J A N A S S M A N N
The Mosaic Distinction:
Israel, Egypt, and the Invention of Paganism
Draw a distinction. . . . Call it the first distinction.
Call the space in which it is drawn the space severed or cloven by the distinction.'
IT SEEMS AS IF GEORGE Spencer Brown's "first Law of Construction"
does not apply solely to the logical and mathematical construction for which it is meant. It also applies strangely well to the space of cultural constructions and distinctions and to the spaces that are severed or cloven by such distinctions.
T h e distinction with which this essay is concerned is the one between true and false in religion: a distinction that underlies the more specific ones between Jews and Gentiles, Christians and pagans, Muslims and unbelievers. Once this distinc
tion is drawn, there is no end of reentries or subdistinctions. We start with Chris
tians and pagans and end up with Catholics and Protestants, Calvinists and Lu
therans, Socinians and Latitudinarians, and a thousand similar denominations and subdenominations. These cultural or intellectual distinctions construct a uni
verse that is full not only of meaning, identity, and orientation but also of conflict, intolerance, and violence. Therefore, there have always been attempts to over
come the conflict by reexamining the truefalse distinction, albeit at the risk of losing cultural meaning.
Let us call the distinction between true and false in religion the "Mosaic dis
tinction" because tradition ascribes it to Moses. While we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived, since there are no other traces of his earthly existence outside the legendary tradition, we can be sure, on the other hand, that he was not the first to draw the distinction. There was a precursor in the person of the Egyptian king Amenophis IV, who called himself Akhenaten and instituted a monotheistic re
ligion in the fourteenth century B.C.' His religion, however, created no lasting tradition and was forgotten immediately after his death. Moses is a figure of mem
ory, but not of history, whereas Akhenaten is a figure of history, but not of mem
ory. Since memory is all that counts in the sphere of cultural distinctions and constructions, we are justified in speaking not of "Akhenaten's distinction" but of the Mosaic distinction. T h e space severed or cloven by this distinction is the space of Western monotheism. It is the mental and cultural space constructed by this distinction that Europeans have inhabited for nearly two millennia.
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S 56 • Fall 1990 © i nt.K K G E N T S O F T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A
Originalveröffentlichung in: Representations 56, 1996, S. 48-67
T h i s distinction is not as old as religion itself, t h o u g h at first sight it m i g h t seem plausible to say that every religion p r o d u c e s "pagans" j u s t as every civiliza
tion g e n e r a t e s "barbarians." But cultures a n d their constructions of identity not only g e n e r a t e o t h e r n e s s but also develop techniques of translation.3O f course, the "real o t h e r " is always t h e r e beyond myself a n d my constructions of s e l f h o o d a n d otherness. It is the "constructed o t h e r " that is, to a certain d e g r e e , c o m p e n sated by techniques of translation. Translation in this sense is not to be c o n f u s e d with the colonializing a p p r o p r i a t i o n of the "real" other. Rather, it is an a t t e m p t to m a k e m o r e t r a n s p a r e n t the b o r d e r s erected by cultural distinctions.
Ancient polytheisms f u n c t i o n e d as such a technique of translation within the
"ancient world" as an e c u m e n e of interconnected nations.^ T h e polytheistic reli
gions overcame the ethnocentrism of tribal religions by distinguishing several deities by n a m e , shape, a n d function. T h e names, the shapes of the gods, a n d the f o r m s of worship differed. But the functions were strikingly similar, especially in t h e case of cosmic deities: the sun god of o n e religion was easily e q u a t e d to the sun god of a n o t h e r religion, a n d so f o r t h . In Mesopotamia, the practice of trans
lating divine n a m e s goes back to the third millennium. In the second m i l l e n n i u m it was e x t e n d e d to m a n y d i f f e r e n t languages a n d civilizations of the N e a r East.
Plutarch generalizes, in his treatise on Isis a n d Osiris, that t h e r e a r e always com
m o n cosmic p h e n o m e n a b e h i n d the d i f f e r i n g divine names: the sun, t h e m o o n , the heaven, the earth, the sea, a n d so on. Because all people live in t h e s a m e world, they a d o r e the same gods, the lords of this world:
N o r d o w e r e g a r d t h e g o d s as d i f f e r e n t a m o n g d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e s n o r as b a r b a r i a n a n d G r e e k a n d as s o u t h e r n a n d n o r t h e r n . B u t j u s t as t h e s u n , m o o n , h e a v e n , e a r t h a n d s e a a r e c o m m o n t o all, t h o u g h t h e y a r e g i v e n v a r i o u s n a m e s by t h e v a r y i n g p e o p l e s , s o it is w i t h t h e o n e r e a s o n (logos) w h i c h o r d e r s t h e s e t h i n g s a n d t h e o n e p r o v i d e n c e w h i c h h a s c h a r g e o f t h e m , a n d t h e a s s i s t a n t p o w e r s w h i c h ai e a s s i g n e d t o e v e r y t h i n g : t h e y a r e g i v e n d i f f e r e n t h o n o u r s a n d m o d e s o f a d d r e s s a m o n g d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e s a c c o r d i n g t o c u s t o m , a n d t h e y u s e h a l l o w e d s y m b o l s . . . .5
T h e divine n a m e s are translatable because they a r e conventional a n d because t h e r e is always a r e f e r e n t serving as a tertium comparationis. T h e cultures, lan
guages, customs may be d i f f e r e n t : religions always have a c o m m o n g r o u n d . T h e gods were international because they were cosmic, a n d while d i f f e r e n t peoples w o r s h i p e d d i f f e r e n t gods, nobody contested the reality of f o r e i g n gods a n d the legitimacy of f o r e i g n f o r m s of worship. T h e distinction in question did not exist in the world of polytheistic a n d tribal religions.
T h e space "severed o r cloven" by the Mosaic distinction was not simply t h e space of religion in general, t h e n , but that of a very specific kind of religion. We may call this a "counterreligion" because it not only constructed but rejected a n d r e p u d i a t e d everything that went b e f o r e a n d everything outside itself as " p a g a n ism." It n o longer f u n c t i o n e d as a m e a n s of intercultural translation; on t h e con
T h e M o s a i c D i s t i n c t i o n 4 9
trary, it f u n c t i o n e d as a m e a n s of intercultural e s t r a n g e m e n t . W h e r e a s polytheism o r rather, "cosmotheism," r e n d e r e d d i f f e r e n t cultures mutually t r a n s p a r e n t a n d compatible, the new counterreligion blocked intercultural translatability. False gods c a n n o t be translated.
Usually t h e f u n d a m e n t a l distinction between t r u t h a n d falsity assumes t h e f o r m of a " g r a n d narrative" u n d e r l y i n g a n d i n f o r m i n g i n n u m e r a b l e c o n c r e t e tellings a n d retellings of the past. Books 2 t h r o u g h 5 of the P e n t a t e u c h u n f o l d the Mosaic distinction in both a narrative a n d a n o r m a t i v e f o r m . Narratively, the distinction is p r e s e n t e d in the story of Israel's exodus, whereby Egypt c a m e to r e p r e s e n t the rejected, the religiously false, the "pagan." Egypt's most conspicuous property, the worship of images, thus became its greatest sin. Normatively, the distinction is expressed in a code of Law that confirms the n a r r a t i v e by giving the prohibition of "idolatry" first priority. T h e worship of images comes to be re
g a r d e d as the absolute h o r r o r , falsehood, a n d apostasy. Polytheism a n d idolatry, in t u r n , a r e seen as o n e a n d the same f o r m of religious e r r o r : images a r e " o t h e r gods" because the t r u e god is invisible a n d c a n n o t be iconically r e p r e s e n t e d . T h e second c o m m a n d m e n t is hence a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e first:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
T h e E x o d u s story, however, is m o r e t h a n simply a n account of historical events, a n d the Law is m o r e than merely a basis for social o r d e r a n d religious purity. In addition to what they overtly tell a n d establish, they symbolize the Mo
saic distinction. Exodus, the Law, Moses, the whole constellation of Israel a n d Egypt a r e symbolic figures for all kinds of oppositions.1' T h e leading o n e , however, is the distinction between t r u e religion a n d idolatry; in the course of Jewish history both the concept of idolatry a n d the r e p u d i a t i o n of it grew stronger. T h e later t h e texts, t h e m o r e elaborate the scorn a n d abomination they p o u r over the idol
aters. S o m e p o i g n a n t verses in DeuteroIsaiah a n d Ps. 115 d e v e l o p into whole c h a p t e r s in the a p o c r y p h a l Sapientia SalomonLs, long sections in Philo's De decalogo a n d De legibus specialibus, the Mishnaic tractate Avodah zarah, a n d Tertullian's book De idololatria.1
But the h a t r e d was m u t u a l a n d the "idolaters" did not fail to strike back.
