I. prophet who had intercourse with God, conclusively CHAP. proves that in course of time the spiritual principles of the Aryan reformer were opposed by those purely materialistic doctrines which deny the external source of internal revelation. Yet a new impetus seems to have been given to the original principles of Aryan reform at the time which immediately preceded the return of the Israelites from Babylon to the Holy Land. For we may assert that the Persian king, Cyrus, or Koresh, the "Kurush' mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions, adhered to the monotheism originally proclaimed by Zoroaster. Thus only can it be explained that the great unknown Hebrew prophet of the captivity, whose writings are appended to those of Isaiah, calls Cyrus the Anointed' or Christ of the Lord; the shepherd,' who carries out the Divine decrees;2 the eagle called from the East; the man appointed by the Lord's counsel, who is strengthened by the Lord to subdue the nations,' or Gentiles.1 The Hebrew prophet evidently regarded him not only as a chosen vessel in the hand of God, but as an especial organ of the Divine Spirit from above, as one of the more perfect Divine incarnations of the Spirit, Wisdom or Word of God, which was in the beginning with God. 6 This doctrine about the Divine Sonship through the operation of the indwelling Divine Spirit, has most probably been revealed to Abraham, as it certainly was revealed to Zoroaster. And it is a very remarkable fact, that the books of the Avesta, or at least those parts of the same which are attributed to the great reformer and forerunner of Abraham, are by Clement of Alexandria designated as apocryphal books,' and for this reason, because they were the exponents of a hidden doctrine.' 5 In the outset, therefore, the possibility must be admitted that the Aryan apocrypha are the primary source of the Jewish apocrypha. Be this as it may, it follows, even 2 xliv. 28. 1 Is. xlv. 1. 3 xlvi. 11. 4 xlv. 1. I. CHAP. from those writings of the Israelites which form part of the Hebrew or Palestinian canon, that during and after the Babylonian captivity the all-important doctrine of the Divine Sonship had begun to form an essential part of the national Hebrew faith. Moreover, in the apocryphal writings of the pre-Christian era, which formed part of the Alexandrian canon, and which we are now about to consider, the doctrine about the Divine Spirit, Wisdom or Word of God, as the first-born among all creatures, as the mediator between God and man, as the organ of sanctification and immortality, is developed in general accordance with the principles of the Avesta. These circumstances lead us to enquire whether the national religion of the chosen people did not undergo an important reform during the Babylonian captivity. We conclude this introductory chapter by a quotation. 'The Holy Ghost that touched the soul of Hebrew prophets and teachers, also brooded over the spiritual chaos of the old Pagan world, so that gleams of divine light flashed many times across the deep of ignorance and moral evil. It enhances the value of ancient Holy Scripture, it even adds a new significance to it, when we come to know that, far away from its sphere, the erring soul of man was always struggling towards the source of light, and that from the uncreated sun there fell upon it many a sanctifying and guiding ray."1 1 Young, 'The Christ of History,' 1861, p. 169. 'The covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.'-Gal. iii. 17. THE history of Judaism during the Babylonian captivity, and during the time which immediately preceded the advent of Christ, is as yet more or less enveloped in darkness; but we know that at the beginning of the Christian era there existed in the Jewish Church, notwithstanding its formal unity, two antagonistic camps, formed by the two preeminently influential sects of the Sadducees and of the Pharisees. Starting from this fact, we shall attempt to explain the origin of these sects, in the hope of being thereby enabled to throw some light on this important period of Jewish history. CHAP. and II. We cannot trace the sects of the Sadducees and Phari- Sadducees sees in the times preceding the Babylonian captivity. Pharisees. Josephus, the Jewish historian, is the first writer who refers to them; and he speaks of their having been in existence about a century and a half before the Christian era, in the days of Jonathan the Maccabee; and that at 1 143 B. C. CHAP. II. this time the Pharisees, opposed by the Sadducees, already formed a mighty party. Nothing is known about the time of their origin. We cannot accept the suggestion that 'it was in the resolute determination to resist the adoption of Grecian customs, and the slightest departure from the requirements of their own law, that the Pharisees, or separated," took their rise as a party,' in the latter years of Antiochus Epiphanes, or towards the year 170 B.C.2 66 It is more in harmony with what we know about the Pharisees to assume that, at some time or other, they separated from the Sadducees on dogmatical grounds. The Sadducees formed a sect, which although it was separated from that of the Pharisees, yet in some respects was connected with the same.3 They were members of the council, and occasionally even high priests; although Josephus informs us that when they accepted office, which they did unwillingly, and when compelled to do so, they subjected themselves to the opinions of the Pharisees, as otherwise they would not have been suffered by the people. Thus it is rendered probable that the Hebrew canon, as compiled and composed by Ezra, must have been acknowledged, if not originally, at least in course of time, by the Sadducees as much as by the Pharisees; although the former regarded the prophetical writings as of less authority than the books of the law, and yet as inspired. It may be assumed, however, that the mode of interpreting the letter of holy writ was different, and that the verbal interpretation of the recognised text harmonised the same with the tenets of each sect. For it is certain that the Pharisees admitted allegory, which the Sadducees rigidly excluded. The Sadducees taught that the free actions of men depend from their will only, and that God exerts no 1 Ant. xiii. 5-10. 2 See Mr. Twisleton's Article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. 3 Comp. Mat. iii. 7; xvi. 1, 6, 12; Acts xxiii. 6, 7, 8. 4 Acts xxiii. 6. 6 influence on the latter; so that every individual is the sole originator of his destiny. They held that the soul of man dies with the body, and that consequently there is no resurrection, no recompense or punishment after death. They also denied the existence of angels or spirits." Josephus writes: The Sadducees take away fate (or providence), and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly."2 'They suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good or what is evil is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs in such manner to everyone, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in hades.' The doctrine of the Sadducees is this, that souls die with the bodies.' 4 But the Pharisees believed that the free actions and destinies of men are the united result of human liberty and Divine intervention.5 God Himself has fixed every man's destiny, and man can no more evade the same than he can interrupt the Divine plan of the world. Yet within the limits of this predestined fate, man moves and acts in the consciousness of his liberty, and his virtue is his merit. They believed in the existence of higher spirits; in the immortality of the human soul, and in the doctrine of future reward. Josephus writes, that when the Pharisees 'determine that all things are done by fate (or providence), they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit, since their notion is that it hath pleased God to make a temperament whereby what He wills is done, but so that the wills of men can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe СНАР. II. |