THE CROSS AND THE CROWN

RABBINIC THEOLOGY AND LITERATURE

APPENDIX V

(Vol. i. Book I. ch. viii.)

1. The Traditional Law., The brief account given in vol. i. p. 100, of the character and authority claimed for the traditional law may here be supplementedby a chronological arrangement of the Halakhoth in the order of their supposed introduction or promulgation.

In the first class, or 'Halakhoth of Moses from Sinai,' tradition enumerates fifty-five, [1 The numbers given by Maimonides, in his Preface to the Mishnah, and their arrangement, are somewhat different, but I prefer the more critical (sometimes even hypercritical) enumeration of Herzfeld. They are also enumerated in Peiser's Nachlath Shimoni, Part I. pp. 47-49 b.] which may be thus designaterd: religio-agrarian,four; [2 Peah ii. 6; Yad. iv. 3; Tos. Peah iii. 2; Orlah iii. 9.] ritual, including questions about 'clean and unclean,' twenty-three; [3 Erub. 4 a; Nidd. 72 b; Ab. d. R. N. 19, 25; Tos. Chall. i. 6; Shabb 70 a; Bekh. 16 a; Naz. 28 b; Chull. 27 a, 28 a; 42 a, 43 a; Moed Q 3 b. Of these, the most interesting to the Christian reader are about the 11 ingredients of the sacred incensed (Ker. 6 b); about the 26 kinds of work prohibited on the Sabbath (Shabb. 70 a); that the father, but not the mother, might dedicate a child under age to the Nazirate (Naz. 28 b); the 7 rules as to slaughtering animals; to cut the neck; to cut through the trachea, and, in the case of four-footed animals, also through the gullet; not to pause while slaughtering; to use a knife perfectly free of all notches, and quite sharp; not to strike with the knife; not to cut too near the head; and not to stick, the knife into the throat; certain determinations about the Feast o Tabernacles, such as about the pouring out of the water, &c.] concerning women and intercourse between the sexes, three; [4 Ab. Z. 36 b; Niddah 45 a. 72 b] concerning formalities to be observed in the copying, fastening, &c., of the Law and the phylacteries, eighteen; [5 Jer. Meg. i. 9; Shabb. 28 b; Men. 32 a; 35 a.] exegetical, four; [6 Ned. 37 b. These four Halakhoth are: as to the authoritative pronunciation of certain words in the Bible; as to the Itur Sopherim, or syntactic and stylistic emendation in the following five passages: Gen xviii. 5, xxiv. 55; Numb. xxxi. 2; Ps. 1xviii. 22 (A.V. 21); xxxvi. 7 (A.V. 6); about the Qeri velo Kethibh, words read but not written in the text; and the Kethibh velo Qeri, words written but not read in the text.] purely superstitious, one; [7 Pes. 110 b. Not to eat two (even numbers) of an egg, a nut, or cucumber, &c.] not otherwise included, two. [8 Eduty. viii. 7; Tanch. 60 a. The first of these Halakhoth speaks of the activity of Elijah in preparation for the coming of the Messiah (Mal. iii. 23, 24, A.V. iv. 5, 6), as directed to restore those of pure Israelitish descent who had been improperly extruded, and to extrude those who had been improperly admitted.] Eighteen ordinances are ascribed to Joshua, of which only one is ritual, the other seventeen being agrarian and police regulations. [9 Baba K. 81 a; Tos. Baba M. 11; Jer. Baba K. iii. 2. Among the police regulations is this curious one, that all were allowed to fish in the Lake of Galilee, but not to lay down nets, so as not to impede the navigation.] The other traditions can only bebriefly noted. Boaz, or else 'the tribunal of Samuel,' fixed, that Deut. xxiii. 3 did not apply to alliances with Ammonite and Moabite women. Two ordinances are ascribed to David, two to Solomon, one to Jehoshaphat, and one to Jehoida. The period of Isaiah and of Hezekiah is described as of immense Rabbinic activity. To the prophets at Jerusalem three ritual ordinances are ascribed. Daniel is represented as having prohibited the bread, wine and oil of the hethen (Dan. i. 5). Two ritual determinations are ascribed to the prophets of the Exile.

