Full download ebook at ebookmass.

com

Good Faith in Contractual Performance in Australia

1st ed. Edition Nurhidayah Abdullah

For dowload this book click link below

https://ebookmass.com/product/good-faith-in-
contractual-performance-in-australia-1st-ed-
edition-nurhidayah-abdullah/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook from https://ebookmass.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Multiculturalism, Whiteness and Otherness in Australia

1st ed. Edition Jon Stratton

https://ebookmass.com/product/multiculturalism-whiteness-and-
otherness-in-australia-1st-ed-edition-jon-stratton/

The Bad Faith in the Free Market 1st ed. Edition Peter
Bloom

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-bad-faith-in-the-free-
market-1st-ed-edition-peter-bloom/

Artistic Research in Performance through Collaboration

1st ed. Edition Martin Blain

https://ebookmass.com/product/artistic-research-in-performance-
through-collaboration-1st-ed-edition-martin-blain/

Faith, Reason, and Culture: An Essay in Fundamental

Theology 1st ed. Edition George Karuvelil

https://ebookmass.com/product/faith-reason-and-culture-an-essay-
in-fundamental-theology-1st-ed-edition-george-karuvelil/
Housing Policy in Australia: A Case for System Reform
1st ed. 2020 Edition Hal Pawson

https://ebookmass.com/product/housing-policy-in-australia-a-case-
for-system-reform-1st-ed-2020-edition-hal-pawson/

Considering Ethics in Dance, Theatre and Performance

1st ed. Edition Fiona Bannon

https://ebookmass.com/product/considering-ethics-in-dance-
theatre-and-performance-1st-ed-edition-fiona-bannon/

Children, Young People and the Press in a Transitioning

Society 1st ed. Edition Faith Gordon

https://ebookmass.com/product/children-young-people-and-the-
press-in-a-transitioning-society-1st-ed-edition-faith-gordon/

Intermedial Performance and Politics in the Public

Sphere 1st ed. Edition Katia Arfara

https://ebookmass.com/product/intermedial-performance-and-
politics-in-the-public-sphere-1st-ed-edition-katia-arfara/

Post-Crash Economics and the Covid Emergency in the

Global Economy: Interdisciplinary Issues in Teaching
and Research Abdullah Yusuf

https://ebookmass.com/product/post-crash-economics-and-the-covid-
emergency-in-the-global-economy-interdisciplinary-issues-in-
teaching-and-research-abdullah-yusuf/
Good Faith in
Contractual
Performance in
Australia

n u r h i daya h a bdu l l a h
Good Faith in Contractual Performance in Australia
 Nurhidayah Abdullah

Good Faith
in Contractual
Performance
in Australia
Nurhidayah Abdullah
Faculty of Economics & Administration
University of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ISBN 978-981-15-6077-4    ISBN 978-981-15-6078-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6078-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-­01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
 I dedicate this book to my mother, Rusizah binti Mohd Taib; my two
beloved children, Mohd Al Haddad bin Mohd Hakimi and Nur Hurin
Amani bin Mohd Hakimi; and my beloved family for their endless support
and unconditional love.
To my late father, Abdullah bin Kassim, who passed away on the 18th
of April 2018, may Allah accept him among the guided ones. Amin.
 Preface

Good faith is arguably the most controversial, frustrating and poorly

defined concept in contract law. Judges and scholars have different and
contradicting views of the concept of good faith, both as to its operation
and as to its meaning. The concept of good faith nevertheless has begun
to gain recognition and continues to have an increasing influence on many
types of contracts in many contexts. The concept of good faith had
generally been rooted in countries that practice civil law. Only now is it
beginning to be acknowledged in some common law countries.
The aim of this book is to give a detailed account of the current state of
the law concerning good faith in contractual performance. In Australia,
good faith is an area of law which is undergoing rapid development. The
concept of good faith was introduced by Priestley J in his obiter comments
in Renard Constructions (ME) v Minister for Works (1992) 26 NSWLR
234. This case paved the way for the emergence of the concept of good
faith in Australian contract law. The book deals with the issues surround-
ing its development, its meaning and its acceptance at the international
level. The empirical dimension of this book offers updated insights into
the concept of good faith in Australia. It does this by building on Tyrone
Carlin’s study in 2005 entitled ‘A Critical Analysis of the Burgeoning
Good Faith Performance Doctrine in the Australian Contract Law’, his
unpublished master’s dissertation submitted to the University of Sydney.
My study examines the concept of good faith over a longer period, from
1992 to 2009. This book indicates how questions relating to good faith
in contractual performance have been material to the evolution of the
concept in Australia.

vii
viii PREFACE

This book is distinct from most research conducted on good faith

because it adds to the research on good faith in contractual performance
using the empirical legal research approach. The scope of the research is
broader in terms of the materials and the study period. This research
focused on the attitude of the judges to good faith, the definition of good
faith and the possibility of legislating a good faith obligation in Australian
contract law.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Nurhidayah Abdullah

 Acknowledgements

This book would not have been possible without the support of scholars,
government officials and friends, who kindly shared with me their experi-
ences and thoughts when I was writing this book. My research was also
greatly aided by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and the
University of Malaya. Members of these institutions believed in my ability
to pursue higher studies and provided generous financial support.
This book originates from my doctoral thesis, which I completed at the
University of Sydney Business School at the University of Sydney, Australia
in the Business Law Department, under the supervision of Professor
Tyrone Carlin and Professor Andrew Terry. I am indeed grateful to them
for the guidance they provided while I pursued my doctoral degree. I
would like to thank Professor Terence Gomez, as well as my colleagues at
the Faculty of Economics and Administration, University Malaya, who
constantly inspired me to complete the writing of this book.
To my family and friends, I would like to express my gratitude for their
unfailing support without whom I would not have completed this work. I
wish to acknowledge the valuable feedback I received from various review-
ers. Their suggestions helped me improve the quality and coherence of my
arguments.
Finally, I must also acknowledge here that I have previously published
certain sections of this book in the form of journal articles. Full publication
details of these articles are as follows:

ix
x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Abdullah, N., Musa, M. K & Hanafi, H. The Duty of Good Faith in

Common Law: A New View on Contemporary Contract Law
PERTANIKA Journal of Social Science and Humanities (Special Issue
January 2017) (SCOPUS-Indexed).
Abdullah, N., Kari, F. & Ismail Nawang, N. The Issue of Incorporating
the Concept of Good Faith in Australian Contract Law: Implication or
Construction. PERTANIKA Journal of Social Science and Humanities
23(S) Nov.2015 (SCOPUS-Indexed).
 Contents

1 Introduction  1
1.1 Introduction  1
1.2 Background  2
1.2.1 Good Faith in Australian Contract Law  5
1.2.2 Research Questions  7
1.2.3 Research Rationale  9
1.2.4 Research Parameters and Methods  9
1.3 Book Structure and Outline 10

2 Good Faith Under Contract Law 13

2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Overview of Good Faith 13
2.2.1 Civil Law and Common Law Approaches to Good
Faith 14
2.2.2 Bona Fides in Civil Law 15
2.2.3 Common Law: The Common Law Approaches to
Good Faith 18
2.2.4 Good Faith and Related Doctrine 20
2.3 Sources of Good Faith 33
2.3.1 Legislation and Common Law 33
2.3.2 Legislation 33
2.3.3 Good Faith as a Term of the Contract 34
2.3.4 Perspectives of Good Faith 37
2.3.5 Good Faith Goes Against Parties’ Intentions 38

xi
xii Contents

2.3.6 Good Faith Creates Uncertainty 39

2.3.7 Good Faith as the Essence of Contract Law 41
2.3.8 Good Faith Is Not a Concept in English Law 42
2.3.9 Good Faith as a Universal Term 44
2.4 Conclusion 44

3 Good Faith in International Context 47

3.1 Introduction 47
3.2 Good Faith in Civil Law Countries 49
3.2.1 Germany 51
3.2.2 Italy 53
3.2.3 France 55
3.3 Good Faith in Common Law Countries: United Kingdom 57
3.4 Good Faith in the US 65
3.4.1 Uniform Commercial Code 66
3.4.2 Restatement (Second) of Contracts 69
3.5 Good Faith in Canada 71
3.6 Good Faith in New Zealand 73
3.7 Good Faith in the People’s Republic of China 77
3.8 Good Faith in International Law 81
3.8.1 The United Nations Convention on Contracts for
International Sale of Goods 81
3.8.2 The Principles of International Commercial
Contracts 83
3.8.3 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 84
3.8.4 The Principle of European Contract Law 85
3.9 Conclusion 86

4 Good Faith Under Australian Contract Law 89

4.1 Introduction 89
4.2 Early History of Good Faith in the Australian Domain 90
4.3 The Watershed Decision: Renard Constructions (Me) Pty
Ltd v Minister for Public Works 92
4.3.1 Priestley J 94
4.3.2 Handley JA 96
4.3.3 Meagher JA 96
4.4 Good Faith in Specific Instances 98
4.4.1 Common Law 98
4.4.2 Legislation101
 Contents  xiii

4.5 Implication or Construction102

4.5.1 Implication in Fact107
4.5.2 Implication in Law111
4.6 The Developing Australian Position115
4.7 Conclusion120

5 Good Faith: An Empirical Study of Australian Cases121

5.1 Overview121
5.2 Introduction121
5.3 Good Faith as an Issue in Australian Contract Law122
5.3.1 Cases Raising Good Faith as an Issue (Per Year)122
5.4 Good Faith Identified as an Implied Term in Australian
Contract Cases128
5.5 Breaches of Implied Term of Good Faith in Australian
Contract Cases134
5.5.1 Recognised Implication Cases and Breach Cases134
5.5.2 Cases Where the Court Found Breach of Implied
Term of Good Faith from Implied Term Cases135
5.6 Conclusion144

6 Defining Good Faith147

6.1 Introduction147
6.2 Overview148
6.3 The Problem of Defining Good Faith149
6.3.1 A Concept in Search of a Definition149
6.3.2 Diverse Interpretations of Good Faith150
6.3.3 Difficulty of Defining the Meaning and Content of
Good Faith in a Vacuum151
6.3.4 The Experience of One Other Jurisdiction153
6.4 Good Faith Families156
6.4.1 Labels of the Meaning of Good Faith159
6.5 The Proposed Taxonomic Solution185
6.5.1 Group 1: Honesty, Loyalty and Cooperation and
Group 2: Reasonableness187
6.5.2 Group 3: Having Regard to Other’s Interests188
6.5.3 Group 4: Fairness189
6.5.4 Group 5: The Standard of Appropriate Behaviour190
xiv Contents

6.5.5 Group 6: Parties’ Reasonable Expectations190

6.5.6 Group 7: Excluder190
6.6 A Proposed Definition of Good Faith191
6.7 Conclusion195

7 Legislating a Good Faith Obligation in Australia197

7.1 Introduction197
7.2 Issues of Good Faith198
7.3 A General Obligation of Good Faith199
7.4 A Good Faith Obligation in a Specific Business Context209
7.5 The Challenges of Legislating a Good Faith Obligation221
7.6 Conclusion224

8 Conclusion227

Bibliography231

Index247
 List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 Cases that raised good faith as an issue (per year) 123
Fig. 5.2 Cases in which good faith was raised as an issue
(by jurisdiction) 126
Fig. 5.3 Cases in which good faith is raised as an issue by year and
jurisdiction. (Note: ‘Others’ comprises the jurisdictions
of WA, QLD, TAS and ACT) 127
Fig. 5.4 Implied term recognised by year 129
Fig. 5.5 By year: term implied in fact v term implied in law 132
Fig. 5.6 Cases where term implied by jurisdiction. (Note: ‘Others’
comprises the jurisdictions of WA, QLD, TAS and ACT) 133
Fig. 5.7 Recognised implication and breach cases 135
Fig. 5.8 Cases where the court found breach of implied term
of good faith from implied term cases 136
Fig. 5.9 Breaches of implied term of good faith 138
Fig. 5.10 Breach rate where term implied by year 141
Fig. 5.11 Cases where the court found a breach and implied
term of good faith by jurisdiction. (Note: ‘Others’ comprises
the jurisdictions of WA, QLD, TAS and ACT) 143
Fig. 6.1 Overall cases which define good faith 157
Fig. 6.2 Good faith defined by jurisdiction. Note: ‘Others’ comprises
the jurisdictions of WA 159
Fig. 6.3 Good faith defined as honesty by year 162
Fig. 6.4 Good faith defined as honesty by jurisdiction 162
Fig. 6.5 Good faith as reasonableness by year 165
Fig. 6.6 Good faith as reasonableness by jurisdiction 166
Fig. 6.7 Good faith as fairness by year 168

xv
xvi List of Figures

Fig. 6.8 Good faith as fairness by jurisdiction 169

Fig. 6.9 Good faith defined as parties’ reasonable expectations 172
Fig. 6.10 Good faith defined as parties’ reasonable expectations by
jurisdiction173
Fig. 6.11 Good faith defined as cooperation by year 176
Fig. 6.12 Good faith defined as cooperation by jurisdiction 177
Fig. 6.13 Good faith defined as having regard to other’s interests
by year 180
Fig. 6.14 Good faith defined as having regard to other’s interests
by jurisdiction 181
Fig. 6.15 Good faith defined as an ‘excluder’ by year 184
Fig. 6.16 Good faith defined as an ‘excluder’ by jurisdiction 185
Fig. 6.17 The three labels which have the potential to serve as the
definition or meaning of good faith 190
 List of Tables

Table 5.1 Percentage of cases in which good faith was raised as an issue
(by jurisdiction) 126
Table 5.2 Total number of cases, the quantity and percentage
of implied case by year 130
Table 5.3 Percentage of cases where term implied by jurisdiction 133
Table 5.4 Percentage of recognised implications and breach cases 135
Table 5.5 Breaches of implied term of good faith 139
Table 5.6 Breach rate where term implied by year 142
Table 5.7 Cases where court found a breach and implied term of good
faith by jurisdiction 143
Table 6.1 Summary of the labels of meaning of good faith identified
as follows 160
Table 6.2 Good faith and bad faith according to Summers 183
Table 6.3 Summary of labels, including frequency and jurisdiction 186
Table 6.4 Seven general groupings of good faith from the
identified label 186
Table 6.5 Frequency and percentage of the good faith labels 192

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1   Introduction
Good faith is arguably one of the most controversial, frustrating and
poorly defined concepts in contract law. Judges and scholars have differing
and contradicting views of the concept of good faith, in terms of both its
operation and its meaning.1 The concept of good faith nevertheless is
gaining recognition and continues to have an increasing influence on
many types of contracts, in many contexts. In Australia, the concept of
good faith was introduced by Priestley J in his obiter comments in Renard
Constructions (ME) v Minister for Works.2 That case paved the way for the
emergence of the concept of good faith in Australian contract law.
This research aims to examine the principle of good faith in the perfor-
mance of contracts following the foundation laid down by Priestley J. The
issue of good faith discussed in this research is timely and important.
Despite Priestley J’s strong belief in the position of good faith in Australia,
its application remains uncertain. There remains no High Court decision
regarding the position of good faith in Australia. As a consequence, the
precise role of the concept of good faith in Australian contract law remains
unsettled. The unresolved issues were a key motivation for this research.

1
Carlin, T. M. The Rise (and Fall) of Implied Duties of Good Faith in Contractual
Performance in Australia (2005), 25 University of New South Wales Law Journal, 99, 123.
2
(1992) 26 NSWLR 234.

