Announcement

**Faber** · 12-22-2020, 10:36 AM

LUKE’S BIG GOOF

THE YEAR OF HEROD’S DEATH

According to Luke 1:5, Herod the Great was still king over Judea when Jesus was born. Matthew 2 goes into greater detail, describing how a team of Zoroastrian priests from Parthia (Wise men) visited Jerusalem seeking for the newborn king of the Jews. Tragically, Herod later ordered the execution of dozens of children in the town of Bethlehem and vicinity. But we aren’t told how long after the birth of Jesus that took place, or how long after the birth of Jesus Herod died. The only thing certain is that Mary was still in Bethlehem for her purification in the temple, which took place 40 days after the birth of Jesus. If Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt the same time the angel told the magi to flee, it would have taken place after her purification. Some have suggested as much as two years later, based on the age of the children which Herod had put to death.

But the history books tell us that Herod died in 4 BC, four years Before Christ! Somebody goofed.

There is some disagreement, and some controversy, over what year Jesus was born. But we would first have to establish with certainty what year Herod died, because even that is being brought into dispute. The Bible doesn’t tell us, and an analysis of the timeline of the events in Herod's life needs to be done to calculate it. Even then, we can’t be sure of the exact year of Jesus’s birth. And what was His birthday? Christmas? We can’t even be sure about that.

Several key dates in Herod’s life need to be reviewed: The year when Octavian (Augustus) and Marc Antony set him up to be king of Judea, what year he actually defeated the usurper Antigonus II Matthias and conquered Jerusalem, and the beginning and end of the ten year reign of his son Archelaeus over Jerusalem. Let’s start with the following chronology:

* 47 BC: Herod was given rule as tetrarch over Galilee by Julius Caesar.¹ Hyrcanus was given rule over Judea and Idumaea as Ethnarch.
* 40 BC: Parthians invaded Judea, overthrew High Priest and King Hyrcanus II and established Antigonus as high priest and king.²
* 40 BC: Herod was granted authority by Octavian and Marc Antony to rule over Judea as King of the Jews, presently occupied by the Parthians.³
* Summer, 37 BC, Herod captured Jerusalem and assumed position as king of Judea. Antigonus was slain.⁴ It was during a Sabbatical year.⁵

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus narrows down the date in which Herod invaded Jerusalem, defeated Antigonus and took over the throne over Judea:

This calamity befell the city of Jerusalem during the consulship at Rome of Marcus Agrippa and Cainius Gallus, in the hundred and eighty-fifth Olympiad, in the third month, on the day of the Fast....⁶

Ancient Rome had two ways of denoting the year. One was Ab Urbe Condita, from the foundation of the city, or A.U.C., which was 753 BC. More commonly use by Roman historians was a reference to the two consuls who were selected for a one-year term, seldom repeated for a second year. The year of the consulships of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa and Lucius Caninius Gallus, as mentioned above, was 37 BC. The 185th olympiad was the 185th four-year cycle counting from the first Olympic games in the summer of 776 BC, or the four year Olympic cycle from the summer of 40 BC to the summer of 36 BC. The fast referred to is the Fast of the First Born, which took place on 14 Nisan, the day immediately preceding the Passover Seder. This was probably March 17, 37 BC, during the third month of the Roman calendar.

The Jews had a civil and a Levitical calendar. They ran concurrently, and had the same days, months and holidays, but they differed in the definition of when the first day and month of the year was. In the same sense, a business’s fiscal year may begin at any month during the year, but the month and days are the same as the calendar year. The Levitical calendar was defined by Exodus 12:2, when God spoke of the month Nisan (or Abib), saying, “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.” The civil calendar, generally recognized by the people, began with Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the month Tishri, six months later.

The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Rosh Hashnah, describes rabbinical tradition in the reckoning of the reign of kings as officially beginning and ending with the Levitical calendar.

ON THE FIRST OF NISAN IS THE NEW YEAR FOR KINGS AND FOR FESTIVALS. . . . ON THE FIRST OF TISHRI IS NEW YEAR FOR YEARS, FOR RELEASE AND JUBILEE YEARS, FOR PLANTATION AND FOR [TITHE OF] VEGETABLES.⁷

The tractate goes on to explain,

Our Rabbis learnt: If a king ascended the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives, he is reckoned to have reigned a year. If on the other hand he ascended the throne on the first of Nisan, he is not reckoned to have reigned a year till the next first of Nisan comes round.⁸

The new year for kings, according to the reckoning in the Talmud, began on the first of Nisan, coinciding with the Levitical year. In this case, the first year of Herod’s reign as King of the Jews was the year beginning March, 37 BC and lasting until March, 36 BC. According to Josephus, Herod conquered Jerusalem on the 14th day of Nisan, two weeks after the beginning of the Levitical year.

From the ancient historian Flavius Josephus, we learn that there was an earthquake in the spring of 31 BC. The Essene community in Qumran was devastated by the earthquake. There was also damage to Herod’s palace in Jericho, and to the Temple in Jerusalem.

But while [Herod] was punishing his foes, he was visited by another calamity–an act of God which occurred in the seventh year of his reign, when the war of Actium was at its height. In the early spring an earthquake destroyed cattle innumerable and thirty thousand sould; but the army, being quartered in the open, escaped injury.⁹

The date of the Battle of Actium, in which Octavian’s fleet defeated the fleets of Marc Antony and Cleopatra, is well known: September 2, 31 BC. Josephus sets the date of the earthquake around the beginning of spring of that year, placing both within the seventh year of Herod’s reign, beginning around March 27, 31 BC to March 17, 30 BC, by the Talmud's method of reckoning the New Year for Kings. This agrees with the calculated dating of the year Herod began his reign.

Josephus makes it clear both in War of the Jews and in Antiquities of the Jews, dating the death of Herod both from the time he was authorized by Marc Antony and Octavian to rule as king of Judea, and from the time he actually conquered Antigonus and took over the throne:

Herod survived the execution of his son but five days. He expired after a reign of thirty-four years, reckoning from the date when, after putting Antigonus to death, he assumed control of the state.¹⁰

Having done this he died, on the fifth day after having his son Antipater killed. He had reigned for thirty-four years from the time when he had put Antigonus to death, and for thirty-seven years from the time when he had been appointed king by the Romans,¹¹

Based on the Babylonian Talmud’s New Year for Kings method of counting, Herod’s thirty-fourth year as king, the year in which Herod died, was during the Levitical Calendar Year beginning around March 28, 4 BC to March 17, 3 BC.

Archelaus, one of Herod’s three sons to whom he bequeathed his kingdom, immediately took over the whole of the kingdom until such time as his brothers could arrive in Jerusalem and until Augustus Caesar could approve of Herod’s will and establish their reign. Josephus¹² describes the Passover that took place that year, during which there was a riot which Archelaus was forced to suppress, resulting in the death of three thousand worshipers. It is no wonder that Mary and Joseph were apprehensive when the angel of the Lord instructed them to return to Israel (Matthew 2:19-22)

Herod Philip and Herod Antipas were given the title of tetrarch, and the northern regions of Herod’s kingdom was given to them. Archelaus was given the title of ethnarch, and given rule of Judea, Samaria and Idumaea. Although Philip and Antipas continued their reigns well into the years of Jesus’s ministry and beyond, Archelaus’s rule did not last nearly as long:

In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule, the leading men among the Jews and Samaritans, finding his cruelty and tyranny intolerable, brought charges against him before Caesar the moment they learned that Archelaus had disobeyed his instruction to show moderation in dealing with them. Accordingly, when Caesar heard the charges, he became angry, and summoning the man who looked after Archelaus’ affairs at Rome–he was also named Arcelaus–, for he thought it beneath him to write to Archelaus (the ethnarch), he said to him, “Go, sail at once and bring him here to us without delay.” So this man immediately set sail, and on arriving in Judaea and finding Archelaus feasting with his friends, he revealed to him the will of Caesar and speeded his departure. And when Archelaus arrived, Caesar gave a hearing to some of his accusers, and also let him speak, and then sent him into exile, assigning him a residence in Vienna, a city in Gaul, and confiscating his property.¹³

By the Talmud’s reckoning, Herod’s last year, around March 28, 4 BC to March 17, 3 BC, was also Archelaus’s first year. Archelaus’s tenth year would be March 19, AD 6 to March 8 (or maybe a month later), AD 7.

AD 6 was a very upsetting year for the Jews. Augustus had replaced Lucius Volusius Saturninus with Publius Sulpicius Quirinius as governor of Syria, then deposed Archelaus from his reign, banishing him to Vienna in Gaul. Judea and Samaria became Roman provinces under the supervision of Quirinius. Coponius became procurator over Judea. Augustus instituted the notorious tax, which resulted in violence and uprisings among the Jews.

While the uncertainty of these dates can be within a day or two, one thing can be established with precision: the date, time and appearance of a lunar eclipse. Josephus makes a reference to a lunar eclipse. The only problem is making sure we have the right eclipse.

HEROD’S LUNAR ECLIPSE

Here is a chronology of the major events in the months leading to Herod’s death:

* Prominent Rabbis Judas ben Saripheus and Matthias ben Margalothus, and their students mistakenly hear that Herod had died. They tear down golden eagle which Herod had set up in the temple.¹⁴
* Another Matthias, the high priest, is replaced by Herod with Joseph son of Ellemus in order to perform the sacred priestly duties.¹⁵
* Herod orders the death of Rabbis Judas and Matthias and their students. Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus is put to death by burning.¹⁶
* A lunar eclipse took place that night after the execution of Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus.¹⁷
* Herod’s illness grows worse. He takes a trip to the hot baths at Callilrrhoe and is attended by the physicians.¹⁸
* Herod returns to his palace at Jericho; he orders all important men in all villages to come to Jerusalem, then has them imprisoned. He changes his will, stipulating that they are all to be put to death when he dies, so that there would be no celebrations on the day of his death.¹⁹
* Herod’s pains become unbearable; he attempts suicide. Hearing the commotion, his son Antipater assumes Herod had died and demands to be released from prison to assume the throne; learning of this, Herod orders that Antipater be executed in prison.²⁰
* Herod changes his will again, eliminating Antipater from the will and dividing his kingdom to Antipas, Philip and Archelaus, and a smaller portion to his sister Salome.²¹
* Herod dies five days after the death of Antipater. He had reigned 34 years since death of Antigonus, 37 years since he was proclaimed king by the Romans.²²
* Archelaus plans an elaborate funeral. The funeral procession travels from Jericho to the burial place at Herodium, twenty five miles distant, traveling only one mile per day. This would take twenty five days.²³
* Archelaus sets aside another seven days of mourning.²⁴
* Archelaus assumes rule over Herod’s entire kingdom temporarily until Herod’s last will can be confirmed by Augustus Caesar.²⁵
* Archelaus ordered the massacre of 3,000 worshipers inside the temple at Passover.²⁶ (14 Nisan; around Wednesday April 11, 4 BC)
* Caesar divides Herod’s kingdom among Herod’s three sons, and a small area to Salome.²⁷
* AD 6: Tenth year of Archelaus’s rule, he is removed from power by Augustus Caesar.²⁸

Note the fourth point listed above, which connects the date of the execution of Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus with a lunar eclipse. To complicate things, there was another incident with another Matthias at about the same time, the latter being the high priest.

Josephus goes on to explain:

Now it happened during this Matthias term as high priest that another high priest was appointed for a single day–that which the Jews observe as a fast–for the following reason. While serving as a priest during the night preceding the day on which the fast occurred, Matthias seemed in a dream to have intercourse with a woman, and since he was unable to serve as priest because of that experience, a relative of his, Joseph, the son of Eliemus, served as high priest in his place. Herod then deposed the other Matthias, who had stirred up the sedition, he burnt him alive along with some of his companions. And on that same night there was an eclipse of the moon.²⁹

Although the high priest had the authority to perform the ordinary tasks of the priests whenever he wished, there was only one occasion when only the high priest could perform the functions: during Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Only the high priest could sacrifice the ox and the goat. Only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies. And that was only during Yom Kippur. Which meant that on the eve of Yom Kippur, it was absolutely essential that the high priest keep himself ceremonially pure.

High priest Matthias ben Theophilus, had a seminal discharge in his sleep, a wet dream during the night before Yom Kippur, which made him ceremonially unclean and thus unable to perform his duties as high priest during the next day. For this reason Herod had him replaced with a relative, Joseph ben Ellemus, on a temporary basis. It was also about that time that Herod had Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus put to death by burning. On the night of the execution of Matthias ben Margalothus there was a lunar eclipse. But which one? It had to take place before Passover, April 11, 4 BC.

William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, adds in a footnote that there was a lunar eclipse on the night of March 13, only 29 days earlier. It was only a partial eclipse, about one third of the moon obscured by the earth’s shadow and the rest within the penumbra. It was already at its peak when the moon rose at sunset, and waned within a matter of hours. But it was visible in Jerusalem, and Josephus didn’t say how elaborate a display it had to be, only that there was an eclipse.

NOTES:
1. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (Niese 14:158; Whiston xiv.9.2); War of the Jews, Book 1 (Niese 1:201-3; Whiston i.10.4).
2. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14, (Niese 14:330-51; Whiston xiv.13.3-6); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:268-9; Whiston i.13.9).
3. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14, (Niese 14:386-9; Whiston xiv.14.5); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:285; Whiston i.14.4).
4. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14, (Niese 14:490; Whiston xiv.16.4); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:357; Whiston i.18.3).
5. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 15 (Niese 15:7; Whiston xv.1.2).
6. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14 (Niese 14:487; Whiston xiv.16.4). Ralph Marcus, Ph.D., trans. Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. VII (Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV). (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943; 1957) 701.
7. Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, editor. The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino Press, 1935-1952) Tractate Rosh HaShanah, folio 2a. Brackets sicut.
8. ibid.
9. Josephus, War, Book 1 (Niese 1:370; Whiston i.19.3), trans. by H. St. John Thackeray, M.A. Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. II (The Jewish War, Books I-III) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956) 173,175.
10. Ibid., 317. (Niese 1:665; Whiston i.33.8).
11. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17, (Niese 17:190; Whiston xvii.8.1). Ralph Marcus, Ph.D., trans., Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. VIII (Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963, 1969) 459.
12. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:213-8; Whiston xvii.9.3).
13. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:342-4; Whiston xvii.13.2), Marcus, op. cit. 531.
14. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:155; Whiston xvii.6.3); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:647-53; Whiston i.33.1-3).
15. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:164-5; Whiston xvii.6.4).
16. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:167; Whiston xvii.6.4); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:655; Whiston i.33.5).
17. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:167; Whiston xvii.6.4).
18. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:171-2; Whiston xvii.6.5); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:656-8; Whiston i.33.5).
19. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:174; Whiston xvii.6.5); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:659-60; Whiston i.33.6).
20. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:183-7; Whiston xvii.7.1); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:662-3; Whiston i.33.7).
21. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:188-9; Whiston xvii.8.1); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:664; Whiston i.33.7).
22. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:190-1; Whiston xvii.8.1); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:665; Whiston i.33.8).
23. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:196-9; Whiston xvii.8.3).
24. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:200; Whiston xvii.8.4).
25. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:202; Whiston xvii.8.2); War, Book 2 (Niese 2:1-3; Whiston ii.1.1).
26. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:218; Whiston xvii.9.3); War, Book 2 (Niese 2:10-13; Whiston ii.1.3).
27. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:321; Whiston xvii.11.5-6); War, Book 2 (Niese 2:93-98; Whiston ii.6.3).
28. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:342-4; Whiston xvii.13.2-3); War, Book 2 (Niese 2:108; Whiston ii.8.1).
29. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:165-7; Whiston xvii.6.4), trans. Ralph Marcus, Ph.D. Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. VIII (Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII). (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969) 447,449.

TO BE CONTINUED

**Faber** · 12-22-2020, 10:59 AM

THE 1 BC THEORY

Those who argue for the 1 BC death of Herod the Great correctly argue that the span of twenty nine days from the eclipse on March 13, 4 BC to Passover on April 11, 4 BC is too short a time for the events listed in the second chronology above. How many days after the execution of Matthias ben Margalothus did Herod wait before taking a trip to the hot baths at Callilrrhoe? How many days did he stay there before returning to Jericho? Then he sent messages throughout Judea and Galilee summoning the local leaders to Jerusalem to be held captive, then it would take several days for the most distant in Galilee to arrive. And how long after that did he try to kill himself? Then five days later he finally died. Then It would take several days for Archelaus to send messages to all the leaders around the Roman Empire, inviting them to the funeral. It would take several days for the dignitaries and armies to arrive. Then there were seven days of mourning, and twenty five days for the funeral procession to reach Herodium. And how long after that did Passover take place? Added together, with much uncertainty, we could be talking several months. The eclipse that took place on the night of January 9-10, 1 BC gives us three months before Passover of AD 1.

Holding Luke 3:23, “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age”, several early church fathers, the earliest being Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, set Jesus’s age as 30 years when He began His ministry in AD 28 or 29, then calculate backwards. That would mean Jesus was born around 2 or 3 BC. There was a total lunar eclipse on the night of January 9-10, 1 BC, reaching totality about an hour after midnight, local Jerusalem time. Based on Herod’s order to slay all the (male?) children in Bethlehem from two years old and under, it is believed that Herod was still alive a year or two after the birth of Jesus.

Supporters of the 1 BC theory argue that maybe Augustus removed Herod from office in 4 BC as a result of Herod’s improper actions. Antipater was made king. Archelaus, became king in 1 BC after the death of Herod, but probably counted his reign from the dethroning of Herod. Not only is this speculation, but if falls flat in the account of Herod ordering the death of Antipater, who was in prison, five days before Herod’s death. Then there was Herod’s authority to revise his will, declaring who would succeed him. Herod was definitely in power up to the day of his death.

The multiple conjunctions between Venus and Jupiter which took place from 3 BC to 2 BC (especially its near close conjunction on June 17, 2 BC, when they appeared to merge into a single point of light) are believed to have been the star of the Magi by many of the 1 BC theorists. But there are other possibilities. It could have been the March 20 and April 17, 6 BC eclipses of Jupiter by the waning crescent moon close to Venus, in the constellation Aries about an hour before sunrise. It could have been Halley’s Comet, visible in 12-11 BC. It could have been a comet seen by Chinese astronomers in 5 BC. Or another comet. It could have been a supernova. Or it could have been a deliberate and supernatural act by God to summon the Magi to Bethlehem. There are too many possible explanations for the Star of Bethlehem to select one particular event and use that as an argument in support of either the 1 BC or the 4 BC death of Herod, or to establish an approximate date for the birth of Jesus.

Grasping at straws, there are those who connect an assurance of good-will to Augustus Caesar by the Jews³⁰ with the census described in Luke 1:1, supposedly an enrollment requiring an oath of loyalty of all the Jews as well as all the provinces and client kingdoms of Rome. The enrollment was necessary before Augustus could be given the title pater patriae in February, 2 BC. But what about Luke’s comment that the enrollment took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria? Quirinius wasn’t governor until AD 6. But the assumption is made that Quirinius probably had an earlier term as governor, an assumption with absolutely no documentary support.

