Visit https://ebookfinal.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

Abraham s Children Jews Christians and Muslims

in Conversation Norman Solomon (Editor)

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookfinal.com/download/abraham-s-children-
jews-christians-and-muslims-in-conversation-norman-
solomon-editor/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookfinal.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download

Learned Ignorance Intellectual Humility among Jews

Christians and Muslims 1st Edition James L. Heft

https://ebookfinal.com/download/learned-ignorance-intellectual-
humility-among-jews-christians-and-muslims-1st-edition-james-l-heft/

Jews Christians Muslims A Comparative Introduction to

Monotheistic Religions 2nd Edition John Corrigan

https://ebookfinal.com/download/jews-christians-muslims-a-comparative-
introduction-to-monotheistic-religions-2nd-edition-john-corrigan/

Shared Stories Rival Tellings Early Encounters of Jews

Christians and Muslims 1st Edition Robert C. Gregg

https://ebookfinal.com/download/shared-stories-rival-tellings-early-
encounters-of-jews-christians-and-muslims-1st-edition-robert-c-gregg/

Muslims and Jews in France History of a Conflict Maud S.

Mandel

https://ebookfinal.com/download/muslims-and-jews-in-france-history-of-
a-conflict-maud-s-mandel/
Cultural Exchange Jews Christians and Art in the Medieval
Marketplace Joseph Shatzmiller

https://ebookfinal.com/download/cultural-exchange-jews-christians-and-
art-in-the-medieval-marketplace-joseph-shatzmiller/

Muslims Christians and the Challenge of Interfaith

Dialogue First Edition Jane I. Smith

https://ebookfinal.com/download/muslims-christians-and-the-challenge-
of-interfaith-dialogue-first-edition-jane-i-smith/

Historical dictionary of Judaism Third Edition. Edition

Norman Solomon

https://ebookfinal.com/download/historical-dictionary-of-judaism-
third-edition-edition-norman-solomon/

Studies in Symbolic Interaction Vol 29 1st Edition Norman

K. Denzin (Ed.)

https://ebookfinal.com/download/studies-in-symbolic-interaction-
vol-29-1st-edition-norman-k-denzin-ed/

Dominicans Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of

Aragon 1st Edition Robin Vose

https://ebookfinal.com/download/dominicans-muslims-and-jews-in-the-
medieval-crown-of-aragon-1st-edition-robin-vose/
Abraham s Children Jews Christians and Muslims in
Conversation Norman Solomon (Editor) Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): Norman Solomon (editor), Richard Harries (editor), Tim Winter
(editor)
ISBN(s): 9780567081711, 0567081710
Edition: Illustrated
File Details: PDF, 18.02 MB
Year: 2006
Language: english
ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN
This page intentionally left blank
 ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN

JEWS, CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS IN CONVERSATION

Edited by
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

t&t clark
Published by T&T Clark
A Continuum imprint
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038

www.continuumbooks.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.

Copyright © Norman Solomon, Richard D. Harries and Tim Winter and

contributors, 2005

First published 2006

Reprinted 2009

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Abraham's Children : Jews, Christians and Muslims in Conversation / edited by
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries, and Tim Winter. — 1st ed.
p. cm.
ISBN 0-567-08171-0 (hardcover) - ISBN 0-567-08161-3 (pbk.)
1. Christianity and other religions. 2. Judaism-Relations. 3. Islam-Relations.
I. Solomon, Norman, 1933- II. Harries, Richard. III. Winter, Timothy J.
BR127.A272006
201'.5-dc22
2005020666
Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production Ltd
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by
the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King's Lynn

ISBN 978 056708171 1 (hardback)

978 056708161 2 (paperback)
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix
Contributors xi

Introductions 1
Richard Harries, Norman Solomon and Tim Winter

Part I: Foundations of Faith

CHAPTER 1: Abraham
ABRAHAM FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 9
Sybil Sheridan
ABRAHAM FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 18
Paul Joyce
ABRAHAM FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 28
Tim Winter
ABRAHAM IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM THOUGHT 36
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

CHAPTER 2: Moses
MOSES FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 40
Jonathan Gorsky
MOSES FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 49
John Barton
MOSES FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 55
Annabel Keeler
MOSES IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM THOUGHT 67
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

CHAPTER 3: Jesus
JESUS FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 72
Kallistos Ware
vi Abraham's Children

JESUS FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 87

Sybil Sheridan
JESUS FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 99
Basil Mustafa
JESUS IN CHRISTIAN, JEWISH AND MUSLIM THOUGHT 108
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

CHAPTER 4: Muhammad
MUHAMMAD FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 114
Tim Winter
MUHAMMAD FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 124
Keith Ward
MUHAMMAD FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 132
Norman Solomon
MUHAMMAD IN MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH THOUGHT 140
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

Part II: Resources for the Modern World

CHAPTER 5: The Image of God in Humanity

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HUMANITY FROM A JEWISH
PERSPECTIVE 147
Norman Solomon
THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HUMANITY FROM A CHRISTIAN
PERSPECTIVE 154
Alison Salvesen
THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HUMANITY FROM A MUSLIM
PERSPECTIVE 163
Yahya Michot
THE IMAGE OF GOD IN HUMANITY, IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN
AND MUSLIM THOUGHT 175
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

CHAPTER 6: Pluralism
PLURALISM FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 180
Norman Solomon
PLURALISM FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 190
Keith Ward
PLURALISM FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 202
Tim Winter
 Contents vii

PLURALISM IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM THOUGHT 212

Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

CHAPTER 7: Gender
GENDER FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 216
Sybil Sheridan
GENDER FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 224
Marcus Braybrooke
GENDER FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 236
Tim Winter
GENDER IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM THOUGHT 244
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

CHAPTER 8: The Environment

THE ENVIRONMENT FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 248
Norman Solomon
THE ENVIRONMENT FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 257
Kallistos Ware
THE ENVIRONMENT FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 272
Lutfi Radwan
THE ENVIRONMENT IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM
THOUGHT 284
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

CHAPTER 9: Life after Death

LIFE AFTER DEATH FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE 289
Norman Solomon
LIFE AFTER DEATH FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 298
Richard Harries
LIFE AFTER DEATH FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE 307
Yahya Michot
LIFE AFTER DEATH IN JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM
THOUGHT 319
Norman Solomon, Richard Harries and Tim Winter

Index of References 325

Index of Modern Authors 335
This page intentionally left blank
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Quotations from the Christian Bible are taken from the New Revised
Standard Version unless otherwise stated.

The extract from That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire and of the Comfort of
the Resurrection' from W.H. Gardner and N.H. Mackenzie (eds.), The
Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins (London: Oxford University Press, 4th
edn, 1970), p. 105, is reproduced by permission of Oxford University
Press on behalf of the British Province of the Society of Jesus.
This page intentionally left blank
 CONTRIBUTORS

The Revd Professor John Barton teaches Old Testament studies at the
University of Oxford, as Oriel and Laing Professor of the Interpretation of
Holy Scripture. He has written a number of books about the Bible, and is joint
editor of The Oxford Bible Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001). He is an Anglican priest and lives in Abingdon, near Oxford, where
he assists in several churches.

The Revd Dr Marcus Braybrooke is President of the World Congress of

Faiths, and until 2005 was vicar of the Baldons with Nuneham Courtenay
near Oxford. He has travelled widely and been involved in interfaith work
for over thirty-five years. A former Director of the Council of Christians
and Jews, he was one of the founders of the Three Faiths Forum and of the
International Interfaith Centre, of which he is now a Patron. His books
include Christian-Jewish Dialogue: The Next Steps (London: SCM Press,
2000), What We Can Learn from Islam (New Alresford: John Hunt, 2002),
and A Heart for the World (New Alresford: John Hunt, 2006).

The Revd Jonathan Gorsky is Education Advisor to the Council of

Christians and Jews. He studied history at Liverpool and Manchester
Universities and Jewish Studies at Jews College, London. He is a former
Education Director of Yakar, a Jewish cultural centre in London, and a
minister to the Orthodox community in St. Albans. He has worked in
Christian-Jewish relations since 1992.

The Rt Revd Richard Harries has been Bishop of Oxford since 1987.
Before that, he was Dean of King's College, London. For nearly nine years
he chaired the Council of Christians and Jews. When he came to Oxford,
he convened the Abrahamic Group, of which this book is a product. He is
the author of many books, including Art and the Beauty of God (London:
Mowbray, 1993), which was selected as a book of the year by the late
Anthony Burgess in The Observer; After the Evil: Christianity and Judaism
in the Shadow of the Holocaust (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003);
and The Passion in Art (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004). In 1996, he was elected
xii Abraham's Children

a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He is active in the House of

Lords and since 1972 has been a regular contributor to BBC Radio 4's
Today programme.

Dr Paul Joyce is a Roman Catholic Christian, who taught Old Testament

Studies at Ripon College Cuddesdon, an Anglican theological college,
before moving to teach in the University of Birmingham. Since 1994, he has
been a University Lecturer in the University of Oxford and a Fellow of St.
Peter's College, Oxford. His doctoral studies were on the book of Ezekiel,
and he has written particularly on the literature of the Exile and also on the
place of the Bible in the modern world.

Dr Annabel Keeler is a Research Associate at Wolfson College in the

University of Cambridge, where she works in the field of Islamic mysticism
and Qur'anic hermeneutics, on which subjects she has published a number
of articles. Her doctoral dissertation, on a twelfth-century Persian Sufi
commentary on the Qur'an, is currently in preparation for publication in
early 2006 by Oxford University Press in association with the Institute of
Ismaili Studies. She participates as a Muslim in a number of interfaith initia-
tives in Cambridge.

Professor Yahya Michot, since 1998, has been a Fellow of the Oxford
Centre for Islamic Studies and the Islamic Centre Lecturer in the Faculty
of Theology in the University of Oxford. His main field of research is
classical Muslim thought, principally Avicenna (d. AH 428/1037), his
sources, and his impact on Sunnism. This has led to a growing interest in
the theologian Ibn Taymiyya (d. AH 728/1328) and the time of the
Mamluks.

Dr Basil Mustafa is Bursar and Nelson Mandela Fellow in Educational

Studies at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies; Associate Tutor at the
Department for Continuing Education in the University of Oxford; and a
member of Kellogg College, Oxford. He is an educationalist with a special
interest in the educational needs of Muslim minorities in Europe, and an
active participant in interfaith dialogue.

Dr Lutfi Radwan is an environmentalist, lecturer and organic farmer, who

graduated in 1992 with a doctorate from the University of Oxford on
irrigation in rural Egypt. He has subsequently lectured on, and under-
taken consultancy relating to, social and environmental sustainability in arid
regions. More recently, he has been involved in organic farming in the UK
where, in Oxfordshire, he and his wife manage a smallholding.
 Contributors xiii

Dr Alison Salvesen is University Research Lecturer at the Oriental Institute

in the University of Oxford, and Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew
and Jewish Studies. She specializes in early Jewish and Christian translation
and exegesis of the Bible. She has published books on minor Jewish Greek
versions of scripture and on an early mediaeval Christian version of Samuel
in Syriac. She has also worked in the field of Classical Hebrew lexicography.

Rabbi Sybil Sheridan is a rabbi of the Wimbledon Reform Synagogue and

a Lecturer in Bible and Life Cycle and Festivals at the Leo Baeck College
Centre for Jewish Education in London. She is the author of Stories from
the Jewish World (London: Macdonald, 1987), and editor of Hear Our
Voice (London: SCM Press, 1994) and Taking up the Timbrel (London:
SCM Press, 2000), two anthologies of work by the women rabbis of Great
Britain.

Rabbi Norman Solomon was born in Cardiff, south Wales, and educated
at St. John's College, Cambridge. He has served as rabbi to several
Orthodox congregations in Britain, was founder-Director of the Centre for
the Study of Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations in Birmingham, and
was Fellow in Modern Jewish Thought at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew
and Jewish Studies. He has published several books on Judaism.

The Revd Professor Keith Ward was Regius Professor of Divinity at the
University of Oxford, and a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Before that,
he was Professor of the History and Philosophy of Religion at the University
of London. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, and among his publica-
tions is a four-volume comparative theology, published under the titles
Religion and Revelation^ Religion and Creation^ Religion and Human Nature
and Religion and Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1994-2000).

The Rt Revd Kallistos Ware is an Assistant Bishop in the Orthodox

Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, and also a monk of the
Monastery of St. John the Theologian on the island of Patmos. He was
Spalding Lecturer in Eastern Orthodox Studies at the University of Oxford
from 1966 to 2001, and is an Emeritus Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.
His books include The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963),
The Orthodox Way (London: Mowbray, 1979) and The Inner Kingdom
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2000). He is co-translator
of The Philokalia (London: Faber and Faber, 1979) and of Orthodox litur-
gical books.
xiv Abraham's Children

Tim Winter is currently University Lecturer in Islamic Studies at the Faculty

of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. He has studied under traditional
authorities in Egypt and Morocco, and is an active member of the British
Muslim community, leading the weekly Friday prayers in the mosque at
Cambridge. He has published a series of translations of mediaeval Arabic
ethical and mystical texts, together with a number of academic articles.
 INTRODUCTIONS

Richard Harries

Until I came to Oxford in 1987,1 was for many years a member of the Manor
House Group, based in London. This sought to encourage harmony between
Judaism and Christianity by bringing together Jewish and Christian theologians
to discuss subjects of mutual interest. We used to meet twice a year and then
go away for a weekend together. One fruit of that group was a book, published
in 1992, Dialogue with a Difference: The Manor House Group Experience
The 'difference' was that we got to know each other very well, sharing much
laughter together, and became able to share strong disagreements as well as
what we had in common; and we have remained friends after the group ceased
to exist.2
When I came to Oxford, it seemed an opportune moment to initiate a similar
group, this time including Muslims; and the presence in the city of the Oxford
Centre for Islamic Studies was a great help in this regard. So the Oxford
Abrahamic Group began in December 1992, and has been meeting ever since:
usually twice a year, but sometimes three times, for the best part of a day at my
house in north Oxford. At each meeting, three short papers are given on an
agreed subject, one from each of the three Abrahamic faiths, followed by
extensive discussion. It has usually been possible to take two subjects in a day,
one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Initially, the intention was for the
group to number twelve scholars, four from each faith, though in practice the
overall membership has been larger in order that around a dozen scholars might
be available to attend any one meeting. In addition to the contributors to this
book, the present membership includes Ron Nettler, Farhan Nizami and
Bassam Saeh. Past members have included the late Peter Hebblethwaite, Julian
Johansen, Penelope Johnstone, David Marshall, Tariq Modood, Sohail
Nakhooda, Jonathan Romain, James Walker and Jonathan Webber.
It was as far back as May 1998 that Tim Winter suggested that some of our
papers should be published. Reflection on this soon made clear that not only
1. T. Bayfield and M.C.R. Braybrooke (eds.), Dialogue with a Difference: The Manor
House Group Experience (London: SCM Press, 1992).
2. At about the time I came to Oxford, the original group disbanded. Some members
formed a new group to include Muslims.
2 Abraham's Children

would the group's papers on a variety of subjects - old as well as new ones -
be valued by a wider audience, but also the group's discussions, if there was
some way in which they could be crystallized and recorded. We achieved this
by using, for the basis of our discussions, a commentary on each subject,
prepared in advance by myself from the first drafts of the papers, indicating
those points which the three religions had in common, those points where the
religions diverged in their understanding of the subject under discussion, and
those issues which needed further exploration. These commentaries were
revised, in the light of discussion at the meeting, by a representative of each of
the faiths - myself, Norman Solomon and Tim Winter - before being presented
finally to the whole group once more; and they are printed in this book at the
end of each section. In this way, not only are the essays themselves framed in
the context of dialogue (as each essay was revised in the light of its reception
at our meetings), but also the commentary sections are distillations of, and
attempts at, conversation between the three faiths. The aim has thus been not
only to present treatments of subjects which have been forged in dialogue
with all the sensitivities and sympathies which that involves, but also to offer
ways forward for dialogue through practical examples of the same by a group
of some years' experience.
One of the main blessings of a group like this, indeed one of the purposes in
setting it up in the first place, is the building up of relationships of respect and
trust, so that there can be a frank, as well as a polite, exchange of opinions. For
this, continuity in group members is fundamental. This was initially difficult
to achieve, due to people moving on from Oxford to new jobs elsewhere, but
the group has remained fairly stable in recent years, so it has not just been a
seminar with academics reading papers, but a group of believers who from their
different standpoints have wanted both to share insights with others and also
to learn from different perspectives. One, not surprising, feature of our discus-
sions is that sometimes there has been as much of a debate between the
adherents to a particular religion as there has been between members of
different religions. In all three religions today, there can be found not only long-
established, traditional understandings of particular beliefs, but also an
openness to modern questionings and insights; and all three religions today
exhibit something of the tension between these two sympathies.
In the time that the group has met, of course, the unprecedented terrorist
attacks on America of 2001 have occurred, with the ensuing wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and further terrorist attacks in Europe and around the
world, bringing fundamentalist readings of religious traditions into the
spotlight, and heightening the tensions between ordinary communities of
different faiths. In this new landscape, the task of dialogue is ever more urgent
and we have felt more keenly the importance of what we have been trying to
achieve. It is particularly in this spirit that we offer our conversations to be
overheard.
A note about a practical feature of the book, to help the reader: while each
author has tried to be true to the religion to which they belong, the individual
 Introductions 3

essays represent the views of the author; they do not generally attempt to be
neutral surveys. Nonetheless, it is hoped that each essay will acquaint the
reader with a basic introduction to the features of that religion's treatment of
the subject concerned, and to basic relevant texts; hence it has not been felt
necessary to provide a final bibliography or suggestions for further reading. In
one sense the book will be a success if it leads readers — both the serious
academic researcher and the general reader - not so much to further reading
as to actual dialogue.
Readers will also notice that while the treatments of most subjects are arranged
in chronological order, that is to say, first the Jewish perspective, then the
Christian, then the Muslim, it seemed appropriate in the case of the founders
of the religions to give first place to the essay from the perspective of the religion
founded: thus the essay from a Christian perspective comes first in the section
on Jesus, and the essay from a Muslim perspective comes first in the section on
Muhammad. In the section on Moses, the Jewish perspective comes first again.
Two people require special thanks: first of all, my chaplain, Michael Brierley,
who has done a very great deal of the detailed editorial work which has proved
necessary; secondly, my wife, Jo, who has provided hospitality for the group,
with its variety of dietary requirements, from the start.

Norman Solomon

Like Richard Harries, I was a member of the Manor House Group. After the
group published Dialogue with a Difference, I helped reconstitute it into a group
including Muslims, in which form it still functions today. Several other
'Abrahamic' groups, both in the UK and other countries, not least Israel, now
meet regularly and provide for the exchange of views between Jews, Christians
and Muslims.
The Oxford Abrahamic Group, which I joined only when it was already well
established, is distinctive not only for its cohesion and persistence but also for
its broad range of academic expertise. Indeed, it is precisely this broad range
of expertise that has enabled it to achieve new and fruitful perspectives on the
relationships of Jews, Christians and Muslims. On the Jewish side, for instance,
we have not ignored the variety and development of Judaism within Sasanian,
Byzantine and Islamic cultures as well as in the West. Considerations of
Christian and Islamic teaching and experience have been equally broad, and are
reflected in this volume.
In working together, members of the group have learned that no faith
community is monolithic, and that the range that exists within each faith
reflects personal, social and cultural differences that cut across faith barriers.
There are liberals and conservatives within each camp: Islam has no monopoly
of fanaticism, Judaism no monopoly of justice, Christianity no monopoly of
love. The constancies and commonalities of doctrine and vocabulary that
define each faith group allow for considerable divergence in the actual
4 Abraham's Children

expression of each; I would not necessarily agree, for instance, with all the inter-
pretations of Judaism offered in this volume by my Jewish colleagues.
Paradoxically, the air of academic detachment that pervades Oxford has aided
rather than undermined our understanding of the realities that underlie the
conflicts that still bedevil interfaith and intra-faith relations. All of us know
what it is like to live within a closed community, but in meeting together in a
relaxed atmosphere of mutual confidence and trust, we can stand back a little,
accept each other as we are, and dare to engage in self-criticism as well as in
mutual questionings. The apologetics are there - no one wants to 'let the side
down', to provide ammunition for detractors from his or her faith - but at the
same time, each is ready to admit to a certain selectiveness, to doubts about at
least some of the forms in which that faith has been couched.
We are all conscious of living within modernity, and that this to some extent
shapes our understanding of our faiths. Adherents of all three religions have
helped shape modernity, yet all three faiths, in their 'traditional' forms, which
are essentially those achieved in the Middle Ages, conflict with aspects of
modernity. Much of the dynamic of the group has arisen from addressing
these conflicts together, giving the lie to those who see contemporary conflicts
in terms of Islam versus the West, or versus Christendom.
A wise teacher once explained to me that he had not published anything,
saying, 'I was unable to capture in writing the movements of my hands.' It is
certainly true that much that appears in this volume lacks the 'movement of the
hands', the attitudes and facial expressions of the participants: subtle forms of
expression have occasionally been sacrificed in the interests of clarity; here and
there, a sub-text has been lost as the living dialogue has given way to the written
page. A dialogue is, after all, an engagement of persons, not a dry scholarly report,
however great its scholarly pretensions; ultimately, you cannot write it down.
I very much hope that readers will nevertheless capture something of the
dynamic which this group has enjoyed under the able leadership of Richard
Harries, and be inspired by the spirit of understanding and peace that I, for one,
feel privileged to have experienced.

Tim Winter

The Oxford Abrahamic Group is the best example known to me of a group of

people who are simultaneously friends, scholars and practising members of
religions that in the past have been capable of bitter rivalry. A congenial,
quizzical, erudite circle, the group gathers twice a year for the better part of a
day, taking a break for lunch. Although the themes are introduced with a
formal presentation, often in the form of papers which are read out to the
group, the seminar atmosphere soon dispels, as factual queries are cleared up
and participants probe the relevance of the presentation to their wider personal
understanding of the three traditions. Scholarship, conviviality and theology
quickly become inseparable, to produce a very distinctive group ethos.
 Introductions 5

A frequent outcome of these encounters has been the discovery that themes
which in briefer, more formulaic, dialogue sessions are ritually invoked as
'shared symbols', turn out to be metaphors of what most deeply divides the
respective faiths. The figure of Jesus might seem a good starting-point for a
mutual affirmation between Christianity and Islam; but investigation reveals
how profoundly different are the Christologies which are scripturally and
theologically embedded in the two faiths. At times, the group has turned to issues
where one or two of the traditions have little to fall back on historically other
than polemic: the issue of the founder of Islam is a case in point. Conversely,
the discussion of a topic such as 'divine action in the world' might begin with
well-worn assumptions about the fatalism of some religions and the free-will
convictions of others, but end with the realization that all three traditions have
developed similar internal spectrums of belief, reflecting ways in which human
minds wrestling with paradox, and informed by a shared belief in a benign and
omnipotent creator, can converge dramatically, despite scriptural and dogmatic
differences.
Once frankly acknowledged, the realization that one's own co-religionists
have seldom fully agreed on anything liberates the discussion by revealing
how each tradition is confronted by large, broadly analogous challenges:
tradition against modernity, scripture against rationalism, exoteric against
esoteric. New solidarities thus emerge as participants identify and sympathize
with thinkers who have analogous inclinations in the other faiths. Orthodox
Jews and conservative Muslims, for instance, are frequently struck by the
depths of rapport which can suddenly become manifest when discussing how
the modern conscience is challenged by a traditional revealed law. Feminists may
find that they comfortably speak to other feminists across religious borders.
Spirituality, a more frequently cited basis for inter-religious understanding, can
also provide moments of empathy, as when a poem cited during a presentation
suddenly recalls a strikingly exact parallel in the treasured memories of a
participant from a historically rival religion.
The comparative informality of the encounters, and the genial hospitality of
the host, also allow the formation of friendships across denominational lines
through the discovery of less intellectual but no less personal affinities and
interests. To launch a passionate defence of the Cappadocian view of the
Trinity, and then to find that one's interlocutor has children at the school where
one's spouse is a teacher, provides a calming reminder that one never disputes
with doctrines; one disputes with those who hold them, and that no belief
which is important to evidently good people can be undeserving of respect. It
is to this that one should attribute the persistent courtesy of the encounters,
helped by what one can only describe as a kind of English reserve.
The mood of the group is sometimes hesitant, if the subject is unfamiliar to
most present, or where participants are wary of treading carelessly on ground
which someone evidently hallows. On a few occasions, however, the debate has
grown wonderfully heated, to the alarm of those who feel that the future of the
world somehow depends on who emerges from the exchange with most credit.
6 Abraham's Children

Can such a community offer a lesson for a wider public? Evidently, it is

important for faith communities to know that their representatives are engaging
seriously with thinkers in other faiths. Evidently, too, the great mass of believers
in the three families of Abraham wish for conviviality with other believers.
There have been times in history when this was not the case, but today, despite
the headlines, and the heated rhetoric of fundamentalist preachers on all sides,
it is reasonable to claim that most Abrahamic believers find themselves on
slowly convergent paths. Multiculturalism and a world of mass communi-
cation have been far more active in this transformation than the interfaith
project, but perhaps a book such as this, with all its evident limitations, and
the necessarily partial quality of its reflection of the original conversations, can
show how the living together in practice of different religious groups can find
support in theology and the habits of its advocates. I think I speak for all
members of the group when I add that this is most likely to succeed where the
theology insists on the integrity of each religion, and refuses the logic of
syncretism or relativism. Abraham's God, after all, is a God of truth, whose
demands are absolute.
 PART I:
Foundations of Faith
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter 1: Abraham
ABRAHAM FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE
Sybil Sheridan

Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go [Lekh lekha] from your country and your
kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.'1

In this manner, the long narrative opens that relates the events of the patriarch's
life. In the course of this paper, we will look at these events through the
medium of Jewish Midrash and literature, and see how Abraham became the
foil to Moses, the founder of Judaism, the formulater of prayer and the ultimate
man of faith. Abraham's relationship to his two sons will then be examined to
see if there is a textual basis for today's dialogue between Jews and Muslims.

Abraham, Moses and Noah

A close look at the text above immediately presents a problem to the Jewish
reader. The command lekh lekha translates literally as 'go for yourself - a
phrase open to many interpretations. Does it mean, Take yourself?' 'Go it
alone?' 'Go for your own sake?' If the vocalization is removed, the phrase could
be a double command: 'Go, go!' With each understanding, a world of different
interpretation opens itself up, concerning the motive and circumstances of
God's call.
What appeared clear to rabbinic interpreters of the phrase is the presence of
a prehistory - one not recorded in the text, but necessary to its meaning: a
Midrash explaining why it is that Abraham is not surprised to be addressed so
suddenly by God, why it is that he obeys without demur - one that explains
the precise meaning of our phrase.
Midrash is a multifaceted system, utilizing myth, mores, tradition and imagin-
ation to illustrate a point that links linguistically to the text in hand. The
silence over Abraham's early years is filled with stories of a star in the east, a
prophecy and an evil king who sets out to find and kill the child.2 If this
1. Genesis 12.1.
2. For a summary of the many stories about Abraham, see L. Ginzberg, The Legends
of the Jews (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909), I, pp. 185-89.
10 Abraham's Children

sounds suspiciously Christian, one must bear in mind that the narrative is one
that prefigures the birth of Moses in just the same way that the birth stories of
Jesus echo those of Moses. In Jewish theology, Abraham is the precursor to
Judaism's greatest prophet and so in his life he parallels all that Moses will later
come to do. He leaves Ur to become a wanderer, and he goes down to Egypt
so that he can leave Egypt. At his death, he is possessor of only one small field
- as tantalizingly close to, yet distant from, the promise of a country for his
descendants, as is Moses dying on Mount Horeb. Abraham is only surpassed
by Moses himself. Abraham is seen as the first Jew;3 Moses becomes the
greatest Jew.4 Abraham is perceived par excellence as the man of faith;5 Moses
sees God face to face.6 Abraham undergoes ten tests of his belief; Moses is the
agent of ten plagues - and issues ten commandments.7 Abraham founds a
family; Moses founds a faith.
Abraham's realization of God's presence, in Midrash, parallels Moses'
burning bush experience. Having been hidden in a cave, Abraham emerged and

wondered in his heart: 'Who created heaven and earth and me?' All that day he
prayed to the sun. In the evening, the sun set in the west and the moon rose in the
east. Upon seeing the moon and the stars around it, he said: 'This one must have
created heaven and earth and me - these stars must be the moon's princes and
courtiers.' So all night long he stood in prayer to the moon. In the morning, the moon
sank in the west and the sun rose in the east. Then he said: 'There is no might in
either of these. There must be a higher Lord over them - to Him will I pray, and
before Him will I prostrate myself.'8

Abraham's young life is spent trying to convince people of the futility of idolatry,
culminating in smashing his father's idols to demonstrate their powerlessness.9
This violent action indicates a clear break with the past. Midrash compares
him to Noah. There are ten generations between Adam and the flood,10 in which
one sees the gradual corruption of humanity from its first ideal creation. The
flood marks a catastrophic event that breaks with the past and starts a new
creation in the family of Noah. There are another ten generations from Noah
to Abraham during which time, again, the bright hope for the future of the
world becomes tarnished. Once again, God focuses on one person, but this time
God does not destroy the rest of humanity. Mindful of the covenant with
Noah, God chooses Abraham and his descendants, not as a surviving remnant
of humanity, but as the agent of the divine will to be communicated to all people.

3. Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 3a.

4. Deuteronomy 34.10.
5. Genesis Rabba 39.1, Song of Songs Rabba 4.19, etc.
6. Deuteronomy 34.10.
7. Exodus Rabba 15.27, 30.16 and 44.4.
8. This version is from W.G. Braude's translation of N. Bialik and C. Ravinsky, Sefer ha-
Aggada (New York: Schocken Books, 1992), p. 31, based on Genesis Rabba 42.8.
9. Genesis Rabba 38.13.
10. Mishnah Avot 5.2-3.
 SHERIDAN Abraham from a Jewish Perspective 11

Abraham's Blessing

Abraham is seen as the first proselyte, the first to declare the unity of God, who
wanders around setting up altars,11 proclaiming the name of God and converting
others to this belief. To this day, the convert to Judaism takes the patronym
Avraham Avinu, the child of 'Abraham our Father'. Thus it is demonstrated that
Abraham is the spiritual progenitor of all who take up the faith as well as being
the physical ancestor of Isaac, Jacob and the subsequent Jewish nation. Thus
the blessing at the end of God's call to Abraham declares: 'in you all the
families of the earth shall be blessed'.12 Abraham leaves Haran with the 'souls
that he had made' there13 - a clear reference to converts, according to rabbinic
commentary,14 providing a model of missionary activity for which Judaism was
at one time famous.15 However, because of mediaeval beliefs of supercessionism
by both Christianity and Islam, Judaism was forced to abandon the practice
until the modern era, and no longer claims a mission to proselytize.
The blessing has elicited other interpretations, however. One idea that is
currently popular among liberal Jews is that the blessing has been fulfilled
through the spread of Christianity and Islam - daughter religions of Judaism
which also proclaim monotheism and a spiritual descent from Abraham.
Another view removes the suggested missionary element, stating instead that
the blessings God metes out to the other nations of the world are dependent
on their treatment of the Jews in their midst.16 Whatever the interpretation, the
blessing implies a universalism which is very much part of the message of
Judaism. However, it is counterweighed by God's covenantal promise given at
the time of the circumcision: 'I will establish my covenant between me and you,
and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting
covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.'17
This suggests a relationship based on birth, compounded by the particularist
assertion, 'And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where
you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will
be their God.'18 Thus the life of Abraham sets up a tension between the universal
and the particular which continues to play its part in Judaism.
One solution of this tension is the rabbinic interpretation of the first covenant
with Noah and all of humanity as one that demanded obedience to seven
basic laws which included belief in the divine, prohibition of murder, theft and

11. Genesis 12.8.

12. Genesis 12.3.
13. Genesis 12.5.
14. Genesis Rabba 29.14.
15. Cf. Matthew 23.15: the Pharisees 'cross sea and land to make a single convert'.
16. S.R. Hirsch, Commentary on Genesis (trans. I. Levy; Gateshead: Judaica Press,
1963), pp. 226-27.
17. Genesis 17.7.
18. Genesis 17.8.
12 Abraham's Children

incest, and the establishment of a judicial system. By following these, 'The

righteous of all nations will have a share in the World to Come.'19
On the other hand, the 'children of Abraham' have a different covenant.
God's promise to them is sealed by the sign of circumcision. A child may be born
a Jew, but it is by the rite of circumcision that he enters into that special
relationship with God from which all non-Jews are excluded. Such an inter-
pretation may not seem politically correct for many reasons today,20 but there
is no doubt about the strength of the conviction for most Jews of the impor-
tance of the practice. From the decrees of Antiochus, through the persecutions
of Christianity, the sign of the covenant of Abraham was seen as an act of
defiance, an act of loyalty and a reason for martyrdom. The parting of the ways
between Judaism and Christianity seems to have been focused on this issue,21
the rejection of circumcision by Christianity being perceived by Jews as the
embracing of Hellenism and its implicit idolatry. For a non-Jewish male who
wishes to convert, circumcision is a prerequisite in all denominations of
Judaism.

The Aqeda

Tradition has it that Abraham was given ten tests to demonstrate his faith, of
which the first was his readiness to leave his family and country and follow God
to an undisclosed land. Commentators differ as to what constitutes the next
eight, but the overriding sense is that despite all evidence to the contrary,
Abraham continued to believe in the seemingly impossible promise of
numberless progeny and a land of his own. That faith was most strongly
tested in the last trial, the Aqeda or binding of Isaac.
'After these things God tested Abraham.'22 As with the call, the command is
multifaceted: 'Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love.'23
As with the call, the place to which he should go remains unclear, and as with
the call, the words lekh lekha, 'go for yourself, are used. But there is a
difference. Abraham responds to God's initial words with the word 'hinnen?
('here I am') - a simple response implying a trusting readiness to do whatever
God commands - and it is this that gives rise to a variety of interpretations.

19. Midrash Yalkut Shimoni, Neviim 296.

20. As well as a possible implied racism, one must today raise the question of whether a
woman is part of the covenant of Abraham since she is not circumcised. If a woman is to be
considered part of the Abrahamic covenant, what makes her so? Her birth? Her marriage?
If the former, can a man also be part of the covenant without circumcision? Such questions
are only now beginning to be addressed. See, for example, L. Hoffman, Covenant of Blood
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
21. Acts 11.1-18.
22. Genesis 22.1.
23. Genesis 22.2.
 SHERIDAN Abraham from a Jewish Perspective 13

Does Abraham have faith that God will not allow the death of his son, or is
his faith so strong that even the death of his son will not shake it? Does trust
in God mean a blind faith? A questioning faith? A reasoned faith? Does
Abraham pass the test, or fail it? In the Middle Ages, under the influence of
Christian persecution, a cult of martyrdom developed which saw the Aqeda as
a model for kiddush hashem, or dying for the sanctification of the divine
name. The following piyyut or liturgical poem, read on Rosh Hashana in
Sephardi synagogues, is based on a number of Midrashim that demonstrate not
only Abraham's willingness, but also Isaac's, to do God's will. Isaac says,
Through the knife my speech faltereth; yet sharpen it father, I beseech thee.
Have courage and bind me strongly! And when the fire shall have consumed
my flesh, take with thee the remains of my ashes and say to Sarah, Behold, this
is the savour of Isaac.'24
Another version also popular in that period has it that Abraham in fact did
sacrifice Isaac. The ashes of the sacrifice mentioned above were then gathered
up and given to Sarah. They later served as an atonement for Israel's sins and
were the ashes placed on the head at times of national mourning.25 Further
versions have him sacrificed and then resurrected, at which point Isaac utters
the benediction said three times daily, 'Barukh 'ata ... mehaye ha-metim'
'Blessed are You ... who gives life to the dead.'26
Yet in most periods, the trust in God has implied that whatever is asked, God
would never go back on his promise and allow Isaac to die. It becomes 'the very
loftiest summit of spirituality reached, not only in Jewish, but in all events which
show human greatness'.27
Thus Midrash sees Abraham battling against reason, storms and everything
that Satan can hurl at him as he attempts to climb Mount Moriah to fulfil God's
command.28 Here, determined faith - strongly held against all opposition -
seems to be the message. Other interpretations have treated the narrative
symbolically. The Aqeda and the story of Job are pitched against each other,
as God and Satan argue as to which character is the more steadfast in his faith.
Some would say that there was no question of intended filicide. For some, the
incident was to demonstrate the evils of human sacrifice. What Abraham
thought was God's command was his own mistaken idea of what God requires,
based on the practices of the Canaanite faiths that surrounded him. This

24. Judah ben Samuel Ibn Abbas of Fez (d. 1167), The Book of Prayer and Order of
Service according to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (trans. D.A. de Sola;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), II, p. 106.
25. Based on 'the ashes of Isaac', mentioned in Babylonian Talmud, Ta'anit 19a.
26. Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn (twelfth century) composed a piyyut on the Aqeda as part
of his sefer zekhira based on Pirqei d'Rabbi Eliezer 31 and Midrash ha-Gadol 1.323 and other
late Midrashim.
27. S.R. Hirsch, The Pentateuch (trans. I. Levy; Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1976), I, pp.
373-74.
28. Midrash Tanhuma: Vavera 22.
14 Abraham's Children

returns us to the idea of Abraham as innovator of faith in God. As well as being

the first to call upon God, he becomes the first to reject human sacrifice.29
Whatever the interpretation, the Aqeda holds a significant position in
Judaism.

The role of the man of faith, whose religious experience is fraught with inner
conflicts and incongruities, who oscillates between ecstasy in God's companionship
and despair when he feels abandoned by God, and who is torn asunder by the
heightened contrast between self-appreciation and abnegation, has been a difficult
one since the time of Abraham and Moses.30

Thus writes Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. He finds help for the human
condition in the lives of our forebears. 'It would be presumptuous of me to
attempt to convert the passional antinomic faith-experience into a eudaemonic
harmonious one while the Biblical knights of faith lived heroically with their
very tragic and paradoxical experience.'31
It is this personal connection to the trials of Abraham that explains the
dominant place the Aqeda holds in Jewish ritual. Not only is it the fixed
reading for Rosh Hashana, where the shofar, the ram's horn sounded during
the service, is associated with the ram caught in the thicket, but the text also
forms part of the daily morning service.

Abraham and Liturgy

Abraham figures greatly in the liturgy. Moses may be associated with halakha
(Jewish law), but he is rarely mentioned in prayer. We do not pray to the God
of Moses, but to the God of Abraham, who along with Isaac and Jacob are in
prayer the Avot — the forefathers, patriarchs or ancestors.
The first blessing of the tefilla (the main prayer said by observant Jews three
times each day) begins by addressing 'Elohenu vElohe Avotenu; Elohe
'Avraham, Elohe Yishak vElohe Ya'akov', 'our God and the God of our
ancestors: God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob'.
The specification of 'our God', and the God of each patriarch individually,
gives rise to the understanding that while we share the same God, the experience
of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob and indeed of ourselves of the Deity has been
very different. So while Abraham stands as the first to encounter God, and while
his life may be an example to the rest of us, we can learn, not only from him,
but from his descendants' lives as well as our own inevitably different

29. First declared by Abraham Geiger, this view finds modern expression in W.G. Plaut,
Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
1981), p. 149.
30. J.B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith (New York: Jason Aaronson, 1996), p. 2.
31. Soloveitchik, Lonely Man of Faith•, p. 2.
 SHERIDAN Abraham from a Jewish Perspective 15

experience.32 Nevertheless, all those experiences derive from the first divine
encounter, and so the blessing ends, 'Barukh 'ata ... magen 'Avrabam\ 'Blessed
are You ... the shield of Abraham.' 33
In Midrash, the three patriarchs become initiators of daily prayer.

