shall perish' This refers to Balaam and his followers who postponed the end and were therefore destroyed. But Thou didst show goodness to the prophets of Israel because they announced that the end was near. Show mercy also unto me, for I, too, believe in the nearness of the end."59

59 210 ›S o'nbæ nap (lit. "the nearness of God is my good"), Pesik. R., pp. 173-174.

CHAPTER IX

B. POST-TALMUDIC

Some of the expressions of opposition which we have quoted undoubtedly come from a period later than the Talmudic, as late as the tenth century. From the tenth century, we have records of Karaite opposition.1

1. Japheth Halevi devotes considerable space in his commentary on Daniel to refute the Messianic calculations based on the "times" and "seasons" passages of that book. He insists throughout that the "days" mentioned are to be taken literally as days and not as years and that they refer to contemporaneous events, and he briefly reviews the numerous false calculations which had been made.

We have explained this chapter in accordance with what we have heard from the teachers of the Captivity, or read in their books, so far as those theories seemed probable. God will forgive and pardon any slips or errors in His goodness and gentleness. We shall now follow this with a statement of the views of others about these times and the end, that anyone who cares to know them may do so. The scholars who preceded Joseph ibn Bakhtawi explained the 2300, 1290 and 1335 as years; the Rabbanites, too, spoke of the end, and fancied that from the third year of Cyrus to the end would be 1335 years; the term is passed some years since, so that their opinion has been disproved, and that of their followers; similarly El-Fayyumi explained it years, and has been proved false; he had however some marvelous inven

1 It might here be noted in passing that similar opposition developed early among the Arabs, who likewise had their Messianic beliefs and calculators. "Just as in Judaism the 'calculators of the end of time,' as they are called, encountered severest reproaches, so the orthodox authorities of the moderate Shi'ites have branded the 'time determiners' (al-wakkatun) as liars, and have found in utterances of the Imams the condemnation of such speculation" (Goldziher, Mohammed and Islam, p. 243).

tions with reference to the time and times. He was answered by Salmon ben Jerucham; whom we need not in our turn answer, since his term is past and the end not arrived. Certain of the Karaites, too, made the 2300 years date from the exodus from Egypt; that term too is past years ago, and their prophecy not come true. Salmon ben Jerucham, in his Commentary on Ps. lxxiv. 9, denied that it was possible to ascertain the end; but on Ps. cii. 14 he offered a date which is passed and falsified. He agreed with many others in interpreting the 2300 and 1290 as days, but differed about the interpretation of the time of the removal of the continual which, he thought, meant the destruction of the second Temple. Benjamin Nahawendi agreed with him in the latter point, but differed from him about the days being days and not years. Benjamin took a separate view in believing that they were years. Salmon ben Jerucham referred the 1290 to the three and a half spoken of in Chap. x. 27 ("for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease").

Each of the commentators has taken a different line, and all have gone wrong in making the days years. Benjamin Nahawendi, indeed, made the 2300 date from the destruction of Shiloh, and from the time of the removal of the continual from the destruction of the Second Temple; this leaves still some 400 years; but this is a delusion.

All these theories are confuted by two facts:

(1) Their inventors profess to know the end, whereas the Scripture says that the matter is closed and sealed; any one therefore who professes to know it before the time of the end is professing what cannot be true.

(2) They make the days years. Now we know that where he speaks of weeks of years he expressly distinguishes them from weeks of days; consequently none of the three sums mentioned (2300, 1290, 1335) can be years. All must be days.2

See Jephet Ibn Ali, Commentary on Daniel, edited and translated by Margoliouth, Oxford, 1889, p. 86. See also Pinsker's Likkute Kadmoniot, p. 82.

2. Moses ibn Gikatilla (11 c.) was not an outspoken opponent of Messianic calculations, but his remarkable Scriptural exegesis was a clear denial of the right to employ Biblical texts for that purpose. Grammarian, commentator, poet, ibn Gikatilla was the most thoroughgoing and consistent representative in the Middle Ages of that critical-historical school of thought whose spokesman in Talmudic times was R. Nathan. All the prophecies of the Bible, he maintained, refer to contemporaneous events. None refers to the Roman exile. Only those prophecies which are specifically introduced by a phrase such as "And it shall come to be in the end of days" (mm 7) have any eschatological significance. Such exegesis is fatal to Messianic computation based on sacred texts. He was bitterly denounced for it. His contemporary, Ibn Balaam, accused him of deliberately employing this historical method in order to dishearten the people, whose sole hope was the Messiah. Abarbanel charged him with lack of faith.

The prophecies of Isaiah, especially the famous chapter eleven: "And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse..." refer to events in the times of the prophet Isaiah, to King Hezekiah, to Assyria, and to political conditions of that day. The verse "Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion" applies to the Babylonian captivity. Similarly the prophecies of Joel. On 3.1: "And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh," ibn Gikatilla remarks: "R. Joshua said that this entire prophecy refers to the future, but if that were so, why does he say, 'And it shall come to pass afterward,' and not 'and it shall be in the end of days'? This prophet lived in the days of Jehoshapat. He therefore mentions the valley of Jehoshapat." Also the whole

See supra, 198.

See Poznanski, Ibn Chiquitilla, Nebst den Fragmenten Seiner Schriften, p. 28; also J. Q. R., New Series, XV, No. 1, pp. 51-52, "The Arabic Commentary of Ibn Balaam on the Twelve Minor Prophets.”

'See Poznanski, op. cit., p. 99.

6 Is. 52.1.

'Poznanski, op. cit., p. 101.

of chapter 4 refers to events in the reign of that king. Obad. 1.17: "But in Mount Zion there shall be those that escape," refers to the days of King Hezekiah. "And the captivity of Jerusalem" (verse 20) refers to those who were exiled at the destruction of the first Temple." Micah 4.11: "And now many nations are assembled against thee," refers to the second Temple and to Zerubbabel.10 Zech. 9.9: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. behold, thy king cometh unto thee," refers to Nehemiah, who in the Book of Ezra is called King of Judah." This interpretation was so drastic and revolutionary that even Ibn Ezra opposed it. Ibn Balaam is vituperative in his denunciation.12 Ibn Gikatilla wrote a commentary on Daniel, of which only a few insignificant fragments have come down. He undoubtedly pursued his critical and scientific method in the interpretation of this book, too. This brilliant exegete of Spain proved to be the model and inspiration of the opponents of Messianic computation in the following centuries.

3. The fine sanity of Gikatilla is sustained by Moses ibn Ezra (c. 1070-after 1138). Belonging to the critical school of grammarians and rhetoricians, he could not tolerate the pseudo-scientific methods of the Messianic calculators, who seemed to be numerous in that century, and who employed Gematria and Notarikon in their exposition of the Bible. In his study of Hebrew prosody, Kitab al-Muhadarah wal-Mudhakarah, he writes: "R. Samuel Gaon mentioned in his commentary on the Pentateuch portion, x, that Moses hinted in the phrase so that the duration of the Jewish state would approximately equal the number of years suggested in the word 'a'n''''' (852 years). Other commentators maintain that the time of the duration of the first Temple 8 Ibid., p. 103.

• Ibid.