Chapter 8 The Second Holy Cabinet and the Holy Grail-4

During the spring and summer of 1989, I visited Chartres Cathedral and read Wolfram's Parsifal, which opened my eyes to many things that I had previously been blind to - especially to a sense of Surprising possibility: The Templars may have traveled to Ethiopia in the 12th century to find the Ark of the Covenant. I don't find it difficult to explain their reasons and motivations for doing so, as explained in Chapter 5 of this book.But I need to prove one point now, that is, whether there is other convincing evidence other than the "search" activities of the Templars that I believe that the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant is indeed in the city of Axum Church chapel?

After all, there are still hundreds of cities and hundreds of churches in the world that claim to have some kind of "sacred relic" or something-such as fragments of the so-called "crucifixion", Christ's shroud, St. Stian's phalanx, the spear of Longevance, and so on.But a rational investigation of them almost always concludes that these claims are false.So why should Axum be an exception?The inhabitants of the city evidently believed in this legend of their own, but that of course proved nothing--only that they were an impressionable, superstitious lot. On the face of it, there seems to be good reason to conclude that the Ethiopians did not have the Ark of the Covenant.

The Trouble Caused by "Tabot" Most importantly, a visit to Axum by an envoy of the Armenian Presbyterian Church in the middle of the 19th century proved that although "all the Abyssinians believed" there was a legend about the Ark of the Covenant in Axum, it was in fact It's a "big lie". The envoy, named Demothes, pressured several monks in Axum to show him a slab, which "was a piece of slightly reddish marble measuring 24 centimeters long and 22 centimeters wide, Only 3cm thick".According to the monks, it was one of the two stone commandment tablets in the ark.They did not show Demothes the ark itself, which the Abyssinians believed, and evidently hoped that he would be satisfied with a glimpse of the tablet, which they called "Tabot of Moses."

Demoses was really satisfied.Apparently rejoicing as if a mystery had just been uncovered, he reported: The stone is virtually untouched, giving no indication of its age.Its date is at most 13 to 14 centuries from now... Fools like Abyssinians blindly regard this stone as a real commandment board and think they own it.In fact, they have a name in vain, (so because) that is not a real commandment board at all.Those who are familiar with the Scriptures know without any further proof that, in fact, the commandment-tablets on which those divine laws were written were put into the ark and disappeared forever.

How should I understand these words?If the tablet the Armenian envoy saw really came from the Ark of the Covenant that the Axumites said he was right to say that these people were in vain because it was made "13 to 14 centuries from now" Something that came out couldn't have been one of the two "Ten Commandments" on which the Ten Commandments are said to have been written more than 1,200 years before Christ was born.In other words, if the contents of the container are fake, the container itself must also be fake.This means that the legend of the Axumians is indeed a complete "big lie".

But I feel that it is premature to draw this conclusion without attempting to answer another important question.That question is: Did Demoses see the (thought to be) real "Moses' Talbot", or was it something else? This question was crucial, because the Armenian envoy was clearly offended and furious that "fools" like the Ethiopians could possess such a precious relic as the Ark, and was eager to prove that they did not have the Ark.Not only that, after reading his account over and over again, it became clearer and clearer: his strong desire to prove his prejudice was correct, this desire has overwhelmed all his rational and investigative spirit—he There is absolutely no recognition of that subtle and unusual nature of the Ethiopian.

When he visited Axum in the 1880s, the chapel dedicated to the Ark of the Covenant had not yet been built, and the Ark of the Covenant (or what it was supposed to be) was still kept at St. Mary's in Zion. in the nave of the Basilica (in the 17th century, after the cathedral was rebuilt by Emperor Fasiridas, it was placed there).However, Demodesus was not allowed into the cella at that time.He was led into a dilapidated wooden transept "together with several other rooms on the left-hand side outside the cathedral".It was in this outer temple that he saw the "slightly reddish marble".

Therefore, it seems to me that the Armenian envoy was probably tricked by the monks. I know that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers the Ark of the Covenant unique and holy, and therefore it is inconceivable that it (or part of what it contained) would be removed, even temporarily, from the nave of St. Mary's Church in Zion. It is impossible to go, except for some extremely compelling reasons.The preemptive whim of a vulgar foreigner certainly does not count as such compelling reasons.However, the foreigner was the special envoy of the Armenian Presbyterian Church in Jerusalem, so it was wise to show him some respect.

what can we do about it?I think the answer is: the monks decided to show him one of the many "tapots" in Axum.He strongly stated that he wanted to see something related to the Ark even if he could not see it, so let him hear what he wanted to hear (i.e. tell him that what he saw was the real "Moses' Talbot"), it was all done out of good intentions and politeness. I needed to confirm my opinion, so I made a long-distance call to Addis Ababa, because that's where Professor Richard Pankhurst lives, and we co-wrote the book for the Ethiopian government in 1983 Book.He returned to Addis Ababa in 1987 to resume his career at the Ethiopian Institute.I first told him that I had become interested in the Aksum legend about the Ark of the Covenant, and then asked him about Demoses.Does he think that the "tabot" that the Armenian envoy saw was really one of the two commandment boards that the Ethiopians believed was put into the ark by Moses?

"It's very unlikely," replied Richard, "that they would never show such a sacred thing to anyone outside. Besides, I have also read the book written by Demothus, which is full of mistakes. Misinterpretation. He is very arrogant, arrogant in his dealings with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and not entirely honest. I think the clerics of Axum must have seen through him quickly and fooled him with other talbots , and that thing doesn't mean much to them." We talked for a while, and Richard gave me the names and phone numbers of two Ethiopian scholars who he thought would help me with my research: Dr. Bele Godet, who spent several years Thoroughly studied ancient Ethiopian history, expert in Amharic and Jeze texts; and Dr. Segu Huber-Selassie of the Ethiopian Institute, author of a highly regarded book titled It is "Ancient and Medieval History of Ethiopia Before 1270", and I am already familiar with its contents.