Another argument notes that Luke described Quirinius as hegemon instead of legatus, suggesting that Quirinius might not have been the official governor at the time of the census.

WHAT ABOUT THE CIVIL CALENDAR?

But let’s take another look at the high priest Matthias ben Theophilus. The high priest was free to serve in a number of functions. He could replace the priest performing the burning of incense in the sanctuary if he wished. He could take part in the twice-daily tamid. He could offer the burnt sacrifices and the peace offerings. He could hold the position of leader of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. He could use the urim and thummim of his garments in order to discern the will of God. But his foremost function deals with Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. He alone would sacrifice one goat and send the other goat, the scapegoat, into the wilderness. He alone would sacrifice the bull for the atonement of himself and his household. He alone would enter the holy of holies and sprinkle the blood of the bull on the mercy seat.

But on the night before he was to perform his sacred priestly duties, Matthias the high priest had a nocturnal emission, rendering him unclean and disqualified from performing his services as high priest. It was necessary for Herod to assign Joseph, the son of Ellemus to take his place the following day. Josephus refers to that day as “that day when the fast was to be celebrated”. This could only refer to Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The last Yom Kippur prior to the Passover of 4 BC was on September 13, 5 BC. There was a total lunar eclipse two days later, on the night of September 15-16. Totality lasted 99 minutes, beginning around midnight, while the moon was nearly directly overhead. This took place six months before Passover of 4 BC, more than enough time for the events as described to take place.

That leaves a minor inaccuracy which Josephus, himself a priest and Levite, should have been aware of. Yom Kippur, being the 10th day of Tishri, could only take place 11 to 12 days after the new moon. A lunar eclipse by its nature can only occur 14 to 15 days after the new moon, or, more specifically in this case, 14 days, 1 hour, 56 minutes. An eclipse could never take place at night the day after Yom Kippur. We could assume Josephus to be mistaken, or we can split a compound sentence into two and get the following:

But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood. And he burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.

With that minor change, we have the following modified chronology:

* Yom Kippur (10 Tishri, probably Wednesday, September 13, 5 BC): Another Matthias, the high priest, is replaced by Herod with Joseph son of Ellemus in order to perform the sacred priestly duties.
* Two days after Yom Kippur (Friday, September 15): Herod orders the death of several teachers and students. Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus is put to death by burning. This could be in sympathy with the Sanhedrin’s wishes not to perform executions on a festival day.
* Friday night, September 15, 5 BC: A lunar eclipse took place at night on the day after the day of the execution of Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus.

But as stated earlier, Herod’s thirty fourth year as king, the year in which Herod died, was during the Levitical Calendar Year from around March 28, 4 BC to March 17, 3 BC. If we hold that Herod died sometime in the middle, after the eclipse of September 15, 5 BC but before the new Levitical year on March 28, 4 BC, then he died in his thirty third year as king, not the thirty fourth year.

Unless Josephus was going by the more popular civil calendar instead of the Levitical calendar. Herod became king over Judea following the defeat of Antigonus around Passover, 37 BC. That would be the civil year beginning about September 8, 38 BC to September 2, 37 BC. The earthquake in the spring of 31 BC took place in the civil year beginning about September 2, 32 BC to September 21, 31 BC. That’s still the seventh year of Herod’s reign. And if his death took place sometime after September 15, 5 BC but a few months before Passover, 4 BC, that would be during the civil year which began on September 3, 5 BC and ended around September 22, 4 BC, Herod’s thirty fourth year as king. This would allow time for the events which took place between the eclipse and the Passover of 4 BC.

This leaves us with two possibilities: Josephus could have been using the Levitical calendar and was off by a year, or perhaps only a few months. Josephus’s accuracy has been questioned in other areas as well. Or He was counting by the civil calendar, pushing Herod’s death back a year.

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

The earliest record of a Christian writer giving the year of Jesus’s birth is from Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul. Writing his third book Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) around AD 180, he states, "...for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus".³¹

It is clear that Irenaeus was talking about Augustus’s rise to power, not 27 BC, the year in which he became emperor. On January 1, 43 BC, the year after the assassination of Julius Caesar, Augustus (at that time named Octavian) was made a senator. Later that year, the two consuls were killed in battle and Octavian became leader of the armies of Rome. In August of that year he was elected one of the two consuls replacing the original consuls. Irenaeus’s timing places the birth of Jesus some time in 3 BC.

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (Tertullian) wrote Adversus Judaeos (An Answer to the Jews) sometime around AD 200. He writes in Chapter VIII, Of the Times of Christ’s Birth and Passion, and of Jerusalem’s Destruction,

Let us see, moreover, how in the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus, when he has been reigning for xx and viii years after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ is born. (And the same Augustus survived, after Christ is born, xv years; and the remaining times of years to the day of the birth of Christ will bring us to the xl first year, which is the xx and viiith of Augustus after the death of Cleopatra.)³²

Writing from a Roman province in Latin, let's assume he is counting time according to the Julian Calendar. Let's first set a few dates.

* 43 BC: both consuls for that year were killed in battle, and Octavian was placed in full charge of the entire Roman army.
* August 19, 43 BC: Octavian was elected one of the two consuls to finish the term of the deceased consuls.
* August, 30 BC Marc Antony and Cleopatra VII Philopator died, both by suicide. There are no longer any challengers to Octavian's authority.
* January 16, 27 BC: The senate grants Octavian the titles of Princeps and Augustus.

Tertullian sets the birth of Jesus in the 28th year of Octavian after Cleopatra’s death, and on the 41st year of Octavian coming into power, obviously starting from the year Octavian was granted authority over the armies, and later elected consul. Tertullian is in agreement with Irenaeus in holding the birth of Jesus in 3 BC.

Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, wrote in his In Danielem (Commentary on the Book of Daniel) around AD 210, according to a recent translation by Thomas Coffman Schmidt:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3 BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [AD 29 or 30], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls.³³

Rufus and Roubellion are actually Caius Fufius Geminus and Lucius Rubellius Geminus, elected consuls in AD 29. The year from Adam is calculated from the chronologies found in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament, calculating the birth of Adam and the creation of the world about 5,500 BC, but is inconsistent with the Hebrew text in its genealogical years.

Note that according to the above translation, Hippolytus dates the birth of Jesus on December 25, 2 BC or 3 BC (as per Schmidt's notes in brackets), December 25, 3 BC would be a week short of a full 42 years from the year Octavian was elected Consul, but the year would be consistent with Irenaeus and Tertullian. His thirty-third year (at age 32) would be AD 30, but the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar would be only AD 28 (according to calendar years), or at the latest September 18, AD 29 if we count from the date Tiberius was confirmed by the Senate. The latter would agree with the names of the consuls for that year according to Hippolytus.

It was Hippolytus's belief that, because Jesus was perfect, or because of Divine providence, His date of conception, His date of death and the creation of the world all had to occur on the same date, March 25. And nine months of gestation would bring the birth of the Savior to December 25.

In his appendix No. 1 to the above, Mr. Schmidt also made an analysis of the several manuscripts from which his translation is derived. He notes one variant (a 11th century manuscript referred to as J) of the above passage which reads,

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was in the time of Augustus, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty third.³⁴

J is only one of several copies, and not the oldest. Rules of textual criticism could lean toward the first translation above, being from the majority and the oldest manuscripts, containing the December 25th date. However another rule leans toward the shorter of two variants, on the presumption that it was more likely for later scribes to add text rather than delete text. This leaves open the possibility that a later scribe, perhaps centuries later, added the references to March 25 and December 25 to add to the philosophy that the sovereignty of God required some form of calendric pattern.³⁵

Clement of Alexandria wrote in his Stromata (Miscellanies), around AD 200:

From Julius Caesar, therefore, to the death of Commodus, are two hundred and thirty-six years, six months. And the whole from Romulus, who founded Rome, till the death of Commodus, amounts to nine hundred and fifty-three years, six months. And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias." And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered. And from the time that He suffered till the destruction of Jerusalem are forty-two years and three months; and from the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of Commodus, a hundred and twenty-eight years, ten months, and three days. From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings.³⁶

Did Clement have the correct dates for his historical events? He dates the crucifixion of Jesus 42 years and 3 months before the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was destroyed on September 2, AD 70, and the earliest Jesus could have been crucified was April 7, AD 30, no more than 40 years and 5 months before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Roman emperor Commodus died on December 31, AD 192. That’s about 122 years, three months and 29 days, not 128 years, 10 months and 3 days, as Clement calculates. Yet this was written within a few years after Commodus’s death!

Clement sets the birth of Jesus at 194 years, 1 month, 13 days before the death of Commodus, which puts it on November 18, 3 BC.

Little is known about Sextus Julius Africanus. Was he African or Roman? Was he born in Jerusalem? When did he live? When did he die? Was he a minister or layman? A scientist?

He wrote a book of historical computation known as Chronographiai, probably in AD 221, which is no longer extant but is quoted by Eusebius (Chronicon) and others. AD 221-2 is the Anno Mundi 5723 according to Africanus. Creation of the world thus can be calculated to have taken place in September, 5502 BC. He puts the Incarnation of Jesus AM 5500,37 or March 25, 2 BC (hence, His birth nine months later around December 25, 2 BC).

The Early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in 325 BC:

It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus and the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end, that our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea according to the prophecies which had been uttered concerning him. His birth took place during the first census, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.³⁸

The 42nd year of Augustus (from the year he became senator and consul) and the 28th year after the subjugation of Egypt would set the birth of Jesus in 2 BC.

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote Panarion around AD 375:

Thus the overall order of events is this: first, he was baptized on the twelfth of the Egyptian month Athyr, the sixth before the Ides of November in the Roman calendar. In other words, he was baptized a full sixty days before the Epiphany, which is the day of his birth in the flesh, as the Gospel according to Luke testifies, 'Jesus began to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.' Actually, he was twenty-nine years and ten months old—thirty years old but not quite—when he came for his baptism. This is why it says, ”began to be about thirty years old.”³⁹

Epiphanius makes clear what Hippolytus suggested: According to Luke 3:21-24, “Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age” at the time He was baptized. Luke 4:19, in which Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:1-2, “To preach the acceptable year of the Lord”, is interpreted by Epiphanius to the first twelve months of His ministry, from Passover AD 29 to Passover AD 30. Jesus was baptized in the waters of the Jordan River on November 8, AD 28, two months before He turned 30 years of age on January 6, AD 29. The following year, beginning Passover, AD 30, and ending in Passover, AD 31, was the Year of Opposition.

"For the magi themselves reached Bethlehem, after a two year interval, on this very day of the Epiphany. . .As I have said before and am obliged to say over and over, this was the day in the thirteenth consulship of Octavius Augustus and the consulship of Silanus which fell on the eighth day before the Ides of January, thirteen days after the increase of the daylight. This lasts from the winter solstice, the eighth before the Kalends of January, until the actual day of Christ's birth and Manifestation, because of the type I spoke of -- the Savior himself and his disciples, making thirteen."⁴⁰

These things (i.e., Christ's birth and the fulfillment of Jacob's prophecy) came about in the thirteenth consulship of Octavius Augustus and the consulship of Silanus, as I have often said.⁴¹

For Christ was born in the month of January, that is, on the eighth before the Ides of January -- in the Roman calendar this is the evening of January fifth, at the beginning of January sixth. In the Egyptian calendar it is the eleventh of Tybi.⁴²

The thirteenth consulship of the emperor Augustus and the consulship of Marcus Plautius Silvanus was 2 BC. Epiphanius sets the date of Jesus’s birth at January 6, 2 BC. The Ides of January was January 13. Eight days before the Ides of January, inclusive, was January 6.

The general consensus of the church in the first few centuries, although with some variation, is that, holding the first full year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius from September 18, AD 14 to September 18, AD 15, the Passover during the 15th year of Tiberius, during which Jesus began His ministry, was AD 29. Holding that Jesus was thirty years of age, or almost exactly thirty years of age, He must have been born around 3 BC or 2 BC.

But they assume that “about thirty years of age” means within a few months, and disregard the year of Herod’s death. If Jesus were born at the latest in December, 5 BC, He would have been at least age 33 and a few months. We need to take Luke 3:21-24, “Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age”, to be rounded to the nearest multiple of ten years. He was about three decades old.

Luke 3:1 gives us a fixed time for the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist: around AD 28 or AD 29. To hold "began to be about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23) to mean within a few months of His 30th birthday is to contradict the historical accounts regarding Herod's death. Holding fast to the correctness of the Holy Scriptures requires that we set the date back a few years to before Herod's death: early 4 BC or a few years before that. So where did the modern calendar go wrong?

NOTES:
30. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:43-3; Whiston xvii.2.4).
31. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), III.21.3. Rev. W.H. Rambaut,trans.; ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe, DD, LLD., Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Vol. I (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885) 1138.
32. A. Cleveland Coxe, DD, LLD., editor; Rev. S. Thelwall, translator, Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Vol. III; (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885) 159-160. (Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus, Adversus Judaeos, ch. VIII; An Answer to the Jews, ch.8).
33. Hippolytus, Eis Ton Daniel, 4.23.3. T.C. Schmidt, trans. Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel, 2010. (website expired; 2010 paperback out of print) Text in brackets is supplied by Mr. Schmidt.
34. ibid.
35. Hippolytus, Eis Ton Daniel; Greek text and German translation can be found in Hippolytus Werke: Exegetische und homiletische Schriften, vol. 1. P. 242 (Greek), 243 (German) (Leipzig: Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei Jarhunderte, 1897). http://booksnow1.scholarsportal.info/ebooks/oca5/24/ hippolytuswerke01hipp/hippolytuswerke01hipp.pdf.
36. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 1, Chapter 21. A. Cleveland Coxe, DD, LLD, editor. Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Vol. 2. (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885) 333.
37. Year of creation. This differs, however, with modern Jewish calendars, wherein creation is reckoned as October 7, 3761 BC.
38. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, i.5.2. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, translator; ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1 (Eusebius). (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. 1890) 88.
39. Epiphanius, Panarion, sect 51,15,15 thru 51,16,2, (Sections 47-80, De Fide). Frank Williams, trans.; The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill. 1994) 41.
40. Ibid., 52 (Epiphanius, 51,22,18).
41. Ibid., 53 (Epiphanius, 51,22,24).
42. Ibid., 55 (Epiphanius, 51,24,1).

TO BE CONTINUED

**Faber** · 12-22-2020, 11:05 AM

DIONYSIUS’S BIG GOOF

During the first few centuries after Jesus walked this earth, Romans still counted their years by the two consuls. But it had its problems. How many years was it from the consulships of Marcius Vinicius and Lucius Cassius Longinus to the consulships of Caesar Vespasianus Augustus II and Titus Caesar Vespasianus? It would be much simpler to ask how many years passed from AD 30 to AD 70. Or from 784 AUC (Ab Urbe Condita) to 824 AUC. But as Rome became more and more irrelevant, counting the years from the founding of the city of Rome became less used.

Eventually the Romans started counting years from the Egyptian calendar year which marked the beginning of the reign of Emperor Diocletian. Year 1 Anno Diocletiani began on August 29, AD 284, the Egyptian new year’s day. But what Christian would want to count the years from the first year of the emperor responsible for the last great persecution of the Church? Certainly not a Scythian monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dionysius the Short).

In Anno Diocleatiani 240, Pope John I asked Dionysius to calculate the dates which Easter would occur over the next 95 years. He decided to count the years from the birth of Jesus instead of from the beginning of the reign of Diocletian, the persecutor. He calculated that Jesus was born 284 years before Diocletian became emperor, and that Anno Diocleatiani 240 was actually 524 years after the birth of Jesus.

Therefore we hurried to set out this cycle of 95 years, in which study we have succeeded, preferring in our work this [cycle], the last one of the same blessed Cyril, that is the 5th cycle, because 6 years of it remain; and thereafter we profess that we laid out 5 others according to the pattern of the same pontiff, or rather of the often mentioned Nicene Council. But because St. Cyril began his first cycle from the 153rd year of Diocletian, and besides ended in the 247th, we, starting from the 248th [year] of the same tyrant -- a better [word] than prince -- do not wish to bind to our circles the memory of this impious man and persecutor, but choose rather to count the time of the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that the beginning of our hope will appear better known to us, and the cause of the restoration of mankind, i.e., the passion of our Redeemer, may shine forth more clearly.⁴³

Dionysius was short. By about four years.

LUKE’S BIG GOOF

And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2, KJV)

This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. (Luke 2:2, NASB)

Literally translated, “This first census Quirinius became governor of Syria.” The KJV choice of the work “taxing” is not correct. It was a head count, which could be for the purpose of a taxation, or for a military draft.

Simply put: Jesus was born before Herod the Great died. After Herod died, Archelaus became ethnarch of Judea (4 BC). After nine years of incompetent rule by Archelaus, Augustus Caesar moved in, removing Archelaeus, setting Publius Sulpicius Quirinius as governor (legate) of the province of Syria, and placing Coponius as prefect over Judea, subject to the authority of Quirinius (AD 6). After this was done, Quirinius forced the detestable taxation over Judea, which the Jews bitterly resented for the next six decades, ultimately leading to the Jewish War.

What we read in every major translation of Luke 2:2 is blatantly wrong. How could Luke, a scholarly researcher, physician and historian, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, make such an obvious mistake?

To start, the proper translation is census. It does not mean taxation. What Quirinius did was a census resulting in an assessment, and ultimately a taxation.

The center of the problem lies with the Greek word prōtos in the masculine. The neuter prōton can be used as an adverb, meaning before. It can also refer to a subatomic particle with a positive charge.

Another related Greek work, prinprōton, or prōt’, instead of prin and gave us ? If he had used prin, then the verse could be translated, “This census (was) before Quirinius became governor of Syria.” This not only make grammatical sense, but it also makes absolute historical sense. The AD 6 census under Quirinius was so notorious that Luke wanted to distinguish it from the census which took place when Jesus was born. But instead, a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement had the opposite effect.

So what was Luke’s big blunder? A blatant contradiction in history, wherein a learned scholar places the birth of Jesus in the time of Herod in one chapter, and during the Roman control of Judea under Quirinius, governor of Syria, at least ten years later, in the next chapter? Or was it simply using an adjective where rules of grammar say he should have used a conjunction?

NOTES:

43. Dionysius Exiguus, Liber de Paschate (On Easter, or, the Paschal Cycle), preface; translation out of copyright. Edited by Roger Pearse.

**Faber** · 12-23-2020, 02:45 PM

APOGRAPHESTHAI

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (Luke 2:1, KJV)

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (Luke 2:1, NIV)

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. (Luke 2:1, NIASB)

The King James Bible says “that all the world should be taxed,” Nearly all other translations translate the Greek word apographesthai to mean “to be registered”, or “to be enrolled”, or “census be taken”. It was definitely not a tax.

If we conclude that Herod died around late 5 BC or early 4 BC, and that Herod's eclipse took place on Friday night, September 15, 5 BC, and that Augustus's decree for a census took place before the birth of Jesus, then we must ask the question, “Why was there a census?”

