Studies in Judaism 2

Studies in Judaism 2

It is not a mere coincidence that the first representatives of the

historical school were also the first Jewish scholars who proved

themselves more or less ready to join the modern school of Bible

Criticism, and even to contribute their share to it. The first two,

Krochmal and Rapoport, early in the second quarter of this century

accepted and defended the modern view about a second Isaiah, the post-

exilic origin of many Psalms, and the late date of Ecclesiastes; whilst

Zunz, who began (in 1832) with denying the authenticity of Ezekiel,

concluded his literary career (1873) with a study on the Bible

(_Gesammelte __ Schriften_, i. pp. 217-290), in which he expressed his

view "that the Book of Leviticus dates from a later period than the Book

of Deuteronomy, later even than Ezekiel, having been composed during the

age of the Second Temple, when there already existed a well-established

priesthood which superintended the sacrificial worship." But when

Revelation or the Written Word is reduced to the level of history, there

is no difficulty in elevating history in its aspect of Tradition to the

rank of scripture, for both have then the same human or divine origin

(according to the student's predilection for the one or the other

adjective), and emanate from the same authority. Tradition becomes thus

the means whereby the modern divine seeks to compensate himself for the

loss of the Bible, and the theological balance is to the satisfaction of

all parties happily readjusted.

 

Jewish Tradition, or, as it is commonly called, the Oral Law, or, as we

may term it (in consideration of its claims to represent an interpretation

of the Bible), the Secondary Meaning of the scriptures, is mainly embodied

in the works of the Rabbis and their subsequent followers during the

Middle Ages. Hence the zeal and energy with which the historical school

applied itself to the Jewish post-biblical literature, not only

elucidating its texts by means of new critical editions, dictionaries, and

commentaries, but also trying to trace its origins and to pursue its

history through its gradual development. To the work of Krochmal in this

direction a special essay is devoted in this volume. The labours of

Rapoport are more of a biographical and bibliographical nature, being

occupied mostly with the minor details in the lives and writings of

various famous Jewish Rabbis in the Middle Ages; thus they offer but

little opportunity for general theological comment. Of more importance in

this respect are the hints thrown out in his various works by Zunz, who

was just as emphatic in asserting the claims of Tradition as he was

advanced in his views on Bible criticism. Zunz's greatest work is _Die

Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge_--an awkward title, which in fact means "The

History of the Interpretation of the scriptures as forming a part of the

divine service." Now if a work displaying such wide learning and critical

acumen, and written in such an impartial spirit can be said to have a

bias, it was towards bridging over the seemingly wide gap between the

Written Word (the scriptures) and the Spoken Word (the Oral Law or

Tradition), which was the more deeply felt, as most of Zunz's older

contemporaries were men, grown up in the habits of thought of the

eighteenth century--a century distinguished both for its ignorance of, and

its power of ignoring, the teachings of history. Indeed it would seem that

ages employed in making history have no time for studying it.

 

Zunz accomplished the task he set himself, by showing, as already

indicated, the late date of certain portions of the Bible, which by

setting the early history of Israel in an ideal light betray the

moralising tendency of their authors, and are, in fact, little more than a

traditional interpretation of older portions of scripture, adapted to the

religious needs of the time. Placing thus the origin of Tradition in the

Bible itself, it was a comparatively easy matter for Zunz to prove its

further continuity. Prophecy and Interpretation are with him the natural

__EXPRESSION__s of the religious life of the nation; and though by the loss of

Israel's political independence the voice of the prophets gradually died

away, the voice of God was still heard. Israel continues to consult God

through the medium of the scriptures, and He answers His people by the

mouth of the Scribes, the Sages, the Interpreters of the Law; whilst the

liturgy of the Synagogue, springing up at the time when Psalms were still

being composed, expands in its later stages through the work of the Poets

of the Synagogue into such a rich luxuriance "that it forms in itself a

treasure of history, poetry, philosophy; and prophecy and psalms are again

revived in the hymnology of the Middle Ages." This is in brief the lesson

to be learned from Zunz's _Gottesdienstliche Vorträge_ as far as it deals

with the significance of Tradition; and it is in the introduction to this

work that Zunz expresses himself to the following effect: Indispensable is

the free Spoken Word. Mankind has acquired all its ideal treasures only by

Word of Mouth; an education continuing through all stages of life. In

Israel, too, the Word of Instruction transmitted from mouth to mouth was

never silenced.

 

The historical school has never, to my knowledge, offered to the world a

theological programme of its own. By the nature of its task, its labours

are mostly conducted in the field of philology and archćology, and it pays

but little attention to purely dogmatic questions. On the whole, its

attitude towards religion may be defined as an enlightened Scepticism

combined with a staunch conservatism which is not even wholly devoid of a

certain mystical touch. As far as we may gather from vague remarks and

hints thrown out now and then, its theological position may perhaps be

thus defined:--It is not the mere revealed Bible that is of first

importance to the Jew, but the Bible as it repeats itself in history, in

other words, as it is interpreted by Tradition. The Talmud, that wonderful

mine of religious ideas from which it would be just as easy to draw up a

manual for the most orthodox as to extract a vade-mecum for the most

sceptical, lends some countenance to this view by certain controversial

passages--not to be taken seriously--in which "the words of the scribes" are

placed almost above the words of the Torah. Since then the interpretation

of scripture or the Secondary Meaning is mainly a product of changing

historical influences, it follows that the centre of authority is actually

removed from the Bible and placed in some _living body_, which, by reason

of its being in touch with the ideal aspirations and the religious needs

of the age, is best able to determine the nature of the Secondary Meaning.

