GIFT OF Mrs. Gladys Isaacson JUDAISM CHRISTIANITY AND THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS BY G. GEORGE FOX TEMPLE BETH EL 1919 MONITOR PUBLISHING COMPANY FORT WORTH, TEXAS COPYRIGHT 1918 BY THE MONITOR PRESS FORT WORTH TEXAS "W,, 3K]ft J ftjfeisufaHfe *.** .^ ''.. * > * A .1 , * DEDICATED TO MY PARENTS WHOSE SACRIFICES, AND TO MY WIFE WHOSE DEVOTION, EXEM- PLIFY SOME OF THE IDEALS SET FORTH IN THIS WORK M18310 PREFACE Within the last quarter of a century a large number of books has been written dealing with the life of Jesus, his ethics and their relation to our social ideals. Here in America, works of which the "Social Teach- ings of Jesus," and "Christianity and the Changing Order," by Prof. Shailer Mathews ; "Christianity and the Social Crisis," by Prof. Rauschenbusch, and "Jesus Christ and the Moral Question," by Prof. Peabody, are the best types, have rightly shifted the emphasis of Christianity from the dogmatic to the social and ethical side. In his "Social Teachings," Prof. Mathews has sounded the proper note, for in these days, religion must be socialized to be vital. But from a perusal of this literature, one is made to feel that Christianity alone is to be credited with the best of our social ideals. One cannot find fault with Christian scholars for their magnificent allegiance to what they believe to be the ideals of their Master. But one looks in vain for an adequate evaluation of the tremendous influence of Judaism upon both the ancient and the modern life. Surely the Jewishness of Jesus himself played some part in the growth and development of our present day social ideals ! 8 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND The following pages have been written be- cause the writer believes that Judaism has been overlooked in the consideration of those forces which influence and refine modern life. He believes that most of the teachings of Jesus are as Jewish as those of any well- known teacher of the post-biblical writings. He believes that our present day social ideals are Jewish, and that many would agree with him if the information to substantiate this were at hand. No one can deny that there is need for an exposition of the Jewish teachings and their relation to those of Jesus. Men are desirous to learn and a spirit of fair-mindedness is abroad. Works of this sort abound in Europe, in America they are extremely scarce. The ideals of Jesus, however, have found exposi- tion in many volumes ; to compare the Jewish ideals with these, and to answer too, the ques- tion of the attitude of liberal Jews towards their ancient co-religionist a question asked many times of the writer is the task of this work. That these pages may to some extent clear up the misunderstanding with regard to an- cient Judaism and its influence on modern life, is the fervent hope of the writer. I desire to express my thanks here to the late Prof. George Burman Foster of the Uni- versity of Chicago, and to Dr. Louis Gross- man of the Hebrew Union Teachers' College, THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS Cincinnati, for reading the manuscript of this work, and for the encouragement which they gave me; to my friend and colleague, Rabbi David Rosenbaum of the Austin Temple and the University of Texas, for his painstaking assistance and for his suggestions; and to Miss Ethel Fox for assistance in preparing the manuscript for the press. G. G. F. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface 7 Chapter I The New Testament Sources 13 Chapter II Post-Biblical Jewish Ideals 47 Chapter III Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Ideals 79 Chapter IV The Jewish Ideals and the New Testament 118 The Fatherhood of God 122 The Brotherhood of Man and Brotherly Love 138 Social Justice 157 Individual Righteousness 179 Charity 204 Peace 211 Chapter V The Attitude of Liberal Jews To- wards Jesus 226 Abbreviations 265 Notes 267 Index . ..281 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS CHAPTER I. The New Testament Sources The works mentioned in the introductory remarks, and their kind, are the results of the studies of some who believe that the pres- ent day social ideals have their source almost wholly in the New Testament, and in tfie teachings of the Man of Nazareth. These books deal in the main with the social teach- ings of this leader whom their authors regard as the greatest teacher of mankind. They see him as the ideal, divine man, and by project- ing his life into our own times, they hold it up as a standard so perfect that if imitated by all, there could be no room for the social in- equalities which spring up through human shortcomings and human wickedness. Their knowledge of the life and deeds of Jesus they obtain Wholly from the New Testament writ- ings or from sources even later. The gospels 14 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND in particular form the sources upon which the life of Jesus is constructed. In the following chapters we shall not at- tempt to deny to Christianity any influence that rightly came from it. But we are not ready to admit that the modern social ideals are the fruits of the New Testament, and are the sole and original contributions of Jesus. Nor will we agree that the New Testament writings form an historical source reliable and authoritative enough to create either for Jesus or against Judaism certain assumptions which many non-Jewish scholars are in the habit of making. We believe that the modern social ideals are the fruitage of other and stronger forces of which Jesus was only a part, and we shall endeavor to show that the ethics of this teacher were part and parcel of Jewish thought and life previous to, contem- porary with, and subsequent to, his days, be- cause there was a continuity in Judaism after the early Biblical and post-Biblical contribu- tions, which was not influenced at all by early Christianity. There was from the days of Israel's earliest teachers a continuous stream of ethical thought and teaching, and of this Jesus drank deep. He was a child of his day, 1 a Jew of his time, 2 and a preacher of a com- mon type of Judaism of his time. To confirm this statement, we shall bring forth evidence not only from the Biblical sources, but from THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 16 the teachings and the traditions which were common before and after the advent of the daughter religion, and which now form that important literature known as the Apocry- pha, Pseudepigrapha, Misnah, Midrash, and Talmud. And we shall in the closing chap- ter attempt to sum up the reasons why Jews, acquainted with their history, their litera- ture and their religion, cannot accept Jesus either as Messiah, Redeemer and Savior, or as the Perfect and Sinless Man of history. In citing the teachings of Jesus as histori- cal and authoritative one ought to be careful not to overlook a very important factor. If, for instance, we want to know what Wash- ington said in his farewell address, or what Lincoln said in his Gettysburg speech, we need not ask any one or put any faith in hearsay evidence. We need only to refer to an authentic edition of their works. These have been carefully and authoritatively edit- ed and therefore are reliably historical sources of what these leaders said and did. The rules of conduct of George Washington have their value as a character-building agency at a certain period in a child's life. If men desire to verify these, reference to his written works will set them aright. The same is true of Abraham Lincoln. Many a legend has been spun by his former neighbors and fellow-citizens. Stories of what he believed and how he practiced Law, 16 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND have had their rounds. Some of the things heard about him seemed altogether true, until reference to his biography and writ- ings proved them mythical. But the matter to consider here is that when a controversy arises as to what Lincoln did say and what he did do, a study of any of the excellent bi- ographies will give us ample and certain data. This is true of other men who have left their impress upon the world. Not all they said and did is published. But the important contributions of their lives those which in- fluenced generations and times, can be found by those who look for them, and they are re- corded in indisputable records. Sometimes partisan bitterness and sectional prejudices blind writers to the virtues and magnify the vices of those about whom they write. But time corrects such injustices and after the heat of partisan struggles cools down and dispassionate judgment obtains, the truth is seen and thus recorded. The great princi- ples of America's early leaders are thus known because of authoritative transmis- sion; but it is just the lack of authoritative transmission that makes the alleged produc- tions of the world's early teachers historical- ly questionable. Much that we have may have been the instruction of great teachers ; but much that we have under their names, was given in their names. And this distinc- tion is a very important one. THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 17 In considering the precepts and teachings of Jesus, we must not forget that he himself did 3 not* write 6 one word or syllable of that Which now we call the New Testament. We can go much further and say that there are many great Biblical scholars who deny that even the apostles wrote what is purported in the New Testament books and their con- temporary writings to have come either from his mouth or theirs. The greatest of all of Jesus' followers, Paul, not only did not know him, but did not become a follower of the Jesus cult until after the death of Jesus. As it was then not the custom to write down the teachings and discourses, except in the cases of a few rabbinical teachers, Jesus himself never wrote down, nor did his immediate dis- ciples write, what he said and taught. This was transmitted orally to his followers. The different ways in which 'his words could have been understood and in which they af- fected his hearers, men and women of vari- ous shades of thought and education, and from various surroundings, can be in a larg-e measure judged from the varying opinions expressed by a crowd which hears a lecture or sermon and yet has a number of different interpretations. It has been the lot of many a preacher to have to refer to his written manuscript in order to correct a false im- pression upon an auditor. One who has his eyes open to the experience of everyday life 18 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND need not be told how oral statements are kneaded, molded and changed by individual experience, until they are hardly recognized by him who originally uttered them. The thoughts thrown out to us by others are af- fected by our personal experience in the same manner that white light seen through col- ored lenses is affected by the coloring of the glass. Just as the light colored by the lens is no longer the white light, but the colored, so someone else's idea heard by us may no longer be his, but our idea of his idea. This process of change through transmission is a very important element in the evaluation of the teachings of Jesus, especially so since there are so many contradictions and incon- sistencies in the records that we have of them. Indeed many have thought that the New Testament points to at least two per- sonalities by that name. One would have to give an exposition of the content of the New Testament in order to bring out fully what is said above. It is 'hardly the province of these pages to do that; yet a short sketch of the writings themselves giving briefly their content, au- thorship and date are necessary to bring out our contention. We believe that a very short summary will not be amiss. It will not be out of place to repeat that neither Jesus 7 nor any of the apostles 8 ever wrote any of the works treasured by the THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 19 church. This is the verdict of the greatest New Testament scholars, and While it is known within the student circles, it is not known among the world at large, nor will it be so easily believed. Jesus died in the year 30 of the present era, and the early New Testament records did not assume a canonical or privileged form until the second half of the second cen- tury. This ought not to be lost sight of. The writings now included in what is called the New Testament, a term by the way, which did not come into use until long after the writings had been collected, were the works of early Jewish-Christian teachers, and were certainly never intended to be unique in character or inspired. They were written for the purpose of instruction, encourage- ment, historical knowledge and help in the ecclesiastical controversies, and were gradu- ally collected as the church grew in numbers and influence, and began to feel the need of a historical basis and an authoritative tradi- tion. The influence of the Old Testament at that time must not be overlooked. As long as there were differences between the Jews and the Christians; as long as Judaism had an authoritative source to which to refer; as long as the question of the Messiahship was in dispute, and as long as the earlier Christians based the Messianic pretensions of Jesus upon the Old Testament prophesies, so long 20 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND was there necessity for a collection of au- thoritative writings; and when such a col- lection once was vested with authority, the church traditions continued and enhanced it, although the writers of these documents, just like the writers of some of the Old Testament books, never knew what the fate of their productions would be. And as the church developed, the collection grew in im- portance until at the time of the first church councils, it included a number of books, and was decisively stamped as the Revealed Word of God to the Church. If one judged the New Testament by the attitude displayed towards it by the greater part of Christendom, one would expect to find a work of unity of purpose, unity of tra- dition, and agreement of historical incidents. We expect a revelation to be absolute; and we should have a right to expect that a work which 'has been held up as the Revealed Word, would not contain contradictions, an- tagonistic points of view, and unauthenticat- ed superscriptions. The Christian world can easily believe that the authority of the Old Testament and its claim to Revelation were undermined when the higher criticism point- ed out the utter lack of its unity, the imposs- ibility of much of its alleged authorship, and its overwhelming diversity of thought, lan- guage, style and points of view. But when the higher criticism found exactly the same de- THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 21 : ' !| . - - ; - f ects in the New Testament by applying the same canons of criticism, the point of view with regard to it did not change materially, and in the minds of those who easily and sat isfiedjy accept the results of the Old Testa- ment criticism, those of the New, find no lodgment. 10 It will perhaps shock the average reader to know that there are seven different ar- rangements of the New Testament Canon known to criticism. There are even seven different arrangements of the gospels them- selves. John is first in many versions. No one has yet succeeded in discovering just why the gospels are arranged in their pres- ent order, though many reasons have been advanced. Here a sentence may be quoted from the foremost English New Testament scholar: "The division and arrangement of the gospels thus appear to have been deter- mined partly on chronological grounds, part- ly from considerations of internal value and even size, partly from ecclesiastical ideas of the author's rank and partly from arbitrary fancies, or, at any rate, from what seem ar- bitrary and unintelligible to a modern." 11 It is not a salutary commentary on some mod- erns who accept as divine and absolute that which to the best trained minds in that par- ticular field appears "arbitrary and unintelli- gible." The amazing credulity which character- 22 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND izes the modern preacher who walks up and down his pulpit and shouts in & fit of ecstatic devotion, "I believe this Holy Book from cover to cover," can be judged only by those who know something of the diversity of the sources and the accounts of the New Testa- ment. That faith must indeed be deep which will put implicit trust into a work of some twenty-seven parts, not one of which is def- initely known to be historical and authorita- tive. The very earliest fragments have not even come down whole, and there are repre- sented in the writings of the New Testament something like twenty other works or sources. This is the verdict not of Jewish scholarship, but of Christian research. 12 Would the logic of the matter not demand that every source from which a sentence in the New Testament is taken should likewise be a revelation from the Most High? And would this not then be true also of the works like the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Ben Sirach, The Testaments of the Twelve Patri- archs, the Book of Enoch, or others which not only contain ideas and teachings no less beautiful and no less exalted than many of those of the New Testament, but which are among its very sources? Is it generally known that the writers of different parts of the newer canon knew and used expressions, thoughts and teachings not only from the books just mentioned, but also from the As- THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 23 cension of Isaiah, Book of Jubilees, Apoc- alypse of Baruch, Assumption of Moses, Book of Eldad and Medad, Testament of Job, Tobit, Judith, Second Maccabees, the sup- posed Apocalypse of Jeremiah, the Ahikar traditions, the works of Philo, Josephus, and another work that has been identified as the Flakes of Ecclesiasticus ? The content of the New Testament does not lose in value be- cause it is a collection of ideas, some of which are original and some of which had already found expression elsewhere; but the theory of their divine inspiraton does, and the time has come when every thoughtful person ought to know and consider the Bible in the light of its historical and literary develop- ment. In these days, they who presume ta lead ought not to be satisfied with knowing merely the contents of the Book ; they ought to know the contents in their relation to their sources, growth, and contemporary litera- ture. We ought to know something of the manner in which these writings were com- posed and evolved ; we ought to know the cir- cumstances under which they were written, and the objects which brought them forth. We ought to know that the early Christians and the Jews, too, had no hesitancy in alter- ing Biblical texts, especially those from the Septuagint, to suit their purposes, and that often the Hebrew was peculiarly collocated and changed in order to fit the point in contro- 24 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND versy. There is abundant evidence that the copyists did not hesitate not only to add la- ter details which they thought important for their purposes, but also to delete such matter as they deemed harmful to their cause. Tra- ditions were reworked and re-edited and in- terpolations and expansions were common. "Tracts and letters were written in the names of apostles to give them authority, and as early as ithe second half of the second century the authenticity of the then New Testament writings was so much in doubt that Marcion, a Christian of that day, was accused of falsifying the gospel. A number of copies of the gospels existed, but there was widespread diversity among them. In view of this looseness and lack of uni- formity, it would perhaps not be out of place to run hastily over the books of the New Tes- tament and see what results their study have brought forth with regard to the time of their probable composition, their content, and their purpose. There is no unanimity of opin- ion among scholars, and there is little likeli- hood that there ever will be. The results that follow will be bitterly disappointing to those who have been accustomed to regard the canon as something of a finished product given by the Almighty to the founders and early expositors of the newer faith. Although the letters of Paul are in reality the earlier and more authoritative of the THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 25 fragments of that literature which later be- came the New Testament, the gospels, or the writings based on the sayings and tradi- tional doings of Jesus occupy the first place in the canon. The reason for this is, of course, the importance of Jesus. We will here take the books in their present canon- ical order and show briefly what modern re- search has to tell us about their develop- ment, time of composition, and their authen- ticity. A few words of general character ought to be said about the Synoptic Gospels, or those which give a similar synopsis of the life of Jesus, that is, the first three gospels of the New Testament. These are all works com- piled from other sources. Not one is an orig- inal document which records or transcribes the words or teachings of Jesus or the apos- tles. Matthew and Luke are believed to have had Mark as a basis, though this has not yet been accepted by all scholars. Some scholars say that there was an original oral gospel that became the basis for the later gospels, but this is opposed on the grounds of the va- riations in the gospels which cannot be ac- counted for. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the first gospel was written in He- brew or Aramaic. Some think that Mark wrote his gospel from an Aramaic source and that Luke then used both the source and 26 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND Mark. Matthew, they believe, was then later written, combining Luke and Mark as a gos- pel for the Jews, while the earlier ones circu- lated among the non-Jewish Christians. There are some who say that there was an original Hebrew Matthew even before Mark, and that the present gospel of that name was based upon the gospel of Mark, which had earlier been based upon this original Hebrew Matthew. The uncertainty of the succession of these traditions is due largely to the fact that the early Christian sources were dealt with in a careless manner by later writers, careless from our historical point of view; there was not that reverence for authorship that we have, and tampering had become a literary 'habit. Says Dr. Moffat: "The earliest traditions extant upon the origin of the gospels, i. e., the fragmentary remarks of John the Presbyter quoted from Papias," the Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, who lived in the first half of the second century, by Eusebius, the first great church histor- ian, who was born about 260, "show that no stereotyped official gospel was known to the memory of the sub-apostolic age. The first shapes which loom out of the mist are two documents roughly corresponding to the gos- pels of Mark and Matthew." Perhaps a quo- tation from Papias regarding the account of Mark, may be interesting: ""Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, wrote down accur- THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 27 ately, though not in order, all that he REC- OLLECTED of What Christ had said or done. For he was not a hearer of his Lord nor a follower of his ; he followed Peter, as I have said, -at a later date and Peter adapted his instructions to practical needs without any attempt to give the Lord's words systematic- ally. So that Mark was not wrong in writ- ing down some things in this way from mem- ory, for his one concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything he had heard." About Matthew, Papias says : "So then Mat- thew composed the Logia in the Hebrew lan- guage, and every one interpreted them as he was able." It seems to us that it would be straining a good deal to ask people to believe in a document, the author of which we would be told was, say, Lincoln, but which was not written until thirty-five to fifty years after his death, and written by one who was not a follower of his, nor -a hearer, but who heard what he wrote from another who followed Lincoln at an earlier date. Hard to believe as this would be of a recent work, how much more difficult is it to put faith in the authen- ticity of documents written nearly 1800 years ago, and based on hearsay. If the ancients did not use any historical sense, it was because they did not have it; but we have it ; it hardly becomes us not to use it. Modern criticism has reached the conclu- sion that the synoptic gospels are based upon 28 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND two probable original sources, the Ur-Mar- cus, or the source upon which the gospel of Mark is thought to have been based, and the "Q, or the source which was the work of a Jewish Christian who based his record not only upon that of Mark but also upon what is known as the Matthean Logia. Luke, on the other hand, uses not only the Ur-Marcus and the Q, but also other sources Which he thought were for his purpose as authoritative and as important as these two. Both Luke and Matthew omit material which Mark contains, and this leads many critics to be- lieve that the Mark of the present canon is a smaller book than was the original after which the other gospels were planned. Is it not strange that after the conflicting testi- mony of the greatest biblical scholars and critics ; after the dearth of literature which could throw some light and thus enable us to reach certain conclusions about these books ; after the utter inability to prove with a moderate degree of 'historical evidence the authenticity of the various books of the canon, millions still believe, and other mil- lions are asked to believe, in the absolute truth and historicity of the Book and the characters in it? Is it not just a bit pre- sumptious to ask men of the twentieth cen- tury to believe this, when contemporary acts and records or those within recent centuries are subject to the closest historical scrutiny? THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 29 16 The Gospel of Matthew, the first in the present canon, is so called, not from the fact that the apostle by that name wrote it, for he did not ; the book probably takes its name from the fact that it contains more of the original Mathean sayings. This gospel, in spite of its anti-Pharisaic outbursts, is more Jewish than any of the others and shows every evidence of having been written by a Jewish-Christian. Whether or not the present work is a translation from a Hebrew or an Aramaic document, is not known; but its tone is much more sympathetic and its atti- tude much more friendly than any of the other gospels. The earliest date for the com- position of Matthew is given as about forty years after the death of Jesus ; in its present form the date has been placed between 75 and 90, but many place it later, and some as late as 140. There is no agreement as to the date. Is it likely that the teachings of Jesus remained intact, and that they have not been changed, especially when we realize that the present gospel is the work of editors who rewrote the supposed original Mathean Logia several times after years of transmission by word of mouth? It will perhaps be of interest to know that at least two layers of tradition, and probably three, can be found in this gospel, viz: The Jewish, the Jewish-Christian, and the anti- Jewish. The earliest passages, i. e., the Jew- 30 JUDAISM, CHKISTIANITY AND ish, are doubtless the ones which are nearest to the sentiments uttered by Jesus ; the Jew- ish-Christian passages are those Which form- ed the bulk of the Q source, while the dis- tinctively anti-Jewish passages are the work of the later or latest editors, who, influenced against Jews and Judaism, gave vent to his or their feelings in the final edition which has come down to us; certainly Jesus him- self has never given any evidence of antag- onism to Jews; for the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" must have been dear to him ; it was for them that he came to "fulfill the law, not to destroy it." It was only in the years of the strife between Judaism and growing Christianity that that bitterness crept in which is at the same time anti-Jew- ish and unlike Jesus. For while he might have shared the well-known rabbinical dis- like for the several classes of hypocritical Pharisees, he could never have judged all the Pharisees or all the Jews by the actions of these. It must be a more than difficult problem for a diligent, thoughtful and sin- cere student of the Bible to be able to decide which elements are revelations of God, and which are fulminations of angry and unjust partisans. The Gospel of Mark, which is the oldest of the synoptics, is thought by scholars to be based largely on the original Marcan or Ur- Marcus source. It is a worked-over document, THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 31 edited by an anti-Jewish Paulinist redactor. Mark says nothing of the ancestry, birth and childhood of Jesus. His interest seems to be fixed on the actual life and death of the teacher. The supernatural healing powers of Jesus are strongly depicted, and while Mat- thew knows Jesus primarily as a preacher and teacher, he is to Mark a preacher, teach- er and the powerful exerciser of evil spirits : it is this last power which gives him a special claim to the Messiahship. The present Mark is also based upon Mark's draft of the Peter reminiscences, though it represents now both a later edition of an earlier work or works, and traces of two or three different sources. It contains Pauline elements which it could not have contained had it been the product solely of Mark's version of the Petrtne material. Some critics detect in this gospel an Ara- maic original or originals, the former of which was later translated into Greek, and in which the supernatural powers of Jesus as Messiah are brought out. Then a later redactor brings this work down to its pres- ent canonical form, embodying in it certain dogmatic elements which had become char- acteristic of the growing church. The date of Mark is as unsettled as that of the other synoptics. The best critics of the day place it at between 70 and 130 of the 32 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND present era. The most likely date seems to be between 70 and 90. Here we are again moved to ask which of the strata or sources of this gospel are to bear the seal of divine revelation? Is it to be the Ur-Marcus; the Aramaic sources, the work of the Paulinist anti-Jewish Redactor, or the whole gospel as edited by a final editor at the end of the first century or in the be- ginning of the second, and containing at the very end an apocryphal quotation to give a literary ending to the book? The Third Gospel, written in scholarly Greek, starts out as a compilation of several traditions and narratives concerning the life of Jesus. The author, Luke, says he was not an eye-witness of the events he is about to narrate; he seems to have prepared himself by consulting the narratives and oral tradi- tions known in his day. He says nothing of revelation or divine guidance. He lays no claim to any supernatural influence. He sim- ply writes to his friend, Theophilus, what he thinks is an historical account of the new sect and tries in this account to harmonize as well as he can the oft conflicting contents of the different traditions and sources at his command. The author uses Mark exten- sively, as also Matthew, and very probably other gospels now lost. Luke contains sev- eral events not mentioned in the other syn- optic accounts. Among these are the an- THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 33 nouncement of the birth of John the Baptist, the prediction of the birth of Jesus, the visit of Mary to Elizabeth, and the boyhood 'of Jesus, which of course has no historically authenticated basis, and is similar to the story of Samuel and to that of many other mythical and historical religious founders. In this non-Jewish gospel Jesus is repre- sented more than in the others as a friend of the sinners, the poor, and the downfallen. Contrary to the other synoptics, Luke em- phasizes Jerusalem as the center of the ac- tivity of Jesus and his disciples. The date of this gospel, like that of the others, is a matter of dispute. It is probably the latest of the synoptic gospels, yet there is no definite date assigned to it, the date varying from 54 to 130 after Jesus. Conser- vative scholarship places it at about 100. The Fourth Gospel, an attempt to harmon- ize the dogmas of growing Christianity with Alexandrian Jewish philosophy, was written for the purpose of showing the life of Jesus to have been "an episode in the external ex- istence of the Logos." He was in fact the Logos. The gospel contains several definite strata of thought, viz: Old Testament, Pau- linist, Philonic, Gnostic and Stoic. It differs from the other gospels decisively in so far as in it Jesus loses a great deal of that hu- manness which characterizes him in the syn- optics. As the Logos, he is above human- 34 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND kind ; in fact, according to St. John, Jesus be- comes transcendental and his mysteriousness becomes marked. The author maintains a certain consistency in this work and in ac- cordance with his conception of Jesiis, this teacher is made to know his own life, his mis- sion and his death. He is made to act inde- pendently of human relationships, and to the end he remains what he was at the begin- ning of the gospel, a superhuman creature an incarnation of the author's philosophical abstraction God incarnate. The writer of this gospel loses no oppor- tunity to impress the reader with the divine messiahship of Jesus and his relation to God as His son. This appears from the earliest acts of Jesus recorded here, and in this re- spect, John differs from the other gospels. He does not make Jesus feel himself grow- ing; there is no development of the messi- anic consciousness within him; he comes as the Logos or the manifestation of the Logos, and demonstrates this by his marvelous acts. The author of the gospel uses the story of the raising of Lazarus to show the divine power of Jesus. Here the dead is raised four days after death, when he had already been committed to the grave. In the case of the restoration to life, viz., that of the widow's son at Nain," death must have occurred only a few 'hours before the procession was seen by Jesus and the disciples, as it was the cus- THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 35 torn among the early Jews to bury as soon as possible after dissolution. In the case of the daughter of Jairus also, the child was at the point of death, or, as according to Matthew, 'had just died. In both of these cases life had been restored almost immediately after death. But in the story of Lazarus, the su- preme power of Jesus is brought out under the circumstances already stated. And this is in keeping with that gospel conception of Jesus. The author of the Fourth Gospel probably knew the synoptics. That he was acquainted with the gospel of Mark is certain. For he follows this except where it suits his pur- pose to depart from it, or where he has a tradition which seems more adapted to his conception of Jesus. That there are con- tradictions between this gospel and the oth- ers, is accounted for by the fact that its au- thor was acquainted with gospel traditions then known but now lost, which he incorpor- ated into his text. Who the author of this piece of -ancient mysticism was, criticism has not yet been able to determine. John the Presbyter is not the only one to whom its authorship has been assigned; it is pretty well agreed that he has even less claim than the others wfto have been proposed. Whoever did edit it, used the name "John" for reasons already men- tioned. The author was probably a Jewish 36 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND Christian who was neither an eye-witness of the events which he described nor an inhab- itant of the places where the acts he speaks of took place. The discrepancies between this gospel and the others point to this con- clusion. But whoever the writer was, he had come under the spiritualizing influence of Alexandrian Jewish philosophy, Gnosticism, and Pauline theology, and these he incorpor- ated into Christian traditions so skillfully that modern criticism has been unable to un- ravel his work. Chapter XXI is a Galilean addition which was appended by some one long after the original had been completed and finally edited. The date of the gospel is placed somewhere between 110 and 130 and by some as late as 170, while the additional chapter is dated between 150 and 185. We know little about the Acts of the Apos- tles that can be called authentic. Luke may have written them, but what their basis was we do not know. They seem to contain ele- ments from documents which have been lost, and the authenticity of which can only be assumed. There are some who believe that Acts is based upon an original which was the sequel to the Ur-Marcus, while some main- tain that the original source was -a Jewish- Christian document. This, it is believed, was worked over by Luke, and into it were incorporated supernatural events and anec- dotes which he drew from popular Christian THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 37 traditions. These he might have colored and exaggerated to some extent. Critics dis- cern in this work parts of a larger one, but its identification has not yet been establish- ed. All that we can say is that Luke prob- ably wrote Acts as we have it; and that the book is based upon lost sources which con- tained popular traditions and even Mid- rashic elements. The purpose of this docu- ment seems to have been the bringing about of a reconciliation between the Jewish Chris- tians and the Gentile Christians, who were being divided because of the rivalry between the followers of Peter and those of Paul. The date of the Acts is given as between 100 and 125 years after Jesus. We have given a very short summary of the principal literature of the New Testa- ment, and that which bears directly on the life and doings of Jesus. For the sake of completion, however, we deem it wise to cite in as short form as possible, the latest results of criticism with regard to the authorship and date of the other books of the New Tes- tament. They too, are important for our purpose, as their unauthoritativeness and historical uncertainty will strengthen our contention with regard to the inherent weakness of the newer covenant. The "correspondence of Paul is the most historical of all New Testament literature. The epistles which are supposedly genuinely 38 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND Pauline date from the latter part of the ac- tivity of Paul, but they have been worked over and re-edited, and their autographs had disappeared as early as the first quarter of the second century. The Epistles to the Cor- inthians are dated about 60. The letters to the Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans, are dated about the same time. Doubt cen- ters about the first fifteen chapters of Ro- mans, some maintaining that they were the original of Paul's letter. Concerning the editorial changes in this epistle, there is a question as to whether they were made by Paul himself or by a later Pauline writer. The first Thessalonians is by some regarded even as a pseudonymous epistle of a post- Pauline origin. It is mentioned by the church fathers who wrote during the early part of the second century, and this would indicate that this espistle did not originate much later than the first century. Second Thessalonians is believed to be a Paulinist's work based on the First Thessalonians, and is placed between 70 and 110. Others regard it as a second century product, but the work of a Paulinist who worked over a pre-Chris- tian Jewish apocalypse. The present Ephesians is believed to be a revised and re-edited form of an original let- ter of the apostle. But both this epistle and Colossians could have been written by the same hand, that of some later Paulinist who THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 39 used Paul's name just as did Luke in com- posing the Pauline speeches in Acts. The epistle seems to have been a tract pleading for union among dissenting Christians. Its date ranges from about 62 to 85 of the pres- ent era, but it has been placed by some scholars -as late as the second century. About the date of Colossians, too, there is uncertainty. The conservative scholars say Paul wrote the epistle in or about 62, while advanced critics assign it also to the second century. Timothy I and II, and Titus are grouped together and are supposedly Pauline pamph- lets or tracts to those who were skeptical of Paul's authority. If these contain Pauline sources they have been so worked over that it is difficult to find them. The writer of these wrote in Paul's name, as did so many others, and sank his individuality into that of Paul's. These epistles are dated between 90 and 120 of the present era. Philemon is a letter written by Paul while he was a prisoner, at about 62. It contains nothing of originality and is a personal let- ter from the apostle fo a Christian friend. This date is also disputed by the critics. According to the latest research, "Paul neither wrote nor had anything to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nor was it writ- ten to the Hebrews at all ; it was sent to gen- tile Christians and its authorship is un- 40 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND known. As early as the third century its authorship was disputed, some maintaining that Paul wrote it, others that Luke was the author. Scholars maintain that the former did not write it because of the religious con- tents and character of the document. Clem- ent of Rome, and Barnabas were anciently proposed as authors, and not until the fourth century did it become known as Pauline. Modern critics are also divided as to author- ship, this being claimed for Apollos, Silas or Silvanus both companions of Paul, Peter, Philip of Caesarea, Aristion, who is the alleg- ed author of a portion of Mark (16:9-20); and even others. The author cannot be iden- tified definitely with any figure of tradition. The epistle was not directed to Jewish Chris- tians alone, but to all Christians, and its title is