In any case Purim has not been successfully connected with Zakmuk.
Mr. Frazer, however, says that 'an examination of that' (the Jewish)
'tradition, and of the manner of celebrating the feast, renders it
probable that Purim is nothing but a more or less disguised form of the
Babylonian feast of the Sacæa or Zakmuk.'[21] We have seen that stern
dates do not allow us to identify Sacæa with Zakmuk. The month Lous is
firm as the Macedonian phalanx, and will not masquerade as March-April,
when Zakmuk was held. Setting that aside, 'there are good grounds for
believing that Purim was unknown to the Jews until after the exile,'
and yet 'that they learned to observe it during their captivity in the
Bast.'[22] But their captivity in the East _was_ the exile, so how did
they know nothing of Purim at the very time when they also learned to
celebrate that festival'? However, it is reckoned 'fairly probable'
that the Jews borrowed Purim either 'directly from the Babylonians
or indirectly through the Persian conquerors of Babylon;' the only
question is from which?[23]
The Jews probably borrowed Purim in or after the exile. But they also
kept Purim before the exile, at least Mr. Frazer thinks that 'the best
solution.' It is Jensen's solution, stated, however, only 'in letters
to correspondents.'[24]
It really seems hardly consistent that Mr. Frazer should both think
Purim probably a feast borrowed in or _after_ the exile, and also
appear to approve a theory which regards the feast as familiar to the
Jews _before_ the exile. Yet that is what he has apparently succeeded
in doing.
He prefers Jensen's solution, which is this: A fast was held before the
feast of Purim.[25] Why?
'The best solution appears to be that of Jensen, that the fasting and
mourning were originally for the supposed annual death of a Semitic
god or hero of the type of Tammuz or Adonis, whose resurrection on the
following day occasioned that outburst of joy and gladness which is
characteristic of Purim.'[26] Yes; but the Jews had that institution
before the exile. In the first days of his own captivity Ezekiel was
carried, in the flesh, or out of the flesh, to the temple at Jerusalem.
'Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which
was towards the north, and, behold, there sat women wailing for
Tammuz.'[27]
Now Jensen's solution is that the fast at Purim represents the wailing
for Tammuz, or somebody of his type. But, if the Jews did that, as
they did, _before_ the exile, and if that was Purim, how did they
also borrow Purim _after_ the exile, especially as 'there are good
grounds for believing that Purim was unknown to the Jews till after the
exile'?[28] How can both views be correct? Or is this March feast of
the Tammuz kind an addition to the old pre-exilian Jewish Tammuz feast?
Moreover, Purim is probably, according to Mr. Frazer, 'a mere
disguised form of the Sacæa,' which, in his opinion, is the same as
Zakmuk.[28] But 'the central feature of the Sacæa appears to have
been the saving of the king's life for another year by the vicarious
sacrifice of a criminal.'[29] Yet its central feature is also the
sorrow for the death and glee for the resurrection 'of a Semitic god or
hero of the type of Tammuz or Adonis,' following Jensen. How can the
Sacæa have two central features? If it is only an affair of hanging
a man to save the king's life, why should the Jews at Jerusalem fast
before the vicarious sacrifice of a criminal for the Babylonian king?
They did fast, we know. And why should the victim's resurrection (if
any) on the following day 'occasion that outburst of joy and gladness
which is characteristic of Purim'?[30] What had the Jews to make with
the resurrection of a proxy of the king of Babylon?
Mr. Frazer has not, I think, suggested that the kings of Israel or
Judah were once annually sacrificed. So why were the Jewish women
wailing at the north gate of the Temple? For Tammuz, as we know from
Ezekiel; but Tammuz was not a Jewish king, or, if he was, it should be
stated. Also, if the Jewish ladies wailed and rejoiced for Tammuz at
the Temple in Jerusalem before the exile, how can it be consistently
maintained that they knew nothing of these rites till after the exile,
and then borrowed them from Babylonians or Persians? If Purim is a
Tammuz rite, the Jews had it before the exile, as Ezekiel proves. If it
is not a Tammuz rite, why is Jensen's the best solution? for Jensen's
solution is that 'the fasting and mourning were originally for the
supposed annual death of a Semitic god or hero of the type of Tammuz
or Adonis, whose resurrection on the following day occasioned that
outburst of joy and gladness which is characteristic of Purim.'[31]
Then, once more, that outburst of joy and gladness for the re-arisen
Tammuz was[32] probably in the month Tammuz, our June-July. But now[33]
it is at Purim--that is, in March.
How are Mr. Frazer's theories to be reconciled with each other and with
the facts? Did the Jews wail for Tammuz, in spring, before the exile;
and, after the exile, adapt their old rite of a Tammuz fast and feast
to the vicarious sacrifice of a condemned criminal (whether in July or
in April) in the interests of the king of Babylon? Had they been wont
to hang a man, while they wailed for Tammuz, before the exile? If so,
why did they hang him, and what did they borrow during the exile? Or
was all that they borrowed just the habit of crowning, discrowning,
whipping, and hanging a mock-king, as an addition to their pre-exilian
Tammuz fast and feast? We have certainly no evidence that they did
these cruel things before the exile. And there is no evidence, as we
shall see, that they yearly committed the same atrocity after the exile.