© The Author(s) 2020 1

N. Abdullah, Good Faith in Contractual Performance in Australia,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6078-1_1
2 N. ABDULLAH

1.2   Background
Good faith is a ubiquitous but poorly understood concept in contract law.
Two decades after Priestley J first introduced the concept in the Australian
judicial agenda, good faith remains a confusing, nebulous and mutable
concept. Good faith encompasses the theme that all parties to a contract
owe a duty to each other beyond those expressly provided by the terms of
the contract. In this context, it is expected that the contracting parties take
into account other parties’ interests when exercising their contractual
rights.3 The concept of good faith is pivotal to the contracting parties in
two ways: (1) cooperation and fairness are achievable through the concept
of good faith, and (2) in the absence of express terms in the contract to
prevent unfairness, good faith is treated as an implicit expectation of the
parties. Burrows further explained the function of good faith, stating that:

The concept of good faith is regularly invoked not only to condemn deception
and lack of candour at the time a bargain is concluded but also to require a
forthcoming attitude, to condemn chicanery and sharp practice in the carrying
out of contractual obligations.4

In countries where civil law is the basis of the legal system, the concept
of good faith is recognised as a general and pervasive principle, as illus-
trated in many of the European civil codes.5 Under common law, there is
no overarching duty of good faith; nevertheless, it has a role in English law.
English law takes a different approach to the concept of good faith, relying
on a number of specific doctrines and achieving some of the same results
as might be required by good faith without referring to that concept.
In English law, good faith is recognised in specific settings and legisla-
tion whereby the most common expression of good faith can be found in

3
Gava, J., & Kincaid, P. (1996). Contract and Conventionalism: Professional Attitudes to
Changes in Contract Law in Australia, Journal of Contract Law, 10, 141–150.
4
See Burrows, J. F. (1968). Contractual Cooperation and Implied Terms. Modern Law
Review, 31, 390, for an interesting discussion of a somewhat broader notion of good faith
and an implied duty of cooperation and for a discussion of the extent to which each party has
a duty to cooperate in the contractual undertaking, 395–405.
5
See (list is not exhaustive) the German Civil Code s 242, the French Civil Code Article
1134(3), the Italian Civil Code Article 1375, the Swiss Civil Code Article 2, the Greek Civil
Code Article 288 and the Quebec Civil Code Articles 61, 375 and 1434. Many of the
European codes make reference to good faith in the statutory provision as mentioned above.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

insurance contracts.6 In legislation, there is increasing recognition of good

faith in specific instances.7 The general recognition of good faith as
described by Lord Bingham is that it is ‘the most important contractual
issue of our time’.8 It can be found in the landmark case of Interfoto
Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd, where Lord Bingham
implied the concept of good faith when he held that:

In many civil law systems and perhaps most legal systems in the common law
world, the law of obligations recognises and enforces an overriding principle
that in making and carrying out contracts, parties should act in good faith.
This does not simply mean that they should not deceive each other, a principle
which any legal system must recognise; its effect is perhaps most aptly conveyed
by such metaphorical colloquialisms as ‘playing fair’, ‘coming clean’, or ‘put-
ting one’s card face upwards on the table’ … English law has, characteristi-
cally, committed itself to no such overriding principle but has developed
piecemeal solutions in response to demonstrated problems of unfairness. Many
examples could be given. Thus equity has intervened to strike down unconscio-
nable bargains. Parliament has stepped in to regulate the imposition of exemp-
tion clauses and the form of certain hire-purchase agreements. The common
law also has made its contribution, by holding that certain classes of contracts
require the utmost good faith by treating as irrecoverable what purport to be
agreed to estimates of damage but are in truth disguised as a penalty for breach,
and in many other ways.9

A similar view is shared by other common law countries, such as

Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where good faith is not recognised as
an overriding obligation but is nevertheless recognised in other doctrines
such as unconscionability and in specific statutory provisions. However,
the approach of the US is different whereby the concept of good faith is

6
In specific context like insurance, it is a fundamental principle of insurance law that both
the insurer and the insured must observe a duty of utmost good faith towards each other.
Later, the concept of utmost good faith was given a statutory recognition in S 13 of the
Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), where it is stated that ‘A contract of insurance is a con-
tract based on the utmost good faith and there is implied in such a contract a provision
requiring each party to it to act towards the other party, in respect of any matter arising under
or in relation to it, with the utmost good faith’.
7
In Bropho v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16 [84],
the court held that there are at least 154 federal Acts that mention the term good faith.
8
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433.
9
[1989] QB 433, 439.
4 N. ABDULLAH

entrenched in the Uniform Commercial Code10 and the Restatement

(Second) of Contracts.11
The concept of good faith is widely employed at international levels,
where many international trade instruments incorporate it.12 In the
Nuclear Tests case (Australia v France), the International Court of Justice
claimed that ‘One of the basic principles governing the creation and per-
formance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of
good faith’.13 An example of the adoption of good faith in an international
trade instrument can be found in the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for International Sale of Goods Article 7.1, known as the Vienna
Sales Convention (CISG), which provides that:

… in the interpretation of the Convention, regard is to be had to its interna-

tional character and the need to promote uniformity in its application and the
observation of good faith in international trade.

See the Uniform Commercial Code, ss 1-203, 201(11), 2-(103)(1) and 2-104(1).
10

See the Restatement (Second) of Contracts s 205.

11

12
See also the Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT Principles
2004) Article 1.7, which clearly supports the duty of good faith. It stated that:

In the interpretation of this Convention, regard is to be had to its international char-

acter and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of
good faith in international trade and prohibits the parties from limiting or excluding
the duty in their contracts.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31(1) provides that:

A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinarily meaning
to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and
purpose.

The Principles of European Contract Law Article 1.201 provides that:

in exercising his rights and performing his duties each party must act in accordance
with good faith and fair dealing.
13
[1974] ICJ REP. 253, 268.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
expressly for those scholars who, whilst firmly adhering to the
inherited faith, had been trained in the study of philosophy, and
were unwilling to abandon either. Maimonides shows the way how to
explain Biblical passages implying statements contrary to
philosophical teachings, and how to reconcile theology and
philosophy. A similar task was undertaken in modern times by Moses
Mendelssohn in his “Jerusalem” and “Morgenstunden,” in order to
show that strict adherence to the Jewish religion is quite compatible
with the teaching of philosophy. The various systems of philosophy
in Alexandria, in the Mohammedan countries in the Middle Ages, and
in Germany in the last century, which threatened to endanger our
religion, have lived their time and have gone to their fathers, giving
way to new systems and new ideas, whilst the authority of the Word
of God [36]has maintained its place. This having been the case in
former days, there is no reason why we should not in the present
conflict assume, primâ facie, that the scientific and philosophical
dogmas now in favour, alike with Jews and non-Jews, will have their
time, and will ultimately give way to other theories, and the present
conflict will then likewise terminate, dying a natural death. This
reflection should put us on our guard lest we be persuaded by the
plausibility of the modern philosophical and scientific dogmas, and
throw aside our religious faith and traditions. We ought to bear in
mind that, however correct the conclusions of modern science may
appear that can be tested by our senses, theories which are not
subject to such tests are in reality nothing but hypotheses to which a
greater or lesser degree of probability attaches.

Suppose now—always bearing in mind the imperfect character of our

powers of observation—we were to observe that certain plants or
species of animals developed by training and circumstances into new
species, or to see plants being transformed into animals, or even to
notice literally “the foal of a wild ass born a man,” what would all
this prove? That the Creator endowed the species of plants and
animals with such properties as would enable them to transform into
new species, or into any other of the species already in existence;
but it does not follow that the Creator must have adopted the same
method in the act of creation. He created as many species as His
wisdom determined, although they might all have been able to
develop from one single species. Suppose the problem which the
Alchymists of the Middle Ages proposed [37]to themselves, viz., to
produce an animal being by mere chemical combination, had
actually been solved, would any one have believed that all animals
had been produced in that way? Or does the success of artificial
hatching of eggs convince any person that all birds have sprung
from artificially hatched eggs? The same argument applies to the
geological formation of the earth. We notice changes brought about
through natural forces, and mark the amount of change effected in a
certain period; we are then able to calculate what time would be
required for such or such a change—provided that only those laws
be in force which we have noticed in our calculation. Is it reasonable
or logical to apply to the act of creation the laws which have been
brought into force through this very act? “He said, and it was: He
commanded, and they were created” (Ps. xxxiii. 9). The word of God
produced in a moment what the natural forces established by the
Creator would effect by gradual development in millions of years.

It is true that the earth is one of the most insignificant bodies in the
universe, and man is a small portion of the creatures on earth, and
yet it is neither impossible nor unreasonable to believe that the
benefits which man derives from the various parts of the creation,
from the sun, the moon, and the stars, were essential elements in
the scheme of the All-wise Creator.

Attempts have frequently been made to interpret the Biblical account

of the creation in such a manner as to reconcile it with the scientific
theories of the time. Thus it has been argued that the period
between the [38]creation of “heaven and earth” and the creation of
“the light” is not described in the Bible, and may have been millions
of millions of years. It has likewise been suggested that the term
“day” is to be understood in the sense of “period.” It has further
been pointed out that the account of the creation of animals
indicates a process of development rather than a creatio ex nihilo;
for it says, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
living beings,” &c. (Gen. i. 20). “Let the earth bring forth living
beings,” &c. (Ibid. 24). These interpretations may be true, and may
suffice temporarily to check sceptical ideas that rise in our mind; but
without the firm belief in the Word of God, and the consciousness of
the insufficiency of human reason thoroughly to understand the
plans and ways of God, our faith can never be safe. Supported by
this belief we shall always be able to brave the ever-recurring billows
of scepticism.

2. The next principle contained in our Creed concerning God is the

Unity of God.

“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out from the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage: thou shalt have no other gods
before me” (Exod. xx. 2–3). This is the first lesson the Israelites
were taught when God revealed Himself to them on Mount Sinai.
The words, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord is our God, the Lord is One”
(Deut. vi. 4), are proclaimed by us thrice every day; we recite them
when we rise; keep them in memory during the day, and repeat
them in the evening before we go to rest; they form our watchword
throughout our life, and with these [39]words upon our lips we end
our earthly existence. The Unity of God is the doctrine that
distinguishes the Jews from other religious sects, in so far as the
Jews were the first nation of Monotheists. From them Monotheism
has spread among other peoples, who, however, did not always
receive or preserve it in its original purity. We not only proclaim God
as One, refusing to recognise as divine any power beside Him, but
refrain also from attributing to God anything that might directly or
indirectly involve any notion contrary to the Unity of God.

For this reason certain Jewish philosophers considered it unlawful to

assign to God any positive attribute. They feared this might lead to
dualism, to believe in God and in His attribute as two distinct beings,
because attributes are so easily personified and addressed as
separate deities. Some theologians even were of opinion that the
admission of God’s attributes is itself a form of dualism which must
be excluded from our faith. Nevertheless, attributes are assigned to
God both in the Scriptures and in our Prayers. We must not,
however, forget that such attributes do not describe anything
inherent in the Divine Being, but only God’s relation to man and His
actions in such terms as are intelligible to human beings. Most of the
attributes are interpreted as being of a negative character, indicating
what we must not say of God. When we speak of the Will, Wisdom,
and Spirit of God, we do not speak of anything separate from the
Divine Being, but of the Divine Being Himself. The Jewish doctrine of
the Unity of God does not admit any kind of dualism in the Divine
Being, and therefore rejects [40]the existence of Divine Attributes as
distinct from God Himself. He is One, simple and indivisible. Even
this property of being One seemed to some theologians to be
contrary to strict unity, and we are therefore taught that we must
not understand it in the sense of a numerical unit, in which sense
the term is used when applied to created beings. The second article
therefore declares: “The Creator is One, and there is no Oneness like
His in any way.”

The Unity of God is the creed which the Jews have always
proclaimed by word of mouth, to which they have given expression
throughout their literature, and for which they have willingly
sacrificed their lives as martyrs. When persecuted by Mohammedans
or Christians the Jews were frequently forced to break the Sabbath,
to ignore the dietary laws, and to neglect Divine worship. They bore
all this patiently when under pressure of persecution, but when they
were asked to renounce the belief in God’s Unity they did not doubt
for a moment as to what their duty was; they adhered firmly to ‫‏יחוד‬
‫השם‬‎“the belief in God’s Unity,” and sacrificed their lives for ‫‏קדוש‬
‫השם‬‎“the sanctification of God’s name.”

The Jews have been victorious. In spite of persecution and

oppression they have maintained their faith. The doctrine of the
Unity of God, for which they had to suffer so much in past centuries,
is now admitted as true by most of their former persecutors.

In order to make clear what we mean by unity, and to express that

God could not be conceived as existing at any time in a double form,
we add the words: “And [41]He alone was, is, and will be our God.”
The second article runs therefore as follows:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is One; that
there is no Oneness like His, in any way, and that He alone was, is,
and will be our God.”

3. The strict Unity of God, in the sense explained above, implies His
Incorporeality, which forms the subject of the third article.
Corporeality implies substance and form, a dualism which must be
rigidly excluded from God. It would not have been necessary to
formulate a special article for the exclusion of corporeality from the
idea of God but for the fact that many erroneous notions have been
entertained on the subject. Besides the fact that the corporeality of
God was assumed by certain religious sects, there have been
scholars among the Jews who defended the literal sense of
anthropomorphic phrases in the Scriptures.
In the Bible anthropomorphic expressions are employed in order to
illustrate the different acts of Divine Providence in such a way as to
render them more intelligible to us human beings. We consist of
body and soul, and we produce an impression or exercise an
influence on others by means of our body and by the activity of our
bodily organs. How an incorporeal being acts upon the corporeal
world we are unable fully to comprehend, much less to describe. If
we desire to picture to ourselves or to others the fact that through
Divine Providence something has been produced on earth, we must
employ the same phrases which we use in describing human acts
which effect [42]a similar result. In reality, however, there is no
comparison or similarity between God and corporeal beings,
between His actions and ours.

When we therefore speak of the house of God we mean the house

which we devote to our prayers, in which we feel the omnipresence
of the Almighty more than in any other place. The heaven is called
the throne of God and the earth His footstool only to express the
idea that the majesty of God is far beyond comparison with that of
any earthly ruler, and that the house of God built by human hands is
not intended to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Being but
those of man. We call Him our Father and He calls us His children,
because we love Him as we love our father, and He loves us as a
father loves his children. In the same sense the Psalmist (ii. 7)
repeats the words of God to him, “Thou art my son; I have this day
begotten thee.” Such expressions as these are anthropomorphic.

The Bible frequently exhorts us not to imagine or ascribe to God any

form or likeness. Comp. Deut. iv. 15, “Take ye therefore good heed
unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the
Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of fire.” In the same
sense the prophet asks in the name of God (Isa. xl. 18), “To whom
then will you liken God, or what likeness will you compare unto
Him?” “To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal to
Him? saith the Holy One” (Ibid. 25).

We declare therefore in the third article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His [43]name, is not a

body, that corporeal relations do not apply to Him, and that there
exists nothing that is in any way similar to Him.”

4. The next property we declare of God in the Creed is the eternity

of God. As He is the cause of everything in existence, and requires
no cause for His existence, and as it is impossible to separate the
idea of existence from the idea of God, it follows that God is always
in existence, and that neither beginning nor end can be fixed to His
existence. Maimonides, in expressing his belief in the eternity of
God, lays stress only on God being without a beginning, and in this
sense he interprets the phrase Dip ‫‏אלהי קדם‬‎(Deut. xxxiii. 27), “the
eternal God” who is without a beginning. That God is without end is
equally true, but Maimonides did not desire to introduce this idea
into the fourth article as a distinguishing characteristic, as it is not
necessary to believe that the universe will once come to an end. If it
please the Almighty to give the universe existence for ever, it will
continue for ever. Following, however, the example of the prophets,
who told us in the name of God, “I am the first, and I am the last,”
we express this idea in our Creed, and understand it thus: If, by the
will of the Almighty, the entire universe should come to an end,
God’s existence would still continue. Thus the Psalmist says, “Of old
hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the
work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all
of them shall wax old like a garment: as a vesture shalt Thou
change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou [44]art the same,
and Thy years shall have no end” (Ps. cii. 26–28).

The fourth article is:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, was the first,
and will be the last.”

6. After having declared our faith in God as the sole Ruler of the
universe, who is One, incorporeal and eternal, we proclaim Him as
our Supreme Master, who alone is capable of granting our petitions.
All existing things are under His control; all forces in nature only
work at His will and by His command. No other being possesses the
power and independence to fulfil our wishes of its own accord, if it
were approached by us with our prayers. It is, therefore, to Him
alone that we can reasonably address our petitions, and in doing so
we have confidence in the efficacy of our prayers, for “the Lord is
nigh to all those who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in
truth” (Ps. cxlv. 18).

This article, although expressly directed against idolatry, and

primarily against the worship of “the angels, the stars, and the
spheres,” implies our belief in God as the Omnipotent, who can do
everything, and can help us when we have not any prospect of relief.

We therefore declare in the fifth article:—

“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, alone is

worthy of being worshipped, and that no other being is worthy of
our worship.”

The Omnipotence of God is also implied in the first article, which

declares Him the Creator and the Ruler of the universe. That
Maimonides does not directly [45]make omnipotence, like unity,
incorporeality, &c., the subject of a separate article has its good
reason, and is not “the result of mere chance.” Silly questions were
frequently asked; e.g., how far the omnipotence of God extended,
whether it implied the power of making twice two equal to three, or
the whole of a magnitude larger than the sum of its parts, and
similar logical impossibilities. To avoid misunderstanding,
Maimonides did not express our belief in the omnipotence of God in
a separate article, but the first and the fifth articles imply it.

