CHAPTER VI. EGYPTIAN REFERENCES IN THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF THE BOOKS OF MOSES. LAW AMONG THE EGYPTIANS AND ISRAELITES. THE complicated character of the legislation of the Pentateuch directs us, in a general way, to Egypt. So complex a code of laws could not have been given to a people who had not indeed, from former circumstances, been accustomed to a law regulating the whole life. If we fancy the Israelites as still occupying the position of the patriarchs, they are a complete enigma to us. Egypt was pre-eminently a land of law, and especially of written law. “There can be no doubt," says Heeren,2 “ after all that we know of Egyptian antiquity, that legislation in its main branches was there carried, as far at least as in any other land of the east."3 But especially was the religious polity of the Egyptians carried out into the most minute details. Herodotus1 says of the Egyptian priests: "The priests shave the whole body every third day;-the priests also wear a linen garment and shoes of papyrus, and they are not permitted to put on any other clothing, and no other shoes. They bathe themselves in cold water twice a day, and twice every night. And yet many thousand other usages, I might say, they must observe.” 5 If we take into view the people from among whom the Israelites were removed, the complicated character of the Mosaic polity, very far from being an argument against its genuineness, must rather appear to us a necessary condition of it. For a people which had been in such a school, a simple polity was by no means suitable. 3 In den Beiträgen, Th. 3. S. 623-4. 2 S. 167. Concerning the Books of Legislation among the Egyptians, see Diod. I. 94, and Zoega, De Obeliscis, p. 520. 4 B. 2. c. 37. " 5 Αλλας τε θρησκίας ἐπιτελέουσι μυρίας, ὡς εἰπεῖν λόγῳ. In the following institutions of the Books of Moses, special Egyptian references can be shown, or at least made probable.1 We begin with those things which are closely connected with the preceding chapter, without properly belonging to it. THE STUFF AND COLOUR OF THE PRIESTS' GARMENTS. 2 The similarity which is found to exist between the Israelitish and Egyptian priests' garments, in respect to colour and material, is of no small importance. It is clear from many passages, that the Israelitish priests were clothed in white linen and byssus: and that the Egyptians were also so clothed, is evident from Herodotus: "But the priests wear merely linen clothing, and are not allowed to put on any other." In this passage linen includes also byssus.4 Two arguments have been made use of to show that this agreement between Egyptian and Israelitish antiquity is merely accidental. First, it is asserted, that these priests' garments did not probably belong to the Israelites and Egyptians alone, but they are rather the same which were diffused throughout the old world; a sure proof, that one people cannot be supposed to have adopted them from another, that they were rather, from the nature of the case, everywhere used. Bähr 5 says: Everywhere, from India to Gaul, the priests' wear garments of vegetable material, consequently of linen or cotton, and of white, if possible, of brilliant white colour. It is the less necessary to refer to individual documents concerning these well known facts, as they have been already collected by several authors.” We satisfy ourselves with the statement of the really tenable Egyptian references, for those which have been claimed as untenable by those who have preceded us, we refer to the "Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus," by Bähr, where their inadmissibility has been shown oftentimes in a striking manner. 2 As Ex. xxviii. 39-42. xxxix. 27, 28. Lev. vi. 10. Compare Braun de Vestitu Sacerdotis magni, I. p. 93: Vestes totius coetus lineae erant praeter balteum, qui ex lana et lino mixtus. 3 2.37. * Compare Heeren Ideen, I. 1. S. 107. II. 2. S. 133. Drumann, Ueber die Inschrift von Rosette, S. 169. Pliny, Hist. nat. 19. 1, vestis ex gossypie sacerdotibus Aeg. gratissimae. In der Symbolik, Th. II. p. 87. L But among those quoted, Spencer and Braun, in the passage cited,' speak only of the white colour. The former directly shows that linen clothing is, with the exception of the Israelites, peculiar only to the Egyptian priests. Saubert 2 only undertakes to prove that the priests everywhere have been accustomed to clothe themselves with white linen garments. But the passages which the inaccurate collector quotes, all have reference either to Egyptian or Israelitish antiquity. The colour taken by itself, is indeed not without some importance. It is allowed that white priestly apparel is common among other nations of antiquity. But in this exclusiveness it is peculiar only to the Egyptians and Israelites. Rosenmueller 3 remarks: "Among the Greeks and Romans the colour of the pontifical robes was different according to the different gods to whom they sacrificed, and white garments were put on only when they offered to Ceres." (?) 4 But if we look at the material of the priests' robes in connection with the colour, an accidental agreement of Israelitish with Egyptian antiquity can no longer be thought of. That their priests were clothed in linen, was considered in all antiquity as a remarkable and exclusive peculiarity of the Egyptians. The documents have already been so fully quoted by Spencer, that we only need to refer to him. A priesthood clothed only in linen, cannot be shown to have existed elsewhere in all heathen antiquity; and if the new Pythagoreans, appealing to the alleged example of Pythagoras himself, gave the preference to linen clothing, instead of woollen, this can certainly be accounted for only by supposing an imitation of Egyptian customs. 1 1. 179. De Sacrificiis, 1. c. 9. p. 188. P. 683 seq. He says: Addere liceat auctores illos antiquos, qui de veste linea sic loqui solent, quasi sacrificulis Aegypti propria esset et peculiaris. Nam linigeri tanquam proprius et peculiaris character sacerdotum Aegyptiacorum apud antiquos, poetas imprimis, frequenter usurpatur. Ideo enim Juvenali grex liniger, Ovidio linigera turba, Martiali linigeri calvi, qui et Senecae linteati senes appellantur. Herodotus aliique sacrum lineae vestis usum inter nativos et antiquos Aegypti mores referunt. Compare the copious collections upon linen as the peculiar dress of the Egyptian priests, in Perizonius upon Suetonis, Otho, c. 12. " According to Philistratus, p. 1. ed. Olearii, Pythagorus would wear no clothing which was prepared from animal stuffs. Sic infra, remarks Olearius "In Bähr1 adduces a second argument against the dependence of the priestly robes of the Israelites upon those of the Egyptian. Egypt," he says, "the byssus was chosen in preference, and mainly on account of its origin, 'out of the indestructible earth,' while they despised animal clothing, since it is obtained from a creature subject to death, or since it implies the death of the animals which they suppose unallowed. The byssus garments of the Egyptian priests are therefore most intimately connected with the fundamental principles of the Egyptian natural religion, of which there is not the least trace to be found in the Mosaic law. Supposing therefore that the Egyptian priests only, besides those instituted by Moses, had worn the byssus garment, in consequence of the entirely different significance it had among them, it could yet furnish no proof of a borrowing or copying." But allow that it is shown that the import of the garment of byssus was entirely different among the Egyptians and the Israelites, yet the latter might very properly have borrowed the custom. What good objection is there to the supposition that they applied to a form borrowed from the Egyptians a new signifi cance? But the assertion that the reasons for the preference of this kind of garment, both among the Israelites and Egyptians, are entirely different, is in the highest degree uncertain. That among the Israelites cleanliness is the ground of the use of garments of linen only, and the prohibition of woollen, is evident from Ex. xliv. 17, 18. The same thing is shown by Bähr himself. To the same cause Herodotus, the oldest witness, traces back the use of linen garments among the Egyptian priests. Both that which goes before the clause already quoted: "The priests wear only linen garments," and also that which follows, has reference to the upon this passage, Pythagoricae disciplinae initiatus Apollonius Aívov ἐσθῆτα ἀμπίσχεται, παραιτησάμενος τὴν ἀπὸ ζώων. Et l. 1. 32, a Pythagora se habere ait ynivų įpių roúrų kora'λai, quodį lana ex terra nata vestiatur. In B. 6. c. 11 of the Pythagorean philosophy, Apollonius says: Sectatorem suam nec laena esse fovendum, nec lana quae animatis depecti solet. Olearius refers also to other passages. The passages which Braun refers to in one of various places before cited (I. p. 103,) in proof of the incorrect position: "Ejusdem quoque materiae plerumque fuerunt ethnicorum vestimenta sacra,” can relate only to the Pythagoreans. cleanliness, which, in the estimation of the Egyptian priests, was a matter of so much importance. It is said before: The Egyptians are excessively religious above all other people, and consequently practise the following usages: They drink from brazen cups, which they wash out thoroughly every day. They wear linen garments always newly washed, with regard to which they take peculiar care. They also practise circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, and prefer neatness to decorum. Moreover, the priests shave the whole body each third day, lest either a louse or any other vermin may be found on them, while they are engaged in the service of the gods." After follows: "They bathe twice a day in cold water, and twice every night." Plutarch, who lived so much later, upon whom Bähr relies for support in his claim for the most intimate connection of the linen garments of the Egyptian priests with their peculiar theology, reasons evidently on his own way, without reference to the priests, and as the comparison with Philostratus shows, more in the sense of the new Pythagoreans, than of the Egyptian priests. Besides, he also represents the linen as a pure garment which least of all generates vermin." But the reason assigned by Bähr is not even reconcilable with the Egyptian law. The contempt for animal material in itself, accords not with the divine honour which in Egypt was shown to animals. That the killing of animals in general in Egypt was considered as unallowed, is entirely incorrect. Animals were sacrificed and eaten in Egypt without scruple. How one can suppose, in his zeal for the vindication of the Bible, that it is necessary to contend against the dependence of the Israelitish upon the Egyptian priests' garments, can scarcely be conceived. The more original, independent, and peculiar the Israelitish religion was in spirit, the less necessity had it to avoid with timid care, every external contact with the religions of other nations, the more freely could it appropriate to itself the suitable existing forms, and the more untrammelled might it avail itself of the advantages which familiarity with the religion of Egypt offered. But we consider it certain that the Israelitish priests' garments, in respect to material and colour, were made in imitation of those 1 De Iside et Osir. p. 352. 2 Καθαρὰν ἐσθῆτα ἥκιστα φθειροποιόν. |