He accepts the hypothesis that Moses was murdered in the wilderness, but that his memory was cherished by the people and that his religious doctrine ultimately triumphed. Freud develops his general theory of monotheism, which enabled him to throw light on the development of Judaism and Christianity.
Join Reader Rewards and earn your way to a free book! Join Reader Rewards and earn points when you purchase this book from your favorite retailer. Category: Religion. Paperback —. Add to Cart. The Historical Truth - - - 9. No consideration, however, will move rne to set aside truth in favour of supposed national interests. Moreover, the elucidation of the mere facts of the problem may be expected to deepen our insight into the situation with which they are concerned.
The man Moses, the liberator of his people, who gave them their religion and their laws, belonged to an age so remote that the preliminary question arises whether he was an historical person or a legendary figure. If he lived, his time was the thirteenth or fourteenth century B. Although the decision lacks final historical certainty, the great majority of historians have expressed the opinion that Moses did live and that the exodus from Egypt, led by him, did in fact take place.
Science to-day has become much more cautious and deals much more leniently with tradition than it did in the early days of historical investigation. What first attracts our interest in the person of Moses is his name, which is written Mosche in Hebrew. One may well ask: Where does it come from? What does it mean?
As is well known, the story in Exodus, Chapter ii, already answers this question. There we learn that the Egyptian princess who saved the babe from the waters of the Nile gave him his name, adding the etymological explanation: because I drew him out of the water. But this explanation is obviously inadequate. IV, , Jiidischer Verlag, Berlin.
Instead of citing all the authors who have voiced this opinion I shall quote a passage from a recent work by Breasted, 1 an author whose History of Egypt is regarded as authoritative. The father of Moses without doubt prefixed to his son 5 s name that of an Egyptian god like Amon or Ptah, and this divine name was gradually lost in current usage, till the boy was called ' Mose. It is riot in the Hebrew, which has ' mosheh 5. It might have been expected that one of the many authors who recognized Moses to be an Egyptian name would have drawn the con- clusion, or at least considered the possibility, that the bearer of an Egyptian name was himself an Egyptian.
In modern times we have no misgiving in drawing such conclusions, although to-day a person bears two names, not one, and although a change of name or assimilation of it in new conditions cannot be ruled out. So we are not at all surprised to find that the poet Chamisso was of French extraction, Napoleon Buonaparte on the other hand of Italian, and that Benjamin Disraeli was an Italian Jew as his name would lead us to expect. And such an inference from the name to the race should be more reliable and indeed conclusive in respect of early and primitive times.
Nevertheless to the best of my knowledge no historian has drawn this conclusion in the case of Moses, not even one of those who, like Breasted, are ready to suppose that Moses " was cognizant of all the wisdom of the Egyptians. Perhaps the awe of Biblical 1 Loc.
Perhaps it seemed monstrous to imagine that the man Moses could have been anything other than a Hebrew. In any event, what happened was that the recogni- tion of the name being Egyptian was not a factor in judging the origin of the man Moses, and that nothing further was deduced from it. If the question of the nationality of this great man is considered important, then any new material for answering it must be welcome. This is what my little essay attempts. It may claim a place in Imago 1 because the contribution it brings is an application of psycho-analysis.
The considerations thus reached will impress only that minority of readers familiar with analytical reasoning and able to appreciate its conclusions. To them I hope it will appear of significance. In Otto Rank, then still under my influ- ence, published at my suggestion a book entitled : Der Mythus von der Geburt des Helden. Especially the history of their birth and of their early years is furnished with phantastic traits; 1 See Glossary. Deuticke, Wien. It is far from my mind to depreciate the value of Rank's original contributions to this work. During his mothers pregnancy or earlier an oracle or a dream warns the father of the child 5 s birth as containing grave danger for his safety.
From the point of view of what interests us here it would perhaps be worth while to reproduce the account ascribed to himself: " I am Sargon, the mighty king, King of Agade. My mother was a Vestal; my father I knew not; while my father's brother dwelt in the mountains. In my town Azupirani it lies on the banks of Euphrates my mother, the Vestal, conceived me.
Secretly she bore me. She laid me in a basket of sedge, closed the opening with pitch and lowered me into the river. The stream did not drown me, but carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, in the goodness of his heart lifted me out of the water. Akki, the drawer of water, as his own son he brought me up. Akki, the drawer of water, made me his gardener. When I was a gardener Istar fell in love with me. I became king and for forty- five years I ruled as king.
But besides these Rank has enumerated many other heroes belonging to myth or poetry to whom the same youthful story attaches either in its entirety or in well recognizable parts, such as Edipus, Kama, Paris, Telephos, Perseus, Heracles, Gilgamesh, Amphion, Zethos and others. I need only refer to his conclusions with a few short hints. A hero is a man who stands up manfully against his father and in the end victoriously overcomes him. The myth in question traces this struggle back to the very dawn of the hero's life, by having him born against his father's will and saved in spite of his father's evil intentions.
The exposure in the basket is clearly a symbolical representa- tion of birth ; the basket is the womb, the stream the water at birth. In innumerable dreams the relation of the child to the parents is represented by drawing or saving from the water. When the imagination of a people attaches this myth to a famous personage it is to indicate that he is recognized as a hero, that his life has conformed to the typical plan. The inner source of the myth is the so-called " family romance " of the child, in which the son reacts to the change in his inner relationship to his parents, especially that to his father.
The child's first years are governed by grandiose over-estimation of his father; kings and queens in dreams and fairy tales always represent, accordingly, the parents. Later on, under the influence of rivalry and real disappoint- ments, the release from the parents and a critical attitude towards the father sets in. It is not too much to say that these observations fully explain the similarity as well as the far- spread occurrence of the myth of the birth of the hero.
It is all the more interesting to find that the myth of Moses 5 birth and exposure stands apart; in one essential point it even contradicts the others. We start with the two families between which the myth has cast the child's fate. We know that analytic interpretation makes them into one family, that the distinction is only a temporal one. In the typical form of the myth the first family, into which the child is born, is a noble and mostly a royal one; the second family, in which the child grows up, is a humble and degraded one, corresponding with the circumstances to which the interpretation refers.
Only in the story of Edipus is this difference obscured. The babe exposed by one kingly family is brought up by another royal pair. It can hardly be an accident that in this one example there is in the myth itself a glimmer of the original identity of the two families. The social contrast of the two families meant, as we know, to stress the heroic nature of a great man gives a second function to our myth, which becomes especially significant with historical personages.
Thus Cyrus is for the Medes an alien conqueror; by way of the exposure myth he becomes the grandson of their king. A similar trait occurs in the myth of Romulus : if such a man ever lived he must have been an unknown adventurer, an upstart; the myth makes him a descendant of, and heir to, the royal house of Alba Longa. It is very different in the case of Moses. Here the first family usually so distinguished is modest enough.
But the second family the humble one in which as a rule heroes are brought up is replaced by the Royal house of Egypt; the princess brings him up as her own son. This divergence from the usual type has struck many research workers as strange. Meyer and others after him supposed the original form of the myth to have been different. Pharaoh had been warned by a prophetic dream 1 that his daughter's son would become a danger to him and his kingdom.
This is why he has the child delivered to the waters of the Nile shortly after his birth. But the child is saved by Jewish people and brought up as their own. However, further thought tells us that an 1 Also mentioned in Flavius Josephus's narration. For the legend is either of Egyptian or of Jewish origin.
Psychoanalysis of Myth 4
The first supposition may be excluded. The Egyptians had no motive to glorify Moses; to them he was not a hero. So the legend should have originated among the Jewish people; that is to say, it was attached in the usual version to the person of their leader. But for that purpose it was entirely unfitted; what good is a legend to a people that makes their hero into an alien? The Moses myth as we know it to-day lags sadly behind its secret motives. If Moses is not of royal lineage our legend cannot make him into a hero ; if he remains a Jew it has done nothing to raise his status.
