naturally necessitated a regrouping of the
material, if only in part. In this secondary re-
editing, however, I did not succeed in fitting the
whole material in. On the other hand, I could
not make
up my mind to relinquish the two
former contributions altogether, and this is how
the
compromise came about of adding unaltered
a whole
piece of the first version to the second, a
device which has the
disadvantage of extensive
repetition.
I
might, it is true, find comfort in the reflection
that the matter I treated of was so new and
significant quite apart from whether my presen-
tation of it was correct or not that it must count
as
only a minor misfortune if people are made to
read about it twice over. There are
things that
should be said more than once and cannot be
repeated often enough. It should, however, be
left to the reader's free will whether he wishes to
linger with a subject or return to it. A conclusion
should not be
emphasized by the sly device of
dishing up the same subject twice in the same
book.
By doing so one proves oneself a clumsy
writer and has to bear the blame for it. However,
the creative
power of an author does not, alas,
always follow his good will. A work grows as it
will and sometimes confronts its author as an
independent, even an alien, creation.
1 66 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM
2. The
People of Israel
If we are
quite clear in our minds that a pro-
cedure like the present one to take from the
traditional material what seems useful and to
reject what is unsuitable, and then to put the
individual
pieces together according to their
psychological probability does not afford any
security for finding the truth, then one is quite
right to ask why such an attempt was under-
taken. In answer to this I must cite the result.
If we substantially reduce the severe demands
usually made on an historical and psychological
investigation then it might be possible to clear
up problems that have always seemed worthy
of attention and which, in consequence of
recent events, force themselves again on our
observation. We know that of all the peoples
who lived in antiquity in the basin of the Medi-
terranean the Jewish people is perhaps the only
one that still exists in name and probably also
in nature. With an unexampled power of
resistance it has defied misfortune and ill-treat-
ment, developed special character traits and,
incidentally, earned the hearty dislike of all
other
peoples. Whence comes this resistance of the
Jew, and how his character is connected with his
fate, are things one would like to understand
better.
We may start from one character trait of the
HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
167
Jews which governs their relationship to other
people. There is no doubt that they have a very
good opinion of themselves, think themselves
nobler, on a higher level, superior to the others
from whom they are also
separated by many of
their customs. 1 With this
they are animated by
a
special trust in life, such as is bestowed by the
secret
possession of a precious gift ; it is a kind of
optimism. Religious people would call it trust in
God.
We know the reason of this attitude of theirs
and what their precious treasure is. They really
believe themselves to be God's chosen
people;
they hold themselves to be specially near to Him,
and this is what makes them
proud and confident.
According to trustworthy accounts they behaved
in Hellenistic times as
they do to-day. The
Jewish character, therefore, even then was what
it is
now, and the Greeks, among whom and
alongside whom they lived, reacted to the Jewish
qualities in the same way as their " hosts " do
to-day. They reacted, so one might think, as if
they too believed in the preference which the
Israelites claimed for themselves. When one is
the declared favourite of the dreaded father one
need not be
surprised that the other brothers and
sisters are
jealous. What this jealousy can lead to
1
The insult frequently hurled at them in ancient times that they
were lepers (cf. Manetho) must be read as a projection: " They keep apart from us as if we were lepers."
1 68 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM
is
exquisitely shown in the Jewish legend of
Joseph and his brethren. The subsequent course
of world
history seemed to justify this Jewish
arrogance, for when later on God consented to
send mankind a Messiah and Redeemer He again
chose Him from among the Jewish
people. The
other
peoples would then have had reason to
say: " Indeed, they were right; they are God's
chosen
people. " Instead of which it happened
that the salvation
through Jesus Christ brought
on the Jews nothing but a stronger hatred, while
the
Jews themselves derived no advantage from
this second
proof of being favoured, because they
did not
recognize the Redeemer.
On the strength of our previous remarks we
may say that it was the man Moses who stamped
the
Jewish people with this trait, one which
became so significant to them for all time. He
enhanced their self-confidence by
assuring them
that
they were the chosen people of God; he
declared them to be
holy, and laid on them the
duty to keep apart from others. Not that the
other
peoples on their part lacked self-confidence.
Then, just as now, each nation thought itself
superior to all the others. The self-confidence of
the
Jews, however, became through Moses
anchored in
religion ; it became a part of their
religious belief. By the particularly close rela-
tionship to their God they acquired a part of His
grandeur. And since we know that behind the
HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
169
God who chose the Jews and delivered them from
Egypt stood the man Moses who achieved that
deed, ostensibly at God's command, we venture
to
say this: it was one man, the man Moses,
who created the Jews. To him this
people owes
its
tenacity in supporting life; to him, however,
also much of the
hostility which it has met and is
meeting still.
