II. The Scribes And Their Labours In General

II. THE SCRIBES AND THEIR LABOURS IN GENERAL
THE LITERATURE
Ursinus, Antiquitates Hebraicae scholastico-academicae. Hafniae 1702 (also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.).
Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Allen Testaments mit dem Neuen (1881), pp. 384-413.
Gfröer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i. (1838) pp. 109-214.
Winer, RWB. ii. 425-428 (art. “Schriftgelehrte”).
Jost, Das geschichtliche Verhältniss der Rabbinen zu ihren Gemeinden (Zeitschr. für die historische theologie (1850), pp. 351-377).
Levysohn, Einiges über die hebräischen und aramäischen Benennungen für Schule, Schüler und Lehrer (Franke’s Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. (1858), pp. 384-389).
Leyrer, art. “Schriftgelehrt,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xiii. (1860) pp. 781-741.
Klöpper, art. “Schriftgelehrte,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, vol. v. pp. 247-255.
Ginsburg, art. “Scribes,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature.
Plumptre, art. “Scribes,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläslinischen Theologie (1880), pp. 121-143.
Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii., arts. “Gelehrter,” “Lehrhaus,” “Rabban,” “Schüler,” “Sopherim,” “Talmudlehrer,” “Talmudschulen,” “Unterhalt,” “Unterricht.”
Strack, art. “Schriftgelehrte,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. xiii. (1884) pp. 696-698.
With the existence of a law is naturally involved the necessity of its scientific study, and of a professional acquaintance with it. Such necessity exists at least in proportion as this law is comprehensive and complicated. An acquaintance with its details, a certainty in the application of its several enactments to everyday life, can then only be attained by its being made a matter of professional occupation. In the time of Ezra, and indeed long after, this was chiefly the concern of the priests. Ezra himself was at the same time both priest and scribe (סוֹפֵר). The most important element of the Pentateuch was written in the interest of the priestly cultus. Hence the priests were at first the teachers and guardians of the law. Gradually however this was changed. The higher the law rose in the estimation of the people, the more did its study and exposition become an independent business. It was the law of God, and every individual of the nation had the same interest as the priests in knowing and obeying it. Hence non-priestly Israelites more and more occupied themselves with its scientific study. An independent class of “biblical scholars or scribes,” i.e. of men who made acquaintance with the law a profession, was formed beside the priests. And when in the time of Hellenism the priests, at least those of the higher strata, often applied themselves to heathen culture, and more or less neglected the law of their fathers, the scribes ever appeared in a relative contrast to the priests. It was no longer the priests, but the scribes, who were the zealous guardians of the law. Hence they were also from that time onwards the real teachers of the people, over whose spiritual life they bore complete sway.
In the time of the New Testament we find this process fully completed; the scribes then formed a firmly compacted class in undisputed possession of a spiritual supremacy over the people. They are usually called in the New Testament γραμματεῖς, i.e. “learned in Scripture,” “the learned,” corresponding to the Hebrew סוֹפְרִים, which in itself means nothing more than homines literati (men professionally occupied with the Scriptures).[1176] That such occupation should concern itself chiefly with the law was self-evident. Besides this general designation, we also meet with the more special one νομικοί i.e. “the learned in the law,” “jurists” (Matthew 22:35; Luke 7:30; Luke 10:25; Luke 11:45 sq., Luke 11:52; Luke 14:3);[1177] and inasmuch as they not only knew, but taught the law, they were likewise called νομοδιδάσκαλοι, “teachers of the law” (Luke 5:17; Acts 5:34). Josephus calls them πατρίων ἐξηγηταὶ νόμων,[1178] or in Graecized fashion σοφισταί,[1179] also ἱερογραμματεῖς.[1180] In the Mishna the expression סוֹפְרִים is only used of the scribes of former times, who in the times of the Mishna had already become an authority.[1181] Contemporary scribes are always called חֲכָמִים in the Mishna. The extraordinary respect paid to these “scholars” on the part of the people was expressed by the titles of honour bestowed upon them. The most usual was the appellation רַבִּי, “my master;” Greek, ῥαββί (Matthew 3:7 and elsewhere).[1182] From this respectful address the title Babbi was gradually formed, the suffix losing its pronominal signification with the frequent use of the address, and רַבִּי being also used as a title (Babbi Joshua, Babbi Eliezer, Eabbi Akiba).[1183] This use cannot be proved before the time of Christ. Hillel and Shammai were never called Babbis, nor is ῥαββί found in the New Testament except as an actual address. The word does not seem to have been used as a title till after the time of Christ. רַבָּן, or as the word is also pronounced רַבּוֹן, is an enhanced form of רַב. The first form seems to belong more to the Hebrew, the second to the Aramaean usage.[1184] Hence רַבָּן is found in the Mishna as the title of four prominent scribes of the period of the Mishna (about A.D. 40-150),[1185] and in the New Testament, on the other hand, ῥαββουνί (רַבּוֹן or רַבּוּן) as a respectful address to Christ (Mark 10:51; John 20:16).[1186] In the Greek of the New Testament Rabbi is represented by κύριε (Matthew 8:2; Matthew 8:6; Matthew 8:8; Matthew 8:21; Matthew 8:25 and frequently) or διδάσκαλε (Matthew 8:9 and frequently); in St. Luke also by ἐπιστάτα (Luke 5:5; Luke 8:24; Luke 8:45; Luke 9:33; Luke 9:49; Luke 17:13). Πατήρ and καθηγητής (Matthew 23:9-10) are also mentioned as other names of honour given to scribes. The latter is probably equal to מוֹרֶה, “teacher.”[1187] The former answers to the Aramaic אַבָּא, which also occurs in the Mishna and Tosefta as the title of several Rabbis.[1188]
[1176] סוֹפֵר is any one professionally employed about books, e.g. also a writer (Shabbath xii. 5; Nedarim ix. 2; Gittin iii. 1, vii. 2, viii. 8, ix. 8; Baba mezia v. 11; Sanhedrin iv. 8, v. 5) or a bookbinder (Pesachim iii. 1). On its use in the Old Testament, see Gesenius’ Thesaurus, p. 966. When it is said in the Talmud, that the scribes were called סופרים because they counted the letters of the Thorah (Kiddushin 30a, in Wunsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erlauterung der Evangelien, 1878, p. 18. 179), this is of course only a worthless etymological trifling.
[1177] νομικός is in later Greek the proper technical expression for a “jurist,” Juris peritus. Thus especially of Roman jurists in Strabo, p. 539: οἱ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις νομικοί, also in the Edictum Diocletiani, see Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 54. It is not accidentally that the expression is so frequently found in St. Luke. He purposes thereby to make clear to his Roman readers the character of the Jewish scribes.
[1178] Antt. xvii. 6, 2. Comp. xviii. 3. 5.
[1179] Bell. Jud. i. 33. 2, ii. 17. 8, 9.
[1180] Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3.
[1181] See Orla iii. 9; Jebamoth ii. 4, ix. 3 (Sota ix. 15); Sanhedrin xi. 3; Kelim xiii. 7; Para xi. 4-6; Tohoroth iv. 7, 11; Tebul jom iv. 6; Jedajim iii. 2. In all these passages, with the exception of that in Sota ix. 15, which does not belong to the original text of the Mishna, “the ordinances of the scribes (דברי סופרים)” are spoken of as distinct from the prescriptions of the Thorah, and in such wise that the former also are regarded as having been for a long period authoritative. Apart from these passages the expression סופרים only occurs in the Mishna in the sense stated above, note 18. On the other hand, in Shemoneh Esreh, in the 13th Beracha, God is entreated to let His mercy dispose of “the righteous, the pious, and the elders of Israel and the rest of the scribes” (פליטת סופרים), which latter are consequently assumed to be still existing. The Greek γραμματεύς is still found in Jewish epitaphs in Rome of the date of the later emperors (2nd to 4th century after Christ); see Garrucci, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei scoperto recentemente in Vigna Randanini (1862), pp. 42, 46, 47, 54, 55, 59, 61. Garrucci, Dissertazioni archeologische, vol. ii. (1865), p. 165, no. 20, 21, p. 182, no. 21.
[1182] רַב means simply “master,” in opposition, e.g., to slave (Sukka ii. 9; Gittin iv. 4, 5; Edujoth i. 18; Aboth i. 3). The mode of address רַבִּי, “my master,” is found in the Mishna, e.g. Pesachim vi. 2; Rosh hashana ii. 9, fin.; Nedarim ix. 5; Baba kamma viii. 6. Also with the plural suffix רַבֵּינוּ “our master,” Berachoth ii. 5, 7. This predicate having been bestowed upon the scribes in their teaching capacity, רַב gradually acquired the meaning of “teacher.” It seems to have been already thus used in a saying attributed to Joshua ben Perachiah, Aboth i. 6. In the time of the Mishna this meaning was, at all events, quite common; see Rosh hashana ii. 9, fin.; Baba mezia ii. 11; Edujoth i. 3, viii. 7; Aboth iv. 12; Kerithoth vi. 9, fin.; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. Comp. John 1:39.
[1183] Like Monsieur. Comp. on the title of Rabbi generally, Seruppii Dissert. de titulo Rabbi (in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Lightfoot and Wetzstein on Matthew 23:7. Buztorf, De abbreviaturis hebraicis, pp. 172-177. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 137 sqq. Winer, RWB. ii. 296 sq. Pressel in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xii. 471 sq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 431 Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, v. 305. Steiner in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 29 sq. Riehm’s Wörterb. s.v. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. art. “Rabban.” The Lezica to the New Testament, s.v. ῥαββί.
[1184] Both forms appear in the Targums (see Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. s.v. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. s.v.), and on the other hand רַבָּן almost always in the Hebrew. Of the form רבון only one example is known to me in the Mishna, viz. in Taanith iii, 8, where it is used with reference to God. On the meaning of רבן Aruch says (s.v. אביי, see the passage, e.g. in Buxtorf, De abbreviaturis, p. 176): גדול מרב רבי וגדול מרבי רבן, “greater than Rab is Rabbi, and greater than Rabbi is Rabban.”
[1185] These four are—(1) Rabban Gamaliel I., (2) Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai, (3) Rabban Gamaliel II., (4) Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel II. To all these the title רבן is as a rule ascribed in the best MSS. of the Mishna (e.g. Cod. de Rossi 138). Rabban Gamaliel III., son of R. Judah ha-Nasi, also occurs once in the Mishna (Aboth ii. 2). Of two others, to whom this title is usually applied (Simon the son of Hillel, and Simon the son of Gamaliel I.), the former does not occur in the Mishna at all, the latter, at least in the chief passage, Aboth i. 17, not under this title. He is however probably intended by Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel, mentioned Kerithoth i. 7.
[1186] The opinion formerly expressed by Delitzsch, that the form רבון only used with reference to God (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1876, pp. 409, 606), has been since withdrawn by himself as erroneous from consideration of the usual diction of the Targum (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1878, p. 7). That the form רבון is pronounced ribbon by modern Jews, as also רבי, ribbi, is quite irrelevant. The shortening of a into i is confessedly very frequent in Hebrew, but in this case of very recent date. In the Middle Ages it was probably still pronounced רַבּוֹן, as the Cod. de Rossi 188 prints the passage Taanith iii. 8. Comp. also Delitzsch, Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1876, p. 606. It is only for the Aramaean that the pronunciation ribbon is well evidenced. See Berliner’s Ausgabe des Onkelos, e.g. Genesis 19:2; Genesis 42:30; Exodus 21:4-8; Exodus 23:17.
[1187] See Wünsche, Neue Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Evangelien (1878), p. 279 sq.
[1188] Abba Saul is the most frequently mentioned among these, Pea viii. 5; Kilajim ii. 3; Shabbath xxiii. 3; Shekalim iv. 2; Beza iii. 8; Aboth ii. 8; Middoth ii. 5, v. 4 and elsewhere. Comp. also Abba Gurjan (Kiddushin iv. 14); Abba Joses ben Chanan (Middoth ii. 6. Tosefta, ed. Zuckermendel, pp. 154. 18, 199. 22, 233. 22, 665. 31); Abba Joses ben Dosai (Tosefta 23. 4, 217. 19, 360. 16, etc.); Abba Judan (Tosefta 259. 18, 616. 31). Others in Zuckermandel’s Index to the Tosefta, p. xxxi.
The Rabbis required from their pupils the most absolute reverence, surpassing even the honour felt for parents. “Let thine esteem for thy friend border upon thy respect for thy teacher, and respect for thy teacher on reverence for God.”[1189] “Respect for a teacher should exceed respect for a father, for both father and son owe respect to a teacher.”[1190] “If a man’s father and teacher have lost anything, the teacher’s loss has the precedence (i.e. he must first be assisted in recovering it). For his father only brought him into this world. His teacher, who taught him wisdom, brings him into the life of the world to come. But if his father is himself a teacher, then his father’s loss has precedence. If a man’s father and his teacher are carrying burdens, he must first help his teacher and afterwards his father. If his father and his teacher are in captivity, he must first ransom his teacher and afterwards his father. But if his father be himself a scholar, the father has precedence.”[1191] The Rabbis in general everywhere claimed the first rank. “They loved the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi” (Matthew 23:6-7; Mark 12:38-39; Luke 11:43; Luke 20:46).
