explains away the objection which arises out of these passages in the same way as he does those which result from the mention of Ephesus and Hermes. “The Iranians,” he says, “and their institutions, existed full thirteen centuries before Christ; the Babylonians were, therefore, probably acquainted with them.” In the first place, it is very doubtful whether the Zend institutions did exist at so remote a period; but, waiving that obscure point, I boldly assert that these institutions, confined for centuries to Bactria, could not have exercised any influence in Babylonia before Cyrus. Then let us add, that the Persian priests are called Magi in “The Nabathæan Agriculture;” and that it is certain that there is no trace of such a word in the Zend Avesta, the priests there being termed athravó, and that the name of Magi does not appear to have been given to the Zoroastrian priests till after the establishment of the Persians at Babylon.[1] I do not insist much on this last point;
- ↑ I reserve the discussion of this point for a future essay.
