» Cf. J. Weiss, Das dlteste Emngelium
t Cf. J. Weiss, Die Schrifirn des NT,
die Gegeiiimrt erklart (190S), l. i. p. 238 ff.
)/6. p. 413ff.
. i. p. 238 § /^. p.
aberseUt und fiir
544
ETHICS
ETHICS
In an account of tlie Ethics of Jesus, the reader also looks for a comparison and contrast between Him and His Jewish, perhaps also His Graco- Ronian, cimteiiiporaries. The fresh and original elements in His moral thought and feeling must be set over a;^aiii>t traditional views. The favourite proii'ilnre in tins connexion, that, namely, of placing His luminous tigure on a background as sombre as possible, is one we cannot follow. Above all, the task of describing the ethical conditions of con- temporary Judaism would take us beyond our allotted space, and is, moreover, bejrond our capa- city. Often as it has been tried, in more or less ingenious sketches, to reproduce some cross-section through the moral conditions of later Judaism, it has never been accomplished without subjective caprice and violent tendency-interpretations. Nor is this result to be wondered at ; for it is quite im- possible to describe faithfully, or estimate justly, the characteristic ethical complexion of a period so extensive as the two and a half centuries from B.C. 180 to A.D. 70, of the inner history of which we still know so little, which is represented by a literature so multiform, and of which the dominant currents veered so much — a period, moreover, meagrely equipped with first-rate or distinctly recognizable personalities. True, we can observe the behaviour of the circles from which sprang the Psalms of Solomon, we can lay our hand upon the devout breast of the jiseudo-Ezra, we can enter into the spirit of the author of 1 Maccabees or Sirach ; but how diverse are even these few casual types, and how impossible is it to make them fit into one harmonious picture ! What, again, do we know of the Ethics of the Greek or Sadducean party ? What vogue had the Essenes among the people ? Are the Pharisees of the Psalms of Solo- mon identical with those of the time of Jesus ? And, above all, what significance for our problem has the Talmud, so often named, so little known ? Here, in sober truth, so many unsolved enigmas await the historian, that one cannot but marvel at the assurance of those who, in face of them all, are ready to sketch the Ethics of later Judaism as a foil for the Etliics of Jesus. We for our part renounce any such design. We have not the darin" to institute a comparison between the Ethics of Jesus and the complicated historical phenomena of the period, and then, as impartial judges, to proceed to measure out the light and shade. We content ourselves with the question. How didJesiis regard and estimate the Judaism of His time? It is beyond doubt that His moral sense was chafed by many things, and in particular by Pharisaism, and that a material part of His teaching was for- mulated in anta^'ciiiisiii to the Rabbis. We too must feel this antagonism, if we are ever to under- stand Him.
If, again, we are required to answer the ques- tion as to wherein consists the new and original element in the Ethics of Jesus, we are brought to a complete standstill. In His conflict with Ilabbinism He is in close alliance with the Prophets, and is certainly not outside their influence. But to assume tliat a great gulf is fixed between the religion of the Proi)hets and Psalmists and that of later Juclaism, is to forget that a goodly part of both the Prophets and the P.salms was a contribu- tion of the post-exilic period, and, above all, to overlook the fact that these writings form the background, or, we might even .say, the native soil of Judaism. However profoundly they were mis- understood, still it was not possible to prevent the intermittent welling up, from the soil, of many a copious spring ; and many a document of the later period bears clear testimony to their influence. Thus we can do full justice to the moral creed of Jesus only by giving adequate consideration to the
circumstance that He lived in intimate sympathy and steadfast accord with the noblest anddevoutest thoughts of His jieople's Bible. Hence, if in view of these facts we inquire concerning the originality of Jesus, tlie result will be a surprise. For we shall find that nl ulincist all His ethical ideas there are anticipations, precedents, and even parallels in the OT, as also in contemporary Judaism. A mere glance at any collection of parallels, such as that of Wetstein, will be sutficient to purge us of the notion that the uniqueness or greatness of Jesus consists in the novelty of His ethical teach- ing. Theology is still tainted with the propensity, inherited from Rationalism, to see in the produc- tion of ideas the all but exclusive factor in the making of history or the progress of man. It often fails to realize how plentiful ideas are in times that are spiritually alive, or how in all ages humanity has been enabled to take a step in advance only by the emergence of a personality who, with unwonted energy, sincerity, and enthusiasm, absorbed, elaborated, and formed anew from his individual experience the choicest products of his age. So with Jesus ; His ideas as such are neither so novel nor so revolutionary as to create a new world ; they derive their procreative virtue solely from the fact that He made them His own, lived them, and died for them.