III. Halachah And Haggadah

III. HALACHAH AND HAGGADAH
THE LITERATURE
Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς in quo secundum veterum theologorum Hebraeorum formulas allegandi et modos interpretandi conciliantur loca ex V. in N. T. allegata (Amstelodami 1713), especially pp. 57-88.
Wachner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, vol. i. 1743, p. 353 sqq.
Döpke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentliclien Schriftsteller, part i. 1829.
Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen (1831), pp. 384-731.
Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt, Berlin 1832.
Hirschfeld, Der Geist der talmudischen Auslegung der Bibel. Erster Thl. Halachische, Exegese 1840. The same, Der Geist der ersten Schriftauslegungen oder die hagadische Exegese, 1847.
Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig 1841), pp. 163-203, especially pp. 179-191. The same, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851 (354, p. 8). The same, Ueber palästinische und alexandrinischen Schriftforschung, Breslau 1854 (42, p. 4).
Welte, Geist und Werth der altrabbinischen Schriftauslegung (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1842, pp. 19-58).
Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments, § 502-505 (über die Auslegung des A. T. bei den Juden).
Diestel, Gesch. des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche (1869), pp. 6-14.
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 137 ff., 226-263.
Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner, Secten i. 90 ff., 227-288.
Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit con der inneren Entwickelung des Judenthums, Leipzig 1857.
Pressel, “Rabbinismus,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. (1860), pp. 470-487.
Hausrath, Neutentamentl. Zeitgeschichte, 2nd ed. i. 80-113.
Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien (1875), pp. 66-77 (on the influence of Hellenism upon the Palestinian Midrash, see also Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschr. xi. 1875, p. 227 sqq.).
Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria (1875), p. 142 sqq. (on the mutual influence of the Palestinian and Alexandrian theology and exegesis).
Bacher, Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer, 1878.
Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten (Grätz’ Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882-1884). Also separately under the title, Die Agada der Tannaiten, vol. i. From Hillel to Akiba, Strasbourg 1884.
Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästin. Theologie (1880), especislly pp. 88-121.
Reuss, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments (1881), § 411-416, 582-584.
Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. (1888) art, “Agada” (pp. 19-27), “Allegorie” (pp. 50-53), “Exegese” (pp. 181-212), “Geheimlehre” (pp. 257-278), “Halacha” (pp. 388-358), “Kabbala” (pp. 557-603), “Mystik” (pp. 816-819), “Rabbiniemus” (pp. 944-956), “Recht” (pp. 969-980).
1. The Halachah
The theoretical labours of the scribes were, as has been already remarked in the preceding section, of a twofold kind,—1. the development and establishment of the law, and 2. the manipulation of the historical and didactic portions of the Holy Scriptures. The former developed a law of custom, beside the written Thorah, called in Rabbinical language the Halachah (הֲלָכָה, properly that which is current and customary). The latter produced an abundant variety of historical and didactic notions, usually comprised under the name of the Haggadah or Agadah (הַגָּדָה or אֲגָדָה, properly narrative, legend). The origin, nature and contents of both have now to be more fully discussed.
Their common foundation is the investigation or exposition of the Biblical text, Hebr. דָּרַשׁ.[1228] By investigation however was not meant historical exegesis in the modern sense, but the search after new information upon the foundation of the existing text. The inquiry was not merely what the text in question according to the tenor of its words might say, but also what knowledge might be obtained from it by logical inference, by combination with other passages, by allegorical exegesis and the like. The kind and method of investigation was different in the treatment of the law and in that of the historical and dogmatico-ethic portions, and comparatively stricter in the former than in the latter.
[1228] דָּרַשׁ is found in the Mishna in the following constructions:—1. To investigate, to explain a passage or portion of Scripture, the accusative object being either expressed or to be mentally supplied, Berachoth i. 5; Pesachim x. 4, fin.; Shekalim i. 4, v. 1; Joma i. 6; Megilla ii 2; Sota v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ix. 15; Sanhedrin xi. 2. 2. with בִּ in the same sense “to give explanations of a passage,” Chagiga ii. 1. 3. “To find or discover a doctrine by investigation,” e.g. אֶת זוֹ דָרַשׁ מִן, “he discovered this from such and such a passage” (Joma viii. 9), or without מִן (Jebamoth x. 3 Chullin v. 5), or in the combination זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ, “Such or such a one gave this explanation” (Shekalim vi. 6; Kethuboth iv. 6). The substantivs formed from דרש is מִדְרָשׁ, investigation, explanation, elaboration (Shekalim vi. 6; Kethuboth iv. 6; Nedarim iv. 3; Aboth i. 17); also in the combination בית המדרש, see above, note 60. It is already found 2 Chron. 13:22, 24, 26.