After the return from Babylon traditionalism rapidly expanded, and its peculiarcharacter more and more clearly developed. No fewer than twelve traditions are traced back to the three prophets who flourished at that period, while four other important legal determinations are attributed to the prophet Haggai individually. It will readily be understood that Ezra occupied a high place in tradition. Fifteen ordinances are ascribed to him, of which some are titual. Three of his supposed ordinances have a general interest. They enjoin the general education of children, and the exclusion of Samaritans from admission into the Synagogue and from social intercourse. If only one legal determination is assigned to Nehemiah, 'the men of the great Synagogue' are credited with fifteen, of which six bear on important critical and exegetical points connected with the text of the Scriptures, the others chiefly on questions connected with ritual and worship. Among the 'pairs' (Zugoth) which succeeded the 'Great Synagogue,' three 'alleviating' ordinances (of a very punctilious character) are ascribed to Jose, the son of Joezer, [1 According to tradition (Sot. 47 a and b) the Eshkoloth, or 'bunches of grapes,' ceased with Jose. The expression refers to the Rabbis, and Herzfield ingeniously suggests this explanation of the designation, that after Jos they were no longer undivided in their opinions. For other explanations comp. Deren'ourg, u s pp. 88, 456-458.] and two, intended render all contact with heathens impossible, to him and his colleague. Under the Maccabees the feast of the dedication of the Temple was introduced. To Joshua the son of Perachya, one punctilious legal determination is ascribed. Of the decrees of the Maccabean High-Priest Jochanan we have already spoken in another place; similarly, of those of Simon the son of Shetach and of his learned colleague. Four legal determinations of their successors Shemayah and Abhtalion are mentioned. Next in order comes the prohibition of Greek during the war between the Maccabean brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. This brings us to the time of Hillel and Shammai, that is, to the period of Jesus, to which further reference will have to be made in another place.

2. The Canon of Scripture., Reference has been made in the text (vol. i. p. 107) to the position taken by Traditionalism in reference to the written as compared with what was regarded as the oral Revelation. Still, nominally, the Scriptures were appealed to by the Palestinians as of supreme authority. The views which Josephus expresses in this respect, although in a popular and Grecianised form, were substantially those entertained by the Rabbis and by his countrymen generally (comp. Ag. Apion, i. 7, 8). [2 For a detailed account of the views of Josephus on the Canon and on Inspiration, I take leave to refer to my article in 'Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography,' vol. iii pp 453, 454.] A sharp distinction was made between canonical and non- canonical books. The test of the former was inspiration, which had ceased in the time of Artaxerxes, that is, with the prophet Malachi. Accordingly, the work of the elder Jesus the son of Sirach (Jeshua ben Sira, ben Eliezer) was excluded from the Canon, although it is not unfrequently referred to by Rabbinicauthorities in terms with which ordinarily only Biblical quotations are introduced. [3 Comp. Zunz, Gottesd Vortr. pp. 101, 102, and c. Seligmann, d Buch d Weish d. Jesus Sirach. The Talmudic quotations from the work of the elder Jesus have been repeatedly collated I may here take leave to refer to my collection translation of them in Append. II. to the 'History of the Jewish Nation.'] According to the view propounded by Josephus, not only were the very words inspired in which a prediction was uttered, but the prophets were unconscious and passive vehicles of the Divine message (Ant. iv. 6. 5, comp generally, Ant ii. 8. 1; vi. 8, 2; viii. 13, 3; ix. 3, 2, 8, 6; x. 2, 2; 4, 3). Although pre- eminence in this respect was assigned to Moses (Ant. iv. 8, 49), yet Divine authority equally attached tothe sayings of the prophets, and even, though perhaps in a still inferior degree, tothe 'Hymns,' as the Hagiographa generally were called from the circumstance that thePsalter stood at the head of them (comp. Philo, De Vita contempl., ed. Mangey, voi. ii. p. 475; St. Luke xxiv. 44). Thus the division of the Bible into three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the other 'Writings', which already occurs in the prologue to the work of Jesus the son of Sirach, [1 Comp. also Macc. ii. 13, 14.] seems to have been current at the time. And here it is of great interest, in connection with modern controversies,that Josephus seems to attach special importance to the prophecies of Daniel asstill awaiting fulfilment (Ant. x 10. 4; 11. 7).

That the Rabbis entertained the same views of inspiration, appears not only from the distinctive name of 'Holy Writings' given to the Scriptures, but also from the directions that their touch defiled the hands, [2 The general statement that this decree was intended to prevent a common or profane use of the Scripture does not explain its origin. The latter seems to have been as follows: At first the priests in the Temple were wont to deposit the Terumah near the copy of the Law there kept (Shabb 14 a). But as mice were thereby attracted, and damage to the Sacred roll was apprehended, it was enacted that the Sacred Roll in the Temple rendered all meat that touched it unclean. This decree gave rise to another, by way of further precaution, that even the hands which touched the Sacred Roll, or any other part of the Bible became unclean (so that, having touched the latterm they could not touch the Terumah). Then followed (in the course of development) a third decree, that such touch defiled also outside the Temple. Finally, the first decree was modified to the effect that the Sacred Roll in the Temple did not defile the hands., while all other Scriptures (anywhere else) defiled them (Chel xv. 6) The explanation offered to the Sadducees by R. Jochanan b. Zakkai is evidently intended to mislead (Yad iv. 6), Comp. Levy, Neuhebr Worterb. vol. ii. pp. 163, 164.] and that it was duty on the Sabbath to save them from conflagration, and to gather them up if accidentally scattered, and that it was not lawful for heirs to make division of a sacred roll (Comp. Shabb. xvi. 1; Erub. x. 3; Kel. xv. 6; Yad. iii. 2-5; iv. 5 [where special reference is made to daniel] 6). From what we know of the state of feeling, we might have inferred, even if direct evidence had not existed that a distinctive and superior place would be ascribed to the Books of Moses. In point of fact, the no amount of ingenuity can conciliate the Maccabean application of Da. ix. 24-27with the chronology of that period, [1 This is admitted even by Mr. Drummond ('Jewish Messiah,h pp. 246, 245-257, 260). Mr. Drummond's book is quoted as representing the advocacy by a distinguished English scholar of Maccabean theory of the authorship of Daniel.] while the messianic interpretation fits in with it, [2 Drummond, u. s. p. 261.] other, and seemingly insuperable difficulties are in the way of the theroy impugned. It implies, that the Book of Daniel was not an Appocryphal, but a Pseudepigraphic work; that of all such works it alone has come down to us in its Hebrews of Chaldee original; that a Pseudepigraphic work, nealy contemporarywith the oldest portion of the Book of Enoch, should not only be so different from it, but that it should find admission into the Canon, while Enoch was excluded; that a Pseudepigraphon younger that Jesus the Son of Sirach should have been on the Khethubhim; and, finally, that it should have passed the repeated revision of different Rabbinic 'Colleges', and that at times of considerable theological activity, without the suspicion being even raised that its authorship dated fromso late a periods as a century an a half before Christ. And we have evidence that since the Babylonish exile, at least four revisions of the Canon took placewithin periods sufficiently distant from each other.

The question hitherto treated has been exculusively of the date of the composition of the Bood of Daniel, without reference to who may have been its author, whether its present it sexctly the same as its original form, and finally, whether it ever belonged to those books whose right to canonicity, though nor their age,was in controversy, that is, whether it belonged, so to speak, to the Old Testament As this is not the place for a detailed discussion of the canonicity of the Book of Daniel, or, indeed, of any other in the Old Testament canon, we shall only add, to prevent misunderstanding, that no opinion is here expressed as to possible, greater or less, interpolations on the Book of Daniel, or in any otherpart of the Old Testament. We must here bear in mind that the moral view taken of such interpolations, as we would call them, was entirely different in those times from ours; and it may perhaps be an historically and critically no unwarranted proposition, that such interpolations were, to speak moderately, not all unusual in ancient documents. In each case the question must be separately critically examined in the light of internal and (if possible) external evidence. But it would be a very different thing to suggest that there may be an interpolation, or, it may be, a re-arrangement in a document (althoug at present we make no assertions on the subject, one way or the other), and to pronounce a whole document a fabrication dating from a much later period. The one would, at any rate, be quite in the spirit of those times; the other implies, beside insuperable critical difficulties, a deliberate regilious fraud, to which no unprejudiced student could seriously regard the so-called Pseudepigrapha as forming any real analogon.

