The Hebrew Worship.
The next point of enquiry is: "Have not the Jewish teachers of the law imposed
unnecessary burdens upon the people, subsequently to their return from Babylon?"
Every one knows how easy it is to denounce any body of men however exalted, and it is at
the same time most curious, that those who denounce others do so, for the most part,
without producing any other proof of their being in the right, than their own
potent dictum. This has been done, I may say, by all those who have been so
bitter against the wise men amongst the Jews, known at different times under the names of
Scribes, Pharisees, and lastly, Rabbins. It therefore remains now to be enquired into, if
in fact the rabbinical institutions are contrary to the written law, and therefore
unlawful and useless, or if they are conformable to the laws and the prophets, and
therefore proper and necessary. — But let me premise, that it is an error, though a
very common one, that the Rabbins had their origin only in the time immediately preceding
the destruction of the second temple: for if we come to investigate the Jewish antiquities
and to fix the period of the first rise of these Scribes, we must at least lay it in the
days of Ezra, for to him and his council are ascribed the first rabbinical institutions.
A great outcry has of late been raised against the use of the sacred language, the
Hebrew, in our worship, because this language is no more universally spoken, and but
little understood. Several attempts have therefore been made to substitute the languages
of the countries in which we are dispersed, in lieu of the Hebrew. Of course the Rabbins
have been saddled with all the blame and odium, as having been the first to force this
mode of worship in an unknown tongue upon the Jews, and some good souls, more
afraid of disturbing the conscience of others, than regardful of their own virtue and
piety, have even dared to talk of thus restoring the purity of Judaism, as if any impurity
had even been added. But let us investigate this subject without prejudice and partiality,
and then determine according to the light which can be thrown upon it in the few following
observations.
"Did those men, generally called Rabbins, force the Hebrew, contrary to
reason, upon the people, and should it therefore be dispensed with? Or is the
establishment of that language an ordinance emanating from the prophets, and which
consequently ought not to be abolished?"
We read (Nehemiah, chap. 13. v.24,): "And half of their children spoke the
language of Ashdod, and did not understand the Jewish." It will from this single
verse be discovered, that the Hebrew had ceased to be universally spoken, as early as the
days of Ezra and Nehemiah. These two men were assisted in their reorganization of the
Hebrew commonwealth by the three last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. If then
they established the Hebrew to be read in the Synagogues in their time, we must admit, as
believers in revelation, that this was necessary for the promotion of the proper worship;
and that they did establish the Hebrew to be read publicly, is clearly deducible from
Nehemiah 8. v.7-8; for according to this passage all that, which Ezra read, was
explained to the people by the men named as being near him; and thus it happened, that
though the Hebrew was not understood by a great part of those present, Ezra did
nevertheless make use of it, but it was explained to the people in a language and dialect
they understood. The expounder of the law was called
מתרגמן (Meturgeman) or translator, and we find
such a personage mentioned after the destruction of the temple. At present however this
has become by far less necessary than formerly; for at that time books were scarce and
could be procured by comparatively few, owing to the great difficulty of multiplying
copies; but now the art of printing has reduced the price of books so low, the religious
books especially, being printed in such immense quantities, that every individual, however
poor, can procure himself the Bible and the prayer-books. Then again all parts of the
Bible are carefully translated, as are also the prayers, and it is therefore easy for
every person desiring it, and capable of receiving information of any kind, to make
himself acquainted with the meaning of the law and of the prayers in general, though he
may be altogether ignorant of the holy language. Let me not however be misunderstood, as
saying that the Rabbins forbade the use of every language other than the Hebrew in public
and private worship; on the contrary, they permitted the use of any language understood by
the individual praying, nor is the language of the country prohibited in public worship. (Orach
Hayim, Laws of Prayer, chap. ci. §.4.) It will therefore be evident, that the use of
foreign tongues explanatory of the Hebrew service is permitted, but the recital of
the regular prayers, the reading of the law, and the portion from the prophets, must ever
be in the holy and original language.