The question of what Demoses saw and didn't see in Axum still lingers in my mind, so I decided to ask Hubbell-Selassie.So, I called him, introduced myself, and asked for his insight on the subject. He laughed and said, "Oh, of course it wasn't the real Moshe Talbot that the guy saw. Those monks, in order to satisfy his wish, showed him a substitute - not the real one... In our Ethiopia, Usually each church has more than one Talbot. In fact, some churches even have 10 or 12 Talbots, which are used in different ceremonies. So, what he saw was one of them .There is no doubt about it." The confidence in the historian's words has dispelled any remaining doubts I had about the Armenian envoy's evidence.The "slightly reddish marble" seen by Demoses neither proves nor disproves the assertion made by the Ethiopians that the Ark of the Covenant is located in Ethiopia. However, his account of his visit to Axum still raised another complicated question in my mind, that is, whether the so-called "tabot" can be counted as a holy object. As far as I know, these things are seen as replicas of the Ark of the Covenant, which I'm well aware is a chest about the size of a tea chest.However, the small marble slab seen by Demodesus is called "Tabot" and is also said to be one of the two commandment tablets in the Ark of the Covenant. I really need to figure this out.Every church in Ethiopia has its own tabote, and I still know some churches have more than one.But are these Talbots really replicas of the holy relic?That holy relic is believed to be the Ark of the Covenant and is kept in the church chapel in Axum.If so, and if all Talbots are tablets, that means that the holy relic must also be a tablet—in other words, it cannot be the Ark of the Covenant (although it may have been written with the Ten Commandments one of the commandment boards). During the many years I lived in Ethiopia, all the Talbots I saw were slabs, not boxes—the slabs were either wood or stone.Apparently it was this feature that led the scholar Helen Adolf to conclude that Wolfram von Eschenbach must have known something about Talbot when he conceived his Grail Stone. .It would be great if "Tabot" was meant to represent the commandment boards contained in the Ark of the Covenant.On the other hand, if these objects are seen as replicas of the Ark, then the claim of the Axumians that they possessed the Ark would be greatly discounted. It is hard for me to forget that it was this problem, which I noticed immediately after visiting the ethnographic collections of the British Museum in 1983, which caused me to abandon my initial investigation of this mystery.This question now looms large in front of me.So, before proceeding any further, I feel compelled to settle once and for all the question of what Talbot is supposed to be. To that end, I called Dr. Bele Godet, another Ethiopian scholar whom Richard Pankhurst had recommended to me.After introducing myself, I got straight to the point and asked, "Do you believe the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia?" "I believe," he said emphatically, "not only I believe, but all Ethiopians believe that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia, and it is kept in St. Mary's Church in Zion, Axum. It is believed that Emperor Menelik I went to After Jerusalem went to his father Solomon, he brought the ark back to Ethiopia." "What about Talbot in Ethiopian? Does it mean ark? Is Talbot a replica of the Ark of the Covenant in Axum?" "The correct plural form of tabot in our language is tabotat. Yes, they are duplicates. Because there is only one Ark of the Covenant, and because ordinary people need some kind of physical East and West, and every other church uses these replicas. There are more than 20,000 churches and monasteries in Ethiopia today, each of which has at least one Talbot." "That's exactly what I thought. But I still don't understand." "why?" "Mainly because of all the Tapotats I have seen, there is not one like the Ark of the Covenant described in the Bible. They are all flat plates, some of wood, some of stone, and none of them is more than a foot long and wide. , all of which are two or three inches thick. If such a thing is to be regarded as a copy of the relic in St. Mary's Church in Zion, Axum, then, logically, that relic is not at all possible. It's the Ark of the Covenant..." "why?" "Because the Ark of the Covenant is described in the Bible. It is clearly described as a rather large rectangular box. Please hold on and I'll check the description for details..." I took a Jerusalem version of the Bible from the desk shelf, turned to Chapter 37, found the relevant passage, and read aloud how the craftsman Bezalel made the Ark of the Covenant according to the will of God conveyed to him by Moses: Bezalel made an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high.Overlaid with pure gold inside and out. "How long is a cubit (cubit)?" asked Godet. "About the length of a forearm, that is, from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. In other words, about eighteen inches. This means that the Ark of the Covenant is about three feet nine inches long, and about two feet wide and high. But Tapotat completely Doesn't fit the size. They're too small." "You're right," Godet mused, "but we do have the real ark. There's no doubt about it. In fact, we even have an eyewitness account." "Are you referring to the account of the Armenian envoy Demothes?" "No, no, of course not. He didn't see anything. The witness I'm talking about went to Axum much earlier than he did. He was a geographer named Abu Saleh— By the way, he was also a member of the Armenian Order. He lived in the early 13th century and visited many Christian churches and monasteries. Most of these churches and monasteries were in Egypt. However, he also visited some neighboring countries, including Ethiopia, and some of these countries are included in his writings. It is this book that describes the Ark of the Covenant. If I remember correctly, his description is very close to the one you just read to me." "Is this book by Abu Saleh? Has it been translated into English?" "Ah, yes. There's a very good translation in the nineteenth century. You'll find one. It's edited by some Mr. Ivez..." Two days later, I walked out of the stacks of the library of the Institute of Oriental and African Studies in London with the joy of victory.In my hand is a thick book by Abu Saleh, translated by B. T. Ivez, entitled Churches and Monasteries in Egypt and Several Neighboring Countries.On page 284 of this book, I found a line in small print subtitled "Abyssinia", and below it was eight pages of observations and comments, which mentioned: The Abyssinians owned the Ark of the Covenant, which contained two stone tablets on which God's commandments for the people of Israel were inscribed.The ark was placed on the altar, but it was shorter than the altar, it was as high as a man's knee, and it was covered with gold. I borrowed a ruler from the librarian and measured the length of my calf from the bottom of my foot to my knee.This size is very close to the 27 inches mentioned in the article.I think that makes sense, and it would be more appropriate if the phrase "its height is the same as a man's knee" refers to a man wearing shoes or boots. I knew that with such rough measurements as evidence, it would never be final.What's more, I can't completely rule out the possibility that the Armenian geographer did see the real Ark of the Covenant when he visited Axum in the 13th century.But in any case, it seems to me that the real importance of his account lies in its indisputable description of the ark as a gold-covered chest or chest, rather than a plank of wood or stone only a few inches thick, like I've seen those "tapotats" like that.Or it can be said that it is not like the "tabot" that Demoses saw in the 19th century. It is also significant that Abu Saleh also describes some details of the use by the Christians of Axum of the holy relic he saw: Liturgy is held four times a year in the palace.When it was taken from the church where it was stored to the palace, it was covered with a tarpaulin.These four ceremonies are the birthday of Jesus, the baptism of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus and the revelation of the cross. In my opinion, this early and fairly factual eyewitness account undoubtedly strongly supports the Ethiopian statement that Ethiopia is the final resting place of the true Ark of the Covenant.The ark of the covenant he speaks of is roughly correct in size and appearance.Abu Saleh even described seeing the holy relic being transported covered with a "tarpaulin", which is exactly in line with the rules in the Bible: When the camp was set out, Aaron and his sons were to go in and take off the cover of the ark, and put it over the ark of the testimony.Cover it with seal skin, then cover it with a pure blue blanket, and put the pole on. (See Chapter 4, Sections 5-6 of "Old Testament Numbers {Self"——Translator's Note) So far, no problems.But as helpful as this Armenian geographer's account was, he failed to answer my crux of the problem, which arises from the shape of what is called "tapotat."I couldn't ignore the problem, so I decided to examine the etymology of this Ethiopian word.I want to know the prototype of the word "tabot", does it mean "cabinet"?Could it mean "slate"?Could it have another completely different meaning? My investigation of the etymology of this word has brought me into a field of pure intelligence, which I have never set foot in, and I do not want to set foot in this field again, and this field is linguistics.I rummaged through piles and piles of tiresome literature, and finally confirmed one thing: the ancient Ethiopian language known as "Jezh", and its modern and widely spoken Amharic language, both belong to Qmit language family, and Hebrew also belongs to this language family. So I learned that the most common word used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the ark is "aron," which has nothing in common with "tabot."However, there is also a Hebrew word, "tebah," and scholars agree that the Ethiopian word "tabot" undoubtedly comes from this word. Next, I tried to verify whether the word "tebah" appears in the Hebrew Old Testament.After further research, I found that it does appear, although only twice.Interestingly, both places where the word is used refer to a boat-shaped vessel.The first refers to Noah’s Ark, which carried the human beings who survived the great flood (see "Old Testament Genesis" Chapter 6, Section 7——Translator’s Note); the second refers to the straw box , in order to save the baby Moses from the wrath of Pharaoh, Moses' mother put him into this straw box and let him float down the Nile ). I opened the "King's Glory" again, and found that there was a passage in which specifically described the Ark as "a ship's belly...about two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits and a half wide. It shall be covered with pure gold inside and out."Not only that, but in this "belly of the ship", "two stone tablets written by God himself" will also be placed. These descriptions cannot be disputed.Whether judging from its etymology or from its early use, the Ethiopian "tabot" undoubtedly refers to the "Ark of the Covenant" in the Bible, and its prototype is a gold-coated vessel-for this vessel, The term "boat belly" can be used as a clever metaphor, not only to conjure up the image of this sacred object, but also to connect its concept with those earlier "ships": these are Noah's Ark and Papyrus Boats. , and both of these once held sacred and precious things. However, it is by no means possible for this same "Tabot" mark to name or refer to any board or stone.So there's still a real mystery here.However, this mystery was finally solved for me by Professor Eduard Uhrendorf.He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and the first Degree Chair in Ethiopian Studies at the University of London.The eminent academic is now retired and lives in Oxford.He insists that he has no trouble explaining how the Ethiopians speak of a block or slate as a "cabinet": The real Ark is said to be at Axum; all other churches possess only copies of it.In most cases, however, they are not copies of the entire cabinet, but only of what it contained, the commandment boards... In other words, the description of these wood or stone tablets as "tapota Special", this is a practice of "pars pro toto" (pars pro toto), which only represents the most important part of the ark, that is, the commandment board. fly in amber Uhrendorf's interpretation of the "Tabot" problem removes an apparent contradiction and dispels a cloud of doubt surrounding the claim of the Ethiopians that they claimed to be in possession of the missing Ark of the Covenant. But the Ethiopian claim is still clouded by several other clouds.It was Uhlendorf who brought to my attention one of the thickest clouds of suspicion.He wrote a paper entitled "The Queen of Sheba in Ethiopian Legend", which pointed out very clearly: "The Glory of the King" cannot be regarded as a history book, because its purpose is to beautify Ethiopia, which is precisely It is for this purpose that the Ark of the Covenant is mentioned. Nor is Uhlendorf alone in the opinion that much of The Glory of the Kings is fiction.For example, in the preface to the English translation of this great epic, Sir E. A. Wallis Butch also pointed out that the Queen of Sheba could not have been Ethiopian at all. "The odds are slim," he wrote (quoting an opinion I was already familiar with), "that her homeland was Sebha or Saba, in the southwestern part of the Arabian peninsula. ." Some scholars place great emphasis on the fact that in Solomon's time (that is, 1,000 years before the birth of Christ), Ethiopia did not have any real civilization of its own, so it was certainly impossible to have an advanced urban society that produced a queen as famous as the Queen of Sheba. the monarch. In fact, scholars agree that before the 6th century AD, the civilization of enlightenment did not even start on the Abyssinian plateau, and it was not until the 10th century AD that Ethiopian civilization developed to a mature level.But this period of progress cannot be seen as an Ethiopian achievement - rather, it was catalyzed by the influx of various Arab tribes whose "higher quality" transformed the backward culture of the local population.These Semitic immigrants, mainly from Yemen, settled in northern Ethiopia, bringing about a cultural change in the process of assimilation with the local population.They brought gifts of incomparable value: religion, a much higher level of social organization, architecture, art, and a system of writing. In conclusion, Ethiopian civilization is not only much more recent than the Axumian legends suggest, but also borrowed from other civilizations.Not only that, but deep down most Ethiopians know this to be true and are therefore deeply disturbed by their traditional heritage.Indeed, one standard history even goes so far as to suggest that The Glory of the Kings was generally accepted because it satisfied a deep psychological need of the Abyssinians: "to confirm their ancient origins... …The upstart nation, like the upstart individual, longs for glory, and this kind of nation will not hesitate to forge a family tree just like the upstart.” I think the significance of all these insights is not that they all emphasize the idea that the content of "King's Glory" is mostly fiction (because this does not rule out the possibility-their account of the ark being kidnapped may be based on certain real events), but rather in that they agree that Ethiopian civilization is relatively young and originates from the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. For my attempt to establish the truth of the Ethiopian claim to possess the Ark, these observations are of great importance, as they serve not only to illustrate the general development of civilization on the plateau, but also to To illustrate (quite concretely) the development of Falasha civilization. The Glory of the Kings declares quite clearly that the faith of Judaism was introduced to Ethiopia around 950 BC when Menelik and his companions returned to Ethiopia with the Ark of the Covenant (even the Queen of Sheba herself is said to have converted to Judaism. ).Therefore, on the face of things, the existence of real black Jews in Ethiopia seems to be enough proof that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia.But if you look more closely, you'll see that's not the case, or at least not in line with what scholars think. In 1983, Richard Pankhurst told me that there was a consensus among scholars that Judaism was unlikely to reach Ethiopia before the second century AD.This belief was brought into Ethiopia from Yemen via the Red Sea.After 70 AD, Yemen already had a large number of Jewish residents, who immigrated to Yemen to escape the persecution of the Romans in Palestine. One of the strongest proponents of this view is Professor Uhrendorf.He has a very influential book "Ethiopia and Strange Scriptures", in which he used a lot of space to demonstrate this point of view, and emphasized a conclusion: the ancestors of the Falasha people must have been converted from Jews. During the historical period, that is, from AD 70 to AD 550, they "entered Ethiopia from the southern part of the Arabian peninsula". I decided to investigate this issue thoroughly.If Falasha Judaism is indeed less than 2,000 years old and indeed came from the Arabian peninsula, then one superficially plausible "cultural confirmation" is wiped out: Ethiopia and Old Testament Jerusalem There is direct contact between them.At the same time, the claim that Axum was the final resting place of the Ark is to be discounted, if not entirely implausible. Soon after this new phase of investigation began, however, it dawned on me that scholars were unanimous in favor of the "Yemen theory" because they had no evidence to support any of the other theories.There is neither any evidence that the Jewish faith could not have entered Ethiopia by other routes, nor that it did get there by other routes.Scholars have therefore been inclined to think that it may have come from the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, since other migration movements to Ethiopia from that region are known historically. This approach strikes me as a sad lapse in logic, where "there is no evidence" (which is one thing) is actually used to prove "there is no" (which is another).Let me say it again: the problem is that there is no evidence that Judaism arrived in Ethiopia much earlier than scholars believe, and that Judaism ever got there by a route other than the one that scholars believe; however, Nor is there any evidence that this is not the case. Therefore, I feel that the conclusion of this question is open. If we want to get a satisfactory answer, we must study the legends, beliefs and customs of the Falasha people, and draw our own conclusions about their origin from them.However, I think their religious ceremonies may well have been mixed with something else, since these ceremonies were heavily exposed to Western and Israeli visitors in the 20th century.So I went to read some older sources that described how the Falasha lived before they were polluted by modern cultural changes. Ironically, some of these documents were written by foreigners, mainly nineteenth-century Christian missionaries, who went to Ethiopia with the apparent aim of promoting cultural change.They had heard rumors that there were a considerable number of Jews in Abyssinia, and they were anxious to convert them to Christianity. One of the evangelists was a young German named Martin Fried.Appointed by the London Society for the Advancement of Christianity among the Jews, he traveled to Ethiopia in 1855 to convert the natives.His book, The Farasha of Abyssinia, was published in 1869. I found the book in the UK library, it was worn out and had obviously been through a lot of borrowing and borrowing.I quickly developed a great interest in several passages.In it, the author insists that there have been Jews in Ethiopia at least since the time of the prophet Jeremiah (around 627 BC), and perhaps since the time of King Solomon.Part of Fred's argument is based on: The Falashas knew neither the Babylonian Code nor the Talmud, both of which were compiled during and after the Jewish captivity.Nor do they celebrate the Feast of Purim and the Temple Feasts, the traditions of which are solemnly maintained by the Jews of our time. Through further investigation, I found that the official name of the so-called "Dedication of the Temple" is "Hpnukkah" (Hpnukkah), which literally means "offering".In my opinion, the most meaningful point is that this festival was established in 164 BC. Therefore, the Jews who settled in Yemen after 70 AD must celebrate this festival. Orthodox scholars had previously persuaded me to see the Farashas as descendants of these Yemeni-Jewish-converted Ethiopians, but that view has now suddenly become quite dubious.I would like to make an opinion as clear as possible: but the Feast of Lights, from which only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn, that the Falashas must have acquired Judaism before 164 BC, and therefore they did not come from Yemen, but from somewhere else. Next, I looked at Purim.Fred discovered that the Jews in Ethiopia did not celebrate this festival either.I learned that the festival dates back to at least the 2nd century BC.Indeed, its origins probably predate that period.The events it commemorates (i.e., the Jews were saved from the massacre planned by King Haman-Translator's Note) occurred in the mid-fifth century BC, and some authorities I consulted also believe that by 425 BC, most Jews had died. It's Purim. From this there arises the intriguing possibility (which Fred himself strongly believed in) that long before that period, perhaps in the 6th century B.C., the Farasha emerged from the separated out. I feel more and more now that the gulf between Abyssinian legend and historical fact is rapidly closing: 500 years before Christ was, after all, only 400 years after Solomon's death.It seems more and more likely that the Judaism of the Farasa had entered Ethiopia early in the Old Testament era - as the King's Glory and the Farasa themselves have always claimed.If this is true, then the implication is quite obvious: taking a step back, the story of Menelik's abduction of the Ark of the Covenant to Ethiopia deserves to be taken more seriously than by academics. the attitudes that have been allowed so far. I find further evidence for this view in the account of another missionary in the nineteenth century.The missionary was Henry Aaron Stern, himself a German Jew who had converted to Christianity.He worked and traveled with Fred in Ethiopia and published his book Wandering Among the Falasha of Abyssinia in 1862. As I read this 300-page tome, I developed a distaste for its author.In my opinion, he is an arrogant, cruel and arrogant reformer, who has no respect for the culture and traditions of the people he preaches.At the same time, in general, I think his description of the Falasha's religion and way of life is also very superficial.As a result, by the time I was halfway through the book, I was completely impatient. Later, I came across an interesting thing on page 288 of the book.In a long passage, Stern discusses the absolute prohibition among the Falasha of "marriage with other tribes or beliefs", and then describes how Ethiopian Jews are loyal to the Law of Moses, "They ... are some rules, According to these codes they formed their cult," and then he said: It seems strange to hear of Jewish altars and sin offerings in Central Africa...(however) each place of worship has a small field at the back with a huge boulder in the center.It was on this crude altar that Pan's animals were killed, and all other sacrificial ceremonies took place. My general knowledge of Judaism is very limited to say the least at this stage, but one thing is clear to me nonetheless: Animal sacrifices are no longer practiced among modern Jews.I don't know whether this ancient custom still existed among the Falasha at the end of the 20th century, but Stern's description clearly shows that this custom was very popular 130 years ago. The German missionary went on to describe the sacrificial emptiness before commenting: 这个圣所守卫不严，很难防止不法的侵扰……不懂法拉沙人习俗的陌生人若是冒险地过于接近这个禁地，便会遭到不幸……有一天，我险些犯下了这个不可饶恕的罪过。那天将近正午的时候，天气非常闷热，我们经过几个小时令人筋疲力尽的跋涉，来到了法拉沙人的一个村子。我急于休息一会儿，就想去找个凉爽清静的地方。在一片隔离出来的草地中央，我偶然看见一块光滑的石头，仿佛是好心人放在那里的，为的是让疲惫者在那里独坐休息。我用长矛很容易地拨开了带荆棘的栅栏，正要坐到那块平坦的石头后面，突然听见了一阵愤怒的声音……这使我意识到自己的错误，于是我连忙退了回来。 我暗自希望斯特恩会因为擅闯圣所而受到应有惩罚。但同时，我也禁不住对他心生感激，因为他使我注意到了法拉沙人献燔祭的方式。这条线索很值得跟踪下去，因为它可能提供另一条线索，指出埃塞俄比亚的犹太人与其宗教主体人群分离的日期。 我做出了相当大的努力，去研究《旧约》时代犹太人的燔祭仪式这个晦涩课题。 从学术资料的迷雾中最终呈现出来的那幅图景说明：燔祭是一种不断演化的习俗，起初只是一种对上帝的简单供奉，任何人（僧俗均可）在任何设有当地圣所的地方都可以举行。但是，公元前1250年犹太人逃出埃及之后，这种相对不太规则的状况就开始有了转变。希伯来人在西奈荒野流浪期间制造了约柜，并把它罩在一个可以携带的帐篷（或叫"会幕"，tabernate，即可携带的神龛）下面。从此以后，所有的献祭都在这个会幕的门前举行，任何违背这条新律者都将受到被驱逐的惩罚： 凡以色列家中的人……献燔祭或是平安祭，若不带到会幕门口献给耶和华，那人必从民中剪除。（见《旧约·利未记》第17章第8-9节——译者注） 但我了解到，这条禁令其实并不像听上去那么绝对。这条律令的要点，并不是要无条件地禁止一切在本地圣所举行的燔祭，而是要确保燔祭只在作为中心的民族祭祀地（如果存在这种地方的话）进行。在荒野上，罩着约柜的会幕就是这样的祭祀中心。 后来，从大约公元前1200年到公元前1000年，在以色列的夏伊洛建造了民族的祭祀圣所，它就成了新的燔祭中心。不过，有意义的是，在几个政治动荡时期，夏伊洛曾被放弃。在这些时期中，希伯来人被再度允许在本地圣所进行燔祭。 到公元前950年前后，耶路撒冷的所罗门圣殿作为民族宗教中心的地位，已经超过了夏伊洛。然而，有证据表明，许多本地进行的燔祭还是时时出现，在那些远离耶路撒冷居住的犹太人当中，尤其如此。实际上，直到约西亚国王时期（公元前640年一公元前609年），才开始严格贯彻一条总禁令，禁止在圣殿以外举行一切形式的潘祭。 这条禁令实施得极为严格，以至于在公元前587年尼布甲尼撒摧毁那座圣殿后的10年里，犹太人都似乎没有打算在其他地方进行燔祭。在没有了民族祭祀中心的情况下，恢复在本地圣所潘祭的早期传统，这种打算似乎被无可挽回地放弃了。很简单，没有了圣殿，便没有了燔祭。 犹太人结束了在巴比伦的流亡以后，便在耶路撒冷建起了第二座圣殿，在它的区域内又恢复了燔祭的传统，同时，本地圣所的燔祭活动再次被严禁，禁令似乎得到了严格的服从。 这种仅在民族祭祀中心举行燔祭的制度，从公元前520年第二座圣殿建成后被确立下来，直到公元70年第二座圣殿被罗马皇帝提图斯夷为平地为止。犹太人再没有建造第三座圣殿的打算了，只有一批批信奉千禧年的人群怀着梦想，企盼着"救世主再度临世"的梦想成真。结果，从公元70年起，犹太人就禁止了在其他地点进行的燔祭。法拉沙人是这条禁律的惟一例外。 不仅如此，斯特恩的叙述还指出：19世纪他在法拉沙人当中传教时，他们在自己的所有圣所举行燔祭活动。经过一些深入考察，我证实了一点：这个传统非常强大，乃至今天大多数法拉沙人的群体都一直在举行燔祭仪式，尽管他们日益面临着现代犹太人的祭祀活动。 考虑到这个事实，我明白了对此可能做出多种解释。但最明显、最具吸引力的解释，却是一种最简单的解释——因而也最有可能是正确的解释。我在自己的笔记里写道： 今天法拉沙人的祖先改信犹太教，想必还是在允许在远离民族祭祀中心的本地圣所举行燔祭的时代。这就是说，他们是在约西亚国王颁布禁令之前改信犹太教的，那个时间不会晚于公元前7世纪，甚至可能更早。 假设，所罗门圣殿建成（公元前10世纪中期）后、约西亚国王（公元前7世纪中期）以前的某个时期，一批犹太人从以色列迁移并定居在了埃塞俄比亚。他们建立了本地的圣所祭坛，在那里向他们的上帝献燔祭，并开始改信了该国居民的宗教。最初他们也许还维持着和自己故乡的联系。但故乡相距遥遥，因此，可以做出一个合理的推断：他们最终成了完全孤立的群体。因此，他们并没有受到一次次神学思想巨变的影响，那些巨变发生在以后几个世纪的犹太人世界里。 因此，法拉沙人才成了惟一仍在实行燔祭的犹太人。他们就像被凝固在琥珀里的苍蝇，落入了时间的扭曲之中，成了现存真正的第一圣殿犹太教最后一批信奉者。 到此为止，一切全都顺理成章。然而问题是：一群犹太人为什么要从以色列迁移到埃塞俄比亚这么遥远的地方呢？我们说的是公元前10世纪到公元前7世纪发生的事情，不是发生在有喷气飞机的现代。那次迁移必定有某种极为强烈的动机，它会是什么呢？ 答案是：《国王的光荣》无疑说明了这个动机是什么。 它说，这些移民都是以色列人长子中最先出生的那批人，他们陪同门涅利克来到埃塞俄比亚，和他一起守护约柜，而那是他们从耶路撒冷圣殿里扔来的。 衰微与败落 如果《国王的光荣》里对犹太教进入埃塞俄比亚的叙述是真的，那么，我想我就有希望在历史年表中找到证据，去证实一点：在埃塞俄比亚历史上，犹太人的信仰的地位曾一度比今天重要得多。如果这种信仰最初和门涅利克一世这样的王族有关，那必定更有意义。 不仅如此，我还记得，我的老友理查德·播克赫斯特曾对我提到过一件事，它与这条考察线索有关。1983年我们一起工作时，他曾告诉我说，法拉沙人在历史上曾经是个繁荣强大的部族，并且拥有自己的国王。 因此，我又给亚的斯亚贝巴的理查德打了一个电话，问他能否为我推荐一些可能记载法拉沙人衰微与败落的资料。 他向我推荐了一本书，而我对它的内容略有所知。这本书名叫《1768-1773年寻找尼罗河源头之旅》，其作者是苏格兰探险家，金奈德的詹姆斯·布鲁斯。 潘克赫斯特还建议我去查阅中世纪以来埃塞俄比亚几个王朝的"宫廷年表"。他说，这些文献记载了基督教徒和犹太人之间的一系列战争，因而可能会使我感兴趣。他还说："除了这些资料以外，我就不知道你能从哪里得到你需要的信息了。困难在于，在布鲁斯以前，没有任何关于法拉沙人的深入记载。" 我不久就发现，金奈德的詹姆斯·布鲁斯多少算是个谜一样的人物。他出身于顽固的长老会派占主导的斯特灵（苏格兰中部的一个郡——译者注）家族，属于小贵族，继承了足够的遗产，用于毕生在海外旅行。 我起初以为，正是这种"旅行癖"诱使他去了埃塞俄比亚高原腹地。但是，当我开始阅读他关于法拉沙人的著作之后，便逐渐认识到：他对法拉沙人的兴趣实在是太强烈、太持久了，因此无法仅仅用一位聪明旅行家通常的好奇心来解释。他用了好几年的时间，巨细靡遗地考察了阿比西尼亚的这些黑种犹太人的信仰、习俗和历史起源。在这个过程中，他记录了许多古代传说，其中交织着不少长者和宗教人物——如果不是他，这些传统大多都会消失在历史中。 其中的一个传说讲到，阿克苏姆的艾扎那国王第一次被介绍给那位年轻的叙利亚人弗路门提乌斯时，正在阅读"大卫的赞美诗"，后者后来使这位国王皈依了基督教。不仅如此，布鲁斯还相当清楚地记载说，这位国王很熟悉《旧约》里的这首赞美诗，因为当时（即公元4世纪早期）的埃塞俄比亚十分流行犹太教。 我现在已经了解了法拉沙人的习俗，因此很乐于为这个论断提供证据。我认为这个论断实际上是额外地支持了我那个迅速展开的假设，那就是：至少在弗路门提乌斯到埃塞俄比亚传播基督福音之前1000年，埃塞俄比亚的犹太人就有了一种结合了古代血祭传统的信仰形式。 不久，我又在一部珍贵的埃塞俄比亚古代手稿里找到了进一步的证据。那部手稿被保存在提格雷人的马格达拉要塞里。19世纪时，内皮尔元帅（罗伯特·科内利斯·内皮尔，1810-1890，英国陆军元帅，又名"马格达拉的内皮尔一世男爵"——译者注）率领的英军曾攻占并洗劫了该要塞。这部手稿的标题是《古代国王的历史及谱系》，其中的一段写道： 基督诞生后的331年，基督教被阿布纳·萨拉玛引入阿比西尼亚，此人原名"弗路门托斯"或"弗路门提乌斯"。 当时，埃塞俄比亚的国王们统治着阿克苏姆。基督教出现在埃塞俄比亚之前，那里的半数居民均为犹太人，遵守着法律，另外半数居民则崇拜神龙桑多。 这里提到了"神龙"（或许是一切原始动物神的统称）的崇拜者，这的确很有意思。它表明，犹太教曾一度成为埃塞俄比亚惟一的国教，并且，在前基督教时代，法拉沙人也曾像各地的犹太人一样，容忍许多异教信仰。 但我认为，随着武装传教的单一神教教徒（例如基督教徒）的到来，法拉沙人必定对异教有所警惕，并且曾试图放弃他们传统的宽容，因为他们很有理由把这些人看作对自己显要地位和信仰的威胁。在这样的背景下，阿克苏姆国王皈依基督教可以被视为厄兆，从此，犹太人与基督教徒之间很可能不知不觉地产生了永无休止的残酷斗争。 布鲁斯记载下来的传说里，有许多都能证实以上的分析。例如，这位苏格兰探险家强调说，法拉沙人在皈依基督教时（或者用术语说是"叛教"时），仍然非常强大。当时，他们宣布确立一位犹太部族的王子作为他们的国王，"他属于所罗门和门涅利克的种族……这位王子……拒绝放弃其先辈的信仰。" 布鲁斯还说，这种事态必定要导致冲突，因为基督教徒们也宣布自己的国王属于所罗门的世系。这场冲突一爆发，就陷入了纯粹世俗的种种计较当中： 宗教信仰的不同虽然导致流血冲突，但各个宗教还是各有自己同样自负的国王，由此引发了出于野心及对抗君主力量等动机的战斗。 对这些"战斗"，布鲁斯没有提供任何细节。同样，史书也对此讳莫如深，而只提到：公元6世纪，阿克苏姆国王卡列布聚集了一支庞大的军队，并率领它渡过红海，去和也门的一位犹太人国王作战。我现在想知道，阿拉伯半岛上的这场战役，会不会就是埃塞俄比亚的犹太人和基督徒之间战斗的扩大呢？ 在《国王的光荣》里可以找到证据，表明以上情况确实就是历史的真相。在这部伟大史诗的末尾，我看到了一章，它具体地提到了卡列布国王满怀反犹太的激情。在这一章里，没有任何明显原因，埃塞俄比亚的犹太人突然被描写成了"上帝之敌"。不仅如此，其中还宣扬应当把他们"碎尸万段"，应当"把他们的国土变成一片废墟"。 这些都出现在卡列布国王的两位王子所说的话中。其中一位王子叫"以色列"，另一位叫"杰伯拉·马斯卡尔"（其埃塞俄比亚语的意思是"十字架的奴隶"）。此处，犹太教和基督教的冲突的象征极为鲜明，不容忽视，因为"杰伯拉·马斯卡尔"显然代表冲突的基督教一派，而"以色列"则代表犹太教一派。我想到了一个情况：法拉沙人从不自称"法拉沙人"，而总是自称"贝塔·以色列"，即"以色列之屋"；因此，这就使以上的分析更令人信服了。 因此，这里传达的基本信息已经很清楚了。不过，整个段落却被繁复而晦涩的诸多形象复杂化了。例如，段落中有时会突然冒出"沙利奥特"（Chariot）和"锡安"（Zion）这两个字。我几乎不知道、或者完全不知道前者是什么意思，但对于后者的意思我已经很清楚，"锡安"是《国王的光荣》里频繁用来指代约柜的几个别称之一。 我读到"以色列"和"杰伯拉·马斯卡尔"注定要交战时，一切都变得清楚了。文中继续写道： 那场战斗之后，上帝会对杰伯拉·马斯卡尔说："在沙利奥特与锡安中，吾选择汝。"而上帝将帮杰伯拉·马斯卡尔拿到锡安，他将公开坐在其父的宝座上开始统治。上帝会使以色列选择沙利奥特，以色列将行秘密的统治，他将不再能被看见。 《国王的光荣》以这种方式做出了结论： 犹太人之王国将被结束，基督之王国将会形成……上帝如此使埃塞俄比亚王比世上其他所有国王都更加荣耀、美好和尊贵，因为他有伟大锡安，即上帝律法之柜。 我认为，没有任何理由怀疑这里描述的是埃塞俄比亚的犹太人和基督教徒之间的冲突，尽管使用了神秘的象征性语言——在这场争锋之战中，新宗教的追随者取得了胜利，而旧信仰的信徒则被征服，因而从此只得在一些秘密的地方销声匿迹地生活。同样清楚的是：约柜（即文中的"锡安"）是这场权力之战的核心，而基督教徒设法以某种方式从犹太人那里夺取了它，而后者从此不得不满足于拥有"沙利奥特"，换句话说，就是拥有次等的好东西。 然而，我的继续研究却表明，法拉沙人显然没有乖乖地屈从于销声匿迹的生活，没有屈从二等阶级的社会地位，那是基督教徒设法强加给他们的。相反，我发现有相当多的证据表明，法拉沙人曾进行过反击——不仅如此，他们还曾以巨大的果敢进行过相当长期的反击。 阿比西尼亚的犹太人与基督教徒之间持续不断的战事，其最初的一则引人入胜的暗示，见于公元9世纪一位旅行家的记述。那位旅行家名叫艾尔达德·哈达尼——他的另一个名字更有名，叫"丹"族的艾尔达德，因为他自称属于失踪的以色列"丹族"（Dan）。 我们根本不清楚此人是谁，来自哪里。不过，他曾在公元833年写过一封书信，被广泛传播，其中宣称：丹部族的人（以及其他三支"消失的"犹太人部族）居住在埃塞俄比亚，在那里，他们被永久地封闭在了该国基督教统治者的敌意中——"他们在那里转变埃塞俄比亚人的信仰，直至今天，他们还在极力转变埃塞俄比亚王国儿童的信仰"。 通过进一步考察，我发现有一些学者认为艾尔达德是个吹牛者，而他那封书信则纯属虚构。不过，另外一些学者却认为他的话大部分都有事实根据。 我毫不犹豫地就让自己站在了后者一边——这完全是因为，艾尔达德关于阿比西尼亚犹太人的说法，与法拉沙人的真实处境太接近了，因此不大可能是纯粹的杜撰。例如他提到，这些人是在"第一所罗门圣殿"时期从耶路撒冷移民埃塞俄比亚的，那是在犹太王国和以色列王国分离后不久（即在公元前931年前后）。他说，因此，他们就不过那个日期之后才确定的宗教节日，如普林节和灵光节等等。他们也没有拉比，"因为那是第二圣殿时期的产物，而他们没有等到有拉比就离开了圣地耶路撒冷。" 我已经十分了解法拉沙人并不过那些后来确定的犹太教节日，并且深知这意味着什么。经过核对，我发现他们现在也没有拉比。实际上，他们的宗教官员被称为"卡恩"（kahen），这个字来自希伯来语的"寇思"（koben）（更近似普通名字"科恩"，Cohen），其意思是"神甫"，其起源可以追溯到"第一圣殿"时代。 因此，总的来说，看来艾尔达德很可能像他自称的那样到过埃塞俄比亚，并且忠实地描述了公元9世纪中期犹太教在该国的状况。因此，他说这一时期阿比西尼亚的犹太人与其邻居之间不断发生冲突，这个报道也似乎是颇为可信的： 他们的旗帜为白色，上写黑字："听吧，以色列，我主上帝是惟一的上帝。"……他们人数众多，有如海中的沙子。 他们除了作战别无他业。他们无论何时战斗，都会说强者临阵脱逃乃是耻辱；他们情愿年轻而战死，但绝不逃跑；他们愿自己对上帝的信念不断加强；他们有时一起会大喊："听吧，以色列，我主上帝是惟一的上帝。"然后他们便会加倍警惕。 艾尔达德做出结论说，埃塞俄比亚的犹太人在好勇斗狠方面非常成功，并且"曾经掐住了敌人的脖颈"。我认为，这个说法恰如其分地描述了公元10世纪基督教徒与犹太人力量对比的真实情况。毕竟正是这个时期，阿克苏姆信仰基督教的所罗门王朝被推翻了。我以前的研究也告诉我：这场政变是一个犹太人君主策划的，那就是伟大的古迪特女王（Gudit或者Judit，或者可能是Yehudit）。 在本书第五章，我已经简要地做了介绍：古迪特女王血腥的短暂统治（可能有半个世纪左右）结束后，扎格维王朝就建立了起来，拉利贝拉国王就属于这个王朝。几乎可以肯定，扎格维王朝的君主最初都信仰犹太教。尽管如此，他们后来却还是改信了基督教。结果，拉利贝拉国王去世大约50年以后，他们把王位让给了一个自称属于所罗门世系后裔的君主。 但是，我很快就弄清了一点：在这个扎格维君主王权空位的时期，并没能遏止阿比西尼亚犹太人和基督教徒之间的长期冲突。 我在调查中发现，公元12世纪的西班牙商人，"图德拉的便雅闵"曾做过广泛的游历。他曾经报告说，埃塞俄比亚犹太人当时并不是"生活在异教徒的重压之下"，而是"在山区拥有自己的城镇和城堡"。他谈到，在基督教徒和法拉沙人的战争中，获胜的通常是法拉沙人。他们可以随心所欲地获得"土地和战利品"，因为"没有人能够战胜他们"。 后来，到了公元11世纪，犹太旅行家"斐拉拉的伊里亚"也讲到，他在耶路撒冷见到一个法拉沙青年，并从他那里得知，法拉沙人"仍在一个山区保持着自身的独立，他们从那里不断发动战争，反抗埃塞俄比亚那些信基督教的皇帝"。 100年以后，奥维耶多（西班牙西北部城市——译者注）的耶稣会主教还指出，法拉沙人躲在"难以进入的大山里"。他们夺取了基督教徒的许多土地，以前他们是那些土地的主人。埃塞俄比亚的国王们无法镇压他们，因为国王的军队很少，攻人法拉沙人的石头要塞"非常困难"。 但是，这位主教却说错了。他的这段话是1557年说的，到了那个时期，法拉沙人已经远远不能"夺取"任何人的土地了。实际上，他们不断遭到基督教军队的围剿，并且显然已经濒于种族灭绝了。1563-1594年在位的所罗门世系皇帝萨撒·邓格尔对法拉沙人发动了长达七年的战争，一位受人尊敬的学者把那场战争说成是"由宗教狂热激发的一场真正的宗教讨伐"。 在那场战争里，驻守在希缅山区西部和塔喀则湖南部要塞的法拉沙人遭到了残酷的屠杀。这些守卫者为自己赢得了巨大的荣誉。就连阿谀萨撒·邓格尔的史官也禁不住要赞美一群法拉沙妇女的勇气：她们高喊着"Adomai（上帝）救我"，纷纷纵身跳下悬崖，宁死不当俘虏，不愿受到皇帝军队士兵的侮辱。 后来，法拉沙人的国王拉代被捕人狱。他只要向圣母玛利亚乞求宽恕就可以活命，不然就将被处死。据记载说，拉代国王说道："不是禁止提到玛利亚这个名字吗？快点处死我吧！我宁愿离开这个充满了谎言的世界，到正义的世界去。我宁愿从黑暗到光明里去。杀了我吧，快一点。" 皇帝军队的统帅扬纳尔回答道："你若想死，那就勇敢地死吧，把你的头低下来。" 拉代国王低下了头，扬纳尔便用一把大宝剑朝他砍去。利剑一下就砍掉了法拉沙国王的头，并劈到了他的膝盖，最后插进了地里。据记载，目睹这个恐怖场面的人都称赞"这位面临死亡的犹太人的勇气，他公开宣告现世是邪恶的，而天堂是美好的"。 那场战争即将结束时，法拉沙人在希缅高山上的最后两个要塞遭到了猛攻。法拉沙人虽然英勇抵抗，但要塞还是失守了。两个要塞的法拉沙将士全都宁愿自杀，也绝不做俘虏。 但是，这并没有结束对法拉沙人的迫害。相反，1607年苏斯涅尤斯皇帝继位后，对法拉沙人的暴行更变本加厉了。他制定了一个计划，要消灭依然生活在广大高原地区和塔纳湖与希缅山区之间的所有法拉沙人。在以后的20年当中，他对法拉沙人进行了"格杀勿论"的围剿。数千名法拉沙人在残酷战斗中被杀，他们的孩子也被卖为奴。据苏格兰旅行家詹姆斯·布鲁斯的记载： 少数幸存的法拉沙人被强迫放弃自己的宗教信仰，接受洗礼，否则处死。他们别无选择，只得同意了……因此，其中许多人接受了洗礼，还被迫在安息日耕作。 这种持续不断的残酷压迫，使埃塞俄比亚的犹太人永远失去了曾一度享有的自治权，加速了他们迅速走向灭绝。我回顾了手头那些极为简略的历史文献，发现法拉沙人的这种逐渐减少甚至可以用数字表示出来。 例如：17世纪初，法拉沙人的数量据说有大约"10万有效劳力"。假定每5个家庭成员中有一名"有效劳力"，那么，那一时期法拉沙人的人口总数就大约是50万。将近300年之后，即在19世纪末期，据犹太学者约瑟夫·哈莱维的估计，法拉沙人的数量是大约15万人。20世纪前25年末期，这个数字陡然下降到了只有5万——这是另一位犹太考察者雅各·菲特洛维奇的估计，他无疑拥有大量的资料作为佐证。此后的60年之后，到饥荒的1984年时，据可靠估计，埃塞俄比亚的法拉沙人的总数为28000名。 我阅读的资料使我坚信：法拉沙人口的急剧下降，发生在门世纪初苏斯涅尤斯皇帝围剿时期，他的军队显然摧毁了法拉沙人的抵抗。在那场围剿以前，法拉沙人曾是个人口众多、势力强大的民族，拥有自己的国王和王国。那场围剿以后，他们被剥夺了公民权利，迅速衰落，其人口数量无可挽回地减少了。 因此，历史记载就极为有效地解决了那个困扰着我的矛盾：如果犹太教真是被门涅利克这样血统高贵的人带入埃塞俄比亚的（他还把古代世界最珍贵、最著名的圣物——约柜带到了埃塞俄比亚），那又如何解释法拉沙人日后遭到迫害乃至濒临灭绝呢？ 现在，我懂得了这当中毫无矛盾。犹太人的宗教曾一度很有影响，这个情节其实只能表明，这大概就是后来法拉沙人遭到苏斯涅尤斯及其他基督教皇帝残酷迫害、屠杀和奴役的诱因。简单地说，这种迫害行为极为怪异，并且分明带有精神变态的色彩，使人产生了一种与迫害者的初衷截然相反的印象，使人认为基督教徒的确一直在担心犹太教可能会复兴。他们这种恐惧萌生于一个事实，即在埃塞俄比亚人的生活中，犹太教这个与基督教抗衡的单一神教，以前曾代表着一个极度强大而经久不衰的主题。 "真正心愿的满足……" 我得出的结论是：以上的一切都支持了一个观点，即犹太教先于基督教来到埃塞俄比亚。按照同样的思路，这还为门涅利克拐走约柜的传说做了注脚。 现在我做个小结。我现在已经知道： ——法拉沙人古老的燔祭传统（以及他们的一些宗教活动）对一种正统的学术观点提出了严重的质疑，那种观点认为埃塞俄比亚的犹太教是后来从阿拉伯南部传入的。恰恰相反，有相当令人信服的证据表明，犹太教信仰必定是在第一圣殿时期传入埃塞俄比亚的，它后来也必定是被封闭在了该国。不仅如此，犹太教何以在那么早就在非洲的心脏地区生根，对这个问题，《国王的光荣》已经做出了最合理的解释。这部史诗的核心清节就是约柜被拐，因此，我们当然要认真看待"约柜在埃塞俄比亚"这个说法。 ——有清楚的证据表明，在埃塞俄比亚，在公元4世纪基督教到来之前，犹太教信仰曾经是一种重要的力量。这个证据还表明，公元4世纪以后，犹太人和基督教徒之间就开始了漫长的殊死对抗。这场斗争的胜利者是基督教徒，他们在斗争中赢得了约柜。从此以后，基督教徒逐渐把约柜结合进了自己非犹太教的仪式里。这是对一种畸形现象的惟一令人满意的解释，那种现象就是：《旧约》里一件圣物的复制品，在埃塞俄比亚教堂的一切圣事中发挥着关键作用，这在基督教世界是独一无二的。不这样解释，这个现象就无法理解。 ——这些复制品代表的是约柜里装的东西，即石头诫板，而不是约柜本身。这个情况最初使我感到不解，但我现在已经懂得，它只是一种"以部分指代整体"文化的实例。埃塞俄比亚有两万多座东正教教堂，每座教堂的内殿里都有"塔波特"，而放置一件神秘而威力无比的圣物，这就立即会使大众产生一种迷信的恐惧心理。现在看来，这件圣物的确可能就是那只约柜。 当然，还有几个尚待弄清的问题，其中包括示巴女王的种族这个重要问题：她真的是埃塞俄比亚人吗？ 学者们提出了一个与此相关的合理怀疑，它也同等重要：在所罗门时代，埃塞俄比亚真的会有一种"高级"的文明，足以和古代以色列发生直接的文化接触吗？ 最后，还有阿克苏姆的问题，理查德·潘克赫斯特教授在1983年曾使我注意到了这个问题。这座圣城在所罗门时代还不存在，因此，约柜是不可能被送到那里去的。但这并不排除约柜最初被送到埃塞俄比亚的某个其他地方，日后又被送到了阿克苏姆城。如果是这样的话，那个"其他地方"究竟在哪里？为什么我没有听到过关于那个地方的传说呢？ 我知道，我终将去寻找这些问题的答案。当然，还有另外一些问题。 实际上，约柜也许天生就神秘莫测，因而总是在引发一系列问题、混淆、歧义和误解。它极为罕见，极为珍贵，充满了巨大的威力，许多世纪以来一直受到人们的狂热崇拜，装载着上帝的无比能量。因此，几乎不可能希望它会轻