The King James Bible states that the census was to cover "all the world". The New American Standard Bible reduces it to "all the inhabited earth". Although there is not any textual reason for the New International Version to add the word "Roman", it makes more historical sense. Even Augustus’s Res Gestae begins, “Below is a copy of the acts of the Deified Augustus by which he placed the whole world under the sovereignty of the Roman people.”¹ Augustus wasn't demanding a census of Antarctica, or of the American Indians, or of the Far East. It was limited to the Roman Empire, its provinces, and client kingdoms. Herod's Kingdom was a client kingdom, and as such, Augustus did not have the authority to impose a Roman tax, nor a military draft. So why did the census include Herod’s kingdom?

CLIENT KINGS

Client kings were rulers of kingdoms who maintained a friendship with the people of Rome and their Emperor. As long as they could protect their borders from hostile forces and maintain control of their own people, it was to Rome’s advantage to allow them self-government. These kingdoms enjoyed the privileges of trade with Rome and were permitted to maintain their own armies, their own rules and coin their own money. If they were threatened by an external enemy, they could call on Rome for help. But Rome also saw to it that these client kings stayed in line. If they failed to do so, Augustus had the power to remove kings and transform the kingdoms into imperial provinces. Such was the case with Archelaus, ethnarch over Judea, Samaria and Idumaea, when in AD 6 Augustus removed him from the throne, banished him to Gaul and made Judaea a province subject to the governor of Syria.

J.C. Stobart’s list of client kingdoms includes Thrace, Pontus with Bosphorus, Judaea (Annexed AD 6), Commagene, Cappadocia, Armenia, Arabia, Abilene, Emesa, Galilee & Peraea, Nabataea, Batanaea and Mauretania.² Other kingdoms such as Pontus and Cilicia were also client kingdoms at times.

These client states held a major strategic advantage to Rome. On the perimeter of the empire, they served as buffer zones against any hostile invasion from Parthia to the east or from the barbaric tribes wandering through the regions of Europe north of Rome. This relieved the Roman army of the need to guard large parts of its borders. Rome’s only concern was that these client kingdoms and states be strong enough to guard against any external invasion or internal rebellion, yet weak enough not to be a threat to Rome’s security.

Loyal client rulers were rewarded by the emperors with Roman citizenship, which in the early decades of the empire was a high honor and difficult to obtain (cf. Acts 22:25-29). Some of the more faithful client rulers were entrusted with additional country to rule over. The terms, “Friend of Rome,” or “Friend of the People of Rome,” or “Friend of Caesar” were given to faithful client kings.³

One of those client kings was Herod the Great. At the time of the birth of Jesus, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumaea, Perea and several other regions were ruled by Herod, who was granted his kingdom in 37 BC by Mark Antony and Octavius (later renamed Augustus) Caesar. Due to his efficiency and favor with the emperor Augustus, he was also granted the plateau regions of Itrurea in 24 BC. In honor of Mark Antony and Augustus, he named the Fortress Antonia, and the city of Caesarea which he had built, and changed the name of Samaria to Sebaste, which is Greek for Augustus.

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, son-in-law of Augustus (by marriage to Julia The Elder) and a general, had visited Herod in 15 BC, following which the two men traveled to Ionia, the western coastal region of Asia Minor (now Turkey), which included the cities of Ephesus and Smyrna. While there, a multitude of Jews living in that region felt emboldened to approach them to speak out against the anti-Jewish mistreatment which they had experienced at the hand of the public officials, such as not being permitted to observe their own laws, being forced to serve in the military and to appear in court on the Jewish holy days.

And they told how they had been deprived of the monies sent as offerings to Jerusalem and of being forced to participate in military service and civic duties and to spend their sacred monies for these things, although they had been exempted from these duties because the Romans had always permitted them to live in accordance with their own laws.⁴

With the authority of his father-in-law behind him, Marcus Agrippa confirmed to the Jews throughout the provinces of Rome the rights to practice their religion and customs free from mistreatment.⁵ Herod, returning to Jerusalem, called an assembly of the Jews, during which he assured them that they likewise would not suffer mistreatment by his rule over them. To convince them of his promises and to win their support, he offered them a substantial rebate of their taxes.⁶

As long as Augustus and Herod were on good terms, Herod was free to rule his own kingdom as he wished, but with some restrictions. To remain in Rome’s favor, Herod found it advisable to provide Caesar with financial gifts as payment for favorable treatment. But as with other client kings, Herod was not permitted to make his own foreign policy, nor to wage war with other kingdoms, especially another ally of the Roman Empire. But that was not to last much longer.

The Nabataean kingdom was also a friend of Rome. Although they had a king, Obodas II, the Nabataeans were more a loosely knit confederation of many nomadic tribes whose laws forbade them from farming or building houses. They raised camels and sheep, leading them to pasture across the Arabian Desert.⁷

The Nabataean traders were the primary source of frankincense and other fragrances which the Romans desperately needed as part of their worship of their gods. Aelius Gallus, a Roman general hoping to discover the secret trade route to the source of the spices, enlisted the services of Syllaeus, the chief minister of the King Obodas to guide his army directly to South Arabia (Yemen), thus eliminating the need to deal through the Nabataeans. The journey began in the spring of 26 BC. Keeping the direct trade route (sailing down the middle of the Red Sea) a secret, Syllaeus decided to lead them along the rocky coastline instead. Gallus built a fleet of ships, and followed Syllaeus as the army took the land route along the coast. As they journeyed for several months, the ships were eventually destroyed by rocks under the shallow waters. The Roman sailors and army were then led inland through the desert and southward toward the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, having to stop for six months, from the autumn of 26 BC to the spring of 25 BC, to recover from illness before resuming the journey. Very few of Gallus’s soldiers survived the journey, many having died from disease rather than combat.⁸

In 12 BC there was a rumor that Herod had died. His deteriorating health no doubt helped spread that rumor. But it empowered forty bands of brigands, or robbers, in Trachonitis, at the extreme northeast region of Herod’s kingdom, to go on a looting spree. After they learned that Herod was still alive and angry, they fled to a fortress not far from Pella.

Three years later, Herod had received authorization from Saturninus, Caesar’s governor to Syria, to protect the region of Trachonitis against the brigands. Misunderstanding that as an authorization by Caesar himself to take whatever means necessary into his own hands, Herod led an army into the Nabataean Kingdom to capture and demolish the fortress occupied by the robbers. But this resulted in only a few casualties on both sides.⁹

Syllaeus, who happened to be in Rome when he learned of Herod’s invasion, approached Augustus and embellished the facts, telling him that Herod had invaded his kingdom, devastated it and plundered it of its wealth, killed thousands of Nabataean soldiers and treated King Obodas with contempt.¹⁰

Irritated by these words, Caesar asked Herod’s friends who were there and his own men who had come from Syria only this one question, whether Herod had led his army out of the country. Since they were compelled to answer that one question, and Caesar did not hear under what circumstances and how Herod had acted, he became still more angry and wrote to Herod in a harsh tone throughout and particularly in the main point of his letter, which was that whereas formerly he had treated him as a friend, he would now treat him as a subject.¹¹

That same year, Obodas II was murdered by poisoning, and one Aeneas usurped the throne without Augustus’s approval, taking the name Aretas IV. Seeking to destroy Syllaeus’s reputation, Aretas sent gifts and treasures to Augustus, along with a letter stating that Syllaeus had lied about the invasion by Herod, and accused Syllaeus of having murdered Obodas as well as other seditious acts. But Augustus refused to listen and sent the gifts back to Aretas. The brigands found safety within the borders of the Nabataean Kingdom. With Herod forbidden to invade them and Aretas unable to evict them, the robbers continually made incursions into Herod’s kingdom, stealing and robbing unrestrained, then returning to their fortresses in Nabataea.¹²

CRASSUS AND THE PARTHIANS, 53 BC

Rome and the Parthian Kingdom were both expanding as they absorbed smaller kingdoms on their borders. Eventually their areas of influence would meet. The Parthians conquered Media, Babylonia, Assyria and Persia in 141 BC, then went on to defeat the Seleucia in 129 BC, extending their empire westward to the Euphrates River. To the west of the Euphrates River, The Kingdom of Armenia became a Roman protectorate in 65 BC as a result of Pompey’s war against Mithridates of Pontus. As the two nations grew in power (Rome was neither a kingdom nor an empire at the time), the Euphrates River held as the border, but Armenia, as a separate kingdom, was on shaky grounds.

Marcus Licinius Crassus aggravated the situation with Parthia. In 53 B.C. he took over as governor of Syria. He was already the wealthiest man in Rome, but beyond the Euphrates lay the countless riches of the Parthian Empire waiting for him to come and take. Crassus led an army toward Parthia not just with the intent of conquering the only other empire known to exist as well as the only possible threat to Rome, but also with the ultimate hope of outdoing Alexander the Great by extending Rome’s dominion beyond the Ganges River to the Far East and the shore of the Pacific Ocean.¹³

Before his campaign, Crassus went to Jerusalem and plundered the temple of God of all its treasure, two thousand talents of coin, eight thousand talents of gold and anything else of any value, totaling in the millions of dollars.¹⁴

Accompanied by seven legions containing 35,000 heavy infantry, 4,000 cavalry and 4,000 light troops, Crassus reached the Euphrates River. Advance scouts from beyond the river reported seeing no Parthian army, but found an abundance of hoof prints, indicating that they might have fled. The report boosted Crassus’s confidence.¹⁵

Crassus had planned on leading his army along a route close to the Euphrates River, but a local Arab chieftan named Ariamnes, whom Crassus thought was an ally, suggested a more direct route through the Mesopotamian desert. Crassus followed his advice, not knowing that the Parthian General Surena would be waiting there to ambush the Romans.¹⁶

For several days they marched eastward through the desert, the infantry wearily trying to keep pace with the cavalry. Then one day a few of the advance scouts returned to the camp. They had come across a vast Parthian cavalry under the command of General Surena heading their way. Crassus ordered the army to march on until the enemy came into sight, about 30 miles south of the town of Carrhae.¹⁷

The Roman infantry excelled in hand-to-hand combat, but that was of little use against the Parthian cavalry, capable of shooting their arrows from a distance. The Parthians were also famous for their “Parthian Shot”, in which, while being pursued on horseback, they would take hold of their bows and suddenly twist their bodies and take fatal aim at their pursuers. The Parthian arrows were sharp and could tear through heavy armor, and once they punctured a body, they couldn’t be removed without causing more injury.¹⁸

As the Roman army huddled together with shields up to deflect a shower of arrows, Crassus’s son Publius Crassus led a group of cavalry to prevent the Parthians from surrounding them. But their light weapons were no match for the heavy Parthian armor. Publius was killed in battle.¹⁹

After heavy fighting the Parthians withdrew from the battle and regrouped. While the two armies stood at a distance facing one another, a handful of Parthians on horse approached the Romans, holding the dismembered head of Publius mounted on a spear. The Romans were dispirited at the sight.²⁰

Nightfall arrived and the two armies withdrew. The disillusioned Romans made no effort to bury their dead or tend to their wounded. Crassus hid his face from his soldiers. The Roman commanders and generals, no longer seeing in Crassus the will to lead, decided to retreat through the desert in the night, leaving the wounded behind to die. Cries of panic from the disabled soldiers filled the battlefield. The next morning the Parthians swooped down on the Roman camp, killing the 4,000 wounded which were left behind on the battlefield, then proceeded after the fleeing remnant of the Roman army, killing stragglers found along the way. But the surviving Roman soldiers had taken refuge in nearby Carrhae.²¹

Behind the walls of Carrhae the Romans were safe, temporarily: Invading a fortified city was the Parthians’ weakness. The moonlit nights were too dangerous for the Romans to attempt an escape back to safety in Armenia. So they waited until after a few days, then left Carrhae in the darkness of a moonless night. They spent the next few days retreating toward the Euphrates at night and seeking high ground where they could protect themselves in the daytime. Until the Parthians caught up with them. General Surena sent a message to Crassus, offering to allow them to return to Rome peacefully if he agreed to a truce. When Crassus refused to meet with Surena, his soldiers became angry at his cowardice and shouted at him, banging their shields together. Crassus submitted. He and his generals met with Surena, who was accompanied by a few of his own soldiers. When the Roman generals suddenly realized that this was a disguised attempt to capture Crassus, a struggle broke out. Crassus and his generals were killed. Surena then sent orders to the Roman soldiers to surrender. Some did. Others fled into the desert during the night, where they were hunted down by the Arabs.²²

Of the roughly 40,000 soldiers that Crassus led into Parthia, 20,000 were killed, 10,000 managed to escape back to Syria, and the remaining 10,000 were taken captive, to spend the rest of their lives as slave labor. But the most humiliating of all in the minds of the Romans was the capture of the Roman standards, with their golden eagles, representing the seven Roman legions.²³

According to Plutarch, the severed head of Crassus was used as a stage prop in a tragic play performed before Orodes.²⁴ But another historian, Cassius Dio says²⁵ that Crassus finally got the wealth he sought for: molten gold poured down his throat.
General Surena proved himself to be a competent military commander. Perhaps too competent: King Orodes II, jealous of his accomplishments, put him to death,²⁶ and placed Pacorus, the son of Orodes, in his place, though still a child.²⁷

NOTES:

1. Augustus Caesar, Res Gestae. Frederick W. Shipley, trans.. Velleius Paterculus; Res Gestae Divi Augustus (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924) 345.
2. J.C. Stobart, The Grandeur that was Rome, 2nd edition (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1920.) 194. (4th ed., (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc. 1935)) 176).
3. Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976) 32.
4. Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, Book 16, (Niese 16:28; Whiston xvi.2.3). Ralph Marcus, Ph.D., trans., Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes,Vol. VIII (Loeb Classical Library, 410) (Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII). (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963,1969) 219.
5. Josephus. Antiquities, (Niese 16:60; Whiston xvi.2.5).
6. Ibid., (Niese 16:65-65; Whiston xvi.2.5).
7. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, 19.94.2-10.
8. Strabo, Geōgraphika; xvi.4.23-25.
9. Josephus, Antiquities, (Niese 16:271-77; Whiston xvi.9.1).
10. Ibid., (Niese 16:286-88; Whiston xvi.9.3).
11. Ibid., (Niese 16:289-90; Whiston xvi.9.4). Marcus, op. cit., 325,327.
12. Ibid., (Niese 16:294-99; Whiston xvi.9.4).
13. Plutarch, Bioi Paralleloi (Crassus), 16; Cassius Dio, Romaikē Historia, xl.12.1; Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome (Book V, Ch. 9), Vol. IV, William P. Dickson, D.D, trans., (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1873) 395-6; George Rawlinson, The Story of Parthia (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893) 149.
14. Josephus, Antiquities, (Niese 14:105-09; Whiston xiv.7.1); Rawlinson, op. cit., 152.
15. Plutarch, Crassus, 20; Rawlinson, op. cit., (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893) 157.
16. Plutarch, Crassus, 20.1-2; Cassius Dio, Romaikē Historia xv.20.1-4 (names him Abgarus); Rawlinson, op. cit.,158.
17. Plutarch, Crassus, 23; Mommsen, History, 402. Carrhae is the same as Haran of Genesis 11:27-12:5.
18. Plutarch, Crassus, 24.
19. Plutarch, Crassus, 25; Dio, op. cit., xl.21.1-3; Mommsen, History, 403; Rawlinson 166-67.
20. Plutarch, Crassus, 26; Mommsen, History, 403; Rawlinson 168-69.
21. Plutarch, Crassus, 27-8; Dio, op. cit., xl.25; Mommsen, Historyy, 404; Rawlinson, op. cit., 169.
22. Plutarch, Crassus, 29-31; Dio, op. cit., xl.26-27; Mommsen, History, 404-5; Rawlinson, op. cit., 171-74.
23. Plutarch, Crassus, 31.7; Mommsen, History, 405.
24. Plutarch, Crassus 33.2-4; Mommsen, History, 406.
25. Dio, op. cit., xl.27.3.
26. Plutarch, Crassus 33.5; Mommsen, History, 407; Rawlinson, op. cit., 180.
27. Dio, op. cit., xl.28.3.

TO BE CONTINUED....

**Faber** · 12-23-2020, 03:04 PM

ANTIGONUS AND THE PARTHIANS, 38-37 BC:

In 43 BC Mark Antony appointed Herod (already procurator of Galilee) tetrarch of Judea, and Herod’s brother Phasaelus tetrarch of Jerusalem. Hyrcanus was appointed high priest, but with little if any political influence. But the Jews resented Herod because his father was Idumaean and his mother was an Arabian. Herod had no right to be king over a portion of the Jewish people.²⁸

The Parthians desired to capture Syria and Palestine from the Romans, but so far had been unsuccessful. Antigonus II Mattathias, a Jew and descendant of the Hasmonean dynasty, and favored by the Jews, bribed the Parthians with 1,000 talents and 500 women to set him up as king over Jerusalem. But when the Parthians arrived in Judea in 40 BC, they began their goal of pillaging the entire region.²⁹

The Parthian forces consisted of two detachments: one under Pacorus, son of Orodes, now an adult, and the other under the satrap Barzapharnes. Pacorus and his detatchment invaded Syria, defeating the forces of Decidius Saxa, the Roman governor and capturing several more of the Roman standards. The satrap Barzapharnes led his detatchment of Parthians through the interior toward Judea. The first attack against Jerusalem, with the help of the Parthians and some Jews from Carmel was unsuccessful. Antigonus waited until Pentecost, 40 BC, when he could recruit some of the pilgrims coming to Jerusalem for the feast, knowing that he would have their support.³⁰

Pacorus convinced Phasaelus and Hyrcanus to meet with Barzapharnes in Galilee to discuss a settlement of hostilities. But upon meeting Barzapharnes they were thrown into chains. Phaesalus died as a prisoner of the Parthians, supposedly by committing suicide. Hyrcanus was taken captive to Babylon. There are conflicting accounts of whether he was castrated or had his ear lobes cut off. Either way, he had become unqualified to serve as high priest as a result. With no governing authority remaining, the Parthians plundered Jerusalem and neighboring areas, and set up Antigonus as king and high priest.³¹

Herod, rightly suspecting that the meeting in Galilee was a trap, escaped with his family and loyal followers to the fortress Masada in Idumaea. Leaving them behind in the fortress, Herod journeyed to Petra, hoping to seek admission into the Nabataean Kingdom. Refused entry, he fled to Egypt, then sailed to Rome. There He was appointed king of Judea by Octavian, Antony and the senate.³²

The next year (39 BC), Mark Antony appointed Publius Ventidius Bassus as legate to Syria with an army to force the Parthians out of Palestine and Syria. Herod led his army and took over Galilee and Joppa, then headed toward Masada to rescue his family and friends, and others who had been under siege from the army of Antigonus. By 38 BC Herod had captured all of Galilee, Samaria and Judea except for the city of Jerusalem. The Parthian influence had been eliminated.³³

The conflict paused for the winter of 38-37 BC, with Herod’s army of 30,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry encamped north of Jerusalem and surrounded the city. By the beginning of spring the city suffered a famine. After laying siege against the north wall of the city for six weeks, Herod’s forces finally broke through into the lower city of Jerusalem. After another two weeks, they had hold of the entire city and the supporters of Antigonus were massacred. Antigonus was captured and delivered to Mark Antony, and was put to death.³⁴

MARK ANTONY AND THE PARTHIANS, 36 BC³⁶

It was late fall of 36 BC when Antony and his vast army and war machines arrived in Armenia. Ideally, he should have allowed his soldiers to rest for the winter from their long journey, and attack in the early spring before the Parthians could reorganize their army. But it was his obsession to get the conflict over with so that he could spend the winter with his mistress Cleopatra VII Philopator of Egypt. Confident of a swift victory over the city of Phraata, where the family of Phraates lived, he left three hundred wagons of war machines behind with a large detachment of ten thousand men led by one Oppius Statianus to guard them. Antony proceeded on with the army. But without his siege engines, his soldiers began the long task of building a siege mound against the city walls. Phraates, learning of this, and sent a cavalry to attack the detachment protecting the siege engines left behind and destroy them. the entire detachment was killed.³⁷

Learning of the destruction of the detachment and the siege machines, Artavasdes II and the Armenian army of 16,000 men grew discouraged and abandoned the fight.³⁸ By the time Antony gave up and withdrew his army, he had lost another 20,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry, mostly due to disease, scarcity of supplies and inhospitable winter weather.³⁹ Not only had Antony’s invasion of Parthia been a total failure, but it had created a wedge in the friendly relationship between Armenia and Rome. 34,000 Roman soldiers would not be returning to their families, but Antony managed to spend the winter in Alexandria with Cleopatra.

