m

•^^plll

y:'fFF'ihe fbu-iiding ef 'if ^gipigi in. ihii'Qolon.yX'

\ » Y^LIl«>¥]MII¥ISI^S]Iir¥"

Gift of
Professor George Park Fisher
1907

NATIONAL RELIGIONS

UNIVERSAL RELIGIONS

BY

A. KUENEN, LL.D, D. D.
Professor of Theology at Leiden

[THE HIBBERT LECTURES, 1882]

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

GRANT, FAIRES 4; RODGERS,
Eleotbotypkra and Printbkb,
Pmiladblphia, P*.

PREFACE.

In offering this book to the English public, I have
to discharge a two-fold duty. In the first place, I
must thank my friend the Rev. Ph. H. Wicksteed,
M.A., for his readiness to undertake the translation
of my Lectures, and for the manner in which he
performed his task. It was originally my intention
to write the Lectures in English myself. But I was
not long in perceiving that the execution of this plan
would take more time than I could well spare, and
that, after all, the product of my exertions would be
unworthy to occupy its place in the Series for which
it was destined. Under these circumstances, I con
sidered it from the first as a great privilege that my
friend Wicksteed was willing to come to my aid ;
but only when the work was going on and when we
were constantly discussing it together, I became fully
aware how much reason I had to congratulate myself

VI PREFACE.
upon the possession of such an interpreter. I must
be allowed to offer him my sincere thanks, and also
to extend them to the Hibbert Trustees for approving
his co-operation and kindly furthering it.
Looking back from my quiet study at Leiden on
the days — over-filled, but extremely interesting and
pleasant — which I passed in England for the delivery
of my Lectures, I must necessarily add another to
this first tribute of gratitude. It is due to those
whose friendly reception made me feel quite at home
in the foreign country, both in London and at Ox
ford, more especially to the Hibbert Trustees and to
the members of the Oxford Local Committee. Their
kindness will be for ever stored up in my grateful
memory..
A. KUENEN.

Leiden, May 13//^, 1882.

CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.
INTRODUCTION. ISLAM. PAGE
National religions and universal religions  I
Division of religions into these two groups  3
Is Islam a universal religion ?  5
The connection of the universal with the national religions the
explanation and measure of their universalisra  7
Islam: Sources of our knowledge of Islam  10
Representations of the Qor^n as to the relation of Islam to " the
religion of Abraham''  II
Criticism of these representations  I J
Mohammed's precursors; the hanjffs  20
The real origin of Islam : Mohammed's personality  23
The influence of Judaism . .  27
Apparent in the representation of the Qor^n as the book of Allah 28
And in the destination of Islam for all peoples  30
Want of correspondence to this destination in the intrinsic character
of Islam  33
Spread of Islam as a proof of its universalism  36
Evidence of history on this point  39
u. Relation of Islam to the previous faith of its confessors . . 40
b. Adoration of Mohammed and the saints  44
c. ^ufism  49
d. Moslem theology : the Mo'tazilites  50
e. Wahh4bism  ... 54
Conclusions as to Islam  5^
vii

viii CONTENTS.

LECTURE II.
THE POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL. PRIESTS AND PROPHETS OF
YAHWEH. PAGE
Christianity and the religious development of Israel  59
Was Yahwism the national religion of Israel ?  6 1
Yahwism not a foreign importation  62
The popular worship of Yahweh in Israel  65
Further proofs of the recognition of Yahweh as the god of Israel 70
Why this relation between Israel and Yahweh is disguised or
ignored by the historical books of the Old Testament ... 74
The priests of Yahweh : their character and origin  82
Account of their functions : worship  86
Consultation of Yahweh by means of the priests  87
Their judicial function  88
Its great significance admitted by Hosea and Malachi ... 93
Yahweh' s ethical character implied therein ... . . . 96
The prophets of Yahweh ; definition of the point at issue . . 97
The prophets generally recognized as organs of Yahweh . . . loi
Their relation to the priests of Yahweh  103
Their activity in the spirit and after the heart of the people . . 105
Pre-eminent members of the prophetic order : their zeal for right
and righteousness  107
The origin of written prophecies  1 10
The fundamental thought of the preaching of the canonical
prophets  113
They, too, represent the national religion of Israel  117

CONTENTS. ix

LECTURE. III.
UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS. ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM. PAGE
The conflict of the prophets with their people to be explained by
by the strongly ethical character of their preaching .... 119
Recognition of Yahweh's ethical character and its consequences . 122
Prophetic monotheism a result of their conception  126
The popular religion and the prophetic Yahwism, as influenced
by the events of the eighth century B. C  128
Ethical monotheism  133
Anticipations of the prophets concerning the future of Yahwism . 134
Universalism of the second Isaiah  137
His utterances concerning Cyrus considered in connection with
this universalism .'  141
The prophetic Yahwism and the Israelitish nationality  147
Their mutual relation in Amos  148
" " " in Isaiah   151
" " " in Jeremiah ...  153
" " " in the second Isaiah  156
Establishment of yudaism. Prophetic Yahwism not at once
taken up into the national consciousness  158
Enforcement of Deuteronomic thorah  159
Did not effect its purpose, and why  . 1 63
Priestly legislation enforced by Ezra and Nehemiah  167
Judaism becomes a national religion  167
Its relation to the prophetic preaching: the conception of God . 169
Moral acceptation of Yahweh-worship  1 70
Holiness the demand of Yahweh  171
Public worship, ordained and regulated by Yahweh  173
The Jewish people identified with its religion .... ... 175
Prophetic universalism does not appear to pass over into Judaism 177

X CONTENTS.
LECTURE IV.
JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY. PAGE
Religion amongst the Jews an independent power  l8o
The Jews in the dispersion  182
The prophetic expectations live on in Judaism  1 85
The framework of the priestly law universalistic  189
Antinomy between strict monotheism and the limitation of the
true religion to one people  191
Universalistic regulations concerning the "gerim;" their origin 194
Mode of development of Christianity out of existing universalistic
germs remains to be indicated  1 99
Relation of this inquiry to Jesus and to the recognition of the
significance of his personality  200
The assertion that Christianity did not spring out of Judaism
rejected   203
Its origin to be sought in Palestinian, not in Hellenistic Judaism 205
Universalism of Christianity not the creation of Paul  208
The derivation of Christianity from Essenism considered and
rejected  211
Significance of Essenism for tlie appreciation of Judaism . . . . 219
The Pharisees  221
Internal contradictions of Scribism  225
Its powerlessness to realize its ideal  229
Satisfaction for the religious needs sought and sometimes found by
side paths  232
The Messianic expectation : its manifestation in zelotism, its effect
on the inner life  .... 236
Proselytism : its extent and the restrictions it had to remove . . . 241
Retrospect and conclusion  ,  244

CONTENTS. xi
LECTURE V.
BUDDHISM. RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION. PAGE
Christianity independent of Buddhism in its origin  247
Indication of the point of view from which Buddhism is here
regarded and of the limits to he observed  252
Opposition between Brahmanism and Buddhism  254
This opposition fictitious : Buddhism does not abrogate the castes 256
The Buddhistic metaphysic borrowed from Brahmanism .... 263
And so, too, the regulations of the Buddhistic order of monks . . 264
Alleged dependence of the Buddhists on the Jainas . . . 269
Close relationship between Brahmanism and Buddhism now gen
erally acknowledged, and abundantly confirmed by the Jatakas 272
How Buddhism really rose : state of the question concerning the
person of the Founder  275
Results, as affecting the prosecution of the inquiry  281
Buddhism originally an order of monks  282
Passes into a church : how is the transition to be explained ? . . . 286
Analogy of Christian mendicant orders  289
The Founder's personality an indispensable factor  2gi
Pre-Buddhistic asceticism in India and the modification introduced
bythe Buddha   295
The Buddha-legend and its moral influence  297
The origin of Buddhism is also the explanation of its character 298
Buddhism and Christianity : points of resemblance  304
The difference in principle between the two religions considered
in connection with their origin  306
Setrosfect and conclusion. The three religions of the 'world
compared in respect of their universalism ... . . 311
The mutability of Christianity its commendation ... • • 313
The future of Christianity  316

xii CONTENTS.

NOTES.
PAGE
I. " The Rolls of Abraham and Moses " and " the Fables
of the Ancients"  318
II. The Hanyfs  323
III. Did Mohammed place the Hajj amongst the Duties of
the Moslem?  326
IV. The Pronunciation of the Divine Name " Yahweh " . . 329
V. Interpretation of Hosea ix. 3 — 5  333
VI. The Egyptian Origin of Levi  335
VII. The Antiquity of Israelitish Monotheism  339
VIII. Inferences from the Inscription of Cyrus  343
IX. Ezra and the Establishment of Judaism  346
X. Explanation of Leviticus xxii. 25  351
XI. Bruno Bauer and Ernest Havet  354
XII. Explanation of Matthew xxiii. 15  358
XIII. The Buddha-Legend and the Gospels  359
XIV. The Founder of Jainism in the Buddha- Legend .... 363

NATIONAL RELIGIONS

AND

UNIVERSAL RELIGIONS.

I.
INTRODUCTION.— ISLAM.

One of the most striking features of the Hibbert
Lectures is their international character; and none
of my hearers will wonder that this is the special
point which forces itself upon my attention at the
present moment; for to this I owe the honour of now
addressing you — an honour of which I am deeply
sensible, and for which I cannot refrain from offering
my sincerest acknowledgments, at the outset, to the
Hibbert Trustees. A concomitant result, however, is
that you are now addressed by one who is but imper
fectly acquainted with your language, one whose utter
ance will declare only too plainly that he is a foreigner,
and that in his youth he never had the privilege that
was to fall to him in later years of observing and
receiving from the lips of Englishmen the mysteries
of English pronunciation. Why should I deny that
this difficulty has more than once presented itself to
my mind in alarming colours during the preparations

2 INTR OD VCTION.
for my task, and that it has lost none of its terrors
now ? But it is useless to expatiate on all this. The
die is cast. The difficulty I must now encounter is
one which most of you have doubtless experienced
yourselves, and, mindful of this experience, you will
extend your indulgent kindness to him who now
addresses you. With no lack of confidence, therefore,
I throw myself upon your mercy; and be assured
that in extending it to me, so far from stimulating
any pride on my part, you will but increase my sense
of the obligation under which you have laid me.
The transition is easy from the Hibbert Lectures to
their subject-matter, and so likewise from the diffi
culties of the present Hibbert Lecturer to the material
which he has selected for treatment. For if there is
no universal language, there certainly are universal
religions ; and it surely needs no proof that they are
at least as worthy of our full attention as the national
religions are. Apart from the personal concern that
we have in one of these universal religions, the mere
fact of their having overstepped the boundaries of
nationality is itself a remarkable phenomenon, and
presents a highly interesting problem. Why these
forms of religion and no others ? Are they of a spe
cial and peculiar nature, that they have spread their
wings so much wider than all others? And yet are
they not most closely connected with the national

CLASSIFICATION OF RELIGIONS. 3
religions ? Have they not their roots in them ? Any
attempt, however incomplete and defective, to throw
light on these questions, may borrow from the im
portance of the subject a claim to a favourable recep
tion and a candid judgment. It is this belief that
encourages me to lay before you, in this and in the
following Lectures, a few thoughts on national religion
and universal religion.
You will readily understand, however, that this is
a general heading, and not an exact description of a
subject that can be dealt with in a few short hours;
for the wealth of material would overwhelm us hope
lessly unless we chose some single point of view and
resisted all temptations to desert it. To justify the
selection I have made, I must ask permission to delay
you for a few moments in the ante-chamber of the
science of religion.
In every branch of human science the phenomena
are grouped in classes. In a certain sense this group
ing is the beginning of the work, for it furnishes the
indispensable clue to the study. And yet, on the
other hand, a correct classification may be regarded
as the final outcome of research, for it is built upon
all that observation has taught us concerning the
objects studied, their characteristics and their mutual
relations. Regarded thus, as epitomizing the results

4 INTRODUCTION.
of study, it has great and unmistakable importance.
Although, in the age of Darwin, we can recognize no
impassable barriers between the several species and
genera, though the transitions are everywhere gradual,
nowhere abrupt, we nevertheless seek orderly arrange
ment, and cannot rest till we find it. As the chronicle
must yield to history, so must the bare enumeration
of phenomena yield to classification.
If this is true in general, it is true likewise in its
special application to one of the youngest in the rank
of sciences — the science of religion. Classification as
an instrument is indispensable here if anywhere; for
the field is almost too wide for survey, and the diver
sity of the phenomena may well bewilder the student
at the outset. And as the final outcome of its histo
rical and psychological investigations likewise, this
science attaches the utmost importance to the just
grouping and arrangement of the phenomena studied.
It may indeed be called the bridge that joins the de
scriptive to the philosophical portions of the science
of religion. And accordingly we see that the pioneers
in this field have bestowed great pains on classification.
It is not my intention, however, to expound or
criticise the attempts that have already been made in
this direction. Unanimity has not been reached, and
no one had any right to expect it as yet. The impor
tant and in some respects fascinating task of con-

NATIONAL AND UNIVERSAL RELIGIONS. 5
ducting you through the wide domain of the science
and, after due historical preparation, marshalling its
phenomena in fitting ranks, is reserved for one of my
successors in this chair. I now confine myself to a
single point. The universal religions are, with fair
unanimity, placed in one group, and opposed to the
national religions. Nothing is ,more natural. The
difference on which this division rests is sufficiently
striking, and seems, moreover, to have its roots in the
nature of the religions themselves. It is obvious that
we cannot rest content with this one division. The
national religions differ too widely from each other to
be included in a single group. Take, for instance, the
contrast between those forms of religion which seem
as it were spontaneously to rise, to grow and to disap
pear with particular peoples, and those others, known
as personal or historical religions, which have their
special founders or at least their sacred literatures.
Yet, important as this distinction may be, a national
religion is in every case confined to a single people
or to a group of nearly related peoples, whereas
the universal religions seem to know no such limi
tations. There is a general agreement, then, as to these two
groups, but it is qualified by a divergency for which
we should hardly have been prepared. It concerns
the question : Which are the universal religions ?

6 INTRODUCTION.
Some will only admit Buddhism and Christianity to
the title,* while others add Islam as a third.^
How is any difference of opinion on such a matter
possible ?
It can hardly be a mere question of millions ! It is
true that Islam has fewer professors than the others ;
according to one of the latest estimates,^ a hundred
and seventy-five millions against Christendom's four
hundred and Buddhism's four hundred and fifty mil
lions. But who would exclude Islam on that ground ?
We need not even reflect on the uncertainty of these
numbers, especially in the case of Buddhism, or re
mind ourselves that Islam is still advancing, and
spreads more rapidly than either Buddhism or Christ
ianity ; for how could a scientific classification be
based in any case on simple numbers ?
The ground of the difference of opinion lies deeper.
The term " universal religion " is used in two senses :
to signify either a fact or a quality. The fact is the
spread of religion in question, beyond the limits of a
single people, over many and diverse nations. Now in
this sense Islam is, beyond all question, a universal or
1 E. g. O. Pfleiderer, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Gnind-
lage, S. 72S ff-
2 E. g. C. P. Tiele, Outlines of the History of Religion, to the Spread
of the Universal Religions, pp. ix and 91 ff.
' W. Scawen Blunt, in the Fortnightly Review, 1881, II. p. 208.

TWO MEANINGS OF UNIVERSALISM. J
— if you prefer the more modest designation which
keeps closer to the truth — an international religion.
Semites, Arians, Tartars, Malays and Negroes, bow
down before Allah and recognize Mohammed as his
apostle. Islam " still has its grip" — as one of its most
talented defenders expresses it* — " on two continents,
and a foothold, even if a precarious foothold, in a
third. It extends from Morocco to the Malay penin
sula, from Zanzibar to the Kirghis horde  "
But enough. As long as we rely on the outward
test of fact, Islam's right to take rank with the two
other universal religions cannot be so much as ques
tioned. And yet, as already said, that right has not only
been questioned but sometimes denied. It is urged —
and who shall gainsay it ? — that we cannot determine
the character of this or of any other religion, or fix
the place that should be assigned to it, simply by the
success that it has met with in the world. The causes
of the conquests of Islam unquestionably demand in
vestigation ; but it by no means follows that they lie
in Islam itself and in its natural fitness for peoples
and tribes that differ widely from each other, — in a
word, in its universalistic nature. It is quite conceiv
able that it may have spread, not because of, but
1 R. Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Second
Edition, p. 27.

8 INTRODUCTION.
in spite of, its peculiar character; that the absence
or the weakness of the genuinely universal eleirients
in it was counterbalanced or compensated by all
manner of circumstances which cannot be taken into
account in its ultimate characterization. I speak, as
you will observe, hypothetically. We must not anti
cipate the results of our further investigation ; but in
principle it seems impossible to deny the right of ap
plying this second test. In the study of nature we
may rest content with establishing the phenomena
and determining their connection ; but in the case of
man and the products of his self-conscious activity,
we must go on to estimate — with impartial caution
indeed, but with freedom likewise. Nowhere is this
more true than in the study of religions and their
history. He who banishes the thought of " higher "
and " lower " from this study, degrades it into a mere
means of gratifying curiosity, and disqualifies it for
the lofty task which it is called on to perform for our
modern society.
We shall have occasion to return to this hereafter.
Let me now remark that the " genuine universalism "
of which I have just been speaking, is not external
and accidental to the religions in which we observe it
but is very closely connected with their origin and
the nature of their connection with those national
religions out of which, or on the soil of which, they

PLAN OF LECTURES. 9
have been developed. This proposition will not
seem strange. That which is destined to penetrate
and inspire every nationality must not have been
evolved in the study. It must have been tested and
matured in the life of a people. But again: that
which is to combine with every nationality, satisfying
the special needs of each, must not be inseparably
bound to any one nation. " Born of the nation and
rising above it " — must not this be the formula of that
which is destined for all nations ? But I am myself
the first to admit that such considerations as these
are in no way conclusive. The true appeal lies to
history ; and to history, therefore, we will submit the
question. The answer, as it seems to me, is clear
enough ; and with a view to it I may now describe
the narrower limits of the subject I have already in
dicated in general terms. We are to examine. The
connection between the universal and the national re
ligions CIS furnishing the explanation and the measure
of their universalism.
' One more word of introduction. The complete
treatment of my subject would require far more time
than we have at our disposal and would quite exceed
my powers. Every student of religious history is
compelled by the nature of his studies sometimes to
venture upon ground that he dare not exactly call his
own ; but naturally he makes such excursions as sel-

I o ISLAM.
dom as possible, and in any case hastens to return to
his own household gods. You will, I am sure, per
mit me to observe this rule, with which, moreover, my
personal inclinations are in harmony. The connec
tion between Christianity and Israelitism will accord
ingly be my main subject, and will be set forth at
length, while Buddhism and Islam will detain us only
for a much shorter time, and we shall chiefly note
those points from which, by resemblance or contrast,
we may hope for some illustration of the origin of
Christianity. I shall by this means also escape the
danger of repeating what has already been said so
admirably from this chair on Buddhism,* or of antici
pating the future treatment of Mohammed and his
religion. The order. I shall follow is that of reversed chron
ology. We shall thus be enabled to begin with Islam,
concerning the origin of which we are best informed,
and our treatment of which may be linked on to the
remarks already made on the difference of opinion as
to the place that should be assigned to it.

How often has the wish been expressed that re-
1 Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by
Bome Points in the History of Indian Buddhism. By T. W. Rhys-Da
vids. (The Hibbert Lectures, iBBi.)

OBJECT OF INQUIRY. I i
cords of the rise of Buddhism and Christianity could
have been preserved as certain and as accurate as
those that relate to Mohammed and the origin of
Islam ! Renan's reference to that " strange spectacle
of a religion coming into being in the clear light of
day,"* is in every mouth. And we have in truth
reason to be thankful. The authenticity of the Qoran,
with a few trifling exceptions, is above suspicion.
•And by the side of Mohammed's preaching, pre
served in the Qoran, we have the traditions about
his person which have been handed down authenti
cated by the testimony on which they rest, and
which go back to his own immediate surroundings.
The biography of the prophet is later, but still it is
relatively ancient, it rests upon materials yet older
than itself, and, above all, it can be tested by the au
thentic documents. What more, in reason, can we
require ?
But, alas 1 the thirst for certain knowledge is not
easily quenched. We know much, but we would fain
know more. And the fact is, that our information is
most defective just at the very points where it would be
most valuable. The tradition is coloured throughout
by the dogmatic convictions of the first believers, and
is often open to the gravest suspicion. And the
Qoran ? Sprenger has called it " a book with seven
• Etudes d'Histoire Religieuse, p. 230.

1 2 ISLAM.
seals." * As showing what Islam is, it may leave no
thing to be desired in point of clearness, and may even
suffer from over fulness ; but as soon as we try to
follow Mohammed in his development, the confused
mass of revelations constantly fails us. This or that
saying would give us the light we want, did we but
know where to place it. Behind this or that passage
an important fact obviously lies concealed, but who
shall unveil it for us ?
Our present task is to define the relation of Mo
hammed's preaching to the religion of the Arabs.
Can we accomplish it with adequate certainty ? Mo
hammed preached the one Allah, and in so doing
combated the polytheism of the great majority of his
people. So far, of course, all is clear. But no sooner
do we pass beyond this generality than we are as
sailed by doubt, and find a wide diversity of opinion
even amongst the historians of Mohammed.
Let us first listen to the prophet himself. More
than once he declares that his object is simply to re
store " the religion of Abraham," the father of Ish-
mael, and therefore the ancestor of the Arabs. " Be
lievers ! bow down and prostrate yourselves and wor
ship your Lord, and work righteousness, that ye may
fare well ; and do valiantly in the cause of Allah as it
behoveth you to do for Him. He hath elected you,
1 Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed, Band I. S. xv.

THE PRAYER OF ABRAHAM. 13
and hath not laid on you any hardship in religion,
(nothing but) the religion of your father Abraham.
He hath named you the Moslems, heretofore and
now, that the apostle (of Allah) may be a witness
against you, and that ye may be witnesses against
the rest of mankind." * Abraham, with Ishmael's as
sistance, had built the house of Allah, the Ka'ba, and
had prayed to his Lord, even then, for such a prophet
as afterwards appeared in Mohammed : " O our Lord !
accept (this temple) from us, for thou art he who
heareth and knoweth. O our Lord ! make us Mos
lems (resigned) to thee, and our posterity a Moslem
people ; and teach us our holy rites, and turn to us,
for thou art he that turneth, the merciful. O our
Lord ! raise up among them an apostle from their
midst, who may rehearse thy signs unto them, and
teach them in the book and wisdom, and purify them :
of a truth thou art the mighty, the wise !" ^ Thus
Mohammed appears as the vindicator of an age-old
tradition. Arabia had strayed away from it; Jews
and Christians had failed to keep it pure ; Allah had
sent him, Mohammed, to restore it to its original pur
ity and to make all men Moslems even as Abraham
was. ' Sura xxii. 76 — 78 ; of. ii. 124, 129 ; iii. 89 ; iv. 124 ; vi. 162 ; xiv. 40,
41 ; xvi. 124.
* Sura ii., 121-123.

14

ISLAM.

Without accepting this theory in its entirety, as set
forth in the Qoran, scholars are generally disposed to
allow a considerable degree of truth to it. The recog
nition of Allah taala, the one supremely exalted God,
is supposed to lie at the basis of Arabian polytheism.
In all that Mohammed says of Abraham, the friend of
Allah,* the father of the Arabs, and the founder of the
sanctuaiy of the Qoraishites, he reproduces (according
to this theory) the beliefs of his contemporaries, amongst
whom were some who had rejected the idolatry of the
great mass of their countrymen even before Mohammed.
Dissatisfied with Judaism and Christianity and seeking
some better religion, these men are represented as
having found what they sought in "the milla of Ibra
him." There is a well-known story, told by Moham
med's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, that in the days
of ignorance four of the Qoraishites had withdrawn
from participation in a feast in honor of the idols and
agreed together that they would set off in search of
the true faith. One of them, Waraqa, thought he had
found it in Christianity ; another, Zaid ibn Amr, re
cognized and preached, eveh before Mohammed, the
religion of Abraham.^ This story is admitted to have
rather too romantic an air to pass for pure history ;
but it is true enough, we are told, that before the pro-
' Sura iv. 124.
2 Ibn Ishdk ed. Wiistenfeld, p. 143 ; Sprenger, 1. i;. Band I. 81 ff.

THE MILLA OF IBRAHIM AND THE HANYFS. I 5
phet came forward there were already Hanyfs, a word
which the Qoran loves to employ with reference to
Abraham, and which, accordingly, Mohammed also
applies to himself.* His religion, if this be true, was
the natural product of Arab culture at the stage which
it had now reached. It was the secret thought and
wish of the best of his contemporaries to which he
succeeded in giving expression. The immoral prac
tices which he sternly forbad in the name of Allah —
drunkenness, the ill-treatment of women, the slaughter
of female children — had, accordingly, been combated
by others already. Islam, then, was a moral as well
as a religious reformation, and under either aspect
alike it reveals its connection with the national life of
the Arabs.^
Now, can this view be adopted ? Its intrinsic proba
bility might be matter for discussion ; but there is one
fact which imperatively forbids us to accept it as true.
If the conception of Abraham, the monotheist, the
father of Ishmael and the founder of the Ka'ba, had
really been familiar to the Arabs at the beginning of
the seventh century after Christ, then Mohammed
would necessarily have proclaimed it from the first, or
at any rate would not have contradicted it. But what
are the facts ? We can show from the Qoran itself
1 Sura iii. 89; iv. 124; vi. 162; vii. 79, &c. ; cf. infra, p. 19.
2 Bosworth Smith, 1. c. p. 109 ; cf. 3 sqq.

1 6 ISLAM.
that the prophet's ideas about Abraham underwent a
remarkable change in the course of years, and that his
theory of "the milla of Ibrahim" is of very late origin.
Permit me to lay a few texts, which demonstrate this,
before you. Observe, in the first place, that Ishmael,
as the eldest son of Abraham, is an essential element
in the traditional conception. Now, the name of Ish
mael certainly occurs in the earlier Suras. But Mo
hammed does not know, at first, that he is a son of
Abraham. He mentions him after Moses, and before
Idris (i. e. Enoch) as " a prophet, true to hfs promise,
who enjoined prayer and almsgiving on his people,
and was well-pleasing to his Lord." * Elsewhere he is
mentioned with Job, Idris and Dhu'1-Kefl — an un
known worthy — as a model of patience and persever
ance.^ In another place, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
are all named together, while Ishmael only comes after
wards and in conjunction with Elisha and Dhu'1-Kefl
again.' It is still more significant that, in another pas
sage, Isaac and Jacob are given as sons to Abraham,
and are followed by a whole string of prophets, amongst
whom Ishmael appears in the company of Elisha and
Jonah.^ Now if, after all this, we find Ishmael else
where mentioned as Isaac's elder brother,' we can only
1 Sura xix. 55, 56. » Sura xxi. 83.
' Sura xxxviii. 45, 48. * Sura vi. 84, 86.
5 Sura ii. 127 ; xiv. 40, 41.

ISHMAEL IN THE EARLIER SURAS.

17

suppose that this represents a later conception in Mo
hammed's mind.
The inferences which these texts would in them
selves justify find confirmation elsewhere, for the pro
phet is not consistent with himself in regard to Abra
ham either. It is a question whether, at first, he even
knew that Isaac was his son ; * and when he had found
this out, it is certain that for some time he regarded
Jacob as Isaac's brother.^ Abraham already occupied
a high place in his estimation. More than once he
mentions "the book-rolls of Abraham and Moses,"
or "of Moses and Abraham ; " ^ but what he meant by
the expression is not clear. Sprenger's conjectures on
the subject are extremely hazardous, and in some re
spects are certainly false.* Probably we should dimply
infer that Mohammed had heard something of Abra
ham's preaching to his kinsfolk, and of the law of
Moses, and that he conceived the former, after the
analogy of the latter, as set down in writing. So
much is certain, that he saw in Abraham a faithful
servant of Allah, who bore witness to his faith in op
position to his relatives and in spite of the danger to
1 Sura Ii. 24 sqq.; xv. %z. sqq.; cf. xxxvii. 11 sqq. See C. Snouck
Hurgronje, Het Mekkaansche feest. bl. 31. This author's investigations
form the basis of my own.
' Sura vi. 74*qq. ; xi. 72 sqq. ; xix. 42 sqq. ; xxi. 52 sqq. ; xxix. 15 sqq.
^ Sura Ixxxvii. 19, liii. 37.
* See Note I. at the end of the volume.

1 8 ISLAM.
which it exposed him, and who received glorious prom
ises in reward.* But however warmly Mohammed
may speak of Abraham, he has, as yet, no notion of
assigning a special place to him, or bringing him into
a wholly exceptional relation either to the Arabs or
to himself, the preacher. Abraham is one of the many
prophets, one of the most eminent, it is true, but
nothing more. So far is he, as yet, from passing as
the founder of that Islam which Mohammed proclaims,
that on one occasion he is placed among the disciples
of Noah.^ So far is Mohammed, as yet, from regard
ing him as the preacher of monotheism to his Ara
bian posterity, that he more than once declares him
self to be the first messenger of Allah to the Arabs.'
Nay, his assurance, " We have given them no books
in which to study deeply, nor have we sent any one to
them before thee, charged with warnings," is preceded
by the words : " When our distinct signs (i. e. the
verses of the Qoran) are recited to them, they say,
' He (Mohammed) is merely a man, who would fain
pervert you from your fathers' religion.' " * " Your
fathers' religion ! " — ^but was not Mohammed come for
the very purpose of restoring what Abraham and Ish-
' See the passages already cited.
^ Sura xxxvii. 8l ; " of his (Nuh's) shi'a was Ibrahim."
* Suraxxxii. 2; xxxiv. 43 ; xxxvi. 5. Cf. Snouck Hurgronje, 1. c.bl. 33.
* Sura xxxiv. 42, 43 ; cf. ii. 165.

ABRAHAM IN THE EARLIER SURAS.

19

mael had established ? Unquestionably this is what
he himself afterwards declared ; but those whom he
introduces as speaking in this passage have not the
least suspicion, as yet, of anything of the kind. And
this is equivalent to saying that he himself had not
yet thought of it.*
Whence, then, " the milla of Ibrahim "? We have
only to read with care the texts in which it is men
tioned, and we shall find the answer to our question.
It is well known that Mohammed kept the Christians,
and still more the numerous Jews who were settled in
his fatherland, steadily in view. For a long time he
hoped that both, but especially the Jews, would
recognize him. In this expectation he found himself
at last disappointed; but even then he could not com
pletely sever himself from them. He could not and
would not deny that Allah had revealed himself to
them too by Moses and other prophets. Thus he felt
the need of a formula which would express what was
common to himself and them on the one hand, and
what severed him from them on the other. This for
mula he found " the milla of Ibrahim," the great man
of God who was reverenced by his opponents as well
as himself, but who was not one of them, being rather.

' Observe also the absolute contradiction between Mohammed's religion
and that of the " unbelievers" in Sura cix.

20 ISLAM.
as Mohammed constantly reminds us,* " neither Jew
nor Christian." As a preacher of this " milla," Mo
hammed could still recognize the divine origin of the
sacred books of Jew and Christian, though he secured
the right of rejecting whatever he disapproved of in
them, or, as he prefers to put it, in the Jewish or
Christian reading and interpretation of them.^ The
formula, then, answers so completely to the needs of
the time and its polemical exigencies, that we have no
hesitation in deriving it from them, and have not the
least occasion to look for its origin either in the actual
history or in the Arabic conceptions of it. The fact
that it is only in the later Suras that Ishmael appears
as the ancestor of the Arabs and the joint founder of
the Ka'ba can only confirm us in our judgment.
The opinion, then, that Mohammed came to re
awaken and to restore what already existed amongst
his people, if only as a faint reminiscence of a distant
past, finds no support in the Qoran, when read in the
light of criticism. But it is another question whether
— independently of him and indeed before him — a
band of devout Arabs had been formed whose ideas
he adopted, and, throwing the weight of his prophetic
' Sura ii. 134 ; iii. 60, and elsewhere.
2 Compare W. Muir, The Coran, its Composition and Teaching, and
the Testimony it bears to the Holy Scriptures, pp. 229 sqq., with the
texts there cited.

THE HANYFS. 21
authority into the scale, succeeded in bringing home to
his contemporaries. But who in the world were these
" hanyfs " so often regarded as his teachers and prede
cessors ? I dare not undertake to solve this riddle ; but
I do not shrink from saying that the answer most in
favour at present is difficult, nay impossible, to reconcile
with the use of the word "hanyf" in the Qoran. There
Abraham is called a " hanyf," * and — as we should
expect after that — Mohammed also. Allah says to him :
"Set thou thy face then, as a hanyf, towards the reli
gion which Allah has made, and for which he has made
mankind.'"' A sectarian name, as hanyf is commonly
supposed to be, might conceivably have been adopted
by the prophet himself, but that he should have applied
it to Abraham is very hard to believe. The improba
bility becomes still greater if " hanyf" is rightly sup
posed to have been a name originally given in reproach,
meaning " apostate " or " impious," and afterwards,
like so many others, adopted as a title of honour by
those against whom it was hurled. In this case how
could Mohammed, when speaking of Abraham, de
scribe him more closely and as it were commend him
to his hearers, by declaring : " Verily he was a leader,
obedient to Allah, a hanyf, not one of those who deny
' Sura ii. 129 ; iii. 60, 89 ; iv. 124 ; vi. 79, 162 ; xvi. 121, 124.
2 Sura XXX, 29; cf. a. 105.

2 2 ISLAM.
God's unity "?* Elsewhere too he describes the true
religion as " the milla of Ibrahim, the hanyf, for he
was not of them who deny God's unity."^ Here at
any rate no trace remains of the unfavourable signifi
cation the word is supposed originally to have had.
For my own part, I cannot escape the suspicion that
when we refer to the hanyfs of tradition in expla
nation of texts in the Qoran, we are guilty of a
uarspov nporepov and that in reality the name assigned
in the tradition to Mohammed's supposed predeces
sors is simply borrowed from the Qoran. They are
called " hanyfs " because Abraham is so called in the
Qoran, and because it is " the milla of Ibrahim "
that they are represented as seeking, or even, like
Zaid ibn Amr, as actually finding and openly pro
fessing. When once Mohammed had identified his
religion with the faith of the patriarch, was it not
a historical necessity that pre-Mohammedans should
conform in Moslem tradition to the type of Abraham ?
This explains the name they bear. We are certainly
not justified in relegating these predecessors to the
region of myth, or even in denying their influence on
Mohammed's development. But whenever the records
concerning them reflect the convictions of those to
whom we owe them, we must set them aside as unhis-
' Sura xvi. 121 ; cf. 124.
^ Sura vi. 162.

ISLAM IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT MOHAMMED. 23
torical.* What remains after this is certainly insuffi
cient to make us regard Islam as the result of a na
tional, though not universal, longing for something
higher and better in the matter of religion. If such a
need was felt at all, it was in a very small circle and tn
a very small degree. In one word remove Moham
med, and neither Islam, nor anything like it, comes
into existence.
Perhaps this conclusion strikes some of my hearers
as rather strange. Is not so high an estimate of Mo
hammed's personal contribution to the production of
Islam inconsistent with the want of originality that we
are accustomed, not unfairly, to ascribe to him ? And
yet you will readily grant that there is no necessary
contradiction here. As for Mohammed, we can resolve
him into his factors, so to speak, and thus explain him ;
but we cannot explain Islam without him. If I might
for a moment separate those elements which in reality
never appear except in combination, I should say:
Islam is in a high degree, and far more than most
other religions, the product not of the time or of the
people, but of the personality of its founder. But for
all that, the founder was not a creative genius, or at
least was so in a much less degree than others who were
yet supported and driven on by their surroundings far
more than he. Permit me to work out this thought in
1 Cf. Note II.

24

ISLAM.

greater detail. But do not expect more than a rapid
sketch, simply intended to place the well-known facts
in what appears to me to be their true light.
Let us begin by laying down what must furnish the
point of departure in every attempt at an explanation :
Mohammed's nature was truly religious. To deny, or
even occasionally to forget, that the deity was to him
the supreme reality, under the power of which and
in communion with which he was conscious of stand
ing, — this appears to me the grossest injustice. No
researches as to his physical constitution or his human
teachers must tempt us to lose sight of this fact. It
beams forth from his life-history, especially in the years
before the flight. On more than one right royal pas
sage of the Qoran it stands visibly impressed. He
who — to take one instance out of many — could thus
describe the faithful and put these words into their
mouths, was in truth a genuine child of religion him
self. " To Allah belongs the dominion over the heaven
and the earth, and Allah hath power over all things.
Verily, in the creation of heaven and earth, and in the
succession of night and day, are signs to them who
have a heart; who standing, sitting, and reclining, bear
God in mind, and muse on the creation of heaven and
earth (and say), ' O our Lord ! thou hast not created
this in vain. — Thine be the glory! Keep us from the
torment of the Fire ! O our Lord I thou shalt surely

MOHAMMED'S RELIGIOUS NATURE.

25

put them to shame whom thou dost cast into the Fire,
and the wrong-doers have none to help them. O our
Lord! we have heard the voice of one calling, who
called us to the faith, ¦' Believe ye on your Lord !' and
we have believed. O our Lord I forgive us then our
sins, and hide our transgressions for us and let us die
with the righteous ! O our Lord ! give us then what
thou hast promised us by thine apostles, and put us
not to shame on the day of the resurrection ! Verily
thou wilt not fail in thy promise !' "*
There were other religious natures in Arabia in the
last years of the sixth century, but amongst them all
there was but the one Mohammed who rose up as a
preacher and reformer of religion. What was it that
stirred him to the task ? ' If we are to accept the tes
timony of the Qoran, the answer is not doubtful. It
was the grief and indignation aroused by the religious
condition of his contemporaries, their polytheism, their
superstition, their often sceptical and irreverent atti
tude towards the higher powers which they professed
to recognize. Others might be religious without break
ing with these forms of their times, inspiring them by
their own devoutness or letting them pass for just
what they were ; but to him they were a thorn in the
flesh, a blasphemy against God that roused his whole
soul to protest. The rise of this feeling is the mystery
' Sura iii. 186 — 192.

26 ISLAM.
of his individuality, and as such cannot be wholly
unveiled. But how it may have sprung up and been
stimulated can be pointed out readily enough. Even
before any impulse came from without, dissatisfaction
with the religion of the people may have been seated
in his soul. Mohammed was a Semite of the Semites.
And this implies, not indeed, as some have maintained,
that he was a monotheist by nature and as it were by
instinct, but that he was predisposed to become a
monotheist. The fundamental thought of all Semitic
religions is the recognition of the Lord and Ruler of
nature and all her phenomena ; the key-note of Semitic
piety is submission to the divine power, bowing itself
in awe to the very dust. In the one no less than in
the other lies the germ of a protest against that multi
plicity of the gods which is necessarily accompanied
by a limitation of the dominion of each, and which
divides and therefore weakens the dread they inspire.
It remains questionable, however, whether this Semitic
predisposition alone would have enabled Mohammed
to discern with perfect clearness the shortcomings of
the popular religion. But he was not left to himself.
In his own land and on his mercantile expeditions he
came into contact with Christians and Jews, whose
faith challenged the national tradition by the very
fact of differing from it. Moreover the Jews, espe
cially, offered Mohammed, in their monotheism, the

MOHAMMED THE PROPHET OF ALLAH.

27

very thing after- which his soul was thirsting. Yes!
the Lord whom they worshipped was worthy of his
and of all men's adoration. The worship of other
powers in place of Him was an infringement of his
majesty, a national sin which would be punished here
and hereafter!
Thus, we may suppose, the impulse was given.
Amidst dire struggles, overstraining his nervous sys
tem and breaking into visions and other delusions of
the senses, the conviction ripened within him that he
was called to bear witness, at Mecca in the first in
stance, to the Only One who has no other at his side.
In its further development, his preaching was still
determined both in matter and form by Judaism, or
rather by the little which he knew of it at first and
only gradually supplemented. To Judaism we may
trace the main features of his eschatology. It was
under Jewish influence that he framed the moral de
mands which he pressed on his hearers in the name
of Allah with an emphasis and zeal that command
our admiration. Indeed, his whole mission was really
a copy of the past revelation to the Jewish people, to
which the sacred books bore witness. The apostle,
the prophet of. Allah, is a reproduction of Israel's
great leaders, and the Qoran which he produces is a
counterpart of " the Book " which Jews and Chris
tians alike recognized and reverenced as the founda-

28 ISLAM.
tion of their religion, and which indeed they almost
deified. This last point we must especially keep in
view. What a large place is occupied in the Qoran
by praise of the Qoran itself! How often and how
emphatically are the Arabs reminded of their privi
lege in now possessing, in " the signs " which are
shown them, that is in the verses of the Qoxan, the
word of Allah himself, yielding no whit to the sacred
books of those who profess other religions, nay, ex
alted high above them ! From the beginning, and
with unabated vigour throughout, the attention is fixed
upon this. In one of the earliest Suras the question
is asked :
" What hath come to them (the opponents) that they be
lieve not ?
And that, when the Qoran is recited to them, they adore
not?
Nay, the unbelievers dare to call it a lie !
But Allah knoweth their concealed hatred :
Bring thou them the tidings of woeful punishment !"*
And elsewhere, in a passage dating from the same
period :
" Nay, I swear it by the setting of the stars, —
And that, if ye will but know it, is a mighty oath, —
That this is the exalted Qoran,
' Sura Ixxxiv. 20 — 24.

THE QORa'N AS ALLAH'S REVELATION. 29
Written in the book that is hidden (with Allah) :
Let none touch it but the purified ;
It is a revelation of the Lord of the worlds.'"
No less a one than Allah himself declares : "We have
made the Qoran come down to you as a revelation
from on high."^ Nay, he swears " by the glorious
Qoran."' Frequent allusions are likewise made to
the language, of which Allah now for the first time
avails himself.* Nothing is clearer, therefore, than
that Mohammed himself assigns to the Qoran its place
in the list of sacred books. It is true that he did not
reduce it in its entirety to writing, that he took no
steps to make others do so, and did not even approve
of its being done at all. One of his biographers
turns it thus : It was his desire that the word of Allah
should live in the hearts of men.' Doubtless it was.
But we must not suppose from this that he was content
with the mere upholding of his principles, and gladly
left it to the heart and head of the believers to work
them out and apply them. Such reliance on the inde
pendence of his followers is inconsistent with the place
which he assigns to himself and his revelations. It
was to their memory that he trusted, and this he might
* Sura Ivi, 74 — 79. ^ Sura Ixxvi, 23. ^ Sura 1. a.
* Sura xliv. 58, " in your language ;" xii. 2; xiii. 87; xx. 121, and
elsewhere, " an Arabic Qordn ''
^ Sprenger, 1. t. III. S. xxxlii. xlii.

30 ISLAM.
safely do. Perhaps, too, he was not without fear that
the written Qoran might become the subject of con
tention and so lead to disunion. But nevertheless the
Qoran was and continued to be the word of Allah in
the strictest sense, and was intended to exercise all
the authority with which its origin clothed it.
"The kernel of Judaism, transplanted to Arabian
soil " — such a description of Islam, considered in its
essence, would not be far from the truth. Yet in one
respect the definition would be incomplete and would
give a wrong impression ; for it would make it seem
as though Mohammed had his eye exclusively on his
own people and was contented with the roll of prophet
of the Arabs. Originally he may really have aimed at
nothing more. There are places in the Qoran which
confine his activity within these limits, which represent
him as the first apostle of Allah to the people of
Arabia, as one in whom that people had at last obtained
what had long ago been granted to other nations — a
prophet out of its midst.* But these texts are thrown
into the shadow by a number of utterances which
extend his mission to all men without distinction.
" The Qoran," we read, " of a truth is no other than
a warning to all creatures."^ And elsewhere : " We
have not sent thee to mankind at large otherwise thcui
' See the passages cited on p. 17, note 2.
^ Sura xxxviii, 87, literally, " for the worlds."

MOHAMMED'S UNIVERSAL RELIGION.

31

to preach and warn ; but most men understand not."*
We shall presently meet with other passages equally
clear ; but meanwhile we may remember that the literal
acceptance of this " mission to all mankind " is abso
lutely demanded by Mohammed's deeds, which are
surely the best commentary on his words. In the
seventh year of the Hejra (628 A. D.) he despatched
six emissaries with six almost identical letters directed
to as many princes, inviting them to recognize him as
a prophet and to embrace Islam. " Become a Moslem
and thou art saved. Become a Moslem and Allah
giveth thee a two-fold reward." Thus he wrote to the
Byzantine emperor Heraclius, amongst others, and to
the king of Persia.^ We can hardly imagine that he
expected any practical result from this step. It was
probably taken with a view to its effect on the Arabs
rather than for the conversion of these foreign princes.
But in any case this action testifies to a universalism
as complete and conscious as we could well imagine. It
was the whole world known to him which he claimed
for Islam by his messengers. As a prophecy of what
was actually to take place within a few years, this
deed is remarkable enough, but no less so as revealing
what he himself intended, and considered feasible.
* Sura xxxiv. 27.
2 W. Muir, The Life of Mahomet, IV. 49—60; Sprenger, 1. c. III.
261 ff.

32 ISLAM.
These far-reaching claims, however, were in reality
less strange than they seem at first. When we be
come acquainted with Mohammed's conceptions of
the history of the past, we soon perceive that he
could not well have given himself any lower position
or assigned any more contracted destination to his
religion. His horizon is anything but extended. The
Bible and the Jewish haggada are his authorities for
universal history; and that history consists essen
tially in the preaching of Allah's apostles, its rejection
by those to whom it is directed, and Allah's chastise
ments of the stubborn ones. " One family and one
religion" might have been the epitome of Mo
hammed's view of history. One family, or if you
will one people {" ommah ") : — that was his point of
departure, and it never ceased to be his ideal. The
splitting up into nations was falling away from Allah's
original ordinance.* One religion ("din") had there
fore existed originally, had been preached by each
successive prophet to his own people,^ and was now
proclaimed anew by Mohammed in all its purity, in
opposition to the errors of "the people of the book.'"
Mohammed himself, according to the well-known
expression of the Qoran, is "the apostle of Allah, the
seal of the prophets!"^ But this implies that he has a
^ Sura ii. 209, x. 20, 2 Sura x. 48 ; xxx. 46, and elsewhere.
3 Sura xxi. 92; xxxiii. 54. * Sura xxxiii. 40.

CHARACTER OF UNIVERSALISM.

33

message for all men without distinction. The limita
tion of his mission to the Arabian tribes would have
been under such a conception of history, equivalent to
the renunciation of his prophetic self-consciousness.
A message to all without distinction. But how ill
do the contents of Islam answer to such a destiny !
We shall not make it a reproach to Mohammed that
he never deliberated with himself as to what could
meet the wants of all, and what might therefore
prove acceptable to all. What religious founder ever
went so to work? But this we may lay to his
account — less as a fault, than as a striking evidence of
spiritual immaturity — that the difference between the
national and the universal had never entered into his
mind, so that he could see no difficulty in laying
upon Persians and Greeks what was exclusively
adapted for Arabs. And this, again, is connected
with what I might call the artificial origin of Islam.
Mohammed made Islam out of elements which were
supplied to him very largely from outside, and which
had a whole history behind them already, so that he
could take them up as they were without further
elaboration. The sifting of the national from the
universal, which was accomplished in other instances
in and by the life of the people, had not taken place
in the preparation of Islam. Inasmuch as Moham
med places himself in the line of God's previous re-
2*

34

ISLAM.

velations to Israel and to the Christians, and appears
as completing them and setting the seal upon them,
nothing is wanting to the universalism of his own pro
phetic consciousness ; and yet in his religion itself —
just because of its origin — we miss the true character
of universalism.
But we must go still further. It is not only Mo
hammed's person in its entirety, not only his antece
dents and general culture, that are reflected in the
religion thus put together and determine its special
character. Beyond all this, there is something in
Islam — nay, there is much — that is simply arbitrary.
The unforeseen and intrinsically incalculable plays no
small part in it. The changing political relations, the
circumstances of the prophet's life, and, alas ! his pas
sions also, his vengeance and his sensual desires,
leave their mark on the word of Allah that he preaches
— the word which, when once it is spoken, he will
lay not only upon Arabia, but upon all the world !
Examples, it is notorious, meet us everywhere. Per
haps the clearest, and certainly the most important
for the later development of Islam, is the exalting of
the Ka'ba to the position of the central sanctuary, and
the assumption of pilgrimages to it and to the other
sacred places at Mekka amongs^ the religious duties of
the Moslem.* It need hardly be said that the usages
1 See Note III.

THE HAjy AND THE KA'BA. 35
of the hajj stand in no real connection with Islam, or
rather that they are in direct contradiction with it.
It has been truly said : " The veneration of the black
stone is in such glaring contradiction with thd Mos
lem's otherwise pure conceptions of God, that a recon
ciliation can only be effected by the most far-fetched
theories, and even then imperfectly."* We must not
insist upon our own ideas of decency, beauty and har-
moniousness, as the only standard. We do not forget
the words with which Burton closes his account of the
last scene of the pilgrimage : "I have seen the religious
ceremonies of many lands, but never, nowhere, aught so
solemn, so impressive, as this spectacle."^ We heartily
assent when he forbids us to pronounce a harsh judg
ment on the pilgrimage, and shows us how the devout
feelings of the heart find satisfaction in its ceremonies.'
The religious disposition is indeed ineradicable. It
can give its consecration to all that is frivolous, and
can find nourishment in all that is incomprehensible.
But none the less it remains a fact that the hajj, as
celebrated by Mohammed himself in the tenth year of
the Hejra, and as kept up to this day, was from the
first, and is now yet more conspicuously, a fragment
1 Sprenger, 1. c. II. 346.
* Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, Vol. III.
p. 316.
' 1. c. III. 332 sqq.

36 ISLAM.
of incomprehensible heathenism taken up undigested
into Islam. You may tell me that Mohammed could
not help it ; that he himself was too deeply attached
to the Ka'ba and its belongings to be able to relinquish
them ; that he could not be expected to rob his fol
lowers of what they had held dear and sacred from
their childhood. I shall not contradict you. But that
is not the matter at issue. Why should he not seek
satisfaction for his own and his followers' religious
needs wherever he thought he could find it? But
when he exalts the impulse of his own heart into a
duty for all mankind, we can hardly acquiesce. This
is the caprice of the religious founder. It is indivi
duality erecting itself as universality, and claiming to
rule where it ought to serve.
These criticisms may perhaps strike you as theories
affecting superiority to facts. What signifies all this
carping at the universalism of Islam, when weighed
against the fact of its spread, first over all Arabia, then
over a territory that soon equalled the Roman empire
in extent, and presently far surpassed it ? I will not
deny that this triumphal march through the world
impresses the spectator. But, on the other hand, its
amazing rapidity must itself excite our suspicion. And
when we go into details, we see at once that, here as
elsewhere, mere success is far from establishing the
merits of a cause. The first converts, in this case, are

CAUSES OF THE SPREAD OF ISLAM. 37
an exception. It is impossible to doubt their sincerity.
It is no mean testimony to Mohammed's character that
so many of his earliest followers came from the circle
of his immediate friends and relations. To Chadija,
who shared his life for so many years, he was, and
continued to be till her death, the apostle of Allah.
But the number of believers long remained extremely
small. Even in the year of the flight there was no
sign as yet of the future triumph of Islam. There is
nothing whatever to show that Mohammed met an
existing want or satisfied the longings of his people.
It is true that from the settlement at Medina onwards
his following gradually increases. But how ? There
is not a trace of enthusiasm or of spiritual awakening.
It is a matter for consideration and negotiation. It is
a bargain — sometimes struck, moreover, under pressure
of violence and the instinct of self-preservation. True
believers were not wanting. They were the cement
that held the structure together. It was they who
supported or restored it when it threatened to col
lapse. But the great mass remained strangers at
heart to the new religion. It was the prospect of
plunder and conquest — a prospect which could only
be realized if all the tribes united under one banner —
that made them embrace Islam. No doubt the char
acter of Mohammed's religion not only made this
result possible, but actually provoked and stimulated

38 ISLAM.
it. Its sobriety and simplicity recommended it to the
practical and sceptical Arab. It could be summed
up in one brief formula — the two-fold confession, " No
god but Allah " and " Mohammed his prophet." And
even when accepted more seriously and expanded
more fully, Islam retained the same character of con
ciseness and definiteness. Every one knew what it
meant. Religious duties were soon clearly defined
and reduced to the well-known five — the pillars of
Islam. The Qoran, only extant in one text after
Othman's redaction, was the complete and exclusive
book of Allah. The consecration of a whole people
to such a system is no more surprising than the
rapidity with which it spread. If you would win the
great masses, give them the truth in rounded form,
neat and clear, in visible and tangible guise. This
lesson is taught by all history, and not least by the
first century of Islam. And if this be so, then
Islam's victories, apart from the fact that they were
prepared and partly carried out by force of arms, can
not be urged in proof of its universalism.
But at this point we are assailed by the fear that we
may have been dealing unfairly after all. We re
member that the defenders of Christianity are never
weary of appealing to " the simplicity of the Gospel."
Is it fair, while admitting this appeal, to reproach
Islam with what we call its meagreness ? Must we

APPARENT DEVELOPMENTS OF ISLAM.

39

require it absolutely and from the outset to embrace
everything ? Is it not the highest praise that can be
given to any form of religion to say that it is marked
at once by simplicity and definiteness ? Yes ! but
under one condition : It must further, or if this is too
much to require, at least it must not hinder, the free
spiritual development of man, in those directions in
which it makes no direct provision for his wants.
Then, but then only, it may be universal in spite of its
limitations, and may prove a true blessing to mankind.
Does Islam comply with this condition ?
A first glance leaves the impression that Moham
med's creation need not shrink from this test. It
seems to respect the characteristics of race and na
tionality, and to possess the power of adapting its
development to special, social and national peculiar
ities. For instance, do we not find (confining our
selves to incontestable cases) a Persian, a Hindoo, a
Javanese variety of Islam ? And again, such a glance
at the Mohammedan world appears to show us that it
has freely sought "and found satisfaction for those
needs which were only half recognized, if recognized
at all, by the primitive Islam. If the mystic element
was almost entirely wanting at first, and if the pres
sure of the sense of sin was left unrelieved, f ufism
and the belief in the mediation of Mohammed him
self and of the saints so assiduously honoured, filled

40

ISLAM.

up the gap. And lastly, Moslem theology seems to
bear witness to Islam's capacity for development ; for
it has been asserted, not unreasonably, that the
Moslem theology will bear comparison with the
Christian, and need not yield to it either in boldness
or in acumen. Is not all this a speaking proof that
the original poverty of Islam needed but the magic
touch of more favourable surroundings and a higher
intellectual development in order to be transformed
into wealth ?
I have said that this is the impression the Moslem
world produces upon the superficial observer. And
by putting it so, I have already implied my belief
that closer inspection dissipates this first impression.
It remains for me to attempt to justify this opinion,
and to this attempt I must strictly confine myself. I
have not the most distant intention of giving a history
of Islam. In what relation does its later development
stand to its primitive character as already expounded ?
Such is the single question to which we must now
direct our attention.
The religious faith that has once struck root in the
heart of a people never dies. Other conceptions that
are at war with it find entrance, and seem as though
they must cast it out. But even under their dominion
the old faith lives on, transformed indeed, subordin-

ISLAM AND THE OLDER RELIGIONS.

41

ated to the higher conception and assimilated by it,
but by this very means preserved from complete ex
tinction.' This proposition, which is supported by so many
and such striking examples that it may almost be
called a law of religious development, seems at first
to find its full confirmation in the Moslem world.
Islam, alike in its first establishment and in its per
manent influence, has failed, like every other religion,
to root out all that its converts had previously be
lieved, and all that, in accordance with their beliefs,
they had taken up into their manners and customs.
All this is in strict conformity with the general rule.
It is the most natural thing in the world that in
Persia, for instance, the old Zoroastrian faith, and
in Hindustan the ideas native to the country, should
gleam through the doctrine and the life of Mos
lems. But is this all ? The truth is, that in these
and other countries where Islam has been intro
duced, it has not succeeded in assimilating these in
congruous convictions and usages, in taking them
up into its own sphere, in penetrating them with its
own spirit. They live on, preserving their original
character, at most with a Moslem tinge cast over
them, but for the most part not even reduced to
a show of consistency with the system to which
they theoretically belong. De Gobineau — and we may

42

ISLAM.

admit him as a competent witness to the present state
of the East, without accepting his views as to the
origin of Mohammed's conceptions*-^calls Islam " ce
voile tres leger, sous la garde duquel les opinions, les
doctrines, les theories anciennes se sont tres-aisement
maintenues et n'ont absolument rien perdu ni de leur
force, ni de leur credit."^ And elsewhere, " Comme
I'islam, avec ses formules vagues et inconsistantes,
semblait inviter tout le monde a le reconnaitre, sans
forcer personne a abandonner rien de ce qu'il pensait,
il est devenu ce que nous le voyons, le manteau com
mode, sous lequel s'abrite, en se cachant a peine, tout
le passe."' And all this holds good in countries of
which de Gobineau can hardly have been thinking
when he wrote these words. My own countryman,
Veth, with his intimate knowledge of the East-Indian
Archipelago, speaks of Islam, in his fine review of the
religious condition of Java, as " the official cloak that
is stretched over native society."* If a flap of this
cloak be lifted here and there, the Buddhism brought
to Java long ago by missionaries from Hindustan is
revealed ; and side by side, often in grotesque confu
sion with it, the Siwaism brought by the Hindu
1 Les religions et les philosophies dans I'Asie Centrale (2e ^d. 1866),
p. 41 svv.
2 1. u. p. 26. 3 1. c. p. 54.
* Java, geographisch, ethnologisch, historisch, I. 340.

ADORATION OF THE SAINTS.

43

colonists from their fatherland ;* and beneath it all lies
the old popular animistic belief that has really lost
none of its force for the masses.^ Nature-worship and
spirit-worship are still the religion of the Javanese.
Hindu and Mohammedan elements have linked them
selves to them, and so that strange compound has
been formed which is not inappropriately called " Jav-
anism." It would be a complete mistake to regard
this Javanism as a variety of Islam, with a national
colouring. No doubt there are in Java sincere
believers in Islam, men who are Mohammedans in
heart and soul, and who therefore detest the yoke of a
Christian people. Their fanaticism, constantly fired
by colonists from Arabia and by pilgrims returning
from Mekka, infectious too, like all fanaticism, by its
very nature, might easily lay hold of the masses of the
population, and certainly makes them very dangerous
subjects.' But this infectiousness.of the political idea
of Islam is no proof of its spiritual supremacy ; and
emphatic evidence against that supremacy is supplied
by the want of assimilating power of which Javanism
is a striking but far from a solitary instance. It is
true that no candid judge of Islam will cite as a proof
of its weakness its inability to regulate land tenure in
1 Ibid. I. 332 vv., II. 149 vv.
2 Java, &c. I. 314 vv.
s Ibid. I. 399 vv.

44

ISLAM.

Java by Mohammedan law,* although Islam itself no
doubt claims supremacy over all civil matters ; but when
we see that on its own field of the spiritual life and the
religious convictions it has to be content to play the
part of a mantle that covers all unrighteousness, and
by that very means sustains and defends it, then surely
we have found a sign of poverty and feebleness that
deprives the spread of Islam in the Indian Archipelago
of all value^as a proof of its universalism.
Amid the many forms under which Islam has de
veloped itself in widely severed localities, we' note a
phenomenon that presents itself so systematically and
persistently that it may well be reckoned amongst its
essential and permanent characteristics. The whole
Moslem world pays honours to Mohammed, not merely
as the incomparable founder of its religion, but as
still living and pleading on its behalf with Allah.
Very high, though lower than Mohammed, stand the
walis or saints, with their magnificent tombs, the goal
of constant pilgrimages. We can hardly exaggerate
the place occupied by this adoration of the prophet
and the saints in the life of the Moslem peoples. It is
to this that Medina owes its rank next to Mekka and
hardly inferior to it.^ As to the worship of the saints,
1 Ibid. I. 349 vv. Neither would it be fair to cite the degeneration of
the " five pillars " as a proof that Islam has not attained supremacy in Java.
* Burton, 1. i;. Vol. II. ch. i. — viii.

SAINT-WORSHIP AND ISLAM.

45

Open the first book of travels in any Moslem country
on which you chance to lay your hand, and you will
instantly come upon numerous and striking proofs of
its extent and of the significance it has acquired in the
life of the people.*
To pronounce any judgment on the adoration of
saints in the abstract would of course be out of place
here. For ourselves, I suppose, there are serious ob
jections which would prevent our taking part in it.
But this does not preclude us from admitting that
amongst the Moslems it evidently satisfies deeply
rooted wants and possesses a genuinely religious sig
nificance. No doubt many a wall failed to deserve
when living the reverence which has been paid him
since his death ; many of the graves owe their sup
posed sanctity to simple misapprehension ; here and
there old heathen gods still receive their honours under
the new names of saints ; and, worst of all, the adora
tion of the saints furnishes a mantle under cover of
which immoral practices, surviving from the days of
the deification of the powers of nature, are shamelessly
perpetuated.^ But all this does not prevent the adora
tion of the saints, taken all in all, from being an encou-
1 That Java forms no exception to this rule may be seen in Veth, ibid.
^ The proofs of this are collected in an interesting treatise by Ignace
Goldziher, Le culte des saints chez les Muselmans (Revue de I'hist. des
religions, lire ann^e. Tome I, pp. 257 — 351.)

46

ISLAM.

raging phenomenon. Here the sense of dependence -
and the need of redemption assert their claims. The
faculty of admiration is not dead. True merits are
recognized by the contemporary, and continue to be
reverenced by a thankful posterity. As the expression
of these emotions, and no less as a protest against the
vices of those who have succeeded the pious men of a
former age in the seat of honour,* the adoration of
saints has genuine claims on our sympathy.
But the real question is not whether we find the phe
nomenon easy to explain, or can even rejoice in it up
to a certain point. The adoration of the walis must not
only be considered as evidence of what goes on in the
heart of the Moslems, but must also be examined in
its relation to Islam. Its general prevalence might
lead us to regard it as a product of Islam itself But
as a fact it is far from being so. It is rather a protest
against the very religion in which it occupies so pro
minent a place. The Moslem seeks what his faith
withholds from him, and seeks it where the authority
which he himself recognizes forbids him to look.
Far be it from us to condemn Islam for not satisfy
ing all the demands its confessors think fit to make on
it ! It is indeed its merit to receive many a complaint
in silence and to reject many a prayer. A religion
1 Cf. A. von Kremer, Geschichte der herrschenden Ideen des Islams.
S. iBo f.

AR.RAHMANO' R-RAHIMO.

47

which formally granted all that the Moslem desires
to obtain at the graves of his different saints, would
present a singular spectacle indeed. Sobriety may
not always appear attractive or winning, but it remains
a virtue none the less. We must further acknowledge
that it is not always easy to draw the line between the
unlawful and fanciful and the genuine and ineradicable
needs of the pious soul. But this at least may be laid
down, that " to be near God," and to feel God near us is
no exaggerated demand and need not remain an un
satisfied longing. Now it is just this that Islam does
not give, either in the conception of Allah's nature
and attributes which it preaches, or in the worship
which it has introduced. Though Allah is called by
preference " ar-rahmano'r-rahimo," the Compassionate
and Merciful, yet he is " a god afar off." The people
knows no other than Him, and therefore observes the
religious duties imposed by Him, and appears at the
stated time in His house of prayer ; but this does not
satisfy the wants of the heart, and the people therefore
makes itself a new religion.* At the graves of its
saints it seeks compensation for the dryness of the
official doctrine and worship.
But the pious do this in spite of the faith that they
profess. Mohammed rejected as emphatically as he
possibly could the supernatural rank and mediatorial
1 Von Kremer, 1. c. S. 165 f.

48 ISLAM.
office that has been forced upon him.* There is no
room in his religion anywhere for adoration of the
saints. The orthodox Mohammedan theology has been
compelled to admit it, and has taken the " keramat,"
the miracles of the saints, under its protection against
the scepticism that assailed them.^ But those who
have held closest by the prophet have never been
able to acquiesce in this popular enrichment of Islam,
against which they have repeatedly raised their protest.'
And even if they had held their peace, the Qoran
itself would have spoken loud enough. We are far
indeed from grudging the Moslem the satisfaction of
his religious needs. But such an extension as Islam
has received in the adoration of the saints cannot be
put down to its credit. When an unmistakable want,
because it can get no satisfaction legitimately, seeks
and finds it illegitimately, we are surely in the presence
of a weighty testimony against the religion within
which this phenomenon has presented itself from the
earliest times up to the present day. If it is only in
this form that Islam can satisfy the demands of the
pious soul, then it has become a religion of the world
in the teeth of its own proper nature.
1 Goldziher, following others, has shown this, 1. c. pp. 259 — 263.
2 To the evidence collected by Goldziher, I. c. pp. 335 svv., may be
added that of Sha'rini, cited by Fliigel in Zeitschr. der deutschen mor-
genl. Gesellschaft, XX. 18.
• Goldziher, 1. c. pp. 330 svv., infra, pp. 45 sqq.

gUFISM AND ISLAM. 4g
Precisely the same judgment must be pronounced
on ^ufism. There are some who build their favoura
ble forecasts of Islam's future upon it.* Their admi
ration of the marvellously profound mysticism of the
^ufis, expressed in such beautiful forms by the ^ufi
poets, is easy enough to understand ; but so also is
the disgust with which others mention both the godless
doctrine of many ^ufis, and the lives of their followers
who "go idle in the name of Allah." For ^ufism
is a motley phenomenon, and cannot be delineated by
a single stroke. But let us assume that its purely
religious elements maintain the ascendant, and let us
take them alone into consideration. What promise
for the future of Islam is contained in ^ufism ? It
came into the Moslem world from without, perhaps
from Buddhism. It made great way from first to last.
Was this because it agreed in principle with Islam,
or at any rate might serve as a compliment to it?
No ! It was rather because it gave what Islam by its
very nature could not give. Deism and mysticism
cannot really go together. No doubt the Mohammedan
theology has taken up ^ufite elements, here more and
there less, and has worked them up with sayings of
the Qoran and the tradition into a. so-called whole.
' " L'unique vole qui, dans I'lslam, puisse conduire i la rSforme, c'est
la doctrine du mysticisme : " Mirza Kasem Beg, in Journal Asiatique,
1866, p 381.
3

50

ISLAM.

Nor was it at all rare, at any rate in former times, for
lines of Qufite poetry to make their appearance in the
Friday chotba or sermon.* But this only shows that
the religious leaders of the Moslems, when endeavour
ing to establish the reasonableness of their faith or to
edify their brethren, borrow from any quarter where
they can find what they want. The conflict of prin
ciple is thus disguised but not removed. The Moslem
who makes terms with ^ufism thereby gives his own
religion a certificate of poverty, and the true f ufite is
a Moslem no more.
There is much more reason in the plea that Islam's
capacity for development is evinced by the activity of
the Mo'tazilites, under which name I include, as others
have done before me, the theologians who, from the
second century of the Hejra onwards, distinguished
themselves in the head-quarters of Islam, Bagra first
and afterwards Bagdad, by their liberal tendencies.^
They were produced by Islam itself, though perhaps
they early felt the influence of Greek philosophy and
1 Goldziher, from Ali ben Migmun al-Maghribi in Zeitschr., d. d. M.
G. xxvm. 321.
2 H. Steiner, die Mu'taziliten oder die Freidenker in Islam. Ein Bei-
trag zur allgemein Culturgeschichte (1865) ; M. Th. Houtsma, de strijd
over het dogma in den Islam tot op al-Asha'ri (1875), bL 42 w. and
elsewhere. On the orthography of the name, cf. Fliigel and Fleischer in
Zeitschr. d. d. M. G. XX, 32 f.

THE MO'TAZILITES. 5 I
had their thoughts brought to maturity by it.* Their
importance rests on the earnestness with which they
maintained the ethical aspects of the conception of
God. This gave its significance to their polemic in
favour of free-will and against the doctrine of predes
tination. The name " ahlo't-tauhid w'al-adl," up
holders of God's unity and righteousness, with which
they designated themselves by preference, points in
the same direction ; and if we did but know them by
the writings of their own best representatives instead
of through their opponents only, it is highly probable
that this tendency of their doctrine would come out
still more clearly. It was in the service of this ethi
cal conception likewise that they developed the ra
tionalism — no unwonted ally of great zeal for moral
ity — that has earned them the name of " the free
thinkers of Islam." Their thesis that the Qoran was
created gives striking expression, under the forms
of the age, to their aspiration after independence and
reasonableness. For some little time they might flat
ter themselves with the hope that their bold attempt
would succeed. More than one of the Abbasidse,
especially al-Mamiin (813 — 833 A.D.), favoured them,
protected their freedonl, or kept them in the ascendant
by his authority. But the disenchantment was soon
' W. Spitta, zur Geschichte Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari's, S. a ff., S^ f-
at variance with Houtsma, 1. c. bl, 87 v.

52

ISLAM.

to follow. Under al-Motawakkel (847-861 A.D.) the
Mo'tazilites lost the favour of the court, and the dogma
of the uncreated Qoran was first officially proclaimed
and afterwards enforced. Were we to regard this revo
lution as produced simply by the spiritual supremacy
of the caliph, and capable of being subsequently re
versed by himself or one of his successors, we could
but bewail the lot of its victims. But the matter was
far more serious. The caprice of a tyrant may
have been the occasion of the overthrow of the
Mo'tazilites, but its real cause lay deeper in the es
sence of Islam which the popular instinct had appre
hended justly.* The masses were not competent to
follow the discussions of the scholars, but they felt
that the defenders of the uncreated Qoran were up
holding the absolute claims of their religion and must
therefore be right. It was not in the God of the
Mo'tazilites, whose essence was righteousness, but in
the God of orthodoxy, the Almighty, subject to no
other rule than his own caprice, that they recognized
their own and Mohammed's Allah.^ Alas ! they were ,
in the right. The law of Islam contains admirable
' Houtsma, 1. t. bl, no v.
2 "Allah der willkiirliche tyrannische 'Herrscher, nach personlichem
Gutdiinken, nach Belieben und Gewohnheit die Welt regierend, ohne
ewiges Gesetz und ohne Zweckursachen, die reine Abstraction, in der
alles individuelle Geistesleben, selbst der Unterscheid von gut und bose
verschwand, der Gott derflachen Wuste" (Steiner, 1. t. S. 86).

FIXED CHARACTER OF ISLAM. 53
moral precepts, and, what is more, succeeds in bring
ing them into practice and powerfully supporting
their observance. But this is not enough to make it
an ethical religion. It is the glory of the Mo'tazil
ites that they endeavoured to raise it to this character.
But their effort struck at once upon the rock that
must ultimately wreck it — the fixed character of
Islam, fixed even then, nay fixed from the very out
set. Hence, too, the fact that their fall was followed
by no resurrection. More than one of their theses
was adopted by al-Ash'ari, the father of Moham
medan scholasticism, who had formerly been of their
number,* but only when so modified as to be made
harmless ; and henceforth they did but serve to give
a show of reason to the system, instead of working
as the leaven which leavens the whole lump. It is a
spectacle that may well sadden us. But to the his
torian it is in the highest degree instructive. The
men of the uncreated Qoran sincerely believed them
selves to be maintaining the dignity and the sublime
destiny of Islam. In truth, they were damming up
against their religion the one channel that leads to true
universalism. For the ethical is the universally human.
The conclusion to which we are led by a consider
ation of the development of Islam, is confirmed in the
1 See Spitta, 1, c. S. 36 ff., 50 ff.

54

ISLAM.

most striking manner by that remarkable movement
— Arabian to the core and Moslemite without adulter
ation — which is known as Wahhabism. Its fame has
been widely spread by the romantic appendix to de
Lamartine's "Voyage en Orient,"* and subsequently
by Palgrave's " Narrative."^ If I were compelled to
pronounce an opinion on the future of this movement,
I should be sorely puzzled. In the peninsula itself,
the supremacy of Wahhabism, which Palgrave found
at its culminating point, appears quite recently to have
sustained a very sensible shock.' Whether it will
ever recover from it is at least doubtful. But in any
case, Wahhabism, a conception of Islam, remains a
most formidable power, with a centre of its own in the
school at Derajah, and with its numerous and zealous
missionaries who find the ears of many open wherever
they present themselves in Moslem lands.* And no
wonder ! For, as the Ulema at Damascus declared,
1 Recit du sejour de Fatallah Sayeghir chez les Arabes errants du
grand desert, rapport^ et traduit par les soins de M. de Lamartine
(CEuvers, Bruxelles, 1840, pp. 679 — 7S9). The notes of de Lascaris, the
agent of Napoleon, I., in whose service Fatallah was at the time, appear
still to be in existence. Cf W. Scawen Blunt, in the Fortnightly Re
view, 1881, II. 326, note.
^ Narrative of a Year's Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia
(1862-63); cf M. J. De Goeje's criticism in de Gids, 1866, IV. 261 vv.
^ W. Scawen Blunt, Recent Events in Arabia, Fortnightly Review,
1880, I. 707 vv.
* Cf. C. N. Pischon, der Einfluss des Islams auf das haushche, sociale

WAHHABISM.

55

Wahhabism is the true Islam. Its founder, Ibn Abdo'l-
Wahhab (about 1745 A. D.) simply intended to root
out the heathenism that still survives in Arabia, and
to restore Mohammed's religion in its original purity.
These are likewise the ideas that inspire his true fol
lowers and which constitute their strength. Accord
ingly we see that the Wahhabites are always zealous
in word and deed against those elements of the faith
and practice of the Moslems which we too have been
compelled to note as foreign to Islam and as imported
into it from without. Where Islam is professed ac
cording to the Wahhabite conception of it, it allows
no adoration of saints and no ^ufites. It casts them
out as energetically as it banishes wine and tobacco,
and secures the strict observance of religious duties,
if need be, by the lash.* The Wahhabites have been
called the Puritans of Islam. The comparison is
not unjust. But whereas no serious historian would
ever dream of simply identifying Puritanism and
Christianity, Wahhabism really is Islam itself — Islam,
the whole of Islam, and nothing but Islam. And
und politische Leben seiner Bekenner, S. 132 — 138, and the accounts of
Dr. Mordtmann and others there cited.
I See the original documents— letters of Sa'ud ibn Abdo'1-Aziz and his
commander, Uljdn ad-Dabibi — translated by Fleischer in Zeitschrift,
d. d. M. G. XI. 427 ff., and especially S. 43s, on the opposition to inno
vations; S. 431, 437, on the rejection of the adoration of saints, the
dervishes, Jfcc.

56 ISLAM.
this is the very reason why it bears such strong
evidence against the universalism of Islam. A re
ligion which can be restored in such a shape, with a
well-founded appeal to its genuine sources, may meet
the wants of the inhabitants of the desert which wit
nessed its birth — but there are other and higher
demands which it cannot satisfy.
The latter portion of our review seems almost like
an indictment of Islam. And yet I trust that I have
not been unjust, and I am certainly far from intending
to deny the relative value of Mohammed's institution,
or the salutary effect which it has produced or still
produces in sundry regions. But the real question we
have had under discussion has not been this, so much
as what I may call the compass of Islam, the possible
extension marked out for it by its character. This
examination necessarily brought to light the narrow
limits within which its influence is necessarily bounded,
and the way in which its founder himself cut it off
from the possibility of true development, and therefore
from the widest measure of extension. This fact, I
hope, now stands clearly before us. May I not also
assume that we need make no further search for its
cause, inasmuch as we have already found it in the
special origin of Islam ?
The Arabic nationality was not the cradle but the

LIMITS OF ISLAM.

57

boundary wall of Islam. We may, if we will, give
rein to the imagination, and think of the possibility of
the Arabs having made a different contribution to the
religious development of mankind. The religion of the
Arab race, so highly gifted in many ways, in full pos
session of the energy of its first confessors, freed from
childish superstition, bursting through the limits of
nationality and rising above time and space — what a
future might not have been in store for such a creation.
But this is pure speculation, and moves beyond the
realm of facts. Dante, long ago, sketched the character
of the historical Islam in nearer accordance with the
truth, when he assigned a place to Mohammed, the
arch-heretic, in one of the lowest circles of the Inferno*
For it was thus that he expressed, under current forms,
the fact that Islam is a side branch of Christianity,
or better still, as we should now say, of Judaism : a
selection as it were from Law and Gospel, made by an
Arab and for Arabs, levelled to their capacity, and
further supplemented — or must we say adulterated ? —
by national elements calculated to facilitate their re
ception of it. Thus derived from the long acknow
ledged documents of God's revelation, and presently
entering the lists against them, Islam was destined,
1 Canto xxviii. On eariier and later Christian writers who have taken
the same view, cf. Ed. Sayous, J^sus-Christ d'aprSs Mahomet, ou les
notions et les doctrines musulmanes sur le Christianisme,pp. 90 — 92.
3*

58

ISLAM.

after a very brief period of growth and development,
to stereotype itself once for all and assume its unalter
able shape. Succeeding generations, and nations with
other mental equipment, might add to it from their
own stores, and might attempt to modify and expand
its rigid form. Only for a time, and indeed, only in
appearance, could these attempts succeed. Almost as
old as Islam itself and destined to last as long, there
stood and there stand immovable the Qoran and the
tradition. The better they were fitted partly to inspire
and partly to subdue Mohammed's fellow-countrymen,
and so in the first period to work marvels, the more
uncompromisingly do they bar the way to the realiza
tion of their own ideal — the spread of Islam amongst
all the children of men. True universalism is to
Islam, in virtue of its very origin, unattainable.

THE POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.— PRIESTS
AND PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.

Christianity is the second of the universal reli
gions which we are to examine in connection with
the national religions from which they have sprung.
Now the period at which Christianity rose is known,
and you might naturally expect me to transport you
to Palestine at about the beginning of our era. But
before I realize this expectation, I must allow myself,
nay I am compelled, to make a long detour with you.
What Judaism was at the time of Jesus, and what
germs it contained within itself, we can only under
stand when acquainted with its past, for there we dis
cover the cause of its really being so much more
than it seemed to be. Cut loose from its antecedents
it impresses us as something very different from what
it turns out to be when regarded in its true light as
the lawful heir of its own past. We have reason,
therefore, to begin with a retrospect. And, moreover,
the spectacle of Israel's past is in itself of an interest
that chains our attention, while it contains — and that
is my present point — the prophecy of the wonderful
59

6o POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
development that took place eighteen centuries ago.
In a certain sense this is the view that has always
been taken by Christians. The Church dates her
origins from the creation itself, and regards the fates
of Israel as an express portion of her own history.
To the prophets, especially, she assigns a place
amongst her founders, inasmuch as they beheld her
glory in the spirit and rejoiced in her salvation in
hope. I must not let it seem, even for a moment, as
though I were intending to maintain or confirm this
idea in its true and uncorrupted sense. Our point of
view is not that of the Church, and our conclusions
accordingly differ essentially from hers. But in re
cognizing the close connection between the Judaism
out of which Christianity sprang, and the wJidle of
the preceding spiritual conflict in Israel, I join in
hearty agreement with the Christianity of all ages.
We have therefore no choice but to study the char
acter and motives of this conflict. The antithesis of
"national" and "universal" will serve as our clue,
and by following it I may perhaps succeed in placing
facts with which none of you are unacquainted in such
a light that they will not altogether lack the charm of
novelty. When we speak of the antecedents of Judaism we
can only mean the recognition and worship of that

WAS YAHWISM A NATIONAL RELIGION? 6 1
god whose proper name our translations of the Old
Testament inteipret by the Lord, — a name which we
have good grounds for pronouncing yahweh} You
will understand what I mean, then, if I begin by pro
pounding the question : Was the worship of Yahweh
amongst the pre-exilian Israelites national ? And, if
so, in what sense.
At first the question seems likely to prove a very per
plexing one. If we follow the traditional view, which
as we shall presently see, is rooted in the Old Testament
itself, we shall be ready enough to answer : Previous
to the Babylonian captivity, Yahwism was the religion
of a minority, and the worship of other gods had a
better claim to be called national ; for the prophets,
Yahweh's representatives, opposed themselves to the
great masses of their people. This last fact is certainly
undeniable. And yet the answer, however natural it
may seem, does not satisfy us. We could point to other
instances in which a genuinely national conception is
represented by a comparatively small number of chosen
spirits. And apart from this, we must ask whether the
mass of the people really was hostile to Yahwism. This
at least is certain, that they themselves would never
have admitted as much. Many of those whom we cannot
but reckon as belonging to this majority were devoted
with all their hearts to Yahweh, and threw all their
1 Of. Note IV.

62 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
zeal into his cause. Was there more than one Yah
wism ? And, if so, in what relation did the one stand
to the other ? We are evidently dealing with a sin
gularly complex phenomenon, the various factors of
which we must duly separate in our study if we are to
form a true conception of the whole.
It is in this study that I now offer myself as your
guide. In dealing with such a question, every sim
plification must be welcome ; and I may therefore begin
by reminding you' that the hypothesis of the intro
duction of Yahwism from without must be definitely
abandoned at the stage which scholarship has now
reached. I am not speaking of foreign influence on
the development of Israel and the consequent devo-
lopment of its religion. The possibility of such influ
ence cannot be denied. Even in the ages of which
we are now speaking, Canaan, so far from being a
secluded country, was the battle-ground of the peoples
and tribes of Asia. So far was Israel from standing
outside the turmoil of conflicting nations, that the
idea has been suggested of assigning it that central
place on the stage of the earliest history which is
taken in succeeding ages first by the Greeks and
then by the Romans ; and this not only in virtue
of the place of honour to which Israel itself has
claims, but also and yet more because all the civilized
nations of Asia came successively into contact with it.

COMTE ON THE JEWISH THEOCRACY. 63
and thus take their places, so to speak, each in its turn,
upon the field of the history and give the historian
occasion to sketch their special characteristics, — first
the Egyptians, then the Assyrians, then the Babylon
ians, and lastly the Medo-Persians.* It would indeed
be more than strange if Israel, while capable of lend
ing itself to such a historical purpose, nevertheless
bore no traces in its own development of the influence
of all these peoples. Such traces are indeed easy to
discern. But the introduction of Yahwism from
abroad, which I have called a hypothesis now anti
quated, is a very different matter. Its advocates are
necessarily restricted to a narrow circle. Unless their
procedure is to be altogether capricious, if they are
to take any account at all of the evidence of the his
torical documents, then the Egyptians are really the
only people that can come into consideration ; and
accordingly it is to them, and specifically to the Egyp
tian priests, that the establishment of Yahwism in
Israel has been assigned, and is here and there still
assigned, with a perseverance worthy of a better
cause. In 1841, Auguste Comte pronounced the
" little Jewish theocracy to be a ' derivation acces-
soire' from the Egyptian, and perhaps also the
Chaldean, theocracy, from which it very probably
emanated by a kind of colonization, of an exceptional
1 p. J. Veth, in de Gids, 1864, I. 6r9— 625.

64 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
nature, effected by the priestly caste, the superior
classes of which, having long arrived at monotheism
by their own mental development, may have been led
to found a purely monotheistic colony, by way of an .
asylum or as an experiment. And there, in spite of
the permanent antipathy of the lower population to so
premature an institution, monotheism must have pre
served its existence, though not without difficulty, in
a pure and openly avowed form, at any rate after
having consented to the loss of the greater number of
its elect by the famous secession of the Ten Tribes."*
The father of Positivism expressed his behef that a
closer analysis of " this ¦ strange anomaly " would
confirm his own views, as soon as it should be under
taken by a philosopher who should place himself at
the " rational" point of view which he had indicated.
Since that time forty years and more have passed,
and the prophesied confirmation is still to be looked
for. Amongst students of Israelite religion, there is
not, as far as I know, a single one who derives
Yahwism from Egypt, either in the strange manner
hit upon by Comte or in any other. The documents
which form the basis of their studies favour the idea
that Yahwism was roused from its slumbers by the
Egyptian religion, and was made conscious of its own
characteristics by its conflict with it, rather than that
' Cours de Philos. Posit., Tom. v. 206 (ae 6d.).

NATIONAL CHARACTER OF YAHWISM. 65
it sprang out of a faith from which it is seen to be
radically different. Certain Egyptologists, however,
still show a not unnatural disposition to seek the
cradle of Yahwism on the Nile; but their attempts to
point it out have failed one after another. Instead
of dilating on this subject, I prefer to appeal to the
testimony of one who, himself an Egyptologist, is
also one of my predecessors in this chair. " It may
be confidently asserted," he says, " that neither He
brews nor Greeks borrowed any of their ideas from
Egypt." He holds that the agreement between
Israelite and Egyptian ideas, as far as it is not delu
sive, is confined to those conceptions which are
common to all religion. " I have looked through a
number of works," he declares, "professing to dis
cover Egyptian influences in Hebrew institutions, but
have not even found anything worth controverting."*
Setting aside this hypothesis, therefore, we recog
nize the fact that, from the earliest period down to the
Babylonian captivity, Israel had its own national re
ligion, which we can only call " Yahwism." Regal
temples were consecrated to Yahweh, not only at
Jerusalem, but at Dan and BetheP likewise ; and the
' P. le Page Renouf, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Rehgion,
as illustrated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt (The Hibbert Lectures,
1879). PP- 243—245-
' I Kings xii. 26 sqq.; Amos vii. 10 sqq.

66 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
same may be said of the sanctuaiy at Shiloh during
the period of the Judges.* The " bamoth " also, though
the prophet Ezekiel is very probably correct in sup
posing them to be of Canaanitish origin,Vere employed
bythe inhabitants of the cities where they stood and of
the surrounding localities in the service of Yahweh.'
The number of these " bamoth " was very great, I had
almost said unlimited. Even at Jerusalem, although
the temple stood there, they were not wanting.* Most
of them were doubtless very simple. Natural or arti
ficial mounds were provided with an altar to do service
as occasion required ; or in some cases a chapel or
even a temple was added, designed and adapted for
regular worship.* We can hardly suppose that any
fixed rules obtained either in the choice or the struc
ture of the " bamoth." Everything was left to the
devotion and zeal of the people of the cities and vil
lages in which the want of a sanctuary made itself felt.
As a rule, every one would repair to the high place that
lay nearest to him ; but there were also " great bamoth,"
which were considered specially sacred on account of
their antiquity or some other circumstance, and these
were sought by pilgrims from more distant regions.*
' Judges xxi. 19 — 23 ; i Sam. i. sqq.; Jer. vii. 12 — 14 ; xxvi. 6, 9.
2 Ezekiel xx. 27 — 29. ' i Sam. ix 12 sqq., &c.
* 2 Kings xxiii. 8. ° I Kings xii. 3r ; xiii. 32.
* I Kings iii. 4 ; cf Amos iv. 4 ; v. S I viii. 14.

CHARACTER OF POPULAR YAHWISM. 67
Corresponding to the many sanctuaries of Yahweh
are the numerous offerings made to him and the feasts
celebrated in his honour by the great masses. Even
those who in other respects find most to object to in
the popular worship, do not deny that it is intended
as a tribute of reverence to Yahweh. Amos, for
instance, is not contemplating the worship of other
gods when he makes Yahweh declare, " I hate, I
despise your feasts, and cannot endure your assem
blies."* It was to Yahweh himself that the sacrifices
and gifts were offered, and in his honour that those
oxen were slain which he would not accept or regard.
It was of him that those hymns were sung which he
would not liear.^ Equally explicit on this point is
the unimpeachable evidence of Hosea' and Isaiah.*
Now when we hear of temples, high places, altars,
feasts and sacrifices, the terms might well suggest a
clearly defined sacred territory trodden by the Israel
ite only now and then and on exceptional occasions.
But this idea would be quite mistaken. The same
unexceptionable witnesses whom we have already
consulted rhay teach us how the worship of Yahweh
penetrated and hallowed the personal, the domestic
and the family life of ancient Israel. The prophet
Hosea gives us an idea of this when he describes the
1 Amos V. 21. 2 Amos v. 22, 23.
' Hos. ii. 13 (11 in the A. V.) * Is. i. 11 — 17, and elsewhere.

68 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
existence of the Israelites in a foreign land, where
they " sit down for many days without king and with
out prince, without sacrifice and without maggebah,
without ephod and teraphim."* There, he declares,
" they shall eat unclean food, for they pour out no wine
to Yahweh and lay not their sacrifices before him (on
the altar) ; as food eaten in time of mourning is their
food ; he who eats thereof is made unclean ; for their
food serves only to still their hunger ; it comes not
into Yahweh's house."^ This implies that in ordinary
times Yahweh received his portion of whatever the
Israelite ate, especially the meat. It was at the sanc
tuary (for there was always one in the immediate
neighbourhood) that his ox or his sheep was slaugh
tered; and a portion was either offered upon the altar
or granted to the priest. When this was rendered im
possible by expulsion from " the land " or " the heri
tage " of Yahweh,' then he could only eat " unclean
food." So closely was Yahwism interwoven with the
ordinary life of the Israelite ! It follows of itself that
his feast days were holy days. Not without reason
does Hosea place " the rejoicing " of Israel in the
same line with his " feasts (i. e. pilgrimages to one of
the sanctuaries), new moons, sabbaths and all ap
pointed times."* What an important place in life
1 Hos. iii. 4. 2 Hos. ix. 3b, 4 ; cf. Note V.
' Hos. ix. 3; I Sam. xxvi. 19. * Hos. ii. 13 (11).

PLACE OF YAHWISM IN NATIONAL LIFE. 69
must these ever-returning days have taken ! The sab
bath, on which all ordinary work stood still, and a
visit was made to the sanctuary or the representative
of Yahweh ;* the new moon, which was celebrated
in the same fashion,^ and on which, moreover, the
united members of one household joined in the fes
tive meal, which must have borne a religious char
acter, inasmuch as none who were unclean might
share it.' Then " the rejoicing of the harvest " men
tioned by Isaiah* was undoubtedly consecrated to
Yahweh from the earliest times downward. Finally,
there was the feast with which the shearing of the
sheep was associated;* and this too was a religious
solemnity, for a portion of the wool was granted to
the priest.* And as these annually returning events
in the life of the farmer or the cattle-feeder were
sanctified by religion, so likewise was the bond encir
cling the members of a single family. At any rate
the mishphachah, to which David belonged, held a
sacrificial feast every year at Bethlehem,^ and there
is not the smallest reason why we should not ascribe
the same usage to other families also.
1 Amos viii. s I Isaiah i. 13 ; is Kings iv. 23.
2 See the passages referred to in note 4.
' I Sam. XX. s, 18, 25. * Isaiah ix. 2 (3).
' I Sam. XXV. 4 sqq.; 2 Sam. xiii. 23 sqq.
' Deut. xviii, 4. '1 Sam. xx. 6, 28 sq.

70 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
If we weigh these facts, taken in their mutual con
nection, we shall find it extremely natural that the
people should trust in Yahweh their god, should look
for help from him in times of peril, and expect his
succour when their enemies prevailed against them.
" Is not Yahweh in our midst ? No harm will befall
us !" — so speak the contemporaries of Micah.* Amos
refers to Israelites who long for " the day of Yahweh,"^
that is to say, the time when he shall make his
might felt by Israel's opponents. In the time of
Jeremiah the possession of Yahweh's temple serves the
men of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of Judsea as a
pledge that their god will remain with them;' and
they are zealous to vindicate its honour. The prophet
has been bold enough to foretell its devastation in the
near future ; and the people, stirred up by the priests
and prophets, laid hold of him and cried threateningly,
" Thou shalt die ! Why hast thou prophesied in the
name of Yahweh : This temple shall become like the
temple of Shiloh, and this city shall be bereft of her
inhabitants?" Jeremiah barely escaped with his life
from the fury of the fanatical populace.*
In accordance with all this we find that, before the
exile, nothing of any consequence was undertaken in
Israel without the leaders of the people consulting
' Mic. iii. II. » Amos v. i8.
^ Jer. vii. 4. * Jer. xxvi.

THE ORACLE OF YAHWEH.

71

Yahweh about it, and satisfying themselves of his
approval. Barak, the son of Abinoam, engages in
the unequal strife with Sisera, because Deborah, the
prophetess of Yahweh, has roused him to it, and when
she herself has promised to accompany him to the
battle.* After a first defeat in the war with the
Philistines, in the time of Eli, the Israelites send for
the ark of Yahweh to their camp ; and when it comes,
under the escort of Hophni and Phineas, they greet it
with loud acclamations.^ Ere Saul ventures to follow
in Jonathan's footsteps to improve the advantage gained
by the latter, and again ere he pursues the fleeing foe
by night, he consults Yahweh.' David, during his
flight from Saul, is guided once and again by the
oracle announced by the priest Abiathar.* And after
his exaltation to the throne of all Israel, when the land
was visited by dire famine in three successive years,
he consulted Yahweh, whether through a priest or a
prophet, and acted on the response that was given
him* — let us hope that he did so against his will, and
that he only surrendered Saul's descendants to the
vengeance of the Gibeonites because he could not
answer to the sorely afflicted people for disregarding
the utterance of Yahweh. But is there any need that
' Judges iv. ' I Sam. iv.
' I Sam. xiv. 18 sqq., 36 sq. * I Sam. xxiii. i sqq., 9 — 11, <tc.
' 2 Sam. xxi. i — 14.

72 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
I should cite more examples ? If the assistance of
Yahweh's interpreter was called in for the occasions of
daily life — (remember how Saul consults Samuel about
his father's lost asses,* and how Jeroboam's wife visits
Ahijah^) — what is more natural than that Jehoshaphat
and Ahab, before their expedition to recover Ramoth in
Gilead,' and Hezekiah, when Sennacherib is threaten
ing his capital,* and Josiah, before he carries out the
precepts of the book of law found in the temple,*
should consult Yahweh's representatives ?
One trait is still wanting to this rapid sketch of
Yahwism in the people's life in Israel. Yahweh's
mark was, so to speak, stamped upon many of the
Israelites in the very names they bore. About a
hundred and ninety personal names which appear in
the Old Testament are compounded with " Yahweh."'
From Jehoshaphat downwards, all the kings of Judah
but three were named in some way after him. This
is not accidental, and it is rwt without significance.
As in later times,'^ so doubtless amongst the earlier
Israelites, the name-giving was the solemn act of the
father, or, if the mother had anticipated him, was at
least dependent on his sanction. The thing was not
' I Sam. ix. ^ i Kings xiv. ' i Kings xxii.
* 2 Kings xix. i — 7, 20 sqq. ^ 2 Kings xxii. 11 — 20.
" Cf. E. Nestle, die israel. Eigennamen nachihrer religions-geschicht-
lichen Bedeutung (Haarlem, 1876), S. 68 ff.
' Luke i. S9 — 63.

YAHWEH IN PROPER NAMES.

72>

done thoughtlessly, and names were never mere con
ventional sounds. We see this clearly enough from
the explanations of names so constantly given in the
Old Testament, explanations which have sorely per
plexed the commentators of later ages with stricter
notions of etymology. Compound names such as
" Shear-jashiib " and " Maher-shalal chaz-baz " are
exceptional ; but what Isaiah says of these two sons
of his, " they are signs and warnings from Yahweh
Zebaoth, who dwells on Zion,'' he testifies of himself
also, in allusion to the " salvation of Yahweh '' that was
proclaimed in his own name " Isaiah."* It deserves
notice, too, that both Nechoh and Nebucadrezar gave
fresh names to the sons of Josiah whom they set upon
the throne,^ — names compounded with " Yahweh,"
which they borrowed from the common usage, without
perhaps troubling themselves about their meaning.
This changing of the names was a symbolic act. It
served to show that Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were
their creatures, or, if you will, that they themselves —
Nechoh and Nebucadrezar — were their fathers. The
same idea appears in the message of Ahaz to Tiglath-
Pilezer : " I am thy slave and thy son."' Did the
two conquerors further signify, by the choice of these
special names, that they owed their victory to the god
of Israel himself, and that it would therefore be mere
' Is. viii. i8. ' 2 Kings xxiii. 34, xxiv. 17. ' 2 Kings xvi. 7.
4

74 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
folly for the people of Yahweh to offer any further
resistance ? It is not impossible.' But even those
who think the supposition too far-fetched will readily
acknowledge our right to take the Israelitish proper
names, in so far as they are connected with religion,
as a veritable confession of faith, and to mark their
derivation from " Yahweh " as an expression of the
very special relationship in which Israel stood to this
deity. Everything that I have laid before you so far is
taken from the Old Testament ; and indeed I have not
been free from the fear that I might seem to fall short
of your just expectations, in doing no more than collect
the information given by authorities accessible to every
one. But how is it that the picture of ancient Israel
which we have thus recovered differs so very widely
from the current conception of its religious condition ?
The reason is not far to seek. The current conception
is not derived from the special traits of which I have
reminded you, but from the general reviews of the
popular religion which the Israelitish historians lay
before us — the introduction to the book of Judges,^
and the retrospect of the fates of the kingdom of the
ten tribes.' Their contents may be briefly summarized.
• So J. L. S. Lutz, Biblische Dogmatik, S. 30.
' Judges ii. 6— iii. 6. 3 2 Kings xvii. 7—23, 34—41.

JUDGMENT OF ISRAELITE HISTORIANS. 75
According to the author of Judges, the generation
that had conquered Canaan under Joshua's lead re
mained faithful to Yahweh.* Then began the apostasy.
" The sons of Israel did what was evil in Yahweh's
eyes, and served the Baals. They forsook Yahweh,
the god of their fathers, who had brought them out of
Egypt, and went after other gods."^ When the well-
deserved punishment came upon them, then indeed
they returned to Yahweh. But it was only for a time,
so long as the judge that had been raised up for them
stood at their head ; and on his death Yahweh was
again forgotten, until another chastisement brought
them back to his ways.' The state of things in the
kingdom of Ephraim, according to the second Book of
Kings, was still more deplorable. There other gods
were served, and the ways of the people which Yahweh
had cast out before Israel were followed.* They bowed
down before the dung-gods.* Yahweh, on his side,
never ceased to warn them by his servants the pro
phets ; but it was of no avail, for " they would not
hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of
their fathers, who had not faith in Yahweh, their
god ;"* they despised all his commandments, and " fol
lowing after nothings — (i. e. the idols) — they came to
* Judges ii. 7. ^ vv. 11, 12.
' vv. 14 — 19. * 2 Kings xvii. 7, 8.
' V. 12. ^ V. 14.

76 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
nought;"^ "all the commandments of Yahweh, their
god, they broke, and they made themselves two molten
calves, and made an Asherah and worshipped all the
host of heaven and served Baal,"' and offered their
sons and daughters to Molech.' In Judah things were
no better, for this tribe also observed not the com
mandments of Yahweh and walked after the ordinances
of Israel."* A dark picture in truth ! Nor does the
Chronicler lighten its colours. On the contrary, his
judgment on the ten tribes and their religion is more
unfavourable yet, and he cannot even find room for
them in his review of the fates of the chosen people
before the Babylonian captivity. This may be partly
explained by his devotion to the house of David, and
yet more to Jerusalem and the temple, but it is also
connected with the abomination in which he held the
ten tribes as idolaters.* Such being the judgments
under the influence of which the current conception of
Israel's early religion has been formed, is it surprising
that the character of a national religion has been denied
to Yahwism ? According to this view, it was (at any
rate before the exile) the opposition to Yahweh and his
interpreters that better deserved to be called national.
' V. IS. The play upon words is borrowed from Jeremiah (ii. s), and
is thus rendered in the A. V., ''they followed vanity, and became vain.''
^ V. i6. ^ V. 17. * V. 19.
' 2 Chron. xi. 13 — 16 ; xiii. 3 — 18.

JUDGMENT OF HISTORIANS EXPLAINED. 77
But it is not enough to know the source from which
the traditional view is drawn. We must also know
why the Israelitish historians pass such a very unfa
vourable judgment upon the antecedents of their own
people, and especially why they throw into the shadow
a fact which even their own narratives reveal, and
which in any case would be clear from the testimony
of contemporaries. Even when writers simply tell us
what occurred in the past, we must always bear in
mind who they were, from what suppositions they
started and for whom they were writing. But far
more, nay everything, depends upon these consider
ations when the problem is to determine the value of
such introductory or comprehensive surveys as we are
now dealing with. Here the author's personality
exercises a decisive influence. If he allows the events
themselves to speak elsewhere, and often adopts un
altered what he finds in one of his precursors, here in
these general surveys he comes forward in his own
person to interpret the lessons of history for us, — or
rather, not for us, whose only concern is to get at what
actually happened, but for his own contemporaries,
whose special .requirements are never out of his mind.
It is to them that he looks. It is to them that he
holds up the mirror of the past, that they may learn
to be on their guard against the errors of a former
generation, and to escape the judgment which will

78 POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
Strike them too if they fail to walk in the ways of
Yahweh. This admonishing and warning tendency
is no incidental accompaniment, but the main purpose
of the composition, and we must constantly keep it in
view, on pain of utterly mistaking the drift of the
writers. The application of this general rule to the special
case is not difficult. We must remember, in the first
place, that the prophets themselves, while admitting
the national worship of Yahweh as a fact, neverthe
less condemn it from time to time in the strongest
terms. It answers in no degree to their ideal. We
shall return to this fact presently, and may now con
tent ourselves with pointing it out, for no one will
deny it. But whereas the prophets declare that the
people serves Yahweh in its own way (i. e. in the
wrong way), the historians give us the impression
that Israel, either now and then or continuously,
deserts and forsakes him altogether. It is this differ
ence that we have to explain. Nor is it hard to do
so. The Mosaic law is the standard of the historians
— the book of Deuteronomy for the author of
Judges and Kings (one person in all probability),
and the whole Pentateuch for the Chronicler. Tried
by this test, the popular religion was far indeed from
deserving the name of " Yahwism." Only bear in
mind that Deuteronomy confines the offerings and

JUDGMENT OF HISTORIANS EXPLAINED. 79
feasts in honour of Yahweh to the one temple of
Jerusalem, and that the priestly law makes access to
him dependent upon a host of conditions, not one of
which had been observed by even his most zealous
servants! What the people therefore had done in all
sincerity to the glory of Yahweh, the latter historians
could only regard as opposition to him, could only
brand as contempt for his commandments. In their
eyes it was as abominable as idolatry itself — nay, even
more so, inasmuch as it falsely declared itself to
be the worship of Yahweh. Is it surprising that in
their general surveys they do not so much as mention
this pretext, but include everything — the building of
bamoth, the sacrificing " on every high hill and under
every green tree," the images of Yahweh, and the
service of other gods — under one sweeping condemn
ation as apostasy from Yahweh ? It was thus that
our authors saw the past, and it was thus that they
were compelled to judge it. Did a stray doubt ever
rise in their minds whether they were really quite
fair to the generations that had gone before them ?
Their zeal for Yahweh either never suffered such a
thought to rise, or instantly repressed it. Was it not
unconditional submission to his will that they them
selves aspired to, and that they strove to quicken in
their first readers ? Obedience to all the regulations
of the law was as yet by no means a second nature

8o POPULAR RELIGION OF ISRAEL.
to their contemporaries. The danger of their going
their own way was still imminent. Let there be no
hesitation, then ; for " if the trumpet gave forth an
uncertain sound, who should prepare himself for the
battle ?"* And indeed how could they doubt what
the fathers had really been ? Yahweh himself had
given sentence by the event. " Thus did the sons of
Israel walk in all the sins of Jeroboam, which he had
done; they departed not from them; until Yahweh
put away Israel out of his sight, as he had said by
means of all his servants the prophets. Thus was
Israel carried away out of his own land to Assyria,
unto this day."' Such is the goal towards which the
whole history of the ten tribes moves. " Thus was
Judah carried away out of his land.'" So ends the
story of the sister kingdom. The pious Israelite
might hope for the repeal of that sentence of banish
ment, but as a testimony to the past it was in his eyes
as unequivocal as it was irreversible. The fathers
upon whom it had fallen had not served Yahweh !
So we must not allow the Israelitish historians to
shake the conclusion to which our investigations had
led us. So far as their judgment rests upon a basis
of fact, it has every claim to our respect ; but that
does not necessitate our concurrence in their con-
^ I Cor, xiv. 8. ^2 Kings xvii. 22, 23.
^ 2 Kings XXV, 21, b.

JUDGMENT OF HISTORIANS EXPLAINED. 8 1
demnation of the popular religion before the exile. Of
course it is not the question whether the usages of the
popular Yahwism secure our sympathy. Presuma
bly neither you nor I should find them attractive. The
images of Yahweh which adorned most of the ba
moth as well as the temples at Dan and Beth-el, im
ply that the ideas men had of him were crude and
material in the extreme. Of the religious solemnities
we know little, but enough to assert with confidence
that they embodied anything but spiritual conceptions.
Wanton licence on the one hand, and the terror-
stricken attempt to propitiate the deity with human
sacrifices on the other, were the two extremes into which
the worshippers of Yahweh appear by no means ex
ceptionally to have fallen. No one will undertake to
defend all this, especially as at that very time there
was already another and a higher standard in ancient
Israel opposed to the lower and judging it. But yet
we are not justified in denying all worth to the popu
lar religion of Israel, and reckoning the participation
in it as a grievous sin on the part of the masses.
"The chosen people" may claim the same candour,
the same unprejudiced breadth of judgment, which
we are in the habit of extending to others. All sin
cere religion is true religion, and must secure its bene
ficent result. Even apart from the higher elements in
this worship, which, as we shall soon see, were by no
4*

82 THE PRIESTS OF YAHWEH.
means wanting, we must avow that without its popu
lar religion Israel would have been poorer — poorer
in the wealth that uplifts, consoles and strengthens.
Not in vain did men thank Yahweh for the blessing
of harvest, perform their work with eyes fixed upon
him, trust in his help under afflictions, and turn to
him for succour in times of peril.
In describing the popular religion of Israel, I have
more than once mentioned the priests of Yahweh. But
you will hardly expect me to be content with such
incidental references. For the just appreciation of
Yahwism, a closer study of the activity of the priest
hood is absolutely essential. It was with Israel, as
with almost all the nations of antiquity ; the priest
had his special function to fulfil in the life of the
people, whether in their worship or in their other
affairs, which no one else could fulfil for him. It is
true that during the first centuries after the settle
ment in Canaan the competency of every Israelite
to offer sacrifices to Yahweh was recognized, and that
in later times the privilege was still exercised by the
kings, and probably also by the heads of the tribes
and families ; but this notwithstanding Yahweh had his
priests from the first, and no sanctuary of any impor
tance could have been without one. Even in sacrificing
and in regulating the solemnities of worship generally,
the priest's guidance was constantly and increasingly

THE PRIESTHOOD. 83
appreciated, and, moreover, he was the indispensable
medium in " seeking " or consulting Yahweh.
But before we inquire how he acquitted himself of
this task and of his other duties, we must fix our
attention upon his person. Who were the priests of
Yahweh ? You are all aware that very different
answers have been given to this apparently simple
question. " The descendants of Aaron " is the most
common. But some declare this limitation to be of
later origin and say, " Before the Babylonian cap
tivity all the Levites were qualified to assume the
priestly functions." Yet others limit even this restric
tion to the very latest period of the kingdom of Judah,
and say that in earlier times the Levites shared their
priestly employments with men of other tribes, very
possibly laying claim to exclusive rights in the matter,
but certainly not establishing them. And, finally, yet
others maintain that by putting the question in these
terms we make the answer impossible. " Levites or
non-Levites," they say, can have no meaning in this
connection, inasmuch as the very name itself origin
ally meant neither more nor less than the servants
of Yahweh's sanctuaries, whoever they might be ;
and the idea of their all being related, in accordance
with which they were provided with a tribal ancestor,
Levi ben Jacob, only sprang up afterwards. You will
readily conceive that I have formed my own opinion

84 THE PRIESTS OF YAHWEH.
in this matter, and imagine myself to be in a position
to defend it* On this occasion, however, I need not
make a choice. One hypothesis only I must exclude,-
viz. that of the descent of all the priests from Aaron ;
for it rests exclusively on the witness of the priestly
legislation, and to accept it would be tantamount to
acknowledging the pre-exilian origin of this legislation
— an admission which, to my mind, makes any rational
conception of Israel's religious development impossi
ble. But in other respects I think we may arrive at
certainty concerning the work of the priests and their
relation to the popular religion, without being obliged
to determitie anything about their origin. The pro
phets, on whose intimations we shall rely by prefer
ence, make no distinction between Levitical and non-
Levitical priests, and most of them never so much as
mention Levi at all.
The question would assume a somewhat different
aspect were there any reason to assign a foreign, and
specifically an Egyptian, origin to the tribe of Levi.
The share of this tribe in the direction of the worship
would then no longer be a matter of indifference, and
we should find ourselves once more faced by a new
^ Cf. Religion of Israel, Vol. II. pp. 298 — 303, and Theol. Tijdschrift
VI. 628 — 670. Wellhausen, Gesch. Israels, 1. 145 ff,, has not convinced
me of the soundnessof his views, which differ to some extent from those
I have myself put forward.

ORIGIN OF THE LEVITES. 85
form of the problem of the foreign origin of Yahwism
which we thought was already behind us.* But the
sum of all that can be urged in favour of this Egyptian
descent is very weak and insignificant. A few proper
names — against which, moreover, others of undoubted
Hebrew origin must be weighed — are surely insuffi
cient to support such a hypothesis as this. And even
if it were otherwise, we should still have to distinguish
between Egyptian extraction and Egyptian modes of
thought. If historical criticism has proved anything
at all, it has proved that the Israelite people of the
regal period had arisen out of the fusion of very hete
rogeneous elements.' Not only the earlier inhabitants
of Canaan, but the bordering tribes also, had made
their contribution. The incorporation of a few families
partly or wholly Egyptian is far from improbable. But
what gave the resulting aggregate not only its name
but its character was undoubtedly the Israelite ele
ment, and to it rather than to any conquered or assimi
lated race we must ascribe the force and the initiative
especially in the field of religion.'
So nothing hinders us from proceeding at once to
observe the priests of Yahweh at work. As to their
care of the ritual, only a single word. If we had to
' See above, pp. 58 sqq.
' See Religion of Israel, Vol. I. pp. 135 — 138, 146 sq., 176 — 183.
' Cf Note VI.

86 THE PRIESTS OF YAHWEH.
confess our ignorance with regard to the worship of
Yahweh in general, still more must we despair of ascer
taining its detailed regulations. It is certain, however,
that even at the bamoth fixed observances were followed.
When — as we read in the Second Book of Kings* —
the Assyrian colonists were distressed by lions, they
recognized in this fact a proof of the resentment of the
god of the land, i. e. Yahweh, whose right to the name
we see they did not question. The king of Assyria,
when informed of this, sent them one of the priests
who had been carried away captive, " that he might
teach them the ordinance (' mishphat ') of the god of the
land ; i. e. the way in which he desired to be served.
" And there came one of the priests whom they had
carried away out of Samaria, and he settled at Beth-el
and taught them how they should fear Yahweh." An
important part in the redaction of the books of Moses
was ascribed, oddly enough, to this priest, when the
criticism of the Pentateuch was in its infancy.' The
solitary record which we possess concerning him assur
edly fails to give the smallest countenance to this idea.
" The ordinance of the god of the land " which he
taught was evidently not yet reduced to writing, and
^ Chap. xvii. 25 — 28.
2 (J. Clericus) Sentiments de quelques theologiens de HoUande sur
I'histoire critique du P4re R. Simon (Amst. 1685, p. 129 sv.); cf. Defense
des Sentiments, &c. (ibid. 1686), p. 167 svv.

THE PRIEST AS TEACHER AND SOOTHSAYER. 87
presumably it bore small resemblance to the regula
tions concerning worship which we now possess in the
central books of the Pentateuch. But this " ordinance"
existed ; the priest was in charge of it, and it was his
duty to " teach " it.
Not less important — far more so, indeed, in the eyes
of the masses — was the interpretation by the priest
of Yahweh's will. The very name which he bears,
" cohen," designates him as the man whose answer
unlocks the secrets of the unknown, as a soothsayer
or wizard ; and in the ancient narratives accordingly,
he constantly appears in that character, as we saw but
now.* Thanks to the number and varieties of these
narratives, the priest's modus operandi may be, to some
extent at least, recovered. The ephod was indispensable
in consulting Yahweh, and the teraphim are not unfre-
quently associated with it. Yahweh makes his decision
known by the lot, or, as is sometimes the case, de
clares that he will not give any answer at all.' What
we are to understand by this " ephod " is not yet
clearly ascertained. The latter usage would lead us
to think of a cape which the priest assumed when
he approached the deity to learn his will. But the
old records themselves make it probable that the
ejDhod was an image of Yahweh, silvered or gilt over,
' See above, pp. 66 sq.
' Cf my note in the Religion of Israel, Vol. I. pp. 96 — 100.

88 THE PRIESTS OF YAHWEH.
and perhaps so constructed that the lots could be
concealed within it.* However this may be, it was
the priest who applied the ephod to its use, and who
had always been, or gradually came to be, regarded
as exclusively qualified to employ it. This gave the
priestly office a significance in the national life which
we can hardly exaggerate.
Nothing that I have said about the priests and their
activity so far takes us outside the field of popular
religion, or exalts the priests themselves above it. If
this were all we knew about them, we should have
to assume that they stood upon the same level as
the great masses, and followed rather than led them.
But their function and their influence upon the national
life did, as a matter of fact, include something more
than we have spoken of as yet. We are told of the
priest who settled amongst the Assyrian colonists at
Beth-el that he "taught" or "instructed" them. The
Hebrew verb which we thus translate, together with
the noun derived from it, is constantly employed with
reference to the priest. He is the teacher, the moreh,
of his people ; and one of his standing attributes is
that he gives instruction or teaching, thorah. It is
' This opinion is rejected in the note cited above. But I cannot deny
that it finds support in Judges viii. 27 , xvii. xviii.; i Sam. xiv. 3, 18
(emended after LXX.); and is not contradicted by i Sam. xxi. 9 ; xxiii.
6, 9 ; xxx. 7 ; cf. Wellhausen, Gesch, Israels, I. 133, note i.

CONTENTS OF THE THORAH. 89
not his own personal opinion that he puts forward
under this title, but the revelation of Yahweh's will.
This makes it all the more interesting to inquire what
subjects were embraced in "the thorah of Yahweh"
which the priest announced. In the first place, as we
have just heard, the thorah expounded "how they-
should fear Yahweh" — with what conditions, for in
stance, the sacrificial beast must comply, and how it
must be offered. Following the later priestly legisla
tion we should come next to the distinction between
"clean " and " Unclean," for it is just in this connec
tion that constant reference is made to the thorah of
the priests;' nor is there the smallest doubt that these
references correspond to the actual fact. Before the
captivity the distinction in question was already re
cognized,' and it necessarily involved appeals to the
priest's opinions, and even to his active intervention,
whenever uncleanness had to be removed. But if we
go by the older documents, we must attach still more
importance to a third aspect of the priestly function,
viz, the pronouncing of judgment. I should call this
the spiritual, the ideal, element in the activity of the
priest ; and on that very account it now deserves our
fullest attention. 1 Deut. xxiv. 8 ; Lev. xiv, 54 — 57, &c.
' I Sam. XX. 26 ; xxi. 5, 5, &c.

90

THE PRIESTS OF YAHWEH.

The fact thatYahweh's priest pronounced judgment
cannot be doubted. The Deuteronomist assures us in
so many words that " Yahweh had chosen the priests,
the sons of Levi, to serve him and to bless in his
name," and that "by their sentence every strife and
every offence should be decided."* Does this mean
that they were the sole judges ? The expressions
used are unqualified, and might therefore seem to
.sanction this interpretation. Possibly Ezekiel may
have desired to see such a state of things actually
brought about, for he writes concerning the priests,
"Over disputes shall they stand in judgment. They
shall decide them according to Yahweh's ordinance."'
But the Deuteronomist does not really go so far as
this. He himself speaks of judges, who probably
belong to the " elders of the city," and at any rate
are not priests.' His "every strife and every of
fence" must therefore be taken to imply more espe
cially that the final decision in important cases de
pended on the priests. He speaks, indeed, of a high
court of justice at Jerusalem, in which priests and lay
men are associated together, and over which, accord
ing to the nature of the case, the priest or the "judge"
presides, the latter being a distinguished citizen.* Some-
' Deut. xxi. s, ' Ez. xliv. 24 a.
* Deut, xvi. 18 — 20 ; xix. 12 ; xxi. 2 sqq., 19 sq. ; xxii. 15 sqq. ; xxv. 7 sqq.
* Deut. xvii. 8 — 13; xix. 17, 18 ; cf 2 Chron. xix. 8 — 11.

JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE PRIEST. 91
thing of the same kind may have been established in
the northern kingdom likewise, at Samaria or at one of
the national temples of Dan or Beth-el. But it was
not only as members of this court of appeal that the
priests " taught the ordinances of Yahweh to Jacob."*
There were matters which had to be referred to them
in the first instance. We may learn their nature from
the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxi. — xxiii.), which
does not, it is true, ever mention the priest expressly,
but which nevertheless assumes his existence and his
influence throughout. When the Hebrew slave has no
desire for freedom after six years' service, but prefers
to bind himself to his master for good, the two go
together to " the deity," i. e. to the nearest bamah of
Yahweh, where they ratify their agreement by a sym
bolical transaction,' superintended, naturally, by the
priest, who must satisfy himself, as Yahweh's repre
sentative, that the slave really does voluntarily surren
der the freedom to which he is entitled. Whenever
property left in a man's charge has disappeared and
the thief cannot be traced, then the man must " draw
near to the deity" and declare on his oath " that he
has not laid hand on his neighbour's goods."' If a
man is accused of having possessed himself unlawfully
^ Deut. xxxiii. 10 a (presumably from the 8th century B. C).
^ Exod. xxi. S, 6.
' Exod. xxii. 7 (8).

92 THE PRIESTS OF YAHWEH.
of another's property, he likewise must appear, together
.with his accuser, before "the deity," and if proved
guilty must make two-fold restitution.* In both these
cases also the co-operation of the priest is indispensa
ble. And no less so, it would appear, when the
regulations as to places of refuge, given in the same
book, come into play. Yahweh will appoint a place
whither the unintentional homicide may flee.' But
" if any man have risen up against his neighbour of
set purpose, to slay hjm with guile, thou shalt drag
him away from my altar, that he may die."' How
could these rules be observed unless the priest who
served at the altar pronounced judgment as to the
guilt of the suppliant ?
Perhaps there were other cases in which the priest
was the natural judge, and at any time the parties to
a dispute might voluntarily submit their difference to
him for decision. But even if this was not so, the
judicial functions of the priest still constitute a most
important part of his task. Could we still doubt it,
then all hesitation would be removed by the complaints
of the prophets concerning the shortcomings of the
priests in the performance of their judicial functions.
When Micah reproaches them with " giving thorah
' Exod. xxii. 8 (9) ; cf also vv. 9, 10 (10, 11) (" the oath of Yahweh"),
and Dillmann's note on the passage.
2 Exod. xxi. 12, 13. s Exod. xxi. 14.

IDEAL OF PRIESTL Y FUNCTIONS.

93

for money ; '" Zephaniah with " soiling what is holy
and making the thorah unrighteousness ; "' or when
Jeremiah accuses them of sordid avarice and untruth
fulness,' the reference can only be to the abuse of judi
cial powers. Isaiah expressly formulates the complaint
that they are guilty of unfairness in " the decision,"* i. e.
in the exercise of their function as judges. Far more
clearly yet appears the great significance of the thorah
of the priests in the two severest denunciations of their
doings which the Old Testament contains. The one
is in Hosea,* the other in Malachi.* It is true that
the latter passage does not belong to the pre-exilian
period with which we are now dealing, but still the
prophet bears testimony concerning that period when
he holds up to the priest of his own day the ideal con
ception of his office which had been sketched already
before the captivity.'' "An upright thorah was in his
mouth, and no iniquity was found on his lips; in peace
and integrity he walked with Yahweh, and he brought
back many from sin. For the lips of the priest pre
served knowledge, and thorah was sought at his mouth ;
for is he not the messenger of Yahweh Zebaoth ? "
" but ye " — continues the prophet — " have departed
1 Micah iii. lib. ^ Zeph. iii. 4b.
3 Jer. vi. 13 ; viii, 10. * Isaiah xxviii. 7.
5 Hos: iv. 1—9: ' Mai. ii. 1—9.
' Cf Deut. xxxiii. 8— 11,

94

THE PRIESTS OF YAHWEH.

from the path, have brought many to their fall by the
thorah, have corrupted the covenant with Levi, says
Yahweh Zebaoth. So will I also bring you to con
tempt, and shame you before all the people, because
ye have paid no heed to my ways and have had respect
unto persons in the thorah." A more exalted concep
tion of the moral task of Yahweh's priest there can
hardly be. But as long as Malachi is our only witness,
we may be inclined to doubt whether this ideal, though
transporting us to the pre-exilian period, has really
anything in common with the facts as they then were.
All the more value, then, must we assign to Hosea's
utterances concerning Yahweh's priests in the kingdom
of Ephraim during the first half of the eighth century
B. C. It is in truth a sombre picture of their work,
or rather of their transgressions, that he paints. But
would he have held them responsible in no small degree
for the many evils which he perceived about him,
had not their office conferred upon them that great
influence which he complains of their not duly utiliz
ing ? It is time, however, to let the prophet speak
for himself.
Yahweh has a controversy with the dwellers in the
land, for there is no truth and no piety and no know
ledge of God in the land.^ Perjury, murder, theft and
adultery are general.' Therefore the land pines, and
1 Hos. iv. 1. ' V. 2.

HOSEA ON THE PRIESTHOOD.

95

all that dwells therein mourns, even down to the sense-
less beasts.* And yet — thus Hosea interrupts himself
— it is not really the people who should be contended
with or rebuked, for with the priests themselves it is no
better than with the people.' And therefore they too
shall fall, and the prophets with them.' " My people is
falling for want of knowledge, for ye (the priesthood)
have cast knowledge away. And so will I cast you
aside as my priests! And since ye have forgotten
the thorah of your god, I too will forget your sons.*
The more they have increased in number, the more
have they sinned against me. Their glory (Yahweh)
have they changed for shame (the idols).* They feed
themselves fat on the sin of my people, and their
longings go out after its trespasses.^ Therefore it
shall ^e with the priests as with the people, and I
will visit their deeds upon them and repay them for
their doings.^ — The man who so speaks will hardly
be suspected of partiality toward the priests. All
the more weighty, then, is his judgment as to what
they might and ought to have been. Israel is hasten
ing to moral ruin, bereft of " the knowledge of God,"
1 V. 3.
"^ V. 4, according to Wellhausen's emendation. See Gesch. Israels, I.
141, note.
** z/. 5. * V. 6,
^ V. 7, with the amended reading (" hemiril ").
^ v.Z. ^ V. 9.

96 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
which the priest of Yahweh possesses, but which at
the dictate of interest and self-indulgence he fails to
communicate to the people. It cannot be more un-
equivocably stated that, as Yahweh^s interpreter, he
is the bearer and appointed upholder of right. Alas !
he fails to fulfil so fair a task. He himself is absorbed
in the mechanical duties of his office and urges the
people to display their zeal for Yahweh in sacrifices
and feasts. Still worse, he degrades himself into a
servant of unrighteousness, and suffers himself to be
bought by the strong who oppress the weak and de
fenceless. But the ideal of his calling, which Hosea
holds up to him in reproof, still remains ; and with
it remains the ethical character of Yahweh to which it
bears witness. I am not speaking, as yet, of the
Yahweh whose word the prophets proclaimed, but of
the god of Israel whom the people acknowledged and
served. For it was to him that those priests belonged
who were consulted by the masses, and who directed
their sacrifices and feasts : Hosea unites them, and
we must not separate them. Now this is enough
to show that however great the outward resemblance
may have been between this Yahweh of the people
and the gods who were worshipped at his side or by
Israel's neighbours, yet he was not one of them.
Unless the prophet completely lost sight of the reality
when he uttered his denunciation, Yahweh is distin-

YAHWEH THE UPHOLDER OF RIGHT. 97
guished from the others and towers above them as the
god in whose name justice was administered, and of
whom it could be said that he was not known where
the laws of honour and of good faith were violated.
We must therefore enrich our conception of the popu
lar Israelitish belief by this trait. All the rest remains,
but we must add this one point to it, the ethical char
acter of Yahweh. And to this one trait belongs the
future. What I have advanced so far need hardly fear con
tradiction. The popular Israelitish religion, including
the place taken by the priests of Yahweh in it, is very
generally allowed to be national. If any objection
were raised, it would be to my description of this
religion itself, not to the national character I have
assigned it. But at this point we are met by a '
" hitherto, and no farther !" We are told that the
religion embraced and taught by the prophets can no
longer be regarded as national. By the prophets, in
this connection, are meant of course the men so desig
nated whose writings are preserved to us in the Old
Testament, and whom we shall henceforth call "the
canonical prophets." It is from the books of these
men that the proofs of the position we are discussing
are derived. What can be clearer, it is urged, than
that these prophets, so far from representing the spirit
5

98 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
of the people, protest against it with all their might ?
Their judgment on the nation from which they have
sprung is most unfavourable. The sentence rests upon
religious grounds, and has special reference to the man
ner in which their contemporaries, and — for this is fre
quently added — the former generations also, had served
Yahweh. The contrast seems to be absolute. What
the people regard as a duty, the prophets hold to be
sinful and abominable ; and, on the other hand, what
they praise and support is rejected by the people.
This relation between prophets and people, we are told,
is so unmistakable that it would have to be admitted
as a fact even if we were entirely unable to explain it.
But this is far from being the case. The explanation, it
is urged, may be found at once in the evidence given by
the prophets (not here and there, but throughout their
writings) as to the origin of the convictions which they
proclaim and defend against the people. Yahweh him
self speaks through them. They simply reproduce what
he has shown them or caused them to hear. Is it any
wonder, then,. that they rise high above the popular
conception? And does ft not follow that their reli
gion, great as its significance is to Israel and to all
mankind, can by no means be called national ? It was
far more than national. It was not of Israel, but
of God.
Perhaps, as I have spoken, the fear has laid hold of

PRINCIPLES OF INVESTIGATION.

99

you that we are about to tread that ground of theo
logical controversy from which we are so anxious to
preserve our feet ! The alarm is needless. I could
not omit to indicate how belief in the divine inspiration
of prophecy influences the conception formed of the
religious strife in ancient Israel. But there is no
necessity that we should enter upon an examination of
that belief itself. In one possible case it would have
been otherwise. If, namely, the canonical prophets
had been alone in professing to derive their utter
ances direct from Yahweh, then the claim to a divine
origin would have been the exclusive mark of their
preaching, and the first and supreme question before
us would have been, "Are we to acknowledge this
claim? Yes, or no?" But this possible case is re
mote from the actual one. The priest of Yahweh
also came forward in Israel as the interpreter of the
god he revered. So too did the prophets in general,
including the very ones against whom the denuncia
tions of the canonical prophets are hurled. If, then,
we are to endorse the prophetic consciousness of the
latter and to reject that of all others, we can only
reasonabl}' do so a posteriori ; on the ground, that is,
of what we learn from a study of their writings con
cerning their mode of thought and their character.
This study itself, then, must not submit to any ante
cedent restrictions, least of all to any restrictions

lOO THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
imposed by the prophets themselves with reference
to the source of their conceptions — for this is the
very point that has to be determined.
We may therefore pursue our historical investiga
tion undisturbed. The necessity of carrying it fur
ther, or, in other words, the impossibility of resting
in the sharp contrast between Yahweh's prophets and
the Israelitish people, must have been evident to us
from the moment that our attention was called to it.
Unquestionably we have a difference, nay, a deep-
rooted antagonism, before us. But we must not let
it make us blind to all else. How many an antithesis
that at first presents itself as absolute and irreco-ncil-
able, loses this character as soon as we turn our
attention from one prominent contrast to a general
view of the whole matter, and no longer neglect
those finer shades in which, according to Renan's
well-known saying, the truth lies ! No doubt it
seems to simplify matters first to sever the canonical
prophets from their historical environment, and then
to confine our attention to the points of their hos
tility towards the popular religion ; but a true insight
into the real state of things, and a fair estimate of
the religious convictions of the prophets as a whole,
will never be reached by such a method. Let us try,
then, to supply what is wanting in the current con
ception. The facts of which I shall have to remind

THE PROPHETIC ORDER. loi
you are well known, and a reference rather than an
exposition is all that is needed.
We must note, to begin with, that for many suc
cessive centuries " the prophets of Yahweh " consti
tuted a special and recognized social order. There
were " priests " and there were likewise " prophets "
of Yahweh. When Josiah, in the eighteenth year of
his reign, was about to give effect to the book of law
which Hilkiah had discovered, he assembled " the
prophets," with others, in the temple.* His contem
porary Jeremiah speaks of " the prophets '' — to cite a
single instance — in the superscription of the letter
which he addresses to the exiles in Babylon.' Isaiah'
and Micah* adopt the same usage. A century or two
earlier, Ahab and Jehoshaphat, before entering upon
a war with the Syrians, consult "the prophets of
Yahweh."^ It is quite in accordance with all this that
we should find prophecy referred to as a national in
stitution in the proverb which Jeremiah^ and EzekieF
have preserved for us, and which we may paraphrase
thus : " Never shall thorah fail the priest, nor counsel
fail the sage, nor a word (a revelation of Yahweh)
fail the prophet."
* 2 Kings xxiii.- 2. ^ Jer. xxix. i.
' Isaiah xxviii. 7; xxx, 10; iii. i, .i. * Micah iii. 5, 7.
5 I Kings xxii. 6 sqq. " Jer. xviii. 18.
^ Ez. vii. 26.

I02 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
This had not been so always. The 7iame " nabi "
did not come into common use in Israel all at once.
In the time of Samuel, people still said, " Let us
go to the seer !" for he who was afterwards called a
• prophet' was then called a 'seer.'" This we know
from a note in the First Book of Samuel,* the accuracy
of which will hardly be questioned. But even the
persons who were afterwards known as " the nebiim"
appear for the first time in the narratives concerning
the close of the period of the Judges — doubtless be
cause they did not exist before then. How interesting
it would be could we give a historical sketch and
explanation of their rise ! But the rule that " all ori
gins are obscure '' asserts itself here too. It is only
a conjecture, then, though it is one that has strong
probability on its side, that the phenomena of inspira
tion and extasy which had long been native to the
worshippers of the Canaanite deities, passed over at
this period to the worshippers of Yahweh likewise.
The " prophets of Yahweh " who thus rose up joined
themselves together, and formed unions or colonies,'
which gradually assumed a settled form under the
guidance of Samuel, and thereby assured themselves
a continued existence.
Are we to add that the prophets originally stood
in the closest connection with the priests ? It was
1 I Sam. ix. 9, ' I Sam x. 3, 10 — 12 ; xix. 18 sqq., &c.

RELATION OF PROPHETS TO PRIESTS.

103

so amongst the Canaanites. Baal's prophets offer
him sacrifices on Mount Carmel,* and are mentioned
on another occasion in conjunction with his priests,^
just as the Philistine "priests and soothsayers " appear
together.' And in the same way Samuel unites in his
person the priestly with the prophetic function.* On
the strength of these phenomena it has been supposed
that the prophets of Yahweh were originally priests,
and only gradually separated themselves and acquired
more independence.* But there are no real grounds
for this supposition. There is not a trace to be found
in the Old Testament of any connection of the pro
phets with the altars or temples of Yahweh, and
this would hardly be the case if they had originally
been amongst the servants of the sanctuaries. The
old relation, had it existed, would have been preserved
here and there even when it had ceased to be normal.
Neither, so far as we can tell, was the prophetic office
ever regarded as hereditary, whilst from the earliest
times the sons of priests were priests themselves.* This
is a difference which has its grounds in the nature of
' I Kings xviii. 19 sqq. ' 2 Kings x. 19. ' t Sam, vi. 4.
• I Sam. vii. 9, 17 ; xiii. 8 sqq,; xv. 33 ; xvi. v:.
^ Cf Wellhausen, 1. t. I. 412 ; S. Maybaum, die Entwickelung des
altisrael. Priesterthums, S. 12. A different view is supported by E. von
Hartmann, das relig. Bewusstsein der Menscheit im Stufengang seiner
Entwickelung, S. 389 f
* Judges xviii. 30 ; i Sam. i. sq.

I04 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
the two offices, and one which marks so profound a
separation between them that we must hesitate to con
nect them with each other in their origin more closely
than our narratives require.
But when all is said, points of contact between pro
phet and priest remain. Both passed in the eyes of
the people for the trusted interpreters of the deity.
But whereas the priest was thus gifted in virtue of his
office and as the bearer of a consecrated tradition, and
was accordingly referred to on the ordinary occasions
of life, such as the administration of justice, the pri
vileges of the prophet were more personal and, if I
may so express it, momentary and intermittent. The
prophet is the organ extraordinary of Yahweh, and as
such the. natural counsellor in the perplexities which
the oscillations of fortune or the uncertainties of the
future bring upon Israel. Of course the contrast is
not absolute. There were doubtless circumstances under
which the prophet or the priest might be consulted
with equal propriety. If the special circumstances
occasionally determined the choice, there were likewise
times when no choice was open ; for the prophet — not
the priest, with whose office it would have been far
less consonant — often came forward unasked to declare
"the word of Yahweh," or sometimes, we may safely
assume, at the head of a " company of prophets,"* to
1 Sam. X. 5, lo.

POPULAR SYMPATHY WITH PROPHETS.

105

solve the problem himself — and not always by moral
suasion !
Enough has been said to give us an idea of what
prophecy as a social institution, and " the prophets of
Yahweh," viewed and judged in the mass, must have
been in Israel, So far we have met with nothing that
could suggest our removing them from the sphere of
the national religion. The Israelites- themselves did
nothing of the kind, and neither must we. W^hatever
the origin of prophecy may have been, and however
strange the first impression it produced on the earlier
generations of nomads, their amazement gradually dis
appeared, and they came to regard it as an integral
part of their national life and as one of the proofs of
the favour of their national god. There would be no
lack of incidents to confirm them in this conception.
When, in the presence of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, the
four hundred prophets of Yahweh testified, as one man,
their zeal for the campaign against the Syrians, and
animated the two kings by the prospect of certain
triumph,* how the hearts of true Israelites must have
glowed with sympathy ! And are we not to suppose
that, during the same period, many an one applauded,
albeit in secret, that son of the prophets who dared to
protest against Ahab's generosity towards Israel's here-
1 I Kings xxii. 5 sqq.

I06 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
ditary foe ? You remember the story.* The king of
Israel had been moved to spare Benhadad of Damascus,
whose life was in his hand, and had granted very
favourable terms of peace to him, though he had de
feated him utterly. As he was returning home he was
hailed and stopped by a stranger, who told him that in
the tumult of the battle one of his friends had entrusted
a prisoner to him, and he had pledged his own life for
his safety. Now the prisoner had escaped. . . . But
here Ahab interrupted him, saying it was useless to
proceed. He had pledged himself to his friend, and
must now make good his loss or must himself serve
him as a slave. The prophet at once applied the prin
ciple to Ahab : " Thus saith Yahweh, Since thou hast
let the man whom I had condemned go free, thy soul
shall be in the place of his soul, and thy people in the
place of his." We have little sympathy with the policy
of blood and iron which this prophet upholds ; but we
shall none of us deny that he was actuated by patriotic
motives, and that both he and the whole class to which
he belonged could calculate upon the support of the
most zealous servants of Yahweh when they came for
ward in defence of such principles. With such an
example before us, we can understand how the Israel
ite nation was comforted and encouraged in times of
' I Kings XX. 35—43.

THE IDEAL OF THE PROPHECY.

107

gloom by the thought that "the word of Yahweh
would never fail the prophet."
Let us suppose for a moment that we knew nothing
of the prophets of Yahweh beyond these general traits,
and that we had nothing more to go upon in forming
our ideas of the position they took and the spiritual
development they attained. Judging by analogy, we
should regard it as probable that the level of their
average development would not stand high, but at the
same time we should suspect that there must have been
some who rose above it. On the first point I need not
enlarge. The consciousness of standing in connection
with a higher world, of being inspired or impelled by
the spirit of God, is in itself glorious and exalting. In
spite of the aberrations to which it is exposed and the
abuses to which it too readily lends itself, we may yet
aver that power goes forth from this consciousness —
power for the cleansing of the inner man, for the sup
port of self-sacrifice and heroism. But if it is artificially
excited and cultivated, if there is a premium, so to speak,
on extasy, and its absence makes a man unfit for the
chosen task of his life, then it becomes a very different
matter. Corruptio optimi pessima. What is more mise
rable than assumed transport of spirit and pretended
divine inspiration ? The application of this to the
prophetic order is too obvious to need pointing out.
Taken as a whole, it cannot have stood much above

I08 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
the soothsayers and wizards amongst other ancient
peoples. But — and here we come to the second point
— might we not expect a priori 'Cns.t some few eminent
personalities would rise up from the order itself, or
would be fired by the example of its members, and
would realize the idea of prophecy ? The conception
of a close and trusted intercourse with Israel's mighty
protecting deity, which is incarnate as it were in pro
phecy, could not fail to attract religious souls, and to
rouse or strengthen within them the desire to enter
into such divine intercourse. And are we to suppose
that this longing, when once aroused, could remain
permanently unsatisfied ?
You will have observed already that it is only in
form that my argument has been a priori. What I
have thus advanced rests in reality upon historical
testimony. The low level of the prophetic guild, as a
whole, and the degeneracy of prophecy in some of its
representatives, are sufficiently obvious. But in like
manner the eminent exceptions of which I have spoken
are know to us from history. I have but to name
Samuel, Nathan, Elijah and Elisha. That they all
came out of the prophetic unions is not certain. In
deed, we know that Elisha did not.* The prophets
did not form a close caste. The inspiration which
was their distinctive mark might appear outside their
' I Kings xix. 19 — 21.

THE MORAL FACTOR IN PROPHECY.

109

circle, and if any man experienced it, access to the
prophetic unions lay open to him ; or he might per
haps come forward as a prophet, without incorporat
ing himself with them at all. Yet, even in the latter
case, the form of his activity, the outward aspects of
his mission, so to speak, were determined by the
prophecy of his time. So, whatever may have been
the origin of the men just named, they stand in the
relation I have already indicated to the prophetic
order as a whole. What is it, then, that exalts them
so high above the rest? What distinguishes them
from the great mass that they leave so far behind ? I
repeat the question, because it seems to me no less
difficult than important. If I could but give you any
thing that might claim to be a sketch of the char
acter of Samuel or Elijah, for instance ! But you
know why no one can do so. The narratives concern
ing these men are few in number, comparatively late
in date, not unfrequently in mutual contradiction, and
therefore of doubtful worth. Every conclusion we
draw from them is more or less open to suspicion.
Of the particulars, even of those which would inspire
us with the greatest interest, we know nothing, and
can never hope to obtain full knowledge. Yet we
could not refrain from asking the question we have
emphasized, and we need not leave it altogether unan
swered. In the narratives that lie before us, one trait

I lO THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
recurs again and again — too naturally to allow of our
suspecting deliberate intention on the part of the
writers — too regularly to be accidental. The prophets
whose names I have mentioned are distinguished by
their moral earnestness and courage. Samuel — Saul ;
Nathan — David ; Elijah — Ahab and Ahaziah : I '
have only to put these names side by side to make
my meaning obvious. Is this an accident, or a mat
ter of indifference ? I cannot think it. If I am not
mistaken, this is the factor which elevates these men
above the rest of their order, and at the same time is
destined to raise the order itself to higher things.
This brings us back to the ethical element in the con
ception of Yahweh on which we have already fixed
our attention.* It was in those prophets whom it had
most deeply impressed, who were most completely
penetrated by the stern and inexorable character of
Yahweh's moral demands, and had therefore become
the preachers of righteousness, that prophecy reached
its full dimensions and bore its ripened fruit.
But let us go further and consult the sequel of the
history. The earlier prophets relied for their influ
ence upon the spoken word, to which a section of the
people or certain special individuals often gave imme
diate effect in action. But in the eighth century B. C,
the prophets began to extend their activity by writing
1 Pp. 90 sq.

THE MORAL FACTOR IN PROPHECY. I I I
down the word they had previously spoken. Why
first at this period ? Times had changed, and proph
ecy had changed with them. Israelitish literature
dates from this century, or at all events from not
much earlier. The songs which were originally
passed from mouth to mouth were now written
down, collected and provided with historical notes.
From these beginnings historical writing presently
developed itself. Experience must have shown
that such compositions met with a favourable recep
tion in various quarters, and did not fail of their
effect. If the pen had thus shown itself to be a
mighty weapon, what was more natural than that the
leaders of the people should grasp it ? Thus arose,
presumably in priestly circles, the earliest collections
of laws and moral exhortations,* one of which we
possess in the Book of Covenant (Exod. xxi. — xxiii.).
Thus, too, the earliest written prophecies, those of
Amos and his immediate successors, came into exist
ence. A co-operating cause may have been the
changed relations of some of the prophets to the
great majority of the people. The wrongs with
which they reproached their contemporaries were not
of a nature to be righted offhand in a burst of enthu
siasm. Amos, and those of kindred spirit with him,
1 Hos. viii. 12. For ribio, Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, II. i. S. 469 f.,
reads dibre, probably correctly.

1 1 2 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
desired to address themselves to many whom their
spoken word could never reach, and it could not fail
to further their object if they succeeded in extending
to wider circles the opportunity of pondering upon
their preaching.
But be this as it may, the prophet's character re
mained the same after he had become an author. The
canonical prophets of the eighth and succeeding cen
turies are not severed by a sharp line from their pre
decessors. Working under the forms of their time
and in accordance with its requirements, they are the
legitimate successors of Elijah and Elisha. If these
are to be regarded as the organs of Israel's national
god, then so are those. Or must we say that, although
there seems to be no breach of continuity, yet the
contents of their preaching forbid us to place the ca
nonical prophets in any such relationship to their
people and its religion ? We must not allow a single
essential feature of this preaching to escape us. I hope
to lay before you fairly and fully, to the best of my
knowledge, all that can serve to illustrate the differ
ences and the conflicts between them and the people.
But at the very outset it must be clearly understood
that we should be contradicting the prophets them
selves were we to begin by loosening the tie that
unites them to the Israelite nation. Their own evi
dence on such a point must at least be heard first, not

CANONICAL PR OP HE TS AND THE PE OPLE. \ \ 3
to say simply accepted as conclusive. We will take
this evidence, then, to-day ; and thus we shall lay the
foundations upon which any further conceptions may
rest. Yahweh Israels God and Israel Yahweh's people !
It surely needs no proof that the canonical prophets
endorse this fundamental conception of the popular
religion, that not one of them ever thinks of denying
it. The whole of their preaching takes this as its
starting-point, and leads back to it as its goal. On
this latter point I wish to place the utmost emphasis.
It is well known that our prophets anticipate evil days
for their people. Why they do so we need, not at
present consider. Enough that they expect Israel's
national life to be put to an end, and the Israelites to
be carried away into a strange land. But this is not
the limit of their anticipations. " The eyes of the Lord
Yahweh are upon the sinful kingdom (of Ephraim),
and he will sweep it away from the face of the earth ;
howbeithe shall not wholly destroy the house ofjacob."^
The carrying away will be followed sooner or later
by the restoration. But this, by its nature, is a new
departure, the beginning of a new period. If, then,
the relations between Yahweh and Israel in the midst
of which the prophets were living had been in their
opinion merely temporary, they would certainly have
' Amos ix. 8.

114 ^-^^ PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
regarded the re-establishment of such relations as
destined to be accompanied by a complete change in
them. And indeed they did believe that the new era
would in many respects be quite different from the
old. Israel, humbled by his chastisement, was to
return to Yahweh with all his heart and to begin a
new life. It is nothing less than a complete transfor
mation. Yahweh makes a new covenant — so Jeremiah
puts it — and writes his thorah on his people's hearts,
and they all know him, from the least to the greatest.*
The heart of stone will be taken away and a heart
of flesh will be given — so Ezekiel expresses his anti
cipations.^ But however great the change may be,
though the wolf lie down with the lamb and the
sucking child play by the adder's hole,' nay, though
there be new heavens and a new earth,* yet the rela
tion between Yahweh and Israel remains the same.
The prophecies concerning the heathen (of which more
hereafter) do not alter this fact. Consult all the pro
phets, from the first to the last, and you will find
that on this point they are unanimous. The glance
of Amos is fixed upon the restoration of the united
Israelite nation under the Davidic dynasty, which will
be reared again " as in the days of old," that under its
lead Israel may " inherit the remnant of Edom and of
1 Jer. xxxi. 32 — 34. 2 Ezek. xi. 19, 20.
' Isaiah xi. 6, 8. * Isaiah Ixv. 17 ; Ixvi. 12.

CONNECTION BETWEEN YAHWEH AND ISRAEL. I I 5
all the peoples over whom the name of Yahweh has
been proclaimed (as the name of their conqueror)."
" And," so he concludes, " I, Yahweh, will plant them
in their land, and they shall not again be plucked up
out of their land that I have given them, saith Yahweh,
their god."* Hosea finds room for Israel alone in his
picture of the future. " I will heal their backsliding
and will love them freely, for my wrath is turned away
from them. I will be as the dew to Israel. He shall
blossom as the lily, and shall spread forth his roots as
Lebanon ;'" — such are the words in which Yahweh
describes the close communion there will be between
himself and his people. In Isaiah, too, Yahweh stretches
out his hand to gather the remnants of his people from,
all the places of their captivity, to be his possession.
The exiles of Israel and the scattered ones of Judah he
draws together. The jealousy of Ephraim and Judah
has departed. Together they rush upon the Philistines,
plunder the sons of the East, and subdue Edom, Moab
and Ammon.^ A century later Jeremiah gives utterance
to essentially the same thoughts. The new covenant
of which we have heard him speak is entered into with
" the house of Israel and the house of Judah."* Nor is
there one of his descriptions of the future in which the
I Amos ix. II sq., 15. ' Hos, xiv. 5, 6 (4, 5).
' Isaiah xi. 11— 14. * Jer. xxxi, 31.

II 6 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
same conception is not met with in one form or another.*
" I will be their god, and they shall be my people,"
stands as an assurance that in the days to come, what
ever else may be changed, the bond between Yahweh
and Israel shall not be broken or relaxed. How com
pletely Ezekiel's anticipations are penetrated by the
spirit of nationality I need hardly show. Who does
not remember his picture of the restored Israel, settled
once more in Canaan, ranged round the temple and its
servants, or rather round Yahweh who " has established
his sanctuary in the midst of them, and whose abode
shall overshadow them. He shall be their god and
they shall be his people, and the nations shall acknow
ledge that he, Yahweh, sanctifies Israel (i. e. sets him
apart for his service), because his sanctuary is in their
midst for ever.'" The meaning of these utterances is
all the less ambiguous because Ezekiel nowhere
brings either Yahweh or Israel into closer relations
with the heathen except in a hostile sense. And even
the second Isaiah, in so many respects the opposite of
Ezekiel, stands with both feet on the ground of nation
ality. Israel and Yahweh are inseparable from each
other. At the very time when the prophet is contem
plating the heathen world and representing it as sus
ceptible of the impression of Yahweh's power and
' Jer. iii. 14 sqq. ; xiii. 13 — 17 ; xxx. 18 — 22; xxxi. i sqq., &c.
' Ezek. xxxvii. 26 b — 28.

NATIONAL ELEMENT IN PROPHECY. I I 7
majesty, he unites Yahweh most closely with his peo
ple, and expresses his expectation that amongst the
nations
• " This one shall say : I belong to Yahweh,
And that one call himself by Jacob's name ;
Another shall unite himself unto Yahweh
And take Israel's name to add to his own."*
But there is no need to multiply quotations. One
single remark in conclusion. It is difficult not to be
offended by the pictures of Israel's future glory which
the second Isaiah so evidently delights in elaborating.
" What can this mean ?" we. are inclined to exclaim,
when we hear him prophesy that strangers shall build
the walls of Jerusalem and kings shall serve his peo
ple.' And yet all this can be explained and justified
if Israel and Yahweh are one in "the prophet's mind.
Take away this conception, and you can only be re
pelled by his boundless national arrogance. We are
indeed doing the prophets ill service if we conceal the
fundamental thought of all their preaching. In this
respect, " Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra." Ra
tionalists have branded as " particularism," and supra-
naturalists have done their best to explain away or
evaporate, what is really nothing less than the very es
sence of the Israelitish religion, to which even the great-
1 Isaiah xliv. 5. '^ Isaiah Ix. 10.

1 18 THE PROPHETS OF YAHWEH.
est prophets could not be untrue without sacrificing
that religion itself
In what, then, does the difference between the pro
phets and their people consist ? Whence the antago
nism which after all is as undeniable as the kinship ?
The answer to these questions I must beg leave to
defer till our next meeting.

UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.

If the canonical prophets stand on the soil of Israel
itism and share with it their fundamental idea, whence
the divergency between them and their people which
sometimes even amounts to hostility and stirs con
tention ? Why are they so loud in their accusations
of Israel, and why do the majority of the Israelites
refuse to recognize them as their representatives ?
The prophets themselves must answer these ques
tions ; nor will they refuse to do so when they are laid
before them. The antagonism of which we are speak
ing does not present itself, or at any rate does not
force itself into the foreground, everywhere. It is
absent or inconspicuous in the prophets who, like
Nahum and Obadiah, direct their oracles against a
single foe of their people whom they threaten with
destruction, or who, like the second Isaiah, come for
ward, under the deep impression of Israel's national
humiliation, as comforters and as preachers of the glad
tidings of redemption and restoration. But these are
119

I 20 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
exceptions to the rule. The rule itself is thus formu
lated by Jeremiah : " The prophets who have been
before me, from the first, have prophesied against many
lands and great kingdoms, of war, and disaster and
pestilence. As for the prophet who preaches peace —
when his saying comes to pass, then (but not till then)
shall it be seen that Yahweh has indeed sent him."*
Jeremiah, then, finds the characteristic of the emissary
of Yahweh in his being a prophet of evil. And why ?
Because he is the preacher of repentance, the repre
sentative of Yahweh's strict moral demands amongst a
people that but too ill conforms to them. These are
the demands of which the true prophet is the champion.
Here he takes his stand. The god in whose name he
speaks is the Holy One — if indeed I may use this word in
the purely ethical sense which it has for us, but which
it had not yet acquired in the usage of the prophets
themselves. It is only by going through the prophetic
literature itself that one can adequately realize ho#
completely the inviolable and inexorable moral law
dominates these men so to speak, and determines
their judgment on all that they observe. Take, for
example, the following dirge raised by Amos over his
people : " The virgin of Israel is fallen and shall not
rise. She lies down deserted in her land, and there is
none to raise her up.'" The people of her cities shall
1 Jer. xxviii. 8, 9. * Amos. v. 1, 2.

PROPHETS AS PREACHERS OF REPENTANCE, j 21
be decimated by disaster upon disaster ; ' for Yahweh
has said to the house of Israel, seek me, and ye shall
live ! Go not to Beth-el, to Gilgal or to Beershebah,
but seek Yahweh, and ye shall live ! See to it that he
leap not upon the house of Joseph like a fire, an un
quenchable fire that consumes Beth-el.' As yet the
offenders who have given occasion to this denunciation
have not been named. But now come the words, " O
ye who turn justice to wormwood and fling righteous
ness to the earth ! "' Of them, the grandees and judges,
the prophet testifies that they hate him who reproves
them in the gate, and loathe him who speaks uprightly.*
" Therefore," he concludes, " inasmuch as ye trample
down the needy and take from him a tribute in corn,
ye have built houses of hewn stone but ye shall not
dwell in them, and planted fair vine-stocks but shall
drink no wine from them. For I know your sins that
they are many, and your trespasses that they are
mighty, for ye accept the money of atonement and give
judgment against the poor in the gate."* "Woe unto
them," cries Micah, " who devise unrighteousness and
accomplish evil (in imagination) in their beds, and when
morning dawns bring it to pass, because their might
^ z'. 3. 2 vv. 4 — 6, ^ V. 7.
* Amos V. 10. The two preceding verses disturb the progress of the
discourse, and probably are not genuine. Cf. H. Oort, Theol. Tijdschrift,
XIV. 118. ' w. II, 12.
6

122 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
is their god ; who covet fields and take possession of
them, houses and seize them ; who oppress the owner
and his house, the man and his inheritance ! "* But I
need not go on. As it is here, so it is everywhere. In
the pictures of the judgment that shall come upon Is
rael, the sins of the people almost always fill the som
bre background ; for it is these sins that Yahweh will
punish, and indeed cannot leave unpunished without
renouncing his own moral nature. Isaiah makes the
sinners in Zion cry :
Who amongst us can dwell with a consuming fire ?
Who amongst us can dwell with an ever-glowing furnace ?
And the answer declares that they only shall be safe
and prosperous who walk in righteousness and speak
truth, and whom neither fear nor avarice can force to
lay hands on their neighbours' life or possessions.'
This profoundly ethical conception of Yahweh's being
could not fail to bring the prophets into conflict with
the religious convictions of their people. In the con
sciousness of the latter, Yahweh and Israel were
closely and inseparably bound together. It is true that
the relations between them were not uniform or inca
pable of being disturbed. Yahweh never ceases to be
the god, i. e. the natural helper, defender and deliverer,
of his people, but it does not follow that he is always
1 Mic. ii. I, 2. 2 Isaiah xxxiii, 1$, i6.

RELATION OF YAHWEH TO HIS PEOPLE.

123

equally ready to protect their interests. From time to
time he hides his face. The misfortunes that fall upon
Israel proclaim it all too loudly. But this estrange
ment is only temporary. It leads his worshippers to
call with redoubled zeal upon Yahweh, and to offer
him more numerous and costly sacrifices than ever.
Distress does but multiply vows, to be paid to him
when his wrath is appeased or his inaction has come
to an end. The bond that unites him to his people,
then, is never supposed to be broken. Such strained
relations may be compared to misunderstandings be
tween a husband and wife who have never heard of
divorce, or at least have never thought of it. The
disturbance of their peaceable relations one with the
other may be extremely painful, but sooner or later
it will be made up. But all this is changed as soon
as Yahweh has acquired, as he has in the minds of
the canonical prophets, an ethical character. I use
this expression designedly. Moral attributes are as
cribed to him by the people also. We have already
convinced ourselves of this in dealing with the
priestly thorah ; and it is well to recall the fact at this
point, if only to prevent us from exaggerating the
actual distance between prophets and people. But
these attributes were only some amongst many.
They were not regarded as dominating all else. If
not exactly subordinate to Yahweh's connection with

124 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
Israel, they might at least yield a point in its favour.
Only call to mind how in the historical books of the
Old Testament — whose authors certainly stood higher
in this respect than the great masses — the idea comes
into the foreground more than once, that Yahweh
had to uphold his own honour, and therefore could
not neglect to protect and bless his people.* Thus, in
the conception of the people, Yahweh's might, or, if
you prefer to put it so, Yahweh's obligation to display
his might, must often have overbalanced both his
wrath against Israel's trespasses and the demands of
his righteousness. But to the prophets such an idea
had become impossible. As soon as an ethical char
acter was ascribed to Yahweh, he m.ust act in accord
ance with it. The Holy, the Righteous One, might
renounce his people, but he could not renounce him
self Now consider the necessary effect of this upon the
relations between the prophets and the great majority
of their contemporaries. If there was a foe to be
repelled, or if, in the interest of the people, an
attack on a neighbouring tribe was to be made, the
national leaders reckoned with certainty upon the
help of their god. "Is not Yahweh in our midst? No
harm shall overtake us !'" Such confidence, they ima-
' Ex. xxxii. II, 12; Num. xiv. 13 19; Deut. xxxii. 27; Josh. vii. 9,
2 Mic. iii. II.

PA TRIO TISM AND BELIEF IN THE HOL Y ONE. I 2 5
gined, could only be rebuked by men who questioned
Yahweh's power or esteemed that of the enemy's gods
more highly. But now they saw opposed to them, in
Amos and his successors, men who, far from doubting
Yahweh's might, assigned to him greater power and a
wider dominion than they themselves had ever done,
but who nevertheless denounced their reliance upon
his support as vain and sinful. According to these
men, it was no absurd supposition that Yahweh might
take the part of Israel's foes against Israel. Nay, they
went still further, and declared that Yahweh himself
brought upon them, his people, the very thing they
most dreaded, the very thing against which they had
sought the protection of their god ! " I call forth against
you, O house of Israel, says Yahweh, the god of hosts,
a people that shall afflict you from Hamath to the stream
of the plain " — so says Amos.* The Assyrians the
rod of Yahweh's wrath,' and Nebucadrezar Yahweh's
servant,' are expressions used, the one by Isaiah, and
the other a century afterwards by Jeremiah. How
can we wonder that such words as these sounded like
blasphemy in the ears of the people ? Their patriotism
rose up in protest, and with it the religious conscious
ness which as yet coincided with it. But were the
prophets really unpatriotic ? Were they indifferent
1 Amos vi. 14. 2 Isaiah x, 5,
' Jer. xxv. 9 ; xxvii. 6 ; xliii. 10.

I 26 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
to the continued existence and the prosperity of Israel ?
We have already convinced ourselves of the opposite
and shall presently find further confirmation of it.
Yet it is easy to understand that the people and the
popular leaders could not see this ; for they could only
have done so if they themselves had experienced the
majesty of the Holy One, even as an Amos had expe
rienced it in its overmastering strength : — " the lion
has roared : who should not fear ? The Lord Yah
weh has spoken : who should not prophesy ? "*
The loosening of the band between Yahwism and
patriotism is a fact of the utmost significance, on which
we have much still to say. But before further illus
trating it and following up its weighty consequences,
we must make ourselves acquainted with the direct
influence of the recognition of Yahweh's ethical
character on the religious convictions of the prophets
themselves. In the estimation of all who worshipped him, Yahweh
was a great and mighty god, mightier than the gods
of other nations. There was nothing unusual in such
a belief It was the belief of the Moabite with regard
to Camosh, of the Ammonite with regard to Malcam.
It is perfectly natural, too, that the recognition of
Yahweh's greatness and supremacy should receive
stimulus and support from political events. When
' Amos iii. 8.

GENESIS OF ETHICAL MONOTHEISM.

127

David waged the wars of Yahweh with a strong hand,*
and when victory crowned his arms, he made Yahweh
himself rise in the people's estimation. Solomon's
glory shone upon the deity to whom he had consecrated
the temple in his capital. But it lies in the nature of
the case that a faith reared upon such foundations was
subject to many shocks, and under given circumstances
might easily collapse. Born of the sense of national
dignity, growing with its growth and strengthening
with its strength, it must likewise suffer under the
blows that fell upon it, must pine and ultimately die
when, with the independence of the nation, national
self-consciousness disappeared. In any case Yahweh,
if exalted in this way only, remained comparable with
all the other gods, of one family with them, if I may
so express myself and of impulses like to theirs. The
moral qualities which the people ascribed to him did
not affect this fact, for the distinction they established
between him and his rivals, however real, was not
essential. The case was completely changed when, in
the consciousness of the prophets, the central place
was taken, not by the might, but by the holiness of
Yahweh. Thereby the conception of God was carried
up into another and a higher sphere. From that mo
ment it ceased to be a question of " more" or " less "
between Yahweh and the other gods, for now he stood
• I Sam. xviii. 17 ; xxv. 28.

I 28 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
not only above them, but in very distinct opposition
to them. If Yahweh the Holy One was God, if he
was God as the Holy One, then the others were not. In
a word, the belief that Yahweh was the only God
sprang out of the ethical conception of his being.
Monotheism was the gradual, not the sudden, result of
this conception. I assume as established that mono
theism does as a fact begin to show itself with unmis
takable distinctness in the writings of the prophets of
the eighth century, and is taught in explicit terms in
the last quarter of the seventh century in Deuteronomy
and Jeremiah.* But I must allow myself — at once in
illustration and support of this fact — to call your at
tention to the contemporaneous movement in the
opposite direction which took place in the popular
religion. We can hardly exaggerate the impression pro
duced by the appearance of the Assyrians in Palestine.
The last invasion of a powerful foreign foe, that of
the Egyptians under Shishak,' belonged, in the eighth
century, the distant past. Since then the Israelites
and their neighbours had been left to themselves.
^ See my essay on "Yahweh and the other gods," Theological Review
1074., pp. 329 — 3^6, and on the present position of the question. Note
VII, 2 I Kings xiv. 25 — 28 ; 2 Chron. xii. i — 12. The incursion of Zerah
the Cushite, 2 Chron. xiv. 7 — 14 (8 — 15), is too doubtful to be taken into
consideration in this connection.

UNI VERSA LISM IN THE POPULA R RELIGION. I 2 9
Their wars against each other had been waged with
changing fortunes, but on the whole they had fairly
balanced one another. Their horizon was closely
bounded. It was, therefore, a very unwonted spec
tacle that the Assyrian monarchy presented to them,
though it did not burst upon them quite without
warning. As early as in the ninth century it had
already been advancing, and had made its crushing
power felt from afar.* But it was not till a century
later that it appeared in its irresistible might, sweep
ing all before it, turning the lands into wildernesses,
and carrying away their inhabitants captive. It
has been truly said that Israel and its neighbours
now for the first time came into contact with the
world. This conception, which had never before risen
in the consciousness of these small nationalities, com
pletely shifted their centre of gravity, and made them
doubt the power of their gods which they had hitherto
tranquilly acknowledged.' The religion of Israel,
amongst the rest was thrown into confusion by this
disturbing cause. Lack of historical documents prevents
our determining with certainty its disorganizing effect
in Northern Israel but in the kingdom of Judah the
distinct traces of its influence may still be marked.
• Cf E. Schrader, die Keilinschriften und das A. T., S. 94 ff.
2 J. Wellhausen, art. Israel, in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Vol. XIII. p. 411 a. •
6*

130 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
It is told of Ahaz that he had a new alter placed in
the temple at Jerusalem, modelled after one he had
seen when visiting the Assyrian king at Damascus.*
This is a trifle, if you will, but it is not without signi
ficance, for it shows that Ahaz was anxious to make
the national worship conform to " fashion," always and
everywhere an assimilator of foreign ideas, and on that
ground very properly called a form of universalism,'
though unhappily it often brings it to contempt rather
than to honour by its exaggerations ! More important,
however, than this sufficiently innocent innovation is
the fact that Ahaz " consecrated his son (to the deity)
by fire."' If this stood alone, we could not draw any
wide inferences from it, and should merely note it in
its bearing on the character of Ahaz ; but a number of
converging details drive us to regard the sacrifice of
children as the first in a whole series of innovations
that found their way into the popular religion of Israel
from this time forward. Close by Jerusalem the tophet
was built, probably by Ahaz himself,* and thus the
worship of Molech was encouraged by royal patronage.
Manasseh followed the precedent of his grandfather.
^ 2 Kings xvi. 10 — 16.
' 2 R. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, ae Ausg. II. 468 f.
' 2 Kings xvi. 3; according to 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, '' his sons."
* Cf Theol. Tijdschrift, II, ¦562 — 568, where, besides the well-known
places in Jer. and 2 Kings, I have examined Isaiah xxx. 33.

THOUGHTS AS TO WORLD-POWER. 131
He too, " consecrated his son by fire,"* and, largely no
doubt owing to his example, this practice became far
from unusual thenceforth. He also introduced a num
ber of foreign usages, and made the temple at Jerusa
lem a kind of pantheon.' It is from his reign that the
worship of " the host of heaven" dates.' The origin of
all these "reforms"as we may suppose Manasseh would
call them, cannot be pointed out with certainty. It is
highly probable that not a few of them were adopted
directly from the Assyrians, to whom Manasseh at any
rate during the greater part of his reign, was vassal.*
Egypt also appears to have made sundry contributions.*
But we need not enter on these questions ; for the
essential point is 'simply this, that from the time of
Ahaz onwards, i. e. from the time of the first contact
• 2 Kings xxi. 6 sq. ; 2 Chron, xxxiii. 6.
' 2 Kings xxi. 4, S, 7 ; cf. xxiii, 12,
' 2 Kings xxi. 5 : cf, xxiii. 4, 5 ; Jer, viii, 2 ; xix, 13 ; xxxiii. 22 ; Zeph,
i. s ; Deutero-Isaiah xxiv. 21 ; xxxiv. 4, The evidence of the latest re
dactor of Kings (2 Kings xvii, 16) is insufficient to prove that the same
form of Idolatry existed in the kingdom of Ephraim before its fall,
* He appears as such in Assyrian inscriptions, in the reign of Ezar-
Haddon and of Asur-bani-pal ; cf Schrader, 1, c. S. 227 ff,, 238 ff, : Fr.
Hommel, Abriss der babyl.-assyr. und israel. Geschichte, S, 10,
5 See Ezek. viii. and my Religion of Israel, Vol. IT. p. 77 — 8r, I must
add, however, that the inference I still thought myself justified in drawing
from Ezek. viii. 7 — 13, when that note was written, now appears to me to
have been rendered questionable by the researches of W. Robertson
Smith, in the Journal of Philology, IX. 75—100 (see especially p. 97).

132 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
with the Assyiians, the popular religion of Israel loses
its independence and becomes, so to speak, the sport
of the world-power, be it of Assyria herself or be it of
Egypt, who for a time disputed the possession of Pales
tine and Syria with her. And is not this after all a
perfectly natural phenomenon ? Was it not obvious
for the worshipper of the national god, Yahweh, to
look about in his perplexity for extraordinary aid ?
And where should he expect to find it if not in the
quarter where the supreme power lay, and whence the
very danger he feared threatened his people?
Far different was the aspect worn by these events to
the prophets. The victories of Assur had no power
over their ethical faith. Their Yahweh could not be
dethroned or cast into the shade by Bel or Merodach.
On the contrary, strange as it may seem, he became
greater in proportion as the world-power made itself
felt more mightily. For what was that power, in the
view of the prophets, but an instrument in Yahweh's
hand to chastise the sins of Israel and its neighbours ?
Even before the Assyrians appeared in Palestine, Amos,
overpowered by his moral indignation, had regarded
them in this light and had announced their approach.*
His successors spoke and thought as he. Who does
not remember how high an Isaiah, for example, raises
' Amos vi. 14 (supra, p. 117), and other passages, in which the Assyri
ans are not even alluded to, but are none the less presupposed.

THOUGHTS AS TO WORLD-POWER. 133
the grandeur of Yahweh, while representing him as
the Mighty One whose purposes with regard to his
people are served by Assur and by Egypt ?* And
thus the prophets — once more to quote Wellhausen —
" absorbed into their religion that conception of the
world which was destroying the religions of the nations,
even before it had been fully grasped by the secular
consciousness. Where others saw only the ruin of
everything that is holiest, they saw the triumph of
Jehovah over delusion and error."' What was thus
revealed to the eye of their spirit was no less than the
august idea of the moral government of the world — crude
as yet, and with manifold admixture of error, but pure
in principle. The prophets had no conception of the
mutual connection of the powers and operations of
nature. They never dreamed of the possibility of car
rying them back to a single cause or deducing them
from it. But what they did see, on the field within
their view, was the realization of a single plan, — every
thing, not only the tumult of the peoples, but all na
ture likewise, subservient to the working out of one
great purpose. The name " ethical monotheism "
describes better than any other the characteristics of
their point of view, for it not only expresses the char
acter of the one God whom they worshipped, but also
1 Isaiah viii. 9, 10, 12 sqq. ; x. &c.
2 In Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIII. p. 411 a.

134 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
indicates the fountain whence their faith in Him
welled up.
This purer and therefore more exalted conception of
God could not fail to influence the ideas of the prophets
as to the future relation between Yahweh and the
peoples not his own. Even as conceived in the popular
religion, Yahweh displays his might beyond the limits
of Israel, and bends the neighbouring peoples to his
will. The greater the national god becomes in the
estimation of his worshippers, the more natural it
seems to them that his power should be recognized
and reverenced in wider circles. A remarkable passage
in Amos shows that even in the eighth century the
people looked forward with longing to " the day of
Yahweh."* What conception they had formed of it
does not appear ; but the humiliation of Israel' foes
and their subjection to Israel's god unquestionably
formed one feature in it. Now, from an ethico-reli-
gious point of view, very little, if any, value can be
attached to this popular expectation. What is it but
a most ordinary expression of national feeling, the
projection into the future of a commonplace patriot
ism ? And in so far as the prophets' anticipations
agree with these popular conceptions, it is impossi
ble to assign any higher place to them. Accordingly,
^ Amos V. i8.

YAHWEH AND THE PEOPLES. I 35
many of the descriptions of Israel's restoration and
of the roll which the heathen will take therein
have none but literary and aesthetic claims on our
admiration. But, as I have said, it lies in the na
ture of the case that ethical monotheism, even in the
period of its genesis, must give a fresh turn to expec
tations with regard to Yahweh and the peoples. With
out deserting the national position — and we know
already that the prophets remained true to it* — it was
possible to think of Yahweh as being to the peoples
something else and something more than their con
queror. And, as a fact, even in the earliest prophecies
which deal with the future of the peoples, this influence
of the purified prophetic conceptions may already be
perceived. " In the last days " — so Isaiah' and Micah'
declare, both of them in the words of a predecessor
whose name is unknown to us — " in the last days shall
the mountain of Yahweh's dwelling-place be established
on the top of the mountains and exalted above the hills,
and the peoples shall flow unto it. And many nations
shall go and say : Come, let us ascend to the mountain
of Yahweh and to the house of Jacob's god, that he
may teach us of his ways and that we may walk in his
paths ; for from Zion goes thorah forth, and the word
of Yahweh from Jerusalem." It is the god of Israel
whom the " many nations " reverence, and the central
I See pp. los sqq. ' Isaiah ii. 2, 3. " Mic. iv. X, 2.

136 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
point of the theocracy to which they ascend. But
what draws them thither and what they seek there is
the thorah of Yahweh, the knowledge of his ways,
wherein they desire to walk. Here, then, this un
known prophet adopts the purer, because the truly
religious, tone which ever sounds henceforth from the
prophetic literature — not unmixed indeed, far from it,
but unmistakable none the less. Whether Isaiah
himself, in the second half of the nineteenth chapter
of his oracles, announces the spread of Yahwism
into Egypt, and even the union of Egypt and Assur
with Israel in the worship of Yahweh, I should prefer
to leave undecided. The authenticity of this passage
in his prophecies is too doubtful to warrant us in
drawing deductions from it with regard to the pre-
exilian period.* But the glorious word of Yahweh
uttered by Zephaniah is undisputed: "Then will I
give the peoples other and clean lips, that they may
all call upon the name of Yahweh and serve him with
one accord.'" With him, too, Jeremiah is essentially
at one. He, too, speaks of the "flowing of the
nations together to Jerusalem, to (the worship or
glorifying of) Yahweh's name.'" He, too, looks for
the time when the peoples shall come from the ends
1 Cf the Commentaries on Isaiah xix. 17 — 25, and my work, " The
Prophets and Prophecy in Israel," p. 248.
2 Zeph. iii. 9. ' Jer. iii. 17.

YAHWEH TO BE SER VED B V THE IE OP LES. I 3 7
of the earth and shall say to Yahweh : " Nought but
untruth have our fathers inherited, nought but empti
ness ; and amongst them (amongst the supposed
gods) is none that brings succour. How should man
make gods for himself? They are no-gods!"* If
elsewhere ' he shows himself acquainted with the con
ditions upon which the realization of this prospect
depends, and therefore assumes the possibility that, in
spite of the dazzling revelation of Yahweh's might,
and majesty, the heathen may refuse to learn the ways
of his people and to swear by his name, — all this, so
far from weakening the significance of his prophecy,
only serves to bring out its ethical character the more
clearly. As yet I have made no mention of the prophet
whose universalism takes the highest flight of all —
I mean the second Isaiah. He proclaims the noth
ingness of the idols, proclaims that Yahweh is ab
solutely alone, more emphatically than any of his
predecessors. Is it surprising, then, that he should
expect to see this one God, the first and the last,
beside whom there is none other, recognized and
adored by even the remotest peoples ? " Turn
^ Jer. xvi. 19 — 21. The idea that the worship of other — inferior or im
aginary — gods has been destined or allotted to the heathen, is shared by
the prophet with Deuteronomy. See Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (cf Theological
Review, 1876, p. 351) ; iv. 19, 20 ; xxix. 25 (26).
^ Jer. xii. 15 — 17.

138 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
unto me and be saved, all ye ends of the earth,
for I and no other am God ! By myself have
I sworn ; righteousness has gone out from my
mouth, and a word that shall not be turned aside:
before me shall every knee bend, by me every tongue
swear ! In Yahweh alone, shall they say, have we
health and might ; to him shall they come, and all that
are inflamed against him shall be put to shame."* It
is not superfluous, however, to inquire in what sense
all this is meant, for in the second portion of Isaiah
the heathen are often placed in a servile relation to
Israel. Is it possible that the same or an analogous
idea is expressed here also ? In other words, is it as
the king and the redeemer of his people that Yahweh
is thus honoured, and is it in spite of themselves that
the nations recognize his supremacy ? To us it is no
easy matter to connect or even to harmonize such a
political prospect with the expectation of a truly reli
gious relation between Yahweh and the heathen. But
to the consciousness of the prophet the two ideas were
quite compatible. Undoubtedly his eye is always fixed
on the exaltation of his own people and the humbling
of the other nations, its foes. But it is equally certain
that he expects the prayers of the heathen to ascend to
Yahweh. " My house shall be called a house of prayer
for all nations."' And no wonder, for Yahweh himself
1 Isaiah xiv. 22 — 24. ^ Isaiah Ivi. 7.

DEUTERO-ISAIAH' S UNIVERSALISM. 139
comes forward as their teacher ; " Hearken to me, ye
peoples, and ye nations hear my voice ! For thorah goes
forth from me, and I will make my ordinance a light
for the nations. (The revelation of) my righteousness
is at hand ; my salvation comes forth, and mine arms
shall judge the people. In me the dwellers by the
coast shall hope, and on my arm shall they wait."*
Nor does the prophet leave completely unanswered the
question how all this shall come to pass. It is not
to be without Israel's instrumentality. If in the first
instance it is the glorifying of " the servant of Yah
weh " ( i. e. the kernel of the nation set apart by him
for his worship) which excites the amazement of the
heathen and moves them to submit to Yahweh, this
same " servant " is likewise Yahweh's interpreter in
the heathen world, and his preaching is the means of
converting the peoples to Yahweh. It is but rarely
and incidentally that the prophet refers to this aspect
of the work of " Yahweh's servant." Perhaps he him
self had no clear conception of how he would perform
the task. But the scattered utterances in question are,
after all, quite unequivocal. " Behold," we read in
one passage,^ " my servant whom I uphold ; my chosen
in whom my soul delights ; I put my spirit upon him :
he shall proclaim right to the peoples  He is not
maimed nor broken till he has established right on the
Isaiah Ii, 4, 5. ' Isaiah xlii. i, 4.

140 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
earth and they of the coast wait on his thorah." Just
afterwards, Yahweh addresses him thus : " I have
called thee in righteousness, and hold thy hand and
keep thee and set thee for a covenant of the people,
for a light of the heathen."'^ Elsewhere " the servant "
himself is introduced as speaking. " Hearken to me,
ye dwellers in the coast, and listen, ye peoples from
afar !" And subsequently Yahweh describes the double
task that is laid on him thus : " It is not enough that
thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of
Jacob and to bring back the redeemed of Israel ; where-
fore I have set thee as a light to the heathen, that my
salvation may reach to the end of the earth."' All
comment seems superfluous. The second Isaiah appre
ciates the blessing of being called by Yahweh, but also
recognizes the duties which that calling involves. It
is an exalted place that he assigns to his people, but
the responsibility it brings with it is in proportion to
its exaltation. Israel is privileged far above the nations,
but also destined to share with them the best that it
has received from Yahweh.
Was it only as a general expectation that the pro
phet cherished and proclaimed these thoughts as to
the future of Israel's religion ? Or did he venture to
give them concrete form by applying them to a single
individual — though one that was a host in himself —
' v.b. 2 Isaiah xlix. i, 6.

A LIGHT TO HEATHENS. 1 41
viz. Cyrus ? This cannot be a matter of indifference
to us if we are to judge his universalism truly, and
you will therefore permit me to dwell on it for a mo
ment. I do so the more willingly because very recent
discoveries have, in the opinion of competent judges,
thrown fresh light on the subject.
The facts, so far as they may be gathered from the
Old Testament, are well known. The second Isaiah
speaks with enthusiasm, not only of the task which
Cyrus is to perform, but also of Cyrus himself He
calls him " the anointed of Yahweh," " whose right
hand he has , grasped ;"* " Yahweh's shepherd," or,
according to another reading, which is probably the
true one, " Yahweh's companion" or friend, " who shall
accomplish all his good pleasure.'" So far, however,
nothing more is implied than that Cyrus is a chosen
instrument in Yahweh's hand. But now observe what
Yahweh says in another passage : —
" Raised up by me is one come from the North,
Come from the East, who shall call on (or proclaim) my name.
Who shall trample the princes like slime,
As the potter treads down the clay."'
The Hebrew idiom admits the alternative transla-
' Isaiah xiv. l.
' Isaiah xhv, 28, For ro'i, read re'i, both here and in Zech. xiii, 7,
where the same emendation is demanded by the parallehsm. The meta
phor of the shepherd scarcely suits the context.
' Isaiah xii. 25. In the third line I have adopted the well-known emen
dation, yabus ior yabo.

I 42 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
tion, " who calls on (or proclaims) my name," in the
present tense, but the sequel makes it probable that
the prophet is thinking of the future. But how can
Cyrus even then proclaim the name of Yahweh, whe
ther it be as his suppliant or as his emissary ? He
has evidently not yet learned to do so at the time
when the prophet speaks. In the first prophecy from
which we have quoted, Yahweh promises him hidden
treasures, " so that " — as he says to him —
" So that thou mayst confess that I, Yahweh, am he,
Who call (thee) by thy name, the god of Israel.
For the sake of Jacob, my servant.
And of Israel, my chosen,
Have I called to thee by thy name,
Do I give thee titles of honour, while thou knowest me not.
I am Yahweh, and there is no other ;
Beside me there is no god.
I gird thee, vhile thou knowest me not. '
As yet, therefore, Cyrus is unconverted, nay, not in
any way acquainted with Yahweh. But why may
not Deutero-Isaiah have expected the change to come
just in consequence of the mighty aid which the god
of Israel was about to lend the Persian conqueror ?
Nay, he explains it all in so many words : Yahweh will
1 Isaiah xiv. 3 b — 5. The interpretation of Cheyne and others,
"whilst thou didst not yet know me," i. c. from thy birth onwards (cf
chap. xlix. i), appears to me inadmissible. The word is yeda' tani, not
yada'ta

DE UTER 0-ISAIAH ON CONVERSION OF CYRUS. I 43
clear away all obstacles from before him, and will give
him wealth, in order that he may acknowledge that
Yahweh, the god of Israel, calls him by his name.
We see, then, that the prophet makes a genuine
advance upon Jeremiah, for instance, who calls Nebu
cadrezar " the servant of Yahweh."* In this case,
the Babylonian monarch himself remains passive,
whereas Cyrus, the friend and the anointed of Yahweh,
is to come forward himself and to call on the name of
Yahweh. Now, does this difference find its complete
explanation in the glowing idealism of Deutero-Isaiah,
and in the very different tasks which Nebucadrezar
and Cyrus respectively have to fulfil with reference to
Israel ? Or did the religion which Cyrus even then
professed help to create the expectation that he would
ultimately learn to reverence Yahweh ? No one can
be surprised, I think, that this last question has often
been answered in the affirmative.
But before giving our own decision, let us inquire
whether there chance to be any other accounts of Cyrus
which can give us any light. His decree concerning
the return of the Jewish exiles, as given at the begin
ning of the book of Ezra,' will not help us. It is hard
indeed to believe that Cyrus could have thought or
spoken as is there represented ! And in fact we find
' Vid. sup. p. 117, note 3,
' Ezra i. 2 — 4 ; cf 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23,

144 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
that, according to one of our writer's predecessors,
whose word he himself adopts,' the edict really ran
otherwise. On the contrary, we are clearly bound to
take cognizance of an inscription in which Cyrus himself
boasts of having restored the gods of Babel to their
places, declares that he calls daily upon Bel and Nebo,
that they may fill up the length of his days and may
bless the decree concerning his lot, and further pro
claims himself emphatically " the worshipper of Mero
dach."' The name of Ahura-Mazda does not appear
in the whole inscription. Now this, it has been argued,
leads us to very unfavorable conclusions either as to
the moral character of Cyrus or as to the purity of his
religion. Was he a worshipper of Ahura-Mazda, and
yet so feeble and indifferent towards him, or so anxious
not to offend the Babylonians, that he did not so much
as mention the name of his own god, while actually
making a merit of his zeal for others ? Or did he really
know nothing of Ahura-Mazda at all, and does the in
scription show him in his true character of an ordinary
idolater ? The latter alternative has been supposed to
find support in the fact that Cyrus calls himself and
his forefathers "kings of An-za-an," i. e. Susiana. He
1 Ezra vi. 3 — 5.
2 The inscription was discovered in 1879, and was first made known by
Sir H. Rawlinson. Since then it has frequently been discussed. See
Cheyne's Prophecies of Isaiah, I. 301 — 303 ; II. 264 — 270; cf, also Note
vni.

INFERENCES FROM INSCRIPTION OF CYRUS. 1 45
himself testifies elsewhere that he is an Achaemenid.*
This involves his Persian descent, which is therefore
beyond dispute. It may, however, be contended that
the founder of his dynasty had moved to Susiana, where
his posterity had gradually fallen into the religion of
the country. But whichever of the above alternatives
be adopted, it is contended that in neither case could
the person of Cyrus give any grounds for the hope that
he would acknowledge and openly confess Yahweh ;
and that in explaining Deutero-Isaiah's prophecy we
must therefore leave this personal factor out of con
sideration. Is it really so ? It seems to me that in this instance
there has been too much haste, and that sacrifices too
ready and too great have been offered to the one newly
discovered document, which is after all only preserved
in a fragmentary condition, and is by no means inter
preted with certainty. The splitting up of the Achae-
menidae into two branches, one settled in Persia, whence
Darius came, and the other in Susiana, from which
Cyrus sprang, sounds in itself more like fiction than
history ; and moreover, when thus presented, it is
as inconsistent with the inscription of Darius as is
the supposed difference of religion between the two
branches.' I must have better proof than this before
' F. Spiegel, die altpersischen Keilinschriften, S. 2.
2 See, further, Note VIII.

146 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
I believe that the whole of antiquity was mistaken in
regarding Cyrus as the founder of the Medo-Persian
monarchy. The fact remains however, that Ahura-
Mazda is not mentioned in the newly discovered in
scription. But ought this to cause such great amaze
ment ? And does it justifiy such far-reaching conclu
sions ? The inscription is Babylonian, not only in
language and in form of writing, but in purport also.
The compiler's object is to conciliate the favour of the
Babylonians, or, if you will, to reconcile them to their
new master. Ought we to forget this fact in estimat
ing the contents of the inscription ? Can we regard
such a composition as flowing from the pen of Cyrus
and containing a confession of his personal faith ? To
do so would be more than hasty. I can see nothing
more in it than a political manifesto, and I can only
infer from it the belief of the Persian satrap as to what
would be acceptable to the inhabitants of Babylonia.
We return to Deutero-Isaiah. He certainly insti
tuted no investigations as to the religious convictions
of Cyrus. He simply accepted what common fame
reported. But I do not see what hinders us from
still supposing that this was enough to enable him to
draw a religious distinction between Cyrus and the
Babylonian oppressors. This would render it all the
easier for him to retain that ideal conception of the
person and work of Cyrus which we meet with in his

SOURCES OF DEUTERO-ISAIAH'S CONCEPTION. 147
prophecies. The source, however, of this conception
must not be looked for in the reports concerning
Cyrus that had reached the prophet, but in himself,
in his unconditional monotheism and his unshaken
faith. He possesses the courage of his opinions, and
therefore sees in the instrument of Yahweh's will the
proclaimer also of Yahweh's name.
The Yahwism of the canonical prophets now stands
before us in sufficient clearness to enable us to de
termine its relation to the Israelite nationality. I need
hardly remind you again that not one of the prophets
ever thinks of severing Yahweh and Israel one from
the other. But it lay in the nature of the case that
their ethical conception of religion must loosen the
bond which united these two — the people and its god
— and must give a certain independence to Yahwism.
The latter did not cease to be a part of Israel's national
life, but it became something else and something more
as well. We must not for a moment imagine that
this was the result of a preconceived and deliberate
plan. The preaching of the prophets had the ten
dency already described, without their having given
themselves any clear account of it. Moreover, the
tendency itself is not equally marked in them all. In
some of them its traces are faint or altogether absent ;
and in each case in which we observe it, it appears in

148 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
a special form characteristic of the individual pro
phet. Let us, however, review the facts themselves,
and their significance will at once be apparent.
Is it not highly noteworthy that Amos, our earliest
witness, expresses himself so emphatically and unequi
vocally in this matter ? This is no doubt connected
with the earnestness and youthful freshness of his
Yahwism, which gave a clear outline ¦ to the conse
quences that flowed from it. At the opening of the
first of those rebukes which he administers to the
kingdom of Ephraim, we find this passage : "Hear the
word that Yahweh has spoken concerning you, O sons
of Israel, concerning the whole race that I brought up
out of Egypt. You alone have I known of all the
races of the earth. Therefore I shall visit all your
sins upon you."* We must not fail to notice how
directly this " therefore" stands opposed to the deduc
tion commonly made by the people, viz., because
Yahweh stands in so special a relation to Israel, there
fore he will not punish, but will overlook and condone,
whatever Israel does amiss. At present, however, we
are more nearly concerned with this other thought, also
expressed in the passage cited : Israel is but one of the
many nations of the earth. It is Yahweh who has
taken to himself this one nation in distinction from all
others. He might have " known" some other nation
• Amos iii. i, 2.

AMOS ON YAHWEH'S RELATION TO ISRAEL.

149

had it seemed good to him. It is a great, an inesti
mable privilege which he has as a fact conferred on
Israel alone, but which he might have refrained from so
conferring. Do not suppose that we are taking Amos
too literally at his word in ascribing this conception
to him. He returns to it elsewhere in his prophecies
more than once. To shake from their slumbers " those
who are at ease in Zion," and those "who deem them
selves safe on the mount of Samaria," he urges them
to go and look upon Calneh, to journey thence to the
mighty Hamath, and then descend to the Philistine
Gath : " Are ye better than these kingdoms, or is your
territory greater than theirs ?"* Here we are struck
by the prophet's silence concerning the guarantee
which the Israelites supposed themselves to possess,
in the support of Yahweh, against such disasters as
had fallen on these cities. This supposed guarantee
Amos entirely ignores. Why should the fate which
fell upon these mighty cities spare Judah or Ephraim ?
Elsewhere, too, he expressly places his people in the
same line with other nations. After declaring that the
six nations bordering on Israel shall not escape the
punishment with which each is threatened " for three
transgressions and for four," he hastens to complete
' Amos vi. 2. The true reading of this verse, which I have adopted in
my translation, is pointed out by A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen
der Bibel, S. 96 i.

150 UNIVERSALITY OF THE PROPHETS.
the tale of seven by adding Israel, divided into its two
kingdoms.* Still further to his people's shame, he else
where summons the dwellers in the palaces of Ashdod
and of Egypt as witnesses of the abominations com
mitted in Samaria.^ Finally, Yahweh asks, in no
doubtful terms, " Are ye not as the sons of the Cushites
to me, O ye sons of Israel ? Have I not brought Israel
out of Egypt, and (that is to say : but likewise) the
Philistines from Caphtor, and the Aramaeans from
Kir ?"' Thus one of the chief proofs of the inseparable
union between Israel and his god is bereft of its force,
or rather contemptuously cast aside as worthless. We
see Yahweh, as it were, receding from the natural and
inherent relation in which he was supposed to stand
to Israel. But by this very means Yahwism is exalted
into a higher, viz., the ethical, sphere, and at the same
time ceases to be exclusively suited and destined for
Israel. It is certainly no accident that in this same prophet
Yahwism begins to assume a broad human character.
One might say that it is taking the direction of
" natural religion " and of the " virtutes civiles," as they
have been sometimes called, with grudging sympathy.
" Do good ! " " Let justice run down like water,
' The six neighbours, in Amos i. 3— ii. 3 ; Juda and Israel, in ii. 4, S.
and ii. 6 — 16, respectively.
2 Amos iii. 9, 10, Amos ix. 7.

CHARACTER OF AMOS' YAHWISM. I 51
and righteousness like an overflowing stream ! " In
these and other such formulae* Amos sums up the
demands of Yahweh. By this standard he judges
and rebukes not only Israel, but Damascus, Gaza,
and the rest.' The connection between this pheno
menon and the prophet's special view of the relation
between Yahweh and Israel is not to be mistaken.
That Yahwism which, according to the conviction of
Amos, might have existed elsewhere than in Israel,
cannot be specifically Israehtish. It must commend
itself to all in whose bosom beats a human heart. We
must beware of attributing to Amos a clear discern
ment of all that followed from his principle. But we
must not overlook the fact that his preaching was big
with a revolution on the field of religion which he
himself was not to witness, but which he unquestion
ably prepared.
It has been said of Isaiah, not without justice, that
the inviolability of Zion had become a dogma with
him. His immovable conviction, however, referred
not to the capital of his fatherland, but to the seat of
Yahweh, Israel's king. He could therefore unite with
this invincible confidence a second expectation, which
he expressed in the name of one of his children : Shear-
^ Amos iii. 10 ; v. 14, 15, 24 ; vi. la ; cf. Duhn, die Theologie der
Propheten, S. 113 if.
' Amos i. 3, 6, 9, II. 13 ; ii. i.

152 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
yashiib.* " A remnant repents " is as much a 'threat
as the expression of a hope. Indeed, it is a threat in
the first instance. It is the announcement of a fearful
judgment which Yahweh will bring upon his people
by means of Assur or of Egypt, or of the collision of
these two on Judah's territory. The people of Judah
that now is must be all but utterly destroyed. Not
for it is the glorious future held in store of which
Isaiah prophesies. It answers so ill to Yahweh's
severe demands, that it must needs be swept away ere
Zion can become what it is destined by its divine con
secration to be. But "a remnant shall repent." Isaiah
could not relinquish this hope, and in so far he
was as good an Israelite as any of his political oppo
nents. The actually existing Israel, which in spite of
himself he had been forced to renounce, bore in itself
" the holy seed "' from which the new people, the
people after Yahweh's heart, was to spring.
You observe that the severance between people and
religion is effected here otherwise than with Amos.
The subject of Yahwism, the people that is to serve
Yahweh in truth, has still to be brought forth.
Israel is already there, but not the people of Yahweh.
The future which Isaiah proclaims is foreshadowed in
the little circle which he had collected round himself,
and into which he retired when his preaching found
• Isaiah vii. 3 ; x. 20—23 ; cf. iv. 3, 4. 2 Isaiah vi. 13.

THE DISCIPLES OF YAHWEH IN ISAIAH. 153
no acceptance either with the people or with the poli
tical leaders. I refer to the " faithful witnesses,"
Uriah the priest and Zachariah ben Yeberechiah, to
whom he communicated his prophecy concerning Da
mascus and Samaria ;' and to those "taught of Yahweh,"
in whose midst he was "to bind up the testimony and
seal the thorah."' How we long to know more of this
little community and its conventicles ! But we have to
be satisfied with the bare hints to which I have alluded.
Yet is not the mere fact that Isaiah thus severed him
self, his family and his spiritual kindred, and placed
them over against the people, in itself full of signifi
cance ? I suspect that the circle thus formed exercised
an important influence on the further course of Israel's
religious evolution. I cannot escape the thought that
the priest-prophet to whom we owe the Deuterono
mic legislation was of the spiritual progeny of those
" disciples of Yahweh" amongst whom was Uriah the
priest, and at whose head stood Isaiah the prophet.
Be this as it may, Isaiah's separatism — if you will
pardon the word — is a remarkable token of the grow
ing independence of Yahwism, a milestone on the way
which it must traverse in its course from a national to
a universal religion.
Still more clearly speaks the truly tragic figure of
Jeremiah. His biography — for we really know enough
1 Isaiah viii. 1—4. ^ Isaiah viii. 16.
7*

I 5 4 UNI VERSALISM OF THE ' PR OPHE TS
of him to warrant us in adopting what might otherwise
sound a pretentious phrase — need not be repeated here.
What gives him his special interest for us at present
may be summed up in few words. He stood, as we
know, almost alone, with Baruch his faithful servant,
against his whole people. It is true that when his life
was threatened, there were some of the nobles that
took his part. But they defended him more from
reverence for the prophet of Yahweh than from sym
pathy with his conception of Yahwism. At any rate,
they made no open confession of any such sympathy.
The only man of whom we read that " he spoke accord
ing to all Jeremiah's words" was Uriah of Kirjath-
jearim, and he was slain with the sword and deemed
unworthy of a decent burial.* Now Jeremiah's oppo
nents were a very heterogeneous company ; but those
who set the tone amongst them, and who openly op
posed him more than once with a boldness and confi
dence that we cannot but respect, were fiery zealots for
Yahweh. Their specific mark is just that fusion of
patriotism and religion with which we are already
acquainted. This explains the activity of such a man
as Hananiah the Gibeonite, one of the prophets of the
patriotic party. The impatience of these patriots under
the Babylonian supremacy, their repeated attempts to
deliver their fatherland, the anticipations with which
' Jer. xxvi, 20 — 23,

JEREMIAH 'S ISO LA TION. \ 5 5
they cheered and inflamed each other, the stubborn
heroism with which they resisted the overpowering
force of the enemy, — all this is inseparably connected
with their faith in Yahweh, the god of Israel. Had
Jeremiah no feeling for these things ? Was the hum
bling of his people nothing to him ? Nay ! for he
was an Israelite heart and soul. Yet not a word of
sympathy with the friends of freedom ever escaped
his lips. Firmly, but not without a fierce inward strug
gle, he repressed every impulse of that patriotism with
which all the rest were glowing, that he might bear
exclusive witness to what in his eyes was the only
true worship of Yahweh, the worship which Israel
could not renounce without sacrificing all his privi
leges. His line of action struck his contemporaries as
anti-national, and he himself was cast into prison as a
foe, nay as a traitor, to his fatherland, and escaped
death only by a lucky chance. We know him better,
and shall beware of subscribing to this hostile judg
ment. The man whose toil and zeal for the true good
of his people never flagged throughout his life, and
who at last esteemed a share in his people's reproach
more highly than the treasures of Nebucadrezar and
the luxury of the Chaldaean court, — this man was not
wanting in love for his people. But it remains true
that in him religion and patriotic feeling for a time
stood over against each other, and their reconciliation.

156 UNIVERSALISM OF THE PROPHETS.
impossible in the present, could only be looked for
in the future. Hence his complete isolation, " The
true Israel was narrowed to himself,"* Yet this in
dividualism is but the form under which the nascent
universalism reveals itself Jeremiah himself regarded
it in no other light. We have already seen^ that he
never relinquished the hope that Yahweh would again
be the god of Israel, and Israel again the people of
Yahweh. But it was to be a new covenant then
entered into : the thorah of Yahweh laid in the inmost
parts of his servants and written on their hearts ; no
mediators any more between him and his own, for
" they shall all know him, from the least to the great
est." Doubtless it is with " the house of Israel and
the house of Judah " that this covenant must be struck ;
but it remains in reality independent of the relation
in which Yahweh has stood to his people from the
exodus out of Egypt downwards ; — it is a new cov
enant, and as such no longer confined to a single
nation, but fitted and destined for " many peoples."
At the end of the line we have thus far followed
stands "the second Isaiah, the spiritual son of Jeremiah
and the heir of his thoughts as to the future of Yah
wism. From the point of view we now occupy, we
can easily recognize in his conceptions and anticipations
1 Wellhausen, in Encyc. Brit, Vol, XIII. p. 417 a.
' Supra, p. 128.

RETROSPECT OF PROPHETIC UNIVERSALISM. I 57
the independent reproduction and elaboration of the
hints we have noted in Jeremiah. The distinction
between the fleshly and the spiritual Israel has found
its classic expression in the Deutero-Isaiah's " servant
of Yahweh." Where, as in the celebrated fifty-third
chapter, this spiritual Israel or " servant of Yahweh "
is described as an individual, some scholars have
thought — mistakenly, indeed, but not without occa
sion — that they could trace a description of Jeremiah's
own lot. We have seen that the task of " the ser
vant " includes not only the restoration of Israel, but
also the proclamation to the heathen of the true reli
gion, the ordinance and the thorah of Yahweh. Let
us admit that this idea is merely indicated and not in
the least developed. But even in its embryonic form
it is a striking result, worthy of the remarkable move
ment that emanated from the prophets of Israel and
was continued by the most eminent amongst them
throughout well-nigh three centuries. No precon
certed plan underlay it, and we may now add that no
system issued from it. But unity and connection are
not wanting. Now that the whole or at least the most
prominent portions of it lie before us, we can easily
perceive that the final outcome was already contained
in germ in the initiative of the shepherd of Thekoa.
Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, was predestined to
become the God of all peoples.

158 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
The second Isaiah was very likely in his grave be
fore the year 500 B. C. To think of this is to remind
ourselves that Israel's preaching to the heathen re
mained for centuries no more than a pious wish. How
is this ! How comes' it that the Israelitish religion,
so far from spreading abroad, adopts a rigidly exclu
sive character, and becomes a wall of partition be
tween the Jews and the nations ?
If we may start from the assumption that fact is
the expression of thought, and that we understand the
reality the better the more clearly we perceive its
reasonableness, then we must answer : " Because the
extension of Israel's religion, though already pro
claimed, was not yet ripe for execution ; because Israel
had yet to be prepared for the task ; because nothing
can make itself felt externally until reduced to internal
order and vigour." In a word, before the servant of
Yahweh can be " a light to the heathen," there must
be a servant of Yahweh duly trained for his task.
The prophets had not succeeded in making their
conception of Yahwism the possession of the people.
This is not meant as a reproach. Neither the wish to
reform the nation in its entirety, nor zeal and perse
verance in the attempt, had been wanting. But the
demands of the prophets were too lofty to be at once
allowed and complied with by the masses. This does
not prove, however, that their labours bore no imme-

ATTEMPTED REFORMS. 159
diate fruit. Their inspired word cannot have returned
to them empty ; and who shall say how many felt its
influence and retained it to their lives' end ? But this
was not what they purposed, or at least was but a
small part of it. They intended their Yahwism to
sink into the consciousness of the nation and to take
shape in its life. No less than a complete transforma
tion was involved, a breach with the deeply-rooted
heathen practices and the rearing up of a fresh national
existence. Did it not really lie in the nature of the
case that the fragmentary and unregulated activity of
the prophets must fail in bringing such a reformation
to pass ?
The prophets themselves could not long be blind to
their comparative powerlessness, nor could they re
frain from asking what fresh means to their end re
mained for them to adopt. Of their deliberations on
this point we know nothing. Only as a rare excep
tion does history allow us a glance into the laboratory
in which a reformation is being prepared. But we know
the result. Are we to suppose that Hezekiah's meas
ures for purifying the worship* were the result of mu
tual consultations, and were recommended to the king
by the prophets, perhaps by Isaiah ? We suspect as
much. But our information as to the scope and bear
ing of these measures themselves is too scanty to en-
* 2 Kings xviii.; 4 sq,, 22 (Isaiah xxxv. 7).

I 60 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
able us to speak with certainty.* Our ignorance in
this particular case, however, is of less consequence
than might well be supposed. Hezekiah's reformation
did not last. Manasseh, the next king, hastened to
restore the former state of things. The changes Heze
kiah had introduced vanished without a trace, and
their true significance cannot have been seen and ap
preciated until long afterwards, when they turned out
to have been the prelude to the great events of the
eighteenth year of Josiah's reign.
It was in this year that " Hilkiah's book of law"
was brought to the knowledge of the king, and, when
confirmed by Huldah's prophetic authority, put into
practice by him.' Now here the prophetic aspirations
1 The more elaborate narrative of the Chronicler (2 Chron. xxix.^
xxxi.) is subject to very grave suspicion (cf K. H. Graf, die historischen
BUcher des A. Testaments, S. 168 — 173), and therefore cannot be used
to supplement 2 Kings xviii. 4. In the last-named passage we must dis
tinguish between the one specific fact, the breaking of the brazen serpent,
the historical character of which is supported by Isaiah's polemic against
the images of the other gods and of Yahweh (chap. ii. 8, 19 sq,; xxx. 22 ;
xxxi, 7), and the general formulce under which the final redactor of
Kings describes Hezekiah's reformation, and which remind us at once of
2 Kings xxii. sq. The destruction of the images, then, is far better guar
anteed than the suppression of the " bam8th." For the rest, Jer. xxvi.
18, 19, confirms the fact that Hezekiah did in some way play the part of
a reformer; for the humbling of Hezekiah and his people, there men
tioned, must have translated itself into action, or the memory of it would
not have been so long preserved.
2 2 Kings xxii. i — xxiii. 25.

DEUTERONOMIC THORAH, ITS ENFORCEMENT. I 6l
of the time had found complete expression. A great
part of the book, or — to give it the name under which
we all know it — of the Deuteronomic thorah, consists
in prophetic exhortation to fidelity to Yahweh, pro
phetic warning against service of "the other gods."
By the side of these stand legal ordinances derived
from usage or from older law-books, and a whole series
of moral precepts which likewise breathe the spirit of
prophecy. But beyond all this, the Deuteronomist
enters upon a field on which his predecessors had not
stepped — that of the cultus. In the character of the
sacrifices and feasts in honour of Yahweh he makes
no change. But, penetrated as he is by the convic
tion that the mingling of Yahwism with the adoration
of other gods must be brought to an end, and that
this cannot be, so long as the "bamoth," the true
centres of the syncretism in question, exist, he con
fines the worship of Yahweh to " the place which he
shall choose," to the temple at Jerusalem.* This cen
tralization is the means by which he proposes to ex
tinguish idolatry and to give undisputed supremacy to
the Yahwism that stands before him as his ideal.
The attempt to carry out this programme was
made under what seemed at first very favourable
auspices. The king was completely won over to it.
No doubt it was in conflict with the convictions and
• Deut xii. s, n; 14, 18, 21 — 26; xiv. 23 — 25, &c.

I 62 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
customs of the masses, — so much so, indeed, that it
would never have been accepted if not imposed by
the strong arm of authority. It was even necessary
in sundry cases to appeal to force, where primeval
sanctuaries, beloved by the people of the neighbour
hood, were swept away. But, on the other hand, the
attitude of the people towards Josiah's reformatory
measures was not one of unmingled hostility, and they
would not, therefore, offer an unconditional opposition
to them. Before proceeding to action, the king sum
moned the representatives of the nation to the temple
at Jerusalem, and made them swear to obey Hilkiah's
book of law.* We are not to suppose that there was
a regular and free discussion at this gathering, fol
lowed by a decision according to the majority of
votes. The final result testifies to the power of the
royal initiative rather than to the existence of a strong
and unanimous conviction on the part of the people.
But it is equally clear that Josiah would not have
ventured to ask the consent of his subjects, and would
still less have been able to carry away " the priests
and the prophets " by his impetuous enthusiasm, if
there had not been many points of contact between
the Deuteronomic law and the popular feeling.
Though the populace had not followed the prophets
of Isaiah's school on the path they had laid down, yet
1 2 Kings xxiii. i — 3.

FAILURE OF DEUTERONOMIC THORAH. 163
they could not remain unmoved by the commands
now laid upon them in the name of Yahweh, the god
of Israel. Least of all could they be indifferent to
the moral precepts which the king read out to them ;
for they had long known that Yahweh maintained the
right and rewarded mercy. Neither can Josiah's
hearers have met by a simple rejection the command
to serve Yahweh alone, and him in that sanctuary
only which he himself had chosen. The prestige of
the temple had steadily risen during its existence of
almost four centuries, and the delivery of Jerusalem
from the Assyrians, with Isaiah's commentary on that
great event, had contributed in no small degree to
raise the reverence for it into an article of the popular
faith. Thus we may explain the sanction given to
Josiah's plans in a moment of excitement and enthu
siasm by the great majority of the assemblage. The
Deuteronomic thorah gained what its champions de
sired — the opportunity of revealing itself in its might
and exerting its influence uncontrolled 
Yet none the less it failed. Justice compels us to
admit that the circumstances, at first so favourable,
soon turned against it. Josiah's death on the battle
field of Megiddo* was a terrible blow to the reformers.
It is their conviction which is reflected by the author
of Kings in the well-known words : " Like unto him
' 2 Kings xxiii. 29, 30 ; cf. 2 Chron. xxxv. 20 — 25,

I 64 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
was there no king before him, that turned to Yahweh
with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might,
according to all the thorah of Moses; neither after him
arose there his like."* The last statement is only too true.
Not one of Josiah's successors was completely devoted
to his principles, and Jehoiakim was even hostile to
them. Nor must we forget that the kingdom of Judah
only continued to exist for twenty years after Josiah's
death, and that during that period it was exposed to all
manner of disturbances and disasters. At any rate the
fact remains that very little of what the Deuteronomist
contemplated, even if it ever came about, survived the
defeat at Megiddo. If we may believe Jeremiah, the
moral condition of the people underwent no improve
ment. This in itself would be enough to explain the
bitter disenchantment that followed his early joy in
Josiah's reformation.' But, besides this, the adoration
of other gods by Yahweh's side did not cease ; nay,
after a short time it was practised more zealously than
ever.' What did it signify, against this, that devotion
to the temple of Jerusalem was strengthened in many
hearts ? To the Deuteronomist, the single sanctuary
was no more than a means — highly valued indeed, and
therefore warmly advocated — to secure the introduction
and maintenance of the true Yahwism. To the great
1 2 Kings xxiii. 25. » Cf. Jer. xi.
' Cf Religion of Israel, Vol. II. pp. 56 — S9.

DEUTERONOMIC THORAH AFTER THE EXILE. 165
masses the temple was a fetish. Instead of being the
seat of a pure monotheism, it had become once more,
though perhaps in less degree than formerly, the scene
of all manner of idolatrous practices. Accordingly,
Jeremiah, as we saw but now,* despaired of a gradual
reformation of the existing state of things. To accom
plish any true good, Yahweh must begin again from
the beginning, and make a new covenant with the house
of Israel and the house of Judah. A glorious expec
tation and a striking proof of Jeremiah's invincible
faith ! But at the same time a judgment on his own
contemporaries, and on the working of that scheme by
which Josiah and those that felt with him had hoped
to bring and to keep the people to the way of Yahweh.
Is there any appeal from this sentence ? Must we
not grant that the prophet is right, and that, judged
with reference to its immediate purpose, the Deutero
nomic thorah was another failure ?
We rest in this judgment all the more confidently
when we find that a renewed attempt in the same
direction likewise fell short of satisfactory results. The
Jews who returned from the captivity in the year 536
B. C, and who settled at Jerusalem or in its neigh
borhood, had quite outgrown idolatry. In so far they
stood above their ancestors. Jeremiah's prophecies
of evil had not been fulfilled in vain. But in other
1 Vid, sup, pp. 128, 146.

I 66 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
respects we cannot aver that Yahwism asserted itself
with any vigour amongst them. Want of enthusiasm,
of energy and of inspiration, is the special characteristic
of the period that extends from Zerubbabel to Ezra.
Towards the end of this time the danger was far from
imaginary that, in consequence of the numerous mixed
marriages, the Jews might be gradually merged amongst
their neighbours, and in consequence might lose their
national characteristics, including their religion. Now
during this period they were once more living under
the Deuteronomic thorah, and, as far as we can see,
it once more failed to secure to itself the hearts of
the people. Deep and stirring was its exhortation,
" Thou, O Israel, shalt love Yahweh, thy god, with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
might ;"* Tjut however loud the echo might be in
certain hearts, yet " a people of the heritage, conse
crated to Yahweh,"' was not formed.
Meanwhile, the train was completely laid for a great
change. In Judaea itself the priests had enjoyed great
and increasing influence since 536 B.C. In Babylonia,
if I may so express myself, the theory that corresponded
to the practice had been elaborated. Even in the first
half of the captivity, Ezekiel sketched the plan of a
new Jewish state, with the temple for its central point.
His successors maintained and further developed his
1 Deut. vi. 5. 2 Deut. xiv. a.

CHARACTER OF PRIESTL Y THORAH. j 67
idea. Finally, in the year 458 B.C., the conception
seemed to be ripe for realization, and in Judaea the
ground seemed ready for the new edifice to rise upon
it. Thither went Ezra, with the king's authority, at
the head of a second band of returning exiles, and
armed with "the law of his God."* Some years
later, when Nehemiah, on whose sympathy he could
entirely rely, was governor, he saw that the moment
had come for realizing his p!ans. The priestly law was
read aloud, and the whole people solemnly accepted
and swore to observe it.' Judaism was established.
What the prophetic preaching had failed to effect,
what Deuteronomy, the prophetic thorah, had only
half accomplished, that was brought to pass by Juda
ism. In this form Yahwism became the religion of the
Jewish people, and that people henceforth identified it
self more and more fully with it, till the identification
was complete. In other words, the priests of Yahweh,
from Ezekiel to Ezra, saw their attempt crowned with
complete success. We need hardly remind ourselves
that this proves nothing as to its value from a religious
point of view. Indeed, we might rather incline to re
gard the very success of these men as itself throwing
' Ezra vii. — x.
' Neh. viii. — x. ; cf. my Rehgion of Israel, Vol. II. chaps, vii. and viii.,
and, on the most recent objections to this view of Ezra's person and work,
Note IX.

1 68 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
suspicion on the merits of their cause. May not the
authors of the priestly legislation have consulted the
needs and capacities of the people throughout, and
deliberately brought down their requirements to the
requisite level ? But no ; we are not justified in taking
any such view of their work. I will not deny that
sometimes they consciously descended to the position
of the masses. Still less will I deny that their fol
lowers, the Scribes, made important concessions to the
popular usage. But it is impossible to explain all
their work and the fruits which they gathered in from
it upon this principle. The system to which their
legislation gives shape is the natural outcome of their
special views, and its practicability can only have been
a secondary recommendation in their eyes. Let us
then examine the system more closely. For its own
sake it is well worthy of our attention ; and we. have
just now a special additional reason for studying it.
If we have felt any interest in tracing the development
of the prophetic ideas, we must now desire further to
know what became of them when the priestly thorah
was introduced. Are we really to suppose that Ezra
and his fellow-workers renounced them, and set them
aside to make room for their own new creation ?
It will be seen presently that I am far from rating
the distinction between the prophetic and the priestly
conception of Yahwism low. But before everything

PRIESTL Y CONCEPTION OF RELIGION. I 69
we must do justice to their points of mutual connec
tion and agreement. Ezra himself recognized the
prophets as the servants of Yahweh who had pro
claimed his commandments.* He never dreamed that
he was breaking down what they had built up. Is it
likely that he was mistaken ?
The conception of God that underlies the priestly
legislation is that of the prophets — or perhaps we
should rather say is its development in one special
direction. Yahweh is to the authors of this legisla
tion, with Ezekiel at their head, the Only One, the ex
alted and unapproachable God, stern in his demands
and inexorably strict in maintaining them.' The par
allels, or at least the germs of all this, may be traced
in the pre-exilian or exilian prophets.' But what these
prophets put side by side with it, Yahweh's goodness
and mercy, falls into the background with the priestly
legislators, Ezekiel again sounding the key-note. The
distance between Yahweh and the " son of man " has
become greater. It is no longer as in the days of
Amos, when " the Lord Yahweh did nothing without
revealing his counsel to his servants the prophets."*
^ Ezra ix. 16 — 12.
2 See, e. g., Ezekiel i. x., and on Yahweh's justice, xiv. 12 — 23 ; xviii. ;
xxxiii. 10 — 20 ; cf R. Smend, der Prophet Ezekiel erklart, S. xvi. ff.
' Cf the sketch of the ideas of the prophets of the eighth century B.
C, in my Religion of Israel, Vol. I. pp. 40 sqq.
* Amos. iii. 7.
8

I 70 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
This relation of confidence has been superseded by-
one of deep awe, not to say fear and trembling. In a
single word, the balance that oscillates — shall we say
inevitably ? — ^between the immanent and the transcen
dental conception of God, now inclines to the last-
named. The priestly conception of religion awakes our in
terest even more than the priestly idea of God. We
have found the prophetic view of religion to be ethi
cal to the very core. Can we say the same of the
priestly view ? The main contents of Ezra's legisla
tion might well seem to sanction an opposite conclu
sion, and to stand in contrast with Hosea's word,
"mercy and not sacrifice."* But any such judgment
would really be unfair. The priestly legislators do
not aim at completeness. What was already ade
quately regulated in the Deuteronomic thorah, they
do not manipulate afresh. Its moral injunctions were
not slighted, much less annulled by them, but simply
assumed. Moreover, the moral law is not wholly un
represented in their own contributions. Let us not
forget that the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, an
elaboration, as it were, of the law of the ten command
ments, flowed from the pen of a priest, to whom ac
cordingly we owe that royal word, " Thou shalt not
avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of
^ Hos. vi. 6 a

IDEALS COMPARED.

171

thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy
self: I am Yahweh;" and that other which is like
unto it : " The stranger that dwelleth with you shall
be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt
love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land
of Egypt: I, Yahweh, am your god!"* Elsewhere,
too, the moral precepts shine through the ritual, so to
speak.' The religion of the priestly lawgiver, then, is
itself ethical — but not as the religion of the prophets
is. Let us try to give ourselves an account of the
difference. I think it may be reduced to two main
points. " Be holy, for I, Yahweh, am holy !" In these
words the priestly thorah itself sums up its conception
of religion.' It is with this demand that it comes to
the whole people and to every several Israelite. What
does this include ? " Holy " signifies a relationship.
It is applied to the person or thing which is consecrated
to the deity, which belongs to him and is set aside for his
service. What does it mean, then to be consecrated to
Yahweh ? In virtue of what can this consecration be
testified of any man, and how is he distinguished from
the unconsecrated ? The answer to these questions —
^ Lev. xix. 34.
"^ Lev. xxiv. 10 — 23 ; xxv. 17, <fcc. ; Num. xv. 39, &c.
' Lev. xix. 2; XX. 7, 26, cf 24; xxi. 8, 15, 23; xxii. 9, 16, 32; xi. 44,
45 ; Num. xv. 40, 41.

I 72 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
which reveals the character of the priestly conception
of Yahweh's demands — cannot remain doubtful for a
moment. Holiness is purity. This, in the estimate
of the priests, is the chief of all excellences, the first
mark of the Israelite. The prophets could never have
adopted the priestly motto, simply because they looked
at the matter otherwise. " What does Yahweh require
of you, but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk
humbly with thy God ?" Thus spoke Micah ;* and in
the other prophets likewise the human virtues, justice
and mutual love, stand in the foreground. The priest
will likewise insist upon all this, and sometimes very
finely, as we have just been reminded. But this epi
tome runs otherwise : " Be holy, for I, Yahweh, am
holy !" The centre of gravity for him lies elsewhere
than for the prophet ; it lies in man's attitude, not to
wards his fellow-man but towards God, not in his so
cial but in his personal life. I must leave it to you to
work out this contrast. You remember how purity is
further defined in the priestly laws, how it is made to
include chastity, for instance, in the widest acceptation
of the term.' The passages on contracting unclean
ness and on the means of removing it are also in your
minds, so that you can hardly wonder at the charge
of materializing the ethical conception which has been
brought against the priestly legislator. But we will
' Mic. vi. 8. J Lev. xviii. xx.

CHANGED CONCEPTION OF SACRIFICE. i 'JT^
abstain from passing judgment. Our present object is
simply to give a faithful outline of the priestly ideal.
A second mark of this ideal may be found in the
assumption of worship amongst the duties of the people
consecrated to Yahweh, and of every Israelite in par
ticular. The minute detail with which the temple
service is regulated stands off in sharp contrast from
the silence of the prophets, which does not indeed
evince absolute repugnance on their part, but cer
tainly proves indifference. Yet it is not, as it might
easily seem, one and the same thing which is here
left to take care of itself, as already only too deeply
engaging the interest of the Israelites, and is there
laid upon them, in the name of Yahweh, as a sacred
duty. To begin with, what may be called in a single
word the heathen elements of the popular Yahweh-
worship were of course rejected and excluded by the
priestly legislator, as they had been by the Deuterono
mist before him. And, yet more, the worship acquires
under his regulations a character wholly different from
that which it had borne before the Babylonian captiv
ity. The change is so great as to constitute an actual
breach with the past. The priestly thorah regards
the service of Yahweh as existing for its own sake,
as an institution that has its own significance and
value independently of the participation and the dispo
sitions of those in whose name it was offered to Yahweh.

I 74 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
Accordingly it leaves as little as possible to the initia
tive of the worshipper. Day by day, on the sabbath,
on the feast days, the fixed and accurately defined
sacrifices must be laid on the altar. The cost must be
met by the community, but in other respects all goes
on without its intervention. ' It is true that free-will
offerings are recognized, but they are only considered
as secondary. The same is true of vows, which are in
some cases rather _ restrained than encouraged by the
law.* Connected likewise with this statutory charac-
te'r of the cultus is the priestly estimate of the different
kinds of sacrifice. In Deuteronomy, as in the popular
usage, the thank-offering still occupies the largest
space. Yahweh is as it were the host, " before whose
face" the children whom he has blessed " make them
selves glad."^ In the priestly thorah, on the contrary,
the burnt offerings and propitiatory sacrifices' stand in
the foreground. What else indeed, could we expect
after the preceding survey ? The pre-exilian practice
1 Cf Religion of Israel, Vol. II. pp. 283 — 285.
2 A Deuteronomic formula which occurs in chaps, xii. 7, 12, 18 ; xiv.
26; xxi. II, 14; xxvi. 11; xxvii. 7, and is repeated in Lev. xxiii. 40; cf
Isaiah ix. 2 (3) ; Amos v. 23.
' The propitiatory sacrifices are but seldom mentioned in the pre-exilian
literature, i Sam. iii. 14 ; 2 Kings xii. 17 (16), where the reference is to
fines in money received by the priests ; Deut. xxi. i — 9 (quite different in
ritual from the later ordinances). On Hos. iv. 8, which does not come
under this category, vid. sup. p. 89.

CHANGED CONCEPTION OF SACRIFICE. I 75
was out of harmony both with the character of Yahweh,
as conceived, for example, by Ezekiel, and with the
sense of sin, aroused and strengthened by the deep
humiliation of the people ; and it must therefore sub
mit to a drastic change. Moreover, the regulations
about cleanness, or rather the inevitable transgressions
of them, necessarily involved the multiplication of sin-
offerings. Severe punishment of these trespasses, for
the most part involuntary, could not be thought of;
but the disturbed relation to Yahweh must be restored
by sin and guilt offerings, and once a year by the day
of atonement.
Is it a higher position that the priestly legislator
takes in these ordinances ? Or does he estrange himself
from " nature and truth" in them ? It is enough for
me to ask the question and so direct your attention to
it. Our present task is not so much to estimate the
facts as to state them ; but a part of that very state
ment must be that, together with the priestly thorah
as a whole, the Jewish people heartily accepted the
worship, as regulated in accordance with its precepts.
The fact deserves express mention, because it is not,
like the attachment of the old Israel to its offerings
and feasts, a thing that completely explains itself Thci
masses were naturally influenced by the outward splen
dour of the temple and its servants, and by the solem
nity of the devotional ceremonies. But the rnore

176 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
highly cultivated likewise came under the spell. To
be present at the temple was in the eyes of the pious
an inestimable privilege. We may differ in opinion
as to what it was that they sought and found there.
It has recently been said, not without reason, that
" the emotion with which the worshipper approaches
the second temple, as recorded in the Psalter, has
little to do with sacrifice, but rests rather on the fact
that the whole wondrous history of Jehovah's grace
to Israel is vividly and personally reahzed as he stands
amidst the festal crowd at the ancient seat of God's
throne, and adds his voice to ,the swelling song of
praise."* But even if we suppose this applicable only
to a comparatively small number, the fact is in any
case undeniable that the Levitical cultus was dear to
the pious Jew, and that in the temple he felt that he
was near to God. The Psalms bear eloquent testi
mony to this fact. "One thing have I desired of
Yahweh ; that do I seek after : to dwell in the house
of Yahweh all the days of my life, to behold the
beauty of Yahweh and to gaze upon his palace.'" "O
Yahweh, dear to pie is the abode of thy dwelling, and
the place where thy glory abideth.'" " How lovely
' W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
Twelve Lectures on Biblical Criticism, p. 380, cf 238 sq.
^ Psalm xxvii. 4.
¦' Psalm xxvi. 8.

JO Y IN THE TEMPLE-SER VICE. \ 7 7
are thy dwelling-places, O Yahweh of hosts ! My
soul has longed and thirsted for Yahweh's courts.
My heart and my flesh cry out to the living God!"*
Why should I cite more passages? The eighty-fourth
Psalm, the first verses of which I have just quoted,
the forty-second and forty-third Psalms, and many
more, have been familiar to us from our childhood.
It was the temple of Zerubbabel and Joshua which
drew from the poets these tones of fervent longing ;
it was the priestly ritual for which their hearts so
thirsted. Truly it was no light or insignificant task that the
priests of Yahweh had thus accomplished. The con
flict between the two conceptions of Yahwism has
disappeared. If in the days of Jeremiah they still
stood off one from the other so sharply that they
might be called, with no great exaggeration, two re
ligions, they are now reconciled. And it is the con
ception of the small minority that has triumphed. It
is true that it has not issued unscathed from the con
flict. Something of its idealism is lost, and it has
been forced to clothe its spiritual ideas in a material
form. The victory has been dearly purchased, but
who shall assure us it could have been won on any
other terms ? We may rest content with the actual
result. And yet in one respect we feel that we can
• Psalm Ixxxiv. a, 3 (i, 2). 8*

I 78 ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
hardly do so. Was not the religion of the prophets
on the very point of spreading its wings to pass be
yond the boundaries of Israelite nationality? In
Judaism we have so far found no trace of that ideal
or of the attempt to realize it. Nay, even in the pre
liminary preparations for its establishment, Judaism
rudely rejected the foreign elements.* It was " they
who had severed themselves from the people of the
land '" who entered, under the guidance of Ezra and
Nehemiah, into an engagement to live after God's
law ; and the first point, to which they pledged them
selves was not to give their daughters to the sons of
the land, nor themselves to take the daughters of the
land to wife.' '¦ Separation," then, was the watchword
under which the priestly thorah was introduced.
The Jewish people fenced itself round, so to speak,
with a host of regulations and customs ; and when
once it had set foot upon this path, it continued, under
the guidance of the Scribes, to advance ever further
and further upon it.
Is not this a melancholy repudiation of a glorious
past, or at least the frustrating of the promise contained
in it ? Must the prophetic Yahwism, that had already
so far loosened itself from the ties of nationality, now
be rivetted once more to a single people, — and that
people, after the ten tribes had been severed from it
1 Ezra ix. a. « Neh. x. 29 (28). » Neh. x. 31 (30).

JUDAISM AS A NATIONAL RELIGION. I 79
and merged amongst the heathen, too insignificant to
be numbered amongst the nations ?
The spectacle of the establishment of Judaism could
not fail to produce such an impression. Had we wit
nessed it, we could have seen nothing in the religion
which Ezra and Nehemiah raised to supremacy
amongst their people but a national institution in the
strictest sense of the term. And nevertheless this
view is incomplete and therefore wholly unjust. With
the light of succeeding centuries cast back upon these
events, we may easily convince ourselves that the in
ternational and universal elements were by no means
wanting. They do not lie on the surface ; but they
are there, and we cannot even say that they slumber.
It is on this inward aspect of Judaism that our atten
tion must be fixed when next we meet.

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

If we judge Judaism by its first establishment, we
must attribute a rigidly national and exclusive char
acter to it. Though not denying this, I have never
theless asserted that it was not without the internal
leaven of universalism. And if it really had appro
priated this treasure bequeathed by the prophets, you
may reasonably ask where it had concealed it !
To begin with, let us note that the Jewish religion
was only in appearance a sub-section of the Jewish
national life. In reality, it had an independent exist
ence. Judaism was inaugurated by the public reading
of the Law, and continued to bear the character of
legalism stamped ever more and more deeply upon it.
The Thorah — at first the written letter only, afterwards
the oral tradition also — passed as the complete revela
tion of Yahweh's will, and its authority was therefore
recognized and reverenced as supreme. From the first
this was no mere theory ; and it gradually became a
more and more palpable fact. For, from Ezra down
wards, the Law Iiad its own special representatives
amongst the Jews in the persons of the Scribes; and
i8o

THE JEWS IN THE DISPERSION. l8l
thus it ceased to be dependent on the assent of indi
viduals and on their possibly divergent explanations.
Not, indeed, that the Scribes were themselves the
magistrates and could ensure the carrying out of their
decisions, for the fact was the reverse. But this only
left them all the more free, and enabled them all the
better to consecrate their undivided attention to their
task, which accordingly absorbed them so completely
that the Thorah soon became their only love. It was
to the Thorah, not to the greatness or the freedom of
the fatherland, that their hearts were given. They took
part in the revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes, but
only because he forbade the free exercise of religion,
and only as long as the Law was in jeopardy — not a
moment longer. When Alcimus, a creature of the
Syrians, but a descendant of Aaron, assumed the high-
priestly office, they were ready at once to pay him
reverence.* It was not by them, but by the Hasmo-
naeans, that the war of Jewish freedom was fought
out. In harmony with their attitude at this crisis
was their conduct under Alexander Jannaeus, and
during the struggle between Aristobulus and Hyr-
canus II.' If any one should urge that by such ex
aggerated indifference to politics they became faith
less to the religion they upheld, and thus overshot
' I Mac, vii. 12 — 15.
' Flavins Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13, ? 5 ; xiv. 3, \ 2.

1 82 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
their own mark, I answer that the Jewish people itself
judged otherwise. It did not always go with the
Scribes, but it never ceased to reverence them as the
true representatives of its religion. In such matters
as this public opinion is not deceived; and on its
authority we may safely assume that, in the centuries
immediately preceding the Christian era, it was not
impossible to be a deeply religious man and at the
same time a lukewarm patriot, or, in other words,
that in Judaism religion and nationality were no longer
inseparably united.
The Jews, in the dispersion, furnish a striking proof
of the fact. We cannot treat this interesting subject
in all its bearings here ; but we shall presently have
to return to it, and must now content ourselves with a
few special remarks. The very fact that so many Jews,
though far from the soil of the fatherland, remained
Jews nevertheless, in itself. fully deserves our atten
tion. The phenomenon seems natural enough as long
as the abode in a foreign land can be regarded as pro
visional and temporary — that is to say, during the
Babylonian captivity. But when it survives this period,
it gives a striking proof of the extent to which reli
gion had already been emancipated from dependence
on the conditions of national existence. At what a
distance do we stand from the antique idea which finds
expression, for instance, in David's well-known appeal

INTERCOURSE OF JEWS WITH GENTILES. I 83
to Saul, " If men have stirred thee up against me,
they are cursed, for they have driven me out this day
from dwelling in Yahweh's heritage, saying to me,
' Go, serve other gods !' " * But we need not ascend
so far for illustrations. In the eighth century B. C,
in the kingdom of Ephraim, the Yahwism of the peo
ple had still so little independence that it could not
survive the shock of transportation to a foreign land.
In Palestine, among the Assyrian colonists, Yahweh
was served;' but the exiles of the ten tribes vanish
without a trace, together with the religion which
alone could have saved them from absorption among
the heathen. To the Jews of the diaspora, on the
other hand, their Judaism was like a protecting sheath
that secured their continued existence.
And, conversely, religion itself must have felt the
influence of life in a foreign land, far from the temple
and therefore from all the ritual of worship. What
ever could mitigate the loss, was sought out, retained
and developed. To this the synagogue, more especi
ally, owes its origin. It appears to have been in Baby
lonia, whether before the end of the captivity or
amongst those who remained behind afterwards, that
the custom rose of assembling on the Sabbath-day for
mutual edification by reading aloud, by exhortation
and by prayer. Its influence cannot well be overrated.
' I Sam. xxvi, 19. « Vid. sup. pp. 80 sq.

1 84 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
Whilst in other respects the recognition of but one
sanctuary seemed to place Judaism in complete de
pendence upon the place where that sanctuary stood,
the synagogue, which could easily be reared anywhere,
securing to the Jews of every region the privileges of
religious communion, made them attach all the higher
value to those spiritual blessings that they could carry
with them everywhere. In this way it contributed
most powerfully to the independence of religion.
One more aspect of the dispersion of the Jews beyond
their fatherland must receive our attention here. Wher
ever they established themselves, they were brought
into continuous and lively intercourse with the people
of the land, which must necessarily result, under favour
able circumstances, in an interchange of ideas. This
could not possibly fail to exercise some influence on
the religious ideas of the Jewish colonists. Judaism
becomes one thing in the Greek world, at Alexandria
for instance, another in Babylonia, and yet another at
Rome. Whether all these shades of the one Judaism
were possessed of true vitality may reasonably be ques
tioned ; but the very fact of their coming into existence
at all is a remarkable phenomenon, for it reveals, and
cannot fail in its turn to develope, a power of self-
adaptation already considerable. What an intensely
interesting fact, for instance, is the translation of the
Law into the Greek language, as an evidence of what

UNIVERSALISM IN THE PSALMS. 185
Judaism had already become, even more than as an
instrument of future influence upon the heathen world !
The whole of Jewish Hellenism, so full of movement
and variety, is a striking proof of the capacity for
development, and therefore of the independent vitality
of Judaism.
But for all that, it remains confined to the one people
of the Jews. It shows, indeed, that even beyond the
limits of Judaea it can exercise the same power which
it wields within them ; but what has come of the uni
versalism that the prophetic conception manifested ?
We are now to see that there was far more of it left
than would be supposed from a superficial examination.
Let us remember, in the first place, that the pro
phetic ideas had not fallen into oblivion amongst the
Jews. As for the Scribes, we know that they devoted
their best powers to the Law, to its redaction, and to
the application of its precepts to life. Yet even by
them the other religious writings of Israel, and spe
cifically the prophetic books, were by no means
slighted. It was they who preserved these precious
remains from destruction and who multiplied the copies
of them. Would it be rash to assume that the pious
community still valued the inspired word of Yahweh's
emissaries fully as much as the often dry details of the
Thorah ? In any case, they were made acquainted with
the one no less than the other ; and for them, too, the

1 86 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
hints as to the destiny of Israel's religion were pre
served from forgetfulness. When we note how such
a man as Jesus ben Sirach (about the year 200 B.C.)
reverences the prophets — singling out Isaiah's inspira
tion to glorify especially* — we need not hesitate to
ascribe to his people in general, together with a know
ledge of the prophetic writings, the retention of one of
the most flattering of the prophetic expectations.
But we are not left to mere probable surmises.
Positive proofs are at hand that the prophetic concep
tions lived on. Such proofs lie before us in the Psalter.
When the poet of the twenty-second Psalm has de
scribed the deliverance of the righteous man from his
deep humiliation, he adds : "All the ends of the earth
shall observe it, and turn unto Yahweh ; and before
thee shall bow down all the kindreds of the heathen,
for to Yahweh belongs dominion, and he rules
amongst the peoples.'" Another psalmist concludes
his song of triumph with these words :
" Yahweh is king over all the peoples,
Yahweh sits on his holy throne.
The princes of the nations are gathered together to the god of
Abraham,
For to Yahweh belong the shields of the eai-th : greatly exalted is he !"'
' Ecclesiasticus xlviii, 24, 25. ' Psalm xxii. 28, 29 (27, 28).
' Psalm xlvii. 9, 10 (8, 9). For " Elohim" I have three times substi
tuted Yahweh, as the poet himself undoubtedly wrote. In v. 10 a (9a)
the pointing of the LXX. is followed.

FUTURE OF YAHWISM IN APOCALYPSES. 1 87
" Thee do the peoples praise, O Yahweh ! thee do
the peoples, all of them, praise " — so runs the refrain
of the sixty-seventh Psalm,* which is throughout sung
to the glory of Yahweh, the ruler of all the earth, and
which utters the hope that '' all the ends of the earth"
will fear him, because of the benefits he has conferred
upon Israel.^ The review of Israel's guidance by
Yahweh, in the sixty-eighth Psalm, closes with the
prayer that kings may bring him treasures to Jerusa
lem, that nobles may come up from Egypt, and that
the Ethiopians may stretch out their hands to him.'
" Jerusalem, the religious centre of the world," is the
theme of the eighty-seventh Psalm. But enough.
The Book of Psalms, as a whole, has been called the
answer of the community to God's revelation ; and
amongst its claims to this title, we must note the fact
that it catches up the promise of the spread of God's
dominion, and repeats it as a joyful expectation.
The Book of Daniel, though itself very unlike the
writings of the prophets, bears emphatic testimony to
the influence which they still continued to exercise.
The prediction that within half a week of years the
temple which Antiochus Epiphanes had desecrated
should be restored to its true purposes, and that " the
people of the saints of the Most High " should then
1 vv.^, 6(3,5). ' ¦"¦ 8 (7).
' Psalm Ixviii. 30, 32 (29, 31), partly imitated from Isaiah xviii. 7.

1 88 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
assume dominion over the world,' is the fruit, as the
writer himself tells us,' of his study in " the books,"
and especially Jeremiah's prophecies. Circumstances
conspired to draw him more especially to the political
aspects of the Messianic predictions ; and who shall
blame him for thinking in the first instance of the
frustration of the heathens' attack upon Yahweh, or
for regarding the humbling of their pride as the most
urgent need of the moment? But even he looks to
the acknowledgment of Yahweh's supremacy by the
peoples as the result of their approaching chastisement.
His Nebucadrezar cannot escape this supremacy, and
therefore himself gives his subjects an account of the
punishment which had fallen on his self-exaltation,
and which had only been removed when he humbled
himself;' while Darius the Mede issues a decree " that
men should bow down and tremble, throughout his
whole kingdom, before the God of Daniel, for he is
the living God, who abides to eternity, whose kingdom
passes not away, and whose dominion endures to the
end."* But why call in more witnesses, and prove the in
fluence of prophetic ideas on the later apocalypses
likewise ? We can already see clearly enough, that
there was small danger of the Jews being content to
1 Dan. ix. 24—27 ; vii. 25 — 27, &c. 2 Dan. ix. li.
» Dan. iv. « Dan. vi. 27 (26).

HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK OF THORAH. 189
take rank simply as one out of the many nations of
the earth, and to claim no more for their religion on
the part of the heathen than mere toleration. How
ever distinctly their Thorah may have seemed to be
designed, and however clearly it gradually showed
itself to be calculated to sever them from other na
tions and as it were shut them in, yet in so far as they
listened to the voice of their prophets they could not
possibly regard this isolation as the complete realiza
tion of their destiny.
But is it quite correct, after all, to regard the Tho
rah as exclusively directed to the formation of a sin
gle people, consecrated to Yahweh ? This much at
least is certain, that it is placed in a framework that
promises far more than this. I refer especially to the
historical introduction to the priestly laws, which,
even in its present fusion with the Yahwistic narra
tives, dominates the whole, gives it its colour and
character, and determines the impression which it
leaves on the reader. The conception of this intro
duction is indeed sublime.* It is that of a progressive
revelation of God, with the Sinaitic legislation as its
key-stone. Elohim creates the heaven and the earth
in six days, and hallows the seventh day on which
he rests from his labour. The blessing which he pro
nounces on the first human pair he subsequently re-
1 Compare with what follows. Religion of Israel, Vol. II. pp, 158—173.

1 90 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
peats after the rescue of Noah and his family from
the flood ; whilst at the same time he lays his com
mandments upon the new race of men, and establishes
the rainbow as the sign of the covenant he has made.
To Abraham he reveals himself as El Shaddai, God
Almighty ; and enters into a closer relationship with
him and his posterity, the seal of which is circumci
sion. Mindful of this, he takes pity on Jacob's pos
terity in Egypt, reveals himself to Moses as Yahweh,
redeems the people, by the hand of Moses and Aaron,
from slavery, leads them to Sinai, where he declares
how he desires to be served, and finally, when a dwell
ing has been built for him, establishes himself in the
midst of Israel. " There " — at the altar before the
tent of meeting — " will I draw near to the sons of
Israel, and it (the altar) shall be hallowed by my glory.
And I will hallow the tent of meeting and the altar,
and Aaron and his sons will I hallow to serve me as
priests. And I will dwell in the midst of the sons of
Israel and be to them for a god. And they shall know
that I, Yahweh, am their god, who have brought them
up out of Egypt, to dwell in their midst. I, Yahweh,
am their god ! "*
To our feeling there is a want of congruity in this
progression, which begins with the creation of the
world and at first embraces all mankind, and yet cul-
' Exod. xxix. 43 — 46.

HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK OF THORAH.

191

minates in minute precepts about the sanctuary, the
priests and their vestments, the sacrifices and ceremo
nial cleanness — precepts which, by their very nature,
can only be put into practice within the narrow limits
of one small people. Even when we substitute for the
ritualistic code the purpose it was meant to serve, viz.
the formation of a community consecrated to Yahweh,
the disproportion still remains. It may be partly ex
plained by the course which the development of relig
ious ideas had taken in Israel. The god of that one
people gradually became, in the conception of his wor
shippers, the Only One, and therefore in reality too
exalted for the limited relations within which he was
still confined. In the prophets, whom we have learned
to recognize as the authors of this transformation, the
result, for a variety of reasons, appears far less repel
lent. In them we see it, as it were, ripening before
our very eyes. Their conception of the service of
Yahweh is spiritual and ethical, and the majority of
them at any rate do not fail to contemplate the spread
of Yahwism in wider circles. In the priestly thorah,
on the other hand, the contrast between the point of
departure and the point arrived at is most probable.
The system erected on the broad basis of a theory that
embraces heaven and earth is very carefully finished,
— but of very minute proportions !
The real question, however, is not whether we are

192 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
struck by a want of consistency in this, but whether
the authors of the priestly thorah and the Scribes who
followed them were themselves conscious of the dis
cordancy. In my opinion, we can hardly doubt that
they were. In the days of Ezra and Nehemia, Malachi
appears as a prophet. Yahweh, so he declares, will
not accept the lean and blemished sacrificial beasts
which the priests are not ashamed to offer him ; " for,"
says he, " from the rising of the sun to its setting, my
name is great amongst the heathen, and in all places is
incense offered to my name and a pure sacrifice, for my
name is great among the heathen."* And immediately
afterwards : " For I am a great king, and my name is
feared amongst the heathen.'" These words have been
incorrectly referred to the Jews in the dispersion, but —
to say nothing of the fact that by the middle of the
fifth century B.C, they had not yet spread through the
heathen world, " from the rising of the sun to its set
ting" — the Jews could not be said to offer incense and
sacrifice to Yahweh " in all places,'' for they were only
permitted by the Law to do so at the temple of Jeru
salem. Neither can Malachi's utterance be taken as
a prediction. The original will bear no such interpre
tation ; and besides, the prophet cannot have recognized
any place of sacrifice except Jerusalem even in the
future. No ! the reference is distinctly to the adoration
' Mai. i. II. a Mai. ii 14 b.

MALACHI ON HEATHENS' WORSHIP.

193

already offered to Yahweh by the peoples, whenever
they serve their own gods with true reverence and
honest zeal. Even in Deuteronomy the adoration of
these other gods by the nations is represented as a
dispensation of Yahweh.* Malachi goes a step further,
and accepts their worship as a tribute which in reality
falls to Yahweh, — to Him, the Only True. Thus the
opposition between Yahweh and the other gods, and
afterwards between the one true God and the imaginary
gods, makes room here for the still higher conception
that the adoration of Yahweh is the essence and the
truth of all religion.
Why have we dwelt so long, in this connection,
upon a single prophetic utterance ? Because the man
who spoke it stood by the cradle of Judaism. His
contemporaries, the authors of the priestly thorah, in
all probability did not share his ideal conception of
heathendom ; but their monotheism and that of their
followers was as pure and as absolute as his. Now, if
this be so, is it not almost monstrous to suppose that
they expected the true religion to be ultimately confined
to the single Jewish people ? Or if we shrink from
making any decisive assertions about them individually,
are we to believe that all who accepted the Thorah,
with its broad historical premises, were reconciled to
its permanent destination for the Jews alone ? Here
> Vid. sup. p. 128, n. I.

194 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
was an antimony which may not have been generally
recognized, but of which some at least could not fail to
be conscious, even if unable as yet to perceive how it
could be resolved.
At one point we see the universalistic principles break
ing through the shell, as it were. I refer to the regula
tions of the priestly thorah concerning the gerim, the
strangers settled in Israel, who must be distinguished
alike from the aliens and from the foreign labourers
who merely passed through the land. " One law shall
there be for the stranger and for the home-born." ^ch
is the rule which the lawgiver lays down* and Splies
to special cases. Even in the seventeenth chapter of
Genesis the "gerim ' are included in the ordinance of
circumcision ;' and in the Sinaitic legislation they come
under the precepts of the ritual,' under the regula
tions as to cleanness,* and under the general criminal
law.' They likewise share the privilege of admission
to the feast of the passover.^ Now these ordinances
unquestionably characterize the spirit of the priestly
law-givers. With respect to one of them, we may
demonstrate this very clearly by comparing it with
1 Exod. xii. 49 ; Levit, xxiv. 22 ; Num. ix. 14 ; xv. 29.
2 Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 23, 27 ; cf Exod. xii. 44.
' Levit, xvii. 8 ; Num. ix. 14 ; xv. 29.
* Levit. xvi. 29 ; xvii. 10, 13, 15, 16.
* Levit. xxiv. 16, 22.
• Exod. xii. 48, cf 19 ; Num. ix. 14.

THE LAW AND THE STRANGERS.

195

the more ancient precepts from which it diverges.
" Ye shall be holy men unto me, and flesh that has
been torn in the field by beasts ye shall not eat. Ye
shall cast it to the dogs," So runs the ordinance in
the Book of the Covenant.* The Deuteronomist
doubtless had it in view when he wrote : " Thou shalt
not eat anything that dieth of itself To the stranger
that is within thy gates shalt thou give it, that he may
eat it; or thou shalt sell it to the alien for thou art a
people hallowed unto Yahweh, thy God.'" Here,
then, is a contrast resting on a religious distinction.
What is forbidden to the Israelite is allowed to the
" ger " in the gates, because he does not belong to the
people chosen by Yahweh. Now let us listen to the
priestly thorah : " Every one who eats what has died.
of itself or has been torn of beasts, be he home-born or
stranger, shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in
water and be unclean till the evening. And if he wash
not (his clothes) and bathe not his body, he shall bear
his sin," i. e. he shall suffer punishment' Here no
distinction is made any longer. The prohibition has
become intrinsically binding. The practice against
which it is directed is not to be allowed at all, either
in a stranger or an Israelite. It is true that the pre
cept is at the same time weakened by the indication of
1 Exod. xxii. 30 (31). ' Deut. xiv. 21 a.
' Levit, xvii. 15, 16.

196 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
a means of escaping the penalty. Any one who will
take the trouble to purify himself may now break the
commandment with impunity. But in the form in
which he still upholds it, the priestly legislator applies
it to every one that belongs to the commu?iity. This
conception of the " community ' has now become
local instead of genealogical. Is there progress here ?
In one sense there is not. The underlying religious
idea which is expressed in its purity in the Book of
the Covenant, and is still preserved by the Deuterono
mist, is almost obliterated in the priestly thorah. But
against this we must weigh the fact that the latter
oversteps the boundary-line between Israel and the
peoples, and does so in full consciousness of what it
is doing. Might we not assume that experience had led the
authors to this momentous step ? Even during the
Babylonian captivity, or at any rate in the period
immediately following the return, it seems not to have
been unusual for strangers to unite themselves with
the Israelitish community. To the author of " the
oracle concerning Babel," incorporated in the prophe
cies of Isaiah this extension of the circle of Yahweh's
worshippers was still a thing of the future, though on
the point of being realized. For he proclaims in the
same breath that " Yahweh will have pity on Jacob,
and will choose Israel once more, and will plant them

EXTENSION OF YAHWISM. 1 97
in their land," and "that the strangers will join on to
them and cleave to the house of Jacob."* To the
second Isaiah — or more probably a still later prophet
— this joining on is an accomplished fact, and his heart
impels him to utter the words of cheer : " Let not
the alien who has joined himself to Yahweh say :
Surely Yahweh will sever me from his people !"'
There is no ground, says the prophet, for any such
fear ; for " the aliens who join themselves to Yahweh
to serve him and to love the name of Yahweh and be
his servants, all who take heed not to desecrate the
sabbath and who keep my covenant, I will bring to my
holy mountain and will make glad in my house of
prayer. Their burnt-offerings and thank-offerings
shall be acceptable to me, for my house shall be called
a house of prayer for all the peoples."' In the face
of the facts to which this utterance bears witness, the
lawgiver was compelled to take up a definite position.
Was he in full agreement with the prophet just quoted?
It may well be doubted.* He was very likely more
in accord with Ezra, who began his work in Judasa
with such stern measures against the strangers. Yet
in one point at least he tempers his exclusiveness.
^Isaiah xiv. i. The word here and subsequently translated "join
themselves on ¦ ¦ is the Niph'al of the Hebrew " law ah.'' Cf S. May
baum, die Entwickelung des altisraelitischen Priesterthums, S. iv. ff.
"^ Isaiah Ivi. 3. ^ Isaiah Ivi. 6, 7.
* On Levit. xxii. 25, see Note X.

1 98 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
The " gerim " are received into grace, and incorpor
ated, not into Israel, but into the community. We
might have wished and perhaps expected more, but
this must not prevent our recognizing the great sig
nificance of even this first step. Judaism is extend
ing its borders. Proselytism has begun. The very
word by which this phenomenon is designated is the
Greek translation of the Hebrew "ger," which was
gradually applied to those who had attached them
selves to Israel rather than to those who had no por
tion in it. We will not " despise the day of small
things"* — mindful of the stone which was quarried
by no human hand and became a great mountain and
filled the whole earth.^ Before the collection of
Psalms was closed, "they that feared Yahweh," i. e.
the proselytes, 'had already taken their place after
"Israel" and "the house of Aaron," and had heard
the exhortation of the temple-choir addressed to them
also : " Praise Yahweh, for he is good, for his mercy
endureth for ever.'"
We see, then, that from the first Judaism was some
thing more than it seemed, something more than one
of the many forms of religion exclusively destined and
adopted to one single people. It now becomes my
' Zech. iv. ID a. ' Dan. ii. 34, 35.
^ Ps. cxv. 9 — II : cxviii. 2 — 4; cxxxv. 19, 20.

JUDAISM, A WORLD-RELIGIOX. 199
task to point out how this promise of something
broader and more exalted was fulfilled, or, in other
words, how there grew up out of Judaism a world-
religion — Christianity,
The general outlines of the history of Judaism and
the fates of the Jewish people down to the fall of Jeru
salem will be assumed as familiar. We shall only
dwell upon such portions of them as are needed to
enable us to see and understand this one noteworthy
transition from national to universal religion. On the
other hand, I shall not attempt to shut out the light
that shines back from Christianity itself upon the
earlier centuries. Rather shall I seek to trace the
antecedents of Christianity in Judaism as expressly as
the advance and internal development of Judaism in
the direction of a religion of the world. We must
freely acknowledge that the phenomena which we now
describe in this waj"- as an advance and development,
would have appeared far less striking and far less
important had we not known in what they really
issued. Why, then, should we affect to look at the
facts as they were seen by contemporaries, rather than
under the aspects which later generations only could
perceive and estimate ?
But while preparing for the task thus defined and
limited, I am met by an objection which, whatever else
we may think of it, has at least the merit of going to

200 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
the root of the matter. " The 'development' of which
you are speaking " — so I am told — " is simply a fiction.
Judaism did no doubt develope — into Talmudism.
Christianity rose on the soil of Judaism, but to derive
or explain it from it is a hopeless task. It is a new
creation, and we can no more understand it without
the person of its founder than we can regard that
founder himself as the product of his time and his
people. Would you explain Jesus away ? If not, re-cast
your question. By formulating it as you have done,
you secure in advance the impossibility of a solution.
My answer may be short and simole. Before all
things let me declare that I have no thought of ignor
ing the person of Jesus or lowering its high significance.
To me, too, the rise of Christianity would be an insolu
ble riddle were I to set aside him who for eighteen cen
turies has taken rank as its founder. Whence he sprang
— from Israel or from God, as it is sometimes, but I
think very incorrectly, put — we need not now decide.
Our opinions on this subject may possibly diverge
widely. But I may rely on the assent of all in declar
ing that what Jesus founded can only be called a new
creation in a very improper sense of the word. " If
there be such a thing as creation out of nothing, then
it is the incommunicable prerogative of the Deity, and
must be left out of consideration in reviewing any
human development." In the course of the history

ORGANIC GROWTH CF CHRISTIANITY. 20I
of our race,*nothing comes into existence that does not
link itself on what exists already, that does not —
however new and unheard-of it may be — presuppose
the existing state of things, and become impossible,
even in imagination, when detached from it. As far
as our knowledge reaches, the spiritual life of man,
especially including religion, is likewise subject to this
law. Are we to admit an exception in the case of
the rise of Christianity ? Unquestionably we must, if
adequate grounds can be shown for doing so. But
this is far from being the case. Nay, Ernest Renan
could say from this very chair, " Christianity at its
origin is no other than Judaism ;'" and even those
who are far from giving him their assent must admit
that the points of contact and agreement are innu
merable. In Holland, not long ago, a Jewish scholar
summed up in the following thesis the result of a
comparison with the Talmud carried through the first
chapter of the Sermon on the Mount. " The ethics of
the gospel are no other than appear in the Talmud,
are the same that were handled in the schools of the
Sopherim and the Tannaites, the same that are held as
law to this day by the Talmud-Jews."' You think
1 S. Hoekstra Bz., de ontwikkeling van de zedelijke idee in de geschie-
denis, bl. 114.
2 On the Influence of the Institutions, Thought and Culture of Rome
on Christianity (The Hibbert Lectures. 1880), pp. 16 sq.
= T. Tal. Een Blik in Talmoed en Evangelic, bl. 126.

202 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
this is far too strongly expressed, and I am the first to
acknowledge that it cannot be accepted till fenced with
many reservations.* But the agreement exists, and it
is simply impossible to deny it. If so, how can we set
Christianity and Talmudic Judaism diametrically oppo
site to each other, and deny the connection of the one,
while asserting that of the other, with the Judaism of
an earlier time ? Such a method would be utterly
unhistorical, and our duty clearly lies in another direc
tion. We must be equally on our guard against hasty
identification and against explaining away a connection
which the facts themselves proclaim. When Chris
tianity was founded, it is clear that materials borrowed
from Judaism were employed. What were they ? Such
is the question we are now seeking to answer. And
even in asking it we have marked off the character of
our investigation more accurately than was possible
before. It is not the founding of Christianity itself
that I am attempting to describe to you ; nor is it the
person and the work of its founder. Let that remain
for one of my successors in this place. I shall deem
that I have done enough if I can show you in the
Judaism of the commencement of our era the indis
pensable antecedents of the work of Jesus, and if I
can enable you to see in what he established the ful-
1 Cf H, Oort, Evangelie en Talmud, nit het oogpunt der zedelijkheid
vergeleken, bl, 37 vv,, 97 vv., and elsewhere.

B. BAUER'S " CHRIST AND THE C^SARS."

203

filment of the promise which, as we know already,
lay in the Yahwism of the prophets.
But no sooner have we disposed of this first objec
tion than we are faced by another equally fundamen
tal. If the former disputed the possibility of discov
ering the origins of Christianity at all, the latter chal
lenges our selection of the field on which to seek
them. For have we not assumed that it is in Judaism
that we shall find the antecedents of Christianity ?
We can certainly appeal to tradition in confirmation
of this view ; but what if this tradition be nothing
more than a venerable prejudice? "The origin of
Christianity from Roman Griechenthum " — so runs
the untranslatable second title of Bruno Bauer's
"Christ and the Caesars."* Do not suppose that I am
about to attempt, by way of an episode, a refutation
of this singular book ! When I tell you that Seneca
and Philo of Alexandria appear in its pages as the
founders of Christianity, probably but few of you will
wish to hear anything more of it. And yet the ec-
centricities of this veteran writer deserved mention.
A traditional opinion can only be safely followed
when it has borne the test of a searching criticism.
^ Christus und die Ca5saren. Der Ursprung des Christenthums aus
dem romischen Griechenthum, von B, Bauer (26 [Titel-] Aufl. 1879). Cf
the further illustration of some of the details in Das Urevangelium und
die Gegner der Schrift , " Christus und die Casaren " (1880).

204 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
Now Bruno Bauer's book has demonstrated once for
all that in order to make the denial of the Jewish
origin of Christianity look, I will not say like the
truth, but like a theory capable of discussion, we
must set aside the whole of the New Testament, the
well-known testimonies of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny
the Younger and— one might almost say everything
else ! Here we must deny and reverse all things,
there we must ascribe conclusive evidential force to
accidental or trivial details, before we can gain even
the semblance of a right to come forward with such a
denial. The Apocalypse alone, regarded as the work
of Galba's contemporary, or even as written under Do-
mitian, is enough to demolish Bauer's reconstruction
of history. Any one of the Pauline Epistles annihi
lates it. Not only the Founder of Christianity, but
Paul and Peter with him, must be banished to the
realm of fiction. In a word, we must give full swing
— no longer to criticism, but to pure caprice. Truly
a tradition that can only be attacked across such ruins
as these is for the present safe enough. Roman
" Griechenthum " must remain content with the sec
ondary but by no means unimportant part which has
long been assigned it in the spread and development
of that Christianity which sprang up quite outside it.*
' Cf further. Note XI,, where the relation of Bauer's thesis to that of

PALES TINIAN AND HELLENISTIC JUDAISM. 205
With confidence, then, we approach our task ; but
at the very outset we find once more that the ways
part. The Judaism in which we are to seek the mate
rials for the edifice of Christianity is a complex phe
nomenon. Where are we to make our search ? In
Hellenism, in Palestinian Judaism, or in both ? It
will be no small simplification of our work if we can
make sure of this at the outset. Nor does it seem
impossible to do so. Let us begin by defining the
point at issue. It would be a mistake to imagine that
the foreign or at any rate the Greek-speaking Jews,
the so-called Hellenists, all without distinction fol
lowed one line of development, diverging from that of
the Palestinian leaders. Very many of these Greek
Jews, even in Alexandria, and still more elsewhere,
placed themselves under the guidance of the mother
community, and reflected, in their own way of course,
the varied shades of opinion which might there be
observed. More than one of the Greek Apocrypha
of the Old Testament might have been written in
Palestine, as far as the ideas it expresses go. The
author of the Second Book of the Maccabees, for in
stance, is a Pharisee of the Pharisees. It must be un
derstood, therefore, that when we contrast Hellenism
with Palestinian Judaism, we mean by the former that
E. Davetin ''LeChristianisme et ses Origines" ^Tom, I, IL I'Hellenisme;
Tom, III. Le Judaisme) is also dealt with.

206 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
peculiar fusion of Judaism and Greek philosophy
which took place more especially at Alexandria,
which has left in the apocryphal Book of Wisdom a
sample of what it produced, but which finds its true
representative and spokesman in Philo. The real
question, therefore, is whether, not indeed Philo him
self, but the movement which culminated in him,
must be reckoned amongst the factors of the nascent
Christendom, or perhaps regarded as the most im
portant of them all. The temptation to answer this
question in the affirmative is great. Indeed, if it were
but a little modified, the affirmative answer would be
the true one. In very early years Hellenism began to
exercise an influence on the conception and presenta
tion of Christian truth. In the Christian religion
which spread amongst the heathen, a Hellenistic ele
ment was already incorporated. Paul had felt its
power ; it continued to work amongst his followers ;
and the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel is essen
tially that of Philo. The earliest development of
Christianity, then, assuredly did not take place out
side the influence of Hellenism. But in granting
this, we are at the same time laying down the limits
within which that influence worked. Hellenism did
not contribute to the rise or the foundation of Christ
ianity. In the first three Gospels we find no trace of
it. Yet it is here that the teaching of the Founder of

HELLENISTIC JUDAISM. 207
Christianity is presented to us in its most original
form ; and if the atmosphere which he and his first
disciples breathed had really been impregnated with
Hellenistic ideas, we could hardly have failed to de
tect them here.
And might we not have anticipated that this would
be the outcome of a comparative study of the docu
ments of Christianity ? At any rate, when the result
is obtained^ it is easy to see how completely it corres
ponds to the first impression which Hellenism and the
earliest Christianity make upon us when compared
together. We shall not challenge the place of honour
taken by Philo and the Hellenistic school in general,-
in the history of the development of religious and
ethical ideas. Their Idealism, the broad and humane
spirit of their moral exhortations, deserve, together
with their universalism, no stinted praise. But yet
there is something in their writings that is always
coming between us and them to disturb our sympathy ;
something that ever represses our rising assent when
we are just on the point of being carried away.
It is, in a word, their want of naturalness, their arti
ficiality and affectation, that produce this feeling of
constraint. We may conceive, though not without
difficulty, how Philo contrived to combine dependence
upon Greek philosophy with reverence for the divine
authority of the law. We may persuade ourselves.

2o8 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
though this too needs an effort, that he really believed
in his own method, and considered that his allegorical
interpretation of Scripture was justified. But what
semblance of enthusiasm can possibly rise in us as
we follow his intricate argumentation ? It is not
the lordly flight of the eagle, but the astounding feats
of the acrobat, that we witness. We are struck with
admiration indeed, but still more with astonishment.
And now I would ask. Where in all this is the power
that can produce a new religion ? Christian theology
might gain much from Hellenism, and accordingly
made ample — perhaps too ample — use of it. But the
• Christian rehgion cannot have sprung from the foun
tain. It remains undeniable that Philo and the gospel
touch each other at the diverse points, often reflect
identical religious dispositions, and have many maxims
of morality in common ; but in essence and in character
they are severed. However far you produce the line
on which Hellenism is moving, it will not bring you
to Christianity.
Before closing this preliminary review, I will once
more state in unequivocal terms the position from which
I have started. The international religion which we
call Christianity was founded, not by the Apostle Paul,
but by Jesus of Nazareth — that Jesus whose person
and whose teaching are sketched in the Synoptic Gos
pels with the closest approximation to truth. The

JESUS AND PAUL. 209
celebrated Edward von Hartmann has done us the
service of formulating the opposite opinion with his
customary clearness and incisiveness. In his History
of the Development of the Religious Consciousness of
j\lan.* Jesus appears as the founder of " das Juden-
christenthum," a Jewish sect or heresy, or rather a
mere phase or shade of Judaism, yielding to none
of the schools that then existed in rigid orthodoxy
and national exclusiveness, and only departing from the
ruling official idea in this, — -that it turned to the poor
and despised, and, by preaching the near approach of
the kingdom of God, endeavored to convert them and
to raise them up to perfect righteousness after the
Law.'' Out of this Jewish Christianity, which had no
enduring worth and no future, Paul made a religion
of the world by interpreting the atoning death and
the resurrection of the Messiah as the condemnation
of the legal point of view, and so removing the bar-
^ Das religiose Bewusstsein der Menscheit im Stufengang seiner
Entwickelung (1882.)
'i Ibid. S. 514 — 532. See especially S. 529 : " diese judenchristliche
Richtung, die man nicht einmal eine Sekte innerhalb des Judenthums
nennen konnte;'' S, S30: "das Judenchristenthum war das fiir die
Armen und Elenden in Jud'aa mundgerechtgemachte Judenthum ;'' S.
525 : " das Judenchristenthum nichts anderes als nationaljiidische Gesetz-
esreligion mit verstarkter messianischen Erwartung und mit bestimmter
Beziehung dieser messianischen Erwartung auf die Persdnlichkeit eines
bei Lebzeiten verkannten und getddteten Propheten.''

2IO JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
rier between Jews and heathens, and making Jewish
monotheism accessible to all the world.* I spoke of
the service rendered by von Hartmann in respect to the
historical problem on which we are now engaged, and
you may perhaps be inclined to ask wherein the ser
vice consists. I find it in the fact that the identifica
tion of rehgion and dogmatics, which pervades almost
the whole of his book, is here driven to such a point,
and the onesidedness of the view brought out so
clearly, that one would say the author had expressly
set himself to cure us of it for ever. - There is indeed
but little to urge against his thesis if we begin by re
garding the formula of universalism as the all-import
ant matter, for this formula appears far more clearly
and explicitly in the teaching of the Apostle to the
Gentiles than in the earliest accounts of Jesus. And
yet the former preached, not himself, but " Jesus Christ
and him crucified.'" Are we to suppose that he did
not know what he was doing ? That it was only a
blunder or a certain irony of fate that made him tack
on his preaching of." there is no difference '" to the
person of a well-meaning, upright, amiable, but singu
larly legalistic and narrow-minded Jew?* Let him
1 Ibid. S. 546 ff. 2 I Cor, i. 23 ; ii. 2.
' Rom. iii. 22 ; a. 12 ; cf Gal. iii. 28.
* Cf von Hartmann, 1. ^.. S. 551 sq. All that is there granted is: "An-
drerseits konnte er (Paulus) nicht daran zweifeln, dass Jesus, wenn

JESUS AND THE ESSENES. 2 1 I
believe it who can ! Those who, like myself, reject it
as little better than absurd, will also allow that the
religion of the world already existed in principle when
Paul began to spread it amongst the heathen. We
may therefore advance fearlessly on the path that lies
before us. There, in the Judaism of Palestine, we may
perhaps discover something more than the antecedents
of von Hartmann's "Judenchristenthum," and may
thus find our method, in the merits of which we are
already confident, justified at last by the result also.
Upon Palestinian Judaism, then, our attention must
be fixed from this point onwards. But it must be
Palestinian Judaism as a whole, and not simply some
one of the religious schools into which it was divided
at the time of which we are speaking. An express
declaration on this subject is needed ; for there is
one of these schools or parties which certain writers
are never weary of attempting to bring into close and
even immediate connection with Christianity. It is
Essenism. The secret of this persistency is not hard
to discover. It is revealed as soon as we notice the
derselbe das paulinische Evangelium zu lehren fiir opportun gehalten
hatte, es hatte lehren k'onnen, da er sonst sein Wissen von demselben
nicht auf eine Offenbaning Jesu Christi hatte beziehen konnen." No
research was necessary, however, since the cancelling of the law was al
ready (logically) established. On the question itself see A. H. Blom,
Paulinische studien. ii. and vii., in Theol. Tijdschrift, 1879, bl. 344 vv. ;
I38i, bl. 53 vv.

212 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
form under which the theory in question is generally
presented to us. It is that of the romance. Almost
all the accounts of Jesus which attempt the so-called
" natural " explanation of his life — including the most
recent, published not long ago in this country* — make
him an Essene, or at any rate give him Essenic ante
cedents. This hypothesis is indeed the only one that
feeds the fancy. Philo and Flavins Josephus have
given us a graphic picture of the life of the Essenes,'
the charm of which we cannot deny, and which needs
little embellishment to serve as the background of a
romantic history of Jesus. There is another reason,
of a more serious nature, which prompts the ever-re
peated attempt to seize upon Essenism in explanation
of the origin of Christianity. Essenism itself has been
represented — I might almost say obstinately — as re
sulting from the action of foreign influences upon
Palestinian Judaism. Josephus himself gave the lead
in a certain way, and he has his followers even yet.
The Hellenism thus supposed to be the immediate
parent of the Essenes next affords the opportunity
of bringing them into indirect connection with various
systems of Greek philosophy, with Zarathustra, and
1 Rabbi Jeshua. An Eastern Story (London, 1881).
2 Philo, Quod Omnis Probus Liber, \ t2, and Apol. pro Judseis fragm,
apud Euseb. in Prsep. Evang. viii. 11 ; Josephus, Antiqq. xiii. 5, § 9 ; xv.
10. §? 4. S ; Bell. Jud. II. 8, \l 2-14.

THE THERAPEUTM.

213

even with Buddhism. And so, finally, if the Essenes
in their turn contributed to the rise of Christianity,
then a means has been found of bringing the latter
into connection with the West, or with the Eastern
religions, and the enigma of its origin is supposed to
be brought at any rate a step nearer to its solution.
But the question why the hypothesis of a close
connection between Christianity and Essenism is at
tractive to many minds, and is therefore really accepted
by them, must of course yield to the inquiry whether
there is really any adequate reason to suppose that
such a connection existed. Now, unless I am much
mistaken, the negative answer to this latter question,
which always had probability on its side, has re
cently been supported so conclusively that ere long
every one must accept it. In the first place, it is now
established that Essenism is a Jewish phenomenon,
and specifically a product of Palestinian Judaism.
When it was noticed that Essenism rose towards the
middle of the second century B.C., immediately after
the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to hellenize the
Jewish people, its Palestinian origin could not but be
regarded as highly probable a priori. When it had
been shown* that almost every trait of the life and
I Cf H. Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, III. 657 ff, (3te Ausg,), and the
essays of Frankel there quoted ; also J. Derenbourg, Hist, de la Palestine
d'apres les Talmuds, Ac, p. 166 svv.

214 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
thought of the Essenes finds its parallel in Talmudic
Judaism, the probability rose almost to certainty. But
yet the hypothesis of a foreign origin still had a safe
retreat in the Therapeutce, that enigmatical colony of
ascetics, on the Mareotid lake in Egypt, upon whom
Philo pronounced so glowing a panegyric in his
treatise, " De Vita Contemplativa." In spite of all dif
ferences, there was still so much similarity between
these Therapeutae and the Essenes that it was impossi
ble not to bring them into connection with each
other ; and since, for many reasons, the Therapeutae
could not be derived from the Essenes, what remained
but to represent the latter as having come from the
former ? And this again opened a channel, albeit a
circuitous one, by which heathen, and especially Neo-
Pythagorean, influences might be supposed to have
flowed into Palestine. I do not say that this view was
open to no objection, but it was one for which some
thing might be said, and which actually had defenders
of no mean rank.* But what has now happened ? It
was no new matter for the Philonic treatise " De Vita
Comtemplativa" to excite the suspicion of attentive
readers, and provoke surmises of spuriousness and a
later origin.' But until lately it was impossible to say
1 E. g. Zeller. See note 2 on next page.
' Cf Rehgion of Israel, Vol. III. pp. 217 — ^223, on the writers mentioned
there.

CHRISTIANITY AND ESSENISM. 21 5
that criticism had completed its task with regard to
this book, and the hypotheses concerning its antiquity
and its purpose continued to be widely divergent. The
blank has now been filled. A young Strassburg scholar
has succeeded in obtaining a satisfactory answer to the
riddle. The treatise was composed in the third cen
tury, or quite at the beginning of the fourth, in defence
and commendation of the asceticism then practised by
many Christians. It was, therefore, written by a Chris
tian, but in the name of Philo, from whom, in accord
ance with his assumed character, the author borrowed
many thoughts, and to whose genuine writings he
tacked on his essay.* This demonstration has been
accepted by the most competent judges, including those
who had previously espoused a different opinion.' And
herewith falls the last prop of the foreign origin of
Essenism, the purely Jewish character of which is now
finally established.
We come next to the connection of Essenism itself
with Christianity. The hypothesis of this connection
has been supported by proofs which cannot bear the
test of serious inquiry even for a moment. When
' P. E. Lucius, die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Gesch. der
Askese. Eine kritische Untersuchung der Schrift de vita contemplativa
(Strassburg, 1880.)
2 Amongst others, by E. Schiirer, in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1880, Sp.
Ill — 218, and A. Hilgenfeld, in Zeitschr. f wissensch. Theol. XXIH.
(1880), S. 423 ff.

2l6 JUDAISM AND ChRISTIANITY.
Graetz, for instance, draws a parallel between the Esse
nic doctrine of the Messiah and the kingdom of heaven
and the corresponding Christian conception,* we ask
in amazement what sources he commands whence he
can derive any knowledge of this Essenic doctrine ?
There are other arguments which, though not fictitious
like this one, are nevertheless counterbalanced by
others no less weighty than themselves, and are there
fore inconclusive. The agreement of Essenism and
primitive Christianity in certain moral precepts, their
common rejection of the oath, and their similarity in
fostering the spirit of brotherhood, are insisted upon
on the one side ; but oh the other we note the difference
of their views as to personal ceremonial cleanness and
the observance of the sabbath, points in which the
Essenes were as strict as the first Christians were lax
or indifferent. In my opinion, this weighing of the/ri?
and contra must by itself result in a declaration of the
independence of Christianity. The agreement is in
details of secondary importance, the difference is one
of principle. Essenic separatism, the formation of a
small and strictly closed society to realize the ideal of
ceremonial purity, has nothing Christian in it; and
conversely the Christian- propaganda for the rescuing
of sinners is in no way Essenic. The truth of the
' 1, c, S. 292, with reference to Note 10, hi,, that is, to S, 662, where,
however, no resemblance of a proof is offered.

CHRISTIANITY AND ESSENISM.

217

matter is, that to enable us to uphold the identity of
the two, we must first create an Essenism of our own
invention. And yet I must admit that this line of
argument does not silence all opposition. Accentuate
your review of Essenism differently, regard the sever
ance from society, for example, not as a part of the
ideal, but simply as a means dictated by necessity, and
you will at once reach a different conclusion with re
gard to the point at issue. Now, if I am not mistaken,
a hypothesis put forward by the same scholar whom I
have mentioned already, offers us the prospect of
bringing this apparently endless controversy to a
satisfactory conclusion. It was shown but now
that we had already found very firm ground be
neath our feet in deriving Essenism from Palesti
nian Judaism. We were already practically certain
that the Essenes- sprang from the "hasidim " or " de
vout " who appear more than once in the accounts of
the revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes.* But we had
not yet found any answer to the question what it was
precisely that drove the Essenes out of Jewish society,
and was thus the immediate occasion of the rise of
the Essenic order. This immediate cause of sever
ance has now been discovered in the opposition to the
' T Mace. ii. 42, vii. 12 sqq. — irreconcilable with 2 Mace. xiv. 6, as has
been shown, most recently, by Lucius in the treatise referred to below, S.
91 ff. 10

2l8 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
high-priests Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus, afterwards
persevered in against the Hasmonaean successors
of these tyrants, — men of a very different spirit, in
deed, but whose appointment did not, any more than
theirs, come up to the strict requirements of legalism.
The erection of the temple of Onias at Leontopolis in
Egypt, and its continuance down to the year 70 A. D.,
as well as the attitude assumed by the Scribes to
wards the Hasmonaean high-priests, are, on this hy
pothesis, parallel phenomena, which bring out the
significance of the Essenic secession all the more
clearly.* Now, we may question whether Lucius is
right in deriving almost all the usages of the Essenes
from their special attitude towards the personnel of the
temple staff; whether, for instance, their common
meals should be regarded as an imitation of the sac
rificial feasts, from which they found themselves ex
cluded; or whether the presents they sent to the
sanctuary at Jerusalem, at which they never appeared
themselves, are to be looked upon as an ever renewed
protest against the servants of the temple : but in any
case, if the breach with Jewish society had the cause
which is now suggested, it is perfectly natural that
avoidance of the national sanctuary should be the
distinguishing mark of the Essenes. By relaxing
1 p. E, Lucius, der Essenismus in seinem Verhaltniss zum Jedenthum
(Strassburg, 1881), especially S, 75 ff.

ORIGIN OF ESSEiV/SM.

219

this point they would, in their own estimation, have
lost their raison d'etre. The application of all this to
our subject is obvious. A connection between Essen
ism and Christianity can no longer be thought of
Scruples against participation in the temple service, or
doubts as to the legitimacy of the officiating high-
priest, are things which it has never yet entered any
man's head to attribute to the Founder of Christianity
or to the earliest Christians. If any reliance whatever
is to be placed on the accounts we possess, then such
ideas were entirely foreign to them, and their attitude
towards the sanctuary was that of the nation at large.
But in that case they were not Essenes, either in the
narrower sense (so much we had long known) or in
the broader ; for it was just this personal participation
in the common worship that placed the other Jews
outside the boundary-line which circumscribed the
Essenic order.
Does it follow that we must leave Ae Essenes alto
gether out of view in the research upon which we are
engaged ? Not at all. They are of great service to us
in our diagnosis of Palestinian Judaism. At a given
moment the order severed itself from the parent stem
and went on its own way. But the very things which
it henceforth displays within narrow compass, and
therefore all the more distinctly, must have come with
it in germ and principle as the legacy of its earlier and

2 20 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
still dependent life, and must therefore have lived and
worked in the Jewish people also. If the birth of
Essenism is in itself a witness to the power of religion
in those days, so likewise the form which it assumed
at its establishment, or which it subsequently devel
oped, is a record of the elements of which that religion
was composed. There they lie before us, in all their
motley diversity, in the descriptions of the life of the
Essenes. Anxiety as to ceremonial purity comes
strongly into the foreground. Every pollution is
avoided, or if unavoidable is removed, with the utmost
scrupulosity. Other external ordinances are accepted
in the same narrow spirit and observed with the same
petty strictness. Yet what deep reverence for the
moral ideal was there ! We know from Flavins Jose
phus* the form of oath which the Essene must take
when received into the order. It was the only oath
ever permitted him. To what, then, did he pledge
himself when on this single occasion he invoked the
holy name of God to attest his word ? He pledged
himself, it is true, to observe the laws of the order
and not to divulge its secrets ; but firstly and chiefly
he pledged himself to uprightness, faithfulness and
submissiveness, to humility, simplicity and truthful
ness. The man who formulated this oath must have
sat at the feet of Israel's prophets and psalmists.
1 Bell. Jud. II. 8, I 7.

E THICS OF ESSENISM. 2 2 1
" Who shall abide in Yahweh's tabernacle, and dwell
upon Yahweh's holy mountain ?" This question, it
has been truly said,* the Essene must have asked and
answered with the poet of the fifteenth Psalm. Let
us bear this well in mind ! Serious objections may be
urged against the Essenic life, not from any arbitrarily
selected point of view, but from that of Israelitism
itself Not without justice has its separatism been
condemned as a relinquishment of the ideal of Law
and Prophets alike.^ So much the more noteworthy,
then, is the fact that in this outgrowth of Judaism the
prophetic conception of the life well pleasing to God
asserted itself so powerfully ! We must not lose
sight of this in our further study of the Palestinian
Judaism from which Essenism had indeed withdrawn,
but out of which it had sprung and of which it there
fore testifies.
In reviewing a composite phenomenon we are some
times at a loss how best to group its component parts.
No such perplexity awaits us here. Palestinian Juda
ism, regarded from a religious point of view, finds its
obvious and natural centre in Pharisaism. In the
Jewish state the high-priest takes the highest place,
^ Lucius, 1. u. S. io6 ff,
2 " Der Essenismus ist nicht " die Bliite des Judenthums,'' sondern
das bewuszte Aufgeben der Realisining derjenigen Idee des Gottesvolks,
welche Gesetz und Propheten fordern und verheiszen " (Demmler, in
Theol. Studien aus Wiirttemberg, I. (i88o), S. 53).

222 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
while the distinguished families of priests and laymen
who together with him make up the Sadducees, range
themselves around him. We should have to begin
with him if our object were to sketch the political his
tory of the Jews. But in religion the Sadducees rep
resent no special principle. Here it is the Scribes who
lead and rule, supported by their pupils, the Pharisees,
who put their theory into practice. If the Scribes
consecrated themselves wholly to the study of the
Law and its application to life, or more truly to the
subjection of the life of the people in all its branches
to the precepts of the Law, the Pharisees are absorbed
in its observance and in the realization of righteous
ness, regarded as conformity to its ordinances.
It is no longer needful to indite an apology for the
Pharisees. The polemic against their shortcomings in
the New Testament, especially in the Synoptic Gos
pels,* is . not meant as a complete description of their
purposes and efforts, and ought never to have been
taken as such. Most assuredly there were false bre
thren amongst them — of what religious circles may not
the same be said ? — but to regard them all as hypo
crites or mere formalists is the height of injustice, and
is inconsistent with the New Testament itself,' no less
than with the evidence of Flavins Josephus and the
' c, g. Luke xii. i ; Matt, xxiii. 13 sqq. ; v. 20.
2 Acts xxvi. 5 ; Phil. iii. 5.

THE PHARISEES.

223

Talmud. No ; Pharisaism was an attempt — so tho
roughly earnest as to claim our profound respect — to
realize the principle of Judaism itself viz., complete
obedience to the will of God expressed in the Thorah.
The Pharisees, to speak with Wellhausen,* are the
virtuosi of religion.
The fact that amongst the post-exilian Jews such
men arose, that they drew together, and formed recog
nized unions or corporations, is of decisive significance.
In the first place, it demonstrates afresh how the Scribes
had gradually succeeded in making religion an affair
of the people, and what a power that religion had
become. But even this is not enough to say. Phari
saism was not only an indication of the place religion
now occupied, but was in its turn the guarantee that
it should never again be thrust from it, that it had
taken it once for all. In the Scribes, Judaism had its
official representatives, who lent it powerful support
in their capacity as such. But these men, to whom
the preaching of religion had become a calling, must
yield the palm of influence and power to the volunteers
who had given themselves up to their guidance. The
unofficial character of the latter did but heighten their
moral authority. Nothing is more natural, therefore,
' Die Pharisaer und die Sadducaer. Eine Untersuchung zur inneren
jiidischen Geshichte (Greifswald, 1874), S. 20. I may also refer to his
admirable description of Pharisaism altogether (S. 8 — 36, 26 — 43).

2 24 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
than to find that the people cherished the utmost rev
erence for them, and, when occasion rose, were always
ready to follow and support them. The sense of the
masses is seldom misled in such things, nor was it at
fault in this special case. On our side we can but sub
scribe to the judgment. We have, as will soon appear,
very serious objections to urge against the principle of
legalism supported by the Pharisees, and its inevitable
consequences. But we cannot withhold the tribute of
honour due to the uprightness of their intentions and
their perseverance in their task. Pharisaism reveals an
energy fraught with the promise of great things. It
may have been wrongly directed, but if so, was it not
capable of being turned into the right channel and
made to serve the true advancement and development
of religion?
These are no questions with which, from the van
tage ground of centuries, we descend upon Pharisaism
to disturb its self-complacency. No ! its own most
flourishing period proclaims loudly and unmistaka
bly enough its own insufficiency. Within, and still
more around it, in the life of the Jewish people, all
manner of phenomena might be noted which, to any
one capable of observing and fathoming them, could
admit of no other interpretation than this.
Let us first look within Pharisaism itself, or which
comes to the same thing, within the schools of the

ESTIMATE OF PHARISAISM.

225

Scribes, whence issued the rule observed by the Phari
sees. In these schools some of the great teachers,
though not all of them, manifested a very decided
disposition to regard righteousness in some other light
than as the observance of the countless precepts of
the Law. They sought to simplify religion and
strike some deeper ground of prijiciple. We all
know the answer given by Hillel, Herod's contempor
ary, to the heathen who begged him to describe the
religion of the JewS in a few words : " What thou
wouldst not have done to thee, do 7iot that to others.
This is the whole law : all the rest is but the interpre
tation. Go, then, and learn what this means !" * In
the tract of the Mishnah called the Pirke Aboth, we
find at any rate some sayings, ascribed to various
periods, which rise above the point of view of legal
ism and are akin to Hillel's utterance. Antigonus
of Sochoh used to say : " Be not as slaves that min
ister to' the lord with a view to receive recompence ;
but be as slaves that minister to the lord without a
view to receive recompence ; and let the fear of
Heaven (i. e. the fear of God) be upon you !" ' The
following saying is handed down from Gamaliel, the
son of Rabbi Judah the holy : " Do his (God's) will
1 Talmud babli. Sabbath, fol. 31 a.
' Pirke Ab8th, I. 3 (p, 27 in the edition of Ch. Taylor, Cambridge,
1877). 10*

226 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
as if it were thy will, that he may do thy will as if it
were his will. Annul thy will before his will, that he
may anniil the will of others before thy will."* One
of the disciples of Johanan ben Zaccai, Eleazar ben
Arak by name, answered his master's question as to
which was the good way that a man must cleave to
by saying, " A good heart ;" and Johanan approved
his answer above those of all the other disciples.' In
the haggadic portions of the Gemara, and in the
numerous midrashim which have come down to us,
the like purely religious and ethical utterances,
together with stories and parables of similar import,
are very frequent. In the form in which we possess
them, they date from a later period ; but it is practi
cally certain that the Scribes gave similar lessons
from the first. When they preached in the syn
agogues, we may suppose they usually adopted
this form of teaching, generally linked it on to the
sections of the Law and Prophets which were read
aloud to the congregation, but sometimes quite freely
in accordance with the promptings of their own hearts
or the requirements of the moment' There is really
' Ibid. 11. 4 (p. 43 in Taylor's edition).
2 Ibid. II. 12 (p. 49 in Taylor's edition).
^ Cf J. Derenbourg, 1. u, p, 159 sv , 202 svv.; J. Freudenthal, die Fl.
Josephus beigelegte schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft{iy. Makk.)
eine Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristl. Jahrhundert (Breslau, 1869),
especially S. 4 ff.

LIBERAL TENDENCIES AMONGST SCRIBES. 227
nothing surprising in this. For amongst the Scribes
there were men not only earnest and conscientious, but
likewise gifted with deep piety of heart and with warm
emotions ; men, too, of imagination and talent ; in a
word successors of the prophets, an echo of whose
preaching, we can hardly doubt, sounded sometimes
in the ears of their hearers. Now the reason why I
mention this aspect of the work of the Sopherim,
natural as it seems, as something special, is, that it
offers such a contrast, or at least such a conspicuous
want of agreement, with the rigid legalism which was
the essence and the enduring characteristic of their
work. Whenever they extol the inward disposition as
the highest, or even as the one thing needful.whenever
they condemn mercenary piety or seek an ally in
the conscience of their hearers, they remind us of a
captive bird pecking at the wires of its cage, or, if you
will, raising its song as though it were soaring freely
in its own element. The spontaneity, the spirit of
devotion, the initiative energy which they thus reveal.
do not go together with the scrupulous care to observe
the six hundred and thirteen commandments of the
written, and the far more numerous precepts of the
oral, Thorah. But, you will say, in the Scribes they
did go together. And in the face of such a fact, what
is the meaning of declaring them incompatible ? This :
that the spiritual and emotional elements in the teaching

228 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
of the Scribes were little more than its helpless protest
against its own essential character. Just because it
could not relinquish its legalism without renouncing
itself, it was powerless to do justice to anything that lay
outside it. All this must remain for ever a dash at
an inaccessible goal, a promise without fulfilment.
The words of Hillel sound beautiful enough, and were
doubtless uttered in sincerity : " Be of the disciples
of Aaron (the peaceful) ; loving peace and pursuing
peace ; loving the creatures and bringing them
nigh to the Thorah."* But how when the theory has to
be put into practice, and it appears that this Thorah,
with its " hedge '" raised by the Sopherim and made
¦ yet stronger and higher in accordance with the seven
rules drawn up by Hillel himself,' is inaccessible to
"the creatures " who are to be brought to it? In
truth, it is but too clear that the teaching of the
Scribes and the Pharisaism inseparable from it are
smitten with internal contradiction. There is no real
correlation between the dispositions and emotions
which they rouse and on which they desire to rest,
and the practical goal to which they direct their
efforts. Such discords are not felt by every one in
whose life-system they exist, — what is called a happy
' Pirk^ Ab&th, I. 13 (p. 34 sq. in Taylor's edition).
'¦^ Ibid. I, I (p. 25 in Taylor's edition); cf Taylor's note on the passage.
' See my Religion of Israel, Vol. III. pp. 243 sq.

INSUIFICIENCY OF SCRIBES' MOVEMENT. 229
inconsistency has never been rare in the world, and
was no less frequent then than it is now, — but they
eat into the spiritual life in which they have estab
lished themselves. Sooner or later they come to
consciousness — and then ? How is it possible — by
advancing on the path once chosen, I mean — to find
the reconciliation ?
" Love men and bring them nigh to the Thorah."
This saying of Hillel's leads us of itself to the second
group of phenomena which seems to me to reveal the
insufficiency of Pharisaism. Amongst " the men," or,
as the expression really stands, " the creatures," of
whom Hillel speaks, the Jews settled in Palestine
surely take the first place ; yet who could dare to say
that these " children of the kingdom " enjoyed the
knowledge of the Thorah or the blessing of a life in
accordance with its precepts ? We have no right
whatever to accuse the Scribes of neglecting their
duties toward their people. They did what they
could. Nor can we say that there was any section of
the nation for whom they had laboured wholly in vain.
Their exertions had made a portion, and truly no
despicable portion, of Judaism the universal posses
sion of the Jews. Monotheism, about the beginning
of our era, and even earlier, had sunk into the popular
consciousness. The privilege which Israel enjoyed
above the heathen was generally acknowledged ; the

230 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
resultant obligation to live after God's commandments
was denied by no one. But if we go on to ask
whether the Judaismx of the Scribes had realized its
ideal of a people consecrated to the Holy One, or, if
this is too much to require, whether it was at any rate
on the way to its realization, then we must face a very
sad result. A considerable portion of Palestine's
, Jewish population utterly failed to comply with the
demands which the Sopherim made, and from their
point of view could not help making, upon it ; and it
was therefore unclean, nay abominable, in their eyes.
To this class belonged, in the first instance, those
whom the New Testament calls " the lost sheep of
Israel,"' the sinners and publicans, whom the Talmud
styles " amme ha-arez," which is equivalent to "(Jew
ish) heathens." But besides these, the large num
bers whom the earliest Christian literature includes
under the name of "the multitudes," though not stand'
ing so low as the others, were far from irreproachable
in the estimation of the Scribes. Many, though per
haps not all, fell under the sentence put upon the lips
of " the chief priests and Pharisees " in the fourth
Gospel: "This multitude that know not the law are
accursed.'" This has been denied, and the Jewish
bourgeoisie , the middle class proper, has been described
1 Matt. X, 6 ; xv. 24 ; cf Matt. ix. 36 ; Mark vi. 34.
2 John vii. 49.

EXTENT OF PHARISAISM. 23 I
as completely answering to the demands of the Sophe
rim.* It seems hard to decide in such a case. We
are moving in a sphere which is hardly amenable to
statistics even under the most favourable circumstances,
and in this special case the difficulty is enhanced in
proportion to the meagreness and incompleteness of
our sources of information. And yet there is one
fact which the optimistic view does not take into
account, and with which it seems to me irreconcilable.
That fact is Pharisaism itself It loses its very
meaning if it cannot be regarded as a protest against
the unsatisfactory condition of the people in general,
from the point of view of legalism. The Pharisee
takes upon himself no single duty which every Jew
is not equally bound to observe. Pharisaism is
simply Judaism itself, and nothing more ; and yet
it is the practice, not of the whole nation, but of a
sect — of some few thousand men to whom the peo
ple look up with profound respect, but who are seen
by that very fact to be essentially different from the
people itself Geiger, who in other respects has done
much to give us a true insight into the nature a'nd mu
tual relations of the Jewish parties, was mistaken in
1 Graetz, 1. t. S. 305, " Der Jud'aische Mittelstand, die Bewohner klei-
nerer und groszerer Stadte, war grosztentheils derart von Gottergebenheit
Frommigkeit und leidlicher (!) Sittlichkeit durchdrungen, dasz die Auff-
orcerung die Siinden zu bereuen und fahren zu lassen fiir sie gar keinen
Sinn hatte,''

232 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
identifying the Pharisees with the Jewish bourgeoisie}
But even the errors of a master are often instructive.
As Geiger imagines it was, so it really ought to have
been. Theoretically speaking, there was not the least
reason why the whole of the people — the utterly un
tutored and the castaways alone excepted — should not
have complied with all that the Pharisees observed.
But practically it was not, and could not be so. The
burden of the commandments was too heavy, obedience
too complicated, for the whole nation to take up and
bear. The feat was possible only to a comparatively
small number who made it the business of their lives.
But if what these few did was the duty of all, then we
must avow that Pharisaism condemns, while it reveals,
the form of religion of which it was no arbitrary out
growth, but the historically necessary development.
What happens when the consistent application of a
principle which is only half true leads to a dead-lock
such as that to which Judaism was brought about the
beginning of our era ? Subterfuges are sought — and
found. If the ideal has proved inaccessible, something
short of the ideal is accepted instead. But this is at
best a melancholy alternative, in which the conscience
1 Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, S. lOo ff. (e. g. S. 150, '' Die
Pharisaer bestanden aus dem national und religios gesinnten Biirger-
thume "); Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, I. (1865), S. 86 ff. (e, g.
S, 89: '¦ die Abgesonderten, das Biirgerthum ").

SILENT INFLUENCE OF PROPHETIC SPIRIT. 233
cannot rest. The unrealized ideal never ceases to dis
turb us, and goads us from time to time into renewed
efforts, which (on the hypothesis from which we have
started) can only result in renewed disappointment. A
restless striving and longing remains. How the heart
of many a Jew must have beaten, as he thought of the
countless trespasses from which he shrank, but which
he could not escape ! How often must he have been
oppressed by the violation of God's commandments
which his conscience bound him to observe, but which
he could scarcely hope even to know, how much less
to fulfil ! It is true that a man ends by banishing such
painful thoughts and acquiescing in the inevitable.
But is this a solution of the difficulty ? No ! Such
quietness of soul is bought at too great a price.
Fortunately there was another way of escape, and
we are free to believe that some at least did not fail to
find it. There was, as we have just seen, an internal
contradiction in the system of the Scribes, a prophetic
element that .did not harmonize with its main principle
of rigid legalism. With this most attractive side of the
work of the Sopherim the believing Jew first came into
contact in the synagogue ; and afterwards, too, when
he had become acquainted with the " halacha" (the
Thorah in its manifold application), it continued to
fascinate him. Here a note was sounded that waked
an echo in his heart. Then why not give heed to it ?

234 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
If the Scribes appealed to his conscience and sought
in his religious aspirations a point of attachment for
their preaching, what did they more than the pious
men of ancient time had done ? Was it not the spirit
of the Prophets and Psalmists that worked in them and
sounded from their lips ? To its guidance he might
safely trust himself Nurtured in reverence for the pro
phetic word, and with his attention constantly fixed on
it by the Scribes themselves, he might thus rise to a
different view of the religious and moral life from that
which the Scribes, in virtue oftheir principle systemati
cally fostered. Need I describe this other view
more narrowly ? You remember how the prophets
had pictured the dispositions pleasing to God, what
affections they had fostered, and how, setting the
ritual completely on one side, they had extolled
the most purely human virtues as manifesting the
truest piety. There can be no manner of doubt
that under the dominion of Judaism this conception
still had fts upholders.* And yet I ought not really
' From this point of view, the remarks of Flavins Josephus, Contr. Ap.
II. i6, deserve attention. Note the words, for instance : " He (Moses) did
not make piety a part of virtue, but he recognized and established the vir
tues as parts of piety ; I mean righteousness, endurance, temperance, mu
tual harmony between the citizens in all things. For with us, all actions
and occupations and words are derived from the pious disposition towards
God ; for of all these things he (Moses) left none without regulation." Cf
also II. 19, on the reception of these ideas into the life of the people.

HIGHER PROVISIONAL RESULTS. 235
to speak of the formation of another theory subse
quently erected in opposition to the official one. For
it was by th« preaching of the synagogue and the
reading of the Holy Scriptures that the seeds were
scattered of a religion which could not find its cdfisum-
mation in the observance of the covenant made with
God and the expectation of the reward he had at
tached thereto. These seeds were not dropped in
vain. Sometimes they fell upon good ground. Es
senism has already taught us how strong the purely
moral elements in Judaism were, and how success
fully they vindicated their place by the side of the
others. The same fact must have been abundantly
evident in the unobtrusive lives of many who still
retained their places in Jewish society. They had not
risen above the principle of legalism. The Pharisee
had not ceased to be their ideal of piety and right
eousness. Hence, in some cases, no doubt, a certain
want of self-reliance. Were they really on the right
way ? Ought they to experience the peace they en
joyed ? Their religion was, in a certain sense, illegiti
mately acquired, a stolen possession, which might
therefore be taken away again. But as a matter of
fact they had, were it only provisionally, risen to a
higher standpoint than that of Pharisaism — a stand
point which ere long was to be possessed and defended
in right as well as in fact.

236 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
Our review of Palestinian Judaism must now take a
wider sweep. The life it led may have appeared, so
far, to have been one of isolation, so to speak, having
little or no contact with other religions and their con-
fessoft. But this was not so at all. In Palestine,
Judaism was shut in and pressed on every side by
the overmastering power of the heathen world, and
outside Palestine it had its branches everywhere. This
could not remain without influence on the thoughts
and feelings of its confessors, on their expectations,
on what they did and what they left undone. In
truth, this influence was most penetrating. What we
have to say on the subject falls under two heads —
Messianism and Proselytism.
As to " th« Messianic idea," if we are not to be over
whelmed or at least carried out of our course by the
wealth of the subject, we must be content to relinquish
the consideration of all details and all matters under
dispute, and confine ourselves to the main point, as to
which there is fortunately no difference of opinion. I
assume it as proved, therefore, that the Messianic ex
pectations had not expired in post-exilian Israel ; that
they survived especially, not in the ranks of the ruling
aristocracy, but amongst the Scribes, the Pharisees,
and the people who were led by them ; that the pres
sure of Herod's rule no less than that of the Romans
had revived and strengthened them. About the begin-

THE ZEALOTS AND THE SCRIBES.

237

ning of our era, these expectations had not yet taken
any definite shape, and Judaism possessed no rounded
system of Messianic dogma. But there was a convic
tion, dominant everywhere, that the subjection of
God's people to the heathen was an anomaly that could
not last. As surely as Israel had been chosen out of all
the nations of the earth by the Almighty, and belonged
to him as a " kingdom of priests and a holy people,"*
so surely must Israel win freedom and dominion.
In mutual agreement so far, the Jews part at this
point into two companies. In the one, the Mes
sianism has produced Zelotism. Wider and wider
spreads the thought that the dawn of the better time
must not be passively expected, but must be hastened
by heroic deeds. Josephus, almost the only witness
we can consult, is forced to reveal the constant growth
of Zelotism, gladly as he would conceal it, sweeping
the whole people with it at last in the year 66 A.D.
But this result came about in spite of the spiritual
leaders, the Scribes and their faithful disciples the
Pharisees. From the first they consistently main
tained their expectant attitude, and as long as they
commanded the hearts of the people, they taught them
to hope indeed, but also to endure. It is remarkable
how often the thought of suffering and dying for the
Law finds expression in the pages of the Jewish his-
' Exod. xix. 6 a.

238 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY. '
torian, as he tries to place his people and its religion
in the true light against the attacks of Apion. " It is
implanted in every Jew," he says,* "from his very
birth, to regard them (the words of the Law) as God's
commands, to abide in them, and, if need be, gladly
to die for them.'' Elsewhere he extols the courage
of his fellow-believers in facing death for the sake of
the Law — not, he adds, " that easiest form of death
which a man meets on the battle-fieid, but that which
is accompanied by bodily torture and is deemed the
most terrible of all."' They firmly believed, he had
just informed us, that they who had observed the laws
and, if needful, cheerfully died for them, would live
again in a far better existence. " I should hesitate to
set this down," he adds, " had not the facts made it
manifest to all that many of my countrymen have on
many occasions nobly preferred to suffer any extremity
rather than utter a single word contrary to the Law."'
In whatever other respects Josephus may have been
false to the traditions of his people, here at least it is
the true Pharisee that speaks.
Let it not be thought that this passive aspect of
devotion to the Messianic idea may be disregarded in
judging the Palestinian Judaism because it manifested
itself in no external movement. On the contrary, it
1 Contr. Ap. I, 8. z Contr. Ap. II. 32.
' Contr. Ap. II. 30.

PASSIVE MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. 239
seems to me to have far higher religious significance
than the zeal of a Judas the Gaulonite,* which evapo
rated in the very deeds of violence it inspired. It
means something to live in a world that is the very
opposite of what it ought to be, and to stand against
it with a protest, unuttered indeed, but all the more
earnest and deep on that very account, in the name of
the Only True, whom the world knows not, but must
some time, whether it will or no, learn both to know
and reverence. We cannot say with certainty in what
mood this position will be held. It may be in hatred,
concentrated hatred, of the godless masters of the
world. Or it may be with an inward estrangement
from the ungodly world itself and all its glory, with a
falling back upon those spiritual blessings which the
world cannot give, but cannot take away, — in a word,
renunciation of the world or fleeing from it, a kind of
spiritual Essenism, of which we have more than one
actual example preserved to us in the accounts of the
great Scribes. In what proportion these and perhaps
other emotions were stirred in the Jewish hearts by
the Messianic idea must remain a- mystery ; for who
has power to fathom the inner life of bygone genera
tions ? But this at least is certain, that as a whole
the religious life of the Jews was modified in character
1 Josephus, Antiqq. XVIII. i, § i ; Bell. Jud. II. 8, § i ; cf, my Reli
gion of Israel, Vol. III. pp. 256 sq.

240 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
and , changed in colour by the future on which they
dwelt. In other respects there was nothing in their
mode of life to irritate or provoke their neighbours.
It is true they declined to fall in with other people's
ideas and usages. The Jew was independent, and
made a point of remaining so. But this might be re
garded simply as a harmless eccentricity or a fit sub
ject of ridicule. It was widely different, however,
when he, the scion of an insignificant tribe, came
forward, or rather went quietly on his way, cherishing
in his heart this protest against the whole existing
disposition of earthly things, this hope of a total
revolution, these claims to universal dominion. Al
though such thoughts and anticipations were not
preached from the house-tops, yet they could not re
main concealed, and they had, as a matter of fact,
become known amongst the Romans, and still more
amongst the neighbours of the Jews.* Need we
wonder if many an one, dissatisfied with the social
conditions under which he lived, and having outgrown
the traditional religion, cast an inquiring look to that
quarter of the mysterious East whence perhaps the
light might break ?
But let me not speak as if nothing more came of it
than this attitude of uncertain inquiry. Great num
bers, in almost every quarter of the then known
' Suetonius, Vesp. 4 ; Tacitus, Hist. v. 13.

JE WISH PR OSEL YTISM. 2 4 1
world, had actually joined the Jews already. Prose
lytism had gradually assumed amazing dimensions.
Here, too, I must refrain from entering upon details ;
and after all, it is only the main fact itself as to which
there is no difference of opinion, that has special
interest for us in this connection. Flavins Josephus
certainly deserves our confidence when he makes an
assertion concerning his own times which any one of
his readers could bring to the test of the facts ; and
he does not hesitate to declare that " many of them
(the Greeks) have agreed to submit themselves to
our laws ; some having persevered, whilst others,
lacking the patience to endure, have fallen away
again."* And once more, later on : " For a long
time back, great zeal for our religion has laid hold
upon multitudes ; nor is there any city of the Greeks,
or indeed any city at all, even though barbarian,
nor is there any nation, where the observance of
the seventh day, on which we rest from toil, has
not made its way, and where the fasts and lamp-
lightings and many of our prohibitions as to food are
not observed. And they try to imitate our mutual
harmony, and our industry in handicrafts, and our
patient endurance under persecutions for the Law's
sake  As God penetrates the whole world, so the
Law has made its way amongst all men. Let each
• Contr. Ap. II, 10.

242 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
one look to himself at his own land and his own home,
and he will not withhold belief from what I say."* It
was the Jews of the diaspora more especially that
attracted the proselytes.' But in Palestine, too, and
from Palestine as a centre, Judaism spread amongst
the heathens, whether as a natural result of their
intercourse with the Jews, or in consequence of the
activity of Missionaries sent out to convert them. It
is far from improbable that in the first century of the
Christian era such direct attempts were not unfrequent.'
In a word, Judaism was by no means without con
sciousness of its own broader destiny, and was already
engaged in extending its borders in many directions.
The most striking proof of the importance of this
movement is the fact that the question of the conditions
under which heathens should be admitted into Judaism
had already been asked and variously answered. There
is a celebrated account given by Flavins Josephus of
the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene'to the
Jewish religion ;* and still more interesting, for our
present purpose, than the fact itself, is the doubt of
Izates as to whether he must submit to circumcision,
and the contradictory opinions on the subject given by
' Contr. Ap, II. 39. ,
' See the authorities in my Religion of Israel, Vol. III. P. 274.
3 Cf Matt, xxiii. 15, and Note XII.
* Antiqq. XX. 2 — 4 ; cf the Talmudic accounts, Derenbourg, 1. t. pp.
222 — 229.

PHARISAISM AND THE FUTURE OF JUDAISM. 243
Hananiah and Eleazar. The former would be satisfied
with the observance of the main points of the Law; the
latter maintained that reverence for that Law must
show itself at the very outset by submission to all its
ordinances, including circumcision. When I say that
what Josephus tells us on this subject forms a kind of
commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, it
is as much as to declare that the question between
national and universal religion had already been, I will
not say answered, but at least asked, out there on the
banks of the Tigris ! From the point of view of the
Law, Eleazar — determined to maintain every jot and
tittle — is unquestionably right. But if his rule is to
be followed, then Judaism must remain what it is,
the religion of one single people ; and the handful of
converts it may make will but serve to bring out its
national character all the more clearly. In that case,
what is to become of the far wider destiny which we
have seen shadowed forth in so many phenomena ?
What comes, to begin with, of the prophetic univer
salism ? What comes, again, of that plastic power of
adaptation which Judaism has already displayed in
foreign countries? What comes, above all, of the
treasures of piety and morality which lie stored within
it, and for which so many hands are already held out
in longing? Are all these promises of a glorious
future to be sacrificed to rigid legalism — in a word, to

244 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
Pharisaism ? And that, too, although this consistent
carrying out of the legal principle "is condemned
already ;" although in Palestine itself it has failed in
its most immediate task ; although by its side, partly
in Essenism, but far more in the lives of some of the
people, another and a better conception of religion has
appeared, — as yet hardly venturing to show its head,
but impressing us as having risen to the task which is
reserved for Judaism !
The limit fixed for this portion of our investigation
Is now reached. When we have included Buddhism
within the circle of our observations, I shall return
once more to Judaism and the relation in which
Christianity stands to it. But we have already traced
through its course the ascent of Judaism towards an
international religion, the birth of which now stands
before our eyes as a historical necessity. Yet always,
let me say it again, with one most important reserva
tion. I think I have shown that the conditions of this
transition are present, that the material is as it were i
collected for the new edifice ; or, to express it differ
ently, that the problem has been set, and that too in
such definite terms as to bring the solution as close as
possible. One thing only is wanting, and that is the
solution itself. The elements lie mingled one with
another, and the " Let there be light" must still be

CONCLUSION. 245
spoken. But is not this equivalent to the avowal that
our whole undertaking has failed ? No doubt ft would
be so if I had promised to explain the origin of Chris
tianity independently of the person of its Founder. But
you will remember that at the outset I declared that I
could do nothing of the kind. What I did undertake
to show was, that Jesus ought not to be regarded as
the "deus ex machina" who suddenly appears to
bring order out of the confusion and misery wrought
by men, and that he might be strictly demonstrated not
to have stood in opposition to the whole Jewish people
in every phase and shade of its religion. Have I not
satisfied these promises ? " Christianity," I read not
long ago, " the person of Jesus Christ, is not the last
shoot of the Israelitish nationality, but the completion
of the revelation of God which underlies its history."*
I say nothing of the contrast, for it would bring us
upon a field we are not now treading. But for us the
denial here made has fallen away. Christianity not
the last shoot (or rather the fruit) of the Israelitish
nationality ? But have we not seen how more than one
of the components of Judaism pointed forward towards
the things that should be, and as it were forced the
development of that germ which the Israelitish religion
' " Das Christentum, die Person Jesu Christi, ist nicht der letzte Aus-
laufer des israelitischen Volkstums, sondem die ErfuUung der ihm zu
Grunde liegenden Gottesoffenbarung" (H. J. Bestmann, Gesch. der
christlichen Sitte, I. 318).

246 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
had for centuries, nay from the very beginning, borne
within itself? Have we not witnessed "the birth-
pains" — not the imaginary but the real ones — " of the
Messiah"?* And now we may take one more step forward. Up
to the moment when the facts themselves gave the
answer, it remained a secret what the solution would
be. But we may safely say that its form could hardly
be doubtful to one who comprehended the course of
Israel's religious history. We have recognized proph
ecy as the moving power of its development Priests,
and subsequently Scribes, zealously co-operated, and
thereby did priceless service to their people and so to
humanity. But at the turning-points of this age-long
process of evolution the prophet stands. Every direct
approach to the final goal is his work. The Judaism
of the " time of fulfilment " owes to his influence
those thoughts, those aptitudes and dispositions, which
immediately proclaim the new era that is to be. It
seems then to lie in the nature of the case that in the
transition from the national to the universal the chief
part is reserved for the prophet. What Amos, Isaiah.
Jeremiah and " the great Unknown" had begun, it was
reserved for him to finish.
So it seemed that it must be, and so it was.
' Compare J. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (London, 1877), Bk.
ii. chap, v., especially p. 221.

BUDDHISM.
RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION.

"SiJWPLiciTY the seal of truth!" Were this life-
motto of my great countryman universally valid, then
the view I have upheld of the origin of Christianity
from Palestinian Judaism would need no further re
commendation. But we have so often found the ways
of history circuitous, that we are alm.ost more inclined
to doubt whether the straight path can be the true one
than to assume that it must be so ! In any case, it is
no superfluous question to ask whether other factors
than those of which we traced the influence when last
we met may not have contributed to the formation of
Christianity. May not the process really have been
more complex than we have supposed it ?
There is definite occasion for asking these questions.
When Christianity was born in Palestine, there was a
world-religion in existence already. Have we any
right to leave it out of consideration ? It is an esta
blished fact that contact with strangers was not with
out its influence upon the religion of Israel after the
247

248 BUDDHISM.
exile ; that Persian ideas, for example, gained access,
not simply to individual minds, but to the nation as a
whole. Now, at the beginning of our era. Buddhism
had already overstepped the boundaries of its father
land more than two centuries ago. Difference of
nationality had proved no barrier to its spread. Is it
not therefore extremely natural that repeated attempts'
should have been made to raise this, the first in the
series of universal religions, to the position of parent
of the other two, or at any rate to give it a side in
fluence in the production of Christianity, and thereby,
indirectly, of Islam also ?
We cannot altogether ignore these attempts, though
they need not detain us long. A single glance is
enough to teach us that inventive fancy plays the chief
part in them.
What is the nature of the proofs alleged by those
who maintain that Buddhistic influences were at work
in the production of Christianity ? Positive evidence
that Buddhistic ideas had penetrated to Western Asia
is not forthcoming till a far later time. The Indian
" Gymnosophists " whom Philo mentions once or
twice* are not Buddhists at all, and, moreover, he only
knows them by vague report. Clement of Alexan
dria is the first who mentions the Buddha ; and he
' Quod Omnis Probus Liber, § 11 (II. 456 Mang.) ; de Abrahamo,
I 33 (II. 26 Mang).

BUDDHISTIC INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY.

249

speaks of him as the human founder of a religion,
whom his followers, " because he was so surpassingly
venerable," reverenced as a god.* What he has to
tell us leaves the impression that even in those days,
about the beginning of the third century of our era.
Buddhism was still a remote phenomenon. If it
had made its influence felt in Egypt or in Pales
tine centuries before, Clement at least had not the
faintest suspicion of the fact. If there is no evi
dence of the reality of this influence, then, are we to
deny its possibility ? I -for one dare not go so far.
The way which Buddhism would have to travel in
order to reach either Palestine or Egypt was long,
but it was neither unknown nor impassable ; and if we
think of the Babylonian Jews as the medium of com
munication, the distance is notably curtailed. But
the total absence of historical witnesses should make
us very cautious in assuming such an " actio in di-
stans," and renders it at least our imperative duty to
submit the quality of the proofs which are usually
urged in support of the theory of Buddhistic influences
to a very close examination. The well-known volume
on "the Angel-Messiah of the Buddhists, Essenes and
Christians,'" no doubt teems with parallels of every
1 Strom. I. 15, g 71 (p. 359 Pott.).
2 The Angel-Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes and Christians,- by Ernest
de Bunsen (London, 1880).

2 50

BUDDHISM.

description ; but, alas ! it is one unbroken commentary
on Scaliger's thesis that errors in the theology — or, as
he really puts it, " disputes in religion" — all rise from
neglect of philology.* A writer who can allow him
self to bring the name of " Pharisee" into connection
with Persia,' has once for all forfeited his right to a
voice in the matter. But the very title of the book
ought really to have preserved us from any illusion as
to its contents. " The Angel-Messiah " of the Budd
hists, who know nothing either of angels or a Mes
siah, and of the Essenes, who were certainly much
occupied with the angels and their names, but of whose
Messianic expectations we know nothing, absolutely
nothing !' By such comparisons between unknown
or imaginary quantities, instituted without any kind of
accuracy, we could prove literally anything. Unques-
^ Non alunde dissidia in religione dependent quam ab ignoratione
Grammaticas (Scaligerana, ed. Tan. Fabri, p. 86).
' L. t. p. 86, where as yet we only read, "the Sadducees and the
Pharisees, the name of the latter having possibly been derived from
Pharis (Faris), the Arabian (!) name for the Persians." But on p. 92
the ancestral tradition of the Pharisees is brought " with increasing cer
tainty" into connection with " Persia, the Pharis of the Arabians (!), and
from which name that of the Pharisees may have been derived." In
the note on p. 86 we are further invited to compare "Phares and Phare-
sites or Pherisites (Perizzites)." That pherushi, Pharets and Pherhzi.
have nothing to do either with each other or with Pharis (the Hebrew
name of Persia), needs no proof.
¦* Vid. sup. p. 203.

BUDDHISM AND THE GOSPEL STORIES. 25 1
tionably there are points of agreement between the
Gospel narratives, especially in Luke and John, and
the legend of the Buddha; and also between the
preaching of Jesus and that of his great predecessor.
To make a complete collection of these parallels, and
to illustrate both them and the no less noteworthy
points of difference, I hold to be far from a super
fluous task ; and it is satisfactory to know that it has
actually been undertaken by a competent hand, with
results that have quite recently been given to the
world.* It would be premature as yet to pronounce
a final judgment on the outcome of the running
comparison thus instituted ; but meanwhile I think I
may safely affirm that we must abstain from assign
ing to Buddhism the smallest direct influence on the
origin of Christianity. The utmost that can be main
tained is, that a few features in the evangelical tradi
tion may have been borrowed from it ; and even this
must remain very doubtful, inasmuch as the resem
blances upon which the hypothesis is built present
themselves, remarkably enough, in some of the stories
which are dependent on the Old Testament, and in
which, of course, the coincidence with certain traits
in the life of Qakva-Muni cannothy any possibility be
1 Prof Dr, Rudolf Seydel, das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Ver-
haltnissen zu Buddha-saga und Buddha-lehre, mit fortlaufender Riick-
sicht auf andere Religionskreise (Leipzig, 1882).

252

BUDDHISM.

more than accidental.* In a word, however attractive
the hypothesis that brings Jesus into connection with
the Buddhists may possibly appear, and however
readily it may lend itself to romantic treatment,' yet
sober and strict historical research gives it no support
and indeed condemns it'
But, what we do not require to explain the origin
of Christianity is nevertheless of intense interest to us
for its own sake. The study of Buddhism — with a view,
as before, to the relation in which it stands to the na
tional religion of India — is not the least important part
of our task. But this only serves to increase the fear
and trembling with which I approach it. Believe me,
it is no mock-modesty that dictates these words. If
a burning desire to fathom any subject could qualify a
man to deal with it, then indeed I should have every
right to be heard; for I confess that there are few
questions which inspire me with deeper interest than
' Cf Note XIII.
2 Such as it receives at the hands of G. Bimie, De invloed van de
Hindoe-beschaving, ook met betrekking op Java (Deventer, 1881). bl. 97,
where it is not thought improbable that Jesus visited Alexandria and
there made acquaintance with Buddhism. A httle before this (bl. 94 v.),
the treatise "De Vita Contemplativa" has been treated as Philo's, and —
which is quite equally hazardous — as evidence of the spread of Budd
histic asceticism in Egypt,
' Cf with the foregoing, Prof J. Estlin Carpenter, The Obligations of
the New Testament to Buddhism (The Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1880.
pp. 971 — 994) ; and Rhys Davids, Lectures, &c., pp, 151 sq.

IMPORTANCE OF STUDY OF BUDDHISM. 253
those which refer to the character of the primitive
Buddhism and the manner in which it rose. But
something more than this is needed, viz. study of the
sources, and yet again study of the sources. And for
this task I have not even qualified myself by the neces
sary preparation. Now such a defect might be made
bearable, though never wholly compensated, if the
pioneers on the field were unanimous in the results
they announce. But every one knows how far they
remain at variance, in spite of the advances recently
made, or rather in part because of them. If, notwith
standing, I venture, not only thankfully to make use
of the facts which are established to every one's satis
faction, but also to express an opinion on questions
still waiting their solution, I do so in the hope that
the doubts, perhaps the errors, of one who stands out
side may give the special students of the subject some
idea of what we look to them to give us, and may
move them to bring forth out of their treasure-house
yet more than we have received already. I am far
indeed from any intention of " singing the siege of
Troy after Homer." I know too well that, in Bud
dhistic phrase, my place is not in " the community,"
but amongst the " adherents." I will only allow
myself, as an interested spectator of the researches of
recent years, to record my impressions, to express a
wish, or at the very most to hazard an occasional con-

254 BUDDHISM.
jecture. Even in this I shall often allow the specialists
themselves to speak for me, and as soon as possible I
shall take my place once more at their feet, mindful
of the lesson of the Dhammapada : " If you see an
intelligent man who tells you where true treasures are
to be found, who shows what is to be avoided, and
administers reproofs, follow that wise man ; it will be
better, not worse, for those who follow him."*
The close connection between Brahmanism and Bud
dhism is denied by no one. But there was a time
when this connection was represented as consisting in
unqualified opposition. Buddhism was supposed to
have been the denial and rejection of Brahmanism.
and to have sprung from it as the French revolution,
for instance, sprang from the " ancien regime." And
even now the echo of this thought still falls upon
our ear from more quarters than one. Not many
years ago (1868), the celebrated Indian scholar Weber
reprinted an essay in which he described Buddhism
as being " in its origin one of the sublimest and most
radical of all reactions in favour of the common human
1 v. 76, according to F. Max Miiller's translation. Sacred Books of the
East, Vol. X. Part i. p. 23. A. Weber's translation runs: "Wen man
sieht als gleichsam Schatze verkiindend, ais Mangel erschau'nd, Als ta-
deln lehrend, einsichtig — solchem Weisen man an sich schhess'. Wer
einem solchen sich anschUesst, besser wird's dem, nicht schlimmer, gehn"
(Indische Streifen, I. 130 f ).

B UDDHISM AND BRAHMANISM. 255
rights of individuals against the grinding tyranny of
the so-called divine rights of birth and rank." "It was
the work of a single man," he adds, " who rebelled
against the Brahmanic priests in the beginning of the
sixth century B. C, and by the simplicity and moral
power of his teaching brought the Indian people to a
complete breach with its own past."* Max Duncker
expresses himself with no less emphasis : " In the doc
trine of Buddha the philosophy of the Indians ....
had broken with the results of the history of the Arians
on the Indus and the Ganges, with the development
of a thousand years  And this doctrine, which
annihilated the entire ancient religion and the basis of
existing society .... rested solely on the dicta of a
man who declared that he had discovered truth by his
own power, and maintained that every man could find
it. That such a doctrine found adherence and ever
1 Indische Streifen, I. 104. The sequel runs : " Mitten unter die tros-
tlosen Verrenkungen alter menschhchen Gefiihle, wie sie das brahmanis-
che Kastenwesen und Staatsthum mit sich fiihrte, unter die lebendige
Sehnsucht nach einer Erlosung aus dem irdischen. individuellen Dasein,
welches sich fiir die grossen Massen des Volkes nur in so qualvoUen ,
eingeschniirten Formen zeigte.und aus dem ewig wechselnden Kreislauf
der Wiedergeburten .... trat jener Mann mit sinem Evangelium von der
gleichen Berechtigung aller menschen ohne Unterschied der Geburt, des
Standes oder Ranges, ja des Geschlechtes sogar. und von der durch die
richtige Erkenntniss und den richtigen Wandel allein, aber auch von
Jedem, friiher oder spater zu erreiohenden Auflosung des individuellen
Daseins."

256 BUDDHISM.
increasing adherence is a fact without a parallel in his
tory."* In like manner. Prof Monier Williams de
scribes the Buddha as " the deliverer of a priest-ridden,
caste-ridden nation, — the courageous reformer and in
novator who dared to attempt what doubtless others
had long felt was necessary, namely, the breaking down
of an intolerable ecclesiastical monopoly by proclaiming
absolute free trade in religious opinions and the aboli
tion of all cast privileges."'
There is something imposing and therefore attrac
tive in this representation ; and we cannot wonder at
its having come into existence, or at its still remain
ing in favour with certain scholars. This Qakya-Muni
forces us to yield him our sympathy and reverence.
Marvellous his mission may be, but inexplicable it is
not — always supposing that the state of things which
he attacked has been correctly described : — " aux
grands maux les grands remedes." But this is pre
cisely what is now so often denied. The " priest-
ridden, caste-ridden nation " of which the Buddha is
said to be the redeemer, is the creature, we are told,
of the Western imagination. In the legend of the
Buddha, at any rate, we find no traces of it. And
even this is only one out of many facts which have
gradually led to a notable change in the conception
1 History of Antiquity, Vol. IV. pp. 4SS sq.
' Indian Wisdom, p. 55.

EDICTS OF KING ApOKA. 2$y
of the relations between Brahmanism and Buddhism.
Let me mention the most important of these facts, not
in the order in which they came to light or have had
their weight allowed in the judgment formed on Budd
hism, but as they stand before me now, absolutely
compelling us, when taken in their mutual connection,
to tone down the traditional opposition.
The edicts of king Agoka still supply the firmest
foundations for our knowledge of the earlier Buddhism.
Immediately on the discovery of these monuments, the
spirit of appreciative tolerence which breathes through
them was observed as a striking characteristic. Agoka
declares that he deserves above all things " that the
good name and sterling worth of all the sects may
increase." " He who extols his own party, doubtless
does so out of the love of his sect, in order to glorify
it; but none the less will he greatly injure his own
sect by so doing. Wherefore unity is best, so that
each may learn to know and to praise the other's re
ligion. For this is the wish of the king, that the mem
bers of every party be well instructed and cleave to a
doctrine of good- will,"* In complete accordance
with these sentiments, he elsewhere couples " Brah-
1 Gimar xii. The translation follows that of Kern, in his treatise Over
de jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten en de gedenkstukken van A9oka
den Buddhist (Amst. 1873), P- 7o. Compare T, W. Rhys Davids, Lec
tures, &c., App. II. pp. 230 sq.

258 BUDDHISM.
mans and (Buddhistic) monks " together, and exhorts
his subjects to genuine charity towards both.* He
himself practises the lesson, for, as we learn from an
other inscription, " The king, ten years after his coro
nation, came to true insight. Wherefore he entered
on a course of righteousness, consisting herein ; that
he sees Brahmans and monks about him and bestows
gifts upon them, sees old men about him and hon
ours them with gold, receives his subjects from
city and country, exhorts to righteousness and
seeks righteousness.'" " Want of respect for Brah
mans and monks " is one of the evils which he
laments is on the increase.' Here you will observe
that the representatives of the two hostile religions
stand peaceably side by side, while one protecting
hand is stretched over both alike. But does this
really -Warrant any inferences as to their mutual rela
tions ? Is it not " the humane king," as his title of
honour runs, rather than the disciple of Buddha, that
is here speaking ? In other cases, remote and recent,
the civil authority, in the interests of peace, has im
posed silence on the contending parties, and has taken
them all alike under its protection. Now I certainly
dare not vouch for Agoka's untarnished orthodoxy,
and can give no answer to the doubts with which it
1 Gimar ix. xi. (Kern, bl. 85, 78.) ' Girnar viii. (Kern, bl. 59).
" Girnar iv. (Kern, bl. 52.)

BRAHMANS IN BUDDHISTIC DOCUMENTS. 259
has been assailed.* But it is very generally allowed
that in these addresses to his people, as elsewhere, he
speaks as a pronounced Buddhist.' Nor does he by
any means compromise this character by mentioning
the Brahmans with respect and predilection ; for the
very same thing is done by the Buddha himself — that
is to say, by the sacred literature that introduces him
as speaking.
Of the many passages that might be cited in sup
port of this assertion, I will content myself with one
or two. A verse of the Dhammapada runs thus :
" He who, though dressed in fine apparel, exercises
tranquillity, is quiet, subdued, restrained, chaste, and
has ceased to find fault with all other beings, he in
deed is a Brahmawa, an ascetic (.rramawa), a friar
(bhikshu).'" The last word is the ordinary designation
of the members of the Buddhistic order, and the par
allel between them and the Brahmans is no less note
worthy than it is unequivocal. Equally clear is the
teaching of the entire twenty-sixth chapter of this
same work, with its refrain, " him I call indeed a
Brahmawa" — him, for example, "who has cut all
' See Kern, 1. c. bl. 81 v., 107.
'^ Inscription of Babhra (Kern, bl. 37).
' V. 142 (Max MuUer, p. 39). According to Weber (1. c. S. no),
Selbst reich geschmiiokt, wenn wer Besanft'gung iibet, Ruhig, bez'ahmt,
an sich halt und keusch lebet, Keinem Wesen irgendje Ziicht'gung
zufiigf, Der " Brahmana" ist, der "Asket," der " bhikkhu."

260 BUDDHISM.
fetters, who never trembles, is independent and
unshackled," or him " who in this world, leaving all
desires, travels about without a home, and in whom
all concupiscence is extinct."* Here " Brahman " is
unquestionably a title of honour, to which the writer
assigns the highest value. But it may be asked
whether this is not peculiar to himself, and an excep
tion to the general rule. Far from it. Oldenberg says
it is "worth mentioning that in the Buddhistic texts the
word ' Brahman ' by no means carries with it the idea
of an enemy to the cause of Buddha. It affords no
parallel to the ' Pharisees and Scribes ' of the New
Testament, for instance, who appear throughout as
the opponents of Jesus."' It is of course undeniable
that Buddhism makes high demands of the Brah
mans, and denies that they who fail to comply with
them have any right to bear this name of honour.
The Dhammapada declares : " I do not call a man a
Brahmana because of his origin or of his mother.
He is indeed arrogant, and he is wealthy : but the
poor, who is free from all attachments, him I call in
deed a Brahma«a."' We may say generally that
' vv. 383 — 423 (Max MUUer, pp. 8g — 91;;, especially vv. 397, 415 (pp.
91, 93).
" Buddha. Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde (Berhn, 1881),
S. 174, 11. is.
' V. 396 (Max Miiller, p. 91).'

BRAHMANS ON BRAHMANISM. 261
nothing is commoner than sharp castigation of the
devotion to externalities, the conceit and the pride of
the Brahmans.* But in this respect they themselves
are quite abreast of the Buddhists. Dr. Muir has
collected a whole string of passages that prove this,
and the purport of them all may be summed up in the
one maxim :
" Nor study, sacred lore, nor birth.
The Brahman makes ; 'tis only worth."^
Nothing is further from the minds of the men who use
such words than the abrogation of the Brahman caste
and its privileges. One might say with more justice
that they were its most zealous defenders. He who
calls the nobility to its duties strengthens the founda
tion on which it rests. The man who contrasted the
Jew who was a Jew outwardly, and the circumcision
of the flesh, with the Jew who was a Jew inwardly,
and the circumcision of the heart, is the same who an
swered the question, what advantage the Jew really
had over the heathen, with a hearty, " Much, every
way !'"
One more consideration, which appears to me to
1 Oldenberg, 1. c. S. 195.
' Metrical Translations from Sanskrit Writers (Triibner's Oriental
Series, VII.), No. Ixxxvii. (p. 70), and in general Nos. Ixxviii. sqq. (pp.
65 sqq.).
' Rom. ii. 28 sq. ; iii. i sq.

262 BUDDHISM.
silence all opposition. If the abrogation of caste had
lain within the purpose of the Buddha, then, when his
disciples came into power, they would have proceeded
to effect or at any rate to attempt it. Nothing of the
kind seems to have taken place. In Ceylon, under
Buddhist supremacy, there are the castes ! Nay, it is
even a question whether the Buddhists did not intro
duce them there.* If we are to suppose, on the other
hand, that there, as elsewhere, the existing facts were
too strong for them, how are we to explain that even
in their dogmatics room is found for the distinction
between higher and lower castes ? Here at least they
moved freely. It is a fact, however, that according
to the orthodox doctrine the successive Buddhas are
always born either as Brahmans or as Khshatriyas.'
Permit me to express the conclusion in the words of
Dr. Oldenburg : " We can understand," he says, " how
in our times Buddha should have had the roll assigned
to him of a social reformer who broke the oppressive
chains of caste and won a place for the poor and hum
ble in the spiritual kingdom which he founded. But
if any one would really sketch the work of Buddha, he
must, for truth's sake, distinctly deny that the glory of
any such deed, under whatever form it may be con-
' The Religions of India, by A. Barth. Authorized Translation, by
Rev. J. Wood (Triibner's Oriental Series), p. 125.
" Oldenburg, 1. c. S. 334.

BRAHMANISM AND BUDDHISM. 263
ceived, really belongs to him. If we permit ourselves
to speak of the democratic element in Buddhism, we
must at any rate keep the full prominence of this fact
before our eyes : that the idea of reforming the life of
the state, in any direction whatsoever .... was abso
lutely foreign to the circles in which Buddhism arose.'"
We have heard enough already to break the point
of the contrast which I began by recalling to your
minds; but there are other facts which compel us
further to modify, if not wholly to relinquish it. Con
tinued researches bring out ever more and more clearly
the close internal relationship between Brahmanism
and Buddhism, or — to express it at once in a more
definite form — the great extent to which Buddhism
was indebted to Brahmanism for its doctrine and its
organization. Religion and metaphysics owe their origin to one
and the same effort of the human spirit. However
strained the relations in which they but too often stand
to each other, in their deepest foundations they are
one. It is true that, even while admitting this, we
must nevertheless be on our guard, as a general prin
ciple, against selecting for the special gauge of com
parison between any two religions the metaphysical
systems which are united to them ; for it often happens
that this union is of later origin, and that the philoso-
1 L. u. s. 15s f.

264 BUDDHISM.
phical system grew up without any connection with
the religion which now seems inseparable from it. But
in the case of Buddhism it was not so. Here the
metaphysic is no foreign element brought in from else
where, but is the veritable foundation upon which the
whole edifice is raised. Now this foundation was laid
by Brahmanism. Before the rise of Buddhism, specu
lation had already been landed in the antithesis between
the one infinite and unalterable Being and the multi
plicity of finite beings which only seem to exist, be
tween the blessed repose of the Brahma and the suffer
ing of the world. Moreover, it had already indicated
the path by which redemption from that suffering must
be won, viz., the removal of the ignorance which takes
the show for the reality, and the quenching of the
desire for continuance of individual existence.* Now
what are these but the deepest root-thoughts of Bud
dhism itself? It may have formed a differing conception
of the " Being," it may have denied the " Universal
Soul" and the human soul alike, and may possibly
haye represented the final practical goal otherwise;.
but it is one and the same conviction, and. one way of
salvation. In their ethical systems likewise, the intimate rela
tionship of the two religions comes clearly into the
light. But instead of expatiating on this point, I will
' Cf , e. g., Oldenberg,!. c. S. 33 — SS-

ASCETICS AND BHIKSHUS. 265
at once call your attention to the far more significant
fact that the mode of life of the Buddhistic monks is
copied, even down to minute details, from that of the
Brahmanic ascetics. But why not rather say that the
latter is a copy of the former ? The question is nat
ural enough, and considering the absolute want of the
historical sense which characterizes the Indians, it
might well seem easier to ask than to answer it. And
yet I should suppose that in this special case the ori
ginality of Brahmanism rests on very firm foundations.
In " the sacred laws of the Aryas,"* of Apastamba and
Gautama, which are supposed to precede Manu's book
of law chronologically, we find the order of the ascetics
recognized, together with those of the disciples, the
householders and hermits. Their mode of life is care
fully regulated. In Gautama's " Institutes " they are
usually called " samnyasin," but now and then " bhik-
shus,'' like the Buddhist mendicants.' Nor is the name
all that they have in common. One is rather tempted
to inquire in what they differ. The ascetic has no
provisions, leads a life of chastity, does not change his
abode during the rainy season, never enters a village
except to beg, and then only once a day, after the
inhabitants have finished their meal ; he banishes covet-
1 Translated by G. Biihler. Part I. Apastamba and Ga-atama. In
Sacred Books of the East, Vol. II.
' L. c. Gautama's Institutes, chap. iii. 2, 11 (Biihler, pp. 190, 191).
12

2 66 BUDDHISM.
ousness, controls his tongue, his eyes, his deeds ; he
wears a garment to cover his nakedness, made accord
ing to some, of an old rag which he has first washed.*
. . . . But why go on ? We have already seen
more than enough to prove the close conformity
of the Buddhists to the Brahmanic practice, and
the points of difference, which are not wanting, do not
invalidate the proof In order, however, to show that
Gautama is not alone in laying down these rules, per-
mit me further to cite the shorter redaction of Apas
tamba : " He [the samnayasin or ascetic] shall live
without a fire, without a house, without pleasures,
without protection. Remaining silent and uttering
speech only on the occasion of the daily recitation of
the Veda, begging so much food only in the village
as will sustain his life, he shall wander about neither
caring for this world nor for heaven. It is ordained
that he shall wear clothes thrown away (by others as
useless). Some declare that he shall go naked. Aban
doning truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain, the
Vedas, this world and the next, he shall seek the
universal soul. (Some say that) he obtains salvation
if he knows (the universal soul.) (But) that (opinion)
is opposed to the Sastras. (For) if salvation were
obtained by the knowledge of the universal soul alone,
then he ought not tofeel any pain even in this (world).
1 L. u. chap. iii. ii — 19 (pp. 191 sq.).

PLACE OF ASCETICISM IN BRAHMANISM. 267
Thereby that which follows has been declared."* The
meaning of this last line is, that the necessity of what
follows has been demonstrated by the previous argu
ment; and, as the editor informs us, it is the Yogas
that follows, that is to say, the elaborated system of
bodily and spiritual exercises that was also adopted
bythe Buddhists.'
To avoid all misconception, I must add at once that
asceticism occupies quite a different place in Brah
manism from that which it takes in Buddhism. On
this point the two witnesses we may consult, though
difiering in details, are essentially at one. Apastamba
is acquainted with the opinion that a life of privation
and chastity stands higher and bears nobler fruits
than any other, but he expressly combats it, and de
clares that to have posterity is a great blessing. And
" even though some (ascetic) may gain heaven through
a portion of (the merit acquired by his former) works
or through austerities, whilst he is still in the body,
and though he may accomplish (his objects) by his
mere wish, still this is no reason to place one order
before the other.'" Gautama goes a step further. He
concludes his summary of the rules for ascetics and
1 Chap. ii. 9, 21, vv 10 — 17 (Biihler, 1. c. pp. 152 sq.)
' See the proof of this in Kern, Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in
Indie, Deel I. 334, 349, 366 sqq.
' Chap. ii. 9, 23, V. 3 — ii. 9, 24, v. 15 (Biihler, pp. 156—159).

268 BUDDHISM.
hermits with these words : " The [i. e. my] venerable
teacher (prescribes) one order only, because the order
of householders is explicitly prescribed (in the
Vedas)." His commentator agrees with this view and
further elaborates it. " The duties of a householder
.... are frequently prescribed and praised in all
Vedas " and law-books. Wherefore " this alone is the
order (obligatory on all men). But the other orders
are prescribed only for those unfit for the (duties of a
householder). That is the opinion of many teach
ers."* This has anything but a Buddhistic ring. We
are all the more certain, therefore, that we are really
listening to exponents of Brahmanism, and must con
sequently attach the more significance to one special
trait in Apasamba's description : the ascetic relin
quishes everything, including the Vedas. There is no
question of this.' Indeed, strictly speaking, it is al
ready involved in his withdrawal from society, which
prevents the possibility of his performing the
prescribed sacrifices or being present at their per
formance. But, besides this, the attempt to gain
" knowledge of the Universal Soul," as conceived by
Brahmanism, is in principle incompatible with sub-
* Chap, iii, 36, with the comment (Biihler, pp, 193 sq,).
* Cf , c. g., F. Max MUUer, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of
Religion, as illustrated by the Religions of India Cf he Hibbert Lectures,
1878), pp. 340 sq., 349 sqq.; Barth., 1. c. p. 81.

THE JAINAS. 269
mission to the authority of the Vedas. Of course
this does not mean that every ascetic who had dedi
cated himself to the effort in question had already
bioken with the authority of the Vedas, or must
gradually relinquish it. But it does mean that their
rejection is allied to asceticism, and must of necessity
appear in connection with it. We are therefore quite
ready to believe Dr. Oldenberg when he assures us —
though confessing at the same time that he cannot
prove it — that even before the rise of the Buddha
" many, if not most, of the ascetic fraternities had
escaped from the authority of the Vedas.'"
I have spoken of the ascetic fraternities ; for it is a
fact that they too are pre-Buddhistic. It was far from
infrequent for a saint, fleeing from the world, to gather
about him a circle of disciples ; and in so far as ^akya-
Muni did the same, there was nothing novel or strange
in his mission.'' It is even a question whether we
must not go further, and suppose that in his time an
ascetic fraternity, to which his own bore a most strik
ing resemblance, had been formed just before it. I
refer to that of the- Jainas. Investigations into this
interesting question are at this very moment being
eagerly pursued, and as yet the discussions concerning
1 L. i;. S. 64.
2 Rhys Davids, Lectures, &c., pp. 153 sqq.

270 BUDDHISM.
it are by no means closed.* You will remember that
in the legend of the Buddha no unimportant place is
taken by his contest with the six false teachers.'' Now
one of them, the second in the rank, is Jnatiputra,
the Nirgrantha. But this is a surname of Wardha-
mana, who is also called Mahavira, " the great hero "
and is reverenced by the Jainas as their master, the
founder of their order. The extreme significance of
this identification strikes us at once. If we accept it
as substantiated, then light is thrown on the hitherto
mysterious origin of Jainism, its true relation to Bud
dhism is defined, and the historical character of the
Buddha-legend is supported at any rate at this special
point — a result which we shall be better able to appre
ciate hereafter. But all these prospects — so fair as
almost to rouse our suspicion — can only be realized if
we have before us a really undesigned confluence of
two streams originally independent of each other. In
other words, we must be satisfied that Jnatiputra was
not placed amongst Buddha's converts because he was
the founder of Jainism, and, on the other hand, that
the Jainas did not borrow their supposed prototype
from the legend of the Buddhists itself It must be
confessed that neither of the suppositions hinted at
1 The literature is given and the question itself further illustrated in
Note XIV.
^ See, e. g., Kern, 1. c. bl. 143 — 152, cf iii v.

B UDDHISTS AND JAINAS. 2 7 1
seems very probable. If the Buddhists had wished to
humble ^akya-Muni's rival, they would have pointed
to him emphatically as the founder of Jainism, and this
is not done. And, on the other hand, if the Jainas had
been at a loss for a name for their " Mahavira," they
would hardly have gone in search of one amongst the
teachers who were defeated and put to shame by the
Buddha. But, while admitting all this, we must de
cline, or at least we must hesitate, to build upon this
identification. The written documents we have at our
command are separated by too wide an interval from
the facts. The two streams of Buddhistic tradition do
indeed run parallel here, and we may therefore feel
confident that the contest with the false teachers was
early taken up in the tradition. But if we are told*
that these teachers belong to the mythical element in
the legend, and were originally neither more nor less
than the planets, and if the inference is drawn that
the historical names which some of them bear must be
referred to misconception or to intentional alteration
of the tradition, are we in a position to refute the
statement ? If matters stand thus with regard to the
Buddhistic evidence, we are still less able to rely upon
that of the Jainas. Authorities seem to agree that
their sacred books do not date from earlier than the
' See Kern, 1, c.

272 BUDDHISM.
fifth or sixth century of our era.* This means that
they are separated by about a thousand years from
the times of the Founder ! The scarcity of trustwor
thy data for the history of India is so great that there
is a very natural and proper desire to cherish with the
utmost care the few records that give or promise any
light, and an extreme reluctance to reject a single item
as altogether useless. Nothing, then, is more legiti
mate than to keep in view the coincidence between the
accounts of the Buddhists and the Jainas, and to pur
sue the line of investigation it suggests. But for the
present it would seem rash to infer from the facts laid
before us that the founder of Buddhism had only to
take over, in a more or less modified form, what
another had already conceived before him.
In this summary of the points of contact between
Brahmanism and Buddhism, I have not aimed at com
pleteness, and do not in any way profess to have at
tained it. I am satisfied if I have been able to justify
the impression produced on my own mind by the re
searches of the last ten years, viz. that the sharp con
trast which was at first supposed to exist between the
two religions has made way, on nearer inspection, for
close and manifold relationship. It can hardly surprise
us that Indian scholars are now vieing with each other
in the recognition of this connection, or, in other words,
1 Cf Barth, 1. c. pp. 147, sq., and the writers there referred to.

THE JATAKAS. 273
in asserting the dependence of Buddhism upon Brah
manism. One declares that the Buddhists are in "many
points merely Brahmanists in disguise ;"* another calls
Buddhism, " in the natural, genetic classification, a
variety of Hinduism,'" and even denies ft all origin
ality ; a third expressly protests against the prevalent
misconception " that Gautama was an enemy to Hin
duism, and that his chief claim on the gratitude of his
countrymen lies in his having destroyed a system of
iniquity and oppression and fraud. This is not the case.
Gautama was born, and brought up, and lived, and
died a Hindu.'" But instead of filling in, as I might
easily do,* this " catalogus testium veritatis," I will
call attention to one more fact, which would be almost
conclusive even if it stood alone. I refer to the place
occupied by the Jatakas in the Buddhistic literature.
The name signifies, according to the traditional inter
pretation, "birth-histories" or "birth-stories."' You will
remember to what this name refers. Whenever the Bud
dha has told one of the stories in question, we find added
' F. Max Miiller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, &c.,
P- 137-
' Kern. 1. 1. I. 281 and passim.
' T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhism, being a sketch of the Life and
Teachings of Gautama, the Buddha, p. 83.
* See, c. g., Rhys Davids, in the "Birth-Stories," which are cited
below, I. xxvii. sq.; E. von Hartmann, 1. c. S. 318, and elsewhere ; Barth,
1. li. pp. I15 sqq. 12*

274 BUDDHISM.
at the close that he himself in one of his previous
existences, had taken a part in the action. Thus the
whole becomes the description, in a long series of pic
tures, of all that the Buddha, in his infinite variety of
forms, from all eternity, has experienced and accom
plished. Now nothing is more obvious, or more uni
versally allowed, than that the stories themselves had
originally nothing to do with Buddha and his previous
existences, and were simply taken down from the
mouth of the people. The application is sometimes
very forced, and is evidently a new patch on an old
garment. In so far, at least, there is nothing what
ever to conflict with the opinion lately expressed by
Kern, that "jataka" really means no more than
" story," and was only brought into connection with
" birth " as an after-thought.* This brings out yet
more clearly what we may well call the unmistakable
fact, that the Buddhists appropriated a large measure
of the popular wit and wisdom of the Indians, carry
ing it with them and spreading it everywhere, so that
after many wanderings it was even enabled to reach
our own quarter of the globe.' This is a clear proof
that, as the Founder " lived and died a Hindu," so
too the religion was in its origin intimately connected
' L. 0. I. 256 vv., cf 303, II. z.
2 On this point ct. T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth Stories, or
Jataka Tales; Translation, Vol. I. pp. xxix sqq.

THE FOUNDER OF BUDDHISM. 275
with the national life of India, and bears, especially
in the most popular and cherished portion of fts reli
gious literature, the ineffaceable stamp of the Indian
character. It is only across the ruins of error that we can
approach the truth. It is no unreasonable hope, there
fore, that in convincing ourselves of the incorrectness
of a formerly prevalent opinion, we may have ap
proached nearer to the answer of the real question
before us, viz., how Buddhism grew out of Brahman
ism, the universal out of the national religion. And,
if I am not mistaken, we have indeed discovered at
least the direction in which we must look. It is not
in the popular belief, nor in any social needs and aspira
tions, but in philosophical speculation and asceticism,
that Buddhism finds its immediate antecedents. You
will naturally expect, however, that I should enter into
fuller explanations.
But here a colossal difficulty blocks, I will not say
my way, but ours. To avoid the necessity of either
anticipations or cumbrous circumlocutions, I have
hitherto allowed myself to follow the common usage,
and have more than once spoken of " the Founder of
Buddhism." You will hardly have blamed me for
this, and may even expect that this Founder will occupy
the chief place in the review to which we must now

276 BUDDHISM.
proceed. And yet you are aware of the considerations
which imperatively forbid me to go on as I have
begun. The legend of the Buddha is not pure history
in any of the forms in which it has come down to us ;
but there has been tolerable unanimity so far in the
attempt to make history out of it, and that by the ap
plication of what, for brevity's sake, I may call the
reducing process. You understand my meaning. For
thousands, or in this case millions, units are substi
tuted, obvious exaggerations and embellishments (or
what are intended as such) are cut away, the impos
sible is reduced to the limits of the possible, and what
remains is regarded as history. You all know him ! —
the gifted and privileged prince, who, pierced by the
spectacle of the manifold miseries of humanity, for
sakes the palace of his father, and tears himself from
the arms of his beloved wife, to go and ponder in soli
tude on the way of redemption ! You remember the
temptations and the conflict he has to endure, and how
at *ast he awakes to true insight, and goes through
the land preaching and converting ; how he gradually
assembles an ever-increasing band of disciples round
him, and at last, in extreme old age, dies in the arms
of his fafthful ones. Now let us ponder well — far
more expressly and seriously than has generally been
done — upon the fact that this Buddha, a man of colossal
proportions indeed, but yet of like passions and mo-

FACTORS OF THE BUDDHA LEGEND. 277
tives with ourselves, is a creation of the European
scholars. He is the result of the operation but now
described, an operation which has doubtless been suc
cessful in many cases, but has quite as often failed. The
same criticism which called this human Buddha into
existence is within its rights when it attempts to anni
hilate him again. And it does attempt it. In Senart's
" La Legende du Bouddha," it produced a first essay
towards explaining the Buddha, not as a historical,
but as a mythical being, as the sun-hero, presented,
we will not say in human, but in semi-human shape,
no more one of ourselves than the Greek Heracles for
instance. The same thesis is now defended on a far
broader scale and still more thoroughly by Kern. His
great work on the History of Buddhism in India* is
still incomplete, which would be reason enough for my
passing no judgment at present on the position he
defends in it, even if I were not restrained in any
case by the authority of the men who uphold it on the
one hand, and by the opposition it has provoked''on
the other. When the masters are in the lists, the
becoming attitude of the uninitiated is that of the
-interested spectator rather than the judge of the com
bat. Carefully abstaining from anything that would
pre-suppose the decision of the conflict in either
• Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie. Haarlem, 1881, &c.

278

BUDDHISM.

sense, I can only allow myself at most to express a
modest opinion as to its probable issue.
What, then, is the position in which we stand at
this moment? If others feel as I do, they will declare
themselves definitely cut off from the right to
borrow any hypothesis as to the origin of Buddhism'
directly from the legend, and specifically from the
personality depicted in it. Hitherto it has been as
sumed that two factors combined to produce this le
gend, viz. history and inventive imagination. You are
still under the fresh impression of the light which was
thrown by my immediate predecessor upon the part
played by the last-named factor, when he sketched
the two ideals that stood before the minds of Gauta
ma's disciples and were applied by them to their lord
— the ideal namely pf the " Chakka-vatti " or " King
of kings," formed or transformed under the influence
of the altered political condition of India, and the
ideal of " the Buddha " or " Sage " born in the specu
lative schools.* Perhaps, as you heard, and still more
as you thought over these most significant communi
cations, the idea may have already suggested itself
that these materials were amply sufficient to over
whelm and shatter the historical reality altogether, or,
otherwise expressed, that the latter must have been
mighty and strongly marked indeed to enable it to re-
' Rhys Davids, Lectures, &c., pp. 130 sqq., 141 sqq.

MYTHICAL FACTOR. 279
sist and survive such an influx of conceptions foreign
to itself, which " might have been equally well applied
to any other person in India."* But to all this we
have now to add the sunmyth — as far as it is an addi
tion, I might almost add : for it is the kernel, if not
the beginning and end, of the " Chakka-Vatti " him
self In assuming this third factor I am by no means
deserting the modest position which I promised to re
tain. Whether Buddha is the transformed sun-hero I
do not attempt to decide. But that purely mythical
touches appear in his legend, no unprejudiced reader
of Senart and Kern can doubt. Out of a number of
examples, permit me at any rate to select one. We
heard but now of the contest with the six false teach
ers. Now one of the miracles by which Buddha put
his rivals to shame was this : " he made an immea
surable path on the vault of heaven, stretching from
the Eastern to the Western horizon, and whilst he
traversed this path, fire shot out from his right eye
and streams of water from his left ; his hair shone

' L. c. 129. The words I have quoted are immediately followed by the
qualification, ''if he had only excited the same feelings." No doubt
there must have been some cause for the application, but there was no
need that it should lie in any similarity between the special man and the
ideals transferred to him.
' L, u. pp. 131 sqq. ; Kern, 1. c. I. 267 v. (where " Cakrawaitin " is ex
plained as " ruler of the world," "wheel-turner").

28o BUDDHISM.
and rays darted forth from his body."* So runs the
story amongst the Southern Buddhists. In the tradi
tion of their Northern brethren it is said that when
the time came for the Lord to repair to the abode
designed for him, and to take his seat in it, then "rays
shot out from his body, and covered the whole build
ing with tints as of gold." After this he performed
such dazzling miracles that he could say to his disci
ples at the close :
" The fire-fly shines so long as the sun appears not, but no sooner is
the great light risen, than the insect falls back before the rays of the
sun and shines no more."
" Even so these false teachers held men's ears so long as the Tatha-
gata spoke not, but now that the perfect Buddha has spoken, the heret
ical teacher has no word to say, and his followers are silent even
as he."2 Comment seems superfluous. If the Buddha were
only compared to the sun, we should never think of a
mythical interpretation. But in this case, though
such a comparison is doubtless instituted, there is
much more besides. What the sun does, that the
Buddha does ; — both in this story and in many more!
In the genesis of the legend, then, ample allowance
must be made for the mythical factor. It is obvious
what is involved. It is easier to keep this guest on
the other side of the threshold than to control his
1 Kern, 1. c. I. 145. » Ibid bl. 151.

THE SANGHA AND THE BUDDHIST CHURCH. 28 1
action when once he is admitted ! At every moment
we have to face the question whether the touch that
seemed to reveal the man Gautama is not really the
more or less disguised description of some natural
phenomenon. Such being the state of the case, must
we not confess that immediate inferences from the
legend can no longer be regarded as legitimate ? In
other words, we are not free to explain Buddhism
from the person of the Founder. On the contrary, if
we are to have any right to speak of a founder at all,
we must win that right independently of the tradition.
Is Buddhism or is it not " uneceuvre impersonnelle " ?
This appears to me to be the real question. If we
find good reason to answer it in the negative, and
must therefore admit the necessity of a founder, then,
but then only, shall we be justified in turning to the
legend and drawing together its scattered strokes into
the image of a personal founder. This method may
be rejected as over-cautious, but we can console our
selves under such a reproach better than under the
accusation of having failed to reckon with the diffi
culties, and having thoughtlessly accepted what really
offered no certainty.
But I ought not to express myself as though I had
any intention of attempting to solve this question
myself My ambition does not aspire to such an epi
taph as Phaeton's. True to my first intention, I shall

282 BUDDHISM.
limit myself to such surmises as the present state of
the investigations seems to me to justify.
" I take refuge with the Buddha, the doctrine
(' dharma ') and the community (' sangha ')." Such,
we may remember, is the formula of adhesion to Bud
dhism which constantly appears in the sacred books,*
and is doubtless borrowed from the reality. It is the
unanimous opinion, so far as I know, of the scholars
who have interpreted this formula, that " sangha," the
community, does not mean the whole circle of the
faithful, but the order of mendicants. It certainly needs
no further proof, after this, that the order in question
occupies a very high position in Buddhism. To be
placed with the Buddha and the " dharma," even as
third in the series, is the highest honour that could
well be paid it. But how did it reach this position ?
Two answers are conceivable. Either it rose out of
the whole Buddhist Church, in the longer or shorter
lapse of time, to the eminence it ultimately occupied,
or it was from the beginning the third member of the
triad, and in that case is chronologically antecedent to
the Church. The alternative may be expressed still
more briefly thus : the " sangha " is either ih.^ fruit or
the germ of Buddhism. I do not find the alternative
^ Even in A9oka's inscription at Babhra mention is already made of
"the three that are called Buddha, dharma, sangha." See Kern, Over de
jaartelling erfz, bl. 37.

PLACE OF ASCETICISM IN BUDDHISM. 283
so sharply formulated by all the authorities ; but
wherever it does appear, there I find the preference in
variably given to the second hypothesis : the order of
monks is the " prius," the proper and original Bud
dhism, Nothing, as it seems to me, could be more
natural or legitimate than tliis decision. In the sacred
books it is the "bhikshus" or mendicants to whom
the Buddha submits his teaching. The difference be
tween them and "the adherents " is far more than is
involved in a different mode of life and the duties con
nected with it. Beyond all that, there is a genuine
distinction in rights and privileges. To con\-ince our
selves of this, we have but to open any one of the
sacred books. Let me at any rate take a few exam
ples from the Sutta-nipata in Dr. Fausboll's transla
tion.* The "Ratamasutta" alone would be enoiigh
to decide the matter.' It is devoted to describing and
glorifying the triad mentioned above. Out of the
seventeen verses, no less than eight are devoted to
the "sangha." In it, as in the Buddha and the
"dharma," may be found the "excellent jewels " which
the writer extols and by which he hopes there " may
be salvation." Finally, he turns to the spirits, whom
he supposes to be his hearers, with this exhortation :
"Whatever spirits have come together here, either
1 The Sacred Books of the East, Vol. X, Part ii.
^ Op. cit. pp. 37 — 40.

284 BUDDHISM.
belonging to the earth or living in the air, let us wor
ship the perfect (tathagata [one of the epithets of
honour bestowed on the Buddha also]) Sangha, re
vered by gods and men ; may there be salvation !"*
This " sangha" is not the flower or the represen
tative of a greater whole, without which it would
be incomplete ; it is, in a single word. Buddhism
itself But let us listen to another sutta. Sabhiya,
dissatisfied with the answers given to his ques-
questions by the six false teachers, turns to Bhagavat,
the Buddha, and finds in him what he seeks. Accord
ingly he becomes his disciple, and expresses his de
termination thus : I take refuge in the venerable Go-
tama, in the Dhamma, and in the Assembly of Bhik-
khus ; I wish to receive the robe and the orders from
the venerable Bhagavat." He is told in answer that
he must first go through a period of four months'
probation, then " Bhikkhus who have appeased their
thoughts will give him the robe and the orders.'' Sab
hiya submits to the conditions, and in due time is re
ceived into the order, " having in a short time in this
existence by his own understanding ascertained and
possessed himself of that highest perfection of a reli
gious life for the sake of which men of good family
rightly wander away from their houses to a houseless
state. ' [The germ of a new] Birth had been de-
1 Ibid V. 17 (pp. 39 sq.)

PROBLEM OF THE RISE OF BUDDHISM. 285
stroyed, a religious life had been led, what was to be
done had been done, there was nothing else (to be
done) for this existence,' so he perceived, and the
venerable Sabhiya became one of the saints.* It was
only thus that he could reach the final goal. For, as
it is put elsewhere, " Two whose mode of life and
occupation are quite different, are not equal : a house
holder maintaining a wife, and an unselfish virtuous
man. A householder (is intent) upon the destruction.
of other living creatures, being unrestrained ; but a
Muni always protects living creatures, being restrained.
As the crested bird with the blue neck (the peacock)
never attains the swiftness of the swan, even so a house
holder does not equal a Bhikkhu, a secluded Muni
meditating in the wood.'" We do not overlook the
fact that between the " bhikshu " and the " adherent"
no impassable wall of partition is raised. The latter
may become a monk, and conversely a monk, since
he is not bound by a vow for life, may cease to belong
to the order without necessarily falling away from
Buddha. Nor must we forget that the "adherents,"
too, have their duties to fulfil, and that great privileges
are accorded to them. But, as we read in the very

1 L. c. pp. 85 — 95. The passage between inverted commas is re
peated on p. 105.
' L. c. pp. 35 sq. (Munisutta, w, 14, 15).

286 BUDDHISM.
Sutta that lays such stress on all this,* the " complete
Bhikkhu-dhamma cannot be carried out by one who
is taken up by (worldly) occupations." It is the monks
al5ne who tread " the noble path."
There is but one satisfactory explanation of all this.
In the Buddhistic Church the congregation of monks
is not only the supreme and ruling body, but it is the
true kernel — in a word, the commmiity itself, of which
the innumerable believers form a colossal adjunct. A
monastic order with its lay associates: such is Bud
dhism. Is it not uniformly so represented in the legend
of the Founder ? The crowds which he gathers round
him might make us forget it; but he himself remains
a monk, and they who follow him on his journeys,
the disciples in the full sense of the word, are monks
likewise. Why should we not accept this representa
tion as it stands ?
We have now learned the terms in which to put the
question as to the origin of Buddhism. For it still
remains a question even when duly_ formulated. It is
not the point of departure, the order of the Bhikshus
itself, that we have to account for, for we have already
seen that ft rose quite naturally out of Brahmanism,
and was not the only one of its kind.' Nor is it the
emancipation from the authority of the Vedas (which
1 L. c. pp. 62—66 (Dhammakisutta, v. 18, p. 65).
' Vid. sup. pp. 249 sqq.

ANALOGIES IN CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 287
doubtless characterized it from the first), for in this too
it has been shown* to have followed existing analogy.
Even the spread of the Buddhistic order beyond the
boundaries of Magadha, with its continued existence
long after its first formation, however remarkable, is by
no means inexplicable. Why should we not suppose,'
in accordance with the indications of the sacred books
themselves, that, in distinction from other ascetic unions
which remained dependent upon their teacher and his
presence with them, the Buddhistic order extended
itself more freely and took up fresh members wherever
it had established its branches? But now, if I am
not mistaken, we have reached the point at which
analogy fails us. For Buddhism was not content with
this freer and wider extension of its borders. Without
ceasing to be a monastic order, it becomes a church.
It takes up into itself a countless host of lay brothers
and sisters. Presently it oversteps the boundaries
not only of its fatherland ' in the narrower sense, but
even of India itself It establishes itself in Ceylon,
and in every region to which its missionaries can pene
trate. Whence is this? we ask. How did a religion
of the world spring out of a monastic order ?
We will not exaggerate the difficulty. We may
eflect that up to a certain point such an extension
' Vid. sup. pp. 252 sq.
' With Rhys Davids, Lectures, &c., pp. 156 sq.

288 BUDDHISM.
is not unnatural. The house-holder looks up to the
ascetic with reverence and admiration, while the ascetic
on his side depends on the laymen for his daily subsist
ence, and is thus naturally led to show them good-will,
and to give them his attention when they come to him
with their questions and difficulties. And when during
the rainy season the ascetics relinquish for a time
their wandering life, a closer connection would esta
blish itself between them and the people of the dis
trict in which they sojourned. Without deserting the
realm of fact, we can readily conceive that here and
there, under special circumstances, this bond might be
drawn still closer. But in Buddhism we have some
thing more than an altogether voluntary and, by its
very nature, loose connection between the monks and
the laymen. For the " upasakas," the " adherents,"
though they do not withdraw from social life, yet re
nounce the laws and usages that prevail in society.
And the monks on their side go out to preach and to
convert. Though we cannot follow the detailed course
of their propaganda, it admits of no doubt that they
early devoted themselves to missionary enterprise,
and ere long organized it systematically. This, then,
is the fact of which we are seeking the explanation.
May we suppose that the Founder of the Buddhistic
conventual order consciously lowered the partition-
wall between it and the world, and stretched out a

BUDDHISM AND THE FRANCISCAN ORDERS. 289
rescuing hand across it to the brothers and sisters
beyond ?
We reserve our answer to this question }-et a mo
ment longer. The field of possibility is so wide, that
we dare not say it does not hold concealed the materi
als for some hypothesis that will satisfy our demands
still better. Meanwhile, let us look about us for any
analogous phenomena which may throw light on our
problem. We need not go far in our search ; for the
history of Christianity furnishes us with a truly strik
ing analogy — indeed I might say more than one. As
contemplative asceticism prepared the way in India for
the rejection of the authority of the Vedas, so does
the ecclesiastical Reformation of the sixteenth century
find its antecedents in the medieval mysticism, and in
the cloisters where it was most sedulously fostered.*
But this is not the point to which I now wish to refer.
The Western no less than the Eastern world has its
mendicant orders, though ours differ from those of
India in being a later development as well as a radical
modification of the original monachism. The monk
and the hermit withdraw from society to live to God
and so to save their own souls. Their object, in prin
ciple at least, and subject to the happy inconsistencies
of practice, is selfish. On the contrary, the rise of the
' O. Pfleiderer, die Rehgion, ihr Wesen und ihre Geschichte (Leipzig,
1869), n. 204 f 13

290 BUDDHISM.
mendicant orders is " the practical declaration that
even the monks had not acquitted themselves of their
task until, while remaining true to their fundamental
positions, they had ceased to live for themselves, and
after the manner of the Apostles had striven to labour
in the world for the purposes of the gospel."* This
applies as much to the Dominicans as to the Francis
cans, but not in the same way. The former, intent on
combating heresy, and soon active as judges of the
faith, were distinguished by a more aristocratic spirit.
The Franciscans, on the other hand, mingled with the
common people, and soon entered into the most inti
mate relations with them. Ere long they found other
means of extending their borders besides the influx of
fresh mendicant brothers. To the second order, that
of the Clarissines, was soon added the " tertius ordo de
pcenitentia," or the order of the "fratres conversi."
Baur describes the latter as " a union in which the
layman conformed as nearly to the practice of the
monks as was possible to him while still layman.
Though the tertiares were united by an intimate bond
to the Order, they formed an association in which par
ticipation in that Order approximated to the ordinary
relations of life, and its rule only regulated the lives
of the brothers, positively and negatively, in a lower
^ F. C. Baur, die'christ. Kirche des Mittelaltersin den Hauptmomenten
ihrer Entwickelung (Tiibingen, 1861), S. 467,

FRANCIS AND THE BUDDHA. 29 1
degree."* Gradually the numbers joining this third
order grew enormously  What say you ? Is not
this a wonderful counterpart of what must have taken
place centuries before in India ? The extension of the
Franciscans could not of course pass certain barriers.
It took place in a well-organized Church under a strong
central authority. Even as it was, the creation of an
intermediary state such as that of the tertiares excited
suspicion and jealousy. If the Order had attempted to
go still further, it must unquestionably have come into
conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities. But suppose
for a moment these barriers removed. In the place of
the disciplined West, put such a land as India, where
the most unbounded freedom and toleration reign.
Will it not follow of itself that from the Christian
mendicant orders there will grow up a community
similar to the Buddhistic Church ?
But it will not have escaped your notice that in
drawing this parallel I have been obliged to confine
myself to one of the two mendicant orders, that of
the Franciscans. The same expansive power did not
lie in the institution of St. Dominic, though in other
respects there was so strong a resemblance between
the two orders. The contrast in this particular is
obviously connected with the different directions, to
which I have already referred, taken by their respective
' L. c. S. 487.

292

BUDDHISM.

activities. But whence does this difference in its turn
spring? So much at least is certain, that it fully
corresponds to the difference of character of the two
founders. His naive simplicity and unbounded tender
ness made Francis of Assisi a man of the people, whilst
Dominic's stern intensity of character and deep reve
rence for ecclesiastical learning seemed to predestinate
him for Grand Inquisitor. Nothing is more natural,
therefore, than to suppose that each of the founders
left his own spirit stamped upon the order he founded,
and thus, as it were, prescribed and determined the
course of its future development; and in this view
accordingly Hase' and Baur,' not to mention others,
unite. I repeat the question, then, with increased con
fidence : must we not call in the person of the founder
in the case of Buddhism likewise to explain what we
have observed? Can we suppose that the features
which characterize his order, in distinction from the
other ascetic unions, are anything else than the impress
of his individuality ?
The temptation is great to go a step further. When
we remember that Dante could say of Francis and
Dominic, " He tells of both, who one commendeth,
which of them soe'er,'" we may surely venture to com-
I Franz von Assisi. Ein Heiligenbild (Leipzig, 1856), S. 69 ff.
" L. ^. S. 469 f
' Paradiso xi. 40, 41.

THE BUDDHA AND HIS RIVALS. 293
pare St. Francis with the Buddha of the legend. But,
after all, the points of difference are too numerous.
And yet Francis and the Buddha have in common this
one thing: a tender compassion that embraces every
creature, not forgetting " our brothers, the birds," and
" our sisters, the swallows," but turning above all to
suffering man. And this one thing — is it not much ?
nay, is it not all?
You will more fully understand the bearing of the
question I have ventured to ask as to the Founder's
personality, if I cite for contrast a few sentences from
Dr. Oldenberg: "If it was usual formerly," he writes,*
" to describe Buddha as the religious re-creator of
India, as the one great champion in the great struggle
of his time, henceforth as research advances we shall
find ourselves more and more distinctly compelled to
regard him as simply one of the many contemporary
heads of ascetic unions, — one concerning whom it is
not and cannot be in any way shown that he excelled
his rivals in profundity of thought or force of will
even in any approach to the same proportion in which,
perhaps by nothing but a chain of purely accidental
circumstances, he has come to transcend them in actual
renown  From the multitudinous saviours of the
world who were traversing India in every direction
' Zeitschr. d, d. morgenl. Gesellschaft, Band XXXIV. 748 f

294 BUDDHISM.
about the year 500 B. C, a second figure has already
issued into distinct recognition." This refers, as you
will at once suppose, to the founder of the Jaina
order, of whom we have already heard, and to whom
I will not now return. What we are concerned with
at present is the estimate of the Buddha and his
historical significance expressed in the passage cited.
Elsewhere Oldenberg speaks in the same sense. The
" many saviours of the world " appear again in his
admirable work on Buddha,* and there too we meet
with the assertion that " the triumph of his doctrine
over that of his contemporary rivals, centuries after
they had all died, was decided by an accident" though
a certain qualification follows in the admission that
possibly "the more rays of light fall into the darkness,
the more this play of fortune may be seen to resemble
the revelation of an internal necessity.'" Why only
resemble it? I would ask. Is it decreed for ever that it
must really be an accident? " Saviour of the world"
is not such a commonplace title that we can afford to
bestow it carelessly; and before we give it to all manner
of contemporaries of (Jakya-Muni, we demand the proof
not only that they were teachers and heads of ascetic
unions, but also that, like their rival, they conceived
and began to execute the plan of extending the fruits
of their deeper insight even to those who stood out-
' S. 5, 68. 2 S. 179.

TRANSFORMA TION OF ASCE TICISM. 295
side the circle of their disciples. For this is the point
on which all turns. And this, unless everything de
ceives me, is .a personal conception, not the outcome
of this or that philosophical or unphilosophical sys
tem, but one of those " great thoughts" which, to use
Vauvenargue's celebrated phrase, "spring from the
heart." Only to the man in whom that conception
rose can we allow the title of " saviour of the world ;"
and in explaining the grand result that crowned his
effort, we need not reckon with his rivals, and need
make no appeal to chance. Let us be on our guard
against exaggerated hero-worship, and, above all,
against admiration of fictitious heroes, but no less
against any semblance of neglecting the full signifi
cance of personality. The temptation to fall into this
latter mistake rises, I think, from a dislike of mystery.
But mystery there is and must remain ; nor can it be
diminished by the facile process of substituting plurals
for singulars !
We must regard Buddhism, then, as a turning-point
in the religious development of India ! What asceti
cism was in those regions before the rise of (Jakya-
Muni, we may learn from one who knows both the
land and its literature well, and we shall thus escape
all danger of being carried away by the sound and
missing the reality. " The motives which led so many
Indians to bid farewell to the life of society were, from

296 BUDDHISM.
the nature of the case, very varied. One fell into
despair because his fairest expectations had failed him,
his friend had betrayed or his beloved deceived him.
Another, who in the wantonness of youth had drunk
too deeply of the cup of pleasure, came to perceive
that sensual indulgence may for a moment intoxicate
the spirit, but that the momentary appeasing of a pas
sion brings no true satisfaction, and does but stimulate
desires all the more. He perceives that he has been"
like one who should drink salt water to appease his
thirst, and, far from being refreshed, should but in
crease his pangs. A third, of quiet and retiring na
ture, feels himself misplaced in the press and tur
moil of this world. He sees how men, in base self-
seeking, embitter one another's life, and he loses
sight ever more and more completely of all the fair
and noble traits of humanity that redeem the empti
ness and commonplaceness of social life, and so he
determines to forsake the evil world, and rather to live
in the wilderness with the beasts, than in the courts
of kings and in the turmoil of cities. There is yet
another who has fulfilled his duties as a man, as a
father, as a citizen, and who now longs for rest. The
world retains no charm for him, and in his old age, he
would fain withdraw from the vain engrossments
of daily life and give himself up to still reflection
on the deep questions of man's destiny here and

BUDDHISTIC QUIETISM. 297
hereafter."* To these special causes are added
the general influences of the climate of India, which
greatly alleviates the privations of life in solitude, and
the system of education, so eminently calculated to
stimulate the love of a speculative life.' Now, easy
as all this is to understand, it does not modify the
judgment I have already pronounced, that the ascetic's
effort is a selfish one. But it need not necessarily
remain so. It may be consecrated and transfigured
by the spirit of love. The ascetic may strive to make
others share the salvation which he himself has gained
by withdrawal from the world. In full measure, in
deed, it is within the reach of those only who follow
him on the path which he has chosen. So it is, and
so it must remain. Without renouncing asceticism
itself, it is impossible to make any change in this.
But the attempt may be made to bring within the
reach of those who have not bid farewell to social life
such measure of salvation as is possible for them.
Now in Buddhism this change of conception was ac
complished, and it is this which, as it seems to me,'
we must derive from the personal initiative of the
Founder. But I press this point no further. Even those who
1 Kern, het Indische kluizenaars- en monnikenleven ( Mededeelingen
vanwege het Nederl. Zendelinggenootschap, Deel XXV.), bl. 138 v.
' Ibid. bl. 139 — 141. 13*

298 BUDDHISM.
question our right thus to argue from tne work of the
work-master, will readily allow that the thought I
have ascribed to the Founder did actually become a
power in the order founded, and takes a prominent
place, if not the first, amongst the causes which led to
its amazing extension. As we like to picture him in
history, such in thought and deed does the Buddha
appear in the legend. For there it is tender pity for
suffering humanity that makes him the saviour of the
world ; and what but this same feeling could the pro
mulgation of the legend itself rouse and stimulate in
others ? It is true that this legendary Buddha is
more than human, and this weakens in no small de
gree the impression which his image would otherwise
produce. But we are free to believe that the gigan-
tesque proportions which repel us are less offensive to
the Asiatic, and, above all, that the deepest impression
must be produced upon the minds of the faithful, as
upon our own, by those purely human touches which
the miracles have neither smothered nor altogether
disguised. In this case, it is the spirit of compassion
which the legend must quicken, it is the longing to
redeem and bless that must be the fruit of pondering
over it. From the moment when its main lines were
fixed — and no one denies that this was comparatively
early — it became the Buddhist's sacred duty to prop
agate the faith. And who shall tell us how many

THE BUDDHISTIC IDEAL. 299
have been awakened, how many have been sustained
in their work, by the example of the Master ?
And now, at the close of the whole review, what
have we gained that will bring us nearer our goal ?
This : that we have learned how Hinduism became
international in Buddhism, and in this knowledge have
found the key to explain the character of the latter.
" Buddhism sprang from an Indian monastic order.
Asceticism — more specifically the Brahmanic, contem
plative asceticism — was the connecting link between
the national and the universal religion." Such are the
results that we must keep steadily in view. I have no
need to sound the praises of the Buddhistic ethics, as
though any one thought of disparaging them ; nor need
I expatiate on the beneficent influence which they have
exercised in more lands than one. And yet even here
we are forced at once to insist on a needful qualifica
tion. Buddhism has succeeded in taming barbarians,
and still shows itself admirably calculated to assist in
maintaining order and discipline ; but has it ever sup
ported a people in its endeavours after progress, in its
recuperative efforts when smitten by disaster, in its
struggle against despotism ? No such instances are
known. And indeed we had no right to expect them.
Buddhism does not measure itself against this or that
abuse, does not further the development or reformation

300

BUDDHISM.

of society either directly or indirectly, for the very
simple reason that it turns away from the world on
principle. Let us reckon fully with the meaning and
the ultimate consequefices of this principle. It must
and it does result in absolute quietism — nay, even in-
differentism. You do well to protest against any sem
blance of an attempt to push to extremes the princi
ples adopted by others ; and your suspicions might be
roused were I to seek out here and there a few strong
expressions, in order to show that the Buddhistic ethics
are really characterized by the tendency I have attri
buted to them. But in truth we have not to make any
search at all. The same Sutta-nipata from which I have
already quoted places the justness of our inference in
the clearest light. It is there said in praise of the
Buddha : " As a beautiful lotus does not adhere to the
water,* so thou does not cling to good and evil, to
either.'" And so must it be with his faithful disciples
also, if they obey his word : " Not by (any philosophi
cal) opinion, not by tradition, not by knowledge, not by
virtue and (holy) works, can any one say that purity
exists ; nor by absence of (philosophical) opinion, by ab
sence of tradition, by absence of knowledge, by absence
of virtue and (holy) works either; having abandoned
' The same image, but in a better form, appeal's in v. 812: "As a
drop of water does not stick to a lotus."
^ '"¦ 547 (Sabhiyasutta, v. 38, p. 94).

BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 30 1
these without adopting (anything else), let him, calm
and independent, not desire existence."* Elsewhere we
are told of men " who consider virtue the highest of
all, say that purity is associated with restraint; having
taken upon themselves a holy work they serve.'" If
one who is such, it is said, " falls off from virtue and
(holy) works, he trembles, having missed (his) work ;
he laments, he prays for purity in this world, as one
who has lost his caravan or wandered away from his
house.'" Such a one you might expect would receive
praise for his earnest view of life. Not at all ! In the
judgment of the Master he has not yet reached the
ideal state. He still desires something, and fears when
ft is taken from him or threatens to fail him. Infinitely
above him stands the muni, who " having abandoned
his former passions, not contracting new ones, not
wandering according to his wishes, being no dogma
tist, is delivered from the (philosophical) views, being
wise, and does not cling to the worid, neither does he
blame himself!'^
You observe that here, philosophical investigations
and opinions are, to say the least of it, spoken of with
scant sympathy. And the truth is, that a strong con-
' V. 839 (Magandiyasutta, v. 5, p. 160).
' V. 898 (Mahaviyflhasutta, v. 4, p. 171).
" V. 899 (ibid, V. 5, pp, 171 sq,),
• V. 913 (ibid, V, 19, p. 174).

302

BUDDHISM.

viction with the resultant zeal to propagate it is hardly
consistent with the quietism commended by the Bud
dha. We are not left to draw this inference for our
selves, however. A good part of the Sutta-nipata is
devoted to combating dogmatism, which latter is
taken in so wide an acceptation as not essentially to
differ from making any single assertion and denying
its opposite. " The Brahmana" — here, as elsewhere,
the true disciple of the Buddha — "for whom (the
notions) ' equal' and ' unequal' do not exist, would he
say, ' This is true'? Or with whom should he dispute,
saying, ' This is false' ? With whom should he enter
into dispute ?"* This sentiment is not inspired, as one
might readily suppose it to be, by an overmastering
though transient revulsion from the endless war of
words. No ; Buddhism raises the rejection of every
affirmation to the rank of a principle.' Naturally this,
like all other quietism, has its limits. It is compelled
to turn round upon any one who attempts to under
mine the basis on which it rests, just as the sceptic
must have an opinion against him who declares that
knowledge is attainable. It cannot really avoid either
asserting or denying. But the very attempt is a clear
1 V. 843 (Magandiyusutta, v. 9, p. 161).
'¦' Cf what Kern— following Koeppen and Bumouf— says on this sub
ject, Gesch, van het Buddhisme in Indie, I, 276 v, ; and Rhys Davids,
Lectures, &c., p. 155.

MONACHISM IN BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 303
testimony to its origin. Vigorous affirmations are
characteristic of youth. Long must the conflict of the
schools have lasted before it can be commended as the
topmost point of wisdom to refrain from forming an
opinion ! Wearied of life and of barren conflict. Bud
dhism goes on its way and takes up the task of rescu
ing humanity from the vain efforts that lead to nothing.
And, accordingly, the Buddhist propaganda seems
to me to bear a peculiar character of its own. Its
mission is not to root out what it holds to be deadly
errors or to proclaim precious truths, nor, in the first
instance, to contend against moral evil or to build up
a society in which righteousness and peace shall dwell.
It seeks not to convert, but to rescue, — to rescue from
delusion and desire. The moral life is not its end, but
its means. The reality was (happily !) too strong for
it, and compelled it to recognize and respect as an
independent magnitude that to which in principle it
could assign no such lofty place. But its want of a
positive ideal avenges itself It cannot have a future
unless it has and gives a prospect in the future. It
is not the present inactivity of Buddhism, but its de
voted zeal in earlier times, that astonishes us. We
gratefully observe that at first compassion overbore
quietism. But that quietism, in its turn, has at last
maimed compassion, who shall wonder ? *
' Cf E. von Hartmann, op. cit. S. 338 ff.

304

BUDDHISM.

It will not have escaped your observation that in
speaking of the limits of Buddhism I have had Chris
tianity in my mind. Nor is there the smallest reason
why I should not name it. Our judgment of the two
religions can only gain in value by our placing them
side by side, and letting the light fall both on their
resemblances and their differences. No comparison
could suggest itself more naturally. This would,
indeed, be far otherwise if the doctrine of God adopted
by each religion formed its kernel and determined its
character. In that case, Christianity would have
nothing in common with Buddhism ; for it has been
said of the latter, not without reason, that if it is a
religion at all, it is at any rate a religion without God.
But for more reasons than one, no such standard of
comparison can be accepted, or, at any rate, in this
special case, applied without extremely important
qualifications. Although theological conviction is far
from being a matter of indifference, yet in religion
still more stress must be laid upon the disposition of
the affections, upon the tone of mind, upon the con
secration of heart and life. We must remember also
that the denial of God's existence rested in the orig
inal Buddhism upon a purely philosophical basis, and
left the popular belief in the Devas undisturbed;
while in the later development, with its deification of
the Buddha, scarcely any trace of it is left. In spite

RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION. 305
of this difference, then, the resemblance between
Buddhism and Christianity retains its high signifi
cance and importance. In the one, as in the other,
the idea of redemption is the central point. In both
religions, the" ideal of self-renunciation, purity and
devotion, is realized by the Founder himself The
moral requirements of the two coincide in some of
their main features and in many details. Nor is this
all. By the side of the Buddhistic we have the
Christian monachism. How striking the resemblance
between them I need not remind you. The danger of
actually confounding them is by no means imaginary.
But not even this resemblance strikes us so much as
the fact that a whole section of the Christian Church
recognizes life in the cloister as the complete realiza
tion of the demands of Christianity. " Religio," in
the Middle Ages, meant separation from the world ;
and to the present day the " religious " are the mem
bers of the spiritual orders. With this usage, the
doctrine of the Catholic Church, as expounded by
Thomas Aquinas for instance, is in perfect harmony.*
How it stands in this respect with Buddhism we have
just seen. Could a more striking agreement be con
ceived ?
And yet it is at this very point that the deeper, nay
* '--'• J- J- Baumann, die klassische Moral des Katholicismus (Philos.
Monatshefte, Band XV., 1879, S, 443—466.

3o6

BUDDHISM.

the fundamental, difference between the two religions
is revealed. In Buddhism there is monasticism from
the first. In Christianity it appears later on ; and
only gradually, and in the face of opposition, wins the
place which it occupies in Catholicism. And this is
no mere chronological difference. There could be no
Buddhism without " bhikshus " — there is a Christian
ity without monks. In other words, that which in one
case constitutes the very essence of the religion, and
cannot be removed even in thought without annulling
the system itself, is in the other case no more than
one of the many forms under which the idea of the
religion reveals itself, or rather — may I not say, with
out fearing contradiction on your part ? — is the nat
ural but one-sided development of certain elements in
the original movement, coupled with gross neglect of
others which have equal or still higher right to assert
themselves. And, in point of fact, what is more natural than that
precisely here, in the closer inspection of the place
which asceticism takes and the honour in which it is
held in the two religions, a clear light should fall on
the character of each ? Nowhere does the essential
nature of a religion reveal itself more distinctly than
in its attitude toward asceticism, in the grounds on
which, in greater or smaller measure, it commends or
discountenances it. We are therefore perfectly justi-

ISRAELITE ELEMENTS IN CHRISTIANITY. 307
fied in following back this special line as far as possi
ble — that is to say, to the very origin of the two reli
gions. Indeed, it may well be said that in this case
their diverse origin spontaneously offers, nay forces,
itself upon us as the explanation of the difference
between them. The conditions under which Buddhism
arose are still clearly before our minds. What a con
trast to the genesis of Christianity ! Born out of the
national life of the Jews, Christianity stands in imme
diate connection with the political pressure of those
days that revived the expectations that stirred the
aspirations which had grown in the course of ages
out of the national religion. Accordingly it was
at first intimately bound up with the Jewish nation
ality. The first Christians never dreamed of with
drawing from the communion of their people.
When, after a time, their religion revealed in ac
tion the universalism which from the first had be
longed to it in principle, the inevitable result of
the circumstances was, that a great part of Is
raelitism accompanied the world-religion on its
march through the Roman Empire ; but of course
this could not obviate the necessity, wherever it esta
blished itself, of its taking count of the prevailing
needs and adapting itself to the existing stage of civi
lization, and so applying its principles and developing
its new forms. In a word, Christianity was calculated.

3o8 RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION.
by virtue of its origin, and found itself compelled by
fts resultant nature, to enter into ever fresh combina
tions with the national life of its confessors. It could
not help nationalizing itself, nor does it cease through
out the centuries actually to do so. Its historj' is that
of the mutual reactions of the Christian principles, in
the narrower sense, and the national development of
the Christian peoples. In such a history, how could
monachism, or any other one-sided phenomenon what
ever, possibly be more than one of the many shoots of
the wide-spreading tree ?
But it is not only as regards \ts form that the special
characteristic of Christianity is explained by its origin.
To its birth from the Jewish, in distinction to every
other nationality, it owes an essential portion of the
content to which it has never been untrue amidst all
the changes which it has undergone. I speak of it now
with exclusive reference to the contrast with Buddhism ;
for, if I am not mistaken, the difference between the
latter and Christianity is closely connected with the
respective absence and presence in the two cases of
these specifically Jewish elements. Buddhism, in the
first place, misses the aggressive character which Chris
tianity has always displayed — outwards towards the
unbelievers, and inwards towards the heretics. Why
so ? Whence comes it that Christianity, in contradiction
to Buddhism, has too often been promulgated by force.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 309
and has failed to characterize itself, like the other,
by unlimited toleration ? Because the Christians' God
was Israel's Yahweh, " compassionate, gracious, long-
suffering and plenteous in mercy," aye ! the Father
in heaven, but yet " a jealous God," who will endure
" no other gods before his face," is " of purer eyes
than to behold iniquity," and still from time to time
" a consuming fire." The violence committed in the
name and to the glory of this God in the course of the
ages, not one of us will undertake to defend ; for who
are we that we should put ourselves in the place of
the All-knowing and the Holy One, and identify our
fallible opinions with the truth itself? And yet, on
the other hand, we cannot regard the combative cha
racter of Christianity as a simple defect and disaster.
Let us reflect that Buddhism would never have been,
as it was, toleration itself, had it been any less sceptical
and quietistic. The persecution of those who hold
other opinions may start from the vain supposition of
the persecutor that he is in possession of the absolute
truth; yet at any rate it presupposes the belief in
truth, and confirms the sense of its absolutely supreme
importance.* But whatever difference of feeling may
' "C 'est aux excels du fanatisme rehgieux que I'on doit I'importance
extreme attachee depuis lors Ma question de verity sur tons les domaines."
• . . . " On pent ^ bon droit se demander sil'amourpassionn^ du vrai en
toute chose, qui a fait la science moderne, eut ete possible ou du moins

3IO

RE TR OSPE CT AND CONCL USION.

remain as to this point, we shall all be at one with
respect to the second inheritance from Israelitism. It
is the belief in the triumph of Yahweh over everything
that opposes him, the expectation of the kingdom of
God, the confident ,trust in the realization of the moral
ideal. This is what Buddhism does not possess,* and
therefore cannot give. It is a blank which cannot be
filled, and which nothing can compensate ! The con
ception of the kingdom of God, one of the chief factors
in the genesis of Christianity, remains through all the
ages its best recommendation and its greatest might.
Through this conception it joins in every legitimate
effort of the individuals or the peoples who profess it ;
with this conception it strikes right into the course of
their development, and gives it the true direction, the
genuine inspiration, the higher consecration. On each
new field this one ideal takes a special form. Each
fiit devenu Xxhs, commun, si 1' Europe n'avait pas traverse des siJcles d'in-
tolerance. Le fait est que I'antiquite connut cette noble passion \ un bien
moindre degre que nous." .... "C'est I'intolerance orthodoxe de
I'Eglise au moyenage qui a imprime S. la societe chretienne cette disposi
tion \ chercher k tout prix le vrai, dont I'esprit scientifique moderne n'est
que I'application  Comment expliquer autrement que la grande
science ne se soit developpee, n'ait ete poursuivie avec Constance qu'au
sein des societes chretiennes ?" (A. Reville, Prolegom^nes de I'histohe
des religions, pp. 234, 314.)
' Read, for example, the strikingly beautiful but comfordess meditation
on the fleedng life of man, in Sutta-nipata, vv. 574 — 593 (Sallasutta, pp.
106 — 108 of Dr. Fausboll's translation).

ISLAM. BUDDHISM. 3 II
of the subordinate branches into which it parts itself is
gradually modified under the influence of the never-
resting life of humanity. But in the idea of the king
dom of God there is room for them all, and all experi
ence its regenerating power. If it be true that Chris
tianity bears this idea within it in virtue of its origin,
may we not find in this connection with the Israelite
nationality the secret of its power and the pledge of its
endurance ?

We stand at the end of the path we had marked
out to tread together. Pardon the hope that no justi
fication of the thesis with which I began is now neces
sary: "The connection of the universal with the
national religions furnishes the explanation and the
measure of their universalism." Indeed, if the facts
which we have observed have not already substantiated
it, it would be mere lost labour to attempt to prove it
now. I must therefore confine myself to a few hints ;
and I trust that nothing more is needed.
" Universalism as a fact and as a quality :" — if we
bear this distinction in mind, and proceed to review
the three rehgions of the world, noting not their
extension and the number oftheir confessors, but their
character, we can have no hesitation in pronouncing

,312

RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION.

Christianity the most universal of religions ; and that
because it is the best qualified for its moral task — to
inspire and consecrate the personal and the national
life. Islam and Buddhism alike fail to acquit themselves
of their task beyond a certain point. There they find
a line drawn which they cannot pass, because their
origin forbids it.
Islam, reared by the genius of one man out of ma
terials imported from elsewhere, enters the world as a
rounded system, seems at first completely to answer
to the wants of those to the level of whose capacity it
was framed, shows itself even afterwards and up to
the present time suited to the peoples and the indi
viduals who have not risen above the standpoint .of
legalism, but misses the power so to transform itself
as to meet the requirements of a higher type of life
which in its present form it cannot satisfy. At a given
period, it becomes a hindrance to that development of
the spirit which it must actually choke if it be not
strong enough to cast it off.
Buddhism seems, at a first glance, to possess, in
marked distinction from Islam, an astounding power
of adaptation. What a difference we note between
the Northern and the Southern Buddhists, and, again,
within the groups themselves which we so designate !
But yet, in the midst of all this variety, there is every-

MUTABILITY OF CHRISTIANITY. 3 1 3
where the same monstrous onesidedness, the inefface
able stamp of an origin, not from life, but from the
speculation that has turned away from life and is blind
to its significance and its worth. They are indeed
genuine and not imagined needs to which Buddhism
ministers ;* but are there not other and no less essen
tial demands to which it remains deaf, and in the face
of which it is powerless ? Even in India, its father
land, these wants are too deeply felt to allow of its
maintaining itself there. How much more must it
fall short of its task elsewhere !
And now the third religion of the world ! Richard
Rothe has said : " Christianity is the most mutable of
all things. That is its special glory.'" The statement
will meet with opposition on every side. It will be
allowed that Christianity is, alas !, capable of being
deformed and corrupted, but not that it is mutable in
itself It has been fixed once for all — in the life-image
and the teaching of its Founder, thinks one ; in the
New Testament, says another ; in the Church which
was founded by Christ and is guided by his spirit,
cries a third ; in the symbols of this or that Protestant
communion, suggests others as an emendation. But
• Rhys Davids, Lectures, &c., pp. 157 sqq.
' " Das Christenthum ist das allerveranderlichste ; das ist sein beson-
derer Ruhm" (Stille Stunden. Aphorismen aus R. R.'s handschrift-
lichem Nachlasz (Wittenberg. 1872), S. 357). 14

3X4 RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION.
Rothe was right. The historical view refuses to be
silenced by this " concordia discors," nay, rather finds
in it the confirmation of its own position. Not re
fusing to see Christianity in all these forms — more in
some, less in others, but Christianity in all — it will
reject as wholly illegitimate the claim of any one of
them to be Christianity itself It recognizes — how
can it do otherwise ? — the great difference between the
three main types : the earliest confessors of Jesus'
name, the Catholics and the Protestants ; between the
withdrawal from the world of the first Messianic com
munities, the Church's struggle for dominion over the
world, and the gradual and progressive penetration of
the world by the Christlike spirit.* But in all these,
and in all their countless shades and subdivisions, it
sees the Christian principle translated, with varying
measure of purity and completeness, into fact. What
is the sum of them, then, but " Christianity," and
how can we do otherwise than call it " the most mu
table of all things " ? This character must be recog
nized, and it can also be understood and explained.
For it has its ground in that same close connection
between Christianity and Israelitism to which I need
not now revert. To this connection it was due that
Christianity entered the world without being rounded
• R. A. Lipsius, Lehrb. der. evang. prot. Dogmatik, 2e Aufl. (Braun
schweig, I879), S. 123 I.

THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY. 3 1 5
off or closed as a system. No religious founder ever
left more for his followers to do than Jesus. It was
his to utter the great principles and to reveal them in
his life and death. It was theirs to seek the formula
of the Christian life of faith, to think and work out
the theory that corresponds to it ; not only to realize
the idea, but to track out the paths that lead to it.
In all this, it need hardly be said, men have gone
countless times astray. Above all, much has been
and still is regarded as the sole means of salvation
and as eternally valid, which is really no more than
one out of many forms, and has none but temporary
value. And yet this mutability of Christianity re
mains an inestimable blessing. Starting from the
conviction that religion must be the all-ruling power
in the life of peoples and of individuals, we might
easily be led to suppose that the completest must
likewise be the best religion. Tried by this standard,
Christianity must yield to Islam, which gives its con
fessor a rounded code, and to Buddhism, which offers
him an elaborated system of conventual discipline, of
rules for life, and of metaphysics. But truly we have
no cause to envy the Moslem his Qoran and Sunna,
or the Buddhist his " three baskets." That which is
no longer susceptible of change may continue to exist,
but it has ceased to live. And religion must live, must
enter into new combinations and bear fresh fruits, if it

3l6 RETROSPECT AND CONCLUSION.
is to answer to its destiny, if, refusing to crystallize
into formulae and usages, it is to work like the leaven,
is to console, to inspire and to strengthen.*
These Lectures deal with the past, not with the
future, of religion. But I may be permitted, in con
clusion, from the point of view we now occupy, to
cast a single glance forward. As long as nations
remain approximately on the same level of social and
spiritual development, so long the continued exist
ence of their religions, if not absolutely assured, is at
least highly probable. This is the very reason why
the problem as to the future of Christianity is so much
more serious than that which concerns either Islam or
Buddhism. This is why it is so specially serious now,
when so much is being superseded and is passing
away, when a new conception of the world is spread
ing in ever-wider circles, when new social conditions
are in the very process of birth. What Paul writes
of himself and his contemporaries,' we may, in a
somewhat modified sense, apply to ourselves ; for in
us too " the ends of the ages meet," the ends of the
old and of the new. What has Christianity to expect
from this revolution ? The need of it is keen as ever.
1 Cf with the above J. Happel, die Anlage des Menschen zur Reli
gion, vom gegenw. Standpunkte der Volkerkunde aus betrachtet und
untersucht (Haarlem, 1877), especially S. 219 ff., 373 ff.
' I Cor. A. II.

FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY— CONCLUSION. 317
It is not for less but for more Christianity that our
age cries out. The question only is, whether it will
be able to take it to itself, and find in it a power
for life, unbroken yet. For those who identify Chris
tianity with the ecclesiastical form in which they
themselves profess it, this question can hardly be said
to exist. They expect the world to conform to them.
They have no need to be reassured or encouraged.
But those too — and they are many — who have no
such confidence, may be none the less at peace. The
universalism of Christianity is the sheet-anchor of
their hope. A history of eighteen centuries bears
mighty witness to it ; and the contents of its evidence
and the high significance they possess are brought
into the clearest light by the comparison with other
religions. We have good courage, then. Not yet is
the vital power exhausted which manifested itself so
clearly in the rise of the Catholic Church and again
at the Reformation of the sixteenth century. To this
our own experience bears witness, and this the future
will proclaim !

NOTES.

NOTE I. (P. 17, n. 4.)
"THE ROLLS OF ABRAHAM AND MOSES," AND "THE FABLES OF THE
ANCIENTS IN THE OORAN."
Sprenger puts forward his conjectures as to "the (^ohof" or
"rolls of Abraham and Moses'' with some hesitation (Das Le
ben u. die Lehre des Mohammad, IL 348 ff., 363 ff., cf. L 45 ff).
Their substance is as follows : Bahir or Bahira, also called
Nestor, a rahib or ascetic, of Israelitish extraction and of Jew
ish-Christian .belief, was residing at Mecca about the time when
Mohammed's mission began, and exercised a marked influence
upon him. He himself had composed a book for which he
claimed a high antiquity, and which he called " The ^ohof of
Abraham and Moses ;" and besides this he was the possessor
of yet other apocryphal writings (of which more anon). Mo
hammed accepted the (^ohof as authentic, and made them the
foundation of his preaching. The substance of their contents
may be learnt with fair certainty from Sura liii. 37 — 55, from
which we may also perceive that they were in reality of very
recent date, for they placed the destruction of the tribes of Ad
and Thamud [vv. 51 — 53) in a hoary antiquity, which contra
dicts the well-authenticated history (Sprenger, L 62 ff., 505 ff;,
518 ff). It did not escape notice at Mecca that Mohammed

NOTES 319
had put himself under Bahira as a teacher, and reference is
made to the accusations brought against him in consequence in
Sura xlvi. 9 — 11; xliv. 13; xvi. 105, and also more especially
in xi. 20, where Mohammed ascribes divine enlightenment or
inspiration to his " souffleur," and appeals to his evidence in
support of the Qoran. Nevertheless, he found himself com
pelled at last to allow that the " (^ohof " were spurious. In
616 A.D., when certain Christians of Abyssinia accompanied
his own followers who had previously fled thither, back to
Mecca, this spuriotlsness was placed beyond a doubt ; and ac
cordingly he does not mention the " ^ohof " again after that
year, although at first he had been so thoroughly convinced of
their genuineness that he had even appealed to the learned
amongst the sons of Israel in its support (Sura xxvi. 197). But
in spite of his thus renouncing the "(^ohof," Mohammed still
remained dependent upon Bahira, and especially upon the use
of the apocryphal writings which the latter had, not indeed
composed, but brought with him. It is to these that Moham
med's enemies referred when, as the Qoran itself testifies, they
reproached him with producing "asatir al-awwalin," i. e.
"stories" or "fables of the ancients'' (Sura vi. 25; viii. 31;
xvi. 26; xxiii. 85; xxv. 6; xxvii. 70; xlvi. 16; Ixviii. 15; Ixxxiii.
13, cf. xxvi. 137; "holoq al-awwalin," i.e. "inventions of the
ancients). What these writings were cannot be ascertained
with certainty ; but Sprenger is not disinclined to believe that
they were identical with one of the sacred books of the Abra-
hamic (^abians, which — like Bahira's forgery — ^was called " (^o-
hof of Abraham," and, according to Kitab al Fihrist (ed.
Fluegel, I. 21 f.), was translated into Arabic by Ahmed b. Ab-
dallah b. Salam, a client of Hariin ar-Raschid (Ibid. II. 390 —
397-) The respect we owe to Sprenger's learning and acumen must

320

NOTES.

not prevent our roundly declaring that a more arbitrary tissue of
false or uncertain surmises has seldom been put forward as his
tory. From whatever side we approach it, it collapses at the
first touch. Bahira's presence at Mecca at any time rests upon
weak evidence, which is refuted by Ibn Ishaq, Mohammed's
earliest biographer (cf. Noldeke in Z. d. d. M. G. XII. 704 ff);
and there is no evidence at all that he was there before the year
616 A.D. The name of this supposed Mentor, however, is of
comparatively little consequence, if it can be shown that the
r61e assigned to him was reaUy played by some one. But it is
not so. Sprenger makes all manner of texts refer to this Men
tor that cannot possibly apply to any one person — still less to
such an one : Sura xlvi. 9 — 1 1 (where " a witness of the child
ren of Israel " who vouches for the harmony between Qoran
and Law must be one who could inspire even Mohammed's
opponents with respect) ; xvi. 105 (where the reproach that "a
certain person taught " Mohammed is met by the declaration
that the " person " referred to spoke a barbarian language,
whereas the Qoran was in Arabic) ; xxv. 5, 6 (where Moham
med's helpers are mentioned in the plural, as dictating to him
"morn and even" what he afterwards proclaimed). Special
importance is attached by Sprenger to Sura xi. 20, which he
paraphrases thus (II. 366 f.) : " Ist nicht Derjenige, welcher im
Besitze einer von seinem Herrn ausgehenden Bayyina [Er-
leuchtung] war und ihn [den Koran] liest, ein Zeuge fiir dessen
Wahrheit ? Und vor dem Koran wurde das Buch des Moses
geofifenbart ale ein Vorbild und Gnadenausfluss - [auch die
Uebereinstimmung mit diesem Vorbilde ist ein Zeugniss fur die
Wahrheit des Korans]. Diejenigen, fiir welche das Buch
Moses geoffenbart ist, glauben an den Koran u. s. w." Here
Mohammed is supposed by Sprenger to ascribe divine inspira
tion to his Mentor, and indirectly to declare that it was in this

NOTES. 321
way, and not by study that he had come to know the contents
of the "(^ohof;" and thus, when this Mentor commends the
Qoran, he is an authoritative witness instead of a "souffleur."
No doubt it is a clever stroke with which Sprenger credits Mo
hammed ! But now let the text itself be read. It certainly is
not very clear. The traditional explanation opposes v. 20 to v.
19, and supplies at the beginning of the former, " with such
(the unbeUevers) can he be compared, who," &c. ; but this seems
arbitrary.' It must be clear, however, to all competent judges
that Sprenger's interpretation is impossible. " Wayatluho " is
not the continuation of " kana;" " shahidon minho " (a witness
from him or on his part) does not mean " a witness for him ;"
and the phrase, " kana ala bayyinatin min rabbihi," though
applied to prophets amongst others, does not refer specifically
to the " Erleuchtung" in which they rejoiced, but rather to the
reliance which they (and their followers) placed on the clear
proofs of Allah's revelation. Cf. Sura vi. 57 ; xi. 30, 66, 90 ;
xxxv. 38 ; xlvii. 1 5 ; especially the two last-named passages.
Of course we shall not deny that Mohammed had his trusted
friends, who were rightly or wrongly regarded as his teachers.
But it is quite another question whether the "^ohof and the
" asatir al-awwalin" were furnished him by these people, (ist.)
As to the " ^ohof," if we consider all the texts in which they
appear (Sura xx. 133; liii. 37; Ixxiv. 52; Ixxx. 30; Ixxxvii. 18,
19 ; xcviii. 2), it is impossible for us to regard them as one defi
nite book which Mohammed accepted and made use of as au
thentic. Sura liii. 39 — 55 cannot be regarded as a table of con
tents of " the (^ohof of Moses and Abraham." It is a resum6 of
' See the Commentary of al-Beidh(lwi (ed. Fleischer, I. 341), which
takes "yatluho" as "follows thereon," and therefore as opposed to "min
qablihi." Should we not make the suffix in "yatliiho" refer to "man,"
the subject of the sentence ? 14*

322

NOTES.

Mohammed's own preaching which he commends to his hearers
because of its agreement' with the " C^ohof." The word does not
represent any sharply-defined idea, any more than "Zobor"
does (Sura iii. i8l ; xvi. 46; xxvi. 196; xxxv, 23; liv. 43, 52).
The supposed subsequent renunciation of the " (^ohot" is in any
case a fiction : and, moreover, if Sprenger's interpretation of
Sura xi. 20 were correct, this renunciation would be quite super
fluous, or rather highly unreasonable. But, I shall be told, it
appears from Ahmed ben Abdallah that the (^abians actually
possessed "^ohof of Abraham (see p. 319). My answer is,
that we have no knowledge whatever of the character of this
writing ; that the " (Johof ' of the Qoran are spoken of as "(Johof
of Abraham and Moses" or "of the elders;" and that Sprenger
himself does not identify the (^abian " C^ohof" with those of the
Qoran. (2nd.) On the other hand, he discovers this (^abian
production in the " asitir al-awwalin." But even before the
appearance of " Das Lebun und die Lehre des Mohammad," his
views on this latter subject had already been adequately refuted
by Noldeke (Gesch. des Qorans, i860, S. 12 f.). Sprenger is
really asking too much when he would have us believe that Mo
hammed — whom he makes out acute enough in other respects
— ^himself proclaimed the title of the book he had plundered.'
And now let the passages cited above (p. 320) be read. Even
if we start from Sura xxv. 5, 6, we cannot possibly find in
" asatir al-awwalin" the title of a book. What in that case would
be the meaning of the opponents saying, " that is mere asatir al-
awwalin" ? And how could we explain Sura xxvi. 137, where
the Adites say to Hud, "these are but inventions ('holoq') of
* " Die heimlieh benutzten AsAtyr" (II. 397). Yet, in the Qor&i Mo
hammed introduces bis opponents as many as nine times, mentioning the
book by name !

NOTES. 323
the ancients" ? The formula cannot really be translated other
wise than it is by Noldeke (S. 13) ; "das Geschreibsel" or " die
Fabeln der Alten, Ammenmahrchen." If certain Moslem ex
pounders of the Qoran have found something more in it
(Sprenger, II. 393 ff ), it is because of their desire to bring the
texts, whenever possible, into connection with special persons
and incidents.

NOTE II. (P. 23, n. I.)
THE HANYFS.
To what has been said on pp. 19 — 22 as to the use of the word
" hanyf" in the Qoran, we must add that the plural (" honafao")
is connected in one passage with " lillahi," i. e. " towards Allah,"
Sura xxii. 32 (this verse, at any rate, was composed at Medina).
This is further evidence of the appellative signification of the
word, and pleads against the idea that it was established even
before Mohammed's time as the proper name of a sect. Indeed,
the signification of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic derivatives
from hnf is completely explained if we follow Fleischer, who
(Neuhebr. u. Chald. Worterbuch von Levy, II. 207) assigns to
the root the fundamental meaning, " des Beugens, sowohl Zu-zS.'i
Abbeugens, Krummens, wie Dietrich richtig, gegen Gesenius,
erkannt hat." Geiger's opinion (Zeitschrift f jiid. Wissenschaft
u jud. Leben, I. 185 ff),' that "to be clean'' was the primitive
signification, has nothing to support it ; for the idea that haf. Job
xxxiii. 9, has risen out of hanf, will not readily commend itself
to any one who remembers the Old Testament use of hnf. If
' Afterwards adopted by Sprenger, 1. c. III. 8 f.

;24

NOTES.

we were to start from this usage, we should naturally be brought
to the conclusion that the unfavourable meaning was the original
one (Sprenger, I. 67 ; Dozy, de Israelieten te Mekka, bl. 206).
But can we suppose that in that case it would have been unknown
to Mohammed ? And if he knew it, how are we to explain the
use of the word in the Qoran ?
Now, alike in the passage referred to but now (p. 322) from
al-Fihrist,' and in the traditions concerning Mohammed's prede
cessors, /^otot, "hanyf means one who confesses the religion
of Abraham. From Sprenger's rich collection (I. no ff) I bor
row a few examples. Omayya ben Abi-9-^alt was one of those
who spoke concerning Abraham, Ishmael, and the faith of the
hanyfs (S. in). Zaid ibn 'Amr openly declares that he pro
fesses the religion of Abraham (S. 120). He is advised by a
rabbi to become a " hanyf," " But what does ' hanyf mean ?"
asks Zaid. The rabbi answers, "The religion of Abraham; he
was neither Jew nor Christian, and he worshipped Allah alone."
Zaid next turns to a Christian, receives from him the same advice
and the same explanation of "hanyf," on which he exclaims,
" O God, I take thee to witness that I follow the religion of
Abraham" (S. 120). Here, as we see, the characteristic expres
sion found in the Qoran, " neither Jew nor Christian," is put into
the mouth of a pre-Mohammedan. In the further traditions
about Zaid (S. 121 — 123) the same features constantly recur, and
the religion of Abraham, as well as the consecration of the Ka'ba
by him and Ishmael, plays a conspicuous part,
Sprenger (I. 122 f. ; III. 159, n. 1., and elsewhere) is not blind
to the " tendency " of all these passages, and admits, for exam
ple, that the prophecies of Mohammed's appearance which they
I " I have," writes Ahmed ibn Addallah, "translated this book out of
the book of the Hanyfs, that is to say the Abrahamic (Jabians, who believe
in Abraham," &c.

NOTES. 325
contain are not historical. But he condemns the practice of
rejecting them "without sufficient grounds," and so resolving
the biography of Mohammed into mist. " Der Bericht, dass
die Lehre des Propheten von Zayd und anderen in ihren wes-
entlichen Bestandtheilen verkiindigt wurde, also schon vor ihm
vorhanden war, hatte nur von seinen Feinden und nicht von
seinen Freunden erdichtet werden Konnen '' — an^ must there
fore, it is implied, be historical. Unquestionably we must re
frain from deciding "without sufficient grounds." But Sprenger
does not consider the facts, i st, that if the traditions represented
the truth, it would follow that Mohammed must from the first
have come forward as the preacher of Abraham's religion,
which he did not ; and 2nd, that when once Mohammed had
identified his religion with that of Abraham, the inference would
be drawn that even before his time his spiritual kindred must
have preached and recommended this very religion, and could
not have done otherwise. For the rest, when we find that so
keen a critic as Sprenger believes that Zaid really did teach all
that is assigned to him by the tradition, we can but join with
Noldeke (1. c, S. 14) in expressing our amazement. " Ueber-
haupt," writes the latter, " ware es hochst wunderbar, wenn
nicht aUien Mohammed die Reden Zaid's so wortlich aus-
wendig gelernt hatte, dass er sie nacher in den Qoran hatte,
hineinsetzen konnen, sondern auch daneben noch ein anderer
dieselben Reden in ihrer Urugstalt auf die Nachwelt gebracht
hatte." I repeat what I have said in the text (p. 21) : We need not
deny that Mohammed had predecessors; but we must deny
that the tradition gives us a faithful representation of them, or
s CDrrect in calling them hanyfs. In explaining their views we
can get no help from this name, — always supposing that the
ideas as to "the milla of Ibrahim" which (following Dr.

NOTES.

/ck Hurgronje) I have put forward in the [text, are cor-

NOTE III. (P. 25, n. i.)
DID MOHAMMED PLACE THE HAJJ AMONGST THE DUTIES OF THE MOSLEM?
The Mohammedan theologians are unanimous in answering
this question in the affirmative. They refer in support of their
opinion to Sura iii. 91^. : "And the hajj to the house is a service
due to Allah from men, in so far as they are able to journey
thither." In the text (pp. 32 sq.) I have simply accepted their
opinion, for it has been taken up into Islam, and has formed a
part of it as it has now existed for more than twelve centuries.
Dr. Snouck Hurgronje, however (1. c. bl. 42 vv.), has urged
weighty considerations, not indeed against the approval and
recommendation of the hajj by Mohammed, but against the
thesis that he enjoined it upon all the faithful. His observations
must be read in their entirety before a really adequate estimate
can be made of their value ; but I must nevertheless attempt
to summarize them here.
Before the flight, Mohammed, very naturally, says nothing
about the hajj. At that time it was still an entirely heathen
festival that had no attraction for him and his followers, and
for the present no modification of its character could be so
much as thought of. After the battle of Badr (Anno H. 2, A.
D. 624), his eye was unceasingly fixed upon Mecca, and the
return thither was the goal of his efforts. Not long after comes
the revelation of Sura iii. 89^-92, in which Mohammed, so to
speak, appropriates the Ka'ba and the pilgrimage thither, and
claims them for Islam by referring their crigin to Allah, and in

NOTES. 327
which he exhorts the faithful, " so far as they are able to per
form the journey," not to hold aloof. Abraham, who is brought
into connection with the Ka'ba in these verses, comes decidedly
into the foreground in the somewhat later passage, Sura xxii.
25—39. Here a threatening tone is assumed towards those who
exclude the Moslems from the holy places. Abraham, at the
command of Allah, had instituted the hajj. His ordinances
are taken up and explained by Mohammed, especially those
concerning the sacrifice of the camels and the distribution of
their flesh. A warning against idolatry is added {vv. 31 sq.),
and finally the truth is enforced that " the flesh of the sacrificial
beast can by no means reach unto God, neither their blood ;
but piety on the part of the faithful reacheth Him" {p. 38).
Provisionally, however, these lessons could not be put into
practice. Mecca was still inaccessible to the Moslems. Per
haps the pericope. Sura ii. 185 — 199, contains precepts dating
from the year 6 A. H. (628 A. D.), when Mohammed and his
disciples set out for Mecca, but halted at Hodaibiya, and there
made a treaty in virtue of which the Moslems were to be al
lowed to visit the Ka'ba in the following year, which, accord
ingly, they did ("Omra of the completion," A. H. 7, A. D.
629). But with these ordinances of A. H. 6 others are united,
dating from the year of Mohammed's hajj (A. H. 10). After
Mecca was conquered (A. H. 8, A. D. 630), Mohammed still let
a year pass without taking any part in the pilgrimage, being too
fully occupied with the subjection of Arabia and with his mili
tary expeditions. But in that year Ali, in his name, read out to
the assembled pilgrims Sura ix. I — 12 (perhaps also vv. 36, 37),
in which the treaties with the heathen are declared void (A. H.
9, A. D. 631). Thus everything was prepared for the observ
ance of the hajj in complete Moslem fashion the following year.
This observance, accordingly, took place, and what Mohammed

328 NOTES.
and his followers did on that occasion, taken in connection with
the distinct injunctions of Sura ii. 185— 199, was erected into
the rule which remains in force to this day.
The course of these events does not support the view that
Mohammed imposed the hajj as a duty upon all men without
distinction. He quietly abides his time, and does not seem to
have any idea that the Moslems who deferred the hajj were
guilty of a trespass against Allah's commandment. And to this
we must add, that " neither in the treaties which he concludes
with converted tribes, nor in the numerous verses of the Qoran
in which the duties of the faithful are summed up, is there any
mention made of the hajj " (1. c. bl. 43).
I think it can hardly be denied that these considerations
seriously shake the traditional acceptation of Sura iii. 91 b.
And yet, on the other hand, the utterances in the Qoran con
cerning the hajj, thus chronologically arranged and placed in
their historical framework, seem to me to show that this tradi
tional acceptation is far from being unnatural. The limited
sense in which Mohammed speaks of "men" in Sura iii. 91,
must almost have vanished when, in Sura xxii. 25 — 39, he had
represented the hajj as an ordinance of Allah, proclaimed by
Abraham. The terms which he uses in this passage are ex
tremely general. Allah has "appointed (ordained) the holy
place of worship for all men, alike for those who abide therein,
and for the stranger " (v. 25). Abraham is to proclaim the hajj
" amongst the peoples," and they are to " come to him on foot
and on fleet camels, by every deep ravine" [v. 28). And to
him — so the prophet adds — who shall honour the sacred ordi
nances of Allah, it shall be well with his Lord {v. 31). He
reveals the piety of his heart therein [v. 33). To every people —
he continues — Allah has made it a sacred institution that they
should thankfully praise the name of Allah over the cattle that

NOTES. 329
he gives them, and to this the sacrifice at the hajj corresponds
\v. 35, cf. 37). All this taken together, does not indeed bring
us to the position taken by the Moslem theologians, but it ex
plains how they themselves came to take it. The observance
of solemnities to which the prophet attached such great signifi
cance and value, could not be left to the free option of the
faithful, and the theologians eagerly caught at an expression
which, like Sura iii. 91, might be taken without violence as a
commandment addressed to every individual.

NOTE IV. (P. 61, n. I.)
THE PRONUNCIATION OF THE DIVINE NAME "YAHWEH."
By declaring, as soon as I had occasion to use it, that we
have good grounds for pronouncing the name of the god of
Israel " Yahweh," I impUed that the objections which have
been urged against this pronunciation — most recently by Fred-
rich Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies ? Eine biblisch-assyriolo-
gische Studie, S. 158 — 166) and von Hartmann (Das relig.
Bewusstsein u. s. w. S. 370 f ) — have not convinced me. I
must now briefly explain the reason of this. On the derivation
and significance of the name I will not now touch, but will
confine myself exclusively to the anterior question of how it
was pronounced.
First of all we must define the point under discussion. The
four letters Yhwh, which stand for the God of Israel in the ordi
nary text of the Old Testament, must be vocalized Yahweh (or
Yahaweh). So far there is — or at any rate there ought to be — ¦
no difference of opinion. No one who wrote down these four
letters can have meant to indicate any other pronunciation. If

330 NOTES.
he had intended his readers to say Yahu, or Yaho, for instance,
he would have omitted the fourth letter.'
If we reject the pronunciation " Yahweh," therefore, we must
begin by rejecting the spelling " Yhwh." This is what De
litzsch actually does; and von Hartmann, too, considers it not
improbable that this spelling was devised in order to bring the
divine name into connection with the verb hwh (hawah), "to
be " (cf. Exod. iii. 14). According to this the national deity
was called Yah, or Yaho, Yahu, Yehu, by the people. The first
of these forms, it will be remembered, occurs repeatedly in the
Old Testament f Yaho and Yahu are also very frequent, but
only in compounds, especially in proper names which begin
with Yeho (yo), or end in Yahu (yah) ; Yehu, finally, seems to
be discovered by von Hartmann in the name of the well-known
king (S. 371), which Delitzsch prefers to regard as a compound
(Yah-hii — "Yahweh is he," or "Yahweh is it"). This latter
view is at any rate possible, which is more than can be said for
von Hartmann's. As witnesses that these shorter forms are
the original ones, Philo Byblius, Clemens Alexandrinus and
Origen are summoned. They support the pronunciation Yeu6,
Yao, Yoii (but Origen Yae also). Chief stress, however, is laid
on non-Israelitish proper names compounded with Yaho, Yahu,
which are said to show that this divine name was also in use
amongst other Semitic nations, and especially amongst the
Babylonians, the teachers of them all. Originally, then, the
' The pronunciation " Yahwah " is now generally abandoned. Yah-
woh would, in the abstract, be conceivable, but — very naturally — has
never yet been supported by any one, and need not be further noticed.
2 Exod. XV. 2; xvii. 16; Isaiah xii. 2; xxfi. 4; xxxviii. 11; Song of
Sol. viii. 6 ; twenty times in the Psalms, exclusive of a good twenty more
in the formula " Hallelu-yah."

NOTES. 331
god Yaho or Yahu was worshipped by other related tribes in
common with Israel ; and it was in opposition to them that the
more highly cultivated Israelites afterwards called this deity
Yahweh. In speaking of the popular religion, therefore (pp.
61 sqq.), I ought, according to this view, to have used the name
Yaho or Yahu.
The opposite theory finds in "Yahweh " the original form
and pronunciation, and in Yah, Yahu, &c., abridged deriva
tives from it. There are no grammatical objections to this.
On the contrary, it is strictly consonant with analogy that a
verbal form in -eh should lose its final syllable. Yahweh would
thus become Yahw, and this last, again, would pass quite regu
larly into Yaho {yo'). Equally natural is the transition into
Yahu {yah), when the divine name comes at the end of the
compound. Nor is the monosyllable _j'a.4 by any means strange
as an abridged form of Yahweh. It is found especially in
poetry, and almost always in expressions in which the divine
name is so closely connected with the verb that it may be said
to form a quasi compound with it. But what are we to say, in
this case, to the witnesses for the pronunciation Yao or Yafl ?
Origen (ed. De la Rue, II. 539), as I have already pointed out,
is also acquainted with the form Yae (i. e. Yahweh) ; and in
support of this latter pronunciation we may further appeal to
Theodoret, Epiphanius and the Samaritan tradition (cf. Bau-
dissin, Studien zur semit. Religionsgeschichte, I. 183 ff.).
The authorities for the two views are therefore pretty evenly
balanced. This being so, the choice, as it seems to me, cannot be doubt
ful for a moment. The shortening of proper names — especi
ally the names of deities taken up into compounds — as the
natural result of rapid pronunciation, is quite accordant with
analogy. On the contrary, I am not aware of any other in-

332

NOTES.

stance of such a lengthening or expansion as is assumed by
Delitzsch and von Hartmann. This anomaly, however, we
might admit, if we could lay it to the account of the theolo
gizing Scribes. But the writing Yhwh — and consequently the
pronunciation Yahweh — appears as early as d= 900 B. C. on the
stone of Mesha (line 18), where it must surely have been bor
rowed from the popular usage of Israel. And it is on this pro
nunciation, too, that the etymology in Exod. iii. 14 rests ; for,
whatever we may think of its correctness or incorrectness, it is
almost impossible that it could have so much as suggested itself
if the name of Israel's god had been not Yahweh, but (for
instance) Yaho or Yahu. Mesha's inscription and Exodus iii.
14 (certainly later than 900 B. C. !), when taken together, lead
to a decision from which there is no appeal.
Even the alleged use of Yaho or Yahu amongst other Semitic
peoples cannot alter the verdict. The evidence produced in
favour of it turns out, point by point, either to break down com
pletely or at least to be very defective. Cf Baudissin, 1. c. S.
220 — 227. I cannot allow the vahdity of the considerations
urged on the other side by Delitzsch (S. 163 f ). That the
Philistine royal names Mitinti, Zidqa, Padi, are compounded
with Yahu, and therefore correspond exactly to the Hebrew
names Mattityah, Zidqyah, Pedayah, is by no means apparent ;
for what distinguishes the latter series of names from the former,
is the very syllable which raises the composition with Yahu above
all doubt. It is further maintained by Delitzsch — in conflict with
his former communication to Baudissin (S. 226, n. 6) — ^that the
simple sound /signified in Accadian "god" and "the supreme
god," just as Hi, ila (Hebrew el) did; that the Assyrians pro
nounced this /with the nominative termination ia-u ; that ac
cordingly the character for /was called by the Assyrians ia-u.'
and that it can only be regarded as an accident that hitherto Ya-u,

NOTES. 2>li
as the name of the deity, has not been met with in any Assyrian
inscription. If this is really "an accident,'' then the name will
sooner or later be discovered. But after weighing the objections
urged against Delitzsch by Tiele (Theologisch Tijdschrift, Deel
XVI. (1882), bl. 262 vv.), I regard it as more than doubtful
whether this discovery will ever take place.

NOTE V. (P. 69, n. 2.)
INTERPRETATION OF HOSEA IX. 3-5.
It will be observed that in translating Hosea ix, 3, 4, I have
allowed myself a departure from the Masoretic text, and that
departure must here be justified. Israel has fallen away from
his god and has worshipped other gods at the harvest-feasts, as
if it were they who had given him this abundance (cf. chap. ii.
10). There is, in truth, no reason why the people should rejoice
and exult like the heathens {v. i ) .' This will soon appear, when
" threshing-floor and wine-press shall not feed them, and the
must shall fail them'' {v. 2).' For — so the prophet continues —
" they shall not remain in the land of Yahweh, but Ephraim
shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean food in
Assyria" {v. 3). The foreign land itself is unclean (Amos vii.
17), and so likewise is the food that is eaten there. Now this is
the conception which is more fully worked out in v. 4. As that
verse now reads, it is in contradiction with itself and with chap.
' The reading, el-g'il, has been justified by reference to Job iii. 22. But
it is not at all surprising that the old translators read al, which cannot be
adopted, however, unless we change gil into tagil. Is it possible that
lagil is the true reading ?
^ For bah read bam, or — simply changing the vowel — bbh.

334

NOTES.

iii. 4. For whether we follow the accents and connect zibchehem
with the words that follow, or whether (as is unquestionably
better) we take it as subject of the preceding "weld ye'erebu-ldy
in any case it implies that, even in the foreign land, Israel makes
sacrifices to Yahweh. Now this may be reconciled, in a fashion,
with the end of the verse (" it — i. e. their food — comes not into
the house of Yahweh"), but not with the beginning "they shall
pour no libations of wine to Yahweh ;" for if they offered sacri
fices, then a fortiori they could make their ordinary libations.
Still less can this sacrificing in a foreign land be reconciled with
chap. iii. 4, where sitting down "without sacrifice" (the same
word as in chap. ix. 4 !) is one of the marks of life in exile. The
contradiction cannot be removed by a changed interpreta
tion of the text; for "their sacrifices are not acceptable to him
(Yahweh)," still implies that sacrifices are made.' There is only
one escape, but that is a very simple one. Yox ye'erebu read
ye'erekii. The verb 'arak signifies "to lay in order," "to ar
range," "to prepare," and is used in Gen. xxii. 9, Leviticus i. 7,
I Kings xviii. 33, of laying wood upon the altar, and in Lev. i.
8, 12 — exactly as in our passage — of placing the sacrificial parts
on the wood. There is no change of subject, therefore ; and the
meaning is this : " They shall pour no libation of wine to Yah
weh, and shalt not lay out their sacrifices before him (upon the
altar)." This conjecture finds no support in the old transla
tions. The mistake, then, must be a very old one, and it would
escape notice all the more easily because it brings v. \a into cor
respondence with Jer, vi. 20^.
1 Wellhausen's translation, "Sie spenden Yahve keinen Wein uud
keine Opfer die ihm munden," is too free, and only conceals the difficulty
without removing it. For the rest, Wellhausen allows (Gesch. Israels, I.
83, n. 1) that Hos. ix. 4 and iii. 4 belong together. , -

NOTES. 335
An error has also crept into the words that immediately fol
low, fjihem must be changed ,into lahmam, or else followed
by it. The change or omission is easily explained by the great
similarity of the two words. The meaning then becomes, " as
food eaten in mourning is their food (to them) ; all who eat
thereof make themselves unclean ; for (there in the foreign
land) their food serves (only) for (stilling) their desire (hunger);
it comes not into the house of Yahweh (and so remains uncon
secrated)." If such is their plight in ordinary seasons, how
much more painfully must they feel on the feast days their ab
sence from the holy land and the loss of those religious solem
nities which cannot be celebrated in any other country (^'. 5) !
With the exception of these minor points of difference, my
view of Hos. ix. 3 — 5 agrees with that of Wellhausen (Gesch.
Israels, I. 22 n.) and Robertson Smith (The Old Testament in
the Jewish Church, p. 237).

NOTE VI. (P. 85, n 2).
THE EGYPTIAN ORIGIN OF LEVI.

De Lagarde, in his treatise " Erklarung hebraischer Worter"
(Abhandlungen der kon. Ges. der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen,
Band XXVI. and Orientalia, Heft IL), S. 20 f., puts forward
the conjecture that the Levites were the Egyptians, who — ac
cording to Exod. xii. 38, Num. xi. 4— joined on to the departing
Israelites. "Levi" is not an ordinary proper name, and is ac
cordingly used for "Levite, Levitical," as well as for the (sup
posed) ancestor of the Levites. That "Levi" was no inappro
priate name for the strangers that "joined themselves on," may
be seen from Isaiah xiv. 1 ; Ivi. 3 (cf. supra, pp. 185 sq.). Ac-

336 NOTES.
cording to Exodus ii. i — lo. Moses was of unmixed Israelite
descent ; but what is more natural than that Israel should have
concealed the Egyptian origin of its deliverer from the house of
bondage, and made him one of its own children ? "War Moses
nicht israelitischer, sondern »gyptischer Herkunft, so erklarte
sich, warum er in den Leviten, seinen mit ihm gewanderten
Stammesgenossen, vozugsweise seine Stiitze suchte und fand :
es erklarte sich, warum die Leviten die geistige Leitung der
israelitischen Nation iibernehmen konnten — sie waren eben als
Aegypter im Besitze einer hoheren Kultur als diejenigen, mit
denen sie ausgezogen waren : es erklarte sich, warum die Le
viten im gelobten Lande nicht als wirklicher Stamm auftraten :
es erklarte sich endlich was die agyptischen Quellen iiber den
Auszug der Israeliten aus Aegypten aussagen" (S. 21).
When Dr. Maybaum (Die Entwickelung des altisr. Priester
thums, S. iii. — vi.) had combated this hypothesis, de Lagarde
declared (Gott. gel. Anz. 1881, S. 38 — 40) that he had not made
himself responsible for it, but had thrown it out as a suggestion,
4nd commended it to the attention of scholars. Let us see to
what results a closer examination, such as he desires, will lead us.
If we could accept as purely historical the accounts given in
the Pentateuch of Levi (Gen. xxix. 34), and his posterity (Gen.
xlvi. 11 ; Exod. vi. 16 — 27), or at any rate the statements about
Moses and his descent, then there would be no " Levi ques
tion " at all. But it is well known that even the narratives con
cerning Moses, and a fortiori those relating to the patriarchal
period, fail to offer us any certainty, and that in consequence we
cannot dispose of such a conjecture as de Lagarde's by a sim
ple appeal to the Israelite tradition. His point of departure,
however, is not happily chosen. In the Hebrew " lawah " (in
Niph'al "to hang on, to join oneself to") there is not even a
side hint of what he finds in it, viz., the joiningon of foreigners

NOTES.

337

to Israel. Nor can it be made out from Exod. xii. 38, Numbers
xi. 4, that any Egyptians accompanied the Israelites at the exo
dus. But may there not be other facts, not mentioned by de
Lagarde, that make the connection between Levi and Egypt
probable .' Attention may be called, for instance, to several
Levitical proper names. To begin with, there is Phinehas (the
son of Eleazar b. Aa, and the son of Eli), which cannot be ex
plained from Hebrew, but which actually appears in Egyptian
documents and can also be provided with an Egyptian etymon.
Cf Dillmann, Exodus und Leviticus, S. 60, — who, nevertheless,
very properly rejects the most usual explanation ( — " the
negro ") as not being consonant with the Old Testament usage.
Again, the grandfather of the elder Phinehas, on the mother's
side, bears an Egyptian name, Putiel (Exod. vi. 25), related to
" Potiphar," " Potiphera.'' The Egyptian origin of the name
Moses — questioned by Land, Theol. Tijdschr. III. 362 n. — is
admitted by a very great majority of the commentators. Cf.
Dillmann, 1. c. S. 15 f , and Rev. F. C. Cook in the Speaker's
Commentary, Vol. I. pp. 482 sqq. Neither has any Hebrew
etymon been found as yet for "Aaron " (against Redslob. see
Theol. Tijdschr. VI. 648) ; and it would not be at all surprising
if the Egyptologists, who have not at present been any more
successful, should hereafter have better fortune. On the other
hand I cannot think that Cook (1. c. p. 488) is correct in de
riving "Gersom "from the Egyptian; for the connection of
this name (and the almost identical "Gerson") with the He
brew ^j^, "to drive out,'" seems unmistakable, and is not in
validated by Exod. ii. 22. But, per contra, I must refer, in this
connection, to i Sam. ii. 27, where it is said of Eli's family that
they "had been servants (LXX.) in Egypt, to the house of
Pharaoh " — an expression which is not used of Israel as a whole.i
1 Once in Deut. vi. 21, spoken of as " servants of Pharaoh." "5

338 NOTES.
and which might be taken as a reminiscence of the closer con
nection in which this family had stood to the royal house of
Egypt.' It will be seen that these traces are few and weak, and — ^be it
specially observed — detected exclusively in the family of Am-
ram, to which Eli also belonged. Now we are not in the least
justified in extending to other Levitical clans anything that may
be true of this one family, or in drawing inferences therefrom
with respect to the whole tribe. The names of the clans them
selves (Gen. xlvi. II ; Exod. vi. i6 sqq. ; Numbers iii.; xxvi.)
do not lend the least support to the hypothesis we are discuss
ing ; and in some cases they distinctly point to a different origin
(Qorah, Hebron, Yizhar, &c.). Still less can the name Levi
itself be taken, as de Lagarde suggests, as a side reference to
Egypt. If the name were to be taken appellatively at all, it
would be far more obvious to connect it with the tribe's joining
on to, or dependence on, the sanctuary of Yahweh, than with
its foreign origin and its joining on to Israel. But even this
supposition cannot be admitted. The tribe of Levi, as Gen.
xlix. 5 — 7 shows indisputably, existed before it had consecrated
itself to the divine service, and therefore cannot have derived
its name from that consecration itself. According to Kohler
(Der Segen Jacob's, Berlin, 1867, S. 34), " Levi " means "turn
ing," "twisting" (cf. liwyah and liwyathan), and was there
fore originally the mythic serpent or dragon which fights against
the sun. Other tribal names are connected with mythology
(cf Theol. Tijdschrift, V. 290 vv.), and this explanation may
therefore be regarded as not improbable. But however this
1 The fantastic combinations of Prof. Lauth, in his " Moses der
Ebr'aer, nach zwei 'agyptischen Papyrus-Urkunden " (1868), and " Moses-
Hosarsyphos-Salichus, Levites-Aharon frater, &c.'" (1879), cf. Z. d. d. M.
G, XX'V. 139—148, I prefer to pass over in silence.

NOTES.

339

may be, in no case can we allow any weight to the considera
tions by which de Lagarde seeks to support the supposed Egyp
tian descent. There is not the least necessity to suppose that
Levi's origin had anything to do with its failure to obtain a
special territory (cf. Theol. Tijdschr. VI. 653 v.). We shall do
better to connect this phenomenon with the anti-Canaanite dis
position of the Levites, to which testimony is borne by Gen.
xlix. 5 — 7 ; xxxiv. These passages likewise show how little
right de Lagarde has to contrast Levi and Israel. They pre
sent Levi as ultra-Israelitish, as the upholder quand meme of
Israel's unadulterated nationality. Add to this, finally, that it
is an exaggeration, at any rate, to ascribe to Levi " die geistige
Leitung der israelitischen Nation."

NOTE VII. (P. 128, n. I.)
THE ANTiaUITY OF ISRAELITISH MONOTHEISM.
In the essay above referred to (p. 128, n." i), I have treated
this subject with special reference to Prof H. Schultz's Alttesta-
mentliche Theologie. Die Offenbarungsreligion auf ihrer vor-
christlichen Entwicklungsstufe (1869), I. 95 — 123, 259 — 270; II.
84 — 88. Contemporaneously with my essay appeared Graf
Baudissin's Die Auschanung des A. T. von den Gottern des
Heidenthums (Studien zur semit. Religionsgeschichte, I. 47 —
178). We reviewed each other's work in the Theol. Tijdschrift
X. (1876), bl. 631 — 648, and in Schiirer's Theol. Literaturzeit
ung, I. (1876), S. 661 — 664, respectively. Cf further Rosch in
Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1877, S. 739 ff. Schultz's epicrisis
may be found in the second edition of his Alttest. Theologie
(1878), s. 440—457-

340 NOTES.
The difference between Baudissin and myself though not
without significance, concerns subordinate questions only. We
agree that the sole existence of Yahweh, with the converse
doctrine of the absolute non-existence of "the other gods," is
not expressly taught before Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Bau
dissin maintains, however, that there was an antecedent period,
from Amos to Isaiah, in which Yahweh was regarded as the
god of Israel, but in which his relation to the heathen world
was not expressly dwelt upon, so that the question whether "the
other gods " existed _/^r the heathen, was not entered upon ; but,
nevertheless, predications were made of Yahweh which, if the
prophets had given themselves a clear account of what they in
volved, must have led to the recognition of Yahweh as the abso
lutely only One, and to the denial of all reality to the gods of the
heathens. This position, according to him, is a " Zwischen-
stufe " between the older monolatry and the absolute and fully
self-conscious monotheism of Deuteronomy, or, in other words,
" ein Monotheismus, dessen Consequenzen mit Bezug auf die
Heidenwelt noch nicht gezogen waren." I maintain, on the
other hand, that the very fact that the prophets of the eighth
century did not draw these consequences — which were surely
sufficiently simple — proves that they had not yet reached the
true monotheistic position. If, in spite of this, they use expres
sions concerning Yahweh's supremacy over the heathen world
as well as Israel, and concerning the gods of the heathens,
which practically amount to a denial of the existence of the lat
ter and leave no room for other gods by the side of Yahweh,
this shows that they belong to the period of transition, or of
nascent monotheism. Traces of this — exactly as we should ex
pect on my hypothesis — are still distinctly to be found in Deute
ronomy itself (cf Theol. Review, 1. c. pp. 347 — 351). What
Baudissin calls " eine Zwischenstufe '" is not really a " Stufe " at

NOTES.

341

all, but should rather be characterized as the very natural strug
gle between the old conception and the new and higher one
that is in the very act of disengaging itself from it.
I gladly leave to the reader the choice between these two
views, which are very closely related to each other. More im
portance must be attached to the difference between my own
view and that which is now supported by Shultz. It is brought
out especially in g 6 (S. 451 — ^453) and | 7 (S. 453 — ^455) of the
chapter on the unity of God already referred to. In the former
passage, Shultz maintains that the prophets had already
preached monotheism before the time of Jeremiah ; and in the
latter, while acknowledging the difficulties inseparable from any
solution, he maintains that this monotheism was nothing new,
but had been established in Israel from the time of Moses down
wards. On this I would remark,
I. That, as indicated just now, I myself acknowledge the
monotheism of the prophets of the eighth century, — as a nascent
monotheism, consisting in the repeated overstepping of the line
between monolatry and the recognition of one only God. Schultz
himself would not have ascribed any more than this to the earlier
prophets, had he considered their monotheistic utterances (given
in \ 6) in connection with the texts that he himself has collected
{\ 3, S. 444 — ^447), as containing the antique conception and
nothing more. He will not hear of the other gods being non
existent simply with reference to Israel. "Alsob" — he says —
"die antike polytheistische Denkweise einen Gott, den man
nicht verehrte, der aber als wirklicher Gott seines Volkes aner-
kannt ward, mit solchen Namen (viz. no-god, vanity, lie, abom
ination) hatte bezeichnen konnen !" All this is perfectly just ;
only what is here attacked is not "die Meinung der Gegner."
It is not Baudissin's for he very clearly distinguishes the con
viction of Amos cum suis from " die antike polytheistische Denk "

342

NOTES.

weise," and even calls it " Monotheismus." It is not mine, for
I recognize monotheism de facto in these strong expressions of
the prophets, and only deny that they had acquired it as a per
manent possession. Now and then they rise to the recognition
of the sole existence of Yahweh and the denial of "the other
gods," but generally they do not get beyond the monolatry in
which they, or at any rate the earlier ones amongst them, had
been brought up. It will readily be seen from this,
2. That, in my opinion, the still older monotheism of the
period before the prophets has no existence. Schultz admits
that the people were not monotheistic, and that the priestly nar
ratives and laws of the Pentateuch cannot be taken as evidence
concerning the times anterior to the eighth century B. C. (S,
453 f). Nevertheless he still ascribes monotheism to the more
advanced Israelites of this period on the ground of Ps. xviii. 32
(31) ; I Sam. ii. 2 ; Ps. viii. ; xxix. ; utterances of the prophetic
writers in the Pentateuch, such as Gen. ii. 4 sqq. ; iv. 3, 26 ; xii.
17; xxiv. 31, 50; xxvi. 29; Num. xvi. 22; xxvii. 16; Exod. xv.
2 ; Num. xiv. 21 ; and the blessings pronounced upon the patri
archs in Gen. xii. ; xviii. ; xxii. ; xxvi. ; xxviii. Two of these
texts (Num. xvi. 22 ; xxvii. 16) are from the hand of the priestly
author. With all the rest I have dealt in the Theological Re
view, 1. c. pp. 352 — 358 (with which cf. Baudissin, S. 161 ff.). I
have nothing to add, unless it be that I ought to have expressed
myself even more strongly. It would need the clearest evidence
to justify the thesis adopted by Schultz, for it clashes with what
we know for certain concerning Solomon, for instance, (and I
for my part would add David also,) and with what flows by
legitimate inference from the prophetic literature. The texts to
which he appeals do not even approximately meet the require
ments of the case.
Completely parallel with the view here defended is that of

NOTES 343
Duhm, die Theol. der Propheten (S. 92 ff. and passim), and
Wellhausen (Encycl. Brit. art. Israel).

NOTE VIII. (Pp. 144, n. 2 ; 145, n. 2.)
INFERENCES FROM THE INSCRIPTION OF CYRUS.
The reasons why I cannot assent to some of the inferences
that have been drawn from the inscription of Cyrus have been
touched upon in the text (pp. 144 sq.). What follows may serve
to illustrate them.
I. From the inscription of Darius at Behistun we may gather,
as it seems to me, that there was no difference of religion between
this monarch and the Achsemenian line to which Cyrus and
Cambyses belonged. When Darius has narrated how, with the
help of Ahuramazda, he has defeated the Magian Gaumata, he
proceeds thus (Col. i. 14) : " The empire that had been wrested
from our race, that I recovered, I established it in its place ; as
in the days of old ; thus I did. The temples which Gomates the
Magian had destroyed, I rebuilt ; I reinstituted for the state the
sacred chaunts and (sacrificial) worship, and confided them to
the families which Gomates the Magian had deprived of those
offices."' Darius could hardly have expressed himself thus if
^ The translation is Sir H. Rawlinson's, in Records of the Past, Vol. I.
p. 113. For comparison, I give Prof. Oppert's translation of the Median
text (1. v;. VII. gi) : "The kingdom which had been robbed from our
race, I restored it, I put again in its place. As it had been before me,
thus I did. I reestablished the temples of the gods which Gomates the
Magian had destroyed, and I reinstituted, in favour of the people, the cal-

344 NOTES.
Ahuramazda, whose servant he declares himself to be, had not
been reverenced by Cyrus and Cambyses.
2. And, again, the splitting up of the Achamenians into two
branches, as conceived, for instance, by Halevy', appears to
me irreconcilable with the inscription of Behistun. Of course I
do not speak of the division itself. The pedigree of Darius
(son of Hystaspes, of Ariaramnes, of Te'ispes, of Achsemenes ;
Behistun, col. i. 2) and that of Cyrus (son of Cambyses, of
Cyrus, of Te'ispes; Babyl. Inscrip. 1. 21, 22) harmonize admir
ably. The latter supplies a correction to Herodotus (vi. 11).
But if we are to suppose that the two sons of Te'ispes (Cyrus,
the grandfather of Cyrus the Great, and Ariaramnes) parted
from each other, and each ruled over a kingdom or special
province of his own, then it seems very strange that Darius
should make no mention of the fact, but on the contrary should
put the unity of the whole Acheemenian family in the fore
ground. "On that account," he says, Behistun, col. i. 3, 4, "we
are called Achaemenians ; from antiquity we have descended;
from antiquity those of our race have been kings. There are
eight of my race who have been kings before me ; I am the
ninth ; for a very long time^ we have been kings," If the roy-
endar and the holy language, and I gave back to the families what Go-
mates the Magian had taken away.''
' Cyrus et le retour de I'exil (Revue des Etudes juives, I. 9 svv., espe
cially p. 14 svv.).
2 According to others, "in a double line" [i.e. the line of Cyrus and
that of Darius himself] ; and according to yet others, twice, viz., first in
the early times, when the ancestors up to Achsemenes (inclusive) were
independent kings, and then again from Cyrus the Great onwards. Cf.
Oppert, I.e. p. 88, n. 1. — M. Biidinger, in the Sitzungsberichte der phil"
hist. Classe der Kais. Akad. der Wissensch. zu Wien, Band XCVII. S

NOTES.

345

alty of which Darius speaks in such terms had been exercised
in two kingdoms or provinces, I do not see how he could pos
sibly have failed to mention the fact here. How can we help
regarding his silence as a confirmation of the accounts of the
Greeks, who, however much they differ in other respects, agree
in stating that Cambyses, the father of Cyrus, held sway in
Persia ?
3. In spite of these considerations, we should be obliged to
recognize as a fact the dominion of Cyrus and his forefathers in
Susiana, if the Babylonian cylinder bore unequivocal witness
to it. But this is not the case. These forefathers are called
upon the cylindei (r. 22), "sar al An-za-an," "king of the city
of An-za-an," and Cyrus himself is called, in the annals of
Nabonedus, "sar An-za-an."' Now this "An-za-an" is identi
fied either with the first word in the formula "Anzan Susunqu"
of the Susianic inscriptions, or with " An-du-an," which is ex
plained, in the only place where it occurs, by "Elamtu" (Elam).
But is not this very hasty, or at any rate extremely unsafe ?
We cannot wonder that both identifications are rejected by Op-
pert (Gott gel. Anzeigen, 1881, S. 1254 ff.). He thinks it is
still uncertain what city is indicated by "An-za-an," and even
whether the name should be so pronounced ; but he is inclined
to regard it as a designation of the residential city of the Per
sian princes, be it Pasargadffi or Marrhasion or Persepolis. The
fact that Cyrus is first called "king of An-za-an" and then
713 ff., prefers the first-mentioned interpretation, and with respect to the
royal forefathers defends another hypothesis which at any rate deserves a
further consideration.
1 Cf. Th. G. Pinches, in Transactions of the Society cf Bibl. Archaeo
logy, VII. 151, iSS- Further on (p. 159), Cyrus is called, "sar mat
Parsu," king of Persia. 15*

346 NOTES.
" king of Persia" in one and the same document, strongly con
firms this view, even if it cannot be taken as a proof that "An-
za-an" is either an ideogram or a synonym for Persia itself
However this may be, the way in which Halevy (I.e. pp. 14 svv.)
romances about the supposed "roi de Susiane," and sacrifices
to this fiction both the accounts of the ancients and the evi
dence of Darius himself, cannot be too strongly condemned.

NOTE IX. (P. 167, n. 2.)
EZRA AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDAISM.
The "Revue de I'histoire des religions" contains (Tom. IV.
22 — 45) an essay on " Esdras etle code sacerdotal," vC'hich might
be passed over in silence were it not from the hand of a scholar
such as Joseph Halevy. The conception of Ezra's person and
work supported by E. Reuss, Graf Wellhausen and others, has
not impressed Halevy at all favourably. He regards it as in
part exaggerated, and in part wholly mistaken. This impres
sion should have led him to a comprehensive study of the entire
question, which would include the criticism of the books of Ezra
and Nehemia, and a running comparison of " le code sacerdo
tal" with the other collections of laws and with Ezekiel. But it
does not appear that Halevy has undertaken any such labour.
As for Ezra and Nehemia, he is not even acquainted with the
contents of the books, far less with their composition. As to the
antiquity of the priestly laws, he offers us nothing but a few
detached remarks, which even if they were just would be in no
way conclusive. Such demonstrations as this will certainly
never convert the upholders of Graf's hypothesis.

NOTES.

347

Halevy provisionally assumes the trustwortliiness of the ac
counts of Ezra, especially including Neh. viii. — x. In these ac
counts he fails to recognize the Ezra of the newer criticism, the
father of Judaism, the author of the priestly laws, the redactor
of the Pentateuch. Ezra, he finds, like the poet of Psalm li., is
a man dependent on the Thorah, and inspired with a zeal to
support the observance of its long neglected precepts. From
Ezra ix. x. he gathers that he was without energy and especially
without initiative. The abuses which he finds at Jerusalem
grieve him to the quick. He mourns and weeps over them ;
but he has to be stirred up to action by others. Nehemia is quite
another man. Compared with him, Ezra appears insignificant
to the last degree. The supposition (Wellhausen, Gesch, Israels,
I. 423) that the former lent himself to the accomplishment of the
latter's plans, is not only unproved, but in the highest degree
improbable. It is quite a mistake, says Halevy, to find the pro
clamation of a new code of law in Neh. viii. — x. ; and the appeal
to 2 Kings xxii. xxiii. breaks down ; for the very thing which the
comparison really proves is, that the two events were not parallel.
Nor will he admit that Neh. viii. 14 — 17 proves what has been
deduced from it ; for although the account in question refers to
Lev. xxiii. 40, yet Ezra iii. 4 (where not only Lev. xxiii. 39 — 44,
but Num. xxix. 12 — 39 also, is presupposed) forbids us to take
the passage as implying that Lev. xxiii. 40 was carried out for
the first time on this occasion, and had been previously un
known. It is absurd, he continues, to infer from Ezra vii. 12, 21 ;
14, 25 (Wellhausen, I. 422), that Ezra brought a new book of
law with him from Babylonia ; for, to say nothing of the fact that
these verses 14, 25, belong to a spurious document, they imply
no more than that Ezra knew and loved the Thorah, and betook
himself to Judsea in order to further the subjection of the people
to it.

348 NOTES
The weakness of the argument is obvious. Ezra's lamenta
tions in Ezra ix. certainly prove that he was in thorough earnest
with his devotion to the Thorah (Deut. xxiii. 2 — 9) and his pain
at its being neglected by the people ; but how any one who has
read Ezra x. can deny that these feelings were coupled with
drastic energy and a zeal that nothing could appal, is almost
inexplicable. Nehemia too was full of energy — who will ques
tion it? — ^but (as appears especially from Neh. xiii.) his ideas
completely coincided with Ezra's. It is this, and this alone, that
explains the opposition he had instantly to face when he under
took the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. — vi.).'
There is nothing unnatural, therefore, in the supposition that he
co-operated with Ezra. But in what did they co-operate ?
Neh. viii. — x. gives us the answer. One is almost tempted to
ask whether Halevy has read these chapters, and especially
chap. X. If he has, how can he write (pp. 34, 35), " qu'apres la
lecture aucune mesure n'a ete prise pour introduire dans la pra
tique les prescriptions propres au code sacerdotal, comme par
exemple la celebration du jour de pardon que ce code regarde
comme le plus saint de I'annee" ? Whether Lev. xvi. was
already taken up into the priestly code at that time is indeed
questionable.' But it is untrue that this code itself was not prac
tically introduced. See Neh. viii. 18; x. 33 — 40 (32 — 39); and
compare my Religion of Israel, Vol. II. pp. 227, 229 sqq. To
attempt to put aside the evidence of Neh. viii. 17 by an appeal
to Ezra iii. 4, is superficial in the extreme. In the latter passage
it is the Chronicler himself who is speaking, in his well-known
style, but Neh. viii. — x. he has taken from elsewhere, and these
' Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, II. 2, S. 139 ff.
2 Cf. Reuss, in the introduction to his translation of " L'histoire sainte
et la, loi," p.. 260,

NOTES.

349

chapters have far higher historical worth. Cf my Religion of
Israel, Vol. II. pp. 286 — 291, and Wellhausen in Bleek's Einlei-
tung in das A. T. 4te Aufl. S. 268, n. i. Finally, no one will
wonder, after all that has been said, at the high significance
which we attach to those texts which bring Ezra and the Law
into so close a connection with each other. They give us ex
actly what we require to explain Neh. viii. — x., if only we refrain
from watering them down, and accept them as meaning that
Ezra brought with him out of Babylonia something which at that
time was not known, much less adopted, in Judsea.
In conclusion, Halevy declares (pp. 37, 38) that he entertains
serious doubts as to the truth of the narrative of the Chronicler
(Ezra vii. — ^x.), which represents Ezra as having arrived in
Judsea and attempted a reformation there thirteen years before
Nehemia. This, he says, is contradicted by Neh. vii. 7, where
Ezra, there called Azariah, follows Nehemia — " ce qui fait pen-
ser que la tentative de reforme qui fait I'objet des chapitres ix.
et X. du livre d'Esdras est identique a celle qui a ete execut^e
sous Nehemie." It is quite in harmony with this view, he urges,
that Ezra should never have been regarded as a great man, or
been specially exalted as such, till a far later time: Jesus
Sirach (chap. xlix. 13) only mentions Nehemia, and the ancient
haggada, 2 Makk. i. 10 — ii. 18, gives to the latter the honour
which Pharisaism ascribes to Ezra.
Against such reckless criticism we cannot protest too earn
estly. The writer overlooks the fact that Ezra vii. — x. is bor
rowed in part from Ezra's own memoirs. He takes no notice
of Neh. xii. 36, where Nehemia himself tells us that Ezra, the
sopher, led a band of singers on occasion of the consecration of
the walls of Jerusalem, which is surely proof enough that at
that time he was no obscure or insignificant individual, but had
already won his spurs. The appeal to Neh. vii. 7 is unpardon-

350

NOTES.

able. Neh. vii. is the catalogue of the exiles who returned with
Zerubbabel and Joshua {v. 5), a duplicate of Ezra ii. If Nehe
mia and Ezra had appeared there, they would have been
about a hundred and twenty years old in 445 B. C. ! But, be
sides this, Nehemia tells us himself (chap, i.) that he was an
officer in the Persian court in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes
I., and chap. vii. 4. 5) that the catalogue in question contained
the names of those who had gone to Judea " at the first." As
to Ezra, he is mentioned neither in Neh. vii. 7 (where Azariah
stands), nor in Ezra ii. 2 (where we find Seraiah). "Azariah "
is a very common name, borne by about twenty-five different
individuals in the Old Testament. What right can we have to
alter it into " Ezra " ? But the appeal to Neh. vii. 7 really does
not deserve the attention we have given it. As for Sirach xlix.
13, compare my Religion of Israel, Vol. III. pp. 87 — 89. The
account of Nehemia in 2 Makk. i. 10 — ii. 18, proves nothing
either for or against Ezra, unless one first takes the liberty of
crediting Ezra with the collection of "the Prophets and the
Writings," and then takes 2 Makk. ii. 13 as evidence that it was
not he, but Nehemia, that accomplished it !
To the question of the antiquity of the priestly laws, Halevy
only devotes a few pages (pp. 38 — ^44), and there he confines
himself to the comparison of Lev. xxiii. 40 and Neh. viii. 15, a
comparison intended to prove that, when Neh. viii. 15 was
written, an exegesis was already current which expanded and
modified the commandment in question. I consider this ex
tremely doubtful. But if it were so, what then ? No one says
that Neh. viii. 1 5 was written by Ezra. For the rest, the de
fenders of the post-exilian origin of the priestly thorah will
gladly answer Halevy if he will but set out his objections. But
as long as he thinks he can settle the question by a few quota
tions, he has not earned a refutation. Does he think his few

NOTES. 351
lines on Ezekiel xx. (p. 39) can draw the sinews of R. Smend's
commentary on that prophet ?
Compare, further, M. Vernes in the Revue de I'histoire des
rel. Tom. IV. pp. 373 — 377, who appears to me to assign more
than its true merit to his contributor's article, but insists at the
same time, with the fullest justice, on the distinction between
the two questions : Is the priestly thorah later than Deuter
onomy, exilian or post-exilian ? and, What is the true relation in
which Ezra stands to this thorah ? On the last point opinions
may differ, and in fact the " Grafianer " are not unanimous.
But this is a matter of subordinate consequence, concerning
which, in the very natural absence of historical data, we shall
perhaps never arrive at certainty. The affirmative answer to
the former question, on the other hand, is as firmly established
as could possibly be desired.

NOTE X. (P. 197, n. 4.)
EXPLANATION OF LEVITICUS XXII. 25.
Wellhausen (Gesch. Israels, I. 390) finds in the earlier priestly
legislation, from which Leviticus xvii. sqq. is largely drawn, a
spirit of hostility towards the heathen, which was the conse
quence of the demand for holiness. He speaks of "der schrof-
fen Ausschliessung heidnischer Auslander vom Gottesdienst,
von denen nach Lev. xxii. 25 nicht einmal Opfer angenommen
werden diirfen." Dillmann (Exod. und Levit. S. 574) reads in
Lev. xxii. 25 the very opposite of what Wellhausen "makes the
writer say,'' for according to him the supposition underlies this
text, "dass auch Fremde dem Jahve fiir sich opfern lassen diir
fen." Which of the two is right?

352

NOTES.

V. 24.a forbids the sacrifice of castrated animals to Yahweh.
The lawgiver might indeed have been content with the simple
prohibition, without thinking it necessary to add that such
beasts were not pleasing to Yahweh and would not be accepted
by him. But the analogy of vv. 19, 20, 21, 23, would lead us
to expect that the author — who prefers saying too much rather
than too little — would not withhold some such further explana
tion. The exegesis oivv. 2if), 25, must not lose sight of this.
According to the Jewish tradition, v. lifi forbids the castration
of bulls, &c., and must be translated, "and in your land ye
shall not make (them)," (i.e. shall not bring them into the con
dition indicated by the participles in v. i^a). Knobel and
Dillmann object to this interpretation, which seems to them to
attach a meaning to the Hebrew verb "make" or "do" which
it cannot bear. There can be no doubt that such a use of the
verb is unusual and forced, but what else can it mean in this
passage ? Knobel interprets : " and in your land ye shall not
prepare (such sacrificial beasts) ;" whatever the heathen may
do, in your land nothing of the kind shall happen. Dillmann
thinks that the meaning is ; "(not only here, in the desert, but)
in your own land too, ye shall refrain from doing it" (i.e. what
is forbidden in v. 24a). But neither the contrast between the
Israelitish and the heathen usage, nor the contrast between the
desert and Canaan, is to the purpose here. The latter is espe
cially inapposite, since all the sacrificial laws are given for
Canaan. In my opiijion, v. i\b must be closely connected
with 250:, and together they express the thought that the Israel
ites are no more at liberty to assign to the altar these castrated
animals in their own land, than they are to receive or buy
them "from the hand of a foreigner," in order "to bring the
meat-offering of their god from one of all these (i. e. of all
these kinds of castrated animals)." By uniting vv. 24^, 25a,

NOTES.

353

the expression in v. 24b is mide tolerable, if not altogether
defensible. But this way of taking the passage is chiefly re
commended by w. 25 b, which has reference not only to z'. 25 a,
but also to V. 24. a, to which it adds the very supplement which
we missed but now in v. 24 ; " for their mutilation, their defect,
is in them (i. e. for they, these sacrificial beasts, are mutilated
and defective) ; they will not be acceptable for you (i. e. will
not be received in grace for you)." "For you" implies that
it is Israelites who offer the sacrifices in z/. 25 as well as in v. 24,
and hence that "the foreigner" does not appear in this passage
either as the sacrificer or as the person on whose behalf the sac
rifice is made, but exclusively as the provider of the castrated
sacrificial beasts. To explain the expression, "from the hand
of a foreigner," reference is usually made to Num. v. 25 ; Isaiah
i. 12. But in these passages it is the priest or Yahweh himself
who accepts or demands the offering from the offerer, whereas
in Levit. xxii. it is the Israelites who receive the sacrificial beast
"from the hand " of a third party, though offering it themselves
and on their own behalf Dillmann was close upon giving the
explanation here supported, but allowed himself to be drawn
away from it by his objections to the traditional acceptation of
V. 2\b, objections which, as it seems to me, are in a great
measure met by the close union of vv. 24^ and 25 a.
The question we have asked must therefore be answered by
the assertion that the sacrifice of a foreigner is neither forbidden
nor assumed in this passage. It is simply not referred to. This
is by no means surprising. In the priestly legislation the "ben-
necar " (unless he serves the Israelite as a slave [Gen. xvii. 12,
27], which is of course out of the question here) as definitely
stands outside the community, as the "ger" (according to this
very thorah. Lev. xxii. 18) takes his place within it. The sac
rifice of a "ben-necar" therefore must be regarded as lying

354

NOTES.

quite outside the lawgiver's field of vision ; it did not need to
be forbidden and it could not be assumed.

NOTE XI. (P. 204, n. I.)
BRUNO BAUER AND ERNEST HAVET.
The principal objections to B. Bauer's " Christus und die
Casaren " are touched upon on pp. 203 sq. Here I may add a
few references and remarks to show that his main thesis (of
which his reader is often allowed completely to lose sight) has
been correctly represented, and that the considerations which
must lead to its rejection might have been expressed far more
strongly yet.
B. Bauer is perfectly serious in his denial of the Jewish origin
of Christianity. See S. 300 — 301. The Jewish element is sim
ply the framework (S. 302). The content, " das Gemiith,"
comes from Rome, especially from the further development of
the Stoic philosophy which took place there (S. 302 — 305, cf.
47 — 61 on Seneca), and from Alexandria, especially from Philo,
the disciple of Heraclitus (S. 305 — 308). This of course in
volves the thesis that the supposed founders of Christianity are
not historical personages. Bruno Bauer accepts this conse
quence without reserve, as appears especially from S. 298 ff.
(on the creative "Urevangelium," about 115 — 140 A.D.) and
from S. 345 ff. (on the rise of the New Testament literature and
the symbolical significance of the figures of Peter and Paul).
I will not now argue against B. Bauer from the New Testa
ment, which is the very matter in dispute ; but I cannot refrain
from calling attention to the fact that his hypotheses concerning
the origin of some of the books frequently overstep all legiti-

NOTES.

355

mate bounds. When a man places the Apocalypse, as our
author does (S. 171 ff.), about the middle of the reign of Mar
cus Aurelius (i.e. 170 A.D.), without so much as mentioning the
external and internal objections to such a date, has he not
really forfeited his right to a voice in the matter ? But quite
apart from the evidence of the New Testament, B. Bauer's
thesis is condemned :
I . By the truly reckless distortion of Judaism which it neces
sarily involves. I refer not only to S. 300 f (on "der angeb-
liche Hillel"), but also and especially to S. 293 ff. (on Bar-
Cochba, R. Akiba and the very late origin of the Jewish
Messianic expectation;) and, further, to the utter failure to ap
preciate the significance of Essenism, which is all the more
surprising since the Egyptian Therapeutse are recognized as
historical (S. 306 — 308), and the authenticity of Philo "de vita
contemplativa " is expressly taken under protection.
2. By the slovenly style in which the dependence of the
New Testament upon Seneca is worked out, though B. Bauer's
whole system must stand or fall with it. From the " de Provi-
dentia,'' cap. 2, he cites (S. 52) these words : "Gott hege gegen
die Guten einen vaterlichen Sinn und iibe sie, die er gem
kraftig hat, durch Schmerzen und Schaden. Gott priift (experi-
tur) den Guten, hartet ihn ab und bereitet ihn fiir sich zu." As
parallels to this, borrowed from it, he then quotes Rom. ix. 18
(" so God shows mercy on whom he will, and "whom he will he
hardeneth" but according to B. Bauer, "wen Gott lieb hat,
hartet er ab" 1) and Hebrews xii. 6, 7 (N.B. a literal citation of
Prov. iii. 11, 12 !). A few pages further on (S. 57), the parallel
passages in Seneca and Paul concerning slaves are mentioned ;
but Job xxxi. 13 — 15, with which Paul coincides in substance,
is passed by in silence. But enough! In his work, "Das
Urevangelium u. s. w.'' (vid. sup. p. 191, n. i), B. Bauer

356 NOTES.
indignantly repudiates the charge of having failed to appre
ciate F. C. Baur's classical treatise on Seneca and Paul (S. 39
ff). If he had been able to read it in an unprejudiced spirit,
his whole book would have remained unwritten.
" Le Christianisme et ses origines," by Ernest Havet, is a far
superior work. The First Part (Tom. I. II. L'Hellenisme)
retains its value even for those who cannot accept its positions.
Certain expressions make one think that B. Bauer might have
claimed Havet as his precursor. The latter, for instance, de
clares his intention (I. Preface, p. v) of studying Christianity
"dans ses sources premieres et plus profondes, celles de I'anti
quite hellenique, dont il est sorti presque tout entier," and
thinks (ibid. p. xix) that the first two Gospels are still more
Greek than the Epistles of Paul. But, after all, that "presque
tout entier" implies some limitation. It is true that everything
in "L'Hellenisme" that has even a distant resemblance to
Christianity is carefully searched out, and throughout this pro
cess, as well as in the summary of the conclusions (T. II. 311
svv.), the resemblances are placed, in a one-sided manner, in
the foreground, and the differences, which are sometimes quite
as essential, are disguised or passed by in silence. But in spite
of all this, there is no intention of excluding Judaism, or of
denying its contribution to the genesis of Christianity. On the
contrary, this Judaic influence is recognized from the first (e. g.
T. I. Pref p. xiv, &c.), and is therefore expressly illustrated in
a Second Part (" Le Judaisme"). With this Second Part itself
I have no intention of dealing here. Even M. Vernes' very
friendly criticism (Melanges de critique religieuse pp. 181 — 217),
though in my opinion it yields too much to Havet, nevertheless
makes it abundantly evident that he has gone on a false track
in " Le Judaisme," and was mistaken in thinking that he could
transform the history of the Old Testament literature without

NOTES. 357
any knowledge of the language in which it is written. The
fact is, then, that of the two factors which have to be taken into
consideration in explaining the origin of Christianity, one is
unknown, or at any rate very imperfectly known, to Havet.
Of course this fact could not be without its influence upon his
solution of the problem ; — a problem to which it is by no means
immaterial whether one gives their true place, for instance, to
prophetism and to Deuteronomy, or whether, with Havet, one
brings them down from the pre-exilian era to the Greek or even
the Maccabsean period. But it would be a mistake to suppose
that the one-sidedness of Havet's solution could be deduced
simply from this perverse conception of Judaism. To convince
ourselves of this, we may read, more especially, T. II. 319
svv.. III. 485 svv., where the position is defended that "L'Hel
lenisme" was already well on the way towards reforming itself
in the same direction as that in which Christianity actually led
the world, and might have reached the goal without Christianity,
and perhaps even better than with it. Havet is indeed quite
aware that he is dealing in mere fancies when he asks, and
tries to answer the question. What would have happened if the
impulse from Judaa had not been given ? (T. II. 321 sv.). But
involuntarily he allows what appears to him the most reasona
ble answer to this imaginary question, to exercise an influence
on his solution of the historical question that he has undertaken
to consider. Hellenism as, in his opinion, it would have
become, — having risen in its entirety from the polytheistic, the
national and the sesthetic position, to monotheism, universalism
and an ethical conception of life, — is constantly placing itself,
as it were, between his eyes and the actual Hellenism, and
making the latter play a part which it never really assumed.
Any one is at liberty — strange as the fancy may be — to regard
the impulse from Judaea as superfluous, and to regret its having

358 NOTES.
been given ; but it remains a fact that it was given, and that
the new world owes its rise to it. And this being so, it must
not be denied that the movement of Hellenism towards mono
theism, universalism and humanity, which Havet describes with
so much talent, however valuable as an ally of Christianity and
as a main cause of its triumph, cannot be regarded as the spring
whence Christianity flowed — either altogether, or, as Havet ex
presses it," ••presque tout entier.''

NOTE XII. (P. 242, n. 3.)
EXPLANATION OF MATTHEW XXIII. 15.
The taunt cast upon the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt, xxiii.
15 ("Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte,"), is
certainly not free from exaggeration.' But it is highly probable
that it rests upon a basis of fact. How could the Evangelist
have written such words if the Scribes and Pharisees had in
reality been indifferent to the accession of proselytes, or had
even opposed it ? At present, however, we are not in a position
to decide exactly what is meant by their " compassing sea and
land" to gain proselytes, or whence such attempts really ema
nated. It would be far from strange if, after the fall of the
Jewish state in 70 A. D., and still more after the events under
Trajan and Hadrian, the sentiments of the authorities at Jeru
salem had undergone a change with respect to proselytism.
Such a change, we know, took place with regard to the transla
tion of the Holy Scriptures into Greek ; for the favour with
1 The older apologetic will not allow this ; but the consequence is,
that it has to conceal the weakness of its case behind mere assertion.
See especially Danz, in Menschen N. T. ex. Talm. illustr. pp. 649 — 666.

NOTES.

359

which it was at first regarded passed, after the events just refer
red to, into the strongest condemnation. Cf Dr. M. Joel, BHcke
in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christi. Jahrh.
I 6 ff. The author does not succeed in proving that it was the
Christians who caused Hadrian to withdraw his permission to
rebuild the temple of Jerusalem ; but neither was any such
special occasion needed to make the leaders of the Jews distrust
ful of heathens and Gentile-Christians alike, and to set them at
work to devise means for protecting their fellow-believers from
the temptation to apostasy to which they stood exposed. Cf
Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, IV. 341. In the first century
of our era they were far more free, and at any rate some of
them, especially " the house of Hillel," may very well have
yielded to the drift towards the extension of their faith which
may be deemed inseparable from the belief that that faith was
revealed by God. Cf Geiger, das Judenthum und seine Ges
chichte, I. 88 f ; Derenbourg, Hist, de la Palestine d'apres les
Thalmuds, pp. 222 — 229.

NOTE XIII. (P. 252, n. I.)
THE BUDDHA-LEGEND AND THE GOSPELS.
Prof Seydel treats of the intercourse between India and the
West, op. cit. S. 305 ff. ; gives the " Buddhistisch-christliche
Evangehenharmonie," S. 105 — 293; and points out the infer
ences that may be thence deduced, S. 294 ff. The parallels
that have been detailed are divided into three classes. The
first class includes those which offer no such resemblances as to
warrant the inference of a historical connection. They may be
merely accidental, involuntary parallels. To the second class

36o NOTES.
belong those parallels which point directly to the dependence
either of Buddhists on the Gospels or of Gospels on the Bud
dha-legend ; and, finally, the third class contains those which
can only be explained on the hypothesis of Buddhistic influ
ence on the origin of the Gospels. These last (S. 296 f) are
five in number, and the writer assigns all the more weight to
them because there is not a single case which gives even the
smallest probability to the opposite hypothesis of the depend
ence of the Buddhists on the Gospels. If these parallels of the
third class have once proved the influence of Buddhism, then
of course those of the second class gain increased importance.
Seydel divides them into two groups, of twelve and eleven re
spectively ; the former appear to him to testify more clearly than
the latter to an acquaintance with the Buddha-saga (S. 298 ff.).
And, lastly, fifteen parallels may be found, even in the first
class, which are not wholly without significance (S. 300 f).
While awaiting the verdict upon Seydel's book which a care
ful and impartial weighing of all tbe details may warrant, I con
fine myself here to a very brief defence of the prognosis I have
ventured upon on p. 252. In the first place, we must admit that
the decision on the point at issue is likely to remain to some ex
tent subjective. 'Vcib. possibility of the influence of the Buddha-
legend must be admitted or denied on strictly objective grounds,
and, in my opinion, Seydel has established it ; but the recogni
tion of this influence as actual m.VL%X. depend upon the impression
produced on the investigator by the consideration of the par
allels, and this impression will not be the same in every mind.
In the second place, it seems to me that Seydel has not paid
enough attention to the standing contrast of conception and
character between the Buddha-legend and the Gospels, which ac
companies their resemblance — often striking enough — in special
points. Compared with the Lalita Vistara, the Gospels, espe-

NOTES. 361
daily the first three, are eminently sober and simple. There is
not any trace of an attempt to make the Christ vie with the
Buddha in supernatural power, in the homage received from the
dwellers in heaven and earth, and so on. Yet the Evangelists
unquestionably placed the Christ above 'the Buddha, whose
legend they or their predecessors ex hypothesi knew and made
use of to embellish their story. Is this the natural relation ?
Should we not rather expect that they would, at any rate here
and there, leave their model far behind them ? In the third
place, we must remember that mutual independence, even where
there is real and great agreement, must always be recognized as
a possibility. The parallel to Solomon's first judgment ( i Kings
iii. 16 — 28) in the Jatakas' is well known. Borrowing on either
side, though not absolutely inconceivable, is in the highest de
gree improbable here. Why may not either narrative alike rest
upon a fact ? There is nothing against, but everything in favour
of, the supposition that more than one trait in which the narra
tives concerning the two Founders coincide, should be explained
from the existence of similar motives and conditions in either
case. This must not be regarded as a subterfuge, but, on the
contrary, must be allowed its full claim to consideration as in
itself highly probable.
Lastly, and chiefly, we must never forget that the derivation
of this or that detail from a foreign " Sagenkreis" — acquaintance
with which is not proved already, but is the very point to be
established — can only be allowed when it is clearly shown that
the circle of ideas in which the writer unquestionably moved
does not itself offer anything, or at least does not offer enough,
to explain the details in question . This rule Prof, Seydel appears
not to recognize, or at least not always to observe. The fast
1 Rhvs Davids Buddhist Birth Stories, I. pp. xiv— xvi., cf. xliv— xlvii.
16

362 "NOTES.
ascribed to Jesus before beginning his work (Matt. iv. 2 ; Luke
iv. 2), which conflicts with his own custom (cf Matt. ix. 14 — 17 ;
xi. 7 — 19, and the parallel passages), was borrowed, according
to Seydel, from the Buddha-legend (S. 154 f). But ought we
not to refer, in this connection, to Exod. xxxiv. 28 ; Deut. ix. 9 ?
The question of the apostles concerning the man born blind :
"Who did sin, this man or his parents?" (John ix. 2), has no
meaning, he thinks, unless we interpret it by the Buddhistic doc
trine of re-birth, according to which a man endures in his pre
sent life the penalty for what he has done amiss in a previous
existence (S. 232 f ). One might ask whether this doctrine is
specifically Buddhistic, and whether it is not possible that a sin
committed in the woriib may have been in the mind of the
speakers (cf Meyer's Commentary) ? But in any case nothing
can be more obvious in connection with this passage than the
comparison of the Judseo-Alexandrine doctrine of pre-existence
(e. g. Sap. Sal. viii. 20), which renders the Buddhistic parallel
quite superfluous. Now these two parallels are amongst the
five to which Seydel ascribes the highest degree of evidential
value. A third (S. 166 ff.) — the pre-existence alike of the
Buddha and of the Johannine Christ^he himself does not regard
as conclusive. In the two that remain, referring to the presen
tation in (he temple (Luke ii. 22 sqq. ; S. 146 f ) and the sitting
under the fig-tree" (John i. 46 sqq. ; S. 168 ff.), the difference
appears to me far to overbalance the resemblance, and to throw
it altogether into the shade. The simple scene in the temple at
Jerusalem is really no parallel at all to the homage rendered to
the Buddha-child, and in John i. it is Nathanael, and not the
Christ, who sits under the fig-tree, as the Buddha sits under the
Tree of Knowledge. In my opinion, then, these parallels of the
third class completely fail to give us that firm basis which we
should require to enable us confidently to go on further. And

NOTES.

363

when it appears — as it actually does — that the details in the
second group find their origin explained, so far as any explana
tion is needed, in the Old Testament, then to me at least the
alleged Buddhistic influence becomes in the highest degree
questionable.

NOTE XIV. (P. 270, n. i).
THE FOUNDER OF JAINISM IN THE BUDDHA-LEGEND.
Dr. Biihler was the first to identify the founder of Jainism
with one of the six false teachers put to shame by Buddha,
Nataputta the Nirgrantha (Indian Antiquary, VII. (1878), p.
143). He was soon followed by Jacobi, who, in the Introduc
tion to his edition of "The Kalpasfltra of Bhadrabahu " (Ab
handlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, VII. No. i), p.
I sqq., not only based the identification on the similarity of the
names and of certain details in the lives, but endeavoured
further to support it by proofs drawn from the chronology of
the Buddhists and the Jainas. Kern (vid. sup. 253, n. 4), Old
enberg (Z. d. d. M. G. XXXIV. 748 ff. ; Buddha, sein Leben
u. s. w. S. 67, 78) and others gave in their adhesion. Olden-
berg's scruples with regard to the hypotheses by which Jacobi
endeavours to explain the difference between the chronological
systems of the two sects (Z. d. d. M. G. 1. c), are acknowledged
by the latter as having a relative importance, but not as being
insurmountable (ib. XXXV. 667 — 674).
Reference must likewise be made to an essay of Jacobi's,
"On Mahavira and his Predecessors " (Ind. Antiq. IX. 158 —
163). Starting from the Buddhistic accounts of the opinions of
the false teachers (ib. VIII. 311— 314), especially those of
Nataputta, he 'points out the agreement between them and the

364

NOTES.

doctrine of the Jainas, thus strengthening the proof already
given of the connection between Nataputta and Jainism. But
at the same time he so far modifies his former opinion as to ac
cept the belief of the Jainas themselves that Mahavira-Nata-
putta was not the founder of a new sect, but the reformer of a
doctrine which had long existed. Twenty-three Jainas are
made to precede him in the tradition. How we are to judge of
them in general, may be gathered from the statement that the
first of them, Rishabha, hved 840,000 great years, and died
300,000,000 oceans of years before the death of Mahavira!
But the immediate predecessor of the latter, Parsva, is only
separated from him by a space of 250 years, aud may therefore
be a historical personage. Jacobi endeavours to make it prob
able, by a variety of considerations, that he really was so. He
calls attention, amongst other things, to the fact that the Budd
hists ascribe an idea to Nataputta which the Jainas themselves
say he combated, though his predecessor Parsva adopted it.
Jacobi takes this as an indication that the Buddhists, very nat
urally, failed to distinguish between the shades of opinion
amongst their opponents. He further reminds us that, although
the Buddhists mention the contest between the Buddha and the
founder or reformer of Jainism, the Jainas, on the other hand,
never mention the Buddha. This, too, appears to him very
natural, inasmuch as, on his hypothesis, the Buddha departed
from an age-old system, and must therefore have felt the neces
sity of justifying himself for so doing ; whereas the Jainas were
already in possession, so to speak, and might think it beneath
them to enter upon any discussion with an innovator like the
Buddha. For the further elaboration of all this I must refer to
the essay itself (pp. 160 — 163).'
When Jacobi (1. c.) shows that the other five false teachers likewise

NOTES. 365
Jacobi does not conceal from himself the hazardous nature of
his hypothesis. "All these arguments are open to one fatal
objection, viz., that they are taken from the Jaina literature,
which was reduced to writing so late as the fifth century A.D."
(p. 161). This is indeed no small difficulty. And a second
objection of no less weight may be found in the fact that
Nataputta's immediate predecessor, whom Jacobi recognizes as
historical, is incorporated in an utterly absurd theory in which
we should look for anything rather than history. It appears to
me very comprehensible that such scholars as Barth (I.e. pp.
150 sq.) and Rhys Davids (Lectures, &c. p. 27) do not feel at
liberty, for the present, to follow Jacobi on the path he has
taken. ^^
"betray the influence of Jainism in doctrine or practice," he unintention
ally weakens his proof of the indentity of Mahavira and Nataputta very
materially. In the further discussion of this question, it will be necessary
closely to define the meaning of the term " Jainism," or misconception
and confusion will be the result.

The Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated br
THE RELIGION OF
ANCIENT EGYPT.
By P. LE PAGE RENOUF.
(The Hibbert Lectures for iSjg.J

One volume, 12«cio, - - - $1.80
M. Le Page Renouf's great reputation as an Egyptologist led to his
selection to deliver the second course of the already celebrated Hibbert
series. His lectures are the fit companions of Professor Miiller's, both in
learning and in interest. The glimpses laboriously gained by the aid of
long undeciphered hieroglyphics into one of the most mystical and profound
of all the ancient beliefs, have always had a special fascination ; and the
time has now come when it is possible to join their results into a fairly
complete picture. Done as this is by M. Renouf, with a certain French
vividness and clearness, it has a very unusual, and, indeed, unique interest.

CRITICAL NOTICES.
" The narrative is so well put together, the chain of reasoning and
inference so obvious, and the illustration so apt, that the general reader
can go through it with unabated interest." — Hartford Post.
"No one can rise from reading this book, in which, by the way, the
author is careful about drawing his conclusions, without having increased
respect for the religion of ancient Egypt, and hardly less than admiration
for its ethical system." — The Churchman.
" These lectures are invaluable to students of Egyptology, and as the
religion of ancient Egypt stands alone and unconnected with other religions,
except those which have been modified by it, itself being apparently original
and underived, they should be highly interesting to all students of religious
history. . . . It is impossible in a brief notice to convey an adequate
idea'of Professor Renouf s admirable lectures. " — N. Y. World.
" The present work forms a remarkably intelligent and acutely critical
contribution to the history of the origin and growth of religion, as illustrated
by the religion of ancient Egypt. As a specialist. Professor Renouf is able
to bring forth much information not ordinarily accessible to the general
reader, and this he does in such a carefully digested form as to make the
work entertaining and instructive in the highest degree."— Boston Courier.
*** For sale by all booksellers, or sent, post-paid, upon receipt of
price, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers,
743 AND 745 Broadway, New York.

The Religions of China.
CONFUCIAlsIISM AND TlOISM DESCRIBED AND COM
PARED WITH CHRISTIANITY.
By JAMES LEGGE,
Professor of the Chinese Language and Literature in the University of Oxford.

One volume, 12mo, - - $1.50-

Professor Legge's work is by far the most simple and easily
comprehended exposition of Chinese religions that exists, and
is remarkable for its freedom from a polemic bias, and for the
easy, confident touch of a man whose mind is saturated with
his subject and at home in every branch of it.

**The entire volume deserves a wide and attentive reading." — Chicago Tribune. '
" Prof. I..egge is. perhaps, the highest authority on all matters connected with a
knowledge of the Chinese literature and philosophy." — Richmond Central Presby
terian. " Prof. Legge''s work is a remarkably instructive and critical contribution to our
knowledge of the Chinese." — St. Louis Central Christian Advocate.
*' As the work of perhaps the first of scholars in all that pertains to China, we heartily
commend this book." — Buffalo Courier.
"For the scholar and the minister who desire information about the religions of the
largest nation on earth, and who are likely to play an important part hereafter in the
history of the world, it is an important publication." — Richmond Southern Churchman.
" tn this volume Prof. Legge presents the results of careful study, with a clearness of
style and method which entitles him to the gratitude of readers who are interested in the
study of comparative religions.'* — Boston Daily Journal.
"Nowhere else is so clear a detail of the distinctive features and characteristics of
the Chinese religions given, and nowhere else are the contrasts and similarities betweer
them and the Christian religion brought within a more compact compass."— Albany Journal,
"Prof. Legge^s philological discussions are extremely interesting, and his reasoning
close and fascinating. Incidentally he gives us an insight into the social and family re
lations of the Chinese, which are involved in and governed by the duties and obligations
imposed by religion." — Waterbury American. ~

*^* For sale by all booksellers, or sent, post-paid, upon receipt oj
frice, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers,
743 AND 745 Broadway, New York.

THE ORIGIN OF NATIONS
By Professor GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A.

One Volumey 12mo, With maps, , . , $1,00.
The first part of this book, Early Civilizations, discusses the antiquity
of civilization in Egypt and the other early nations of the East. The
second part. Ethnic Affinities in the Ancient World, is an examination of
the ethnology of Genesis, showing its accordance ^vith the latest results of
modern ethnographical science.

"An attractive volume, which is well worthy of the careful consideration of every
reader." — Observer,
"A -work of genuine scholarly excellenre, and a useful offset to a great deal of the
superficialcurrent literature on such subjects." — Cotigregationalist.
" Dr. Rawlinson brings to this discussion long and patient research, a vast knowledge
and intimate acquaintance with what has been written on both sides of the question." —
Brooklyn lJ?iion-Argus.

THE DAWN OF HISTORY.
AN INTRODUCTION TO PRE-HISTORIC STUDY.
Edited by C. F. KEARY, M. A.,
OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

One Volume, 12mo., - - - $1.2 6.
This Twork treats successively of tbe earliest traces of man in the
remains discovered in caves or elsewhere in different parts of Europe ; of
language, its growth, and the story it tells of the pre-historic users of it ;
of the races of mankind, early social life, the religions, mythologies, and
folk-tales of mankind, and of the history of writing. A list of authorities
is appended, and an index has been prepared specially for this edition.

"The book maybe heartily recommended as probably the most"satisfactory summary
of the subject that there is." — Nation.
" A fascinating manual, without a vestige of the dullness usually chareed against
scientific works. ... In its way, the work is a model of what a popular scientific
work should be ; it is readable, it is easily understood, and its style is simple, yet dig
nified, avoiding equally the affectation of the nursery and of the laboratory."—
" ^ ¦" Boston Sat. Eve. Gazette.

*^* For sale by all booksellers, or sent, post-paid, upon receipt of
BNER'S SONS, Publishers,
743 AND 74S Broadway, New York.

price, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers,

A NEW EDITION.
Books and Reading.
BY
NOAH PORTER, LL.D., President of Yale College.
With an appendix giving valuable directions for courses of
readings prepared by James M. Hubbard, late
of the Boston Public Library.

1 vol., crown 8vo., - - - $2. GO.
It would be difficult to name any American better qualified
than President Porter to give advice upon the important
question of " What to Read and How to Read." His
acquaintance with the whole range of English literature is
most thorough and exact, and his judgments are eminently
candid and mature. A safer guide, in short, in all literary
«iatters, it would be impossible to find.

" The great value of the book Hes not in prescribing courses of reading, but in a
discussion of principles, which lie at the foundation of all valuable systematic reading."
— The Chris tiaft Standard.
"Young people who wish to know what to read and how to read it, or how to pyrsue
a particular course of reading, cannot do better than he^iii with this book, which is a
practical guide to the whole domain of literature, and is full of wise suggestions for the
improvement of the mind." — Philadelphia Bulletin.
"President Porter himself treats of all the leading departments of literature of course
with abundant knowledge, and with what is of equal importance to him, wiih a very
definite and serious purpose to be of service to inexperienced readers. There is no better
or more interesting book of its kind now within their reach." — Boston Advertiser.
*' President Noah Porter's ' Books and Reading ' is far the most practical and satis
factory treatise on the subject that has been published. It not only answers the qnestions
* What books shall I read ?' and ' How shall I read them? "" but it supplies a large and
well-arranged catalogue under appropriate heads, sufficient for a large family or a small
public \\hi3.ry:*— Boston Zion^s Herald.

%* For sale by all booksellers, or sent, post-paid.^ upon receipt of
price, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers,
743 AND 74S Broadway, New York.

The Theory of Preaching,
OK
LECTURES ON HOMILETICS.
By Professor AUSTIN PHELPS» D.D.

One volume, Svo, - - - _ _ $2. SO
This work, now offered to the public, is the growth of
more than thirty years' practical experience in teaching.
While primarily designed for professional readers, it will be
found to contain much that will be of interest to thoughtful
laymen. The writings of a master of style of broad and
catholic mind are always fascinating ; in the present case the
wealth of appropriate and pointed illustration renders this
doubly the case. CRITIC A I< NOTICES.
**In the range of Protestant homiletical literature, we venture to affirm that its equal
cannot be found for a conscientious, scholarly, and exhaustive treatment of the theory
and practice of preaching. * * * To the treatment of his subject Dr. Phelps brings
such gualifications as very few men now Hving possess. His is one of those dehcate and
sensitive natures which are instinctively critical, and yet full of what Matthew Arnold
happily calls sweet reasonableness. * * * To this characteristic graciousness of
nature Dr. Phelps adds a style which is preeminently adapted to his special work. It is
nervous, epigrammatic, and racy." — The Examiner and Chronicle.
"It is a wise, spirited, practical and devout treatise upon a topic of the utmost con
sequence to pastors ajid people alike, and to the salvation of mankind. It is elaborate
tut not redundant, rich m the fruits of experience, yet thoroughly timely and current,
and it easily takes the very first rank among volumes of its class. — The Congrega-
tioftalisi. "The layman will find it delightful reading, and ministers of all denominations and
of all degrees of experience will rejoice in it as a veritable mine of wisdom." — Neiv York
Christian Advocate.
"The volume is to be commended to young men as a superb example of the art in
which it aims to instruct them." — The Independent.
"The reading of it is a mental tonic. The preacher cannot but feel often his heart
burning within him under its infiuence. We could wish it might be in the hands of every
theological student and of every pastor." — The Watchjnan.
"Thirty-one years of experience as a professor of homiletics in a leading American
Theological Seminary by a man of genius, learning and power, are condensed into this
valuable volume."— Christian Intelligencer.
" Our professional readers will make a great mistake if they suppose this volume is
simply a heavy, monotonous discussion, chiefly adapted to the class-room. It is a
delightful volume for general reading." — Boston ZiotCs Herald.

*^* For sale by all booksellers., or sent., post-paid., upon receipt of
price., by
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers,
743 and 745 Broadway, New York.

Old Faiths in New Light
BY
NEWMAN SMYTH,
Author of ** The Religious Feeling,^''

One Volume, 12mo, cloth, - - _ $l.SO.

This work aims to meet a growing need by gathering materials of
faith which have been quarried by many specialists in their own depart
ments of Biblical study and scientific research, and by endeavoring to
put these results of recent scholarship together according to one leading
idea in a modern construction of old faith. Mr. Smyth's book is remark
able no less for its learning and w^ide acquaintance with prevailing modes
of thought, than for its fairness and judicial spirit.

CniTICAIi NOTICES,

"The author is logical and therefore clear. He also is master of a singularly
attractive literary style. Few writers, whose books come under our eye, succeed in
treating metaphysical and philosophical themes in a manner at once so forcible and so
interesting. We speak strongly about this book, because we think it exceptionally
valuable. It is just such a book as ought to be in the hands of all intelligent men and
women who have received an education sufficient to enable them to read intelligently
about such subjects as are discussed herein, and the number of such persons is very
much larger than some people think." — Congregationalist.
" We have before had occasion to notice the force and elegance of this writer, and
his new book shows scholarship even more advanced. * * * When we say, with
some knowledge of how much is undertaken by the saying, that there is probably no book
of moderate compass which combines in greater degree clearness of style with profundity
of subject and of reasoning, we fulfil simple duty to an author whose success is all die
more marked and gratifying from the multitude of kindred attempts with which we have
been flooded from all sorts of pens." — Presbyterian.
"The book impresses us as clear, cogent and helpful, as vigorous in style as it is
honest in purpose, and calculated to render valuable service in showing that religion and
science are not antagonists but allies, and that both lead up toward the one God. We
fancy that a good many readers of this volume will entertam toward the author a feeling
of sincere personal gratitude." — Boston Journal.
" On the whole, we do not know of a book which may better be commended to
thoughtful persons whose minds have been unsettled by objections of modem thought.
It will be found a wholesome work for every minister in the land to read."
— Examiner and Chronicle,
" It is a long time since we have met with an abler or fresher theological treatise
than Old Faiths in Neiv Lights by Newman Smyth, an author who in his work on
"The Religious Feeling" has already shown ability as an expounder of Christian
doctrine. " —Independent,

*#* For sale by all booksellers, or settt postpaid^ upon receipt of price^
CHART.ES SCRIBNER'S SONS,
Nos. 743 and 745 Broadway, New York.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08557 6131

''*^^<^^.(V <'/''''