Zoroastrian Influence and the Commonality of Adopting Beliefs.
The Hebrew people had quite an interesting journey through time and the slow transition from polytheism, to henotheism and eventually accepting YHWH as the one true god left me puzzled when I was a Christian. This is now something I struggle with in trying to understand the change, as I have accepted at face value, but always used to shrug it off when god working in mysterious ways was sufficient enough an answer for me. Now it is not.
I often spend time annoying my professor with question and answer sessions that seem to sound more like an interrogation and my most recent hiccup is with Zoroastrianism and its heavy influence on what eventually become very central tenants to Christian doctrine today. I like to refer back to Job and look at it for how it was to be read when it was written which brings me to a very different conclusion as to what the purpose of the book was and who the characters are in the book and what their roles were as well. Of course, Satan in Orthodoxy is very much an evil adversary to God in this book. Hell, Satan is very much a hero in Judaism. What happened?
I always had a problem with reading what I wanted to back into ancient texts as they must have served a completely different purpose back then and to have them actually have meant or demonstrated otherwise with knowledge we obtain hundreds, if not thousands of years later, is puzzling to me. If we know now what they did not know back then, how perfectly sound is this thing I’m reading. If by the way these books or concepts were interpreted differently played a big role in bringing the religion to what it is today, why is it that things that were believed to be true back then end up being wrong but are the very foundation to the religion we have today? Let me give an example because that was perplexing to me and I wrote it. Job. We are met with the adversary, and the adversary wasn’t the Satan of Zoroastrianism for Zoroaster comes many, many years later. For those who read this book when it was first brought into existence, the message is a little different. Perhaps we are tested by an entity that is challenged to dwell among us and tempt us to test our will, to test our relationship with Yahweh. Or perhaps this accuser is representative of a person on Earth praying to Yahweh, almost jealous, telling him that surely Job only praises him because he is rich and winning like Charlie Sheen. Perhaps this was Yahweh sitting around a glorious, heavenly table among other gods. To those who read what they read when they read it when this was created, it could certainly have had a different impact on them than the one we would have today assuming different things about the characters we see in this book. I personally struggle with how a perfect god can give us something “inspired,” we read it and interpret it one way and then years later interpret it differently, coming from the same line of people that read this differently than we do, brought us what we have to today and it be something totally different. Even if not inspired, for I know that is a fairly new concept, I find it would pose more of a problem if fallibility is a possibility. A god that never changes giving us what is the only physical proof of his existence, assuming it is proof, and it is changed or altered given different authors intentions or simply just read with a multiplicity of different views resulting in different conclusions.
Of course, this original reading of the text is not very accurate now, assuming you are a Christian. All the concepts: hell, demons, apocalypse, Messiah, and Satan come from Zoroastrianism which we later find in the OTs sequel are core beliefs of the Pharisaic community. Now, I’m well aware that at the time there were many other Jewish sects that didn’t buy into all of this jazz, but today, we see that they weren’t influential to the Jesus followers of the time that end up being the Christians of late.
When talking to my professor, he mentioned that it was fairly common for religions to adopt things in which the way the Hebrews did Zoroastrian concepts. Am I too far off in saying that I can not possibly buy the legitimacy of the Christian religion today knowing that it comes from a people that have changed their views so many times over the course of our existence? I do run into this concept of god revealing slowly to man his plan, but again, I don’t see why god would need it necessary to bring us on this roller coaster ride, punishing us very Deuteronomistically along the way, only for us to never get it right because the plan wasn’t fully revealed yet? I find no sufficient answer to why any of this has to happen. Why would something as flaky as “sounds legit to me, let’s buy into demons and hell” be good enough to further his plan and eventually come down as a man and die on a cross and leave all of Christendom for hundreds of years fighting over what any of it means? The generational memory was limited to only a few generations. Could this be a reason why it was so easy to adopt other views? If a people can only rely on what they know about the few generations passed have taught based on the generations prior that were left to history and not a figment of memory, is that a strong grounds for adopting views?
We are a rational being. All the important answers were never given and we are expected to hinge on faith. Am I at fault for being the person I am for thinking the evidence isn’t sufficient for me, personally? Am I to be punished for all of eternity in a literal hell, if there even is one, because I don’t see how faith is the answer? Muslims have faith. Hell, a lot of them seem to have more faith than I do; they are willing to die for their beliefs in the worst of ways. The more extreme ones are willing to murder non-believers because they truly believe they are carrying out Allah’s will. I know NASA knows how to fit circles into squares, but this is eternity I’m talking about here. Rationality and faith, I don’t see the connection.
I am trying to understand how the way this religion has come together is a plausible and legitimate way to do so. I am curious if there are any others who have run into this problem or perhaps someone much wiser than I who can explain this in sufficient enough a way for me to understand the logic behind it. I do find that the more I look for things involving Zoroastrian influence, I only find a brief summary much like what I wrote about above. There isn’t much written on the matter and I am fairly certain we don’t have much early anything to go off of, but this is one of the reasons I rejected Jesus as Messiah. If I no longer buy into the adoption, then how can I believe Jesus, who Christians call Christ, is who the bible tells me he is if he too believed Satan was evil? He cast out demons. Talked more about hell than he did of heaven. Apparently comes back on the clouds. Please help me with this struggle.
Please note: I apologize in advance if there are any inaccuracies in what I wrote. I am more than willing to learn. 🙂
Focusing on Zoroastrianism is a mistake. There are a number of other religions that one could appeal to for providing inspiration to Christianity so focusing solely on it is to not appreciate the whole picture. This would be true for most religions: they all were inspired by something that came before. Look to the mythos themes of the Greeks/Romans, Egyptians and Mesopotamians (and Judaism obviously) as having commonality as well. I’m not saying Zoroastriansim had no influence because it’s an ancient religion and no one really knows how old it is since the first time I think it was mentioned was by Herodotus. It’s roots are to the East in Persia so I don’t know what influence it had on the Egyptians or Greeks or even the Mesopotamians (the latter had their own pantheon by the 3rd millenium BCE so was there influence East to West or vice versa?).
All that said, what we do know is that the Roman and Egyptian polytheistic cults were VERY influential in the Mediterranean world during the time of Jesus so unless someone can correct me we should look to them being a greater influence than the Persians.
First, I would like to thank you for your response. While I agree that much of the Mediterranean world would be more of the present influence on Christianity in the 1st century, I suppose I’m looking at a different timeline in regard to what I’m mentioning above. Before Christianity that is. Hebrew > eventually coming to be known as the Jewish people > the many sects of Judaism > Judaism in Jesus’ day > eventual Jesus followers > Christianity. Where I bring Zoroastrianism into the conversation is during the time of Babylonian captivity where at the time Zoroastrianism was a well-known and heavily practiced religion. With the Jews adopting Zoroastrian concepts as stated in prior post (hell, demons, monotheism, an apocalypse, a messiah) I’m not referring to Greco-Roman influence because this refers to captivity 500-600 years prior to Jesus’ day. We fast forward to the New Testament and we see that a sect of Judaism still holds these beliefs: hell, demons, monotheism, an apocalypse, a messiah, etc. We know them as the Pharisees, where as we have other sects like that of Sadducees that didn’t buy into any of this. Now, along comes Jesus who casts out demons and talks about hell in the afterlife and one coming on the clouds apocalyptically, and is believed to be Messiah. While we know Jesus very much disagreed with the practices of the Pharisees, we see that he very much agreed that there are demons and an apocalypse and so on which show he comes from a line of Jews that believed these things to be very much real. Conclusively, Zoroastrianism had a VERY big influence up until this point. To fast forward yet a little further, we see that Christianity too adopted these beliefs of heaven and hell and demons and on and on. So, indeed Zoroastrianism has very much influenced Christianity. To make the connection by leaping from 500 BCE to the 1st century would be absurd on my part. I do hope you see where I was going with this now.
Sure, I would agree that those things in which you mentioned above do have influence on Christianity as it starts to pick up steam, absolutely. But, I’m simply stating Zoroastrianism influenced some sect of Judaism that clearly lasted into the 1st century because those same adopted beliefs we find in Christianity. With all of that, my question is how or why is it so easily accepted to be true or legitimate, the religion, if the religion adopted from another? That doesn’t sound too credible to me. I just can’t find sufficient reason as to why I should use that as good evidence that it is part of God’s plan, to have a group of Jews listen to some Zoroastrian believers and then take those concepts and apply them to their own beliefs.
Marcion-argues that Old Testament God is too wrathful and therefore must be evil and the New Testament one is the good one. Literally believes in two gods, one good and one bad.’
I think it’s very very possible Christianity has been influenced in some way by Zoroastrianism. Even today we find Christians almost seem to think of the Old Testament God as ruthless while Jesus being kind. Hate the “father” love the “son” kind of thing. Original sin+punishment? That was from the “Father”. Repentance? That is from the “son”.
It’s also very possible Zoroastrians had influence on Judaism like other pagan beliefs did.
All very interesting. I think the trajectory of this argument (and it’s a very good summary of the progression from polytheism to monotheism) forces us to consider whether it simply reflects a very human tendency for religious ideas to “evolve”. I know this is a humanistic explanation but seems to my mind to fit the facts you describe. Supernatural forces are attached initially to places, natural features etc. and they are many and various. They progress to be associated with communities (rather than places) but remain multiple. Then an individual deity is adopted by that community for exclusive worship (Henotheism), then the existence of a multiplicity of gods is rejected and that god exists in isolation.
If there is any merit in that explanation (and some theorists support that), then God plays no part in it. Religion remains an intensely human enterprise. It’s ironic for me to be saying this but despite that I still remain a liberal Christian because I find wisdom and merit in some of it’s practices (and continue to practice them).
The religions of the world are so obviously time bound and culture bound that I find it impossible to accept them as anything but human constructs. What insight or “revelation” in any of the religions shows any evidence whatsoever of being beyond the capabilities of the culture that produced it?
Jesus was obviously a remarkable human being. But one doesn’t have to be a Christian to feel compassion and empathy for others or want to alleviate their suffering. In fact doesn’t hanging on to all the supernatural baggage just get in the way?
Hi Stephen
Human construct, very probably, but very human none the less. I don’t see any real reason to despise anything so universally human and worry about the consequences of trying supress instincts like this (not the same as questioning them, that’s essential). I’d not feel very secure in a society that in order to avoid the excesses of fundamentalist religious fervour ends up ends up tipping over backwards into another form of oppression and intolerance, but I’ve definitely noticed a growing contempt for any kind of spirituality linked to religious observance – it’s become the love that dare not speak it’s name!
“Jesus was obviously a remarkable human being. But done doesn’t have to be a Christian to feel compassion and empathy for others or want to alleviate their suffering”
I absolutely agree with you on that and have never felt otherwise. Empathy and compassion are human qualities and no ideology has a monopoly on them. Where secular humanism feels weeker to me is in it’s ability to create community and ritual, both essential to human wellbeing. Maybe it can be done, but living as I do in a very secular society (England) I do notice and others comment on the void is is leaving.
“In fact doesn’t hanging on to all the supernatural baggage just get in the way?”
For some people it is a stumbling block obviously. Especially if taken literally. For me, I tend to read it metaphorically anyway. From memory the early fathers of the church interpreted these things on a number of levels rising from the literal to the spiritual which often read like internal psychodramas. I’ve tried and enjoyed times when I’ve abandoned it entirely but have found life richer when I’ve re-joined some form of worshiping community. Most recently it’s been Canterbury Cathedral which is local. I’ve given up searching for any kind of perfect spiritual home. If I found it and joined it I’d only spoil it! 
Job is divided into a prose and a poetic section, with the poetic section reflecting an ancient tale of one God being the source of Good and Evil. I think the poetic section of Job reflects the ancient Babylonian creation epics of Marduk and Tiamat.
As far as apocalyptic tendencies, I think those started nearer to the time of Judas Maccabee than Ezra. So the influence of Zoastrianism may have been through traders between the region rather than the exile.
In Job, Satan does not appear to be a demon, but a part of Yahweh’s court. But even the mention of Satan places the writing of the proce section very late in Hebrew literature.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert