1Comparative Religion and/as Modernist Theology: L’Évangile et l’Église and the Neuilly Essais

Thepublication of L’Évangile et l’Église in 1902 wasamilestone in Loisy’strajectory, as well as alandmark in theintellectual history of the Church. Oftenconsidered as the startingpointofthe Modernist crisis in the CatholicChurch, thebook wasthe main cause of theintensification of its anti-Modernist politics, culminatinginthe Syllabus Lamentabili sane exitu and the Encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis in 1907,followed by theso-called anti-Modernist oath in 1910.¹ Thevolumewas the first of the petits livres rouges,Loisy’sseries of historical andphilosophical essays.² In it,heoffered ahistorical-critical account of primitiveChristianity andanalyzed the relationofJesus’ original gospel to the laterdevelopment of theChurch, and of Christiandoctrine andcult. Loisy decided thetimehad come to abandonthe pro- tection of thepseudonyms he wouldnormallyuse to publishondelicatetopics.³ In L’Évangile et l’Église he openlyinsisted on the necessary historicization of early Christianity andconsistentlyapplied hisnow fullydevelopedevolutionaryphiloso- phyofhistory. Hisrewritingofthe Christianorigins conveyed aradicalreform pro- gram for early20th century Catholicism.Itwas aplea forasystematic redefinition of theasymmetrical relationship between science andfaith in theChurch, and, ulti- mately,for anew understandingofCatholicfaith itself. Loisy’sbook wascon- demned locallybyCardinalRichardinearly1903,but it wasn’tuntil late 1903, after Pius Xhad come to power, that thevolumewas placed on theIndex of forbid- den books.⁴ In 1903,Loisy publishedseveral other “dangerous” volumes, such as Autourd’un petit livre (1903),his second petitlivre rouge,inwhich he triedtodefend

 Forthe extent to which L’Évangile et l’Église (henceforth EE in the notes) inspired the content of these anti-Modernist documents: Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique,102,and Claus Arnold and Giacomo Losito,eds., Lamentabili sane exitu (1907). Les documents préparatoires du Saint Office (Vatican: Liberia EditriceVaticana, 2011).  After EE,Loisy published another 14 petits livres rouges (the last one, La Crise morale du temps présentetl’éducation humaine,was published in 1937,threeyears beforehis death). Forall ref- erences, see the bibliography by Émile Poulat in Houtin and Sartiaux, Alfred Loisy,305ff.  See especiallyhis Firmin articles,published between 1898 and 1900 in the Revue du clergé français,which defined the evolutionary philosophical framework for his historical and exeget- ical work. Also available in English:C.J.T.Talar,ed., Prelude to the Modernist Crisis. The “Firmin” Articles of Alfred Loisy,trans. Christine E. Thirlway(Oxford, OUP,2010). On the frequent use of pseudonyms by Modernist priests:Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique,621–676(with alist).  In his Mémoires II, 169, Loisy explained that at first “the zealots of orthodoxy” werehesitant about their positiontowardthe book. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110584356-005 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology 17 and clarify the positions of the firstvolumefor hiscritics.⁵ Still, thereisnodoubt that hisexcommunication was most significantlyacceleratedbythe publication of L’Évangile et l’Église. Loisy’sseminal book almostinstantly attracted attention from specialized and non-specialized audiencesinside and outside of the Church. Until today, it has remained his best-known work. The first edition numbered 1500 copies, which weresold out in no time.⁶ The book waslater translated into various lan- guages (English, German, Spanish and Italian) and would receive atotal of five editions (1903²,1904³,19084,19295). Since the rise of scientific interest in this sig- nificant period of CatholicChurch history,⁷ Loisy’sbook has been the subject of extensive and detailed scholarship. The dominant focus has been on his notable reinterpretation of the relationship between history and theology, and its impli- cationsfor the power and the status of the Church, and for the meaning of Cath- olic dogma.⁸ But the book has also receivedample attention from biblical schol- ars and historians of Christianity, who have shown how Loisy propagated the new exegetical methods which werebeing developed in Liberal-Protestant Ger- manyand in secular French scholarship (especiallyRenan), among his French Catholic peers.⁹

 We should also mention the publication of Loisy’scommentary Le Quatrième Évangile (Paris: Picard, 1903), which strongly denied the historical character of the fourth gospel, and was put on the Index at the same time as EE and Autour d’un petit livre. On this topic, see Claus Arnold and Giacomo Losito, eds., La Censure d’Alfred Loisy (1903). Les documents des Congrégations de l’In- dex et du SaintOffice (Vatican: Libreria EditriceVaticana, 2009).  Marvin R. O’Connell, Critics on Trial. An Introduction to the Catholic Modernist Crisis (Washing- ton: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 241.  Modern scholarship of Roman Catholic Modernism was instigated by Émile Poulat’shighly influential Histoire, dogme et critique (1962).See our introduction, for aselected bibliography on Loisy’sroleinCatholic Modernism.  The most recent list of theological publications on EE is included in Carl-Friedrich Geyer, Wahrheit und Absolutheit des Christentums—Geschichte und Utopie. “L’Évangile et l’Église” von Alfred F. Loisy in Text und Kontext (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht,2010), 220 –224, al- though it should be notedthat its focus is on German scholarship.This list can be complement- ed by the extensive bibliography in Hill, ThePolitics of Modernism,211–222, and Harvey Hill, “Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église in the light of the ‘Essaisʼ,” TheologicalStudies 67 (2006): 73 – 98.  See, amongmanyothers:BernardB.Scott, “Adolf vonHarnack and Alfred Loisy:aDebateon the Historical MethodologyofChristianOrigins” (PhDdiss., VanderbiltUniversity,1971); Peter Klein, Alfred Loisy als Historiker des Urchristentums.Grundzügeseiner neutestamentlichen Arbeit (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelmsuniversität,1977); Christoph Theobald, “L’Exégèse catho- lique au moment de la crise moderniste,” in Le Monde contemporain et la Bible,eds.Claude Sa- vartand Jean-Noël Aletti (Paris:Beauchesne, 1985), 387–439; C.J.T. Talar, “Innovation and Bib- lical Interpretation,” in Catholicism Contending with Modernity,ed. Darrell Jodock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 191–211. Yetanother research focus in scholarship on EE in- 18 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology

Despite these multifariousapproaches,there is an aspect of the book which has not yetreceivedthe attention it deserves, that is, the vital role of comparative religion in Loisy’shistorical argumentation. While several scholars have studied his innovative views on Jesus’ interrelation to Judaism, his original approach to earlyChristianity’sdependence on Greco-Roman paganism has gone virtually unnoticed, and the same is true for his (careful) consideration of auniversalizing anthropological approach to religion. The book’sstatements on earlyChristian- ity’srelationship to surroundingJewishand pagan religious cultures invite fur- ther investigation of ahitherto largely neglected context of interpretation:the secular discipline of history of religions.¹⁰ In our introduction it has been pointed out that Loisy steadilyattempted to bridge the gapbetween the then strictlysep- arated Catholic and secular scientific worlds.The present chapter will show how Loisy’sessaycarefullyunveiled his position towardmethodsused in the French and international history of religions, wherethe comparability of Christianity had been one of the most debated issuessince the late 19th century.New insights into this Modernist manifesto maybegainedwhen we consider the possibility that his theory of religious evolution—which was highlyindebted to the theolog- ical views of Cardinal John Henry Newman¹¹—was further consolidated when Loisy entered into adialogue with the evolutionary models of history writing which wereatuse at the École Pratique des Hautes Études and the Collègede France. The principal objectivesofthis chapter,then, are to reveal the function of comparative religion within Loisy’sevolutionary historiography, and to position his comparative views within the two ideological-scientific contexts that consti- tuted his intellectual horizon. First,Loisy’sthought was diametricallyopposed to traditionalCatholic scholarship, but it is important to remember that L’Évangile et l’Église was aimed at defending the Church, though of course in the future

volved its reception by the ecclesiastical authorities:Francesco Turvasi, TheCondemnation of Alfred Loisy and the Historical Method (Rome: Edizioni di Storia eLetteratura, 1979), 61– 82; C.J.T. Talar, (Re)reading,Reception, and Rhetoric,8–34;Arnold and Losito, La Censure d’Alfred Loisy;Arnold and Losito, Lamentabili sane exitu;Claus Arnold, “‘Lamentabili Sane Exitu’ (1907). Das Römische Lehramt und die Exegese AlfredLoisys,” Zeitschrift fürNeuereTheologie- geschichte 11 (2004): 24–51.  The contextofthe French science laïque is summarized in Talar, “Innovation and biblical interpretation,” 206–208and moreelaboratelydiscussed in Hill, ThePolitics of Modernism, 45 – 49.Talar and Hill both focus on the exegetical methodsatuse in the independent sector; comparative methodology lies beyond their scope.  ForLoisy’sevolutionary philosophyofreligion, see infra,1.4. 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology 19 modernized form he envisioned.¹² The book waspresented as arefutation of the famousessay Das Wesen des Christentums (1900) by the German Liberal-Protes- tant scholarAdolf vonHarnack.¹³ Harnack’speculiarcomparative views nourished Loisy’s, even if they mostly served as anegative point of reference. Secondly, we want to demonstrate Loisy’sindebtedness to some of the compara- tive paradigms in use in the nascent academic discipline of history of religions.¹⁴ By this context we do not onlymean the French institutionalized discipline, which was heavilydominatedbyLiberal-Protestant scholars like father and son Albert and Jean Réville, or Auguste Sabatier.¹⁵ We will alsofocus on Loisy’s relation to independent scholars like Reinach and Cumont who did not occupy chairs in history of religions,but still dominated the French and international comparative debates in the early20th century.¹⁶ This chapter’sexploratory jour- ney into Loisy’sModernist views, Harnack’sLiberal-Protestant ideas, and the popularcomparative frameworks of the science laïque will ultimatelyenable us to address the overarchingquestion of the scientificity of Loisy’scomparative religion at the turn of the century.EvenifLoisy firmlyqualified himself as a “his- torian,” his critical scholarship wasinextricablyintertwined with adeepreli- gious commitment.¹⁷ To what extent was his historical argumentation,indeed, “scientific,” when one compares it to the work of his contemporaries? L’Évangile et l’Église is aprime example of ahighlypremeditated and stra- tegic self-representation.When writing this work, Loisy was workinginanenvi- ronment that was particularlyhostile to anymethod that could question the uniqueness of Christianityand the historical truthfulness of the Bible. Foracor- rect interpretation of his book, it is necessary that we first examine how this anti- scientificsetting affected the publication. The second section of this chapter deals with Harnack’sideas on the comparative history of Christianity.Thereafter follows the analysis of L’Évangile et l’Église,complementedbythe studyoftwo

 Loisy, Choses passées,233,where EE is characterizedas“une sorte de programme de cathol- icisme progressiste.”  First edition: Adolf Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1900). We use the second edition of the English translation: What is Christianity?,trans. Thomas Bailey Sa- unders (New York: Putnam’sSons,1908).  We will come back to the history of the institutionalization of history of religions,and the roleplayedbyLiberal-Protestant scholars,inthe followingchapteronLoisy’sappointment at the Collège de France.  The comparative views of the Liberal Protestants at the EPHE will turn out to be at wide var- ianceboth with each other and with those of German Liberal Protestants like Harnack.  See infra,1.4 for moreinformation on these two important scholars.  Forthe intricatewaysinwhich the academicstudyofreligion itself created new religious truth claims,see the fine analysisofKockuvon Stuckrad, TheScientification of Religion. 20 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology slightlyearlier textsofLoisy’s—his Neuilly Essais¹⁸ and pseudonymous A. Firmin article “La religion d’Israël.” The final part of this chapter is devoted to Loisy’s correspondence with several leadingpersonalitiesofthe Sciences religieuses de- partmentatthe École pratique,and aims at determininghow Loisy’s Évangile et l’Église and its subsequent condemnation affected his position at this prominent institution.

1.1 On the Interpretation of L’Évangile et l’Église

Regardless of one’sparticularfocus of research, L’Évangile et l’Église is ahighly difficult work for anyscholartointerpret duetothe conflicting voices it con- veys.¹⁹ Itsambivalent character reflects Loisy’scomplex psychologyatthis point of his Catholic career.Onthe one hand, his dismissal from the Institut cath- olique made him painfullyaware that his scientific and religious views radically conflicted with the traditionalteachings of the Catholic Church.²⁰ In aletter to his friend Friedrich vonHügel,²¹ Loisy explained thathewas unsure whether he would actuallyhavethe couragetopublish the book.²² He rightlyanticipated that the publication would set off what maybecalled without anyexaggeration a tsunami of troubles with ecclesiastical authorities. On the other hand, Loisy still hoped that the Church—or at the least agood part of his fellow Catholics—would come on board, and comprehend the inherent value of his modernizing ideas.²³ This constant wavering between realism and hope led Loisy to wrap his views in

 See our introduction to this book for moreinformationabout this massive manuscript,which was first published in 2010.  The difficulties to interpret EE have been discussed abundantly: Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique,89–90;Talar, (Re)reading,Reception, and Rhetoric,9–18;Geyer, Wahrheit und Absolu- theit des Christentums,9–15.  See supra (introduction) for Loisy’sfirst confrontations with Roman intransigence. His auto- biographical writings testify to this state of mind, see for instancethe extractfromhis diary (Oc- tober 13,1902) in his Choses passées,242.  British-based scholar BaronFriedrich vonHügel (1852–1925;Austrian father,Scottish moth- er)was an influential figure in Roman Catholic Modernism. Adeeplyreligious scholar,hewas especiallyinterested in philosophyofreligion and the studyofmysticism. VonHügel was the nervecenter,sotospeak, of an extensive network of liberal religious scholars,including,for in- stance, Maude Petre(see infra,chapter 5, 5.2.2) and George Tyrrell. On vonHügel, see (among manyothers): LawrenceF.Barmann, Baron Friedrichvon Hügel and the Modernist Crisis in Eng- land (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1972).  Letter of August 10,1902, quoted in Loisy, Mémoires,II, 124.  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 134. 1.1 On the Interpretation of L’Évangile et l’Église 21 an apologetic anti-Protestant packing,which is alternatingly purelystrategic and completelysincere.²⁴ In his introduction, Loisy explained that his volume offered astudyof Harnack’s Wesen des Christentums.²⁵ In the following part of our chapter,Har- nack’sideas will be discussed in great detail. Fornow it suffices to note that this Protestant scholar claimed to have written apurelyhistorical enquiry into the essence of Christianity,while, in reality,hecombined advanced historical criticism with aLiberal-Protestant readingofJesus’ life and message. Harnack’s evident conclusion was that the Catholic Church had no foundation in this orig- inal message. When the French translation of Harnack’sessaycame out,Loisy could no longer resist the urge of writing areaction. He explained thathis sole aim was to “catch the point of view of history.”²⁶ It is worth underlining that Loisy and Harnack both believed that in their controversy over Jesus’ orig- inal gospel it was history which was at stake, and not religion. Loisy emphatical- ly disavowed having written “an apologia for Catholicism or traditional dogma.”²⁷ But although Loisy stateddifferently, his Évangile et l’Église most definitely served apologetic goals.²⁸ In truth, it did not defend traditionalCatholicism, but athoroughlymodernized Church. The book’santi-Harnackian point of departure was sincere in the sense that Loisy was absolutelyconvinced of Harnack’stheo- logical abuse of history,but it was an unequivocallystrategic choice,too. In re- ality,Loisy’sideas showed much closer resemblancetoHarnack’sthan to those of his conservativeCatholic colleagues.²⁹ With the contention that he had not in- tended to offer “an apologia for Catholicism,” he anticipated the criticism of those who would see through the strategyand figure out thatLoisy’santi-Prot- estantismwas indeed neither asynonym nor aguarantee for traditionalCathol-

 Loisy later admitted that he had “discretely” integrated his own reformprogram in his ref- utation of Harnack, but denied that this was astrategic decision: Mémoires,II, 168.  The intellectual relation between Harnackand Loisy has been studied extensively (though not or rarely from the viewpoint of comparative religion). See, among manyothers:Poulat, His- toire, dogme et critique,43–73;Scott, “Adolf vonHarnack and Alfred Loisy,” 211–306 (focus mostlyonexegesis); Stephen Sykes, TheIdentity of Christianity.Theologians and the Essence of Christianity from SchleiermachertoBarth (London: SPCK, 1984), 123–147; Guglielmo Forni Rosa, The “Essence of Christianity”:the Hermeneutical Question in the Protestant and Modernist Debate (1897–1904) (Atlanta: Scholars Press,1995).  We hereuse the English translation: TheGospel and the Church,trans. Christopher Home (London: Isbister &CompanyLimited, 1903).  Loisy, The Gospel and the Church,22.  The same is true for Harnack’s “historical” essay, see infra (1.2).  In his Mémoires II, 270, Loisy admitted this. 22 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology icism. Harvey Hill has recentlyadduced conclusive proof of the fact that Har- nack’s Wesen offered an excellent apologetic pretext for Loisy to publish histor- ical views he had actuallydeveloped well before 1900 in his Neuilly Essais.³⁰ This, however,does not implythat Harnack’sideas are not crucial to understand Loisy’s. The key ideas of Harnack’s Wesen wereperfectlyanalogous to thoseof his famous Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1886–1890),³¹ which was explicitly mentioned in the Essais together with other recent (German and French) Liberal- Protestant publications.³² ForLoisy’sviews on comparative religion—which are outside of the scope of Hill’senquiry—the added value of the Neuillydocument is somewhat limited, in the sense that the ideas exposedinthis document are not substantiallydifferent from those published in his pseudonymous work. We will see (1.4)that the first section of the chapter “La religion d’Israël” of the Neuillymanuscript sheds very interesting new light on the comparative framework behind L’Évangile et l’Église, but it should immediatelybeadded that Loisy published an almost unaltered version of this text in his article “La religion d’Israël” (1900).³³ Thispseudony- mous article had been condemned by Cardinal Richard shortlyafter its publica- tion in 1900,soatthe time of writing L’Évangile et l’Église,Loisy knew from ex- perience what sort of historicalarguments werebetter omittedinabook which he intended as an invitation for Catholics to pause for thought,but not as shock therapy.³⁴ Thecomparison between the Firmin article and L’Évangile et l’Église will allow us to uncover the strategies at work in the latter work, which in the end—in spite of Loisy’sprecautions—was nothing shortofabombshell in the Catholic world.

 Hill, “Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église.” See also RosannaCiappa, “La réformedurégime intel- lectuel de l’Église catholique,” in Alfred Loisy.LaCrise de la foi dans le temps présent,ed. Fran- çoisLaplanche (Turnhout: Brepols,2010), 574–585. This is indirectlyconfirmed by Loisy him- self, Mémoires,II, 125.  Michael Basse, Die dogmengeschichtlichen Konzeptionen Adolf von Harnacks und Reinhold Seebergs (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht,2001), especiallyat208–224.  Alfred Loisy, La Crise de la foi dans le temps présent(essais d’histoireetdephilosophie reli- gieuses)(Turnhout: Brepols,2010), 37: “Le Manuel d’histoiredes dogmes de M. Harnack, l’Es- quisse d’une philosophie de la religion de M. Sabatier,l’Histoireisraélite de M.Wellhausen, la Thé- ologie du Nouveau Testament de M. Holtzmann.” Forthe anti-Liberal-Protestant character of the Essais: Ciappa, “La réforme du régime intellectuel,” 558–565.  Forthe history of this “Firmin” paper,see Talar, Prelude to the Modernist Crisis,vii, xii-xv; JeffreyL.Morrow, “Alfred Loisy’sDevelopmental ApproachtoScripture: Readingthe ‘Firmin’ Ar- ticles in the Context of Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Historical Biblical Criticism,” Interna- tional Journal of Systematic Theology 15 (2013), 325.For moreinformationabout the relationbe- tween Loisy’spseudonymous publications and the Neuilly Essais,see infra,1.4.  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 134. 1.1 On the Interpretation of L’Évangile et l’Église 23

Another factor that is vital for the correct interpretation of Loisy’sbook, is his failed ambition to join in with the secular academic studyofreligion in France.³⁵ After the condemnation of his Firmin article Loisy tried to strengthen ties with the science laïque. With help of his influential friend, the French philos- opher and later founder of the Décades de Pontigny,PaulDesjardins (1859– 1940),³⁶ he managed to obtain aposition as conférencier libre at the 5ième Section of the École pratique in 1900.³⁷ Thusintegratedinthe department that was the intellectual showpiece of the anticlerical politics of the Third Republic, Loisy’s courses weretomeet the strictlynon-confessional standards that werethe scien- tific tenets of the institution. At the turn of the century,the scientific spirit of the Fifth Section wascharacterized by acritical historical and comparative approach to religion.³⁸ By enteringthe École,Loisy found himself in atroublingsituation. On the one hand,hewas surrounded by the “highlyadvanced ideas”³⁹ of re- nowned and pioneering scholars likeAlbert Réville,Maurice Vernes, Jules Tou- tain, and starting from 1901 also Marcel Mauss (the latter threeweretobehis rivals for the Collège de France in 1909).⁴⁰ On the other hand,hewas still mem- ber of aprofoundlyanti-scientific Catholic Church, which was anything but

 On Loisy’stime at the EPHE,see the first chapterofhis Mémoires,II, 5–33.The history of the institutionalization of historyofreligions in Francewill be discussed in moredetail in the fol- lowingchapter.  Anne Heurgon-Desjardins,ed., Paul Desjardins et les décades de Pontigny.Études,témoig- nages,etdocuments inédits (Paris:Presses Universitaires de France,1964); Émile Poulat, Mod- ernistica. Horizons, Physionomies,Débats (Paris:Nouvelles Éditions Latines,1982) and François Chaubet, Paul Desjardins et les décades de Pontigny (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion,2002).The “Décades de Pontigny” wereten-daymeetings,organized by Desjar- dins in the former Cistercian PontignyAbbey.Founded in 1910,they were attended by European intellectuals whodiscussed themes related to literature, philosophy, ethics,and politics.The meetings took placebetween 1910 –1913 and 1922–1939.  Hill, “Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église,” 81–82.  François Laplanche, “L’histoire des religions en Franceaudébut du XXesiècle,” MEFRIM 111 (1999): 623 – 634(especially628 for the École); Laplanche, La Crise de l’origine,36; Ivan Strenski, “The Ironies of Fin-de-Siècle Rebellions against Historicism and Empiricism in the ÉcolePratique des HautesÉtudes,” in Religion in the Making.The Emergence of the Sciences of Religion,eds.Arie L. Molendijk and Peter Pels (Leiden–Boston–Köln: Brill, 1998), 159–180.Inthe next chapter on Loisy’sappointment at the Collège we will discuss the methodological controversies at the École in moredetail.  Loisy, Choses passées,222.  On the exact composition of the FifthSection in 1900:John I. Brodes III, “The Durkheimians and the Fifth Section of the École Pratique des HautesÉtudes:AnOverview,” in Reappraising Durkheim for the study and teaching of religion today,eds.Thomas A. Idinopulos and Brian C. Wilson (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 89–90.For moredetails on Vernes,Mauss,and Toutain, see chap- ter2(2.2.1). 24 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology happy about this new connection with the secular scientificworld. In the follow- ing chapter we will discuss the institutional context of the academic studyofre- ligion in more detail, but in order to understand the trulysymbolic meaning of Loisy’sposition in 1900,itisuseful to mention now thatthe Fifth Section in Sciences religieuses wasestablished in 1886,just one year after the StateFacul- ties in Catholic Theologyhad been abolished. In 1900 Loisy started to work at an institution which was explicitlyrepresented by the Third Republic as the scien- tific replacementfor the Catholic theological approach to religion. By joiningin with the secular forces, Loisy basically confirmed the inadequacy of the latter tradition and the superiority of the former. At the École,Loisy first taught acomparativecourse on Les Mythesbabylo- niens et les premierschapitres de la Genèse. With this topic, he took aclear-cut stand against the ecclesiastical hierarchywhich had earlier condemned his his- torical-critical Firmin article on “La religion d’Israël.”⁴¹ In his Mémoires,Loisy explainedthat at first Cardinal Richard had not dared to intervene, because he had been afraid of political repercussions. In the aftermath of the polemical in- stitutionalization of the 5ième Section and in the build-up to the separation of Church and State in 1905,aCatholicblowing the whistle at an employee of the State funded École could certainlyproduce political tension. And thus Loisy continued his course,although the students of the Institut catholique in Paris wereadvised by their superiorsnot to attend it.⁴² Loisy’sintegration into the École pratique significantlyenlargedhis scientific autonomy, and positively affected his desire to further perfect the implementation of apurelyhistorical methodology. From aletter to his friend vonHügel, it is very clear that Loisy in- tended to build afuture at the Sorbonne for himself. To this end, he thought it necessary to movebeyond the studyofJudaism and the Old Testament,and to finallybegin publishing his far more dangerous historical-critical studies on the New Testament,such as his commentary on the gospel of John (publishedin 1903). With the prospect of apermanent position at the École pratique,Loisy was now willing to take the risk of an ecclesiastical condemnation, even if he admitted that he would be seriously distressed should this actuallyoccur: “J’a- chèvemon saint Jean et je ne le garderai pasindéfiniment dans mes cartons. Pour monavenir àlaSorbonne, il faut que je publie des travaux scientifiques. Si le Saint-Office et l’Index en éprouvent quelque peine, j’en serai moi-même fort affligé;mais je seraiobligédepasser outre.”⁴³

 Loisy, Mémoires,II, 9.  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 28–29.  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 27. 1.1 On the Interpretation of L’Évangile et l’Église 25

Shortly afterwriting this letter,Loisy’shopes for such afuturewereshattered.⁴⁴ In 1901 he applied for the chair of ancient Christian literatureatthe FifthSection, left vacant by the Liberal-Protestant scholarAuguste Sabatier (infra,1.4.). Thelarger part of the selection committee votedagainst acandidatewhomthey believed to be able to jeopardize the confessional neutrality of the institution. Loisy’scolleaguesat the École believed that hisscientific-comparativeapproach to Judaism provided no guarantees for asimilar treatment of Christianity.⁴⁵ Abitter pill for Loisy to swallow, as he nowpersonally experienced the ill effects of thehighlypolarized studyofre- ligioninFrance. Hisdeep disappointment over “the narrowmindedness of the sci- ence laïque”⁴⁶ seemstohavehad adoubleeffect on L’Évangile et l’Église. On the one hand,itincreased the emphasishelaidonapurely “historical” argumentation. Hardly one year hadpassed sincehis setback at the École,whenLoisypublished his first undisguised historicalnarrative on earlyChristianity.Itisvery reasonable to assume thathis emphatic use of “thehistoricalmethod” should not just be un- derstood as areply to Harnack’sproclaimed purelyhistorical account, but also as an attempt to demonstratehis scientific credibility to the secularcircles which had rejected him.We mayevenassert that,onceagain, Harnack wasakind of victim of Loisy’spersonalagenda, forwewill seethat he misrepresented Harnack’slimited butexistingcomparativeapproaches,quitelikelywith the intention of highlighting thescientific characterofhis ownposition. On theotherhand, and rather paradoxi- cally,there is Hill’scorrect observation that Loisy’sdisappointment seemed to have drivenhim back into thearms of the Catholic Church.Atabout the time he waswrit- ing L’Évangile et l’Église,Loisy learned thathewas inthe runningfor thebishopric of Monaco, whichinthe endalso didn’thappen.⁴⁷ Thefactthathemostprobably wanted thatappointment, mayindeed explain whyheadopted awell-articulated apologetic discourse in hisbook, allthe while stickingtothe conviction that consis- tent historical criticism wasthe futureofthe Catholic science of religion.

 Notethat in 1888 Loisy had applied for the chair of Assyriology at the Fourth Section, but he had not obtained the position. The affair led to arift with his former mentor Louis Duchesne, whoheld apositionatthe Section and had done little to support Loisy’scandidacy, see supra,introduction.  In 1902Loisy proposed to dedicatehis course to “Le ministère du Christ dans les Synop- tiques.” AccordingtoLoisy (Mémoires,II, 122), therewas quitesome resistance amongthe mem- bers of the École against this topic. Onlyafter Jean Réville ensured them that Loisy was a “rad- ical even in exegesis of the gospels,” the topicwas approved.  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 32.  Hill, “Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église,” 88. 26 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology

1.2 ComparativeReligion in Adolf vonHarnack’s Das Wesen des Christentums

Das Wesen des Christentums compiles aseries of lecturesHarnack gave to alarge audience of about 600 students at the University of Berlin in the winter semester of 1899–1900.Itissafe to saythat the essaycaused as big astir in the Protestant world as Loisy’s Évangile et l’Église did among Catholics, and it has since re- ceivedjustasmuch scholarlyattention.⁴⁸ The style and aim of Das Wesendes Christentums werepurposefullymodest.Harnack “simply” wanted to offer “a plain statement of the gospel and its history” which would focus the attention of Christians and non-Christians on the permanentmoral and spiritual value of Christianity.Harnack’semphasis on the simplicity of Jesus’ messagewas are- action against the 19th century Leben Jesu Forschung which had producedavast array of widelydivergent analyses of the gospel and the life of the historical Jesus. Historicalcriticism had progressively annihilated the historical believabil- ity of the gospels. Harnack anticipated Albert Schweitzer’sobservation thatthe frantic attemptsatreconstructing anew “historicallytruthful” imageofJesus re- vealedthe personal beliefs of the scholars in question, rather than thoseofJesus himself.⁴⁹ Theologicaland ideological presuppositions wereoverclouding Jesus’ message.⁵⁰ It was time, Harnack argued, for ahistoricalback to basics.

 See the extensive bibliographyinThomas Hübner, Adolfvon Harnacks Vorlesungen über das Wesen des Christentums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Methodfragen als sachgemäßer Zugang zu ihrer Christologie und Wirkungsgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,1994); Kurt Nowak, ed., Adolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse. Reden und Schriften aus den Jahrendes Kai- serreichs und der Weimarer Republik (Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 1996); UweRieske-Braun, “VomWesen des Christentums und seiner Geschichte. Eine ErinnerunganAdolf Harnacks Vor- lesung(1899–1900),” ThLZ 125(2000): 471– 488;Kurt Nowak, Otto GerhardOexle, et al., eds., Adolf von Harnack. Christentum, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ru- precht,2003); Sonja Lukas-Klein, Das ist (christliche)Religion—Zur Konstruktion von Judentum, Katholizismus und Protestantismus in Adolf von Harnacks Vorlesungen über “Das Wesen des Chris- tentums” (Berlin: LIT, 2014).  Albert Schweitzer, VonReimarus zu Wrede. Eine Geschichte der Leben Jesu Forschung (Tübin- gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906). We quotefromthe followingEnglish translation: TheQuest of the His- torical Jesus. ACritical Study of its Progress fromReimarus to Wrede,trans. W. Montgomery (Lon- don: A. &C.Black, 2010), 398–399: “He [the historical Jesus,myremark]will not be aJesus Christ to whom the religion of the present can ascribe, according to its long-cherished custom, its own thoughts and ideas, as it did with the Jesus of its own making.”  It seems that Harnack especiallyhad problems with the Marxist approach which considered Jesus as a “social deliverer”:Harnack, What is Christianity?,2–3. On “Jesus the socialist,” David Burns, TheLife and Death of the Radical Historical Jesus (Oxford: OUP,2013). 1.2 ComparativeReligion in Adolf vonHarnack’s Das Wesendes Christentums 27

Just like Loisy,Harnack was in essence trying to reconcile the results of his historical scholarship with his Christian faith by propagatinganew interpreta- tion of Christian religion. The historical-critical studyofthe Bible placed the Christian scholar before amajor dilemma: “There are onlytwo possibilities here: either the Gospel is in all respectsidentical with its earliest form, in which case it came with its time and has departed with it; or else it contains something which, under differing historicalforms, is of permanent validity. The latter is the true view.”⁵¹AccordingtoHarnack, Christianity had acore which remained unchanged throughout history,and which, correspondingly, could never be deconstructedbyhistorical criticism.⁵² To distinguish this presup- posed ahistorical essence from the timelyand particularistic religious circum- stances in which it is always embedded, he used the terms “kernel” (Kern) and “husk” (Schale).⁵³ Harnack asserted that every Christian has an innate sense of what the essence is, but it is historical science thatleads to the most precise definition of the “kernel,” by removingitfrom the constantlychanging “husk.” Harnack’sdichotomist conception inherentlyoffered an irresolvable problem for his “purelyhistorical” enquiry.There is adiametrical opposition be- tween his belief in such athing as a “timeless essence,”⁵⁴ and his claim to de- termine this “internal flame” historically. Distinguishing “kernel” from “husk,” Harnack admitted, was indeed not an easy task. There weretwo steps for the historian to follow in order to determine the permanent value of Christianity.The first and most important task is to un- cover the essence of Jesus’ gospel by acritical analysis of the gospels, which Har- nack tried to do in the first part of his book.Thereafter, he concentrated on the subsequent history of Christianity:first on the apostolic age: “because every great and powerful personality reveals apart of what it is onlywhen seen in those whom it influences”;⁵⁵ secondly on all “later products of its spirit” (in Har- nack’sessaythis is second century Christianity,Roman Catholicism, the Ortho- doxChurch, and Protestantism). In short, we can saythatHarnack considered

 Harnack, What is Christianity?,14.  Harnack’ssearch for this essencewas by no means unique or new in German theology,see Lucas-Klein, Das ist (christliche)Religion,89f.; Rieske-Braun, “VomWesen des Christentums,” 477– 479; Karl-Heinz Menke, Die Fragenach dem Wesen des Christentums (Paderborn:Ferdinand Schöningh,2005).  The terminologyisused throughoutthe essay; see, for instance, Harnack, What is Christian- ity?,59. On these terms,Hill, ThePolitics of Modernism,123–124;Christian Nottmeier, Adolf von Harnack und die deutsche Politik 1890–1930 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 237; Lucas-Klein, Das ist (christliche)Religion,88.  On the “timeless” nature of the essence: Harnack, What is Christianity?,160.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,10. 28 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology the history of Christianity before the Reformation as aprogressive evolution to- ward areligion that focused on an external (i.e. doctrinal and ritual) “husk,” which oftenwas of pagan origin. In otherwords, he observed agrowingcorrup- tion of the fullyinward (moral and spiritual) and pure “kernel” which had been the focus of Jesus himself. Unsurprisingly,hequalified the Reformation as the “greatest movement”⁵⁶ in Christian history because it checked this corruption by its “critical reduction to principles,” but he did underline that Protestantism, too, needed further reform (read: further individualization) in order to come clos- er to the essence.⁵⁷ This conviction—togetherwith Harnack’shighlycritical as- sessment of the gospels (for instance,his skepticism on miracles)—explains whythe German scholar’swork was far from unanimouslyaccepted in the Prot- estant world.⁵⁸ Equallyimportant for understanding L’Évangile et l’Église is Harnack’sposi- tion on the new discipline of history of religions which was taking root in several European countries at that time. In 1901 Harnack delivered his famous “Rektor- atsrede” in which he took adecisive stand against the introduction of Religions- wissenschaft and Religionsgeschichte in the theological faculty of the University of Berlin.⁵⁹ His speech heavilyinsisted on the uniqueness of Christianity and forcefullyrejected the universalizingtaxonomies of fellow Liberal-Protestant scholars, like the Dutch scholar CornelisPetrus Tiele and, closer to home for Loisy,the Révilles at the École pratique in Paris, who subjected the development of Christianity to laws of evolution they deemed applicable to all religions, re- gardless of chronology and geography.⁶⁰ Instead, Harnack centered Christianity

 Harnack, What is Christianity?,287.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,295– 296.See Lucas-Klein, Das ist (christliche)Religion, 79 – 80 for Harnack’sviews on traditional and Liberal Protestantism.  On Harnack’sproblems to obtain his position at the University of Berlin in 1888:Kurt Nowak, “Historische Einführung,” in Adolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse. Reden und Schriften aus den Jah- rendes Kaiserreichs und der Weimarer Republik,ed. Kurt Nowak (Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 1996), 17– 18.  Version here used: Adolf Harnack, “Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten und die all- gemeine Religionsgeschichte,” in Reden und Aufsätze,II(Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1904), 159–188. Reprinted in Nowak, ed., Adolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse, I, 797– 824. On the rela- tionship between theology and Religionswissenschaft in Germanyand Harnack’sviews:Arie L. Molendijk, “Der Kampf um die Religion in der Wissenschaft,” in Religion(en) deuten. Trans- formation der Religionsforschung,eds.Friedrich Wilhelm Graf and Friedemann Voigt(Berlin– New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 35–37.Onthe development of the German Religionswissenschaft see Udo Tworuschka, Einführung in die Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft (Darmstadt: WBG, 2014), 69 – 96,for Harnack: 91–92.  Foranintroduction on Tiele’stypology of religion see Hans G. Kippenberg, “One of the Mightiest Motors in the HistoryofMankind. C.P. Tiele’sImpact on German Religionswissenschaft,” 1.2 ComparativeReligion in Adolf vonHarnack’s Das Wesen des Christentums 29 as the sole object of religious studies: “Werdie Religion nicht kennt,kennt keine, und wersie samt ihrer Geschichte kennt,kennt alle.”⁶¹ Thisstatement did not implythatHarnack rejected comparative religion altogether.Inpart, the underlying idea was that in the course of its long history—which he traced all the waybacktoprimitive Judaism—“die Religion” (first in its Judaic and later in its historical Christian form) had constantlyinteracted with other non- Judeo-Christian religions. AccordingtoHarnack, comparativism is scientifically valid when it focuses on the concrete historical interactions of Christianity with other religions, though it is interesting to note that the examples he gave of these influences and interactions onlyinvolvedpre-Christian Judaism and the Catholic Christian tradition.⁶² But in spite of the fact that Harnack allowed for some degreeofcomparison between the Christian tradition and other reli- gions, the first intention of his statement was to corroborate the absolute supe- riority of the Christian religion, which wasnot one religion among manyother, but the religion to be studied in the faculties of theology:

Wirwünschen, daß die theologischen Fakultäten für die Erforschung der christlichen Reli- gion bleiben, weil das Christentum in seiner reinen Gestalt nicht eine Religion neben an- derenist,sondern die Religion. Es ist aber die Religion, weil Jesu Christus nicht ein Meister neben anderenist,sondern der Meister,und weil sein Evangelium der eingeborenen, in der GeschichteenthülltenAnlageder Menschheitentspricht.⁶³

Contrary to Loisy who adopted apositive attitude towardthe research of the Re- ligionsgeschichtliche Schule,⁶⁴ Harnack was quite negative about the work of these fellow Protestant scholars who had embraced comparative religion and ap- plied it to the earliest stages of Christianity.Suzanne Marchand’sstudies of Ori- entalism in 19th century Germany have shown that the opposition between Har- nack and the Schule was also due to the fact that philhellenic Harnack was very skeptical about the Schule’sinterest in Hellenized Oriental religions.⁶⁵ The reti-

in Modern Societies &the Science of Religions,eds.Gerard A. Wiegers and JanG.Platvoet (Lei- den–Boston–Köln: Brill, 2002), 71 ff.  Harnack, “Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten,” 168.  Harnack, “Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten,” 169: “So zeigt denn bereits die alttes- tamentlicheReligion einen äußeren und innerenKontakt mit Babylonien und Assyrien, mit Ägyptenund Griechenland, d.h. mit der Universalgeschichteder Alten Welt.” ForCatholicism, see, e.g.,170.  Harnack, “Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten,” 172– 173.  See supra,introduction, for Loisy’sreviews of the members of the Schule.  On the comparative methodologyofthe Schule,see chapter 4. On the antagonism between the “liberal” tradition of Harnack and the “neo-romanticist” tradition of the Schule,Suzanne Marchand, “From Liberalism to Neoromanticism:Albrecht Dieterich, RichardReitzenstein, 30 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology cencefelt by Harnack toward history of religions was widelyshared by German Protestant theologians.This and Harnack’skey position in German politics of science accounts for Germany’srelatively late institutionalization of the disci- pline, and it is of paramount importance to understand Das Wesen des Christen- tum.⁶⁶ AccordingtoHarnack, the permanent value of Jesus’ gospel consisted in: “Firstly,the kingdom of God and its coming. Secondly, God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul. Thirdly, the higher righteousness and the com- mandment of love.”⁶⁷ Each of these points is interpreted in light of Jesus’ alleged emphasis on the individual and direct relation of each Christian to God the Fa- ther: they are basically “variations on asingle theme.”⁶⁸ Congruent with his dis- tinctionbetween ahistorical kerneland historicalhusk,Harnack’sviews on the comparability of Jesus’ gospel are double. When the essence is concerned, his approach is mostlynon-comparative.Jesus’ genius had succeeded in condensing religion into something universallyhuman by centeringindividual spirituality and moralresponsibility. This timeless messageappeals to the inner life of man, who also remains more or less the samethroughout history.

No doubt it is true that the view of the world and history with which the Gospel is connect- ed is quitedifferent fromours,and that view we cannot recall to life, and would not if we could; but “indissoluble” the connection is not.Ihave tried to show what the essential el- ements in the Gospel are, and these elements are “timeless.” Not onlyare they so;but the man to whom the Gospel addresses itself is also “timeless,” that is to say, he is the man who, in spiteofall progress and development,never changesinhis inmost constitution and in his fundamental relations with the external world.⁶⁹

Interestingly,Harnack’sbelief in the fundamental uniformity of man’s “inmost constitution” did not inducehim to comparethe Christian essence with other, non-Christian religions which also appeal to the religious individual. Theuni-

and the religious turn in fin-de-siècle German classical studies,” Bulletin of the Institute of Clas- sical Studies 46,S79 (2003): 139–140, 143 – 144for Harnack.  Germanywas, however,also the homeland of Friedrich Max Müller,who worked in Oxford. On the institutionalization of Religionswissenschaft in Germany(in 1910), see VolkhardKrech, Wissenschaft und Religion. Studien zur Geschichte der Religionsforschung in Deutschland 1871– 1933 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 123; Niclaas Petereit, “ZurEinrichtung der Religionswis- senschaft in Münster,” in 103 JahreReligionswissenschaft in Münster.Verortungen in Raum und Zeit,eds.Martin Radermacher, Judith Stander,and AnnetteWilke(Münster: Lit,2015), 13–15; Tworuschka, Einführung,92–96.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,55.  Hill, The Politics of Modernism,124.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,160. 1.2 ComparativeReligion in Adolf vonHarnack’s Das Wesen des Christentums 31 formity does not seem to be universal, but remains strictlylimited to the consti- tution of the Christian believer.The Christian essence itself is the unique result of apersonal innovation of Jesus, basedonwhat Harnack vaguelyqualified as Jesus’“deeper knowledge.”⁷⁰ This religious knowledge is radicallydisconnected from Jesus’ Judaicbackground. But Harnack was of course too solid ahistorian to discard the fact that,like anyotherhistoricalhuman being,Jesus’ ideas and actionshad been subject to a historical-religious context.Headmitted that even the tripartite essence of Jesus’ gospel showed at least afew similarities to surrounding ancient religions.⁷¹ When discussing these similarities, Harnack deployed an evolutionary frame- work thatwas very popular among 19th and early20th century historians.⁷² He pointed out that individualizing and soteriologicaltrends had alreadyexisted in pre-Christian Judaism and Hellenism.⁷³ Andthe sameistrue for the Christian concept of righteousness,which had been independentlydevelopedbyGreek thinkers and Palestine prophets.⁷⁴ Furthermore, Alexander the Great had initiat- ed atendencytowardreligious universality to which Judaism, too, had succum- bed.⁷⁵ Likethat of manycontemporary historians of religions, Harnack’scompa- rative narrative was deeplyteleological: similar tendencies in pre-Christian Judaism and Hellenism wereofmajor importance because they prepared the non-Christian mind for the prompt acceptance of Jesus’ gospel.⁷⁶ How,then,did Harnack explain the similarities between the different con- stituents of the religious evolution he observed in Antiquity?Wehaveseen that he took adim view of the anthropological frameworks which were increas- ingly popular in the discipline of history of religions, and explained similarities as the resultofuniversal laws.Inthis sense, Harnach’sideas weredifferent from

 Harnack, What is Christianity?,60.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,50–53,especially51: “The springofholiness had, indeed, long been opened.”  See for the views of, e.g., Ernest Renan and Franz Cumont: DannyPraet, “Oriental religions and the conversion of the Roman empire: the views of Ernest Renan and of Franz Cumont on the transition from traditional paganism to Christianity,” in Competition and Religion in Antiquity, eds.David Engels and Peter VanNuffelen (Brussels:EditionsLatomus,2014), 285–307. See also Sigurd Hjelde, “The ScienceofReligion and Theology:The Question of Their Interrelation- ship,” in Religion in the Making.The Emergence of the Sciences of Religion,eds.Arie L. Molendijk and Peter Pels (Leiden–Boston–Köln: Brill, 1998), e.g.,117 for Max Müller’sdiscourse.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,143.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,82.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,215.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,215.See also 187, on Judaism of the Diaspora as a “prelimi- nary stage in the history of Christianity.” 32 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology those of the French Liberal Protestants at the École pratique,who adopted a more open (but still careful) attitude towardanthropological methodology.⁷⁷ The scarceinstances whereHarnack offered an explanation of Jesus’ similarities to the religious cultures of his time, mostlyreveal ahistoricist,genealogical in- terpretation on the basis of historical contact between religions. Overall, though, he struggled to reconcile historicalcriticism with his conviction that Jesus’ gos- pel was something else, something irreducible to history.Atvarious points one gets the impression that for Harnack, the gospel of Jesus and even the religion of his first followers,reallydid fullycoalescewith the ahistorical essence. The major ambiguity in Harnack’scomparative approach concerns Jesus’ in- terrelation with Judaism. On the possibilityofpagan influences on Jesus’ gospel and, by extension, on that of the first communities,hewas abundantlyclear: Hellenism did not playany role. Harnack distinguished between three phases of pagan influence, aside from the aforementioned stageof“preparation.” The first phase is the infiltration of Greek philosophicalthought which started in the second century.The second phase began in the third century: “Greek myster- ies, and Greek civilization in the whole rangeofits development,exercise their influenceonthe Church, but not mythologyand polytheism; these werestill to come.”⁷⁸ In the fourth century,finally, “Hellenism as awhole” integratedin the Catholic Church. This compartmentalization allowed Harnack to isolate the much appreciated “treasure” of Greek philosophy(with its “monotheistic piety”), while Catholicism absorbed the clearlyinferior features of pagan wor- ship. The three-phased scheme reflects ascale of values, which logicallyplaced the “Greek mysteries” with their higher individualism before the ultimateevil of “mythologyand polytheism” of “traditional” paganism.⁷⁹ Needless to saythat Harnack’sproto-typicallyProtestant myth of the immaculate first century Chris- tianity wasathorn in Loisy’sside.⁸⁰ Harnack’sideas on Judaism are farmore subtle and more difficult to gauge. The question of earlyChristianity’sinterrela- tion to Judaism remained aparticularlyhot topic at the turn of the century,when several German scholars—headed by JohannesWeiß and AlbertSchweitzer— wererediscovering the eschatological character of the kingdom of God notion

 See infra,1.4.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,216.  The then much-discussed pagan “oriental” religions areconspicuous by their absencein Harnack’s Wesen.  On the historiographyofthis perpetual discussion between Catholic and Protestant scholars, Jonathan Z. Smith, DrudgeryDivine (note, though,that Smith’sfocus is on Anglo-Saxon scholar- ship, therefore Harnack, Loisy and other protagonists of the early20th century debates areonly very summarily dealtwith). We will come back to these debates in this chapter and in chapter4. 1.2 ComparativeReligion in Adolf vonHarnack’s Das Wesendes Christentums 33 in the gospels and drawing attention to its link to apocalyptic Judaism.⁸¹ Har- nack did not follow the advanced comparative ideas of Weiß, whose influential book Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (1892) was generallyvery negatively re- ceivedbyLiberal-Protestant scholars.⁸² Overall, Harnack’spicture of Jesus is dis- tinctlyanti-Judaic.⁸³ Jesus’ major achievementwas to have freed religion from the “earthly” burden of “external forms of religious worship and technical ob- servance,”⁸⁴ which wereself-sufficient in Judaism and drew attention away from deeper morality and spirituality.⁸⁵ ForHarnack’sJesus, religion is the per- sonal belief in God the Father and its moral consequences.Inline with this con- ception of religion, Harnack did not consider Jesus as the instigator of amove- ment within Judaism, but as the founderofacompletelynew religion, even if he hadn’tinstituted Christian cult or doctrine, or socially organized the first Chris-

 See especiallyJohannesWeiß, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1892) and Schweitzer’s VonReimarus zu Wrede,which used eschatology as acriterion to evaluatethe Leben Jesu Forschung. On the rediscovery of eschatology in late19th century Ger- man Protestant scholarship,Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (Grand Rapids–Cambridge UK: Eerd- mans,2000), 108–109.Onthe oppositionbetween Weiß and other Liberal-Protestant scholars, Anders Gerdmar, Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism. German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kitteland Bultmann (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 146 – 147.  Benedict T. Viviano, “Eschatology and the Quest for the Historical Jesus,” in TheOxford Handbook of Eschatology,ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford: OUP,2008), 79: “The effect of the book was like that of abrick hurled at aplate-glass window.The book was so offensive because liberal theology had abad conscienceabout its suppression of Jesus’ eschatology.Itwas not ignorant of it.Itsimplyhoped to keep it adirty little secret. Thanks to Weiss, the liberal emperor was seen to have no clothes.”  To account for the anti-Judaism in Das Wesen,various scholars have pointed to Harnack’s friendship with Houston Stewart Chamberlain(see, for instance, Notmeier, Adolfvon Harnack und die deutsche Politik,254–255; Lukas-Klein, Das ist (christliche)Religion,148). Although Har- nack never accepted Chamberlain’snotorious anti-Semitism and forcefullyrejectedhis “Rassen- religion,” his apparent anti-Judaism remains important background information to frame his ideas on Jesus.Onthe intellectual relationship of Harnack and Chamberlain, Stefan Rebenich, Theodor Mommsen und Adolfvon Harnack. Wissenschaft und Politik im Berlin des ausgehenden 19.Jahrhunderts (Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 1997), 411; RichardSteigmann-Gall, TheHoly Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity,1919–1945 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2003), 39.Italso puts Harnack’slater fascinationwith Marcion in perspective:Wolfram Kinzig, Harnack, Marcion und das Judentum. Nebst einer kommentierten Edition des Briefwechsels Adolf von Harnacks mit Houston Stewart Chamberlain (Leipzig:Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004). By contrast,the overall absenceofanti-Judaic ideology in Loisy’sbiographywill not be unimpor- tant to understand his profoundlyJudaic Jesus.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,77.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,73: “By beingbound up with religious worship and petrified in ritual observance,the morality of holiness had, indeed, been transformed into somethingthat was the clean oppositeofit.” 34 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology tian community.Rituals are virtuallyabsent from Harnack’saccount of Jesusand of the first disciples.⁸⁶ As for Christian doctrines, Harnack firmlyrejected any form of dogma in Jesus’ teachings.⁸⁷ The gospel is not knowledge,but experi- ence. Gruesome wars have been fought over the Christologicalcreed, Harnack explained, even though Jesus had never represented himself as agod. Admitted- ly,Jesus qualified himself as the Son of God, but he onlyused this notion in a figurative sense of someone with intimate knowledge of the Father.Jesusalso re- garded himself as the Messiah, but,for Jesus and for his followers,this admitted- ly Judaicconcept no longer corresponded to the imageofa“warlike, god-sent ruler.” Instead, its meaninghad passed “from apolitical and religious into aspi- ritual and religious one.”⁸⁸ Jesus was the Messiah in the sense of aspiritual lead- er who guided men to the gospel, but he had no position in the gospel himself: “The Gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it,has to do with the Father onlyand not with the Son.”⁸⁹ The social features of Christianity had not been directlyshaped by Jesus, but wereanatural consequence of the shared belief in the infinite value of every individual human soul.⁹⁰ On ahorizontal axis, the fatherhood of the Father and the moral example set by Jesus naturallyimplied the solidarity and brotherhood of men (who are all children of the Father). If Harnack indeeddid establish some genealogical relations between Jesus and his Judaic environment,these all concernedthe husk of the message: “Husk werethe whole of the Jewish limitations attaching to Jesus’ message; husk werealso such definite statements as ‘Iamnot sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ In the strength of Christ’sspirit the disciples brokethrough these barriers.”⁹¹ By means of his distinction between husk and kernel, Harnack was able to nuance his pronounced anti-Judaic picture of Jesus.⁹² An important example is his theory of Jesus’ double interpretation of

 Onlyinthe lectures on Protestantism did Harnack broachthe possibility of baptism and the last supper beinginstituted by Jesus himself. According to Harnack, the original meaningof these rituals was, of course, purelysymbolic, instead of sacramental: What is Christianity?,298.  Cf. the central thesis of Harnack’smonumental Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte in 3volumes (1886,1887, 1890) on Christian dogma as apost-Biblical Hellenistic creation. Anew edition of this work has recentlybeen published by the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Darmstadt, 2015).  Harnack, What is Christianity?,148.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,154.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,108.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,193.  Formoredetails on the Judaic “husk,” see the excellent overview in Lukas-Klein, Das ist (christliche)Religion,28–31, and 70 – 73,where the author aptlysummarizes (at 70): “In den Harnack’schen Vorlesungenwerden ‘das christliche Eigene’ und ‘das jüdische Fremde’ in 1.2 ComparativeReligion in Adolf vonHarnack’s Das Wesen des Christentums 35 the kingdom of God. On the one hand, Jesus was imbued with the hope of deliv- erance from Israel’slong suppression by foreign rulers. As aresult, he indeed considered the kingdom eschatologically, as afuture event which would bring forth afullyexternal rule by God in society.But,atthe same time, he alsoadvo- cated the highlyoriginal view that God’skingdom is an alreadypresent,spiritu- al-moral link to God,realized in “the heart of individuals”:⁹³

There can be no doubt about the fact that the idea of the two kingdoms, of God and of the devil, and their conflicts, and of that last conflict at some future time when the devil, long sincecast out of heaven, will be also defeated on earth, was an idea which Jesus simply shared with his contemporaries.Hedid not start it,but he grewupinitand he retained it.The other view,however,that the kingdom of God “cometh not with observation,” that it is alreadyhere, was his own.⁹⁴

Formodern scholars, Harnack explained, such ajuxtaposition is problematic, but for Jesusitwas not: the eschatological view was easilyspiritualizedinto the “alreadypresent kingdom,” which was,ofcourse, the dominantconception in Jesus’ gospel. Beside Judaic eschatology,Harnack alsoacknowledgedthe in- fluenceof“the ethical system Jesus found prevailing in his nation,” but,again, he carefullydisconnected Jesus’ particularly “pure” understanding of “the high- er righteousness and the commandment of love” from Judaic history,byempha- sizing thatitreallyhad no precedent whatsoever in religious history.All in all, comparative religion, for Harnack, was atool to disentangle Jesus’ essential gos- pel from its Judaic background, and to provethe superiority of the former over the latter. How,then, does one go from areligion that fullycoalesced with aspiritual- moral experience to afullydeveloped Christian cult and creed,and, ultimately, to the institution of the Church?Atacertain point, “externality” kicked in. Ac- cording to Harnack, however,this did not happen in the first communities which remained perfectlytrue to the non-dogmatic and non-ritualistic teachings of Jesus.⁹⁵ Aside from the substantial modification produced by the belief in the resurrection and the corresponding hope for the imminent return of the resur-

einem problematischen Identifikations- und Abgrenzungsprozess asymmetrisch aufeinander bezogenund bestimmt.Hier liegt ein dichotomisches Modell mit Herrschaftsverhältnissen, Ausschlusmechanismen und hierarchisiertenbinär gesetzten Polen, ein exklusivesIdentität- skonzept,ein antijudaistisch sich identifizierendes Christentum vor.”  Harnack, What is Christianity?,60.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,58.  Harnackdid add—parenthetically—that thereweresome “well-markedtraces” of Greek thought in Paul, Luke and John. Harnack,WhatisChristianity?,215. 36 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology rected Christ,the first community was the “living realization” of Jesus’ gospel.⁹⁶ Unsurprisingly,Harnack’saccount of the first disciples was characterized by the same ambiguous relationship to Judaism, as that of Jesus himself.⁹⁷ Moving on to Paul, Harnack almostecstaticallyexplainedthat he had been the one who truly “understood the Masterand continued his work,” and “delivered the Christian religion from Judaism.”⁹⁸ All lasttraces of Jesus’ Judaic past werenow erased in order to root the gospel in “gentile soil.” Harnack hereby carefullyavoided ad- dressingthe question of Paul’sinvolvement in the development of the Christian cult.Onlyatthe end of his lectures on the apostolic age, and as abridge to his subsequent discussion of Catholicism, he suggested:

But the foundingofchurches and “the Church” on earth broughtanentirelynew interest into the field; whatcame fromwithin was joined by somethingthat came from without; law, discipline, regulations for ritual and doctrine were developed, and began to assert a position by alogic of their own. The measureofvalue applicable to religion itself no longer remained the onlymeasure, and with ahundred invisible threads religion was insensibly workedinto the net of history.⁹⁹

This quoteisthe perfect conclusion for this brief summary of Harnack’sideas, as it captures the perpetual ambivalenceinhis work on the question as to what ex- tent Christianitywas already “time-bound” before the Church entered the scene.

1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église

In order not to fall into the trap set up by Loisy’sstrategic emphasis on his op- position to Harnack, it maybeuseful to begin this analysis by underlining that Loisy and Harnack were agreed upon the paramount importance of historical scholarship for the future of Christianity.Both scholars distanced themselves from theirtraditional orthodoxcolleagues by asserting thatChristian faith need- ed to be reformulated so that it wasnolonger at variancewith modernscientific-

 Harnacksummarized the basic features of the first community as follows (p.165): “(i) The recognition of Jesus as the livingLord; (ii) the fact that in every individual member of the new community—includingthe very slaves—religion was an actual experience, and involved the consciousness of alivingunion with God; (iii) the leadingofaholylife in purity and broth- erlyfellowship, and the expectation of the Christ’sreturn in the near future.”  Harnack, What is Christianity?,187.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,190.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,196. 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 37 historical insights. Both weredeeplyconvincedofthe autonomyofhistory with regard to theology, and emphasized the significanceofhistory for theology, in- stead of the other wayaround. The opposition between Harnack and Loisy was caused by their profound disagreement on what constituted the most accu- rate historical picture of earlyChristianity, which can be explained by the deep divergence between theirphilosophies of religion.¹⁰⁰ The central research ques- tion of L’Évangile et l’Église immediatelyreveals that their controversy was in- deed not apurelyhistorical discussion: “Our aim is onlytodetermine if his ‘Es- sence of Christianity,’ instead of being an absolutereligion, absolute Christianity, entities thathavelittle chance of taking aplace in history,does not rather mark a stageinProtestant development,orform merelyabasic formula of Protestan- tism.”¹⁰¹ Throughout his volume, Loisy rebuked Harnack for his dangerous mix up of history and theology. By isolating the “essence” of Christianity from history,Loisy stated, Harnack had left the field of historical inquiry and, instead, presented “the profession of apersonal faith in the form of ahistoricalre- view.”¹⁰² The idea of an absolute, unchangingtruth in Christianity caused an al- lergic reaction in Loisy,who was instantlyreminded of the traditionalCatholic belief in the absoluteness of dogma. ForLoisy,Harnack’ssolution was not much better than the neo-thomist subordination of history to theologywhich was so heavilyrestraining his own scientificautonomy. As aCatholic, Loisy furthermore had major problems with Harnack’scon- ception of religion as apurelymoral-spiritual experience.The fact that Harnack had projected his personal religion onto the original gospel of Jesus, and his cor- respondingconclusion that Catholicism had “perverted”¹⁰³ Jesus’ message, were completelyunacceptable for Loisy.AccordingtoLoisy,religion is primarilyaso- cial institution, its collective character manifesting itself in ritual and in shared beliefs. The most-quotedsentencefrom L’Évangile et l’Église (“Jesus foretold the kingdom, and it was the Church that came”¹⁰⁴)indicatesperfectlywell that he agreed with Harnack on the fact that Jesushad not instituted the Church, but their parallel historical conclusions served completelyopposite religious agen- das. AccordingtoLoisy,this did not implythat the existenceofthe Church and the changes it had directed wereillegitimate and discontinuous with regard

 The divergences and similaritiesintheir philosophies of religions have been studied exten- sively in modern scholarship. Foragood introduction: Hill, ThePolitics of Modernism,127–132; for amoredetailed account, see Poulat, Histoire, dogme et critique,89–102.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,22.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,1.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,198.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,166. 38 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology to the original gospel. In fact,when one examines the real historical meaning of the gospel, it wasProtestantism which seemed to be ahistorical side-product. Loisy severelyattacked Harnack’sdistinctionbetween ahistorical kernel and historical husk as being nonsensical, because the essence of Christianity is never different from its historicalexpressions.¹⁰⁵ According to Loisy,itconstantly changes accordingtonew religious needs. In accordancewith his evolutionary philosophyofreligion,¹⁰⁶ Loisy preferred the imageofatree, of the organic growth of Christianityfrom the seed thatwas Jesus’ gospel. Christianity’strue essence, he asserted, is its vitality and ability to assimilate and to change:

All these elementsofChristianity,inall the forms in which they have been preserved, why should they not be the essenceofChristianity? Whynot find the essenceofChristianityin the fullness and totality of its life, which shows movement and variety just because it is life, but inasmuch as it is life proceeding fromanobviously powerful principle, has grown in accordancewith alaw which affirms at every step the initial force that maybecalled its physical essencerevealed in all its manifestations?Why should the essenceofatree be held to be but aparticle of the seed from which it has sprung, and whyshould it not be recognized as trulyand fullyinthe complete tree as in the germ?¹⁰⁷

Loisy’sevolutionary philosophyofhistory not onlyentailed amore positive eval- uation of the entireChristian tradition and ahistorical legitimization of the Church, it also allowed for afar more radical historical criticism and matching comparativism. In L’Évangile et l’Église,Loisy strictlydistinguishedbetween the tasks of the historian and of the theologian. The task of the historian is to understand the gospel of Jesus within its historicalcontext and to describe his- torical change, while the theologian should be occupied with the necessary re- formulation of the religious meaningofthe gospel: “Thegospel has an existence independent of us; let us try to understand it in itself, before we interpret it in the light of our preferences and our needs.”¹⁰⁸ Loisy accused Harnack of atheolog-

 Or as Hill aptlyformulated in ThePolitics of Modernism,130: “the whole was kernel.”  It should be reminded that Loisy had developed this philosophyofreligion beforeHar- nack’s Wesen,and, in the first placeasareplytotraditional Catholic theology.His philosophical views had been published pseudonymouslyinthe Firmin articles.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,16. On the relation between Loisy’sideas and Henri Bergson’s élan vital,Harvey Hill, “Henri Bergson and AlfredLoisy:OnMysticism,” in Modernists &Mystics,ed. C.J.T. Talar (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 120 –124. On Loisy and Bergson, see also chapter 5(5.2.2).  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,8.Inhis correspondencewith the German Liberal-Prot- estant scholar Adolf Jülicher,Loisy firmlyrepeated this argument.InNovember 1905,Jülicher had sent Loisy acopyofhis as yetunpublishedpaper “Die Religion Jesu und die Anfänge des Christentums bis zum Nicaenum (325),” in which he had accused Loisy’s EE of a “poor con- 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 39 ical abuse of comparative religion: “It is […]inthe highest degreearbitrary to decide that Christianity in its essence must be all that the gospel has not bor- rowed of Judaism, as if all that the gospel has retained of the Jewishtradition must be necessarilyofsecondary value.”¹⁰⁹ The comparison of Christianity to other religions is ahistorical tool to uncover which non-Christian elements have been incorporated in Christianity in order to satisfythe needsofnew con- verts. Loisy believed that Catholicism had absolutelynothing to fear from the discovery of such genealogicalinterconnections with other religions,because the assimilated elements had been profoundlytransformed and thus had stop- ped being pagan or Jewish once they had been incorporatedinChristianity. Moreover,itwas implied in Loisy’sargumentation (but for logical reasons never expressedexplicitly) that the Church could onlygain from acknowledging such assimilations because theytestified to her respect for the vitality of the gos- pel. As such, Loisy’scomparative religion is well integrated in his Modernist re- form program. With Loisy’sphilosophical framework well in mind,one cannow understand themanyhistorical parallelsthe Catholic scholardrewbetween Christianityand other ancientreligions in L’Évangile et l’Église. Hisevolutionism allowedfor a quiteadvancedcomparative inquiry. We canbreak Loisy’sapproachdownto thefollowing threepoints:(1) theintenseinterconnection of Jesusand contempo- raryJudaism,(2) thegenealogical relation betweenthe firstChristian communities andpagan religions,and (3)the carefuladoptionofauniversalizing anthropolog- ical perspectivefor theearly Christianinterpretation of theEucharist.

1.3.1 Jesus and Judaism

After afirst section on the gospels as complex sources for the studyofthe his- torical Jesus, two sections follow which discuss Jesus’ relationship to Judaism: section II focuses on Jesus’ conception of the kingdom of heaven, while section III discusses the titles Son of God and Messiah. Loisy paintedadistinctlyJudaic picture of Jesus. Crucialfor his historical reconstruction of Jesus’ original gospel

ception” of the moral value of the gospel. This paperlater appeared in Die Kultur der Gegenwart I, 4, 1(1906), 41– 128. Loisy replied on November 13,1905,repeating his ideas on the relative truthfulness of Christian beliefs and their historical character.Faith, not history,gives these be- liefs their aura of absoluteness: “La définition originelle aété nécessairement conditionnée par les circonstances, et c’est en vertu d’un acte de foi que l’on accordeàcettedéfinition un carac- tère absolu. […].” Loisy’sdraft of the letter is preserved in the BnF,NAF 15645, f° 382.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,10. 40 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology was Judaic eschatology.Inline with the prominence of eschatological hope in contemporaryJudaism, Jesus’ gospel mainlyrevolvedaround the expectation of the end of the existing world order and the hope for asubsequent renewal which would instigate the rule of God on earth.¹¹⁰ By emphasizing the Judaic-es- chatological character of Jesus, Loisy took sides with the comparativeapproach of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,inparticularofJohannes Weiß, against Har- nack.¹¹¹ Harnack’sstatement that Jesus had primarilyconsidered the kingdom as an alreadypresent subjective spiritual-moral experience is not historical, but the resultofamodern Liberal-Protestant projection on intentionallydecontextual- ized biblical texts: “The historian must resist the temptation to modernize the conception of the kingdom.”¹¹² Loisy admittedthat Jesus’ teachings involved the preachingofmoral repentance, but this was acondition to enter the future kingdom, and not an indication of an alreadyexisting inner kingdom.¹¹³ To give an example of Loisy’sstrategic argumentation, it maybepointed out that he chose to omit Harnack’sdouble kingdom theory.Loisy’sfocus on the Ju- daic origins of Jesus’ conception of the kingdom certainlywas far more consis- tent than Harnack’s, but we have seen that Harnack was aware of the historical importance of Jesus’ Judaic context,too. This specific misrepresentation of Har- nack’sideas had two advantagesfor Loisy.Ithighlighted the alleged scientificity of his own historical approach, and, for the Catholic readership Loisy addressed, it again added an apologetictouch to his less thanorthodoxhistorical ideas. Loi- sy’semphasis on Harnack’swrongindividualist interpretation of the kingdom, allowed him to draw attention to the social dimension of the collective world end and salvation which is impliedinhis own Judaic-eschatological interpreta-

 Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,53.  Loisy didn’trefertoWeiß’s Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Modern scholarship on their intellectual relationship widelyagrees on the fact that Loisy was influencedbyWeiß, but that he had his own original approach. See Friedrich Heiler, AlfredLoisy.Der Vater des katholischen Modernismus (München: Erasmus,1947), 44–45;Dieter Hoffmann-Axtheim, “Loisy’s l’Évangile et l’Église: Besichtigung eines zeitgenössischen Schlachtfeldes,” Zeitschrift fürTheologie und Kir- che 65 (1968): 297; Dietrich S. Wendell, “Loisy and the Liberal Protestants,” Studies in Religion/ Sciences religieuses 14 (1985): 303–306.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,12, 73.EspeciallyLuke 17:20 – 21: “Beingasked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming,heanswered them, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signstobeobserved; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,59: “The idea of the celestial kingdom is then nothingbut agreat hope, and it is in this hope or nowhere that the historian should set the essenceofthe gospel.” 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 41 tion. Catholicism is then an organic development out of Jesus’ gospel, while in- dividualizing Liberal Protestantism should be seen as aproduct of discontinuity. The logical consequenceofLoisy’semphasis on Jesus’ eschatological beliefs is that Jesushad never intended to found anew religion. His gospel wasanen- largementofJudaism, but it still was profoundlyJudaic:

He had no other pretension than to fulfill the lawand the prophets;without doubt He wish- ed to enlarge and perfect the former revelation, but,while enlargingand perfecting, He meant to retainit; He is not set beforethe world as the revealer of anew principle;ifHe never givesHis definitionofthe kingdom of God it is because the kingdom of which He is the messengerand the instrument is identified in His thought, as in the minds of His hearers, with that that the prophets have foretold.¹¹⁴

Contrary to Harnack, Loisy emphasized thatJesus had followed the Law. His moral teachings had alsobeen perfectlyJudaic, as werehis gospel about the kingdom and his role in it as the Messiah. Jesus had not instituted aChristian cult,nor had he developed Christian doctrines or dogma.¹¹⁵ And he had certainly not provided anyguidelinesfor institutionalizing aprimitive form of the Church. Since Jesus had believed that the comingofthe kingdom was imminent,this kind of elaborations had simply been unnecessary.¹¹⁶ Through his discovery of the importance of eschatology,Loisy developed ideas on Jesus’ (non‐)relation to Christian ritual, doctrine and the Church, which wereinthemselvesstrikingly similar to Harnack’s. But behind theirsimilar conclusionslurked substantial dif- ferences. Loisy’sviews werethe resultofhis intense historicalcontextualization of Jesus’ gospel within Judaism, while Harnack’sfollowed from his minimalist moral interpretation of the samegospel. Loisy’sJesus considered Judaic rituals as “abstractions”:hefollowed them in anticipation of theirradical transforma- tion in the kingdom.¹¹⁷ Harnack’sJesus, by contrast,abolished these external re- ligious forms, because they polluted the universal inward essence and linked it to one particularform of human culture. We will come back to this point when discussingLoisy’sideas on the development of Christian doctrineand cult. Loisy also applied his Judaic contextualization to the meaning Jesus attrib- uted to the titles “Son of God” and “Messiah,” and to Jesus’ conception of his own role in the gospel. The “Son of God” title is not to be reduced to apurely psychological notion which indicatesJesus’ awarenessofhis special bond to

 Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,65.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,75.  ForLoisy’semphatic enumeration of the consequences of the eschatological meaningof the kingdom on Jesus’ thought: TheGospel and the Church,81.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,82–83. 42 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology

God.¹¹⁸ Instead, it is aJudaic concept which is equivalent to the Messiahtitle.¹¹⁹ As for Jesus’ qualification as the Messiah, Harnack had failed to understand the deeplyeschatological meaning of this Judaic title, by explaining it as the title of amoral guide who leadspeople to the gospel. Loisy observed: “It is trulycurious to see how embarrassedcertain Protestant theologians become over this ‘Jewish’ conception [i.e. the Messiah], which they would willingly eliminate from the gos- pel and attribute to apostolic tradition in order to shape themselvesaChrist after their ownheart.”¹²⁰ Loisy agreed that Jesus was areligious-spiritual guide, but it was not in this quality thathecalled himself the Messiah. Jesus believed himself to be the future Messiah, and as such, he expected to fulfill aprominent role in the kingdom to come. Loisy emphaticallyunderlined thatJesus’ kingdom had not just been about God but alsoabout the Son of God.Inotherwords, he op- posed the Liberal-Protestant view thatthe gospel was essentiallyabout the “Man Jesus” and about his humanist ethics.¹²¹ The gospel was about the futureand about the divine Christ.Loisy thus provided later Christology with asolid foun- dation in the original gospel, and established the continuity which Harnack had purposefullyrefusedtothe Catholictradition. On the other hand, and in huge contrast with the traditional Catholic opinion, he agreed with Harnack that Jesus’ gospel did not contain anydoctrine on the divinity of the Christ.¹²² His

 Harnack had substantiated his theory by Matt 11:27: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father;and no one knows the Son except the Father,and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whomthe Son chooses to reveal him.” Harnack, What is Christianity?, 137–138.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,91. See also LuigiSalvatorelli, “From LocketoReitzen- stein:The Historical Investigation of the Origins of Christianity,” TheHarvard Theological Review 22, no. 4(1929): 339.  TheGospel and the Church,98.  Compare, e.g.,with Hegel’sideas on Jesus and Judaism, Friedrich Hegel on Christianity: Early TheologicalWritings,trans. T.M. Knox(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1948), 77: “Ateach- ing different from that which the Jews alreadypossessed in their sacreddocuments they were disposed to accept onlyfromthis Messiah.The hearingwhich they and most of his closer friends gave to Jesus was based in the main on the possibilitythat he was perhapsthis Messiah and would soon show himself in his glory. Jesus could not exactlycontradict them, for this suppo- sition of theirs was the indispensable condition of his findinganentry into their minds.But he tried to lead their messianichopes intothe moral realm and dated his appearance in his glory at atime after his death.”  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,108: “Thereisnoquestion of adoctrine to be put forward touching Himself and His office.” 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 43 theory about Jesus as the “future” Messiah thus stood at wide variancewith both Harnack’sideas and with traditional Catholic scholarship.¹²³ In spite of his in-depth historicalcriticism and comparative approach, Loisy in the end also felt the need to somehow save Christianityfrom the intricate his- torical dependencies he had established. At several pointsinL’Évangile et l’Église there are remarkable attenuatingmechanisms, which reveal that he did establish aclear hierarchybetween Judaism and Christianity. There is, for exam- ple, an omnipresent discourse of “inevitability” and “necessity,” and aclear dis- tinctionbetween faith and the symbols that express faith, which certainlyre- minds of Harnack’sideas:

Jesus, on the earth, was the great representative of faith. Now,the religious faith of human- ity always has been and always will be supported by symbols moreorless imperfect[…]. The choiceand the quality of the symbols arenecessarilyrelated to the stage of evolution of faith and of religion. The conceptions of the kingdom and of the Messiah arenot merely the features that made it possible for Christianitytocomeforwardbeside Judaism, they arethe necessary form in which Christianity had to be born in Judaism beforespreadingout into the world.¹²⁴

It is fair to say, however,that Loisy’shistorical-critical ideas on the Judaic-escha- tological character of Jesus’ gospel were, overall, advanced. To his critics at the École pratique,they unmistakablydemonstrated that he was able to studyearly Christianityaccordingtotheir strictlyhistorical-critical standards.Infact,he proved to his predominantlyLiberal-Protestant colleagues of the Fifth Section that he was even more capable to do so than Harnack, who had awell-deserved reputation in the field of history of Christianity,both in Germanyand beyond. Harnack’s Wesen had actuallymet with little interestamong the Protestant cir- cles of the Fifth Section.¹²⁵ Harnack’sposition on Judaism differed substantially

 On Loisy’sideas on the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, and their relation to Catholicism and Liberal Protestantism,see Frédéric Amsler, “Pourquoil’histoire des origines du christian- isme proposée par Loisy a-t-elle posé problème?” URL: http://alfred.loisy.free.fr/pdf/colloque_ loisy_amsler.pdf. On the contrast with Harnack, BernardReardon, Liberalism and Tradition. As- pects of Catholic Thought in Nineteenth-centuryFrance (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1975), 273.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,120.  Harnack’sclose connection to German politics mayexplain whythe French Liberal-Protes- tant historians of the EPHE, whovoiced the ideals of the French ThirdRepublic, refrained from payingmuch attention to this work. On this topic see Pascale Gruson, “Entrelacrise moderniste et les exigences de la modernité. Quelques questions posées par la réception de ‘L’essencedu Christianisme’ en France,” in Adolfvon Harnack. Theologe, Historiker,Wissenschaftspolitiker, eds.Kurt Nowak and OttoGerhardOexle (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht,2001), 320 – 44 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology from the Liberal-Protestant scholars who held the most powerful positions in the French history of religions, like, for example, AlbertRéville (1826–1906)who was the then director of the Fifth Section and held the chair in history of reli- gions at the Collège de France. First of all, their positive attitude towardcompa- rative religion was distinctlydifferent from Harnack’sreluctant position.¹²⁶ The Liberal Protestants of the Fifth Section generallyvenerated Ernest Renan’shistor- ical-critical scholarshiponearlyChristianity(which means thatalotofattention was paid to Jesus’ Judaic background), even if they didn’taccept his theory on the Aryan victory over the inferior Semitic origins.¹²⁷ As an example, we may mention Albert Réville’s Jésus de Nazareth (1897, in 2volumes), which dedicated over 200pages to the study of Judaism.¹²⁸ Aside from Renan’slegacy, we should also point to the importance of the Dreyfus-affair as ahistorical context for Ré- ville’sJesus, which has been observed by Robert Priest: “Réville’sassertionof Jesus’sJewishness appears to have been intimatelyrelated to his defence of Dreyfus’sFrenchness.”¹²⁹ In asimilar vein, Loisy’sprofoundlyJudaic Jesus should be seen against the background of his close personal relations with Sal- omon Reinach who was aleadingpersonality of the pro-Dreyfus camp.¹³⁰ All of this mayhelp to explain Loisy’seasy access to the Dreyfusardsalon of the Mar- quise Arconati-Visconti in 1908, who fiercelysupported his candidature at the CollègedeFrance,aswewill see in the next chapter.

