Basic
Worldview:
104
Why Christianity?
Historicity
of the Book of Daniel (Part 2)
and Judeo-Christian Syncretism
Judaism
and Christianity Introduction and History
History
of Judaism Continued
Scholarly
Objections and Historicity of Daniel (P. 1)
Historicity
of Daniel (P. 2) & Judeo-Christian Syncretism
A
Few Words on Gnosticism
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 1)
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 2) & Prophecy in Judaism
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 1)
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 2)
List
of Messianic Qualifications & the Resurrection of Jesus
(P. 1)
The
Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
Study
Conclusions and Overall Comparisons
Additional
Material
The
Sufferings of Eyewitnesses
Comparison
of Mystical Religions to Judeo-Christianity
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 1)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 2)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 3)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 4)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 5)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 6)
Introduction | Section 1
| Section 2 | Section
3
(Continued from previous section.)
So the only remaining dispute is over Daniel's account of
the fall of Babylon is his assertion that a man known as Darius
the Mede son of Ahasuerus took the city of Babylon at age
62 and that he reigned as king in Babylon during the reign
of Cyrus the Great of Persia. Scholars object to Daniel's
account of this man on the basis that we have no knowledge
of such a person or such a situation. But from the case of
Belshazzar we have learn an important lesson about using our
modern lack of information as a basis for rejecting an ancient
historical account.
Even if we were to accept the scholarly 2nd century date for
the Book of Daniel, the fact that we live 2,200 years after
puts us at a serious disadvantage in terms of the availability
of historical information regarding these figures and events.
While the Book of Daniel exhibited a clear awareness of Belshazzar's
existence and his role in ancient times, modern scholars were
not even aware of him until recently. And modern historians,
in their ignorance, arrogantly claimed that since they had
no knowledge of Belshazzar and/or his role as reported by
Daniel, that therefore Daniel's account of him was in error.
Yet, we learn from historical discovery that Daniel's account
of Belshazzar is quite accurate. In fact, we learned that
the cause of the apparent discrepancy was our lack of information
in comparison to Daniel's very accurate, intimate understanding.
And so we must conclude that a lack of knowledge on the part
of modern historians is not an adequate criterion for determining
historicity of ancient figures and events and certainly not
for judging the accuracy of ancient documents, which predate
us by over two millennia.
So, we must ask is it fair to regard Daniel's mention of Darius
the Mede the son of Ahasuerus as a historical inaccuracy based
on the fact that we have no corroborating evidence for the
existence of this man in modern times? No, it would be a serious
error to conclude that because we don't know of something
in modern times, that historically speaking, that thing did
not occur. The only way to arrive at the conclusion that Daniel
is incorrect is if we have information that contradicts his
description of Darius the Mede. But do we have any such information?
Specifically, we know that Cyrus did not take the city of
Babylon himself. So the only real contention that scholars
have is that Daniel makes a Mede responsible for this act.
On the contrary, scholars uphold that the Persians alone were
responsible for the fall of Babylon and that no Mede was involved.
Second, scholars object to the idea that Darius the Mede ruled
Babylon during Cyrus' reign.
But these objections are not justified by what we know of
the interrelationship between the Medes and Persians and of
the co-regency that existed in the kingdoms of Babylon, Media,
and Persia.
As to the first point, we know that the Medes and Persians
were heavily integrated both by blood and in politics even
before the time of Cyrus the Great. Modern historians may
disagree, but the ancient historians and peoples alike held
that Cyrus the Great was both a Persian and a Mede.
The following quotes all attest to the fact that Cyrus the
Great was the son of Cambyses I who ruled Persia under the
Median king Astyages, and Astyages' daughter. Additionally,
the last quote below states that it is not clear if Cyrus
was born in Persia or in Media.
"Cyrus II - According to the legend, Astyages, the
king of the Medes and overlord of the Persians, gave his
daughter in marriage to his vassal in Persis, a prince called
Cambyses. From this marriage Cyrus was born." - Britannica.com
"Cyrus II- Most scholars agree, however, that Cyrus
the Great was at least the second of the name to rule
in Persia. One cuneiform text in AkkadianÑthe language of
Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) in the pre-Christian eraÑasserts
he was the son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson
of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes,
great king, king of Anshan, of a family [which] always [exercised]
kingship. In any case, it is clear that Cyrus came from
a long line of ruling chiefs." - Britannica.com
"Cyrus II- d. 529 B.C., king of Persia, founder of
the greatness of the Achaemenids and of the Persian Empire.
According to Herodotus, he was the son of an Iranian noble,
the elder Cambyses, and a Median princess, daughter of Astyages.
Many historians, following other ancient writers (such as
Ctesias), deny this genealogy, and the whole of Cyrus' life
is encrusted with legend." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth
Edition. 2001
"Persian Empire - 556-530 THE REIGN OF CYRUS THE GREAT.
On the death of his father, Cyrus II became the king of
the Persians. In 553, Cyrus led a revolt against his grandfather
Astyages." - The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.
"Astyages - flourished 6th century BC Akkadian Ishtumegu
the last king of the Median empire (reigned 585-550 BC).
According to Herodotus, the Achaemenian Cyrus the Great
was Astyages' grandson through his daughter Mandane, but
this relationship is probably legendary. According to Babylonian
inscriptions, Cyrus, king of Anshan (in southwestern Iran),
began war against Astyages in 553 BC; in 550 the Median troops
rebelled, and Astyages was taken prisoner. Then Cyrus occupied
and plundered Ecbatana, the Median capital. A somewhat different
account of these events is given by the Greek writer Ctesias."
- Britannica.com
"Astyages - fl. 6th cent. B.C., king of the Medes (584-c.550
B.C.), son and successor of Cyaxares. His rule was harsh,
and he was unpopular. His daughter is alleged to have married
the elder Cambyses and was said to be the mother of Cyrus
the Great, who rebelled against Astyages and overthrew
him (c.550 B.C.), thus creating the Persian Empire." - The
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Cyrus the Great - Cyrus was born between 590 and 580 BC,
either in Media or, more probably, in Persis, the modern
Fars province of Iran." - Britannica.com
So, we see that the Medes and the Persians were not only connected
by blood, but that the Median king allowed a Persian to rule
over Persia. When Cyrus the Great began his rule, he simply
became the king of the Median kingdom of Astyages and he continued
the interrelationship between the Medes and the Persians.
"Cyrus II- When Cyrus defeated Astyages he also
inherited Median possessions in eastern Iran, but he had
to engage in much warfare to consolidate his rule in this
region." - Britannica.com
"Cyrus II - Cyrus overthrew Astyages, king of the Medes,
sometime between 559 B.C. and 549 B.C. He entered Ecbatana
and, taking over the Median kingdom, began to build
a great empire after the Assyrian model." - The Columbia Encyclopedia,
Sixth Edition. 2001
"Persian Empire - In 553, Cyrus led a revolt against
his grandfather Astyages. Although he suffered some early
defeats, the Median army eventually went over to Cyrus,
and he took Ecbatana in 549. Cyrus now ruled the entire
Median Empire." - The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.
"Cyrus the Great - After inheriting the empire of
the Medes, Cyrus first had to consolidate his power over
Iranian tribes on the Iranian plateau before expanding to
the west. Croesus , king of Lydia in Asia Minor ( Anatolia
), had enlarged his domains at the expense of the Medes when
he heard of the fall of Astyages, and Cyrus, as successor
of the Median king, marched against Lydia." - Britannica.com
In the overthrow of Astyages, the Median army sided with Cyrus.
Afterward Cyrus does not start a new Persian kingdom. Instead,
he simply takes over the existing Median kingdom. And rather
than eliminating the Medes from the political structure and
replacing them with Persians, he leaves them in or appoints
them to high positions, creating a sort of dual monarchy of
Medes and Persians. All of this fits well with the ancient
view of Cyrus as both a Persian and as a Mede.
"Cyrus II - He not only conciliated the Medes but united
them with the Persians in a kind of dual monarchy of the Medes
and Persians. Cyrus had to borrow the traditions of kingship
from the Medes, who had ruled an empire when the Persians
were merely their vassals. A Mede was probably made an adviser
to the Achaemenian king, as a sort of chief minister;
on later reliefs at Persepolis, a capital of the Achaemenian
kings from the time of Darius, a Mede is frequently depicted
together with the great king." - Britannica.com
From this we can see that the difference between a Median
or Persian ruler is not as clear as we in our modern western
perspective like to make it. There were Persian rulers under
the Median kingdom and there were Median rulers under the
Persian kingdom. The bloodlines crossed. They even ruled in
different provinces and formed, what Britannica.com calls
a sort of dual monarchy. And even more significantly, a Mede
is said to have served as the chief minister and advisor under
the Persian kings. And, like the Babylonians before him, Cyrus
appointed co-rulers over various provinces. For example, Cyrus'
son Cambyses II became the co-regent of Babylon while Cyrus
was still alive.