Only one small feature of the whole myth remains effective : the assurance that the babe survived in spite of strong outside forces to the contrary. This feature is repeated in the early history of Jesus, where King Herod assumes the role of Pharaoh. So we really have a right to assume that in a later and rather clumsy treatment of the legendary material the adapter saw fit to equip his hero Moses with certain features appertaining to the classical exposure myths characteristic of a hero, and yet unsuited to Moses by reason of the special circumstances.
Let us return to the two families in the myth. As we know, on the level of analytic interpreta- tion they are identical. On a mythical level they are distinguished as the noble and the humble family. With an historical person to whom the myth has become attached there is, however, a third level, that of reality.
One of the families is the real one, the one into which the great man was really born and in which he was brought up. The other is fictitious, invented by the myth in pursuance of its own motives. As a rule the real family corresponds with the humble one, the noble family with the fictitious one. In the case of Moses something seemed to be different. And here the new point of view may perhaps bring some illumination. It is that the first family, the one from which the babe is exposed to danger, is in all comparable cases the fictitious one; the second family, however, by which the hero is adopted and in which he grows up is his real one.
If we have the courage to accept this statement as a general truth to which the Moses legend also is subject, then we suddenly see our way clear. Moses is an Egyptian probably of noble origin whom the myth undertakes to transform into a Jew. And that would be our conclusion! From a means of getting rid of the child it becomes a means of its salvation. The divergence of the Moses legend from all others of its kind might be traced back to a special feature in the story of Moses 5 life.
Whereas in all other cases the hero rises above his humble beginnings as his life progresses, the heroic life of the man Moses began by descending from his eminence to the level of the children of Israel. This little investigation was undertaken in the hope of gaining from it a second, fresh argument for the suggestion that Moses was an Egyptian. We have seen that the first argument, that of his name, has not been considered decisive. The objection is likely to be that the circumstances of the origin and transformation of legends are too obscure to allow of such a con- clusion as the preceding one, and that all efforts to extract the kernel of historical truth must be 1 Thus E.
This does not prove however that these dynasties were of Egyptian origin, but it proves that they had relations with Egypt. One may well ask what kind of relations one is to imagine. I myself do not share this negative attitude, but I am not in a position to confute it. If there was no more certainty than this to be attained why have I brought this enquiry to the notice of a wider public?
I regret that even my justification has to restrict itself to hints. If, however, one is attracted by the two arguments outlined above, and tries to take seriously the conclusion that Moses was a distinguished Egyptian, then very interesting and far-reaching perspectives open out. With the help of certain assumptions the motives guiding Moses in his unusual undertaking can be made intelligible; in close connection with this the possible motiva- tion of numerous characteristics and peculiarities of the legislation and religion he gave the Jewish people can be perceived.
It stimulates ideas of some moment concerning the origin of mono- theistic religion in general. But such important considerations cannot be based on psychological probabilities alone. An objective proof of the period into which the life of Moses, and with it the exodus from Egypt, fall would perhaps have sufficed. But this has not been forthcoming, and therefore it will be better to suppress any infer- ences that might follow our view that Moses was an Egyptian. IN Part I of this book I have tried to strengthen by a new argument the suggestion that the man Moses, the liberator and law-giver of the Jewish people, was not a Jew, but an Egypt- ian.
That his name derived from the Egyptian vocabulary had long been observed, though not duly appreciated. I added to this consideration the further one that the interpretation of the exposure myth attaching to Moses necessitated the conclusion that he was an Egyptian whom a people needed to make into a Jew. VAt the end of my essay I said that important and far-reaching conclusions could be drawn from the suggestion that Moses was an Egyptian; but I was not prepared to uphold them publicly, since they were based only on psychological probabilities and lacked objective proof.
