The sun., 1896-10-18

.l,A
over tho - -, America excluded themselves
ef"'''. .o,ir,ous communion of the masses OF
iro'" ..S,hr.n? The orthodox jew has an an
' '"o ~ all these questions; but the reiormeu
tN .os not, And the question recurs again;
Iyba, 10 Judaism - I'll
rt..ntbal undertakes not 10 answer AL
.,.o cusstiona. but TO contribute toward =
,Ii,s of tho confusion about them In the
~, ,Iace he would not have the inquirer oe-
,,,vs Tint n clear statement OF certain uoVmaS
80 ,,e . definition of Judaism. Nay, to follow
eau ,hs consequences OF his own logic. It
ia i' No against the spirit of his religion to
-. such doRmas He shows that Judaism
,or Ind any dogmas in the sense in which
Mo ,bristIan Church has them. Doctrines the.
..c,.nt faith had, but these doctrines
,,sr, uubject to changes and modinca-
,,on Tney were modified and changed
Nv the prominent teachers OF various
,ines From the point OF view OF modern BID
,Lal criticism DIR. Felsenthal shows that even
en-. belief in God not always the same
among the Jews. There was worldwide diff
,,rencc between tho belief Of King David. who
.o,si,-rsd Jehovah the God of Palestine, and
hIsovn exile from that country tantamount to
,b. command "Go and worship strange gods"
II sam, xvi 49,; and the belief OF the Proph-
.,s who regarded Him as a universal deity.
Th. same was also the case with other oelefs
q, the Jewsi revelation, the coming OF
n Messiah spontaneous creation, life
hcvond the grave, and so on. They were con-
star,lv changing In conception and form, and
eonscouently the designation of dogmas could
not be applied TO them. II the rnbbs had the
mower TO excommunicate unbelievers, which
might be taken as an evidence that there were
certain dognas by which the faith OF the Jew
could be gagged so to speak, II must be remem-
a., nj rould he eYeFCiSed only
IN ,ne case of an heretIcal Jew making his
bc-cses public. and trying to impress
,,her4 with them. Tho communication
of rricl Acosta and Baruch Spinoza would
never have taken place had these thinkers Kept
their thoughts to themselves, and had they not
outraged the sentiments of their brethren by
their "un Jewish living" Judaism never dived
into tho conscience of a thinking man to ind
out whether he believed according to certain
formula: so long a. mis- life was not offensive.
he was a jew no matter what he believed or
what he believed not.
There Is only one article OF faith which mod
ern Judaism recognizes as cardinal truth.
namely that there is one absolutely holy God"
Next to It is the belief that Israel was chosen by
God to preach and to demonstrate by its life
the existence and holiness OF the ono God.
These two articles OF faith have never changed.
although they have been variously understood
Mt times. Hence they may be considered as
doEmas and upon them may be based system
OF Jewish fait: and conduct.
II is not within present purpose to
point out what seems to US incorrect. or at
least venturesome in the reasoning OF the ven
cradle Jewish scholar or in the Significance of
the authorities he cites. There are Jewish
scholars on both sides of the house, orthodox
md reform, who ought to do this For us this
reasoning is interesting. inasmuch as it exhibits
the state OF Judaism at the present time among
the retormers advanced thinkers of the jew
ish people in the United States. We will there
fore cast rapid glance at the second essay OF
DR.. Felsenthal's brochure. in which he Rrapples
with the question. Where do we stand p
Those who are not learned. says the author.
who think that Judaism is a collection Of stat
utes and notice that these statutes are not OBJ
served aud in some instances cannot be observed.
raise the question:: Are we Jews still? Their
sentiments tell them that they are still Jews.
and that their religion is the Jewish religion.
Then give us n definition Of that religion" :"
the inquirer says. And various answers are
heard in reionder. Some say Judaism con-
sists ouly in the ful1lment of the moral laws:
do Justice. love mercy and walk humbly
before the Lord" Well. then, II this be
the creed of Judaism, Socrates and Seneca.
ST. Francis OF Assist. and the Sisters of
Charity calIeQ Lno
were Jews. Nay" comes the answer
again: ITO be Jews people must, besides prac-
tising good acknowledge, and confess the truth.
A Jew must be believer In one God ethical
monothelsm as the modern phrase designates
It, must be his sincere and innermost belief"
But this definition is also inadequate. for 1t
would embrace the Mohammedans and the fol-
lovers of the Brahma-Somaj Of the East Indies:
It would include also Claiming and Parker and
their disciples in the civilized world. Thus the
definitions OF Judaism of the liberal school are
not satisfactory. for they are not true. Charming
and Parker were not Jews; the Mohnmmedans
and the Hindoos do not belong to the house OF
Israel But tho definitions OF the orthodox
school are just as untenable. They would ex-
clude from the communion of Israel a large
number of men both here and in Europe who
claim to be Jews. and to whom the most erudite
rabbi could not deny this claim. On the other
hand, they would embrace hosts of Jewish be-
levers in Asia. North Africa. Russia, and else
where, whose superstitous beliefs and practices
border on idolatry.
All this seems to lead to the conclusion that
Judaism is not merely religious confession.
but embraces also the psychical qualities OF the
Jewish people, it is the tout ensemble Of all the
spiritual peculiarites Of the Jews. as well as
their !dealistic religious conception. Here, Ii
would seem, the learned author cuts off all pos
slbllity for Judaism to develop. II to be an ad-
herent OF Judaism means not only to believe in
the religious doctrines Of the Jews. but also to
possess tho traits Of character Of the Jewish
people, II is absolutely and naturally impossible
for any outsider to Join that confession.
He insists that the Jews constitute a peculiar
people" and that Judaism implies racial affini-
ties as well as religious beliefs To tho ethno-
logical evidence that the Jewish trace was
never kept pure and integral. that there was
always mixing of foreign elements in 1t and
with 1t. DR.. Felsenthal opposes the fact that
neither the English nor the German nor the
italian peoples have puro racial descent, and
sull they are as peculiar in their charac-
terstic traits and as distinct from each
other as the Jews are distinct from all
OF them. Tho designations of people
Nop0 and race" (Stunm) become some
what mixed up at this stage of tho argument
BODY polite, with its climatic afinities and
patriotic sentiments, is rs distinct from q race
win itS hereditary instincts and sense Of kin
snip AZ the esprit de corps OF any organized body
q a ~ L.. ala