A Zoroastrian origin of some Jewish theology?

[JohnClay]

According to some guy:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-similarities-between-Christianity-and-Zoroastrianism

Some similarities:

• Heaven as a place of reward
• Hell as a place of punishment, dominated by fire
• A final judgement
• An evil spirit —
  Satan, or the devil, in Christianity
  Angra Mainyu in Zoroastrianism
• Angels
• Seven archangels or senior spirits
• guardian angels — although no longer taught in most Protestant denominantions
• The virgin birth of Jesus parallels the expected virgin birth of the Saoshyant. Matthew’s Gospel demonstrates that parallel by portraying the magi (Zoroastrian priests) as wanting to worship the baby Jesus.

I wonder if some of these things appeared in Persia/Babylon(?) as part of Zoroastrianism before they did in the Bible...

 

[Pavel Mosko]

This sort of thing makes many Christians nervous, defensive etc. I'm OK with it when we consider history etc. That Abraham came from UR of the Chaldees and the coming of the Magi of the Gospels. The general history of doctrinal development within the Judeo-Christian tradition etc (like the Trinity and hypo-static union). The notion of Logos and Imago Dei etc.

But Back in Genesis their was an early, pre-Jewish, monotheism and not all the monotheists were Hebrews descendants of Abraham.

This was something I blogged a few years back during Advent season.


Contemplating the Coming of the Magi

Sometimes we Christians like to divide the World into neat little categories. We like to have “believer" and "unbeliever", "Christian" and "non-Christian" and so forth Sometimes however real life doesn’t conform to such simplistic thinking. Because in the Gospels for example "Those outside Israel" sometimes could be "Close to the Kingdom of God", while those that were of natural Israel and devoutly practiced the old religion had "hearts that are far from God".

A good example of that is the coming of the Magi in the gospels. Those folks were mostly likely Zoroastrians from the region of Nineveh, (if we take the testimony of later Church historians seriously). These people had a close connection to the Jews during the first time of Exile. Some people think of Zoroastrians as "pagans" but they really have more in common with Monotheists in their beliefs than the other people of the pagan world. When we think about them we should realize that in the early Scriptures not all the people of God came directly from Abraham's line. Every so often we encounter someone like Melchizedek or Job. Even Balam the prophet, before he became corrupt was seen as being a "prophet of God".

When we contemplate the Magi, we should not forget that Abraham himself came from their region a few millennia previously. In fact, the name Hebrew is said to derive from this culture. It comes from an ancient Akkadian or Proto-Aramaic word meaning “They that dwell beyond the River” (Euphrates).

We therefore should not be surprised why the events recorded in the Book of Jonah take place. We have sayings “what comes around goes around”. And that certainly is true with the Kingdom of God itself. Or as scripture says, in Ecclesiastes 11: 11 “Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days.”

God who stands beyond Time itself knows all things. Besides being the place where the ancient Hebrews came from, he also knew it as a place that held great future promise for Christianity.
Isaiah 19: 23In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. This is one of those prophesies that already has been at least partially fulfilled. For the Coptic Christians and Syriac Orthodox Christians have been worshiping Christ and been in Communion with each other for nearly two millennia.

It was the place that saint Thaddeus (aka Jude the apostle) later missionized and turned into an Apostolic See that stretched forth all the way to India and China, which lasted until the late middle ages and continues today (although greatly diminished). Besides that, this region has been the home of great saints like Isaac of Nineveh (Saint Isaac the Syrian).

It is of course this same region and the Christians that dwell therein that very much need our prayers. For they struggle everyday against persecution and genocide by Islamic Fundamentalist groups like ISIS.

 

[HTacianas]

According to some guy:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-similarities-between-Christianity-and-Zoroastrianism

I wonder if some of these things appeared in Persia before they did in the Bible...

Or it could be a case where all mankind held little bits of truth here and there.

 

[Resha Caner]

This sort of thing makes many Christians nervous, defensive etc. I'm OK with it when we consider history etc.

Or it could be a case where all mankind held little bits of truth here and there.

Yeah, it could be either of these. Even though people deny it up and down - say they're only interested in the "trurh" - most claims along these lines have an ulterior motive to discredit Christianity. IMO they don't accomplish it. There's nothing to say God hasn't spoken to all kinds of people across all of history.

With that said, it is also often the case that these claims are based on faulty reasoning.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Well I finally looked at the article not much there! I've done threads on this subject before. Much of the doctrinal development in Judaism concerning the afterlife, and demonology takes place after the Diaspora when they are in Zoroastorian lands etc.

The nervousness/ defensiveness comes from certain concepts Christians have of Judeo-Christian supremacy / preeminence. For some people the Judeo-Christian tradition is this pure thing that is never influenced by anything other than the pure unadulterated word of God that comes directly from God with no other human agency etc. But I think this sort of notion should be challenged because I don't think it historically accurate and it sort of builds an edifice on a foundation of sand.

The Bible at different times foot notes different ancient cultures. Some of the iconography, tropes etc. were directly lifted from the earlier pagans and used for a more noble holy purpose etc. I actually really like Michael Heiser when it comes to showing the ancient near east historical footnotes around this sort of material.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well I finally looked at the article not much there! I've done threads on this subject before. Much of the doctrinal development in Judaism concerning the afterlife, and demonology takes place after the Diaspora when they are in Zoroastorian lands etc.

The nervousness/ defensiveness comes from certain concepts Christians have of Judeo-Christian supremacy / preeminence. For some people the Judeo-Christian tradition is this pure thing that is never influenced by anything other than the pure unadulterated word of God that comes directly from God with no other human agency etc. But I think this sort of notion should be challenged because I don't think it historically accurate and it sort of builds an edifice on a foundation of sand.

The Bible at different times foot notes different ancient cultures. Some of the iconography, tropes etc. were directly lifted from the earlier pagans and used for a more noble holy purpose etc. I actually really like Michael Heiser when it comes to showing the ancient near east historical footnotes around this sort of material.

I'm reminded of something I read in regards to the whole "Satan as God's adversary rather than the accuser in a figurative court (the prosecuting attorney)" emerged when Jewish thought was exposed to the dualism in Zoroastrian thought: Satan was Angra Mainyu and YHWH was Ahura Mazda

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is a common idea that the Jews in exile were exposed to Zoroastrianism, but that is not really very much the case. For much of the period, they were under the Neo-Babylonians and thereafter were conquered by the Achaemenid Persians. The latter, while nominally Zoroastrian, left cults in place and were not at all proselytising. Further, the heartland of Zoroastrianism has always been Sogdiana and Bactria, where even the modern Zoroastrians reside. Any form Jews would be exposed to, would more likely be the Zurvanite form, not Orthodox Zoroastrianism. This was the same form that the Greeks reported, being more prevalent in the western parts of the Iranian plateau.

The argument is therefore much weaker, as fatalistic and monistic Zurvanism is a much worse fit, so a mechanism of exposure needs to be argued itself or demonstrated. Arguing Zoroastrian influence on Manichaeism or the Yazidis is far more cogent.

Zoroastrianism has a complex system of guardian spirits like fravashi; Arta as principle of order against the Druj or lie signifying decay; and emanations from Ahura Mazda; that have no parallels in Second Temple Judaism (though better in Kabbalah, which perhaps is influence from Zoroastrianism in Sassanian times). You can't cherry pick influence from very far away, as back then travel was limited. It isn't impossible, but it takes a lot of conjecture and is a lot weaker than most people realise. On average, the chances of indigineous developments of Judaism, based on previous themes already seen in the Torah and Semitic religion, are probably more likely, in my estimation.

You must be careful of parallelomania. I always tell the story of Shaka Zulu and the Romans: both shortened their weapons and enlarged their shields, developed enveloping tactics, etc. There is even a possible mechanism via Englishmen in South Africa for Shaka to have learnt Roman tactics. But the entire connection is dubious, even if similarities exist. Or Red and Giant Pandas, that were categorised together, but found not so closely related when genetic studies came along.

Even if they did though, I don't see how that alters Christianity or Judaism at all. In fact, it strengthens it by the argument of Praeparatio Evangelica.

 

[Resha Caner]

You must be careful of parallelomania. I always tell the story of Shaka Zulu and the Romans: both shortened their weapons and enlarged their shields, developed enveloping tactics, etc. There is even a possible mechanism via Englishmen in South Africa for Shaka to have learnt Roman tactics. But the entire connection is dubious, even if similarities exist. Or Red and Giant Pandas, that were categorised together, but found not so closely related when genetic studies came along.

Exactly. There are many such cases. My favorite is Newton and Leibniz, who developed calculus around the same time, but independently.

It seems to me naturalists/determinists should expect such things. A given set of assumptions, in a sense, predetermines the result. It's not as if Newton and Leibniz could make the same assumptions but produce separate viable mathematical structures.

Militaries under similar situations seem likely to develop similar tactics. Farmers under similar situations seem likely to develop similar agriculture.

Given that, it makes "Why are we different?" the more interesting question. And, in fact, that was the question in my Chinese history class. My professor's thesis was that geography was a strong driver of Chinese history, and she made a good case.