The idea that Christianity is an “Aryan” religion rather than a “Semitic” one is usually associated with the wilder fringes of 1930s Nazi theology. But the idea goes back further than that. It was found in Victorian England.

Below is a report of an address which the Rev. Dunbar I. Heath gave to the Anthropological Society of London in 1866. Heath was a Anglican clergyman and an eccentric amateur scholar who by this time had been removed from his ecclesiastical post for heresy. It appears from his talk that he had wandered a long way from the Christian orthodoxy of the time; but he was quite closely in tune with contemporary racial theories.

Heath was engaged in a hopeless attempt to divorce “Aryan” Christianity from Judaism. His views were openly antisemitic and racist: he spoke of the “true Aryan spirit”, which he claimed was libertarian and at odds with the authoritarian character of “Semitism”. At times, he lapsed into the outright bizarre: for example, in his argument that the Book of Daniel in the Bible is “anti-Semite literature”, and in his claim that Jews could not have come up with the doctrine of the Trinity.

The report of the address is taken from The Globe, 5-6 December 1866.

On the Great Race Elements in Christianity

The principal divisions of his argument were the area in which Christianity has maintained itself in existence; the agents by whose activity it was originally propagated; the principles, moral, social, and intellectual, which it has asserted; and the imagery in which it has clothed and ornamented itself. The dominant idea of the paper was that the religion called Christianity, though commonly “considered as essentially Semite, is, in fact, hardly Semite at all”, the argument being that “if the English, French, Greeks, Latins, Russians, &c., have really taken this religion from the Semites, there is none of it left for the original possessors.” The first proposition which he attempted to prove was “that the area now actually covered by Christianity is within that of Aryan.” In maintaining this position, however, “a few outsiders, such as the Copts were excepted, a small outlying non-Aryan people embracing and retaining a sort of Christianity”. Explaining this, it was remarked that the Copts, just outside the Aryan area, became Christians, because the Christians just in those parts were not in accordance with Aryanism. The apparent exception is, that the Copts, having no preceding Aryan principles, yet received the Christian religion; and the explanation is, that the Christianity in vogue just at that part of the world, at that time, was not the Aryan Christianity which the rest of the Christians have consented permanently to receive, and under which they have flourished; while the Copts meanwhile have dwindled down to a mere handful of individuals.

Conversions in Paraguay, the South Sea Islands, China, India, and elsewhere, may have more or less of vitality in them; but when an anthropologist talks of a nation accepting Christianity, he means to contemplate a permanent reception not propped up by the influence of foreign superior civilised missionaries. Among Aryans and their dependants, as, for instance, among the northern coast of Africa, Christianity maintained itself for even hundreds of years; but, the area of those parts being now no longer Aryan, the religion is no longer Christian. Armenia, on the other hand, and Georgia, being Aryan, are Christian. Hungary, it may be said, and the Basque provinces, with the Finns and Lapland, are not Aryan; but, in the first place, these small outlying tribes would weigh but little against the vast mass of Christian Aryans establishing the rule. Mr. Heath considered Europe was once inhabited by such races, kindred in blood, and therefore in principles; and that those who happened to learn their language from Moravian teachers, are not therefore necessarily alien in race or principle from those who accepted the Aryan language, modified by Grimm’s law in different localities. On these and other grounds Mr. Heath considered the area of Aryanism and Christianity as coincident.

The next topic was the agency by which the religion was originally propagated. SS. Peter, James, Paul, and John were selected as the four principal propagators of early Christianity. If it were admitted that Peter, James, and John were Levites, it might appear that three-fourths of Christianity was conceded to the domain of Semitism, but such inference would be fallacious, for whether these three Semites laboured among their fellow-Semites or among Aryans, whether their churches in Judea, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Thyatira, Pergamos, and so on, were Semitic or not, they had geographically and nationally vanished. The Semitic Churches took no lasting root among their compatriots; there are now no Semitic Churches in existence worth speaking of, and the real deduction is that the Semitic principles of the propagators have not determined those of the religion itself.