PAX ROMANA

Rome had a representative system with checks and balances. There were several different offices. Most powerful were the two consuls, each elected for a term of one year, and serving no more than once in a ten-year period. Each had control of half of Rome’s legions. While the consul was permitted within the city limits of Rome, the legions were not permitted near the city, thus restricting the consul’s ability to overthrow the government.

The Plebian Council was the lawmaking body in the ancient Roman Republic. The council elected Plebian Tribunes, who had the authority to veto any act by the Senate or other assembly.

The Senate could make foreign and domestic policy, but was limited by the authority of the Plebian Tribunes. By the time of Octavius, there were more than a thousand senators, not all of which were actively participating in senate meetings. Many of them disorderly, and many having obtained their office through bribery.⁴⁰ Although its power was mainly advisory, it had powerful influence over the finances and over the activities of the consuls.

The famous First Triumvirate, consisting of Gaius Julius Caesar, Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey) and Marcus Licinius Crassus, was not a governing body, but rather an alliance of three men with wealth and influence, and control of some of Rome’s legions. When Crassus, as governor of Syria and in charge of seven legions, was killed during his invasion of Parthia, Caesar and Pompey were left in competition for control of Rome. While Caesar was in Gaul with his legion, Pompey gained influence with the Senate. Caesar led his legion across the Rubicon River into Italy, marking the beginning of a civil war. Pompey’s army was defeated at the Battle of Pharsalus in Greece, and Pompey fled to Egypt, where he was assassinated. Julius Caesar became the uncontested dictator over the Roman Republic until he was assassinated by the Senate.

A Second Triumvirate was formed after the assassination of Caesar, consisting of Octavius Caesar (adopted son of Julius Caesar), Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Unlike the first, this was legally sanctioned, forming a three-man dictatorship that lasted ten years (43-33 BC). Their first act was to oust the 300 senators and 2,000 equestrians (nobility) who conspired against Julius Caesar and take their land and possessions. Many of the conspiring senators were killed.

But Lepidus was the weakest of the three men of the triumvirate, and in 35 BC Octavius persuaded Lepidus’s eighteen legions to defect to him. Lepidus was forced into exile in an Italian village, where he spent the remainder of his life. Antony and Octavius shared the authority over the Roman Republic: Augustus being the dominant force in the west, and Antony being the dominant force in the east.

In 32 BC, the triumvirate having officially ended, Octavius learned that Mark Antony had secret plans on establishing a kingdom over the eastern provinces with CleopatraVII Philopator, queen of Egypt, as queen of the eastern provinces. Octavius made this information public, and the Senate declared war on Antony and Cleopatra. Octavius’s navy defeated their naval fleet at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. After another defeat in Alexandria, Antony and Cleopatra both committed suicide, leaving Octavius Caesar as the sole dominating power over Rome. But when his underpaid soldiers threatened mutiny, he was quick to confiscate the land and wealth of Antony’s supporters and the newly captured treasures of Egypt, and pay the soldiers.

History was beginning to repeat itself. Just like his father, his triumvirate fell apart, leaving him in sole control of the most powerful republic known to exist. But his father was assassinated shortly thereafter. Octavius knew that if he were to survive, changes had to be made.

He had been appointed one of the two consuls on a permanent basis. But he resigned from that permanent position of authority, and afterward held occasional consulships of one year each. He ceded control over all the provinces to the Senate. The Senate objected, wanting to return authority over the provinces to him. He did, however, accept control over those provinces which had strategic value, bordering hostile nations. Those became Imperial Provinces, while the ones retained by the Senate became Senatorial Provinces.

With about sixty legions, the military had become too large and costly. He reduced the number to twenty eight legions, and stationed them across the provinces, primarily the Imperial Provinces. They became standing armies with soldiers serving for twenty years, rather than armies that were recruited and disbanded as the need arose. This reduced the amount of grain he had to obtain to feed the soldiers, as well as reduced the likelihood of a mutiny among any of the legions.⁴¹

He established a Praetorian Guard, nine cohorts of soldiers of 500 men each, that would remain loyal to him, three cohorts serving as his personal bodyguards and the other six serving as the police force in and around Rome.⁴²

Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, didn’t mean there was no longer any war. In fact there were many wars, some of them disastrous for Rome. But it meant that Rome, and all of Italy, were safe from any war. The wars would be fought in the provinces and client kingdoms, and beyond. No armies would be stationed near Rome: Only the emperor’s loyal Praetorian Guard.

ARMENIA SWITCHES ALLIANCES, 20 BC:

The Kingdom of Armenia was situated south of the Caucasus Mountains and extended from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea. Together with the Kingdoms of Commagene and the Provinces of Cappadocia, Cilicia and Syria, they served as a protective buffer between Rome and the Parthian Empire. Tigranes III,⁴³ king of Armenia, was a Friend of Rome, a Friend of Caesar. When the Armenians were unhappy with the former king, Artaxias II, they asked Augustus Caesar to remove him from the throne and install Tigranes. Augustus sent Tigranes, accompanied by an army led by his stepson Tiberius (who would later become emperor of Rome), but by the time they arrived in Armenia Artaxias had already been assassinated.⁴⁴

Coins minted in 20 BC falsely boast, “ARMENIA CAPTA” or “ARMENIA RECEPTA”.

Tigranes III was king of Armenia from 20 BC until about 7 BC. During his reign anti-Roman sentiment was increasing in Armenia.

PHRAATES IV LOSES HIS GRIP OVER PARTHIA:

Augustus demanded the return of several Roman soldiers who had been held captive by Parthia for more than three decades, along with several Roman Standards which had been captured. At first Phraates refused, but fearing that Augustus would order Tiberius to lead an army into Parthia, he was quickly persuaded to surrender the soldiers and the standards in 20 BC. Phraates and Augustus agreed that the Euphrates River would be the border between the two empires. In an era of good feeling, Augustus presented Phraates with Musa, an Italian slave girl. Musa bore him a son, named Phraataces, or Little Phraates. As a result of this birth, Musa was elevated in status to queen of Parthia.⁴⁵ In Augustus' own words, "The Parthians I compelled to restore to me the spoils and standards of three Roman armies, and to seek as suppliants the friendship of the Roman people."⁴⁶

By 10 BC the situation in Parthia had changed. The Parthians were upset that Phraates had returned the standards and the prisoners to Augustus. They were also angry that he had elevated the former slave girl Musa to the status of Queen. At the same time, Musa persuaded Phraates to send his other three sons and their Parthian families to live as hostages in Rome. Phraates agreed to do so in fear that the people may replace him with one of his sons.⁴⁷

TIGRANES III OF ARMENIA DIES; ARMENIANS DEFY ROME; 7 BC

Around 7 BC Tigranes III, king of Armenia died.⁴⁸ The Armenian people, unhappy with Rome, decided not to seek Augustus’s opinion on who should succeed Tigranes. Instead, they appointed his son, Tigranes IV, to be his successor and his wife Erato to be queen of Armenia, against the will of Augustus. Although they were Roman client monarchs, their sympathies were with the Parthian Kingdom, from which they sought their support.

Relations between the empires remained smooth and undisturbed for nearly two decades after Phraates relinquished the standards. Trouble arose, as so often, in the client state and buffer region of Armenia. The death of Augustus' appointee Tigranes [III] c. 7 B.C. ushered in a turmoil of which our sources preserve only a few confused fragments. A struggle for the throne evidently gripped Armenia ... prompting the princeps to dispatch Tiberius to settle affairs. But Tiberius, for motives that remain forever hidden, abandoned his commission and took up residence in Rhodes. Rome's influence over subsequent events in Armenia suffered sharp decline.⁴⁹

Being 56 years of age and with a history of serious illnesses,⁵⁰ Augustus no longer had the stamina to lead his legions into battle. Michael Grant points out that Augustus was never really a successful commander, and in his later years abstained from leading his armies. His reputation as a victorious commander was won through the successes of those under him.⁵¹

But he saw great potential in Tiberius Claudius Nero. It was Tiberius who settled the uprising in Armenia in 20 BC and helped Rome recover Parthia’s growing collection of standards. He had served as governor of Gaul, served for one year as consul, served as quaestor, as praetor, and had military victories in Germany. He would make an excellent heir to the throne, if only he were a Caesar. In 12 BC, Augustus forced Tiberius to divorce his own wife and marry the widowed Julia the Elder, making him the son-in-law of the Emperor and step-father of two brats.

The result was that he needlessly offended not only his grandsons but Tiberius as well; for the former felt they had been slighted, and Tiberius feared their anger. At any rate he was sent to Rhodes on the pretext that he needed incidentally a bit of instruction; and he did not even take his entire retinue, to say nothing of friends, the object being that Gaius and Lucius should be relieved both of the sight of him and of his doings. He made the journey as a private citizen, though he exercised his authority by compelling the Parians to sell him the statue of Vesta, in order that it might be placed in the temple of Concord; and when he reached Rhodes, he refrained from haughty conduct in both word and deed. This is the truest explanation of his journey abroad, though there is also a story that he took this course on account of his wife Julia, because he could no longer endure her; at any rate, she was left behind in Rome. Others said that he was angry at not having been designated as Caesar, and yet others that he was expelled by Augustus himself, on the ground that he was plotting against Augustus’ sons. But that his departure was not for the sake of instruction nor because he was displeased at the decrees passed, became plain from many of his subsequent actions, and particularly by his opening his will immediately at that time and reading it to his mother and Augustus. But all possible conjectures were made.⁵²

Other conjectures as to his sudden departure to Rhodes include not being to tolerate his wife Julia, not wishing to compete in rank with his stepsons Gaius and Lucius, needing rest, being attracted to the island’s charm and healthfulness. ⁵³

The next year, in which Gaius Antistius and Laelius Balbus were consuls, [6 BC] Augustus was vexed when he saw that Gaius and Lucius were by no means inclined of their own choice to emulate his own conduct, as became young men who were being reared as members of the imperial house. They not only indulged in too great luxury in their lives, but were also inclined to insolence; for example, Lucius on one occasion entered the theatre unattended. They were being flattered by everybody in the city, sometimes sincerely and sometimes to curry favour, and consequently were being spoiled more and more. Among other things of this sort, the people had elected Gaius consul before he was as yet of military age. All this, as I have said, vexed Augustus, and he even prayed that no compelling circumstances might arise, as had once occurred in his own case, such as to require that a man less than twenty years old should become consul.⁵⁴

In fact, Gaius Caesar was only 13 years old at the time, being born around September, 20 BC. Lucius was only 10 years old. Their father Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa had died, and their mother, Julia the Elder daughter of Augustus, married Tiberius Claudius Nero (Tiberius, later to become emperor after Augustus). Augustus adopted the two boys as his own sons, making Tiberius not only their step-father, but also their step-brother-in-law.

But the people of Rome, either out of their love for Augustus or, as Cassius Dio suggests, in order “to curry favour” with the Emperor, elected Gaius, the spoiled brat of a teenager to the position of consul, granting him the authority to command legions and preside over the senate.⁵⁵

When even so the people insisted, he then said that one ought not to receive the office until one was able not only to avoid error oneself but also to resist the ardent impulses of the populace. After that he gave Gaius a priesthood and also the right to attend the meetings of the senate and to behold spectacles and be present at banquets with that body. And wishing in some way to bring Gaius and Lucius to their senses still more sharply, he bestowed upon Tiberius the tribunician power for five years, and assigned to him Armenia, which was becoming estranged since the death of Tigranes.⁵⁶

To sum up the last few years leading up to the probable year in which Jesus was born: Tigranes III, king of Armenia and friend of Rome, suddenly died, and before Augustus could select a replacement, the people of Armenia, discontent with Rome, selected Tigranes IV and his wife Erato as their king and queen, and they’re friends with Parthia, Rome’s sworn enemy. No more buffer state between Rome and Parthia. Augustus sends Tiberius, his hopeful successor to the throne, to Armenia to straighten things out, and instead Tiberius takes off on an extended vacation to the Island of Rhodes, leaving Augustus to raise two spoiled brats, one of whom just got put in charge of half of Rome’s army and with the authority to lead the senate and given unlimited executive powers. Meanwhile in Parthia, king Phraates II is on shaky ground because of his soft approach toward Caesar and having given up the collection of Roman standards and prisoners. And his relationship with Herod took a downward spiral over the conflict with the brigands taking shelter within the Nabataean Kingdom. Rasmussen has Augustus down to 38 percent. What’s an emperor to do?

Another loyalty oath! It worked with the soldiers, to prevent a mutiny among the ranks. But this time demand it from the entire empire. Issue a decree that the whole Roman world be enrolled. Include the provinces. Include the client kings. Include every city and town, including that little town of Bethlehem.

NOTES:

28. Josephus Antiquities, (Niese 14:324-26; Whiston xiv.13.2); War (Niese 1:245; Whiston i.12.6).
29. Josephus Antiquities, (Niese 14:330-32; Whiston xiv.13.3).
30. Josephus Antiquities, (Niese 14:333-41; Whiston xiv.13.3,4).
31. Josephus Antiquities,(Niese 14:342-51, 364; Whiston xiv.13.5-6,9); War , (Niese 1:253-260; Whiston i.13.3-6).
32. Josephus Antiquities, (Niese 14:355-89; Whiston xiv.13.8-10;14.1-5); War , (Niese 1:263-267; 274-282; Whiston i.13.7-8; 14.1-4).
33. Josephus Antiquities, (Niese 14:390-93; Whiston xiv.13.8-10;14.6); War, (Niese 1:288-294; Whiston i.15.2-4).
34. Authorities differ as to whether he was beheaded (Josephus, Antiquities, (Niese 15:10; Whiston xv.1.2) (citing Strabo.); War (Niese 1:345-357; Whiston i.18.9; 19.1-3)), or crucified (Dio, op. cit., xlix.22.6; Plutarch, Life of Antony 36.2).
35. Plutarch, Antony 37.1; Dio, op. cit., xlix.23, (who says that Orodes died of old age).
36. Plutarch, Antony 37.3; Rawlinson, op. cit., 208; Theodor Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire From Caesar To Diocletian, Vol. II; tr. by William P. Dickson, D.D., LL.D. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1887) 30.
37. Plutarch, Antony 38.1-3; Dio xlix.25.4.; Rawlinson, op. cit., 208-09; Mommsen, Provinces, 31.
38. Plutarch, Antony 39.1; Rawlinson, op. cit., 209; Mommsen, Provinces, 32. But Dio (op. cit., xliv.25.5-26.1) says that Artavasdes II led his army back to Armenia earlier, during which they stumbled into the corpses of the detachment and the ruined war machines.
39. Plutarch, Antony 50.1; Rawlinson, op. cit., 213; Mommsen, Provinces, 33; Dio, op. cit., xliv.31.2-3 (which gives no body count).
40. Suetonius, Augustus 35.
41. Michael Grant, Army of the Caesars. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974) 55-56.
42. Suetonius, Augustus 49.1.
43. Some sources refer to Tigranes III (ruled 20 BC to about 8-6 BC) and Tigranes IV (ruled about 8-6 BC to AD 2) as Tigranes II and Tigranes III.
44. Mommsen, Provinces, 40.
45. Dio, op. cit., 54.8.1-2; Suetonius, Augustus 21; Rawlinson, op. cit., 222.
46. Augustus, Res Gestae 29. Shipley, op. cit., 394-95. The three armies include the seven legions of Crassus who were defeatred in 53 BC, and two armies of Mark Antony which were defeated in 40 BC and 36 BC.
47. Rawlinson, op. cit., 223.
48. Armenian coins bearing his image were minted as late as 8 BC. Rawlinson, op. cit., 223 sets it as late as 6 BC.
49. Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Andrew Lintott. editors. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 10, The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C. - A.D. 69, Second Edition; (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.) 160. The names are modified here to Tigranes III and Tiridates II to conform to the context of this chapter.
50. Suetonius, Augustus, 79
51. Michael Grant, Army of the Caesars. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974) 62-63.
52. Dio, op. cit., LV.9.5-8; trans. by Earnest Cary. Dio Cassius, Roman History, Vol. VI (Books 51-55). Loeb Classical Library, vol. 83. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914) 403,405.
53. Suetonius, Tiberius 10.1-2; 11.1-5.
54. Dio, op. cit., LV.9.1-2; Cary, op. cit., 402-03.
55. Augustus, Res Gestae 14.
56. Dio, op. cit., LV.9.3-4; Cary, op. cit., 403.

TO BE CONTINUED....

**Faber** · 12-23-2020, 03:11 PM

THE CENSUS

There was a group of Jews priding itself on its adherence to ancestral custom and claiming to observe the laws of which the Deity approves, and by these men, called Pharisees, the women (of the court) were ruled. These men were able to help the king greatly because of their foresight, and yet they were obviously intent on combating and injuring him. At least when the whole Jewish people affirmed by an oath that it would be loyal to Caesar and to the king’s government, these men, over six thousand in number, refused to take the oath, and when the king punished them with a fine, Pheroras’ wife paid the fine for them.⁵⁷

A Greek inscription found in Neapolis, an ancient city in Galatia about twenty miles south of Antioch of Pisidia, contains the text of an oath of loyalty which was required by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia (a region north of Galatia along the southern coast of the Black Sea) and Roman merchants in the region. The following text makes it clear why the Pharisees would refuse to take such an oath of loyalty:⁵⁸

Dated in the twelfth consulship of Emperor Caesar Augustus, son of the deified, and in the third year of the province, March 8. Gangra, in the assembly. The oath sworn by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and by the Romans engaged in business among them:

By Zeus, Earth, Sun, all the gods and the goddesses, and by Augustus himself, I swear that I will be loyal to Caesar Augustus, to his children and to their descendants all the time of my life, in word and deed and thought, considering their friends my friends and considering their enemies my enemies; that I will spare neither my body nor my soul nor my life nor my children for their interests, but in every way I will undergo every danger for their interests; that whatever I see or hear being said, or plotted, or being done against them, I will report it and I will hold as a personal enemy the person who says, or plots, or does any of these things; that whomsoever they regard as their enemies, these persons I will pursue and will requite them with all arms and sword by land and sea.