It has been taught according to R. Jose b. Hanina: 'Abraham established shaharit

[the morning prayer,] as it says, [Genesis 19.27] "And Abraham got up early in the
morning (and went) to the place where he had stood." There is no standing except
in prayer as it says, [Psalm 106.30] "And Pinchas stood and prayed." Isaac estab-
lished minha [the afternoon prayer,] as it says, [Genesis 24.63] "And Isaac went out
to meditate (shuah) in the field towards evening." There is no meditation except in
prayer as it says, [Psalm 102.1] "A prayer for the afflicted, when he faints and pours
out his complaint (siho) before the Eternal." Jacob established 'aravit [the evening
prayer,] as it says, [Genesis 28.11] "And he came upon (vayifga) the place." There
is no meeting (pegia) except in prayer, as it says, [Jeremiah 7.16] "Now, do not pray
for this people neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, and do not intercede (tifga)
with Me."'34

In some circles, Abraham becomes a direct intercessor with God;35 in others it

is through his merit that our prayers are heard.36

Abraham's Relationship with his Sons

Today, in the context of trialogue between the Abrahamic faiths, the focus moves
to a different aspect of Abraham's life, namely the births of his two sons and
their relationships with him. Traditionally, Ishmael has not figured greatly, or
in very positive terms. The Bible tells of how Hagar was initially the surrogate
mother, whose son, Ishmael, was to be adopted by Sarah. However, after his
birth, Hagar seemed to take on airs and Sarah retaliated by humiliating her until

32. Cf. the saying of Israel Baal Shem Tov, in Forms of Prayer (trans. J. Magonet;
London: Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, 1977), p. 357: 'Why do we say "Our God and
God of our fathers?" There are two sorts of person who believe in God. The one believes his
faith has been handed down to him by his fathers; and his faith is strong. The other has arrived
at faith by dint of searching thought.'
33. Cf. Genesis 15.1.
34. Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 26b; cf. Berakhot 6b.
35. Cf. Babylonian Talmud, Bavli Eruvin 19a, where Abraham brings up the circumcised
from Gehenna, and Bava Batra 17a, where 'the Angel of death has no dominion over
Abraham'. Abraham's death was directly from God, and therefore he remains in close
proximity to, and supposedly has influence with, God.
36. Cf. the piyyut by David ben Bekoda for the second day of Rosh Hashana ('yaane b'vor
avof - c for the sake of the pure lives of the patriarchs'), de Sola (trans.), Book of Prayer, II,
p. 94 and Tehine of the Matriarchs for the Shofar ('May the merit of the four matriarchs, and
the three patriarchs and Moses and Aaron stand by us in judgement for they have arisen to
plead for us') (E. Umansky and D. Ashton [eds.], Four Centuries of Women's Spirituality
[Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1992], p. 53).
16 Abraham's Children

she fled. Later, after Isaac's birth, Ishmael is seen to mock or menace him and
Sarah urges Abraham to send both mother and son away. In both stories, an
angel of God speaks to Hagar during her exile, assuring her of Ishmael's future
as a father of nations. However, it is his birth that introduces conflict into the
household, and in order to justify the actions of Sarah and God's approval of
her deeds, it becomes necessary in the Midrash to paint Ishmael as shameless
and immoral.37 Though God blesses Ishmael, though he too becomes a father
of nations with twelve tribes to his name, there is no doubt that it is Isaac who
is the son of the promise.38

'And he shall be a wild ass of a man' [Genesis 16.12]. Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi
Shimon ben Laqish: R. Johanan said: 'All other people grow up in settlements, but
he will grow up in the desert.'
Resh Laqish said: 'Indeed a wild ass of a man. For all other people plunder wealth,
but he plunders lives. His hand will be against everyone, and the hand of everyone
against him. He and his dog are the same. Just as his dog eats carrion, so does he
eat carrion.'39

Nevertheless, Ishmael is never seen as quite as evil as Esau, the mythological

ancestor of Rome and thus of Christianity. 40 He remains steadfastly a
worshipper of God, despite the idolatry of his mother and wives. There are
stylistic similarities in the biblical text between Hagar's flight into the desert and
the Aqeda. Both children are at the point of death when an angel intervenes.
Abraham 'looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns', while God
opened Hagar's eyes 'and she saw a well of water'.41 Both children are therefore
part of the divine plan, being progenitors of nations whose destinies appear to
run in parallel. Moreover, whatever the sins of Ishmael were, Midrash suggests
that he repented of them, enabling the two brothers to bury their father
together.42
The story of these two brothers, who had had their battles, who lived
separately, but who could come together to mourn their father, was quoted by
President Clinton at the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1997,
in the presence of King Hussein of Jordan and representatives of the Palestinian
people alongside Israelis. This text, often overlooked by Jewish commentators,
may well found the basis for a new look at the role of Ishmael.

37. Bereshit Rabba 53.11.

38. Genesis 17.18-20.
39. Bereshit Rabba 45.9.
40. One of the most commonly quoted Midrashim in this context is Bereshit Rabba 63.10:
'"And the boys grew ..." [Genesis 25.27]. R. Phinehas said in R. Levi's name: "They were like
a myrtle and a wild rose-bush growing side by side; when they attained to maturity, one yielded
its fragrance and the other its thorns. So for thirteen years both went to school and came home
from school. After this age, one went to the house of study and the other to idolatrous
shrines."'
41. Genesis 22.13 and 21.19.
42. Bava Batra 16b.
 SHERIDAN Abraham from a Jewish Perspective 17

Another would be the Midrash on the Aqeda where between each of God's
commands, Abraham inserts an objection, rather in the vein of their encounter
at Sodom.

God said: Take your son.

I have two sons!
Your only one.
Each is the only one of his mother!
Whom you love.
I love them both!
Isaac!43

Here, it becomes clear that Abraham loved both his sons and regarded them
as equal; and in the same spirit, the Israeli poet Shin Shalom wrote the
following:44

Ishmael my brother,
How long shall we fight each other?
My brother from times bygone,
My brother - Hagar's son,
My brother, the wandering one.
One angel was sent to us both,
One angel watched over our growth -
There in the wilderness, death threatening through thirst,
I a sacrifice on the altar, Sarah's first.
Ishmael my brother, hear my plea:
It was the angel who tied thee to me ...
Time is running out, put hatred to sleep,
Shoulder to shoulder, let's water our sheep.45

43. Sanhedrin 89b.

44. Shalom Joseph Shapiro (b. 1904).
45. J. Magonet and L. Blue (eds.), Forms of Prayer (London: RSGB, 1985), III, p. 891.
 ABRAHAM FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Paul Joyce

Abraham in the New Testament

Although the book of Genesis, as part of the Christian Bible, has down the
centuries exercised its own direct influence upon Christianity, it has been
above all through the mediation of the Abraham tradition by the New
Testament that it has had its distinctive theological impact. The major themes
that emerge in the New Testament treatment of Abraham (particularly as
expressed by Paul) are faith, universalism and covenant. These form a cluster
of interrelated motifs, which together represent an important means by which
early Christianity expressed its identity. These themes potentially represent a
positive resource for inter-religious dialogue but, as we shall see, they can also
be problematic, especially in relation to Judaism.
The themes of faith, universalism and covenant need to be illustrated in some
detail. Paul was probably the earliest of the New Testament writers and had
the task of articulating for the first time the meaning of Christianity in relation
to its Jewish background. For Paul, Abraham became a central point of
reference in this task, serving as a representative and embodiment of faith and
trust in God, prior to the giving of the law to Moses. He was at pains to
emphasize that Abraham's relationship with God was one in which he received
blessing and promise without earning them by his own actions. The fourth
chapter of the letter to the Romans develops this theme. In Romans 4.2-3, we
read: Tor if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast
about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed
God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."'1 The setting of Paul's work
is one in which he was arguing with his fellow Jews that for the follower of Jesus
what matters is faith rather than obedience to the law. In the same chapter, Paul
related this theme to that of circumcision, making the point that Abraham was
reckoned righteous by God before circumcision was introduced, as recounted
in Genesis 17:

1. Citing Genesis 15.6.

 JOYCE Abraham from a Christian Perspective 19

How then was [righteousness] reckoned to [Abraham]? Was it before or after he had
been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the
sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was
still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe
without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them.2

The second major theme is that of universalism, by which is here meant the
notion that salvation is for all humankind and not Jews alone, another central
concern for Paul. Romans 4.16-17 refers to the promise being guaranteed to
all the descendants of Abraham, 'not only to the adherents of the law but also
to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, as it
is written, "I have made you the father of many nations")'.3 Paul wrote in
similar vein in Romans 9: 'not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all
of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that
descendants shall be named for you." This means that it is not the children of
the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are
counted as descendants.'4
In the letter to the Galatians, we encounter the same themes of faith and
universalism. Chapter 4 presents a striking allegory about Abraham's two
sons, born of two women, polemically contrasting the followers of Jesus (repre-
sented by Isaac) and Paul's Jewish opponents (represented by Ishmael). Ishmael
is born of the slave Hagar, from Mount Sinai (which corresponds to the present
Jerusalem), whereas Isaac is born of the free woman Sarah, who corresponds
to the heavenly Jerusalem.5 The previous chapter argues that those who believe
- explicitly including all gentiles — are the descendants of Abraham by virtue
of their faith.6 And at the end of that chapter, we find a famous text that
expresses this theme of universalism in classic form: 'There is no longer Jew or
Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for
all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are
Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise.'7
Paul's third main theme in connection with Abraham, that of covenant
(frequently expressed in terms of promise), comes out most clearly in this
same chapter: 'My point is this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty
years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify
the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from
the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.'8 Paul thus
exploited the theme of a pre-Sinai covenant that antedates the giving of the law.

2. Romans 4.10-11.
3. Citing Genesis 17.5.
4. Romans 9.6-8, citing Genesis 21.12.
5. Galatians 4.22-26.
6. Galatians 3.7-8.
7. Galatians 3.28-29.
8. Galatians 3.17-18.
20 Abraham's Children

The gospels, broadly speaking, feature the same central themes in relation to
Abraham. A recurrent question in the gospels is that of who is a true child of
Abraham. In Luke 19, the concern is with how a Jew might live up to their
descent from Abraham. Jesus says of Zacchaeus, 'Today salvation has come to
this house, because he too is a son of Abraham';9 Zacchaeus has, it seems, been
reintegrated into the people of God. Elsewhere, John the Baptist is presented,
more polemically, as challenging the people in the words: 'Do not presume to
say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our ancestor"; for I tell you, God is
able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.'10 The related theme
that gentiles have access to salvation is expressed elsewhere in the gospels. In
Matthew, Jesus says of the centurion: 'Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have
I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat
with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.'11
Within John's Gospel, chapter 8 is dominated by the figure of Abraham. Here
we find the familiar theme of true sonship of Abraham as a matter of being in
right relation with God rather than just a matter of physical descent, and here
again the polemical edge is evident, probably reflecting acrimonious relations
between church and synagogue late in the first century CE. We read that Jesus'
audience says to him, 'We are descendants of Abraham and have never been
slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, "You will be made free"?' The
passage continues: 'I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look
for an opportunity to kill me.' The answer comes back, 'Abraham is our
father', and then Jesus says to them, 'If you were Abraham's children, you
would be doing what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, a man
who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham
did.' And again, 'You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your
father's desires.'12
The covenant theme features in a number of the references to Abraham in
the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 3.25, Peter is presented as saying to the
people in the temple at Jerusalem: 'You are the descendants of the prophets and
of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, "And in
your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed."'13 In Stephen's
review of the history of Israel in Acts 7, we hear that Abraham is 'our ancestor',
to whom both the land and the 'covenant of circumcision' were given.14
Turning now to the remainder of the New Testament, the letter to the
Hebrews is particularly important when considering Abraham, and here too the
now familiar themes emerge. In chapter 6, for example, Abraham appears, with
the motifs of faith and promise highlighted: 'so that you may not become

9. Luke 19.9.
10. Matthew 3.9; cf. Luke 3.8.
11. Matthew 8.10-11; cf. Luke 13.29.
12. John 8.33, 37, 39-40 and 44.
13. Citing Genesis 22.18.
14. Acts 7.2-3 and 8.
 JOYCE Abraham from a Christian Perspective 21

sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the
promises ... And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the
promise.'1" The theme of faith is highlighted strongly in Hebrews 11, in which
Abraham is presented as a model of obedient faith: 'By faith Abraham, when
put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready
to offer up his only son, of whom he had been told, "It is through Isaac that
descendants shall be named for you."'16
The letter of James takes a contrary line on faith and works when compared
with most of the rest of the New Testament, James being concerned to
emphasize that faith alone is not enough; it has to be demonstrated in action.
James writes:

Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on
the altar? ... Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and
it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God. You
see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.1

Ironically, James is here perhaps closer than Paul to the actual concerns of the
Genesis narratives, which do seem to understand Abraham as acting virtuously.
Also of interest here is that Abraham is presented as the friend of God,18 a theme
much emphasized in Islam.19
The importance of the interrelated motifs of faith, universalism and covenant
has been highlighted. A further theme linked with Abraham in the New
Testament is that of resurrection. Surprisingly often and in a variety of ways,
resurrection and Abraham occur together in the New Testament, to a degree
that seems more significant than can be accounted for by the general assumption
of resurrection hope that pervades the New Testament. In Romans 4, reference
is made to those who share the faith of Abraham 'in the presence of the God
in whom [Abraham] believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence
the things that do not exist'.20 In Mark 12.26-27 (interestingly the only reference
to Abraham in Mark), we read: 'And as for the dead being raised, have you not
read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him,
"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is
God not of the dead, but of the living.'21 In Luke's parable of the rich man and
Lazarus, the rich man says to the patriarch in the afterlife: 'No, father Abraham;
but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' Abraham

15. Hebrews 6.12-15.

16. Hebrews 11.17-18, citing Genesis 21.12.
17. James 2.21-24, citing Genesis 15.6.
18. As in Isaiah 41.8 and 2 Chronicles 20.7.
19. For a useful popular reflection on the figure of Abraham within Christianity and Islam,
see J. Kaltner, 'Abraham's Sons: How the Bible and Qur'an See the Same Story Differently',
Bible Review 18.2 (2002), pp. 16-23 and 45-46.
20. Romans 4.17.
21. Cf. Matthew 22.31-32 and Luke 20.37-38.
22 Abraham's Children

responds: 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be
convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'22 Throughout the same passage,
Abraham figures centrally (presumably because he is the archetypal faithful man
of God), for while the poor man dies and joins Abraham in heaven, the rich
man calls out to Abraham from Hades, begging him to relieve his agony.23 In
the letter to the Hebrews too, Abraham is linked with the theme of resurrection:
'[Abraham] considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the
dead - and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.'24
Before leaving the New Testament, we should note two other uses of the
Abraham tradition in the letter to the Hebrews. Chapter 7 has six references
to Abraham, focusing particularly upon the encounter between the patriarch
and Melchizedek in Genesis 14. The main point of the passage is that
Melchizedek, a type or anticipation of Jesus, is greater than Abraham or his
descendant Levi, of whom the priestly line came. This is unusual in that Jesus
is more generally in the New Testament aligned with Abraham over against
Moses, whereas here, Abraham (as well as Moses, who was descended from
Levi) is subordinated to Melchizedek, the mysterious antecedent of Christ.
Finally, Abraham is presented as a model of hospitality in Hebrews 13: 'Do not
neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained
angels without knowing it.'25 The allusion is to his entertaining three mysterious
figures at Mamre.26

Abraham in Later Christian Tradition

We shall return to consider the implications of the New Testament legacy, but
before that, let us review briskly some features of Abraham in later Christian
tradition. Not surprisingly, the main New Testament themes remained dominant
in the patristic period of Christianity, with newer motifs also developed alongside
older ones.27 Fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ambrose and Augustine exalted
Abraham's obedience in leaving his homeland, while his willingness to sacrifice
his son Isaac in Genesis 22 provided them with a model of perfect obedience
to the will of God. It is interesting and characteristic that the Fathers should have
developed Abraham as a model of virtue, notwithstanding Paul's influential
emphasis on faith; with this may be compared the way in which Gregory the
Great made Job above all a moral exemplar. The sacrifice of Isaac was taken
to prefigure the death of Christ, and many writers, for example Tertullian,

22. Luke 16.30-31.

23. Luke 16.22-24.
24. Hebrews 11.19.
25. Hebrews 13.2.
26. Genesis 18.
27. See M. Sheridan (ed.), Genesis 12-50 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture,
Old Testament, 2; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
 JOYCE Abraham from a Christian Perspective 23

Origen and Cyril of Alexandria, elaborated on the similarities. Parallel to

Christian reflection on Genesis 22, there is a Jewish tradition of lively specu-
lation upon this so-called 'binding' of Isaac. Of possible relevance to the shaping
of Christian theology is that some scholars have entertained the possibility that
Jewish thinking about the sacrifice of Isaac influenced the Christian devel-
opment of the theology of the cross, though more have thought it probable that
any influence runs the other way. Of course, it is also likely that there was a good
deal of independent reflection upon these themes within the two traditions.28
The Fathers highlighted other features too. For example, they were interested,
positively, in the dating of Abraham (to prove the superior antiquity of
Christianity compared with pagan religions) and, negatively, in his multiple
marriages (to warn against polygamy). They also made much of the divine
appearance to Abraham at Mamre, under the guise of three men; not surpris-
ingly, this was taken as a premonition of the divine Trinity. Indeed, Christian
reflection on this passage as a model of the Trinity has played a significant part
down the centuries, not least in that great icon of the eastern tradition, The Holy
Trinity, by Andrei Rublev (c. 1370-1430). This justly famous icon, now in
Moscow's Tretyakov Gallery, shows the three angels who appeared to Abraham
as a portent of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Abraham has an important place in Christian liturgy. For example, from
Anglican morning prayer, in the words of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer,
the Benedictus proclaims God's saving action:

To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers: and to remember his holy
Covenant; To perform the oath which he sware to our forefather Abraham: that he
would give us; That we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies: might serve
him without fear; In holiness and righteousness before him: all the days of our life.29

And within evening prayer, the Magnificat declares: 'He remembering his
mercy hath holpen his servant Israel: as he promised to our forefathers,
Abraham and his seed for ever.'30 In the Roman Catholic tradition, both in the
canon of the mass and in the sequence 'Lauda Sion', the sacrifice of Isaac in
Genesis 22 is described as prefiguring the eucharist. In the modern Roman
Catholic mass, the first eucharistic prayer calls on God to 'Look with favour
on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant
Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine
offered by your priest Melchisedech.'31

28. See further E. Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). More generally, there has been a growing
recognition that the relationship between Judaism and Christianity over the centuries has been
one of complex interaction, involving influence in both directions. See, for example, M.
Hilton, The Christian Effect on Jewish Life (London: SCM Press, 1994).
29. From Luke 1.72-75.
30. From Luke 1.54-55.
31. The Sunday Missal: A New Edition (London: HarperCollins, 1984), p. 42.
24 Abraham's Children

Abraham has remained part of the life-blood of literature too, albeit

sometimes in a vestigial and confused way, as in Shakespeare's Henry V,32
where the Hostess declares that the lately dead Falstaff is not in hell, but
rather 'in Arthur's bosom', which echoes 'Abraham's bosom', the phrase used
to denote the heavenly resting place of Lazarus in the Lukan parable of the rich
man and Lazarus.33
In the modern period, Christian reading of the Bible, at least in some circles,
has been significantly influenced by the historical-critical approach to the
Bible. The Abraham narratives have been subjected to much critical study. In
this context, it is typical to ask about the original meaning of biblical material.
The question naturally arises as to whether Paul (who has so shaped Christian
perceptions) manipulated and even distorted the Abraham story. It was noted
above that in his use of Genesis 15, Paul was keen to interpret 'reckoned as
righteousness' in verse 6 to mean that Abraham had in fact not earned merit
but rather had merit attributed to him. However, a plain reading of Genesis 15
would seem to suggest that the original does indeed view Abraham as having
acted in a virtuous way, and to this extent one might describe Paul's use of the
passage as a distortion (we earlier suggested that the letter of James might be
closer to the original meaning of Genesis here). Should we on these grounds (of
apparent deviation from original meaning) disown such a use as Paul's? While
in the past some historical critics would have described Paul's interpretation as
a serious misunderstanding, many scholars are now more ready to see Paul's
handling of scripture as a legitimate re-reading in his own context. It is
important to ask in such a case what interpretative interest is being served: if
the quest were for the original meaning of Genesis 15.6 (the typical preoccu-
pation of most historical critics of Genesis), the criteria to be applied might well
be different from those relevant to an assessment of Paul's theological use of
the passage in his attempt to articulate his understanding of the Christian
gospel. We shall return later to the issue of Paul's handling of scripture.
Although many assume that the historical-critical approach is a value-free
secular phenomenon, it was pioneered and long remained dominated by
German Protestant Christians. Indeed, what many Christians have perceived
as a neutral academic approach is regarded as distinctively Christian by many
Jews. This is well illustrated in Chaim Potok's novel In the Beginning** in which
reference is made to Julius Wellhausen's documentary analysis of the Pentateuch
as a destructive work wrought upon the Jewish scriptures by Christians.35
Turning specifically to the historical-critical study of Abraham, one might
argue that the emphasis on the gracious nature of the covenant granted to

32. IL3.9-10.
33. Luke 16.22-23.
34. C. Potok, In the Beginning (London: Heinemann, 1976).
35. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883), trans-
lated as Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J.S. Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh:
A. & C. Black, 1885).
 JOYCE Abraham from a Christian Perspective 25

Abraham is a fair reflection of the biblical text of Genesis,36 but it is also

undeniably reminiscent of Paul's characterization of Abraham as the model of
faith in the era before the giving of the law. Could it be that under the guise of
disinterested academic study, some Christian historical critics in fact invest
Abraham with elements of their own theological tradition?
The story of Abraham has continued to be a rich source of Christian theological
reflection, figuring centrally, for example, in the work Fear and Trembling, by the
nineteenth-century Danish thinker S0ren Kierkegaard.37 Kierkegaard took the
story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 and made it the vehicle for extended
reflections upon the human condition and ultimate truth. Abraham is portrayed
as a great man, who chose to sacrifice his son in the face of conflicting expect-
ations and in defiance of any conceivable ethical standard. This challenged the
dominant view of Hegel's universal moral system: for Kierkegaard, the suffering
individual must alone make a choice 'on the strength of the absurd'. This work
has played a key role in the background to twentieth-century existentialist
philosophy. It is also of interest in the history of biblical interpretation:
Kierkegaard used the story of Genesis 22 with extraordinary freedom and yet
nevertheless remained remarkably faithful to it. Jolita Pons has recently written
of Kierkegaard's multiple retellings of the story of Abraham in Fear and Trembling
as profound interpretation in the 'subjunctive mood' (picking up Kierkegaard's
own fascination with the notion of the subjunctive): what might have happened,
how characters might have responded.38 We might here see Kierkegaard as antici-
pating later developments in biblical interpretation in which readers have felt the
freedom to explore possibilities within narratives. Such trends in the late twentieth
century and early twenty-first owe much to secular literary studies in English,
French and other modern languages, but also stand in some continuity with
important Jewish traditions of reading, including the tradition of Midrash.
The social anthropologist Carol Delaney has written powerfully about the
social legacy of biblical myth, focusing upon the narrative of Genesis 22 and
considering its reception and influence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She
argues that the pervasive ideal of the willingness to sacrifice one's own children
is one that has had a pernicious effect on all three traditions and indeed on the
modern secular world.39 Feminist biblical criticism has focused a good deal on
the patriarchal narratives, with Sarah and Hagar featuring prominently.40
Given that feminist criticism has done so much to highlight the 'patriarchy' both

36. See for example R.E. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis XV and its Meaning
for Israelite Tradition (Studies in Biblical Theology, 2nd series, 5; London: SCM Press, 1967).
37. S. Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (London: Penguin, 1985).
38. J. Pons, Stealing a Gift: Kierkegaard's Pseudonyms and the Bible (Perspectives in
Continental Philosophy, 3; New York: Fordham University Press, 2004).
39. C. Delaney, Abraham on Trial: The Social Legacy of Biblical Myth (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1998).
40. P. Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Overtures
to Biblical Theology, 13; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984); cf. TJ. Dennis, Sarah
Laughed: Women's Voices in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1994).
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 Pinjapuu, joka on kasvanut korkeaksi "ihmisten ja eläinten
yläpuolelle", jolle pilvetkin kulkevat liian alhaalla ja joka voi löytää
arvoisensa puhekumppanin vain salamasta, joka iskee sen runkoon
ja pirstoo sen, on Nietzschen uusi dionyysinen minä, joka
traagillisessa optimismissaan kurkottuu korkeinta kohti, mikä
merkitsee samalla äärimmäistä voittoa ja lopullista tuhoa. Kuinka
usein onkaan tätä Nietzschen asennetta uudemmassa
kirjallisuudessa jäljitelty ja kuinka sovinnaisilta ja tyhjiltä tuntuvatkaan
nämä jäljitelmät Nietzschen yksinkertaisten, tulisten säkeiden
rinnalla! Ero on sama kuin bengaalitulen ja salaman.

Samaan lyyrilliseen lajiin kuin edellä siteeratut runot kuuluu myös

Zarathustran yölaulu

"O Mensch! Gieb Acht!

Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht",

joka myöhään unohtuu siltä, joka sen kerran on tunteellaan ja

ajatuksellaan omaksunut. Tässä Zarathustran mystillisessä
"piirilaulussa" nyyhkyttää elämän tuska ja riemu, nyyhkyttää ilman
kyyneliä ja huokauksia, niin ettemme tiedä eikö se lopultakin ole
dionyysisen elämänhurman ääni jostakin olevaisen uumenista. Runo
onkin tunnevärityksessään Nietzschelle ominainen: hänen henkinen
taloutensa ei tunne ilon ja kärsimyksen dualismia, pientä
elämänsaitaa kirjanpitoa hyvistä ja huonoista hetkistä, onnesta ja
onnettomuudesta.

Epigrammin tapaan tiivistetyt mietesäkeistöt ja filosoofiset

kohtalorunot muodostavat kuitenkin vain lajin sinänsä Nietzschen
runomuotoisten tuotteiden joukossa. Myöskin lyriikan muilla
keskeisillä aloilla on hän liikkunut. Nietzschen synnynnäinen
musikaalisuus, joka ilmenee sekä hänen omissa yrityksissään
säveltaiteen alalla että varsinkin hänen intohimoisessa tavassaan
vastaanottaa musiikkia, on tullut produktiiviseksi myöskin hänen
lyriikassaan. Hän on kirjoittanut laulu-tyyliin runoja — sellaisia kuin
"Venedig", "Der Tag klingt ab" — jotka laulavat itsensä lukijan
korvaan ilman musiikkitaiteilijan sävelasua. Nietzschellä on ollut
erinomaisen herkkä korva sanojen rytmillisille ja meloodisille arvoille
ja koko hänen luomistavassaan suurissakin teoksissa, sellaisissa
kuin "Zarathustra", on jotakin joka lähinnä vie ajatuksen musiikkiin.
Mutta ei vain musiikin, vaan myöskin tanssin kanssa on Nietzschen
lyriikka sukua. Tuskinpa on kukaan moderni lyyrikko, tuskin edes
Goethe Strassburgin-aikansa jälkeen, osannut viedä runouden niin
lähelle sitä primitiivistä alkutaidetta, jossa lyriikka vielä oli
erottamattomasti liittynyt lauluun ja tanssiin, kuin Nietzsche. Ajattelen
tällöin varsinkin hänen tunnettua lauluaan mistral-tuulelle:

Mistral-Wind, du Wolken-Jäger, Trübsal-Mörder, Himmels-

Feger, brausender, wie lieb ich dich. Sind wir zwei nicht eines
Schoosses Erstlingsgabe, eines Looses vorbestimmte
ewiglich?

Hier auf glatten Felsenwegen lauf ich tanzend dir entgegen,

tanzend, wie du pfeifst und singst: der du ohne Schiff und
Ruder als der Freiheit freister Bruder über wilde Meere
springst. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒
Raffen wir von jeder Blume eine Blüthe uns zum Ruhme und
zwei Blätter noch zum Kranz. Tanzen wir gleich Troubadouren
zwischen Heiligen und Huren, zwischen Gott und Welt den
Tanz.