erroneous and 20 "was probably added to the epistle during the earlier part of the sec- ond century, as a reflection of the impression made upon the mind of a generation which had lost all direct knowledge of the writing's origin and standpoint." The date of the epistle is placed at between 63 and 118 after Jesus. James is probably based upon an address delivered in Jerusalem. It is somewhat con- tradictory to the theology of Paul, approach- ing very closely the rabbinical idea that deed rather than faith, is the more important ele- ment in religion. It is one of the latest of the THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 41 New Testament books to become canonical, this taking place near the end of the fourth century. The epistle was not written by James, the brother of Jesus and the head of the church in Jerusalem; it was written by a Jewish Christian who sought to impress upon the Christian brethren the importance of right living, a matter Which must have fallen rather into the background after the thorough establishment of the Pauline idea of salvation by faith. No date has been agreed on, and its composition is placed at between 62 and 150, with an inclination on the part of a greater number of writers to place it at about 100. The authorship of the first of the Epistles of Peter has not by any means been deter- mined as that of Peter himself. It is argued that had Simon Peter written this, a great deal more about Jesus would have been given us than appears here now. Silvanus is thought to be the author, at least of the form in which we have it. Others maintain that an anonymous writer wrote this" epistle using the name of Peter. The dates assigned to this letter are as varied as the alleged auth- orship, and 54-140 are given; the greater number of critics place it no later than 117. The second Epistle of Peter is the work of a later anonymous writer who used the name of the apostle. It is unlike the first epistle of the same name, and shows marked Phil- 42 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND onic and Jewish midrashic influences. The author probably used the first Peter, but he did not write it. He desired authority for his document and he attached to it 'a name honored in the church. Authorities are agreed upon the lateness of this epistle, and its date is placed between 150 and 170. The First John seems to be an anonymous homily bearing a close relationship to the fourth gospel. It was, of course, not writ- ten by John, the son of Zebedee, and its date is generally regarded as about the same as that of the gospel of the same name. The second and third John are the products of John the Presbyter not John the apostle or a disciple of John. The letters contain no illuminating truths, and are placed by those who ascribe them to John the Presbyter, at between 110 and 155. Jude is a second century product of an author who attempted to correct certain moral evils. It was not written by Judas, the brother of Jesus. The date of this epistle is as hazy as that of the others, and the best critics now place the authorship of this let- ter in the first quarter of the second century. The Apocalypse of John or the Revelation of John is according to some, a re-written document based upon Jewish sources, and written about 70. Others maintain that it is an original apocalypse by John Mark based on Christian sources, while still others main- THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 43 tain that it is the work of John the Presby- ter, who also based it on Jewish apocalyptic originals. The first three verses of the first chapter were added by a late writer. The work has the form of an Old Testament apocalypse, and some believe it is even mod- eled after Ezekiel and Zechariah. The book was used in the early church and a great many glosses have crept in, among which are the last few verses, 22:18-21. At an early date a sentiment against the canonicity of this book developed on account of its use by the Gnostics. The work is a fanatic ex- position of dogmatic growths, written in the form of a revelation, and designed to encour- age and strengthen the Christians in their repulsion of the Roman heresies of the Em- peror Domitian, just as the Jews when Dan- iel was written, had repelled those of Antio- chus Epiphanes under the valiant Macca- beans. The rites of the Caesar-cultus were to be the last death-throb of the Roman em- pire, after the destruction of which the reign of the present order would cease, and the messiah would re-appear. The date ranges from 65-100, with preference for about 90. Our purpose in giving this cursory review of the New Testament writings, is not mere- ly to gather the results of the modern scientific investigators. We started out by saying that under the conditions of modern training, we should expect authenticated 44 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND documents to be the sources of what we are asked to believe historical characters said or did. We have learned that hearsay is not authority, and we have learned too, that the farther we are removed from a historical personage in time, the less authentic are the hearsay reports concerning him. This is eminently true of an age in which one's say- ings and acts were not recorded either with exactness or with faithfulness to fact. If there are those who would have us be- lieve that Jesus said or did certain things, we have a right to ask for more historical records than those we have. It is hardly fair to expect men to believe that Jesus said that or did this in the face of the unhistorical character of the gospels, and the difference of opinion among the scholars concerning them. It is nothing less than remarkable that there is so little agreement concerning the date and the authorship of the New Tes- tament writings among Christian scholars; and it is no mean indication of their weak- ness so far as their historicity is concerned. There is plenty of room for skepticism when one realizes that almost half a century pass- ed, and in many cases a longer time, before the records of the chief character of the New Testament were committed to writing, and that this was done neither by himself nor by those who worked immediately with him. What a marvelous assumption do they make, THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 45 who tell us in the face of all this indefinite- ness, that Jesus would do this or that under this set of circumstances or that set. And how deep must be the faith of those who can believe everything they so haphazardly read in the biblical records ! After a study of the books of the newer canon; after a thorough realization that neither Paul, the apostles, nor the later writers ever expected their products to be vested with holiness or inspir- ation, one feels that the structure of early Christianity has been built upon a sandy foundation, and that the ancient church dig- nitaries were the real master-builders of the faith rather than Jesus and his apostles. And this feeling is borne out by history, for the life of the church thus far has consisted not of the vitalization of the ethics of Jesus the Jew, but of the ethics of the church fathers, who in most cases were the sons of Roman and Greek heathens. Who can deny that the best in the writings of the New Testament is that which is closely related to the mother- faith, while that which has discolored the pages of secular history, is the pernicious outgrowth of the admixture of the non- Jesus and heathen elements? However, our purpose is not to castigate the church. It would come with indifferent grace from one who realizes that early Judaism too, had its weaknesses. It is rather to show how utterly unreliable the ancient records are; how they 46 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND had been tampered with for one purpose or another and how it is really impossible to credit to Jesus with certainty those funda- mental ethical principles to which the modern Christian sociologists point as the salvation of mankind, that this is written. Even the brightest gem in the whole collection the Sermon on the Mount does not stand out as 21 original in the clear light of research. It is only by a sort of Christian gratuity that this is assigned to the Teacher himself! It is a great pity that he did not leave a written rec- ord of his sayings and teachings, for had he done so, Jewish literature might have been enriched by many jewels from one who breathed a Jewish atmosphere, lived and died a Jew, and as far as tradition can be be- lieved, was turned against his people only af- ter his death, when he was transformed into a god by those who understood neither him, his teachings, nor his people. THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 47 CHAPTER II. Post-Biblical Jewish Ideals. It is on this New Testament evidence that the whole structure of the contributions of Jesus is built. There is more than a grain of truth in the viewpoint of those who main- tain that most of the New Testament con- tributions are only historical probabilities, whose weaknesses are by no means hidden. Books on the order of the "Life of Jesus," by Strauss, and the works of Drews and W. B. Smith are not to be despised; they are at least more logical than such works as the life of Jesus by Renan, who evolves a Jesus out of his own mind and then makes it fit the New Testament writings. Yet Renan is not by any means the only one guilty of such ro- manticism; the words of Ecclesiastes can well apply here, "of making many books there is no end." There is a pronounced tendency to accept as historical much of the alleged material of Jesus. Indeed it has too strong a hold on the western world to be dismissed as unimport- ant, and this even they must admit, who find in his purported contributions only a mini- mum of historicity. But there is a middle ground between either accepting or reject- 48 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND' ing what is ascribed to Jesus. And this mid- dle ground is obtained by placing his alleged contributions on an equal historical footing with those of the apocryphal, apocalyptic, and rabbinical sources of that early Chris- tian period. We can judge the New Testa- ment writings on the same historical basis as that of the Book of Jubilees, the Testa- ments of the Patriarchs or the stories of Hillel ; and this too gives us a common basis for a comparison. And indeed there is much to compare. When one reads the modern books on the life of Jesus, one is apt to conclude that what- ever is held up as the best in the gospels is the absolute, new, and distinct contribution of the man from Gallilee. How often for in- stance have we been regaled with his "new" enunciation of love! What Christian minis- ter has tired of hurling at Jews as the con- tribution of Jesus, that inimitable word which spells the tenderest sentiments of the holiest relations on earth. How often have we been left in breathless astonishment by the insistence that the New Testament law of "love" is a new law, different and distinct from that of Leviticus: "Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the chil- dren of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Or that other equally well known verse: 2 "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be as one born among THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 49 you, and thou shall love him as thyself for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." This context will hardly permit us to say that the word "neighbor" means fellow-Jew. There have been those who have tried to construe this, and we are in error if we do not admit that the references in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, Galatians and James, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," all are a re- statement of the Levitical commandments which have become part of the stock of Ju- daism ; and it seems very possible too, from the wording of the last two, that the sayings of Akiba, who lived before the final redaction of these documents, was not unknown to their authors: "Thou shalt love thy neigh- bor as thyself," he said, "this is the greatest principle in the Torah." It is hardly possible that Akiba, who was born about 50 after Jesus, and had studied and taught all of his life lie was martyred in 132 took his cue from Galatians or Romans or the Gospels. To those who would quote Matthew, "ye have heard that it hath been said thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those that spitefully use you and persecute you," we would suggest that the words "hate thine enemies" is not in the Old Testament ; while the last part of the following verse reads like an excellent com- 50 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND mentary and an improvement on the verses in Proverbs : 5 "Say not I will do so to him who hath done so to me ; but if thine enemy be hungry give him bread to eat; if he be thirsty, give him water to drink for thou shalt be heaping coals of fire upon his head, and God will requite thee." And if the words of the gospels occasionally improve upon a thought of the Old Testament, one may re- joice to see one Jewish teacher improve upon another. The Jewish sages very often com- mented upon and even restated teachings of the Bible. Jesus but did the same. But Akiba could hardly have known the New Testament writings. We have been accustomed to hear so much of the Scribes and the Pharisees the good they did is never mentioned their great vir- tues never spoken of that they have come to be associated in many minds with bigotry, hypocrisy, and religious narrowness. It Is the unspeakable misfortune of Judaism that its sources of knowledge and evidence are not generally tapped by non-Jews, for if they were, non-Jews would soon find out that not all Scribes were bad; that there were many very excellent Pharisees, and that there were sages and teachers who spoke with an au- thority and an originality no less inspired and subjective than that of Jesus. When Hillel said, 6 "love peace and pursue it, love your fellow-creatures and bring them near THE MODERN SOCIAL IDEALS 51 to God's law," he said something which in this particular form had never before been expressed; just