Egypt of the Pharaohs and of the KhedivéZincke, F. Barham (Foster Barham)
History
Egypt of the Pharaohs and of the Khedivé
Zincke, F. Barham (Foster Barham)
Egypt -- Description and travel; Egypt -- History
One indispensable requisite was that it must be a religion that would
never take them back in thought and heart to Egypt. With Egypt he must
break utterly and for ever. This was a most difficult task. The thoughts
of the people went back to the flesh-pots of Egypt. They remembered the
fish, and the leeks, the onions, the cucumbers, and the melons they had
eaten in Egypt; but, more than all this, they remembered the palpable
and intelligible religion, the magnificent and touching ceremonies and
processions, the awe-inspiring temples—all that had satisfied at once
the eye, the heart, and the thought, while they had sojourned in, and
served the gods of, Egypt. They even recurred to the worship of the
bull Mnevis, the divinity of Heliopolis—Joseph’s On—at the very foot of
Sinai. Everything, therefore, that could recall Egypt and its religion,
everything that might present a point of contact between the thoughts,
the worship, the lives of the new people and of their old masters, was
to be studiously avoided. The dividing lines must everywhere be deep and
sharp—there must be no bridges from one to the other. So it must be. But
the doctrine of the future life was the very kernel—the heart itself—of
the religion of Egypt. There was, therefore, no choice; this must be
utterly abandoned and excluded: to admit it would be to admit Osiris,
the judge of the souls deceased this world, his assessors, and his array
of avengers, and the whole apparatus of the lower world. As to Heaven,
too, or the place of the blessed, the Egyptians had already appropriated
the sun, which, in that material age, must have appeared as the
best—indeed, the only suitable—_locus in quo_. That was already peopled
with Egyptians; and it could, therefore, be no heaven for the Hebrews—for
Semites. Or, if they were, in the end, to inhabit the same heaven,
sympathy for the Egyptians, and for their ideas, would be kept alive;
and, if so, then the design of forming a peculiar people, separate and
distinct from all other people, must be abandoned. It would be impossible
to carry it out.
This view of the reason for the omission of the great doctrine has in it,
I think, some truth, though it is far from being the whole truth. Moses
may have seen clearly that it would have been impossible to carry out
his paramount object if this doctrine was allowed a place in his system;
but this view falls short of what is required. It does not account
for the whole of the fact. It does not account, for instance, for the
doctrine not having been admitted into the system in after times—and no
explanation can be complete, or satisfactory, which does not include
that. We know, also, that Moses did not reject absolutely everything that
was Egyptian. He retained, for instance, circumcision, and the Egyptian
division of the lunar month into four weeks of seven days each, etc.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account