FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-15-2005, 09:46 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 1,504
Default

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!
mopc is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 11:41 AM   #12
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mopc
Well, the Bible itself mentions all the time that the israelis insist in worshipping many gods... there is a difference between a religion says and what the common people actually do.

That the populace was polytheistic is pretty ok, but was the bible originally a polytheistic or henotheistic (only one of the many gods is worthy of worship) text? Difficult to say. Probably yes.
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.
CX is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 05:08 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mopc
In the 500s before Christ, the Iranian ("persian")Empire conquered all of the Near East and much of North India, Central Asia.

The emperor which conquered the middle east, Kurosh (Cyrus), set the hebrews enslaved in Babylon free and let them return to Israel, the Tanakh/Bible calls Kurosh thus mashiakh (messiah), the anointed one.

The Iranians did not impose their religion (Zoroastrism) to others, but usually tried to subvert them. Ezra and Daniel were employees of the Empire and especially Ezra or people associated with him are the most likely to have put hebrew oral tradition in written form and edit those writings into the first issue of what we call the Old Testament/Tanakh: Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim (Law, Prophets and Writings), of course some of the books in Ketuvim appeared later.
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.

Quote:
Elements such as angels, good vs. evil, heaven vs. hell, judgment day were absent from the Torah, which tells the oldest hebrew/Abrahamic traditions.
Generally yes.

Quote:
Zoroastrism had angels, good vs. evil, heaven and hell and judgment. Those elements thus probably got into hebrew belief by Iranian influence.
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.

Quote:
The very belief that there is only one God and all others are imagined is more Zoroastrian than early Abrahamic, since the Torah and some other books hint at the interpretation that only one god is worthy of praise, the other gods exist but are unworthy.
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.
ohwilleke is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 05:28 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Killeen, TX
Posts: 1,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohwilleke
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
badger3k is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 05:39 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badger3k
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).
I don't doubt for a moment that Zoroastrian beliefs had a greater impact on Christianity than Judiasm.

Quote:
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.
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).

Quote:
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.
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.
ohwilleke is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 05:43 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Killeen, TX
Posts: 1,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohwilleke
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).
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.
Quote:
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.
Thanks.
badger3k is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.