"Cambyses II - flourished 6th century BC Achaemenid
king of Persia (reigned 529-522 BC), who conquered Egypt in
525; he was the eldest son of King Cyrus II the Great
by Cassandane, daughter of a fellow Achaemenid. During
his father's lifetime Cambyses was in charge of Babylonian
affairs. In 538 he performed the ritual duties of a Babylonian
king at the important New Year festival, and in 530, before
Cyrus set out on his last campaign, he was appointed regent
in Babylon." - Britannica.com
Likewise, we should note that the traditions kept by Cyrus
continued after his death. During the reign of his son Cambyses
II, Hystaspes (father of Darius the Great) is ruler over Persia
(Persis). Even after the death of Cambyses II, son of Cyrus,
Hystaspes does not become king. Instead, his son, Darius the
Great took the throne and Hystaspes, though a senior family
member, remained ruler under Darius.
"Hystaspes - flourished 6th century BC son of Arsames,
king of Parsa, and father of the Achaemenid king Darius I
of Persia. According to the 5th-century-BC Greek historian
Herodotus, Hystaspes was governor of Persis under Cyrus II
the Great and Cambyses II and accompanied Cyrus on his
last campaign against the Massagetai in 530 BC. When Darius
seized the throne in 522, Hystaspes was governor of Parthia
and Hyrcania, where he suppressed a revolt in 521." -
Britannica.com
Additionally, we must note that modern scholars at times have
difficulty understanding the usage and application of the
names of ancient figures. This is evidently the case with
both Cyrus the Great and Hystaspes.
"Cyrus the Great - Cyrus was born between 590 and 580 BC,
either in Media or, more probably, in Persis, the modern
Fars province of Iran. The meaning of his name is in dispute,
for it is not known whether it was a personal name or a throne
name given to him when he became a ruler. It is noteworthy
that after the Achaemenian empire the name does not appear
again in sources relating to Iran, which may indicate some
special sense of the name." - Britannica.com
"Hystaspes - Old Persian Vishtaspa, fl. 6th cent. B.C.,
ruler of ancient Persia, father of Darius I. Under him Darius
was governor of Parthia. The legendary patron of Zoroaster
is also called Hystaspes or Vishtaspa; he may or may not
be the same as Darius' father." - The Columbia Encyclopedia,
Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Hystaspes - flourished 6th century BC son of Arsames,
king of Parsa, and father of the Achaemenid king Darius
I of Persia. According to the 5th-century-BC Greek historian
Herodotus, Hystaspes was governor of Persis under Cyrus II
the Great and Cambyses II and accompanied Cyrus on his
last campaign against the Massagetai in 530 BC. When Darius
seized the throne in 522, Hystaspes was governor of Parthia
and Hyrcania, where he suppressed a revolt in 521. Despite
the differences in genealogies, some authorities identify
him with Hystaspes, the protector of the prophet Zoroaster."
- Britannica.com
"Xerxes - born c. 519 BC died 465, Persepolis Old Persian
Khshayarsha, byname Xerxes The Great Persian king (486-465
BC), the son and successor of Darius." - Britannica.com
The above quotes inform us of several important issues regarding
ancient uses of names. First, we don't know for certain when
a name is the proper name of a person or a title bestowed
upon a person who came to a position of power. Second, names
of ancient Medes and Persians can have different renderings
in the available languages.
Third, this inability to clearly understand the use of ancient
Medo-Persian royal names has led to disagreement among scholars
as to whether or not Hystaspes (or Vishtaspa), the father
of Darius the Great, is the same person as the Hystaspes,
Zoroastrians claim provided protection to Zoroaster. Though
differing genealogies exist, this is not considered by some
to be significant enough to establish that there were two
separate individuals named Hystaspes.
The only presumable reason why differing genealogies would
not force us to conclude that there were two separate individuals
named Hystaspes, is if our understanding of how the ancient
Medo-Persians applied and used names is not really clear.
And because of our uncertainty about how ancient Medo-Persians
ascribed names, there arises the possibility that various
names, such as Vishtaspa or Hystaspes, might refer to the
same individual. Or conversely, there is also the possibility
that there is more than one person with a particular name,
such as Hystaspes, even though we may not have much information
about other persons with that same name.
Similarly, the Biblical use of the words Darius and Ahasuerus
by the Book of Daniel is not altogether clear to us.
The meaning of the word that is used for Darius in Daniel
is below. It simply means "lord."
