mopc

Another book about the Bible that completely overlooks the Zoroastrian influence is "Don't Know Much About the Bible" (Kenneth C. Davis) which is very open-minded and critical of the Bible and religion, very well researched, emphasizes the human authorship and mistakes of the Bible, but mentions Zoroastrism only in two passages in brief:

1) in a chronology, says that in 605 bC "Zoroaster founds a religion that would dominate Persia" (which is wrong, Zoroaster lived around 1200 bC)
2) says that Esdras 1 tells a parable "derived from the Zoroastrian religion of Persia about the 'strongest thing in the world', which proves to be Truth".

That's all. I simply can't understand it!

CX

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "The Bible". Given the rather lengthy period of development of the various and sundry texts in what Xians today call The Bible and what jews call The Tanakh, I'm not sure your question has any meaning.

ohwilleke

Zoroastrianism largely impacted Judaism during what Christians call the intertestamentary period. The Tanakh largely predates that influence. Also, the Iranian Zoroastrians were in no position to impose their views on the Jews during Bablyonian exile. They were fellow minorities.

Generally yes.

I would argue that Zorastrism had quite a weak impact on the communities of Jews that became dominant in the diaspora. Most of the strongly Zoroastrian influenced Jewish sects stayed in the Levant and died out there. Moreover, to the extent that Zoroastrian belief influenced Jewish belief in the pre-modern period, it is my observation that recent trends in Jewish belief, at least as expressed by American Jewish scholars, are away from Zoroastrian interpretations and influences.

I would disagree. This transition of belief from polytheism in which the Hebrew god is dominant to pure monotheism is visible in the Tanaka in a period prior to exposure to Zoroastrian beliefs.

badger3k

Since I am not well versed in the Jewish side of the history, I can't say with any real knowledge, but I think it might be better to say that the zoarastran beliefs had more of an impact on Christianity (through Judaism or otherwise) than on the Hebrew faith (although I think it did have some effect). This may relate to some arguments that despite similarities, Christianity is not really based on Judaism but is a separate religion that uses Jewish works. That may not be the best explanation of the theory, but it's another one I am not clear on. Just bringing that up for consideration.

What is the earliest recorded writings of it? I am familiar with some of the arguments for later redactions of the writings (to cover up polytheistic references to use one example), although again, it's one I am not well versed in. Thanks for any information you can give.

ohwilleke

I don't doubt for a moment that Zoroastrian beliefs had a greater impact on Christianity than Judiasm.

I think it would be more fair to say that there were different sects of Judiasm around the time that Christianity evolved and that some were more influenced by Zoroastriasm than others. You could call it a separate religion, but certainly early Christians and the members of the religious community they arose out of, considered themselves to be Jewish, even if not all of their beliefs would end up being in the mainstream of what became the "consensus" (yes, with a grain of salt, the Talmud defies consensus on fine points, although there are larger issues on which consensus does exist).

If you look in the Torah, there are numerous references that could be read as polytheistic. These become more scarce in later religious writings. I can't cite chapter and verse from here in my office.

badger3k

Good point - I also perhaps should have made clear that there were many sects of Christianity as well, with similar differences in their outlook that could reflect different influences.
Thanks.