, and in the
"heavenly tables" the division of days is ordained, "lest they
forget the feasts of the covenant and walk according to the feasts
of the Gentiles after their error and their ignorance." 3
The same kind of a solar year of 364 days 4 is defined in a de-
scription of the movements of the sun and the stars, and of the
moon, that has come down to us in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch
(cc. 72-75; 78), and was doubtless meant to be taken for the
astronomical observations of that explorer of the heavens.5
Into this eccentric calendar system it is unnecessary to enter
here. The motive for it was probably not the mere charm of
symmetry, but the desire to create a distinctively Jewish divi-
sion of time fundamentally unlike those of other peoples, and
particularly that of the Greeks.6 In the reaction against Hel-
lenism in the second century such a motive is intelligible enough,
1 Twelve lunations occur in 354 days; the Intercalary year has 384 days.
See Jubilees 6, 29-38. In the author's scheme there would be eight months
of thirty days each, and four (presumably the first month of each season) of
thirty-one days, or — what comes to the same thing — twelve months of
thirty days, and an unnumerated day at the beginning of each season (Enoch
75> i).
2 See also 49, 14 f.
8 Jubilees 6, 35.
4 Enoch 74, IO-I2; 75, 2. For the lunar year cf. 74, 13-16; 78, 9, 15 f.
5 See Enoch 76, 14; 82, 1-8.
6 See Jubilees 6, 35. The author of Enoch seems to be acquainted with
the eight-year cycle of intercalation (Octaeteris) ; see 34, 13-16.
CHAP, vii] SECTARIAN WRITINGS 195
and the end to be achieved may well have seemed of sufficient
moment to outweigh the inconveniences of a year that was a day
and more shorter than a mean solar year, especially as the con-
sequences would become serious only by accumulation.1 There
is no indication that an attempt was ever made to get this calen-
dar into use, nor that it was a party issue as the reckoning of the
Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was between the Pharisees and the
Sadducees.
The Book of Jubilees may be described as a Midrash on Gen-
esis and the first twelve chapters of Exodus, but it is peculiar in
being the work of one author, composed on a preconceived plan
and with a definite purpose. It presents itself as a revelation
made to Moses on Mt. Sinai, where "the angel of the presence
who went before the hosts of Israel," at God's command, with
the heavenly chronological tables in his hands, dictated to Moses
the history from the beginning (including even Moses' own bi-
ography) from the point of view of an angelic eyewitness and
participant.
One of the chief ends of the author was to carry back the
origins of the distinctive observances of Judaism to a remote an-
tiquity and to connect them with epochs in the history of the
patriarchs or of Noah and the antediluvians, and that not merely
as ancestral customs but as laws then and there delivered by
God for all future time. For this there were precedents in the
Pentateuch in particular cases, such as the law against eating
flesh with blood in it given to Noah and the law of circumcision
given to Abraham. Later rabbis could not imagine the pious
patriarchs otherwise than as knowing and keeping the whole
personal and domestic law, even to its rabbinical refinements,
when there was as yet no written law. But whatever anticipa-
tions of this kind there were, the Law in its completeness and
1 Biblical authority for a solar year of 364 days (twelve lunar months plus
ten days) may have been found in the narrative of the flood in Genesis, as
was acutely conjectured by B. W. Bacon in Hebraica, VIII (1891-92), 79-
88; 124-139; Charles, The Book of Jubilees (1902), p. 55.
196 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
finality was given by Moses. The festivals — Passover, Un-
leavened Bread, Tabernacles — were memorials of events in the
history of the escape from Egypt; the designation of Levi as the
priestly tribe was made after the exodus, and the whole sacri-
ficial system and ritual was instituted only after the erection o "
the tabernacle and the installation of Aaron and his sons.
According to Jubilees, on the contrary, the Feast of Weeks
was first kept on earth by Noah 1 in commemoration of the eter-
nal covenant God made that there should not again be a flood
on the earth.2 It fell into desuetude after Noah's death, but
was observed by Abraham 3 and his descendants down to the
generation of Moses, when it was again forgotten till it was re-
established at Sinai as is prescribed in "the first law" (Penta-
teuch). Tabernacles was first celebrated on earth by Abraham
for seven days.4 Jacob kept it at Bethel, and added the eighth
day.6 On this occasion Levi was invested with the priesthood,
and the laws of tithing were given.6 The ritual of these festi-
vals is described in much detail, even to the recipe for the
compound incense burnt by Abraham (16, 24), following in gen-
eral the laws in the Pentateuch, but with some features of later
observance not found in Scripture, such as the procession around
the altar at Tabernacles (16, 31), and some which are not men-
tioned in Tannaite sources.
The occasion for the introduction of many laws is given: for
example, purification after childbirth in the days of the first
parents (3, 8-14); the laws against incest after the crime of
Reuben (33, 10-20), repeated in fuller form in connection with
Judah's sin with Tamar (41, 25 f.).7
1 It had been celebrated in heaven from the creation till the days of Noah,
Jubilees 6, 18.
Ibid. 6, i6f.
Ibid. 6, 19; 14, 20; 15, i f.; 22, 1-5.
Jubilees 16, 20-31.
Ibid. 32, 4-7, 27-29.
Ibid. 32, 8-15.
7 For an enumeration see Charles, Book of Jubilees, Introduction, pp.
lii-liii.
CHAP, vii] SECTARIAN WRITINGS 197
The author speaks of books of the forefathers (Enoch, Noah,
21, 10) handed down from father to son, as from Noah to Shem,
from Jacob to Levi (10, 13 f.; 45, 16). The laws are preestab-
lished in the heavenly tablets, or recorded in them; these tablets
contain predictions also.1 Authority is thus occasionally given
to the peculiar rules of the book (Halakah).
The Book of Jubilees sometimes follows the biblical narrative
very closely, and in other places embroiders upon it freely.
Much of this legendary embellishment was probably drawn from
a common fund of Haggadah, but the selection from it as well as
what seems to be the author's own contribution to the story is
apposite to his purpose. He passes over incidents in Genesis
which put the patriarchs in an unfavorable light,2 and makes
slight omissions or changes in the narrative with the same motive.
Similarly he makes Mastema (his name for Satan) responsible
for things that might seem to reflect on the character of God,
after the example of the Chronicler in the case of David's census.3
Great emphasis is laid in Jubilees on the separation of Jews
from Gentiles. Israel alone was chosen by God to be His people.
The many nations and peoples indeed all belong to Him, " and
over them He gave spirits power, that they might lead them to
go astray from following Him. But over Israel He did not ap-
point any angel or spirit, for He alone is their ruler," etc. (15,
31 f.). Abraham in his dying charge enjoins on Jacob: "Sepa-
rate thyself from the nations, and do not eat with them, and do
not do as they do, and do not be their associate; for their work
is uncleanness and their ways defilement," etc. (22, 16-18).
Above all, intermarriage with them is stringently forbidden
under pain of death (30, 7-17); 4 a man who causes his daughter
to be thus defiled has given of his seed to Moloch.6 Peculiar
enmity is manifested toward the Philistines, the Edomites,11 and
1 See Charles on Jubilees 3, 10, note.
2 For which there was especial need in the story of Jacob.
3 Cf. 2 Sam. 24, i with i Chron. 21, i.
4 See also 22, 20; 25, 9.
6 Lev. 1 8, 21. See the Palestinian Targum on this verse.
198 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
the Amorites — names suitable enough to the assumed situation,
but under which are to be recognized the peoples against whom
the Jews in the author's time had the best grounds for hostility.
The sacramental observances of Judaism, if the word may be
allowed, are circumcision and the sabbath, which are shared
with the two highest orders of angels. Both belong to Israel
alone.1 The violation of these ordinances is rank apostasy and
entails the supreme penalty by the hand of man and of God.
What is said about the omission or the obliteration of circum-
cision (15, 33 f.) evidently refers to conditions such as are de-
scribed in i Mace. I, 13 f.; 2 Mace. 4, 9-14.* The neglect of
parents to circumcise their children perhaps accounts for the in-
sistence of the author that the rite must be performed without
exception on the eighth day (15, 12, 14, 25 f.),3 as reaction from
the neglect or lax observance of the sabbath may explain the un-
paralleled stringency of his application of that law (50, 6-13). In
opposition to the opinion of the hellenizers that the law was anti-
quated, and the time had come to modernize it, if not to abandon
it, and be like other civilized people, he unweariedly reiterates
that the law is divine in origin and authority, and will continue
unchangeable to the end of the present order of things.
The Judaism of the book is unimpeachable. It glorifies the
Law, as the revelation in parts on earth of the Law that was in-
scribed on the heavenly tables before the creation of the world,
and was, as we have just seen, to endure unchanged to the end.
Compromise with the ways of the heathen, intermarriage with
them, even commensality, are apostasy, and call down the wrath
of God not only on individual offenders but on the nation. The
interpretation of the biblical laws and the expansion and appli-
cation of them are in cases of difference stricter than the corre-
sponding Halakah of the Mishnah and contemporary works,
1 On the exclusiveness of the Sabbath see Jubilees 2, 31.
2 Cf. 2, 45. On the king's prohibition, i, 48, 60; 2, 46.
3 This is, however, the literal law in Scripture. It is unnecessary to sup-
pose that he is controverting the opinion that in certain circumstances the
rite might be postponed one or two days.
CHAP, vii] SECTARIAN WRITINGS 199
especially in the rules for the observance of the sabbath, for every
infraction of which death is the penalty.1
Besides the Halakah and the solar calendar there are other
peculiarities which are regarded as evidences of a sectarian origin.
It is possible, however, that these singularities may have been
entertained, in whole or in part, in circles which did not separate
themselves in practice from others of strict observance or con-
stitute a sect in any proper sense of the term. There was evi-
dently much ferment of opinion in those days; the standardiza-
tion of Judaism was still a long way in the future.
Jubilees was probably written in the latter half of the second
century before the Christian era. It looks back upon the Syrian
crisis from some distance, and has no quarrel with the present
such as men of the author's kind had with Alexander Jannaeus.2
The Book of Jubilees is preserved as a whole only in Ethiopic;
and in parts (amounting together to about one third of the book)
in Latin. Both were translated from the Greek, of which there
are numerous traces in the Church Fathers, and the Greek ver-
sion from a Hebrew original. — The Ethiopic text was edited by
Dillmann in 1859, and a second time, with additional and su-
perior manuscript authority, by R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic
Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, etc. (Anecdota Oxonien-
sia, Semitic Series, Part VIII. 1895). — The remains of the Latin
version were published by Ceriani from a manuscript in the Am-
brosian Library in Milan in 1861 (Monumenta Sacra et Profana,
T. I., fasc. i). They were reprinted by Hermann Rdnsch in his
important study of the work, Das Buch der Jubilaen, u.s.w., 1874.
A German translation from the Ethiopic by Dillmann was
published in Ewald's Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wissenschaften,
Volumes II and III (1850, 1851). A more recent translation
(after Charles's edition of the text) by Enno Littmann is found
in Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten
Testaments, II (1900), 31-119. — English translation, R. H.
Charles, The Book of Jubilees, etc., 1902. With introduction^
indexes, and a full commentary.
1 Jubilees 2, 25-30; 50, 6-13.
2 See Isaac's blessing of Levi, Jubilees 31, 11-17.
200 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
The only parties in Palestinian Jewry about which we have
any information are the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the singu-
lar sect of the Essenes. Our informants are interested, however,
only in those which had some importance in their own time, and
there may have been various others of greater or less moment
in their day of which no mention has survived. The literature
we have been surveying and the apocalyptic writings which we
have still to consider show that there were conflicting opinions
on many points, whether or not those who maintained them
should be denominated sects.
Whatever may be true of the Book of Jubilees and its con-
geners, there is no question about the schismatic character of a
book discovered a few years ago among the manuscripts in the
Genizah at Cairo, and published by S. Schechter, in Documents
of Jewish Sectaries, Vol. I. (1910).
The discovery was of unique interest because it gives in the
original Hebrew the sect's own account of its origin, its secession
from the Jews in Judaea and migration to the region of Damascus,
its organization and the laws under which it lived there, and
its expectation of the future. The history and the expectation
are, unfortunately for us, written in a figurative style, weaving
in a midrashic tissue of biblical reminiscences a kind of Haggadah
on their own story, which was doubtless intelligible to those who
knew the story itself, but is mystifying to those whose knowledge
does not supply the key to the allusions. The constitution and
aws, on the contrary, are written plainly, and the difficulties in
them are chiefly due to the state of the text.
The peculiar interest and importance of the document for our
purpose does not lie in the history of a short-lived and long-
forgotten schism, nor in its singular organization, but in the legal
part, which exhibits the Halakah of the sect on various topics.1
The rules of Sabbath observance are laid down more at large than
1 In a book of this kind we should expect to find a selection of the Hala-
kah, comprising the things which it was most necessary for laymen to know,
or on which especial stress was laid.
CHAP, vii] SECTARIAN WRITINGS 201
the others; but fundamental rules are given on forbidden kinds
of food ("dietary laws"), uncleanness and purifications, oaths,
judicial and private, judges, witnesses and testimony, vows,
things lost and found, communal charities, dealings with Gen-
tiles, etc.
Among the obligations assumed by those who entered into the
new covenant in the land of Damascus, were, " to set apart the
sacred dues as they are prescribed, and that a man should love
his neighbor as himself, and sustain the poor and needy and the
proselyte, and seek each the welfare of his brother; that no man
transgress the prohibited degrees, but guard against fornication
according to the rule; and that a man should reprove his brother
according to the commandment, and not bear a grudge from one
day to another; and to separate from all kinds of uncleanness
according to their several prescriptions; and that a man should
not defile his holy spirit, even as God separated for them (be-
tween clean and unclean)." The opposite vices are often held up
as the cause of divine wrath and ruin. Wandering in the de-
vices of a sinful imagination and adulterous eyes destroyed great
men, caused the fall of the Watchers of heaven (Gen. 6, 4), and
brought the great flood.
A minute examination of the legal rules in the book in com-
parison with the standard Halakah as it is in the Tannaite
sources proves that, except in relation to the lawfulness of cer-
tain marriages to which we shall return below, the differences
between them, taken singly, are not wider than existed between
great legal lights in the first and second centuries.1 In general
the covenanters are stricter than the later rabbis; but not so
liberal with the death penalty as the Book of Jubilees. Their
affinities are throughout with the Pharisees, not with any other
variety of Judaism.
The two points of striking diversity are, first, that the sect
brands as incest the marriage of a man with his niece (daughter
1 Such an investigation by a most competent authority in the Halakah is
made in Professor Louis Ginzberg's Erne unbekannte jiidische Sekte, 1922.
2O2 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
of his brother or sister), which is not so classed in the biblical law,
and by the rabbinical authorities was regarded as legitimate and
even given a preference; 1 and second, that it condemns bigamy
as adultery. The former of these prohibitions is derived by
analogy from the biblical prohibition of such a union between
aunt and nephew.2 Bigamy was prohibited, according to their
interpretation, by Lev. 18, i8.3 They support this by Gen. i, 27,
'a male and a female created He them/ and 7, 9, 'by pairs they
went into the ark'; also by the law that the prince shall not
multiply wives (have more than one wife at a time), Deut. 17, 17.
This condemnation of polygamy, like that of the marriage of
uncle and niece, is not to be attributed to what are called moral
considerations, but to a peculiar exegesis of the biblical laws in
question. The violence of the language in which those with
whom their interpretation conflicted are assailed shows that the
controversy on these points was most acute.
What is more important than particular differences is that the
whole method, both of the halakic interpretation of the laws and
the midrashic use of the Law and the Prophets, is of the same
kind with which we are familiar in Tannaite literature. And
more important still is the fact that the sect had an authorita-
tive body of Halakah, topically arranged, and formulated with
a precision which reveals experience. From the nature and pur-
pose of the writing before us, which is a warning and exhortation
to the members of the sect, it may be inferred, as has been said,
that only a selection of this Halakah is presented; the Sefer he-
Hago> by which the officials, judges, and priests were to be
guided, was presumably much more extensive — "a sectarian
Mishnah." 4
1 Yebamot62b-63a; Sanhedrm y6b. See Maimonides, Issure Bi'ah 2, 14.
For cases of such marriages among the Tannaim see Ginzberg, Erne un-
bekannte judische Sekte, p. 182 n. 2.
2 Lev. 1 8, 12.
* "Thou shalt not take one wife to another ... in her (the first wife's) life-
time." On the reasoning in this interpretation see Ginzberg, op. cit., pp.
24 ff., and on the whole question, pp. 181 ff. The inference that they
allowed no divorce is erroneous. 4 Ibid., pp. 70 f.
CHAP, vii] SECTARIAN WRITINGS 203
A further fact of no little significance is that this organized
Halakah was committed to writing not only in a book for the
use of the authorities of the community,, but in part at least for
the people at large. Nor is there any reason to think that this
was a sectarian innovation.
Professor Ginzberg has shown that the affinity of the legal ele-
ment of the document to the Halakah of the Pharisees extends
also to its theological position, which is in the main in accord
with their teachings, with differences chiefly attributable to
sectarian narrowness.1
The book has certain resemblances to the Book of Jubilees
and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The former is
cited by its title, The Book of the Divisions of the Times ac-
cording to the Jubilee Periods and their Weeks. The "three
nets cf Belial of which Levi the son of Jacob spoke, with which
he (Belial) caught Israel" is generally thought to be a reference
to the Testament of Levi, though the quotation is not found in
the Testament as we have it. It is quite possible, however, that
some other moralizings of Levi are cited. Whether the resem-
blances signify anything more than proximity in time and en-
vironment— whether, in other words, there is a literary de-
pendence of one on another — is not certain. The citation of
Jubilees is apparently to say that an exact explanation of the
world-periods is to be found in that work, presumably in refer-
ence to a computation of the end; but this is apropos of nothing
in the context, and is not further developed.2 It is possible, but
not self-evident, that when God "revealed to them the secrets
wherein all Israel went astray, his holy sabbaths and his glorious
festivals, and his righteous testimonies, and his true way, and the
pleasure of his will — things which if a man do he shall live by
them," the repristinated calendar of Jubilees is included; but
the author at least shows no zeal about it.
1 Erne unbekannte judische Sekte, p. 299.
2 Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 134, suspects an unintelligent gloss to the preced-
ing words.
204 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
The age of the migration to Damascus and the organization
of the seceding community there is a point in dispute. Several
of the early investigators thought of the hellenizing high priests
and the vengeance inflicted by "the head of the Greek kings,"
which is the last event in the national history that seems to be
clearly alluded to. Eduard Meyer has more recently argued
strongly for a date about 170 B.C.,1 laying some stress on the fact
that there is no sign in the book of the desecration of the temple
and the Maccabaean wars, nor of the Book of Daniel. Since he
thinks that the author knew the Testaments and made much use
of Jubilees, he accordingly puts both these writings back into
the third century. Ginzberg, on the other hand, dates the origin
of the movement under Alexander Jannaeus, during whose con-
flicts with the Pharisees its adherents sought refuge in the region
of Damascus, where they developed into an intransigent sect
which would have nothing to do with the moderate Pharisees in
Judaea. Jubilees and the Testaments (in their original form)
are now put by most critics shortly before the breach between
the Asmonaeans and the Pharisees.
The stage of halakic development attested in our document
is a consideration of some weight in favor of the later date of
which due account must be made.
The Apocalypses — Enoch, the Syriac Baruch, Fourth Esdras,
and minor works of the class — will be discussed in Part VII.
1 'Die Gemeinde des Neuen Bundes im Lande Damaskus, eine judischc
Schrift aus der Seleucidenzeit.' Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1919.
CHAPTER VIII
HISTORICAL SOURCES
IT remains here briefly to enumerate works on Jewish history
in biblical times and later, or on the religion of the Jews.
For the history of the Maccabaean rising and the achiev-
ment of autonomy down to the death of Simon and the acces-
sion of John Hyrcanus (135 B.C.), a period of about forty
years, the First Book of Maccabees is the primary source.1 The
book, which is extant only in Greek and translations from the
Greek, was written in Hebrew after Old Testament models. The
author was a Palestinian Jew, a partisan of the Asmonaeans who
had come to the rescue of their imperilled religion and delivered
their people from the dominion of the heathen, and he tells the
story accordingly. It is told in a straightforward way, with fre-
quent dates of the Seleucid era, and makes the impression of be-
ing the work of a well-informed man who stood near the events
and the actors in the history he narrates. It may be probably
dated in the last quarter of the second century before our era.
Loyalty to their God and the institutions of their people was
the mainspring of the revolt. The author's heroes and their fol-
lowers were zealous for the observance and enforcement of the
laws prohibiting worship of other gods and all idolatry, and
those prescribing circumcision and the sabbath and the sabbatical
year; they execute ruthlessly the stern Deuteronomic law on the
apostates. They manifest throughout a firm confidence in the
power and purpose of God and in his will to deliver those who
put their trust in him, and they fortify their faith by biblical ex-
amples from the ancient history down to the stories in the Book
1 Many scholars since Whiston think that chapters 14-16 (or 14, 15-16,
23) are an addition to the original work, unknown to Josephus; but in view
of Josephus' habits of compilation the inference is unsafe.
206 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
of Daniel; but this faith is in a God who helps those that help
themselves. There is no expectation of miraculous intervention
as distinguished from providential support, and no hint of any-
thing resembling miracle. Nor is there any trace of the religious
pragmatism that is so strongly impressed on Kings and Chron-
icles. There is no appeal to prophecies of deliverance and the
future greatness and glory of the Jewish people. In contrast to
2 Maccabees, there is no suggestion of a life beyond death. For
God, the author regularly says Heaven, or employs a pronoun
the reference of which is self-evident.
Second Maccabees is an abridgment of a larger work in five
books by an otherwise unknown Jason of Cyrene, written in a
turgid rhetorical Greek. Prefixed to the book are two letters
(i, 1-2, 1 8) from Jerusalem Jews to their brethren in Egypt,
which may be left out of consideration here. The epitomator's
preface occupies 2, 19-32; with 3, I, the history begins.
The period covered is much shorter than that in i Maccabees,
ending with the victory of Judas over Nicanor in 161, at the cul-
minating moment of Judas's career. On the other hand the
events which led up to the revolt, the intrigues and bribery by
which Jason and Menelaus got themselves into the high priest-
hood, about which i Maccabees has not a word,1 are narrated at
some length, glossing nothing of the scandal.
In striking contrast to First Maccabees, the second book, not
only freely employs the common Old Testament names and
tides of God, but abounds in descriptive epithets and phrases,
some of which come from the Old Testament, others occur only
in the later Jewish literature, or seem to be original with the
author. God is the Most High, whose abode is in heaven; he is
the Almighty, the King of Kings, the Creator of the World, the
Great Lord of the World, the Master of Life and the Spirit, the
1 i Mace, makes the movement for Hellemzation proceed from some
Jewish "sons of Belial," but names no names. Perhaps regard for the honor
of his people may have stayed his hand rather than particular reverence for
the priesthood.
CHAP, viii] HISTORICAL SOURCES 207
All-Seeing One, the Just Judge, the Merciful God, the Lord of
Spirits (3, 24). Angelic apparitions and miraculous interven-
tions are frequent. The most striking instance is the physical
intervention of the splendid horseman and his two satellites who
defeat Heliodorus' purpose to seize the temple treasure; others
are the apparition of the mounted angel in white garments with
golden weapons who leads Judas and his army in the battle with
Lysias (n, 8, 10), and the five celestial horsemen who put them-
selves at the head of the Jews in 10, 29. The theological prag-
matism ot the history is well-defined in 5, 17 ff.: The Lord for a
short while was angry with the city because of the sins of its in-
habitants, and for this cause permitted Antiochus to work his
will upon it; after the Mighty Ruler was reconciled, it was ex-
alted again with glory.1
Moralizing reflections, grounded on this doctrine, are com-
mon, as for example, 4, 16 ff.2 In individual cases the author is
fond of pointing out how the divine retribution overtakes sinners
in kind.3 These edifying comments on the ways of God give oc-
casion to exhibit a rhetorical pathos which smacks of the Greek
schools rather than of the Old Testament precedents; examples
of this pathos in different associations are also found, e. g., 4, 47;
3, 15-21, etc.
The confident belief in a restoration of life after death is the
sustaining hope of the martyrs in chap. 7, in the form of a resto-
ration of the tortured and mutilated bodies of the victims; see
also 14, 45 f. For Antiochus and such as he there is no resurrec-
tion to life.4 Judas offers prayers and has expiatory sacrifices
offered in the temple for some of his men who were killed in
battle and were found to be wearing heathen amulets under their
shirts; and the author adds that herein he did well, having re-
gard to the resurrection: "For had he not expected that those
who had fallen would rise from the dead, it would have been idle
1 See also 6, 12-17. * See further 5, 6, 17 ff.; 6, 12 f.; 12, 43.
3 See 9, 5-10; 13, 4-8, etc.
4 7, 17 might seem to imply a conscious existence for the tyrant after
death, but perhaps should not be pressed so hard.
208 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
and foolish to pray for dead men; and he reflected further that
for those who sleep in piety the fairest reward is laid up — a holy
and pious thought. Therefore he made this expiation for the
dead, that they might be relieved from their sin " (12, 38-45).
Jason plainly wrote at a distance from the scene of the strug-
gle he relates, but it cannot safely be inferred from the miracu-
lous element in the story that it was composed long after the
events. In a favorable environment the growth of legend may
begin with the earliest reports of what happened. How long a
time elapsed between Jason and the epitomator can only be con-
jectured. For our purpose it is enough that the book as we have
it probably comes from the first century before our era.
It is very instructive that 2 Maccabees, and the woik of Jason
of Cyrene which it epitomizes, though coming from Grecian
Jewry, has a closer resemblance to popular Palestinian Judaism
than appears in First Maccabees, which was written in Palestine
and in Hebrew. Especially noteworthy is the prominence of the
life after death as a bodily life,1 and the denial of such a here-
after to the tyrant. The difference between this and the Hellen-
istic conception in the Wisdom of Solomon, and especially from
the use of the same martyr stories in Fourth Maccabees, on the
one hand, and the complete Pharisaean doctrine on the other,
is evident.
For the history of the war of 66 to 72 and its immediate ante-
cedents Josephus writes as an eye-witness and participant in the
events he narrates, or of things at least within his memory.2 He
begins, however, much farther back, with the taking of Jerusa-
lem by Antiochus Epiphanes and the desecration of the temple
in 168 B.C., and for a period of more than two centuries he was
evidently dependent on preceding historians. First Maccabees
is the only recognizable Jewish source,3 and Josephus seems
1 Apparently entered on by the martyrs at once, not (as in Daniel) at the
great assize.
2 Titus Flavius Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 13, I ff> Vita.
3 Bell. Jud i. i, 1-1. 2, 4.
CHAP, vin] HISTORICAL SOURCES 209
not to have used this directly but to have taken the very sum-
mary account of the struggle as he found it in the comprehensive
historical work which he made his principal authority.1
The treatment of Herod's reign points to a Greek historian
who was not only well informed about the events of the reign
but had the knowledge which enabled him to correlate them with
the political history of the times. The general opinion of critics
identifies this historian with Nicolaus of Damascus, in whom
these conditions are completely fulfilled. Nicolaus lived for
many years at the court and in the confidence of Herod, and
was repeatedly employed by the king in public affairs; he was
the author of a universal history, in the writing of which he was
encouraged by Herod. Whether Josephus, in the War, drew di-
rectly on the work of Nicolaus,2 or through an intermediate
source,3 is not essential to our inquiry. In either case Josephus
has evidently abridged his source for his own purpose.
It is a fair presumption that he used the same source for the
preceding period, from the Maccabaean rising on, and this is
confirmed by internal evidence of the unity of the narrative and
its consistent point of view, which is that of an outsider not at
all prepossessed in favor of the Jews, and particularly not of the
Pharisees.4 The famous passage in the second book of the Jewish
War,5 in which the three Jewish philosophies are classified by
their attitude to the problem of fate (et/iap/x^), is most prob-
ably ultimately from the same non-Jewish source.6
The problem of the sources in the corresponding part of the
Antiquities is more complicated.7 The later work not infre-
quently differs materially from the earlier, and it is evident that
Josephus employed other sources, in particular a Jewish author
1 Compare the ampler narrative in Antt. xii. 5-xiii, 7.
2 So most recently Holscher, in the article 'Josephus' in the Real-Encyclo-
padie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX (1916), col. 1943 ff.
3 W Otto, art. 'Herodes,' ibid., Supplement, II, i ff. (to vol. VIII).
4 See above, pp. 64-66. 6 Bell Jud. vin 8, cf. Antt. xin. 5, 9.
6 The long description of the Essenes is a question for itself.
7 Beginning with xii. 5. The War was written between the years 75 and
79; the Antiquities was finished in 93-94.
2IO SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
(or authors) strongly hostile to Herod. In the history of the
Asmonaeans there is a Jewish strand which sympathizes with
the nobles who supported Alexander Jannaeus, and does not like
the Pharisees much better than did Nicolaus. In consequence of
Josephus' easy-going way in the compilation of his work, there
are many inconsistencies which he either made no attempt to
harmonize or an ineffective one.
For the religion of his times Josephus is a somewhat disap-
pointing source. As he tells us in his autobiography, he experi-
mented with all three of the sects, and with a solitary in the
desert besides, and finally addicted himself to the Pharisees. He
professes also, before this perambulation, and while still very
young, to have acquired an extraordinary reputation for legal
learning. And he was a member of one of the great priestly
families. It would not be unreasonable to expect to learn of him
much about the religion of his times, especially in the Antiquities
where he takes us over the Old Testament history and describes
the Mosaic legislation.1 It is true that he writes to display to
Gentile readers the antiquity and excellence of the Jewish people
and its institutions, and is naturally guided by this intention;2
yet it is a striking fact that, if we were dependent on the works of
Josephus alone, we should know very little about the religion of
his contemporaries. In illustration it may be noted that of so
important an institution as the synagogue there is no mention;
the word itself occurs, if I am not in error, only of a building in
Antioch in which was deposited by later Syrian kings some of
the plunder of the temple carried off by Antiochus IV.8
It may, I think, be fairly inferred that Josephus, like most of
the aristocratic priesthood to which he belonged, had little in-
terest in religion for its own sake, and that his natural antipathy
to all excess of zeal was deepened by the catastrophe which
religious fanatics had brought upon his people.
1 Whether the paraphrase of the laws is Josephus' own, or was taken with
much else from some Alexandrian predecessor, does not affect the point.
2 Cf. Contra Apionem n, 16 ff., especially §§ 164 ff.
8 Bell. Jud. vii. 3, 3.
CHAP, vin] HISTORICAL SOURCES 211
With Philo the case is quite the reverse; his dominant in-
terest is in Judaism as a religion. He was of a family of high
standing in Alexandria. A brother of Philo had filled an im-
portant post in the excise; his son, Philo's nephew, Tiberius
Alexander, who abandoned the religion of his fathers, rose in the
Roman service to be procurator of Judaea under Claudius, and
was made Governor of Egypt by Nero, where he sternly re-
pressed a tumult of the Jews on the eve of the rebellion in Pales-
tine. During the siege of Jerusalem he was on the staff of Titus
as praefectus castrorum. Philo himself was the head of the dele-
gation of Alexandrian Jews to protest to the emperor Caligula
against the wrongs they suffered under the administration of
Flaccus.1 Such diversion from his philosophical pursuits into
political affairs, however necessary, was regretted as a grave mis-
fortune; he thanks God that he was not wholly submerged in
them.2
Philo had had a broad and thorough education according to
the encyclical scheme of studies followed in the Greek schools,
embracing Grammar (including History and Literature), Arith-
metic, Geometry, Astronomy, Music, and Rhetoric.3 With this
preparation he went on to the study of philosophy in its three
branches, Physics, Ethics, and Logic,4 and attained an extensive
rather than profound acquaintance with Greek philosophical
learning. Like most of his contemporaries, and probably like
his teachers, he was an eclectic, taking good things where he
found them, so that the result is a congeries of opinions, not a
close-knit system. If we had to give his own philosophy a name,
we should label it a Stoicizing Platonism with a penchant for
Pythagorean number-jugglery. But we should have to add that
1 This visit to Rome in the year 40 is the one fixed date in his life. He
has given his own account of it in the Legatio ad Gaium.
2 De spec, legibus in. i (ed. Mangey II, 299 f.).
8 On the necessity of these preparatory disciplines (propaedeutic) he re-
peatedly insists; see De Cherubim c. 30 (Mangey I, 157 f.); De agricultura
Noe cc. 3-4 (Mangey I, 302 f.); De congressu, cc. 3, 4, 14, 25, 26 (Mangey I,
520 f., 529 f., 539-541).
4 The Stoic division. De agricultura, 1. c.
212 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
adaptability to Jewish theology enters as a factor of choice into
his personal eclecticism.
Of his Jewish education he tells us nothing. Yet, apart from
his frequent references to the interpretations of others, it is con-
stantly evident that he has at his command a wealth of such ma-
terial accumulated by his predecessors or contemporaries. How
much of this he acquired from the discourses in the synagogues
of which he speaks in laudatory terms, how much he may have
got from earlier writers on similar subjects, there is no means of
knowing; but in either case the most natural supposition is that
the discourses or the writings came out of the study of the Scrip-
tures in Alexandrian schools of the Law, and that Philo himself
had been a student, and was perhaps a teacher, in such a school.
Philo set himself to prove that between sound philosophy and
revealed religion there is complete accord — they are two ways
of expressing the one divine truth. With his philosophical the-
ology and the methods by which he discovers and verifies it we
are not here concerned. Neither his conception of a transcendent
God, nor the secondary god, the Logos, by which he bridges the
gulf he has created between pure Being and the phenomenal
world, and between God so conceived and man, had any effect
on the theology of Palestinian Judaism. His summary of the
biblical doctrine of God as he derives it from the first chapter of
Genesis in five propositions, the Existence of God, the Unity of
God, the Creation of the World, the Unity of the World, the
Providence of God,1 is framed in explicit antithesis to as many
false doctrines of Greek philosophical schools.2 The articles
themselves are the belief of all Jews; Palestinian Judaism had
to combat some of the same errors in popular form, but never
felt the need of such a formulation of the items of true doctrine.
We may therefore pass over Philo's philosophy of religion,
which he no doubt valued most highly of all his work. His im-
portance for an inquiry such as ours lies in the fact that he was
1 De opificio mundi c. 61 (ed. Mangey I, 41).
2 Skeptics, Peripatetics, Stoics, Epicureans.
CHAP, viii] HISTORICAL SOURCES 213
the first to undertake a complete exposition of Judaism from
the point of view of a man who had abundant observation of
other religions and a wide acquaintance with the religious and
ethical aspects of contemporary philosophy. That he employs
the comparative method which thus imposed itself in the full
conviction of the intrinsic excellence and the immeasurable su-
periority of Judaism, and exhibits it in its self-evidence to Jews
and Greeks, does not diminish the value of his work.
This series of writings is introduced by the Life of Moses, the
lawgiver; followed by the treatise on the Decalogue, subsuming
under each of the Ten Commandments the positive and negative
obligations expressed or implied in it in a fashion similar to
Christian catechisms in later times. Then, in a corresponding
distribution, he takes up in detail the specific laws in the Penta-
teuch in four books;1 supplemented by a book on the Virtues
in which (as in the last chapters of Book iv, De iustitid) he groups
precepts which could not so well be brought under any one of the
Ten Commandments. This book seems not to have reached us
complete; a lost section on Piety (efar^Seia) once preceded that
on Philanthropy.2 The remaining subtitles are De fortitudine,
De humanitatey De nobilitate? To this again is appended a book
on Rewards and Punishments, closing with the comminations
in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28 (De exsecrationibus).
In the treatment of the moral precepts of the Law, and espe-
cially in the book on the Virtues, the influence of Greek, particu-
larly Stoic, ethics is obvious. On the other hand, the allegorical
interpretation so prominent in the other works of Philo plays
here a relatively insignificant part.
The method is unlike either that of the Tannaite Midrash or
of the organized Halakah in the Mishnah. One striking differ-
1 De specialibus legibus, i-iv (ed. Mangey II, 210-374). The parts of
these books have in the manuscripts and editions separate titles taken from
the subjects treated in them, by which they are frequently cited.
2 The two great commandments. See De humanitate c. i § 51 (ed. Man-
gey I, 383). See Cohn-Wendland, V, pp. xxvi f., and p. 266.
8 irepi avdpeLas, irepi <t>i\av6pu7rlas, irepi evyevelas.
214 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
ence is that Philo does not rest the obligation of conformity to
the law on the authority of revelation, but endeavors to find a
rational and moral excellence in the individual prescriptions
which commends them to intelligence and conscience. Another
is that he makes no place for tradition beside exegesis, nor for
the enactments or the precautionary rules of the Scribes — the
oral law. The unwritten law is for him the Stoic law of nature.1
In particulars he is often in agreement with Tannaite Halakah,
often at variance with it.2 No small part of these differences are
attributable to the fact that Philo operated exclusively with the
Greek translation of the Pentateuch.
In what relation the Alexandrian Jews stood to the Palestinian
schools in his day and before it, is not known. Nor would it be
safe to infer, as is sometimes done, that Philo is a representative
of Alexandrian Jewry as a whole. It is probable that there was
a more or less steady and considerable influx of Jews from Pales-
tine, and there may have been as wide differences between the
newcomers and those whose ancestors had been in Egypt for
generations as we see under similar circumstances in modern
cities.
Philo's digest of the laws had no discoverable influence on the
rabbinical law; but it is of great interest in itself, and frequently
offers instructive parallels.
1 Another noteworthy feature of Philo's exposition is that he so seldom
looks outside the Pentateuch, even for illustration. The abundance of
apposite citation from the Prophets and the Psalms in the Tannaite Midrash
has no counterpart in Philo, even when the quotation would seem almost to
force itself on the attention.
2 See B. Ritter, Philo und die Halacha, and the notes to the "Einzel-
gesetze " in the German translation edited by L. Cohn, Die Werke Philos von
Alexandria, II (1910).
CHAP, vin] HISTORICAL SOURCES 215
AlDS TO THE USE OF THE SOURCES l
I. Rabbinical Sources:
J. Winter und Aug. Wiinsche, Geschichte der jiidisch-helleni-
stischen und talmudischen Litteratur. Vol. I. 1894. Pp. 696.
A description of the various sources with selected extracts from
each in translation, whence the sub-title, "Eine Anthologie fiir
Schule und Haus." "Litteraturnachweise," pp. 692-696.
W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten.2 2 vols. I, Von Hillel
bis Akiba. Von 30 vor bis 135 nach der gew. Zeitrechnung.
1884, 2 ed. 1903. II, Von Akiba's Tod bis zum Abschluss der
Mischna. (135 bis 220 nach der gew. Zeitrechnung.) 1890.
In chronological order, with brief biographical notices. The
teachings of the several masters are arranged under appropriate
topics, with notes on the text, the attribution, parallels, etc.,
making a critical and exegetical commentary of the highest value
to the student. The author reserved the anonymous Haggadah
for separate treatment; but the carrying out of the plan was
prevented by his death. Indexes of the Tannaim and of the
Amoraim quoted are given in each volume, and a subject index
to both at the end of vol. II — the latter, unfortunately, in a
very inconvenient form. The student who actually works his
way through these two volumes will acquire a knowledge of the
authentic religious and moral teaching of the period which he
could get in no other way.
W. Bacher, Die Agada der palastinensischen Amoraer. 3 vols.
1892-1899. The first volume, from the close of the Mishnah to
the death of R. Johanan (279 A.D.), includes the great homilists
of the third century.
H. Strack und P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testa-
ment aus Talmud und Midrasch. I (1922), Das Evangelium
nach Matthaus. Pp. 1055; II (1924), Das Evangelium nach
Markus, Lukas und Johannes, und die Apostelgeschichte. Pp.
867; III (1926), Die Briefe des Neuen Testaments und die Offen-
barung Johannis. Pp. 857. Volume IV, containing excursuses, de-
tached notes, and indexes, is to follow. An immense collection
of parallels and illustrations from all parts of the rabbinical liter-
ature, in trustworthy translation, with the necessary introduc-
1 Those which are of use only to the advanced scholar are not included.
2 "Agada" (Haggadah) includes all teaching that is not legal in character.
216 SOURCES [INTRODUCTION
tions and explanations. The itemized index of subjects in Vol.
II, which will be followed by fuller indexes in vol. IV, makes it
possible to use the volumes not only as a commentary on New
Testament passages in their relation to Judaism but as a con-
spectus of Jewish teaching on various topics.
2. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha:
R. H. Charles, editor. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical
and explanatory notes to the several books. In conjunction with
many scholars. 2 vols. 4° 1913. (I Apocrypha, II Pseudepigra-
pha.) The most comprehensive undertaking of the kind, and
the only one in English. On some of the books, as on Tobit and
Sirach, the critical notes on the text are very full. The compre-
hensive index at the end of the second volume is worthy of
especial notice.
E. Kautzsch, editor. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen
des Alten Testaments. With the cooperation of numerous
scholars. 2 vols. 1900. A similar enterprise in German; less in-
clusive, on a smaller scale, and in less luxurious form.
Translations of particular books and commentaries on them
are mentioned in connection with the books.
On the Apocrypha as a whole the commentary of Fritzsche
and Grimm has not been superseded: Kurzgefasstes exegetisches
Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes, 1851-
1860.
The only critical edition of the Greek text of the Apocrypha,
with apparatus is 0. F. Fritzsche, Libri apocryphi Veteris Testa-
men ti graece. iSyi.1
It is not superfluous to note that Swete's Old Testament in
Greek is not such an edition, and was not intended to be. It
gives accurately the text of the Vatican codex 1209 (B), with the
variants of certain other uncial manuscripts, and this text and
apparatus is, especially in some of the Apocrypha, altogether in-
adequate.
1 It includes the Psalms of Solomon, the Latin of 4 Esdras, a Latin trans-
lation of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Assumption of Moses
With an index of names, and of Greek words.
PARTI
REVEALED RELIGION
CHAPTER I
NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY
To understand what Judaism was at the beginning of the Chris-
tian era it is necessary to bear in mind the twofold character of
nationality and universality which had been inseparably im-
pressed upon it by its history.1 It had been a national religion:
Jehovah is the god of Israel; Israel is the people of Jehovah.2
The propositions are correlatively exclusive. However wide the
power of Jehovah over the nations of the world, he has no nation
of his own but Israel; and whatever power may be attributed
to the gods of other nations, the nation of Israel has no god but
Jehovah.
This is the corner stone of the religion of Israel both in the
popular apprehension and in the explicit affirmation of the re-
ligious leaders in all periods. The wars of the Israelites with the
Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine or with the neighboring
peoples are the wars of their god; the continually reiterated
charge in the prophets and the laws is that the Israelites, leaving
the worship of their own god, worship foreign gods, or other
gods.3
1 To express these aspects of religion the words ' particularism ' and ' uni-
versalism' are often used. Inasmuch as in this contrast 'particularism' fre-
quently implies a depreciatory judgment, while these 'ism* words of them-
selves suggest a conflict of theory or principle, this terminology should be
eschewed by historians. On the twofold character of the religion, see Schiirer,
Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, jd ed. Ill, 114,
and the literature there cited.
* On the history of the pronunciation 'Jehovah,' which has been estab-
lished in the languages of Western Europe since the sixteenth century, see
Note 1.
1 See, e.g. Judges ch. 5; i Sam. 17, 45; 25, 28 (cf. Num. 21, 14); 2 Sam.
7, 24; Hos. 2, 25 (23); Jer. 7, 23; 11, 4; Amos 3, 2; Lev. 26, 12; Deut. 26,
17-19; Exod. 20, 2 f.; 34, 14. Jehovah is a 'jealous god,' Exod. 20, 5; 34, 14;
Deut. 4, 24; 5,9; 6,15.
220 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
The common man in ancient times doubtless regarded the
relation between Israel and its god as a matter of course: it was
natural that every nation should have a national god, and though
it was part of his religious patriotism to believe that the god of
Israel was greater, that is, more powerful, and better to his
people, than the gods of the neighboring peoples, the relation
between Jehovah and Israel was in his mind not different in
nature from that of Chemosh and Moab.1 The religious leaders,
on the contrary, at least from the eighth century, taught that
the relation between Jehovah and Israel was peculiar in that it
was constituted by his choice, and rested on a compact the terms
of which he had prescribed and Israel had accepted.2 The elec-
tion by which Israel alone of all the nations of the earth was
made the people of Jehovah is Israel's glorious prerogative; but
it also imposes peculiar and heavy obligations.
As a national religion the religion of Israel has certain features
which should not be overlooked. The national god was not the
head of a national pantheon, like Assur in Assyria or the Egypt-
ian Amon-Ra in the Theban empire; nor is his position similar
to that of the chief city-gods of the Phoenicians and Syrians, nor
those of the Greeks and Romans, like Athena in Athens or Jupi-
ter in Rome. An organized polytheism of this kind never existed
in Israel. Apart from any exclusiveness supposed to be inherent
in the religion itself or in the minds of the people, the conditions
which usually create such polytheisms were absent. Jehovah
was the god of a group or confederacy of tribes which invaded
and eventually conquered Palestine. The gods of the petty city-
states into which the country was divided were not incorporated
in the pantheon of the conquerors. They had apparently little
individuality, they were just the bads (divine proprietors) of
1 See Judges 1 1, 23 f ; 2 Kings 3, 4 ff. For the counterpart of this attitude
see the inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, G. A. Cooke, Text-book of North-
Semitic Inscriptions (1903), pp. 1-14; or Encyclopaedia Biblica, III, cols.
3040-3048.
2 Amos 3, 2; Hosea; especially Deut. 7, 6-n; 9, 9ff.; 10, 12 ff.; 14, 2,
26, 18 f.; see also 4, 37 ff.; 5, 2 ff.; 29, 9 ff.; Exod. 19, 5 f.; 24, 3-8.
CHAP, i] NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY 221
this or that place. They were the protectors of the communities
that worshipped them, and in that capacity they succumbed to
the god of the invaders; they were also the givers of the in-
crease of the land, and in this character, the Israelites, as they
passed over to husbandry, learned from the older inhabitants
with the art of agriculture the rites of the baal cultus.
With completer occupation, the god of Israel became the god
of the land of Israel; the ancient 'high places ' were appropriated
by him with the agricultural festivals. The baals were thus ab-
sorbed by Jehovah, not given a place beside or beneath him, as
the clan gods of the Israelite tribes had probably already been
absorbed.1 In the eyes of many, the Canaanite cultus, in what-
ever name it was celebrated, was heathenism and idolatry;
Hosea stigmatizes it as like the unfaithfulness of a wife who
abandons her husband to play the harlot with other lovers. The
exclusiveness of the relation between the national god and his
people could not find a more drastic figure; and long after the
Canaanite population had been absorbed in Israel by inter-
marriage, as their gods had been absorbed by Jehovah, the wor-
ship of the baals remained the typical apostasy.
When the kingdom of Israel entered into political alliance with
Phoenicia and the alliance was cemented by the marriage of
Ahab with a Tyrian princess, the worship of the Baal of Tyre
(Melkart) was introduced in the capital, with no more thought
of supplanting the national god than Ethbaal would have had
if in reciprocity he had built a temple of Jehovah in Tyre. But
Elijah was of another mind. No foreign god should be worshipped
in Israel; there can be no divided religious allegiance — Jehovah
or Baal ! The zealots for Jehovah wrought the ruin of the dynasty
of Omri; the principle of exclusiveness triumphed.
In the seventh century foreign gods and cults flourished
rankly in Judah. Manasseh earned for himself a particularly
1 Functional deities other than agricultural do not seem to have been much
developed among the Canaanites; but whatever they were, their functions
also were taken over by the national god. The goddess of fertility or mater-
nity alone seems to have kept her place in the household.
222 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
bad name by the introduction of such religions from far and
wide. Under Josiah the party loyal to Jehovah had their day,
and the reforms of his eighteenth year swept away the gods
whom Manasseh had installed in the temple of Jehovah itself,
the altars of the Queen of Heaven and the horses of the Sun,
as well as the Tophet in the Valley of Hinnom just outside
the city, where children were offered by fire to the divine King
(Moloch). When the final catastrophe of Judah came, the
prophets bade their stricken countrymen see in it the vengeance
of their own god for the sins of Manasseh and his generation:
Jehovah was a jealous god, who would share the worship of
Israel with no other; the proof of this doctrine, enounced long
ago, had overtaken them. If there were those at the moment
who explained the disaster in a contrary way (Jer. 44, 15 ff.), the
prophetic interpretation soon came to be uncontested.
This interpretation had momentous consequences. It was
not the Babylonians in the might of their gods who had tri-
umphed over Judah and its impotent god; it was Jehovah him-
self who had launched Nebuchadnezzar and his hosts against
the doomed city to execute his judgment on religious treason.
Henceforth for all time the principle was established that for
a Jew to worship any other god is apostasy. For centuries this
had been reiterated by the religious leaders in law and prophecy;
the event gave their words a divine authentication.
The recognition of the exclusive right of the national god to
the religious allegiance of the nation and of every member of
it is sometimes described as a 'practical monotheism.' l The
exclusive worship of one god, whether by the choice of individu-
als or by the law of a national religion, is not monotheism at all
in the proper and usual meaning of the word, namely, the theory,
doctrine, or belief, that there is but one God. This is the only
sense in which the term has hitherto been used of Judaism,
1 It has also been named ' monolatry,' in the sense of the worship of one
god only. Others call it 'heno theism,' a term already appropriated to a
wholly different phenomenon.
CHAP, i] NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY 223
Christianity, and Mohammedanism; and since the word is
needed to describe this type of religion, it is inexpedient to de-
flect it to another sense, even with a contradictory qualification.
This is not a mere contention about words. In Israel monothe-
ism in the proper sense was not the outcome of the exclusive
principle; it was reached by a different way, and as soon as its
implications were recognized they were found to collide with
the exclusiveness of the reciprocal relation between God and
Israel in the national religion.
Another feature of the religion of Israel which distinguishes
it from those of other peoples of the time is its antipathy not
only to images but to aniconic representatives of the deity, the
pillars and posts at the places of worship.1 The opposition to
these things was at first because they belonged to other religions,
Canaanite or foreign; but the religious leaders advanced to the
higher ground that Jehovah is invisible, and therefore cannot
be represented in any visible likeness, of man or beast, in earth
or sky or sea, or by the host of heaven on high (Deut. 4, 12-ig).2
The narrative of Josiah's iconoclastic reforms (2 Kings 23) pic-
tures a very different reality. But here again the fall of Judah,
in the prophetic interpretation, set the stamp of Jehovah's ab-
horrence on idolatry in every form.
The principle that God cannot be seen in any natural object
nor imaged by man's hands in any likeness is frequently called
a doctrine of the 'spirituality' of God. If 'spirit' were taken
in the biblical sense, there would be no other objection to the
phrase than its abstractness; but in modern use spirit is the
contrary of matter, and 'spiritual' equivalent to 'immaterial/
In this sense the spirituality of God is a philosophical theory
derived from the Greeks, not a doctrine of Judaism in biblical
times or thereafter, any more than Jewish monotheism is a
doctrine of the unity of God in the metaphysical sense. Philo
1 See Encyclopaedia Biblica, 'Idol, Idolatry/ 'High Place,' 'Massebah,'
'Asherah.'
2 See Encyclopaedia Biblica, II, cols. 2157 f.
REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
has both conceptions from Plato, and reads them into the Bible
with the rest of his philosophy; but he did not get them from
the Bible nor from Judaism at all.
The fall of the kingdom of Judah; the deportation of con-
siderable bodies of its people, especially of the upper classes, to
Babylonia, where they were settled in colonies; the flight of
others during and after the wars to the neighboring countries
or to Egypt, was the beginning of a dispersion which grew more
extensive in the following centuries and reached great propor-
tions under Alexander and the Macedonian kings. But however
widely the Jews were scattered, they felt themselves members
of the Jewish nation. Even as a subprefecture of a Persian
province or in similar subordination in the empire of Ptolemies
or Seleucids, Judaea, within its narrow limits, had an acknow-
ledged political existence of a kind, and even after generations
in other lands the Jews still looked to it as their native country;
the national spirit survived the collapse of the national state.
There were hopes, often disappointed but permanently inex-
tinguishable, of the revival of national autonomy, and even
dreams of the recovery of vanished power and glory.
The temple had been rebuilt early in the Persian period (520-
516 B.C.) and the worship of the national god reestablished in
its ancient seat. But the national religion was no longer as it had
been in the days of the kingdom the religion of a people occupy-
ing its own land, where men were born and brought up in the
ways of their fathers without reflection or choice of their own.
Now the great majority of the Jews lived in foreign countries,
in daily contact with men of different races, customs, and re-
ligions. In such an environment, as the history of emigration and
colonization in modern times teaches us, fidelity to the religion
of their ancestors, was a matter of individual determination; and
these external conditions concurred with the turn to individual-
ism which the religion itself had received from Jeremiah and
Ezekiel to give it a somewhat different character. The older
ideas of national solidarity were supplemented and to some
CHAP, i] NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY 225
extent superseded by personal responsibility. We shall have
occasion to revert to the consequences of this change at a later
stage in our investigation.
The national feeling of the Jews throughout the world was
greatly exalted by the achievement of Judaean independence and
the reestablishment under the Asmonaeans of a national state,
with boundaries extended to the frontiers of Solomon's empire;
and whatever might be thought about Herod, it could not be
questioned that he made the kingdom of Judaea one of the most
conspicuous powers in the Nearer East. Moreover, the friendly
relations of the Asmonaeans and of Herod with Rome secured
for the Jews throughout the sphere of Roman dominion or influ-
ence extraordinary privileges and exemptions, which in the
main they retained through the following period.1
Great numbers of Jews at the beginning of our era were de-
scendants of families which had been settled in other and often
remote countries as long as the present-day descendants of the
English colonists in America; they spoke another language and
had appropriated more or less of alien culture. To them Judaism
was in reality not so much the religion of the mother-country as
the religion of the Jewish race; it was a national religion not
in a political but in a genealogical sense. But notwithstanding
this distinction — of which they were doubtless unconscious —
the Jews were still in their own belief the only people of God,
and the one God was still in a peculiar sense the god of the Jews.
To them alone he had made himself known, not in nature and
conscience only, but by the word of revelation; to them alone he
had given in the twofold law his will for man's whole life; theirs
were " the adoption (which made them alone sons of God) and
the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the (di-
vinely ordained) worship and the promises" — so Paul sums it
up in Romans 9, 4. The golden age in the future, the goal
toward which all history moved, was, above everything else,
1 Juster, Les Juifs dans Tempire remain, I, 213 ff., 339 ff.
226 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
the fulfilment of Israel's destiny. Nationality was thus an
essential character of Judaism.
For centuries, however, it had been the fundamental dogma of
Judaism that there is but one God, creator and ruler of the
world.1 The most elementary reflection on the implications of
monotheism makes it clear that a universal god's interest in
mankind cannot be confined to a particular nation. The very
elevation of Jehovah to the place of sole God thus seemed to
threaten the foundations of the national religion, the peculiar
and exclusive relation between Jehovah and Israel. The first
consciousness of this antinomy is perhaps expressed in more
emphatic assertions of the arbitrariness of the divine election.2
In particular the existence of the polytheistic religions of the
heathen was a new problem. According to the author of Deut.
4> I9 f-> Jehovah assigned the sun, moon, and stars, the whole
host of heaven, which all antiquity believed to be glorious divine
beings, to the other nations, but took Israel to be a hereditary
nation of his own.3 It is obvious that this solution, which made God
himself the author of polytheism, could not permanently satisfy.
In Deut. 32, 8 f. we read: 'When the Most High gave the
heathen their inheritance, when he divided the children of men,
he established the boundaries of the nations according to the
number of the sons of Israel. For the portion of Jehovah is
Israel; Jacob, his hereditary lot.' For the last words of verse 8
the Septuagint Greek has, 'according to the number of the
angels of God,' rendering ta ^n (literally 'sons of God') in
place of i>*w ^3. Many modern scholars think that the
Septuagint here represents the original reading: 4 there were
1 On the character of Jewish monotheism see pp. 360-362, 401, 432.
2 Deut. 7, 6-1 1 ; 10, 14 ff ; 4, 32-39.
1 Cf. Deut. 29, 24 f : The Israelites ' forsook the covenant of the Lord, the
God of their fathers ... and went and served other gods and worshipped
them, gods that they had not known, and he had not assigned to them.'
4 De Goeje, Stade, Cheyne, and others; most recently, with an original
interpretation of the verse, K. Budde, Das Lied Mose's, Deut. 32, pp. 17 ff.
(Tubingen, 1920).
CHAP, i] NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY 227
as many nations as there were inferior divine, or superhuman,
beings, among whom in the author's age the heavenly bodies
stood in the first rank. The passage would then correspond in
meaning to 4, 19 f.: each nation has among the 'sons of God*
its own national deity. Others connect the phrase, as perhaps
the Greek translators understood it, with the angel champions
(princes) of the nations in Dan. 10, 13, 20, 21; 12, I; Ecclus.
J7> *7 ("For each nation He appointed a prince, and the portion
of the Lord is Israel"); cf- also Isa. 24, 21. The reading of our
Hebrew text, and of all the versions from Aquila on, gives, how-
ever, an entirely acceptable sense: the 'number of the sons of
Israel1 was seventy (Exod. i, 5), and seventy is the number
of nations sprung from the three sons of Noah (Gen. 10), as
the Jews early observed; the seventy nations are a standing
feature of Jewish ethnography.1 The Palestinian Targum on
Deut. 32, 8 combines the seventy nations, corresponding to the
seventy sons of Israel who went down to Egypt, with seventy
angels, princes of the nations, who were distributed to the several
nations by lot at the time of the dispersion of the peoples after
the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel.2
Monotheism is the fundamental dogma of the theologian
among the prophets, in Isaiah 40 ff. : 'I am Jehovah, and there
is none else: beside me there is no God.'3 The negations are as
emphatic and insistent as the affirmations. The author lavishes
his sarcasm on the idols the heathen worship as gods, the work
of men's hands in which is no help.4 The sole God is the creator
1 E. g. Pesikta ed. Buber f. i6a; 48a. There are correspondingly seventy
languages, e.g. Sanhedrm lya, end; Tos. Sotah 8, 6. See below, p. 278.
2 Christian authors (Epiphanius, Augustine, al.) generally count seventy-
two. On the Jewish enumeration see further Note 2.
3 Jsa. 45, 5; see also 43, 10-15; 44, 6, 8; 45, 14, 18; 46, 9; and cf. 41, 4;
42, 8, etc. Observe the pregnant use of ?K (without the article), 'I am God*
(Isa. 43, 12; cf. 40, 18). See also Deut. 4, 35; 32, 39.
4 Isa. 40, 18-20; 41, 6 f.; 45, 20; 46, i f., 5-7; at length, 44, 9-20; cf.
Jer. 10, 1-16. Some of the descriptions of the image-maker's shop may be
from later hands; but they are only variations on a given theme which has
many echoes in Jewish literature.
228 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
of the heavens and the earth; 1 they bear witness alike to his
incomparable wisdom and his almighty power. The stars which
he has made come out when he musters them by number and
name; not one of them fails to respond to his summons.2 His
creative activity did not cease when once the world was made;
the events of the present are created in their day (48, 7). The
destiny of nations is in his hands; he orders the whole course
of history in accordance with his plan.3 He alone can foretell
the future, for he foreordained it and brings it to pass in his
time. The heathen are challenged to produce any such evidence
in behalf of their gods.4 He is the eternal God, ever the same.6
In the same breath with the assertions of the unity and uni-
versality of God, his unique relation to Israel is affirmed with
the utmost emphasis: "I am Jehovah, your Holy One, the
Creator of Israel, your King." The author's monotheism is not
a theological reflection on the nature of God, it is his religious
faith: Israel's god is the only God; the almighty is the saviour
of his people. The antinomy thus takes its extremest form. But
in these chapters a reconciliation is also found.
If there be but one God, there can be only one religion; and
the idea of unity in religion carries with it the idea of universal-
ity. Now, indeed, Israel alone knows and worships this God,
but in his larger purpose it must one day be the religion of all
mankind. Israel is his instrument for the accomplishment of
this end; it is his prophet among the nations. It is his servant
which he has chosen; he has called it to this high mission, has
endowed it with his spirit and given it his message; he sustains
it amid difficulties and discouragements till it shall achieve final
success; it is to be a light to the nations, that God's salvation
may be as wide as the world.6 Isaiah 52, 13-53, 12 seems to be-
1 Isa. 40, 12-17, 26, 28; 44, 24; 45, 12, 18; 48, 13, etc.
2 Isa. 40, 26. Not improbably aimed at Babylonian worship of the heavenly
bodies and astrological divination.
8 Isa. 41, 26; 45, 1-6, etc. fi Isa. 40, 28; 4.1^4; 44. 6; 48, I?, etc.
4 Isa. 41, 21-26; 44, 6-8. 6 Isa. 42, I ff.; 49, I ft. ^^
CHAP, i] NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY 229
long with the passages just cited. Israel is not only the prophet
of the true religion but its martyr, its witness in suffering; it
bears uncomplaining the penalty that others deserved, and when
its day of vindication comes and God greatly exalts it, the nations
which despised it in the time of its humiliation will confess in
amazement that through its sufferings they were saved. It does
not appear, however, that the Jews at the beginning of our era
understood the passage in this way. To be more exact, they did
not interpret the passage as a whole in any way, but only verses
here and there in it in the way of midrash, which gives no war-
rant for extending the interpretation even to the next verses,
much less to the whole.1 The only continuous exposition, the
Targum, refers the sufferings to Israel (deserved punishment,
or trials by which God purposes to refine and purify the rem-
nant 2 of his people and cleanse their souls from sin), while the
triumph, and the deliverance of the people by intercession in
their behalf and by the overthrow of the power of the heathen,
are ascribed to the Messiah.8
The pregnant idea of the mission of Israel found little com-
prehension or response in the centuries that immediately followed;
and it is not clear that when the Jews zealously addressed
themselves to the conversion of the Gentiles in the Greek
period these prophecies in Isaiah were in their mind. The belief
that the true religion must in the end be the universal religion
of itself made Judaism a missionary religion. God had revealed
it to one nation that through them it should be proclaimed to
all the nations; Israel's exclusive possession of it was not the
end, but the means to a greater end. The belief in the future
universality of the worship of the one true God runs like a red
thread through all the later literature, a day when "the Lord
1 See Note 3.
2 Some manuscripts have 'the wicked of his people.'
8 R. Simlai (fl. early third century) applies Isa. 53, 12 to Moses (Sotah
143); R. Jonah (fourth century) to Akiba; others find in it the Men of the
Great Assembly (Jer. Shekalim 48c).
230 REVEALED RELIGION [PARTI
shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall the Lord be
one, and his name one/ l
The forms in which the religion of the golden age to come were
imagined were naturally those of the national religion interna-
tionalized. The temple in Jerusalem should be the religious
centre of the world, to which worshippers from all lands should
stream bringing their sacrifices and precious gifts.2 The Jews
will not lose their prerogative in the universality of religion:
they will be called the priests of the Lord, and the other peoples
will minister to them in temporal things as the Jews are their
ministers in sacred things.3 The way in which the triumph is
to come about is also conceived in national forms; it is by a
stupendous historical catastrophe in which the heathen will be
constrained to recognize the hand of the sovereign of the world
vindicating his own honor in the overthrow of those who would
not acknowledge him and in the deliverance and exaltation of
his people.4
Special encouragement is given in Isaiah 56 to alien converts
who felt themselves excluded by such laws as Deut. 23, 1-8,
from incorporation in the people of God and participation in
the promises of a glorious future made to it. Those who attach
themselves to Jehovah, ministering to him, loving his name,
and becoming his servants, if they keep the sabbaths and hold
fast by his covenant (i.e. the law which is the condition of the
promises), God will bring them to his holy mountain and make
1 Zech. 14, 9. This is one of the fundamental verses for the Jewish con-
ception of the Kingdom of Heaven. See pp. 432-434; II, 346 The pro-
vidential care of God for all mankind and the future recognition of the true
God by all nations are common themes in the Psalms See Bertholet, Die
Stellung der Israeliten und Juden zu den Fremden, pp. 191 f.
2 Zech. 2, 14-17 (E. V. 10-13); Isa. 2, 2-4, etc. This is the common expec-
tation, but not the only form. See Isa. 19, 18-25; Mai. i, n, 14. Cf. Sibyll.
v, 492-502, where the temple of Onias is meant (Josephus, Antt. xin. 3), but
the foundation is attributed to an Egyptian priest. See Geffcken, Texte
und Untersuchungen, XXIII, i (1902), p. 26.
3 Isa. 60-61; 66, 23 f.; Zech. 14, 16 ff.
4 See the passages cited in the preceding note; also Isa. 24-27; Dan. 2,
44 f-5 7> 9-H, etc.
CHAP, i] NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY 231
them joyful in his house of prayer, accepting their sacrifices as
graciously as those of Israelites by race, 'For my house shall be
called a house of prayer for all peoples.' It is probable that the
inferiority and uncertainty of their status had been impressed
upon such converts by Jews who deemed the peculiar favor of
God a matter of heredity, and that the principle of equality
enounced by the prophet is meant to be taken to heart by them
as much as to encourage the proselytes.1 But the question
of the religious status of converts indicates the existence of a
class sufficiently numerous to raise it. The age of the passage
is not certain, but it probably falls at a relatively advanced
time in the Persian period. The precedence given to the keep-
ing of the sabbath as the most distinctive external observance
of Judaism is to be noted.
So long as the outlook of the religion was purely terrestrial
and national, naturalization in the Jewish people was the only
way by which an alien could hope to share its glorious future.
The persistent denunciation of the catastrophe that was pres-
ently to overwhelm all the nations that forget God 2 in common
and irremediable ruin doubtless had its effect, especially in
times when the world seemed to be on the verge of the predicted
disaster.
In the centuries preceding the Christian era, however, visions
of a golden age when all men worship the one true God and obey
his righteous and holy law amid universal and permanent peace
and boundless prosperity, when nature is all beautiful and
beneficent, and the very beasts of prey recover their paradisaical
manners, ceased to express the sum of human desires. The
thought of what is after death began to haunt men; the doc-
trine of resurrection and the last judgment, and the ideas of
immortality and of retribution in a disembodied existence, came
1 On the legal and social status of proselytes in later times see below,
PP-327»329ff-; 335-
2 Psalm 9, 17.
232 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
in, and the questions they raised would not be silenced. Salva-
tion took a new meaning and religion a new task — to show
man the way and give him the assurance of a blessed hereafter
according to his conception of it.
Judaism met this demand without changing its character. The
way to the life of the age to come or eternal life was the old way:
knowledge of the true God, faith in him, love to him, worship
of him alone, obedience to his revealed will. But as the idea of
salvation after death is purely individual, Judaism, in offering
itself as a way of salvation in this sense, entered on a new stage
of its missionary career, and prosecuted it in the dispersion with
zeal and evidently with large success. In this new response to
its own principle of universality the historical limitations of
nationality maintained themselves. It was not enough to accept
the religious doctrines of Judaism, conform to its moral standards,
and even practise its peculiar observances. The significance of
its initiatory rite was not entrance into a religious community,
it was naturalization in the Jewish nation, that is — since the
idea of nationality was racial rather than political — adoption
into the Jewish race, the convert entering into all the rights and
privileges of the born Jew and assuming all the corresponding
obligations. For the covenant promises of God in Scripture are
made inseparable from the obligations.1 This denationalization
of its converts, together with the interdiction of all those civic
acts and public festivities which involved the recognition of other
gods, was undoubtedly a serious obstacle to the missionary
efforts of the Jews; nevertheless the number of proselytes in
the two centuries before our era must have been considerable.2
Far larger was the number of those who in modern missionary
phrase would be called 'adherents' of the synagogue, who em-
braced its monotheism, frequented its services and contributed
to its support, kept the sabbath, abstained from swine's flesh
1 This is the perfectly logical ground for insisting on circumcision. The
opponents of Paul reasoned in the same way.
2 See below, pp. 348 f.
CHAP, i] NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY 233
and from blood, and observed other fundamental rules of the
Jewish law. In the New Testament (Acts) this class is frequently
mentioned under the names vefofjievoi, or fofiovnevoi (T&V Oebv)>
those who revere, or fear, God.1
The synagogues of the Jews were the centres of this propa-
ganda, and gathered into them converts of both classes. Through
these again Judaism penetrated more and more deeply into the
circles of society from which they came. The analogy of the
early Christian church and its missionary activities inevitably
presents itself; but far too much is made of this resemblance
when Judaism itself in that age is regarded as a church, and the
transformation of a national religion into a church in the cen-
turies between the Maccabaean struggle and the fall of Jeru-
salem is taken to be the most significant outcome of the history
of that period. It is distinctive of a church, according to this
theory, that in it religion is internationalized and in the process
denationalized. In this definition the mysteries of Mithras,
for example, were a church. The religion of Mithras, with rites
and myths later embodied in the mysteries, was originally a
national or tribal religion, most probably in Commagene and
adjacent parts; but the Mithraic church (mystery) lost all
connection with nationality, race, or locality. The initiate to
the degree of Persa, did not become a Persian, any more than as
a neophyte he was a crow, or later in his progress a lion. The
Jews, on the contrary, were, both in their own mind and in the
eyes of their Gentile surrounding, and before the Roman law,
not adherents of a peculiar religion, but members of a nation
who carried with them from the land of their origin into every
quarter where they established themselves their national religion
and their national customs.2 It is upon this that their excep-
tional legal status and religious privileges are based; and so far
as Roman law came to take cognizance of the matter, the
1 See Psalm 135, 20; 115, n, 13; 118, 4. See further below, pp. 325 f.
2 In the Roman codes and legal text books they are called natto, gens,
popu/us, in Greek Wvo*. See Juster, Les Juifs dans Pempire remain, II, 20;
cf. I, 416. For the testimony of Cassius Dio see Note 4.
234 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
hereditary pnvilegia of born Jews were not conceded to other
subjects who became proselytes to Judaism.1 Juster therefore
rightly says: "II faut avoir present a 1'esprit le caractere
ethnico-rehgieux des Juifs et ne pas essayer de diviser des choses
indivisibles." 2
It was in fact this indivisibility that determined the alto-
gether anomalous treatment of the Jews by the emperors and in
Roman law. The Patriarch3 in hereditary succession from
Hillel, for whom a Davidic genealogy was found,4 was, for the
purpose of the Roman administration, treated as the head, not
of a religious body, but of the Jewish people. According to
Origen, the patriarchs exercised in his time an authority in no
way different from that of a king of the nation, even condemning
men to death, with the sufferance of the Roman authorities.5
Inasmuch as the law of the Jews was not only a religious law,
but by inheritance from the days of their political autonomy
included as an integral part and under the same sanctions a civil
law, the Romans left them their own jurisdiction in cases in
which both parties were Jews; and since offenses against the
religious law were visited with corporal punishment, such meas-
ure at least of penal jurisdiction was vested in their tribunals.6
Even the transformation after the destruction of the temple in 70
A.D. of the didrachm poll-tax for the maintenance of worship in
the national temple in Jerusalem into \htfiscus judaicus*1 applied
to the Jews throughout the empire as members of a people.
1 Juster, op. cit. II, 19 f. 2 Ibid , I, 233 n. 2.
8 Hebrew Nast. In Ezek. 40-48 this title is constantly given to the politi-
cal head of the Jewish commonwealth in the future restoration.
4 Gen. R. 98, 8 (on Gen 49, 10): R. Levi said, a genealogical scroll was
found in Jerusalem, in which it was written, 'Hillel from David/ Christian
writers contraverted the claims of the Jewish patriarchs to Davidic lineage
in the interest of their own application of Gen. 49, 10 to Christ See Pamphi-
lus, Apologia pro Origene, in Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, ed 2, IV, 310. The
title of the patriarch in Greek is fflvapxw, m Rufmus's Latin, patriarcha.
See Note 5.
15 Origen, Epist. ad Afncanum c. 14. See Note 6.
6 On the subject of jurisdiction see Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain,
n,94ff.
7 Juster, op. cit. II, 282 ff.
CHAPTER II
THE SCRIPTURES
THE characteristic thing in Judaism at the beginning of our era
is not its resemblance to a church, but that it conceived itself
as revealed religion, and drew all the consequences of this con-
ception. God had not only made himself known to men, but
had given them in his twofold law a revelation of his will for
man's whole life, and of the way of salvation through the fulfil-
ment of his righteous and holy will. This attitude resulted no
less from the teaching of the prophets than from the possession
of the Law.
In this aspect Judaism falls into the same class with Zoroas-
trianism, the prophetic reform religion of the Iranians, and with
the religions of India, Brahmanic, heretical, and sectarian.
Wherever, indeed, men have taken the idea of revealed religion
seriously and logically, a divine law embracing not only what
we call the principles of religion but their manifold application
to all man's relations to God and to his fellow men, a law not
only of rites and observances but for the civil and social side
of human life, forms a large and fundamental part of the revela-
tion; and partly under the necessity of new situations, partly
by scholastic interpretation and casuistic development, it be-
comes progressively more comprehensive and more minute. As
revelation, explicit or by clear implication, all this law has the
same divine origin and authority; the infraction of even the
seemingly most trivial prescription may be followed by incom-
mensurable consequences, for it is not the trivial rule that is
transgressed or neglected, but the unitary law of God which
is broken.
Such religions are often called 'nomistic,' that is to say, reli-
gions founded on and concluded in a law (nomos) given by God.
235
236 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
The important thing is not what we call them, but the recogni-
tion that this development is a logical consequence of the idea
of revealed religion; for in the ancient world religion was not a
sphere apart from, or above, everyday life, but a system of ob-
servances which embraced every side of life. Even Christianity,
in spite of its Pauline antinomianism and its actual emancipa-
tion from the Old Testament law, had hardly got fairly started
in the Greek and Roman world when it began to think of itself
and talk of itself as a 'new law/ and to develop this idea not only
in the sphere of ritual, where it made large borrowings from the
laws of the Levitical priesthood, but with much more serious
consequences in the realm of doctrine. Eventually, recondite
dogmas derived from alien philosophies were defined not only
as revealed truth to guide man in his search for God, but as a
divinely prescribed norm of opinion and belief upon intellectual
conformity to which the issues of eternal life depended. This
tendency has appeared also in other nomistic religions. It was
only in its beginnings in Judaism in the age with which we are
here engaged,1 but in some later theologians it is strongly as-
serted. Maimonides, after defining the faith of Judaism in his
famous Thirteen Articles, adds that the Jew is bound sincerely
to accept every one of these articles, and is not to be regarded
or treated as a Jew if he does not. 2 In Mohammedanism, which
is a thoroughly nomistic religion, the theologians got so far as
to assert that a man is not only bound to accept the creed and
understand it, but even to understand and accept the argu-
ments by which the theologians professed to establish or demon-
strate it.
For the Jews at the beginning of our era the revelation of
God was in part embodied in writings which had come down
1 See M. Sanhedrin 10, i: An Israelite who denies that the resurrection of
the dead is proved from the Law, or that the Law is from Heaven (God),
and the Epicurean (here perhaps a man who denies divine retribution), have
no part in the world to come.
1 Maimonides, Comm. on M. Sanhedrin 10, i; Article 13 of the "Funda-
mentals." M. was doubtless influenced by Moslem and Christian examples.
CHAP, ii] THE SCRIPTURES 237
from earlier times — the Law of Moses, the Prophets, the his-
tories attributed to prophetic authorship and conveying religious
and moral lessons, the poetry of religious devotion-in the Psalms,
prudent counsels for the guidance of life in the Proverbs, and
story books like Ruth and Esther, to all of which the quality
of inspiration, the character of sacred Scripture belong.
Various modes of revelation are described in the Old Testa-
ment: actual appearances of God, or of a messenger of God
('angel') in human form, visions, dreams, communications by
speech in murmured or distinctly uttered words. In all except
the first two forms, the experience is often associated with, or
mediated by, the spirit of God or of Jehovah. This is especially
the case in the prophets. God's promise (Deut. 18, 15 ff.) to
raise up prophets in Israel and put his words in their mouth to
deliver to the people is fulfilled by putting the holy spirit in the
mouth of the prophets after Moses.1 The holy spirit is the
spirit of prophecy; all the prophets spoke by the holy spirit.
The holy spirit is so specifically prophetic inspiration that when
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the last prophets, died, the
holy spirit departed from Israel.2 Consequently all inspired
men were reckoned prophets — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;
David and Solomon; Ezra and Mordecai, besides all those to
whom the name prophet is given in the Old Testament. Ac-
cording to a Baraita, forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses
prophesied to Israel.8
1 Zech. 7, 12. Sifre on Deut. 18, 18 (§ 176); cf. also Targum Isa. 40, 13,
"Who put the holy spirit in the mouth of all the prophets." The phrase ' the
holy spirit* is very rare in the Old Testament (Isa. 63, 10 f.; Psalm 51, n),
and never in connection with prophecy. It is common in rabbinical literature
of prophetic inspiration and the inspiration of Scripture. On the various
uses of the phrase see the classified collection of instances in Bacher, Termi-
nologie, II, 202-206; on its meaning, ibid. I, 169 f.
2 Tos. Sotah 13, 2; Sanhedrin na. Subsequent revelations were given
by a bat £07; see below, pp. 421 f.
8 Megillah I4a. Seder 'Olam R. cc. 20-21 enumerates them, with the
same total. A bare catalogue in R. Hananel on Megillah /. c . Besides these,
who have a place in Scripture, there were innumerable prophets none of
whose utterances were written (Seder 'Olam c. 21).
238 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
From the books of the prophet Moses and the books contain-
ing the oracles of prophets and bearing their names it was an
easy and perhaps unconscious step to the position that all the
books of the Bible were written by prophets, that is, by men who
had the holy spirit. This is the assumption of the oldest cat-
alogue of the authors of the canonical books.1 Josephus held a
similar theory, and his singular classification of the books is
apparently due to his desire to include as many as possible in
the number of prophetic histories, the motive being to vindicate
the superior trustworthiness of biblical history. What has been
written since the time of Artaxerxes (I) is not deemed equally
trustworthy, because the exact succession of prophets no longer
existed.2 The production of the books of the Bible was thus
connected through their prophetic character with the holy spirit.
It was perhaps the question about the canonicity of the writ-
ings attributed to Solomon that led to reiterated and emphatic
assertions of the inspiration of his writings: "The holy spirit
rested upon him, and he spoke three books, Proverbs, Ecclesi-
astes, and the Song of Songs." 3 A somewhat similar controversy
about Esther leads to a singular distinction in the Talmud,
evoked by the reported opinion of a Rabbi of the third century
that the roll of Esther is not sacred: Did he think that it
was not spoken through the holy spirit? He did not deny that
it was spoken through the holy spirit, but only to be recited,
not to be written.4
The notion of inspired scripture thus grew naturally out of
the nature of prophecy, and it was held that everything in the
Scriptures is inspired, though not everything that had through
the centuries been given by the holy spirit was contained in the
books of Scripture, or had ever been written at all. There had
been many prophets who produced no books.
1 Baba Batra I4b-i5a.
2 Josephus, Contra Apionem i. 8 § 41. Josephus puts Esther in the reign
of Artaxerxes (I) son of Xerxes, and assumes the same age for the book;
Antt. xi. 6, i.
8 Cant. R. on Cant, i, I (ed. Wilna f. 2a). 4 Megillah 7a.
CHAP, ii] THE SCRIPTURES 239
The rabbinical schools had no theory of the mode of prophetic
inspiration such as Philo appropriates from Plato,1 a state of
ecstasy or enthusiasm; but it was with them an uncon tested
axiom that every syllable of Scripture had the verity and author-
ity of the word of God. It followed that the contents of the
sacred books were throughout consentaneous, homogeneous.
There were not only no contradictions in them but no real dif-
ferences. The notion of progressive revelation was impossible:
the revelation to Moses was complete and final; no other
prophet should ever make any innovation in the law.2 The
forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses who came after
him neither took away anything that was written in the Law,
nor added anything to it except the reading of the roll of Esther.3
Moses is the fountain head of prophecy in so literal a sense that
it is said that he uttered all the words of the prophets besides his
own.4 The prophetic books are comprehended with the hagio-
grapha under the name 'tradition' (kabbalah) ;5 the prophets
are transmitters of a continuous tradition beginning with Moses;
the Prophets and the Hagiographa explain the Pentateuch.6
Thus all the rest of the sacred books, with no detraction from
their divine inspiration and authority, are an authority of the
second rank: they repeat, reinforce, amplify, and explain the
Law, but are never independent of it. Proof-texts are often
quoted in threes, a verse from the Pentateuch, another from
the Prophets, and a third from the Hagiographa, not as though
1 Philo, De spec. legg. i. 9 § 65 (ed. Mangey, II, 222); esp. iv. 8 § 49 (II,
343); cf- Quis rerum divin. heres c. 53 § 265 (I, 511). Plato, Timaeus 71 E;
Ion 534 B.
2 Deut. 4, 2; 13, i (E. V. 12, 32); Lev. 27, 34. Shabbat iO4a; Megillah
2b. Maimonides, Yesode ha-Torah 9, i.
3 Megillah I4a. See below, p. 245.
4 Joshua ben Levi and Samuel ben Nahman (third century), Exod. R.
42, 8. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 164, cf 500.
5 Throughout the age of the Tannaim and Amoraim, down to the close of
the Talmuds, ]£abbalah is used only of the tradition in Scripture, not of the
unwritten law, nor of the theosophic tradition to which the name was sub-
sequently attached. Bacher, Terminologie, I, 165 f.
6 See Bacher, Terminologie, I, 155.
24o REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
the word of the Law needed confirmation, but to show how
the Scripture emphasizes the lesson by iteration.1
In consequence of their origin the books of the Bible as a
whole are 'The Scripture' or 'The Holy Scriptures/2 and by
this character separated from all other writings. With this the
usage of the New Testament agrees.8 A sense of the unity of
Scripture endows it with a kind of personality in such phrases
as 'the Scripture says/ 'the Scripture speaks/ 'the Scripture
teaches/ and many other more technical terms.4 Quotations
are also often introduced by, " it is written/' sc. in the Scripture,
as in the New Testament.
The author of Zechariah 13, 1-6 speaks very ill of the pro-
phetic profession in his day: when God purifies his people he
will make the very names of their idols to be forgotten, and
exterminate from the land the prophets and the unclean spirit
together; public opinion will be so strongly against them that
their lives are not safe even in their parents' houses.5 A century
or two later the Maccabaeans have no prophet at hand to tell
them what to do with the stones of the polluted altar, and put
them in safe keeping till one shall come. So also Simon is
created ruler and high priest permanently, "until a trustworthy
prophet shall arise." From another passage in the same book
we learn that it had already been long since a prophet was
seen. Probably the author meant, since the time of Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi, with whom, according to Josephus as
well as the rabbis, prophecy ceased.6
Inspiration being thenceforth a thing of the past, men had the
ancient word of God in the Scriptures that had come down from
1 Eg. Megillah 3ia (Johanan). Bacher, Terminologie, I, 193, cf. p. 65;
many examples in Blau, Zur Einleitung, pp. 22 f.
2 See Note 7.
3 Thus, i) ypcufrrj, of Scripture generally or of a particular passage; at
7pa<£cu, ypa^al ayi<u. ra tcpct 7pA/z/zara in New Test, only 2 Tim. 3, 15
(Philo, Josephus).
4 See Bacher, Terminologie, I, 90-92.
6 Cf. Deut. 13, 1-5; Ezek. 14, 6-11.
• i Mace. 4, 46; 14, 41; 9, 27; cf. Psalm 74, 9.
CHAP, ii] THE SCRIPTURES 241
former times, a closed body of books differing from all others in
possessing the quality of inspiration. Since such books alone
were normative, it was of fundamental religious importance to
determine what they were. When this need first made itself
felt, prescription left no room for question about the Pentateuch
or the Prophets; 1 for generations lessons had been regularly
read from these books in the synagogues. Besides these there
were other books of more miscellaneous character for which no
more descriptive and distinctive name was found than 'The
Writings.'2
The last named books were not read in the synagogue, and
consequently had not the same prescription of liturgical use as
the Law and the Prophets.3 Some of them were probably rarely
found in private possession. There were, moreover, other books
of similar kinds, some of which enjoyed much popularity, as
their adoption by Christians in Greek translations proves —
story books like Judith and Tobit, the Proverbs of Jesus son of
Sirach, apocalypses such as have been preserved to us in the
Book of Enoch, and many more. It was here, therefore, that
discrimination was necessary and dispute possible. About the
Psalms there was no question; though they furnished no lessons
for the synagogue, some of them had a place in the temple
liturgy which was believed to have been instituted by David
himself; 4 many of them were ascribed in their titles to him,
1 The Prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; Isaiah, Jeremiah.
Ezekiel, and The Twelve (Minor Prophets), eight books in all. Baba Batra
I4b. (The order is: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, The Twelve )
* Ketubimy properly the name for all Scriptures, and often so used.
Since the Law and the Prophets had names of their own, Ketubtm came to be
used specially for the rest of the Scriptures which had no such proper name.
See Note 8.
3 The custom of reading five of these books (the Five Rolls, Megillot),
Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, at Passover, Pente-
cost, the Ninth of Ab, Tabernacles, and Purim respectively, was not estab-
lished till long after our period. Esther alone was from the beginning in-
separably connected with Purim. The reading of the others came in gradu-
ally in post-Talmudic times. See Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst, pp.
184 ff.; Blau, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, VIII, 429 f.
4 i Chron. 15, 16-16, 36; Ecclus. 47, 8-10.
242 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
and he was universally regarded as the author of the whole
collection.1 Undoubtedly most of the other Writings which
now constitute the third part of the Jewish Bible were at the
beginning of our era by long established consent included in the
class of inspired and sacred scriptures. But this was not true
of all of them, while there were other books for which this char-
acter was claimed.2 The Jewish authorities thus found it neces-
sary to define the canon of Scripture, as the Christian church
subsequently did under a similar necessity.
The most serious controversy was over Ecclesiastes and the
Song of Songs, the dissensus about which seems to have lasted
through most of the first century after Christ. The Mishnah
affirms specifically that both these books are sacred, i.e. canoni-
cal,3 and records a tradition in the name of Simeon ben 'Azzai,
who had it on the authority of the members of the council
itself, that it was so decided on the memorable day on which
the council at Jamnia deposed the patriarch Gamaliel II and
installed R. Eleazar ben Azariah in his room, and this tradition
is declared in the Mishnah to be authentic. It preserves, how-
ever, diverse reports of the differences. Ecclesiastes was one of
the old disputes between the rival schools of Shammai and
Hillel, the former rejecting, the latter accepting the book as
sacred,4 and the decision at Jamnia did not secure unanimity
of opinion. Not only does a contemporary of the Patriarch
Judah assert that while the Song of Songs is canonical because
it was spoken by the holy spirit, Ecclesiastes is not, because it
is Solomon's own wisdom,6 but Jerome, at the end of the fourth
century, heard from his Jewish teachers that it had been pro-
posed to commit the book to oblivion on internal grounds, but
1 David included Psalms by ten other poets. Baba Batra I4b-i5a.
* It may not be superfluous to say that books written on rolls were not
physically united as they were later in manuscript codices and in printed
editions.
* M. Yadaim 3, 5. See Note 9.
4 M. 'Eduyot 5, 3; M. Yadaim 3, 5; Megillah ya (Simeon ben Yohai).
6 Simeon ben Menasya, Tos. Yadaim 2, 14; cf. Megillah ya.
CHAP, ii] THE SCRIPTURES 243
the rabbis had been withheld from doing so by the closing words
(Eccles. 12, 13 f.), which of themselves warranted putting it
among the divine books.1
That the right of the Song of Songs to a place among the sacred
Scriptures was also contested would be evident from the neces-
sity of a formal affirmation of it in the Mishnah even if we had
not direct testimony to the fact; and if any further evidence
were needed, the vehemence of Akiba's protest would supply it:
"God forbid! No man in Israel ever dissented about the Song of
Songs, holding it not to be sacred. The whole age altogether is
not worth as much as the day on which the Song of Songs was
given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of
Songs is the holiest of all. If there was a division, it was only
over Ecclesiastes." 2
About the same time with the deliverance concerning Eccle-
siastes and the Song of Songs, though the occasion is unknown,
a decision was given that certain other books are not canonical:
"The gospel and the books of the heretics are not sacred Scrip-
ture. The books of Ben Sira, and whatever books have been
written since his time, are not sacred Scripture." 3 For the
exclusion of Sirach, a book highly esteemed by the Jewish mas-
ters, more than one reason may be conjectured; but one is
sufficient: the author was known to have lived in comparatively
recent times, in an age when, with the death of the last prophets,
the holy spirit had departed from Israel. The same principle
applied a fortiori to later writings, including the Gospels and
other Christian books. The specification of the latter, however,
is one of several indications that in the generation following
the disastrous end of the Jewish war the 'disciples of Jesus the
Nazarene/ finding an effective argument in the calamity of the
people and the destruction of the temple, which they interpreted
as a judgment on the nation for its rejection of the Messiah
1 Comm. in Eccles. 12, 13 f. See Note 10.
2 M. Yadaim 3, 5. See Note 9.
3 Tos. Yadaim 2, 13; cf. Tos. Shabbat 13 (14) 5. See Note n.
244 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
and the precursor of the direr judgments to follow, had had
such success as to rouse the apprehension of the rabbis and
prompt them to take measures to check the growth of the sect.
The chief book of the Nazarenes was their 'gospel/1 for
which they evidently claimed the character of sacred Scripture.
The holy spirit might have departed from Israel centuries ago,
but it had come back again and rested upon their apostles and
prophets; 2 inspiration was no longer a thing of the past, and
inspired books were again possible. The vehemence with which
the leading rabbis of the first generation of the second century
express their hostility to the gospel and other books of the
heretics, and to their conventicles, is the best evidence that
they were growing in numbers and influence; some even among
the teachers of the Law were suspected of leanings toward the
new doctrine.3 The war under Hadrian brought about a com-
plete separation of the Nazarenes from the body of Judaism,
and after the war the animosity diminished with the danger of
the spread of infection within the synagogue.
Besides Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, there was debate
about some other books of the Hagiographa. In the account of
these differences in Megillah ya, R. Simeon ben Yohai, after
remarking that Ecclesiastes was in controversy between the
schools of Hillel and Shammai, continues, "but Ruth, and the
Song of Songs, and Esther are sacred Scriptures," that is, three
other of the smaller Writings.4 Esther was, however, not un-
contested. From as late a time as the third century we have
the opinion of Samuel that the volume was not sacred, a position
which caused embarrassment to later teachers and led to the
apologetic distinction noted above.5
1 They called it euangelion^ and by this name, or punning distortions of it,
it is referred to in rabbinical literature.
2 Mark i, 10; Acts 2, i ff.; 4, 31; I Cor 14, etc. 8 See Note n.
4 A Baraita in Berakot 57b names three larger Ketubim, Psalms, Proverbs,
and Job, and three smaller, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations,
and mentions Esther in the immediate context. Ruth is not named, but no
significance is to be ascribed to the omission.
8 Page 238. See Note 12.
CHAP, ii] THE SCRIPTURES 245
The nature of the objection that the Book of Esther at once
raises is plainly stated in Jer. Megillah jod. The keeping of the
new Days of Purim conflicted with the fundamental principle
that the law of Moses was complete (Lev. 27, 34), and that no
other prophet should ever arise after him to introduce any new
institution; yet here were Mordecai and Esther trying to do
that very thing. According to tradition this difficulty was felt
when the letters of Mordecai and Esther enjoining the observance
(Esther 9, 20 ff.; 29 ff.) first reached Palestine, and was re-
solved at that time by an assembly of eighty-five elders among
whom were thirty prophets and more, who succeeded in finding
the necessary warrant in all three parts of the canon. We know
that the Mordecai Day, Adar 14, was a calendar date at the
time when 2 Maccabees was written (2 Mace. 15, 36). l
The Book of Esther was read at Purim; but as that festival
had a markedly popular and even secular character, it does not
necessarily follow that Esther was at once accepted as sacred
Scripture. That inevitably followed however; and when in the
third century Johanan said that (in the days of the Messiah)
the books of the Prophets and the Hagiographa were destined
to be abrogated,2 but the five books of the Law will not be
abrogated, Simeon ben Lakish amended him, saying that the
roll of Esther also and the rules of the traditional law (Halakah)
will not pass away; while an array of rabbis, including Bar
]£appara and Joshua ben Levi, declared, as has been noted
above, that the roll of Esther was spoken to Moses from Sinai.3
1 See Note 13.
2 Jer. Megillah yod, below, alleging Deut. 5, 22. The burden of the later
revelations is reproof and correction for Israel's sins; if Israel had not sinned,
a later rabbi said, they would not have been given (Aha bar IJanina, Nedarim
22b; Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, III, 543). Esther on the contrary is necessary
to the observance of Purim. On the perpetuity of the rules of the unwritten
law see below, p. 271.
8 Jer. Megillah 1. c., on the principle, "there is no earlier and later (chrono-
logical order) in the Bible." On this rule of the exegetical school of Ishmael
see Bacher, Terminologie, I, 167 f. The Book of Esther was not supposed
to have been written until the days of Mordecai and Esther, but as it had
been revealed to Moses it is no illegitimate addition to Mosaic institutions.
246 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
Much weight has been attached to the fact that in the list of
the books of the Old Testament obtained in Palestine by Melito,
Bishop of Sardis in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Book of
Esther is not named,1 from which it is inferred that Melito's in-
formants did not acknowledge Esther as inspired Scripture. In
view of the whole character of the list the inference is by no
means certain; but, granting its correctness, if Melito got his
information from Christian Jews, as is most probable, it would
prove nothing about the estimation in which the book was held
by others. Christian Jews, after the complete breach with their
countrymen made by the Bar Cocheba war, can hardly be sup-
posed to have kept up by themselves so emphatically national
a festival as Purim, and with the observance the book would
fall into desuetude. The Mishnah and Tosefta are proof that
in Melito's time the Jewish authorities in Palestine, so far as we
know without dissent, treated Esther as sacred Scripture.
The objection to Ecclesiastes, that it contradicted itself, could
be raised against Proverbs also. Proverbs 26, 4 bids, 'Answer
not a fool according to his folly; ' verse 5, 'Answer a fool ac-
cording to his folly.' There is no difficulty, it was replied; the
former verse refers to discussions of words of the Law, the latter
to secular matters.2 The account does not make the impression
that there was a serious move to put away the Book of Proverbs;
it sounds more like an incident in the argument about Eccle-
siastes.
About Ezekiel we have a more picturesque story: The learned
considered putting away the Book of Ezekiel because it con-
tained things in conflict with the Pentateuch, and they would
have done so but for the labors of Hananiah ben Hezekiah, who,
supplied with three hundred jars of oil, sat in his study on the
roof of the house until by a profounder exegesis he harmonized
1 Melito's catalogue is preserved in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica iv. 26.
Uncertainty about Esther appears in several later Christian lists; these are,
however, without significance for the canon of the Jews.
2 Shabbat job; cf. Megillah 7a.
CHAP, ii] THE SCRIPTURES 247
them.1 The programme for the age of restoration in Ezek. 40 ff.
differs in many and not unimportant points from the Law of
Moses, and much midnight oil might well be consumed in con-
verting difference into sameness. The case of Ezekiel was, how-
ever, wholly different from that of Ecclesiastes and the Song of
Songs in the Mishnah, or of Sirach. The question was not, Is
this book sacred, or inspired, Scripture?2 but, assuming its pro-
phetic authorship and inspiration, is it expedient to withdraw
the book from public use lest the unlearned or the half-learned
be stumbled by the apparent discrepancies between it and the
Law? The word I have rendered 'put away' (ganaz) means
'store away in safe-keeping,' and is used only of things of in-
trinsic value or things of sacred character.8 The translation,
'pronounce apocryphal,' is erroneous. According to Talmudic
authority, a copy of the Pentateuch in which there are as many
as three (or four) errors to a column must be 'put away' 4 in
a place where it cannot be used but is safe from profanation;
it is assuredly not declared apocryphal! The Torah which God
had kept by him in heaven for nine hundred and seventy-four
generations5 was a 'hidden treasure' (hamudah genuzaK) 6 — cer-
tainly not an apocryphon!
The principles and method of interpretation were determined
by the idea of revealed religion embodied in sacred Scripture.
In all its parts and in every word the Scripture was of divine
origin and authority, being either an immediate revelation, such
1 Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon was of the school of Shammai, and
prominent in the generation before the fall of Jerusalem. See Bacher,
Tannaiten, 1, 18 f. For the story see Shabbat ijb; Hagigah ija; Menahot45a.
2 I.e., " Does it make the hands unclean ? " (see Note 9), or "Was it spoken
by the holy spirit?"
3 The verb ganaz is a denominative from a Persian noun meaning ' treas-
ure,' which was borrowed by the Jews in the form gcnazim, Ezek. 27, 24;
Esther 3, 9; 4, 7. See W. Bacher, 'Genizah,' in Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics, VI, 187-189; and Note 13.
4 Menahot 29b, below.
8 Shabbat 88b, below; Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 160 f.
6 Or hemdah genuzah. See Dikduke Sofenm in he.
248 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
as was made to Moses by Godpropria persona? or through visions
and dreams, or given to the prophets and the authors of the
various sacred books through the inspiration of the holy spirit.
What is of no less importance, though it is less frequently re-
marked, is that the Scriptures are throughout a revelation of
religion? in the widest meaning of that word. They are all
Torahy not by an extension a potiori of the name of the Penta-
teuch to all the Scriptures, but because in them all, ToXu/xepws
KCU TToXurpoxcos (Heb. i, i), God has revealed what he has chosen
to make known of his character and his ways, and what he re-
quires of men in their relations to him and to their fellows. This
is the content and meaning of every word of Scripture; some-
times in the plain letter intelligible even to the superficial reader,
sometimes to be discerned only by those who know how to
penetrate to the deeper sense that lies beneath the letter. The
conviction that everywhere in his revelation God is teaching
religion and that the whole of religion is contained in this revela-
tion is the first principle of Jewish hermeneutics. To discover,
elucidate, and apply what God thus teaches and enjoins is the
task of the scholar as interpreter of Scripture. Together with
the principle that in God's revelation no word is without signifi-
cance, this conception of Scripture leads to an atomistic exegesis,
which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single
words, independently of the context or the historical occasion,
as divine oracles; combines them with other similarly detached
utterances; and makes large use of analogy of expressions, often
by purely verbal association.
So important a work was not left to the competitive ingenuity
of individuals. Besides the training and tradition of the schools,
certain hermeneutic rules were evolved as norms of method and
criteria of the validity of a particular procedure. The formula-
tion of seven such rules was attributed to Hillel, about the be-
ginning of the Christian era; a century or more after him R.
1 "Mouth to mouth," Num. 12, 6-8; "face to face," Deut. 34, 10.
2 This is the nearest equivalent to the Jewish conception of Torah.
CHAP, ii] THE SCRIPTURES 249
Ishmael expanded them to thirteen without material change in
their substance, and in this form the rules became the standard
of rabbinical exegesis, particularly in juristic deductions and
inferences — homiletic interpretation for ends of edification was
less strictly regulated.1 The methods and results of this exegesis
must be viewed in the light of its own presuppositions as they
have been exhibited above, not of ours. We need to remind
ourselves that the conception of development as applied to re-
vealed religion, or in theological phrase an economy of revela-
tion, is eminently modern. To the rabbis, if it could have been
explained to them, it would have seemed a contradiction of the
very idea of religion: the true religion was always the same —
how otherwise could it be true? The revelation of God's char-
acter and will was unchanging as God himself was unchanging.
With the consequences of this apprehension of the nature of
revelation in the development of the unwritten law by juristic
exegesis we are not at this point concerned. In the sphere of
what we should call religion and morals the result was that by
their methods of interpretation, however faulty they may seem
to those who are accustomed to regard modern philological and
historical methods as the only legitimate art of interpretation,
the Jewish teachers found in all parts of the Scriptures their own
worthiest conceptions of God's character and man's duty, con-
ceptions which, as we shall see hereafter, were derived from the
highest teachings of the Scriptures and are in some important
respects an advance beyond them. Hellenistic Jews accom-
plished the same thing by means of the more elaborate and self-
conscious methods of sustained allegory, and in literary forms.
In this way Philo discovers in the Scriptures not only the loftiest
teachings of his religion, but the most recondite doctrines of his
philosophy, which he holds to be equally of divine origin, and
in essence identical with the truth revealed in Scripture.2
The interpretation of the Scriptures in the New Testament is of
precisely the same kind. Familiar illustrations of an exegesis
1 See Note 14. 2 See Note 15.
250 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
comparable to that of the Palestinian rabbis are Jesus' proof
of the resurrection of the dead from the Pentateuch in Matt. 22,
31 f.,1 and Paul's allegory of Hagar in Gal. 4, 24 f., or his alle-
gorizing upon Jewish midrash in i Cor. 10, 1-4, while the Epistle
to the Hebrews exemplifies throughout the Hellenistic art.
It was on the same assumption of the consistency of revela-
tion, and with methods from our point of view as uncritical, that
Christians from the beginning found the distinctive doctrines of
Christianity expressed or implied in all parts of the Old Testa-
ment, and that in more recent times Protestant dogmatists found
the mystery of the Trinity revealed in the first chapters of Gene-
sis, or proved the deity of the Son from Psalm 2, 7 and Prov. 30, 4.
In fact the application of modern historical and critical methods
to the Scriptures, and above all the introduction of the idea of
development, involves, consciously or unconsciously, a complete
change in the idea of revelation, a change which orthodoxy,
whether Jewish or Christian, has resisted with the instinct of
self-preservation.
1 Rabbinical deductions of the resurrection from passages of Scripture:
Sifre Deut. § 329 (on Deut. 32, 29); Sanhedrin 90 b. For others see Strack,
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, on Matt.
22, 32.
CHAPTER III
THE UNWRITTEN LAW
The whole revelation of God was not comprised in the sacred
books. By the side of Scripture there had always gone an un-
written tradition, in part interpreting and applying the written
Torah, in part supplementing it.1 The existence of such a tradi-
tion in all ages is indubitable. The priests' traditional knowl-
edge of details of the ritual, for instance, is constantly assumed
in the laws in the Pentateuch on the subject of sacrifice. The
rules for the private burnt offering and peace offering in Lev. i
and 3 are formulated with expert precision, but in the actual
offering of even such simple sacrifices they require at every step
to be supplemented by a customary practice. The law requires
a lamb as a burnt offering every morning and evening, with the
accompanying quantum of flour, oil, and wine (Exod. 29, 38-42),
but gives no further particulars. As these perpetual daily sac-
rifices for the whole people were the constant element in the sacra
publica and so to speak the basic rite of the cultus, they were
doubtless always celebrated with a solemnity accordant to their
importance. But the whole elaborate and splendid ritual as it
was developed in the use of the temple was preserved and trans-
mitted only in tradition until after the worship ceased with the
destruction of the temple in the year yo.2 For the performance
of the solemn piacula of the Day of Atonement the directions
in Lev. 16 are altogether inadequate; the actual conduct of the
complicated rites must always have been directed by priestly
1 The tradition of the Elders, Mark 7, 3-13; see Josephus, Antt. xiii.
10, 6. Note 16.
* For the ritual as it was in the generation before the destruction of the
temple see M. Tamid — perhaps the oldest tractate of the Mishnah; see
above, p. 153.
251
252 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
tradition.1 Doubtless in the course of time the ritual developed
in practice by that tendency to enrichment which is strong in
all liturgies, or was revised by recurrence to the prescriptions of
the Law; but whatever it was, it rested on tradition and was
embodied in tradition. These instances may suffice to illustrate
what was true of the whole ritual and ceremonial law.
Nor was the Scripture by itself more sufficient in the field of
civil and criminal law. What is found in the Pentateuch appears
to modern critics to be the fragmentary remains of codes or col-
lections of laws from the times of the kingdoms. One such code,
of which a single title intact and several others more or less in-
complete are preserved in Exod. 21-23, was formulated with
juristic precision and evidently laid out on a large scale. Much
the greater part of it, and of other collections of the same age,
probably perished with the fall of the national state; and in the
following ages under foreign rule the lost parts were never metho-
dically replaced, though patched in many places with material
that is distinguished by an entirely different formulation. Nor
was any considerable attempt made to adapt or extend the civil
law to the changed conditions of the Jews in this period by addi-
tions to the Pentateuch. The major part of the native law
under which the Jews lived during the centuries of Persian and
Greek dominion must have been an unwritten common law, the
custom of the community, preserved particularly by the elders
or judges before whom cases came. Their jurisdiction itself
rested on the same ground. The Pentateuch directs the ap-
pointment of judges in cities and towns (Deut. 16, 18), but says
little or nothing about the constitution or procedure of the
tribunals.
The law in Deut. 24, 1-4, on the remarriage of a divorced
woman, presumes that a legal divorce demands a certificate of
repudiation (sefer kerituf) given to the woman by the man as
evidence that she was free to marry again. There is however no
law prescribing such a writing nor any direction concerning its
1 M. Yoma, Tos. Yom ha-Kippunm, Sifra on Lev. 16.
CHAP, in] THE UNWRITTEN LAW 253
form, though as a legal instrument it must be supposed that a
certain form, and probably also the proper witnessing of the
instrument, were necessary to its regularity if not to its validity,
since in such matters ancient law was as insistent as modern on
formal correctness. In many other things enjoined in the re-
ligious law, e.g. the payment of the taxes for the support of the
priesthood and other ministers of worship, the obligatory offer-
ings, the observance of holy days, the mode of fulfilment must
have followed custom which had the force of law, and when
defined became tradition.
The prohibitions of labor on the Sabbath in the Pentateuch
are as general and indefinite as they are emphatic. The prophets
are more explicit. Amos condemns trading on that day (8, 5),
Jeremiah the bearing burdens on the Sabbath day and carrying
them into the city or out of houses (17, 21-24; cf. Neh. 10,
32), thus giving testimony to the antiquity of some of the
most important principles of Jewish sabbath observance. But
nowhere in the Old Testament is there such a definition of the
works which are forbidden on the Sabbath that a man could know
in all cases whether the thing he was doing was permissible or
prohibited. The necessity of definition in this case was pecu-
liarly great because of the severity of the penalties denounced
in the Pentateuch against the profanation of the day. The regu-
lations which we find in the Mishnah are in part the formulation
of custom, in part of exegetical study of the Scriptures, in part
of juristic casuistry; but upon the premises of revealed religion
such things cannot be too exact or too minute.
Thus in every sphere there always existed beside the written
law a much more extensive and comprehensive body of unwritten
law more or less exactly and permanently formulated. From
our point of view the authority of this consuetudinary law was
common consent or the prescription of long established usage.
To the Jews, on the contrary, inasmuch as the written law took
into its province all spheres of life, the unwritten law, dealing
with the same subjects and often defining how the former should
254 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
be carried out or enforced, was equally of religious obligation.
And since religion with all its duties and observances was re-
vealed by God, the revelation necessarily included the unwritten
as well as the written law. The written law, again, was all re-
vealed to Moses, and it was a very natural inference that its
inseparable complement the unwritten law, which shared the
immutability of all revelation, was revealed to him at the same
time.1 Sweeping statements to this effect are, however, homi-
letic hyperbole rather than juristic theory; this character is par-
ticularly alleged only of a few laws.
Between the written and the unwritten law there could be no
conflict. It was one of the principal works of the schools to ex-
hibit and establish the complete accord between Scripture and
tradition; not as though the authority of the unwritten law as
such depended on the written, but because the agreement was a
criterion of the soundness of a particular tradition or interpreta-
tion. For not every thing that was customary at any time had
by that fact the force of divine law; nor, where revelation was
the only norm, could usage at variance with it acquire authority
by prescription.
In the methodical study of the written law as it was prose-
cuted in the schools many questions of interpretation and appli-
cation arose and were discussed, the implications of the law
were followed out and compared with other rules, and the results
of all this investigation were concisely and clearly formulated.
This process led to the discovery of many things which formed
no part of existing custom or tradition; but when they were as-
certained, the effort was made to secure conformity to them,
not as innovations, but as a revival of ancient commandments
of God which had fallen into desuetude and oblivion. When God
said to Moses: "If ye shall diligently keep all this command-
ment which I command you," etc. (Deut. 11, 22), the words,
'all this commandment' include the juristic exegesis, the formu-
1 See Note 17.
CHAP, in] THE UNWRITTEN LAW 255
lated rules, and the edifying applications.1 The Pharisees were
especially zealous in this endeavor, which brought them into
conflict with more than one of the Asmonaean rulers,2 and into
many controversies with the Sadducees.
An expansion of the unwritten law came about also by the
search in the Scriptures for a principle, an implied provision, or
a precedent, by which a new question could be answered or new
actual conditions or emergencies met. In such cases also the
result, if approved by the authorities as deduced by valid
exegetical procedure from the Scripture in which it was implic-
itly contained, was itself revealed, and became part of the Mosaic
tradition.
The authenticity of the unwritten law delivered by Moses
could be assured only by an uninterrupted and trustworthy
transmission from generation to generation down to the schools
of the first century of our era. Such a chain of tradition is given
at the beginning of M. Abot: "Moses received the Law (written
and unwritten) from Sinai (from God) and transmitted it to
Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets,
and the prophets transmitted it to the men of the Great As-
sembly.3 . . . Simeon the Righteous was one of the last sur-
vivors of the Great Assembly. . . . Antigonus of Socho received
the tradition from Simeon the Righteous." ... He was suc-
ceeded by the so-called Pairs: 4 Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben
Johanan (in the time of the Maccabaean struggle) ; Joshua ben
Perahiah and Nittai of Arbela; Judah ben Tabai and Simeon
ben Shatah (under Alexander Jannaeus and in Queen Alexandra's
time); Shemaiah and Abtalion (in the days of Herod); the last
1 See below, p. 256 f
2 Josephus, Antt. xiii 10, 6; 15, 5; 16, i.
3 See Note 18.
4 M. Hagigah 2, 2. According to this Mishnah the first named in each
pair was president of the Sanhedrin (nast)y the second, vice-president (ah bet
dtri), the old political Sanhedrin presided over by the high priest being
organized after the model of a rabbinical council. See H. Strack, Einleitung
in Talmud und Midrasch, 5 ed. p. 117 f., and Note i8a.
256 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
pair being Shammai and Hillel at the beginning of the Christian
era, with whom the school tradition proper begins.
Certain rules of the unwritten law are specifically called
'Mosaic rule of law from Sinai/ that is, a rule that was given to
Moses by God. These rules come in part from the time of
Rabban Gamaliel or from the school at Jamnia, and are thus
designated to give the authentication of immemorial prescrip-
tion and divine origin to traditional laws for which no biblical
support could be adduced.1
Many rules of the unwritten law were found, by more pene-
trating exegesis or by combination with other passages in the
Pentateuch or elsewhere in the Scriptures, to be implicit in the
written law. It was assumed that these were made known to
Moses, to whom the whole twofold law was revealed; but it was
not necessary to suppose that they had been handed down in
continuous tradition like the Mosaic rules from Sinai. Many
which were delivered by Moses to his contemporaries were for-
gotten even in the first generation. In the days of mourning
for Moses, it is said, grief caused no less than three thousand
thus to fall into oblivion; Joshua himself forgot three hundred
as a punishment for his self-sufficiency, and neither was he nor
were the priests and prophets who came after him able to restore
them. Many hundreds of exegetical proofs were also forgotten,
but these the acumen of Othniel rediscovered.2 Evidently,
scholars in later times could do the same thing, if they were
acute enough. Akiba, in particular, by a more subtle hermeneu-
tic and a fabulous ingenuity in the exercise of it, found in the
written law many rules for which before him there had been
only the traditional authority of Moses from Sinai.3 We have
seen that in Sifre on Deut. n, 22 the words, 'all this command-
ment/ are understood to include juristic exegesis (midrash),
1 TDD nvcb rota. See Note 19.
2 Temurah i6a. These legends come from rabbis of the third and fourth
centuries. They are adduced only as illustrations of the general attitude
toward the Mosaic revelation.
8 Menahot 29b. Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 263 ff. See Note 20.
CHAP, in] THE UNWRITTEN LAW 257
formulated rules (halakof)y and practical religious and moral ap-
plication (haggadof), as well as the text of Scripture itself.1
In all religions which profess to be wholly and solely based on
a revelation, fixed and final, embodied in certain books, tradi-
tion is necessarily called in to interpret and supplement the
scriptures; the origin of this tradition must lie in the age of
revelation itself; and to be authoritative it must ultimately
derive from the fountain-head of revelation In Mohammedan-
ism an oral tradition is therefore traced back through an un-
broken line to the companions of the Prophet, witnesses of his
words and example. In Christianity the record of the words
and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels was ascribed to the Apostles
immediately or through disciples under their direction; the
Apostles were the inspired authors of the other books which,
with the Gospels, constitute the Scriptures of the new dispensa-
tion. Apostolic tradition was the formative and normative
principle of the ancient catholic church in organization, worship,
doctrine, and discipline. A long series of writings, from the
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles early in the second century
to the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions with the ap-
pended Canons in the fourth, bear witness to the strength of the
feeling that whatever is Christian ought to be apostolic. The
symbol called the Apostles' Creed was early imagined to have
been framed by the Apostles in a kind of symposium, each of
them contributing an article. The theory of apostolic tradi-
tion is still held unchanged by the great body of Christian
churches, East and West. It was uncompromisingly affirmed by
the Council of Trent against the contention of the Reformers
that the Scriptures alone had divine authority; and the dogma
of papal infallibility defined at the Vatican Council in 1870 is
declared to be in accord with a tradition which has been received
from the beginning of the Christian faith.
The rabbinical doctrine, therefore, so far from being singular,
is essentially the same as that of other 'book religions/ Over
1 See further Note 21.
258 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
it Karaites and Rabbanites divided in the eighth century, and
it is the primary line of cleavage between Reform Judaism and
the Orthodox, as it is between Protestants and Catholic Chris-
tians. The Christian church, however, very early developed a
strong and gradually unified organization, whose bishops in regu-
lar succession from the Apostles, custodians of the apostolic
tradition, and themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
exercised an authority in the definition of doctrine and the regu-
lation of life for which neither of the other religions possessed a
comparable organ; and because it had this living tradition,
Christianity had no need to create a great corpus of traditions,
like the Talmud or the Moslem Hadith collections, to be the
norm and final authority for codes of law and the conduct of
life.
Whatever the critic may think about the historical character
of the actual traditions of any of these religions or of the doctrine
of tradition itself, he cannot deny that upon their premises,
namely, that everything that is of religious obligation is revealed
and that revelation is long since closed, nothing but a belief in
such an interpretative and complementary tradition could main-
tain unity and continuity, conserve the acquisitions of the past,
and adapt the religious law to the changing conditions of the
present.
The actual content of Jewish tradition was of diverse origin.
Part of it was long established custom for which the schoolmen
might seek an explicit or implicit scriptural warrant, or, failing
that, fall back on the half-conscious fiction of a Mosaic rule from
Sinai. But an important part consisted, as they were well aware,
of regulations or prohibitions issued and imposed by those in
whom at different times such virtually legislative authority was
vested. Enactments of this kind, whether proceeding from an
individual or a corporate body, are called 'decrees' (gezerot) or
'enactments' (takkanoi), using the former term for prohibitions,
the latter for ordinances of a positive character.1 One of the
1 See Jewish Encyclopedia s. vv. 'Gezerah,' 'Takkanah.'
CHAP, in] THE UNWRITTEN LAW 259
maxims ascribed to the men of the Great Assembly (Abot I, i)
is, "Make a fence for the Law," that is, protect it by surrounding
it with cautionary rules to halt a man like a danger signal before
he gets within breaking distance of the divine statute itself.1 A
warrant for this was found in Lev. 18, 30, interpreted, "Make
an injunction additional to my injunction." 2 The explicit pro-
hibition in Deut. 4, 2, 'Ye shall not add unto the word which
I command you, nor shall ye take aught from it,' was easily got
over by the exegesis of the schools: in Deut. 17, n they found
implicit confidence in the courts of each generation and obedi-
ence to them prescribed, and they extended the same authority
to the decisions and decrees of the rabbinical bet din?
Nor were these deliverances confined to laying down the proper
way of fulfilling the requirements of the law under changing con-
ditions, or to protecting the law from infringement by a thick-
set hedge of prohibitions more stringent than the letter. When
the exigencies of the time seemed to them to demand it, the
rabbis in council or individually did not hesitate to suspend or
set aside laws in the Pentateuch on their own authority, without
exegetical subterfuges or pretense of Mosaic tradition. Where
justification is offered for extraordinary liberties of this kind,
Psalm 119, 126 is frequently quoted, with a peculiar interpreta-
tion. Instead of, "It is time for the Lord to do something, they
have made void thy law," the verse is taken, "It is time to do
something for the Lord."4
There are in fact numerous rabbinical enactments from all
periods which are more or less directly at variance with the plain
letter and intent of the law.5 Among the most noteworthy was
the legal fiction called prozbul (or prosbul) devised by Hillel.
1 See Note 22.
2 Mo'ed £aton 53; cf. Sifra, Ahare, end (f. 86d, ed. Weiss); Weiss, Dor Dor
we-Doreshau, II, 47.
3 Sifre Deut. § 154; Midrash Tannaim on Deut. 17, n (p. 103). See
Note 23.
4 M. Berakot 9, 5, end. See Note 24.
6 Weiss, Dor, II, 50-52.
260 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
The law of Deut. 15, 1-3 by which all loans were cancelled at
the beginning of every seventh year worked as, in human nature,
such a Utopian economic experiment might be expected to work.
Notwithstanding the pathos of the exhortation in verses 7-11,
and no matter what the distress of the borrower might be, money-
lenders could not be induced to make a loan in the fifth or sixth
year which would automatically become a donation in the
seventh. Like much equally well-meant legislation in later
times, the effect of the law was the diametrical opposite of its
intent. Hillel's remedy was the execution in court of an instru-
ment, attested by the seals of the judges or witnesses, by which the
lender retained the right to reclaim the loan at any time he saw
fit.1 Shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 A.D.,
in consequence of the multitude of adulterers, R. Johanan ben
Zakkai did away with the ordeal of jealousy (Num. 5, 11-31),
alleging as a warrant for the abrogation of the law Hos. 4, 14:
'I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry,
nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they
themselves go apart with harlots and sacrifice with the pros-
titutes of the sanctuary.' 2 In a similar way the frequency and
boldness of murders led, we are told, to the abolition of the
antique rite prescribed in Deut. 21, 1-9, when the victim of a
murder by an unknown hand was found lying in the open field.3
There was thus a large body of law that grew out of the needs
of the times and changed with them. Such laws and regula-
tions were probably made in the Persian and earlier Greek
periods by the priests and the council of the elders in their re-
spective spheres or concurrently; many are attributed to the
Men of the Great Assembly. The Asmonaean princes and kings
doubtless made law by their own edicts, encroaching especially
on the powers of the elders. It is not without significance that
1 M. Shebi'it 10, jf.; M. Gittm 4, 3, etc Jewish Encyclopedia s. v.
'Prosbul'; Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes, IT, 363. See Note 25.
2 M. Sotah 9, 9. The words of the prophet are taken as a warrant for
abandoning the ordeal in a time of general corruption of morals.
3 M. Sotah 9, 9.
CHAP, in] THE UNWRITTEN LAW 261
the older name yepovcrla (senafus) is replaced by
(Sanhedrin), which in the language of the time had come to
mean 'court' rather than 'council/ l It is to be remembered,
however, that a sharp distinction between legislative and judicial
powers is very modern; and, further, that law is made by the
decisions of a court as much as by the enactment of statutes,
especially if the court decides cases submitted in thesi, as seems
to have been the Jewish practice. That under the later Asmon-
aeans, their supporters, the party of the Sadducees which em-
braced the priestly aristocracy, constituted the majority in the
Sanhedrin was but natural, and as natural that they made laws
and ordinances in accordance with their own traditions or their
own notions. Meanwhile the scholars of the rival party of the
Pharisees were busy with their juristic studies of the law of
Moses and the traditions of the elders, and arrived at results
often widely at variance with those of the Sadducees. Under John
Hyrcanus they came into open conflict with the rulers, which in
the reign of Alexander Jannaeus grew into a civil war. From
Queen Alexandra they demanded and obtained the abrogation
of the Asmonaean-Sadducean code of civil and criminal law and
the substitution of their own ordinances (p6/u/ia) which had been
annulled by John Hyrcanus. They even constrained the priest-
hood to make modifications in the ritual of the temple and mat-
ters connected with it to conform to their interpretation of the
law.2 The representation and influence of the Pharisees in the
Sanhedrin was doubtless much increased in Alexandra's time,
and probably maintained after her.
With the fall of Jerusalem the Sanhedrin as a council or court
recognized by the government came to an end. What suc-
ceeded it, taking its name 'high court' and claiming succession
to its functions, was in fact only a self-constituted body of
scholars, at first under the presidency of Johanan ben Zakkai at
1 See Schurer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, II, 194. The Jewish name
ior it is Bet din ha-gadol, which we might render the Supreme Court.
* Josephus, Antt. xin. 16, 2, cf. 10, 6. See Note 26.
262 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
Jamnia, later under the Patriarchs, beginning with Gamaliel II.
So completely did this character predominate that the Jews of
later times imagined the old political Sanhedrin as in all respects
similar to their rabbinical assemblies.1
The unwritten law, as we have seen, was in no wise inferior
in authority to the law written in the Pentateuch, both being
God's revealed will. The covenant at Sinai, the Magna Charta
of Judaism, was made upon both. As in other religions where it
is thus raised to an equal rank with Scripture, tradition, as the
living word, interpreting, supplementing, adapting, applying,
the written word, asserts its superior authority, and its claims
are wont to be more strongly expressed if its authority is ques-
tioned either in general or on a particular point. So it was in
Judaism. Thus it is declared: "A more serious matter is made
of the words of the scribes than of the words of the (written)
Law." A later teacher sets himself formally to prove that the
words of the elders are of more weight than those of the prophets:
the prophet has to authenticate himself and his message by a
sign (Deut. 13, 2), while for the teachings and decisions of the
elders (i.e., the members of the high court in Jerusalem) un-
questioning obedience is commanded (Deut. 17, n).2 This is
the wapaSoats T&P irpevfivTepcw, against which Jesus directs his
criticism.3 It is to be observed, however, that notwithstanding
all the fault he finds with the Scribes and Pharisees, Jesus recog-
nizes them as the legitimate interpreters of the law, and bids
his disciples obey their injunctions, but not follow their example
in shirking the heavy burdens they load on other men's backs.4
1 On the Sanhedrin see Schurer, op. ctt.3 II, 188-213; Juster, Les Juifs dans
1'empire romam, 1, 400-402; Jewish Encyclopedia s. v. 'Bet Dm,' III, 114 f.
(L. Gmzberg), and s. v. 'Sanhedrin/ XI, 41-46 (Lauterbach).
2 See Note 27.
3 Mark 7, 1-13; Matt. 15, 1-19.
4 Matt. 23, i ff. It is indeed laid down by rabbinical authority that a
decree is not to be imposed on the public unless the majority are able to
abide by it (Horaiyot 3b, and elsewhere); but that the restrictions and pre-
scriptions were often onerous is indubitable. See Weiss, Dor, II, 50.
CHAPTER IV
THE PERPETUITY OF THE LAW
THE comprehensive name for the divine revelation, written and
oral, in which the Jews possessed the sole standard and norm of
their religion is Tor ah. It is a source of manifold misconceptions
that the word is customarily translated 'Law,' 1 though it is not
easy to suggest any one English word by which it would be
better rendered.2 'Law' must, however, not be understood in
the restricted sense of legislation, but must be taken to include
the whole of revelation — all that God has made known of his
nature, character, and purpose, and of what he would have man
be and do. The prophets call their own utterances 'Torah';
and the Psalms deserved the name as well. To the unwritten law
the religious and moral teachings of the Haggadah belong no less
than the juristically formulated rules of the Halakah. In a
word, Torah in one aspect is the vehicle, in another and deeper
view it is the whole content of revelation.3
For the Jewish conception of law in this broad sense it is
fundamentally significant that it was early identified with wis-
dom. In Deut. 4, 6, it is urged upon the Israelites as a motive
for keeping the statutes and ordinances which Jehovah has en-
joined upon them: 'For this is your wisdom and understanding
in the sight of the nations, who, when they hear all these statutes,
will say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding
people.' 4 Since this law, the distinctive wisdom of Israel, was
revealed by God, it, like all true human wisdom, was God's
1 In the Greek Pentateuch ?6/zos, and correspondingly in all subsequent
versions.
2 On the word Torah see Note 28.
3 See Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, pp. 116 ff.
4 Note the whole context, Deut. 4, 1-20.
263
264 REVEALED RELIGION [PARTI
wisdom, of which so much is said in the Proverbs and other works
of the Jewish sages. Prov. 8, 22 ff. is the most fruitful of the
passages in which this identification of divine revelation (Tor ah)
with the divine wisdom (HokmaJi) is made, but many others
contributed to the doctrine.
In the eulogy of wisdom in Ecclus. 24, which like Prov. 8 is
put into the mouth of Wisdom itself, verse 23 (32) continues:
"All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God,
the law which Moses commanded, an inheritance to the congrega-
tion of Jacob," 1 and goes on to compare the way the Law pours
out wisdom in a flood with the inundations of great rivers (verses
25-29). It is inexhaustible; all the generations that have
studied it have not discovered its whole meaning (vs. 28). 2 In
the first of the poems in the Book of Baruch, reminiscent of the
praises of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 and Job 28, God, the omni-
scient creator, who alone knows wisdom (3, 32), "Found out
every way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant and to
Israel his beloved. After that it was seen upon earth and con-
versed among men.3 This is the book of the commandments of
God, and the law which abideth forever; all who hold it fast are
(destined) to life, but those who abandon it shall die" (3, 37-
4, i).4 The author of 4 Maccabees, after the definition: "Wis-
dom (ao^ia) is a knowledge of things divine and human, and of
their causes" (i, i6),B continues: "This (wisdom) is the education
1 TaCra TTO.VTQ. is the logical predicate: the Law is all that is said in the
foregoing verses. The Greek translator of Ecclesiasticus has K\rjpovofj,lav
(rvvayayals 'IcuubBy as in Deut. 33, 4 (Hebrew, singular), having in mind
the reading of the Law in the religious assemblies of his time.
2 Cf. Ecclus. 21, i : "All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it is etern-
ally"; 19, 20: "In all wisdom is a doing of the law."
3 Cf. Ecclus. 24, jo ff. This verse was often quoted by Greek and Latin
Fathers as a proof-text for the incarnation of the Logos (Wisdom). Some
modern scholars, similarly misunderstanding the words, reject them as a
Christian interpolation. It is as revealed in the Law that Wisdom abides
among men unto life.
4 The author has in mind Deut. 30, 11-18. Note also Baruch 4, 4,
"Blessed are we, Israel, for what is well-pleasing to God is known to us "
6 The current Stoic definition. See Note 29.
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 265
given by the law, through which we learn divine things in a
manner befitting them, and human things in a way profitable to
us" (i, I7).3 In the apostrophe to the martyr Eleazar he ex-
claims, <5 avfjL(t)(jOP€ pdfiov Kai </>tX6(ro$e Oeiov fiiov (7, 7; cf. also
7, 21-23). Philosophy is for him equivalent to revealed religion;
piety and wisdom are interchangeable terms.
The identification of revelation, and more specifically of the
Mosaic Law, with divine Wisdom, was thus established in Jew-
ish teaching at least as far back as Sirach (ca. 200 B.C.), and his
way of introducing it makes the impression that it was a common-
place in his time, when the study of the law and the cultivation
of wisdom went hand in hand, and as in his case were united
in the same person.2
The identity of the Law and Wisdom is of frequent occurrence
in the rabbinical books also, and even in the oldest passages is
assumed as something universally acknowledged, from which
further inferences are drawn.3 Besides Prov. 8, 22 ff., several
other passages are quoted in which 'Wisdom' is made equiv-
alent to 'Law/ Bar Kappara so interprets Prov. 9, 1-3 (combined
with 2, 6; 8, 22); and, by reckoning Num. 10, 35 f. as a book
by itself, finds seven books of the Law, corresponding to the
seven pillars with which Wisdom built her house (Prov. 9, i).4
Once this equivalence was established, all that was said in the
Scriptures about the nature of wisdom, its source, its fruits, and
its inestimable worth, was applied to the Law, either in the larger
sense of revelation, or with special reference to the law of
Moses; and in the same way Law acquires the vivid poetical
personification that is given to Wisdom in the higher flights of the
sapiential books.5
1 ABrry 6^ rolvvv kffrlv ^ TOV vbpov iraibeia, 61' ^s TO, 0ela ac/mos KO.I ra
&v6p<j)Triva <?V(jL<t>ep6vTus navdavo^v.
2 See Note 30. 3 Sifre Deut. § 37 and elsewhere. See Note 31.
4 Lev. R. n, 3. Bar £appara, a pupil of the Patriarch Judah, taught at
Caesarea in the early third century. In Shabbat n6a this combination is
attributed to Jonathan. See Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 509 n. Probably the
Amora of that name, teacher of Samuel bar Nahman, is meant.
6 See Note 32.
266 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
The most important consequence of this appropriation to the
Law of the attributes of the divine Wisdom is that the Law is
older than the world. In Prov. 8, 22 ff., Wisdom (the Law)
says of itself: 'The Lord created me as the beginning of his
way, first of his works of old. I was installed ages ago, from
the beginning, before the earth was/ etc. Thus, in Sifre on
Deut. n, 10, to prove that, in God's way of doing, what is most
highly prized by him precedes what is less prized: "The Law,
because it is more highly prized (literally, 'dearer') than every-
thing, was created before everything, as it is said, The Lord
created me as the beginning of his way" (Prov. 8, 22). x The
Law stands first among the seven things which were created
before the creation of the world, with Prov. 8, 22 again for the
proof-text; and repentance is next to it.2 This collocation is
not accidental. That God did not make the Law, with all its
commandments and prohibitions and its severe penalties, with-
out knowing that no man could keep it, nor without creating a
way by which his fault might be condoned, is as firm a convic-
tion as there is in all the Jewish thought of God. Repentance
must therefore be coeval with Law. And so they found it re-
vealed by God himself in the ninetieth Psalm: 'Before the
mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the
earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou
art God. Thou turnest man to contrition, and sayest, Repent,
ye children of men.' 8
Wisdom was present at the creation of the world, not as a pas-
sive onlooker, but a sharer in the work of making it and the joy
of the maker (Prov. 8, 30 f.); she was at God's side, a skilled
craftsman, or artist. The identification of Wisdom with the Law
led in this way not only to the antemundane existence of the
Law but to a connection of the Law with creation. Akiba called
it the instrument of God in creation: "Beloved (of God) are
1 Sifre Deut. § 37 (f. 76a-b). * See Note 33.
8 This is the Jewish interpretation of the words rendered in the English
versions, 'Thou turnest man to destruction/ See Note 34.
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 267
Israel, for to them was given the instrument with which the
world was created; l still greater love is shown in that it was
made known to them that there was given to them the instru-
ment with which this world was created, as it is said, 'For good
instruction have I given you, my Law forsake not ' " (Prov. 4, 2).2
An interesting development of this idea is given in Genesis
Rabbah: " Amon (Prov. 8, 30) is equivalent to Omen ('artificer,
architect')- The Law says, I was an architect's apparatus for
God. As a rule an earthly king who is building a palace does
not build it according to his own ideas, but to those of an archi-
tect; and the architect does not build it out of his head, but has
parchments or tablets to know how he shall make the rooms and
openings; so God looked into the Law and created the world." 3
The resemblance of this interpretation to a passage in Philo' s
De Opificio Mundi is obvious. When God proposed to create
this visible world, he first made the intelligible world (K&VIJLOV
vorirbv, the universe of ideas) as a model, in order that employ-
ing an immaterial and most godlike pattern he might produce
the material world, a younger copy of the elder.4 The parallel
is made the more striking by the fact that in the sequel Philo
illustrates this Platonic philosophy of creation by a comparison
of God's procedure to that of a king who proposes to found a
new city: he calls to his aid an expert engineer, who, having
surveyed the ground, lays off the whole city in his mind, and
then, looking into the plan, proceeds to reproduce it in stone
and wood.5 Just so God, being minded to create this megalo-
polis (the world), first conceived its types, by combining which
in a system he produced the intelligible world, and, using it as
a pattern, the sensible world.
1 The word p&K in Prov. 8, 30 being taken as the 'instrument* of an art
or craft. Gen. R. i, i. See Note 35.
2 Abot 3, 14. 3UD npf» is God's Torah. Berakot 5a.
8 Gen. R. i, i.
4 De opificio mundi c. 4 § 16 f. (ed. Mangey, 1, 4); cf. Plato, Timaeus 28 ff-
8 Philo may well have had in mind the laying out of the city of Alexandria
by the engineers of Alexander the Great.
268 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
R. Hosha'ya, to whom the midrash in Genesis Rabbah is
attributed, taught in Caesarea, and was a contemporary there
of Origen, whose Old Testament studies, as we know, brought
him into intercourse with Jewish scholars. It is not impossible,
therefore, that Hosha'ya may have been acquainted with Philo's
ideas, if not with his writings; but the coincidence is not of a
kind to demonstrate dependence.1 Another teacher of the third
century, R. Simon, arrives by an entirely different route at a
similar goal: God studied Genesis, the first chapters of which
are, so to speak, a programme of creation, and created the world
to correspond.2
Another idea which finds frequent expression is that the world
was created for the Law. So R. Benaiah: "The world and every-
thing in it was created solely for the sake of the Law, as it is said>
The Lord founded the earth for the sake of Wisdom" (Prov. 3,
ip).3 Much older is the aphorism of Simeon the Righteous:
"The stability of the world rests on three things, on the Law,
on worship, and on deeds of personal kindness."4
In such utterances, under forms that strike us as fantastic,
and supported by an exegesis more subtle than convincing,
ideas are expressed which lack neither insight nor significance.
Religion was not an afterthought of God; it was impossible to
conceive a world like this without religion. Since the two are
thus indissolubly connected, the world must be made, we might
say, on a religious plan. And since religion was in Jewish ap-
prehension a complete system of divinely revealed beliefs and
duties, obligatory, not discretionary — a law — this system in
its integrity must have existed before the world, and the world
must have been made to correspond to it.5 It is a finer concep-
tion still that the world was made for the Law — for religion,
1 See Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 107 (cf. p. 92); J. Freudenthal, Hellenis-
tische Studien, I, 73; Jewish Quarterly Review, III, 357-360.
2 Gen. R. 3, 5. Cf. Philo, Legg. allegor. i. 8 § 19.
3 See Note 36.
4 Abot i, 2. See Note 37.
5 See Philo, De opificio mundi c. i § 3, quoted in Note 38.
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 269
we should say — that is, as a sphere for the realization in thought
and life of the true relation between God and man through man's
conformity to God's holy will.
This law, being perfect, is unchangeable. The Law that was
in time revealed in writing and by word of mouth to Moses is
the same that was with God before the world was created; and
it shall endure in its entirety unchanged as long as the world
exists. 1 Philo, contrasting it with the ever changing legislation
of other nations, writes: "The provisions of this law alone,
stable, unmoved, unshaken, as it were stamped with the seal
of nature itself, remain in fixity from the day they were written
until now, and for the future we expect them to abide through
all time as immortal, so long as the sun and moon and the whole
heaven and the world exist." 2
The association of the Law with the divine Wisdom was an-
other ground for asserting the perpetuity of the Law. We have
already seen this result in Baruch 4, I, where the wisdom God
has searched out and given to Israel is "the book of the com-
mandments of God and the Law that exists to eternity," and in
Sirach where the wisdom that says of itself: " Before time, from
the beginning He created me, and unto the end of time I shall
not cease" is "the law which God commanded Moses." 3 It is
the "eternal law" in Enoch 99, 2, cf. 14; its prescriptions are
an "eternal commandment" in Tobit I, 6. It could serve no
purpose to multiply quotations.
The rabbinical doctrine could not be better expressed than
in Matt. 5, 18: "Until heaven and earth pass away,4 not the
smallest letter, not an apex of a letter, shall pass away from the
Law till it all be done." Note also the sequel: "Whoever shall
1 No other Moses will come and bring another Law, for there is no Law
left in heaven. Deut. R. 8, 6. Perhaps against the Christians and their
"new law."
2 Philo, Vita Mosis, li. 3 §§ 14-16 (ed. Mangey, II, 136 f.); Josephus,
Contra Apionem ii. 38 §§ 277 f., cf. i. 8 § 42; Antt. iii. 8, 10 § 223.
3 Ecclus. 24, 9 with vs. 23; see above, p. 264.
4 That is, never; Job 14, 12.
270 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
relax one of these very least commandments and teach men so
shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven." So also
Luke 1 6, 17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away
than for one apex of the Law to fall." 1 A parallel is found in
Genesis Rabbah (10, i) on Gen. 2, i, whence, by combination
with Psalm 119, 96 and Job n, 9, it is elicited that heaven and
earth have measures (limit),2 but the Law has none; a statement
which the commentators understand of time as well as space:
heaven and earth will have an end (Isa. 51, 6), but the Law
will not.
Such utterances are not to be pressed into the strict sense of
eternity: the authors may not push their vision at the farthest
beyond the present order of things, the world as it now is. But
the Jews, through all the vicissitudes of their fortunes, held
fast to the faith that there was a better time coming, as the
Scriptures foretold. The visions of this time in the prophets are
numerous and diverse. Many of them are the promise of a kind
of national millenium, deliverance from subjection to the Gen-
tiles, the restoration of an independent Jewish state expanded
to its ancient boundaries and exercising dominion over the
countries around it far and wide. Some of these prophecies
predict a revival of the Davidic monarchy, while others say
nothing about the political constitution of the state. All agree in
picturing, often in idyllic imagery, a time of lasting peace and
prosperity under the favor of God. The seventeenth of the
Psalms of Solomon best represents to us, in a composite of Old
Testament prophecies, how the messianic times were imagined
by an orthodox Jew a half century before our era. Philo shows
us how the golden age could be conceived without reference to
a restoration of the monarchy.
But there were also in the Prophets predictions of a greater
change, of a catastrophe in which all nature is involved, of new
heavens and a new earth, and of a new order of things, a new
age of the world, beyond this crisis.8 For this new order of
1 See Note 39. 2 See Note 40. 3 E.g. Isa. 24-27; 65, 13 ff.
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 271
things the' Jewish name is "the age to come" ('olam ha-bd) in
contrast to "this age" ('olam ha~zeti)y the world we live in. The
vaguer phrase, "the future" ('atid la-bo) , refers sometimes to
the messianic times, sometimes to the age to come, sometimes
includes them both without distinction. Even between the
two more descriptive terms the distinction is not strictly main-
tained; the biblical imagery of the national golden age in the
present order being carried over into the age to come, while the
convulsions of the final crisis are made to usher in the days of
the Messiah. Added to all this, the difficulty of distinguishing
earlier from later ideas is at its greatest just here where it is
most important. The temptation to be clearer than our sources
or their authors is here peculiarly strong, and must be guarded
against at every step. So much, in anticipation of a fuller dis-
cussion in a later chapter, it seems necessary to premise here.1
Inasmuch as the days of the Messiah are the religious as well
as the political consummation of the national history, and, how-
ever idealized, belong to the world we live in, it is natural that
the law should not only be in force in the messianic age, but
should be better studied and better observed than ever before;
and this was indubitably the common belief. The priesthood and
the sacrificial worship in the new temple are constantly assumed.
The harps of the temple musicians will have more strings than
now.2 A high priest in the messianic times is frequently men-
tioned; religion without sacrifice was in fact unimaginable. Nor
are the expiatory institutions of the law unnecessary, for even
in the messianic times men will not be without sin; their super-
abundant prosperity may even be the cause of such rebellious-
ness as their fathers so often fell into when they were too well
off.3 The rules of the unwritten law will remain beside the
written, and there must of course be schools for the study of
both. A Palestinian rabbi in the circle of the Patriarch Judah
1 See Part VII, chap, n (Vol. II, pp. 377 ff.).
2 Tos. 'Arakin 2, 7 (R. Judah), and elsewhere; see Friedmann's note on
Pesikta Rabbati 9pa. Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 223.
3 Deut. 32, 15; Sifre Deut. § 318.
272 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
even discovered in the Scripture that the synagogues and schools
of Babylonia would then be transplanted to Palestine.1
With the Law in the Age to Come the case was different. The
scene of that age was indeed the earth, but a transformed and
glorified earth, where all the conditions of existence were so un-
like those of human experience as to be imaginable only by con-
trast. Between this and that lay the judgment that was the end
of history and of the very stage on which the tragedy of mankind
had been played. The new age began, so the Pharisees taught
and the mass of the people believed, with the resurrection of the
dead, who entered thus on a new and different life. To the cavil-
ling question of the Sadducees, to which of her seven husbands
the woman should belong who had six times been passed on from
brother to brother in levirate marriage, Jesus answered, " When
men rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are as angels in heaven." 2 It is sound Pharisean
doctrine: "The age to come is not like this age. In the age to
come there is no eating and drinking, no begetting of children,
and no trading, no jealousy, no hatred, and no strife," etc.3 In
the Mishnah itself it is taught that there is no death there, no
sorrow, and no tears (Isa. 25, 8).4 The following quotation also
is apposite: "In this age Israelites contract uncleanness and
get themselves purified according to the directions of a priest;
but in the future it will not be so, but God himself is going to
purify them, as it is written, I will dash pure water upon you
and you shall be pure; from all your uncleannesses and from
all your idols I will purify you" (Ezek. 36, 25). 5
It is evident that in such a world the greater part of the laws
in the Pentateuch would have no application or relation to any-
1 Megillah 293.. On the law in the messianic age see Klausner, Die
messianischen Vorstellungen des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten,
pp. ii5ff. See Note 41.
1 Mark 12, 25.
3 Berakot 173, and often. A favorite saying of Rab (first half of the third
century). 4 M. Mo'ed £aton 3, 9.
6 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 4ib; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Hukkat § 28 (f. 6ob).
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 273
thing actual. This was true, however, of many of the laws in the
rabbis' real world. Not only the laws for the king, but much of
the civil and criminal law, necessarily fell into desuetude under
foreign rule; many of the laws, especially those concerning
agriculture and the taxation of agricultural produce for the sup-
port of the ministry and public worship, applied only to the land
of Israel; * after the destruction of the temple not alone the
laws regulating the cultus and the functions of the priesthood,
but many laws treating of uncleanness requiring offerings for
purification were no longer practicable. Yet the Law was
studied with more diligence than ever, not only that a knowledge
of it might be preserved for the restoration they believed to be
near, but because the occupation of the mind and heart with
laws which were for the present in abeyance, like those of sacri-
fice, was a surrogate for the fulfilment in act that had for the
time been rendered impossible.2
Nor is this all. No one can read the works in which the re-
sults of the scholastic occupation with Scripture are embodied
without feeling that teachers and learners not only took keen
intellectual pleasure in their labors, but that many approached
the subject in a truly religious spirit, and sought edification as
well as enlightenment in the profound study of God's character,
will, and purpose, as revealed in his word. It is not strange,
therefore, that they should have imagined this study, the oc-
cupation of mind and heart with religion, as continuing in the
Age to Come, and that then God himself would be their teacher.3
They knew that it would 'not content them forever to sit "with
their crowns on their heads enjoying the effulgence of the divine
presence." 4 They could not imagine themselves in another life
without the intellectual interests of the present life; and, like
the rest of us, they found many things in nature and revelation
1 For the discrimination between laws everywhere binding and those
obligatory only 'in the land/ see Sifre Deut. § 59, cf. § 44. See Note 42.
2 Menahot noa; Pesikta ed. Buber f. 6ob; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Ahare
§ 1 6 (f. 35a), etc. It is accepted as an atonement in lieu of all sacrifices.
8 See Note 43. 4 Berakot iya.
274 REVEALED RELIGION [PARTI
that they would like to have God explain, especially those com-
mandments and prohibitions of the law for which they could
discover no rational or moral ground. As religious men they
obeyed the divine statutes without question; as reasonable men
they could not help wanting to know the reason of them. Such
explanations, they thought, must have been given to Moses,
but they had not been handed down in the unwritten tradition.
God doubtless meant to put men in this world to the test of im-
plicit obedience; but in the Age to Come this motive would no
longer exist.1
The Jews could no more conceive a world in the past without a
revelation of God's will for man's life than in the present or the
future. Accordingly they believed that certain laws for all man-
kind were given to Adam. Six such commandments are enume-
rated with slight variations in order and exegetical derivation.
The following is the list given by Levi: i. Prohibition of the
worship of other gods; 2 2. Blaspheming the name of God; 3.
Cursing judges; 4. Murder; 5. Incest and adultery; 6. Robbery.8
Levi's teacher Johanan, gives them thus: Command to establish
courts of justice; 4 prohibition of blaspheming the name of God;
of the worship of other gods; murder; incest and adultery; theft.5
These commandments were given again to Noah after the
flood for all his descendants, with the addition of a seventh, con-
sequent upon the permission then given to eat the flesh of animals
(Gen. 9, 3); namely, the prohibition of flesh with the blood of
life in it (Gen. 9, 4).6 Other laws were held by some authorities
1 See Note 44.
2 That there was a primaeval revelation of the unity of God and the sin of
idolatry was commonly assumed. More philosophically minded men like
the author of the Wisdom of Solomon saw in nature evidence to which men
shut their eyes (Wisdom 13, i ff.); Philo, e.g. De decalogo cc. 13 f. (ed.
Mangey II, 190, 191). Cf. Paul, Romans i, 18 ff.; see also Acts 14, 17; 17,
24 ff.
8 Gen. R. 16, 6. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, II, 316 and n. 3.
4 On this commandment see Tos. ' Abodah Zarah 8, 4; Sanhedrin 560, end.
5 Sanhedrin 560. See Note 45.
6 Tos. 'Abodah Zarah 8, 4; Sanhedrin 56a, end. See Note 45.
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 275
to be binding on the descendants of Noah (Gentiles); but the
prevailing opinion limited them to these seven. The Gentiles,
it was taught, had undertaken to keep these laws, but did not do
so, or they proved unable to live up to them. Other command-
ments were given to the patriarchs; circumcision to Abraham,
the prohibition of 'the sinew that shrank* to Jacob.1
Whereas in the Pentateuch the whole system of festivals, the
ritual of sacrifice with the functions and prerogatives of the
priesthood, are revealed first at Sinai, the Book of Jubilees
narrates how they were introduced upon some specific occasion
centuries before. Thus Pentecost was instituted by Noah after
the flood, and was kept by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and by
their descendants down to the generation of Moses (6, 17 ff.);
Tabernacles was celebrated by Abraham in booths (16, 20 ff.),
and later by Jacob, who added to it the eighth day (32, 4 ff., 27) ;
the fast of the Day of Atonement is given a historical motive in
the life of Jacob (34, 17-19); the priesthood has its beginning in
the solemn consecration of Levi himself (32, 1-15); the elaborate
sacrificial ritual of the priests' law in the Pentateuch is practiced
on the proper occasions from Noah down (see, e.g., c. 7); the
injunctions given by Abraham to his children (20, i-io), espe-
cially to Isaac (c. 21), anticipate not only the legislation of
Moses but in part the temple regulations of the Greek period
(21, I2f.). There are also in Jubilees many legal regulations
differing from those of the Mishnah and kindred works, generally
in the direction of greater strictness, which are attributed to the
ages before Moses.
In rabbinical circles the question was raised whether the laws
given to Israel by Moses had not been known to the Patriarchs
— does it not say that the law which Moses gave was an "in-
heritance of the congregation of Jacob," coming to them, that is,
from the Fathers?2 Abraham, in particular, it was said, was
1 Gen. 17, 10 ff.; 32, 33. There is no prohibition in the Law of eating the
'sinew that shrank/ According to M. Hulhn 7, 6 such a law was given at
Sinai, "but it was written only in its place," sc. in the narrative.
* Deut. 33, 4; Sifre Deut. § 345.
276 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
thoroughly versed in both the written and the unwritten law,
and kept them both. He followed all the commandments most
scrupulously; even the 'erub tabshilin was observed in his
household.1
Whatever previous revelations there had been, they were all
included in the complete and final revelation, the twofold Law
given to Israel at Sinai. The religion thus revealed was the
religion of Israel and of no other nation — that was the history
of the past and the present fact. But the Jews had long since
come to believe that as the one true religion it was destined to
be the religion of all mankind; and the question which emerged
with the beginning of reflection on the implications of the idea
of universal revealed religion still pressed for an answer: How
can the revelation have been made to one nation only? The
author of Isa. 40 ff., who found his solution in the prophetic
mission of Israel, confronting the idolatrous polytheism of his
surroundings, concentrated the idea of true religion into a pure
monotheism and a moral life; of Jewish observances he empha-
sizes only the sabbath, which in the exile became the symbol of
Judaism. A similar situation produced a similar simplification
in much of the literature of Jewish apologetic and propaganda in
the Hellenistic dispersion.
In Jewish Palestine, however, monotheism was not a question;
there was no active propaganda, and the condemnation of idolatry
was not addressed to Gentiles. Naturally, therefore, when men
thought of revealed religion, it was religion as a rule of life rather
than as the recognition of the one true God; and this the more
because it was the interpretation and application of the rule of
life, not the knowledge of God, on which there was discussion in
the schools and controversy between sects. With the emphasis
thus given the divine law as the content of revelation — a law
to which the intrinsic universality of true religion itself was neces-
1 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Lek leka § i (see Buber's note), and cf § 23; Yoma
28b. In other parallels the 'erub haserot is specified, e.g. Gen. R. 64, 4. See
Note 46.
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 277
sarily ascribed — the exclusiveness of the revelation to Israel
was a more difficult problem. The difficulty was enhanced by
the fact that, as it was now conceived, not only the fortunes of
nations were determined by their attitude toward the true
religion, but the fate of individuals after death. Did it consist
with the justice of God that the heathen of all generations
should be doomed for not keeping a law which neither they nor
their fathers had ever known?
Some such reflections, I conceive, gave rise to the persuasion
that the law must have been revealed to the Gentiles also; not
alone the rudimentary law given to Adam and repeated to Noah,
but the Law in its Sinaitic completeness. From the conviction
a priori that God must have done something to the assertion
that actually he did, and then to the discovery in Scripture of
proofs of the fact, is a process too familiar in the history of relig-
ious thought to require explanation or extenuation in the par-
ticular case.
That the whole law was revealed at Sinai to all nations and
offered to them for their acceptance, but refused by all except
Israel, is not, like many of the things we have had occasion to
note — like Abraham's expertness in the study and practice of
the twofold law, for example — a scholastic conceit or a play of
homiletical subtlety; it was the teaching of both the great schools
of the second century, the schools of Ishmael and Akiba, and is
therefore presumably part of the earlier common tradition from
which they drew; and it is repeated in many places with vary-
ing circumstantial details. The law was given in the desert
(Exod. 19, i), given with all publicity in a place which no one
had any claim to, lest, if it were given in the land of Israel, the
Jews might deny to the Gentiles any part in it;1 or lest any
nation in whose territory it was given might claim an exclusive
right in it. It was given in the desert, in fire and in water,
things which are free to all who are born into the world. It was
1 Mekilta, Bahodesh 2 (ed. Friedmann f. 62a; ed. Weiss f. yoa), on Exod.
19,2. See Note 47.
278 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
revealed at Sinai, not in one language but in four — Hebrew,
Roman, Arabic, and Aramaic.1 The foreign languages here named
— "Roman" being the language of Seir (Esau) — are those of
peoples living, one might say, within hearing distance of the
thunder tones of revelation at Sinai, and it is these three neigh-
boring peoples which in the often repeated story refused the law
because it forbade the sins to which they were by heredity ad-
dicted, murder, adultery, and robbery.2
In Jewish computation, however, based on Gen. 10, the nations
of the world were seventy, and the notion that the law was given
to all nations takes the form of a revelation in seventy languages.
Sometimes it is God's voice at Sinai that is heard in all seventy
at once;3 or Moses in the plains of Moab interpreted the law in
seventy languages; 4 or, again, the law was inscribed on the stones
of the altar on Mount Ebal (Josh. 8, 31 f.), and the nations sent
their scribes who copied it in seventy different languages.5
Everywhere the nations refused to receive the law thus offered
to them; Israel alone accepted it and pledged obedience to it.
God foreknew that the Gentiles would not receive it, but he
offered it to them that they might have no ground to impugn
his justice; it is not his way to punish without such justification,
he does not deal tyrannously with his creatures.6
That Israel alone among the nations has the true religion
argues, therefore, no partiality or injustice in God; it is because,
while all the rest refused the revelation he made of his character
and will, Israel joyfully received it and solemnly bound itself
to live in conformity to it.7 In content and intention the Law is
1 Sifre Deut. § 343 (ed. Friedmann f. i42b, near the top).
2 Ibid. See Note 48.
3 Shabbat 88b. See Note 49.
4 Gen. R. 49, 2; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Lek leka § 23 (f. 4Oa); Agadat
Bereshit c. 16, 2.
6 Tos. Sotah 8, 6 (Judah ben Ila'i); cf. Sotah 35b.
6 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 2ooa; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Berakah § 3 (f. 28a).
See Note 50.
7 In that moment and by that act the Reign of God (malkut Shamaim^
'Kingdom of Heaven'), which till then had been acknowledged only by in-
dividuals, became national.
CHAP, iv] PERPETUITY OF THE LAW 279
universal; and, notwithstanding the collective rejection by the
Gentiles, individual Gentiles who obey its commandments share
in its promises. Thus, in Lev. 18, 5, 'Ye shall therefore keep my
statutes and my ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by
them/ R. Meir is reported to have found proof for the assertion
that even a foreigner (or Gentile) who occupies himself with
the Law is like the high priest; for in that verse it is not said
that priests, levites, and (lay) Israelites shall live by them, but
"a man" therefore even a Gentile.1 This view is set forth more
fully in Sifra on Lev. 18, 5 in the name of R. Jeremiah: "If you
ask whence we learn that even a Gentile who obeys the law is
like the high priest, the answer is found in the words, 'Which if
a man (any human being) do, he shall live by them.' So again
it is said, 'This is the law of mankind, Lord God' (2 Sam. 7,
19); not this is the law of priests and levites and Israelites,2 but
of mankind. And again, 'Open the gates that a righteous Gentile
keeping faithfulness may enter by it' (Isa. 26, 2); not open the
gates that there may enter priests, levites, and Israelites, 'This is
the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter by it' (Psalm
1 1 8, 20); not priests, levites, Israelites. It does not say, Rejoice,
priests and levites and Israelites, but, 'Rejoice, ye righteous, in
the Lord' (Psalm 33, i). Not, Do good, O Lord, to the priests,
levites, Israelites, but 'Do good, O Lord, to the good' (Psalm
125, 4). Hence it follows that even a Gentile who obeys the
law is like the high priest." 3
The Sadducees denied the authority of the unwritten law;
they acknowledged no revelation but that in Scripture.4 They
had traditions of their own, ritual and jural, but their authority
rested on prescription or the legislative powers of rulers or
1 Sanhedrin 59a; Baba £amma j8a; 'Abodah Zarah ja.
2 Priests, levites, lay Israelites, are not social classes, but the three wor-
shipping congregations. The high priest is not counted among them, and
therein lies the resemblance between the Gentile student of the Law and the
high priest specifically.
8 Sifra, Ahare Perek 13 (ed. Weiss f. 86b). See Note 51.
4 Josephus, Antt. xm. 10, 6; see above, pp. 57 f.; 68.
28o REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
of the Sanhedrin, not on supplementary instructions given to
Moses at Sinai. In their interpretation of the written law for
practical purposes — they had no scholastic interest in the sub-
ject — the Sadducees were common-sense literalists, and conse-
quently often more rigorous than the Pharisees, not only in the
field of criminal law,1 but in various other matters in regard to
which the 'tradition ' of the Pharisees was more accommodating.
On the other hand, they ridiculed the absurdity of the Pharisaic
dictum that manuscripts of sacred Scriptures render unclean
the hands of one who touches them, while profane books do
not.2
The points in dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees in the
days when the latter were a powerful or even a dominant party
were undoubtedly much more serious than the trivialities that
are incidentally reported in our sources. Even in the first gen-
erations after the fall of Jerusalem the real issues had fallen into
oblivion. The destruction of the temple and the abolition of
the Sanhedrin left the surviving Sadducees a mere sect, small in
numbers, without influence among the people, and standing for
nothing in particular except their hereditary antipathy to the
Pharisees, an antipathy which found expression in cavilling
questions and paltry annoyances rather than in serious contro-
versy. Thenceforth the authority of the unwritten law and of
the Pharisaean interpretation of the Scriptures was uncontested;
the teaching of the schools and the decisions of rabbinical as-
semblies more and more completely dominated Judaism not
only in Palestine but in the Dispersion.
1 Josephus, Antt. xm. 10, 6.
2 M. Yadaim 4, 6.
CHAPTER V
THE SYNAGOGUE
A consequence of the idea of revealed religion which was of
the utmost moment in all the subsequent history of Judaism was
the endeavor to educate the whole people in its religion. Such
an undertaking has no parallel in the ancient Mediterranean
world. The religion of the household in Egypt or Greece or
Rome was a matter of domestic tradition, perpetuated by ex-
ample rather than by instruction, and no attempt was ever made
to systematize it and make it uniform, or even to fix it; the
religion of the city or the state was a tradition of the priesthoods,
in whose charge the public cultus was, and who gave directions
and assistance pro re nata to individuals in private sacrifices and
expiations. If the usage of the sanctuary was reduced to writing,
it was done privately for the convenience of the priests them-
selves. The possession of a body of sacred Scriptures, including
the principles of their religion as well as its ritual and the ob-
servances of the household and the individual, of itself put the
Jews in a different case.
What gave the motive to the unique endeavor of which we
have spoken was not the mere possession of such sacred Scrip-
tures, but the conviction that in these Scriptures God had re-
vealed to his people his will for their whole life, and that the
welfare of the nation and the fulfilment of its hopes for the future
depended upon its conformity to his revealed will. The recovery
of independence, with all the political and material prosperity
the prophets depicted in such splendid imagery, would not come
until they proved themselves fit for it by doing their best to
fulfil the obligation they had undertaken when at Sinai their
fathers professed, "All that the Lord hath spoken will we do
281
282 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
and obey." 1 This was the religious motive in the zeal with
which the Pharisaic party in New Testament times not only
took pains to instruct the masses in the proper observance of
the law but strove to impose on them the " traditions of the
elders/' and to induce individuals voluntarily to pledge them-
selves to be scrupulous in certain matters about which there was
general laxity. It was for this that they made an ever thicker
and thornier hedge about the letter of the law " to keep men at
a distance from transgression."
The Pharisees made of the resurrection of the dead an article
of faith, and taught that between death and the resurrection
the souls of the righteous awaited the last judgment in blessed-
ness and those of the wicked in misery. Inasmuch as righteous-
ness and wickedness are defined by man's conformity to the
divinely revealed norms of character and conduct or disregard
of them, the well-being of the individual after death as well as
the realization of the national hope demanded education in
religion. For with the Jewish conception of religion it was not
to be imagined that a man or a people could be righteous without
knowing God's holy character, and what was right in his eyes
and what wrong. And if God had revealed these things, plainly
revelation was the only place to go to learn them.
To those who are accustomed to regard religion as primarily
a way by which a man may be assured of salvation for his own
particular soul, this personal motive for study and observance
might seem more compelling than the desire to bring near the
national salvation, and this impression is strengthened by Paul's
argument, which implies that the salvation of the individual by
the works of the law was the chief end of Jewish religiousness.
The inference would, however, be erroneous, at least for Pales-
tinian Judaism in the period under our consideration, as will be
made clear in a subsequent chapter.
1 The Asmonaean failure, charged to the religious shortcomings of princes
and people (Psalms of Solomon 2, 15-18, and passim), doubtless contributed
to this conviction, and the memory of this failure made the Pharisees averse
to messianic enthusiasm and agitations for independence.
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 283
For the education of the whole people in the principles and
practice of its religion Judaism had two institutions, outgrowths
of the religion itself, which were in their respective spheres
admirably adapted to this end, the synagogue and the school;
and these two, though of independent origin and never organic-
ally connected, worked together in a harmony which resulted
in substantial unity of instruction.
It is not probable that the synagogue began with so definite
a purpose.1 Its origin is unknown, but it may be reasonably
surmised that it had its antecedents in spontaneous gatherings
of Jews in Babylonia and other lands of their exile on the sab-
baths and at the times of the old seasonal feasts or on fast days,2
to confirm one another in fidelity to their religion in the midst
of heathenism, and encourage themselves in the hope of restora-
tion. In such gatherings we may imagine them listening to the
words of a living prophet like Ezekiel 3 or the author of Isa.
40 ff., or reading the words of older prophets; confessing the
sins which had brought this judgment upon the nation and be-
seeching the return of God's favor in such penitential prayers as
ere long became an established type in Hebrew literature, or
in poetical compositions of similar content such as are found in
the Book of Lamentations and in the Psalter.
The proved religious value of such gatherings would lead to
custom and to the spread of the institution to other communi-
ties; the things which it would be most natural to do and say
under such circumstances at least contain the elements of the
later synagogue service.4 Wherever and however it arose, the
1 See Note 52. 2 Zech. 7, 5; Isa. 58.
8 Ezek. 8, i; 14, i; 20, i. Many of the prophecies of Ezekiel may have
been delivered on such occasions. Perhaps such chapters as Deut. 4; 29 f.,
may have been composed to be read in such assemblies; cf. also Lev. 26.
4 Possible mention of such associations in the Old Testament: D^TDn ^np,
tnK\ri<ria balwv, Psalm 149, i; D^p^V mjJ, Psalm i, 5; cf. ol ayairQvTes
(rvvaywyfa 6o-twv, Psalms of Solomon 17, 18. See also Enoch (Parables) 38, i ;
53, 6; 62, 8. In 53, 6 we read that "the righteous and elect one shall cause
the house of his congregation to appear," which Charles and Beer understand
of synagogues (restored by the Messiah — Beer). Is it rather the temple of the
new age?
284 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
synagogue was at the beginning of our era already an institution
of long standing, which like all the religious institutions of Juda-
ism was believed to have been established by Moses,1 while the
liturgical prayers were said to have been appointed by the Men
of the Great Assembly.2 It was to be found in the Dispersion
wherever there were Jews enough to maintain one. In Palestine
there were synagogues in all the cities and towns; there were
many in Jerusalem itself, under the very shadow of the temple,
and even one within its precincts.3
If the synagogue as we know it in New Testament times or from
the Mishnah is compared with the voluntary private assemblies
which we have supposed to be its forerunners, two important
differences appear: First, before the beginning of the Christian
era it had become a public institution, commonly possessing an
edifice for religious gatherings erected by the community or
given to it by individuals — sometimes by pious Gentiles (Luke,
7, 5). It was no longer a surrogate for the worship in the temple
among Jews who were deprived of participation in the cultus by
the cessation of sacrifice or by their remoteness from Jerusalem,4
but had attained an independent position as the seat of a wor-
ship of different character, a rational worship without sacrifice
or offering. And, Second, regular instruction in religion had
taken its place as an organic part of worship, and even as its
most prominent feature.
In this double character the synagogue was a wholly unique
institution. To the observation of the Greeks it suggested a
school of philosophy. The preliminary purifications and the
prayers which preceded the reading and exposition of its books
were not without analogies in certain Greek religious and philo-
sophical circles such as the Pythagoreans. The teaching of the
1 Philo Vita Mosis ni. 27 (ed. Mangey II, 167 f.); Josephus, Contra
Apionem ii. 17.
2 Berakot33a. Sec Note 53.
3 M. Yoma 7, i; M. Sotah 7, 7 f.; Tos. Sukkah 4, 11. See Note 54.
4 Ezek. u, 16; see Note 55.
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 285
synagogue also, particularly its fundamental monotheism and
its emphasis on morals, was to Greek apprehension purely
philosophical doctrine. Hellenistic Jews like Philo described
the Sabbath services of the synagogue for Greek readers in the
same way: the Jews laid aside all their ordinary occupations,
not to take the time for sports and shows, but to devote them-
selves wholly to philosophy — real philosophy, their national
philosophy.1
To the Jews, however, as appears clearly enough in Philo
himself, the synagogue was a place for instruction in the truths
and duties of revealed religion; and in imparting and receiving
this divine instruction no less than in praise or prayer they
were doing honor to God — it was an act of worship. The con-
sequence of the establishment of such a rational worship for the
whole subsequent history of Judaism was immeasurable. Its
persistent character, and, it is not too much to say, the very
preservation of its existence through all the vicissitudes of its
fortunes, it owes more than anything else to the synagogue. Nor
is it for Judaism alone that it had this importance. It deter-
mined the type of Christian worship, which in the Greek and
Roman world of the day might otherwise easily have taken the
form of a mere mystery; and, in part directly, in part through
the church, it furnished the model to Mohammed. Thus Judaism
gave to the world not only the fundamental ideas of these great
monotheistic religions but the institutional forms in which they
have perpetuated and propagated themselves.
How the synagogue became a universal public institution of
Judaism, and when the regular reading and exposition of the
Law came to have a central place in the worship, history gives
no hint. There is indeed no mention of synagogues at all in
Jewish writings surviving from the centuries preceding the
Christian era, unless, as is commonly thought, Psalm 74,8,
1 Vita Mosis in. 27 § 211 (ed. Mangey II, 167); cf. De septenario c. 6
§§ 6 1 f. (II, 282); De somnns ii. 18 (I, 675). Similarly of the Therapeutae,
De vita contemplativa c. 3 §§ 30 ff. (II, 476). Cf. Josephus, Antt. xvni. i, 2.
See Note 56.
286 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
"They have burned all the meeting places of God in the land,"
be such a reference.1
It is hardly likely that this double development of the syna-
gogue came about of itself by a kind of natural evolution uncon-
scious of its ends. In its singular adaptation to the religious
education of the whole people it seems rather to give evidence
of intelligent purpose; and all that we know about the times, as
well as the subsequent history of the synagogue, would incline
us to conjecture that the leading part in this development was
taken by the Pharisees from the second century before our era.
The Pharisees were an outgrowth of the IJasidim, represent-
ing the active and progressive element in that party — those who
thought that when men had nullified God's law, it was " time
to do something for the Lord." The Maccabaean struggle was
eminently such a time, and men of insight must have learned
from the apostasy of many in high places and the indifference
of the most that there was nothing more urgent to do than to
inculcate and confirm religious loyalty by worship, knowledge,
and habit, through some such means as the synagogue. The
permanent security of the religion, to say nothing of the greater
things it held in prospect, could only be attained by bringing all
classes to an understanding of the distinctive nature of Judaism,
an appreciation of its incomparable worth, and a devotion to
its peculiar observances like that which the Pharisees them-
selves cultivated in their pledge-bound societies. Education in
revealed religion which has its revelation in sacred scriptures is
of necessity education in the Scripture: methodical instruction
in the Law, was, under these conditions, the foundation of every-
thing. Hence the regular readings from the Pentateuch, ac-
companied by an interpretative translation into the vernacular,
and followed by an expository or edifying discourse, usually
taking something in the lesson as a point of departure, became
constant elements of the synagogue service.
Among the Pharisees were many of the Scribes (biblical
* See Note 57.
CHAP.V] THE SYNAGOGUE 287
scholars), who seem hitherto, as we gather from the references
to them in Sirach, to have stood as a class somewhat aloof from
the populace, conscious of a learning and intelligence beyond
the comprehension of the vulgar.1 Once drawn into the move-
ment, however, they naturally took an important part in in-
struction of the people, and the interpretation of the Scripture
in the synagogue was thus directly connected with the tradi-
tional learning of the Scribes as it was in later times with that of
the schools. Whether or not the Pharisees adapted the syna-
gogue more completely to the ends of religious education in
some such way as has been suggested, it is certain that they took
possession of it and made most effective use of it. Through it, more
perhaps than by any other means, they gained the hold upon the
mass of the people which enabled them to come out victorious
from their conflicts with John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus
and to establish such power as Josephus ascribes to them.2
The synagogue in the hands of the Pharisees was doubtless
the chief instrument in the Judaizing of Galilee. In the days
of Judas Maccabaeus, the Jews, or at least those who were faith-
ful to their religion, were a very small part of the mixed popula-
tion of Galilee — so few that Simon, after defeating the heathen
who threatened to exterminate them, carried the Galilean Jews
and all their belongings off to Jerusalem for safety.3 Within not
much more than a century, Galilee had become as Jewish as
Judaea, and more inclined to excesses of national and religious
zeal which brought them repeatedly into conflict with the Roman
government.
The necessity of such an institution as the synagogue was
even greater outside of Palestine than in it; for while at home the
Jews had a religious centre in the temple and a bond of union in
its worship, especially at the festivals, in foreign lands there was
nothing of the kind. It is probable that the Jews in the Disper-
1 Ecclus. 6, 32 ff ; 9, 14 ff.; 14, 20 ff.; especially 38, 24 ff.
2 Josephus, Antt. xm. 10, 5 f.; 15, 5; 16, i f.; Bell. Jud. i. 5, 1-3.
8 i Mace. 5, 21-23. Making all allowance for exaggeration, it remains
that Galilee in those days was mainly heathen.
288 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
sion were from the beginning accustomed to gather on the sab-
bath as a day of leisure, if only to meet their countrymen, and
their gatherings would naturally assume in some degree a religi-
ous character. Without some such association, indeed, it is
hardly imaginable that the Jewish communities, deprived of every
form of public cult, should have maintained the religion of their
fathers. It is now the general opinion of scholars that the Greek
translation of the Pentateuch early in the third century B.C. was
undertaken, not to enrich Ptolemy's Library as the fictitious
letter of Aristeas narrates, but for the use of Jews among whom
knowledge of Hebrew was becoming rare; though it does not
follow that it was made especially for public reading in the
Alexandrian synagogues.
Much in the history of the synagogue is thus obscure, but
what is certain is that for several generations, at least, before our
era the synagogue had been what it was in subsequent centuries,
an institute of religious education, universal, unique in aim and
method, and in a high degree effective. A good measure of this
effectiveness is given by the earliest Gospels. Jesus and his
disciples were Galilaeans, from a region in which the expansion
of Judaism was comparatively recent, and where the great
rabbinical schools were still of the future. Jesus himself grew
up in an obscure little town even the name of which is not found
outside of the New Testament. All were men of the people;
there was no scholar among them. What they knew of the words
of Scripture and its meaning they had learned in the synagogue
from the readings and the homilies; no other sources of knowl-
edge were accessible to them.1 Many apposite references to the
Scriptures, or quotations from them, were probably introduced
into the Gospels in the course of transmission, but when all
deductions are made, and within the limits of what has the pre-
sumption of being authentic tradition of the words of Jesus, the
range of quotation and allusion is remarkably wide, embracing
the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Psalms, and occasionally some
1 See Note 58.
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 289
others of the Hagiographa; the number of references is large,
and the aptness with which they are adduced evinces notable
intimacy with Scripture. That the synagogue gave opportunity
to acquire such familiarity is sufficient testimony to the quality
of its instruction. For the Hellenistic synagogues, the knowledge
of Scripture which Paul assumes that his hearers possess gives
similar witness.
Each synagogue was presided over by a Head of the Syna-
gogue,1 probably chosen from among the 'elders' by cooptation,
who had general oversight of the exercises in the synagogue,
maintaining order (Luke 13, 14), inviting strangers to address
the assembly (Acts 13, 15), and the like. A salaried officer was
the synagogue attendant, the 'minister' (Luke 4, 20). 2 In his
charge were the synagogue building and its furniture, especially
the rolls of the Scriptures; sometimes he had his dwelling under
the same roof. From the roof of the synagogue he gave the
signal to people to stop work on the approach of the sabbath
by a thrice repeated blast on a trumpet,3 and similarly gave notice
of the close of the holy day. In the service of the synagogue
the attendant brought the roll of Scripture from the press and
delivered it to the reader; when the reading was concluded he
received it back (Luke 4, 20), rolled it up, and after holding it
up to the view of the congregation returned it to the press.4 He
also indicated to the priest the point at which the benediction
should be pronounced,5 and at the fasts he told the priests when
to blow the trumpets.6
In smaller communities the IJazzan often had to fill a variety
of other offices. When there were not readers enough at the
1 Rosh ha-keneset, M. Sotah 7, 7 f., and elsewhere; apxio'uva'yaryos, Mark
5, 22, etc. See Note 59.
2 ffazzan ha-keneset. M. Sotah 7, 7 f. and often. See Note 60.
3 Tos. Sukkah 4, n f ; Shabbat 35b.
4 Compare the more elaborate ceremony described in M. Sotah 7, 7-8.
6 Sifre Num. § 39, end; Sotah j8a.
6 Ta'amt i6b. See in general W. Bacher, 'Synagogue/ in Hastings' Dic-
tionary of the Bible, IV, 640 ff.
29o REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
service he had to fill out the number, or even to read the whole
lesson himself; 1 he might also have to lead in prayer.2 The
inhabitants of Simonias asked the Patriarch Judah to give them
a man who could serve them as preacher, judge, sexton (haz-
zari), school master, teacher of the traditional law, and what-
ever else they needed, and he sent them such a universal func-
tionary in the person of Levi ben Sisi.3 Especially frequent
was the combination of sexton and schoolmaster.4
The synagogues in prosperous communities were often fine
edifices according to the taste of the time and place; the com-
munity did not spare money on the decoration and furnishing.
The essential parts of the synagogue furniture were a chest,
or press, in which the rolls of the Scriptures were kept, usually
standing in an alcove or recess shut off by a curtain from the
body of the synagogue; and a bema^ or platform, with a reading
desk on which the roll of the Pentateuch or the Prophets was
laid for the reading of the lessons. Lamps and candelabra also
belonged to the furnishings of the synagogue. The notices we
possess about the internal arrangement and furniture of the
Palestinian synagogues are from the second century, and it is not
improbable that after the destruction of the temple there was a
tendency to assimilate the synagogue in such externals to the
temple, as certain features of the temple worship were taken over
into the service of the synagogue and terms of the sacrificial
cultus were appropriated to prayers of the synagogue; but we
have no reason to question that the synagogue and its services
had essentially the same character before the destruction of
Jerusalem as after. This is confirmed by the descriptions Philo
gives of the worship in Alexandrian synagogues.5
1 For an example see Megillah 2$b. When the Hazzan read, another had
to take upon him the Hazzan's ordinary offices, Tos. Megillah 4, 21.
1 An instance, Jer. Berakot I2d, middle.
3 Jer. Yebamot ija. Levi did not acquit himself of the task to their satis-
faction. Cf. Jer. Shebi'it 36d, top, the story of R. Simeon ben Lakish at
Bosra.
4 See Note 61.
5 On the architecture and furnishings of the synagogues see Note 62.
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 291
The constant parts of the synagogue service were prayer, the
reading of the lessons from the Scripture, followed, if a competent
person was present, by a homily. The prayer was preceded by
the recitation of what may be called the Jewish confession of
faith, usually named from its first word, the Shema': 'Hear, O
Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,1 and thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might' (Deut. 6, 4 f.),2 introduced and followed by
sentences of ascription, called Berakot because they regularly
begin, after the pattern of similar ascriptions in the Psalms, with
the word, 'Blessed.' Thus in the first of the ascriptions which
constitute the regular preface to the Shema', whether said priv-
ately morning and evening or in public worship, runs: "Blessed
art thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, former of light
and creator of darkness, author of welfare (peace), and creator
of all things." 3
The recitation of the Shema' is followed by the prayer, Tefillah.4
In the oldest form in which it is known to us, it consists of a
series of 'Benedictions,' so called from the responses at the
close of each ascription or petition: "Blessed art thou, O Lord,"
etc. In an arrangement made toward the end of the first century
there were eighteen such prayers, whence the common name,
'The Eighteen' (sc. Benedictions), Shemoneh 'Esreh? and this
name was perpetuated unchanged when subsequently a nine-
teenth was added; it is popularly used also of the prayers on
sabbaths and festivals, when only six of the eighteen (nineteen)
1 That is, 'sole God ' This is doubtless the way in which the words were
construed and understood. Cf. Deut. 4, 35, 39; 7, 9
2 Mark 12, 29 f and parallels. On the Shema' of the liturgy and the Bera-
kot see Note 63
3 The Decalogue once had a place in the synagogue liturgy, but was
dropped to give no occasion to "the cavils of heretics." See Note 64.
4 Tefillah is the Biblical word for prayer as petition (Isa i, 15; i Kings 8,
38) or intercession (2 Kings 19, 4; Jer. 7, 16; u, 14, etc.). For the Jewish
use see Note 65.
5 E.g. M. Berakot 4, 3: Rabban Gamaliel said, "A man should pray the
Eighteen every day "
292 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
are said.1 The prayer opens with the praise of God (Nos. 1-3);
and closes with thanksgiving to God (Nos. 17-19); the petitions
(Nos. 4-16) are thus enclosed in ascriptions.2
The ordaining of the ascriptions and of the prayers in general
was attributed to the Men of the Great Assembly, with whom
so many others of the institutions of Judaism were reputed to
have originated.3 The same body is probably meant when it is
said elsewhere that " a hundred and twenty elders, among whom
were a number of prophets," prescribed the Eighteen Benedic-
tions in their order.4 But by the side of this stands a historical
statement that a certain otherwise unknown Simeon ha-Pakuli,
in the presence and presumably under the direction of R.
Gamaliel (II) at Jamnia, arranged the Eighteen Benedictions in
the order in which they were to be said.5 Inasmuch as Gamaliel
made the daily repetition of the Eighteen obligatory on every
man — a rule which was disapproved by some of his influential
contemporaries6 — fixing of the order of the prayers was a
natural corollary, and perhaps the exact number of prayers that
should constitute a complete Tefillah (eighteen) was fixed at
the same time.7 The prayer for the extirpation of heretics, for-
mulated by another of his disciples, Simeon the Little, was in-
troduced into the prayers by order of Gamaliel.8
All forms of the Tefillah that are known to us in the past or
the present go back to this redaction by the authority of Ga-
maliel II about the end of the first century of our era, and, with
many verbal variations and much amplification, they exhibit
a constant order and an essential unity of content. There is no
doubt, however, that the work of the redactor was principally,
as the tradition describes it, to arrange in appropriate order
1 See below, p. 295. 6 Megillah I7b; Berakot 28b, end.
2 Sife Deut. § 343. See Note 66. • M. Berakot 4, 3.
8 Berakot 33a. * See Note 67.
4 Megillah iyb; Jer. Berakot 40!.
8 The oldest Palestinian form of this petition is: " For apostates may there
be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and the heretics suddenly perish." See
Note 68.
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 293
existing topics of prayer, probably with the exercise of a certain
selection among nearly equivalent petitions and the adoption
of a normal, though not obligatory, phraseology. The petitions
themselves, upon internal evidence, had their origin at various
times and under different circumstances, and they have often
been recast or modified to adapt them to changed situations.1
In their religious spirit they resemble the Psalms, from which
their diction also is chiefly drawn. Some of them were brought
over into the service of the synagogue from the temple liturgy;
others were perhaps originally framed for the private use of
individuals; while others still, expressing feelings and desires
of the community or the people, seem to have their origin in the
synagogue itself.
Certain evidences of the age of individual petitions are rare.
The resurrection of the dead in the second benediction is an
indication not only of age but of the circles in which the prayer
was framed; it is specific Pharisaic doctrine, and cannot well
have got into the synagogue prayers till the Pharisees obtained
control of the synagogue. There are, as we should expect, ex-
pressions which imply the destruction of Jerusalem and the
cessation of the sacrificial cultus, but these seem to be engrafted
on older petitions or to be modifications of them, rather than
the substance of new ones. On the other hand the nucleus of
the prayers is doubtless of greater antiquity.2 In second century
sources and thereafter there is abundant evidence of familiarity
with the prayers, which are cited by their opening phrase or by
characteristic words.3
The three prefatory benedictions bless the God of the Fathers,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Mighty God, who nourishes
the living and revives the dead; the Holy God. Petitions follow
for knowledge, repentance, forgiveness, deliverance from afflic-
tion, healing, for a bountiful year, the gathering of the dispersed
1 See Note 69.
2 See Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst, p 30.
3 The names of the first three and the last two are given in M. Rosh ha-
Shanah 4, 5. See Note 70.
294 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
of Israel, the restoration of good government, the destruction of
heretics and apostates, for the elders of the people and upright
converts, for the rebuilding of the temple and the reign of the
Davidic dynasty, for the hearing of prayer, the restoration of
sacrificial worship; closing with thanksgiving for God's goodness
and loving-kindness, and a final prayer for peace and the wel-
fare of all God's people.
It will be observed that the first group of petitions are of a
personal nature, though they are the needs of all men, and that
religious needs — knowledge and intelligence, repentance, for-
giveness of sins — take precedence of natural needs. These
are succeeded by a less coherent and well-ordered group of
petitions chiefly for public or national goods, which, as might be
expected, have suffered more extensive changes than the pre-
ceding individual petitions. Repeated changes have been made
also in the names of the adversaries in the Birkat ha-Minim, in
consequence of the change of times or environment.1 An in-
creasingly eschatological direction of the individual hope led also
to the more frequent mention of the resurrection of the dead.
The last three prayers are, as we have seen, called 'Thanks-
givings'; in fact, however, this character belongs only to the
penultimate, the other two being petitions. After the prayer
of thanksgiving came the priestly benediction when it was pro-
nounced; and this was followed by a prayer for peace which
was a kind of congregational response to the priest's benedic-
tion, whose words, "The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee
and give thee peace," are taken up: "Bestow peace . . . upon
us," etc., with the corresponding benediction, "Maker of peace."
From this relation, the last prayer is itself called ' the priests'
benediction' (Birkat Kohamm)?
The priestly benediction was taken over into the synagogue
from the temple,3 where, in conformity with Num. 6, 22-28, the
1 In Jer. Berakot 40! the petition is summarized, "Bring low our adver-
saries." See Note 68
- M Rosh ha-Shanah 4, 5; M. Tamid 5, i.
3 See Note 71.
CHAP.V] THE SYNAGOGUE 295
priests blessed the worshipping congregation in the words:
"The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord make his face
to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee. The Lord lift up
his countenance upon thee and give thee peace." 1 In the
temple the blessing was pronounced in the course of the regular
daily burnt-offering, where, as soon as the parts of the victim
had been laid on the altar, the priests took their place on the
steps leading up to the portico.2 In the synagogue it occupied a
corresponding position, following the prayer for the acceptance
of sacrifices, or (after 70 A.D.) for the restoration of sacrifice.
The blessing was not pronounced at every service of the syna-
gogue: in the first centuries of our era it was given at daily
morning prayer when a legal congregation (ten men) was as-
sembled and a priest was present, and at additional services on
the sabbaths and festivals.
Of the regular daily morning prayer (Tefillah, Shemoneh
'Esreti) described above only the first three and the last three
prayers are recited on sabbaths and festivals, and the concur-
rence of all the rites in this gives good ground for inferring that
it was the oldest custom. The place of the thirteen intervening
petitions is filled by a single prayer having for its subject the
day and its proper observance, so that the prayer consists of
seven parts; New Year's, however, has in this place three special
prayers instead of one.
The ascriptions and petitions in the prayer in their earliest
form were all short, several of them consisting of but two clauses
with a correspondingly brief benediction; and even in the ex-
panded form of later times they are of moderate dimensions
compared with other parts of the liturgy. The Shema' and the
Tefillah may be said in any language; the priestly benediction
must be in Hebrew.3 After the end of the public prayer, place
1 For references to benediction by priests see Lev. 9, 22; Deut. 10, 8;
21, 5; Josh. 8, 33; 2 Chron. 30, 27.
2 M. Tamid 7, 2, where the differences between the use in the temple and
in the synagogue are enumerated; cf. M. Sotah 7, 6; Tos. Sotah 7, 8.
3 M. Sotah 7, 1-2; Tos. Sotah 7, 7.
296 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
was made for the private silent petitions of individuals out of
their own hearts. Such prayers might be prolonged even to
the extent ot the longest prayer in the liturgy, the confession of
sins on the Day of Atonement.1
Whether the use of select Psalms had established itself in the
service of the synagogue at as early a time as that with which we
are here occupied is not entirely certain, though it would seem
natural that with other features of the temple worship the songs
of the levites at the morning and evening sacrifices should be
imitated in the synagogue. The first group of Psalms to be so
employed was Psalms 145-150; but it appears that in the middle
of the second century the daily repetition of these Psalms was
a pious practice of individuals rather than a regular observance
of the congregation.2
The reading of the Scriptures was, as has been said above, a
characteristic feature of the synagogue service, and probably
goes back in some form or other to the beginnings of the in-
stitution. Moses is said to have ordained that portions of the
Law should be read on sabbaths, holy days, new moons, and
the intermediate days of the festivals; while Ezra is said to have
prescribed the reading on market days (Monday and Thursday)
and at the afternoon service (minhafi) on the Sabbath3 —
another way of saying that at the beginning of our era the
custom was of immemorial antiquity.
In the Bible itself the only prescription for the public reading
of the Scriptures is in Deut. 31, 10, where Moses directs that
"this law" (that is, in the writer's intention, the Book of Deu-
teronomy or some part of it) be read in the hearing of the as-
1 Tos. Berakot 3, 10; cf. Berakot 31 a. At a much later time a text for such
tahnumm was provided in the prayer-books, but the use of them was optional.
2 Shabbat n8b (Jose ben Halafta); cf. Soferim 17, n.
8 Jer. Megillah 75a. Elsewhere the reading on Sabbaths and market days
is an ordinance of the prophets and elders (of the Great Assembly); Mekilta
on Exod. 15, 22 (ed. Friedmann 453, ed. Weiss 52b, end). Cf also M. Megil-
lah 3, 6, end; Sifra on Lev. 23, 44 (ed. Weiss f. 1030); Sifre Deut. § 127. See
Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst, pp. 156 f., 538.
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 297
sembled people once in seven years at the Feast of Tabernacles.1
In Nehemiah 8 a description is given of the public reading, at
the request of the people of Judah, of the book of the Law of
Moses which Ezra the scribe had in his possession. Some of
the features of this narrative, as will be shown further on, have
a striking resemblance to the reading of the Scriptures in the
synagogue.2
It would be most natural that at the festal seasons passages
from the Pentateuch in which the feast is appointed and its
rites prescribed should be studied in the schools and read and
expounded in the synagogues,3 and that among several possible
selections of this kind one should become customary. This is
the case in the oldest list of appointed lessons, M. Megillah 3,
4-6, which includes not only readings for the great festivals, and
for New Years and the Day of Atonement, but for all the eight
days of Tabernacles, the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah),
Purim, New Moons, Fast Days, and for four sabbaths out of five
or six preceding the first day of Nisan. The lessons are desig-
nated by the first words of the pericope, or by a general descrip-
tion of the passage, without indication where the reading
ended.4 The natural limits of most of the lessons are not large;
that for the Passover, for example, contains only five verses,
New Years only three. The longest, that for the Day of Atone-
ment, has but thirty-four verses if the whole was read.5 Evi-
dently, the principal thing must have been the exposition of the
ritual and proper observance of the day, based on these short
1 See Note 72.
2 The Chronicler, from whose hand we have this narrative, wrote about
300 B c. and apparently had Deut. 33, 10-13 in mind. Had he also the ex-
ample of the synagogue ? The contrary — that his narrative served as model
for the synagogue — is commonly assumed.
8 See Megillah 32a, end: Moses ordained that the traditional law (halakah)
should be studied in connection with the season; the laws of the Passover
at Passover, etc. Sifre Deut. § 127; Tos Megillah 4, 5.
4 See Note 73.
6 The blessings and curses on public fasts (Lev. 26; Deut. 28) are longer;
but this was an exceptional all-day service.
298 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
pericopes and introducing the substance of other laws in the
Pentateuch on the same subject with the definitions of the oral
law, rather than the mere reading of the paragraph which
served as the starting point.
The four special sabbaths mentioned above had fixed lessons,
from the catch-words of which they got their names (Shekalim,
Zakor, Parah, ha-IJodesh).1 The motives for the selection of
these passages for the particular sabbaths to which they are
assigned are easily discovered; Shekalim reminds the people of
the approaching collection of the annual half-shekel poll-tax;
Zakor, with its command to exterminate Amalek, is associated
with Purim through Haman the Agagite;2 Parah suggests the
purifications necessary in preparation for the Passover; ha-
IJodesh (on the sabbath preceding the first of Nisan or falling
on that day) is the law of the Passover itself, the celebration of
which comes in the middle of the month.
The provision in this Mishnah for all kinds of holy days has
a systematic look, and may be later than the fall of Jerusalem;
but the lessons for the high festivals and the Day of Atonement
are probably much older, and this may be the case also with
the special sabbaths, or the most of them.3 About the lessons
from the Pentateuch on other sabbaths nothing is certainly
known, nor is it known when the custom of reading it through
in order and within a certain number of sabbaths established
itself. It is intrinsically probable that when readings on ordi-
nary sabbaths first came to be customary, a passage from the
Pentateuch was freely selected by the head of the synagogue or
by the reader, as long continued to be the case with the Prophets;
and even that successive readers might take passages from dif-
ferent parts of the volume; the prohibition in M. Megillah 4, 4,4
1 Exod. 30, 11-16; Deut. 25, 17-19; Num. 19, 1-22; Exod. 12, 1-20.
2 Descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites, I Sam 15.
8 The introduction of Purim into the calendar is the extreme upper limit
for Zakor, which is, indeed, something of an intruder in a natural series pre-
paratory to the Passover. It may be noted that in the lists of lessons the
special sabbaths precede the feasts.
4 See Note 74.
CHAP.V] THE SYNAGOGUE 299
"Readers may not skip from place to place in the Pentateuch"
(as they may in the Prophets), would otherwise be meaningless.
Of the reasons given for this rule in later discussion the most
probable is, "that Israel may hear the Law consecutively."1
It may not be inferred from this rule, which has reference only
to the reading at a single service, that the reading was continu-
ous from one service to another. This was a natural next step,
and is represented in the middle of the second century by R.
Meir: "At the place where they leave off at the Sabbath morn-
ing service, they begin at the afternoon service; where they leave
off at that service, they begin on Monday; where they leave off
on Monday, they begin on Thursday; and where they leave off
on Thursday, they begin on the following Sabbath." Meir's
contemporary, R. Judah (ben Ila'i), holds that the proper order
is to begin at each Sabbath morning service where the reading
ended at the morning service of the preceding Sabbath.2 It is
clear from this that authorities recognized no division of the
Pentateuch into lessons of fixed length, or of a cycle of lessons
to be finished within a fixed time. Assuming the normal number
of readers prescribed in the Mishnah and the minimum number
of verses for each reader, it has been reckoned that on R. Meir's
plan it would take about two years and a third to go through
the Pentateuch, and on R. Judah's not less than five and a
half.3
Ultimately the Pentateuch was divided into sections (sedarirri)
of such length as to complete the cycle at the completion of a
definite time. In the Babylonian Talmud it is noted that the
Jews in the West (Palestine) read the Pentateuch through once
in three years, at variance with the Babylonian Jews, who at
that time were accustomed to finish it in one year. Inasmuch
as there is no suggestion of such a division or practice in the
1 Jer. Megillah 75!}. The practical reason that rolling and unrolling the
volume to find a new place was tedious for the congregation is also con-
sidered.
2 Tos. Megillah 4, 10; Megillah jib. See Note 75.
8 Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst, p. 160; cf. 539.
300 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
Mishnah or Tosefta, which minutely regulate so many things
about the reading of the Law, it may be inferred that it was not
authoritatively established before the third century, though it
may have earlier become customary.1 The Babylonian custom,
which eventually prevailed everywhere, is presumably later than
the triennial system; its lessons (parashiyof) are in the average
three times as long.2
The sequence of regular readings in the Pentateuch was
probably at first suspended on the four special sabbaths and on
sabbaths which fell in a festival; later the proper lessons for
these sabbaths were made a second lesson, following the section
for the day in the order of continuous reading.
The reading at certain services in the synagogue of a selec-
tion from the Prophets as a close to the lesson from the Penta-
teuch is mentioned in the Mishnah as a familiar custom,3 but
without any regulations concerning it further than that a legal
congregation (ten men) must be present, and that Ezek. i is not
to be read.4 The Tosefta gives the proper selections for the four
special sabbaths, chosen for their relevancy to the occasion and
to the preceding lesson from the Pentateuch.5 Evidence of the
reading from the Prophets is given by Luke 4, 16 ff., which tells
how Jesus, going into the synagogue in Nazareth on a sabbath,
stood up to read; the volume that was handed to him was the
Book of Isaiah; he opened it and found the place where it is
1 Indications of such a custom may perhaps be found in the direction of R.
Simeon ben Eleazar that the curses in Lev. 26 be read before Pentecost and
those in Deut. 28 before New Years (Megillah 3ib). This was, according to
Simeon ben Eleazar, an ordinance of Ezra. Note also the examples in Tos.
Megillah 4 (3), 31 ff. (authorities of the early second century).
* See Note 76.
3 M. Megillah 4, 3; cf. 4, 9, end. See Note 77.
4 The mcrkabah, forbidden because of the use made of it in theosophical
speculations. Ezek. 16, i ff . also was forbidden by some (cf. Tos. Megillah
4> 34)' Ultimately both were permitted.
5 Thus the Haftarah to Shekalim (Exod. 30, 11-16) is 2 Kings 12, 3 ff
(English Bible 12, 9 ff.); to Zakor (Deut. 25, 17-19), i Sam 15, 2-9; to
Parah (Num. 19, 1-22), Ezek. 36, 25 ff.; to ha-IJodesh (Exod. 12, 1-20).
Ezek. 45, i8ff.
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 301
written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," etc. (Isa. 61, i f.);
having read the verses, he rolled up the book and handed it back
to the attendant, and sat down to expound the passage.1 The
language leaves it uncertain whether Jesus selected the passage
himself, or whether the roll had been so prepared beforehand
that when it was opened the column containing it was exposed.
Inasmuch, however, as there was never any thought of continu-
ous reading in the prophetic books, it is likely that on ordinary
sabbaths the selection was left to the head of the synagogue, or
to the reader — for this lesson there was only one reader.
In the choice of the selection from the Prophets appropriate-
ness to the preceding reading from the Pentateuch, such as has
been observed above in the case of the special sabbaths, is else-
where noted.2 In a Baraita in Megillah Jia-b we find lessons
selected on this principle not only for the three great festivals
but for the sabbaths in the festival weeks, sabbaths on which a
new moon falls, the Feast of Dedication, and the Ninth of Ab.
For other sabbaths the choice was apparently still free. The
assigning of a particular lesson from the Prophets as a pendant
to every lesson from the Pentateuch must be later than the
division of the Pentateuch into sections of definite length and
the establishment of the custom of reading not only in course
but in cycle.
The lessons from the prophetical books (haftarah) designated
in the older lists to which reference has been made above are,
like the readings from the Pentateuch in the same lists, generally
short; and this is true of many of the Haftarahs in the Pales-
tinian triennial cycle. Even more evidently than in the oldest
Pentateuch pericopes the prophetic selections were texts rather
than lessons.
In the Mishnah the number of readers for the lesson from the
Pentateuch at the various services is exactly prescribed: on
1 The description corresponds accurately to the usage of the synagogue
as we find it in the Mishnah and later texts.
J Megillah 290.
302 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
Monday and Thursday and at the Sabbath afternoon service,
three; on New Moons and the days in the festivals which are
not sabbatical, four; and so on. At the Sabbath morning
service seven are called up for the reading of the Law; 1 and since
each reader must read at least three verses, the shortest possible
Pentateuch lesson had twenty-one verses. At a later time the
text of each sabbath lesson (parashaK) of the annual cycle was
divided for the guidance of readers into seven sections or para-
graphs, which are indicated in manuscripts and editions. This
subdivision is evidently comparatively late, and has only the
authority of usage.2 The first reader pronounced a benediction
before beginning his portion of the Law, and the last said one
after his portion.3 In calling up the readers precedence was
given to a priest, if one was present, and after him to a levite.4
The necessity of a translation of the lessons from the Scriptures
must have been early felt, perhaps as early as the institution
of the reading itself.5 The language of the Bible had long since
ceased to be the vernacular of the Jews anywhere. In Palestine
and Babylonia and interior Syria they spoke distinct dialects
of Aramaic; in Egypt Aramaic had given way in our age to
Greek, which was the speech of almost all the Jews in the west-
ern Dispersion; in the remoter provinces of the Parthian empire
they spoke the languages of their surroundings, perhaps in addi-
tion to Aramaic. However great the reverence of the Jews for
the 'sacred tongue,' they had no superstition about it, and put
understanding above sentiment. The traditional interpretation
1 See M. Megillah 4, 1-4. The provision for a large number of readers
points to a time when, as in the latter part of the second century, there were
schools in almost every city, and multitudes of scholars.
2 The divisions vary greatly in different manuscripts. Maimonides (d.
1204) gives a list copied from an ancient standard codex of the Bible attributed
to the famous Massorete, Ben Asher (first half of the ninth century). See
Mishneh Torah, Sefer Torah c. 8.
8 M. Megillah 4, i.
4 M. Gittm 5, 8. Not as an acknowledged right, but "for the sake of
peace." On the precedence of scholars see M. Horaiot 3, 8.
6 On the following see Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst, pp. 186 ff.
CHAP.V] THE SYNAGOGUE 303
of Neh. 8, 8 is that the reading of the Law by Ezra was ac-
companied by a translation into Aramaic.1
In the Palestinian synagogues the lessons were read in Hebrew,
and an interpreter standing beside the reader translated them
into Aramaic. The rules for the readers and the interpreter are
laid down in the Mishnah with considerable detail.2 In earlier
times the practice was probably simpler and more elastic. With
such short pericopes as seem at first to have been customary
there can hardly have been more than one reader, who may
even, upon occasion, have been his own interpreter.8 It must
be borne in mind that for the order of worship in the synagogue
the Mishnah is a late source, representing things as they were
after the destruction of Jerusalem and especially after the war
under Hadrian, a period in which the new importance of the
synagogue would naturally lead to amplification and regulation
of the service. The older custom can be read in it only as in a
kind of palimpsest.4
So far as the rule went, any competent person, even a minor,
might act as interpreter, subject of course to the control of the
head of the synagogue. The number of qualified interpreters in
an ordinary synagogue must usually have been small, and it is
probable that the synagogue attendant, who was frequently
also the school teacher, often served in this capacity.5
The translation was supposed to be extempore; the interpreter
listened to the reading of a verse (in the Prophets it might be
three, if the subject was the same) and gave the meaning of it
to the congregation in their own language. Nothing hindered
1 Megillah 3a and parallels. See Note 78.
2 See Note 79.
* In Luke 4, 16 ff. there is no mention of translation; but the author of
the Gospel was doubtless better acquainted with the Hellenistic synagogues,
in which there was no need of one, the reading being in Greek.
4 The regulations in the Mishnah sometimes seem to be ideals or desider-
ata rather than realities. They would do very well in the cities where there
were great rabbinical schools, and such may have been chiefly in mind.
6 An instance, Jer. Megillah 74d. The story is told of Samuel ben Isaac,
early in the fourth century.
3o4 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
his preparing himself beforehand; but in the synagogue he
must have nothing written before him.1 The object of the trans-
lation was not to turn the scripture word for word into another
language, but to give the hearers an understanding of the sense;
it was in intention, therefore, a free interpretation rather than
a literal reproduction.2
The vagaries to which such freedom is exposed did not fail
to arise. In an example adduced in the Mishnah the congrega-
tion is bidden to silence the interpreter who takes liberties with
his text and give him a smart admonition besides.3 R. Judah
(ben Ila'i) sets a difficult standard for the translator: "He who
translates a verse with strict literalness is a falsifier, and he who
makes additions to it is a blasphemer/'4
The synagogues were, however, not under rabbinical control,
and it is hardly to be questioned that the early interpreters in
some cases exercised considerable freedom in paraphrase. The
Palestinian Targums, as we have them, come from a much later
time, but in the freedom with which translation runs into mid-
rash they may be taken to illustrate the fashion of the older in-
terpreters, though in their actual form the midrashic element
may be largely literary contamination. It is even possible that
in the first age of the institution translation and homily were
not yet differentiated, and the interpreter was also the expository
preacher. In the second century the attempt was made to pro-
vide a standard Aramaic translation of the whole Pentateuch,
and the result is in our hands in the Targum of Onkelos. In
1 See Jer. Megillah j^d. The reason was that the Targum might not seem
to be a kind of second Scripture. Oral tradition and Scripture must be
sharply distinguished. To avoid any possible confusion the reader was for-
bidden to prompt the translator, lest some might think that the translation
was in the roll before him.
2 Literal translation is, however, ordinarily the easiest, and the synagogue
interpreters often stick close to their text.
8 M. Megillah 4, 9. With the rendering of Lev. 18, 21 here condemned
compare the Palestinian Targum. See Note 80.
4 Tos. Megillah 4, 41; giddushin 493. See Berliner, Targum Onkelos, II,
173 *"•
CHAP, v] THE SYNAGOGUE 305
Babylonia it soon came to authority, but whatever esteem it
enjoyed in Palestine, it did not supersede the freer kind.1
How early the homily became an independent part of the syna-
gogue service is not known.2 It was so in the times of Jesus;
it was so in the Hellenistic synagogues of which Philo writes,
Paul in his missionary expeditions habitually used the oppor-
tunity the discourse gave to introduce his gospel to Jews and
proselytes and Gentiles frequenting the synagogue. Preaching
in the synagogue was not the prerogative of any class, nor was
any individual regularly appointed to conduct this part of the
service; but it was only natural that those whose life study
had been the Scriptures and the religion of their people should
be found more profitable for instruction than unschooled men,
and that such as had the gifts of interesting and edifying dis-
course (Haggadah) were more popular than those who excelled
only in juristic refinements.
The homily was in the nature of the case the freest and most
variable part of the service, and its fashion changed greatly
with changing times and circumstances. We find in the Mishnah
and kindred authorities no attempt to regulate either its matter
or its method. The homiletical and expository Midrashim
which have come down to us from the fifth century and later
give a good notion of the nature of the Haggadah in all its
varieties; the sermonic form is perhaps most nearly represented
in the Pesikta.3 The important thing for our present purpose is
that the homilists in all ages worked into their discourses a great
deal of quotation, not only from the Law and the Prophets but
from the Hagiographa, thus familiarizing their hearers with books
that were not regularly read in the synagogue, and with which,
consequently, the mass of the people could hardly otherwise have
been extensively acquainted. The sermon in the synagogue was
in the mother tongue; the discourses in the school (Bet ha-
1 See Note 81. 2 See Note 82.
8 On these Midrashim see above, pp. 161 ff.
306 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
midrash), being addressed to scholars and students, were prob-
ably, at least in Palestine, in 'the language of the learned,' the
Hebrew of the schools.1
The preacher closed his homily with a brief prayer in the
language of the discourse itself (Aramaic), upon which followed
the ascription, "May his great name be blessed forever and for
ever and ever." 2 The precise language of this closing prayer, as
in other cases, was not at first fixed. In the course of time it was
much expanded, and was introduced, with variations for which
there are distinctive names, in other places in the liturgy, retain-
ing by exception the Aramaic language, and being known by an
Aramaic name, the faddish.3
Philo briefly describes the service of the Hellenistic synagogue,
particularly as an institute of instruction in the Scriptures.
Moses commanded that the Jews should assemble on the seventh
day, and being seated should reverently and decorously listen to
the Law, in order that no one might be ignorant of it; and such is
the present custom. One of the priests who is present, or one of
the elders, reads to them the divine laws and expounds them in
detail, continuing till some time in the late afternoon; then the
congregation disperses, having acquired knowledge of the divine
laws and making much progress in religion.4 In another work
Philo writes: "Innumerable schools (StSaovcaXeta) of practical
wisdom and self-control and manliness and uprightness and the
other virtues are opened every seventh day in all cities. In these
schools the people sit decorously, keeping silence and listening
with the utmost attention out of a thirst for refreshing discourse,
while one of the best qualified stands up and instructs them in
what is best and most conducive to welfare, things by which
their whole life may be made better." The two comprehensive
1 The Midrashim in our hands are with small exceptions in Hebrew.
2 See Note 83.
8 See Note 84.
4 Fragment (from the first book of the Hypothetica) in Eusebius, Praepa-
ratio Evangehca viii. Philo, ed. Mangey, II, 630 f.
CHAP.V] THE SYNAGOGUE 307
topics of this manifold discourse are piety and holiness toward
God, and benevolence and uprightness toward men.1
It does not lie in Philo's purpose in these places to speak of the
worship of the synagogue, but the name 'places of prayer' 2 is of
itself testimony to the fact that instruction was not their sole
function.
1 De special, legg. 11. De septenario c. 6 §§ 62 f. (ed. Mangey II, 282).
See Note 85.
2 UpoaevxQ'i" See Note 59. On the Day of Atonement the Jews spend
this whole day in prayers and suplications; Philo, De septenario, c. 23 § 196
(ed. Mangey II, 296).
CHAPTER VI
THE SCHOOLS
THE second of the great institutions of religious education in
Judaism was the school. In some form or other the school is as
old as the synagogue if not older, and the synagogue was always
dependent upon it. The reading of the Scriptures in the ancient
language; the vernacular interpretation; the homiletical exposi-
tion drawing out of the Scripture its religious and moral lessons;
the instruction in the peculiar observances of Judaism and their
significance, all required a considerable measure of education,
while to fulfil its possibilities as a school of revealed religion the
synagogue needed to have behind it a higher learning upon which
it could draw directly or indirectly.
When in the Bible the instruction of the people in the Torah
is spoken of as an office of the priesthood,1 it is doubtless the
Torah of the priests that is primarily meant, their answers and
instructions about clean and unclean, purifications and expia-
tions, obligatory offerings, and the like.2 In the narrative of
Ezra's reading of the Law, however, the levites expounded its
provisions more generally; the Chronicler has such more general
instruction in mind also in describing the mixed commission
which Jehoshaphat sent around to teach in the cities of Judah,
'having the book of the law of the Lord with them.' 8 It is
certain, however, that the study of the Scriptures and the teach-
ing of religion from them was not a prerogative of the priesthood.
The men who took the lead in this work in the last century of
Persian rule and the Greek period that followed are called
1 Deut. 33, 10; Jer. 2, 8; 18, 18; Mai. 2, 4-9.
1 Eg., Haggai 2, 11-13.
8 2 Chron. 17, 7-9; cf. 15, 3. Compare the institution of a mixed court
of last resort in Jerusalem, 2 Chron. 19, 8-n.
308
CHAP, vi] THE SCHOOLS 309
soferim, commonly translated 'scribes/ more exactly, 'biblical
scholars/ 1 The ideal of such a scholar is well expressed in
Ezra 7, 10: 'Ezra (the priest, the sofer, ibid. vss. n f.) had set
his mind intently to study the law of the Lord, and to do it, and
to teach in Israel statute and ordinance/ 2 A century later
Jesus son of Sirach describes in eulogistic terms the station and
occupation of the scribe, contrasting him with the classes who
have to give all their time and thought to making a living. The
learning of the scholar (sofer) can be acquired only by such as are
free from these necessities and have the opportunity of leisure to
consider and discuss matters of higher interest.3
The ideal scholar of Sirach is a cultivated man, who has broad-
ened his mind by travel in foreign countries and had experience of
the good and the bad in men, and was a presentable person in the
highest company.4 His studies have a wide range. He devotes
his mind to the understanding of the law of the Most High, and
is thus qualified to take a leading part in the assembly of the
people or to sit on the judge's bench and give out right and just
sentence. He occupies himself with prophecies, and seeks out
the wisdom of all the ancients, and preserves the utterances of
famous men; he is well versed in the elusive turns of parables
and in making out enigmatical utterances. He sends up his
petition at the beginning of the day to the Lord who made him,
opening his mouth in prayer and in supplication for his sins. " If
the great Lord will, he shall be filled with an understanding
spirit and will pour out words of wisdom, and celebrate the praises
of God in prayer/' 6
It is worthy of particular notice in this description of the
scholar's pursuits that the study of the Scriptures and skill in
1 See Note 86.
2 The obligation of the learned to teach is strongly expressed by R. Jose
ben IJalafta (second century A D.): "To learn and not to teach — there is
nothing more futile than that!"
3 Ecclus. 38, 24-39, IT- See Note 87.
4 Ecclus. 39, 4 ff.
* Ecclus. 39, 6. This verse and the following seem to refer to a public oc-
casion, such as a homily in the synagogue or a discourse in the school.
310 REVEALED RELIGION [PARTI
parables and proverbs go hand in hand. Of the author's profici-
ency in the latter art the book is proof; his familiarity with the
Scriptures is manifest throughout, and is brilliantly exhibited in
the Hymn in Honor of the Fathers,1 which is an epitome of the
famous men and memorable events of the Bible from Genesis
down to his contemporary, Simon son of Onias, whose ministry
as high priest in all the splendor of the temple liturgy he extols
in his loftiest style.2
It is common to think of the sages, such as the authors of
Proverbs and Jesus son of Sirach, as a new kind of teachers in the
later Persian and Greek centuries, whose calling it was to impart
to youths, especially of the higher classes, principles or maxims
of moral and social conduct — a kind of Hebrew sophists, dis-
tinct from priests on the one hand and scribes on the other.
In Sirach's case, at least, the latter distinction does not hold; a
scribe (sofer) is precisely what he was, a man expert in the Scrip-
tures and in the religious learning of his people, such as he de-
scribes in the passage summarized above. His grandson and
translator writes of him: "Having given himself especially to the
reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other ancient books
of his people, and having acquired much proficiency in them, he
was moved himself to write something on subjects profitable for
education and wisdom." 3 It should be noted that the schoolmen
of later times also cultivated the parable and the apophthegm as
an art,4 and some of them achieved a notable mastery in it. The
Chapters of the Fathers (Pirke Abot), appended to the fourth
series (Nezikin) of treatises in the Mishnah and the Babylonian
Talmud, contains favorite maxims or memorable aphorisms of
eminent teachers from the Men of the Great Assembly down to
the first half of the third century of our era (chapters 1-4) ; and
a great many maxims of similar form and content from every
1 Ecclus. 44-49.
2 Ecclus. 50. This Simeon was himself, according to Jewish tradition
(Abot i, 2), one of the last survivors of the Great Assembly, that is of the
early Soferim, whose institutions and decrees are so often referred to.
8 Translator's Preface. 4 Cf. Eccles. 12, 9-12. See Note 88
CHAP, vi] THE SCHOOLS 311
period are scattered through the Talmud and Midrashim. Such
epigrammatic sayings were evidently one of the most highly ap-
preciated features of homiletic discourse in the synagogue and the
school house. The teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
exhibits the same popular forms.
The sayings attributed to the oldest authorities in the Pirke
Abot revert frequently to study and teaching as one of the funda-
mental institutions of Judaism. The Men of the Great Assembly
themselves are said to have given three injunctions: "Be delib-
erate in giving judgment, and raise up many disciples, and make
a fence about the Law." The favorite maxim of Simeon the
Righteous is: "The world rests on three supports: the Law (i.e.
the study of God's revelation, the sacrificial worship, and deeds
of personal kindness." Jose ben Jo'ezer, in the beginning of the
Seleucid dominion, said: "Let thy house be a regular meeting
place 1 for learned men, and sit in the dust at their feet, and
thirstily drink in their words." In the next generation, Joshua
ben Perahiah's word was: "Get thyself a master (teacher, rab\
and take to thyself a fellow student,2 and judge every man on the
good side."
It is probable that organized schools such as emerge in our
sources shortly before the beginning of the Christian era were
preceded at an earlier time by stated or occasional meetings of
the Soferim for study and discussion, the results of which were
sometimes embodied in decisions or in rules promulgated by their
authority.3 Younger scholars, who pursued their studies, we
may conjecture, under the guidance of individual masters, fre-
quented these conventions as auditors, and profited by listening
to the discussions of their elders. To such gatherings, held in
private houses, Jose ben Jo'ezer seems to refer in the words
quoted above from the Pirke Abot. The phrase bet wa'ad,
'stated place of meeting/ there employed occurs frequently,
1 njn nu.
2 That is, Do not try to learn of yourself or by yourself.
8 Gczerot and tafcbanot; see above, p. 33 and p. 258.
3i2 REVEALED RELIGION [PARTI
especially in the Palestinian Talmud, apparently always of a
meeting-place of scholars, or school, not of the gathering of the
congregation in the place of prayer, or synagogue.
As early as Sirach another term is found which eventually pre-
vailed, bet ha-midrashy ' place of study,' l a name often coupled
with that of the synagogue in combinations which show that the
two were distinct, though closely associated. It is fairly to be
inferred that as early as the generation before the attempt of
Antiochus IV on the Jewish religion the school was an established
institution. A generation later, a considerable company of
scholars ((rvvaywyri ^pa/i/iarcW),2 went to meet Alcimus, the new
high-priest sent by Demetrius. As has been already remarked,
in the eulogy of wisdom (c. 24), Jesus son of Sirach identifies
Wisdom with the Law which Moses gave, applying to it Deut.
33, 4: "All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High
God, the law which Moses commanded, an inheritance to the
assemblies of Jacob." Wisdom is not only the Jewish religion
but specifically the revelation of it in the Pentateuch. Sub-
jectively wisdom is "the fear of the Lord" (Ecclus. I, 1-15);
objectively it is the law of Moses.3
Of this law Sirach was a teacher. In his school he doubtless
imparted to his hearers such religious and moral aphorisms as
are collected in his book, as the rabbis did in later times; but that
he also interpreted to them the Scriptures and inculcated the
rules which earlier authorities had made to define the law and to
keep men far from transgression by putting a fence about it is
as certain as any inference can be. It may also be surmised with
much probability that what he has to say about public discourse
reflects his own experience as a preacher in the synagogue or
school.4
1 See Note 89.
2 Equivalent to a Hebrew DnSHD HDJ3. Whether the sixty whom Al-
cimus put to death on one day were all scribes is not quite clear. See I
Mace. 7, 1 2-1 8. On Jose ben Jo'ezer see pp. 45 f.
3 Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, p. xxin.
4 Ecclus. 39, 6 ff. Above p. 309.
CHAP, vi] THE SCHOOLS 313
It is difficult to form a definite notion of the schools before the
fall of Jerusalem, because in later references to them it was natur-
ally assumed that they were altogether like those of the authors'
own time.1 For our present purpose, however, this question is
not of prime importance. The existence of many biblical scholars
(Soferim) from the third century B.C. down shows that there was
regular provision for transmitting the learning of former gene-
rations and adding to it.
An anecdote narrated to illustrate HillePs eagerness for learn-
ing tells how he supported himself and his family by day labor,
and out of his wages of a victoriatus 2 a day paid one half to the
janitor of the school. One day he had not earned anything, and
as the janitor would not let him in without the entrance fee, he
climbed up, fastened himself, and sat on a window-sill, " that he
might hear the words of the living God from the lips of Shemaiah
and Abtalion," 3 the greatest scholars and the greatest exposi-
tors of the generation.4 In this situation he was found next
morning buried in snow and nearly frozen to death.
Hillel had come to Palestine from Babylonia when already a
mature man to study under these masters.5 He had, however,
already been a student of the Law, and we are told that he
brought with him from Babylonia certain definitions or inter-
pretations which he desired to compare with those accepted in
Palestine,6 and perhaps to get the judgment of the authorities
there on his method of interpretation.7 It is to be inferred from
this instance that schools of the Law were already established in
1 ^ee Note 90.
2 A small com worth about half a denarius.
s Yoma 350.
4 Pesahim yob. Abtalion is commonly identified with the 'Polhon* of Jo-
sephus, Antt. xv. i, i (cf. 10, 4 § 370), a leader of the Pharisees in the reign
of Herod. 'Samaios'his disciple (in xv. i, i) would seem to be Shammai
rather than Abtalion 's colleague Shemaiah. See Note 8ga.
5 Ter. Pesahim 33a.
6 Jer. Pesahim l.c ; Tos. Nega'im i, 16; Sifra, Tazri'a Perek 9, end (ed.
Weiss f. 66d-67a). See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 2.
7 On Hillel's hermeneutic rules (Tos. Sanhedrm 7, n) see H. Strack, Ein-
leitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 5 ed. pp. 96 ff.
3i4 REVEALED RELIGION [PARTI
Babylonia, where a method of juristic deduction was developed
in advance of the Palestinian schools, which rested more exclu-
sively on the authority of tradition.1 In the following century,
before the fall of Jerusalem, there was a famous school at Nisi-
bis, presided over by Judah ben Bathyra,2 and doubtless there
were others in many of the Jewish centres.
In Palestine, and probably elsewhere, the school (bet ha-
midrash) was frequently adjacent to the synagogue, and in later
accounts it is assumed that each synagogue had its own,3 which
implies, of course, that they were not exclusively what we should
call professional schools, but ministered to the instruction of the
whole educated part of the community as in more recent times.
The building occupied by a synagogue may be transformed into
a school, but not contrariwise; it would be a descent in rank,
such as is forbidden in M. Megillah 3, i.4
The hall of the school was used on Sabbath afternoons for
popular instruction both in the Scripture and in the rules of the
unwritten law.5 It was forbidden to read the Hagiographa pri-
vately on the Sabbath (at least till after Minhah),6 because the
readers were in danger of becoming so much interested in them
as to neglect this opportunity of instruction and edification.7 An
anecdote about R. Eleazer ben Azariah, in the first generation
1 This is the point of the discussion with the Bene Bathyra in Jer. Pesahim
I.e.
2 Sanhedrin 32!). 3 See above, p. 104.
4 Megillah nya, top (R. Joshua ben Levi, first half of the third century of
our era). Note the distinction there between the bet ha-midrash as a place
where men magnify the law and the synagogue as a place where they magnify
prayer (R. Johanan and R. Joshua ben Levi).
6 The earliest mention of this custom comes from the second century (R.
Nehemiah, Shabbat n6b); but there is no reason to infer that it was of
recent origin.
6 The hour of prayer, corresponding to the time of the afternoon sacrifice
in the temple.
7 M. Shabbat 16, i; Shabbat ii6b; Jer. Shabbat I5c, top. These writ-
ings might however be taught and expounded in the school. At a later time
lessons from the Hagiographa were read in Babylonia (Nehardea) at the
Sabbath afternoon service (Shabbat u6b). See Elbogen, Der judische
Gottesdienst, p. 118. — Frequent blessings are pronounced on such as hasten
from the synagogue to the school.
CHAP, vi] THE SCHOOLS 315
of the second century, illustrates the character of the discourse
in the school house. Two rabbis, Johanan ben Beroka and Elea-
zar IJisma, on their way to Lydda from Jabneh, then the seat
of the great rabbinical academy, where they had spent the Sab-
bath, passed on the way through a village where the aged R.
•Joshua (ben Hananiah) was living and called on him. He asked
them, What did you have new in the school today? They made
an evasive reply, politely implying that they could bring nothing
new to so eminent a scholar, but he understood their reticence
and pressed his question. Impossible that there should be a
meeting in the school without something new! Whose sabbath
was it? It was the sabbath of R. Eleazar ben Azariah,1 they
answered. And what did he preach about? Thereupon they
told him how Eleazar applied Deut. 31, 12 ('Assemble the
people, men, women, and children') to the congregation: the
men come to learn, the women to hear, but what are the children
there for? To acquire a reward for those who bring them. He
had also expounded two other texts, Deut. 26, 17 f., and Eccles.
12, 1 1 ('The words of the learned are like goads,' etc.), giving on
the latter a characteristic piece of midrash, with an application
for the benefit of students who were distracted by the conflict of
authorities to the point of abandoning the attempt to become
scholars.2
The combination of instruction in the rules of the unwritten
law with the exposition of Scripture in these discourses in the
school has perhaps left a memorial in certain Midrash collections
where the homilies are introduced by a juristic question: "Let
our rabbi teach us," etc. (Yelammedenu)* with its answer; and
others which begin, without the formal fiction of a question, with
a sentence or two of the same kind, designated 'Halakah,'
though the extant collections of this type are more recent than
the period under our present consideration.
1 See Vol. II, p. 220.
2 Tos. Sotah 7, 9 ff.; IJagigah ja-b; Jer. IJagigah 750!. Bacher, Tanna-
iten, I, 213 f.
8 W31 iriD7\ See above, pp. 170, 171 n.
REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
Elementary instruction was doubtless for a long time left to
parents, and was given by them or by tutors employed by them,
or in private schools. This restricted education in general to
the children of parents who were able to teach them or to pay
lor having them taught, and had the interest to do it. Such a
limitation could not be to the mind of the leaders, whose ideal
was the education of the whole people in revealed religion. The
studies of the high school, as we might call it, the Bet ha-
Midrash, required a knowledge of the ancient Hebrew language
in which the Scriptures were written and of the Hebrew of the
schools, the 'language of the learned/ in which the unwritten
law was always taught, and in which throughout our period the
discussions of the school were conducted. The latter might be
learned in the high school itself; but reading and writing and a
grounding in the language of the Bible must be acquired pre-
viously.
To meet this need elementary schools were established, called,
in distinction from the Bet ha-Midrash, or advanced school,
Bet ha-Sefer, or Bet ha-Sofer — we might paraphrase, reading
and writing schools.1 Private schools of this kind had doubtless
long existed before any attempt was made to establish public
schools in every community, and they continued to exist beside
the public schools. About the institution of the latter we have no
certain information.2 It is evident, however, that whatever may
have been done before the fall of Jerusalem had to be begun anew
after the war, and again after the war under Hadrian. In the
latter period, at least, it was regarded as the normal thing for
each community to maintain, besides the synagogue, an ele-
mentary school and an advanced school (Bet Sefer and Bet
Midrash). R. Simeon ben Yohai 3 said: If you see cities in the
land of Israel that are destroyed to their very foundations, know
that it is because they did not provide pay for teachers of the
Bible and of tradition, according to Jer. 9, n f., 'because they
1 See Note 91. 2 See Note 92.
1 Disciple of Akiba, after the war under Hadrian.
CHAP, vi] THE SCHOOLS 317
abandoned my Law/ 1 In the same context it is related that the
Patriarch Judah sent out a commission headed by R. IJiyya to
make a tour of the cities in the land of Israel and establish in each
a teacher of the Bible and one of the tradition. They found
one small place where there was a village watchman, but no
teacher at all, and proceeded to impress on the townsmen that
the true keepers of a city were the teachers of the Bible and tra-
dition, for which they found authority in Psalm I2y.2
The obligation to maintain schools is repeatedly emphasized.
A scholar should not take up his abode in a town in which there
is not, among other requisites of civilization, an elementary
teacher.3 A town in which there are no children attending school
is to be destroyed, or, as another reporter has it, put under the
ban.4 The salary of the school teachers of both grades was paid
by the community, who taxed themselves for this purpose; and
the collector was authorized to distrain for this tax, which he
might not ordinarily do for the poor-rates.5 The school teacher is
given a rank in the hierarchy of education beneath the learned
(hakamim) but above the synagogue attendant (hazzari) ;6 though
in eligibility as a husband he is put at the bottom of the list,
perhaps because the class, though respectable, was poorly paid.7
As has been noted above, in small communities the same man
often served as school teacher (sofer) and as synagogue attend-
ant (hazzari), and sometimes one scholar presided over both the
advanced and the elementary schools, as in the case of Levi
1 Jer. JJagigah 760; Pesikta ed. Buber f. I2ob.
2 Compare R. ijiyya's account of what he did in a town where there was
no teacher of the Bible, Ketubot lojb; Baba Mesi'a Sfb.
3 nipim HD^D, Sanhedrin iyb, end.
4 Shabbat ii9b. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 347, n. 2.
5 Pesikta ed. Buber f. I78a-b; cf. Baba Batra 8b. Apparently only men
who had children were assessed for the support of the teacher. Particular
praise is given by a fourth century preacher to a bachelor who voluntarily
contributes to the salary of the teachers of the Bible and of tradition: God
will reward him by giving him a boy of his own (Lev. R. 27, 2). For other
passages on teachers and school children see Note 93.
6 Sotah 49a, end.
7 Pesahim 49b, top. See Note Q3a.
3i8 REVEALED RELIGION [PARTI
ben Sisi cited above; still oftener, probably, the school teacher
was the interpreter (meturgeman) in the synagogue.
The boys' school maintained by the community was held in
the synagogue, as the mosque is used today in Mohammedan
countries. There were also private schools in the teachers'
houses, and the children often made so much noise coming and
going and shouting their lessons in concert, that the neighbors
seem at one time to have had a right to prevent the setting up
of a school in the block, as they might the introduction of a trade
that created a nuisance.1
Boys learned to read in the Hebrew Bible as Moslem boys
today learn to read in the Koran. School copies of parts of the
Pentateuch were given them for this purpose, and by long es-
tablished custom the beginning was made with the Book of
Leviticus in the elementary school,2 as well as subsequently in
the advanced school in which tradition was studied. The read-
ing was necessarily accompanied by an explanation in the mother-
tongue, and the pupils thus learned the meaning of Scripture
along with the words. In an age when dictionaries and gram-
mars were unheard of, it was the only way, and a very effective
way as far as it went. From the Pentateuch the reading pro-
gressed to the Prophets and the Hagiographa. It is probable
that many pupils did not follow this course to the end; but what
we might call a graduate in Scripture was expected to be able to
read all three groups of books.3
The religious leaders regarded the study of the Scripture as
the foundation of all learning, but, if it stopped there, as an in-
complete education, since it dealt only with the letter and the
literal sense, to the exclusion of that comparison of scripture with
scripture by which its more recondite teachings were discovered,
1 Baraitas quoted in Baba Batra 21 a. See Backer in Jahrbucher fur ju-
dische Geschichte und Literatur, 1903, p. 67. The rule m M. Baba Batra
2, 3; Tos. Baba Batra 1,4 is to the contrary. Compare the attempted re-
conciliation m Baba Batra 21 a.
8 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 6ob, end; Lev. R. 7, 3. Reasons are given for not
beginning with Genesis. 8 &iddushin 49a. See Note 94.
CHAP, vi] THE SCHOOLS 319
and of the unwritten tradition, religious as well as juristic, which
supplemented the written word and interpreted it. They felt
much as a trained Old Testament scholar today feels about a
man who, ignoring all the learning of the past embodied in an
exegetical, historical, and theological tradition that fills hundreds
of volumes, and ignorant of the methods of what is called biblical
science, or ignoring its worth and rejecting its authority, under-
takes to interpret the Scriptures out of his own head. To occupy
one's self exclusively with the study of Scripture "is a way, but
not the real way." 1
The higher religious education had for its principal subject
matter tradition in a wide extension of the term. The name for
this tradition in its whole extent is Mishnah,2 in distinction from
Mikra, Bible study. In this wider sense, Mishnah, or the teach-
ing and learning of tradition, included, in our period, three
branches, Midrash (also called Talmud)? Halakah^ and Hagga-
dah. 'Midrash' was the higher exegesis of Scripture, especially
the derivation from it, or confirmation by it, of the rules of the
unwritten law; 'Halakah,' the precisely formulated rule itself;
'Haggadah/ the non-juristic teachings of Scripture as brought
out in the profounder study of its religious, moral, and historical
teachings.4 All this belonged to the Jewish science of tradition.
Even a moderate proficiency in it was not to be attained without
long and patient years of learning; mastery demanded unusual
1 R. Simeon ben Yohai, Jer. Shabbat 150. See Bacher, Tannaiten, II,
9lf-
2 This use of the term is not to be confounded with the specific use in
which 'Mishnah' is applied to rules of the unwritten law (halakoi) as the
crowning branch of the study of tradition, and still more narrowly to the
collection of the Patriarch Judah which we call 'the Mishnah.' Jerome uses
the word Seurcpcotrcts as equivalent to Mishnah in the wider sense.
3 Again not to be confounded with the great body of organized tradition
and discussion which we call 'the Talmud.1
4 On the value set on the Haggadah see Sifre Deut. § 49, end (on n, 22):
"Those who search out the intimations of Scripture say, if you wish to
know the Creator of the world, learn Haggadah; from it you will come to
know God and cleave to his ways." Cf. above, pp. 161 f.
32o REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
capacity. The method of the schools developed not only exact
and retentive memory and great mental acuteness, but an ex-
haustive and ever-ready knowledge of every phrase and word
of Scripture.
A late appendix to the Pirke Abot (5, 21) would have a boy
begin in the Bible school at five years, go on to the study of
tradition (Mishnah) at ten, advance to Talmud at fifteen,1 marry
at eighteen, and so on. It is needless to say that reality did not
exhibit so neat a scheme; but it is probable that boys ordinarily
passed from the elementary school to the more advanced studies
of the Bet ha-Midrash between the years of twelve and fifteen,
an age in which they came to personal responsibility for com-
pliance with all the rules of the law. Before this age, boys who
knew how were competent to take part in the reading of the
lessons from the Pentateuch or Prophets in the synagogue, and
to serve as translator.2 This of itself does not prove very much,
for they could be coached on the particular paragraph, as has
often been done since.
Only a small proportion of those who went through the ele-
mentary school, or even of those who began the study of tradi-
tion, had either the opportunity or the ability to go on to the
higher stages by which men advanced to the rank of what we
might call professor, with the venia docendi (et decernendi). A
later Midrash gives this turn to the words, 'I have found one
man out of a thousand' (Eccles. 7, 28) :8 "Such is the usual
way of the world; a thousand enter the Bible school, and a hun-
dred pass from it to the study of Mishnah; ten of them go on to
Talmud study, and only one of them arrives at the doctor's
degree (rabbinical ordination)." But the measure of education
attained by many men enabled them to profit by the expositions
in the Bet ha-Midrash on Sabbath afternoons and at other
1 'Mishnah' is here used in the narrower sense, formulated and memorized
rules (halakoi)^ 'Talmud/ in the later meaning, explanation and discussion
of the rules. This classification makes four disciplines: Bible, Mishnah (i.e.
Halakah), Talmud, Haggadah. So Jer. Peah iya, below, and parallels.
2 M. Megillah 4, 5 f. 3 Eccles. R. in he.
CHAP, vi] THE SCHOOLS 321
times, and to listen with interest to the lively discussions of the
teachers and more advanced students.1
When such opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of religion
were open to all, it is not strange that those who neglected them
and consequently remained in ignorance of the revealed will of
God, unconcerned about the distinctions of clean and unclean
further than they had become matters of habit among their
kind — that such 'amme ha-ares should be regarded by the
Pharisees as little better than the indigenous heathen who were
properly designated by that opprobrious name.2
As has been already remarked, our definite information about
the schools comes from the second century, and chiefly from a
time after the war under Hadrian, and it may well be that the
leaders who reorganized Jewish institutions after that catastrophe
made the school system more universal and regular than it had
been previously; but it is certain that they introduced nothing
novel into its character.
Schools of a similar kind existed in Babylonia before the
Christian era, as is shown by the case of Hillel; and that the
Greek speaking Jews had schools for the study of the Scriptures
and of their religious law, we have the testimony of Philo: The
Jews, "from their very swaddling clothes are taught by parents
and teachers and masters, and above all by their sacred laws
and unwritten customs, to acknowledge one God, the father and
creator of the world." 3 Philo's own acquaintance with parts of
the traditional law and the current homiletical exegesis is well
established.4
1 The very assumption that in an ordinary Sabbath morning synagogue
service seven readers, besides at least one interpreter, and one (or more) lead-
ers in prayer, took part, indicates that the Bible schools of the later second
century were well attended and effective.
2 "Peoples of the land."
3 Legatio ad Gaium c. 16 §115 (ed. Mangey, II, 562); cf. ibid. c. 31 §2iof.
(II, 577). The similar expressions in Josephus refer to Jews in general, not
particularly to Palestinian Jews; see C. Apionem, i. 12 § 60; ii. 18.
4 B Ritter, Philo und die Halacha, 1879; Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss
der palastinensischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, 1851,
pp. 190-200.
322 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
The Hellenistic Jews, having provided themselves with Greek
translations of the Scriptures, used this version in their syna-
gogues and schools, and emancipated themselves from the task
of learning to read the original Hebrew. Learned men might
study the ancient language, but it had no such place in general
education as in Palestine or in Babylonia. If Philo knew He-
brew, the chief use he makes of it is to perpetrate etymologies
which have sometimes led to the inference that he had only that
little knowledge which in this field, if anywhere, is a dangerous
thing.1 It should not be forgotten that these interpretations of
names were not put forth for the satisfaction of modern philo-
logists but for the edification of his contemporaries; and they
are not, after all, so much worse than similar adventures of
Palestinian scholars whose knowledge of Hebrew is beyond
question. It is likely, however, that in Philo's time knowledge of
Greek was more common among the upper classes in Jerusalem
than of Hebrew in Alexandria.2
In conclusion it may be repeated that the endeavor to educate
the whole people in its religion created a unique system of
universal education, whose very elements comprised not only
reading and writing, but an ancient language and its classic
literature. The high intellectual and religious value thus set
on education was indelibly impressed on the mind, and one may
say on the character of the Jew, and the institutions created for
it have perpetuated themselves to the present day.
1 See Note 95.
2 This seems to be assumed in the account of the translation of the Penta-
teuch given in the Letter of Ansteas. Not only the authentic copy of the
Law but the qualified translators are brought from Jerusalem. — Since we
are here concerned only with religious education and the schools in which it
was given, it is unnecessary to discuss the extent to which secular subjects,
especially the Greek language and Greek science, were cultivated in Pales-
tine m the centuries under investigation, or the attitude of the religious au-
thorities toward such studies. The only branch of science that could be
brought immediately into the service of religion was mathematics and as-
tronomy for calendar purposes, particularly the determination of the exact
time of the lunar conjunction, the solstices and equinoxes, etc.
CHAPTER VII
CONVERSION OF GENTILES
THE conviction that Judaism as the one true religion was destined
to become the universal religion was a singularity of the Jews.
No other religion in their world and time made any such preten-
sions or cherished such aspirations. It was an exclusiveness the
rest of mankind did not understand and therefore doubly re-
sented. And it must be admitted that the manner in which the
Jews asserted their claim and descanted on the sin and folly of
polytheism and idolatry and the vices of heathen society was not
adapted to make them liked in an age that knew nothing of jeal-
ous gods, and when all manner of national and personal religions,
native and foreign, lived amicably and respectfully side by side.1
If the Jews alone were excepted from this universal toleration,
as Philo complains,2 it was chiefly because they alone were
intolerant.3 The Christians, who inherited their exclusive and
aggressive monotheism, provoked the same exceptional intoler-
ance in the habitual laissezfaire of pagan religion.
But if some of the methods of Jewish apologetic and polemic
provoked prejudice rather than produced conviction, the belief
in the future universality of the true religion, the coming of an
age when "the Lord shall be king over all the earth," when "the
Lord shall be one and his name One," 4 led to efforts to convert
the Gentiles to the worship of the one true God and to faith and
obedience according to the revelation he had given, and made
1 The religion of the Egyptians, with its beast-gods and its strange taboos,
was indeed a common object of ridicule for Gentiles as well as Jews; see e.g.
Juvenal, Sat. 15.
2 Legatio ad Gaium c. 16 § 117 (ed. Mangey II, 562).
3 The antipathy to the Jews as a people had many other causes. See
Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes, III, 105 f.
4 See above, p. 229 f.; and Vol. II, p. 346.
323
324 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
Judaism the first great missionary religion of the Mediterranean
world. When it is called a missionary religion, the phrase must,
however, be understood with a difference. The Jews did not
send out missionaries into the partes infidelium expressly to
proselyte among the heathen. They were themselves settled by
thousands in all the great centres and in innumerable smaller
cities; they had appropriated the language and much of the civil-
ization of their surroundings; they were engaged in the ordinary
occupations, and entered into the industrial and commercial life
of the community and frequently into its political life. Their
religious influence was exerted chiefly through the synagogues,
which they set up for themselves, but which were open to all
whom interest or curiosity drew to their services. To Gentiles,
in whose mind these services, consisting essentially of reading
from the Scriptures and a discourse more or less loosely connected
with it, lacked all the distinctive features of cultus, the syna-
gogue, as has been observed above, resembled a school of some
foreign philosophy. That it claimed the authority of inspira-
tion for its sacred text and of immemorial tradition for the in-
terpretation, and that the reading was prefaced by invocations
of the deity and hymns in his praise, was in that age quite con-
sistent with this character. That the followers of this philosophy
had many peculiar rules about food and dress and multiplied
purifications was also natural enough in that time.
The philosophy itself, whose fundamental doctrines seemed
to be monotheism, divine providence guided by justice and bene-
volence, and reasonable morality, had little about it that was
unfamiliar. Even what they sometimes heard about retribu-
tion after death, or a coming conflagration which should end the
present order of things, was not novel. But at the bottom
Judaism was something wholly different from a philosophy which
a man was free to accept in whole or in part as far as it carried
the assent of his intelligence. It might be a reasonable religion,
but it was in an eminent degree a religion of authority; a re-
vealed religion, which did not ask man's approval but demanded
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 325
obedience to the whole and every part, reason and inclination to
the contrary notwithstanding; an exclusive religion which tole-
rated no divided allegiance; a religion which made a man's
eternal destiny depend on his submission of his whole life to its
law, or his rejection of God who gave the law. Such, at least,
was the rigor of the doctrine when it was completely and logically
presented.
It is certain that it was not always preached so uncompromis-
ingly. Especially in the Hellenistic world, polytheism and
idolatry was so decisively the characterististic difference between
Gentile and Jew that the rejection of these might almost seem
to be the renunciation of heathenism and the adoption of Juda-
ism; and if accompanied by the observance of the sabbath and
conformity to the rudimentary rules of clean and unclean which
were necessary conditions of social intercourse, it might seem to
be a respectable degree of conversion. Nor are utterances of this
tenor lacking in Palestinian sources; e.g., The rejection of
idolatry is the acknowledgment of the whole law.1
Such converts were called religious persons ('those who wor-
ship, or revere, God')*2 and although in a strict sense outside the
pale of Judaism, undoubtedly expected to share with Jews by
birth the favor of the God they had adopted, and were en-
couraged in this hope by their Jewish teachers. It was not un-
common for the next generation to seek incorporation into the
Jewish people by circumcision.3
In those days it was nobody's business what gods a man be-
lieved in, or how many, or whether he believed in any; and the
observance of the sabbath or the regulation of diet might ex-
pose him to social disapproval and to ridicule, but had no more
tangible consequences. It was a different matter to refuse to take
part in the ceremonies of the established religion of the city or
1 Sifre Num § in; Deut § 54; JJullin 5a, and parallels. One who re-
nounces idolatry is called in Scripture a Jew. Megillah ija, top.
2 $oj8ou/z€Wt TOV BeoVj aeftofievoi rov deov, or abbreviated, aeponevoi. In
Hebrew, DnDP 'KT. See Note 96.
3 Juvenal, Sat. 14, 96 ff.
326 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
in the cult of the emperors; but so far as the former was con-
cerned only those who had the rights and the corresponding ob-
ligations of citizens were affected by it; and as to the latter,
unless a common man made ostentation of his disrespect, his
neglect provoked no remark. Women in general had only their
fathers or husbands to reckon with; and partly from excess of
religiousness, partly because they had no public religious duties,
women were in the large majority among these adherents of
Judaism, and a still larger proportion, doubtless, of the proselytes.
Men who occupied a place of prominence in the community, or
held office in the city or state, must have made a compromise like
Naaman between their belief and the duties of their station,
and performed their part in the festivals and other ceremonies of
the public religions — if you did not beheve in the gods, it was an
empty form.
However numerous such 'religious persons' were, and with
whatever complaisance the Hellenistic synagogue, especially,
regarded these results of its propaganda, whatever hopes they
may have held out to such as thus confided in the uncovenanted
mercies of God, they were only clinging to the skirt of the Jew
(Zech. 8, 23); they were like those Gentile converts to Christian-
ity who are reminded in the Epistle to the Ephesians that in
their former state, when they were called uncircumcised by the
so-called circumcision, they were aliens to the Israelite common-
wealth, foreigners without right in the covenanted promises.1
Much confusion has arisen from the habit of describing such
adherents of the synagogue as a class of proselytes, or, as it is
sometimes said, semi-proselytes, and trying to find a category
for them in the rabbinical deliverances concerning proselytes.
It may, therefore, be said at the outset that Jewish law knows
no semi-proselytes, nor any other kind of proselytes than such
- rrjs TroXtrctas roO 'Icrpai)X KOI %kvoi T&V diaB^Kcov rfjs
€7ra77eXias, Ephes. 2, 12. Proselytes, on the contrary, have come over to
naivy Kai <£iXo0co> TToXirctp, Philo, De Monarchia c. 7 § 51 (ed. Mangey II,
219).
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 327
as have, by circumcision and baptism, not only become mem-
bers of the Jewish church but been naturalized in the Jewish
nation — to make a distinction where none existed.1
Proselyte, the Greek Trpoo-iyXuros, is thus explained by Philo:2
They are such as have resolved to change over to (true) religion,
and are called proselytes because they have become naturalized
in a new and godly commonwealth,8 renouncing the mythical
fictions and adhering to the unadulterated truth. . . . Under
the law of Moses the proselytes enjoy equal rights in all respects
with the native born,4 as is only just, inasmuch as they have
left country, friends, and kinsfolk for the sake of virtue and holi-
ness. There can be no question that Philo means by 'proselyte'
one who has deserted 5 his gods and his people to cast in his lot
with the Jews. Tacitus speaks of proselytes as transgressi in
morem eorum. Such practice circumcision like the Jews: "nee
quidquam prius imbuuntur, quam contemnere deos, exuere
patriam, parentes liberos fratres vilia habere." 6
An examination of all the passages in Philo shows conclusively
1 It is not a question in what loose senses we may use the word 'proselyte/
nor even whether the Greek irpoo-rjXvTOs is ever used loosely; but whether
Judaism — rabbinical and Hellenistic — recognized more than one kind of
proselyte in its sense of the word. Precisely the same conditions exist in
modern Christian missions: there are the baptized members of the church,
and a fringe of adherents, who mav have given up some heathen practices
and adopted some Christian ones, but are nevertheless outside the pale of
the church.
2 De monarchia c. 7 §§ 51-53 (ed. Mangey II, 219). See also De sacri-
ficantibus c. 10 § 308 f. (II, 258); De mstitia c. 6 § 176 ff. (II, 365); De
humamtate c. 12 § 102 ff. (II, 392); De poenitentia c. i § 175 ff. (II, 405)
Philo, whose fondness for exhibiting the resources of his vocabulary is well
known, employs more frequently eTT^Xuros, eirrjMrqs, <brrj\vs — classical
Greek words in a political sense.
3 TOVTOVS 51 KaXel Tr/xxr^Xurous bird TOV TrpoaeXrjXvO&ai, jcawg Kal 0tXo0«g>
iroXireia. Josephus (Antt. xviii. 3, 5 § 82) describes Fulvia as T&V kv djtw/zart
•YwaiK&v Kal ro/u/zois TrpocrcXiyXufluTai' rots 'lovdaucols, evidently with the
same etymology in mind.
4 'IffOTinia, laovopla, l(rort\€t,a.
6 This is Philo's word: they are afiroAtoXpOpres. Similarly in the frag-
ment, ed. Mangey II, 677, foreigners who join Israel are brrj\vdes . . .
voniiuuv KOL Wwv.
6 Tacitus, Hist. v. 5.
328 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
that irpo<rfi\vTos and its synonyms designate a man who has not
merely embraced the monotheistic theology of Judaism, but has
addicted himself to the Jewish ordinances and customs, and
in so doing severed himself from his people, friends, and kins-
men; for which reason he is to be treated with peculiar benevo-
lence. He has become a naturalized citizen of a new religious
commonwealth in which he is on a full equality of rights and
duties with born Jews.1
In the Greek Bible Trpoo^Xuros is the usual, though not the con-
stant, translation of the Hebrew ger.2 The older associations of
this word were civil and social. The gar was an alien immigrant,
or the descendant of such an immigrant, resident in Israelite
territory by sufferance, without any civil rights, like the ptroiKos
in a Greek city. This is the position of the ger in the older Hebrew
legislation and in Deuteronomy. They are distinguished from
foreigners (nokrim), who may be casually and temporarily in
the country, and from the descendants of the ancient Canaanites.
Israelites are enjoined not to oppress these aliens, who had no
legal remedy; 3 and they are frequently presented as objects of
charity.
In the Persian period the word comes to be applied to foreign-
ers (men of other than Jewish descent) who join themselves to
Jehovah, or to Israel as the worshippers of Jehovah. Thus in
Isaiah 14, I, in the restoration, when God reestablishes Israel
in its own land, " the ger (the converts they have made in the
exile) will join themselves to them and attach themselves to the
house of Jacob." 4 Such converts are described in Isa. 56, 6 ff.:
1 When he says that what makes a proselyte is not circumcision of the
flesh but the circumcision of pleasures and appetites and the other affections
of the soul (Fragment, ed. Mangey II, 677; cf. Paul, Rom. 2, 28 f., and with
both, Jer. 4, 4), he is not talking about uncircumcised proselytes; he is only
saying of proselytes what the prophet and the apostle Paul say about Israe-
lites. Cf. De sacnficantibus c. 9 §§ 304 f. (ed. Mangey, II, 258).
2 See Note 97.
8 They may often have attached themselves to a citizen as clients for
protection.
4 The LXX here takes over the word in Aramaic form, yei&pas. See also
Ezek. 14, 7, converts (ger) who relapse to the worship of idols.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 329
'The aliens l who join themselves to Jehovah to minister unto
him, and to love the name of Jehovah, to be his servants, every
one that keeps the sabbath from profaning it, and holds firmly to
my covenant (law), I will bring them to my holy mountain and
make them rejoice in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings
and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon my altar, for my
house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Thus saith
the Lord Jehovah who gathers the dispersed of Israel, yet will I
gather others unto him (Israel), besides those that are gathered
of (Israel) himself.' 2
The laws for the gerim in Lev. 17-25 put them, so far as religi-
ous duties and privileges go, in all respects on the same footing
with Israelites by birth; they are subject to all the obligations
of the law, precisely as the gerim (proselytes) in the rabbinical
law are.3 This is true, not only of religious commandments and
prohibitions (Lev. 17, 8 f., 10-12, 13, 15; 22, 18; 18, 26 ff.), but
before the civil law (24, 15-22): "You shall have one civil
law; the proselyte (ger) shall be treated like the native born, for
I am the Lord your God." This change in the meaning of ger
from an advena in Jewish territory to an advena in the Jewish
religion is significant at once of the change in the situation of the
Jews in the world after the fall of the kingdom and of the changed
conception of the character and mission of their religion —
the metic has given place to the proselyte. This change is re-
flected in the language. For living as a resident alien (gery in the
original civil sense) in the land of Israel the verb is gur, 'so-
journ'; for conversion to Judaism and adoption into the people
as well as the religion a new form was needed and created, the
p.
2 That is, many other Gentile converts will be added to the Israelites who
are gathered from the dispersion, besides the converts they have made there.
8 See also Lev. 16, 29 (Day of Atonement) ; Num. 19, iof.; cf. 15, 14-
16, 26, 29. Especially important, as is recognized in the rabbinical law, are
the prescriptions concerning the Passover, Exod. 12, 19; Num. 9, 14: "When
a ger (interpreted 'proselyte') dwells with you and keeps the Passover to the
Lord, he shall keep the Passover according to its statute and ordinance; you
shall have one statute for the proselyte and for him who is native to the land."
330 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
denominative nitgayyer, 'become a proselyte* (germ the religious
sense), with a corresponding active denominative, gayyer, con-
vert some one to Judaism, make a proselyte of him. Another
word used with the same meaning is hityahad (denominative from
yehud)^ 'turn Jew/ adopt the religion and customs of the Jews.1
A favorite figure in the Psalms for the confident security of
the religious man is having a refuge, or shelter, beneath the
wings of God, or beneath the shade of his wings, as the young of
birds do under their mother's wings for safety from danger.2
The same figure is frequently employed of conversion. The
proselyte comes beneath the wings of the Shekinah; one who
converts a Gentile brings him under the wings of the Shekinah.
The origin of this use is doubtless Ruth 2, 12, where Boaz be-
speaks for the Moabitish convert (i, 16) the reward for her
goodness to Naomi from "the God of Israel, beneath whose
wings thou art come to take refuge. " 3
The legislation in the middle books of the Pentateuch thus
puts the gerim on the same footing with native Israelites, not only
before the civil law, but in religious duties and privileges, and
Philo repeatedly emphasizes this parity of the naturalized and
the native Jew as one of the notable features of the Mosaic
polity. The same principle runs through the traditional law.
The Passover, in its memorial features, was the most distinc-
tively national of all the festivals, but the law admits the prose-
lyte to it, though no foreigner, no settler, no hired servant (not
Israelite) may eat of it.4 For such participation it is necessary
1 See Note 98.
2 See Psalm 1 7, 8; 36,8; 57,2; 61,5; 91,4. Hos. 14, 7 is interpreted in this
sense and applied to proselytes; see Num. R. 8, 7 (beginning). See also Isa.
54, 15 LXX: t<5ou 7rpoarj\VTOL irpoaeXtvaovTai VOL di e/zoD /cat irapoutrjaovcri
<roi /cat tiri <rt JcaTa06ir£opr(u.
3 Ruth R. in loc.9 quoting Psalm 36, 8.
4 *13J p, 3Bnn ,T3G5>. The criterion, which decides whether a man is a
proselyte or not is whether he may participate in the passover meal, as among
converts to Christianity it was whether he might participate in the sacra-
ment of the Eucharist. Cf. Sifre Num. § 71; Tos. Pesahim 8, 4; cf. Jer.
Pesahim 360. In ]£iddushin 7oa, top, a definition of ger is deduced from
the Passover of Ezra 6 ('Ui inajn fa, Ezra 6, 21).
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 331
that he should be circumcised, "for no uncircumcised man shall
eat of it" (Exod. 12, 48). In Num. 9, 14, it is assumed that the
proselyte is circumcised, and the only prescription is that he
shall conform strictly to the ritual of the Passover: "Whether
proselyte or native, you shall have the same ordinance." From
the generality of the last clause, which contains no specific refer-
ence to the Passover, it is deduced that this scripture puts the
proselyte on the same footing with the native in all the com-
mandments contained in the Law.1 "As the native born Jew
takes upon him (to obey) all the words of the Law,2 so the prose-
lyte takes upon him all the words of the Law. The authorities
say, if a proselyte takes upon himself to obey all the words of the
Law except one single commandment, he is not to be received." 8
So Paul to the Galatians: "I solemnly warn every man that gets
himself circumcised that he is under obligation to fulfil the whole
law" (Gal. 5, 2). Paul had been brought up a Pharisee, and
doubtless meant the unwritten as well as the written law. The
Law was not solely the law written in the Pentateuch, but its
complement and interpretation in tradition, the unwritten law;
and with strenuous logic a contemporary of the Patriarch Judah
held that the proselyte's acceptance of Judaism was incomplete
and his admission not to be allowed so long as he made reserva-
tion of a single point in the rules established by the scribes
without obvious support in the Scripture.4
The initiatory rite by which a man was made a proselyte com-
prised three parts: circumcision, immersion in water (baptism),
and the presentation of an offering in the temple.5 In the case of
1 Sifre Num. § 71; Mekilta on Exod. 12, 49 (Bo, 15, end; ed. Friedmann,
f. i8a; ed. Weiss, f. 22a).
2 An obligation which he acknowledges and renews every time he recites
the Shema*. See below, p. 465.
3 Sifra, £edoshim Perek 8 (ed. Weiss f. 91 a); Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben
Yohai on Exod. 12, 49; cf. also Bekorot job, top.
4 See the passages cited in the preceding note, and Note 99.
6 Sifre Num. § 108 (on Num. 15, 14); Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben Yofcai on
Exod. 12, 48; Keritot 9a. See Maimonides, Isure Biah, c. 13, 4.
332 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
a woman there was no circumcision, and after the destruction of
the temple no oftering. Circumcision alone is prescribed in the
written law. The sacrifice of the proselyte is assimilated to four
cases in which a sacrifice is required of Israelites who have other-
wise completed their purification but not offered the piacular
victim.1 The practical effect of the rule was that if the proselyte
went to Jerusalem, he, like Jews of the classes enumerated who
were "lacking an expiatory offering," might not participate in a
sacrificial meal and eat consecrated food (kodashim) until he had
brought his piaculum.2 The sacrifice to be made by a proselyte
was a burnt-offering for which doves or pigeons sufficed.
The offering of a sacrifice is, thus, not one of the conditions of
becoming a proselyte, but only a condition precedent to the
exercise of one of the rights which belong to him as a proselyte,
namely, participation in a sacrificial meal.3 As soon as he was
circumcised and baptized, he was in full standing in the religious
community, having all the legal rights and powers and being
subject to all the obligations of the Jew by birth.4 He had
"entered into the covenant." 5
The origin of the requirement of baptism is not known. The
rite has a superficial analogy to the many baths prescribed in
the law for purification after one kind or another of religious
uncleanness, and modern writers have frequently satisfied them-
selves with the explanation that proselytes were required to
bathe in order to purify themselves, really or symbolically, from
the uncleanness in which the whole life of the heathen was passed.
This explanation seems to be nowhere explicitly propounded by
1 M. Keritot 2, i. They must make an offering before they can eat
%odashim\ Lev. 15, 13-15, 28-30; 12, 6-8; 14, loff.
2 So R. Eleazar ben Jacob. For a different explanation see Note 100.
* Any Gentile could have a burnt offering made for him at his expense,
Sifre Num. § 107, end, etc.
4 Yebamot 47b: "When he is immersed and comes up (from the water)
he is in all respects like an Israelite."
6 nnaf) Dm Hence he is called m3 p 13, 'a covenant-proselyte,' in
contrast to the (heathen) aenn 13, 'resident alien'; e.g. Sifra, Ahare PereJ:
12 (ed. Weiss, f. 84d, end). See below, p. 339.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 333
Jewish teachers in the early centuries.1 The rite itself differs
fundamentally from such baths of purification in that the pres-
ence of official witnesses is required.2
The ritual for the admission of proselytes in Palestine in the
second century, after the war under Hadrian, is described in de-
tail in the following Baraita: 3
When a man comes in these times seeking to become a prose-
lyte, he is asked, What is your motive in presenting yourself to
become a proselyte? Do you not know that in these times the
Israelites are afflicted, distressed, downtrodden, torn to pieces,
and that suffering is their lot? If he answer, I know; and I am
unworthy (to share their sufferings), they accept him at once,
and acquaint him with some of the lighter and some of the
weightier commandments; they instruct him about the sin he
may commit in such matters as gleaning close, picking up the
forgotten sheaf, reaping the corner of the field, and the poor-
tithe.4 They acquaint him also with the penalties attached to
the commandments, saying to him, Know that until you came
to this status you ate fat without being liable to extirpation, you
profaned the sabbath without being liable to death by stoning,
but now if you eat fat you are liable to extirpation, and if you
profane the sabbath you are liable to stoning. As they show
him the penalty of breaking commandments, so they show him
the reward of keeping them, saying to him, Know that the World
to Come is made only for the righteous, and Israelites in the
present time are not able to receive exceeding good or exceeding
punishments. This discourse should not, however, be too much
prolonged nor go too much into particulars. If he accepts, they
circumcise him forthwith.5 . . . When he is healed they at
once baptize him, two scholars standing by him and rehearsing
to him some of the lighter and some of the weightier command-
1 See Note 101.
2 Yebamot 46b; &iddushin 62b, top; Maimonides, Isure Biah, 13, 6.
3 Yebamot 47a-b. On the antiquity of the rite, etc., see Note 102.
4 Lev. 19, 9 (23, 22); Deut. 24, 19; Deut. 14, 28 f.
6 Certain details of the operation are here omitted.
334 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
ments. When he has been immersed and has come up (from the
water), he is like an Israelite in all that he does.1
In the case of a woman (proselyte), women make her sit in the
water up to her neck, while two scholars standing outside re-
hearse to her some of the lighter and some of the weightier com-
mandments.2
In the whole ritual there is no suggestion that baptism was a
real or symbolical purification; the assistants rehearse select
commandments of both kinds as an appropriate accompaniment
to the proselyte's assumption of all and sundry the obligations
of the law, "the yoke of the commandment." It is essentially
an initiatory rite, with a forward and not a backward look.3
Rabbi (Judah, the Patriarch) remarked the correspondence
between the admission of a proselyte and the experience of
Israel. As the Israelites came into the covenant only by three
things, circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, precisely so the
proselyte comes into the covenant by the same three things.4
For the proselyte is equally a 'son of the covenant' with the born
Jew.5 In discussions from the first half of the second century
on, it is frequently adduced as a principle that the legal status
of a proselyte who embraces Judaism is (at the moment of his
1 So completely so that if he subsequently relapses, he is legally treated
(e.g. in questions of marriage) as an apostate Israelite (1D1D ^fcHB*); Yeba-
mot 4jby near end. In religious matters — sacrificial meals, the Passover,
etc. — the apostate Israelite, and of course the apostate proselyte, was
treated as a heathen; Mekilta, Bo 15 (ed. Friedmann f. iya; ed. Weiss
f. 2ob, top).
2 Baptism requires the same minimum quantity of water as a woman's
bath of purification, namely forty seahs — one or two hogsheads, according
to varying estimates of the contents of a seah; Yebamot 47b. As in ritual
ablutions, the water must touch every part of the flesh.
8 On the question whether a man who had been circumcised but not
baptized, or baptized but not circumcised, might be admitted to the Passover,
see Note 103.
4 They were circumcised before leaving Egypt (inferred from Josh. 5, 2 f.,
"the second time"); they were baptized in the desert (Exod. 19, 10, "Sanc-
tify yourselves"); after they pledged themselves to keep all God's command-
ments they were sprinkled with the blood of the covenant sacrifice (Exod.
24, 3-8).
5 Sifra, Ahare Perek 12: rVD p *\* *|K ma p mtK TO.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 335
reception) like that of a new born child; the casuistic question
is raised whether a son born after his conversion is his first-
born son and legal heir.1 This principle is cited in a discussion
between scholars of the first half of the second century with
a different application. The question there is, why in those
days proselytes suffered so severely, and in reply to an opinion
that it was because before their conversion they had not strictly
observed the seven commandments given to the descendants
of Noah (i.e. to all the heathen), R. Jose quotes, "A proselyte
who embraces Judaism is like a new-born child." 2 God cannot
therefore now chastise him for deeds done or duties neglected
before his new birth. In other words, all former sins are done
away by conversion and reception into the Jewish religious com-
munity through circumcision and baptism-
Equality in law and religion does not necessarily carry with
it complete social equality, and the Jews would have been singu-
larly unlike the rest of mankind if they had felt no superiority
to their heathen converts. To the old classification, Priests,
Levites, (lay) Israelites, a fourth category was added, Prose-
lytes ; 3 and sometimes a subdivision puts them far down in the
table of precedence, after (Israelite) bastards and Nethinim
(descendants of old temple-slaves), and only above (heathen)
slaves who had been circumcised and emancipated by their
masters.4
The autonomy of Judaea was achieved and successfully main-
tained by the Maccabaean brothers, Jonathan and Simon.
Their successors entertained larger ambitions, and by a series of
aggressive wars extended their dominion in all directions, to the
1 Yebamot 62a; Bekorot 473, top. The laws of prohibited degrees also
offer problems for casuistry; Yebamot 22a; 62a, near the end; 9yb-98a; 98b.
2 Yebamot 48b. That the proselytes suffer for their neglect of the laws
which as heathen they were bound to obey is the view of R. Ijjanina, son of
R. Gamaliel; the reply is made by R. Jose ben IJalafta. Other explanations
follow.
3 Tos. I£iddushin ^ i.
4 M. Horaiyot 3, 8; Horaiyot ija.
336 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
south over Idumaea, to the north over Galilee, east of the Jordan
and the Dead Sea to the edge of the desert, and on the Mediter-
ranean seaboard from the desert in the south to Mt. Carmel in
the north. In the break up of the Seleucid kingdom, no neigh-
boring state arose permanently to contest their power; and
this superiority the Asmonaean dynasty held for eighty years.
John Hyrcanus imposed the Jewish religion on the Idumaeans
by compulsory circumcision; his successor Aristobulus did the
same for the mixed population of northern Galilee and the
Ituraeans of the southern Lebanon; and it would be quite in
character if Alexander Jannaeus multiplied Jews in a similar
impromptu manner in the fields of his conquests. Besides such
forcible and skin-deep conversions, many doubtless of their own
accord sought to be enrolled in the governing people from mo-
tives in which religious conviction had small place. The Jews,
thanks in part to their independence at home, in part to their
dispersion abroad which gave them ready-made commercial con-
nections everywhere, were under the Asmonaeans and under
Herod, a highly prosperous people; and in the Hellenistic cities
and by Roman favor enjoyed exceptional privileges and exemp-
tions. Under such circumstances it is not strange that conver-
sions were numerous; all the more because the religions in which
men had been born had little real hold upon them when civic
duties and local associations were dissolved by distance and they
mingled in the heterogeneous population of foreign lands.1
That many did in fact embrace Judaism from purely worldly
motives the religious leaders were painfully aware. Several
kinds of what we might call counterfeit converts are enumerated.2
There is the 'love proselyte/ a man who becomes a proselyte for
the sake of marrying a Jewish woman, or a woman for the
1 In an interesting passage in Sifre on Deut. 33, 19 (§ 354), the spectacle of
the Jews, all worshipping one God, all eating the same kinds of food, makes
so great an impression on heathen visitors to Jerusalem, who have many
different gods and different rules about food, that they make haste to become
proselytes to such a unifying religion.
2 Jer. ]£iddushin 65b; cf. Yebamot 2^b.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 337
sake of taking a Jewish husband; another professes conversion
for a place at the king's table (advancement at court), or like
Solomon's servants (probably with a similar motive).1 Such are
declared by R. Nehemiah to be no proselytes;2 and he passes
the same judgement on 'lion proselytes' (like the Cuthaeans in
Samaria, who took to the worship of the Lord out of fear of
lions, but at the same time kept on with their heathen worship
and ways; 2 Kings 17, 24-33); men who become proselytes in
consequence of a dream (interpreted as commanding them to be-
come Jews) ; the proselytes of the days of Mordecai and Esther
(" for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them," Esther 8, 17) —
"these are no proselytes!" Only those, he continues, who are
converted in a time like this — the dire days after the war
under Hadrian, when there was nothing to gain and nothing to
fear from the Jews, no worldly advantage, therefore, to be got
by casting in a man's lot with them — only such are genuine
proselytes.3 Ultimately, however, the view prevailed that they
are to be regarded and treated as proselytes so long as they
have been properly received and do not openly apostatize;
motives for conversion lie beyond legal cognizance.4
One class of converts who were brought into the body of
Israel by improper motives are those who are called gerim geru-
rim, of which the Gibeonites (Josh. 9) are the typical example.
The participle signifies 'dragged in,' and is applied to heathen
who Judaize in mass, as whole peoples, under the impulsion of
fear, like the Gibeonites. Instances of such mass conversions
in more recent times were the Idumaeans, who were forced by
John Hyrcanus to submit to circumcision, and the Ituraeans,
who were similarly Judaized by Aristobulus. They doubtless
proved for a good while to be very unsatisfactory Jews, and while
1 Proselytes of this variety may have been numerous in the days of the
later Asmonaeans.
2 Disciple of R. Akiba.
3 Yebamot i^b. According to Jer. ]£iddushin 65b proselytes of the classes
enumerated above " are not received."
4 So Rab, in the places cited.
338 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
there is, so far as I know, no specific mention of their case, it
is very likely that they were thought of when the gerim gerurim
were discussed. The rule finally established was that, although
they did not accept Judaism for God's sake, they are legally
proselytes, and to be protected in their rights as such.1
In contrast to all these spurious or dubious proselytes, the
sincere and genuine proselyte is called gar sedefe, 'righteous
proselyte/2 They are such as embrace the religion from religious
motives, 'for the sake of God,' (le-shem Shamairri)* and thence-
forth live in conformity to his will revealed in the twofold law
as they pledged themselves to do at their reception. Another
name applied to such converts is gere emety 'true, or genuine,
proselytes.' * To the righteous proselytes are sometimes applied
texts in the Old Testament which speak of the righteous, or of
such as fear God, i.e. are truly religious.6 In the daily prayers,
as we have seen, the petition for God's blessing upon the right-
eous proselytes stands in significant juxtaposition to an impreca-
tion of his wrath upon Jewish apostates.
The word gar by itself having come to mean proselyte, that is,
a convert to Judaism who had been received by circumcision and
baptism not only into the religion but into the Jewish people,
it was necessary to find a distinctive term for the resident alien.
1 The proof is the famine that God sent on Israel for Saul's treatment of
the Gibeomtes and the expiation demanded for his sin (2 Sam 21, 1-9) Jer.
Kiddushin 65b-c; Midrash Shemuel 28, 5; Num. R 8, 4.
2 pTV "U. See Shemoneh 'Esreh 13; T»m TDIT pnvn nj fcy (Palestinian
recension); "pom VDPP p1¥H ^J ^Jfl . . , D^pHVn *?$ (Babylonian recension;
cf. Megillah lyb, end); Sifra, Ahare Perek 13 (ed. Weiss, f. 86b), citing Psalm
1 1 8, 20. Other references below, p. 340. The common translation, ' proselyte
of righteousness/ in verbal imitation of the Hebrew idiom, instead of the
idiomatic English 'righteous proselyte/ has doubtless contributed to the
erroneous notion that the phrase was originally intended to distinguish
the 'full* proselyte from the 'half proselyte ('proselyte of the gate/ see
below, p. 340 f ).
8 On this motive as a principle of conduct, see Vol II, p 98.
4 nDK *VJ e.g Niddah 56b; Sanhednn 85b; DDK ^P Dnj,Tanbuma ed.
Buber, Bemidbar § 31. The opposite is "JpP *IJ, Jer. Baba Me§i'a loc.
6 So e.g. Midrash Tehilhm on Psalm 22, 24 (ed. Buber f. 98a). R. Samuel
bar Nahman. See Note 96.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 339
This term in rabbinical law is ger toshab. The doctrine of the
lawyers about the ger toshab may be briefly summarized as fol-
lows: He is an alien, resident in Jewish territory by sufferance,
but on condition that while thus resident he do not engage in the
worship of other gods or in idolatrous practices, and do not
blaspheme the name of God; that he hold himself subject to the
jurisdiction of established courts; that he keep himself free of
flagrant crimes, homicide, robbery and theft, incest and adultery;
and finally, that he abstain from eating flesh with the life
blood in it — the seven commandments which, as we have seen
above, were said to have been given by God to Adam and Noah,
and to be consequently binding upon all mankind.1 He was not
required to join in the worship of the God of Israel, nor to take
upon him any further obligation to observe the commandments
of God to Israel, though he enjoyed with all others the exemption
from labor on the Sabbath which gives rest on that day to slaves
and hirelings of every race and estate, as well as to oxen and
asses which precede him in the enumeration.
Nothing but misunderstanding can come from calling the ger
toshab a 'proselyte' or 'semi-proselyte'; he was not a convert to
Judaism at all. The ger toshab, as uncircumcised (ger 'arel), is ex-
pressly distinguished from the circumcised proselyte (ger ben
bent} who has come into the covenant of God with Israel, or the
ger mahuly which is the same thing. Conclusive proof that the
ger toshab is a heathen may be taken from two items of the law: he
may eat 'carrion ' (nebelaK)? which no Israelite or proselyte may
touch; and, in the sphere of civil law, it is permissible to take
usury from a ger toshab equally with any other heathen, while it
is strictly forbidden to take usury, either in the biblical or the
rabbinical definition, from an Israelite, native or adventitious.
1 'Abodah Zarah 64.13. On the commandments for the descendants of
Noah, see above, pp. 274 f. A simpler definition of the ger toshab is "one
who pledges himself in the presence of three scrupulously observant persons
(Dnan) to abstain from idolatry'; 'Abodah Zarah 6$>\ d.6$n.
2 Nebelah is the flesh of animals not correctly slaughtered (M. Ijjullin 2, 4).
The ger to whom an Israelite may give it (Deut. 14, 21) is the gertoshab\ Sifre
34o REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
Much of what is said in our rabbinical sources about the ger
toshab was only of exegetical or casuistical interest in the age from
which those sources come. Whatever definitions and rules the
rabbis made applied only to the land of Israel and to times when
it lay in the power of the Jews to determine upon what conditions
aliens should be allowed to establish residence among them.1
Since the eighteenth century another category of proselytes
has figured largely in the Christian books, the so-called 'prose-
lytes of the gate,' with whom, in contrast to the 'proselytes of
righteousness/ or ' full proselytes/ the God-fearing Gentiles 2 dis-
cussed above are identified. The name, which to the unin-
formed might suggest converts who lingered at the door of the
synagogue, is derived indirectly from passages in the Bible
which speak of the €ger (alien) who is in thy gates ' (resident in
Israelite cities or towns).3 In the second century the question
was raised whether in the Fourth Commandment of the De-
calogue (Exod. 20, 10) this ger was a ger sede%y i.e. a proselyte,
who was under a personal obligation to keep the sabbath like a
born Jew, or a ger toshab, who was subject to no such obligation.
The former opinion prevailed.4
in he., § 104. The ger of Lev. 17, 15, for whom the law of nebelah is the same
as for the Israelite, is therefore the ger ben bent, not the ger toshab ^ Sifra,
Ahare Perek 12 (ed. Weiss, f. 840!, end). See Note 104. On usury (neshek,
tarbit) Deut. 23, 20 f.; Lev. 25, 36 f.) on loans between Israelites and the ger
toshab see M. Baba Me§i'a 5, 6. What is to be done if a Gentile becomes a
proselyte (nttgayyer) while a loan on interest between him and an Israelite is
outstanding, see Tos. Baba Me§i'a 5, 21 ; Jer. Baba Megi'a f. loc; Baba Mes/a
72a. On the ger toshaby see further Note 104.
1 In an enumeration of laws and institutions that fell into desuetude from
the time when the year of Jubilee ceased to be kept (i.e. since the exile), R.
Simeon ben Eleazar (latter part of the second century) includes the ger
toshab (see Lev. 25, 47-54); 'Arakm 2ga. This may however refer only to the
particular case contemplated.
2 Se/36/i€WH (^ojBoft/ttPOi) rov 0e6p; see above pp 325 f.
8 Exod. 20, 10; Deut. 5, 14; 31, 12, etc. Often named in Deuteronomy,
with widows, orphans, and the landless levites, as objects of charitable pro-
vision; e.g. Deut. 16, n, 14; 14, 29; 26, 12. See also Sifre Deut. on 14, 29
(§ 1 10).
4 Mekilta on Exod. 20, 10 (ed. Friedmann f. 69^ ed. Weiss f. 77a); cf.
on 23, 12 (Friedmann, f. loia; Weiss f. ic»7b); Yebamot 48b.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 341
From much that has been written about the 'proselyte of the
gate' it would be inferred that the name was in common use
among the rabbis to designate a class of 'semi-proselytes/ This
is an error. The phrase ger shaar, € gate proselyte/ is not found
in any Talmudic source. I know no occurrence earlier than R.
Moses ben Nahman (d. 12,70), who uses it in his commentary on
Exod. 20, 10 merely as an abbreviated expression for the ger
"who is in thy gates," and is so far from knowing it as an estab-
lished designation for a special class of 'proselytes' that he re-
verts to the old discussion whether the ger shdar was a ger sedek
(proselyte) or a ger toshab> that is, an alien who eats the flesh of
animals not properly slaughtered.
The attitude of the religious leaders of Judaism toward prose-
lytes differed in different circumstances, and individual teachers
had their own sympathies or antipathies. Shammai would have
nothing to do with one who was not prepared to give implicit
assent, before knowing its contents, to the unwritten law as well
as the written. In the generation that came after the fall of
Jerusalem, R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, in this also a true heir of
Shammai's spirit, had a bad opinion of all proselytes: They are
prone to fall back into their old ways, because they are natur-
ally bad; it is for this reason that the Scripture had so often to
admonish Israelites not to give them offense by word or deed; l
such a relapsed proselyte is meant in Exod. 23, 4 by the word
'enemy/2 Their misfortunes come from obeying the law not
out of love to God, but out of fear of his punishments.3 It may
be assumed that a foreigner's mind is always set on idolatry.4
1 Mekilta, Mishpatim 18, on Exod. 22, 20 (ed. Fnedmann f. 95a; ed.
Weiss f. loia). According to Mekilta de R. Simeon ben Yohai on Exod. 23,
9, R. Eliezer counted thirty-six such admonitions; another found forty-eight
(Tanbuma ed. Buber, Wayyikra § 3). See also Baba Me§i'a 59^ end.
2 Mekilta, Mishpatim 20 (on Exod. I.e.), ed. Friedmann f. 993; ed. Weiss
f. I04b.
3 Yebamot 48b. See also Baba Batra lob, middle.
4 Jer. Be§ah 6oa; Gittm, 45b. On Eliezer's attitude toward proselytes and
heathen see Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 106 f.
342 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
The school of Hillel, on the contrary, like their master, wel-
comed converts, and admitted them even though their knowledge
was imperfect and their observance faulty. Hillel's motto was:
" Be one of the disciples of Aaron, a lover of peace, following after
peace, loving mankind, and drawing them to the Law (religion)."1
In another anecdote illustrating the different temper of the two
masters, a foreigner comes to Shammai saying, "Make a prose-
lyte of me, on condition that you teach me the whole of the Law
while I stand on one foot." Shammai drove him off with a
measuring-stick he had in his hand. Thereupon he repaired to
Hillel with the same proposition; Hillel received him as a prose-
lyte and taught him: "What you do not like to have done to you
do not do to your fellow. This is the whole of the Law; the
rest is the explanation of it. Go, learn it." 2
Speaking generally the tone of the utterances about proselytes
is friendly, though not unduly enthusiastic. This is the more to
be noted because the Jews' experience with proselytes must at
times have been decidedly discouraging. It can hardly be
doubted that in perilous times many apostatized. In the out-
side lands, at least, many went over to Christianity. In the
persecution under Hadrian they were under strong temptation
to clear their own skirts by turning informers.3 It would be
nothing surprising if under such circumstances the rabbis should
have looked askance at all proselytes. There is, however, little
evidence of such a temper. The following extracts may serve
to illustrate the biblical method of the schools as well as the sub-
stance of their teaching about the treatment of proselytes. The
first is from the Mekilta on Exodus 22, 20, "An alien (ger) thou
shalt not injure nor oppress, for ye were aliens in the land of
Egypt." Taking ger of an alien who has come over to the religion
of Israel, a proselyte, it comments thus: 4
1 Abot i, 12.
2 Shabbat jia. See Vol. II, pp. 86 f.
8 See Note 106.
4 Mekilta, Mishpatim 18 (ed. Friedmann f. 9fa-b; ed. Weiss f. loia-b);
cf. also Baba Mesi'a 58b, 59b.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 343
Do not injure him with words and do not oppress him in
money matters. One must not say to him, Yesterday you
were worshipping Bel, I£ores, Nebo, and with swine's flesh
still between your teeth you answer back to me ! And whence
do we see that if you insult him, he can retort the insult?
Because the Scripture says, 'for ye were aliens.' Hence R.
Nathan used to say, Do not throw up to your fellow a
blemish you have yourself. Proselytes are dear to God, for
he is everywhere admonishing about them, ' Do not wrong a
proselyte/ and 'you shall love the proselyte,' and ' you know
the feelings of the proselyte.' l R. Eliezer said: It is on
account of the proselyte's natural depravity that the Scrip-
ture admonishes about him in many places.2 R. Simeon
ben Yohai said: It says, 'And those that love him are like
the sun when it rises in its power.' 3 Which is greater, he
who loves the king or he whom the king loves? You must
say, he whom the king loves, as it is said (of God), 'And
he loveth a proselyte.' 4 Proselytes are dear to God, for
you will find that the same things are said about them as
about Israel:5 the Israelites are called servants,6 as it is
said, 'For to me the Israelites are servants' (Lev. 25, 53),
and proselytes are called servants, as it is said, 'To love the
name of the Lord and to be servants to him' (Isa. 56, 6);
the Israelites are called ministers,7 as it is said, 'And ye
shall be called the priests of the Lord, ministers of our God
shall be said of you' (Isa. 61, 6), and the proselytes are called
ministers, as it is said, 'The foreigners who attach them-
selves to the Lord to minister to him' (Isa. 56, 6); the
Israelites are called friends, as it is said, 'The offspring of
Abraham, my friend' (Isa. 41, 8); the proselytes are called
friends,8 as it is said (of God), 'Friend of the proselyte'
(Deut. 10, 1 8); the word 'covenant' is used of the Israel-
ites, as it is said, 'And my covenant shall be in your flesh'
(Gen. 17, 13); and so it is used of proselytes, as it is said,
1 Exod 22, 20; Deut. 10, 19, Exod 23, 9, etc.
2 See above, p. 341, n. i.
3 Judges 5, 31.
4 Deut 10, 18.
5 With these parallels cf. also Num. R. 8, 2.
6 DHny, 'bond servants.'
7 DTnB>D, free servants, or attendants.
8 D^nmK, literally/ lovers.1
344 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
'Who hold fast my covenant* (Isa. 56, 6); 'acceptance* is
used of the Israelites as it is said, 'With acceptance before
the Lord' (Exod. 28, 38); and of proselytes, as it is said,
'Their burnt offerings and sacrifices with acceptance on my
altar' (Isa. 56, 7); 'keeping' is spoken of the Israelites, as
it is said, 'He that keepeth Israel will neither slumber nor
sleep' (Psalm 121, 4), and of proselytes, as it is said, 'The
Lord who keeps the proselytes' (Psalm 146, 9). Abraham
calls himself a proselyte, as it is said, 'A stranger (ger) and
a sojourner am I with you' (Gen. 23, 4); l David calls him-
self a proselyte, as it is said, 'A stranger (ger) am I in the
land' (Psalm 119, 19); and it says, 'For we are strangers
and sojourners before thee like all our fathers, tor our days
are a shadow on the earth and there is no abiding' (i Chron.
29> X5); and again, 'I am a stranger with thee, a sojourner
like all my fathers' (Psalm 39, 13). Dear (to God) are the
proselytes,2 for our father Abraham was not circumcised till
he was ninety-nine years old. If he had been circumcised
at twenty or at thirty a man could have become a prose-
lyte only at a lower age than twenty or thirty; therefore
God postponed it in his case till he arrived at the age of
ninety-nine, in order not to bolt the door in the face of
proselytes who come,3 and to give a reward for days and
years, and to increase the reward of one who does his will,
as it is said, 'The Lord was pleased for his righteousness'
sake to magnify the law and glorify it' (Isa. 42, 21). And
so you will find it of the four classes who answer and say be-
fore him who spake and the world came into being, ' I am the
Lord's'; for it says (Isa. 44, 5), 'One says, I am the Lord's,
1 Abraham was not only a proselyte who came over from heathenism to
the true religion, but a great maker of proselytes. Gen. 12, 5, ' the souls they
had gotten (literally, 'made') in Haran/ are the proselytes they had made
there; see e.g. Gen. R. in loc. (39, near end): "The verb 'made* is used to
teach that one who brings a foreigner (nokn) near and makes a proselyte of
him is as if he created him." Cf. Gen. R. 84, 2 (on Gen. 37, i). To 'bring
near* (sc. to God) is frequent for 'make a proselyte/ e.g. Jer. ]£iddushin 65b,
end. See also below, p. 348, n. 4.
2 To illustrate God's singular love for proselytes Num. R. has a pretty
parable of a king's affection for a stray gazelle of the desert that had joined
itself to his flocks and went in and out with them. In the parable of the lost
sheep (Matt. 18, 12 f.) the point is the shepherd's anxiety over one of his own
flock that has wandered away. See also Note 107.
» Cf. Gen. R. 46, imt. (cf. Gen. 17, i).
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 345
and one calls on the name of Jacob, and one inscribes with
his hand, Unto the Lord, and (another) takes Israel for a
surname/ 'I am the Lord's' — and may there be no admix-
ture of sin in me ! 'One calls on the name of Jacob ' — these
are the righteous proselytes. 'One inscribes with his hand,
Unto the Lord' — these are the penitents; 'And takes
Israel for a surname' — these are they that fear Heaven."
From the other great school of the period, that of Akiba, a
corresponding deliverance is found in the Sifra on Lev. 19, 34: l
"'Thou shalt not wrong him.' That is you shall not say to
him, Yesterday you were an idolater and now you have come
beneath the wings of the Shekinah. 'Like the native born.'
As the native born is one who takes upon him all the com-
mandments of the law, so the proselyte is one who takes
upon him all the commandments of the law. Hence the
rule: A proselyte who takes upon him all the command-
ments of the law with a single exception is not to be ad-
mitted. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, Even one of the
minutiae of the scribal regulations. ' Shall the proselyte be
who sojourns with you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.'
Just as it is said in relation to Israelites, 'Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself,' so in relation to proselytes (gerim)
it is said, 'Thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were stran-
gers (gerim) in the land of Egypt.' Understand how prose-
lytes feel; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
These passages from the juristic Midrash express with author-
ity the teaching of the schools in the second century. There is no
reason to doubt that it is what they taught before the war under
Hadrian; it was preserved and transmitted by the disciples who
restored the schools after the war, and is repeated in Baraitas in
the Talmud as the accepted doctrine and rule.2
1 Sifra, ]£edoshim Perek 8 (ed. Weiss f. 91 a). The chapter begins with
the reasonable requirement that a man who comes to a Jewish community
professing to be a proselyte must present evidence of the fact. Cf. Mekilta
de-R. Simeon ben Yohai on Exod. 22, 20; Baba Mesi'a 58b; 59b.
2 In a much later homiletical Midrash, Num. R. 8, is a large compilation
of matter about proselytes from various sources and ages, but throughout
in the same spirit. The post-Talmudic Masseket Gerim brings together
chiefly juristic material from the Talmuds.
346 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
It is not at variance with this attitude when it is taught that
in the Days of the Messiah proselytes will not be received, as
they were not received, it is said, in the times of David and Solo-
mon.1 The presumption is that those who sought to be natural-
ized when Israel was enjoying extraordinary power and prosper-
ity did so only from motives of self-interest, not from religious
motives; how much more in the messianic age! 2 Heathen who
in that age profess Judaism in mass (gerim gerurim) 8 and put on
phylacteries and fringes, and fasten mezuzot on their door posts
in imitation of Jewish custom, when the war of Gog and Magog
breaks out will abjure their profession and desert the Jewish
cause.4
This was not, however, a unanimous opinion. R. Jose (ben
IJalafta) taught, on the contrary, that in the time to come (the
messianic age) the heathen would come and become proselytes.5
In the same spirit we read in a later Palestinian Midrash: "God
says, In this age, through the efforts of the righteous, individuals
become proselytes, but in the Age to Come, I will draw the
righteous (Gentiles) near, and bring them beneath the wings of
the Shekinah, as it is written, 'For then will I give the peoples,
in exchange for their own, a pure language, that they may all
of them call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one
consent," (Zeph. 3, g).6
Strong antipathy to proselytes is rarely expressed. R. IJelbo,
a Palestinian teacher of the latter part of the third century,
declares that proselytes are as troublesome to Israel as the itch.7
This peculiar form of trouble is discovered by an ingenious com-
bination of the word sappahat (a cutaneous eruption, Lev. 13, 2)
1 Yebamot 24!); 'Abodah Zarah 30. 4 'Abodah Zarah jb.
2 See above, p. 337. 5 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera § 38. See Vol. II, pp 371 ff.
7 Yebamot 47b, cf. iO9b; £iddushin 7ob; Niddah I3b. In the passage
cited last it is said on Tannaite authority (pai 13n) that proselytes and
ropiwa D^pnt^ hinder the coming of the Messiah. On the meaning of the
latter phrase see Klausner, Die messiamschen Vorstellungen des judischen
Volkes, u. s. w., p. 37.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 347
with nispahu (the proselytes 'will cleave* to the house of Jacob,
Isa. 14, i). Whether R. IJelbo was seriously ill-affected to
proselytes or only proud of his pun, and if the former, what his
grievance was, is not revealed. The contexts in which his words
are quoted are not more enlightening, and in any case, come from
a time that lies beyond our present concern.
It gratified Jewish pride in the demonstrated superiority of
the true God and the true religion to play with the imagination
that bitter enemies of Israel had been constrained to acknowledge
this superiority and become converts to Judaism, like Nebuza-
radan, who was a righteous proselyte; or that their descendants
were converted and became teachers of the Law in Palestine,
like those of Sisera and Sennacherib. God would have brought
the grandsons of Nebuchadnezzar beneath the wings of the
Shekinah, had not the ministering angels made too strong a
protest. Shemaiah and Abtalion were descendants of Senna-
cherib; descendants of Haman were also among the teachers of
the Law.1 It must be observed, however, that in the latter cases
there is another idea: The sins of heathen fathers are not an
attainder which excludes their posterity from the Jewish people
or from the highest honor the rabbis could conceive, that of
being Doctors of the Law.2
Some of the most eminent schoolmen of the second century
were, or are reputed to have been, of proselyte ancestry. This
is said of both Akiba and his great disciple R. Meir. The name
of the proselyte Aquila, is, thanks to his translation of the Bible,
the best known of all to Christian scholars.
The emphasis laid by the rabbis on sincerity in conversion led
them, as appears in the rite of admission quoted above, to an
inquiry into the candidate's motives, and to a setting forth of
the difficulties and dangers to which a proselyte exposed himself
which might well dissuade him from his purpose if it was not
1 Sanhednn 960; Gittm 570
2 On the legends of the imperial proselyte 'Antoninus' (Jer. Megillah 720,
74a) and his relations to the Patriarch Judah, see Bacher, Tannaiten, II,
457 f.; Gmzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, I, 656 f.
348 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
honest and strong. Caution is enjoined against carrying this
dissuasive so far as to turn away even the sincere.1 The same
caution is given elsewhere. R. Johanan quotes Job 31, 32:
"The proselyte shall not lodge without; I will open my doors to
the wayfarer," as a proof text for the rule that proselytes should
be held back with the left (the weaker) hand and drawn near with
the right; men should not do like Elisha, who thrust Gehazi away
with both hands.2 So in a Baraita: "Always the left hand should
repel and the right hand draw near; not like Elisha, who thrust
Gehazi away with both hands; nor like Joshua ben Perahiah,
who thrust away Jesus the Nazarene with both hands."3
A contemporary of R. Johanan, R. Abba Arika (Rab), the
first great name in the history of the Babylonian schools, re-
marks on the dictum quoted in a previous connection that those
who seek to become proselytes from motives of self-interest are
not to be received: "The rule is, They are proselytes; and they
are not to be repelled as proselytes are repelled at the outset, but
received; and they must have friendly treatment, for perhaps
after all they have become proselytes for religious motives (for
God's sake)." 4
There is no way of estimating statistically the results of Jewish
propaganda in the centuries that fall within the limits of our
inquiry, but they were indisputably very large, even if only
proselytes in the proper sense be taken into account.5 The con-
1 See above, p. 333.
2 Jer. Sanhedrin 2$b. On the legend of Gehazi and Elisha's fruitless
journey to Damascus to try to reclaim him, see Jewish Encyclopedia, V,
580 f.
3 Sanhedrin 1070; Sotah 47 a. On the latter example of such excess of
zeal and its consequences (which is suppressed in the censored editions of the
Talmud), see H. Strack, Die Haretiker und die Christen nach den altesten
jiidischen Angaben, 1910, pp. iof., 32* f.
4 Jer. Kiddushin 6$b (see above, p. 337). Cf. Mekilta, Yitro i (ed. Fried-
mann f. 58a-b; ed. Weiss f. 66a, end). As God brought Jethro near and did
not repel him, so, "When a man comes to thee to become a proselyte, he
does not come except for God's sake (from religious motives); do thou
therefore bring him near and do not repel him." See Note 107.
5 On this point see Harnack, Ausbreitung des Christen turns, 4 ed., pp. 13 ff.
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 349
verts were of many races, and of all ranks in society. According
to Dio Cassius, Flavius Clemens, an uncle of the emperor, consul
in 95 A.D., who was put to death by Domitian in the same year
on a charge of d0e6T?7s, and his wife Flavia Domitilla, who was
exiled on the same charge, were probably proselytes to Judaism.1
Josephus narrates at length and with evident satisfaction the
conversion to Judaism of the royal family of Adiabene,2 which
in the first century of our era was ruled by native kings in some
kind of dependence on Parthia. In the first half of the century
the queen, Helena, embraced Judaism, and her son, Izates, who
was at the time living abroad, was independently converted to
the same religion. After Izates succeeded to the throne, he was
circumcised, and many of his kindred were moved to follow his
example. Queen Helena spent many years in Jerusalem, and
her body was conveyed thither to be buried in a tomb that is
still standing. Izates died about 55 A.D., and was also buried
in Jerusalem, leaving the kingdom to his brother Monobazus II.
His successors also adhered to Judaism. The dynasty came to
an end in 116 A.D., when Trajan conquered Adiabene and made
it the province of Assyria. It may safely be assumed, as in
like conditions in the expansion of Christianity, that a large
part of the people of Adiabene adopted the religion of their
rulers, and the Judaizing of the population may have been
furthered by the strong Jewish settlements and flourishing
schools at Nisibis.3
1 Dio Cassius, Ixvii. 14. See Juster, Les Juifs dans 1 'empire remain, I,
257, and the literature there listed. It is thought by a majority of scholars
that Dio Cassius did not discriminate Christians from Jews, and that the
victims were in fact Christians. If it were certain that the Flavia Domitilla
whose name appears in a Christian inscription was the wife of Clement, the
evidence would be decisive.
2 Adiabene embraced at this time most of the territory of ancient Assyria
east of the Tigris. In Izates' reign the Parthian king Artabanus added to it
the district of Nisibis.
8 Josephus, Antt. xx. 2-4; Bell. Jud. ii. 19, 2; iv. 9, 11; v. 2, 2; 3, 3; 4, 2;
6, i; vi. 6, 3 f. See Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes, HI, 118 ff.
(with literature). For the Talmudic legends about this dynasty see Brull,
Jahrbucher, u. s. w., I, 72-80.
350 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
The Jews in the Roman empire, as has been already said, en-
joyed certain extraordinary privileges and exemptions, the most
important of which was that they were not required to do any-
thing which implied a recognition of another god.1 Thus, after
Augustus, when the worship of the Roman emperors became an
imperial religion and was cultivated with obsequious zeal in the
provinces, the Jews, and they alone, were not required to manifest
their loyalty in any of the usual forms of adoration such as
burning incense before the image of the emperor, or to take oath
by the emperors. In strictness this exemption would have ex-
tended only to peregrine Jews, not to such as acquired the status
of Roman citizens, and particularly not to freedmen, who in
law were bound to worship the sacra of their former masters.
But here also an exception was made in their favor, and various
other privileges were accorded to them.
These rights and privileges belonged, however, only to those
who were by birth members of the Jewish nation. If a proselyte
did not worship the gods, he made himself liable to prosecution
for ' atheism.' 2 The abstention was not likely to attract remark
except in the case of officials whose duty it was to conduct pagan
rites or assist in them. Converts of this class were, however,
not numerous, and probably few of those who would otherwise
have embraced Judaism were deterred by apprehension that this
law might be invoked against them. Domitian's energetic col-
lection of the special poll-tax on Jews, the fi scus Judaicus, which
was exacted from those who without openly professing their ad-
hesion to Judaism lived like Jews, as well as from born Jews who
concealed their race,3 gave occupation to the informers whom he
1 Hellenistic monarchs had long before followed the same policy, granting
to Jews the rights of citizens, but exempting them from participation in
heathen cults which otherwise were incumbent on all citizens. See on the
whole subject, Juster, Les Juifs dans 1'empire romain, I, 245 f.
2 'Atheism/ in law, was not the theoretical denial of the existence of gods,
but the failure to worship the gods that the state recognized.
3 The half-shekel tax raised by the Jews everywhere for the maintenance
of the public sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem was converted by Vespasian
after the destruction of the temple into a special tax of two drachmae per
CHAP, vii] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 351
encouraged; and their denunciations probably included some
more highly placed in society than the mass of Roman Jewry.
This seems to be implied in the measures of his successor, Nerva,
who discharged those who were under accusation of d<7e0aa,
recalled those who had been banished, and prohibited delations
either for dae/Seia and adopting the Jewish way of living, or
about the poll-tax.1 The laws, however, were not changed.
A much more serious check must have been given to the ac-
cession of proselytes when Hadrian made circumcision itself a
crime, a measure which is said to have provoked the revolt of
the Jews in 132 A.D.2 The law, which was not directed particu-
larly against the Jews, apparently put circumcision in the same
category with castration, a capital crime.3 In the more general
proscription of the Jewish religion after the war we read of
fathers who were put to death for circumcising their sons.4
Antoninus Pius made an exception from this general law in favor
of the Jews only, who could therefore legally circumcise their
own sons. For all others the law remained in full force.5 The
penalties underwent some changes in the history of legislation,
but were always most severe. Notwithstanding the severity of
the laws, proselytes continued to join themselves to the Jews,
as the renewal of the laws itself proves; but probably in di-
minished numbers. The laws expressly forbid masters to cir-
cumcise their slaves.
The preaching of Christianity made converts among the
capita to be paid into the public treasury of Rome (Josephus, Bell. Jud. vii.
6, 6). On Domitian's enforcement of this law, see Suetonius, Domitian, c. 12;
and on the whole subject, Juster, Les Juifs dans Tempire remain, II, 282 ff.
1 Dio Cassms, Ixvin. 1,2. Medals with the inscription, Fisci judaici calum-
nia sublata. Juster, op. cit. I, 258; II, 385.
2 Histona Augusta, Hadrian, 14, 2. Down to his time circumcision seems
not to have been against the law.
3 Juster, op. cif.y I, 264 ff.; cf. II, 191.
4 Mekilta, Yitro 6, end; Lev. R. 32, i.
6 Circumcidere Judaeis fihos suos tantum rescripto divi Pn permittitur: in
non eiusdem rehgioms qui hoc fecerit castrantis poena irrogatur. Digest
xlvni. 8, ii (Modestinus). See Juster, Les Juifs dans Tempire remain, I,
266 ff., where the later legislation is also cited.
352 REVEALED RELIGION [PART i
proselytes to Judaism as well as among the looser adherents of
the synagogue. There were such, according to Acts 2, 10, among
the converts of the Day of Pentecost. One of the seven admin-
istrators of charity to the Hellenistic community in Jerusalem
('deacons') was Nicholas, an Antiochene proselyte (Acts 6, 5).
There were, on the other hand, proselytes to Judaism who came
over from the Gentile church. Epiphanius narrates how Aquila,
the translator of the Bible, embraced Christianity and was
baptized, but subsequently, in resentment of church discipline,
turned to the Jews.1 In the absence of any other support for
the story, it receives, and probably deserves, little credit, though
there is nothing intrinsically improbable in such a change of
faith. In times of persecution Christians sometimes joined the
Jews, presumably to evade the test applied by the officials, adora-
tion of the emperor, to which Jews were not subject.2
The edicts of Christian emperors against circumcision are not
confined exclusively to Jewish proselytism; they strike also
various Christian sects which practiced circumcision.8 The
renewal of particular legislation about circumcision, was how-
ever, of less consequence, for the Christian emperors made con-
version of Christians to Judaism a crime in itself, with increas-
ingly severe penalties both for the Christian convert and the
Jew who converted him. The net of the law is spread wide; it
takes in adherence to Judaism and its teachings, frequenting the
synagogue, and calling oneself a Jew; thus including not only
male proselytes, who were also liable to the laws prohibiting
circumcision, but to women proselytes in the strict sense, and to
the looser adherents of Judaism. The penalty was at first ar-
bitrary with the magistrates; then the law added confiscation
of property and the inability to make a will. For the proselyte-
1 Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, cc. 14 f.
2 To one such, probably a man of some standing, who sought thus to save
himself from prosecution under Septimius Severus, Serapion, bishop of
Antioch at the end of the second century, addressed a letter. Eusebius, His-
toria ecclesiastica vi. 12.
8 On these sects see Juster, Les Juifs dans Tempire remain, I, 270 n.
CHAP, vn] CONVERSION OF GENTILES 353
maker the legislation went on to equate the crime to laesa mates-
tas, and finally made it simply capital, whether the convert was
freeman or slave.1 Against all such attempts of pagan or Chris-
tian rulers to shut up Judaism in itself and prevent its spread,
the Jews persisted in their missionary efforts to make the re-
ligion God had revealed to their fathers the religion of all
mankind.
1 Quicumque servum seu ingenuum, invitum vel suasione plectenda, ex
cultu Christianae religionis in nefandam sectam ritumve transduxerit, cum
dispendio fortunarum capite puniendum. Nov. Theodos. in. § 4. See further
Juster op. ctt. I, 260-262.
PART II
THE IDEA OF GOD
CHAPTER I
GOD AND THE WORLD
JUDAISM, in the centuries with which we are concerned, had no
body of articulated and systematized doctrine such as we under-
stand by the name theology. Philo, indeed, endeavored to har-
monize his hereditary religion with a Hellenistic philosophy, but
the resulting theology exerted no discoverable influence on the
main current of Jewish thought. As in the case of the Bible
itself, any exposition of Jewish teaching on these subjects, by the
very necessity of orderly disposition, unavoidably gives an ap-
pearance of system and coherence which the teachings them-
selves do not exhibit, and which were not in the mind of the
teachers. This fact the reader must bear constantly in mind.
It must further be remarked that the utterances of the rabbis
on this subject are not dogmatic, carrying an authority compar-
able to the juristic definitions and decisions of the Halakah; they
are in great part homiletic, often drawing instruction or edifica-
tion from the words of Scripture by ingenious turns of interpre-
tation, association, and application, which seized upon the at-
tention and fixed themselves in the memory of the hearers by the
novelty, not of the lesson, but of the way the homilist got it into
the text and out again. Large liberty in such invention has
always been accorded to preachers, and every one knows that
scholastic precision is not to be looked for in what is said for im-
pression. Even in the more regulated Midrash of the schools
there was much freedom, especially in combining scripture with
scripture according to the hermeneutic rules.
But with this fertility in derivation, and notwithstanding a
liberty that was only at two or three points restrained by any-
thing resembling a definition of orthodoxy, there is on most topics
a real consensus in substance which is only made the more em-
357
358 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
phatic by the great variety of form.1 This essential unity of con-
ception exists not only in the rabbinical literature but may be
traced back through the writings of the preceding centuries, thus
showing, as should be expected, a continuity in the tradition of
the schools and its reflection in popular instruction. The ulti-
mate source is the Bible itself, interpreted in the same sense and
spirit.
From the historical point of view the Bible of the Jews is the
collective name for twenty-four — or as we count them, thirty-
nine — books, many of which are themselves collections of writ-
ings by different authors, or compilations from earlier sources;
a national religious literature of widely varying character, cover-
ing many centuries, by many hands, and reflecting not merely
different situations and circumstances in the life of the nation
and the mind and temperament of individual authors, but suc-
cessive stages in the development of the religion itself. To the
religious apprehension, on the other hand, the whole is one divine
revelation, completely consentient in all its parts, and in the
minutest particulars.2 However many human authors may have
been concerned in recording it, the Scriptures have, in the lan-
guage of Protestant theologians, but one auctor pnmarius, even
God. Upon these premises, what the modern historian calls
the 'development of religion 'is properly only a divine paedagogic,
an 'economy of revelation/ The Jews, whose minds were un-
troubled by any notions of development, had not even this con-
cession to make: the twofold revelation to Moses was com-
plete — nothing was held back in heaven. The Prophets and the
Hagiographa reiterated, emphasized, and applied the Torah for
their own and following generations; they added nothing.3
With a conception of revelation which made an axiom not
merely of its unity but of its identity throughout, it might seem
1 The substantial diversity is greatest, as would be expected, in the es-
chatological sphere — the destiny of the nation and the rest of the world,
and the hereafter of individuals.
2 See above, pp. 239 ff., 269 f.
3 See above, p. 239.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 359
logically to follow that Jewish doctrine on any subject — say,
on the character of God — would be drawn comprehensively or
indiscriminately from the manifold utterances and exhibitions
in the Scriptures, from the naive anthropomorphisms of Gen.
1 8 and Exod. 4, 24 ff., or such vindication and expiation as is
narrated in 2 Sam. 21, to passages of incomparable elevation.
In fact, however, Jewish conceptions are not drawn thus collec-
tively from everything in the Bible, nor are they an attempted
harmony of discrepant representations; they are the result of a
selective process. The unconscious principle in this selection
was affinity with their own highest conceptions, and it fastened
first of all on the passages in Scripture which most fully expressed
these conceptions, and from which the latter were in fact his-
torically derived. The rabbis then deduced them exegetically
from these texts, moving thus in a circle which is the real logic
of doctrine in all similar matter. Christian theology has operated
from age to age in just the same way with revelation in the Old
Testament and the New.
It is not the whole truth to say that Jewish teaching at the
beginning of our era appropriated the best that there is in the
Bible, virtually ignoring or ingeniously adapting much that did
not tally with it. In the generations that intervened Judaism
had advanced farther in the direction it had taken, if not in new
ideas at least in new proportion and emphasis, as, for example,
in the development of teaching concerning the 'reign of God'
(kingdom of Heaven), and the prominence of the conception of
God as 'our Father who is in heaven/ 1
Nowhere is the selection by affinity more conspicuous than in
Jewish teaching about God, to which we now turn.
In accordance with the principle of revelation, the existence of
God is not a subject for question or argument; he has revealed
himself in Scripture, and Scripture teaches men to recognize the
manifestations of his power, his wisdom, his goodness, in nature
1 See pp. 229 f., 401, 432 ff. Vol. II, pp. 346 f.; 201 ff.
360 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
and history and providence. Dogmatic atheism and theoretical
skepticism are the outcome of philosophical thinking, to which
the Jews had no inclination. They knew the man who thought
there was no God and conducted himself accordingly; but what
such men really meant was that no higher power concerned it-
self about men's doings — there was no providence and no
retribution.1 Even the radical disbelief of the man who " denies
the root" (namely, God), comes to this end by the practical,
not the theoretical road; it begins with not hearkening to the
word of the Lord as defined and expounded by scholars, and not
doing all His commandments (Lev. 26, i4).2 Philo, living in a
centre where all the conflicting currents of Hellenistic philoso-
phy met and strove together, had to debate this question from
philosophical premises and with philosophical arguments, and
to confute both skepticism and materialistic atheism.3
The first great question of religious philosophy, as Philo puts
it, is Whether the Deity exists?; the second, What is it in its
essential nature? 4 The former he thinks it easy to prove; the
latter question is not only difficult but perhaps unanswerable.
In the ontological sense in which Philo means it, Palestinian
Judaism, to which all metaphysic was alien, never speculated
on the nature of God at all.5
' Monotheism also, the corner-stone of Judaism, remains, as
in the Bible, the religious doctrine that there is one God and no
1 The denial of these was frequent. See Eccles. 7, 15; 8, 14; 9, 2, et
passim. So the ungodly (aae/Sels) in Wisdom of Solomon, i, 16-2, 20. The
wicked man contemns God, saying to himself, 'Thou wilt not require*
(Psalm 10, 13): p"i n^1 p n^, that is, "there is no judgement and no
judge," Gen. R. 26, 6.
2 np'JD lBT3,e.g. Sifra, Behukkotai Perekj, end (ed. Weiss f. me), the
nearest Hebrew equivalent of 'atheist/ The downward progress of such -a
one is there analysed. See further below, p. 467.
8 De opificio mundi c. 61 § 170 (ed. Mangey I, 41). For a synopsis of
Philo's arguments see Drummond, Philo Judaeus, II, i ff.
4 De monarchia c. 4 § 32 (ed. Mangey II, 216). The two questions:
Iv plv d tan rb Beiov . . . trepov de r6 rl kan Kara riiv ovvlav.
6 There is no reason to think that the theosophy which counted among its
adepts some of the leading schoolmen at the beginning of the second century
had any philosophy in its composition. See below, pp. 411 ff.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 361
other, or, if it must be expressed abstractly, the doctrine of the
soleness of God, in contradiction to polytheism, the multiplicity
of gods.1 There is no assertion or implication of the unity of God
in the metaphysical sense such as Philo means when he says,
"God is sole, and one (&>), not composite, a simple nature,2
while everyone of us, and of all other created things, is many"
(TroXXi), etc. Wholly remote from Jewish thought is the idea of
God as pure and simple being (TO OP), in his proper nature an un-
knowable and unnamable Absolute, as Philo conceives it when
he develops his fundamental philosophy.3 Jewish monotheism
was reached through the belief that the will of God for righteous-
ness is supreme in the history of the world; one will rules it all
to one end — the world as it ought to be. In this way a national
god became the universal God.4 Its origin was thus, to put it
in a word, moral, rather than physical or metaphysical; and it
was therefore essentially personal.
Monotheisms of diverse characters and tendencies have arisen
in other ways. The sovereign god in a monarchically organized
pantheon may be exalted so far above all others that they become
only the ministers of his sole supreme will. Not infrequently
their godhead is saved by the discovery that they are names,
forms, manifestations, of the god who is the whole pantheon in
one (pantheus). A physical philosophy may call the whole of
nature god, and more particularly the all-pervading energetic
mind; while religious feeling, aided by the mere necessities of
language, may give a measure of personality to this immanent
reason of the universe in nature and in man. Or, again, the one
1 See above, pp 222 ff., and Note 108.
2 Philo's philosophy concurs with his religion in the proposition that there
is but one God. See e.g. De opificio mundi c. 61 § 171 (ed. Mangey I, 41).
In De confusione Imguarum c. 33 § 170 (ed. Mangey I, 431) he quotes to
this effect, Homer, Iliad n, 204 f., just as Aristotle does at the end of Meta-
physics xi. On the unity and simplicity of the divine nature, see Legg. allegor.
li. I § I f. (ed. Mangey I, 66): 6 Oebs JJLWOS earl Kal lv,ov
aTrXr} K r.X.
3 See Drummond, Philo Judaeus, II, 16 ff.
4 See above, Part I, chap. i.
362 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
reality of an idealistic monism, the Absolute, may be similarly
personified, and become a god to worship. In none of these is
the moral character of God predominant; and therefore in none
of them was personality essential to the very idea of God, as it is
in Judaism. Jewish monotheism had no tendency toward mon-
ism, whether ontological or cosmic, or to the religious counter-
part of monism, pantheism.
The assertion of the soleness of God and argument against the
many gods have naturally a larger room in the apologetic of
Hellenistic Jews than in the Palestinian schools and synagogues.
The authors of the former lived in the midst of polytheism; they
wrote to exhibit the superiority of Judaism, whether it be con-
sidered philosophically, religiously, or morally, and in the en-
deavor to convert Gentile readers from their vain idols to serve
the living God. They were conscious of having, so far as the
unity of the godhead is concerned, the best Greek thought on
their side. They made florilegia of the monotheistic, or mono-
theistic-sounding, utterances of Greek poets, and to make the
volume of testimony more impressive fabricated many more.
The venerable Sibyl became a prophetess of the one God:
avros yap jjAvos cori 0eds KOVK earw €T9 aXXos l
or, with more doctrine:
els 6e6s ecm /z6?apxos adecr^aros altfepi valwv
avro<t>vris &6paros dp&jj.ei'os avros awavra.2
Polytheism did not confront them, however, as a theoretical
pluralism of gods — in theory, most educated Greeks in that age
were not pluralists — but practically as the worship of a multipli-
city of gods represented by images or, as among the Egyptians,
by living animals. Idolatry was the universal concomitant of
polytheism, and the Jews made no difference between them.
The satire on idolatry which begins in the prophets 8 is a common-
1 Oracula Sibyllma, in, 629.
2 Ibid, hi, ii f.; cf. Frag, i, 7 ff. (ed. Geffcken, p. 227 f.).
1 See above, p. 227.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 363
place of Hellenistic polemic; by its side are denunciations of it
as the most heinous of sins, giving to the work of men's hands the
honor that belongs to the God that made heaven and earth.1 So
monstrous is this aberration that the author of the Wisdom of
Solomon endeavors to explain it as a progressive declension from
natural and comparatively harmless beginnings till the depth of
degradation is reached in Egyptian theriolatry.2
In Judaea the hostility of the Jews to everything resembling
idols or idolatry forced regard upon contemptuous governors,
little wont to respect the prejudices of their subjects. They
would not even suffer Roman ensigns to be brought into the city
of Jerusalem because they had images on them, and when Pilate
introduced them nevertheless, constrained him to withdraw
them.3 It was not necessary to go far from Jerusalem, however,
to find the obnoxious cults flourishing. Herod, who rebuilt the
Jewish temple with such magnificence, erected in Samaria —
renamed Sebaste — a great temple to the emperor Augustus.
Caesarea, Herod's new seaport, and later the usual residence of
the procurators, was predominantly a heathen city, as were the
cities of the Decapolis.
But however familiar the spectacle of heathenism may have
been, the teachers of Palestine, addressing themselves to men of
their own religion, did not feel it necessary to polemize against
polytheism and idolatry as the Hellenistic literature does.4
1 Wisdom of Solomon, 13-15; Ep. of Aristeas § I34ff.( ed. Wendland);
Orac. Sibyll. 111,29-31; 586-590; v,75ff.; Frag. 3,21-31, and in many other
places; Philo, De decalogo c. 2 § 6-9 (ed. Mangey II, 181); De monarchia
c. 2 § 21 (II, 214), and elsewhere.
2 Wisdom of Solomon, 15, 18 f.; cf. 11, 15; 12, 24; Ep. of Aristeas § 138;
Philo, De decalogo c. 16 § 76-80 (II, 193 f.); Josephus, Contra Apionem, i.
28 mit. etc.; Sibyllmes, see the preceding note.
3 Josephus, Antt. xvin. 3,1. Cf. also the tearing down of the golden eagle
which Herod had set over the main entrance to the temple, ibid. xvii. 6, 2-4.
4 As Schechter says, the laws against idolatry were not a practical issue.
(Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 141.) Such passages as Enoch 99,
7-9; Jubilees 11, 4-7; 12,2-8; 22,18-22; Test, of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Naphtah, 3, 3 f., have a historical appropriateness in the mouth of the sup-
posed speakers rather than an actual interest.
364 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
Under the head of 'heathenism' ^abodah zarah) in the Mishnah
and elsewhere they are concerned to ordain precautions, first,
against acts which might seem by inference to recognize the ob-
jects and places the Gentiles regard as divine or sacred, as well
as against becoming in even the most remote way accessory to
idolatrous worship; and, in the second place, to warn Jews
against the vices which they regarded as the offspring of heathen-
ism, and to avoid situations and associations which might invite
suspicion that they were contaminated by such vices.1
If the leaders of Palestinian Jewry had little fear of actual
lapse into polytheism and idolatry, they had greater concern
about a defection from the strict monotheistic principle of a
different kind, the currency of the belief that there are ' two au-
thorities.' 2 The references to this error do not define it. A
theory of 'two authorities' might be entertained by thinkers
who held that God is the author of good only, and that for the
evil in the world another cause must be assumed; 3 or by such
as in their thinking so exalted God above the finite as to find it
necessary to interpose between God and the world an inferior
intermediate power as demiurge; 4 or — as frequently happened
— both these motives might concur. It is evident also that Gen-
tile Christianity, with its Supreme God, the Father, and its Son
of God, creator and saviour, was founded on a doctrine of two
powers. Judged by the standard of the numerically exclusive
and uncompromisingly personal monotheism of Jewish ortho-
1 See Note 109.
2 Or "two powers" (HV1KH TIP). See Note no.
3 Philo attributes this doctrine to the Essenes. It is with them one of the
evidences of godliness (roO <j>i\oOeov) TO TTOLVTUV /zei> ayaO&v alrioVy KCLKOV 51
fjLrjdevos vojjil£eip elvat TO delov. Quod omnis probus liber c. 12 § 84 (ed.
Mangey II, 458). The doctrine is Platonic, De repubhca n. 3790: God is
good, and therefore cannot be the cause of any kind of evils; cf. ibid 3800.
Philo himself often affirms it: e.g. De confusione Imgg. c. 36 § 180 (ed.
Mangey I, 432).
4 Philo's own transcendent conception of the Deity requires such media-
tion, which he finds in the Logos, &Y ov aujuTras 6 £007*0$ edrjiuovpyelTO (De
sacerdotibus c. 5, § 81 ed. Mangey II, 225).
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 365
doxy, all these were dualistic heresies, and in the condemnation
of them the orthodox probably made no superfluous discrimi-
nations. This is no reason, however, why we should be equally
indiscriminate and introduce a new confusion into a perplexed
matter by labelling the Jews who held such theories 'Jewish
Gnostics/ l
The controversy with catholic Christians over the unity of
the godhead, considerable as it is both in volume and interest,
lies outside our purpose.2 It is sufficient to remark that the argu-
ments employed on both sides are in large part the same as are
found earlier in discussions of the 'two powers' in which both
parties were Jews; they quote the texts of the Bible which most
strongly affirm the soleness of God; and refute the inferences
from the plural elohim ('God,' not 'gods') by scriptures equally
relevant against heathen polytheists, Jewish dualists, and
Christian apologists.
How easily the pious desire to associate God with good only
might glide into constructive heresy is illustrated by the inter-
diction of certain turns of phrase in prayer. Thus, to say "Good
men shall bless Thee" is a 'heretical form of expression.' 3 If
the leader in prayer says, "Thy mercy extends even to the spar-
row's nest, and because of good (i.e. benefits bestowed) be Thy
name remembered," he is to be silenced.4 Even a bare liturgical
repetition such as " (We) thank, thank," is, with some excess
of scruple, suspected of acknowledging 'two powers.' 5
One of the earliest mentions of two powers is in Sifre on Deut.
1 On Jewish "Gnosticism" see L. Blau, Jewish Encyclopedia, V, 681-686,
with the literature cited there (p. 686).
2 Most of the rabbis of whom such discussions are reported taught or
resided in Caesarea in the third century, when Caesarea was an important
episcopal see and a noted centre of Christian learning in Palestine. See
Note in.
3 M. Megillah 4, 9 The nature of the heresy is not defined. Jer. Megillah
75c finds it in an implication of "two powers"; see also Tosafot on Megillah
25a, top. A different explanation is given by Rashi.
4 See the passages cited in the preceding note; also M. Berakot 5, 3;
Berakot 33b. See Note 112.
6 M. Megillah, M Berakot 11. cc.
366 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
32, 29, which verse is shown to be an arsenal of weapons against
divers heretics — those who say that there is no ruling power in
heaven, and those who say that there are two — ' there is no
God beside me'; or such as hold that whatever power there is
cannot bring to life nor cause death, cannot inflict injury or con-
fer benefits.1 On what grounds the assertion of two powers rested
is not indicated. Nothing much more definite is to be got out of
another relatively old passage in the Mekilta on Exod. 20, 2 ('I
am the Lord thyGod')- These words guard against the infer-
ence of a plurality of gods from different ways in which God is
described in Scripture — at the Red Sea as a man of war (Exod.
I5y 3)3 or when the elders of Israel saw him, as a venerable man,
full of compassion (Exod. 24, 10; Dan. 7, 9). Here the dualists
are supposed to be Gentiles (o^iyn HIDIN). R. Nathan, however,
finds in the words (and in such parallels as Isa. 44, 6; 41, 4b,
etc.) an answer for the heretics (minim) who assert that there
are two powers; but gives no intimation who the heretics were
or why they made the assertion.2
That two powers gave the Law and two powers created the
world was argued by some from the elohim in Exod. 20, i and
Gen. i, i, taken as a numerical plural; to which the answer is
given that in both cases the verbs of which elohim is the subject
are in the singular number.8 The first chapter of Genesis offered
other opportunities for heretical argument, especially, "Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. i, 26; cf. 3,
22).<
The difficulty of reconciling the evils in the world with the
goodness of God was so strongly felt in the early centuries of our
era in the East and the West, and a dualistic solution of one kind
or another was so widely accepted in philosophy and religion,
1 Sifre Deut. § 329.
2 Mekilta, Bahodesh 5 (ed. Friedmann f. 66b; ed. Weiss f. 74a).
8 Gen. R. 8, 9.'
4 See e.g. Gen. R. 8, 8. The heretics here were probably Christians; cf.
Justin Martyr, Trypho, 62, 1 ff. See Sanhedrm 3 8 a, where a number of such
contentious plurals are adduced, including Dan. 7, 9 (cf. Justin, I.e. 31).
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 367
that it is idle to attempt to identify the Jewish circles which
adopted this solution. It must suffice us to know that there were
such circles; that they tried to fortify their position with texts
of Scripture; and that the rabbis refuted them with their own
weapons. It is certain also that, whatever leanings there may
have been in this direction, Judaism, with its inveterate mono-
theism, was not rent by dualistic heresies as Christianity was for
centuries.
As in the Bible, heaven — the celestial spaces above the sky
— is the place of God's abode.1 In later books and in the uncan-
onical literature the name "God of heaven" is frequently both
in the mouth of foreigners 2 and of Jews.3 In the next stage
Heaven became a common metonymy for God, as in i Macca-
bees,4 and in the language of the Palestinian schools and syna-
gogues,5 e.g. " the kingdom of Heaven." That the heavens were
the seat of the highest god was the universal belief of the age,
and various Syrian gods of heaven were seeking their fortunes in
the Roman world under the name of the sky-god Jupiter —
Jupiter Heliopolitanus of Baalbek, Jupiter Dolichenus of Com-
magene, and the rest; while conversely the Zeus whom Antio-
chus IV installed in the temple in Jerusalem was in Syrian speech
a "Lord of heaven." 6
1 i Kings 8, 30-49, and parallel in 2 Chron. 6; Psalm 2, 4; n, 4, etc. Cf.
also Isa. 57, 15; Psalm 103, 19; 2 Mace. 3, 39.
2 Ezra I, 2 (Jehovah, God of heaven); 6, 9, 10; 7, 12, 21, 23.
3 Ezra 5, 11, 12; Neh. i, 4, 5; 2, 4; Dan. 2, 18, 19, 37, 44; Psalm 136, 26;
I Mace. 3, 18; Judith 5, 8; 6, 19; Tobit 10, n, 12. Enoch 13, 4; 106, ii;
Jubilees 12,4; 20,7; 22,19; Testaments, Reuben, i, 6, etc. In the Sibyllmes,
Beds tirovpavLOs, ovpavios.
4 i Mace. 3,50; 4,10,24,40; 12,15; 16,3; cf. Dan. 4, 23. Not, however,
it should be observed, in the nominative as subject.
• See Vol. II, 98.
6 2 Mace. 6, 2 bis, Zeus is rendered in the Syriac version J'DB^yn. In
Dan. 12, ii DD6? ppt? (/SfleXiry/za cpty/zdxrcws) is probably a substitute for
an original D W ^JD, the altar of Zeus which Antiochus set up on the great
altar of burnt offering when he dedicated the temple to Zeus. See Nestle,
Zeitschnft fur die alttestamenthche Wissenschaft, IV (1884), 248; and on
other such opprobrious substitutions, Encyclopaedia Biblica, II, cols. 2148-
2150.
368 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
From such expressions as "the heaven and the heaven of
heavens," l a plurality of heavens was inferred.2 Under the in-
fluence of astronomical doctrine, a scheme of seven heavens was
evolved, and Biblical names and proof-texts discovered for them.
In the highest (^arabot^ Psalm 68, 5) are righteousness and judg-
ment;3 the treasuries of life and peace and blessing; the souls
of the righteous dead; the souls and spirits that are yet to be
created; the dew with which God will revive the dead; there are
the qfannim and seraphim, the holy beasts ('living creatures')
and the ministering angels; while above them is the glorious
throne of the King, the living, lofty, and exalted God.4 From
the earth to the firmament above us was said to be a journey of
five hundred years, the thickness of the firmament was the same,
and the same interval separated one heaven from another.5
But although God is thus supramundane, throned high above
the world, he is not extramundane, aloof and inaccessible in his
remote exaltation. The subject of the passage in the Talmud in
which R. Levi's astronomical wisdom about celestial distances
is introduced without dissent is the nearness of God, taking as
its text Deut. 4, 7: 'What great nation is there that has a god
as near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him?'
Near, with every kind of nearness, as is intimated by the plural
of the predicate.6 A false god (idol) seems to be near, but is
really remote (Isa. 46, 7) ; a man has such a god with him in his
house, but if the man cry to it for help until he dies, it will not
hear him nor save him from his straits. The Holy One (the true
God) seems to be far off, but there is nothing nearer than He. For
1 Deut. 10, 14; i Kings 8, 27; Psalm 68, 34.
2 From Deut. 10, 14, R. Judah (ben Ezekiel (?)) deduced that there were
two firmaments (DTp"l), IJagigah I2b; others counted three, Midrash Tehil-
lim on Psalm 114, i, with Buber's note, f. 236a. Cf. Paul's rapture 2 Cor.
12, 2-4.
3 The support of God's throne, Psalm 89, 15.
4 gagigah I2b, and elsewhere. See Note 112.
6 Eagigah ija; Jer. Berakot ija, cf. ibid. 2c, below; Gen. R. 6, 6; Tan-
huma ed. Buber, Terumah § 8.
6 Mnp D*r6tf, m which the cavillers found a plurality of gods; cf Vul-
gate "deos appropinquantes sibi."
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 369
the seeming distance R. Levi is here cited, and a further calcula-
tion of the room occupied by the holy beasts,1 all showing how
high the abode of God is above the world. " But let a man go into
the synagogue and take his place behind the pulpit and pray in
an undertone, and God will give ear to his prayer, as it is said:
'Hannah was speaking within herself, only her lips moved, but her
voice was not audible/ 2 and God gave ear to her prayer; and so
he does to all his creatures, as it is said, ' A prayer of the afflicted
when he covers his face and pours out his thought before the
Lord/ 3 It is as when a man utters his thought in the ear of his
fellow, and he hears him. Can you have a God nearer than this
who is as near to his creatures as mouth to ear?" 4
God's earthly dwelling place was the tabernacle and after-
wards the temple. His great love to Israel is manifest in that,
from his throne above the seven heavens, so far away, leaving
them all, he came to dwell near his people in the goat-skin tent
he bade them set up for him.5 At the dedication of Solomon's
temple, the cloud that hid God's glory filled the sanctuary (i
Kings 8, 10 f.). Even after the destruction of the temple, it was
maintained by Eleazar ben Pedat that God's Presence (shekinaK)
still abode on the ruined site in accordance with his promise,
'My eyes and my mind will be there perpetually' (i Kings 9,
3).6 In Solomon's dedication prayer, however, there is clear dis-
tinction made between God's abode in heaven and his manifes-
1 Ezek. i, 5 ff.
2 i Sam. i, 13.
3 Psalm 102 (title).
4 Jer. Berakot ija. The passage is not older than the fourth century, but
the doctrine was good in any century. The lesson from the Prophets at the
principal service on the Day of Atonement begins with Isa. 57, 15: 'Thus
saith the lofty and exalted One, abiding for ever, Holy is his name; I dwell
in the high and holy place (heaven), and with the contrite and lowly in spirit.'
Megillah 31 a.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Terumah § 8; cf. ibid. Bemidbar § 14; Naso § 19.
6 Ibid. Shemot § 10. Contrary to the opinion that at the destruction of
the temple the Shekmah ascended to heaven (Samuel ben Nahman, ibid.),
Eleazar ben Pedat quotes also Psalm 3, 5; Ezra i, 3.
370 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
tation in the temple: 'The heaven and the heaven of heavens
cannot contain thee, much less this house which I have built*
(i Kings 8, 27). Solomon prays that when men present their
offerings or their petitions in the temple, or turn toward it in
prayer even though in exile, God in heaven, his dwelling place,
will hear their prayer, and grant their supplication. If God has
a tabernacle or temple on earth, it is not that he needs a place to
dwell in, for his holy house on high was there before the world was
created,1 but, we might put it, because men need some visible
thing by which to realize his loving presence.
In reality God is everywhere present. The whole vast universe
is his house, as the author of the Book of Baruch, in an eloquent
passage, sets forth.2 Because he is in one place he is no less
elsewhere. In R. Levi's comparison: "The tabernacle was like
a cave that adjoined the sea. The sea came rushing in and
flooded the cave; the cave was filled, but the sea was not in the
least diminished. So the tabernacle was filled with the radiance
of the divine presence, but the world lost nothing of that pres-
ence." 3 Another comparison for this all-pervading presence of
God in the world is the soul of man. As the soul fills the body,
so God fills his world, as it is written, ' Do not I fill heaven and
earth? saith the Lord.' The likeness of the soul to God is car-
ried out in particulars: The soul sustains the body — God sus-
tains the world (Isa. 46, 4); the soul outlasts the decrepit body
— ;God outlasts the world (Psalm 102, 26); the soul is one only
in the body — God is one only in the world (Deut. 6, 4) ; like
God, the soul sees but is not seen; it is pure; it never sleeps, etc.4
This comparison must not be taken to imply that God was
conceived as a kind of anima mundi, or as the all-permeating
1 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Naso § 19.
2 Baruch 3, 24 ff.
3 Cant. R. on Cant. 3, 10, and with slight verbal variations Peseta ed.
Buber f. 2b; Num. R. 12, 4. Cf. Augustine's figure of the boundless sea and
the sponge (Confessions vii. 5, i). God, who fills heaven and earth (Jer.
23, 24), spoke with Moses between the staves of the ark. R. Meir, Gen. R.
4>4-
4 Lev. R. 4, 8; Berakot loa.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 371
directing mind in the universe like the Stoic Logos.1 Its mean-
ing is that God is everywhere present. He appeared to Moses in
a despised thorn-bush, not in a carob tree or a fig (trees that men
value), it is explained, to teach that there is no place on earth
void of the divine presence (shekinati).2 The ubiquity of God is
affirmed in many other places, with diverse proofs. Thus from
Job. 38, 35, 'Canst thou despatch lightnings, and they go, and
say unto thee, Here we are?' it is deduced: "God's messengers
are not like men's. Men's messengers have to return to him that
sent them; but with Thee it is not so. Thou sendest lightnings
and they go. It does not say 'and they return,' but 'they go, and
they say ' etc. Wherever they go, they are constantly in Thy
presence, and say, We have accomplished Thy commission,
confirming what is written, 'Do not I fill heaven and earth? ' "
(Jer. 23, 24) .3 On Exod. 17, 6, 'Behold I stand before thee there/
the Mekilta has: "In every place where thou findest the prints
of a man's foot, there am I before thee." 4
The interest of the Jews in affirming that God is in every place
was not philosophical nor primarily theological, but immediately
religious. The great text was Jer. 23, 23 f.: 'Am I a god at
hand, saith the Lord, and not a god afar off? Can any hide him-
self in secret places that I shall not see him? Do not I fill earth
and heaven, saith the Lord?' No sin, however done in secrecy
and in darkness, can escape the eye of him who fills heaven and
earth.5 On the other hand, that wherever we are, and in what-
ever estate, God is present with us, gives a realizing sense of his
providence.6
Hellenistic Jewish literature exhibits similar conceptions.
"The spirit of the Lord fills the world, and the spirit that em-
1 Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophic, 1872.
2 Exod. R. on Exod. 3, 3 (c. 2, 5).
8 Mekilta, Bo i (ed. Fnedmann f. 2a; ed. Weiss f. 2a, below); Baba
Batra 253. See Note 113.
4 Mekilta, Beshallah 6 (ed. Fnedmann f. 52b; ed. Weiss f. 6ob); cf.
Mekilta de R. Simeon ben Yohai ed. Hoffmann, p. 81.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Naso § 6 (f. 140-1 fa).
6 See further below, pp. 373 f.
372 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
braces the universe takes knowledge of every word; wherefore
no one who gives utterance to unjust speech can escape notice,
nor will reproving justice pass him by." l So also the Letter of
Aristeas: "Our lawgiver (Moses) . . . showed first of all that
there is only one God, and his power is manifest throughout all
things, every place being full of his dominion; and that nothing
of all that men do secretly on earth escapes him, but whatever
any one does stands open to his sight, and even what is not yet
done. . . . Even if a man purposes in his mind to do an evil,
he does not escape God's knowledge, to say nothing of the evil
he has already done." 2
Philo's religious doctrine is the same.3 God does not go any-
whither, since he fills all things.4 On Gen. 3, 8, he comments:
It is impossible to hide from God, "for God fills all things and
pervades all things, and has left nothing, no matter how soli-
tary, void of himself. What kind of place can a man occupy in
which God is not? As the Scripture testifies elsewhere: 'God is
in the heaven above and on the earth beneath, and there is no
other but He.' (Deut. 4, 39). And again: 'Here I stand, be-
fore thou dost' (Exod. 17, 6).5 For God exists prior to every
creature and is found everywhere; wherefore no one can hide
from him." 6 Similarly, on Cain's words, 'If thou dost drive me
out today from the face of the earth, and from thy face I shall be
hidden' (Gen. 4, 14): "What do you say, my dear sir? If you
were cast out from the whole earth, would you then be hidden?
How? . . . Would it be possible for a man, or any creature,
to be hidden from God, who is before him everywhere, whose
1 Wisdom of Solomon i, 7 f.; see also what follows.
2 Aristeas, ed. WendJand § 132 f. With the inclination of these writers to
avoid the semblance of anthropomorphism by speaking of the ubiquity of
the spirit or the power of God, cf. pp. 434 ff.
8 With his metaphysical doctrine we are not here concerned.
4 Quod deus sit immutabilis c. 12 § 57 (ed. Mangey I, 281); see also De
confusione Imguarum c. 27 (I, 425).
6 &de eras eycb irpb rov at. Compare the turn given to these words in
the Midrash, above p. 371.
6 Legg. allegor. iii. 2 § 4 (ed. Mangey I, 88).
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 373
sight reaches to the ends of the earth, who fills the whole, of
whom not the smallest of existing things is devoid?" 1
The interest in the universal presence of God is in the univer-
sality and immediacy of his knowledge and of his providential
activity. That God knows everything that is, and all that goes
on in the world, is so often reiterated in the Bible and is illus-
trated and emphasized in so many ways, it is of such funda-
mental importance in a religion which sees the history of the
nations and the life of individuals ordered by the moral will of a
personal God, that the all-embracing and immediate knowledge
of God is necessarily one of the pillars of Jewish faith. God
knows all the secrets of nature as only the author of nature can
know them, from the movements of the stars in the heavens to
the habits of the shyest creatures of the desert (Job. 38 f.). To
the ends of the earth he sees everything under the whole heaven
(Job 28, 24) ; the abyss beneath, the abode of the shades, lies un-
covered before him (Job. 26, 6). He knows the past from the
beginning of the world, and the future to its end, for he has
ordained, and he brings to pass; what he reveals of his plan by
his prophets infallibly comes true.2
For personal religion it is of even greater moment that he
knows men with an all-embracing, an inescapable, knowledge —
their fortunes and their character, their most secret deeds, their
unarticulated words, their thoughts before they have taken
shape in their own minds; no concealment and no deception
avails aught with him.3 The theme is a favorite one with the
moralists. Sirach frequently reverts to it: "He explores the
great abyss and the mind of man, and sees through all their
subtleties; he reveals bygone things and things yet to be, and
1 Quod detenus potiori msidiatur c. 41 § 150 f. (ed. Mangey I, 220). On
God as TOTTOS, encompassing all and encompassed by nothing (De somniis, i.
11) see Note lisa.
2 See eg Isa 41,22-24; 43,10-13; 44, 6-8, etc.
3 See e.g. Amos 9, 2-4; Jer. 23, 23 f.; Prov. 5, 21 ; 15, 3; Job 34, 21;
Psalm 139, etc.
374 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART u
uncovers the trace of secrets. He lacks no kind of intelligence,
and nothing escapes him." 1
That God knows the thoughts of all the multitude and variety
of mankind is especially dwelt on in the Palestinian literature.
"If a man sees crowds of men, he should repeat the eulogy:
'Blessed is He who is wise in mysterious things/ for as the fea-
tures of no two are alike so the thoughts of no two are alike." 2
From i Chron. 28, 9, 'For the Lord searches all hearts (minds),
and understands all the formation of thoughts/ R. Isaac
teaches: "Before a thought is formed in a man's mind, it is
already manifest to Thee," or, according to another reporter,
"Before an embryo is formed, its thoughts are already manifest
to Thee." 3
The almighty power of God, also, is written large in the Bible.
The creator of the heavens and the earth and all that in them is
does in his world whatever he wills. Among the Jews in the
age with which we are dealing, as among Christians in all ages,
'the Almighty' was frequently used by metonymy for 'God'
(ha-geburah, literally, 'the Might').4 In the Greek Bible
Trai/TOfcparcop, ' all-powerful ruler,' is common as a translation of
sebaot especially in the phrase IHVH sebaoty Kvpios Tra^TOKpdrcop;
also for shaddai. It is frequent also in later writings, both in
translations from Hebrew and in works of Hellenistic origin.5
To the power of God, creation, the order of the universe, and
the course of history bear witness.
1 Ecclus. 42, 18-20; cf. 16, 17-23; 17, 15-20; Wisdom of Solomon i, 6 ff.;
Baruch 3, 32; Psalms of Solomon 14, 8, etc.
2 Jer. Berakot 130; Tos. Berakot 7, 2; cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Phmeas
§i.
3 Gen. R. 9, 3. The idea is developed at length in Agadat Bereshit 2 (ed.
Buber, p. 4). See Note 114.
4 E.g. Sifre Deut. § 9 (on Deut. i, 9). Moses said to them: Not of myself
do I say to you these things; I speak from the mouth of the Almighty OBD
•Train). See Note 115.
6 Ecclus. 42, 17; 50, 14; Judith 4, 13; 8, 13; Wisdom of Solomon 7, 25;
2 Mace, i, 25; 5, 20; 6, 26; 3 Mace. 2, 2, 8; 5, 7. In the New Testament
Rev. 4, 8; 11,17; i5>3>etc.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 375
The almighty power of God was not in Judaism a theological
attribute of omnipotence which belongs in idea to the perfection
of God; it was, as in the prophets, the assurance that nothing
can withstand his judgment or thwart his purpose.1 The omni-
potence of God is thus interlocked with the teleology of history.