01867 Dar`yavesh {daw-reh-yaw-vaysh'}
of Persian origin;; n pr m
AV - Darius 10; 10
Darius = "lord"
So, in Daniel's understanding the word Darius may simply denote
the man who was lord of the Medes (and Persians).
Likewise, though it is assumed by some to be a specific reference
to Xerxes, the word for Ahasuerus is just a title for the
king of Persia.
No. 3
0325 'Achashverowsh {akh-ash-vay-rosh'}
or (shortened) 'Achashrosh {akh-ash-rosh'} (Esth. 10:1)
of Persian origin;; n pr m
AV - Ahasuerus 31; 31
Ahasuerus = "I will be silent and poor"
1) title of the king of Persia, probably Xerxes
In this way, Darius the son of Ahasuerus may simply denote
a lord who ruled as a part of the Persian or Median royal
house. And, more generally speaking, our modern understanding
of ancient Persian and Median royal names and titles is far
from being certain or reliable enough that it can serve as
a basis for disqualifying ancient historical accounts more
than 2 millennia closer to those events than we are now.
So, here's what we know from history and ancient names:
1. The royal bloodlines of the Medes and Persians overlapped
so that the terms Mede and Persian were not mutually exclusive
of one another.
2. The political structure of the Medes and Persians overlapped
with Median and Persian rulers having members of the opposite
group ruling provinces within their kingdom.
3. The Babylonians and Medo-Persians rulers of this period
frequently had co-regents who ruled in their stead over the
capitol or chief provinces of the empire, or more specifically,
in Babylon and who were in charge over some of the imperial
army.
4. Cyrus the Great was not present when Belshazzar the last
acting king of Babylon was killed and the city of Babylon
fell. He arrived later, after the city had been taken by his
troops under the command of another man, which some sources
call Gobryas.
5. Cyrus's son Cambyses II becomes co-regent with Cyrus and
rules over Babylon beginning in 530 B.C. while Cyrus traveled
the empire on a campaign.
6. The usage, application, and meaning of ancient Medo-Persian
names is not altogether clear to modern historians. Sometimes
persons are known by different names and proper names are
difficult to distinguish from titles and names taken upon
assuming the throne. Furthermore, very frequently names are
held by more than one ruler, such as the names Cyrus, Darius,
Cambyses, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. It is not known or established
to what extent these same names were being used by earlier
rulers in Persia and Media before these cultures came into
a place of prominence in the historical record. Cyrus the
Great, perhaps one of the most prominent figures of this time,
is just one example of such a case in which scholars suspect
that the name Cyrus was a titular name that was used by previous
rulers before Cyrus the Great.
"Cyrus II - Most scholars agree, however, that Cyrus the
Great was at least the second of the name to rule in Persia.
One cuneiform text in Akkadian...asserts he was the son
of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus,
great king, king of Anshan..." - Britannica.com
"Cyrus the Great - The meaning of his name is in dispute,
for it is not known whether it was a personal name or a throne
name given to him when he became a ruler." - Britannica.com
For comparison, here's what Daniel tells us:
1. Cyrus the Great was not present when Belshazzar the last
acting king of Babylon was killed and the city of Babylon
fell to the Medo-Persians.
2. Another man, a ranking Medo-Persian lord, led Cyrus' army
in taking over the city of Babylon.
3. This Medo-Persian lord (perhaps known as Darius, maybe
even as a title) ruled as king over the city of Babylon, beginning
at age 62, as a contemporary and co-regent under Cyrus the
Great.
When we look at what is presented by the Book of Daniel with
what we know from historical record, it is hard to see any
way in which Daniel's account is in contradiction of known
history. Instead, it seems that Daniel's account fits completely
with what we know of history. As in the case of Belshazzar,
it simply seems that Daniel is presenting information that
we, in over two and a half millennia later, do not have access
to. Specifically, Daniel informs us that Cyrus had a 62-year-old
co-regent who was involved in taking the city of Babylon and
thereafter ruled Babylon in Cyrus' stead just as Cyrus would
later appoint his son Cambyses II to do in 530 B.C.
We might also speculate, as historians often do to fill in
the blanks, that this Darius (who Daniel says was 62 when
he took Babylon from Belshazzar in 539 B.C.) may have died
in 530 B.C at age 70 prompting Cyrus to replace him with Cambyses
II as the new co-regent ruling in Cyrus' stead over Babylon.
Furthermore, some have suggested that perhaps Daniel's Darius
is simply another name for Cyrus' general Gobryas. Given our
lack of certainty with how Medo-Persian royal names operated
as recurring dynastic titles, this possibility cannot be ruled
out.
