IDOLATRY
486
IDUM^A
Uffiomparieien, p. 176 sq.), and idolatry is now generally considered as the result of a sophisticated tradition. Kationalism, based on Pelagian principles, either em- braced the views of the naturalists, or else those of Heyne, J. H. Boss, etc., who maintain, the former that the myths and idolatry were either the natnral conse- quences of historical events or the peculiar garb of philo- sophical ideas (historical and philosophical mythicism), while the latter derives idolatry partly from the univer- sal wisdom whose higher thoughts assumed that form in order to be the more readily appreciated by the people, and partly from the interests of the priesthood ; he con- siders, also, the tradition of real heroes as an abundant source. Others (like Lobeck, etc.) see in the mythology of the heathen but a childish play of the imagination. But the opinion which most generally obtained is that behind the outward form of mythology is hidden a real philosophical or religious idea, and that personalities and historical facts are only erroneously introduced into it (Buttmann ; G. Hermann). Finally, others considered idolatry in its full development as the result of the in- tentional manoeuvres of the priesthood (so Fr. Creuzer, in the first editions of his SymhoUk), or of a hierarchical system of nature, which amounts nearly to the same (K. O. IMliller, Prolegom. zu einer icisse72schafdichen Mytho- logie, p. 316-344). The latter considers the very origin and nature of the gods, and consequently of idolatn,', as the result of an unconscious popidar necessity, which from the first was connected or identified with illusion, instead of remaining a true and special idea. From this view — whose only defect is its too great disregard of the original religion — it is easy to come to those which govern the newer systems of religious philosophy, such as are upheld by Hegel ( Vorlesungen ii. Religions- jihilosophie), according to which religion has received a steady development from an earthly basis, so that idol- atry was but one of its first forms, aiul not at all an es- trangement from God, but a necessary part of the prog- ress towards him. This view of it completely makes away with idolatry by the presumed connection of all religions arriving by successive developments at abso- lute religion. This view is Mii)|ii>ittcl by llinriclis (/>. JieUr/ion iin innern V< rliiilliii.<.<' :. W'i.t^i ii^fhaft \ Ileiilelii. 182i],p.l41sq.) and Knill (li.i:,ri<jl<uHn ulkr VOlbr in philosoijhischer Darstilbi ii(/ [Stutlg.l84S]). Feuerbach and other extreme Rationalists even consider religion it- self as a sickly ideal phenomenon in human life.
We must rank under idolatry all adoration not ad- dressed to the one invisible God of the Bible, or such adoration of him as is rendered in any manner not con- forming to the revelations of the Bible. It results part- ly from additions and the influence of the Avorld, partly from the original traditional command to seek God, which seeking, when unaided by him (in revelation), ends in error, so that, unconsciously, it is worldly exist- ence that is apprehended instead and in the place of God. The mode of this apprehension varies in difterent na- tions, according to their geographical, historical, and in- tellectual circumstances, and may degenerate into the adoration of the most vain and arbitrary objects (fetish- es) which priests or sorcerers may set u]i. Bet\veen the original symbolic and the most abject idolatry there are various stages. While the majority of the heathen are either on the brink or in the midst of fetishism, the more enlightened part look ujion the idols only as symbols, sometimes of several deities, and sometinles of one God. Idolatry was formerly considered as divided into two distinct classes, real and comparative ; the former was absolute polytheism — the belief in the real divinity of the images — while the latter was either (Baumgarten) the worship of the several deities as subordinate to one, or (G. H.Yossius) the considering of the images wor- shipped as mere symbols of the invisible God. In Col. iii, 5 we find a metaphorical use made of the word idol- atrj' to express undue attachment to earthly possessions and advantages. The same name has also been given, Vi'ifh good reason, to the use made of images in the
Romr.n and Greek Churches. — Herzog, Real-Encyliop. s. V. Abgotterei. On this last point, see Makiolaikv ;
S^UNT-WORSHIP, etc.
Idu'el ('Ic^oi^j/Xoc), the second named of the lead- ing Jews sent by Ezra to procure the aid of the priests in the return from exile (1 Esd. viii, 48) ; evidently the Ariel (q. v.) of the Hebrew text (Ezra viii, 16).
Idumae'a ('Icoiijuaia), the Gr. form of the Heb. name Edom, as found in the Sept., the N. Test., and Josephus. According to Josephus (.4 «^ii, 1,1), however, it is only a more agreeable mode of pronouncing what would other- wise be 'ASwfia (comp. Jerome on Ezek. xxv, 12). In the Sept. we sometimes meet with "Eoiof-i, but more gen- erally with 'iSovfiaia (the people being called '\cov- fiatoi), which is the uniform orthography in the Apoc- - rypha (1 Mace, iv, 15, 29, 61 ; v, 3 ; vi, 31 ; 2 Mace, xii, 32), as well as in Mark iii, 8, the only passage in the N. T. where it occurs. Our Auth.Vers, has in three or four places (Isa. xxxiv, 5, 6 ; Ezek. xxxv, 15; xxxvi, 5) sub- stituted for Edom "Idumiea," which is the name em- ployed by the writers of Greece and Rome, though it is to be noted that they, as well as Josephus, include un- der that name the south of Palestine, and sometimes Palestine itself, because a large portion of that country came into possession of the Edomites of later times.