We believe of God that He is immutable or unchangeable. It is,

however, not necessary to express this in a separate article. By
declaring the Unity of God we proclaim also His Immutability, since
unity, in the sense in which we conceive it, is incompatible with any
kind of change. Whatever the change might be that we assumed in
God, it would destroy the idea of His unity.

There are other qualities which we ascribe to God. We call Him

perfect, all-wise, good, kind, merciful, long-suffering, and the like; in
short, whatever we find in our own person good and noble we
believe to be present in God in a higher degree, in the most perfect
form. But these attributes approach very closely
anthropomorphisms, which Maimonides rigidly excludes from the
Creed. They express rather the impressions produced in our soul by
the different acts of God’s Providence, and do not describe God
Himself.

Of this class of attributes are the thirteen divine attributes, ‫‏שלש‬

‫עשרה מדות‬‎(Exod. xxxiv. 6). They [46]describe in thirteen terms the
goodness and mercy of God towards man in his various conditions of
innocence, guilt, and repentance. These are not distinctly mentioned
in our Creed, but when we declare that He is the only Being whom
we can address in our prayers, we are certainly conscious and
convinced that He, being good, kind, and merciful, listens to our
supplications.
[Contents]

2. Revelation, ‫‏תורה מן השמים‬‎.

The second group of principles refers to Revelation. The real process

of revelation, by what means and in what manner the infinite and
incorporeal Being makes His Will known to man, and how the latter
becomes conscious and convinced of the fact that a Divine
communication has been made to him, remains a mystery to all but
those privileged persons who have been actually addressed by the
Almighty. “As the blind man who had never possessed the sense of
sight is incapable of comprehending the actual process of seeing, so
are we, born without that wonderful prophetic eye, without the
prophetic faculty of the mind, incapable of comprehending and
depicting the process of inspiration that goes on within the mind of
the privileged” (Schmiedl, Studien, p. 183). God reveals Himself also
in nature, in the power and wisdom displayed in its phenomena. He
reveals Himself in the history of nations, and especially in the history
of Israel. He reveals Himself in the intelligence of man. In all these
cases the revelation is made to all alike. Those who have eyes may
see, those who have ears may hear, and [47]recognise, every one
according to his capacity, the presence of the Almighty in the
working of the laws of nature, in the development and fates of
nations, and in the life of every individual person. In all these cases
we can test and prove the revelation by ourselves, and need not
exclusively rely on authority. When, however, a Divine
communication is made to one privileged individual, through whom
it is made known to a whole community, or to mankind, there is no
other means of testing the correctness of the revelation than the
trustworthiness of the privileged individual.

The first lesson or proof given to the Israelites of the fact that such
revelation was not only possible, but had actually been vouchsafed
by the Almighty, was the revelation on Mount Sinai, the ‫‏מעמד הר‬
‫סיני‬‎, which became the foundation of the faith of Israel. “And the
Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the
people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee
for ever” (Exod. xix. 9). The trustworthiness of Moses having thus
been tested and established “for ever,” his teaching remained the
foundation of the teaching of all succeeding prophets, and the test
of their truthfulness and genuineness. A prophet who taught
anything opposed to the law of Moses could not be a true prophet,
although he supported his words by signs and miracles (Deut. xiii. 2,
sqq.). Besides, revelation of the Divine Being had taken place
before. God revealed Himself to the first man. Adam heard the voice
of God; he felt the presence of the Almighty, and learnt the amount
of evil man brings upon himself by disobeying the word of God. The
[48]consciousness of the existence of God, and of the fact that He
has revealed Himself to man, has been inherited by the descendants
of Adam. It has not been preserved in all men in the same strength
and purity. The notion of a Divine Being, and of His revelation to
man, became in course of time corrupt, and led to the corruption of
the human race, with the exception of Noah and his family. “Noah
was a righteous man; perfect he was in his generations: with God
did Noah walk” (Gen. vi. 9). The inherited consciousness of God’s
existence and of His rule over man was strengthened in him by
fresh, direct revolution of God. He was told that the wicked would be
destroyed by a flood, and that he with his family would be saved.
“The righteous man” witnessed the infliction which the wicked
brought upon themselves by evil deeds, and also that protection of
himself and his family which had been promised and granted by the
Almighty. After Noah had left the ark the word of God was again
communicated to him, promising that never again would a flood be
sent to destroy all living beings—a promise which succeeding
generations up to the present have seen fulfilled. In the midst of rain
the “sign of covenant,” the rainbow, reminds us still of His promise
and its fulfilment. Of the descendants of Noah the Semites alone
seem to have preserved the belief in God’s existence and His
revelation to man in its original purity; and of the Semites it was
Abraham who was chosen by Providence to be the founder of a
family of faithful believers in God, who formed, as it were, the centre
from which the true faith should spread in all directions over the
whole face of the earth. Abraham [49]received Divine
communications, and so also his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob.
Even when the children of Israel were in Egyptian slavery, and when
they did not hearken to Moses “because of anguish of spirit, and
because of cruel bondage,” the memory of these revelations was
never entirely extinguished in their minds; and when again
addressed by Moses and Aaron “the people believed; and when they
heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that He
had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and
worshipped” (Exod. iv. 31). Their faith was strengthened when they
witnessed the fulfilment of the Divine message which was brought to
them by Moses: “And they believed in the Lord, and in Moses His
servant” (Ibid. xiv. 31).

The foundation of the belief in the possibility of Divine revelation

having thus been laid, that belief was further strengthened through
the revelation on Mount Sinai, when every Israelite heard and
understood the words addressed to him by God, “who had brought
them out of Egypt, of the house of bondage;” they heard the very
words which Moses subsequently told them in the name of God, and
they were convinced of the truth of the words of Moses. He taught
them that there would be other persons chosen by God to bring
messages from Him to the children of Israel or to mankind, and at
the same time he laid down the rule by which the truth of such
messages could be tested.

A person favoured by Divine communications was called a prophet,

‫‏נביא‬‎. That which characterised a prophet and distinguished him from
the ordinary man [50]was the privilege of being chosen by Providence
to be ‫‏מלאך יי‬‎“the messenger of God” to man. This notion of the
characteristics of a prophet explains the circumstance that, although
Daniel was favoured with numerous prophetic visions, the book
called after his name was not placed among the Prophets, but
among the Hagiographa. It is on account of his addressing his
brethren and informing them of the Will of God that a person was
called a prophet. 2 By simply receiving a communication, without the
direction to impart the knowledge acquired to others, a person may
become a man of God, a man in whom there is the spirit of God, but
not a prophet.

It is our belief that God would not reveal Himself to any one that is
unworthy of such distinction. As a conditio sine quâ non it was
necessary that the prophets distinguished themselves in every kind
of virtue, that they set to their fellow-men an example of purity in
thought, loftiness in speech, and nobility in action. As regards
general knowledge and experience they were inferior to none of
their contemporaries. In the Talmud the saying occurs: ‫‏אין השכינה‬
‫שורה על אדם אלא אם כן היה חכם גבור ועשיר‬‎“The Divine spirit
does not rest on man, unless he is wise, strong, and rich” (Babyl.
Talm. Shabbath, 92a). This is certainly a true conception of the
character of a prophet, “strong” and “rich” being understood in a
figurative sense: “strong” in possessing mastery over his passions,
and “rich” in being contented with what he has (Aboth iv. 1). It was
a matter of indifference, however, whether the [51]prophet was
strong in body or weak, whether he had many earthly possessions or
none at all.

In spite of his distinction from his fellow-men in wisdom, moral

strength, and contentedness, the prophet remained a human being;
he was, like every other person, exposed to the temptation to sin
and liable to error. The sins and errors of prophets are recorded in
order to save us from despair when we are conscious of our
sinfulness, and to show us the way to repentance. This is illustrated
especially in the history of the prophet Jonah. The records of the
sins of prophets serve as a warning that we should not consider any
man as perfect or deify him.

Although the prophet is assumed to have been wise, surpassing his

fellow-men in knowledge and wisdom, it is by no means necessary
to believe that he was familiar with all sciences, or that he knew any
of the discoveries made in later times. The prophet had frequently to
inform his brethren of what would happen in future, to tell them of
things which no human eye could foresee. But he had in general no
greater knowledge of coming events than other men, except in
reference to those events concerning which he had received a
message from God for His people or for mankind.

Can a man be trained for the office of a prophet? Was there a school
or institution for this purpose? Every one could certainly be trained
in the primary conditions of a prophet, in the exercise of all human
virtues, and in the acquisition of all available knowledge; and it was
the duty and the aim of the prophets to encourage all their brethren
to such training by their own example. But the principal element in
prophecy [52]the Divine communication, depended solely on the Will
of God. “The sons of the prophets” are generally believed to be the
pupils of the prophets; they formed “the schools of the prophets.”
These schools, however, could not have been schools or colleges in
the ordinary sense of the word. The sons of the prophets were
instructed by the prophets, but not with the purpose of training
them as prophets. It seems that the sons of the prophets served as
agents for promulgating the inspired messages of their chief. Most
probably they led a simple, pious life, were God-fearing, and spent
their time when meeting together in music and song, repeating
hymns and lessons taught by their master.

An account of some of the messages and deeds of the prophets is

given in the Biblical books; some of their speeches also are
preserved, in the section of the Bible called “Latter Prophets,” ‫‏נביאים‬
‫אחרונים‬‎. The speeches of the prophets were in some cases prepared
and written down before they were spoken, in others delivered ex
tempore without preparation, and were written down afterwards
from memory, either by the prophet himself or by one of his hearers,
or were handed down vivâ voce from generation to generation
before they were committed to writing.

There is another kind of Divine revelation which did not find

expression in any message to the Israelites or to mankind, but in a
certain supernatural impulse given to the thought or will of a person
as regards his words and actions. Such an impulse is called
inspiration, and the inspired person is moved to speak or act by the
‫‏רוח יי‬‎“spirit of the Lord.” [53]

It was the spirit of the Lord that moved Samson to heroic deeds
against the enemies of his people; David likewise felt that Divine
impulse when pouring forth his heart before the Lord in his Psalms.
He says: “The spirit of the Lord spake in me, and His word was on
my tongue” (2 Sam. xxiii. 2). It was the spirit of the Lord that filled
the hearts of those who collected and sifted the Holy Writings
containing law, history, prophecies, and poetry, and gave them the
form in which we possess them now.
We are not quite certain as to the form of the letters in the original
copies of the Holy Writings; but from the way in which the
Pentateuch is written now in the Synagogue scrolls, we may infer
with certainty that the ancient copies of the Torah contained no
vowels or accents, and that these have come down to us by oral
tradition.

For the multiplication of copies, human copyists had to be employed.

It is by no means contrary to our faith in the Bible to assume that,
as far as the human work of these copyists is concerned, it must
have been subject to the fate of all human work, to error and
imperfection. And, in fact, there are many copies of the Bible that
abound in mistakes; there are passages in Scripture that vary in the
different manuscripts; hence the numerous variæ lectiones met with
in the critical editions of the Bible. But, on the other hand, it would
not be reasonable to assume that the holy literature and the national
treasure, very limited in size, should have been neglected by the
religious authorities of the time to such an extent that no reliable,
correct copy was kept, to be consulted in case [54]of doubt or
difference of opinion. This being the case with all Biblical books, it
applies with special force to the Torah or Pentateuch, which contains
the Divine commandments. The least alteration made by copyists—
unknowingly or knowingly—might involve a question of life and
death. Must it not have been the duty of the judicial authority to
keep a correct authorised copy in a safe place? It is certainly most
reasonable to assume that such a copy was kept, and that there
were in every generation among the priests or prophets men who
had a thorough knowledge of the Law, and could easily detect any
interference with the text. As the laws do not form a separate
section of the Bible, but are interwoven with a historical account of
important events from the Creation to the death of Moses, the entire
Pentateuch, composed of both laws and history, was preserved with
the same anxiety and watchfulness. That great care was taken in
copying the Law we learn from the fact mentioned in the Talmud,
that Ezra minutely examined the three scrolls he found in the
Temple, and in three passages noticed different readings, of which
he adopted the one found in two copies.

The other books of the Bible are of less importance, but the
exclusion of error on the part of the copyist, though it has not the
same, has yet a high degree of certainty, inasmuch as they too
formed part of the holy, national literature. If a mistake should be
clearly proved, it would not be contrary to our religious principles to
admit it. But we shall find, after thorough study and examination of
the impugned passages, that there is in each case far greater doubt
as to the correctness of any of the numerous emendations
suggested [55]than of the traditional and Massoretic text before us. It
may frequently occur that some emendations appear strikingly
correct, and yet after due reflection they are found more doubtful
than the original. It is therefore our duty thoroughly to examine
each proposed emendation, and to hesitate long before admitting
the incorrectness of the received text and the correctness of the
emendation.

One of the means of preserving the text of the Scriptures in its

integrity has been the Massorah. The notes which are found in the
margin of Biblical books form part of the Massorah. At first the
Massorah was part of the oral tradition; exceptional forms of letters,
punctuation, and words were probably taught vivâ voce, and learnt
by heart, especially by scribes, readers, and teachers. Where a
confounding with other and similar forms was apprehended,
attention was called to the fact, and by certain notes and rules it
was guarded against. The material for the Massorah increased in the
course of time, in the same degree as, with the multiplication of
copies of the Scriptures, the number of misreadings and
misinterpretations increased. Although these notes were arranged
and written down at a late period, they helped to preserve the
Biblical text in its integrity, and it is therefore stated in the Mishnah
(Aboth iii. 13): “Massorah (tradition) is a fence to the Law.”

As to the name of the author of each book or section, and the time
and place of its composition, we are guided by the headings where
such are extant; in the absence of these we are left to the resources
of our own judgment or fancy. There is no reason whatever [56]to
doubt the correctness of these headings, as the religious and
learned authorities of the time were trustworthy men, who would
not add a heading where none was handed down to them by
tradition. Several books and many psalms are therefore left without
a heading; there was no sure tradition about them. How far the
heading of a book or section extends, whether it was meant only for
the beginning or for the whole of it, is in some cases doubtful, and
must be decided by the nature and contents of the book. For
instance, the second part of Isaiah, from chap. xl. to the end, has no
heading of its own; it is therefore open to discussion whether the
heading in the first verse of the first chapter describes only the first
thirty-nine or all the sixty-six chapters of the book. It is possible that
Psalms, ascribed, according to their heading, to David, consist of two
or more parts, of which one only was composed by David. The
names of the books do not necessarily imply a reference to the
author. The Book of Joshua, e.g., may have received its name from
its contents, the history of the Israelites under Joshua being
contained in it. The two books of Samuel could not have been
written by Samuel, not even the whole of the first book, since the
death of Samuel is therein recorded; but they owe their name to the
fact that the first book commences with the history of Samuel.
[Contents]

The Books of the Bible, ‫‏תנ״ך‬‎

The collection of books known by these names are ‫‏ספרי קדש‬‎or

‫‏כתבי קדש‬‎“holy books” or “holy writings,” because the authors of
these books were holy men [57]their object is a holy one, viz., to
train man to holiness, and the contents of the books is holy, free
from all blemish and error. The books vary greatly in character, in
style, and in purpose, but truthfulness is common to all of them.
Whether they narrate events or proclaim God’s decrees, or instruct
or edify their hearers, what they say is true.

The name Bible is derived from the Greek βιβλιον, “book.” ‫‏תנ״ך‬‎
(pronounced tenach) has no meaning in itself, and is a word formed
of the initials of ‫‏תורה נביאים כתובים‬‎. Sometimes ‫‏אנ״ך‬‎(the initials of
the Chaldee ‫‏אוריתא נביאין כתיבין‬‎) is used instead of ‫‏תנ״ך‬‎. Another
name is ‫‏מקרא‬‎“text for reading,” as opposed to vivâ voce tradition.
A passage quoted from the Bible is called ‫‏קרא‬‎or ‫‏מקרא‬‎or ‫‏כתוב‬‎.
Christians call the books of the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament as
distinguished from the New Testament.

1. ‫‏תורה‬‎Law.

The Torah or Law is divided into five books, and is therefore called
‫‏חומש‬‎or Pentateuch (Fivefold or Five-book). The names of the five
books are: (1) ‫‏בראשית‬‎Genesis (Creation); (2) ‫‏שמות‬‎Exodus
(departure, scil., of the Israelites from Egypt); (3) ‫‏ויקרא‬‎Leviticus
(on the laws concerning the Levites or priests), also called ‫‏תורת‬
‫כהנים‬‎“law of the priests;” (4) ‫‏במדבר‬‎Numbers; (5) ‫‏דברים‬‎
Deuteronomy, a Greek term denoting “second-law” or “repetition of
the law,” a translation of the Hebrew ‫‏משנה תורה‬‎.

