Editing William Robertson Smith (section)

===Books: annotated===
====''The Old Testament in the Jewish Church''====
{{Wikisource|The Old Testament in the Jewish church|The Old Testament in the Jewish Church}}
*''The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. A course of lectures on biblical criticism'' (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black 1881); second edition (London: A. & C. Black 1892).
**The author addresses the Christian believer who opposes [[Historical-critical method|higher criticism]] of the [[Old Testament]], considering that it will reduce the Bible to rational historical terms and omit the supernatural [cf. 3–5]. He replies that the Bible's purpose is to give its readers entry into the experience of lived faith, to put them in touch with God working in history, which a true understanding of the text will better provide [8–9]. Critical Bible study, in fact, follows in the spirit of the [[Protestant Reformation]] [18–19].
**Prior Catholic study of the Bible is faulted for being primarily interested in drawing out consistent ''doctrines'' [7, 25]. Instead Protestants initially turned to Jewish scholars who could better teach them [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]]. However, the chief purpose of Jewish learning was [[Talmud|legal]]: the Bible being a source of ''Jewish law'', derived to settle their current disputes and issues of practice [52].
**As Protestant bible study continued, the nature of the text began to reveal itself as complex and many layered. For example, especially in the earlier books, two different, redundant, and sometimes inconsistent versions appeared to co-exist [133]. This would imply that an editor had woven several pre-existing narratives together to form a composite text [cf. 90–91].
**The [[Psalms]] are shown to reflect the life of the entire Hebrew people, rather than that of a single traditional author, King [[David]] [224].
**Prior understanding was that all ritual and civil law in the [[Pentateuch]] (Books of Moses) had originated at [[Mount Sinai]]; Bible history being the story of how the Hebrews would follow or not a comprehensive moral order [231–232]. Yet from the Bible text, the author demonstrates how ritual law was initially ignored after Moses [254–256, 259]; only much later, following the return from [[Babylonian captivity|exile]], was the ritual system established under [[Ezra]] [226–227].
**The Pentateuch contains laws and history [321]. Its history "does not profess to be written by [[Moses]]" as "he himself is habitually spoken of in the third person" [323–324]. From internal evidence found in the Bible, Pentateuch history was "written in the land of Canaan" after the death of Moses (c. 13th century BC), probably as late as "the period of kings", perhaps written under [[Saul]] or under [[David]] (c.&nbsp;1010–970) [325].
**The laws found in the [[Book of Deuteronomy]] [xii-xxvi] are also demonstrated to date to a time long after Moses [318–320]. In fact, everything in the reforms under King [[Josiah]] (r.640-609) are found written in the [[Deuteronomic code]]. His ''Book of the Covenant'' probably is none other than "the law of Deuteronomy, which, in its very form, appears to have once been a separate volume" [258]. Internal evidence found in the bible is discussed [e.g., 353–355].
**In the centuries immediately following Moses, the Pentateuch was not the primary rule; rather Divine spiritual guidance was provided to the ancient Hebrew nation by their prophets [334–345].
*Smith's lectures were originally given in Edinburgh and Glasgow during early 1881. "It is of the first importance for the reader to realize that Biblical Criticism is not the invention of modern scholars, but the legitimate interpretation of historical facts." The result is that "the history of Israel... [makes]... one of the strongest evidences of Christianity." (Author's Preface, 1881).
*Doctrinal opposition against Smith first arose after his 1875 encyclopaedia article "Bible" which covered similar ground. In 1878 Church heresy charges had been filed, "the chief of which concerned the authorship of Deuteronomy." These 1881 lectures followed his removal as professor at the Free Church College in Aberdeen.<ref>Johnstone, "Introduction" 15–22, at 19, 20, in his edited ''William Robertson Smith. Essays in reassessment'' (Sheffield Academic 1995).</ref>
*Smith's 1881 edition "was a landmark in the history of biblical criticism in Britain, in particular because it laid before the general public the critical view to which [[Julius Wellhausen|Wellhausen]] had given classical expression in his [[Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels|''Geschichte Israels'']] which had appeared less than three years earlier, in 1878."<ref>John W. Rogerson, "W. R. Smith's ''The Old Testament in the Jewish Church'': Its antecedents, its influence, and its abiding value" in Johnstone, editor, ''William Robertson Smith. Essays in reassessment'' (Sheffield Academic 1995), 132–147, at 132. Here [132–136] Rogerson reviews briefly the reception of continental (German and Dutch) ''higher criticism'', mentioning de Witte, Ewald, and Kuenen.</ref><ref>Cf. John Rogerson, ''Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. England and Germany'' (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1984), at Chapter 19, "Germany from 1860: the Path to Wellhausen" [257–272]; and, at Chapter 20, "England from 1880: the Triumph of Wellhausen" [273–289].</ref> Yet "Smith did not merely repeat the arguments of Wellhausen, or anyone else; he approached the subject in a quite original way."<ref>Rogerson, "W. R. Smith's ''The Old Testament in the Jewish Church''" in Johnstone, ''William Robertson Smith'' (1995), 132–147, at 136. Smith's "great contemporaries Kuenen and Wellhausen were historians and not theologians." But "for Smith, the God whose history of grace was disclosed by the historical criticism of the Old Testament was the God whose grace was still offered to the human race."
Rogerson (1995) at 144, 145.</ref>

====''The Prophets of Israel''====
*''The Prophets of Israel and their place in history, to the close of the 8th century B.C.'' (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black 1882), reprinted with introduction and notes by T. K. Cheney (London: A. & C. Black 1895).
**The Hebrew [[prophet]]s are presented in context with the ancient religious practice by neighboring nations. Instead of divination, elsewhere often used for political convenience or emotional release (however earnest), here the prophets of [[History of ancient Israel and Judah|Israel]] witness to the God of justice, i.e., to their God's true nature [85–87, 107–108]. In announcing ethical guidance, these ancient prophets declared to the Jewish people the will of their God acting in history [70–75].
**The opening chapters introduce the nature of [[Jehovah]] in Jewish history after Moses [33–41, {110–112, 116–118}] discussing neighboring religions [26–27, 38–40, 49–51, 66–68], regional [[theocracy]] [47–53], [[henotheism]] [53–60], national survival [32–39] and righteousness [34–36, 70–74], as well as [[Book of Judges|Judges]] [30–31, 39, 42–45], and the prophet [[Elijah]] [76–87]. Then follows chapters on the prophets [[Amos (prophet)|Amos]] [III], [[Hosea]] [IV], and [[Isaiah]] [V-VII], wherein Smith seeks to demonstrate how the Hebrew religion grew through each prophet's message.<ref>Bediako, ''Primal Religion and the Bible'' (1997) at 273, 276, 278.</ref> The work concludes with the secular and religious history of the period preceding the [[Babylonian captivity|exile]] [VIII].
*In his Preface [xlix-lviii, at lvi–lvii], the author acknowledges reliance on critical biblical studies, specifically that established by [[Heinrich Ewald|Ewald]], developed by [[Karl Heinrich Graf|Graf]], and furthered by [[Abraham Kuenen|Kuenen]] referencing his ''Godsdienst'', by Duhm per his ''Theologie der Propheten'', and by [[Julius Wellhausen|Wellhausen]], citing his [[Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels|''Geschichte'']] (1878).
*The author confidently rests the case for biblical religion on "ordinary methods of historical investigation" [17] and on the "general law of human history that truth is consistent, progressive, and imperishable, while every falsehood is self-contradictory, and ultimately falls to pieces. A religion which has endured every possible trial... declares itself by irresistible evidence to be a thing of reality and power." [16].
*Yet, despite his heresy trial, current modern scholarship appraises W. R. Smith as too beholden to nineteenth-century Protestant doctrine, so that he fails in his ''Prophets of Israel'' book to achieve his avowed aim of historical inquiry. However flawed, "he will be remembered as a pioneer."<ref>Robert P. Carroll, "The Biblical Prophets as apologists for the Christian religion: reading William Robertson Smith's ''The Prophets of Israel'' today" in Johnstone, editor, ''William Robertson Smith. Essays in reassessment'' (1995), pp. 148–157, 149 ("anti-intellectual churches in the nineteenth century"), 152 ("an extremely Christian reading of the prophets"), 157 (quote).</ref>

====''Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia''====
*''Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia'' (Cambridge University 1885); second edition, with additional notes by the Author and by Professor [[Ignaz Goldziher]], Budapest, and edited with an introduction by Stanley A. Cook (London: A. & C. Black 1903); reprint 1963 Beacon Press, Boston, with a new Preface by [[E. L. Peters]]. This book in particular, among many others, drew the broad-brush criticism of Prof. [[Edward W. Said|Said]] as swimming in the narrow blinkered sea of 19th-century European [[Orientalism]].<ref>Edward Said, ''[[Orientalism (book)|Orientalism]]'' (New York: Random House 1978, reprint Vintage Books 1979), pp. 234–237, ''Kinship and Marriage'' quoted at 235 (per 344–345).</ref><ref>Cf., Jonathan Skinner, "Orientalists and Orientalisms: Robertson Smith and Edward W. Said" at pp. 376–382, in Johnstone, editor, ''William Robertson Smith. Essays in reassessment'' (1995).</ref>
**This work traces, from an earlier [[totem]]ist [[matriarchy]] that practiced [[exogamy]], the further development of a "system of male [[kinship]], with corresponding laws of [[marriage]] and [[Tribe|tribal]] organization, which prevailed in [[pre-Islamic Arabia|Arabia]] at the time of Mohammed." (Author's Preface).
**Chapters:
***1. The Theory of the [[genealogy|Genealogists]] as to the Origin of Arabic Tribal Groups. ''E.g., Bakr and Taghlib (proper names of ancestors), fictitious [[ancestor]]s, unity of the tribal blood, female [[eponyms]]'';
***2. The Kindred Group [''hayy''] and its Dependents and Allies. ''E.g., [[adoption]], blood covenant, [[property]], tribe and [[family]]'';
***3. The Homogeneity of the Kindred Group in relation to the Law of Marriage and [[Kinship and descent|Descent]]. ''E.g., [[exogamy]], types of marriage (e.g., capture, [[contract]], purchase), [[inheritance]], [[divorce]], women's property'';
***4. Paternity. ''E.g., original sense of [[fatherhood]], polyandry, [[infanticide]]'';
***5. Paternity, [[Polyandry]] with Male Kinship, and with Kinship through Women. ''E.g., evidence of [[Strabo]], conjugal [[fidelity]], [[chastity]], [[Milk kinship|milk brotherhood]], two (female, and male) systems of kinship, decay of tribal feeling'';
***6. Female Kinship and Marriage Bars. ''E.g. forbidden [[kinship|degrees]], the tent (bed) in marriage, matronymic families, ''beena'' marriages, ''ba'al'' marriage, totemism and [[heterogeneous]] groups'';
***7. [[Totem]]ism. ''E.g., tribes named from animals, [[jinn]], tribal [[tattoo|mark]]s or wasm'';
***8. Conclusion. ''E.g., origin of the tribal system, [[human migration|migration]]s of the Semites''.
*Conceived at the frontier of academic study on early culture, Smith's work relied on a current anthropology proposed by the late [[John Ferguson McLennan]], in his ''Primitive Marriage'' (Edinburgh 1865). (Author's Preface).<ref>McLennan is quoted that six social conditions form a mutually necessary totality: exogamy, totemism, blood feud, religious obligation of vengeance, female infanticide, and female kindship. McLennan, ''Studies in Ancient History'' (second series, 1896) at 28, as quoted by Evans-Pritchard, ''Social Anthropology'' (Oxford Univ. 1948), chap.2, at 34–35, reprint by The Free Press, Glencoe, 1962.</ref> Smith also employed recent material by A. G. Wilken, ''Het Matriarchaat bij de oude Arabieren'' (1884) and by [[Edward Tylor|E. B. Tylor]], ''Arabian Matriarchate'' (1884), and received suggestions from [[Theodor Nöldeke]] and from [[Ignaz Goldziher]]. (Author's Preface).
*Although still admired on several counts, the scholarly consensus now disfavors many of its conclusions. Smith here "forced the facts to fit McLennan's evolutionary schema, which was entirely defective."<ref>Peter Revière, "William Robertson Smith and John Ferguson McLennan: The Aberdeen roots of British social anthropology", 293–302, at 300, in Johnstone, editor, ''William Robertson Smith'' (1995).</ref> Professor [[Edward Evans-Pritchard]], while praising Smith for his discussion of the tribe [''hayy''], finds his theories about an early matriarchy wanting. Smith conceived feminine names for tribes as "survivals" of matriarchy, but they may merely reflect grammar, i.e., "collective terms in Arabic are constantly feminine", or lineage practice, i.e., "in a polygamous society the children of one father may be distinguished into groups by use of their mothers' names". Evans-Pritchard also concludes that "Smith makes out no case for the ancient Bedouin being totemic" but only for their "interest in nature". He faults Smith for his "blind acceptance of McLennan's formulations".<ref>Evans-Pritchard, ''A History of Anthropological Thought'' (1981) at 72 (''hayy''); at 72–74 (matriarchy), 73 (quotes re feminine names as grammar or lineage practice); at 74–76 (totems), 76 (quote "no case"); at 76–77 (quote re McLennan).</ref>
*Smith was part of a general movement by historians, anthropologists, and others, that both theorized a [[matriarchy]] present in early civilizations and discovered traces of it. In the 19th century it included eminent scholars and well-known authors such as [[Johann Jakob Bachofen|J.J. Bachofen]], [[James George Frazer]], [[Frederick Engels]], and in the 20th century [[Robert Graves]], [[Carl Jung]], [[Joseph Campbell]], [[Marija Gimbutas]]. Smith's conclusions were based on the then prevailing notion that [[matrifocal]] and [[matrilineal]] societies were the norm in Europe and western Asia, at least prior to the invasion of the [[Proto-Indo-Europeans|Indo-European]]s from central Asia. Subsequent findings have not been kind to that thread of Smith's work which offers a prehistoric matriarchy to schematize the Semites. It is certainly recognized that a large number of prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures practiced matrilinear or [[cognatic succession]], as do many hunter-gatherer cultures today. Yet it is no longer widely accepted by scholars that the earliest Semites had a matrilineal system. This is due largely to the unearthing of thousands of [[Safaitic]] inscriptions in [[pre-Islamic Arabia]], which appear to indicate that, on the issues of inheritance, succession, and political power, the Arabs of the pre-Islamic period were little different from the Arabs today.{{citation needed|date=September 2013}} Evidence from both Arab and [[Amorite]] sources discloses the early Semitic family as being mainly patriarchal and patrilineal,{{citation needed|date=September 2013}} as are the [[Bedouin]] today, while the early Indo-European family may have been matrilineal, or at least allotting high social status to women. [[Robert G. Hoyland]] a scholar of the Arabs and Islam writes, "While descent through the male line would seem to have been the norm in pre-Islamic Arabia, we are occasionally given hints of matrilineal arrangements."<ref>Robert G. Hoyland, ''Arabia and the Arabs. From the bronze age to the coming of Islam'' (London: Routledge 2001) at 129. Hoyland (at 64–65) discusses the Safaitic texts (20,000 graffiti) of '330 BC{{snd}}240 AD' but without focusing on male political power.</ref>

====''The Religion of the Semites'' (1st)====
*''Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. Fundamental Institutions. First Series'' (London: Adam & Charles Black 1889); second edition [posthumous], edited by J. S. Black (1894), reprint 1956 by Meridian Library, New York; third edition, introduced and additional notes by S. A. Cook (1927), reprint 1969 by Ktav, New York, with prolegomenon by James Muilenberg.