[1189] Aboth iv. 12.
[1190] Kerithoth vi. 9, fin.
[1191] Baba mezia ii. 11. Comp. also Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 144 sq. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theologie, p. 121 sq.
All the labours of the scribes, whether educational or judicial, were to be gratuitous. R. Zadok said: Make the knowledge of the law neither a crown wherewith to make a show, nor a spade wherewith to dig. Hillel used to say: He who uses the crown (of the law) for external aims fades away.[1192] That the judge might not receive presents was already prescribed in the Old Testament (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:9). Hence it is also said in the Mishna: “If any one receives payment for a judicial decision, his sentence is not valid.”[1193] The Rabbis were therefore left to other sources for obtaining a livelihood. Some were persons of property, others practised some trade as well as the study of the law. The combination of some secular business with the study of the law is especially recommended by Rabban Gamaliel III., son of R Judah ha-Nasi. “For exertion in both keeps from sin. The study of the law without employment in business must at last be interrupted, and brings transgression after it.”[1194] It is known that St. Paul, even when a preacher of the gospel, practised a trade (Acts 18:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). And we are told the like of many Babbis.[1195] In such a case their occupation with the law was of course esteemed the more important, and they were cautioned against over-estimation of their secular business. The son of Sirach already warns against a one-sided devotion to handicraft, and extols the blessing of scriptural wisdom (Wisd. 38:24-39:11). R. Meir said: Give yourselves less to trade and occupy yourselves more with the law;[1196] and Hillel: He who devotes himself too much to trade will not grow wise.[1197]
[1192] Aboth iv. 5, i. 18. Comp. also Gfrörer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, i. 156-160.
[1193] Bechoroth iv. 6.
[1194] Aboth ii. 2.
[1195] Comp. Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen, p. 410 sq. Gfrörer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, i. 160-168, Delitzsch, Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 71-88; Lehrstand und Handwerk in Verbindung. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. p. 288 (art. “Gelehrter”) and p. 1241 (art “Unterhalt”). Seligmann Meyer, Arbeit und Handwerk im Talmud (1878), pp. 23-36.
[1196] Aboth iv. 10.
[1197] Aboth ii. 5.
The principle of non-remuneration was strictly carried out only in their judicial labours, but hardly in their employment as teachers. Even in the Gospel, notwithstanding the express admonition to the disciples, δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε (Matthew 10:8), it is also said that a labourer is worthy of his hire (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7), to which saying St. Paul expressly refers (1 Corinthians 9:15) when he claims as his right—although he but exceptionally used it—a maintenance from those to whom he preached the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:3-18; 2 Corinthians 11:8-9; Php_4:10-18. Comp, also Galatians 6:6). If such was the view of the times, it may be supposed that the Jewish teachers of the law also did not always impart their instruction gratuitously, nay the very exhortations quoted above, not to practise instruction in the law for the sake of selfish interest, lead us to infer that absence of remuneration was not the general rule. In Christ’s censures of the scribes and Pharisees their covetousness is a special object of reproof (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; Luke 16:14). Hence, even if their instruction was given gratuitously, they certainly knew how to compensate themselves in some other way. The moral testimony borne to them by Christ was by no means of the best: “All their works they do to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments (Matthew 23:5), and love to go in long garments” (Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46).
The headquarters of the operations of the scribes was of course Judaea until A.D. 70. But we should be mistaken if we expected to find them there only. Wherever zeal for the law of the fathers was active they were indispensable. Hence we meet with them in Galilee also (Luke 5:17), nay in the distant Dispersion; for γραμματεῖς are frequently mentioned in Jewish epitaphs in Rome of the later imperial period (see above, note [1198] and the Babylonian scribes of the fifth and sixth centuries were the authors of the Talmud, the chief work of Rabbinic Judaism.
[1198] Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3.
After the separation of the Pharisaic and Sadducaean tendencies the scribes in general adhered to the former. For this was nothing else but the party, that acknowledged as an authoritative rule of life the maxims, which had in the course of time been developed by the scribes, and sought to carry them strictly out. Inasmuch however as the “scribes” were merely “men learned in the law,” there must have been also Sadducaean scribes. For it is not conceivable that the Sadducees, who acknowledged the written law as binding, should have had among them none who made it their profession to study it, In fact those passages of the New Testament, which speak of scribes who were of the Pharisees (Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; Acts 23:9), point also to the existence of Sadducaean scribes.