The greater part of the daily and Sabbath prayers were composed before the destruction
of the second temple, — some say by Ezra and his associates — as may be easily
gathered from several passages in the Talmud, particularly the Mesechte Berachot
(Tractate of Prayers) in which are enumerated the Berachot of blessings to be said
before and after the Shemang. To any person acquainted with the Mishnah it would be
entirely superfluous to draw his attention to this subject, and to those who are
unacquainted with it, I hope it will be satisfactory enough, that the fact is stated in
general terms without citing the several passages. Having thus seen that the use of the
Hebrew was established as far back as the days of the last prophets, it remains to be
enquired: "Would it be expedient, if we had the right to do so, to abolish the use of
our holy language, and substitute the languages of the different countries, in whose
boundaries the Israelites now sojourn?" — Let it be considered, that our
abode in the countries, where we now reside, must not be considered as a permanent
location; but God forbid, that I should insinuate, that we are to consider ourselves
absolved from allegiance to the governments and obedience to the municipal laws of the
countries in which we are protected, for this would be contrary to what we are commanded
by God, through his faithful servant Jeremiah (chap. 29:7,); but I would only remind
my brethren, that their abode in any country, other than Judea, is against their will.
I hope that I am understood, but for fear of any misconception, I will explain myself a
little more in detail. We were, in the first instance, driven from Palestine by the kings
of Assyria, (see several passages in the second book of Kings,) and next the remaining two
tribes Judah and Benjamin, together with the Levites who resided amongst them, were
carried away captives to Babylon and Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. After
seventy years spent in captivity the Jews were permitted by Coresh (Cyrus) king of Persia,
who had subverted the Babylonian empire, to return to their own land. Those who did return
were, with but few exceptions, either Levites or Jews, (Judah and Benjamin); but the other
ten tribes did not return, and their existence has been a matter of doubt and speculation
ever since; though according to some accounts they have been lately discovered in
Bucharia, a country in the very heart of Asia. The Jews, after building the second temple
(see Ezra and Nehemiah) lived for rather better than four hundred years in Palestine,
though far from peaceable or independently, as they were often agitated by internal
disturbance and molested by surrounding nations; but after this time, they were conquered
by Vespasian and Titus, Roman emperors, who, though they are celebrated for their clemency
and benevolence of disposition, did yet treat our ancestors in a manner too revolting and
too horrible for words to describe. The remainder of the Jews not yet carried off by these
barbarous emperors, (for such they were to us at least,) were driven out by Trajan and
Hadrian, for which I refer to the histories of those days. — It will be discovered
from this account of our people, that our abode out of Palestine is any thing but
voluntary on our part. Our expulsion from our land was owing to our deviation from that
holy law, which God, in his kindness and superabundant mercy, bestowed upon our
forefathers. Our continuation in captivity is to be ascribed solely to our not yet
having reformed our conduct sufficiently to merit the return of the blessings promised in
Deut. chap. 30. (which see). It is well known that we hope to be ultimately restored to
our land, and that this hope is well founded has been shown, I trust to every man's
satisfaction in chapter 22. — Our residence in all countries, save one,
must therefore be considered as a sojourning, though this is of necessity for an unlimited
time; for, as we understand the prophecies, there is no specific period fixed in the Bible
for Israel's restoration, but all depends upon our being worthy of this signal favor. That
at all events the restoration will not be delayed for a longer period than God has fixed
in His own wisdom, but which He has not imparted to any man, is not to be doubted. In
short, if we Israelites are virtuous, our restoration, or what is the same
thing, the coming of the Messiah, will take place immediately; but if, on the
contrary, we continue in our wickedness, then at the appointed time. — Since
then we are strangers, and as the time of our being reunited is of necessity unknown, it
behooves us to be always united by a certain bond of union, to keep us one people, though
at opposite corners of the globe; and secondly, to be united in the closest manner, when
our captives be again restored and assembled in a body on the high-raised mountains
of Israel. We have already a law which, if properly observed, will ever be that bond,
which must, owing to its great purity, bind together the Israelites though the distance
between them be as great as from pole to pole. But what would be the scene, if upon our
restoration, we had in the course of time forgotten that very language, in which the law
was first given? How could we be considered a reunited people, if different languages were
used by the captives returning to Zion in their mode of worshipping God?
But even without going so far into the recesses of futurity, we can find many good
reasons for employing the Hebrew in our prayers, and in reading the law and the other
parts of Holy Writ, as it is now customary in the Synagogues. Let it be remembered, that
we Jews are in fact a wandering people — we have no rest for the soles of our feet
(Deut. chap. 28:65): we are either driven by circumstances or necessity from
station to station, and it may truly be said, there is hardly a spot on earth where Jews
are not to be found. It is for this reason chiefly that the Hebrew language ought to be
retained both in public and private worship. If a Jew come from China even, as our worship
is now constituted, he can enter any Synagogue even in America, and worship his God in
company and unison with his brethren there assembled. He uses the Hebrew, and so do they.
And this is an every day occurrence; for if Jews from every part of the world do meet and
worship together, as if they were natives of the same land. And in our small synagogue at
Richmond are frequently assembled natives of America, Germany, England, France, Poland,
and Bohemia, some of whom hardly understand English. They can all join in the worship,
solely because it is conducted in the Hebrew, when the use either of the English or any
other language would evidently destroy the harmony thus existing. — There is,
however, another very weighty reason why the Hebrew language should be used, and this is,
the preservation of the purity of the law! "But is it possible that the purity
of the holy law can be destroyed by the discontinuance of the Hebrew?" I will not
assert precisely that its intrinsic purity could be asserted, without fear of
contradiction, that if the Hebrew were once dispensed with in our Synagogues, the
interpretation of the law would be rendered altogether uncertain, and thus its extrinsic
purity would be so much marred, that it might be considered destroyed
without a great stretch of the imagination. To establish this upon indisputable grounds, I
beg leave to draw the attention of the indulgent reader to the following exposition.
— If the Hebrew language were by universal consent banished from our worship, it
would follow, as a necessary consequence, that translations or foreign
originals must be substituted, unless we would consent either not to pray at all, or to
suffer any fanatic or enthusiast to pray for the congregation in the wild and mad strains
which shock us so much in the worship of some sects. — If now in addition to this we
should have a translation of the law read to the people, we would soon find that no man
would care to know Hebrew. For to what purpose should the Jew, whose intentions are not to
become a classical scholar or a divine, apply himself to the study of a dead language,
which would be of no earthly use to him when attained? Curiosity would not, I dare say,
impel fifty out of five hundred to engage in its study, particularly as in the case of
which we are speaking, they would have authorized translations of all the sacred
books. — It is really deplorable, that not more are engaged in acquiring a knowledge
of the holy language — a language which our ancestors spoke — a language in
which the law was given. — But can this be a reason for banishing it altogether? And
that this banishment of the Hebrew would be extremely injurious is susceptible of the
easiest and plainest demonstration. — As it is, those who altogether use translations
of the whole or a part of the Scriptures, are frequently caught in making the most absurd
deductions from the Bible, which, upon examination of the Hebrew text, are no where to be
met with. Let us take one example: there is a trite saying, man is born to sin, and
many have attempted to fortify this position by reference to Psalm li. and Genesis vi.;
and, if you come to investigate the meaning of these two passages, you would be surprised
that no such thing is found in either of them; and this is not all, for as far as my
acquaintance with the Jewish canon extends, I never could discover a single passage even
to prove that man was born to sin. In the fifty-first psalm, David says:
"Behold in iniquity I was conceived," but not to sin; in the sixth
chapter of Genesis we read, that God determined to destroy mankind, "because the
desire of the thoughts of their heart was the whole day directed to evil;" here
is only stated the fact, that generation had degenerated, and were perpetually
intent how they could do wrong; not because they were obliged to do so, but
only because they chose this course of life in preference to doing right. — In
the eighth chapter of Genesis we read that God said: "That He would never more
destroy all flesh, as He had done, for the desire of the heart of man is evil from his
youth." Now this sentence cannot mean that he is born to sin, and cannot of his own
free will do right, without intervention of grace; but its obvious and only true meaning
is: that as we have desires and passions, we are, from our earliest infancy, drawn on by
these desires, but we are by no means obliged to yield to them, for in the fourth chapter
God told Cain, that though he were inclined to sin; of course man had the
inherent power to do right, though his inclinations should point the other way. But how is
he to know what is right? Simply by revelation, and following that course which God
had marked out for him. (See above, chap. i.) The investigation of this subject would lead
me too far, besides I am fearful of engaging at present in the discussion of the philosophy
of our law, as I do not think myself qualified to discuss the points which it would
present to me, as they deserve; I will therefore rest here, only assuring the reader that
this is not the only popular error which men have attempted to demonstrate as true with
arguments drawn from the Bible.
What I intend to prove by the foregoing example is this. We have seen that by justly
investigating the Bible we have overthrown a position so generally admitted as
true, that to some it may appear to be but little better than skepticism even to doubt it.
