The Mosaic Distinction

The Mosaic Distinction: Israel, Egypt, and the Invention of Paganism
Author(s): Jan Assmann

Source: Representations, No. 56, Special Issue: The New Erudition (Autumn, 1996), pp. 48-67
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2928707 .
Accessed: 10/06/2013 17:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Representations.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:24:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JAN ASSMANN
The Mosaic Distinction:

Israel, Egypt,and the
Invention of Paganism
Draw a distinction....
Call itthefirstdistinction.
Call thespacein whichitis drawnthespaceseveredorclovenbythedistinction.'
I T S E E M S A S I F G E O R G E Spencer Brown's"firstLaw of Construction"

does not apply solelyto the logical and mathematicalconstructionforwhichit is
meant. It also applies strangelywell to the space of cultural constructionsand
distinctionsand to the spaces thatare severed or cloven by such distinctions.
The distinctionwithwhichthisessayis concerned is theone betweentrueand
false in religion:a distinctionthatunderliesthe more specificones betweenJews
and Gentiles,Christiansand pagans, Muslimsand unbelievers.Once thisdistinc-
tionis drawn,thereis no end of reentriesor subdistinctions.We startwithChris-
tians and pagans and end up withCatholicsand Protestants,Calvinistsand Lu-
therans,Socinians and Latitudinarians,and a thousand similar denominations
and subdenominations.These culturalor intellectualdistinctionsconstructa uni-
verse thatis fullnotonlyof meaning,identity, and orientationbut also of conflict,
intolerance,and violence. Therefore, there have alwaysbeen attemptsto over-
come the conflictby reexaminingthe true-falsedistinction,albeit at the risk of
losing culturalmeaning.
Let us call the distinctionbetween true and false in religionthe "Mosaic dis-
tinction"because traditionascribesitto Moses. Whilewe cannotbe sure thatMoses
ever lived, since there are no other traces of his earthlyexistence outside the
legendarytradition,we can be sure, on the other hand, thathe was not the first
to draw the distinction.There was a precursorin the person of the Egyptianking
Amenophis IV, who called himselfAkhenaten and instituteda monotheisticre-
ligion in the fourteenthcenturyB.C.2 His religion,however,created no lasting
traditionand was forgottenimmediatelyafterhisdeath. Moses is a figureof mem-
ory,but not of history,whereas Akhenatenis a figureof history,but not of mem-
ory. Since memoryis all that counts in the sphere of cultural distinctionsand
constructions,we are justifiedin speaking not of "Akhenaten'sdistinction"but of
the Mosaic distinction.The space severedor clovenbythisdistinctionis the space
of Westernmonotheism.It is the mental and culturalspace constructedby this
distinctionthatEuropeans have inhabitedfornearlytwo millennia.
48 REPRESENTATIONS 56 * Fall 1996 (C THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

This distinctionis not as old as religionitself,though at firstsightit might
seem plausible to say thateveryreligionproduces "pagans"just as everyciviliza-
tion generates "barbarians."But culturesand theirconstructionsof identitynot
only generate othernessbut also develop techniquesof translation.3Of course,
the "real other" is alwaystherebeyond myselfand myconstructionsof selfhood
and otherness.It is the "constructedother"thatis, to a certaindegree, compen-
sated by techniquesof translation.Translationin thissense is not to be confused
withthe colonializingappropriationof the "real" other.Rather,it is an attemptto
make more transparentthe borders erectedbyculturaldistinctions.
Ancientpolytheismsfunctionedas such a techniqueof translationwithinthe
"ancientworld" as an ecumene of interconnectednations.4The polytheisticreli-
gions overcame the ethnocentrismof tribal religionsby distinguishingseveral
deitiesbyname, shape, and function.The names,the shapes of the gods, and the
formsof worshipdiffered.But the functionswere strikingly similar,especiallyin
the case of cosmic deities: the sun god of one religionwas easily equated to the
sun god of anotherreligion,and so forth.In Mesopotamia, the practiceof trans-
latingdivine names goes back to the thirdmillennium.In the second millennium
it was extended to many differentlanguages and civilizationsof the Near East.
Plutarchgeneralizes,in his treatiseon Isis and Osiris,thatthere are alwayscom-
mon cosmic phenomena behind the differingdivine names: the sun, the moon,
theheaven,theearth,thesea, and so on. Because all people livein thesame world,
theyadore the same gods, the lords of thisworld:
Nor do we regardthegods as differentamongdifferent peoplesnor as barbarianand
Greekand as southern Butjustas thesun,moon,heaven,earthand sea are
and northern.
commonto all,thoughtheyare givenvariousnamesbythevaryingpeoples,so itis with
whichhas charge
theone reason(logos)whichordersthesethingsand theone providence
ofthem,andtheassistant theyaregivendifferent
powerswhichareassignedtoeverything:
honoursand modesofaddressamongdifferent peoplesaccordingtocustom,and theyuse
hallowedsymbols....5
The divine names are translatablebecause theyare conventional and because

there is always a referentserving as a tertium The cultures, lan-
comparationis.
guages, customs may be different:religionsalwayshave a common ground. The
gods were internationalbecause theywere cosmic, and while differentpeoples
worshiped differentgods, nobody contestedthe realityof foreigngods and the
legitimacyof foreignformsof worship.The distinctionin question did not exist
in the world of polytheisticand tribalreligions.
The space "severed or cloven" by the Mosaic distinctionwas not simplythe
space of religionin general,then,but thatof a veryspecifickind of religion.We
maycall thisa "counterreligion"because it not onlyconstructedbut rejected and
repudiated everythingthatwentbefore and everythingoutside itselfas "pagan-
ism." It no longer functionedas a means of interculturaltranslation;on the con-
The MosaicDistinction 49

trary,itfunctionedas a means of interculturalestrangement.Whereas polytheism
or rather,"cosmotheism,"rendered differentculturesmutuallytransparentand
compatible, the new counterreligionblocked interculturaltranslatability. False
gods cannot be translated.
Usually the fundamentaldistinctionbetween truthand falsityassumes the
form of a "grand narrative"underlyingand informinginnumerable concrete
tellingsand retellingsof the past. Books 2 through5 of the Pentateuch unfold
the Mosaic distinctionin both a narrativeand a normativeform.Narratively,the
distinctionis presented in the storyof Israel's exodus, wherebyEgypt came to
representtherejected,thereligiouslyfalse,the"pagan." Egypt'smostconspicuous
property,the worship of images, thus became its greatestsin. Normatively,the
distinctionis expressed in a code of Law thatconfirmsthe narrativebygivingthe
prohibitionof "idolatry"firstpriority.The worship of images comes to be re-
garded as the absolute horror,falsehood,and apostasy.Polytheismand idolatry,
in turn,are seen as one and the same formof religiouserror: images are "other
gods" because the true god is invisibleand cannot be iconicallyrepresented.The
second commandmentis hence a commentaryon the first:
1. Thou shalthaveno othergodsbeforeme.
2. Thou shaltnotmakeuntotheeanygravenimage.
The Exodus story,however,is more than simplyan account of historical

events,and the Law is more than merelya basis for social order and religious
purity.In addition to whattheyovertlytelland establish,theysymbolizethe Mo-
saic distinction.Exodus, the Law, Moses, the whole constellationof Israel and
Egyptare symbolicfiguresforall kindsof oppositions.6The leading one, however,
is thedistinctionbetweentruereligionand idolatry;in thecourse ofJewishhistory
both the concept of idolatryand the repudiation of it grew stronger.The later
the texts,the more elaborate the scorn and abominationtheypour over the idol-
aters. Some poignant verses in Deutero-Isaiah and Ps. 115 develop into whole
chaptersin the apocryphalSapientiaSalomonis, long sectionsin Philo'sDe decalogo
and De legibusspecialibus,
the MishnaictractateAvodahzarah,and Tertullian'sbook
De idololatria.7
But the hatred was mutual and the "idolaters"did not fail to strikeback.
Remarkablyenough, most of them were Egyptians.8The priest Manetho, for
example, who under PtolemyII wrotea historyof Egypt,representedMoses as
a rebellious Egyptianpriestwho made himselfthe leader of a colony of lepers.9
Whereas the Jewsdepicted idolatryas a kind of mental aberrationor madness,
the Egyptiansassociated iconoclasm witha verycontagious and disfiguringepi-
demic. The language of illnesshas been typicalof the debate on the Mosaic dis-
tinction,fromits beginningup to the days of Sigmund Freud. Manetho writes
that Moses and his lepers formed an alliance with the Hyksos, the enemies of
50 REPRESENTATIONS

Egypt,and tyrannizedEgyptforthirteenyears.All of theimages of the gods were
destroyedand thesanctuarieswere turnedintokitchenswherethesacred animals
were grilled.We are dealing witha storyof mutual abomination: the activitiesof
the iconoclastsare rendered withthe same horroras those of the idolatersby the
otherside. Moses' laws are thus reduced to two:
1. Thou shaltnotworshipanygodsnorrefrainfromeatingtheir
sacredanimals.
2. Thou shaltnotminglewithpeopleoutsidethineowngroup.
In Tacitus,the characterizationofJewishmonotheismas a counterreligionis

alreadycomplete.Moses founded a religionopposed to the ritesof otherpeople:
theJews"considereverythingthatwe keep sacred as profane and permitevery-
thingthatforus is taboo" [profanaillicomnia quae apud nos sacra, rursumcon-
cessa apud illos quae nobis incesta].In theirtemplestheyconsecratea statueof a
donkey and sacrificea ram in contumeliam Ammonis,"in order to ridicule the god
Amun." For the same reason, theysacrificea bull because the Egyptiansworship
Apis. As the inversionof Egyptiantradition,Jewishreligionis totallyderivative
of and dependent on Egypt.'0
It is importantto realize that we are dealing here with a mutual loathing
rooted not in some idiosyncraticaversionsbetweenJewsand Egyptiansbut in the
Mosaic distinctionthat,in its firstoccurrence,was Akhenaten'sdistinction.It is
truethatmanyargumentsof the "idolaters"have lived on in thediscourseof anti-
Semitism."1In this sense, the struggleagainst the Mosaic distinctionhad anti-
Semitic implications.However, it is also true that many of those (such as John
Toland or GottholdEphraim Lessing) who in theeighteenthcenturyattackedthe
distinctionfoughtfortoleranceand equalityfortheJews;in thissense, the strug-
gle againstthe Mosaic distinctionassumes thecharacterof a struggleagainstanti-
Semitism.The mostoutspoken destroyerof the Mosaic distinctionwas, afterall,
aJew,Sigmund Freud. Moreover,in thedebate betweeniconoclastsand idolaters,
theChristianchurchsided withtheJewsand inheritedtherepudiationof idolatry
bycontinuingto denigratepagan religion.Attacks,therefore,against the Mosaic
distinctionconcerned the Christianchurchas well as Judaismand Islam.12
These attackstook the formof a redefinitionthatattemptedto relativizeor
minimizethe distinction."Normativeinversion,"whichexplains one fieldas just
the invertedreflectionof itsopposing field,is the earliestof these redefinitions.
Strangelyenough, however,the principle of normative inversion is not only
evoked by"pagan" writerswho had theirreasons to destroythedistinction.It also
recurs about a millenniumlaterin the exact centerof theJewishtradition,as an
element of Jewishself-definition Startingfromthissur-
and self-interpretation.
prisingreemergenceof the principleof normativeinversion,the followingpara-
graphs outline some of the more importantredefinitionsto which the Mosaic

distinctionwas exposed in thehistoryof EnlightenmentfromMoses Maimonides
to Freud.
Normative Inversion
The principle of normativeinversionprovides the main method of

legal interpretationforMaimonidesin his GuideofthePerplexed.13Maimonides did
not speak of Egypt. Instead, he inventeda communitycalled the Sabians. It is
mentionedtwiceor threetimesin the Koran, but nobody knowsexactlyto which
group thistextrefers.14 Maimonides'Sabians are an imaginedcommunitythathe
created by applying Manetho's principleof normativeinversionin the opposite
direction.If the Law prohibitsan activityx, thisis because the Sabians practiced
x; and vice versa, if the Law prescribesan activityy, thisis because y was a taboo
among the Sabians.
Maimonides-who lived in Egyptand wrotehis book in Arabic-had excel-
lentreasons forchoosingthe Sabians insteadof thehistoricallymore appropriate
ancient Egyptiansin his reconstructionof a historicalcontextfor Mosaic Law. It
is preciselythe completeinsignificanceof the Sabians thatserveshis purpose. He
figuresthem as a once powerfulcommunitythat had since fallen into almost
complete oblivion. He explains the functionof normativeinversionas a kind of
"arsoblivionalis",15a withdrawaltherapyforSabian idolatry,whichhe understands
as a kind of collectiveor epidemic addiction. The most efficientway to erase a
memoryis to superimposea countermemory;hence, thebestwayto make people
forgetan idolatrousriteis to replace itwithanotherrite.The Christiansfollowed
the same principlewhen theybuilttheirchurcheson the ruins of pagan temples
and observed theirfeastson the dates of pagan festivals.For the same reason,
Moses (or divine "cunningand wisdom,"manifestingitselfthroughhis agency)'6
had to installall kinds of dietaryand sacrificialprescriptionsin order to occupy
the terrainheld by the Sabians and theiridolatrousways,"so thatall these rites
and cults thattheypracticedfor the sake of the idols, theynow came to practice
in the honor of god."''7The divinestrategywas so successfulthatthe Sabians and
theironce mightycommunityfellinto completeoblivion.
Maimonides was no historian.He was interestedin the historicalcircum-
stancesof theLaw onlyinsofaras theyelucidateditsmeaning,thatis,theintention
of the legislator.'8He contendsthatthe originalintentionof the Law was to de-
stroyidolatryand demonstratesthisbyreconstructing the historicalcircumstantiae
of the Sabians. Then he generalizes the crime of idolatryto fitmetahistorical
problemsand arrivesat hiswell-known,purelyphilosophical,and ahistoricalcon-
cept of idolatry.For Maimonides,the Law remainsenforced,despite itshistorical
circumstances,because of the timelessdanger of idolatry.
52 REPRESENTATIONS

Translation: Hieroglyphs into Laws
Five hundred yearsafterMaimonides,his projectof a historicalexpla-

nation of the Law was explicitlytaken up bythe Christianscholar who opens the
second section of our story.John Spencer (1630-93) was a scholar of Hebrew
and, after 1667, masterof Corpus ChristiCollege at Cambridge. In his book on
the Ritual Law, Spencer mentionsMaimonides alwayswiththe greatestadmira-
tion.'9 He fullyagrees withMaimonides in seeing the principleand overall pur-
pose of the Law as the destructionof idolatry,whichhe also viewsas an addiction
to be cured by a withdrawalprogram.He even applies Maimonides' principleof
normativeinversionin a considerable number of cases. But he deviates from
Maimonidesin tworespects.First,he drawsaltogetherdifferent conclusionsfrom
thiskind of historicalexplanation,since he makes his method thatof historical,
not legal, reasoning. For him,not onlythe circumstances,but also the intentions
or reasons of the Law are historicaland belong to the past. Maimonides took the
Law's destructionof idolatryto be a timeless(or metahistorical)task; only the
circumstancesof itsfirstformulationand applicationwere historical.For Spencer,
the reason for the Law is historicalas well.20With the cessation of idolatry,the
Law lost its validityand the Mosaic distinctionchanged its character.This is, of
course, the Christianidea of progress.
The second divergence fromMaimonides is much more revolutionaryand
depends on the principleof translation.2'This paradigmshiftshatteredthe foun-
dation of the Mosaic distinctionbetweentrueand falsein religion.Like Maimon-
ides, Spencer held thatGod did not inscribehis Law on a tabula rasa but, rather,
thathe carefullyoverwrotean existinginscription.Unlike Maimonides,however,
Spencer takesthisoriginalinscriptiontobe EgyptianratherthanSabian: itis more
of an intended subtext,or even a kind of "golden ground,"for the Law, than an
antitextto be wiped out or coveredup. The idea is thatGod intentionally brought
Israel into Egypt in order to give His people an Egyptianfoundation,and that
He chose Moses as His prophetbecause he was broughtup in all the wisdom of
the Egyptians.22Moses "translated"a good deal of Egyptianwisdom intohis laws
and institutions,which can only be explained if reintegratedinto theiroriginal
context.Translatio("transfer,""borrowing")refersnot to texts,but to rites and
customs thatare received fromEgyptin order to be preserved as containersof
originalwisdom,ratherthan to be supplanted and eventuallyovercome.Spencer
subscribedto the conventionaltheoryabout hieroglyphicwritingbased on Hor-
apollon's twobooks on hieroglyphs,23 and especiallyon AthanasiusKircher's"de-
cipherments."24 According to this theory,hieroglyphswere iconic symbolsthat
referredto concepts. They were used exclusivelyforreligiouspurposes, such as
transmittingthe "mystic"ideas that were to be kept secret from the common
people. Similarly,forSpencer,a good manyof thelaws,rites,and institutionsthat

