As a result of a lecture before the Oriental Society of Berlin, a very serious controversy arose in religious circles in Germany. The Emperor gave his opinion in the following open letter, which was printed in the Grenzboten. It is said that this very significant letter shows the influence of the court chaplain, Doctor Dryander. Certain of the ideas are, however, thoroughly characteristic of the Emperor.
My Dear Hollmann:
My telegram to you must have removed the doubts which you still entertained regarding the conclusion of the lecture. It was perfectly clearly understood by the audience and therefore had to stand as it does; but I am very pleased that through your inquiry the matter of this second lecture was again taken up, and I am glad to take this occasion, after reading through the section again, to present my position in a clear light.
During an evening meeting among ourselves Professor Delitzsch had the opportunity, with her Majesty, the Empress, and General Superintendent Dryander, to confer and discuss thoroughly for several hours, during which I remained a passive listener. He, unfortunately, departed from the standpoint of the thoroughgoing historian and Assyriologist and penetrated into the region of theological and religious conclusions and hypotheses, which were hazy and bold. When, however, he came to the New Testament it soon became evident that I could not agree with him in the ideas which he developed concerning the person of the Redeemer, and I was compelled to state my own standpoint, which was diametrically opposed to his. He does not recognize the divinity of Christ and therefore concludes in regard to the Old Testament that it does not refer to Him as the Messiah. Here the Assyriologist and investigating historian ceases and the theologian with all his lights and shades steps in. In this province I can only advise him to go very carefully, step by step, and in any case to ventilate his theories only in theological publications and in the circles of his colleagues and to spare us laymen and especially the Oriental Society, before whose forum all this is out of place. We excavate and read whatever we find and publish it for the advancement of knowledge and history, but not in order to help justify or combat the religious hypotheses of any one of many learned men.
In Delitzsch’s case the theologian has run away with the historian, and the latter serves merely as a point of departure for the former. I think it unfortunate that Delitzsch should not have stuck to his original programme, which he developed in former years, namely, on the basis of the discoveries of our society, to ascertain through scientifically approved translations of the Scriptures how far these offer an illustration of the chronicle of the people of Israel; that is, enlightenment as to historical events, customs, and uses, traditions, politics, legislation, etc.; in other words, how far the undeniably highly developed Babylonian culture came into contact with the Israelites, could work upon them, yes, even impress its stamp upon them, and thereby accomplish, from a purely human point of view, a sort of rehabilitation for the Babylonians, who were, according to the Old Testament at least, a very crude, shameful, and one-sided people. That was his original intention, at least as I understood it, and a province very fruitful and interesting to us all, the investigation, explanation, and exposition of which must have interested us laymen to the highest degree and would have demanded our deepest gratitude. But he should have stuck to this. Unfortunately, however, in his zeal he has overshot the mark. As was to be expected, the excavations brought to light communications which bear in a religious way upon the Old Testament. He should have collated this material and pointed out and explained coincidences, when such occurred, but he should have left it to the listener to draw for himself all purely religious conclusions. In this way his discourse would have commanded the interest and good-will of the lay public. That, unfortunately, he has not done. Pretending that he could explain it all on historical and purely human grounds, he has attacked the question of revelation in a very polemical manner and more or less denied it. That was a serious mistake, because he touched many of his hearers in what was deepest and most sacred to them. And whether he was right or wrong—that for the moment is all one, since we are concerned not with a purely scientific gathering of theologians but with laymen of all kinds and conditions—he has overturned and rudely shaken many favorite conceptions and images with which these people connect sacred and cherished ideas and has ruthlessly shaken the foundation of their belief, if he has not swept it away altogether, a thing which only a mighty genius dare be bold enough to undertake and which the study of Assyriology alone does not justify. Goethe also once treated this subject and pointed out especially that one must be careful before a great, general public to break down only “Terminologiepagoden” [the pagodas of terminology]. The excellent professor, in his zeal, has overlooked the principle that it is very necessary to distinguish between what is and what is not fitting to the place, the public, etc. As a theological specialist he can, through the avenue of special publications, express for his circle of colleagues his theses, hypotheses, and theories as well as his convictions, which it would not do to express in a popular lecture or book.
