Imágenes de página

larizing, all concurred to make the religion of Zoroaster very fascinating to the Jews. For them to oppose it was only to render themselves as odious there, as I am likely to be among orthodox people here, in opposing their doctrine concerning the devil. Jahn, in his Archaeology, thus writes, p. 393-4: "The similitude, which existed between the system of Moses, and that of Zoroaster, which prevailed in Persia and Media, may be summed up in a single article, viz. that they both discountenanced the worship of idols. For,

"I. That original beginning of all things, called HAZARUAM, was neither the creator nor governor of the world, but the endless succession of time, which was represented by Zoroaster, as the supreme existence, ENS, or fountain of being. From HAZARUAM, proceeded Ormuz and Ahrimanes. Ormuz acted the part of creator of the world; a circumstance which caused no little envy in the mind of Ahrimanes, and induced him to mingle with the workmanship of Ormuz, the seeds or principles of evil, which exist. By the Mehestani, moreover, or followers of Zoroaster, not only Ormuz, but six AMSCHASPANDI, also innumerable spirits, dispersed every where, the sun, moon, stars, and other earthly existences, were worshipped without distinc


"II. If the example of the Medes and Persians, who worshipped Ormuz, as the creator and governor of the world, confirmed the Hebrews in the worship of Jehovah, it was equally likely, on the other hand, to induce them to adore the stars, and spirits, which occupied so conspicuous a place in the system of those nations; also, the horses and chariot of the sun, which the ancestors of king Josiah, influenced by the example of the Mehestani, had introduced at Jerusalem, and perhaps, to practise that species of Magian wor

ship, witnessed by Ezekiel in the temple of Jerusalem."

4th. The Jews previous to the captivity, had been preparing themselves in the school of superstition and wickedness, for embracing such opinions at Babylon. Jahn says, p. 392. " During the period immediately preceding their overthrow, every kind of superstition, and every moral pollution prevailed in both kingdoms, especially in that of Judah. No other means therefore remained to correct their vices, but that of extreme severity, by which their whole nation, dispersed from their country into distant regions, and humbled and afflicted, might learn that they tould do nothing without God, and that idols could lend them no assistance."

5th. The long duration of their captivity, unavoidably led to the adoption of such opinions in religion. It was known by the Jews, that their captivity was to be for seventy years, and were desired to make their temporal arrangements accordingly. See the prophets' injunctions about this. But let us suppose, what is hardly supposable, that all the persons who went to Babylon over twenty years of age, were proof against imbibing any false opinion. Suffer me to ask, how were all under that age, and all born there to be preserved? Without a constant miracle they could not, and no one affirms that a miracle was wrought to preserve them. It is then morally certain, that the Jews on their return, must bring back with them many of the religious opinions of the people among whom they had lived: unless we can prove, that they changed all their religious opinions, as easily as a man can shift his clothing..

6th. Prideaux shows from the Old Testament Scriptures, that some of the Jews had gone over to the Magian religion. He refers to Ezek. viii. 16. where the prophet being carried in vision to Jerusalem, saw

"about five and twenty men standing between the porch and the altar, with their backs towards the temple of the Lord, and their faces towards the east ; and they worshipped the sun." The meaning of which is, that they had turned their backs upon the true worship of God, and had gone over to that of the Magians. Here then is direct proof of the fact from Scripture, that Zoroaster's religion was not only imbibed, but the worship it enjoined practised by the Jews. But as very little of the Old Testament was written after the captivity we observe,

7th. That learned men agree, that the Jews brought back from their captivity religious opinions, not taught in their Scriptures. I shall only quote the following writers in proof. Michaelis on the laws of Moses, vol. ii. p. 348. thus writes-"In the New Testament, indeed, and in the Jewish language after the period of the Babylonish captivity, from which the Israelites returned much enriched in names for the Devil, Belial means the Devil: But in the Old Testament it never has this meaning." Again; L'Enfant in his introduction to the reading of the Scriptures, p. 14. thus writes-"But this much is certain, that from that time (of Alexander the Great) the Jews began to Helenize; that the Greek tongue, spoken by the Macedonians, became more common among them, and that they also introduced some of the opinions of the Greek philosophers, as the transmigration of souls, for instance. We find some steps of this notion even in the New Testament, as in Luke xvi. 23. where there is an account of the abode of departed souls, conformable to the Grecian philosophy, and in John, ix. 2. where we find an allusion to the pre-existence and transmigration of souls. It is moreover evident from the Apocryphal writings, from Philo, Josephus, and the Talmudists, that the Jews, especially the Pharisees, had learned and followed the Grecian philosophy ever

since their conversing with the Greeks under Alexander the Great, the Ptolemies and Seleucide his successors, who reigned in Egypt and Syria." Those who wish to see more authorities in proof of this point may consult Dr. Campbell's 6th Dissertation, part i. sect. 19. quoted in my first Inquiry, chap. 1. sect. 3. See also Jahn's Arch. p. 235. 396. The Jews then had two sources from which they derived opinions in religion not taught in their Scriptures. The opinions of Zoroaster and that of the Greek philosophers.

8th. What conclusively proves, that the Jews brought back from their captivity, many opinions not learned from their sacred books, are the Apocryphal writings. The books called Apocrypha, though not canonical, are allowed to be the best writings extant, relative to the Jews after the captivity. To these 1 shall now call the attention of the reader, collecting from them, what were the religious opinions of the Jews in the times to which they relate. Let us consider

1st. What were their opinions respecting evil beings or spirits? We shall begin with their use of the term satan. It occurs only in Eccles. xxi. 27. It is doubtful what idea the writer attached to this word. The word diabolos, occurs frequently in the original, but is rendered slanderer, accusation, &c. in the English version. See Eccles. xix. 15. xxvi. 5. xxviii. 9. xxxviii. 19. and li. 2. 1 Macc. i. 36. 2 Macc. xiv. 27. The only place where it is rendered devil, and which has a connexion with our present subject is Wisd. of Sol. ii. 24. "Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it." The allusion here is to Gen. 3. and from this passage, Christians have derived the idea that it was the devil that deceived Eve. If they can show a better source for this opinion, we hope it will be done. Paul says, death en

tered by sin, Rom. v. 12. and it was shown, Sect. 2. that no Old Testament writer intimates that death entered by the devil. Where then did the Apocryphal writers get this opinion? It must have been from the heathen, and it is evident this idea agrees to Zoroaster's angel of darkness, who was the author and director of all evil, death not excepted. In the Apocrypha evil spirits are frequently mentioned. What child, has not been amused with the account of "Asmodeus the evil spirit" killing Sara's seven husbands? Also, of Raphael curing Tobit's eyes, and binding Asmodeus. And of the wonderful efficacy of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish, which leaped out of the Tigris, the smoke of which smelled by the evil spirit, he fled into the utmost parts of Egypt, where the angel bound him. See Tobit, chaps. 3. 6. 8. 11. In Baruch, iv. 7. 35. we read of devils, but the original word is not diabolos but daimonion, the same which is rendered so in the New Testament. But as it is admitted on all hands, that demons, and the being Christians call the devil, are very different, it requires no attention from me in the present investigation. I would only remark in passing, that people's notions about satan, the devil, evil spirits, witches and wizzards, must be from a heathen source, for none of them are admitted to be real beings in the Old Testament. On the contrary they are there condemned as superstitions, and the Jews commanded to give no heed to them. Where then could the Jews learn such opinions, but from their intercourse with the heathen? If the Jews imbibed the idea of witches in Canaan, and that of the devil and evil spirits at Babylon, and such beings are mentioned in the Apocrypha, are these sufficient reasons for our believing their existence? And is it possible that such beings can be recognized as real in the New Testament?

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »