A Comparative View of ReligionsScholten, Johannes Henricus
Islamic
A Comparative View of Religions
Scholten, Johannes Henricus
Religions
While most of the Semitic nations, in opposition to the effort to
elevate God above nature as lord and governor, returned to the old
nature-religion with its grossly sensual worship of the divine, and
others got no farther than to the conception of a deity, who, like a
consuming fire, stood opposed to nature, and was to be appeased and
propitiated by human sacrifices, there was developed among the
Israelitish people, gradually and in constantly higher measure, in
connection with a higher moral and religious disposition, the worship of
God as a being who, though distinct from nature, is yet not opposed to
it, and thus no longer demands human sacrifices, but obedience and moral
consecration.
The common origin of the religion of the Israelites and that of their
Semitic relations, though hardly evident even in the oldest monuments of
the Hebrew literature, appears from the following facts and particulars:
firstly, the composition of Israelitish names not only with El, but also
with Baal, such as Jerubbaal (adversary of Baal), (Gideon),[11]
Esbaal,[12] Meribbaal,[13] names which afterwards, on account of the
aversion which the ever-increasing distance in religion between the
Israelitish nation and the nations related to it must, from the nature
of the case, have inspired against the name of Baal, are changed into
Jerubboseth,[14] Isboseth,[15] and Mephiboseth[16], as also the
interchanging of El and Baal,[17] of Baal-jada[18] and Eljada,[19] seem
to point to an ancient period when the name Baal (Lord) was used, like
El, Elohim, El Eljon, El Schaddai, Adonai, even among the Israelites,
to designate the Supreme Being. Secondly, the God of Abraham (Elohim),
although he desires no human sacrifices, nevertheless praises the
willingness of the father to offer up his first-born, and sees in that
the highest proof of devotedness and obedience.[20] Thirdly,
circumcision, already before Moses[21] the bloody symbol of consecration
to God,[22] and also the right of Jahveh to the first-born, and the
necessity of ransoming them from him,[23] imply an earlier conception of
the deity as a being, who, although on a higher development of the
religion he is not indeed any longer thought to desire human sacrifice,
nevertheless has a right to such a sacrifice, and thus demands indemnity
for remitting it. Fourthly, the later conception, of Jahveh as a
destroying fire, and the way in which the God of Israel is conceived in
connection with fire, and as manifesting himself in fire,[24] betray,
even in the midst of a more advanced religious development, an original
relationship with the like conceptions of the other Semites. Fifthly,
even in the orthodox Jahveh-worship, some symbols, as the twelve oxen in
the porch of the temple,[25] the horns of the altar for
burnt-offerings,[26] perhaps also the in part oxlike form of the
cherubim,[27] point to an earlier worship of the deity under the form of
an ox, the symbol of the highest might, especially among the Semitic
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account