I would like now to come back once more to my own personal standpoint in regard to the doctrine or view of revelation, as I have often explained it to you, my dear Hollmann, and to other gentlemen. I distinguish between two different kinds of revelation: one a continuous and in a manner historical revelation; the other a purely religious one, preparing for the later appearance of the Messiah.
In the first place, let me say, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind but that God reveals Himself, always and permanently, through the human race which He created. He has “blown the breath of His nostrils” into man; that is, He has given him a piece of Himself—a soul. With fatherly love and interest He follows the development of mankind; in order to lead and advance it further, He “reveals” Himself in this or that great sage or priest or king, be he heathen, Jew, or Christian. Hammurabi was one, so were Moses, Abraham, Homer, Charlemagne, Luther, Shakespeare, Goethe, Kant, Emperor William the Great. These He has sought out and made worthy, through His grace, to accomplish according to His will splendid and imperishable deeds for their people in the spiritual as well as in the physical world. How often has my grandfather expressly said that he was only an instrument in the hand of the Lord. The works of great spirits are given to the people by God in order that they may imitate them and feel their way further through the intricacies of the unexplored regions of this life. Certainly God has “revealed” Himself in different ways at different times, according to the condition and culture of the people, and still does so to-day. For, as we are overcome by the greatness and power of the magnificent nature of creation and are astounded to see in it the revealed greatness of God, so, just as surely, do we thankfully recognize in every really great and splendid thing which a man or a god does the splendor of the revelation of God. He works directly upon and among us!
The second kind of revelation, the more religious, is that which relates to the coming of our Lord. From the time of Abraham on it is introduced slowly but prophetically—the coming of the All-wise, the All-knowing; for mankind would otherwise have been lost. And now begins the most wonderful phenomenon of all, the revelation of God. The seed of Abraham and the people who developed from it regard as the most sacred thing in the world a rigorous belief in a single God. They must cherish it—. Separated during the Egyptian exile, the scattered portions, welded together a second time by Moses, strove ever to hold fast to their belief in a single God. It was the direct working of God upon these people which allowed them to rise again. And so it continues further down the centuries until the Messiah, who was announced and foretold by the prophets and psalmists, finally appears. The greatest revelation of God in the world! For He appeared in the person of His Son; Christ is God; God in human form. He redeemed us, He inspires us, He draws us on to follow Him, we feel His fire burning within us, His pity strengthens us, His dissatisfaction destroys us, but His intercession saves us. Sure of victory, building only upon His Word, we go through work, scorn, sorrow, misery, and death, for we have in Him the revealed Word of God and He never deceives.
That is the way I look at these questions. The Word of God has, through Luther, become everything, especially for us Evangelicals; and as a good theologian Delitzsch should not have forgotten that our great Luther taught us to sing and to believe: “Ye shall let the Word stand!” For me it goes without saying that the Old Testament contains a great number of extracts which are of purely human origin and not “the revealed Word of God.” There are purely historical descriptions of events of all kinds which took place in the life of the people of Israel in the realm of political, religious, moral, and spiritual matters. So, for instance, the giving of the law on Mount Sinai may be looked upon as inspired by God in only a symbolical sense; for Moses was compelled to have recourse to some means of giving new force to old and well-known portions of the law (which were probably derived from the Codex of Hammurabi). Otherwise he might not have been able to unite and weld together a people whose organization had become lax and incapable of resistance. Here the historian can perhaps construe from the sense and the run of the words some relation to the laws of Hammurabi, the friend of Abraham, which would perhaps be perfectly logical; that would, however, in no way detract from the fact that God inspired Moses to do it and in so far revealed Himself to the people of Israel.
As I see it, therefore, our good professor ought hereafter to avoid handling and bringing forward religion, as such, in his addresses to our society. On the other hand, he may continue unmolested to bring forward whatever connections there may be between the religion, customs, etc., of the Babylonians, etc., and the Old Testament. From which I derive the following conclusions: