I. they then already formed a regularly organised state, CHAP. ruled over by a national king. It was about this time that the last king of their Aryan brethren in Bactria was subjugated by the founder of the Assyrian empire. We have seen that Zoroaster lived during the reign of Vistaspa, the son of the founder of the capital of Bactria; that at this time the Aryan emigration to the Indus took place, and that this led to the occupation of the countries on the Ganges, which formed part of an Aryan kingdom about the year 1300 B.C. Thus we are enabled to assert, that the long period of conquest on the Indus, during which the Vedas were written, and when the Ganges was as yet not reached by the Aryan immigrants, marks the undefined time which elapsed between the reign of King Vistaspa, and of Oxothres the last king of Bactria. It must to a certain extent be left to conjecture, how many centuries must have elapsed between the Aryan exodus in the time of Zoroaster, and the time which marks the formation of the Aryan kingdom on the Ganges. But, judging from the precedents established by similar migrations, conquests and settlements which history records, the opinion, otherwise supported, that a thousand years and more may be assigned to this eventful period, seems worthy of being considered. If we accept it, then, Zoroaster was the contemporary, if not the forerunner, of Abraham. It is difficult not to connect somehow or other the Semitic Patriarch with the descendants of the Aryan race.1 1 According to an ancient Jewish tradition recorded in the writings of Philo, in the Mishnah, and in later writings, Abraham was at first taught Chaldæan doctrines, and it was at a later period of his life that he was led to know the true God. Again, according to the 'Recognitions,' which as we shall see were written in the second century, although they probably contain parts which were written in the first, Abraham is asserted to have had three sons, the last of whom, Isaac, was born after that his ignorance had been removed by revelation. Only Isaac's descendants can therefore be in possession of the whole truth, while the descendants of Ishmael are barbarians, and those of Eliezer (Gen. xv. 12) the progenitor of the Persians, received only fragments of the truth (Rec. i. 33). The object of the writer clearly is to show that Zoroaster was a descendant of Abraham, but that he descended from a son born before the revelation to the patriarch. CHAP. I. Biblical allegory. 6 The biblical record declares the home of his forefathers to have been the region of the Chaldæan mountains, which was probably inhabited by the Aryan race. It is acknowledged that the Bible-records referring to the time previous to Abraham, and which were transmitted to later generations by the descendants of the ancestor of the Hebrew race, in some instances admit of an allegorical interpretation. Thus even the name of Noah may possibly have been chosen for the purpose of referring to the time of the flood. It is well known that the word Noah is derived from the Aryan root 'na' or 'nach,' which means water, from which the Indian 'naus,' the Latin navis,' and the German nachen' and 'nass' are derived; whilst in the language of some of the Indian tribes up to the present day, 'noa' means to drink, and 'noka' the source. Again, the names of the sons of Noah' clearly denote the countries occupied in remote ages by the different races of mankind, occupying the northern, the central, and the southern parts of the then known world. And although it is natural to suppose that the Semitic writer believes Shem to have been either the eldest son, or the representative of the first tribe of the postdiluvian family, yet in the ethnographic account contained in the 10th chapter of Genesis, one of the most ancient historical documents in the Bible, Japhet, though probably not actually declared to be the elder,'1 is mentioned before his brothers, when the people represented by his sons' are enumerated,2 as if these were the first-born among the nations. Again, the sons of Shem, that is Elam, Asshur, Arpaxad, Lud, and Aram, are here enumerated in regular order from east to west, Aram closing the list on the borders of the 'Western Sea,' that is of the Mediterranean. This points to an aboriginal migration from the north-east, to which the name and the history of Abraham refers. And finally, 3 According to Greek mythology Japetos, the husband of the Asia, was the ancestor of the human race. are we not permitted to explain ethnologically also the biblical records referring to the sons of Adam? And if we do so, can it be denied that this remarkable account may be intended as a figurative reference to that great historical event which we have just considered, that is, to the separation of the Aryan shepherds from the Aryan tillers of the ground? Every part of the story can be so explained, excepting that in the biblical record it is the tiller of the ground, and not the shepherd, who leaves the terrestrial paradise for a distant country. CHAP. I. and Semi This very marked difference between the two accounts Japhetic may be explained without assuming later corrections of tic account. the text. The Semitic writer, whose allegory might in his time be understood