3. The Great Man
How is it possible that one single man can
develop such extraordinary effectiveness, that he
can create out of indifferent individuals and
families one
people, can stamp this people with
its definite character and determine its fate for
millenia to come ? Is not such an
assumption a
retrogression to the manner of thinking that
produced creation myths and hero worship, to
times in which historical
writing exhausted itself
in
narrating the dates and life histories of cer-
tain individuals
sovereigns or conquerors ? The
inclination of modern times tends rather to trace
back the events of human
history to more hidden,
general and impersonal factors the forcible
influence of economic circumstances,
changes in
food
supply, progress in the use of materials and
tools, migrations caused by increase in population
and
change of climate. In these factors individuals
play no other part than that of exponents or
170 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM
representatives of mass tendencies which must
come to expression and which found that
expression as it were by chance in such persons.
These are
quite legitimate points of view, but
they remind us of a significant discrepancy
between the nature of our
thinking apparatus
and the organization of the world which we are
trying to apprehend. Our imperative need for
cause and effect is satisfied when each
process
has one demonstrable cause. In
reality, outside
us this is
hardly so; each event seems to be over-
determined and turns out to be the effect of
several
converging causes. Intimidated by the
countless
complications of events research takes
the
part of one chain of events against another,
stipulates contrasts that do not exist and which
are created
merely through tearing apart more
comprehensive relations.
1
If, therefore, the investigation of one particular
case demonstrates the
outstanding influence of a
single human personality, our conscience need
not
reproach us that through accepting this
conclusion we have dealt a blow at the doctrine
of the
significance of those general impersonal
1
1 would
guard myself, however, against a possible misunder-
standing. I do not mean to say that the world is so complicated
that
every assertion must hit the truth somewhere. No, our
thinking has preserved the liberty of inventing dependencies and
connections that have no
equivalent in reality. It obviously prizes
this
gift very highly, since it makes such ample use of it inside as
well as outside of science.
HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
171
factors. In
point of fact there is without doubt
room for both. In the genesis of monotheism we
cannot, it is true, point to any other external
factor than those we have
already mentioned,
namely, that this development has to do with the
establishing of closer connections among differ-
ent nations and the existence of a
great empire.
We will keep, therefore, a place for " the great
man " in the chain, or rather in the network, of
determining causes. It may not be quite useless,
however, to ask under what condition we bestow
this title of honour. We
may be surprised to find
that it is not so
easy to answer this question. A
first
formulation, which would define as great a
human being specially endowed with qualities
we value highly, is obviously in all respects
unsuitable.
Beauty, for instance, and muscular
strength much as they may be envied do not
establish a claim to "
greatness.
55
There should
perhaps be mental qualities present, psychical
and intellectual distinction. In the latter
respect
we have misgivings: a man who has an out-
standing knowledge in one particular field would
not be called a
great man without any further
reason. We should
certainly not apply the term
to a master of chess or to a virtuoso on a musical
instrument, and not necessarily to a distinguished
artist or a man of science. In such a case we
should be content to
say: he is a great writer,
painter, mathematician or physicist, a pioneer in
172 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM
this field or that, but we should
pause before
pronouncing him a great man. When we declare,
for instance, Goethe, Leonardo da Vinci and
Beethoven, to be great men, then something else
must move us to do so beyond the admiration of
their
grandiose creations. If it were not for just
such
examples one might very well conceive the
idea that the title " a
great man " is reserved by
preference for men of action that is to say,
conquerors, generals and rulers and was in-
tended as a recognition of the greatness of their
achievements and the strength of the influence
that emanated from them. However, this too is
unsatisfying, and is fully contradicted by our
condemnation of so many worthless
people of
whom one cannot deny that they exercised a
great influence on their own and later times. Nor
can success be chosen as a
distinguishing feature
of
greatness if one thinks of the vast number of
great men who, instead of being successful,
perished after being dogged by misfortune.
We should, therefore, tentatively, incline to the
conclusion that it is
hardly worth while to search
for an
unequivocal definition of the concept:
a
great man. It seems to be a rather loosely used
term, one bestowed without due consideration
and given to the
supernormal development of
certain human
qualities: in doing so we keep
close to the
original literal sense of the word
"
greatness.
55
We may also remember that it is
HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
173
not so much the nature of the
great man that
arouses our interest as the
question of what are
the
qualities by virtue of which he influences his
contemporaries. I propose to shorten this investi-
gation, however, since it threatens to lead us far
from our
goal.
Let us
agree, therefore, that the great man
influences his
contemporaries in two ways:
through his personality and through the idea for
which he stands. This idea may lay stress on an
old
group of wishes in the masses, or point to a
new aim for their wishes, or again lure the masses
by other means. Sometimes and this is surely
the more
primitive effect the personality alone
exerts its influence and the idea
plays a decidedly
subordinate
part. Why the great man should
rise to
significance at all we have no doubt
whatever. We know that the
great majority of
people have a strong need for authority which it
can admire, to which it can submit, and which
dominates and sometimes even ill-treats it. We
have learned from the
psychology of the individual
whence comes this need of the masses. It is the
longing for the father that lives in each of us from
his childhood
days, for the same father whom the
hero of
legend boasts of having overcome. And
now it begins to dawn on us that all the features
with which we furnish the
great man are traits
of the father, that in this similarity lies the essence
which so far has eluded us- of the great man.
174 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM
The decisiveness of thought, the strength of will,
the forcefulness of his
deeds, belong to the picture
of the father; above all other
things, however,
the self-reliance and
independence of the great
man: his divine conviction of
doing the right
thing, which may pass into ruthlessness. He must
be admired, he
may be trusted, but one cannot
help being also afraid of him. We should have taken
a cue from the word
itself; who else but the father
should have been in childhood the
great man ?
Without doubt it must have been a tremendous
father
imago that stooped in the person of Moses
to tell the
poor Jewish labourers that they were
his dear children. And the
conception of a
unique, eternal, omnipotent God could not have
been less
overwhelming for them; He who
thought them worthy to make a bond with Him,
promised to take care of them if only they
remained faithful to His
worship. Probably they
did not find it
easy to separate the image of the
man Moses from that of his God, and their
instinct was
right in this, since Moses might very
well have
incorporated into the character of his
God some of his own traits, such as his irascibility
and
implacability. And when they killed this
great man they only repeated an evil deed which
in
primaeval times had been a law directed against
the divine
king, and which as we know
derives from a still older
prototype.
1
1
Frazer. Loc. cit.,
p. 192.
HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
175
When, on the one hand, the figure of the great
man has grown into a divine one, it is time to
remember, on the other hand, that the father
also was once a child. The
great religious idea
for which the man Moses stood was, as we have
stated, not his own; he had taken it over from
his
King Ikhnaton. And the latter whose
greatness as a founder of religion is proved with-
out a doubt followed
perhaps intimations which
through his mother or by other ways had reached
him from the near or the far East.
We cannot trace the network any further. If
the
present argument, however, is correct so far,
the idea of monotheism must have returned in
the fashion of a
boomerang into the country of
its
origin. It appears fruitless to attempt to
ascertain what merit attaches to an individual in
a new idea.
Obviously many have taken part in
its
development and made contributions to it.
On the other hand, it would be wrong to break
off the chain of causation with Moses and to
neglect what his successors, the Jewish prophets,
achieved. Monotheism had not taken root in
Egypt. The same failure might have happened
in Israel after the
people had thrown off the
inconvenient and
pretentious religion imposed
on them. From the mass of the Jewish
people,
however, there arose again and again men who
lent new colour to the
fading tradition, renewed
the admonishments and demands of Moses and
176 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM
did not rest until the lost cause was once more
regained. In the constant endeavour of centuries,
and last but not least through two great reforms
the one before, the other after the
Babylonian
exile there took
place the change of the popular
God Jahve into the God whose worship Moses
had forced
upon the Jews. And it is the proof of
a
special psychical fitness in the mass which had
become the Jewish
people that it could bring
forth so
many persons who were ready to take
upon themselves the burden of the Mosaic
religion for the reward of believing that their
people was a chosen one and perhaps for other
benefits of a similar order.
4. The Progress in Spirituality
To achieve lasting psychical effects in a people it
is
obviously not sufficient to assure them that they
were
specially chosen by God. This assurance
must be
proved if they are to attach belief to it
and draw their conclusions from that belief. In
the
religion of Moses the exodus served as such
a
proof; God, or Moses in his name, did not tire
of
citing this proof of favour. The feast of the
Passover was established to
keep this event in
mind, or rather an old feast was endowed with
this
memory. Yet it was only a memory. The
exodus itself
belonged to a dim past. At the
time the
signs of God's favour were meagre
HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
177
enough; the fate of the people of Israel would
rather indicate his disfavour. Primitive
peoples
used to
depose or even punish their gods if they
did not fulfil their
duty of granting them victory,
fortune and comfort.
Kings have often been
treated
similarly to gods in every age ; the ancient
identity of king and god, i.e. their common
origin, thus becomes manifest. Modern peoples
also are in the habit of thus
getting rid of their
kings if the splendour of their reign is dulled by
defeats
accompanied by the loss of land and
money. Why the people of Israel, however,
adhered to their God all the more
devotedly the
worse
they were treated by Him that is a
question which we must leave open for the
moment.
It
may stimulate us to enquire whether the
religion of Moses had given the people nothing
else but an increase in self-confidence
through the
consciousness of
being " chosen." The next