The Medo-Persians and Parsees. Artfulness of theologians. They
systematically break the ninth commandment. Frauds in orthodoxy. A man
may use false weights innocently, but is punished, nevertheless. In
theology ignorance does not justify deceit. Case in trade. Professional
blindness. A law for punishing adulteration of truth is wanted. Mosaism
and Zoroaster. Parsees and Christians. Moses and Zoroaster. The ancient
magi. The Persians. Conflicting ideas of God in Bible. The source of the
Biblical theology. Cyrus. Inquiry into the authenticity of the Avesta.
The book condemned. Account of the Medo-Persian faith from Herodotus.
Period of introduction of the Devil to the Bible. Summary. Comparison
and contrast. Introduction to next chapter.
In every ancient, and, indeed, in every modern, faith which I have
yet examined, I have been shocked with the manner in which it has been
represented by interested opponents. Whether they are Romanists or
Protestants, Evangelicals or Ritualists, Orthodox or Non-conformists,
all our divines endeavour to prove their own tenets to be the best, by
blazoning everything which is good, and veiling from sight everything
which is doubtful. This being so, it is not at all surprising that
Christians generally should try to exalt the religion professed
by themselves over that propounded by others, whom they designate
"heathens." But though it is not strange that very human partisans
should act thus, it is marvellous to find that all the ardent disciples
of Jesus, without an exception, that I know of, should, in their
dealings with mankind, systematically break the ninth of those
commandments which they assert were given by God to man, upon Mount
Sinai All of them bear false witness against their neighbour, and give
incorrect accounts of themselves in addition. They resemble, indeed,
those Dutch merchants whom Washington Irving describes, so pleasantly,
in his history of New York, who had two sets of weights, a heavy lot by
which to purchase, and a light set by which to sell Such traders we call
"fraudulent;" and I assert that every so-called orthodox polemic whose
books I have read deserves the same epithet. Their fraud is shown by the
misrepresentations that they make, both of the creed which they uphold
and the one which they oppose. The heterodox and the so-called atheist
may be trusted, at least, to tell the truth.
In saying this, I do not assert that everyone gives false witness
knowingly, any more than I would blame a tradesman for using false
scales, or weights, if he could demonstrate that he had purchased them
as true, and could show that he had never tampered with them. Yet the
law would punish such a man for their use, arguing that he ought to
have made inquiry. In one of the large towns of Great Britain, on one
occasion, a merchant, believed to be both religious and honest, sold to
a broker a cargo of stuff which had no existence, and, when the delivery
had to be made, the first destroyed himself, and the second was adjudged
to be a culpable bankrupt, because he had taken the existence of the oil
for granted, without investigation. Just so it is with ordinary divines;
they assume certain statements in their own religious book to be
true--they are taught to shut their eyes to the absurdities in the same
volume, and to explain away, in one manner or another, everything which
militates against common sense. By this plan they contrive to sell,
as sterling stuff, something which is made of base material, without
knowingly being parties to a fraud. In the same way a shopman may, on
the word of the manufacturer, dispose of a piece of goods as wholly
silk, although he has a shrewd presumption that the fabric contains a
large proportion of cotton. For such individuals we have the proverb,
"there are none so blind as those who will not see." But these very
theologians of whom we are speaking, when they are dealing with the
sacred books, ordinary customs, ritual, and the like, of other
people, having a different religion to their own, are exact, in the
extreme--every absurdity is exhibited ruthlessly; every legend is
ridiculed; every discrepancy is magnified; and everything which betrays
ignorance, or want of scientific knowledge, is paraded with inglorious
ceremony. On the other hand, everything good which is to be found
therein is, if possible, suppressed. A book, which was, for a long time,
a standard one amongst our divines, entitled, _Christ and Many Masters_,
is particularly open to this charge. In it there is throughout a
_suppressio veri_, a _suggestio falsi_, and scarcely a page that
does not bear false witness. If there were a law to punish those who
adulterate or falsify "truth," our magistrates would be kept extremely
busy.
As an inquiry into the realities of Buddhism has led us to the belief
that the origin of Christianity may be found in the doctrines of the
son of Maya, which were adopted with certain Judaic modifications by the
sons of Elizabeth and Mary--so it is highly probable that what is called
Mosaism has been built upon the teachings of the Persian or Median
theology, said to have been founded by Zoroaster. Perhaps it would
be difficult to find any modern evidence of the likelihood of this
hypothesis more powerful than the fact that at the present day the Jews
and the Parsees fraternize almost like brothers. The latter in England,
and, I understand, elsewhere, select, when they can, the house of a
Hebrew wherein to lodge, rather than that of any man of another nation.
To this testimony, such as it is, we must add another which is very
telling, viz., that almost every modern orthodox writer who has
treated of Zoroaster, has declared that the prophet of Persia drew his
inspiration from the lawgiver of Israel The priority of the latter being
asserted, and the second place having been given to the former, the
matter was supposed to be proved, and the Persian, after having been
regarded as a copy of the Hebrew, was consigned to oblivion.
There can be little doubt, however, that the teachings of Zoroaster had
more life in them than those either of the Jew or the Christian, for
the Parsee always and even to the present day, and in every position of
life, may lay claim to the title of nature's gentleman, which very
few of the disciples of Jesus or of Moses could pretend to until very
recently. The morality of these religionists is excellent. In every
relation of life they endeavour to be, to do, and to think that which is
right--and though there may be black sheep amongst them, the proportion
of these to the main body is small In no period of their history, so
far as I can learn it, have the Zoroastrians been as brutal as the
Christians were so long as they had the power--nor have they ever
introduced into their worship figures of men, women, or children with
the apparent intention of honouring or adoring them, or the assertion
that such things assisted their devotions. Being strictly monotheists,
they have not split up the Godhead into three males influenced by
a female who is the spouse of one and mother of a second; nor have
asserted that the one great Creator is compounded of a father, a
son, and a pigeon, with a woman for an intercessor with her celestial
consort. Nor do the Parsees build vast temples for the Almighty to
dwell in, neither do they reduce any portion of the Omnipotent to the
necessity of residing in a bit of bread shut up for many a long day in
a box. On the contrary, the modern followers of Zoroaster worship "the
father" in spirit and in truth--not with eye service as men-pleasers,
but with singleness of heart, fearing God (Col. iii. 22.), thus being, as
we are told, the very men whom the Almighty seeketh (John iv. 23, 24).
The first resemblance between the Persian and the Jewish lawgiver to
which we would call attention, is the mythical nature of both. The
Hebrew who believes in Moses can show no other ground for his faith
than a number of books which tell of Moses, his genealogy, his acts,
his laws, his character, and his death. Yet when an independent inquirer
subjects these books, and the accounts which they contain, to a rigid
examination, he finds evidence that the writings are fabrications of a
period at least a full thousand years after the era of their supposed
epoch--probably more; and that all collateral testimony and all internal
evidence drawn from the books themselves disprove the actual existence
of Moses. To the scholar, the Hebrew lawgiver is as apocryphal or
fictitious a being as Hercules, Romulus, and our own king Arthur. Nor is
this belief of the critic shaken when he finds that the history of Moses
is interwoven with miraculous legends--credit them he cannot; but he may
pause before he determines to see in them evidence of fabrication. He
cannot fairly deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because many
marvellous stories were told of him, nor would a similar cause alone
lead him to assert that Francis of Assisi was a mythical individual.
But whichever way the careful philosophical inquirer may decide the
questions at issue, he will remember that many strange stories are told
of the conception, birth, and life of Zoroaster, and that the critic
must mete out equal justice, both to the Jew and to the Persian. Again,
impartial inquirers find themselves unable to determine, with anything
approaching to accuracy, either by internal evidence or contemporary
remains--the positive epoch when the tale about Moses was originated. It
is true that the Bible seems to afford foundation for a chronology in
a few parts, as, for example, in the historical books; but these are
so completely contradicted by genealogies in other parts that we cannot
trust them. After stripping away every doubtful scrap from Jewish
history, all we can find is, that Moses was first talked of, familiarly,
after what maybe called the Grecian Captivity of Jerusalem (see
_Obadiah, Ancient Faiths, &c._t Vol. ii.), and that he was said to
be the author of the ceremonial, moral, and political laws which were
framed for the Jewish nation, and which were assiduously taught to the
Hebrews after the Babylonish captivity.
The followers of Zoroaster are equally ignorant of the real history of
their prophet, and are equally unable to demonstrate the claim of the
Zend Avesta to be a true account of the teaching of the Persian sage, as
are the Jews to prove the antiquity of their laws and nation. Putting
on one side all those which may be regarded as modern fancies, the first
mention made of the Prophet is in the first Alcibiades of Plato, which
we may imagine was written shortly after B.c. 412, in which year that
distinguished Greek citizen negociated a treaty between Athens and
Persia. Plato, when speaking of the education of the sons of the kings
of Persia, says (_Bohn's_ edition, Vol. iv., p. 344), "At fourteen years
of age, they who are called the royal preceptors, take the boy under
their care. Now these are chosen out from those who are deemed most
excellent of the Persians, men in the prime of life, four in number,
excelling (severally) in wisdom, justice, temperance, and fortitude.
The first of these instructs the youth in the learning of the Magi,
according to Zoroaster, the son of Oromazes--now by this learning
is meant the worship of the gods--and likewise in the art of kingly
government." But Herodotus, writing about B.c. 450, when giving, in Book
i, c. 131, an account of the religion of the Persians, makes not only
no mention of Zoroaster, but attributes to that nation a form of worship
differing from what is supposed to be pure Zoroastrianism;* but he
mentions--and it seems to be a significant fact, that it is not lawful
for a Persian to sacrifice unless one of the Magi is present, who
sings an ode concerning the original of the gods which, they say, is an
incantation.
* There is strong constructive evidence, from the nature of
the Aryan Mythology, from the pages of the Vedas, from the
anthropological resemblances between Persians, Caucasians,
Greeks, Latins, Germans, British, and others; from the
linguistic alliances between what have been called the Indo-
Germanic races; and from a variety of other sources, each
small in itself, but strong in the aggregate, for the belief
that the origin of the Aryan mythology, or the Vedic
religion as it is otherwise called, may be traced to Bactria
or to Ancient Persia. Persia is spoken of by Plato as if her
people carried the dynasties of their kings far back into
eternity. (First Alcibiades, Bohn's edition, vol. iv., p.
343). Herodotus again (Book i., c. 131) tells us that the
Persians from the earliest times have sacrificed to the sun
and moon, to the earth, fire, water, and the winds, that
they sacrifice on high places, have no divine statues, nor
do they build temples. Now this is almost entirely a
description of the old Aryan religion. The sun, for example,
is Surya, Aryama, Mitra, Vivaswat, Martunda, Savitor, Sura,
Ravi, Varuna, Indra Yama, Vishnu, and Krishna (Moor's Hindoo
Paillhcon, p. 287). The moon is Chandra and Soma, and the
origin of these words is to be found in the Persian as well
as in the Sanscrit writings (Moor's H. P., p. 284-5). The
Earth is Prit'hivi, 11a, Lakshmi, and Vasta. Fire is the
powerful Agni. The water is Nara, or Narayana (Moor's JET.
P., 74), from which all things came (see Water in Ancient
Faiths), and the Winds are Maruts and Vaya. To these
deities, individually or collectively, the modern Hindoo
offers prayer and praise; and the hymns of the Rig Veda,
such as we have them edited by Max Muller and Wilson, are
copies probably of the same chants which accompanied the
sacrifices of the Ancient Persians.
This seems to indicate that the Persian religion was then undergoing
some supervision by rulers who had a different faith to that held at a
later period. When we next turn to Herodotus, Book L, c. 101, we find
that the Magi were one of the six tribes which composed the Medes;
and we notice that Phraortes, the son of Deioces, reduced the Persian
kingdom under the dominion of the Medes about B.c. 650. If, then, we
regard Zoroaster as being the founder of the Magi, we must throw back
his epoch considerably further than this date. But even if we accept
this conquest as the era of the Parsee prophet, we find that Zoroaster
preceded the first public promulgation of the Mosaic law amongst the
Jews.*
* Time of Zoroaster.--Dr. Hang, who is no mean authority in
everything which concerns Zoroastrianism, states in an able
resume of the evidence, that we cannot assign a later date
to the prophet than 2300 years before Christ. He quotes from
Diogenes Laertius who affirms that Xanthos of Lydia, b.c.
600-450, states, that Zoroaster lived 6000 years before
Xerxes invaded Greece; from Pliny who, on the authority of
Aristotle, says that the teacher preceded Plato by 6000
years; from Hermippus of Smyrna, who studied Magism B.c.
250, and averred that the founder of that sect lived 5000
years before the Trojan war; and from Pliny, to show the
general belief of ancient Greek authors that Zoroaster lived
many thousand years before Moses. Dr. Haug says (I am
quoting from "A Lecture on an Original Speech of Zoroaster,
with Remarks on his Age, by Dr Haug" London: Triibner & Co.,
1865), that the traditional books of the Parsees say
Zerdosht (another form of the more familiar Greek name)
lived 300 years before Alexander invaded Persia. Our author
adds that Hermippus, in 250 b.c., speaks of two millions of
verses of Zoroastrian origin, and infers that these would
require 1000 years for their growth. He then points out the
relationship between the Iranian and the Yedic religion, and
Zoroaster's antagonism to the latter, and argues that this
must have happened ere the Aryans invaded the Punjaub, 2000
years B.c. Dr. Haug then inquires into the probable source
whence the Greeks drew their ideas respecting the antiquity
of Zerdosht, and argues, with great show of reason, that
they consulted the chronology of the Babylonian priests. He
shows that a trustworthy record was kept which went back to
2284 b.c., this he concludes, from data given by Berosus,
was the year when Babylon was conquered by the Medes;--and
from Synkellos he shows that the founder of the dynasty of
the eight Median tyrants over Babylon was called Zoroaster.
But this word, Zarathustra, in the original, signifies a
high priest, and to distinguish him from other hierarchs
the prophet is called Zarathustra Spitama, in the Zend
Avesta--hence this king is supposed not to be the prophet
him" self, but a descendant from him, and a priest in the
order which was founded by the original Zerdosht. This again
points to the fact that the Babylonians could only know
anything about the founder of Magism from the Medes
themselves, and they might, from want of any accurate
chronology, assign to Zoroaster any date they liked--just
as, with many a semi-civilized nation 'a long time may be
converted into ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million
years.' Haug does not endeavour to assign any particular
date to the era of Zoroaster beyond expressing the opinion
that he might have lived one or two hundred years before the
Median conquest of Babylon, and that this occurrence was
probably one of the results of the ferment which his
doctrines caused. "He preached, like Moses, war and
destruction to all idolaters and wicked men, and said that
he was commissioned by God to spread the religion of Ahura
Mazda. Daring his life-time, and shortly after his death,
his followers seem to have engaged in incessant wars with
their religious antagonists, the Vedic Indians, which
struggle is well known in the Sanscrit writings as that
between the Asuras (Ahura) and Devas (the Hindu gods). But
afterwards they spread westward and invaded the countries of
other idol worshippers in order to uproot idolatry, and
establish everywhere the good Mazdayan religion. They really
appear to have changed the order of things in Babylon when
they conquered it, and spread a new creed, for they are
spoken of by Berosus as tyrants." Zoroaster was the first
prophet of truth who appeared in the world, and kindled a
fire which thousands of years could not entirely
extinguish."
When Moses was first talked about we know not, but at the time of
Samuel, David, and Josiah he was unknown. We have no reason to believe
that the Hebrews ever came into contact with, or ever heard of the
Persians, until after the Babylonish conquest, followed by that of
Cyrus; consequently, if the Jewish law first propounded contained
nothing akin to the doctrines and laws of Zoroaster, and subsequent
publications did so, we should naturally conclude that the last were
copied. It is unnecessary to tell the student of biblical history that
the Jews were for many years under the dominion of the Persians and
Medes, and that Nehemiah, one of their great men, after the Babylonian
captivity, was a personal, though humble, friend, of the king of
Persia--i.e., if we take his account of himself for true.
Of the fact of there being two distinct doctrines respecting the
Almighty in the Old Testament no scholar has a doubt. In the one, God
is represented as the sole Being who rules and influences the world:
whatsoever was done He was regarded as the doer of it. He had no
powerful enemy who could thwart His will, no adversary who could
withstand Him successfully. In the other the existence of two rival
powers is distinctly recognised--Jehovah and Satan--the Aryan Mara,
the tempter, who plot and counterplot against each other, and even
condescend to personal wrangling. The most conspicuous example which
we can give of these two doctrines is to be found in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, in
which we are told that Jehovah moved David to number Israel, whereas
in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, evidently written by a modern scribe, we find that
Satan, the adversary, was he who incited the king to perform this deed.
We see the duality of persons conspicuously put forward in the first and
second chapters of Job, in which Satan is represented as being at large,
not being even under the surveillance of Jehovah. See also 1 Kings xxii.
20-23, wherein we find Jehovah at a loss how to bring about a certain
result, and assisted out of a dilemma by a lying spirit--who can do what
the Lord could not effect! We may say that the story is a fiction, but
no Hebrew dare have spoken thus of Jehovah had he ever heard of Moses
and his laws.
As we cannot imagine that a revelation from God to the Hebrews would be
thus changeable, we can come to no other conclusion than that the Jewish
writings were of human origin, and their first doctrines modified by
those of other nations to whom the Hebrews were subjects or enslaved. To
this consideration we may add, that when the Israelites came in contact
with the Medes and Persians, they were merely a 'posse' of slaves,
a crowd of prisoners removed from their own land without a shadow
of power, or any influence, and only anxious to induce those who had
conquered their late masters, the Babylonians, to have pity on their
misery, and restore them to beggared Jerusalem. The idea of the Hebrews
gaining friends by endeavouring to induce the Persian Magi to change
their faith and embrace that of the poor and probably despised Jew
is preposterous. On the other hand, there would be every possible
inducement for the Hebrews to study the faith of that people whose God
had given them victory over the Chaldeans. See in corroboration of this
Ps. cxxxvii., especially the two last verses.
We may regard the question before us in yet another light, If we are
to allow that the words of Isaiah are correct, which describe Cyrus as
God's shepherd (ch. xliv. 28), and as anointed by Jehovah Himself, we
cannot conceive that the religion which he professed was opposed to
that entertained by the Hebrew prophet. As it is morally impossible
that Cyrus and his hierarchy were taught their religion by any Jew, it
follows that the Persian faith can lay the same claim to inspiration as
the Hebrew, if the latter were not indeed almost identical with it.
If, then, we insist upon the latter being "a true revelation," we must
concede the same to the former, or if we pronounce the Persian religion
to be of human invention, we must pass a similar verdict upon the
Jewish.
When we are upon the horns of such a great dilemma we may well pause.
It is indeed almost impossible for orthodox divines to make a selection
which prong of the fork is the worst. If we elect to say our belief
is, that the primitive teaching of the Hebrew was God-given and a true
revelation, we cannot put faith in those scriptures which tell us of a
devil who fights with Jehovah, and is generally victorious. If, on the
other hand, we hold that the Christian notions of the Creator and Satan
are true, we must regard the Zoroastrian teaching as inspired; and
the early Jewish writings as unworthy of credit--of human invention
and heterodox. Theologians will probably elect to remain in a state of
uncertainty on this subject. Philosophers, on the contrary, will escape
from it at once by asserting their conviction that both the Hebrew and
the Magian religion are wholly of human invention.*
* When commencing this chapter, it was my intention to
amplify what I have already said in Vol. II. respecting the
Magian religion, by giving an analysis of the celebrated
Zend Avesta, a translation of which into French, by Anquetil
du Perron, I had recently procured for the purpose.
As I was aware that Dr Haug, a learned scholar, believed the
original to be trust-worthy, I read the translation in good
faith, but I soon began to doubt whether the book was what
it professed to be, for to my mind it bore internal evidence
of having been fabricated at a comparatively recent period
by some one who was familiar both with the Aryan and the
Mosaic, if not the Christian, doctrines and literature. I
felt that I should not be acting honestly unless I took such
steps as lay in my power to satisfy myself upon this point
The essay was therefore laid aside for a considerable time,
until, indeed, every available source of information had
been searched. After my inquiry was over the text was
resumed as above.
But in the middle, or perhaps we might say upon the threshold of our
inquiry, we must pause to examine into the amount of confidence which
can be given to those under whose guidance we are invited to place
ourselves. Such investigations are too frequently omitted. Those who
have faith in the Bible usually decline to search into the grounds
of their belief, and, in like manner, those who have always heard
the author of the Zend Avesta quoted as trustworthy are apt to take
everything which it may say as correct. To avoid this error, I have
consulted all the volumes of the transactions of the Royal Asiatic
Society of London, and have found therein sufficient to throw the
gravest doubts upon the great antiquity of the Parsee religion. It will
be an useful task if I attempt to classify the evidence on each side,
and to draw an inference therefrom. Our knowledge respecting the
Magian religion which the Bactrian* prophet founded, is built, with the
exception of the notices in Greek and Latin authors, already quoted,
upon the work known as the Avesta. This is written in a language called
Zand,** and there are within it parts, which are written in another
tongue, to which the name of Pahlavi has been given, and from these the
sacred books of the Parsees have been translated into French by Anquetil
du Perron, into German by Spiegel, and into English by Haug. All these
writers assume that the language referred to is Ancient Persian, and
closely allied to the Sanscrit, and Haug especially endeavours to
demonstrate that the Avesta, and the origin of the religion of the
Parsees, must be as old as the time of the Vedas, inasmuch as the same
sort of legends, the same names, and, to a certain extent, the same
genii, are to be found in both. There is not absolute identity, however,
for those which are spoken of as good by the Vedas are treated as bad in
the Avesta. Viewed from this point, Haug assigns to the Zand volumes
an age of about four thousand years, and he supports his belief by a
reference to the length of time which would be required to make up the
two million verses attributed to Zoroaster by some Greek author. In the
conclusion that both the Zand and the Pahlavi are very ancient Persian
tongues, it is stated that the majority of German and French critics
agree.
* Zoroaster is said by many early writers to have been a
king in Bactria.--Smith's Dictionary, s.v.
** The word "Zend" is more familiar to many than the form
"Zand;" but I have adopted the latter, as also the spelling
of Pahlavi, from an essay by Mr Romer, with an introduction
by Professor Wilson, in Vol. IV., Royal Asiatic Society's
Journal.
But on the other hand, such orientalists as Sir William Jones, Colonel
Vans Kennedy, Mr Thomas, and Mr Romer, and indeed all British oriental
scholars, regard both the Zand and the Pahlavi as bastard languages,
never spoken, and wholly fabricated by a comparatively modern
priesthood, for the express purpose of making the holy books which they
wrote comprehensible only by themselves. Such scholars show that the
Zand and Pahlavi are built upon a Sanscrit, Arabic, and modern Persian
model, and that the Parsee Pahlavi is very different to the Pehlevi of
the Sassanian coins, and, in Vol. IV., Transactions of Royal Asiatic
Society, Mr Romer supports this conclusion by a number of passages in
the various languages referred to. It is also asserted that many words
in the Avesta have been borrowed from the Arabic, and others from the
Sanscrit tongues, possibly, also, from the Greek. Being unable, from my
comparative ignorance of Eastern language, to form a decided opinion on
independent grounds, all that I can say is, that it does really seem to
be proved that the religious books of the Par-sees are not so ancient as
they have been by many supposed to be.
The question which next arises for our consideration is, whether such
volumes represent the tenets of an ancient faith, or whether they
are the fabrication of men who have, possibly in the wreck of an old
worship, brought about by war or other calamity, endeavoured to create a
new religion out of the relics of one or more old ones. In favour of the
antiquity of the Avesta are the facts that the great god, Ahura Mazdao,
seems to be almost identical with the Aura Mazda of the Persepolitan
inscription of Darius. But in proof of its untruthfulness as a
representative of pure Persian tradition, we find the book introducing
Devs and Ahuras,--the counterpart of the Devas and Asuras of the Vedas,
only reversing their character--we also see Indra mentioned as a devil,
whilst Siva and Mitra are introduced as Sharva and Miltra. (Haug's
_Essays on the Parsee_, Bombay, p. 230, 1862). If, therefore, we allow
that there is some of the old Zoroastrian doctrine to be found in the
Avesta, we must equally grant that such teaching has been modified by
hatred of a rival faith. Yet herein is another question, viz., Was
the antagonism between the doctrines of the Avesta and of the Vedas
contemporary with the origin of the two systems, or was the teaching of
the Avesta the result of its author's coming into hostile conflict with
Vedic teachers, as they possibly might have done after Alexander had
opened a highway for intercourse between Persia and Hindostan?
On weighing the subject as impartially as I can, it seems to me that the
Avesta contains a great deal of the Ancient Persian faith, but that it
will be the safest plan for us to describe what is known of the Persian
and Median faith from other sources, rather than take our information
mainly from this doubtful source. Herodotus tells us of his own
knowledge (B. i, c. 131, seq.), that the Persians, about b.c. 450, did
not erect statues, temples, or altars--that they sacrificed on lofty
hills to high heaven, the sun, moon, fire, water, and the winds, and
that this had been a custom from time immemorial Sacrifice was attended
by a priest or magus, and prayer and praise were offered, not for
themselves alone, but for all the Persians, and especially for the king.
In about the year 521 B.c., Darius, king of the Medes, caused be
made, in three languages, upon a rock at Behistun, an inscription of
considerable length. The one which is in the Persian tongue has been
translated by Rawlinson (_Royal Asiatic Society Journal_, vol 10). In
it, the king acknowledges Auramazda as his god, and speaks of him as the
Jews did of Jehovah. This epithet is explained by two Sanscrit roots (Op
cit., vol. x., p. 68), and may be paraphrased as "The Lord or giver of
life," "The great Creator," or "The Eternal," and the king in a doubtful
passage refers to "the evil one" (?), who by lies deceived the rulers
of certain states, inducing them to rebel, and then left them to be
conquered by the Ormazd-governed Darius. In the Babylonian copy "lies"
are as it were personified. Whilst in the Scythian version, translated
by Mr Norris (Op cit. vol. xv., p. 144), we find the account run thus:
"These are the provinces which became rebellious, 'the god of lies'
made them rebel that they would subvert the state, afterwards Ormaza
delivered them into my hand." The "lies," or the god of lies, we very
naturally associate with the being whom we call in our time the devil,
who is spoken of (John viii. 44) as a liar, and the father of falsehood,
who was so from the beginning [--Greek--], and consequently regarded as
coeval with the "father of light."
We next turn to such evidence as is given us in the book of Job. We
select this ancient writing in consequence of the strong internal
evidence there is, that it was written by some one about the period of
the Achaemenian dynasty living in Persia (see Rawlinson in _Journal of
B. A. Soc_., vol. 1, new series, p. 230). In Job we find two distinct
powers spoken of, the one being the Good God, and the other Satan the
opposer. The last is regularly described as if he had the power to cause
war, devastation, tempest, disease, and death, for ch. ii., v. 6, lets
us infer that he might have killed Job had he been so minded and God
allowed the bargain, and in verse 19 of the same chapter we find
him killing all the sons and daughters of the patriarch. Job
clearly recognised the necessity of sacrifice for purification, for
sanctification, and he seems not to have offered this upon any altar, in
any temple, or with the intervention of any priest. It is clear that Job
had never heard of Moses or the writings assigned to him. The persecuted
patriarch and his friends all believe that punishment in this life is
the result of offences committed against the Good God, but all seem
to be singularly free from the idea that Satan is the cause of Job's
sufferings either directly or indirectly. There is throughout the book
no reference made to a preceding or a succeeding condition of man,
such as obtained amongst the Brahmins, and it is doubtful whether the
Persians believed in heaven or hell. When man died he was supposed to
perish. Hence we conclude that the doctrine of the resurrection was not
prevalent at the time the story was written, and in the country where
the writer of the book of Job resided. Equally unknown to that author,
whoever he was, were the ideas about angels, ministers of God, or
disembodied spirits. These were of Babylonian origin. We must now, to
carry on the thread of the argument, recal to mind the fact that Babylon
was taken by the Medes and Persians, that the rulers of the united
people often made that city their residence, that Herodotus tells us
(B. 1, c. 135) that "the Persians are of all nations most ready to adopt
foreign customs," and I may notice, in passing, that the same authority
states that the two nations were scrupulously truthful, ceremoniously
cleanly, and intolerant to leprosy. It is well known, moreover, that
even after the commencement of our era Babylon was the chief seat of
Babbinic and Talmudic lore.
When we examine into the religion of the Babylonians we find that
they believed in the existence of angels--minis-, ters of the
Supreme--intelligences,--unseen by man, yet powerful to act in his
favour, or against him. If we rightly interpret many of the engraved
gems which were executed by the Chaldees, we can only come to the
conclusion that they believed in a Devil, a Typhon, or spirit of
destruction.
We next must call attention to the fact that the Jews were conquered by
the Babylonians, and enslaved in Mesopotamia for very many years--that
they were subsequently emancipated by the Medo-Persians, and that the
latter, whom from the inscription of Darius we believe to have been
devout, permitted and even encouraged the Israelites to entertain the
faith which they then held, and even assisted them to rebuild their
temple. This permission, and the friendliness of Nehemiah with the
Median monarch, seem to show a great similarity, if not an identity,
between the Persian and the Jewish creeds.
If, then, we could frame any definite idea of the tenets held by the
Jews before they came into contact with the Babylonians, and those which
they professed afterwards, we might form a conception of what they got
from the Chaldees, the Medes, and the Persians respectively. Without
going very deeply into the matter, we may say that Hebrew scholars
generally allow that the ideas of Satan--a power opposed to that of God,
and of angels or spirits, were introduced between the captivity and
the period when the scriptures were translated into Greek, and that the
notion of a future life and the resurrection of the dead, was developed
after the time of the Septuagint, about b.c. 277.
From the preceding considerations we draw the inference that the idea of
the resurrection of the dead, of a future state of existence, in which
each will be punished or rewarded for what had been done by him in his
mortal condition, was not a portion of the original Median, Persian,
Babylonian, or Jewish religion. A mass of circumstantial evidence has
led me to believe that the idea of a Heaven for the good and a
Hell for the bad, came from those who professed what we will call the
Vedic or the Buddhist faith. If, in reply to this, it is alleged that
it may have come from the Greeks directly, the rejoinder is simply
this--that the Grecians, as Aryan colonists, brought with them only
a rude notion of a futurity, which they were the medium of improving,
when, through the influence of their arts and arms, they opened a
highway to India both by sea and land. Those who could import into their
armies such huge beasts as elephants, could far more readily import a
new article of faith, if it pleased the priests.
If our reasoning is sound, we cannot, I think, regard the Avesta as
a trustworthy exposition of the ancient teaching of Zoroaster. On the
other hand, we must, in my opinion, consider it as a book fabricated to
serve a particular purpose. In this respect it resembles our own Bible,
which was composed for the glorification of the Hebrews when smarting
under a series of ignominious defeats and enslavements; and then
enlarged, contracted, or altered, to suit emergencies.
The following table will assist the reader to compare or contrast
the religion of the Medo-Persians with that of the Hebrews in some
matters:--
[Illustration: 285]
[Illustration: 286]
The Hebrews first worshipped a calf, and then a box; they believed that
their God taught them to build a tabernacle first, then a temple, and
to It is not the practice of the Perform altars for sacrifice. The
Hebrews sians to erect statues, or temples, also believed that Elohim
had one or or altars, and they charge with folly more human forms--see
Gen. xviii. 1, those that do. They do not think 2, and the following
chap. xix. 1--see the gods have human forms, also Gen. xxxii. 1 and
24-80, also Josh. v. 13, 14, 15, Jud. ii. 1-5.
The anthropomorphism of the Jewish Scriptures has already been referred
to in Vol. I. of Ancient Faiths.
The Persians are accustomed to ascend the highest parts of the
mountains, and offer sacrifice to Jupiter, calling the whole circle of
the heavens by that name.
The Persians sacrificed to the son and moon, to the earth, fire, water,
and the winds.
Amongst the Persians, sacrifices were attended by invocations and
prayers, and were always offered up by a priest.
The Persians, next to bravery in battle, considered the greatest proof
of manliness was to be able to exhibit many children.
Whoever has the leprosy or scrofula is not permitted to stay within a
town, nor have communication with other Persians; and it is supposed
that the infliction is caused by some offence against the deity (sun
god). Herodotus, book I., chaps. 131,138.
The eldest son of the Persian king was instructed during youth in the
learning of the Magi according to Zoroaster the son of Oromazes--by this
learning is meant the worship of the gods--and likewise in the art of
kingly government. Plato, in Alcibiades.
The Hebrews sacrificed on high places for a long period. Sacrifice in an
enclosed place seems to have been adopted from the Phoenicians by David
and Solomon, but not to have been popular for some centuries.
The Jewish people sacrificed to sun, moon, and some planets--had a
sacred fire in the temple, and regarded clouds and wind as the ministers
of God. The God that answered by fire was the one adopted by Elyah. The
so-called orthodox Jews only acknowledged one God, and subsequently one
devil.
The Jews neither offered invocation nor prayer at their sacrifices, and
prophets and kings offered victims without priestly assistance. In later
times every sacrifice was offered by a priest.
The Hebrews regarded a large family as a gift from Jehovah.
The Hebrews had the same practice; and, as we learn in the book of Job,
and Deuter. xxviii, notably in the 27th verse, they deemed that botch,
scab, itch, and emerods were punishments sent by Jehovah.
The royal families of Judah received no instruction, either in political
matters or in religion, and were allowed to grow up and do much as they
liked in regard to worship. The only power which influenced them was
that assumed by some man who professed to be divinely inspired.
In a chapter of ancient faiths and notice an allegation which has that
Parseeism or Zoroastriamsm has been borrowed from Jews and Christians.
To this we wholly demur. Nowhere in the Avesta do we find a reference to
the imminent destruction of the world, the resurrection of a dead man,
his subjugating all the powers of evil, and reigning for a thousand
years with his followers as kings and saints. Nowhere in the Avesta do
we discover such immoral notions of God as prevailed amongst the ancient
Jewish writers. Take these away from Judaism and Christianity, and
then the two resemble the religions which are held everywhere by the
thoughtful and the good. If there has really been any copying at all,
we do not see the imitators in Central Asia but on the shores of
the Mediterranean. The Jews copied from Tyre, Babylon, and
Greece--Christians have taken as models Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, and
even barbarians, and they have denied a once pure faith by covering it
over with the ordures of heathenism. Yet we talk of others imitating us!
I propose now to examine at some length into such of the developments as
have taken place in certain religious systems, for by so doing we shall
be better able to judge what are those doctrines which Christians hold,
in common with what they call Pagan nations, and how far those matters
which are regarded as fundamental points of doctrine are in reality
trustworthy. We must ever bear in mind that if we find the same set of
ideas entertained amongst peoples who by no possibility can have had any
communication with each other, it is only rational to believe that each
race possesses those notions in virtue of their being human. Or, if
desirous of avoiding this admission, the orthodox declares that
every asserted fact is a copy of a precedent one, then we ask them to
reconcile the legend of Hercules being begotten by Jupiter, and Jesus by
the Holy Ghost, for unquestionably the story of Alcmena's son preceded
that told of Mary's.
In the following chapter I shall avoid as far as possible any reference
to the tales told of the conception of Jesus, for no man, however
subtle he may be, can prove that the Son of Man had a certain mundane
individual called Joseph for a father; all that I desire to show is,
that in every nation whose history has come down to us there have been
persons whose mothers have declared themselves to have been pure virgins
until adopted by some god as a temporal and temporary spouse, or who,
being wives, have asserted that a son who has distinguished himself
in the world has been of divine procreation--an affirmation, be it
observed, that can only be made in case the spouse has been manifestly
unfaithful, or by some fulsome historian desirous of exalting his hero
to celestial rank. There is scarcely a barbaric dynasty known, indeed,
which does not claim an origin from some heavenly father, mother, or
both.
There have been many hierarchs who, having felt conscious of the
absurdity of making, by miraculous agency, all wonderful beings come
from woman only, have consequently invented legends in which men have
produced offspring without a consort. Some may be disposed to deride
these tales, who can readily credit the stories of virgin mothers; but
in reality there is no difference between the two sets of legends, in
probability, wherever "miracles" are assumed. It would have been quite
as easy for the writer of Genesis to have made Isaac come from old
Abraham's bosom as from the womb of his hoary-headed wife. But the
Jewish writers have never proved themselves as subtle as the Hindoos and
Greeks. Instead of asserting that a man, without a woman's assistance,
has borne a son--a matter capable of proof--they have declared that a
woman has conceived, without the assistance of a man; an asseveration
for which there cannot be any proof whatever, no not even physical,
for accoucheurs know that many a female conceives by her lover's
instrumentality, and bears a child, at whose birth, or rather when
parturition is imminent, that part which is called "the Hymen," and is
the Mosaical test of virginity, is not only unbroken, but so small
in aperture, and strong in flesh, as to require operative or surgical
interference before the child can come into the world. According to
Mosaism these must be regarded as absolutely virgin mothers.