the evolution of theology- 第11部分

Israelitic　Decalogue；　in　which　only　a　specific　kind　of

untruthfulnes　is　forbidden。



If；　as　the　story　runs；　Moses　was　adopted　by　a　princess　of　the

royal　house；　and　was　instructed　in　all　the　wisdom　of　the

Egyptians；　it　is　surely　incredible　that　he　should　not　have　been

familiar　from　his　youth　up；　with　the　high　moral　code　implied　in

the　〃Book　of　Redemption。〃　It　is　surely　impossible　that　he　should

have　been　less　familiar　with　the　complete　legal　system；　and　with

the　method　of　administration　of　justice；　which；　even　in　his

time；　had　enabled　the　Egyptian　people　to　hold　together；　as　a

complex　social　organisation；　for　a　period　far　longer　than　the

duration　of　old　Roman　society；　from　the　building　of　the　city　to

the　death　of　the　last　Caesar。　Nor　need　we　look　to　Moses　alone

for　the　influence　of　Egypt　upon　Israel。　It　is　true　that　the

Hebrew　nomads　who　came　into　contact　with　the　Egyptians　of

Osertasen；　or　of　Ramses；　stood　in　much　the　same　relation　to

them；　in　point　of　culture；　as　a　Germanic　tribe　did　to　the　Romans

of　Tiberius；　or　of　Marcus　Antoninus；　or　as　Captain　Cook's　Omai

did　to　the　English　of　George　the　Third。　But；　at　the　same　time；

any　difficulty　of　communication　which　might　have　arisen　out　of

this　circumstance　was　removed　by　the　long　pre…existing

intercourse　of　other　Semites；　of　every　grade　of　civilisation；

with　the　Egyptians。　In　Mesopotamia　and　elsewhere；　as　in

Phenicia；　Semitic　people　had　attained　to　a　social　organisation

as　advanced　as　that　of　the　Egyptians；　Semites　had　conquered　and

occupied　Lower　Egypt　for　centuries。　So　extensively　had　Semitic

influences　penetrated　Egypt　that　the　Egyptian　language；　during

the　period　of　the　nineteenth　dynasty；　is　said　by　Brugsch　to　be

as　full　of　Semitisms　as　German　is　of　Gallicisms；　while　Semitic

deities　had　supplanted　the　Egyptian　gods　at　Heliopolis　and

elsewhere。　On　the　other　hand；　the　Semites；　as　far　as　Phenicia；

were　extensively　influenced　by　Egypt。



It　is　generally　admitted　that　Moses；　Phinehas　（and　perhaps

Aaron）；　are　names　of　Egyptian　origin；　and　there　is　excellent

authority　for　the　statement　that　the　name　Abir；　which　the

Israelites　gave　to　their　golden　calf；　and　which　is　also　used　to

signify　the　strong；　the　heavenly；　and　even　God；　is　simply

the　Egyptian　Apis。　Brugsch　points　out　that　the　god；　Tum　or　Tom；

who　was　the　special　object　of　worship　in　the　city　of　Pi…Tom；

with　which　the　Israelites　were　only　too　familiar；　was　called

Ankh　and　the　〃great　god；〃　and　had　no　image。　Ankh　means　〃He　who

lives；〃　〃the　living　one；〃　a　name　the　resemblance　of　which　to　the

〃I　am　that　I　am〃　of　Exodus　is　unmistakable；　whatever　may　be　the

value　of　the　fact。　Every　discussion　of　Israelitic　ritual　seeks

and　finds　the　explanation　of　its　details　in　the　portable　sacred

chests；　the　altars；　the　priestly　dress；　the　breastplate；　the

incense；　and　the　sacrifices　depicted　on　the　monuments　of　Egypt。

But　it　must　be　remembered　that　these　signs　of　the　influence　of

Egypt　upon　Israel　are　not　necessarily　evidence　that　such

influence　was　exerted　before　the　Exodus。　It　may　have　come　much

later；　through　the　close　connection　of　the　Israel　of　David　and

Solomon；　first　with　Phenicia　and　then　with　Egypt。



If　we　suppose　Moses　to　have　been　a　man　of　the　stamp　of　Calvin；

there　is　no　difficulty　in　conceiving　that　he　may　have