If I do anything contrary to this oath or not consonant with what I have sworn, I invoke complete and utter destruction upon myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, and all my family with their possessions in every generation of mine and of my descendants. And may neither land nor see receive my body, or those of my descendants, nor may they bear fruit for them.

All persons in the province swore this same oath in the temples of Augustus at the altars of Augustus in the several districts.

Likewise the citizens of Phazimon, living in the city now called Neapolis, swore the oath in a body at the Altar of Augustus in the Temple of Augustus.⁵⁹

The twelfth consulship of Augustus was in the year 5 BC. Gangra was the capital city of Paphlagonia until the death of King Deiotarus Philadelphus, at which time his kingdom was absorbed into Galatia, which had become a Roman province in 25 BC. Sir William Ramsey⁶⁰ follows Joachim Marquardt⁶¹ in setting the year at 7 BC. This would make 5 BC the third year that Gangra was in the province of Galatia. Some translators, however, take “third year” to refer to the third year since the twelfth consulship of Augustus, setting the year at 3 BC.

If we accept the date of March 8, 5 BC held by Ramsey and Marquardt, then we are a little more than six months before Yom Kippur (about September 13, 5 BC) which preceded the execution of Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus and several other teachers and students by order of Herod on the day before Herod’s eclipse.⁶²

Josephus does not give us the date when the Pharisees refused to take the oath. It was shortly before the death of Pheroras.⁶³

The Greek word apographesthai in Luke 2:1 definitely did not refer to a tax. And ten years earlier Marcus Agrippa and Herod were of the understanding that Augustus would not require military service of the Jews. But requiring an oath of Loyalty from Roman citizens, residents in the provinces and in client kingdoms could very likely be Augustus’s decree which Luke mentions. If so, then we have a good approximation of the date Joseph and Mary were forced to travel to Bethlehem.

KINGS OF ARMENIA:
95-55 BC Tigranes II (Tigrnes the Great; Ally of Rome.)
55-34 BC Artavasdes II (Son of Tigranes II; also an ally of Rome, but forced to ally with Orodes II of Parthia in 53 BC after Crassus’s failed invasion. In 34 BC a vengeful Mark Antony invaded Armenia and banished him to Egypt, where he was beheaded by Cleopatra VII in 31 BC.)
34 BC Artaxias II (Son of Artavasdes; made king by the Armenians
34-33 BC Roman occupation by Mark Antony; Artaxias fled to Parthia.
33-20 BC Artaxias II (reinstalled as king by Phraates II of Parthia after Phraates invaded Armenia. He remained an ally of Parthia, but laterbecame unpopular with the people, who called on Rome to remove him and install his brother Tigranes III. But he was assassinated before Tiberius arrived with Tigranes III.)
20-~7 BC Tigranes III (Brother of Artaxias II. Augustus sent Tiberius with him to replace Artaxias II, but Artaxias was assassinated before they arrived. Tigranes III remained loyal to Rome, but during his reign the Armenias began to resent Rome and prefered an alliance with Parthia instead.)
~7-2 BC Tigranes IV & Erato (Queen) (Son and daughter of Tigranes III. They were selected by the people of Armenia against Augustus’s wishes.)

KINGS OF PARTHIA:
70-57 BC Phraates III (murdered by Orodes II)
57-38 BC Orodes II (murdered by Phraates IV)
50-38 BC Pacorus I (son of Orodes II; possibly co-ruler with Orodes; killed in battle)
38-32 BC Phraates IV
32-30 BC Tiridates II (Parthian noble; set up by the Parthian insurgents, but removed from power and fled to Syria when Phraates II returned with the help of the Scythians. Later went to Rome.)
30-2 BC Phraates II (Restored with help from the Scythians. Later murdered by his wife Musa and their son Phraates V.)
2 BC-AD 4 Phraates V, son of Phraates IV and Musa.

KINGS OF NABATAEA:
30-9 BC Obodas II. (Sometimes referred to as Obodas III, but the existence of another Obodas, or his legitimacy, in 62-60 BC is questioned.)
9 BC-AD 39 Aretas IV Philopatris (Originally named Aeneas)

EMPEROR OF ROME:
27 BC-AD 14 Octavius (Augustus)

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN:
Everlasting to Everlasting: Jesus of Nazareth

NOTES:

57. Josephus. Antiquities, (Niese 17:41-42; Whiston xvii.2.4). Marcus, op. cit., 391,393. Michael Grant. The Jews in the Roman World. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973) 79. Pheroras was Herod’s youngest brother.
58. The Greek text was Published as inscription OGIS 532 by Wilhelmus Dittenberger, ed., Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum. Volume IIInscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. Vol 3 (Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux; 1906).
59. Allen Chester Johnson, Paul Robinson Coleman-Norton and Frank Card Bourne. Ancient Roman Statutes, A Translation With Introduction, Commentary, Glossary and Index. (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press; 1961. Reprinted Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.; 2003) 127.
60. Sir William Mitchell Ramsey, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, vol. IV. (London: John Murray; 1890) 194-195.
61. Joachim Marquardt. . (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Herzel, 1881) 359.
62. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:167; Whiston xvii.6.4); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:655; Whiston i.33.5).
63. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:59-62; Whiston xvii.3.3, 4.1).

**Faber** · 12-24-2020, 07:04 PM

MAGI:
SOMEBODY CHEATED! (PART ONE)

It’s exam time. The smart kid is in the front row. He studied hard. The stupid kid is behind him and in the row to his left. He hardly studied. They both get the same passing grade. They both got the same correct answers. They both got the same incorrect answers.

Somebody cheated.

#

Despite the strange names used in their doctrines, Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Magi and its founder, Zarathustra (called Zoroaster in the West), is not another new-age oriental mysticism. No transcendental meditation, no reincarnation, no out-of-body travel, no psychedelic trips, no hallucinogenic drugs, not even mushrooms. No Satanic rituals. No space aliens. And that symbol of a man inside a circle with wings is not a space ship.

There are no magical arts, though the term “magi” has led some to believe that there is. The Simon Magus of Acts 8:9-24 was not a Magus in the true sense, but only a performer of magical acts.

Nor were they astrologers. Raphael’s 1509 painting, The School of Athens, which portrays Zarathustra holding a globe of stars, has it all wrong. Despite the incorrect Greek version of his name, Zoroaster, he had nothing to do with astrology. The instances of the Magi predicting events for the kings of Persia were limited, and in the case of predicting that Xerxes would successfully conquer Greece,¹ turned out to be disastrously wrong. The account of the Magi journeying to Judea to seek the newborn King of the Jews appears to have been an isolated incident. Nothing in the Avesta, the sacred scripture of the Zoroastrians, in any way supports astrology. Their insistence on the concept of human free will ran contrary to the fatalistic idea that the stars controlled human behavior or human destiny.

Their only peculiarities are the use of fire in their worship, and opposition to burying a dead body, for fear of contaminating the earth. Bodies are either cremated or placed in sealed coffins. In ancient times they also looked favorably upon marrying close relatives, even a brother and sister.

They believed in two main gods, and several secondary deities, but worshiped only one god, a spirit with no physical form, which they called Ahura Mazda (meaning wise lord). This god manifested himself in the form of a holy spirit they called Spenta Mainyu (meaning bounteous spirit or thought). There were six other entities called Amesha Spentas (meaning bounteous immortals), the equivalent of angels, either emanations of Ahura Mazda or created spiritual beings. There was also an evil deity which they named Angra Mainyu (meaning destructive spirit or thought), who brought forth Daevas (meaning uncertain), who are evil and promote chaos. His name even sounds angry. Angra Mainyu is believed to be an evil twin of Ahura Mazda, but recent scholarship reduces Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu to the status of creations, or emanations of Ahura Mazda, thus elevating Zoroastrianism in their view to a pure monotheism.

They believe in a savior, whom they name Saoshyant (meaning he who brings benefit), who will be the biological son of Zarathustra, born of a virgin. Well, actually, through artificial insemination. This Saoshyant shall come at the last day, defeat evil, usher in righteousness. The dead, whether righteous or evil, will be resurrected, and given everlasting righteousness and immortality.

The nineteenth century German philologist Martin Haug, about whom we have much to discuss later, commented on these similarities:

The Zoroastrian religion exhibits even a very close affinity to, or rather identity with, several important doctrines of the Mosaic religion and Christianity, such as the personality and attributes of the devil, and the resurrection of the dead, which are both ascribed to the religion of the Magi, and are really to be found in the present scriptures of the Parsis. It is not ascertained whether these doctrines were borrowed by the Parsis from the Jews, or by the Jews from the Parsis; very likely neither is the case, and in both these religions they seem to have sprung up independently.²

Also add to this some Bible history. The northern Kingdom of Israel was invaded by Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria around 734 BC, who took many Israelites captive. (2 Kings 15:29) Shortly afterwards, in 722 BC, Shalmanezer IV, followed by Sargon, kings of Assyria, captured Samaria, capital of Israel, and took many more hostages, resettling them in cities of Media, home of Zarathustra. (2 Kings 17:3-6) In 597 BC Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem and led ten thousand Jews into captivity (2 Kings 24:10-16). He returned in 586 BC, and several thousand more from the Kingdom of Judah were led away into captivity. (2 Kings 25:21; Jeremiah 52:28-30) In 537 BC, Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylon, and the Lord stirred Cyrus to issue a proclamation allowing the Jews to return to their homeland, though many chose to remain within the Persian kingdom. (2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4) So for many decades the Israelites and Jews were in constant contact with Persian religion and culture before they returned to Judea.

Then add to that the fact that Daniel 12:2-3, written during the Babylonian captivity, in the first year of Darius the Mede, when the Jews were in contact with the Persians and the Medes, is the earliest clear reference to the resurrection in the Old Testament.

Somebody’s been copying from somebody else? But who copied from whom? Was Zarathustra influenced by the Scriptures of the Israelites who were deported to Babylon and Media? Or did the Jews borrow his doctrines and write phony Scriptures that suggested that they were revelations from the God of the Jews? Whose God is the true God, and which is the phony imitation? To answer this we must first determine: Did Zarathustra live before, during, or after the time that the Israelites and the Jews were in captivity?

THE MAGI BEFORE ZARATHUSTRA

The Greek historian Herodotus, writing his Historiai in 440 BC, talks about Deioces, who united the various tribes of the Medes into one nation and became their first king (first half of the 7th Century BC) The Magi appear to be one of the six tribes of Media to the northeast of the Euphrates:

³

But the word magoi in this case could mean simply a brotherhood or fellowship. No information is given about their ethnic background. No suggestion that Herodotus is talking about any religious priesthood.
Herodotus later connected the Magi with the ability to interpret dreams in the time of Astyages (585-550 BC), last king of the Median Empire, whose daughter had a terrifying dream:

Astyages, the son of Cyaxares, succeeded to the throne. He had a daughter who was named Mandane concerning whom he had a wonderful dream. He dreamt that from her such a stream of water flowed forth as not only to fill his capital, but to flood the whole of Asia. This vision he laid before such of the Magi as had the gift of interpreting dreams, who expounded its meaning to him in full, whereat he was greatly terrified.⁴

⁵ Astyages later discovered that the boy’s life had been saved and ordered the death of Harpagus’s own son as punishment for disobedience, then tricked Harpagus into eating his own son’s flesh at a banquet.⁶

Encouraged by a letter from Harpagus, the adult Cyrus later united the leaders of the loosely knit tribes that made up Persia. Convincing them that they could successfully overthrow the yoke of Astyages, they enthusiastically agreed to allow Cyrus to lead the revolt.
Ironically, King Astyages called on Harpagus to lead the army of the Medes against Cyrus. But instead of doing battle, the two armies joined under the joint leadership of Cyrus and Harpagus and overthrew Astyages. The kingdoms of Persia and Media were united under the leadership of Cyrus. The interpretation of the Magi had come to pass.⁷

The 4th Century BC Greek historian Xenophon of Athens might have written the biographical Cyropaedia to be a factual account of the life of Cyrus the Great (who ruled Persia around 560-530 BC), or merely a historic fiction based on his life. Scholars disagree with one another on that. Either way, we get an additional insight into the Magi, who appear to have served Cyrus in some kind of priesthood. Several times in Cyropaedia⁸ it is said that after sacrificing to Zeus, Cyrus would then consult with the Magi about which of the other gods should receive sacrifices. At one point he explains why:

Then, when the palace gates were thrown open, there were led out at the head of the procession four abreast some exceptionally handsome bulls for Zeus and for the other gods as the magi directed; for the Persians think that they ought much more scrupulously to be guided by those whose profession is with things divine than they are by those in other professions.⁹

We are also told by Xenophon that shortly after Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the college of the Magi was established.

In this conviction, he showed himself in the first place more devout in his worship of the gods, now that he was more fortunate; and then for the first time the college of magi was instituted... and he never failed to sing hymns to the gods at daybreak and to sacrifice daily to whatsoever deities the magi directed.¹⁰

It must be noted that in these accounts by Xenophon and Herodotus, Cyrus and the Magi are polytheists, and offer sacrifices daily to the several gods. Even in the famous 6th century BC Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus offered respect to the Babylonian gods Bel, Nabu and Marduk, and restored the sanctuaries of Sumer and Akkad. There is no reference to a god called Ahura Mazda, no reference to a priest named Zarathustra.

Roman philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) wrote De Divinatione, a treatise in which he sets out to prove the existence of a spirit of divination, or foreknowledge of future events, among the Roman people and people of all nations. Among his many examples, he adds an account relating to Cyrus, king of Persia and the Magi:

Why need I also relate, out of the history of Persia by Dinon, the interpretations which the Magi gave to the celebrated prince, Cyrus? For he dreamed that beholding the sun at his feet, he thrice endeavoured to grasp it in his hands, but the sun rolled away and departed, and escaped from him. The Magi (who were accounted sages and teachers in Persia) thus interpreted the dream, saying, that the three attempts of Cyrus to catch the sun in his hands, signified that he would reign thirty years; and what they predicted really came to pass; for he was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reached the age of seventy.¹¹

NOTES:

1. Herodotus, Historiai (The Histories), vii.19.
2. Martin Haug, Dr. Phil. and Edward William West, trans., Essays on The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis; Second EditionThe History of Herodotus, Vol. I (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1859)188.
4. Herodotus, Ii.107. Rawlinson, op. cit., 192.
5. Herodotus, i.107-113.
6. Ibid; i.114-119.
7. Ibid; i.123-130.
8. Xenophon, Cyropaedia (The Education of Cyrus), iv.5.4,41; iv.6.11; v.3.4; vii.3.1; vii.5.35,57; viii.3.24.
9. Ibid., viii.3.11. Walter Miller, trans., Xenophon, Cyropaedia With an English Translation, in Two Volumes. Vol. II; Loeb Classical Library No. 52 (London: William Heinemann; 1914) 355.
10. Xenophon, op. cit., viii.1.23. Miller, op. cit., 317. An unfortunate lacuna appeared mid-sentence in the manuscript.
11. Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Divinatione, 23. Charles Duke Yonge, B.A. trans., The Treatises of M.T. Cicero (London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden. 1853) 164.

To Be Continued....

**Faber** · 12-24-2020, 07:26 PM

WHEN DID ZARATHUSTRA LIVE?

In 330 BC Alexander the Great invaded the Persian capital city of Persepolis and burned it to the ground. Although the sacred books of the Avesta were never put into writing, they had been memorized by the Magian priests. According to Zoroastrian tradition, Alexander ordered all the Magian priests to be put to death. Only a few were able to escape, but as a result a tremendous amount of history had been lost. There remains much uncertainty about the founder of this religion. Where he lived, where and when he was born, whether he was a priest or a herdsman, all this is subject of debate. What was left of their sacred Avesta was never put into writing until the 4th century AD. The Avestan language never even had an alphabet, never had any form of writing, until long after it was no longer spoken by anybody.

What remains of the Avesta are five documents: Yasna (sacred liturgy and hymns), Khorda Avesta (Book of Common Prayer), Visperad (Extensions to the Litrurgy), Vendidad (Myths, code of purification, religious observances), and various fragments. The Yasna contains 72 chapters, including three songs known as the Gāthās, which are divided into seventeen of the chapters that make up the Yasna. The Gāthās are believed to have been written by Zarathustra himself. Yet very little information is given in the Gāthās about him.

Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (Plutarch, Greek philosopher and biographer, later Roman citizen, 1st century AD), cites wise men who believe that Zoroaster the Sage (the Greek equivalent of Zarathustra) lived five thousand years before the time of the Trojan War, placing him some time in the late 7th millennium, BC.¹²

The date of the Magians, beginning with Zoroaster the Persian, was 5000 years before the fall of Troy, as given by Hermodorus the Platonist in his work on mathematics; but Xanthus the Lydian reckons 6000 years from Zoroaster to the expedition of Xerxes, and after that event he places a long line of Magians in succession, bearing the names of Ostanas, Astrampsychos, Gobryas, and Pazatas, down to the conquest of Persia by Alexander.¹³

Peri Mathēmatōn¹⁴

According to Pliny the Elder: Eudoxus of Cnidus (Greek mathematician and astronomer, 408-355 BC) places him 6000 years before the death of Plato. None of Eudoxus’s works have survived either.

Eudoxus who has endeavoured to show that of all branches of philosophy the magic art is the most illustrious and the most beneficial, informs us that this Zoroaster existed six thousand years before the death of Plato, an assertion in which he is supported by Aristotle.”¹⁵

Much of the works of Aristotle (Greek, 4th century BC) have been lost and there is no documentation of his having commented on the age of Zarathustra, but no doubt Aristotle was in agreement with Hermippus, being an acquaintance of him.

But Pliny further complicates things when he states,

...but whether there was only one Zoroaster, or whether in later times there was a second person of that name, is a matter which still remains undecided.¹⁶

Spenta Mainyu (Good Thought), who told him that there was only one god to be worshiped, whose name was Ahura Mazda (meaning Wise Lord), who created the human race, the world and everything that was good, and that he was to proclaim this message to others.¹⁷ There were six other created beings called Amesha Spentas (meaning bounteous immortals), who created everything else. For twelve years Zarathustra unsuccessfully proclaimed this message¹⁸ while opposed by the priests of Mithra, until he found a convert in King Vishtaspa (or Hystaspes). Under Vishtaspa he found refuge, and his teachings became the religion of the region.