The Halachic Midrash (i.e. the exegetic development of passages of the law) had first of all to regard only the extent and range of the several commands. It had to ask: to what cases in actual life the precept in question applied, what consequences it in general entailed, and what was to be done, that it might be strictly and accurately observed according to its full extent. Hence the commandments were split and split again into the subtlest casuistic details, and care was taken by the most comprehensive precautionary measures, that no kind of accidental circumstance should occur in observing them, which might be regarded as an infringement of their absolutely accurate fulfilment. The legal task was not, however, exhausted by this analysis of the existing text. There were also many difficulties to solve, some arising from internal contradictions in the legal code itself, some from the incongruity of certain legal requirements with the actual circumstances of life; others, and these the most numerous, from the incompleteness of the written law. To all such questions scholars had to seek for an answer; it was their business to obviate existing discrepancies by establishing an authoritative explanation; to point out how, when the observance of a precept was either impossible, difficult, or inconvenient, by reason of the actual relations of life, a compromise might nevertheless be made with the letter of its requirements; and lastly, to find for all those cases of actual occurrence, which were not directly regulated by the written law, some legal direction when the need for such should arise. This last department especially furnished an inexhaustible source labour for juristic discussion. Again and again did questions arise concerning which the written or hitherte appointed law gave no direct answer, and to reply to which became therefore a matter of juristic discussion For answering such questions two means were actually at their disposal, viz. inference from already recognised dogmas and the establishment of an already existing tradition. The latter, so far as it could be determined, was of itself decisive.
Scientific exegesis (Midrash) was thus by no means the only source for the formation of a legal code. A considerable portion of what subsequently became valid law had on the whole no point of connection with the Thorah, but was at first only manner and custom. This or that had been done thus or thus, and so imperceptibly custom grew into a law of custom. When anything in the legal sphere had been so long usual that it could be said, it has always been thus, it was law by custom. It was then by no means necessary that its deduction from the Thorah should be proved; ancient tradition was as such already binding. And the recognised teachers of the law were enjoined and competent to confirm this law of custom.
From these two sources there grew up in the course of time a multitude of legal decisions by the side of, and of equal authority with, the written Thorah. These were all comprised under the common notion of the Halachah, i.e. the law of custom. For what was discovered by scientific investigation was, when it obtained validity, also law by custom, הֲלָכָה.[1229] Hence valid law now included two main categories, the written Thorah and the Halachah,[1230] which, till at least towards the close of the period with which we are occupied, was propagated only orally. Within the Halachah there are again different categories: (1) single Halachoth (traditional enactments) decidedly traced back to Moses;[1231] (2) the great body or Halachah proper; (3) certain enactments which are designated as the “appointments of the scribes” (דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים)[1232] All three categories are of legal obligation. But their authority nevertheless differs in degree according to the above sequence, those of the first class being highest, and those of the third relatively lowest. For while the Halachah in general was regarded as having been at all times valid, there was with regard to the דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים the conviction, that they were first introduced by the successors of Ezra, viz. by the סוֹפְרִים.[1233] There was in general, in the period of the Mishna, a perfect consciousness that many traditional ordinances had no kind of foundation in the Thorah, and that others were connected with it by the slightest of ties.[1234] Nevertheless the law of custom was quite as binding as the written Thorah;[1235] nay, it was even decided that opposition to the דברי סופרים was a heavier transgression this opposition to the decrees of the Thorah;[1236] because the former, being the authentic exposition and completion of the latter, were therefore in fact the ultimate authority.
[1229] This comprehensive notion of the הֲלָכָה appears from the following passages: Pea ii. 6, iv. 1, 2; Orla iii. 9; Shabbath i. 4; Chagiga i. 8; Jebamoth viii. 3; Nedarim iv. 3; Edujoth i. 5, viii. 7; Aboth iii. 11, 18, v. 8; Kerithoth iii. 9; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. “Jewish custom,” דֵּת יהְוּדִית (Kethuboth vii. 6), is aynonymous with דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ (Kiddushin i 10), and as only designating the conventional, must not be confounded with the Halachah.
[1230] תּוֹרָה or מִקְרָא (writing) and הֲלָכָה are distinguished, e.g. in Orla iii. 9; Chagiga i. 8; Nedarim iv. 8. So too are מִקְרָא and מִשְׁנָה (the teaching of the law), Kiddushin i. 10.
[1231] Such הֲלָכוֹת לְמשֶׁה מסִּינַי are mentioned in the Mishna in three passages: Pea ii. 6; Edujoth viii. 7; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. There are altogether from fifty to sixty in the Rabbinical-Talmudic literature.
[1232] Orla iii. 9; Jebamoth ii. 4, ix. 3; Sanhedrin xi. 3; Para xi. 4-6; Tohoroth iv. 7; Jadajim iii. 2. Comp. also Kelim xiii. 7; Tebul jom iv. 6.
[1233] That the דברי סופרים had relatively less authority than the Halachah simply, is evident from Orla iii. 9 (where it is quite unjustifiable to supplement הֲלָכָה by למשח מסיני). On the recent date of the דברי סופרים, comp. especially Kelim xiii. 7; Tebul jom iv. 6: דָּבָר חָדָשׁ חִדְּשׁוּ סוֹפְרִים.
[1234] Compare especially the remarkable passage, Chagiga i. 8: “Release from a vow is a dogma which hovers, as it were, in the air, for there is nothing in Scripture on which it can be founded. The laws concerning the Sabbath, the festival sacrifices, and the defrauding (of sacred things by misuse), are like mountains hanging by a hair, for there are few passages of Scripture and many laws of custom (הֲלָכוֹת) concerning them. On the other band, the civil laws (דִּינִין), the laws of ritual, the laws concerning uncleanness and incest, are entirely founded on Scripture, and form the essential contents of the (written) Thorah.”
[1235] Comp. especially, Aboth iii. 11, v, 8.
[1236] Sanhedrin xi. 3: חוֹמֶר בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִבְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה.
It was in the nature of the Halachah that it never could be a thing finished and concluded. The two sources, whence it arose, were continually flowing onwards. New enactments were always being evolved by successive scientific exegesis (Midrash), and new customs might always arise as usage differed. Both, when they had attained prescriptive right, became Halachah, the extent of which might thus be enlarged ad infinitum. But at each stage of development a distinction was always made between what was already valid and what was only discovered by the scientifie inferences of the Rabbis, between הֲלָכָה and דִּין (to judge). Only the former was legally binding, the latter in and of itself not as yet so.[1237] Not till the majority of the learned had decided in their favour were such tenets binding and henceforth admitted into the Halachah. For the majority of those distinguished for learning was the decisive tribunal.[1238] Hence the דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים were also to be kept as binding.[1239] It is self-evident however, that this principle applies only to such cases as were not decided by an already valid Halachah. For concerning any matter for which a Halachah is in existence this must be unconditionally obeyed, though ninety-nine should be against and only one for it.[1240] By the help of this principle of the majority the great difficulty which arose through the separation of the schools of Hillel and Shammai was overcome (see No. IV). So long as the differences between the two were not reconciled, the conscientious Israelite must have been in great perplexity which to adhere to. The majority here too gave the final decision, whether it was that the schools themselves compared numbers, and that one was outvoted by the other,[1241] or that subsequent scholars settled differences by their final decision.[1242]
[1237] See especially, Jebamoth viii. 3; Kerithoth iii. 9. The הלכות and מדרשׁ are therefore distinguished from each other as two kinds of subjects; of instruction. Nedarim iv. 3.
[1238] Shabbath i. 4 sqq.; Edujoth i. 4-6, v. 7; Mickwaoth iv. 1; Jadajim iv. 1, 3.
[1239] Negaim ix. 3, xi. 7.
[1240] Pea iv. 1-2
[1241] A few cases are mentioned in which the school of Hillel was outvoted by the school of Shammai, Shabbath i. 4 sqq.; Mikwaoth iv. 1.
[1242] As a rule the Mishna, after mentioning the differences of the two schools, states the decision of “scholars.”
The strictness with which the uuchangeableness of the Halachah was in general proclaimed might induce one to suppose, that what was once valid must remain unaltered. But there is no rule without exception, nor was, this so. Nor indeed are the cases few in which laws or customs were afterwards altered, whether on purely theoretical grounds, or on account of altered circumstances, or because the old custom entailed inconvenience.[1243]
[1243] Such innovations were e.g. introduced by Hillel (Shebiith x. 8; Gittin iv. 3; Arachin ix. 4), Rabban Gamaliel (Rosh hashana ii. 5; Gittin iv. 2-3), Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai (Sukka iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4; Sota ix. 9; Menachoth x. 5), R. Akiba (Maaser sheni v. 8; Nasir vi. 1; Challa iv. 7; Bikkurim iii. 7; Shekalim vii. 5; Joma ii. 2; Kethuboth v. 3; Nedarim xi 12; Gittin v. 6; Edujoth vii. 2; Tebul jom iv. 5).
Widely as the Halachah differed from the written Thorah the fiction was still kept up, that it was in reality nothing else than an exposition and more precise statement of the Thorah itself. The Thorah was still formally esteemed as the supreme rule from which all legal axioms must be derived.[1244] Certainly the Halacha had its independent authority, and was binding, even if no scriptural proof was adduced. Hence, though its validity did not depend upon success in finding a scriptural proof, it formed part of the business of the scribes to confirm the maxim of the Halachah by the Scriptures.[1245] More absolute was the demand for satisfactory confirmation in the case of newly advanced or disputed maxims. These could only obtain recognition by methodical Midrash, i.e. by, being deduced in a convincing manner from passages of Scripture, or from other already acknowledged propositions. The method of demonstration which was in such cases applied, was one which, though it indeed appears somewhat strange to us, has its rules and laws. A distinction was made between the proof proper (רְאָיָה) and the mere reference (זֶכֶר).[1246] Hillel is said to have laid down for the proof proper seven rules, which may be called a kind of Rabbinical logic.[1247] These seven rules are as follows: (1) קַל וָחוֹמֶר, “light and heavy,” i.e. the inference a minori ad majus;[1248] (2) גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, “an equal decision,” i.e. an inference from the similar, ex analogia;[1249] (3) בִּנְיַן אָב מִכָּתוּב אֶחָד, “a main proposition from one passage of Scripture,” i.e. a deduction of a main enactment of the law from a single passage of Scripture; (4) בִּנְיַן אָב מִשְּׁנֵי כְתוּבִים, “a main proposition from two passages of Scripture;” (5) וּפְרַט וּכְלַל בִּלַל וּפְרַט, “general and particular,” and “particular and general,” i.e. a more precise statement of the general by the particular, and of the particular by the general;[1250] (6) כּיוֹצֵא בוֹ בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, “by the similar in another passage,” i.e. a more precise statement of a passage by the help of another; (7) דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, “a thing which is learned from its connection,” a more precise statement from the context. These seven rules were subsequently increased to thirteen, the fifth being specified in eight different manners, and the sixth omitted. The laying down of these thirteen Middoth is ascribed to R. Ismael. Their value for the correct interpretation of the law was so highly esteemed on the part of Rabbinic Judaism, that every orthodox Israelite recited them daily as an integral element of his morning devotions.[1251]
[1244] This holds good notwithstanding the admission mentioned in note 73. See especially, Weber, p. 96 sqq.
[1245] That this supplementary learned confirmation of the Halachah often referred to passages of Scripture entirely different to those from which the Halachic maxims really arose, is seen, e.g. in the classic passage Shabbath ix. 1-4.
[1246] Shabbath viii. 7, ix. 4; Sanhedrin viii. 2. Comp. Weber, p. 115 sqq.
[1247] They are found in the Tosefta, Sanhedrin vii. fin. (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 427), in the Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan c. 37, and at the close of the introduction to the Sifra (Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xiv. 595). The text of the Sifra is, at least according to the edition of Ugolini, defective. The correct reading is found from the almost verbally identical texts of the two other authorities. Comp. Hillel and his seven rules of interpretation in the Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 156-162.
[1248] Examples in Berachoth ix. 5; Shebiith vii. 2; Beza v. 2; Jebamoth viii. 3; Nasir vii. 4; Sota vi. 3; Baba bathra ix. 7; Sanhedrin vi 5; Edujoth vi. 2; Aboth i. 5; Sebachim xii. 8; Chullin ii. 7, xii. 8; Bechoroth i. 1; Kerithoth iii. 7, 8, 9, 10; Negaim xii. 5; Machshirin vi. 8.
[1249] E.g. Beza i. 6: “Challah and gifts are presents due to the priests, and so is the Terumah. As then the latter may not be brought to the priest on a holy day, so neither may the former.” Another example in Arachin iv. fin. In both passages the expression גְּזֵדָה שָׁוָה is used.
[1250] In the thirteen Middoth of R. Ismael this figure is specified in eight different manners, e.g. by the formula כלל ופרט וכלל—“general and parth cular and general”—i.e. a more precise statement of two general expressions by a particular one intervening, as e.g. Deuteronomy 14:26, where the general expression, “whatever thy soul desireth,” used at the beginning and end, is limited by the words “oxen, sheep, wine, intoxicating drink, which stand between.
[1251] Hence they are found in every Jewish Siddur (Book of Prayers), as well as in the introduction to the Sifra. Comp. Waehner, Antiqnitates Ebraeorum, i. 422-523. Pinner’s translation of the treatise, Berachoth, Introd. fol. 17b-20a. Pressel in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., ed. 1, xv, 651 sq. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theol. pp. 106-115.
The matter which formed the subject of juristic investigation on the part of the scribes was in effect furnished by the Thorah itself. The precepts concerning the priestly sacrifices and religious usages in general occupy the largest space therein. For the peculiarity of the Jewish law is, that it is pre-eminently a law of ritual. It seeks in the first place to establish by law in what manner God desires to be honoured, what sacrifices are to be offered to Him, what festivals are to be kept in His honour, how His priests are to be maintained, and what religious rites in general are to be observed. All other matters occupy but a small space in comparison with this. The motive whence all the zealous labours of the scribes arose corresponded with this content of the law: it was the desire to make sure by an accurate expression of the law, that none of the claims of God should be violated in even the slightest particular, but that all should be most conscientiously observed to their fullest extent. The endeavours of the scribes were therefore directed chiefly to the development of (1) the precepts concerning sacrifices, the various kinds of sacrifice, the occasions on which it was to be offered, the manner of offering, and all connected therewith, i.e. of the entire sacrificial ritual; (2) the precepts concerning the celebration of holy seasons, especially of the Sabbath and the annual festivals—Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles, the Day of Atonement, the New Year; (3) the precepts concerning tribute for the temple and priesthood—first-fruits, heave-offerings, tithes, the first-born, the half-shekel tribute, vows and freewill offerings and whatever related to them—their redemption, valuation, embezzlement, etc.; and lastly (4) the various other religious appointments, among which the precepts concerning clean and unclean occupy by far the largest space. The appointments of the law in this last respect were an inexhaustible source for the exercise of the most minute and conscientious acuteness on the part of the scribes. The statutes by which it was determined, under what circumstances uncleauness was incurred, and by what means it might be obviated, were truly endless and incalculable. Such religious decrees however by no means formed the exclusive matter of the labours of the scribes. For the law of Moses contains also the principles of a criminal and civil law; and the practical requirements of life offered occasion enough for the further development of these materials also. Of course the materials in question were not all equally elaborated. The laws concerning marriage were the most completely developed, partly because the marriage law gave more opportunity, and partly because this subject was the most closely connected with religion. The other departments of civil life are not treated with quite the same fulness in the Mishna (in the treatises Baba kamma, Baba mezia, and Baba bathra), and still less is the criminal law worked out (in the treatises Sanhedrin and Makkoth). The department of public law is as good as completely ignored. It is true that the Thorah furnished but extremely little opportunity for its development, and that such labour as was expended on it would have been utterly useless by reason of political circumstances.[1252]
[1252] The survey of the contents of the Mishna (see § 3) furnishes proof of what is stated above.