The creator and ruler of the world comprehends all things in one
great plan, glimpses of which he has given to his prophets. This
plan includes a golden age for his people, the visions of which
merge into a golden age for all mankind, when in the universality
of the true religion, and of conformity to his righteous and graci-
ous will, peace and prosperity shall also be universal, while
nature itself shall be transformed to make the earth a fit dwell-
ing place for such transfigured inhabitants.
The obstacles to the realization of this plan were to human
view insuperable; but to God insuperable obstacles were noth-
ing. When His time came, the proud empire that bestrode the
world like the colossus in Nebuchadnezzar's dream should col-
lapse at a stroke and utterly vanish away.2 In that dies irae the
superhuman powers of evil share the doom of the human: 'The
Lord will punish the host of high heaven on high and the kings
of the earth upon the earth.' 3
Faith in the fulfilment of God's promised purpose dwelt upon
the mighty deeds of God in olden times, in Egypt and at the Red
Sea, in the conquest of Canaan. The so-called historical Psalms
which recite — sometimes in prosaic enumeration — such mag-
naha dei frequently have this for one of their motives.4 Omni-
potence, which, like finite force, has in itself no religious character,
acquires profound religious s'gnificance through its relation to
God's end in the world; it is a cornerstone of faith.
God's power has no limit but his own will; he can do anything
that he wills to do. In general, the power of God in nature is
conceived as exercised directly; forces of nature acting as 'sec-
ond causes,' and laws of nature according to which these forces
1 See especially Isa. 40 ff. 3 Isa. 24, 21-23.
2 Dan. 2, 31 ff. 4 E.g. Psalm 106.
376 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
operate, have no place in the native religious thought of the Jews.1
The regularity of nature, so far as it is an observed fact, if it be
reflected on at all, is merely the ordinary way of God's working.
Of the uniformity of nature, the postulate of modern science
— "a question begged at the outset" — no anticipation entered
their minds. God was as free to act in an extraordinary way, if
he saw occasion for it, as in his ordinary way; with this view of
nature the one was as natural as the other. The contrast we
make between natural and supernatural events did not exist;
all events were equally the immediate work of God.
To understand the Jewish conception of miracle, we must enter
into their way of thinking about God and nature. A miracle,
from this point of view, is an extraordinary phenomenon or oc-
currence wrought by God, presumably for some special purpose.
It cannot be described as something at variance with the laws
of nature, transcending or suspending them, for, as has been
said, there was no idea of laws of nature in the modern sense.
Nor is it the mere wonder of it that makes such an event a mir-
acle; it is the religious interpretation of the occurrence, the be-
lief that in this phenomenon or event God in a peculiar way man-
ifests his presence, reveals his will, or intervenes for the deliver-
ance of his worshippers and the discomfiture of their enemies, to
provide for their needs in distressful times, to avert calamities,
to heal mortal diseases, and to save from a thousand evils where
human help is vain. The greatness, the power, of God is abund-
antly manifest in the ordinary course of nature; it is his good-
ness that is peculiarly revealed in the miracle as faith interprets
and appropriates it.
It could not be conceived, therefore, that the age of miracle
was past. Signal interventions in history such as stood out on
the pages of the ancient Scriptures there were not; but greater
1 God has imposed on the elements bounds and measures; for the move-
ments of the stars, and in the instincts of animals, he has established norms
which they may not transgress and bring disorder into the cosmos. These
ordinances are laws which God has imposed upon his creatures, as he has
imposed laws upon men.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 377
even than the deliverance from Egypt would be the wonders
God would work in the greater deliverance that was to come.
Meanwhile miracles on the individual scale continued; and if the
question sometimes arose why they had become less frequent
than formerly, it was a sufficient answer that their contempor-
aries were less worthy that God should work a miracle for them
or by their hands.1 The coming of rain in a season of drought in
answer to the prayers of individuals is a kind of miracle about
which there are many stories, and some such rain-making saints
are the subject of what may aptly be called a professional legend.2
Others wrought a greater variety of miracles. Among these
Hanina ben Dosa, a disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai at the end of
the first century of our era, is particularly remembered. By his
prayers a son of his master Johanan ben Zakkai was healed of a
grave illness.3 Again when a son of Gamaliel II was very ill, the
father sent two of his disciples to IJanina ben Dosa that he might
beseech God's mercy upon the son. IJanina at once went up to
the chamber on the roof and prayed for him; when he came down
he said to the messengers, Go, for the fever has left him. They
asked, Are you a prophet? He replied, I am neither a prophet
nor the son of a prophet, but I have learned that if I have freedom
in prayer, I know that it is accepted; if not, I know that it is
rejected.4 They noted down in writing the hour at which he said
this, and when they arrived at Gamaliel's house and reported the
matter, he said: By the divine service! 5 At that exact hour, no
more and no less, the fever left him and he asked for a drink of
water.6 Hanina's prayers once caused a shower of rain to hold
1 Berakot 2oa. See Note 116.
2 The Talmuds on Ta'anit in. have various legends of this kind. The
most famous name is IJoni ha-Me'aggel in the first century B.C. See Jewish
Encyclopedia, IX, 404 f., and Note 117.
3 Berakot 34!).
4 Berakot 1. c.; Jer. Berakot 9d; cf. M. Berakot 5, 5. This sign is attrib-
uted in Tos. Berakot 3, 4 to Akiba.
5 muyn. A common oath, especially after the destruction of the temple;
e.g. Yebamot 32b.
6 Berakot 34b. Compare the similar story of Jesus at Cana and the
courtier's son at Capernaum, John 4, 46-53.
378 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
up for his own convenience, and then to fall again. His prayer
on that occasion seemed to countervail that of the high priest.1
So great was his reputation that it is said, in an apocryphal
Mishnah, "When Hanina ben Dosa died there were no workers
of miracles left." 2 Besides such saints in answer to whose pray-
ers God wrought wonders, there were healers and exorcists who
effected their cures by the use of charms and the power of names,
as the disciples of Jesus are said to have done by his name.3
That what we should call the ordinary operations of God's
providence are no less wonderful than miracles is observed by
more than one teacher. Mention of rain is made in connection
with the resurrection of the dead in the second of the Eighteen
Prayers (M. Berakot 5, 2), because in the Scripture the miracle
of rain is made equal to the miracle of resurrection. Both are
wrought by the hand of God; of both it is said 'God opens'
(Deut. 28, 12; Ezek. 37, 12). ... Nay, greater than the
resurrection of the dead, for resurrection is only for men, rain
for animals too; resurrection only for Israelites, rain for the other
nations as well; or resurrection is for the righteous alone, while
rain comes upon the righteous and the wicked.4
R. Eleazar (ben Pedat) said, The Scripture puts provision for
man's needs in the same category with deliverance; as this pro-
vision is of every day, so deliverance is of every day. R. Samuel
ben Nahman said, It is greater than deliverance, for deliverance
comes by the hand of an angel — ' the angel who delivers me
from every evil ' (Gen. 48, 16) — but provision for man's need's
by the hand of God himself, who 'opens his hand and satisfies
the desire of every living being* (Psalm 145, 16). R. Joshua ben
1 Ta'amt 24b.
2 M. Sotah 9, 15 (a late appendix). On the meaning of the phrase 'men
of deed* see Buchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety, pp. 79 ff. See also
Vol II, p. 206 n. For other stories of his miracles, see Jewish Encyclopedia,
VI, 214-216.
8 Particularly one Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (or Samma) in Galilee. 'Abodah
Zarah 27b; Tos. IJullin 2, 22 f. Cf. Acts 3, 6; 4, 10, etc.
4 Gen. R. 13, 6; Berakot 333; Jer. Berakot 9a, below; Ta'anit ya, top;
cf. Matt. 5, 45.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 379
Levi declared that this constant provision was no less a wonder
than the cleaving of the Red Sea (Psalm 136, 13 and 25).* God
is continually working miracles without men's knowing it, in
protecting them from unknown evils (Job 37, 5).2 But a man
should not needlessly expose himself to peril in the expectation
that God will miraculously deliver him; God may not do so;
and even if a miracle is wrought for him, the man earns demerit
by his presumption.3
God has the power to do in his world whatever he wills,4 and
he has the right of the creator to deal as he wills with his crea-
tures.5 But nothing is more firmly established in the Jewish
thought of God than that he does not use this power wilfully like
some almighty tyrant, but with wisdom and justice and for a
supremely good end. A certain Pappos, paraphrased Job 23,
13 ('He is one,6 and who shall gainsay him; he wishes a thing
and does it')- God is sole judge over all the inhabitants of the
world, who can contradict his sentence? Against this implica-
tion of an arbitrary and irresponsible God Akiba protested ener-
getically. There is indeed no gainsaying him who created the
world by a word, but his judgment is always according to truth
and justice.7 The words of God in Isa. 27, 4 ('I would stride
upon it') are interpreted as a reflection: If by one step I over-
stepped and transgressed justice, 'I should set it all on fire' —
at once the world would be consumed.8
That God is almighty makes it possible for him to be lenient.
1 Gen. R. 20, 9; cf. Pesahim ii8a; Pesikta R. ed. Friedmann f. I52a.
(This bit of bread that a man puts into his mouth is a more difficult thing
than the deliverance of Israel). See Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 178, 487; II,
21.
2 Midrash Shemuel 9, 2; Midrash Tehilhm on Psalm 106, init. Bacher
1. c. II, 85.
3 Shabbat 32a; Ta'anit 2ob. See Note 118.
4 Jer. 32, 17 ff.
6 Jer. 1 8, 2-6; Isa. 45, 9; cf. Paul, Rom. 9, 14 ff.
c So the text was understood.
7 Mekilta, Beshallah 6 (ed. Friedmann f. 33a: ed. Weiss f. 4Oa, top).
Somewhat expanded, Tanhuma ed. Buber, Shemot § 14; ibid. Wayyera § 21;
cf. Akiba, Abot, 3, 15.
8 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Mishpatim § 4. (Cf. Heraclitus, Frag. 29, Bywater.)
380 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
"Thou hast compassion upon all men because thou canst do all
things, and dost overlook the sins of men unto repentance."
"Thy might is the basis of justice, and that thou art sovereign
over all makes thee spare all." * The author implies that only
conscious weakness in a government makes unsparing and indis-
criminate severity necessary even in the administration of jus-
tice, lest evil doing or rebellion get beyond control. A similar
thought is expressed by R. Joshua ben Levi : Moses called God
'the great and mighty and terrible.'2 But when foreigners
danced in his temple he seemed no longer terrible; when foreign-
ers reduced his people to servitude he seemed no longer almighty.
Then came the men of the Great Assembly and restored the
crown (of the divine attributes) to its ancient completeness, by
teaching that the very culmination of his almightiness is that he
represses his wrath and is longsuffering with the wicked.3
God is the creator of the heavens and the earth and all things
in them. So it was written in the first columns of the Pentateuch
by revelation of the Creator himself. The theme inspired some
of the finest passages in Hebrew poetry: 4 through the prophets
it became a fundamental doctrine of religion.5 The growing self-
consciousness of Jewish monotheism and the proclamation and
defence of it in the Gentile world gave the doctrine an enhanced
importance; it figures largely in the uncanonical literature, both
Palestinian and Hellenistic.6
In the Palestinian schools the study of the narrative of crea-
tion in Gen. 1-3 by the hermeneutic methods of the Midrash
gave opportunity for much ingenuity and a great variety of
Wisdom of Solomon n, 23; 12, 16-18. See the whole fine passage.
Deut. 10, 17.
Yoma 6<jb. Cf. Jer. Berakot nc; Jer. Megillah 740. Bacher, Pal
Amoraer, I, 182 f. See Note 119
Eg. Job 26, 7-14; 38 f.; Psalm 19, 1-7; 104; Prov. 8, 22-31.
See especially Isaiah 40 ff.
Baruch 3, 32 ff.; Ecclus. 16, 26-17, 9; c^- 42> I5""43» 33? Enoch 69, 16-
24; Jubilees 2, 1-33; 4 Esdras 6, 38-54; Orac. Sibyllina, hi, 20-28; Frag-
ment 3, 3-14, etc.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 381
fragmentary interpretations in a field in which there was no
authoritative orthodoxy.1 It was asked, for example, on what
day the angels were created, of whom there is no express mention
in the text. One put them on the second day, basing his opinion
on the sequence in Psalm 104, 3 f.; 2 another connected them,
as flying creatures (Isa. 6, 2), with the creation of other flying
things on the fifth day (Gen. i, 20). Either way, another adds,
all agree that they were certainly not created on the first day, in
order that no one might say that Michael and Gabriel helped
God stretch out the canopy of heaven, which was the work of
God alone (Isa. 44, 24) ; he had no partner in the creation of the
world.3 The jealousy with which the heresy that two powers
created the world is rejected 4 extends even to the suspicion that
he employed the assistance of created beings such as angels.
Even man was created only last of all God's works, at the end of
the sixth day, for the same reason.6
The question whether the world the creation of which is de-
scribed in Genesis was brought into existence de nihilo, or
whether the cosmos was formed from a chaos of previously ex-
isting formless matter, and in the latter case, whether this matter
was created or eternal, did not excite discussion in the Pales-
tinian schools, and there are few utterances that bear on it in
any way. A 'philosopher' (i.e. a skeptic) said to Rabban Gama-
liel: Your God was a great artist, but he found excellent colors
at his disposal. What were they? asked the rabbi. Chaos
(tohu wa-bohti) and darkness and water and wind and abysses.
Gamaliel, with an imprecation, proceeded to quote texts to show
1 The discussion of some of these questions, e.g. whether the heavens or
the earth was created first, engaged the schools of Shammai and Hillel in
the first century of our era. IJagigah I2a; Gen. R. i, 15, and elsewhere. The
harmonistic view is that they were both created at once, Gen. R. 12, 12.
2 God " erects the framework of his upper chambers (the firmament)
upon the waters (Gen. i, 6 f) ... he makes his angels spirits."
3 Gen. R. i, 3; cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit § 12. Jubilees 2, 2, on
the contrary, puts the creation of all kinds of angels on the first day.
4 Above, pp. 364 ff.
8 Tos. Sanhedrin 8, 7; Sanhedrm 383.
382 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
that each of these is expressly said to have been created.1 From
Eccles. 3, ii ('He made the whole (the universe) beautiful in its
time') and Gen. i, 31 ('God saw everything that he had made
and behold it was very good')> a teacher of the end of the third
century discovers that God had created and destroyed many
worlds before he made this one, but did not get one till this to
satisfy him.2 Abahu, to whom this is attributed, had a reputa-
tion for his knowledge of Greek, and it can hardly be doubted
that his worlds before this one are a surreptitious piece of Greek
wisdom.3 Such inspiration is by no means infrequent in the
Midrash, especially in the cosmological parts, and the example
may serve not only as a specimen of the kind but as a warning
against the indiscriminate use that is often made of these rela-
tively late and heterogeneous sources.
Whatever individuals may thus have picked up, Judaism
firmly maintained the biblical doctrine that God, and God alone,
made the world. That he made it in accordance with a precon-
ceived plan has already been noted. Unlike man, he made no
changes in this plan when he came to carry it out.4 He created
the world by a word, instantaneously, without toil and pains.5
Everything that he fashioned was perfect, as all his dealing with
men is just and right (Deut. 32, 4). It is not for men to imagine
improvements in his creation or question his providential rule in
the world.6 And, finally, everything that God made belongs to
the completeness of the created world, however superfluous flies
and fleas and mosquitos may seem to men.7
1 Gen. R. i, 9 Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 81 f. See Note 120.
2 Gen. R. 3, 7; 9, 2. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, II, 138.
3 Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, pp. 71 f.
4 Gen. R. i, 13.
6 Gen. R. 3, 2; 10, 9; cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit § n. Cf. Jo-
sephus, Contra Apionem ii. 22 § 192. On creation by a word (fiat) see below,
p. 415.
6 This theme is developed at some length in Sifre Deut. § 307; cf. Gen. R.
12,1.
7 Eccles. R. on 5, 8. God made nothing in vain; he employs frogs and
mosquitos and hornets and scorpions on his errands. Tanhuma ed. Buber,
Eukkat § i; Shabbat 77 b.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 383
To the question why the world was created different answers
are given: it was made for man (not man for the world); 1 or for
the sake of the righteous, such as Abraham and the patriarchs; 2
or for the sake of Israel; 3 or for the sake of the Torah (religion).4
Besides the public teaching of the school and synagogue, the
first chapter of Genesis became the subject, or at least the start-
ing point, of cosmogonic or cosmological speculations which were
carefully guarded from publicity. The name for this esoteric
doctrine was Ma'aseh Bereshit, 'The Work of Creation,' and
in the Mishnah it is forbidden to expound it except privately to
a single auditor.6 The restriction, which is made on the authority
of Deut. 4, 32, does not apply to the exposition of what took
place on the six days of creation,6 nor to what is within the ex-
panse of heaven. But what was before the first creative day, or
what is above, beneath, before, behind, it is forbidden to teach
in public. There is no reserve about the seven heavens and what
is in each; 7 but of what is above the firmament that is over the
heads of the beasts (hayyof, Ezek. i, 22), one must not speak.8
Against such speculations Sirach had given a warning which is
quoted in the Talmud in this connection thus: "Do not inquire
into what is beyond thine understanding, and do not investigate
what is hidden from thee. Reflect on things that are permitted
to thee; thou hast nothing to do with the study of mysteries."9
1 Synac Baruch 14, 18; 4 Esdras 8, 44. 2 Ibid. 15, 7; 21, 24.
3 Sifre Deut. § 47 (on Deut. 11, 21); Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit §3;
§ 10; 4 Esdras 6, 55, 59; 7, n; Assumption of Moses i, 12. Similarly, Her-
mas Vis. i. i, 6: "God created that which is, out of that which is not . . .
for the sake of his holy church"; cf Vis. h. 4, I.
4 Gen. R. 12, 2. See above, pp. 268 f. On the subject of creation see
further Note 121.
0 M. Pagigah 2, i; Tos. gagigah 2, i.
6 But there is presumption in professing to know the order of creation in
detail. Gen. R. 12, i.
7 Ijjagigah 120-133; Jer. IJagigah 77c; Gen. R. i, 10; 8, 2. See above,
p. 368.
8 Eagigah I3a.
9 Ecclus. 3, 21 f. (Hebrew). Quoted Bagigah 133; Jer. gagigah 77c;
Gen. R. 8, 12.
384 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
The following verses of Sirach are in the same vein: "With what
is too much for thee do not concern thyself; for thou hast been
shown more than thou art capable of. For men have many
strange notions, and false conceits lead into error."
Of the content of this esoteric cosmology we are left to make
our conjectures, partly from the prohibitions themselves, partly
from such apparent leakages as have been remarked elsewhere.1
Considerable parts of some of the apocalypses, especially of the
Book of Enoch,2 purport to be exhibitions of the mysteries of the
universe beyond the bounds of human ken, extending even to
heaven and hell; but it would be rash to assume a relation, or
even any special resemblance, between such revelations and the
speculations which the rabbis communicated to initiates as a
secret tradition. In leaving this subject it may be observed that
the esoteric cosmology of the Ma'aseh Bereshit, like its counter-
part, the theosophic Ma'aseh Merkabah,3 was in high estimation
among the most correct of the schoolmen. Its vulgarization was
prohibited, not for any suspicion of the doctrine itself, but that
it might not be exposed to vulgar misunderstanding, and mis-
understanding lead to skepticism or heresy.
God is not only the sole creator of the world, he alone upholds
it, and maintains in existence by his immediate will and power
everything that is.4 This universal teaching of the Bible is
equally the doctrine of Judaism: "God created and he provides;
he made and he sustains." 6 The maintenance of the world is a
kind of continuous creation: God in his goodness makes new
every day continually the work of creation.6 The history of the
world is his great plan, in which everything moves to the fulfil-
ment of his purpose, the end that is in his mind. Not only the
great whole, but every moment, every event, every individual,
1 Cf pp. 412 f.
2 Particularly Enoch 17-36; 39-44; 72-82.
8 See below, pp. 411 ff.
4 E.g. Psalm 104, 10-30.
5 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera § 24.
6 So the old prayer, Yo§er Or.
CHAP, i] GOD AND THE WORLD 385
every creature is embraced in this plan, and is an object of his
particular providence.1 All man's ways are directed by God
(Psalm 37, 23; Prov. 20, 24). A man does not even hurt his
finger without its having been proclaimed above that he should
do so.2 It is unnecessary to dwell further on this point here.
The difficulties into which the belief in such providential order-
ing of men's lives and fortunes gets when it is confronted with
the doctrine of retribution on the one hand, and on the other by
the problem of human freedom and divine determination, re-
main for discussion in another connection;3 while the religious
response of faith in this all-comprehensive providence will engage
our attention when we come to treat of Jewish piety.
1 See Note 122.
2 IJullm 7b, below; Matt. 10, 29 f.
8 See below, pp. 453 ff.
CHAPTER II
THE CHARACTER OF GOD
So far we have presented the theistic postulates of Judaism as it
received them in the Scriptures and appropriated them in its own
way. More distinctive is the Jewish conception of the character
of God, to which we now proceed. This also is derived from the
Bible, but here the selective process indicated above has larger
room, and the advance beyond the highest attainments of the
former centuries is most marked.
Thus, the holiness of God, which in old times conveyed before
all else the idea of inviolability, of exalted majesty and consum-
ing purity,1 or was his godhead in itself, all wherein he is unlike
man, came more and more to signify his godhead morally con-
ceived, the sum of those moral perfections in which it is man's
chief end to be in human measure like God, thus arriving at the
sense which is now ordinarily attached to the word.
In one of the most pregnant narratives in the Bible, Moses,
on the point of departing from the Mount of God to lead the
people to the land of promise, asks, as if the seal of his commis-
sion, to see the glory of God. That vision is denied to eyes of
flesh and blood, but God promises: 'I will make all my goodness
pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before
thee.' 'And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed:
The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, slow to anger
and abundant in loving-kindness and faithfulness; keeping
loving-kindness to the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity
and transgression and sin; one who will by no means clear the
guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and
upon the children's children to the third and to the fourth genera-
tion.' 2 The two aspects of God's character which are here dis-
1 Isa. 6; 57, 15; Psalm 99, etc.
2 Exod. 33, 19; 34, 6 f.; cf. Deut. 5, 9 f.; Jer. 32,17-19. See below, pp. 395 f.
386
CHAP, ii] THE CHARACTER OF GOD 387
played, his mercy and his justice, are the essential moral attri-
butes on which religion in Jewish conception is founded. Amos's
message is the inflexible righteousness of God, Hosea's, his inex-
tinguishable love. These attributes, or their active manifesta-
tions in justice and mercy, run through the Bible like a cord of
two colors intertwined. In the warnings and pleadings of the
prophets,1 in the prayers of the servants of God,2 in the hymns
of praise,3 the righteousness and the love of God, his justice and
his gracious mercy, are ever-recurrent motives.
In the Palestinian schools justice and mercy are frequently
coupled as^the two primary 'norms' 4 of 'God's dealing with men
individually and collectively. Jewish exegesis found in these
two norms an explanation of the alternation in the Bible of the
divine names the "Lord" and "God" (!HVH and Elohirri) which has
played such a part in modern analysis of the Pentateuch. The
interchange is significant: Jehovah denotes God in his merciful
and gracious character and attitude; Elohim in the character of
strict judge. Thus R. Meir interpreted Hos. 14, 2 ('Return,
Israel to (ny) the Lord, thy God:' "Repent while he is standing
in the attitude (lit., 'attribute') of mercy (indicated by the name
IHVH, the Lord); if you do not, he will be 'your God' (Elohim,
the austere judge) ; repent, that is, before the advocate becomes
the accuser." 6 The conjunction of the two attributes of justice
and mercy is so common that it is superfluous to adduce particu-
lar instances.
God's justice is first of all man's assurance that God will not
1 E. g. Hos. 2, 21 f.
2 E. g. Dan. 9, 7 and 9.
3 E. g. Psalm 25, 8-10.
4 nHD; respectively pn THD, D'Dmn m». Jer. Ta'amt 6$b, below;
Gen. R. 12, 15, and often. The juxtaposition of these attributes follows Bib-
heal precedent; see Jer. 9, 23; 32, 17-20; Psalm 101, i; 103, 6-18; etc.
2 Mace, i, 24. See further Note 123.
B Pesikta ed. Buber f. 1640.. The interpretation turns on the unusual
preposition ny, taken to mean 'while/ In the attitude of mercy he is advo-
cate (avvrjyopos); in that of justice he is accuser (jcar^yopos). Cf. also Gen.
R. 33, 3; 73, 3 (Samuel ben Nahman).
388 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
use his almighty power over his creatures without regard to right!
The remonstrance of Abraham at the very thought that in the
doom of the cities of the plain God would destroy the righteous
with the wicked, 'Far be it from Thee! shall not the judge of all
the earth do justly!' l is often recalled, and the homilists love
to embellish the scene.2 From more than one example in the
sacred history the lesson is drawn that God does not deal with
men as a king does in putting down a rebellion, slaying the inno-
cent and the guilty indiscriminately because he does not know
the one from the other. God, who knows men's thoughts and
the counsel of their hearts and reins, knows who has sinned and
who not, knows the spirit of each individual, and will distinguish
the guilty from the guiltless!3
In relation to individuals, God's distributive justice is often
represented as a strict suum cuique which gives its full meed to
the good deeds of bad men, and inflicts on none more punish-
ment than he has deserved.4 This aspect of justice, however,
will be more conveniently reserved for a later chapter.
God's rectoral justice does not mean that, having given laws
and attached general or specific penalties to the violation of
them, he inflexibly exacts the whole penalty of every infraction
by transgression or neglect. It is not the justice of inexorable
law, nor of an impersonal divine attribute, but of an all-wise and
almighty sovereign whose end is not the vindication of the law
or of his own majesty, not the demonstration or satisfaction of a
realistically conceived attribute, but the best interest of the
individual, the people, the race, and the fulfilment of his great
purpose in the universal reign of God. Even when sentence has
been pronounced, he can revoke it and freely pardon.5
1 Gen. 1 8, 25.
2 E. g. Gen. R. 39, 6; 49, 20; Lev. R. 10, i. See also the references be-
low, pp. 528 f.
3 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Korah § 19; cf. ibid. Noah § 10, and Bemidbar
§32
4 R. Akiba is frequently cited for this view of the divine justice; e. g. Gen.
R. 33, 1-
6 See Note 124.
CHAP, ii] THE CHARACTER OF GOD 389
A theme with many repetitions and variations is that the world
would never have been created and could not endure if justice
were to rule in it untempered by mercy. On Gen. 2, 4, 'The
Lord God (InvH-E/ohim) 1 made earth and heaven/ a Midrash
represents God as deliberating: If I create the world in my
merciful character (alone),2 sins will abound; if in my just char-
acter (alone),3 how can the world endure? I will create it in
both the just and the merciful character, and may it endure!4
So when God is about to inflict just judgment on Sodom, Abraham
argues with him: "If thou seekest justice, there will be no world
here; if thou seekest a world, there will be no justice here." God
it is said, would take the string by both ends (have both alterna-
tives); he wants to have a world, he wants also to have exact
justice; but unless he relaxes its demands somewhat, the world
cannot endure.6
The same idea which is here expressed in what we may call
homiletic form is put into theology by Philo in a passage where
he is commenting on God's dealing with the generation of the
Flood (Gen. 6, 7 f.). In the deliverance of Noah while the rest of
mankind was destroyed, God's saving mercy was mingled with
the judgment of the sinners, as the Psalmist says, 'I will sing of
mercy and judgment' (Psalm 101, i). For if God should will
to judge the mortal race without mercy, he would render a con-
demnatory verdict, since no man goes through his whole life
without a fall, some by voluntary slips, some by involuntary.
"In order, therefore, that the race may continue to exist, even
though many individuals go to the bottom, he mingles with jus-
tice, mercy, which in his benevolence he employs even to the
unworthy; and not only has he mercy where he has inflicted
judgment, but inflicts judgment where he has had mercy.6 For
1 The former standing for God in his merciful character (Psalm 145, 9;
Gen. R. 33, i), the latter in his justice. See above, p. 387.
2 Dwnn m»a. 3 pin moa.
4 Gen. R. 12, 15; cf. 8, 4 f.
5 Gen. R. 39, 6; Lev. R. 10, i; Pesikta ed. Buber f.
6 Kcu ov IJLQVOV duca<ras cXeci dXXa Kal t\erjcras 5iKa£et.
390 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
with him mercy is antecedent to judgment, inasmuch as he knows
that a man is deserving of punishment, not after judgment rend-
ered, but before judgment." 1 The manifoldness of God's mercy
is brought out by an enumeration of the words and phrases in
Exod. 34, 6 f., in which way thirteen 'norms of mercy ' — specific
forms or manifestations of the attribute of mercy — are dis-
covered.2 God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but
that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezek. 33, 12).
The merciful qualities of God enumerated in the rabbinical
sources after Exod. 34, 6 f. as the ' thirteen norms ' are appealed
to in 4 Esdras in a moving plea for mankind, which has no other
escape from its doom.
"I know, Sir, that the Most High is called merciful (Dim)
because he has mercy on those who have not yet come into
the world; and gracious (tun), because he is gracious to
those who turn in repentance to his law; and longsuffering
(D'BK TIN) because he shows longsuffering toward those
who have sinned, as to his own works; and liberal (non m)
because he had rather give than exact; and of abundant
compassion (ion -ran ?) because he makes his compassions
abound to those now living and to those who are gone
and to those yet to come, for if he did not make them
abound, the world and those who inhabit it could not live;
and the giver (fiy HBO ?), because if he did not give out of
his goodness, that those who have done iniquities should be
relieved of their iniquities, not the ten-thousandth part of
men could survive; and the judge (npji)> because if he
did not pardon those who were created by his word, and
blot out the multitude of their sins, very few would be left
of all the innumerable multitude."
A reconstruction of the orginal Hebrew text from a translation
of a translation is impossible, and the somewhat eclectic render-
1 Quod deus sit immutabilis c. 16 (ed. Mangey I, 284). The whole pas-
sage is relevant.
2 Sifre Deut. § 49; Pesikta ed. Buber f. 57a, and in other places. The list
is taken up into the liturgy; see Note 125. In these qualities God is an ex-
ample for men to imitate, Sifre Deut. 1. c. See below, p. 396.
CHAP, ii] THE CHARACTER OF GOD 391
ing essayed above is in more than one place doubtful.1 The main
thing, however, is not doubtful, namely that the passage is a
kind of midrash on the middot^ of which seven seem to be ac-
counted for; and that they are pleaded in Ezra's remonstrance
quite as they might be in Jewish prayers for forgiveness (selihot).
In the sequel Ezra concentrates it upon the fate of Israel (8,
i5 a).
R. Phineas bar IJama, a much quoted homilist of the fourth
century, brings together texts to prove that God does not desire
to convict any human being (Ezek. 18, 32; Psalm 5, 5); but to
acquit (justify) all his creatures (Isa. 42, 21; 46, 10). He even
appoints an advocate for sinners to bring out their good points,
and gives him full opportunity to do so, for which biblical in-
stances are cited, such as Jer. 5, 7; Gen. 18 (Abraham's interces-
sion for Sodom); i Kings 18 (Elijah),2 etc.
In his providential dealings with men, God is longsuffering;
he seeks by warnings and chastisements to bring men to recog-
nize and acknowledge their sins, and to turn from them unto him
in repentance, that he may forgive.3
God's inclination in judgment is always in man's favor. In a
picturesque application of Job 33, 23 by a Rabbi of the second
century, if nine hundred and ninety-nine angels give a bad ac-
count of man and only one a favorable account, God inclines the
balance to the meritorious side; and even if nine hundred and
ninety-nine parts of the one angel's report are bad and only one
thousandth good, God will still do the same.4
It would be easy to multiply indefinitely such examples from
the Haggadah. The proof-texts may seem to the uninitiated to
be irrelevant and the exegesis ingeniously misdirected; the thing
we are concerned to note is that God's justice and his mercy are
thus constantly associated in Jewish thought, which here again
1 For a different distribution see Simonsen in Festschrift zu Israel Lewys
siebzigsten Geburtstag (1911), pp. 270-278.
2 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wa'era § u, see Note 126.
8 See below, pp. 527 ff.
4 Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gehli. Jer. Ifiddushin 6id; cf. Shabbat 32a.
392 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
is in the track of the Law and the Prophets. We shall see when
we come to the article of retribution that much stricter views
of divine justice prevailed than that which hyperbolically imag-
ines God rendering a verdict in accordance with a millionth part
of the evidence; and that God's mercy is so related to repent-
ance as to give it a wholly moral character and value.1
Justice and mercy, or benevolence, in the abstract, may be re-
garded as conflicting principles — they were so regarded by the
Stoics — and it is evident that in the sphere of law, if justice
is defined as the rigid exaction of the penalty, and mercy be
understood as unwillingness to inflict suffering, they do conflict./
Moses' maxim was, "Let justice pierce the mountain" — fiat
justitia ruat caelum! Aaron sought to make peace between men,
and to recall men from their evil ways by mildness and persuasion.2
In striving for sermonic vividness, the justice of God is some-
times dramatically personified. If God had shown to the minis-
tering angels with whom he consulted about the making of man 3
the wicked who would spring from Adam, "the attribute of
justice would not have permitted him to be created." 4 When
God proposed to make Hezekiah the Messiah, the attribute of
justice (suum cuique) objects that Hezekiah, who has not made
a single hymn praising God for all the miracles wrought in his
behalf, should not be thus preferred to David.5 No one at all
acquainted with the ways of preachers will suspect in these per-
sonifications a philosophy of hypostatic attributes, or discover
dogma in the precedence which is often ascribed to mercy over
justice.6
1 See below, pp. 393, 527 f.; II, 252.
2 Tos. Sanhedrin i, 2; Jer. Sanhedrin i8b; Sanhedrin 6b; homiletically
amplified, Tanhuma ed. Buber, gukkat (Addit.) f. 66a-b.
8 Gen. i, 26, "Let us make man."
4 Gen. R. 8, 4. In the preceding context the attribute of mercy is similarly
personified; God made it his associate in creating the world.
6 Sanhedrin 94a; Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 519. In the end it remains God's
secret whom he has designated to this office.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Tazri'a § 1 1 : In dealing with Adam, He gave the
attribute of mercy precedence over the attribute of justice.
CHAP, ii] THE CHARACTER OF GOD 393
J?or Jewish apprehension justice and mercy are not jealous
attributes between which God is somehow distracted, but com-
plementary aspects of his character which are harmoniously ex-
hibited in his moral government of the world and his particular
providence. ' 'Good and upright1 is the Lord; therefore doth
he instruct sinners in the way* (Psalm 25, 8). "Why is he good?
Because he is upright. And why upright? Because he is good.
'Therefore doth he instruct sinners in the way'; because he
teaches the way of repentance." 2 Christian theologians have
sometimes laid it down as an axiom that God must be just, he may
be merciful. The rabbis, as we have seen, had confidence that
upon such conditions God would never have made a world of
peccable men; and in the theory that Justice could deter God
from ruling his world in his own way, they would have scented
the heresy of ' two powers ' in its most obnoxious form. To them,
justice and mercy were not attributes of a Divine Being, but the
character of a personal God, whom they could not imagine as
either unjust or unmerciful; hence they did not even see the
difficulty the theologian finds in reconciling the attributes.
Mercy is not only a principle of the divine government of the
world; it is the expression of a divine compassion which em-
braces all his creatures, men and women, the righteous and the
wicked (Psalm 145, 9); 3 it extends to the brute creatioji.;1 The
Midrash abounds upon this subject. God lamented the severe
sentence he had to pass on Adam; he mourned for six days be-
fore the flood; the death of Nadab and Abihu was twice as hard
for him as even for their father Aa>ron.5 God himself suffers in
the sufferings of men : ' In all their affliction he was afflicted/
etc. (Isa. 63, 9). He was with Israel in Egypt; he went into exile
with them to Babylon, and was delivered with them.6 'The
3HD. The second word might be translated 'equitable.'
2 Jer. Makkot jid; Pesikta ed. Buber f. 158 b; Midrash Tehillim ed.
Buber f. loya. See Note 127.
8 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Nis§abim § 5. 4 Ibid. Noah § 7 (f.
6 Ibid. Bereshit § 22; Shemini § i; Ahare § 8, cf. § 13, etc.
6 Ibid. Beshallah § 11; Bemidbar § 10; Ahare § 18.
394 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up those that are bowed
down' (Psalm 145, 14); it does not say, 'those that stand/ but
' those that are bowed down ' — even the wicked.1 These illustra-
tions from a single compilation of 'sermon-stuff' suffice. The
humanity of God is, indeed, written all over the revelation as it
was read by philosophically unsophisticated men; the preachers
at most did no more than seek to improve less obvious texts.
Often they also held up this side of God's character as an ex-
ample for man's imitation and a motive to it.2
One point in which they go beyond the explicit teaching of the
Old Testament deserves particular mention. We shall see that
in its moral teaching Judaism is peculiarly sensitive to the injuries
to the honor of a fellow-man or to his good name; these are
graver wrongs than injuries to his person or property. In this
also God sets man the example. Even in the infliction of merited
punishment he spares the honor of the transgressor. Ezek. 29,
1 6 — by a contorted exegesis, it must be admitted — is made to
teach that God does not allow anything that might serve as a
memorial and reminder of a sin committed by an individual or
the community. In the ordeal of the adulteress, for examplCj
she is not allowed to drink the potion from a cup belonging to
another woman, lest the latter should be able to say, This is
the cup from which so-and-so drank the potion and died; the
law says 'bull or sheep' not 'calf or sheep,' in order not to
recall the sin of the golden calf; God did not reveal, nor will he
reveal, the name of the tree whose fruit Adam ate with such
disastrous consequences, lest whenever men saw a tree of the kind
they might think, That is the tree that brought death into the
world.8
All this is the communicative aspect of the goodness of God,
an inexhaustible theme in the Scriptures, especially in the later
writings, and equally in Jewish literature. This goodness is
1 Ibid. Wayye§e § 10. In the sequel, the impartiality of God's love, com-
pared with man's.
a See below, p. 441.
3 Peseta ed. Buber f. 750-763; f. i42b; Gen. R. 15, 7, etc.
CHAP, ii] THE CHARACTER OF GOD 395
seen in the whole creation, with its adaptation to the well-being
of all creatures; in the perpetual and unfailing provision not only
for their needs but for their happiness; in protection and de-
liverance.1 With God's goodness, or his loving-kindness, his
truth is often coupled,2 which is not only his fidelity to his word
given, but his constancy in righteousness and grace. The good-
ness which he shows to all mankind is peculiarly manifested to
his people, Israel; it extends to the unthankful and the evil, but
embraces with peculiar graciousness the godly and upright.
Here gjso Judaism is in full accord with the revelation of God
in the Scriptures.
From an endless abundance in the rabbinical literature a few
illustrative examples may be taken almost at random. In a
touching anecdote about R. Meir at the grave of his apostate
teacher R. Elisha bar Abuya, he finds in Ruth 3, 13 (cf. Psalm
145, 9) God, the absolutely good, who would deliver even such a
sinner.8 A contemporary, Jose ben IJalafta, contrasts man's way
toward one who has angered him with God's. A man would seek
the life of the offender; but God provides even the serpent he
cursed with his food wherever it goes. The Canaanite, whom his
curse made a slave, has the same food and drink as his master;
he cursed the woman, but all men run after her; he cursed the
ground, but all get their living from it.4 Moses asked to be shown
by what norm (attribute) God ruled the world; God answers,
'I will cause all my goodness to pass before thee' (Exod. 33, 19).
I am under no obligation to the creature at all; but I give to
them gratuitously, as it is written, 'I will be gracious to whom
I will be gracious' (ibid.).* God has compassion like a father and
comforts like a mother (Psalm 103, 13; Isa. 66, I3).6 This side
of God's character is naturally appealed to in the liturgy, especi-
1 Psalm 36, 6-10; 136, 1-9; 145; Wisdom of Solomon n, 23-26, etc.
2 E. g. Psalm 25, 10; 57, 4; 61, 8; 69, 14.
8 Jer. Eagigah 770. Cf. Matt. 19, 17.
4 Yoma 75a.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Ethannan § 3.
6 Peseta ed. Buber f.
396 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
ally in prayers for forgiveness. As has already been noted, God
himself is said to have taught Moses the liturgical use of the
thirteen norms of God's grace (Exod. 34, 6 f.), and promised to
accept the prayer and pardon the sinner.1 The oldest prayers
for forgiveness 2 seem to have consisted chiefly of Biblical pas-
sages of similar tenor, largely from the Psalms.3 One of the two
ancient benedictions before reciting the Shema* in the morning 4
begins, "With abounding love thou hast loved us, O Lord our
God, with great and exceeding pity hast thou pitied us." In the
progressive amplification of the liturgy, more and more Psalms
of this tenor have been incorporated in the prayer-books.
More than one of the words generally translated 'mercy,'
* lovingkindness,' and the like, might in many contexts quite
as well be rendered 'love,' with the active forthputting of love
more in mind than the affection itself.5 But the latter is often
expressed by the commonest and by the strongest terms in the
Hebrew language.6 God's love for his people Israel is a frequent
topic in the Old Testament, especially in the prophets from the
seventh century on. Thus Hosea: 'When Israel was young I
loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son' (n, i). The in-
extinguishable love of God for his people, like the love of a hus-
band for the wife of his youth in spite of her unfaithfulness, is
the subject with which the Book of Hosea begins (chaps. 1-3),
and the ruling idea throughout his prophecies. Love is the power
which shall at last reclaim the errijig people, bringing it to re-
pentance and reviving its early love. The gifts of the reunion
are set forth in one of the most significant verses of Scripture:
'I will espouse thee unto me forever. I will espouse thee unto
me in rightousness and in justice, and in loving-kindness and in
1 Rosh ha-Shanah I7b; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera § 9.
2 Seh^ot, Dan. 9, 9; for mercy and forgiveness.
3 See Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst, pp. 221 f.
4 rm mn«; cf. the counterpart D^JJ nanK ('with eternal love'), Berakot
lib. Elbogen, op. cit. pp. 20, 100.
6 See Note 128.
6 See Note 129.
CHAP, ii] THE CHARACTER OF GOD 397
compassion; and I will espouse thee unto me in faithfulness, and
thou shalt know the Lord.' An echo of this is heard in Jer. 31,
i ff. with its climax: 'With everlasting love have I loved thee,
therefore with affection I have drawn thee' (31, 3).1 The peculiar
love of God to the patriarchs, especially to Abraham, is empha-
sized; 2 it is the confidence of their descendants that the same
love is continued to them.3 It is in accordance with the whole
tenor of prophecy, whose warnings and exhortations as well as its
promises and consolations are addressed directly to the nation in
its religious character, that the love of God should be usually his
love for the people collectively; and the Jews of later times under-
stood it similarly as embracing all members of the people. But
the same individualizing process which translated the prophetic
doctrine of national retribution and national return to allegiance
and obedience into individual retribution and individual repent-
ance, appropriated for the individual, not only the mercy and
lovingkindness of God, but its origin, the personal love of God.
The most striking proof of this is acceptance of the afflictive
providences of God by the sufferer as 'chastisements of love,' the
discipline of a father prompted by love for his child, to correct
faults and develop character.4
Akiba deduced God's love to all mankind from the divine image
in man: "Beloved is man, because he was created in the image
(of God) ; still more beloved that it was made known to him that
he was created in the image, as it is said, ' In the image of God
he made the man.' Beloved are the Israelites, because they are
called sons of God; still greater love that it was made known to
them that they are called sons of God, as it is said, ' Ye are sons
of the Lord your God' (Deut. 14, i). Beloved are the Israe-
lites, because to them was given the precious instrument; still
greater love that it was made known to them that to them was
1 See also Deut. 7, 8; 23, 6; i Kings 10, 9; Hos. 3, i; Isa. 43, 4; Mai. i,
2, etc.
2 Deut. 4, 37; 10, 15; Isa. 41, 8.
3 See below, pp. 536 ff.
4 See Vol. II, pp. 254 ff.
398 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
given the precious instrument with which the world was created
(sc. the Torah-revelation). 'For good doctrine have I given to
you, do not forsake my Torah.' " l More pregnant expression of
the Jewish conception of God's relation to men could hardly be
given: God's love for mankind in making man alone of all
creatures in the image of God; his peculiar love to Israel in call-
ing them his sons; the immensity of his love in giving to them
the religion which was both instrumental and final cause in the
creation of the world; and all these proofs of his love known not
by inference or reasoning, but by revelation direct from God him-
self. It is not irrelevant to add that the same Akiba found the
comprehensive commandment of the Law, we might say the
essence of religion on its manward side, in the sentence, 'Thou
shalt love thy neighbor (fellow man) as thyself/ 2
That the greatest gift of God's love is the revelation of the
true religion is the burden of the very ancient benediction before
the Shema', Ahabah Kabbah, or Ahabat 'Olam, of which men-
tion has already been made; for this reason it is called the
'Blessing of the Law.' 3
The peculiar love of God for Israel is the ground of his choice
of Israel to be their God and they his people. In the Scriptures
the doctrine of an election which had its motive, not in any excel-
lence in them, but solely in unmerited favor, is pressed to under-
mine the presumption of the intrinsic superiority of Israel to the
other nations, with its fruits in the pride of self-righteousness on
the one hand and contempt of the heathen on the other. But
God's partiality for Israel is manifested and explicitly affirmed
in the Old Testament in a way that might have quite the op-
posite effect. God is Israel's lover; and when, moved by Israel's
praises of his beauty, the nations say, We will come with you,
as it is written, Whither has thy lover gone, thou fairest among
women? (Cant. 6, i), the Israelites reply, You have no part in
1 Abot 3, 14. (Prov. 4, 2).
2 See Vol. II, pp. 85 f.
8 Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst, p. 20. See also Jewish Encyclo-
pedia s.v. 'Ahabah Kabbah/ I, 281.
CHAP, ii] THE CHARACTER OF GOD 399
him, as it is written, 'I am my lover's and my lover is mine*
(Cant. 6, 3).i
More serious than such allegorizing are utterances like this:
'I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast
thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord;
yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau.' 2 The execution of God's
hatred upon 'the people with whom the Lord is wroth forever'
is vividly depicted in the following verses. The predictions of
the doom of the heathen nations in the prophetic books are in
fact the expression of a vindictive hatred, and those against
Edom are among the most sanguinary.3 The modern reader may
explain such prophecies as the projection of the hatred the Jews
felt towards the nations that wronged and oppressed them and
their demand for divine vengeance, and he may describe such too
human outbreaks of passion as a lapse from the higher teaching
and spirit of the religion; but he will do well to remind him-
self that his rationalizing explanation and his discrimination of
superior and inferior were not accessible to the Jews, who, con-
sistently with the principle of revealed religion as they appre-
hended it, could do nothing but take such prophecies as the literal
word of God, true expression of God's feeling, and predictions
to the fulfilment of which his truth was engaged. The furthest
they could go was to emphasize the enormity of the crimes
against God and man which deserved such an enormous
doom.
Over against these oracles, however, stand the prophecies of
the conversion of all nations to the true religion, and the time to
come when the Lord shall reign alone in all the earth with the
allegiance and obedience of all men. The incongruities of Jewish
notions in this sphere were thus given in Scripture itself, with the
same authority of revelation. They come out most strongly, as
we shall see hereafter, in the effort to combine them in a picture
1 Sifre Deut § 343 (ed. Friedmann, p. i43a).
2 Mai. i, 2 f. See Note 130.
8 See Isa. 13, 13-22 (Babylon); 34, 1-15; 63, 1-6; Jer. 49, 7-22; Obad.
i-2i (Edom); and in general Isa. 13-23; Jer. 46-51; Ezek. 25-32.
400 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
of the great crisis with which the present chapter of the world's
history ends, and of what the next age is to be like.1
The Jews would have been singularly unlike the rest of man-
kind if in the generation after the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Romans, and even more after the disastrous end of the war
under Hadrian, they had not found a bitter satisfaction in call-
ing to mind the prophecies of God's signal vengeance on the
Babylonian destroyers, such as Isa. 13 and Jer. 50 f., with an
application to modern Nebuchadnezzars and Antiochuses, and
dwelt on the predictions of the doom of Edom (Rome) in Isa.
34, Jer. 49, 7-23, Isa. 63, 1-6. But, considering how much room
the destruction of the heathen nations fills in the prophets and
the fierce exultation over their fate that breathes in the prophe-
cies, the vindictive aspect of God's dealing with the oppressors
of his people is far from being as prominent in rabbinical utter-
ances, even from that dreadful century, as we should expect.
The same may be said of the apocalypses that reflect the fall of
Jerusalem, Fourth Esdras and the Syriac Baruch; for the tragedy
of Israel, which itself was but an act in the tragedy of mankind,
vengeance was no solution.
That within his people, God, who is righteous and loves
righteousness (Psalm u, 7), has an especial affection for the
righteous is taught in the Scripture both by word (e.g. Psalm
146, 8) and example. On the former verse a teacher of the second
century remarked: "You will not find a man who loves one of
the same calling. The scholar, however, loves one of his calling,
as, for example, R. IJiyya loved R. Hoshaya, and R. Hoshaya,
R. IJiyya; and God loves one of his calling, as it is said, The
Lord is righteous, he loves righteousness, his countenance be-
holds the upright/ This refers to Noah, for it is said, 'And the
Lord said unto Noah, 'Come thou and all thy house into the
ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.'2
(Gen. 7, i).
1 See Part VII.
2 Gen. R. 32, 2; cf. Midrash Tehillim on Psalm n, 7 (ed. Buber f. 5ia).
CHAPTER III
MINISTERS OF GOD
THE title 'king' was probably first applied to God in his peculiar
relation to Israel; * but as the horizon of history widened and
monotheism became more conscious of its implications, God was
king as ruler of the nations, eternally sovereign in the whole
world he had created.2 The religious interest in the sovereignty
of God, as in monotheism itself, is altogether in the unity of the
moral government of the world; and, like the interest in his
omnipotence,3 it is above all in the certain fulfilment of that great
purpose which he has revealed by his prophets, the good world
that is to be. The sovereignty of God in Judaism is, therefore, in-
separable from the teleology of religion. The most expressive
name for this ideal is malkut Shamaim^ all the hopes of humanity
are in the coming of that day when 'The Lord shall be king in all
the earth,' the day when His will is done on earth as it is in
heaven.5 But meanwhile God is king, though men acknowledge
him not, know it not. We shall see hereafter how vital these ideas
are in Jewish piety. v
Jewish imagination pictured God in a royal palace seated upon
a lofty throne, as Isaiah saw it in his vision (Isa. 6), surrounded
by his ministers and an innumerable celestial court of many ranks
and functions.6 A similar vision is found in i Kings 22, igff.,
where Micaiah ben Imlah sees the Lord sitting upon his throne,
and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and
on his left, in council with him; while in Job they present them-
1 E. g. Isa. 43, 15; 44, 6; Zeph. 3, 15; Psalm 5, 2; 84, 4, etc.
2 Jer. 10, 7, 10; 46, 18; 48, 15; Zech. 14, 9, 16, 17; Mai. i, 14; Psalm 47,
3; 95, 35 H5, 13, etc.
3 Above, p. 375. 4 Pp 43^-434 ; II, 371 ff- 6 Ma«. 6, 10.
6 It is probable that the organization and ceremonial of the Persian court
and of the orientalized Macedonian monarchies contributed to the concrete
detail of this imagery. On God's palace and throne in the heavens see also
Psalm u, 4; 103, 19; 123, i.
402 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
selves before him at stated times, as officials of an empire or
inspectors of the provinces might come up to court to give ac-
count of what was going on in the world.1 In Job they are called
bene elohim, * divine beings/ 2 This expression was later avoided
because of its liability to misunderstanding or cavil; the Greek
versions substitute 'angels/ Another word for the members of
God's celestial court is kedoshim, which also originally at least
connoted 'divine beings,' 3 but was understood 'holy beings' in
the later senses of holiness.4
The general name for these beings is derived from their
principal function as seen from man's side; they are God's mes-
sengers, or envoys, whom he employs in the world on various
missions.5 Jacob in his dream at Bethel sees them in numbers
going up and down between heaven and earth (Gen. 28, 12).
They are the Lord's army, under a general (Josh. 5, 14 f.), 'the
host of heaven/ On their errands they are usually sent singly;
they appear to men in human form, are taken for men, and some-
times simply called so in the narrative, as in Gen. 18. They
present themselves unexpectedly, deliver their message or ac-
complish their task, disclosing in doing so their true character,
and sometimes vanish miraculously.6 In all the older narratives
of the appearance of such divine messengers they are anonymous;
and so they remain in the prophets, particularly in Ezekiel and
Zechariah, where an angel is assigned to the prophet as the
medium or interpreter of revelation. Names of individual angels
are found within the canon first in Daniel; in succeeding apoca-
lypses they multiply.7
1 Cf. also Zech. i, 8 ff.
2 Job. i, 6; 2, i; cf. 38, 7. Compare also Gen. 6, 2; Dan. 3, 25; bene
dim. Psalm 29, i; 89, 7. See Note 131.
3 See Psalm 89, 6, 8; Job 5, i; 15, 15; Deut. 33, 2; Zech. 14, 5; and fre-
quently in the later literature.
4 Lev. R. 24, 8. Other names, Note 132.
B MaTakim, £776X01, angels; i.e. 'messengers.' Note 133.
• E. g. Judges 13, 20.
7 Jer. Rosh ha-Shanah 56d, below: The names of the angels were brought
up from Babylon. Before the exile the seraphim are spoken of as a class (Isa.
6); after it appear (in Daniel) the names Gabriel and Michael.
CHAP, in] MINISTERS OF GOD 403
The giving of personal names to angels is a very significant
step. Whereas the divine messenger formerly had individuality
in men's apprehension only ad hoc, and in the errand upon which
he was for the occasion employed, and even the angelus comes et
interpres of Ezekiel has no other, Gabriel and Michael, though
they do no other things than their anonymous prototypes, ac-
quire a permanent function and a distinct personality: Gabriel
is the angel of revelation,1 Michael is the champion of the Jews;
other nations have their own angelic princes as champions.2 In
Tobit the angel who plays so important a part is Raphael (5, 4
et alibi). The author of the Book of Daniel does not introduce
the names of Gabriel and Michael as if they were something new;
on the contrary he assumes that both the names and the func-
tions of these angels were familiar, and it is evident from the ap-
proximately contemporary parts of Enoch that the Jews by that
time had a much more extensive angelic lore.
God's will in the world was executed by a multitude of such
deputies. Not only is his revelation communicated through
them, not only are they his instruments in providence and his-
tory, but the realm of nature is administered by them. The
movements of the heavenly bodies are regulated by an angel who
is appointed over all the luminaries of heaven.3 There are regents
of the seasons, of months, and of days, who ensure the regularity
of the calendar; the sea is controlled by a mighty prince; 4 rain
and dew, frost and snow and hail, thunder and lightning, have
1 Dan. 8, 16; 9, 21; cf. Luke i, 19 f. Revelation, it should be added, is
not his only employment.
2 Dan. 10, 13-21. Other nations, Ecclus. 17, 17 (Deut. 32, 8, above, pp.
226 f ); Jubilees 1 5, 31 f. : God gave the spirits power over the nations to lead
them astray from Him, but over Israel neither angel nor spirit was given
power; He himself alone is its ruler and protector, etc. According to R.
IJama bar IJamna, the angel with whom Jacob wrestled was the champion of
Esau Gen. R. 78, 3.
1 Enoch 75, 3. In the Slavonic Enoch 4 the angels who rule the stars are
two hundred in number; cf. Enoch 80, 6; 4 Esdras 6, 3. More commonly
the heavenly bodies were conceived to be themselves living and intelligent
beings. Compare the fluj/djucw r&v ovpav&vy Matt. 24, 29.
4 & *?W ICT, Baba Batra 74b; Tanhuma ed. Buber, IJukkat § i; Pesa^im
n8b. pK to? 11?, Jer. Sanhednn 28d, middle.
404 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
their own presiding spirits.1 There are angel warders of hell and
tormentors of the damned; 2 champions of nations and guardians
of individuals,8 recording angels 4 — in short, angels for every-
thing. As the divine king, God received a worship that was more
than royal homage; his palace was a temple in which angelic
choirs perpetually intoned his praises and incense was burned
upon the altar by a celestial priesthood.6 The angels thus con-
stitute a hierarchy in numerous orders Cherubim, Seraphim,
Ofannim, and so on.8
How much of this development is indigenous; how far it was
promoted or accelerated by acquaintance with other religions,
particularly with that of the Persians, is an inquiry into which
it is needless to enter here. However they came by it, an angelic
mythology of this kind was widely current among the Jews in
the centuries with which we are concerned. It is much more
abundant and extravagant in popular writings, especially the
apocalypses,7 than in the early rabbinical sources, and in the latter
often seems to be an exhibition of homiletic ingenuity rather than
serious opinion. There was nothing approaching a 'doctrine of
angels.' The Synoptic Gospels and the first half of Acts are the
best witnesses to the popular notions of the time; the Epistles
of Paul are in the same vein; while the Revelation of John is
exuberant in its use of the angelic stage machinery of the Jewish
apocalypses.
In relation to the idea of God, which is our present interest in
it, what I have called the angelic mythology of Judaism is a
naive way of imagining the mediation of God's word and will in
1 See in general Enoch 72-82; cf. Jubilees 2, 2. Princes of fire and of
hail, t?K » IP ,1-0 ?B> n&>, Pesajiim n8a, below.
2 Enoch 53 f.; 63, i; 66, i. D1J.TJ fo IP, 'Arakm I5b.
* Matt. 1 8, 10; Acts 12, 14 f.; Palestinian Targum on Gen. 33, 10; cf.
IJagigah i6a; Ta'anit na.
4 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Mespra* § 2 (Eccles. 5, 5) : Every word that issues
from a man's mouth is written down in a book. See Note 134.
6 IJagigah I2b; IJuJJin gib; etc.
6 See below, pp. 408 f.
7 In the books we call the Apocrypha (except Tobit) references to angels
are infrequent, and do not go beyond the Old Testament.
CHAP, in] MINISTERS OF GOD 405
the universe by personal agents. They are not, like the good
demons in the later phases of Neoplatonism, the product of an
abstract or transcendent idea of God, but of one naively personal;
and they do not consciously infringe upon the belief in his
omnipresence or omniscience.
The angels — using this familiar word comprehensively for the
whole hierarchy — are spirits, not immaterial, but of an ethereal,
fiery substance, blazing light.1 Or those which are employed on
God's errands are winds; while those which form the heavenly
choir are fire.2 They were created, as we have seen, together
with the world, on the second day or the fifth.3 They do not eat
and drink; therefore in Tobit, Raphael \s at pains to explain that
he did not really partake of food when he sat at meat with
them, but only seemed to them to do so.4 Genesis 18, 8, where
Abraham's guests eat the sumptuous meal his hospitality set
before them (cf. also 19, 3), is interpreted in the same way in
the Palestinian Targum — "they seemed to him to eat" — and
in the Midrash.6
But whatever angels may do or seem to do in their visits to
earth, there is general agreement that in heaven there is neither
eating nor drinking.6 R. Akiba was sharply taken to task for
interpreting Psalm 78, 25, 'Man did eat angels food' (the
manna). "Bread of the mighty ones" (lehem abbirim)^ is the
bread which the ministering angels eat. When this exegesis was
reported to Rabbi Ishmael he bade the reporters tell Akiba that
he erred — "Do the ministering angels eat bread!" — arguing
that Moses, all the forty days he spent on the mount of revela-
tion, neither ate nor drank (Deut. 9, 9, 1 8).7 A fortiori the angels.
1 Psalm 104, 4. See Note 135.
2 Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 104, 4 (ed. Buber f. 22ib).
8 Above, p. 381.
4 Tobit 12, 19. The oldest precedent is Manoah's angel, Judges 13, 16;
cf.6, i8ff.
5 Gen. R. 48, 14; Lev. R. 34, 8; Eccles. R. on 3, 14. See Note 136.
6 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 5ya.
7 Yoma 75b. See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 245 f. and Note 137.
406 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
In another respect angels are unlike men, they do not propagate
their kind. Inasmuch as they are ever-living spirits there was no
need to renew the generations, as mortals must do.1
That angels, although created, do not die, is the universal be-
lief; but of course they can be annihilated by God.2 The mis-
cegenation of the 'divine beings' with fair women, as narrated in
Gen. 6, 1-4 — a fragment of an old myth which was evolved into
a whole romance 8 — made it impossible to affirm impeccability
of the angelic nature; but it seems to have been assumed that
the angels were sorted out in that crisis, and those who did not
fall then were in no danger of falling similarly thereafter. The
'evil impulse* 4 which prompts men to sin has no dominion over
the angels,6 as it will have none over men in the Age to Come.
The angels are not impassive spectators or disinterested mes-
sengers in the drama of life and history. The angel champions
of the nations contend for their cause against the champion of
the Jews;6 an adversary (satan) among the angels appears as ac-
cuser of the high priest Joshua, and argues the nullity of the
institutes of atonement which he administers;7 the angelic ad-
versary in Job has a cynical skepticism about disinterested good-
ness and unmistakable jealousy of Job's reputation with God.8
Judaism followed the Bible, therefore, in imagining the angelic
princes of the heathen nations appearing before God as accusers,
1 Enoch 15, 4-7; Matt. 22, 30; Gen. R. 8, ii; JJagigah i6a; Pesikta
Rabbati ed. Fnedmann, f. 1790.
2 A whole troop of them was burned up for opposing the creation of
Adam, Sanhedrm jSb.
3 Enoch 6-1 1 ; Jubilees 5, cf. 4, 15; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Reuben 5; Syriac Baruch, 56, 10-13, etc- For other references see Charles,
The Book of Enoch, 2 ed. p 14; Flemmmg, Das Buch Henoch, p. 24. See
also Midrash Abkir in Yal^ut Gen. § 44; with Theodor's note on Gen. R.
26, 2 (p. 247).
4 jnn -|*\ See below, pp. 479 ff.
6 Gen. R. 48, 11 (R. Eiyya); Lev. R. 28, 8. Hence the Ten Command-
ments are not for them, Shabbat 893.
6 Dan. 10, 13, 20 f. It was the angelic champions of Babylon, Media,
Greece, and Rome that Jacob saw ascending and descending the ladder.
Peseta ed. Buber f. I5ia (Meir). Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 28 f.
7 Zech. 3, i ff. 8 Job i f.
CHAP, in] MINISTERS OF GOD 407
charging the Israelites with the same sins and vices as the
heathen;1 Satan accuses them every day of the year except on
the Day of Atonement.2 The destroying angels, or angels of
punishment, execute God's sentence; but it is a work to which
they are nothing loth.3
Thus there are different dispositions, partialities and antipa-
thies, among angels as in human society; there is no monotony
of universal benevolence on high, nor is even justice dispassion-
ate. And though there are no enmity, strife, hatred, or foes, in
that place, still it is necessary for God to 'make peace in his
high places' (Job 25, 2).4
The various ranks of angels constitute the familia on high,5
with whom God consults as a master with his household ser-
vants.8 It was to the angels, according to a common opinion,
that he said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness*
(Gen. i, 26). They often take the liberty of familiar servants,
and raise objections or remonstrate with their master, as they
did when he proposed to create man.7 Similarly the angels op-
posed the giving of the law at Sinai.8 Frequently questions or
objections which men might raise to something in God's conduct
of affairs in the world are thus put into the mouth of the angels,
to give God, so to speak occasion to explain or justify his ways —
a transparent homiletical device which modern writers have not
always recognized.9
1 Pesikta ed. Buber f iy6a.
2 Ibid. He accuses them 364 days in the year (ha-Satan, by Gematria
=364); Yoma 2oa. 3 See Note 138.
4 Sifre Num. § 42 (ed. Fnedmann f. i3a, 1. 12 ff.).
5 The Latin word famiha is usually employed; e.g. Berakot 160-173
(prayer of R. Safra): "May it be thy will, O God, to make peace in the
household above and in the household below." Other occurrences, Sifre
Num. § 42 (f. i3a); Sanhedrin 98b, 99b; JJagigah I3b, below, etc. See
Note 139.
b God confers about everything with the household above. Sanhedrin
38b.
7 Gen. R. 8, 3 ff.; 17, 4. They quote Psalm 8, 5, 'What is man that Thou
art mindful of him?>
8 Shabbat 88b; Cant. R. on Cant. 8, 11
9 See Blau, Jewish Encyclopedia, I, 585 A-B.
4o8 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
The angels are also represented as forming a kind of heavenly
senate or high court (bet din) over which God presides. God, it
is said, judges no cause alone, but with his court (bet din) ; but
he alone seals the decision with his seal, which is truth. I Kings
22, 19 is adduced: the host of heaven on God's right and left
are inclining the scales in Ahab's favor or against him; the seal
is found in Dan. 10, I and 21. Nor are they his assessors in
judicial cases alone; he does nothing in his world without con-
sulting his council.1
Gen. i, 26 has already been referred to; in Isa. 6, 8 God seems
to associate the Seraphim with himself: 'Whom shall I send and
who shall go for us.'2 The Jews had thus sufficient example in
revelation for their notions about the relations between God and
the members of the 'upper household' or the 'upper council.'
The angels have greater knowledge than men — as indeed
demons have also — especially knowledge of the future, which
they impart to the prophets; 8 but their knowledge is deriva-
tive, and is even described as a kind of eaves-dropping —
"what they hear from behind the curtain"4 — and is limited;
they do not know the year of God's vengeance and the deliver-
ance of Israel, for he has not revealed it to them; it is a secret
in his own mind (Isa. 63, 4).*
There are millions upon millions of angels, an innumerable host.8
Among these celestial beings are some who abide continually
in the proximity of God, and are not, like the ministering angels,
employed in various services. The seraphim, fiery natures as
1 Jer. Sanhedrin i8a; Gen. R. 12, i; Cant. R. on Cant. I, 9. In the last
passage Isa 6 is taken as a judgment scene. It was a common belief that
man's life and fortune were determined from year to year by a judicial pro-
cedure in the supreme court above; see below, p. 533. Cf. also the places
cited p 407, notes 5 and 6.
2 Cf. also Gen. 11,7.
8 In the later prophets and the apocalypses, angels are the usual medium
of revelation.
4 rjagigah i6a.
5 Sanhedrin 99a; Matt. 24, 36.
6 Dan. 7, 10; Job. 25, 3; cf. Sifre Num. § 42; IJagigah I3b. See also Rev.
5, 11; Deut. 33, 2.
CHAP, in] MINISTERS OF GOD 409
their name imports, come from Isa. 6, where their form and
office are described. The cherubim, of whom there is mention
in several places in the Old Testament, were imagined chiefly
as they are represented by Ezekiel 1 in his description of the
living car surmounted by a throne, on which God is conveyed
away from the doomed sanctuary. From the corresponding
description in Ezekiel i (where the name cherub does not occur)
come the four 'beasts,'2 the hayyot (Ezek. i, 5-14), who con-
stitute a distinct class of celestials, the supporters of God's
throne. The wheels of the car which were full of eyes, and in
which was the spirit of the 'beasts' (Ezek. i, 15-22), form an-
other class, the ofannim ('wheels').1 In the Parables of Enoch
where Enoch is translated in spirit to the heaven of heavens, he
sees round about the house which was girt by streams of fire,
"cherubim and seraphim and ofannim, never-sleeping beings,4
who keep watch over his glorious throne; and countless angels,
a thousand thousands, a myriad myriads," etc.5 In the Revela-
tion of John the 'four beasts' take the place of the cherubim;
they are described severally, with some variations from Ezekiel i,
and regularly appear with the throne of God.' Through this
book the four beasts attained a celebrity in the church which
they had not in Judaism. They were early associated with the
Four Evangelists,7 and were commonly represented in art as
their attributes, whereas Judaism forbade any imaging of angels.8
Of the angels in the narrower sense the most important class
1 Ezek. 10, 1-22; n, 22 f.
2 Our versions, more respectfully, 'living creatures'; cf. Rev. 4, 6 ff.
5 IJagigah I2b. In the highest story of heaven (^arabot) are the ofannim
and serafim and hayyot ha-bodcsh. The hayyot beneath the throne, see below,
pp. 41 2 f.
4 The 'watchers' ('wakeful') cf. Dan. 4, 10, 14, 20; frequent in Enoch.
6 Enoch 71, 7 f.; cf. 61, 10.
6 Rev. 4, 6: kv /JL&CP TOV 6p6vov Kal KVK\<# TOV dpdvov — a position difficult
to visualize. See also 5, 6 ff.; 6, I ff.; 7, n ff.; 14, 3; 15,7; 19,4.
7 The prevailing symbolism of the Latin Church assigns the man to
Matthew, the lion to Mark, the bull to Luke, the eagle to John.
8 Mekilta on Exod. 20, 23, Bahodesh 10 init. (ed. Friedmann f. 72b; ed
Weiss f. 79b); cf. Rosh ha-Shanah 24b.
4io THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
are the 'ministering angels/ 1 those whom God employs in various
services, or who await his commands. Among these the angels
whose names we have already met, Gabriel, Michael, Raphael,
maintain their precedence. Uriel is often mentioned in Enoch.
Enoch 9, i, groups the four together, seemingly as the chief
angels.2 Elsewhere in the book the four are Michael, Raphael,
Gabriel, and Phanuel; while in 20, 1-8, seven are named, in-
cluding the last four.3 In Tobit, when Raphael unmasks, he
describes himself as "one of the seven holy angels who present
the prayers of the holy ones (angels), and enter into the presence
of the glory of the Holy One." 4 These principal angels are
called ' angels of the presence/ 5 wen <3Kta, that is, those who,
like the chief ministers of a king, have immediate access to his
presence. These are the seven meant in the Revelation of John
8, 2; as princes among the angels they are called also arch-
angels.6
An angel who sooner or later visits every man is the Angel of
Death, who, consequently, filled a larger place in men's thoughts
than the rest, and is the subject of many stories. He comes only
on an order from God, and executes his commission impartially
on the righteous and the wicked; no plea or remonstrance avails.7
The religious importance of Jewish notions and imaginations
about the angelic hierarchy, its occupations in heaven, and its
commissions on earth, is in small proportion to their abundance.
Doubtless the belief in the attendance of a guardian angel helped
the pious to realize God's constant providential care, and the
recording angel, keeping a memorandum of all a man's words
1 rwn 'ante.
2 Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, Raphael, together, with their stations and the
significance of their names, etc., Num. R. 2, 10; Pesikta Rabbati ed. Fned-
mann f. i88a; Pirke de R. Eliezer c. 4.
8 Enoch 40, 9; 71, 8-13. Seven is the number also in Enoch 81, 5; 90,
21 ; Revelation of John 8, 2.
4 So in the longer text, Tobit 12, 14 f.
6 The name comes from Isa. 63, 9. Enoch 40, 2; Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Levi 3; Jubilees I, 27, 29; 2, 2; 15, 27.
6 i Thess. 4, 16; Jude 9 (Michael). See further Note 140
7 See Blau, Jewish Encyclopedia, IV, 480-482.
CHAP, in] MINISTERS OF GOD 41 1
and deeds to be reported to God, may sometimes have steadied
a vacillating conscience; but for the rest, angels, whether in ser-
mons or folklore, hardly belonged to religion at all: l they were
not objects of veneration, much less of adoration; and in ortho-
dox Judaism they were not intermediaries between man and God.2
An unsophisticated biblical Protestantism takes them much in
the same way, without the wealth of legend which surrounded
them in the older churches.
As the first chapter of Genesis gave rise to an esoteric cosmo-
logical speculation, the Ma'aseh Bereshit, of which mention has
been made above,3 so the description of the cherubic car and
throne, with the 'four beasts' (hayyof) and the living ' wheels'
(ofannim), in Ezekiel was the starting point for speculations
on the mysteries of the godhead which led into theosophy. This
esoteric tradition was even more carefully guarded than the
mysteries of cosmology,4 and of its content very little is known.
The fountain head of the tradition, as it appears in second cen-
tury accounts of the matter, was R. Johanan ben Zakkai, in the
generation after the fall of Jerusalem; he imparted it to R.
Joshua (ben Hananiah) ; Joshua to R. Akiba; Akiba to Hananiah
ben IJakinai.5 Another disciple of Johanan who left a name for
his attainments in this sphere was R. Eleazar ben cArak. A story
in which he has a leading part illustrates the manner of this
secret teaching, if not the matter. One day as Eleazar ben 'Arak
was accompanying his master Johanan ben Zakkai on a journey,
he said to him, Rabbi, expound to me one section of the doctrine
of the chariot. The master replied, Have I not told you that
the chariot is not expounded to a single hearer unless he be a
1 It has been observed that the Mishnah makes no mention of angels; but
the character of the work gives no occasion to do so. They occur often
enough in the second century Midrash.
2 They communicate God's message to men; but they do not convey
men's prayers to God. See Note 141.
3 Pages 383 f.
4 See Note 142.
6 Tos. Ijjagigah, 2, 2. The last named was a fellow-student and associate
of Simeon ben Yohai, whom the Cabala claims as its great authority.
4i2 THE IDEA OF GOD [PARTII
scholar of penetrating intelligence.1 Eleazar said, Give me per-
mission, and I will recite to you. Forthwith R. Johanan dis-
mounted from the ass he was riding, and they both wrapped up
their heads and sat on a rock under an olive tree while Eleazar
recited to him. When he had finished, Johanan stood up and
kissed him on the head, saying "Blessed is the Lord God of
Israel who has giveji to our father Abraham a son who knows
how to expound and to have insight into the glory of our Father
who is in heaven. One excels in teaching but not in preaching,
and another in practicing but not in teaching; but Eleazar ben
'Arak is excellent in both. Blessed art thou, our father Abraham,
that from thy loins is sprung Eleazar ben 'Arak, who knows how
to expound and to have insight into the glory of our Father who
is in heaven." 2
A mediaeval Midrash enumerates a great variety of questions
to which the study of the 'chariot' alone could find an answer,8
but whether they really represent its topics, especially in our
centuries, may well be doubted.
A theory of the nature of angels differing widely from the
common notions described above is set forth by Joshua ben
Hananiah, already named as a disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai,
and is probably a specimen of the esoteric angelology of the
mystical school. It is in the form of a dialogue between the
rabbi and Hadrian, who frequently figures in the r&le of inter-
locutor in discussions of Jewish law or theology. Hadrian asked
R. Joshua ben Hananiah: "You say that no company of angels
on high praises God more than once; but that God every day
creates a company of new angels, who utter a song before him
and are gone. The rabbi answered, Yes. — Whither do they go?
— To that whence they were created. — And whence were they
created? — From the river of fire.4 — What does that river of
1 See Note 143.
2 Tos. IJagigah 2, i. An embellished version in IJagigah 140, top; and
especially in Jer. IJagigah 77a, where other examples may be found.
8 Midrash Mishle 10 (ed. Buber f. 34a). See Note 144.
"IPO, Dan. 7, 10.
CHAP, in] MINISTERS OF GOD 413
fire do? — It is like the Jordan here, which flows unremittingly
day and night. — Whence does it come? — From the sweat of
the beasts (hayyot) which they sweat under the weight of the
throne of God."1
The last words may be meant in some occult sense, intelligible
only to the initiated, or else the rabbi ends the colloquy, as is
often done, in a kind of irony, with an answer that is as good as
the questioner deserves. The angels who spring out of the stream
of fire and sink back into the perennial stream again probably
come from the esoteric tradition; 2 though the notion that a new
chorus of angels is created daily to sing but one song, is taken
up by homilists who do not belong to the circle.3
The adepts of the chariot did not confine themselves to specu-
lations on these high mysteries, they sought immediate knowl-
edge of them. Their theosophy, like others, had a practical as
well as a theoretical side, and had its methods of inducing the
mystic rapture. Their visions of Paradise were soon — if not
from the first — taken for real ascents to heaven.4 The most
famous of these adventures was that of four of the most eminent
schoolmen of the early second century, Simeon ben Azzai,
Simeon ben Zoma, Elisha ben Abuya, and R. Akiba. To all but
Akiba the consequences were disastrous: Ben Azzai looked and
died; Ben Zoma looked and lost his mind; Elisha ('Aher') cut
down the plants (of Paradise) ; Akiba made his exit in safety.5
The perils of theosophy to reason and faith were never more
concisely exposed. It may perhaps be surmised that the isola-
tion and eclipse of Eleazar ben cArak 6 is to be accounted for by
his preoccupation with theosophy as much as by the comforts
of life at Emmaus. 7
1 Gen. R. 78, i; Lam. R. 3, 8; cf. IJagigah
2 Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 172.
3 Samuel ben Nahman, Gen. R. 78, i, and others; cf. IJagigah
4 Ijjagigah i4b, end. See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 332 f .
6 f os. tfagigah 2, 3 f.; gagigah ^b; Jer. tfagigah 77b.
6 See Bacher, 1. c. pp. 71 f. 7 See Note 145.
CHAPTER IV
THE WORD OF GOD. THE SPIRIT
GOD'S will is made known or effectuated in the world not only
through personal agents (angels), but directly by his word or by
his spirit. To the realism of the natural mind, the spoken word
is not a mere articulate sound conveying a meaning; it is a
thing, and it does things. A blessing or a curse, for example,
is not the expression of a benevolent or malevolent, but impotent,
wish; it is a blessing or a curse. Once uttered, it is beyond the
speaker's power to revoke or reverse it. When blind old Isaac,
deceived by Rebecca's ruse and Jacob's falsehoods, bestows on
Jacob the blessing he thought he was giving Esau, he cannot
undo what he has done; the best he can do is to invent a second-
best blessing for his firstborn and best loved son (Gen. 27). So
when Micah's mother curses the unknown thief who had stolen
her eleven hundred pieces of silver, and her son, alarmed by the
curse he overheard, confesses and makes restitution, she cannot
take off the curse; she can only try to divert it by dedicating the
silver to Jehovah to make an idol for her son to have in his house
(Judges 17). Similarly the prophetic word is not a mere predic-
tion that something will come to pass; it brings to pass what it
foretells. God touches Jeremiah's mouth with his hand, and
says: 'Lo, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have com-
missioned thee this day over the nations and over the kingdoms
to root out and pull down and destroy and overthrow; to build
and to plant' (Jer. i, 9 f.). The oracles of doom or of restora-
tion he pronounces in God's name are real forces working de-
struction or reconstruction. The efficacy of charms and incan-
tations inhered in the formula itself, whether it worked of itself
or constrained demons to do the magician's bidding. It is un-
necessary to multiply illustrations of the belief that the word is
a concrete reality, a veritable cause.
CHAP, iv] WORD OF GOD. SPIRIT 415
What was true of the words of men was true in an eminent
degree of the words of God. The fiats of God in the first chapter
of Genesis are creative forces: 'God said, Let there be light,
and light came into being,' and so throughout. ' By the word
of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his
mouth all their host. . . . For he spake, and it came into being;
he commanded and there it stood' (Psalm 33, 6, g).1 As has
been noted in a former connection, the significance which the
rabbis found in creation by a word was the bringing the end to
pass instantly, without the toil and pains by which men make
things.2 All other words of God are similarly effective. Like the
rain and snow which come down from heaven and do not return
thither till they have accomplished their mission by refreshing
and fertilizing the earth, 'So shall it be with my word which
issues from my mouth: it will not return to me unaccomplished,
but will do what I please and succeed in what I sent it for'
(Isa. 55, n). The word of God is sometimes vividly personified,
as in Wisdom 18, 15 f.: "Thine all-powerful word, from heaven,
from out the royal thrones, a fierce warrior, leaped into the midst
of the doomed land (Egypt), bearing as a sharp sword thine irre-
vocable command, and, standing, filled all things with death;
its head touched the sky, it stood firm on the earth." 3 But it is
an error to see in such personification an approach to personali-
zation. Nowhere either in the Bible or in the extra-canonical
literature of the Jews is the word of God a personal agent or on
the way to become such.
It is with the word precisely as it is with 'wisdom,' which is
so vividly personified in Prov. 8 and elsewhere. The Jews iden-
tified the divine wisdom with the Torah, which also is sometimes
1 Cf. also Wisdom 9, i f.; Ecclus. 42, 15 (X 67015 Kvpiov); 4 Esdras 6,
38: O domme, loquens locutus es ab initio creaturae in primo die dicens,
Fiat caelum et terra! et tuum verbum opus perfecit.
2 See Note 146.
3 Like an enormously tall angel, such as Sandalfon is in the chariot mys-
teries, Eagigah ijb. Cf. Gospel of Peter c. 10, the two angels at the re-
surrection of Jesus.
416 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
personified. Wisdom and Torah, like the word, were for them
realities, not mere names or concepts; but they never gave them
personal existence. Cherubim and seraphim, the four 'beasts,'
and even the 'wheels' with their rims full of eyes in Ezekiel's
vision, stand ever in God's presence in heaven; but neither
'wisdom' nor 'word' is there. Philo, indeed, finds his Logos in
both the wisdom and the word of God, and interprets what the
Scriptures say about them in this sense, thus conferring upon
them whatever of personality belongs to that 'secondary deity';
but his notion of the Logos was not derived from them.
The God of the Bible is in its own expressive phrase a ' live
God,' a God that does things; Philo's God is pure Being, of
which nothing can be predicated but that It i"j, abstract static
Unity, eternally, unchangeably the same; pure immaterial in-
tellect.1 Between the transcendent deity and the material world
of multiplicity and change, of becoming and dissolution, is a gulf
that must somehow be spanned. The Neoplatonists in their
time endeavored to overcome the dualism of the system by in-
terposing in descending order Nous, the universal active intelli-
gence; Psyche, the universe soul; and primordial matter; re-
maining thus, so far as terms went, in the Platonic tradition.
Philo's intermediary is the Logos. Stoic influence is manifest
in the name and the functions of the Logos, as it is in many other
features of Philo's system; but in making it a 'secondary deity,'
above which is a transcendent God, he has made of it something
widely different from the immanent energetic Reason of the uni-
verse which is the only God of Stoicism.
In his theology the Logos is the manifest and active deity;
and in his interpretation of the Scriptures, where God appears to
men, converses with them, reveals his will and purpose, it is,
according to Philo, of the Logos that all this should be understood.
The twofold meaning of the Greek word (reason, utterance) made
it natural to appropriate for the Logos what was said of the
divine wisdom (<ro0ta) and of the word of God (X67os, /iijjtia) ;
1 See Note 147.
CHAP, iv] WORD OF GOD. SPIRIT 417
and allegorical ingenuity enabled Philo to find the Logos in many
other places and associations.1
That the idea of a divine intermediary, whether derived from
Philo or the independent product of a similar Platonizing theory
of the nature of Deity, had some currency in Hellenistic Jewish
circles may be inferred from the adoption and adaptation of it
in certain New Testament writings,2 and from Gnosticism as
well as from Catholic Christianity. But that this philosophy
deeply or widely influenced Jewish thought there is no evidence.
In the Palestinian schools there is no trace of it. Their idea of
God has been set forth in a previous chapter.3 He is the living
God of the Old Testament, not the impersonal Being of Greek
metaphysics. He employs upon occasion agents like the angels,
and instrumentalities of various kinds such as his word or spirit,
to reveal his will and purpose or to effect his ends; but a God
who by definition did not himself do anything would have seemed
to them to contradict the very idea of God, as much as a God who
was personally active in the world contradicted Philo's definition
of godhead in se.
