[6382] Comp. also 2 Macc. ii. 13, 14.
[6383] The general statement that this decree was intended to prevent a common or profane use of the Scripture does not explain its origin. The latter seems to have been as follows: At first the priests in the Temple were wont to deposit the Terumah near the copy of the Law there kept (Shabb 14 a). But as mice were thereby attracted, and damage to the Sacred roll was apprehended, it was enacted that the Sacred Roll in the Temple rendered all meat that touched it unclean. This decree gave rise to another, by way of further precaution, that even the hands which touched the Sacred Roll, or any other part of the Bible became unclean (so that, having touched the latter, they could not touch the Terumah). Then followed (in the course of development) a third decree, that such touch defiled also outside the Temple. Finally, the first decree was modified to the effect that the Sacred Roll in the Temple did not defile the hands., while all other Scriptures (anywhere else) defiled them (Chel xv. 6) The explanation offered to the Sadducees by R. Jochanan b. Zakkai is evidently intended to mislead (Yad iv. 6), Comp. Levy, Neuhebr Wörterb. vol. ii. pp. 163, 164.
[6384] The difference in the degree of inspiration between the Prophetic and the Hagiographic books is not accurately defined. Later Jewish theologians rather evade it by describing the former as given by the spirit of prophecy,' the latter by the Holy Spirit.' It must, however, be admitted that in Jewish writings the Holy Spirit' is not only not a Personality, but an influence very inferior to what we associate with the designation.
[6385] The proof-passages are quoted in Zunz, u. s. p.44 note, also in J. Delitzsch, De Inspir. Script. S. pp. 7, 8.
[6386] At the same time, in Meg. 31 b the formulation of the curses by Moses in Lev. xxvi. is said to have been {hebrew} (from God directly), while that in Deut. xxviii. was {hebrew} (from Moses himself).
[6387] A more terribly repulsive instance of this can scarcely be conceived than in Debar R. 11, of which the worst parts are reproduced in Yalkut 304 a, b, c.
[6388] Comp. generally Hamburger's Real. Encycl. vols. i. and ii. See also Delitzsch's work already quoted, and Fürst, Kanon d. Alten Test. nach Talmud u. Midrasch.
[6389] Fürst, u. s. pp. 57-59, quotes Ber. 57 b and Sot. 7 b, Ab de R. Nathan 40. But no one who reads either Ber. 57 b, or Ab. de R. Nathan 40, would feel inclined to draw from passages so strange and repulsive any serious inference, while Sot. 7 b is far too vague to serve as a basis. In general, this is one of the many instances in which Fürst, as, indeed, many modern Jewish writers, propounds as metters of undoubted fact, what, on critical examination, is seen to rest on no certain historical basis - sometimes on no basis at all.
[6390] Which in another place we have shown to be erroneous.
[6391] Fürst, p. 56. See also Reuss, Gesch. d. Heil. Schr. A. T. (p. 550), who gives its date as 132.
[6392] Fürst, who holds the Maccabean origin of the Book of Daniel, is so frequently inconsistent with himself in the course of his remarks on the subject, that it is sometimes difficult to understand him. Occasionally, when argument is wanting, he asserts that a thing is self-evident (es versteht sich von selbst). Such a self evident' assertion, for which, however, no historical evidence is offered - which, indeed, runs in the opposite direction - is summarized on page 100. But the word self-evident' has no place in historical discussions, where only that is evident which rests on historical grounds.
[6393] This is admitted even by Mr. Drummond (Jewish Messiah,' pp. 246, 245-257, 260). Mr. Drummond's book is quoted as representing the advocacy by a distinguished English scholar of the Maccabean theory of the authorship of Daniel.