In truth, Agur gives utterance to a natural sentiment of awe and wonder

at the greatest and darkest of all mysteries whose roots lie buried in

the depths of the two worlds we conceive of. What could be more

awe-inspiring than the instantaneous metamorphosis of pure immaterial

will into concrete flesh and blood, throbbing with life hastening to

decay, the incarnation in the sphere of appearances of an act of the one

being which is not an appearance only, but the denizen of the world of

reality? Will is primary, real, enduring; intellect secondary,

accidental, fleeting; the one, abiding for ever, is identical in all

things; the latter varies in different beings, nay in the same

individuals at various times, and perishes with the brain, of which it is

a function. Will is devoid of intellect, as intellect is deprived of

velleity. We know will through our inner consciousness which has to do

exclusively with it and its manifold manifestations; all other

things--the world of appearances--we know through what may be termed our

outer consciousness.

Now in our self-consciousness we apprehend the fierce, blind, headstrong

sexual impulse as the most powerful motion of concentrated will. The act

is marked by the spontaneity, impetuosity, and lack of reflection which

characterises the agent, will being by nature unenlightened and

unconditioned. And yet that which in our inner consciousness is a blind,

vehement impulse, appears in our outer consciousness in the form of the

most complex living organism we know. Generation, then, is manifestly the

point at which the real and the seeming intersect each other.

Birth and death--the inevitable lot of each and every one--would seem to

affect the individual only, the race living on without change or decay.

This, however, is but the appearance. In reality the individual and the

race are one. The blind striving to live, the will that craves existence

at all costs, is absolutely the same in both, as complete in the former

as in the latter, and the perpetuity of the race is, so to say, but the

symbol of the indestructibility of the individual--_i.e._, of will.

Now this all-important fact is exemplified quite as clearly by the

phenomenon of generation as by the process of decay and death. In both we

behold the opposition between the appearance and the essence of the

being, between the world as it exists in our intellect as representation,

and the world as it really is, as will. The act of generation is known to

us through two different media: that of the inner consciousness which is

taken up with our will and all its movements, and that of our outer

consciousness which has to do with impressions received through the

senses. Seen through the former medium, the act is the most complete and

immediate satisfaction of the will--sensual lust; viewed in the light

supplied by the outer consciousness, it appears as the woof of the most

intricate texture, the basis of the most complex of living organisms.

From this angle of vision, the result is a work of amazing skill,

designed with the greatest ingenuity and forethought, and carried out

with patient industry and scrupulous care; from that point of view it is

the direct outcome of an act which is the negation of plan, forethought,

skill, and ingenuity, a blind unreasoning impulse. This contrast or

rather opposition between the seeming and the real, this new view of

birth and death, this sudden flash of light athwart the impenetrable

darkness, is what provokes the wonder of this scoffing sceptic.[185]

In the fourth saying, Agur mentions, among the persons whom the earth

cannot endure, a low-bred fellow who is set to rule over others, and a

fool when he acquires a competency and becomes independent. The anonymous

Pharisee, who keeps a vigilant watch for doctrinal slips and political

backslidings and frequently finds them where they are not, descries in

the first of the four unbearable things a proof that Agur was a Sadducee

and an aristocrat who would rather obey a monarch who is "every inch a

king"--even though he be a heathen--than a native clodhopper who should

climb up to the throne on the backs of a poor deluded people and grind

them down in the sacred name of liberty and independence. Agur is

therefore duly reprimanded and classed with the shameless oppressors of

the multitude and the devourers of the substance of the poor,[186] as the

Sadducees generally were by their Pharisaic opponents.

The sentence that follows, enumerating the things "which are little upon

the earth,[187] is not from the pen of our philosopher, but a harmless

passage inserted subsequently as a _pendant_ to the four things

which "are comely in going." The main considerations that point to this

conclusion and warrant us in ascribing the verses to a different author

are these: all the other "numerical sayings" which are admittedly the

work of Agur, contain first of all the number three and in the parallel

verse four,[188] whereas this sentence speaks of four only. Again, all

Agur's proverbs are in the form of strophes of six lines each; but this

passage consists of five distichs. Lastly, it is a manifest digression,

leads nowhither, and, what is still more important, has no point, as all

Agur's sayings have.[189]

The final sentence of this interesting fragment needs no elaborate

explanation: it contains the pith of Agur's practical philosophy in the

form of an exhortation to renounce honour, glory, the esteem of men, &c.,

if we possess legitimate claims to such, and still more if we have none;

the acquisition of peace and quiet is cheap at the price of obscurity;

freedom from care and worry and from the evils they bring in their train,

being of infinitely greater value than the chance and even the certainty

of so-called "positive" enjoyments.

Footnotes:

[174] Prov. xxx. 4.

[175] The Hebrew text consists of vowelless words. The correct vowels

must be ascertained before the meaning of a word or sentence can

be definitely established. The vowel points of our Hebrew Bibles

are not older than the seventh century A.D., and are frequently

erroneous. In the present case the word stealing does not occur

in the text, but only the being stolen--viz., seduction, temptation.

[176] I employ the word in its natural, not in its conventional, sense.

[177] Prov. xxx. 21, 22.

[178] _Ibid_ xxx. 10.

[179] The word "barren" added in our Bibles (Hebrew _'oçzer_,

"barrenness") is not only excluded by the metre, but is also

wanting in the Septuagint version--conclusive proofs that it is a

later interpolation.

[180] _Cf_. Schopenhauer, "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung," herausg.

v. E. Grisebach, ii. p. 585. Grisebach's is the only correct edition

of Schopenhauer's works.

[181] Prov. xxx. 11.

[182] _Ib_. xxx. 18, 19.

[183] _Ib_. xxx. 11.

[184] _Ib_. xxx. 17.

[185] _Cf_. Schopenhauer, "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung," vol. ii.

p. 583 fol.; also vol. i. pp. 424-426; and Bickell, "Wiener

Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes," 1891.

[186] Prov. xxx. 19.

[187] _Ib_. xxx. 24-28.

[188] For example, Prov. xxx. 15:

"There are three things that are never satisfied,

Yea, four things say not, 'It is enough!'"

[189] _Cf_. Bickell, "Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des

Morgenlandes," 1891.

* * * * *

DATE OF COMPOSITION

The sayings of Agur cannot possibly be assigned to a date later than the

close of third century B.C. The ground for this statement is contained in

the circumstance that Jesus Sirach found the Book of Proverbs in

existence, with all its component parts and in its present shape, about

the year 200 B.C. He mentions a collection of proverbial sayings when

alluding to Solomon and his proverbs. Jesus Sirach's canon--if we can

apply this technical term to the series of scriptures in vogue in his

day--comprised the books contained in our Bibles from Genesis to Kings,

further Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, the twelve Minor Prophets, Psalms,

Proverbs, and Job. Moreover, it is no longer open to doubt that the

arrangement of the various parts of the Book of Proverbs which he read

was identical with that of ours. For the last part of this Book contains

an alphabetical poem in praise of a good housewife,[190] and Jesus Sirach

concluded his own work with a similar poem upon wisdom, in which he

imitated this alphabetical order. It is obvious, therefore, that Proverbs

in their present form could not have been compiled later than the date of

Jesus Sirach's work (about 200 B.C.). This conclusion is borne out by the

circumstance that the final editor of Proverbs in his introduction,[191]

mentions the Words of the Wise, which occur in chapters xxii. 17-xxiv.,

and "their dark sayings," or riddles, by which he obviously means the

sentences of Agur. For Proverbs and for Agur's fragment, therefore, the

latest date is the beginning of the second century B.C. Chapter xxx., in

which, on the one hand, Agur develops very advanced philosophical views,

some of them of Indian origin, and, on the other, his anonymous

antagonist breathes the narrow, fanatic spirit so thoroughly

characteristic of the later "Mosaic" Law, is among the very latest

portions of Proverbs. For it is in the highest degree probable that the

sayings of Agur are of a much later date even than the promulgation of

the Priests' Code;[192] and the circumstance that the anonymous stickler

for strict orthodoxy already begins to accentuate the political and

religious opposition between the two great parties known as Pharisees and

Sadducees, as well as other grounds of a different order, disposes me to

assign the fragment of Agur to the third century B.C. This conclusion

would be borne out by the influence upon Agur's scepticism of

comparatively recent foreign speculation. Some of his sayings have an

unmistakable Indian ring about them. A few are even directly traceable to

the philosophical sentences of the Hindoos. The enumeration of the four

insatiable things, for instance, is but a slight modification of the

Indian proverb in the Hitopadeça which runs: "Fire is not satiated with

fuel; nor the sea with streams; nor death with all beings; nor a

fair-eyed woman with men."[193] Still more striking and suggestive is the

correspondence between the desire of life, personified in Agur's fragment

by the beautiful Ghoul, and the thirst of existence denoted by the Buddha

and his countrymen as _tanha_--the root of all evil and suffering.

"Through thirst for existence (_tanha_)," the Buddha is reported to

have said to his disciples, "arises a craving for life; through this,

being; through being, birth; through birth are produced age and death,

care and misery, suffering, wretchedness and despair. Such is the origin

of the world.... By means of the total annihilation of this thirst for

existence (_tanha_) the destruction of the craving for life is

compassed; through the destruction of the craving for life, the uprooting

of being is effected; through the uprooting of being, the annihilation of

birth is brought about; by means of the annihilation of birth the

abolition of age and death, of care and misery, of suffering,

wretchedness and despair is accomplished. In this wise takes place the

annihilation of this sum of suffering."[194] The same doctrine is laid

down by the last accredited of the Buddha's disciples, Sariputto: "What,

brethren, is the source of suffering?" he is reported to have said. "It

is that desire (_tanha_) which leads from new birth to new birth,

which is accompanied by joy and passion, which delights now here, now

there; it is the sexual instinct, the impulse towards existence, the

craving for development. That, brethren, is what is termed the source of

suffering."[195]

Footnotes:

[190] Prov. xxxi. 10-31.

[191] Prov. i. 6.

[192] 444 B.C.

[193] _Cf_. Hitopadeça, book ii. fable vi.; ed. Max Müller, vol. ii.

p. 38.

[194] Samyuttaka-Nikayo, vol. ii. chap. xliv. p. 12; _cf_. Neumann

"Buddhistiche Anthologie," Leiden, 1892, pp. 161-162.

[195] Majjhima-Nikayo; _cf_. Neumann, _op. sit.,_ p.25.

* * * * *

AGUR'S PHILOSOPHY

Of the three Hebrew thinkers of the Old Testament who ventured to sift

and weigh the evidence on which the religious beliefs of their

contemporaries were based, Agur was probably the most daring and

dangerous. He appealed directly to the people, and set up a simple

standard of criticism which could be effectively employed by all. Hence,

no doubt, the paucity of the fragments of his writings which have come

down to us and the consequent difficulty of constructing therewith a

complete and coherent system of philosophy. To what extent he assented to

the theories and approved the practices which constitute the positive

elements of the Buddha's religion, is open to discussion; but that he was

a confirmed sceptic as regards the fundamental doctrines of Jewish

theology, and that his speculations received their impulse and direction

from Indian philosophy, are facts which can no longer be called in

question.

To the theologians of his day he shows no mercy; for their dogmas of

retribution, Messianism, &c., he evinces no respect; nay, he denies all

divine revelation and strips the deity itself of every vestige of an

attribute. Proud of their precise and exhaustive knowledge of the

mysteries of God's nature, the doctors of the Jewish community had drawn

up comprehensive formulas for all His methods of dealing with mankind,

and anathematised those who ventured to cast doubts upon their accuracy.

"Whatever sceptic could inquire for,

For every why they had a wherefore,"

the unanswerable tone of which lay necessarily and exclusively in the

implicit and tenacious faith of the hearer. Now, faith may be governed by

conditions widely different from those that regulate scientific

knowledge, but if its object be something that lies beyond the ken of the

human intellect it must be based either upon a supernatural intuition

accorded to the individual or upon a divine revelation vouchsafed to all.

In the former case it cannot be embodied in a religious dogma; in the

latter it cannot--or should not--be accepted without thorough discussion

and due verification of the alleged historical fact of the divine

message.

This is the gist of Agur's reasoning against the allwise theologians of

the Jewish Church.

These sapient specialists, whose intellects were nurtured upon the

highest and most abstruse speculations and who could readily account for

all the movements of the Deity with a wealth of detail surpassing that of

a French police _dossier_, were utterly and notoriously ignorant of

the rudimentary laws of science which every inquisitive mind might learn

and every educated man could verify. Now, as truth is one, Agur reasoned,

how comes it that the persons who thus lay claim to a thorough knowledge

of the more difficult, are absolutely ignorant of the more simple?

Whence, in a word, did they obtain their perfect acquaintance with the

mysteries of the divine nature and the mechanism of the universe, the

elementary laws of which are yet unknown to them? Surely not from any

source accessible to all; for Agur, possessing equally favourable

opportunities for observation and quite as keen an interest in the

subject, not only failed to make any similar discoveries, but even to

find any confirmation of theirs. For this he sarcastically accounts by

admitting that he must be considerably more stupid than the common run of

mankind, in fact, that he is wholly devoid of human understanding--a

confession which he evidently expects every reasonable man to repeat

after him to those who assert that crass ignorance of fundamental facts

is an aid to the highest kind of knowledge.

"I have worried myself about God, and succeeded not,

For I am more stupid than other men,

And in me there is no human understanding:

Neither have I learned wisdom,

So that I might comprehend the science of sacred things."

Still he is a very docile disciple, and, having failed to make any

discoveries of his own, would gladly accept those of a qualified

master--of one who endeavours to know before setting out to teach and who

prefaces his account of the wonders of the unseen world by pointing out

the bridge over which he passed thither, from this. But does such a

genuine teacher exist?

"Who has ascended into heaven and come down again?

Who can gather the wind in his fists?

Who can bind the waters in a garment?

Who can grasp all the ends of the earth?

Such an one would I question about God: 'What is his name?

And what the name of his sons, if thou knowest it?'"

And if even specialists do not fulfil these conditions, are we not forced

to conclude that their so-called knowledge is a fraud and its

subject-matter unknowable?

Agur's views of right conduct--if we may judge by the general tenour of

his fragmentary sayings and by the principle embodied in his sixth and

last sentence, in which he rejects as a motive for action "a high hope

for a low heaven"--are marked by the essential characteristics of true

morality. An action performed for the sake of any recompense, human or

divine, transitory or eternal, is egotistic by its nature, and therefore

not moral; and the difference between the man who, in his unregenerate

days, cut his neighbours' throats in order to enjoy their property, and

after his conversion gave all his goods to feed the poor, in order to

enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, is more interesting to the legislator

than to the moralist. But, were it otherwise, Agur holds that, even from

a purely practical point of view, all the honours and rewards which

mankind can bestow upon their greatest benefactor would be too dearly

purchased by a ruffled temper; in other words, mere freedom from positive

pain is a greater boon than the highest pleasure purchased at the price

of a little suffering.

Agur's politics gave as much offence to the priests as his theology. Like

most original thinkers, he is a believer in the aristocracy of talent,

and he makes no secret of his preference of a hereditary nobility to

those upstarts from the ranks of the people who possess no intellectual

gifts to recommend them. For the former have at least training and

heredity to guide them, whereas the latter are devoid even of these

recommendations. These views furnished the grounds for the charge of

Sadduceeism preferred against him by his adversary.

To what extent Indian thought, and in particular the metaphysics and

ethics of Buddhism, influenced Agur's religious speculations, it is

impossible to do more than conjecture. Personally I am disposed to think

that he was well acquainted and indeed thoroughly imbued with the

teachings of the Indian reformer. In the third century B.C., as already

pointed out, the spread of the new religion through Bactria, Persia,

Egypt, and Asia Minor was rapid. Moreover, the turn taken by the

speculations of cultured Hebrews of that epoch was precisely such as we

should expect to find, if it stood to Buddhistic preaching in the

relation of effect to cause. The scepticism of the philosophers of the

Old Testament, not excepting that of Agur who may aptly be termed the

Hebrew Voltaire, was not wholly destructive. Its sweeping negations in

the spheres of metaphysics and theology were amply compensated for--if

one can speak of compensation in such a connection--by the positive,

humane, and wise maxims it lays down in the domain of ethics. And the

cornerstone of the morality of all three--Job, Koheleth, and Agur--would

seem to be virtually identical with that formulated in the Indian

aphorism:

"Alone the doer doth the deed; alone he tastes the fruit it brings;

Alone he wanders through life's maze; alone redeems himself from

being."

Buddhistic influence in the case of Agur, therefore, is all the more

probable that it admirably dovetails with all the circumstances of time

and place known to us, even on the supposition, which I am myself

inclined to favour, that Agur lived and wrote in Palestine. This

probability is greatly enhanced by the striking affinity between the

Buddhist conception of revealed religions, of professional priests and of

practical wisdom, and that enshrined in the few verses of Agur which we

possess. It is raised to a degree akin to certainty by the actual

occurrence of Indian images, similes, and even concrete aphorisms in the

short fragment of seven strophes preserved to us in the Book of Proverbs.

* * * * *

THE POEM OF JOB

TRANSLATION OF THE RESTORED TEXT

* * * * *

PROLOGUE

CHAP. I. A.V.]

1 _There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man

was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil._

2 _And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters._

3 _His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand

camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a

very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of

the east._

4 _And his sons went and feasted_ in their _houses, every one his

day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with

them._

5 _And it was so, when the days of_ their _feasting were gone

about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the

morning, and offered burnt offerings_ according _to the number of

them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed

God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually._

6¶ _Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves

before the Lord, and Satan came also among them._

7 _And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan

answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth and from

walking up and down in it._

8 _And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,

that_ there is _none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright

man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?_

9 _Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for

nought?_

10 _Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and

about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his

hands, and his substance is increased in the land._

11 _But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he

will curse thee to thy face._

12 _And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath_ is _in

thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went

forth from the presence of the Lord._

13¶ _And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating

and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:_

14 _And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were

plowing, and the asses were feeding beside them:_

15 _And the Sabeans fell_ upon them_, and took them away; yea,

they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am

escaped alone to tell thee._

16 _While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The

fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the

servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell

thee._

17 _While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The

Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have

carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the

sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee._

18 _While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy

sons and thy daughters_ were _eating and drinking wine in their

eldest brother's house:

19 _And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote

the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they

are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee._

20 _Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell

down upon the ground and worshipped,_

21 _And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I

return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be

the name of the Lord._

22 _In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly._

CHAP. II. A.V.]

1 _Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present

themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present

himself before the Lord._

2 _And the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan

answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from

walking up and down in it._

3 _And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,

that_ there is _none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright

man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast

his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him

without cause._

4 _And Satan answered the Lord, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that

a man hath will he give for his life._

5 _But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and

he will curse thee to thy face._

6 _And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold he is in thine hand; but save

his life._

7¶ _So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job

with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown._

The Sceptics of the Old Testament: Job - Koheleth - Agur · 第 8 / 13 段