**This well-known work seeks to reconstruct from scattered documents the several common religious practices and associated social behavior of the ancient [[Semitic peoples]], i.e., of Mesopotamia, Syria, Phoenicia, Israel, Arabia [1, 9–10]. The book thus provides the contemporary historical context for the earlier Biblical writings.
**In two introductory lectures the author discusses [[Urreligion|primal religion]] and its evolution, which now seem too often to over generalize (perhaps inevitable in a pioneer work). In the first, Smith notes with caution the [[cuneiform]] records of [[Babylon]], and the influence of [[ancient Egypt]], then mentions [[pre-Islamic Arabia]] and the [[Tanakh|Hebrew Bible]] [13–14]; he discounts any possibility of "a complete comparative religion of Semitic religions" [15].
**In the second lecture, Smith's comments range widely on various facets of primal religion in Semitic society, e.g., on the ''protected strangers'' ([[Hebrew language|Heb]]: ''gērīm'', sing. ''gēr''; [[Arabic language|Arab]]: ''jīrān'', sing. ''jār'') who were "personally free but had no political rights". Smith continues, that as the tribe protects the ''gēr'', so does the God protect the tribe as "clients" who obey and so are righteous; hence the tribal God may develop into a universal Deity whose worshippers follow ethical precepts [75–81].
**Of the eleven lectures, Holy Places are discussed in lectures III to V. In the third lecture, nature gods of the land are discussed [84–113]; later [[jinn]] and their haunts are investigated [118–137], wherein the nature of [[totem]]s are introduced [124–126]; then totem animals are linked to jinn [128–130], and the totem to the tribal god [137–139]. The fourth lecture discusses, e.g., the holiness and the taboos of the [[sanctuary]]. The fifth: holy waters, trees, caves, and stones.
**[[Sacrifice]]s are addressed in lectures VI to XI. The sixth contains Smith's controversial theory of communal sacrifice regarding the [[totem]], wherein the tribe, at a collective meal of the totem animal, come to realize together a social bond together with their totem-linked tribal god [226–231]. This ''communion'' theory, shared in some regard with Wellhausen, now enjoys little strong support.<ref>Cf., R. J. Thompson, ''Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel outside Levitical Law: An examination of the Fellowship Theory of early Israelite sacrifice'' (Leiden: Brill 1963), cited by Bediako (1997) at 306, n.4.</ref><ref>Evans-Pritchard writes, "The evidence for this theory... is negligiable." While not impossible, he infers other interpretations, concluding, "In this manner Robertson Smith misled both Durkeim and Freud." E. E. Evans-Pritchard, ''Theories of Primitive Religion'' (Oxford University 1965) at 51–52. Here Evans-Pritchard claims that between the first edition and second posthumous edition, certain passages were deleted "which might be thought to discredit the New Testament." Evans-Pritchard (1965) at 52, citing J. G. Frazer, ''The Gorgon's Head'' (1927) at 289.</ref>
*On the cutting edge of biblical scholarship, this work builds on a narrower study by his friend professor [[Julius Wellhausen]], ''Reste Arabischen Heidentums'' (Berlin 1887), and on other works on the religious history of the region and in general. (Smith's Preface).<ref>Not mentioned by Smith are prior publications concerning the nascent anthropology, for example: [[J. J. Bachofen]], ''[[Das Mutterrecht]]'' (1861); [[Fustel de Coulanges]], ''Le Cité antique'' (1864); and, [[Edward Tylor]], ''Researches into the Early History of Mankind'' (1865).</ref> The author also employs analogies drawn from [[James George Frazer]],<ref>Frazer soon would publish his ''[[The Golden Bough]]'' (1890).</ref> to apply where insufficient data existed for the ancient Semites. (Smith's Preface). Hence Smith's methodology was soon criticized by [[Theodor Nöldeke]].<ref>Also on account of method Smith was criticized by other contemporaries: [[Archibald Sayce]], and [[Marie-Joseph Lagrange]]. Bediako, ''Primal Religion and the Bible'' (1997) at 305, n.3.</ref>