The erroneous opinion widely entertained that Palestinian Juda-
ism made of the word of God a personal intermediary com-
parable to Philo's Logos and, as many think, in some way con-
nected with it,4 is based primarily on the use of memra in the
Targums. Memra is properly what is said, 'saying, utterance/
'word' in this sense. It is, however, not employed in the Tar-
gums in the rendering of such Hebrew phrases as 'the word
(dabar) of the Lord,' the 'word of God,' 'My word,' 'Thy word/
etc. They translate the Hebrew dabar in all senses and uses, not
by memra but regularly by pitgama (rarely by mil/a). Where
the 'word of God' in the Hebrew Scriptures is the medium or
1 See Note 148.
2 Hebrews, Colossians, the Gospel of John. In John alone the inter-
mediary is named Logos.
3 See above, Part II, chap. I; see also immediately below (memra^ etc.).
4 Gfroerer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils (1838), and many since him. See
Harvard Theological Review, XIV (1921), 222 ff.
4i8 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
instrumentality of revelation or of communication with men,
it is not in the Targums his memra; nor is the creative word of
God his memra. This is really the most important thing to be
said about memra in the Targums — it is not the equivalent of the
'word of God' in the Old Testament corresponding to \6yos
or (two, in the Greek versions; and in so far as Philo's Logos is an
intermediary in creation and revelation — two of its principal
functions — it is in contrast instead of correspondence with the
memra of the Targums.1
Memra is frequently a word of command, as in translation of
the idiomatic pe/iy 'command' (lit., 'mouth'), of men or of God.2
In the same sense it is used in such circumlocutions as, "Ye have
contemned the command (memra) of the Lord whose presence
abides among you," for 'Ye have contemned the Lord who is
among you' (Num. n, 20). To hearken to God, or to his voice,
is regularly 'to receive (implying 'obey') the command (memra)
of the Lord.' 3 The protection or support of God is extended to
men through his word; the effective command suffices. The
motive of reverence is evident when Onkelos paraphrases, 'The
Lord your God, he it is that fights for you' (Deut. 3, 22), "his
word fights for you" — he commands the victory. When
Abraham believed in the memra of the Lord (Heb. ' believed in
the Lord,' Gen. 15, 6), and it was reckoned to him for righteous-
ness, memra is the promise of the preceding verses.4 For 'God
came to Abimelech in a dream of the night and said to him,'
etc., the same Targum has, "A word (memar) from before the
Lord came," etc. When God says that he will meet the Israel-
1 On memra in the Targums see Moore, 'Intermediaries in Jewish The-
ology,' Harvaid Theological Review, XV (1922), 41-61, and Strack-Biller-
beck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, on
John i, I (Exkurs uber den Memra Jahves), II (1924), 302-333. An exhaus-
tive exhibition of the usage, with the result that the Memra is not an inter-
mediary, to say nothing of a hypostasis, but "ein inhaltsloser, rein formal-
hafter Ersatz fur das Tetragramm," and that the Logos of the Gospel of
John is not derived from it or connected with it.
2 E. g. Gen. 45, 21; Deut. i, 26; Num. 14, 41.
8 E. g. Lev. 26, 14; Deut. 28, 15.
4 Cf. Exod. 14, 31.
CHAP, iv] WORD OF GOD. SPIRIT 419
ites at the Tabernacle (Exod. 25, 22), the Targum paraphrases,
"I will cause my word (memri) to meet thee, and I will speak
with thee." *
In many other contexts memra is introduced as a buffer-word
— sometimes in very awkward circumlocutions — where the
literal interpretation seemed to bring God into too close contact
with his creatures.2 But nowhere in the Targums is memra a
'being* of any kind or in any sense, much less a personal being.
The appearance of personality which in some places attaches to
the word is due solely to the fact that the memra of the Lord and
similar phrases are reverent circumlocutions for 'God,' intro-
duced precisely where in the original God is personally active
in the affairs of men; and the personal character of the activity
necessarily adheres to the periphrasis. It is to be observed,
finally, that memra is purely a phenomenon of translation, not a
figment of speculation; it never gets outside the Targums.
Various other circumlocutions in the Targums have the same
motive, namely, to avoid expressions that literally rendered in
the vernacular did not beseem the dignity of God. Thus in
Hos. i, 2 ('The beginning of the word of the Lord by (in)
Hosea'), "The word (pitgam) of prophecy from before the
Lord which was with Hosea." 3 When God is said to be, or
abide, in a place, to come to a place, or to depart from a place,
the Targums generally paraphrase, 'the Presence' (shekinta)
abode there; God caused his presence to abide there; his pres-
ence ascended thence, ajid the like.4 Unlike memra which is
found exclusively in the Targums, 'the Presence' (Hebrew,
shekinafi) is very common in the literature of the school and the
1 Cf. Exod. 29, 42 f.; 19, 17.
2 Various other devices are employed to the same intent, such as the sub-
stitution of a passive voice for the active, the interruption of the connection
of a noun with a following genitive ('construct state'), the frequent intro-
duction of mp, mpO, etc.
3 j?&nn Dy mm mrr mp JD ninaa Dana.
4 E. g. Exod. 25, 8; 34, 6; Deut. 12, 5, n, 21; 32, 20; Hos. 5, 6.
42o THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
synagogue.1 It also frequently has a semblance of personality
simply because it is a more reverent way of saying 'God/ not
because it is a personal divine being that takes the place of God.
The notion of such a double of God would have been regarded
by the rabbis as a palpable case of the heresy of 'two powers/
When the Scripture speaks of men's seeing God, or of God's
manifesting himself to men, the Targum interprets, 'The glory
of God.' In Exod. 24, 10, Moses and his companions, with the
seventy elders of Israel, 'saw the God of Israel'; Onkelos ren-
ders, "saw the glory (yefyard) of the God of Israel." So in Isa.
6, i, the prophet saw "the glory of the Lord," sitting upon his
lofty throne. The same circumlocution is used in other connec-
tions; thus e.g., Gen. 17, 22 ('God ascended from Abraham'),
it was ' the glory of the Lord' that ascended; Exod. 20, 17 ('God
has come to prove you'), "The glory of the Lord was revealed
to you." Yefcara is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew
kabod, which it regularly translates; and in introducing it in such
contexts as have just been quoted the Targums interpret in con-
formity with many passages of Scripture in which the presence
of God is manifested by his 'glory,' the splendor of impenetrable
light by which he is at once revealed and concealed.2
In such paraphrases the Targums interpret what the historian
would call more primitive notions of God by the higher concep-
tions of deity to which religion had advanced in later parts of the
Scriptures and which prevailed in Judaism.
It was of especial importance to do this in the translation of
the synagogue lessons, that the unlearned, naturally inclined
to a naive imagination of God, might not seem to be confirmed
by the Scripture itself in conceptions inconsistent with the im-
plicit or explicit teaching of Scripture elsewhere — as for example
that God cannot be seen by mortal eyes. It is, however, an
egregious error to think that the Targums attempt to dispose of
all the anthropomorphisms of Scripture. They do not scruple
1 See below, pp. 434 ff.
2 Exod. 29, 43; 40, 34; Kings 8, 1 1, etc. Compare the use of 66£o in LXX
and the New Testament.
CHAP, iv] WORD OF GOD. SPIRIT 421
to render literally the hands and feet, the eyes and ears of God,
in which even the prosaic mind might recognize natural meta-
phors for his power or his knowledge; they reproduce faithfully
the whole range of human emotions attributed to him. And any
one who will read the Targums on such chapters as Gen. 2-4 or
Gen. 1 8 will see how little they are concerned to tone down nar-
ratives in which God appears and behaves most like a man. If
he will then compare Philo's treatment of such narratives with
the Targums and the Midrash, he will discover how innocent
the Palestinian masters were of an 'abstract' or 'transcendent'
— or any other sort of a philosophical — idea of God.
In the Old Testament superhuman strength, courage, skill, judg-
ment, wisdom, and the like, are attributed to 'the spirit of God,'
or of 'the Lord,' which suddenly comes upon a man for the
time being and possesses him, or more permanently rests upon
him and endows him. In old narratives it is more common of
physical power and prowess and the gift of leadership; 1 in the
Prophets it is occasionally used of prophetic inspiration.2 The
equivalent phrase 'the holy spirit' is very rare,3 and is never as-
sociated with prophecy. In Judaism, on the contrary, the holy
spirit is specifically the spirit of prophecy. When the holy spirit
was withdrawn from Israel, the age of revelation by prophetic
agency was at an end. The scribes, interpreters of the word of
God written and custodians of the unwritten law, succeed. But
though God no longer spoke by the holy spirit through the mouth
of prophets, he still upon occasion spoke by a mysterious voice.
So the Tosefta: "When the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi, died, the holy spirit ceased out of Israel; but
nevertheless it was granted them to hear (communications from
God) by means of a mysterious voice." 4
1 Num. n, 16 f ; Judges 6, 34; 11, 29; 13, 25; 14, 6, 19; 15, 14; i Sam.
11,6; 16, 3, etc.; Exod 31,3; 36,1; i Sam. 10, 10; 2 Sam. 23, 2, etc. In
the older narratives the spirit is often a physical force, and is in general a
way of conceiving God acting at a distance. It is nowhere a personal agent.
3 E. g. Ezek. 3, 24. 3 Isa. 63, 10, 11; Psalm 51, 13.
4 Tos Sotah 13, 2; cf. Sotah 48b; Yoma 90; Sanhedrm ua.
422 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
The phrase I have thus translated (bat £07,) means properly,
'resonance, echo,' for example, of the human voice.1 In the use
we are discussing it is an articulate and intelligible sound proceed-
ing from an invisible source, generally from the sky, or out of the
adytum of the temple. An example of such an utterance is Dan.
4, 28 (English versions 4, 31) : ' A voice came down from heaven,
To thee it is said, O king Nebuchadnezzar, the kingdom is
passed away from thee/ Similarly in The New Testament:
'And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying/ etc. (Matt. 3, iy).2
The preference for bat %ol instead of the simple £07, 'voice,' is
doubtless to avoid saying that men heard the actual voice of
God. Numerous instances are reported in which such a mys-
terious voice was heard by individuals or by numbers together
in the later centuries. The most important occasion was when
the learned were assembled at Jamnia in the endeavor to settle
certain questions on which the schools of Hillel and Shammai
were at strife. The voice is reported to have said, "The dicta
of both are words of the living God, but that of the school of Hillel
is the norm (halakati)"* Once, when the learned were gathered in
the house of Gorion in Jericho, a mysterious voice said: "There
is here a man who is worthy that the holy spirit should rest upon
him, but that his generation is not worthy." All eyes turned
to the elder Hillel. The same words were spoken at another
time at a meeting in Jamnia, and everybody saw that Samuel
the Little was meant.4 John Hyrcanus heard such a voice out
of the inner sanctuary announcing that his sons, who were on a
military expedition to Antioch (really, against Antiochus Cyzi-
cenus), had gained the victory; note was made of the time, and
it proved to be the very hour at which the battle was won.5
1 In the meaning 'echo/ Exod. R. 29, 9, end: "If a man calls to his fellow,
his voice has an echo (bat Jo/), but the voice which issued from the mouth
of God (at Sinai) had no echo " — lest it should be thought that another than
He uttered the words, 'I am the Lord thy God/
2 See Blau, 'Bat &ol,' Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 588-592.
8 Jer. Berakot jb, below.
4 Tos. Sotah 13, 3 f.; Sotah 48b; Sanhednn na. Instead of 'the holy
spirit/ the Talmud has, 'the shekinah*
6 Josephus, Antt. xm. 10, 3 § 282; Tos. Sotah 13, 5; Sotah 33a.
CHAPTER V
MAJESTY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD
IN the preceding chapters Jewish conceptions of God and his re-
lations to the world of nature and men, as they were developed
from the Scriptures in the teaching of the school and the syna-
gogue, have been discussed. We have seen that the idea of God
was eminently personal. He was supramundane but not extra-
mundane; exalted but not remote. He was the sole ruler of the
world he had created, and he ordered all things in it in accordance
with his character, in which justice and mercy were comple-
mentary, not conflicting, attributes. His will for men was right-
eousness and goodness; and that they might know what He re-
quired, He had defined his will in two-fold law. His far-reaching
and all-embracing plan had for its end the universality of the
true religion in an age of universal uprightness, peace, and pros-
perity — the goal to which all history tended — " the reign of
God." The influence of these conceptions in practical religion
will be further considered when we come to treat of Jewish piety.
There are, however, phenomena from which it has been in-
ferred that the conception of God which dominated Jewish
thought and feeling was radically at variance with that which
appears in the explicit and consentient testimony we have
adduced. In the endeavor to exalt God uniquely above the
world, Judaism, it is said, had in fact exiled him from the world
in lonely majesty, thus sacrificing the immediacy of the religious
relation, the intimate communion of the soul with God. In ex-
aggerated forms of this theory, philosophical terminology is
abused, and the God of Judaism is qualified as 'absolute* or
'transcendent.1 It is necessary, therefore, to examine more
closely the grounds on which this opinion is based.
1 See 'Christian Writers on Judaism,' Harvard Theological Review, XIV
(1921), 197-254, especially pp. 226 ff.
424 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
One of the arguments put in the foreground is the names and
titles of God which prevail in the literature of the period, particu-
larly those which express his exaltation, majesty and supremacy,
and the circumlocutions which displace the simple appellative.
The proper name of the national God, mm, now become
universal God, had long since ceased to be commonly used. No
date can be fixed for either the beginning or the consummation of
this disuse. In the later books of the Old Testament it occurs
with declining frequency.1 In one of the collections of Psalms
incorporated in the Psalter, an editor substituted the appellative,
God, for the proper name.2 The Greek version represents the
name by 'the Lord' (6 Kupios), and subsequent translators did
the same. Where the synagogue lessons were read in Hebrew,
the reader substituted Adonai> ' the Lord,' for the proper name,
both in the original and in the vernacular translation (Targum),3
and doubtless a similar evasion was customary in the schools.4
Neither Philo nor Josephus had any inkling that it had ever been
otherwise.5
According to Philo the proper name might be uttered only in
the temple. There, down to the destruction of Jerusalem, it was
1 In some of the latest, however, the Tetragrammaton is used freely.
When once the principle was established that it was not to be pronounced,
but a substitute such as ' the (ineffable) Name,1 ' God/ ' the Lord,' read in its
place, there was no reason for not writing it. In the Targums it is written
even where the Hebrew has Elohim, 'God/
2 Psalms 42-83. Cases in which the editorial change is especially evident
are 43> 4J 44> 5? 45> 85 5°> 7; 5J> l6> etc- Compare also Psalm 53 with
Psalm 14. See Note 153.
3 See Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj (1889), especially pp. 43-62, 62-
79; cf. Worte Jesu, 146-155.
4 In quotations of Scripture, DB7I, 'the Name'; Dalman Worte Jesu, 149 f.
B Philo, Vita Mosis ii. u § 114 (ed. Mangey II, 152): On the gold plate
on the front of the high priest's mitre were incised the four letters of the
Name, "which it is lawful only for those whose ear and tongue are purified by
wisdom (the priests) to hear and utter in the sanctuary; for no other whom-
soever anywhere." Josephus, Antt. ii. 12, 4: Moses asked God to tell him
His name, that when he offered sacrifice he might invoke Him by name to be
present at the sacrificial rites. And God indicated to him his own name,
which theretofore had not been communicated to men; about which it is
not lawful for me to say anything.
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 425
spoken in the benediction pronounced by the priest over the
people (Num. 6, 23-27). In the synagogue a substitute was
used.1 The temple benediction was said at the daily public
sacrifice, with the name 'as it is written.' 2 In the special ritual
of the Day of Atonement the high priest pronounced the name
ten times. The priests who stood near him fell upon their
faces, the more remote said, Blessed be His name whose glorious
kingdom is for ever and ever. And before either of them moved
from the spot the name was hidden from them (passed from their
knowledge). In former times they used to utter it with raised
voice; after the unruly multiplied, they spoke it in a soft voice.
Rabbi Tarfon, who as a young man had assisted at the ser-
vice, testified that he tried to hear it, but the high priest uttered
it so that it was drowned in the singing of the other priests. In
earlier times the pronunciation of the name was taught to any
man; after the multiplication of the unruly, only to proper
persons.3 4 After the destruction of the temple the tradition of
the name was scrupulously guarded, and in the end it seems to
have been lost altogether; in later times we hear of it only in
mystical theurgic circles.5
There were divers motives for the disuse of the proper name,
and they probably worked in the main without the clear con-
sciousness of those who were influenced by them. Something
must be allowed for an instinctive feeling that the only God has
no need to be thus distinguished. So long as monotheism was
still contending for supremacy it was necessary to affirm with
emphasis that Jejiovah is the only God; but the very emblem of
its triumph was that it sufficed to say 'God.' A motive that was
1 Sifre Num. § 43 (on 6, 27) and § 39 (on 6, 22; ed. Friedmann f. I2a).
2 M. Tamid 7, 2; M. Sotah 7, 6. See Note 154.
3 Jer. Yoma 4od, near end. The 'unruly' (D'WlB) are such as 'break
through' the fence of the Law, disregarding all restraints and regulations.
Compare Jjpddushm 71 a; Eccles R. on 3, u. Backer, 'Shem ha-Meforash/
Jewish Encyclopedia, XI, 262 ff.
4 According to Ijjjddushm 71 a, only to pious members of the priesthood.
Examples of the tradition of the (twelve-letter) name, ibid.
6 See Note 155.
426 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
more on the surface was to guard the sacred name not only from
abuse and profanation but from the disrespect of trivial use. An
even stronger motive, perhaps, was the concern about the mis-
use of the name in magic. It was a universal belief in the age
that the names of gods in incantations and adjurations put the
power of these gods at the command of the magician, and no
name could be more potent than that of the God of the whole
world. If this was the motive for secrecy, the means defeated
the end; for the secret name of a god is a vastly more powerful
spell than that which everybody knows. The Greek magical
papyri show that the adepts were alive to this fact. They knew
also that the barbarous names of foreign gods are more efficacious
than familiar ones; and they took full advantage of the prestige
of antiquity and the mystery that surrounded the Jewish Scrip-
tures. It is no surprise, therefore, that we find the authors of
magic books acquainted with the pronunciation of the tetragram-
maton, which they concealed in an abracadabra of variations.1
The Jews similarly believed that all manner of miracles could
be wrought by one who knew the secret of ' the Name.' 2 It can
hardly be doubted that the use of the name had an important
place in the secrets of theosophy, and that it figured among the
means by which the adepts accomplished their visits to paradise.
In the Mishnah, Abba Saul contributes to the catalogue of
Israelites who have no share in the Age to Come, " the man who
mutters the name as it is spelled." 3 A teacher of the third cen-
tury adds to these words the explanation, "as the Samaritans
do when they take an oath." 4 That the Samaritans, though
1 It may be conjectured that the names of God of 12 and 42, and of 72,
letters (£iddushin 71 a; Lev. R. 23, 2), were mystifications of a similar
nature and purpose. On these names see L. Blau, Das altjudische Zauber-
wesen, pp. 137 ff.; also Bacher, Jewish Encyclopedia, XI, 264.
8 Bacher, ibid. It was said that Moses killed the Egyptian (Exod. 2, 14),
by pronouncing the Name over him (Exod. R. 1,30). A Babylonian rabbi
heard a Persian woman cursing her son by the Name, and instantly he died.
Jer. Yoma 4od, below.
8 M. Sanhedrin 10, i ; Sanhedrin poa; Tos. Sanhedrin 12, 9. See Note 154.
4 Jer. Sanhedrin 28b, top.
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 427
they substituted 'the Name' in reading the Scriptures, did pro-
nounce it in certain circumstances is confirmed by the fact that
Theodoret in the fifth century learned from them a pronun-
ciation which agrees with what modern scholars for grammat-
ical reasons believe to be the original sound of the name,
namely lajSe.1
At the end of M. Berakot, along with other rabbinical decrees
given in the face of prevalent heresies, it is said that it was or-
dained that a man should salute his fellow "with the Name,"
after Biblical examples (Ruth 2, 4; Judges 6, 12), "!HVH be with
you," with the response, "!HVH bless thee." That this ordi-
nance was recognized as a suspension of the law justified by ex-
ceptional circumstances is clear from the following words: 'It
is a time to act for the Lord; they have made void Thy law*
(Psalm 119, 126); 2 or as R. Nathan transposes it, "They have
made void Thy law, it is a time to act for the Lord." What the
date or occasion was is unknown. The ordinance must have
been temporary, if, indeed, it actually affected the general cus-
tom. To homilists of the third century is attributed the saying
that two generations used the shem ha-meforash^ the men of the
Great Assembly, and the generation that suffered the persecu-
tion of Hadrian; but there is every presumption that this is
midrash, not tradition.3
It is frequently said by Christian scholars that the prohibition
of the use of the proper name IHVH was based on an erroneous
interpretation of Lev. 24, 16, which the Jews, it is said, took to
forbid on pain of death the mere utterance of the name of God.4
There is, in fact, no evidence at all that the Jews either misun-
derstood or misapplied the verse in this sense; they interpreted
it of cursing God by name (cf. vs. n), and use it as authority
only for the rule, "The blasphemer is not liable (to the penalty
1 Quaest. xv in Exod.
* See above, p. 259.
* Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 36, n (ed. Buber f. I26a). See Note 155.
4 E.g. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 2 ed. p. 354, with a long list
of predecessors.
428 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
of death) until he distinctly pronounces the Name/' 1 The law
in Lev. 24, 16, exemplified by vs. u ff., is not cited as authority
for the prohibition of the enunciation of the proper name, nor in
illustration of it. The only Biblical support given to it is what
seems to us a far-fetched fancy, but was in the method of Akiba's
school a valid deduction. In Exod. 3, 15 ('This is my name for-
ever'), the word le'olam ('forever') is written, not, as regularly,
D^yi> but nW>. That no such peculiarity in the letter of divine
revelation is without significance was the first principle of their
hermeneutics, and in this case, if D^ be pronounced le'allemy
the significance would be, "this is my name to conceal."2 It
should be needless to say that this exegetical subtlety was not
cause but consequence of the suppression of the name. The
important thing is that it never occurred to the rabbis to justify
the custom by appeal to Lev. 24. Nor was the utterance of the
name IHVH judged by the courts as prescribed in Lev. 24, 16;
the penalty is exclusion by divine judgment from a part in the
Age to Come.8
Exodus 20, 7 (Deut. 5, n). 'Thou shalt not take the name
of the Lord thy God in vain,' was rightly understood by the
Jews of oaths.4 The words are also quoted, however, against the
unnecessary use of the name of God even in prayers.6 The
reason for such periphrastic benedictions as "Blessed be His
name whose glorious kingdom is for ever and ever" is "that the
name of Heaven (God) be not mentioned idly." 6 If a rabbi (who
1 M. Sanhedrin 7, 5; cf. Sifra on Lev. 24, n and 16 (ed. Weiss f. 1040, d);
Mekilta on Exod. 21, 17 (ed. Friedmann f. 82a; ed. Weiss f. 893); Mekilta de-
ll. Simeon ben Yohai, p. 127; Sanhedrin 55b~56a; Jer. Sanhedrin 25a. See
Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj, pp. 43 ff. Cf. Philo, Vita Mosis n. 25
§ 203 f. Note 156.
2 Jer. Yoma 4od, below (see above, p. 425); &iddushin 71 a; Pesatim
503. See Note 157.
1 Above, p. 426.
4 LXX: Ou Xifr/i^fl TO dVo/xa Kvpi6v rov B&v (rov CTTI /zaraiw. Josephus,
Antt. in. 5, 5: tiri wdevi <£auXq> rov 6e6v opvvvai,. Philo, De decalogo, c. 19 § 92:
dpvvovai tiri rots rvxovfftv. So also the Targums, etc. Cf. Temurah 33. See
further, Note 158.
6 Berakot 333, end, and parallels.
6 Jer. Berakot loa, below.
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 429
has authority to do so) hears a man using the name of Heaven
idly, he must excommunicate him, upon pain of a like sentence
on himself.1
The disuse of the proper name IHVH was, thus, not the con-
sequence of a changed idea of God or his relation to the world.
It was, however, a principal cause of the introduction of many
substitutionary words and phrases in which recent writers see
evidence that in the Jewish thought of this period God occupied
a remote supramundane sphere, too great to be immediately
active in the world, and too exalted in majesty and holiness to be
immediately accessible to humble piety, and that religion suf-
fered the consequences of having to do with an absentee God.
The first of these substitutes was probably the appellative
Elohim, God, as in the editing of Psalms 42-83; but precisely
because it was the common appellative, used of heathen gods as
well as of the God of Israel, it was an unsatisfactory equivalent
for the proper name; and conspicuously infelicitous when, as
often happens, the proper name and the appellative stood side
by side in the text, as, for example, " JHVH, the God of Israel,"
where the result was "God, the God of Israel." We have seen
that in the reading of the Scriptures Adonai? 'Lord,' was regu-
larly substituted, and probably the drawling pronunciation which
distinguished Adonai as vice-proper name from adonai, 'my
master, my lord,' in address to a man, early established itself.
But by the very fact that Adonai was the regular surrogate for
the ineffable name it contracted something of the sacredness
which belonged by nature to the latter and the same scruple
attached to Elohim when it became a virtual proper name, 'God/
The Bible itself is, however, much more richly provided with
names, titles, appropriated epithets, of God. 'The Holy One of
Israel ' for example, is so common throughout the Book of Isaiah
that it may be called a preferred synonym for ' the God of Israel/
1 Nedarim 7b. 'The Name* in these passages is not the ineffable Name,
but any of the names or titles of God. See Note 159.
2 On this substitution see IJiddushin 71 a and Note 160.
430 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
In Jewish use the limitation, 'of Israel/ is dropped, and 'the
Holy One/ usually with the appended eulogy, 'blessed is He/ is
one of the commonest substitutes for the name of God or the
word 'God/
Another name, more widely distributed in the Old Testament
is 'Ely on, 'Most High/ sometimes as an attributive (El 'Ely on) y
more frequently as a proper noun, chiefly in poetical or elevated
style.1 By the side of El 'Ely on may be put the phrase Elohe
Marom, 'God of (the) Height' (High Heaven) (Mic. 6, 6).2 It
is therefore not a new idea but a more prosaic expression when in
later books he is called Elohe ha-shamaim> 'God of heaven'; and
from this again it is but a step to the use of Heaven itself as a
metonymy for God, as in Dan. 4, 23 (*TDB> Aramaic) ; i Mace.
4, 10, 40, etc.8
Names or epithets of God significant of his abode in the height
of heaven are no novelty in later Jewish writings; they go back
at least as far as the age of the kingdoms. Their increased fre-
quency is partly explained, as suggested above, by the disuse of
the proper name, for which these old poetical words or phrases
furnished welcome surrogates. Unquestionably, however, the
preference for terms expressive of God's exaltation falls in with
a marked tendency in the religions of the times, and notably in
the religions of Syria.4 No one, so far as I know, has been tempted
to explain the Phoenician parallels by the prevalence of ' abstract '
notions of deity, or to find in them a feeling of the remoteness of
the gods.
There is a more general observation to be made. Whatever
reflection or intent there may have been in the selection or inven-
tion of a significant title for God, as soon as it is established in
1 Num. 24, 16; Deut. 32, 8; Isa. 14, 14; Gen. 14; and frequently in the
Psalms. Aramaic, *JJ Kil^frC, Dan. 3, 26, 32; 5, 18, 21; nK^JJ alone, Dan. 4,
14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 7, 25. 'Most High* is not 'the highest god/ but the God
on High. See Note z6i.
2 Marom, 'height, high heaven,' as the abode of God, Isa. 57, 15; cf. 58,
4; 24, 21.
8 See above, p. 367. Note 162.
4 Ibid.
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 431
use it becomes interchangeable with 'God/ and is read and heard
or said without recalling its etymology or history. The Jews who
called God 'the Most High/ or 'the Holy One/ or even 'the
Place/ meant by them all just 'God'; precisely as we call him
'the Lord' without thinking of the meaning of the word 'lord*
at all. The French Protestant, in whose Bible the name IHVH
is represented by TEternel/ does not think of God's eternity
when he hears or utters the word, more than of any of the other
attributes. We call him 'the Almighty' without emphasizing in
our minds his omnipotence above, say, his goodness.
Stress is also laid on the frequency with which in Jewish use the
title 'king' is applied to God. He is 'king of the universe' (or 'of
the ages/ r&v alcowo*'); 'king of the world' (rou K6a>iou); 'king of
heaven ' (or ' the heavens') ; ' king of all Thy creation '; ' the great
king ' ; ' king of kings/ * etc. An example of a heaping up of titles
of royalty in a rhetorical prayer is 3 Mace. 2, 2: "Lord, Lord,
king of the heavens and ruler (SeffTrbrris) of all the creation, holy
among the holy, monarch, all-powerful ruler (Tra^roxpArcop)," etc.
From the New Testament we may quote i Timothy i, 17, in the
familiar version: "Now unto the king, eternal, immortal, invisi-
ble, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever,
Amen," or from the same Epistle: "The blessed and only poten-
tate, king of kings and lord of lords, alone possessing immortality,
dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man hath seen or
can see; to whom be honor and eternal might." Corresponding
expressions are common in the rabbinical literature.2
In the frequency of such phrases some modern writers find
further evidence of the inferiority of the Jewish idea of God.
" ' King/ it is said, has for the Oriental an entirely different mean-
ing from what it has for us; the word suggests the arbitrariness of
1 Examples from the Apocrypha: Tobit 13, 6, 10; 2 Mace. 7, 9; Tobit 13,
7, ii; Judith 9, 12; Tobit 13, 15; 2 Mace. 13, 4. For other references, see
Bousset, Religion des Juden turns, 2 ed. p. 431 n. 2. In the New Testament,
Matt. 5, 35; i Tim. i, 17; 6, 15; Rev. 15, 3.
2 See Note 163. It is needless to say that Christian liturgies abound in
similar ascriptions.
432 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
the tyrant and the unapproachableness of the despot. As an
oriental prince is surrounded by a hierarchy of officials in sharply
distinguished classes, so God also has his heavenly court. Access
to him is not easy. If a man wishes to approach him with a peti-
tion, he has to engage the mediation of subordinate officials." l
It must, I fear, be confessed that the Jews had never thought
of the advantages of a limited monarchy as a form of divine
government,2 to say nothing of the democracy which some modern
theologians are proclaiming as the next advance in religion. But
it is only fair to say for them that they held to the revelation in
their hands, in which the royalty of God was the confidence of
the present and the assurance of the future.3 The prophets and
psalmists would have been surprised to hear that when they
called God 'king/ the word connoted the arbitrariness of a tyrant
and the jealously guarded seclusion of a despot. And the Jews
of later times who repeated or imitated the language of Scripture
would have had no less reason to be astonished at the imputation.
That God did rule the world with almighty power directed by
perfect wisdom and perfect goodness; that its history was a
whole divine plan, the end of which was the good world to be,
when the Lord should be king over all the earth, his sovereignty
acknowledged and his righteous and beneficent will obeyed by
all creatures — this is the very essence of religious monotheism. It
was this vision and this faith eXfl-tfo/zepcop virtxrTavis irpa.yiJLa.TW
cXeyxos ot /3\€7ro/zcj'coj>,4 which alone sustained the Jews through
catastrophe after catastrophe, as it has so often since sustained
those who inherited it from Judaism when experience and reason
threw all their weight into the scale of despair.
It is not strange that the faith that the King of Israel, who
was king of the universe, would in the end make right prevail
over wrong in his world, vindicate his people, overthrow the
1 Bousset, 1. c., p. 431 f.
2 The autocracy of God is in fact their rejection of the limited monarchy
of the supreme god in organized polytheisms.
3 See above, p. 375.
4 Hebrews n, i.
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 433
proud empire, bring in a new age, an age of uprightness and good-
ness, of peace and happiness, when true religion and pure morals
were universal — that this faith, I say, should be kept ever be-
fore men's minds in an age that seemed to the pious Jew to be
the antipodes of all this. In such a time, as we ourselves have
experienced, men either give up the very idea of a divine govern-
ment of the world, or they cling with all their souls to the in-
scrutable sovereignty of God. There were many Jews to whom
experience seemed to prove that there is 'no judgment and no
judge' in the world,1 while others put their trust in the almighty
ruler and his revealed purpose of good; and these too found con-
firmations in experience.
For illustration of the latter attitude we may take a verse or
two from the Psalms of Solomon. The author of the second of
these hymns described the profanation of the temple by Pompey
as a punishment of the sins of the Asmonaean rulers and the
people of Jerusalem; he pictured the inglorious death of Pom-
pey, his unburied body tossing neglected on the waves of the
Egyptian shore: — "He never reflected that he was a man, nor
thought of his end. He said to himself, I will be lord of the
land and the sea, and did not know that God is great, strong in
his great might. He is king over the heavens, judging kings and
rulers. . . . Now see, ye potentates of the earth, the judgment
of the Lord, that he is a great king and just, judging all under
heaven." 2 The seventeenth Psalm, the subject of which is the
future kingdom of the Messiah, the son of David, begins: "O
Lord, thou art our king for ever and ever. . . . We will hope
in God our deliverer, for the might of our God is forever with
mercy; and the reign of our God is forever over the nations";
and ends with the corresponding refrain, "The Lord himself is
our king for ever and ever." The hope and assurance of the
messianic kingdom is God, the almighty King.
1 Cf. Wisdom of Solomon i, 16-2, 20.
2 Psalms of Solomon 2, 32-36. Note the sequel: " Bless the Lord, ye that
fear the Lord with intelligence, for the mercy of the Lord is upon those that
fear him, with judgment," etc.
434 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
The core of the preaching and teaching of Jesus is the 'kingdom
of God/ the coming time in which He shall be owned and obeyed
by all men as king, and there is no equivocation in his use of the
phrase. The prayer he taught his disciples, "Thy kingdom come,
thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven,' is illustrated
by such a Jewish prayer as this: "We therefore trust in thee, O
Lord our God, that we may soon behold the glory of thy power,
to cause the idols to pass away from the earth, and the false gods
shall be utterly cut off; to perfect the world in the reign (king-
dom) of the Almighty, and all the children of flesh shall call upon
thy name; to turn unto thyself all the wicked of the earth. All
the inhabitants of the globe shall perceive and know that unto
thee every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. Before thee,
O Lord, our God, they shall bend the knee, and prostrate them-
selves; and give honor to thy glorious name. They shall take on
them the yoke of thy sovereignty (kingdom),1 and do thou reign
(be king) over them soon, for ever and ever. For thine is the
kingdom, and forever thou wilt reign in glory, as it is written in
thy Law, ' The Lord shall reign (be king) for ever and ever.' And
it is said, 'And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that
day shall the Lord be one and his name one.' " 2 It is the prevail-
ing opinion that this prayer was formulated in the first half of the
third century, though in substance it may be much earlier. That
it expresses the conception of the kingdom of God at the begin-
ning of our era there is no question. It will be observed that there
is no mention in it of the restoration of the Jewish kingdom or of
the coming of the Messiah.
Somewhat has been said above of the use of the term € the pres-
ence' (shekinta) in the Targums as a circumlocution when the
text speaks of God's dwelling in a place or removing from one,
and the like.3 While the other buffer-words discussed in that
1 Which the Jew does when he recites the Shema*.
2 Singer, Authorised Daily Prayer Book, p. 76 f. See Elbogen, Der judische
Gottesdienst, p. 143; Kohler, 'Alenu,' Jewish Encyclopedia, I, 336 IF.
3 Pages 419 f.
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 435
connection (yefcara, memrd) are peculiar to the synagogue trans-
lations, 'the Presence* is frequent in the Talmud and Midrash.
Often it is a mere metonymy for 'God/ as when R. Jose ben
IJalafta says: "Never did the Presence descend to earth, nor did
Moses and Elijah ascend to heaven; for it is written, The heavens
are the Lord's heavens, and the earth he has given to the children
of men" (Psalm 115, I6).1 In the passages cited above on the
omnipresence of God, the word in the texts is ' the Presence/ The
Lord was revealed in the thornbush to teach that there is no
place on earth void of the Presence; it is the Presence which,
like the sea flooding the cave, filled the tabernacle with its radi-
ance, while the world outside was no less full of it.2 In a much
later work ten descents of the Presence to the world are enumer-
ated, from the first in the Garden of Eden to the last, still future,
in the days of Gog and Magog; the Scripture proofs alleged are
all verses in which God (or the Lord) comes down to earth (Gen.
n, 5, etc.), or is upon the earth, as in Gen. 3, 8; Zech. 14, ^?
In a special sense God dwelt in the tabernacle, and later in the
temple. When he took up his abode in them a cloud enveloped
the tabernacle, or filled the temple, and thus veiled the glory of
the Lord, too deadly bright for mortal eyes.4 This association of
the Presence with the manifestation of his glory in depths of
light, led, as has been remarked above, to the conception of the
Presence (shekinah) itself, in such connections, as light.5
It is, however, ordinarily perceived by faith, not by sight. All
worship demands apraesens numen, and however men may enter-
tain the idea of the omnipresence of God, they find it difficult to
realize his specific presence in the particular place where they
gather for religious service without some aid to faith or imagina-
tion. This is the origin and meaning of the teaching that wherever
1 Sukkah 5a, top; cf. Mekilta on Exod. 19, 20 (ed. Fnedmann f. 650; ed.
Weiss f. 733). where kabod is read in place of shekinah. See Note 164.
2 Above, p 370.
3 Abot de-R. Nathan 34, 5. — Tannaite sources, see Note 164a.
4 Exod. 40, 34 f ; i Kings 8, 10 f.; cf. Isa. 6, 1-4.
* More intense than that of the midsummer sun, IJullm
436 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
ten men (the quorum of the synagogue) are met for prayer, there
is the Presence. How many ' Presences ' are there then ? a caviller
asked. R. Gamaliel (II) answered by asking an attendant, 'How
does the sun get into that man's house? The sun shines, he re-
plied, on all the world. — If the sun, one of the millions of servants
that are before the blessed God, shines on all the earth, how much
more the Presence (of God) ! l
R. Isaac, a pupil of Johanan and a favorite homilist of the
third century, says: "Whenever Israelites prolong their stay in
the synagogues and schools, God makes his Presence tarry with
them." 2 The following midrash also is handed down in the name
of Isaac: "Whence do we learn that God is found in the synagogue
(building) ? Because it is said, 'God standeth in the congregation
of God' (Psalm 82, i). And whence that when ten are praying
together the Presence is with them? Because it is said, 'God
standeth in the congregation of God' (ibid.).3 And whence that
when three are sitting as judges the Presence is with them? Be-
cause it is written, 'In the midst of the judges he will judge'
(Psalm 82, ib).4 And whence that when two are sitting and
studying the Law the Presence is with them? Because it is
written, 'Then those who fear the Lord spoke to each other,
and the Lord hearkened and heard,' etc. (Mai. 3, 16). And
whence that even when one is sitting and studying the Law, the
Presence is with him? Because it is written, 'In every place
where I cause mention to be made of my name, I will come unto
thee and bless thee' " (Exod. 20, 21, E. V. 24). 6
In all these cases the Presence is not something else than God,
but a reverent equivalent for 'God,' as the beginning of the pas-
sage just quoted shows: The Holy One, Blessed is He, — a com-
1 Sanhedrin jpa. The anecdote has no earlier attestation, and the form
is that of the Babylonian Talmud.
2 Pesikta ed. Buber f. I93a-b. See Note 165.
3SeeNotei66.
4 Elohim, 'judges/ as according to Jewish interpretation in Exod. 21, 6
and elsewhere.
6 Berakot 6a. On Exod. 1. c. cf. Onkelos: "In every place where I make
my Presence to rest, I will send my blessing unto thee and will bless thee."
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 437
mon metonymy — is found in the synagogue; the Presence is with
the congregation gathered for prayer, etc. Similarly Christians
speak of God's being in their churches, and of the presence of the
Holy Spirit in their religious assemblies or with the individual
in secret prayer, without meaning anything different.
In Jewish literature also the 'holy spirit' frequently occurs
in connections in which 'the Presence* (shekinah) is elsewhere
employed, without any apparent difference of meaning; l but
the fact that within a certain range the terms are interchangeable
is far from warranting the inference that shekinah a^d ruh ha-
kodesh were identified in conception. In the Jewish thought of
the time the specific function of the holy spirit was the in-
spiration of prophecy or of Scripture, differing in this respect
from the Old Testament as well as from Christian usage.
Some older Protestant theologians, in their misdirected search
for Christian dogmas in Jewish disguises found the Shekinahy
as well as the Memra — always the question-begging proper
name with a capital! — to their purpose, and recognized in them
the same 'hypostasis.' So far as making the Presence something
distinct from God goes, they had an eminent Jewish precursor
in Maimonides. His Arab-Aristotelian metaphysics made of
God simple Unity in so rigorous a sense as to exclude all attri-
butes, whether defined as essential, accessory, or relative, and
he regarded the ascription of attributes to God as merely a subtler
kind of anthropomorphism. He was constrained, therefore,
like Philo, to interpret much of the Bible as metaphor or allegory.
Assuming that Onkelos was actuated by similar ideas in his en-
deavor to render the anthropomorphic expressions in the Penta-
teuch innocuous by paraphrase,2 he held that the Glory, the
Word, the Presence, in the Targum mean created (physical)
things, distinct from God; the Glory and the Presence being of
he nature of light.8 It does not follow that Maimonides con-
1 See Note 167.
2 Expressions implying motion were peculiarly objectionable: a God
who is not in space cannot change place.
3 Moreh Nebukim i. 21; cf. also chapters 10, 25, 28, and 64.
438 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
sidered these things as permanently existent, still less that he
ascribed to them personality; and in expressly making them
created beings he excludes the idea of any participation in divine
nature or c essence.' The philosophical horror of 'anthro-
pomorphisms' which Philo and Maimonides entertained was
unknown to the Palestinian schools. They endeavored to think of
God worthily and to speak of him reverently; but their criterion
was the Scripture and the instinct of piety, not an alien meta-
physics. More recently, with no better reason, these ' intermedi-
aries' have had to do duty again for the remoteness of God.1
The agencies which God employs to manifest his presence or
convey his revelation, or execute his will, whether personal or
impersonal, may in this function be called intermediaries, as
Moses is called an intermediary in the giving of the Law; 2 but
not ' mediators ' in the sense which we commonly attach to the
word.3
That the angels intercede for men, and particularly for Israel,
is a notion frequently found in apocalypses and popular writ-
ings. Especially in parts of Enoch and m the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, they bring before God the cause of those who
have been wronged, and invoke his intervention; and they pres-
ent to him the prayers of the righteous.4 Biblical precedent for
the unsolicited intercession of angels may be found in Zech. I,
12, where the angel of the Lord pleads for God's compassion on
Jerusalem that had so long lain in ruins; and especially in Job
33? 235 (when a man is pining away to his death) ' If there be for
1 See 'Christian Writers on Judaism,' Harvard Theological Review, XIV
(1921), pp 222 ff.
2 Gal. 3, 19; Heb. 8, 6; Pesikta ed. Buber f. 45a; Jer. Megillah 74d,
above, and elsewhere. In Philo, Moses takes the part of /zeairrys KCU SiaX-
XaKrifa after the sin of the golden calf. Vita Mosis n. 19 § 166 (ed. Mangey
II, 160). Assumption of Moses i, 14 (arbiter testamenti ilhus); 3, 12.
3 On the Logos in Philo see Note 168
4 Enoch 9; 15,2; 40,6; 99,3; 104,1; Testaments of the Twelve Patri-
archs, Levi, 3, 5, with Charles' note in he ; Revelation of John 8, 3 f.;
Tobit 12, 12, 15. In the Talmud, Michael offers upon the heavenly altar.
IJagigah i2b. See Note 169.
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 439
him an angel, an intercessor, one of a thousand, to vouch for
man's uprightness, then is He gracious unto him and saith,
Deliver him from going down to the pit,' etc.1
But man is not dependent on angelic intercession. The atti-
tude of orthodox Judaism is represented by R. Judan 2 in the
following often quoted utterance: "If a man has a patron, when
a time of trouble comes upon him, he does not at once enter
into his patron's presence, but comes and stands at the door of
his house and calls one of the servants or a member of his family,
who brings word to him, 'So and so is standing at the entrance
of your court.' 3 Perhaps the patron will let him in, perhaps he
will make him wait. Not so is God. If trouble comes upon a
man, let him not cry to Michael or to Gabriel; but let him cry
unto Me, and I will answer him forthwith, as the Scripture says,
'Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be deliv-
ered' (Joel 3, 5 = E. V. 2, 32) .<
That imagination pictured the sovereign of the universe
throned above the highest heaven, surrounded by a countless
host of worshipping and ministering spirits, did not hinder the
Jews from believing him near when they called upon him; nor
did they think him so preoccupied with the great affairs of the
world as to have no interest in their very small affairs. Rever-
ence might dictate a phraseology which seems to us artificial or
turgid. Precautions might be taken where they seemed neces-
sary against the tendency of the common mind to image God
as an unnaturally magnified man; but, on the other hand, the
teachers are fond of dwelling on what we may call the humanity
of God, and that not merely as an example to men, but as a reve-
lation of his own character. They do not even allow the dignity
of God to check a kind of playfulness in their speech of him,
which readers unfamiliar with the ways of the Midrash some-
times decry as fatuous. A lady 5 once asked Jose ben IJalafta:
1 Cf. also 5, i. 2 A favorite homilist of the fourth century.
3 The outside door. 4 Jer. Berakot ija below. See Note 170.
6 nJIIDD (matronal a Gentile lady of rank.
440 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
What has your God been doing since he finished making the
world? He has been matching couples in marriage, was the
reply, the daughter of so and so for so and so, so and so's wife
for so and so. The lady declared that she could do as much as
that herself; nothing easier than to couple any number of slaves
with as many slave girls. You may think it easy, he said, but
for God it is as difficult as the dividing of the Red Sea. The lady
accordingly tried the experiment with a thousand male and as
many female slaves, setting them in rows and bidding this man
take this woman, and so on. Next morning they came to her,
one with a broken head, another with gouged out eyes, a third
with a broken leg; one man saying, I don't want her, and a girl
saying, I don't want him. So that the lady was constrained to
admit that the mating of men and women was a task not un-
worthy of the attention or beneath the intelligence of God.1
A topic not infrequently adverted to in rabbinic teaching is
the humility of God. Idea and word come from Psalm 18, 36,
'Thy humility has made me great.' 2 Modern translators have
balked at the word. The Authorized English version turns
humility into 'gentleness' (margin, 'meekness'), others say
'condescension.' The Jews seem to have seen no impropriety
in God's being humble, or lowly. The quality is illustrated by
comparing God's demeanor towards men with that of a master to
his disciple, or that of an earthly king, showing how regardless
God is of the precedence due his rank, on which men so strenu-
ously insist for themselves.3
R. Johanan said: "Wherever (in the Scripture) you find the
almighty power of God, you will find in the context his lowly
deeds. This is taught in the Pentateuch, and repeated in the
Prophets, and again in the Hagiographa. In the Pentateuch:
1 Pesikta ed. Buber f. nb-i2a; Gen. R. 68, 4, and elsewhere. See Note
171-
2 \33"in "]T!Uy. A different interpretation would have been possible with-
out changing the text.
3 Tanjjiuma ed. Buber, Bereshit 4; cf. Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 18, 36
(ed. Buber f. y
CHAP, v] ACCESSIBILITY OF GOD 441
'The Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords
[the mighty and the awful,' etc.]; and in the sequel it is written,
'He doth execute justice for the fatherless and the widow [and
loveth the stranger, giving him food and raiment'] (Deut. 10,
17 f.). In the Prophets, 'Thus saith the high and lofty one that
inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy, [I dwell in the high and
holy place']; and in the sequel, 'with him also that is of a con-
trite and humble spirit,' etc. (Isa. 57, 15). In the Hagiographa,
' Extol him that rideth upon the skies by Jah, his name,' l and
in the sequel, 'A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the
widows [is God in his holy habitation'] (Psalm 68, 5 f.)." 2
A later homilist, Eleazar ben Pedat, adds to the three verses
cited by Johanan four others in which God puts himself on a
level with the lowly, namely, Psalm 138, 6; Isa. 66, i f.; Psalm
10, 1 6-1 8; Psalm 146, 6-io.3 In these also the point is the juxta-
position of the greatness of God with his personal concern for
the humble, the needy, the distressed. God's interest in the com-
mon joys and sorrows of men is illustrated by R. Simlai in words
that are often repeated: "We find that God pronounces a bene-
diction on bridegrooms, and adorns brides, and visits the sick,
and buries the dead, and comforts mourners." 4 These offices
of humanity are evidences not merely of the general goodness of
God, but of that highest kind of charity which involves personal
sympathy and service.5 In such deeds of kindness God is a pat-
tern for man's imitation; this is what is meant when it is said,
'Walk after the Lord thy God,' that is, imitate these traits of
God's character and conduct. As he clothed the naked, visited
the sick, comforted the mourners, so do thou also.5
1 See Note 172.
2 Megillah 31 a.
8 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera 3 (f. 42b). Buber reads, "with the hearts
of the lowly." See his note in loc.
4 Gen. R. 8, 13; Eccles. R. on Eccles. 7, 2; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera
I (f. 423), and ibid. 4 (f. 43b); Sotah i4a. For the Scriptures see Gen. I,
28; 2,22; 3,21; 18, I; Deut. 34, 6; Gen. 35, 9.
6 anon TICTD:I Vol II, pp. 171 ff.
6 Sofah 143.
442 THE IDEA OF GOD [PART n
It would be easy to multiply utterances of this kind, for which
the Scriptures furnish abundant occasion. Those which have
been quoted suffice to show that the exaltation of God was not
his exile. He who dwells in the high and holy place, dwells no
less with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit. His al-
mighty power and his humility go together; he is lofty enough to
think nothing beneath him, great enough to count nothing too
small to be his concern. The conclusive proof of this is the whole
character of Jewish piety in those centuries, and the intimacy of
the religious relation which is expressed by the thought of God
as Father, which will be discussed in later chapters.1
1 See Vol. II. pp. 201 ff.
PART III
MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT
CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF MAN
THE unity of mankind was too plainly written in the Scriptures
to leave room for any question. All the races of men are de-
scended from a single pair, to whom with their posterity God
gave the generic name Man (Heb. adam).1 That God made from
one (ancestor) every race of men to settle all over the face of the
earth in times and bounds of his appointment,2 was universal
Jewish doctrine. The reason Paul gives is that men of all na-
tions might feel their way to the one true God who is not far
from every one of us, and find him. In the Mishnah, in the
solemn admonition to witnesses in a capital case, not by false
testimony to be the cause of the death of a man and of his
(potential) offspring, we read, "For this reason a single man
only was created, to teach you that if one destroys a single per-
son,3 the Scripture imputes it to him as though he had destroyed
the whole (population of the) world, and if he saves the life of
a single person, the Scripture imputes it to him as though he had
saved the whole world." 4 This gives occasion to introduce vari-
ous other reasons why only one man was created. All men, not-
withstanding their different appearance, were stamped by God
with one seal, the seal of Adam. "Therefore every man is
bound to say, On account of me the world was created." That is,
every man is to feel himself individually responsible, as though
the whole human race depended on his conduct. Other reasons
of a more obvious character are added in the Mishnah and the
1 Gen. I, 26 f.; 5, 2 f.; 9, 5-7. See Philo, De opificio mundi c. 24 § 76 (ed.
Mangey, I, 17); De Abrahamo c. 12 § 56 (II, 9).
2 Acts 17, 26.
3 The words ' of Israel ' found in some editions here and in the correspond-
ing place below are modern interpolations.
4 M. Sanhedrm 4, 5. See also Note 173.
446 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
parallel Tosefta. It was to keep one man from saying to
another, My forefather was greater than yours — to exclude
pride of ancestry; or to prevent families from quarreling, and
men from assaulting and robbing one another, by the reflection
that they are all of one stock.1
Not only are all the races of men derived in the genealogies
of Genesis from one common ancestor, whose name Adam (Man)
is only the appropriation of the appellative by which all his kind
are named, and again after the flood from one man Noah through
his three sons,2 but the whole conception of history as a divine
plan, from the point of view of the unity of God, assumes the
unity of mankind.
Man was made in the image and likeness of God.3 R. Akiba,
in a sentence already quoted in another connection, said: " Dear
(to God) is man, in that he was created in the (divine) image;
still more dear in that it is known to him that he was created
in the image, as it is said, In the image of God he made the man "
(Gen. 5, i).4 In the last words Akiba's younger contemporary,
Simeon ben ' Azzai, finds the most comprehensive principle of the
law governing man's dealings with his fellow — the image of
God must be reverenced in our common humanity.5 In the law
itself this principle is applied to manslaughter: 'Whoso shed-
deth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the
image of God made He man ' (Gen. 9, 6) ; 6 even a beast that
kills a man is under the same condemnation (Gen. 9, 5; cf.
Exod. 21, 28 ff.) A wide extension is given to the principle in a
Midrash: "See that thou do not say, Inasmuch as I have been
1 M. Sanhedrm 1. c.; Tos. Sanhedrm 8, 4 f.; Sanhedrm jSa.
2 Gen. 10.
3 Gen. i, 27, cf. vs. 26; 5, i; 9, 6; Psalm 8, 5 fF.
4 Abot 3, 14. In Abot de-R. Natan c. 39 attributed in abbreviated form
to R. Meir, the disciple of Akiba. See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 279.
6 Sifra, £edoshim perek 4, 12 (on Lev. 19, 18; ed. Weiss f. 89b); Jer.
Nedanm 41 c; Gen. R. 24, 7, with Theodor's note there. See Note 174, and
below, Vol. II, p. 85.
6 Mekilta, Bahodesh 8 (ed. Fnedmann f. 7ob; ed. Weiss f. 78a).
CHAP, i] THE NATURE OF MAN 447
despised, my fellow shall be despised with me; inasmuch as I
have been cursed, my fellow shall be cursed with me. R. Tan-
huma said, If thou doest thus, reflect whom thou dost despise —
'In the image of God He made him.'" 1
In Leviticus Rabbah (34, 3) it is narrated of Hillel that in one
of his last conversations with his disciples he found in the words
of Genesis the obligation to keep the body clean by bathing:
Those who are in charge of the images of kings which are set up
in their theatres and circuses scour them and wash them off, and
are rewarded and honored for so doing; how much more I, who
was created in the image and likeness (of God), as it is written,
'In the image of God He created man' (Gen. 5, i).2
The divine likeness was the common inheritance of mankind
— that was the point on which Jewish thought seized to draw
from it a moral consequence, a universal principle of conduct.
Wherein more specifically the resemblance lay, does not seem to
have been a subject of speculation in the Palestinian schools.
When the question was raised, with whom God was talking when
he said, 'Let us make man in our image after our likeness,' 3 the
most natural answer was, With the angels, who are called in the
Bible bene elohim, 'divine beings,' or simply elohim, 'divinities,'
the 'household above/ with which God habitually consulted.4
The divine image could thus be conceived as a likeness to the
angels, the more easily as in Bible story angels always appear
in the form of men. The words of God in Gen. 3, 22, ' Behold
the man is become as one of us in knowing good and evil,' were
taken by R. Pappos, a contemporary of Akiba, to mean that he
was become in this respect like one of the ministering angels;
1 Gen. R. 24, 7. See Theodor's note ad he.
2 It is to be remarked that this is immediately followed by another say-
ing, the point of which is the attention to be paid to the soul, the transient
guest in the body, which is here today, and tomorrow is gone.
3 Gen i, 26 f and 3, 22 were early brought into the field by Christian
apologists; e g. Justin, Trypho, c 62.
4 See above, pp 392, 407 f. The angels protested against the creation of
man, quoting Psalm 8, 5.
448 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
whilst Akiba interpreted, "God set before him two ways, one of
death and the other of life, and he chose the way of death." l
In Psalm 8, 6-9, with obvious reminiscence of Gen. I, 26-28,
the poet says of man: 'Thou madest him scarcely inferior to
divine beings,2 and didst crown him with glory and honor; thou
gavest him dominion over the works of thy hand, everything
thou didst put under his feet/ etc. The amplified paraphrase
in Ecclus. 17, beginning, "After his own image He made them,
and put the fear of him upon all flesh, and (gave him) to have
dominion over beasts and birds" (17, 3 f.), dwells in the sequel
on man's intellectual endowment, but does not bring it into any
closer connection with the divine image.8
It was natural that Jews whose notions of human nature had
been formed under the influence of Greek thought should put
more definitely the question wherein the image of God in man
consisted. And in accord with Greek ideas the author of the
Wisdom of Solomon answers, In immortality: "For God created
man for immortality, and made him the image of his own pe-
culiar nature; but by the envy of the devil death entered into
the world," etc. (2, 23 f.).4 A blessed immortality is the essential
nature of deity; participation in it, or the potentiality of it, is
that wherein God made man like himself.
Philo, from his Platonic premises, finds the image of God in
the soul of man, more specifically in the intellectual soul.
"Moses did not liken the form of the rational soul to any
created thing, but spoke of it as a tested and approved coin
(bearing the figure) of that divine and invisible spirit, marked
and stamped by the seal of God, whose impression is the eternal
Logos. For he says, 'God breathed into his face a breath of
life,' so that necessarily he who receives (this breath) represents
1 Mekilta, Beshallah 6, on Exod. 14, 28 (ed. Friedmann f. 333; ed. Weiss
f. 40a). See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 317 f. On the Two Ways see Note 175.
2 D\"6KD. The versions unanimously, "than angels," doubtless in the
sense of the author. 3 See Note 176.
4 With the variant, ai5ibrriTos9 'eternity.1 The same variant in Philo, De
aetermtate mundi § 75 (ed. Cohn).
CHAP, i] THE NATURE OF MAN 449
Him who sends it forth; wherefore also it is said that the man
was created after the image of God, not, of a truth, after the
image of any created thing."1
With the likeness of God was given to man dominion over the
living creatures, the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air,
domestic cattle and wild beasts,2 and all the smaller animals
(Gen. i, 26), with the commission: 'Increase and multiply and
fill the earth and subdue it, and subject the fish of the sea,' etc.
(vs. 28; cf. also Psalm 8, 7 f.).3
The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch expresses the Jewish under-
standing of man's place in the creation thus: "Long ago when
the world with its inhabitants was not yet in being, thou didst
conceive the thought, and command with a word, and at once
the works of creation stood before thee. And thou saidst that
thou wouldst make for thy world man an administrator of thy
works, that it might be known that he was not made for the
sake of the world, but the world for his sake." 4 That the world
and everything in it was made for man is in fact a natural con-
clusion from the place given him in the story of creation, as
well as from his own valuation of himself as the summit of crea-
tion. Cicero argues it from the latter point of view, and it is
frequently asserted by Christian Apologists.5
In Jewish sources it is commoner to find that the world was
made for Israel, a view which need not be taken as a piece of
national vanity.6 To Israel had been given the revelation of
1 De plantatione Noe c. 5 (ed. Mangey, 1, 332); cf. Quis rerum divinarum
heres c. 48 (I, 505); De opificio mundi c. 23 § 69 (1, 15 f.); c. 51 (1, 35). For
Philo it is a likeness at the third remove: God, Logos, Ideal Man, actual in-
dividual man. See Note 177.
2 Emending pKH JVn ioi; cf. vs. 30.
3 See also Wisdom 9, 2 f.
4 Syriac Baruch 14, 17 f.; cf. 21, 24.
6 Cicero, Natura deorum ii. 53 § 133; Justin Martyr, Apology ii. 4, 2; cf.
i. 10, 2; Trypho 41, i; Apology of Anstides, c. i; Ep. to Diognetus c. 10,
etc.; Origen, Contra Celsum iv. 23.
6 Cf. Hennas, Vis. i. i, 6: "God, who dwells in heaven, and created the
things that are out of what was not, and increased and multiplied them for the
450 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
the true religion (for which it is elsewhere said that the world
was created), which is one day to be the universal religion. It
is indeed frequently not Israel but the righteous in whose favor
the inference is drawn. Thus in Sifre Deut. § 47 (on Deut. n,
21): "As the heavens and the earth which were created only for
the honor of Israel live and abide for eternal ages, how much
more the righteous for whose sake the world was created." 1 In
the same context, R. Joshua ben £arha, a disciple of Akiba,
quotes Eccles. i, 4, 'A generation goes and a generation comes,
while the earth lasts for ever/ " It ought to be, The earth goes
and the earth comes, and the generation (of men) lasts for ever.
For which was created for the sake of which ? Was the earth
created for the sake of the generation, or the generation for the
sake of the earth? Was it not the earth for the sake of the gen-
eration? But the generation, because it does not abide by the
commands of God, passes away, while the earth, because it
abides by the commands of God, does not pass away."2
The question why man should be created at all, which was
raised by the ministering angels when they learned God's pur-
pose, is answered by Him, Who then shall fulfil my law and
commandments? The angels themselves could not do it, for it
supposed conditions which did not exist among them, for ex-
ample, in rites connected with death or birth, permitted and
prohibited food, or sacrificial worship.3 That is, man was made
that there might be creatures to fulfil the Law, or, in other words,
to practise a human religion. On the other hand, in Ecclesiastes
Rabbah on I, 4, in the sequel of the passage quoted above,
sake of his holy church," etc. The world made for Israel, 4 Esdras 6, 55, 59;
7, ii; Assumption of Moses i, 12; Pesikta Rabbati ed Friedmann f. 1353-0.
1 Cf. Synac Baruch 15, 7; cf. 21, 24. The world created only for him
who fears God (the religious man), Berakot 6b, end.
2 More fully in Eccles. R. on Eccles i, 4, from which this translation is
made; see Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 319.
3 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Behukkotai § 6 (f. 56b). There seems to be no
earliei trace of this anonymous midrash, which stands in a group of more or
less ingenious twists of Psalm 89, 7.
CHAP, i] THE NATURE OF MAN 451
the Law was created for the sake of Israel, not Israel for the
Law.1
The dual nature of man is a frequent subject of remark.
Rabbi Simai said:2 "All the creatures that were created from
the heaven, their soul and their body was from heaven (of
celestial substance) ; and all the creatures that were created from
the earth, their soul and their body was of the earth, except man,
whose soul is from heaven, his body from the earth.3 Therefore
if a man keeps the law and does the will of his Father who is in
heaven, he is like the creatures above, as it is written, 'I said ye
are divine beings, and sons of the Most High, all of you'; but
if he does not keep the law and do the will of his Father who is
in heaven, he is like the creatures below, as it is written, ' Surely
like man ye shall die'" (Psalm 82, 6 and 7).4
God created man with four characteristics of the creatures
above and four of those below; he eats and drinks like the cattle,
like them he multiplies, voids excrement, and dies; he stands
erect like the ministering angels, like them also he has speech, and
reason, and sees like them (not like cattle whose eyes are in the
side of their head).5 In a Baraita in IJagigah i6a only three
characteristics on each side are enumerated (dying and seeing
not being specified), and instead of merely possessing speech,
men like the ministering angels talk the sacred language (He-
brew).6 Man is thus on one side of his nature akin to the angels,
on the other to the brutes, and takes rank in the creation above
1 It cannot be said too often that such variations are not differences of
opinion, still less conflicting teachings, but casual exegetical or homiletical
conceits. See also Gen. R 1,4.
2 Probably m the latter part of the second century. Bacher, Tannaiten,
11,543*.
3 Cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit § 15 (R. Simeon ben Lakish): He
created man's body from (the earth) below and his soul from (heaven) above.
Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 412 f.
4 Sifre Deut. § 306 (on Deut. 32, 2; f. 1323, near end).
6 Gen. R. 8, 11; 14, 3. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, II, 22 f.
6 See Note 178.
452 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
the one or below the other according to his character. This is
the sense of a midrash found in several places, attributed to R.
Simeon ben Lakish: If a man is worthy (nat), they say to him,
Thou didst precede the ministering angels (or, as another source
has it, the whole creative work) ; if not, they say to him, Insects
and worms preceded thee.1
The dual nature of man is the subject of a fine passage in
Philo. Man, according to Moses, is composite of earthy matter
and divine spirit; for the artist took clay and moulded out of
it a human form, and thus the body was made; but the soul is
not derived from any originated thing whatever, but from the
father and ruler of the universe. For what He breathed in was
nothing else than a divine breath (spirit) which from that blessed
and happy nature is sent to sojourn hither for the good of our
race, in order that, though in respect to its visible part it be
mortal, in respect to its invisible part it is made immortal. So
we may properly say that man is intermediate between mortal
and immortal nature, sharing in each so far as needs be, and that
he is at once mortal and immortal — mortal as to his body, im-
mortal as to his intellect.2 Greek philosophy, however, has
here contributed everything but the text (Gen. 2, 7). The
'breath of life* (irvoii fcoijs) which God breathed into Adam's
nostrils, thus making him 'a living soul' (person), turns into a
flreD/za-soul of obvious Stoic extraction, for which, as the im-
mortal in man, Philo in the end substitutes 'intellect' (Stawta),
like a true Platonist.
There are various fantasies in the Midrash about the creation
of Adam on which it would be idle to dwell here. One, repeated
in several places, attributes to him enormous dimensions: he
was a huge mass that filled the whole world to all the points of
1 Gen. R. 8, i; Lev. R. 14, i; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Tazn'a § 2. The
soul of Adam was created before the works of the sixth day (or on the first
day); his body after the creeping things on the sixth day. (The angels were
created on the second day or on the fifth; see above, p. 381.) See Note 179.
2 Philo, De opificio mundi c. 46 § 135 (ed. Mangey, I, 32).
CHAP, i] THE NATURE OF MAN 453
the compass.1 The dust of which his body was formed was
gathered from every part of the world,2 or from the site of the
future altar.3 Of greater interest is the notion that man was
created androgynous, because it is probably a bit of foreign lore
adapted to the first pair in Genesis. R. Samuel bar Nahman
(third century), said, When God created Adam, he created him
facing both ways (Drains in); then he sawed him in two and
made two backs, one for each figure.4 In the same paragraph
of Genesis Rabbah a homilist of the fourth century says, When
God created Adam he created him androgynous (omrvtf K) : this
is what is written, 'Male and female he created them.' 6
In the Bible it is affirmed, or consistently assumed, that God
has taught men what is right and what is wrong, set before them
the consequences of the alternatives, and left them to choose
between them. So God did with Adam in the Garden; so he
did with Noah for himself and his posterity of all races (Gen.
9), of which Judaism made the so-called Noachian precepts, a
law binding on all mankind. At Sinai again, God offered the
whole Law to all the seventy nations, and as a whole they re-
fused it.6 A fundamental passage for the Jewish apprehension of
man's relation to God's revealed will is Deut. n, 26-28: 'Be-
hold I have set before you this day a blessing and a curse; the
blessing in case ye shall hearken unto the commandments of the
Lord your God which I command you this day, and the curse
if ye shall not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord your
God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this
1 Lev. R. 18, 2 (Joshua ben Levi); Gen. R 8, i, and elsewhere.
2 Sanhedrm 38 a, end.
3 The earth for the body of the first man was taken from the place where
in future atonement should be made (the altar of earth, Exod. 20, 21); Gen.
R. 14, 8; Jer. Nazir 56b, below. See Note 180.
4 Gen. R. 8, i, fBIDnfiH ,pfittna VT. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 547 and
n. 3, cites the parallels and various attributions. — Plato, Symposium 1890-
I90A. See Note 181.
5 Jeremiah ben Eleazar.
6 See above, pp. 227, 278.
454 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
day,' etc.1 Similarly Deut. 30, 15-20: 'See, I have set before
thee this day life and good, and death and evil, in that I com-
mand thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his
ways, to keep his commandments and his statutes and his or-
dinances. ... I call heaven and earth to witness against you
this day that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing
and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live,
thou and thy posterity,' etc. The choice is left to man; but
lest Israel should say, Inasmuch as God has set before us two
ways, we may go in whichever we please, the Scripture adds,
'Choose life, that thou mayst live, and thy posterity.' 2 In the
sequel is a comparison of the two ways, one of which is at the
outset a thicket of thorns but after a little distance emerges into
an open plain, while the other is at first a plain, but presently
runs out into thorns. So it is with the way of the righteous and
the way of the wicked.3
That man is capable of choosing between right and wrong and
of carrying the decision into action was not questioned, nor was
any conflict discovered between this freedom of choice with its
consequences and the belief that all things are ordained and
brought to pass by God in accordance with his wisdom and his
righteous and benevolent will. The theological problem of the
freedom of the will in relation to the doctrine of divine provi-
dence and the omniscience of God did not emerge until the tenth
century, when Jewish thinkers like Saadia (d. 942) heard around
them on every hand the Moslem controversies over predestina-
tion.4 Long before there was any theologizing on this point, it
had been necessary to assert emphatically the responsibility of
man for what he does and is, against such as were inclined to put
oflf on God the responsibility for their misdeeds, just as it was
1 On this passage see Sifre Deut. § 53-54.
2 Sifre on Deut. 11,26 (§53).
3 Ibid. Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 302 f.
4 The mediaeval Jewish philosophers almost without exception main-
tained the freedom of the will.
CHAP, i] THE NATURE OF MAN 455
necessary to affirm the doctrine of retribution against those who
thought that God let things in the world go their own gait, and
that there was no such thing as a moral providence.
Thus Sirach: "Say not, It was the Lord's fault that I fell
away . . . say not, He led me astray. ... He made man from
the beginning, and left him to his own counsel.1 If thou willst,
thou wilt keep the commandments, and to deal faithfully is a
matter of choice.2 He has set before thee fire and water, thou
canst stretch out thy hand to whichever thou willst. Before
man are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given
him." 3 The same freedom is asserted in the Psalms of Solomon
(9, 4): "Our deeds are in the choice and power of our soul, to
do righteousness and iniquity in the works of our hands." 4
The author of Fourth Esdras, agonizing over the problem how
the perdition of the mass of mankind, Gentile and Jew, can con-
sist with the character of God, does not impugn God's justice
in condemning them. "Ask no more about the multitude of
those who perish," the angel answers, "for they themselves,
having freedom given them, spurned the Most High, and de-
spised his law and abandoned his ways." 6
The rabbinical teaching is in complete accord with this, as
appears in the passage from Sifre Deut. §§53-54 cited above.6
The sententious words of Akiba are familiar: "Everything is
foreseen (by God), and freedom of choice is given (to man), and
the world is judged with goodness, and all depends on the pre-
ponderance of (good or ill) doing." 7 Simeon ben ' Azzai, Akiba's
younger contemporary, quotes the phrase, 'freedom of choice
1 Kal a(l)fJK€J> avrbv ev xeLP^ 5i>a/3ov\iov avrov. See Note 182.
2 Text and translation of this hemistich are very doubtful. See Note 183
3 Ecclus 15, 11-17.
4 Note the sequel (vs. 9)* He who does righteousness treasures up life for
himself with the Lord, and he who does unrighteousness is himself responsible
for his life in its destruction.
5 4 Esdras 8, 55 f.; note also the following verses, and see further 7, 19-24.
6 Sifre Deut. § 54 adduces also the words of God to Cam, Gen. 4, 7, to the
same intent.
7 Abot 3, 15. Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 275. With the last clause, cf. above,
P- 379-
456 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
is given/ in a context which attaches decisive importance to
man's primary choice to attend to the words of God or not.1 If
a man of his own accord resolves to hearken (to the command of
God), he will be helped to do so without his endeavor; if to forget
(ignore) them, he will be made to do so when he does not wish
to. 'Freedom of choice is given' — as in Proverbs 3, 34, 'If it is
with the scorners, He scorns them, but unto the humble He gives
favor.' Others preferred for a proof- text Exod. 22, 25. 2
In the same sense, a later homilist, brings verses from the
Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa to prove that a man
is led (by God) in the way in which he chooses to go (Num.
22, 13 and 20; Isa. 48, 17; Prov. 3, 34).3 R. Simeon ben Lakish,
quoting Prov. 3, 34, comments: "If a man comes to defile him-
self, the opportunity is given him (by God); if to purify him-
self, he is helped to do it." 4 Well known is also the saying of
R. IJanina (bar llama, early in the third century) : " Everything
is in the power of Heaven except the fear of Heaven; 'Now, O
Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to
revere the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, to love him,' "
etc. (Deut. 10, I2).5 God in his providence determines before-
hand what a man shall be and what shall befall him, but not
whether he shall be godly or godless, righteous or wicked.6 As
the proof-text says, religion is the one thing that God requires of
man He does not constrain him to it. It is unnecessary to
multiply examples further; there are no dissentient voices.
From Josephus, on the other hand, we should get the impres-
sion that determinism was one of the subjects chiefly in dispute
between the Pharisees and the other sects. In one place, in-
deed, this is the only specific difference he names,7 referring the
1 Man's initial choice determines his subsequent particular choices.
2 Mekilta on Exod. 15, 26 (ed. Fnedmann f. 46a-b; ed. Weiss f. 54-b).
Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 412; cf. Pal. Amoraer, II, 81.
8 Makkot lob.
4 Shabbat iO4a and parallels.
6 Berakot33b; Megillah 25a; Niddah i6b.
6 Niddah i6b. 7 Antt. xiii. 5, 9.
CHAP, i] THE NATURE OF MAN 457
reader for the rest to the fuller account in the second book of
the Jewish War. As he describes it in the passage cited they
were divided over destiny (elpapjuLeitri) : the Essenes exempted
nothing from its sway; the Sadducees denied that there was any
such thing; while the Pharisees held the middle ground — some
things, but not all, are the work of destiny; some are in man's
own power to determine whether they shall come to pass or not.
In the account in the War (ii. 8, 14) to which Josephus refers
he says that the Pharisees ascribe everything to destiny and to
God; to do right or not lies principally in man's power, but
destiny also is auxiliary in every action. An explanation of this
is intended in Antt. xviii. i, 3: While the Pharisees hold that
all things are brought about by destiny, they do not deprive the
human will of its own impulse to do them, it having pleased God
that there should be a concurrence (?), and that to the delibera-
tion of destiny that of men, in the case of one who wills, should
assent, with (the concomitant of) virtue or wickedness.1 The
Sadducees deny destiny altogether, and make God incapable of
doing or looking (with complacency) upon anything evil. They
say that good and evil lie open to men's choice, and that ac-
cording to each man's own inclination he takes to one or the
other.
It suited the author to describe the Jewish sects as so many
philosophies.2 He remarks that the Essenes follow the Pytha-
gorean mode of life; 3 and the Pharisees are very much like the
Stoics.4 Different notions about the immortality of the soul
divided Greek schools of philosophy also; the problem of de-
terminism was a subject of acute controversy among them in his
time, and if the issue were to be defined in a word it would be
djjLapjJL&riy 'destiny,' 5 which in Josephus occurs in all the descrip-
tions of the Jewish sects. It seems to be generally assumed that
1 See Note 184.
2 Bell. Jud. 11. 8, 2 § 119; cf. Antt. xviii. i, 2; ibid. 6 § 23.
3 Antt. xv. 10,4 § 371.
4 Vita, c. 2, end.
6 On elpapnevri see Note 185.
458 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
what Josephus means is that the sects were divided over the
relation of divine providence to human freedom, and that he
used eifjLapfjL&ri for what we might call the decrees of God. It
is certain, however, that no contemporary reader could have
understood him in any such sense, since not only was that not
the current conception of eijuap/z&Ty, but he himself expressly
makes € destiny' a determining factor distinct from God, even
though subordinate to him.1
Philo, as might be expected from his philosophical affinities,
consistently maintains man's self-determination. Intelligence
is the only imperishable thing in us.2 "For it alone, the Father
who begat it deemed worthy of liberty, and having loosed the
bonds of necessity let it range at large, having gifted it with a
portion such as it was able to receive of His own most proper
and distinctive possession, the faculty of volition." Other living
things, in whose souls mind, the thing for which liberty is
specially claimed, does not exist, are handed over, yoked and
bridled, to the service of men, as menial slaves to masters; but
man, endowed with a free and self-controlled judgment and
volition and acting for the most part purposefully, naturally
incurs blame for the wrong he does premeditatedly, and praise
for what he voluntarily does right. Plants and animals are not
praiseworthy when they bear abundantly nor blamable for their
failure; the motion and change that lead to one or the other
was imparted to them without any preference or volition on their
part. The soul of man alone, having received from God the
power of moving voluntarily, and therein being made most like
Him, and being liberated as far as possible from that stern and
harsh tyrant, Necessity, is rightly accused, when 3 he does not
give all due regard to Him who made him free; wherefore it will
most justly pay the inexorable penalty visited on emancipated
slaves who prove ungrateful. . . . God made man unrestrained
and free, acting voluntarily and of his own choice, to the end
1 Bell. Jud. 11. 8, 14; Antt. xvm. i, 3.
2 Aidroia. * &T€ conj. Cohn.
CHAP, i] THE NATURE OF MAN 459
that, being acquainted with bad things as well as good, and
acquiring conceptions of honorable and shameful conduct, and
thinking clearly about right and wrong and all that has to do
with virtue and vice, he may habitually choose the better and
avoid the contrary. For this reason the divine word is written
in Deuteronomy, Behold, I have put before thy face life and
death, good and evil; choose life!" 1
To man alone this alternative, with its consequences, is
presented. The creatures higher than he in the scale of being
have no such dual nature; they are pure immaterial souls. The
irrational creatures beneath him, precisely because they lack
discourse of reason, cannot be guilty of the voluntary wrong-
doing which comes of calculation. "Man is practically the only
one of all, who, knowing the difference between good and bad,
often chooses the worse and avoids what he ought to endeavor
after, so that he is condemned for sins committed purposely." 2
Knowledge and freedom are the conditions of accountability.
This was one of the motives God had in breathing into man the
breath of life whereby he became a living soul, otherwise a man
when punished for his sins might say that he was punished un-
justly, and that the one really to blame was He who had not
breathed into him intelligence; or that he had not sinned at
all, since some say that deeds done involuntarily or in ignorance
are not to be classed as wrong-doing.3
1 Quod deus sit immutabilis c. 10 § 46-50 (ed. Mangey, I, 279 f ).
2 De confusione linguarum c 35 § 177 f (I, 432).
3 Legum allegor i 13 § 35, on Gen. 2, 7 (I, 50). Reference may also be
made to De victimis c. 7 § 214 (II, 243) and the similar language in De
sacnficns Abelis et Cami c. 40 (I, 190).
CHAPTER II
SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
WHERE it is believed that religion was given to men by revela-
tion, and that it is a divinely ordained regulative for man's whole
life, practical religion resolves itself into living accordingly.
Duty will be defined in effect as it is in a classic Protestant
symbol: "The duty which God requireth of man is obedience to
his revealed will," and sin, as in the same symbol: "Sin is any
want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God."
These succinct definitions of duty and of sin are what neces-
sarily follow from the conceptions of revealed religion and of
Sacred Scripture entertained by the Puritan and Presbyterian
divines who framed them; conceptions identical with those of
the Jewish doctors of the Law. If the Scribes and Pharisees of
New Testament times had possessed the skill in the art of defi-
nition which Christian theologians developed in centuries of
scholastic exercise, they might have put the Jewish conception
in precisely the same way. They also, as we shall see, distin-
guished between sins of commission and of omission, transgres-
sions of the 'Thou shalt notV of the Law, neglect of its 'Thou
shalt's.' They too recognized that "Some sins in themselves,
and by reasons of several aggravations, are more heinous in the
sight of God than others." 1 In short, it would be impossible to
find a better formulation for the Jewish conception of sin than
these definitions of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.
These Christian theologians, indeed, taught that only what they
called the moral law was of perpetual obligation;2 the ritual,
ceremonial, and civil law were done away in the new dispensa-
1 Westminster Shorter Catechism, Questions 39, 14, 83.
2 They thought they were following Paul, but he makes no such distinc-
tion, and they included in the moral law the obligation of worship, the
observance of the sabbath, etc.
4eo
CHAP, ii] SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 461
tion. Judaism, however, could not thus emancipate itself from
obedience to any part of God's revealed will. The whole law was
of the same origin and obligation, and every deviation from 'the
ways of God' was sin.1
Sin is in fact a religious, not primarily a moral, conception.
It is an offense against God, and the gravest are offenses against
his holiness, that is his godhead itself.2 Such an act is literally
laesa maiestas^ and the outraged deity vindicates itself in the
swift and sure destruction of the violator, as in the outbreak of
some elementary force. Things and persons which peculiarly
pertain to God, acquire through this association the like inviola-
bility; they are ' holy,' and the invasion of this sphere is mortally
dangerous. The religious connotation of the word most fre-
quently rendered 'sin' in our versions (n«Bn) is most clearly
seen when this word is the technical name of a species of sacrifice
('sin-offering'), which is not, as the modern reader is accustomed
to misunderstand it, an offering for sin in our sense at all, but
is prescribed as an expiation for the ignorant or inadvertent
transgression of certain religious interdictions, or after child-
birth, the restoration of a leper, the completion of a Nazirite's
vow — without exception, things which have of themselves no
moral quality.3
Religion in ancient Israel was not, however, a sphere apart,
dividing life with the secular. National custom had not only
social and jural, but religious obligation and sanction; God
signally avenged flagrant violations. Offenses in this sphere
were constructively offenses against God himself as the guardian
and vindicator of all good custom, and thus acquired the char-
acter of sin. In Judaism, finally, where the two-fold law by
which all the spheres and relations of life were regulated was
1 See below, pp. 463 f.
2 'Holiness* in old Israel is not God's moral perfection, but his inviolable
godhead. See e g. i Sam. 6, 19 f. (cf. 5, 10 f.); 2 Sam. 6, 6 f.; Isa. 6, 3 and
5; Lev. 10; Num. 16; Num. 4, 15 and 20. Observe also the conception of
holiness in Ezekiel throughout.
3 See Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV, cols. 4204 f., and Note 186.
462 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
the revealed will of God, the doing of anything expressly or by
implication forbidden in the law, or the neglect of anything com-
manded in it, was necessarily regarded as an offense against the
divine lawgiver. The Jewish teachers, as we shall see, recog-
nized the distinction between acts which the common conscience
of mankind condemns as morally wrong and such as are wrong
only because they are made so by statute; but the former are
not the more properly sin because of their moral quality nor the
latter less so because in themselves they are morally indifferent.
The sin is in either case the same, violation of the revealed will
of God. So completely does this conception dominate, that the
sin of the heathen is represented as the transgression of the
statutes delivered by God to Adam and renewed to Noah for all
their posterity.1
In the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (15, 5 f.), to the seer's
remonstrance against the doom of mankind who perish in
ignorance of God's judgment, God replies: "It is true that man
would not have known my judgment if he had not received the
law, and if I had not given him intelligent instruction in it.
But now inasmuch as, knowing, he has transgressed, knowing,
he is also tormented."2 Similarly in 4 Esdras 7, 20-24 God says:
"Pereant enim multi praesentes, quam neglegatur quae ante
posita est Dei lex! Mandans emm mandavit Deus vementibus
quando venerunt, quid facientes viverent et quid observantes
punirentur. Hi autem non sunt persuasi et contradixerunt ei, et
constituerunt sibi cogitamenta vanitatis, et proposuerunt sibi
circumventiones delictorum, et supradixerunt Altissimo non esse,
et vias eius non cognoverunt, et legem eius spreverunt, et spon-
siones eius abnegaverunt, et in legitimis eius fidem non habu-
erunt, et opera eius non perfecerunt."
1 See above, pp. 274 f — For Paul it is the rejection of the light of nature
and the law implanted by God in human intelligence and conscience, Rom i,
18-32; 2, 8-1 6. Philo wrote the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as men
who, before there was any written law, lived m complete conformity to the
unwritten law of nature, and in whom, indeed, were incorporated the living
and rational laws — lives on which the legislation of the Pentateuch was
only a commentary. De Abrahamo c. i § 3-6. * Cf. 48, 47.
CHAP, ii] SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 463
It is a consequence of the fundamentally religious (i.e. non-
moral) idea of sin that to constitute a sin it is not necessary that
a man should know the rule of the law nor be aware that he is
infringing it, still less that the intention to do an unlawful act
should be present. Protestants in particular are so habituated
to associate the word sin exclusively with the so-called moral
law, and to regard knowledge and intention as of the essence of
sin, that it requires some effort to put themselves at the point
of view of the Old Testament, consistently maintained by Juda-
ism, of which none of these things is true.1
With the multitudinous and minute regulations of the laws,
it was inevitable that they should often be infringed in ignorance,
or mistake, or pure accident. For such cases the law itself
creates a special category of sins committed 'unwittingly'
(HMM), or through inadvertence. For various sins of this
class special forms of ritual expiation are prescribed.2 The op-
posite is sinning 'with a high hand' (n»"i T3), wilfully and
defiantly,3 or arrogantly, insolently (|ntn).4 For such sins no
expiation is provided:5 'The person who does anything wil-
fully, whether he be native born or foreign, blasphemes the Lord,
and that person shall be cut off out of the midst of his people; 6
for he despised the word of the Lord, and nullified his command-
ment; that person shall be utterly cut off", his guilt is upon him/ 7
These principles are the foundation of the rabbinic teaching
on the subject. In the Mishnah Shebu'ot i, 2-2, 5, is a long
casuistical discussion among teachers of the middle of the second
century, further elaborated in the Talmud, concerning the re-
spective specific and general piacula, and their efficacy in the
1 See Note 187.
2 Lev. 4; 5; Num. 15, 22-31; Psalm 19, 13.
3 Num. 15, 30 f ; Psalm 19, 14.
4 Deut. 17, 12.
5 The same principle in the old Roman religion, see Note 188.
6 Not by human justice but by the act of God.
7 Num. 15, 30 f. The laws in Num. 15,1-21 to which this sanction is
attached are purely ritual. See Sifre Num. § in ff. (ed. Friedmann f. 3ib-
464 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART IIT
various conceivable cases of ignorance or forgetfulness. The
details of the casuistry are nothing to our purpose; l the im-
portant thing is that the offenses contemplated all have to do
with such things as eating food religiously unclean or conse-
crated food while the man is himself unclean, or being present
within the precincts of the temple in a state of uncleanness.2 It
is for such sins, according to Lev. 16, 16 f., that the high priest
on the Day of Atonement with the blood of the goat of the sin-
offering makes expiation for the holy place, ' from the unclean-
nesses of the children of Israel and from their transgressions —
even all their sins,' and similarly for the tabernacle ' that dwells
with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.' 3
The distinction between unwitting and wilful sins is also ob-
served by the rabbis. Thus in Sifra on Lev. 16, 6 (the high
priest's confession over the bullock of his sin-offering, corre-
sponding to the confession of the sins of the people over the
scapegoat), the words 'all the iniquities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions, even all their sins' (Lev. 1 6, 21) are
thus interpreted in the name of the learned (the consensus of
authority): "'Iniquities' are the 'insolent' misdeeds; 'trans-
gressions' are 'rebellious' acts; 'sins' are the 'unwitting' of-
fenses." 4 For the first two classes the law provides no sacrificial
atonement; Judaism found their guilt borne away by the scape-
goat, on condition of repentance.6
Learning in the Law is naturally an aggravation.6 The saying
of R. Judah ben Ila'i in Abot 4, 13, "Be attentive in learned
1 Only those will regard this casuistry as futile who do not know the re-
ligion of the Old Testament.
2 M. Shebucot i, 4 and i, 5, end; Tos. Shebu'ot i, 3. See Note 189.
3 See also Sifra, Ahare Perek 4 (ed. Weiss f. 8ic). Compare the semi-
annual riddance of sin from the sanctuary in Ezek. 45, 18-20, on account of
erring and sinful men. The words 'expiate,' 'remove sin,' and 'make clean,'
are interchangeable.
4 Sifra, Ahare Perek i (ed. Weiss f. 8od); cf. ibid. Perek 4, f. 82a). Tos.
Yom ha-Kippurim 2, i; Yoma j6b (with the passages from which the
equivalences are deduced).
5 See below, pp. 498, 500.
6 Luke 12, 47 f.
CHAP, ii] SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 465
study, for an unwitting fault in it is reckoned as presumptuous," l
is associated in Baba Mesi'a 3jb,with an application of Isa. 58, 1,
by the same rabbi: 'Show my people their transgressions and
the house of 'Jacob their sins/ — 'Show my people their trans-
gressions': these are scholars, whose unwitting faults are for
them made equivalent to presumptuous sins; 'and the house
of Jacob their sins': these are the common people (the unlearned
masses), whose presumptuous sins are for them made equivalent
to unwitting faults.
The extremity of sin is the deliberate and wilful rejection of
the authority of God, the denial in word or deed of his right to
rule over the defiant offender. This is what is meant in the
passage quoted above from Sifra by 'acts of rebellion' (Dmo).2
Another expression for this kind of a sinner is 'one who throws
off the yoke' of God. The figure comes from Gen. 27, 40, where
it is promised to Esau (Edom) that he shall one day free himself
from his subjugation to Jacob (Israel);3 see also Isa. 10, 27.
Applied to God, it means a revolt from subjection to him. The
figure of the yoke is frequently employed of the Law. The say-
ing of R. Nehuniah ben ha-l£anah (end of the first century) is
familiar: "Every one who takes upon himself the yoke of the
Law (the obligations of religion) is liberated from the yoke of
empire (the burden of the foreign government) and from the
yoke of the way of the world (the cares of daily life) ; but who-
ever throws off the yoke of the Law is subjected to both of
these." 4 In reciting the first sentence of the Shema' (Deut. 6,
4 f.), a man takes upon him the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven
(sovereignty of God), and proceeds in the following to take upon
him the (specific) commandments.5 The throwing off of the
1 Cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyikra § u, end.
2 In Yoma j6b the sense is exemplified by the rebellion of Mesha, king of
Moab (2 Kings 3, 5 and 7), where the words V^Q and "HD are used. See
Note 190.
3
4 Abot 3, 5. For a parallel to the second clause see Tos. Sotah 14, 4. See
Note 191.
6 M. Berakot 2, 2.
466 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
yoke of God may be understood either of the law, with which the
law-giver is implicitly renounced, or more immediately of the
deliberate rejection of God's rule and dominion.
What sins have this radical character of a complete breach
with God and his will, is a point on which opinions differ. That
the sin which is called by the inclusive name 'heathenism'
(mr rrnay),1 the worship or acknowledgement, express or con-
structive, of any deity except the one true God, tokens of respect
to images, and all the customs associated with heathen religions,
public or domestic — heads the list is natural. It is the very
essence of rebellion, violating not only the first commandment
of the Decalogue, 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me,'
but the fundamental principle of the divine unity, the profession
of faith solemnly pronounced by the Jew every time he repeated
the Shema'. The breach of the general prohibition of heathen-
ism involves a guilt as great as the breach of all the other com-
mandments together. "As he who transgresses all the command-
ments 'throws off the yoke,' 'nullifies the covenant/ and 'com-
ports himself brazenly toward the Law,1 so he who transgresses
one commandment (namely that against heathenism) throws
off the yoke and nullifies the covenant and comports himself
brazenly toward the Law." 2 No less emphatic is the sequel in
Sifre (ed. Friedmann f. 3ib-32a), where it is proved that he who
professes a false religion 3 denies the Ten Commandments and
what was commanded Moses, and what was commanded the
prophets, and what was commanded the patriarchs; and he who
rejects all other religion,4 professes the whole Law.6 With hea-
thenism, are joined as cardinal sins, unchastity in all its forms
1 Literally, 'strange (not Israelite) worship.' It may often be rendered by
'idolatry,' but is of wider extension. 'Heathenism' is probably the nearest
equivalent for the phrase in its various applications.
2 Sifre Num. § 1 1 1, on Num. 15, 22 (ed. Friedmann f. Jib, below). On the
terms see Note 192.
8 m fmon.
4 r"jn iBian.
6 Horaiyot 8 a. See also Sifre Deut. § 148, five names by which the idolater
is called in Scripture and five evils he causes. Note 193.
CHAP, ii] SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 467
as defined in the law (niny ito), and homicide (DW wap).1
In the time of persecution under Hadrian a conference of rabbis
at Lydda laid down the rule that under duress, to save his life,
a Jew might yield on any point of the law except these three.2
There was, however, a natural disposition, at least for hortatory
purposes, to treat all deliberate and wilful transgression as a
constructive rejection of God and his Law,3 and this was favored
by the fact that the word JN?a is used liberally in the Scriptures
for sins which do not in the very fact involve 'rebellion.' Enum-
erations of kinds of sinners who have no portion in the World to
Come are made on different grounds; we shall return to them
further on.
Another phrase by which the sinner who rejects God is de-
scribed is "ip'jn ISO, which we might render, 'the radical in-
fidel/ literally, 'one who denies (or disbelieves in) the root' (the
author of all things, God).' A 'philosopher' is said to have asked
R. Reuben in Tiberias, Who is the most hateful man in the
world? The rabbi replied, 'He who denies his Creator.' To the
question how that was, he answered by reciting the command-
ments, Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kilL
Thou shalt not commit adultery, and so on to the end of the
Decalogue, continuing, No man denies the obligation of one of
these commandments until he denies the root (God, who gave
them), and no man goes and commits a transgression unless he
has first denied Him who laid the command upon him.4
That no man is without sin is the teaching of Scripture as of
all experience. In Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the
temple we read: 'When they sin against Thee — for there is no
man that does not sin/ — etc. (i Kings 8, 46); similarly in
1 Sifra, Ahare Perek 4 (ed Weiss f. 8ic); Jer. Peah f.
2 Jer. Sanhedrm 21 b, above; Sanhedrm 74a. Graetz, Geschichte der
Juden, IV (1853), 185 and 524 f.
3 See Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, c. 14 ('Sin as Rebellion').
4 Tos. Shebu'ot 3, 6. Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 384. See Note 194. On the
distinction between heinous and venial sins see Note 195.
468 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
Eccles. 7, 20: 'For there is no righteous man on the earth whose
deeds are good and who does not sin'; Prov. 20, 9: 'Who can
say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin/ 1
Indeed, where the idea of sin had so wide an extension as in Juda-
ism, taking in not only grave moral offenses, but every infraction
or neglect of the minutiae of ritual and observance, sinlessness
was inconceivable. The fact is too plain to need frequent asser-
tion in Jewish literature any more than in the Old Testament.
The sentence of Ecclesiastes, 'There is no righteous man on
earth whose deeds are good and who does not sin,' were im-
pressed by R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on his disciples.2 Expres-
sions of the consciousness of personal sin are attributed to some
of the teachers who stood in the highest repute among their con-
temporaries for godliness and uprightness.3 Even the patriarchs
and other worthies of the olden times such as Moses and David
were not morally blameless. As long as a man lives, his conflict
with the evil impulses of his nature continues, and he is never
secure.4 In a late Midrash the words of Job 15, 15, 'He putteth
no trust in his saints,' are applied to the righteous of the Old
Testament, and it is deduced from the verse that God does not
call a righteous man 'saint' till he is dead; even of the patriarchs
this holds good.5 The strongest assertions of universal sinfulness
are in the apocalypses of Esdras and Baruch, written in the deep
depression — almost despair — that followed the destruction of
Jerusalem. "What is man that Thou shouldst be wroth with
him, or the mortal race that Thou shouldst be bitter against it?
For of a truth there is no man that is born who has not done
1 See also Job 4, 17 ff.; 15, 14-16; 25, 5 f. Philo, Vita Mosis 11. 17 § 147
(ed. Mangey, II, 157). The consecration of priests (Lev. 8) required sin
offerings, "intimating that to sin is innate in every one that is born, even if
he be virtuous, by the very fact that he is born."
2 Sanhedrin icia.
3 See e. g. the words of Johanan ben Zakkai, Berakot 28b.
4 Enoch 5, 8 f. Only after the renewal of the world will sin disappear.
5 Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 16, 2 (ed. Buber f. 6ob); Eccles. R. on Eccles.
4, 3 (R. Joshua ben Levi). Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, 1, 162 f. There were some,
however, who attributed sinlessness to the patriarchs: Mekilta, Wayyassa*
2 (ed. Fnedmann f. 48a; ed. Weiss f. 56b). See below, p. 516.
CHAP, ii] SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 469
wickedly, and none of those that exist (?) who has not sinned.
(4 Esdras 8, 34 f.).1
Independent of its penal consequences, the effect of sin itself
on the sinner is often remarked. It makes men afraid. R.
Simeon ben Yohai said: "See how grave is the power of a trans-
gression. Before the Israelites put forth their hand to transgres-
sion (the making of the golden calf), it is said of them, 'The ap-
pearance of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire (on the
top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel' — Exod.
24, 17). They were not afraid, neither did they tremble. After
they put forth their hand to transgression, it is said, 'And Aaron
and all the children of Israel saw Moses (when he came down from
the mountain )and behold the skin of his face was a beam of light,
and they were afraid to come near him'" (Exod. 34, 30) .2
Parallels in later Midrashim adduce other examples. R. Ish-
mael generalizes, "So long as a man does not sin he is feared, as
soon as he sins he himself is in fear." Thus it was with Adam in
the Garden (Gen. 3, 8), the Israelites at Sinai (Exod. 34, 30, as
above), David (2 Sam. 17, 2), Solomon (Cant. 3, 7 f.),Saul (i Sam.
28, 5J.3
The worst consequence of sin is its growing power over the
sinner. Seemingly trivial sins lead to great ones; the unre-
strained outbreak of rage in which a man rends his garments and
smashes his furniture and throws his money about is to be looked
on as heathen. "For this is the art of evil impulse (inn w). To-
day it says to a man, Do this! and tomorrow, Do that! until at
last it says, Worship other gods, and he goes and does it."4 Nay,
yielding to evil impulse is ipso facto idolatry. 'There shall be in
thee no strange god and thou shalt not worship a foreign god'
(Psalm 8 1, 10). What is the 'foreign god' within a man's
1 See also 7, 46 and 68.
- Sifre Num. § i, on Num. 5, 3.
3 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 44b-45a. Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 337.
4 Shabbat io5b (attributed to Johanan ben Nun; m Abot de-R. Nathan
to his contemporary Akiba); Tos. Baba Kamma 9, 31.
470 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
body? It is evil impulse.1 Schechter quotes from Sifrfe: "He
who transgresses a light commandment will end in violating the
weightier one. If he neglect (the injunction) 'Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thy self (Lev. 19, 18), he will soon transgress
the commandment, 'Thou shalt xiot hate thy brother in thy
heart' (ibid. vs. 17), and 'Thou shalt not avenge .nor bear a
grudge against the children of thy people' (ibid. vs. 18), which
resulting in transgressing 'And thy brother shall live with thee'
(Lev- 25> 36), will lead to the shedding of blood." 2 An ancient
Midrash derives from Isaiah 5, 18 ('Woe to those who draw in-
iquity with cords of recklessness and sin as it were with a cart
rope') the lesson: In its beginning sin is like a thread of a
spider's web, but it ends by becoming stout as a cart rope.8 In
Genesis Kabbah, where the saying is attributed to Akiba, it runs:
"At the beginning it (sin) is like a thread of a spider's web, but
in the end it becomes like this ship's cable. This is what the
Scripture says (Isa. 5, 18)." 4 In another figure, At the beginning
it is weak as a woman: afterwards it grows strong as a man.5
There is a whole philosophy of conduct in the aphorism of
Simeon ben 'Azzai: "Spring to fulfil the smallest duty, and flee
from sin; for a duty draws another in its train, and a sin draws
after it another sin. The reward of a duty done is another duty,
and the reward of a sin is another sin." 6 The same thought is
expressed by R. Judah the Patriarch: "A man who has fulfilled
one duty for its own sake 7 should not rejoice over that duty (by
itself), for in the end it brings many duties in its train; nor
should a man who has committed one transgression grieve over
it (by itself)> for in the end it draws in its train many transgres-
sions; for a duty draws a duty after it, and a transgression draws
1 Shabbat io5b; cf. Jer. Nedanm 41 b.
2 (Deut. § 187). Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, pp. 226 f. (with erroneous
reference to Sifra).
8 Sifre Num. § 112, on Num. 15, 30; cf. Sanhedrin 99b; Sukkah 52a.
4 Gen. R. 22, 6. Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 276 f.
6 Gen. R. I.e.
6 Abot 4, 2. See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 409.
7 I.e. because it is a duty set him by God, not in prospect of reward, or
any other extraneous motive.
CHAP, ii] SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 471
a transgression." l Strack, in his edition of Abot, aptly quotes
Schiller,
Das eben ist der Fluch der bosen That,
Dass sie fortzeugend Boses muss gebaren.
(Piccolomini v. i)
No man can confine the effect of his sins to himself. The Bible
abounds in examples of the calamitous consequences to the
people of the sins of individuals. A striking instance is the in-
surrection of Korah and his company against the authority of
Moses in Num. 16: 'The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, say-
ing, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I
may consume them in a moment. And they fell upon their faces,
and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man
sin and will thou be wroth with all the congregation?' 2 Upon
these verses R. Simeon ben Yohai employs a striking figure to
illustrate the truth that no man can sin for himself alone. A
number of men were sitting in a boat when one of them took an
auger and began boring a hole beneath him. His companions
said to him, What are you sitting there and doing! He replied,
What business is it of yours? Am I not boring under myself?
They answered, It is our business, because the water will come
in and swamp the boat with us in it. So Job said, 'If in truth
I have erred, my error remains my own' (Job 19, 4); but his
companions answered him, He adds to his sin rebellion, in the
midst of us he slaps his hands 3 (and multiplies his words against
God) "(Job 34, 37).4
Nor is the worst that in the social organism if one sins all the
rest suffer, but that a sinner leads others into sin and so does them
the greatest harm one man can do another. R. Simeon ben
1 Sifre Num. § 112, on Num. 15, 30. Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 409 f.; II,
460 f. Cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Te§e § i.
2 Num. 1 6, 20-22.
3 A gesture of disrespectful impatience.
4 Lev. R. 4, 6. See also the preceding context (Israel compared to lost
sheep, Jer. 50, 6). So are Israel; one sins and all of them suffer from it. 'One
sinner destroys much good* (Eccles. 9, 18).
472 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
Yohai taught: One who causes another to sin does a worse thing
to him than one who kills him; for he who kills him only puts
him out of this world, while he who causes him to sin puts him
out of this world and the world to come both.1 The Egyptians
who killed Israelites, and the Edomites who met them sword in
hand, are excluded (from admission into the congregation of
Israel) for only three generations; the Ammonites and Moabites,
because they took counsel to cause Israel to sin (at Baal Peor,
Num. 25), are excluded for all time.2 A somewhat similar
thought is found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Gad 6, 4: If one who has wronged you denies his fault, do not
contend about it with him, lest he swear to it, and thus you sin
doubly (by having pressed him into perjury).
Sin thwarts God's purpose of grace. "Whenever I seek to do
you good, you enfeeble the supernal power.3 You stood at the
Red Sea and said, 'This is my God and I will glorify him' (Exod.
15, 2), and I sought to do you good; then you changed your mind,
and said, 'Let us make us a leader and return to Egypt' (Num.
14, 4). You stood at Mt. Sinai and said, 'All that the Lord says,
we will do and obey' (Exod. 24, 7), and I sought to do you good,
but you changed your mind, and said to the calf, 'These are thy
gods, O Israel' (Exod. 32, 4). Thus whenever I seek to do you
good you enfeeble the supernal power." 4 Sin separates men
from God (Isa. 59, 2).
That sin causes the withdrawal of God's presence is the motive
of a homiletic conceit (on Gen. 3, 8) repeated in various places,
and attributed, as such popular turns often are, to more than
1 Sifre Deut. § 252, on Deut. 23, 8; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Phmeas § 4.
Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 82.
2 Ibid. Cf. Sanhedrm ioyb, mid.: One who sins and causes the multitude
to sin, to him no opportunity of repentance is given (by God). See also
Matt. 5, 19.
* Reverent periphrasis for 'the power of God/
4 Sifre Deut. § 319; cf. Pesikta ed. Buber f. i66a-b: Whenever the right-
eous do the will of God they add power to might (mUJ, the Almighty;
Lam. R. on Lam. i, 6, 'to the Might above'). Schechter, Aspects of Rab-
binic Theology, p. 239, cf. p. 34.
CHAP, ii] SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 473
one author. Originally the Presence of God (shekinah) was
here below. When Adam sinned it mounted aloft to the nearest
firmament; when Cain sinned, to the second; and so on through
the generations of Enosh,1 of the Flood, of the dispersion of na-
tions (Tower of Babel), and the men of Sodom, until the wicked-
ness of the Egyptians in the days of Abraham caused it to retreat
to the seventh and most remote heaven.2 The righteous patri-
archs and their successors in the line of Moses, and ending with
him, brought God's Presence down again through the same
seven stages.
1 In the generation of Enosh, according to the Jewish interpretation of
Gen. 4, 26 (m,T DP3 K"lpi> femn TN), idolatry began. Mekilta, Bahodesh
6 (ed. Fnedmann f 6yb; ed Weiss 74b); Sifre Deut. § 43, on Deut. u, 16
(ed. Fnedmann f. 8ib); Gen. R. 23, 7.
2 Gen. R. 19, 7; Pesikta ed. Buber f. ib; and elsewhere. Bacher, Pal.
Amoraer, II, 489.
CHAPTER III
THE ORIGIN OF SIN
SIN began with Adam. Only a single commandment — a pro-
hibition — was laid upon him, and he transgressed it. See how
many deaths were the penalty for him and his descendants
through all generations to the end of the world.1 "Thou didst
lay upon him thy one commandment and he transgressed it
and forthwith thou didst decree against him death and against
his posterity. From him were born nations and tribes, peoples
and kindreds, that cannot be numbered; and every nation
walked according to its own will, and they did wickedly before
thee and contemned thee, and thou didst not prevent them."2 R.
Judah (ben Ila'i) interpreted Deut. 32, 32 of Israel: 'The grapes
are grapes of gall.' "Ye are the sons of Adam the first man, who
brought the sentence of death upon you and on all the generations
of his descendants who come after him until the end of all the
generations." 3 The same Rabbi said: "Should a man ask you,
If Adam had not sinned, and had eaten of that tree, would he
have lived and endured forever? answer him, There was Elijah,
who did not sin; he lives and endures forever." 4
A late Midrash uses the consequence of Adam's sin to illustrate
that God himself cannot correct the evil men have done. When
God created Adam he showed him all his admirable works —
all created for man's sake — and warned him: "Take good heed
not to spoil and destroy my world, for once thou hast spoiled
1 Sifra, Wayyikra Perek 20 (ed. Weiss f. 2ya). The quotation of this
passage in Raymund Martini, Pugio Fidei p. 674 f. (ed. Carpzov p. 866 f.)
has messianic additions, bringing in Isa. 53. See Note 196.
2 4 Esdras 3, 7. Mandasti dihgentiam unam tuam. For dihgentia in the
sense of 'commandment, ordinance* see 4 Esdras 3, 19; 7, 37.
3 Sifre Deut. § 323.
4 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 76a; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Emor § 12. Bacher,
Tannaiten, II, 264. ('That tree* is the tree of life.)
474
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 475
it, who is there to correct it after thee? Not only so but thou
wilt cause the death of that righteous man (Moses)." 1 The pas-
sage continues with a parable. A woman who had transgressed
the law was confined in prison. There she gave birth to a son
and brought him up, and there she died. After a time, as the
king was walking past the door of the prison, the son cried, O my
lord the king, here I was born, here I grew up; for what sin I was
put here I do not know. The king answered, For the sin of thy
mother. So it was with Moses (Gen. 3, 22-24, combined with
Deut. 31, 14). Adam was driven out of the garden, and access
to the tree of life was shut off by the cherubim and the flaming
sword; for his sin all his descendants are in bondage to death,
even so righteous a man as Moses.
That without sin there would be no death is a natural inference
from the story of the fall in Genesis. Thus, in the Wisdom of
Solomon: "God did not make death, and has no pleasure in
the destruction of the living" (i, 13); "God created man for
immortality, and made him the image of his own peculiar nature;
but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world, and
they who are of his party make experience of it" (2, 23 f.).2 That
Adam's sin involved all his posterity, the righteous as well as the
wicked, in death, is the consistent teaching of the rabbis, e.g.
Genesis Rabbah 16, 6 (end): '"Thou shalt surely die.' Death to
Eve; death to him and to his posterity." 3 The Scripture really
makes Eve the first transgressor, and Jesus son of Sirach, in a
chapter on bad women, carries this badness back to the mother
of the race: "From a woman was the beginning of sin, and be-
cause of her we all die." 4
Death is thus the damage that all men suffer from Adam's sin.
To ancient conceptions of the solidarity of the family, clan,
nation, race, and the liability of all for one, this raised no ques-
1 Eccles. R. on Eccles. 7, 13 ('Consider the work of God, for who can make
straight what he has made crooked').
2 See above, p. 448. On the envy of the devil, below, pp. 478 f.
3 Cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit § 23.
4 Ecclus. 25, 24.
476 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
tion of divine justice; that the sins of the fathers are visited
upon the children was the doctrine of experience as well as of
Scripture. But resentment against the forefather who had en-
tailed this liability on all his descendants was a natural sentiment.
In an old homiletic Midrash we read: "God caused all the
generations of men, the righteous and the wicked, down to the
resurrection, to pass before Adam, and said to him, See where-
fore thou hast brought death upon the righteous. When Adam
heard, he was troubled, and said, Lord of the world, have I done
this in thy world? I am not concerned that the wicked die, but
about the righteous, lest they murmur against me. I pray thee
do not write of me that I brought death upon them. God
answered, This is what I will do; when a man comes to depart
out of the world, God will appear to him and say, Write down thy
deeds that thou hast done, for thou diest because of thy deeds
that thou hast done. When he has written them down, I will
say, Set your seal to it! and he will do so, as it is written, 'By the
hand of every man he will seal' (Job 37, 7). In the future, when
God sits to judge his creatures, he will bring all the books of the
children of men, and will exhibit to them their deeds. Where-
fore it is written, ' By the hand of every man he will seal/" 1 In
another place in the same Midrash, the righteous descendants of
Adam upon whom death was decreed reproach Adam, saying,
Thou art the cause of our death. He replies, I was guilty of one
sin, but there is not a single one among you who is not guilty of
many iniquities.2 Death came in with Adam, but every man has
deserved it for himself; his descendants die in consequence of his
sin, but not for the guilt of it. It is substantially what Paul says:
5C &6s avdp&irov rj d/zaprta els rbv /c6(7/zoj> eiarjXdev Kal diet rijs
ajjiaprLas & ddparos, /cat ourcos els iravras av6p&irovs 6 Bavaros
Si7)X0ej> e<£' <J Travres IwapTOv (Rom. 5, I2).3
The problem becomes oppressive when the doom of sin is not
alone the miseries of this life and death at the end of them, but
1 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit § 29. 3 For that all have sinned.
2 Ibid., Hukkat § 39.
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 477
the pains of hell. It is thus, as the tragic fate of mankind, only
deepened by the contrast to the salvation of a few among whom
no man can with assurance count himself, that it presents itself
to the authors of Fourth Esdras and of the Syriac Apocalypse of
Baruch. That sentence of death was pronounced on Adam and
his descendants for the transgression of one commandment we
have already seen in 4 Esdras.1 Similar is 7, n: "For their
sake (Israel) I made the world, and when Adam transgressed my
ordinances what was made was judged." 2 "This is my first and
last word: It were better that the earth had not produced Adam,
or having produced him, constrained him not to sin. For what
advantage is it to men to live the present life in sadness, and
look forward to perdition when they are dead. O Adam! what
hast thou done. For if thou didst sin, what resulted was not
thy disaster alone, but ours who are come from thee. For what
does it profit us that a deathless age is promised us, but we do
works of death," etc.3 Again (4, 30-32): "A grain of evil seed
was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning, and how
much ungodliness has it produced and will continue to produce
until the threshing-floor comes!" 4 If there were any inclination
to infer from this language that not only the penalty of death
but the infection of sin descended from Adam to his posterity,
the author elsewhere excludes such an inference. In accord with
the rabbinical teaching, he ascribes Adam's first sin to the fact
that he 'was possessed by an evil heart.' "Cor enim malignum
baiulans, primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes
qui de eo nati sunt. Et facta est permanens infirmitas et lex
cum corde populi, cum malignitate radicis; et discessit quod
bonum est, et mansit malignum'1 (3, 21 f.). Later generations,
after the building of Jerusalem, " in omnibus facientes sicut fecit
1 Above, p. 474-
2 See Note 197.
8 4 Esdras 7, 1 16 ff. See Note 198.
4 On the 'gram of evil seed/ the * evil heart* in Adam and his posterity, see
below, p. 486. Men's life-long conflict is with the ' cum eis plasmatum cogita-
mentum malum, ut non eos seducat a vita ad mortem* (7, 92).
478 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
Adam et omnes generationes eius, utebantur enim et ipsi cor
malignum (3, 26) -1
The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, contemporary with 4
Esdras, expresses the same ideas. "When Adam sinned and
death was decreed upon those that are born, then enumeration
was made of those who should be born, and for this number a
place was prepared where the living should dwell and where the
dead should be kept" (23, 4).
In evident imitation of Fourth Esdras: "O what hast thou
done, Adam, to all those that are begotten of thee. And what
shall be said to the primal Eve who hearkened to the serpent?
For this whole vast multitude goes to destruction, and those
whom the fire devours are innumerable. And again I will speak
before Thee. Thou, O Lord God, knowest how it is with thy
creation. For Thou at the beginning didst command the dust
to produce Adam, and Thou knowest the number of those who
are begotten of him, and Thou knowest how greatly those have
sinned against Thee who have lived (hitherto), and (that they)
did not confess Thee as their Maker" (48, 42-46). It is explicitly
asserted, as if against some who would put all the blame on the
first parents: "If Adam first sinned and brought death on all
who in his time did not exist, yet those also who were born of
him, every one of them individually prepared for himself future
torment, or again every one of them individually chose for him-
self future glories" (54, 15). And a few verses later: "Adam was
therefore not the cause except to himelf alone; each man of us
all became individually Adam to himself" (54, 19).
The tempter in Genesis is the serpent. In the Wisdom of
Solomon, as we have seen, it was the envy of the devil that in-
troduced death into the world. Whether the author imagined
that the devil employed the serpent as an instrument, or him-
self assumed the form of a serpent cannot be decided — perhaps
the author did not put the alternative to himself.2 In the Reve-
1 On the passages in 4 Esdras see Note 199.
8 Cf. Pirke de-R. Eliezer c. 13; Greek Apocalypse of Baruch c. 9.
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 479
lation of John, however, the identification is explicitly made.
The great dragon is 6 &/HS 6 apxatos,1 6 KaXovfjLevos At&jSoXos ical
6 Sareu>as, 6 ir\av&v rrjv OLKOVH&TJV O\TJV. The tempter appealed
to desires and ambitions inherent in human nature (Gen. 3, 5 f.),
and yielding to this impulse man transgressed the commandment
of God. This is the uniform doctrine of Judaism, as it is, indeed,
the meaning of the story in Genesis. Adam's eating the forbid-
den fruit was like the sin of every other man, a following of the
promptings of human nature where they ran counter to divine
law.
Jewish imagination, increasingly in later times, invested Adam
before the fall with many extraordinary physical qualities —
lofty stature, radiant skin, and the like 2 — but he was not
conceived as being mentally and morally otherwise constituted
than his posterity. That he possessed free will in another sense
than they, or that in his nature as it came from the hand of
God with its integerrimae vires there were no desires that could
incline his uncorrupted good will to disobedience — to such
speculations, which have been rife in the Christian theology of
the West since Augustine, there is no parallel in Judaism. Cor-
respondingly, there is no notion that the original constitution
of Adam underwent any change in consequence of the fall, so
that he transmitted to his descendants a vitiated nature in which
the appetites and passions necessarily prevail over reason and
virtue, while the will to good is enfeebled or wholly impotent.3
The impulses which prompt a man to do or say or think things
contrary to the revealed will of God are comprehensively named
yeserha-jra' (jnn w).4 The phrase comes from Gen. 8, 21, 'The
1 The primal serpent,
2 Gen. R. 12, 6; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit § 18. Six things that
Adam lost are enumerated. There is nowhere a suggestion that the image of
God was among them.
8 It may not be superfluous to remark that the Augustinian doctrines on
these points had no influence in the Eastern Church, and were variously
mitigated in the West.
4 It is the cor mahgnum of 4 Esdras in the passages quoted above (p. 477).
See Note 200.
480 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth,' and 6, 5,
'Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually.' In this familiar translation 'imagination' has the
sense of 'device, scheme,' and includes not only the conception
but a purpose to realize it; while 'heart,' as generally in Hebrew,
is the organ of mind and will, rather than the seat of the affec-
tions. In modern terms we might paraphrase the former pas-
sage, 'Every thing that man devises in his mind is evil, from his
youth on.' In Deut. 31, 21, the noun yeser is used without the
explicit adjective, but in a context of apostasy where its evil
character needs no expression.1 In rabbinical literature the
name is used in a variety of connections and applications into
which no single rendering fits. 'Evil impulse' perhaps comes
nearest to being a common equivalent; but it must be remarked
that the impulses to which this title applies are not, as will be
shown below, intrinsically evil, much less in themselves sin, but
evil from their effect when man yields himself to be impelled by
them to consciously unlawful acts.2
Man was created with this impulse, to use the word collec-
tively; or in the Jewish way of expressing it, God created the
evil impulse in man. R. Abahu, about the beginning of the
fourth century, is reported to have interpreted Gen. 6, 6 ('The
Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and he was
grieved at3 his heart'). "He mourned only over the heart of
man, as one does who has made something bad, and knows that
he has not made a good thing, and says, What have I made? So
God: It was I that put the bad leaven in the dough,4 for 'the
devising of man's heart is evil from his youth.' So the words
are to be understood: He grieved over the heart (disposition)
of man."5 In the same way an earlier Rabbi, Phineas ben Jair,
1 Psalm 103, 14 is not parallel, though it is sometimes taken so in the
Midrash (Yalkut, Midrash Tehilhm in Joe., Targum).
2 See below, pp. 482 f. 3 ta.
4 A frequent metaphor; e.g. Gen. R. 34, 10; Berakot I7a; Jer. Berakot
yd. See Note 200.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Noah § 4. 'His heart* in Gen. 6, 6 is man's heart,
not God's (Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, II, 141).
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 481
contemporary of the Patriarch Judah, enumerated three things
that God regretted having created, one of which was the evil
impulse.1 That the impulse is created by God is the constant
assertion or assumption. Thus in Sifre God says: "My sons, I
created for you the evil impulse; I created for you the Law as an
antiseptic.2 The evil impulse must be very evil since its creator
himself testifies against it. 'The devising of the heart of man is
evil from his youth'" (Gen. 8, 2i).3 The meaning of Jesus son of
Sirach is the same in the passage quoted above:4 "He at the
beginning made man, and left him to the power of his own coun-
sel," where SiajSouXiop is probably equivalent to TP (Ecclus.
The evil impulse is present in tie child from the earliest in-
fancy. Among the questions which the legendary 'Antoninus'6
puts to Rabbi Judah the Patriarch is, From what time does the
evil impulse bear sway over a man, from the formation of the
embryo in the womb or from the moment of birth? Rabbi at
first answered, From the formation of the embryo; but owned
himself convinced by Antoninus' argument that if so the child
would kick in the womb and break a way out, and found a text
of Scripture to confirm his revised opinion, ' Sin croucheth at
the door' (the exit from the womb; Gen. 4, y).7
The opportunity or the invitation to sin may come from with-
out, but it is the response of the evil impulse in man to it that
converts it into a temptation. It pictures in imagination the
1 Jer. Ta'amt 66c, below; Sukkah 52b. Deduced from Mic. 4, 6,
Tljnn, as if, ' that which I have made evil.' Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 498 f.
2 Sifre Deut. § 45, on Deut. 11, 18; Kiddushm 3ob; Baba Batra i6a.
Occupation with the Law a preventive of the evil impulse. See below, pp.
489 ff , and Note 201.
3 Sifre ibid. (f. 8ja); £iddushin I.e. See Note 2Oia.
4 Page 455-
6 See Note 202.
6 On 'Antoninus' in the Talmud see L. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, I,
656 f.; a convenient list of his questions, Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 458 f.
7 Sanhedrm 9ib; cf. Gen. R. 34, 10 (with Gen. 8, 21 for Scripture proof).
See also Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 9, 2 (ed. Buber f. 4ib); Jer. Berakot 6d,
above (verbal association with Job 38, 13).
482 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
pleasures of sin, conceives the plan, seduces the will, incites to
the act. It is thus primarily as the subjective origin of tempta-
tion, or more correctly as the tempter within, that the yeser
ha-ra is represented in Jewish literature. Since it compasses
man's undoing by leading him into sin, it is thought of as malici-
ously seeking his ruin — a kind of malevolent second personality.
Throughout his life, from infancy to old age, it pursues its deadly
purpose, patiently biding its time. If it can bring about his fall
in the first twenty years it does it, or in forty, or sixty, or eighty
— to the very day of his death; as it was with John (Hyrcanus)
the high priest, who filled the office for eighty years and at last
became a Sadducee! 1 It is man's implacable enemy.2 Only in
the world to come will it be extirpated by God.3 There is no
kind of sin to which it does not instigate men; it leads them not
only to transgress the commandments of God but to cavil at
them.4 Hence it is not strange that in parallel passages in the
Midrash 'evil impulse' may be found in one and 'sin' in another,
with the same things said about them. It is hardly necessary
to say that the interchangeableness of the terms does not imply
that the impulse is identified with sin. It is, to use the language
of the Schoolmen about the surviving concupiscentta in the
baptized, fomes peccati, not peccatum as Luther would have it.
Yet, as has been said above, the impulses natural to man are
not in themselves evil. When God looked upon the finished
creation and saw that it was all very good (Gen. 1,31), the whole
nature of man is included in this judgment, as R. Samuel ben
Nahman observes: "'And behold it was very good.' This is the
evil impulse. Is then the evil impulse good! Yet were it not
for the evil impulse no man would build a house, nor marry a
wife, nor beget children, nor engage in trade. Solomon said 'All
1 Peseta ed. Buber f. 8oa-b; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Beshallah § 3; cf.
Gen. R. 54, i.
2 Tanhuma I.e.; ibid. Wayyigash § I.
8 Ezek. 36, 26. See below, p. 493.
4 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 38b~39a; cf. Yoma 6jb. In the latter it is Satan
who raises the same objections. See below, p. 492.
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 483
labor and all excelling in work is a man's rivalry with his neigh-
bor' (Eccles. 4, 4)." 1 The appetites and passions are an essential
element in the constitution of human nature, and necessary to
the perpetuation of the race and to the existence of civilization.
In this aspect they are therefore not to be eradicated or sup-
pressed, but directed and controlled.2 Considered from the other
side, as the tempter within that draws men away from the com-
mandments and leads them into sin, the impulses are to be
combated and subdued.3
From the two yods in wi in Gen. 2, 7 it is deduced, as we
shall see, that God created in man two impulses, respectively
good and bad; and from the fact that no similar expression oc-
curs in the creation of the domestic animals it is inferred that
they have neither the good nor the evil impulse. A Babylonian
rabbi forcibly objects that any one can see how they wound,
and bite, and kick — plain signs of bad impulse.4 The reflection
that, since the evil of evil impulse is not merely that it does harm
but that it does wrong, running counter to the commandment of
God, only moral agents are capable of it, does not seem to have
suggested itself to Jewish teachers, who indeed manifest no in-
terest in the impulses of animals. Those who interpreted ' the
sons of God' in Gen. 6, 2 of angels who sinned through lust5 must
logically have endowed them with evil impulse, as is done ex-
plicitly in Midrash Abkir.6 This interpretation was, however,
emphatically rejected by the Palestinian authorities at least in
the second century. R. Simeon ben Yohai explained, 'sons of
the judges,' and launched an imprecation at those who were
audacious enough to understand the words of celestial beings.7
1 Gen. R. 9, 7; Eccles. R. on Eccles. 3, n.
2 Sanhedrm loyb; Sotah 4ya.
8 Pesikta ed. Buber f. I58a (on Psalm 4, 5).
4 Gen. R. 14, 4; Berakot 6ia.
6 Enoch 6, i ff.; Jubilees 5, i ff.; Philo, De gigantibus c. 2 (ed. Mangey,
Ii 263); Josephus, Antt. i. 3, i.
6 Quoted in Yalkut on Gen. 6, 2 (§ 44); cf. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, IV,
127. It was only when they descended to dwell in this world that the evil
impulse had dominion over them. 7 Gen. R. 26, 5. See Note 203.
484 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
That the evil impulse has not dominion over the angels is de-
duced by R. Aha (fourth century) from Gen. 18, 5.1 As in many
such cases the exegetical inference is not the source of the opin-
ion, but only an ingenious support for it.
Philo holds that neither the beings above man in the scale nor
those below him are capable of sin; the former because they are
pure immaterial souls, not bound fast in that seat of endless
chance and change, a body; the latter, because, lacking intelli-
gence, they are not guilty of voluntary and deliberate wrong-
doing. Man alone, having clear knowledge of right and wrong
often chooses the worst course and shuns what he ought to
strive for, so that he particularly is condemned for sins com-
mitted with forethought.2
The Scripture unqualifiedly declared man's native impulse to
be evil;3 and apart from this it is natural that, as the focus of
temptation, the root of sin, the evil impulse should first engage
Jewish thought. But man's experience is of a contrariety of
impulses, such as is described by R. Alexander and R. Tanhum
in the prayers quoted elsewhere; 4 or as Paul expresses it in Chris-
tianized Hellenistic form in the seventh chapter of Romans.
What gives poignancy to such plaints is that man is conscious of
a better self which does not complacently acquiesce in the courses
which his evil impulse impels him to, even though it fails to
thwart them. He has good impulses as well as bad, and this
also is of God's creation. Accordingly we find the doctrine of
the two impulses early established. It attaches itself exegetic-
ally, as we have seen, to the anomalous spelling of the verb
Di«n n« D'nf>K mrr wi, Gen. 2, 7, with twoyods, which signify
the twoyesers, ais w and jnn w,b or to the use of ini>, 'heart/
1 Gen. R. 48, n. See above, p. 406.
2 De confusione linguarum c. 35 §§ 176-177 (ed. Mangey, I, 432). Philo
conceives 'sin' morally, the deliberate wrong-doing of a being endowed with
reason and in the exercise of freedom, as in Greek and Roman jurisprudence.
See also De opificio mundi c. 24 § 73 (I, 17).
1 Gen. 6, 5; 8, 21. Above, pp. 479 f.
4 Note 200. 6 Gen. R. 14, 4. See pp 479 f.
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 485
whose two bets indicate doublemindedness, while J? is single-
minded. Thus in Sifre the command, 'Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God, with all they heart' (imi* faa) is interpreted,
"with both thine impulses, the good impulse and the evil im-
pulse." 1 These associations with the letter of Scripture, it
need hardly be repeated, are not the origin of the distinction.
R. Jose the Galilean in the early second century, applies it as if
it were generally familiar to the judgment of the three classes,
the righteous, the wicked, and the 'middling.' 2 That in the
conflict of impulses on even terms the evil is stronger than the
good is taken to be too plain to need proof. Man should always
rouse his good impulse against the evil (Psalm 4, 5a), and may
thus succeed in overcoming it; but if not, more potent means are
at his command, such as immersing himself in the study of the
Law.3
This duality of impulses does not correspond to the duality of
man's natural constitution, so that the evil impulse resides in
the body while the good impulse proceeds from the soul. That
the physical organism, as material, is evil per sey sense the origin
of error, the appetites and passions the source of moral evil —
these ideas, which through prevalent philosophies had gained
wide currency in the Hellenistic world, have no counterpart in
Palestinian Judaism. It is in the ideas and expressions of Greek
philosophy that the author of Fourth Maccabees writes: "When
God made man he implanted in him his affections and disposi-
tions; and then over all he enthroned the sacred ruling mind." 4
From the same premises he develops his thesis that the rational
faculty (Xo7t(r/i6s) in proper exercise, while it cannot eradicate
appetite and passion and evil disposition, is capable of dominat-
ing them with an authoritative sway.5 In more popular form
1 Sifre Deut. § 32, on Deut. 6, 5 (ed. Friedmann f. 73a); M. Berakot 9, 5;
Tos. Berakot 7, 7.
2 Berakot 6ib. Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 368. See also Note 204.
3 R. Simeon ben Lakish, Berakot 53, top; see below, pp. 490 f.
4 4 Mace. 2, 21 f. 6 This is the thesis of the book (i, i).
486 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
Paul represents the dualism of Hellenistic thought when he
describes the tragedy of man as a losing struggle between the
aspirations of the mind and the impulses of the body: "I see
another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind
and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members "
(Rom. 7, 23).
A similar way of conceiving the conflict of impulses in man
— without the pessimistic note — may have been common
among Jews who lived in a Hellenistic atmosphere; it was not
the psychology of the rabbis. For them, on the contrary, it is
'the heart/ that is the mind and will, with which the Scripture
associates the evil impulse (Gen. 6, 5; 8, 21); it is the it? ir
Dn«n, € the devising of man's heart/ or ui? nwno W, € the devis-
ing of the thoughts of his heart,' that is, of his mind.1 It
is the mind which generates the thoughts and devices, the
promptings and purposes, of evil. Thus the word ' heart ' itself
is often used in a sense entirely equivalent to yeser? especially
when the text of Scripture suggests a bad connotation. Thus,
for example, in Sifre on Num. 15, 39 ('Do not roam, following
your own heart and your eyes which ye go a-whoring after').
The heart and the eyes lead men into sin; but the eyes merely
follow the heart, for there are blind men who are guilty of all
abominable deeds in the world.8 In 4 Esdras, as we have seen
the cor malignumy or the granum seminis mail in the heart, is
used in connections in which the rabbinical texts szyyeserha-ra'.
But while it is thus the mind that devises evil and wills it, the
body is not a mere involuntary instrument in its accomplish-
ment. Sin, however it may be analyzed, is the sin of the man,
1 See also Jer. 17, 9 f.
2 Gen. R. 34, 10: The wicked are in the power of their heart (Psalm 14, i;
Gen. 27, 41; i Kings 12, 26; Esther 6, 6), but the righteous have their heart
in their power (i Sam. i, 13; 27, i; Dan. 1,8); cf. ibid. 67, 8. On the two
hearts see above, p. 485.
8 Sifre Num. § 115, on Num. 15,39; applied literally to the commandment
against adultery in Jer. Berakot 3c. Cf. also Midrash Tehilhm on Psalm 14,
i. On the heart in rabbinical literature see especially Schechter, Some
Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, pp. 255-261; and Note 205.
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 487
not of either half of his nature. This is the point of the parable
of the two keepers of the king's garden, who conspired to rob it
and were punished together, which is found, with variations that
do not affect the sense, in several places.1
In time to come God will bring the soul and say to it,
Why didst thou trangress the commandments? and it will
say, The body transgressed the commandments; from the
day that I departed from it, did I ever sin? Then God turns
and says to the body, Why didst thou transgress the com-
mandments? It replies, The soul sinned; from the time
when the soul departed from me, did I ever sin? And what
does God do? He brings both of them and judges them
together. It is like a king who had a park in which were
grapes and figs and pomegranates, first ripe fruits. The
king said, If I station there a man who can see and walk he
will eat the first ripe fruit himself. So he stationed there
two keepers, one lame and the other blind, and they sat
there and guarded the park. They smelled the odor of first
ripe fruit. The lame man said to the blind man, Fine first
fruits I see in the park. Come let me ride on your shoulders
and we will fetch and eat them. So the lame man rode on
the back of the blind man and they got the fruits and ate
them. After a while the king came seeking for the first ripe
fruit and found none. He said to the blind man, You ate
them. He replied, Have I then any eyes? He said to the
lame man, You ate them. He replied, Have I then any legs?
So the king made the lame man mount on the back of the
blind man and judged them together." 2
Another version is found in the Talmud:
Antoninus said to Rabbi: Body and soul can escape from
the judgment. How? The body says, It was the soul that
sinned, for since the day that I separated from it, here
I lie like a stone, silent in the tomb. And the soul says, It
was the body that sinned, for from the day that I separated
from it I am soaring in the air like a bird. Rabbi replied,
I will give you a parable for it. A human king had a
1 The parable is ultimately of Indian origin; see Note 206.
2 Tanfruma ed. Buber, Wayyikra § 12.
488 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
fine park in which were fine new fruits, and he stationed
in it two keepers, one lame and the other blind. The lame
man said to the blind man, Fine early fruits I see in the
park; let me mount you and we will get them and eat them.
So the lame man rode on the back of the blind man and they
got the fruits and ate them. After a while the owner of the
park came and said to them, Where are the fine early fruits?
The lame man said, Have I then any legs to get to them?
The blind man said to him, Have I then any eyes to see?
What did he do? He made the lame man mount on the
back of the blind man and judged them together. So God
will bring the soul and inject it into the body and judge
them together.1
In this joint responsibility the guilt of the soul is the greater
because it is, so to speak, better bred, as is also illustrated by
a parable.2 Two men (jointly) committed the same offense
against the king, one of them a simple villager, the other a man
brought up in the palace. He let the villager go and pronounced
sentence on the other. His courtiers said to him, Both of them
committed the same offence; you have let the villager go and
sentenced the courtier! He replied, I let the villager go be-
cause he did not know the laws of the government, but the
courtier was continually with me and knew what the laws of the
government are, and what judgment is pronounced against one
who offends against me. So the body is a villager — 'God
fashioned man out of dust from the ground'; but the soul is a
courtier from above — 'He breathed into his nostrils a soul of
life/ And they both sin; for the body cannot exist without soul,
for if there is no soul there is no body, and if no body, no soul.
And they both sin — 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die' (Ezek.
18, 2o).8
1 Sanhedrin pia-b. In Mekilta, Beshallah Shirah 2 (end), where only the
incipit of the parable is quoted, and in Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben Yohai ed.
Hoffmann, p. 59, as in the Talmud, the parable is attributed to Rabbi in
reply to Antoninus; in Lev. R. 4, 5, to R. Ishmael.
1 Cf. Philo, De spec. legg. i. 7 § 214 (ed. Mangey, II, 243); cf. De sacrif.
Abelis et Caini c. 40 § 136 ff. (I, 190.)
1 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyifcra § n.
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 489
Notwithstanding the strength and the deceitfulness of the evil
impulse, it is in man's power to defeat and subdue it. To
achieve this victory he must combat it from its first motions,
and persistently, in the use of the means that God has appointed.
If he yields to it, it acquires the mastery of him by habit; the
cob-web grows into a cable,1 the passing stranger becomes the
master of the house. As Paul puts it: "Do you not know that
to whichever you yield yourself to obey as slaves, his slaves you
are whom you obey, whether of sin ending in death or of obedi-
ence leading to righteousness?"2 This is the very difference
between the wicked and the righteous: the wicked are in the
power of their evil impulses, the righteous have power over
them.
There are various ways in which a man may resist evil impulse.
One of the chief themes of the Hebrew sages in the Proverbs of
Solomon and in Sirach is the part of wisdom in controlling the
appetites and passions by keeping the consequences in mind and
dwelling on the folly of wrong-doing. In the Hellenistic litera-
ture this naturally takes the form of the supremacy of reason
over the senses and their promptings.3 In the teaching of the
rabbis the role of eudaemonistic prudence and of reason in itself
is less marked; their ethic is more distinctly religious. That man
should incite his good impulse to contend with the evil is self-
evident but not always sufficient. Another method to which all
the righteous of ancient times resorted, and which is com-
mended to their successors, was to adjure their impulse by an
oath in the name of the Lord; so Abraham did (Gen. 14, 22),
Boaz (Ruth 3, 13), David (i Sam. 26, 10), Elisha (2 Kings 5,
1 6); whereas the wicked, like Gehazi (2 Kings 5, 20), adjure
their impulse with an oath to do wrong.4 But the most potent
antidote for evil impulse is to occupy one's self with the word of
God. In a passage from which a quotation has already been
1 Above, p. 470. 2 Rom. 6, 16.
3 Note also the thesis of 4 Mace.
4 R. Josiah, Sifre Deut. § 33, on Deut. 6, 6. Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 360.
490 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
made in another connection,1 it is said that the words of the Law
are compared to a medicine that preserves life.2 The parable
with which the saying is illustrated shows that the medicine is
thought of primarily as a prophylactic.
"A king had smitten his son a grievous blow. He bound a band-
age upon the wound and said, My son, so long as this bandage
is upon your wound you may eat and drink whatever you like,
and bathe in warm water or in cold, and you will take no harm.
But if you remove the bandage from it a deep ulcer will result.
So God said to the Israelites, my children, I have created for
you the evil impulse, and I have created for you the Law as an
antiseptic. So long as you occupy yourselves with it, the evil
impulse will not have dominion over you, as it is said, 'If thou
doest well is there not uplifting?' (Gen. 4, y);3 but if you do not
occupy yourselves with the Law, you will be delivered into its
power, as it is said, 'And if thou doest not well, sin crouches at
the door' (ibid.). Not only so, but his business will be with you,
as it is said, 'And unto thee is his desire.' And if you will, you
shall rule over it, as it is said, 'And thou shalt rule over it.' And
it says, 'If thy enemy hunger feed him bread' (Prov. 25, 21), i.e.
feed him the bread of the Law; 'and if he thirst give him water
to drink, for burning coals thou dost heap upon his head'" 4
In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: If that ugly one
(evil impulse) encounters thee, drag him to the school;5 if he is
stone he will be worn away (as by water), if he is iron he will be
shattered to pieces (as by fire and a sledge hammer).6
R. Simeon ben Lakish gives a prescription for the treatment
of evil impulse, as follows: "A man should always stir up his
good impulse against the evil impulse, for it is said, 'Be stirred
1 Above, p. 481.
a D"H DD. Cf. Prov. 4, 20-22; 'Erubin 54a. See also Ecclus. 21, ii:
6 (£uXa<7(rcoj> z>6juoj> /cara/cparet rou ewoi^aros aurou.
3 Rashi (on £iddushin job) interprets: "You will be raised above your evil
impulse." On Gen. 4, 7 he adopts the interpretation of the Targum ' for-
giveness.
4 Sifre Deut. § 45; Kiddushin job.
5 Bet ha-Midrash.
6 Isa. 55, i combined with Job 14, 19; Jer. 23, 29. &iddushin job;
Sukkah 52b. Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 336 f.
CHAP in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 491
up, and sin not' (Psalm 4, 5).1 If he conquers it, well; if not,
let him occupy his mind with the Law, for it is said, 'Think
in your heart' (ibid.)- If he conquer it, well; if not, let him re-
cite the Shema', for it is said, 'Upon your bed* (ibid.)- If he
conquer it, well; if not, let him be mindful of the day of his death,
for it is written, 'And be silent. Selah'"(ibid.).2 To stimulate the
better self to contend against the worse; occupy one's self in-
tensely with the word of God; confess one's faith in the one true
God, and the duty of loving him with all one's being, renewing
thus the assumption of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven;
meditate on the hour of death (and the judgment of God) —
these are the weapons with which victory may be won in this
battle that man wages for the freedom of his soul.3
Application to the study of the Word of God (the Law) is thus
effective, not solely because in it the will of God for man's life
is set forth, with the blessings promised to conformity and the
penalties of transgression, but because the mind thus preoccupied
with religion excludes temptations from without and evil de-
visings within. This way of thinking is akin to ours when we
speak of the Word of God in itself as a means of grace; devout
attention to it makes men better.
By such means finally the end may be achieved which is set
before man, to love God with all his heart, the evil impulse
now subdued to His service, as well as the native good impulse.
In a late collection, which is here quite in the spirit of the older
time, the figure is used of iron, out of which when it is made hot
in the forge, man can make whatever implements he pleases.
So it is with the evil impulse, with which nothing can be done
except by means of the words of the Law, which is like a fire.
The same verse from Proverbs (25, 21 f.) follows which is
quoted above.4 If a man has yielded to the evil impulse, there
2 Berakot 5a.
8 For many other sayings about theyescr Jia-ra' see Kiddushin 30; Sukkah
2-
4 Abot de-R. Nathan c. 16.
492 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
is still a remedy — repentance. "There is no malady in the world
for which there is not a cure. What is the cure for evil impulse?
Repentance." Even the generation of the Flood, it is said in the
sequel, would have been spared, if they had used the respite
God gave them, to repent of their evil ways.1
The evil impulse is frequently personified. The something
within that seduces man into doing what is repugnant to his
better judgment and purpose, drugs his conscience, overmasters
his will to good, or blinds him to the consequences of his acts,
has always seemed to his introspective imagination to be a de-
monic power, other than his conscious self, that maliciously
plots and compasses his undoing. Such an imagination is im-
plied when R. Jonathan (reported by R. Samuel bar Nahman)
says: "The evil impulse seduces a man in this world and bears
witness against him in the world to come; as it is written, If a
man pampers his slave from childhood, it will end by the slave's
becoming a witness" (Prov. 29, 2i).2
Personified as the tempter, evil impulse may be identified
with Satan; and since by their arts they cause the death of the
sinner, they can by a further association become the angel of
death. Thus R. Simeon ben Lakish could say: Satan and evil
impulse and the angel of death are the same.8 For, as it is said
by an anonymous Tannaite authority in the preceding context
(with reference to Job) : "Satan comes down and misleads a man,
then goes up and stirs up God's wrath, and obtains permission
and takes away his soul." It is nothing strange, therefore, that
in parallel passages Satan and evil impulse interchange,4 as else-
where do evil impulse and sin. It is a similar personification
1 See below, pp. 520 f.
2 Sukkah 520. The air. \ey. }1JD is by permutation of letters in a kind of
cipher made equivalent to mno. Cf. Gen. R. 22, 6; Whoever fosters his
evil impulse in youth, it will end by being his master (?) in his old age (Prov.
29,21). See Note 206.
8 Baba Batra i6a. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, pp. 244 f.
4 E.g. Sifra, Ahare Perek 13 (ed. Weiss, f. 86a), Jii^y 3'PD jnn 1¥% com-
pared with Yoma 6*jb |rr>? 3'B>D JWfl.
CHAP in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 493
when it is asserted that on the judgment day God will slaughter
the evil impulse before the eyes of righteous and wicked.1 The
usual expression, however, is impersonal: in the world to come
God will eradicate it, or it will be eradicated. So for example in
the Tanhuma, where Moses is remonstrating against God's de-
clared purpose to destroy Israel for the sin of the golden calf,
R. Simeon ben Yohai said: "Moses never left off praying until
God yielded to him. And God said, In this world, because the
evil impulse exists in you, ye have sinned against me; but in
the world to come I will eradicate it from you, as it is said, 'I
will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you
a heart of flesh'" (Ezek. 36, 26) .2 This verse is the standing
proof text, and is the origin of the comparison of the evil im-
pulse with stone; in a catalogue of the names and epithets ap-
plied to ' evil impulse ' in the Scriptures, c stone ' is for this reason
included.3
The conception of sin in Judaism has already been discussed.4
It is fundamentally any departure from the divinely revealed
rule of life, whether in the sphere of morals or of religious ob-
servance, whether deliberate or unwitting. But, as we have seen,
the element of intention, which brings into the moral realm even
acts which in and of themselves have no moral quality, is clearly
recognized; and although, in the Jewish use of the word, a man
may 'sin' without meaning to and even without knowing it,5 the
'sinner' in our sense of the word is only the man who knowingly
and wilfully transgresses or ignores the revealed will of God, and
that persistently or habitually. Not only so, but Judaism had
so fully absorbed the teaching of the prophets that for it, next
to apostasy and practical irreligion, the intrinsically heinous
1 Sukkah 52a. See Note 207.
2 Tanfruma ed. Buber, Ki tissa § 13, end; ibid. Wayyikra § 12 end. In
some manuscripts Jer. 31, 33 is also quoted.
3 Seven names of 'evil impulse' are enumerated in Sukkah 52a. Schech-
ter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 243 f.
4 Above, pp. 460 ff.
* See Note 208.
494 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
offenses are violations of what we call the moral law, and par-
ticularly the wrongs a man does to his fellows.1 It is such sins
that as the habit of life define the character of the 'wicked man'
(y&n). The Psalms give specifications in multitude both of the
attitude of the wicked to God and his law and of their vices and
crimes.
The critical historian may see in the composite portraits of
the wicked — often thrown into darker shade by the pendent
pictures the godly, or righteous, paint of themselves — monu-
ments of the long and embittered conflict between puritans and
worldlings in the later Persian and the Greek centuries, and he
may make his subtractions accordingly on both sides; but for
the Jews in the age which concerns us they were divinely re-
vealed descriptions of the two classes into which mankind
divides itself, and are accepted in all the subsequent literature as
definitions.2
The antithetic idea of righteousness is in like manner deter-
mined by the axioms of revealed religion. The righteous man
is not one who follows the suggestions of his individual con-
science, nor one who conforms his conduct to the fluctuating
and elastic standards of custom and public opinion, nor one who
is guided by the principles of a rational ethics, but he alone who
strives to regulate his whole life by the rules God has given in his
twofold law. The sincerity and supremacy of this purpose and
the strenuous endeavor to accomplish it are the marks of the
righteous man. Such a man shares in the universality of sin;
judged by the ideal, ' there is no righteous man . . . who does
not sin' (Eccles. 7, 20); but he is not for that denied the char-
acter and name of a righteous man, much less must he be called
a 'sinner/
Righteousness, in the conception of it which Judaism got from
the Scriptures, had no suggestion of sinless perfection. Nor are
the sins of the righteous all venial; the gravest moral lapses may
1 See Part V., Morals.
2 For an example in Hellenistic literature, see Wisdom of Solomon 1-2.
CHAP, in] THE ORIGIN OF SIN 495
befall them, as they did David. What distinguishes the righteous
man who has fallen into sin is his repentance — a remedy
which God, in knowledge of man's frailty and foresight of his
sin, mercifully created before the world. Paul's definition of
righteousness as perfect conformity to the law of God would
never have been conceded by a Jewish opponent, to whom it
would have been equivalent to admitting that God had mocked
man by offering to him salvation on terms they both knew to be
impossible — God, because he had made man a creature of the
dust with all his human frailties (Psalm 103, 14) and implanted
in him the 'evil impulse'; man, above all the conscientious man,
through his daily experience. God was too good, too reasonable,
to demand a perfection of which he had created man incapable.1
In the rabbinical literature, as in the Old Testament, the right-
eous and the wicked are in standing contrast; their whole
character and their relations to God and men are contradictory.
Every man is either in the one category or the other, though he
can change sides.2 Common observation shows, however, that
there are men whose character is not positive or consistent
enough for either company, and so a 'middling class' was recog-
nized, especially where the context is of a divine judgment. R.
Jose the Galilean distinguished the righteous, who are ruled by
their good impulse; the wicked, ruled by their evil impulse; and
the middle class, who are ruled now by the one, now by the other.3
So on New Years Day, according to R. Johanan (toward the close
of the third century), three kinds of record books are opened:
those for the completely righteous and for the completely wicked
are at once written up and sealed, the one to life, the other to
death; but the books of the middling class are kept open for ten
days (till the Day of Atonement) that they may repent in
them.4 The schools of Shammai and Hillel, before the fall of
1 On Paul's argument see Note 209.
2 See especially Ezek. 18.
8 Berakot 6ib.
4 Rosh ha-Shanah i6b; cf. Jer. Rosh ha-Shanah 573; Peseta ed. Buber
f.
496 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
Jerusalem, differed about the fate of these religious and moral
mediocrities at the last judgment; according to the former they
went down to Gehenna and were there purified in purgatorial
fires, and then came up; the school of Hillel had it that God
graciously inclined the balance to the good side.1
1 Tos. Sanhedrin 13, 3; Rosh ha-Shanah i6b-i7a. Bacher, Tannaiten, I
18.
CHAPTER IV
RITUAL ATONEMENT
As has been remarked above, the specific purifications and
expiations of the Law apply almost solely to cases which have
intrinsically no moral quality, and, considered as of positive
obligation created by the revealed will of God, to accidental or
unwitting infringement of such rules.1 In many such cases a
sacrifice is required, which is remedial since it removes the con-
tamination and restores the state of religious purity or holiness,
and in relation to God is regarded as piacular. Such sacrifices
were prescribed for the individual in various specified cases and
circumstances, and similar piacula formed a regular or occasional
part of the sacra public a. It was believed, moreover, that all
kinds of sacrifice, public and private, propitiated God and worked
the remission of sins.2 In the schools the attempt was made to
classify them all, and to define the kinds of sin for which the
species respectively atoned.3 What, for instance, was the pe-
culiar efficacy of the whole burnt offering, which in the Old
Testament is given no specific application? 4 Later we find the
theory that the perpetual morning and evening holocausts in
the temple atoned for the residents of Jerusalem; the evening
sacrifice for transgressions committed during the day, the morn-
ing sacrifice for those of the night.5
1 Above, p. 461. See e.g. Sifra on Lev. 4, 2 (ed. Weiss f. 150): Sin offerings
are brought for unwitting sins, not for presumptuous sins.
2 Ezek. 45, 13-17. The prophet is speaking of the public cultus, but the
same thing is said of the private burnt offering, Lev. i, 4, etc.
3 See Note 210.
4 Tos. Menahot 10, 12. The most favored opinion was that it atones for
thoughts of sin entertained in the mind; cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Sau § 9;
ibid. Lek leka § 13; Lev. R. 7, 3.
5 So that no man lodged m Jerusalem with unexpiated sin (Isa. i, 21).
Tanfeuma ed. Buber, Phineas § 12; Pesikta ed. Buber 55b, 6ib.
407
498 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
An authoritative deliverance on the whole subject is M. She-
bu'ot i, 6. After reciting the specific expiations: "For the
rest of the transgressions defined in the Law, venial or heinous,
presumptuous or inadvertent, witting or unwitting, of omission
or of commission, including those the penalty of which is, to be
exterminated (by the act of God) or to be put to death by the
sentence of a court, the scapegoat expiates." 1 This Mishnah
is solely concerned with the particular application of the several
piacula, not with the conditions of their effectiveness. In a
corresponding passage in the Mishnah on the Day of Atone-
ment it is made clear that the effect of the piacula is not ex opere
operate: Sin offering and prescribed trespass offering expiate;2
death and the Day of Atonement expiate when conjoined with
repentance; repentance alone expiates for venial sins of omis-
sion and (some) sins of commission. For grave offenses, repent-
ance suspends the sentence till the Day of Atonement comes and
expiates.3 Repentance is thus the conditio sine qua non of the
remission of sins.
Cases were constantly arising in which a man was in doubt
whether he had broken the law or not, and some of the things
about which such uncertainties might most easily arise were
among those which exposed the transgressor to be exterminated
by the hand of God. In such a case the traditional law, in con-
formity, as it was understood, with Lev. 5, 17 f., provided for a
'suspensive trespass offering* ("6n DPK), in distinction from
the prescribed trespass offering ('*ni DPK), of which four varie-
ties were distinguished.4 Such a sacrifice was properly a volun-
tary offering (rma),6 and extra-scrupulous persons made fre-
1 Lev. 1 6, 21.
2 In the particular cases in which they are prescribed. Repentance is pre-
sumed from the bringing of the sacrifice.
8 M. Yoma 8, 8. See Note 210.
4 The asham wadai ('sure, certain') is offered in cases where the offerer
knows that he has committed one of the offenses for which the law prescribes
an asham; the asham talul when he is in doubt whether he has done some-
thing that demands expiation. See Note 211.
* Keritot ia.
CHAP, iv] RITUAL ATONEMENT 499
quent sacrifices of this kind. R. Eliezer 1 taught that a man may
volunteer an asham talui at any time that he pleases; this is
called the trespass offering of the pious (asham hasiJim).2 It is
related of Baba ben Buta 3 that he did this every day in the year
except alone the Day of Atonement, and asseverated that he
would have done so on that day also if he had been allowed,
but they told him to wait until a case of doubt arose. The con-
sensus is that a man should make such a sacrifice only for an
offense which if deliberate would be liable to extermination and
if inadvertent would require a sin offering.4 The story of Baba
ben Buta, apparently narrated by R. Eliezer, carries the asham
hasidim back to Herodian times, from which it would be inferred
that in its original extension only to cases of actual doubt it
was older — how much older no one can say.
Offerings of this kind, and indeed private piacula universally,
were ordinarily practicable only for residents of Jerusalem and
its vicinity. The vast majority of the Jews, dispersed as they
were over the face of the earth, never had opportunity to make
such sacrifices, even by proxy; while the inhabitants of the more
distant parts of Palestine, who resorted in numbers to the Holy
City at the festivals, could make but infrequent use of all the
sacrificial purifications and expiations provided in the Law.5
For the great mass of Jewry, therefore, the public piacula, main-
tained, like the rest of the cultus, for the benefit of all by the half-
shekel poll-tax, alone had expiatory significance; and of these
again, the rites of the Day of Atonement, in which, through the
universal fast and the special services of the synagogues, all
religiously-minded Jews made themselves participants in spirit,
overshadowed all the rest. The Mishnah quoted above from
1 Disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai, in the generation after the fall of Jer-
usalem.
2 M. Kentot 6, 3. The pious did not wait till an actual doubt arose, but
had themselves perpetually in suspicion.
1 Contemporary of Herod the Great.
« M. Ken tot 6, 3; Tos. Kentot 4, 4.
8 In some cases cumulation was permissible.
500 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
Shebu'ot shows how upon the scapegoat the real burden of
expiation for what we should denominate sins rests. Nor is it
insignificant that in the passage from M. Yoma quoted in the
same connection 1 it is the Day of Atonement itself that ex-
piates; 2 for the Day of Atonement, of fasting and humiliation
before God, of confession of sins, and contrition for them, and of
fervent prayer for forgiveness,3 was, even before the destruction
of the temple, the reality, of which the rites of the day in Jeru-
salem, whatever objective efficacy was attributed to them, were
only a dramatic symbol.
A theory of the way in which sacrifices and other rites expiate
sin is in a revealed religion a superfluous speculation. God has
attached to certain cases certain conditions on which he promises
to remit sins. The essential condition is the use of the means he
has appointed, whatever they are. To neglect them because a
man does not see how they can be of any effect, is itself deliber-
ate and wilful sin, vastly graver than the original offense. Juda-
ism had, therefore, no motive for discussing the modus operandi
of sacrificial atonement, and never even raised the question.4
The attitude of religion to the whole matter will come before
us in another connection.
The Mishnah quoted above makes repentance the indispen-
sable condition of the remission of every kind of sin, and this,
with the other side of it, namely, that God freely and fully remits
the sins of the penitent, is a cardinal doctrine of Judaism; it
may properly be called the Jewish doctrine of salvation. This
is the message of the prophets to the nation. Its sins draw down
upon it, as they deserve, the dire judgments of God; it seeks in
vain to move him to condone its faults by sacrifice and magnifi-
cent liturgies; equally vain are fasting and clamorous supplica-
tion without amendment. There is but one way of forgiveness
1 Page 498.
1 The biblical text for this is Lev. 16, 30. See Note 212.
3 Note the accumulation of terms in Dan. 9, 3 ff., most of which are
technical in the liturgy.
4 See Note 213.
CHAP, iv] RITUAL ATONEMENT 501
and restoration — turn from your evil ways, turn again to the
Lord your God — but that is a sure way. If they heed the warning
and return to undivided allegiance to their God and let justice
and loving kindness prevail among men, the doom will be re-
voked; if they disregard all monitions, and the judgment falls,
even then, when in ruin and exile they turn to him again, he will
take them back into his favor and restore them to welfare in
their own land. This is the burden of Hosea and his successors,
to the end of prophecy.1 In the Law it fills some of the most
impressive chapters in Deuteronomy; 2 the national history
from the exodus to the fall of Jerusalem was presented, especi-
ally in Judges and Kings, with the express purpose of exemplify-
ing this as the first law of history. These teachings sank deep into
the hearts of religiously-minded Jews under foreign rule: na-
tional sin was the cause of their distress, national repentance
the sole hope of better days — witness the penitential outpour-
ings in prayer such as Neh. 9, Dan. 9, Baruch I, 15 flf., and in
many of the Psalms.
In Judaism the principle was applied to the individual as well
as to the people collectively. Ezekiel had individualized the
prophetic doctrine of retribution with unflinching logic, and with
it the counterpart, the doctrine of repentance: 'If the wicked
man turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all
my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall
surely live, he shall not die. None of his transgressions that he
hath committed shall be remembered against him; for his right-
eousness that he hath done he shall live' (Exek. 18, 21 f.). Many
of the penitent confessions and supplications in the Psalms are
personal,3 and furnish pattern and phrase for the Jewish liturgy.
Thus the whole great prophetic doctrine of collective repentance
1 That Hosea is the great exponent of the doctrine of repentance was
recognized by the rabbis. See Note 2i3a.
2 E g. Deut. 4, 25-40; cc. 29-30; Lev. 26.
3 So, e.g , Psalm 51. — The question of the plural 'I' in the Psalms (the
worshipping community or the people) does not concern us here; the Jews
interpreted them individually.
502 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
and reformation was translated into personal religion; it be-
came the condition of salvation for the individual as it had been
originally for the nation. When the old notion of a common fate
for all men in the universal gathering place of the dead in Sheol
gave place to the belief in a separation of righteous and wicked
at death, and a destiny beyond death accordant with their diverse
character, and particularly when more concrete form was given
to the imagination of the hereafter by the belief in a reunion of
body and soul for the life of the World to Come, in which wicked-
ness had no place, and participation in the blessedness of that
world became the summum bonum, repentance and the remission
of sins, as the indispensable condition, gained a new significance
in association with ideas which we are accustomed to comprehend
in the word 'salvation/ l
The belief in the moral government of this world, and in retri-
bution as a principle of God's dealing with individuals in this
life, was too firmly established to be displaced by the new doc-
trine, which came as an extension and welcome complement of
the old, not as a substitute for it. Nor did the essential ' healthy-
mindedness' of Judaism ever succumb to an extravagant 'other-
worldliness ' such as finds the meaning and end of this life only
in another. For that, the Jews would not only have had to
ignore the greater part of their Scriptures, but to be infected
with the prevalent pessimistic dualism, which, in one form or
another, was the fundamental philosophy of the other-worldly
religions of the age. That such dualism had found entrance into
certain circles is evident from the frequent mention of the heresy
of 'Two Powers'; 2 but the religious leaders never failed to con-
demn it as incompatible with the corner-stone of Judaism.
The destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. made an end of the
whole system of sacrificial expiation, public and private, and of
the universal piaculum, the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.
1 See Vol. II, pp. 94 f.
2 This is at least one of the variety of heresies comprised under that name.
See above, pp. 364 ff.
CHAP, iv] RITUAL ATONEMENT 503
The loss was keenly felt. It is narrated that R. Johanan ben
Zakkai was one day going out of Jerusalem accompanied by his
disciple, R. Joshua (ben Hananiah). At the sight of the temple
in ruins, Joshua exclaimed, "Woe to us, for the place where the
iniquities of Israel were atoned for is destroyed!" Johanan re-
plied, " Do not grieve, my son, for we have an atonement which
is just as good, namely, deeds of mercy,1 as the Scripture says,
'For I desire mercy and not sacrifice'" (Hos. 6, 6).2 The story
comes to us in a late source, but it illustrates the dismay with
which the cessation of sacrifice must have filled many hearts,8
and the better insight of men like Johanan to whom the condi-
tion of God's forgiveness and his favor is essentially moral, not
ritual. This was no new doctrine. The prophets of the eighth
century, and among their successors most emphatically Jeremiah,
had combated the prevalent notion that God can be propitiated
by gifts and offerings, and that sin can be expiated by multitudi-
nous and costly sacrifices. The ostentatious worship of unjust
men, God resents as an imputation on his character; the only
way to avert his wrath is sincere and thorough-going amend-
ment.4 Such a transformation not only of conduct but of char-
acter is the moral aspect of repentance, that 'return' to God in
love and obedience which from Hosea on is the one way of
salvation for the sinful nation.
The prophetic teaching about sacrifice becomes in many of
the Psalms an article of personal religion: God has no delight
in sacrifice and oblation, he does not demand burnt-offering and
sin-offering; what he wants is that men should do his will with
J, the charity that has a personal character. See Vol. II,
pp. 171 ff.
2 Abot de R. Nathan 4, 5. Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 39; cf. Pal. Amoraer, I,
225. — Hos. 6, 6 is quoted in Matt. 9, 13; 12, 7, m deflected application.
3 See also Sifre Deut. § 43, on Deut. u, 15 (ed. Friedmann f. 8ia), the
tears of Gamaliel, Joshua, and Eleazar ben Azanah, and Akiba's cheerfulness.
Note 214.
4 Amos 4, 4 f.; 5,21 ff.; Hos. 4, 8, 13; 5,6; 8, 11 ff.; I4,3ff.; Isa. 1,11 ff.;
22, 12 f.; 28, 7 f.; Jer. 6, 20; 7, 21 ff., etc. See Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV,
col. 4222.
504 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
delight and have his law in their hearts (Psalm 40, 6 ff.). God
does not complain of Israel for any lack of sacrifices — as though
he, to whom the world and all the creatures in it belong, needed
their offerings, or fed on the flesh of bulls and goats and drank
their blood! 'Let thanksgiving to God be thy sacrifice, and thy
vows a peace-offering; invoke me (in prayer) in the day of dis-
tress, and I will rescue thee and thou wilt honor me* (Psalm 50,
8-15). He desires not sacrifice, nor is he pleased with holo-
causts: 'The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken
and contrite heart God does not spurn' (Psalm 51, 18 f.). The
great lesson of the psalm is that the remedy for sin, the condition
of restoration to God's favor, is not expiation but contrite con-
fession, with prayer for an inward purification and a better mind.
The Jewish sages teach the same truth: see Prov. 21, 3; 15, 8;
21, 27; 16, 6; Ecclus. 7, 8 ff.; and especially 31, 21-32, 26. It
is frequently emphasized by Philo; see e. g. De plantatione Noe
c. 25 §§ 107 f.1
The sacrificial institutions were an integral part of revealed
religion, and had the obligation of statutory law. It was not
for the interpreters of the law to narrow their scope or subtract
from their authority. Nor was it of any practical concern to in-
quire why the divine law-giver had ordained thus and not other-
wise, or, indeed, ordained them at all. It was enough that he
had enjoined upon Israel the observance of them.2 A false re-
liance on the efficacy of sacrifice of itself is condemned in the
spirit of the Scriptures. The 'fool's sacrifice* in Eccles. 4, 17 is
interpreted of such as sin and offer sacrifice, but do not repent,3
and consequently do not secure the remission of sins. The
magnitude of the offering does not count with God; the burnt-
offering may be taken from large cattle or small; it may be only
1 Ed. Mangey, I, 345. Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV, 4223. See Note 215.
2 On Israel alone. The rest of mankind (descendants of Noah) do not
bring sin offerings even for the violation of the commandments of God that
were given to them. Sifra, Wayyikra ^bah, init , on Lev 4, 2 (ed. Weiss
3 Berakot 23a. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 75.
CHAP, iv] RITUAL ATONEMENT 505
a bird, " to teach that whether a man bring a large offering or a
small one does not matter, provided only he directs his mind
intently to Heaven (God)."1 From certain differences in the
phraseology of the ritual for the burnt-offering of the ram and the
bullock respectively in Lev. i, 9 and 13, the lesson is drawn:
"Let no man say within himself, I will go and do ugly and im-
proper things; then I will bring a bullock, which has a great
deal of meat, and offer it as a burnt-offering on the altar, and I
shall obtain mercy with Him, and He will accept me in repent-
ance.2 God does not eat and drink (Psalm 50, 12 f.). Why
then did he bid man sacrifice to him ? To do his good pleasure.8
The important thing is that while the temple was still stand-
ing the principle had been established that the efficacy of every
species of expiation was morally conditioned — without repent-
ance no rites availed. With the cessation of the cultus repent-
ance itself4 was left the sole condition of the remission of sins.5
It was of no small moment that the cessation of the sacrificial
cultus was believed to be but a temporary suspension. In the
two generations between the destruction of the temple by Titus
and the erection of a temple of Jupiter on its site in Hadrian's
new Aelia Capitolma which no Jew was allowed to set foot in,
the Jews of Palestine had become wonted to a religion without
a sacrificial cultus. For the cultus itself the learned found, as
we shall see, a surrogate in the study of the ritual laws,6 the
kinds of sacrifice, their respective modes, applications and signifi-
1 Sifra, Wayyikra Nedabah Perek 9, on Lev. i, 17 (ed. Weiss f. 9b); cf.
Sifre Num. § 143, on Num. 28, 6 (ed Fnedmann f. 54a, top); Menahot noa,
below.
2 Lev. R 2, end. But let him do good works and study the Law, and
bring but a lean ram . . . and offer it on the altar, and He will be with him
in mercy and receive him in repentance (Seder Eliahu Rabbah ed. Fried-
mann, p 36, below.
3 Sifre Num. § 143. See Note 216.
4 Including the fruits of repentance (Matt. 3, 8; Luke 3, 8 and 3, 10-14;
Acts 26, 20), good works.
6 So explicitly, Maimomdes, Hilkot Teshubah i, 3. See Note 217.
6 Sifre Deut. § 306, on Deut. 32, 2 (ed. Fnedmann f. I3ib, below). See
Note 218.
506 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
cance, the whole cultus being thus perpetuated in thought and
feeling when the fulfilment in act was made impossible by God
himself, who for the sins of his people had again given over his
holy house to be desecrated by the heathen. For the sacrificial
expiations of the Law, repentance, with its fruit, good works,
was the equivalent.
CHAPTER V
REPENTANCE
WHERE so much is attributed to repentance, our estimate of
the religion will be largely determined by what it means by re-
pentance. The foundation of the doctrine in the Law and the
Prophets, and the appropriation of it, national and individual,
has been exhibited above.1 It remains to set forth the teaching
of the school and synagogue concerning the nature and efficacy
of true repentance, and inasmuch as in the current Christian
representations of Judaism neither the character of this teaching
nor the central significance of the doctrine of repentance in the
Jewish conception of the religious life and of the way of salvation
is adequately recognized, no apology need be made for treating
the subject at what might otherwise seem disproportionate
length.
Notwithstanding the importance of the idea of repentance
in the Old Testament, the language has no specific name for
it. The fundamental conception in the prophets is turning back
to the allegiance and obedience of God, corresponding to their
conviction that moral as well as religious evils are in their es-
sence a falling away from God and his righteous will. They
use for such a turning back from wrong-doing and return to God
the every-day Hebrew word for 'turn about, go back' (y\w)
leaving it to the context of their indictment to make the applica-
tion plain. By this association the transparent primary sense
of repentance in Judaism is always a change in man's attitude
toward God and in the conduct of life, a religious and moral
reformation of the people or the individual.2
The Hebrew of the schools found need of a noun for ' repent-
ance,' and took nme>n, which in the Bible is used only for 're-
1 Pages 500 ff. 2 See Note 219.
507
508 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
turn* in the literal sense, or for a return of speech in an argument,
* reply'; while for the verb 'repent' to distinguish it from 're-
turn' in its ordinary sense, they coined the phrase nawn W,
'do repentance.' l
The Mishnah Yoma 8, 8 has been quoted above (page 498).
Repentance is there the condition sine qua non of the efficacy of
all the ritual expiations, including those of the Day of Atonement.
But that none might imagine that thereby an indulgence to sin
was established, the Mishnah proceeds (8, 9): "If any one
says to himself, I will sin, and repent, (and again) I will sin and
repent (and thus escape the consequences), no opportunity is
given him to repent.2 If he says, I will sin, and the Day of
Atonement will expiate it, the Day of Atonement does not
expiate it." The man who so presumes on the remission of sins
through the goodness of God does not know the meaning of
repentance, and annuls in himself the very potentiality of it.8
What then? What rests?
Try what repentance can; what can it not?
Yet what can it when one cannot repent?
