|
|
Prev
| Next
| Contents
| Listen to any book FREE at Audible
The Legends of the Jews
PREFACE
Was sich nie und nirgends hat
begeben, das allein veraltet nie.
|
|
The term Rabbinic was applied to the Jewish Literature of
post-Biblical times by those who conceived the Judaism of the
later epoch to be something different from the Judaism of the
Bible, something actually opposed to it. Such observers held that
the Jewish nation ceased to exist with the moment when its
political independence was destroyed. For them the Judaism of the
later epoch has been a Judaism of the Synagogue, the spokesmen of
|
which have been the scholars, the Rabbis. And what this phase of
Judaism brought forth has been considered by them to be the
product of the schools rather than the product of practical,
pulsating life. Poetic phantasmagoria, frequently the vaporings
of morbid visionaries, is the material out of which these
scholars construct the theologic system of the Rabbis, and fairy
tales, the spontaneous creations of the people, which take the
form of sacred legend in Jewish literature, are denominated the
Scriptural exegesis of the Rabbis, and condemned incontinently as
nugae rabbinorum.
As the name of a man clings to him, so men cling to names. For
the primitive savage the name is part of the essence of a person
or thing, and even in the more advanced stages of culture,
judgments are not always formed in agreement with facts as they
are, but rather according to the names by which they are called.
The current estimate of Rabbinic Literature is a case in point.
With the label Rabbinic later ages inherited from former ages a
certain distorted view of the literature so designated. To this
day, and even among scholars that approach its investigation with
unprejudiced minds, the opinion prevails that it is purely a
learned product. And yet the truth is that the most prominent
feature of Rabbinic Literature is its popular character.
The school and the home are not mutually opposed to each other in
the conception of the Jews. They study in their homes, and they
live in their schools. Likewise there is no distinct class of
scholars among them, a class that withdraws itself from
participation in the affairs of practical life. Even in the
domain of the Halakah, the Rabbis were not so much occupied with
theoretic principles of law as with the concrete phenomena of
daily existence. These they sought to grasp and shape. And what
is true of the Halakah is true with greater emphasis of the
Haggadah, which is popular in the double sense of appealing to
the people and being produced in the main by the people. To speak
of the Haggadah of the Tannaim and Amoraim is as far from fact as
to speak of the legends of Shakespeare and Scott. The ancient
authors and their modern brethren of the guild alike elaborate
legendary material which they found at hand.
It has been held by some that the Haggadah contains no popular
legends, that it is wholly a factitious, academic product. A
cursory glance at the pseudepigraphic literature of the Jews,
which is older than the Haggadah literature by several centuries,
shows how untenable this view is. That the one literature should
have drawn from the other is precluded by historical facts. At a
very early time the Synagogue disavowed the pseudepigraphic
literature, which was the favorite reading matter of the
sectaries and the Christians. Nevertheless the inner relation
between them is of the closest kind. The only essential
difference is that the Midrashic form prevails in the Haggadah,
and the parenetic or apocalyptic form in the pseudepigrapha. The
common element must therefore depart from the Midrash on the one
hand and from parenesis on the other.
Folklore, fairy tales, legends, and all forms of story telling
akin to these are comprehended, in the terminology of the
post-Biblical literature of the Jews, under the inclusive
description Haggadah, a name that can be explained by a
circumlocution, but cannot be translated. Whatever it is applied
to is thereby characterized first as being derived from the Holy
Scriptures, and then as being of the nature of a story. And, in
point of fact, this dualism sums up the distinguishing features
of Jewish Legend. More than eighteen centuries ago the Jewish
historian Josephus observed that "though we be deprived of our
wealth, of our cities, or of the other advantages we have, our
law continues immortal." The word he meant to use was not law,
but Torah, only he could not find an equivalent for it in Greek.
