^^^Bf 
 
 V. , 
 
 ^^^E 
 
 ^^^^^^S ' 
 
 t 
 
 ^^^^^^k<r * ' 
 
 • 
 
 ^^H 
 
 h':'M,: 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 w^m^ 
 
 ^H 
 
 ^^^^^Bft bJ ' T / 
 
 BL244I 
 L7I 
 
 
 
 -A 
 

 
 ^ JUL 9 1890 ^ 
 y^ - — , 
 
 ■BL24'4I 
 
 Division . 
 
 Section.... 
 
 .L71 
 
 No, 
 
EGYPTIAN RELIGION 
 
 BY 
 
 J. LIEBLEIN 
 
 PEOJESSOB AT THE UNIVKHSITT OF CHEISTIANIA. 
 
 -«^^@«-S- 
 
 LEIPZia. 
 
 I. C. HINKICHS'SCHE BUCHHANDLUNG. 
 
 1884. 
 
EGYPTIAN RELIGION 
 
 BY 
 
 t/ 
 
 J. LIEBLEIN 
 
 PR0FS3S0R AT THE UlI—ERolrT 0? CHRISTIANrA. 
 
 -WSi-5- 
 
 LEIPZIG. 
 
 I. C. HINKICHS'SCHE BUCHHANDLUNG. 
 
 1884. 
 
science on religions is not possible. The sacred books 
 of India have already been brought before the public. 
 At the said Congress it was decided that all extant copies 
 of the Egyptian sacred book called „The Book of Death" 
 should be collected, so that a correct and entire edition 
 of it might be available. This work is now nearly finished. 
 
 The sacred books of some nations were published 
 long ago, and others will be so shortly. There is there- 
 fore every likelihood that Max Miillers idea will be realised 
 within a time not far distant. And the man of science 
 does not stand alone here in his eager researches : the 
 educated public seems in a high degree to be interested 
 in the work, and receives gladly the fruits of it. An 
 instance of this is the work above mentioned. It will 
 also, no doubt, be received with that approbation which it 
 rightly deserves. 
 
 The most essential point in such works is that the 
 facts be correctly stated. That such is the case with the 
 present work is warranted by the circumstance, that the 
 author is specially learned in the science in question. 
 But just because that guarantee gives the reader con- 
 fidence, so that he believes what he reads to be abso- 
 lutely correct, I hope I shall be excused when, in my 
 capacity of critic, 1 point out those places, which according 
 to my opinion, may lead to erroneous views, and such 
 places are to be found in the said work. The details, 
 the facts, are generally correctly stated, but the concep- 
 tion and the leading thoughts are I should say occasio- 
 
nally wrongly expressed, a circumstance indifferent to the 
 learned reader, but the more dangerous to the unscientific. 
 
 We will point out some opinions to be found page 81. 
 The author says first: „The earliest monuments which have 
 been discovered present to us the very same fully developed 
 civilization and the same religion as the later monuments;" 
 and further on he tries to illustrate this idea by adding: 
 „The gods whose names appear in the oldest tombs were 
 worshipped down to the Christian times. The same kind 
 of priesthoods which are mentioned in the tablets of 
 Canopus and Rosetta in the Ptolemaic period are as an- 
 cient as the Pyramids, and more ancient than any Pyra- 
 mid of which we know the date." 
 
 From these words the general reader will doubtless 
 receive the decided impression, that not only the profane 
 civilization of the Egyptians but also their ideas on reli- 
 gious matters had remained unchanged i. e. that the Egyp- 
 tian intellectual life was without progress, without advance- 
 ment, without life during a period of four thousand 
 years, during the whole historical existence of the Egyp- 
 tian empire. 
 
 In my opinion it would be surprising, if a civilization 
 that has advanced so far as the Egyptian, could have 
 remained unchanged during four thousand years without 
 progressing or retrograding. But, as regards more espe- 
 cially culture in general, viz. art and science, this is not 
 the place for further explanation. I shall only remark 
 in passing that, for instance in architecture, development 
 
— 4 — 
 
 is manifest from the vaw square pillars in the tombs of 
 the third and fourth dynasties, to the colossal, and yet 
 so elegant columns in the Seti hall at Karnak: in astro- 
 nomy, the star observations in Bab-el-Moluk's tombs: in 
 medecine, the collection of medical writings in Papyrus 
 Ebers and the medical Papyrus in Berlin: in mathema- 
 tics, the mathematical Papyrus in London, clearly shows 
 a development from earlier, wavering stray attempts. It 
 is otherwise impossible. A cultured nation, as the Egyp- 
 tians undoubtedly were, cannot remain stagnant during 
 the space of several thousand years. A general presump- 
 tion is in any case insufficient: j^roof is required. Even 
 were we, for instance, able to point out one or more 
 works of sculpture from the earliest time, which have 
 not been surpassed later, this is no proof of stagnation 
 or decline, any more than the ^YOrks of Homer or Phidias, 
 which still remain for us unrivalled, prove that our cul- 
 ture, taken as a whole, is below that of the Greeks. 
 
 But let us return to religion. That is for us the 
 essential point. The author says that „the earliest monu- 
 ments present to us the same religion as the later monu- 
 ments." And that „the gods whose names appear in the 
 oldest tombs, were worshipped down to the Christian 
 times." 
 
 The last sentence is true, if we take the words lite- 
 rally, but it is untrue, in so far, as it indirectly conceals, 
 that in later times there were added names of more gods, 
 and in so far as it is intended to prove the first state- 
 

 ment about the religion being unchanged. If it were 
 true in other respects, it could at any rate not prove that 
 the religion had continued the same from the oldest to 
 the latest times. The Christian as well as the Jew cer- 
 tainly acknowledges that Jehovah gave Moses the tables 
 of stone with the commandments written thereon, but 
 Judaism and Christianity are not on that account the 
 same religion, nor do the Jews and Christians, in the 
 name Jehovah, have the same conception of God, he 
 being for us, no longer, the exclusive God of the Jews. 
 The Protestants as well as the Catholics acknowledge the 
 Virgin Mary to be the mother of Christ, but for all that. 
 Protestantism and Catholicism are not identical, neither 
 does the Virgin Maiy occupy the same position in the 
 protestant church as in the catholic. The Christian, as 
 well as the Jew and the Mohammedan, acknowledges Moses 
 to be a man of God who delivered his people from the 
 Egyptian thraldom, and they relate the same about the 
 patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but Christianity, 
 Judaism and Mohammedanism are not on that account 
 the same religion, neither has the religious development 
 remained stagnant from the time of these patriarchs through 
 Judaism, Islam and Christianity up to the present time. 
 The Mosaic law, the ten commandments, are certainly ac- 
 knowledged as the highest moral guidance for Christians as 
 well as for Jews, but notwithstanding this, the religion 
 of the old and new Testaments are not one and the 
 same, neither have the Jews the same ideas of the com- 
 
— 6 — 
 
 mandments as the Christians, for whom „Love is the ful- 
 filling of the Law' and for whom „The Law was our 
 schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." We see there- 
 fore that the same names do not always convey the same 
 ideas, and that the same thing is often not the same 
 thing. Likewise is it the case, or may be the case, with 
 the same names of gods, on the most ancient and the 
 newest Egyptian monuments. It is not necessary, that 
 they should signify the same conception of God, and it 
 is most probable that they do not; at any rate they can in 
 no way prove, that the Egyptian religion has remained 
 unchanged, during three to four thousand years. 
 
 Tiele says quite correctly, that in Egypt the old was 
 never put out by the new, but kept its place by its side: 
 if we add to this that the ideas on the old necessarily 
 were influenced by the new, then we have the key to the 
 correct views on the assumption of Le Page Renouf. 
 He says that the old gods were worshipped until the 
 latest times, but he forgets to add, that new gods were 
 in the meantime added, so that not only were the ideas 
 about the old gods modified, but the conception of the 
 deity had, on the whole, become more comprehensive and 
 enlarged: yes, he has forgotten it to such a degree that 
 he even straightforwardly denies the development, and 
 declares that the religion remained unchanged. The 
 author however seems himself to imply, that the reli- 
 gious life of the Egyptians, like all other life, has been 
 in progress and development, as he in another place 
 
— 7 — 
 
 refers to the well known religious reformation which occur- 
 red under Amenoiis the IV. and again in yet another 
 place he speaks of a pantheistic period, and of how the 
 Egyptians approached monotheism but fell into pantheism; 
 but as he, in the words above quoted, in a decisive way 
 declares the Egyptian religion to be unchanged, so it is 
 necessary in an equally decisive manner to protest against 
 these words, that they may not be interpreted to have 
 more importance than the author has intended to give 
 them, but which they on his authority might easily get. 
 
 I will not however restrict myself to a bare protest, 
 but will try to find out the development that is the chief 
 point to a man of research. Egyptian writings must of 
 course be our source, and it must be our chief duty to 
 adhere strictly to the time and the chronology, as the 
 historical train of the development cannot otherwise be 
 brought to light. 
 
 In the oldest tombs, where the oldest writings are 
 found, there are not many gods mentioned — there are 
 Osiris, Horus, Thot, Seb, Nut, Hathor, Anubis, Apheru and 
 a couple more. Osiris, whose name probably signifies 
 the seat of the eye, that is the sun eye, or the 
 sun, was originally a god of the sun, the sungod in Aby- 
 dos. Horus, his son, was the god in the height i. e. 
 the sun, the sun of the day, that with farther reflec- 
 tion, was placed in contrast to Osiris, who thus became 
 the sun of the night, the sun of the lower regions. Thot, 
 or Tehuti, as the name is now usually read, was the 
 
— 8 — 
 
 god of the moon, Seb was the earth, Nut was the 
 heaven, Hathor is the dwelling of Horus i. e. 
 the firmament, A nub is was possibly, as Le Page Renouf 
 believes, originally the twilight, but he has already in 
 the tombs here mentioned got a fixed function in the 
 lower regions, he being called, „The Lord of the 
 grave," and he is the guide of the dead. Apheru 
 is another form of Anubis, he opens the paths for the 
 dead. These and some other gods such as Isis, the 
 dawn of day, and Ne ith were thus chiefly gods of nature: 
 some of them are however already losing this character 
 in that they begin to take over other functions princi- 
 pally as funereal gods. Thus we see that these tombs are 
 not devoid of the idea of a life hereafter, but a complete, 
 fully developed doctrine had as yet certainly not gained 
 general approbation, since it is a peculiarity of these 
 graves in contrast to those of a later period, that wri- 
 tings of funereal or religious contents, as a rule, are so 
 little conspicuous in them. Representations of the de- 
 ceased's life in this world, as well as sacrifices to his 
 honour and memory, form the chief interest, to which 
 may be added, that the worship of deceased kings is often 
 mentioned. 
 
 It will be seen from the above that the main objects 
 of the religion, as represented in the oldest tombs, are 
 the gods of nature, the worship of ancestors, and a dawn- 
 ing doctrine of a future life. This is the oldest feature 
 of religion to be learned from the Egyptian monuments: 
 
— 9 — 
 
 what lies before this is merely a subject for speculation, 
 for more or less plausible guesswork. 
 
 Among the gods of nature, the sun plays a prominent 
 part, and this is quite natural: the sun brings light, 
 warmth, life and fertility. Osiris and Horus were, as we 
 have seen, gods of the sun. Ra, whose name signifies 
 sun, was the god of the sun in Heliopolis, and retained 
 this character as god of the sun during the entire Egyptian 
 history. From the most ancient times, already under the 
 second dynasty, the kings took the name of Ra, and the 
 Pharaos justified their godlike authority by calling them- 
 selves „Son of Ra". The other gods were identified 
 with Ra being called Amon-ra, Sebek-ra, Num-ra, Hor-ra 
 etc. This however first took place at a later period, 
 than that, about which we are now speaking. The whole 
 of the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Death is one 
 single hymn to the sun: „the Lord of the heaven, 
 the chief of the gods, who has created himself, 
 and whom all gods rejoice in beholding." 
 
 But although the god of the sun was in a high de- 
 gree prominent in ancient Egypt, and perhaps the most 
 commonly worshipped, he was not the only god of nature. 
 We have above also mentioned the earth — Seb — the 
 heaven — Nut — and the moon — Thot. Thus on the 
 lid of Menkera's coffin from the fourth dynasty we read 
 as follows: „OhI Menkera, thy mother, the firmament 
 (Nut) spreads herself over thee in her name, the secret 
 
— 10 — 
 
 of the heaven. She has given it to thee to be as a god 
 and that thy enemies shall be destroyed." 
 
 In consideration of this, I must firmly contest the 
 idea, that the Egyptians commenced with monotheism, an 
 opinion brought forward by De Rouge, or the idea that 
 the most ancient religion of the Egyptians was the purest 
 and most perfect, an opinion which Le Page Renouf pro- 
 pounds in his book page 91 ^Yhere he says: 
 
 .,It is incontestably true that the sublimer portions 
 of the Egyptian religion are not the comparatively late 
 result of a process of development or elimination from 
 the grosser. The sublimer portions are demonstrably 
 ancient." 
 
 On the contrary I nearly agree with the Dutch savant 
 Tiele, when he describes the development of the Egyptian 
 religion in the following true words : 
 
 „It is altogether wrong to consider the Egyptian 
 religion as a polytheistic deviation from a pre-historic 
 monotheism. It was from the beginning polytheistic, but 
 developed into two opposite directions. On the one side, 
 the world of the gods became more and more enriched 
 by additions from the local religions, and by adopting 
 strange gods, on the other side they approached mono- 
 theism, as it were gropingly, without ever declaring it 
 unmistakeably and distinctly.'' 
 
 That doctrine is certainly abandoned long ago as 
 antiquated, that the true religion, by a pre-historic revela- 
 tion from the beginning, was dispersed among all people 
 
— li- 
 on earth. Assuredly there are not many now, who feel 
 attracted by what, for instance Jablonski said 130 years 
 ago, probably referring to this doctrine on the subject of 
 the oldest Egyptian religion: 
 
 „As the first inhabitants of Egypt were descendants 
 of Noah, his son Ham, and grandson Misraim, their religion 
 after the deluge must have been true and pure, in that 
 it was the revelation of God .... Every thing leads us 
 therefore to believe, and proves in the most manifest 
 way, that the knowledge of the only true God, and the 
 worship of God, in keeping with that knowledge, prevailed 
 in Egypt more than three hundred years after the deluge." 
 The science of religion does not any longer avow this 
 doctrine, although it seems, in an unconscious and latent 
 manner to bewilder people, where it should be least 
 expected. No, the Egyptians have without doubt, as all 
 other heathen nations, by their own help, been obliged 
 to work out their views on divinity. In this respect, we 
 can fortunately also appeal to Max Milller's weighty 
 authority. 
 
 It is however not my opinion that it is possible in 
 any people hitherto historically known, to show the first 
 origin of the idea of God. When we, for instance, take 
 the Indo-europeans, what do we find there? the Sanscrit 
 word deva is identical with the Latin deus, and the 
 northern tivi, tivar; as now the word in Latin and 
 northern language signifies God it must also in Sanscrit 
 from the beginning have had the same signification. That 
 
— 12 — 
 
 is to say the Arians, or Indo-europeans, must have com- 
 bined the idea of God with this word, as early as when 
 they still lived together in their original home. Because, 
 if the word in their pre-historic home had had another 
 more primitive signification, the wonder would have 
 happened, that the word had accidentally gone through 
 the same development of signification with all these 
 people after their separation. As this is quite improbable, 
 the word must have had the signification of God in 
 original Indo-european language. One could go even far- 
 ther and presume that, in this language also, it was a 
 word derived from others, and consequently originated 
 from a still earlier pre-historic language. All things con- 
 sidered it is possible, even probable, that the idea of 
 God has developed itself in an earlier period of languages, 
 than the Indo-european. The future will perhaps be able 
 to supply evidence for this. 
 
