What do you think?
Rate this book
Moses and Monotheism
This volume contains Freud's speculations on various aspects of religion, on the basis of which he explains certain characteristics of the Jewish people in their relations with the Christians. From an intensive study of the Moses legend, Freud comes to the startling conclusion that Moses himself was an Egyptian who brought from his native country the religion he gave to the Jews. He accepts the hypothesis that Moses was murdered in the wilderness, but that his memory was cherished by the people & that his religious doctrine ultimately triumphed. Freud develops his general theory of monotheism, which enables him to throw light on the development of Judaism & Christianity.
178 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1939
246 people are currently reading
4,771 people want to read
About the author
Sigmund Freud
4,195books8,152followersDr. Sigismund Freud (later changed to Sigmund) was a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, who created an entirely new approach to the understanding of the human personality. He is regarded as one of the most influential—and controversial—minds of the 20th century.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
In 1873, Freud began to study medicine at the University of Vienna. After graduating, he worked at the Vienna General Hospital. He collaborated with Josef Breuer in treating hysteria by the recall of painful experiences under hypnosis. In 1885, Freud went to Paris as a student of the neurologist Jean Charcot. On his return to Vienna the following year, Freud set up in private practice, specialising in nervous and brain disorders. The same year he married Martha Bernays, with whom he had six children.
Freud developed the theory that humans have an unconscious in which sexual and aggressive impulses are in perpetual conflict for supremacy with the defences against them. In 1897, he began an intensive analysis of himself. In 1900, his major work 'The Interpretation of Dreams' was published in which Freud analysed dreams in terms of unconscious desires and experiences.
In 1902, Freud was appointed Professor of Neuropathology at the University of Vienna, a post he held until 1938. Although the medical establishment disagreed with many of his theories, a group of pupils and followers began to gather around Freud. In 1910, the International Psychoanalytic Association was founded with Carl Jung, a close associate of Freud's, as the president. Jung later broke with Freud and developed his own theories.
After World War One, Freud spent less time in clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to history, art, literature and anthropology. In 1923, he published 'The Ego and the Id', which suggested a new structural model of the mind, divided into the 'id, the 'ego' and the 'superego'.
In 1933, the Nazis publicly burnt a number of Freud's books. In 1938, shortly after the Nazis annexed Austria, Freud left Vienna for London with his wife and daughter Anna.
Freud had been diagnosed with cancer of the jaw in 1923, and underwent more than 30 operations. He died of cancer on 23 September 1939.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 275 reviews
January 4, 2023
يهودى ينفى اليهودية و ينسب الدين كله للتاريخ
في الحقيقة تنتابنى الحيرة حينما أقرأ تاريخ الأديان البدائية و تطورها و دائما أحس أن الأصل واحد و لو لم يبعث الله نبيا لكان الإسلام هو التطور الطبيعى لكل الأديان منذ فجر التاريخ
و لكن فرويد له رأى أخر
فرويد ينفى وجود شخصية موسى و يعتبرها من نسج خيال اليهود اخترعوها أيام السبى البابلى كما اخترعوا دينهم كله فى نفس الفترة تأسيسا على الدين المصرى القديم تأثرا بفترة السبى البابلى
February 8, 2022
Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion drei Abhandlungen = Moses and Monotheism, Sigmund Freud
Moses and Monotheism is a 1939 book about the origins of monotheism written by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. The book consists of three essays and is an extension of Freud’s work on psychoanalytic theory as a means of generating hypotheses about historical events.
Freud hypothesizes that Moses was not Hebrew, but actually born into Ancient Egyptian nobility and was probably a follower of Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian monotheist. Freud contradicts the biblical story of Moses with his own retelling of events, claiming that Moses only led his close followers into freedom during an unstable period in Egyptian history after Akhenaten (ca. 1350 BCE) and that they subsequently killed Moses in rebellion and later combined with another monotheistic tribe in Midian based on a volcanic God, Jahweh.
Freud explains that years after the murder of Moses, the rebels regretted their action, thus forming the concept of the Messiah as a hope for the return of Moses as the Saviour of the Israelites. Freud said that the guilt from the murder of Moses is inherited through the generations; this guilt then drives the Jews to religion to make them feel better.
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «موسا و یکتاپرستی»؛ «موسی� و یکتاپرستی»� نویسنده: زیگموند فروید؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش سال1972میلادی
عنوان: موسی� و یکتاپرستی� نویسنده: زیگمون� فروید� مترج�: قاسم� خاتمی� تهران، چاپخانه پیروز؛ سال1348، در134ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، جامی، سال1379؛ در134ص؛ شابک9645620015؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، گام نو، سال1388؛ در172ص؛ شابک9789646917293؛ چاپ دیگر ویراستار: مهدی افشار؛ تهران: انتشارات مصدق: انتشارات جامی� سال1396؛ در174ص؛ شابک9786007436721؛ موضوع یکتاپرستی از نویسندگان اتریش - سده20م
عنوان: موسا و یکتاپرستی؛ نویسنده: زیگموند فروید؛ مترجمها: صالح نجفی، هورا (حورا) رهبری؛ تهران، فرهنگ صبا، سال1387؛ در210ص (199ص)؛ شابک9789642935208؛
عنوان: موسی و یکتاپرستی؛ نویسنده: زیگموند فروید؛ مترجم: صالح نجفی، تهران، رخدادنو، سال1388؛ در181ص؛ شابک9786005625042؛ چاپهای دوم و سوم و چهارم سال1389؛ چاپ دیگر با ویراستاری علیرضا خالقس دامغانی؛ تهران، نشر نی، سال1397؛ در189ص؛ شابک9789641855620؛
عنوان: موس� و یکتاپرستی� زیگموند فروید؛ مترجم هورا رهبری؛ تهران، گام نو، در191ص؛ شابک9789646917491؛
کتاب «موسی و یکتاپرستی» را، نخستین بار «زیگموند فروید» در سال1937میلادی نوشتند؛ «فروید» در این کتاب احتمال «عبرانی یا همان اسرائیلی» نبودن «موسی» را طرح کرده، و مینویسن� («موسی» اشرافزادها� «مصری» بوده که احتمالاً پیرو «آخناتون یکتاپرست مصر باستان» بوده باشد)؛ کتاب در سه بخش و بخشی از کارهای «فروید»، درباره ی تئوری روانکاوی است که برای ارائه فرضیاتی در مورد رخدادهای تاریخی به� شمار میرود� «فروید» پیشتر نیز از این تئوری در کتاب دیگرشان با عنوان «توتم و تابو» سود برده بودند؛ «فروید» نتیجه میگیرن� که «موسی» پیرو دین یکتاپرستی «آتون» بوده، اما به علت سست شدن توانایی امپراتوری پس از «آخناتون» و طرد دین «اتون» توسط «مصریها»، «موسی» این دین را به جای ادامه در «مصر»، پیشکش قوم «یهود» میکند� «یهودیان» در آن زمان در قلمرو «مصر» ساکن بودند؛ «موسی» همچنین رسم «مصری» ختنه کردن را به قوم «یهود» داد؛ «فروید» در این کتاب با روایات کتاب مقدس، دربارهٔ «موسی» مخالفت کرده، و مینویسن� («موسی» تنها پیروان نزدیکش را در زمان ناآرامیها� پس از «آخناتون» به آزادی راهنمایی میکند� ولی آنه� در پی یک شورش او را به قتل میرسانند� و سپس با قبیله یکتاپرست دیگری به نام «مدین» ترکیب میشوند� آنه� ساله� پس از کشتن «موسی»، پشیمان شده و در آرزوی بازگشت «موسی» برای نجات «بنی اسرائیل» مفهوم منجی را ابداع کردند)، به باور «فروید» این احساس گناه، ناشی از کشتن «موسی» به تدریج به نسلها� بعدی منتقل شده و در نهایت منجر به پیدایش دین «یودیت» میشو�
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 18/11/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Moses and Monotheism is a 1939 book about the origins of monotheism written by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. The book consists of three essays and is an extension of Freud’s work on psychoanalytic theory as a means of generating hypotheses about historical events.
Freud hypothesizes that Moses was not Hebrew, but actually born into Ancient Egyptian nobility and was probably a follower of Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian monotheist. Freud contradicts the biblical story of Moses with his own retelling of events, claiming that Moses only led his close followers into freedom during an unstable period in Egyptian history after Akhenaten (ca. 1350 BCE) and that they subsequently killed Moses in rebellion and later combined with another monotheistic tribe in Midian based on a volcanic God, Jahweh.
Freud explains that years after the murder of Moses, the rebels regretted their action, thus forming the concept of the Messiah as a hope for the return of Moses as the Saviour of the Israelites. Freud said that the guilt from the murder of Moses is inherited through the generations; this guilt then drives the Jews to religion to make them feel better.
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «موسا و یکتاپرستی»؛ «موسی� و یکتاپرستی»� نویسنده: زیگموند فروید؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش سال1972میلادی
عنوان: موسی� و یکتاپرستی� نویسنده: زیگمون� فروید� مترج�: قاسم� خاتمی� تهران، چاپخانه پیروز؛ سال1348، در134ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، جامی، سال1379؛ در134ص؛ شابک9645620015؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، گام نو، سال1388؛ در172ص؛ شابک9789646917293؛ چاپ دیگر ویراستار: مهدی افشار؛ تهران: انتشارات مصدق: انتشارات جامی� سال1396؛ در174ص؛ شابک9786007436721؛ موضوع یکتاپرستی از نویسندگان اتریش - سده20م
عنوان: موسا و یکتاپرستی؛ نویسنده: زیگموند فروید؛ مترجمها: صالح نجفی، هورا (حورا) رهبری؛ تهران، فرهنگ صبا، سال1387؛ در210ص (199ص)؛ شابک9789642935208؛
عنوان: موسی و یکتاپرستی؛ نویسنده: زیگموند فروید؛ مترجم: صالح نجفی، تهران، رخدادنو، سال1388؛ در181ص؛ شابک9786005625042؛ چاپهای دوم و سوم و چهارم سال1389؛ چاپ دیگر با ویراستاری علیرضا خالقس دامغانی؛ تهران، نشر نی، سال1397؛ در189ص؛ شابک9789641855620؛
عنوان: موس� و یکتاپرستی� زیگموند فروید؛ مترجم هورا رهبری؛ تهران، گام نو، در191ص؛ شابک9789646917491؛
کتاب «موسی و یکتاپرستی» را، نخستین بار «زیگموند فروید» در سال1937میلادی نوشتند؛ «فروید» در این کتاب احتمال «عبرانی یا همان اسرائیلی» نبودن «موسی» را طرح کرده، و مینویسن� («موسی» اشرافزادها� «مصری» بوده که احتمالاً پیرو «آخناتون یکتاپرست مصر باستان» بوده باشد)؛ کتاب در سه بخش و بخشی از کارهای «فروید»، درباره ی تئوری روانکاوی است که برای ارائه فرضیاتی در مورد رخدادهای تاریخی به� شمار میرود� «فروید» پیشتر نیز از این تئوری در کتاب دیگرشان با عنوان «توتم و تابو» سود برده بودند؛ «فروید» نتیجه میگیرن� که «موسی» پیرو دین یکتاپرستی «آتون» بوده، اما به علت سست شدن توانایی امپراتوری پس از «آخناتون» و طرد دین «اتون» توسط «مصریها»، «موسی» این دین را به جای ادامه در «مصر»، پیشکش قوم «یهود» میکند� «یهودیان» در آن زمان در قلمرو «مصر» ساکن بودند؛ «موسی» همچنین رسم «مصری» ختنه کردن را به قوم «یهود» داد؛ «فروید» در این کتاب با روایات کتاب مقدس، دربارهٔ «موسی» مخالفت کرده، و مینویسن� («موسی» تنها پیروان نزدیکش را در زمان ناآرامیها� پس از «آخناتون» به آزادی راهنمایی میکند� ولی آنه� در پی یک شورش او را به قتل میرسانند� و سپس با قبیله یکتاپرست دیگری به نام «مدین» ترکیب میشوند� آنه� ساله� پس از کشتن «موسی»، پشیمان شده و در آرزوی بازگشت «موسی» برای نجات «بنی اسرائیل» مفهوم منجی را ابداع کردند)، به باور «فروید» این احساس گناه، ناشی از کشتن «موسی» به تدریج به نسلها� بعدی منتقل شده و در نهایت منجر به پیدایش دین «یودیت» میشو�
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 18/11/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
March 18, 2017
آخناتون
كتاب
نقدا
چرا كتاب را خواندم
در پايان فصل مربوط به مصر از تاريخ تمدن ويل دورانت، زندگى و فعاليت هاى آخناتون مطرح شد، از طريق گودريدز يادم بود كه فرويد در اين كتاب خود يافته هاى مربوط به آخناتون را محور تحقيقات خود قرار داده. براى اين كه كارم را با آخناتون يك بار براى هميشه تمام كنم، پرانتزى بين تاريخ تمدن باز كردم، و اين كتاب را خواندم.
