|
The
familiar passages of the early chapters of the book of Genesis
tell us that God not only created the earth and all it contains,
but that He also revealed Himself to man and communicated directly
with him. Clearly then, the Bible teaches that from his very beginning,
mankind was aware of the existence of one God. Thus, if the biblical
account is to be accepted, the first man was a monotheist. But,
can this be reconciled with what modern science teaches us about
the development and evolution of man and his institutions? Is
it conceivable that the primitive mind could have grasped such
a sophisticated theological concept as monotheism? The answer
to these questions will involve the reader in an examination of
the intriguing history of scholarship in the area of the origin
of religion and a fascinating glimpse of the religious beliefs
of certain surviving primitive cultures, aptly referred to as
"living fossils:"
It
seems beyond doubt that primitive man had religious beliefs. For
instance, Neanderthal man, who lived 50,000 years ago, is known
to have buried his dead with ceremonies that clearly suggest a
belief in a life after death. For example, in a cave in Northern
Iraq, a person of this period was found buried under a pile of
rocks resting on a bed of many flowers.1
A pre-historic custom of dusting corpses with red ocher (a mixture
of clay and iron oxide) is found throughout the prehistoric world.
It is thought that the red pigment was a ritual substitute for
blood, hence a symbol of life.2
Belief in survival after death would seem to be confirmed a fortiori
by burial, since nothing else could explain the effort involved
instead of simply abandoning the corpse.
Since
primitive man did not have a written language, we have no hope
of finding written evidence of the nature of his religious beliefs.
While certain of his artifacts may have religious significance,
they tell us little. As documents, they are "opaque."3
Nor will we ever know if primitive man worshiped God with altars
of earth or uncut stones since these would have long since become
non identifiable parts of the landscape.
Thus,
we encounter the fact that we do not and probably never will have
direct evidence of the religious beliefs of primitive man. This
does not mean, however, that we must despair of finding an answer
to our question. The following discussion will show that there
is a source of compelling circumstantial evidence in the form
of the religious beliefs of certain primitive tribes whose lives
and circumstances closely approximate those that must have characterized
primitive man.
In
investigating the accuracy of the biblical account we must first
face the question of whether or not primitive man's mental faculties
were sufficient to permit him to grasp such a concept as one Creator
God. Unless we can answer that question in the affirmative, there
is no reason to proceed further. Again, it is interesting to note
what the Bible has to say on this point. In Genesis 1:26, we are
told that man was created in God's image, according to his likeness.
Certainly this must have included a share, however small in comparison,
of the Creator's boundless intelligence. In Genesis 2:19, man
is shown exercising his intellectual powers in recognizing the
special attributes of the various species of animals and birds
and using language to give names to them. Clearly, the Bible tells
us that the first man was a fully rational, creative and communicative
being.
We
know from the archaeological remains of early man that his tools
and artifacts were crude and that his living conditions were harsh.
Some have deduced from this that his mental functioning was also
of a low order. The pervasive teaching of Darwinian evolutionism
that tells us that man descended from an animal has heavily reinforced
this. Thus, many would believe that primitive man must have had
a mind something akin to that of an animal. Indeed theories of
a "primitive mentality" have been constructed which
picture primitive man engaging in ape like chatter and living
in fear of the dark unknown. Lucian Levy Bruhl, a well known
French sociologist, writing in the 1920s and 1930s claimed that
the primitive mind was "pre logical", i.e., unable
to reason from premise to conclusion and without any concept of
cause and effect.4
In
recent years, however, such theories about the cognitive powers
of primitive man have been totally rejected by most respected
anthropologists, ethnologists, and sociologists.5
Levy Bruhl himself rejected his own hypothesis in the last
years of his life.6
Today, all respected authorities view such theories as ethnocentricity,
a polite scholarly term for cultural bigotry.7
It is now generally agreed that, biologically speaking, primitive
man's mental equipment was fully human.8
It has been established that all of the earth's surviving primitive
peoples speak a definite language and while there are differences
in their intellectual development, their latent potential intelligence
is essentially the same as ours.9
Tools,
fire and evidence of teamwork in hunting are found with the remains
of earliest man.10
Teamwork presumes the existence of language and the manufacture
of tools could not occur without rational thought and the understanding
of cause and effect. It has recently been discovered that stone-age
man had a system of symbolic notation based on observation of
the moon's phases which was used to fix seasonal ceremonies in
advance and which remained in force for over 25,000 years. Such
may have been the precursor of writing, arithmetic, and calendars.11
Thus,
at the earliest point at which he can be identified, man's work
clearly bears the stamp of his mind. Indeed, it has been argued
that taking all factors into consideration, primitive man should
be placed above present day primitive races since he was an inventor
and a pioneer whereas they have remained static throughout the
millennia.12
Modern
scholarship, therefore, agrees fully with the biblical account
of primitive man's mental powers. Having found no reason to doubt
the first man's mental ability to form religious beliefs, we can
proceed to examine the question of whether or not the biblical
account of original monotheism squares with what man has been
able to determine about the religious beliefs of his earliest
ancestors.
The
question of the origin of religion has occupied the attention
of thinking men for centuries. The Greeks and the Romans both
conducted comparative studies of religion. Plato and Aristotle
attacked the myths of Greek religion, both arguing that a governing
intelligence was at the beginning of all things and that a process
of degeneration must have occurred assuming that religion was
formerly higher and purer.13
For
the purpose of the present inquiry, however, we will limit our
analysis to the men and the theories that have played an important
role in the current understanding of this subject. With this goal
in mind, we must focus first on the mid nineteenth century,
a period of social and intellectual upheaval which spawned discoveries
and schools of thought which have had a profound impact on our
own day which in some instances are still unfolding. During the
mid 1850s, the vogue in philosophy was positivism that was
in essence a materialistic view of nature and society.14
The leading proponent of this philosophy was Auguste Comte, a
Frenchman who also, rather coincidentally, advanced a theory of
the origin of religion which he attributed to fetishism, or primitive
man's belief in the magical powers of charms, amulets or other
inanimate objects.15
In doing so, Comte anticipated by several decades the theories
that were later expounded by evolutionist sociologists and ethnologists.
In
1859, at the height of this philosophical movement, Charles Darwin
published his work, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection.
Although Darwin's theories applied only to the field of biology,
they were soon given general application to the development of
all of man's institutions, including religion. Darwin's theories
presented the materialist philosophers with an appealing mechanistic
theory of nature rendering theological and teleological explanations
obsolete.
At
about this time, significant archaeological discoveries were made
in France that revealed the existence of prehistoric man.16
During the entire century, there were numerous voyages of discovery
and exploration that resulted in an ever increasing body
of knowledge and literature about the primitive races which inhabited
the farthest reaches of the globe.17
With
all of these factors converging, it was only a matter of time
before an eminent scholar in an appropriate field, laboring under
the influence of new forms of thought, would use these new factual
resources to formulate a comprehensive theory of the origin of
religion. Moreover, this occurred in 1871 when Edward Burnett
Tylor, England's first professor of anthropology, published his
work entitled Primitive Cultures. In this book, Tylor expounded
the theory that the origin of all religion was "animism"
which he defined as the belief in spiritual beings. According
to Tylor, the belief in spiritual beings began with early man's
attempt to explain basic bodily and mental conditions such as
sleeping, waking, trance or other unconscious states, dreams,
illness and death. He theorized that primitive man pondered on
these things and developed the idea of a soul or spirit separate
from the body which was then extended to animals, plants, inanimate
objects, heavenly bodies and deceased ancestors. It was then only
a matter of time before primitive man began to worship these various
spirit inhabited things which then became deities of various
kind. Later, after hierarchies appeared in society, man projected
a hierarchy of deities, some gods having more authority than others.
When the hierarchical nature of society included kings who rule
over all men, the concept of a supreme god was evolved and ultimately
through a process similar to Darwinian evolution the concept of
monotheism or one God was born.18
Tylor's
theory gained immediate acceptance in the intellectual community,
and for at least the next 30 years, it was regarded as the classical
theory of the origin of religion.19
While Tylor's theory reigned supreme, it also stimulated similar
thinking on the part of other scholars who adopted his evolutionary
premise, but suggested different phenomena as the true point of
beginning. Herbert Spencer received considerable attention with
his theory of original "manism," the worship of ancestors
or ghosts.20
VV. Robertson Smith held that totemism, the worship of animals
and plants, was the true beginning of man's religious beliefs.21
J. G. Frazer and others argued instead that a belief in magic,
which arose out of primitive man's awe and wonder in the face
of inexplicable natural phenomena, was the real beginning.22
These later theories were referred to as "pre--animistic,"
inasmuch as their authors propounded a beginning earlier than
the animistic beliefs that formed the basis of Tylor's Theory.