constructed　the　substance　of　the　ten　words；　and　even　of　the　Book

of　the　Covenant；　which　curiously　resembles　parts　of　the　Book　of

the　Dead；　from　the　foundation　of　Egyptian　ethics　and　theology

which　had　filtered　through　to　the　Israelites　in　general；　or　had

been　furnished　specially　to　himself　by　his　early　education；

just　as　the　great　Genevese　reformer　built　up　a　puritanic　social

organisation　on　so　much　as　remained　of　the　ethics　and　theology

of　the　Roman　Church；　after　he　had　trimmed　them　to　his　liking。



Thus；　I　repeat；　I　see　no　a　priori　objection　to　the

assumption　that　Moses　may　have　endeavoured　to　give　his　people　a

theologico…political　organisation　based　on　the　ten　commandments

（though　certainly　not　quite　in　their　present　form）　and　the　Book

of　the　Covenant；　contained　in　our　present　book　of　Exodus。

But　whether　there　is　such　evidence　as　amounts　to　proof；　or；　I

had　better　say；　to　probability；　that　even　this　much　of　the

Pentateuch　owes　its　origin　to　Moses　is　another　matter。

The　mythical　character　of　the　accessories　of　the　Sinaitic

history　is　patent；　and　it　would　take　a　good　deal　more　evidence

than　is　afforded　by　the　bare　assertion　of　an　unknown　writer　to

justify　the　belief　that　the　people　who　〃saw　the　thunderings　and

the　lightnings　and　the　voice　of　the　trumpet　and　the　mountain

smoking〃　（Exod。　xx。　18）；　to　whom　Jahveh　orders　Moses　to　say；　〃Ye

yourselves　have　seen　that　I　have　talked　with　you　from　heaven。

Ye　shall　not　make　other　gods　with　me；　gods　of　silver　and　gods　of

gold　ye　shall　not　make　unto　you〃　（ibid。　22；　23）；　should；

less　than　six　weeks　afterwards；　have　done　the　exact　thing　they

were　thus　awfully　forbidden　to　do。　Nor　is　the　credibility　of　the

story　increased　by　the　statement　that　Aaron；　the　brother　of

Moses；　the　witness　and　fellow…worker　of　the　miracles　before

Pharaoh；　was　their　leader　and　the　artificer　of　the　idol。

And　yet；　at　the　same　time；　Aaron　was　apparently　so　ignorant　of

wrongdoing　that　he　made　proclamation；　〃Tomorrow　shall　be　a　feast

to　Jahveh；〃　and　the　people　proceeded　to　offer　their　burnt…

offerings　and　peace…offerings；　as　if　everything　in　their

proceedings　must　be　satisfactory　to　the　Deity　with　whom　they　had

just　made　a　solemn　covenant　to　abolish　image…worship。　It　seems

to　me　that；　on　a　survey　of　all　the　facts　of　the　case；　only　a

very　cautious　and　hypothetical　judgment　is　justifiable。　It　may

be　that　Moses　profited　by　the　opportunities　afforded　him　of

access　to　what　was　best　in　Egyptian　society　to　become

acquainted；　not　only　with　its　advanced　ethical　and　legal　code；

but　with　the　more　or　less　pantheistic　unification　of　the　Divine

to　which　the　speculations　of　the　Egyptian　thinkers；　like　those

of　all　polytheistic　philosophers；　from　Polynesia　to　Greece；

tend；　if　indeed　the　theology　of　the　period　of　the　nineteenth

dynasty　was　not；　as　some　Egyptologists　think；　a　modification　of

an　earlier；　more　distinctly　monotheistic　doctrine　of　a　long

antecedent　age。　It　took　only　half　a　dozen　centuries　for　the

theology　of　Paul　to　become　the　theology　of　Gregory　the　Great；

and　it　is　possible　that　twenty　centuries　lay　between　the

theology　of　the　first　worshippers　in　the　sanctuary　of　the　Sphinx

and　that　of　the　priests　of　Ramses　Maimun。



It　may　be　that　the　ten　commandments　and　the　Book　of　the　Covenant

are　based　upon　faithful　traditions　of　the　efforts　of　a　great

leader　to　raise　his　followers　to　his　own　level。　For　myself；　as　a

matter　of　pious　opinion；　I　like　to　think　so；　as　I　like　to

imagine　that；　between　Moses　and　Samuel；　there　may　have　been　many

a　seer；　many　a　herdsman　such　as　him　of　Tekoah；　lonely　amidst　the

hills　of　Ephraim　and　Judah；　who　cherished　and　kept　alive　these

traditions。　In　the　present　results　of　Biblical　criticism；

however；　I　can　discover　no　justification　for　the　common

assumption　that；　between　the　time　of　Joshua　and　that　of

Rehoboam；　the　Israelites　were　familiar　with　either　the

Deuteronomic　or　the　Levitical　legislation；　or　that　the　theology

of　the　Israelites；　from　the　king　who　sat　on　the　throne　to　the

lowest　of　his　subjects；　was　in　any　important　respect　different

from　that　which　might　naturally　be　expected　from　their　previous

history　and　the　conditions　of　their　existence。　But　there　is

excellent　evidence　to　the　contrary　effect。　And；　for　my　part；　I

see　no　reason　to　doubt　that；　like　the　rest　of　the　world；　the

Israelites　had　passed　through　a　period　of　mere　ghost…worship；

and　had　advanced　through　Ancestor…worship　and　Fetishism　and

Totemism　to　the　theological　level　at　which　we　find　them　in　the

books　of　Judges　and　Samuel。





All　the　more　remarkable；　therefore；　is　the　extraordinary　change

which　is　to　be　noted　in　the　eighth　century　B。C。　The　student　who

is　familiar　with　the　theology　implied；　or　expressed；　in　the

books　of　Judges；　Samuel；　and　the　first　book　of　Kings；　finds

himself　in　a　new　world　of　thought；　in　the　full　tide　of　a　great

reformation；　when　he　reads　Joel；　Amos；　Hosea；　Isaiah；　Micah；

and　Jeremiah。



The　essence　of　this　change　is　the　reversal　of　the　position

which；　in　primitive　society；　ethics　holds　in　relation　to

theology。　Originally；　that　which　men　worship　is　a　theological

hypothesis；　not　a　moral　ideal。　The　prophets；　in　substance；　if

not　always　in　form　preach　the　opposite　doctrine。　They　are

constantly　striving　to　free　the　moral　ideal　from　the　stifling

embrace　of　the　current　theology　and　its　concomitant　ritual。

Theirs　was　not　an　intellectual　criticism；　argued　on　strictly

scientific　grounds；　the　image…worshippers　and　the　believers　in

the　efficacy　of　sacrifices　and　ceremonies　might　logically　have

held　their　own　against　anything　the　prophets　have　to　say；　it　was

an　ethical　criticism。　From　the　height　of　his　moral　intuition

that　the　whole　duty　of　man　is　to　do　justice　and　to　love　mercy

and　to　bear　himself　as　humbly　as　befits　his　insignificance　in

face　of　the　Infinitethe　prophet　simply　laughs　at　the　idolaters

of　stocks　and　stones　and　the　idolaters　of　ritual。　Idols　of　the

first　kind；　in　his　experience；　were　inseparably　united　with　the

practice　of　immorality；　and　they　were　to　be　ruthlessly

destroyed。　As　for　sacrifices　and　ceremonies；　whatever　their

intrinsic　value　might　be；　they　might　be　tolerated　on　condition

of　ceasing　to　be　idols；　they　might　even　be　praiseworthy　on

condition　of　being　made　to　subserve　the　worship　of　the　true

Jahvehthe　moral　ideal。



If　the　realm　of　David　had　remained　undivided；　if　the　Assyrian

and　the　Chaldean　and　the　Egyptian　had　left　Israel　to　the

ordinary　course　of　development　of　an　Oriental　kingdom；　it　is

possible　that　the　effects　of　the　reforming　zeal　of　the　prophets

of　the　eighth　and　seventh　centuries　might