كتاب
نقدا
چرا كتاب را خواندم
در پايان فصل مربوط به مصر از تاريخ تمدن ويل دورانت، زندگى و فعاليت هاى آخناتون مطرح شد، از طريق گودريدز يادم بود كه فرويد در اين كتاب خود يافته هاى مربوط به آخناتون را محور تحقيقات خود قرار داده. براى اين كه كارم را با آخناتون يك بار براى هميشه تمام كنم، پرانتزى بين تاريخ تمدن باز كردم، و اين كتاب را خواندم.
February 8, 2019
1.
اول اینکه ترجمه صالح نجفی از این کتاب را از دست ندهید. ترجمه ای روان و یکدست با پانویس های کاربردی.
2.
کتاب قطعا در زمینه تاریخی زمان نگارش، حرکتی متهورانه و رو بجلو بوده است. اما اگر بخواهم اثر را از ظرف زمانی نگارشش جدا کنم، با چند پیش فرض آن مشکل دارم:
* نویسنده در جایی از کتاب اشاره می کند که یک جامعه متمدن یا به سمت یکتاپرستی گرایش دارد و یا اینکه مانند یونانیان فلسفه را برمی گزیند؛ ردپای (بقول دکتر خنجی در مقدمه توتم و تابو) هشتپاي داروینیسم.
* مساله این است که آیا می توان تئوری های روانکاوانه فردی را برای روانکاوی توده بکار بست، و به موجب آن، جامعه یا توده را با انسان یکی گرفت و جوامع اولیه و بدوی را متناظر کودک قرار داد.
3. برای گوش دادن به نشست بررسی کتاب با حضور مترجم و جواد گنجی، به کانال تلگرامی زیر رفته و نام کتاب را جستجو کرده و فایل را دانلود نمایید:
@sociomedia
اول اینکه ترجمه صالح نجفی از این کتاب را از دست ندهید. ترجمه ای روان و یکدست با پانویس های کاربردی.
2.
کتاب قطعا در زمینه تاریخی زمان نگارش، حرکتی متهورانه و رو بجلو بوده است. اما اگر بخواهم اثر را از ظرف زمانی نگارشش جدا کنم، با چند پیش فرض آن مشکل دارم:
* نویسنده در جایی از کتاب اشاره می کند که یک جامعه متمدن یا به سمت یکتاپرستی گرایش دارد و یا اینکه مانند یونانیان فلسفه را برمی گزیند؛ ردپای (بقول دکتر خنجی در مقدمه توتم و تابو) هشتپاي داروینیسم.
* مساله این است که آیا می توان تئوری های روانکاوانه فردی را برای روانکاوی توده بکار بست، و به موجب آن، جامعه یا توده را با انسان یکی گرفت و جوامع اولیه و بدوی را متناظر کودک قرار داد.
3. برای گوش دادن به نشست بررسی کتاب با حضور مترجم و جواد گنجی، به کانال تلگرامی زیر رفته و نام کتاب را جستجو کرده و فایل را دانلود نمایید:
@sociomedia
Read
December 19, 2021If Moses supposes his toeses are roses, then Moses supposes erroneously. For nobody's toeses are posies or roses, as Moses supposes his toeses to be.
November 26, 2013
بحث رائع أفرده فرويد ذو العقلية التحليلية المتفردة , فى الأسباب و التأويلات التى يراها تدفع بكون سيدنا موسي "عليه السلام ". كان من أصل مصرى , موسي عليه السلام النبى المرسل إلى اليهود و صاحب رسالة التوراة و الذى خرج باليهود من مصر بعد زيادة الإضطهاد من قبل الفرعون الحاكم آنذاك.
تفرد سيجموند فرويد فى القسم الأول بالكتاب فى تفسير تأويلات التاريخ المذكورة بكثير من أبحاث خاضت فى الأمر ذاته و فند كل النقاط بل و كان فى منتهى الموضوعية فى الإعتراف بتناقض بعض مأثورات و مسلمات اليهود , هو ببساطة يحلل لك التاريخ من مصادر عدة - شريطة أن تكون موثوقة- ثم يترك لك حرية الإقتناع لافتا نظرك إلى النتيجة او القرار الذى توصل له هو شخصيا على الرغم من كون نتائجه عصية على التصديق أحيانا.
حمل الجزء الأول من الكتاب تحليل لا بأس به أبدا لنظرية التوحيد على عهد موسي , مشيرا إلى إخناتون أول من نادى بتوحيد الإله الذى ليس كمثله شئ, معاديا العرف السائد بتعدد الآلهة فى عصره و إنتهاءا بمصيره المجهول "إخناتون" , و إعتباره زنديقا و تحطيم كل آثار التوحيد التى نشرها فى المملكة بعد وفاته.
يأتى الجزء الثانى و الثالث إجابة على سؤال راودنى بأن كيف تخلى فرويد عن منهجه الخالص فى التحليل السيكلوجى و أفرد الجزء الأول تقريبا للتحليل التاريخى الصرف :)
حيث يأتى الكتاب بجزئيه الأخيرين بتحليل سيكلوجى و نفسي لكل ما أفرده الكاتب بالجزء الاول , مرورا بنظرية الرضات العصابية و الوسواس
و شارحا بالأمثلة نظرياته الطوييييييييلة جدا
جهل فرويد ببعض من نقاط كانت لتجعل بحثه شاملا كاملا لو أنه تخصص أكثر فى الديانات و خصوصا الإسلام و الذى اتى ذكره شحيحا فى الكتاب مقارنة باليهودية و المسيحية .
يعيب الكتاب خلط فرويد فى نهايته - بشهادة المترجم - بين مفهوم الديانة و القومية , فبالرغم من كونه جاء موضوعيا ضاربا عرض السماء بالدعاوى التى قد تأتى عليه جراء كشفه لدلائل تحريف التوراة و محاباة الكهنة للطقوس و الأضاحى الغريبة على أصل الدين ;
على الرغم من جرأته و موضوعيته هذه إلا أنه كأى شخص يهودى المولد يرى فى اليهودية قومية و ليست ديانة , فما انفك فى الجزء الأخير يكثر من جملة "الشعب اليهودى"
و إنما اليهودية ديانة و ليست جنسية تنتمى إليها الشعوب.
و لكن
لا يمكن تحت أى ظرف الإنكار
بأن الكتاب يبقى تجربة ممتعة و محفزة جدا للذهن
تفرد سيجموند فرويد فى القسم الأول بالكتاب فى تفسير تأويلات التاريخ المذكورة بكثير من أبحاث خاضت فى الأمر ذاته و فند كل النقاط بل و كان فى منتهى الموضوعية فى الإعتراف بتناقض بعض مأثورات و مسلمات اليهود , هو ببساطة يحلل لك التاريخ من مصادر عدة - شريطة أن تكون موثوقة- ثم يترك لك حرية الإقتناع لافتا نظرك إلى النتيجة او القرار الذى توصل له هو شخصيا على الرغم من كون نتائجه عصية على التصديق أحيانا.
حمل الجزء الأول من الكتاب تحليل لا بأس به أبدا لنظرية التوحيد على عهد موسي , مشيرا إلى إخناتون أول من نادى بتوحيد الإله الذى ليس كمثله شئ, معاديا العرف السائد بتعدد الآلهة فى عصره و إنتهاءا بمصيره المجهول "إخناتون" , و إعتباره زنديقا و تحطيم كل آثار التوحيد التى نشرها فى المملكة بعد وفاته.
يأتى الجزء الثانى و الثالث إجابة على سؤال راودنى بأن كيف تخلى فرويد عن منهجه الخالص فى التحليل السيكلوجى و أفرد الجزء الأول تقريبا للتحليل التاريخى الصرف :)
حيث يأتى الكتاب بجزئيه الأخيرين بتحليل سيكلوجى و نفسي لكل ما أفرده الكاتب بالجزء الاول , مرورا بنظرية الرضات العصابية و الوسواس
و شارحا بالأمثلة نظرياته الطوييييييييلة جدا
جهل فرويد ببعض من نقاط كانت لتجعل بحثه شاملا كاملا لو أنه تخصص أكثر فى الديانات و خصوصا الإسلام و الذى اتى ذكره شحيحا فى الكتاب مقارنة باليهودية و المسيحية .
يعيب الكتاب خلط فرويد فى نهايته - بشهادة المترجم - بين مفهوم الديانة و القومية , فبالرغم من كونه جاء موضوعيا ضاربا عرض السماء بالدعاوى التى قد تأتى عليه جراء كشفه لدلائل تحريف التوراة و محاباة الكهنة للطقوس و الأضاحى الغريبة على أصل الدين ;
على الرغم من جرأته و موضوعيته هذه إلا أنه كأى شخص يهودى المولد يرى فى اليهودية قومية و ليست ديانة , فما انفك فى الجزء الأخير يكثر من جملة "الشعب اليهودى"
و إنما اليهودية ديانة و ليست جنسية تنتمى إليها الشعوب.
و لكن
لا يمكن تحت أى ظرف الإنكار
بأن الكتاب يبقى تجربة ممتعة و محفزة جدا للذهن
January 26, 2023
کتاب خیلی خوب بود جذاب بود فروید از یه بعد هایی دیده بود داستان رو که تا حالا بهش دقت نکرده بودم. اومده بود موسی رو اول از دید این که یک مصری هست دیده بود نه پیامبر، و توضیح داده بود که چون مصری بود برای دیگر هم وطن های خودش یه ایگو به وجود میاد که توی فصل دوم درباره بعد یکتا پرستی اش هم توضیح داده بود.
August 15, 2016
Moses and Monotheism is Sigmund Freud's last book and was only published after his death. It contains a concise summary and revision of his major theories but even more importantly he expresses his true beliefs about the history of the Judeo/Christian religions. Freud believed that the origins of Judaism begin with the Egyptian heretic king Akhenaten. He was so concerned about this premise that he believed he could be assassinated by the Catholic church. I understand that many of Freud's teaching have been discarded however, his views on history are unique and depart from main stream orthodoxy. His work on patriarchal dominance in ancient societies is particularly insightful.
From his book ;
"The strong male was the master and father of the
whole horde: unlimited in his power, which he
used brutally. All females were his property, the
wives and daughters in his own horde as well as
perhaps also those robbed from other hordes. The
fate of the sons was a hard one; if they excited the
father’s jealousy they were killed or castrated or
driven out."
In time, however, the youngest son would usually
get the opportunity to usurp his ageing father. This
son, usually the favourite child of the mother, will
become the father and leader of the tribe.