The professional employment of the scribes referred, if not exclusively, yet first and chiefly, to the law, and therefore to the administration of justice. They were in the first instance Jurists, and their task was in this respect a threefold one: (1) the more careful theoretical development of the law itself; (2) the teaching of it to their pupils; (3) its practical administration, that is, the pronunciation of legal decisions as learned assessors in courts of justice.[1199]
[1199] This threefold “power of the wise” is also correctly distinguished by Weber (System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie, pp. 130-143).
1. First the theoretic development of the law itself. This indeed was immovably fixed as to its principles in the Thorah itself. But no codex of law goes into such detail as to be in no need of exposition, while some of the appointments of the Mosaic law are expressed in very general terms. Here then was a wide field for the labours of the scribes. They had always to develop with careful casuistry the general precepts given in the Thorah, that so a guarantee might exist, that the tendency of the precepts of the law had been really apprehended according to their full extent and meaning. In those points for which the written law made no direct provision a compensation had to be created, either by the establishment of a precedent, or by inference from other already valid legal decisions. By the diligence with which this occupation was carried on during the last centuries before the Christian era, Jewish law became gradually an extensive and complicated science; and this law not being fixed in writing, but propagated by oral tradition, very assiduous study was required to obtain even a general acquaintance with it An acquaintance however with what was binding was but the foundation and prerequisite for the professional labours of the scribes. Their special province was to develop what was already binding by continuous methodical labours into more and more subtle casuistic details. For all casuistry is by its very nature endless.[1200]
[1200] See further details in No. 3: Halachah and Haggadah.
The object of all these labours being to settle a system of law binding on all, the work could not be performed in an isolated manner by individual scribes. It was necessary that constant mutual communication should be going on among them for the purpose of arriving, upon the ground of a common understanding, at some generally acknowledged results. Hence the whole process of systematizing the law was carried on in the form of oral discussions of the scribes among each other. The acknowledged authorities not merely gathered about them pupils, whom they instructed in the law, but also debated legal questions among themselves, nay discussed the entire matter of the law in common disputations. Of this method of giving structure to the law, the Mishna everywhere testifies.[1201] To make this possible, it was needful that the heads at least of the body of scribes should dwell together at certain central localities. Many indeed would be scattered about the country for the purposes of giving instruction and pronouncing judicial decisions. But the majority of those authorities, who were mainly of creative genius, must have been concentrated at some one central point—till A.D. 70 at Jerusalem, and afterwards at other places (Jabne, Tiberias).
[1201]a Compare e.g. Pea vi. 6; Kilajim iii. 7, vi. 4; Terumoth v. 4; Maaser sheni ii. 2; Shabbath viii. 7; Pesachim vi. 2, 5; Kerithoth iii. 10; Machshirin vi. 8; Jadajim iv. 3.
The law thus theoretically developed by scholars was certainly, in the first place, only a theory. In many points it also remained such, the actual historical and political circumstances not allowing of its being carried into practice.[1202] In general however the labours of the scribes stood in an active relation to actual life; and in proportion as their credit increased, did their theory become valid law. In the last century before the destruction of Jerusalem the Pharisaic scribes bore already such absolute spiritual sway, that the great Sanhedrim, notwithstanding its mixed composition of Pharisees and Sadducees, adhered in practice to the law developed by the Pharisees (see above, p. 179). Many matters were besides of such a nature as not to need any formal legislation. For the godly would observe religious institutions, not on account of formal legislation, but by reason of a voluntary subjection to an authority which they acknowledged as legitimate.[1203] Hence the maxims developed by the scribes were recognised as binding in practice also, so soon as the schools were agreed about them. The scribes were in fact, though not upon the ground of formal appointment, legislators. This applies in a very special manner to the time after the destruction of the temple. There then no longer existed a civil court of justice like the former Sanhedrim. The Rabbinical scribes, with their purely spiritual authority, were now the only influential factors for laying down a rule. They had formerly been the actual establishes of law, they now were more and more acknowledged as deciding authorities. Their judgment sufficed to determine what was valid law. As soon then as doubt arose concerning any point, or it was questioned whether this or that course of action should be embraccd, it was customary to bring the matter “before the learned,” who then pronounced an authoritative decision.[1204] And so great was the authority of these teachers of the law, that the judgment of even one respected teacher sufficed to decide a question.[1205] New dogmas, i.e. new rules legally valid, sometimes even differing from what had hitherto been customary, were laid down, without even such special occasion.[1206] In such cases however it was always assumed that the decision of the individual agreed with the decision of the majority of all the teachers of the law, and was accepted by them (see No. 3). Hence it might happen that the decision of a single teacher would be subsequently corrected by the majority,[1207] or that even an eminent teacher would be obliged to subordinate his own view to those of a “court” of teachers.[1208]
[1202]b For an initructive example of the kind, see Jadajim iv. 3-4. Comp. also the purely theoretical definitions as to the composition of the tribes, Sanhedrin i. 5; Horajoth i. 5.
[1203] The priests too almost always followed the theory of the scribes. They are but exceptional cases in which the Mishna has to report a difference between the practice of the priests and the theory of the Rabbis; see Shekalim i. 3-4; Joma vi. 3; Sebachim xii. 4.
[1204] “The matter came before the learned (חכמים) and they decided thus and thus,” is a formula of frequent occurrence. See e.g. Kilajim iv. 9; Edujoth vii. 3; Bechoroth v. 3.
[1205] In this manner are doubtful cases decided, e.g., by Rabban Johananben Sakkai (Shabbath xvi. 7, xxii. 3), Rabban Gamaliel II. (Kelim v. 4), R. Akiba (Kilajim vii. 5; Terumoth iv. 13; Jebamoth xii. 5; Nidda viii. 3).
[1206] So e.g. by Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai (Sukka iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4; Sota ix. 9; Menachoth x. 5) and by R. Akiba (Maaser sheni v. 8; Nasir vi. 1; Sanhedrin iii. 4).
[1207] Thus was a decision of Nahum the Median subsequently corrected by “the learned,” Nasir v. 4.
[1208] E.g. R. Joshua had to agree to a decision of Rabban Gamaliel II. and his court, Rosh hashana ii. 9.
The legislative power of the Rabbis was a thing so self-evident in the time of the Mishna, that it is often without further ceremony assumed also for the time before the destruction of Jerusalem. It is said quite naturally that Hillel decreed this or that,[1209] or that Gamaliel I. enacted this or that.[1210] And yet not Hillel or Gamaliel I., but the great Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, was then the ultimate resort for decision. For thence proceeded, as is said in the Mishna itself, “the law for all Israel.”[1211] The truth in this representation is, that in any case the great teachers of the law were already the deciding authorities.
[1209] Shebiith x. 3; Gittin iv. 3; Arachin ix. 4. Everywhere with the formula הִתְקִין, “he decreed.”
[1210] Rosh hashana ii, 5; Gittin iv. 2-3. Equally with the formula הִתְקִין.
[1211] Sanhedrin xi. 2.
2. The second chief task of the scribes was to teach the law. The ideal of legal Judaism was properly, that every Israelite should have a professional acquaintance with the law. If this were unattainable, then the greatest possible number was to be raised to this ideal elevation. “Bring up many scholars” is said to have been already a motto of the men of the Great Synagogue.[1212] Hence the more famous Rabbis often assembled about them in great numbers, youths desirous of instruction,[1213] for the purpose of making them thoroughly acquainted with the much ramified and copious “oral law.” The pupils were called תַּלְמִידִים, or more fully תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.[1214] The instruction consisted of an indefatigable continuous exercise of the memory, For the object being that the pupils should remember with accuracy the entire matter with its thousands upon thousands of minutiae, and the oral law being never committed to writing, the instruction could not be confined to a single statement. The teacher was obliged to repeat his matter again and again (with his pupils. Hence in Rabbinic diction “to repeat” (שָׁנָה = δευτεροῦν) means exactly the same as “to teach” (whence also מִשְׁנָה = teaching).[1215] This repetition was not however performed by the teacher only delivering his matter. The whole proceeding was, on the contrary, disputational. The teacher brought before his pupils several legal questions for their decision and let them answer them or answered them himself. The pupils were also allowed to propose questions to the teacher.[1216] This form of catechetical lecture has left its mark upon the style of the Mishna, the question being frequently started how this or that subject is to be understood for the purpose of giving a decision.[1217] All knowledge of the law being strictly traditional, a pupil had only two duties. One was to keep everything faithfully in memory. R. Dosthai said in the name of R. Meir: He who forgets a tenet of his instruction in the law, to him the Scripture imputes the wilful forfeiture of his life.[1218] The second duty was never to teach anything otherwise than it had been delivered to him. Even in expression he was to confine himself to the words of his teacher: “Every one is bound to teach with the expressions of his teacher,” חַיָּב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ.[1219] It was the highest praise of a pupil to be “like a well lined with lime, which loses not one drop.”[1220]
[1212] Aboth i. 1.