 The science of languages has been able partly to re- 
 construct an Indo-european pre-historic language. It might 
 perhaps be able also to reconstruct a pre-historic Semitic, 
 and a pre-historic Hamitic, and of these three pre-historic 
 languages, whose original connexion it not only guesses, 
 but even commences to prove gradually, it will, we trust 
 in time, be able to extract a still earlier pre-historic 
 language, which according to analogy might be called 
 Noahitic. When we have come so far. we shall most 
 likely in this pre-historic language, also find words ex- 
 pressing the idea of God. But it is even possible that 
 
— 13 — 
 
 the idea of God has not come into existence in this pre- 
 historic language either. It may be that the first dawn- 
 ing of the idea, and the word God should be ascribed 
 to still earlier languages, to layers of languages so deeply 
 buried that it will be impossible ever to excavate them. 
 Between the time of inhabiting caves in the quaternian 
 period, and the historical kingdoms, there is such a long 
 space of time, that it is difficult to entertain the idea, 
 that it was quite devoid of any conception of divinity, 
 so that this should first have sprung up in the historical 
 time. 
 
 In any case we shall not be able to prove historically, 
 where and when the question first arose, who are the super- 
 human powers whose activity we see daily in nature and 
 in human life. Although the Egyptians are the earliest 
 civilized people known in history, and just therefore 
 especially important for the science of religion, yet it is 
 even there impossible to point out the origin of the con- 
 ception of the deity. 
 
 The oldest monuments of Egypt bring before us the 
 gods of nature chiefly, and among these especially the 
 suD. They mention however already early (in the fourth 
 and fifth dynasties) now and then the great power, or 
 the great God, it being uncertain whether this refers to 
 the sun, or another god of nature, or if it was a general 
 appellation of the vague idea of a supernatural power, 
 possibly inherited by the Egyptians. It is probably this 
 great God indicated on the monuments, from the fourth 
 
— 14 — 
 
 dynasty, and later on, who has given occasion to the false 
 belief, that the oldest religion of the Egyptians was pure 
 monotheism. But firstly it must be observed, that he is 
 not mentioned alone but alongside of the other gods, 
 secondly that he is merely called „The great God" being 
 otherwise without distinguishing appellations, and a God 
 of whom nothing else is mentioned, has, so to speak to 
 use Kegels language, merely an abstract existence, that 
 by closer examination dissolves into nothing. 
 
 This undefined „great God" could only, by being 
 placed alongside of other distinct gods, get a distinct full 
 character: it was merely through polytheism that 
 true monotheism could come into existence. 
 
 On the monuments from the fourth and fifth dynasty 
 the memphitic local god Ptah likewise begins to make 
 his appearance. He was also, according to Le Page 
 Renoufs opinion, originally a god of the sun but became, 
 as the name indicates, very early the god that opens, 
 that reveals himself in his creation. Furthermore, 
 the god Set is to be found in the pyramid tombs. He 
 represents, according to Le Page Renouf, darkness and 
 became thus a contrast to the god of the sun. Partly 
 on this account, partly also, perhaps, because he was 
 originally identical with a Semitic god, he was at last 
 considered a bad spirit. When I now lastly mention the 
 bull Apis who is called ,,Ptahs other life" and was also 
 an incarnation of Ptah, then we have mentioned nearly 
 all the gods known to the four or five first dynasties. 
 
- 15 — 
 
 I dare not however pretend that I have included all, as 
 this is the first attempt at a chronological arrangement. 
 The number of gods increased very rapidly, as the 
 local gods of different districts and towns when Egypt 
 became a united kingdom came forward, and insisted on 
 being acknowledged. These local gods were all prin- 
 cipally the same gods of nature, especially gods of the 
 sun, which we have met before, only with different names. 
 But as the priests at the union of Egypt little by little 
 tried to collect them in a common official circle of gods, 
 it became necessary to ascribe to them different qualities 
 and functions, whereby their nature in course of time was 
 changed, in that they became representatives for the dif- 
 ferent sides in the conception of deity now developing 
 more and more fully. We can point out traces of this 
 process in the pyramid tombs. The Memfitic sun god Ptah 
 is he who opens, shapes and forms, that is the artist, 
 the god with the beautiful look, the god of beauty. The 
 Thinitic sun god Osiris, succeeded by his son Horus in 
 his function as the sun of the day, has become the sun of 
 the night, the sun in the lower regions, furthermore Lord of 
 the lower regions, and finally he has, as representative 
 for the ethic side of the deity, become the judge over 
 the dead in the lower regions. The god of the moon, 
 Tehuti is first he, who measures time, the Lord of days, 
 weeks, months and seasons, then he, who has measured the 
 heaven, and numbered the stars, measured the earth, 
 
— 16 - 
 
 and numbered the things that are thereon, finally, tlie 
 inventor of letters, literature and science. 
 
 During the sixth dynasty we observe farther progress. 
 In the newly discovered pyramids belonging to king Pepi 
 and his son Merenra are found the following expressions: 
 „Horus, his father's avenger", and speaking to his father 
 Osiris: „I have fought for thee, I have avenged thee 
 father Osiris on those who have injured thee." Here we 
 have one of the earliest references to the Osiris myth, 
 that describes the strife between the light, Osiris, and 
 the darkness, Set. We see here the idea of God devel- 
 oping still further, as it comprises the contrast between 
 light and darkness, good and evil, life and death. 
 
 Not until the 11th and 12th dynasties, in the second 
 thousand years after the foundation of the empire by 
 Menes, the Theban gods such as Mont, Amnion, and others, 
 begin to appear on the monuments. Mont was origin- 
 ally a local sun god but changed at an early period 
 into a god of strength, a god of strife and war. 
 If Ammon was from the beginning a god of nature, we 
 do not know; if he had ever been that, he had at all 
 events lost this character by the time the monuments 
 introduce him to us. He was, according to the signi- 
 fication of the word, the secret and the mysterious, 
 therefore not at all a god of nature, who could be touched 
 or felt by the help of the senses. He betokens conse- 
 quently a very important advancement in the conception 
 of the deity, showing that the Egyptians at the time of 
 
— 17 — 
 
 the 11th dynasty had risen to the acknowledgment of 
 a superhuman God, who was hidden, as it were, concealed 
 behind nature, the world we see and feel. It was like- 
 wise to Ammon, that the Egyptians later on under their 
 progressing development naturally attached their purest 
 monotheistic conception of deity, as may be seen from 
 the hymns of the 18th and later dynasties, of which I shall 
 further on give an exeraple. If we look back upon the 
 development from the first dynasties on to the 11th and 
 12th dynasties or the first fifteen hundred years, what 
 do we then find? When we keep strictly to the chrono- 
 logical tables, and do not in a bewildering manner mix 
 times and places, as is so often infortunately the case 
 in illustrating the Egyptian religion, then the monuments 
 will convince us, that the conception of deity became 
 more elevated and distinct at the same time, that the 
 original gods of nature changed from objects perceived 
 by the senses into spiritual beings. This development 
 has certainly its deepest reason in the manner in which 
 the idea of God logically worked itself out, but was helped 
 forward no doubt by the circumstance, that different 
 local gods by the union of the districts into one kingdom 
 were collected together into one official circle or complex 
 of gods, whereby several chiefly identical gods of nature 
 had to be attributed different qualities and functions. 
 
 But here we have to observe another important fact. 
 In the official religion of the state the different local 
 gods were melted together into one complex of gods 
 
- 18 — 
 
 with the local god of the metropolis at the head of them; 
 but in the different districts the worship continued of 
 the respective local gods, each of which was by his 
 worshippers considered to be the only and highest God, 
 the other local gods not being taken into consideration. 
 While in this way the religion of the state (if I may 
 express myself in this manner) spiritualised the conception 
 of the deity, that is transformed the poor gods of nature into 
 spiritual beings of a richly developed type, the monotheism 
 progressed by the worship in the districts. Here again 
 we see a casual circumstance that greatly contributed to 
 heighten and make perfect the ideas of the deity with 
 the priests and the educated classes. 
 
 In this the development progressed quickly and surely, 
 so that certain schools and classes of the people, under 
 the 18th and 19th dynasties could acknowledge pure 
 monotheism. It is thus from this period the doctrine 
 of one God originates, and it is to the religion of this 
 period that the characteristic applies, that Le Page Renouf 
 quotes after De Ilouge page 89: „God, One, Sole and 
 Only; no others with Him. — He is the Only Being — 
 living in truth. — Thou art One, and millions of beings 
 proceed from thee. — He has made everything, and he 
 alone has not been made. The clearest, the simplest, 
 the most precise conception." 
 
 In a hymn to Ammon not older than the 18th dynasty, 
 it is said about Ammon, that he has created men, beasts 
 and things that exist, that he has made the trees to 
 
— 19 - 
 
 grow, the grass to sprout and the animals to live, that 
 he has produced everything that is above, and that is 
 beneath, that he gives light to the earth, and flies through 
 the heaven in peace, that he is one and alone, and that 
 his equal is not to be found. 
 
 The historical progress of development here shown, is 
 supported, as far as I can see, by the monuments, and I 
 will therefore suggest to the honourable author if he 
 should not after renewed deliberation find reason to modify 
 his assertion on the Egyptian religion's unchangeableness, 
 and his words „That the sublimer portions of the Egyptian 
 religion are not a result of a process of development or 
 elimination from the grosser." 
 
 I will of course not deny that a single, gifted, clear 
 seeing genius, even before that time, might have acknow- 
 ledged God as one, but I firmly assert, that a monothei- 
 stic doctrine generally introduced and believed in by 
 numbers did not appear before the 18th dynasty, or about 
 that period. 
 
 This and this alone can explain how Amenofis the 
 fourth, one of the 18th dynasty's last kings could try 
 his religious reformation and carry it successfully through. 
 When he began his reign, the religion of the people 
 continued of course to be polytheistic, it being only in 
 the learned schools and among the higher classes, that 
 monotheism had found entrance. But king Amenofis, who 
 was an eager adherent of the new religion, introduced 
 monotheism as the religion of the state. He put aside 
 
— '20 — 
 
 all these many gods, he prosecuted especially the Theban 
 Ammon, who being the local god of the metropolis was 
 at that time at the head of the official complex of gods, 
 and consequently enjoyed the highest esteem. Instead 
 of this he introduced the worship of one only God whom 
 he named Khu-en-aten, or as 1 believe the name should 
 rather be read, Aten-khu-n-ra, i. e. the disk of the 
 sun, the god of the sun's brightness. It was thus 
 the belief in the original sungod he reintroduced, with 
 however a difference chiefly in the understanding of 
 it. It was not any longer the material sun, whose 
 light and warmth are felt by the senses, but a spiritual 
 being, a concealed God, who only reveals himself through 
 the disk of the sun, and who lends his brightness to 
 the sun. 
 
 The new religion did not last long, as the old 
 polytheism with its pompous ceremonies had taken too 
 deep root with the people. Only the reformer himself 
 and a couple of his nearest successors were able to up- 
 hold the monotheistic religion, after which time the old 
 polytheism was again installed. But even although the 
 attempt had at last to be given up, it stands as a mani- 
 festation and proof of how the religious life was in commo- 
 tion, and how generally adopted monotheism must in 
 those days have been by the higher classes in Egypt. 
 
 This is however not the only manifestation of mono- 
 theism. In another place I have tried to show that the 
 priests in Heliopolis, at about the same time, or more 
 
— 21 — 
 
 correctly, a little earlier had raised themselves to adopt 
 the doctrine of a monotheistic God, which they called 
 Khepera, i. e. the God who is, who exists, a name 
 that has the same derivation and meaning in the Egyptian 
 language as Jahwe has in the Hebrew. I will not here 
 repeat my arguments, but only state that in the god 
 Khepera we have, at least in my opinion, a new mani- 
 festation of the monotheistic doctrine, at that period so 
 widely spread. 
 
 When monotheism was reached, the highest step in 
 the conception of the deity was arrived at. The original 
 gods of nature had during the progressing development 
 more and more become spiritual powers, that were mysteri- 
 ously placed behind the world we see and feel, until they 
 were at last moulded together into one only God, that 
 stood beyond the world, and in contrast to it. But no 
 sooner had the development reached monotheism, when 
 the opposite process set in. Through pantheism God 
 was again drawn into the world in that he was believed 
 to penetrate everything, both man and beast, so that 
 nothing was without God as is said in the 42nd chapter 
 of the Book of Death. Hereby the road was opened for 
 the most bewildering polytheism, and for the coarsest 
 superstition that is characteristic of the last stage of the 
 Egyptian religion, as we learn from Greek and Roman 
 authors, though it might be possible that pantheism, or 
 perhaps more correctly expressed, the doctrine of emana- 
 tion may on the other hand have paved the way for instance 
 
- 22 — 
 
 for the Christian doctrine, that God has become man. I 
 shall not further dwell on this retrograde movement. It 
 is in this place my chief object to show the course of 
 the progressing development to supplement Le Page Re- 
 nouf's writings on the subject in which the development 
 is not only neglected, but even positively denied. 
 
 Without tarrying farther with my inability to under- 
 stand in what light they look upon history in general, or 
 the Egyptian history of religion in particular, when they 
 assume such a denial, I shall, to demonstrate and prove 
 my opinion on the subject, also take the Book of Death as 
 my guide for deliberation — this book being the actual 
 sacred book of the Egyptians. 
 
 The writings of the Book of Death from different 
 times show that it consists of a primitive text and of 
 the writings of the 1st, 2nd and 3th commentators ; these 
 four different parts represent consequently just as many 
 steps in the development of the religious ideas. The much 
 honoured veteran of the Egyptologists, Lepsius, published 
 long ago the oldest writings of the Book of Death. These 
 are from the time of the 11th and 12th dynasties, but 
 the original text is not given here pure as traces are 
 found of additions from the 1st and 2nd commentators, 
 meanwhile we can infer pretty nearly the words of the 
 original writings. As the Theban local god Ammon is 
 not mentioned in the Book of Death until in the latest addi- 
 tions, the primitive writings must have been compiled in 
 the Memphitic period, thus probably before the end of 
 
— 23 — 
 
 the 6th dynasty. Even if it does not represent the earliest 
 religious state of the Egyptians, which, as we have already 
 shown, we must look for in the oldest pyramid tombs, 
 it is still of a very good age. It is, more correctly defined, 
 an expression of the henotheistic period, which began 
 when the different local gods came up together, each 
 demanding exclusively to be acknowledged as the principal 
 and the highest god. This is clearly shown by the 17th 
 chapter, one of the oldest parts of the Book of Death. 
 The deceased here identifies himself with God i. e. for 
 prudence sake with everyone of the henotheistic gods, 
 in that he says: 
 
 „I am Turn; I am Ra in his first appearance; I am 
 the great God who has created himself; I am the great 
 Bennu who is in On; I am Khem in his appearance." 
 
 The gods here mentioned were local gods of nature, 
 that by accident were placed together and of which each 
 was worshipped as the principal and only God. This is 
 however not monotheism but henotheism, as Max Miiller 
 calls it. 
 
 Let us now consider the commentators. They stand 
 on a higher eminence of culture. 
 
 The primitive words are: „I am Tum". An inter- 
 preter adds to this: „1 was one I", and another: „In 
 heaven's ocean". The whole sentence sounds thus in a later 
 edition : „I am Tum, who was alone in the heaven's 
 ocean" and reminds us of Genesis I, 2nd: „And the spirit 
 of God moved upon the face of the waters." 
 
— 24 — 
 
 After this it is said in the original writings: „I am 
 Ea in his first appearance". To this a commentator adds : 
 „He gilds the horizon in the morning". Other com- 
 mentators make different additions such as: „In the be- 
 ginning of his reign", and „I lifted up the heaven's ocean'-. 
 This reminds us of the 1st and 2nd days of the creation 
 in Genesis: „And there was light". „And God made the 
 firmament, and divided the waters which were under the 
 firmament from the waters that were above the firma- 
 ment" „And God called the firmament heaven". 
 
 To „lift up the heaven's ocean" is, we may understand, 
 to make a firmament below the waters above. 
 
 Further, the original text says as follows: „I am 
 the great God who has created himself." To this a com- 
 mentator adds: „It is the water, the heaven's ocean, the 
 father of the gods", and another commentator: „It is Ra". 
 
 Further, the original text says as follows: „I am 
 the great Bennu, who is in On". To this the oldest 
 commentator adds: „Examining that which is." Another 
 says: „It is Osiris in On, it is his body, for ever and 
 ever." And yet a third says: „That which is eternal is the 
 day and that which is everlasting is the night". 
 
 Finally the original text says as follows: „I am 
 Khem in his appearance, there are given unto me two 
 feathers on my head." One commentator adds: „Khem 
 is Horus, his father's avenger. The two feathers are the 
 two urseus-serpents on his father Turn's forehead", and 
 another: „The two feathers are Isis and Nefthys who 
 
— 25 — 
 
 stand behind him in the capacity of twin sisters." A third 
 one; „His two eyes are the two feathers on his head." 
 
 This must be sufficient to show- that every later 
 commentator adds something new. We have here passed 
 henotheism, and are on the stadium of tlie religion of 
 the state, where the different gods arranged in one com- 
 plex are attributed different functions and qualities, or 
 are identified with each other. It may also be remarked here 
 that the later commentators are often more difficult to 
 understand than their predecessors, which no doubt can 
 be ascribed to the fact that the conception of the deity in 
 the course of time has been enriched through myths and 
 inspired by philosophy. 
 
 From the preceding we can clearly see that the Book 
 of Death proves, that there has been a progressing develop- 
 ment in the religious life of the Egyptians. Further 
 demonstration in this respect will I hope be superfluous, 
 at the same time, it would be out of place now that we 
 may expect that the Geneva Egyptologist Naville will 
 shortly give us a far more complete compendium of the 
 Book of Death, than that we now possess. 
 
 In yet another respect a development can be shown. 
 This is in the Egyptian doctrine of another life, of 
 immortality, which also arose little by little. 
 
 I have already observed, that in the oldest tombs 
 we find very little in the way of funereal and religious 
 writings, a circumstance the more strange since the 
 later tombs are filled with them. Even although the 
 
— 26 — 
 
 former are likewise filled with drawings and inscriptions, 
 but the chief subjects of these are sacrifices to the 
 deceased, and representations of his life on earth. We 
 here see him (to refer to the last mentioned representa- 
 tions) in his full business on earth. He stands for instance 
 watching his secretaries note down Jhe number of his 
 cows, asses, sheep and goats. He stands contemplating 
 how the districts and places under his supervision, per- 
 sonified as women, bring forward their offerings or tithes: 
 we see him shooting, fishing, sailing and rowing on the 
 Nile: we see his people occupied ploughing and digging 
 the soil, shearing corn, binding it in sheaves, carrying it 
 home and threshing it, attending to the various domestic 
 animals, milking the cows, loading and driving the asses, 
 gathering the fruit from trees and bushes, pressing the 
 juice from the fruit, catching fish and birds in nets, and 
 slaughtering cattle. We see how the Egyptian who died 
 five thousand years ago amuses himself with what his 
 modern successor calls to this day „fantasia", he being 
 present at his servant's or subject's playing of the harp 
 and flute, their singing, their dancing, their games on the 
 board and all kinds of gymnastic feats. 
 
 The other kind of representations illustrating the 
 sacrifices are quite as conspicuous and numerous, and 
 are to us at present of greater importance because they 
 are if not precisely funereal, still of a certain funereal 
 character. Before the deceased is placed the offering 
 table, upon which are heaped a quantity of offerings, 
 
— 27 — 
 
 such as legs and heads of oxen, geese, different kinds of 
 bread, vases and crocks with wine, incense etc. The in- 
 scriptions adjoining, that are arranged either in columns 
 or in tablets give the name and the number of the 
 offerings: incense, fruits, such as pomegranates, apricots, 
 figs, grapes, wine, oil, different kinds of birds, each with 
 its name and image, many kinds of bread and cakes, as 
 well as innumerable other things. These offerings were 
 to be brought at set times during the year as we see 
 from the usual inscriptions: „May the offerings be given 
 to the dead at the beginning of the year of the sun, on 
 the first day of the civil year, at the feast of Thot, at 
 the feast of Uaka, at the appearance of Sekhem, at the 
 feast of Uah-akh, every month and every half month." 
 
 The worship of the dead was thus generally prevalent. 
 It follows however from the nature of the case that 
 offering to the dead was usually a private affair that 
 only concerned the family. The festivals of sacrifice in 
 honour of the deceased Pharaohs, must on the contrary 
 have been an affair of the state. We find also very 
 frequently priests mentioned, who in keeping with their 
 title had priestly functions, at the pyramids of the kings. 
 — Such priestly titles occur so frequently that we have 
 every reason to presume that to every pyramid i. e. to 
 every royal burying-place were attached one or more 
 priests whose chief duty most likely was to preside over 
 the sacrifices to the dead. 
 
 These funereal offerings, this worship of the dead, 
 
— 28 — 
 
 of the ancestors, do not require to be connected with 
 any doctrine regarding a future life, as these sacrifices 
 may have been held to the honour and pious memory of 
 the beloved deceased. But the pyramids, these immense 
 royal burying-places, the erection of which cost such an 
 amount of labour, had they not a religious signification? 
 Should they not for instance preserve the body for a 
 resurrection to a new life? Possible this was the inten- 
 tion especially in later times, but in the commencement 
 pyramids were doubtless only monuments erected to the 
 honour and memory of the deceased Pharaoh, or as the 
 inscriptions say that his name might live in the future 
 to everlasting time, and finally in order to have a place, 
 where his sacrificial feasts might be kept. It can certainly 
 not be denied, that it was Pharaoh himself who erected 
 his own pyramid, he began it when he ascended the 
 throne, and continued the building of it during his whole 
 reign; but this was naturally, that he might be certain 
 it should be carried on, which he could not be, were he 
 to leave it to his successor's choice or will. 
 
 It is however not my meaning to pretend, that the 
 Egyptians from the time of the oldest tombs, had no 
 idea whatsoever of a future life. They were acquainted, 
 as before stated with Anubis and Apheru, both funereal 
 gods who opened the way for the dead and served them 
 as guides on their path from this life to the other; it 
 must not be omitted either, that in the tombs we not 
 unfrequently find the prayer added, that the deceased 
 
— 29 — 
 
 niay walk in the glorious way of the blessed. But a 
 complete, fully developed and thoroughly consequent doc- 
 trine of the future state they cannot have had, as the 
 oldest tombs show us nothing of this, and yet it is just 
 in the tombs, where in later times the doctrine of 
 immortality with its rewards and punishments is most 
 extensively represented, and where properly speaking no 
 other topic is treated besides death and the life after 
 
 death. 
 
 In the oldest graves we hnd thus the doctrine of 
 immortality only vaguely hinted at, while the worship of 
 the dead, which as we have seen is very prominent, chiefly 
 aimed at the preservation of their memory here on earth, 
 although I will not entirely deny that the sacrifices to 
 the dead might also at the same time (in the beginning 
 perhaps vaguely) be intended to reconcile and please 
 
 the dead. 
 
 The profane inscriptions in the tombs continue right 
 on to the time of the Hyksos; but in the 6th dynasty (about 
 2500 years before Christ) a change took place as at that 
 period biographical communications began to come into 
 use. A high official called Una, who lived under the first 
 three or four kings of the sixth dynasty, relates for in- 
 stance his life's history in a rather explicit manner. He 
 tells of the splendid career he has had, and the great 
 deeds he has performed. By his lord the king's com- 
 mand he brought limestone from Troia (close by the 
 Cairo of the present day) granite from Syene and ala- 
 
— 30 — 
 
 baster from Hanub (near Siut), all of which were to be 
 used for Pharaoh's tomb. No one can be surprised that 
 Una in those days of king worship looked upon these pu- 
 rely private services performed for Pharaoh as being so im- 
 portant that the memory of them should be preserved for- 
 ever. He accomplished however more important deeds: he 
 was placed at the head of an army of „several myriads'- 
 which he had to drill, feed and clothe before he could lead 
 them against the enemies of the country. These, Arabs 
 and Beduins, were conquered, their fields destroyed, their 
 vineyards and plantations cut down, their dwellings burned, 
 their leaders killed and a host of captives made. For his pri- 
 vate and public merits he was richly recompensed by 
 Pharaoh, and „he was more pleasing to Pharaoh's heart 
 than any other official or servant in the country." But his 
 like had never been seen and „there have never been 
 such deeds performed in this country." 
 
 In Benihassan's tombs from the 12th dynasty si- 
 milar biographies are found of great importance to history, 
 but as they do not exactly bear upon our present topic 
 I shall not deal farther with them. They can only here 
 be of interest in so far as they show that the profane 
 element still plays an important part in the tombs 2200 
 years before Christ. But the religious and funereal ele- 
 ments press little by little forward beside the profane, 
 until at last from the 19th dynasty it becomes the over- 
 ruling element in the inscriptions on the tombs. 
 
 We have already seen, when we spoke of the develop- 
 
— oi — 
 
 ment of the conception of the deity, that during the Gth 
 dynasty great progress was made. The same was the 
 case with the doctrine of immortality, and both are de- 
 duced from the same Pepi's and Merenra's pyramids. We 
 read thus in Merenra's pyramid the following, it being 
 the god Horus who addresses the late Pharaoh Merenra: 
 
 „I stand with thee my father! I stand with thee 
 Osiris, Merenra I I am thy son, I am Horus, I am coming 
 to thee. Thou art purified and clean, risen again to life. 
 Thou hast gathered together thy bones, fetched back 
 what had gone from thee, collected together what has 
 issued from thee, I am Horus my father's avenger, I have 
 fought for thee when thou wast beaten, I have avenged 
 thee, father Osiris Merenra on those who have given thee 
 pain, I have come to thee as attendant in the heaven, 
 giving thee offering of incense, father Osiris Merenra; as 
 thou sittest on the throne of the god Ra-Tum. Thou 
 wanderest in the light of the sun, thou goest on board 
 the ship of the sun beloved of the gods, in its cabin 
 beloved of the gods, in that the god of the sun goes on 
 board and sails with it. When the day breaketh Me- 
 renra goes on board. See he sitteth on the seat of the 
 god of the sun, and proclaimeth his commands to the 
 gods. See the god of the sun goes forth out of the lap 
 of Nut, and is born every day, also Merenra is born 
 every day as the sun. 1 have given to thee thy father 
 Seb's inheritance among the gods in Heliopolis." 
 
 We see here immortality distinctly proclaimed. The 
 
- 32 — 
 
 dead becomes like unto God. He becomes Osiris and he 
 is like Osiris, father to the god Horus; he is pure and 
 holy, risen again to life, and in possession of his limbs ; 
 he is avenged by Horus who is his father's and conse- 
 quently likewise his avenger; offerings of incense are 
 brought him while he sits on the throne of the god of 
 the sun; he goes in the boat of the sun and sails with 
 the sun on the heaven's ocean. 
 
 Nearly the same doctrine is found, as before stated, 
 in the beginning of the 17th chapter of the Book of 
 Death. That was probably composed at the same time 
 i. e. towards the end of the 6th dynasty. 
 
 Man should after death sail like a god in the boat 
 of the sun, in blessed companionship with the god of 
 the sun and his suite; this was the doctrine of immor- 
 tality, which from this time was preached in the church 
 of the state and was most generally and longest believed 
 by the mass of the people. In the course of time diffe- 
 rent dogmas, different schools and different times ap- 
 peared. 
 
 In connection with this general doctrine of immor- 
 tality arose later on the doctrine of judgment in the 
 other world, as it is represented in the 135th chapter 
 of the Book of Death. To become blessed the deceased 
 must have conducted himself in this life in a manner 
 to deserve it. In the beginning this was either a matter 
 of course, or had not been a subject of consideration. 
 It was only after the notions on morality had been suffi- 
 
— 33 — 
 
 ciently developed, and after one had come to a clear 
 understanding about right and wrong, bad and good, about 
 the justice of retribution, either as reward or punishment 
 in the other life, that the 125th chapter's doctrine of 
 judgement could come into existence, and this chapter 
 is plainly from a later period as Lepsius has shown; we 
 may even say that it was first composed in the time after 
 the expulsion of the Hyksos. Its contents are so gene- 
 rally known that no detailed account is here needed — 
 only some few words. Drawings and inscriptions corro- 
 borate each other, so the meaning is obvious. The drawing 
 represents a tribunal; Osiris presides as chief judge, on ei- 
 ther side of him are seated 21 gods as judges, in front 
 there is a pair of scales in which the gods Horus and Anubis 
 are weighing the heart of the deceased in one scale against 
 the symbol of justice in the other, the god Thot writes 
 down the result. The goddess of justice lead the de- 
 ceased forward to the tribunal and he commences his 
 speech according to the inscription in the following words: 
 „Be saluted, you lords of justice 1 be saluted thou 
 great lord of justice! I come to thee my lordl I am led 
 forward to behold thy glory! I know thee, I know thy. 
 name. I know the names of these thy 42 gods who are 
 with thee in the great hall of justice, who live to keep 
 guard over sinners, and to devour their blood on the day 
 when they shall make up their accounts to the god Un- 
 nofer." 
 
 He cleanses himself thereafter from sin naming each 
 
 3 
 
— 34 — 
 
 of the 42 gods by name, and proclaims himself innocent 
 of the special sin for which each god should punish. 
 AVe have here the so-called negative register of sins, 
 which shows us, that the moral law of the Egyptians 
 contained 42 commandments whose chief contents are 
 essentially identical with those in the Mosaic law. 
 
 Out of this doctrine of just retribution in the other 
 world, that could naturally not only consists of reward but 
 also of punishment, anew series of developments arose as a 
 matter of course. To arrive at a clear understanding 
 regarding the condition of the blessed in a future state 
 had long been a subject of research; but what kind of 
 punishments there were, and what the condition of the 
 condemned would be, there was no call to consider, and 
 about this we do not get direct information in the Book 
 of Death, on the simple ground that by the book left 
 by the relatives with the dead in the tomb it was piously 
 presumed that he would be acquitted in the other world, 
 and consequently become blessed. At last however the 
 necessity was felt of becoming more acquainted with this 
 subject. And we see thus that under the 18th dynasty 
 vague foreshadowings of a doctrine of punishment began 
 to appear, and from the 19th dynasty this topic was more 
 and more explicitly treated. In the graves, in the sarco- 
 phaguses, in the papyrus literature, from this and later 
 times we find ample information, as to what the Egyptians 
 conceived punishment in the other world to be. The book 
 on the infernal regions especially gives us full accounts. 
 
— 35 — 
 
 It treats of the sun's nightly course; in the course of 
 its wandering the sun comes to the dwellings of the con- 
 demned, which is now described. Drawing and inscrip- 
 tions corroborate each other. One drawing shows us the 
 condemned swimming in a lake of fire wherein their bodies 
 burn without being consumed. Another represents several 
 lakes of fire wherein the unhappy are tortured, while the 
 fire is kept up by spirits who stand around, and spout 
 out glowing venom into the lakes. The inscription teaches 
 us the same. In one place it is said, addressing these 
 spirits: „It is your function in the infernal regions to 
 guard the places where the wicked are tortured in the 
 fire according to the commands of the god Ea." 
 
