15. Chapter VI: Egyptian References in the Religious Institutions of the Books of Moses.
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.[556] 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 preeminently a land of law, and especially of written law. “There can be no doubt,” says Heeren,[557] “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.”[558] But especially was the religious polity of the Egyptians carried out into the most minute details. Herodotus[559] 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.”[560]
[558] Concerning the Books of Legislation among the Egyptians, see Diod. I. 94, and Zoega, De Obeliscis, p. 520.
[559] B. 2. c. 37.
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. In the following institutions of the Books of Moses, special Egyptian references can be shown, or at least made probable.[561]
[561] 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.
We begin with those things which are closely connected with the preceding chapter, without properly belonging to it. The Stuff and Color of the Priests’ Garments. The similarity which is found to exist between the Israelitish and Egyptian priests’ garments in respect to color and material, is of no small importance. It is clear from many passages, that the Israelitish priests were clothed in white linen and byssus;[562] and that the Egyptians were also so clothed, is evident from Herodotus:[563] “But the priests wear merely linen clothing, and are not allowed to put on any other.” In this passage linen includes also byssus.[564]
[563] 2. 37.
[564] Compare Heeren Ideen, 1. 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.
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[565] 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 color. It is the less necessary to refer to individual documents concerning these well known facts, as they have been already collected by several authors.”
[565] In der Symbolik, Th. II. p. 87. But among those quoted, Spencer and Braun, in the passage cited,[566] speak only of the white color. The former directly shows that linen clothing is, with the exception of the Israelites, peculiar only to the Egyptian priests. Saubert,[567] 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.
[566] 1. 179.
[567] De Sacrificiis, I. e. 9. p. 188. The color 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[568] remarks: “Among the Greeks and Romans the color 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.”[569](?) [568] In dem. A. & N. Morgenl. Th. 2. S. 190.
[569] Ovid’s Festb. 6. 619. But if we look at the material of the priests’ robes in connexion with the color, 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,[570] 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 woolen,[571] this can certainly be accounted for only by supposing an imitation of Egyptian customs.
Bähr[572] adduces a second argument against the dependence of the priestly robes of the Israelites upon those of the Egyptian. “In 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 the; 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.”
Plutarch[573] who lived so much later, upon whom Bähr relies for support in his claim for the most intimate connexion 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.[574] [573]
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 color, were made in imitation of those of the Egyptian priests. Their independence of each other is excluded, since in reference to these particular circumstances, these two nations stand alone in all antiquity. The thought of an inverted order of things is, in addition to the general reasons already given, impossible, since the priesthood in Egypt, according to expressions in the Pentateuch itself, had already long existed when that of the Israelites was instituted, the material of the clothing is peculiarly Egyptian, and the garment of byssus even in the time of Joseph, appears as the most common Egyptian clothing.[575] Thus, we have an important result in favor of the Pentateuch. Such a reference to Egyptian customs can only be supposed, if the priesthood was instituted in the circumstances given in the Pentateuch; and modern views of the origin of the Israelitish priesthood must appear as entirely untenable, since in the time to which this is referred, so close a connexion did not exist between the Israelites and Egyptians as to render it possible for the former to borrow from the latter.
Urim and Thummin. The Egyptian reference in the Urim and Thummim, is especially distinct and incontrovertible. Of them it is said: “And you shall put in the breast-plate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim (the light and the truth); and they shall be on Aaron’s heart when he goeth in before the Lord; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually,” Exodus 28:30. According to Aelian,[576] he high priest among the Egyptians, as superior judge, wore around his neck an image of Sapphire, which was called truth. Diodorus[577] also confirms this fact. According to him the chief judge (also according to Diodorus the office of judge belonged to the priests,[578]) wore around his neck an image of costly stones, suspended upon a gold chain which was named truth. After both of two contending parties have laid open their case the high priest must touch one of them with the image of truth. The same author[579] in describing an Egyptian wall-picture shows us in the midst of the judges, the chief judge, “who wears suspended from his neck the truth with closed eyes.” By this it is shown that the chief judge must see only the truth. These declarations of the ancients have received confirmation from the new discoveries in Egypt. In proof of the statement of Diodorus, Rosellini[580] says: “Among the monuments of the tombs, representations of persons are found who filled the office of chief judge, and who wore the common little image of the goddess Thmei suspended from the neck. Wilkinson[581] gives from the Theban monuments an engraving of the goddess who was honored under the double character of truth and justice, and was represented with closed eyes.
[577] B. 31. c. 75.
[578] See Wesseling on this passage.
[579] B. 1. c. 48.
[580] 11. 3. p. 500.
[581] II. p. 27. That a connection here exists between Egyptian and Israelitish antiquity,[582] even the Seventy probably perceived, since in Exodus 28:30, they translated Urim and Thummim, by revelation and truth,
Besides, remarks Bähr, there is nothing more incongruous than the significance of the Urim and Thummim when compared with that badge of the judge, which evidently points to impartiality as his first duty. But the moral significance which later Greek writers, according to their custom, give the symbol is not certainly the first and most important one. That symbol has first and principally a promissory significance. It refers to the special aid of the goddess of truth and justice, which the high-priest and chief judge enjoyed. On the other hand the promissory significance does not exclude the moral one in the Israelitish symbol. Upon the promise follows of itself rather the admonition. How intimately both are connected is shown by Deuteronomy 33:8-9, in which the Urim and Thummim given to the tribe of Levi is considered as a pledge that God will guide him in the decisions given in his name, and then it is said: “who says unto his father and to his mother, I saw thee not, and his brother he recognizes not, and his children he does not know,” words which in a striking manner, remind one of the Egyptian image of the goddess of justice with closed eyes, and of the statues of the judges at Thebes mentioned in Plutarch[586] without hands with their president at their head, having his eyes directed to the ground.
[586] De Isid. et Os. See Wilk. II: 28.
How any one could ever suppose that a denial of the affinity of these Egyptian and Israelitish symbols is of any importance in the vindication of the truth, can hardly be conceived. Through the outward similarity the internal difference is more clearly exhibited. As among the Egyptians the author of truth appears to be a mere personified abstraction, an image of their own fancy which can never have a true and perfect power over its own producer, on the contrary, among the Israelites he is the only, the living, the one God manifest among his own people.
It is an important difference, that among the Egyptians the symbol appears to have referred merely to judging in its narrower sense, while the Urim and Thummim was a symbol of the judicial office in a broader sense, promising generally to the high-priest divine assistance in difficult and important decisions, especially such as have reference to the weal and woe of the whole people.[587]
[587]
We begin with some remarks upon the figure and significance of the Egyptian sphinxes. As respects the figure, it was the current belief, in all antiquity, that the sphinx was composed of the lion and a young female, and recently, Bähr[588] has argued, on this supposition, against the affinity of the cherub with the sphinxes. This opinion has also been yet more confirmed by the scholars of the French expedition, who, while indeed Herodotus[589] speaks of the man-sphinx, assert[590] that all the sphinxes with human heads which they saw, except one near the pyramids, had the head of a female. This is also in accordance with Aelian. On the contrary, the latest investigations of Egyptian antiquity have come to the result, that the Egyptian sphinxes are never female, like those of the Greeks, but always have the head of a man and the body of a lion. Wilkinson[591] asserts this very confidently; as also Rosellini,[592] who remarks: with the exception of a very few cases the sphinxes have a beard. It is consequently not true, as some affirm, led into error by the Greek and Roman sphinxes copied from those in Egypt, that these symbolic animals have the face of a female. They are rather of male sex, which accords with their symbolic import. The few exceptions are accounted for by supposing, that they symbolize a queen who reigned at the time. Each of these symbolic figures bears on the breast or some other part of the body, the name and title of the king whom they designate, and whose features the human head exhibits. The sphinxes without inscriptions are the work of Grecian or Roman artists. Even before both these authors, Minutoli[593] had remarked: “The sphinxes have either bodies of lions with human faces, without however a trace of the female figure, or the heads of rams.”
[588] Th. 1. S. 358.
[589] B. 2. c. 175.
[590] See Descr. t. 2. p. 575.
[591] Vol. III. p. 23.
[592] II. 2. p. 177-8.
[593] S. 257.
We will now speak of the import of the sphinxes. It is acknowledged that the Egyptian animal combinations, in general depending upon a symbolic significance, designate the union of different characteristic properties which, by each part, the animal made up will represent. So says Jomard:[594] “They have excelled not less in the combination of different figures of animals, in order to compose chimerical beings, expressing without doubt the reunion of the properties attributed to each of these figures.” Creuzer[595] also remarks: “Upon this Egyptian coin of the time of the emperor Adrian, we see the beardless sphinx with the lotus on its head. The front part of its body is covered with a veil down to the feet. Out of its breast there is leaping forth the inverted head of a crocodile, under its feet crawls a serpent, and upon its back a griffon appears with the wheel! There are, therefore, here the different attributes of the godhead; that of strength and wisdom, that of secret control, the idea of eternity and of a beneficent guardian angel, etc., united in this remarkable way; and this representation may be designated by the technical term Pantheum.”
[595] Vol. I. p. 499.
Now, therefore, the sphinx can designate nothing else than the union of strength and wisdom, and this import has also been attributed to it from ancient times until the present, with no inconsiderable agreement.[596]
[596]
According to this whole view then, the sphinx symbolizes merely the union of the two designated qualities;[597] whilst the possessor of these is not indicated by the symbol itself, but can be known only by the position in which the sphinx is found. If they are found, as they commonly are, at the entrance of a temple, where they form entire rows[598] on each side, they designate the union of these properties in the deity to whom the temple is dedicated. If they are found around the throne of the king, then the king is the possessor of these attributes.
[599] Wilk. Vol. 111. p. 27.
[600] The crown also and other symbols of royalty, which according to Wilk. Vol. 111. p. 362, are said to be often represented on the sphinxes, are for the same purpose. The Cherubim—Their Form and Import.
We turn to the cherubim. That this symbol, as such, aside from its significance, which includes a real, original, Israelitish element, did not spring up on Jewish ground, appears probable from the merely scattered notices of it which are found. We cannot, however, appropriate to ourselves the argument which Bauer has adduced in favor of its foreign origin, namely, that ‘the cherubim was not first introduced by Moses, since the law speaks of it in a manner that it could not do, except on the supposition that it was already definitely known among the people;’ for indeed, at the time in which the law was written down, cherubs with all the accompanying things, for which Bauer[601] argues in like manner, had already existed a long time,—a circumstance which could not fail to modify the record, and cause the thing to appear, in various ways, as if it were well known at the time of its introduction.
[601] Rel. des Alt. Test. Th. I. S. 300.
We are specially guided to the Egyptian origin of the cherubim, since of all the people with whom the Israelites in ancient times were closely connected, only among the Egyptians are compound animals found in history. “Among the Phoenician animal combinations,” says Bähr,[602] “we only recollect Moloch.” But the information that the image of Moloch had a bullock’s head is found in R. Simon Haddarschan, A. D. 1310!![603] And in like manner, it is of no importance what is found in the same author[604] concerning compound animals among the Carthaginians.
[602] I. S. 358.
[603] Compare Munter Relig. der Caithag. S. 9.
[604] S. 68. But the real similarity of form between the Hebrew cherubim and the Egyptian sphinxes is of greater importance. Even in the cherub of Ezekiel, this agreement is still in a considerable degree perceivable. Two of the same elements, lion and man, are found here and in the sphinx. But it is generally agreed that the form of the cherubim in Ezekiel is not the original one, but that the prophet, as from his whole character cannot be supposed improbable, expanded variously the symbol.[605] In what the additions and changes consisted is difficult to determine, since we possess only so very imperfect notices of the figure of the Mosaic cherubim.[606] But we can show, with great probability, from Ezekiel himself, that the changes have reference to just those things in which the cherubim of Ezekiel are unlike the Egyptian sphinxes. Thus, while the cherubim in Ezekiel 1:10 appear to be made up of four elements, and have four faces, that of a man, an ox, a lion and an eagle; in Ezekiel 41:18-20, only two faces, that of a man and of a lion, are ascribed to them. Now we may certainly, with Lightfoot and Michaelis[607] assume that the two other faces are to be considered as existing, but not in sight,[608] an assumption which receives confirmation from Ezekiel 1:10, according to which the ox and the eagle were on the reverse side. But yet this at least remains in force, that in the cherubim of Ezekiel, the man and the lion were in front, and therefore when placed against the wall they only came in sight. This leads us to the result, that the change before spoken of by Ezekiel, consisted in his addition of the element of the ox and the eagle, just as also in the sphinxes, to the original and principal elements, the lion and man, in many cases others are also added.[609] Thus, the form of the cherubim is reduced almost to that of the sphinx. The only remaining difference of importance, namely, that the simple cherub yet has two faces, while the sphinx, although composed of two elements, has only one, is probably also to be set to the account of Ezekiel. That the Mosaic cherub had only one face has been rightly shown[610] from Exodus 25:20 : “And their faces shall be towards one another; towards the mercy-seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.”
[605] See, e.g. among the ancient writers, Witsius Egyptiaca, p. 158, among those of modern times, Bähr, S. 311 ff.
[606] Witsius remarks correctly, p. 155: Moses speaks of the form as only twofold, primum quod passas habuerint alas sursum versus quodque suis alis obtexerint propitiatorium, dein quod facies habuerint ob versus sibi mutuo itemque conversas ad propitiatorium.
[607] Bibl. Heb. on this passage.
[608] Alias quatuor, quia hic duae tantum in plano apparebant. Duae itaque aliae fades concipi debent quasi parieti obversae et ab eo obscuratae. Latuit facies vitulina a sinistris et facies aquilina a tergo.
[609] See the passage cited from Creuzer, S. 159.
[610] See, e.g. Ges. Thesaurus, same word. As respects the significance of the cherubim, their real agreement in this particular with the Egyptian sphinxes cannot be doubted, and the difference and opposition respects not so much the import of the symbol, as rather the possessor of the qualities signified by them. “The cherub,” remarks Bähr, who of all writers has comprehended most correctly and thoroughly the nature of this symbol, “is such a being as standing on the highest grade of created existence, and containing in itself the most perfect created life, is the best manifestation of God and the divine life. It is a representative of creation in its highest grade, an ideal creature. The vital powers communicated to the most elevated existences in the visible creation are collected and individualized in it.” Accordingly the difference would perhaps consist only in this, that in the cherubim, the divine properties were only indirectly symbolized, so far as they came into view in the works of creation, whilst in the sphinx, directly, a difference which cannot be considered important.[611]
[611]
Leviticus, Chap. 16, Azazel. An Egyptian reference, it appears to us, must necessarily be acknowledged in the ceremony of the great atonement day. But in order to exhibit this reference, we must first substantiate our view of the meaning of the word
First, in Leviticus 16:1-10 the general outlines are given, and then follows in Leviticus 16:11 seq. the explanation of separate points. It is of no small importance for the interpretation, that this arrangement, a knowledge of which has escaped most interpreters, be understood. Aaron first offers a bullock as a sin-offering for himself and his house. He then takes a firepan full of coals from the altar, with fragrant incense, and goes within the vail. There he puts the incense on the fire before the Lord, and “the cloud of the incense (the embodied prayer) covers the mercy-seat which is upon the testimony, that he die not.” Aaron then takes of the blood of the bullock and sprinkles it seven times before the mercy-seat. After he has thus completed the expiation for himself, he proceeds to the expiation for the people. He takes two he-goats for a sin-offering,
[612] Verse 10, with 16 and 18.
Now, in respect to language, there can be no objection to interpreting Azazel as meaning Satan. The exposition below shows this conclusively.[614]
[614]
4. By this explanation the third chaper of Zechariah comes into a relation with our passage, entirely like that in which Zechariah 4 of the same prophecy stands to Exodus 25:31. Here as there, the Lord, Satan and the high-priest appear. Satan wishes by his accusations to destroy the favorable relations between the Lord and his people. The high-priest presents himself before the Lord not with a claim of purity, according to law, but laden with his own sins and the sins of the people. Here Satan thinks to find the safest occasion for his attack, but he mistakes. Forgiveness baffles his designs; he is compelled to retire in confusion.[615] It is evident that the doctrinal import of both passages is substantially the same, and the one in Zechariah may be considered as the oldest commentary extant on the words of Moses. In substance we have the same scene also in the Apocalypse, Revelation 12:10-11 : “The accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night, and they overcome him by the blood of the Lamb.”
[615] Christol. Th. S. 33 seq.
5. The relation in which, according to our explanation, Satan is here placed to the desert, finds analogy in other passages of the Bible, where the deserted and waste places appear as peculiarly the abode of the evil spirit. See Matthew 12:43, where the unclean spirit cast out from the man is represented as going through “dry places,” Luke 8:27, and Apocalypse Revelation 18:2, according to which the fallen Babylon is to be the dwelling of all unclean spirits. 6. To the reasons already given the Egyptian reference which the rite has according to this explanation, may be added—a reference which is so remarkable that no room can remain for the thought that it has arisen through false explanation.
Among the objections to this explanation the one which is most important, and has exerted the most influence is this, that it gives a sense which stands in direct opposition to the spirit of the religion of Jehovah. It was this objection which made so many of the ancient theologians disinclined to interpret the passage as we have done.[616]
[616]
[617] S. 294.
Now, were it really necessary to connect with the explanation of Azazel as meaning Satan, the assumption that sacrifice was offered to him, we should feel obliged to abandon it, notwithstanding all the reasons in its favor. Especially in the manner in which Gesenius[618] understands the passage, it presents an opposition to the vital being of the religion of Jehovah, so atrociously unjust, that whoever adopts this cannot think of assenting to that.
1. Both the goats were designated in Leviticus 16:5 as a sin-offering. “And from the congregation of the children of Israel he shall take two goats for a sin-offering.” That these goats were taken together as forming unitedly one sin-offering wholly excludes the thought, that one of them was brought as an offering to Jehovah and the other as an offering to Azazel; and further an offering which is given to a bad being can indeed never be a sin-offering. The idea of a sin-offering implies holiness, hatred of sin in the one to whom the offering is made.[619]
[619]
2. Both the goats were first placed at the gate of the tabernacle of the congregation, before the Lord. To him therefore they both belong, and when afterwards one of them is sent to Azazel, this is done in accordance with the wish of Jehovah and also without destroying the original relation, since the one sent to Azazel does not cease to belong to the Lord.
3. The casting of lots also shows that both these goats are to be considered as belonging to the Lord. The lot is never used in the Old Testament except as a means of obtaining the decision of Jehovah. So then, here also, Jehovah decides which goat is to be offered as a sin-offering and which shall be sent to Azazel.[620]
[620]
4. The goat assigned to Azazel, before he is sent away is absolved: “And the goat upon whom the lot falls for Azazel, shall be placed alive before the Lord in order to absolve him,[621]
5. According to Leviticus 16:21, the already forgiven sins of Israel are laid on the head of the goat. These he bears to Azazel in the desert. But where there is already forgiveness of sins, there is no more offering.
6. The goat is sent alive into the desert. But in accordance with the view of the thing in the Old Testament, no animal offering is made without the shedding of blood.
Thus, therefore, this first and principal objection to the interpretation of Azazel by Satan is to be considered as fully confuted.[622] What Bähr remarks: “Now if we understand Azazel as a personal superhuman being, opposed to Jehovah, the text, Leviticus 16:8, does not permit us to understand the phrase, for Azazel, in an entirely different sense from that, for Jehovah; on the other hand, it is necessary to recognize an offering in the second goat, as well as in the first, both before in Leviticus 16:5 are particularly represented as appointed for a sin-offering,”[623]—will not easily lead any one into error. What Bähr here adduces as an argument against the interpretation approved by us, far more strongly opposes his own, and every other explanation, than that by Satan. We can, I think, at least, which is the first point insisted on, understand the
Bähr[624] adduces a second objection: “Nowhere in the Mosaic ritual are Jehovah and the Devil placed together in a general way, much less then in such a manner, that lots are cast between the two, in order to determine their claims. This would have had, in the eyes of the people, an appearance of equality between the two beings.” But the whole rite, according to our explanation, rather has the tendency to destroy the inclination existing among a people to believe in such an equality. The casting of lots, instead of being opposed to this tendency, is rather firmly established in its favor. This follows directly, if it is only settled, that according to the view of the Old Testament, the lot is under the direction of Jehovah. That the casting of lots here is not as a mediation between the two, so that it as an independent third agency decides to which of the two the one and to which the other shall fall, is clear from the fact, that both goats are represented as belonging to the Lord, before the lots are cast, by the phrase, for a sin-offering, in Leviticus 16:5, and by the direction in Leviticus 16:7 to place them before the Lord. The passage therefore by no means exhibits an equality, or even the appearance of it.
[624] S. 687.
Ewald[625] refers to a third objection: “A bad demon, Azazel, which those later than the exile have first made out from the passage, cannot be found in the Pentateuch.” But an explanation which is demanded with absolute necessity by the laws of interpretation, cannot be disproved by such objections. They in any case have force only when the thing cannot be decided with certainty on exegetical grounds. And why is it said, that an account of Satan cannot be found in the Pentateuch? Because it was first notorious after the exile? But even Ewald allows that the book of Job was composed long before this time, and should it be asserted that the Satan of this book is still not possessed of the real attributes of Satan, every one will easily perceive, that that which seems to favor this belongs only to the poetic drapery. It will vanish as soon as that only is understood, which is as clear as open day, namely, that the prologue bears, in the same degree, a poetical character, that the speeches do.
[625] Gr. Gram. S. 243. The hypothesis, that the knowledge of Satan does not appear among the Israelites until after the exile, has been evidently called forth by a motive external to the thing itself, by the feeling that this knowledge is of heathen origin, and consequently able to cast a shadow upon the truth of the account. But it is scarcely possible to conceive how it can be believed, that one, even with this object in view, is confined to Persian times. Is it not unaccountable, that it is not perceived, that just as much is accomplished by a reference to the Egyptian Typhon as to the Persian Ahriman? That this view is so firmly adhered to, appears to be explicable, only on the ground that at the time when this interest first arose, the Zendavesta was just in fashion, and that as this lost popularity, the hypothesis already strengthened had become historical tradition, which was received without argument. From a theological point of view, which according to our belief is the true and only scientific one, it will, from the nature of the case, be found almost impossible, that a dogma, which in the later period of the revelation holds so important a place, should not also at least be referred to in the statement of the first principles of that revelation. So far, therefore, from expelling it by force, where it does exist, we are rather inclined to search carefully for the traces of its existence. Besides, our passage is not the only one in the Pentateuch which contains intimations of the doctrine of a Satan. That such a doctrine is also prominent in Gen. Genesis 3, has been shown in recent times, among others, by Schott,[626]Rosenmueller,[627]Hahn,[628] and in the Christology.[629] [626]
[627] S. 109.
[628] Dogmat. S. 345.
[629] I. 1. S. 27 ff.
After exhibiting the positive reasons for the explanation of Azazel by Satan, and obviating the objections to it, we must now also subject to examination those among the various explanations that have been given, which are now current, whilst in reference to the rest we refer to Bähr .
According to Ewald,[630] Azazel designates “the unclean, the unholy (literally, the separate, the abhorred) sin.” But this explanation must, on philological grounds, be considered as questionable.[631] It however appears much more untenable, when we examine the context. According to this, what can be the meaning when it is said in Leviticus 16:10, “to send it to Azazel,
[630] Gr. Gram. S. 243.
Moreover, this explanation has indeed been adopted by no one except its originator, who has perhaps himself long ago abandoned it. There is another, to which the authority of Tholuck[632] among others has given more currency, and which is defended by Bähr:[633] “for complete removal.” As far as philology is concerned,” says Bähr, very confidently, “there is at any rate no objection to it.” But we cannot assent to this. The explanation is rather philologically entirely untenable.[634] [632]
[633] S. 668.
How little one can succeed with this in the context lies on the surface. Even in Leviticus 16:8 we do not know how to dispose of it. “A lot for Jehovah and a lot for complete removal:” this is not congruous. The lot is not to be carried away. Also the demand for similarity in the use of the prepositions in
[635]
If it is now established that Satan is to be understood by the term Azazel, then an allusion to Egypt, in the whole rite, cannot be mistaken.
Among the great errors which necessarily arise as soon as man having attained to reflection is abandoned by insight into the depth of human sinfulness, which insight alone will explain the riddle of human life, is dualism, an error proportionally harmless, which in Egypt also took very deep root. “Every bad influence or power of nature, and generally the bad itself, in a physical or ethical respect,” was there personified under the name of Typhon.[636] [636]
[638] Compare Jablonski, III. p. 59, 60. The barren regions around Egypt generally belonged to Typhon.[639] The desert was especially assigned to him as his residence, whence he made his wasting inroads into the consecrated land. “He is,” says Creuzer,[640] “the lover of the degenerate Nephthys, the hostile Lybian desert, and of the sea-shore,—there is the kingdom of Typhon; on the contrary, Egypt the blessed, the Nile-valley glittering with fresh crops, is the land of Isis.” Herodotus[641] ascribes a similar dwelling to Typhon.[642]
[639]
[640] S. 269.
[642] Compare upon this passage, Bähr and Creuzer in Comm. Herod. p. 285. In a strange but very natural alternation, the Egyptians sought sometimes to propitiate the god whom they hated, but feared, by offerings, and indeed by those which consisted of sacred animals. Sometimes, again, when they supposed that the power of the good gods was prevalent and sustained them against him, they allowed themselves in every species of mockery and abuse. “The obscured and broken power of Typhon,” says Plutarch,[643] “even now, in the convulsions of death, they seek sometimes to propitiate by offerings, and endeavor to persuade him to favor them; but at other times, on certain festival occasions, they scoff at and insult him. Then they cast mud at those who are of a red complexion, and throw down an ass from a precipice, as the Coptites do, because they suppose that Typhon was of the color of the fox and the ass.” The most important passage on the worship of Typhon is found on p. 380: “But when a great and troublesome heat prevails, which in excess either brings along with it destructive sickness or other strange or extraordinary misfortunes, the priests take some of the sacred animals, in profound silence, to a dark place. There they threaten them first and terrify them, and when the calamity continues they offer these animals in sacrifice there.”[644] [643]
[644] Compare Comm. upon the passage in Schmidt, De Sacerdotibus et Sacrif. Aeg. p. 312 seq.
Now the supposition of a reference to these Typhonia sacra, Witsius considers as a profanation.[645] But it is seen at once that the reference contended for by him is materially different from that adopted by us. The latter is a polemic one. In opposition to the Egyptian view which implied the necessity of yielding respect even to bad beings generally, if men would ensure themselves against them, it was intended by this rite to bring Israel to the deepest consciousness, that all trouble is the punishment of a just and holy God, whom they, through their sins, have offended, that they must reconcile themselves only with him; that when that is done and the forgiveness of sins is obtained,’ the bad being can harm them no farther.
[645] Aeg. L. II. c. 9. p. 119: Num permisit suis deus, nedum ut jusserit genium aliquem averruncum agnoscere, quem sacratis placarent animantibus, aut quicquam facere abominationibus Aegyptiorum simile.
How very natural and how entirely in accordance with circumstances such a reference was, is evident from the facts contained in other passages of the Pentateuch which show how severe a contest the religious principles of the Israelites had to undergo with the religious notions imbibed in Egypt. This is especially exhibited in the regulations in Leviticus 17, following directly upon the law concerning the atonement day, which prove that the Egyptian idol worship yet continued to be practised among the Israelites. The same thing is also evident from the occurrences connected with the worship of the golden calf. The assumption of a reference so specially polemic might indeed be supposed unnecessary, since in a religion, which teaches generally the existence of a powerful bad being, the error here combated, the belief that this being possesses other than derived power, will naturally arise in those who have not found the right solution of the riddle of human life in the deeper knowledge of human sinfulness. But yet the whole rite has too direct a reference to a prescribed practice of propitiating the bad being, and implies that formal offerings were made to him—such a thing as has never been the product of Israelitish soil, and could scarcely spring up there, since such an embodying of error contradicts fundamental principles among the Israelites respecting the being of Jehovah, which indeed allows the existence of no other power with itself. And finally, there exists here a peculiar trait, which in our opinion makes it certain that there is an Egyptian reference, namely, the circumstance that the goat was sent to Azazel into the desert. The special residence of Typhon was in the desert, according to the Egyptian doctrine, which is most intimately connected with the natural condition of the country. There, accordingly, is Azazel placed in our passage, not in the belief that this was literally true, but merely symbolically.[646]
[646]
Numbers Chap. 19. In the law concerning the manner of purifying those who have defiled themselves with the dead in Numbers 19, it is said, Numbers 19:2 : “Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish and upon which never came yoke.” The inquiry whether an Egyptian reference is prominent here, must depend upon the significance of the red color demanded by the law. For, that this is not without significance we consider as evident without argument. “As respects the red color,” Bähr[647] correctly says, “this is nowhere else demanded for an animal offering or in general even any determinate color, so much the less then can it be doubted that its determination in this case is intentional.” That the color here must have a significance, has at all times been generally acknowledged, although it has been declared difficult and in some respects impossible to fully determine its import; as, for example, the old Rabbins said, that not even Solomon knew why the heifer must be of red to the exclusion of all other colors.[648] [647]
[648] Compare also Witsius, Aeg. 115: At quae tandem causa dici potest cur, cum in caeteris sacrifices omnibus sine colorum discrimine munda animantia rite offerrentur, solam hanc lustralem vaccam rubram esse necesse fuerit?
We maintain that the red color of the heifer serves to characterize it as a sin-offering. We adduce the following arguments in proof of this assumption:
1. Isaiah 1:18 shows undeniably that the red color in the symbolic language of the Scriptures denotes sin: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” The context, Isaiah 1:15, “Your hands are full of blood,” Isaiah 1:21, “and now murderers,” shows at once, on what this significance rests, namely, on the fact that in the shedding of innocent blood their sin was consummated.
2. According to this interpretation both the designated peculiarities of the beast for sacrifice grow up from one and the same root; as a sin-offering, it is at the same time a female and red. The answer to the question why a heifer must here be offered, while in Leviticus 4:14 the rule is laid down that each sin-offering for the whole congregation shall be a bullock, lies manifestly in the phrase
3. According to this explanation, the red color of the heifer corresponds accurately with the scarlet, with which and cedar wood and hyssop her ashes are to be mingled. That also this designates sin is evident from Isaiah 1:18, already quoted, which must be considered as an approved interpretation.[649]Bähr[650] exerts himself in vain to show that in Hebrew the scarlet is the symbol of life. He has not adduced in favor of it, the semblance of a proof. Let it not be said that the scarlet cannot, on account of its union with cedar and hyssop be a symbol of sin. This connexion which occurs once besides, in the directions for purifying the leprous person, in Leviticus 14:4, may be explained as follows: The key for the interpretation of cedar and hyssop which are not to be separated from one another, as Bähr[651] has done, but must be considered in connection, as they never appear singly, is furnished by 1 Kings 5:13; 1 Kings 4:33): From the cedar upon Lebanon even to the hyssop that springeth out of the wall. The cedar as the loftiest among created things—hence the cedars in Scripture are the cedars of God, Psalms 80:11, (Psalms 80:10),—symbolizes his elevation and majesty; the hyssop on the contrary, as the least, his lowliness and condescension which David celebrates in Psalms 8.[652] In the cedar and the hyssop, both the divine qualities are represented which are exercised in the atonement and forgiveness of sin; his majesty which gives the right and power, and his lowliness and compassionate love which ensures the will. The scarlet represents the object with reference to which both these divine qualities are exercised, the occasion for which they are displayed.[653]
[649]
[650] Symbol. 1. S. 334 ff.
4. The reference of the red color to sin is in accordance with the spirit of the whole rite described in Numbers 19. Everything in it points to the fact that the consciousness of sin unfolds itself in death, the image and recompense of sin.[654] The whole has the remembrance of sins,
[656] Bähr, S. 501.
These are the reasons which declare in favor of our interpretation. But the following objection is raised against it. It can scarcely be conceived how that by which sin is to be removed can itself be characterized as sin. “Indeed all sin-offerings are themselves considered as something most holy after death, so that they can be eaten only by holy persons, by priests.” Every thought of sin is here especially excluded by the phrase “a perfect one, in which is no blemish, and on which yoke never came.” The most simple and natural answer to this objection is this: If the heifer could be called sin, (the word
If we go back to the idea of substitution, which lies at the basis of all sin-offerings, the twofold character which is carried through the whole rite is explained. The substitution at once requires two things: original purity and imputed impurity, or natural sinlessness and assumed sinfulness. The union of both appears most conspicuous in the antitype of all sin-offerings, in him whom when he knew no sin God made to be sin for us.[657]
[657]
It might be further objected, that it is inadmissible to understand here, that in the gender and color of the animal sin is signified, while in other sin-offerings, the quality common to them with this is not symbolized in this way. But this objection is entirely without force, since the feminine gender and red color are peculiar to this case. But only in accordance with our view can an appropriate explanation of the peculiarity of this case be given. Since sin was here made so specially prominent a thing, and was even symbolized by gender and color, as is done in no other case, it is clear that this uncleanness was the greatest of all, that the lawgiver aimed at awakening a just abhorrence of death, and accordingly of sin whose type and penalty it is. In it is also shown, in the most striking manner, that we are dead through trespasses and sins,
If it be now established, that the red heifer was a type of sin, we have a remarkable parallel from Egyptian antiquity. “In the symbolic colors, as arranged by the Egyptians,” says Drumann, in the passage before quoted, “black was the color of death and mourning, for slaughter and its author the red color was chosen.” Herodotus[659] says, the animals designated for sacrifice were among the Egyptians accurately examined beforehand, and if only one black hair was found on the bullock, it was proved unsuitable for offering. What Plutarch[660] says in his book on Isis and Osiris, performs the office of a commentary on this passage. We see from it, that the animals offered must be throughout entirely red: “The Egyptians, since they suppose that Typhon is of a red complexion, devote to him red bullocks, and they institute so close an inspection of them, that they consider the animal unfit for sacrifice if a single black or white hair is found on him.” Besides, says Plutarch, the Egyptians celebrated certain feast days, on which they, in order to revile and disgrace Typhon, abused men who had red hair. Diodorus,[661] of Sicily, says, in ancient times the Egyptians offered men, who like Typhon had red hair, at the tomb of Osiris.
[661] 1. 88.
Now the choice of red color to designate the evil and the base is not certainly arbitrary. It depends in all probability among the Egyptians, as among the Hebrews, upon the fact that red is the color of blood.[662] Thence it might be supposed that both of these nations came independently of one another to one and the same symbolic designation. With reference to this, it is proper to remark further, that these two are the only nations among whom red is found as a fixed and nationally recognized designation of evil, and that the connection of the color with the thing designated is a looser one, than, for example, in the case of white as the color of innocence, and black as the color of mourning, then also, it may be added, that among both these nations this symbolic view obtains influence directly upon the offering of sacrifices, among the Israelites only in particular cases, but among the Egyptians generally. If we take this into consideration, a dependence of one of these nations upon the other will appear very probable, and then we can decide for ourselves whether the origin of the symbolic designation was not among the Egyptians.
[662] According to Bähr, Symbol. Th. 2. S. 234, Typhon has the red color, “as the personified burning heat, which dries up the fertilizing Nile, and scorches everything.” But no proof for this derivation of the red color is adduced. We could quote in our favor Goulianof, who, in the Archéologie Ég., Leipz. 1839. t. 3. p. 89 seq., has a separate section entitled: Étude des allegories de la couleur rouge, in which it is attempted to show, that red as the color of blood is the color of impiety. Compare the section, p. 422 seq.: Étude des allég. attaches a la couleur pourpre ou éccarlate. But we do not consider him as good authority.
Finally, it is evident from the foregoing remarks, that the Egyptian reference in Num. Numbers 19, by no means respects the whole rite, but is a very partial one; it is limited to the identity of the symbolic import of the red color, to which may perhaps also be added, that the color has an influence in the choice of the victim.[663] There is no direct authority, for finding, with Spencer,[664] who has followed Thomas Aquinas and Du Voisin, in the choice of the heifer instead of the bullock, which on other occasions was taken, a reference, and indeed a hostile one, to an Egyptian custom,—he supposes the designation of the heifer for an offering of purification is a practical derision of the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the cow,—since the choice of the heifer is sufficiently explained by the reasons already given, without such a reference. Yet it may be remarked, that the position taken by us, by no means excludes the reference claimed by Spencer, but on the other hand, both may very easily be reconciled. If the heifer was chosen instead of the bullock commonly offered, in order to designate it as impersonated sin, there would even in this be found the strongest opposition to the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the cow.
[664] This author, p. 486, after he has referred to passages by which it is proved that the cow is considered sacred among the Egyptians, says: Cum itaque eo dementiae et impietatis prolapsi essent Aeg., ut vaccam tanto cultu studioque honorarent: deus vaccam multa cum cerimonia mactari voluit et lixivium ex illius ceneribus ad populi immunditias expurgandas confici; ut Aeg. vanitatem sugillaret et per hanc disciplinam, cum Aegypti more sensuque pugnantem, Israelite ad cultus illius vaccini contemptum atque odium sensim perducerentur.