These names are derived from the beginnings of the books. The
Hebrew names are either the first word [58]of the book, as is the
case in the first and the third books (‫‏בראשית‬‎and ‫‏ויקרא‬‎), or the first
characteristic word, as is the case in the other three books (‫‏שמות‬‎
the second word, ‫‏במדבר‬‎the fifth, ‫‏דברים‬‎the second). The English
or Greek names describe the subject-matter of the first section of
the book. This applies also to the rest of the Biblical writings.

The contents of the five books are as follows:—

The first book (‫‏בראשית‬‎).—It begins with the important lesson, the
basis of all that is taught in the whole Bible: that God is the Creator
of the whole universe. Then follows an account of the Creation, the
history of the first man and the first woman, their transition from the
state of innocence and happiness to the state of sin and toil, their
descendants, the beginnings of industry and civilisation, the
deterioration of mankind, the flood, Noah, and the succeeding
generations to Abraham; the history of the patriarchs Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, or Israel; the immigration of Jacob with his family
into Egypt; and with the death of Joseph, the son of Jacob, the book
concludes.

The book contains principally history, but mention is made also of

some religious institutions. Reference is thus made to the institution
of marriage (ii. 23–25); Sabbath (ii. 1–3); the Covenant of Abraham
or the commandment of circumcision (xvii. 1–14); the prohibition of
eating flesh cut off from an animal while alive (ix. 4, ‫‏אבר מן החי‬‎), of
murder (ix. 5–6), and of eating “the sinew that shrank” (xxxii. 33,
‫‏גיד הנשה‬‎).

The second book (‫‏שמות‬‎).—The history of the family of Jacob, the

Israelites, is continued: their sojourn in [59]Egypt, the Exodus, the
journey to Mount Sinai, the Revelation, the erection of the
Tabernacle, and the events in the camp of the Israelites during their
stay in the wilderness of Sinai.

The Divine precepts take a more prominent place in this book. Chief
among these are the institution of the Jewish Calendar, appointing
the month of Abib—Nisan—to be the first month (xii. 2); the
Sacrifice of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (chap.
xii.); the Sabbath (xvi. 22–30); the Decalogue (chap. xx. 1–12); civil
legislation (xxi. to xxiii.); the year of release (xxiii. 10, 11); and the
‫‏שלש רגלים‬‎or festivals of pilgrimage to the sanctuary of the Lord;
viz., Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (‫‏פסח‬‎, ‫‏שבועות‬‎and ‫‏סכות‬‎
xxiii. 14–17).

The third book (‫‏ויקרא‬‎) contains the laws revealed during the stay of
the Israelites near Mount Sinai. A few historical incidents are
mentioned in illustration of the Law. Leviticus contains the laws
concerning the sacrifices (i. to vii.); the initiation of Aaron and his
sons as priests (viii. to x.); dietary laws (xi.); laws about cleanness
and uncleanness (‫‏טהרה וטומאה‬‎) in man and woman (xii. to xv.);
the Day of Atonement (xvi.); prohibition of blood (xvii. 10–14);
marriage laws (xviii. and xx. 10–22); laws concerning the holiness of
man (xix.); laws concerning the priests (xxi., xxii. 16) and sacrifices
(xxii. 17–33); the Festivals of the Lord (xxiii.); the year of release
and the year of jubilee, and land-laws connected with these (xxv.);
laws concerning the transfer of property to the sanctuary and the
priests.
The fourth book records the departure of the Israelites [60]from
Mount Sinai, their journeyings until they came to the east of the
Jordan in the plains of Moab; the chief incidents during these travels,
viz., the consecration of the altar, and the instalment of the Levites
as assistants to the priests in the performance of the Divine Service;
the first appointment of a council of seventy elders; the punishment
of Miriam for slander; the spies; the rebellion of Korah; death of
Miriam; Moses and Aaron’s sin at Meribah, and their punishment;
death of Aaron; wars with Sihon and Og; the blessings of Bileam
instead of his intended cursings; the zeal and distinction of Phineas;
war against Midian; the appointment of Joshua as future leader of
Israel.

There is also in the book a list of all the stations where the Israelites
had encamped during their travels through the Arabian desert (chap.
xxxiii.), and a minute description of the boundaries of the land of
Canaan (chap. xxxiv.).

The following are the principal laws mentioned in Numbers: the laws
concerning Nazirites; concerning a woman suspected of faithlessness
against her husband; the second Passover (‫‏פסח שני‬‎) for those who
could not fulfil their duty on the 14th of Nisan; the law of fringes
(‫‏ציצת‬‎); the law of purification of persons who have become unclean
through contact with the dead body of any person (‫‏פרה אדומה‬‎
chap. xix.); the law of inheritance (xxvii.); the sacrifices for the
festivals (xxviii., xxix.); the laws of vows (xxx.); laws concerning
murder and cities of refuge (xxxv.).

The fifth book (‫‏דברים‬‎) contains speeches of Moses which he

addressed to the Israelites during the last year of his life, reminding
them of their repeated disobedience [61]to the Divine command, and
their want of confidence in Him, and exhorting them to be faithful to
God. He frequently emphasises the truth that blessing and happiness
can only be obtained through obedience, trouble and curses being
the certain result of sin and transgression. Chapter xxviii., called
‫‏תוכחה‬‎“exhortation” or “rebuke” (see also Lev. xxvi.), is especially
devoted to this principle. In the song ‫‏האזינו‬‎(chap, xxxii.), which all
the people were to learn by heart, Moses rebukes his brethren for
their ingratitude to God, and foretells them that, in the remote
future, similar conduct will be visited severely, and that after a
period of punishment God will show mercy to them, and again
restore them to a state of happiness and glory. Before his death he
gives a special blessing to each tribe. The book concludes with the
death of Moses, the succession of Joshua, and the praise of Moses
as the greatest of all prophets.

Many of the commandments are repeated in the course of the

exhortations: the Decalogue, the laws concerning the three
agricultural and national festivals (‫‏שלש רגלים‬‎), and such other laws
as Moses considered necessary to impress on the heart of the
Israelites before he departed from among them. The Israelites being
near Jordan, and about to take possession of the promised land,
their attention is called to such laws as would then come into
practice, e.g., those which refer to the political and judicial
arrangements of the country (xvi. to xviii.); and the solemn
declaration of allegiance to the Will of God (xxvii.).

The Pentateuch is divided into verses (‫‏פסוקים‬‎), paragraphs

(‫‏פסקות‬‎), and into sections called ‫‏סדרות‬‎or [62]“weekly portions.”
The division into chapters is of comparatively modern origin.

2. The Prophets
are divided into two groups: Earlier and Latter Prophets (‫‏נביאים‬
‫ראשונים ונביאים אחרונים‬‎).

The Earlier Prophets do not contain prophecies in the usual meaning

of the word. They contain the history of Israel from the accession of
Joshua to the leadership of Israel, to the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. They are, nevertheless, called
“Prophets,” for two reasons:—

(1.) The history is written in a prophetic spirit, with the view of

illustrating the principle that obedience to the word of God was the
cause of Israel’s prosperity and success, disobedience the cause of
trouble and misery.

(2.) The Earlier Prophets include the history of Deborah, Samuel,

Nathan, Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha, and a few anonymous prophets.

No collection of their speeches has been made or preserved in the

Scriptures, and they are thus distinguished from the latter prophets,
whose prophecies have been collected and form the contents of the
“Latter Prophets.”

The following books belong to the Earlier Prophets:—

1. The Book of Joshua (‫‏יהושע‬‎), containing the history of the

conquest and division of the land of Canaan by the Israelites, from
their crossing the Jordan to the death of Joshua.

Among the various incidents related in the book [63]the following are
noteworthy:—The circumcision of those who had been born during
the wandering of Israel in the wilderness; the celebration of the first
Passover in the Holy Land; the appearance of “the prince of the host
of the Lord” (v. 14), just before the war commenced, in order to
remind Joshua that “the place upon which he stood was holy;” 3 the
crossing of the Jordan; the taking of Jericho; the disastrous
consequences of Achan’s sin, as an illustration of the principle that
the whole community is made responsible for the crime of the
individual till the crime is discovered and punished; the battle at
Gibeon, famous through Joshua’s exclamation, “Sun, stand thou still
upon Gibeon; and thou moon, in the valley of Ajalon!” (x. 12); and
the appointment of the cities of refuge.

2. The Book of Judges (‫‏שופטים‬‎) contains episodes of the history of

the Israelites from the death of Joshua to the days of the high-priest
Eli. The name “Judge” is identical with that of chief magistrate, or
simply chief or leader. The judges were persons chosen by God, and
inspired with an extraordinary spirit of courage and bravery, to be
the liberators of the country, or part of the country, from the tyranny
of oppressors. The virtues that were required in order to qualify
them for this mission were patriotism and courage. Some of them
may have continued in power after the restoration of peace and
order, but on the whole their mission as judges was fulfilled with the
cessation of [64]war. They were not the religious teachers of the
nation, nor are they set up as examples of piety.

During the period of the judges the tribes of Israel were not united
(song of Deborah, Judges v. 15–17). There was no common
government, or if there was one, it must have possessed little power
and influence. The people became degraded; many worshipped idols
and altogether ignored the Divine commandments. But the
conscience of the nation was roused when a shocking crime was
committed at Gibeah in the tribe of Benjamin, and all Israel united in
demanding the punishment of the evil-doers (chaps. xix. to xxi.).
The book contains two beautiful poetical passages, the song of
Deborah (v.) and the parable of Jotham (ix.).
3. The two books of Samuel (‫‏שמואל א׳ וב׳‬‎)—also called the first and
second books of Kings—contain the history of Israel during the time
of the high-priest Eli, the prophet Samuel, and Saul, the first king of
Israel (Book I.); and the reign of David (Book II.).

The following passages are noteworthy:—

ii. 6–7: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the
grave and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich; He
bringeth low and lifteth up.”

xii. 22: “The Lord will not forsake His people, for His great name’s
sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people.”

xv. 22–23: “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and
sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For
rebellion is [65]as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as
iniquity and idolatry; because thou hast rejected the word of the
Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king.”

xvi. 7: “The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”

xxiv. 14: “Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked.”

II., xxiv. 14: “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of
the Lord; for His mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand
of man.”

The following poetical passages of the book should also be marked:

—

The prayer of Hannah (ii. 1–10); David’s lament over Saul’s death
(II., i. 18–27); Parable of the prophet Nathan (xii. 1–6); Song of
thanksgiving by David (xxii.); David’s faith in God’s justice (xxiii. 1–
7).

4. The first and the second books of Kings (‫‏מלכים א׳ וב׳‬‎), also called
the third and fourth books of Kings, contain the history of Israel
from the death of David to the Babylonian exile. The first book
describes the last days of King David, the reign of Solomon, the
division of the country into two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, the
history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat,
and the history of the kingdom of Israel from Jeroboam to Ahab.
The second book continues the history of the kingdom of Israel from
Ahab to the conquest of Samaria by Shalmanessar, king of Assyria,
and that of the kingdom of Judah from Abijam, son of Jehoshaphat,
to the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

I., ii. 2: “I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore, and
show thyself a man.” [66]

xviii. 21: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be
God. follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him.”

II., xiv. 9: “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that
was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and
there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the
thistle.” 4

Note, besides, prayer of Solomon (I., viii. 12–61) and message of

Isaiah to King Hezekiah (II., xix. 21–31).

The ‫‏נביאים אחרונים‬‎Latter Prophets, contain the following books:—

I. Isaiah (‫‏ישעיהו‬‎).—Isaiah prophesied chiefly during the Assyrian
invasions in Palestine in the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah, kings of Judah. The book is divided into two main
sections, separated from each other by the narrative of
Sennacherib’s invasion and defeat, Hezekiah’s illness and recovery,
and the congratulatory message of the Babylonian king to Hezekiah
(chaps, xxxvi. to xxxix.). The first section is divided into five parts
with separate headings:—

(1.) Chap. i.—This prophecy was probably repeated by Isaiah many

times from the beginning to the end of his prophetic mission. The
Israelites in Jerusalem and Judah are rebuked for their rebellion
against God, which has brought a series of misfortunes upon the
nation; God does not accept their sacrifices unless they return to
Him and improve their conduct. They will be punished, but the
punishment is only the means [67]for their purification. When this
effect is obtained their redemption will follow.

(2.) Chaps. ii. to v.—The fulfilment of the mission of the Israelites—

the Messianic period—is depicted, when the Israelites will be so
perfect in the knowledge and the worship of God, that all nations will
seek enlightenment and guidance in the house of the God of Jacob.
The prophet shows his brethren how they receded from that aim,
and, estranging themselves from the Almighty, trusted in things that
are powerless. But all these things, grand and high as they may
appear, will prove worthless, and the glory of God will in the end be
recognised. The prophet illustrates the conduct of the Israelites and
their punishment in the beautiful parable of the vineyard (v. 1–7). As
special sins are named: greediness, lust, mockery, and injustice. The
punishment threatened is the invasion of a cruel conqueror.

(3.) Chap. vi.—On the occasion of the death of King Uzziah, who had
presumed to approach God and to offer incense in the Holy of
Holies, contrary to the Law, and was punished with leprosy, Isaiah
had a vision in which he despairingly contrasted the infinite holiness
of the Almighty with his own sinfulness, living as he did among
people of unclean lips. He is reassured, and shown that his sin is
removed when his words are inflamed by the holy fire taken from
the altar of God. He must, nevertheless, not expect a speedy effect
from his words to the people; they will continue in disobedience and
bring upon themselves continued punishments, but ultimately, when
the leaves have fallen off, the stem will remain—a seed of holiness.
[68]

(4.) vii. to xii.—The invasion of Judah by Pekah, king of Israel, and

Rezin, king of Aram, brings to light the want of faith in God and His
word on the part of Ahaz, king of Judah. Isaiah, taking with him his
son Sh’ar-yashub (“A-remnant-will-return”), a reminder of
punishment and of redemption, rebukes Ahaz, and gives him a sign
(‫‏אות‬‎): “The young woman is with child, and will bear a son, and call
his name Immanuel” (‫‏עמנו אל‬‎“God-is-with-us”). “Cream and honey
shall he eat, when he will know to reject the evil and to choose the
good.” By this sign Ahaz is informed (1) that at the time of the birth
of the child Judah will be freed from the armies of the two kings,
and the name Immanuel was to be the expression of thanks for the
delivery; (2) another more serious invasion of the Assyrians will
come and devastate the country; and after their departure the
Israelites will not have any corn or bread; “cream and honey will
every one eat that is left in the midst of the land.”

The invasion of Syria and Palestine by the Assyrians is also foretold

in the very name of Isaiah’s own son, Maher-shalal-’hash-baz (“The
spoiler hastens to be quick with the spoil”). In spite of such dark
prospect the prophet sets forth the testimony and the lesson
(‫‏תעודה‬‎, ‫‏תורה‬‎): “Hope in the Lord, though He hides His face from
the house of Jacob. For often have people in affliction seen great
light.” “A child 5 has been born unto us, called The Almighty, the
[69]Eternal, the Prince of Peace, devises wonders, for the purpose of
increasing the dominion and establishing endless peace upon the
throne of David and his kingdom, to order it and support it by
judgment and righteousness from now even for ever” (ix. 5, 6). The
Assyrian invasion is a punishment for the sins of the Israelites, and
its success will continue so long as the Israelites refuse to repent
and to return to God. This, however, will ultimately come to pass,
and Ashur will then receive the penalty for his insolence and
presumptuousness. Israel will in the end be guided by a wise and
just ruler, who will spring forth from the roots of Jesse. The
Messianic times will then begin, and amidst universal peace all
mankind will join in the praises of God.

(5.) xiii. to xxxv.—This group of prophecies was probably delivered

during the Assyrian invasion. Isaiah takes a survey of the
neighbouring states, their conduct in times of success, and their
well-deserved punishment in the immediate or the remote future.
The prophecies are directed against Babylon, Plesheth, Moab,
Damascus, Egypt, Ashdod, Babylon, Dumah, Arab, the Assyrian
Shebnah, Tyre, Edom, and Ephraim. Great confusion will ensue,
amid which Judah will suffer much, but he will ultimately be
delivered through the Divine intervention, and will thus be
strengthened in his faith in God. Isaiah rebukes Judah for seeking
help from Egypt against Assyria, because such an act indicates want
of faith in God. It is only the Almighty that can help in times of
distress.

(6.) xxxvi. to xxxix.—The historical chapters which intervene between

the two large prophetical sections of [70]the book conclude with an
account of Hezekiah’s conduct towards the Babylonian ambassadors,
and the rebuke he received of Isaiah, who announced to the king
that the Babylonians would one day be conquerors of Jerusalem.