Mr. Heath hoped to show that Aryan principles were widely spread among the Hellenistic Jews at the time of the origin of the substantially Aryan religion called by the Aryan name Christianity. Semitism and Aryanism each had a chance, and the failure of these Semite apostles to originate a Semitic Church is a proof, in fact, that Christianity never was Semitic. St. Paul was Hebrew by birth, but the large-minded gentleman of Tarsus would, in his surrounding circumstances, differ as much from the small-minded fisherman of Galilee, as a modern Rothschild from an ancient Essene or Ebionite. St. Paul did found certain Aryan Churches, which have maintained themselves nationally and geographically till this day. If, then, the principles of St. Paul were substantially Semitic, we must admit the general opinion to be correct, that the Aryan people, at a definite period of their development, accepted from strangers a substantially Semitic religion. But if, on the other hand, St. Paul’s principles were substantially Aryan, his nationality was immaterial. The consideration which induced Mr. Heath to found this part of his argument upon the work and character of the apostles instead of the Founder of Christianity, he stated as follows: – “The excellence of the character of the Founder was its universality. In it there is said to be no preponderance of any of the partial elements of male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or freeman. In morals such a view of character corresponds, indeed, to pantheism in physics. It recognises the good in the character of all races and both sexes, as pantheism recognises the orderly in all nature. Such a view is no doubt essentially Aryan; but what I am concerned with here, is to point out that, in the face of it, I may not attribute national deep-seated characteristics to one in whom his Aryan followers are agreed to recognise none.” Treating of the greater principles which are agglutinated under the name of Christianity, Mr. Heath showed that this religion originated, in a great degree at least, in a personal sympathy with Jesus Christ.

Speaking of Christianity, he said – What, then, was the simple preaching which so mightily moved mankind? Undeniably, it was the story of one who did nothing but good works, and said nothing but the utterance of a good spirit, but who incurred by such speech and action the wrath of the constituted authorities. By them he was, in their usual course of law, condemned, and to all outward appearance, conquered; but returning victorious from death, he re-asserts his own superiority, re-assures his followers, and secures the ultimate triumph of individuals over societies, and consciences over laws. All Aryan mythologies delight in depicting the descent of God upon earth to combat evil. The true Aryan spirit considers law to be an evil, and supports the right of conscience, not only as the Jew did, against the heathen foreigner, but, as no true Semite would do, against his own Government and his own priest. By Semites, says Mr. Heath, we mean the Arab, Assyrian, and Jewish races, with their offshoots; and I am not aware that in any legend, tradition, or sacred book of any of these races, there is any trace of the conception a deity appearing on the earth to combat moral evil, succumbing to it for while, and finally triumphing. The God of the Hebrew Abraham, the God of the Hebrew six days’ creation, the God of the Semitic Job, the God of the Satan of the Book of Chronicles, is clearly not such a god. Nor am I aware that there was ever any conception at all among the Jews, before the days of the Alexandrian or Greek philosophy, of God incarnate in man, in animals, or in nature. It is admitted that at the time of the origin of Christianity large Semite and Aryan populations were in existence, each of them highly civilized, each of them so circumstanced as to be ready as an audience to hear, to receive, or to reject the new religion. Had the religion been a Semitic one, both its geographical origin and the nationality of its earliest preachers would have favoured its reception by that race. The historical success of Christianity, thinks Mr. Heath, was undoubtedly due to the historical sympathy with Christ, and the sympathy with Christ was an Aryan sympathy with the defendant. It is so still, he remarks. Each poor battered combatant in the struggle for existence considers the world to be banded against him. The Aryans and Semites are doubly opposed to each other, and in each respect Christianity is Aryan. The Aryan appreciates order in the physical world, and individuality in the moral and social world of mankind, but the Semite recognizes interference or disorder in the physical world, and authority or constituted order, as he calls it, in the moral world. Where in the whole range of Jewish history, previous to their contact with Aryans, do we find the slightest appreciation of the moral contest of individuals against evil? Begin with Abraham, nothing of the kind. Family happiness, emigration, prosperity, great expectation, polygamy, willingness to take his son’s life, unwillingness to protect his wife’s honour — such is Semitism. Compare it with the individualism of St. Paul, the preacher of the new religion, who said, “though an angel from heaven preach different from me, let him be accursed.” To suppose that a true Jew could have been willing to curse an angel from heaven, would be to suppose that he disavowed the theocracy or just principle on which his national life was based. Christianity, in its origin, was a mighty strengthening of myriads of suffering individuals in their struggles against forces and authorities around them and within them. Semitism decapitates or strikes down rulers physically, but substitutes a successor, and knows of no moral rebellion against the principle of power. The Aryan, incredible as it may seem to some even now, can imagine, and does really more or less strive after a world without government. The reason he can do so is, doubtless, that from early times he has been a monogamist, and that he has, therefore, seen with his own eyes millions of families who exist amicably in faith without law and without government. The race which from early days has been polygamist requires power and law for the purposes of order. Many theories might be invented to explain the apparently surprising fact that the Aryans, 1,800 years ago, accepted a Semitic religion, but up to the present day the world can hardly be said to have studied anthropology, and it has, therefore, not seen how surprising, how unparalleled, and how naturally impossible such a racial phenomenon would have been, had it in reality occurred.

