Editing William Robertson Smith (section)

====''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>