2. The Haggada
The Haggadic Midrash, i.e. the elaboration of the historical and didactic portions of Holy Scripture, is of an entirely different kind from the Halachic Midrash. While in the latter the treatment is pre-eminently a development and carrying on of what is actually given in the text, the Haggadic treatment does not take for the most part its content from the text, but interpolates it therein. It is an amplification and remodelling of what was originally given, according to the views and necessities of later times. It is true, that here also the given text forms the point of departure, and that a similar treatment to that employed in passages from the law takes place in the first instance. The history is worked up by combining the different statements in the text with each other, completing one by another, settling the chronology, etc. Or the religious and ethical parts are manipulated by formulating dogmatic propositions from isolated prophetic utterances, by bringing these into relation to each other, and thus obtaining a kind of dogmatic system. But this stricter kind of treatment is overgrown by the much freer kind, which deals in a perfectly unrestrained manner with the text, and supplements it by additions of the most arbitrary and manifold kind. In other words, the treatment is Midrash in its stricter sense in only the smaller portion, and is on the contrary and for the most part a free completion by means of אֲגָדוֹת, i.e. legends.[1253]
[1253]a Just as the Halachah was developed from Midrash in the province of law, was the Haggadah developed from Midrash in the other books of Scripture, only the relation was in the latter case a much looser one. The אֲגָדוֹת are mentioned as an independent subject of instruction beside מדרש and הלכות in Nedarim iv. 3.
A canonical book of the Old Testament, viz. the Book of Chronicles, furnishes a very instructive example of the historical Midrash. A comparison of its narrative with the parallel portions of the older historical books (Kings and Samuel) will strike even the cursory observer with the fact that the chronicler has enlarged the history of the Jewish kings by a whole class of narratives, of which the older documents have as good as nothing, viz. by narratives of the merit acquired, not only by David, but by many other pious kings through their maintenance of, and more abundant provision for, the priestly ritual. The chronicler is especially solicitous to tell of the conscientious care of these kings for the institutions of public worship. In the older documents scarcely anything is found of these narratives which run through the whole of Chronicles. It may be said that their absence in the books of Kings and Samuel is no proof of their non-historical nature, and that the chronicler obtained them from other sources. But the peculiarity is, that the very institutions for the maintenance of which these kings are said to have been distinguished, belong in general to the post-exilian period, as may, at least in the main points, be still proved (see § 24). Evidently then the chronicler dealt with the older history from a stated point of sight, which appeared to him very essential; and as public worship was the most important matter in his own eyes, the theocratic kings could not but have been distinguished by their interest in it. At the same time he pursues the practical object of pointing out the just claims and high value of these institutions by showing the attention, which the most illustrious kings devoted to them. The notion that this was any adulteration of the history, was probably one which never occurred to him. He thought he was improving it by treating it according to the needs of his age. His work, or rather the larger work from which our Books of Chronicles are probably but an extract, is therefore, properly speaking an historical Midrash, as indeed it is expressly designated (מִדְרָשׁ) by its editor and abbreviator (2 Chronicles 13:22; 2 Chronicles 24:27).[1254]
[1254] Comp. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i. 236 sq.
The method of dealing with the sacred history here described continued its exuberant growth to later ages and went on striking out over bolder paths. The higher the credit and importance of the sacred history rose in the ideas of the people, the more thorough was the labour bestowed upon it, and the more urgent was the impulse to give more accuracy, more copious elaboration of details, and to surround the whole with a more complete and brighter halo. Especially were the histories of the patriarchs and the great lawgiver more and more adorned in this fashion. The Hellenistic Jews were particularly active in this manner of working up history. Nay, one might almost have supposed that it had originated with them, but that the Books of Chronicles furnish proof to the contrary, and that the whole method of this Midrash so entirely corresponds with the spirit of Rabbinical scholarship. The literature, in which the remains of this Haggadic treatment of history are still preserved is comparatively copious and varied. We find such in the works of the Hellenists Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus (see concerning them, § 33); in Philo and Josephus,[1255] in the so-called Apocalypses, and generally in the pseudepigraphic literature;[1256] much also in the Targums and Talmud, but most in the Midrashim proper, which are ex professo devoted to the treatment of the sacred text (see above, § 3). Among these the oldest is the so-called Book of Jubilees, which may rank as the specially classic model of this Haggadic treatment of Scripture. The whole text of the canonical Book of Genesis is here reproduced in such wise, that not only are the particulars of the history chronologically fixed, but also enlarged throughout in contents, and remodelled according to the taste of after times. By way of illustrating this branch of labour on the part of the scribes, the following few specimens are given.[1257]
[1255] On Josephus, see Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 120. On Philo’s contact with the Palestinian Midrash, see Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, pp. 142-159.
[1256] Comp. especially, Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (2 vols. 1718-1723), whose work is so arranged that the literary remains relating to each Scripture character are placed together, according to their chronological order.
[1257] Compare in general, Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung, etc., pp. 464-514. Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Jisrael, iii. 490-502. Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, i. 286 sqq.