321. We will come back to the political ideology of the Sciences religieuses at the EPHE in the followingchapter,wherewealso brieflydiscuss the importance of the Franco-PrussianWar (1870 – 71).  Forthe replyAlbert Réville’sson Jean Réville formulated against Harnack’s Rektoratsrede in 1901,see Hjelde, “The ScienceofReligion and Theology,” 118. Forthe relation of the theolog- ical views of Harnackand Jean Réville, see BernardReymond, “Jean Réville et le protestantisme libéral,” Bulletin de la société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 154 (2008): 397–408.  On Renan’shighlycomplex views on Jesus and Judaism see, among manyother:Simon C. Mimouni, “Les Origines du christianisme auxXIXème et XXème siècles en France. Questions d’Épistémologie et de méthodologie,” in L’Orient dans l’histoire religieuse de l’Europe. L’invention des origines,eds. Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and John Scheid (Turnhout: Brepols,2000), 105– 106 (this overview,surprisingly, does not include adiscussion of Loisy’swork);Thomas Römer, “Renan et l’exégèse historico-critique,” in Laurens,ed., Ernest Renan. La science, la religion, la République,145 – 162; Robert D. Priest, TheGospel according to Renan. Reading,Writing &Reli- gion in Nineteenth-CenturyFrance (Oxford: OUP,2015), 24,52, 63.  Forthe close link between Albert Réville and Renan: Priest, TheGospel according to Renan, 214–218.  Priest, TheGospel according to Renan,217.  ForSalomon Reinach see chapters 2, 3, and 4(and the index). 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 45

1.3.2 Pagan Religion and the Development of Christian Doctrine and Cult

Loisy’scomparative studyofearlyChristianitywas not limited to its Judaic en- vironment,but also took into account the importance of surroundingpagan cul- tures.From apurelyhistorical point of view,the crux of the controversy with Harnack was not the issue of the genealogical interconnection of pagan religion and Catholicism. Unlike traditionalCatholic scholars, Loisy wholeheartedlycon- ceded the Church’sassimilationofpagan beliefs and rituals in its doctrine and cult.Hedid not limit this concession to the influenceof“Greek intelligence” in dogma, which was acknowledgedbythe Church Fathers themselvesand was quite unproblematic in traditionalChristian scholarship.¹³¹ He also admitted pagan influences in Catholicrites, and in the much debated worship of the saints and of the Virgin.¹³² In stark contrast to Harnack’snegative evaluation of these religious developments, Loisy evidentlyregarded the assimilating role of the Roman Catholic Church as anecessary and positive expansion of the gospel. This is what he reallymeant when he wrotethe famous sentence: “Jesusforetold the kingdom, and it was the Church that came; she came, enlarging the form of the gospel, which was impossibletopreserveasitwas,assoon as the Passion closed the ministry of Jesus.”¹³³ Jesus’ Judaic messagecould never appeal out- side of its originallyJudaic context.Indeed, Jesus did not institute Christian rit- ual, doctrine or the Church, but for Loisy there was indissolvedcontinuity be- tween all these later developments and Jesus’ original teachings. The diametrical opposition to Harnack’scomparative argumentation on pagan reli- gion resided in the fact thatLoisy also considered the possibility of pagan influ- ence in first century Christianity. In what follows, we willdiscuss his compara- tive ideas on the belief in the resurrection and on the development of the Eucharist. Jesus’ Messianic consciousness is crucial for Loisy’sexplanation of the belief in his resurrection. Jesus was put to death because he publiclypresented himself as the future Messiah. Well aware that his life wasindanger,Jesus personally developedareligious explanation which said that his future death actually was the condition for the future realization of the kingdom.¹³⁴ Loisy basically provided two interdependent explanations for the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. The first explanation was psychological. Filled with the hopes of the future king-

 Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,193 – 195.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,235.See also the extract of Loisy’sdiary from 1883, Mém- oires,I,121–122.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,166.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,119,123. 46 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology dom and the belief that Jesus would be the Messiah, the first followers wereun- able to accept that Jesus wasgone, and thathis teachings about the kingdom had been wrong. Jesus’ own providential account of his death helped them to “correct the brutal fact of the death by the glory of the resurrection.”¹³⁵ Harnack, by contrast,had not explained the resurrection as the resultoftheir belief in Jesusasthe Messiah, and neither had he believed thatJesus himself had specu- lated on the religious meaning of his death. Instead he had insisted on the enor- mous impression Jesus’ personality had made on the disciples: “it was alife never to be destroyed which they felt to be going out from him; onlyfor a brief span of time could his death staggerthem; the strength of the Lordpre- vailed over everything.”¹³⁶ But to explain, then, whythis death was conceived of as an atonement,Harnack had adopted apsychological-anthropological ap- proach which was not so very different from Loisy’s: “no reflection of the ‘rea- son’,nodeliberation of the ‘intelligence’,will ever be able to expungefrom the moralideas of mankindthe conviction that injusticeand sin deservetobe punished, and thateverywherethat the just man suffers, an atonement is made which puts us to shame and purifies us.”¹³⁷ Both historians relegated the belief in the historicity of the resurrection to the realm of theology, and ex- plained the origins of the belief scientifically, as acollective,psychological cor- rection by the first followers.¹³⁸ Loisy’ssecond explanation, however,was the completeopposite of Har- nack’s. AccordingtoLoisy,the psychological correction could onlyhappen be- cause the disciples werepre-acquainted with conceptions of resurrection and im- mortality.While Harnack had explained the origins of these beliefs as astrictly internal Christian development (emanatingfrom Jesus’ impressive forceoflife), as the resultofaform of universal (Kantian) morality,Loisy drew attention to the pagan and Judaic environment in which Christianitywas born. Thefollowing quotes illustrate the wide differencesbetween the comparative approaches of Harnack and Loisy.Harnack, for his part,dismissed the hermeneutical value

 Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,130.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,175 – 176. Harnackalso included other explanations: the be- lief in Jesus’ immortality also naturallyfollowed from the idea of “infinitevalue of the human soul,” which could unitewith that of God.  Harnack, What is Christianity?,171.  The cognitive-psychological approachtothe resurrection is still very much present in mod- ern research on earlyChristianity. See, for instance, GerdTheißen and Petravon Gemünden, eds., Erkennen und Erleben. Beiträge zurpsychologischen Erforschung des frühen Christentums (München: Gütersloher Verlag,2007). 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 47 of Platonism, or Persian and Judaic religion to explain the origin of the belief in the resurrection:

Whatever mayhavehappened at the graveand in the matter of the appearances,one thing is certain: This grave was the birthplaceofthe indestructible belief that death is vanquish- ed, and there is alife eternal. It is useless to cite Plato; it is useless to point to the Persian religion, and the ideas and the literature of later Judaism. All that would have perished and has perished; but the certainty of the resurrection and of alife eternal which is bound up with the graveinJoseph’sgarden has not perished, and on the conviction that Jesus lives we still base those hopes of citizenship in an Eternal City which makeour earthlylife worth livingand tolerable.¹³⁹

Loisy reactedagainst these words of Harnack by emphasizing the importance of this historical-religious environment:

There is some exaggeration in dismissingPlato, the religion of the Persians,and the beliefs of Judaism after the exile, as though they had in no wayaided in creating the certainty of eternal life, and as though this certainty came once and for all fromfaith in the resurrection of Christ.[…]Jesus Himself found amongthe Jews abelief in the resurrection of the dead, and He spokeconformablytothis belief. The idea of His personalresurrection presupposes the acceptanceofthe idea of ageneral resurrection.¹⁴⁰

ForHarnack, conceptions of immortality existing in the religious Umwelt are completelyunnecessary to understand Christianity. Furthermore, his words are also an emphatic profession of faith on the absolutesuperiority of the ownChris- tian tradition. UnlikeHarnack, Loisy did not just consider these parallels in other religions as facilitators of the spread of Christianity.Hedecisively movedbeyond the teleological discourse of “preparation” by establishing explicit genealogical interrelations between paganism and Judaism, and between this Judaism influ- enced by other traditions and Jesushimself. This wayhenot onlyannihilated the traditional theological ideas on the absoluteoriginality of the revelation, but alsoquestioned the presupposed “purity” of the earliest Christian traditions. Loisy’sstatements about the importance of ahistorical-comparative ap- proach to the resurrectionheralded his later theory (1911) about Paul’stransfor- mationofthe resurrected Christ into adying and resurrecting savior god. The genesis of this theory has oftenbeen situated in 1910 (the year in which he read Reitzenstein’sinfluential Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen), but there are very good reasons to assume that it had actuallybeen developed much ear-

 Harnack, What is Christianity?,174 – 175.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,135. 48 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology lier.¹⁴¹ In L’Évangile et l’Église,Loisy didn’tdiscuss direct pagan influences on the beliefs in the resurrected Christ of the first Christian generations. The pagan el- ementshad been indirectlytransmitted via Judaism. From his privatecorre- spondence of 1903–1905,however,itisclear that he reallydid explorethe op- tion of direct pagan influences on Christianity.¹⁴² It was probablySalomon Reinach who triggered him to explore such cases. Reinach himself advocated an extreme comparativism and adhered to the so-called Christ Myth theory which deniedJesus’ historicity and (often) explainedthis fullymythical Jesus as the pendant version of the pagan mystery gods. Loisy’snegative reception of the Christ Myth willbediscussed in great detail in our fourth chapter.This theory became aparticularlyprominent subject of discussion in France in the 1910s, but Loisy’scorrespondence with Reinach shows that he had alreadyen- thusiasticallyplungedinto the question in 1905. Reinach’simportance to Loisy’sintellectual development in the early1900’s cannot be underestimated. Reinach frequentlyvisited Loisy and they wroteeach other regularly, although they had widelydifferent opinions on avastarray of topics in the field of religious studies.¹⁴³ In an illuminating letter of December 10,1905,which we will quote and discuss in moredetail in chapter 4, Loisy showed to be very well acquainted with contemporary theories on the influence of pagan mystery cultsand primitive Christianity.¹⁴⁴ When interpreting his rela- tivelymoderate comparative statements in L’Évangile et l’Église (“thereissome exaggeration”), we should consider the possibilitythatbehind them lurked much more advanced views and strongeropinions on the importance of compa- rative religion. These views were obviouslynot expressed in theirmostradical form in Loisy’sModernist manifesto, which—it is worth repeating—aimed at con- vincing (progressive)Catholics of the necessity of ascientific modernization, and thereforeadopted a “soft approach.” This is not onlyconfirmed by his corre-

 This has been pointed out by Jones, Independence and Exegesis,69, whoreferredtoLoisy’s earlyreviews of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule but largely overlooked the roleofcomparative religion in his EE. On EE’srelation to Loisy’slater workonthe mystery cults, see DannyPraet and Annelies Lannoy, “Loisy’scomparative method in Les mystères païens et le mystèrechré- tien,” Numen. International Review for the HistoryofReligions 64,1(2017): 68.  Notethat Loisy also excluded these privateviews from his apology Autour d’un petit livre, see 119–129,where he discussed the transformations the preaching on the resurrectedChrist un- derwent when enteringthe pagan world.  See also infra (chapter 2) for the relationship and correspondence between Loisy and Reinach. Fortheir different opinions about the definition of religion, see chapter 3; about the function of myth: chapter4.  Draft of Loisy’slettertoReinach preserved in BnF,NAF° 15645, f° 383. In this letter, Loisy also compared Artemis Orthia to Notre-dame-de-l’épine of his birth placeChâlons. 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 49 spondence, but it will also become clear from the analysis of his pseudonymous publications (1.4). Although Loisyproceeded cautiously, L’Évangile et l’Église managedtosend outthe signal to thesecular French worldthathenot only embracedacompara- tive approachtoJudaism,but wasready to extend it to Christianityand paganre- ligions. Theletters Loisyand Reinachwrote to each otherbetween 1896–1908 show that ahighly independentand anticlerical (and powerful)scholar like ReinachindeedregardedLoisy as aserious discussion partnerfor thecomparative studyofChristianity. When Reinachsentsomeofhis most thoroughly comparative studiestoLoisy,suchashis paper “La flagellationrituelle” (1904)¹⁴⁵ whichdis- cussed ritual flogging in variouspagan cultsand itspersistence in popularMedi- eval customs, Loisyenthusiasticallyreplied by adding otherlocal Christianparal- lels.¹⁴⁶ Theearly scientific connection betweenLoisy andReinach is clearproofof Loisy’sgrowing credibilityamong scholars of the sciencelaïque. Thepreceding analysis maysuggest that Harnackwas theonlyone,then, who blurredthe distinctionbetween astrictlyhistoricalmethodand hisreligious be- liefswhenhedismissedcomparativereligiononthe basisofreligious truthclaims aboutthe uniqueness of Christianity.But when we take acloserlookatLoisy’s overall argumentationinL’Évangile et l’Église,thisappears to be awrong conclu- sion. Firstofall,Loisy agreed with Harnackonthe superiorityofChristianityover thetraditionswhich hadinfluencedit. It hasbeenmentioned before,though,that blamingLoisy andHarnack forthisviewiscommittingananachronism,since it wasawidely accepted view amongreligious andnon-religious scholars at that time.Whatwas,bycontrast, trulydetrimental to thescientificity of Loisy’sargu- mentation—also to thescientific standardsofhis ownday—wasthe fact that he “theologized” hishistoricalnarrativeby(repeatedly)stating that a “spirit” fueled Christian and pre-Christian assimilations:

If it [Christianity,myremark]was not (and it was far frombeing) the chanceproduct of a combination of heterogeneous beliefs,fromChaldea, Egypt,India, Persia, and Greece, if it was born of the incomparable word and action of Jesus, it is none the less true that Jesus gatheredupand vivified the best of the religious wealth amassed by Israel beforeHim, and that He transmitted this wealthnot as asimple deposit that the faith-full of all time had but to guard,but as alivingfaith in the form of acollection of beliefs,which had to live and growafter Him, even as they had grown and livedbefore, by the preponderatinginfluence

 Salomon Reinach, “La flagellation rituelle,” L’Anthropologie (1904): 47– 54.Reprinted in Salomon Reinach, Cultes,Mythes et Religions,I(Paris:Leroux,1905), 173 – 183. Note that in this article Reinach drew on the religious anthropological theories established by James G. Frazer,whose work will have great influence on Loisy’slater ideas:see infra chapter 4(4.3).  Draft of Loisy’sletter to Reinach of May22, 1904,preserved in BnF,NAF 15645, f° 374. 50 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology

of the spirit that animated them. By isolatingHim in history, HerrHarnackmakes his Christ no greater,but onlyless intelligible and less real.¹⁴⁷

Even if Loisy asserted elsewherethat Jesus’ ideas wereperfectlyJudaic, he still felt the need to reaffirm the traditional belief in the incomparability of his “words and actions.” Furthermore, the remark on “the preponderating influence of the spirit that animated them” seems to point to some sortofsupernatural in- tervention in history.The contrast in this one sentence raises the question as to whether such “rectifications” were genuine or strategic statements of Loisy’s. Did Loisy try to “soften up” his evolutionary reconstruction of Christianity (with its implicit invitation to the contemporary Church) by confirming Jesus’ superiority and by suggesting the possibilityofa“spirit” which fueled religious changeas part of adivine plan?For now,wemust leave this question unanswered. We will come back to it when discussing the Neuilly Essais and the pseudonymous Firmin article in the next section of this chapter. Just like in his discussion of Christian dogma,Loisy used comparative reli- gion as aweapon against the traditional Protestant recrimination thatthe devel- opment of Christian cult was mostlyaCatholicintegration of pagan features into apresumablypure apostolic Christianity.¹⁴⁸ Loisy not onlytransferred the com- parative question from Harnack’sfourth century Catholic Church to pre-Christian Judaism, but also examined pagan influences in the first century cult.After un- derliningjust how manypagan elements had alreadyinfiltratedinpre-Christian Jewishrites,¹⁴⁹ he explainedthat asimilar process of natural assimilation had also occurred duringthe earlydevelopment of the Christian baptism and the Eu- charist.While baptism had organicallydevelopedout of the Judaic rite which had been practiced by John, Jesus and the first disciples, the Eucharist—“the central act of worship”—had actuallybeen alast-minute creation of Jesus him- self. Quite transparently, Loisy stillwanted to link the most importantCatholic sacrament to Jesus himself, all the while trying to hold on to his view that

 Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,137–138.  ForanelaborateanalysisofLoisy’sModernist philosophyofCatholic ritual, see Harvey Hill, “Modernist Spirituality:Alfred Loisy on the History and Spirit of the Eucharist,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 42,2(2013): 23–37.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,234: “All the rest of the forms of worship mayhavebeen borrowed,beforeMoses,orafter him, from other religions,with certain changesaffectingthe meaning, rather than the form, of the rites. While runningthe risk of corruption through the ad- mixtureofforeign elements,the Mosaic ritual realizedsuccessively the transformations that its preservation and progress demanded. […]When human groups arethus mingled, not onlyphys- ical and racial, but also intellectual and moral qualities,customsand traditions areblended to- gether.More than one Canaanitish rite has been canonized in Deuteronomy or Leviticus.” 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 51

Jesushadn’tinstituted Christian cult.AccordingtoLoisy,Jesus had broken away from his Judaic background at the very end of his life.¹⁵⁰ His symbolicinterpre- tation of the lastSupper was the conscious ending of Judaic ritual, although it was not the conscious and direct beginning of aChristian cult.After Jesus’ death, the first community continued to regardtheir meals as anticipations of the kingdom, but they were alsocelebratedasacommemoration of the Pas- sion.¹⁵¹ While Loisy granted to the Protestants that Jesus’ understanding of the meal had been symbolic, he did stress that the meals had instantlyacquired a sacramental meaningafter Jesus’ death.¹⁵² Jesus Christ was believed to be pre- sent,and, through the meals, therewas believed to occur atransmission of “Di- vine life.”¹⁵³ In L’Évangile et l’Église Loisy didn’tprovide anyinformation on the roots of the Last Supper.Was this an ordinary meal, laterritualized by the dis- ciples?Was it the ritual Passovermeal?Initself, the fact that Loisy reserved this information for his Essais,alreadygives us an indication that his views wereanything but traditional-Catholic. As for the earlydevelopment of the Eucharist into aritual of communion, Loisy combined an internal-psychological and ahistoric-religious explanation:

The real communion with Christ in the Eucharist was exactedbythe Christian conscience as imperiouslyasthe Divinity of Jesus;nevertheless the Divinity of Christ is not adogma conceivedinthe spirit of Jewish theology,neither is the Eucharist aJewish rite;dogma and riteare specificallyChristian, and proceed from the apostolic tradition, without altering the fact that the influence of Greek wisdom can be perceivedinthe traditional wayofun- derstanding the first,and in the manner of understanding the second, an element doubt- less at bottom common to several religions,ifnot to all, but which recalls rather the pagan mysteries than the unadorned conception of sacrificeofpost-exilian Judaism. If it werenot to become Greek, Roman, or German in its form of worship, Christianity must have avoided the Greeks, the Romans,and Germans;the adaptation of Christianity was inevitable.¹⁵⁴

In the context of Loisy’srelation to the contemporary science laïque,itisimpor- tant to give some further thought to this brief, yetvery meaningful comparative comment on the Eucharist.The statement is of course an integralpart of his ar- gumentationagainst Harnack, who had situated the influenceofthe mystery

 Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,230 –231.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,246 – 247.  When Loisy left the Church, his ideas on this particular point would change significantly. Jesus’ own understanding of the last supper was then no longer symbolic according to Loisy,it was just aplain meal. The commemoration of the last meal was no longer sacramental in the first communities.See chapter 4(4.3).  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,233.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,238–239. 52 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology cults in the third and fourth centuries.¹⁵⁵ AccordingtoLoisy,the influencebe- came operative from the very moment Christianitystarted to spread in places wherethe mystery cultswerepresent,which happened well before the third cen- tury.Loisy did not provide anydetails on the exact timing,but it is reasonable to surmise thatheagain sought to close the strict Harnackian division between apostolic and post-apostolic evolutions.Atthe same time, though, the aforemen- tioned quoteismorethanjustanother instance of the classical Catholic-Protes- tant feud. In the late 19th and the early20th centuries,the interrelationship of earlyChristianityand the pagan mystery cults¹⁵⁶ on the one hand,and the com- parative theories on the origin of sacrifice on the other,gaverise to wide interna- tional debates which mobilized not onlyhistorians of Christianity, exegetes and theologians,but alsohistorians of religions, anthropologists, and classicists.¹⁵⁷ Somewhat in passing,Loisy here showed to be familiar with what reallywere the most important debatesinthe religious studies of that time,¹⁵⁸ and, more im- portantly even, he seemed readytoembrace the comparative methods of his sec- ular colleagues to tackle these historical problems. In the passagequoted, Loisy appeared to be consideringtwo different com- parative explanations for the earlyChristian developmentofthe Eucharist.The first possibility is aspecific relationship between earlyChristianity and the mystery cults:the interpretation of the Eucharist as a “communion with Christ” “recalls” the meaning of the sacrificial rites of the pagan mystery cults.Loisy did not claim that the similarity was the result of an imitation by Christians, but this is certainlywhat was implicitlysuggested by his general theory on the “necessa- ry assimilations,” which started when the Christians entered into contact with

 Harnack, What is Christianity?,221.  On the pivotal figuresinthese debates, see the contributions to Annelies Lannoy and DannyPraet,eds., ‘Betweencrazy mythologists and stupid theologians.’ Early Christianity and the paganmystery cults in the workofFranz Cumont and in the historyofscholarship (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,inpreparation).  Our chapter 4will discuss the debates about the pagan mystery cults,while chapter 5will deal with those on sacrifice.  Harnack was, of course, also familiar with them. He discussed the mystery cults most ex- tensively in his later Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten dreiJahrhundert- en,Band II: Die Verbreitung(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1906), 270 –275, where he allowed for some degree of influence on the propagation of Christianity,but rejected pagan influenceonChristi- anity’sformation, which was the central focus of the contemporary debates. Salvatorelli, “From Locke to Reitzenstein,” 306,and JanN.Bremmer, Therise of Christianity through the eyes of Gib- bon, Harnack and Rodney Stark (Groningen: Barkhuis,2010), 39.Inthe German Protestant world, the participation was mostlyassured by the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and by classicists,as Hermann Usener,RichardReitzenstein and Albrecht Dieterich, see infra,chapter4(4.1.1). 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 53 pagans. The theory of substantial influenceofthe pagan “oriental” mystery cults on apostolic Christianitywas about to become the trademark of the Religionsge- schichtliche Schule. Still, it is unlikelythatthese scholars wereLoisy’ssourceof inspiration, because they published theirmost influential booksonthe mystery cults almostsimultaneouslytoL’Évangile et l’Église or slightlylater.¹⁵⁹ At this point of Loisy’sintellectual trajectory,itmakes more sense to look in the direc- tion of his role model Ernest Renan, who had paid substantial attentiontothe mystery cultsinhis much quoted MarcAurèle ou la fin du mondeantique (1882), although Renan had been especiallyinterested in the late-antique “rival- ry” between these cultsand Christianity,rather than in the origin of their simi- larities.¹⁶⁰ Another option is thatitwas the work of Franz Cumont (1868–1947) which served as the main catalyst for Loisy’sviews. His contributions to the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses on the mystery cults werecertainly “close to home” for Loisy.¹⁶¹ In fact,just one year before L’Évangile et l’Église came out,Cumont had published an article, “Le taurobole et le cultedeBel- lone,” in which he had drawnattention to pagan blood sacrifices and to the re- lated belief that the absorption of the blood of the victim established an union between the worshipper,the victim and the godidentified with the victim.¹⁶² Al- though this particular article of Cumont’scan certainlynot account for Loisy’s statement (whichisalreadyincluded in the earlier Essais¹⁶³), it does show

 One of their first publications on the matter is Hermann Gunkel’s Zum religionsgeschichtli- chen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht,1903). See also Wilhelm Heitmüller, In Namen Jesu. Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zuraltchristliche Taufe (Göttingen: Huth, 1903) and Id., Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus.Darstellung und religionsgeschichtliche Beleuchtung (Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck &Ruprecht,1903).  Praet, “Oriental Religions and the Conversion of the Roman Empire,” 287–290.  ForCumont’scollaboration to the Revue,see supra (introduction). His first contribution to the RHLR on the mystery cults was published in 1897: “La propagation des mystèresdeMithra dans l’empireromain,” RHLR 2(1897): 289–305,408–423.  Franz Cumont, “Le taurobole et le cultedeBellone,” RHLR 6(1901): 97– 110.Cumont’sar- ticle investigated the origins of the taurobolium of the cult of Cybele and the roleofthe war god- dess Mâ-Bellone in the spread of this ritual over the western Roman Empire. Cumont’sarticle has been thoroughlyanalyzed by DannyPraet, “Symbolisme, évolution rituelle et morale dans l’histoire des religions:lecas du Taurobolium dans les publications et la correspondance de Franz Cumont et d’Alfred Loisy,” in Amsler,ed., Quelle place pour Alfred Loisy, 131–143. See also Annelies Lannoy, “Envoyez-nous votretauroboleetque Bellone nous protège. Franz Cumont, Paul Lejayand the Revue d’histoire et de littératurereligieuses,” Forum Romanum Belgicum (2015): 14.  Note, though,that Loisy’sformulation (“the pagan mysteries”)inEE was moreinconform- ity with the lexicon used in the history of religions,than the terminology in the Neuilly Essais, 54 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology that Loisy’sviews fit in perfectly with the Belgianand French secular scientific contexts. Cumont’sstudies on the so-called Oriental religions significantlyinten- sified the debatesabout the pagan mystery cultsand earlyChristianity in France. His famous volume Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain was the resultofaseries of lectures he gave at the Collège de France in 1905,and in Ox- ford (Hibbert Lectures) in 1906.¹⁶⁴ Cumont would diplomaticallydivide the “scoop” of his new volume among the Modernist Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses and its Liberal-Protestant rival, the Revue de l’histoire des religions of the École pratique,which both gottopublish one chapter of the upcoming book.¹⁶⁵ Once again, Loisy’scomparative interests and methodswereparticularly close to those circulating in the secular academic studyofreligion. Loisy’ssecond explanation entails that the conception of sacrifice as com- munion is abelief common to all religions.The importance of this suggestion —even if it seems to be discarded in favorofthe first genealogical account— can hardlybeoverestimated. To saythat Christianityborrowed from (inferior) pagan cults is one thing,but to acknowledge that the beliefs attachedtothe most important Christian ritual are basicallythe sameasinany other religion, yetanother.Ithas been pointed out that in the late 19th and early20th centuries universalizing-anthropological comparative models gainedpopularity in the French history of religions.¹⁶⁶ The anthropological postulate of the uniformity of the human mind allowed for an advanced comparative approach: advocates of these paradigms did not confine themselvestocomparereligions which had entered into historicalcontact,but compared religions of different times and places in order to uncover universal laws of independent evolution. Loisy’s statement on sacrifice as communion seems to echo the theory of one of the Anglo-Saxon pioneers of what François Laplanche has aptlycalled “La nouvelle

where he wrote: “[…]etdans la manièred’entendrelesecondquelque chose qui sans douteap- partient au fond commun de toutesreligions mais qui ressemble plus au mystère de l’antiquité profane.” Loisy, La Crise de la foi,297.  On the reception of Cumont’sbook, Françoise VanHaeperen, “La Réception des Religions orientales de Fr.Cumont: l’apportdes comptesrendus,” Anabases 6(2007): 159–185. More de- tails on Cumont’sworkfollow infra,chapter 4.  Franz Cumont, “Lescultes d’Asie Mineuredans le paganisme romain,” RHR LIII (1906), 1–24 and Franz Cumont, “L’astrologie et la magie dans le paganisme romain,” RHLR 11 (1906): 24–55.Itwas Jean Réville himself whohad requested this article (see the letter of Jean Réville to Franz Cumont,October27, 1905,Academia Belgica, CP3611). Another part of the book was published in aBelgian journal on which Cumont collaborated: “Rome et l’Orient,” Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique XLIX(1906): 73 – 89.  See also chapter2(2.2.3), for moreinformationonthe methodsthat werebeingfrequently used in the early20th century French history of religions. 1.3 L’Évangile et l’Église 55 méthodecomparative” (in contrasttocomparative philologyand mythologyàla Müller and Renan): William Robertson Smith’stheory on the totemic origins of sacrifice.This willindeed be confirmed by the Essais and the Firmin article “La religion d’Israël,” whereLoisy called the theory by its proper name. Robert- son Smith’stheory was highlyimportantfor the development of Loisy’sviews on sacrifice after 1909,and it will be discussed in greater detail in later chapters. By hinting at Robertson Smith’stheory,Loisy once again addressed an issue that was very topical in the contemporary French history of religions. Ivan Stren- ski’sextensive scholarship on the reception of Robertson Smith’stheory in fin- de-siècle France has shown that the intensity of the debates had everythingto do with the theological consequences of the theory.The Liberal-Protestant lead- ers of the École pratique werewary of atheory that focused attention on the central position of ritual and on the essentiallycollective character of ancient re- ligion, but they still found ways to incorporate it in theircomparative research.¹⁶⁷ On the other hand, Salomon Reinach and other “liberalJewishiconoclasts”¹⁶⁸ like Durkheimand Mauss more enthusiasticallyreceivedthese views.Without ex- plicitlymentioningit, Loisy used Robertson Smith’stheory on totemism to attack Harnack’spurelyindividualist-moral interpretation on the genesis of the Eucha- rist.And at the same time he showed that,just likethe main protagonists of the French science laïque (and unlike Harnack), he considered the possibility of put- ting Christianityonapar with anyreligion. In our subsequent discussion of the Essais,itwill become clear justhow well he knew the universalizingparadigms used in the École pratique,and to what extent he was willingtoapplythem. Before moving on to an intermediate conclusion,itisimportant to point out that in his section on worship, too, Loisy tried to amend the religious consequen- ces of his thoroughlyhistoricalarguments. Our analysis has thus far been fo- cused on the scientific-comparative argumentation in Loisy’ssecond “historical” chapter on worship. But after this historical refutation of Harnack, follows afinal chapter in which Loisy returned to the viewpoints of the Catholic theologians which he had in fact been implicitly attacking throughout his refutation of Har- nack.¹⁶⁹ In these Catholic-theological chapters of L’Évangile et l’Église,the abso-

 Ivan Strenski, Theology and the FirstTheoryofSacrifice (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2003), 98– 100 for the Liberal Protestants and Salomon Reinach. ForStrenski’silluminatingviews,see es- pecially infra,chapter2(2.2.3) and 5.  Strenski, Theology and the FirstTheoryofSacrifice,98.  Loisy’ssection on dogma follows the same structure: chapterI:expositionofHarnack’s ideas;chapterII: refutation of Harnack, chapter III: return to the Catholic-theological position. Foraclose textual analysis of the chapters on dogma,see Talar, (Re)reading,Reception and Rhet- oric,16–17. 56 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology lutesuperiority of Christian worship over pagan worship is emphaticallyaf- firmed.¹⁷⁰ And to legitimize the pagan assimilations of the Church, Loisy further- more explained:

The life of areligion consists not in its ideas,its formulas and its ritesassuch, but in the secret principle which first gave an attractive power,asupernatural efficacy, to the ideas and formulasand rites.The sacraments have no meaningfor the Christian except through Jesus or His Spirit actinginthe material symbol.¹⁷¹

1.3.3 L’Évangile et l’Eglise: An IntermediateConclusion

In L’Évangile et l’Église Loisy presented himself as ahistorian and called for a consistent comparative studyofearly Christianity and its religious environment. But the book displays acomplex interplayofdifferent horizons, which leads to a remarkable alternation of highlyscientific and religious arguments. Comparative religion was Loisy’sscientific tool for the historicization of all phasesand as- pects of Christianity. At the same time it was aweapon against Liberal Protestan- tism and against the contemporary Catholic Church. By rooting the earliest phases of ChristianityinJudaic and pagan contexts, Loisy shattered the Protes- tant myth of apure first century Urchristentum and “normalized” the later pagan assimilations in the Catholic Church. By comparing Christianitytopagan reli- gions and Judaism, he was able to substantiatehis necessary assimilation theory and to introduce aperspective of relativity in the history of the Catholic Church. This relativity theory urgedthe early20th century Church to continue its inces- sant renewal of the gospel and to reformulate its dogmas so that they wereno longer at odds with modern science.Thisbeing said, we have seen that Loisy, too, was susceptible to religious adjustments of his historical argumentation, es- pecially when he tried to link the creation of the Eucharist and the conception of the resurrection to the historicalJesus in order to establish direct continuity with the Church. Loisy’sbook reveals aprogressive concern for strictlyhistorical ar- gumentations, but,asfor Harnack, the scientific studyofreligion was also ex- plicitlyameans to ahigher end: it served to historicallylegitimize the supremacy of his ownreligious tradition. L’Évangile et l’Église constitutes apivotalstepinLoisy’sintellectual develop- ment because of its adoption and propagation of the comparative—genealogical and analogical—methods used in the contemporary academic history of reli-

 Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,266.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,263. 1.4 History of Religion or HistoryofReligions? 57 gions. It should, however,benoted that the comparativeargumentation was often concise and quite matter-of-factly, especiallyfor pagan religion. In other words, Loisy rarelybothered to elaborate his views on the pagan infiltrations in earlyChristianity; time, place and nature of such interactions are never dis- cussed. This absenceiscertainlytobeexplained by the envisioned broad read- ership of the book. Itsmain purpose wastodemonstrate the importance of com- parative religion on ageneral level, as the historical substantiation of theological evolutionism. Yetanother explanation maybethat Loisy was essentiallytrained as abiblical exegete and philologist.¹⁷² Thetextual-exegetical arguments ex- posed in L’Évangile et l’Église are alot more confident and elaborate than the historical-comparative ones. Except for his one remark on sacrifice,wehavenot found anyother instance of an anthropological-inspired universalizingperspective on Christianity.Isthe omission of this kind of comparative framework connected to the hybrid reli- gious-scientific nature of Loisy’sModernist project?Ifthe idea of Christianity’s interrelation to Judaism and paganism has disastrous consequences for its pre- sumed originality,this is afortiori the case when Christianityisincluded in a universal comparative paradigm. We see three possible explanations for Loisy’s omission: (1) the idea of universal laws of evolution indeed implied too much rel- ativism with regardtoChristianity, even for Loisy;(2) he had scientific objections and thought that the model of universal analogyhad amore limited hermeneut- ical value than the genealogical framework; or (3) we are dealing with astrategic omission, meaning that Loisy did believeinthe scientific value of this type of comparativism, but chose not to explore it in L’Évangile et l’Église in order not to hurt Catholicfeelingsmorethanhehad done alreadybyhis theory of assim- ilation. Acloser look at his privateand pseudonymous writingscan help us to determine which one(s) of these options is (are)the most valid.

1.4 History of Religion or History of Religions? The Essais and the Firmin Article “La Religion d’Israël”

Alfred Loisy extracted L’Évangile et l’Église,sometimes verbatim,from the histor- ical chapters of the vast theological-philosophical-historical synthesishehad written in Neuilly.¹⁷³ The Essais include atotal of five historical chapters: La re-

 From Loisy’scorrespondencewith Cumont we know that his knowledge of Greco-Roman religion was rather limited before the start of his career at the Collège de France. See infra,chap- ter4(4.2).  Forafirst introduction to the Neuilly Essais,see supra,introduction. 58 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology ligion d’Israël; Jésus-Christ; L’Évangile et l’Église; L’Église et le dogme chrétien; and L’Évangile et le culte catholique. L’Évangile et l’Église is basedonthe latter four.Overall, Loisy’shistoriographyofChristianity is fairlyconsistent in both texts.Scholarship by Harvey Hill and by Rosanna Ciappa has shown thatthe most substantial difference concerns Jesus’ Judaism.¹⁷⁴ In the few years between writing the Essais and L’Évangile et l’Église,Loisy clearlydeveloped amore rad- ical historicalcriticism, which especiallydisclosed itself in the greater level of importance attachedtoJewisheschatology in his analysis of Jesus’ gospel.¹⁷⁵ Hill has furthermore demonstrated that this changeinhistorical views went hand in hand with afar more strict division of theologyand history.Inthe Es- sais,the lines between historical and theological arguments are indeed often non-existingorvague.¹⁷⁶ The progressive distinction coincides with Loisy’s changingscholarlyambitions after his entrance at the École pratique in 1900. Rather than entering into theminutiaeofthe differencesbetween L’Évangile et l’Église andthe Essais,wewillinstead focusonthe illuminating comparative ar- gumentationinthe first “historical” chapterofthe Essais: “La religiond’Israël.” Whilethe contentofthe last four historical chapters wasintegrated into L’Évangile et l’Église,thisfirstchapter wasmeant to be published(in threeparts)inthe series of pseudonymous Firmin articles.Inthe end, only thefirstsection of this long chaptergot published(1900),because Cardinal Richardcondemned thearticle andthe Revueduclergéfrançais stoppedthe publication of thefollowing two parts.¹⁷⁷ Loisythereafterdecided to publishthe entire chapterasanindividualvol- ume, La Religiond’Israël (1901)which he only distributedprivately.¹⁷⁸ Of thesix articles that were finallypublished in the “Firmin” series, thefirst five arephilo- sophical demonstrations of Loisy’stheory of religion, whilethe finalarticle “La

 Foranexcellent comparison of the Essais and Loisy’s EE,see Hill, “Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église in light of the ‘Essais’,” and Ciappa, “La réforme du régime intellectuel de l’Église cath- olique,” 574–585.  In the Essais Loisy gave afar moremoral interpretation of Jesus’ kingdom, which made his analysis much moresimilar to Harnack’s: Hill, “Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église in light of the ‘Es- sais’,” 82–83.  Hill, “Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église in light of the ‘Essais’,” 78 – 80.  AlfredLoisy, “La religion d’Israël,” Revueduclergé français 15 octobre (1900): 337– 363. On the condemnation of the article by Richard, and its importancefor Loisy’slater problems with the Index (1903): Claus Arnold, “Le cas Loisy devant les Congrégations romaines de l’Index et de l’Inquisition (1893–1903),” in La Censure d’Alfred Loisy,eds.Arnold and Losito, 20–30.  As pointedout by Morrow, “Alfred Loisy’sDevelopmental Approach to Scripture,” 325– 326, the first edition of the book La Religion d’Israël (1900), which was the unalteredchapter of the Essais,isvery different from the second edition (1908), which is actuallyacompletely new book. 1.4 HistoryofReligion or History of Religions? 59 religiond’Israël” exposedthe correspondinghistoricaland exegetical methodolo- gy.¹⁷⁹ This Firmin articleisthe unalteredversion of thefirst sectionofthe chapter in the Essais.¹⁸⁰ Although Loisyknewhewould be easily recognizedasthe author of theFirminarticles, “La religiond’Israël” is definitely anothertypeoftextthan L’Évangile et l’Église. It is amorefreeand less strategic expression of histhought, anditadoptsahistorical-methodologicalfocus whichisvirtually absent in thelat- tervolume. Thearticle allows amoredirect access to thetheoretical viewsoncom- parativereligionthatwereimplicitlyunderpinning thevolume. But before discussing this article, we should mention that the Neuilly Essais and related Firmin articles werethe resultofLoisy’sambition to develop aCath- olic science de la religion that could meet the standards of the science laïque,and served as the intellectual pillar for the modernization of the Church and as an apology against Liberal-Protestant attacks.¹⁸¹ The Essais reflect his attempt to turn relativity into the founding principle of ageneral philosophyofreligion, which applied the ideas of evolutionism and of relativity to all aspectsofChris- tianity,includingthe cult and the ecclesiastical institution itself, and to all peri- ods of Christianity, includingits Judaic ancestor.Extensive researchofLoisy’s Modernist philosophyhas shown that it was indebted to the Catholic theologian John Henry Newman (1801–1890), who had been especiallyinterested in the de- velopment of doctrine.¹⁸² Loisy especiallywantedtotakeNewman’stheological notion of development to ahigher,more historicallysubstantiated level. In his Essais,heinsisted on the necessity for Catholic scholars to gain deeper knowl- edge on the history of ancient religions,onthe original meaning of sacrifice, on the “fonds primitif” of Christianity,etc., in other words, about all the issues debated in the contemporary academic discipline of history of religions.¹⁸³ To convincingly substantiatethe principle of relativity,heargued, the historical out-