God, by the mediationof Moses, gave to his people, show thishieroglyphicchar-
acter.The Law appears here as a "veil"(velum),a "cover"(involucrum),
or a "shell"
(cortex)thattransmitsa truthbyhiding it. In thissame context,Spencer adduces
one of those passages fromClement of Alexandria thatbecome crucial to Karl
Leonhard Reinhold'sand FriedrichSchiller'sviewof Egypt:
In adytoveritatis
repositum
sermonemrevera
sacrum,
Aegyptii
quidemperea, quaeapudipsosvo-
canturadyta,Hebraeiautempervelumsignificarunt.
Occultationem
igitur,
quodattinet,
suntHe-
braicis
similia
Aegyptiorum
aenigmata.
[The Egyptiansindicatedthereallysacredlogos,whichtheykeptin theinnermost sanc-
tuaryof Truth,bywhattheycalledAdyta,and theHebrewsbymeansof thecurtain(in
thetemple).Therefore,as faras concealmentis concerned,thesecrets(aenigmata)
of the
Hebrewsand thoseoftheEgyptians are verysimilartoeachother.]25
These sentencesopen the door to a totallydifferentunderstandingof the rela-

tionshipbetween Egyptand Israel.
Mystery:Nature into Scripture
At the same timeand even at the same place thatSpencer did his re-
search on Egyptian rites,Ralph Cudworth,Regius Professorof Hebrew, pub-
lishedhisTrueIntellectual SystemoftheUniverse.26Thereis everyreasontosuppose
that Spencer and Cudworth knew each other well, but theirbooks are worlds
apart. Spencer workedon theMosaic distinctionas a historian.He wantedto show
how much is derived fromEgyptand, in doing so, he reduced revelationto trans-
lation and transcodification.Cudworth was a Cambridge Neoplatonist whose
thinkingtranscendedthe Mosaic distinctionin itsbiblicalexpression.His god was
the god of the philosophers, and his enemy was not idolatrybut atheism or
materialism.
Cudworth wants to confuteatheismby provingthat the recognitionof one
Supreme Being constitutes"the true intellectualsystemof the universe" be-
cause-as Lord Herbert of Cherburyhad already shown in 1624-the notion
"thatthereis a Supreme God" is the mostcommon notionof all.27Even atheism
conformswiththisnotion: the god whose existenceit negatesis preciselythisone
Supreme God and not one or all of the gods of polytheism.This notion,common
to theistsand atheistsalike, can be defined as: "A Perfect
ConsciousUnderstanding
Being (or Mind) Existingofit selffrom Eternity,and theCause ofall otherthings."28
Especially interestingfor our concern is Cudworth'sclaim that the idea of one
Supreme Being is also shared by polytheism.In thiscontext,Egyptbecomes im-
portantforthesimplereason thatitwas byfarthebestknownpolytheistic religion
at the time.Even though the hieroglyphswere not yetdeciphered and the mon-
uments not yet excavated and published, the body of Greek and Latin sources
54 REPRESENTATIONS

(includingthe Corpus Hermeticumand the writingsof Plotinus,Porphyry,Iam-
blichus,Proclus,and Horapollon, whichwere believed to be firsthandEgyptian
sources) easilyoutweighedthe available informationabout otherreligions.
Cudworthdistinguishesbetweenself-existing gods and gods whose existence
is dependent on other gods. No polytheism,he concludes, ever believed in the
existenceof several self-existentgods. There is always only one fromwhom all
the other gods derive. Everypolytheismthus includes a monotheism.The form
of inclusionis mysteryor secrecy:polytheismis forthe many,while monotheism
is forthe few.This unequal distributionof knowledgedoes not followfromsome
malicious strategyof the priestswho wanted to keep theirknowledge secret for
theiragrandissement, but fromthe difficultyof monotheismand the natural dif-
ferencesin mentalcapabilities.Truth,bythisreasoning,is a naturalmysterythat
can onlybe approached bytheveryfew.Cudworthaccordinglyreconstructswhat
he calls the "arcane theology"of ancient Egyptand shows thatit is the theology
of the One and the All, hen kai pan. He takes his evidence from a number of
sources,but especiallyfromthe Corpus Hermeticum,whichhe holds to be a late
but authenticcodificationof ancientEgyptianwisdom and theology.
The chapterof Hermes Trismegistusseemed closed once and forall in 1614,
when Isaac Casaubon exposed the Corpus Hermeticumas a late compilationand
a Christianforgery.29 Since then,the Hermetictraditionsurvivedonly in occult
undercurrentssuch as Rosicrucianism,alchemy,theosophy,and so forth.This, at
least,is the pictureFrances Yates has drawn of the Hermetictradition.30Indeed,
Yates proclaimed the year 1614 "a watershedseparating the Renaissance world
fromthe modern world"because Casaubon's dating of the Hermetictexts"shat-
tered the basis of all attemptsto build a natural theologyin Hermeticism."'3'It
was no easy task to vindicatethe Corpus Hermeticumagainst so devastatinga
verdict.Cudworth,however,did so withsuch brilliantsuccess (althoughwithnot
altogethervalid arguments),thatnatural theologiesbuilt on the Hermetic texts
continued to flourish.Hermes Trismegistushad, in fact,a triumphantcomeback
in the eighteenthcenturydue to Cudworth'srehabilitation,whichinaugurated a
new phase of the Hermetic traditioncoinciding in Germany with a wave of
Spinozism.
Cudworthshowed thatCasaubon made two mistakes.First,he was wrong in
treatingthe whole corpus as one coherenttext.His criticismaffectedonly three
of the seventeenindependent treatisesand his verdictof forgeryapplied at most
to these three,but not to thecorpus as a whole. Second, he was wrongin equating
textand tradition.The textis late, that much Cudworth is ready to admit. But
according to him,thismustbe taken as a terminus ad quemand not a quo; the text
showsonlyhow long the traditionwas alive, not how late it came intobeing. And
even the three "forgeries"mustcontain a kernelof truth;otherwisetheywould
nothave been successful.In thisway,Cudworthwas able to representthedoctrine

of All-Oneness or henkai pan as the quintessence of Egyptianarcane theology.
Orpheus, Pythagoras,Plato, and others initiatedinto the Egyptian mysteries
broughtthisdoctrineto Greece; Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophytransmittedit
to the Occident.
Sixtyyears later,WilliamWarburton,a well-knownShakespeare scholar,an
Anglicanbishop, and a friendof Alexander Pope, combined the ideas of Spencer
and Cudworth in his Divine legationofMoses,which appeared in three volumes
between 1738 and 1741.32 WarburtonintegratedCudworth'sideas into his refor-
mulationof the Mosaic distinction,whichappears now as "mystery"versus "rev-
elation."The truthis presenton both sides: quite a revolutionaryadmission for
a bishop. But the Egyptiansand all the otherreligionsderivingfromEgyptwere
able to recognizeand to transmitthistruthonlyin the formof mystery, thatis, as
somethingreservedforthe veryfewwho were deemed able to grasp it-not as a
permanent possession but as a qualityknown throughritesthatwere bound to
calendaric observances.Moses, on the otherhand, made the truththe possession
of the whole people and cast it in the formof a permanentScripture.33
Warburton'sparallel to GiambattistaVico is striking.Vico, who, like Warbur-
ton, wanted to preservethe Mosaic distinction,interpretedit in the termsof sa-
cred and profanehistory.He asked how profanesocietyand historywere possible,
and even worked well,when the various Gentile peoples were guided by reason
(or "naturallaw") alone and were not grantedthe guidance of revelation.34Both
reason and revelationmust thereforecontain the truth.Reason, however,was
insecure,alwaysendangered by error,and the resultof a long and windingpro-
cess of evolution,whereasrevelationwas pristine,permanent,and secure. Beyond
preservingthe Mosaic distinction,though,Vico and Warburtonhad stillanother
traitin common: theirinterestwas focused on the "pagan" side, profane history
and mysteryreligion.The firststep of secularizationwas not the abolitionof the
distinction,but a shiftof emphasis fromthe sacred to the profane.
Identity:Jehovahsive Isis
The step frommysteryto identitymightseem slight,because already

in the paradigm of mystery, the truthis recognized on both sides of the Mosaic
distinction.The new paradigm of identitydoes not claim thatthereis revelation
on both sides,but thatthereis secrecyon both sides. Secrecypersists;even Moses
did not revealthe fulltruth.Hence Lessing'sidea of universalfreemasonry:there
have alwaysbeen a fewinitiatesor illuminateswho sought the truth,whichcould
be uncoveredeven afterMoses' revelation,but onlythrougha secretquest.35The
truthis the same on both sides,but it is the possessionof no one.
Karl Leonhard Reinhold published his book on The HebrewMysteries, or the
56 REPRESENTATIONS

OldestFreemasonry firstin 1786 in twoissues of theJournalftir Freymaurer and then
At
as a monograph in 1788 at Leipzig.36 the age of 25, he entered the famous
Viennese lodge TrueConcord(1783). Stilla Jesuit,he passed all three grades but
fled in the same year fromtheJesuitorder to Leipzig, where he continued his
philosophical studies. He married a daughter of Christoph Martin Wieland,
joined him in editing the journal Teutscher Merkur,became well known for his
Letterson Kant'sPhilosophy, and was appointed professorof philosophyat Jena in
1787. There he befriendedSchiller,whomhe induced to read Immanuel Kant.37
In his book on the Hebrew mysteries, Reinhold identifiestheGod of theBible
as Isis, the Egyptian Supreme Being, by comparing God's self-presentationin
Exodus 3.14 ("I am who I am") and Isis's self-presentation on the veiled image at
Sais: "Brethren!"Reinhold exclaims,"Who among us does not know the ancient
Egyptianinscriptions:the one on the pyramidat Sais: 'I am all thatis, was, and
willbe, and no mortalhas ever liftedmyveil,'and thatotheron the statueof Isis:
'I am all thatis'? Who among us does not understandas well as the ancientEgyp-
tian initiatehimselfdid the meaning of these words and does not know thatthey
express the essentialBeing, the meaning of the name Jehova?"38While the saitic
inscriptionis reportedby Plutarchand (in a slightlydifferent, thus independent,
version)by Proclus,theyspeak onlyof one such inscription.The second one was
probablyinventedbyVoltaire,whomReinhold is closelyparaphrasingin thispas-
sage.39It servesReinhold'spurpose because it makes the equation more striking:
"I am all thatis" and "I am whoI am."
The equation, however,does not seem so convincingto us. On the contrary,
one propositionnegates the other.When Isis says "I am all thatis,"she identifies
herself with the world and abolishes the distinctionbetween God and world.
When Yahveh says "I am who I am," he explicitlydraws the distinctionbetween
himselfand the world and forecloseseverylink of identification.But Reinhold
read the Bible in Greek. The Septuagintrenders the divine name as "Ego eimiho
on"[I am theBeing one], whichReinhold understands(and whichhas alwaysbeen
understood) as meaning "I am essentialBeing."40Reinhold was, in fact,following
an antique tradition;in one of the so-called SibyllinianOracles, the biblicalGod,
withhis self-presentation "I am who I am" ['ehjeh 'asher'chjch], is interpretedin
the sense of the cosmic God of the Hermetists:"I am the being one (eimid'egoge
ho on), recognize thisin your spirit:I donned heaven as my garment,I clothed
myselfwiththe ocean, the earth is ground formyfeet,air coversme as mybody
and the starsrevolvearound me.'
This is already Isis. But the pointthatReinhold wantsto make is thatthe true
God has no names, neither"Jehovah"nor "Isis." Both the saiticformulaand the
Hebrew formulaare to be understoodnot as the revelationof a name, but rather
as itswitholding,or as therevelation ofanonymity.God is all; everyname fallsshort
because it distinguishesGod fromsomethingthatis not God. Being all, God can-

not have a name. Withthis,we come back to Hermes Trismegistus.The pertinent
fragmentis preserved in Lactantius.Nicholas of Cusa quotes thispassage in De
doctaignorantiasome decades before Marsilio Ficino's edition of the Hermetica:
It is obviousthatno namecanbe appropriate One,becausenothingcanbe
totheGreatest
distinguished fromhim.All namesare imposedbydistinguishing one fromthe other.
Whereall isone,therecannotbe a propername.Therefore, HermesTrismegistus is right
in saying:"becauseGod is thetotality ofthings[universitas he has no propername,
rerum],
otherwise he shouldbe calledbyeverynameor everything shouldbearhisname.Forhe
comprisesin hissimplicity thetotality of all things.Conformingwithhispropername-
whichforus is deemedineffable and whichis thetetragrammaton. . . -his nameshould
be interpreted as 'one and all'or 'allinone,'whichis evenbetter['unusetomnia'sive'omnia
uniter,'quodmelius est]."42
In this text,writtenin the middle of the fifteenthcentury,we already find the

equation of the Hebrew tetragrammaton withHermes Trismegistus'sanonymous
god, who is unusetomnia,"One and All,"or henkaipan, as thisidea willbe referred
to by Cudworthand Lessing.
Nil novisubsole? It is true thatwe will findmost of the leading ideas of the
eighteenthcenturyconcerning the Mosaic distinction,nature and revelation,
truthand religioustolerance,already presentin the fifteenth and sixteenthcen-
turies.But we are not asking forfirstoccurrences.The point is that these ideas
did not disappear in the seventeenthcentury,as is generallybelieved. Although
the seventeenthcenturywas an age of orthodoxythatdestroyedthe harmonistic
and eclecticdreams of the Renaissance, and although most of thisperiod's reli-
gious and philosophical movementswent occult or disappeared under the per-
secution of orthodox censorship,Spencer's, Gerardus Vossius's (1577-1649),43
John Marsham's (1602-85),44 and Cudworth's reinventionsof Egypt led to a
strongand mostlyunknownrevivalof Hermeticism,pantheism,and otherforms
of Egyptophilia.These rehabilitationsof the Egyptian tradition,furthermore,
had the immenseadvantage of answeringorthodoxand historicalcriticism.
The enlightenedEgyptophiliaof the eighteenthcenturyreached its climax
around 1780 when it merged with the ideas of natureand the sublime.During
these years Lamoignon des Malesherbes coined the termcosmotheism to describe
the Stoic worshipof cosmos as a god. Cosmotheismmore or less explicitlyabol-
ishes the distinctionbetween God and world. FriedrichJacobi applied it to Ben-
edictSpinoza's deussivenaturaand Lessing'shenkaipan, a formulathatCudworth
(1678) had shown to be the quintessentialexpressionof ancient Egyptiantheol-
ogy.The ancientEgyptianswere thuscosmotheists just as the Stoics,the Neopla-
tonists,the Spinozistswere. This idea, alwayspresent,returnedin the yearsbe-
tween 1785 and 1790 withan overwhelmingforce.
In this new cosmotheisticmovement,Isis was generallyinterpretedas "Na-
ture." Here is how Ignaz von Born, the Grand Master of TrueConcordand the
58 REPRESENTATIONS

model of Sarastro in WolfgangAmadeus Mozart'sMagic Flute,summarized the
ultimateaim of the Egyptianmysteriesand of freemasonry:
The knowledgeof natureis the ultimatepurposeof our application.We worshipthis
nourisher,
progenitor, and preserverof all creationin the imageof Isis. Onlyhe who
knowsthewholeextentof her powerand forcewillbe able to uncoverherveilwithout
punishment.46
This passage combinesPlutarchwithClementof Alexandria,who says: "The

doctrinesdelivered in the Greater Mysteriesconcern the universe. Here all in-
structionends. Things are seen as theyare; and Nature, and the workingsof
Nature, are to be seen and comprehended."47On the last step of initiation,the
adept is speechless in the face of nature.This idea inspiredSchiller'sballad "The
Veiled Image at Sais" and his essay "The Legation of Moses."48Like Warburton
and Reinhold, Schillerconstructedthe Mosaic distinctionas the antagonisticre-
lationshipbetween officialreligionand mysterycult. In his opinion, secrecywas
necessaryto protectboth the politicalorder froma possiblydangerous truthand
the truthfromvulgarabuse and misunderstanding.For thisreason, hieroglyphic
writingand a complex ritualof culticceremoniesand prescriptionswere invented
to shield themysteries.They weredevised to createa "sensual solemnity"(sinnliche
and to prepare,byemotionalarousal, thesoul of theinitiateto receive
Feierlichkeit)
the truth.
At this point Schiller introduced the notion of the "sublime,"associatingit
withthe Hermeticidea of God's namelessness:"Nothingis more sublimethan the
simplegreatnesswithwhichthesages speak of thecreator.In order to distinguish
him in a trulydefiningform,theyrefrainedfromgivinghim a name at all."49
Appearing in the same year (1790), Kant'sKritikderUrteilskraft associates the
idea of the sublimewiththesecond commandment,thatis,withthe idea of God's
imagelessness:"There is perhaps no more sublimepassage in the law-code of the
Jews than the commandment'thou shalt not make unto thee any graven im-
age....' "50 But in a footnoteKant mentionsthe veiled image at Sais and its in-
scriptionas the highestexpressionof the sublime:
Perhapsnothingmoresublimewaseversaidor no sublimerthought everexpressedthan
thefamousinscription on thetempleofIsis(mothernature):"I amall thatisand thatshall
be, and no mortalhas liftedmyveil."Segneravailedhimselfof thisidea in a suggestive
vignetteprefixedto hisNatural in orderto inspirebeforehandtheapprentice
Philosophy,
whomhe wasabouttolead intothetemplewitha holyawe,whichshoulddisposehismind
tosolemnattention.5'
Kant uses Schiller's language of initiationin describingSegner's vignette:

"holy awe" (heiligerSchauer),"solemn attention"(felerliche The
Aufmerksamkeit).
main point of Kant's observationis to emphasize the initiatoryfunction the
of
sublime. The sublime inspires in humans a holy awe and terrorthat only the

strongestare able to withstand,so as to prepare soul and mind forthe apprehen-
sion of a truththatcan be grasped onlyin a stateof exceptionalfearand attention.
Sublime secretsrequire a sublime environment.The connectionof the sublime
withwisdom,mystery, and initiationoccurs again and again in the literatureon
the Egyptianmysteries.52 But I would liketo quote a textto whichCarlo Ginzburg
drewmy the
attention: Athenian anonymouslypublishedin London (1741-
Letters,
43). The followingis a descriptionof the "Hermeticcave" at Thebes, where the
Egyptianinitiateswere supposed to be taughtthe doctrinesof Hermes Trisme-
gistusas inscribedon the pillarsof wisdom:
The strangesolemnity of theplace muststrikeeveryone, thatentersit,witha religious
horror;and is themostpropertoworkyouup intothatframeofmind,in whichyouwill
receive,withthemostawfulreverence and assent,whatever thepriest,whoattendsyou,
is pleasedtoreveal....
Towardsthefarther endofthecave,orwithin theinnermost recessofsomeprodigious
caverns,thatrunbeyondit,youhear,as it werea greatwayoff,a noiseresembling the
distantroaringsofthesea,and sometimes likethefallofwaters, dashingagainstrockswith
greatimpetuosity. The noiseis supposedtobe so stunningand frightful,ifyouapproach
enough,intothosemysterious
it,thatfew,theysay,are inquisitive sportingsofnature....
Surroundedwiththesepillarsoflampsare eachofthosevenerablecolumns,whichI
am nowto speakof,inscribed withthehieroglyphicalletterswiththeprimevalmysteries
oftheEgyptian learning.... Fromthesepillars,and thesacredbooks,theymaintain, that
all thephilosophyand learningoftheworldhasbeenderived.53
This is the proper settingforthe storageand transmissionof secretwisdom.

The more well-to-doamong the Freemasons of the timeeven tried to construct
such an ambiance in theirparks and gardens. The scenographyfor the trialby
fireand waterin the finalefromthe second act of Mozart'sMagic Fluteenvisages
such a cave, where watergushes out witha deafening roar and firespurtsforth
withdevouringtongues.It is modeled notonlyupon Abbe Terrasson'sdescription
of Sethos's subterraneantrialsand initiationbut also upon masonic garden ar-
chitecture,such as the grottoin the park at Aigen, near Salzburg, owned by Mo-
zart'sfriendand fellowmason, Basil von Amann.54The idea of the sublime-so
importantforthe aestheticsof the time-and the interpretationof ancientEgyp-
tianartand architecturewere practicallyinseparablefromnotionsof mystery and
initiation.
According to Reinhold and Schiller,nature was the god in whose mysteries
Moses was initiatedduring the course of his Egyptianeducation. But thiswas not
the God Moses revealed to his people. In the school of the Egyptianmysteries,
Moses not onlylearned to contemplatethe truthbut also "collecteda treasureof
hieroglyphs,mysticalsymbolsand ceremonies"withwhichto build up a religion
and to cover the truthunder the protectiveshell of culticinstitutionsand pre-
scriptions-subcorticelegis,as Spencer had alreadyformulatedit.Schillerreplaced
Maimonides'and Spencer'sidea of God's accommodationof the Law withthe idea
60 REPRESENTATIONS

of Moses' accommodation of God. Religion and revelation,in this scheme, are
only formsof accommodation.
Among the readers of Schiller'sessaywas Ludwig van Beethoven,who wrote
out the two "saiticinscriptions"and a quotation fromthe Orphic hymnon a leaf
of paper and had thisput under glass and in a frame.It stood on his writingtable
during the last yearsof his life:
I am all thatis.
I am all thatwas,is,and willbe; and no mortalhas everliftedmyveil.
He is theOne whoexistsbyhimself, and to thissingleOne all things
owetheirexistence.55
These sentenceswere held to be quintessentialexpressionsof enlightenedreli-

gion and, at the same time,of ancient Egyptianwisdom and theology.Equally
emblematicof Egyptiantheologywas the Greek formulahenkaipan thatLessing
wrote as his personal religious manifestoin the guest-bookof a friend on 15
August 1780.56WhenJacobipublishedhis conversationswithLessing in 1785, he
launched the "pantheism debate" that held sway in Germany for almost fifty
years.57Cudworthcould have launched the same debate a hundred yearsearlier.
But it was only on the eve of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt that the return
of Egyptian cosmotheismand the abolition of the Mosaic distinctionassumed
the dimensions of a sweeping revolution.One mightcall it the "returnof the
repressed."
Latency,or the Return of the

Repressed
Sigmund Freud was anotherreader of Schiller'sessay.Its impacton his

Mosesand Monotheism is evident.58But for all the still-growing literatureon this
book, nobody seems to noticethatFreud's workon the Mosaic distinctioncontin-
ues the discourse of the eighteenthcentury.59 It is, of course, importantto read
Freud's book in the contextof his other scientificwritings.Nevertheless,the full
importof the book only becomes clear when seen in the contextof the Enlight-
enment tradition.60 When, under the pressureof German anti-Semitism,Freud
startedto writehis book, remarkablyenough, he did not ask "how the Germans
came to murdertheJews,"but "howtheJewscame to attractthisundyinghatred."
He sought the answer in the Mosaic distinctionand in Moses himself,who, by
drawingthisdistinction,Freud believed had created theJews.Freud's projectwas
thusto dissolveor "deconstruct"the Mosaic distinctionbyhistoricalanalysis:pre-
ciselythe projectof the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies.Freud's Moses was
an Egyptianwho broughtto theJewsan Egyptianreligion.Everyattempt,how-

ever,to abolish the Mosaic distinctionhad similarlyfocusedon the Egyptianback-
ground of Moses. Already in 1709,John Toland, basing himselfon Strabo, even
went so far as to make Moses an Egyptian and the prince of the province of
Goshen, who founded a new religionin the spiritof Spinoza, and leftEgyptto-
getherwiththe Hebrews in order to realize it.6'
When Freud resumed, in the 1930s, the discourse on Moses and Egypt,he
was able to avail himselfof an archaeologicaldiscoverythatwas inaccessibleto all
previous authors fromManetho to Schiller:that is, the discoveryof Akhenaten
and his monotheisticrevolution.He was spared thetroubleof inventingEgyptian
mysteriesin order to project Hermetic or Spinozistictheologyback into Moses'
times,and instead could point to an Egyptianmonotheisticcounterreligionas a
historicalfact.But even in his reconstructionsecrecyreturns,namely,in the form
of latency.Freud's Moses did not translateor accommodate his truthto the ca-
pacitiesof the people but imposed itwithoutcompromise.Therefore he was mur-
dered. Yet it was preciselybybeing murdered and bybecoming a traumaticand
encryptedmemorythathe was able to createtheJewishpeople. This creationwas
a slowprocess,takingcenturiesand even millennia.His truthworkedfromwithin
and manifesteditselfas a returnof the repressed. In Freud's words,it "mustfirst
have undergone the fate of being repressed, the condition of lingeringin the
unconscious,before it is able to display such powerfuleffectson its returnand
forcethe masses under itsspell."62In thisway,Moses the Egyptianand his mono-
theism "returned to the memoryof his people." This repression is how Freud
explains the coercivepower thatreligionhas over the masses. For Freud, religion
is a compulsoryneurosis that can only be treatedby "remembering,repeating,
workingthrough"Freud'sversionof Baal Shem Tov's famoussentence:the secret
of redemptionis remembering.In the case of the Mosaic distinction,thisremem-
bering has alwaysturnedtowardEgypt.
In thissituation,itmaybe importantto rediscoverthe Egyptof theeighteenth
centuryrepressed by nineteenth-century positivismand historicism-just as the
Egyptof the Renaissance had been rediscoveredby the eighteenthcenturyafter
a period of suppression,and as the fifteenthand sixteenthcenturiesrediscovered
priscatheologiain the Egypt (and its syncretisticcosmotheism)of late antiquity.
The eighteenthcenturyreopened a dialogue withan ancient Egyptian(or gen-
erally "pagan") cosmotheismthat had been suppressed by orthodox and ratio-
nalisticfundamentalism.In the nineteenthcentury,thisdialogue was again, and
apparentlyforever,broughtto an end bythe deciphermentof hieroglyphicwrit-
ing and the rise of modern Egyptology,whichrelegatedall Egyptophilicideas to
the museum of inventionsand misunderstandings.Only recentlyhas it become
clear that there is a genuine Egyptiancosmotheistictraditionthat has been op-
posed bythe Mosaic distinctionbut has persistedas a countercurrentthroughall
the differentstagesof Westernmonotheismuntilthe eighteenthcenturyand be-
62 REPRESENTATIONS

yond. Those who referredto ancient Egyptin combatingorthodox and funda-
mentalistdistinctionswere not completelymistaken.And manyof those who en-
gaged in the project of a scientificdiscoveryof ancient Egypt and who opposed
Egyptophilictraditionswere ultimately,and more or less unwittingly, following
the same agenda of natural religionand reason. It is alwaysgood to remember.
Perhaps, however,thisremembranceis not, afterall, "the secretof redemp-
tion,"but rather a technique of translation.I thinkthat our aim cannot be to
abolish distinctionsand to deconstructthe spaces thatwere severed or cloven by
them.Whatwe need insteadis thedevelopmentof newtechniquesof intercultural
translation,not in order to appropriate "the other,"but to overcome the stereo-
typesof othernessthatwe have projectedonto the otherbydrawingdistinctions.
We are no longer dreaming of returningto Egyptor to the eighteenthcentury,
withitsideas of tolerance.Whilethisconceptoftolerancewas based on integration
or generalization,whatwe need is a toleranceof recognition,whichdepends upon
what is stillbeyond our reach: a real understandingof those religionsthatwere
rejectedas "idolatry"bythe Mosaic distinction.
Notes
The followingessayis based on researchcompletedduringmystayat theJ.Paul Getty

Center forthe Historyof Art and the Humanitiesat Santa Monica in 1994-95. The
resultsof thisresearchwillbe published in a book titledMosestheEgyptian:An Essayin
Mnemohistory, forthcomingfromHarvard UniversityPress.
1. George Spencer Brown,Laws ofForm(New York, 1972), 3.
2. See, e.g., Erik Hornung,Echnaton:Die ReligiondesLichtes(Ztirich,1995); Jan Assmann,
"Akhanyati'sTheology of Time and Light,"IsraelAcademy ofSciencesand theHumanities,
Proceedings 7 (1992): 143-76.
3. See, e.g., Sanford Budick and WolfgangIser, eds., TheTranslatabilityofCultures:Figu-
rationsoftheSpaceBetween(Stanford,1996).
4. PeterArtzi,"The Birthof the Middle East,"Proceedings ofthe5thWorldCongress ofJewish
Studies(Jerusalem,1972), 120-24. For polytheism,see mycontribution,"Translating
in Budick and Iser, Trans-
Gods: Religion as a Factorof Cultural (Un)translatability,"
25-36.
latability,
5. (Cardiff,1970), 223 f.
Plutarch,De Isideand Osiride,trans.J.G. Griffiths
6. See Michael Walzer,Exodusand Revolution(New York, 1985).
7. See Moshe Barasch, Icon: Studiesin theHistoryof an Idea (New York, 1992); Moshe
Halbertal and AvishaiMargalit,Idolatry(Cambridge,Mass., 1993).
8. The sources have been collected by Menahem Stern,Greekand Latin AuthorsonJews
andJudaism,3 vols. (Jerusalem,1974-1984).
9. W.G. Waddell, ed. and trans.,Manetho(Cambridge,Mass., 1940).
10. Stern,JewsandJudaism,2:17-63. A. M. A. Hospers-Jansen,Tacitusoverdejoden (Grb-
ningen, 1949); Heinz Heinen, "AgyptischeGrundlagen des antiken Antijudaismus:
The Mosaic Distinction 63

