Carl LaFong

To what extent was the Bible influenced by Zoroastrianism? Before searching for references I thought I’d see if anybody here had a good grasp on it. What little I remember (I think the author was Cavendish) is that the Jews spent some time in Persia and were influenced by Zoroastrianism which had the notion of a savior god who will someday return to complete a world restoration. More importantly, it was the first religion to see life as split between good and evil. (That’s oversimplified I’m sure).

Would you say the influence was marginal or significant?

Roger Pearse

I think we need to see evidence for all these first, surely?

Clivedurdle

What? Evidence for Cyrus and Darius? Nebuchadnezzar? The Albigensian Crusades?

I vaguely remember allusions in the Hebrew Bible to the Medes and the Persians, By the rivers of Babylon.

In Search of Zarathustra: The First Prophet and the Ideas That Changed the World (or via: amazon.co.uk)

judge

Um..I've got this Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come (or via: amazon.co.uk), I dont know if it is the best thing on this subject but Cohn does explore it.

I'm a bit too tired at the moment to type out any portions for you, particularly as England just beat us in the rugby world cup.

damascan

I would say the contrary, Zoroastianism would have been in some respects influenced by Judaism. The kingdom of God is a biblical teaching that goes back to the Psalms. The jews would have regarded a fire idolising religion as an anathema. Further resurrection of the dead goes back many centuries prior.

damascan

Roger Pearse

Not sure why you find the idea that a statement should be evidenced before opinions are offered on it unwelcome.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

See what I mean? Anyone can play, so long as data is out of scope.

Facts, boys; let's have some facts.

The only fact that I have to contribute is this. According to Cumont's paper in the Revue archeologique which we have discussed in the Mithras quote thread, there is definite evidence that the Magian priests of Sassanid times adopted some Christian ideas as a defensive tactic, claiming that Christ was an avatar of Zoroaster. (The point of that thread is to research the real origins of a saying of Christ which is attributed in late Arabic Christian manuscripts to Zoroaster). This would all be in the 5-7th century, of course, so is out of scope of the original query.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

You, Roger, are a facts fetishist.

(Which is a good thing, of course. Keep it up. )

Ben.

robto

A good case can be made that the dualistic elements seen in such writings as 1 Enoch derived from Persian influence. Ancient Judaism was strongly monist: God is responsible for Both good AND evil. But the apocalyptic writings of the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st centuries BC were strongly dualistic: an evil power (or powers) opposes God. When you include the ideas of a destruction and judgement of the world in an end time conflagration, the ideas about spirits/angels that became prominent at about the same time, and, possibly, the savior idea, the Persian origin seems to be the most likely source.

In addition to Cohn, Mary Boyce's History of Zorastrianism (or via: amazon.co.uk) is a good resource (although IMO Boyce is somewhat prejudiced in favor of Zor. influence).

Roger Pearse

I'm a sad git. I don't believe *anything* any more unless I can see the basis for it. I just don't find opinion interesting, never mind right or wrong. Most opinion tells me only what sort of literature the person is reading, and usually consists of the stale repetition of other men's thoughts -- "what was often said, and often said much better". Don't we all find that we can tell what people believe, even when they don't actually come out with it? How could that be, if they thought for themselves?

Swapping such opinions tells us exactly nothing. I well recall that usenet used to be full of rubbish about Mithras. None of it contained any facts. None of it was based on any examination of the historical record, or any book that had done so. It was usually the ignorant repetition of whatever someone thought would smear Christianity. If you look around usenet today you'll see the same still going on for Isis, Bacchus and Dionysius; posts full of malice and which in fact convey no genuine factual information about Isis, Bacchus, etc, whatever. Yet these cults are interesting, and I have no objection whatever to learning about them. But the posters know nothing; only that "Mithras=Jesus" or whatever.

It's the sheer tedium of watching someone fail to tell us anything, anything at all, that gets me.

If anyone actually knows anything factual about transfer of ideas between Jews and Zoroastrians and can document this from ancient sources, that would be a blessing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse