BOOKS.
KUENEN'S HIBBERT LECTURES.* MERE is much to be said in favour of the custom which the Hilibert Trustees have followed, if they have not introduced it, of appointing to their Lectureship only those who have won their spurs. They have up to this time entrusted their work only to those who are universally acknowledged as masters in their respective subjects. Max Muller, Renan, Rhys Davids, and Kuenen are names to conjure with. There is this drawback, however, to the custom. From the masters we cannot expect— at least we do not get—anything now. We have the results of their studies set in a new form, and brought 'down to the level of a popular audience. Much is taken for granted, or substan- tiated by reference to former works from the same pen. To read a Hibbert lecture, is to read a catalogue of the conclu- sions formed by the lecturer, the grounds of which are to be sought in publications, some of which are books, but many of which • are scattered here and there in the pages of different periodicals. At the best, a Ffibbert lecture is an unsatisfactory sort of book. Nor is the work by Professor Kuenen an excep- tion. It is well indeed to have it, but he who reads must sur- round himself with the former writings of Professor Kuenen, some of which are translated into English, but most of them, alas remain in their native Dutch.
The theme of this lecture is "National Religions and Univer- sal Religions." The universal religions are Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. The task which the lecturer has set to himself is to show how these religions are universal or international, and in what way they became so. The parts of the book which refer to Islamism and Buddhism are of deep interest, and show that Professor Kuenen has been a diligent student of the recent literature. But he is conscious all the time that he is, in rela- tion to these religions, in the position of an amateur. He has not made the study of them the main work of his life. He there- fore speaks with modesty and with deference, while not afraid to indicate the opinion he has been led to form. We have found those lectures to be not the least interesting or instructive part of his book. But we do not mean to enter into any discussion of the questions raised in them. We can only say here that Professor Kuenen has indicated, in a way sufficient and ade- quate, the reasons why neither Islam nor Buddhism can claim the character of a truly universal religion.
Of the five lectures which make up the book, three are given to the consideration of the problems how did the religion of Israel become national, and how it became a universal religion. We assume the theory of Professor Kuenen to be so well known, that it is unnecessary for us to describe it in detail here. His work on The Religion of Israel has been accessible to the English reader for a considerable time. The present course of lectures is a masterly summary of the argument which he first set forth in the larger work. The first step he takes is to find out from the historical books of Scripture, and from the books of the prophets of the eighth century B.C., what the religion of Israel really was in the earlier periods of their history. The result he finds to be in flagrant contradiction to the view taken of that religion by the historians of Israel. Their evidence is, indeed, trustworthy for the times in which they write, but not for the times of which they write. The final editor of the Book of Kings applies a standard which was won only in connection with the reformation of Josiah, while the standard by which the Chronicler judges of the religion of his people was not attained until after the time of Ezra. The order of documents in the original services preserved in the historical documents, the prophets of the eighth century B.C., Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and as the final term of the development, the priestly Torah, and its result on Judaism. In Judaism, the life of the people did, in some measure, correspond with the standard of religion which they held to be binding on their * The HUM Lectures, 18S2 : Nation& Refigims tout Universal Religions. By A. Knouon, LL.D., D.D., Prafeenot of Theology at Leiden. London: William!, and Norg to.
conscience. The evidence in favour of this view is presented with rare felicity by Professor Kuenen. We have read and weighed that evidence with great care, and have also read what hasbeen written in favour of a corresponding view by Wellhausen, Smend, and others ; and have to say that, in our opinion, it is a theory which does not correspond to the facts, and fails to account for the facts. We find that the theory is brought to the facts, and the facts are tortured to make them fit the theory. What seems to make for it is raised to supreme importance, what makes against it is regarded with preternatural suspicion, or calmly branded as unhistorical. In speaking of the origin of priest- hood in Israel, Professor Kuenen says,—" 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 acknow- ledging the pre-exilian origin of this legislation,—an admission which, to my mind, makes any rational conception of the history of Israel's religious development impossible." (pp. 7849.) It is certainly a great thing to obtain a rational conception of the religious development of Israel. But it may be won at too great a cost. This conception makes the historical parts of the Pentateuch to be unhistorical. It fills the Books of Chronicles with manufactured genealogies. It makes all the psalms which recount the history of Israel to proceed on a false view, which false view is shared by Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It may be necessary to make this sacri- fice. But before we make it, we would do well to inquire whether our conception of what is rational is or is not sub- jective and arbitrary. Kuenen's conception of what is rational does not commend itself to Dillmann, Baudissin, or to Delitzsch. In truth, "conceptions of what is rational" play a large part in the constructive criticism of the Old Testament. Apart from this, we think that proof could easily be given that both the evidence brought forward and the method by which this evid- ence is won, are arbitrary in the extreme. The passages of scripture on which they lay stress do not necessarily mean what they make them to mean, while a candid examination of the contradictions which are said to arise when the Levitical legis- lation is held to be pre-Exilian, reveal the fact that these contra- dictions are themselves manufactured articles. Nothing is more surprising than the importance which is attached to Ezekiel by Professor Kuenen and others. Ezekiel is hold to be the father of Judaism. But we have never been able to find, from Kuenen or Smend, or from any other, any reasonable explanation of the fact that Ezekiel calls the priests the "Sons of Zadok." This name is intelligible on the supposition that the " sons of Zadok " was intended to distinguish one section of the "sons of Aaron" from another, as in the Levitical legislation the title "eons of Aaron" marks out a special portion of the sons of Levi. The reasonable explanation is that the broader distinction was the first in time, and on the footing of it the narrower distinction was made by Ezekiel. Nor has it been explained how the separation of Levi as the priestly tribe, which is represented in Ezekiel as a punishment and a degradation, should come to be regarded in the priestly legisla- tion as an honour and a reward. Still further, it has not been explained how, on the assumption that the legislation of Ezekiel was intended to be practical, only this one minute point ever came to practical fruition.
The priestly Torah it was, on this view, however, which pro- duced the phenomenon of Judaism. Under its influence, the Jewish people fenced itself round with a host of regulations which tended to separate them more and more from the sur- rounding nations :
"In Judea 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 idea. Finally, in the year 458 B.C., the conception seems to be ripe for realisation, and in Judea 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 the moment was come for realising his plans. The priestly law was read aloud, and the whole people solemnly accepted and swore to observe it. jndeism was established." (p. 156.)
The increasing power of the priest is an assumption for which there is no authority. The successors of Ezekiel are ideal per- sons, existing only in the imagination of Professor Kuenen, and, • of course, are utterly unknown to history ; while as to the prac- tice in Judea, and the elaboration of the theory to correspond in
Babylonia, it may be true or not, simply because neither Pro- fessor Kuenen nor we have any means of knowing. The theory thus elaborated in Babylonia was brought to Palestine, and somehow, having been made to correspond with the prac- tice, was read aloud to the people, who swore to observe it. It was the priestly Torah. We should expect that this priestly law, which the people swore to observe, would appear in the fore- front, and allusions to it would abound in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; we actually find, however,. that allusions to the peculiarities of the priestly law are conspicuous by their absence. Professor Kuenen is himself an unconscious wit,- ness to the fact that the watchword of Judaism is not exclusively found in the Levitical legislation. For " separa- tion " is that watchword. And the point to which the people pledged themselves was not to give their daughters to the sons of the land, nor to take the daughters of the land to wife. This, and the proper observance of the Sabbath, were the two chief points in the covenant by which the people bound themselves. Now, these two occur in a body of laws which do, not belong to the Levitical legislation, and which no one doubts to be pre-Exilic. (Ex. xxxiv.) It is strange that the watchword of the priestly Torah should be taken from a body of laws outside of the priestly Torah itself, and passing strange that the note of Judaism should be found not in the priestly Torah, but in a law which reaches back to the very earliest stratum of Hebrew history. If we were to follow the example of Professor Kue- nen and use his method, we should be constrained to hold that the laws of Ex. xxxiv. must be subsequent to the time of Ezra, and arose out of the drastic action taken by him and Nehemiah in relation to the custom of marriage with the heathen, and the observance of the Sabbath. Such a conclusion would play sad havoc with the theory of Professor Kuenen. But it would be a more legitimate inference than that which infers the non-existence of the Levitical legislation up to the, time of Ezra. For the conduct of Israel with respect to heathen marriage is in "flagrant contradiction" to the law of Ex. xxxiv., and yet this is acknowledged to be one of the most ancient books of law which the Hebrews had. The only legitimate inference is the suggestion of a doubt as to the competency of a method which lands us in such strange results.
Other reasons for regarding Professor Kuenen's solution of the problem as inadequate and one-sided crowd in upon us. But we must leave the further statement of them to the theo- logical journals. We may say, however, that the whole subject deserves a more serious treatment than it has yet received in our land. Up to the present time, the discussion has been sorely hampered by dogmatic considerations. If the question is to be seriously discussed, it must be treated purely as one of historical science, and students of it must prepare themselves to accept as the solution of the problem that hypothesis which will best account for and explain all the facts. And our objec- tion to Professor Krienen's theory is simply that it fails to account for the facts, that it thrusts the facts aside, or calmly assumes them to be fictions. He does not explain how the religion of Israel became intensely national. If his treatment of the question of the origin of Judaism is one-sided, his treatment of how it became a universal religion is even less satisfactory. But this is too large a question for us to touch at the present time. We shall only say, that while there is in it much which is valuable, much rare information, and many valuable contri- butions to the history of the period from Ezra to the time of Christ, his description of the transition from Judaism to Christ- ianity reads like a description of the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. The nearest historical parallel we know is Gibbon'e famous account of the spread of Christianity, and his memor- able reasons, which explained nothing, and left the problem
utterly unsolved. _
Previous page
