II.

The victory of Rome was complete. A captain of our race, of our blood, a

man like us, at the head of legions in whose roll, if we could read it,

we should meet many of our ancestors, had come to crush the fortress of

Semitism, to inflict upon the revealed, accepted law the greatest injury

which it had received. It was the triumph of Roman right, or rather

rational right, a creation utterly philosophical, presupposing no

revelation, above the Jewish Thora, the fruit of a revelation. This

right, whose roots were partly Greek, but in which the practical genius

of the Latins made so fine a part, was the excellent gift which Rome

brought to the vanquished in return for their independence. Each victory

for Rome was a victory for right. Rome bore into the world a better

principle in several respects than that of the Jews: I mean the profane

state, reposing on a purely civil conception of society.

The triumph of Titus was then legitimate in many ways, and still there

never was a more useless triumph. The deplorable religious nothingness

of Rome rendered its victory unfruitful. This victory did not retard the

progress of Judaism a single day: it did not give the religion of the

empire an added chance to struggle against this redoubtable rival. The

national existence of the Jewish people was lost forever; but that was a

blessing. The true glory of Judaism was Christianity, about to be born.

The ruin of Jerusalem and the temple was an unequalled good for

Christianity.

If the reasoning of Titus according to Tacitus is correctly reported,

the victorious general believed that the destruction of the temple would

be the ruin of Christianity as well as that of Judaism. No one was ever

more completely deceived. The Romans imagined, that, in tearing up the

root, they should eradicate the shoot at the same time; but the shoot

was already a shrub that lived its own life. If the temple had survived,

Christianity would certainly have been arrested in its development. The

surviving temple would have continued to be the centre of all Judaic

works. It would always have been regarded as the most holy place of the

world: pilgrims would have come there, and would there have brought

their tributes. The Church of Jerusalem, grouped around by consecrated

parvises, would have continued, by the strength of its primacy, to

receive the homage of all the world, to persecute the Christians of the

Church of Paul, to exact, that, in order to have the right to call one's

self the disciple of Jesus, one should practise the circumcision, and

observe the Mosaic code. All effectual propagandism would have been

interdicted: letters of obedience signed at Jerusalem would have been

exacted from the missionary. A centre of irrefragable authority, a

patriarchate composed of a sort of college of cardinals under the

presidency of men like James, pure Jews belonging to the family of

Jesus, would have been established, and would have constituted an

immense danger for the new-born Church. When one sees St. Paul after so

many mishaps remaining always attached to the Church of Jerusalem, one

understands what difficulties a rupture with these holy personages would

have presented. Such a schism would have been considered as an enormity.

The separation from Judaism would have been impossible; and this

separation was the indispensable condition of the existence of the new

religion. The mother was about to kill the child. The temple, on the

contrary, once destroyed, the Christians thought no more of it: very

soon, indeed, they will consider it a profane place: Jesus will be every

thing to them. The Christian Church of Jerusalem was by the same stroke

reduced to a secondary importance. It was re-organized around the

element which made its force, the _desposyni_, the members of the family

of Jesus, the sons of Clopas; but it will reign no more. This centre of

hate and exclusion once destroyed, the reconciliation of the opposing

parties in the Church of Jesus will become easy. Peter and Paul will be

brought into accord, and the terrible duality of the new-born

Christianity will cease to be a mortal sore. Lost in the depth of the

interior of the Batanæa and the Hauran, the little group which attached

itself to James and Clopas becomes the Ebionite sect, and slowly dies.

These relatives of Jesus were pious, tranquil, mild, modest,

hard-working men, faithful to the severest precepts of Jesus concerning

poverty, but at the same time very exact Jews, considering the title of

"Child of Israel" before every other advantage. From the year 70 to

about the year 110, they really governed the churches beyond the Jordan,

and formed a sort of Christian senate. There is no need to demonstrate

the immense danger which these pre-occupations, with genealogies, were

to the new-born Christianity. A sort of nobility of Christianity was

about to be formed. In the political order the nobility is almost a

necessity to the state. Politics having elements of gross struggles

which render it more material than ideal, a state is very strong only

when a certain number of families has, by tradition and privilege, the

duty and interest of guarding its welfare, representing and defending

it. But, in the order of the ideal government, birth is nothing: each

one is valued in proportion to the truth he shows, and the good he does.

The institutions which have a religious, literary, moral end, are lost,

when considerations of family, caste, heredity, prevail in them. The

nephews and cousins of Jesus would have ruined Christianity, if the

churches of Paul had not already been strong enough to act as a

counterpoise to this aristocracy, the tendency of which would have been

to proclaim itself alone respectable, and to treat all converts as

intruders. Some pretensions analogous to those of the Alides in Islam

were established. Islamism would certainly have perished under the

embarrassment caused by the family of the prophet, if the result of the

struggles of the first century of the Hegira had not been to reject,

upon second thought, all those who were too near the person of the

prophet. The true heirs of a great man are those who continue his work,

and not his relatives by blood. Considering the tradition of Jesus as

his own possession, the little _coterie_ of the Nazarenes, as they are

called, would certainly have stifled it. Happily this narrow circle

disappeared in good season: the relatives of Jesus were soon forgotten

in the interior of the Hauran. They lost all importance, and left Jesus

to his true family, the only one which he has recognized,--those of whom

he said, "They hear the word of God, and keep it."

English Conferences of Ernest Renan: Rome and Christianity. Marcus Aurelius · 第 23 / 37 题