Sejarah Zionisme, 1600-1918/Volume 1/Bab 30

CHAPTER XXX.

BRITISH INTEREST AND WORK IN PALESTINE

Mr. Rogers—Mr. Finzi—Agricultural work in Palestine under the auspices of the British Consul—W. Holman Hunt—Thomas Seddon—A New Appeal—Prof. D. Brown—Rev. John Fry—Rev. Capel Molyneux—Prof. C. A. Auberlen—Dr. W. Urwick—Dr. E. Henderson—Prof. Joseph A. Alexander—Dr. Patrick Fairbairn—Dr. Thomas Arnold.

“The greatest advantages had resulted to the Jews from this indirect protection, and as a natural consequence Jews of all kinds continually resorted to the British Consulate at all times for advice when in distress, and they received every kind of help which could be properly afforded them. They were no longer outwardly persecuted, being well known to be under British protection.... The Russian Jews, now since 1850 British protégés, enjoyed, especially in Safed and Tiberias, a tranquillity to which they had long been strangers, and the Consulate was well seconded in regard to them by Mr. [Edward Thomas] Rogers (1830(1)‒1884), the new Vice-Consul at Haifa, besides whom we had had from long previous years, as British Consular Agent, at Acre, Mr. Finzi, who was a Jew.”

The British Consul also started works of philanthropy which seemed to be the beginning of an experiment in Jewish agriculture.

“A plot of ground of about eight to twelve English acres had been purchased in 1852, on which as soon as money could be obtained for supplying wages some of the poor had been set to work. That land was set apart for ever under the name of ‘the Industrial Plantation for employment of Jews of Jerusalem,’ and it was in due time placed under the security of three trustees.

“The design was not so much to constitute a rural colony of farmers on this spot, as to afford daily employment to residents of the city, returning from work every evening to their families.

“It was always designed that other branches of Jewish agricultural employment, that might be carried on in other places in the vicinity, should be associated with this institution under the general name of ‘Industrial Plantation.’

“We were not so sanguine as to expect pallid creatures, weakened by hunger and disease, to perform the labours of healthy robust peasants of the villages, but at least they could clear off the loose stones from the land in baskets, they could assist in building up dry walls of enclosure with the guidance of a few peasants; they could carry water from the cistern, and they could learn to do other things.

“These tasks would be profitable and preparatory. Upon such tasks we had already in 1850 to 1853 employed as many poor Jews as the small funds at our disposal had permitted. Now in 1854 we applied to friends in England, and elsewhere, to send us the means of relieving some of the vast amount of misery around us, by means of employment in the open air. The appeal was responded to and funds were sent from England, from India, and also one or two contributions from America. By the month of April money had arrived, and we were able to set the people to work.... Notice was given to the Jews that employment on the land might be obtained for wages on the ground above-mentioned; the Arabic name which it bore among the peasants, of its former owners, was Ker’m el Khaleel—the vineyard of the Friend—i.e. Abraham (1948‒2123 a.m.), by which epithet Abraham is always known. The very name of the ground was attractive, and the effect of the announcement fulfilled our best expectations.”

“The foreman in charge of the work was a Polish Jew who had been in the Russian Army.” “The idea of labouring in the open air for daily bread had taken root among the Jews in Jerusalem—the hope of cultivating the desolate soil of their own Promised Land was kindled. These objects were never again lost sight of. The Jews themselves took them up.”

Sir Moses Montefiore was one of the first Jews who took up these objects. On his second visit to Jerusalem he was received by Colonel Gawler, the ardent Christian Zionist. After this visit the impression was left upon the public mind that the Jews, hitherto so despised, had, in England at least, powerful representatives, through whom their grievances might make themselves heard in Europe.

At the same time England’s interest in Palestine was growing in all directions. In 1849 an English Literary Society was founded by the Consul, for the investigation of all subjects of literary and scientific interest in the Holy Land. English artists were also the first European artists who started serious work in Palestine. Two English artists of note, William Holman Hunt, O.M. (1827‒1910) and Thomas Seddon (1821‒1856), came to reside in the Holy City in 1852, in order to study Bible scenes and Eastern customs. Hunt was the first painter who attempted to depict the true colours of the mountains of Moab. He began in Jerusalem his great picture of “The Scapegoat in the Wilderness.” Seddon pitched a tent among the pomegranate trees in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and his picture of “Olivet and Siloam,” now in the South Kensington Museum Gallery, was taken from that spot.

In English literature we find another appeal made by an anonymous political writer in 1856 in a lofty moral tone, which is at the same time a high appreciation of Judaism.

“To do justice at once to a people approved of God as ‘His Inheritance,’ ... a simple course is open to us—to the nations. Let us prevail upon the Porte to allow the Jews facilities to return to their own land; to appoint Palestine as a place of refuge for them, from the anarchy and confusion from which they suffer, but in which they have no share....

“If the allies are sincere in their professions towards the Porte, and its eyes are open to its own interests and safety; if Christians really believe in a Just and Holy God, and that the Bible is His Word; if Mohammedans feel that God is great, who hath appointed them the keepers of his holy place against this time, while their elder brother has been in exile;... If then, we say, integrity in belief or duty has any place at all with the parties concerned; this matter of a refuge for the Jews—has only to be mentioned to be accomplished....

“Britons, let us at least be true to the position which the integrity and foresight of our fathers have, in the providence of God, earned for us; true to the mission of our faith, ... seek at once to wash our hands of this monstrous rebellion against Judgment and Righteousness—the peace of the world and the progress of the human race—and do an act of tardy justice to a people to whom mankind owe all their higher privileges and better civilization.”

The Christian propaganda for the Restoration of Israel made further progress. Even those who felt disinclined to connect the events of the time with any particular prediction were ready to admit that these events were coming as something more decisive in history than anything that had happened since the Reformation. “With such impressions abroad, the multitude of treatises on prophetic subjects soon exceeded all precedent;...”

“What most surprises us is, that a ritual of worship, so like the Mosaic ceremonial, should again be restored by divine appointment,... For we read of all the various offerings of the Levitical economy;... We can only reply:—Such is the divine pleasure.” But this one Divine is not the only precursor of Rabbi Hirsch Kalischer in this idea; there were others who believed in it. The Rev. Capel Molyneux (1804‒1877) announced the restoration of the Mosaic sacrifices, and explained its necessity from a Christian point of view. The most curious and interesting opinion is that of a Swiss Protestant divine, Carl August Auberlen (1824‒1864) of Basle:—“Israel is again to be at the head of all humanity.... In the Old Testament the whole Jewish national life was religious; but only in an external legal manner ... in the millennial kingdom, all spheres of life will be truly Christianized outwardly from within. From this point of view it will not be offensive to say that the Mosaic ceremonial law corresponds to the priestly office of Israel—the civil law to its kingly office. The Gentile Church could only adopt the moral law; in like manner her sole influence is by the word working inwardly, by exercising the prophetic office. But when the royal and priestly office shall be revived, then ... the ceremonial and civil law of Moses also will develop its spiritual depths in the Divine worship and in the constitution of the millennial kingdom,” etc. In a word, the Jews have to be restored, and to live according to their Law, which, as the learned professor believes, will “develop spiritual depths,” an idea which the most orthodox Jew would accept, and which is even more conservative than that of some of the Talmudists, who maintain that the ritual prescriptions Mizvoth will be abolished in the Messianic age.

Exaggerations of this kind may have stimulated the opposition which was represented by the Rev. Dr. William Urwick (1791‒1868) (the elder), the Rev. Dr. Ebenezer Henderson (1784‒1858), Professor Joseph Addison Alexander (1809‒1860), the Rev. Patrick Fairbairn (1805‒1874), Dr. Thomas Arnold (1795‒1842), Head Master of Rugby, and many representatives of the so-called Spiritual school, who were strongly opposed to these Judaizing tendencies. They endeavoured to transform the plain statements of the Bible into airy visions, and explained all the names (Israel, Jerusalem, etc.) in a peculiar way. Thus it is to the “spiritual” Christian and not to the natural Jew that the name of Israel belongs, as it is the Roman and the Greek to whom alone the promises of Restoration to the Holy Land were made, and not the “seed of Abraham.” In fact, the Spiritualists are far from being consistent. They would, for instance, spiritualize the Israel which is blessed, and accept in a literal sense the Israel that is cursed. A departure from the literal meaning of words has always proved a source of error and confusion, as words are often taken literally when they agree with certain theories, allegorically when they do not—a process by which the Bible may be made to say something to please everybody. Spiritualistic interpreters, as a rule, go to the Bible to find support for their own views, rather than to be guided by the standard of the Word as to whether they be correct or not. Where they find what they want, the Bible is plain, where they do not, it is difficult; and they have to have recourse to the expedient of what is called “spiritualizing” the Word, a term imposing enough, but most inapplicable—carnalizing would be a far more suitable designation of the process.

In Jewish exegetical literature there is an excellent rule: no Biblical verse should be explained differently from its literal meaning. To this may be added what the learned Joseph Mede (1586‒1638) said on the same subject from the Christian point of view: “I cannot be persuaded to forsake the proper and usual import of Scripture language, where neither the instruction of the text itself, nor manifest tokens of allegory, nor the necessity and the nature of the things spoken of do warrant it. For to do so were to lose all footing of Divine testimony, and instead of Scripture to believe mine own imaginations.”