* Tosefla, Manner nheni, ch. 2 ; Hallach, ch. 2 ; Jerus.
Shehhiith vi. i ; Bab. Gittin 8a.
SCIENCE
SCIENCE
577
some of them being firmlj' fastened and others moving along ways made for them.
To whatever branch of knowledge we turn, we find that observations are an insigniticant part of the system of teaching about nature, and for the method of mere description we have the method of motai)hysical explanation.
4. Defects of Hebrew thought. — The history, political and geographical situation, and religious e.xclusiveness of the Hebrews assisted in the culti- vation of a type of thought as characteristic and poM-erful as any that the world has seen. It is not enough to say that the HebrcAv mind was ' Semitic ' ; for, while it shares many of the char- acteristics of the thought of other Semitic peoples, in some respects it stands out from them in bold contrast. Among the fine qualities of the Hebrew mind were: (1) a .sanity and sobriety of thought which preserved their religion and literature from all those ofiensive and extravagant traits which mark the popular religions of Syria, Asia Minor, and Arabia ; (2) an extraordinary gift for the observation of individual incidents and facts, as appears in the inimitable narratives of the histori- cal books of the OT ; tlie vivid portraiture, satire, and denunciation of the prophets ; and the mar- vellous, if often trivial, minuteness of Kabbinic discussions ; (3) unparalleled energy of feeling and sense of individuality ; and (4) a strength of will that alone can account for the vitality of a people which has been exposed to a more bitter persecu- tion and more relentless fate than any other race in history. Of these four notable characteristics the third and fourth are obviously not such as tend to the cultivation of the scientific frame of mind. With the first and second it is quite other- wise— sobriety of thought and a keen eye for particulars are necessary to a proper scientific observation. But at the same time they are in- sufficient for scientific description, which demands certain mental qualities in which the Hebrew mind was notably deficient — breadth of vision, systematic and architectonic power, consistent and persistent thinking. An examination of Hebrew thought discovers, in general, a notable defect, traceable to this failure in breadth of grasp and over-emphasis on the particular and strong develop- ment of the emotional and volitional nature. This defect is the absence of the power of logical ab- straction, and it shows itself in two ways that are of considerable importance — first, the Hebrew mind could not frame general definitions ; and, secondly, it had no notion of general laAv.
The Western (Greek) mode of definition per genus et differentiam we commonly assume not only to be the only mode possible, but also to be indis- pensable to thought. While it is indispensable to our modem thought, especially with its highly de- veloped scientific method, it was not indispensable to the Hebrews, for they did without it. The HebrcAvs defined, not by reference to a class — as wlien Ave say ' man is a rational animal ' — but by reference to a type, as Avhen it is implied that naturiil man is Adam, and redeemed man is Christ, the second Adam (Ro 5, 1 Co 15).
In the second place, this inability to think ab- stractly prevented the HebrcAvs from arriving at the notion of natural laAv. The Avord ' laAv ' in HebrcAv literature ahvays meant the arbitrary pronouncement of a ruler (of course a despot) or deity. L.aAV meant nothing general or abstract. The Torah Avas an actual and definite direction giv-en in JaliAveh's name by the priest, and Avas either judicial, ceremonial, or moral. The various synonyms for torrih have in general the same de- finite, particular ciiaracter — ' judgment,' ' .statute,' 'commandment,' 'testimonies,' and 'precepts'*
' Respectively mishpdf, Ijulflfdh, mizwdh, 'edOth, pilfkndim. VOL. II.— 37
(see art. ' LaAv (in OT) ' in Hastings' DB). When
used in a general sense to indicate a large section
of the OT, it is in no Avay abstract, but only collective.
The nearest approach which Hebrew thought offers to our highly abstract natural laws is to be found in certain proverbial sayings {e.g. Jer 31-9, Mt 1G-- 3), and a few rough groupings of empirical facts which we shall notice later on. There is nothing, however, that in any real sense corresponds with the modern idea of law as ' the resume or brief exprension of the relationships and sequences of certain groups of ' i)erceptions and conceptions, existing only ' when fonnulated bj- man ' (Karl Tearson). The same characteristic explains the absence of abstract philosophic terms from Hebrew literature. The doctrine of freewill, e.rj., though constantly implied in the OT, is never abstractly stated. ' Instead of saying man is free, Scripture savs man can choose ; he can act ; he can do ' (Delitzsch, Syst. of Bihl. Psychol, p. 192).
5. Hebrew knowledge of Nature.— It folloAvs from Avhat Ave have seen that the Jcavs had no sound body of scientific doctrine. They had no very clearly defined conception of the earth and its surroundings, either in early times or at the time of Christ. They regarded the earth as the 'middle point of the universe. The heavens Avere a mere material covering or dome (Is 34^ 40^-, Ps 1 04-, Job 37^8), Avith doors (Gn 28", Fs TS^*) and AvindoAvs (Gn 7" 8^, 2 K 7" ^°), and the earth rested on the sea (Ps 24'-). These are obviously little more than childish reproductions of sense-impressions. The same is true of every department of piiysical science, including Astronomy. There is no criti- cism, no classification, no formulation of laAvs, no definite effort toAvards a coherent description of phenomena. When Ave turn to Mathematics, Ave find traces of very rudimentary knoAvledge. The square is mentioned (Ex 27^ 28^^), and the circle (Is 44^^), the plumb-line and scales Avere knoAvn (Am V, 2 K 2V^). The four simple mathematical l^rocesses appear also to have been practised : Addition (Nu l^^ 26^), Subtraction (Lv 27^^ Ex 1623), Multiplication (Lv 25^, Nu 3«), Division (Lv 25-^- 50).