preceding and during the religious crisis in france, which resulted in the separation law, a great number of books on the future of religion appeared in paris. the largest number of writers denied that there was a future for religion, maintaining that modern economic conditions are undermining the spiritual and religious basis of the life of the masses. a minority, upholding clericalism, foresaw a promising future for religion.
a similar discussion on the future of the jewish religion arose with the advent of zionism. in the first decade of our century scores of books appeared in europe, dealing with the nature and future of the jewish religion. as in france, during the crisis, so in european jewry, during the inception of zionism, two distinct views were held as to the future of the jewish religion. one view saw that judaism could hope for no future in the diaspora and that, if only to avert the destruction of the jewish religion, a homeland in palestine was needed. the other view was that judaism, being non-political in nature, would continue to exist indefinitely and that, as a matter of fact, it was created for a diaspora existence.
today, when the jewish people is once more at the parting of the ways, the same question comes up again. those who oppose zionism hastily affirm that the jewish religion not only does not need a homeland in palestine, as a source of new inspiration, but that the very idea of this homeland is incompatible with the jewish religion. the spokesmen of zionism who, as a rule, do not worry much over questions of theology and religion, have so far failed to take a definite attitude towards the rabbis who oppose zionism on religious grounds.
we think it high time to approach this question and to try to answer it from a purely objective point of view.
before we ask whether the jewish religion has any future in the diaspora, let us see whether it has had any development in the past.
it is known to every intelligent jew that since the appearance of maimonides, with the exception of the pathological phenomenon of "sabbathai zevi" and of hassidism, the jewish religion has not developed in the least. the rabbinic literature of the last 800 years consists mainly of legal responses to which nobody will attribute religious significance, because religion and legalism are two different things. the rabinnic jew has the same views on god, on the relations between god and man, and on immortality, as prevailed among jews 800 years ago. even the synagogue and the jewish ritual have undergone few changes in this period. many attribute this fact of religious stagnation to the predominant legal element in the jewish religion, while others maintain that, even without this element, the jewish religion would not have undergone changes because of its existence in the diaspora. religion, like any other phase of spiritual life, must draw from life itself and if the source is polluted stagnation must set in.
many people seek to prove that the jewish religion is capable of development in the diaspora, and as proof they point to hassidism. but even they must agree that hassidism itself failed to develop and that it resulted finally in a form of judaism which is objectionable even on æsthetic grounds. hassidism, which claims to have a greater freedom of movement than mithnagdism, is today even more stagnant than mithnagdism. in addition, it is questionable whether the pantheistic element in hassidism is altogether compatible with the traditional jewish conception of god. all in all, hassidism affords no proof that the jewish religion has developed in the last 800 years. it would be no exaggeration to say that ever since jewish religious philosophy chose the path of aristotelianism, it has been favored only with the slightest development.
one must bear in mind that in the past the jewish religion, though more persecuted than at present, had better chances of development than in our own day. the gentiles surrounding the jews lived a more intense spiritual life than is the case today and in addition they thought in terms of religion as the mediaeval philosophers thought more theologico. judaism and christianity were absolutely separated and regarded each other with hostility. the intense religious feeling of the middle ages, the thinking in terms of religion on the part of the gentile masses, the hostility of the church to the synagogue, the isolation of jewish life and the persecution which must have intensified the religious feeling, were all factors conducive to religious development. however, the fact remains that since maimonides, the jewish religion has not undergone notable development.
is it capable of development in the future?
today humanity does not think in terms of religion; modern philosophers do not think more theologico but more biologico; the synagogue in the country where jews are free is not isolated as was the case in the past, nor is jewish life isolated. unlike the jews of the past, the modern jew in these countries is actuated not by religious but by economic and social motives and he has little time to give thought to judaism. to the average jew in the liberal countries, judaism is either an unwelcome heritage or at best a synagogal duty. in eastern europe there are two sorts of jews, as far as religion is concerned. there are either rabbinic jews, who are pious and naive, or there are jews whose views practically amount to a superficial atheism. under these conditions, it is hard to tell how the jewish religion is to develop in the diaspora, or what its future may be.
the reformers, of course, would point to the work of geiger and holdheim. but is the work of these men really proof of organic development in jewish religion? does the destruction of the bases of a religion indicate development? reform judaism not only did away with rabbinism, but it would also deprive the bible of its religious character, denying the divinity of its source and in addition arbitrarily abolishing fundamental biblical laws for the convenience of its practioners. is there any intelligent jew, with a fair knowledge of judaism, perhaps with the exception of a few reform rabbis, who will maintain that in these changes there is a trace of development? if reform judaism can do no more than destroy what others have built, it is not progress in jewish religion, as its leaders assert, but merely a ruthless iconoclasm.
we do not say that reform judaism is created by malice or by the wanton desire to destroy, but only that it serves as proof that from present conditions the jewish religion seems to have no future in the diaspora, once it has come into contact with modern life.
the jewish religion, a product of national genius, can live and thrive only on its own soil. it can live and thrive only if it is part andparcel of the whole life of the nation, because the jewish religion, in contradistinction to the universal religions, is distinctly national in character and wherever the jewish nation is hampered in its movements (as it is, everywhere, in the diaspora), the jewish religion is also hampered and condemned to stagnation.
the stronger and more intense the life surrounding the jews, the weaker becomes their own religious impulse.
this is well known to the reform rabbis. we do not know how they conceive the future of judaism in the diaspora, but we do know that the only possibility for a jewish religious revival lies in a national life for the jewish people.