Likewise, Daniel's use of the word Ahasuerus may be meant
as a reference to Astyages, the last Median king. If this
were the case, Daniel would be indicating that Darius was
the son of Astyages making him a Mede and the uncle of Cyrus
on Cyrus' mother's side. Such a speculation is not unreasonable
given the relationship that existed between Astyages the Mede
and Cambyses I the Persian as well as Hystaspes later rule
under his son Darius the Great who was king.
Furthermore, if Darius was the son of Astyages, Astyages may
well have given him charge over the army. This would fit quite
well with Daniel's record that Darius led the army when it
took over Babylon as well as explaining why the Median army
sided with Cyrus against Astyages, who history records was
a harsh and unpopular king anyway. If Daniel's Darius controlled
the army of Astyages and was involved in its siding with Cyrus
it would not be unreasonable for Cyrus to let his elder uncle
rule as co-regent in his stead in Babylon.
v Likewise, we can also quickly dismiss another claim sometimes
made by scholars about an inaccuracy of Daniel as prophecy.
As we said in our overview of Daniel, chapter 11 begins with
a statement to Darius the Mede that after three more Persian
kings a fourth king will arise in Persia, who will stir up
all against the realm of Greece (Daniel 11:2). Daniel then
describes the rise of Alexander the Great as a mighty king,
which will stand up, whose kingdom will be broken, divided,
and be ruled by four others who are not of his bloodline (Daniel
11:3).
Some scholars contend that Daniel 11 incorrectly describes
only four intermediate kings between Darius the Great and
Alexander the Great. This objection is based on a misinterpretation
of the passage.
Daniel 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the
Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. 2 And
now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand
up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far
richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches
he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. 3 And
a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion,
and do according to his will. 4 And when he shall stand up,
his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the
four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according
to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked
up, even for others beside those.
We have already discussed that Darius the Mede is not a reference
to Darius the Great (the son of Hystaspes), but to a contemporary
of Cyrus the Great. Furthermore, the criticism that there
were, in fact, no less than seven kings between Darius the
Great and Alexander the Great instead of four does not really
conflict with Daniel 11:3.
All Daniel 11:3 is asserting is that after a man Daniel' refers
to as Darius the Mede, who is depicted as a contemporary ruler
with Cyrus the Great, three Persian kings will come followed
by a fourth who will richer than the others and will stir
up his forces against Greece. Clearly, this fourth ruler is
to be identified with Xerxes I, son of Darius the Great, who
did just that.
"Persian Empire - c. 586-330 THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE
PERSIAN EMPIRE. The next king, Xerxes I (Khshayarsa,
486-465), undertook a major invasion of Greece but was defeated
at sea in the Battle of Salamis (480) and on land at
Plataea and Mycale (479)." - The Encyclopedia of World
History. 2001.
"Xerxes - d. 465 B.C., king of ancient Persia (486-465
B.C.). His name in Old Persian is Khshayarsha, in the
Bible Ahasuerus. He was the son of Darius I and Atossa, daughter
of Cyrus the Great. After bringing (484 BC.) Egypt once more
under Persian rule, Xerxes prepared for an invasion of
Greece (see Persian Wars) by constructing a bridge of
boats across the Hellespont and cutting a canal through the
isthmus of Athos...He then occupied and pillaged Athens.
In the same year his fleet was destroyed at Salamis." - The
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
Furthermore, Daniel 11 does not state that the fourth Persian
king will be the last Persian king, nor does it state that
this fourth Persian king will be defeated by the mighty king
who is identified with Alexander the Great. All Daniel 11
says is that a fourth Persian king will stir up his might
against the Greeks and that a mighty king will come after
him, whose own kingdom will be broken off and given to four
others who are not his offspring.
So, in order for Daniel 11 to be correct all we have to do
is count three Persian kings between the time of Cyrus the
Great and Xerxes I. This we can do. After Cyrus's death his
son Cambyses II became king. But Hystaspes, was also considered
a Persian ruler, and as we have noted earlier it was Hystapses,
in fact, who ruled Persia during Cambyses II's reign. Lastly,
Darius the Great, Hystaspes' son, becomes king after Cambyses
II. Darius the Great is of course followed by his son, Xerxes
I, who we have identified as the fourth Persian king of Daniel
11:3. This gives us a total of 3 intervening rulers in the
royal line before Xerxes: Cambyses II, Hystaspes (ruler of
Persia and father of Darius the Great), and Darius the Great.
Therefore, there really is no conflict between Daniel 11 and
history as scholars contend.