Zum Judenexkursdes Tacitus, HistorienV. 2-13," TriererTheologische Zeitschrift 101,
no. 2 (1992): 124-49.
11. See, e.g., John G. Gager, The OriginsofAnti-Semitism (New York, 1983); Pier Cesare
Bori, "Immaginie stereotipidel popolo ebraico nel mondo antico: asino d'oro, vitello
d'oro," in Lestasidelprofeta(Bologna, 1989), 131-50 (withrich bibliography).For the
polemical impactof thistradition,see especiallyPeter Schafer,Judaeophobia:TheAtti-
tudeTowardstheJewsin theAncientWorld(Cambridge,Mass., 1997).
12. deitreimpostori:
See Silvia Berti,II trattato delsignorBenedetto
La vitae lo spirito de Spinoza
(Turin, 1994).
13. Moses Maimonides, The Guide ofthePerplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago, 1963).
Spencer quotes Maimonides in Hebrew and only occasionallyin the original Arabic.
14. Koran 2.59, see also 5.73 and 22.17. Some thoughtof the Mandaeans or a similar
movement;Amos Funkensteinsees in them the "small remnantsof a gnosticsect of
the second or thirdcenturyA.D.; see his Perceptions ofJewishHistory(Berkeley,1993),
144. From A.D. 830 on, the termrefersto the people at Harran who had managed to
remain pagans and who stilladhered to thecult of Sin, the Mesopotamian moon god.
Threatened bypersecution,theyclaimed to be Sabians, and referredto the Hermetic
writingsas theirsacred book; see WalterScott,ed. and trans.,Hermetica:TheAncient
GreekandLatinWritings WhichContainReligiousorPhilosophic Teachings Ascribed toHermes
Trismegistus (1929; reprint,Boston, 1993), 97-108. In the seventeenthcentury,the
Sabians were generallyidentifiedwiththe Zoroastrians;see, e.g., Edward Stillingfleet,
Originessacrae,ora rationalaccountofthegroundsofChristian faith,as tothetruth and divine
authorityofthescriptures, and thematters thereincontained(1662; reprint,Oxford, 1797),
1:49-51. Theophile Gale held that"the Ritesof the Zabii are the same withthose of
the Chaldaeans and Persians,who all agreed in thisworshipof the Sun, and of Fire,
&c."; see TheCourtoftheGentiles, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1669-71), 2:73.
15. Umberto Eco, "An ArsOblivionalis?Forget It!" PMLA 103 (1988): 254-61. Umberto
Eco mightbe rightin postulatingthatthereis no possible art of oblivionon the level
of individual memory.But Eco's argumentsdo not apply on the level of collective
memory.
16. Talattufalallah wahakhmatah, "the cunning (or 'practicalreason') of God and his wis-
dom," an expressionthatFunkensteinveryinterestingly linkswithHegel's concept of
"thecunningof reason"; see Funkenstein,Perceptions, 141-44, esp. 143 n. 38, referring
to Maimonides, Guide of thePerplexed;and G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophieder Geschichte
(Stuttgart,1961), 78 ff.John Spencer speaks of God's using "honest fallaciesand tor-
tuous steps,"methodis honestefallacibusetsinuosisgradibus,quoted afterGotthardVictor
Lechler,Geschichte desenglischen Deismus(1841; reprint,Hildesheim, 1965), 138.
17. Utomnesisticultusautritus,quifiebant ingratiam imaginumfierent inhonorem Dei: Spencer's
translationof Rabbi Shem Tov ben Joseph ibn Shem Tov's commentaryon Maimon-
ides' GuideofthePerplexed.
18. He was followinga principleof Roman legal exegesis. The Romans studied the his-
toricalcircumstantiae of a law withthe same purpose of findingout about its original
intention.The second step then was to generalize the intentionin such a way that it
could be applied to the case in point. Historywas studied in order to save the law,not
to abolish it. A law was saved by generalizingthe originalintention,or the set of facts
to whichit was originallyapplied, and by findingout theirtimelessrelevance. This is
also the method of Maimonides.
19. John Spencer,De legibushebraeorum etearumrationibus,
ritualibus libritres(The Hague,
1686).
64 REPRESENTATIONS

20. Spencer speaks of the cessationof the reason of the Law, De legibus,3:12: "(Christus)
MosisLeges,earumrationetamcessante, penitusabrogaverit [{Christ}abolished the Law of
Moses, because itsreason had become inexistent].
21. Translatio in Latin means "transfer," not"interpretation." Spencer conceivesof a "trans-
latio Legis" on the model of "translatioimperii"and "translatiostudii."Yet "transfer"
implies,of course,interpretation. Besides translatio,Spencer uses mutatio, "borrowing,"
and derivatio, "derivation."
22. Acts7.22. Note thatthisinformationabout Moses is givenonlyin the New Testament.
It never occurs in the Hebrew Bible.
23. George Boas, TheHieroglyphics ofHorapollo(New York, 1950); Erik Iversen, TheMyth
ofEgyptand ItsHieroglyphs (Copenhagen, 1961), 47-49.
24. On AthanasiusKircher,see LiselotteDieckmann,Hieroglyphics: TheHistory ofa Literary
Symbol(St. Louis, 1970); Iversen,MythofEgypt,92-100.
25. Spencer combinestwodistantpassages fromClement'sStromata (5.3.19.3 and 5.4.41.2);
see Clemens Alexandrinus,StromataBuch 1-6, ed. Otto Stahlin (Berlin, 1985), 338,
354.
26. Ralph Cudworth,ThetrueIntellectual SystemoftheUniverse:thefirstpart,wherein All the
ReasonandPhilosophy ofAtheism isconfutedand itsImpossibilitydemonstrated (I1678;reprint,
London, 1743).
27. Edward, Lord Herbertof Cherbury,De veritate (Paris, 1624).
28. Cudworth,Intellectual System,195.
29. Isaac Casaubon, De rebussacriset ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI. Ad CardinalisBaronii
prolegomena in annales(London, 1614).
30. Frances A. Yates,GiordanoBrunoand theHermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964).
31. Ibid., 398.
32. WilliamWarburton,ThedivinelegationofMosesdemonstrated on theprinciplesofa religious
deist,fromtheomission ofthedoctrine ofa futurestateofrewardand punishment in theJewish
dispensation, 2 vols. (1738-41; reprint,London, 1778).
33. For this interestingtheoryof writing,Warburtonrefersto Flavius Josephus as his
source: "[Josephus] tellsAppion (sic)thatthathighand sublimeknowledge,whichthe
Gentileswithdifficulty attainedunto, in the rare and temporarycelebrationof their
Mysteries, was habituallytaughtto theJews,at all times."See Warburton,Divinelegation,
1: 192-93.
34. See also John Selden's distinctionbetween"iusnaturale"(the Noahidic laws) and "dis-
ciplinaHebraeorum"; John Selden, De iurenaturalietgentium iuxtadisciplinam hebraeorum
libriseptem (London, 1640); FriedrichNiewohner,Veritas siveVarietas:LessingsToleranz-
parabelund das Buch vondendreiBetriugern (Heidelberg, 1988), 333-36. The discovery
of the "naturallaw" of nationsis the object of GiambattistaVico's "new science."Vico
mentionsHugo Grotius,John Selden, and Samuel Pufendorfas the leading theorists
of natural law. See Leon Pompa, ed. and trans.,Vico: SelectedWritings (Cambridge,
1982), 81-89.
35. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, "Ernst und Falk: Freimaurergesprache"[1778], in Ges-
ammelte Werke (Leipzig, 1841), 9:345-91.
36. Karl Leonhard Reinhold [Br(uder) Decius, pseud.], Die Hebrdischen Mysterien, oderdie
dlteste religioseFreymaurerey (Leipzig, 1788).
37. On Reinhold, see Gerhard W. Fuchs,Karl LeonhardReinhold,Illuminatund Philosoph:
eine Studieuiberden Zusammenhang seinesEngagements als Freimaurer und Illuminatmit
seinemLebenund philosophischen Wirken(Frankfurtam Main, 1994) where, however,
Reinhold's book on the Hebrew mysteriesis not mentioned.

38. Reinhold,Hebrdischen Mysterien, 54.
39. Voltaire,Essaysur le moeursdespeuples,in Oeuvresde Voltaire, ed. M. Beuchot (Paris,
1829), 15:102-106; "Il se seraitfonde sur l'ancienneinscriptionde la statued'Isis, 'Je
suis ce qui est'; et cetteautre, 'Jesuis toutce qui a ete et qui sera; nul mortelne pourra
lever mon voile"' (103).
40. Vico also paraphrases the divine name as "what I am" and "what is"; Vico, Selected
Writings, 53 (On theAncientWisdomoftheItalians,chap. 2).
41. R. Merkelbachand M. Totti,Abrasax:Ausgewdhlte Papyrireligibsen undmagischen Inhalts
(Opladen, 1991), 2:131.
42. Nicolaus Cusanus, De doctaignorantia, ed. Paulus Wilpert(Hamburg, 1967), 96-97.
Bernhardine von Olfen and Aleida Assmann drew my attentionto this important
text.
43. Gerardus Joannis Vossius,De theologia gentilietphysiologia christiana:sivede origineac
progressu idololatriae,ad veterum gesta,ac rerumnaturam,reductae;dequenaturaemirandis,
qui'bushomoadduciturad Deum (Francfort,1668).
44. John Marsham,Canonchronicus aegyptiacus,hebraicus,graecus(London, 1672).
45. EmmanuelJ. Bauer, Das DenkenSpinozasundseineInterpretation durchJacobi(Frankfurt
am Main, 1989), 234 ff.
46. Ignaz von Born, "Uber die Mysteriender Aegyptier,"Journalfuir Freymaurer 1 (1784):
17-132, esp. 22. He quotes Plutarchas his source.
47. Clemens Alexandrinus,Stromata, cited in Warburton,Divinelegation,1: 191.
48. FriedrichSchiller,Die SendungMoses,ed. H. Koopmann, Samtliche WerkeIV: Historische
Schriften (Munich, 1968), 737-57.
49. Nichts ist erhabener, als die einfache GroBe, mit der sie von dem Weltschopfer
sprachen. Um ihn auf eine rechtentscheidendeArtauszuzeichnen,gaben sie ihm gar
keinen Namen; Schiller,Die SendungMoses,745.
50. Immanuel Kant, CritiqueofJudgment, trans.J.M. Bernard (New York, 1951), 115.
TranslationalteredslightlyafterKant,KritikderUrteilskraft in Werke, ed. W. Weischedel
(Darmstadt,1968), 8:417.
51. Ibid., 160. The German reads: "Vielleichtist nie etwas Erhabeneres gesagt oder ein
Gedanke erhabenerausgedrficktwordenals injener Aufschrift uiberdem Tempel der
Isis (der MutterNatur): 'Ich bin alles was da ist,was da war und was da sein wird,und
meinen Schleier hat kein Sterblicheraufgedeckt.'Segner benutztediese Idee, durch
eine sinnreiche,seiner NaturlehrevorgesetzteVignette,um seinen Lehrling,den er
in diesen Tempel einzufuihrenbereitwar,vorhermitdem heiligen Schauer zu erfuil-
len, der das Gemuth zu feierlicherAufmerksamkeit stimmensoll."
52. See, e.g., Abbe Jean Terrasson,Sethos.Histoireou vie,tir&edes monuments, Anecdotes de
l'ancienneEgypte;Ouvragedans lequelon trouvela description desInitiationsaux Mysteres
Egyptiens, traduitd'unmanuscrit Grec(1731; reprint,Paris, 1767).
53. Athenianletters or,theEpistolary Correspondence ofan AgentoftheKing ofPersia,residingat
AthensduringthePeloponnesian war.Containing theHistory oftheTimes,in Dispatchestothe
Ministers ofStateat thePersianCourt.BesidesLetters on varioussubjectsbetween Him and His
Friends,4 vols. (London, 1741-43), 1:95-100 (letter25 by Orsames, from Thebes).
Carlo Ginzburgdrew myattentionto thisextraordinaryhistoryof the Eastern Medi-
terraneanat the end of the fifthcenturyB.C. The lettersby Orsames add up to a fair
summaryof the knowledgeof the timeconcerningAncientEgypt.
54. Magnus Olausson, "Freemasonry,Occultism,and the Picturesque Garden Towards
the End of the EighteenthCentury,"ArtHistory8, no. 4 (1985): 413-33. I owe thisto
AnnetteRichards.
66 REPRESENTATIONS

ed. and trans.Ignace Moscheles (Matta-
55. See Anton F. Schindler,TheLifeofBeethoven,
pan, Mass., 1966), 2:163:
If myobservationentitlesme to forman opinion on the subject,I should say
he [Beethoven] inclinedto Deism; in so far as thattermmay be understood
to implynaturalreligion.He had writtenwithhis own hand twoinscriptions,
said to be takenfroma templeof Isis. These inscriptions,whichwere framed,
and for many years constantlylay before him on his writing-table, were as
follows:-
I. "I AM THAT WHICH IS.-I AM ALL THAT IS, ALL THAT WAS, AND ALL THAT
SHALL BE.-No MORTAL MAN HATH MY VEIL UPLIFTED!"
II. "HE IS ONE; SELF-EXISTENT, AND TO THAT ONE ALL THINGS OWE THEIR
EXISTENCE."
Beethoven'sGerman textis shown in facsimileand reads: "Ich bin, was da ist // Ich
bin alles, was ist, was war, und was seyn wird,kein sterblicherMensch hat meinen
Schleyeraufgehoben//Er isteinzigvon ihmselbst,u. diesem Einzigen sind alle Dinge
ihr Daseyn schuldig."The sentencesare separated fromeach otherbydouble slashes.
The thirdseems to have been added later; the writingis smallerand more developed.
See also E. Graefe, "Beethoven und die dgyptischeWeisheit,"GittingerMiszellen2
(1971): 19-21.
56. The inscription,whichis now lost,has been seen byJohannGottfriedvon Herder; see
ErichSchmidt,Lessing:Geschichte seinesLebensundseinerSchriften,2 vols. (Berlin, 1884-
86), 2:804; Gotthold EphraimLessingsSdmtliche ed. Karl Lachmann, vol. 22, bk.
Schriften,
1 (Berlin, 1915), ix; Karl Christ,JacobiundMendelssohn: Eine Analysedes Spinozastreits
(Wurzburg,1988), 59 f.
57. See Gerard Vallee et al., trans.,TheSpinozaConversationsBetween LessingandJacobi:Texts
withExcerpts fromtheEnsuingControversy (Lanham, Md., 1988).
58. Sigmund Freud,Der Mann Mosesund diemonotheistische Religion(1939), vol. 16, Gesam-
melteWerke, ed. Anna Freud (Frankfurtam Main, 1968); in English:Mosesand Monothe-
ism,in StandardEditionoftheComplete Works
Psychological ofSigmundFreud,vol.23, trans.
James Strachey(London, 1959). E. Blum, "Uber Sigmund Freuds: Der Mann Moses
und die monotheistischeReligion,"Psyche10 (1956-57): 367-90, holds that Freud
knewSchiller'stext,even ifhe does notmentionit (375). See Yozef Hayim Yerushalmi,
Freud'sMoses:JudaismTerminable (New Haven, 1991), 114 n. 17.
and Interminable
59. See BrigitteStemberger,"'Der Mann Moses' in Freuds Gesamtwerk,"Kairos16 (1974):
161-225; Marthe Robert,D'Oedipea Moise:Freudetla conscience juive (Paris, 1974); E.
Amado Levy-Valensi,Le Moise de Freudou la reference occult&e(Monaco, 1984); Pier
Cesare Bori, "II Mose di Freud: Per una prima valutazione storico-critica," in Lestasi,
179-222, esp. 179-84; Ilse Grubrich-Simitis, FreudsMoses-Studie als Tagtraum(Wein-
heim, 1991); Emanuel Rice,FreudandMoses:TheLongeJourney Home(New York, 1990);
Yerushalmi,Freud'sMoses;Bluma Goldstein,Reinscribing Moses:Heine,Kafka,Freud,and
Schoenbergin a European Wilderness(Cambridge, Mass., 1992); Carl E. Schorske,
"Freud's Egyptian Dig," New YorkReviewofBooks,27 May 1993, 35-40; P.C. Bori,
"Moses, the Great Stranger,"in FromHermeneutics toEthicalConsensusAmongCultures
(Atlanta,1994), 155-64.
60. See PeterGay,"The Last Philosophe: Our God Logos," in A Godless Jew:Freud,Atheism,
and theMakingofPsychoanalysis (New Haven, 1987), 33-68.
61. John Toland, Adeisidaemon sive TitusLivius a superstionevindicatus(Hagae-Comitis,
1709), 99-199.
62. Freud, StandardEdition,23: 101.


The Mosaic Distinction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mosaic Distinction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mosaic Distinction: Israel, Egypt, and the Invention of Paganism

Author(s): Jan Assmann

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:24:03 PM