But as regards the Book of Daniel, it is an important fact that the right of the Book of Daniel to cononicity was never called in question in the ancient Synagogue. The fact that it was distinguish as 'versions' (Chezyonoth) from the other 'prophecies' has, of course, no bearing on the question, any more than the circumstance that later Rabbinism, which, naturally enough, could not find its way through the Messianic prophecies of the book, declare that even Daniel was mistaken in, and could not make anything of the predictions concerning the 'latter days' (Ber. R. 98). [1 And yet there are frequent indications that Rabbinism sought guidence on these very subjects in the prophecies of Daniel. Thus, in the Pirqe de R. Eliezer there are repeated references ot the four monarchies, the Persian, Median, Macedonian, and Roman, when, in the time of the fifth monarchy, that of the children of Ishmael, after a terrible war against Rome, the Messiah would come (comp. Pirqe de R. El. 19, and especially 28, 30, and 48).] On the other hand, Daniel was elevated to almost the same pinnacle as Moses, while it was said that, as compared with heathen sages, if they were all placed in one scale,a nd Daniel in the other, he would outweigh them all. We canreadily understand that, in times of national sorrow or excitement, these prophecies would be eagerly resorted to, as pointing to a glorious future. But although the Book of Daniel was not among the Antilegomena, doubts were raised, not indeed about the age, but about the right to canonicity of certain other portions of the Bible. Thus, certain expressions in the prophecies of Ezekiel were questioned as apparently incompatible with statements in the Pentateuch [2 Among them the following may be mentioned (Chull. 37 b): Ezek. iv. 14 &c., and (Mop 45 a), Ezek. xiv. 31 were regarded as auggesting that these prohibitious applied only to priest; (Moed. K. 5 a) Ezek. xiiv. 19, seemed to imply that an ordinary Israelite might perform sacrifical service, while Ezek. xiv. 18 appeared to enjoin a sacrifice nowhere mentioned in the Pentateuch.] (men. 45 a), and although a celebrated Rabbi, Chananyah, the son of Chizkuyah, the son of Garon (about the time of Christ), with immense labour, sought to conncilate them, and thus preserved the Book of Ezekiel (or, at least, part of it) from being relegated among the Appocrypha, it was deemed safest to leave the final exposition of the meaning of Ezekiel, 'till Elijah come,' as the restorer of allthings.

