Understanding adversarial religious figures

[Quid est Veritas?]

People don't understand Zoroastrianism, and consequently misunderstand what relation it has to Christianity. Similarly they impose anachronistic understandings onto archaic Judaism.

Zoroastrianism has a supreme god, Ahura Mazda, from whom emanates the Spenta Mainyu, or Benevolent Spirit. His is an ordered creation of Truth, Asha - related to concepts of Arta in Indo-Iranian, of universal order. Simultaneously, the 'twin' of Spenta Mainyu is Angra Mainyu, the Destructive Spirit - which later became Ahriman. This is not 'created' by Ahura Mazda, but is the natural corollary of creating something, that in creation, its opposite also comes into existence. To say something is green, everything else automatically become not-green. This is why the yazatas say Angra Mainyu is the twin of Spenta Mainyu, and how Ahura Mazda being the monotheistic Good god, did not himself create evil. Ahriman is decay of order, that creation has to freely choose to not do, to uphold high principle. Or so in orthodox Mazdaism.
Zurvanism, an exctinct variant, had Zurvan - the First Principle of Time and Space - that was neutral and gave birth to Ahura Mazda and Ahriman as opposing principles, but ultimately it negated free will and the strong Zoroastrian virtue ethic, into a neutral monistic Ultimate.

So how much does this reflect Second Temple Judaism? Much less than the facile claim made of angels and demons being ultimately Zoroastrian suggests if you don't really look into it. The very conception of a 'rebellion' from creation is a new thing - there is no rebellion in Zoroastrianism, but decay through Druj - the Lie. The Amesha Spentas from Spenta Mainyu, the Good principles, are all adjectival things like Honour or such. There is a principal of Mind at play here, of Good thought being paramount.

We see native Semitic (and larger Afro-Asiatic) concepts of mostly Benign gods vs mostly malign gods as well. We see Baal oppose Mot for instance, or Set Horus, or Ma'at opposed by Isfet.

Early Judaism was monolatric in all likelihood, at least popularly, before becoming fully monotheistic. This can be seen in the Bible and the people whoring after other gods, such as Solomon building shrines for his foreign wives. YHWH controlled the good and the bad, but was not a 'bad' deity as well. He was the National God, the Protector, a Just God in covenant with Israel. If bad things befell Israel, this wasn't God being petty or capricious, but because Israel failed to uphold their side of the deal. It was a corrective act, itself therefore a 'good', a father chastising his children for their own best interest.
When YHWH came to be acknowledged as universal, then people came to struggle with 'undeserved suffering', and hence Job came to be written. As the Edenic narrative came to be, and humans trying to be 'as gods' seen as the chief cause of sin, Adversarial figures arose like Samael or Lilith. Regardless, it is always humans that Fall, by their own acts and bearing full responsibility for it, so writing these figures off as ex machina explanations is disingenuous.

There is no reason to invoke Zoroastrianism in any of this, in fact much of it is a bit counter to it. Certainly the well developed Zoroastrian gradings and lists influenced this incipient demonology, but that it 'originated' there is speculative and perhaps a bit of a stretch.

The idea of modern Judaism rejecting Satan as adversarial is also not clear. It depends, based on the tradition. Well developed Kabbalah demonology is a good example of this, with figures like Samael being a case in point.

Thing is, any universe with Free Will for its inhabitants, is bound to fall. Otherwise, if evil cannot be chosen, then what is 'free' does not exist. As it is bound to be chosen eventually in a fully free universe, utilising this to restore it to perfection - from whence it will not decay as the inhabitants have now known evil and thus will abhor it - makes most sense. This is what happened in Christianity and Zoroastrianism, as Zurvanism becomes sterile once evil is also an aspect of God. Monotheism with a beneficent God, only works with a fallen adversarial factor at play, or we are looking at a monistic system that is neither.

 

[AV1611VET]

People don't understand Zoroastrianism, and consequently misunderstand what relation it has to Christianity.

A canker? a tare? a weed? a psychoheretic intrusion? a cult?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

A canker? a tare? a weed? a psychoheretic intrusion? a cult?

Perhaps. I am quite partial to Zoroastrianism, so I like to think of it as Praeparatio Evangelica.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps. I am quite partial to Zoroastrianism, so I like to think of it as Praeparatio Evangelica.

Just don't try to praeparatio evangelica it into Christianity, or we'll send it back anathema maranatha.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Adverserial figures are quite common in mythology though. Usually an aspect of Order vs Chaos. This is especially prevalent in myths of slaying some form of Serpent or Dragon. We see this with Tiamat, Apophis, etc.

In Indo-European religions, there is another group that oppose the gods usually - the Titans, Vanir, Ashura, etc. that are either defeated or come to an agreement with.
Some are even more explicitly oppositional, like Perun and Veles - or the presumed, but conjectural, Byelobog and Chernobog of Slavic mythology - the white and black gods of good vs evil.

Anthropological 'trickster gods' are also often placed in opposition to the Father figure god or high god.

All of this suggests that seeing something in opposition to our conceptions of the divine, is quite human. A lot of this makes one think of Eden. Many comparative mythologisers see the Serpent as essentially a trickster entity, and Schmidt and his the Ur-monotheismus theory, positing primordial monotheism, often likes to point these out as evidence - for to have developed opposition, means to have had undenied 'sovereignty' perhaps before.

 

[AV1611VET]

In Indo-European religions,

We call all these people who take this stuff seriously mission fields.

 

[Zoness]

My religion is my life, so no, there are no adversarial figures, only aspects of my own personality that can be an obstruction, or my own internal dialogue and fears (negative self talk) that can create an essence where I become my own adversary, holding me back from connecting and expressing myself fully.


The way I see it, Satan, the devil, are descriptive words relating to early psychology and our desire to understand ourselves. Those words were probably of more benefit in their original language with the applied teaching than they are today.

Thanks for sharing, this seems to be a decent fit for my view as well as I do not believe in a figurative or literal Satan.

 

[TheOldWays]

My religion is my life, so no, there are no adversarial figures, only aspects of my own personality that can be an obstruction, or my own internal dialogue and fears (negative self talk) that can create an essence where I become my own adversary, holding me back from connecting and expressing myself fully.


The way I see it, Satan, the devil, are descriptive words relating to early psychology and our desire to understand ourselves. Those words were probably of more benefit in their original language with the applied teaching than they are today.

Good post. Mastering one's self is the great work.

Quieting your inner dialogue/monologue is an important part of that work.

 

[dlamberth]

Just don't try to praeparatio evangelica it into Christianity, ...

I wouldn't try. But I also couldn't deny the effects that religions have on each other. Zoroastrianism certainly had ample opportunity to touch Judaism. With the reverse being true as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't try. But I also couldn't deny the effects that religions have on each other. Zoroastrianism certainly had ample opportunity to touch Judaism. With the reverse being true as well.

You can put water and oil into the same vessel, but the water will not let the oil mix with it.

If anyone tried to insert Zoroastrianism into Judaism, I'm sure red flags would be raised.

 

[dlamberth]

You can put water and oil into the same vessel, but the water will not let the oil mix with it.

If anyone tried to insert Zoroastrianism into Judaism, I'm sure red flags would be raised.

Touching is a bit gentler.

 

[AV1611VET]

Touching is a bit gentler.

Touching is one thing; embracing is another.

 

[dlamberth]

Touching is one thing; embracing is another.

I don't think that's being suggested. But also, besides some influence on Judaism by the Zoroastrian religion, obviously those first followers of Jesus held Zoroastrianism with high respect as well. I've wondered what that is about back than and if perhaps the memory of being freed from captivity was still alive than. But that respect of importance for Zoroastrianism becomes clear with those first followers of Jesus with the inclusion of the Three Wise Men in the Nativity story of Jesus. They hold an important place in that story.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think that's being suggested.

I do.

But also, besides some influence on Judaism by the Zoroastrian religion, obviously those first followers of Jesus held Zoroastrianism with high respect as well.

In spite of the word of God, or with respect to It?

I've wondered what that is about back than and if perhaps the memory of being freed from captivity was still alive than.

Anything other than salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is not true freedom.

