Anacalypsis/Volume 1/Book 2/Chapter 1

by Godfrey Higgins

BOOK II.

CHAPTER I.

THE ANCIENT PERSIANS OF THE RELIGION OF ABRAHAM.—FIRST BOOKS OF GENESIS.—DISINGENUOUS CONDUCT IN THE TRANSLATORY OF THE BIBLE.—ABRAHAM ACKNOWLEDGED MORE THAN ONE GOD.

1. The religion and ancient philosophy of the Chaldeans, by whom are meant the Assyrians, as given by Stanley,^[1] at first view exhibit a scene of the utmost confusion. This may be attributed in part to the circumstance, that it is not the history of their religion and philosophy at any one particular æra, but that it is extended over a space of several thousand years, during which, perhaps, they might undergo many changes. To this circumstance authors have not paid sufficient attention; so that what may have been accurately described in the time of Herodotus may have been much changed in the time of Porphyry. Thus different authors appear to write in contradiction to each other, though each may have written what was strictly true at the time of which he was writing.

Under the name of the country of the Chaldeans several states have at different periods been included. It has been the same with respect to Persia. When an author speaks of Persia, sometimes Persia only is meant, sometimes Bactria, sometimes Media, sometimes all three; and Assyria is very often included with them. Here is another source of difficulty and confusion.

After the conquest of Babylon and its dependent states, the empire founded by its conquerors, the Persians, was often called, by writers of the Western part of the world, the Assyrian or Chaldean empire. In all these states or kingdoms the religion of the Persians prevailed; and the use of the indiscriminate terms, Persian, Assyrian, and Chaldean, by Porphyry, Plutarch, &c., when treating of that empire, has been the cause of much of the uncertainty respecting what was the religion of the Persians and Assyrians. Thus, when one historian says, the Chaldeans, meaning the Assyrians, worshiped the idol Moloch; and another says, they worshiped fire, as the emblem of the Deity; they are probably both correct: one assertion is true before the time of Cyrus, the other afterward,

Although it may not be possible to make out a connected and complete system, yet it will be no difficult matter to shew, that, at one particular time, the worship of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Babylonians, was that of one Supreme God; that the Sun was worshiped as an emblem only of the divinity, and that the religions of Abraham, of the children of Israel, and of these Eastern nations were originally the same. The Christian divines, who have observed the identity, of course maintain that the other nations copied from Moses, or the natives of Palestine, i. e. that several great and mighty empires, copied from a small and insignificant province. No doubt this is possible: whether probable or not must be left to the judgment of the reader, after he has well considered all the circumstances detailed in the following work.

2. The very interesting and ancient book of Genesis, on which the modern system of the reformed Christian religion is chiefly founded, has always been held to be the production of Moses. But it requires very little discernment to perceive, that it is a collection of treatises, probably of different nations. The first ends with the third verse of the second chapter—the second with the last verse of the fourth.

In the first verse of the first book, the Aleim, which will be proved to be the Trinity, being in the plural number, are said by Wisdom to have formed, from matter previously existing, the שמיס smim, or planetary bodies, which were believed by the Magi to be the rulers or directors of the affairs of men. This opinion I shall examine by and by. From this it is evident, that this is in fact a Persian, or still more Eastern, mythos.

The use of animals for food being clearly not allowed to man, in chap. i. vers. 29, 30, is a circumstance which bespeaks the book of Buddhist origin. It is probably either the parent of the Buddhist religion, or its offspring. And it is different from the next book, which begins at the fourth verse of the second chapter, and ends with the last verse of the fourth; because, among other reasons in it, the creation is said to have been performed by a different person from that named in the first,—by Jehovah Aleim, instead of Aleim. Again, in the first book, man and woman are created at the same time; in the second, they are created at different times. Again, in the first book, the fruit of all the trees is given to the man; in the second, this is contradicted, by one tree being expressly forbidden. These are in fact two different accounts of the creation.

The beginning of the fifth chapter, or third tract, seems to be a repetition of the first, to connect it with the history of the flood. The world is described as being made by God, (Aleim,) and not as in the second by Jehovah or the God Jehovah or Jehovah Aleim; and, as in the first, the man and woman are made at one time, and not, as in the second, at different times. The account of the birth of Seth, given in the twenty-fifth verse of the fourth chapter, and the repetition of the same event in the third verse of the fifth chapter, or the beginning of the third tract, are a clear proof that these tracts are by different persons; or, at least, are separate and distinct works. The reason why the name of Seth is given here, and not the names of any of the later of Adam’s children, is evidently to connect Adam with Noah and the flood, the object of the third tract. The permission, in the third tract, to eat animals implying that it was not given before, is strictly in keeping with the denial of it in the first.

The histories of the creation, both in the first and in the second book of Genesis, in the sacred books of the Persians, and in those of the Chaldeans, are evidently different versions of the same story. The Chaldeans state the world to have been created not in six days, but in six periods of time—the lengths of the periods not being fixed. The Persians, also, divide the time into six periods.

In the second book, a very well-known account is given of the origin of evil, which is an affair most closely interwoven with every part of the Christian system, but it is in fact nothing more than an oriental mythos, which may have been taken from the history of the ancient Brahmins, in whose books the principal incidents are to be found; and, in order to put this matter out of doubt, it will only be necessary to turn to the plates, to Figs. 2, 3, 4, taken from icons in the very oldest of the caves of Hindostan, excavated, as it is universally agreed, long prior to the Christian æra. The reader will find the first to be the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head; the second, the serpent biting the foot of her seed, the Hindoo God Cristna, the second person of their trinity; and the third, the spirit of God brooding over the face of the waters. The history in Genesis is here so closely depicted that it is impossible to doubt the identity of the two.

Among the Persians and all the oriental nations it has been observed, that the Creator or God was adored under a triple form—in fact in the form of a trinity. In India, this was Bramah, Cristna or Vishnu, and Siva; in Persia, it was Oromasdes, Mithra, and Arhimanius; in each case the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer.

I shall now proceed to shew that, in this particular, the religion of Abraham and the Israelites was accordant with all the others.

3. But before I proceed, I must point out an example of very blameable disingenuousness in every translation of the Bible which I have seen. In the original, God is called by a variety of names, often the same as that which the Heathens gave to their Gods. To disguise this, the translators have availed themselves of a contrivance adopted by the Jews in rendering the Hebrew into Greek, which is to render the word יהוה Ieue, and several of the other names by which God is called in the Bible, by the word Κυριος or Lord, which signifies one having authority, the sovereign. In this the Jews were justified by the commandment, which forbids the use of the name Ieue. But not so the Christians, who do not admit the true and evident meaning adopted by the Jews—Thou shalt not take the name of Ieue, thy God, in vain. And, therefore, they have no right, when pretending to give a translation, to call God by any other name than that in the original, whether it be Adonis, or Ie, or Ieue, or any other. This the reader will immediately see is of the first importance in obtaining a correct understanding of the book. The fact of the names of God being disguised in all^[2] the translations tends to prove that no dependence can be placed on any of them. The fact shews very clearly the temper or state of mind with which the translators have undertaken their task. God is called by several names. How is the reader of a translation to discover this, if he find them all rendered by one name? He is evidently deceived. It is no justification of a translator, to say it is of little consequence. Little or great, he has no right to exercise any discretion of this kind. When he finds God called Adonai, he has no business to call him Jehovah or Elohim.

4. The fact that Abraham worshiped several Gods, who were, in reality, the same as those of the Persians, namely, the creator, preserver, and the destroyer, has been long asserted, and the assertion has been very unpalatable both to Jews and many Christians; and to obviate or disguise what they could not account for, they have had recourse, in numerous instances, to the mistranslation of the original, as will presently be shewn.

The following texts will clearly prove this assertion. The Rev. Dr. Shuckford pointed out the fact long ago; so that this is nothing new.

In the second book of Genesis the creation is described not to have been made by Aleim, or the Aleim, but by a God of a double name—יהוה אלהים Ieue Aleim; which the priests have translated Lord God. By using the word Lord, their object evidently is to conceal from their readers several difficulties which arise afterward respecting the names of God and this word, and which shew clearly that the books of the Pentateuch are the writings of different persons.

Dr. Shuckford has observed, that in Genesis xii. 7, 8, Abraham did not call upon the name of the Lord as we improperly translate it; but invoked God in the name of the Lord (i. e. Ieue) whom he worshiped, and who appeared to him; and that this was the same God to whom Jacob prayed when he vowed that the Lord should be his God.^[3] Again, in Gen. xxviii. 21, 22, והיה יהוה לי לאלהים erit Dominus mihi in Deum; and he called the place בית אלהים (Bit aleim), Domus Dei. Again, Shuckford says,^[4] that in Gen. xxvi. 25, Isaac invoked God as Abraham did in the name of this Lord, יהוה Ieue or Jehovah. On this he observes, “It is very evident that Abraham and his descendants worshiped not only the true and living God, but they invoked him in the name of the Lord, and they worshiped the Lord in whose name they invoked, so that two persons were the object of their worship, God and this Lord: and the Scripture has distinguished these two persons from one another by this circumstance, that God no man hath seen at any time nor can see,^[5] but the Lord whom Abraham and his descendants worshiped was the person who appeared to them.”^[6]

In the above I need not remind my reader that he must insert the name of Ieue or Jehovah for the name of Lord.

Chapter xxi. verse 33, is wrong translated: when properly rendered it represents Abraham to have invoked (in the name of Jehovah) the everlasting God.^[7] That is, to have invoked the everlasting God, or to have prayed to him in the name of Jehovah—precisely as the Christians do at this day, who invoke God in the name of Jesus—who invoke the first person of the Trinity in the name of the second.

The words of this text are, ויקרא-שם בשם יהוה אל עולם et invocavit ibi in nomine Ieue Deum æternum.

The foregoing observations of Dr. Shuckford’s are confirmed by the following texts:

Gen. xxxi. 42, “Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac,” &c.

Gen. xxxi. 53, “The Gods of Abraham, and the Gods of Nahor, the Gods of their father, judge betwixt us, אלהי אביהם. Dii patris eorum, that is, the Gods of Terah, the great-grandfather of both Jacob and Laban. It appears that they went back to the time when there could be no dispute about their Gods. They sought for Gods that should be received by them both, and these were the Gods of Terah. Laban was an idolater, (or at least of a different sect or religion—Rachel stole his Gods,) Jacob was not; and in consequence of the difference in their religion, there was a difficulty in finding an oath that should be binding on both.

In Gen. xxxv. 1, it is said, And (אלהים Aleim) God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar unto God (לאל Lal) that appeared unto thee, when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. If two Gods at least, or a plurality in the Godhead, had not been acknowledged by the author of Genesis, the words would have been, and make there an altar unto me, that, &c.; or, unto me, because I appeared, &c.

Genesis xlix. 25, מאל אביך ויעזרך ואת שדי ויברכך, a Deo tui patris et adjuvabit te; et omnipotente benedicet tibi. By the God (Al) of thy father also he^[8] will help thee, and the Saddai (Sdi) also shall bless thee with blessings, &c.

It is worthy of observation, that there is a marked distinction between the Al of his father who will help him, and the Saddi who will bless him. Here are two evidently clear and distinct Gods, and neither of them the destroyer or the evil principle.

Even by the God (אל Al) of thy father, who shall help thee: and by the Almighty, שדי omnipotente, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts and of the womb. The Sdi or Saddi are here very remarkable; they seem to have been peculiarly Gods of the blessings of this world.

Deut. vi. 4, יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד. This, Mr. Hails has correctly observed, ought to be rendered Jehovah our Gods is one Jehovah.

The doctrine of a plurality, shewn above in the Pentateuch, is confirmed in the later books of the Jews.

Isaiah xlviii. 16, ועתה אדני יהוה שלחני ורוחו. Et nunc Adonai Ieue misit me et spiritus ejus: And now the Lord (Adonai) Jehovah, hath sent me and his spirit.

Again Isaiah li. 22, כה-אמר אדניך יהוה ואלהיך יריב עמו. Thus thy Adonai Jehovah spoke, and thy Aleim reprimanded his people. Sic dixit tuus Adoni Ieue, et tuus Aleim litigabit suo populo.

Two persons of the Trinity are evident in these texts. The third is found in the serpent, which tempted Eve in its evil character, and in its character of regenerator, healer, or preserver, in the brasen serpent set up by Moses, in the wilderness, to be adored by the Israelites, and to which they offered incense from his time through all the reigns of David and Solomon, to the time of Hezekiah, the name of which was Nehushtan.^[9] Numbers xxi. 8, 9; 2 Kings xviii. 4. The destroyer or evil spirit may also probably be found in the Aub named Lev. xx. 27; Deut. xviii. 11.

There are many expressions in the Pentateuch besides those already given, which cannot be accounted for without a plurality of Gods or the Trinity, a doctrine which was not peculiar to Abraham and his descendants, but was common to all the nations of the ancient world from India to Thule, as I have before observed, under the triple title of creator, preserver, and destroyer—Brama, Vishnu, and Siva, among the Hindoos; Oromasdes, Mithra, and Arhimanius, among the Persians.

We shall see in the next chapter, that the Trinity will be found in the word Aleim of the first verse of Genesis, which will tend to support what I have asserted, viz. that it is an Indian book.

---

1. Part XIX.
2. At least I have never seen an exception.
3. Shuckford, Book vii. pp. 130, 131.
4. Book vii. p. 130.
5. Exod. xxxiii. 20.
6. Gen. xii. 11; Shuckford, Book ix. p. 378, Ed. 3, also p. 400.
7. Shuckford, Con. Book v. p. 292.
8. The mighty one named in the former verse, the אביר Abir.
9. This has been observed by Mr. Maurice, Hind. Ant. Vol. III. p. 209.