The history of the creation, e.g., is completed in the following manner: “Ten things were created in the twilight on the evening before the Sabbath—1. the abyss of the earth (for Korah and his company); 2. the opening of the well (Miriam’s); 3. the mouth of the ass (Balaam’s); 4. the rainbow; 5. the manna in the wilderness; 6. the rod of Moses; 7. the shamir, a worm which spits stones; 8. alphabetic writing; 9. the writing of the tables of the law; 10. the stone tables. Some reckon with these: the evil spirits, the grave of Moses, and our father Abraham’s ram; and others the first tongs for the preparation of future tongs.[1258] A copious circle of legends, with which we are acquainted by means of their deposits and continuations in later Jewish literature, was formed concerning the life of Adam.[1259] Enoch, who was miraculously translated to heaven by God, seemed especially adapted for revealing heavenly mysteries to men. Hence a book of such revelations was ascribed to him towards the end of the second century before Christ (see § 32). Later legends praise his piety and describe his ascension to heaven.[1260] The Hellenist Eupolemus (or whoever else may be the author of the fragment in question) designates him as the inventor of astrology.[1261] It is self-evident that Abraham, the ancestor of Israel, was a subject of special interest for this kind of historical treatment. Hellenists and Palestinians took equal pains with it A Hellenistic Jew, probably as early as the third century before Christ, wrote, under the name of Hecataeus of Abdera, a book concerning Abraham.[1262] According to Artabanus, Abraham instructed Pharethothes, king of Egypt, in astrology.[1263] He was in the eyes of Rabbinic Judaism a model of Pharisaic piety and a fulfiller of the whole law, even before it was given.[1264] He victoriously withstood—it is computed—ten temptations.[1265] In consequence of his righteous behaviour, he received the reward of all the ten preceding generations, which they had lost by their sin.[1266] Moses the great lawgiver and his age are surrounded with the brightest halo. The Hellenists, in works designed for heathen readers, represent him as the father of all science and culture. He was, according to Eupolemus, the inventor of alphabetical writing, which first came from him to the Phoenicians, and from them to the Greeks. Artapanus tells us that the Egyptians owed to him their whole civilisation.[1267] It is therefore something less, when it is only said in the Acts, that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22), though even this goes beyond the Old Testament. The history of his life and work is dressed up in the most varied manner in Hellenistic and Rabbinic legends, as may be seen even from the representations of Philo and Josephus.[1268] The names of the Egyptian sorcerers, who were conquered by Moses and Aaron, are known (2 Timothy 3:8). In the march through the wilderness, the Israelites were not merely once miraculously provided with water from a rock, bat a rock pouring forth water accompanied them during their whole wandering in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4). The law was not given to Moses by God Himself, but reached him by the means of angels (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2). It was part of the perfection of his revelation to have been written in seventy languages on stones set up upon Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 27:2 sqq.).[1269] The two unlucky days in the history of Israel being Tammus 17 and Ab 9, the unfortunate events of the Mosaic age must of course have taken place on one of these two days; on Tammus 17 the tables of the law were broken, and on Ab 9 it was ordained that the generation of Moses should not enter the land of Canaan.[1270] The strange circumstances at the death of Moses also furnished abundant material for the formation of legends (Deuteronomy 34).[1271] It is known that Michael the Archangel contended with Satan for his body (Jude 1:9). The history too of the post-Mosaic period was manipulated by historical Midrash in the same manner as the primitive history of Israel. To give only a few examples from the New Testament. In 1 Chronicles and Ruth there occurs in the list of David’s ancestors a certain Salma or Salmon, the father of Boaz (1 Chronicles 2:11; Rth_4:20 sq.). The historical Midrash knows, that this Salmon had Rahab for his wife (Matthew 1:5).[1272] The drought and famine in the days of Elijah lasted, according to the historic Midrash, three and a half years, i.e. half of a week of years (Luke 4:25; James 5:17).[1273] The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews mentions among the martyrs of the Old Testament those who were sawn asunder (Hebrews 11:37). He means Isaiah, of whom the Jewish legend says that this was the manner of his death.[1274]
[1258] Aboth v. 6.
[1259] Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. i. 1-24, ii. 1-13. Hort, art. “Adam, oooks of,” in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. i. (1877), pp. 34-39. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xii. 366 sq.
[1260] Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Henochaage.”
[1261] Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17.
[1262] Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 2. Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 113.
[1263] Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 18. Comp. also on Abraham as an astrologer, Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1. Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. i. 350-378.
[1264] Kiddushin iv. 14, fin. Comp. Nedarim iii. 11, s. fin.
[1265] Aboth v. 3. Book of Jubilees in Ewald’s Jahrb. 3:15; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 33; Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser, c. 26-31; Targum Jer. on Genesis 22:1. Fabricius, i. 398-400. Beer, Leben Abrahams, pp. 190-192. The interpreter of Aboth v. 3 (Surenhusius’ Mishna, iv. 465. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 94).
[1266] Aboth v. 2. Comp. generally, Beer, Leben Abraham’s nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage, Leipzig 1859.
[1267] Eupolemus, Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 26 = Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153. Artabanus, Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 27.
[1268] Philo, Vita Mosis. Joseph. Antt. ii.-iv. Compare generally, Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. i. 825-868, ii. 111-130. Beer, Leben Moses nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage, Leipzig 1863.
[1269] Sota vii. 5, with reference to Deuteronomy 27:8, בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב, “plainly engraven (therefore intelligibly to all).” The seventy languages correspond with the seventy nations of Genesis 10; see Targum Jonathan on Genesis 11:7-8; Deuteronomy 32:8; Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser, c. 24, in Wagenseil on Sota vii. 5, in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 263.
[1270] Taanith iv. 6, also the passages of the Gemara in Lundius, in Surenhnsius’ Mishna, ii. 382.
[1271] Comp. already Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 48.
[1272] According to another Midrash, Rahab was the wife of Joshua.
[1273] So too Jalkut Shimoni in Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, p. 681 sq. On the Elijah legends in general, comp. S. K., Der Prophet Elia in der Legende (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1863, pp. 241-255, 281-296). Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. i.
[1274] Ascensio Isajae (ed. Dillmann, 1877), c. v. 1; Jebamoth, 49b. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 120. Tertullian, de patientia, c. 14; scorpiace, c. 8. Hippolyt. de Christo et Antichristo, c. 30. Origenes, epist. ad African. c. 9; comment. ad Matt. xiii. 57 and xxiii. 37 (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch, iii. 49, iv. 238 sq.); Commodian. carmen apologet. v. 509 sq. (ed. Ludwig); Hieronymus, comment. ad Isaiam, c. 57, fin. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iv. 666). Other patristic passages in Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. i. 1088 sq. Wetzstein and Bleek on Hebrews 11:37, and in Otto’s note on Justin. Tryph. 120.
As in the case of the sacred history, so also in that of the religious and ethical matter of the Scriptures, the manipulation was of two kinds. On the one hand there was a dealing by combination, by inference and the like, with what was actually given; on the other there was also a free completion by the varied formations of creative religious speculation. And the two imperceptibly encroached one upon the other. Not a few of the doctrinal notions and ideas of after times actually arose from the circumstance, that the existing text of Scripture had been made a subject of “investigation,” and therefore from reflection upon data, from learned inferences and combinations founded thereupon. Imagination freely employing itself was however a far more fertile source of new formations. And what was obtained in the one way was constantly blended with what was arrived at in the other. With the results of investigation were combined the voluntary images of fancy, nay the former as a rule always followed, either consciously or unconsciously, the same lines, the same tendency and direction as the latter. And when the free creations of speculation had gained a settled form, they were in their turn deduced from Scripture by scholastic Midrash.
These theological labours, which were always investigating old, and incessantly creating new material, were extended over the entire religious and ethical department. It was owing to them that the whole circle of religious ideas in Israel had received in the times of Christ on the one hand a fanciful, on the other a scholastic character. For the religious development was no longer determined and directed by the actual religious productivity of the prophets, but in part by the action of an unbridled imagination, not truly religious though dealing with religious objects, and in part by the scholastic reflection of the learned. Both these ruled and directed the development, in proportion as really religious life lost in inward strength.
It was in entire consistency with this tendency of the whole development, that special preference was shown for dealing with such objects as lay more at the circumference than in the centre of religious life, with the temporally and locally transcendent, with the future and the heavenly world. For the weaker the power of genuine religion, the more would fancy and reflection move from the centre to the circumference, and the more would such objects be detached from their central point and acquire an independent value and interest The grace and glory of God were no longer seen in the present earthly world, but only in the future and heavenly world. Hence on the one side eschatology, on the other mythological theosophy, were cultivated with the greatest zeal A copious abundance of notions concerning the realization of the salvation of Israel in a future period of the world’s history was the growth of scientific investigation and unfettered religious fancy. The conditions, the premisses and the accompanying circumstances, under which the means and forces by which this salvation would be realized, were stated, and most especially was it declared wherein it would consist and how surpassing would be its glory; in a word, Messianic dogma was more and more carefully cultivated and extensively developed. So too was there much solicitous occupation with the heavenly world: the nature and attributes of God, heaven as his dwelling-place, the angels as His servants, the whole fulness and glory of the heavenly world; such were the objects to which learned reflection and inventive fancy applied themselves with special predilection. Philosophic problems were also discussed: how the revelation of God in the world was conceivable, how an influence of God upon the world was possible without His being Himself drawn down into the finite, how far there was room for evil in a world created and governed by God, and the like. Two portions of Holy Scripture in particular gave much scope for the development of theosophic speculation, these were the history of the creation (מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית) and the “chariot” of Ezekiel (מֶרְכָּבָה), i.e. the introductory vision of Ezekiel, chap. 1. In the explanation of these two portions, profound mysteries which, according to the view of scholars, ought to form an esoteric doctrine, were dealt with. “The history of the creation might not be explained before two, and the chariot not even before one, unless he were a scholar and could judge of it from his own knowledge.”[1275] In these thus carefully guarded expositions of the history of the creation and of the chariot, we have the beginnings of those strange fancies concerning the creation and the spiritual world, which reached their climax in the so-called Kabbala of the Middle Ages.
[1275] Chagiga ii. 1. Comp. also Megilla iv. 10. Farther particulars in Herzfeld, iii. 410-424.
The exposition and further development of the law was a process under comparatively strict regulations, but an almost unbridled caprice prevailed in the province of religious speculation. Rules and method, except in a very figurative sense, were here out of question. One thing especially, which made the development of the law so continuous and consequent, viz. the principle of a strict adherence to tradition, was here absent. The manipulator of the religious and ethical matter was not bound, like the interpreter of the law, to a strict adherence to tradition. He might give his imagination free play, so long as its products would on the whole admit of being inserted in the frame of Jewish views. A certain tradition was indeed formed in this sphere also, but it was not binding. Religious faith was comparatively free, while action was all the more strictly shackled. With the absence moreover of the principle of tradition in this department all rules in general ceased. For there was really but one rule for the “investigator,” viz. the right of making anything of a passage, which his wit and understanding enabled him. If nevertheless certain “rules” are laid down even for Haggadic interpretation, it was only that caprice here became methodical. A number of such rules for Haggadic exposition are met with among the thirty-two Middoth (hermeneutical principles) of R. Joses ha-Gelili, the age of which cannot indeed be more particularly determined.[1276] Later Judaism discovered that there is a fourfold meaning of Scripture, which is indicated in the word פר״דס (Paradise), viz. 1. פְּשַׁט, the simple or literal meaning; 2. רֶמֶז (suggestion), the meaning arbitrarily imported into it; 3. דְּרוּשׁ (investigation), the meaning deduced by investigation; and 4. סוֹד (mystery), the theosophistic meaning.[1277]
[1276] See the 22 Middoth, e.g. in Waehner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, i. 396-421. Pinner, translation of the treatise Berachoth, Introd. fol 20a-21a. Pressel in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xv. 658 sq. On the historical literature, comp. also Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrüge der Juden, p. 86. Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 108.