Vielä yhden lyyrillisen tyylilajin valtaa Nietzsche edellisten lisäksi

"Zarathustran" aikoihin ja sen jälkeen: dityrambisen hymnin, mitä
pindarolaista runomuotoa olivat ennen häntä saksalaisessa
kirjallisuudessa viljelleet m.m. nuori Goethe, Heine
Pohjanmerisikermässään ja ennen kaikkea Hölderlin, joka dityrambi-
runoudessaan sisällyksellisestikin usein tulee niin lähelle yli-ihmisen
filosoofia että häntä on voitu nimittää nietzscheläiseksi ennen
Nietzscheä. Zarathustradityrambit, jotka Nietzsche kirjoitti vähän
ennen lopullista murtumistaan, muodostavat hänen filosoofisen
runoutensa mahtavan epilogin, hehkuvan auringonlaskun ennen
pimeän tuloa. Niissä saa Nietzschen lyriikka viimeisen, ikäänkuin
ylimaallisesti aineettoman ilmaisunsa:

Kultainen kuulaus joudu, kuoleman esimaku, salaisin,

suloisin. Kuljinko tieni ma liian nopeaan? Nyt kun jalkani
uupuu, pysähdytti minut katseesi, saavutti onnesi minut.
Yltympäri leikkivät aallot. Mik' oli raskasta ennen vaipui
siniseen unhoon. Jouten venheeni soljuu, retkeni myrskyt se
unhotti. Toive ja toivehet hukkui, kirkkaat on sielu ja ulappa.
Seitsemäs yksinäisyys. Koskaan en tuntenut ennen
lähempänä suloista varmuutta, lämpimämpänä auringon
katsetta. Viel' eikö vuoreni jäähuippu hehku? Hopeisna kuin
kala ui minun ruuheni ulapoita kohti.

Dityrambeissaan tulee Nietzsche symbolistisen runouden rajoille,

astuu kenties rajan ylikin. Samalla tulee hänen runouteensa jotakin
mystillistä ja transscendenttia, mikä sille yleensä on vierasta. Hänen
"minänsä", hänen rajusti tunteva ja kärsivä minänsä, joka on elänyt
yli-inhimillisesti voimakkaiden imperatiivien alaisena, ei enää seiso
samassa kireässä taisteluasenteessa elämään nähden kuin ennen,
kamppailun kipeys ja voiton ilo ovat laanneet, hän on yhtä ideaalisen
minänsä Zarathustran kanssa, hän on tavannut tunnussanansa,
symboolinsa ja levon sen mukana. Rauhaton, kuohuva virta on
löytänyt rauhan meressä. Nietzsche-julistaja on lakannut olemasta,
hän elää, kaukana ihmisistä ja oppilaista, Zarathustran "seitsemättä
yksinäisyyttä" ja tervehtii hänen huulillaan kuolemaa, joka lopullisesti
vapauttaa hänet yksilöllisyyden kahleista. Harvoin on maan tomu
painanut runoilijan hyvästijättöä elämälle vähemmän kuin se painaa
Nietzschen dityrambia "Die Sonne sinkt", josta ylläolevat säkeet ovat
lainatut. Harvoin on niinikään runoilijan hyvästijättöä elämälle
vähemmän -painanut se maailmallis-"uskonnollinen" mieli, joka
tahtoo siirtää jotakin maailman iloista kuoleman rajan toiselle puolen.
Harvoin on puhdas henki ripittäytynyt kuoleman edessä paljaammin
kuin eräissä Nietzschen viimeisten dityrambien säkeissä, yli-ihmisen
filosoofin joutsenlaulussa.

III.

Jos tahtoisi kysyä, mikä ominaisuus Nietzschen runoudessa ennen

muuta pysähdyttää meidät sen eteen, niin olisi kaiketi lähin ja lyhyin
vastaus: sen syvällinen vakavuus. Sen ankaruudessa on jotakin
profeetallista, joka viittaa runouden yli mieskohtaiseen julistukseen.
Me tunnemme vaistomaisesti että Nietzschen lyriikassa tapahtuu
jotakin inhimillisesti merkitsevää, jotakin ainutkertaista. Me
tunnemme että Nietzschen lyriikka on kaikkein loistavimpia näytteitä
runoudesta, missä todella merkitsevä — me voimme Nietzschen
vaikutukseen nähden liioittelematta sanoa: maailmanhistoriallisesti
merkitsevä — persoonallisuus on saanut puhtaasti lyyrillisen
ilmaisun. Me tunnemme että aikakauden väkevimmät tunteet ja
suurimmat ajatukset ovat siinä saaneet muodon, ovat hehkuvassa
runoilijasielussa muuttuneet eläväksi syväksi inhimilliseksi elämäksi.
 Eräs Nietzschen viimeisistä saksalaisista tulkitsijoista, Heinrich
Römer, on nimittänyt Nietzschen runotarta ancilla philosophica'ksi —
ikäänkuin Nietzschen runouden tehtävä olisi ollut vain palvella hänen
filosoofisia tarkoituksiaan. Tällainen tulkinta ei tee oikeutta
Nietzschen lyriikalle, joka ei ollut hänen filosofiansa palvelija, vaan
hänen yksilöllisyytensä välittömin, korkein ja puhtain ilmaus. Filosoofi
Nietzschessä ei suinkaan sanellut hänen runojaan, vaan
pikemminkin runoilija hänessä saneli hänen filosofiansa. Tai ehkä
oikeammin: filosoofi ja runoilija olivat hänen yksilöllisyydessään yhtä,
olivat erottamattomat.

Nietzschen voimakkain lyyrillinen kausi sattui hänen elämänsä

merkitsevimpään käännekohtaan, niihin vuosiin, jotka edeltävät
hänen suurta luomisaikaansa, sitä, joka teki hänestä henkisen
mahdin Euroopassa. "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft"-kokoelman runous
on kuin iloinen aamusoitto pitkän hedelmällisen työpäivän alkaessa
tai kuin uhritanssi ennen taisteluun-lähtöä, ja dityrambit ovat tämän
työpäivän epilogi, iltalaulu yötä odotellessa. Kun ajattelemme, mikä
valtava henkinen luomiskausi mahtuu tämän prologin ja epilogin
väliin, ymmärrämme, mistä Nietzschen lyriikka on saanut voimansa:
siitä luomistyön ahjosta, mistä uusi tahto, uusi julistus syntyi
maailmaan, Zarathustran julistus "korkeammille ihmisille".
HEINRICH HEINE.

Max J. Wolffin Heine-elämäkerran johdosta.

Meillä on ensimmäinen Hieine-kautemme tavallisesti hyvin

varhain, monessa tapauksessa ylioppilastutkinnon kahden puolen.
Että se käy ylitsevuotavan ihailun merkeissä, on anteeksiannettavaa,
ei vain meidän nuoruutemme takia, vaan myöskin siksi, että se
kohdistuu melkein yksinomaan siihen osaan Heinen tuotantoa, joka
kieltämättä onkin ihailun arvoinen: "Laulujen kirjaan". Riippuu
mieskohtaisista elämänvaiheista — tai sattumasta — seuraako tätä
Heine-kautta myöhempi, kriitillisempi kausi, joka samalla sulkisi
mielenkiintonsa piiriin myös sen osan Heinen tuotantoa, mikä ei
puhu meille satakielten, liljojen, ruusujen ja lothos-kukkain kielellä.
Kun tämä kausi tulee — ja jos se tulee — saattaa se hämmentää
käsitystämme nuoruutemme runoilijasta, jonka hengessä näimme
kulkevan im wunderschönen Monat Mai, rakkauden maailmantuska
sydämessään ja tunteellinen kyynel silmäkulmassaan. Joskin
saamme tällöin tinkiä ensimmäisestä ihanteellisesta Heine-
kuvastamme, käy meille usein korvaukseksi ilmi, mikä mielikuvitusta
kiihoittava, syvällinen probleemi Heinen henkilöllisyyteen sisältyy. Ja
perehtyessämme tähän probleemiin voi käydä, että tunnemme
hetkellistä halua sanoa jäähyväiset nuoruutemme eleegiselle
Heinelle tervehtiäksemme satiirikkoa, journalistia, taistelijaa, jonka
polemiikki yhä vielä ärsyttää mieliä ja jonka yhdistetty henkilöllisyys
kiihoittaa aina uusiin selityskokeihin. —

Taistelu Heinestä alkoi hänen eläessään ja jatkuu vielä, enemmän

kuin puolisataa vuotta hänen kuolemansa jälkeen, hellittämättä. Se
ei pohjimmaltaan ole kiistaa hänen yksityisten runojensa ja
teostensa esteettisestä merkityksestä tai hänen esittämiensä
mielipiteiden ja ajatusten oikeutuksesta, se on viime kädessä
taistelua hänen persoonallisuutensa arvosta. Tämän taistelun
polttopisteessä ei ole kysymys siitä, onko "Laulujen kirja" asetettava
Goethen nuoruudenlyriikan rinnalle vaiko kauas sen alapuolelle, ei
myöskään kysymys siitä, onko Heine valtiollisissa,
uskonnonhistoriallisissa ja muissa poleemisissa teoksissaan
esittänyt kantaa, jota voi pitää epäisänmaallisena tai siveellisesti
epäilyttävänä, riita tässä taistelussa koskee viime kädessä sitä,
tarjoaako Heinen henkilöllisyys sellaisen persoonallisen
lähtökohdan, sellaisen elimellisen yhteyden, jossa hänen ristiriitainen
tuotantonsa ja väkivaltainen polemiikkinsa saavat selityksensä ja
ainakin eräänlaisen subjektiivisen oikeutuksensa. Kuta enemmän
aikaa kuluu, sitä helpommaksi tulee historiallinen suhtautuminen
häneen ja sitä ratkaisevammin astuu Heine-tutkimuksessa
persoonallisuuden probleemi puhtaasti psykologisessa mielessä
etualalle.

Saksassa tämä historiallisen arvioinnin ajankohta Heineen nähden

tuskin vieläkään on tullut, keisarikunnasta se oli varsin kaukana. Kun
Treitschke sanoi Heinestä ja Börnestä, että he, juutalaiset, aloittivat
vastenmielisimmän ja hedelmättömimmän aikakauden uudemmassa
saksalaisessa kirjallisuudenhistoriassa, niin lausui tämä
"Hohenzollernien historioitsija" epäilemättä Saksan keisarikunnan
virallisen mielipiteen, mikä koulujen oppikirjoissa toistui vieläkin
havainnollisemmassa ja ehdottomammassa mielessä. Useimmat
tunnetut saksalaiset kirjallisuushistorioitsijat ovat — muutamia
poikkeuksia lukuunottamatta, joihin kuuluu m.m. Gottschall —
säestäneet Treitschken kantaa. Sellaisen tunnustetun auktoriteetin
kuin Goedecken laajan kirjallisuushistoriallisen hakuteoksen toisiaan
seuraavissa painoksissa uudistuu vuosikymmenestä toiseen mitä
kielteisin arvostelu kirjailijasta, jonka lyriikan saavuttama suosio joka
tapauksessa kilpailee vain nimettömien kansanlaulujen
maantieteellisiä rajoja ja vuosisatojen vaihteluja uhmaavan suosion
kanssa. Tähän tapaan muodostuu Goedecken arvostelu Heinrich
Heinestä: "Heinen vaikutus saksalaiseen kirjallisuuteen on ollut hyvin
suuri, mutta läpeensä turmiollinen. Hän riisti runoudelta niinhyvin
vakavuuden kuin iloisuuden ja antoi sille sijaan pilkan ja irvistyksen.
— Jos uudelleen lukee hänen teostensa sarjan levollisesti ja
kritiikillä, niin peljästyy melkein niiden henkistä autiutta ja tyhjyyttä.
— — Hän ei koskaan ole synnyttänyt positiivista, vapauttavaa
ajatusta, joka olisi hänen omaisuuttaan, sillä kaikkien hänen
teostensa läpi kulkevaa ajatusta, että siveettömyydellä on
olemassaolon oikeutus, ei voi kutsua vapauttavaksi eikä
positiiviseksi." Sen synnin nimi, jonka johdosta Treitschke, Goedecke
ja lukemattomat pienemmät profeetat ovat tuominneet Heinen
kadotukseen, ei ole lainauksessamme mainittu, mutta kuultaa kyllä
sanojen lävitse: se on epäkansallisuuden, epäsaksalaisuuden,
isänmaattomuuden synti. Jos Heine jo juutalaisen syntyperänsä
perusteella tässä suhteessa oli epäilyksenalainen, niin on hän
tuotannossaan lisäksi tarjonnut yllinkyllin tilaisuutta lainauksiin, jotka
— varsinkin temmattuina yhteydestään ja sopivalla tavalla tulkittuina
— eivät voi olla haavoittamatta mitä syvimmin saksalaista
kansallistunnetta. Jos joku vielä niiden lisäksi kaipaa vahvistusta
Heinen isänmaattomuudelle, viittaa virallinen saksalainen
kirjallisuushistoria siihen tosiasiaan, että Heine nautti eläkettä
Ranskan hallitukselta.

Epäilemättä oli saksalainen kansallistunne Heinessä heikosti

kehittynyt (joskaan ei olematon). Voi sanoa että Heinekin on tuntenut
jotakin siitä "toivottomasta rakkaudesta" germaanilaisuutta kohtaan,
jota m.m. Wassermann ja Bartsch, kuvatessaan tyyppejä valitun
kansan keskuudesta, pitävät sivistyneelle saksanjuutalaiselle
ominaisena. Heine on turhaan etsinyt itselleen kotia saksalaisessa
kansansielussa ja vain vuosikausien oleskelun jälkeen romaanisen
kansan keskuudessa saattoi hän kuvitella kerran omistaneensa
isänmaan Reinin toisella puolen. Perusluonteeltaan kuului hän siihen
isänmaattomien laajaan, yhä kasvavaan sukuun — hän on itse
asiassa sen ensimmäisiä tyypillisiä edustajia —, joka ei saa
jäseniään vain suurkaupunkien juutalaiskortteleista, vaan, kuten
tiedämme, suurista sosialistisista ja kommunistisista järjestöistä,
vieläpä eräiden vapaiden intellektualistienkin keskuudesta eri
maissa. Mutta jos Heine epäkansallisen laatunsa ja juutalaisen
syntyperänsä vuoksi herättää voittamattomia vastenmielisyyden
tunteita saksalaisessa isänmaanystävässä, niin on
kirjallisuustutkimuksen, joka tahtoo syventyä Heine-probleemiin,
asetuttava näiden tunteiden ulkopuolelle, koska ne jo sisältävät
ennakollisen kannanoton ja helposti luovat mielivaltaisia, toivottuja
tuloksia objektiivisten tosiasiain sijaan. Aivan riippumatta siitä, minkä
merkityksen antaa isänmaa-tunteelle persoonallisuutta arvostellessa,
on joka tapauksessa sanottava, ettei Heinen elämään sisälly mitään
Ephialtes-tekoa (ranskalainen eläke vuosina 1835-1848 ei ollut
mikään sellainen). Tosiasia kuitenkin on, että Heine on löytänyt
Saksan ulkopuolelta, Englannista, Italiasta, Tanskasta ja ennen
kaikkea Ranskasta ymmärtävimmät ja ihailevimmat elämäkerralliset
kuvaajansa ja arvostelijansa, joskin heidän joukossaan on niitäkin,
jotka, kuten Georg Brändes, ovat kenties antaneet luonnonlaadun
heimolaisuuden ja veren sukulaisuuden johtaa itseään liian pitkälle
toiseen, myönteiseen suuntaan. Mutta itse Saksassakin on
nykyhetken valtiollinen asema helpottanut puolueetonta
suhtautumista Heineen, sillä nykyisen nöyryytetyn ja kidutetun
Saksan kansallinen kunniantunne ei luonnollisesti ole yhtä arka eikä
itsetietoinen kuin äskeisen loistavan keisarikunnan eikä sentähden
katso jokaista saksalaiseen kansallisuuteen kohdistunutta arvostelua
epäisänmaalliseksi teoksi. Viime aikojen maailmanhistorialliset
tapaukset, m.m. bolshevismi Venäjällä, antavat niinikään Heinen
radikaalisten poliittisten lausuntojen esiintyä uudessa valossa, sillä
hänen vanhoillisinkaan vastustajansa ei voi olla myöntämättä, että
Heine, joka tosin suhtautui innostuksella vuoden 1830:n tapahtumiin,
mutta jolla ei ollut enää mitään ymmärtämystä helmikuun
vallankumousta kohtaan, ei kuulu niihin maailmanparantajiin, jotka
uskovat, että jokainen yhteiskuntajärjestyksen kumous on askel
ihannevaltiota kohti. Mikään nykyisistä puolueista ei voi omaksua
häntä omakseen ja jos Pietarin kommunistit pystyttävät hänelle —
niinkuin lehdissä on ollut luettavana — sen muistopatsaan, jonka
virallinen Saksa on häneltä evännyt, niin perustavat he
toimenpiteensä epäilemättä enemmän siihen tosiasiaan, että Marx ja
Heine olivat persoonallisia ystäviä kuin Heinen teosten ja hänen
valtiollisten mielipiteidensä todelliseen tuntemiseen. Tosinhan Heine
on "Luteziassa" lausunut tunnustavia, jopa mairitteleviakin sanoja
kommunisteista, mutta hän on myöskin saman teoksen ranskalaisen
painoksen esipuheessa häijyllä ironialla kuvannut heidän
tulevaisuudenyhteiskuntaansa, jossa laakerilehdot muutetaan
perunamaiksi ja missä "Laulujen kirjan" lehdistä tehdään
nuuskatötteröitä tulevaisuuden vanhoille akoille! Jos joku valtiomies
haluaisi mielipiteidensä tueksi siteerata Heineä, saisi hän olla
valmistunut siihen, että hänen vastustajansa lyövät hänet aseilla,
jotka ovat lainatut saman kirjailijan henkisestä asevarastosta. Itse
asiassa on Heine liian ristiriitainen ja liian suuressa määrin vailla
positiivista kannanottoa ja vakaumusta, jotta hänestä voisi puhua
poliittisena persoonallisuutena. Heine ei tosin ole niinkuin Pietro
Aretino, renessanssin peljätyin häväistyskirjailija, jota hän
häikäilemättömyydessä muistuttaa ja jonka hän vitsinsä ja ivansa
neroudessa voittaa, käyttänyt kynäänsä kiristysvälineenä, mutta hän
on suuremmassa määrässä kuin mitä voi puolustaa omaksunut
poleemisen kykynsä oman turhamaisuutensa palvelukseen.
Valtiollinen elämä on ennen kaikkea ollut hänelle vain kiitollisin
areena, millä hän on voinut näyttää maailmalle älynsä loistoa ja
aseidensa terävyyttä, ja yleisön kättentaputukset ovat näissä
gladiaattorinäytöksissä epäilemättä merkinneet hänelle monin
verroin enemmän kuin moraalinen voitto. Hänen
vallankumouksellisuutensa, mikäli sellaisesta voi puhua, on vailla
kaikkea muuta paatosta paitsi retoorista. Heine ei suinkaan kärsinyt
niin paljon yhteiskunnallisten olojen kurjuudesta tai aineellisesta
hädästä — hänhän tuli itse huomattavalla tavalla osalliseksi rikkaan
pankkiirisetänsä miljoonista — kuin hän kärsi siitä, ettei yhteiskunta
antanut hänelle riittävästi tilaisuutta hänen pohjattoman
turhamaisuutensa tyydyttämiseen. Eipä hänen kirjeissään puutu
viittauksia siitäkään, että hän on tuntenut pettymystä sen johdosta,
ettei Preussin hallitus, hänen päävastustajansa, ymmärtänyt
arvostella niin korkealle hänen aseittensa iskuvoimaa, että se olisi
puolestaan tehnyt jotakin hankkiakseen itselleen hänen ystävyytensä
ja kenties samalla ostaakseen liittolaisekseen hänen kynänsä,
Europan henkevimmän journalistin kynän.
 Että nykyinen valtiollinen asema Saksassa on helpottanut
objektiivista arviointia Heineen nähden myöskin runoilijan
kotimaassa ja sallinut entistä ratkaisevammin hänen
persoonallisuutensa probleemin, erillään kaikesta ennakollisesta
kannanotosta, astua etualalle, sitä todistaa m.m. äsken ilmestynyt
Max J. Wolffin Heine-elämäkerta [Max J. Wolff, Heinrich Heine, —
1922], joka epäilemättä on paras tähän saakka ilmestynyt
kokonaisesitys Saksan kansanomaisimmasta laulurunoilijasta ja
terävimmästä poleemikosta. Wolff ei pyri, niinkuin uusimmat Goethe-
monografioiden tekijät, antamaan tutkimukselleen mitään filosoofista
tai metafyysillistä taustaa, hänen esityksensä pysyy kauttaaltaan
kirjallisuus- ja henkilöhistorian puitteissa. Heine ei ole hänelle, kuten
Goethe Simmelille ja Gundolfille, mikään "alku-ilmiö", hän on hänelle
ennen kaikkea vain ihminen ihmisten, kirjailija kirjailijain joukossa,
jonka älyllinen ja moraalinen persoonallisuus ei tarjoa mitään
aavistamattomia syvyyksiä. Moni nuori Heine-ihailija tuntee varmaan
Wolffin kirjan luettuaan pettymystä, mutta se, jolle Heinen
persoonallisuuden monet varjopuolet ovat olleet yhtä näkyvästi
luettavina hänen teoksistaan kuin hänen loistavat luonnonlahjansa,
on epäilemättä kiitollisuudella myöntävä, että runoilija ei ole
kadottanut mielenkiintoaan ja viehätystään sentähden, että hänen
henkilöllisyytensä on asetettu kriitilliseen valaistukseen.

Sitä kuilua, jonka monet ovat olleet näkevinään runoilijan ja

ihmisen välillä Heinessä, hienojen, vakavien, toisinaan myös syvää
tunnetta todistavien rakkauslaulujen tekijän ja nautinnonhimoisen
seikkailijan välillä, joka ei antanut moraalisten epäilysten sitoa
vapauttaan, sitä kuilua ei tosin Wolffinkaan onnistu täyttää. Mutta
hän ei pyrikään ensi sijassa sovittamaan tätä dualismia, sillä hänen
käsityksensä mukaan on yleensä olemassa vain sangen heikko
yhdysside taiteilijan elämän ja luovan toiminnan välillä. "Taiteilija
elää, toisin kuin tavallinen ihminen, kahdessa olomuodossa,
todellisuuden valtakunnassa, niinkuin jokainen meistä, ja muodon
valtakunnassa (im Reiche der Form), jonne hän ja vain hän voi
jokaisen meistä teoksensa välityksellä kohottaa. Suuri ihminen voi
olla hyvin pieni taiteilija, suuri taiteilija pieni ihminen. Runous ei ole
luonnetta, ei kykyä, vaan tunnelmaa. Esteetikon tulee tarkastaa
taideteosta sellaisenaan, riippumattomana sen luojan elämästä,
samalla tavalla kuin suhtaudutaan Shakespearen ja Homeroksen
teoksiin, runoilijoihin, joiden maisesta elämästä emme tiedä mitään
tai niinhyvin kuin emme mitään. Heinen runous pysyy samana, se ei
tule paremmaksi eikä huonommaksi sen johdosta, että nykyään
jommoisellakin varmuudella voidaan sanoa, että tuo runo tarkoittaa
Thereseä, tuo Amalieta, tuo kreivitär Bothmeria." Wolff hylkää, kuten
lainauksestamme näkyy, kokonaan n.k. elämys-estetiikan, meilläkin
sangen yleisen hyväksymisen saavuttaneen teorian, jonka mukaan
kirjallisuus tutkimuksen päätehtäviä on osoittaa runoteoksen pohjalla
piilevä mieskohtainen elämys, mikä vasta antaa täyden takeen
taideluoman aitoudesta. On ilmeistä, että Wolff menee liian pitkälle
erottaessaan toisistaan taiteilijan ja ihmisen — en tahtoisi
allekirjoittaa hänen väitettään, että suuri taiteilija voi olla pieni
ihminen — mutta en voi puolestani kieltää, ettei Wolffin kerettiläisyys
elämysestetiikkaan nähden eräissä suhteissa vaikuttaisi suorastaan
kuin vapauttava sana. Wolffin vastustusasenne tuntuu
liioitteluineenkin terveelliseltä ja oikeutetulta, jos muistaa jostakin
tuoreesta esimerkistä, minkälaiseen naurettavaan naiselliseen
uteliaisuuteen ja suorastaan julkeaan urkintatoimintaan elämys-
esteetikot ovat alansa kehittäneet, koettaessaan omalla tavallaan
selittää taideteoksen syntyä. Ei vakoilemalla runoilijan yksityistä
elämää, vaan syventymällä runoteoksen sisältöön ja muotoon,
täyttää kirjallisuustutkija parhaiten tehtävänsä välittäjänä runoilijan ja
yleisön välillä. Olkoon, että taiteilijan mieskohtaisten kokemusten ja
hänen luomistyönsä välillä on olemassa yhdysside — millä tavalla ja
miksi nuo elämykset saavat määrätyn taiteellisen muodon, se on
joka tapauksessa taidepsykologialle ratkaisematon probleemi. Mutta
jos elämysestetiikka tässä kohdassa — luomisen ihmeen edessä —
on yhtä voimaton kuin kaikki muutkin taideteoriat, on se saanut
aikaan paljon sekaannusta sen johdosta, että se on yrittänyt
yksipuolisesti siirtää huomion taideteoksesta sen tekijään,
runoluomasta runoilijaan, asettaen samalla taideteoksen ja yleisön
väliin omia subjektiivisia käsityksiään taideluoman suhteesta tekijän
yksityiselämään. Toinen asiahan on, että taiteilijan persoonallisuuden
ja elämäkerran tuntemus rinnan taideteoksen analyysin kanssa, lisää
historiallis-psykologista mielenkiintoamme teokseen, vaikkakin
epäilemättä jokainen oikea taideteos ja runoluoma on esteettisesti
nautittavissa myöskin ilman elämäkerrallisia selityksiä.