 In another part the condemned are addressed as 
 follows: „You are decapitated, you do not exist, your 
 soul is annihilated; it cannot live on account of that 
 which you have committed against my father Osiris." 
 The torturings were as will be seen of different descrip- 
 tions, but the fire is spoken of firstly and lastly and plays 
 the principal part; and it is most likely this fire of the 
 Egyptians that even now, as a phantom, survives in the 
 modern cruel doctrine of hell fire. In any case, it is in 
 Egypt that this doctrine can for the first time be histori- 
 cally proved. 
 
 We see thus wherever we turn: in the historical 
 development of the conception of God, in the manner in 
 which the Book of Death (the Egyptian Bible) came into 
 existence, the teaching of morality and immortality, partly 
 
— 36 — 
 
 a movement forwards, partly after the highest point had 
 been attained, a retrograding movement, from which however 
 something new arose. This alone has made the Egyptians 
 a nation of culture, whose life and history it is important 
 to become acquainted with. 
 
 It is on this account that I have deemed it my duty 
 to protest against Le Page Renouf's assertion that the 
 Egyptian civilization and religion have remained unchanged 
 through the course of time, an assertion that is dangerous, 
 as it not only leads to misunderstanding Egyptian history, 
 but also to the denial of the life principle in every 
 history, to wit development and progress, without which 
 life has no value. 
 
 I will now pass on to another part of Le Page 
 Renouf's book where there are assertions, which I regard 
 as incorrect, and which ought to be met with protest, as 
 they might easily be considered as proved facts when 
 taken on his authority. I refer to that part which com- 
 mences page 243 where he deals with „Certain questions 
 which have naturally arisen as to the influence of Egyptian 
 upon foreign thought, as, for instance, on the Hebrew or 
 Greek religions and philosophies." The author decides 
 boldly this difficult and far-reaching question, that according 
 to the opinion of other scientific investigators is by no 
 means ripe for final settlement, in the following positive 
 words: „It may be confidently asserted that neither 
 Hebrews nor Greeks borrowed any of their ideas from 
 Egypt." I can not approve of this answer. 
 
— 37 — 
 
 Although I am still inclined to believe that the Biblical 
 record of Moses having been educated in all the wisdom 
 of Egypt is not a mere fable, and that this education 
 proved useful to him during his later function as his 
 people's deliverer and lawgiver, yet I shall not repeat 
 what I have related elsewhere regarding the influence of 
 the Egyptians on the Jews, but pass at once to the 
 Greeks where that influence is more manifest. 
 
 I will not say positively that old Herodotus is on 
 his part more correct when he states, that nearly all 
 names of gods have come from Egypt to Hellas; for 
 although he was 2000 years nearer the events than our 
 highly esteemed English author he was evidently an 
 Egyptoman, and R0th — sad to say — who tried to 
 propound a similar opinion to Herodotus, made such a 
 complete failure that he ought to be a warning example. 
 But let us not on the other side go too far in our denial. 
 It is easy to deny but we cannot come at the truth in 
 that way. Here we must compare, investigate, and 
 consider carefully and laboriously. 
 
 Le Page Renouf says that the Greeks have not 
 borrowed religious ideas from Egypt. Not intending to 
 be diffuse I shall restrict ncyself to the following remarks. 
 
 As to the earlier period, the mythological names Jo, 
 Themis, and Kerberos have all an unmistakeable Egyptian 
 stamp. 
 
 As to a later period I must draw attention to the 
 worship of Zeus-Ammon which according to the latest 
 
- 38 — 
 
 investigations of Lepsius cannot have been any other than 
 the Egyptian Ammon worship, introduced over Ammonium 
 and Kyrene to Greece where the Egyptian Ammon had 
 long ago been identified with the Greek Zeus. 
 
 As to the latest period I must point out the Greek- 
 Roman Isis and Serapis worship; that it was introduced 
 from Egypt is, as far as I am aware, at present acknow- 
 ledged by all. 
 
 This must certainly be considered a loan and it is 
 the Greeks who have borrowed from the Egyptians and 
 not the other way. I must therefore firmly protest against 
 the author's assertion that the Greeks have not borrowed 
 religious ideas from the Egyptians, or it may be that his 
 assertion is not so seriously meant? One might almost 
 believe such to be the case; because in page 131 he 
 compares the words em hotep, that signifies „in peace" 
 so often found in the Egyptian tombs, to similar inscrip- 
 tions found in Hebrew and Christian tombs, and adds : 
 
 „It is extremely frequent in Egyptian texts, and may 
 really be the origin of the Jewish and Christian form of 
 petition for the departed, though the primitive significa- 
 tion has been altered." 
 
 Here the author himself speaks of loan, and as he 
 can scarcely assert that such an odd fragment has been 
 detached and alone brought over from Egypt to Europe, 
 it seems to imply the acknowledgment that perhaps entire 
 series of ideas are borrowed. 
 
— 39 — 
 
 In addition to the above mentioned assertion the 
 author says as follows page 246 sq.: 
 
 ,,Every step in the history of Greek philosophy can 
 be accounted for and explained from native sources, and 
 it is not merely unnecessary, but impossible (to the 
 historian of philosophy, ridiculously impossible), to imagine 
 a foreign teacher, to whom the Greeks would never have 
 listened, as being the author of doctrines which without 
 his help the Greeks would themselves certainly have 
 discovered, and at the very time that they did so. The 
 importance of Alexandria as a medium of interchange of 
 ideas between the Eastern and Western worlds must also 
 be considered as exploded. Nothing was more common, 
 about forty or fifty years ago, than to hear learned men 
 account for the presence of Oriental ideas in Europe, by 
 the transmission of these ideas through the channel of 
 Alexandria. Alexandria was supposed to be the seat of 
 Oriental philosophy, and Philo, Origen, Porphyry, Plotinos 
 and other great names, were imagined to be the repre- 
 sentatives of the alliance between Greek and Oriental 
 thought. All this is now considered as unhistorical as 
 the reign of Jupiter in Crete. It was a mere a priori 
 fancy, which has not been verified by facts. The most 
 accurate analysis of the Alexandrian philosophy has not 
 succeeded in discovering a single element in it which 
 requires to be referred to an Oriental source. All 
 attempts to refer Alexandrian opinions to Eastern sources 
 have proved abortive. And long before the great work 
 
— 40 — 
 
 of Zeller on Greek Philosophy had dealt with the problem 
 in detail, M. Ampere has shown how extremely improbable 
 the received hypothesis was. Alexandria was a commercial 
 Greek town, inhabited by a population which cared not 
 the least for Eastern ideas. The learned men in it were 
 Greeks who had the utmost contempt for barbarians and 
 their opinions. Of the Egyptian language and literature, 
 they were profoundly ignorant." 
 
 One is doubtless astonished on reading this. I have 
 quoted so much because I presume that I should not be 
 believed were I to use my own words in relating what 
 the author says. Does the author really mean that 
 the ideas in the Alexandrian philosophy are exclusively 
 Greek? When Philo makes allegories referring to the Old 
 Testament on the sacred writings of the Jews, which he 
 considers comprise all knowledge, and which he looks 
 upon as devoid of all error and imperfection, on account 
 of the divine revelation, does he not then supercede the 
 sources of Greek origin? Even Zeller, whom Le Page 
 Renouf quotes as one of his authorities, does not agree 
 with him, for in his great work on Greek philosophy he 
 has a long section entitled the Jewish-Greek philosophy, 
 to which among other men of learning the said Philo 
 belonged, and for whom, according to Zeller, the chief 
 basis was the Jewish religion, to the clearer understand- 
 ing of which philosophy should be a mean of help. If 
 the author desires to have Zeller on his side, he must 
 admit that the Alexandrian philosophy sprang at least 
 
— 41 — 
 
 from one foreign source viz. the Jewish, and he must 
 not consider it „ridiculously impossible" that a foreign 
 teacher, to whom the Greeks really listened, was the 
 author of doctrines that the Greeks had certainly not 
 discovered without his help. Philo was a Jew and the 
 ideas of his philosophy was chiefly Jewish Oriental, 
 but as regards language, the scientific form and method, 
 he belonged to the Greek school, and was consequently 
 acknowledged by the Greeks as one of themselves. 
 
