dictated by God to Moses, and he wrote them down - not repeating them, ho wever, as
before, but weeping as he wrote. It will readily be understood in what extravagant terms
Moses himself was spoken of. It is not only that the expression 'man of God' was
supposed to imply, that while as regarded the lower part of his nature Moses was man, as
regarded the higher he was Divine, but that his glorification and exaltation amount to
blasphemy.18 So far as inspiration or 'revelation' is concerned, it was said that Moses 'saw
in a clear glass, the prophets in a dark one' - or, to put it otherwise: 'he saw through one
glass, they through seven.' Indeed, although the opening words of Ps. lxxv. showed, that
the Psalms were as much revelation as the Law, yet, 'if Israel had not sinned, they would
have only received the Pentateuch, and the Book of Joshua,' and, in the time to come, of
all Scripture the Pentateuch alone would retain its place. It was somewhat
contemptuously remarked, that the Prophets uttered nothing as regarded practice that had
not already been told in the Pentateuch (Taan. 9 a ). It was but natural for Rabbinism to
declare that the Law alone fully explained its meaning (at least according to their
interpretation of it), while the Prophets left much in obscurity. 19 To mark the distinction,
it was forbidden to put the Law in the same wrapper with the Prophets, so as not to place
perhaps the latter on the top of the former (Tos. Meg. iv. 20). Among the Prophets
themselves there was a considerable difference, not only in style and training but even in
substance (Sanh. 89 a), although all of them had certain common qualifications (comp.
Ab. de R. Nathan, 37). Of all the prophets Isaiah was greatest, and stood next to Moses.
Ezekiel saw all that Isaiah saw - but the former was like a villager, the latter like a
townsman who saw the king (Chag. 13 b ). Jeremiah and Amos were, so to speak,
scolding, owing to the violence of their temperament, while Isaiah's was the book of
consolation, especially in response to Jeremiah.
14. 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 latter, 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 mis lead (Yad iv. 6), Comp. Levy, Neuhebr
Wörterb. vol. ii. pp. 163, 164.
15. The difference in the degree of inspiration between the Prophetic and the
Hagiographic books is not accurately defined. Later Jewish theologians rather evade it by
describing the former as given by 'the spirit of prophecy,' the latter 'by the Holy Spirit.' It
must, however, be admitted that in Jewish writings 'the Holy Spirit' is not only not a
Personality, but an influence very inferior to what we associate with the designation.
16. The proof-passages are quoted in Zunz, u. s. p.44 note, also in J. Delitzsch, De Inspir.
Script. S. pp. 7, 8.