A singer of the Synagogue a thousand years after Josephus, who
expressed his sentiments in Hebrew, uttered the same thought:
"The Holy City and all her daughter cities are violated, they lie
in ruins, despoiled of their ornaments, their splendor darkened
from sight. Naught is left to us save one eternal treasure
alone--the Holy Torah." The sadder the life of the Jewish people,
the more it felt the need of taking refuge in its past. The
Scripture, or, to use the Jewish term, the Torah, was the only
remnant of its former national independence, and the Torah was
the magic means of making a sordid actuality recede before a
glorious memory. To the Scripture was assigned the task of
supplying nourishment to the mind as well as the soul, to the
intellect as well as the imagination, and the result is the
Halakah and the Haggadah.
The fancy of the people did not die out in the post-Biblical
time, but the bent of its activity was determined by the past.
Men craved entertainment in later times as well as in the
earlier, only instead of resorting for its subject-matter to what
happened under their eyes, they drew from the fountain-head of
the past. The events in the ancient history of Israel, which was
not only studied, but lived over again daily, stimulated the
desire to criticize it. The religious reflections upon nature
laid down in the myths of the people, the fairy tales, which have
the sole object of pleasing, and the legends, which are the
people's verdict upon history--all these were welded into one
product. The fancy of the Jewish people was engaged by the past
reflected in the Bible, and all its creations wear a Biblical hue
for this reason. This explains the peculiar form of the Haggadah.
But what is spontaneously brought forth by the people is often
preserved only in the form impressed upon it by the feeling and
the thought of the poet, or by the speculations of the learned.
Also Jewish legends have rarely been transmitted in their
original shape. They have been perpetuated in the form of
Midrash, that is, Scriptural exegesis. The teachers of the
Haggadah, called Rabbanan d'Aggadta in the Talmud, were no
folklorists, from whom a faithful reproduction of legendary
material may be expected. Primarily they were homilists, who used
legends for didactic purposes, and their main object was to
establish a close connection between the Scripture and the
creations of the popular fancy, to give the latter a firm basis
and secure a long term of life for them.
One of the most important tasks of the modern investigation of
the Haggadah is to make a clean separation between the original
elements and the later learned additions. Hardly a beginning has
been made in this direction. But as long as the task of
distinguishing them has not been accomplished, it is impossible
to write out the Biblical legends of the Jews without including
the supplemental work of scholars in the products of the popular
fancy.
In the present work, "The Legends of the Jews," I have made the
first attempt to gather from the original sources all Jewish
legends, in so far as they refer to Biblical personages and
events, and reproduce them with the greatest attainable
completeness and accuracy. I use the expression Jewish, rather
than Rabbinic, because the sources from which I have levied
contributions are not limited to the Rabbinic literature. As I
expect to take occasion elsewhere to enter into a description of
the sources in detail, the following data must suffice for the
present.
The works of the Talmudic Midrashic literature are of the first
importance. Covering the period from the second to the fourteenth
century, they contain the major part of the Jewish legendary
material. Akin to this in content if not always in form is that
derived from the Targumim, of which the oldest versions were
produced not earlier than the fourth century, and the most recent
not later than the tenth. The Midrashic literature has been
preserved only in fragmentary form. Many Haggadot not found in
our existing collections are quoted by the authors of the Middle
Ages. Accordingly, a not inconsiderable number of the legends
here printed are taken from medieval Bible commentators and
homilists. I was fortunate in being able to avail myself also of
fragments of Midrashim of which only manuscript copies are
extant.
The works of the older Kabbalah are likewise treasuries of
quotations from lost Midrashim, and it was among the Kabbalists,
and later among the Hasidim, that new legends arose. The
literatures produced in these two circles are therefore of great
importance for the present purpose.
Furthermore, Jewish legends can be culled not from the writings
of the Synagogue alone; they appear also in those of the Church.