Laws with Reference to Food. The Egyptians and the Israelites stand alone among the nations of antiquity, in reference to the great care which they bestowed upon the selection of food. Among both, regulations of this kind had extensive influence. Through these laws, some of the most important means of subsistence were either withdrawn, or at least made odious, as, for example, fish, which could not be eaten by the priests,[665] and the leguminous fruits.[666] How much the regulations which had reference to food influenced them in life, is best shown by the passages collected by Spencer.[667] [665]
[666] Larcher zu Herod. 2. S. 252 ff.
[667] Page 130. See also the wonderful passage of Porphyry, De Abstinentia, B. 4. c. 7. This fact indeed leads us to conjecture, that the Israelitish laws respecting food, were not without an allusion to Egyptian customs. If no such thing Is supposed, the coincidence perceived between the two nations appears very remarkable. That the admission of such a reference detracts from the dignity of the Israelitish law, no one should affirm. This depends wholly upon the manner in which the reference is understood. That a distinction of food originated very anciently, is indeed certain without argument, since the different nature of animals, in very many respects, speaks a language of signs, clear without reasoning to the allegorizing mind of antiquity. Thus, we find, even in the time of the flood,[668] the distinction made between the clean and unclean beasts and birds. But that a beginning merely was made so anciently, these same passages show, since there is not a trace of a distinction between the clean and unclean wild beasts found in them. Now in Egypt from these first elements a complete system was formed. The Mosaic code of laws found a people which was accustomed to a distinction of food of extensive application. In these circumstances it was natural,—which, in case the Israelites yet occupied the position of the patriarchs, would have been entirely unnatural,—that the laws of diet had reference, not merely to individual things, but that they extended into the whole province concerned, even to its furthest limits, and arranged all its parts with respect to the fundamental idea of the Israelitish religion. The fear of too great minuteness could not here have had any place, since the laws were made for a people accustomed to law, and its advantages and blessings would not be allowed to remain unenjoyed. Besides, if the ground had been left unoccupied, it would have been immediately seized upon, or rather retained in possession by the opposer, whom it was important to expel from the borders of the Israelitish jurisdiction in which he had already so strongly intrenched himself.
[669]
[670] De Isid. p. 363.
[671] Compare upon the relation in which unclean animals are placed to Typhon, Jablonski Panth. Aeg. 3. p. 67, 8.
[672] Briefe, S. 153. But together with this agreement between the Egyptian and the Israelitish regulations in respect to food, there is a very important difference, which is adapted to meet all apprehensions which might arise from a supposed too near contact of the two, and which fully excludes the supposition of a crude transferring of a heathenish institution. Among the Egyptians, the separation between the rational and irrational creation was removed,[673] and accordingly the uncleanness of animals was to them something indwelling and physical; a swine and a man given to excess, were entirely in a like manner the creatures of Typhon. The eating of the flesh of animals belonging to Typhon, introduced with it a Typhonic element into the one eating. Entirely otherwise was it, according to the divine law. At the very commencement of the Pentateuch, the limit between the rational and brute creation is strongly drawn. Man only has the image of God, and therefore he alone can properly be the subject of cleanness and uncleanness; and when mention is there made of these qualities in the animal kingdom, this can be only as a symbol and representative of that which belongs to the reasoning creation. On Jewish ground only, such laws respecting food could find place, and notwithstanding their formal abrogation, they will for substance always exist.
[676] B. 2. c. 54.
[677] B. 2. c. 56.
[678] B. 1. e. 181, 2.
Diodorus[679] of Sicily speaks of “The concubines of Jupiter,” that is, of Amon. Strabo[680] says: “But to Jupiter whom they most honor, a very beautiful and noble young woman is devoted, whom they call the Grecian Pallas; but this one has intercourse with whatever men she wishes until she arrives at the age of womanhood. After that she is married. But before her marriage there is a lamentation made for her. What Strabo here says of the impurity of the young woman devoted to Amon rests without doubt upon the misunderstanding of the expression, “The concubines of Amon.” Herodotus gives us a contrary account: “These women are said never to have intercourse with a man,” and in another place, he says that among the Egyptians impurity is excluded from the circuit of the holy places, in which these women had their abode.[681]
[679]
[680] B. 17. 1171.
[681] The declaration of Strabo concerning the impurity of the holy women is confuted also by Rosellini I. 1. p. 216, and Wilkinson, Vol. I. p. 259. The monuments confirm the accounts of classical writers.[682] The data which they furnish are found collected in Wilkinson,[683] where there is also an engraving[684] of the holy women given, and in Rosellini,[685] according to whom these young women bore the title of “bride of God.” See also Minutoli’s[686] Travels where it is said in the innermost part of the temple at Carnac: “Near the king and the priests maidens are also seen represented.”
[683] Vol. 1. p. 258 seq.
[684] p. 260.
[685] I. 1. p. 216.
[686] S. 181. The characteristic peculiarities in which the Israelitish agrees with the Egyptian institution of the holy women are the following: 1. Among the Israelites as among the Egyptians, the holy women with all the respect which they enjoy, still are not priestesses; among both the priesthood belongs only to the men. What Herodotus mentions in B. 2. c. 35 as a distinguishing peculiarity of the Egyptians: “A woman never performs the office of a priest for a god or goddess,”[687] applies also accurately mutatis mutandis, to the Israelites.
2. That the holy women among the Israelites had no external service in the tabernacle of testimony, that their service was rather a spiritual one, we have already seen. Just so is it among the Egyptians. That their holy women were not as Bähr[688] supposes, servants of the priests, (hierodulen) is sufficiently proved by the quotations from Herodotus.[689] He says, indeed, that they served the temple of Jupiter at Thebes.[690] But that their service, just as in Exodus 38, is to be understood as spiritual service, the account shows, since these Egyptian women are supposed to have founded the oracles in Greece and Lybia. If they served Jupiter in these countries by foretelling future events, they were also employed in a similar manner in their father-land.
[688] Zu Herod. B. 2. c. 54.
[689] B. 2. c. 54-56.
3. That also among the Israelites, noble women especially were devoted to the service of the temple was previously shown. Just so was it among the Egyptians. According to Strabo,[691] the most beautiful and the most noble maidens were devoted to Jupiter or Amon. Wilkinson says, whilst speaking of the tombs of the holy women described by Diodorus, which are now seen at Thebes in a valley 3000 feet behind the ruins of Medeenet Haboo: “The sculptures show that they were women of the highest rank, since all the occupants of these tombs were either the wives or daughters of kings.” Rosellini[692] says: “We shall find in the sequel, also other examples of royal young maidens devoted to Amon, from which it may be inferred that it was a custom in the earliest period of the Pharaohs to place by this rite some of the king’s daughters in a nearer relation to religion.”
[692] P. 217. I.
4. That the holy women among the Israelites were always unmarried, either young women or widows, has been shown in the Contributions.[693] Just so also is it with the holy women among the Egyptians. According to Herodotus[694] the brides of Amon were excluded from all intercourse with men.[695] According to Strabo the most beautiful and noble young women were devoted to Jupiter, and when they wished to marry, there was previously a great lamentation made for them as for one dead.[696] [693]
It is necessary for our purpose, that we first determine the significance of leaving the hair unshorn by the Nazarite. We begin with an examination of the view of Bähr.[697] The obligation of the Nazarite, he asserts, to let the hair grow freely, has its basis in the idea of holiness. Among the orientals, and especially among the Hebrews, the hair of the head is the same as the products of the earth, the grass of the field, and the growth of the trees. Especially in accordance with this is the naming of the vine in the year of jubilee,
[697] Symbol. Th. 2. S. 432. This view is by no means new; but it is discarded by all judicious investigators, as mere mystical refinement. The following reasons are especially decisive against it.[698]
[698]
1. The proofs which are brought for the position, that according to oriental and especially Israelitish views, the growth of the hair is a symbol for the thriving condition of man, are very weak. The one derived from Lev. Leviticus 25 is the only one which is worth the trouble of a closer examination. It is there said of the sabbatical year in Leviticus 25:5 : “The grain which groweth of its own accord thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vines (nazarites) thou shall not gather, a year of rest is it for the land,” after that it had been said before in Leviticus 25:4, “Thy field thou shalt not sow, and thy vineyard thou shalt not prune.” Then in Leviticus 25:11, concerning the year of jubilee: “You shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself, neither gather its nazarites.”[699] It is not entirely certain, that there is a special reference in these passages to the leaving of the hair to grow in the case of the Nazarites.
[699] Besides the establishment of the law in chap. 6, these passages also, in which before the giving of the law concerning the Nazarites allusion is made to them, show that the lawgiver found it as an existing institution. The general idea of separation, which lies at the basis of the whole institution of the Nazarites, might here also apply. As the Nazarites were separated from the world, so was the vine from the use of man in the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee. But if we suppose a reference to the unshorn hair of the Nazarites, which the ‘not gathering’ and ‘not pruning’ in Leviticus 25:4 and Leviticus 25:5 favor, yet at any rate the point of comparison is only with respect to the separation. That the unpruned vine is not better, but worse, is decidedly against the opinion of Bähr. It shoots out in wood, and an injury is done to its true growth.[700] This is decisive against the opinion that the growth of the hair among the Israelites is a symbol of prosperity, namely, that it belongs to propriety among the Israelites to go with shorn hair, whereas according to this view, long hair must have been considered an ornament as among most nations of antiquity.[701] [700] John 15:2
[701] Carpzov. p. 153: Communis inter priscos Judaeos mos ita tulit ut tonsis incederent capillis, secus ac Graeci veteres Romani, Galli aut Germani, qui comati erant. Compare, in reference to the consideration in which long hair was held among these nations, the collections by Lampe in the Miscell. Groning. t. 4. p. 209 seq.
2. The fundamental idea in the institution of the Nazarite is that of separation from the world, with its enjoyments, which oppose holiness, and its corrupting influences. This negative point of separation, involves the positive one of sanctification, the separate person is at the same time holy to the Lord—since the world stands in opposition to the Lord, every renunciation of it is at the same time a union with the Lord, and the separation is here made directly for the sake of the Lord. That the idea of separation lies at the foundation, the name, by which the significance of the institution must be expressed, indicates.[702]
[703] In dem Reallexicon, II. 1. S. 165. The proof for the interpretation of the rite claimed by us, is given in the confutation of other views. We believe that long hair is a symbol of separation from the world. It belongs, as we have already seen, to the Israelitish ideas of propriety to go with shorn head,[704] and he who left his hair to grow, furnished by this act a practical confession that he renounced the world, and abandoned all intercourse with men. That also, on other occasions, those who considered themselves as separated from men suffered their hair to grow, is shown by Deuteronomy 21:12, where, concerning the captive which an Israelite determined to marry, it is said: “And thou shalt bring her into thine house, and she shall shear her head and pare her nails.” By shearing her head and paring her nails she enters again into human society.[705]
[704]
[705] This passage shows very distinctly with what justice Bähr asserts, S. 437: It was the Israelitish custom in mourning, not to allow the hair to be long, but to cut it. The cutting of it must indeed be different from shaving, calvitium facere. Only the latter was the appropriate condition in mourning. Comp. Geier, De Hebr. Luctu. c. 8. § 6 and 7.
If the significance of leaving the hair unshorn is determined, the Egyptian reference in this rite lies on the surface. Indeed it must appear remarkable that the Israelites agree with the Egyptians almost against the whole of the rest of the world in considering short hair as belonging to social propriety.[706] Indeed, this agreement is explained most easily by the long-continued residence of the Israelites in Egypt. But it is a point of more importance, that among the Egyptians not less than among the Israelites, the temporary withdrawing from the world, the going out of society, was symbolized by leaving the hair to grow. We see this from Genesis 41:14, according to which the captives in Egypt left their hair unshorn, and also from Herodotus 2. 36: “The priests of the gods wear, in other lands, long hair; but in Egypt they cut it off; among other nations it is the custom to shear the beard when a relative dies. But when any of their friends die, the Egyptians leave the hair which was before cut, to grow, both on the head and chin.”
Whilst the proof that the leaving of the hair to grow, among the Nazarites, was a sign of separation, shows on the one hand that the rite stood in an external relation to Egyptian customs, it serves, on the other hand, for confuting the hypothesis of Spencer, concerning the heathenish origin of the whole rite. The cases in which the heathen devoted the hair of the head and the beard to their divinities, appears from this point of view as entirely different. Our inquiries concerning the Egyptian references in the religious institutions of the books of Moses, are finished. It only remains now, in a last chapter, to collect together those things for which, until now, no suitable place has been found.