among the Jews 'the dove' was regarded as the emblem of the Spirit. In taking notice of
these assertions some warmth of language may be forgiven.
We make bold to maintain that no one, who has impartially examined the matter,28 could
find any real analogy between the so-called Bath-Qol, and the 'Voice from heaven' of
which record is made in the New Testament. However opinions might differ, on one
thing all were agreed: the Bath-Qol had come after the voice of prophecy and the Holy
Ghost had ceased in Israel,29 and, so to speak, had taken, their place.30 But at the Baptism
of Jesus the descent of the Holy Ghost was accompanied by the Voice from Heaven. Even
on this ground, therefore, it could not have been the Rabbinic Bath-Qol. But, further, this
'Daughter-Voice' was regarded rather as the echo of, than as the Voice of Go d itself31
(Toseph. Sanh. xi. 1). The occasions on which this 'Daughter-Voice' was supposed to
have been heard are so various and sometimes so shocking, both to common and to moral
sense, that a comparison with the Gospels is wholly out of the question. And here it also
deserves notice, that references to this Bath-Qol increase the farther we remove from the
age of Christ.32
28. Dr. Wünsche's Rabbinic notes on the Bath-Qol (Neue Beitr. pp. 22, 23) are taken
from Hamburger's Real-Encykl. (Abth. ii. pp. 92 &c.)
29. Jer. Sot. ix. 14; Yoma 9 b; Sotah 33 a; 48 b; Sanh 11 a.
30. Hamburger, indeed maintains, on the ground of Macc. 23 b, that occasionally it was
identified with the Holy Spirit. But carefully read, neither this passage, nor the other, in
which the same mistranslation, and profane misinterpretation of the words 'She has been
more righteous' (Gen. xxxviii. 26) occur (Jer. Sot. ix. 7), at all bears out this suggestion. It
is quite untenable in view of the distinct statements (Jer. Sot. ix. 14; Sot. 48 b; and Sanh.
11a), that after the cessation of the Holy Spirit the Bath-Qol took His place.
31. Comp. on the subject Pinner in his Introduction to the tractate Berakhoth.
32. In the Targum Onkelos it is not at all mentioned. In the Targum PseudoJon. it o ccurs
four times (Gen. xxxviii. 26; Numb. xxi. 6; Deut. xxviii. 15; xxxiv. 5), and four times in
the Targum on the Hagiographa (twice in Ecclesiastes, once in Lamentations, and once in
Esther). In Mechilta and Siphra it does not occur at all, and in Siphré only once, in the
absurd legend that the Bath-Qol was heard a distance of twelve times twelve miles
proclaiming the death of Moses (ed. Friedmann, p. 149 b). In the Mishnah it is only twice
mentioned (Yeb. xvi. 6, where the sound of a Bath-Qol is supposed to be sufficient
attestation of a man's death to enable his wife to marry again; and in Abhoth vi. 2, where
it is impossible to understand the language otherwise than figuratively). In the Jerusalem
Talmud the Bath-Qol is referred to twenty times, and in the Babylon Talmud sixty-nine
times. Sometimes the Bath-Qol gives sentence in favour of a popular Rabbi, sometimes it
attempts to decide controversies, or bears witness; or else it is said every day to proclaim:
Such an one's daughter is destined for such an one (Moed Kat. 18 b; Sot. 2 a; Sanh. 22 a).
Occasionally it utters curious or profane interpretations of Scripture (as in Yoma 22 b;
Sot. 10 b), or silly legends, as in regard to the insect Yattush which was to torture Titus
(Gitt. 56 b), or as warning against a place where a hatchet had fallen into the water,
descending for seven years without reaching the bottom. Indeed, so strong became the
feeling against this superstition, that the more rational Rabbis protested against any
appeal to the Bath-Qol (Baba Metsia 59 b).