From his book ;
"The strong male was the master and father of the
whole horde: unlimited in his power, which he
used brutally. All females were his property, the
wives and daughters in his own horde as well as
perhaps also those robbed from other hordes. The
fate of the sons was a hard one; if they excited the
father’s jealousy they were killed or castrated or
driven out."
In time, however, the youngest son would usually
get the opportunity to usurp his ageing father. This
son, usually the favourite child of the mother, will
become the father and leader of the tribe.
May 7, 2022
Historical quest for the origin of religion? Inner search for meaning in belief? This book opens up uncertain hypotheses and undoubtedly partial analogies, which challenge. First assertion: Moses was Egyptian, and he imposed on foreigners, the Jews, a religion then prohibited in Egypt, that of Akhenaton, the first manifestation of monotheism. Of course, the historian is perplexed. Let's admit. What does it change? Then the Jews revolt and kill Moses. The event and the religion of the assassinated chief repress for a specific time to reappear, modified under the identity of Yahweh, another god, cruel, who became the protector and the punisher of the Jewish people. To explain this, it invokes psychoanalysis, constantly making questionable back and forth between individual and the mass, and sees in the awe and fear of a single god the return of those of the father. Primitive, yet murdered, like Moses. In Christianity, he also sees the sacrifice of the murderous son who takes the father's place. Convincing? Impression of hesitation, as if this could have some likelihood, but as if it were also wandering vaguely, a theory, like psychoanalysis, both difficult to understand and with no other basis than the quicksands of the unconscious, ancient history and religious beliefs.
December 3, 2014
لانه ليس الكتاب الاول الذي اقراه لفرويد
فلم اتفاجأ باسلوبه في الطرح وفي نظرته للامور
لكن ربما تفاجئت بمدى ضعف المحتوى وفقر الكتاب خصوصا لعالم بقامة فرويد يتحدث بمثل هذه السطحية عن موضوع شائك وليس في تخصصه ايضا
سبب قراءتي لهذا الكتاب هو حضور مناقشته في نادي الكتاب...اتفق الجميع على ضعف المحتوى وهلهلة الحجج ولكن مما اثار اعجابي راي صديقة قالت انها استطاعت ان ترى نفسية فرويد في هذا الكتاب خصوصا انه بالاصل ملحد خارج من اسرة يهودية...يحاول ان يقنع نفسه اولا بهذا الكتاب انه على حق في نظرته للاديان وللديانة اليهودية بشكل خاص ليرفع عنه شعورا ما بالذنب...هذا الراي اثار اعجابي جدا
في وجهة نظري في كتابات فرويد بوجه عام انه لا يتحدث عن علم بقدر ما يتحدث بوجهة نظر...خصوصا اني اشعر وانا اقرا له انه يملك عين ما يرى الكون كله بها ولا يمكنه ان يرى سوى هذا البعد المتمثل في وجهة نظره
لذلك حين تقرا كتابا واحدا لفرويد يمكنك ان تتكهن بمحتوى كل كتبه
لانها كلها متشابهة وكلها تصب في نفس النقطة....وجهة نظره التي لا تتغير بل انه يحاول تغيير العالم كله بمفاهيمه وكل مافيه ليتناسب مع تلك الوجهة
اما بخصوص مناقشته لطبيعة الدين اليهودي وان موسى في بداية كتابه لم يكن من بني اسرائيل بل انه مصري
منحدرا في الكتاب الى ان موسى مجرد خرافة او اسطورة لا وجود لها
منحدرا الى ان الاديان كلها ناتجة عن احتياج نفسي ما نابع من فكرته الرئيسية عن الاب والام والابن التي ذكرها في عدة كتب سابقة
ليس عندي مشكلة في محتوى الكتاب في اني لا اتفق معه طبعا لكن مشكلة الكتاب انه اتى بطريقة غير منظمة نهائيا وكأنه كان يفكر بصوت عالي فكان يعيد نفس النقاط في صفحات كثيرة
اذا اردت ان تفترض نظرية ليس لها اي اساس من المنطق او الصحة فيجب ان تملك حجة تستدعي الحديث
كما انه اطال االحديث وتشعب في نقاط اخرى بحيث خرج تماما عما يريد اثباته....ونلاحظ انه استنبط حقائقه من كتب قليلة جدا وبنى على هذه الحقائق فرضيات وهمية تحاكي فكره ووجهة نظره
الفصول كانت مهلهلة جدا وغير مترابطة ومكررة في احيان كثيرة...وغير منطقية في معظمها
هذا كتاب لا يخرج من يد عالم...وقطعا ليس بكتاب يستحق القراءة
February 5, 2012
في هذا الكتاب يحاول فرويد إثبات نظريته بأن النبي موسى مصريا وليس يهوديا ويدلل على ذلك من خلال براهين كثيرة منها أن موسى كلمة مصرية تعني الطفل ويمضى فرويد في هذا الإتجاه في فصله الأول موضحا أن عقيدة التوحيد لم تكن منبعها الديانة اليهودية بل اشتقت من ديانة آخناتون والذي توصل إلى ذلك وإن كان قرص الشمس هو إلهه الوحيد !
في الكتاب أيضا يشرح فرويد كيف ظهر الدين وكيف كان للأساطير دورها من خلال ظهور أسطورة البطل والصراع على السلطة بينه وبين الأب حتى حاجة المجتمع البدائي للحامي الذي يقوم بدور المخلص أو الأب
يطبق فرويد نظرياته النفسية على الديانة اليهودية وعلى موسى كنموذج البطل حتى إنحسار سلطته بوفاته ثم ظهور الديانة المسيحية ولا يقف هناك مانعا أمام فرويد كونه نشأ يهوديا بل يعترف بأن اليهود هم أمة طارئة على أرض كنعان كما يشرح الأسباب التي جعلت الأمة اليهودية منبوذة من قبل الأمم الأخرى من هذه الأسباب النظرة الفوقية التي نظر إليها اليهود إلى الشعوب على أساس إنهم شعب الله المختار !
من أجمل ما جاء في هذا الكتاب التحليلات النفسية العميقة التي رافقت الدراسة وحديثه عن سلطة الفرد وسلطة الوالدين والدور الذي لعبته في صنع سلطة الدين
إن الأفكار التي يقدمها فرويد في هذا الكتاب تبدور لي غريبة أحيانا ولكن بالتأكيد هي جديرة بالقراءة والإطلاع
كتاب ممتع جدا
في الكتاب أيضا يشرح فرويد كيف ظهر الدين وكيف كان للأساطير دورها من خلال ظهور أسطورة البطل والصراع على السلطة بينه وبين الأب حتى حاجة المجتمع البدائي للحامي الذي يقوم بدور المخلص أو الأب
يطبق فرويد نظرياته النفسية على الديانة اليهودية وعلى موسى كنموذج البطل حتى إنحسار سلطته بوفاته ثم ظهور الديانة المسيحية ولا يقف هناك مانعا أمام فرويد كونه نشأ يهوديا بل يعترف بأن اليهود هم أمة طارئة على أرض كنعان كما يشرح الأسباب التي جعلت الأمة اليهودية منبوذة من قبل الأمم الأخرى من هذه الأسباب النظرة الفوقية التي نظر إليها اليهود إلى الشعوب على أساس إنهم شعب الله المختار !
من أجمل ما جاء في هذا الكتاب التحليلات النفسية العميقة التي رافقت الدراسة وحديثه عن سلطة الفرد وسلطة الوالدين والدور الذي لعبته في صنع سلطة الدين
إن الأفكار التي يقدمها فرويد في هذا الكتاب تبدور لي غريبة أحيانا ولكن بالتأكيد هي جديرة بالقراءة والإطلاع
كتاب ممتع جدا
August 6, 2010
This was an interesting little book that is partly a digression from Freud's larger ideological framework of the psychological development of religious belief. Much of his deductions concerning the life and death of Moses were speculative, but Freud says as much, and openly confesses the stretch of imagination it takes to even attempt to restructure the Moses 'myth'. His only apologia for doing so: the recreated story is far less fantastic than the traditional account! Anyone who reads Freud's recasting of the story and scoffs has obviously read the Biblical account with a desensitized logic and hyper-romantic credence in tradition.
Better than Freud's admittedly hack-job attempt at demythologizing the Moses story is his exploration of the development of myth and 'great man' archetypes in human psychology. Not that one is strong-armed to agree with his conclusions (Carl Jung staunchly opposed much of his over-sexed reductionist theories as well), but some of his interpretive processes seem like something anyone can learn something from. There's no denying his genius in the realm of psychoanalytic trailblazing, and it would take a truly unappreciative tyro to engage with Freud and laugh him out of a dialogue simply because his views appear outrageous. Eccentricity is the privilege of genius, and one would be hard-pressed to overlook the important contributions this book makes into applying psychoanalytic methods into specific faith traditions, especially one that the author himself could culturally identify with.
That being said, I feel that the true value in this book was to introduce me to Freud's thoughts on religious myth developments, and after reading I was inspired enough to read further in some of Freud's writings on this topic in particular.
Better than Freud's admittedly hack-job attempt at demythologizing the Moses story is his exploration of the development of myth and 'great man' archetypes in human psychology. Not that one is strong-armed to agree with his conclusions (Carl Jung staunchly opposed much of his over-sexed reductionist theories as well), but some of his interpretive processes seem like something anyone can learn something from. There's no denying his genius in the realm of psychoanalytic trailblazing, and it would take a truly unappreciative tyro to engage with Freud and laugh him out of a dialogue simply because his views appear outrageous. Eccentricity is the privilege of genius, and one would be hard-pressed to overlook the important contributions this book makes into applying psychoanalytic methods into specific faith traditions, especially one that the author himself could culturally identify with.
That being said, I feel that the true value in this book was to introduce me to Freud's thoughts on religious myth developments, and after reading I was inspired enough to read further in some of Freud's writings on this topic in particular.
May 30, 2021
Freud's interesting theory brilliantly analyses the character of Moses and suggests that the Jewish religion is a relic of ancient Egyptian religion. Whether the theory is true or not, it offers a way of looking at humanity as a whole in psychoanalytical ways, regarding collective traumas passed through the generations, until ancient times and the totemistic culture.
I've picked up this book after a class in film and trauma which is mainly based on Freud, and was not disappointed. the book itself might feel a little repetitive, since Freud wrote it over several years, sometimes not wanting to publish it, but eventually after the german invasion to Austria which made him migrate to England, he finally did. biographically, it's also a brief look at Freud's later period.
brilliant thinking.
I've picked up this book after a class in film and trauma which is mainly based on Freud, and was not disappointed. the book itself might feel a little repetitive, since Freud wrote it over several years, sometimes not wanting to publish it, but eventually after the german invasion to Austria which made him migrate to England, he finally did. biographically, it's also a brief look at Freud's later period.
brilliant thinking.
February 9, 2021
کتاب جالبیبو�. این بار موسی را از عینک فروید میبینی�. این روایت فروید مخالف با کتاب مقدس میباش�. فروید در این اثر معتقد است که موسی عبرانی نیست و از طرفداران آخناتون یکتاپرست مصری است. بعد از مرگ آخناتون جامعه دچار ناآرامی میشو� و در طی آن موسی به قتل میرس� اما این قاتلان دچار ندامت از کرده ی خود میگردن�.
بنابر عقیده ی فروید موسی یک مصری بوده که از زادگاه خود دین جدیدی برای قوم یهود آورده است. بعد از این مباحث فروید به موضوع چگونگی گسترش دین یهود و مسیحیت میپرداز�.
فروید در کتاب توتم و تابو نیز از تئوری روانکاوی در ارتباط با رویدادهای تاریخی� استفاده کرده است.
بنابر عقیده ی فروید موسی یک مصری بوده که از زادگاه خود دین جدیدی برای قوم یهود آورده است. بعد از این مباحث فروید به موضوع چگونگی گسترش دین یهود و مسیحیت میپرداز�.
فروید در کتاب توتم و تابو نیز از تئوری روانکاوی در ارتباط با رویدادهای تاریخی� استفاده کرده است.
January 12, 2025
Freud's ideas were surrounded by controversy, but this, his last book, is Freud at his most provocative. Ironically, it is also Freud at his most vulnerable, and the story behind its publication is rather sad.
Here, Freud applies psychoanalytic thinking to piece together the narrative gaps in ancient documents and Old Testament sources regarding the figure of Moses and the development of modern Judaism. Freud believed that Moses was a historical person, but that he had been made into a figure of Jewish myth. He points out how the birth story of Moses is a variation of that found in many ancient hero stories, only with a twist.
Most heroes are from noble birth, but as infants, their fathers order the child to be killed and so their mothers send their baby adrift in a basket down a river. The hero, unaware of their lofty heritage, is then raised by a kindly and noble peasant family. In the case of Moses, we have the opposite scenario. He is from a Jewish family and is found by an Egyptian queen and raised as royalty.
Freud suspected that the hero-origin story of Moses was applied in reverse to a real Egyptian noble who actually already believed in a monotheistic religion. In Egypt at the time, one of the Pharaohs became convinced that the pantheon of Egyptian gods, especially Osiris, was all rot. He tyrannically forced his people to follow a new religion that strictly adhered to one God and rejected magic and the supernatural. Moses, being of high rank, would certainly be a follower of this monotheistic religion. But then the pharaoh was overthrown and the old ways came back into favor. What was Moses to do? His salvation came in the form of a Semitic tribe living in the Egyptian borderlands over whom he likely had governance. These were his people, fellow worshipers of a one true God, and he became their leader. He took advantage of the chaos in Egypt following the fall of the Eighteenth Dynasty to basically walk the Jewish people right out of Egyptian territory, headed for a promised land where their religion could be practiced in freedom. But the Jewish writers wouldn't want their leader to be identified with their former Egyptian oppressors. So the origin story was tweaked to make him originally a Jew. In the meantime, the reign of the "heretic pharaoh" became a blip in history, but the universal God lived on in the form of Judeo-Christian monotheism.
This is just the beginning of Freud's conclusions regarding the historical Moses. He gives a lot more reasons to believe that Moses was not quite what we see in the Bible, and that the origin of what we know today as Judeo-Christian God comes from much earlier in history.
In fact, Freud interprets a line in the Book of Hosea to indicate that Moses was himself killed by his own people who rejected his religion for a time. This act has parallels with Freud's theory of the Oedipal Complex, a rebellion against the father figure that caused a collective Jewish guilt over the murder of their savior that further shaped the Jewish religion with wish fantasies like The Messiah. Therefore, Judaism as it is known today developed out of trauma inherited by multiple generations of a race. Freud even goes further to say that Christianity is a natural psychological development of Judaism, which is a religion of the Father, while Christianity is a religion of the Son, replacing the Father. The earliest proponents of Christianity, like Paul, correctly had their pulse on Jewish guilt. If the Jews once rejected Moses and then wished for a return of their leader, the death of Jesus would trigger a similar reaction. In effect, Jesus was the successor of the Mosaic tradition. The impact on those peoples who were forceably converted to Christianity over the centuries was that they adopted an antisemitic attitude. The hostility of the German National-Socialist revolution towards monotheism is reflected in their persecution of both Jews and Christians due to their shared origins. Essentially, the Nazis had "daddy issues."
I'm just scratching the surface with my rather poor synopsis, but you can already see how this book would upset a lot of people. What was Freud's motivation for writing such a thing?
Well, this was a very personal exercise for Freud who was grappling with his own religious beliefs as he approached the end of his life while dealing with the atrocities of the Nazis since 1933. It consists of three parts, the first two he had published separately in the periodical "Imago." The final and longest part he withheld because he was afraid of potential repercussions against him and his family.
First of all, the Nazis were already set on burning his books. Freud is quoted as saying that we are making progress in the world--centuries ago they would have burned HIM, but now they are merely content with burning his books! Talk about sublimation through humor!
But Freud was Jewish, and so the persecution of him and his family didn't stop there. His daughter, the notable analyst Anna Freud, was detained and questioned by the Gestapo. Four of Freud's elder sisters were murdered in concentration camps. It therefore became apparent that the Freud family had to get the hell out of Vienna. Officials in Berlin were willing to let Freud emigrate with his wife and Anna, but intended to seize all of his assets and ruin him. It was through the intervention of Princess Marie Bonaparte and a former Nazi, Dr. Anton Sauerwald, that he was able to escape to London. But despite being safe from the Nazis, his problems weren't over. Freud spent the rest of his days in excruciating pain from jaw cancer.
It was during all of this that he wrote "Moses and Monotheism." He had always been interested in understanding his religion, and particularly identified with Moses. He often studied Michaelangelo's statue of Moses in the Basilica of San Pietro, even hiring a professional artist to sketch detailed parts of the statue for his reference. In Moses, Freud found an artistic twin. Perhaps this is because he also saw himself as the father of an historic movement. He made psychoanalysis. Moses made the Jews. But we often see this in our patients with whom we are working in psychoanalysis. Who is your hero? I would say mine is Doctor Who. Others would say a great athlete, or a comic book hero, or a character from a novel or film. Freud's hero was Moses, and he turned to Moses in a time of crisis, to understand the miracle of how Moses was able to change the world in the context of hia real limitations as opposed to the magic of fantasy and myth.
Kierkegaard did much the same thing with Abraham in "Fear and Trembling," and both books have the power to enlighten the reader on just how remarkable these seemingly familiar figures really are. And both books teach us something new about the human condition.
Through his attempt to understand his hero and his religion, Freud also taught the rest of us something new about the function religion plays in our mental life. "Moses and Monotheism" is essentially a culmination of the ideas he formulated in 1912 with his "Totem and Taboo," that religious phenomena are best understood via the neurotic symptoms of the individual, but here he applies his theory further to group psychology. I feel his ideas do not denigrate religion, but actually should make our beliefs more meaningful. There is something in our psychic design that does reflect a divine truth. As children, we need our father. As we develop as individuals, we try to differentiate ourselves from that dependent relationship, only to find that we have assimilated the father into ourselves (the superego). The development of monotheism through numerous peoples throughout millennia has followed the same pattern. Might there not be a sign here of some greater truth? And does it follow that, just as we have forefathers assimilated and persistent in our psyche, that there also dwells the true Divine within us all?
These ideas forever expanded the scope of psychoanalysis, but go far beyond psychiatry to transcend primitive tribalism that sets one group of people as superior to another. Though all of Freud's work is important for giving us a new paradigm for understanding the mind that has become woven into the fabric of Western civilization, this book is his emotional masterpiece in my opinion. But like Moses who never lived to see the fruits of his labors, Freud died before the world could digest what was in his final contribution to the mental life of human beings.
"Moses and Monotheism" might anger you, or give you some food for reflection about your faith, or be a source of inspiration, or simply blow your mind. But we are lucky to have this peek into Freud's own mind and soul. What a way to close out a brilliant career!
Receives my highest recommendation!
Here, Freud applies psychoanalytic thinking to piece together the narrative gaps in ancient documents and Old Testament sources regarding the figure of Moses and the development of modern Judaism. Freud believed that Moses was a historical person, but that he had been made into a figure of Jewish myth. He points out how the birth story of Moses is a variation of that found in many ancient hero stories, only with a twist.
Most heroes are from noble birth, but as infants, their fathers order the child to be killed and so their mothers send their baby adrift in a basket down a river. The hero, unaware of their lofty heritage, is then raised by a kindly and noble peasant family. In the case of Moses, we have the opposite scenario. He is from a Jewish family and is found by an Egyptian queen and raised as royalty.
Freud suspected that the hero-origin story of Moses was applied in reverse to a real Egyptian noble who actually already believed in a monotheistic religion. In Egypt at the time, one of the Pharaohs became convinced that the pantheon of Egyptian gods, especially Osiris, was all rot. He tyrannically forced his people to follow a new religion that strictly adhered to one God and rejected magic and the supernatural. Moses, being of high rank, would certainly be a follower of this monotheistic religion. But then the pharaoh was overthrown and the old ways came back into favor. What was Moses to do? His salvation came in the form of a Semitic tribe living in the Egyptian borderlands over whom he likely had governance. These were his people, fellow worshipers of a one true God, and he became their leader. He took advantage of the chaos in Egypt following the fall of the Eighteenth Dynasty to basically walk the Jewish people right out of Egyptian territory, headed for a promised land where their religion could be practiced in freedom. But the Jewish writers wouldn't want their leader to be identified with their former Egyptian oppressors. So the origin story was tweaked to make him originally a Jew. In the meantime, the reign of the "heretic pharaoh" became a blip in history, but the universal God lived on in the form of Judeo-Christian monotheism.
This is just the beginning of Freud's conclusions regarding the historical Moses. He gives a lot more reasons to believe that Moses was not quite what we see in the Bible, and that the origin of what we know today as Judeo-Christian God comes from much earlier in history.
In fact, Freud interprets a line in the Book of Hosea to indicate that Moses was himself killed by his own people who rejected his religion for a time. This act has parallels with Freud's theory of the Oedipal Complex, a rebellion against the father figure that caused a collective Jewish guilt over the murder of their savior that further shaped the Jewish religion with wish fantasies like The Messiah. Therefore, Judaism as it is known today developed out of trauma inherited by multiple generations of a race. Freud even goes further to say that Christianity is a natural psychological development of Judaism, which is a religion of the Father, while Christianity is a religion of the Son, replacing the Father. The earliest proponents of Christianity, like Paul, correctly had their pulse on Jewish guilt. If the Jews once rejected Moses and then wished for a return of their leader, the death of Jesus would trigger a similar reaction. In effect, Jesus was the successor of the Mosaic tradition. The impact on those peoples who were forceably converted to Christianity over the centuries was that they adopted an antisemitic attitude. The hostility of the German National-Socialist revolution towards monotheism is reflected in their persecution of both Jews and Christians due to their shared origins. Essentially, the Nazis had "daddy issues."
I'm just scratching the surface with my rather poor synopsis, but you can already see how this book would upset a lot of people. What was Freud's motivation for writing such a thing?
Well, this was a very personal exercise for Freud who was grappling with his own religious beliefs as he approached the end of his life while dealing with the atrocities of the Nazis since 1933. It consists of three parts, the first two he had published separately in the periodical "Imago." The final and longest part he withheld because he was afraid of potential repercussions against him and his family.
First of all, the Nazis were already set on burning his books. Freud is quoted as saying that we are making progress in the world--centuries ago they would have burned HIM, but now they are merely content with burning his books! Talk about sublimation through humor!
But Freud was Jewish, and so the persecution of him and his family didn't stop there. His daughter, the notable analyst Anna Freud, was detained and questioned by the Gestapo. Four of Freud's elder sisters were murdered in concentration camps. It therefore became apparent that the Freud family had to get the hell out of Vienna. Officials in Berlin were willing to let Freud emigrate with his wife and Anna, but intended to seize all of his assets and ruin him. It was through the intervention of Princess Marie Bonaparte and a former Nazi, Dr. Anton Sauerwald, that he was able to escape to London. But despite being safe from the Nazis, his problems weren't over. Freud spent the rest of his days in excruciating pain from jaw cancer.
It was during all of this that he wrote "Moses and Monotheism." He had always been interested in understanding his religion, and particularly identified with Moses. He often studied Michaelangelo's statue of Moses in the Basilica of San Pietro, even hiring a professional artist to sketch detailed parts of the statue for his reference. In Moses, Freud found an artistic twin. Perhaps this is because he also saw himself as the father of an historic movement. He made psychoanalysis. Moses made the Jews. But we often see this in our patients with whom we are working in psychoanalysis. Who is your hero? I would say mine is Doctor Who. Others would say a great athlete, or a comic book hero, or a character from a novel or film. Freud's hero was Moses, and he turned to Moses in a time of crisis, to understand the miracle of how Moses was able to change the world in the context of hia real limitations as opposed to the magic of fantasy and myth.
Kierkegaard did much the same thing with Abraham in "Fear and Trembling," and both books have the power to enlighten the reader on just how remarkable these seemingly familiar figures really are. And both books teach us something new about the human condition.
Through his attempt to understand his hero and his religion, Freud also taught the rest of us something new about the function religion plays in our mental life. "Moses and Monotheism" is essentially a culmination of the ideas he formulated in 1912 with his "Totem and Taboo," that religious phenomena are best understood via the neurotic symptoms of the individual, but here he applies his theory further to group psychology. I feel his ideas do not denigrate religion, but actually should make our beliefs more meaningful. There is something in our psychic design that does reflect a divine truth. As children, we need our father. As we develop as individuals, we try to differentiate ourselves from that dependent relationship, only to find that we have assimilated the father into ourselves (the superego). The development of monotheism through numerous peoples throughout millennia has followed the same pattern. Might there not be a sign here of some greater truth? And does it follow that, just as we have forefathers assimilated and persistent in our psyche, that there also dwells the true Divine within us all?
These ideas forever expanded the scope of psychoanalysis, but go far beyond psychiatry to transcend primitive tribalism that sets one group of people as superior to another. Though all of Freud's work is important for giving us a new paradigm for understanding the mind that has become woven into the fabric of Western civilization, this book is his emotional masterpiece in my opinion. But like Moses who never lived to see the fruits of his labors, Freud died before the world could digest what was in his final contribution to the mental life of human beings.
"Moses and Monotheism" might anger you, or give you some food for reflection about your faith, or be a source of inspiration, or simply blow your mind. But we are lucky to have this peek into Freud's own mind and soul. What a way to close out a brilliant career!
Receives my highest recommendation!
January 4, 2018
هذا آخر ما كتب سيجموند فرويد وقد كتبه قبل ان يموت بعام.. وهو يعرض فيه نظريته عن تاريخ نشأة التوحيد، وهو عمل يجمع بين الأنثروبولوجيا و التحليل النفسي. ويمكن ان نلخص نظرية فرويد في الآتي:
1. موسى كان مصريا، وكان أحد رجال دولة اخناتون.
2. ديانة موسى هي ديانة اخناتون أو هي مستوحاة منها بشكل أساسي.
3. عقب نهاية عصر التوحيد الاخناتوني وعودة الديانة المصرية القديمة خرج موسى من مصر مع قبائل اليهود.
3. قدم موسى ديانته التوحيدية لليهود بصورة أكثر تجريدية وأكثر نبذا لأي مظاهر شركية أو سحرية.
4. نبذ اليهود في مرحلة ما العقيدة الجديدة وقد كان من نتائج تلك الثورة قتل موسى.
5. تبنى اليهود بعد ذلك عبادة "يهوَه" الإله المحلي/القومي. لا توجد أي جذور تاريخية تربط بين موسى الآتي من مصر و"يهوَه" الذي هو إله محلى كانت نشأته الأولى في مكان ما في الشرق الأدنى.
6. موسى العهد القديم ليس شخصا واحدا ولكن شخصان تم دمجهما لأسباب سياسية ودينية في شخص واحد: احدهما موسى الخروج والثاني هو موسى المدياني الذي جعل من الديانة اليهودية ديانة قومية محلية.
7. لاقى التوحيد الموسوى فترة "كمون" في نفوس اليهود ما لبث أن بُعثت مرة أخرى مساهمة في وضع الصياغة النهائية لدين اليهود الذي يجمع بين ما هو يهوي وما هو موسوي/توحيدي. يشبه فرويد الكمون الجمعي بمفهوم الكمون في التحليل النفسي. ويعتبر فرويد بعث فكرة التوحيد بعد قتل مؤسسها مجرد صياغة أخرى لعبادة الأب / زعيم القبيلة البدائية بعد قتله وتدميره.
8. الصياغة النهائية لليهودية صبغتها الأساسية هي التوحيدية مع وجود رواسب يهوية لها الطابع الديني القومي الضيق بل والمعارض لأصل التوحيد أحيانا.
هذا ملخص مركز جدا لأغلب افكار الكتاب.. والكتاب فيه معدل عال من تكرار الأفكار مما يوحي بأن الفكرة لم تكن كاملة النضج حين الكتابة.. فالفكرة يتم كتابتها في اكثر من موضع مع اختلافات بالزيادة او النقصان في كل موضع.. وهذه هي سمات الكتابات التأسيسية..
لكن الذي يقلل من قيمة الكتاب حقا هو الانتقائية التي ظهرت في:
1. الآراء التاريخية/الأنثروبولوجية التي بنى عليها فكرته. وقد برر أخذه بآراء طالها النقد الحديث بأنه غير متخصص في التاريخ للترجيح، وأنه محلل نفسي أخذ فقط بالرأي الذي يرى أنه يدعم فكرته التحليلية النفسية.
2. النصوص التاريخية من العهد القديم التي اختارها لدعم فكرته.. وقد برر ذلك بأن نص العهد القديم طاله التحريف أو إعادة الصياغة لأسباب سياسية ودينية قومية وبالتالي فليست كل النصوص التي فيه تعتبر نصوصا لها نفس المصداقية التاريخية. هذا كلام جيد ولكن متى نعتبر النص له مصداقية تاريخية ومتى نعتبره نصا محرفا لغرض ما؟
3. كل الافتراضات التي افترضها هو عن علاقة موسى بمصر بعبادة آتون، كل هذه الفروض على أهميتها هي وليدة محض تخمين.
في اللحظة - التي جاءت متاخرة في الكتاب - التي يخبر فيها فرويد أنه ليس مؤرخا بل هو محلل نفسي محاولا التركيز على العمل التحليلي النفسي في كتابه بدلا من العمل التأريخي تتأكد خيبة أمل القارئ، ويتساءل في أسى: ولماذا كانت كل تلك الفروض والترجيحات التاريخية؟ هل هي فقط لخدمة فكرة يريد أن يعرضها فرويد في نشأة التوحيد كما يرى؟
فالكتاب يدرس موضوعا شيقا وهاما وشائكا.. ولكنها ليست دراسة موضوعية ناضجة بقدر ما هي محاولة أولية للدراسة على درجة عالية من الانتقائية وقلة المجهود المبذول لدعم الفكرة بالأدلة القوية.
1. موسى كان مصريا، وكان أحد رجال دولة اخناتون.
2. ديانة موسى هي ديانة اخناتون أو هي مستوحاة منها بشكل أساسي.
3. عقب نهاية عصر التوحيد الاخناتوني وعودة الديانة المصرية القديمة خرج موسى من مصر مع قبائل اليهود.
3. قدم موسى ديانته التوحيدية لليهود بصورة أكثر تجريدية وأكثر نبذا لأي مظاهر شركية أو سحرية.
4. نبذ اليهود في مرحلة ما العقيدة الجديدة وقد كان من نتائج تلك الثورة قتل موسى.
5. تبنى اليهود بعد ذلك عبادة "يهوَه" الإله المحلي/القومي. لا توجد أي جذور تاريخية تربط بين موسى الآتي من مصر و"يهوَه" الذي هو إله محلى كانت نشأته الأولى في مكان ما في الشرق الأدنى.
6. موسى العهد القديم ليس شخصا واحدا ولكن شخصان تم دمجهما لأسباب سياسية ودينية في شخص واحد: احدهما موسى الخروج والثاني هو موسى المدياني الذي جعل من الديانة اليهودية ديانة قومية محلية.
7. لاقى التوحيد الموسوى فترة "كمون" في نفوس اليهود ما لبث أن بُعثت مرة أخرى مساهمة في وضع الصياغة النهائية لدين اليهود الذي يجمع بين ما هو يهوي وما هو موسوي/توحيدي. يشبه فرويد الكمون الجمعي بمفهوم الكمون في التحليل النفسي. ويعتبر فرويد بعث فكرة التوحيد بعد قتل مؤسسها مجرد صياغة أخرى لعبادة الأب / زعيم القبيلة البدائية بعد قتله وتدميره.
8. الصياغة النهائية لليهودية صبغتها الأساسية هي التوحيدية مع وجود رواسب يهوية لها الطابع الديني القومي الضيق بل والمعارض لأصل التوحيد أحيانا.
هذا ملخص مركز جدا لأغلب افكار الكتاب.. والكتاب فيه معدل عال من تكرار الأفكار مما يوحي بأن الفكرة لم تكن كاملة النضج حين الكتابة.. فالفكرة يتم كتابتها في اكثر من موضع مع اختلافات بالزيادة او النقصان في كل موضع.. وهذه هي سمات الكتابات التأسيسية..
لكن الذي يقلل من قيمة الكتاب حقا هو الانتقائية التي ظهرت في:
1. الآراء التاريخية/الأنثروبولوجية التي بنى عليها فكرته. وقد برر أخذه بآراء طالها النقد الحديث بأنه غير متخصص في التاريخ للترجيح، وأنه محلل نفسي أخذ فقط بالرأي الذي يرى أنه يدعم فكرته التحليلية النفسية.
2. النصوص التاريخية من العهد القديم التي اختارها لدعم فكرته.. وقد برر ذلك بأن نص العهد القديم طاله التحريف أو إعادة الصياغة لأسباب سياسية ودينية قومية وبالتالي فليست كل النصوص التي فيه تعتبر نصوصا لها نفس المصداقية التاريخية. هذا كلام جيد ولكن متى نعتبر النص له مصداقية تاريخية ومتى نعتبره نصا محرفا لغرض ما؟
3. كل الافتراضات التي افترضها هو عن علاقة موسى بمصر بعبادة آتون، كل هذه الفروض على أهميتها هي وليدة محض تخمين.
في اللحظة - التي جاءت متاخرة في الكتاب - التي يخبر فيها فرويد أنه ليس مؤرخا بل هو محلل نفسي محاولا التركيز على العمل التحليلي النفسي في كتابه بدلا من العمل التأريخي تتأكد خيبة أمل القارئ، ويتساءل في أسى: ولماذا كانت كل تلك الفروض والترجيحات التاريخية؟ هل هي فقط لخدمة فكرة يريد أن يعرضها فرويد في نشأة التوحيد كما يرى؟
فالكتاب يدرس موضوعا شيقا وهاما وشائكا.. ولكنها ليست دراسة موضوعية ناضجة بقدر ما هي محاولة أولية للدراسة على درجة عالية من الانتقائية وقلة المجهود المبذول لدعم الفكرة بالأدلة القوية.
December 21, 2009
In our time, there seem to be a few ways of defining Jews in a world very largely of non-Jews: 1) As practitioners of one of the main world religions; 2) As a people whose ethnicity was hit not long ago by genocidal European Holocaust ; 3) As Diaspora auxiliary or citizens of the state of Israel situated precariously among Muslim countries to one extent or another hostile to that state; 4) As humans educated disproportionately to their global numbers; 5) As workers disproportionately numbered in the global ranks of business and the professions and with commensurate positions of relative authority. Precarious. Defensive. Resented. Targeted.
Much in and around those defining boundaries cannot be taken at the face value the list seems neutrally to set out. In the minds of some, to be a Jew is to be a bit strange, even, still, suspect of something one might not suspect anyone else of. The history of Jews in relation to other peoples cannot remotely be handled here, nor is it being handled by an intellectual master like Freud in his book. What might be pointed out is the delicacy with which Moses and Monotheism feels it must proceed.
The text itself starts more than once, first when Freud began his project in Vienna and wondered at the reception it might get from Catholic authorities, and then again when he emigrated to England, a freer place, but at a yet more dangerous time, after the Nazi Anschluss with Austria. To be a Jew then was to be marked by a political anthropology aimed to eliminate them. From our vantage, we see the results. Freud could only suspect, but his eyes were open.
Ironically, MAM has taken lumps as a work jeopardizing Jewish ‘standing�. To orthodox minds � to all, perhaps, revolted by the mass exterminations � a work analyzing the source of Judaism and seeming to undermine its authenticity, seems somehow complicit, what we might consider today an ‘enabling� attitude, what devout Jews see most assimilation as being: self-deceptive distancing and a kind of self-hatred.
But, unfair as that charge may be, it certainly shouldn’t be directed at this book, since Freud gives no solace to anti-Semites, whom he disdains. Critics of Freud took him to task years before not just for upsetting religious orientations, but for challenging the Victorian air everyone at that time breathed. His sacrilege � if we wish to call it that � was both his dedication to science and his stretching its borders to the edge of myth. The scientific view of the modern sensibility simply had no room for religion or myth as explanation.
Even many of the scientists, though, would take issue with speculations Freud makes, but the bones they would pick would be ones of technique and procedure, strength of evidence and inconclusiveness. To the scientist, he steps over the line into speculative philosophy. He’s too mythic. To the theologian, he’s blasphemous.
Freud’s science was medicine. His practice treating the mentally ill led him to define an inner-dynamic of personality development, as we know, surrounding family members, sexual feeling, and the traumas during that development, sometimes particular and unusual, but often just those brought about simply in the human nature of things. Key moments in the personality formation could be reflected in dreams and in speech � a symbolic undertone to the conscious manifest of one’s actions.
By the late 30s when Freud was writing MAM, many of these notions were commonly spoken of and part of European intellectual life. He had written other speculative works, one to which he refers and which has most relevance to MAM being Totem And Taboo, published just before the First World War. In that volume, he reconstructs a primal crime around which later civilization arises.
According to that theory, early bands of humans were ruthlessly ruled by a single male figure, a father who killed off or subjugated his sons and appropriated all the women to himself. At some point, the sons arose, killed their father, and apportioned blame and justification among themselves. The crime was so potent within their psyche, that its memory gets repressed and certain cultural manifestations arise in its stead: the father-killing gets replaced by ‘memory� of the death of a great animal which becomes the totem of the tribe, women (mothers, sisters) within the tribe become forbidden to the men, thus spurring exogamy and incest taboo.
In Moses And Monotheism, he proposes that the family dynamic he has found in his clinical work and which he extended to cultural formation is no less applicable to the way religion developed in the Western world.
At least two things would offend Jews � and Christians, who also follow Biblical authority:
1) The idea of monotheism did not originate with the Jews, but with Ikhnaton, the Egyptian pharaoh; and 2) There were two ‘Moseses�, the first an Egyptian adherent of Aton, the one god. This Moses banded with the Hebrews and departed Egypt. The second was a leader linked to Midianites. They killed the first Moses, but in a syncretic act, commingled with the ‘wilderness� Hebrews.
The encountered Midianite god was YHWH, fierce, angry, vengeful, and � far from the universal Aton � quite tribal. In group memory, the Midianite leader took on the identity of Moses and the practice of circumcision. Not until centuries later did an oral, Levitical undercurrent resurface in the stories and laws, the ‘notional imprint� of the religion as a universal one deriving from a single � the only � God.
Freud sees in that imagined historical movement the replicated fear and wish an individual feels when confronted by great power that seems to threaten (father). Not many of us kill those with power over us, but in honesty, we all must admit that, in passing, we’ve wished to. We resolve those feelings. So, too, Judaism resolved its ‘feelings� and let re-emerge � in sublimated form to be sure � the repressed memory of its One God, the memory of whose ‘killing-off� was repressed. For Freud, human cultural and religious institutions form the way earliest human personalities form.
As stunning as those ideas might be when first encountered, the case Freud makes � given adherence to his basic theories and given his conceded reliance on the best, but sketchy, historical evidence � that case rings plausible. It can be dismissed out-of-hand � likely with shock � by readers firm in their commitment to faith, but it has to give pause to readers open to fair speculation.
Whether Freud is right is beside the point. MAM shouldn’t be seen as an atheist’s polemic, let alone an anti-Semitic tract. His boldness and integrity is clear, as is his imaginative reach. If, as a scientist, his reconstructed, speculative history does not register as ‘science�, then any claim he may have made to that label can be challenged. As myth, its explanatory power provides a fertile material grounding to the puzzle of human existence.
Much in and around those defining boundaries cannot be taken at the face value the list seems neutrally to set out. In the minds of some, to be a Jew is to be a bit strange, even, still, suspect of something one might not suspect anyone else of. The history of Jews in relation to other peoples cannot remotely be handled here, nor is it being handled by an intellectual master like Freud in his book. What might be pointed out is the delicacy with which Moses and Monotheism feels it must proceed.
The text itself starts more than once, first when Freud began his project in Vienna and wondered at the reception it might get from Catholic authorities, and then again when he emigrated to England, a freer place, but at a yet more dangerous time, after the Nazi Anschluss with Austria. To be a Jew then was to be marked by a political anthropology aimed to eliminate them. From our vantage, we see the results. Freud could only suspect, but his eyes were open.
Ironically, MAM has taken lumps as a work jeopardizing Jewish ‘standing�. To orthodox minds � to all, perhaps, revolted by the mass exterminations � a work analyzing the source of Judaism and seeming to undermine its authenticity, seems somehow complicit, what we might consider today an ‘enabling� attitude, what devout Jews see most assimilation as being: self-deceptive distancing and a kind of self-hatred.
But, unfair as that charge may be, it certainly shouldn’t be directed at this book, since Freud gives no solace to anti-Semites, whom he disdains. Critics of Freud took him to task years before not just for upsetting religious orientations, but for challenging the Victorian air everyone at that time breathed. His sacrilege � if we wish to call it that � was both his dedication to science and his stretching its borders to the edge of myth. The scientific view of the modern sensibility simply had no room for religion or myth as explanation.
Even many of the scientists, though, would take issue with speculations Freud makes, but the bones they would pick would be ones of technique and procedure, strength of evidence and inconclusiveness. To the scientist, he steps over the line into speculative philosophy. He’s too mythic. To the theologian, he’s blasphemous.
Freud’s science was medicine. His practice treating the mentally ill led him to define an inner-dynamic of personality development, as we know, surrounding family members, sexual feeling, and the traumas during that development, sometimes particular and unusual, but often just those brought about simply in the human nature of things. Key moments in the personality formation could be reflected in dreams and in speech � a symbolic undertone to the conscious manifest of one’s actions.
By the late 30s when Freud was writing MAM, many of these notions were commonly spoken of and part of European intellectual life. He had written other speculative works, one to which he refers and which has most relevance to MAM being Totem And Taboo, published just before the First World War. In that volume, he reconstructs a primal crime around which later civilization arises.
According to that theory, early bands of humans were ruthlessly ruled by a single male figure, a father who killed off or subjugated his sons and appropriated all the women to himself. At some point, the sons arose, killed their father, and apportioned blame and justification among themselves. The crime was so potent within their psyche, that its memory gets repressed and certain cultural manifestations arise in its stead: the father-killing gets replaced by ‘memory� of the death of a great animal which becomes the totem of the tribe, women (mothers, sisters) within the tribe become forbidden to the men, thus spurring exogamy and incest taboo.
In Moses And Monotheism, he proposes that the family dynamic he has found in his clinical work and which he extended to cultural formation is no less applicable to the way religion developed in the Western world.
At least two things would offend Jews � and Christians, who also follow Biblical authority:
1) The idea of monotheism did not originate with the Jews, but with Ikhnaton, the Egyptian pharaoh; and 2) There were two ‘Moseses�, the first an Egyptian adherent of Aton, the one god. This Moses banded with the Hebrews and departed Egypt. The second was a leader linked to Midianites. They killed the first Moses, but in a syncretic act, commingled with the ‘wilderness� Hebrews.
The encountered Midianite god was YHWH, fierce, angry, vengeful, and � far from the universal Aton � quite tribal. In group memory, the Midianite leader took on the identity of Moses and the practice of circumcision. Not until centuries later did an oral, Levitical undercurrent resurface in the stories and laws, the ‘notional imprint� of the religion as a universal one deriving from a single � the only � God.
Freud sees in that imagined historical movement the replicated fear and wish an individual feels when confronted by great power that seems to threaten (father). Not many of us kill those with power over us, but in honesty, we all must admit that, in passing, we’ve wished to. We resolve those feelings. So, too, Judaism resolved its ‘feelings� and let re-emerge � in sublimated form to be sure � the repressed memory of its One God, the memory of whose ‘killing-off� was repressed. For Freud, human cultural and religious institutions form the way earliest human personalities form.
As stunning as those ideas might be when first encountered, the case Freud makes � given adherence to his basic theories and given his conceded reliance on the best, but sketchy, historical evidence � that case rings plausible. It can be dismissed out-of-hand � likely with shock � by readers firm in their commitment to faith, but it has to give pause to readers open to fair speculation.
Whether Freud is right is beside the point. MAM shouldn’t be seen as an atheist’s polemic, let alone an anti-Semitic tract. His boldness and integrity is clear, as is his imaginative reach. If, as a scientist, his reconstructed, speculative history does not register as ‘science�, then any claim he may have made to that label can be challenged. As myth, its explanatory power provides a fertile material grounding to the puzzle of human existence.
December 7, 2011
في مطلع الفصل الأول سعى فرويد في تحليل الوجه التاريخية لإثبات أن موسى النبي محرر الشعب اليهودي ومشّرعه , كان مصرياً لا يهودياً .
وذكر فرويد أن موسى إذا كان مصرياً , ويعلِّم ديانته لليهود , فهي بلا شك , ديانة أخناتون , وليست ديانة الشعب المصري , وهذا ما سيتطلب منه أن ينظر في ديانة الشعب المصري ويؤكد على كل ما يعارضها , آخذا بنظر الإعتبار أن ديانة أخناتون هي عبادة إله الشمس ( أتون ) التي تحولت في العبرية الى عبادة الرب ( أدوناي ) الذي ليست له علاقة بتقديس الشمس .
شبه آخر بين ديانة أخناتون التوحيدية , والديانة اليهودية هو موقفهما المتشابه من الموت وحياة ما بعد الموت , وهذه أيضا أعتبرها فرويد نقطة جوهرية للتشابه بين الديانتين .
وهذا ما ترتكز النقطة الأساسية في أطروحته , يعني بها تبيعه التوحيد اليهودي للحقبة التوحيدية في التاريخ المصري , !وعلاقتها بسقوط ديانة آتون الرسمية التي كانت بمثابة النهاية التامة للحركة التوحيدية في مصر , وحتى باعتبار فرض أن موسى لم يكن معاصراً لإخناتون وباعتبار أن النبي لم يتعرض لتأثير هذا الملك الشخصي , فلاشيء يحظر علي الاعتقاد بأن موسى استمر بعد وفاة أخناتون بتلقي التدريس من الكهنة التي قامت تدريس الأجيال وتعليمها بفترة طويلة .
*
يملك اليهود أدبا غنيا خارج إطار التوراة , نلغى فيه الخرافات والأساطير تراكمت على مر العصور حول شخصية الزعيم , مؤسس الديانة فشوهت هذا الوجه ولعل ببعض أجزاء من المأثور الصالح في هذه المادة الغريزة قد أبيدت بعد ان تعذر عليها أن تجد لها مكانا في " أسفار موسى الخمسة "
فتصف واحدة من هذه الخرافات وصفاً أخاذا كيف تجلى كبرياء موسى من نعومة إظفاره , بموقف مداعبة فرعون لموسى الطفل في سنة الثالثة وكيف انتزع موسى تاج الملك ووضعه على رأسه , مما دهش من ذلك فرعون واسترشد من القوم عن دلالة هذا الحدث .