 Is it reasonable to say that „the learned men of 
 Alexandria were Greeks, who had the utmost contempt 
 for barbarians and their opinions," when the ancient 
 authors tell us (and we have no grounds to doubt their 
 statements) that the Greek Ptolemies collected all they 
 could lay hands on of foreign literature, had the Old 
 Testament translated into Greek, and induced the Egyptian 
 priest Manetho to write his country's history in Greek 
 from Egyptian sources? And when the Jewish element 
 played a part in the learned world of Alexandria, is it 
 then probable that the Egyptian, which in the capital . 
 of Egypt, and for the scientifically interested Ptolemies 
 was nearer at hand, should be of no importance? Zeller 
 certainly believes this to be the case and his authority 
 is weighty in these matters. He expresses himself however 
 sometimes rather vaguely, his apprehension depends on 
 his limited knowledge of Egyptian sources, and finally 
 he acknowledges straight-forwardly, that the later Greek 
 philosophy clearly shows traces of Oriental influence. 
 
— 42 — 
 
 With regard to the last mentioned fact, he particularly 
 states, that ethic and religious questions were brought 
 more forward, that the ideas on deity became higher 
 and nobler, that new doctrines of a supernatural revelation, 
 of enthusiastic ecstacy in contact with the Divine, of 
 emanation etc. became prevalent in the later philoso- 
 phical systems that chiefly belonged to Egypt. 
 
 It will now become the duty of Egyptologists to 
 bring forward and show ;which of these ideas may be 
 supposed to be derived from Egypt, a task which is not 
 by any means an easy one, but which however in time 
 will be successfully solved. 
 
 Parthey says that the great number of Hellenes, who 
 for the sake of education visited Egypt, more than any- 
 thing else indicates the essential influence that Egyptian 
 culture, even although only indirectly, has excercised on 
 Hellas, and he gives us a long list of the most prominent 
 Greeks who came to Egypt to study, among whom I 
 need only mention such names as Thales, Pythagoras, 
 Solon, Plato, Herodotus, Diodor andStrabo; he also men- 
 tions, likewise from Greek sources, the names of several 
 of their Egyptian teachers. Even if we suppose that this 
 is exaggeration, it is at least evident that Greek authors, 
 who relate this, such as Strabo, Diodor and Plutarch 
 who were themselves acquainted with the Egyptians, must 
 have had high ideas of Egyptian wisdom, when they could 
 admit that their own men of learning had to take long 
 and troublesome journies to profit by it. 
 
— 43 — 
 
 Besides this there are a whole number of Greek works 
 the contents of which are principally derived from Egyptian 
 sources to wit Josephus, Plutarch, Porphyrins and Jam- 
 blichus, the so-called Maccabaus' 4th book, the hermetic 
 books and others. Plutarchs book on Isis and Osiris shows 
 such knowledge of Egyptian mythology (it has even been 
 used as a fount from which the Egyptologists have drawn) 
 that its author has evidently expended much time and 
 toil in the acquisition of the said knowledge. We have 
 at least here one Greek who has been a scholar in Egypt. 
 I cited the Maccabseus' 4th book as one of the works 
 containing Egyptian ideas. As a proof in this respect I 
 shall quote the following sentence: 
 
 ,,As a punishment for this (for thy sins) Divine Justice 
 shall prepare thee a strong and eternal fire, and agonies 
 that shall never cease to all eternity." 
 
 We have here manifestly the Egyptian doctrine of 
 hell's fire and torturings. Where else could this idea 
 have come from in a work that is believed to be written 
 by a Hellenised Jew in Alexandria from sixty to eighty 
 years before Christ? 
 
 From the foregoing remarks it will be understood 
 that it is impossible for me to agree with the author, 
 when he pretends that neither Jews nor Greeks have 
 borrowed ideas from Egypt. On the contrary I must 
 declare it to be the most important and interesting task 
 for Egyptologists to examine how far, and what ideas 
 
— 44 — 
 
 have made their way from Egypt, not only into Judaism 
 and Greek literature, but even into Christianity. 
 
 However I cannot believe, as I have said before, 
 that the author means it quite as strictly as he expresses 
 himself, for if he did so, he would, as far as I can see, 
 be contradicting himself. He was himself at an earlier 
 period one of those who tried to clear the right way, as 
 he, for instance in 1873, in an acute and decisive manner 
 has shown that medical learning and prescriptions that 
 were in use among the old Egyptians are found again in 
 Hippocrates and later authors, strange to say even in 
 English medical popular works from the latest times. 
 
 Lastly, I will make a remark but in a few words, as 
 it concerns a question that has but little to do with 
 religion, I mean chronology. Le Page Renouf deals also 
 but slightly with it, but in such a way that we are 
 tempted to believe that he has not followed with parti- 
 cular interest the investigations of later times on this 
 subject. In this respect he has not advanced further 
 than Dr. Hincks and E. de Rouge; but science has pro- 
 gressed many steps since the time of these learned in- 
 vestigators. 1 shall only stop a moment to consider Le 
 Page Renouf's remarks about the period of the Hyksos. 
 He says that we know when this ceased, but we do not 
 know when it commenced, or how long it lasted. We 
 have however, by comparing all facts that can here be 
 taken into consideration, believed with good grounds for 
 the presumption that Hyksos made their entry into Egypt 
 
~ 45 — 
 
 at the beginning of the 13th dynasty, that they conquered 
 the Northern part of the country, and ruled there at the 
 same time, as the 13th dynasty reigned in the South. 
 Le Page Renouf calls this a mere hypothesis and is of 
 the opinion that „the presence of important monuments 
 of the Sebekhoteps at Bubastis and Tanis, kings (of the 
 13th dynasty) whose names occupy an important place in 
 the chamber of Karnak, would alone be sufficient to 
 overthrow this hypothesis," at the same time he quotes 
 E. de Rouge as his authority. Now it has long ago been 
 objected against E. de Rouge that Hyksos during their 
 wars with the southern Sebekhoteps may have brought 
 these statues with them to the north as trophies, and the 
 presence of the Sebekhoteps statues in „Bubastis and 
 Tanis" proves consequently just as little that Sebekhotep 
 has reigned in Bubastis and Tanis as it would occur to 
 any one to pretend, that a Sebekhotep has reigned in 
 Paris because a statue of Sebekhotep is found in the 
 Louvre. The fact mentioned by Le Page Renouf may 
 thus not be „alone sufficient to overthrow this hypothesis." 
 On the contrary it is really astonishing that such 'a 
 phantom can appear so long a time after it has been 
 removed. No, entirely other arguments would be required 
 to break the circle of facts corroberating the said hypo- 
 thesis. I will however not on that account attack our 
 honoured author, the subtle grammarian, who has with 
 his penetrating linguistic works done our science such 
 great services. 
 
— 46 — 
 
 Herewith 1 shall conclude. It may seem that I have 
 maliciously tried to make bare the weak points, but this 
 is not the case. The book is written with so much 
 knowledge of facts and is on the whole so excellent that 
 I can not do otherwise than greet it with delight. I 
 have only considered it my duty to combat several, in 
 my opinion perverse and wrong ideas, that the author's 
 high repute might easily lead to be propagated. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 jl^iilj jiDi 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLONO 
 
 
 
 
^667 
 
 
 
 Br' 
 
 ^^^K 
 
 
 
 n