However, all speculation aside, it is not really necessary
to construct a working understanding of the figures mentioned
in Daniel. Even though we would like to know history with
a high level of certainty and detail, this is not always possible.
What we must keep in mind is that modern historians do not
have access to the same level of information that was available
in more ancient times.
From the case of Belshazzar we have seen that it is not appropriate
to conclude that an ancient account is inaccurate simply because
we cannot corroborate it over two millennia later. The Book
of Daniel provides more information than we can currently
confirm, but this is no reason to conclude that Daniel is
wrong. There is nothing in Daniel's account of 6th century
Mesopotamian history that conflicts with anything we know
for certain about that time period. But there is ample evidence
that the author of the Book of Daniel had a thorough and intimate
knowledge of 6th through 2nd century Mesopotamian history.
In fact, as can be seen in the case of Belshazzar, apparent
conflicts are caused by the fact that Daniel had a more intimate
knowledge of Mesopotamian history than was available to modern
scholars, not the other way around. Since this is the case,
we are left without any sound reason to doubt that the Book
of Daniel was, in fact, written, in the 6th century B.C. just
as the book itself claims.
Judeo-Christian Syncretism
Before we move on to our examination of evidence we have one
last task to accomplish. In modern times it has become more
commonplace for scholarship to suggest that Judeo-Christian
theology is just as syncretistic as the Propositional religions
that we have looked at earlier in this study. These scholars
claim that the theology of Judaism and Christianity did not
originate on its own or by divine mandate, but rather it originated
from the incorporation of other religious traditions.
To be clear, we must state up front that we are not contesting
the idea that Jewish and Christian traditions have since their
respective origins borrowed from and incorporated religious
beliefs and practices from other theological systems. What
we are contesting is the notion that Judeo-Christian theology
originated as a result of borrowing concepts from these
other traditions.
Our refutation of the position that Judeo-Christian theology
originated as a result of syncretism will begin with a look
at the Judeo-Christian scripture. By examining a few key passages
we will be able to clearly establish that, unlike Propositional
religions, Judeo-Christianity, from its earliest history is
strictly prohibitive of syncretistic practices and borrowing
customs and beliefs from other religious systems.
Deuteronomy 12: 28 Observe and hear all these words
which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and
with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that
which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.
29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before
thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest
them, and dwellest in their land; 30 Take heed to thyself
that thou be not snared by following them, after that
they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire
not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve
their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not
do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the
LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods;
for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in
the fire to their gods. 32 What thing soever I command
you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish
from it.
Deuteronomy 12 clearly demonstrates that way back in the 13th
century B.C. or so, very early on in the development of the
Judeo-Christian tradition, when giving God's Law to Israel,
Moses strictly prohibits them from incorporating the religious
customs of the nations around them into their understanding
and worship of the Israelite God. And, even more to the point,
this chapter of Deuteronomy closes with God's command to the
Israelites that they are not to add to or diminish from what
he has commanded them - a statement that strictly prohibits
syncretism on any level.
The book of Deuteronomy goes on to warn the Israelites that
if they do not obey this command they will be taken from the
land and sent into exile. Unfortunately, history and the Old
Testament confirm that they did not obey this command and
just as had been warned they were eventually besieged and
exiled by both the Assyrians and Babylonians (just as we saw
earlier.) During the 7th century captivity, after the Assyrian
conquest of Israel, the northern kingdom, Jeremiah the prophet
echoes God's command from Deuteronomy 12.
Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the
way of the heathen...
The New Testament is just as strict regarding adopting customs
from other religions into the Christian teaching. Instead,
the Church was to hold firmly to the authentic teachings of
Jesus Christ and not be moved away from them.
1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me
in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as
I passed them on to you.
Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed
from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto
another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some
that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him
be accursed.
Galatians 1:8 As we said before, so say I now again,
if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye
have received, let him be accursed.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm
and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by
word of mouth or by letter.
1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at
Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge
some that they teach no other doctrine,
1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches false doctrines
and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus
Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands
nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and
quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious
talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men
of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who
think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
2 Timothy 1:13 What you heard from me, keep as the
pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy
message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage
others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it...13
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that
they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with
sound doctrine.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth
not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth
in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the
Son.10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, either bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil
deeds.
From this brief sampling of Biblical quotes we can see that
from the onset that both Judaism and Christianity clearly
and repeated instructed their followers not to incorporate
pagan religious customs or concepts into their understanding
of God. On the contrary, Jews and Christians were instead
commanded to hold firmly to the authentic teachings originally
proclaimed by Moses and Jesus. Because of this, we must conclude
that from their beginnings both Judaism and Christian contained
a strong prohibition against syncretism. And we can contrast
this strong prohibition against syncretism with the openness
to syncretism expressed and exhibited in the development of
the beliefs of Propositional religions.
While it is clear that the development of the beliefs of most
of the Propositional religions that we examined can be easily
attributed to interaction with other religious systems over
time combined with an openness to such interaction, the same
cannot be said for Judaism or Christianity. This was most
strongly evidenced by the Hinduism's prevailing influence
on almost all subsequent Propositional religions and the fact
that Hinduism itself was the result of syncretistic blending
of Aryan and native Indian belief systems. And though some
scholars have suggested that Judeo-Christian teaching did
originate by borrowing from other religions in this same manner,
these assertions are not supported by the available historical
information.
The three chief religions that are claimed to have influence
on Judeo-Christian theology are Zoroastrianism, mystery religions,
and Gnosticism.
However, upon historical examination, the idea that Zoroastrianism,
mystery religions, or Gnosticism influenced the origin of
Judeo-Christianity CANNOT be maintained. First, having taken
a look at the historical documentation behind Zoroastrianism
and Judaism, we know that in all manners of speaking Judaism
predates Zoroastrianism. In fact, Judaism's antiquity combined
with Christianity's undeniable and overwhelming dependence
upon Judaism becomes an insurmountable argument against the
suggestion that any other religion besides Judaism is responsible
for the origin of Judeo-Christian theology. Several examples
of this can be sited.
First, Moses proclaimed monotheism to Israel in the 13th century
B.C. while Zoroaster did not proclaim Zoroastrianism until
the 7th century B.C. This means that Zoroastrianism is some
600 years later than Judaism.
Second, Zoroaster lived between 628-551 B.C. This places the
emergence of Zoroastrianism smack dab in middle of the Assyrian
conquest and exile of Israel (the northern kingdom) in 721
B.C. and the Babylonian conquest of Judah (the southern kingdom)
in 586 B.C.
The exiled Jews took with them into ancient pre-Zoroastrian
Mesopotamia the history and beliefs of their people in both
oral tradition and in their written sacred scriptures. At
that time those sacred works included at least the Books of
Moses, David's Psalms, and several of the early prophetic
books such as Isaiah. These written and oral traditions exhibit
developed monotheistic and messianic theologies.
When we take this into account and combine it with the fact
that Jewish exiles, like Daniel and Nehemiah, held influential
and prominent places within the royal courts of that time
and area, we must conclude that Zoroastrianism was more likely
the result of Jewish beliefs being blended into the native
Hindu belief systems of the region rather than the other way
around.
Third, as we saw from our look at Zoroastrianism, the oldest
copies of it's sacred scripture date from the 3rd to 7th centuries
A.D. placing them well after the origin of both Judaism and
Christianity.
"Avesta - also called Zend-avesta, sacred book of
Zoroastrianism containing its cosmogony, law, and liturgy,
the teachings of the prophet Zoroaster (Zarathushtra). The
extant Avesta is all that remains of a much larger body of
scripture, apparently Zoroaster's transformation of
a very ancient tradition. The voluminous manuscripts
of the original are said to have been destroyed when Alexander
the Great conquered Persia. The present Avesta was assembled
from remnants and standardized under the Sasanian kings (3rd-7th
century AD)." - Britannica.com
"Zoroastrianism - The Avesta is, therefore, a collection
of texts compiled in successive stages until it was completed
under the Sasanians. It was then about four times larger than
what has survived. A summary of its 21 books, or Nasks (of
which only one is preserved as such in the Videvdat),
is given in one of the main treatises written during the brief
Zoroastrian renascence under Islam in the 9th century;
the Denkart, the "Acts of the Religion." It is written
in Pahlavi , the language of the Sasanians." - Britannica.com
Even more significant is that the concepts Zoroastrians claim
to share with Judeo-Christianity, such as a savior, do not
have developed expression within Zoroastrian thought until
this 3rd to 7th century literature.
"Zoroastrianism - Only in the Pahlavi books is this theme
systematically developed. It is dominated by the idea
of a final return to the initial state of things. The first
human couple had at first fed on water, then on plants, on
milk, and at last on meat. The people in the last millennia
will, at the advent of the three successive saviours,
abstain in the reverse order from meat, milk, and plants to
keep finally only water." - Britannica.com
Likewise, the assertion of non-Jewish religious influences
on Christianity (such as mystery religions or Gnositicm) is
impossible to maintain.
"Mysteries - in Greek and Roman religion, some important
secret cults. The conventional religions of both Greeks
and Romans were alike in consisting principally of propitiation
and prayers for the good of the city-state, the tribe, or
the family, and only secondarily of the person. Individuals
sought a more emotional religion that would fulfill their
desires for personal salvation and immortality. Secret
societies were formed, usually headed by a priest or a
hierophant. By the 5th cent. B.C. mysteries were an important
part of the fabric of Hellenic life. Although the mystic rites
were kept secret, it was known that they required elaborate
initiations, including purification rites, beholding sacred
objects, accepting occult knowledge, and acting out a sacred
drama. Some mysteries were of foreign origin, such as the
Middle Eastern cults of Cybele, Isis, and Mithra; some were
embodied survivals of indigenous rites. The most important
mystery cults in Greece were the Eleusinian, the Orphic, and
the Andanian. Since the mystery deities were associated primarily
with fertility, many scholars believe that these cults were
based on unrecorded primitive fertility rites. The popularity
of mystery cults spread in the Hellenistic age and still more
widely in Roman times." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth
Edition. 2001.
"Mysteries - The simultaneousness of the propagation
of the mystery religions and of Christianity and the striking
similarities between them, however, demand some explanation
of their relationship. The hypothesis of a mutual dependence
has been proposed by scholarsÑespecially a dependence of Christianity
upon the mysteriesÑbut such theories have been discarded."
- Britannica.com
Despite the fact that historians have discarded the idea that
Christian dogma originated from mystery religions it is common
for persons not aware of the historical data to continue to
make this claim in ignorance and in error. A study of the
relevant historical information prevents such a conclusion
from being accurate due to three historically undeniable facts.
The first is Judaism's antiquity, originality, and prohibition
of syncretism. The second is the significant differences that
exist between mystery religions and Christianity.
"Mysteries - There are also great differences between Christianity
and the mysteries. Mystery religions, as a rule, can be traced
back to tribal origins, Christianity to a historical person.
The holy stories of the mysteries were myths; the Gospels
of the New Testament, however, relate historical events.
The books that the mystery communities used in Roman times
cannot possibly be compared to the New Testament. The essential
features of Christianity were fixed once and for all in this
book; the mystery doctrines, however, always remained in a
much greater state of fluidity. The theology of the mysteries
was developed to a far lesser degree than the Christian theology.
There are no parallels in Christianity to the sexual rites
in the Dionysiac and Isiac religion, with the exception of
a few aberrant Gnostic communities. The cult of rulers in
the manner of the imperial mysteries was impossible in Jewish
and Christian worship." - Britannica.com
The third historically undeniable fact, which disproves that
Christianity originated from mystery religions is it's own
surpassing dependence upon Judaism.
Any serious examination of the content and nature of Christian
theology clearly demonstrates an overwhelming dependence upon
and development from Judaism. And because Judaism exhibits
all essential Christian doctrine in a developed form well
before any other religious group can claim to possess any
remote similarity to Christian concepts there is simply no
need to wonder where Christianity got its ideas from. The
clear answer is Judaism. This is so much the case that to
suggest that Christian theology originates from any source
besides Judaism becomes an absurd notion because, among other
reasons, Judaism predates any other religions, which some
suppose influenced the origin of Christianity.
Furthermore, historical examination of the evidence has shown
that, despite popular, common perception, all proposed influences
on Christianity can be and have been dismissed by historians
and theologians for the same reasons that Zoroastrianism cannot
be said to have influenced either Judaism or Christianity.
First, religious language bearing strong resemblance to Christian
concepts can only be historically documented AFTER the onset
of Christianity and NOT before it. Thus, eliminating the possibility
that they influenced Christianity and demonstrating, instead,
that they were influenced by Christianity.
Second, religious records, which date prior to the onset of
Christianity do not exhibit strong enough similarities to
Christian teaching in terms of essential and defining content
by the standards of literary criticism to be considered influential.
And third, as we have stated above, any possible similarity
between Gnostic mystery cults, Zoroastrianism, or other religious
systems which predate Christianity is clearly dwarfed by the
surpassingly Jewish nature of early Christian teaching. (For
some additional information on this topic, please visit the
following 2 articles: Article
1, Article
2.)
With that said we will now return briefly to the subject of
Gnosticism in order to more thoroughly establish that it neither
influenced the origin of Christianity nor was itself the original
form of authentic Christianity.