 JeffreyMorrowhas studied Loisy’sexegetical argumentationin“La religion d’Israël” in the aforementionedpaper “AlfredLoisy’sDevelopmental ApproachtoScripture.”  Ciappa, “La réforme du régime intellectuel de l’Église catholique,” 568. We will quotefrom the chapterfromthe Essais on the followingpages.  Here nourishedbyHarnack’s Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1885–1890), Auguste Sabatier’s Esquisse d’une philosophie de la religion d’après la psychologie et l’histoire (1897), and Julius Wellhausen’s Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894). On the anti-Liberal-Protes- tant perspective of the Essais,Ciappa, “La réformedurégime intellectuel de l’Église catholique,” 558–565.  Foranuanced account of Loisy’srelationship to Newman, and acomprehensive overview of the vast literature on the subject,see Morrow, Alfred Loisy &Modern Biblical Studies,133 – 142.  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,76and 80.This part of the Essais has been published as A. Firmin, “Le développement chrétien d’après le Cardinal Newman,” Revue du clergé français 1décembre (1898): 5–20,and has been translated in Talar, Prelude to the Modernist Crisis,3–16. 60 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology look should indeed be large.Dothe Essais (and the published pseudonymous equivalents) reveal aLoisy who was readytodohistory of religions,instead of history of (Christian) religion?The answer is yesand no. The Essais show that for Loisy,the necessary adoption of alargerhistorical scope was first and foremost tantamount to the extension of the chronological frame within the studyofChristianity.This means that he stuck to the study of Judeo-Christian tradition, but argued for tracing its history all the waybackto its prehistorical beginnings. Christianity, Loisy explained, was adevelopment out of post-exilicJudaism, which in turn stemmed from prophetic Judaism, which itself had its origins in primitive Jahwism,which had developed out of the religion of the patriarchs,which had its roots in the religion of prehistoric humanity:

On aura étendu plus expressément qu’il [Newman, my remark]n’afait et appliqué plusen détail àtoutel’histoire de la religion depuis le commencement ce principe du dévelop- pement qu’il asurtout appliqué àl’histoire du christianisme, mais qui est la clef de tout pour le passé de la religion, et la meilleuregarantie de son avenir,qui est applicable à l’Évangile par rapport au judaïsme, et àlareligion mosaïquepar rapport àcequi aprécédé. Car le christianisme est,enunsens très vrai, un développement du judaïsmepostexilien, lequel est un développement du iahvéisme prophétique, lequel est un développement du iahvéisme primitif, lequel est un développement de la religion patriarcale, laquelle ases origines dans la religion de l’humanité préhistorique. Dans ce développement bien des fois millénaireleplus sort du moins,comme il arrive dans tout développement vital, sous l’influence d’une force cachée qui se révèle ànous par son action. Cette force est divine, disons surnaturelle, car elle ne se rattache pas dans notreconception au même ordre d’activité que la force,divine aussi et non moins mystérieuse qui préside au mouvement de l’univers et au développement de la vie dans le monde…¹⁸⁴

While Newman himself had limited his scope to Christianity, Loisy was con- vinced thathis developmental theologywas the interpretation key for the entire religious past,aswellasthe best guarantee for the future of religion. This devel- opment,ashesignificantlyadded, was the resultofthe supernatural action of a well-hidden divine force operative in history. It is very meaningful thatthroughout the Essais,Loisy consistentlyspoke of histoire de la religion and not of histoire des religions. This in itself is an indica- tion of the fact that Loisy’svertical-chronological extension of the historical scope was not be accompanied by ahorizontal expansion. Comparisons with non-Judeo-Christian religions were important to Loisy in so far as they helped him to identify pagan assimilations in the Judeo-pagan tradition, and, thus, to

 Loisy, La Crise de la foi,81. 1.4 History of Religion or HistoryofReligions? 61 historicallyattest evolution. But comparative religion did not,oronlyrarely, servetouncover an analogybetween the evolution of Christianityand the histor- ical development of other religions which werenot necessarilychronologically and geographicallyrelated to ChristianityorJudaism. The quote aboveillustrates particularlywellhow the Essais paradoxicallyreveal an argumentation which is at the sametime more scientific and morereligious thanthe one in L’Évangile et l’Église. More scientific because Loisy pushed his evolutionary theory to the ut- most limit by establishingcontinuity between primitive religion at the earliest stages of humanityand Christianity. Clearly, he thought it wise to suppress anyreference to the “religion of prehistoric humanity” in L’Évangile et l’Église. On the otherhand,his religious discourse is much morepronounced in the Es- sais.¹⁸⁵ In L’Évangile et l’Église the motor behindthe “necessary” historical evo- lution was vaguelyindicatedasa“spirit.” The Essais show thatweshould not consider this religious intrusion in Loisy’sscientific discourse as astrategic ac- commodation to the Catholic Church so as to help it digest his Modernist pro- gram. At the time of writing,Loisy genuinelybelieved in divine interventionin history. To account for what thus seems to be agenuine opposition between science and faith in his thought,weshould draw attention to the complex psychological implications of his progressively critical scholarship. This psychologyisacom- mon feature among CatholicModernist scholars who tried to reconcile their crit- ical findingswith their faith and with their membership of the Roman Catholic Church.¹⁸⁶ The conclusions of their critical scholarship contradicted everything

 Notethe difference,though,between the Essais and the correspondingFirmin article “Le développement chrétien d’après le Cardinal Newman.” See the English translation in Talar, Prel- ude to the Modernist Crisis,9:“In order to allow the theory of development its proper amplitude by extendingthe historical base without which it would be nothing, its principle needs to be moreexplicitlydrawn out and applied, in greater detail than was done by Newman himself, to the whole of the history of religion sincethe origins of humanity.This principle, which he ap- plied mainlytothe history of Christianity in relation to the Gospel, also applies to the Gospel in relation to Judaism and to the Mosaic religion in relation to what preceded it.For Christianity is in avery true sense adevelopment frompostexilic Judaism, which is adevelopment from the religion of the prophets, which is adevelopment fromprimitive Mosaic Yahwism, which is ade- velopment fromthe religion of the patriarchs, which had its beginningsinthe religion of prehis- toric humanity.The great moments of revelation which mark the different phases of this devel- opment do not upset its continuity […].” On the question of continuity—discontinuity, see also infra,chapters 3to5.  See especiallyC.J.T.Talar, “The Faith of aRationalist.Prosper Alfaric on Christian Origins,” in Lannoy and Praet,eds., ‘Between crazymythologists and stupid theologians,’ in preparation: “Forany number of Modernists,particularlyinFrance, one mayconstruct atemplate, tracking their evolution frompious childhood through seminary formation; from initial tensions between 62 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology they had been taught to believesince at youngage.Comingtoterms with such ground shaking scientific conclusions, implied athorough reconsideration of one’sreligious identity and this wasvery rarelyamatterofswift,clear-cut trans- formations. The growingscientificity of Loisy’scomparative ideas ranparallel to his progressive emancipation from the Catholic Church. This emancipation was a long process which was significantlyacceleratedbyhis disappointment about the Church’ssystematic rejection of his reform program, and, as we will see in chapter 5, by World WarI. Loisy extensively discussed the question of primitive religion in the first sec- tion of his Neuillychapter/Firmin article “La religion d’Israël.” His quest for the most primitive stageofJudaism naturallycompelled him to address the question of auniversalizinganthropological approach to religion. Had therebeen auni- versalprimitive religion at the dawn of humanity, and if so, whynot extend the universality to the later development from that shared origin?Loisy gave ex- tensive thought to these questions. The Essais show thatthe single sentence in L’Évangile et l’Église about the potential universality of sacrifice conceptions, was not just astray thought but the resultofcareful consideration. The late 19th and early20th centuryacademic studyofthe history of religions developed awhole spectrum of theories on laws of religious development.Loisy decided to focus his attention on the one he had found in August Sabatier’s Esquisse d’une philosophie de la religion d’après la psychologie et l’histoire (1897), the book which he had alsodiscussed in several other parts of his Essais.¹⁸⁷ Sabatier (1839–1901) held the chair in ancient Christian literatureatthe École pratique (for which Loisy would applyin1901).¹⁸⁸ He was aLiberal-Protestant philoso- pher and theologian with adistinct openness towardcomparative religion.¹⁸⁹

traditional belief and modern scholarship to attempts to resolvethe challengesposed by critical exegesis, critical philosophy, or moderndemocracy;through erosion of faith to final unbelief. While details vary with each individual, the overall trajectory is applicable.”  And in the correspondingFirmin articles,Talar, Prelude to the Modernist Crisis,xvi.  On AugusteSabatier,BernardReymond, Auguste Sabatier et le procès théologique de l’au- torité (Lausanne: l’Aged’Homme, 1976), especially61ff., for his evolutionism; Id., Auguste Sabat- ier: un théologien àl’air libre 1839–1901 (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2011); Forni Rosa, TheHerme- neutical Question,5–24 (Chapter “The Liberal Evolutionism of AugusteSabatier”). Foran introduction into Sabatier’sLiberal-Protestant religious views,see BernardM.G.Reardon, Reli- gious Thought in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1966), 208– 210.  Sabatier was, however,afierce advocate of the conservation of the faculties in Protestant theology at the StateUniversities:Laplanche, La Crise de l’origine,127.Sabatier’sreligious-theo- logical ideas wereclose to Harnack’s(as also pointedout by Reardon, Liberal Protestantism,50), but his openness towardcomparative religion was distinctlydifferent. 1.4 History of Religion or History of Religions? 63

Sabatier’sevolutionary model relies on adistinction between the mythological (paganism), the dogmatic (Catholicism and Orthodox Protestantism), and the final psychological-spiritual stageofreligion, which in his view is closest to the psychological experience religion actuallyis.¹⁹⁰ These stages of progressive development further break down into anumber of sub-stages.¹⁹¹ In his analysis of Sabatier’sideas, Loisy especiallyfocused on the development of the concep- tualization of the divine, which Sabatier schematized as follows: (1) religion orig- inates in fetishist animism; (2)the spirits become autonomous beings and they are structured in polytheistic systems;(3) the power of the leader of the tribe, and later,ofthe nation, is reflected in the supreme godwho holds the highest position in the pantheon. Graduallypolytheism evolvestoward monolatry; (4a) the monotheism of the Indo-European familyismorallyperfected by the philosophers, but it can never competewith (4b) the trulymoral monotheism which was developed by the prophets of Israel.¹⁹² The one thing Loisy appreciated about this and similar evolutionary schemesisthatthey allow historians to imposesome hypothetical structure on the massofheterogeneoushistorical evidence.¹⁹³ But other than that,he felt thattheir usefulness was extremelylimited.His objections can be catego- rized into twogroups:(a) general objectionswhich basically applytoany histor- ical model of universal religious evolution, and (b)specific objectionstothe scheme proposed by Sabatier.Tostart with (a), Loisy wasclearly bothered by the universality claim and the corresponding postulate of fundamental unity of human behavior and thought.Heallowed for some degree of psychological unity,but this waslimited to “l’homme primitive.”¹⁹⁴ With Sabatier (and Victor- ian anthropologist EdwardB.Tylor)Loisy readilyacknowledgedthatthe origins of religion wereuniversallyanimistic, but he stronglyopposed the idea of auni- versallaw of evolution. Such generalizing theories, he explained, are detrimen-

 Sabatier exposed his ideas on the history of religions in chapter4“Le développement re- ligieux de l’humanité,” of his Esquisse d’une philosophie de la religion d’après la psychologie et l’histoire (Paris:Fischbacher,1897), 103–136.Hediscussed the lines of development themati- cally: first the gradual expansion of the geographic frame (tribal, national, universal), then the progressive development of the conception of the divine (animism,polytheism, monotheism), finallythe development of rituals with focus on the spiritualization of prayer.For Sabatier’s views on prayerasthe most importantform of cult, and his dissension with the sociological school see Donald A. Nielsen, “AugusteSabatier and the Durkheimians on the Scientific StudyofReligion,” SociologicalAnalysis 48 (1987): 283–301.  Reymond, Auguste Sabatier et le procès théologique de l’autorité,69.  Sabatier, Esquisse d’une philosophie de la religion,120–123.  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,127.  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,93. 64 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology tal to the factualcomplexity and heterogeneity of historical reality.Instead, Loisy asserted, religions follow distinct individual courses of development.This partic- ular course of development is determined by their interactionwith other reli- gions, or the lack thereof. The Essais show that, at this point of his intellectual trajectory,Loisy’sthought on religious changeisessentiallydiffusionist.Each “race” has its own specific religious features;when religious agents migrate, these features travel along and mingle, causing religious change. Forthe religion of the “ancientSemites” Loisy used atypifying discourse which explicitlyrelied on Renan (“La race sémitique aeuledon d’intuition profonde, de passion ar- dente, de volonté tenace[…]”¹⁹⁵), but he rejected the Renaniansubordination of the intuitive, passionate, tenacious “Semitic spirit” to the “Aryan genius.”¹⁹⁶ In this context,itisinteresting to point to afeature of Loisy’s Évangile et l’Église which has hitherto remained unmentioned. When discussingthe differences be- tween Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, Loisy lapsed into apronounced nationalist discourse: “In Rome, and in the Latin countries,religion is readily conceivedasadiscipline and asocial duty.For the German races, it is aprinciple of inner life […].”¹⁹⁷ Such anationalist-ideological approach to the history of Christianitymay help us to understand the completelyunbridgeable divide be- tween Harnack and Loisy duringWWI, which will be discussed in the final chap- ter (5.1.1).

 Loisy, La Crise de la foi,131.  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,131–132. The wide use of racial theories and approaches in late19th and early20th century European historiographyofancient religions has been the subject of ex- tensive scholarship. Amongmanyexcellent studies see: ChristhardHoffmann, Juden und Juden- tum im Werk Deutscher Althistoriker des 19.und 20.Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1988); Hayim Lapinand Dale B. Martin, eds., Jews,antiquity and the nineteenth-centuryimagination (Bethesda: PennStateUniversity Press, 2003); Susannah Heschel, TheAryan Jesus.ChristianTheologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 27ff; Suzanne Marchand, German Orientalism in the AgeofEmpire. Religion, Race, and Scholarship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Paul LawrenceRose, “Renan versus Gobineau: Semitism and Antisemitism, AncientRaces and Modern Liberal Nations,” HistoryofEuropean Ideas 39 (2013): 528– 540;Eline Scheerlinck, DannyPraet,and Sarah Rey, “Raceand Religious Transformations in Rome. Franz Cumont and Contemporaries on the Oriental Religions,” Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 65,2(2016): 220 –243; Amos Morris-Reich and Dirk Rupnow,eds., Ideasof‘Raceʼ in the Historyofthe Humanities (New York: PalgraveMacmillan,2017). On Renan, see: Robert D. Priest, “Ernest RenanʼsRace Problem,” TheHistorical Journal 58 (2015): 309–330.  Loisy, TheGospel and the Church,201.This nationalist discourse is an integral part of Loisy’santi-Protestantism,see page 162: “Had therebeen anyactual autonomy of the individual Churches,Christianity would have been completely submergedinsuperstition and Germanic feudalism.” 1.4 History of Religion or HistoryofReligions? 65

Loisy’ssecond critique of Sabatier’sevolutionary framework concernedthe underpinning idea of alinear and systematic progressive evolution. Loisy cer- tainlydidn’tdenythat religious history was ahistory of progress,but he did as- sert that onlythe Judeo-Christian tradition displayedaregular line of progress. As for the non-Judeo-Christian religions, there were “various influences” which accelerated religious progress in one givenpeople, but slowed down or even de- stroyed progress in another.Although people wereattimes driventodownright follybecause of “moral, intellectual or physical deficiencies,” Loisy also asserted that mankind always had “asense of what was true and what was good,” allow- ing it to eventuallydevelop or adopt “apure” religion like Christianity.¹⁹⁸ Thirdlyand perhaps most importantly,the “Religion d’Israël” chapter shows that Loisy struggled with the tension between innovation and tradition he found lingering in the evolutionary multi-phased schemesatuse in the history of reli- gions. The compartmentalization of religion in different types, which correspond to stages in the overall religious evolution of mankind, presented amajor prob- lem to his conception of evolution in terms of “organic growth” and “continui- ty.”¹⁹⁹ Between the phases in thosemodels of development Loisy perceived fault lines, which impliedthat,when areligion enters anew phase, something of the previous phase is irrevocablylost.The mere suggestion of discontinuity and rupture in history made models with successive stages of evolution com- pletelyunsuitable for his ownintellectual project.Toaccept this intellectual frame wastoreject the uninterrupted continuity between the original gospel of Jesus and the Catholic Church. And to reject this continuity was to give up the principal argument for the necessary modernization of that Church. We will see that long after Loisy’sexcommunication, the tension between continuity and discontinuity in the history of religions remained afocal point of his com- parative work. Loisy’s “continuity view” rantotallycounter to thatofthe Liberal-Protestant leaders of the Fifth Section of the École pratique.²⁰⁰ Ivan Strenski has rightly pointed out that AlbertRéville was areal advocate of “anon-transitive or discon- tinuous view of historical change,” aview shared by his son and successor at the

 Loisy, La Crise de la foi,128.  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,127.  Albert Réville, Prolégomènes de l’histoiredes religions (Paris:Fischbacher,1886), 71: “Il est un facteur qui pourrait très bien expliquer la plupart de cestraits communs, sinon tous […]. Ce facteur,beaucouptropnégligé, c’est l’unitédel’esprit humain s’appliquant àrésoudre les mêmes questions avec les mêmes éléments de solution.” 66 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology

CollègedeFrance,Jean Réville.²⁰¹ Still, it would be wrongtooppose Loisy’sview to the entire section, because not all of its Liberal-Protestant members were in favorofuniversalizing paradigms to studythe history of religions.Maurice Vernesfor instance adopted avery skeptical attitude towardthe approach of the Révilles.²⁰² Andhis skepticism was shared by several other protagonists of the academic history of religions,like the ancientmystery cult specialists Jules Toutain and Franz Cumont,who concurred in favoring Vernes’shistorical-em- piricist “stick to the sources” method.²⁰³ Once again, it is important to emphasize that what reallymade Loisy different from all these aforementioned scholars, was the recurrent infiltration of adistinct and explicit theological-supernatural discourse in his historical argumentation. At the end of his discussion of prim- itive Judaism, he for instance added that nothing was more helpful to under- stand the unique supernatural development of Judaism than to comparethis re- ligion with contemporary pagan cults. In afirst phase, these religions showed striking similarities, but these graduallydisappeared: what came to full force and fruition in Judaism, was suffocated (“étouffés”)bymyth and liturgy in pagan cults.

