even the prevailing one, among various other titles for God, and God is represented at times under very ditierent aspects. It is the same with the various other elements of Christian doctrine that have been found in the OT. They receive a new meaning from the place Christ gives them, the importance He a--isig-ns to them, and the consist- ency with which He insists on them. That God looks not U2)on the outward conduct but upon the heart, was a truth known to the OT writers no less than to Christ ; but it is Christ who first consist- ently follows it out to its logical conclusions. That we should love our enemies is a doctrine that had been taught even in the OT ; yet how much there is in the OT that breathes an entirelj- difl'er- ent spirit ! When we put, not isolated utterances of Christ and of the OT, but the doctrine of Christ as a whole and the OT as a whole, side bj- side, then, in s])ite of the fact that we can trace the roots of Christianity down into Jewish soil and can find OT forecasts of much that appears in the teaching of Christ, the conviction is forced upon us that this doctrine of Christ as a whole, by the consistently lofty spiritualitj- of its tone, by the inner coherence and harmony of its various parts in sjiite of the unsystematic form in which it was delivered, by its indifference to much which held a high place in the Jewish religion, is a new creation as compared with the OT upon which it is based. We feel too that only a mind of the highest origin- ality could have evolved out of a religion in which there was much that was imperfect and unspiritual, a system so pure and lofty as that which we have in the Christian religion.
(2) Later Judaism.— Bxit it is not to the OT alone that Christ's indebtedness is alleged. There are later developments of Judaism wliich are said to have exercised marked influence upon Him. It has been the custom to regard Christ's jTOsition as one of pure antagonism to the prevailing religious tendencies of His time, and to represent Him as standing in such in-econcilable opjX)sition to the teaching of the Rabbinical schools that there can be no question of His being influenced by them, save in the way of being repelled. But in spite of the attitude of opjwsition that Christ took uji to the religious authorities of His day, there was, it is alleged, much affinity between them. Like the Babbis, He preached in the sj-nagogues and taught in the market-jdaces. Like them. He gathered a group of disciples round Him who called Him Master, and whom He sought specially to instruct. His manner of teaching is modelled on theirs. He delights in aphorism. He makes frequent use of illustration and example. It is from them that He has derived the parabolic method of instruction which is so characteristic a feature of His teaching. But not merely the form of His teaching, the matter also is in many cases similar to that of the Babbis.
ilany striking parallels to Christ's sayings have been found in Rabbinical literature. Hillel summed up the whole Law in the words, ' What thou wouldst not have done to thee, do not that to others.' He bade men not judge their neighbour till they came into his place. ' Raise not thyself above others.' ' If thou art where no men are, show thyself a man.' ' Be among the pupUs of Aaron, who loved peace and pursued peace, who loved all creatures and guided ihem to the Law.' ' Be not as servants who minister to their masters upon condition of receiving a reward.' ' Do God's will as if it were thy will, that He may do thy will as if it were His will.' ' Let your neighbour's honour he as dear to you as your own.' Such are some of the more striking sajings of the Jewish Rabbis, which seem to breathe as pure a religious sjiirit as the teaching of Christ. Even the prayer which Christ taught His disciples, we are told, is but a shortened form of some of tlie older prayers of the Jewish Liturgv". It is true that in a great many cases the Rabbinical literature in which we find these parallels to t'.'.e say- ings of Christ dates from the 2nd cent. a.d. ; and Christian ajKJiogists have endeavoured to make the most of the fact, suggesting that if there is any borrowing, the indebtedness can- not rest on tlie side of Christ. But that argiuiient would tie valid only if it were shown that there was any possibility of the
290
OKIGINALITY
ORIGIXALITY
literature in question having been influenced by Christian thought. But there is no such possibility. The Christian and the Jewish literature, as Renan (Life of Jesus, ch. v.) says, had scarcely any influence on one another before the 13th century. Though these parallels are from a literature which was compiled at a date later than the appearance of Christ, they are them- selves older than Christ, and represent a purely' Jewish develop- ment of thought.