[1277] The initials of these four words produce the word פר״דס. I am unable to say how ancient this distinction of a fourfold meaning may be. Compare on this subject, Waehner, Antiquitatas Ebraeorum, i. 353-357. Döpke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, pp. 135-137. Deutsch, Der Talmud (1869), p. 16 sq. The distinction between רמז and דרוש is essentially the same as that between זֶכֶר and רְאָיָה, see note 85, above.
It would be a superfluous task to give examples in illustration of this kind of exegetical method, since we are sufficiently acquainted with it from the New Testament and the whole body of ancient Christian literature. For together with Holy Scripture itself, its own mode of exegetical treatment was transferred by Judaism to the Christian Church. In saying this however it must also be remarked, that the exegetic method practised in the New Testament, when compared with the usual Jewish method, is distinguished from it by its great enlightenment The apostles and the Christian authors in general were preserved from the extravagances of Jewish exegesis by the regulative norm of the gospel. And yet who would now justify such treatment of Old Testament passages, as are found e.g. in Galatians 3:16; Galatians 4:22-25; Romans 10:6-8; Matthew 22:31-32? Jewish exegesis however, from which such a regulator was absent, degenerated into the most capricious puerilities.[1278] From its standpoint, e.g. the transposition of words into numbers, or of numbers into words, for the purpose of obtaining the most astonishing disclosures, was by no means strange, and quite in accordance with its spirit.[1279]
[1278] Comp. generally the literature mentioned p. 269, especially Döpke, pp. 88-188. Hartmann, pp. 534-699. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 244 sqq. Hirschfeld, 1847. Welte in the Tübinger Quartalschrift, 1842. Hausrath, i. 97 sqq. Hamburger’s article in the Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. On Philo’s allegorical exposition of Scripture, see especially Gfrörer, Philo, i. 68-113. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, iii. (3rd ed.), pp. 346-352. Siegfried, Philo, p. 160 sqq.
[1279] In an appendix to the Mishna, the statement, e.g., that God will give to every righteous man 310 worlds as his inheritance, is proved by Proverbs 8:21 : להנחיל אהבי יש; because יש stands for 310 (Ukzin iii. 12; the passage is missing in the Cambridge MS. edited by Lowe). On the other hand, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, who herein entirely follows the paths of Jewish exegesis, proves from the 318 servants of Abraham that Abraham had already in spirit beheld the cross of Jesus, because the number 18 = IH means the name Jesus, and the number 300 = T means the cross, Barnab. c. 9.
With the comparatively great freedom allowed to development in the sphere of religious notions, it is not to be wondered, that foreign influences also made themselves felt with more or less power. Palestine had already been for a long time open to the general intercourse of the world. So early as the foundation of the great world-powers of the Assyrians, Chaldaeans and Persians, influences of the most varied kind had passed over the land. When it lay for two centuries under Persian supremacy, it would indeed have been very surprising if this fact had left behind it no kind of trace in the sphere of Israelitish intellectual life. Nor could it, with all its struggles for intellectual isolation, have possibly withdrawn itself entirely from the supremacy of the Greek spirit Hence it cannot be denied that on the one hand Babylonian, on the other Greek influences are especially discernible in the development of Israel’s religious notions. The amount of this influence may indeed be disputed. A careful investigation of details, especially in respect of the influence of Parseeism, has not as yet been made. This influence may perhaps have to be reduced to a comparatively small proportion. The fact however, that both Babylonian and Greek influences asserted themselves, is undeniable.[1280] At first sight indeed it seems strange, nay enigmatical, considering the high wall of partition which Judaism erected in respect of religion between itself and heathenism. There is however no need of appealing, in explanation to the circumstance, that such influences were felt at a time when this wall of partition was as yet no unscaleable one, for they continued to be exerted in later times also;[1281] nor to the fact, that no wall of partition is strong enough to resist the power of intellectual influences. The deepest reason that can be offered in explanation is, on the contrary, that legal Judaism itself laid the chief stress upon correctness of action, and that comparatively free play was therefore permitted in the sphere of religious notions.
[1280] Compare with respect to Parseeism the certainly candid judgment of Lücke, Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannes (2nd ed.), p. 55 sq.: “The influence of the ancient Persian religion upon the development of Jewish religious notions … is an indisputable fact.” On the influence of Hellenism upon the Palestinian Midrash, see Freudenthal, Hellenistischen Studien (1875), pp. 66-77. Siegfried, Philo, p. 288 sqq.
[1281] Angelology was far more strongly under the influence of Parseeism at the period of the Babylonian Talmud than previously. Comp. Kohut, Ueber die jüdische Angelologie und Dämonologie, 1866. The influences of Hellenism upon the Palestinian Midrash, pointed out by Freudenthal and Siegfried, generally belong to a period when the religious seclusion had long been a very strict one.