Studies in Judaism 24

Studies in Judaism 24

I have still to remark that there occur in the Talmud such passages as

"the Jew, even if he has sinned, is still a Jew," or "He who denies

idolatry is called a Jew." These and similar passages have been used to

prove that Judaism was not a positive religion, but only involved the

negation of idolatry. But it has been overlooked that the statements

quoted have more a legal than a theological character. The Jew belonged to

his nationality even after having committed the greatest sin, just as the

Englishman does not cease to be an Englishman--in regard to treason and the

like--by having committed a heinous crime. But he has certainly acted in a

very un-English way, and having outraged the feelings of the whole nation

will have to suffer for his misconduct. The Rabbis in a similar manner did

not maintain that he who gave up the belief in Revelation and

Resurrection, and treated irreverently the teachers of Israel, severed his

connection with the Jewish nation, but that, for his crime, he was going

to suffer the heaviest punishment. He was to be excluded from the world to

come.

 

Still, important as is the passage quoted from Sanhedrin, it would be

erroneous to think that it exhausted the creed of the Rabbis. The liturgy

and innumerable passages in the Midrashim show that they ardently clung to

the belief in the advent of the Messiah. All their hope was turned to the

future redemption and the final establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on

earth. Judaism, stripped of this belief, would have been for them devoid

of meaning. The belief in reward and punishment is also repeated again and

again in the old Rabbinic literature. A more emphatic declaration of the

belief in Providence than is conveyed by the following passages is hardly

conceivable. "Everything is foreseen, and free will is given. And the

world is judged by grace." Or, "the born are to die, and the dead to

revive, and the living to be judged. For to know and to notify, and that

it may be known that He (God) is the Framer and He the Creator, and He the

Discerner, and He the Judge, and He the Witness," etc.(116)

 

But it must not be forgotten that it was not the habit of the Rabbis to

lay down, either for conduct or for doctrine, rules which were commonly

known. When they urged the three points stated above there must have been

some historical reason for it. Probably these principles were controverted

by some heretics. Indeed, the whole tone of the passage cited from

Sanhedrin is a protest against certain unbelievers who are threatened with

punishment. Other beliefs, not less essential, but less disputed, remain

unmentioned, because there was no necessity to assert them.

 

It was not till a much later time, when the Jews came into closer contact

with new philosophical schools, and also new creeds which were more liable

than heathenism was to be confused with Judaism, that this necessity was

felt. And thus we are led at once to the period when the Jews became

acquainted with the teachings of the Mohammedan schools. The Caraites came

very early into contact with non-Jewish systems. And so we find that they

were also the first to formulate Jewish dogmas in a fixed number, and in a

systematic order. It is also possible that their separation from the

Tradition, and their early division into little sects among themselves,

compelled them to take this step, in order to avoid further sectarianism.

 

The number of their dogmas amounts to ten. According to Judah Hadasi

(1150), who would appear to have derived them from his predecessors, their

dogmas include the following articles:--1. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 2. The

existence of a Creator, God; 3. This God is an absolute unity as well as

incorporeal; 4. Moses and the other prophets were sent by God; 5. God has

given to us the Torah, which is true and complete in every respect, not

wanting the addition of the so-called Oral Law; 6. The Torah must be

studied by every Jew in the original (Hebrew) language; 7. The Holy Temple

was a place elected by God for His manifestation; 8. Resurrection of the

dead; 9. Punishment and reward after death; 10. The Coming of the Messiah,

the son of David.

 

How far the predecessors of Hadasi were influenced by a certain Joseph

Albashir (about 950), of whom there exists a manuscript work, "Rudiments

of Faith," I am unable to say. The little we know of him reveals more of

his intimacy with Arabic thoughts than of his importance for his sect in

particular and for Judaism in general. After Hadasi I shall mention here

Elijah Bashazi, a Caraite writer of the end of the fifteenth century. This

author, who was much influenced by Maimonides, omits the second and the

seventh articles. In order to make up the ten he numbers the belief in the

eternity of God as an article, and divides the fourth article into two. In

the fifth article Bashazi does not emphasise so strongly the completeness

of the Torah as Hadasi, and omits the portion which is directed against

Tradition. It is interesting to see the distinction which Bashazi draws

between the Pentateuch and the Prophets. While he thinks that the five

books of Moses can never be altered, he regards the words of the Prophets

as only relating to their contemporaries, and thus subject to changes. As

I do not want to anticipate Maimonides' system, I must refrain from giving

here the articles laid down by Solomon Troki in the beginning of the

eighteenth century. For the articles of Maimonides are copied by this

writer with a few slight alterations so as to dress them in a Caraite

garb.

 

I must dismiss the Caraites with these few remarks, my object being

chiefly to discuss the dogmas of the Synagogue from which they had

separated themselves. Besides, as in everything Caraitic, there is no

further development of the question. As Bashazi laid them down, they are

still taught by the Caraites of to-day. I return to the Rabbanites.(117)

 

As is well known, Maimonides (1130-1205), was the first Rabbanite who

formulated the dogmas of the Synagogue. But there are indications of

earlier attempts. R. Saadiah Gaon's (892-942) work, _Creeds and Opinions_,

shows such traces. He says in his preface, "My heart sickens to see that

the belief of my co-religionists is impure and that their theological

views are confused." The subjects he treats in this book, such as

creation, unity of God, resurrection of the dead, the future redemption of

Israel, reward and punishment, and other kindred theological subjects

might thus, perhaps, be considered as the essentials of the creed that the

Gaon desired to present in a pure and rational form. R. Hannaneel, of

Kairowan,(118) in the first half of the eleventh century, says in one of

his commentaries that to deserve eternal life one must believe in _four_

things: in God, in the prophets, in a future world where the just will be

rewarded, and in the advent of the Redeemer. From R. Judah Hallevi's

_Cusari_, written in the beginning of the twelfth century, we might argue

that the belief in the election of Israel by God was the cardinal dogma of

the author.(119) Abraham Ibn Daud, a contemporary of Maimonides, in his

book _The High Belief_,(120) speaks of _rudiments_, among which, besides

such metaphysical principles as unity, rational conception of God's

attributes, etc., the belief in the immutability of the Law, etc., is

included. Still, all these works are intended to furnish evidence from

philosophy or history for the truth of religion rather than to give a

definition of this truth. The latter task was undertaken by Maimonides.

 

I refer to the thirteen articles embodied in his first work, _The

Commentary to the Mishnah_. They are appended to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin,

with which I dealt above. But though they do not form an independent

treatise, Maimonides' remarks must not be considered as merely incidental.

 

That Maimonides was quite conscious of the importance of this exposition

can be gathered from the concluding words addressed to the reader: "Know

these (words) and repeat them many times, and think them over in the

proper way. God knows that thou wouldst be deceiving thyself if thou

thinkest thou hast understood them by having read them once or even ten

times. Be not, therefore, hasty in perusing them. I have not composed them

without deep study and earnest reflection."

 

The result of this deep study was that the following Thirteen Articles

constitute the creed of Judaism. They are:--

 

1. The belief in the existence of a Creator; 2. The belief in His Unity;

3. The belief in His Incorporeality; 4. The belief in His Eternity; 5. The

belief that all worship and adoration are due to Him alone; 6. The belief

in Prophecy; 7. The belief that Moses was the greatest of all Prophets,

both before and after him; 8. The belief that the Torah was revealed to

Moses on Mount Sinai; 9. The belief in the Immutability of this revealed

Torah; 10. The belief that God knows the actions of men; 11. The belief in

Reward and Punishment; 12. The belief in the coming of the Messiah; 13.

The belief in the Resurrection of the dead.

 

The impulse given by the great philosopher and still greater Jew was

eagerly followed by succeeding generations, and Judaism thus came into

possession of a dogmatic literature such as it never knew before

Maimonides. Maimonides is the centre of this literature, and I shall

accordingly speak in the remainder of this essay of Maimonists and Anti-

Maimonists. These terms really apply to the great controversy that raged

round Maimonides' _Guide of __ the Perplexed_, but I shall, chiefly for

brevity's sake, employ them in these pages in a restricted sense to refer

to the dispute concerning the Thirteen Articles.

 

Among the Maimonists we may probably include the great majority of Jews,

who accepted the Thirteen Articles without further question. Maimonides

must indeed have filled up a great gap in Jewish theology, a gap,

moreover, the existence of which was very generally perceived. A century

had hardly elapsed before the Thirteen Articles had become a theme for the

poets of the Synagogue. And almost every country where Jews lived can show

a poem or a prayer founded on these Articles. R. Jacob Molin (1420) of

Germany speaks of metrical and rhymed songs in the German language, the

burden of which was the Thirteen Articles, and which were read by the

common people with great devotion. The numerous commentaries and homilies

written on the same topic would form a small library in themselves.(121)

But on the other hand it must not be denied that the Anti-Maimonists, that

is to say those Jewish writers who did not agree with the creed formulated

by Maimonides, or agreed only in part with him, form also a very strong

and respectable minority. They deserve our attention the more as it is

their works which brought life into the subject and deepened it. It is not

by a perpetual Amen to every utterance of a great authority that truth or

literature gains anything.

 

The Anti-Maimonists can be divided into two classes. The one class

categorically denies that Judaism has dogmas. I shall have occasion to

touch on this view when I come to speak of Abarbanel. Here I pass at once

to the second class of Anti-Maimonists. This consists of those who agree

with Maimonides as to the existence of dogmas in Judaism, but who differ

from him as to what these dogmas are, or who give a different enumeration

of them.

 

As the first of these Anti-Maimonists we may regard Nachmanides, who, in

his famous _Sermon in the Presence of the King_, speaks of three

fundamental principles: Creation (that is, non-eternity of matter),

Omniscience of God, and Providence. Next comes R. Abba Mari ben Moses, of

Montpellier. He wrote at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and is

famous in Jewish history for his zeal against the study of philosophy. We

possess a small pamphlet by him dealing with our subject, and it forms a

kind of prologue to his collection of controversial letters against the

rationalists of his time.(122) He lays down three articles as the

fundamental teachings of Religion: 1. Metaphysical: The existence of God,

including His Unity and Incorporeality; 2. Mosaic: _Creatio ex nihilo_ by

God--a consequence of this principle is the belief that God is capable of

altering the laws of nature at His pleasure; 3. Ethical: Special

Providence--_i.e._ God knows all our actions in all their details. Abba

Mari does not mention Maimonides' Thirteen Articles. But it would be false

to conclude that he rejected the belief in the coming of the Messiah, or

any other article of Maimonides. The whole tone and tendency of this

pamphlet is polemical, and it is therefore probable that he only urged

those points which were either doubted or explained in an unorthodox way

by the sceptics of his time.

 

Another scholar, of Provence, who wrote but twenty years later than Abba

Mari--R. David ben Samuel d'Estella (1320)--speaks of the seven pillars of

religion. They are: Revelation, Providence, Reward and Punishment, the

Coming of the Messiah, Resurrection of the Dead, _Creatio ex nihilo_, and Free Will.