Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

cannot be traced, as it has been by many (among the last by Schlottmann) to the common dependence of both the Old Testament and Persian doctrines upon some primary revelation. This view, as well as the notion, which was current for a long time (see J. A. L. Richter and others), that the religion of the Old Testament was to a considerable extent derived from Parseeism, has become antiquated in consequence of the progress of science in modern times. The birth of Zoroaster himself is now assigned by not a few learned men to a comparatively recent date. Stuhr says (p. 354), "the most distinct historical marks may be discerned, which justify us in maintaining that Zerduscht and his religious teaching belong to the period of Darius." According to Röth (Geschichte unserer Abendländischen Philosophie i. p. 350 sqq.), Zoroaster lived under the father of Darius; according to Kruger (in the Geschichte der Assyrier und Iranier, which deserves but little confidence), eleven years after the destruction of Jerusalem. And even though others, such as Spiegel, for example (Avesta die heiligen Schriften der Parsen, vol. i. p. 44), place Zoroaster in the prae-historical times, all are agreed that the religious books of the Persians belong to a very recent date. Stuhr, after having endeavoured to prove that the Zendavesta is a comparatively recent work, says (p. 342), “even Bürnouf (le Yaçna, p. 351) does not manifest any disinclination to assign the composition of the Zendavesta to a period in which the fire-worship had ceased to exist in Iran in its original purity." Spiegel (Avesta, p. 13) says, "in the writings of the Avesta, which have been received by us, it is evident that very little is

a very remarkable thing, if the striking agreement should have arisen from mistaken views, on the one hand, respecting the angel of the Lord, and on the other respecting Zervane Akerene, and especially if these mistakes had arisen altogether independently of each other. The passages, taken from a modern Parsee catechism, to which Spiegel, who follows Müller, has appealed as favouring his views, and also "the express testimony of the Persians of our own day" (p. 226), are more recent paraphrases, in which there is a reaction of the original Parseeism against the interpolated element. They are not even sufficient to counterbalance the testimony of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The realistic view has the greatest pretensions to originality. And, as a rule, the idealistic views are later paraphrases. Schlottmann's defence of the earlier view respecting Zervane Akerene, which is strongly supported by its agreement with the Jewish theology, from which in all probability the Persian doctrine was originally derived, has not been weakened by Spiegel, and this defence might even be rendered considerably stronger.

VOL. IV.

X

traceable to Zarathustra himself, perhaps nothing at all; the greater part has been composed by various, and generally recent, authors;" and again in p. 54, "the evidence brought to establish the authorship of Zarathustra cannot possibly be sustained." In addition to the recent date of the Zend books, the evident tendency of the Persians to syncretism and to the adoption of anything foreign must also be taken into consideration. Herodotus (i. 135) speaks of the Persians as being particularly fond of adopting foreign customs, “ξεινικὰ δε νόμαια Πέρσαι προσievtai åvồpôv μáλiora.” Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 6) represents Zoroaster as transferring many of the mysteries of the Chaldeans into his religion. Arabic writers (quoted in Prideaux) say that he was instructed by one of the pupils of Jeremiah. Modern investigations have thrown the clearest light upon this eclectic character of the Persian religion. "In former ages," says Studer, p. 344, "a confusing and confused eclecticism had everywhere gained the upper hand." And with reference to the influence of Jewish doctrines he also observes, p. 374,"among the Persians there was nothing whatever to prevent ethical principles, which had been matured in the historical development of the worship of Jehovah, from being transferred into the forms already prepared in this nature- and spiritworship." Spiegel (Avesta p. 11) remarks, "in this historical age the Persians certainly borrowed a great deal from their more cultivated Semitic neighbours." In p. 270 he lays down the rule that "if we find any views expressed in the later books, which contradict, in so many words, those of the earlier, we need not hesitate to pronounce them of later origin, and if they clearly resemble anything foreign, in the majority of cases we may assume that they are borrowed." Kruger, who imagines Zoroaster to have been "a younger contemporary of Jeremiah," detects the influence of Judaism in the doctrine respecting the first parents and their fall. And thus, after a long period during which the connexion was inverted and the borrowing was attributed with the greatest confidence to the Jews, the state of the case, in all essential points, is exactly what it was about two hundred years ago. The learned and sober Prideaux (Old and New Testament) supposes Zoroaster to have lived under Darius Hystaspes. He also maintains that he borrowed to a consider

able extent from the Old Testament, and draws a parallel between him and Mohammed, "from this," he says, "it is sufficiently obvious that the founder of this doctrine was well versed in the sacred writings of the Jews, from which the whole seems clearly to have been taken, and that the cunning deceiver reduced it into the shape, that corresponded best to the ancient religion of the Medes and Persians, upon which he propped it." Hyde, whose researches are of the most thorough description, in his work veterum Persarum religio, c. 10, affirms that "the religion of the Persians coincided in many respects with that of the Jews, and to a great extent was taken from it," and at p. 176 he writes, "in genere autem innuam, quod ex lege Mosaica eis plurima suggessit eorum propheta Zerduscht, quem in illa satis versatum fuisse constat."

In the case of the doctrine of Zervane Akerene, however, there are very special reasons for supposing it probable that it was borrowed. In the religious books of the Persians it has a somewhat obscure and uncertain character. "It is only, so to speak, through a vail," as de Sacy observes (in Spiegel's Morgenl. Zeitschrift, vol. v., p. 20), "that this important doctrine can be discovered, either in the books which the Parsees have preserved, or in the teaching of their priests." Moreover, it never assumed any fundamental importance, and occurs in but comparatively few passages. Röth (Anzeige von Röths Geschichte der abendl. Philos. p. 253) says, "Among the invocations, contained in that portion of the Yaçna, which has been sufficiently explained by Bürnouf, there is not one which expresses the so-called highest notion of the deity. And it is easy enough to see from the translation of Anquetil, that this notion is mentioned very rarely in those portions of the Zend books, which are confessedly the earliest. This might have directed the attention of the author to the possibility of the abstraction in question being of a later date. To this we may add that no Greek or Latin author, before the Christian era, mentions any such idea (? Aristotle); but, on the contrary, Theodore of Mopsuestia is the first to mention the name of Zaruam. As examples the author quotes one passage from the recent Pehlewi-book Bundehesh, another from a prayer to the sun, and lastly a third from the 19th section of the Vendidad, the most complete of the Zend books." Lastly, this doctrine is apparently at variance

with the original religious system of the Persians, and hence appears to be merely grafted upon it.

Spiegel maintains this most distinctly in the Avesta, p. 271, where he says, "From the Persian mythology I might select with the greatest confidence (as an example of borrowing), the doctrine of Zervanaakarana, or infinite time. This doctrine is but sparingly hinted at in the Parsee books. In the whole of the original

religious system of the Persians this doctrine is a complete discord." He also says (Morgenl. Zeitschrift, vol. v., p. 230), “At all events we repeat that the doctrine of infinite time (a supreme, abstract deity, p. 224), is foreign to the original Parsee system, and was interpolated into it at a comparatively recent period;' and again in vol. vi., p. 79, "Zervana-akarana is a recent interloper and a disturbing element, which was never even fully recognised as belonging to Parseeism."

If this result, then, is obtained, that the doctrine of Zervane Akerene did not exist originally among the Persians, but, on the contrary, was borrowed from the Jews, the argument will assume this unanswerable form: to produce such an impression upon the Persians, the conviction of the divine nature of the Maleach Jehovah must have become a settled national doctrine among the Jews. But such a doctrine could hardly have originated in any other way, than as the result of a lively tradition, dating from the period in which the sacred writings were composed. Hand in hand with this argument goes the following, from which it is evident, that the doctrine respecting the angel of the Lord, which we have defended, had taken deep root among the Jews.

The testimony of the Jews confirms the Church's view of the doctrine of the angel of the Lord. In all the passages, in which the angel of God is spoken of, the early Jews understood neither an inferior angel, nor a natural cause, nor the invisible God himself, but the one mediator between God and the world, the author of all revelation, to whom they gave the name Metatron. This name was originally an appellative, which might therefore be used of different beings, and a careful dis

1 Spiegel is somewhat wavering, for at one time he tries to explain away this doctrine, and at another recognises its existence, but is at great pains to prove, that it cannot be original.

2 Very different opinions have been expressed as to the etymology of this The most probable is that of Danz (p. 727 sqq.), and Buxtorf, who

name.

tinction must be made between the higher and the inferior

trace it to the Latin metator, which Suidas has explained as meaning & πроαποστελλόμενος ἄγγελος πρὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος. The expression appears to have been derived from Is. lxiii. 9, where the revealer of God is called the angel of Jehovah's countenance. Compare Elias Levita, Tischbi f. 536, Eisenmenger, p. 386, "The Metatron is the prince of the countenance (), and it is declared of him, that he is the angel, who always beholds the countenance of God." This derivation is favoured by the fact, that metator is very commonly met with in the Rabbinical writings in the sense of legatus, and as a synonyme of (see Buxtorf, e 1191, Danz, p. 725); that Metatron may be shown to be used as an appellative, with the same signification (see Breschit Rabba in Buxtorf, c. 1193), that the Rabbins almost universally give öonyos as the literal meaning of the name, though they differ as to the etymology; and lastly, that several of the Rabbins give this etymology without any hesitation (see the passages quoted by Danz, p. 724 sqq.). The derivation, which has comparatively the greatest probability next to this, is from the Latin mediator. In the Sohar the Metatron is called T

NY, columna medietatis (see Sommer theol. Sohar, p. 36). But mediator is not met with anywhere else in the Rabbinical writings; and in addition to this, none of the arguments, by which the former derivation is defended, can be adduced in support of this one. Another derivation, which was suggested by Majus (theol. Jud., p. 72), and has been repeated by v. Meyer (Blatter für höhere Wahrheit iv. 188), viz. from μerà and Opóvos, equivalent to ὁ μέτοχος τοῦ θρόνου, ὁ σύνθρονος, has still less in its favour. Μετάθε povos is not even a Greek word, and it would be impossible to show that it was ever admitted into the Rabbinical language. Moreover, the Rabbins base the whole doctrine of the Metatron upon passages from the Old Testament, and in all probability they borrowed the expression itself from the Old Testament also. Now there is not a single passage in which the angel of God is called by the name Mera@povos. But it is a decisive objection, that the name was not originally restricted to the angel of Jehovah. We will quote only one passage, in which it occurs with this general signification (Jalket Rubeni in Danz, p. 731), "Si non fuerit justus in hoc mundo, tune Schechina vestit sese in quodam Metatron." Compare all the passages, in which the inferior Metatron is mentioned. But Schmieder's hypothesis (in the Programm, nova interpr. 1 Gal. iii. 19) is the one which least commends itself to our approbation. He derives the word from the Persian Mithras (p. 41 sqq. excursus de Mitatrone). There is nothing whatever to favour this derivation except the comparatively trifling resemblance in sound. The similarity between the two beings, on which Schmieder lays particular stress, is only in appearance. As we have already shown, the Metatron of the Jews, the supreme revealer of the invisible God, the participator in his nature and glory, stands on the same level as Ormuzd, from whom all revelations are derived. Mithras, on the other hand, is an inferior being created by Ormuzd, a brave warrior in his army, it is true, but standing far behind the great Bahman, the king of the Amshaspands. It is only in appearance, again, that those passages in Plutarch (de Is. et Os. c. 46) and the Zend books, in which Mithras is called a Mediator, establish a connection between Mithras and Metatron. The Metatron of the Hebrews is the medium of all intercourse between the invisible God and the creation. Mithras, on the contrary, is called a mediator only "so far as he intercepts (comes between) the influences of Ahriman, during the conflict between him and Ormuzd, so as to render them harmless." Moreover, the

« ForrigeFortsæt »