No Religion without Idolatry: Mendelssohn's Jewish Enlightenment

Chapter 5: Idolatry: Egyptian and Jewish

C H A P T E R 5 Idolatry Egyptian and Jewish In Jerusalem Mendelssohn discusses the threat of idolatry inherent to the use of script and other permanent signs. His foremost example is Egyptian hieroglyphics. He also remarks that the Hebrew alphabet derived from hieroglyphics. Not only Egyptian hieroglyphics but also Egyptian idolatry are highly important for Judaism. According to the biblical report, Judaism was constituted in an act of physical and religious opposition to ancient Egypt: the Exodus and the indubitable revelation on Sinai. And yet, soon thereafter, in the sin of the golden calf, the Jews relapsed into Egyptian idolatry. If Mosaic religion is understood as a “counterreligion” to the Egyptian, then its practices can be understood as means of drawing a dividing line between the Jews and the nation that hosted them for centuries. All the more reason that the relapse into idolatry immediately after revelation on Mount Sinai seems inexplicable. The Egyptian religion appears here as both the repulsive and the attractive opposite pole to Judaism. There is even an immediate and specific connection between Egyptian hieroglyphics and Judaism. Mendelssohn believed—as we do today, too—that the Hebrew alphabet developed out of hieroglyphics. In his Jerusalem Mendelssohn goes into the details: ‫א‬, aleph, is derived from the pictogram of elef or aluf, ‫אלף‬: an ox; ‫ב‬, beth, is derived from the pictogram of bayit, ‫בית‬: house; ‫ג‬, gimel, derives from the pictogram of gammal , ‫גמל‬: camel; and so on (Jerusalem, 110).1 105 106 No Religion without Idolatry Were the hieroglyphics conducive to the Hebrews’ relapse into Egyptian idolatry in the adoration of the calf? And did the transition from the pictorial representation of the hieroglyphics to the conventional representation of the alphabet eventually safeguard the Hebrews from relapsing again into Egyptian idolatry? Or does it also generate new dangers? These are important themes in Mendelssohn’s thought, both in his Jerusalem and in his commentary on the Bible. However, a major issue is the distinction between Gentile and Jewish idolatry. Mendelssohn argues with many others that Jewish monotheism is more restrictive than the monotheism of natural religion. This is the ultimate justification for the continued separate existence of the Jewish people and Jewish religion: Judaism is a safeguard of monotheism free of idolatry. HI E R O G LY P H I C S A N D ID O L AT R Y : TH E SI N O F T H E GO L D E N CA L F In the second part of Jerusalem, Mendelssohn sketches his theory of the connection between representation and idolatry. This theory is based on the best ethnographic and historical scholarship of his day. In fact, Mendelssohn displays considerable erudition and judgment concerning ancient Egyptian history and pre-alphabetic representations of the Indians .2 Most of Mendelssohn’s knowledge of hieroglyphics derives directly or indirectly (via Condillac and Meiners) from Warburton, who was the main authority in this field. However, Mendelssohn had additional sources of information on the ancient history of Egypt, and he did not fully adopt Warburton’s view on the function of hieroglyphics. Mendelssohn sketches a progressive development of representation from the concrete to the abstract. Abstract concepts were at first represented by individual “things themselves.” Note, however, that these “things themselves” do not represent themselves but rather abstract concepts ! Thus, for example, a lion represented courage, a dog faithfulness, and so on (Jerusalem, 107–8). “Things themselves” hence means in this context that the symbols were not designed as symbols but are real objects , and that they are used as synecdoches: the lion does not only repre- Idolatry 107 sent lions or the concept of a lion but also the lion’s characteristic property : courage. Similarly, the dog does not only represent dogs but also their property: loyalty.3 Later, “images” of these things replaced them, and then “outlines” of the images substituted the images. This very much resembles the way we use today an outline of a schematic pictogram of a man to signal a public toilet for men. Finally, a combination of such outlines formed so-called hieroglyphics (Jerusalem, 108), and on the basis of hieroglyphics alphabetic script was invented. The problem with representations that are not entirely arbitrary and recognizable as mere symbols is that they may be believed to have intrinsic meaning. If its symbolic function is not understood, an object or an icon may be taken to be “the...