Zoroastrianism

[Taestron]

I actually find the case that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Judaism tends to be overstated. To establish a good case for one religion influencing another certain requirements need to be met. First, the similarity in question needs to be a real similarity. Second, there needs to a place where the two religions would interact. I am not too familiar with Zoroastrianism, but I can speak on a general level about the similarities. There are two proposed similarities between Judaism and Zoroastrianism: the figure of Satan and the dualism of good and evil. There are other ways for the Satan figure to develop in Judaism apart from Zoroastrianism; on the other hand, these two religions are the only two we know in the Ancient Near East which can be said to have true morality. I have my doubts, but let us say for the sake of argument that there is a real similarity between Zoroastrianism's and Judaism's morality.

But we still must establish a plausible way for Zoroastrianism to affect the development of Judaism. There is so much uncertainty about when Zoroaster lived, and when his religion came to dominance (if ever) over its area in Ancient Iran. But even if it was well established as the top religion by the time of rise of the Persian Empire, it still is doubtful that it could have had much affect on Judaism. Persia is a long way away from Palestine and never really attempted to dominate the culture the way the Greeks did. Cyrus did conquer Babylon but then he let the Jews return to the land. Of course certain Jews remained in Babylon, but this developed into a sect which had noticeable distinctions from the sects in Palestine. Furthermore, the moral aspects of Judaism were probably very much already in development by the time they went into the exile.

In my opinion, there is no plausible link between Judaism and Zoroastrianism. There is no real reason to say there is either, unless you are trying to find a natural cause for the rise of moralism in Judaism. Now as to that God may have allowed the dominance of Zoroastrianism in order to help facilitate the future spread of the Gospel, this is entirely possible. We do serve a great God.

[Shiranui117]

Originally Posted by Taestron

I actually find the case that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Judaism tends to be overstated. To establish a good case for one religion influencing another certain requirements need to be met. First, the similarity in question needs to be a real similarity. Second, there needs to a place where the two religions would interact. I am not too familiar with Zoroastrianism, but I can speak on a general level about the similarities. There are two proposed similarities between Judaism and Zoroastrianism: the figure of Satan and the dualism of good and evil. There are other ways for the Satan figure to develop in Judaism apart from Zoroastrianism; on the other hand, these two religions are the only two we know in the Ancient Near East which can be said to have true morality. I have my doubts, but let us say for the sake of argument that there is a real similarity between Zoroastrianism's and Judaism's morality.

But we still must establish a plausible way for Zoroastrianism to affect the development of Judaism. There is so much uncertainty about when Zoroaster lived, and when his religion came to dominance (if ever) over its area in Ancient Iran. But even if it was well established as the top religion by the time of rise of the Persian Empire, it still is doubtful that it could have had much affect on Judaism. Persia is a long way away from Palestine and never really attempted to dominate the culture the way the Greeks did. Cyrus did conquer Babylon but then he let the Jews return to the land. Of course certain Jews remained in Babylon, but this developed into a sect which had noticeable distinctions from the sects in Palestine. Furthermore, the moral aspects of Judaism were probably very much already in development by the time they went into the exile.

In my opinion, there is no plausible link between Judaism and Zoroastrianism. There is no real reason to say there is either, unless you are trying to find a natural cause for the rise of moralism in Judaism. Now as to that God may have allowed the dominance of Zoroastrianism in order to help facilitate the future spread of the Gospel, this is entirely possible. We do serve a great God.

The beliefs in the Messiah and the Resurrection from the dead pretty clearly come from Zoroastrianism.

[Shiranui117]

Originally Posted by Kam Fanaian

It is a beautiful religion indeed.

Zoroaster made a beautiful prophecy:

"When a thousand two hundred and some years have passed from the inception of the religion of the Arabian, and the overthrow of the kingdom of Iran and the degradation of the followers of My religion, a descendant of the Iranian kings will be raised up as a Prophet."
(Zoroaster - Dinkird)

This predicted the coming of the Baha'u'llah.

Kam

No. Just... No. The "degradation of the followers of" Zoroastrianism happened sometime around the 800's AD, when Zoroastrianism was nearly eliminated by Islam. Baha'u'llah came in about 1000 years after that event, way shorter than 2200 years after.

[Taestron]

Originally Posted by Shiranui117

The beliefs in the Messiah and the Resurrection from the dead pretty clearly come from Zoroastrianism.

Without evidence it is not clear from where such beliefs came. Similarity, even virtual identity, of beliefs is not evidence for dependency. This is a fallacy Dr. John Walton (very respected in the comparative ancient near east religions) likes to call "parallelomania."

[Shiranui117]

Originally Posted by Taestron

Without evidence it is not clear from where such beliefs came. Similarity, even virtual identity, of beliefs is not evidence for dependency. This is a fallacy Dr. John Walton (very respected in the comparative ancient near east religions) likes to call "parallelomania."

Ordinarily, I would agree. However, I feel there is at the very least circumstantial evidence supporting the link. IIRC and AFAIK, before the Captivity, the Jews had virtually no concept of the resurrection of the dead or of the Messiah, and after the Captivity--a time when the Jews had plenty of contact with the Persians--they did. It seems entirely plausible to me that these ideas developed under Zoroastrian influence.

[Taestron]

Originally Posted by Shiranui117

Ordinarily, I would agree. However, I feel there is at the very least circumstantial evidence supporting the link. IIRC and AFAIK, before the Captivity, the Jews had virtually no concept of the resurrection of the dead or of the Messiah, and after the Captivity--a time when the Jews had plenty of contact with the Persians--they did. It seems entirely plausible to me that these ideas developed under Zoroastrian influence.

Fair enough. I have other problems with this theory, although minor. I really wouldn't mind if I wrong about everything, except the morality element. But since I like to be argumentative. The time frame that the resurrection undoubtedly enters Jewish thought seems rather late for it to be developed under Persian influence. As for the Messiah, even if it was not developed to the extent it was after the exile, you do see Messianic-like passages in the pre-exilic prophets. So, I will say that even if Judaism didn't have a full blown Messiah Theology until they met the Persians, it seems likely to me they would have developed it on their own.

[Shiranui117]

Originally Posted by Taestron

Fair enough. I have other problems with this theory, although minor. I really wouldn't mind if I wrong about everything, except the morality element. But since I like to be argumentative. The time frame that the resurrection undoubtedly enters Jewish thought seems rather late for it to be developed under Persian influence. As for the Messiah, even if it was not developed to the extent it was after the exile, you do see Messianic-like passages in the pre-exilic prophets. So, I will say that even if Judaism didn't have a full blown Messiah Theology until they met the Persians, it seems likely to me they would have developed it on their own.

Perhaps they would have developed the Messianic theology independently. But on the Resurrection of the dead, is it inconceivable to consider that it was added or developed into orthodox Jewish thought only after many years of discussion and debate, hence why we do not see its entrance until later?

Also, I'm no expert on this subject, so if I may, how long after the Captivity did Jewish belief in the Resurrection of the dead develop?

[Kam Fanaian]

Originally Posted by Shiranui117

No. Just... No. The "degradation of the followers of" Zoroastrianism happened sometime around the 800's AD, when Zoroastrianism was nearly eliminated by Islam. Baha'u'llah came in about 1000 years after that event, way shorter than 2200 years after.

It actually says ONE thousand 200 and some years, not 2200.

The Baha'i Faith begain in exactly 1260 A.H


Kam

[Methos]

I'm currently reading "Zoroastrianism" by Peter Clark when I noticed this post.. I haven't reached the chapter on Zoroastrian eschatology and the concept of the Saoshyant, "the bringer of benefit." Clark mentions that they were supposed to be several of them, including Zoroaster himself, but the final one, after quickly looking at the chapter, isn't supposed to appear for several thousand years. So, it wasn't the Baha'u'llah. Given the index doesn't even list Baha'i, it seems Clark doesn't think so either.

[Kam Fanaian]

Originally Posted by Methos

I'm currently reading "Zoroastrianism" by Peter Clark when I noticed this post.. I haven't reached the chapter on Zoroastrian eschatology and the concept of the Saoshyant, "the bringer of benefit." Clark mentions that they were supposed to be several of them, including Zoroaster himself, but the final one, after quickly looking at the chapter, isn't supposed to appear for several thousand years. So, it wasn't the Baha'u'llah. Given the index doesn't even list Baha'i, it seems Clark doesn't think so either.

Yes, well I would hazard a guess that a book written with "no prior knowledge" about Judaism would talk much, if at all, about Jesus either

(especially if the book was written 160 years after the coming of Jesus)

Kam

[Methos]

Originally Posted by Kam Fanaian

Yes, well I would hazard a guess that a book written with "no prior knowledge" about Judaism would talk much, if at all, about Jesus either

(especially if the book was written 160 years after the coming of Jesus)

Kam

Actually, Appendix 1 is named "Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity." I'll guess it touches on the Babylonian Captivity and the Magi among other things. The book is small, but paragraphs can be a page long. So, it may take me time to get there.

[Kam Fanaian]

Well I would be interested to hear your thoughts after having read it Methos

Thanks
Kam

[Shiranui117]

Originally Posted by Kam Fanaian

It actually says ONE thousand 200 and some years, not 2200.

The Baha'i Faith begain in exactly 1260 A.H


Kam

Even still, the Baha'i prophet came at least a hundred years too early; Zoroastrians maintained a majority in Persia for centuries after being taken over by Muslim forces; some regions still boasted Zoroastrian majorities until the 12th century.

And besides that, Zoroastrians are still undergoing persecution in Iran today, and have been for 1400 years. The degradation and persecution of the Zoroastrians is not yet over. Zoroastrianism did not disappear after the 600's.

Therefore, the Baha'i prophet cannot possibly fulfill Zoroaster's prophecy, if the Zoroastrians aren't even done being persecuted yet!

[Taestron]

Originally Posted by Shiranui117

Perhaps they would have developed the Messianic theology independently. But on the Resurrection of the dead, is it inconceivable to consider that it was added or developed into orthodox Jewish thought only after many years of discussion and debate, hence why we do not see its entrance until later?

Also, I'm no expert on this subject, so if I may, how long after the Captivity did Jewish belief in the Resurrection of the dead develop?

You know, I had always heard that it was the time of the Macabean Revolt, but I realized I don't have any sources for that. But I do know the concept appears as an established idea in Macabees, so mid 2nd century BCE is the absolute latest time it could have developed. As far as the earlier possibilities, it depends on your views of the writing of Daniel (12:1-4) and the editing of Isaiah (24:19). Those are pretty isolated verses, so it is not impossible that they date from this time. But I usually steer clear of trying to date a passage by its theology. There is much better resurrection in extra-canonical (in the Jewish sense) writing than canonical. I found this to be a helpful site when looking up my response. In any case, your looking at a range of dates for the earliest citation of the resurrection from before the exile or right after the events of Daniel (fundamentalist view) anywhere up to the Maccabean Revolt. My pet theory is that individual Jews did pick up the resurrection from Persian influence, inserted brief statements into Isaiah, and the religious leaders picked up and ran with it during the second century. Of course, there is no way to prove that. So basically a variation on what you suggest. My caution is that the case for Zoroastrian influence on Judaism was overstated not that it isn't true.

[Shiranui117]

Originally Posted by Taestron

You know, I had always heard that it was the time of the Macabean Revolt, but I realized I don't have any sources for that. But I do know the concept appears as an established idea in Macabees, so mid 2nd century BCE is the absolute latest time it could have developed. As far as the earlier possibilities, it depends on your views of the writing of Daniel (12:1-4) and the editing of Isaiah (24:19). Those are pretty isolated verses, so it is not impossible that they date from this time. But I usually steer clear of trying to date a passage by its theology. There is much better resurrection in extra-canonical (in the Jewish sense) writing than canonical. I found this to be a helpful site when looking up my response. In any case, your looking at a range of dates for the earliest citation of the resurrection from before the exile or right after the events of Daniel (fundamentalist view) anywhere up to the Maccabean Revolt. My pet theory is that individual Jews did pick up the resurrection from Persian influence, inserted brief statements into Isaiah, and the religious leaders picked up and ran with it during the second century. Of course, there is no way to prove that. So basically a variation on what you suggest. My caution is that the case for Zoroastrian influence on Judaism was overstated not that it isn't true.

All fair points, and I do think I made it sound a little bit exaggerated. I'll have to check out that link, thanks for it.