to refer to this event of the past, would naturally enough claim for Abel, the representative of his tribe, the more honoured occupation of a shepherd. For a pastoral life is by the writer considered as especially protected ever since its Divine consecration; whilst the culture of the ground, like the latter itself, is by him considered as 'cursed' for the sake of man, ever since he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.' We see that the harmony between the two accounts is sufficient to lead us to the conjecture that the sons of Adam in the biblical account may, like the sons and grandsons of Noah, be explained ethnographically. And this the biblical account obliges us to do. For if Cain and Abel are taken to be the first children of the first created pair, Cain could not, after the murder of Abel, have dreaded to be found out and slain by any man, excepting by his parents, from whose presence he fled to a distant country. Nor can the assumption remove the difficulty that although Eve had no third son till after the murder of Abel, she may have had daughters, which the Bible does not mention, because they may have left Eden for some reason or other. For though Cain's wife might be supposed to have been one of these apocryphal sisters of his, he could not have dreaded the revenge of the others, CHAP. I. Adam the nor referred to them in such general terms. Again, why should Cain the brother or the uncle have been marked? Let us compare the principal features of both accounts. The descendants of a family are divided into shepherds and tillers of the soil. Both offer up sacrifice, but only the sacrifice of one party is well-pleasing to God; and this circumstance is the principal cause of both parties not continuing to live together in peace. A separation takes place by emigration, according to both accounts; but murder is by the Semitic account stated to have been the immediate cause of separation. Yet, as this murder is occasioned by the fact, in which both accounts agree, that only the sacrifice of the one party was acceptable to God, the addition of this feature in the biblical account cannot be urged as a cardinal difference. Moreover it may be conjectured, from the Japhetic or Aryan account, that the separation was not effected without deeds of violence. The emigrating party, according to both accounts, adhered to a religion not pleasing to God; God did not respect the sacrifice of the same; it went away from the presence of the Lord, that is, it served many gods. The fugitive party went towards the east of that Eden where God had manifested His presence. It migrated to the banks of the Upper Indus; there it may have mixed itself up with the aboriginal inhabitants of these districts; at all events, it established itself there and built cities. The land of Nod, on the East of Eden, has already been identified with India (Han-Nod'), and the city of Enoch (Khănoch), with the north-Indian city of 'Chanoge,' celebrated in the early epics of the Hindoos, and called by the ancients Canogyza, of which the narrator might have heard.1 If, then, we are obliged to explain figuratively this account in Genesis, it seems to transport us to the time of the great Aryan reformer, who would thus be proved 1 Von Bohlen, Genesis, English translation. as identical with the Adam of the Bible; whilst the biblical record about the sons of Adam would directly refer to the first historical migration of the human race.1 We now purpose giving a brief summary of the principal tenets, which, according to the most ancient books of the Avesta, have been undoubtedly preached by the great Aryan Reformer. These ancient records may, to a certain extent, fill up the void occasioned by the scanty and fragmentary accounts which the Bible contains with reference to the teachings of Abraham, the friend of God. But beyond this, these extracts will, it is hoped, point to the source of that Aryan and Chaldæan tradition, of which we shall show that it caused the great reform of the Jewish faith about the time of the Babylonian captivity. 6 3 CHAP. I. God is One and Invisible.-The new name given God is a to God by Zoroaster is Ahura-Mazda, or Ahuro-Maz- Spirit. dâo, that Ahura who is called Mazdao,' or 'the living Creator of all,' or of the universe.' He is the 'holy, living, wise Spirit,' 2 the true God,' to whom are opposed the liars,' the fallen and evil spirits, or devas, who were worshipped as gods. He is the light of light,' or He who has His own light, the source of that light which most resembles Him, and through which He appears to His prophet. He is the source of His inborn glory,' through which He first created the multitude of celestial bodies;' as also through His mind' (or intellect.) He created the good creatures, governed by the inborn (indwelling) good mind.' He is 'the living good Spirit,' who is 'everlasting,' and who makes the good creatures 'grow.'4 He is the Father of the good, active (or operating) spirit (sense or mind);' 'the Being who creates all;'5 'the holiest One;' 'the 6 1 See our concluding remarks on this subject at the end of the next chapter, and the table on the seven thousand years in the last chapter. 2 Yas. xliii. 7. 5 Yas. xlv. 4. 3 Yas. xliii. 4. 4 Yas. xxxi. 7. |