Marduk and Citigroup

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Marduk and Citigroup

Daniel 8:1-27 ESV

In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal. I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great. As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eye

Within Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, Christopher Wright argues that ancient Israel's approach to creation was fundamentally different than the nations that existed around Israel. The Canaanite fertility cults were rejected because Israel had been taught that the LORD was the source of nature's abundance; and the astral deities of Babylon were rejected because the astral bodies were revealed to be objects created by the LORD's power.

What is especially interesting in Wright's discussion around this topic is the distinction he makes between personalising and personifying nature. Within the Old Testament nature is regularly personified — i.e. nature is spoken about "as if it were a person." Yet this is a rhetorical device that does not ascribe personhood or personal capacity to nature or natural forces in themselves. In fact, Wright argues, to personalise nature ("to attribute ontological personal status to nature itself"), results in both depersonalising God and demoralising the relationship between humanity and God. Wright argues that this is so because to give creation a status due only to God and (derivatively) to humans who bear God's image is actually a form of idolatry.

I find Wright's comments to be especially intriguing in light of fairly recent developments within American law (cf. "The Ultimate Weapon" in Profit Over People: neoliberalism and the global order by Noam Chomsky). Gradually corporations and businesses have been granted human rights (speech, freedom from search and seizure, the right to buy elections, etc.). To use Christopher Wright's language, corporations have been legally personalised. Consequently, these corporate entities have attained the rights of immortal persons — the rights they have now go far beyond what real persons are granted. This is not only because corporations have become so powerful but also because (post-NAFTA) corporations have been able to do such things as sue governments and have thereby been granted the rights of nation-states. Once creation is personalised it does not take long for that personalised creation to become a god in possession of a kingdom. Although we may not have been aware of the implications American law has given birth to idolatry. The corporate divinities are the gods of the Western nation-states. The Canaanites had Baal. We have General Electric and Talisman Energy. The Babylonians had Marduk. We have Citigroup and the Royal Bank of Canada.

One of the great tragedies in all of this is the fact that Western Christians are oblivious to the fact that they have been worshiping idols. But, as Christopher Wright argues in his section on the land, "the economic sphere is like a thermometer that reveals both the temperature of the theological relationship between God and Israel... and also the extent to which Israel was conforming to the social shape required of them in consistency with their status as God's redeemed people." The LORD is not content to merely be a God of history and festivals. The LORD is God of the land and everything that goes with it. And when the people of God succumb to the same economic evils as the people around them, they have ceased to function as a "light to the nations" — no matter how faithfully the can expound upon the four spiritual laws (of course, the fact that these "laws" are the ones labeled "spiritual" reveals how oblivious we are of our own idolatry).

http://poserorprophet.wordpress.com/200 ... citigroup/

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The Waters of Babylon

by Ray Douglas

Water can symbolize the human heart and its emotions, of course; the flow of earthly feelings. But it can also be used to symbolize something of a much higher level in the order of creation: something from beyond the range of thoughts and feelings; something from the realm of spirit. This perhaps is the level of holy water, of baptism, and all manner of religious rites involving water. Just as life itself depends on the presence of water, so water can symbolize the power of life.

A Sacred River

It is not always desirable to use the symbols or images of one or another religion to symbolize the river of life, the spiritual cataract—the fish-ladder of souls that really does exist on the inner plane. To do so would be to invite invidious comparisons with other religions and ways. As you will have noticed, very religious people tend to suppose —to believe—that their own religion comprises spiritual reality in fact, rather than merely a symbol of that reality, and it is always best not to argue with extreme points of view. It is far safer to use religious ideas from long ago to help explain the principle of "sacred river", using symbols from a religion that nobody follows anymore. This is why I shall take the Euphrates of the ancient Babylonians as my "sacred river".

Now, Babylon has acquired a very bad name over the millennia which have elapsed since its heyday, mainly because of the indignation caused by the capture and exile of Israel at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and the detention in Babylon of skilled Israeli workers and intellectuals as virtual slaves of the Babylonians. Babylon thereafter was given a very "bad press". But their symbols of spirituality were instinctively sound, though overlaid with what may seem to us the childlike superstitions of their day.

Every trace of the ancient cities may have disappeared, but hard-baked clay lasts, and thousands of cuneiform clay tablets have been unearthed by archeologists, especially from beneath what must have been the city records office and public library of their day. Most of what is known of the city-state of Babylon came from the information on these tablets. They tell, for instance, of a great annual ceremony involving King Nebuchadnezzar and his priests during which they followed and re-enacted their own symbolic spiritual ascent known to them as "the sacred path of Marduk."

The Babylonians were probably the first among men to isolate and describe traits of the human psychology, and they related these to the known planets, forming the basis of present-day astrology. They personified these planets, complete with their human traits, as gods and goddesses, but they went a step further than that: in the ethos of "as above, so below", the land they lived in was also made to reflect this system on another scale.

The very name "Babylon" has come to imply an excess of materiality, wealth and luxury, and shameless idolatry, and indeed it was very likely the wealthiest city-state of its time. The name comes from the phrase "gateway of God", and much of Babylonian history justifies this title. The gateway, a means of passing through to a different spiritual condition, has to function by way of the soul. This I suppose is self-evident, though many may gloss over it. It is patently true that the concept of "God" will include materiality as well as spirituality, but only spirit can activate spirit, or approach matters of spirit; and spirit within the human sphere has to function by way of the soul, by activating the soul— the soul that may well have lain dormant for many years. "Spirit" must not be confused with emotion. Spirit is not to be known by science, not to be discovered by clever minds.

Nebuchadnezzar and his priestly hierarchy may not have been clever by our modern standards. They would probably seem to us as thick as the proverbial two short planks. Neither were they saintly people—far from it. But they were aware of an all-important principle: that soul represents the way to a higher state, and that soul must be allowed to lead. It cannot be bypassed. Babylon itself was the city-state which ruled the land of Mesopotamia, the area between the two major rivers of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and equating to modern Iraq. The civic motto of the city was "Marduk is Bel"—the soul is lord. Their city name, "Gateway of God", takes the matter a stage further, for if Babylon represented the soul, the other sister cities of the Mesopotamian plain each represented another, essential but less exalted, part of the of the human organism.

These different "rulers" of the human condition were symbolized by idols—given solidity of form—perhaps so that the uneducated masses might have some inkling of the principles involved. That seemingly simple fact caused moral outrage and righteous indignation in people who happened to use a different set of symbols: people who thought that their religious symbols were the only true symbols, or even that their religious symbols were not symbols at all, but spiritual reality itself.

Babylon then, "city of a thousand idols", was in fact the city of the soul, setting the principle of the inner self above that of the outward personality. For kings and councillors, for government officials, the highest recognized authority was symbolized by Shamash, the sun—the spirit of openness and justice whose light shines on all, who exposes misdeeds and uncovers evil, the champion of triumphal careers, patron of all outward accomplishments of the rich and famous. Worldly success, for Babylonians, belonged to Shamash. But spiritual progress belonged to Marduk. Shamash ruled over the outer self; Marduk, perhaps better known to us as Jupiter, ruled over the inner self.

Whilst Babylon itself honoured Marduk, the other cities of Mesopotamia each honoured their own patron deity, symbolized by their idols. The city of Borsippa, ten miles away to the south-west on the banks of the Euphrates, was the home ground of Nabo or Nebu (the one we know as Mercury)—representative of thoughts, the intellectual centre. A similar distance away to the north-east, the city of Cuthah honoured the warlike Nergal (known to us as Mars)—seat of passions, the dreaded one who takes command of the underworld (for this is certainly where the passions ultimately lead). For this reason the city of Cuthah was known throughout the region as the "assembly-place of ghosts". It was also the martial centre for the region, the fortress-town of Nebuchadnezzar's crack troops. The patron god of Lagash, many miles away on the edge of the Sumerian salt marshes, was Ninurta (known to us as Saturn). This was a desolate place associated in the Babylonians' minds with death and dissolution. The great goddess Ishtar (known to us as Venus), seat of emotions, was particularly venerated in the city of Erech, again far to the south. The Euphrates had changed its course at least a thousand years before the advent of Nebuchadnezzar II, and Erech stood near the banks of the original mainstream course, now reduced to a trickle by comparison. It was a symbol, perhaps, of lost glory: Erech had been one of the most powerful of ancient city-states, even before the emergence of Babylonia itself. The heart, you could say, will sooner or later be obliged to take second place to soul.

In fact all the outlying cities, towns and villages of the Mesopotamian plain were, or over the years gradually became, symbols of the limbs and extremities and functions of a parent body, and this parent body of the first millennium BC was Babylon. Marduk was always considered chief among these far-flung deities, no matter how much more terrible earthwards, or even how much more exalted heavenwards they may have seemed as individual powers.

Though the other gods and goddesses can be thought of as having a particular role to play, Marduk himself was not and nor could he be limited to any particular set of rules. The reason for this is very plain: the human soul represents wholeness; it contains within itself all human possibilities, and cannot correctly be thought of as isolated or limited in any way, or as representing this or that quality. Do not make the common mistake of assuming "soul" to be confined to holy or spiritual or even religious matters. Marduk, as a ponderable symbol of the soul, contained every known characteristic within his own nature. This was and still is the actual nature of soul: simultaneously the nucleus and the circumference of the self, both impetus and boundary of all human actions. Even though we are not normally aware of it, it is only by way of soul that consciousness can reach and quicken our coarse, material parts, our sensations, emotions and thoughts. And do not make the even bigger mistake of confusing the personal soul with the Holy Spirit. Spirit is impersonal; soul is personal. But it is only by way of one's own soul that genuine spirituality can be contacted, that our own spiritual status can be improved, and the world of heavenly beings approached.

The Sacred Path of Marduk

Let us be onlookers at this great annual festival, for the onlookers were also thereby the participators. As we assemble, the ceremony will already have begun in secret, as they put it: "invisible, beyond human sight", and known only to the Babylonian priesthood: this was when the idol of Marduk (representing the human soul) was ceremoniously immersed in the Euphrates—symbolically, that is, introduced to spirit and thus brought to life. Only after this initial ceremony of symbolically uniting soul and spirit had been carried out, could the public procession taken place.

From the banks of the great Euphrates, the procession moved off with a roll of drums and a mighty clash of cymbals, a braying of horns and trumpets. Then to the more melodious accompaniment of harps and lyres, the temple choir struck up the processional anthem of praise to the quickened Marduk. At the head of the procession walked the high priest, striking in his black and white robes, embroidered with gold. On his ornate headdress, worked in scarlet, was the winged lion symbol of protection from evil. Next to the priest walked his acolyte, a young boy nearing puberty, clad all in green, carrying head-high a silver bowl of holy water, freshly drawn from the Euphrates and newly blessed. Into this bowl the priest dipped a bundle of tamarisk twigs bearing leaves and flowers, and with it he sprinkled holy water left and right, from time to time arching it high in the air so that it fell as drops over the priests and dignitaries walking behind.

Immediately behind the high priest walked two ranks of lesser priests, impressive in their robes of red and black, bearing on their shoulders a woven-rush litter which swayed lightly to the rhythm of their steps. Upon the litter sat the statue, the idol of Marduk, carved out of scented cedar wood and encased in gleaming bronze, inlaid with patterns of gold, silver, and the pure blue of lapis lazuli. To the regular motion of the priests' feet, Marduk seemed to stir on his litter and incline his head, as though nodding and smiling to the awestruck peasants standing deferentially along each side of the stone-paved track. In his right hand, Marduk held a wooden carving: a flowering branch of the traditional tree of life. His left hand was outstretched, reaching low, the fingers bent as though holding the hand of another.

And indeed he was: only one person was allowed to hold the hand of this effigy of Marduk in public, and the watching peasants would perhaps have been all the more impressed by the figure who walked alongside the litter, reaching up and gripping Marduk's outstretched carved wooden hand. Resplendent in his ceremonial robes of purple, crimson and gold, this powerfully-built, hawk-nosed, black-bearded man was none other than the great king himself, Nebuchadnezzar II, fabled restorer of Babylon after its long centuries of neglect and decay. Babylon had been great before, in the era of the world-famous Hanging Gardens, but had long since suffered through destructive politics and warfare. Now, under Nebuchadnezzar's rule, it was restored to far more than even its former glory.

The mighty Euphrates, as it rolled through the plain, had carved a niche for itself in the fertile soil, but annual flooding over thousands of years had raised its banks with layers of silt to create a series of natural levees throughout its course. Periodically these banks would burst here and there, allowing a fresh channel to leave the main stream, creating not a tributary but a branch, a minor arm of the great river itself. There were several such streams on the plain, and it was one of these secondary Euphrates rivers that approached the city of Babylon and washed its western walls. If the holy Euphrates represented the Holy Spirit, this branch of the river which approached Babylon served to illustrate the age-old saw: "Man does not approach spirit; spirit approaches man".

After a while the procession would reach this smaller river at a point where the royal barge floated with furled sails, moored and ready, its scarlet-jacketed boatmen standing with their poles raised like guardsmen at attention. Across a broad gangway fashioned from pinewood brought from the distant Zagros mountains, the procession filed into the barge, settling Marduk's litter on a special dais amidships. With the crowd of onlookers following on the river bank, the gentle current would sweep the official party along, steadied by the boatmen's punting poles, the music of the choir and their accompaniment flushing startled ibises and herons from their cover among the willows and the reeds.

The landing stage was close by the city walls, near the beautiful Gate of Ishtar. During the brief voyage, joined by some of the onlookers following along the river bank, the choral singers with their harps and lyres had kept up their hymn of praise to Marduk, and to the river which bore him along, interspersed with mythical sagas set to music. But now as the processional priests again raised their burden to disembark, taking up their solemn march with the rhythmically swaying idol, the drums and wind instruments blared out again, warning the waiting citizens that the most important ceremony of their year was under way, and the procession was about to enter the city streets. They were met at the gate and ushered into the city by the mayor of Babylon, resplendent in green and gold, accompanied by his council of elders.

Their music echoed as they passed through the magnificent Gate of Ishtar, one of the dazzling wonders of the newly restored Babylon, its glazed tiles and bright mosaics ablaze with blue and green and gold— mythical figures of dragons and winged lions, eagle-headed gods, and lion-headed eagles; magical guardians of the city (we know what the gate looked like, because it has been painstakingly reconstructed for the Pergamon Museum in Berlin). The traditional paved route marking the sacred path of Marduk followed a circuitous course through the city streets. Now that the newly awakened soul had been symbolically introduced to the emotions—the heart—the procession wound its way close to the city walls watched by the townsfolk, silent and respectful. Eventually they reached the impressive temple of Marduk to await the next stage of this new year festival.

The Arrogant, the Humble, and the Wise

The Babylonians were masters of the use of symbolism. The grand procession could take place only after a full week of preparatory ceremonies, the most important of which was the "humbling of the king": in front of the assembled council of priests and elders, the king's finery, robes and crown, were removed, and he was made to kneel before Marduk's image. At that moment, the great Nebuchadnezzar (as also his father Nabopolassar before him) would have seemed no better, no more important, than any of his subjects.

The high priest then addressed the king in scathing and insulting tones, shouting unanswerable questions into his face. When he could give no answer, the priest would slap the king's face, pull his beard, twist his ears and tweak his nose until tears rolled down his cheeks. The point was being made that this person—though in fact the greatest king they had ever known, and probably genuinely respected at that—had, ritually at least, become a very ordinary creature, without pride or anger, without benefit of wealth or privilege. This symbolic shedding of worldly riches and respect was intended to convey the message that all traces of arrogance, of self-confidence even, must be made to yield to self-doubt, to a state of helplessness similar to that at birth, if not at death, in the face of the divine will. If there could be any meaningful preparation for the forthcoming meeting with spirit, this would have to be it—acquiring humility before your own soul.

The ritual humiliation and temporary abandonment of power complete, the king would dress again in his robes and crown, before taking part in two sacrificial procedures outside the city gates. First, within a deep trench dug in the ground, he set fire to a bundle of reeds; then he was obliged to slaughter a white bull. Remember the spiritual hierarchy extending from the ground level of materiality, through the level of plants, through the level of animals, to the original high human level lost when the Garden of Eden was lost. The lower levels and the passions associated with them have to lose their power, their hold on the soul. This was the true "sacred path of Marduk".

The following day another ritual was enacted: a special tabernacle was constructed, embroidered with golden thread. There the idol of Marduk was brought and set on a throne to await the visit of a subordinate but still very important god. In Babylonian mythology, this was one of his own sons: Nabo or Nebu, the god of learning and wisdom. As we already know, Nabo was the divine guardian of the neighbouring city of Borsippa on the banks of the mainstream Euphrates, and representative of the human intellect. Both Nebuchadnezzar and his father Nabopolassar had been named in his honour. When the tabernacle was ready, the image of Nabo was carried on his own cedar and rushwork litter borne by a retinue of his own priests, from his own temple in Borsippa, the ten miles or so to Babylon. The two idols were placed side by side beneath the golden surrounds of their tabernacle, in symbolic communication.

All this took place before the public ceremonial began, and it is easy to see why. Wisdom, or the human mind, has to acknowledge and accept the supremacy or fatherhood of the soul before entering the spiritual path. The soul, represented of course by Marduk, would be first brought to life and then carried along by spirit. Inevitably, the awakened soul has to be brought to our awareness before reaching the Gate of Ishtar —the human heart, the seat of emotions personified by Venus or Ishtar. The existence of soul has to be accepted by the intellect, by the power of reason, before the inner journey becomes a meaningful reality. Then sooner or later, it must be accepted as the ruler by our own heart, our seat of value-judgment, and the means by which we can fully appreciate beauty and wonder.

Detail: Ishtar Gate—reconstructed entrance to the city of Babylon

Today as in ancient times, without the sacred river of spirit, the symbols of religion are fated to remain lifeless idols. Without spirit having quickened the soul, the ceremonies of religion are of no more value than the trappings of idols. Whilst the soul sleeps undisturbed and unsuspected, our images of heaven will have no more reality than those precious mosaics within the beautiful Gate of Ishtar.

http://www.undiscoveredworldspress.com/watersbab.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Mordecai

Mordecai or Mordechai (Hebrew: מָרְדֳּכַי, Modern Mordekhay Tiberian Mordŏḵáy, IPA value: [mɔɾdɔχɑj]) is one of the main personalities in the Book of Esther in the Hebrew Bible. He was the son of Jair, of the tribe of Benjamin.

His life and deeds

Mordecai resided in Susa (Shushan),[1] the metropolis of Persia (now Iran). He adopted his cousin Hadassah (Esther), an orphan child, whom he brought up as his own daughter. When "young virgins" were sought, she was brought into the presence of King Ahasuerus and was made queen in the place of the exiled queen Vashti. Mordecai was then promoted to a position of royal court advisor as a result of ingratiating himself to Ahasuerus and was therefore referred to subsequently as one of those who "sat in the king's gate" to indicate his position of closeness to the king. While holding this office, he discovered a plot of the king's chamberlain's eunuchs Bigthan and Teresh to assassinate the king. Because of Mordecai's vigilance, the plot was foiled. His services to the king in this matter were duly recorded in the royal chronicles.

Haman the Agagite had been raised to the highest position at court. Mordecai refused to bow down before him because it is a clear violation of Jewish law. Haman, stung by Mordecai's refusal, resolved to accomplish his death in a wholesale murder of the Jewish exiles throughout the Persian empire. Learning of Haman's scheme, Mordecai communicated with Queen Esther regarding it, and by her bold intervention the scheme was frustrated by distributing arms to the Jews of Susa and other Persian cities where they lived and clashed with Haman's militia, until the King rescinded the edict to murder the Empire's Jews. Mordecai was raised to a high rank, donned in the royal bluish cloak, and Haman was executed on gallows he had by anticipation erected for Mordecai. In memory of the deliverance thus wrought for them, the Jews to this day celebrate the feast of Purim of "Lots" because of the lots that were drawn by Haman to decide whom he would first murder among the Jewish elders in Persia.

The name

The Triumph of Mordecai by Pieter Lastman, 1624.

The name Mordechai is of uncertain origin but is considered identical to the name Marduka or Marduku attested in the Persepolis Texts.

The name is commonly interpreted[by whom?] as a theophoric name referring to the god Marduk with the understanding that it means "[servant/follower/devotee] of Marduk" in Aramaic. (The Book of Daniel contains similar accounts of Jews living in exile in Babylonia being assigned names relating to Babylonian gods.) Some[who?] suggest that as Marduk was a war god, the expression "[servant] of Marduk" may simply denote a warrior - the popular translation of "warrior" is commonly found in naming dictionaries. Others[who?] note that Marduk was the creator in Babylonian mythology whence the term might have been understood by Jews to mean simply "[servant] of God".

The Talmud (Menachot 64b and 65a) relates that his full name was "Mordechai Bilshan" (which occurs in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7). Hoschander interpreted this as the Babylonian marduk-bel-shunu meaning "Marduk is their lord", "Mordecai" being thus a hypocoristicon.

Another interpretation of the name is that that it is of Persian origin meaning "little boy". Other suggested meanings of "contrition" (Hebrew root m-r-d), "bitter" (Hebrew root m-r) or "bruising" (Hebrew root r-d-d) are listed in Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary of the late 19th century. There is also speculation that the name is derived from Aramaic mar dochi; mar being a title address for a gentleman and dochi, meaning "one who incurs merit" (cf. Hebrew zoche).

The Talmud provides a Midrashic interpretation of the name Mordechai Bilshan as mara dachia ("pure myrrh") alluding to Exodus 30:23 and ba'al lashon ("master of languages") reminding us that as a member of the Great Assembly he could speak foreign languages.

Tomb of Ester and Mordechai

 Prophet status

The Talmud lists Mordecai and Esther as prophets.[2] The Talmud says Mordecai prophesied in the second year of Darius.

Mordecai's genealogy in the second chapter of the Book of Esther is given as a descendant of Kish of the Tribe of Benjamin. Kish was also the name of the father of King Saul, and the Talmud accords Mordecai the status of a descendant of the first King of Israel.[3]

The Targum Sheni gives his genealogy in more detail, as follows: "Mordecai, son of Ya'ir, son of Shim'i, son of Shmida, son of Baana, son of Eila, son of Micah, son of Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, son of Kish, son of Aviel, son of Tzror, son of Bechorath, son of Aphiah, son of Sh'charim, son of Uziah, son of Sheshak, son of Michael, son of Elyael, son of Amihud, son of Shephatya, son of Psuel, son of Pison, son of Malikh, son of Jerubaal, son of Yerucham, son of Chananya, son of Zavdi, son of Elpo'al, son of Shimri, son of Zecharya, son of Merimoth, son of Hushim, son of Sh'chora, son of 'Azza, son of Gera, son of Benjamin, son of Jacob the firstborn, whose name is called Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Zoroastrianism and Judaism: The Genesis of Comparative Beliefs of two Great Faiths

Zoroastrianism and Judaism have ties that were knotted many centuries before Christianity appeared on the religious stage of this planet. The Zoroastrian way of life has markedly influenced the early Hebrew religious fabric. Just how did this come about both at the social and doctrinal level is a subject worth exploring and understanding.

The Achaemenian King most intimately associated with these events is Cyrus, the Great, a worshipper of Zoroaster's-God Ahura Mazda who became the King of Anshan in 558 B.C. and was heralded as the founder of the Achaemenian Empire. In this era Babylon was ruled by a tyrant named Nabonidus. He oppressed Babylonians in general and held the 'people of Israel' as captives in his land, in particular. Historical evidence suggests that learned and skilled Persian agents. must have infiltnated Babylon to convince the Marduk (God of Babylonia) Priesthood and the people of Israel, that their only salvation was to allow the take over of Babylon by Cyrus.

Scholars suggest that the result of the work by Persian agents was clearly reflected in Cyrus's Proclamation that appeared as an oracle from the Gods of Babylonia empowering him to set Babylon free. A striking parallel to this is noticeable in the prophecies found in the Book of Jind Isaiah. The similarity of the two accounts clearly suggests that the prophet Isaiah was perhaps the first Jew to learn about Cyrus and Zoroastrianism from the Persian Magis. An example of these two parallels is given below:

Cyrus' Proclamation portrays Marduk saying, "He (Marduk) scanned and looked (through) all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler.. he pronounced the name of Cyrus, King of Anshan. . .to become the ruler of all the world. Marduk the great Lord, a protector of his people beheld with pleasure his (Cyrus') good deeds and ordered him to march against the City of Babylon". Morton Smith, Jour. of Amer. Ori. Soc. 1963, 83, 415.

The verses of the IInd Isaiah reflects a strikingly parallel calling to Cyrus from the Hebrew God Jehovah (Yahweh).

"The one saying of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and all that I delight in he will completely carry out.' Even in (my) saying of Jerusalem, 'She will be rebuilt and the temple.....foundation laid" (verse 44.28).

"This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed One, to Cyrus whose right hand I have taken hold of to subdue before him Nations..." (verse 45.1)

"I myself have roused up someone in righteousness, He is the one that will build my city and those of mine in exile he will let go, not for a price nor for bribery. (verse 45.13).

It is apparent from the above quotes that the Zoroastrian King Cyrus was called upon from two varied sources to perform a common duty. As expressed by Morton Smith (loc. cit), "To the Judeans they represented Cyrus, as chosen of Yahweh to unite Babylon and restore Israel; to the Babylonian Priesthood they represented him as chosen of Marduk to free Babylon from the tyranny of Nobonidus". It is interesting to note that utterance of IInd Isaiah speaks of violence in the takeover of Babylon (Isaiah 45.2). In contrast, the prophecy of Marduk Priesthood speaks of a totally non-violent entry in Babylon (Morton Smith loc. cit). Facts of history do record that Cyrus made a bloodless coup of Babylon. Professor Boyce notes that "the Verses of IInd Isaiah are remarkable in that in them alone, out of all the Old Testament, the term 'Messiah' in the sense of an anointed deliverer of the Jewish nation is used of foreigner, a non-Jew (Cyrus)", (History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. II, p. 44).

The evidence of the contact of the IInd Isaiah with a Persian (Zoroastrian) source is further augmented by the presence of various theological expressions in this scripture not frequently noted in Hebrew literature. Not only are these utterances foreign to the Hebrew tradition but they also bear a marked resemblance to the character of the Zoroastrian tradition. Concerning these similarities Smith remarks that it is rarely possible to establish the absolute genesis of a theological idea. However, the author adds, "What can be seen clearly is the way in which certain ideas formerly sporadic and unimportant suddenly finds frequent expression and are made central concern of important work" (loc. cit. p. 418). A case in point is the notion that 'Yahweh created the world'. In traditional Hebrew literature this plays no conspicuous role. The insistence of Isaiah to utter this concept repeatedly led Morton Smith to conclude that this was a result of an outside influence, on the traditional Judaism. This she describes by saying, "...the fact that Isaiah got his political program from Persian propaganda of Cyrus, makes it plausible to look for the source of this influence in Persian (Zoroastrian) material...".

Yasna 44 of GATHA USHTAVAITI - a passage often used by some of the scholars to support the notion, omnipotence of Ahura Mazda - consist of a series of profound questions by prophet Zoroaster to Ahura Mazda. The obvious answer to these may be formulated as "I am" or "I do" from the Wise Lord, Ahura Mazda. One finds a striking resemblance both in the style and in the substance of cosmological account of IInd Isaiah in verses 40 and 45, with those of Yasna 44. To quote but one such example, we read in Yasna 44.5:

"This I ask Thee. Tell me truly which craftsman created the luminous bodies and the dark spaces? Which craftsman created both sleep and activity?..." S. Insler, Gatha of Zarathushtra p. 67.

The above passage parallels remarkably well with verse 45.7 of IInd Isaiah which says: "Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity, I Jehovah am doing all these things." Takino into consideration the historic time slot, a strong case for the influence of Zoroaster's teaching on the thinking of Isaiah, can be made.

The Book of EZRA, believed to have been written ca. 460 B.C. starts by relating the decree of Cyrus (EZRA 1.1, 1.2). It began by saying, that Yahweh, the God had commissioned Cyrus to build him a house in Jerusalem. History records that the task was yet unfinished at that time. We read in verses 5.1 and 6.14, 15 of the Book of EZRA, request by prophets, Haggai and Zachariah to the Jews to build the 'House of Yahweh'. It is believed that after a search in the Royal records, Darius, then the ruling Zoroastrian monarch of Persia, complied to fulfill the decree of Cyrus. In the Hebrew scripture EZRA records this event (verse 6.15) by saying, 'And they completed this House (of Jehovah) by the third day of the lunar month of Adar - that is in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the King. It must be mentioned at this point, that Darius - the Zoroastrian ruler in aiding the Jews apparently gained two major concessions:

1) The loyalty and gratitude of his Jewish subjects, and
2) A safe passage to Egypt, since Palestine is strategically located on the road between Persia and Egypt.

Over half a century later we arrive at the Achaemenian King Artaxerxes whose name also appears in Hebrew scriptures of EZRA (verses 7.7, 7.12). Artaxerxes followed the tradition of benevolence towards the Jews as set by his ancestors. He appointed NEHEMIAH one of his loyal servants to govern Jerusalem. We are told NEHEMIAH, who followed the Zoroastrian purity code rigidly, was responsible for the transition of the Jewish purity code, that solely concerned the cultic matters, to the purity in the individual's daily life, The purity laws, as observed by Prof. Boyce, were no longer restricted to the Temple, but had to be exercised in 'the fields, the kitchen, the bed and the street (History of Zoroastrianism Vol. II, p. 190).

The works of 'EZRA the scribe' - knowledgeable in the law of the God of Heaven (EZRA 7.12) and in the law of Moses (EZRA 7.6) - are primarily responsible for the parallels in the beliefs between Zoroastrianisni and Judaism. EZRA was commissioned by emperor Artaxerxes to go to Jerusalem and to investigate the law of their God. The letter giving that decree is preserved in the Book of EZRA (7.11, -14), which says, "And this is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave to EZRA, by me an order has been put through that everyone in my land of the people of Israel and their priest and levites that is willing to go to Jerusalem with you, should go. In as much as from before the King and his seven counselors (an order) was sent to investigate concerning Judah, and Jerusalem in the law of your God..."

The 'seven counselors' referred to in the letter above reflects the Zoroastrian Doctrine of Heptad. The monarch in those days commanded the degree of respect on earth as the Creator in Heavens. The King then was the earthly reflection of Ahura Mazda. He thus constituted 'the seven' with his counsellors as the 'The Heptad' constituted by Ahura Mazda and the Amesha Spenta (Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. II, p. 94).

Of the first five books.of the old Testaments known as the PENTATEUCH, the post-exilic accounts are largely in 'Priestly code'. Prophet EZRA is associated with these accounts by modern scholars. The 'Holiness Code' of the Book of Leviticus and the first chapter of the Book of Genesis are attributed to these writings. They show profound Zoroastrian influences.

It is important to note that the GENESIS account of the cosmogony in Chapter I is markedly different from the story of the Garden of Eden In Chapter II. The account of the first chapter bears marked resemblance to the Zoroastrian description. We read in Genesis,

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth... Let light come to be... and God began calling the light Day but the darkness he called Night" (verse 1.3-5). This is followed by creation account of the other elements culminating in (verse 1.26-28) the creation of humans. The stark similarity of the above account to that of Zoroastrianism could be expected. The reason being, that by this time, knowledge of Zoroastrianism had become known to clergy and theologians of other faiths in that part of the world.

The influence of Zoroastrianism on the eschatological aspect of Judaism is also noticeable in the post-exilic scriptures. In the early Hebrew writing joy in the hereafter was at best vaguely expressed. For the first time in IInd Isaiah one sees expressions as follows:

"Your dead ones will live.. they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully....The earth will bring those long dead to birth again" (verse 26.19).

These expressions are clear overtones of the Zoroastrian revelations in this area. As concluded by Prof. Boyce, ".. it is difficult not to concede to Zoroastrianism both priority and influence; the more especially since elements cf Zoroaster's teaching can be traced far back in the ancient Indo-Iranian religious traditions, whereas those of Jewish apocalyptic first appear after the time of contact with the Persian faith".

Finally, the concept of Zoroaster, of the 'Limited Time'; at the end of which 'evil' will be totally eradicated and the true kingdom of Ahura Mazda will prevail on this earth, is wholly unique to his faith. Even this concept appears to have permeated in the writings of IInd Isaiah where we read,

"He will actually swallow up death forever and the Lord Jehovah will certainly wipe the tears from all faces" Verse 25.8

It is indeed interesting to note that in the above passage the Lord Jehovah takes the supreme responsibility of wiping out the evil. He is thus held accepted as Omnipotent. This aspect of Judaism is, according to some scholars, at variance with Zoroastrianism, where they claim the Omnipotence of Ahura Mazda only at the time of FRASHO KERETI (period of eternal bliss).

From the above it clearly appears that IInd Isaiah was.the first Jew who had heard of Zoroaster's teachings. The influence of Zoroastrianism thus spread over the people who were ruled by Zoroastrian Monarchs.. These emperors were not only dedicated believers in the teachings of Zarathosht but also were committed to spread those teachings across their vast Empire.

http://www.vohuman.org/Article/Zoroastr ... udaism.htm

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

In Babylonian literature there is "wisdom literature" that are similar in composition to the biblical books of Job and Proverbs. Among the more important pieces are: I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom, The Theodicy, The Dialogue of Pessimism, fables and debates, and various collections of proverbs. Many of these deal with the problem of the evil and suffering, as well as stories concerning devout and pious observers who fell upon evil times, as a lesson on morality. Cynicism is apparent in one text, The Dialogue of Pessimism, wherein, through an amusing sequence of discussions between master and slave, it is illustrated how any activity can lead to success or failure, according to the chance of fortune, and the conclusion is that death is the only dependable thing in life.

http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/ ... rature.htm

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

These individual sayings not only agree in form and sometimes
even in wording, but when viewed collectively they share the same
ethical and social ideals. Lichtheim summarizes the ideal man, "the
silent man," in this Egyptian text in this way:

[He] is content with a humble position and a minimal amount of
material possessions. His chief characteristic is modesty. He is
self-controlled, quiet, and kind toward people, and he is humble
before God. This ideal man is indeed not a perfect man, for perfection
is now viewed as belonging only to God.52

Here again space does not permit discussion of a much-debated
issue related to these sapiential texts, namely, how this striking
relationship between the Bible and these pagan texts is to be
accounted for. Suffice it to say here that Oesterley seems to have
the best of the arguments in his contention that both go back to a
common stock of international, pan-oriental, proverbial literature

--------

The Book of Proverbs and
Ancient Wisdom Literature

Bruce K. Waltke

The comparison made in 1 Kings 4:29-34 between Solomon's
wisdom and that of the ancient Near Eastern sages strongly implies
that his proverbs were a part of an international, pan-oriental, wisdom
literature. During the past century archaeologists have been
uncovering texts from Solomon's pagan peers, and scholars have
beeen using them to further the understanding of the Book of
Proverbs. The purposes of this article are to examine the ways in
which this ancient literature has advanced the understanding of
"the proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel" (Prov. 1: 1,
NIV), and to demonstrate how these texts help answer introductory
questions (date; authorship; literary forms, structure, and arrangement;
textual transmission; and history of the wisdom tradition)
and how these texts help interpret the content of the book (the meaning
of wisdom, its theological relevance, and the resolution of some
exegetical problems).

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

Before the discovery and decipherment of these extrabiblical
texts, scholars who applied to the Old Testament a historico-critical
method (which presupposed the evolutionary development of religion)
concluded that the biblical witnesses to Solomon's contribution
to wisdom could not be taken at face value.1 Instead, they argued,

1 These biblical witnesses are 1 Kings 4:29-34; Proverbs 10:1; 25:1; and Matthew 12:42.
Proverbs 1: 1 is best taken as a title for the work and not a designation of the authorship of the
whole book because the internal evidence of the book itself clearly shows that the book achieved
its final form after the time of Hezekiah (25: 1) and that others besides Solomon contributed to
this anthology of wisdom material (cf. 30: 1; 31: 1). There is no evidence, however, that the book
in its present form should be dated later than the time of the monarchy.

222 / Bibliotheca Sacra - July-September 1979

the postexilic Jewish community under Grecian influences must be
credited for these literary achievements. Even as late as 1922,
Hoelscher still placed the so-called older proverbial literature in
the Persian period.2 But the many pagan sapiential texts, found
around the broad horizon of the Fertile Crescent, and confidently
dated to the time of Solomon and centuries before him, have called
their presupposition into question and have refuted their skepticism
toward the biblical witness.

Giovanni Pettinato, in his preliminary report on the thousands
of tablets unearthed in the royal archives at Tell-Mardikh (Ebla),
alerted biblical scholars that some of those tablets contain collections
of proverbs.3 The precise dating of the royal palace at Ebla poses
some difficulties, for the artifactual evidence points to a date between
2400 and 2250 B.C. while the paleography of the literary texts points
to a period around 2450 B.C.4


http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hil ... E_BSac.pdf