The more significant the possibilities thus discerned the more cautious is one about exposing them to the critical attack of the outside world without any secure foundation like an iron monument with feet of clay. And, lastly, it is not attractive to be classed with the scholastics and talmudists who are satisfied to exercise their ingenuity uncon- cerned how far removed their conclusions may be from the truth. Notwithstanding these misgivings, which weigh as heavily to-day as they did then, out of the conflict of my motives the decision has emerged to follow up my first essay by this contribution.
But once again it is only a part of the whole, and not the most important part. If, then, Moses was an Egyptian, the first gain from this suggestion is a new riddle, one difficult to answer. When a people of a tribe 1 prepares for a great undertaking it is to be expected that one of them should make himself their leader or be chosen for this role. But what could have induced a distinguished Egyptian perhaps a prince, priest or high official to place himself at 1 We have no inkling what numbers were concerned in the Exodus. The well-known contempt of the Egyptians for foreigners makes such a proceeding especially unlikely.
Indeed, I am inclined to think this is why even those historians who recognized the name as Egyptian, and ascribed all the wisdom of Egypt to him, were not willing to entertain the obvious possibility that Moses was an Egyptian. This first difficulty is followed by a second. We must not forget that Moses was not only the political leader of the Jews settled in Egypt, he was also their law -giver and educator and the man who forced them to adopt a new religion, which is still to-day called Mosaic after him. But can a single person create a new religion so easily? And when someone wishes to influence the religion of another would not the most natural thing be to convert him to his own?
The Jewish people in Egypt were certainly not without some kind of religion, and if Moses, who gave them a new religion, was an Egyptian, then the surmise cannot be rejected that this other new religion was the Egyptian one. This possibility encounters an obstacle: the sharp contrast between the Jewish religion attributed to Moses and the Egyptian one. The former is a grandiosely rigid monotheism.
The sight of his countenance cannot be borne; one must not make an image of him, not even breathe his name. In the Egyptian religion, on the other hand, there is a bewildering mass of deities of differing impor- tance and provenance. Some of them are per- sonifications of great natural powers like heaven and earth, sun and moon.
Then we find an abstraction such as Maat Justice, Truth or a grotesque creature like the dwarfish Bes. Most of them, however, are local gods from the time when the land was divided into numerous provinces. They have the shapes of animals as if they had not yet overcome their origin from the old totem animals. They are not clearly differentiated, barely distinguished by special functions attributed to some of them.
The hymns in praise of these gods tell the same thing about each of them, identify them with one another without any misgivings in a way that would confuse us hopelessly. Names of deities are combined with one another, so that one becomes degraded almost to an epithet of the other.
Thus in the best period of the " New Empire " the main god of the city of Thebes is called Amon-Re in which combination the first part signifies the ram-headed city-god, whereas Re is the name of the hawk -headed Sun -God of On. Some of these differences may easily derive from the contrast in principle between a strict monotheism and an unlimited polytheism.
- Sweet Pea My Sweet Pea.
- Le Lean Manufacturing : Les Secrets de la Réussite de Votre Entreprise grâce au Lean Management (French Edition).
- Related Articles.
- Das falsche Herz des Meeres (German Edition);
Others are obviously consequences of a difference in intellectual level; one religion is very near to the primitive, the other has soared to the heights of sublime abstraction. Perhaps it is these two characteristics that occasionally give one the impression that the contrast between the Mosaic and the Egyptian religion is one intended and purposely accentuated: for example, when the one religion severely condemns any kind of magic or sorcery which flourishes so abundantly in the other ; or when the insatiable zest of the Egyptian for making images of his gods in clay, stone and metal, to which our museums owe so much, is contrasted with the way in which the making of the image of any living or visionary being is bluntly forbidden.
There is yet another difference between the two religions, which the explanations we have attempted do not touch. No other people of antiquity has done so much to deny death, has made such careful provision for an after-life; in accordance with this the death -god Osiris, the ruler of that other world, was the mosj; popular and indisputable of all Egyptian gods. And this is all the more remarkable since later experience has shown that the belief in a life beyond can very well be reconciled with a monotheistic religion. We had hoped the suggestion that Moses was an Egyptian would prove enlightening and stimulating in many different respects.
But our first deduction from this suggestion that the new religion he gave the Jews was his own, the Egyptian one has foundered on the difference, nay the striking contrast, between the two religions.
The Unexamined Paradoxes of Freud’s “Moses and Monotheism”
II A strange fact in the history of the Egyptian religion, which was recognized and appraised relatively late, opens up another point of view. It is still possible that the religion Moses gave to his Jewish people was yet his own, an Egyptian religion though not the Egyptian one. In the glorious Eighteenth Dynasty, when Egypt became for the first time a world power, a young Pharaoh ascended the throne about 1 B. But Amenhotep's reign lasted only for seventeen years; very soon after his death in the new religion was swept away and the memory of the heretic king proscribed.
From the ruins of his new capital which he had built and dedicated to his God, and from the inscriptions in the rock tombs belonging to it, we derive the little knowledge we possess of him. Everything we can learn about this remarkable, indeed unique, person is worthy of the greatest interest. The origin of Egyptian monotheism can be traced back a fair distance with some cer- tainty. Maat, the Goddess of truth, order and justice, was a daughter of the Sun God Re. Already 1 Breasted called him " The first individual in human history.
An ancient name of the Sun- God Aton or Atum was rediscovered, and in this Aton religion the young king found a movement he had no need to create, but one which he could join. Political conditions in Egypt had about that time begun to exert a lasting influence on Egyptian religion. Nubia in the south, Palestine, Syria and a part of Mesopotamia in the north had been added to the Empire. This imperialism was reflected in religion as Universal- ity and Monotheism. Since Pharaoh's solicitude now extended beyond Egypt to Nubia and Syria, Deity itself had to give up its national limitation and the new God of the Egyptians had to become like Pharaoh the unique and unlimited sovereign of the world known to the Egyptians.
Besides, it was natural that as the frontiers extended Egypt should become accessible to foreign influences ; some of the king's wives were Asiatic princesses, 1 and possibly even direct encourage- ment of monotheism had penetrated from Syria. In the two hymns to Aton, which have been preserved to us through the inscriptions in the rock tombs and were probably composed by him, he praises the sun as the creator and preserver of all living beings in and outside Egypt with a fervour such as recurs many centuries after only in the psalms in honour of the Jewish god Jahve.
But he did not stop at this astonishing anticipation of scientific knowledge concerning the effect of sunlight. There is no doubt that he went further: that he worshipped the sun not as a material object, but as a symbol of a Divine Being whose energy was manifested in his rays. His activity was much more energetic. He added the something new that turned into monotheism the doctrine of an universal god : the quality of exclusiveness. In one of his hymns it is stated in 1 Breasted, History of Egypt, p. Erman's opinion of a formula in honour of the god is similar : A.
Erman Die JEgyptische Religion, There is no other God than Thou. It would be a mistake, too, to suppose that the new religion sprang to life ready and fully equipped like Athene out of Zeus 5 forehead. Everything rather goes to show that during Amenhotep's reign it was strength- ened so as to attain greater clarity, consistency, harshness and intolerance.
Probably this develop- ment took place under the influence of the violent opposition among the priests of Amon that raised its head against the reforms of the king. In the sixth year of Amenhotep's reign this enmity had grown to such an extent that the king changed his name, of which the now proscribed name of the god Amon was a part.
Instead of Amenhotep he called himself Ikhnaton. Soon after his change of name Ikhnaton left Thebes, which was under Amon's rule, and built a new capital lower down the river which he 1 Idem, History of Egypt, p. The king's new name means approximately the same as his former one : God is satisfied. Compare our Godfrey and the German Gotthold.
Its ruins are now called Tell-el-Amarna. Everywhere in the Empire the temples were closed, the services forbidden, and the ecclesias- tical property seized. Indeed, the king's zeal went so far as to cause an inquiry to be made into the inscriptions of old monuments in order to efface the word " God " whenever it was used in the plural. The Aton religion had not appealed to the people; it had probably been limited to a small circle round Ikhnaton's person.
His end is wrapped in mystery. We learn of a few short-lived, shadowy successors of his own family. Already his son-in- law Tutankhaton was forced to return to Thebes and to substitute Amon in his name for the god Aton. Then there followed a period of anarchy, until the general Haremhab succeeded in in restoring order. The glorious Eighteenth Dynasty was extinguished; at the same time their 1 This is where in the correspondence of the Egyptian kings with their friends and vassals in Asia was found, a cor- respondence which proved so important for our knowledge of history.
In this sad interregnum Egypt's old religions had been reinstated. The Aton religion was at an end, Ikhnaton's capital lay destroyed and plundered, and his memory was scorned as that of a felon. It will serve a certain purpose if we now note several negative characteristics of the Aton religion. In the first place, all myth, magic and sorcery are excluded from it.
In spite of all the love for art in the Amarna period, not one personal representation of the Sun God Aton has been found, and, we may say with confidence, ever will be found. Djins, bogies, spirits, monsters, demigods and Osiris himself with all his court, were swept into the blaze and reduced to ashes. Weigall, I. The true God, said the king, had no form; and he held to this opinion throughout his life. The contrast with the popular religion cannot be expressed more vividly. We compared earlier the Jewish religion with the religion of the Egyptian people and noted how different they were from each other.
Now we shall compare the Jewish with the Aton religion and should expect to find that they were originally identical.
My Other Websites
We know that this is no easy task. Of the Aton religion we do not perhaps know enough, thanks to the revengeful spirit of the Amon priests. The Mosaic religion we know only in its final form as it was fixed by Jewish priests in the time after the Exile about years later. If, in spite of this unpromising material, we should find some indications fitting in with our supposition then we may indeed value them highly. He is never mentioned in any record of Ikhnaton or in any of the tombs at Amarna. But I am afraid I should be told that such a road is impracticable. I am, alas, entirely unqualified to answer this question and have been able to find very little about it in the literature concerned, 1 but probably we had better not make things so simple.
Moreover, we shall have to come back to the problems of the divine name. The points of similarity as well as those of difference in the two religions are easily discerned, but do not enlighten us much. Both are forms of a strict monotheism, and we shall be inclined to reduce to this basic character what is similar in both of them. A foreign Queen, as well as her suite, might therefore have been attracted to Heliopolis rather than to Thebes.
The most essential difference apart from the name of their God is that the Jewish religion entirely relinquishes the worship of the sun, to which the Egyptian one still adhered. When comparing the Jewish with the Egyptian folk religion we received the impression that, besides the contrast in principle, there was in the difference between the two religions an element of purposive contradiction. This impression appears justified when in our comparison we replace the Jewish religion by that of Aton, which Ikhnaton as we know developed in deliberate antagonism to the popular religion.
We were astonished and rightly so that the Jewish religion did not speak of anything beyond the grave, for such a doctrine is reconcilable with the strictest monotheism. This astonishment disappears if we go back from the Jewish religion to the Aton religion and surmise that this feature was taken over from the latter, since for Ikhnaton it was a necessity in fighting the popular religion where the death god Osiris played perhaps a greater part than any god of the upper regions.
The agreement of the Jewish religion with that of Aton in this important point is the first strong argument in favour of our thesis. We shall see that it is not the only one. This has a decisive importance for our problem and it has hardly ever been weighed. The Biblical account, it is true, often contradicts it. On the one hand, it dates the custom back to the time of the patriarchs as a sign of the covenant concluded between God and Abraham. On the other hand, the text mentions in a specially obscure passage that God was wroth with Moses because he had neglected this holy usage and proposed to slay him as a punish- ment; Moses' wife, aMidianite, saved her husband from the wrath of God by speedily performing the operation.
These are distortions, however, which should not lead us astray; we shall explore their motives presently. The fact remains that the question concerning the origin of circumcision has only one answer: it comes from Egypt. Herodotus, " the Father of History, 55 tells us that the custom of circumcision had long been practised in Egypt, and his statement has been confirmed by the examination of mummies and even by drawings on the walls of graves.
No other people of the Eastern Mediterranean has as far as we know followed this custom; we can assume with certainty that the Semites, Baby- lonians and Sumerians were not circumcised. Now let us bear in mind that circumcision was practised in Egypt by the people as a general custom, and let us adopt for the moment the usual assumption that Moses was a Jew who wanted to free his compatriots from the service of an Egyptian overlord, and lead them out of the country to develop an independent and self-confident existence a feat he actually achieved.
What sense could there be in his forcing upon them at the same time a burden- some custom which, so to speak, made them into Egyptians and was bound to keep awake their memory of Egypt, whereas his intention could only have had the opposite aim, namely, that his people should become strangers to the country of bondage and overcome the longing for the " fleshpots of Egypt "? No, the fact we started 1 When I use Biblical tradition here in such an autocratic and arbitrary way, draw on it for confirmation whenever it is con- venient and dismiss its evidence without scruple when it contra- dicts my conclusions, I know full well that I am exposing myself to severe criticism concerning my method and that I weaken the force of my proofs.
But this is the only way in which to treat material whose trustworthiness as we know for certain was seriously damaged by the influence of distorting tendencies. Some justification will be forthcoming later, it is hoped, when we have unearthed those secret motives. Certainty is not to be gained in any case, and, moreover, we may say that all other authors have acted likewise.
As I remarked earlier, my hypothesis that Moses was not a Jew but an Egyptian creates a new enigma.
The Unexamined Paradoxes of Freud’s “Moses and Monotheism” » Mosaic
What he did easily understand- able if he were a Jew becomes unintelligible in an Egyptian. But if we place Moses in Ikhnaton's period and associate him with that Pharaoh, then the enigma is resolved and a possible motive presents itself, answering all our questions. Let us assume that Moses was a noble and distin- guished man: perhaps indeed a member of the royal house, as the myth has it.
He must have been conscious of his great abilities, ambitious and energetic; perhaps he saw himself in a dim future as the leader of his people, the governor of the Empire. In close contact with Pharaoh he was a convinced adherent of the new religion, whose basic principles he fully understood and had made his own. With the king's death and the subsequent reaction he saw all his hopes and prospects destroyed.
In this hour of need he found an unusual solution. The dreamer Ikhnaton had estranged himself from his people, had let his world empire crumble.
- Moses and Monotheism by Sigmund Freud | pewahomaci.tk: Books;
- Moses and monotheism!
- Sign up to read more.
- Find a copy in the library?
- Navigation menu;
Moses 5 active nature conceived the plan of found- ing a new empire, of finding a new people, to whom he could give the religion that Egypt disdained. His approach to Freud—his exhilarating skill in uncovering, stratum by stratum, the often neglected sources of Freud's conceptual intuition—will be controversial only to those who conceive of genius as wholly abstracted from the imperatives of memory and inheritance.
If you have ever supposed that Kafka 'transcends' his Jewish wellspring, and that Freud does the same, then Professor Yerushalmi's illuminating reexaminations will startle you into richer complexities and insights far more nuanced. Skip to main content. Judaism Terminable and Interminable. Description Reviews Awards. Kartiganer, Congress Monthly. Also of Interest Books from this Series. Edited by Jonathan D. Lawrence L. Second Edition. Charlotte R. Translated by William G.
The Nazi Imagination from Persecution to Genocide. Alon Confino. The Franz Rosenzweig Lecture Series. Modern Writing and the Authority of Scripture. Robert Alter. A Dual Identity.