Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

cently expressed his regret that he did not give his youth to science, as he would have certainly anticipated Darwin, has made his first incursion into scientific fields in an examination of this question ("Le Judaisme comme race et comme religion," Paris, 1883). His results are mainly against the racial purity of the Jews, and in this conclusion he has been followed by M. Isidore Loeb in an excellent article, Juifs, in Saint Martin's "Dictionnaire de Geographie," and we have just heard how Dr. Neubauer upholds the opinion of his illustrious friend. Notwithstanding the authority which must attach to such names when dealing with a matter mainly historical, I hope to show that the last word has not been said on the subject, and that anthropological science in particular has certain considerations to suggest which must give us pause before accepting the conclusions at which these authorities have arrived. The whole question is very complicated, and I will attempt to give the strongest arguments on both sides, beginning with those unfavourable to the purity.

(1) Proselytism.-The question of the former intermarriage of Jews and Gentiles resolves itself into that of proselytism, since Jewish law does not recognise matrimonium with a person of another belief.1 But in the early days of Israel this was not the case. After the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites entered into frequent connubial relations with the conquered. We may perhaps see a reference to the beginning of this process in the curious tradition about the Judge (or Baron) Ibzan of Bethlehem who, we learn (Jud. xii, 9), “had thirty sons and thirty daughters: the latter he sent abroad and took in thirty daughters from abroad for his sons." But such intermarriage with the daughters of Canaan are of little significance from the anthropological point of view. For there was no such diversity of type among the Semites as among the Aryans. The Semitic languages differ from one another only as the Romance tongues do, and do not show such wide differences as those between Russian and Welsh. We have already seen that Jews and Assyrians of the eighth century B.C. were of practically the same type. The distinction between Jews and other Semites was religious, not racial. The strenuous prohibition of Ezra against marriage with strange women was directed against i lolatry rather than exogamy. For even before this date we

1 Vide Frankel, "Grundlinien d. mos. Eherechts," p. 22, and Ritter, "Philo," p. 71. Philo makes the prohibition even stronger, taking Deut. vii, 3, as binding with regard to all nations.

2 Query was this a case of exogamy with other Israelite totem-clans? (cf. supra, p. 29, note.)

3 Jewish tradition recognised Ammonites, Moabites, and Idumæans to be of same race (cf. Wellhausen, art. Israel, “Ency. Brit.," "History," p. 429).

find traces of proselytism in the Bible.' The second Isaiah (lvi, 6) speaks of "the sons of the stranger who join themselves under the Lord." The late book of Esther also refers to proselytes (viii, 17; ix, 27), while three of the later Psalms (Ps. exvii, exviii, cxxxv), possibly of the second century B.C., divide Jews into three classes-"the House of Israel," "the House of Aaron," and "those who fear the Lord." The last became the technical expression for proselytes among Hellenistic Jews (Acts, passim). So numerous had these proselytes become that they were classified according to the motives which led to their conversion. There were Proselytes of the Lion-from fear; Proselytes of the King's table-from ambition; Proselytes for a wife; and there was a grand division made between Proselytes of the Gate, who did not observe the most stringent of the Mosaic regulations, and Proselytes of Righteousness, who were even as Jews in all that concerned the Mosaic precepts. Now it is only with the latter class that we are concerned, since only these had the full jus connubii with persons of Jewish race and religion. It is therefore of critical importance to know whether any of the many proselytes mentioned by Josephus, the New Testament, and the Talmud were proselytes of the Gate or of Righteousness, the latter being the only ones that affect the main question. The Jews of Antioch only made the many inhabitants proselytes "after a fashion" (TрÓπ Tivi, "Wars," VII, iii, 3), i.e., they were only Proselytes of the Gate. I am surprised to find a scholar like M. Renan omitting this cardinal restriction, which tells dead against his position.2 St. Paul, in his addresses to the congregations at Antioch (Acts xvii, 16, 26), Thessalonica (xvii, 4), Athens (id., 17), carefully distinguishes Jews and proselytes. And in a significant passage ("Wars," VI, ix, 3), the bearing of which has been overlooked by M. Renan and his followers, Josephus mentions that the foreigners who came to worship at Jerusalem

1 For many of the following facts I am indebted to J. Bernays' masterly essay, "Die Gottesfürchtigen bei Juvenal," in the Mommsen presentation volume, and now reprinted in his "Gesam. Schrift.," ii, 71–80 (cf. Mayor's "Notes on Juvenal," xiv, 99, et seq.).

M. Renan translates Ayant amené a leur culte un grand nombre d'Hellenes ils en firent une partie de leur communeauté (“Le Judaisme, &c.," p. 72). He should have added to the last clause some such phrase as tant bien que mal. Similarly in the translation of C. Apion ii, 39, M. Renan (p. 15) has not quite preserved the force of the Greek Toλλá, which shows that the Greeks and barbarians referred to did not observe all the Jewish dietary laws, and were therefore not full proselytes. As a matter of fact they were not proselytes at all, nor does Josephus say they were. He is referring to the well-known fact that many other nations have customs similar to the Jews, e.g., the Sabbath or dietary laws and with his usual boastfulness pretends that they learnt them from the Jewish law. Only the fact that M. Renan intended his discourse for a conversation (p. 1) can excuse these slips.

were not allowed to share the Passover meal, i.e., were only proselytes of the Gate. When Josephus calls Nero's wife, Poppœa, a proselyte (Oeoréßns), this can only mean that she was interested in Jewish doctrines: it cannot imply any adherence to Jewish customs. It was to this very class of proselytes of the Gate that Paul appealed, and founded Christianity by granting full religious rights to them. The triumph of Christianity meant, therefore, that this rapidly growing class were drawn off from Judaism to the new sect before they had been fully incorporated with the older body. After the wars with the Romans Jewish propagandism would have but little scope, as, indeed, M. Renan allows. So that for the existence of full proselytes during this period we have only the evidence of Juvenal, Dio Cassius, and Tacitus, who might easily be struck by a few examples of what they considered a barbarous custom.1 The last says that Jews never intermarried (“ Hist." v. 5).

So soon as Christianity became the State religion, proselytism would become dangerous. Severe penalties were placed by the laws against intermarriage of Jew and Christian, which was placed on the same footing as adultery (390 A.D., "Cod. Theod.," LV, ii). The Councils of the Church included similar injunctions as a matter of course, one set of canons following the preceding. The severity of the sentence is often enough to show how rarely the laws were transgressed. This, however, if any, was the time when any intermarriage could have taken place, owing to the kindly relations of Jews and Christians. Unfortunately, it is also the time (300 A.D.-800 A.D.) of which we know least about Jews. Before, however, we reach Charlemagne's epoch two instances of proselytism on a large scale occurred in the countries beyond civilisation, and these have naturally been emphasised by M. Renan and his followers. In South Russia the kingdom of the Cozars, situated midway between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Emirate of Bagdad, ingeniously evaded the necessity of acknowledging either of these powers by formally adopting Judaism, which both had to tolerate. The adhesion was scarcely more than

[ocr errors]

1 See M. Derenbourg's temperate and judicious treatment of the question, 'Essai," chap. xiv. With regard to converts at the Imperial courts (Graetz, "Die jüd. Proselyten," 1884), it is a great question whether for "Jewish" we ought not to read "Christian." I see an instance of this in Epict., " Disc," II, ix. 2 Constantine appointed the punishment of death against such marriages ("Cod. Theod.,” xvi, 6).

3 Elvira (320), xvi; Chalcedonia (388), xv; Third Orleans (538); Maçon (581); Third Toledo (589), xiv; Fourth Toledo (633), lxiii. Basnage, "Histoire," ix, 409–414.

4 St. Martin, "Les Khazars," 1851. Harkavy, in "Russ. Revue," 1876. For Arabic and Hebrew sources, see Carmoly, "Itineraires de Sainte Terre.,"

formal, and there is little evidence of any great intermixture of pure Jews with these Cozars, except by the few learned Jews who taught them their creed.' These seem to have been of the Karaite sect, and we find still the headcentre of the Karaites in the Crimea, where the Cozars ultimately concentrated. All accounts represent the Karaites as perfectly un-Jewish in appearance, and I would venture to apply to them Napoleon's witticism, "Grattez le Karaite et vous trouverez le Khazar." The Cozars were crushed in the ninth century, while the Polish Jews, who are supposed to show signs of intermixture with Cozars, came into that kingdom from Germany long afterwards. Similarly, a somewhat earlier conversion of Arab tribes in Yemen has only left traces on contemporary Judaism in the Falashas, to whom Rohlfs also denies Jewish features ("Abessynien," 1884, p. 273). Karaites and Falashas, with the Daggatouns of the Sahara and the Beni-Israel of Bombay, are the only Jews of to-day who display alien blood, and these form only one per cent. of Israel, and never intermarry with Jews.

After the age of Charlemagne no great intermixture of Jews and Aryans can be discerned. As Europe became Christendom, the Church isolated the Jews more and more by cutting them off from the trade guilds, originally religious, and from all civil rights: they became the King's chattels in a literal sense. The mere fact of their being cooped up in ghetti would be enough to put a bar in the way of frequent intercourse, and it was the true insight of an artist that made Sir Walter Scott regard a marriage between Rebecca and Ivanhoe as rendered impossible by the circumstances of the Middle Ages.3

To sum up this short sketch of Jewish proselytism, this undoubtedly existed before the spread of Christianity, but only or mainly so far as Proselytes of the Gate were concerned, who could not marry with Jews, and these were soon intercepted by the Church, which afterwards took most stringent measures to prevent any relapse. I would add that the case is somewhat different as regards slaves, and it is possible that some infusion of Aryan blood came in through this means, but the amount

1 There were only 4,000 Jewish Cozars in all (Fraehn, "De Chazaris," 1822, p. 13). But to the contrary effect see Masudi, "Meadows of Gold," p. 407. The letters interchanged between the Khan of the Cozars and R. Hisdai of Spain, serve to show the rare intercourse of the Cozars with the rest of the Jewish world.

M. Renan makes much of a Karaite being named Toktamish. This might be explained by his being a Cozar. But Jews have always freely adopted local names (Zunz, “Namen der Juden"). Cf. Talm. Jer., Gittin i, 55 b.

3 Though the name ghetto is derived from the foundry at Venice, in which Jews were cooped up in 1510, the thing existed as early as 1090 at Salerno, if not earlier at Constantinople (Graetz, v, 37), or even in Rome and Alexandria.

were not allowed to share the Passover meal, i.e., were only proselytes of the Gate. When Josephus calls Nero's wife, Poppœa, a proselyte (Beoσéßns), this can only mean that she was interested in Jewish doctrines: it cannot imply any adherence to Jewish customs. It was to this very class of proselytes of the Gate that Paul appealed, and founded Christianity by granting full religious rights to them. The triumph of Christianity meant, therefore, that this rapidly growing class were drawn off from Judaism to the new sect before they had been fully incorporated with the older body. After the wars with the Romans Jewish propagandism would have but little scope, as, indeed, M. Renan allows. So that for the existence of full proselytes during this period we have only the evidence of Juvenal, Dio Cassius, and Tacitus, who might easily be struck by a few examples of what they considered a barbarous custom.1 The last says that Jews never intermarried (“Hist." v. 5).

2

So soon as Christianity became the State religion, proselytism would become dangerous. Severe penalties were placed by the laws against intermarriage of Jew and Christian, which was placed on the same footing as adultery (390 A.D., “Cod. Theod.,” LV, ii). The Councils of the Church included similar injunctions as a matter of course, one set of canons following the preceding.3 The severity of the sentence is often enough to show how rarely the laws were transgressed. This, however, if any, was the time when any intermarriage could have taken place, owing to the kindly relations of Jews and Christians. Unfortunately, it is also the time (300 A.D.-800 A.D.) of which we know least about Jews. Before, however, we reach Charlemagne's epoch two instances of proselytism on a large scale occurred in the countries beyond civilisation, and these have naturally been emphasised by M. Renan and his followers. In South Russia the kingdom of the Cozars, situated midway between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Emirate of Bagdad, ingeniously evaded the necessity of acknowledging either of these powers by formally adopting Judaism, which both had to tolerate. The adhesion was scarcely more than

[ocr errors]

4

1 See M. Derenbourg's temperate and judicious treatment of the question, Essai," chap. xiv. With regard to converts at the Imperial courts (Graetz, "Die jüd. Proselyten," 1884), it is a great question whether for "Jewish " we ought not to read "Christian." I see an instance of this in Epict., "Disc," II, ix. 2 Constantine appointed the punishment of death against such marriages ("Cod. Theod.,” xvi, 6).

3 Elvira (320), xvi; Chalcedonia (388), xv; Third Orleans (538); Maçon (581); Third Toledo (589), xiv; Fourth Toledo (633), lxiii. Basnage, "Histoire," ix, 409-414.

4 St. Martin, "Les Khazars," 1851. Harkavy, in "Russ. Revue," 1876. For Arabic and Hebrew sources, see Carmoly, "Itineraires de Sainte Terre.,"

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »