Autor: Voegelin, Eric

Buch: Israel and Revelation

Titel: Israel and Revelation

Stichwort: Ordnung, Vorderasien; Israel (Gegenwart unter Gott), Griechenland (unsichtbares Maß alles Seienden) -> vom kompakten Mythos zu differenzierten Formen v. Geschichte

Kurzinhalt: From the beginning, therefore, a study of order and its symbolization is burdened with the problem of a mankind which unfolds an order of its own in time, though it is not itself a concrete society.

Textausschnitt: PART ONE - The Cosmological Order of the Ancient Near East

1/1 The societies of the ancient Near East were ordered in the form of the cosmological myth. By the time of Alexander, however, mankind had moved, through Israel, to existence in the present under God and, through Hellas, to existence in love of the unseen measure of all being. And this movement beyond existence in an embracing cosmic order entailed a progress from the compact form of the myth to the differentiated forms of history and philosophy. From the beginning, therefore, a study of order and its symbolization is burdened with the problem of a mankind which unfolds an order of its own in time, though it is not itself a concrete society. (13; Fs)

2/1 The order of mankind beyond the order of society furthermore unfolds in space insofar as the same type of symbolic form occurs simultaneously in several societies. The very title of this first part of the study, "The Cosmological Order of the Ancient Near East," raises the question: whose order is supposed to be the subject of inquiry? For the ancient Near East is not a single organized society with a continuous history, but comprises a number of civilizations with parallel histories. Moreover, while in the civilization of the Nile Valley one can legitimately speak of a continuity of "Egypt" in spite of the interruptions of imperial order through domestic troubles and foreign invasions, in Mesopotamia the mere names of the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires indicate a plurality of political organizations by different peoples. And yet we have spoken, not only of the "Ancient Near East" as the subject of cosmological order, but even of a "mankind" that expressed its mode of existence by means of the cosmological myth. Such language implies that a group of societies with separate histories can be treated for our purposes as if they were a single unit in history, and even that the symbols developed to express a concrete order can be abstracted from the society of their origin and attributed to mankind at large. (13f; Fs)

3/1 The problem of mankind has not been raised in order to be resolved on this occasion of its first appearance. It will be with us throughout the course of the study. For the present, the awareness of its existence is sufficient as a basis for the following empirical observation which has a direct bearing on the organization of materials in Part I. (14; Fs)

4/1 It is a matter of empirical knowledge that the cosmological myth arises in a certain number of civilizations without apparent mutual influences. The question, to be sure, has been raised whether the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, neighbors in time and space, did not influence one another, or have a common origin that would explain the parallel features in their political culture. "Whatever the outcome of a hitherto inconclusive debate will be, the question itself will appear less pressing, if one considers that the same type of symbols occurs in the China of the Chou dynasty, as well as in the Andean civilizations, where Babylonian or Egyptian influences are improbable. The state of empirical knowledge makes it advisable, therefore, to treat the cosmological myth as a typical phenomenon in the history of mankind rather than as a symbolic form peculiar to the order of Babylon, or Egypt, or China. Still less is it advisable to indulge in speculations about "cultural diffusion" of the cosmological myth from a hypothetical center of its first creation. (14; Fs)

5/1 The cosmological myth, as far as we know, is generally the first symbolic form created by societies when they rise above the level of tribal organization. Nevertheless, the several instances of its appearance are sufficiently variegated to allow the distinction of unmistakably Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Chinese styles of the myth. Moreover, it is highly probable, though not conclusively demonstrable, that the differences of style have something to do with the potentiality of the various civilizations for the unfolding of experiences which ultimately result in the leap in being. In the area of the ancient Near East, the Mesopotamian empires proved most barren in this respect, while the sequence of Egyptian empires showed a remarkable but abortive development. The break-through was achieved only among the peoples of the Syriac civilization, through Israel. Hence, the varieties within the general type of cosmological myth must not be neglected. (14; Fs)

6/1 In order to do justice to the various aspects of the problem, the historical materials will be organized in Part I in the following manner: Chapter 1 will deal with the Mesopotamian empires, because the rigidity of Mesopotamian symbols, with their negligible traces of differentiating experiences, is most suitable to the elaboration of the typical elements in the cosmological myth. Chapter 2, on the Achaemenian Empire, will deal with the modifications of the type under the impact of Zoroastrianism. Egypt will be treated in Chapter 3, because its indigenous development of experiences and symbols tended to break the form of the cosmological myth. This arrangement will provide for the type as well as for the varieties, and it will illuminate the progress of man through the sequence of civilizations.1 (14f; Fs)