Rien n’aide mieux àconcevoir le développement surnaturel de la religion israélite,que cet examen d’institutions qui touchent àleur origine àunétat de la pensée religieuse très analogueàcelui dont témoignent les cultes païens.Ladistinction s’affermit et grandit entre la religion israéliteetles religions païennespar la force et l’accroissement extraordinaire que prennent en Israël certains germes qui, dans les cultes païens,sont restés étouffés sous la tradition mythologique et liturgique. Dans la religion israélite,ils ont modifié la tradi- tion, ils en ont renouvelé l’esprit,enattendant qu’ils fussent assez puissants pour en laisser

 Ivan Strenski, “Durkheim,Judaism and the Afterlife,” in Reappraising Durkheim for the Study and Teaching of ReligionToday,eds.Thomas A. Idinopulos and Brian C. Wilson (Lei- den–Boston–Köln: Brill, 2002), 122–123.  On Vernes’smethodological breach with the Révilles,see Strenski, “The Ironies of Fin-de- Siècle Rebellions,” 162–165.  The fact remains,however,that they,too,imposedaphilosophical-ideological scheme on their historical narrative.OnCumont’sHegelian philosophyofreligion, see Praet, “Oriental Re- ligions and the Conversion of the Roman Empire,” 294–295; and DannyPraet, “Franz Cumont, the OrientalReligions,and Christianityinthe Roman Empire: AHegelian View on the Evolution of Religion, Politics, and Science,” Papersofthe Nineteenth-CenturyTheology Group AAR XLII (2011): 133–158. ForToutain, see Julien Cazenave, “Le ‘mystèreToutain’ àlalumièredesacon- tribution au Dictionnairedes antiquités grecques et romaines,” Anabases 4(2006): 197–203. Toutain’srejection of the comparative method is abundantlyclear from his later text: “L’histoire des religions de la Grèce et de Rome au début du XXesiècle,” Revue de synthèse historique 20 (1910): 73 – 100. 1.4 History of Religion or HistoryofReligions? 67

tomber les symboles vieillis,après s’êtreconcentrés dans l’Évangile et vivifiés au souffle de Jésus.²⁰⁴

Loisy’sclaims about the singularity of each religious evolution find theirorigin in his view thatasupernatural forcewas at work in Judaism, which prepared it for giving birth to Christianityand leaving behind its ownoutdated symbols. This forceremained dormant in pagan religions.²⁰⁵ As for the more specific criticism of Sabatier’sanimism-polytheism-mono- theism scheme,Loisy heavilyopposed Sabatier’sreversalofthe traditional Ur- monotheismus theory.Clearly, he had problems to accept the logical consequen- ces of the by him acknowledgedanimistic origins of religion, i.e. that Judaic monotheism had developed out of polytheism. Loisy adjusted this picture by ex- plaining that the religion of Israel showed very earlysigns of aprimitive form of monotheism and always contained the “seed” of the conception of an almighty god. At first,theremust have been multiple spirits, but the polytheistic nature of the primitive Israelite religion was not a “real and practicedpolytheism,”²⁰⁶ it was instead an “animism neutralized in one sovereign spirit.”²⁰⁷ Accordingto Loisy,the development of polytheism in ancient pagan religions was primarily generated by amix of civilizations. An isolated tribalreligion like that of the Israelites managed to stayclear from such mixtures.²⁰⁸ Against Sabatier (and likeminded historians of religions), Loisy furthermoreargued that polytheistic re- ligions can never trulydevelop into monotheism.²⁰⁹ Polytheism remains polythe- ism until it is replacedbyChristian monotheism. To conclude this discussion of the “Religion d’Israël” chapter,webriefly want to return to Loisy’sideas on primitive sacrifice. In L’Évangile et l’Église we caught aglimpse of his openness towardananthropological approach to sac- rifice. The “Religion d’Israël” text showsthat Loisy was indeed thinking of Robertson Smith’stheory on totemism when he formulated this suggestion, and this was alsonoticed by Salomon Reinach who greatlyadmiredthe Scottish

 Loisy, La Crise de la foi,141– 142.  Forateleological reading of Judaic history,see especiallyLoisy, La Crise de la foi,162– 163 (“Le judaïsme aconnu son immense destin historique par le christianisme”).  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,129.  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,145.  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,129.  Interestingly,Sabatier himself had made adistinction between the monotheism which de- veloped the Indo-European religions and the superior moralist monotheism of the Semites. Sa- batier, Esquisse d’une philosophie de la religion,122. 68 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology

Old Testament scholar.²¹⁰ We have seen that Loisy insistedagainst his Liberal- Protestant opponents that religion is asocial institution, consolidated in the col- lective performance of rites which establish a “communion” between the com- munity and the worshipped god. Robertson Smith provided Loisy with the per- fect scientificfoundation of these ideas. Robertson Smith had equallyinsisted on the dominant position of sacrificial ritual in ancient religions, and his theory on totemism underlined the social function of sacrifice.Inour fourth chapter we will discuss Loisy’sintellectual relationship with Robertson Smith in more de- tail, and especiallyfocus on the very different religious views which underpin- ned their scientific theories of sacrifice.²¹¹ With regard to Loisy’scomparative views on Christian ritual, there is justone last differencebetween the Essais and L’Évangile et l’Église which deserves our attention. In the latter work Loisy never explained the origins of the Eucharist.Heonlyreferred to the “commu- nion” interpretation when discussing the later development of the beliefs attach- ed to the ritual. In the pseudonymous Essais,heexplicitlywrote that Jesushad continued an existing ritual of sharing bread and wine, which wasperfectlyanal- ogous to other ancient oriental religions and based on the same idea of commu- nion.²¹² All in all, we can saythat the question “Is Loisy readytodohistory of reli- gions” calls for anuanced answer.While Loisy’sargumentation against Sabatier’smodel certainlyreveals the intention to protect the distinctness of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the analysis of the Essais has also uncovered his highlyconsistent emphasis on Christianity’scomparability,his acceptance of contemporarytheories on animism and totemism, and his willingness to apply

 Loisy, La Crise de la foi,136: “L’idée fondamentale du sacrificeapparaît encore assez claire- ment dans les anciens textes:une victime de choix, une victime sainte sert àfonder ou àraffer- mir la sociétévivante du dieu et de ses fidèles,moyennant la participation àune même chair sacrée, qui est censée contenir la vie divine, commune au dieu de la tribu et àses membres. D’où que vienne cettepersuasion, qu’elle se rattache plus ou moins àcequ’on aappelé le to- témisme, àl’idée que le dieu ancêtre alaforme d’une espèceanimale dans laquelle il est comme incarné, ou bien àune autre façon, àune façonnécessairement assez analogue, de concevoir le rapportdelavie animale aveclavie divine et la vie humaine, il paraît évident que telle est la signification originelle du sacrifice;une communion de vie divine par l’immolation d’une vic- time, identifiée en quelque façon au Dieu lui-même et que s’incorporent les fidèles avec le dieu.” When Reinach wrotetoLoisy to congratulatehim on his condemned Firmin article, he pointed to Loisy’sunnamed source of inspiration: “Vous trahissez l’influencedecet admirable Robert- son Smith.” See the letterofReinach to Loisy,s.d., BnF,NAF 15660,f°241.  ForLoisy’sintellectual relation to RobertsonSmith, see infra,chapter4(4.3.2)and 5 (5.3.1.2); for Loisy and the Durkheimians,see infra,chapter3(3.3)and 5(5.3.1.3).  Loisy, La Crise de la foi,187. 1.5 The Consequences forLoisy’sPosition at the École pratique 69 them to Judaism and Christianity. Methodologicallyspeaking, Loisy had become avery close allyofthe French institutionalized history of religions. Why, then, did he resign from the École pratique in 1904?

1.5 The Consequences forLoisy’sPosition at the École pratique

We have seen that the Catholic Church grimlyaccepted Loisy’sintegration in the École pratique as conférencier libre in 1900.Students of the Institut catholique werediscouraged by local hierarchies to attend Loisy’scourse starting from March 1901, but his local superior Cardinal Richard did not intervene in the con- tent of the course.²¹³ The attitude of the Church changed in 1903 when it put L’Évangile et l’Église on the Index. Loisy’sbook was officiallycondemned by the HolyOffice on December 16th,1903,togetherwith four other volumes: La Re- ligion d’Israël, Études évangéliques, Autour d’un petit livre,and Le Quatrième Évangile. As aresult, there was an instant multiplication of Loisy’saudience at École pratique,somuch so thatthe classroom simply became toosmall to fit all curious listeners.²¹⁴ In 1904 Loisy resigned from the École and completely disappeared from public life.²¹⁵ His resignation was the resultofhis negotiations with Rome about his submission to the decision of the Inquisition, and was most probablyintended to avoid excommunication. In this final section of our chapter on Loisy’sModernist career,webrieflydis- cuss the reactions of his Liberal-Protestant colleagues at the École to this resig- nation.²¹⁶ Loisy’scorrespondencewith these scholars shows thathecarefully strategized this exit.After its condemnation by the Church, L’Évangile et l’Église came to symbolize Loisy’saffirmation of the superiorscientific studyofreligion propagated by the Third Republic. But with the impending lawonthe separation

 In his Mémoires,II, 19 Loisy explained that Richardhad someone followingLoisy’sclasses and reporting about them to him. The information was transmitted to Rome.  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 369.  He moved to the French countryside, and stayedinacottage provided by the Thureau-Dan- gin family, with whose members Loisy was close; Émile Goichot, Alfred Loisy et ses amis (Paris, Cerf: 2002), 78 – 79.See also chapter2.  The different phases in Loisy’srelations to Rome between 1903 and his final excommuni- cation in 1908 have been identified sufficientlybyLoisy himself and in modern research on the documents of the Office: Claus Arnold, “Loisy,lacongrégation de l’Index et le Saint-Office (1900 –1908),” in Alfred Loisy cent ans après.Autour d’un petit livre,eds.François Laplanche, Ilaria Biagioli, and Claude Langlois (Turnhout: Brepols,2007), 61– 68. On Loisy’ssubmission in 1904,see Houtin and Sartiaux, Alfred Loisy,117– 127. 70 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology of State and Church (1905), the academic position of Loisy became untenable when he showed no signs of wanting to leave the Church after his condemnation of 1903.²¹⁷ No scientificand personal appreciation for Loisy could prevent that there was wide apprehension among the protagonists of the Fifth Sectionover the enormous conflict of interest raised by Loisy’sattitude. To fullygrasp the reactions towardsLoisy’sfinal resignation in 1904,itisim- portant to mention thatthe anti-scientificclimate in the Catholic Church had in fact been straining the relations between the Modernist scholars and the institu- tionalized Sciences religieuses since the late 1890s. It is true thatthe Church wait- ed until 1907toissue the anti-Modernist documents that decreed the full stop of these collaborations. Pius X’sencyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (1907), for example, formallyforbade prieststofollow courses at secular universities for which therewas an “alternative” at aCatholic institution.²¹⁸ Henceforth, priests also needed the explicitpermission of their superiors when they wanted to at- tend aconference²¹⁹ and to assume an editorship of ascientific journal. But in reality,manyofthe collaborations between the Catholic and the secular scientif- ic worlds had stopped well before 1907. Since the final yearsofLeo XIII’spontif- icate, “Modernist”²²⁰ priestshad become increasinglycautious. The history of the Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses testifies to the growinganxiety among ecclesiastics to collaborate on the journal. From previous scholarship we know that its anonymous director,PaulLejay,²²¹ was having more and more trou- ble to find ecclesiastical collaborators and strategicallyasked non-ecclesiastics like Franz Cumont for contributions of amore “technical” character in order

 Loisy’sactions werethe subject of much attention in the contemporary press, and there was wide speculation over his submission. Houtin and Sartiaux, Alfred Loisy,119–120.  Pascendi dominici gregis,§49,URL: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/ documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html.  Pascendi dominici gregis, §54: “At Congresses of this kind, which can onlybeheld after per- mission in writinghas been obtainedindue time and for each case, it shall not be lawful for priests of other dioceses to take part without the written permission of their Ordinary.”  “Modernist” avant la lettre,sincethe term “Modernism” onlygained currency among Ital- ian bishops around 1905 (althoughitexisted before): see William L. Portier, Divided Friends.Por- traits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the Unites States (Washington:The Catholic Uni- versity of America Press,2013), 19.Onthe problems this term presents,C.J.T.Talar, TheModernist as Philosopher.SelectedWritingsofMarcelHébert (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 21.  On the roleofLejayinthe RHLR,Lannoy, “‘Envoyez-nous votretaurobole’.” 1.5 The Consequences forLoisy’sPositionatthe École pratique 71 to divert the attention of the Curia from the articles of ecclesiastical collabora- tors.²²² Yetanother example of the forced divide between Catholic scholars of reli- gion and their non-Catholic colleagues is the absenceofCatholic priestsfrom the first international Congrès d’histoire des religions which was held in Paris in 1900.²²³ On January 20th,1899 Jean Réville, who was the secretary of the con- ference,²²⁴ wrote aletter to Loisy in which he expressed his regret over the fact that Loisy followed the decision of the Rector of the Institut catholique in Tou- louse, Pierre Batiffol, to decline the invitation to form part of the organizingcom- mittee of the Congrès.

Paris-Auteuil 4, Villa de la Réunion 20 janvier 1899

Monsieur, J’ai le vif regret de vous annoncer que M. l’abbé Batiffol, recteur de l’Institut Catholique de Toulouse, ne croit pas pouvoir faire partie du Comitéd’organisation du Congrès interna- tional d’histoire des religions en 1900.Cequi double mon regret et celuidemes collègues, c’est que d’après la conversation que j’ai eu l’honneur d’avoir avecvous,lerefus de M. Batiffol entraîne aussi le vôtre. Je vous serais bien obligé néanmoins de me confirmer encore vosintentions définitives. Je n’abandonne pas encore l’espoir que vous consentiez à faire partie du Comité. Surleterrain tout scientifique où nous nous sommes placés je ne vois pas quelles raisons de conscience pourraient retenirdes membres du clergé catholique de s’associer à notre entreprise. Je serais désolé qu’ils s’abstinssent systématiquement.Maintenant que le Congrèsest décidé et s’annoncedéjà commedevant réussir,ilmesemble qu’il yaurait tout intérêt àceque les savants appartenant au clergé ne s’en excluent pas eux-mêmes. Je gardedonc l’espoir qu’il yenauraqui seront disposés àentrer dans notreComitéet que ceux-là mêmes qui ne croiraient pas pouvoir s’associer àl’organisation du Congrès,y prendrontpart néanmoins comme adhérents,soit en présentant quelque rapport scienti- fique, soit en prenant part auxdélibérations. […] Veuillez agréer,Monsieur,l’expression de mes sentiments distingués et dévoués, Jean Réville²²⁵

 On Lejay’scorrespondencetoFranz Cumont,see Lannoy, “‘Envoyez-nous votretaurobole’,” 13–15.  On the first history of religions congress, see Arie L. Molendijk, “Lespremiers congrès d’his- toire des religions ou comment faire de la religion un objet de science,” Revuegermanique inter- nationale 12 (2010): 91–103.  His father Albert Réville was the president.The congress was entirelyorganized by the Fifth Section of the EPHE: Actes du premier congrès international d’histoiredes religions (Paris:Leroux, 1901) (in two volumes), i–ii.  Jean Réville to Loisy,January 20,1899,BnF,NAF 15661, f° 69 – 70. 72 1Comparative Religion and/asModernist Theology

Clearly, Jean Réville had great trouble imaginingthe difficult situation of the Catholic clergy, when he asked what “conscientious objections” Catholic priests could possiblyhaveagainst the purely scientific meeting that was the Congrès d’histoire des religions. Unable to grasp the full consequences of the hostile cli- mate in which Catholics likeLoisy worked, the Liberal-Protestant leaders of the Fifth Section stared at their Catholic-ecclesiastic colleagues across agulf of com- plete incomprehension. In the end, neither the list of the conference committee members, nor the list of the conference participants included the namesofLoisy, or of anyother French priest.²²⁶ In asimilar vein, the fear for the anti-scientific intransigency of the ecclesiastic authorities also put astop to all intra-Catholic discussions about the modernization of Catholic science.The year 1900 marked the end of the Congrès scientifiques internationaux des catholiques,with the last meeting being held in Munich in that sameyear.²²⁷ Louis Duchesne, who was going to organize the new meeting(in Rome notabene), decided that anew con- ferencewas no longer desirable. After the condemnation of his work in December 1903,Loisy first formulated two half-hearted submissions which were instantlyrejected by Rome.²²⁸ Finally, on February 28,1904 he wrote aletter to Pius Xinwhich he affirmed: “Je veux vivreetmourir dans la communion de l’Église Catholique.”²²⁹ In this letter,Loisy announced that he would resign from the École pratique and refrain from pub- lishing the resultsofhis ongoing research,for the “pacification des esprits.” This argument of “appeasing the minds” was also the reason mentioned in Loisy’sletter of resignation to the director of the Fifth Section, AlbertRéville, on March 27,1904.²³⁰ It is quite interesting to comparethese pieces of informationwith aletter Maurice Vernes wrotetoLoisy in November1907. This letter is areplytoalost letter in which Loisy had clearlyrebuked Vernes for having inadequatelysaid that his formerresignation for the sake of peace (“la paix des esprits”)was an act of weakness (“défaillance”). After reading Loisy’sletter,Vernes withdrew this negative evaluation. His letteralso explainedhow his former judgment had been the resultofhis deepdissappointment with the departure of acollea-

 Actes du premier congrès international,vii–xxi.  On the history of these five conferences(1888, 1891,1894,1897, 1900), which werestrictly controlled by Rome, Houtin, La Question biblique,126–130;Hill, ThePolitics of Modernism, 53 – 55;Beretta, “Les Congrès scientifiques internationaux des catholiques (1888–1900).” For their contextsee also supra,introduction.  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 367.  Letter quoted in Mémoires,II, 351.  Letter preserved at BnF,NAF 15645, f° 372, and quoted in Mémoires,II, 376. 1.5 The Consequences for Loisy’sPositionatthe École pratique 73 guewhom he himself had earlier (and unsuccessfully) proposed for appointment to the chair of Sabatier in 1901.

Paris,21novembre 1907 248, Bard Raspail (14e)

Monsieur et cher ancien collègue, Je me félicited’avoir provoqué vosexplications par l’emploi du mot défaillanceque je retire volontiers,comme je reviens sur la façon sévère dont j’avais apprécié votreséparation d’avec nous. C’est que je m’étais constitué votresoutien et en quelque mesure—d’une façontoute spontanée—votregarant.J’avaisproposé votrecandidature àlasuccession de notre col- lègue Aug. Sabatier pour la critique du Nouveau Testament,candidature que ne trouva d’écho qu’auprès de Jean Réville. Votreretraiteseproduisait sans explication—car,dans la courte lettre qui nous fut communiquée par feu Albert Réville, vous visiez, si j’ai bonne mémoire, deux points:1° votrecrainte de ne pas trouver chez nous les conditions assurées d’un enseignement calme comme il convient àlasentence, 2° votre désir de contribuer àlapaix des esprits—avait [sic]provoqué chez la plupart une pénible surprise,mais chez moi, tout spécialement,un sentimentdedéception et la sensation d’une défection. Vosexplications modifient mon appréciation de l’époque et je m’empresse de vous le dire. Quant àlasituation présentedugroupe de savantsentêteduquel vous marchez, je la compare soit àcelle des réformateurs du 16e siècle dans leur premièrephase, soit àcelle des protestants libéraux (de 1850 à1865) ;niles uns ni les autresn’ont réalisé ce qu’ils se proposaient de faire et,néanmoins, les uns comme les autresont abouti en une réelle mesureetont changé l’orientation courante. […] MauriceVernes PS Il va sans direque je tiendrai toute communication pour strictement personnelle.

Aside from the interesting parallel Vernes drew between the Catholic Modernists and the (Liberal) Protestants (it is very doubtful whether Loisy agreed on this point),this letter shows that Loisy’sfinal submission to the Catholic Church and his corresponding resignation met with wide disappointment from those scholars who had been supporting Loisy’sintegration into the Fifth Section. Vernes(and Albert Réville²³¹)believed that Loisy had givenuphis position be- cause he was threatened with excommunication. Vernes’sletter makes us won-

 Comparewith the interview with Albert Réville,published in Le Temps of April 6th,1904,in which Réville also drew aparallel with Protestant ancestors: “Que l’abbé Loisy ait capitulé de- vantune excommunication, je ne peux pas m’en étonner outremesure, car,àmaintes reprises,il m’arépétéqu’il était très attaché àl’Église catholique.Rappelez-vous que Calvin alongtemps hésitéàse séparer de Rome parce que la majestédel’Église luienimposait.” 74 1ComparativeReligion and/asModernist Theology der,then,what additional informationLoisy gave that made him changehis mind. The Mémoires mayhelp us to ascertain the content of Loisy’soriginal letter to Vernes. Loisy here explainedthat his submission to the Church had everything to do with his deterioratinghealthatthat time.²³² But the second factor,Loisy retrospectively admittedin1931, was the earlier failuretoobtain Sabatier’s chair in 1901. Not submitting to the Church, he knew,meant being excommuni- cated. Andthis excommunication could have urgedthe École pratique to offer him the permanent position which he believed he should have rightfullyob- tained years ago.²³³ It is quite reasonable to surmise that Loisy didn’tmention this second—and probablymost important—reason in his letter to Vernes. In that case, Verneslikelywouldn’thavewithdrawnhis accusation so easily. De- spite the fact thatLoisy’sscientific views bore amuch closer similarityto those of the Liberal-Protestant scholars of the École pratique,itseems that his grudge against this institution prevailed over his resentment towardaprofound- ly anti-scientific Catholic Church. This attitude was going to changedrasticallyin 1908.

 Loisy, Mémoires,II, 347: “il m’apparut,le27[February,the daybeforehewrote his letter of submission, my comment], commedans un éclair,que, l’excommunication intervenant,ma santénemepermettrait pas de continuer,aumilieu du bruit qui ne manquerait pas d’en résult- er,mes travaux et mon enseignement.”  Loisy, Mémoires,II, 348.