The other objections to canonicity apply exculsively to the third division of the Old Testament, the Kethubhim of Hagiorgrapha. Here even the Book of Proverbs seems at one time to have been called in question (Ab. R. Nathan 1), partly on the ground of its secular contents, and partly as containing 'supposed contradictory statements' [3 For ex. pro. xxvi. 4, 5.] (Shabb. 30 b). Very strong doubts were raised on the Book of Eccelsiates (Yad. iii. 5; Eduy. v. 3), first, on that ground ot its contradiction of some ofthe Psalms [4 As for ex. Ps. cxv. 17 compared with Eccl. iv. 2 and ix. 4.] (Sabb. 30 a); secondly, on that of its inconsistencies [5 For Eccel. ii. 2 comp. with vii. 3; and again, vii 15, or iv. 2 comp. with ix. 4] (Shabb. 30 b); and thirdly, because ot seemed to countenance the denial of another life, and, as in Eccl. xi 1, 3, 9, other heretical views (Vayyikra R. 28, at the beginning). [6 The school of Shammai was against, that of Hillel in favour of the Canonicity of Ecclesiasted (Eduy. v. 3). In Tos. Yad. ii. Ecclesiates is said to be uninspirited, and to contain only the wisdon of Solomon.] But these objections were finally answered by great ingenuity, while an appeal to Eccl. xii. 12, 13, was regarded as removing the difficulty about another life and future rewards and punishments. And as the contradictions in Ecclesiastes had been concilitated, it hopefully argued deeper study would equally remove those in the Book of Proverbs (Shabb. 30 b). [7 But it must be admitted that some of these conciliations are sufficiently curious.] Still, the controversy about the canonicity of Ecclesiastes contiune so late as the second century of our era (comp. Yad. iii. 5). That grave doubts also existed about the Song of Solomon, appears even from the terms in which it canonicity is insisted upon (Yad. u. s.), not tospeak of express statements in opposition to it (Ab. de. R. Nathan 1). Even whenby an allegorical interpretation it was shown to be the 'wisdon of all wisdom, the most precious gem, the holy of holies, tradition still ascribed its composition to to the early years of Solomon (Shir haSh. R. 1). It had been his first work, addwas followed by Provided, and finally by Ecclesiastes. [8 But on this subject opinion differ very widely (see Shir haSh. R. 1, ed Warshan, pp. 3 b and 4 a) the only point on which all are agreed being that he wrote Ecclesiastes last, Rabbi Jonathan irreverntly remarking that when a man is old he utters dibhre hadhalim, vain words!] But perhaps the greatest objections were those taken to the Book of Esther (Meg. 7 a). It excited the enmity of other nations against Israel, and it was outside the canon. Grave doubts prevailed whether it was canonical or inspired by the Holy Spirit (Meg. u. s.; Yoma 29 a). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were anciently regarded as one, the name of the latter author being kept back on account of his tendency to self-exaltation (Shanh. 93 b). Lastly, the genealogical parts of the Book of Chronicles were made the subject of very elaborate secret commentation (Pes. 62 b).

Two points still require brief mention. Even from a comparison of the LXX. Version with our Hebrew text, it is evident that there were not only many variations, but that spurious additions (as Daniel) were eliminated. This critical activity, which commenced with Ezra, whose copy of the Pentateuch was, according to tradition, placed in the Temple, that the people might correct their copies by it, must have continued for many centuries. [1 In Jer. Tann. 68 a we read three codices of the Pentateuch. respectively named after one word in each codex. the reading of which was either rejected or adopted on comparison with the others.] There is abundant evidence fo frequent divergences, though perhaps minute, and although later Rabbinsim laid down the most painfully minute directions about the mode of writing and copying the rolls of the Law, there is such discrepancy, even where least it might be expected, [2 Thus, we have different notices about the number of verses in the Bible, the arrangement of the psalter, the medial latter and medial word in the Pentateuch, and the number of its sections and chapters (Kidd. 30 a; Yalkut i 855). But the sum total of verses in the Bible (23,199) differs by 99 from that in our present text. Similarity, one of the most learned Rabbinic critics of the third century declares himself at a loss about the exact medial letter, word, and verse of the Pentateuch, while in Palestine that Pentateuch seems to have been arranged into 1,085, in babalonia into 378 chpters (comp. Furst, Kultur-u. Liter. Gesch. p. 62)] as to show that the purification of the text was by no means settled. Considering the want of exegetical knowledge and historical conscientiousness, and keeping in view how often the Rabbis, for Haggadic puroposes, alter letters, andthus change the meaning of words, we may well doubt the satisfactory character of their critical labours. Lastly, as certain omissions were made, and as the Canon underwent (as will be shown) repeated revision, it may have been certain portions were added as well as left out, and words changes as well as restored.

For, ancient tradition ascribes a peculiar activity to certain 'College', as they are termed, in regard to the Canon. In general, the well-known Baraita (Baba B. 14 b, 15 a) bears, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the book (Prophecies?) ofbalaam, and Job; Joshua the work that bears his name, and the last eight verses of Deuteronomy; [3 But comp. and opinion, perviously quoted, about the last verses in Deut.] Samuel the corresponding books, Judges and Ruth;David with the 'ten Elders,' Adam, Melchisedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah, the Psalter; Jermiah wrote his prophecies, Lamentations, and Kings; King Hezekiah and his Sanhedrin compiled, or edited, the Prophecies of Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song, and Ecclesiastes; and the men of the 'Great Synagogue' the Prophecies of Ezekiel, of the twelve Minor Prophets, and the books of Daniel and Esther; Ezra wrote his own book and Chronicles, the work being completed by Nehemia, the son of Chakaliah. The last verse of Joshua were written by Eleazar and Phinehas; the laster chapters of Samuel by Gad and Nathan. [4 'History of the Jewish Nation,' p. 418.]

Loose and uncritical as these statements may appear, they so far help our investigations as to show that, according to tradition, certain portions of Scripture were compiled or edited by one or another Rabbinin 'College,' and that there were several 'College' which successively busied themselves with the codification andrevision of the Canon. By these 'College,' we are not to understand gatherings of certain members, who discussed and decided a question at one or more of theirmeetings. They rather indicate the learned activity of the authorities during a certain period, which are respectively designed by the generic names of 'the Sanhedrin of Hezekiah,' 'The men of the Synagogue,' the 'Legal Court of the Maccabees,' and finally, 'Chananayah and his College,' We have thus somewhat firmer historical ground. If in Prov. xxv. 1, we read of the activity about the Canon of 'the Men of Hezekiah,' and bear in mind the Scriptural account of the regilious revival of that reign (for ex. 2 Chron. xxix. 25- 30; 2 Chron. xxx. 1), we scarely required the frequent and elaborate glorification of tradition to lead us to infer that, if the collection of the Book of Proverbs was due to their activity, they must have equally collated the other protions of Scripture then existing, and fixed the Canon as their time. Again, if we are to credit the statement that they equally collected and edited the Prophecies of Isaiah, we are obliged to infer that the contiunance of that College was not limited to the life of Hazekiah, since the latter died before isaiah (Tos. Baba Bathra; Yeb. 49 b).

What has just been indicated is fully confirmated by what we know of the activity of Ezra (Ezra vii. 6, 10), and of his successors in the great Synagogue. If we are to attach credit to the notice in 2 Macc. ii. 13, [1 The expression 'the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts' must refer ot the official Persian documents concerning gifts to the Temple, &c.] it points to such literary activity as tradition indicates. That the revision and determination of the Canon must have been among the main occupations of Ezra and his successors of 'the Great Synagogue', whatever precise meaning may be attached to that institution, seems scarcely to requre proof. The same remark applies to another period of regilious reformation, that of the so-called Asmonaean College. Even if we had not the evidence of their exclusion of such works as those of Ben Sirach and others,there could be no rational doubt that in their time the Canon, as presently existing, was firmly fixed, and that no work of comparatively late date could have found admission into it. The period of their activity is sufficiently known, andtoo near what may be called the historical times of Rabbinism, for any attempt in that direction, without leaving traces of it. Lastly, we come to the indications of acritical revision of the text by 'Chananyah and his College,' [2 Shabb. 13 b; Chag. 13 a; Men. 45 a.] shortly before the time of our Lord. Thus we have, in all, a record of four critical revisions of the Canon up to time of Christ.

3. Any attempt to set forth in his place a detailed exposition of the Exegetical Canon of the Rabbis, or of their application, would manifestly be impossible. Itwould required almost a treatise of its own; and a cursory survey would neither be satisfactory to the writer nor instructive to the general reader. Besides, on all subjects connected with Rabbinic exagesis, a sufficient number of learned treatises exists, which are easily accessible to students, while the general reader can only be interested in such general results as have been frequently indicated throughtoutthese vloumes. Lastly, the treatment of certain branches of the subject, such asa criticism of the Targumim, really belongs to what is known as the science of 'Introduction,' either to the Old Testament, in manuals of which, as well as in special treaties, all such subjects are fully discussed. Besides these thestudent may be referred, for a general summary, to the labours of Dr. Hamburger (Real-Encycl.). Special works on various branches of the subject cannot here be named, since this would involve an analysis and critical disquisition. But for aknowledge of the Rabbinic statements in regard to the Codices and the text of the Old Testement, reference may here be made to the short but masterly analysis of Professor Strack (Prolegomena Critica), in which, first, the various codices of the Old Testament, and then the text and existing in Talmudical times, are discussed, and the literature of the subject fully and cirtically given. The various passage are also mentioned in which the Biblical quotations in the Mishanah and Gemara differ from our present text. [1 there are the Mishanah sixteen variations: Lev. xi. 33; xxv. 36; Numb. xxviii. 5; xxxii. 22; Deut. xxiv. 19; Josh. viii. 33; 2 Sam.xv. 6; Is. x. 13; Exek. xlvi. 21; Amos ix. 14: Mal. iii. 16, 23 (A. V. iv. 5); Ps. lxviii. 27; Job i. 1; Prov. xxii. 28; 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. In the Talmud 105 such variations occur, viz., Gen. vii 8; 23; xv. 2; xxv. 6, xxxv. 18; Ex. xii. 3, 6; xiii. 16; xxiv. 5; xxv. 13 xxxi. 1; Lev. iv. 25, 30, 34; x. 12; xv. 10; xviii. 18; Numb. v. 19; xviii. 16; Deut. vi. 7, 9, 20; xxiii. 1; xxv. 7; xxxiii. 27; xxxiv 6; Josh. iii. 17; x. 11; xiv. 7, 10; xvi. 6; xxiii. 15; Judg. xv. 20; xvi. 31; 1Sam. ii 24; 2 Sam. iii. 25; xxiv. 15; 2 Kings xvii. 31; xxiii. 17; Is ii. 3; xxxviii. 16; xlii, 5; liviii. 7; Jer. iii 22; xxix. 11; Ezek. x1. 48; xliv. 9; xlvii. 1; Hos. iv. 11; Amos. iv. 6; viii. 11; ix. 14; Hag. ii 8; Mich. iv. 2; Zech. xii. 10; Mal. ii. 12; Ps. v. 5; xvi. 10 (where the difference is important); xxvi. 5, 6; xxxvii. 32; lvi. 11; lxii. 12; lxviii. 21; xcv. 5; xcvii. 7; cxxvii. 5; cxxxix. 5; 6; 8; xiii. 4 xiv. 16; xxxvi. 5, 11; Ruth, iii. 15; iv. 11; Eccl. ix. 14, 15; x. 5; Dan. ii. 29; iv. 14; vi. 18; x. 13; Ezr. iv. 3; Neh. iv. 16; viii. 8 (bis), 15, 17; 1 Chron. iii. 17; iv. 10; v. 24; xvl. 5; xvii. 9; xxvi. 8, 23; xxvii. 34; 2 Chron. xxvi. 2; xxxi. 5, 13] Most of them are, however, of no exegetical importance. On the exegessis of the Rabbis generally, I would take leave to refer to sketch of it given in the 'History of the Jewish Nation,' ch. xi., and especially in App. V., on 'Rabbinical Exegesis,' where all its canons are enumerated. Some brief notices connected with Rabbinic Commentaries quoted in this work will be found at the beginning of vol. i.

4 Somewhat similar observations must be made in regard to the mystical Theologyof the Synagogue, or the so-called Kabbalah. Its commencement must certainly be traced to, an before, the times described in these volumes. For a discussion of its origin and doctrines I must once more take leave to refer to the account given in the 'History of the Jewish Nation' (pp. 435, &c.). The whole modern literature of the subject, besides much illustrative matter, is given in the Italian text annexed to David Castelli's edition of Sabbatai Donnolo's Hebrew Commentary on the Book Yetsirah, or the Book of Creation. For, the Kabbalah busies itself with these two subject: the History of the Cration (Yetsirah, perhaps rather 'formation' than Creation), and the 'Merkabhah,' or the Divine apparition as described by Exekiel. Bkoth refer to the great question, underlying all theosophic speculation: that of God's connection with His creature. They treat of the mystery of Nature and of Providence, with especial bearing on Revelation; and the question, how the Infinite God can have any connection or intercourse with finite creatures, is attempted to be answered. Of the two points raised, that of Creation is of course the first in the order of thinking as well as of time, and the bookYetsirah is the oldest Kabbalistic document.