Against such presumption on the mercy of God, Jesus son of
Sirach gives warning: "Say not, I sinned, and what happened
to me? For the Lord is long-suffering. Do not become rashly
confident about expiation, and go on adding sin to sins; and do
not say, His compassion is great, he will forgive (6£iXd<reT<u) the
multitude of my sins; for mercy and wrath are with him, and
upon sinners his anger will rest. Delay not to turn to the Lord
(repent), and do not put it off from day to day" (Ecclus. 5,4-7).
In a late Midrash, the question is raised, why power to repent
is denied to such a sinner, and it is replied: "If a man repents
1 See Note 220.
2 Literally, "They do not put it in his power to repent " The indefinite
plural subject, as frequently, is a reverent way of saying, "God does not put
it in his power."
3 A psychological explanation is given in the Talmud: By repetition a sin
comes to seem to the sinner licit. Yoma 87a (Rab).
CHAP, v] REPENTANCE 509
and goes back to his sins, that is no repentance. If one goes
down to take a bath of purification, holding some unclean reptile
in his hand, he gets no purification. He must cast away what
he has in his hand; after that he can take his bath and be
purified."1 Centuries before, Sirach used a similar figure: A man
who bathes (to purify himself) from (contact with) a dead body,
and touches it again, what profit was there in his bath? So a
man who fasts for his sins and goes again and does the same
things — who will listen to his prayer, and what profit was there
in his afflicting himself? (Ecclus. 31, 30 f.).
"Scripture says: 'Let the wicked man forsake his way and the
bad man his plans, and let him return to the Lord (repent), and
He will have mercy upon him' (Isa. 55, 7). For God desires
repentance; he does not desire to put any creature to death,
as it is said: ('As I live saith the Lord Jehovah) I do not desire
the death of the wicked man, but that the wicked man turn
from his evil way and live'" (Ezek. 33, n).2
The substance of repentance is the abandonment of evil deeds
and evil intentions, a radical change of conduct and motive.
The essentially moral character of repentance is exemplified
by the 'nine norms' of repentance (corresponding to the nine
days intervening between New Years and the Day of Atonement),
which are found in the nine exhortations God utters in Isa. I,
1 6 f.: 'Wash you, make you pure, remove the evil of your mis-
deeds from before my eyes, cease doing evil, learn to do well,
seek after justice, relieve the oppressed, do justice to the orphan,
take up the cause of the widow/ "What is written after this?
'Come now, let us argue the matter, saith the Lord: if your sins
be like scarlet, they shall become white as snow.'"3 The moral
reformation which the prophet demands of the people is individ-
ualized, and the promise appropriated to the individual sinner.
1 Pesikta Rabbati c. 44 (ed. Fnedmann f. i82b) The simile comes from
Tos Ta'amt i, 8. Other occurrences, see Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic
Theology, p 335, n i. See Note 221.
2 Pesikta Rabbati 1 c ; cf. Pesikta ed. Buber, Shubah, f. 157 a.
3 Pesikta Rabbati ed. Fnedmann f. 169 a. Cf. Jer. Rosh ha-Shanah 59C.
510 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
The touchstone of genuine repentance is that, every oppor-
tunity being given to repeat the misdeed, the man escapes the
snare; for example, in case of adultery, under identical condi-
tions.1
Repentance, as a turning from sin unto God, involves not only
desisting from the sinful act, but the resolve not to commit it
again, the abandonment of an evil way of life with the stedfast
purpose no longer to walk in it. Maimonides formulates the
consistent teaching of Judaism when he says: "What is repent-
ance? Repentance is that the sinner forsakes his sin and puts it
away out of his thoughts 2 and fully resolves in his mind that he
will not do it again; as it is written, 'Let the wicked man forsake
his way and the bad man his thoughts (plans)/" etc. (Isa. 55, 7).8
There is in the Old Testament another word, DHJ, commonly
translated 'repent,' which properly means 'be sorry' for some-
thing, or for having done something. Thus God was sorry that
he had made man (Gen. 6, 6 f.) ; 4 he was sorry that he had
made Saul king (i Sam. 15, n, 35). Such regret frequently in-
volves a change of mind regarding the future as well as the past,
and this, rather than the feeling by which it is prompted, is often
the principal import of the word. So it is in various places where
it is said that God will not repent (change his mind),6 or that if
men change their conduct, turning from their evil ways, God will
change his mind and not inflict on them the evils he had pur-
posed,6 or in the contrary case, will withold the good he had
promised.7 The corresponding Greek is /xerapoeu', or (less fre-
quently) /xera/^Xeatfcu.8 But however the notion of a change of
purpose may predominate in many uses of the verb, the primary
sense, 'be sorry,' is always present. Thus in Jer. 8, 5 f.: 'Why
does this people, Jerusalem, apostatize with an unending apos-
tasy? They cling to deceit; they refuse to return (repent). . . .
Yoma 86b. See Note 222. 2 That is, ' intentions, plans.'
Hilkot Teshubah 2, 2; cf. ibid. 2, i.
Note the poignancy of the feeling in the second clause of verse 6.
Num. 23, 19; i Sam. 15, 29; cf. Ezek. 24, 14.
Jer. 18, 8; 3, 13. 7 Jer. 18, 10; 26, 19; 42, 10. 8 See Note 223.
CHAP, v] REPENTANCE 5 1 1
Not a man is sorry for his wickedness, and says, What have
I done!'
In Jer. 31, 18 f. God says: 'I have heard Ephraim 1 bemoan-
ing himself: Thou didst chastise me and I have been chastised.
. . . Turn me that I may turn, for thou art the Lord my God-
For after I turned, I was sorry, and after I was taught the les-
son, I smote upon my thigh; I was ashamed, yea, covered with
disgrace, for I bore the opprobrium of my youth/ The words
'after I turned, I was sorry' ('roru *y\w nn*0, were under-
stood, as we might render it, 'after my conversion, I sorrowed
for my sin.' 2 In this sense they are quoted by Maimonides
as biblical authority for including sorrow for sin in the definition
of repentance.3 Specific proof-texts were indeed unnecessary;
sorrow for sin is a constant motive in the penitential prayers of
which there are so many examples in the Scriptures.4
The obligation to confess to God one's sins is explicit in the
Law: 'When a man or a woman has committed any of all the
sins of men . . . they shall confess their sins that they have
committed' (Num. 5, 6 f.).5 The model introductory formulas
for private confession were found in Psalm 106, 6; i Kings 8,
47; Dan. 9, 5; and in the prescription Lev. 16, 21. They were
framed in the first instance for the confession of the high priest
over the bullock which he offered as a sin offering for himself and
his house (Lev. 16, 6, n);6 but inasmuch as they were derived
for that purpose from the confessions of laymen (David, Solo-
mon, Daniel), they were found appropriate for private individ-
uals also.
1 The tribes of Israel in exile.
2 Vulgate: Converte me, et convertar . . . Postquam convertisti me, egi
poem ten tiam.
3 Hilkot Teshubah 2, 2.
4 See above, p. 501. On the cultivation of the spirit of penitence, see be-
low, p. 516. See further Note 224.
6 Cf. also Lev. 5, 5. Sifra in loc. (ed. Weiss f. 24b); Sifre Num. §§ 2-3
on Num. 5, 7.
6 Sifra, Ahare Perek i (ed. Weiss f. Sod); M. Yoma 4, 2; Tos. Yom ha-
Kippurim 2, i ; Yoma 36b.
512 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
Maimonides gives such a formula: "O God, I have sinned, I
have done iniquity, I have transgressed before thee, and have
done thus and so. I am sorry and ashamed for my deed, and I
will never do it again." 1 This is the essential part of confession;
but if a man amplifies his confession and goes on longer in this
vein, it is laudable. He adds that neither obligatory sin offerings
and trespass offerings have any effect until the offerer repents
and makes confession in words; nor do capital punishment or
stripes expiate the offense, except on the same condition. Simi-
larly, if a man has injured his fellow and seized his property,
even though he have made restitution, his fault is not atoned for
until he has made confession and turned from ever doing any-
thing of the kind in the future.2
The public confession of the high-priest on the Day of Atone-
ment was in similar form, but without specification: "O Lord,
thy people Israel have sinned, done iniquity, transgressed be-
fore thee. O Lord, forgive (IM) the sins, iniquities, and the
transgressions which thy people Israel have sinned, done, and
transgressed before thee, as it is written in the law of Moses,
thy servant, On this day shall atonement be made," etc. (Lev.
1 6, 30). The people responded: "Blessed be His name whose
glorious kingdom is forever and ever." 3
That the confession of sins is a condition of the divine for-
giveness is declared or implied in numerous places in the Scrip-
tures: 'He who conceals his transgressions shall not succeed;
but he who confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy"
(Prov. 28, 13); 4 'I acquaint Thee with my sin and do not con-
1 Hilkot Teshubah i, i. Cf. Sifre Zuta in Yalkut I § 701. See Schechter,
Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 337-338 n.
2 See Note 225.
3 I.e. the name of the Lord, the universal and eternal king (Psalm 145,
12 f.). Sifra, Afeare Perelj: 4, on Lev. 16, 21 (ed. Weiss f. 82 a). This bene-
diction accompanies each stage in the special ritual of the Day of Atonement
(M. Yoma 4, i, etc.).
4 On Prov. 28, 13 see Pesikta ed. Buber f. I59a (one who confesses ob-
tains mercy on condition of * and forsakes ') ; Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyesheb
§ ii. — Cf. i John i,8f.
CHAP, v] REPENTANCE 513
ceal my guilt. I say, I will confess on my part my transgressions
to the Lord, and thou dost pardon the guilt of my sin' (Psalm
32, 5).1 In the eyes of Job's friends it is the hopeless symptom
of his case that he will not confess his sin even under chastise-
ment. In Jeremiah (2, 35) God says to Judah, after a grave
indictment: 'Thou sayest, I am innocent ... I will enter into
judgment with thee because thou sayest, I have not sinned.'2
God's ways are not like men's (Isa. 55, 7 f.) : In the administra-
tion of human justice a criminal is tortured till he confesses, and
then the penalty is inflicted; God punishes until the sinner con-
fesses and then lets him go.3
An important text for penitential prayer is Hos. 14, 2-4 :4
'Take with you words and return to the Lord, say to him, Al-
together forgive guilt, and accept good, and let us pay (in place
of) bullocks (the utterance) of our lips. We will never again call
the work of our hands our gods.' The last clause quoted is cited
for the principle that repentance involves the resolve not to
repeat the offense.5 The preceding verse is thus enlarged on in
a late Midrash: God says to Israel: "My sons, I will not re-
ceive from you burnt-offerings nor sin offerings nor trespass
offerings nor oblations; but I would have you propitiate me by
prayer and supplication and by fixing your thoughts. Lest one
should imagine that empty words suffice, we are taught, 'For
Thou art not a God that likes wickedness, evil cannot abide with
thee' (Psalm 5, 5); but with confession and with pleas for mercy
and with tears. This is what is meant when it says, Take with
you words." 6
That confession of sins belongs to repentance and is a condi-
tion of the divine forgiveness, and that when the Israelites thus
1 See also Psalm 38, 19.
3 Jer. Ta'anit 6$d, middle; cf. Midrash Tehilhm on Psalm 80, i. See
Note 226.
3 See Pesikta ed. Buber f. I59a, and the editor's note.
4 Maimonides, Hilkot Teshubah 2, 2.
6 See its teaching developed in Yoma 86a-b.
6 Pesikta Rabbati ed. Fnedmann f. i98b. (See the editor's note.) Per.
haps the reference should extend to Psalm 5, 5-7.
514 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
confess their iniquities, God at once turns and has mercy on
them, is authoritatively taught also on the ground of Lev. 26,40 ff.1
Numerous examples of collective penitential prayers have been
referred to above.2 Confession of national sin, acknowledgment
of the justice of God's judgments upon the sinful people, and
appeal to his promises of forgiveness and restoration on con-
dition of repentance, are the regular preamble to the prayer for
deliverance. In purely individual form, Psalm 51 is the typical
prayer of the penitent sinner in the canon. The Prayer of
Manasses, found in some manuscripts of the Greek Bible and
in the Apostolic Constitutions,3 composed to fit the situation sup-
posed in 2 Chron. 33, 18 f. and supply the prayer there twice
referred to, well represents the kind of prayer which that arch-
sinner ought to have made according to Jewish notions. Some
extracts from it have been already given, but the whole should
be read. It is a well-ordered composition, following familiar
models, and made peculiarly appropriate to the king only by
the specific confession of the sin of setting up idols (vs. 10 end) 4
and the reference to his imprisonment in vs. 10 (2 Chron. 33, 1 1).
Repentance, in the rabbinical definition of it, includes both
the contritio cordis and the confessio ons of the Christian analysis.
Nor is the element of satisjactio operis lacking. We shall see
that in the case of a wrong done to a fellow man by deed or word,
in his person, property, or honor, reparation is the indispensable
condition of the divine forgiveness; and that for offenses against
God, good works, especially charity (npiv), is one of the things
that cause the revocation of a dire decree.5
Men may be moved to repentance by the warnings of God in
his word and providence, by experience of the consequences of
1 Sifra in loc., Befeukkotai Perek 8 (ed. Weiss f. ii2b).
2 In form, the prayer of an individual m behalf of the people (Ezra 9;
Dan. 9), or recited in the presence of the assembly (Neh-9; Baruch i, 15 —
3,8)-
3 Const. App. ii. 22. Swete, The O. T. in Greek, ed. 2, II, 824-826.
4 o-T^cras /SSeXiry/iara KCU ir\r}6vvas Tpoaox0t(7/xaTa (cf. 2 Chron. 33, 19).
6 See Vol. II, p. 67 n; also Note 227.
CHAP, v] REPENTANCE 515
sin and apprehension of worse consequences in this world and
another — repentance induced by fear. But there is a repent-
ance that springs from a nobler motive — love to God; and this
is more highly esteemed by God and brings a larger grace. The
former causes wilful sins to be treated as unwitting (Hos. 14, 2);
the latter causes wilful sins to be treated as righteous deeds.
(Ezek. 33, 14 f.).1 A similar distinction is made between serving
God out of love and serving him out of fear.2
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, the most widely known
and accepted of the doctrinal standards of the Reformed
Churches, thus defines repentance:
"Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner,
out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy
of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn
from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after,
new obedience."
With the omission of the words in Christ, this definition com-
pletely embodies the rabbinical teaching. And naturally so, for
the Puritan theologians who framed the catechism drew their
conception of the nature of repentance from the same source as
the rabbis, the Jewish Scriptures, just as we have already seen
in their definition of sin.3
The same doctrine of repentance which we find in the rabbini-
cal sources is attested elsewhere. An instructive passage from
Sirach has been quoted above.4 The Psalms of Solomon (9, 1 1-
15) : "To whom shouldst thou show favor, O God, if not to those
who call upon the Lord?6 Thou wilt purge from sins one who
confesses and pleads for exculpation. For shame is upon us and
on our countenances for all (our misdeeds); and to whom wilt
thou remit sins if not to them who have sinned? Righteous men
thou dost bless, and dost not correct (punish) them for the things
1 Yoma 86b (R. Simeon ben Lakish); cf. 36b.
2 E.g. Sifre Deut. § 32, on Deut." 6, 5. See Vol. II, pp. 98 ff. See further
Note 228.
3 Above, p. 460. 4 Pages 508, 509. B Joel 3, 5 (a, 32).
516 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART ra
in which they have sinned; and thy goodness is (shown) in deal-
ing with sinners when they repent." Similarly, Ecclus. 17,
13 ff.: God said to men, Abstain from everything wrong, and
enjoined them how each should treat his neighbor. "Their ways
are continually before him, nor can they be hidden from his
eyes. ... All their works are as the sun before him, and his
eyes are perpetually on their ways. Their unrighteous acts are
not hidden from him, and all their sins are before the Lord.
. . . After this he will arise and requite them, and inflict the
retribution they deserve on their heads. Yet to those that repent
he gave opportunity to return,1 and encouraged those who de-
spaired to hold out." And Ecclus. 17, 29: "How great is the
mercy of the Lord, and his forgiveness (c£i\a07x6s) to those who
return to him ! " 1 8, 20 f. : " Before judgment examine thyself, and
in the hour of visitation thou wilt find forgiveness. Before thou
tallest ill, humble thyself, and in a time of sins show repentance
(eTTKTTpo^*')." For Sirach, as for Philo, Enoch is virddeiy^a jue-
T avoias rats ye^cats.2 The Prayer of Manasses, vs. 7: "Thou art
the Lord Most High, compassionate, long-suffering, and abund-
ant in mercy, repenting (/zcrawcS^) over the ills of men. Thou,
O Lord, according to the abundance of thy goodness, hast
promised repentance and remission 3 to those who have sinned
against thee, and by the abundance of thy compassion thou hast
appointed repentance for sinners that they may be delivered.
Thou, therefore, O Lord, the God of the righteous, didst not
impose repentance on righteous men, on Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob, who did not sin against thee; 4 but thou didst im-
pose repentance on me, who am a sinner," etc. There follows
a confession of his sins, and petition for forgiveness and deliver-
ance, concluding: "Do not condemn me to a fate in the nether-
most parts of the earth, for thou art God, God of those who are
1 See Note 229.
2 Ecclus. 44, 16; Philo, De Abrahamo c. 3 §§ 17-19 (ed. Mangey, II, 3).
3 Cf. Luke 24, 47; Acts 5, 31.
4 Cf. Luke 15, 7 (righteous men who have no need of repentance). On the
question of the sinlessness of the patriarchs see p. 468.
CHAP, v] REPENTANCE 517
penitent. And thou wilt display in my case all thy goodness,
in that thou savest me, unworthy as I am, according to thy great
mercy." 1
In Jubilees 5, 17 f. it is said: "Concerning the Israelites it is
written and ordained, If they turn to Him in righteousness, he
will forgive all their transgressions and pardon all their sins. It
is written and ordained, He will be merciful towards all who once
in the year turn from all their iniquity." 2
In popular moralizing literature like the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs greater prominence is given to the mani-
festation of grief for sin by long continued fasting, especially
by abstinence from flesh and wine. Thus Reuben, after seven
months grave illness sent upon him for fornication with his
father's concubine (Gen. 35, 22), of his own resolve repented
before the Lord for seven years, during which he drank no wine
or other intoxicating drink, and ate no flesh nor any food that
tempts the appetite, but continued mourning over his great and
unexampled sin (Test. Reuben i, 9 f.).3 In the cases of Reuben
and Judah the ascetic motive in the specific form of the self-
imposed penance is obvious; Joseph practises similar abstinence
for seven years as a prophylactic against the seductions of
Potiphar's wife.4
It is noticeable, and not insignificant, that the Apocalypses
have relatively little about repentance.
The Hellenistic literature is here in full accord with the Pal-
estinian. Thus, in Wisdom n, 23: "Thou hast mercy on all
men, because all things are in thy power; and dost overlook the
sins of men to the end that they may repent." 6 So God dealt
with the Canaanites: "Sending judgments upon them for a
1 See Note 230.
2 On the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16, 30). Cf. Pesikta ed. Buber f. 150,
f. i74b, etc.
* See also Test, of Simeon, 3, 4; Judah 15, 4; 19, 2 (in Judah 19, 2 some
MSS read /zerdyoia TTJS <rapKOs)
4 Compare also the 'great penance* of Adam and Eve (Life of Adam and
Eve, init.); cf. Pirke de-R. Eliezer c. 20.
5 €is jjL€TavoLa.vy Rom. 2, 4; cf. Acts. 17, 30.
5i8 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
short time, thou didst give them place for repentance, being not
ignorant that their origin was evil and their badness inbred"
(ibid. 12, i o). By such lessons God taught his own people that
the righteous man must be humane,1 and made his children of
good hope that He would grant repentance in case of sins (12,
19; see the sequel).2
Among the witnesses to the Jewish doctrine of repentance in
the first century of our era the Gospels and the first part of the
Book of Acts are of peculiar importance. Repentance is the
burden of John's mission; with the same words Jesus took up
his work — Repent, for the reign of God is at hand! It is a
/zer&j/oia els a<j>e<rw r&v d/zapruo*',3 and the remission of sins is
the condition of deliverance in the imminent crisis and of par-
ticipation in the blessings of the reign of God or of the messianic
age (Acts 2, 38; 3, 19 ff.). The significant thing is that in this
insistent demand for repentance no definition or explanation is
given. John, Jesus, the Apostles, all assume that their hearers
know well enough what repentance is,4 and how the forgiveness
of sins depends upon it; and have no more need to be told that
the impenitent sinner has no right in the good things of the Days
of the Messiah or the World to Come.5 If we ask where the
masses got these notions and beliefs, the only possible answer is,
In the popular religious instruction of the synagogue, through
which the teaching of the students of Scripture in their schools
was disseminated among all classes. That the common people
had their religious conceptions directly from the Scriptures
themselves is unimaginable; all the more where, as in this case,
these conceptions form a complex which as such is nowhere
explicit in the Old Testament. It is to be observed, further,
that the conceptions of the necessity, nature, and effects of
repentance entertained by John or by Jesus and his disciples
* On Philo's doctrine of repentance see Note 231.
3 Mark i, 4.
4 E.g. Luke 3, 10.
6 On the last point see Vol II, pp. 362 f.
CHAP, v] REPENTANCE 519
differ in no respect from those of their countrymen to whom they
addressed their appeal; and naturally, since they were derived
from the same source, the liturgy and the homilies of the syn-
agogue.
The new thing is the motive of urgency in the appeal — the
day of doom is at hand. With John the association of repentance
for the remission of sins with baptism is distinctive; in the
apostolic preaching the characteristic thing is the added demand
of the belief that Jesus of Nazareth, rejected, crucified, risen and
ascended to heaven, whence he was presently to come to judg-
ment, was the Messiah foretold by the prophets.1 From their
point of view it would be more exact to describe this, not as an
additional demand, but as a necessary part of the repentance
required — repentance for the guilt which as members of the
Jewish people their hearers shared in the rejection of God's ser-
vant whom he sent 'to bless you, in turning every one of you
from your iniquities' (Acts 3, 26).
When the gospel came to be preached to Gentiles, the premises
of the Jewish doctrine of repentance were lacking; but the ground
was prepared in more than one way for an understanding of the
demand. On the one hand, there were the efforts of the Jews to
convert the Gentiles from polytheism and idolatry to the wor-
ship of the one true God, and from vices which, following their
Scriptures, they regarded as peculiarly heathen. For such con-
version they employed the same terms that were used of the
repentance or conversion of Israelites.2 On the other hand,
Cynics and Stoics had long preached conversion in the market
places, exhorting their hearers to an immediate and complete
change of conduct and character, and had given literary form
to this demand in the diatribe.3
1 Acts 2, 22 ff. (vs. 38 f.); 3, 12-26, etc.
2 See Note 232.
3 P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur, 2-3 ed. (1912), pp. 75-
96. (Literature, p. 75.)
CHAPTER VI
THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE
REPENTANCE is the sole, but inexorable, condition of God's for-
giveness and the restoration of his favor, and the divine forgive-
ness and favor are never refused to genuine repentance. This
was the promise of God through his prophets to the sinful nation
from Hosea on, and accordingly the rabbis also taught that the
deliverance of the people from the yoke of heathen rule was con-
ditioned on national repentance.1 "Great is repentance, said R.
Jonathan, for it brings the deliverance, as it is said, 'A deliverer
will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in
Jacob' (Isa. 59, 20). How is this? — A deliverer will come to
Zion because of those who turn from transgression in Jacob." 2
A saying of Johanan recorded in the same context runs: "Great
is repentance, for it supersedes a prohibition in the law; 3 for it
is said, 'If a man put away his wife, and she go from him and
become another man's, may he return unto her again? Would
not that land be grossly polluted? Thou hast played the harlot
with many lovers, Yet return to me, saith the Lord ' " (Jer. 3, i).4
To this aspect of the doctrine we shall return in a later chapter.
Here we are concerned with individual repentance.
The exhortations and assurances to the nation were translated
into an individual application by Ezekiel as the counterpart of
his individualized doctrine of retribution, and he proclaimed in
the name of the Lord the efficacy of repentance in terms as
categoric and unqualified as those in which he set forth the dire
1 Sanhedrin 97b-o,8a. R. Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus), against R. Joshua, who
held that the deliverance would come in God's time without this condition.
See Bacher, Tannaiten, I, 138, and below, Vol. II, p. 351.
2 Yoma 86b. Note other eulogies of repentance there.
3 Deut. 24, 1-4.
4 Johanan takes ZMBH as an exhortation, as does the Vulgate, "tamen
revertere ad me, dicit Dominus, et ego accipiam te."
CHAP, vi] THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE 521
consequences of a lapse from righteousness.1 No less positive
are other utterances of the prophets, such as Isa. 55, 7. Upon
the word of God himself in such scriptures the Jewish doctrine
of the unlimited efficacy of repentance is based.
R. Simeon ben Yohai formulates it thus: "If a man has been
completely righteous all his days and rebels at the end, he de-
stroys it all, for it is said, 'The righteousness of the righteous
man will not save him in the day when he transgresses* (Ezek.
33, 12). If a man has been completely wicked all his days and
repents at the end, God receives him, for it is said, 'And as for
the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not stumble by it in the
day when he turns from his wickedness'" (ibid.).2
In accordance with this, later authorities teach that even those
sins which ipso facto exclude the sinner from a share in the World
to Come,3 do so only in case he dies without repentance.4 If he
turn from his wickedness and die in a state of repentance, he is
one of the children of the World to Come, for there is nothing
that can stand before repentance. Even if a man has been all
his days one who denied God (ip'jn "isa),5 and at the last repents*
he has a share in the World to Come, for it is said: 'Peace,
peace, to him that is afar off and to him that is near, saith the
Lord . . . and I will heal him' (Isa. 57, 19). All these wicked
men, and the apostates and the like, if they turn in repentance,
whether openly or in secret, are received, as it is said, ' Return,
ye backsliding children/ 6 Even though he be still (outwardly)
a backslider, and repent only in secret and not openly, he is re-
ceived in repentance." 7
1 See especially Ezek. 18; 33,7-20.
2 Tos. &iddushm i, 14 f.; cf. Kiddushm 4ob; Jer. Peah i6b (with dif-
ferent proof-texts).
3 On these sins see below, pp. 525 f.
4 The extension to death-bed repentance results from the application of
Ezekiel's doctrine to the belief in a future life.
6 See above, p. 467.
6 Jar. 3» J4; 3> 22- The sequel of the words quoted must be taken with
them.
7 Maimomdes, Hilkot Teshubah 3, 14.
522 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
It is not improbable that the emphasis on the possibility of
repentance for apostates, even though their return be in secret
and not publicly announced, has a particular motive in the con-
ditions of the author's time; but the doctrine itself is ancient.
Thus R. Judah bar Simon quotes Hosea 14, 2 ('Return, O
Israel, to the Lord thy God ') : 1 "Even though you have been
guilty of denying God (ipja maa i^B«)."2 R. Eleazar said:
"It is the way of the world, when a man has insulted his
fellow in public and after a time seeks to be reconciled to him,
that the other says: You insult me publicly and now you
would be reconciled to me between us two alone! Go bring the
men in whose presence you insulted me, and I will be recon-
ciled to you. But God is not so. A man may stand and rail
and blaspheme in the market place, and the Holy One says,
Repent between us two alone, and I will receive you." 3
That repentance is possible even in the very article of death
was argued by R. Meir to his former teacher, the apostate Elisha
ben Abuya, in his last illness. To Meir's exhortation to repent,
Elisha replied, Would I be received even now? Meir answered
by quoting Psalm 90, 3, to which he gave the turn, 'Thou lettest
man return (repent) even unto crushing — that is until life is
crushed out of him — and sayest repent, ye children of men.' 4
There is danger, however, in presuming on this possibility.
In Sifre on Num. 6, 26 (§ 42) a series of unqualified expressions
of God's readiness to hear prayer and forgive sin are paired with
utterances of a directly opposite tenor. For example, Jer. 3, 14,
'Repent, ye backsliding children,' with the words of the same
prophet in 8, 4, 'If a man repent, He will not repent';6 sim-
ilarly, Isa. 55, 6, 'Seek the Lord while he may be found,' with
1 Here also the point is in the sequel of the quotation: 'I will heal their
backsliding, I will love them freely; for mine anger is turned away from
him.'
2 Pesikta ed. Buber f. 163 b.
5 Ibid.
4 Jer. Uagigah 770, top; Eccles. R. on Eccles. 7, 8. See Note 233.
6 In this sense the clause, ZMP &6l 31ET DK, detached from its context,
is here taken. In all cases the sequel must be recalled (Jer. 3, 14-18; 8, 4-6).
CHAP, vi] THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE 523
Ezek. 20, 31, ' As I live, saith the Lord God, I will not be sought
by you/ The contradiction is reconciled in every case by the
same formula: the invitation or promise holds until the sentence l
is sealed; the contrary after it is sealed. And the doom of the
impenitent sinner may be sealed long before his death.2 The
specific application to repentance is made in the Tanhuma. In
the sacerdotal benediction Num. 6, 26, 'The Lord will show thee
favor and give thee peace,' and another Scripture says, 'who will
not show favor' (Deut. 10, 17). How so? If a man repents be-
fore the sentence is sealed, the Lord will show him favor; when
once it is sealed, the words apply, 'who will not show favor.' 3
That God accepts the repentance of the worst of sinners is
proved by king Manasseh. No figure in the whole history is
painted so black. He had erected altars of the Baals through-
out the land, and installed foreign gods and an idol in the very
temple of Jehovah; he offered his children to 'the King' (Mo-
loch) in the fires of the Tophet in the Valley of Hinnom; he
practised nefarious augury, necromancy, and sorcery. In these
ways he led his people astray till they outdid in evil the nations
of Canaan that the Lord had exterminated when the Israelites
came into the land.4 To the warning of the Lord, king and
people gave no heed. The Chronicler adds that the Assyrians
came and carried Manasseh off to Babylon in chains; there in
his distress he humbled himself before the God of his fathers
and prayed, and God yielded to his entreaty and heard his sup-
plication and restored him to Jerusalem and to his throne.
'Then Manasseh knew that Jehovah is (the true) God' (2
Chron. 33, 11-13). His prayer is said to be recorded in the
Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.6
1 n IM.
2 Cf. Rosh ha-Shanah lyb-iSa.
3 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Naso § 18 (f. I7a-b); Num. R. 11,15. See Note 234-
4 2 Chron. 33, 1-9; cf. 2 Kings 21, 1-15.
5 In Sifre Deut. § 32, on Deut. 6, 5 (ed. Friedmann f. 73b, below) Manasseh
is adduced as an example of the effect of chastisement in leading to repent-
ance. — On the Prayer of Manasseh see above, p. 514.
524 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
The inference was plain: if one who, in spite of the law (Deut.
13, 6 ff.) and the warnings of the prophets, had sinned so fla-
grantly and wilfully, and caused the whole people to sin, could
be forgiven and restored to God's favor upon his penitent prayer,
there was no one whose repentance could not be accepted.
The divine justice (pn mo) would have hindered the re-
ception of Manasseh's supplication; but God made a kind of
loop-hole in the firmament in order to receive him in repentance.1
A more expansive version is found in the Palestinian sources.
In his distress Manasseh called on every heathen deity by name
to rescue him. When he got no help from them at all, he remem-
bered the words of Deut. 4, 30 f., ' In thy distress, when all
these things are come upon thee in the latter days, thou shalt
return to the Lord thy God, and hearken unto his voice; for
the Lord thy God is a merciful God; he will not fail thee, nor
destroy thee,' etc., and said, I call upon him; if he answer me,
well, and if not, all ways are alike.2 The ministering angels
stopped up the windows of the firmament to keep Manasseh's
prayer from coming up to God, and said to God, Is there repent-
ance for a man who set up an idol in thy temple? God answered,
If I do not receive him in repentance, I shall bolt the door in the
face of all penitents. What did God do? He made a kind of
loop-hole beneath the glorious throne and heard his supplication
(2 Chron. 33, 13) .3
The Scriptures furnished other examples of great sinners the
acceptance of whose repentance was evident from the fact that
dire sentence against them was revoked or remitted.4 In the
chapter on repentance in the Pesikta from which the case of
Manasseh has just been quoted, Israel is supposed to ask; "Lord
of the worlds, if we repent, wilt thou receive us? God answers,
1 Sanhedrin loja.
2 One religion is as unprofitable as another.
3 Jer. Sanhedrin 280; Pesikta ed. Buber f. i62a-b; Lev. R. 30, 3, etc. See
Note 235.
4 Even the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf at the foot of Sinai.
Tanhuma ed. Buber, Balak § 21, end. See Note 236.
CHAP, vi] THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE 525
I accepted the repentance of Cain, and will I not accept your
repentance?"1 Among the kings, besides Manasseh, Ahab and
Jeconiah are adduced; and of nations the men of Nineveh, with
a recital of their repentance and the proof of its acceptance.2
Other biblical examples elsewhere cited are Enoch, Reuben,
Judah.3
The repentance of Manasseh led to his restoration to the
throne, as the Scripture says; but when the sphere of retribution
was extended beyond this world, the question could still be
raised whether such as he would have a part in the World to
Come. In the Mishnah Sanhedrin 10, 2, among the exceptions
to the rule that all Israel has a share in the World to Come, it is
said: "Three kings4 and four private persons have no share in
the World to Come." The three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab,
and Manasseh. R. Judah (ben Ila'i) contended on the ground
of 2 Chron. 33, 13 that Manasseh would have a place in the
World to Come, but the others replied (the text says), God re-
stored him to his kingdom, not to the life of the World to Come.6
Nevertheless, Johanan, the most influential of the Palestinian
teachers of the third century and head of the school of Tiberias,
not only held to the opinion of R. Judah, but declared: Whoever
says that Manasseh has no share in the World to Come dis-
courages all penitents.6
There are also whole classes of sinners who are denied a share
in the World to Come — heretics, 'epicureans,' various kinds of
unbelievers, apostates, delators, etc.7 Besides these the rabbi-
nical authorities denounced the same doom on other sins of a
1 Pesikta ed. Buber f. i6oa.
* Ibid., ff 160-163.
3 On Enoch, see above, p. 516. Reuben, Judah, Test, of Twelve Patri-
archs, above, p 517. In the Midrash, Sifre Deut. § 31 (ed. Fnedmann f. 72b),
and § 347; Judah and Reuben, Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyesheb § 17.
4 Tos. Sanhedrin 12, u adds Ahaz, making four kings.
5 M. Sanhedrin 10, 2; Sanhedrin io2b-iO3a.
6 Ibid. I03a. PQWn "^3 *?V pTT PISHD.
7 On the classes or individuals thus excluded see Maimonides, Hilkot
Teshubah 3, 6 ff., and below, Vol. II, pp. 388 f.
526 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
less radical nature;1 but this fate befalls those only who die
impenitent.2
Several post-talmudic sources have a catalogue of twenty-four
sins that render repentance difficult or altogether impossible.3
Four of them fall under the former category — God does not put
it in the sinner's power to repent;4 the rest are obstacles to re-
pentance, but do not wholly prevent it. "If a man repent of
them, he is a penitent, and has a share in the World to Come." 6
The hindrances, as Maimonides explains, are in man himself —
the effect of sin upon his conscience, or, in the case of sins
against his fellows, circumstances which make it difficult to
fulfil the conditions of reparation and reconciliation.6
Repentance was included in the plan of God before the crea-
tion of the world, or, as it is expressed, was created before the
world. The proof-text is Psalm 90, 2 f. : * Before the mountains
were brought forth. . . . Thou turnest men to contrition, and
sayest, Return (repent), ye children of men/ The seven things
thus created are the Law (the future revelation), repentance, para-
dise, hell, the glorious throne (of God), the (celestial) temple, and
the name of the Messiah.7 The reflection which thus gives re-
pentance a premundane existence in the plan of God is obvious
from the other members of the group — the Law, paradise, hell.
God knew that the man he purposed to create, with his freedom
and his native evil impulse, would sin against the revealed will
of God in his law and incur not only its temporal penalties in
1 Abot 3, ii (Eleazar of Modiim); Sanhedrin 99a. Even one who puts
his fellow to shame publicly (cf. Baba Mesi'a 58b, below.
2 Maimonides, 1. c. 3, 14.
3 Ibid. 4, i ff., with comment showing in what ways they hinder repent-
ance; the list is probably derived from a lost minor tractate. (Schechter,
Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 331 n. 2).
4 Cf. ibid. 6, 3.
5 Ibid. 4, 6.
6 Ibid. 4, 3; 6, 3. Isa. 6, 10 is quoted, as in Matt. 13, 14 f. and parallels;
Acts 28, 26 f.
7 Pesahim 54a and Nedarim 39b; Gen. R. 1,4; Tan^uma ed. Buber,Naso
§ 19 init. See above, p. 266, and Notes 33 and 34.
CHAP, vi] THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE 527
this life but the pains of hell. He must therefore have provided
beforehand the remedy for sin, repentance.
God not only provided repentance as the sovereign remedy
for sin, but continually sets forth its efficacy and urges men to
avail themselves of it. By the repeated warnings of his provi-
dence and by the temporal punishments he inflicts, he endeavors
to bring them to repent.1 God's dealing with transgressors is
contrasted with the administration of human (Roman) justice.
When a robber is brought up before the criminal court, the judge
reads the charges, then pronounces sentence, and forthwith the
man is led off to execution. God's way is different: first he reads
the charges — 'And now they sin still more and have made them
a molten image' (Hos. 13, 2); then he smites them — 'Ephraim
is smitten, their root is dried up' (Hos. 9, 16); then he imposes
upon them, as it were a burden — 'The guilt of Ephraim is bound
up in a bundle, its sin is laid in store' (Hos. 13, 12); and after
that he passes sentence upon them — 'Samaria shall pay the
penalty, because it has rebelled against its God' (Hos. 14, i);
and finally he brings them back in repentance — 'Repent, O
Israel' (Hos. 14, 2).2
God bade Jeremiah, Go, say to Israel, Repent! He went and
delivered the message. They replied, Master, how can we re-
pent? With what face can we come into the presence of God?
Have we not provoked him to wrath and outraged him? Those
very mountains and hills on which we worshipped strange gods,
are they not standing there? 'Upon the tops of the mountains
they sacrifice' (Hos. 4, 13). 'Let us lie in our shame and let our
disgrace cover us' (Jer. 3, 25). When the prophet returned to
God and reported their words, God bade him say to them, If
ye come to me, is it not to your Father in heaven that ye come?
'For I have been a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-
born' (Jer. 31, 9). 3
To similar intent another rabbi lets God answer the same de-
spairing response of the people to the prophet's summons: "Did
1 See below, pp. 528 f. * Pesikta ed. Buber f. 159^ 8 Ibid. f. 165 a.
528 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
I not write in my law, 'I will set my face against that soul and
cut him off from the midst of his people' (Lev. 20, 6). Have I
then done so? Nay, but ('Repent, thou backsliding Israel, saith
the Lord), I will not frown upon you, for I am merciful, saith
the Lord, I will not bear a grudge forever' (Jer. 3, I2).1
It is unnecessary to multiply illustrations of a doctrine which
lies so plainly on the face of the Scriptures and is everywhere
assumed in the teaching of the school and the synagogue. Some
expressions to the same effect have already been quoted from
the extra-canonical literature,2 in which, however, the theme is
not nearly so prominent as in the rabbinical sources.
God's efforts to lead men to repent and so to avert the doom
impending over them for their sins are not confined to Israel.
Numerous instances are adduced in Midrash Tanhuma. God
hoped that the generation of the Flood would repent and he
might receive them; for this reason he had Noah build the ark
under their eyes and explain to them what it was for.3 Notwith-
standing their rebellion he stretched out his hand 4 to the builders
of the Tower of Babel and bade them repent, promising to re-
ceive them, repentance being the one thing he requires (Deut. 10,
I2).5 The Scripture says: 'As I live, saith the Lord, I do not
desire the death of the wicked' (Ezek. 33, 1 1).6 Why? Because
he may perhaps repent. So also (from Gen. 18, 20 f.) it is in-
ferred that God opened to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah
a door of repentance; 7 and when God communicated to Abra-
1 Pesikta ed Buber, f i6$a. The following verses in Jer. 3 are to be re-
called by the quotation. ('Only acknowledge thine iniquity, 'etc.)
2 Above, pp. 515 ff.
8 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bereshit § 37.
4 On this phrase see Sifre Num. § 134 (ed. Friedmann f. 5ob, middle);
Mekilta, Shirah 5 (ed. Friedmann f. 38b; ed. Weiss f. 46a). God's hand is
held out to all who come into the world.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Noah § 28, applying a verse specifically addressed
to Israel.
6 The heathen are 'the wicked* in an eminent sense.
7 Gen. R. 49, 6 and elsewhere. So also to the Egyptians, before the catas-
trophe at the Red Sea, Mekilta, Shirah 5 (on Exod. 15, 5). See Note 237.
CHAP, vi] THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE 529
ham his purpose to destroy the cities of the plain, Abraham began
at once to make a plea for them, thinking that perhaps they
might repent.1 Most conclusive is the repentance of the Nin-
evites at Jonah's preaching, and God's annulment of the doom
pronounced upon them,2 to the profound dissatisfaction of the
prophet whose attempted flight had been prompted by a pre-
sentiment that the heathen were near repentance and that his
soft-hearted God would forgive them.3
On the other hand the particularistic note is sometimes struck.
Thus, on Num. 6, 26, 'The Lord will show favor to thee,' and
the contrary in Deut. 10, 17, we find the usual reconciliation:
If a man repent, God shows him favor, with the supplement: It
might be inferred that this applies to all men (including the
heathen), but this inference is not admissible, for the text says,
' to thee,' and not to another people (thus restricting the promise
to Israel).4 The exhortations to repentance in the Scriptures and
the promises of forgiveness and restoration are in the nature of
the case addressed almost exclusively to Israel, and are correctly
so interpreted. For the Gentile to participate in this promise,
as in all others, the indispensable condition is the repentance, or
conversion, in which he abandons his false religion for the true,
the heathenish freedom of his way of life for obedience to the
revealed will of God in his Law; in a word, becomes a proselyte
to Judaism, a Jew by naturalization.5 This is the logical attitude
of a revealed religion, and has always been maintained by the
Christian church: repentance avails nothing — or, more exactly,
repentance in the proper sense is impossible — outside the
church. The 'gate of repentance' which is open to those out-
side is the gate of entrance into the true religion, to whose pro-
fessors alone God's promises of grace, and first of all the forgive-
ness of sins, belong. Moslem doctrine is the same.
1 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera § 9; cf. § 16. 2 Jonah cc. 3-4.
3 Mekilta, Bo, Introduction (ed. Fnedmann f. ib-2a; ed. Weiss f. ib-2a).
4 Pesikta ed. Buber f. I56a-b.
6 It is such a conversion that Philo oftenest has in mind when he writes of
repentance. See above, pp. 327 f.
530 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
God is ever waiting to receive the confession and supplication
of the penitent sinner. The figure of a gate, or door, of access
to God frequently occurs. God makes or opens this door for
individuals, as he did for Adam.1 The gates of prayer (petition)
are sometimes closed; but the gates of repentance are always
open.2 Repentance is like the sea, in which nothing hinders any
man from purifying himself at any time; while prayer is com-
pared to a bath, access to which may for various reasons be pre-
vented.3 In the story of Manasseh's repentance quoted above
there are open windows in the firmament through which the con-
fession and supplication of the penitent rise to the ears of God;
and when the angels try to stop them, God himself makes a new
opening beneath his very throne (whither the angels dare not
venture). "If ye repent, I will receive you and judge you favor-
ably, for the gates of Heaven (God) are open, and I am listening
to your prayer; for I am looking out of the windows, peering
out through the crevices, until the sentence is sealed on the Day
of Atonement. Therefore Isaiah says, 'Seek the Lord while he
may be found/"4
The purport of all this imagery is plain: the repenting sinner
may be sure that at all times and under all circumstances God
takes note at once of his repentance. An arrow carries the width
of a field; but repentance carries to the very throne of God.5 In
a later Midrash this is ascribed, in an amplified form, to the Pa-
triarch Judah: "Great is the power of repentance, for as soon as
a man meditates in his heart to repent, instantly it (his repent-
ance) rises, not ten miles, nor twenty, nor a hundred, but a
journey of five hundred years; and not to the first firmament but
1 Gen. R. 21, 6. According to this, Adam did not take the opportunity;
hence Cam appears as the first penitent, ibid. 22, 12 f.
2 Ibid. The comparison to the sea is suggested by Psalm 65, 6.
8 Pesikta ed. Buber f. I57a-b.
4 Ibid. f. I56b. The reference to the ten Penitential Days, see below,
p. 512; Vol. II, pp 62 f
6 Ibid. f. i6jb; cf. Yoma 86a, end; from Hosea 14, 2, 1JJ
*Vnf>K 71 (see above p. 387). Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 534.
CHAP, vi] THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE 531
to the seventh; and not to the seventh firmament only — it
stands before the glorious throne" (Hos. 14, 2).1
God encourages and assists every movement of man's heart
towards him. The words of the lover in the Song of Songs (5, 2),
'Open to me, my sister,' are thus applied: God says, "Open to
me an entrance no larger than the eye of a needle, and I will
open to you an entrance through which tents and great timbers
can pass." 2
In view of several passages in the Old Testament, e.g. Jer. 31,
1 8 f., the question could be raised whether the initiative in repent-
ance, conceived as a reciprocal 'return,' is on God's side or man's.
In the Midrash on Lam. 5, 21, 'Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord,
and we shall be turned,' the Israelite church8 says to God:
"Lord of the World, it is for Thee to do — 'Turn us (and we shall
be turned).' God replies, It is for you to do, as it is said, 'Turn
unto me and I will turn unto you' (Mai. 3, 7). Israel answers,
It is for Thee, as it is written, 'Turn us, O God of our salvation'
(Psalm 85, 5).4 The Midrash on Psalms combines the two. The
children of Korah said: How long will ye say, 'Turn, O back-
sliding children' (Jer. 3, 14), whilst Israel said, ' Return, O God,
how long?' (Psalm 90, 13). . . . But neither Thou (God) wilt
return by thyself, nor will we return by ourselves, but we will
return both together, as it is said, 'Turn us, O God of our sal-
vation. . . . Wilt Thou not come back and revive us' (Psalm
85, 5-7). As Ezekiel said, 'Behold, O my people, I will open
your grave. . . and will put my spirit in you, and ye shall live*
(Ezek. 37, i2-i4).B
The Scripture thus gives authority and example to prayers,
that God may give repentance.6
1 Pesikta Rabbati ed. Friedmann f. i85a. See Note 238.
2 Pesikta ed. Buber f. i63b; cf. ibid. ^6b and the editor's note there.
Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 327.
1 ^N-IG^ J1DJ3.
4 Lam. R. on Lam. 5, 21. The Midrash operates with the unusual U3W
(instead of the causative), see the commentaries.
6 Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 85, 5. The condensed translation is Schechter 's.
6 E.g. Shemoneh 'Esreh, 5. See above, pp. 293 f.
532 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
The sin of the repentant sinner is not only forgiven, the mem-
ory of it is expunged. Among the 'sweetest' words of God to
mankind (Cant. 5, 16) R. Levi names Ezek. 18, 21 f.: If the
wicked man turns from all his sins, etc., God says, 'None of his
transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered
against him; by his righteousness that he has done he shall live/ 1
The same verse from Ezekiel is similarly used elsewhere: "See
how excellent repentance is! God says, 'Return unto me and I
will return unto you' (Mai. 3, 7). For no matter how many
wicked deeds a man has to his charge, if he repent before God,
God imputes it to him as if he had not sinned, as it is said, 'None
of his transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered '
(Ezek. 18, 22).2
There is no forgetfulness with God, but, if one might venture
to say so, for Israel's sake he is made forgetful; 'Who is a God
like thee that forgets iniquity 3 and passes over the transgres-
sions of the remnant of his inheritance' (Mic. 7, 18). So David
says: 'Thou hast forgotten the iniquity of thy people, thou hast
covered all their sin' (Psalm 85, 3).4
God, says Philo, esteems repentance as highly as sinlessness.5
Repentance is a purification of the inner man: 'O Jerusalem,
wash thy heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved.
How long shall thy wicked thoughts abide within thee?' (Jer. 4,
14). Nothing else can purify from sin. To the unrepentant God
says, 'For if thou wash thee with lye and use exceeding much
soap, yet thy guilt remains a spot before me' (Jer. 2, 22) .6
To the exhortation of Hos. 14, 2, Israel responds with the
question, Lord of the World, what wilt thou do with all our
1 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyese § 22.
2 Ibid. Wayyera § 16. From the same passage in Ezekiel, Justin Martyr
learns that God holds the penitent sinner cos BiKaiov KCLL ava^apTrjTov.
3 flJJ KtW,' forgiving,' read as HBO, 'forgetting.' Similarly in Psalm 85, 3.
4 Jer. Sanhednn 270, and elsewhere; Pesikta ed. Buber f. i67a. Bacher,
Pal. Amoraer, II, 112 f.
6 De spec. legg. i. 3 § 187 (ed. Mangey, II, 240). See Note 239.
6 Pesikta ed. Buber f. i56b; cf. also Sifre Num. § 42 (ed. Friedmann f.
I2b, middle).
CHAP, vi] THE EFFICACY OF REPENTANCE 533
iniquities? He answers, Repent, and they will be swallowed up
out of the world, as it is said, 'He will turn and have mercy
upon us, He will submerge our iniquities, and Thou wilt cast
into the depths of the sea all our sins' (Mic. 7, 19).*
The complete annulment of the sinner's past is expressed in an
even more forcible way by the figure of a new creation. God
says, when you are gathered to judgment before me on New
Years Day and go forth in peace (acquitted), I impute it to you
as if you were created a new creation (or creature).2 Another
version, ascribed to R. Isaac, is found in the Pesikta Rabbati:
God says to Israel, Repent in these ten days between New Years
and the Day of Atonement, and I will justify8 you on the Day
of Atonement and create you a new creation.4 The same figure
is used by Paul: 'If any man is in Christ (it is) a new creation;
the old has passed away, all has become new.' 5
The pre-eminence of repentance is expressed in the following
passage: "Men asked Wisdom, What is the doom of the sinner?
It answered, 'Evil pursues sinners' (Prov. 13, 21); they asked
Prophecy the same question, and it answered, 'The soul (the
individual) that sins shall die' (Ezek. 18, 4); they asked the
Law, and it answered, 'Let him bring a trespass offering (asharri)
and it shall be forgiven him,' as it is said, 'And it shall be ac-
cepted for him to make atonement for him' (Lev. i, 4). They
asked the Holy One, blessed is He, and he answered, 'Let him
repent, and it shall be forgiven him.' This is the' meaning of the
text, 'Good and right is the Lord, therefore will he instruct sin-
ners in the way' (Psalm 25, 8)." 6 That is, he shows them the
way that they may repent. As Schechter observes, this is not
meant to put the three parts of Scripture in contradiction to one
1 Pesikta Rabbati ed. Fnedmann f. i85b. Cf. Targum Micah 7, 19.
2 Jer. Rosh ha-Shanah 590, below (R. Eleazar ben Jose); Pesikta ed.
Buber f. i5Sb; Lev. R. 29, end. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, II, 261.
3 rOTD, 'acquit, declare guiltless/ corresponding to Paul's use of $uccu6co.
4 Pesikta Rabbati ed. Fnedmann f. i69a.
6 2 Cor. 5, 17; cf. Gal. 6, 15.
6 Pesikta ed. Buber f. I58b; Jer. Makkot 3id, below.
534 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
another and to the words of the Lord himself, but to indicate
the pre-eminence of repentance above all other expiations.1 In
fact, Jewish doctrine finds a place for expiation by suffering the
consequences of sin, and by death, as well as by sacrifice; but
all are conditional upon repentance.
1 Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 294.
CHAPTER VII
MOTIVES OF FORGIVENESS
FORGIVENESS is a prerogative of God which he shares with no
other and deputes to none. The angels, as we have seen, are
more jealous of God's honor, more insistent on strict justice, less
inclined to let mercy have the final word, than their Master.
The Israelites are warned that the angel whom God sends to
lead them through the desert will not pardon their transgression
(Exod. 23, 2I).1 David says to God: "Lord of the World, to an
angel wilt thou hand me over, who shows no favor? Who can
stand before him ? ' If thou, O Lord, shouldst keep note of iniqui-
ties, O Lord, who could stand? ' If Thou sayst that forgiveness is
not in Thy power, it is in Thy power, as it is said, 'For with Thee
is forgiveness, that Thou mayst be revered' (Psalm 130, 3 f.)."2
God is moved to forgive sin by his own character. Mercy is
the attribute which best expresses his nature,3 and it is shown
to all his creatures. 'Gracious and merciful is the Lord, long-
suffering and of great loving-kindness. Good is the Lord to all,
and his mercies are over all his works' (Psalm 145, 8 f.). The
words are often quoted and applied. God's goodness and mercy
embrace man and beast, Jew and Gentile, righteous and wicked.4
The Jew had not only the general uncovenanted mercy of God
to appeal to like the Gentiles. He had in the Scriptures the as-
surance of God's peculiar love to Israel, and here again what the
prophets declared of his love for his people collectively was ap-
propriated individually by the members of the people.
1 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Mishpatim § n. It is neither in the angel's nature
to pardon sin, nor is he commissioned to do so.
2 Ibid.
8 See above, pp. 389 f., 393 f.
4 See Note 240.
535
536 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
God's love for Israel had its origin and ground in his love for
its forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So Moses declares:
'Behold, unto the Lord thy God belongeth the heaven and the
heaven of heavens, the earth with all that therein is. Only the
Lord ardently loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them,
even you, in preference to all the nations, as is now the case'
(Deut. 10, 15; cf. 4, 37) -1 On their part the character and con-
duct of the patriarchs were peculiarly well-pleasing to God.
They fulfilled and exemplified the fundamental law, 'Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul*
and with all thy might/ R. Meir quotes his master Akiba:
'"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart/ like our
father Abraham, as it is said, 'For I know him, that he will com-
mand his sons and his household after him' (Gen. 18, 19); and
with all thy soul (life), like Isaac, who bound himself upon the
altar; 'and with all thy gratitude/ that is, give thanks to him
like Jacob, as it is said, 'I am not worthy of all the mercies and
of all the faithfulness that thou hast shown unto thy servant,'"
etc. (Gen. 32, ii).2
It was natural to believe that God would show especial favor
or indulgence to their descendants for the sake of the affection
and esteeem in which he held their fathers, and for this expec-
tation there was good warrant in the Scriptures.3 When the
prophet in Isa. 41, 8 ff. would inspire his fellow exiles to faith
in the signal deliverance their God was about to work for them,
he addresses them: 'But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom
I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, my friend, . . . fear not, for
I am with thee, be not dismayed, for I am thy God,' etc. The
people that bears the name of Israel and of Jacob, the posterity
of Abraham, God's 'friend,' has in that very fact the assurance
that the God of their fathers will not desert them in their distress.
1 Also and especially 7, 6-10.
2 Sifre Deut. § 32, on Deut. 6, 5. "pKD is taken as if from min, 'confess,
give thanks/ Backer, Tannaiten, II, 49 f.; cf p. 38, n. 3. On Isaac, see be-
low, pp. 539 ff.
* See also Lev. 26, 44 f.; an example 2 Kings 13, 23.
CHAP, vii] MOTIVES OF FORGIVENESS 537
The appeal to the memory of the patriarchs and God's sworn
promises to them has its most striking and conclusive precedent
in the intercession of Moses for the people after the sin of the
golden calf (Exod. 32, 11-13; c^ Deut. 9, 27). All his pleas,
it is observed, did not persuade God to relent in his purpose to
destroy the faithless and insensate people which at the very foot
of Sinai had broken the first commandment of the Decalogue,
until Moses urged, 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,
thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and
saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven,
and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed,
and they shall inherit it forever. Then the Lord repented of
the evil which he said he would do unto his people/ 1 R. Heze-
kiah ben IJiyya (3d cent.) expressly draws the inference: Moses'
intercession was not accepted by God until he made mention of
the good desert of the forefathers. God said to him, Moses, if
it were not for the good desert of their forefathers, I would de-
stroy them; you cannot adduce any good desert in the people
itself (as a reason for sparing them).2 "When Israel sinned in the
desert, Moses stood before God and uttered ever so many pray-
ers and intercessions before him, and was not answered. But
when he said, 'Remember Abraham and Isaac and Israel, thy
servants,' he was answered at once." z
In fact the prominence given in the words of God himself to
this peculiar relation to the patriarchs, to his covenant with them
or oath to them,4 and the appeal to this relation by their posterity
in pleading for God's help,6 or in expressions of confidence in his
1 On the intercession of Moses see Berakot 32a; So^ah 143. Moses did
not rely on his own merit, but the merit was ascribed to him, Berakot lob
(Psalm 106, 23). See Note 241.
2 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera § 9. Cf. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 55.
See Note 242.
3 Shabbat joa. — God advises Israel to appeal to the merit of the patri-
archs, in order to ga*n their cause before Him. Pesikta ed. Buber f. I53b;
Lev. R. 29, 7. — See also the Musaf for New Years (Singer, Daily Prayer
Book, p. 251 f.).
4 See e.g. Lev. 26, 40-45 ; Deut. 9, 5.
6 E.g. Deut. 9, 26-29; cf. Gen. 32, 9-12.
538 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
deliverance,1 gave sufficient ground for the Jewish belief that
because of the fathers God blessed their descendants.
Among the patriarchs Abraham is pre-eminent. In Gen. 26,
3-5, God says to Isaac: 'I will perform the oath which I swore
to Abraham thy father, and will multiply thy posterity like the
stars of heaven, and will give to thy posterity all these lands . . .
because Abraham listened to my voice and kept the charge I
gave him and my commandments, my statutes, and my law/ 2
An ancient homiletical Midrash has a parable of a king who
planned building a palace. He dug in several places seeking
proper ground for a foundation; at last he struck rock beneath,
and said, Here I will build, so he laid the foundations and built.
Just so when God sought to create the world, he examined the
generation of Enosh 8 and the generation of the Flood, and said,
How can I create the world when these wicked people will rise
up and provoke me to anger? When he saw Abraham who was
to arise, he said, Now I have found a rock (irerpa) on which to
build and establish the world. For this reason he calls Abraham
a rock (-vra, Isa. 51, if.).4 Abraham obtained possession of both
worlds; for his sake this world and the world to come were
created.5 In another Midrash we even find the statement that
"for all the idle and false things that Israelites do in this world,
Abraham is sufficient to atone." 6 But it is only necessary to
read the context to see how far this is from a doctrinal valuation
of the patriarch's merit.
An ancient Midrash runs: "You will find that all the signal
interventions (n^w, 'miracles') that were wrought for Israel
were for Abraham's sake (omaK ^ wan). The exodus from
Egypt was for his sake, for it is written, 'He remembered
his holy word unto Abraham his servant, and brought out his
1 E.g. Micah 7, 18-20. 2 See also Neh. 9, 7 f.
8 On the sin of the generation of Enosh (Gen. 4, 26), see above, p. 473.
4 Yelammedenu in YalkuJ, I, § 766 (on Num. 23, 9); cf. Matthew 16, 18.
6 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Bayye Sarah § 6 (by metathesis of DITUrn, Gen.
2, 4, omana).
6 Pesikta ed. Buber f.
CHAP, vii] MOTIVES OF FORGIVENESS 539
people with joy,' etc. (Psalm 105, 42 f.); the cleaving of the
Red Sea was for his sake, for it is written, 'To him who parted
the Red Sea into parts' (Psalm 136, 13); 1 . . . the cleaving of the
Jordan (Josh. 3, 14 f.) ; ... the giving of the Law was for his sake,
for it is written, 'Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led
captivity captive, thou hast taken gifts among men ' " (Psalm 68,
ig).2 Such homiletic ingenuities, as we have often occasion to
observe, had no authority; in the same context in the Yalkut
R. Johanan is quoted as saying: We find in the Law and the
Prophets and the Scriptures that Israel crossed the Jordan only
for the sake of Jacob (Gen. 32, 1 1 ; Josh. 4, 22 f.; Psalm 1 14, 5-7).
In the passage quoted above (p. 536) from Sifre Deut. § 32 the
characteristic virtue of Isaac is found in that "he bound himself
upon the altar" as a willing sacrifice, a proof that he loved God
with his whole soul (life), which he thus surrendered to fulfil
God's command. In Genesis it is Abraham's faith and his obedi-
ence to God's will even to the offering of his only son, the child
of promise, that constitutes the whole significance of the story;
Isaac is a purely passive figure. In the rabbinical literature,
however, the voluntariness of the sacrifice on Isaac's part is
strongly emphasized. Instead of a child he is a man in the ful-
ness of his strength (according to the rabbinical chronology,3
thirty-seven years old), whom, plainly, the aged father could not
have bound against his will. The text in Sifre is even stronger —
"he bound himself." In a dispute with Ishmael, who claimed
superior merit because he had been circumcised at thirteen,
when he could have refused, while Isaac was but an infant and
unable to object, Isaac declares: "You taunt me about one
member of the body. If God were to say to me now, Sacrifice
thyself! I would make the sacrifice forthwith."4 According to
1 See Note 243.
2 Yelammedenu in Yalkut on Josh. 13, 16 (II, § 15).
3 Seder 'Olam R. c. i (ed. Ratner f. 3 f.), with Ratner's note. The oppo-
site view, Ibn Ezra on Gen. 22, 4.
4 Sanhedrm 89b; cf. Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wayyera § 42; Gen. R. 55, 4.
540 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
the Midrash this immediately preceded the command to Abra-
ham to sacrifice his son, which thus appears as a test of Isaac's
sincerity in the assertion. The willingness of Isaac to be offered
in sacrifice is much earlier made a part of the story in Josephus,
according to whom he was twenty-five years old.1
Rabbi Jonathan (ben Eleazar), in a homiletic exposition of
Isaiah 63, 16 ('Abraham acknowledges us not and Israel does
not recognize us') infers that Abraham and Jacob both refused
to intercede for sinful Israel. When God said to them, Thy
children have sinned, they replied, Let them be wiped out, that
thy name may be hallowed; but Isaac pleaded for them: they
are God's children, as much as his. He reduces the time of
man's accountability by subtracting his minority, the half of
his life spent in sleeping, the hours occupied by praying, eating,
and other necessary doings, from seventy to twelve and a half.
If God will bear the whole of man's sins, well and good; if not,
let him bear half and Isaac will take half. "And if Thou sayest
that I must bear the whole, lo, I sacrificed myself to Thee,"
thus making expiation for his people. Thereupon the Israelites
exclaim, Thou art our father! But Isaac admonished them to
praise God rather than him, and revealed God to their eyes.
Then they lifted their eyes on high, saying: "Thou, O Lord,
art our father, our Redeemer from eternity is Thy name!" 2
On the ancient petition on public fasts, "He who answered
Abraham our father on Mount Moriah shall answer you and
hearken to the voice of your crying in that day," the Talmud
lets Abraham remind God how, when he was bidden to offer his
only son, he made no reply, as he might have done and was at
first inclined to do, but suppressed his impulse and did God's will,
and he asks, as in requital, that, when Isaac's sons are in tribu-
lation and have none to undertake their defense, God himself
shall undertake their defense, and let the binding of Isaac their
1 Antt. i. 13, 2 § 227; cf. ibid. 13, 3 § 232. Philo makes him a young lad,
De Abrahamo c. 32 § 176. See Note 244.
1 Shabbat Spb. Bacher, Pal. Amoraer, I, 72.
CHAP, vii] MOTIVES OF FORGIVENESS 541
father be remembered in their behalf, and mercy in full measure
be shown them.1
The 'Binding of Isaac' found a place in the Liturgy of the
synagogue. Thus, in the Additional Prayers (Musaf) for New
Years: "Remember unto us, O Lord our God, the covenant and
the loving-kindness, and the oath that thou swarest unto Abra-
ham our father on Mount Moriah;2 and may the binding with
which Abraham our father bound Isaac his son on the altar be
before thine eyes, how he suppressed his compassion in order to
do thy will with a perfect heart. So may thy compassion sup-
press thine anger against us/' etc.3 In the later liturgy, as well
as in the Palestinian Targum and the younger Midrashim,4 the
'Akedah has a much larger place.
The appeal to God's mercy for the sake of the forefathers is
frequent in writings of divers kinds. Thus, in the prayer of
Azarias (Greek Daniel 3, 34 ff.): "Do not withdraw thy mercy
from us, for the sake of Abraham thy beloved, and of Isaac thy
servant, and of Jacob thy saint, to whom thou didst promise to
make their posterity as numerous as the stars of heaven and as
the sand on the sea-shore."6 Similarly in 2 Mace. 8, 15, before
a battle with a Syrian army, the Jews pray to God to deliver
them from Nicanor, who purposed to sell them into slavery:
"If not for their own sake, yet for the sake of the covenants with
their fathers, and because God's reverend and glorious name had
been named upon them." In the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Levi, predicting the laying waste of the temple and
the dispersion of his descendants in captivity among all nations,
abominated, reviled, and hated, by the righteous judgment of
God, concludes: "And but for the sake of Abraham and Isaac
1 Jer. Ta'anit 6$d, top; Pesikta ed. Buber f. 1543-!). See Note 245.
2 Cf. M. Ta'anit 2, 4.
3 Note that the merit here is solely Abraham's. — Elbogen gives good
reason for thinking that the passage was not an original part of the prayer;
see Der judische Gottesdienst, p. 143.
4 See Note 246.
6 Exod. 32, 11-13.
542 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
and Jacob your fathers, not one of my posterity would be left
on the earth" (c. 15). Asher makes a similar prediction con-
cerning the dispersion of his descendants, but ends: "But the
Lord will gather you together again in (his) fidelity through his
mercy, for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (c. 7).
In the letter to the nine tribes and a half, appended to the
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, Baruch urges his readers to pray
continually with their whole souls that the Almighty may be
reconciled to them, and not reckon to their charge their many
sins, but be mindful of the uprightness of their fathers (84, lo).1
They are warned that when the Day of Judgement comes, there
will be no intercession of the fathers.
Paul's confidence that God will not finally leave the Jews in
the alienation in which they now are through disobedience, but
that in his plan of grace all Israel will eventually be saved, rests
on the same premises: 'Considered from the point of view of
the gospel, the Jews are hateful to God for your (Gentiles) sake;
but considered from the point of view of the election, beloved
of God for the sake of the patriarchs; for the favors of God and
his call (to a mission and destiny) are unalterable' (Rom. n,
28 f.).2
The three patriarchs, who are called by eminence 'the
fathers,' 8 are, of course, not the only ones among the ancestors
of Israel who deserved well of God and for whose sake he bestows
benefits on the people. "Three excellent leaders and adminis-
trators (D'oria) arose for Israel, Moses and Aaron and Miriam,
and for their sake three excellent gifts were given to Israel, the
well, the pillar of cloud, and the manna. The well was for
Miriam's sake, and when she died the well was taken away, but
returned for the sake of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died
the pillar of cloud was taken away, but both of them returned for
Moses' sake. When Moses died all three of them were taken
1 85, 12; cf. 4 Esdras 7, 105.
1 d/4erajLi£Xi?ra, things about which He does not change His mind.
8 Berakot i6b: The name ' fathers ' is given to three and the name 'moth-
ers' to four (Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel).
CHAP, vii] MOTIVES OF FORGIVENESS 543
away, and did not return" (Zech. u, 8).1 Solomon, in diffi-
culty about the installation of the ark in the temple, was
answered at once when he made mention of the good desert
of his father David.2 It is unnecessary to multiply instances
further.
That God's favor is extended to the descendants of virtuous
ancestry even to remote generations had the solemn warrant of
the Decalogue: 'He visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the
children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate
him, but shows mercy unto the thousandth generation of those
that love him and keep his commandments,' that is, to countless
generations of their descendants.8
It is to be noted that in several of the passages quoted above,
the appeal is in reality to the covenant with the patriarchs or
the oath to them, rather than to the piety and virtue that com-
mended them to God.
It is further to be observed that, in accordance with the Scrip-
ture precedents, the good desert of the fathers is generally
thought of as a ground of God's favor to their posterity collec-
tively, rather than individually. It is in the national aspect that
the question is raised among the rabbis of the first half of the
third century at what point in the history this desert ceased to
influence God's dealings with the people. Various limits are set,
ranging from the days of Elijah to those of Hezekiah.4 The texts
adduced for the diverse opinions are not to the point; the signifi-
cant thing is the common assumption implied in the question
and the attempt to answer it. Against a vain confidence that
Abraham's lineage of itself will avail his unworthy descendants
1 Tos. Sotah ii, 10; more fully, Ta'anit 9a; cf. Sifre Deut. § 305 (ed.
Fnedmann f. I29a-b). Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 420.
2 Tanhuma ed. Buber, Wa'era § 6. For the good desert of David, God
promises to deliver Jerusalem from Sennacherib, Berakot lob.
3 Exod. 20, 6f.; cf Deut. 7, 9. Mekilta, Bahodesh 6 (ed. Fnedmann
f. 68b; ed. Weiss f. 75!)).
4 Shabbat 55a; cf Jer. Sanhednn 27d; Lev. R. 36, 6. In the two last R.
Afca concludes that it endures forever, and is appealed to in prayer, deducing
from Deut. 4, 31. Note 247.
544 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
in the approaching crisis, John the Baptist warns the crowds that
resorted to his preaching: 'Offspring of vipers! who suggested
to you to flee from the coming wrath? Bear fruit befitting re-
pentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, We have
Abraham for father; for I tell you, God can, of these stones,
raise up children for Abraham.' *
That the righteousness of a godly father will not save a de-
generate son is too plainly and emphatically asserted by Ezekiel
not to have found a place in the teaching of the schools.2 On
Deut. 32, 39, 'There is none that can save out of my hand/ the
Sifre enlarges: Fathers do not save their sons; Abraham did
not save Ishmael, nor did Isaac save Esau. Nor can brother
save brother; Isaac did not save Ishmael nor Jacob, Esau;
even if men should give all the wealth of the earth, they could
not give a ransom for him, as it is written, 'A man can by no
means redeem his brother, nor give to God his ransom; for too
costly is the redemption of their life, that it should live for ever.' 3
The customary rendering of nu« DDT by 'merit of the
fathers' has led some scholars erroneously to attribute to the
rabbis a doctrine corresponding to the Roman Catholic doctrine
of the treasury of merits. In the first place, there is no rabbinical
doctrine on the subject, as the foregoing exposition should suffice
to make evident. Second, the notion of the efficacy of the merit
of the fathers has not the remotest affinity to Catholic doctrine.
The thesaurus meritorum Jesu Chnsti et sanctorum is a fund, so
to speak, deposited to the credit of the Church, on which the
Pope, as the successor of Peter and the vicar of Christ, draws
when he grants indulgences to the faithful.4 The 'merit of the
fathers' is no treasury of supererogatory and superabundant
1 Matt. 3, 7-9; Luke 3, 7-8; cf. John 8, 33, 39.
2 On the efforts to reconcile Exod. 20, 5 with Deut. 24, 16, Ezek. 18, 20,
see Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, pp. 185-189.
3 SifrS Deut. § 329 (ed. Fnedmann f. I39b); cf. Sanhedrin iO4a. See
Note 248.
4 See the Bull of Leo X, Cum postquam circumspecta tua (1518), de-
fining the doctrine of indulgences, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.
CHAP, vii] MOTIVES OF FORGIVENESS 545
good works; and, above all, there was no Church, and no Pope
to dispense it upon his own conditions. That God, having re-
gard to the character of the patriarchs, his relations to them and
his promises to them, in his good pleasure shows special favor
or undeserved lenience to their posterity, is a wholly different
thing. Men may seek of God the forgiveness of sins ' for the
sake of the fathers'; but they cannot claim to have their demerit
offset by the merit of the fathers.1
1 On the merit of the Fathers see Note 249.
CHAPTER VIII
EXPIATORY SUFFERING
HOWEVER full and free the divine forgiveness of the penitent
sinner be conceived to be, experience shows that it does not
annul all that we call the consequences of sin, whether we think
of them as natural or penal. In the doctrine of the Catholic
Church, the penitent, in the absolution, is relieved of the eternal,
but not of the temporal, penalty of sin; hence the necessity of
the satisjactio pro peccatis l which is an integral part of true re-
pentance. Judaism also recognizes sins for which expiation re-
mained to be made by the sinner after his repentance had been
accepted. Rabbi Ishmael distinguishes four cases: For the
neglect of a commandment requiring a man to do something,
repentance itself at once secures forgiveness for the sin of omis-
sion (Jer. 3, 22); for the transgression of a prohibition (sin of
commission), repentance suspends the sentence and the Day of
Atonement atones (Lev. 16, 30); for transgressions the penalty
of which is to be cut off (from the people by the act of God) or
capital punishment by the sentence of a court, repentance and
the Day of Atonement suspend the sentence, and sufferings
atone (Psalm 89, 33); but if a man gives occasion for profaning
the name of Heaven (God), though he repent, there is no power
in repentance to suspend sentence, nor in the Day of Atonement
to atone, but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone for
a third, and bodily sufferings throughout the rest of the year
for a third, and the day of death wipes out the rest (Isa. 22, i^).2
The Mekilta on Exod. 20, 7, in which we have the tradition of
the school of Ishmael, exhibits the genesis of these distinctions,
which have their origin, not in reflections on the varieties and
1 The inflictions are satisjactonac pocnae.
* Tos. Yom ha-Kippurim 5, 6-8; Yoma 86a. See Bacher, Tannaiten, I,
258 and note.
CHAP, viii] EXPIATORY SUFFERING 547
relative heinousness of sins, but in the endeavor to harmonize
apparently discrepant utterances of scriptures by applying them
to different cases.1 It is, however, the general teaching that sins
are expiated by sufferings: "Chastisements wipe out all a man's
wickednesses." 2 Sufferings propitiate God as much as sacrifices;
nay, more than sacrifices, for sacrifices are offered of a man's
property, while suffering is borne in his person.8 But they have
this effect only when they are received in the spirit of penitence
and submission. To this subject we shall revert in treating of
Jewish piety.
That a criminal expiates his offence by his death is a mode of
expression familiar to us. So in Jewish law, when a criminal
drew near the place of execution he was exhorted to confess in
the formula, " May my death be an expiation for all my wicked-
nesses."4 Those who thus confess have a share in the World to
Come. As we have seen, death finally wipes out the guilt even
of those who have caused the name of God to be profaned —
always supposing that they have repented of their sin. The
general principle is formulated in Sifre Num. § 112: All who
die are expiated by death (except the man who despises the
word of the Lord).5
The sufferings and death of the righteous have a propitiatory
or piacular value for others than themselves. The death of
Miriam is narrated (Num. 20) in the immediate sequel of the
ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), to teach that as the red heifer
expiates, so does the death of the righteous; the context of the
death of Aaron (Num. 20, 27-29) teaches a similar lesson.6
1 Mekilta, Bahodesh 7, on Exod. 20, 7 (ed. Fnedmann f. 68b-69a; ed.
Weiss f. 76a); cf. Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben Yohai on the same verse (ed.
Hoffmann, pp. 106 f.)
2 Berakot 5a, end; cf. Sifre Deut. § 32 (ed. Fnedmann f. 73b, near top).
See the whole context, and Vol. II, pp. 253 f.
8 Sifre, I.e.
4 M. Sanhedrin 6, 2; Tos. Sanhedrin 9, 5. Confession of the particular
offense is not exacted.
6 Sifre on Num. 15,31.
6 Mo'ed Katon 28a; Jer. Yoma 3&b; Tanhiuma ed. Buber, Ahare § 10.
See Note 250.
548 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
Elsewhere we read: "In a time when there are righteous men in
a generation, the righteous are seized for the generation; if there
are no righteous men in the generation the school children are
seized for the generation/'1 That the suffering and death of in-
nocent children is for the transgression or neglect of the law of
God on the part of their parents is often dwelt upon. According
to an ingenious piece of Haggadah spun out of Psalm 8, 3, 'Out of
the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou founded strength'
(i.e. the Law), the children of the Israelites at Sinai, including
those still in their mother's womb, voluntarily became surety for
their fathers' observance of the law of God, with full cognizance
of the risk.2
In the Second Book of Maccabees, which, though written in
Greek, is in general accord with Palestinian teaching, the martyr
brothers declare to their tormentor that 'they suffer on their own
account, having sinned against their God (7, 18). "We suffer
on account of our own sins; but if, for the sake of punishment
and chastisement, the Living One, our Lord, is for a brief time
wroth with us, he will yet again be reconciled to his servants"
(7, 32 f.). "I, like my brothers, give up my body and my lot
in life for the laws of our fathers, and I beseech God speedily
to become gracious to his people . . . and that with me and
my brothers the wrath of the Almighty may cease, which has
justly fallen upon our whole race" (7, 37, 38). The martyrs
suffer as members of a sinful people; and they pray that God,
having so signally punished its sins, may let them be the last
to suffer, and restore his favor to the nation. It is the old con-
ception of the solidarity of the nation.
In Fourth Maccabees, on the other hand, the aged Eleazar, in
the extremity of his torments prays: "Thou knowest, O God,
that when I might be saved, I am dying in fiery tortures on ac-
count of thy law. Be gracious to thy people, being satisfied
1 Shabbat jjb.
1 Cant. R. on Cant. I, 4; Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 8, 3; Tanhuma
Wayyigash, init. See Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 311, and
Note 251.
CHAP, vin] EXPIATORY SUFFERING 549
with our punishment in their behalf. Make my blood a sacrifice
for their purification, and take my life as a substitute (&vri\l/vxov)
for theirs (6, 27-29). The author, in the conclusion, puts it thus:
"These, therefore, being sanctified for God's sake, were honored
not only with this honor,1 but also in that for their sake the ene-
mies did not have power over our nation, and the tyrant was
punished, and the fatherland purified,2 they having become, as
it were, a substitute, dying for the sin of the nation; and through
the blood of those godly men and their propitiatory death, divine
Providence saved Israel, which was before in an ill plight" (17,
20-22). Here the sufferings and death of the righteous martyrs
are a vicarious expiation for the sins of their people.
As we have seen in the case of Isaac, his willingness to lay
down life at God's bidding is reckoned by God as though the
sacrifice had been accomplished,3 and was pleaded by his de-
scendants as a ground for the remission of their sins. In Num.
25, 10-13 the priesthood is bestowed by a covenant in perpetuity
on Phineas and his descendants because 'he was zealous for his
God and made atonement for the Israelites,' thus averting God's
wrath from the people and saving them from complete destruc-
tion for the apostasy at Baal Peor. In the sense of the biblical
narrative he made this atonement, or expiation, by killing two
conspicuous and defiant sinners in the very act (Num. 25, 6-8;
cf. Psalm 1 06, 30). The Haggadah, however, represents Phineas
as having exposed himself by this act not only to obloquy but to
peril. Sifre on Num. 25, 13 ('Because he was zealous for his God
and made atonement for the Israelites,') applies to him Isa.
53, 12, 'Because he exposed his life to death.' 4 "It is not said,
'to make atonement for the Israelites,' but, 'and he made atone-
ment for the Israelites'; for even to the present time he has not
ceased, but stands and makes atonement, and will do so till the
time when the dead shall come to life." 5
1 Namely, of standing by the throne of God and enjoying a blessed eternity.
1 Cf. i, ii. 4 See Note 252.
8 Above, pp. 539 ff. * See Note 253.
550 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART in
R. Simlai applied the same verse (Isa. 53, 12) more speci-
fically to Moses. 'I will divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the mighty': "Like Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, who were mighty in the law and command-
ments. 'Because he exposed his lite to death': Because he gave
himself over to death, as it is written, 'And if not (if thou wilt
not forgive their sin), blot me out, I pray, of the book which thou
hast written' (Exod. 32, 32). 'And was numbered with the
transgressors': He was numbered with those who died in the
wilderness. 'And he took away the sin of many': Because he
made atonement in the matter of the golden calf (Exod. 32).
'And made intercession for the transgressors': Because he
sought mercy for the transgressors of Israel, that they might
turn again in repentance."1 In the Mekilta on Exod. 12, i 2
this is enounced as a general principle. "You will find that
the patriarchs and the prophets gave themselves for Israel.
What does it say of Moses? 'And now if Thou wilt forgive their
sin, well; but if not, blot me out, I pray, from the book Thou
hast written' (Exod. 32, 32); and again, 'If Thou deal thus with
me, kill me outright, I pray, if I have found favor in Thy sight;
and let me not behold the evil that has befallen me' (Num. 11,
15). And what does it say of David? 'Lo, it is I that have sinned
and done wickedly, but these sheep, what have they done? Let
Thy hand, I pray, be upon me and upon my father's house ' (2
Sam. 24, 17). Everywhere you will find that the fathers and the
prophets gave their life for Israel."
An example of the voluntary acceptance by a prophet of con-
tumely and maltreatment at the hands of the people, and of the
exceptional honor God bestowed on him on this account, is
found by the Midrash in Isa. 6, 8. God warns Isaiah of what he
has to expect, reciting what befell Amos and Micah, and asks
whether he will take upon him to be beaten and insulted. The
prophet replies: 'For this I gave my back to the smiters and
1 Sotah 1 4 a. See Note 254.
1 Ed. Fnedmann f. 2a; ed. Weiss f. 2a.
CHAP, vin] EXPIATORY SUFFERING 551
my cheeks to those who pluck out the beard' (Isa. 50, 6), and
God praises him in the words of Psalm 45, 8, and gives him
rank among the prophets with the highest.1
Many Christian scholars have labored to prove that Isaiah 53
and cognate passages, expecially Psalm 22, were applied by
ancient Jewish interpreters to the Messiah.2 Raimundus Mar-
tini in his Pugio Fidei adduced some testimonies to this effect,
the most explicit of which, however, are not extant in our texts.8
In view of such utterances as have been quoted above about the
fathers and the prophets, it would be neither strange nor especi-
ally significant, if among the many and diverse homiletical appli-
cations of scripture to the Messiah, something of a similar kind
should have been said about him. Such application, would,
however, be no evidence that the Jews had a doctrine of a suf-
fering Messiah.
The acceptance by Isaiah of the hardships of his calling which
has been quoted above, has in fact a counterpart in a mediaeval
Midrash, in a compact between God and the Messiah at the
creation, in which the Messiah agrees to endure the sufferings
that are set before him on condition that no Israelite of all the
generations to come shall perish.4 The work is late, and it is not
certain that the messianic homilies were originally a part of it.
To take its testimony for authentic rabbinic Judaism would be
like taking that of a Carolingian author for primitive Chris-
tianity. Moreover, the passage in question is palpably an ap-
propriation of Christian doctrine for a Jewish Messiah. The
same imitation appears also in the following homily (37), when
it is said that in the days of the Messiah, when God pours out
floods of blessing on Israel (Psalm 31, 20), the patriarchs will
1 Pesikta ed. Buber f. I25b-i26a; Lev. R. 10, 2.
2 See Note 255.
8 Compare especially the quotation from "Sifre," Pugio f. 674 f. (ed.
Carpzov pp. 866 f.) with Sifra on Lev. 5, 17.
4 Pesikta Rabbati 36, ed. Fnedmann f. i6ib-i62a, quoted in extenso in
Yalkut on Isaiah 60 (§ 499). The Messiah is addressed as 'Ephraim.' See
Vol. II, pp. 370 f.
552 MAN, SIN, ATONEMENT [PART m
stand and say to him, "Ephraim, Messiah our Righteousness,
although we are thy forefathers, thou art greater than we, be-
cause thou hast borne the iniquities l of our children, and there
have passed over thee hardships such as have not passed upon
men of earlier or later times, and thou wast an object of derision
and contumely to the nations of the world for Israel's sake."
1 The phrase of Isa. 53, n.
1 37 574
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11