سعى فرويد على خلق مقاربة في سمة النبي موسى في ثقل اللسان التي ذكرت بكتاب الأسفار , وما فيه من علة في التعبير أو من عيب في النطق قد اضطرة إلى أن يستعين بهارون الذي يقال انه كان أخاه في مناقشاته المزعومة مع فرعون .
وأستنتج من هذه الطريقة الملتوية بأن موسى كان أجنبيا يعجز , على الأقل في بدء علاقاته مع المصريي�� الجدد الساميين , وعن الاتصال بهم بدون معونة مترجم , وهذا مؤيد أطروحته : أن موسى كان مصرياً .
ناقش أيضا أصل اللاوين ومسألة أصل اللاويين تشكل واحدا من أعظم الغاز ما قبل تاريخ اليهود ونسبهم يرجع عادة إلى واحد من أسباط إسرائيل الأنثى عشر , سبط لاوي ولكن لايجرؤ أي مأثور ان يحدد من أين جاء هذا السبط أو ان يعين أي منطقة من بلاد كنعان المغزوة خصت له وكانوا يشتغلون في مراتب رجال الدين ارفع المناصب , مع تميزهم في الوقت نفسه عن الكهنة فاللاوي ليس بالضرورة كاهنا وهذا الاسم ليس اسما لطائفة .
وإفتراض فرويد هُنا , عن موسى توحي بالتفسير من المستحيل أن يكون شخص عظيم كالمصري موسى قد مثل مواكبة إمام شعب أجنبي .
بل كان يرافقه بالتأكيد حاشية, من أنصار مقربون كتبة , وخدم هؤلاء جميعا كانوا اللاويين الأوائل , وهذا التفسير المأثور يشوه ظاهرة الوقائع فاللاوين كانوا بطانة موسى .
ويمعن النظر في واحدة من سمات الطبع لدى اليهود لها الغلبة على ما عداهم في سماتهم مع سائر الناس ,! تكمن في انطباعهم حول أنفسهم بإيجابية وتفوق , وانهم يعدون ذواتهم انبل واسمى وأرفع من الآخرين الذي ما تزال تفصلهم عنهم بعض عاداتهم ,وهم يحافظون في الوقت نفسه على نوع من الثقة بالحياة والطمأنينة في السر موهبة , .
فاليهود يؤمنون حقاً بأنهم شعب الله المختار , ويحسبون أنهم أقرب ما يكونون آيه وهذا ما يحضهم الثقة والكبرياء والتعالي .
فعرض النبي موسى التوحيد لليهود وكان أول من أعطى فكرة الإلـه الواحد , كما أضاف لليهود طقوس الختان ، مع الإعتبار أيضا بأنها سمة من سمات الديانة المصرية خلافا لما ورد في الكتاب المقدس , وقتل موسى، ولكن في نهاية المطاف , دين موسى يتغلب على السلالة الثانية من اليهودية لتصبح اليهودية التي نعرفها اليوم .
ينتهى فرويد بناقش تطور توحيد اليهودية من مدرسة التحليل النفسي ، وكيف تم قمع دين موسى فترة ولكن عادت إلى الظهور في نهاية المطاف لتأخذ مكانها الصحيح .
* ملاحظة
الكتاب أكثر من رائع بالرغم أنه لايخلو من الشوائب ,! فلغة الترجمة معقدة وسيئة وأيضا قد يعكس على القارئ إنطباع بشعور تخوف فرويد من بعض ردود الفعل وكثرة تبريراته - تُبين عدم جرأة سيقموند في تناول هذا الطرح الفلسفي - حسب ماذكر المترجم أن الكتاب جلس في خفاء مدة طويلة ولم يتم نشره إلا قبل وفاتة بعام .
وذكر فرويد أن موسى إذا كان مصرياً , ويعلِّم ديانته لليهود , فهي بلا شك , ديانة أخناتون , وليست ديانة الشعب المصري , وهذا ما سيتطلب منه أن ينظر في ديانة الشعب المصري ويؤكد على كل ما يعارضها , آخذا بنظر الإعتبار أن ديانة أخناتون هي عبادة إله الشمس ( أتون ) التي تحولت في العبرية الى عبادة الرب ( أدوناي ) الذي ليست له علاقة بتقديس الشمس .
شبه آخر بين ديانة أخناتون التوحيدية , والديانة اليهودية هو موقفهما المتشابه من الموت وحياة ما بعد الموت , وهذه أيضا أعتبرها فرويد نقطة جوهرية للتشابه بين الديانتين .
وهذا ما ترتكز النقطة الأساسية في أطروحته , يعني بها تبيعه التوحيد اليهودي للحقبة التوحيدية في التاريخ المصري , !وعلاقتها بسقوط ديانة آتون الرسمية التي كانت بمثابة النهاية التامة للحركة التوحيدية في مصر , وحتى باعتبار فرض أن موسى لم يكن معاصراً لإخناتون وباعتبار أن النبي لم يتعرض لتأثير هذا الملك الشخصي , فلاشيء يحظر علي الاعتقاد بأن موسى استمر بعد وفاة أخناتون بتلقي التدريس من الكهنة التي قامت تدريس الأجيال وتعليمها بفترة طويلة .
*
يملك اليهود أدبا غنيا خارج إطار التوراة , نلغى فيه الخرافات والأساطير تراكمت على مر العصور حول شخصية الزعيم , مؤسس الديانة فشوهت هذا الوجه ولعل ببعض أجزاء من المأثور الصالح في هذه المادة الغريزة قد أبيدت بعد ان تعذر عليها أن تجد لها مكانا في " أسفار موسى الخمسة "
فتصف واحدة من هذه الخرافات وصفاً أخاذا كيف تجلى كبرياء موسى من نعومة إظفاره , بموقف مداعبة فرعون لموسى الطفل في سنة الثالثة وكيف انتزع موسى تاج الملك ووضعه على رأسه , مما دهش من ذلك فرعون واسترشد من القوم عن دلالة هذا الحدث .
سعى فرويد على خلق مقاربة في سمة النبي موسى في ثقل اللسان التي ذكرت بكتاب الأسفار , وما فيه من علة في التعبير أو من عيب في النطق قد اضطرة إلى أن يستعين بهارون الذي يقال انه كان أخاه في مناقشاته المزعومة مع فرعون .
وأستنتج من هذه الطريقة الملتوية بأن موسى كان أجنبيا يعجز , على الأقل في بدء علاقاته مع المصريي�� الجدد الساميين , وعن الاتصال بهم بدون معونة مترجم , وهذا مؤيد أطروحته : أن موسى كان مصرياً .
ناقش أيضا أصل اللاوين ومسألة أصل اللاويين تشكل واحدا من أعظم الغاز ما قبل تاريخ اليهود ونسبهم يرجع عادة إلى واحد من أسباط إسرائيل الأنثى عشر , سبط لاوي ولكن لايجرؤ أي مأثور ان يحدد من أين جاء هذا السبط أو ان يعين أي منطقة من بلاد كنعان المغزوة خصت له وكانوا يشتغلون في مراتب رجال الدين ارفع المناصب , مع تميزهم في الوقت نفسه عن الكهنة فاللاوي ليس بالضرورة كاهنا وهذا الاسم ليس اسما لطائفة .
وإفتراض فرويد هُنا , عن موسى توحي بالتفسير من المستحيل أن يكون شخص عظيم كالمصري موسى قد مثل مواكبة إمام شعب أجنبي .
بل كان يرافقه بالتأكيد حاشية, من أنصار مقربون كتبة , وخدم هؤلاء جميعا كانوا اللاويين الأوائل , وهذا التفسير المأثور يشوه ظاهرة الوقائع فاللاوين كانوا بطانة موسى .
ويمعن النظر في واحدة من سمات الطبع لدى اليهود لها الغلبة على ما عداهم في سماتهم مع سائر الناس ,! تكمن في انطباعهم حول أنفسهم بإيجابية وتفوق , وانهم يعدون ذواتهم انبل واسمى وأرفع من الآخرين الذي ما تزال تفصلهم عنهم بعض عاداتهم ,وهم يحافظون في الوقت نفسه على نوع من الثقة بالحياة والطمأنينة في السر موهبة , .
فاليهود يؤمنون حقاً بأنهم شعب الله المختار , ويحسبون أنهم أقرب ما يكونون آيه وهذا ما يحضهم الثقة والكبرياء والتعالي .
فعرض النبي موسى التوحيد لليهود وكان أول من أعطى فكرة الإلـه الواحد , كما أضاف لليهود طقوس الختان ، مع الإعتبار أيضا بأنها سمة من سمات الديانة المصرية خلافا لما ورد في الكتاب المقدس , وقتل موسى، ولكن في نهاية المطاف , دين موسى يتغلب على السلالة الثانية من اليهودية لتصبح اليهودية التي نعرفها اليوم .
ينتهى فرويد بناقش تطور توحيد اليهودية من مدرسة التحليل النفسي ، وكيف تم قمع دين موسى فترة ولكن عادت إلى الظهور في نهاية المطاف لتأخذ مكانها الصحيح .
* ملاحظة
الكتاب أكثر من رائع بالرغم أنه لايخلو من الشوائب ,! فلغة الترجمة معقدة وسيئة وأيضا قد يعكس على القارئ إنطباع بشعور تخوف فرويد من بعض ردود الفعل وكثرة تبريراته - تُبين عدم جرأة سيقموند في تناول هذا الطرح الفلسفي - حسب ماذكر المترجم أن الكتاب جلس في خفاء مدة طويلة ولم يتم نشره إلا قبل وفاتة بعام .
February 22, 2008
This book is amazing to me, because I love learning about the origins of religion, and I never knew that Freud thought religion was just a mass neurosis, which pleased me to no end.
June 9, 2018
تجربه ی جالبی بود که از زاویه نگاه فروید به قوم خودش و حتا عیسویان نگاه کنم. دو مقاله اول کتاب چنان به شوقم آورد که تمنایی در من شکل گرفت �: کاش کسی تاریخ اسلام را هم چنین بر می رسید
June 4, 2019
Like everything Freud wrote, absolute bullshit.
April 1, 2021
کتاب موضوع جالبی داره و سوالات خوبی رو میتون� توی ذهن ایجاد کنه ولی الزاما داستانی که فروید از موسی و سیر تحول یکتاپرستی بیان میکن� داستان بی نقصی نیست و همونطور که خود فروید هم معترف هست دادهها� تاریخی ای که نظریات فروید بر اونه� بنا شده محل اشکال هست. من متن آلمانی رو با دو ترجمه� فارسی تا حدی مقایسه کردم و به نظرم ترجمه� صالح نجفی خوبه واقعا.
August 4, 2021
Multă lume fuge de Freud ca de ciumă. Pe alocuri le înțeleg reținerea, însă lecturile lui Freud te atrag de la o primă citire și apoi te fac să-i compătimești pe cei care i-au fost elevi și colaboratori; nu era o persoană prea agreabilă și devenea destul de dominant în ședințele de psihanaliză. Totuși, în ciuda numeroaselor reproșuri privind poziția sa de psihanalist și scriitor, trebuie apreciată munca acestuia cu privire la inconștient și ... cam atât.
Î Moise și monoteismul, Freud ne vorbește în prima parte despre presupunerile sale cu privire la originea lui Moise. Psihanalistul atestă că tatăl iudaismului este de origine egipteană, mose însemnând „copil�*, și că ar avea o legătură cu religia monoteistă a faraonului dinastiei a XVIII-a, Amenhotep al IV-lea (Akhenaton). Adevăr sau mit, încercarea lui Freud de a atribui iudaismul lui Moise cultului zeului Aton, sugerând că ar fi un derivat al acestuia, mi s-a părut fantastică. Dar apoi s-a luat din nou cu impulsurile libidinoase care se regăsesc în copilărie și idei despre poporul evreu ca întreg pe care nu le-am considerat verosimile. Doar pentru prima parte a cărții îi dau nota 13/10.
*Și eu fac o presupunere că s-a referit la hieroglifele
sau 
Î Moise și monoteismul, Freud ne vorbește în prima parte despre presupunerile sale cu privire la originea lui Moise. Psihanalistul atestă că tatăl iudaismului este de origine egipteană, mose însemnând „copil�*, și că ar avea o legătură cu religia monoteistă a faraonului dinastiei a XVIII-a, Amenhotep al IV-lea (Akhenaton). Adevăr sau mit, încercarea lui Freud de a atribui iudaismul lui Moise cultului zeului Aton, sugerând că ar fi un derivat al acestuia, mi s-a părut fantastică. Dar apoi s-a luat din nou cu impulsurile libidinoase care se regăsesc în copilărie și idei despre poporul evreu ca întreg pe care nu le-am considerat verosimile. Doar pentru prima parte a cărții îi dau nota 13/10.
*Și eu fac o presupunere că s-a referit la hieroglifele
sau 
Read
April 16, 2025Der Versuch einen Begriff von kulturellem Gedächtnis zu entwickeln ist schon ganz interessant und noch relativ aktuell und anschlussfähig.Am spannendsten fand ich wenn es um 'Tradition' ging, die im Buch als etwas immer erfundenes präsentiert werden, auch spannend für das Verhältnis Psychoanalyse und Geschichtswissenschaft
July 31, 2022
ترجمه جناب خاتمی به حدی سخت، ضعیف و غیر قابل فهم بود که آدم فکر می کند امکان ندارد که مترجم خودش یکبار این کتاب را خوانده باشد
February 26, 2017
Highly speculative re-imagining of the Moses myth as well as a general account of primitive religions and the transition to a monotheistic platform. I'm not sure why Freud is concerned about Moses's race. I would think most modern scholars reject the very existence of Moses.
Egypt, for a short period of time, had the Pharaoh Akhenaten who proclaimed that their existed one God. This may have been an attempt to draw a similarity between God and his own rule. That there is one god means that there should be one dominant ruler of society; Freud puts this more elegantly saying, "God was the reflection of a Pharaoh autocratically governing a great world Empire.". After his death Egypt reverted to their previous many-gods stuff. So, anyways, perhaps it is the case that Moses stole that idea.
Freud dives into the explanation of religious phenomena as a model of neurotic symptoms of the individual. (he also does some weird transition from the causes of these symptoms in the individual to groups of people; going so far as to suggest that people have generational memory. Thus we identify with 'God' because our primitive selves identified with the Father of a tribe.)
Much of Freud's psycho-analytic techniques used are lost on me. I enjoy the idea of the neurotic stages though: "early trauma - defense - latency - outbreak of the neurosis - partial return of the repressed material." I just don't see it working as simply as he posits it to work on a whole race of people.
There is an interesting history concerning the publication of this book. Freud wrote the first two small parts and published them in Germany. These consist of the speculation that Moses is Egyptian and the significance that may hold. Due to the rise of the Nazis, Freud feared to release the third, more significant and risque, part of the book. He left to England and eventually published it, still in fear that he would lose valuable friends over the ordeal. Now, based on the fact that Freud died in the same year as Freud died, I doubt he felt much negative impact from the publication. He states in 1938, while still in Vienna, "[the book] may lie hid until the light of day, or until someone else who reaches the same opinions and conclusions can be told: 'In darker days there lived a man who thought as you did.'"
I think Freud thinks too highly of his psychological process for determining history. Just because something makes 'psychological sense' does not mean that it occurred. Freud treats psycho-analysis like we would now treat physics, or any of the more testable and reliable sciences. I think this book works better as an interesting literary speculation and interpretation of unreliable historical texts and inferences drawn from archeology and biology.
Egypt, for a short period of time, had the Pharaoh Akhenaten who proclaimed that their existed one God. This may have been an attempt to draw a similarity between God and his own rule. That there is one god means that there should be one dominant ruler of society; Freud puts this more elegantly saying, "God was the reflection of a Pharaoh autocratically governing a great world Empire.". After his death Egypt reverted to their previous many-gods stuff. So, anyways, perhaps it is the case that Moses stole that idea.
Freud dives into the explanation of religious phenomena as a model of neurotic symptoms of the individual. (he also does some weird transition from the causes of these symptoms in the individual to groups of people; going so far as to suggest that people have generational memory. Thus we identify with 'God' because our primitive selves identified with the Father of a tribe.)
Much of Freud's psycho-analytic techniques used are lost on me. I enjoy the idea of the neurotic stages though: "early trauma - defense - latency - outbreak of the neurosis - partial return of the repressed material." I just don't see it working as simply as he posits it to work on a whole race of people.
There is an interesting history concerning the publication of this book. Freud wrote the first two small parts and published them in Germany. These consist of the speculation that Moses is Egyptian and the significance that may hold. Due to the rise of the Nazis, Freud feared to release the third, more significant and risque, part of the book. He left to England and eventually published it, still in fear that he would lose valuable friends over the ordeal. Now, based on the fact that Freud died in the same year as Freud died, I doubt he felt much negative impact from the publication. He states in 1938, while still in Vienna, "[the book] may lie hid until the light of day, or until someone else who reaches the same opinions and conclusions can be told: 'In darker days there lived a man who thought as you did.'"
I think Freud thinks too highly of his psychological process for determining history. Just because something makes 'psychological sense' does not mean that it occurred. Freud treats psycho-analysis like we would now treat physics, or any of the more testable and reliable sciences. I think this book works better as an interesting literary speculation and interpretation of unreliable historical texts and inferences drawn from archeology and biology.
June 19, 2015
1.
This book is stylistically genius, who else could get away with saying...
"No other people of the eastern Mediterranean [besides the Egyptians], as far as we know, has followed this custom; we can assume with certainty that the Semites, Babylonians, and Sumerians were not circumcised...If Moses gave the news not only a new religion, but also the law of circumision, he was no Jew, but an Egyptian, and then the Mosaic religion was probably an Egyptian one."
(But actually Freud's psychoanalysis of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is fascinating, and spawned the debate on Judaism in the Freudian Archive, which spawned the debate which became 'Archive Fever' )
2. I am reading Moses and Monotheism again after having romped through a more thorough selection of the rest of Freud's ouevre. I have to say that it is no longer as impressive as it was to me, but only because it numbers among the best and not as the best. This is a brilliant book, a fantastical reconstruction of biblical history through a series of (actually rather plausible) linguistic analysis, an argument for the basis of monotheism in human psychology, and a fantastic example of a book that repeats itself and yet manages something new in the repetition.
This book is stylistically genius, who else could get away with saying...
"No other people of the eastern Mediterranean [besides the Egyptians], as far as we know, has followed this custom; we can assume with certainty that the Semites, Babylonians, and Sumerians were not circumcised...If Moses gave the news not only a new religion, but also the law of circumision, he was no Jew, but an Egyptian, and then the Mosaic religion was probably an Egyptian one."
(But actually Freud's psychoanalysis of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is fascinating, and spawned the debate on Judaism in the Freudian Archive, which spawned the debate which became 'Archive Fever' )
2. I am reading Moses and Monotheism again after having romped through a more thorough selection of the rest of Freud's ouevre. I have to say that it is no longer as impressive as it was to me, but only because it numbers among the best and not as the best. This is a brilliant book, a fantastical reconstruction of biblical history through a series of (actually rather plausible) linguistic analysis, an argument for the basis of monotheism in human psychology, and a fantastic example of a book that repeats itself and yet manages something new in the repetition.
Read
May 7, 2016برای من که زیاد آشنا نیستم با روانکاوی، کل کتاب مثل یک طرحه. طرحی برای به کار گیری روانکاوی در یک محتوای دیگه و به قول فروید روانکاوی جامعه (در مقابل روانکاوی فرد). البته این حرفیه که خود فروید بارها در کتاب تکرار میکنه. این که میگم به نظر من، برای اینه که نباید انتظار یک رویکرد تاریخی یا حتی روانکاوی خیلی سفت و سخت از کتاب داشت. بارها به جاهایی برمیخوری که فروید خیلی صادقانه نشون میده که داره تصورش رو با ما در میون میاره و نه بیشتر؛ و خیلی وقته� با سوالاتی که جوابشون رو مسکوت میاره.
کتاب ظاهرا از آخرین آثار فرویده. بینظم� و آشفتگی درش دیده میشه. و در حقیقت دو قسمت هست. قسمتی که در اتریش نوشته شده بوده و فکر کنم قسمتهاییش در مجلات چاپ شده بوده (که الان در مورد چاپ شدنشون حضور ذهن ندارم). و بخشها� بعدی مربوط به سال ۱۹۳۸ میشه که فروید به لدن پناه برده بوده از چنگ نازیها� مهاجم به اتریش. به هر ترتیب، نویسنده کاملا خستهس� و انگار فقط میخواد حرفی نپخته رو بگه تا از چنگال مرگ نجاتش بده. اینطوره که بهش میگم طرح. و البته این طرح ا نظر من دیوانه کننده و ویران کننده اومد.
خبری از حواشی کتاب، واکنشهای� که ایجاد کرده و انتقادات و پیروانش و نظرات بعد در این راستا رو ندارم. چیزی که نوشتم تنها حس یک عامی نسبت به ماجرا بود و بس.
کتاب ظاهرا از آخرین آثار فرویده. بینظم� و آشفتگی درش دیده میشه. و در حقیقت دو قسمت هست. قسمتی که در اتریش نوشته شده بوده و فکر کنم قسمتهاییش در مجلات چاپ شده بوده (که الان در مورد چاپ شدنشون حضور ذهن ندارم). و بخشها� بعدی مربوط به سال ۱۹۳۸ میشه که فروید به لدن پناه برده بوده از چنگ نازیها� مهاجم به اتریش. به هر ترتیب، نویسنده کاملا خستهس� و انگار فقط میخواد حرفی نپخته رو بگه تا از چنگال مرگ نجاتش بده. اینطوره که بهش میگم طرح. و البته این طرح ا نظر من دیوانه کننده و ویران کننده اومد.
خبری از حواشی کتاب، واکنشهای� که ایجاد کرده و انتقادات و پیروانش و نظرات بعد در این راستا رو ندارم. چیزی که نوشتم تنها حس یک عامی نسبت به ماجرا بود و بس.
December 1, 2015
فرويد في هذا الكتاب يحاول ربط تخصصه و هو التحليل النفسي بمنشأ الاديان التوحيدية
الجزء التاريخي الخاص بموسي و اخناتون جاء جيد و ان كنت اتوق أكثر
اما الجزء الخاص بعلم النفس فجاء ثقيلا لم افهمه كله و ان كنت اعتقد ان الانثروبولجيا ستكون أفضل في هذا الجزء و خصوصا في تشابه قصص البطل او المخلص
ارجع لكتاب جوزيف كامبل : البطل بالف وجه في هذا الخصوص
الجزء التاريخي الخاص بموسي و اخناتون جاء جيد و ان كنت اتوق أكثر
اما الجزء الخاص بعلم النفس فجاء ثقيلا لم افهمه كله و ان كنت اعتقد ان الانثروبولجيا ستكون أفضل في هذا الجزء و خصوصا في تشابه قصص البطل او المخلص
ارجع لكتاب جوزيف كامبل : البطل بالف وجه في هذا الخصوص
February 26, 2017
این کتاب یکی از کتاب های خواندنی و بسیار جذاب فروید است، به ویژه خواندن این کتاب در کنار کتاب «آیندۀ یک پندار» نگاهی ژرف به دین و دین داری از دیدگاه روانکاوی به خواننده میدهد. ترجمه کتاب نیز بسیار خوب و دقیق و دلنشین است.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 275 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.