Articles of Faith
No Fixed Dogmas
In the same sense as Christianity or Islam, Judaism can not be credited with the possession of Articles
of Faith. Many attempts have indeed been made at systematizing
and reducing to a fixed phraseology and sequence the
contents of the Jewish religion. But these have always
lacked the one essential element: authoritative sanction
on the part of a supreme ecclesiastical body. And for
this reason they have not been recognized as final or
regarded as of universally binding force. Though to
a certain extent incorporated in the liturgy and utilized
for purposes of instruction, these formulations of the
cardinal tenets of Judaism carried no greater weight
than that imparted to them by the fame and scholarship
of their respective authors. None of them had a character
analogous to that given in the Church to its three great
formulas (the socalled Apostles' Creed, the Nicene
or Constantopolitan, and the Athanasian), or even to
the Kalimat AsShahadat of the Mohammedans.
The recital of this "Kalimah" is the first
of the five pillars of practical religion in Islam,
and one converted to Islam must repeat it verbatim;
so that among the conditions required of every believer
with reference to confession is the duty to repeat it
aloud at least once in a lifetime. None of the many
summaries from the pens of Jewish philosophers and rabbis
has been invested with similar importance and prominence.
The reasons for this relative absence of official and
obligatory creeds are easily ascertained.
No Need for Creeds in Judaism
The remark of Leibnitz, in his preface
to the "Essais de Theodicee," that the nations
which filled the earth before the establishment of Christianity
had ceremonies of devotion, sacrifices, libations, and
a priesthood, but that they had no Articles of Faith
and no dogmatic theology, applies with slight modification
to the Jews. Originally race-or perhaps it is more correct
to say nationality-and religion were coextensive. Birth,
not profession, admitted to the religionational
fellowship. As long as internal dissension or external
attack did not necessitate for purposes of defense the
formulation of the peculiar and differentiating doctrines,
the thought of paragraphing and fixing the contents
of the religious consciousness could not insinuate itself
into the mind of even the most faithful. Missionary
or proselytizing religions are driven to the definite
declaration of their teachings. The admission of the
neophyte hinges upon the profession and the acceptance
of his part of the belief, and that t here may be no
uncertainty about what is essential and what nonessential,
it is incumbent on the proper authorities to determine
and promulgate the cardinal tenets in a form that will
facilitate repetition and memorizing. And the same necessity
arises wh en the Church or religious fellowship is torn
by internal heresies. Under the necessity of combating
heresies of various degrees of perilousness and of stubborn
insistence, the Church and Islam, were forced to
define and officially limit their respective theological
concepts. Both of these provocations to creedbuilding
were less intense in Judaism. The proselytizing zeal,
though during certain periods more active than at others,
was, on the whole, neutralized, partly by inherent disinclination
and part ly by force of circumstances. Righteousness,
according to Jewish belief, was not conditioned
of the acceptance of the Jewish religion. And the righteous
among the nations that carried into practise the seven
fundamental laws of the covenant with Noah and his descendants
were declared to be participants in the felicity of
the hereafter. This interpretation of the status of
nonJews precluded the development of a missionary
attitude. Moreover, the regulations for the reception
of proselytes, as developed in course of time, prove
the eminently practical, that is, the noncreedal
character of Judaism. Compliance with certain rites
baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice
is the test of the wouldbe convert's faith. He
is instructed in the details of the legal practise that
manifests the Jew's religiosity, while the profession
of faith demanded is limited to the acknowledgement
of the unity of God and the rejection of idolatry (Yorei
De'ah, Germ, 268, 2). Judah haLevi ("Cuzari,"
i. 115) puts the whole mat ter very strikingly when
he says:
"We are not putting on an equality
with us a person entering our religion through confession
alone [Arabic original, bikalamati=by word].
We require deeds, including in that term selfrestraint,
purity, study of the Law, circumcision, and the performance
of other duties demanded by the Torah."
For the preparation of the convert,
therefore, no other method of instruction was employed
than for the training of one born a Jew. The aim of
teaching was to convey a knowledge of the Law, obedience
to which manifested the acceptance of the underlying
religious principles; namely, the existence of God and
the holiness of Israel as the people of his covenant.
The controversy whether Judaism demands belief in
dogma or inculcates obedience to practical laws alone,
as enlisted many competent scholars. Moses Mendelssohn,
in his "Jerusalem," defended the nondogmatic
nature of Judaism, while Low, among others, (see his
"Gesammelte Schriften," i. 3152, 433
et seq. 1871) took the opposite side. Low made it clear
that the Mendelssohnian theory had been carried beyond
its legitimate bounds. The meaning of the word for faithful
and belief in Hebrew [emunah] had undoubtedly
been strained too far to substantiate the Mendelssohnian
thesis. Underlying the practise of the Law was assuredly
the recognition of certain fundamental and decisive
religious principles culminating in the belief in God
and revelation, and likewise in the doctrine of retributive
divine justice.
Evolution of Judaism
The modern critical view of the development of the
Pentateuch within the evolution of Israel's monotheism
confirms this theory. The controversy of the Prophets
hinges on the adoption by the people of Israel of the
religion of YHWH, that excluded from the outset idolatry,
or certainly the recognition of any other deity than
YHWH as the legitimate Lord of Israel; that, in its
progressive evolution, associated YHWH the concepts
of holiness, justice, and righteousness; and that which
culminated in the teaching of God's spirituality and
universality. The historical books of the Bible, as
recast in accordance with these latter religious ideas
evince the force of a strong and clearly apprehended
conviction concerning the providential purpose in the
destinies of earth's inhabitants, and more especially
in the guidance of Israel.
Discussions and Dogmatism Disfavored
The Psalms and Wisdom books manifest
the predominance, of definite religious beliefs. To
say that Judaism is a barren legalistic convention,
as Mendelssohn avers, is an unmistakable exaggeration.
The modicum of truth in his theory is that throughout
Biblical Judaism, as in fact throughout all later phases
of Jewish religious thinking and practise, this doctrinal
element remains always in solution. It is not crystallized
into fixed phraseology or rigid dogma. And, moreover,
the ethical and practical implications of the religion
are never obscured. This is evidenced by the Biblical
passages that, in the opinion of many, partake of the
nature of Articles of Faith, or are of great value as
showing what, in the opinion of their respective authors,
constitutes the essence of religion. Among these the
most noteworthy are Deut. vi. 4; Isa., xlv. 57;
Micah vi. 8; Ps. xv.; Isa. i. 16, 17; xxxiii. 15.
Whatever controversies may have agitated
Israel during the centuries of the Prophets and the
earlier postexilic period, they were not of a kind to
induce the defining of Articles of Faith counteract
the influences of heretical teaching. Dogmatic influences
manifest themselves only after the Maccabean struggle
for independence. But even these differences were not
farreaching enough to overcome the inherent aversion
to dogmatic fixation of principles; for, with the Jews,
acceptance of principles was not so much a matter of
theoretical assent as of practical conduct. Though Josephus
would have the divisions between the Pharisees and the
Sadducees hinge on the formal acceptance or rejection
of certain points of doctrine such as Providence,
resurrection of the body, which for the Pharisees, was
identical with future retribution it is the
consensus of opinion among modern scholars that the
differences between these two parties were rooted in
their respective political programs, and implied in
their respectively national and antinational attitudes,
rather than in their philosophical or religious dogmas.
If the words of Sirach (iii. 2023)
are to be taken as a criterion, the intensely pious
of his days did not incline to speculations of what
was beyond their powers to comprehend. They were content
to perform their, religious duties in simplicity of
faith. The Mishnah (Hag. 11. 1) indorsed this view of
Sirach, and in some degree, discountenanced theosophy
and dogmatism. Among the recorded discussions in the
schools of the Rabbis, dogmatic problems commanded only
a very inferior degree of attention ('Er. 13b: controversy
concerning the, value of human life; Hag. 12a: concerning
the order of Creation). Nevertheless, in the earliest
Mishnah is found the citation of Abtalion against heresy
and unbelief (Ab. i. 11 [12]); and many a Baraita betrays
the prevalence of religious differences (Ber. 12b; 'Ab.
Zarah 17a). These controversies have left their impress
upon the prayerbook and the liturgy. This is shown
by the prominence given to the Shema'; to the Messianic
predictions in the ShemonehEsreh (the "Eighteen
Benedictions"), which emphasized the belief in
the Resurrection; and, finally, to the prominence given
to the Decalogue though the latter was again
omitted in order to counteract the belief that it alone
had been revealed (Tamid v. 1; Yer. Ber. 6b; Bab. Ber.
12a). These expressions of belief are held to have originated
in the desire to give definite utterance and impressiveness
to the corresponding doctrines that were either rejected
or attenuated by some of the heretical schools. But
while the se portions of the daily liturgy are expressive
of the doctrinal contents of the regnant party in the
synagogue, they were not cast into the form of catalogued
Articles of Faith.
The first to make the attempt to formulate
them was Philo of Alexandria. The influence of Greek
thought induced among the Jews of Egypt the reflective
mood. Discussion was undoubtedly active on the unsettled
points of speculative be lief; and such discussion led,
as it nearly always does, to a stricter definition of
the doctrines. In his work "De Mundi Opificio,"
lxi., Philo enumerates five articles as embracing the
chief tenets of Mosaism:
1. God is and rules;
2. God is one
3. The world was created;
4. Creation is one;
5. God's providence rules Creation.
But among the Tannaim and Amoraim this example of
Philo found no followers, though many of their number
were drawn into controversies with both Jews and nonJews,
and had to fortify their faith against the attacks of
contemporaneous philosophy as well as against rising
Christianity. Only in a general way the Mishnah Sanh.
xi. 1 excludes from the world to come the Epicureans
and those who deny belief in resurrection or in the
divine origin of the Torah. R. Akiba would also regard
as heretical the readers o f Sefarim Hetsonim-certain
extraneous writings (Apocrypha or Gospels)-and such
persons that would heal through whispered formulas of
magic. Abba Saul designated as under suspicion of infidelity
those that pronounce the ineffable name of the Deity.
By implication, the contrary doctrine and attitude may
thus be regarded as having been proclaimed as orthodox.
On the other hand, Akiba himself declares that the command
to love one's neighbor the fundamental the principle
of the Law; while Ben Asa i assigns this distinction
to the Biblical verse, "This is the book of the
generations of man " (Gen. v. i.; Gen. R. xxiv).
The definition of Hillel the Elder in his interview
with a wouldbe convert (Shab. 31a), embodies in
the golden rule the one fundamental article of faith.
A teacher of the third Christian century, R. Simlai,
traces the development of Jewish religious principles
from Moses with his 613 commands of prohibition and
injunction, through David, who, according to this rabbi,
enumerates eleven; through Isaiah, with six; Micah,
with three; to Habakkuk who simply but impressively
sums up all religious faith in the single phrase, "The
pious lives in his faith" (Mak., toward end). As
the Halakhah enjoins that one should prefer death to
an act of idolatry, incest, unchastity, or murder, the
inference is plain that the corresponding positive principles
were held to be fundamental articles of Judaism.
The Decalogue as a Summary
From Philo down to late medieval and even modern writers,
the Decalogue has been held to be in some way a summary
of both the articles of the true faith and the duties
derived from that faith. According to the Alexandrian
philosopher the order of the Ten Words is not accidental.
They divide readily into two groups: the first five
summarizing man's relations to the Deity; the other
five specifying man's duties to his fellows. Ibn Ezra
virtually adopts this view. He interprets the contents
of the Decalogue, not merely in their legalritual
bearing but as expressive of ethicoreligious principles.
But this view can be traced to other traditions. In
Yer. Ber. 6b the Shema' is declared to be only an epitome
of the Decalogue. That in the poetry of the synagogal
ritual this thought often dominates is well known. No
less a thinker than Saadia Gaon composed a liturgical
production of this character (see AZHAROT) and R. Eliezer
ben Nathan of Mayence enriched the pray erbook
with a piyyut in which the six hundred and thirteen
commands are rubricated in the order of and in connection
with the Decalogue. The theory that the Decalogue was
the foundation of Judaism, its article of faith, was
advocated Isaac Abravanel (see his Commentary on Ex.
xx. 1); and in recent years by Isaac M. Wise of Cincinnati
in his "Catechism" and other writings.
The only confession of faith, however, which, though
not so denominated, has found universal acceptance,
forms a part of the daily liturgy, contained in all
Jewish prayerbooks. ln its original form it read
somewhat as follows:
"True and established is this word for us forever.
True it is that Thou art our God as Thou wast the God
of our fathers; our King as [Thou wast] the King of
our fathers; our Redeemer and the Redeemer of our fathers;
our Creator and the Rock of our salvation; our Deliverer
and Savior from eternity is Thy name, and
there is no God besides Thee."
This statement dates probably from the days of the
Hasmoneans (see Landshuth, in "Hegyon Leb").
Saadia's, Judah haLevi's and Bahya's
Creed
In the stricter sense of the term, specifications
in connected sequence, and rational analysis of Articles
of Faith, did not find favor with the teachers and the
faithful before the Arabic period. The polemics with
the Karaites on the one hand, and, on the other, the
necessity of defending their religion against the attacks
of the philosophies current among both Mohammedans and
Jews, induced the leading thinkers to define and formulate
their beliefs. Saadia's "Emunot weDeot"
is in reality one long ex position of the main tenets
of the faithful. The plan of the book discloses a systematization
of the different religious doctrines that, in the estimation
of the author, constitute the sum total of his faith.
They are, in the order of their treatment by him, the
following:
1. The world is created;
2. God is one and incorporeal;
3. belief in revelation (including the divine origin
of tradition;
4. man is called to righteousness and endowed with
all necessary qualities of mind and soul to avoid sin;
5. belief in reward and punishment;
6. the soul is created pure; after death it leaves
the body;
7. belief in resurrection;
8. Messianic expectation, retribution, and final judgment.
Judah haLevi endeavored, in his "Cuzari,"
to determine the fundamentals of Judaism on another
basis. He rejects all appeal to speculative reason,
repudiating the method of the Motekallamin. The miracles
and traditions are, in their natural character, both
the source and the evidence of the true faith. With
them Judaism stands and falls. The book of Bahya ibn
Pakuda ("Hobot haLebabot"), while remarkable,
as it is, for endeavoring to give religion its true
setting as a spiritual force, contributed nothing of
note to the exposition of the fundamental articles.
It goes without saying that the unity of God, His government
of the world, the possibilities of leading a divine
life-which were never forfeited by man-are expounded
as essentials of Judaism.
Ibn Daud and Hananel ben Hushiel
More interesting on this point is the work of R. Abraham
ibn Daud (1120) entitled "Emnah Ramah" (The
High Faithful). In the second division of his treatise
he discourses on the principles of faith and the Law.
These principles are:
- The existence of God;
- His Unity;
- His spirituality;
- His other attributes;
- His power as manifested in His works;
- His providence.
Less well known is the scheme of an African rabbi,
Hananel b. Hushiel, about a century earlier, according
to whom Judaism's fundamental articles number four:
- Belief in God;
- belief in prophecy;
- belief in a future state;
- belief in the advent of the Messiah.
The Thirteen Articles of Maimonides
The most widely spread and popular of all creeds is
that of Maimonides, embracing the thirteen articles.
Why he chose this particular number has been a subject
of much discussion. Some have seen in the number a reference
to the thirteen
attributes of God. Probably no meaning attaches
to the choice of the number. His articles are:
1. The existence of God;
2. His unity;
3. His spirituality;
4. His eternity;
5. God alone the object of worship;
6. Revelation through his prophets;
7. the preeminence of Moses among the Prophets;
8. God's law given on Mount Sinai;
9. the immutability of the Torah as God's Law;
10. God's foreknowledge of men's actions;
11. retribution;
12. the coming of the Messiah;
13. Resurrection.
This creed Maimonides wrote while still a very young
man; it forms a part of his Mishnah Commentary, but
he never referred to it in his later works (See S/ Adler,
"Tenets of Faith and Their Authority in the Talmud,"
in his "Kobez 'al Yad," p. 92, where Yad haHazakah,
Issure Biah, xiv, 2, is referred to as proof that Maimonides
in his advanced age regarded as fundamental of the faith
only the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry).
It did not meet universal acceptance; but, as its phraseology
is succinct, it has passed into the prayerbook,
and is therefore familiar to almost all Jews of the
Orthodox school. The successors of Maimonides, from
the thirteenth to the fifteenth century-Nahmanides ,
Abba Mari ben Moses, Simon ben Zemah, Duran, Albo, Isaac
Arama, and Joseph Jaabez-reduced his thirteen articles
to three:
Belief in
- God;
- in Creation (or revelation); and in
- providence (or retribution).
Others, like Crescas and David ben Samuel Estella,
spoke of seven fundamental articles, laying stress on
freewill. On the other hand, David ben YomTob
ibn Bilia, in his "Yesodot ha Maskil"
(Fundamentals of the Thinking Man), adds to the thirteen
of Maimonides thirteen of his own-a number which a contemporary
of Albo (see "'Ikkarim," iii.) also chose
for his fundamentals; while Jedaiah Penini, in the last
chapter of his "Behinat haDat," enumerated
no less than thirtyfive cardinal principles (see
Low, "Judische Dogmen," in his "Gesammelte
Werke," i. 156 et seq.; and Schechter, "Dogmas
of Judaism," in "Studies of Judaism,"
pp. 147181).
In the fourteenth century Asher ben Jehiel of Toledo
raised his voice against the Maimonidean Articles of
Faith, declaring them to be only temporary, and suggested
that another be added to recognize that the Exile is
a punishment for the sins of Israel . Isaac Abravanel,
his "Rosh Amanah," took the same attitude
towards Maimonides' creed. While defending Maimonides
against Hasdai and Albo, he refused to accept dogmatic
articles for Judaism, holding, with all the cabalists,
that the 613 commandments of t he Law are all tantamount
to Articles of Faith.
In liturgical poetry the Articles of Faith as evolved
by philosophical speculation met with metrical presentation.
The most noted of such metrical and rimed elaborations
are the "Adon 'Olam," by an anonymous writer
now used as an introduction to the morning
services (by the Sephardim as the conclusion of the
musaf or "additional" service), and of comparatively
recent date; and the other known as the "Yigdal,"
according to Luzzatto, by R. Daniel b. Judah Dayyan.
Modern Catechisms
The modern catechisms abound in formulated Articles
of Faith. These are generally intended to be recited
by the candidates for confirmation, or to be used for
the reception of proselytes (See Dr. Einhorn's "'Olat
Tamid"). The Central Conference of America n Rabbis,
in devising a formula for the admission of proselytes,
elaborated a set of Articles of Faith. These modern
schemes have not met with general favor their
authors being in almost all cases the only ones that
have had recourse to them in practise. The points of
agreement in these recent productions consist in
- the affirmation of the unity of God;
- the election of Israel as the priest people;
- the Messianic destiny of all humanity.
The declaration of principles by the Pittsburgh Conference
(1885) is to be classed, perhaps, with the many attempts
to fix in a succinct enumeration the main principles
of the modern Jewish religious consciousness.
The Karaites are not behind the Rabbinites in the
elaboration of Articles of Faith. The oldest instances
of the existence of such articles among them are found
in the famous word by Judah ben Elijah Hadassi, "Eshkol
haKofer." In the order there given these are
the articles of the Karaite:
1. God is the Creator of all created beings;
2. He is premundane and has no peer or associate;
3. the whole universe is created;
4. God called Moses and the other Prophets of the
Biblical canon;
5. the Law of Moses alone is true;
6. to know the language of the Bible is a religious
duty;
7. the Temple at Jerusalem is the palace of the world's
ruler;
8. belief in Resurrection contemporaneous with the
advent of the Messiah;
9. final judgment;
10. retribution.
The number ten here is not accidental. It is keeping
with the scheme of the Decalogue. Judah Hadassi acknowledges
that he had predecessors in this line, and mentions
some of the works on which he bases his enumeration.
The most succinct cataloguing of the Karaite faith in
articles is that by Elijah Bashyatzi (died about 1490).
His articles vary but little from those by Hadassi,
but they are put with greater philosophical precision
(see Jost, "Geschichte des Judenthums," ii.
331).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schlesinger, German translation of 'Ikkarim (especially introduction and annotations), xvixliii.
620 et seq., 640 et seq.; Low, Gesammelte
Werke, i. 3152, 133176; Jost, Gesh.
des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten; Hamburger, Realencyclopadie,
s.v. Dogmen; Rappoport, Biography of Hananel;
Schechter, The Dogmas of Judaism, in Studies
in Judaism, pp 147181; J. Aub. Ueber die
GlaubensSymbole der Mosaischen Religion; Frankel's Zeitschrift fur die Religiosen Interessen des Judenthums,
1845, 409, 449; Creizenach, Grundlehren des Israelitischen
Glaubens, in Geiger's Wissensch. Zeitschrift
fur Jud. Theologie, i. 39 et seq., ii. 6
8, 255.
Sources: Documents
of Jewish Belief
This article, scanned in and unproofed, is from The Jewish Encyclopedia, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906�1910), under the editorship of Cyrus Adler. It is now in the public domain.
|