*Generally, the book was well received by contemporaries. It won [[Julius Wellhausen|Wellhausen]]'s praise.<ref>Rudolf Smend, "William Robertson Smith and Julius Wellhausen" in Johnston, ''William Robertson Smith'' (1995) at 226–242, 238–240.</ref> Later it would influence [[Émile Durkheim]],<ref>Harriet Lutzky, "Deity and the Social Bond: Robertson Smith and the Psychoanalytic Theory of Religion" in Johnstone, editor, ''William Robertson Smith'' (1995) at 320–330, 322–323.</ref><ref>Gillian M. Bediako, ''Primal Religion and the Bible'' (1997) at 306–307.</ref> [[Mircea Eliade]],<ref>William Johnstone, "Introduction" in his edited ''William Robertson Smith. Essays in reassessment'' (1995) at 15, n3.</ref> [[James George Frazer]],<ref>Bediako, ''Primal Religion and the Bible'' (1997) at 307–308.</ref><ref>See discussion by Hushang Philosoph, "A Reconsideration of Frazer's relationship with Robertson Smith: The myth and the facts" in Johnstone, editor, ''William Robertson Smith'' (1995), 331–342, i.e., at 332.</ref> [[Sigmund Freud]],<ref>Lutzky, "Deity and the Social Bond: Robertson Smith and the psychoanalytic theory of religion" in Johnstone, editor, ''William Robertson Smith'' (1995) at 320–330, 324–326.</ref> and [[Bronisław Malinowski]].<ref>Bediako, ''Primal Religion and the Bible'' (1997) at 307.</ref>
*After 75 years [[Evans-Pritchard]], although noting his wide influence, summarized criticism of Smith's [[totem]]ism, "Bluntly, all Robertson Smith really does is to guess about a period of Semitic history about which we know almost nothing."<ref>E. E. Evans-Pritchard, ''Theories of Primitive Religion'' (Oxford University 1965) at 51–53 & 56, quote at 52. "The evidence for these suppositions is exiguous." Evans-Pritchard (1965) at 51.</ref>

====''The Religion of the Semites'' (2nd, 3rd)====
*''Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. Second and Third Series'', edited with an introduction by John Day (Sheffield Academic 1995).
*Based on the 'newly discovered' original lecture notes of William Robertson Smith; only the first series had been prepared for publication (1889, 2d ed. 1894) by the author. (Editor's Introduction at 11–13). Smith earlier had written that "three courses of lectures" were planned: the first regarding "practical religious institutions", the second on "the gods of Semitic heathenism", with the third focusing on the influence of Semitic [[monotheism]]. Yet because the first course of lectures (ending with sacrifice) did not finish, it left coverage of feasts and the priesthood "to run over into the second course".<ref>Smith, ''The Religion of the Semites'' (1889, 2d ed. 1894) at 26–27.</ref>
**Second Series [33–58]: I. Feasts; II. Priests and the Priestly Oracles; III. Diviners and Prophets.
**Third Series [59–112]: I. Semitic Polytheism (1); II. Semitic Polytheism (2); III. The Gods and the World: Cosmogony.
*An Appendix [113–142] contains contemporary press reports describing the lectures, including reports of extemporaneous comments made by Robertson Smith, which appear in neither of the two published texts derived from his lecture notes.