— If the Hebrew language were now altogether neglected, as some desire, we should be
unable to make these investigations. Whatever were asserted upon the authority of any
translation, would then of course pass for sound truth, and instead of Holy Writ being the
light of the world, it would become the cause of contention. Every man would explain every
thing as he liked best, and we should have just as many laws as there were Bible readers.
But as long as the Hebrew continues to be studied, there is no danger that any thing of
this kind will ever occur, I mean amongst ourselves. It is this which makes the Jews so
very formidable in argument; we have the original records, and if any man comes to
argue from his copy, we ask him: "Let us see how your copy agrees with our
original;" and we have thus maintained the superiority in argument and controversy in
every age and in every country, unless our reasons were answered by the sword or
the faggot. — The Bible must be literally given; and every word, every letter, nay
every point, has its meaning, which must not be lost sight of; no passage must be wrenched
from its position to mean any thing or nothing; but, as the whole from the first word in
Genesis to the last in the Chronicles (which books are the last in order with us) is one
revelation, because all emanates from one source, the HOLY ONE of Israel (whose
name be praised for eternity!) it is but fair that one passage should be used to explain
the other. And the Bible may be compared to an arch, where one stone supports the other;
so, generally speaking, will every obscure passage receive elucidation from another part
of the Bible.
This is no fanciful defense of the use of the Hebrew, for the experience of every day
proves its correctness; now let me ask my brethren who have not yet resolved to abandon
all: Are you prepared to give up the superiority you possess over every other nation and
sect upon the face of the earth? Pause before you strike the fatal blow; the nations are
not so alive to your strength, that in some countries they will not allow a clergyman to
be licensed who has not some knowledge of the Hebrew. In Germany and England they teach
the Hebrew at all their universities, and I verily believe their object in so doing is to
be the better able to cope with us. Therefore, for the sake of Heaven, for the sake of
your own honor and eternal salvation, listen not to what irreligious men wish to instil in
you, and consider and know that your ancestors were fully as wise and as will informed of
right and propriety as any modern infidel, and, if I err not, even greatly more so!
I do, with every lover of his people, and venerator of the word of God, deeply deplore
the condition in which many Jews, particularly in this country, are found. — Many,
and I am sorry to confess, most are altogether ignorant of the Hebrew; this is no doubt an
evil, which is of sufficient magnitude to alarm any man who seriously reflects. But this
evil is not yet great enough to break down on its account the limits which our ancestors
have set! No — instead of finding fault, let those who have the abilities set about
enlightening and informing those who are less favored, let them explain the law, the
ceremonies, the object and meaning of the prayers, and my life for it, the outcry against
the not understanding of our service will cease. It requires a great deal of labor perhaps
to remove the great mass of ignorance — to root out prejudices against the ancient
system; but is he a brave man, who turns back at the sight of any obstacle opposed to him?
Yet would I not recommend to those, who may be disposed to follow up my humble beginning,
to lose sight of discretion; far from it, they must use language mild and becoming; they
must endeavor to convince the understanding rather than captivate the fancy; they must
endeavor to be plain and intelligible at the expense of being tedious — lest by a
display of wit and great learning, they might astonish more than improve. We may be met at
the very beginning by difficulties not thought of perhaps, for we may by chance rouse
those spirits to greater activity, which have been and are even now at work to destroy all
that is venerable for sanctity and antiquity: but let us work unremittingly, and the
victory is ours. Let no man, who bears the honorable name of Israelite, and who has the
good of this brothers at heart, be caught sleeping at his post, but let us oppose our
enemies with perseverance, and use our watchfulness against theirs, and our God will bless
our endeavor. — We ought not however to be too much elated by success, for our battle
is for truth and not for fame, and if our object is attained. — if we
once have succeeded — if we have reached the goal of our desire in convincing all of
the righteousness of our law: we should lay down the arms of attack, and only continue to
improve our advantage — teach the law which we have proved true — spread amongst
our brethren the knowledge of their God — and by gentle means lead them back to the
fold from which they have strayed! And should we fear to encounter ridicule — or
hatred — or scorn — or even persecution? No — we must act and do our duty,
regardless of what men may think, say, or do; and will not God prosper our undertaking?
Most surely; success must await us, for never was war waged in a cause more holy;
and our enemies need not then be ashamed to confess themselves vanquished, for not by us
were they conquered, but by our God, who influences our minds, and to succumb to
Him is honor, for to Him we all must bow in humble adoration!
|