But that respect of importance for Zoroastrianism becomes clear with those first followers of Jesus with the inclusion of the Three Wise Men in the Nativity story of Jesus. They hold an important place in that story.

The term we use for this is: diabolical plagiarism.

Cults are good at it.

They take terminology from the word of God and make it their own.

That way, they can make their cult look like it is a sect of Christianity, when in fact, it is not.

That's why I won't even accept other nation's writings that say there was a global flood.

Scrutinizing their documentation reveals the details are wrong:

Names are different, places are different, even the number of people saved alive are different.

And I won't set foot in a church that has a nativity scene showing the Wise Men at the manger.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

And I won't set foot in a church that has a nativity scene showing the Wise Men at the manger.

Bit excessive, isn't it? I know they aren't at the manger biblically, but still... You were giving much leeway for extra-biblical material for Satan's fall and such earlier.

Anyway, @dlamberth there is some important background information you should keep in mind. Judaea was a Roman client state, meant to hold the flank of Roman Syria against Parthia. Just prior to Jesus' birth, there had been a Parthian-backed attempt to put Aristobolus in the High Priesthood during which Herod had to flee. He was then re-instated with Roman backing, so Magi visiting Herod and looking for a king, has serious political implications. It was very much Parthian and Roman wars that was the background to Herod coming to power and Rome trying to dominate Judaea. Herod trying to get rid of a potential Parthian backed claimant is very much a given.

Traditionally though, the Magi were said to be of Persia, Arabia and India. Whether they were meant to represent Zoroastrian Magi priests, or Chaldean Astrologers is also an open question. Either way though, all these likely had come via the Parthian Empire. It likely thus signifies Christ as a king of the entire world, rather than a narrower Judaic or Mediterranean one.

Zoroastrianism (or perhaps Achaemenid Persia) has in general been quite tolerant, hence Cyrus allowing the Jews to return from Babylonia. There certainly is not much antigonism present in the Bible here, as even figures like Darius the Mede are shown sympathetically, with evil counselors held accountable of their bad actions. So Zoroastrianism and Judaism certainly aren't enemies. There is no opprobrium as there is against the Samaritans or Canaanite religion or Babylonian gods. The influence though is likely much less, if not perhaps neglible, than is often proposed. Thoroughly juxtaposing their mutual theologies show marked dissimilarity, in many respects.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You are right, @Quid est Veritas? : the Zoroastrians weren't the only ancient religion that featured diametrically opposed cosmic principles instead of just *rivals* (with the opposing party being an antagonist in the myths, but not necessarily Pure Evil (tm) or the embodiment of All That Is Bad).

Most pantheons were a mixed bag, not an opposition of pure light vs corrupt darkness.

But yes, there were religions where one faction was more than just on the darker end of the grey spectrum, such as ancient Egypt.
I suppose my "Zoroastrian hypothesis" is mostly owing to their afterlife concept (with Judaism's sheol having more in common with other semitic netherworlds than with the fiery-punishment-for-the-wicked/heavenly-splendour-for-the virtuous/saved). And of course, cultural exchange is inevitable when cultures are in close contact, and the Babylonian exile provided plenty of that.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You are right, @Quid est Veritas? : the Zoroastrians weren't the only ancient religion that featured diametrically opposed cosmic principles instead of just *rivals* (with the opposing party being an antagonist in the myths, but not necessarily Pure Evil (tm) or the embodiment of All That Is Bad).

Most pantheons were a mixed bag, not an opposition of pure light vs corrupt darkness.

But yes, there were religions where one faction was more than just on the darker end of the grey spectrum, such as ancient Egypt.
I suppose my "Zoroastrian hypothesis" is mostly owing to their afterlife concept (with Judaism's sheol having more in common with other semitic netherworlds than with the fiery-punishment-for-the-wicked/heavenly-splendour-for-the virtuous/saved). And of course, cultural exchange is inevitable when cultures are in close contact, and the Babylonian exile provided plenty of that.

There is a misconception though, that the Babylonian captivity put the Jews in close proximity to Zoroastrianism. That is not the case. For much of the Captivity they were under the Neo-Babylonians, and once conquered by Persia, the local cults were left in place. Zoroastrianism is not a very proselytizing religion. Its heartlands have always been Bactria, Sogdiana and Parthia proper, where even today the Zoroastrians of Yazd reside. While the Achaemenids are thought to adhere to it, the borderlands of the Iranian plateau had very few to no Zoroastrians. What there were were most likely fatalistic Zurvanites, as that is the form most Greek writers encountered, which does not fit the hypothesis as well as orthodox Mazdaism does.

The Greeks also had the Elysian Fields and a dark Tartarus, so thinking an Afterlife concept necessarily denotes a connection, is a bit flawed. Or the Zoroastrians had the four-eyed dog lead people over the bridge of the Requiter, and those weighed by Druj fell off into darkness. There are much less parallels than vague overarching similarity - which you could also show with, for instance, the weighing of the soul vs Ma'at in Egypt and having the devourer then consume them. No one assumes a Zoroastrian connection there, so why insist on the former?

Besides, Sheol wasn't abandoned as such, but an area divided out into the bosom of Abraham and later an absolute Gehenna added. This is not the same as Zoroastrian Afterlife conceptions, even if 19th century Orientalists were quick to jump onto it. There may be influence, but you shouldn't overplay your hand - it isn't that strong nor even very clear.

To note also, the Osirian opposition of Set and Horus is actually quite a late development in Egyptian religion. Set is present on Ra's barque for example, and was a prominent Pharoahnic patron deity in some dynasties (such as Seti I and II in the 19th).

Be careful of paralellomania. Shaka Zulu shortened the spear, formed tight formations stabbing through shields and used a 'bull's horn tactic to envelop his enemies - all of which sounds very Roman. Yet there is no connection. Britain though was also Rome-obsessed at this stage and quickly came to dominate the area. If we didn't have good records, the argument that Shaka copied Rome via some form of instruction by Englishmen would have seemed very plausible. The same thing is going on with Second Temple Judaism and Zoroastrianism - as the Persian Imperial apparatus was quite hands-off, parcelling out Satrapies to locals mostly.

The argument for Zoroastrian influence on Manichaeism or the Yazidis is much stronger.

 

[FredVB]

But besides some influence on Judaism by the Zoroastrian religion, obviously those first followers of Jesus held Zoroastrianism with high respect as well. I've wondered what that is about back than[sic] and if perhaps the memory of being freed from captivity was still alive than[sic]. But that respect of importance for Zoroastrianism becomes clear with those first followers of Jesus with the inclusion of the Three Wise Men in the Nativity story of Jesus. They hold an important place in that story.

The magi who came and saw the little child Jesus, not newborn at that time, were not numbered in the Bible, and it is really not certain that they were three. It is possible they were from Zoroastrianism, but with it being the case, if it was, Yahweh was using them and the events they saw to indicate a coming king, to reveal great truth more broadly.

 

[AV1611VET]

The magi who came and saw the little child Jesus, not newborn at that time, were not numbered in the Bible, and it is really not certain that they were three. It is possible they were from Zoroastrianism, but with it being the case, if it was, Yahweh was using them and the events they saw to indicate a coming king, to reveal great truth more broadly.

The fact that God called them "wise men" tells me they were probably independent fundamental Baptists.

 

[FredVB]

The magi who came and saw the little child Jesus, not newborn at that time, were not numbered in the Bible, and it is really not certain that they were three. It is possible they were from Zoroastrianism, but with it being the case, if it was, Yahweh was using them and the events they saw to indicate a coming king, to reveal great truth more broadly.

The fact that God called them "wise men" tells me they were probably independent fundamental Baptists.

I do get that, it is funny. You could say still more authoritatively that John who preached repentance with baptizing those who came was really Baptist in the same way.

The men who followed the star that led them to Bethlehem showed they had wisdom in that. But the interpretation of the original word written in the Greek text in Matthew is only translated as wise men in versions of recent centuries in English. The original word μάγος is transliterated as magos (source Blue Letter Bible). Magi is understood from that. That they were starwatchers is suggested, and such may involve reading signs. Being from the east probably meant they were from lands under Parthia, and they could have been in Zoroastrian culture, though there could have been individuals there who were more sensitive to things of God, as these men might have been, that Yahweh would use them in this way.