That there are certain precepts and principles of Semitic aspect, written down in the sacred book of Christianity for the acceptance of Christians may not be denied, but if the Aryans have passed them all by with merely nominal recognition, and have built up systems of society on principles opposed to them, it follows simply that the Semitic teachers, whether we call them Peter, James, and Matthew, or whether we mean the inspirer of Peter, James, and Matthew, were respectfully listened to, and their precepts recorded in documents, but it does not follow that the Aryans received their Christianity from Semites.

Aryan precepts in the sacred books are appreciated and followed, while Semitic precepts are read out in public on Sundays, but leave not the shadow of a trace of any influence on public week-day action. The explanation usually given for this phenomenon is that the human heart is evil, and refuses to accept these essentially good precepts. But the anthropologist finds that the Semitic heart does not accept them, and for that very reason incurs the contempt of the Aryans, who deny practically that the precepts are really good ones.

The same choice which Christians have had between Semitic and Aryan precepts they have also had between Semitic and Aryan doctrines of the most fundamental character, and the result has been equally characteristic.

That the Semite conception of the Deity, for instance, is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, is self-evident, and that the Septuagint or Greek conception, where it differs from the Hebrew, must differ by being Aryanised, is no less so. Now Christians have unanimously and completely rejected the Hebrew and accepted the Septuagint conception. They reject the Semitic Hebrew teaching that God is a Being capable of being seen by the human eye, and rightly or wrongly, they accept the Aryan view, that he is an invisible incomprehensible source of spirit pervading humanity. The fundamental difference here is enormous, but the anthropological fact is undoubted. When even a Semite preacher of even the most Semitic aspect of nascent Christianity had occasion in his missionary operations to quote the Scriptures, he was obliged, whether he knew it or not, to diffuse a considerable amount of Aryanism, for the Septuagint is well known to have been in those days the only people’s edition of the Bible. Now with the Septuagint went a large body of anti-Semite literature, such as the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Daniel, and in this latter Aryan book we have the great source of all the ideas, the imagery, and the phraseology of what in Europe now at the present day is called Christianity. It is admitted on all hands that the Book of Daniel never was considered by Jews as part of the canonical Scriptures, and it is therefore a contradiction in terms to suppose that Christianity could have put Daniel into the Bible, and also could have been a Semitic religion. To escape from the glaring consequences of the fact that Daniel was not recognised by the Jews, and that he was, on the contrary, the Prime Minister of the great Aryan propagandist, Darius Hystaspes, men have invented an extra Darius, for whom, however, the chronology of those days can find no place. There is the same close connection in imaginary and essential doctrine between Daniel, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Book of Enoch, and the New Testament on one side, with the Zend Avesta on the other, as there is historically between Daniel and the mighty Aryan who said, “I make a decree that in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end.” Taking it as granted that the Book of Enoch was written after Daniel, and before Christianity, Mr. Heath adduced the following passage in support of his theory that all the most peculiar imagery of the New Testament was derived therefrom. It occurs in chapter 48:

In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness which never failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of them all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy. In that hour was this Son of Man invoked before the Lord of Spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of Days. Before the son and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of Spirits. A support he shall be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling, and he shall be the light of nations. He shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him, and sing praises to the name of the Lord of Spirits.

The advocate of the common view that Christianity is a Semitic religion, accepted by the Aryans from the hand of the Semites, must explain this and scores of similar passages in a book quoted by St. Jude himself. The ideas here are those of Righteousness, Wisdom, Son of Man, Lord of Spirits, Light of Nations. They connect us with the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Daniel, and the Zend Avesta. Yet they are the very inmost ideas of Christianity. How is this? Simply because the great majority of the earliest preachers of Christianity were Hellenists. This fact is historically known, and were it not so, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity among Christians would itself be sufficient to show the great weight of the Aryan element in those days, for surely no conceivable doctrine could be picked out more alien to every instinct of the Semites.

The conclusion to which Mr. Heath brought his argument was as follows: “Christianity, then, being the religion of one who was condemned by society, who considered society to be wrong and himself to be right, is a religion acceptable to Aryans. Christianity, being a religion recognising that the principle of faith or mutual trust is far preferable to the dead hard power of law for the purpose of establishing justice or order in the human race, is a religion acceptable to Aryans. Christianity, recognising care, labour, anxiety, industry, and forethought, as necessary in a contest which it recognises as going on between good and evil, is a religion acceptable to Aryans. Christianity, being the religion of the Book of Daniel more than of all the rest of the Old Testament put together, which Book of Daniel never was part of the Hebrew Bible, is a religion derived principally from Aryan sources. And, finally, Christianity being professed by Aryans now, and not being professed by Gentiles now, and having at its origin been preached and propagated in Greek, and its records having been written in Greece, is in a fair and full sense of the word a truly Aryan religion.”