One might admit the truth of most of Avhat is thus said, Avithout in any Avay detracting from the originality of Christ. It is no disparagement to that originality, as Ave have seen, to recognize that Christ stands in close and vital connexion Avith those Avho have preceded Him, and uses the modes of thought and sjseech Avhich they have made familiar. Whether, indeed, the connexion be- tAveen the Messianic vicAvs of Christ and those of later Judaism is as close as has been suggested, is a question upon Avhich there is a difference of opinion. Baldensperger ansAvers in the affirmative, maintaining that Ave must no longer regard Juda- ism as the dark background against Avhich Chris- tianity stands out as something quite different, but rather as a preparatory stage on the Avay to Christianity. He lays special stress upon the transcendent character of its Messianism as an adA'ance toAvards the spiritualism of Cliristianity {Die messian. - apocalyp. Hoffnungcn des Juden- thums, 1903, p. 232). This vieAv of the relation of Christianity to later Judaism has not been ac- cepted by other authorities. Wellhausen finds in Christianity rather a protest against the prevail- ing tendency of Judaism {Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, p. 98). So also Bousset (Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Jtulcnthiim, 1892), Avho has enumer- ated a number of points in Avhich the teaching of Christ is in direct conflict Avith the spirit of later Judaism. In vieAV of this difference of opinion, it is evident that no very strong case has been made out to prove Christ's indebtedness to the later JeAvish Apocalyptic Avritings. That He used the eschatological data and many of the modes of thought Avhich are to be found m this literature, may be readily admitted. But beyond that. His general line of thought must have been little in sympathy Avith its spirit. There is a wide gulf betAveen the transcendence of later Jewish Mes- sianism, Avhich is sometimes coarse and sensuous, and the spirituality of the Messianic hopes of Christ. INIany of the most marked characteristics of later Judaism, as Bousset points out, its with- draAval of God from the Avorld, its asceticism, its Avorld-Aveariness and lack of interest in tlie present and yearning for the future, are directly opposed
ORIGIXALITY
OEIGIXALITY
291
to the spirit of the Saviour's teaching. In view of these and otlier points of difference between the doctrine of Christ and tlie tendencies of later Juda- ism, it seems rash to attempt to trace the origin of Christianity to a system of doctrine to ■which, in spite of certain superficial points of resemblance, it stands in deep and radical opjwsition.
(3) Esse7iism. — Attempts have frequently been made to connect Christ with the EsseTies, and to account for many of the characteristic features of His doctrine by deriving them from the practices of this sect. But no evidence has been brought forward to prove that Christ had any connexion with them. It is true He never refers to them, Avhile He frequently denounces the Pharisees and Sadducees. But that fact may be easily explained by the smallness and retiring character of the sect. Ginsburg {Esscncs, p. 24) argues that every Jew had to belong to one of the three parties, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, into which the JeAvs were divided at the time of Christ, and that Christ would naturally associate Himself with the Essenes a* most congenial to His nature ; but as his premises are quite unsupported, his conclusion has no weight whatever. The onlj- valid gi-o\ind upon which any plausible case may be made out in favour of the \new that Christ had some connexion with the Essenes is, that there are several points in which His doctrine bears a considerable resemblance to theirs. Among these points of resemblance the following may be noted : prohibition of oaths, ex- altation of poverty, simplicity of life, celibacy (Mt 19^-), feeling of brotherhood issuing in mutual ser- vice. But most of these features merely represent the high moral tone which obtains on both of the sides thus compared, and no direct connexion is required to account for the resemblance. On the other hand, there are very marked features of difference which preclude any direct connexion of Christ vAith the Essenes. One of the most dis- tinctive features of the sect was its withdrawal from the world and adoption of a monastic life. Contact with strangers was supposed to communi- cate defilement. The conduct of Christ presented a striking contrast. He mixed freely in the life of the people. He told His disciples not to hide their liglit under a bushel. And, so far from think- ing that mere contact Arith strangers caused defile- ment, He did not shrink even from the touch of the woman who was a sinner, or hesitate to lay His hand \ipon a leper. In their asceticism the Essenes went to an extreme. ' The Son of Man came eating and drinking.' In their Sabbath observance they outdid the Pharisees. There was no point on which Christ gave such offence to the rigorists. The Es- senes stood aloof from the Temple, and ofi'ered no sacrifice there. Christ repaired to Jerusalem to some of the great festivals, and taught daily in the Temple. The Essenes were scrupulous to a degree on the question of purity. They had wash- ings innumerable. Christ paid no attention to such ceremonial observances, but esteemed only purity of heart. The ditterences which thus separ- ate Christ from the Essenes are broad and deep. We cannot find any connexion between Him and a sect which, by its monastic tendency, its exalta- tion of ceremonial observances, its formal and jire- cise niles, could have made little appeal to Him.