Mutta kun Heinessä tästä huolimatta hänen persoonallisuutensa

probleemi astuu niin vaativana esiin, johtuu se epäilemättä siitä, että
hän esiintyy meille — senjälkeen kuin "Laulujen kirja" ei enää
merkitse meille koko Heineä — enemmän taistelijana kuin
runoilijana, enemmän poleemikkona kuin lyyrikkona. Me kysymme
vaistomaisesti, mitä hän on tahtonut, mikä oli hänen yksityis-
ihmisensä suhde hänen julkiseen toimintaansa, mikä oli hänen
ohjelmansa, mikä hänen moraalinsa. Me koetamme häikäisevän,
eksyttävän kuoren alta löytää hänen persoonallisen vakaumuksensa,
erottaa niinsanoakseni hänen oman äänensä siinä ivan ja leikin
orkesterissa, jota hänen mielikuvituksensa soittaa. "Laulujen kirjan"
lyyrillisen maailman ulkopuolella, poleemisessa runoudessaan ja
proosassaan esiintyy hän meille sotilaana, kynän ritarina, ja meidän
täysi oikeutemme on kysyä, minkä puolesta hän on taistellut, kenen
asiaa hän on ajanut.
 Meidän päivinämme, jolloin juutalaisten osa Euroopan politiikassa
on joutunut niin monenlaisten — ja niin eriarvoisten — selitysten
alaiseksi, haluaisi varmaan moni nähdä Heinenkin valtiollis-
yhteiskunnallisen polemiikin lähteen olevan veren määräämässä
vihamielisyydessä kaikkea kristillistä valtiota ja yhteiskuntaa
kohtaan. Kieltämätöntä lienee, että Heinen psykologia on tyypillisen
juutalaisen, mutta myös siinä mielessä, että hän on jyrkkä
individualisti — aivan kuten sosialismia saarnaava Lasallekin — eikä
hän sentähden ole tuntenut mitään voimakasta yhteistunnetta
juutalaisten heimo veljiensä kanssa tai antanut heidän
pyrkimystensä, ainakaan jatkuvammin sitoa itseään. Hän on vailla
syvempää sosiaalista tunnetta, niinkuin hän on myös vailla
varsinaista uskonnollista mieltä. Hänen oma nautintonsa, hänen oma
menestyksensä on ollut hänen ylin johtotähtensä, ja varmaan on
Wolff oikeassa, kun hän näkee Heine-poliitikossa, ei vain
individualistia, vaan myöskin puhdasverisen egoistin. Heine ei
suinkaan perusluonteeltaan ollut vallankumouksellinen tai, mikäli hän
sitä oli, oli hän sitä vain niin kauan ja niin pitkälle kuin se oli hänen
etujensa mukaista. Niin pian kuin hän itse tunsi istuvansa katetun
pöydän ääressä, oli hän valmis puolustamaan olevia oloja.
Epikurolaisine taipumuksineen oli hän itse asiassa varsin kaukana
katusulku-sankarista. Hän ei pohjimmiltaan ollut mikään taistelija-
luonne, vaikka hänen elämänsä kaksi suurta intohimoa,
turhamaisuus ja kostonhimo, veivät hänet loppumattomaan
kirjalliseen sissisotaan. Valtiolliset vastustajat olivat itse asiassa
hänelle persoonallisia vihamiehiä ja hänen polemiikkinsa muuttui
sentähden aina mieskohtaiseksi. Asia saa unohtua. Hän tekee
vastustajistaan, heidän henkilöllisyydestään, heidän moraalistaan ja
heidän ulkonäöstään oman "aristophanisen" mielikuvansa, muuttaa
heidät naurettaviksi huvinäytelmä-henkilöiksi, joiden yhtäpitäväisyys
todellisuuden kanssa saattaa olla huimaavan kaukainen. Kun Börne
ja Platen, joilla kirjailijoilla oli paljon yhtymäkohtia Heinen kanssa,
olivat loukanneet hänen turhamaisuuttaan, teki hän koko kykynsä
sukkelan häväistyskronikan alalla aktiiviseksi toimittaakseen
mahdollisimman tehokkaalla tavalla heidän julkisen mestauksensa
suuren yleisönsä edessä. Tosin voi Heinen puolustukseksi sanoa,
että jo Platen, ennen Heinen suurta hyökkäystä, oli antanut tälle
polemiikille eräissä epigrammeissaan hyvinkin persoonallisen kärjen,
mutta sen ei suinkaan voi katsoa oikeuttaneen Heineä niihin
rehevällä mielikuvituksella keksittyihin alhaisuuksiin, jotka ovat
antaneet "matkakertomukselle" "Die Bäder von Lucca" oman
asemansa häväistyskirjojen joukossa. Tämän polemiikin luonteen ja
tason määrää yksinomaan mieskohtaisen kostontunteen tuottama
tyydytys. Mutta olisi väärin kieltää, ettei se usein olisi sukkela ja
huvittava. Eikä ole luultavaa, että se, joka kerran on joutunut
tämänlaisen polemiikin esineeksi, on löytänyt paljonkaan lohdutusta
siitä, monien hyvien saksalaisten antamasta todistuksesta, että
Heinen esprit'stä puuttuu oikea saksalainen henki. Voipa päinvastoin
väittää, että Heinen häväistyskirjoitus vielä meidän päiviimme asti
omalta osaltaan on estänyt Platenia pääsemästä kirjallisella
parnassolla siihen asemaan mikä tälle hienolle, omalaatuiselle
lyyrikolle oikeudella kuuluisi. Varsin epäkaunis moraalisena
todistuskappaleena tekijästään on niinikään Heinen sukkela Börne-
kirja, jossa Heine on häijyllä huumorillaan tehnyt heimo- ja
puoluetoveristaan ja entisestä aseveljestään "saksalaisen
kirjallisuuden parhaimman komedia-henkilön", niinkuin hiukan
liioitellen on sanottu. On tahdottu, eikä kenties syyttä, nähdä Heinen
poleemisessa häikäilemättömyydessä tyypillisesti juutalaisia
ominaisuuksia, mutta toiselta puolen ei ole aihetta unohtaa, että
m.m. pohjoismaisessa kirjallisuudessa kilpailee germaanisen
Strindbergin "Svarta fanor" monessa suhteessa — ei vähimmin juuri
hyökkäävässä raivossa — juutalaisrunoilijan mielikuvitusrikkaiden,
häijyjen vapaan käden maalailujen kanssa. Jos palkinto olisi
annettava suuremmasta häikäilemättömyydestä, niin ei olisi aivan
helppo päättää, kummalleko voitonpalmu tässä tapauksessa
kuuluisi, juutalaiselleko vai "aarialaiselle".

Wolff ei aseta teoksessaan suorastaan vastattavakseen sitä

kysymystä, joka useimmille saksalaisille määrää heidän suhteensa
Heineen ja joka tavallaan on uudelleen tullut päiväjärjestykseen:
onko Heinen vaikutus saksalaiseen yhteiskuntaan ollut turmiollinen
ja onko hänellä ehkä oma osansa siinä tragediassa, jonka Saksan
kansa eli maailmansodan loppuvaiheissa ja sen jälkeen? Siitä, joka
nykyään lukee Heinen valtiollisia kirjoituksia ja hänen poleemisia
artikkeleitaan ja runojaan, tuntuu tämä kysymys hyvinkin
luonnolliselta — samoinkuin myöskin myönteinen vastaus siihen.
Heine on aivan varmaan vaikuttanut yhteiskuntasiteitä höllentävästi,
valtiollista edesvastuuntunnetta heikontavasti, hän on pinnalla
liikkuvalla polemiikillaan banalisoinut yhteiskunnallista ajattelua.
Vaikkakin vaistoiltaan täysin epäpoliittinen, joutui hän, oikeastaan
itse siihen pyrkimättä, liberaalisen puolueen johtoon, ja
huomattuaan, miten vakavasti niinhyvin vapaamielisellä kuin
vanhoillisella taholla otettiin hänen kevyet paradoksinsa, pakoitti
hänen turhamaisuutensa hänet jatkuvasti tähän puoluepäällikön
näkyvään osaan, minkä hän suoritti etupäässä vain siirtämällä
valtiolliselle alalle kirjallisissa polemiikeissa harjoitetun
menettelytapansa. Asiallisuudella on tässä valtiollisessa kirjailussa
varsin pieni osuus — asia niissä useimmin kokonaan jätetään
syrjään —, mutta sensijaan on kirjoittajan koko kunnianhimo
keskittynyt iskusanoihin tai persoonallisiin syrjäpistoihin, joiden
läpinäkyvä tarkoitus on koko maailmalle osoittaa, mikä älykäs mies
Heinrich Heine on. Nykyajan lukijan on usein hiukan vaikea käsittää,
miten Heinen pintapuolinen valtiollinen kirjailu on voinut aikoinaan
herättää sekä ystävien että vastustajien puolelta niin suurta
huomiota ja hankkia hänelle eräissä piireissä myös
yhteiskunnallisena ajattelijana jatkuvaa suosiota. Heinen turmiollinen
vaikutus ei suinkaan johdu hänen poliittisen julistuksensa
positiivisesta sisällöstä — hänen hiukan lapsellisesta saint-
simonistisesta intoilustansa tai hänen vuoroin liberalistisesta, vuoroin
sosialistis-kommunistisesta haaveilustansa — se johtuu ennen
kaikkea siitä tavattomasta pintapuolisuudesta, mikä on hänen
poliittiselle kirjailulleen tunnusmerkillinen ja mikä varmaankin on ollut
osaltaan edellytyksenä sille valtiolliselle humalalle, joka Saksan
koettelemuksien päivinä maailmansodan lopussa vietti surullisia
riemuvoittojaan. Mutta pintapuolisuuden, epäasiallisuuden lisäksi on
vielä eräs toinen luonteenominaisuus Heinessä ollut omiaan
vaikuttamaan vahingollisesti yhteiskunnalliseen ajatteluun Saksassa:
hänen taipumuksensa kielteisyyteen. Rakentava, myönteinen puoli
puuttuu miltei kokonaan hänen ajattelustaan, mutta sensijaan on
kritiikki ja oppositsioni siinä sitä voimakkaammin edustettu.
Vastustus, kieltäminen, hävityshalu on se elementti, jossa Heinen
valtiollinen kirjailu elää, eikä ole suinkaan sattuma, että hän on
luonut jo 1840-luvulla järkyttävän "Weberlied'insä", jossa hän lähes
vuosisadan takaa inspiroiduissa säkeissä laulaa Saksanmaan
häviötä:

Das Schiffchen fliegt, der Webstuhl kracht, wir weben

emsig Tag und Nacht — Altdeutschland, wir weben dein
Leichentuoh, wir weben hinein den dreifachen Fluch wir
weben, und weben!
 Kun Heinen polemiikin kärki kääntyy jotakin henkilöä vastaan, on
se yhdeksässä tapauksessa kymmenestä mieskohtaisen
kostontunteen aiheuttama. Heine ei itsekään ollut tietämätön siitä,
että kostontunteen tyydyttäminen oli huomattavalla sijalla hänen
elämännautintojensa joukossa. Hän on täysin selvästi ja ilman
kainoutta tuntenut tämän puolen luonteessaan ja sen myöskin
tunnustanut, m.m. seuraavassa aforismissa, joka muutenkin
sattuvasti kuvaa hänen psykologiaansa: "Minulla on mitä rauhallisin
mielenlaatu. Toiveeni ovat: vaatimaton maja, olkikatto, mutta hyvä
vuode, hyvä ruoka, maitoa ja voita, aivan tuoreeltaan, ikkunan
edessä kukkia, oven edessä joitakin kauniita puita ja jos hyvä jumala
tahtoo tehdä minut täysin onnelliseksi antaa hän minun kokea sen
ilon, että noihin puihin ripustetaan noin seitsemän tai kahdeksan
vihollisistani. Liikutetuin sydämin tulen heille ennen heidän
kuolemaansa antamaan anteeksi sen pahan minkä he minulle
elämässään ovat tehneet — niin, meidän on annettava
vihollisillemme anteeksi, mutta ei ennen kuin he riippuvat hirressä."

Siinä kylmässä, itsekkäässä ja nautinnonhimoisessa ihmisessä,

mikä Heine pohjimmaltaan oli, tapaa epäilemättä sovittavia, jopa
ihailuakin ansaitsevia piirteitä. Sellaisia on se alistuva kärsivällisyys,
millä hän kesti patjahaudassaan tautinsa tuskat kahdeksan vuoden
aikana, henkisesti lamaantumattomana, vaikka ruumiillisesti
halvattuna. Ja joskin hänen suuri turhamaisuutensa osaltaan kiihoitti
häntä näyttelemään maailman edessä sen "henkevän kuolevan"
osaa, mihin hänen kirjallinen maineensa Euroopan kuuluisimpana
leikinlaskijana tuntui häntä velvoittavan, niin on sanottava, että nämä
viimeiset kärsimyksen vuodet joka tapauksessa osoittavat, että
hänellä oli voimaa nousta kohtalonsa yläpuolelle. Hän ei luopunut
iroonikon ja satiirikon asemastaan, vaikka julma kohtalo oli
osoittautunut häntä suuremmaksi leikinlaskijaksi. Hänen viimeinen
lyriikkansa saa eräissä runoissa eteerisen nousun, jota emme tapaa
hänen nuoruudentuotannossaan, se kohoaa kuoleman syleilystä
niihin voitollisiin korkeuksiin, missä tuska lakkaa ja missä kaipauksen
ääneen yhtyy jotakin saavutuksen riemusta. Heinen hienoin
rakkaussuhde sattui näihin vuosiin, suhde salaperäiseen La
mouche'iin, tuohon naiseen, joka Heinen viimeisenä elämänvuonna
ilmestyi hänen vuoteensa ääreen ja katosi hänen kuolemansa
jälkeen maailman silmistä niin hyvin, ettei kirjallisuushistorian ole
onnistunut koskaan täysin tyydyttää uteliaisuuttaan hänen
persoonaansa nähden. Hän on taas runoilija, niinkuin kolme
vuosikymmentä sitten, niin, suurempi, aidompi kuin nuoruutensa
päivänä. Hänen rakkauslyriikkansa saa vakuuttavamman
äänenpainon kuin koskaan ennen:

Es kommt der Tod — jetzt will ich sagen, was zu

verschweigen ewiglich mein Stolz gebot: für dich, für dich, es
hat mein Herz fur dich geschlagen!

Myöskin uskonnollisten tunteiden alalla, joita Heineltä ei puuttunut,

vaikk'eivät ne hänessä olleet erikoisen voimakkaita, tapahtuu
hänessä kehitystä näinä hänen elämänsä viimeisinä vuosina: hän
kääntyy takaisin "vanhaan taikauskoon, uskoon persoonalliseen
Jumalaan". Mutta tämä hänen jumaluutensa ei ole kristinuskon, jota
kohtaan Heine ei koskaan voittanut vastenmielisyyttään, huolimatta
muodollisesta kääntymyksestään, se on Vanhan testamentin Jahve.
Heine palaa isiensä luo. Hän tekee jumalansa kuvan lähinnä oman
kuvansa mukaan, lainaten sille samalla rotunsa luonteenomaisimmat
tuntomerkit:

Unser Gott ist nicht die Liebe, Schnäbeln ist nioht seine
Sache, denn er ist en Donnergott und er ist ein Gott der
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com