Pul, who was called by Berosus, the great Babylon historian, "king
of the Chaldeans," was probably a monarch who reigned at Babylon,
while Asshur-lush was reigning at Nineveh. In the troublous decade
of years which preceded Tiglath-pileser's accession, he became a
powerful prince, perhaps deprived Assyria of her western provinces,
and invaded Syria and Palestine from the quarter from which Assyrian
invasions had been wont to come. Presenting himself to the Israelites
as the representative of the great Mesopotamian power, with which they
had been contending for centuries, they termed him loosely "king of
Assyria" when he was in reality a king of Babylon, who had possessed
himself of a portion of the Assyrian dominions. In the same way, they
subsequently termed Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, and
even Darius Hystaspis, "kings of Assyria."[85]
A difficulty used to be felt with respect to "Sargon, king of
Assyria," who is said to have taken Ashdod by the hand of one of his
captains.[86] Sargon's name is not contained in the historical books
of Scripture, nor is he mentioned by any of the classical writers, who
speak of Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. The occurrence of
his name in Isaiah was thought to indicate an irreconcilable difference
between the historical data possessed by that prophet and those of
the writer of Kings. Even his existence was doubted, and different
writers proposed to regard his name as a mere variant for those of
each of the three princes just mentioned. The Assyrian inscriptions
have completely cleared up all this obscurity. Sargon is found to
have been the successor of Shalmaneser; the predecessor and father of
Sennacherib. He speaks of having captured Ashdod. All that Isaiah says
of him is confirmed; and it appears to have been quite accidental that
the writer of Kings, who more than once alludes to him,[87] does not
mention his name.
The strictly historical character of the later portion of the Old
Testament narrative, especially of that delivered to us in Kings,
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and in the contemporary prophets,
Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Haggai, is generally admitted, even by
sceptics. The only writings belonging to this period, whereto exception
is taken are the Books of Daniel and Esther, which many still regard
as full of historical inaccuracies, and as quite unworthy of credence.
I shall therefore conclude my observation on the alleged historical
difficulties of the _Old_ Testament, and the light thrown on them by
modern discoveries, by a brief consideration of these two books and of
the objections taken to them.
The chief historical inaccuracies alleged against Daniel are the
following: He is said to have invented two kings, Belshazzar, and
Darius the Mede, whose existence is not merely unknown to history,
but precluded by it; to have falsely ascribed a government by satraps
to the Babylonians; to have incorrectly represented the condition of
their "wise men"; to have made Susa a residence of the Persian monarchs
when it was not even built; to have wrongly made the last king of
Babylon a son of Nebuchadnezzar, and to have misrepresented his fate;
to have misconceived the relative position of the Medes and Persians
at the time of the capture of Babylon; and to have related an utterly
incredible circumstance, viz. that Daniel was admitted among the
Babylonian "wise men," and even constituted their head.[88]
Now of these charges some are quite incapable of being either
substantiated or distinctly refuted from our insufficient knowledge of
the times to which they refer. Nothing is really known of the classes
into which the "wise men" of Babylon were divided in Nebuchadnezzar's
time, excepting what we learn from Daniel himself. The authors supposed
to contradict Daniel on this point, write of the state of things in
their own day, which happens to be eight centuries later! And they
do not write about the Babylonian "wise men" at all, but about the
divisions of the Persian magi, an entirely different class. We do not
even know enough about the "wise men" to say whether there was anything
strange and unusual in a foreigner being placed at their head. We may
suspect that it was so, but we have really no sufficient evidence on
the subject. The little evidence that we have is to the effect that
the "wise men" were a learned, not a priestly, body; and that they
admitted foreigners among them--more we do not know; but there is
certainly not the slightest difficulty in supposing that the despotic
power of a Babylonian monarch would have been amply sufficient to
overcome any repugnance which any class of his subjects might have felt
towards one of his appointments.
Similarly, we have no sufficient knowledge of the Babylonian
governmental system to say that it was not, at any rate, to some
extent, satrapial. A satrapial system is simply one in which governors
are appointed over the provinces, instead of their being suffered
to remain under the rule of native kings. Our present Indian system
is in part satrapial, in part a government by means of kings. The
Assyrian government was one of the same kind; and, on the whole, it
is most probable that so was the Babylonian. Gedaliah, who succeeded
to King Zedekiah in Judea, was a "governor,"[89] that is, a satrap,
appointed by Nebuchadnezzar; and Berosus speaks of a "satrap of Egypt,
Cœle-Syria, and Phœnicia," as holding office under Nabopolassar,
Nebuchadnezzar's father. Thus there is no "inaccuracy" in Daniel's
speaking of Nebuchadnezzar as summoning, among his other great
officers, his "satraps."[90] That the _word_, which is Persian, was
not used in Babylonia is probable; but Daniel, writing for Jews under
Persian government, who were perfectly familiar with the term, employed
it for a corresponding Babylonian expression.
The charge that Daniel misapprehended the relative position of the
Medes and Persians at the capture of Babylon, regarding the supremacy
of the Medes as still continuing, is unjust, and rests on an omission
to look carefully to the original text. It is true that the Medes are
placed before the Persians in the words of the handwriting upon the
wall, and also in the formula, "according to the law of the Medes and
Persians, which altereth not." But this honorary precedence assigned
to the Medes is a mere trace of their ancient supremacy--a trace much
more strongly marked in Greek writers, who actually call Cyrus and
his successors "Medes"--and is not an indication of its continuance.
Daniel twice marks very strongly the subordinate position of the
Medes, stating in one place[91] that Darius the Mede "_received_ the
kingdom"--_i.e._, was given it by another; and further declaring that
he "_was made king_ over the nation of the Chaldæans,"[92] using in
this case an expression which distinctly implies that he derived his
position from some superior authority, which made him king.[93]
The notion that Susa, or at any rate, its palace, was not built at
the time when Daniel says that he saw himself in vision there, rests
wholly upon a statement made by Pliny, six hundred years later, that
"Susa, the ancient regal city of the Persians, was built by Darius
Hystaspis."[94] Now this statement, one of very weak authority, had we
nothing to set against it, is contrary to the declarations of various
other classical authorities, among them notably of Herodotus; and is
completely disproved by the Assyrian inscriptions, which show that Susa
was one of the most ancient of all the Mesopotamian cities, and that
its "palace" was famous for many centuries before the time of Daniel.
The truth which underlies Pliny's statement, is the fact that Darius
Hystaspis was the first Persian monarch to build a palace at Susa after
the Persian fashion; but the ancient residence of the Susian kings, the
Memnonium, as the Greeks called it, had existed for considerably more
than a thousand years when the son of Hystaspes began his edifice.
Of the two remaining charges, which concern Darius the Mede, and
Belshazzar, one--and that the more important of the two--has been
completely rebutted by the evidence of the Babylonian monuments. These
monuments show that Nabonnedus (or Labynetus), the king of Babylon
attacked by Cyrus, had a son named Bel-shar-ezer, or Belshazzar, whom
during some years he associated with him in the government. This son
may well have been on the mother's side descended from Nebuchadnezzar,
as Daniel says that Belshazzar was;[95] he may have played the part in
the siege which Daniel states that he did, while his father (as Berosus
mentioned) defended the fortress of Borsippa; and he may have fallen
in the general massacre during the night in which Babylon was taken,
while his father was subsequently made prisoner, and kindly treated by
Cyrus. All the supposed contradictions of profane history by Daniel
in connection with this matter, are entirely removed by one little
document, exhumed in our own day from the soil of Mesopotamia, by the
exertions of an English gentleman.
With respect to Darius the Mede, nothing has been as yet discovered.
It is clear from Daniel that he was not a king in his own right, but
a viceroy set up by Cyrus. He held his government probably for not
more than two years. Perhaps he is to be identified with Astyages, the
Median king, whom Cyrus deposed but treated kindly; perhaps he was
merely a Median noble, whom Cyrus advanced, as he did other Medes, to
a position of trust and importance. The monuments have not at present
thrown any light on this matter; but he would be a bold person, who,
after the discovery with respect to Belshazzar, would undertake to say
that there may not, ere many years are past, be as much light thrown
upon the obscure history of this monarch, as has been recently thrown
on the history, formerly at least as obscure, of his predecessor.
I cannot leave this matter and turn to another without strongly
advising those who have any doubts as to the genuineness and
authenticity of the Book of Daniel, which have been of late so fiercely
attacked, to study carefully the recent work of Professor Pusey
upon the subject. They will find in it a complete answer to all the
objections, historical, and critical, which have been urged against
this portion of Scripture.
The historical difficulties alleged against the Book of Esther, are
chiefly the following. Assuming Ahasuerus to be Xerxes, which is no
doubt a highly probable identification, it is said that Esther's
position is impossible, since Xerxes had but one wife, Amestris, who
cannot be Esther. Nor could any Persian king have married a Jewess,
since there was a law that the kings should take all their wives out
of seven noble Persian families. Such a feast as that described in the
first chapter, where all the princes of the provinces were entertained
for 180 days, could not have taken place, since the governors could
not without ruin to the empire have been so long absent from their
governments. It is incredible that a Persian king should have given
the command, said to have been given by Ahasuerus to Vashti. The
edicts ascribed to Ahasuerus are all incredible--especially the second
and third. No king would have consented to the murder of 2,000,000 of
his subjects; nor would any king ever have allowed at a later time
those two millions to stand up and slay as many as they pleased of
their enemies. Finally, the honours granted to Mordecai are said to be
excessive, and such as no monarch would have allowed to a subject.
With respect to the first of these objections, we may reply that though
Amestris cannot be Esther, she may well be Vashti; and that though the
classical writers tell us of no other wife of Xerxes, yet it is quite
possible that he may have had several. Polygamy was the rule with
the Persian kings. Amestris was no doubt on the whole the chief wife
of Xerxes, and if she at one time fell into disgrace, must have been
afterwards restored to favour; but the accounts which we have from
the Greeks do not at all preclude the possibility of such a temporary
disgrace, and of the elevation of another wife to the first place for
a time. As to its being impossible that any Persian king could have
married a Jewess, it is sufficient to remark, that though the Persians
had laws, the Persian kings were above the law, and could always
disregard its restraints. When Cambyses having conceived an affection
for his full sister, Atossa, asked the royal judges if they could find
a law allowing a Persian to marry such a near relative, their reply
was, that they could find no law permitting the marriage of brothers
and sisters, but that they found a law, that the king of the Persians
might do what he liked.[96]
The objection to Xerxes feasting _all_ his princes for 180 days is an
objection, not to anything contained in the Book of Esther, but to
something which the critic who makes it has intruded into the book.
The writer of the book tells us that Xerxes "made a feast to all his
princes and his servants" (ch. i. 3), and subsequently relates that the
feast lasted "an hundred and fourscore days" (verse 4); but he nowhere
states that the princes were all present during the whole of the time.
Indeed, the reader possessed of common sense sees clearly enough that
the very duration of the festivity was probably contrived, in order
that all the princes might in their turn partake of it. The critic
says, "it is not so stated in the text," which is true: but neither is
that stated which he has thought that he saw in it.
The command given to Vashti is undoubtedly strange and abnormal. It
was an outrage on Oriental custom; and as such the narrative sets it
before us. The king does not issue the order until he is "merry with
wine"; and the Queen refuses to obey, because she feels the order to
be an insult. But can we say that no Oriental king could possibly
have issued such a command? Is it not more reasonable to allow, with
a German critic of the sceptical school, that the narrative is here
"possible on account of the advancing corruption in Xerxes' time, and
through the folly of Xerxes himself"?[97] Indeed is it not clear that
we can set no limit to the caprices of absolute power, or to the orders
that may not be issued by a proud and silly despot?
Considerations of this kind go far also to remove the difficulty which
has been felt as to the main facts of the narrative of Esther, the
intended massacre of the Jews, and the counter-edict allowing them to
defend themselves and slay their enemies. Such facts are altogether out
of the ordinary experience of Western nations; and it is not surprising
that they have been met with incredulity on the part of those whose
knowledge of the past is limited to an acquaintance with the course
of European, and especially of modern European, history. But can it
be said that they are altogether out of nature? that they have no
counterpart in the history of the East? that they transcend altogether
what authentic history relates of the doings of Oriental tyrants? Here
again the German sceptic is more cautious than some of those who have
sought to popularise him, and allows that from what we know of the
base character and despotism of Xerxes it may perhaps be believed that
Haman obtained from him a decree for the extirpation of the Jews,
and Mordecai in return a corresponding counter-decree[98]. All that
he objects to is, the fierceness with which the Jews set to work, and
the consequent massacre by them of above 75,000 persons. This fact
he thinks "incredible." It may be allowed that had the persons slain
been, as the objectors suppose, "Persians," the circumstances related
would have been extremely hard of belief; but it is on the whole most
probable that there were few or no "Persians" among them. A religious
sympathy united the Persians with the Jews; and it is scarcely likely
that any of them would have taken part in the proposed destruction of
the Jewish nation. The adversaries of the Jews were to be found in the
ranks of the conquered nations, not of the conquering one. They were
Persian subjects, not Persians. There is no reason to think that the
loss even of 75,000 of such persons would have been felt by Xerxes as a
matter of much importance. We must remember, however, that the number
75,000 is doubtful. The Septuagint version has 15,000; and this number
is more in harmony than the other with the 800 slain in the capital.
Finally, to the objection that the honours granted to Mordecai are
excessive, it may be replied, in the first place, that they are
analogous to those granted to Joseph,[99] and Daniel,[100] and
therefore such as were occasionally allowed to subjects by Oriental
sovereigns; and secondly, that if there were anything abnormal in them,
it would be sufficiently accounted for by the wild and extravagant
temper of Xerxes, which delighted in strange acts and exhibitions of an
unusual character. Haman, who knew his master's weakness, might well
speculate upon it, and suggest extraordinary honours, since he imagined
that it was himself for whom they were intended.
I have now noticed _all_ the historical difficulties of any force
or weight, which have come before me in the course of my studies
on the history of the Old Testament. I have dwelt particularly on
those connected with the Pentateuch and with the two Books of Daniel
and Esther, because of late years the attacks of sceptics have been
especially directed against those portions of the Sacred volume. I
have left myself but scant time for noticing historical difficulties
connected with the narrative of the New Testament; but this is of
the less consequence, since there are no more than one or two such
difficulties on which any stress has recently been laid by our
opponents.
It has been said that St. Luke, in connecting the name of Cyrenius
with the "taxing" which caused Joseph and Mary to go from Nazareth
to Bethlehem, "undeniably contradicts history."[101] Cyrenius (or
Quirinus) was appointed governor of Syria about ten years after the
death of Herod the Great, and made a census of his province shortly
afterwards. This census St. Luke is accused of placing ten years too
early. The answer to this charge is, that the words of St. Luke (chap.
ii. 2) cannot possibly mean that Cyrenius was governor at the time of
the taxing; had it been St. Luke's intention to express this, the verse
would have ran thus: "This taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor
of Syria," and not "this taxing was first made," etc. "First," that
is, which is manifestly the emphatic word of the sentence, would then
have been absent from it. Evidently, therefore, St. Luke's words must
bear some other meaning. They may signify, "_this_ taxing was made
_before_ Cyrenius was governor," and so before that better known taxing
which he ordered. This is an allowable translation of the passage.
Or they may mean, and I think they do mean, "this taxing was first
completed--first took full effect--when Cyrenius was governor;" that is
to say, the taxing ordered by Augustus, and commenced under Herod the
Great, was interrupted (as it may easily have been, since the Jews were
very bitter against it), and the business was first accomplished under
Cyrenius. This is a sense which the Greek verb translated incur version
"was made" sometimes has.
Again, it has been said that St. Luke erred in stating that Lysanias
was tetrarch of Abilene (iii. 1) in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Cæsar.[102] Lysanias, it is said, died sixty years previously;
and St. Luke has ignorantly made him alive, being deceived by the fact
that Abilene continued to be called "the Abilene of Lysanias," after
its former ruler, for sixty or seventy years subsequently. Now here
it is in the first place assumed, without any word of proof, that the
Lysanias who died B.C. 34 once ruled over Abilene. Secondly, it is
assumed, also without any word of proof, that Abilene came to be known
as "the Abilene of Lysanias," from him. I venture to assert that there
is absolutely no ground for believing that the old Lysanias was ever
ruler of Abilene; and I venture to maintain that Abilene came to be
called "the Abilene of Lysanias" from a second or later Lysanias, a
son of the former one, who is the person intended by St. Luke. Till
recently, Christian apologists were defied to show historically that
there was ever more than one Lysanias, and were accused of inventing a
second to escape a difficulty. But a few years since, a discovery was
made which must be regarded by all reasonable persons as having set the
whole matter at rest. This was an inscription found near Baalbek,[103]
containing a dedication of a memorial tablet or statue to "Zenodorus,
son of the tetrarch Lysanias, and to Lysanias, her children," by
(apparently) the widow of the first, and the mother of the second
Lysanias. Zenodorus was already known as having succeeded the first
Lysanias in his government. It is thus clear, that there were, as
previously suspected, two persons of the name, a father, and a son, and
there is not the slightest reason for doubting St. Luke's statement
that the latter was tetrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth of Tiberius.
I know of no other cavil against the historical accuracy of the New
Testament, that I can regard as worthy of being dignified with the
name of difficulty. It has been denied that any decree ever went out
from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed,[104] but as
Savigny, the best authority on Roman antiquities, holds the contrary
to be certain, this denial need not detain us. It has been asserted
that if the massacre of the Innocents had taken place, it _must_ have
been noticed by Josephus;[105] but this argument from omission is too
weak to deserve more than a passing notice. Nothing is more familiar
to historical students than the unaccountable omissions which occur
in the works of almost all historians. Scepticism has searched in the
most minute and unsparing way every detail of the Gospel and the Acts,
and has endeavoured earnestly to find "differences" and "divergences"
between these facts and those of profane history; but again and again
has it been compelled to own that the divergences are slight, and
the differences such as may be reconciled by natural and probable
suppositions. The entire result of the searching criticism, whereto the
historical character of the New Testament has been exposed, has been
to show that not only the general narrative, but all its minutiæ, are
trustworthy. No evangelist has been convicted of error in respect of
any historical statements. Where a shallow learning and a defective
knowledge of the records of the past have led men to think that they
had found a slip or a mistake, and a shout of triumph has been raised,
profounder research has always demonstrated the veracity and accuracy
of the sacred writer, and has exposed the ignorance of his assailant.
The historical character of the New Testament is, I think I may say, in
the eyes of all sober historical critics established.
MYTHICAL THEORIES OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY THE
REV. CHARLES ROW, M.A.,
OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE, OXFORD.
MYTHICAL THEORIES OF CHRISTIANITY.
It is hardly possible to over-estimate the importance of the issues
to which it will be my duty to address myself in this lecture. They
involve the central position of Christianity; viz., the all-important
question whether Jesus Christ was an historical person, or a creation
of the imagination. Is the Church which is erected on Him founded on an
historic fact, which had an objective existence; or is the Jesus of the
Evangelists a subjective creation which existed only in the minds of
its originators?
Many of the attacks which have been made on Revelation are directed
against its outworks merely; this is one directed against the very
key of the Christian position. If it can be carried by our opponents,
the whole line of our defences becomes untenable. Let us not deceive
ourselves. If the Gospels are not _in their main outlines_ historically
true, Christianity is no more divine than Shakespeare. It may be the
highest development of man; but it can have no pretence to be esteemed
a revelation from God.
The objections of this school have done more to undermine the belief of
the educated classes in Christianity as a divine revelation than any
one single cause. They have largely created the so-called rationalism
of the Continent. They are widely diffused in America. In our own
country, a numerous class of writers who obtain ready access to our
periodical literature are not only imbued with similar views, but
write with the quiet assumption that the historical foundation of
Christianity cannot be defended.