Why This Blog?

    This blog is designed to be a place where the mind can freely stretch. If you are accustomed to confining your mind to close quarters, then you will find this blog an uncomfortable place. It is entitled 'Methinks' because these are my musings. I am not setting forth new doctrines. Rather, I am allowing myself to ponder whether old truths have been forgotten or misunderstood, and whether we have developed our own liturgy the same way a horse cart wears a path in a quaint rural road.  
   Here, in this blog you are free to express. The only requirement is that contributions represent a true exchange of ideas, not biases, or emotional responses.
Andrew

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

reverse borrowing: Part II

    We often refer to the 400 silent years before Christ, and have used that phrase so often that it has become a doctrine in good standing. Perhaps we should examine the history of prophecy. Messianinc prophecy began very vague and infrequent in the patriarchal age (Gen 3:15), With Abraham and Moses, prophecy was mostly through symbolism and typology. Under the period of Kings it was often through poetic means, which is still very difficult to understand. On the other hand, once we arrive at the major prophets, statements start to be more concrete. The trend then, is that the closer to Christ, the clearer the picture becomes. This seems to culminate with Daniel whose ’70 weeks prophecy’ gives a discernable date for the death of Christ. After this, the post exile prophets seem to address events mostly concerning the Jewish nation and punishments of other nations. Then, the Hebrew scriptures end with a final prophecy in Malachi. With no more scriptures, we conclude that there was no more prophecy.
All the same, when the ‘magi’ arrive they quote a number of details that do not appear in our scriptures. That there should be one who was ‘born the king of the jews’, and that his birth would be attended by ‘a star in the east’. Notice that in their conversation with Herod, they did not mention angels giving them direct knowledge, but they mentioned a sign, as though it were a well accepted sign that people had been looking for. True, I am assuming that, and cannot be sure of it, but it is a possibility.
What’s the point? Perhaps, it is not the 400 silent years, but rather the 400 undocumented years. Perhaps, prophecy continued in Persia rather than Jerusalem.

   What does all of this mean? The Jews were taken into Babylon in 606 B.C. Several of them rose to prominence (Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-Nego, and Daniel). Of these, Daniel is known to have had preferential treatment from the kings of Babylon from beginning to end, and this continued onder the administration of the Medes (Darius) and Persians (Cyrus). We know Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar worshipped or revered the God of Israel to some degree. We also theorize that there is a significant possibility that prophecy continued in Persia after many of the Jews returned from Babylon. We also know from history that each of the four kingdoms mentioned in Daniel borrowed what they conquered. When Persia defeated Babylon they incorporated much of Babylon in their own culture. Likewise the Greeks were influenced by the Persian’s after Alexander the great defeated them. Then rome swallowed Greece and adopted it’s entire culture. This created one heterogenuous culture. and what was included in this culture? It would be nearly impossible for Judaism to have enjoyed the popularity for the period it did, at the highest levels that it did without leaving it’s mark. It is inconceivable that details of the stories of the Jews, as well as pieces of prophecy did not wind their way into babylonian and persian folklore, and therefore Greek and Roman as well. The result is that after the year 606 B.C. it is impossible for us to determine exactly what religion influenced which, and it is just as likely that the ‘Christian’ story of the crucified savior actually preceded (many) pagan stories of a savior, through the prophecies of the old testament. We must note that this story fails to acount for those legends which appear prior to 606 B.C. or in lands that reached beyond the inluence of the four empires mentioned. There is one more explanation that may suffice…

No comments: