doctrine of hell's fire and torturings" in a passage quoted by Professor Lieblein from the fourth book of Maccabees.* There is undoubtedly a doctrine of hell there, but it is no more Egyptian than it is Brahmanic or Buddhist or Greek. The Egyptian doctrine is far more like that which is contained in the forty-third section of the Vishnu-smriti, and yet no one will suspect that Egyptian and Hindu doctrines are otherwise than absolutely independent of each other. Each religion has a hell of its own. Professor Lieblein also assumes not only that the writer of the Jewish work in question borrowed his doctrine from the Egyptians (and this he does from the mere fact of the book being written in Alexandria), but that the doctrines of all other Jews, Palestinian and Babylonian as well, were borrowed from a work never esteemed canonical by Jews or Christians, and never sufficiently read to justify the notion of its being the source of the popular Jewish doctrine of which it furnishes a proof. If I had to look for the inspiration of an Alexandrian Jew beyond the traditions of his own religion, I should rather look to Homer and Plato for such notions as Tartarus and the fiery stream of Pyriphlegethon than to the Egyptian Amenti. But the real explanation of the matter is, that when two religions agree in admitting the notion of retribution for sin in the future life, they are very likely to agree in some remarkable points of detail, and that without any borrowing. One of the most remarkable features of the Egyptian doctrine is that of the balance in which human actions are weighed. But this balance is also found in the ÇatapathaBrahmana. I have thought it well to speak at some length on these * I understand a passage quoted by Prof. Lieblein from the "Book of Hades," not as referring to the punishment of wicked men, but to the annihilation of the mythical enemies of Rā. objections of Professor Lieblein, partly from sincere respect to so estimable a scholar, but also because it is most desirable that no misunderstanding should exist as to the real points in discussion, or the method and principles by which right conclusions may be arrived at. As Professor Lieblein argues that the Egyptians began with nature-worship (which is a mixture of religion and mythology), and gradually rose to a higher conception of the divine power, so, on the other hand, did the late M. de Rougé, and so now do his able successors of the French school, M. Pierret, M. Grébaut, and others, depending chiefly upon texts of the henotheistic period, argue that the Egyptian religion was essentially monotheistic, though disfigured by polytheistic imagery. The opposite parties necessarily admit each other's facts, but in the analysis of these facts they are, I believe, equally in error, because neither party seems to me rightly to apprehend the nature of mythology. It would be very ungrateful of me to finish this Preface without offering my sincere thanks for the exceedingly kind way in which these Lectures have been noticed, both here and abroad, in literary organs representing every variety of theological opinion. My thanks are also due to those of my learned colleagues in Egyptology who have honoured my book with their countenance, and specially to Dr. Karl Piehl, an admirable Egyptian scholar, who has published a translation of the book in the Swedish language. |