Certain Jewish works repudiated by the Synagogue were accepted
and mothered by the Church. This is the literature usually
denominated apocryphal-pseudepigraphic. From the point of view of
legends, the apocryphal books are of subordinate importance,
while the pseudepigrapha are of fundamental value. Even
quantitatively the latter are an imposing mass. Besides the Greek
writings of the Hellenist Jews, they contain Latin, Syrian,
Ethiopic, Aramean, Arabic, Persian, and Old Slavic products
translated directly or indirectly from Jewish works of
Palestinian or Hellenistic origin. The use of these
pseudepigrapha requires great caution. Nearly all of them are
embellished with Christian interpolations, and in some cases the
inserted portions have choked the original form so completely
that it is impossible to determine at first sight whether a
Jewish or a Christian legend is under examination. I believe,
however, that the pseudepigraphic material made use of by me is
Jewish beyond the cavil of a doubt, and therefore it could not
have been left out of account in a work like the present.
However, in the appreciation of Jewish Legends, it is the
Rabbinic writers that should form the point of departure, and not
the pseudepigrapha. The former represent the main stream of
Jewish thought and feeling, the latter only an undercurrent. If
the Synagogue cast out the pseudepigrapha, and the Church adopted
them with a great show of favor, these respective attitudes were
not determined arbitrarily or by chance. The pseudepigrapha
originated in circles that harbored the germs from which
Christianity developed later on. The Church could thus
appropriate them as her own with just reason.
In the use of some of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic
writings, I found it expedient to quote the English translations
of them made by others, in so far as they could be brought into
accord with the general style of the book, for which purpose I
permitted myself the liberty of slight verbal changes. In
particulars, I was guided, naturally, by my own conception of the
subject, which the Notes justify in detail.
Besides the pseudepigrapha there are other Jewish sources in
Christian garb. In the rich literature of the Church Fathers many
a Jewish legend lies embalmed which one would seek in vain in
Jewish books. It was therefore my special concern to use the
writings of the Fathers to the utmost.
The luxuriant abundance of the material to be presented made it
impossible to give a verbal rendition of each legend. This would
have required more than three times the space at my disposal. I
can therefore claim completeness for my work only as to content.
In form it had to suffer curtailment. When several conflicting
versions of the same legend existed, I gave only one in the text,
reserving the other one, or the several others, for the Notes,
or, when practicable, they were fused into one typical legend,
the component parts of which are analyzed in the Notes. In other
instances I resorted to the expedient of citing one version in
one place and the others in other appropriate places, in
furtherance of my aim, to give a smooth presentation of the
matter, with as few interruptions to the course of the narrative
as possible. For this reason I avoided such transitional phrases
as "Some say," "It has been maintained," etc. That my method
sometimes separates things that belong together cannot be
considered a grave disadvantage, as the Index at the end of the
work will present a logical rearrangement of the material for the
benefit of the interested student. I also did not hesitate to
treat of the same personage in different chapters, as, for
instance, many of the legends bearing upon Jacob, those connected
with the latter years of the Patriarch, do not appear in the
chapter bearing his name, but will be found in the sections
devoted to Joseph, for the reason that once the son steps upon
the scene, he becomes the central figure, to which the life and
deeds of the father are subordinated. Again, in consideration of
lack of space the Biblical narratives underlying the legends had
to be omitted--surely not a serious omission in a subject with
which widespread acquaintance may be presupposed as a matter of
course.
As a third consequence of the amplitude of the material, it was
thought advisable to divide it into several volumes. The
references, the explanations of the sources used, and the
interpretations given, and, especially, numerous emendations of
the text of the Midrashim and the pseudepigrapha, which
determined my conception of the passages so emended, will be
found in the last volume, the fourth, which will contain also an
Introduction to the History of Jewish Legends, a number of
Excursuses, and the Index.
As the first three volumes are in the hands of the printer almost
in their entirety, I venture to express the hope that the whole
work will appear within measurable time, the parts following each
other at short intervals.
Prev
| Next
| Contents
| Listen to any book FREE at Audible
|
|