This living body, however, is not represented by any section of the

nation, or any corporate priesthood, or Rabbihood, but by the collective

conscience of Catholic Israel as embodied in the Universal Synagogue. The

Synagogue "with its long, continuous cry after God for more than twenty-

three centuries," with its unremittent activity in teaching and developing

the word of God, with its uninterrupted succession of prophets, Psalmists,

Scribes, Assideans, Rabbis, Patriarchs, Interpreters, Elucidators,

Eminences, and Teachers, with its glorious record of Saints, martyrs,

sages, philosophers, scholars, and mystics; this Synagogue, the only true

witness to the past, and forming in all ages the sublimest __EXPRESSION__ of

Israel's religious life, must also retain its authority as the sole true

guide for the present and the future. And being in communion with this

Synagogue, we may also look hopefully for a safe and rational solution of

our present theological troubles. For was it not the Synagogue which even

in antiquity determined the fate of scripture? On the one hand, for

example, books like Ezekiel, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, were

only declared to be Holy Writ in virtue of the interpretation put upon

them by the Rabbis: and, on the other hand, it was the veto of the Rabbis

which excluded from the canon the works that now pass under the name of

Apocrypha. We may, therefore, safely trust that the Synagogue will again

assert its divine right in passing judgment upon the Bible when it feels

called upon to exercise that holy office. It is "God who has chosen the

Torah, and Moses His servant, and Israel His people." But indeed God's

choice invariably coincides with the wishes of Israel; He "performeth all

things" upon which the councils of Israel, meeting under promise of the

Divine presence and communion, have previously agreed. As the Talmud

somewhere expresses itself with regard to the Book of Esther, "They have

confirmed above what Israel has accepted below."

 

Another consequence of this conception of Tradition is that it is neither

scripture nor primitive Judaism, but general custom which forms the real

rule of practice. Holy Writ as well as history, Zunz tells us, teaches

that the law of Moses was never fully and absolutely put in practice.

Liberty was always given to the great teachers of every generation to make

modifications and innovations in harmony with the spirit of existing

institutions. Hence a return to Mosaism would be illegal, pernicious, and

indeed impossible. The norm as well as the sanction of Judaism is the

practice actually in vogue. Its consecration is the consecration of

general use,--or, in other words, of Catholic Israel. It was probably with

a view to this communion that the later mystics introduced a short prayer

to be said before the performance of any religious ceremony, in which,

among other things, the speaker professes his readiness to act "in the

name of all Israel."

 

It would be out of place in an introductory essay to pursue any further

this interesting subject with its far-reaching consequences upon Jewish

life and Jewish thought. But the foregoing remarks may suffice to show

that Judaism did not remain quite inactive at the approach of the great

religious crisis which our generation has witnessed. Like so many other

religious communities, it reviewed its forces, entrenched itself on the

field of history, and what it lost of its old devotion to the Bible, it

has sought to make up by a renewed reverence for institutions.

 

In this connection, a mere mention may suffice of the ultra-Orthodox

party, led by the late Dr. S. R. Hirsch of Frankfort (1808-1889) whose

defiance of reason and criticism even a Ward might have envied, and whose

saintliness and sublimity even a Keble might have admired. And, to take an

example from the opposite school, we must at least record the name of that

devout Jew, Osias Schorr (1816-1895), in whom we have profound learning

combined with an uncompromising disposition of mind productive of a

typical champion of Radicalism in things religious. These men are,

however, representative of two extremes, and their followers constitute

mere minorities; the majority is with the historical school.

 

How long the position of this school will prove tenable is another

question. Being brought up in the old Low Synagogue, where, with all

attachment to tradition, the Bible was looked upon as the crown and the

climax of Judaism, the old Adam still asserts itself in me, and in

unguarded moments makes me rebel against this new rival of revelation in

the shape of history. At times this now fashionable exaltation of

Tradition at the expense of scripture even impresses me as a sort of

religious bimetallism in which bold speculators in theology try to keep up

the market value of an inferior currency by denouncing loudly the bright

shining gold which, they would have us believe, is less fitted to

circulate in the vulgar use of daily life than the small cash of

historical interpretation. Nor can I quite reconcile myself to this

alliance of religion with history, which seems to me both unworthy and

unnatural. The Jew, some writer aptly remarked, was the first and the

fiercest Nonconformist of the East, and so Judaism was always a protesting

religion. To break the idols, whether of the past or of the present, has

always been a sacred mission of Judaism, and has indeed been esteemed by

it as a necessary preliminary to the advent of the kingdom of God on

earth. One of its daily prayers was and still is: "We therefore hope in

Thee, O Lord our God, that we may speedily behold the glory of Thy might,

when ... the idols will be cut off, when the world will be perfected under

the kingdom of the Almighty." It bowed before truth, but it had never made

a covenant with facts only because they were facts. History had to be re-

made and to sanctify itself before it found its way into its sacred

annals. Nor did Judaism make a virtue of swallowing down institutions.

Such institutions as crept into it in course of time had, when the

Synagogue was conscious of their claims to form part of religion, to

submit to the laborious process of a thorough adaptation to prophetic

notions before they were formally sanctioned. But when this process was

deemed impossible or impracticable, Judaism boldly denounced the past in

such fierce language as the prophets used and as still finds its echo in

such passages of the liturgy as "First our ancestors were worshippers of idols and now God has brought us near to His service"; or "But of a truth, we and our ancestors have sinned."