R e m a r k a b l y e n o u g h , most of t h e m were Egyptians.8 T h e priest M a n e t h o , f o r e x a m p l e , w h o u n d e r Ptolemy II wrote a history of Egypt, r e p r e s e n t e d Moses as a rebellious Egyptian priest w h o m a d e himself the leader of a colony of lepers.9
W h e r e a s the Jews depicted idolatry as a kind of mental a b e r r a t i o n o r m a d n e s s , t h e Egyptians associated iconoclasm with a very contagious a n d disfiguring epi
demic. T h e l a n g u a g e of illness has been typical of the d e b a t e on t h e Mosaic dis
tinction, f r o m its b e g i n n i n g u p to the days of S i g m u n d F r e u d . M a n e t h o writes that Moses a n d his lepers f o r m e d an alliance with the Hyksos, t h e e n e m i e s of
REPRESENTATIONS
Egypt, and tyrannized Egypt f or thirteen years. All of the images of the gods were destroyed and the sanctuaries were turned into kitchens where the sacred animals were grilled. We are dealing with a story of mutual abomination: the activities of the iconoclasts are rendered with the same horror as those of the idolaters by the other side. Moses' laws are thus reduced to two:
1. Thou shalt not worship any gods nor refrain from eating their sacred animals.
2. Thou shalt not mingle with people outside thine own group.
In Tacitus, the characterization of Jewish monotheism as a counterreligion is already complete. Moses founded a religion opposed to the rites of other people:
the Jews "consider everything that we keep sacred as profane and permit every
thing that for us is taboo" [profana illic omnia quae apud nos sacra, rursum con
cessa apud illos quae nobis incesta]. In their temples they consecrate a statue of a donkey and sacrifice a ram in contumeliam Ammonis, "in order to ridicule the god Amun." For the same reason, they sacrifice a bull because the Egyptians worship Apis. As the inversion of Egyptian tradition, Jewish religion is totally derivative of and dependent on Egypt."'
It is important to realize that we are dealing here with a mutual loathing rooted not in some idiosyncratic aversions between Jews and Egyptians but in the Mosaic distinction that, in its first occurrence, was Akhenaten's distinction. It is true that many arguments of the "idolaters" have lived on in the discourse of anti
Semitism." In this sense, the struggle against the Mosaic distinction had anti
Semitic implications. However, it is also true that many of those (such as John Toland or Gotthold Ephraim Lessing) who in the eighteenth century attacked the distinction f ought for tolerance and equality for the Jews; in this sense, the strug
gle against the Mosaic distinction assumes the character of a struggle against anti
Semitism. T h e most outspoken destroyer of the Mosaic distinction was, after all, a Jew, Sigmund Freud. Moreover, in the debate between iconoclasts and idolaters, the Christian church sided with the Jews and inherited the repudiation of idolatry by continuing to denigrate pagan religion. Attacks, therefore, against the Mosaic distinction concerned the Christian church as well as Judaism and Islam.'2
T h e s e attacks took the form of a redefinition that attempted to relativize or minimize the distinction. "Normative inversion," which explains o n e field as just the inverted reflection of its opposing field, is the earliest of these redefinitions.
Strangely enough, however, the principle of normative inversion is not
only
evoked by "pagan" writers who had their reasons to destroy the distinction. It also recurs about a millennium later in the exact center of the Jewish tradition, as an element of Jewish selfdefinition and selfinterpretation. Starting from this sur
prising reemergence of the principle of normative inversion, the f ollowing para
graphs outline some of the more important redefinitions to which the Mosaic
The Mosaic Distinction
distinction was exposed in the history of E n l i g h t e n m e n t f r o m Moses M a i m o n i d e s to F r e u d .
Normative Inversion
T h e principle of n o r m a t i v e inversion provides the m a i n m e t h o d of legal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for Maimonides in his Guide of the Perplexed.13M a i m o n i d e s did not speak of Egypt. Instead, he invented a c o m m u n i t y called the Sabians. It is m e n t i o n e d twice or t h r e e times in the Koran, but nobody knows exactly to which g r o u p this text r e f e r s . " Maimonides' Sabians a r e an imagined c o m m u n i t y that h e created by applying Manetho's principle of n o r m a t i v e inversion in the opposite direction. If the Law prohibits an activity x, this is because the Sabians practiced x; a n d vice versa, if the Law prescribes an activity y, this is because y was a taboo a m o n g the Sabians.
M a i m o n i d e s — w h o lived in Egypt a n d wrote his book in A r a b i c — h a d excel
lent reasons f o r choosing the Sabians instead of the historically m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e ancient Egyptians in his reconstruction of a historical context for Mosaic Law. It is precisely t h e c o m p l e t e insignificance of the Sabians that serves his p u r p o s e . H e figures t h e m as a once p o w e r f u l c o m m u n i t y that h a d since fallen into almost c o m p l e t e oblivion. H e explains the function of n o r m a t i v e inversion as a kind of
"ars oblivionalis"',13 a withdrawal t h e r a p y for Sabian idolatry, which h e u n d e r s t a n d s as a kind of collective o r epidemic addiction. T h e most efficient way to erase a m e m o r y is to s u p e r i m p o s e a c o u n t e r m e m o r y ; hence, the best way to m a k e p e o p l e f o r g e t an idolatrous rite is to replace it with a n o t h e r rite. T h e Christians followed the s a m e principle w h e n they built their c h u r c h e s on the ruins of p a g a n temples a n d observed their feasts on the dates of p a g a n festivals. For the s a m e reason, Moses (or divine " c u n n i n g a n d wisdom," m a n i f e s t i n g itself t h r o u g h his agency)1 6
h a d to install all kinds of dietary a n d sacrificial prescriptions in o r d e r to occupy the terrain held by t h e Sabians a n d their idolatrous ways, "so that all these rites a n d cults that they practiced for the sake of the idols, they now c a m e to practice in the h o n o r of god."1 7T h e divine strategy was so successful that the Sabians a n d their o n c e mighty c o m m u n i t y fell into complete oblivion.
M a i m o n i d e s was n o historian. H e was interested in the historical circum
stances of the Law only insofar as they elucidated its m e a n i n g , that is, the intention of t h e legislator.1 8H e c o n t e n d s that the original intention of the Law was to de
stroy idolatry a n d d e m o n s t r a t e s this by reconstructing the historical circumstantiae of t h e Sabians. T h e n he generalizes the crime of idolatry to fit metahistorical p r o b l e m s a n d arrives at his wellknown, purely philosophical, a n d ahistorical con
cept of idolatry. For Maimonides, the Law remains e n f o r c e d , despite its historical circumstances, because of the timeless d a n g e r of idolatry.
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S
Translation: Hieroglyphs into Laws
Five h u n d r e d years a f t e r Maimonides, his project of a historical expla
nation of the Law was explicitly taken u p by the Christian scholar w h o o p e n s the second section of o u r story. J o h n S p e n c e r ( 1 6 3 0 9 3 ) was a scholar of H e b r e w a n d , a f t e r 1667, master of C o r p u s Christi College at C a m b r i d g e . In his book o n the Ritual Law, S p e n c e r mentions Maimonides always with the greatest a d m i r a tion.1 9H e fully agrees with Maimonides in seeing the principle a n d overall p u r pose of the Law as the destruction of idolatry, which h e also views as an addiction to be c u r e d by a withdrawal p r o g r a m . H e even applies Maimonides' principle of n o r m a t i v e inversion in a considerable n u m b e r of cases. But he deviates f r o m M a i m o n i d e s in two respects. First, he draws altogether d i f f e r e n t conclusions f r o m this kind of historical explanation, since h e makes his m e t h o d that of historical, not legal, reasoning. For him, not only the circumstances, b u t also t h e intentions o r reasons of the Law are historical a n d belong to the past. M a i m o n i d e s took t h e Law's destruction of idolatry to be a timeless (or metahistorical) task; only the circumstances of its first f o r m u l a t i o n a n d application were historical. For Spencer, t h e reason f o r the Law is historical as well.20 With the cessation of idolatry, t h e Law lost its validity a n d the Mosaic distinction c h a n g e d its character. T h i s is, of course, the Christian idea of progress.
T h e second divergence f r o m Maimonides is m u c h m o r e revolutionary a n d d e p e n d s o n the principle of translation.2 1This p a r a d i g m shift shattered the f o u n dation of the Mosaic distinction between t r u e a n d false in religion. Like M a i m o n ides, S p e n c e r held that God did not inscribe his Law o n a tabula rasa but, rather, that h e carefully overwrote an existing inscription. Unlike Maimonides, however, S p e n c e r takes this original inscription to be Egyptian r a t h e r t h a n Sabian: it is m o r e of a n i n t e n d e d subtext, o r even a kind of "golden g r o u n d , " f o r the Law, t h a n an antitext to be wiped o u t o r covered u p . T h e idea is that G o d intentionally b r o u g h t Israel into Egypt in o r d e r to give His people an Egyptian f o u n d a t i o n , a n d that H e chose Moses as His p r o p h e t because h e was b r o u g h t u p in all t h e wisdom of the Egyptians.2 2Moses "translated" a good deal of Egyptian wisdom into his laws a n d institutions, which can only be explained if r e i n t e g r a t e d into their original context. Translatio ("transfer," "borrowing") r e f e r s not to texts, but to rites a n d customs that are received f r o m Egypt in o r d e r to be p r e s e r v e d as c o n t a i n e r s of original wisdom, r a t h e r than to be s u p p l a n t e d a n d eventually overcome. S p e n c e r subscribed to the conventional theory about hieroglyphic writing based o n H o r apollon's two books on hieroglyphs,2' a n d especially on Athanasius Kircher's "de
cipherments."2 4According to this theory, hieroglyphs were iconic symbols that r e f e r r e d to concepts. T h e y were used exclusively f o r religious p u r p o s e s , such as t r a n s m i t t i n g the "mystic" ideas that were to be kept secret f r o m the c o m m o n people. Similarly, f o r Spencer, a good m a n y of t h e laws, rites, a n d institutions that
The Mosaic Distinction
G o d , by the mediation of Moses, gave to his people, show this hieroglyphic char acter. T h e Law a p p e a r s h e r e as a "veil" (velum), a "cover" (involucrum), o r a "shell"
(cortex) that transmits a t r u t h by hiding it. In this same context, S p e n c e r a d d u c e s o n e of those passages f r o m Clement of Alexandria that b e c o m e crucial to Karl L e o n h a r d Reinhold's a n d Friedrich Schiller's view of Egypt:
In adyto veritatis repositum sermonem revera sacrum, Aegyptii quidem per ea, quae apud ipsos vo- cantur adyta, Hebraei autem per velum significarunt. Occultationem igitur, quod attinet, sunt He- braicis similia Aegyptiorum aenigmata.
[ T h e Egyptians indicated t h e really sacred logos, which they kept in t h e i n n e r m o s t sanc
t u a r y of T r u t h , by what they called Adyta, a n d t h e H e b r e w s by m e a n s of t h e c u r t a i n (in t h e temple). T h e r e f o r e , as f a r as c o n c e a l m e n t is c o n c e r n e d , t h e secrets (aenigmata) of t h e H e b r e w s a n d those of t h e Egyptians a r e very similar to each other.]8 5
T h e s e sentences o p e n the d o o r to a totally d i f f e r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the rela
tionship between Egypt a n d Israel.
Mystery: Nature into Scripture
At the same time a n d even at the same place that S p e n c e r did his re
search o n Egyptian rites, Ralph C u d w o r t h , Regius Professor of Hebrew, p u b lished his True Intellectual System of the Universe.2* T h e r e is every reason to s u p p o s e that S p e n c e r a n d C u d w o r t h knew each o t h e r well, but their books a r e worlds a p a r t . S p e n c e r w o r k e d on the Mosaic distinction as a historian. H e w a n t e d to show how m u c h is derived f r o m Egypt a n d , in d o i n g so, he r e d u c e d revelation to trans
lation a n d transcodihcation. C u d w o r t h was a C a m b r i d g e Neoplatonist whose t h i n k i n g t r a n s c e n d e d the Mosaic distinction in its biblical expression. His g o d was t h e god of the philosophers, a n d his e n e m y was not idolatry b u t atheism o r materialism.
C u d w o r t h wants to conf ute atheism by proving that the recognition of o n e S u p r e m e Being constitutes "the t r u e intellectual system of t h e universe" be
cause—as L o r d H e r b e r t of C h e r b u r y h a d already shown in 1624—the notion
"that t h e r e is a S u p r e m e G o d " is the most c o m m o n notion of all.27 Even atheism c o n f o r m s with this notion: the god whose existence it negates is precisely this o n e S u p r e m e G o d a n d not o n e o r all of the gods of polytheism. This notion, c o m m o n to theists a n d atheists alike, can be d e f i n e d as: "A Perfect Conscious Understanding Being (or M i n d ) Existing of it self from Eternity, and the Cause of all other things."28
Especially interesting for o u r c o n c e r n is C u d w o r t h ' s claim that t h e idea of o n e S u p r e m e Being is also shared by polytheism. In this context, Egypt becomes im
p o r t a n t f o r the simple reason that it was by far the best k n o w n polytheistic religion at the time. Even t h o u g h the hieroglyphs were not yet d e c i p h e r e d a n d the m o n u m e n t s not yet excavated a n d published, the body of G r e e k a n d Latin sources
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S
(including the Corpus Hermeticum and the writings of" Plotinus, Porphyry, Iam- blithus, Proclus, and Horapollon, which were believed to be firsthand Egyptian sources) easily outweighed the available information about other religions.
Cudworth distinguishes between self-existing gods and gods whose existence is dependent on other gods. N o polytheism, he concludes, ever believed in the existence of several self-existent gods. There is always only o n e from whom all the other gods derive. Every polytheism thus includes a monotheism. T h e form of inclusion is mystery or secrecy: polytheism is for the many, while monotheism is for the few. This unequal distribution of knowledge does not follow from some malicious strategy of the priests who wanted to keep their knowledge secret for their agrandissement, but from the difficulty of monotheism and the natural dif
ferences in mental capabilities. Truth, by this reasoning, is a natural mystery that can only be approached by the very few. Cudworth accordingly reconstructs what he calls the "arcane theology" of ancient Egypt and shows that it is the theology of the O n e and the All, hen kai pan. He takes his evidence from a number of sources, but especially from the Corpus Hermeticum, which he holds to be a late but authentic codification of ancient Egyptian wisdom and theology.
T h e chapter of Hermes Trismegistus seemed closed once and for all in 1614, when Isaac Casaubon exposed the Corpus Hermeticum as a late compilation and a Christian forgery.'9 Since then, the Hermetic tradition survived only in occult undercurrents such as Rosicrucianism, alchemy, theosophy, and so forth. This, at least, is the picture Frances Yates has drawn of the Hermetic tradition. 50Indeed, Yates proclaimed the year 1614 "a watershed separating the Renaissance world from the modern world" because Casaubon's dating of the Hermetic texts "shat
tered the basis of all attempts to build a natural theology in Hermeticism."'1 It was no easy task to vindicate the Corpus Hermeticum against so devastating a verdict. Cudworth, however, did so with such brilliant success (although with not altogether valid arguments), that natural theologies built on the Hermetic texts continued to flourish. Hermes Trismegistus had, in fact, a triumphant comeback in the eighteenth century due to Cudworth's rehabilitation, which inaugurated a new phase of the Hermetic tradition coinciding in Cermany with a wave of Spinozism.
Cudworth showed that Casaubon made two mistakes. First, he was wrong in treating the whole corpus as o n e coherent text. His criticism affected only three of the seventeen independent treatises and his verdict of forgery applied at most to these three, but not to the corpus as a whole. Second, he was wrong in equating text and tradition. T h e text is late, that much Cudworth is ready to admit. But according to him, this must be taken as a terminus ad quern and not a quo; the text shows only how long the tradition was alive, not how late it came into being. And even the three "forgeries" must contain a kernel of truth; otherwise they would not have been successful. In this way, Cudworth was able to represent the doctrine
T h e Mosaic Distinction
of All-Oneness o r hen kai pan as the quintessence of Egyptian a r c a n e theology.
O r p h e u s , Pythagoras, Plato, a n d others initiated into the Egyptian mysteries b r o u g h t this doctrine to Greece; Stoic a n d Neoplatonic philosophy t r a n s m i t t e d it to the Occident.
Sixty years later, William W a r b u r t o n , a well-known S h a k e s p e a r e scholar, a n Anglican bishop, a n d a f r i e n d of A l e x a n d e r Pope, c o m b i n e d the ideas of S p e n c e r a n d C u d w o r t h in his Divine legation of Moses, which a p p e a r e d in t h r e e volumes between 1738 a n d 1741.32W a r b u r t o n integrated C u d w o r t h ' s ideas into his r e f o r
mulation of the Mosaic distinction, which a p p e a r s now as "mystery" versus "rev
elation." T h e t r u t h is p r e s e n t on both sides: quite a revolutionary admission f o r a bishop. But the Egyptians a n d all the o t h e r religions deriving f r o m Egypt w e r e able to recognize a n d to transmit this t r u t h only in the f o r m of mystery, that is, as s o m e t h i n g reserved for the very few w h o were d e e m e d able to g r a s p it—not as a p e r m a n e n t possession but as a quality known t h r o u g h rites that w e r e b o u n d to calendaric observances. Moses, on the o t h e r h a n d , m a d e the t r u t h t h e possession of the whole people a n d cast it in the f o r m of a p e r m a n e n t Scripture.3 3
W a r b u r t o n ' s parallel to Giambattista Vico is striking. Vico, who, like W a r b u r ton, w a n t e d to preserve the Mosaic distinction, i n t e r p r e t e d it in the t e r m s of sa
cred a n d p r o f a n e history. H e asked how p r o f a n e society a n d history were possible, a n d even w o r k e d well, w h e n the various Gentile peoples were g u i d e d by r e a s o n (or "natural law") alone a n d were not g r a n t e d the g u i d a n c e of revelation.3 4Both reason a n d revelation must t h e r e f o r e contain the t r u t h . Reason, however, was insecure, always e n d a n g e r e d by error, a n d the result of a long a n d w i n d i n g pro
cess of evolution, w h e r e a s revelation was pristine, p e r m a n e n t , a n d secure. Beyond p r e s e r v i n g the Mosaic distinction, t h o u g h , Vico a n d W a r b u r t o n h a d still a n o t h e r trait in c o m m o n : their interest was focused on the " p a g a n " side, p r o f a n e history a n d mystery religion. T h e first step of secularization was n o t the abolition of the distinction, b u t a shift of emphasis f r o m the sacred to the p r o f a n e .
Identity: Jehovah sive Isis
T h e step f r o m mystery to identity might seem slight, because already in t h e p a r a d i g m of mystery, the t r u t h is recognized on both sides of t h e Mosaic distinction. T h e new p a r a d i g m of identity does not claim that t h e r e is revelation o n both sides, but that t h e r e is secrecy on both sides. Secrecy persists; even Moses did not reveal the full t r u t h . H e n c e Lessing's idea of universal f r e e m a s o n r y : t h e r e have always been a few initiates or illuminates w h o sought the t r u t h , which could be u n c o v e r e d even a f t e r Moses' revelation, but only t h r o u g h a secret quest.3 5 T h e t r u t h is the same o n both sides, but it is the possession of n o one.
Karl L e o n h a r d Reinhold published his book on The Hebrew Mysteries, or the
REPRESENTATIONS
Oldest Freemasonry first in 1786 in two issues of the Journal fiir Freymaurer a n d t h e n as a m o n o g r a p h in 1788 at Leipzig.'6At the age of 25, h e e n t e r e d t h e f a m o u s Viennese lodge True Concord (1783). Still a Jesuit, h e passed all t h r e e g r a d e s b u t fled in the same year f r o m the Jesuit o r d e r to Leipzig, w h e r e h e c o n t i n u e d his philosophical studies. H e m a r r i e d a d a u g h t e r of C h r i s t o p h Martin Wieland, j o i n e d him in editing the j o u r n a l Teutscher Merkur, b e c a m e well k n o w n f o r his
Letters on Kant's Philosophy, a n d was a p p o i n t e d p r o f e s s o r of philosophy at J e n a in 1787. T h e r e he b e f r i e n d e d Schiller, w h o m he i n d u c e d to r e a d I m m a n u e l Kant.3 7
In his book on the H e b r e w mysteries, Reinhold identifies the G o d of the Bible as Isis, the Egyptian S u p r e m e Being, by c o m p a r i n g God's self-presentation in E x o d u s 3.14 ("I am w h o I am") a n d Isis's self-presentation o n the veiled image at Sais: " B r e t h r e n ! " Reinhold exclaims, " W h o a m o n g us does not know the ancient Egyptian inscriptions: the o n e o n the p y r a m i d at Sais: 'I a m all that is, was, a n d will be, a n d n o mortal has ever lifted my veil,' a n d that o t h e r o n the statue of Isis:
'I a m all that is'? W h o a m o n g us does not u n d e r s t a n d as well as the ancient Egyp tian initiate himself did the m e a n i n g of these words a n d does not know that they express the essential Being, the m e a n i n g of the n a m e Jehova?": , s While the saitic inscription is r e p o r t e d by Plutarch a n d (in a slightly d i f f e r e n t , t h u s i n d e p e n d e n t , version) by Proclus, they speak only of o n e such inscription. T h e second o n e was probably invented by Voltaire, w h o m Reinhold is closely p a r a p h r a s i n g in this pas
sage.1 9 It serves Reinhold's p u r p o s e because it makes the equation m o r e striking:
"I a m all that is" a n d "I am who I am."
T h e equation, however, does not seem so convincing to us. O n the contrary, o n e proposition negates the other. W h e n Isis says "I am all that is," she identifies herself with the world a n d abolishes the distinction between G o d a n d world.
W h e n Yahveh says "I a m w h o I am," h e explicitly draws t h e distinction between himself a n d the world a n d forecloses every link of identification. B u t Reinhold read the Bible in Greek. T h e Septuagint r e n d e r s t h e divine n a m e as "£go eimi ho on" [I a m the Being one], which Reinhold u n d e r s t a n d s (and which has always b e e n u n d e r s t o o d ) as m e a n i n g "I am essential Being."4 0 Reinhold was, in fact, following an a n t i q u e tradition; in o n e of the socalled Sibyllinian Oracles, t h e biblical G o d , with his selfpresentation "I am w h o I a m " ['ahjeeh asher 'cehjeeh], is i n t e r p r e t e d in the sense of the cosmic God of the Hermetists: "I a m the being o n e (eimi d'egoge ho on), recognize this in your spirit: I d o n n e d heaven as my g a r m e n t , I clothed myself with the ocean, the e a r t h is g r o u n d for my feet, air covers m e as my body a n d the stars revolve a r o u n d me."4 1
T h i s is already Isis. But the point that Reinhold wants to m a k e is that t h e t r u e G o d has n o names, n e i t h e r "Jehovah" n o r "Isis." Both the saitic f o r m u l a a n d the H e b r e w f o r m u l a a r e to be u n d e r s t o o d not as the revelation of a n a m e , b u t r a t h e r as its witholding, o r as the revelation of anonymity. God is all; every n a m e falls short because it distinguishes God f r o m s o m e t h i n g that is not God. B e i n g all, G o d can
T h e Mosaic Distinction
not have a n a m e . With this, we c o m e back to H e r m e s Trismegistus. T h e p e r t i n e n t f r a g m e n t is preserved in Lactantius. Nicholas of Cusa quotes this passage in De docta ignorantia s o m e decades b e f o r e Marsilio Ficino's edition of t h e H e r m e t i c a : It is o b v i o u s t h a t n o n a m e can be a p p r o p r i a t e to t h e G r e a t e s t O n e , b e c a u s e n o t h i n g c a n b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m h i m . All n a m e s a r e i m p o s e d by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g o n e f r o m t h e o t h e r . W h e r e all is o n e , t h e r e c a n n o t be a p r o p e r n a m e . T h e r e f o r e , H e r m e s T r i s m e g i s t u s is r i g h t in saying: " b e c a u s e G o d is t h e totality of t h i n g s [universitas rerum], h e h a s n o p r o p e r n a m e , o t h e r w i s e h e s h o u l d b e called by every n a m e o r e v e r y t h i n g s h o u l d b e a r his n a m e . For h e c o m p r i s e s in his simplicity t h e totality of all things. C o n f o r m i n g with his p r o p e r n a m e — w h i c h f o r u s is d e e m e d i n e f f a b l e a n d which is t h e t e t r a g r a m m a t o n . . . — h i s n a m e s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d as ' o n e a n d all' o r 'all in o n e , ' which is e v e n b e t t e r ['unus et omnia sive 'omnia uniter,' quod melius est]."42
In this text, written in the middle of the fifteenth century, we already find the equation of the H e b r e w t e t r a g r a m m a t o n with H e r m e s Trismegistus's a n o n y m o u s god, w h o is unus et omnia, " O n e a n d All," o r hen kaipan, as this idea will be r e f e r r e d to by C u d w o r t h a n d Lessing.
