* Time of Zoroaster.—Dr. Hang, who is no mean authority in
everything which concerns Zoroastrianism, states in an able
resumê 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.