[1213] Joseph. Bell. Jud. xxxiii. 2.
[1214] Pesachim iv. 5; Joma i. 6; Sukka ii. 1; Chagiga i. 8; Nedarim x. 4; Sota i. 3; Sanhedrin iv. 4, xi. 2; Makkoth ii. 5; Aboth v. 12; Horajoth iii. 8; Negaim xii. 5. Pupils e.g. of Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai (Aboth ii. 8), of Rabban Gamaliel II. (Berachoth ii. 5-7), of R. Ismael (Erubin ii. 6), R. Akiba (Nidda viii. 3), pupils of the school of Shammai (Orla ii. 5, 12), are severally mentioned. The appellation חָבֵר for one who has finished his study of the law, but has not yet obtained any publicly acknowledged position, belongs to the later Middle Ages. In the Mishna the word has quite another meaning. See § 26.
[1215] Comp. Hieronymus, Epist. 121 ad Algasiam, quaest. x. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, i. 884 sq.): Doctores eorum σοφοί hoc est sapientes vocantur. Et si quando certis diebus traditiones suas exponunt discipulis suis, solent dicere: οἱ σοφοὶ δευτερῶσιν, id est sapientes docent traditiones.
[1216] See Lightfoot and Wetzstein on Luke 2:46.
[1217] E.g. Berachoth i. 1-2; Pea iv. 10, vi. 8, vii. 3, 4, viii. 1; Kilajim ii. 2, iv. 1, 2, 3, vi. 1, 5; Shebiith i. 1, 2, 5, ii. 1, iii. 1, 2, iv. 4. The question is very frequently introduced by כֵּיצַד (= how?): Berachoth vi. 1, vii. 3; Demai v. 1; Terumoth iv. 9; Maaser sheni iv. 4, v. 4; Challa ii. 8; Orla ii. 2, iii. 8; Bikkurim iii. 1, 2; Erubin v. 1, viii. 1.
[1218] Aboth iii. 8.
[1219] Edujoth i. 3.
[1220] Aboth ii. 8. Comp. also Gfrörer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, i. 168-173.
For these theoretical studies of the law, whether the disputations of the scribes with each other or instruction properly so called, there were in the period of the Mishna, and probably also so early as the times of the New Test., special localities, the so-called “houses of teaching” (Heb. בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, plur. בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת).[1221] They are often mentioned in conjunction with the synagogues as places, which in legal respects enjoyed certain privileges.[1222] In Jabne a locality which was called “the vineyard” (כֶּרֶם) is mentioned as a place of meeting of the learned, from which however we cannot infer, that כֶּרֶם was in general a poetic term for a house of teaching.[1223] In Jerusalem indeed the catechetical lectures were held “in the temple” (ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, Luke 2:46; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 20:37; John 18:20), i.e. in the colonnades or some other space of the outer court. The pupils sat on the ground during the instruction (בְּקַרְקַע) of the teacher, who was on an elevated place (hence Acts 22:3 : παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Γαμαλιήλ; comp. also Luke 2:46).[1224]
[1221] Berachoth iv. 2; Demai ii. 3, vii. 5; *Terumoth xi. 10; Shabbath xvi. 1, xvii. 1; *Pesachim iv. 4; Beza iii. 5; Aboth v. 14; Menachoth x. 9; Jadajim iv. 3, 4. In the passages marked * the plural form occurs. On other designations of the house of teaching, see Vitringa, De synagoga vetere, p. 133 sqq.
[1222] Terumoth xi. 10; Pesachim iv. 4. It is evident from both passages, that the houses of teaching were distinct from the synagogues. On the high estimation in which these houses of teaching were held, see also Hamburger, Real-Encycl. ii. 675-677, art. “Lehrhaus.”
[1223] Kethuboth iv. 6; Edujoth ii. 4. According to the connection of the two passages, כרם was a place where the learned were accustomed to assemble in Jabne (R. Eleasar and R. Ismael delivered this and that before the learned in the vineyard at Jabne). It is probable that an actual vineyard with a house or court, which served as a place of meeting, is intended. The traditional explanation tries indeed to deduce the appellation from the circumstance, that in the house of teaching the תַּלְמִידִים sat in rows like vine plants (so already Jer. Berachoth iv. fol. 7d in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. ii. 408, and after this the commentators of the Mishna, see Surenhusius’ edition iii. 70, iv. 332). See, on the contrary, Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 380, note 3.
[1224] According to later Talmudic tradition, the sitting on the ground on the part of scholars was not customary till after the death of Gamaliel I.; in earlier times they used to stand (Megilla 21a, in Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae on Luke ii. 46). The whole tradition however is merely an explanation of Sota ix. 15: “Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, reverence for the law has disappeared.” See, on the other hand, beside Luke 2:46, Aboth i. 4, according to which Joses ben Joeser already said, one ought to let oneself be covered with dust at the feet of the wise.
3. A third duty, which equally belonged to the calling of the scribes, was passing sentence in the court of justice. Their acquaintance with the law being a professional one, their votes could not but be of influential importance. It is true that at least during the period under consideration, a special and scholarly acquaintance with the law was by no means essential to the office of a judge. Any one might be a judge, who was appointed such through the confidence of his fellow-citizens. And it may be supposed, that the small local courts were for the most part lay courts. It was nevertheless in the nature of things, that confidence should be placed in a judge in proportion as he was distinguished for a thorough and accurate knowledge of the law. So far then as men learned in the law were to be found, it is self-evident that such would be called to the office of judge. With respect to the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, it is expressly testified in the New Testament, that γραμματεῖς also were among those who were its members (comp. above, p. 177 sq.). After the fall of the Jewish State, A.D. 70, the authority of the Rabbis increased in independent importance in this respect also. Being now recognised as independent legislators, they were also regarded as independent judges. Their sentences were voluntarily acquiesced in, whether they gave judgment collectively or individually. Thus it is e.g. related, that R. Akiba once condemned a Man_1:-15 sus (denarii) as compensation for uncovering his head to a woman in the street.[1225]
[1225] Baba kamma viii. 8.
This threefold activity of the scribes as men learned in the law formed their chief and special calling. But the Holy Scriptures are something besides law. Even in the Pentateuch narrative occupies a wide space, while the contents of other books are almost exclusively either historical or didactic. This fact always remained, customary as it was to look upon the whole chiefly from the view-point of law. These Scriptures then being also deeply studied, it was impossible not to let history be spoken of as history and religious edification as such. What however was common in the treatment of these Scriptures and those of the law was, that they too were dealt with as a sacred text, a sacred standard, which was not only to be deeply studied, but which had also to be subjected to a complete elaboration. As the law was more and more developed, so also was the sacred history and the religious instruction further developed, and that always in connection with the text of Scripture, which just in its quality of a sacred text silently invited to such deep investigation. In such development the notions of subsequent times had, of course, a very important influence in modifying results. History and dogma were not merely further developed, but fashioned according to the views of after times. This gave rise to what is usually called the Haggadah.[1226] It is true that it did not belong to the special province of teachers of the law to occupy themselves therewith, But since the manipulation of the law and that of the historical religious and ethical contents of the sacred text arose from a kindred exigency, it was a natural result, that both should be effected by the same persons. As a rule the learned occupied themselves with both, though some distinguished themselves more in the former and others more in the latter department.
[1226] For further particulars, see No. 3.
In their double quality of men learned in the law and learned in the “Haggadah,” the scribes were also qualified above others for delivering lectures and exhortations in the synagogues. These were not indeed confined to appointed persons. Any one capable of so doing might stand up to teach in the synagogue at the invitation of the ruler (see § 27). But as in courts of justice the learned doctors of the law were preferred to the laity, so too in the synagogue their natural superiority asserted itself.
To the juristic and haggadic elaboration of Holy Scripture, was added a third kind of occupation therewith, viz. the care of the text of Scripture as such. The higher the authority of the sacred text, the more urgent was the necessity for its conscientious and unadulterated preservation. From this necessity originated all those observations and critical notes subsequently comprised under the name of the Massora (the computation of verses, words and letters, orthographical notes, critical remarks on the text, and such like). This work however was mainly the labour of a later period. During that with which we are occupied its first beginnings had at most been made.[1227]
[1227] Comp. on the Massora, Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. ix. 388-394. Reuse, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T.’s, § 581, and the literature cited by both; also Hamburger, Real-Encycl. ii. 1211-1220 (art. “Text der Bibel”). Only isolated remarks, which perhaps belong to the subject, are found in the Mishna, Pesachim ix. 2 (that a point stands over the ה in רחקה, Numbers 9:10); Sota v. 5 (that the לֹא in Job 13:15 may mean “him” or “not”). When R. Akiba says, Aboth iii. 13, that the מַסֹּרֶת is “a fence about the Thorah,” מסרת means not the critico-textual, but the Halachio tradition; see Strack, p. 388.