Otherwise, they were completely consistent in rejecting the possibility
of original monotheism and advancing as established fact that
the earliest stages of religion were crude and illogical, based
upon fear and superstition, and that the higher forms of religion
were the result of thousands of years of unilineal evolution.
As
the twentieth century began, these evolutionary theories of the
origin of religion were substantially reinforced by the writings
of two powerful figures, Emile Durkheim, the founder of modern
sociology and Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychology.23
Freud
used his new theory of the unconscious mind to reaffirm the theory
of totemism as the original religious belief. Freud apparently,
although incorrectly, believed that blood sacrifice of the totem
animal was common to all totemic cultures. Freud also believed,
again erroneously, that the family structure of primitive man
consisted of a dominant male surrounded by a number of females
and children and that the dominant male would drive off the younger
males when they became old enough to evoke his jealousy. Freud
believed that the expelled sons of the first primal horde banded
together to kill their father and steal the females. Since the
totemic animal represented the clan, the sacrifice represented
the recreation of the original patricide. Thus, man's religion
was a manifestation of one of Freud's favorite psychological constructions,
the Oedipus Complex. This theory was carried to the extent of
explaining the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the Christian religion.
Incredible as it may seem, Freud's theories are still widely accepted
popularly among Freudian psychologists.24
In
the case of Durkheim, he, too, favored totemism as the original
religion but for a much different reason. Studying the Australian
Aborigines, he noted that the totem symbolized the quality of
sacredness and the clan at the same time. Durkheim concluded that
sacredness (or "God") and the social group were the
same, and that totemism was therefore the original religion.25
The
theories of Tylor, Frazer, Freud, Durkheim and the others had
a vast influence not only on the scholarly level, but also at
the popular level. Man's religious tendencies were reduced to
a scientific explanation that destroyed their value and meaning.
The concept of God was nothing more than the end result of the
evolution of primitive man's fear and superstition. In other words,
it could be said with scientific accuracy that God did not create
man but that man created God.
This
may well be where the history of the study of the origin of religion
would end were it not for the efforts of one man, Wilhelm Schmidt
(1868-1954), professor of ethnology, and the science of languages
in the University of Vienna. Father Schmidt (he was a Catholic
priest), devoted his life to attacking and destroying these intellectual
fortresses constructed by the evolutionists. In the process, he
produced a monumental work entitled Urssrunn Der Gottesidee
(The Origin of the Concept of God). Completed one year after
his death in 1955, it consisted of 13 volumes numbering more than
11,000 pages.
The
impact of Schmidt's work can be seen in the fact that by the middle
of the twentieth century, the evolutionary theories of Tylor,
Spencer, Freud, et al., had been totally rejected by most reputable
scholars. Schmidt accomplished this by showing beyond any doubt
that the evolutionary theories were totally contradicted by historical
facts.
The
foundation of Schmidt's work was the formulation of an historic
method for the study of man's social institutions. The theories
of the evolutionists had been based upon the extensive data collected
regarding the nature of the religious practices and beliefs of
various primitive peoples and by then formulating mental constructions
as to how such beliefs and practices might have originated and
evolved. No effort was made to determine whether or not these
speculations coincided with what might be discovered about the
actual sequence of events. In all fairness, however, it would
have been difficult for them to do so because no method yet existed
for analyzing the facts on a historical basis.
Building
upon the work of certain historians, notably F. Ratzel, L. Frobenius,
F. Grabner, Schmidt expanded and refined the concept of culture circles
or spheres (Kulturkreise) which permitted the historical
stratification of cultures and made it possible to identify which
elements are archaic or primitive and which are more recent.26
By using this method, it was possible to destroy the foundations
of the evolutionary theories by showing that they contradicted
historical facts. For instance, Schmidt was able to prove that
primitive man was monogamous, thus destroying Freud's theory that
was based upon the existence of a promiscuous primal human herd.
Indeed, the verdict of modern ethnology is that no such condition
ever existed at all in any era of man's development.27
Schmidt's
effort to prove that man's original religious belief was monotheism
was inspired by an Englishman, Andrew Lang, who was, ironically,
one of Tylor's leading pupils and initially one of his most vigorous
advocates.28
Lang, like Tylor, believed that monotheism had everywhere developed
out of a lower animistic form of worship. However, Lang began
to doubt the validity of this theory when he learned of the discovery
of the existence of a belief in a Supreme Being among the primitive
tribes of Southeast Australia. Upon studying these people and
similar primitive tribes, he found clear evidence of the existence
of a belief in a Supreme Being, usually existing alongside other
mythical elements. He found that they did not regard the high
god of these tribes as a spirit but as a being that really exists,
thus the belief could not be explained on the basis of animism.
Lang, therefore, was the first modern scholar to suggest the existence
of primitive monotheism.29
The
intellectual community greeted Lang's theories with resounding
silence.30
Schmidt, however, took up Lang's basic premise and, applying the
historical method described above, dedicated his life to the study
of the role of high gods among primitive peoples. In the process,
he destroyed for all time the evolutionary concept of the origin
of religion.
Schmidt's
studies placed great emphasis on the religions of the world's
surviving primitive cultures. These are peoples living in isolated
regions where they are the only inhabitants, with no traces of
an earlier population and inaccessible to later and more advanced
peoples. These peoples are still in the initial stage of economic
development. They are food gatherers who do not breed cattle or
till the soil, who live in primitive housing, wear primitive clothing
and use primitive tools and weapons, with no evidence that they
ever achieved a higher or richer state of affairs and with no
evidence of influence by higher cultures. Such peoples are the
most ancient races of mankind and in them are found the oldest
forms of religion we can hope to find. Since these religions are,
comparatively speaking, nearest to the origin then they should
retain more of its attributes than any other. Since these peoples
are all preliterate, it is obvious that their cultures are older
than any of those which have produced a written record of its
religion such as the Egyptian or Babylonian or for that matter,
the Hebrew. Such peoples, about whom we have sufficient data,
include the Asiatic and African pygmies, some of the oldest tribes
of Australia, the Negrillo and Bushmen tribes in Africa, various
tribes of Northern Asia, the Eskimo, various North American Indians
and the tribes of Tierro del Fuego.31
These
primitive peoples have been studied extensively by many investigators
over a lengthy period of time and there is an extensive body of
literature concerning them. Schmidt's work was to document and
analyze all that is known about these peoples in order to determine
the nature of their religious beliefs and to put them into the
proper chronological framework of the development of human cultures.
This work succeeded in identifying which peoples have the most
ancient cultures, and what their religious beliefs consisted of.
Schmidt
showed that a belief in a Supreme Being is found among all of
the people of the most primitive culture. He also found that the
geographical distribution of these most ancient peoples completely
encircles the earth. It is reasonable to assume that their common
belief in a Supreme Being must have been deeply and strongly rooted
in the even more ancient culture they shared before the individual
groups separated from one another.32
The
details of the nature, attributes and worship of these primitive
high gods are fascinating and illuminating. The most basic feature
of the primitive monotheism identified by Schmidt is the belief
in one Supreme Being, the recognition of dependence on Him and
the obligation to obey Him. While some primitive tribes believe
in other exalted beings, they are generally described as being
created by Him and deriving their power from Him and often act
under His direction. Thus, even these peoples retain their monotheism
although in somewhat weaker form.33
Most
of the oldest groups do not associate a wife or children with
the Supreme Being and to some of them the question of whether
He would have a wife or child is regarded as offensive and ridiculous.
The worship of animals, ghosts, or ancestors is unknown among
these peoples, except in groups subjected to later influence.34
Heaven
or the sky is the dwelling place of the Supreme Being, although
it is often said that in earlier times He was on earth among men
when He taught them all of their religious, moral, social and
economic tasks. This was the happiest time on earth; however,
He went away on account of some sin they committed and now lives
in the sky. As to His form, it is generally said that they do
not know what it is or that He cannot be seen, only felt. Often,
however, He is described as having a human form, usually that
of an old and venerable man. Light, splendor and fire are often
associated with Him. However, nowhere in primitive culture is
a picture or any other representation ever made of Him, nor is
He ever represented in the sacred dances by a human being.35
His
name is not spoken without need and is always said with reverence.
His most frequent name is "Father." Other names include
"He who is above," "Creator," "The most
ancient," "The Giver," "Immortal," and
"Eternal."36
Almost
all peoples assign to Him some basis of eternity. It is commonly
said that He existed before all other beings and that He will
never die. His nature is eminently moral and He watches over all
that men do.37
"He is everywhere and knows everything." All good things
come from Him.38
He is sympathetic and ready to help and invites men to pray to
Him.39
His power is unbounded. He can go everywhere and do anything.40
His role as Creator is recognized by most and not specifically
denied by any. The Winnebago tribe of North American Indians and
one pygmy tribe of the Congo have attributed to their Supreme
Being the highest form of creativity, namely: creation ex nihilo.41
The
Supreme Being Himself is always morally good, indeed He is the
creator and source of morality. His commands include care for
human life, observance of sexual morality, fair dealing, and readiness
to give help to those in need.42
In many races, these commands are impressed on the youth at initiation
rites. Generally speaking, these primitive peoples obey these
positive and negative commandments and live a moral life by any
objective standard. That they do obey and submit is all the more
remarkable in view of the fact that they are fiercely independent
in their social relationships.43
Forms
of personal worship include prayer, sacrifice, and ritual ceremonies.
Purely mental prayer, often with intense concentration of thought,
has been observed in a number of groups. Verbal prayer may he
spontaneous and informal or ritual and ceremonial. Prayers may
consist of either prayers of petition or prayers of thanksgiving.
Out of all the primitive tribes, only one has been found in which
prayer has not been documented. Nevertheless, even here there
are certain mysterious ceremonies, the significance of which have
not been discovered.44
The
only form of sacrifice in any primitive culture is the practice
of offering first fruits: the offering of a small portion of the
fruits of the hunt or of plant gathering or of a meal before it
is eaten. This is done in recognition that the food belongs to
and is the gift of the Supreme Being.45
One pygmy tribe, the Semang of Malacca, practices a form of sacrifice
for atonement of sin that appears unique. When they hear thunder,
which is the voice of their Supreme Being, Kari, they make a small
cut in the skin below the knee, mix the blood in a cup of water
and fling it into the sky, asking for forgiveness of their sins
and confessing them in detail.46
The
foregoing is a summary of findings among various primitive cultures
that have been made and documented by many investigators over
a considerable period of time. In some, this or that form of worship
is unknown, but in all, it exists in some form.47
What
conclusions can be drawn from this work which will help us answer
the question of the nature of the first man's religion? Schmidt,
in the preface to The Origin and Growth of Religion, states
that his intention has been only to identify the religions of
those people who are found to be ethnologically the oldest. He
concedes that their religion is not necessarily the primordial
inasmuch as these people do not share a wholly uniform culture.
He does not offer an opinion on the nature of man's original religion
but leaves that question to the fields of philosophy and theology.48
In the final section of this book, however, he points out that
one of the important values of identifying the religions of the
earth's most ancient peoples is the ability to project the essential
elements of their religion even further back in time. Schmidt's
position is that since these people are closest to the origin
"these religions are our proper base for attacking the problem
of the origin of religion . . . "49
In
discussing the possible origins of the belief in a Supreme Being
that he found among all of the oldest races, Schmidt observes
that only such a God fulfills the total sum of human needs. Among
these, Schmidt includes man's need to find a rational cause for
his own existence and that of the world around him, his social
needs, moral needs, and emotional needs. Schmidt suggests that
the belief in such a God furnished primitive man with the ability
and the power to struggle against his environment, and in doing
so, seems to suggest that the belief in a Supreme Being may have
been the deciding factor in the survival of the human race. Schmidt
points out that primitive man had no model in his experience from
which to formulate a God who was eternal and transcendent. He
then states that the question of the origin of this God cannot
yet be answered. It seems reasonable to ask whether it is likely
that a natural solution to that question will ever be found. If
indeed there was nothing in original man's experience of nature
from which all of the attributes of such a God could be deduced,
then this would seem to leave the answer in the realm of the supernatural.
In
his book entitled Primitive Revelation, a somewhat earlier
and frankly apologetic work, Schmidt flatly states that divine
revelation is the most logical explanation for the origin of primal
man's belief in a Supreme Being. He supports this with the observation
that these primitive religions themselves attribute their origins
to the Supreme Being and not to any process of searching or inquiry
on the part of man. These peoples believe that God himself taught
them what they believe about Him.50
Finally, Schmidt argues from the psychological standpoint that
the only reasonable explanation for the unity and persistence
of the belief in a Supreme Being throughout the millennia would
be the occurrence of a tremendous and overwhelming experience.
Obviously, the only such experience which would fit the facts
would be the occurrence of direct communication from the God of
Creation Himself." 51Schmidt
concludes the argument thus:
Actually the history
of religion here constructs a new proof for the existence of God:
the oldest religion of mankind cannot be understood in its entirety,
fullness and unique character, unless one assumes the existence
and operation of God who created it created it in that He Himself
personally instructed the men of that age in their beliefs, moral
commandments and acts of worship.52
The
question remains, however, as to how man could forget or abandon
a pure religion. Schmidt describes the process as one of decay,
resulting from the influence of animism, manism and magic. Animism,
which was at first a general mental attitude in which man saw
spirits in all natural objects, began to encroach on the true
religion when man gradually accorded to these spirits exclusive
power, thus elevating them to religious status. The same process
occurred with manism or ancestor worship. Magic and the practice
of sorcery may have been anti religious from the beginning,
seeking access to secret powers of nature even in opposition to
the will of the deity. Or, it could have sprung from religion
itself when the words of prayers and rituals were emptied of their
real meaning and the mere external formula was expected to produce
the results.
Quoting
from the Origin and Growth of Religion:
Thereafter,
as external civilization increased in splendor and wealth, so
religion came to be expressed in forms of ever -increasing magnificence
and opulence. Images of gods and demons multiplied to an extent
that defies all classification. Wealthy temples, shrines, and
groves arose; more priests and servants, more sacrifices and ceremonies
were instituted. Despite the glory and wealth of the outward form,
the inner kernel of religion often disappeared and its essential
strength was weakened. The results of this, both moral and social,
were anything but desirable, leading to extreme degradation and
even to the deification of the immoral and antisocial. The principal
cause of this corruption was that the figure of the Supreme Being
was sinking further and further into the background...
But
all the while, the ancient primitive religion still continued
among the few remainders of the primitive culture, preserved by
fragmentary peoples driven into the most distant regions. Yet
in their condition of stagnation, poverty and insignificance,
even there it must necessarily have lost much of its power and
greatness, so that even among such
peoples it is much too late to find a true image of the
faith of really primitive men. It remains for us, by dint of laborious
research, to put gradually together from many faded fragments
a life like picture of this religion.
NOTES
1
Eerdmans Handbook to The World's Religions (First American
Edition: Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1982), p. 24.
2
Eliade, Mircea. A History of Religious Ideas (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1978) p. 9.
4
Eliade, Mircea. The Quest (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1969) p.16; Schmidt, Wilhelm. (The Origin
and Growth of Religion 1st Ed., New York, N.Y.: Cooper Square
Publishers, Inc.) p. 132; Koppers, Wilhelm, (Primitive Man
and His World Picture, London: Sheed and Ward, Ltd., 1952),
p. 3.
5
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, p. 134 Koppers,Primitive
Man and His World Picture, p. 4.
6
Eliade, The Quest, p. 16.
7
Norbeck, Edward, (Religion In Primitive Society, New York,
N.Y.: Harper & Row, Publisher, Inc.) pp. 8 9.
8
Koppers, Primitive Man and His World Picture, p. 4; Eliade,
The Quest, p. 33.
9
Koppers, Primitive Man and His World Picture, p. 63.
10
Koppers, Primitive Man and His World Picture, p.64.
11
Eliade, A History of Religious ideas, p. 22.
12Kraft,
G., Der Urmensh als Schopfer: Die geistige Welt des Eiszeitmenschen
(Primeval Man's Creative Powers The Mental Outlook
of the Ice Age). Berlin, 1942, as quoted in Koppers,
Primitive Man and His World Picture, pp. 64 65.
13
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, p. 18.
14
Shmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, pp.55, 56.
15
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, pp. 56 58.
16
Eliade, The Quest, p. 40.
17
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, p.56.
19
Ibid, pp. 74 77 and Norbeck, Religion In Primitive Society,
p.17.
20
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, p 74.
24
Eliade, The Quest, p.24.
25
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, p.110-112.
26
Eliade, The Quest, p.15.
27
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, pp. 220 222.
33
Schmidt, Wilhelm, (Primitive Revelation, Binghamton and
New York: Vail Ballou Press, Inc., Copyright 1939, B. Herder
Book Co.) p. 124.
44
Ibid., pp. 141, 142, 143.
48
Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, Author's
Preface, p. 7.
50
Schmidt, Primitive Revelation, pp. 178 181.
Copyright © 2000
James L. Graham
|