Nil novi sub sole? It is t r u e that we will find most of the leading ideas of the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y c o n c e r n i n g the Mosaic distinction, n a t u r e a n d revelation, t r u t h a n d religious tolerance, already p r e s e n t in the fifteenth a n d sixteenth cen
turies. B u t we a r e not asking for first occurrences. T h e point is that these ideas did not d i s a p p e a r in the seventeenth century, as is generally believed. A l t h o u g h t h e seventeenth c e n t u r y was an age of o r t h o d o x y that destroyed the h a r m o n i s t i c a n d eclectic d r e a m s of the Renaissance, a n d a l t h o u g h most of this period's reli
gious a n d philosophical m o v e m e n t s went occult o r d i s a p p e a r e d u n d e r t h e per
secution of o r t h o d o x censorship, Spencer's, G e r a r d u s Vossius's (15771649),4 3
J o h n Marsham's (160285),4 4a n d C u d w o r t h ' s reinventions of Egypt led to a s t r o n g a n d mostly u n k n o w n revival of Hermeticism, p a n t h e i s m , a n d o t h e r f o r m s of Egyptophilia. T h e s e rehabilitations of the Egyptian tradition, f u r t h e r m o r e , h a d the i m m e n s e a d v a n t a g e of answering o r t h o d o x a n d historical criticism.
T h e e n l i g h t e n e d Egyptophilia of the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y r e a c h e d its climax a r o u n d 1780 w h e n it m e r g e d with the ideas of nature a n d the sublime. D u r i n g these years L a m o i g n o n des Malesherbes coined the t e r m cosmotheism to describe t h e Stoic w o r s h i p of cosmos as a god. Cosmotheism m o r e o r less explicitly abol
ishes the distinction between God a n d world. Friedrich Jacobi applied it to Ben
edict Spinoza's deussive natura a n d Lessing's hen kaipan4'" a f o r m u l a that C u d w o r t h (1678) h a d shown to be the quintessential expression of ancient Egyptian theol
ogy. T h e ancient Egyptians were t h u s cosmotheists j u s t as the Stoics, the Neopla
tonists, the Spinozists were. T h i s idea, always present, r e t u r n e d in the years be
tween 1785 a n d 1790 with an overwhelming force.
In this new cosmotheistic m o v e m e n t , Isis was generally i n t e r p r e t e d as "Na
ture." H e r e is how Ignaz von Born, the G r a n d Master of True Concord a n d the
REPRESENTATIONS
m o d e l of Sarastro in Wolfgang A m a d e u s Mozart's Magic Flute, s u m m a r i z e d t h e ultimate aim of the Egyptian mysteries a n d of f r e e m a s o n r y :
T h e k n o w l e d g e of n a t u r e is t h e ultimate p u r p o s e of o u r application. We w o r s h i p this p r o g e n i t o r , n o u r i s h e r , a n d p r e s e r v e r of all creation in t h e i m a g e of Isis. Only h e w h o knows t h e whole e x t e n t of h e r p o w e r a n d f o r c e will be able to u n c o v e r h e r veil without p u n i s h m e n t .4 6
T h i s passage combines Plutarch with C l e m e n t of Alexandria, w h o says: " T h e doctrines delivered in the G r e a t e r Mysteries c o n c e r n the universe. H e r e all in struction ends. T h i n g s a r e seen as they are; a n d N a t u r e , a n d the workings of N a t u r e , a r e to be seen a n d c o m p r e h e n d e d . "4 7 O n the last step of initiation, t h e a d e p t is speechless in the face of n a t u r e . T h i s idea inspired Schiller's ballad " T h e Veiled I m a g e at Sais" a n d his essay " T h e Legation of Moses."48Like W a r b u r t o n a n d Reinhold, Schiller constructed the Mosaic distinction as the antagonistic re
lationship between official religion a n d mystery cult. In his opinion, secrecy was necessary to protect both the political o r d e r f r o m a possibly d a n g e r o u s t r u t h a n d the t r u t h f r o m vulgar abuse a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . For this reason, hieroglyphic writing a n d a complex ritual of cultic ceremonies a n d prescriptions were i n v e n t e d to shield the mysteries. T h e y were devised to create a "sensual solemnity" (sinnliche Feierlichkeit) a n d to p r e p a r e , by emotional arousal, the soul of t h e initiate to receive t h e t r u t h .
At this point Schiller i n t r o d u c e d the notion of t h e "sublime," associating it with t h e H e r m e t i c idea of God's namelessness: " N o t h i n g is m o r e sublime t h a n the simple greatness with which the sages speak of t h e creator. In o r d e r to distinguish him in a truly d e f i n i n g f o r m , they r e f r a i n e d f r o m giving him a n a m e at all."49
A p p e a r i n g in the same year (1790), Kant's Kritik der Urteilskraft associates the idea of the sublime with the second c o m m a n d m e n t , that is, with the idea of God's imagelessness: " T h e r e is p e r h a p s no m o r e sublime passage in the lawcode of t h e Jews t h a n the c o m m a n d m e n t 'thou shalt not m a k e u n t o t h e e any graven im
age. . . .'"s" But in a f o o t n o t e Kant m e n t i o n s the veiled image at Sais a n d its in
scription as the highest expression of the sublime:
P e r h a p s n o t h i n g m o r e sublime was ever said o r n o sublimer t h o u g h t ever e x p r e s s e d t h a n t h e f a m o u s inscription o n t h e t e m p l e of Isis ( m o t h e r n a t u r e ) : "I am all that is a n d that shall be, a n d n o mortal has lifted my veil." S e g n e r availed himself of this idea in a suggestive vignette p r e f i x e d to his Natural Philosophy, in o r d e r to inspire b e f o r e h a n d t h e a p p r e n t i c e w h o m h e was a b o u t to lead into the t e m p l e with a holy awe, which s h o u l d dispose his m i n d to s o l e m n attention.''1
Kant uses Schiller's language of initiation in describing Segner's vignette:
"holy awe" (heiliger Schauer), "solemn attention" (j'eierliche Aufmerksamkeit). T h e main point of Kant's observation is to emphasize the initiatory f u n c t i o n of the sublime. T h e sublime inspires in h u m a n s a holy awe a n d t e r r o r that only t h e
T h e Mosaic Distinction 5 9
strongest are able to withstand, so as to p r e p a r e soul a n d m i n d for the a p p r e h e n sion of a t r u t h that can be g r a s p e d only in a state of exceptional f e a r a n d attention.
Sublime secrets r e q u i r e a sublime e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e connection of the sublime with wisdom, mystery, a n d initiation occurs again a n d again in the literature o n the Egyptian mysteries.5 2But I would like to q u o t e a text to which Carlo G i n z b u r g drew my attention: the Athenian Letters, anonymously published in L o n d o n ( 1 7 4 1 43). T h e following is a description of the " H e r m e t i c cave" at T h e b e s , w h e r e the Egyptian initiates were s u p p o s e d to be t a u g h t the doctrines of H e r m e s Trisme
gistus as inscribed o n the pillars of wisdom:
The strange solemnity of the place must strike everyone, that enters it, with a religious horror; and is the most proper to work you up into that frame of mind, in which you will receive, with the most awful reverence and assent, whatever the priest, who attends you, is pleased to reveal. . . .
Towards the f arther end of the cave, or within the innermost recess of some prodigious caverns, that run beyond it, you hear, as it were a great way off, a noise resembling the distant roarings of the sea, and sometimes like the fall of" waters, dashing against rocks with great impetuosity. The noise is supposed to be so stunning and frightful, if you approach it, that few, they say, are inquisitive enough, into those mysterious sportings of nature. . . . Surrounded with these pillars of lamps are each of those venerable columns, which I am now to speak of, inscribed with the hieroglyphical letters with the primeval mysteries of the Egyptian learning. . . . From these pillars, and the sacred books, they maintain, that all the philosophy and learning of the world has been derived.53
T h i s is t h e p r o p e r setting f o r the storage a n d transmission of secret wisdom.
T h e m o r e welltodo a m o n g the Freemasons of the time even tried to construct such an a m b i a n c e in their parks a n d gardens. T h e s c e n o g r a p h y f o r t h e trial by h r e a n d water in the hnale f r o m the second act of Mozart's Magic Flute envisages such a cave, w h e r e water gushes out with a d e a f e n i n g r o a r a n d fire s p u r t s f o r t h with d e v o u r i n g tongues. It is m o d e l e d not only u p o n A b b e Terrasson's description of Sethos's s u b t e r r a n e a n trials a n d initiation but also u p o n masonic g a r d e n ar
chitecture, such as the grotto in the p a r k at Aigen, n e a r Salzburg, o w n e d by Mo
zart's f r i e n d a n d fellow mason, Basil von A m a n n .5' T h e idea of the sublime—so i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e aesthetics of the t i m e — a n d the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ancient Egyp
tian art a n d architecture were practically inseparable f r o m notions of mystery a n d initiation.
A c c o r d i n g to Reinhold a n d Schiller, n a t u r e was the god in whose mysteries Moses was initiated d u r i n g the course of his Egyptian education. But this was not the G o d Moses revealed to his people. In the school of the Egyptian mysteries, Moses not only learned to c o n t e m p l a t e the t r u t h but also "collected a t r e a s u r e of hieroglyphs, mystical symbols a n d ceremonies" with which to build u p a religion a n d to cover t h e t r u t h u n d e r the protective shell of cultic institutions a n d p r e scriptions—sub cortice legis, as Spencer h a d already f o r m u l a t e d it. Schiller replaced Maimonides' a n d Spencer's idea of God's a c c o m m o d a t i o n of t h e Law with the idea
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S
of Moses' a c c o m m o d a t i o n of God. Religion a n d revelation, in this scheme, a r e only f o r m s of a c c o m m o d a t i o n .
A m o n g the r e a d e r s of Schiller's essay was Ludvvig van Beethoven, w h o wrote o u t t h e two "saitic inscriptions" a n d a quotation f r o m the O r p h i c h y m n o n a leaf of p a p e r a n d h a d this p u t u n d e r glass a n d in a f r a m e . It stood on his writing table d u r i n g the last years of his life:
I am all that is.
I am all that was, is, and will be; and no mortal has ever lifted my veil.
H e is the O n e who exists by himself, and to this single O n e all things owe their existence."
T h e s e sentences were held to be quintessential expressions of e n l i g h t e n e d reli
gion a n d , at the same time, of ancient Egyptian wisdom a n d theology. Equally emblematic of Egyptian theology was the Greek f o r m u l a hen kai pan that Lessing wrote as his personal religious m a n i f e s t o in the guestbook of a f r i e n d on 15 A u g u s t 1780.™ W h e n Jacobi published his conversations with Lessing in 1785, h e l a u n c h e d the "pantheism debate" that held sway in G e r m a n y f o r almost fifty y e a r s . " C u d w o r t h could have l a u n c h e d the same d e b a t e a h u n d r e d years earlier.
But it was only on the eve of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt that the r e t u r n of Egyptian cosmotheism a n d the abolition of the Mosaic distinction a s s u m e d t h e d i m e n s i o n s of a sweeping revolution. O n e might call it the " r e t u r n of the repressed."
Latency, or the Return of the Repressed
S i g m u n d Freud was a n o t h e r r e a d e r of Schiller's essay. Its impact on his Moses and Monotheism is evident.''" But for all the stillgrowing literature o n this book, n o b o d y seems to notice that Freud's work on the Mosaic distinction contin
ues the discourse of the e i g h t e e n t h century.551 It is, of course, i m p o r t a n t to r e a d Freud's book in t h e context of his o t h e r scientific writings. Nevertheless, the full i m p o r t of the book only becomes clear w h e n seen in the context of t h e Enlight
e n m e n t tradition.'1 0W h e n , u n d e r the p r e s s u r e of G e r m a n antiSemitism, F r e u d started to write his book, remarkably e n o u g h , h e did not ask "how the G e r m a n s c a m e to m u r d e r the Jews," but "how the Jews c a m e to attract this u n d y i n g h a t r e d . "
H e sought the answer in the Mosaic distinction a n d in Moses himself, who, by d r a w i n g this distinction, F r e u d believed h a d created the Jews. Freud's project was t h u s to dissolve o r "deconstruct" the Mosaic distinction by historical analysis: p r e cisely the project of the seventeenth a n d eighteenth centuries. Freud's Moses was an Egyptian w h o b r o u g h t to the Jews an Egyptian religion. Every a t t e m p t , how
T h e Mosaic Distinction
ever, to abolish the Mosaic distinction h a d similarly focused o n the Egyptian back
g r o u n d of Moses. Already in 1709, J o h n Toland, basing himself on Strabo, even went so f a r as to m a k e Moses an Egyptian a n d the prince of t h e province of G o s h e n , w h o f o u n d e d a new religion in the spirit of Spinoza, a n d left Egypt to
g e t h e r with the Hebrews in o r d e r to realize it.61
W h e n F r e u d r e s u m e d , in the 1930s, the discourse o n Moses a n d Egypt, h e was able to avail himself of an archaeological discovery that was inaccessible to all previous a u t h o r s f r o m M a n e t h o to Schiller: that is, the discovery of A k h e n a t e n a n d his monotheistic revolution. H e was spared the trouble of inventing Egyptian mysteries in o r d e r to project H e r m e t i c o r Spinozistic theology back into Moses' times, a n d instead could point to an Egyptian monotheistic c o u n t e r r e l i g i o n as a historical fact. But even in his reconstruction secrecy r e t u r n s , namely, in t h e f o r m of latency. Freud's Moses did not translate o r a c c o m m o d a t e his t r u t h to t h e ca
pacities of the people but imposed it without c o m p r o m i s e . T h e r e f o r e h e was m u r d e r e d . Yet it was precisely by being m u r d e r e d a n d by b e c o m i n g a t r a u m a t i c a n d e n c r y p t e d m e m o r y that he was able to create the Jewish people. T h i s creation was a slow process, taking centuries a n d even millennia. His t r u t h w o r k e d f r o m within a n d m a n i f e s t e d itself as a r e t u r n of the repressed. In Freud's words, it " m u s t first have u n d e r g o n e the fate ol being repressed, the condition of lingering in the unconscious, b e f o r e it is able to display such p o w e r f u l effects o n its r e t u r n a n d force the masses u n d e r its spell."'''2 In this way, Moses the Egyptian a n d his m o n o theism " r e t u r n e d to the m e m o r y of his people." T h i s repression is how F r e u d explains t h e coercive p o w e r that religion has over the masses. For F r e u d , religion is a c o m p u l s o r y neurosis that can only be treated by " r e m e m b e r i n g , r e p e a t i n g , w o r k i n g t h r o u g h " Freud's version of Baal S h e m Tov's f a m o u s sentence: the secret of r e d e m p t i o n is r e m e m b e r i n g . In the case of the Mosaic distinction, this r e m e m b e r i n g has always t u r n e d toward Egypt.
In this situation, it may be i m p o r t a n t to rediscover the Egypt of the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y r e p r e s s e d by n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y positivism a n d historicism—just as the Egypt of t h e Renaissance had been rediscovered by the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y a f t e r a p e r i o d of suppression, a n d as the fifteenth a n d sixteenth centuries rediscovered prisca theologia in the Egypt (and its syncretistic cosmotheism) of late antiquity.
T h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y r e o p e n e d a dialogue with an ancient Egyptian (or gen
erally "pagan") cosmotheism that h a d been s u p p r e s s e d by o r t h o d o x a n d ratio
nalistic f u n d a m e n t a l i s m . In the n i n e t e e n t h century, this d i a l o g u e was again, a n d a p p a r e n t l y forever, b r o u g h t to an e n d by the d e c i p h e r m e n t of hieroglyphic writ
ing a n d t h e rise of m o d e r n Egyptology, which relegated all Egyptophilic ideas to the m u s e u m of inventions a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . Only recently has it b e c o m e clear that t h e r e is a g e n u i n e Egyptian cosmotheistic tradition that has b e e n op
posed by the Mosaic distinction but has persisted as a c o u n t e r c u r r e n t t h r o u g h all the d i f f e r e n t stages of Western m o n o t h e i s m until the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d be
REPRESENTATIONS
yond. Those who referred to ancient Egypt in combating orthodox and f unda
mentalist distinctions were not completely mistaken. And many of those who en
gaged in the project of a scientific discovery of ancient Egypt and who opposed Egyptophilic traditions were ultimately, and more or less unwittingly, following the same agenda of natural religion and reason. It is always good to remember.
Perhaps, however, this remembrance is not, after all, "the secret of redemp
tion," but rather a technique of translation. I think that our aim cannot be to abolish distinctions and to deconstruct the spaces that were severed or cloven by them. What we need instead is the development of new techniques of intercultural translation, not in order to appropriate "the other," but to overcome the stereo
types of otherness that we have projected onto the other by drawing distinctions.
We are no longer dreaming of returning to Egypt or to the eighteenth century, with its ideas of tolerance. While this concept of tolerance was based on integration or generalization, what we need is a tolerance of recognition, which depends upon what is still beyond our reach: a real understanding of those religions that were rejected as "idolatry" by the Mosaic distinction.
N o t e s
T h e following essay is based on research completed during my stay at the J. Paul Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities at Santa Monica in 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 . T h e results of this research will be published in a book titled Moses the Egyptian: An Essay in Mnemohistory, forthcoming from Harvard University Press.
1. George Spencer Brown, Laws of Form (New York, 1972), 3.
2. See, e.g., Erik Hornung, Echnaton: Die Religion des Lichtes (Zurich, 1995); Jan Assmann,
"Akhanyati's Theology of T i m e and Light," Israel Academy of Sciences and the Humanities, Proceedings 7 (1992): 1 4 3 - 7 6 .
3. See, e.g., Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser, eds., The Translatability of Cultures: Figu
rations of the Space Between (Stanford, 1996).
4. Peter Artzi, "The Birth of the Middle East," Proceedings of the 5th World Congress of Jewish Studies ( Jerusalem, 1972), 1 2 0 - 2 4 . For polytheism, see my contribution, "Translating Gods: Religion as a Factor of Cultural (Un)translatability," in Budick and Iser, Trans
latability, 2 5 - 3 6 .
5. Plutarch, De hide and Osiride, trans. J. G. Griffiths (Cardiff, 1970), 223 f.
6. See Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York, 1985).
7. See Moshe Barasch, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea (New York, 1992); Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, Idolatry (Cambridge, Mass., 1993).
8. T h e sources have been collected by Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1974-1984).
9. W. G. Waddell, ed. and trans., Manetho (Cambridge, Mass., 1940).
10. Stern, Jews and Judaism, 2:17—63. A. M. A. Hospers-Jansen, Tacitus over de Joden (Gro- ningen, 1949); Heinz Heinen, "Agyptische Grundlagen des antiken Antijudaismus:
T h e Mosaic Distinction
Z u m J u d e n e x k u r s des Tacitus, Historien V. 2—13," Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 101, no. 2 (1992): 1 2 4 - 4 9 .
11. See, e.g., J o h n G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York, 1983); Pier C e s a r e Bori, " I m m a g i n i e stereotipi del p o p o l o ebraico nel i n o n d o antico: asino d'oro, vitello d'oro," in L'estasi del prof eta (Bologna, 1989), 1 3 1 - 5 0 (with rich bibliography). For t h e polemical impact of this tradition, see especially Peter Schafer, Judaeophobia: The Atti
tude Towards the Jews in the Ancient World ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass., 1997).
12. See Silvia Berti, // trattato dei Ire impostori: La vita e lospirito delsignor Benedetto de Spinoza (Turin, 1994).
13. Moses M a i m o n i d e s , The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. S h l o m o Pines (Chicago, 1963).
S p e n c e r q u o t e s M a i m o n i d e s in H e b r e w a n d only occasionally in t h e original Arabic.
14. Koran 2.59, see also 5.73 a n d 22.17. S o m e t h o u g h t of t h e M a n d a e a n s o r a similar m o v e m e n t ; A m o s F u n k e n s t e i n sees in t h e m t h e "small r e m n a n t s of a gnostic sect of t h e s e c o n d o r t h i r d c e n t u r y A.D.; see his Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, 1993),
144. F r o m A.D. 830 on, t h e t e r m r e f e r s to t h e p e o p l e at H a r r a n w h o h a d m a n a g e d to r e m a i n p a g a n s a n d w h o still a d h e r e d to t h e cult of Sin, t h e M e s o p o t a m i a n m o o n g o d . T h r e a t e n e d by persecution, they claimed to be Sabians, a n d r e f e r r e d to t h e H e r m e t i c writings as their sacred book; see Walter Scott, e d . a n d trans., Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus (1929; r e p r i n t , Boston, 1993), 9 7 - 1 0 8 . In t h e s e v e n t e e n t h century, t h e Sabians w e r e generally identified with the Zoroastrians; see, e.g., E d w a r d Stillingfleet, Origines sacrae, or a rational account oj the grounds of Christian faith, as to the truth and divine authority of the scriptures, and the matters therein contained (1662; r e p r i n t , O x f o r d , 1797),
1 : 4 9 - 5 1 . T h e o p h i l e Gale held that "the Rites of the Zabii a r e t h e s a m e with those of t h e C h a l d a e a n s a n d Persians, who all a g r e e d in this w o r s h i p of t h e S u n , a n d of Fire,
&C."; see The Court of the Gentiles, 2 vols. ( O x f o r d , 1 6 6 9 - 7 1 ) , 2:73.
15. U m b e r t o Eco, "An Ars Oblivionalis? Forget It!" PMLA 103 (1988): 2 5 4 - 6 1 . U m b e r t o Eco m i g h t be r i g h t in postulating that t h e r e is n o possible art of oblivion o n t h e level of individual m e m o r y . But Eco's a r g u m e n t s d o not apply o n t h e level of collective m e m o r y .
16. Talattuf alallah wahakhmatah, "the c u n n i n g (or 'practical reason') of G o d a n d his wis
d o m , " an expression that Funkenstein very interestingly links with Hegel's c o n c e p t of
"the c u n n i n g of reason"; see Funkenstein, Perceptions, 1 4 1 4 4 , esp. 143 n. 38, r e f e r r i n g to M a i m o n i d e s , Guide of the Perplexed; a n d G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophic der Geschichle (Stuttgart, 1961), 78 ff. J o h n S p e n c e r speaks of God's using " h o n e s t fallacies a n d tor
t u o u s steps," methodis honeste fallacibus et sinuosis gradibus, q u o t e d a f t e r G o t t h a r d Victor Lechler, Geschichle des englischen Deismus (1841; r e p r i n t , H i l d e s h e i m , 1965), 138.
17. Ut omnes isti cultus aut ritus, qui fiebant in gratiam imaginumjierent in honorem Dei: S p e n c e r ' s translation of Rabbi S h e m Tov ben J o s e p h ibn S h e m Tov's c o m m e n t a r y o n M a i m o n ides' Guide of the Perplexed.
18. H e was following a principle of R o m a n legal exegesis. T h e R o m a n s s t u d i e d t h e his
torical circumstantiae of a law with t h e s a m e p u r p o s e of f i n d i n g o u t a b o u t its original intention. T h e second step t h e n was to generalize t h e i n t e n t i o n in such a way that it could be a p p l i e d to t h e case in point. History was s t u d i e d in o r d e r to save t h e law, n o t to abolish it. A law was saved by generalizing t h e original intention, o r t h e set of facts to which it was originally applied, a n d by f i n d i n g o u t their timeless relevance. T h i s is also t h e m e t h o d of Maimonides.
19. J o h n Spencer, De legibus hebraeorum ritualibus el earum rationibus, libri tres ( T h e H a g u e , 1686).
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S
20. S p e n c e r speaks of t h e cessation of t h e reason of t h e Law, De legibus, 3:12: "(Christus) Mosis Leges, earum ratione iam cessante, penitus abrogaverit [{Christ} abolished t h e Law of
Moses, because its reason h a d b e c o m e inexistent].
21. Translatio in Latin m e a n s "transfer," not " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " S p e n c e r conceives of a "trans- latio Legis" o n t h e m o d e l of "translatio imperii" a n d "translatio studii." Yet " t r a n s f e r "
implies, of course, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Besides translatio, S p e n c e r uses mutatio, " b o r r o w i n g , "
a n d derivatio, "derivation."
22. Acts 7.22. N o t e that this i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Moses is given only in t h e New T e s t a m e n t . It n e v e r occurs in t h e H e b r e w Bible.
23. G e o r g e Boas, The Hieroglyphics of Horapollo (New York, 1950); Erik Iversen, The Myth of Egypt and Its Hieroglyphs ( C o p e n h a g e n , 1961), 4 7 - 4 9 .
24. O n A t h a n a s i u s Kircher, see Liselotte D i e c k m a n n , Hieroglyphics: The History of a Literary Symbol (St. Louis, 1970); Iversen, Myth of Egypt, 9 2 - 1 0 0 .
25. S p e n c e r combines two distant passages f r o m Clement's Stromata (5.3.19.3 a n d 5.4.41.2);
see C l e m e n s A l e x a n d r i n u s , Stromata Buch 1-6, e d . O t t o Stahlin (Berlin, 1985), 338, 354.
26. Ralph C u d w o r t h , The true Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein All the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is confuted and its Impossibility demonstrated (1678; r e p r i n t , L o n d o n , 1743).
27. E d w a r d , L o r d H e r b e r t of C h e r b u r y , De veritate (Paris, 1624).
28. C u d w o r t h , Intellectual System, 195.
29. Isaac C a s a u b o n , De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI. Ad Cardinalis Baronii prolegomena in annates ( L o n d o n , 1614).
30. Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964).
31. Ibid., 398.
32. William W a r b u r t o n , The divine legation of Moses demonstrated on the principles of a religious deist, from the omission of the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment in the Jewish dispensation, 2 vols. ( 1 7 3 8 - 4 1 ; r e p r i n t , L o n d o n , 1778).
33. For this interesting theory of writing, W a r b u r t o n r e f e r s to Elavius J o s e p h u s as his source: " [ J o s e p h u s ] tells A p p i o n (sic) that that high a n d sublime knowledge, which t h e Gentiles with difficulty attained u n t o , in t h e r a r e a n d t e m p o r a r y celebration of their Mysteries, was habitually t a u g h t to t h e Jews, at all times." See W a r b u r t o n , Divine legation,
1 : 1 9 2 - 9 3 .
34. See also J o h n Selden's distinction b e t w e e n "ius naturale" (the N o a h i d i c laws) a n d "dis- ciplina Hebraeorum"; J o h n Selden, De iure naturali et gentium iuxta disciplinam hebraeorum libriseptem ( L o n d o n , 1640); Friedrich N i e w o h n e r , Veritas sive Varietas: Lessings Toleranz- parabel und das Buch von den drei Betriigern ( H e i d e l b e r g , 1988), 3 3 3 - 3 6 . T h e discovery of t h e " n a t u r a l law" of nations is t h e object of Giambattista Vico's "new science." Vico m e n t i o n s H u g o Grotius, J o h n Selden, a n d Samuel P u f e n d o r f as t h e l e a d i n g theorists of n a t u r a l law. See Leon P o m p a , e d . a n d trans., Vico: Selected Writings ( C a m b r i d g e ,
1982), 8 1 - 8 9 .
35. G o t t h o l d E p h r a i m Lessing, "Ernst u n d Ealk: F r e i m a u r e r g e s p r a c h e " [1778], in Ges- ammelte Werke (Leipzig, 1841), 9 : 3 4 5 - 9 1 .
36. Karl L e o n h a r d Reinhold [Br(uder) Decius, pseud.], Die Hebraischen Mysterien, oder die dlteste religiose Freymaurerey (Leipzig, 1788).
37. O n R e i n h o l d , see G e r h a r d W. Fuchs, Karl Leonhard Reinhold, Illuminat und Philosoph:
eine Studie iiber den Zusammenhang seines Engagements ah Freimaurer und Illuminat mil seinem Leben und philosophischen Wirketi ( F r a n k f u r t am Main, 1994) w h e r e , however,
Reinhold's book o n t h e H e b r e w mysteries is not m e n t i o n e d .
T h e Mosaic Distinction
38. Reinhold, Hebrdischen Myslerien, 54.
39. Voltaire, Essay sur le moeurs des peuples, in Oeuvres de Voltaire, e d . M. B e u c h o t (Fans, 1829), 15:102—106; "II se serait f o n d e sur l'ancienne inscription d e la statue d'lsis, 'Je suis ce qui est'; et cette a u t r e , 'Je suis tout ce qui a et£ et qui sera; mil m o r t e l n e p o u r r a lever m o n voile'" (103).
40. Vico also p a r a p h r a s e s t h e divine n a m e as "what I a m " and "what is"; Vico. Selected Writings, 53 (On the Ancient Wisdom of the Italians, c h a p . 2).
41. R. Merkelbach a n d M. Totti, Abrasax: Ausgewdhlte Papyri religiiisen nnd magischen Inhalts ( O p l a d e n , 1991), 2:131.
42. Nicolaus C u s a n u s , De docta ignorantia, ed. Paulus Wilpert ( H a m b u r g , 1967), 9 6 9 7 . B e r n h a r d i n e von O l f e n a n d Aleida A s s m a n n d r e w my attention to this i m p o r t a n t text.
43. G e r a r d u s J o a n n i s Vossius, De theologia genlili et physiologia Christiana: sive de origine ac progressu idololatriae, ad veterum gesta, ac rerum naturain, reductoe; deque naturae mirandis, quibus homo adducitur ad Deum (Francfort, 1668).
44. J o h n M a r s h a m , Canon chronicns aegyptiacus, hebraicus, graecus ( L o n d o n , 1672).
45. E m m a n u e l J . Bauer, Das Denken Spinozas und seine Interpretation durch Jacobi ( F r a n k f u r t a m Main, 1989), 234 ff.
46. Ignaz von B o r n , " U b e r die Mysterien d e r Aegyptier,"y«uraa/ fur Freymaurer 1 (1784):
1 7 1 3 2 , esp. 22. H e q u o t e s Plutarch as his source.
47. C l e m e n s A l e x a n d r i n u s , Stromata, cited in W a r b u r t o n , Divine legation, 1:191.
48. Friedrich Schiller, Die Sendung Moses, ed. H. K o o p m a n n . Siimtlirhe Werke IV: Historische Schriften (Munich, 1968), 7 3 7 5 7 .
49. Nichts ist e r h a b e n e r , als die e i n f a c h e GroBe, mit d e r sie von d e m W e l t s c h o p f e r
sprachen. U m ihn a u f eine recht e n t s c h e i d e n d e Art a u s z u z e i c h n e n , g a b e n sie i h m g a r keinen N a m e n ; Schiller, Die Sendung Moses, 745.
50. I m m a n u e l Kant, Critique of Judgment, trans. J . M. B e r n a r d (New York, 1951), 115.
Translation altered slightly a f t e r Kant, Kritik der Urteihkraft in Werke, ed. W. Weischedel ( D a r m s t a d t , 1968), 8:417.
51. Ibid., 160. T h e Germanreads: "Vielleicht ist nie etwas F.rhabeneres gesagt o d e r ein G e d a n k e e r h a b e n e r ausgedriickt w o r d e n als in jener A u f s c h r i f t ttber dem 1cmpel der
Isis (der M u t t e r N a t u r ) : 'Ich bin alles was d a ist, was d a war u n d was d a sein wird, u n d m e i n e n Schleier hat kein Sterblicher a u f g e d e c k t . ' S e g n e r b e n u t z t e diese I d e e , d u r c h eine sinnreiche, seiner N a t u r l e h r e vorgesetzte Vignette, u m s e m e n Lehrling, d e n e r in diesen T e m p e l e i n z u f i i h r e n bereit war, v o r h e r mit d e m heiligen S c h a u e r zu e r f u l len, d e r d a s G e m u t h zu feierlicher A u f m e r k s a m k e i t s t i m m e n soil."
52. See, e.g., A b b e J e a n T e r r a s s o n , Sethos. Histoire ou vie, tiree des monuments, Anecdotes de l'ancienne Egypte: Ouvrage dans lequel on trouve la description des Initiations aux Mysterts Egyptiens, traduil d'un manuscrit Grec (1731; r e p r i n t , Paris, 1707).
53. Athenian letters or, the Epistolary Correspondence oj an Agent of the King «/ Persia, residing at Athens during the Peloponnesian war. Containing the Histoiy of the Times, in Dispatches to the Ministers of State at the Persian Court. Besides Letters on various subjects between I Inn and His Friends, 4 vols. ( L o n d o n , 174143), 1 : 9 5 1 0 0 (letter 25 by O r s a m e s , f r o m T h e b e s ) . C a r l o G i n z b u r g d r e w my attention to this e x t r a o r d i n a r y history of t h e Eastern Medi
t e r r a n e a n at t h e e n d of t h e fifth c e n t u r y B.C. The letters by O r s a m e s a d d u p to a fair s u m m a r y of t h e k n o w l e d g e of t h e time c o n c e r n i n g Ancient Egypt.
54. M a g n u s Olausson, "Freemasonry, Occultism, a n d t h e Picturesque G a r d e n T o w a r d s t h e E n d of t h e E i g h t e e n t h Century," Art History 8, no. 4 (1985): 4 1 3 3 3 . I owe this to A n n e t t e Richards.
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S