Eight centuries after Alexander (6th century AD), the Arda Viraf was probably written, with the introductory chapters written a few centuries later. In the introductory, it is claimed that two copies of the Avesta had been written with gold ink on prepared cowhides. But that Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian capital of Persepolis and destroyed the copies of the Avesta and killed the priests. The book begins,

Zoroaster¹⁹

A medieval Zoroastrian work, Iranian Bundahishn²⁰²¹ Elsewhere he dates Zarathustra 970 years before the reign of Yazdajird ben Shāpūr in AD 399, which calculates to 572 B.C.²²

According to the 10th century AD Denkard, a medieval book of Zoroastrian doctrine,²³ a king by the name of Hystaspes (or Vishtaspa) became a convert to the worship of Ahura Mazda under the preaching and miracles of Zarathustra, and later required his kingdom to abandon the worship of the Persian god Mithra and worship Ahura Mazda as the only true god.

A tradition in the Persian book, teaches that Zarathustra and Vishtaspa planted a twig of a cypress tree as a memorial of Vishtaspa’s conversion. That tree continued to grow until it was cut down by order of Mutawakkal, the tenth caliph of the Abbassides, in AD 846. It was determined that the tree was 1,450 years old, making its planting around 604 B.C.²⁴

Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson, in his book, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran, included appendix II, “On the Date of Zoroaster,” in which he not only includes the above references from Dabistan, Arda Viraf, and , but cites other sources such as Masudi’s Prairies d’Or (Meadows of Gold) (AD 943-44); Arabic chronicler Tabari, (died AD 923); Hakim Abu ‘I-Qasim Ferdowsi Tusi’s ; a date of 559 BC according to a Zoroastrian sect that immigrated into China; and many other sources;²⁵ and concludes:

There remains finally a comparatively large body of material that would point to the fact that Zoroaster flourished between the latter part of the seventh century and the middle of the sixth century before the Christian era. The material when sifted reduces itself: first, to the direct tradition found in two Pahlavi books, Būndahishn and Arţā Virāf, which places Zoroaster’s era three hundred years, or more exactly 258 years, before Alexander’s day; second, to the Arabic allusions which give the same date in their chronological computations and which in part lay claim to being founded upon the chronology of the Persians themselves; third to similar allusions elsewhere which place Zoroaster at about this period.26

To draw conclusions,--although open to certain objections, still, in the absence of any more reliable data or until the discovery of some new source of information to overthrow or substantiate the view, there seems but one decision to make in the case before us. From the actual evidence presented and from the material accessible, one is fairly entitled, at least upon the present merits of the case, to accept the period between the latter half of the seventh century and the middle of the sixth century, B.C. [perhaps still better, between the middle of the seventh century and the first half of the sixth century B.C.], or just before the rise of the Achaemenian power, as the appropriate date of Zoroaster’s life.²⁷

It must be acknowledged that several centuries passed from the conquests of Alexander to the time these books were written, and that these books contain many wild myths, such as a king taking a flight through the air on a throne tied to eagles, or a drug-induced trip to heaven and hell. But it was the universal opinion among the Zoroastrians that the Vishtaspa mentioned in their writings and in their sacred scripture, the Avesta was the same as Hystaspes, the father of Darius I who was born in 550 BC. This Vishtaspa was contemporary with Zarathustra, who would have been born around 637 BC If he had received his vision of Ahura Mazda at age 30, that would be around 607 BC. This was about the time that Daniel and his three friends were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar II, in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim over Judea. The Israelites would have been captive in Media, the supposed homeland of Zarathustra, for about115 years.

THE MAGI AND ZARATHUSTRA

The earliest reference to a connection between Zarathustra and the Magi comes from Plato, who wrote around 350 BC:

The first of these [the wisest of four royal teachers] teaches him [a boy who reaches fourteen years of age] the Magian lore of Zoroaster, son of Horomazes; and that is the worship of the gods”.²⁸

But Plato mistook Ahura Mazda, or “Horomazes”, to be the father of Zarathustra, whose father, according to the Avesta, was Pourušaspa.²⁹ Plato was also mistaken about “the worship of the gods.” Whether the religion taught the existence of several gods or only one god with several emanations is subject to debate, but Zarathustra clearly believed in worshiping one god only, Ahura Mazda or Wise Lord in English. Invisible, pure and the creator of all things; good, immortal, omnipresent and omnipotent. Zarathustra also taught the existence of other ahuras,³⁰ such as the rival Angra Mainyu³¹ But was Zoroaster the first? The Greek word Arxai could mean that. Or the word could mean “originator” as it does in the previous paragraph of BioiCyropaedia, as discussed above.³²

Agathias, a Greek historian from the 6th century AD, says that, according to the Persians, Zarathustra lived during the reign of Hystaspes, but they don’t make clear if they meant Hystaspes, father of Darius, or possibly another Hystaspes. But he brings the Magi into the context of Zarathustra and Hystaspes:

Now, as far as this Zoroaster or Zarades (he is called by both names) is concerned, it is not possible to fix with any precision the dates of his floruit and the period of his reforming activities. The Persians simply say that he lived in the region of Hystaspes without making it clear whether they mean the father of Darius or some other monarch of the same name. Whatever the time of his floruit he was the founder and interpreter of the magian religion and he it was who changed the character of the earlier cults and introduced a motley assortment of beliefs.³³

Another translation reads, “But at whatever time he flourished, he was their teacher and guide in the rites of the Magi; he replaced their original worship by complex and elaborate doctrines.”³⁴

Was this Hystaspes the same person as the father of Darius I, who ruled the Persian Empire in 522-486 BC? This Hystaspes lived as early as 565 BC or earlier,35 served as a governor in Persia, and was still alive as late as 522 BC when his son Darius became king of Persia. This would put Zarathustra later than Cyrus the Great.

NOTES

12. Plutarch, de Iside et OsirideBiōn kai gnōmōn tōn en philosophiai eudokimēsantōn (Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers) i.2. Robert Drew Hicks, trans., ; Loeb Classical Library No. 184 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1925) 5.
14. Idem.
15. Pliny, Naturalis Historia (The Natural History), xxx.2. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. and Henry Thomas Riley, Esq., B.A., trans., The Natural History. Pliny the Elder. Book V (London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden; 1856) 422.
16. Pliny, op. cit. Bostock & Riley, op. cit.
17. Avesta, Yasna 43.4.
18. Yasna 46.1-2.
19. Arda Viraf, I.1-4; Martin Haug, Ph.D., trans., The Book of Arda VirafBundahishn (Vestiges of the Past), chapter 3. Dr. C. Edward Sachau, trans., Chronology of Ancient Nations; (London: William H. Allen And Co.; 1879), 17. Note that the book counts years by A.H., or Anno Hijri.
22. Ibid., 121.
23. Denkard (School of Manners). David Shea and Anthony Troyer, trans., (Paris: 1843) i.306-09.
25. Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran (London: MacMillan & Co., Ltd.; 1899) 157-70.
26. Ibid., 170.
27. Ibid., 174. (Brackets sicut)
28. Plato. Alcibiades I.122a. W.R.M. Lamb, trans., Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 8, Charmides, Alcibiades I. and II., Hipparchus, The Lovers, Theages, Minos, Epinomis. Loeb Classical Library No. 201 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1927; London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1927) 167. Supplemental text in brackets mine.
29. Yasna 9.13; Yasht 5.18.
30. YasnaHistoriarum, ii.24.6-7. Joseph D. Frendo, trans., Agathias The Histories (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter; 1975) 58.
34. Albert DeJong, Traditions of the Magi; Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill; 1997) 244.
35. Darius I was born in 550 BC.

To Be Continued...

**Faber** · 12-24-2020, 07:43 PM

JOHN WILSON’S WAR

Outside of the inaccurate references by a few ancient Greek and Latin historians, the western world knew almost nothing about Zarathustra and the Magi. In 1723 an Englishman, George Boucher obtained a copy of the (a portion of the Avesta) and donated it to the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford in the care of Richard Cobbe, where it sat for three decades as a curiosity item. A Frenchman named Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-duPerron, a scholar of Indian culture, saw it in 1754 and decided to travel to India, where he spent the next seven years learning the culture and the Persian language. He translated the Avesta into the French language in 1761, then returned to Paris with his translation of the Avesta and 180 manuscripts of Zoroastrian documents which he had collected. It was published in three volumes in 1771.

Many scholars, such as William Jones, founder of the Royal Asiatic Society, and Sir John Chardin thought of the Avesta as absurd, a modern fabrication passed on to duPerron by unscrupulous Persians. Persian lexicographer John Richardson insisted that the Zend and Pahlavi dialects were fraudulent, based on what he saw as Arabic words in the languages.³⁶

But Dr. John Wilson, a missionary from the Free Church of Scotland to Bombay, India, defended the existence of the Avesta as an early document, “the only work which is known to exist in the Zend language. By the Parsees it is ascribed to Zertusht or Zoroaster, who is supposed to have lived about 500 years before Christ.” Wilson even acknowledged the possibility that Zarathustra may have written portions of it.³⁷

After the British East India Company opened India to missionary work in 1813, several missionaries at once began evangelizing India, focusing on the Zoroastrian community. Missionary schools opened up, and Parsi children were taught to read, particularly the English language. Wilson and his newlywed wife, Margaret Bayne Wilson, arrived in 1829. Avoiding the more aggressive methods the other missionaries had been using, Wilson spent his first fifteen months “passively believing that Hindoo and Parsee, Jew and Muhammadan, would come over to him.”

“I thought on the days of Paul when he stood on Mars’ Hill. I thought on the days of Luther, and Knox, and Calvin, and, I began to see that they were right. They announced with boldness, publicly and privately, in the face of every danger, in the midst of every difficulty, to high and low, rich and poor, young and old, and I resolved by divine grace to imitate them. I have consequently challenged Hindoos, Parsees, and Mussulmans to the combat. ... At present I am waging war through the native newspapers, with the Parsees and Mussulmans.”³⁸

He studied their native languages, the ancient Sanskrit and Avestan languages. He studied the Avestan religion of Zarathustra, and published articles showing the failure of Zoroastrianism to confront sin, offer a Savior and guarantee eternal life through repentance. It was indeed a polytheistic religion, failing to lead its followers to the One True God. The Oriental Christian Spectator, which he edited and published, regularly included the verbal attacks by the Parsi against his message, and his defense against those attacks.

In defense of criticism by the Parsi community against his comments, he followed up with a major work, The , which strongly attacks the various aspects of the Zoroastrian religion while at the same time presenting a strong presentation of the Gospel message of salvation. He cites various portions of the Avesta to demonstrate the call of worship, praise, supplication and respect to a multitude of objects of worship: Zarathustra himself, his Faruhar (essence, or model of existence), the Faruhars of the saints, the masters of purity, the exalted manthra, the whole pure creation, the Gāthās, the hymns, the fountains of water, trees, branches and fruit, earth, moon, heaven, primeval lights, animals, caves, fires, and many more.³⁹

BARON BUNSEN

German scholar, theologian and Prussian ambassador to England, Christian Karl Josias Baron von Bunsen professed to be a devout Christian and student of the Bible. He had worked on a German translation and commentary of the Bible, but hadn’t completed it before his death in 1860. Three of the planned five volumes had been completed and published at the time of his death. Although he fully believed in the miracles and historical accounts of the Bible, he rejected the commonly accepted timeline of the Bible’s events.

He also wrote Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte (Egypt’s Place in Universal History) in five volumes in the German language from 1844 to 1857. It was a culmination of his life-long attempt to demonstrate the chronological relationship between Egypt’s monuments, language and religion with the development of European and western Asian civilization. By doing so, he drastically altered the chronology of a multitude of historic events.

His basic premise is that all world chronological systems of ancient history are unreliable, except for the chronology of Egyptian history, the only one in which ancient monuments can be accurately dated and used as points of contact with other Aryan cultures, Asian, Hebrew and Greek. From the framework of those Egyptian monuments, he applies other historical chronologies. In his view, the chronology to be found in the 17th and 18th centuries AD historical books are

...a compound of intentional deceit and utter misconception of the principles of historical research. Egyptian history is the only one which possesses contemporary monuments of those primeval ages, and at the same time offers points of contact with the primitive tribes of Asia, especially the Jewish, from the latest up to the earliest times.⁴⁰

Although accepting the authenticity of historical events recorded in the Bible, even the miraculous, he declares traditional Bible chronology,

...to be devoid of any scientific foundation; the interpretation, indeed, by which it is accompanied, when carefully investigated, makes the Bible a tissue of old women’s stories and children’s tales, which contradict each other. When confronted with authentic chronology, it generally leads to impossible results. It does not harmonize with anything which historical criticism finds elsewhere, and which it is under the necessity of recognizing as established fact. ... For it contradicts all reality, and necessitates the denial of facts which are as clear as the sun....⁴¹

According to Bunsen, creation of man took place in northern Asia in 20,000 BC. The Great Flood was in 10,000 BC. The Biblical account of Abraham leaving his native home for the Promised Land, traditionally believed to be about 1920 BC, he changes to 2876 B.C. He changes the date of the Exodus from the traditional 1490 BC to 1320 BC. The 430 years of bondage in Egypt become 1,434 years.

The traditionally held dates of Zarathustra and the Persian king Vishtaspa, father of Darius I in the sixth century, B.C., is not immune to his blatant disregard for history, as we see in Volumes III and IV of his books on Egyptian chronology. Bunsen follows the chronology of one Berosus, a Babylonian priest during Alexander’s conquest of Persia and the reign of Antiochus I Soter (ruled 281-261 BC). Berosus’s Babyloniaka has been lost, but a portion making mention of this Zarathustra/Zoroaster had been copied in the writings of Alexander Polyhistor, which is also no longer extant. But Polyhistor has been quoted by Eusebius Pamphilii, Bishop of Caesarea, and by chronicler Georgius Syncellus (about 800 AD),⁴² leaving us with two third-hand accounts of what Berosus actually stated.

According to Berosus, there were eighty-six kings ruling over Babylon as demigods for a total of 33,091 years, counted in multiples of saroi (3600 years), neroi (600 years) and sossoi (60 years),⁴³ after which it was conquered by the Medians and ruled by a series of eight dynasties for a total of 1,903 solar years until the coming of Alexander the Great in 331 BC, dating the Median conquest of Babylon in 2234 BC. The first of these dynasties was a dynasty of eight tyrants or overlords which lasted 224 years, the first being a tyrant by the name of Zoroaster. From this mythology, Bunsen reconstructs his history:

The name of Zoroaster is already known to us as a royal name, from the Armenian edition of Eusebius in the Chaldean lists of Berosus. It is the name of the Median conqueror of Babylon, who vanquished the realm and city of the Chaldees, and founded the second Babylonian dynasty in the year 2234 B.C.

The king can only have received this title from being a follower of Zarathustra, and professing the religion of the Prophet: the title of “greatest minstrel” is in character with that of the founder of a religion, not with that of a conqueror.⁴⁴ Oddly enough, Volume III was published in 1859, one year after Martin Haug terminated their association and joined the Government College in Poona, India, and one year before Haug translated the Yasnas into German, during which he concluded that the Gāthās, the portions written by Zarathustra, were of a much earlier date. Yet Bunsen introduces his extreme date by giving credit to Haug, “...we can now institute our historical inquiry upon a more certain philological basis. Dr. Haug has kindly complied with our suggestion to give us the benefit of his valuable researches, in a new and critical translation of the celebrated record which forms the opening to the , or Code of the Fire-worshippers of Iran.”⁴⁵

⁴⁶

The Semitic kingdoms, as we have seen, in the natural course of events came in contact with the Arian in the year 1903 before Alexander, or the year 2234 B.C., in which Zoroaster, a Median king, that is to say, a ruler and conqueror who professed the doctrine of Zoroaster, took Babylon, and founded the second Babylonian dynasty. From this conquest that form of Chaldean Magism dates which we meet with in history.⁴⁷

Bunsen repeats this date in Volume V of Egypt’s Place in Universal History.⁴⁸

Berosus was, according to Georgios Synkellos, a contemporary with Alexander the Great who claims to have preserved over 150,000 years of Babylonian records in documents which he called Babylonika.⁴⁹

Bunsen also advocated this early date for Zoroaster in his work, God in History, a series of books in which he attempts to demonstrate that the progress of the human race parallels its concept of God within each nation. Writing in his native German language prior to his death in 1860, he again shares his views on the antiquity of Zarathustra.

Whence comes evil, if the good God rules the world? How could evil spring from God? How arise without God, and how continue to exist contrary to His will?

Such thoughts it was which, under the reign of Vishtaspa, an undoubtedly historical king of Bactria though unknown to us, towards the year 3000 B.C., certainly not later than towards 2500 B.C., were agitating one of the mightiest intellectuals and one of the greatest men of all time – Zarathustra Spitama.⁵⁰

Moreover, this combination of moral energy and intellectual sagacity, this irresistible strength of that which is the ground of all religion – a living faith in a moral order of the world – can alone explain the influence which Zoroaster has now exercised for 5000 years on the populations of Eastern Asia, and by which he constitutes an era in universal history....

From Bactria this doctrine spread into Media. This fact is indisputed: for the Medians possessed a Bactrian language and a Zoroastrian faith. But it is impossible not to bring another fact into connection with this. We now know, upon the authority of concurrent records and testimonies, that a king of Media, who bore the name of the sacred seer and bard, conquered in the year 2234 B.C., the Semitic metropolis of Babylon, where the true Magism, or doctrine of the Magavas (i.e., “of the mighty or capable ones”), taught by the disciples of Zoroaster was soon mingled with Chaldean philosophy.⁵¹

Callisthenes, to whom, as the favorite of Alexander, all the treasures of Babylon were thrown open, had opportunities of consulting their astronomical observations dating back 1903 years before that Monarch’s time. This date is certain, from its being given in the Latin text of the Commentary of Simplicius in Aristotle’s work upon “Heaven.”⁵²

John Edward Toews, a Canadian historian, Harvard graduate and recent Director of the Comparative History of Ideas Program at the University of Washington, did an analysis of Bunsen’s work and philosophy:

In early 1816, Bunsen presented his recently chosen scholarly mentor, the historian Barthold Georg Niebuhr, with an incredibly ambitious proposal for an historical research project. The goal of this “study-plan for life” was nothing less than a definitive reconstruction of the universal history of mankind, from its origins in the archaic cultures of North Africa and the Middle East to its present efflorescence in the Germanic cultures of northern Europe. The project also made claim to recreate and display the synchronicity of all cultural elements, from the general structures of language to the particularities of religious myths and political institutions.⁵³

NOTES:

36. John Richardson, “A Dissertation on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of Eastern Nations,” Dictionary, Persian, Arabic and English (London: J.L. Cox & Son; 1777).
37. John Wilson, D.D., M.R.A.S., “Review of History of Vartan, and the Battle of the Armenians, containing an account of the Religious Wars between the Persians and ArmeniansThe Oriental Christian Spectator (July 1831) 231.
38. George Smith, LL.D., The Life of John Wilson, D.D. F.R.S. (London: John Murray; 1878) 100-01.
39. John Wilson, D.D., M.R.A.S., (Bombay: American Mission Press; 1843) 250-83.
40. C.C.J. Baron Bunsen and Charles H. Cottrell, Esq. M.A., trans., Egypt’s Place in Universal History, Vol. I; (Containing the First Book, or, Sources and Primeval Facts of Egyptian History) (London: Longmans, Green and Co.;1848) viii.
41. C.C.J. Baron Bunsen and Charles H. Cottrell, Esq. M.A., trans., Egypt’s Place in Universal History, Vol. III; (Containing the Fourth Book, or, The Synchronisms) (Longmans, Green and Co.;1859) 348-9.
42. Georgius Syncellus, Chronographia (Chronicle. Greek, ca. AD 810).
43. Eusebius, Chronicon i.8. Eusebius expresses doubts about Berosus’s definition of “sar”, which is supposedly 3,600 years.
44. Bunsen, 1859, 470.
45. Bunsen, 1859, 456.
46. Bunsen, 1859, 583. On page 596 he includes a timetable of the development of Iran which places Zoroaster’s Reform at 3500 BC.
47. C.C.J. Baron Bunsen and Charles H. Cottrell, Esq. M.A., trans., Egypt’s Place in Universal History, Vol. IV (Containing the Fifth Book, or, The Origines and Ages of the World) (London: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1860) 403.
48. C.C.J. Baron Bunsen and Charles H. Cottrell, Esq. M.A., trans., Egypt’s Place in Universal History, Vol. V (Containing The Epilogue, or Problems and Key.) (London: Longmans, Green and Co.;1867) 77.
49. Georgios Synkellos, Chronographia, 28.
50. C.C.J. Baron Bunsen, D.Ph., D.C.L. & D.D. and Susanna Winkworth, trans., God in History or The Progress of Man’s Faith in the Moral Order of the World; Vol. I, Book III (London: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1868) 275-6.
51. Bunsen, 1868, 289-90.
52. Bunsen, 1868, 438.
53. John Edward Toews, Becoming Historical: Cultural Reformation and Public Memory in Early Nineteenth-Century Berlin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004) 69-70.

To Be Continued in MAGI: SOMEBODY CHEATED! (PART TWO)

**rogue06** · 12-25-2020, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Faber View Post

MAGI:
SOMEBODY CHEATED! (PART ONE)

It’s exam time. The smart kid is in the front row. He studied hard. The stupid kid is behind him and in the row to his left. He hardly studied. They both get the same passing grade. They both got the same correct answers. They both got the same incorrect answers.

Somebody cheated.

#

Despite the strange names used in their doctrines, Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Magi and its founder, Zarathustra (called Zoroaster in the West), is not another new-age oriental mysticism. No transcendental meditation, no reincarnation, no out-of-body travel, no psychedelic trips, no hallucinogenic drugs, not even mushrooms. No Satanic rituals. No space aliens. And that symbol of a man inside a circle with wings is not a space ship.

There are no magical arts, though the term “magi” has led some to believe that there is. The Simon Magus of Acts 8:9-24 was not a Magus in the true sense, but only a performer of magical acts.

Nor were they astrologers. Raphael’s 1509 painting, The School of Athens, which portrays Zarathustra holding a globe of stars, has it all wrong. Despite the incorrect Greek version of his name, Zoroaster, he had nothing to do with astrology. The instances of the Magi predicting events for the kings of Persia were limited, and in the case of predicting that Xerxes would successfully conquer Greece,¹ turned out to be disastrously wrong. The account of the Magi journeying to Judea to seek the newborn King of the Jews appears to have been an isolated incident. Nothing in the Avesta, the sacred scripture of the Zoroastrians, in any way supports astrology. Their insistence on the concept of human free will ran contrary to the fatalistic idea that the stars controlled human behavior or human destiny.

Their only peculiarities are the use of fire in their worship, and opposition to burying a dead body, for fear of contaminating the earth. Bodies are either cremated or placed in sealed coffins. In ancient times they also looked favorably upon marrying close relatives, even a brother and sister.

They believed in two main gods, and several secondary deities, but worshiped only one god, a spirit with no physical form, which they called Ahura Mazda (meaning wise lord). This god manifested himself in the form of a holy spirit they called Spenta Mainyu (meaning bounteous spirit or thought). There were six other entities called Amesha Spentas (meaning bounteous immortals), the equivalent of angels, either emanations of Ahura Mazda or created spiritual beings. There was also an evil deity which they named Angra Mainyu (meaning destructive spirit or thought), who brought forth Daevas (meaning uncertain), who are evil and promote chaos. His name even sounds angry. Angra Mainyu is believed to be an evil twin of Ahura Mazda, but recent scholarship reduces Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu to the status of creations, or emanations of Ahura Mazda, thus elevating Zoroastrianism in their view to a pure monotheism.

They believe in a savior, whom they name Saoshyant (meaning he who brings benefit), who will be the biological son of Zarathustra, born of a virgin. Well, actually, through artificial insemination. This Saoshyant shall come at the last day, defeat evil, usher in righteousness. The dead, whether righteous or evil, will be resurrected, and given everlasting righteousness and immortality.

The nineteenth century German philologist Martin Haug, about whom we have much to discuss later, commented on these similarities:

Also add to this some Bible history. The northern Kingdom of Israel was invaded by Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria around 734 BC, who took many Israelites captive. (2 Kings 15:29) Shortly afterwards, in 722 BC, Shalmanezer IV, followed by Sargon, kings of Assyria, captured Samaria, capital of Israel, and took many more hostages, resettling them in cities of Media, home of Zarathustra. (2 Kings 17:3-6) In 597 BC Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem and led ten thousand Jews into captivity (2 Kings 24:10-16). He returned in 586 BC, and several thousand more from the Kingdom of Judah were led away into captivity. (2 Kings 25:21; Jeremiah 52:28-30) In 537 BC, Cyrus, king of Persia, conquered Babylon, and the Lord stirred Cyrus to issue a proclamation allowing the Jews to return to their homeland, though many chose to remain within the Persian kingdom. (2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4) So for many decades the Israelites and Jews were in constant contact with Persian religion and culture before they returned to Judea.

Then add to that the fact that Daniel 12:2-3, written during the Babylonian captivity, in the first year of Darius the Mede, when the Jews were in contact with the Persians and the Medes, is the earliest clear reference to the resurrection in the Old Testament.

Somebody’s been copying from somebody else? But who copied from whom? Was Zarathustra influenced by the Scriptures of the Israelites who were deported to Babylon and Media? Or did the Jews borrow his doctrines and write phony Scriptures that suggested that they were revelations from the God of the Jews? Whose God is the true God, and which is the phony imitation? To answer this we must first determine: Did Zarathustra live before, during, or after the time that the Israelites and the Jews were in captivity?

THE MAGI BEFORE ZARATHUSTRA⁵ Astyages later discovered that the boy’s life had been saved and ordered the death of Harpagus’s own son as punishment for disobedience, then tricked Harpagus into eating his own son’s flesh at a banquet.⁶

Encouraged by a letter from Harpagus, the adult Cyrus later united the leaders of the loosely knit tribes that made up Persia. Convincing them that they could successfully overthrow the yoke of Astyages, they enthusiastically agreed to allow Cyrus to lead the revolt.
Ironically, King Astyages called on Harpagus to lead the army of the Medes against Cyrus. But instead of doing battle, the two armies joined under the joint leadership of Cyrus and Harpagus and overthrew Astyages. The kingdoms of Persia and Media were united under the leadership of Cyrus. The interpretation of the Magi had come to pass.⁷

The 4th Century BC Greek historian Xenophon of Athens might have written the biographical Cyropaedia to be a factual account of the life of Cyrus the Great (who ruled Persia around 560-530 BC), or merely a historic fiction based on his life. Scholars disagree with one another on that. Either way, we get an additional insight into the Magi, who appear to have served Cyrus in some kind of priesthood. Several times in Cyropaedia⁸ it is said that after sacrificing to Zeus, Cyrus would then consult with the Magi about which of the other gods should receive sacrifices. At one point he explains why:

We are also told by Xenophon that shortly after Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the college of the Magi was established.

It must be noted that in these accounts by Xenophon and Herodotus, Cyrus and the Magi are polytheists, and offer sacrifices daily to the several gods. Even in the famous 6th century BC Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus offered respect to the Babylonian gods Bel, Nabu and Marduk, and restored the sanctuaries of Sumer and Akkad. There is no reference to a god called Ahura Mazda, no reference to a priest named Zarathustra.

Roman philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) wrote De Divinatione, a treatise in which he sets out to prove the existence of a spirit of divination, or foreknowledge of future events, among the Roman people and people of all nations. Among his many examples, he adds an account relating to Cyrus, king of Persia and the Magi:

NOTES:

1. Herodotus, Historiai (The Histories), vii.19.
2. Martin Haug, Dr. Phil. and Edward William West, trans., Essays on The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis; Second EditionThe History of Herodotus, Vol. I (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1859)188.
4. Herodotus, Ii.107. Rawlinson, op. cit., 192.
5. Herodotus, i.107-113.
6. Ibid; i.114-119.
7. Ibid; i.123-130.
8. Xenophon, Cyropaedia (The Education of Cyrus), iv.5.4,41; iv.6.11; v.3.4; vii.3.1; vii.5.35,57; viii.3.24.
9. Ibid., viii.3.11. Walter Miller, trans., Xenophon, Cyropaedia With an English Translation, in Two Volumes. Vol. II; Loeb Classical Library No. 52 (London: William Heinemann; 1914) 355.
10. Xenophon, op. cit., viii.1.23. Miller, op. cit., 317. An unfortunate lacuna appeared mid-sentence in the manuscript.
11. Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Divinatione, 23. Charles Duke Yonge, B.A. trans., The Treatises of M.T. Cicero (London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden. 1853) 164.

To Be Continued....

Interesting that the Cyropaedia Thus spake not Zarathuštra: Zoroastrian Pseudepigrapha of the Greco-Roman world." The much later Bundahišn (9th cent A.D.) might also have contributed to this as well.

**Faber** · 12-25-2020, 09:04 AM

The final part of Roots, which I will post either late today or tomorrow, deals a lot with Mary Boyce and her detractors.

Attached below is Raphael's School of Athens. On the lower right corner is a detail showing Ptolemy holding a globe of the earth and Zoroaster holding a globe of the stars and constellations. Raphael School of Athens.jpg
School detail.jpg

**Faber** · 12-26-2020, 02:04 PM

MAGI:
SOMEBODY CHEATED! (PART TWO)

MARTIN HAUG

¹

According to Harris (1975, 253),²

³

Haug earned a doctorate in Philosophy in 1852, and shortly thereafter met up with Ewald, who gave him private instructions on several eastern languages and encouraged him to dedicate his life to oriental studies, which Haug did.

With little income from his lectures and too few students to tutor, his finances were stretched thin. But in 1855 he received an invitation from Baron Bunsen to become his private secretary at Heidelberg. He continued with Bunsen for three years until 1858, when he received an invitation to become superintendent of Sanskrit studies at the Government College in Poona, India.⁴

He spent eight years (1859-1866) in Poona, becoming acquainted personally with Zoroastrian priests and collecting manuscripts. In 1860 he translated the Yasnas into his native German language. His study of the Gāthās led him to a radical conclusion: That by a reinterpretation of Yasna 30.3-4, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu were not twin, or co-equal deities, as the Zoroastrians believed, a dualism of two gods, but rather that Angra Mainyu⁵Thus Zoroastrianism was elevated to the status of a monotheistic religion on par with Judaism and Christianity. But he goes yet farther.

He divides the Avesta or Zand, the ancient language of the Persians, into two branches. The Eastern Iranian or Bactrian branch he further breaks down into two dialects: the Avesta language.” The Western Iranian branch, spoken in Media and Persia, has only one known dialect, and is very similar to the two branches of the Bactrian dialects.⁶

Not only does Haug make a linguistic distinction between the 17 chapters of the five from the rest of the Yasna, but he points out other characteristics of the ⁷

From the whole tenor of these songs (chiefly of the second collection, called ) we are led to the opinion that a man of quite an extraordinary stamp stands there before us,– acting a grand part, not only on the stage of his country’s history but on that of the universal history of the human race. He says that he is a prophet or a messenger, sent by God to propagate civilization, especially agriculture and the blessings of a settled state of life (once he is called a prophet of the spirit of earth, ), and to destroy idolatry as ruining the body as well as the soul.⁸

But what are the linguistic differences between the Gathic dialect and the classical Avestan dialect? Haug breaks them down into two categories: phonetical and grammatical. Phonetically, the differences are no greater than would be expected between the speech of different villages, that the phonics of the s probably reflect the dialect of Zarathustra’s home town in Bactria. But the grammatical differences are significant: The are more like the ancient Sanskrit.

⁹

To be a little more specific, the time differences between the two dialects, if there be a difference in time between the two, would be a matter of one or two centuries:

¹⁰

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (NASB 1971 & NASU 1995)

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (KJV)

Actually, the King James Bible commonly used in churches today is not the original King James Bible. It is the 1769 Baskerville Birmingham edition, which standardized the spelling. The original read as follows:

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was upon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued upon the face of the waters. (KJV, 1611)

The translation of John Wycliffe, circa 1378-84, reads as follows:

In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe. Forsothe the erthe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on the face of depthe; and the Spiryt of the Lord was borun on the watris.

The Parsis believe that their prophet lived at the time of Darius’s father, Hystaspes, whom they identify with the Kava Vistaspa (Achaemenes), Chaishpish (Teispes), (Ariaramnes), (Arsames), (Hystaspes), (Dareios). But the lineage of Kava UsaKava HusravaAurvadaspa¹¹

The genealogy which Haug attributes to the Avesta and the can also be found in the Bundahishn¹² The is an epic poem consisting of a mixture of myth, legend and history written around AD 1000 by the Persian poet Ferdowsi. According to the ,¹³

¹⁴

But by giving credibility to a book of fables written during the middle ages, Martin Haug steps away from his reputation as a distinguished professor of linguistics in order to rewrite the history of the Zarathustra:

¹⁵

In his original Essays, dated 1862, he repeats, “As we shall see in the 4th Essay, we cannot place his era at a much later date than 1,200 B.C.”¹⁶

Under no circumstances, we can assign to him a later date than 1000 B.C., and I am even not disinclined to place his era much early and make him a contemporary of Moses.¹⁷

On October 8, 1864, two years after the original publication of his Essays, Haug presented a lecture to an audience in Bombay, “A Lecture on An Original Speech of Zoroaster (Yasna 45)”. In his preface to the May 17, 1865 publication of that speech, he reconsiders his previous estimate for the date of Zarathustra, and follows Baron Bunsen’s chronology, dating him before the Median conquest of Babylon in 2234 BC, after which, Bunsen claims, early Aryan settlements were established, one known as the “Zarathushtrian Ragha”, or Ragha which was governed by the Zarathushtrian priests.¹⁸ Thus he pushes the date of Zarathustra earlier, as far back as 2300 BC. In his preface to the later published version of the speech, he announces his revision of thought:

It has been revised, and even partly recomposed. I have added some of my recent investigations into the important and difficult question about the age of Zoroaster.¹⁹

The authenticated and fully trustworthy history of the Babylonians goes back to 2234 B.C., as may be learnt from the fragments of Berosus, in connection with a statement by Porphyrius, that the astrological observations which were sent by Callisthenes, the companion of Alexander the Great, from Babylon to Aristotle, went back to 1903 years before Alexander. ... Now according to Synkellos’ chronographia (p. 147 ed. Dindorf)²⁰ the king who founded the dynasty of the “eight Median tyrants” over Babylon, and consequently was the conqueror of that country, was called Zoroaster.²¹

According to this investigation we cannot assign to Zarathustra Spitama a later date than about 2300 B.C. Thus he lived not only before Moses, but even, perhaps, before Abraham. If we consider the early age in which he lived, it is not surprising that the high and lofty ideas which he proclaimed, were early misunderstood and misinterpreted; for he stood far above his age. So he was the first prophet of truth who appeared in the world, and kindled a fire which thousands of years could not entire extinguish.²²

Martin Haug passed away on June 3, 1876, eleven years after the publication of his Lecture on Yasna 45 which introduced his change in thought. Two years later his close friend, E.W. West, republished Haug’s Essays, in which revisions had been made to give a more correct account of the Zoroastrian religion. But his change on the date of Zarathustra didn’t make it to the revised edition. West writes in the preface to that second edition:

The author of these Essays intended, after his return from India, to expand them into a comprehensive work on the Zoroastrian Religion; but this design, postponed from time to time, was finally frustrated by his untimely death. That he was not spared to publish all his varied knowledge on this subject, must remain for ever a matter of regret to the student of Iranian antiquities. In other hands, the changes that could be introduced into this second edition were obviously limited to such additions and alterations as the lapse of time and the progress of Zoroastrian studies have rendered necessary.²³

Ironically, Christian theologian and Oxford University ancient history professor George Rawlinson misquotes Haug’s 1862 essay as assigning a probable date of about 1500 BC, and adds his support to that date:

²⁴

Apparently Rawlinson wasn’t aware that the “most competent” Martin Haug, in the “soundness of this expert’s judgment”, abandoned his earlier estimate and decided to adopt Bunsen’s radical third millennium BC date.

NOTES:

1. T. Witton Davies, Heinrich Ewald, Orientalist and Theologian (London: T. Fisher Unwin; 1903). But this is not so clearly spelled out by Davies.
2. Horton Harris, (Oxford: Clarendon; 1975).
3. Clarisse Herrenschmidt, “Once upon a time, Zoroaster.” Francis Schmidt, ed. The Inconceivable Polytheism: Studies in Religious Historiography. (Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), 1987) 224.
4. Martin Haug, Dr. Phil., Essays on The Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsees. (original edition) (Bombay: Bombay Gazette Press, 1862) xxv-xxvi.
5. Haug, Essays 1862; 258. Haug; Edward William West, editor. Essays on The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis. Second Edition Outline of a Grammar of the Zend Language, (Bombay: Bombay Gazette Press; 1862) 2-3. See also the same lecture in Haug, Essays. 1878; 65-66, where he refers to “Avestan” instead of “Zend”.
7. Martin Haug, Dr. Phil., “Lecture on the Origin of the Parsee Religion”, delivered on the 1st of March 1861 at the United Service Institution of Western India. Printed at the “Deccan Herald” Press; 8.
8. Haug, “Lecture”; March 1861; 9.
9. Haug, Essays 1862. 114. See also Haug, Outline 1862, 74. See also Haug, Ph.D., Essays 1878, 72-73.
10. Haug, Essays 1862; 116. See also Haug; Outline 1862; 76; Haug, Essays 1878.
11. Haug, Essays 1878, 298-9.
12. Iranian Bundahishn 34.7.
13. Hakim Abu‘I-Qasim Ferdowsi Tusi (Ferdowsi), (Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1880) 150.
15. Haug, “Lecture”; March 1861; 18.
16. Haug, Essays 1862; 224. See also Haug, Essays 1878, 264.
17. Haug, Essays 1862; 255. See also Haug; Essays 1878, 299.
18. Yasna 19.18
19. Martin Haug, Ph.D., A Lecture on An Original Speech of Zoroaster (Yasna 45,) With Remarks On His AgeChronographia. Karl Wilhelm Dindorf, editor. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Vol. 1 (CSHB Vol. 22). (Bonn: 1829).
21. Haug, Lecture. 1865, 23.
22. Ibid., 27.
23. Haug; Essays 1878; vii.
24. George Rawlinson, M.A., The Origin of NationsFive Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, Second Edition (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street; 1871) 323, footnote 3.

TO BE CONTINUED....

**Faber** · 12-26-2020, 02:28 PM

WALTER BRUNO HENNING²⁵ or a medicine man among the savage tribes of Inner-Asia until they were conquered by the Persian Empire.²⁶ Nyberg doesn’t set a date for Zarathustra, but suggests that he was “prehistoric”.

Herzfeld wrote that Zoroaster was a political activist who desired to elevate the status of the farm laborers. He was the grandson of Astyages king of Media, whom Cyrus removed from the throne in 550 BC. Cyrus married Zoroaster’s mother, making Zoroaster related to both dynasties.²⁷ Herzfeld obviously held to the traditional sixth century BC date of Zarathustra.

In his third lecture, however, Henning attacks the conventional wisdom of the twentieth century which likes to place eastern writings into the distant past.

Those who reject the date seem to do so not so much because of reasoned arguments but out of a vague feeling, the feeling that the Gathas of Zoroaster are old, old, ever so old; as if 600 B.C. were not old enough for almost anything! It was due to the same kind of vague feeling that earlier generations of scholars attributed the Rig-veda to the third millenium B.C. — an estimate that is thoroughly discredited nowadays. Of course, this feeling is not, as a rule, represented as such, but appears in the guise of specious reasoning. In the case of Zoroaster, we have to deal chiefly with two pleas: one is a linguistic argument of such extraordinary feebleness that one is amazed at finding it seriously discussed at all; the other is the hitherto unsuccessful attempt to set the traditional date aside by showing that it is not a genuinely transmitted date, but one found by calculation in later times.

The linguistic argument is this: in comparison with the language of the Old Persian inscriptions the language of the Gathas is far less developed, far closer to hypothetical Old Iranian; therefore, the Gathas should be older than the oldest Old Persian inscriptions by more than a few decades. This argument would hold good only if the language of the Gathas were the same dialect, at an earlier stage, as Old Persian; but that is not the case and has never been claimed. It is notorious that the various dialects of one and the same language group develop at different speeds and in different directions, so that the comparison of two dialects can never lead to a relative date. Moreover, in Iranian the Eastern and Western dialects developed not merely in different but in opposite directions; thus while the word ending disappeared in the West, they were well maintained in the East. From the point of view of comparative linguistics the Gathas could have been composed at a date far later than 600 B.C.²⁸

Ironically, his most famous student, Mary Boyce was one of those who like to place eastern writings into the distant past.

MARY BOYCE

Mary Boyce, a scholar who spent most of her time on Parthian culture and the study of Zoroastrianism,

...started from the premise that Zoroaster’s message is more likely to have been understood by his own disciples and followers than by students from a totally different culture and religious heritage, who first came to struggle with it, purely intellectually, millennia after he had preached. Accordingly, throughout this work considerable reliance has been placed on the Zoroastrian tradition, which can be shown to have been remarkably strong and consistent at all known periods down to the time of European impact in the mid-19th century.²⁹

Nevertheless, despite this and other developments of the Achaemenian period and thereafter, his community was to remain faithful to Zoroaster’s essential teachings, as these are to be discerned in the Gathas, for some thirty centuries–down, that is, to modern times. That this could be so is undoubtedly due not only to the power and coherence of these teachings, but also to the fact that Zoroaster, himself a priest, gave his followers simple, impressive, repetitive observances to maintain: the daily ‘kusti’ prayers to be said by each, and the seven yearly feasts to bring every local community together fraternally. These observances imprinted his doctrines on their minds; and these doctrines, themselves positive and hopeful, were ones which could give a purpose and cosmic significance even to humble acts of daily life. Zoroastrianism is a religion which demands to be thoroughly lived; and, being so lived, it could be transmitted faithfully from one generation to the next, upheld, it is true, by a hereditary priesthood, one of the most conservative in the world, but very much the trust and possession also of each individual believer.³⁰

Believing that modern illiterate cultures devoid of outside influences could preserve the ancient teachings with greater accuracy after three millennia than scholars reading ancient writings, she set aside the research of great scholars and studied the rituals and beliefs of the modern Zoroastrians in India and Iran.

To accept Zoroastrianism as it was, and to try to understand Zoroaster’s teachings with the help of the living tradition, proved accordingly too much for the West; and a solution to the resulting dilemma was eventually found, in the middle of the 19th century, by the brilliant philologist Martin Haug. By painstaking study he isolated the Gāthās (a group of seventeen ancient hymns) as the only part of the Avesta which could be regarded as the direct utterance of Zoroaster; and he then proceeded, in all sincerity, to interpret these archaic and very difficult texts (concerning those translation no two scholars to this day agree) independently from the actual beliefs and practices of Zoroaster’s followers, whose forbears, he thought, must have early corrupted their prophet’s teachings.³¹

Meantime a brilliant young German philologist, Martin Haug, had made the crucial discovery that the Gathas were in a more ancient dialect than the rest of the Avesta, and alone could be regarded as the authentic utterance of Zoroaster. In the light of this, he translated these supremely difficult texts afresh, seeking in them support for the established academic dogma of the prophet’s rigid monotheism; and this he found in the repeated Gathic denunciations of the ‘daevas’, which he interpreted as a rejection of all divine beings other than Ahura Mazda.³²

The Rigveda, an ancient sacred book of the Hindus, was written in an ancient form of the Sanskrit language, and was translated by Martin Haug. It is a collection of more than a thousand poems, written around 1500 BC and believed to be the oldest existing text in any Indo-European language.

No sound tradition exists about the date of Zoroaster; but the great Iranian prophet cannot be assigned to a time before his people acquired their separate identity in parting from their close cousins, the Indians, and forging their own distinctive languages and culture. ... It is generally held that they began to drift apart during the third millennium B.C.; and it is thought that the composition of the oldest Indian work, the Rigveda, should be set as beginning some time around 1700 B.C. The language of its hymns, in their surviving form, is very close to that of the Gāthās, the hymns of Zoroaster; and not only the outward form of the prophet’s works, but also strikingly archaic elements in their content, make it reasonable to suppose that he himself cannot have lived later than about 1000 B.C. He may have flourished some time earlier.³³

It is impossible, therefore, to establish fixed dates for his life, but there is evidence to suggest that he flourished when the Stone Age was giving way for the Iranians to the Bronze Age, possibly, that is, between about 1700 and 1500 B.C.”³⁴

Thus she puts Zarathustra into a time frame no earlier than about 1700 BC and no later than 1000 BC.

She expresses a unique view with regard to the monotheism/polytheism debate by taking into account the yazatas, created spiritual beings, a multitude of male and female entities:

Since his creation included all beneficent lesser deities, they, the yazatas of Zoroastrianism, cannot properly be called “gods”, for this word suggests the independent divine beings of a pagan pantheon – and it is a striking fact that the old Iranian term for “god”, baga, is rarely used in the Avesta. On the other hand, the origin of most of the yazatas as pagan deities, and their position still as beings worthy of worship in their own right, makes them more than the angels with which other monotheisms have bridged the gulf between man and the Deity. In general it is probably best, therefore, to leave the Zoroastrian word yazata untranslated, to represent a concept unique to this great faith.³⁵

She begins her Volume Two with further comments on her view on the antiquity of the life of Zarathustra:

In the first volume of this history evidence was assembled which suggested that Zoroaster had lived in the turbulent times of the Iranian Heroic Age, when his people were one of numerous Iranian tribes inhabiting the South Russian steppes. This period coincided broadly with the Iranian Bronze Age, held to extend from about 1700-1000 B.C. Further reflection has led the writer to conclude that Zoroaster’s own tribe must have been one which during this epoch still maintained a largely Stone-Age culture, at least during the prophet’s formative years; for there is no suggestion in his Gathas that he himself recognised the existence of the characteristic tripartite society of the Bronze Age, with its division into herdsmen, priests and warriors. ... The society which emerges from the Gathas as the one which the prophet himself knew has an older, more stable pattern, that of a bipartite society with only the broad divisions of warrior-herdsmen and priests....³⁶

These considerations do not make it possible to fix Zoroaster’s date with any greater precision, since the use of bronze presumably spread as erratically among the Iranians as iron is known to have done thereafter; but one fact seems certain, which is that Zoroaster must have lived before the time of the great migrations, when wave upon wave of Iranians, led one must presume by well-armed bands, moved southward off the steppes to conquer and settle in the land now called Iran; probably, that is, before 1200 B.C.³⁷

But maintaining the opinion that Zarathustra can be dated back to a stone age around 1600-1200 BC, Boyce proceeds to rewrite ancient middle eastern history to conform to her views. She starts out in A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume Two with the assumption that Isaiah 40-48 was written by a “Second Isaiah” during the time of the Jewish captivity under Cyrus the Great.³⁸ She assumes that the creation account of Genesis 1 was also written at that time. Various passages in Isaiah 40, 44 and 45 have their parallels in Yasna 44, suggesting that the similarities “do suggest relationship to the same tradition; and, given the time and circumstances, this tradition would appear to be the teachings of Zoroaster.”³⁹

But does Isaiah parallel Yasna 44? Isaiah 45:7 talks about God the creator, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” It’s a difficult concept, even among Christians, that God, who created all things could create evil. But Satan is a created being. Even Job asked, “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil” (Job 2:10) Yasna 44.7 refers to Ahura Mazda as “creator of all things through the holy spirit.” But the Gāthās taught that Ahura Mazda had an evil twin, Angra Mainyu, who was the creator of all that is evil, a clear contradiction to Isaiah 45:7. Yasna 30.3-5, also attributed to Zarathustra, confirms this in the translation by Professor Lawrence Mills of Oxford, England:

Thus are the primeval spirits who as a pair (combining their opposite strivings), and (yet each) independent in his action, have been famed (of old). (They are) a better thing, they two, and a worse, as to thought, as to word, and as to deed. And between these two let the wisely acting choose aright. (Choose ye) not (as) the evil-doers! (Yea) when the two spirits came together at the first to make life, and life's absence, and to determine how the world at the last shall be (ordered), for the wicked (Hell) the worst life, for the holy (Heaven) the Best Mental State, (Then when they had finished each his part in the deeds of creation, they chose distinctly each his separate realm.) He who was the evil of them both (chose the evil), thereby working the worst of possible results, but the more bounteous spirit chose the (Divine) Righteousness; (yea, He so chose) who clothes upon Himself the firm 1 stones of heaven (as His robe). And He chose likewise them who content Ahura with actions, which (are performed) really in accordance with the faith.⁴⁰

There is no historic evidence that Cyrus the Great was Zoroastrian, nor that the priesthood of the Magi which he created were. Xenophon, in his Cyropaedia, constantly made his readers aware of their sacrifice to the multiple gods. Nothing in the Avesta, nor in any of the other Zoroastrian writings give the slightest hint that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian. But Boyce sees hints of their worship of Ahura Mazda. The white stone fire-holders discovered by archaeologists in his palace of Pasargadae certainly weren’t there for warmth.

...for the new King of kings could readily escape the cold winters of the plateau by moving with his court to one of his lowland capitals – Susa or Babylon. Yet the duty of prayer before fire is encumbent on all Zoroastrians....⁴¹

There were three fire-holders found at the palace. They consisted of a three-stepped top and base, the sacred number of Zoroastrians,⁴² and were high enough the ground for a king to pray before with dignity.

The tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae gives Boyce further evidence of his religion.

The monument is one of noble simplicity, and consists of a stone tomb-chamber with gabled roof, set high upon a plinth of solid stone composed of six receding tiers. The three lower tiers are deeper than the upper ones, so that the monument is divided into three parts – once again the Zoroastrian sacred number, which is regularly prominent in funerary rites.⁴³

Yet in the Cyrus Cylinder, in which Cyrus asserts his authority to rule over the conquered kingdom of Babylon, he give credit to the Babylonian deity Marduk for his victory over Nabonidus, king of Babylon, then proceeds to command that temples and cult sanctuaries to the local deities be reconstructed. Nothing is said of Ahura Mazda, in contrast to the more than seventy references in the Behistun inscription of Darius. Nowhere in any historical record is there a suggestion that Cyrus was a worshiper of Ahura Mazda. Boyce even admits,

Doctrinally, it is impossible to reconcile his acknowledgment of alien great gods with his own acceptance of Ahura Mazda as the one true God.⁴⁴

Cambyses II, son and successor of Cyrus to the throne, is said to have married both his sisters, according to Herodotus.⁴⁵ Marriage between relatives was known as khvaetvadatha, which is considered a righteous act, according to the Avesta.⁴⁶ According to Boyce, this is evidence that Cambyses II also worshiped Ahura Mazda.⁴⁷

Strabo⁴⁸ gives the story of one Onescritus, a Greek historian and companion of Alexander the Great, who gave an account of Bactria, birthplace of Zoroastrianism, saying that the Bactrians would throw their elderly and sick out as prey to the wild dogs. Alexander, when he conquered Bactria, put an end to this practice. But Boyce is adamant in her belief that this account is impossible, and is another of “Onesicritus’ tall stories.”

Further, Bactria had long been a Zoroastrian land, probably for centuries before the faith reached western Iran, and it was indeed one of the regions to lay legendary claim to being the birthplace of the prophet and the scene of his ministry.' Its importance in the religious community in Achaemenian days had been acknowledged by Artaxerxes II when he established one of his "Anahit" shrines in Bactra itself; and generations after Alexander's conquest the Kushans, invading from the steppes, learnt in Bactria to venerate Zoroastrian divinities. There is no question therefore but that the Bactra which the Macedonians took was a Zoroastrian city; and it is unthinkable that in any Zoroastrian community there should have been a practice of allowing the old or sick to be eaten alive by dogs.⁴⁹

Eshan Yarshater, founder of the Center for Iranian Studies and Professor Emeritus of Iranian Studies at Columbia University in New York City, wrote a review of Boyce’s second volume of History of Zoroastrianism, with comments regarding her dating of Zarathustra in that and her other writings:

In her first volume, as well as in her Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London, 1979), the author has advanced the view that Zoroaster exhibited in his pronouncements features of a Stone Age culture; and for this and other reasons she assumed him to belong to a much earlier date than a tradition preserved in some late Pahlavi texts would indicate. Further elaborating her theory in this volume, Professor Boyce places the date of Zoroaster before 1200 B.C. (p. 3), maintaining that although the Iranian Bronze Age (c. 1700-1000 B.C.) must already have developed among neighbouring tribes, the prophet’s own tribe apparently maintained a largely Stone Age culture with a broad bipartite division of men into warrior-herdsmen and priests, rather than the tripartite division into priests, warriors, and herdsmen characteristic of Bronze Age culture.⁵⁰

The tripartite society to which Boyce and Yarshater speak is a society consisting of three classes of people. Priests and political leaders make the first class, being positions of authority. The military make up the second class. The working class, including farmers, herdsmen, craftsmen and laborers, make up the third class. In a bipartite society, the working class, farmers and herdsmen, can function as an army during time of war.

A Swedish scholar by the name of Oscar Stig Wikander took part in the Avesta Seminars at Uppsala University in 1935-36. In a dissertation for the seminar, he cites use of the Avestan word mairyō⁵¹ The trifunctional hypothesis⁵²Gāthās⁵³ evidence of a tripartite society, where there are references to metal, the element associated with Khshathra Vairya (meaning desirable dominion), one of the Amesha Spentas, the one who represents the divine power of Ahura Mazda, who enforces the peace with his weapons of metal, whose molten metal will purify the righteous and burn the wicked.⁵⁴

NOTES:

25. Walter Bruno Henning, Zoroaster: Politician or Witch-Doctor? (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege (Oxford University Press) 1951) 13. (first of three Ratanbai Katrak Lectures delivered in 1949.)
26. Henrik Samuel Nyberg, Irans forntida religioner (Swedish; 1937); Die Religionem des alten Iran (German; 1938); “The Religions of Ancient Iran”, The Journal of Theological Studies, xliv (1943) 119-21.
27. Ernst Herzfeld, Zoroaster and His World, Vol. I & II (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege (Oxford University Press); 1947).
28. Henning, op. cit., 36.
29. Mary Boyce. A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume One, The Early Period (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill; 1975) xi.
30. Mary Boyce. A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume Two. Under the Achaemenians (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill. 1982) 4.
31. Boyce, 1975, ix.
32. Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge; 1979) 202.
33. Boyce,1975, 3. It’s interesting to note that in footnote 4 on that page she credits several other western scholars who agreed with her position, but leaves out any mention of Martin Haug.
34. Boyce. 1979, 2; see also p. 18.
35. Boyce, 1975, 196.
36. Boyce, 1982, 1.
37. Boyce, 1982, 3
38. The idea of a connection between Isaiah 40-48 and Yasna 44 can actually be traced back to Morton Smith, "II Isaiah and the Persians", Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol 83 No. 4 (Sept.-Dec. 1963) 415-21.
39. Boyce, 1982, 46.
40. Yasna 30.3-5; L.H. Mills, translator; “The Zend Avesta, Part 3 of 3". Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 31 (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press; 1887) 29-31.
41. Boyce, 1982, 51.
42. Boyce, 1979, 4.
43. Boyce, 1982, 54. Boyce also makes this argument in Boyce, 1979; 50-51.
44. Boyce, 1982, 65.
45. Herodotus, Historiai iii.31.
46. Yasna 12.9.
47. Boyce, 1979, 53-54.
48. Strabo, Geōgraphika, xi.11.3.
49. Mary Boyce, Frantz Grenet and Roger Beck, A History of Zoroastrianism: Volume Three, Zoroastrianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule (Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill. 1991) 6-7.
50. Eshan Yarshater, “Review of A History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. 2, Under the Achaemenians.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland; Vol 116 (1984) No. 1. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984) 139.
51. Oscar Stig Wikander, Flamen-Brahman (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1935.)
53. YasnaNaissance d’archanges - Essai sur la formation de la religion zoroastrienne

**rogue06** · 12-26-2020, 02:30 PM

What is the work that you quote and then review?

Topics	Statistics	Last Post
SBC vs. Nicaea by NorrinRadd Started by NorrinRadd, 06-23-2024, 02:33 AM	5 responses 41 views 0 likes	Last Post by tabibito 06-23-2024, 06:44 PM
Christians in America by seanD Started by seanD, 06-04-2024, 05:46 PM	25 responses 208 views 1 like	Last Post by rogue06 06-20-2024, 10:38 AM
How was church today? by KingsGambit Started by KingsGambit, 06-02-2024, 07:25 PM	1 response 27 views 1 like	Last Post by Faber 06-03-2024, 08:59 AM

Announcement

Christianity 201 Guidelines

Roots of Christmas

Roots of Christmas

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Related Threads